Wimbledon 2009 thread

[Nucky Thompson]

The pressure just got to him I think. He constantly picked the wrong shot.

[shaun.lawson]

I know we're talking about a different standard of throroughbred, but that statement's got Henmania written all over it. This has the potential to become a yearly pantomine

 

No, it's too early to say that. Henman had nothing like the weapons Murray does, and never had time on his side in the way Murray does either. If we're sitting here after Wimbledon next year and he still hasn't won one, then I'd agree with you - but not yet. Especially as I think he'll win the next one!

 

I was worried going into today. I always thought Roddick could well beat him on grass, and while most others assumed he'd get to the final once Nadal withdrew, I pinpointed today as crunch time. The media assumptions that he'd win, and could well take Federer in the final too, reminded me considerably of Henman-Ivanisevic: it ignored how good Roddick's record is on grass, how much he's improved this year, and how awesome his serve and tie break records are.

 

This is the world's greatest tennis tournament. You have to play out of your skin to win it. Murray has never approached the standard either Federer or Nadal have displayed on grass: he's still learning. But the rate of his progress and astonishing tennis brain give him every chance of winning it one year - and he's been saying for some time that he expects to be playing his best tennis in 2011, and definitely not yet.

[rudi must stay]

Up yours, I'm holding a vigil in my back garden tonight. Unless it rains in which case I'm watching Happy Gilmore and getting a chinese

 

you could get a train down to London and have a vigil at the BBC building. Forget that it looks like it's about to rain

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

you could get a train down to London and have a vigil at the BBC building.

 

That would be over the top

[shaun.lawson]

Andya you are the perfect example of all that is wrong in british sport, and in britain, and especially scotland. Ironic that you lambast murray as being in the great tradition of British losers, yet fail to see that half the reason we are a nation of losers is because of morons like you who can't wait to see people fail in order to shout from the rooftops about how much of a loser they are.

 

Nail on head. Australian cricketers' strategy when touring here? Just play your game, and wait for the press to turn on England. Our media are notorious throughout the world - but the attitude of Andya, others like him and millions of so-called experts whenever Henman lost shows we get the press we deserve.

[robbodog]

Run along back to your Hibee mates Shaun, there's a good lad. I am not, as far as I am aware, a pro sportsman. I am however a qualified professional with a degree, held down a job for over 28 years, married with kids, have no mortgage to speak of, all of which to me is quite significant.

 

He is supposed to be a winner, but when the chips were down, kerching, bottle crashed.

 

There is some drivel posted on here but that really takes the biscuit.

[3inaBednar]

[Jeepers]

Unlucky today from Murray. I was working during most of the match but from what I saw, Roddick was just a little better. I think its irrelevant as to who won this match anyway as Federer will just take the guy apart in the final. Murray will be back, hopefully with a plan B for when people attack him like Roddick did today. Fair play to Roddick, I like him and pray to god he stops the Fed express on Sunday.

 

 

Nice to see "andya" crawling out like a rat from under the woodwork aswell. Not a word to say after Murray's wins.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Personally, I can't be assed with either of these finals coming up. No interest in them really

[Jeepers]

Personally, I can't be assed with either of these finals coming up. No interest in them really

 

Not unless you backed Roddick at 25/1 pre tournament

[Martin]

Andya you are the perfect example of all that is wrong in british sport, and in britain, and especially scotland. Ironic that you lambast murray as being in the great tradition of British losers, yet fail to see that half the reason we are a nation of losers is because of morons like you who can't wait to see people fail in order to shout from the rooftops about how much of a loser they are.

 

Too right. When you think of how many people play tennis and what the guy has achieved at 22, it totally beggars belief.

 

I know we're talking about a different standard of throroughbred, but that statement's got Henmania written all over it. This has the potential to become a yearly pantomine

 

It's different to Henman though. Due to his game, Wimbledon was the only realistic Slam for him. For Murray, he's got three chances in a year. The problem is the media build up Wimbledon to the hilt that they forget that anything else exists.

