Wimbledon 2013 June 24-July 7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arse n Wonga

He went on to win more in the following years, including beating Stefan Edberg a top player and once of the best grass court players. The point was though the guy had qualified was unseeded but still upset some big players.

The players with a chance are usually those that are talked about in the game, we're talking about the likes of Dimitrov here, who might not have delivered but is talked about as a future number 1 (like Federer and Sampras were before they became top class), don't think this Polish guy has even been mentioned.

---

Yeah he did, as he benefited from having that kinder run where he reached that of being a Slam champion - he achieved that affirmation at 17. Verdasco is obviously not at that level, he's now 29, just like say Henri Leconte was never going to be a high level player either but obviously talented. 22 is still damn young in this era of tennis though.

If you don't think Janowicz has been talked about, you can't have been watching much of the 500s/1000s on Sky recently. It's going to take Dimitrov a while to get it together, a) it always does for someone with that many shots to choose from and b) possibly distracting life with Sharapova.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McNamara That Ghost...

If he never stood a chance, then he didn't 'bottle' it', as it was never in his grasp. What was expected to happen, happened.

---

don't use logic.

In other news: http://ir0.mobify.com/project-mobify...son_crying.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arse n Wonga

He never stood a chance because he has no bottle, he was 2 sets up and had he had any he'd have probably finished it off. He bottled it due to lack of bottle.

Too much bottle in that sentence to be fair....I saw Wenger on his way to the bottle bank....

---

Why criticise him then? How dare he be exactly as was anticipated!

I have heard Janowicz mentioned as a potential for the future a number of times

But also when you look at it, does endorsement really matter......look at how many times Raonic and Tomic have been mentioned in the last two years....and neither has really stepped up to the plate.

Also Federer was always muted as a potential future champion, but until 2003 it was always felt that he might not have the right temprement to go all the way because he was prone to lose his head in big matches....and that his five set victory over Sampras in 2001 might only ever be a one off.

And look at much hype Safin, Hewitt and Roddick got and none of them came close to challenging the Federer supremacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie

I have heard Janowicz mentioned as a potential for the future a number of times

But also when you look at it, does endorsement really matter......look at how many times Raonic and Tomic have been mentioned in the last two years....and neither has really stepped up to the plate.

Also Federer was always muted as a potential future champion, but until 2003 it was always felt that he might not have the right temprement to go all the way because he was prone to lose his head in big matches....and that his five set victory over Sampras in 2001 might only ever be a one off.

And look at much hype Safin, Hewitt and Roddick got and none of them came close to challenging the Federer supremacy.

---

All 3 you mention won grand slams and were number 1's so they may not have come close to Federer (who has) but they had some notable achievements and did well at Grand slams on the whole.

I think it's also unfair to say Verdasco bottled it, he was two sets up because Murray looked mentally unprepared and was not trusting himself to be aggressive and allowing the spaniard to push him back further and further.....with the exception of the third set Verdasco was pretty much playing at the same level for the entire match....you have to remember that he was only two sets up because Murray had evaporated when 0-40 up on Verdasco's serve and a combination of tame returns and unforced errors gave Verdasco the chance which he took.
For me someone who bottles it is someone who through fear and mental weakness does not play as well as he should....and i think Verdasco in the fifth set especially just went for it.......if he had bottled it he wouldn't have gone for it on his second serves the way he did. In the fourth set he also put Murray under tremendous pressure on his serve.....those last two sets were absolute dog fights for Murray.
There is a whole other level between players like Djokovic and Murray and players like Verdasco etc....and i think that class gap showed in the end....and to claim anything else is massively disingenuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arse n Wonga

All 3 you mention won grand slams and were number 1's so they may not have come close to Federer (who has) but they had some notable achievements and did well at Grand slams on the whole.

---

The point being is that these players were considered the elite of the generation to come after Sampras and Agassi, where as Federer was considered a possible contender was never spoke about in the same manner as the three i've mentioned (especially not Safin and Hewitt). Despite his inability to serve volley Roddick was considered a player who would dominate on grass, and the Hard court grand slams would be divided up between Safin and Hewitt.
They won five grand slams between them compared to Federer's 17.....yeah they did reasonably ok but the point still stands...hype means nothing.

not all this delpro nonsense again :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry Tuffnutz

not all this delpro nonsense again :lol:

---

He's got no legs, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry Tuffnutz

not all this delpro nonsense again :lol:

---

No don't worry that's been put to be now after a one legged Delboy hammered David Ferret! :lol: