The Chinese offensive for the 5th Slam...a far-fetched scenario ? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Chinese offensive for the 5th Slam...a far-fetched scenario ?

fsoica
10-11-2009, 07:54 AM
Some time ago I heard my countryman, El Mafioso for GMers, Ion Tiriac (Madrid license holder), saying that the chinese offensive over big stage tennis is growing stronger.

They already have the biggest ATP500 tourney (Beijing) and one ATP1000 - Shanghai.

Seeing the money they put into Beijing, it is not such a far-fetched idea that, in 10-12 years time, we could have a 5th grand slam in China.

Can ATP and ITF resist to such a big amount of pressure from the market? (as of this year, 6.6 million $ for the Beijing combined event and the biggest prizes for an ATP1000 event, and I'm sure the prize amounts will keep on rising).

Maybe it will not be a "de jure" (so it will begin only as a "de facto" 5th biggest event on tour) grand slam from the start, but what can someone (ATP, ITF) do if the chinese will pay USOpen-like ? All the players will fly to Shanghai (or Beijing) and will do their best to get the big prize. And, slowly but certainly, ATP will have to comply and increase Beijing's status on tour. The first step would be to have a 2 weeks event (a la Indian Wells and Miami) and from there on it will be only one more thing to do...convincing the ATP to double the amount of points awarded for their event.

It is what I think Tiriac sugested in that interview...and his dream would be, I also believe, to be one step ahead of the chinese federation, with his Madrid combined event (imho Tiriac and Madrid stand no chance to become the 5th GS, even if they will change the date, but the chinese can do it)...

What do u think , guys ?

P.S.
It is the first time that I saw on an Atp event's website something as "proposed practice schedule":

http://www.racing-china.com/new/f1/2009/pdf/10-11%20PS%20-%20EN.pdf

I think the chinese are doing everything by the book and, with the help of their booming economy, they will be the 5th force in tennis very soon (and this doesn't mean England, France and Australia will have smth over them, only the USofA are untouchable right now in terms of tour events and venues).

Leo
10-11-2009, 08:13 AM
It's all ridiculous. The players need to be paid less. History and prestige need to count for more. A 5th Grand Slam would be horrific and I don't think the ITF would ever allow it.

Arkulari
10-11-2009, 08:20 AM
create MS, MM as much as you want
GS are four and are untouchable

CmonAussie
10-11-2009, 08:20 AM
...
~~~
don`t really want a 5th slam, but probably China can pull it off~ might take them another 10--15 years though! ..Madrid`s chances are far less likely. the ATP & ITF recognise how important China & Asia are for the growth of the game~~ so they might just create the 5th Slam [even if the players don`t want it]..!!

Arkulari
10-11-2009, 08:21 AM
and the biggest potency in male tennis of these times with the biggest and best tennis academies isn't important for the growth of the game? just asking

either way, as much as I love my country, a 5th Slam in Spain? Hell NO

FedFan_2007
10-11-2009, 08:24 AM
Yes let's have a 5th slam in Madrid :bounce:

fsoica
10-11-2009, 08:26 AM
just 2 facts: Tokyo winner gets $300K and Beijing winner gets $573K.

Also, WTA Beijing is already a A9 tourney, smth like ATP Masters 1000.

CmonAussie
10-11-2009, 08:26 AM
and the biggest potency in male tennis of these times with the biggest and best tennis academies isn't important for the growth of the game? just asking

either way, as much as I love my country, a 5th Slam in Spain? Hell NO

...
of course Spain has a rich tennis history, and they`ll always produce great champions like Rafa, Moya, JCF etc.:cool:
but China will be the most important country in the World in terms of economy, technology & security [maybe it already is].. if tennis is going to prosper in the future the ATP & ITF know that making tennis a major sport in China is going to be crucial,, so they might just create the 5th Slam for them [as much as you or i don`t like it];)

Goldenoldie
10-11-2009, 08:32 AM
If China could produce one or two world class PLAYERS, there might be a better argument.

Emperor Yi
10-11-2009, 08:35 AM
Not gonna happen in the short term(and i consider 10-15 years in that category), too much history and tradition behind the big 4.

I like to see tennis grow in China and asia but i'm not sure if having a GS or throwing huge amt of money is the way to go. It only going to mostly benefit the corporate bigwigs, i doubt the average chinese fan get much out of it, imho . I'm sure there are better ways to promote the sport in china.

Bobby
10-11-2009, 09:33 AM
Can't really happen. Current four Grand Slams should be untouchable, because they form the backbone of the tennis circuit. Allowing China to have a 5th GS would mean that a bit later Dubai (or some other venue with big money) would knock the ATP door asking for 6th GS. It would never end. Money should never come before traditions.

Beijing prize money is ridiculous, by the way.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-11-2009, 10:05 AM
apart from Wimbledon there's no real tradition.

munZe konZa
10-11-2009, 10:05 AM
They should take it from Australia which is too far and give it to China or from America which always screws up schedules like finals on Mondays

Boris Franz Ecker
10-11-2009, 10:10 AM
apart from Wimbledon there's no real tradition.

so why not?

Riffrizzle
10-11-2009, 10:12 AM
I wonder what surface a China Open GS would be. I hope not another hard court. Should make the court out of the pelt of pandas.

Roddickominator
10-11-2009, 10:14 AM
Just give the Australian Open to China and maybe it won't be a mickey mouse slam anymore.

