The case for [2008 Cincinnati - 2009 Canada] Murray >= 2011 Murray

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Hence if 2011 was part of Murray's prime, so was the former 52-week period, so he practically entered his prime right away following his first chelem QF at 2008 Wimbledon. It's either both or neither.

2008 Cincy - 2009 Canada Mury results:

Cincy W beating Djo

Olympix 1R loss to Lu in straights (sleep disturbed by noise)

USO F beating Nad, lost to Fred badly

Madrid Indoor W beating Fred and peak Simon

Peter 250 W

Paris QF lost to def champ Bandy

YEC SF, beat Fred lost to Denko sadly

2009

Doha 250 W beating Fred, Dickrod

AO 4R lost in 5 to Beastdasco (5 sets in SF with peakdal)

Rotterdam 500 W bagelling Nad in final

IW F, beat Fred lost to Nad badly

Miami W beating Delpo and Djo

MC SF lost to Nad

Rome 2R lost to Monaco

Madrid QF lost to Delpo

RG QF lost to peaking Gonzo (5 sets in SF with Söderking)

Queen's W

WB SF lost in tiebreak-tight 4 to renovated Grassdick (5 deep sets in F with Fedr)

Canada W beat Denko, Tsonga, Delpo



Résumé:

Young Godray defended four masters titles at that point - he went on to lose Cincy SF to Fedr and never held four masters titles at the same time again. His other masters results included: 1 F (peakdal), 1 SF (claydal), 2 QF (indoorbandian and claypotro), a single early loss - not bad at all.

Mury's slem results might seem a bit underwhelming on first glance, with only one final, but three of them occurred in 2009, a wonderfully deep and competitive high-level year despite what some ******* may spout. Andrew fell in competitive and exciting matches to zoning Verdasco and Roddick, who ended up giving Nadal and Federer all they could handle. The Gonzo loss wasn't great, but the 2011 road to SF wasn't convincing either, more on that later.

YEC SF - disappointing loss to Denko after spending too much effort kicking Fedr out, but at least he made it out of RR.

Lesser tournaments: 4 titles, 2 of them beating Fedal. In fact, Murray dropped just one set to non-Fedal players across all four wins. Pretty great.




Now onto Murray's 2011 season:

AO F - lost to Djokovic badly

Rotterdam - lost first match in straights

IW - lost first match in straights

Miami - lost first match in straights

MC SF - lost to Nadal

Madrid 3R - lost to Bellucci badly

Rome SF - lost to Djo in deciding TB

RG SF - lost to Nad in straights (but barely beat Troicki in 4R, who was the only seed Mury faced till SF)

Queen's W beating Roddick and Tsonga

WB SF - lost to Nadal in pretty easy 4

Canada - lost first match in straights

Cincy W beating Fish and Retiredvic

USO SF - lost to Nadal in easy 4

Bangkok 250 W

Tokyo 500 W bagelling Nadal in final

Shanghai W beating Ferrer

Paris QF - lost to Berdych

YEC RR/ret - lost his first match to Ferrer then withdrew citing back.



Résumé:

Mighty Primeray got 2 masters titles beating Fish and Ferrer (and scary shoulderovic who retired down a set and a break), 2 clay SF losses to Nadal and Peakovic (respect for nearly stopping Peakovic's streak), a close QF loss to Berdych and four straight-set losses in early rounds.

Made the semis of all four slams - solid consistency - but outside of AO, beat zero top tenners en route and lost quite tamely to Djokodal in all slams. The RG loss to Nadal was actually the best considering it's Claydal, straight break sets but lots of BPs for Nadal to defend. Gave Murray the confidence to take the first set at Wimbledon but early in the second he missed a standard volley that would've given him double BP and was quickly bunnified back. As it turns out, Mandy didn't beat anyone nearly as good as 2009 AO Beastdasco or 2009 WB Fightdick, and when he met the Djokodal who were even better than that, promptly collapsed.

Didn't win a single set at the YEC as back acted up, sad times.

Got 3 lesser titles beating Roddick, Tsonga and Nadal, quite good but not as good as 2009.


