Wimbledon 2014 - June 23rd to July 6th

[BlueBee]

Shyte happens! I've been hating this joker since he won his first slam, and now he wns his 2nd that too by beating fedex :mad:

[Muloghonto]

Oh and roddick was a one slam wonder coz of federer. He'd have won 2 more slams against anyone. Roddick of 09 for eg would have crushed murray, nadal,djokovic and all else. Only federer could've stopped him and he did. Djokovic is not a good enough mover on grass and nadal not good enpugh a server to've survived roddick that day. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[Raghav_12]

Oh and roddick was a one slam wonder coz of federer. He'd have won 2 more slams against anyone. Roddick of 09 for eg would have crushed murray, nadal,djokovic and all else. Only federer could've stopped him and he did. Djokovic is not a good enough mover on grass and nadal not good enpugh a server to've survived roddick that day. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

That's why Roddick continued to be number 2 after emergence of Nadal, Djoko and Murray.:haha::haha:

[Muloghonto]

That's why Roddick continued to be number 2 after emergence of Nadal' date=' Djoko and Murray.:haha::haha:[/quote'] Err because Roddick is not a longetivity freak like Federer. Incase you didn't notice, for 95% of tennis players, 21-26 is their peak, after which they start declining, some precipitously. Roddick is of Federer's generation, he played some of his best tennis when Nadal and Djokovic were nobody kids. He is obviously not a good enough player in the Nadal-Djokovic bracket but against a non-Federer field, he'd have won more than just one slam. I noted, for eg, a match Roddick played and lost that he only lost exclusively due to Federer being at his physical peak and playing his top tennis, which is the most complete game ever witnessed. Had he played against any other opposition- Sampras included- Roddick would've killed them that day in 09. Thats the thing about being the best ever- if you are best ever, then by default you are the best ever by making everyone else look mediocre. Federer at his peak did that.

[zep1706]

Sigh. Idiots should know that points being differently weighed made the decisive difference. 90s 2 gs equals 3.5-4 atp next tier as opposed to simple 2:1 ratio today along with proliferation of masters 1000 tourneys as opposed to the 90s mean that gs results counted more back then. As my initial assessment was. But I dont expect kids with minimal comprehension of tennis to analyze the results. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

Go and learn math dumbass. :hysterical: 2 grand slams still equals to 4 ATP 1000 moron, the same as 90s. Everyone but stupid dishonest nincompoops like you can see this simple arithmetic. And there is no proliferation. there were 9 super 9s then and now there are 9 ATP 1000s.

[Muloghonto]

Go and learn math dumbass. :hysterical:

Go learn some equations. of 4x + 10y= R where R be ranking points and where x=2y makes x a lot less valuable for R than 4x+ 5y =R where X= 1.88y Or is that too much for you to comprehend ? PS: Whatever happened to your self proclaimed self restraint in never responding to me ?

[zep1706]

When a dog keeps licking your feet at some point you get annoyed and kick it. 750/2= 375. Super 9s were 370-400 then 2000/2= 1000. ATP 1000 are 1000 now. Go back to primary school.

[Muloghonto]

Go and learn math dumbass. :hysterical: 2 grand slams still equals to 4 ATP 1000 moron, the same as 90s. Everyone but stupid dishonest nincompoops like you can see this simple arithmetic. And there is no proliferation. there were 9 super 9s then and now there are 9 ATP 1000s.

proliferation of homogenious surfaces. Super 9s of 90s existed in 3 distinct segments. Clay, Grass and HC. True, Grass by 90s did not have the same share as HC but was not so far behind clay today. Grass and clay are the two polar diametric sides, which means, in the 90s, the same amount of toournament yielded, if you are not Federer, less tournaments to make up the point differential potential from GS. Therefore, GS in the 90s= more important, as reflected by runaway ratings of some players who have typical 2-3 masters a year and 1 GS win + 1 GS finals apperance as opposed to today, where such runaway stats require SF or better in atleast 3 of 4 GS. Simple fact is, you are too young to've seen or understood tennis of the late 80s/90s and as such, suffer from a typical youngster's ignorant trait of rushing to a judgement about an era you are too young to've watched. Therefore, you should just stop trying to talk about shyte you do not know. Or that may be too much for your young and fragile ego to handle, eh ?

[Muloghonto]

When a dog keeps licking your feet at some point you get annoyed and kick it. 750/2= 375. Super 9s were 370-400 then 2000/2= 1000. ATP 1000 are 1000 now. Go back to primary school.

But when the man proclaims to ignore the dog and then yet kick it again and again after saying he is ignorning the dog, it means only one thing: man says shyte that he cannot be held accountable to. AKA, man says shyte. man who is proven to say shyte he does not mean should keep his mouth shut, no ? again, kiddo, i ask you. Do some math. Determine the value of x in relation to R, in these two sets of equations; a) 4x+10y = R, x=2y b) 4x + 5y = R. x = 1.88y Should be easy for you, no ?

[zep1706]

Now when you lose the argument on math let's try to digress it. :hysterical:

[Muloghonto]

Now when you lose the argument on math let's try to digress it. :hysterical:

The kid who does not even understand the equation is proclaiming verdict on math win/loss. Ironic. Perhaps you did not progress beyond simple arithmetic, which is why you are stuck in the 750/400 vs 2000/1000 mode. I will let you be, as algebra is clearly a step too far for you to understand. :cantstop:

[zep1706]

Another fact check for the resident moron. There were no super 9 on grass in the 1990s. Each and every statement of the dumbass contains a factual error. :cantstop: The distribution was exactly the same as today. 6 on hard courts (included carpet too in the 90s), 3 on clay.