keroni
10-11-2009, 11:31 AM
there were 4 slams starting only from the 90s. the AO was not an important tournament till then, even if it was called a slam back in the day. Many others (e.g. Dallas) were more prestigious. I don't see why not, as long as it's a good tournament.

Har-Tru
10-11-2009, 11:36 AM
There have always been four slams. There will always be four slams.

jazar
10-11-2009, 11:56 AM
having a 5th grand slam would further complicate an already crowded schedule.

CmonAussie
10-11-2009, 12:06 PM
Just give the Australian Open to China and maybe it won't be a mickey mouse slam anymore.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:
AO was only a "mickey mouse slam" for 6 or 7 years [1976--1982];)

JolánGagó
10-11-2009, 12:13 PM
Almost half the world population and not a single remotedly decent player. fu*k their money, shove it in the arse, no one needs any 5th slam.

paseo
10-11-2009, 12:44 PM
No need for a 5th slam. But, replacing one of the slams would be a better idea maybe. I dunno....

n8
10-11-2009, 12:54 PM
There's a good chance the Australian Open could move to Asia in 2016. Check this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/7665088.stm) - third last paragraph.

Asia has got some very promising young guns. Yuki Bhambri (IND) and Tsung-Hua Yang (TPE) are good!

JolánGagó
10-11-2009, 12:56 PM
Let USO move to Rio.

barbadosan
10-11-2009, 01:20 PM
Mankind used animal drawn carriages (including ones drawn by the 2-legged animal) for centuries. That changed.

Aaric
10-11-2009, 01:49 PM
NO WAY fifth slam...

out_here_grindin
10-11-2009, 02:53 PM
If China could produce one or two world class PLAYERS, there might be a better argument.

This. I keep hearing all about Asia being the next big thing in tennis. But where are the young talents? Nishikori is the only one and he has taken a large step back this year.

calvinhobbes
10-11-2009, 04:21 PM
YES! And we should rise the Ten Commandments to Eleven......

Action Jackson
10-11-2009, 04:27 PM
Old news and bullshit.

Sapeod
10-11-2009, 05:05 PM
who gives a shit?

china are never getting a slam in their country. just because they are a big country with lots of people and nuclear power doesn't mean they need to get a slam...

next.

jonathancrane
10-11-2009, 05:06 PM
Not happening

barbadosan
10-11-2009, 05:16 PM
Wow! Reading some of the -- dare I say reactionary -- reactions here, it's a miracle tennis ever entered the Open Era.

Action Jackson
10-11-2009, 05:22 PM
Wow! Reading some of the -- dare I say reactionary -- reactions here, it's a miracle tennis ever entered the Open Era.

What the hell are you on about?

Sapeod
10-11-2009, 05:38 PM
Wow! Reading some of the -- dare I say reactionary -- reactions here, it's a miracle tennis ever entered the Open Era.
wtf :retard:

Action Jackson
10-11-2009, 05:42 PM
Yes, you can buy prestige.

Hey, lets organise a tennis event in my garden and call it "The Grand Slam". Yes, it's a GS in name, but everyone knows it's a MM event.

SelvenluvJo
10-11-2009, 06:49 PM
Oh god plz don't do this

Sunset of Age
10-11-2009, 07:02 PM
Wow! Reading some of the -- dare I say reactionary -- reactions here, it's a miracle tennis ever entered the Open Era.

The only reason I can think of which makes you think this is a good idea is that you live in/near China... ;)

Because it's in fact a horrid idea. There's nothing with acknowledging the tradition in the sport of having four slams a year (isn't it telling that a mafioso like Tiriac thinks otherwise? :rolleyes:), but even more... how do you think the players themselves will think about it? A lot of them are already complaining about the tough schedule, adding ANOTHER slam will surely make them dance with joy! :help:

HKz
10-11-2009, 07:14 PM
4 Grand Slam and leave it so. Putting more tournaments are a good idea, but definitely not a Grand Slam. Future players will win like 10+ easy slams and the talk will be "if Laver/Sampras/Federer/etc played 5 they would have..."

4 Grand Slams are part of the history of tennis, it is our benchmark to determine champions.

Har-Tru
10-11-2009, 07:22 PM
Yes, you can buy prestige.

Hey, lets organise a tennis event in my garden and call it "The Grand Slam". Yes, it's a GS in name, but everyone knows it's a MM event.

Finally revealing your truly favourite surface.

fsoica
10-11-2009, 07:24 PM
Guys, I'm the original poster.

The reason for initiating this thread was to start a debate about the pressure of money over the tennis world (which is undeniable) and, of course, about the opportunity (or not) of another Grand Slam.

I don't care if it's China, Spain, if they have nukes or not, if the air is breathable in Beijing (or not) or if the chinese people will produce or not the next Federer (that giving them automatically the right to have a Slam).

It was meant to be a discution about the economy of tennis, a debate, not a long list of 3 words canine-like sentences..

GlennMirnyi
10-11-2009, 07:25 PM
GS are based on tradition, not on payment.

rocketassist
10-11-2009, 08:01 PM
Will never happen and the Chinese take their money elsewhere.

JolánGagó
10-11-2009, 08:14 PM
It was meant to be a discution about the economy of tennis, a debate, not a long list of 3 words canine-like sentences..