Comparison:

Youngray's first 52-week stint as a top player beats his 2011 season handily in the YEC, Masters and sub-Masters categories, and while his young slam results are technically lesser, that is reasonably ascribed to facing lesser but zoning players in Verdasco and Roddick, who were able to edge him in tight matches, whereas 2011ray didn't face anyone that great until Djokodal then got plonked by them, which doesn't suggest he'd necessarily beat someone of an intermediate caliber between mug and ATG. 2011ray did better on clay it must be said (better RG by one round and masters by one round + the mighty match with Peakovic), but similar on grass (same results exactly, small sample size doesn't allow for a clear answer but match facts don't suggest 2011 Grassray was measurably superior to 2009 Grassray), and clearly worse on hard, even with the 4R<SF slam differential 4 masters + final >> 2 masters + QF and 3-0 YEC SF >> 0-1 YEC RR/ret.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

He also reached #2 in 2009 if that matters

 

[Biotic]

Wow good job.

Now do the same for say Nadal's 2006 and 2019 and tell us if it's both or neither...

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Wow good job.

Now do the same for say Nadal's 2006 and 2019 and tell us if it's both or neither...

2006 on clay, not enough data on grass, 2019 on hard. Obvious as it gets. 2006dal regressed on HC from 2005 for some reason, but also got up for Federer both times they played on HC (Dubai and YEC) - a prime example of a difficult match-up + will to win. 2006dal > 2019dal at the YEC though, 06 Fed wouldn't have struggled with 2019 YECdal lol. Respect to Nadal for Dubai, how he pulled that win out of his arse is something else.

Added: but I've already done an analysis of 2007 Nadal vs 2011 Nadal and 2007 comes on top pretty easily. Quite better on clay & grass and only a bit worse on hard (on account of the USO, which is important cause slam, but 07dal better elsewhere).

 

[metsman]

2006 on clay, not enough data on grass, 2019 on hard. Obvious as it gets. 2006dal regressed on HC from 2005 for some reason, but also got up for Federer both times they played on HC (Dubai and YEC) - a prime example of a difficult match-up + will to win. 2006dal > 2019dal at the YEC though, 06 Fed wouldn't have struggled with 2019 YECdal lol. Respect to Nadal for Dubai, how he pulled that win out of his arse is something else.

Added: but I've already done an analysis of 2007 Nadal vs 2011 Nadal and 2007 comes on top pretty easily. Quite better on clay & grass and only a bit worse on hard (on account of the USO, which is important cause slam, but 07dal better elsewhere).

06 is definitely better on grass. 06 vs 11 on grass is a better comparison.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

06 is definitely better on grass. 06 vs 11 on grass is a better comparison.

1995 PETE or 1996 Krajicek at WB?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Also folks, stahp trolling by commenting without voting. What good is the poll if nobody votes.

 

[Biotic]

06 is definitely better on grass. 06 vs 11 on grass is a better comparison.

Stats say otherwise:
2006-2019
Total points won: 53-56
Service points won: 69-73
Service games won: 90-93
Return points won: 36-39
Return games won: 18-30
Break points converted: 35-43
etc...

Shall we trust the official ATP stats or the eye test?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Stats say otherwise:
2006-2019
Total points won: 53-56
Service points won: 69-73
Service games won: 90-93
Return points won: 36-39
Return games won: 18-30
Break points converted: 35-43
etc...

Shall we trust the official ATP stats or the eye test?

Djokovic had his best YEC stats pre-final in 2018 - does that mean Zverev beat peak Djokovic?
Nadal had his best AO stats pre-final in 2019 etc.

 

[Biotic]

Djokovic had his best YEC stats pre-final in 2018 - does that mean Zverev beat peak Djokovic?
Nadal had his best AO stats pre-final in 2019 etc.

Nadal was very convincing in 2019 Wimbledon, until the SF. He was a bit off in the SF with Fed. The same with Djokovic at WTF. One bad match here or there doesn't change the whole story.

2006 is not "definitely" better on grass. There is a stark difference in numbers, that confims that. I won't argue that 2019>2006 for that reason, but I sure won't agree with the opposite either...

 

[Deleted member 758560]

1995 PETE or 1996 Krajicek at WB?

krajicek

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Nadal was very convincing in 2019 Wimbledon, until the SF. He was a bit off in the SF with Fed. The same with Djokovic at WTF. One bad match here or there doesn't change the whole story.

