Is this a joke/troll thread? Of course he's more beatable. In the past couple of years he's been beaten by Benneteau, Davydenko, Tsonga, Karlovic, Blake, Simon, Stepanek, etc. None of them were beating him before. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that's the definition of being more beatable.
No. The title of this thread is misleading. Bagman claimed that Roger is more beatable. The last time I checked he had Baggy beat and had a match point. Of course Roger is on the decline. All I am saying is, is he more beatable from the last time he played Baggy for Bagman to claim what he did?