http://funnyanimals.zayebo.com/files/2009/04/really-angry-really-ugly-chiuaua.jpg

whattheheck
10-11-2009, 11:38 PM
Please, no. Four is enough, and not only because it's tradition. They already have Beijing and Shanghai, plus WTA office there, you can't have them all. Look at the crowd attendance first, it wasn't so good except when Chinese players are on the court.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
10-12-2009, 12:43 AM
I whole heartedly agree with a china slam

borg won 11 slams when the AO was an afterthought no one gave a shit about

the AO is still the slam no one values-

having a china slam instead could liven things up

if it was an indoor FAST CARPET slam

then Nalbandian would be a multiple slam winner :D

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 01:15 AM
Guys, I'm the original poster.

The reason for initiating this thread was to start a debate about the pressure of money over the tennis world (which is undeniable) and, of course, about the opportunity (or not) of another Grand Slam.

I don't care if it's China, Spain, if they have nukes or not, if the air is breathable in Beijing (or not) or if the chinese people will produce or not the next Federer (that giving them automatically the right to have a Slam).

It was meant to be a discution about the economy of tennis, a debate, not a long list of 3 words canine-like sentences..

Tiriac not paying you enough.

jcempire
10-12-2009, 02:27 AM
If China could produce one or two world class PLAYERS, there might be a better argument.

but they have a lot of money today. Would you play for it if you get paid the most???

This enough to argu

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 02:33 AM
I whole heartedly agree with a china slam

borg won 11 slams when the AO was an afterthought no one gave a shit about

the AO is still the slam no one values-

having a china slam instead could liven things up

if it was an indoor FAST CARPET slam

then Nalbandian would be a multiple slam winner :D

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p313/manx377/DelusionalGod2.jpg

Johnny Groove
10-12-2009, 02:36 AM
Georgie having some fun in this thread.

barbadosan
10-12-2009, 03:29 AM
The only reason I can think of which makes you think this is a good idea is that you live in/near China... ;)

Because it's in fact a horrid idea. There's nothing with acknowledging the tradition in the sport of having four slams a year (isn't it telling that a mafioso like Tiriac thinks otherwise? :rolleyes:), but even more... how do you think the players themselves will think about it? A lot of them are already complaining about the tough schedule, adding ANOTHER slam will surely make them dance with joy! :help:

1) Quite wrong in your assumption, since I live in the Caribbean - the only similarity shared with China is the initial letter.

2) People, sports and events DO evolve. A few decades ago, no-one had even thought of limited overs competitions in cricket as opposed to the much longer "traditioned" forms of the game - the 3 or 5 day match. Obviously adjustments to schedules/tournaments would have to be considered, but to reject the suggestion out of hand simply because there are now, and have been for some time, 4 slams, would also suggest, by that reasoning, that we should never have moved beyond the then "traditional" Wimbledon Slam - yet we did.

It may never happen; but to dismiss it as an impossibility is surely to have believed that machines could never "fly", and yet they do.

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 03:45 AM
It may never happen; but to dismiss it as an impossibility is surely to have believed that machines could never "fly", and yet they do.

There are reasons that the Slams are the pinnacle of the game, there are 4 of them, each one requiring a different set of skills. No point adding another one, because it will dilute the achievement of winning a Slam, which should never be devalued. So should it be devalued, some things can't be bought.

As others have said, it's Tiriac talking big bullshit, this is the arsehole that said he was ready for Round Robin in the 70s and would want that for a Slam.

Cricket, totally different scenario, as test cricket was struggling big time in the 70s and 1 day cricket was peripheral as well. The fact Kerry Packer came and founded WSC and also the fact the players weren't getting much money, while the respective boards were. Once they signed to WSC, then the innovation came into and changed the sport in all forms.

Sunset of Age
10-12-2009, 07:32 AM
There are reasons that the Slams are the pinnacle of the game, there are 4 of them, each one requiring a different set of skills. No point adding another one, because it will dilute the achievement of winning a Slam, which should never be devalued. So should it be devalued, some things can't be bought.

This.
And like I said, I don't think the players - the folks who are, or should be, most important when deciding on this matter - would ever agree.

fsoica
10-12-2009, 07:39 AM
Tiriac not paying you enough.

That's what i was expecting...big guns calling me names and stuff...

Hokit
10-12-2009, 11:43 AM
There are reasons that the Slams are the pinnacle of the game, there are 4 of them, each one requiring a different set of skills. No point adding another one, because it will dilute the achievement of winning a Slam, which should never be devalued. So should it be devalued, some things can't be bought.

As others have said, it's Tiriac talking big bullshit, this is the arsehole that said he was ready for Round Robin in the 70s and would want that for a Slam.

Cricket, totally different scenario, as test cricket was struggling big time in the 70s and 1 day cricket was peripheral as well. The fact Kerry Packer came and founded WSC and also the fact the players weren't getting much money, while the respective boards were. Once they signed to WSC, then the innovation came into and changed the sport in all forms.

I agree with what you said about prestige and history giving a sense of importance to the Slams, but even they had to start somewhere to get to that point. If China's committed to keep investing in the sport and produce quality players down the track, then I don't see why it shouldn't host a Slam tournament. The idea seems ludicrous now because it's new to the sport and it doesn't have the history or talent to match the West. But when that does happen, it would seem petty to deny China of its supposed ambitions (I've yet to see proof that getting a Slam tournament is on its agenda) by arguing it doesn't have the "history" or "tradition" in the sport.

