PDA

View Full Version : why is murray good on grass


tennis_hand
06-18-2009, 07:49 PM
has he proven to be good on grass?

he has proved to be good on hard court. when did he prove to be good on grass? only the recent Queens title? Roddick won it many times. but no talk about Roddick's wimbledon chance?

deltox
06-18-2009, 07:52 PM
has he proven to be good on grass?

he has proved to be good on hard court. when did he prove to be good on grass? only the recent Queens title? Roddick won it many times. but no talk about Roddick's wimbledon chance?

Roddick has a hurt ankle :cry:

Guru
06-18-2009, 07:53 PM
I don't think he's that good on grass it's just that so many people can't play on it.
It would of been intresting to see him up against Roddick in queens
because that would have been a tough test for him.

Federer and Nadal are better grass court players
but Murray's right behind them along with Roddick.

Roddick has a chance to win Wimbldeon just as long as he can avoid Federer.

Brned
06-18-2009, 08:04 PM
Well... he's british so all this hype was expected. Also he made a decent run last year being stopped only Nadal and since then his game only got better IMO. It may be a non-factor but he said he enjoys playing on grass :).

Since Roddick is in a losing spree against the top 3 AND lost to Murray back in 2006 his chances are rather slim I think.

egn
06-18-2009, 08:11 PM
Honestly I think Roddick>Murray on grass he seems to have regained his form from 2005. He is putting together one of his best seasons yet Roddick and I think as long as that ankle heals up nicely I think he could do damage at Wimbledon. Remember this is grass big servers flourish. All Roddick needs to do is back up his serve with either a strong baseline game or a half decent net game. When you have a serve that big you can do damage.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 08:15 PM
Honestly I think Roddick>Murray on grass he seems to have regained his form from 2005. He is putting together one of his best seasons yet Roddick and I think as long as that ankle heals up nicely I think he could do damage at Wimbledon. Remember this is grass big servers flourish. All Roddick needs to do is back up his serve with either a strong baseline game or a half decent net game. When you have a serve that big you can do damage.

I'll leave this forum if Roddick beats Murray at Wimbledon or on grass, period. It won't happen. The standard has simply improved since Roddick was a major force on grass. Add to that the matchup problem he has with Murray and the guy doesn't really have much chance on grass against Murray. One of the main problems is that Murray reads his serve like a book and Roddick isn't particularly effective at returning Murray's serve.

Max G.
06-18-2009, 08:17 PM
has he proven to be good on grass?

he has proved to be good on hard court. when did he prove to be good on grass? only the recent Queens title? Roddick won it many times. but no talk about Roddick's wimbledon chance?

His first professional match win was on grass. His first Grand Slam quarterfinal was on grass, and was in fact the launchpad for his success in the summer last year.

He just won a prestigious grasscourt warmup tournament.

I mean, it's not like we're saying he's like so much better on grass than on hardcourts, but there's no reason to believe that he's any worse on grass than on hardcourts...

jamesblakefan#1
06-18-2009, 08:17 PM
Honestly I think Roddick>Murray on grass he seems to have regained his form from 2005. He is putting together one of his best seasons yet Roddick and I think as long as that ankle heals up nicely I think he could do damage at Wimbledon. Remember this is grass big servers flourish. All Roddick needs to do is back up his serve with either a strong baseline game or a half decent net game. When you have a serve that big you can do damage.

You could have said the same thing last year...and the year before...and the year before that. Roddick's good, but has to get an easy draw to make it far. If he gets Kohlschreiber or Haas in the 3rd Round, he could go out.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 08:25 PM
Couldn't think of anywhere else to post this on here, so I'll post it here since it has Murray in the title. :lol:

Here's my 3rd compilation for Murray fans. It has clips from Murray vs. Nalbandian at Wimbledon 25 and vs. Roddick from Wimbledon 2006.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvsX37XQE7c

egn
06-18-2009, 08:30 PM
I'll leave this forum if Roddick beats Murray at Wimbledon or on grass, period. It won't happen. The standard has simply improved since Roddick was a major force on grass. Add to that the matchup problem he has with Murray and the guy doesn't really have much chance on grass against Murray. One of the main problems is that Murray reads his serve like a book and Roddick isn't particularly effective at returning Murray's serve.

Based on what? I don't think Roddick can beat Murray but anything can happen and Roddick all ready has shown he can handle Djokovic and Roddick is pretty comfortable on grass, all he needs to do is serve really well and I think you will be suprised. Besides lets see Murray do something at a slam I am still prepared for another pre semifinal exit.

jamesblakefan#1
06-18-2009, 08:34 PM
I guess US Open finals don't count anymore for Murray...

Yes, all he needs to do is serve really well, and he can beat anyone not named Federer and healthy Nadal.

But when his serve is off and he doesn't return as well, he can be beaten by a lot of talented guys. That's been his main problem. He isn't aggressive enough off the return of serve. May it be different this yr? Possibly.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 08:37 PM
Based on what? I don't think Roddick can beat Murray but anything can happen and Roddick all ready has shown he can handle Djokovic and Roddick is pretty comfortable on grass, all he needs to do is serve really well and I think you will be suprised. Besides lets see Murray do something at a slam I am still prepared for another pre semifinal exit.

Murray has already done something at a slam. People seem to forget that he has only actually participated in 14 slams. He missed the most important chunk of 2007.

Let me ask you this. When was the earliest you expected Murray to reach a slam final?

And what do I base my opinion on? Don't take my word for it. Roddick says the same thing. So does Ferrero. Today's top guys are better than the top guys from 2002-2005. I doubt you'll see another Johansson winning a slam in this era. And if you think the end of Federer's dominance is all down to a physical decline, you're kidding yourself. He's 27 years old and has a style of play that lends itself to longevity.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 08:38 PM
I guess US Open finals don't count anymore for Murray...

Yes, all he needs to do is serve really well, and he can beat anyone not named Federer and healthy Nadal.

But when his serve is off and he doesn't return as well, he can be beaten by a lot of talented guys. That's been his main problem. He isn't aggressive enough off the return of serve. May it be different this yr? Possibly.

I don't think it matters how well he serves. Murray returns better than both Federer and Nadal, to be honest. I think Roddick has a good shot at anyone outside the top 3.

egn
06-18-2009, 08:46 PM
Murray has already done something at a slam. People seem to forget that he has only actually participated in 14 slams. He missed the most important chunk of 2007.

