Xerxes has yet to fill out a bio.
The reason I’m interested in (but don’t want to get between you & tim debating) this age issue is that I remember very clearly when I first joined BR about 2 years ago, nadal was bagging slams and Fed was not, seemingly in decline. All I hear then almost on a daily basis was the old ruffin bluff insisting “tennis is a young man’s sport”. He said that to support his (flawed) vision that Fed could not win and compete with most of the “stronger, younger, fitter, faster” current players simply because he was already too old at age 27/28 to compete in the “young man’s sport.”
But now tim’s latest is roger is not old at all at 31. It's obvious he's turned around completely to discredit the rare achievements of a resurgent Fed way past his prime, regaining #1 and, en route, supplanting a disappointing and declining nadal out of action only at 26. Tough, really, ruffin should live with the loser he picked as his idol rather than blaming Fed and his fans.
Re the age debate between you and Ruffin under pia's reply to Tim's post here http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1304401-roger-federer-us-open-2012-win-would-be-most-impressive-title-of-epic-career, Tim concluded that "you (Xerxes) are flat out wrong" and "I'm (ruffin) right on this one."
IJust curious if you're going to reply and if so what your counter-arguments would be. Thanks
Hi Xerxes, another one from my hand: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/916715-has-string-technology-and-slower-surfaces-helped-the-returner-apparently-not
My last piece before the tonight's final
My new piece on Djokovic win: