Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Simi

Tennis

Recommended Posts

It's taken 7 minutes for Federer to win 3 games, looking very ominous indeed. At least Murray and Nadal shouldn't have to wait too long.

Federer is already 1-0 up. I was expecting it to be quite close .

Safin is 4-2 down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFS commentators (except McEnroe) and now the interviewer are getting on my tits

UK sport is one big FAT excuse!

All i'm waiting for now is Andy is still young...

Nadal: 22 years old and has won FOUR yes FOUR French Open titles in a row

He's tired because he was not good enough to beat Gasquet in straight sets, Nadal was good enough hence his rest plus extra fitness

Someone give these people a cup of coffee to smell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nadal: 22 years old and has been Pro since 2001 yes 2001. FOUR yes FOUR more years than Andy Murray.

So what has stopped Murray from being Pro since 2001? (2002 if you're going to measure him on age standards)

Nadal, Federer and to an extent Djokovic are in a class of their own.

The longer the hype over Murrary continues, the more the pressure will grow and the more likely a 'Mr Nearly' he will be.

As soon as Murrary went 2 sets to love down idiot Castle started with the excuses, I'm just glad McEnroe is there with a pair of balls to say the truth

Edited by Benji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh?

Murray wasn't good enough in 2001 to become a pro.

If your going to compare Nadal at his point of becoming pro, then Andy, being a year younger, would have been in 2002.

Yes, Murrary wasn't good enough, nor is he now so where you going with this?

My first point was a jab at the commentators on the BBC not Andy.

They spend their time justifying why he loses without actually saying he isn't good enough and there were two excuses in particular today:

1. fitness - this is no excuse, it's a credit to nadal for winning his previous match in less than 5 sets, plus nadal is fitter anyway, he's in better shape than anyone else on the tour by far

2. age - it's a UK mentality that young sportsmen cannot achieve; Nadal is simple proof that this is no excuse

Edited by Benji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your going to compare Nadal at his point of becoming pro, then Andy, being a year younger, would have been in 2002.

Yes, Murrary wasn't good enough, nor is he now so where you going with this?

My first point was a jab at the commentators on the BBC not Andy.

They spend their time justifying why he loses without actually saying he isn't good enough and there were two excuses in particular today:

1. fitness - this is no excuse, it's a credit to nadal for winning his previous match in less than 5 sets, plus nadal is fitter anyway, he's in better shape than anyone else on the tour by far

2. age - it's a UK mentality that young sportsmen cannot achieve; Nadal is simple proof that this is no excuse

I was stating facts.

I dont really care about your opinions on Andy Murray or Nadal, or whether Nadal is better or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...