Let me ask you this. When was the earliest you expected Murray to reach a slam final?

And what do I base my opinion on? Don't take my word for it. Roddick says the same thing. So does Ferrero. Today's top guys are better than the top guys from 2002-2005. I doubt you'll see another Johansson winning a slam in this era. And if you think the end of Federer's dominance is all down to a physical decline, you're kidding yourself. He's 27 years old and has a style of play that lends itself to longevity.

He has a slam final. I actually though Murray was going to be in a slam final between this very time I had been watching him ever since he upset Fed. I mean most top players hit slam finals around this time so I don't see what is so impressive by it. Hell Roddick won his 12th slam. I want Murray to be more consistent in slams first before I crown him the greatest thing ever and I don't see anything wrong with that he as 1 final and 2 quarters...

Also if the top is so much better than why are the guys now consistently going deep in the slams Fed era hang overs. Yea I mean oh man Robin Soderling definitely much better than those guys at the top in 2002-2005. What about the fact that Gonzo made another slam semi, Roddick as well oh and Verdasco made a slam semi? Roddick feels the guys at the top are so much better, it hasn't really changed much since 2005 it is still Fed+Nadal. Of course he will say Djokovic is better cause he beats the crap out of him on a daily basis. I never said Fed's end had to do with physical decline so where you pulled this out of was nothing. Fed's end of dominance is partially due to his own decline and partially due to Nadal peaking. Excuse me for not buying into the hype but call me when Murray or Djokovic start to step up and take control with Nadal. Right now it is the same two man show just the roles are reversed. Besides Fed did most of his dominating from 2006-2007 part of your timeline left out..

Also mind you Ferrero said he was playing better than number 1 and please if you believe that than you are telling me that a number 1 player from 2002 plays 90th in the world?

Give credit where it is due #1 reason Fed lost his ranking Nadal played outstanding tennis last year and outplayed him.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 08:49 PM
He has a slam final. I actually though Murray was going to be in a slam final between this very time I had been watching him ever since he upset Fed.



Murray first beat Federer in 2006. That was his first full year on tour. You're telling me you expected him to reach a slam final in his first full year on tour?

zagor
06-18-2009, 08:52 PM
Murray has already done something at a slam. People seem to forget that he has only actually participated in 14 slams. He missed the most important chunk of 2007.

Let me ask you this. When was the earliest you expected Murray to reach a slam final?

And what do I base my opinion on? Don't take my word for it. Roddick says the same thing. So does Ferrero. Today's top guys are better than the top guys from 2002-2005. I doubt you'll see another Johansson winning a slam in this era. And if you think the end of Federer's dominance is all down to a physical decline, you're kidding yourself. He's 27 years old and has a style of play that lends itself to longevity.

While it's quite possible that standards have improved(which I believe has happened to some degree)and that field has adapted and figured Fed out(which I believe is the case)there isn't any drastic improvement otherwise guys like Roddick,Gonzo,Soderling and Verdasco wouldn't be making so much noise among all these young guns.I mean Murray got bageled in a QF of a slam by a soon to be 29 year old Gonzo,I don't care if it is Murray's worst surface,if the difference in the level of play is that drastic then there's simply no way that happens.

egn
06-18-2009, 08:52 PM
Murray first beat Federer in 2006. That was his first full year on tour. You're telling me you expected him to reach a slam final in his first full year on tour?

sorry i mean to say around this very time. I expected him to get to slam final around now so he hit it a year earlier, but I figured him to be doing a lot. This very time meaning this moment. Murray showed from the get go a lot more talent and I thought he was going to be one of the next big guys.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:03 PM
sorry i mean to say around this very time. I expected him to get to slam final around now so he hit it a year earlier, but I figured him to be doing a lot. This very time meaning this moment. Murray showed from the get go a lot more talent and I thought he was going to be one of the next big guys.

I don't think he has disappointed at the slams. He's just played fewer than people realise. He also had a bit of bad luck, what with drawing Tsonga in the first round and being ill this year in Australia.

Wimbledon and the US this year is where he should be judged. He's healthy and has no excuses not to make an impact.

zagor
06-18-2009, 09:03 PM
He has a slam final. I actually though Murray was going to be in a slam final between this very time I had been watching him ever since he upset Fed. I mean most top players hit slam finals around this time so I don't see what is so impressive by it. Hell Roddick won his 12th slam. I want Murray to be more consistent in slams first before I crown him the greatest thing ever and I don't see anything wrong with that he as 1 final and 2 quarters...

Also if the top is so much better than why are the guys now consistently going deep in the slams Fed era hang overs. Yea I mean oh man Robin Soderling definitely much better than those guys at the top in 2002-2005. What about the fact that Gonzo made another slam semi, Roddick as well oh and Verdasco made a slam semi? Roddick feels the guys at the top are so much better, it hasn't really changed much since 2005 it is still Fed+Nadal. Of course he will say Djokovic is better cause he beats the crap out of him on a daily basis. I never said Fed's end had to do with physical decline so where you pulled this out of was nothing. Fed's end of dominance is partially due to his own decline and partially due to Nadal peaking. Excuse me for not buying into the hype but call me when Murray or Djokovic start to step up and take control with Nadal. Right now it is the same two man show just the roles are reversed. Besides Fed did most of his dominating from 2006-2007 part of your timeline left out..

Also mind you Ferrero said he was playing better than number 1 and please if you believe that than you are telling me that a number 1 player from 2002 plays 90th in the world?

Give credit where it is due #1 reason Fed lost his ranking Nadal played outstanding tennis last year and outplayed him.

Agassi at 34-35 was saying that he's playing the best tennis of his career,it's just that players are so good today.Same with Sampras who was claiming that he was playing much better at 2002 than he did during the 90s which was quite frankly ridiculous.Those guys are top athletes,it's hard for them to admit they declined and are just not as good as before.

Max G.
06-18-2009, 09:07 PM
And what do I base my opinion on? Don't take my word for it. Roddick says the same thing. So does Ferrero. Today's top guys are better than the top guys from 2002-2005. I doubt you'll see another Johansson winning a slam in this era. And if you think the end of Federer's dominance is all down to a physical decline, you're kidding yourself. He's 27 years old and has a style of play that lends itself to longevity.

Eh, the thing is, everybody says that. I haven't been following tennis for all THAT long - just since '01 or so - but since then, pretty much all the time people have been saying how the top keeps improving, how everyone keeps improving.

