shaun.lawson Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Predicitons for the semi final, Fed to won 3-0, Murray to win 3-1 Looks about right to me: I imagine those set scores are what the bookies will favour too. Murray certainly should beat Roddick, and would win at least seven out of ten times on grass between the two - but it's no certainty, and could turn into a real thriller. I'd never previously supported Roddick as much as I just did. He's growing on me as he gets older - and, warrior spirit notwithstanding, I still think Hewitt's a ******, as I pretty much always have. GIRUY, "Fanatics". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 p.S Im glad I've lost all these 5'ers on Murray, he's looking pretty formidable at the moment. He will take care of Roddick, no doubt. Bet he drop shots one of Roddick's first serve's. Any takers. I admire your betting and the luck it seems to have brought to Murray. Should he go all the way on the back of this, I will hunt you down and buy you beer! As for your second bet - you should keep your money for the final very out of order, well beyond board rules in my eyes. once again anybody that has an opinion other than 'the majority' is not welcome, how boring your puny little hobo kissing world must be. I fail to see how it's out of order but noted that it's 'in your eyes' and we're all aware that your view of the board rules, especially the trolling one, is quite skewed. I have a fantastic world, thanks. It's full of a wide variety of people able to argue cases and enter into witty repartee and badinage without carrying enormous chips on their shoulder. It's also got some right erseholes in it as well and I tolerate them. It's also got you in it. A victory for correct hat etiquette. Strawberry Muncher!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 nobody that miserable and dour will ever win a BIG cup. Plum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vulture Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I still think Hewitt's a ******, as I pretty much always have. GIRUY, "Fanatics". Didn't like Hewitt much in his youth, have admired the way in which he has performed in this championship and never given up. What made me change my mind about him was how gracious in defeat he was after Safin beat him in the Aussie Open final. His run upto this stage of the tournament reminded me a bit of Goran's run when he won the championship, being unseeded and all that, albeit it didn't end that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Didn't like Hewitt much in his youth, have admired the way in which he has performed in this championship and never given up. What made me change my mind about him was how gracious in defeat he was after Safin beat him in the Aussie Open final. His run upto this stage of the tournament reminded me a bit of Goran's run when he won the championship, being unseeded and all that, albeit it didn't end that way. Yes, very fair point. Thing is though, he'd been a ****** throughout that run too! It's always subjective, mind you: however much I loved Goran and was almost in tears when he finally did it, he also called a linesman an (American slang word for homosexual) during the final, and had an appalling tantrum when foot faulted during the fourth set. He was certainly no angel - but then, with all tennis players, it's ultimately all about passion. And both Ivanisevic and Hewitt have been fantastic examples of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 very out of order, well beyond board rules in my eyes. once again anybody that has an opinion other than 'the majority' is not welcome, how boring your puny little hobo kissing world must be. Calm down. It's not as if he's just criticised your curtains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Plum. You'd be miserable if you had horizontal genitalia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 You'd be miserable if you had horizontal genitalia! Weren't they a French jazz funk band? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 You'd be miserable if you had horizontal genitalia! You looked, You looked, nya-na-ni-na-nah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Bapswent Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Hewitt's fans are really, really getting on my thrupennies. I agree. I much prefer a neutral crowd who turn up when they feel like it and get behind the one who is winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Tolbooth Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Murray was superb today, he did everything correct today that he didn't do on Monday night. I reckon he'lll beat Roddick 3-1, and Federer will beat Haas 3-0 Then I reckon Federer will win the final 3-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Hewitt-Roddick was immense. Everything you could have possibly wanted, plus a real bonus for Murray. Looking at the quarter final line up, it's great to see so many older players doing well. Especially considering how much people have talked about the younger players. I'm just annoyed that Haas didn't beat Djokovic in five sets because otherwise my predictions would have been right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitster Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Hewitt-Roddick was immense. Everything you could have possibly wanted, plus a real bonus for Murray. Looking at the quarter final line up, it's great to see so many older players doing well. Especially considering how much people have talked about the younger players. I'm just annoyed that Haas didn't beat Djokovic in five sets because otherwise my predictions would have been right Och stop being such an anorak Martin..it doesn't suit ya! If you carry on I shall feel obliged to source one for you from the half built and deliver it to your door!!! proper Falkirk colours and everything!! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 You looked,You looked, nya-na-ni-na-nah! Hard to avoid as Lendl would always **** up his Wimbledon chances in a sideways manner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Och stop being such an anorak Martin..it doesn't suit ya! If you carry on I shall feel obliged to source one for you from the half built and deliver it to your door!!! proper Falkirk colours and everything!! lol That might be quite good, I've always wanted to burn something associated with Falkirk I just dare you to go into the Falkirk shop for one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