 

What summed that up was that tube Castle saying "Murray has made the US Open final but a Wimbledon semi final is something different". So beating Nadal to make a Grand Slam final is less of an achievement than if he'd beaten Roddick to make a Wimbledon final?! Shows the total joke the media are as well.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Not unless you backed Roddick at 25/1 pre tournament

 

If I had him each way I'd cash in now and pile the money on the Fed Express

[The Merse]

Nail on head. Australian cricketers' strategy when touring here? Just play your game, and wait for the press to turn on England. Our media are notorious throughout the world - but the attitude of Andya, others like him and millions of so-called experts whenever Henman lost shows we get the press we deserve.

 

It is bizarre.

 

Murray is the greatest prospect this country has produced in god knows how long - has won plenty of titles, getting to the later stages of the Slams and is only 22.

 

It's sickening that absolute dip****s like you know who thrive on watching on a young sportsman who gives his all lose just so they can say I told you so.

 

He's a good player, capable of being a great player, I feel that his loss today isn't the end of the world - had he won I'm almost certain Federer would have beaten him anyway.

 

Can you imagine how boring this years Wimbledon would have been without having Murray to support?

[rudi must stay]

No, it's too early to say that. Henman had nothing like the weapons Murray does, and never had time on his side in the way Murray does either. If we're sitting here after Wimbledon next year and he still hasn't won one, then I'd agree with you - but not yet. Especially as I think he'll win the next one!

 

I was worried going into today. I always thought Roddick could well beat him on grass, and while most others assumed he'd get to the final once Nadal withdrew, I pinpointed today as crunch time. The media assumptions that he'd win, and could well take Federer in the final too, reminded me considerably of Henman-Ivanisevic: it ignored how good Roddick's record is on grass, how much he's improved this year, and how awesome his serve and tie break records are.

 

This is the world's greatest tennis tournament. You have to play out of your skin to win it. Murray has never approached the standard either Federer or Nadal have displayed on grass: he's still learning. But the rate of his progress and astonishing tennis brain give him every chance of winning it one year - and he's been saying for some time that he expects to be playing his best tennis in 2011, and definitely not yet.

 

Henman had a better game for Wimbledon IMO, he didn't have as good a serve but he had better reactions around the net, as you saw from today that's effective at Wimbledon. Time on his side can be good or bad, if he reads too much about todays game he could easily lose his focus like alot of promising youngsters e.g Gulbis have done in the past. As for him winning it next year, not a chance. Nadal will be back and Federer will still be playing some of the best stuff he's played in years, which is a frightening thought.

[Denny Crane]

Run along back to your Hibee mates Shaun, there's a good lad. I am not, as far as I am aware, a pro sportsman. I am however a qualified professional with a degree, held down a job for over 28 years, married with kids, have no mortgage to speak of, all of which to me is quite significant.

 

He is supposed to be a winner, but when the chips were down, kerching, bottle crashed.

 

I have no need for loose cream thank you very much.

[Malinga the Swinga]

Since we have a tennis expert on site, could he, or anyone, explain why you get two serves in tennis. In golf, you hit a bad drive or miss a putt, you don't get a retake. In football, you miss a penalty, you can't take it again. In badminton or table tennis, you get one attempt at a serve.

Perhaps if players only got one attempt to serve, then they would have to reduce the speed of serve and games may become a bit more entertaining. Watching one giant smashing the ball down at 140mph, the the other guy does the same, because less entertaining each year.

[shaun.lawson]

Henman had a better game for Wimbledon IMO, he didn't have as good a serve but he had better reactions around the net, as you saw from today that's effective at Wimbledon. Time on his side can be good or bad, if he reads too much about todays game he could easily lose his focus like alot of promising youngsters e.g Gulbis have done in the past. As for him winning it next year, not a chance. Nadal will be back and Federer will still be playing some of the best stuff he's played in years, which is a frightening thought.

 

Re: Henman, yes and no. Up until 2002, when they relaid the turf and Stefanki remodelled his serve to the point whereby he lost 10-15 mph off it (brilliant, Larry!), I would agree - but even then, he never ever had the serve of Sampras, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis or Rusedski, so was always up against it, even with his serve-volley game. The sport has changed so much since that almost all players are all-courters, and the difference between grass and the other surfaces is still there, but isn't what it was.