It seems meaningless. Either it's always true - yes, the game keeps changing, and the players have to keep up, it's part of the deal - or it's never true and it's just the impression players get.

Federer's decline is certainly due to age. Maybe the age means that he can't improve as fast as everyone else... but it's no coincidence that he started this decline at the same age that many past greats started to show signs of weakness.

Ray Mercer
06-18-2009, 09:08 PM
Murray first beat Federer in 2006. That was his first full year on tour. You're telling me you expected him to reach a slam final in his first full year on tour?

You should be banned. Every post you make is a shot at Federer. Roger is a 14 time slam champ and is the greatest player in the open era. Just let it go man, he's the best and will be considered so until long after you're dead and gone.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:11 PM
While it's quite possible that standards have improved(which I believe has happened to some degree)and that field has adapted and figured Fed out(which I believe is the case)there isn't any drastic improvement otherwise guys like Roddick,Gonzo,Soderling and Verdasco wouldn't be making so much noise among all these young guns.I mean Murray got bageled in a QF of a slam by a soon to be 29 year old Gonzo,I don't care if it is Murray's worst surface,if the difference in the level of play is that drastic then there's simply no way that happens.

Soderling had one great tournament. You know how many guys I could list who have randomly reached a slam final? I'd hardly put him in that group. And Gonzalez is a solid player on other surfaces but he is excellent on clay. A slam semi isn't an overachievement. The draw opened up and he took advantage. Let's face it, Murray was an ideal QF opponent for him. Murray isn't half the player on clay that he is on hard and grass.

And so what if Murray got bagelled in a slam quarter? It's one set. You're reading an awful lot into one set. Did you actually watch that particular set? It was all Murray's mistakes. He inexplicably threw in a shitload of errors. So yeah, that has absolutely no bearing on the standard of play now. That's a pretty ridiculous argument, to isolate one set or even one tournament. And it was a pretty bizarre tournament. Nadal goes out, Djokovic goes out, Federer hangs on by the skin of his teeth until the final.

And Verdasco is a very good player. Did you see some of the tennis he played this year in Australia? Even at that, I'd hardly say he's making a lot of noise. He's pretty much a solid top 10. The standard has definitely improved a great deal.

And of course I don't think Ferrero is playing the tennis of his life. The point is that every single pro, expert says that the standard has improved beyond all recognition.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:12 PM
You should be banned. Every post you make is a shot at Federer. Roger is a 14 time slam champ and is the greatest player in the open era. Just let it go man, he's the best and will be considered so until long after you're dead and gone.

Are you insane? It wasn't a shot at Federer. When have I been taking shots at Federer? I responded to someone who mentioned the first time Murray upset Federer.

Talk about sensitive. You're not right in the head, mate.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:17 PM
Eh, the thing is, everybody says that. I haven't been following tennis for all THAT long - just since '01 or so - but since then, pretty much all the time people have been saying how the top keeps improving, how everyone keeps improving.

It seems meaningless. Either it's always true - yes, the game keeps changing, and the players have to keep up, it's part of the deal - or it's never true and it's just the impression players get.

Federer's decline is certainly due to age. Maybe the age means that he can't improve as fast as everyone else... but it's no coincidence that he started this decline at the same age that many past greats started to show signs of weakness.

If it's a decline, it's very minor. I think we saw a loss of form in 2008 combined with stiffer competition. I don't think his 2008 form was ever going to be permanent. Federer is playing better now than he was this time in 2008. And yes, the game keeps improving. It's the nature of the sport. It is constantly evolving. Players have to improve to keep up.

As I said, Federer is only 27 and he has a style of play that lends itself to longevity. We're not talking about a grinder here. We're talking about someone who has proved himself to be ultra fit. It defies logic that he would rapidly go down hill at the age of 27.

Ray Mercer
06-18-2009, 09:18 PM
Are you insane? It wasn't a shot at Federer. When have I been taking shots at Federer? I responded to someone who mentioned the first time Murray upset Federer.

Talk about sensitive. You're not right in the head, mate.

Every post you make is an indirect shot at Federer. You're either discrediting his slam victories due to a BS argument about the strength of the era, saying Federer's victories are the product of good draws or saying he is currently as good as he was in 2006. These statements are all a load of crap. Federer is better than Murray or Nadal ever will be, just drop it man.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:19 PM
Agassi at 34-35 was saying that he's playing the best tennis of his career,it's just that players are so good today.Same with Sampras who was claiming that he was playing much better at 2002 than he did during the 90s which was quite frankly ridiculous.Those guys are top athletes,it's hard for them to admit they declined and are just not as good as before.

I think these guys can judge the standard of play better than us. By them saying that the standard has improved, they are belittling their own achievements. They are essentially saying they were successful in a weaker era. There's no upside to saying something like that.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:20 PM
Every post you make is an indirect shot at Federer. You're either discrediting his slam victories due to a BS argument about the strength of the era, saying Federer's victories are the product of good draws or saying he is currently as good as he was in 2006. These statements are all a load of crap. Federer is better than Murray or Nadal ever will be, just drop it man.

The standard has improved. That's about the only thing I've said that you could possibly interpret as me discrediting Federer's achievements. You pretty much just made up the rest.

Like I said, you're not right in the head. You just randomly started ranting like a lunatic.

Ray Mercer
06-18-2009, 09:22 PM
The standard has improved. That's about the only thing I've said that you could possibly interpret as me discrediting Federer's achievements. You pretty much just made up the rest.

Like I said, you're not right in the head. You just randomly started ranting like a lunatic.

Federer is not as good now as he was in 2006. You have said he is multiple times. This simply is not true.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:24 PM
Federer is not as good now as he was in 2006. You have said he is multiple times. This simply is not true.

No, I said any decline is minor. I wouldn't be so bold as to say he's as good now as he was in 2006. I just think his decline has been overstated.

nhat8121
06-18-2009, 09:25 PM
what's the major difference in grass from hard court? just a bit faster, right?

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:27 PM
what's the major difference in grass from hard court? just a bit faster, right?

Used to be. Wimbledon is slower than US Open now. The difference is the bounce and the movement. Very low bounce on grass. Lends itself to the slice and aggressive play.

Ray Mercer
06-18-2009, 09:29 PM
The standard has improved. That's about the only thing I've said that you could possibly interpret as me discrediting Federer's achievements. You pretty much just made up the rest.

Like I said, you're not right in the head. You just randomly started ranting like a lunatic.