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 11:50 AM
I agree with what you said about prestige and history giving a sense of importance to the Slams, but even they had to start somewhere to get to that point. If China's committed to keep investing in the sport and produce quality players down the track, then I don't see why it shouldn't host a Slam tournament. The idea seems ludicrous now because it's new to the sport and it doesn't have the history or talent to match the West. But when that does happen, it would seem petty to deny China of its supposed ambitions (I've yet to see proof that getting a Slam tournament is on its agenda) by arguing it doesn't have the "history" or "tradition" in the sport.

Got to understand where it came from, before you can get where it is now.

Tennis was not a global sport when it was started hence the main 4 countries that were playing it initially, aka France, UK, USA and Australia, hence these national championships which then became Open events, were the basis of the Slams.

It's bullshit that is why, they can't even get decent crowds to their local events. Spain has produced a lot of players, but no Slam. Germany did so in the 80s and 90s as well and there was no whining say hey lets have a Slam. So the player thing is bullshit as well, basing something just on a bandwagon effect has failed numerous times.

These 4 events have the prestige, can be marketed effectively as they have the name to do so because of the reputation that was built.

Might as well give Dubai Slam status as they have plenty of cash.

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 11:52 AM
That's what i was expecting...big guns calling me names and stuff...

All deserved, knee jerk reaction threads that have no basis or foundation. Can't use google to find answers to easy questions.

fsoica
10-12-2009, 12:04 PM
All deserved, knee jerk reaction threads that have no basis or foundation. Can't use google to find answers to easy questions.

Man, u make House M.D. look like Mother Teresa.

The exchange between McGrath and Brandes (which I didn't know about) makes me hate you a bit less, though. It's owning at the best possible level... :devil:

P.S.
Since i'm not at all into cricket, enlighten me, pls.
Does "bowler" stands for "cricketer" and "bowling player" also ?

W!MBLEDON
10-12-2009, 12:07 PM
nah

the australian open is the grand slam of the asia-pacific

nice try though

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 12:09 PM
It's not hard Hokit made their points and did it in a good way, therefore it doesn't deserve contempt.

This is absolute side issue, the Slams aren't going to be changing anytime soon, it's just dickheads with agendas that don't have anything to base it on, unless making cash off it.

The schedule is too long as it as, but of course nobody wants to address that. Then there is the fact that the TV rights issue globally so the game can get to as many people as possible, is more pressing than shit like this.

rafa_maniac
10-12-2009, 01:08 PM
As much as I don't want to see it happen, I don't think it's a ludicrous suggestion. It's not like things are going to stay this way for all eternity, or even that the current state of affairs is what has always been. The Slams didn't all get created in the same year, it wasn't very long ago in fact that there were really only 3 Slams of worth, as far as I know all 4 Slams have changed surfaces at various times, the Oz Open has moved around between different cities alot and added the moniker of "The Grand Slam of Asia/Pacific" to globalise it further. Basically, all this "it's always been this way" talk is pretty much nonsense, eventually things WILL change as far as the Slams are concerned, but right now there's no logical reason for it to.

Sapeod
10-12-2009, 01:09 PM
I whole heartedly agree with a china slam

borg won 11 slams when the AO was an afterthought no one gave a shit about

the AO is still the slam no one values-

having a china slam instead could liven things up

if it was an indoor FAST CARPET slam

then Nalbandian would be a multiple slam winner :D
what a load of bullshit.

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 01:19 PM
As much as I don't want to see it happen, I don't think it's a ludicrous suggestion. It's not like things are going to stay this way for all eternity, or even that the current state of affairs is what has always been. The Slams didn't all get created in the same year, it wasn't very long ago in fact that there were really only 3 Slams of worth, as far as I know all 4 Slams have changed surfaces at various times, the Oz Open has moved around between different cities alot and added the moniker of "The Grand Slam of Asia/Pacific" to globalise it further. Basically, all this "it's always been this way" talk is pretty much nonsense, eventually things WILL change as far as the Slams are concerned, but right now there's no logical reason for it to.

If Tiriac is behind it then it's shit pure and simple. Madrid 5th Slam was another one of his grandiose comments and it's all about smoke and mirrors.

Seems like you aren't aware of how the Slams got their particular status initially, if you were then you'd get it. The Aus Open used to be very prestigious when there were so many Aussies at the top, went to shit, they saved it and turned it around.

It's not even that it's always been that way, especially when you don't understand how they came about.

rafa_maniac
10-12-2009, 01:34 PM
If Tiriac is behind it then it's shit pure and simple. Madrid 5th Slam was another one of his grandiose comments and it's all about smoke and mirrors.

Seems like you aren't aware of how the Slams got their particular status initially, if you were then you'd get it. The Aus Open used to be very prestigious when there were so many Aussies at the top, went to shit, they saved it and turned it around.

It's not even that it's always been that way, especially when you don't understand how they came about.

No, as an Aussie tennis fan I am certainly aware, my only point was that the "things never have, and thus never will change" attitude of some people is obviously misguided because there HAS been considerable change as far as the Slams are concerned over time. RIGHT NOW it makes absolutely no sense to add a 5th and I hope to god it doesn't happen, but I acknowledge that one day, possibly after I'm dead, things will be different.

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 01:39 PM
No, as an Aussie tennis fan I am certainly aware, my only point was that the "things never have, and thus never will change" attitude of some people is obviously misguided because there HAS been considerable change as far as the Slams are concerned over time. RIGHT NOW it makes absolutely no sense to add a 5th and I hope to god it doesn't happen, but I acknowledge that one day, possibly after I'm dead, things will be different.