 

When Murray first emerged, there were a whole clutch of youngsters right with him: Djokovic, Tsonga, Gasquet, Monfils. Djoko and Tsonga broke through first - but now, all are well behind him, even Djokovic. Then there's the question of whether Federer dominates for two or three more years after breaking the record, or loses motivation; and also over Nadal's fitness. It's almost unprecedented for someone to suffer tendonitis at such a young age, and a number of experts think it could curtail Rafa's whole career before long.

 

At some stage over the next two or three years, Murray will probably be clear favourite to win Wimbledon. In the meantime, it's about stepping stones: say, make the final next year, and break his Slam duck in the States.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Since we have a tennis expert on site, could he, or anyone, explain why you get two serves in tennis. In golf, you hit a bad drive or miss a putt, you don't get a retake. In football, you miss a penalty, you can't take it again. In badminton or table tennis, you get one attempt at a serve.

Perhaps if players only got one attempt to serve, then they would have to reduce the speed of serve and games may become a bit more entertaining. Watching one giant smashing the ball down at 140mph, the the other guy does the same, because less entertaining each year.

 

LOL

 

Do one

[shaun.lawson]

Since we have a tennis expert on site, could he, or anyone, explain why you get two serves in tennis. In golf, you hit a bad drive or miss a putt, you don't get a retake. In football, you miss a penalty, you can't take it again. In badminton or table tennis, you get one attempt at a serve.

Perhaps if players only got one attempt to serve, then they would have to reduce the speed of serve and games may become a bit more entertaining. Watching one giant smashing the ball down at 140mph, the the other guy does the same, because less entertaining each year.

 

Good question, to which I don't really know the answer! A few years ago, the tour seriously thought about removing the second serve, and no ads at deuce. But the game is now so much more entertaining than it was before Wimbledon relaid the courts that there's no obvious need to make any changes.

 

Incidentally - the reason why Sampras or Edberg were so good at Wimbledon? Not their first serve, but their second serve: the two best in tennis history.

[Arse 'Friends' Dyslexic?]

Since we have a tennis expert on site, could he, or anyone, explain why you get two serves in tennis. In golf, you hit a bad drive or miss a putt, you don't get a retake. In football, you miss a penalty, you can't take it again. In badminton or table tennis, you get one attempt at a serve.

Perhaps if players only got one attempt to serve, then they would have to reduce the speed of serve and games may become a bit more entertaining. Watching one giant smashing the ball down at 140mph, the the other guy does the same, because less entertaining each year.

 

Good God I hope you're not referring to Dawn Larson or whatever the gimp's name is?

 

Doesn't take much talent to reformat Wikipedia ffs.

[rudi must stay]

Re: Henman, yes and no. Up until 2002, when they relaid the turf and Stefanki remodelled his serve to the point whereby he lost 10-15 mph off it (brilliant, Larry!), I would agree - but even then, he never ever had the serve of Sampras, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Philippoussis or Rusedski, so was always up against it, even with his serve-volley game. The sport has changed so much since that almost all players are all-courters, and the difference between grass and the other surfaces is still there, but isn't what it was.

 

When Murray first emerged, there were a whole clutch of youngsters right with him: Djokovic, Tsonga, Gasquet, Monfils. Djoko and Tsonga broke through first - but now, all are well behind him, even Djokovic. Then there's the question of whether Federer dominates for two or three more years after breaking the record, or loses motivation and also over Nadal's fitness. It's almost unprecedented for someone to suffer tendonitis at such a young age, and a number of experts think it could curtail Rafa's whole career before long.

 

At some stage over the next two or three years, Murray will probably be clear favourite to win Wimbledon. In the meantime, it's about stepping stones: say, make the final next year, and break his Slam duck in the States.

 

that's a very bold statement. You can't predict tennis, Nadal came from nowhere and so did Federer. If he does win the US that would be brilliant for his game, only then can people really start talking about him as a serious contender for Wimbledon IMO.

[shaun.lawson]

Good God I hope you're not referring to Dawn Larson or whatever the gimp's name is?

 

Doesn't take much talent to reformat Wikipedia ffs.

 

 

Dawn Larson - that's a new one! I had a lisp when I was about 11, so was Thorn Lorthon to my mates. And it makes a change to have Wiki held against me rather than Google I guess...