[zep1706]

Gotta love the fact that there exists idiots in this world who would write long posts basing the whole argument on some complete lie. You write a whole 2 para reply, arguing how super 9 on grass and clay were so different in the 1990s whereas the fact is there was no super 9 on grass in the first place, just like today. :hysterical: A few days ago the same idiot was arguing how Nadal must be doping basing his accusations on Nadal's knee surgery, which never happened. :hysterical: Seriously there should be a limit of dishonesty, especially when you are posting on a public forum. I am done with this moron for good. Straight to ignore list. I have put him once before but now there is no doubt that he is a liar of the highest order. Well too bad you can't fool everyone.

[Old guy]

Calm down everyone..

[kumar713]

Congrats Djoker

[Sachin=GOD]

The Ultimate Wimbledon Insider: Mike Dickson talks to retired Wimbledon locker room attendant Doug Dickson

it was that he was the first person to encounter the new champion when he stepped off Centre Court on that heady afternoon 12 months ago. ‘The first thing Andy said to me was “Don’t I get a hug then?” so I gave him a hug. But I just couldn’t speak, I was too choked up for him,’ says Dickson. It tells you something about Murray’s true character that the following Friday, Dickson’s last day at work, the champion went back to the All England Club to say goodbye, presenting him with a signed racket he used in the final. ‘It is my most treasured possession but that’s the kind of bloke Andy is and maybe people don’t always see,’ says Dickson. ‘He is basically a very kind and thoughtful person, with a great sense of humour, too.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2664683/The-Ultimate-Wimbledon-Insider-How-I-stopped-half-naked-Jimmy-Connors-running-Royal-Box.html#ixzz36qpxQAin

[Bleed-Blue]

Calm down everyone..

++ You tennis fans like your heated debates

[Sachin=GOD]

++ You tennis fans like your heated debates

You ain't seen the politics section yet...

[Muloghonto]

Another fact check for the resident moron. There were no super 9 on grass in the 1990s. Each and every statement of the dumbass contains a factual error. :cantstop: The distribution was exactly the same as today. 6 on hard courts (included carpet too in the 90s), 3 on clay.

Kids who are too new to remember what carpet played like would do well to remember it is even faster and skiddier tham grass. As such, the clay-grass disparity is even more pronounced in clay vs carpet. As a result, previous point still stands. Except for agassi, nobody else had a realistic chance to win at all super 9s, because big serving volleyers had little chance on clay and tge clay masters had no chance on carpet. Therefore, it made points earned at gs more valuable. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[Dil Dil India]

Look no one is arguing that Roddick and Safin were better players than Nadal and Djokovic, that is not in question (of course Roddick circa 2003-2004 on grass is a far from straightforward prospect but we'll let that slide). Firstly, the problem is we're ever ready to point out Federer would have struggled to hold on to that number one spot for as long as he did if he played in this supposedly strong era. While that looks all fine and dandy, it is a superficial argument that lacks substance when you consider: 1)It is all hypothetical This is the biggest problem with the argument. How do we know what would or could have happened? In life, there are no certainties except death and taxes. The Nadal fans love to trumpet the H2H record against Federer but NEVER mention his own inferior H2H record against Davdenko or Roddick (yes Federer's whipping boy) holding a superior H2H record against Djokovic. Yes, I see the counter arguments already so I'll get to my second point. 2)Accounting for only the peaks of Nadal and Djokovic This is another big flaw with the reasoning. We are happy enough to try and pick holes in Federer's number 1 ranking record but we don't factor that to make the argument objective we should also factor in that Federer would have eaten into the number of weeks of Djokovic and Nadal had he peaked at the same time as those two. Consider this : we don't know if Nadal and Djokovic could have usurped Federer from the number 1 spot at his peak(indeed Nadal was second best for ages despite winning his first slam in 2005 itself), but we do know that a 31 year old Federer moved past both Djokovic and Nadal in 2012 (who had their respective best years in 2011 and 2010) to claim the number 1 ranking. Who benefited more then? As aforementioned, add up both Nadal's and Djokovich's tallies and they are still short by a long, long way. They won't beat Federer COMBINED by too much (if at all) as far as that record goes, that is for certain. 3)You could use hypothetical arguments to weaken any player's case Starting from a certain Donald Bradman, you could use all sorts of arguments to weaken any player's case. I am almost certain that Nadal would have struggled on faster Wimbledon and Australian Open Courts, there is no doubt in my mind about that. The fact that he has 'only' 5 non clay slams even now seems to strengthen my case. Do I then use it to say Nadal has been lucky he has been part of this era? Would have he won Wimbledon by beating Sampras on grass in the late 90s? I don't know. It is fascinating to debate ifs and buts but in the end it is what it is. Just for the sake of it, IMO if the peaks of Nadal, Federer and Djokvic had directly coincided say for a 4 year period, the results would be : Aus Open - 3 Djokovic, 1 Federer French Open - 4 Nadal Wimbledon - 4 Federer US Open - tough I would go 2 Djokovic, 1 Federer, 1 Nadal Of course it may seem like I deliberately gave Federer one extra slam but it is my honest opinion, someone else's could differ. Of course the above would also depend on who faces whom. At their absolute peaks....I would back Federer to win more against Djokovic than lose, Djokovic to do the same against Nadal and Nadal to do the same against Federer....in fact this happened circa 2011 when grandpa Fed stopped Novak in God mode but couldn't beat Nadal as usual. All said and done, we are lucky to have witnessed 3 of the best tennis players of this era. Here's hoping for more.