Considering the 4 countries that were the starting federations of the game, then it makes clear sense as to how they became Slams. Like I said before the Slams now have the reputation and they have no problems getting sponsors, how do you think it got that way?

Yes, China actually needs to fill the seating at tournaments they have. Look at it now, there is a Chinese WC and so many seats available, not like they want to make the sport accessible do they. Hordes and hordes of empty seats isn't a good look.

CmonAussie
10-12-2009, 02:23 PM
...
...
interesting that the crowds in Shanghai are virtually non-existant.. seemed like there were less than 100 people in attendance for the 2 main showcourts today..!! despite China`s population they can`t get bums on seats [except finals day maybe]. wonder if the tickets are too expensive or the courts are too far from the city.! >>thats what makes the 4 Slams special, the huge crowds, AO, FO & USO all get 500,000--600,000 per year [not sure about Wimbledon attendance but the stands are usually full]!!

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
10-12-2009, 02:47 PM
i know fuck all about tennis- so it was obvious MTF would give me a job as a mod.

i agree. but at least TRY to get your facts straight.

between 1877 and 1891- England, America and France all created what would eventually become the 3 big slams.

The Australian Open wasn't created as we know it until 1905- and MORE IMPORTANTLY- no one gave a FLYING FUCK about the Australian open for decades because of its geographical location- (a trip to Australia was a 45 day boat ride in the 1920s)

people who wouldn't piss on Australia if it was on fire include the Renshaws, the Dohertys, William Larned, Maurice McLoughlin, Beals Wright, Bill Johnston, Bill Tilden, René Lacoste, Henri Cochet, Bobby Riggs, Jack Kramer, Ted Schroeder, Pancho Gonzales, Budge Patty, Manuel Santana, Jan Kodes

^they never played there once

Ellsworth Vines, Jaroslav Drobny, Manuel Orantes, Ilie Năstase and Björn Borg came just once.

Australia was a NON ENTITY- it was the bastard child no one gave a fuck about- the reason it gained a smidgen of prestige in the 60s is IRONICALLY the same reason you have a grudge against Spain's bid- the best players in the world were Australian- and in between barbies, bad manners and farting they decided they'd play their home slam.

even in the 70s, the NTL barred Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, and others from playing there

yes there had been the odd years where the AO had a field worthy of being called a slam, but that really wasn't cememented untill the late 80s because untill then people still considered it the badtard child slam that was held at a stupid time and that wasn't worth the trip

-

because of this- you cannot compare eras- the 11 slams of borg are not directly comparable to the 11 of laver or the 14 of sampras- if borg wanted- he could easily have won an EASY slam in australia and had at least 5-6 more slams.... but in those days no one counted slams like they did when sampras started getting close to emersons record.

do you think he would have left it at 11 (one shy of the, then record) if he really gave a damn about total slams

the 2 of Gonzalez compliment the TOTAL DOMINATION OF THE PRO SLAMS HE WON IN THE 50s

who gave a flying fuck about the prestige of Wimbledon and the AMATEUR slams in those days- as soon as the amateurs turned pro they got their asses handed to them- the slams in those days were NOT WORTH THE PAPER THEY WERE PRINTED ON

even today- both Roger Federer and Nadal have called for the Austrailian open to be moved to February because they feel its still too close to the holidays

a china slam instead of the bastard child slam wouldn't be such a big shift since no one really cares about the austrailian open like they care about the other slams anyway.

CmonAussie
10-12-2009, 05:30 PM
i agree. but at least TRY to get your facts straight.

between 1877 and 1891- England, America and France all created what would eventually become the 3 big slams.

The Australian Open wasn't created as we know it until 1905- and MORE IMPORTANTLY- no one gave a FLYING FUCK about the Australian open for decades because of its geographical location- (a trip to Australia was a 45 day boat ride in the 1920s)

people who wouldn't piss on Australia if it was on fire include the Renshaws, the Dohertys, William Larned, Maurice McLoughlin, Beals Wright, Bill Johnston, Bill Tilden, René Lacoste, Henri Cochet, Bobby Riggs, Jack Kramer, Ted Schroeder, Pancho Gonzales, Budge Patty, Manuel Santana, Jan Kodes

^they never played there once

Ellsworth Vines, Jaroslav Drobny, Manuel Orantes, Ilie Năstase and Björn Borg came just once.

Australia was a NON ENTITY- it was the bastard child no one gave a fuck about- the reason it gained a smidgen of prestige in the 60s is IRONICALLY the same reason you have a grudge against Spain's bid- the best players in the world were Australian- and in between barbies, bad manners and farting they decided they'd play their home slam.

even in the 70s, the NTL barred Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, and others from playing there

yes there had been the odd years where the AO had a field worthy of being called a slam, but that really wasn't cememented untill the late 80s because untill then people still considered it the badtard child slam that was held at a stupid time and that wasn't worth the trip-

because of this- you cannot compare eras- the 11 slams of borg are not directly comparable to the 11 of laver or the 14 of sampras- if borg wanted- he could easily have won an EASY slam in australia and had at least 5-6 more slams.... but in those days no one counted slams like they did when sampras started getting close to emersons record.

