This section allows you to view all Messages made by this member. Note that you can only see Messages made in areas you currently have access to.
Watson has taken 12 wickets in 2 years at a strike rate of 1 wicket every 20 overs and an average of 49!
Lets not get too worried about his bowling
Wawrinka into his first grand slam final. Great work and wouldn't it be great to see an all Swiss final. It ain't going to happen. Nadal will thrash the pants off Fed Ex and take another title for his efforts for certain. If only Dimitrov missed less of his shots, it could have been a completely different story. The womens final are not 2 of the original favourites. Completely against what I thought, but the mens only has Djokovic missing. The rest is no surprise at all.
Fed putting on a clinic against Murray (watch this jinx)He is so good to watch.
REALLY ? It is definitely not one of his better games at all. Murray is not up to winning after his back surgery. Federer was great in the first set. Since then he has been ordinary by comparison. If he brings this game against Nadal, he will lose in straight sets.
Federer was much better against Tsonga granted but Fed can take Rafa who looks out of sorts imo....
Heck, baby Fed should have been 2-1 up today (sets).
Bailey gone, rightly so.
Marsh's Shield record is putrid, I have no idea how he gets a spot. I'm no Hughes fan but if they're picking on form he should be there ahead of Marsh.
I'd like to now see Watson move to 6 and give Doolan a chance at 3.
David Warner, Chris Rogers, Shane Watson, Michael Clarke (c), Steve Smith, Shaun Marsh, Alex Doolan, Brad Haddin (vc), Mitchell Johnson, Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle, Nathan Lyon, James Faulkner, Jackson Bird, James Pattinson.
I don't mind that squad at all, Hughes didn't exactly fire in any capacity during the last series against the Saffies, so no problem at all with Marsh and Doolan being included ahead of him. If one of those two can lock down #3, releasing Watto to #6, it'll be a huge win. We have an excellent bowling line up to choose from there as well, so should be a very good series with us in such red hot form.
In my opinion, quite possibly. I cant say I have put tonnes of thought and research into it. Going by my previous definition that may be accurate.
Irrespective different people will define a great differently.
Hmm, I dont think that is the case. I have been proven wrong in the past and have conceded happily enough. I do think that the current "greats" are there based on the fact that they have lacked real competition throughout their career, but thats another story. Its not important to you, your more focussed on playing the man and trying to catch them in a war of words.
Good for you.
Thats mind boggling Gozza. Federer is a great, Nadal might be considered a great but has a fair way to go, and same with Djokovic who is also on his way to being a great, but Hewitt has played in one of the softest period of all around stars.
Curious about this. What, in you opinion, makes a player great? Rafa has won 13 grand slam titles, only Federer and Sampras are ahead of him.
He has a fair way to go? Rightio.
If you want to define greatness by results, then so be it, but for me, when you win 8 out of the last 9 French Open titles to make up the majority of that 13, and the one you lost happens to be to Roger Federer (Who you beat 4 out of the other 8 times in the final) then that speaks to the level of competition that exists in the world of Tennis.
Things have only gotten interesting over the last 3-4 years if you ask me, but thats just my opinion. Aside from that, the competition has never been more lopsided which lessens the achievements of people currently dominating the tour.
Yet he's one of only 7 players in the history of the game to win all four slams. Even Sampras couldn't do that...and he won half of his slams at Wimbledon. It's OK to say he's a great though, I'm sure?
Stop arguing semantics. If its unclear to you, I think the term great is bandied about too readily these days.
Tennis of the nineties was a bit different. Lots of players for both men and women were all at the top of their games and Tennis was much more cat and mouse than it was today. Going into every tournament you were looking at any of roughly 6-8 players that could realistically win and that was true for men and women.
Now its one of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer is dropping off, and Murray is up and coming. The rest are generally making up numbers. One might make it interesting occasionally but usually thats a rarity.
