Meh, Andy seemed to play badly and Raonic was good. Andy would've won this under any other scenario. If he was good, he would've won. If both were bad, he would've won. If Raonic was bad, he would've won. Raonic had to be very good and Murray had to bad for him to have any chance of winning and he got that scenario. And won. No big deal.
this thread has more than enough jesters to entertain in a royal banquet
You of all people should not be saying this
I certainly shall. If you all find this funny, then that's good for you.
Indeed he did, but only because Andy was bad and he was good. On clay, if Andy's bad, he's going to lose to opponents who play well. If this was hardcour for example, Andy would've won even if he was bad and Raonic was good.
Aren't you tired of being constantly embarrassed ?
I'm not embarrassed. And I never will be.
is he a Believer then?
I think being murraytard is embarrassing enough
Yes, I am a believer. I'm more passionate about my favourite player and the game than you will ever be and I'm glad to see Murray playing, even if he's losing.
It's embarrassing that you think that.