Nadal's only half-decent opponent before SF was Kyrgios, whose lazy clownbotting was enough to expose Nadal's weakness and force oldito to a tiebreak win. Everyone else was an off-form mug who got that far via mug draw. A repeat of AO only Federer wasn't as good so the match was closer. If it was 2019 AO final Djokovic Nadal would've been taken to the cleaners once again.

Not that his 2006 draw was anything to muse about either, but the loss was better quality: two sets of playing peak Federer close versus one against an ancient Federer (Fred was trash in set 2, no props to Nadal for that).

 

[metsman]

1995 PETE or 1996 Krajicek at WB?

93-95 Pete will find a way to win the first or 2nd set and it's a totally different match from there.

 

[metsman]

Nadal's only half-decent opponent before SF was Kyrgios, whose lazy clownbotting was enough to expose Nadal's weakness and force oldito to a tiebreak win. Everyone else was an off-form mug who got that far via mug draw. A repeat of AO only Federer wasn't as good so the match was closer. If it was 2019 AO final Djokovic Nadal would've been taken to the cleaners once again.

Not that his 2006 draw was anything to muse about either, but the loss was better quality: two sets of playing peak Federer close versus one against an ancient Federer (Fred was trash in set 2, no props to Nadal for that).

06 Nadal may not have faced any world beaters on his road to the final but he was legitimately very impressive in the Agassi, FINNISH, and Baggy matches and of course the middle sets against Fed which is more than I can say for anything he did in 2019.

I can't even believe this is even a discussion. 2019 Nadal got thoroughly stymied by 2019 Federer who relies on serve and cheap parlor tricks to barely stay alive in baseline rallies for chrissakes.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Nadal was very convincing in 2019 Wimbledon, until the SF. He was a bit off in the SF with Fed. The same with Djokovic at WTF. One bad match here or there doesn't change the whole story.

2006 is not "definitely" better on grass. There is a stark difference in numbers, that confims that. I won't argue that 2019>2006 for that reason, but I sure won't agree with the opposite either...

Missed this somehow - couldn't be further from the truth! Tennis is a direct elimination sport (barring RR format that is used in few tournaments), one bad match can kill your hopes. A stronger example featuring your favourite male tennis idol so it'd strike closer:

2008 YEC vs 2018 YEC

2008 Djokovic:
RR:
beats Davydenko 7-6(3) 0-6 7-5
loses to Tsonga 1-6 7-5 6-1
beats del Potro 7-5 6-3
SF:
beats Simon 4-6 6-3 7-5
F:
beats Davydenko 6-1 7-5

2018 Djokovic:
RR:
beats Isner 6-3 6-4
beats Zverev 6-4 6-1
beats Cilic 7-6(7) 6-2
SF:
beats Anderson 6-2 6-2
F:
loses to Zverev 6-4 6-3

Which Djokovic was better?

2008 of course. Didn't play as well before the final, but well enough to get by the 2018 opponents into the final, where he played better than 2018 and I reckon would win. Not sure 2018 Djokovic beats Davydenko if he flails like that.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

Connors in 4

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

93-95 Pete will find a way to win the first or 2nd set and it's a totally different match from there.

Think he returned/passed better than in 96, right?

 

[Biotic]

Nadal's only half-decent opponent before SF was Kyrgios, whose lazy clownbotting was enough to expose Nadal's weakness and force oldito to a tiebreak win. Everyone else was an off-form mug who got that far via mug draw. A repeat of AO only Federer wasn't as good so the match was closer. If it was 2019 AO final Djokovic Nadal would've been taken to the cleaners once again.

Not that his 2006 draw was anything to muse about either, but the loss was better quality: two sets of playing peak Federer close versus one against an ancient Federer (Fred was trash in set 2, no props to Nadal for that).

That ain't gonna cut it. 2006 draw wasn't stronger by any means, and Kyrgios>Kendrick...Nadal was still playing claycourt game on grass and two close sets vs 2006 Fed can be attributed do "a prime example of a difficult match-up + will to win", as you've stated. Personally, I was impressed how easily he handled Querrey last year.

Point is, grass field wasn't deep back in 2006, and it isn't deep now. There's no conclusive evidence that 2006 Nadal > 2019 Nadal on grass.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

06 Nadal may not have faced any world beaters on his road to the final but he was legitimately very impressive in the Agassi, FINNISH, and Baggy matches and of course the middle sets against Fed which is more than I can say for anything he did in 2019.

