Search results

Based on a comment that "many people rate Lendl as equal to Borg" which surprised me a bit, thought I'd take the pulse of the forum on this. I've tried to include enough options so a range of opinions can be represented. EDIT: Sorry, posted in the wrong thread. Don't know how to move it.

Nadal knows exactly what has to happen in order to stay #1 after Wimbledon: 1. He has to win the tournament. 2. Djokovic has to go no further than the semi finals. In other words, regardless of Nadal's performance, he has to rely on someone else putting Djokovic out before the final...

I'm sure this must have been mentioned somewhere, but I haven't noticed it. Rafa now has such a big lead over the rest of the field (4,880 points) that even if he pulled out of every event from now until the end of the season it would be impossible for anyone to catch him. Congratulations on...

...for the first time in the 133 year history of the event. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/8745332.stm Seems like a sad decision TBH. OK, none of the people they could have given wildcards to would have stood any chance of making the second week, but I'd have thought Ward deserved...

Anyone know what it is? Connors won 15 tournaments that year, and was runner up in two, so I'm guessing he has to be close to Mac's 1984 record.

Who wins? Murray in four, I think.

...in the open era? My take on this: Australian Open: It would be easy to say Borg or McEnroe for this, but the fact is that they didn't invest enough at the tournament to have deserved to win it, so my vote goes to Pat Cash, who lost in two finals there, and both were tough five set...