2016 Wimbledon Quarter-Final - #AceFest #ManlyTennis [6] Milos Raonic vs. [28] Sam Querrey

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Odds for this match here https://book.easysportbet.co.uk/en/line/Tennis/69371-Wimbledon/4982041-Milos-Raonic-Sam-Querrey/

Your pick?

 

[TheMonfils]

querrey wimbledon goat.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Manly eh?

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I think Milos will win.

Manly eh?

Jobbed out again tonight. No entrance and beat in 2 minutes. They wont be around much longer. :/

 

[MichaelNadal]

I think Milos will win.



Jobbed out again tonight. No entrance and beat in 2 minutes. They wont be around much longer. :/

Vince doesn't like them

 

[70後]

I like your ironic "Manlytennis" tag.

 

[Sentinel]

I'll root for SQ but okay with any result.

I have nothing against Raonic, btw. He's okay in my book, but lacks intensity.

LOL, nice title.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

RAONIC WON?

GOFFIN WAS TWO SETS UP!

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

^This is one of the reasons why I think GS should be BO3. Player Y can just wait out Player X at the grand slams; wait for X to play his best and exhaust himself while Y heats up the engine.

 

[Red Rick]

^This is one of the reasons why I think GS should be BO3. Player Y can just wait out Player X at the grand slams; wait for X to play his best and exhaust himself while Y heats up the engine.

Or maybe players should be able to play good tennis and handle the pressure for more than 2 sets.

 

[pound cat]

odschecker.com

http://www.oddschecker.com/tennis/wimbledon/mens/sam-querrey-v-milos-raonic/winner

Put your money on Milos

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

Or maybe players should be able to play good tennis and handle the pressure for more than 2 sets.

Your rather fallacious statement presupposes that every player who's ever lost a BO3 did so because he/she couldn't handle the pressure for more than two sets. It also presupposes that every player who's won BO3 in straight sets might have lost if the match were BO5 as they would have collapsed under "the pressure".

Lines of argument like yours have me burying my face in my hands.

 

[RF-18]

^This is one of the reasons why I think GS should be BO3. Player Y can just wait out Player X at the grand slams; wait for X to play his best and exhaust himself while Y heats up the engine.

Do you even know the advantage you have when two sets up? Rarely does the other player come back and win the match.

Yesterday, Raonic won his first set ever when being 2-0 down in b05 format.

Wich pro would even think the way you put it.. 2-0 down and you have a big mountain to climb.

 

[kalyan4fedever]

Querrey will win this. Milos does not have enough return game, Sam is more of a complete player relative to Raonic

 

[Red Rick]

I did not say that playing good for more than 2 sets and handling the pressure are the same thing. But why bother having a discussion when you can just make up things other people say, so you can flame them and pretend you're so much smarter.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

I did not say that playing good for more than 2 sets and handling the pressure are the same thing. But why bother having a discussion when you can just make up things other people say, so you can flame them and pretend you're so much smarter.

Was this post meant for me?

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

Do you even know the advantage you have when two sets up?

No, I don't. Please kindly explain to me the advantage a player has when he is two sets up.

 

[jaggy]

No quiche references allowed

 

[Red Rick]

Was this post meant for me?

Obviously

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

Obviously

So, why didn't you quote me? Was I supposed to divine that you replied to my post? Add this to the reasons why I am smarter than you.

 

[RF-18]

No, I don't. Please kindly explain to me the advantage a player has when he is two sets up.

If you can't figure that out then stop talking tennis or sports at all with me.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

If you can't figure that out then stop talking tennis or sports at all with me.

Whoa, whoa, whoa there chief. You "spoke" to me first. My post was there sitting on it own. You could have ignored it. You chose to pick up on it and respond. I didn't quote you first. You quoted me first. In other words, it was you who started talking sport with me. So, don't act as if I seek you out for conversation, because quite frankly, you're not that interesting, and I don't particularly wish to talk sport with you, as a majority of the time, you show yourself to have no idea what you're talking about - and not just when it comes to sport.

 

[RF-18]

Whoa, whoa, whoa there chief. You "spoke" to me first. My post was there sitting on it own. You could have ignored it. You chose to pick up on it and respond. I didn't quote you first. You quoted me first. In other words, it was you who started talking sport with me. So, don't act as if I seek you out for conversation, because quite frankly, you're not that interesting, and I don't particularly wish to talk sport with you, as a majority of the time, you show yourself to have no idea what you're talking about - and not just when it comes to sport.

I answered your post highlighting the advantage of being 2 sets up. You actually thinking being 2 sets down could be an advantage for the player wich I find bizarre and there is no reason for me to try ti explain you what the advantage is. It is common knowledge.

And the reason you post to why going two sets down could be a good thing is even more bizzarre. Where you being serious or what? You think someone is tactically Going to go down 2 sets to love to gain advantage? Lol!

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

I answered your post highlighting the advantage of being 2 sets up. You actually think being 2 sets down could be an advantage for the player wich I find bizarre. And the reason you post to why going two sets down could be a good thing is even more bizzarre. Where you being serious or what? You think someone is tactically Going to go down 2 sets to love to gain advantage? Lol!

I stopped reading after "highlighting...".

Just so you know.

And what happened to not talking sport with me. You're still talking sport with me. My God, stop it!

 

[RF-18]

Come on Tsonga. Go out on the court and let Andy go 2 sets up to save energy and tire him out. Then we will try to win it in 5.