The standard has improved? Based on what evidence? Murray was spanked by Gonzalez two weeks ago, literally blown off the court. Nadal was just spanked today by Lleyton Hewitt. Safin and Roddick have pounded Djokovic recently. Davydenko destroyed Murray in the tennis masters in December.An old Nalbandian has Nadal running for his life earlier this year. Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are all susceptible to being blown of the court and have endured frequent upsets. Besides the french last year when has Federer ever been blown out in the early rounds of a slam?

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:32 PM
The standard has improved? Based on what evidence? Murray was spanked by Gonzalez two weeks ago, literally blown off the court. Nadal was just spanked today by Lleyton Hewitt. Safin and Roddick have pounded Djokovic recently. Davydenko destroyed Murray in the tennis masters in December.An old Nalbandian has Nadal running for his life earlier this year. Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are all susceptible to being blown of the court and have endured frequent upsets. Besides the french last year when has Federer ever been blown out in the early rounds of a slam?

Murray was literally blown off the court, was he? Funny, I didn't see a giant gust of wind send him flying out of the stadium.

Congratulations. You've listed some tennis upsets. I guess that proves your point. Sometimes players lose when they are supposed to win. This means that the standard hasn't improved.

My evidence? How about every player under the sun stating that the standard has improved? That's some pretty sound evidence.

Ray Mercer
06-18-2009, 09:33 PM
No, I said any decline is minor. I wouldn't be so bold as to say he's as good now as he was in 2006. I just think his decline has been overstated.

The only thing that has been overstated is your argument of this era being much stronger. Let's just put it this way, in my opinion Federer's struggles are much more a result of his decline than this era being more competitive. I think most would agree with me more than they would with you.

NamRanger
06-18-2009, 09:34 PM
I'll leave this forum if Roddick beats Murray at Wimbledon or on grass, period. It won't happen. The standard has simply improved since Roddick was a major force on grass. Add to that the matchup problem he has with Murray and the guy doesn't really have much chance on grass against Murray. One of the main problems is that Murray reads his serve like a book and Roddick isn't particularly effective at returning Murray's serve.


If I told you before the FO that Soderling was going to beat Nadal in 4 would you believe it? Don't think so.



They play the matches for a reason. Because nothing is a given. You think Roddick was going to torch Djokovic and Nadal in Dubai in 2008? Heck, I didn't even think he would.



Also, he listed alot of players from the Federer era that were beating up on players from the new era. Safin, Nalbandian, even Ferrero occasionally sneaks in a win or two. Heck, right now Roddick is beating the living snot out of Djokovic currently this year, and has given Nadal all sorts of trouble. It's hard to compare eras, because when someone that is so dominant as Federer exists, it's hard to say if his field was weak or not.


I mean, are we going to call the field of 94-95 weak just because Sampras blew everyone off the court (quite literally)? Statistically these were probably his best years back to back. No, because we all know that's simply not true.

Ray Mercer
06-18-2009, 09:34 PM
Murray was literally blown off the court, was he? Funny, I didn't see a giant gust of wind send him flying out of the stadium.

Congratulations. You've listed some tennis upsets. I guess that proves your point. Sometimes players lose when they are supposed to win. This means that the standard hasn't improved.

My evidence? How about every player under the sun stating that the standard has improved? That's some pretty sound evidence.

Well if this era is so much stronger these young prime players should be dismantling the older veterans. Roddick beating Djokovic is a trend, not a one time event.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:35 PM
The only thing that has been overstated is your argument of this era being much stronger. Let's just put it this way, in my opinion Federer's struggles are much more a result of his decline than this era being more competitive. I think most would agree with me more than they would with you.

That's because we have a lot of Federer fans. It's tough for his fans to admit that he dominated a pretty weak era, comparatively speaking.

Ray Mercer
06-18-2009, 09:40 PM
That's because we have a lot of Federer fans. It's tough for his fans to admit that he dominated a pretty weak era, comparatively speaking.

Just watch film. He was ripping winners at will back in 2005-2006. There is no way you can possibly justify him being more or less the same player he was in 2006. Last year he was beatenn by Blake and Roddick for god's sakes. Have you watched the 2006 masters cup final with Blake? That beating was ruthless and typical of Federer then. If you nitpick enough you can tear apart any tennis era.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:40 PM
Well if this era is so much stronger these young prime players should be dismantling the older veterans. Roddick beating Djokovic is a trend, not a one time event.

It's a trend? He's beaten him twice in a row and one was a retirement.

And these young players are beating the veterans. You seen Roddick's H2H with Murray? How about Murray's H2H with Federer? How about Roddick's record with Nadal? Nadal's H2H with Federer?

It's fun winding you up.

NamRanger
06-18-2009, 09:40 PM
That's because we have a lot of Federer fans. It's tough for his fans to admit that he dominated a pretty weak era, comparatively speaking.


Yeah, because Federer had to deal with the likes of Rios, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Johnasson, etc. in the late 90s to 2000s. Such obscenely tough opponents :rolleyes:



Federer's field isn't weak. It isn't anywhere near the strongest, but it isn't even close to "weak" when you have Nadal, Roddick, and Hewitt in it.

NamRanger
06-18-2009, 09:41 PM
It's a trend? He's beaten him twice in a row and one was a retirement.

And these young players are beating the veterans. You seen Roddick's H2H with Murray? How about Murray's H2H with Federer? How about Roddick's record with Nadal? Nadal's H2H with Federer?

It's fun winding you up.


One was a retirement because he beat the living snot out of Djokovic.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:41 PM
Just watch film. He was ripping winners at will back in 2005-2006. There is no way you can possibly justify him being more or less the same player he was in 2006. Last year he was beatenn by Blake and Roddick for god's sakes. Have you watched the 2006 masters cup final with Blake? That beating was ruthless and typical of Federer then. If you nitpick enough you can tear apart any tennis era.

And in 2007 he was beaten twice in a row by Canas. What's your point?

jamesblakefan#1
06-18-2009, 09:42 PM
The standard has improved? Based on what evidence? Murray was spanked by Gonzalez two weeks ago, literally blown off the court.

If losing in 4 sets on your least favorite surface and your opponent's favorite surface is getting spanked, then yes, he got "spanked".

Nadal was just spanked today by Lleyton Hewitt.

2 weeks after he spanked Hewitt, and Hewitt spanked him in an exhibition...when's the last time Hewitt did that to Nadal in a tourney? Beat him, I mean, not come close like Hamburg a few yrs ago.