do you think he would have left it at 11 (one shy of the, then record) if he really gave a damn about total slams

the 2 of Gonzalez compliment the TOTAL DOMINATION OF THE PRO SLAMS HE WON IN THE 50s

who gave a flying fuck about the prestige of Wimbledon and the AMATEUR slams in those days- as soon as the amateurs turned pro they got their asses handed to them- the slams in those days were NOT WORTH THE PAPER THEY WERE PRINTED ON

even today- both Roger Federer and Nadal have called for the Austrailian open to be moved to February because they feel its still too close to the holidays

a china slam instead of the bastard child slam wouldn't be such a big shift since no one really cares about the austrailian open like they care about the other slams anyway.


:rolleyes::rolleyes::eek:
You really don`t like AO do you:confused:
I guess 105 years of history count for nothing:confused:
I guess Borotra, Fred Perry & Don Budge were wasting their time when they made those epic boat trips Down Under to play in 40 degree heat in the 1920s & 1930s:confused:
I guess Laver, Rosewall, Emerson & Ashe just played for giggles:p
I guess Federer & Nadal consider AO a f..king bastard child slam because its held in January instead of February:p
Yeah sure mate, just give it to China~ they can make up a 100+ year history overnight:eek:

1905 Rodney Heath Arthur Curtis 4-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4
1906 Tony Wilding[1] Francis Fisher 6-0, 6-4, 6-4
1907 Horace Rice Harry Parker 6-3, 6-4, 6-4
1908 Fred Alexander Alfred Dunlop 3-6, 3-6, 6-0, 6-2, 6-3
1909 Tony Wilding Ernie Parker 6-1, 7-5, 6-2
1910 Rodney Heath Horace Rice 6-4, 6-3, 6-2
1911 Norman Brookes Horace Rice 6-1, 6-2, 6-3
1912 James Parke[2] Alfred Beamish 3-6, 6-3, 1-6, 6-1, 7-5
1913 Ernie Parker Harry Parker 2-6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3
1914 Arthur O'Hara Wood Gerald Patterson 6-4, 6-3, 5-7, 6-1
1915 Gordon Lowe Horace Rice 4-6, 6-1, 6-1, 6-4
1916-18 Pas de compétition (Première Guerre mondiale)
1919 Algernon Kingscote Eric Pockley 6-4, 6-0, 6-3
1920 Pat O'Hara Wood Ron Thomas 6-3, 4-6, 6-8, 6-1, 6-3
1921 Rhys Gemmell Alf Hedeman 7-5, 6-1, 6-4
1922 James Anderson Gerald Patterson 6-0, 3-6, 3-6, 6-3, 6-2
1923 Pat O'Hara Wood Bert St. John 6-1, 6-1, 6-3
1924 James Anderson Richard Schlesinger 6-3, 6-4, 3-6, 5-7, 6-3
1925 James Anderson Gerald Patterson 11-9, 2-6, 6-2, 6-3
1926 John Hawkes Jim Willard 6-1, 6-3, 6-1
1927 Gerald Patterson John Hawkes 3-6, 6-4, 3-6, 18-16, 6-3
1928 Jean Borotra Jack Cummings 6-4, 6-1, 4-6, 5-7, 6-3
1929 Colin Gregory Richard Schlesinger 6-2, 6-2, 5-7, 7-5
1930 Gar Moon Harry Hopman 6-3, 6-1, 6-3
1931 Jack Crawford Harry Hopman 6-4, 6-2, 2-6, 6-1
1932 Jack Crawford Harry Hopman 4-6, 6-3, 3-6, 6-3, 6-1
1933 Jack Crawford Keith Gledhill 2-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-2
1934 Fred Perry Jack Crawford 6-3, 7-5, 6-1
1935 Jack Crawford Fred Perry 2-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4
1936 Adrian Quist Jack Crawford 6-2, 6-3, 4-6, 3-6, 9-7
1937 Vivian McGrath John Bromwich 6-3, 1-6, 6-0, 2-6, 6-1
1938 Don Budge John Bromwich 6-4, 6-2, 6-1
1939 John Bromwich Adrian Quist 6-4, 6-1, 6-3
1940 Adrian Quist Jack Crawford 6-3, 6-1, 6-2
1941-45 Pas de compétition (Seconde Guerre mondiale)
1946 John Bromwich Dinny Pails 5-7, 6-3, 7-5, 3-6, 6-2
1947 Dinny Pails John Bromwich 4-6, 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, 8-6
1948 Adrian Quist John Bromwich 6-4, 3-6, 6-3, 2-6, 6-3
1949 Frank Sedgman John Bromwich 6-3, 6-3, 6-2
1950 Frank Sedgman Ken McGregor 6-3, 6-4, 4-6, 6-1
1951 Dick Savitt Ken McGregor 6-3, 2-6, 6-3, 6-1
1952 Ken McGregor Frank Sedgman 7-5, 12-10, 2-6, 6-2
1953 Ken Rosewall Mervyn Rose 6-0, 6-3, 6-4
1954 Mervyn Rose Rex Hartwig 6-2, 0-6, 6-4, 6-2
1955 Ken Rosewall Lew Hoad 9-7, 6-4, 6-4
1956 Lew Hoad Ken Rosewall 6-4, 3-6, 6-4, 7-5
1957 Ashley Cooper Neale Fraser 6-3, 9-11, 6-4, 6-2
1958 Ashley Cooper Mal Anderson 7-5, 6-3, 6-4
1959 Alex Olmedo Neale Fraser 6-1, 6-2, 3-6, 6-3
1960 Rod Laver Neale Fraser 5-7, 3-6, 6-3, 8-6, 8-6
1961 Roy Emerson Rod Laver 1-6, 6-3, 7-5, 6-4
1962 Rod Laver Roy Emerson 8-6, 0-6, 6-4, 6-4
1963 Roy Emerson Ken Fletcher 6-3, 6-3, 6-1
1964 Roy Emerson Fred Stolle 6-3, 6-4, 6-2
1965 Roy Emerson Fred Stolle 7-9, 2-6, 6-4, 7-5, 6-1
1966 Roy Emerson Arthur Ashe 6-4, 6-8, 6-2, 6-3