I can't even believe this is even a discussion. 2019 Nadal got thoroughly stymied by 2019 Federer who relies on serve and cheap parlor tricks to barely stay alive in baseline rallies for chrissakes.

Backassi (legit, this is 2006), Nieminen and Baghdatis were supposed to go down in straights anyway. The middle sets against Federer swing my opinion indeed though.

 

[metsman]

Backassi (legit, this is 2006), Nieminen and Baghdatis were supposed to go down in straights anyway. The middle sets against Federer swing my opinion indeed though.

Baggy could have won set 2, he was playing well.

Anyways, I'm speaking more about how Nadal looked in those matches rather than the score or the level of opponent. He was visually impressive, that's all.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

That ain't gonna cut it. 2006 draw wasn't stronger by any means, and Kyrgios>Kendrick...Nadal was still playing claycourt game on grass and two close sets vs 2006 Fed can be attributed do "a prime example of a difficult match-up + will to win", as you've stated. Personally, I was impressed how easily he handled Querrey last year.

Point is, grass field wasn't deep back in 2006, and it isn't deep now. There's no conclusive evidence that 2006 Nadal > 2019 Nadal on grass.

Overall no since both fields were unimpressive, but his effort in losing was better in 2006. He lost to the same name in 2019 so no excuses... that Nadal's favourable match-up against Federer has dissipated is a function of Nadal's decline first and foremost moreso than any Federer changes (prompted by his own decline as well). If you seriously think 2006 Nadal would have had it tougher against 2019 (!) Federer than the actual 2006 Federer, well I don't know how to reason with you then.

 

[metsman]

Think he returned/passed better than in 96, right?

I think physically in 96 he was capable of doing a lot, but he didn't have the same motivation/hunger due to a variety of reasons.

I'm taking 94 Pete on grass all day every day as his best, the rest is more interesting to order.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Baggy could have won set 2, he was playing well.

Anyways, I'm speaking more about how Nadal looked in those matches rather than the score or the level of opponent. He was visually impressive, that's all.

Eye test sez Fedr goat boat of space-time, I know. So does mine but I'm not brazen about it.

 

[metsman]

Eye test sez Fedr goat boat of space-time, I know. So does mine but I'm not brazen about it.

06 3rd set might legitimately be the best set Nadal has played on grass. Of course he was playing freely with no pressure so accounting that you can put 08 5th set or 07 2nd set above, but it was seriously eye opening.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I think physically in 96 he was capable of doing a lot, but he didn't have the same motivation/hunger due to a variety of reasons.

I'd rather say Petros was mentally off focus due to the dying/death of his coach-friend, which is understandable of course but not a 'divine force', it's his responsibility.

I'm taking 94 Pete on grass all day every day as his best, the rest is more interesting to order.

Why did Todd Martin have 11 break points against mythical peak PETE on grass?

 

[metsman]

I'd rather say Petros was mentally off focus due to the dying/death of his coach-friend, which is understandable of course but not a 'divine force', it's his responsibility.



Why did Todd Martin have 11 break points against mythical peak PETE on grass?

Also because Agassi was AWOL, I think it kept Pete sharper when he knew he had a legit rival he had to compete against (if not directly, then indirectly in the rankings).

Not Pete's best serving day in that semi, but returned very well and only got broken in 1 set and served the lights out the rest of the tournament, who cares. Had much rougher days than that in all his other wins.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Also because Agassi was AWOL, I think it kept Pete sharper when he knew he had a legit rival he had to compete against (if not directly, then indirectly in the rankings).

Shading your very hero with the weakeraness, how unexpected!

Not Pete's best serving day in that semi, but returned very well and only got broken in 1 set and served the lights out the rest of the tournament, who cares. Had much rougher days than that in all his other wins.

Super clutch on serve too according to TA, made 9/9 1st serves on BPs outside of set 3 (and they were such that Martin only managed to lob one of them back, for an obvious PETE smash to take it, the rest went unreturned). This stuff always puzzles me: if you can serve so well under pressure, why not start doing it on regular points? Where's the trick? Yeah adrenaline makes you perform better or something, but rather than have to come under pressure to deliver, wouldn't it be reasonable to tell yourself to deliver straight away before you get in trouble? How come you can deliver under pressure but cannot make yourself deliver always?