Safin and Roddick have pounded Djokovic recently.

Just like Roddick pounded Djokovic in the US Open. Oh wait, he didn't. And who has Safin beaten this year? He's been getting pounded by everyone recently.

Davydenko destroyed Murray in the tennis masters in December.

After Murray had beaten Federer.

An old Nalbandian has Nadal running for his life earlier this year.

But still couldn't finish and lost.

Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are all susceptible to being blown of the court and have endured frequent upsets. Besides the french last year when has Federer ever been blown out in the early rounds of a slam?

Not a slam, but Roger has some losses too. Lost to Mardy Fish (Mardy Fish?) at Indian Wells. Losing to Simon, Karlovic and Blake last summer. And being tested more than ever in early rounds of slams (08 AO, 08 USO, 09 AO, 09 FO). Federer has gotten slightly worse, but the competition is also better, you have to admit that.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:44 PM
If I told you before the FO that Soderling was going to beat Nadal in 4 would you believe it? Don't think so.



They play the matches for a reason. Because nothing is a given. You think Roddick was going to torch Djokovic and Nadal in Dubai in 2008? Heck, I didn't even think he would.



Also, he listed alot of players from the Federer era that were beating up on players from the new era. Safin, Nalbandian, even Ferrero occasionally sneaks in a win or two. Heck, right now Roddick is beating the living snot out of Djokovic currently this year, and has given Nadal all sorts of trouble. It's hard to compare eras, because when someone that is so dominant as Federer exists, it's hard to say if his field was weak or not.


I mean, are we going to call the field of 94-95 weak just because Sampras blew everyone off the court (quite literally)? Statistically these were probably his best years back to back. No, because we all know that's simply not true.

Upsets do happen, you're right. I just don't see Roddick, with his game, beating Federer or Murray. Nadal is a possibility, depending on fitness.

Roddick beat Djokovic once comprehensively this year. He also lost in 4 sets last year at the US Open. Roddick is one of the few old guard who have managed to keep up with the new guys.

Brned
06-18-2009, 09:44 PM
That weak era argument again....

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:47 PM
Not a slam, but Roger has some losses too. Lost to Mardy Fish (Mardy Fish?) at Indian Wells. Losing to Simon, Karlovic and Blake last summer. And being tested more than ever in early rounds of slams (08 AO, 08 USO, 09 AO, 09 FO). Federer has gotten slightly worse, but the competition is also better, you have to admit that.

I don't see why people find it so hard to admit that there are a combination of factors at work. It's obvious to me that the top guys today are better than the top guys from a few years ago.

Ray Mercer
06-18-2009, 09:51 PM
If losing in 4 sets on your least favorite surface and your opponent's favorite surface is getting spanked, then yes, he got "spanked".


2 weeks after he spanked Hewitt, and Hewitt spanked him in an exhibition...when's the last time Hewitt did that to Nadal in a tourney? Beat him, I mean, not come close like Hamburg a few yrs ago.


Just like Roddick pounded Djokovic in the US Open. Oh wait, he didn't. And who has Safin beaten this year? He's been getting pounded by everyone recently.


After Murray had beaten Federer.


But still couldn't finish and lost.



Not a slam, but Roger has some losses too. Lost to Mardy Fish (Mardy Fish?) at Indian Wells. Losing to Simon, Karlovic and Blake last summer. And being tested more than ever in early rounds of slams (08 AO, 08 USO, 09 AO, 09 FO). Federer has gotten slightly worse, but the competition is also better, you have to admit that.

Gonzalez still beat him up. Murray had no answer for the forehand. I would also argue Gonzalez is just as good on a hard court. I would bet Roger would have beat him.

Still beat him at 29 years old with hip issues.

Roddick has beat him twice in a row and fairly definitively.

3 set match. He should have had gas in the tank, great players do. Roger just won the French playing 3 five setters.

These losses are exactly proof that Federer has declined as he was pounding Fish and Blake four years prior. I know you're a Blake fan but that masters cup final in 06 was a massacre.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:54 PM
Yeah, because Federer had to deal with the likes of Rios, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Johnasson, etc. in the late 90s to 2000s. Such obscenely tough opponents :rolleyes:



Federer's field isn't weak. It isn't anywhere near the strongest, but it isn't even close to "weak" when you have Nadal, Roddick, and Hewitt in it.

A young Nadal.

And are you kidding when you say Roddick and Hewitt? The game has completely moved beyond Hewitt in particular. He simply doesn't generate enough pace (never has) to be able to compete with these guys.

And Roddick? He has pretty much been humiliated by Federer for years. If that's what you're comparing to today's era, I really have to laugh.

As an aside for Ray Mercer. You know that 2006 you keep mentioning? Federer only lost to two players that year. A young Nadal and a young Murray. I didn't see any of the older generation beating him.

Feņa14
06-18-2009, 09:57 PM
Murray is good on grass, no doubt. Some of his performances both on the tour and in Davis Cup have been the best of his career. Who can forget him toying with Nalbandian on Centre Court when he was just a kid? He also took out Stepanek in straight sets the same year, his dismantling of Roddick was also pretty special.

He's not really had any top competition on grass since his big breakthrough came at last years tournament, but if he plays like he did at Queens then we could be in for some good viewing. I remember one point where he hit a few slices crosscourt, followed by a wicked short angle slice, followed by a gentle slice down the line winner whilst the opponent was at the net. I think the grass suits his imaginative and creative side and that's when he's at his best imo, he can be a bit defensive sometimes on hard courts but that's not the case on grass.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 09:57 PM
Gonzalez still beat him up. Murray had no answer for the forehand. I would also argue Gonzalez is just as good on a hard court. I would bet Roger would have beat him.

Still beat him at 29 years old with hip issues.

Roddick has beat him twice in a row and fairly definitively.

3 set match. He should have had gas in the tank, great players do. Roger just won the French playing 3 five setters.

These losses are exactly proof that Federer has declined as he was pounding Fish and Blake four years prior. I know you're a Blake fan but that masters cup final in 06 was a massacre.

Gonzalez is as good as Murray on hard? Give me a break, you delusional fool.

Gonzo beat Murray on his worst surface. Juan Monaco also beat Murray on that surface just a month prior. Ancic even beat Murray on clay.