1967 Roy Emerson Arthur Ashe 6-4, 6-1, 6-1
1968 Bill Bowrey Juan Gisbert 7-5, 2-6, 9-7, 6-4
1969 Rod Laver Andres Gimeno 6-3, 6-4, 7-5
1970 Arthur Ashe Dick Crealy 6-4, 9-7, 6-2
1971 Ken Rosewall Arthur Ashe 6-1, 7-5, 6-3
1972 Ken Rosewall Mal Anderson 7-6, 6-3, 7-5
1973 John Newcombe Onny Parun 6-3, 6-7, 7-5, 6-1
1974 Jimmy Connors Phil Dent 7-6, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3
1975 John Newcombe Jimmy Connors 7-5, 3-6, 6-4, 7-5
1976 Mark Edmondson John Newcombe 6-7, 6-3, 7-6, 6-1
1977J Roscoe Tanner Guillermo Vilas 6-3, 6-3, 6-3
1977D Vitas Gerulaitis John Lloyd 6-3, 7-6, 5-7, 3-6, 6-2
1978 Guillermo Vilas John Marks 6-4, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
1979 Guillermo Vilas John Sadri 7-6, 6-3, 6-2
1980 Brian Teacher Kim Warwick 7-5, 7-6, 6-3
1981 Johan Kriek Steve Denton 6-2, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4
1982 Johan Kriek Steve Denton 6-3, 6-3, 6-2
1983 Mats Wilander Ivan Lendl 6-1, 6-4, 6-4
1984 Mats Wilander Kevin Curren 6-7, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2
1985 Stefan Edberg Mats Wilander 6-4, 6-3, 6-3
1987 Stefan Edberg Pat Cash 6-3, 6-4, 3-6, 5-7, 6-3
1988 Mats Wilander Pat Cash 6-3, 6-7, 3-6, 6-1, 8-6
1989 Ivan Lendl Miloslav Mečíř 6-2, 6-2, 6-2
1990 Ivan Lendl Stefan Edberg 4-6, 7-6, 5-2, abandon
1991 Boris Becker Ivan Lendl 1-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4
1992 Jim Courier Stefan Edberg 6-3, 3-6, 6-4, 6-2
1993 Jim Courier Stefan Edberg 6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5
1994 Pete Sampras Todd Martin 7-6, 6-4, 6-4
1995 Andre Agassi Pete Sampras 4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4
1996 Boris Becker Michael Chang 6-2, 6-4, 2-6, 6-4
1997 Pete Sampras Carlos Moyá 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
1998 Petr Korda Marcelo Ríos 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
1999 Ievgueni Kafelnikov Thomas Enqvist 4-6, 6-0, 6-3, 7-6
2000 Andre Agassi Ievgueni Kafelnikov 3-6, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
2001 Andre Agassi Arnaud Clément 6-4, 6-2, 6-2
2002 Thomas Johansson Marat Safin 3-6, 6-4, 6-4, 7-6
2003 Andre Agassi Rainer Schüttler 6-2, 6-2, 6-1
2004 Roger Federer Marat Safin 7-6, 6-4, 6-3
2005 Marat Safin Lleyton Hewitt 1-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-4
2006 Roger Federer Márcos Baghdatís 5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2
2007 Roger Federer Fernando González 7-62, 6-4, 6-4
2008 Novak Đoković Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 4-6, 6-4, 6-3, 7-62
2009 Rafael Nadal Roger Federer 7-5, 3-6, 7-63, 3-6, 6-2

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 05:40 PM
i agree. but at least TRY to get your facts straight.

between 1877 and 1891- England, America and France all created what would eventually become the 3 big slams.
.

No need for the essay. No one gets paid to be a mod here.

Simple the AO was rubbish when Laver and that generation retired, almost got moved and lost money. Once they moved it from Kooyong, then it got back on its feet. As for Spain, might as well give Argentina, Russia and Sweden should have had Slams using your logic.

Borg not relevant, he never won the US Open, no point trying to going down at the end of the year to Australia, when it wasn't worth it. Borg's record what about it?

Says the guy who starts knee jerk reaction threads and China deserves a Slam based on what? No attendance figures.

FiBeR
10-12-2009, 05:49 PM
http://nando027.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/with-the-beatles2.jpg

how many do you see?

octatennis
10-12-2009, 05:56 PM
shangai finished his contract as the host of the master cup?

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 05:57 PM
shangai finished his contract as the host of the master cup?

Yes.

LucasArg
10-12-2009, 06:08 PM
No need for the essay. No one gets paid to be a mod here.

Simple the AO was rubbish when Laver and that generation retired, almost got moved and lost money. Once they moved it from Kooyong, then it got back on its feet. As for Spain, might as well give Argentina, Russia and Sweden should have had Slams using your logic.

Borg not relevant, he never won the US Open, no point trying to going down at the end of the year to Australia, when it wasn't worth it. Borg's record what about it?