this_is_my_story Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Bad luck Kitster. It was only the end of the first set and then when he was broken at the start of the second where you'd have got towards the edge of your seat. Good, solid and efficient performance with some quite brilliant shots thrown in. It'll be on the iPlayer soon. Didn't see whether there were any good shots of shoogly jugs, though. I was on the phone to a mate who lives round the corner from where AM has just bought a house and he came out with the same "Murray hates us English so I'm going to go and spray his fence" stuff. A real shame that that conversation (Murray's, not my mate's) was twisted by the media. Murray had spent 5-10 minutes taking all sorts of s41te from English journalists about Scotland having failed to qualify and his reply, totally tongue-in-cheek (and in kind as well) was to say he'd support "anyone but England". He wasn't thinking about much but just got roped in by the 'banter'. He must have found a particularly good ^^^^ to suck. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he did once say that he wouldn't talk about Murray until he got "pumped out of Wimbledon." Clearly the guy's incapable of talking about any other tennis related subject but doesn't his absence make the board go so much better? From what I've gathered, your assessment comes across as being pretty accurate there. Seems like it was seized upon, and blown out of proportion by certain sections of the media - apparently, the chap that AM offered the "Anyone but England" quote to was someone with whom he had a good working relationship, and had played a part in an on-going joke between the two. For what it's worth, I've never found AM the easiest of sportsmen to warm to - yet, the longer this tournament progresses, the harder I'm finding it not to want to see him go all the way. If he does reach the final though, I can't help but feel that R-Fed (if indeed he does reach the final himself) will be a step too far for him... and to be honest, I'd also love to see Roger win his 6th Wimbledon, regardless of the fact that some may feel such a victory may be 'cheapened' by Nadal's absence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsmak Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Why is everyone predicting Federer will beat Haas 3-0... I don' think it will be that simple. I think it will go to 5 sets. Haas have been playing very very well this last couple weeks. I think Fed will win it, but Haas will scare him. As for Murray, it depends on which side of him turns up, if he plays like yesterday, its a 3 set easy win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Why is everyone predicting Federer will beat Haas 3-0... I don' think it will be that simple. I think it will go to 5 sets. Haas have been playing very very well this last couple weeks. I think Fed will win it, but Haas will scare him. As for Murray, it depends on which side of him turns up, if he plays like yesterday, its a 3 set easy win. Fed's been untouchable while it seems that Haas is on a freak run of form that's got to come to an end somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavsy Van Gaverson Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Federer and Murray to both win in 4 sets. Federer will win, but I can see Haas pushing him close. Haas is playing great tennis at the moment and was very unlucky not to beat Federer at the French Open. Roddick doesn't have the game to hurt Murray. Murray has always been able to read Roddick's serve, taking away his only major weapon. This also allows Murray to get into rallies which he then dominates. If Murray then serves well it doesn't give much of a chance to Roddick. Roddick may win a set but probably on a tie break. Federer v Murray final............. history in the making Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I agree. I much prefer a neutral crowd who turn up when they feel like it and get behind the one who is winning. Before Murray got good, did you ever actually watch much of Wimbledon yourself? Because no Wimbledon crowd has ever been guilty of "just getting behind the one who was winning". Actually, in cases of non-British interest, they often get behind the one who is losing, in order to get a good, long match: and in 1999, there was even a case of them supporting a British guy's opponent - when Boris Becker trailed Miles Maclagan by two sets, yet the crowd willed him back into it, and on to victory in his final ever Wimbledon. Becker = legend. Maclagan = journeyman. Seems fair enough to me. The problem I had with Hewitt's fans wasn't that they were partisan. It's that they were nauseating; not least when they made such a racket after a first serve fault by Roddick on set point against him yesterday that Roddick had to delay, yet no let was called by the umpire. That's not support. That's cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denny Crane Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I remember that. English crowd cheering on German to beat Scotsman - hence the debate on whether middle England should back Murray or not hasn't surprised me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo83 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Anyone know what time Murray's game is tomorrow? Not had the chance to watch any of his games so far. Just laughed at a certain poster's comment a couple of pages ago saying he wouldn't be in the Semi. Ha Ha!! Good call Sherlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 :qqb017:Actually been a surprisingly good first semi final in the womens tennis. Dementieva deserves to win - but you just know she won't!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkn_Munky_Nat Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Murray for the final, Roddick will ****** it up hopefully! