MuRRAY YOURE SHIT

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
Anyone know if the final is going to be on Iplayer?

I missed it and apparently it was incredible and its a 7 Gig file on p*rate bay.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
it should be; ITV had the rugby world cup games streamable after the fact, so presume bbc is similar.

it was a brilliant match. I'm a fully-signed up Djokovic acolyte - his path to the top has been inspirational, in that he was stuck for a few years as a comparative also-ran (in the rarefied atmosphere at the very top of tennis, anyways), and then suddenly did the unthinkable of eclipsing both Federer and Nadal. A bit like Agassi in the way he was slightly written off (albeit for different reasons) early in his career, but even more impressive, especially if he wins the French this year.
 

benjybars

village elder.
men's tennis is stupidly good right now.. has been for the last 5 years really.. proper golden age.

yeah fair play to Djokovich

i watched the final on a massive fuck-off open air big screen outside walthamstow shopping centre.. even at the end when it was ridiculously exciting there were only about 9 people watching. although one woman kept clapping after a good rally as if she was on henman hill or something
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
is that a permanent open air big screen?

it's quite funny how Murray would definitely have won a grand slam or two had it not been for the ludicrously high standard of the top 3. best british player in 50 years(?) and inevitably he arrives at the worst time possible.
 

Lichen

Well-known member
I watched the bulk of the final. Amazing. Djokovich says his feet were bleeding by the end.

Wonderful sport.
 

don_quixote

Trent End
if djokovic manages to beat nadal at the french open he's the goat in my eyes. i realise soderling has beaten nadal at roland garros but nadal was basically crocked then. i struggle to muster any thought that a fully fit nadal could lose to anyone in france.
 

Tentative Andy

I'm in the Meal Deal
Would be happy to see Murray win this, but also like the idea of the thread title being yelled from the stands at a crucial moment:

"Come on Andy".
"Come on Andy".
"Come on Andy".
[Pause]
"MURRAY YOU'RE SHIT".
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
I ducked out by the time of the final set, but it was clear that Murray choked - three or four (?) breakpoints in the second set for an effective 2 sets-0 lead, and he took none of them. He was definitely good enough to win, but he blew it.
 
Last edited:

crackerjack

Well-known member
I ducked out by the time of the final set, but it was clear that Murray choked - three or four (?) breakpoints in the second set for an effective 2 sets-0 lead, and he took none of them. He was definitely good enough to win, but he blew it.

I only half watched and admit I know little about tennis, but I thought the exact opposite. Seemed to me Murray was always waiting for Federer to lose points and that, even at the top of his game, he'd be dependent on RF having an off day.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
I think we're saying broadly the same thing.

Federer is definitely 'the better player', no question, but had Murray was several times one point away from what I think would've been a killer blow. I agree that Murray is dependent on Federer having an off-day, but that's what Federer was having, and he failed to capitalise. Where I think he's good enough is getting into the position to capitalise on that (most players coudln't get that close), but it seemed to me that his nerve let him down at the vital moment, hitting shots long etc.

That he'll never have a better chance of winning Wimbledon is what will haunt Murray. He's the same age as Djokovic and Nadal is only one year older; they'll always be around, and neither is likely to be as lacklustre again as they were this year. Murray is ridiculously unlucky to have been born in this era.
 
Last edited:

craner

Beast of Burden
I think that is correct, CJ. He has beaten The Brand before, but never at a truly significant moment. That was an awful performance by Murray yesterday. Not because he played badly (he didn't play badly) but because, as soon as he lost the initiative, he immediately deflated, and by the fourth set was moping around the court, feeling sorry for himself. And then, after he had lost, he started blubbering -- the worst on-court waterworks since Daniella Hantuchova cracked up mid-match in Wimbeldon '03, and she was a young anorexic girl whose parents' marriage was in the process of bitter breakdown. Obviously the pressure is too much for this man-child, or maybe he was missing his Dad who appeared to be banished from the box (I think) because, when Agassi pulled this shit, he was an emotional wreck, on the brink of train-crash minor tournaments, drug abuse, hair loss and inapproptiate relationships (Brooke Shields? Barbara Streisand?). Does Andy Murray have ISSUES?

Fed, meanwhile, remains unbelievable. Unbelievably vain. "I played great today." "Yes, I was fantastic today." Q: "How do you think it feels, Roger, for other players, knowing they have to come on court and play one of the greats?" "Yes, it must be difficult for them." Sue Barker: "Roger, you played some genius tennis." "Yeah..." The reason Anna Wintour is in love with Fed is because he is so neat, clean, groomed, wealthy, disciplined and narcissistic: all qualities she admires. It drives some of us nuts.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Slight digression... I stopped watching tennis cos it got so boring and serve dominated but that seems to have gone away now, why is that? Yesterday Murray and Federer served around ten aces each whereas about ten years ago Sampras would be sending down thirty or more and Ivanisevice and Krajicek were sometimes pulling out as many as sixty. I know they debated changing the rules to stop that happening but as far as I know they didn't so how come the game has changed so much? Is it just that they're better at returning or what?
I don't really understand why you get two goes at the serve anyway, it's the easiest shot in the game cos you don't have to respond to where the other guy has hit it. You only get one serve in table-tennis, badminton, squash - what's the argument for two serves, is it just tradition?
 

craner

Beast of Burden
I don't know. Serena Williams got a tournament record for aces this year, but that might just be a Serena thing. Didn't they change the grass at Wimbledon about 10 years ago? I think they can slow courts down, meaning less aces, but I'm not sure. They've had to change the shape of javelins a couple of times, when they started to get a bit too close (in some cases land on) the running track.
 

Lichen

Well-known member
Slight digression... I stopped watching tennis cos it got so boring and serve dominated but that seems to have gone away now, why is that? ?

At Wimbledon, where the surface had accelerated play to the point where it became tedious, more and fuzzier felt was added to the balls, slowing them up a bit.
I think they may also have changed the grass seeds used. Not 100% on that bit.

The result?

15 years or so ago the average 'rally' was 2.1 shots long. Today is something like 5.
 
Top