Tennis, anyone.....?

[Bruce Rioja]

Oooof! Was it as brutal as the scoreline suggests?

[BWFC_Insane]

Oooof! Was it as brutal as the scoreline suggests?

Saw last two sets Nadal was just unplayable. Might be one of the best performances I've seen.

Murray was just laughing sometimes at how ridiculously good Nadal was.

Just as well Murray picked up those two grand slams before Nadal was fit/properly fit.

Not to take owt away from Muzza like, arguably played in the era with the strongest group of male players ever and has an Olympic gold and two slams to his name. That is some going.

[Bruce Rioja]

Oooof! Was it as brutal as the scoreline suggests?

Saw last two sets Nadal was just unplayable. Might be one of the best performances I've seen.

Murray was just laughing sometimes at how ridiculously good Nadal was.

Just as well Murray picked up those two grand slams before Nadal was fit/properly fit.

Not to take owt away from Muzza like, arguably played in the era with the strongest group of male players ever and has an Olympic gold and two slams to his name. That is some going.

It is, but whereas your comment "arguably played in the era with the strongest group of male players ever" is arguably true, I fail to see how he'd ever have overcome Sampras, Becker, Borg or McEnroe either

[BWFC_Insane]

Oooof! Was it as brutal as the scoreline suggests?

Saw last two sets Nadal was just unplayable. Might be one of the best performances I've seen.

Murray was just laughing sometimes at how ridiculously good Nadal was.

Just as well Murray picked up those two grand slams before Nadal was fit/properly fit.

Not to take owt away from Muzza like, arguably played in the era with the strongest group of male players ever and has an Olympic gold and two slams to his name. That is some going.

It is, but whereas your comment "arguably played in the era with the strongest group of male players ever" is arguably true, I fail to see how he'd ever have overcome Sampras, Becker, Borg or McEnroe either

Yeah but Murray is playing in an era where most experts would agree we have the best grass player ever in Federer. The best clay court player ever in Nadal plus one of the best all rounders in Djokovic.

Sampras dominated but there wasn't the depth to the game.

I reckon if just before the Olympics in 2012 after being beaten in another grand slam final at Wimbledon you'd offered Murray any of those eras he'd have taken it, because it looked like he was always going to be pushed out by 1 if not all of the three. To get his chances and take them in this era makes it more special, but I'm convinced he'd have won a lot more if he'd played earlier in other eras.

This is a pretty special era as far as tennis goes. And Murray has competed with all 3 in his time.

[Prufrock]

Yeah it's the numbers. To win a slam in the last few years you've usually had to beat two fecking brilliant players in the same tournament.

Also, cock that he is, Federer is probably the best ever full stop, and Nadal is up there injuries notwithstanding.

Sampras was fab but he didn't win everything. Atm if one of the top boys doesn't win it there's still the other three.

Murray is deservedly up there with them. Nadal seems to have a hex over him but you'd back Murray to best Federer now, and his two slams have been against Djokovic.

[Jakerbeef]

Nadal won't last as long as Djokovic and Murray as he's already had some serious work done on his knees. His all-action style of play comes at a price.

Still think Murray has a couple of grand slams left in him. But when Nadal plays like that he's every inch what Federer was capable of.

On clay? Unplayable. 64-1 speaks for itself.

[Prufrock]

Wouldn't disagree with a word of that.

I'd still rather watch Federer on song than anybody else though .

[thebish]

Nadal won't last as long as Djokovic and Murray as he's already had some serious work done on his knees. His all-action style of play comes at a price.

Nadal doesn't need to last as long - he's already amassed the trophies! (and little timmy Murray had some fairly serious back surgery, didn't he?)

[BWFC_Insane]

Nadal won't last as long as Djokovic and Murray as he's already had some serious work done on his knees. His all-action style of play comes at a price.

Nadal doesn't need to last as long - he's already amassed the trophies! (and little timmy Murray had some fairly serious back surgery, didn't he?)

None of them need to last as long in reality. All the top 4 players have surely at the very least lived their wildest dreams and achieved their personal ambitions.

That's before we look at the fact that all 4 have earned enough to not life a finger for the rest of their lives plus a whole lot more......

[Prufrock]

I dunno about wildest. Nadal and Federer yes, and perhaps Murray having won Wimbledon, but I'd still think both Djokovic and Murray's wildest dreams would include winning all four. As good as he is I don't think ND will get there tomorrow.

[BWFC_Insane]

I dunno about wildest. Nadal and Federer yes, and perhaps Murray having won Wimbledon, but I'd still think both Djokovic and Murray's wildest dreams would include winning all four. As good as he is I don't think ND will get there tomorrow.

Murray always had the target of winning one, it was like his dream as he said several times. Winning two including Wimbledon and a gold medal I'd have though was in excess of what he ever expected especially going back two years....

[Bruce Rioja]

Yeah but Murray is playing in an era where most experts would agree we have the best grass player ever in Federer. The best clay court player ever in Nadal plus one of the best all rounders in Djokovic.

Oh without a doubt, but I just reckon that had he played in any of those previous eras then he'd still have found himself playing 2nd fiddle to someone. Pete Sampras, btw, completely turned me off men's tennis for the entirety of his career.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yeah but Murray is playing in an era where most experts would agree we have the best grass player ever in Federer. The best clay court player ever in Nadal plus one of the best all rounders in Djokovic.

Oh without a doubt, but I just reckon that had he played in any of those previous eras then he'd still have found himself playing 2nd fiddle to someone. Pete Sampras, btw, completely turned me off men's tennis for the entirety of his career.

Aye second fiddle is true, but you'd win a lot more if there was only one outstanding player knocking around rather than 3 others.

In fairness to Murray his achievements are more impressive than had he done it in a lesser era.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Murray always had the target of winning one, it was like his dream as he said several times. Winning two including Wimbledon and a gold medal I'd have though was in excess of what he ever expected especially going back two years....

It may have exceeded what he expected or not, but he certainly exceeded your expectations.

Murray will win a few before his time is up.
Wimbledon won't be one of them though.

Win a few what? If you mean grand slams then I don't think he will.

He was ahead of Djokovic a few years back but look at the work Novak has put in to get to another level entirely.

To win Murray needs to get past Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. I'm not sure he has the right mentality to keep going and playing consistently well and just wait for his chance and then take it.

Will be happy to be proven wrong though!

[BWFC_Insane]

The tennis in this women's final is out of this world.

[thebish]

^ hyperbole alert!!!

[Bruce Rioja]

The tennis in this women's final is out of this world.

The bit that I saw wasn't, far from it in fact, but then I only watched as much as my ears could stand.

[Prufrock]

Interesting. Can't see him lasting the distance though.

[Prufrock]

This is brutal. Nadal was like someone on a PlayStation for a bit then. 4 or 5 games solid where every shot was on the line or in the corner. Wow.

[thebish]

well - Murray's got himself knocked out at Queens already...

7-6 (12-10) 6-2 to the 35-year-old Radek Stepanek.