SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
Just Del Potro as far as I can see. The only Grand Slam tournaments both Nadal and Federer have been at and neither has won are 2005 Australian Open, 2008 Australian Open and 2009 US Open. Amazing.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* Tennis Thread
- Thread starter Mister Wright
- Start date
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Can the Berdman do it again? And will he be a prick and piss of Nadal afterwards this time again? 
YouTube - Nadal-Berdych Madrid 2006
YouTube - Nadal-Berdych Madrid 2006
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Expecting a crash back down to earth after we were treated to the greatest and longest Wimbledon finals ever in consecutive years.Whoever wins today, tennis wins
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
Berdych already conceded three aces. Going to long for a break it seems.
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
Massacre coming up.
How the hell did Federer get broken four times by a guy who can't get returns in.
How the hell did Federer get broken four times by a guy who can't get returns in.
ohtani's jacket
State Vice-Captain
Third dud Grand Slam final for the year.
vogue
International Vice-Captain
...agreed..2 sets up and it doesn't look like Berdych can do a thing against Nadal to stop him taking the third
Bobisback
International Regular
Have been predicting this all day, everyone was trying to tell me why it was going to be good.
vogue
International Vice-Captain
...yeah...ball changing the most exciting thing thats happening in the game...
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
You obviously haven't seen many finals. A couple of the finals that Sampras won when the courts were still proper grass courts were far worse than this. Hewitt v Nalbandian in 2002 was ten times worse.
Xuhaib
International Coach
yeah sat bits of it why are the courts getting slower each year serve and volley was always the highlight at Wimbledon.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Watching a rerun of the Womens doubles raises an interesting question.
Vania King was on the winning team. She is 21 years old and currently ranked 71st in the world in singles.
Her brother, Phillip King was a two time US Junior Champion with a bright future who took a tennis scholarship (very valuable) to Duke (a top University) rather than immediately turn pro. At university he was a four-time All-American
He currently languishes at 1315 in the world
As he said, "The hardest part is seeing a lot of these guys like Fish and Ginepri, guys that I was beating in the juniors, and seeing them do really well"
On the face of it a tennis scholarship to a top University would not be a good idea even if you are just a low-mid level prospect. That seems really strange and seems to force kids to gamble with sacrificing their free ride and education and playing high level amateur College tennis in order to have a crack at the pros.
"I lost four years of pro tennis. I didn't lose four years of my life. I really want to clarify that. It's just very difficult to progress if you're spending time with guys who are not going to do the same thing as you are."
"If you look at the top 100, there's only one or two guys at most who finished college," he said. "So you're looking at a two percent chance. Any business sense, you don't throw money at something that's only going to work two percent of the time."
Now the family said they leaned from the lesson of Phillip and Vania didnt take a University scholarship and turned pro at 17.
Given she is unlikely to be a top singles player and could have still turned pro after college, is her decision to sacrifice a free, high level education the right one? Winning this years doubles at Wimbledon probably goes some way to justify the decision but it is still a huge gamble, especially as mid-low level players dont earn that much and have little security.
Vania King was on the winning team. She is 21 years old and currently ranked 71st in the world in singles.
Her brother, Phillip King was a two time US Junior Champion with a bright future who took a tennis scholarship (very valuable) to Duke (a top University) rather than immediately turn pro. At university he was a four-time All-American
He currently languishes at 1315 in the world
As he said, "The hardest part is seeing a lot of these guys like Fish and Ginepri, guys that I was beating in the juniors, and seeing them do really well"
On the face of it a tennis scholarship to a top University would not be a good idea even if you are just a low-mid level prospect. That seems really strange and seems to force kids to gamble with sacrificing their free ride and education and playing high level amateur College tennis in order to have a crack at the pros.
"I lost four years of pro tennis. I didn't lose four years of my life. I really want to clarify that. It's just very difficult to progress if you're spending time with guys who are not going to do the same thing as you are."
"If you look at the top 100, there's only one or two guys at most who finished college," he said. "So you're looking at a two percent chance. Any business sense, you don't throw money at something that's only going to work two percent of the time."
Now the family said they leaned from the lesson of Phillip and Vania didnt take a University scholarship and turned pro at 17.
Given she is unlikely to be a top singles player and could have still turned pro after college, is her decision to sacrifice a free, high level education the right one? Winning this years doubles at Wimbledon probably goes some way to justify the decision but it is still a huge gamble, especially as mid-low level players dont earn that much and have little security.
Last edited:
Johnners
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nah not buying that one Jono. The argument has nothing to do with Serena's dominance and I doubt you'd find much evidence on here to suggest that's the case (apart from this final just gone) It's the regular crap matches where we see the other women battle to see who can serve the most double faults or hit the most unforced errors in the deciding set that raise the issue.