Hall of Fame
I was thinking about the Med/Thiem match, which I thought was played far too conservatively by Med, to the point where he hardly played any big shots, and looked a bit like a Monfils type thing. I thought obviously he was playing as if Thiem was 3 or more years younger and prone to overhitting everything. Then I started wondering how many matches are won because of superior execution vs. lost by poor strategy? I figure with all of the good coaching out there, every player knows everything already, there are no secrets, so strategy is almost never a variable, and it's all about the tolerances involved in execution, the margins of error. I guess the ratio must be 15:1 or more in favour of matches being decided by execution, but I wondered what others thought.