Wimbledon 2008

[nffc]

Originally Posted by peanutkp

I for one hope he loses big time against Nedal. Murray is still too arrogant and cocky with no charisma at all. His younger brother is a much better example than he is.

Does he have a younger brother who plays, too? Jamie is older.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by peanutkp

Still doesn't change the way I feel about him, he's not the right role model for the sport (yet). And I wasn't disputing his ability on the court.

Henman just wasn't good enough, nothing to do with being nice etc. Murray is a bad loser, and don't have the right qualities to be a winner even if he does actually win the tournament.

I think there is a difference between not wanting/liking to lose and being a bad loser. I haven't seen Murray act or say anything ungracious in defeat. He doesn't like to lose, but thats what will eventually make him a winner?

Bad role model for the sport? He trains hard, he is focused on winning, he's a nice chap outside Tennis. Dont see anything wrong in that.

He definately has the right attitude to win a tournament. He is confident, a touch arrogant both attributes that can instill some fear/doubt in opponents, he is talented too. Did you see some of the shots he played yesterday?

As much as I like Nadal, - after yesterday's epic match I'd have no qualms with Murray beating him tomorrow. In fact I will be rooting for him tomorrow.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Perhaps arrogance and cockiness are what's needed in a winner?
After all diffidence and good manners didn't get Henman the ultimate prize.

For some people maybe - I don't recall Bjorn Borg or Roger Federer being cocky or arrogant. I think all Henman lacked on grass was the killer instinct.

[peanut]

Go Nad.

Looks like a Nadel and Federer final again, should be a very good match.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by peanutkp

I for one hope he loses big time against Nedal. Murray is still too arrogant and cocky with no charisma at all. His younger brother is a much better example than he is.

Older brother Other than that I agree, I don't like him one bit, all that 'anyone but England' crap and he wants us to support him pffft

[Osem]

What I want to know is in what sense paying the Williams sisters exactly the same as the the men is an example of equality? When the women have to play the best of 5 sets (or the men the best of 3) parity is warranted.

Originally Posted by Osem

What I want to know is in what sense paying the Williams sisters exactly the same as the the men is an example of equality? When the women have to play the best of 5 sets (or the men the best of 3) parity is warranted.

Are they doing that? Because your are right, it is not fair, and I am pretty sure that they could handle 5 set matchs. I am sure the playing 3 sets is itself a relic of sexism.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

Are they doing that? Because your are right, it is not fair, and I am pretty sure that they could handle 5 set matchs. I am sure the playing 3 sets is itself a relic of sexism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6385295.stm

Yes they are. If the women can't play up to 5 sets then IMO they don't deserve equal prize money on the grounds of equality. If they can play 5 sets then let them do so or reduce the men to best of 3.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by peanutkp

I for one hope he loses big time against Nedal.

I did think this after Murray lost...

Originally Posted by Osem

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6385295.stm

Yes they are. If the women can't play up to 5 sets then IMO they don't deserve equal prize money on the grounds of equality. If they can play 5 sets then let them do so or reduce the men to best of 3.

Yes, That is stupid.

5 set matchs mean the men have to work more, will feel greater physical stress post-match, and are at an increased risk of injury (because of their physical condition). The pay should reflect that.

[Osem]

Well so far as I can see anyone who accused the 'English' media of only bigging up their own got it completely wrong. Plenty of English (and other) pundits jumped on the Murray bandwagon after his thriller against Gasquet only to be shot down by a certain Spaniard.

---------- Post added at 00:26 ---------- Previous post was at 00:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes, That is stupid.

5 set matchs mean the men have to work more, will feel greater physical stress post-match, and are at an increased risk of injury (because of their physical condition). The pay should reflect that.

Well of course some still argue that the equality in pay simply reflects the equal entertainment value of the women's, albeit shorter, game. A relative procession to the final for the Williams sisters doesn't bear that out IMHO. I don't see how 5 sets of Nadal v. Federer can be equal in any way to 3 sets of Williams v. Williams.

Well of course some still argue that the equality in pay simply reflects the equal entertainment value of the women's, albeit shorter, game. A relative procession to the final for the Williams sisters doesn't bear that out IMHO. I don't see how 5 sets of Nadal v. Federer can be equal in any way to 3 sets of Williams v. Williams.

Well, it's not really a valid comparsion. I am sure they would be equal entertainment value if men did 3 sets as well. A 5 set match vs a 3 set match is not a huge difference unless the tennis is really good in the first place, then longer = better.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

then longer = better.

Hmmmm must remember NOT to tell my wife that

[nffc]

Well I guess we might well see 2 mens singles champions this year then...

Originally Posted by Osem

Hmmmm must remember NOT to tell my wife that

It's not the speed of your serve, it's the duration of the rally that makes it enjoyable.........