PDA

View Full Version : ESPN's picks for Wimbledon (prepare to not be shocked)


Tony48
06-19-2011, 02:56 AM
http://i54.tinypic.com/9t1v0g.jpg


Tennis Expert Picks - All England Lawn Tennis Championships (http://espn.go.com/sports/tennis/picks)
Editor's note: In selecting our picks, an "early exit" must be by a player currently seeded in the top 10, and a "sleeper" is someone outside the top 10.

MEN'S WINNER: Federer (5), Nadal (3), Murray (1)

Early Exit: Berdych (2), Nadal (2), Fish (2), Roddick (1), Soderling (1), Djokovic (1)
Men's Sleeper: Tsonga (5), Isner (2), Raonic (1), Gasquet (1)

WOMEN'S WINNER: Sharapova (6), Li Na (1), Kvitova (1), Wozniacki (1)

Women's Early Exit: Schiavone (5), Azarenka (2), S. Williams (1), Wozniacki (1)
Women's Sleeper: V. Williams (4), Hantuchova (3), Vinci (1), Petkovic (1)

Discuss

Some notes:

-Djoker not picked by anyone to win; Shriver selects him as an early exit
-Neither Serena nor Venus are pegged to win
-Drysdale and McEnroe select Nadal as a potential early exit
-McEnroe jumps on the bandwagon and picks Li Na to win it all

bezs
06-19-2011, 03:03 AM
Nadal early exit, let the flaming begin :lol:

bolo
06-19-2011, 03:03 AM
Thank Jesus, all is again right with the world! :)

Legend of Borg
06-19-2011, 03:03 AM
Discuss

I'm not shocked.

kOaMaster
06-19-2011, 03:08 AM
nadal early exit? what??

Tobias Fünke
06-19-2011, 03:13 AM
Where are Brad Gilbert's picks?

bolo
06-19-2011, 03:14 AM
I wish the picks could be exactly like this for ever and ever. I don't think I am asking for too much at all. :)

Magnus
06-19-2011, 03:26 AM
Nah, Nadal's winning it. Djokovic is yet prove himself on grass and Fed will struggle like last year. Nadal will struggle in some matches but will eventually win. Murray will reach the semis.

MethodTennis
06-19-2011, 03:28 AM
soderling will fall in the second round to hewitt in my oppinion

MethodTennis
06-19-2011, 03:29 AM
Where are Brad Gilbert's picks?

Murray and Roddick to win most likely. Plus who cares aside from his book everything he has ever said and done has been worthless!

BreakPoint
06-19-2011, 10:05 AM
Nadal early exit, let the flaming begin :lol:
I'm not shocked. :shock:

AM95
06-19-2011, 10:11 AM
its actually really funny how murray was picked over djokovic.

i have money on serena coming through in the womens side. as much as i dislike her, sharapova is the only woman in her quarter than can trouble her, and theres no guarantee that masha wont lose in the first round.

Murrayfan31
06-19-2011, 10:26 AM
Nadal is going out early due to grass playing like true grass and the rain making the courts more slick. Possibly playing indoors is bad for Nadal to.

TMF
06-19-2011, 10:28 AM
Wow. Not a single expert picked Serena to win. But according to the Serena lovers from She's Back thread, you must be a hater if you don't pick Serena as the favorite. These 10 experts must be a haters too.:rolleyes:

Tammo
06-19-2011, 10:31 AM
Tsonga should be the sleeper, but Federer????? I'd the top 4 are pretty equal.

JeMar
06-19-2011, 10:39 AM
Has Fernandez ever not picked Nadal to win a tournament?

jackson vile
06-19-2011, 10:40 AM
Nadal is going out early due to grass playing like true grass and the rain making the courts more slick. Possibly playing indoors is bad for Nadal to.

Yea! We all know Nadal can't win on "real" grass, true slick fast grass like Queens. Ha, ha, ha. Take that *****!




"Oh no, I wet my pants again. God please make Ronald win, please! Also, I need a girl friend really bad, can you help with that too? Oh, if only I had a brain..."

Murrayfan31
06-19-2011, 10:47 AM
Yea! We all know Nadal can't win on "real" grass, true slick fast grass like Queens. Ha, ha, ha. Take that *****!