Says the guy who starts knee jerk reaction threads and China deserves a Slam based on what? No attendance figures.

Just give us a MS1000!

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 06:15 PM
Just give us a MS1000!

A Masters event that would be great, but I don't see it happening soon sadly.

octatennis
10-12-2009, 06:27 PM
Yes.

i asked because remenbering the time they did the contract, i though i had seen that it would be longer, and then the atp started the negociations with the chinese fed about taking the cup to london and instead they got the master 1000 without finnishing the schedule time. did they shorten it out with the negociaton or the contract finnished?

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 06:30 PM
i asked because remenbering the time they did the contract, i though i had seen that it would be longer, and then the atp started the negociations with the chinese fed about taking the cup to london and instead they got the master 1000 without finnishing the schedule time. did they shorten it out with the negociaton or the contract finnished?

The contract was up, so the TMC went to London and then they got the Masters instead.

fabolous
10-12-2009, 07:39 PM
Germany did so in the 80s and 90s as well and there was no whining say hey lets have a Slam.
well, there was no whining among players or fans, but a few people actually tried to bring a slam to germany. geoff pollard once said, the germans would pay australia 1 billion dollar for the 4th slam. the efforts were not very successful, so germany got the ATP finals and the wonderful grand slam cup.

money can't buy you everything and i hope this will apply for the slams at least. i can't see a change in the slams for the next 20 years. as for the asian/chinese market, the ATP is obviously trying hard to make some cash over there, but they need more asian top players to gain fans and this will take many years. tennis in china is still at the very beginning.

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 07:45 PM
well, there was no whining among players or fans, but a few people actually tried to bring a slam to germany. geoff pollard once said, the germans would pay australia 1 billion dollar for the 4th slam. the efforts were not very successful, so germany got the ATP finals and the wonderful grand slam cup.

money can't buy you everything and i hope this will apply for the slams at least. i can't see a change in the slams for the next 20 years. as for the asian/chinese market, the ATP is obviously trying hard to make some cash over there, but they need more asian top players to gain fans and this will take many years. tennis in china is still at the very beginning.

Funny how Tiriac was involved in the German market as well, maybe not so much since he was managing Becker. Pollard didn't sell and good for him. The ATP finals and the GS cup were big events and the German audience was massive.

The ITF decide the Slams and naturally the ATP are about the $$$$$$$$$$ and China represents this of course, so it makes sense to have a Masters there, though no crowds is not a good look for any event.

oranges
10-12-2009, 08:06 PM
a china slam instead of the bastard child slam wouldn't be such a big shift since no one really cares about the austrailian open like they care about the other slams anyway.

:rolleyes: Speak for yourself and keep your (or Chinese for that matter) fingers off AO.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
10-12-2009, 08:57 PM
actually, i'd like to apologize.

A previous post on here made me think of Richard Dawkins, and having to watch his re-write of history to fit his own version of what "Darwin" [lost his daughter- hated God, abandoned his faith- invented a naturalist ideology with the express intent of doing away with any notion of God- which was an incredible failure considering abiogenesis is an untested hypothesis- a bit like evolution then (boom boom) ahem-]= did or not discover (ahem)

so yeah- my opinion on the china slam is that if the AO was moved to china and the slam was renamed the Asia slam, it wouldn't lose its history or pretige but infact would incorporate more asian culture and not just the english criminals who stole the land from the aborigines culture

speaking of which, no one ever mentions the thousands of graves dug up because of Darwin, because they thought aborigine's were the "missing link"

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 09:05 PM
:rolleyes: Speak for yourself and keep your (or Chinese for that matter) fingers off AO.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=152586
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=151889
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=151835

Troll time.

fabolous
10-12-2009, 09:08 PM
Funny how Tiriac was involved in the German market as well, maybe not so much since he was managing Becker. Pollard didn't sell and good for him. The ATP finals and the GS cup were big events and the German audience was massive.

The ITF decide the Slams and naturally the ATP are about the $$$$$$$$$$ and China represents this of course, so it makes sense to have a Masters there, though no crowds is not a good look for any event.
tiriac was omnipresent in german tennis events in the 90's and the tournament officials did everything he said. he was smart enough to leave when he saw it was going downhill, the guy has a good business sense. makes me sad to see that he still has some influence in tennis today, but he won't invent a fifth slam.

Action Jackson
10-12-2009, 09:11 PM
tiriac was omnipresent in german tennis events in the 90's and the tournament officials did everything he said. he was smart enough to leave when he saw it was going downhill, the guy has a good business sense. makes me sad to see that he still has some influence in tennis today, but he won't invent a fifth slam.

Very good businessman, but notice it is he who is always going on about the 5th Slam. Once Germany was mined out, he went to Spain and managed get money out of people in Madrid to fund their Olympic bid. He was on about this in Madrid as well.

The status quo isn't going to be changed for some time when it comes to this.

wally1
10-12-2009, 09:45 PM
As much as I don't want to see it happen, I don't think it's a ludicrous suggestion. It's not like things are going to stay this way for all eternity, or even that the current state of affairs is what has always been. The Slams didn't all get created in the same year, it wasn't very long ago in fact that there were really only 3 Slams of worth, as far as I know all 4 Slams have changed surfaces at various times, the Oz Open has moved around between different cities alot and added the moniker of "The Grand Slam of Asia/Pacific" to globalise it further. