Ok, accepted, I assumed you had picked up on my earlier post
I know Rossi has won a wet race before but to be honest, the only one I can remember was the Donnington race a few years ago and that was so out of character with previous wet races that I just put it down to Michelin flying in the wet specials for the race. Never before or since was he that much quicker than anyone else in the wet. However, irrelevant. Prior to that, I can't remember wet races, too long ago.
My point was, that prior to the race, you had the TV pundits barking their usual tosh and a lot of it was saying we know how well Rossi goes in the wet, so a wet race will favour him. Same on here. But based on recent history back to 2009, he has crashed in every wet race I can remember apart from Silverstone where he was lighty ears off the pace anyway. So I just couldn't see the logic in what they were saying, hence my comment - what was the basis of the assumption about a wet race.
As it turns out, he rode very well and fully deserved his 2nd place, but still we have the hype about GOAT, better than everyone else, ride of the day etc etc. and rubbishing of the rides of other riders by the fanboys.
Shame they can't just celebrate the result in the same manner as Rossi and Stoner did afterwards - surprising but very welcome.