Ray Mercer
06-18-2009, 09:59 PM
I don't see why people find it so hard to admit that there are a combination of factors at work. It's obvious to me that the top guys today are better than the top guys from a few years ago.

I don't get why you always take it upon yourself to mention this after you've already done so repeatedly just to try to stir **** up. You just sound so bitter because Federer won the French. Get over it and move on to another topic.

Ray Mercer
06-18-2009, 09:59 PM
Gonzalez is as good as Murray on hard? Give me a break, you delusional fool.

Gonzo beat Murray on his worst surface. Juan Monaco also beat Murray on that surface just a month prior. Ancic even beat Murray on clay.

I said Gonzalez is arguably as good on hard as he is on clay dipshit.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 10:01 PM
I don't get why you always take it upon yourself to mention this after you've already done so repeatedly just to try to stir **** up. You just sound so bitter because Federer won the French. Get over it and move on to another topic.

Um, I have no problem with Federer or the fact that he won the French. I'm just giving you my opinion. That doesn't mean I'm against Federer. You're just incredibly sensitive.

jamesblakefan#1
06-18-2009, 10:01 PM
Top 5 at the end of 2006
Federer
Nadal
Ljubicic
Blake
Davydenko

Top 5 currently
Nadal
Federer
Murray
Djokovic
DelPotro

Aside from Nadal, that top 5 had 0 slam finals between them. Today's has 3, with 1 win. Aside from Nadal, that top 5 had 1 MS title between them, that being Davydenko in an event Fed and Nadal didn't play in. Today's has 7: 4 for Djok, 3 for Murray, 0 for DelPot.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 10:01 PM
I said Gonzalez is arguably as good on hard as he is on clay dipshit.

Try and word things better, genius.

Ray Mercer
06-18-2009, 10:05 PM
Um, I have no problem with Federer or the fact that he won the French. I'm just giving you my opinion. That doesn't mean I'm against Federer. You're just incredibly sensitive.

You don't need to state your opinion in twenty threads. I mean what are you looking for? Are you looking for me to respond with, Federer is overrated and Murray is a much better player then him. Roger dominated a weak era. If Murray were around in 03-06 he would also have 14 slams. Is this what you seriously believe? If you do you're a moron.

jamesblakefan#1
06-18-2009, 10:06 PM
The top 5 players in 2006, Federer's best year, was arguably the weakest top 5 of recent memory, with 0 slam finals outside of Nadal. Today the talent at the top is if not as good, better, with an improved Nadal, Djokovic and Murray as constant threats to Federer, unlike the past, where top guys were doormats who rarely won at the big events.

Clydey2times
06-18-2009, 10:07 PM
You don't need to state your opinion in twenty threads. I mean what are you looking for? Are you looking for me to respond with, Federer is overrated and Murray is a much better player then him. Roger dominated a weak era. If Murray were around in 03-06 he would also have 14 slams. Is this what you seriously believe? If you do you're a moron.

Wow, you are off the charts crazy. You're seriously unhinged. You're ranting and raving like a lunatic.

Ray Mercer
06-18-2009, 10:09 PM
Wow, you are off the charts crazy. You're seriously unhinged. You're ranting and raving like a lunatic.

Why else would you keep bringing this era argument up? Are you trying to convince people? The only logical explanation is to discredit Federer's achievements,

NamRanger
06-18-2009, 10:44 PM
Gonzalez is as good as Murray on hard? Give me a break, you delusional fool.

Gonzo beat Murray on his worst surface. Juan Monaco also beat Murray on that surface just a month prior. Ancic even beat Murray on clay.



In terms of slams Gonzalez actually is ahead of Murray in that department. But still; Murray is quite obviously a better player on HCs than Gonzalez.

jamesblakefan#1
06-18-2009, 10:50 PM
In terms of slams Gonzalez actually is ahead of Murray in that department. But still; Murray is quite obviously a better player on HCs than Gonzalez.

In terms of HC slams, they're actually pretty close. Both have one final, but Gonzo also has a QF at the USO in 02. Other than that, he hasn't been past the 4th round of a HC slam, same as Murray.

Leublu tennis
06-18-2009, 10:56 PM
I don't think it matters how well he serves. Murray returns better than both Federer and Nadal, to be honest. I think Roddick has a good shot at anyone outside the top 3.I think it matters. Murray has to win his own service game and not simply outdefend the oponent on his serve. I wonder if he is setting some kind of an ue record for his oponents. There hasn't been a player like him since Harold M. Solomon. But Solomon was two feet shorter and could hardly serve but he was a wall on returns. Moon balls were named after him, H. Moon Solomon.

zagor
06-18-2009, 11:30 PM
Soderling had one great tournament. You know how many guys I could list who have randomly reached a slam final? I'd hardly put him in that group. And Gonzalez is a solid player on other surfaces but he is excellent on clay. A slam semi isn't an overachievement. The draw opened up and he took advantage. Let's face it, Murray was an ideal QF opponent for him. Murray isn't half the player on clay that he is on hard and grass.

And so what if Murray got bagelled in a slam quarter? It's one set. You're reading an awful lot into one set. Did you actually watch that particular set? It was all Murray's mistakes. He inexplicably threw in a shitload of errors. So yeah, that has absolutely no bearing on the standard of play now. That's a pretty ridiculous argument, to isolate one set or even one tournament. And it was a pretty bizarre tournament. Nadal goes out, Djokovic goes out, Federer hangs on by the skin of his teeth until the final.

And Verdasco is a very good player. Did you see some of the tennis he played this year in Australia? Even at that, I'd hardly say he's making a lot of noise. He's pretty much a solid top 10. The standard has definitely improved a great deal.

And of course I don't think Ferrero is playing the tennis of his life. The point is that every single pro, expert says that the standard has improved beyond all recognition.

It's fine you're entitled to your opinion,that standard has improved a great deal and beyond all recognition but I personally just don't buy it,improved? Yes,improved "beyond recognition"? No.

If it's improved so much than what are Roddick,Verdasco,Soderling,Gonzo and even Fed(supposedly done and surpassed by young guns yet has been in both AO and FO slam finals this year at the age of 27-28 ) doing so deep in slams this year? Why aren't those young guns being in deep stages of slams this year? Heck aside from Nadal(who is hardly what I call a young gun anymore,he has 6 slams already)Del Potro has the best results in slams out of all young guns this year despite being less hyped than Murray and Novak.