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 :qqb017:Actually been a surprisingly good first semi final in the womens tennis. Dementieva deserves to win - but you just know she won't!! Just shows you the difference between men and womens though. They are both about to die after 3 sets FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Bollocks. Bollocks bollocks bollocks. What a shag disaster. I'd probably feel even more sorry for Dementieva if she wasn't such a space cadet. 40-15 up on her own serve, and she's getting on herself! You knew she'd never hold on to the early break in the third set either: the only way she could've won that match was by breaking Serena's serve, and not serving it out herself. Tell you what though: she was inches away, inches. All the breaks seemed to go for Serena - but maybe you make your own luck, I dunno. Great to actually get a proper match in the women's tournament at last - now, can Safina draw a bit of inspiration against Venus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 How can the world number 1 at her sport be so chubby?! Safina honestly looks about a stone overweight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Theres nobody there! Its another reason why the woman should'nt get anywhere near as much prize money as the men. Nobody is actually that bothered which Williams sister wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 How can the world number 1 at her sport be so chubby?! Safina honestly looks about a stone overweight. Too right. Of course, she's not really number one in reality: she's number three at a push, and has benefited from Henin retiring, and Sharapova, Ivanovic and Mauresmo struggling. Meanwhile, Centre Court's barely 20% full! It's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Sexington Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 It's daylight robbery that the women earn the same as men. It genuinely is scandalous. Make them play 5 sets if they want the same dosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interista Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 It's daylight robbery that the women earn the same as men. It genuinely is scandalous. Make them play 5 sets if they want the same dosh. No thanks. Who the hell would want to endure longer, tedious women's matches taking up even more court time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 It's daylight robbery that the women earn the same as men. It genuinely is scandalous. Make them play 5 sets if they want the same dosh. The alternative argument, one favoured more and more in the US and justifiable on the basis of how many male players get injured is to reduce at least the first week of Grand Slams to three sets on both sides. I'd hate it to happen, but in a world in which Test matches seem about to be reduced to four days and Twenty20 has revolutionised cricket, it's probably inevitable before much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Sexington Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 No thanks. Who the hell would want to endure longer, tedious women's matches taking up even more court time? Agreed. Half the time an extra set would only last 15 minutes anyway, as one of the Williams sisters pummels some no-mark 6-0. Woman's tennis reeks. FACT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Sexington Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 The alternative argument, one favoured more and more in the US and justifiable on the basis of how many male players get injured is to reduce at least the first week of Grand Slams to three sets on both sides. I'd hate it to happen, but in a world in which Test matches seem about to be reduced to four days and Twenty20 has revolutionised cricket, it's probably inevitable before much longer. I would simply let them play in separate tournaments. They should be banned from stinking up the Grand Slams with their inferior product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 The alternative argument, one favoured more and more in the US and justifiable on the basis of how many male players get injured is to reduce at least the first week of Grand Slams to three sets on both sides. I'd hate it to happen, but in a world in which Test matches seem about to be reduced to four days and Twenty20 has revolutionised cricket, it's probably inevitable before much longer. Never. It happened in cricket because the long test form of cricket was/is dying a death and making it faster and more exciting for fans. Tennis is becoming more popular than ever. Record crowds at Wimbledon this fortnight highlight this. There is absolutely no way this should be changed and I would strongly refute your point and state that it is anything but inevitable that the 5 set Grand Slams will be altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Never. It happened in cricket because the long test form of cricket was/is dying a death and making it faster and more exciting for fans. Tennis is becoming more popular than ever. Record crowds at Wimbledon this fortnight highlight this. There is absolutely no way this should be changed and I would strongly refute your point and state that it is anything but inevitable that the 5 set Grand Slams will be altered. American TV are pushing calls for change - and with American TV come big bucks. The amount of players breaking down in what is simply too long and gruelling a season cannot be ignored either. Tennis is tremendously popular globally at present - because of Federer and Nadal. Take Nadal out of the equation, and the men's side is still very competitive, but maybe not quite as much as was thought. These things are cyclical too: Wimbledon changed the kind of grass it used in 2002 because, for a good decade prior to that, men's tennis had become more and more unwatchable. I saw Sampras play on the first day in 2000 - and it was like trying to pick out a tracer bullet. There were no rallies, no nothing; with the Rafter-Agassi semi that year hailed because it was so refreshing. Now, that kind of tennis has become the norm, but things will shift back in time. They always do, as in all sports