"Oh no, I wet my pants again. God please make Ronald win, please! Also, I need a girl friend really bad, can you help with that too? Oh, if only I had a brain..."
lol Tsonga
lol Mahut
lol Lopez Nadal lost early 3 times in the last 5 years at Queens.

FedererBestTennis
06-19-2011, 10:49 AM
Wozniacki a winner...

http://www.thecomedynet.com/wp-content/gallery/newimages5/laughing%20gifs.gif

I like the Federer pick. :twisted:

Mustard
06-19-2011, 11:06 AM
Where are Brad Gilbert's picks?

Brad Gilbert's picks are:

Men's Winner: Andy Murray
Women's Winner: Petra Kvitova
Men's Early Exit: Tomas Berdych
Women's Early Exit: Francesca Schiavone
Men's Sleeper: Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
Women's Sleeper: Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-19-2011, 11:19 AM
No surprise that ESPN's talking heads--,amy with their collective noses up Sharapova's ***--would pick her on a surface where her best result was a fluke long in the past.

On the men's side, once again, they pick Murray as one of the possible winnersa, when he's never displayed the kind of tennis necessary to wipe out opponents at the event.

zagor
06-19-2011, 11:24 AM
lol Tsonga
lol Mahut
lol Lopez Nadal lost early 3 times in the last 5 years at Queens.

Mostly due to the fact that Nadal is usually coming to Queens after just having won FO and is just looking to get a few grasscourt matches under his belt rather than win the title(although he did that in 2008).

That said Queens isn't old grass,it's conditions have always been similar to Wimbledon.Neither Nadal nor Fed proved they can win on old grass for the simple reason that there isn't any.

Undisputable_GOAT
06-19-2011, 12:54 PM
Mostly due to the fact that Nadal is usually coming to Queens after just having won FO and is just looking to get a few grasscourt matches under his belt rather than win the title(although he did that in 2008).

That said Queens isn't old grass,it's conditions have always been similar to Wimbledon.Neither Nadal nor Fed proved they can win on old grass for the simple reason that there isn't any.

Why don't you shove those lame excuses about 'get a few grasscourt matches' up your back and accept that ****** lost the match and his game is not good enough to for him to be consistent in Grass...??? :twisted::evil:

P.S.:****** Is out of wimby before Semi's & I know what I'm Talking about ..!!:)

Undisputable_GOAT
06-19-2011, 12:58 PM
Why don't you shove those lame excuses about 'get a few grasscourt matches' up your back and accept that ****** lost the match and his game is not good enough for him to be consistent on Grass...??? :twisted::evil:

P.S.:****** Is out of wimby before Semi's & I know what I'm Talking about ..!!:)

.........................................

BreakPoint
06-19-2011, 01:00 PM
No surprise that ESPN's talking heads--,amy with their collective noses up Sharapova's ***--would pick her on a surface where her best result was a fluke long in the past.

On the men's side, once again, they pick Murray as one of the possible winnersa, when he's never displayed the kind of tennis necessary to wipe out opponents at the event.
Neither did Federer, who lost in the 1st round in 3 of the 4 years he played Wimbledon before he won it all in 2003 with the loss of only one set in 7 matches.

TMF
06-19-2011, 01:11 PM
No surprise that ESPN's talking heads--,amy with their collective noses up Sharapova's ***--would pick her on a surface where her best result was a fluke long in the past.

On the men's side, once again, they pick Murray as one of the possible winnersa, when he's never displayed the kind of tennis necessary to wipe out opponents at the event.

And neither Sharapova did it during her teen, who even had less experience than Murray. Yet, 17 yrs old Maria destroyed an overgrown Serena.

tennis_pro
06-19-2011, 02:05 PM
The only expert who got both the AO and FO right was Wilansky. Cool thing he chose Federer for Wimbledon.

djokovicgonzalez2010
06-19-2011, 02:09 PM
Ooh good, best one in past picked Nadal as early exit (Federer to win, Tsonga sleeper) 2nd best had Fed win, Fish early exit, Gasquet sleeper, Wilansky got Federer/Roddick/Tsonga

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-19-2011, 04:12 PM
Neither did Federer, who lost in the 1st round in 3 of the 4 years he played Wimbledon before he won it all in 2003 with the loss of only one set in 7 matches.

