Wimbledon

thomond2006

Amazing achievement by Niland! Fair play to him, great to see an Irishman in Wimbledon! Now I don't have to be a neutral!

RosyLily

My favourite Grand Slam of the year...love that grass!:p

The draws were made yesterday morning....some interesting matches! The talking point of it wasn't the defending champion or anyone else....Isner/Mahut Part II!!:eek: Crazy coincidence!! I think the odds of that happening was 144/1 (when you include seedings etc.) Calls are being made to put this on Centre Court; highly doubt it will live up to last year's epic!

Defending champion and Number 1 seed Nadal will play American Michael Russell in his first round match. No one really threatening in his quarter of the draw- del Potro hasn't really proved himself on grass and anyone else isn't a worry. Berdych as a possible QF opponent but Nad will easily dispatch him I think. Like last year, Nadal could face Murray in the SFs. Very strong possibility that Nadal will reach the final...unless someone pulls off something amazing!

Six-time champion Roger Federer would be many people's favourite after his excellent run of form at RG. He's seeded Number 3 and will play Mikhail Kukushkin of Kazakstan. He should make it to the final; has Nole as possible SF opponent but he could get past him.

Hoping for a Nadal-Federer final....mouthwatering!:pac:

Djokovic, who's reached the semis here twice and has only lost once this year, plays Jeremy Chardy of France in the first round. Bit of trouble in his quarter with Soderling and Hewitt there. I predict Hewitt as a possible QF opponent...they played a great match last year!

Murray winning Queens has started the Murray for Champ chants again. Very doubtful unless he's in fantastic form all 2 weeks. Might have bit of trouble against Roddick in QF, provided Roddick is on form!

As for the Women's Draw, defending champion Serena Williams is back on the court. She'll play Aravane Rezai in her first round match. Some are tipping her to win the title! French Open champion Na Li, Ana Ivanovic and Agnieszka Radwanska are also in her quarter; Serena could face Sharapova or Wozniacki in the SFs.

Speaking of those players, Caroline will play Aranxta Parra Santonja in the first round; Maria will play Anna Chakvetadze. Caroline and Maria will potentially play each other in the QF.

Paddy Power have Federer at 2/1 odds followed by Nadal (11/5), Djokovic (7/2), Murray (11/2), del Potro (33/1) and Roddick and Soderling (both at 40/1).
On the women's side of things, Sharapova and S.Williams are both on the same odds (4/1), followed by V.Williams (7/1), Li (8/1) and Kvitova and Wozniacki (both at 10/1)

Love Wimbledon!!! Should be a great GS!!

CountryJoe

Fantastic achievement from Niland, heres hoping he gets a nice draw for his first round match.

jcf

Nice one !!! Come on Niland !!!!

Christo

Congrats to Conor fantastic achievement and now has a possible 2nd round encounter with Roger Federer.

Being first Irish player to make the draw since 1977 (or 1984 both years have been thrown around) I put on RTE news to see if there would be any mention of Conor. However, all they mentioned was the US open golf. Once more I'm fairly disappointed in our national broadcaster to ignore an achievement for Irish sport that isn't in rugby, football or golf.

CountryJoe

Christo wrote: »

Congrats to Conor fantastic achievement and now has a possible 2nd round encounter with Roger Federer.

Being first Irish player to make the draw since 1977 (or 1984 both years have been thrown around) I put on RTE news to see if there would be any mention of Conor. However, all they mentioned was the US open golf. Once more I'm fairly disappointed in our national broadcaster to ignore an achievement for Irish sport that isn't in rugby, football or golf.

Could not agree more with you. Our first player in Wimbledon in nearly 30 years and not even a mention of it. :mad:

Rjd2

rjp123 wrote: »

you know that you generally have to overcome other players in a tournament prior to reaching a final right?
You know that its pretty ridiculous to refer to players of this calibre as mugs right?
You know that some surfaces suit some players right?