 

But tennis expert, I certainly am not. I'm not an expert at anything: I just love watching sport. The psychology of it all fascinates me - and the instant appearance of the one man slag it off if it lives, breathes, is British and has just lost brigade drives me mental.

[shaun.lawson]

that's a very bold statement. You can't predict tennis, Nadal came from nowhere and so did Federer. If he does win the US that would be brilliant for his game, only then can people really start talking about him as a serious contender for Wimbledon IMO.

 

It's bold, certainly - and I'd never rule out a new legend suddenly emerging. I've warned before that Murray's window of opportunity isn't enormous, and he does need to break through and win a Slam soon. He doesn't have the game to dominate, as others have said; but his age and achievements so far make him likely to become number one at some stage; Federer can't go on forever; and Nadal is facing mounting question marks about things essentially beyond his control.

[Arse 'Friends' Dyslexic?]

 

Dawn Larson - that's a new one! I had a lisp when I was about 11, so was Thorn Lorthon to my mates. And it makes a change to have Wiki held against me rather than Google I guess...

 

But tennis expert, I certainly am not. I'm not an expert at anything: I just love watching sport. The psychology of it all fascinates me - and the instant appearance of the one man slag it off if it lives, breathes, is British and has just lost brigade drives me mental.

 

Nice reply.

Respect.

 

You've got to stay off Wiki though - Andy Murray's second team is NOT Wolves.

[rudi must stay]

It's bold, certainly - and I'd never rule out a new legend suddenly emerging. I've warned before that Murray's window of opportunity isn't enormous, and he does need to break through and win a Slam soon. He doesn't have the game to dominate, as others have said; but his age and achievements so far make him likely to become number one at some stage; Federer can't go on forever; and Nadal is facing mounting question marks about things essentially beyond his control.

 

exactly, which is an important point. If he does win a major it'll be similar to this one, with a few big names missing. That's why todays defeat was so bad, if he can't win one when the big names aren't there when can he win one? Sorry to say it but it could be a career of what might have been for Murray. As for Nadal, that's just speculation, even if he's not as fast as he used to be he's still got a brilliant shot selection.

[shaun.lawson]

Nice reply.

Respect.

 

You've got to stay off Wiki though - Andy Murray's second team is NOT Wolves.

 

You sure about that?

 

 

More generally, I just don't think he's a football man. He prefers boxing. He had a Barca shirt because of where he spent his teenage years; and Wolves are his English team purely because John Lloyd supports them. Whatever he might've said on Soccer AM, he's as much a Hibs fan as Ewen Cameron is a Jambo.

[shaun.lawson]

exactly, which is an important point. If he does win a major it'll be similar to this one, with a few big names missing. That's why todays defeat was so bad, if he can't win one when the big names aren't there when can he win one? Sorry to say it but it could be a career of what might have been for Murray. As for Nadal, that's just speculation, even if he's not as fast as he used to be he's still got a brilliant shot selection.

 

Rudi - if Nadal's capacity to train like a lunatic, be built like a brick you-know-what and be the iron man on court goes, everything goes. And while Murray doesn't have the game to dominate, there's bound to be a window when there's an interregnum between Federer/Nadal and someone else. No reason why he can't win a major, even with all the big names present: that's what being number three at only 22 and with no fitness concerns gives him.

[rudi must stay]

Rudi - if Nadal's capacity to train like a lunatic, be built like a brick you-know-what and be the iron man on court goes, everything goes. And while Murray doesn't have the game to dominate, there's bound to be a window when there's an interregnum between Federer/Nadal and someone else. No reason why he can't win a major, even with all the big names present: that's what being number three at only 22 and with no fitness concerns gives him.

 

he's a talented guy, like Hewitt has had to do, he can come back from it. There was an oppertunity at this tournament, i reckon he could have had a good chance against Federer. But it was against the people you'd expect him to beat that he wasn't convincing and that all culminated in that dreadful performance against Roddick. As for no injury concerns, ye right, after just about every shot he was clutching his leg.

[The People's Chimp]

You sure about that?