really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I would simply let them play in separate tournaments. They should be banned from stinking up the Grand Slams with their inferior product. It does wind me up that, on the BBC, I've never heard Tracy Austin say one word out of turn about the women's game: it's as though she thinks that'd entail betrayal on her part. Anna Kournikova behaving like a spoiled brat in a famous interview a few years back? "The interviewer was disrespectful!" Grunting and shrieking that has got way out of control? "It's because it's all about power nowadays, and shows how professional and dedicated the players are!" Zero competitiveness in the women's game? "It's because the Williams sisters are so great!" Equal prize money being a nonsense? "Get out of the dark ages, you chauvinist!" I only hope the WTA have people rather more aware of the problems than she seems - but that's a vain wish. They'll hit the roof over the lack of interest in this second semi - and point towards the first one as 'proof' of what a fantastic product they have. Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Deary me. Safina is abbbbbbbbbbbbbbsolutely pish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 And the 2nd womens semi is back to what you'd expect of a womans match.. Utterly uncompetitive. I wonder how long Venus has been on court en route to the final. 6 matches? I'll venture at 7 and a quarter hours max. 6-1 6-0. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 They shouldn't have even bothered playing any other matches in the women's event. As soon as the draw came out, you could just fast forward to the final. Even with the final, who cares? Really disappointed for Dementieva though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Deary me. Safina is abbbbbbbbbbbbbbsolutely pish. Here's a list of players who've been women's world number one since rankings began: Chris Evert (US) Evonne Goolagong (Aus) Martina Navratilova (Cze/US) Tracy Austin (US) Steffi Graf (Ger) Monica Seles (Yug/Srb/US) Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (Esp) Martina Hingis (Sui) Lindsay Davenport (US) Jennifer Capriati (US) Venus Williams (US) Serena Williams (US) Kim Clijsters (Bel) Justine Henin (Bel) Amelie Mauresmo (Fra) Maria Sharapova (Rus) Ana Ivanovic (Srb) Jelena Jankovic (Srb) Dinara Safina (Rus) No prizes for guessing who the odd one out is there. In fact, the final two on that list were unworthy number ones really. As for Safina: she's the Marcelo Rios of women's tennis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Is Garry Richardson the most annoying man on the BBC?! Murray should tell him where to go with his bloody stupid questions every five minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Is Garry Richardson the most annoying man on the BBC?! Murray should tell him where to go with his bloody stupid questions every five minutes. Yes, without question. It was the same with Henman. Odd, because Richardson's Sportsweek programme on Sunday mornings on Five Live is excellent. About the only memorable, enjoyable interview I can ever recall Richardson doing at Wimbledon was this one: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 And the 2nd womens semi is back to what you'd expect of a womans match.. Utterly uncompetitive. I wonder how long Venus has been on court en route to the final. 6 matches? I'll venture at 7 and a quarter hours max. 6-1 6-0. LOL Total has been 6 hours and 34 minutes which would have included the time waiting for the trainer to deal with Ivanovic. ?425,000 for that tidy piece of work. It sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 No prizes for guessing who the odd one out is there. In fact, the final two on that list were unworthy number ones really. As for Safina: she's the Marcelo Rios of women's tennis. She's only 23 to be fair. Plenty of time to pick up a major Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Total has been 6 hours and 34 minutes which would have included the time waiting for the trainer to deal with Ivanovic. ?425,000 for that tidy piece of work. It sucks. The reason why male and female tennis players shouldn't be paid the same is because women's tennis is not the sport that men's tennis is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 The reason why male and female tennis players shouldn't be paid the same is because women's tennis is not the sport that men's tennis is. The ones that argued for equal pay should be ashamed of themselves after today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 The ones that argued for equal pay should be ashamed of themselves after today. I wonder when Chris Lloyd was No.1 or 2 in the world and John, bumming around in the 300's ever practiced against each other. I'm sure hubby would still have pasted her. The gap probably has narrowed and a fully fit S. Williams might give some guys in the top 100 a fair game. There is not enough current and ex male players coming out and saying thee money is only the same due to short skirts, low tops and blonde eastern Europeans. Maybe it's time for this year's womans winner to take on Bagdanovic in a 5 set shoot out on grass. We might find out then who is on the real easy money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Yes, without question. It was the same with Henman. Odd, because Richardson's Sportsweek programme on Sunday mornings on Five Live is excellent. About the only memorable, enjoyable interview I can ever recall Richardson doing at Wimbledon was this one: That whole interview showed how that Goran was the man. Still wasn't good as him talking about watching Teletubbies. The problem with Richardson is that he thinks he's everyone's best pal. Most of the time whenever you see anyone getting interviewed by them, they either look bored out of their mind, want to run a mile or punch him in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homme Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Can anyone give a list of odds for the Murray / Roddick match today? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
64,116
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.