Have you followed Roddick and Cilic at all this season?

As someone who has and who can be backed up by the stats both have been rubbish all season, their is huge gap between them and the so called top 4.

Don't believe me? Look at their results.


Soderling winning competitions beating players who are in no form and been slaughtered by the top players is nothing to be proud of and not exactly the form of someone who can do anything meaningful in a Slam.

digme

rjp123 wrote: »

you know that you generally have to overcome other players in a tournament prior to reaching a final right?
You know that its pretty ridiculous to refer to players of this calibre as mugs right?
You know that some surfaces suit some players right?

you know that peoples form dips and rises (for instance murray looks to be coming good after a poor start to 2011)?

anyway back to my original point . final to be won by one of the top four (im going with nadal but if not him federer) with 40/1 or 50/1 on an outsider such as soderling worth a few euro for the craic.

more importantly than that niland is now on at 11 now. supposed to be 1030 but they have put it back for 30 mins for some reason

you obviously don't watch much tennis.
Can't get over there's an Irishman playing in Wimbledon

rjp123

digme wrote: »

you obviously don't watch much tennis.

seriously humour me a little. What, from my statements above would make you think this? Answer that question specifically please?
Not only have I watched, more importantly I have played, more tennis than you could possibly know. Obviously have no way or intention of backing this up in cyberspace so I'll leave you get back to your stats, studying of form and general trolling. FYI my statements and reasons for same would also be backed up by most online bookmakers.

Christo

Roddick was terrible in Queens this year he only destroyed Verdasco cos he forgot how to use a tennis racquet. Men's draw will once more be the predictable 1, 2, 3, 4 in the semi's.

On the women's draw I'm going for Sharapova v Lisicki and Huntuchova (if the injury isn't that bad, otherwise Petkovic) vs Zvonereva with Sharapova winning in the final

jcf

Everyone seems to be ignoring Djokovic ??? Bookies have Fed as favourite with Nadal as no.2 , should be Nadal slight favourite with Djokovic no. 2,
Guarantee Fed won't win it, and he won't beat Djokovic either, he won't let that happen after the French SF.

jcf

CountryJoe wrote: »

Could not agree more with you. Our first player in Wimbledon in nearly 30 years and not even a mention of it. :mad:

Yep, pathetic and embarassing, Golf isn't even a f*cking sport ffs!!!!!

It's a game that any fat old pile of rich **** could play ....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Draw mande, he faces Adrian Mannarino in the first round. Ranked 52 in the world, they,ve never met.

And if he wins, it's probably Federer in the second...!

rjp123

they played in a futures in 06 in spain with mannarino winning in 3 but this result will have no bearing on tues

Rjd2

Manny is a level above him sadly, he will beat him in 3.

rjp123 wrote: »

. FYI my statements and reasons for same would also be backed up by most online bookmakers.

I work in the industry and no bookmaker has much respect for Soderling, Cilic and Roddick at the moment thus their huge outright odds for Wimbledon.

rjp123

i think niland will win actually. gonna say in 4. i think youll find that these guys are pretty much all at the same level bar say the top 20-30. well see tuesday i guess.

Rjd2

rjp123 wrote: »

i think niland will win actually. gonna say in 4. i think youll find that these guys are pretty much all at the same level bar say the top 20-30. well see tuesday i guess.

To be fair Manny has been showing some genuine class recently. He did defeat Del Potro in Queens and was about to defeat Simon before he retired. He gave Ferrer a cracking match a few months ago on Clay as well. I admit in between that he has lost pretty emphatically to lots of players but he has shown something to me which makes me think that Conor will struggle.

I really want to be wrong though and unlike most people on the internet I don't mind eating humble pie if Conor wins.