Murray is not Federer, and does not have that kind of talent which took off like lightning. Murray is already one of the top ranked and experienced players, yet he's routinely picked by various talking heads for no logical reason as of this date.

jukka1970
06-19-2011, 04:23 PM
Tennis Expert Picks - All England Lawn Tennis Championships (http://espn.go.com/sports/tennis/picks)
Editor's note: In selecting our picks, an "early exit" must be by a player currently seeded in the top 10, and a "sleeper" is someone outside the top 10.

MEN'S WINNER: Federer (5), Nadal (3), Murray (1)

Early Exit: Berdych (2), Nadal (2), Fish (2), Roddick (1), Soderling (1), Djokovic (1)
Men's Sleeper: Tsonga (5), Isner (2), Raonic (1), Gasquet (1)

WOMEN'S WINNER: Sharapova (6), Li Na (1), Kvitova (1), Wozniacki (1)

Women's Early Exit: Schiavone (5), Azarenka (2), S. Williams (1), Wozniacki (1)
Women's Sleeper: V. Williams (4), Hantuchova (3), Vinci (1), Petkovic (1)

Discuss

Some notes:

-Djoker not picked by anyone to win; Shriver selects him as an early exit
-Neither Serena nor Venus are pegged to win
-Drysdale and McEnroe select Nadal as a potential early exit
-McEnroe jumps on the bandwagon and picks Li Na to win it all

I'm shocked that any of them picked Nadal as an early exit of the top 10 players, especially Patrick McEnroe. But even more shocking is that only one person pick Roddick as the early exit of the top 10.

Was a little surprised that no one picked Djokovic to win it. Not that I think he will, but he's certainly been playing well enough to be in the mix.

Bud
06-19-2011, 04:41 PM
What round is considered an early exit? Before the 2nd week (round of 16)?

Bobby Jr
06-19-2011, 04:51 PM
They need to add one more set of data to these expert prediction polls: how right/wrong they were last year.

I recall a couple of these people saying Murray would win Wimbledon and the US Open last year...

drakulie
06-19-2011, 04:55 PM
What round is considered an early exit? Before the 2nd week (round of 16)?


That's what I was thinking.



Anyway, would love to see Murray win it. On the women's side,,,,,,,,,,,honestly......... who cares.

TheBoom
06-19-2011, 04:58 PM
Why would murray have a better chance than novak?!

Tennis Is Magic
06-19-2011, 04:58 PM
Tennis Expert Picks - All England Lawn Tennis Championships (http://espn.go.com/sports/tennis/picks)
Editor's note: In selecting our picks, an "early exit" must be by a player currently seeded in the top 10, and a "sleeper" is someone outside the top 10.

MEN'S WINNER: Federer (5), Nadal (3), Murray (1)

Early Exit: Berdych (2), Nadal (2), Fish (2), Roddick (1), Soderling (1), Djokovic (1)
Men's Sleeper: Tsonga (5), Isner (2), Raonic (1), Gasquet (1)

WOMEN'S WINNER: Sharapova (6), Li Na (1), Kvitova (1), Wozniacki (1)

Women's Early Exit: Schiavone (5), Azarenka (2), S. Williams (1), Wozniacki (1)
Women's Sleeper: V. Williams (4), Hantuchova (3), Vinci (1), Petkovic (1)

Discuss

Some notes:

-Djoker not picked by anyone to win; Shriver selects him as an early exit
-Neither Serena nor Venus are pegged to win
-Drysdale and McEnroe select Nadal as a potential early exit
-McEnroe jumps on the bandwagon and picks Li Na to win it all

Someone thinks Wozniacki will win Wimbledon. Misleading thread title is misleading.

NadalAgassi
06-19-2011, 05:09 PM
LOL what the hell did Sharapova do to deserve this. IF she were playing her best I could see her becoming the heavy favorite by default with the Williams out so long, Li Na still in the process of proving how great she can or cant be, the up and comers unproven and largely weak on grass, Clijsters out.

However the reality is she is still far from playing her best on fast courts. Clay hs oddly become her best surface. Her serve arguably cost her the French Open and her serve will hurt much more on grass then on clay where the serve is far more important. No way she wins Wimbledon serving like did at Roland Garros.

BreakPoint
06-19-2011, 06:17 PM
Murray is not Federer, and does not have that kind of talent which took off like lightning. Murray is already one of the top ranked and experienced players, yet he's routinely picked by various talking heads for no logical reason as of this date.
Federer was also not Federer until he became Federer.

