The Scot wins out.
This Murray guy, well, I'm impressed with his performance. He has a **** load of talent.
Look for him to be big in the near future.
Er.....does anyone even watch tennis?
Andy Murray tops Andy Roddick
Moderators:Best First, spiderfrommars, IronHide
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Guest
Re: Andy Murray tops Andy Roddick
Isn't that almost word-for-word what MacEnroe said last year?Yaya wrote:This Murray guy, well, I'm impressed with his performance. He has a **** load of talent.
Look for him to be big in the near future.
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
I watch Tennis, but only because the women are extremely beautiful and Roger Federer is better at tennis than Tiger Woods is at golf.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.
-
Impactor returns 2.0
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:6885
- Joined:Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
- ::Starlord
- Location:Your Mums
He did. At Wimbledon. Fed won in five, but this was towards the end of Pete's career.Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Fed is a god at tennis I would have loved to have seen him play Sampras
Federer is great, no doubt, but to say he's better than Sampras, or even others like Borg, Laver, etc. is premature, IMO.
For one thing, he's playing in an era where his only competition is Nadal. Agassi's done, and even a washed up Andre gave Federer a run for his money at the US Open last year.
I mean, Sampras is clearly better IMO. He faced Andre in his prime, he took on the likes of Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl, Courier, Chang, Stich, Safin, Hewitt, Kuerten, and Roddick. Pete's career spanned three generations of the greatest tennis players of the open era.
If Federer faced this competition, I guarantee you he wouldn't be steam rolling like he is now.
And if he faced Edberg, the greatest serve-and-volleyer there ever was, how would he fare? He has a losing record to Henman, for, uh, Pete's? sake.
And I'm a Nadal fan. So let me be the first to say:
RAFA OWNS FEDERER.
"But the Costa story featuring Starscream? Fantastic! This guy is "The One", I just know it, just from these few pages. "--Yaya, who is never wrong.
-
Impactor returns 2.0
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:6885
- Joined:Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:00 pm
- ::Starlord
- Location:Your Mums
My friend and I were just talking about this and we agree - but then someone mentioned the old addage of you can only beat whats in front of you.Yaya wrote: I mean, Sampras is clearly better IMO. He faced Andre in his prime, he took on the likes of Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl, Courier, Chang, Stich, Safin, Hewitt, Kuerten, and Roddick. Pete's career spanned three generations of the greatest tennis players of the open era.
I still think Fed has a wicked repitoir of moves available and his 2nd serve rate % I just learnt is more impressives then Borgs... interesting.
I like Tennis its one of the few sports outside footy I think is pure and can change in a single moment, great stuff.
