Tennis
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
This will be Murrays 4th grand slam final.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 45
|
By:
Because it's at Wimbledon, as a wild guess?
|
|
By:
Because it's the first time in 74 years a British male has reached the Wimbledon Final and the last time a Brit won Wimbledon was in 1977 during the Silver Jubilee coincidently
|
|
By:
74 years is just mad, ain't it?
|
|
By:
Agree with that...the myopic little englanders dont realise that worldwide Wimbledon is rated 3rd in importance after the U.S.and French.
|
|
By:
Any evidence for that? ^^^
|
|
By:
can't agree at all with that. the us open is a joke event
pretty sure aussies would rather win wimbledon than their own tournament too. certainly has more prestige |
|
By:
Most historical tournament obviously.
|
|
By:
winning wimbledon is like the open at st andrews
the holy grail |
|
By:
just what i expected from the english bampots..even the Aussie Open pays out higher prizemoney than Wimbly!..2.37 million us. dollars
Wimb pays less...also less the other two...poorest money of them all |
|
By:
The French Open is the Carling Cup of the slams. Around 3 players roughly can even be bothered to try and win the Men's singles.
The Aussie Open was so unimportant for years that most of the leading players didn't even bother showing up for it ! I'm pleased it's become a classy tournament. |
|
By:
alun..have you been sniffing your mums undercrackers again?
please inform me which "top" players dont "bother paying" in the Aussie Open?  |
|
By:
typo *playing
|
|
By:
borg never bothered to go to australia. why do you think john lloyd got to the final one year ?
|
|
By:
fair point. if u look at the winners of the aussie slam i doubt you ll have heard of a lot of them. although now its a top event and apparently the players favourite
|
|
By:
agassi stayed away from oz for a while didn't he?
|
|
By:
did lloyd make the final when there was the boycott?
|
|
By:
oh that was when roger taylor reached the semis at wimbledon 73
|
|
By:
borg???...he couldnt stand the three week boat ride!!
he retired aged 25....lloyd in fial of Oz 35years ago!!!  |
|
By:
yeah Agassi didnt go to australia for years. turned out to be his most successful Slam
|
|
By:
yep agassi dodged oz for the first 8 years
tho he missed 3 years of wimbledon too because of the dress code  |
|
By:
jezza bates beat him in the US Open one year
|
|
By:
i remember when him getting to the 2nd week made him a national hero
which puts into context the fuss about murray |
|
By:
think he lost in 5 in the 4th round to guy forget in about 93 or 94
|
|
By:
yeah was talking to my mate about that match last night when watching forget
he lost in the 4th round to him in 92 and 94 but 92 he missed match point |
|
By:
and his highest ranking was 54 just before he turned 33! retired the next year
|
|
By:
Good afternoon Sofiakenny.
I am puzzled by your response, and suggest you re-read my comments. Here are some examples of major champions who for years didn't bother going to the Aussie Open : Borg : never went Connors : only went twice in all the 394 years he played Pro tennis McEnroe : didn't go until 1983, by which time he'd already won a number of majors Chris Evert : didn't go back to Aus until 81 after getting her ass kicked by Evonne G in '74 Martina N : went ONCE between '73 and '79 I could go on, but I think that's satisfactory to be going on with. Now then, onto the more important subject still of 'sniffing undercrackers' as you delicately described it. A perfectly harmless and underrated hobby in my opinion, but preferably with the consent of one's FEMALE partner and NEVER with one's Mother. I am happy to discuss these complex and delicate arts with you anytime through the forums's Personal Messaging system.  Kind regards etc |
|
By:
thank you for your kind responce alun
I think we can agree that for the last 20 years your argument is redundant.good day sir.  |
|
By:
So being the most historical tennis tournament in the universe makes Wimbledon a less tournament than the others?
 |
|
By:
stu..just cos something is old doesnt make it the best.
|
|
By:
a higher % of players indentify winbledon as the tornament they would most like to win than any other.
HTH or do you just get a kick out counterintuitive arguments? |
|
By:
tournament even
|
|
By:
sofia - where did I say it was only about being old, it's about the history of the event, prestige, but you obviously don't understand any of this.
|
|
By:
i prefer cash too prestige myself.
|
|
By:
^ i'm guessing you don't have much of either
Wimbledon - $1.8 million Australian Open - $2.36 million French Open - $1.6 million U.S. Open - $1.8 million |
|
By:
The top players are incredibly rich already, so the prestige of one tournament over another has very little to do with money. (And if it was, that would certainly blow your French Open Being Superior theory out of the window, since that pays the least!)
We do sometimes talk about British things as though the whole world values them as much as we do. (Hence Glenn Hoddle's stunning comment that being England Manager was the biggest job in football!!) However, when it comes to Wimbledon, we do have some claim to hosting the tennis tournament that holds the most prestige. You can certainly make a case for the French Open being of similar (possibly even greater) importance worldwide, since the South Americans and many of the Europeans regard clay as being the stuff of Gods. However, to say that Wimbledon only ranks third of the four in terms of importance is, frankly, ridiculous. |
|
By:
okay..2nd or 3rd then
|
|
By:
Wimbledon > the rest.
|
|
By:
i think the main flaw in sofiakenny's argument is that it is completely and utterly wrong.
tbf i don't think he even agrees with himself |
|
By:
I suspect SK's just trying to be provocative. It's not like there's really much evidence that the Australian Open is considered above Wimbledon.
|