LMAO

 

[Tenez!]

No quiche references allowed

Quiche? Why, does Querrey like them?

 

[La Grande]

I answered your post highlighting the advantage of being 2 sets up. You actually thinking being 2 sets down could be an advantage for the player wich I find bizarre and there is no reason for me to try ti explain you what the advantage is. It is common knowledge.

And the reason you post to why going two sets down could be a good thing is even more bizzarre. Where you being serious or what? You think someone is tactically Going to go down 2 sets to love to gain advantage? Lol!

What I think Levi thinks (below)

He said "Player Y can just wait out Player X at the grand slams; wait for X to play his best and exhaust himself while Y heats up the engine." Meaning BO5 favours the fitter player, not necessarily the player who can play the highest quality of tennis. BO3 forces players to take the initiative and basically play their best cards as soon as possible. Maybe (in a BO5) the level has dropped by the 5th set and the winner is whoever is fitter, who has "survived". That doesn't benefit the level of tennis, which is why people watch (the level). And yes, my guy Nadal benefits from this.

 

[La Grande]

Come on Tsonga. Go out on the court and let Andy go 2 sets up to save energy and tire him out. Then we will try to win it in 5.

LMAO

Loooooool Andy is far fitter so the only way it could work would be if Andy let Tsonga go up 2 then watch his energy deplete (along with the level of tennis) in the final 3 sets as Murray comes back to win.

Of course, it's not that easy.

 

[La Grande]

By the way, I'm not necessarily "for" BO3 at Majors... but I thought about it when the ATP/WTA pay gap came up. And it's an interesting thought. Much more upsets (good), shorter matches (good), players taking the initiative earlier possibly (good). BO5 for quarter finals onwards sounds like a plan. Also, only 16 seeds. Or even 8 lol, mix it up!

 

[RF-18]

Loooooool Andy is far fitter so the only way it could work would be if Andy let Tsonga go up 2 then watch his energy deplete (along with the level of tennis) in the final 3 sets as Murray comes back to win.

Of course, it's not that easy.

And why would Andy do that? Let tsonga gain 2 sets and play with a knife to his throat the whole match just cause his fitter?

No logic in the post above.

No pro thinks like that

 

[La Grande]

And why would Andy do that? Let tsonga gain 2 sets and play with a knife to his throat the whole match just cause his fitter?

No logic in the post above.

He wouldn't. It's easier (and better) to win in three of course. But the long match favours the fitter player. And the fitter player can outlast the opponent sometimes. Again, it's never deliberate, but they can sort of...lean on that fitness. Which they have worked EXTREMELY HARD for, I know. But you have to ask yourself, whether that's the type of tennis you enjoy watching. If yes, there's no problem. It's just a conversation, chill. I don't work for the ITF lol.

 

[jaggy]

Quiche? Why, does Querrey like them?

Real men don't eat quiche (or hit lobs)

 

[3fees]

Raonic has the advantage, Higher ranking, more consistent results, better adviser John McEnroe, faster serve and so forth, could be a 5 setter.

Cheers
3Fees

 

[Legend of Borg]

raonic in 4

 

[Gazelle]

Querrey will smack Raonic off the court like a little *****. His play has been far superior to Raonic' this tournament.

Heck, he might even make it all the way to the finals.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

I got querrey in 4. Querrey showed great movement against nole. Moves well for a guy that tall.

 

[Levi_Ackerman]

@PDJ quoted me again, huh. I bet you have something really important to say. Unfortunately...

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

I'm not a big fan of either player but Querrey should win this since he deserves it a lot more than Raonic who just barely scrapped by.

Querrey in 4 sets is my prediction.

 

[Meles]

Manly eh?

LOL. Hilarious. Never heard of these two.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Well, I am rooting for Sam all the way. I think if Roger gets by Cilic, he can easily handle Sam. Raonic is another story...

 

[Meles]

Well, I am rooting for Sam all the way. I think if Roger gets by Cilic, he can easily handle Sam. Raonic is another story...

 

[stringertom]

Someone in 2.5 sets!

Going for the Saminal in four

 

[MichaelNadal]

LOL. Hilarious. Never heard of these two.

 

[Meles]

LOL. Brilliant stuff. The crowd must eat this up.

 

[SQA333]

His Hairness to win in 4 sets, despite Slammin' Sam leading the H2H.

 

[Freddy Cat]

Sam I Am in 4.

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

going for Sam, I like the kid and deserves the bump in rankings a trip to the semis will bring. Will Sam be playing Davis cup in Portland in a couple of weeks?

 

[West Coast Ace]

Hard to believe how long it's been - over 3 yrs- since they last played. Raonic is a completely different player. Unless Sam serves even better than vs Djokovic, Raonic wins.

Something like 75 76 63.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Nice picture.

Couldn't find one - from SW19! - after Fed embarrassed him?

 

[West Coast Ace]

I answered your post highlighting the advantage of being 2 sets up. You actually thinking being 2 sets down could be an advantage for the player wich I find bizarre and there is no reason for me to try ti explain you what the advantage is. It is common knowledge.

And the reason you post to why going two sets down could be a good thing is even more bizzarre. Where you being serious or what? You think someone is tactically Going to go down 2 sets to love to gain advantage? Lol!

You can't possibly think he plays tennis at more than a hit/giggle level? Please say you don't.