Re: The Wimbledon Thread

by Chandan Mon 07 Jul 2008, 08:47

Dark day yesterday for me!!! Sad

Federer lost his crown at Wimbledon and India lost yet another final of an ODI competition.

by Zat Mon 07 Jul 2008, 08:48

India lost yet another final of an ODI competition.

And this surprised you?

by skully Mon 07 Jul 2008, 09:13

Watched this match until 2.00 am. For me, a non-tennis fan, that was sumpent.

by Zat Mon 07 Jul 2008, 09:19

Caught the end from 0500 meself.

by Hass Mon 07 Jul 2008, 11:39

skully wrote:Watched this match until 2.00 am. For me, a non-tennis fan, that was sumpent.

You missed the really good bit though.

The fourth and fifth sets was when the whole thing started to get going. Had you stayed up till 6:30 am you might have become a tennis fan on the spot!

by WideWally Mon 07 Jul 2008, 11:44

Chandan wrote:Dark day yesterday for me!!!

Federer lost his crown at Wimbledon and India lost yet another final of an ODI competition.

But it was a great day for us Spaniards.
Nadal winning Wimbledon just after Spain won Euro2008 & Alejandro Valverde currently has the Yellow Jersey in the Tour de France.

by taipan Mon 07 Jul 2008, 11:47

Chandan wrote:
Federer lost his crown at Wimbledon and India lost yet another final of an ODI competition.

Some might say that Federer was the shock result.

by Chivalry Augustus Mon 07 Jul 2008, 12:02

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:
PeterCS wrote:
Augustus wrote:
...
Might I also add that I cheered Nadal on as if he were an Englishman. I've no idea why, I just like the guy. There's a purely heterosexual appreciation of his physique and Meditteranean attractiveness somewhere therein.

The gentleman doth protest too much methinks ... ?

I hear ya Pete. Oop north in Yorkshire, long haired tanned men wearing vests and head scarves that grunt like squealing pigs when they hit a tennis ball are considered to be nowt but shandy drinking poofs. Imo that there Robin Hood bloke in his green tights has got a lot to answer for.

I'd love to see one of your Yok-sheer fellows get off his fat, beer-swilling arse and do the many miles that Rafa has before you call anybody a poof, m'duck. You lot always like to criticise people for doing something that you know is good but that you can't be arsed to do yourself. Look at the miners...

by holcs Mon 07 Jul 2008, 12:09

Great game of tennis. Some of those passing shots by both players were breathtaking.

Also shows how a strong mental ability can overcome the biggest of disappointments. Nadal losing that 4th set TB, I thought it was all over, and then to keep serving to save the match, whilst absolutely killing Fed's serve and not quite breaking was tension at its best.

I had become very apathetic about Wimbledon, but this match was awesome!

by taipan Mon 07 Jul 2008, 12:11

Yep, up with Borg/McEnroe.

by holcs Mon 07 Jul 2008, 12:13

taipan wrote:Yep, up with Borg/McEnroe.

How Nadal and Federer pull out those two passing shots.... Nadal's was just outrageous in the 4th set TB is beyond me!

by taipan Mon 07 Jul 2008, 12:18

Red wrote:
JGK wrote:

Laver was obviously quite freakish with 2 Grand Slams.

Granted but in those days all touraments in the slam were played on grass save the French Open.

And missed arguably the best 5 years of his career,

by Paul Keating Mon 07 Jul 2008, 12:19

Red wrote:
embee wrote:Did the Williams' sisters give you a knockback too Red?

No, it's a view I've held for a very long time.

It also confounds me how women don't expect to compete against the men. In any other walk of life they would be mortified if we were divided into separate engineers, doctors etc. yet suddenly want separate competitions for sport. It's a bit of a joke that number 100+ man in the world has to scrape a living while a woman he can thrash earns millions.

It's also a joke that women say they want to be taken seriously for their tennis yet the likes of Ashley Harkleroad and Ana Ivanobitch strip for as much money as they can. Not to mention Anna K. raking in millions, based on her image but never winning a tournament.

Red,

Have you read the points of view from forummers regarding this subject earlier in this thread. I like to hear your responses to them.

by Paul Keating Mon 07 Jul 2008, 12:23

PlanetPakistan wrote:wasn't it '89(Chang match)?

Paul,

RE Lendle i think you mean wimbledon because he won a few French open titles.

Mcenroe never won the French(lost to Lendle after being 2 sets up in the final of '84)

Thanks, I meant Wimbledon for Lendl.

Such a shame he didn't win. The man was simply a machine.

This final had a very similar scorecard to the 2001 final between Rafter and Goran Idon'tknowhowtospellhisnameavic.

That was my favourite final, for two reasons. There was a parochial crowd with lots of Aussies against the Croatians and it was Goran's destiny to win the slam after he had suffered so much in the past, and plus many of his personalities were on display. Although the quality of tennis in that game was a bit poor.

by PearlJ Mon 07 Jul 2008, 12:26

Paul Keating wrote:
PlanetPakistan wrote:wasn't it '89(Chang match)?