I watched Murray-Gonzo QF match and yes Murray was making silly errors in 4th set but nonetheless it doesn't matter why he lost the way he did,what matters is that in field supposedly improved so much you have a young player who is 3d best in the world losing pretty convincingly in a slam quartefinal to a guy who will turn 29 this year,something doesn't add up there.

Admittedly that's my impression of the year so far,of course there's still Wimbledon and USO to be played this year so we'll see how those will go,maybe will see Murray or Del Potro breakthrough and win one or both of them.

zagor
06-18-2009, 11:32 PM
Murray is good on grass, no doubt. Some of his performances both on the tour and in Davis Cup have been the best of his career. Who can forget him toying with Nalbandian on Centre Court when he was just a kid? He also took out Stepanek in straight sets the same year, his dismantling of Roddick was also pretty special.

He's not really had any top competition on grass since his big breakthrough came at last years tournament, but if he plays like he did at Queens then we could be in for some good viewing. I remember one point where he hit a few slices crosscourt, followed by a wicked short angle slice, followed by a gentle slice down the line winner whilst the opponent was at the net. I think the grass suits his imaginative and creative side and that's when he's at his best imo, he can be a bit defensive sometimes on hard courts but that's not the case on grass.

Wasn't Sean Connery attending that match if I remember well?

Clydey2times
06-19-2009, 02:02 AM
Wasn't Sean Connery attending that match if I remember well?

He was. I have the match on DVD. He was jumping out of his seat like a mad man. :lol:

batz
06-19-2009, 02:05 AM
Wasn't Sean Connery attending that match if I remember well?

"Mish Moneypenny, you're a shight for shore eyesh"

The only guy on the planet who could pull off playing a Soviet submarine commander - with an Edinburgh accent.

Clydey2times
06-19-2009, 02:18 AM
"Mish Moneypenny, you're a shight for shore eyesh"

The only guy on the planet who could pull off playing a Soviet submarine commander - with an Edinburgh accent.

Mate, here's something I made that you might enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvsX37XQE7c

batz
06-19-2009, 02:29 AM
Mate, here's something I made that you might enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvsX37XQE7c

That is absolute quality mate. I'd forgotten quite how skinny he was in 05!

Clydey2times
06-19-2009, 02:37 AM
That is absolute quality mate. I'd forgotten quite how skinny he was in 05!

I know. Pretty surreal to look at him now.

CocaCola
06-19-2009, 03:41 AM
*Under-pressure homeboy pusher * just can't win Wimby 09.

Halba
06-19-2009, 03:48 AM
has he proven to be good on grass?

he has proved to be good on hard court. when did he prove to be good on grass? only the recent Queens title? Roddick won it many times. but no talk about Roddick's wimbledon chance?


Murray:

he has a nice flat first serve that is BIG and suited to grass

he takes the ball early and on the rise

fantastic return of serve - great technique to watch as he takes the ball early

he has good touch and finesse, great ball control skills especially with the backhand, the best double handed backhand in the modern game.

he has an improving and now deadly forehand

he has superior fitness and agility on the court, best mover and defender on a fast court(w/ nadal), gets to a LOT of balls

has that unique ability like Federer to slice on the backhand, his double hander can transition to single hander. He has a GOOD slice. No one else slices better. Nadal's slices are junk balls. only Federer and Murray's slices are hard to put away. Can get good angles on this. Djoker's slice junk and delpo doesn't know how to slice.

can transition and volley good at net, great touch, but uses it sparingly due to the slower surfaces nowadays but can be aggressive

can change pace on backhand and forehand at will anywhere.

good dropshot

good mental strength having good wins in the past 12 months

improving placement on 2nd serve doesn't allow as much cheap points

jamesblakefan#1
06-19-2009, 03:51 AM
he has a nice flat first serve that is BIG and suited to grass

he takes the ball early and on the rise

fantastic return of serve - great technique to watch as he takes the ball early

he has good touch and finesse, great ball control skills especially with the backhand, the best double handed backhand in the modern game.

he has an improving and now deadly forehand

he has superior fitness and agility on the court, best mover and defender on a fast court(w/ nadal), gets to a LOT of balls

has that unique ability like Federer to slice on the backhand, his double hander can transition to single hander. He has a GOOD slice. No one else slices better. Nadal's slices are junk balls. only Federer and Murray's slices are hard to put away. Can get good angles on this. Djoker's slice junk and delpo doesn't know how to slice.

can transition and volley good at net, great touch, but uses it sparingly due to the slower surfaces nowadays but can be aggressive

can change pace on backhand and forehand at will anywhere.

good dropshot

good mental strength having good wins in the past 12 months

improving placement on 2nd serve doesn't allow as much cheap points

At first I thought you were talking about Roddick, I was like, "WHAT?" :shock:

Halba
06-19-2009, 03:51 AM
It's fine you're entitled to your opinion,that standard has improved a great deal and beyond all recognition but I personally just don't buy it,improved? Yes,improved "beyond recognition"? No.

If it's improved so much than what are Roddick,Verdasco,Soderling,Gonzo and even Fed(supposedly done and surpassed by young guns yet has been in both AO and FO slam finals this year at the age of 27-28 ) doing so deep in slams this year? Why aren't those young guns being in deep stages of slams this year? Heck aside from Nadal(who is hardly what I call a young gun anymore,he has 6 slams already)Del Potro has the best results in slams out of all young guns this year despite being less hyped than Murray and Novak.

I watched Murray-Gonzo QF match and yes Murray was making silly errors in 4th set but nonetheless it doesn't matter why he lost the way he did,what matters is that in field supposedly improved so much you have a young player who is 3d best in the world losing pretty convincingly in a slam quartefinal to a guy who will turn 29 this year,something doesn't add up there.

Admittedly that's my impression of the year so far,of course there's still Wimbledon and USO to be played this year so we'll see how those will go,maybe will see Murray or Del Potro breakthrough and win one or both of them.