 

[metsman]

Shading your very hero with the weakeraness, how unexpected!



Super clutch on serve too according to TA, made 9/9 1st serves on BPs outside of set 3 (and they were such that Martin only managed to lob one of them back, for an obvious PETE smash to take it, the rest went unreturned). This stuff always puzzles me: if you can serve so well under pressure, why not start doing it on regular points? Where's the trick? Yeah adrenaline makes you perform better or something, but rather than have to come under pressure to deliver, wouldn't it be reasonable to tell yourself to deliver straight away before you get in trouble? How come you can deliver under pressure but cannot make yourself deliver always?

96 is not really a weak year. Pete ran into a couple buzzsaws at AO/Wimby in an uncertain mental state, and then had to navigate probably his toughest USO road as well (in a win). Masters cup was obviously legendary, no need to expand. But having that 1 guy right behind you vs having a bunch of people challenging you can make for a different dynamic. But I do think that Gullickson's death was definitely the biggest factor. 97-early 99 for the most part was the weak period but Pete only won 3 slams in that time so it's not like that weak era really inflated his career totals besides maybe 1 extra YE #1.

The greats all have that switch, especially Federer and Sampras (Nadal for example, to a lesser extent because he's always dialed in, Djokovic has a tendency to play down to competition like Murray and never really assert dominance). Against an opponent who you know you're better than kind of going in cruise control, you won't be going at full intensity until you know you absolutely need it. Sometimes, you know you need that level from the start because you're facing an opponent who could hurt you otherwise or you want to make a statement in a big match. But they're not robots and it's just harder to play at 100% intensity when you know you can win otherwise. The same is true for Federer in the old days, it's extremely noticeable when he's going at 50% just messing around barely bending his knees and when he's totally dialed in on every ball.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Shading your very hero with the weakeraness, how unexpected!

ага агасси не было и это тоже фактор в то время как в 97 его тоже не было, но пит победил, ты сказал фокус был нарушен, ну так эта трагедия случилась в начале 95, однако фокус был в порядке и это не помешало ему взять оба шлема, хотя проблемы были на траве в том году, попадись ему в том году крайчек возможно говорили бы шас что фокус также был не тот, это спорный вопрос про фокус, многие большие спортсмены наоборот мобилизуют силы после таких событий..помню edinson volquez (mlb pitcher) отработал блестяще после того как его father...well you got it...шумми вместе с братом были первыми на квале в имоле 03 (потом шумми выиграл гонку) после того как их mother..

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

ага агасси не было и это тоже фактор в то время как в 97 его тоже не было, но пит победил, ты сказал фокус был нарушен, ну так эта трагедия случилась в начале 95, однако фокус был в порядке и это не помешало ему взять оба шлема, хотя проблемы были на траве в том году, попадись ему в том году крайчек возможно говорили бы шас что фокус также был не тот, это спорный вопрос про фокус, многие большие спортсмены наоборот мобилизуют силы после таких событий..помню edinson volquez (mlb pitcher) отработал блестяще после того как его father...well you got it...шумми вместе с братом были первыми на квале в имоле 03 (потом шумми выиграл гонку) после того как их mother..

Сравнил тоже, лопух - на лучшем болиде таки проще побеждать, чем в битве один-на-один. Пит ведь на шлемах не отлетал от не пойми кого, а пал жертвой мощных подаванов что на АО, что на УИМЕ. Пусть Филиппусису было всего 19 лет, но под рёв австралийских трибун подача так и летела, выше головы прыгнул малец - оттого и уплыл без борьбы в следующем матче, что запал весь вышел. Крайчек тем более шикарно весь турнир играл и заслуженно взял титул, уступив по дороге всего один сет. Тут ведь фишка в том, что статы-цифры - да, мои любимые расклады матчей, объективные и беспристрастные - показывает, что в обоих матчах Сампрас по ходу первых двух сетов был чуть лучше соперника, но не смог реализовать несколько БП + в концовке первого сета, стоило чуть занервничать, тут же получил кинжальный брейк. В третьем сете уже не слишком боролся - сам виноват, но тоже показатель, в другие годы 0-2 по сетам его не смущало. Вообще матчи против уверенно подающих соперников на быстрых кортах часто на тоненького вплоть до тайбрейков, тут-то и важна пиковая менталка. В принципе согласен с метсом, что более волевой Пит других лет, скорее всего, сравнял бы 1-1 по сетам, и психологически это уже совсем другое дело в плане разности уверенностей.