Pighead

RosyLily wrote: »

Defending champion and Number 1 seed Nadal will play American Michael Russell in his first round match. No one really threatening in his quarter of the draw- del Potro hasn't really proved himself on grass and anyone else isn't a worry. Berdych as a possible QF opponent but Nad will easily dispatch him I think. Like last year, Nadal could face Murray in the SFs. Very strong possibility that Nadal will reach the final...unless someone pulls off something amazing!

Nadal is scheduled to play Milos Raonic in the 3rd round which could prove to be a decent match. Raonic had a blistering start to teh year winning in San Jose and losing to roddick in a brilliant final in Memphis. He went from 160 odd in the world to 27 over the first few months of this year.

His form has tailed off a bit since but he's got an absolutely monstrous serve and could cause Rafa a few problems. we seen how Nadal struggled against big serving Isner in Paris.

Anyway I'm putting my balls on the line and predicting a Djokovic-Murray final with the Serb to prevail. I know Murray gets hyped up each year and invariable loses against one of the big guns in the Semis but I think he's playing some great tennis lately and isn't quite as defensive as he has been in the past. Djokovic is going to be the man to beat though i feel. He's been the best player this year and I think he's ready to reach his first Wimbledon final.

Despite winning the French, Nadal has looked a shade below his best over the last year and I think this faster surface will be a disadvantage to Fed. Despite clay not being his favourite surface, I think it has helped Fed over the past couple of years against the huge servers and big hitters. Back on the fast surface I see Fed's recent resurgence coming to an end.

Johnmb

Pighead wrote: »

Despite winning the French, Nadal has looked a shade below his best over the last year and I think this faster surface will be a disadvantage to Fed. Despite clay not being his favourite surface, I think it has helped Fed over the past couple of years against the huge servers and big hitters. Back on the fast surface I see Fed's recent resurgence coming to an end.

There's the thing though, the grass courts of Wimbledon are actually the 2nd slowest courts used in the Slams. The US Open has used faster courts for many years, and when the Australian Open changes their courts a few years ago, they became faster too. That, by the way, is not due to hard courts becoming faster over time, it is due to a deliberate policy of the All England Club to slow down their courts by choosing slower balls, and grass that also keeps things slow. The only thing that the grass still has is that the bounce is low, and bad bounces are more frequent (than hard courts at least).

Pighead

Johnmb wrote: »

There's the thing though, the grass courts of Wimbledon are actually the 2nd slowest courts used in the Slams. The US Open has used faster courts for many years, and when the Australian Open changes their courts a few years ago, they became faster too. That, by the way, is not due to hard courts becoming faster over time, it is due to a deliberate policy of the All England Club to slow down their courts by choosing slower balls, and grass that also keeps things slow. The only thing that the grass still has is that the bounce is low, and bad bounces are more frequent (than hard courts at least).

2nd slowest! I really doubt that's true to be honest. I know that they've slowed the courts at Wimbledon but I'm pretty sure that they're still a bit faster than the US Open.

the_monkey

Pighead wrote: »

2nd slowest! I really doubt that's true to be honest. I know that they've slowed the courts at Wimbledon but I'm pretty sure that they're still a bit faster than the US Open.

They're not, US open is quickest followed by AusOpen, Wimby, French...

Pighead

the_monkey wrote: »

They're not, US open is quickest followed by AusOpen, Wimby, French...

Where are you getting this erroneous information?

StephenHendry

he has done great to qualify, there would be more mention of it except that rory won the us open last night. its a shame sorensen had to retire because of injuries , it was a great achievement for him to get the second round of the australian open last year

orourkeda

I think I love Caroline Wozniacki

MisterAnarchy

Interesting article on the speed of the Wimbledon courts vs US Open,quite insightful
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/464068-need-for-speed-comparing-the-court-speeds-at-wimbledon-and-the-us-open
Synopsis