CLAY is murray;s WORST surface. He is not experienced at all on it. Gonzalez was brought up on clay. He was even in better clay form going into the tournament.

aphex
06-19-2009, 04:58 AM
Murray:

he has a nice flat first serve that is BIG and suited to grass

he takes the ball early and on the rise

fantastic return of serve - great technique to watch as he takes the ball early

he has good touch and finesse, great ball control skills especially with the backhand, the best double handed backhand in the modern game.

he has an improving and now deadly forehand

he has superior fitness and agility on the court, best mover and defender on a fast court(w/ nadal), gets to a LOT of balls

has that unique ability like Federer to slice on the backhand, his double hander can transition to single hander. He has a GOOD slice. No one else slices better. Nadal's slices are junk balls. only Federer and Murray's slices are hard to put away. Can get good angles on this. Djoker's slice junk and delpo doesn't know how to slice.

can transition and volley good at net, great touch, but uses it sparingly due to the slower surfaces nowadays but can be aggressive

can change pace on backhand and forehand at will anywhere.

good dropshot

good mental strength having good wins in the past 12 months

improving placement on 2nd serve doesn't allow as much cheap points


are you for real????????

andy-the-stand-15ft-behind-the-baseline-pusher-murray?????

vtmike
06-19-2009, 05:03 AM
It will be a sad day for grass court tennis if Murray wins Wimbledon...Lets all hope and pray that day does not come (well atleast not this year)

coloskier
06-19-2009, 07:56 AM
I'll leave this forum if Roddick beats Murray at Wimbledon or on grass, period. It won't happen. The standard has simply improved since Roddick was a major force on grass. Add to that the matchup problem he has with Murray and the guy doesn't really have much chance on grass against Murray. One of the main problems is that Murray reads his serve like a book and Roddick isn't particularly effective at returning Murray's serve.

It was 4-4 1st set in Queens when Roddick turned his ankle. Murray wasn't exactly having any fun with Roddick's serve.

veroniquem
06-19-2009, 07:58 AM
His serve is lethal. That should be enough of an answer...

batz
06-19-2009, 08:54 AM
It was 4-4 1st set in Queens when Roddick turned his ankle. Murray wasn't exactly having any fun with Roddick's serve.

:confused::confused:

Sorry - but I don't know what match you were watching at Queen's - Roddick was playing Blake when he turned his ankle at 4-4 1st set. He didn't play Murray at Queen's - never has.

markmurray
06-19-2009, 08:55 AM
are you for real????????

andy-the-stand-15ft-behind-the-baseline-pusher-murray?????
This is completely incorrect about Murray on grass. His trademark is to return the ball early with a flick of the wrist using the pace that the server generates. If you disagree, then you haven't been watching. He practically jumps into the return, he absolutely does not back away.

That video is interesting Clydey, makes me realise that perhaps Murray doesn't lob so much as he used to but that may just be because I'm accustomed to seeing him on clay. It's such a good weapon against guys who want to stand on top of the net, they have to give him a couple of metres and leave themselves open to the deadly cross court pass.

Clydey2times
06-19-2009, 09:36 AM
It was 4-4 1st set in Queens when Roddick turned his ankle. Murray wasn't exactly having any fun with Roddick's serve.

Huh? Roddick was playing Blake when he turned his ankle. And he actually turned it a few games before 4-4.

Boy, you really didn't get much of anything correct in that post.

NamRanger
06-19-2009, 09:38 AM
It will be a sad day for grass court tennis if Murray wins Wimbledon...Lets all hope and pray that day does not come (well atleast not this year)


Actually I'd perfer Murray to win than Nadal. Anyone but him (even Djokovic). At least Murray has a style of play that is conducive to grass tennis, very similar to Newcombe of the Laver days.

maximo
06-19-2009, 09:41 AM
It will be a sad day for grass court tennis if Murray wins Wimbledon...Lets all hope and pray that day does not come (well atleast not this year)

It will be a sad day for grass court tennis if Federer wins Wimbledon... lets all hope and pray that day does not come.

Especially with his on court antics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENdw9ezginM

egn
06-19-2009, 10:02 AM
It will be a sad day for grass court tennis if Federer wins Wimbledon... lets all hope and pray that day does not come.

Especially with his on court antics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENdw9ezginM

Yea too bad McEnroe and Connors all ready won a bunch of those so it will be just like old times and doesn't Federer have 5 wimbledons already so Tennis already went through a depressing work week?

jimbo333
06-19-2009, 03:23 PM
Murray seems to be good on any surface at the moment:)

Just saw him at Queens, he really looked in great form!!!

vtmike
06-19-2009, 03:33 PM
Especially with his on court antics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENdw9ezginM

Yeah nobody should tolerate pro players shouting fuc*ing tw*t in front of a packed house with children!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9TzSjzgZzI

maximo
06-19-2009, 10:06 PM
Yeah nobody should tolerate pro players shouting fuc*ing tw*t in front of a packed house with children!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9TzSjzgZzI

Is throwing bottles to ball boys acceptable? I guess not.

jamesblakefan#1
06-19-2009, 10:15 PM
I can't believe there's a Murray troll. I guess I've gotta take my Blake trolling up a notch! :D

maximo
06-19-2009, 10:16 PM
I can't believe there's a Murray troll. I guess I've gotta take my Blake trolling up a notch! :D

I can't believe that theres zillions of Fed trolls. :(

jamesblakefan#1
06-19-2009, 10:22 PM
I guess there has to be one Murray troll on the boards, since all of the other top 4 are covered by trolls. Maximo, keep doing your job, even tho your avatar creeps me out just a bit. :)

zagor
06-20-2009, 12:48 AM
He was. I have the match on DVD. He was jumping out of his seat like a mad man. :lol:

"Mish Moneypenny, you're a shight for shore eyesh"

The only guy on the planet who could pull off playing a Soviet submarine commander - with an Edinburgh accent.

Good to see my memory is correct.LOL Batz,I loved Hunt for Red October.

Mate, here's something I made that you might enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvsX37XQE7c

Great video,I really mean it.I watched all 3 parts and there's some really great stuff in it and the video quality is very good as well(sometimes that's the problem on youtube).Got nostalgic watching 2005 version of Nalbo,hope he recovers well and makes a full comeback next year.

vtmike
06-21-2009, 05:38 AM
Is throwing bottles to ball boys acceptable? I guess not.

He is still not hated by the ball boys...I cannot even imagine the kind of things Murray must have said to deserve this!

http://i42.tinypic.com/vecd2u.gif

Clydey2times
06-21-2009, 06:52 AM
Good to see my memory is correct.LOL Batz,I loved Hunt for Red October.



Great video,I really mean it.I watched all 3 parts and there's some really great stuff in it and the video quality is very good as well(sometimes that's the problem on youtube).Got nostalgic watching 2005 version of Nalbo,hope he recovers well and makes a full comeback next year.

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it. I'll be putting together a few more once I clean out my computer. It's running on fumes at the moment.