6-4 7-5 6-4
For anyone who does not play tennis, that is a close match.
Anyone who plays tennis will know that the score is not indicative one way or another on whether it was a close match. But obviously you will already know that.
If I carry my service game or break enough to wind up with that many games at the end of three sets it is a hell of a lot closer than 6-0 6-2 6-0, for example. You are right of course, though this match was close overall. Closer than most get to Nadal on clay, off form or not.
For a football analogy, we would be talking about a well played game with two determined sides showing up on the day and playing out of their skins, one imposing their superiority ultimately by making the best of their chances, the other side lacking that flourish needed to convert their excellent plays up the field with the ball into scoring opportunities.
That is why I said for anyone who does not play. The score line does not indicate HOW close it was in the first couple of sets, versus how it played out in the third. To a bystander both the 6-4 scores are the same.
I am not a Henman hater, he was exceptional and well respected in the game. If he had arrived twenty years before he would surely have had more success.
I wish they would do something to get more net play. That is what I miss the most, and the reason I watch the women with more enjoyment is the increased variety of play.
As far as Murray goes, he already has my respect as a player, and if he never wins a major he has already carved out a place in the history books as a British player.
Nigel Mansell would still have been one hell of a driver if he never won the F1 championship.
Damon Hill won one as well, but we all know Mansell was a different breed.