Wimbledon may not be as penetrative as the clay of Roland Garros, it is still responsive enough to the topspin (evidence being Rafa’s vicious spinning serves are much more of a weapon at Wimbledon than at the U.S. Open). Even the drop shots and volleys were more effective at SW19 this year, compared to Flushing where they were being tracked down with more abandon.
Consequently, the top spinning strokes stay more time in the air and pop up after hitting, compared to a flat shot hit at the same (or even marginally less) speed. At the U.S. Open, the surface being not that responsive to topspin (due to the use of the balls and the smooth asphalt surface), the players (especially Federer, Djokovic, and Murray, and more recently del Potro) tend to flatten their shots, resulting in a relative faster speed off the court.
The greater use of topspin at Wimbledon makes the courts appear relatively slower than the ones at the U.S. But the spin and bounce does not take away from the fact that Wimbledon is still the fastest surface around, at least in the majors.

irishdub14

Anyone watching Dokic vs. Schiavone? Great match, not sure who I'd like to win! Also does anyone know if Conor Niland's match will be on tv tomorrow?

Dokic just lost but I've always thought that she (Dokic) should be doing much better than she does in terms of results. She has great power but is just too mentally frail.

steelcityblues

That last match on centre count just highlights that women's tennis ain't what it used to be.

Johnmb

Pighead wrote: »

Where are you getting this erroneous information?

Just because it's new information to you doesn't make it erroneous

The US Open courts have been faster since the early 2000's, the Oz Open courts just the last few years since they switched. There was quite a lot of publicity about it when that happened. Basically, at Wimbledon they changed the grass that is grown. The type that is now there is a type of rye iirc, and it grows in tufts straight up, which grips the ball and slows it down. The exception being if it is a particularly wet year, then the grass remains that bit slippy. Note too, that this applies to Wimbledon, as far as I know, Queens did not change, although I don't know what type of grass they used to begin with (or now for that matter!).

steelcityblues

Major upset on the cards?

KINGVictor

steelcityblues wrote: »

Major upset on the cards?

Well with the way A. Murray is playing at the moment, he might be the first casualty. Currently down one set.

brimal

Murray slow start as usual

Gimeno-Traver playing great stuff here and looks like we have a game

KINGVictor

brimal wrote: »

Murray slow start as usual

Gimeno-Traver playing great stuff here and looks like we have a game

Yeah you are correct Murray can be a slow starter but the same can be said with most players.

I personally do not think he can win this tournament especially if he progresses to the Quarters where he will have to play his best to have a chance against the likes of Nadal etc.

He strikes me as a stroppy teenager that cannot think outside of the box.I might be a bit harsh on him but he has repeatedly shown his lack of character in the big games.

the_monkey

My God, Judy Murray is driven!!!!!!

the_monkey

just doesn't feel like wimbledon with this indoor echo....

suppose it's better then "play suspended due to rain" tho ...

LuckyGent88

Murray is just going to walk this match now i'd imagine. He looks to have gone up a few gears and his opponent cant live with it.

Slideshowbob

The venom shown by Murray and his mother when he wins a single point against an average player show he doesn't have the capability to win a grand slam. If he gets excited by little things no wonder he can't handle the big occasions.

KINGVictor

Slideshowbob wrote: »

The venom shown by Murray and his mother when he wins a single point against an average player show he doesn't have the capability to win a grand slam. If he gets excited by little things no wonder he can't handle the big occasions.

Totally agree with you! You hardly see the Big 3 consistently looking at their box for support or shouting at them when he misses every point.

I personally think his mum is a problem in his career, he has changed coaches so many times and has been quite inconsistent. He lacks the determination of a champion, there is more to tennis than animated groans of C'mmon every time you win a point.

Dont get me wrong he has the talent but age is not on his side anymore, Nadal and Novak are his contemporaries and he has folks breathing down his neck on the rankings. He needs to stop being so emotional, get a grip and get a good coach.

enfant terrible

KINGVictor wrote: »

Totally agree with you! You hardly see the Big 3 consistently looking at their box for support or shouting at them when he misses every point.