 

 

More generally, I just don't think he's a football man. He prefers boxing. He had a Barca shirt because of where he spent his teenage years; and Wolves are his English team purely because John Lloyd supports them. Whatever he might've said on Soccer AM, he's as much a Hibs fan as Ewen Cameron is a Jambo.

 

He does tout hibs on his twitter a fair bit tbh.

[kitster]

Heart sorry for the lad I really am but being objective he was outwitted and out served today. It made the difference.

 

I dislike RF..I find him arrogant and this belief that he's a tennis couture global style icon just makes me feel a bit ill. A bloody good tennis player no doubt about that I just like it when someone gets the better of him! Not this year though mes thinks!

 

As for all the 'he's a loser cause he's a hobo' nonsense some of you lot come out with..It's actually feckin embarassing I support the same team as you. Grow up!! His grandad played for Hibs ..I would say its more than likely if your grandad had played for them you'd have sympathies there too. He's hardly seen at Easter Road every weekend drowning in his own pish or lying in his own vomit..that's the sort we love to hate surely??....not the amazing sportsman who is breaking down generations of Britain being badly represented in the tennis world.

 

Hard lines Andy...I'm sure you'll bounce back stronger from it though

[John Findlay]

He just wasnt good enough today. Roddick wanted it more.

 

 

 

 

John

[Arse 'Friends' Dyslexic?]

You sure about that?

 

 

More generally, I just don't think he's a football man. He prefers boxing. He had a Barca shirt because of where he spent his teenage years; and Wolves are his English team purely because John Lloyd supports them. Whatever he might've said on Soccer AM, he's as much a Hibs fan as Ewen Cameron is a Jambo.

 

Oh please.

He supports Hibs.

And so he should as he has relatives who were on Hibs's books.

That's the way it should be.

 

OK, he may not be a day-to-day supporter like the majority of us on here.

Think he may have other things to occupy his mind...

[shaun.lawson]

he's a talented guy, like Hewitt has had to do, he can come back from it. There was an oppertunity at this tournament, i reckon he could have had a good chance against Federer. But it was against the people you'd expect him to beat that he wasn't convincing and that all culminated in that dreadful performance against Roddick. As for no injury concerns, ye right, after just about every shot he was clutching his leg.

 

He's not got injury concerns of anything like the level Nadal has: some are now questioning whether he could be ruled out of the US Open too. I thought he had absolutely no chance against Federer on grass, incidentally: Fed's been on another planet this tournament, and the level Nadal had to reach to just pip him in the greatest tennis match ever played was simply incredible. If you ask me, Murray needs at least one crack at Federer in a Wimbledon final before being ready to just about beat him the following year.

 

So Wimbledon final next year, Wimbledon victory the year after. We'll see.

[shaun.lawson]

He just wasnt good enough today. Roddick wanted it more.

 

 

 

 

 

An opinion based on what, exactly?

[shaun.lawson]

He does tout hibs on his twitter a fair bit tbh.

 

Playing to the gallery? His granddad played for Hibs, and once he said he was a Hibs fan, that was that. Just as Tony Blair was advised to become a Newcastle fan based on what constituency he represented and their general popularity at the time. No going back; but neither of them care much.

 

Do you honestly think Murray's even aware of who Hibs might be playing any particular week?

[Denny Crane]

 

At least Murray has a more honourable face than your's:-

 

[MacDonald Jardine]

Playing to the gallery? His granddad played for Hibs, and once he said he was a Hibs fan, that was that. Just as Tony Blair was advised to become a Newcastle fan based on what constituency he represented and their general popularity at the time. No going back; but neither of them care much.

 

Do you honestly think Murray's even aware of who Hibs might be playing any particular week?

 

No but playing to which gallery?

I don't see he'd build up a great deal of support by claiming to be a Hibs fan if he wasn't.

Not that it matters BTW.

[shaun.lawson]

No but playing to which gallery?

I don't see he'd build up a great deal of support by claiming to be a Hibs fan if he wasn't.

Not that it matters BTW.

 

I don't think Blair gained much by proclaiming himself a Newcastle fan either. But once you do, that's that. I agree completely with your final sentence: where were all these Murray haters when he was still in the tournament, and I was conducting a lone battle on here trying to douse down the hype?!

