• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Tennis thread

Leeds Spur said:
Agreed.

The main thing for Murray is winning one slam.

Because Novak and Roger have 19 slams between them they play without fear. Murray would brick his pants in a final with them.

He needs to play a novice finalist to get over the hump with a slam.
Click to expand...

Yep. I think the only way he'll win a slam is if the big guns are taken care of by somebody else.
 
Jurgen the German said:
Yep. I think the only way he'll win a slam is if the big guns are taken care of by somebody else.
Click to expand...

I think once he gets one he can compete on an even keel.

He has regular wins against the top 3 outside of the slams, he just chokes every time he gets to a final/semi against them as he fears losing more than he wants to win.

A dangerous combination.
 
Leeds Spur said:
I think once he gets one he can compete on an even keel.

He has regular wins against the top 3 outside of the slams, he just chokes every time he gets to a final/semi against them as he fears losing more than he wants to win.

A dangerous combination.
Click to expand...

He was unlucky not to beat Djokovic at the Aussie Open in the semis this year. He was more aggressive than he usually is. He couldn't have played any better, he just lost to a phenomal player.

You can be a tennis player, be ranked in the top 5 for most of your career, but you don't win a slam and people call you a failure. Yet you can be a golfer and go your entire career, which is twice or three times as long as a tennis career, not win a major and still be considered a great player. Not fair really is it?
 
Jurgen the German said:
He was unlucky not to beat Djokovic at the Aussie Open in the semis this year. He was more aggressive than he usually is. He couldn't have played any better, he just lost to a phenomal player.

You can be a tennis player, be ranked in the top 5 for most of your career, but you don't win a slam and people call you a failure. Yet you can be a golfer and go your entire career, which is twice or three times as long as a tennis career, not win a major and still be considered a great player. Not fair really is it?
Click to expand...

Not at all. And you get people like Korda and Johansson who won a slam but their careers can't touch Murrays. Is David Toms a better player than Montgomerie? Is he gonad*s.
 
Leeds Spur said:
Not at all. And you get people like Korda and Johansson who won a slam but their careers can't touch Murrays. Is David Toms a better player than Montgomerie? Is he gonad*s.
Click to expand...

But people in America consider Andy Roddingdong a flop because he only won 1 grand slam. He would have won more if Federer wasn't around. Tim Henman was viewed as a bottler and Murray is seen in a similar light because he simply can't beat players that are better than him.
 
He can though. He's beaten every player of his era multiple times. Just not in a slam. Do you understand my point about Korda and Johansson? Henman had an outstanding career, just not absolute top level. Murray already has 8 masters series titles. That's superb.
 
Cilic and Querrey are putting on a great tennis match, if this was Djokovic/Nadal people would be creaming
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back