I personally think his mum is a problem in his career, he has changed coaches so many times and has been quite inconsistent. He lacks the determination of a champion, there is more to tennis than animated groans of C'mmon every time you win a point.

Dont get me wrong he has the talent but age is not on his side anymore, Nadal and Novak are his contemporaries and he has folks breathing down his neck on the rankings. He needs to stop being so emotional, get a grip and get a good coach.

I think its more the other three just being better than him and he'll find it tough to win a grand slam going against two possible GOAT's and Djokovic.

coconut5

His playing aside, I just wish he was a bit more exciting, you know? He's very serious. I never feel like he's really enjoying himself.

Pighead

Johnmb wrote: »

Just because it's new information to you doesn't make it erroneous

The US Open courts have been faster since the early 2000's, the Oz Open courts just the last few years since they switched. There was quite a lot of publicity about it when that happened. Basically, at Wimbledon they changed the grass that is grown. The type that is now there is a type of rye iirc, and it grows in tufts straight up, which grips the ball and slows it down. The exception being if it is a particularly wet year, then the grass remains that bit slippy. Note too, that this applies to Wimbledon, as far as I know, Queens did not change, although I don't know what type of grass they used to begin with (or now for that matter!).

Don't hate me John but I'm going to disagree with you again! I've heard it said plenty of times over the past few years that the grass at Wimbledon has been slowed down so much that it now plays slower than a hard court but I've never ever seen conclusive proof of this.

Mainly this info is coming from amateurs on tennis websites who claim to know the ins and outs of these surfaces but have absolutely zero credentials to back this up. There is no doubt that the gap between Wimbledon's courts and the ones in Flushing Meadows have narrowed over the years but I'm pretty sure I'm right when I say Wimbledon still plays faster.

steelcityblues

KINGVictor wrote: »

Totally agree with you! You hardly see the Big 3 consistently looking at their box for support or shouting at them when he misses every point.

I personally think his mum is a problem in his career, he has changed coaches so many times and has been quite inconsistent. He lacks the determination of a champion, there is more to tennis than animated groans of C'mmon every time you win a point.

Dont get me wrong he has the talent but age is not on his side anymore, Nadal and Novak are his contemporaries and he has folks breathing down his neck on the rankings. He needs to stop being so emotional, get a grip and get a good coach.

I see he could meet Gasquet in the last 16, and the Frenchman's been a tough opponent before.

Something about today, gives me the feeling he won't be in the real shakeup this year.

KINGVictor

enfant terrible wrote: »

I think its more the other three just being better than him and he'll find it tough to win a grand slam going against two possible GOAT's and Djokovic.

True but same could be said about Novak. However,he has raised his game and quit b.tching.Andy is still same Andy I knew in 2008! He comes to every Wimbledon as favourite to British press and as usual cannot translate this expectations into results.

Admittedly, he played very well in the last 3 sets of the match(today) but him playing like that against even the likes of Wawrinka, Berdych or Soderling would get him punished not to talk of the Big 3.

Like you infered, he doesnt have the talent of Nadal or Roger but neither does Novak but he has stepped up his game to match them tactically and physically. Andy cannot win a five set match with Nadal unless the latter is seriously injured neither can he match up with Roger tactically in a final, he needs to let Mammy take a rest and get a coach that will instil discipline and toughness in him.

Pighead

Slideshowbob wrote: »

The venom shown by Murray and his mother when he wins a single point against an average player show he doesn't have the capability to win a grand slam. If he gets excited by little things no wonder he can't handle the big occasions.

Wouldn't agree with that. John McEnroe used to be the same whoever he was playing and he managed to win himself a few grand slams. Nothing wrong with Murray getting himself gee'd up during a match in my opinion.

We're talking about a guy who has won 17 ATP tour titles here so it's obvious he can handle the big occasion. His poor results in his three grand slam finals have simply been down to the fact that his opponent has been that bit better than him. Nothing to do with his temperament. As I said earlier in the thread I think he has a real chance of making the final this year. I think he can take Nadal. Whether or not he'll beat Djokovic/Fed in the final is a different matter but I've a feeling he'll go close this year.