He had been in the Top 20 for over 2 years and Top 10 for a year but had done nothing. Guess what his ranking was when he won his first Wimbledon? Number 5.

Just face it, you just have a bias against Murray for some bizarre reason.

Sid_Vicious
06-19-2011, 06:52 PM
Federer was also not Federer until he became Federer.

He had been in the Top 20 for over 2 years and Top 10 for a year but had done nothing. Guess what his ranking was when he won his first Wimbledon? Number 5.

Just face it, you just have a bias against Murray for some bizarre reason.

And you just have your lips attached to Murray's arse for some bizarre reason.

gogonzogo
06-19-2011, 07:35 PM
Federer was also not Federer until he became Federer.

He had been in the Top 20 for over 2 years and Top 10 for a year but had done nothing. Guess what his ranking was when he won his first Wimbledon? Number 5.

Just face it, you just have a bias against Murray for some bizarre reason.

I totally agree with you. And please, dont get bothered by stupid remarks like the one bellow.

OddJack
06-19-2011, 07:40 PM
Muhahaa


l like Drysdale predictions... early exit for the bully.

I like Shriver picks as well

OddJack
06-19-2011, 07:42 PM
I am thinking Murray will be in the final and lose to Rodge.

BreakPoint
06-19-2011, 08:17 PM
And you just have your lips attached to Murray's arse for some bizarre reason.
Yeah, that reason is known as "objectivity". I'm a big Federer fan, not a Murray fan.

To say that someone can't possibly win Wimbledon because they've never won Wimbledon before is pretty asinine, don't you think? Both Sampras and Federer sucked at Wimbledon before they actually won it. Now they are considered the best ever at Wimbledon.

Sentinel
06-19-2011, 10:44 PM
Why don't you shove those lame excuses about 'get a few grasscourt matches' up your back and accept that ****** lost the match and his game is not good enough to for him to be consistent in Grass...??? :twisted::evil:

P.S.:****** Is out of wimby before Semi's & I know what I'm Talking about ..!!:)
If your GOAT is so "undisputable", then why are you in such dispute, my friend ???:)

Undisputable_GOAT
06-19-2011, 11:12 PM
If your GOAT is so "undisputable", then why are you in such dispute, my friend ???:)

I Just want YOU to talk sense & not bulls*it about your perceptions ...!!


So Is the message clear now.
Thanks!

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-20-2011, 01:58 AM
Federer was also not Federer until he became Federer.

He had been in the Top 20 for over 2 years and Top 10 for a year but had done nothing. Guess what his ranking was when he won his first Wimbledon? Number 5.

Murray has been a higher ranked player talking heads believed would have won a few by now. The pick is the same crap Murray-lovers toss at the audience every year, with the same results.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-20-2011, 01:59 AM
And you just have your lips attached to Murray's arse for some bizarre reason.

...that, or he's making arguments for the sake of it.

Sid_Vicious
06-20-2011, 02:02 AM
...that, or he's making arguments for the sake of it.

With Breakpoint it is usually always the latter.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-20-2011, 02:04 AM
LOL what the hell did Sharapova do to deserve this. IF she were playing her best I could see her becoming the heavy favorite by default with the Williams out so long, Li Na still in the process of proving how great she can or cant be, the up and comers unproven and largely weak on grass, Clijsters out.

However the reality is she is still far from playing her best on fast courts. Clay hs oddly become her best surface. Her serve arguably cost her the French Open and her serve will hurt much more on grass then on clay where the serve is far more important. No way she wins Wimbledon serving like did at Roland Garros.

But that's the long-standing fantasy of certain people at ESPN--they continue to dream of the fluke winner being some sort of imagined "queen" of Wimbledon, when she was never built to be a major factor on that surface.

Magnus
06-20-2011, 02:07 AM
I wish they would all choose Nadal, who's the real favorite anyway (and we all know that). I like that Fed comes as the underdog, he usually plays much better like that (USO 2008, FO 2011).

tennis_fan_182
06-20-2011, 02:13 AM
You know what - what is the point of all this?

Just go with whoever is no. 1 in the world and pick them to win every slam. This ain't the WTA. Apart from Murray there are no early exits, there are no upsets, especially where Nadal is concerned. Every match will go by ranking.