И это всё-таки разные вещи тоже - смерть в старости или хотя бы на пенсии, смерть внезапная и постепенное умирание. Ощути: у твоего лучшего друга - рак мозга, его ждёт лишь угасание и смерть, но через год, и весь этот год он на твоих глазах уходит как личность день за днём, ведь рак мозга - не та болезнь, которая сохраняет ясное сознание до конца. Иссушающее переживание, скажи ещё нет. Рак обнаружили на АО-95, а через день Пит отыгрался с 0-2 у Курье, даже расплакавшись в пятом сете. А через год - не смог; интересно. Могу предаоложить и представить, что так повлияло полученное в межсезонье впечатление ещё живого, но полуугасшего Галликсона, ведь они наверняка виделись, Сампрас должен был поддерживать друга и его семью. У тебя, полагаю, близкий человек не умирал долго, и у меня тоже - так будем рады, что нам не довелось этого испытать. Бывает ведь, что и годами живут умирая, не приведи бох. Так что не судил бы ты.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Сравнил тоже, лопух - на лучшем болиде таки проще побеждать, чем в битве один-на-один. Пит ведь на шлемах не отлетал от не пойми кого, а пал жертвой мощных подаванов что на АО, что на УИМЕ. Пусть Филиппусису было всего 19 лет, но под рёв австралийских трибун подача так и летела, выше головы прыгнул малец - оттого и уплыл без борьбы в следующем матче, что запал весь вышел. Крайчек тем более шикарно весь турнир играл и заслуженно взял титул, уступив по дороге всего один сет. Тут ведь фишка в том, что статы-цифры - да, мои любимые расклады матчей, объективные и беспристрастные - показывает, что в обоих матчах Сампрас по ходу первых двух сетов был чуть лучше соперника, но не смог реализовать несколько БП + в концовке первого сета, стоило чуть занервничать, тут же получил кинжальный брейк. В третьем сете уже не слишком боролся - сам виноват, но тоже показатель, в другие годы 0-2 по сетам его не смущало. Вообще матчи против уверенно подающих соперников на быстрых кортах часто на тоненького вплоть до тайбрейков, тут-то и важна пиковая менталка. В принципе согласен с метсом, что более волевой Пит других лет, скорее всего, сравнял бы 1-1 по сетам, и психологически это уже совсем другое дело в плане разности уверенностей.

И это всё-таки разные вещи тоже - смерть в старости или хотя бы на пенсии, смерть внезапная и постепенное умирание. Ощути: у твоего лучшего друга - рак мозга, его ждёт лишь угасание и смерть, но через год, и весь этот год он на твоих глазах уходит как личность день за днём, ведь рак мозга - не та болезнь, которая сохраняет ясное сознание до конца. Иссушающее переживание, скажи ещё нет. Рак обнаружили на АО-95, а через день Пит отыгрался с 0-2 у Курье, даже расплакавшись в пятом сете. А через год - не смог; интересно. Могу предаоложить и представить, что так повлияло полученное в межсезонье впечатление ещё живого, но полуугасшего Галликсона, ведь они наверняка виделись, Сампрас должен был поддерживать друга и его семью. У тебя, полагаю, близкий человек не умирал долго, и у меня тоже - так будем рады, что нам не довелось этого испытать. Бывает ведь, что и годами живут умирая, не приведи бох. Так что не судил бы ты.

я и не сужу, вслед за вами просто мое мнение на этот счет, я про то что также он переживал сильно и в 95, как и 96, да ненамного сильнее он волей был год назад вроде как, хотя вы тут эсперты я верно лошара в исторических теннисных вопросах в основном ладно все не буду на эту тему раз вы затронули, надо прекращать, по поводу шумми, конечно болид/ но ральф был на уильямсе и в равных условиях в монтойей

 

[Deleted member 758560]

.

 

[RS]

AO - Not sure.
FO - 2011 probably
Wim - 2009 probably
USO - Not sure.

IW - 09
Miami - 09
MC - Even
Rome - 11
Canada - 09
Cincy - 11 slightly
Madrid/Shanghai - 08 slightly
Paris - ?
WTF - 08 (think he pulled out in 11)

Pretty close to even.