KINGVictor

Pighead wrote: »

Wouldn't agree with that. John McEnroe used to be the same whoever he was playing and he managed to win himself a few grand slams. Nothing wrong with Murray getting himself gee'd up during a match in my opinion.

We're talking about a guy who has won 17 ATP tour titles here so it's obvious he can handle the big occasion. His poor results in his three grand slam finals have simply been down to the fact that his opponent has been that bit better than him. Nothing to do with his temperament. As I said earlier in the thread I think he has a real chance of making the final this year. I think he can take Nadal. Whether or not he'll beat Djokovic/Fed in the final is a different matter but I've a feeling he'll go close this year.

I agree with you that John was simply a nuisance on the court but you can just simply tell the difference! J.E was hungry and determined, he won a few grandslams against the odds. The major difference is Murray doesnt look at the bigger picture but simply goes with motions.

Yes, he has won won tour titles but just like Verdasco, Tsonga etc...I am sure he must be tired of Rafa saying in his charateristic response to beating him..'I believe he can win a grandslam and wish him luck in the rest of the season'.

When is it going to happen, not this wimbledon I can assure you!

When you say he can take Nadal on, I dont know what you mean? Like the way he did a few weeks ago in Roland Garros in straight sets? The big boys know when to shine, Andy cant handle them at the big stage and he knows it.

Pighead

KINGVictor wrote: »

Yes, he has won won tour titles but just like Verdasco, Tsonga etc...I am sure he must be tired of Rafa saying in his charateristic response to beating him..'I believe he can win a grandslam and wish him luck in the rest of the season'.

Ah now he's definitely a good few levels above Tsongs and Verdasco. Murray has been as high as number two in the world

KINGVictor wrote: »

When you say he can take Nadal on, I dont know what you mean? Like the way he did a few weeks ago in Roland Garros in straight sets? The big boys know when to shine, Andy cant handle them at the big stage and he knows it.

Nah, wouldn't agree with that. I actually thought Murray done ok against Nadal in the French Open Semis considering it's his worst surface and Nadals best. The match was extremely close until 5-5 in the second set. Back on grass I expect the match to be even closer again and there's no way Nadal wins in straight sets. And don't forget Murray has already beaten Rafa in both the US Open and the Australian Open before.

KINGVictor

Pighead wrote: »

Ah now he's definitely a good few levels above Tsongs and Verdasco. Murray has been as high as number two in the world



Nah, wouldn't agree with that. I actually thought Murray done ok against Nadal in the French Open Semis considering it's his worst surface and Nadals best. The match was extremely close until 5-5 in the second set. Back on grass I expect the match to be even closer again and there's no way Nadal wins in straight sets. And don't forget Murray has already beaten Rafa in both the US Open and the Australian Open before.

The hallmark of a true Tennis champion is the ability to play on all or most surfaces proficiently, so your postulation about loosing to Nadal in his worst surface is disingenious!

Nadal was weak on Grass and he trained hard to get better on it and the result? 2 wimbledon titles.

The mentality of the Nadals/ Rogers of this world is not to dwell on the past hence why they consistently punish Murray in big games- Murray had the chance twice to beat Nadal in 2007/2009 at the Wimbledon games but was unsuccessful. He even lost to Roddick in 2008.

I mentioned that Murray can't beat Nadal in a five set because that will be the likely case if they met in the Semis, not because he can't but simply because he lacks the character and he will be playing against someone who has phenomenal level of self confidence and perseverance that is not based on the crowd support or box antics.

Realistically, like I have opined before, Murray would be out before the Semis not because he is not good enough but due to his immaturity and lack of focus.