Nadal will win it because he is ranked number one. Simple.

Magnus
06-20-2011, 02:17 AM
You know what - what is the point of all this?

Just go with whoever is no. 1 in the world and pick them to win every slam. This ain't the WTA. Apart from Murray there are no early exits, there are no upsets, especially where Nadal is concerned. Every match will go by ranking.

Nadal will win it because he is ranked number one. Simple.


Then what's the point of actually playing? Hand Nadal the trophy, hand Djokovic #1 in the world (since according to you he reached the final), and Fed losses to Djoko in the semis, right?

zagor
06-20-2011, 02:48 AM
Nadal will win it because he is ranked number one. Simple.

I agree,well said.Short and right to the point,bravo sir!

Feńa14
06-20-2011, 06:04 AM
Why would murray have a better chance than novak?!

Murray is the better grass court player, it wouldn't be a huge shock to see Murray go further than Djokovic.

It doesn't really matter anyway, Nadal will win it :)

anhuynh16
06-20-2011, 07:58 AM
haha isner a pick!!! although he has the serve-- just not enough footwork

BreakPoint
06-20-2011, 11:08 AM
Murray has been a higher ranked player talking heads believed would have won a few by now. The pick is the same crap Murray-lovers toss at the audience every year, with the same results.
Yeah, and that's what they said about Agassi at the French Open. Guess what? It took a while but he won it.

CDNguy87
06-20-2011, 11:33 AM
I'm pretty certain those 2 picks for an early Nadal exit were based entirely on a probable 3rd-round match against a certain big-serving Canadian.

As much potential as Milos has, I highly doubt he's ready at this stage of his career and at his 1st Wimby to pull off such a major upset (assuming Nadal is in reasonably good health). Then again, the grass historically seems to play faster in the 1st week than the 2nd and Rafa has shown vulnerability in early rounds at past majors, so it can't be ruled out entirely.

Tennis Is Magic
06-20-2011, 11:35 AM
(Wow, I can't believe ESPN 'experts' think Sharapova can win 7 straight matches. They are in for a rude surprise)

Protip: No one can win 7 straight matches. The majors are a lie.

fednad
06-20-2011, 12:05 PM
You know what - what is the point of all this?

Just go with whoever is no. 1 in the world and pick them to win every slam. This ain't the WTA. Apart from Murray there are no early exits, there are no upsets, especially where Nadal is concerned. Every match will go by ranking.

Nadal will win it because he is ranked number one. Simple.

Mesmerizing objectivity!!!!
Wozniacki would all the remaining titles this year by this logic.
Way to go momo!!!!

NadalAgassi
06-20-2011, 12:09 PM
Predicting Raonic to beat Nadal at Wimbledon is beyond stupid. I am starting to see how so many think he is overhyped.

tennis_fan_182
06-20-2011, 12:16 PM
Mesmerizing objectivity!!!!
Wozniacki would all the remaining titles this year by this logic.
Way to go momo!!!!

Read my post again. I said: "this ain't the WTA"

Clarky21
06-20-2011, 12:17 PM
I think people are predicting that because Rafa struggles so much with big servers. Either way he's got a tough 3rd round match be it against Raonic or Muller. Rafa is going to have to serve well or else we could be in for a shock.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-20-2011, 12:52 PM
Yeah, and that's what they said about Agassi at the French Open. Guess what? It took a while but he won it.

One person's career course of success in reaching a specific goal is not necessarily applicable to Murray, for reasons such as rate of maturity, talent levels, etc.

TMF
06-20-2011, 01:07 PM
Yeah, and that's what they said about Agassi at the French Open. Guess what? It took a while but he won it.

They also said about Venus during her teen. She was getting outwitted by a smarter player Hingis, had no answer for Hingis at the USO. But Venus finally proved them wrong by figuring out a way to win the USO.

tennis_fan_182
06-20-2011, 02:18 PM
Then what's the point of actually playing? Hand Nadal the trophy, hand Djokovic #1 in the world (since according to you he reached the final), and Fed losses to Djoko in the semis, right?

It saddens me to say this as I dislike Nadal's game, but yep, I agree, hand Nadal the trophy now lol. Seriously, what's the point in playing this out when we all know the eventual outcome.

