General Discussion: The Tennis Appreciation Thread


Show original post
stoney
stoney avatar

17815 posts since 22/1/05

11 Jun 2009 16:01
security alert, prolly a suspicious bag or something. After the fed incident at the french people are being more cautious.
Noble Locks
Noble Locks avatar

66963 posts since 10/7/03

11 Jun 2009 16:55
i didnt know murray is managed by cowell and fuller…hes gonna be on the front of every magazine going these next coming weeks, including 'the beano, radio times and the big issue'…they are gonna pump the jade, jordan and kerry mugs to the max and make them believe hes the next messiah…forget how shit he actually is, and that he will NEVER win fuck all.
6thEdition
6thEdition avatar

5882 posts since 7/3/08

11 Jun 2009 17:26
Has anyone who has reached 3rd in the world never won anything?
Jesus
Jesus avatar

6098 posts since 7/10/08

11 Jun 2009 17:31
eh, he's won plenty, just no slams, and considering there is only 4 a year it makes it harder
misled
misled avatar

4481 posts since 3/1/02

11 Jun 2009 17:35
6thEdition wrote: Has anyone who has reached 3rd in the world never won anything?

prob quite a few. Nikolay Davydenko for one. still playing but doubt he'll manage it now (I presume you mean slams)
misled
misled avatar

4481 posts since 3/1/02

11 Jun 2009 17:44
Noble Locks wrote: i didnt know murray is managed by cowell and fuller…hes gonna be on the front of every magazine going these next coming weeks, including 'the beano, radio times and the big issue'…they are gonna pump the jade, jordan and kerry mugs to the max and make them believe hes the next messiah…forget how shit he actually is, and that he will NEVER win fuck all.

what odds will you give on him winning a slam?
Noble Locks
Noble Locks avatar

66963 posts since 10/7/03

11 Jun 2009 18:00
dunno mate, maybe 250's.
misled
misled avatar

4481 posts since 3/1/02

11 Jun 2009 18:01
I could be in for a piece of that! convinced he will get one
Noble Locks
Noble Locks avatar

66963 posts since 10/7/03

11 Jun 2009 18:08
you can have 1000-1 for wimbledon whenever you like muckeroonie.
Sarny
Sarny avatar

2113 posts since 25/5/07

11 Jun 2009 18:39
6thEdition wrote: Has anyone who has reached 3rd in the world never won anything?


The current womens No1 has never won a slam, and even if No2 who is think is Serena wins Wimbledon, Safina who is No1 is guaranteed to stay at No1 till at least the end of July or something.
rural
rural avatar

17881 posts since 26/9/06

14 Jun 2009 15:33
Murrary playing next level tennis these days…still won't win Wimbledon though Sad
stoney
stoney avatar

17815 posts since 22/1/05

14 Jun 2009 15:34
Good work from Murray, won the tournament with ease. He has a real shot at wimbledon, i think it will be him or Fed.
Charles Winthorpe III
Charles Winthorpe III avatar

5484 posts since 29/7/05

14 Jun 2009 16:31
they're the only 2 people on the tour who give a shit about it.
grass court season is a joke.
themistake
themistake avatar

10866 posts since 20/2/06

14 Jun 2009 16:40
billy ray valentine wrote: they're the only 2 people on the tour who give a shit about it.
grass court season is a joke.



it isnt a joke, but its a surface that isnt worth investing that much training in as there isnt enough events.
Kingmob07
Kingmob07 avatar

9199 posts since 11/5/07

14 Jun 2009 16:48
billy ray valentine wrote: they're the only 2 people on the tour who give a shit about it.
grass court season is a joke.

Interesting statement. Care to justify it?
Jesus
Jesus avatar

6098 posts since 7/10/08

14 Jun 2009 16:54
he wouldnt have beaten roddick
Charles Winthorpe III
Charles Winthorpe III avatar

5484 posts since 29/7/05

14 Jun 2009 16:55
the season is essentially a month long, its sandwiched between two longer, bigger prized moneyed surfaces in clay and hard court. (monte carlo (clay), miami (hard court) or halle in holland.. whats more attractive to play at? granted the usa has a couple of grass tournaments but they're hardly prestigious. i think its about 80% of the top 50 who play on grass once a year and thats wimbledon..

fair point, its more the surface then wimbledon itself, but the whole ethos about it being the best tournament is bullcrap. its the least enjoyable to watch and in particular the bbc's coverage which is stuck in the 80's (only last year or the year before they got the 6200 hi def cameras on court and rinsed the slow mo feature on stupid things like a ball toss!) with its 3 camera angles, look at the us and french with its hip height angles where you feel like you're getting an idea for how low the ball is hit, it pains me to watch the coverage.
MrPlatinum
MrPlatinum avatar

8939 posts since 24/2/04

14 Jun 2009 16:55
Yes he would have, but he'll be in the same side of the draw as Nadal or Federer, who he won't
Sarny
Sarny avatar

2113 posts since 25/5/07

14 Jun 2009 18:03
Nadals knees are fucked, hopefully pulling out of Halle wont affect the Fed. What a way do to 15 though winning wimbledon.
themistake
themistake avatar

10866 posts since 20/2/06

14 Jun 2009 19:01
billy ray valentine wrote: . its the least enjoyable to watch and in particular the bbc's coverage which is stuck in the 80's (only last year or the year before they got the 6200 hi def cameras on court and rinsed the slow mo feature on stupid things like a ball toss!) with its 3 camera angles, look at the us and french with its hip height angles where you feel like you're getting an idea for how low the ball is hit, it pains me to watch the coverage.


think hd started on wimbledon in 2006. it only has hd camera's on centre/court 1.
as ive said before hd broadcasting is $$$$$$$$.
the bbc dont even own a single hd camera capableof covering live sport such as tennis, they sold it all last year…