Saying his form was a factor is just another way of saying he was off from his norm, Towser. It is anything other than saying he was playing at his best. To say he was not to any degree strongly suggests there was an excuse why Federer lost to Murray. It is all so clear.
I've already provided an example of that from history--McEnroe was just beginning his history making year with next to no one able to touch him, and the preview was at the FO final, but Lendl was able to raise his own level in the face of a powerful McEnroe. This is easy to understand, and today's gold medal match supports the claim.
Regarding Nadal: again, he is not relevant to this discussion, but you are Hell-bent on dragging him into this, only because you feel the need to attack Fed fans' most hated enemy. That too, is easy to understand.
Obviously it's not clear to YOU, because I've said it several times and you are too lacking in intelligence to understand it. I never ssain he lost because he didn't play well, i said he lost heavily because he did not play well. If he played well he could have still lost but in a close match.
Also you are hellbent on bringing Mac and Lendl into this. John MacEnroe and Lendl has nothing to do with this match. You brought up another match, so why can't I bring up another match with Nadal? Yes, hypocritical biased crap from you as usual. That match does nothing to "support the claim" - pure gibberish, and Federer was not in any sort of Godlike form like Mac was.
You didn't answer me about whether when a player wins a match, is his opponent always at his best, and furthermore does the opponents form play any part in the outcome? I mean you really believe the way your opponent plays has nothing to do with the outcome of the match :lol:
You used Mac and Lendl as an example so I will use some examples myself.
In the WTF 2011, did Nadal lose 6-3 6-0 just because Federer was so good, or was nadal playing poor to get beaten that easily? In Hamburg 2007 would Nadal have avoided being bagelled in the final set if he was playing better?
Every bit as relevent as your Mac and Lendl example. The only reason I bring up Nadal is 1- I know you won't apply the same rules to him, which you have proved by avoiding the question, and 2 - it was a good example of a player winning more easily than normal because his opponent was poor, but still being true that he was playing well enough to win in any case.