Paul,

RE Lendle i think you mean wimbledon because he won a few French open titles.

Mcenroe never won the French(lost to Lendle after being 2 sets up in the final of '84)

Thanks, I meant Wimbledon for Lendl.

Such a shame he didn't win. The man was simply a machine.

This final had a very similar scorecard to the 2001 final between Rafter and Goran Idon'tknowhowtospellhisnameavic.

That was my favourite final, for two reasons. There was a parochial crowd with lots of Aussies against the Croatians and it was Goran's destiny to win the slam after he had suffered so much in the past, and plus many of his personalities were on display. Although the quality of tennis in that game was a bit poor.

But Rafter didn't win. Sad

by ten years after Mon 07 Jul 2008, 13:30

Red wrote:

It's a bit of a joke that number 100+ man in the world has to scrape a living while a woman he can thrash earns millions.

Bit of an insult to the billions of people who really do have to scrape a living.

by taipan Mon 07 Jul 2008, 13:36

And some women like being thrashed.

by ten years after Mon 07 Jul 2008, 13:43

Unfortunately, only a tiny proportion of those it happens to.

by Red Mon 07 Jul 2008, 13:57

Paul Keating wrote:
Red wrote:
embee wrote:Did the Williams' sisters give you a knockback too Red?

No, it's a view I've held for a very long time.

It also confounds me how women don't expect to compete against the men. In any other walk of life they would be mortified if we were divided into separate engineers, doctors etc. yet suddenly want separate competitions for sport. It's a bit of a joke that number 100+ man in the world has to scrape a living while a woman he can thrash earns millions.

It's also a joke that women say they want to be taken seriously for their tennis yet the likes of Ashley Harkleroad and Ana Ivanobitch strip for as much money as they can. Not to mention Anna K. raking in millions, based on her image but never winning a tournament.

Red,

Have you read the points of view from forummers regarding this subject earlier in this thread. I like to hear your responses to them.

I haven't the time to read all of them but apropos a few. From my understanding, especially in respect of the Aussie Open, the men's matches attract more patronage and there's a greater demand for centre court tickets when the men, especially the top men are involved. In fact a few of the officials have commented that men's and women's tournaments were originally combined because the women's ones were difficult to sell. Their matches apparently attract a larger audience when they're part of a combined tournament. Thus it's hard to ascertain whether or not they should deserve equal prizemoney playing shorter matches just because they may at times, attract big crowds for matches.

I can't think of any other profession or workplace where workers would be prepared to accept the same money as fellow workers when it's stated explicitly beforehand that their workmates will be toiling for potentially a lot less time. Surely the women have to agree to best of five before they demand equal pay. Steffi Graf once suggested that she doubted most of the women were fit enough to endure the longer matches.

Some critics have also argued that the public would not tolerate five setters from the women if they quality (which is dubious for a lot of matches anyway), radically dropped off if they were forced to play up to five sets.

The contrast between the Williams sisters' final and the Federer/Nadal one couldn't have been starker though. How many viewers who watched both would rate the former as superior? How many would rate it as at least equal value for money?

Additionally over the course of the two weeks, the men generally face stiffer opposition with the greater depth in their draw and endure quite often, a series of very long matches. Some of the women get off the court in under an hour barely raising a sweat.

In the Australian Open over recent years, there have been many comments alluding to the fact that quite a few of the female players were overweight and out of condition. Some of these actually won matches. You rarely see male players who don't look particularly athletic.

It's also amazing that while the males hit the ball a lot harder, quite often their rallies go a lot longer. It's a fallacy, but one often mentioned that women's tennis is at least as good to watch because of the longer rallies. With fewer men now coming to the net and being traditional serve and volley exponents, this is no longer the case and most men's matches feature long rallies at high pace. In contrast women's matches are commonly error-ridden with lots of double faults, despite the often glacial pace of the second serve and the groundstrokes are nowhere near as pacy.

by tac Mon 07 Jul 2008, 14:02

by taipan Mon 07 Jul 2008, 14:16

tac wrote:oops

Post under wrong name?

by PeterCS Mon 07 Jul 2008, 14:18

So what's goin' on?

by Henry Tue 08 Jul 2008, 11:15

So, should Nadal now be considered a superior player to Federer, based on the fact that as a supposed clay court specialist, he has now won Wimbledon, whereas Federer still hasn't won the French Open?

by Hass Tue 08 Jul 2008, 12:51

Henry wrote:So, should Nadal now be considered a superior player to Federer, based on the fact that as a supposed clay court specialist, he has now won Wimbledon, whereas Federer still hasn't won the French Open?

Talk to me when Nadal wins the US or the Australian. He's still missing a surface from his resume.

by PlanetPakistan Tue 08 Jul 2008, 17:45

Henry wrote:So, should Nadal now be considered a superior player to Federer, based on the fact that as a supposed clay court specialist, he has now won Wimbledon, whereas Federer still hasn't won the French Open?

Nadal is now the number 1 players in the world!

Overall Fed is better as he has had a LOT more success in his career.

by Sponsored content