BreakPoint
06-20-2011, 02:53 PM
One person's career course of success in reaching a specific goal is not necessarily applicable to Murray, for reasons such as rate of maturity, talent levels, etc.
According to you, the only person in the world not capable of winning a Slam is Murray.

Why did it take so long for Nadal to win his first US Open? Why did it take so long for Lendl to win his first Slam? Why did it take Agassi so long to win his first Slam?

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-20-2011, 02:57 PM
According to you, the only person in the world not capable of winning a Slam is Murray.

So far--after years of hype claiming he was a minute away from winning a major--he's still without the majors hardware. Moreover, innumerable fans realized the one-time celebrated Safina lacked the goods to win (and she never will win a major), and now, that "torch" has been passed to Wozniacki, who has yet to live up to the hype. Murray is not alone.

BreakPoint
06-20-2011, 03:02 PM
So far--after years of hype claiming he was a minute away from winning a major--he's still without the majors hardware. Moreover, innumerable fans realized the one-time celebrated Safina lacked the goods to win (and she never will win a major), and now, that "torch" has been passed to Wozniacki, who has yet to live up to the hype. Murray is not alone.
You didn't explain why it's impossible for Murray to be another Lendl or Agassi? We only know them to be great in hindsight, AFTER they won 8 Slams. How about all the times they failed to win one BEFORE they won their first one?

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-20-2011, 03:08 PM
You didn't explain why it's impossible for Murray to be another Lendl or Agassi?

You're the one introducing Agassi and Lendl into this thread, and suggesting he (Murray) may be in that line of player, so it is your job to prove Murray is that kind of player....but we both know where that is going.

BreakPoint
06-20-2011, 03:16 PM
You're the one introducing Agassi and Lendl into this thread, and suggesting he (Murray) may be in that line of player, so it is your job to prove Murray is that kind of player....but we both know where that is going.
No, YOU'RE the one that claims it's impossible for Murray to ever win a Slam because he's failed to win one after so many tries and because he's been hyped up so much over the years.

Clearly, there have been numerous precedents where a player became an all-time great after the same circumstances. After winning their first Slam, the floodgates opened and they won many more, like 7 more or 15 more. But nothing happened until they won their first one.

Would you consider either Agassi or Lendl an all-time great today if neither had ever won a single Slam? Hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-20-2011, 03:23 PM
No, YOU'RE the one that claims it's impossible for Murray to ever win a Slam because he's failed to win one after so many tries and because he's been hyped up so much over the years.

It is your job to prove your case: no one--except YOU--mentioned Agassi and Lendl. Obviously, you introduced the former players as a way of projecting the hypothetical Murray career into the realm of reality via the timetable/careers of the former players.

Prove your case, otherwise, you will continue to apply smoke and mirrors to evade the central point.

BreakPoint
06-20-2011, 03:40 PM
It is your job to prove your case: no one--except YOU--mentioned Agassi and Lendl. Obviously, you introduced the former players as a way of projecting the hypothetical Murray career into the realm of reality via the timetable/careers of the former players.

Prove your case, otherwise, you will continue to apply smoke and mirrors to evade the central point.
I just DID prove it!

Agassi and Lendl are perfect examples. Two players that were highly ranked and highly touted and predicted to win multiple Slams. Two players that had lost in numerous Slam finals before they won their first one. Had they not won their first Slam, no one today would consider them all-time greats.

Saying Murray will never win a Slam today is EXACTLY the same as saying Lendl will never win a Slam in 1984 and Agassi will never win a Slam in 1992.

TMF
06-20-2011, 03:51 PM
So far--after years of hype claiming he was a minute away from winning a major--he's still without the majors hardware. Moreover, innumerable fans realized the one-time celebrated Safina lacked the goods to win (and she never will win a major), and now, that "torch" has been passed to Wozniacki, who has yet to live up to the hype. Murray is not alone.