Slideshowbob

Pighead wrote: »

Wouldn't agree with that. John McEnroe used to be the same whoever he was playing and he managed to win himself a few grand slams. Nothing wrong with Murray getting himself gee'd up during a match in my opinion.

We're talking about a guy who has won 17 ATP tour titles here so it's obvious he can handle the big occasion. His poor results in his three grand slam finals have simply been down to the fact that his opponent has been that bit better than him. Nothing to do with his temperament. As I said earlier in the thread I think he has a real chance of making the final this year. I think he can take Nadal. Whether or not he'll beat Djokovic/Fed in the final is a different matter but I've a feeling he'll go close this year.

McEnroe was a different animal - for one he was likeable and endearing for all his failings. he also managed to win a few grand slams.

I admit I aint a big tennis fan but you cant compare ATP Tour titles to a grand slam event - I can barely think of the name of an ATP Tour event even!

If you feel so passionate about AM, head down the bookies - he is 4th favourite so you'll get good odds him for some strange reason :rolleyes:

Could AM not gee himself up without the vitriol?

They say don't sweat the small stuff - the trouble is Andy does. May not be his fault - moreso that of British expectation.

Pighead

KINGVictor wrote: »

The hallmark of a true Tennis champion is the ability to play on all or most surfaces proficiently, so your postulation about loosing to Nadal in his worst surface is disingenious! Nadal was weak on Grass and he trained hard to get better on it and the result? 2 wimbledon titles.

Woah! Hang on a second now. I'm not even suggesting that Murray will ever get near to the level that Nadal has shown over the past 7 or so years. I do think he has a slam or two in him but that's about it. No way is he ever gonna dominate the scene like Fed and Nadal have.

All I'm saying is that on his day he can beat Nadal and given that Nadal has slightly regressed over the last year (in my opinion) and Murray has become more consistent in the slams I feel this could be the year Murray finally reaches the Wimbledon final.

And there have been plenty of great players who weren't proficient on all surfaces. Lendl was a fantastic player yet never won Wimbledon. Connors, McEnroe and Sampras all legends of the game yet couldn't win in Paris.

KINGVictor wrote: »

I mentioned that Murray can't beat Nadal in a five set because that will be the likely case if they met in the Semis, not because he can't but simply because he lacks the character and he will be playing against someone who has phenomenal level of self confidence and perseverance that is not based on the crowd support or box antics.

Did you not read the bit where I said Murray has beaten Nadal already twice in Grand Slam tournaments?

KINGVictor wrote: »

Realistically, like I have opined before, Murray would be out before the Semis not because he is not good enough but due to his immaturity and lack of focus.

Don't really understand why you think he'll be out before the semis. He's reached the semi's here for the last two years, he's reached the final in Australia also for the past two years and is coming off the back of a Semi Final in Paris. That's ultra consistent.

Pighead

Slideshowbob wrote: »

McEnroe was a different animal - for one he was likeable and endearing for all his failings. he also managed to win a few grand slams.

I admit I aint a big tennis fan but you cant compare ATP Tour titles to a grand slam event - I can barely think of the name of an ATP Tour event even!

Whats his likeability factor got to do with anything? Some of the best sportsmen around are unlikeable fcukers. I din't really see how Andy Murray being a bit of a grump is connected to his quest to win a Slam.

Slideshowbob wrote: »

If you feel so passionate about AM, head down the bookies - he is 4th favourite so you'll get good odds him for some strange reason :rolleyes:

Worst use of a rolleyes ever! And there's been thousands of bad ones on boards over the years! If you read back, I've actually stated that I think Djokovic will win this year. I think Murray will beat Nadal but Djokovic will beat him just like he did in Australia. Murray Djokovic final is 6/1 which I have had a few quid on but no I won't be backing Murray.

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Could AM not gee himself up without the vitriol?

They say don't sweat the small stuff - the trouble is Andy does. May not be his fault - moreso that of British expectation.

It works for him. Let him at it I say. If that's what gets him going so be it.