[The People's Chimp]

Playing to the gallery? His granddad played for Hibs, and once he said he was a Hibs fan, that was that. Just as Tony Blair was advised to become a Newcastle fan based on what constituency he represented and their general popularity at the time. No going back; but neither of them care much.

 

Do you honestly think Murray's even aware of who Hibs might be playing any particular week?

 

Yeah I do. He might be like loads of people i know who are ostensibly fans of X club, but aren't obsessed and rarely go to games. They still class themselves as "X/Y/Z fans" though.

 

He's hardy been told "say you are a hibs fan to win over 10'000 sad jakeys from lochend." That's not particularly media savvy tbh...

 

Anyway he has a family link to hibs, he 'supports' hibs, so what? fair play. Better than all the other rejects who claim to support a certain club until they hit establishment status and then it's straight over to one of the ugly sisters. Sickening.

[Cade]

Young hibs flairmeister beaten by big bad bully.

 

An ancient story repeated every few months.

[MacDonald Jardine]

I don't think Blair gained much by proclaiming himself a Newcastle fan either. But once you do, that's that. I agree completely with your final sentence: where were all these Murray haters when he was still in the tournament, and I was conducting a lone battle on here trying to douse down the hype?!

 

Was Blair not playing to his North East constituents (and quite possibly some of his constituency party) in playing up his Geordiness?

 

I'd be interested in some folks' reaction had there been a thread on Hibs.net explaining why they wanted Chris Hoy to lose because he's just a yam fud. (Mind you I wouldn't discount one.)

[John Findlay]

An opinion based on what, exactly?

 

An opinion based on watching the entire match and Roddick had the I will not be beaten head on today which to me meant he wanted it just that bit more than Murray.

 

 

 

 

John

[The People's Chimp]

Young hibs flairmeister beaten by big bad bully.

 

An ancient story repeated every few months.

 

That's a genuine 'lawl.'

[shaun.lawson]

An opinion based on watching the entire match and Roddick had the I will not be beaten head on today which to me meant he wanted it just that bit more than Murray.

 

 

 

 

John

 

Hmm. Many years ago John, you gave a team talk on here prior to Hearts travelling to Celtic. "Get right into them!", you demanded, reasoning that when opponents attacked the OF, they crumbled.

 

The following day, we did attack; far more than the OF were used to on their own patch. We lost 6-1. Was that because we "didn't want it enough" too? And when Roddick gets walloped by Federer on Sunday, will it be because he "doesn't want it enough"?

 

It's the standard refrain of British sports fans whenever our team or player loses. We're so arrogant, we can't even comprehend the idea that the opponent might've been better: there has to be some other explanation. Andy Murray: only his second ever Grand Slam semi-final today, playing on far from his favoured surface. Andy Roddick: most terrifyingly ballistic serve in tennis, an impossibly good tie break record, having his best year in ages, one Grand Slam title under his belt, two previous Wimbledon finals and a semi, one more US Open final and four Australian Open semi-finals, playing on far and away his favourite surface.

 

Murray in his second GS semi against Roddick in his tenth. Roddick was simply the better player. The end.

[Chad Sexington]

Hmm. Many years ago John, you gave a team talk on here prior to Hearts travelling to Celtic. "Get right into them!", you demanded, reasoning that when opponents attacked the OF, they crumbled.

 

The following day, we did attack; far more than the OF were used to on their own patch. We lost 6-1. Was that because we "didn't want it enough" too? And when Roddick gets walloped by Federer on Sunday, will it be because he "doesn't want it enough"?

 

It's the standard refrain of British sports fans whenever our team or player loses. We're so arrogant, we can't even comprehend the idea that the opponent might've been better: there has to be some other explanation. Andy Murray: only his second ever Grand Slam semi-final today, playing on far from his favoured surface. Andy Roddick: most terrifyingly ballistic serve in tennis, an impossibly good tie break record, having his best year in ages, one Grand Slam title under his belt, two previous Wimbledon finals and a semi, one more US Open final and four Australian Open semi-finals, playing on far and away his favourite surface.

 

Murray in his second GS semi against Roddick in his tenth. Roddick was simply the better player. The end.

 

Spot on.