Murray is only 23, and Wozniacki is only 20 yrs old. Guess you don't know how old Na and Francesca have won their 1st slam.:oops:

NadalAgassi
06-20-2011, 05:19 PM
Murray has a much better chance of winning a slam than Wozniacki atleast despite being 3 years older which already rebukes your age theory. The only way Wozniacki will ever win a slam is:

1. She gets a forehand
2. Gets an actual weapon of some kind
3. Gets a volley
4. Gets some semblance of strategy or gameplan other than pushing 202. What an insult of people who try to compare her playing style to Evert or Hingis who actually did construct points to win inspite of a shortage of power (relatively speaking)
5. Gets an overhead
6. Stops playing 100 mickey mouse events a year
7. The womens field stays as sh1t as it is now
8. Fires her dad as a coach

That is alot that has to change for her to win a slam. Li Na was brought up under a whole different culture and got none of the opportunties growing up Murray and Wozniacki got, so your example of her is futile.

kishnabe
06-20-2011, 07:19 PM
Murray has a much better chance of winning a slam than Wozniacki atleast despite being 3 years older which already rebukes your age theory. The only way Wozniacki will ever win a slam is:

1. She gets a forehand
2. Gets an actual weapon of some kind
3. Gets a volley
4. Gets some semblance of strategy or gameplan other than pushing 202. What an insult of people who try to compare her playing style to Evert or Hingis who actually did construct points to win inspite of a shortage of power (relatively speaking)
5. Gets an overhead
6. Stops playing 100 mickey mouse events a year
7. The womens field stays as sh1t as it is now
8. Fires her dad as a coach

That is alot that has to change for her to win a slam. Li Na was brought up under a whole different culture and got none of the opportunties growing up Murray and Wozniacki got, so your example of her is futile.

There more to that list that you are missing.....That how bad Wozzy is in winning a major. Only at Hardcourts does her weakness dissapear to an extent!

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-20-2011, 07:23 PM
Murray has a much better chance of winning a slam than Wozniacki atleast despite being 3 years older which already rebukes your age theory.

True. Moreover, it is quite foolish for that guy to continue to beat on the "she's only 20" crap, as history has witnessed players winning majors before the age of 20.

The only way Wozniacki will ever win a slam is:

1. She gets a forehand
2. Gets an actual weapon of some kind
3. Gets a volley
4. Gets some semblance of strategy or gameplan other than pushing 202. What an insult of people who try to compare her playing style to Evert or Hingis who actually did construct points to win inspite of a shortage of power (relatively speaking)
5. Gets an overhead
6. Stops playing 100 mickey mouse events a year
7. The womens field stays as sh1t as it is now
8. Fires her dad as a coach

That is alot that has to change for her to win a slam. Li Na was brought up under a whole different culture and got none of the opportunties growing up Murray and Wozniacki got, so your example of her is futile.

Good points.

TMF
06-20-2011, 08:46 PM
Murray has a much better chance of winning a slam than Wozniacki atleast despite being 3 years older which already rebukes your age theory. The only way Wozniacki will ever win a slam is:

1. She gets a forehand
2. Gets an actual weapon of some kind
3. Gets a volley
4. Gets some semblance of strategy or gameplan other than pushing 202. What an insult of people who try to compare her playing style to Evert or Hingis who actually did construct points to win inspite of a shortage of power (relatively speaking)
5. Gets an overhead
6. Stops playing 100 mickey mouse events a year
7. The womens field stays as sh1t as it is now
8. Fires her dad as a coach

That is alot that has to change for her to win a slam. Li Na was brought up under a whole different culture and got none of the opportunties growing up Murray and Wozniacki got, so your example of her is futile.

Li didn't have opportunities as the other players but still managed to win a slam which further give more reason not to write Murray and Caro off. They are so young and time is on their side. Keep in mind your Serena has so many health issue but still competing at 29. Caro has plenty of time to improve and will have many opportunities. Murray is not playing for himself alone, but for his country. He showed his emotion after a loss in 2010 AO final, and stated he was sorry(to his fans and country) that he let them down. There is no rush to make any conclusion...this is not the Olympic or World Cup, but slam event that offer 4 times a year. Understood ?

I would bet my money on Murray or Caro to win slam in the future than you and Thundervolley believe Serena would win 8 out 14 remaining slam events(or reach 20 slams by the end of 2013).

How much you want to make a bet?? Didn't think so.

Now close your mouth.

TMF
06-20-2011, 08:53 PM
It is your job to prove your case: no one--except YOU--mentioned Agassi and Lendl. Obviously, you introduced the former players as a way of projecting the hypothetical Murray career into the realm of reality via the timetable/careers of the former players.

Prove your case, otherwise, you will continue to apply smoke and mirrors to evade the central point.

BreakPoint had backup all of his arguments. You have nothing, zilch, zero !!