Do I consider Sampras a great... No. A tennis great (given the dominance is more about timing than anything else). For me a Tennis great should be someone who has won all four majors in a year. Otherwise you end up with too many Greats.
Happy now?
I agree the word 'great' is thrown around too easily today.
Looking at the history books only two players have ever won all four majors in one year. Rod Laver (twice) and Don Budge, who won six slams overall way back in the late 1930's. So does this mean, in your opinion they are the only two greats in men's tennis?
What if someone won 20 titles but never achieved the slam in a calendar year? Still not a great?
On one hand you say "If you want to define greatness by results, then so be it...." but on the other hand you are doing exactly the same thing by saying a great can only be defined IF they win all four slams in a calender year.
I think that this whole misunderstanding started on the back of a poorly worded post and just maybe you are being overly critical. Nadal might be considered a great (because to me, much of his greatness is on the back of an open he has been too dominant in with not enough competition) and has a fair way to go (because he is 27 and has spent quite a bit of time injured) and I am more comfortable labelling someone as Great once they are finished rather than 2/3rd's through their career.
Is that better?
Or would you like me to change it again so it conforms to your opinion of the definition of a great?
Thats mind boggling Gozza. Federer is a great, Nadal might be considered a great but has a fair way to go, and same with Djokovic who is also on his way to being a great, but Hewitt has played in one of the softest period of all around stars.
Curious about this. What, in you opinion, makes a player great? Rafa has won 13 grand slam titles, only Federer and Sampras are ahead of him.
He has a fair way to go? Rightio.
If you want to define greatness by results, then so be it, but for me, when you win 8 out of the last 9 French Open titles to make up the majority of that 13, and the one you lost happens to be to Roger Federer (Who you beat 4 out of the other 8 times in the final) then that speaks to the level of competition that exists in the world of Tennis.
Things have only gotten interesting over the last 3-4 years if you ask me, but thats just my opinion. Aside from that, the competition has never been more lopsided which lessens the achievements of people currently dominating the tour.
Yet he's one of only 7 players in the history of the game to win all four slams. Even Sampras couldn't do that...and he won half of his slams at Wimbledon. It's OK to say he's a great though, I'm sure?
Stop arguing semantics. If its unclear to you, I think the term great is bandied about too readily these days.
Tennis of the nineties was a bit different. Lots of players for both men and women were all at the top of their games and Tennis was much more cat and mouse than it was today. Going into every tournament you were looking at any of roughly 6-8 players that could realistically win and that was true for men and women.
Now its one of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer is dropping off, and Murray is up and coming. The rest are generally making up numbers. One might make it interesting occasionally but usually thats a rarity.
Do I consider Sampras a great... No. A tennis great (given the dominance is more about timing than anything else). For me a Tennis great should be someone who has won all four majors in a year. Otherwise you end up with too many Greats.
Happy now?
Thats mind boggling Gozza. Federer is a great, Nadal might be considered a great but has a fair way to go, and same with Djokovic who is also on his way to being a great, but Hewitt has played in one of the softest period of all around stars.
Curious about this. What, in you opinion, makes a player great? Rafa has won 13 grand slam titles, only Federer and Sampras are ahead of him.
He has a fair way to go? Rightio.
If you want to define greatness by results, then so be it, but for me, when you win 8 out of the last 9 French Open titles to make up the majority of that 13, and the one you lost happens to be to Roger Federer (Who you beat 4 out of the other 8 times in the final) then that speaks to the level of competition that exists in the world of Tennis.
Things have only gotten interesting over the last 3-4 years if you ask me, but thats just my opinion. Aside from that, the competition has never been more lopsided which lessens the achievements of people currently dominating the tour.
Thats mind boggling Gozza. Federer is a great, Nadal might be considered a great but has a fair way to go, and same with Djokovic who is also on his way to being a great, but Hewitt has played in one of the softest period of all around stars.
Beauty.
Also, Barty gave it a good crack last night. I like the look of her, think she'll have a good career.
Be interesting to see how Bernie goes tonight...