No one is perfect.. EVERYONE is susceptible to poor played points and even poor played games. To think you couldn't win even a few points of a pro is ludicrous if you have played the game in any shape or form.
I suck at tennis truth be told as I never learned the game but the fact is, Ive seen a ton of well rounded great players in my day who never went pro who have more of a well rounded game than RAONIC for god sakes. (Obviously they aren't as good as Raonic but they can do more things on the court than Raonic) and
if Raonic can take his share of games from Old Federer. don't sit there and tell me so former top college player couldn't.
Raonic aint' crap when it comes to all court well rounded tennis (The mug is pretty much just a serve) and he wins games. Dude is a **** poor when it comes to all court execution and Ive seen quite a few players that are superior from the baseline and at the net than him.
Bottom line.. There are guys that could AT LEAST Win points vs. Fed. (Mainly forcing him into errors by keeping the rallies going). TO say otherwise is foolish[/QUOTE]
Nice reasoning again, so in a nutshell:
- Raonic sucks at tennis almost as much as you do but not quite thanks to his his serve
- Because Raonic wins games and sometimes makes it close against Federer (thanks to his serve or ...?) former top college players surely could take their fair share of games by...
- serving like Raonic?¨
- No, they could actually achieve that by "FORCING HIM INTO ERRORS BY KEEPING THE RALLIES GOING"