Instead of having something to backup your claim, you resort to insults, avoid all of his points. Everyone is still waiting for you to provide any counter argument. If you don't, you lose.

ledwix
06-20-2011, 09:24 PM
Murray has a much better chance of winning a slam than Wozniacki atleast despite being 3 years older which already rebukes your age theory. The only way Wozniacki will ever win a slam is:

1. She gets a forehand
2. Gets an actual weapon of some kind
3. Gets a volley
4. Gets some semblance of strategy or gameplan other than pushing 202. What an insult of people who try to compare her playing style to Evert or Hingis who actually did construct points to win inspite of a shortage of power (relatively speaking)
5. Gets an overhead
6. Stops playing 100 mickey mouse events a year
7. The womens field stays as sh1t as it is now
8. Fires her dad as a coach

That is alot that has to change for her to win a slam. Li Na was brought up under a whole different culture and got none of the opportunties growing up Murray and Wozniacki got, so your example of her is futile.

Huh. She has been in a grand slam final before. Surely she isn't THIS far away from winning a slam, or else based on your list, it would seem she couldn't even win a match.

NadalAgassi
06-20-2011, 09:39 PM
Wozniacki was not close to winning in her only slam final, and the only reason she was in the final was the main threats were all in the other half on that occasion. A situation often created by the imbalance and irreflective of reality WTA rankings. Why would her chances improve in the future, she is showing no improvements for awhile now, and we all seem to agree the womens field is briefly at its lowest point ever and can only improve from here.

The evidence is Wozniacki even has to avoid the likes of Kvitova (her own age) to win a slam, that isnt a promising sign for her:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ--xWFXNNI

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-21-2011, 03:22 AM
I just DID prove it!

Wrong. I remember the talk about Lendl, and it was not in the same neighborhood of the annual grinning, toothy hype surrounding Murray. Murray is treated like the Second Coming at Wimbledon. Lendl was seen as a rising player, not the Future Master of Wimbledon. Agassi had hype but that was tied to the idea of early Agassi not taking his career seriously, so it was not long before early Agassi was treated as a "name," but not a true contender like Sampras, Courier or Chang. Murray was treated with such unwarranted reverence (usually tied to his pedigree) almost from the start, and it continues to this day. It was one thing to cite potential, but the kind of promise-infused hype generated about AM year after year is foolish, considering the results (read: no Wimbledon title).

Now, back to you proving your case, because sideline trips down tennis memory lane is not cutting it.

fednad
06-21-2011, 03:47 AM
Read my post again. I said: "this ain't the WTA"

Read your post again.
On a second thought, we should call the tourney off.
Djoker and Muzza would kiss Rafa's butt, massage him and we give NadsyPants the trophy....
Everybody is happy in the end.....

BreakPoint
06-21-2011, 09:38 AM
Wrong. I remember the talk about Lendl, and it was not in the same neighborhood of the annual grinning, toothy hype surrounding Murray. Murray is treated like the Second Coming at Wimbledon. Lendl was seen as a rising player, not the Future Master of Wimbledon. Agassi had hype but that was tied to the idea of early Agassi not taking his career seriously, so it was not long before early Agassi was treated as a "name," but not a true contender like Sampras, Courier or Chang. Murray was treated with such unwarranted reverence (usually tied to his pedigree) almost from the start, and it continues to this day. It was one thing to cite potential, but the kind of promise-infused hype generated about AM year after year is foolish, considering the results (read: no Wimbledon title).

Now, back to you proving your case, because sideline trips down tennis memory lane is not cutting it.
Who said anything about Wimbledon? It's the hype around the player being a future multiple Slam winner! Lendl, Agassi, and Murray ALL had that level of hype. All three couldn't handle the pressure of the hyped up expectations and lost their first 3 Slam finals.

Nobody expected either Lendl nor Agassi to easily win Wimbledon. Remember the old grass was fast and only serve and volleyers were expected to win Wimbledon.

Tony48
07-03-2011, 09:48 AM
LMAO not a single person picked right.

powerangle
07-03-2011, 09:52 AM
LMAO not a single person picked right.

And someone even picked early exit for him too. :)

SStrikerR
07-03-2011, 11:27 AM
Well Shriver's an idiot, she doesn't know anything. At least a few pegged Kvitova to win, and Brad Gilbert sleeper pick of Tsonga was good.