Wimblenod

beamer wrote:Not as boring as the era of Sampras and co, ace, double fault, ace, return into the net, oh I don't believe it, a 3 shot rally!

It does seem to have gone a bit too far the other way now though, it's all like clay court tennis. A bit of old fashioned serve-volley would be nice, just not at the expense of everything else.

Aye. I used to actually enjoy tennis as a spectator sport but it became such a robotic affair in the Sampras era. The last game of tennis that I think actually got excited about was Pat Cash playing Ivan Lendl in the Wimblenod Final in 1987. I thought the Aussie was a qunt (a role that Leyton Hewitt soon usurped) but he was in the form of his life in that match.

Actually, I'm being a little harsh. I did enjoy Pat Rafter's triumphs in latter years. And Sammy's effort in the US Open last year was grouse.

JGK wrote:I've just put 5 hunt on the Joker to beat Fed. Easy $200.

Obviously the Carbon Tax has'nt impacted on you yet.

And in other tennis news

Bob Hewitt allegations

taipan wrote:And in other tennis news

Bob Hewitt allegations

I've never heard of Bob Hewitt. Must be easier to get into the 'Hall of Fame' than i thought.

Big Dog wrote:

taipan wrote:And in other tennis news

Bob Hewitt allegations

I've never heard of Bob Hewitt. Must be easier to get into the 'Hall of Fame' than i thought.

Well he is an Aussie.

And I guess 15 GS doubles titles also helps.

Tennis' Roebuck? Well regarded, but nobody knows him and rape allegations.

tricycle wrote:Tennis' Roebuck? Well regarded, but nobody knows him and rape allegations.

Harsh on Roebuck, the allegations were made just after he died and they stank of someone wanting to make a quick buck off a recently deceased person who couldn't do anything to challenge them.

Azarenka shouldn't be allowed to make the ridiculous noise she makes. It isn't natural to scream like that, it's clear that the only reason she does it is to put her opponent off. What a nob.

Didn't Kiefer throw the racquet and put off Grosjean (or someone else) in a mental match a few years ago? And wasn't the point awarded, same could be done to these screamers, and there are a fair few around nowadays.

She's getting annihilated, thankfully.

so anyone rate Tim Henman's chances agaist Tsonga in the semi final?

Looks like Federer's gonna get himself another Wimbledon title this year. Two sets up to one, and 4-1 up in the fourth.

The mens game is so much better than the womens.

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Looks like Federer's gonna get himself another Wimbledon title this year. Two sets up to one, and 4-1 up in the fourth.

The mens game is so much better than the womens.

I still think he'll choke. Right now.

Or not. F*cking awesome.

vilkrang wrote:

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Looks like Federer's gonna get himself another Wimbledon title this year. Two sets up to one, and 4-1 up in the fourth.

The mens game is so much better than the womens.

I still think he'll choke. Right now.

He's only half South African

Good match. Djokovic looked powerless in the third and fourth. Would be good to see Federer beat Murray in the final.

Brilliant stuff from Fed.

Watch him choke in the final now.

Murray way too good for Tsonga at the moment.

Well, it was looking a bit too easy for Murray.

I want him to win but only because I think Fed has a better chance against him in the final.

Murray looking timid in the third set.

Why does he go into his shell every game. No chance against Fed.

Challenging on match point, that was awesome haha.

Now then Fed, annihilate this jock and the hopes of a nation, please.

Not a chance Murray will beat Federer in a final on centre court. Fed was just about back to his best yesterday.

I should add that either way, it will be a great story. Murray obviously because he'll be the first British player in 1957 years or whatever to won a grand slam, and Federer because most people had written him off as a force.

Henry wrote:Not a chance Murray will beat Federer in a final on centre court. Fed was just about back to his best yesterday.

I'm off to put some money on Murray.

Henry wrote:I should add that either way, it will be a great story. Murray obviously because he'll be the first British player in 1957 years or whatever to won a grand slam, and Federer because most people had written him off as a force.

Jaysus, I didn't realise it had been that long.