|
Australian Open 2010 Predictions (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Domesticated |
It was Henri Leconte and Pat Rafter vs Pat Cash and Wayne Arthurs. It was ing hilarious. Leconte was like a Circ Du Soleil clown, imitating Rafter every time he ed up a shot and yelling abuse back at the crowd in response to their heckles.
The best gag was when Leconte and Cash were at the net volleying to each other for a good three minutes and Arthurs ran off court to grab another ball and start a similar rally with Rafter because he was bored. Doesn't sound funny now, but it pretty hilarious seeing that happen on centre court after watching such a serious match between Murray and Cilic. |
|
|
| trunks1022 |
i wish they brought these guys back to the us open - for a few years they had the funny seniors doubles match after the women's final on the second saturday night. the one time i worked that match, bahrami was there and it was great fun. i think he gave me a hard time at one point for some now-forgotten reason.
federer is betterer. he looked sharp last night against jo-wil. murray will need to be aggressive in order to have a decent shot against roger in the final. i think andy needs to look at the tape of the first set of the federer/davydenko match. |
|
|
| saymyname |
Murray can win if he gets aggressive and inventive straight from the off. If he stays on the baseline and defends then Federer will batter him. Murray regularly wins when they meet outside of Grand slams, but has he, or anyone else got what it takes to win 3 sets against the greatest tennis player ever?
Federer again today showed what a smug twat he is. Basically he said: "If Andy wants to win a Grand Slam, then he has to beat me. And I'm totally awesome so it's not going to be easy for him."
Can't understand why anyone would want Federer to win. Does he need more titles? Would it not be far greater for the sport if a new champion and rival were to emerge?
And as Murray's British, he should have already been crowned champion right at the start by default anyway. |
|
|
| Dupz |
| quote: | Originally posted by saymyname
And as Murray's British, he should have already been crowned champion right at the start by default anyway. |
and he's Scottish if he loses ;) |
|
|
| pitchf0rk |
| quote: | Originally posted by chimera66
venus is mentally weak but saying the two of them haven't evolved and are fifty evolutions behind everyone else is absurd. between the two of them they hold 18 singles titles at majors, if they lacked tennis skills there is no way they could have come close to that number. they are strong but you don't get through a draw of 128 just by being strong and manage to do this over the course of almost a decade. |
Maybe I should have put a /sarcasm at the end of my original post. |
|
|
| saymyname |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dupz
and he's Scottish if he loses ;) |
Precisely. |
|
|
| chimera66 |
| nice ending to this year's australian open...until roland garros. |
|
|
| LeopoldStotch |
| hate to be the sexist freak here, but serena needs to strap those puppies down or something. i am afraid she's going to injure someone with those twins flying uncontrollably. :stongue: |
|
|
| trunks1022 |
| well - i came close with henin prediction. don't let me down roger! |
|
|
| Renzo |
Murray made it interesting in the 3rd, but 'twas a rather anti-climactic final.
Roger being Roger again. The greatest. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| The Williams sisters are proof that humans have had sex with gorillas. |
|
|
| stren |
| quote: | Originally posted by saymyname
Murray can win if he gets aggressive and inventive straight from the off. If he stays on the baseline and defends then Federer will batter him. Murray regularly wins when they meet outside of Grand slams, but has he, or anyone else got what it takes to win 3 sets against the greatest tennis player ever?
Federer again today showed what a smug twat he is. Basically he said: "If Andy wants to win a Grand Slam, then he has to beat me. And I'm totally awesome so it's not going to be easy for him."
Can't understand why anyone would want Federer to win. Does he need more titles? Would it not be far greater for the sport if a new champion and rival were to emerge?
And as Murray's British, he should have already been crowned champion right at the start by default anyway. |
Well Roger is just self confident. Having won so much he can say such things, and not come off as a pompous , its not like Lewis Hamilton who says he's the man to beat, even before winning his title.
I will support Roger, cause he doesn't boast when he wins, he's a great champion and I enjoy watching him extend all the records.
Andy played a great tournament, and I'd be happy for him if he'd won it, just as I was happy for JMDP. He just didn't cut it today.
I won't even comment on the "british" remark |
|
|
|
|