[John Findlay]

Hmm. Many years ago John, you gave a team talk on here prior to Hearts travelling to Celtic. "Get right into them!", you demanded, reasoning that when opponents attacked the OF, they crumbled.

 

The following day, we did attack; far more than the OF were used to on their own patch. We lost 6-1. Was that because we "didn't want it enough" too? And when Roddick gets walloped by Federer on Sunday, will it be because he "doesn't want it enough"?

 

It's the standard refrain of British sports fans whenever our team or player loses. We're so arrogant, we can't even comprehend the idea that the opponent might've been better: there has to be some other explanation. Andy Murray: only his second ever Grand Slam semi-final today, playing on far from his favoured surface. Andy Roddick: most terrifyingly ballistic serve in tennis, an impossibly good tie break record, having his best year in ages, one Grand Slam title under his belt, two previous Wimbledon finals and a semi, one more US Open final and four Australian Open semi-finals, playing on far and away his favourite surface.

 

Murray in his second GS semi against Roddick in his tenth. Roddick was simply the better player. The end.

 

I said Murray wasnt good enough today. Therefore intimating that Roddick was the better player.

 

There are eleven in a football team on the pitch at one time. Harder for eleven to be singing from the same hymn sheet as it one person. Yes I think Roddick wanted it more today. Murray did want it yes of course he did but I still think Roddick wanted it more.

 

Although Federer(Quite rightly is odds on favourite to beat Roddick) Roddick just may surprise him. Afterall he is the one with nothing to lose as everyone has him beat already.

 

 

 

John

 

Ps I also gave the same teamtalk in February 2000. Hearts won 2-3 at Celtic Park after being 2-0 at half-time.

[shaun.lawson]

I said Murray wasnt good enough today. Therefore intimating that Roddick was the better player.

 

There are eleven in a football team on the pitch at one time. Harder for eleven to be singing from the same hymn sheet as it one person. Yes I think Roddick wanted it more today. Murray did want it yes of course he did but I still think Roddick wanted it more.

 

Although Federer(Quite rightly is odds on favourite to beat Roddick) Roddick just may surprise him. Afterall he is the one with nothing to lose as everyone has him beat already.

 

 

 

John

 

Ps I also gave the same teamtalk in February 2000. Hearts won 2-3 at Celtic Park after being 2-0 at half-time.

 

Good for you, and I'm glad you did. I was there, and it's in my top three Hearts games ever (it was 2-1 at half time mind). I'd love to see Roddick surprise Federer - he has nothing to lose, as you say. I can't see it though, and suspect today was his 'final'.

[loveofthegame]

C'est la vie. Was gutted at first but these things happen. A round further than last year, another boost to his rankings and another valuable learning curve.

 

Now i can at least support Federer into hopefully (rightfully) cementing his place as the greatest player of all time.

[chester copperpot]

I want to apologise for Murray's loss, it was my fault. For the first time in the tournament, I didn't bet against him.

 

I take full responsibility.

[I P Knightley]

Can you imagine how boring this years Wimbledon would have been without having Murray to support?

 

The BBC coverage might have been a little more bearable. There's been a good number of interesting ties throughout the fortnight; I don't think Murray's absence would have diminished my enjoyment of the tourney.

 

Boris Becker has, though. He's inane.

 

Since we have a tennis expert on site, could he, or anyone, explain why you get two serves in tennis. In golf, you hit a bad drive or miss a putt, you don't get a retake. In football, you miss a penalty, you can't take it again. In badminton or table tennis, you get one attempt at a serve.

Perhaps if players only got one attempt to serve, then they would have to reduce the speed of serve and games may become a bit more entertaining. Watching one giant smashing the ball down at 140mph, the the other guy does the same, because less entertaining each year.

 

Interesting question; wish I knew the answer but can only guess.

 

My guess is that, going back to the early days of the sport when folk weren't hammering it down at 120+mph, the gentlemen who played the sport were keen on having rallies in order to get the circulation flowing so, rather than faff around, they'd agree to have two pops at serving. Of course, professionalism would very early on have identified the opportunity to use the second as a safety net & try to leather the first one.

 

I want to apologise for Murray's loss, it was my fault. For the first time in the tournament, I didn't bet against him.

 

I take full responsibility.

 

Why I oughtta...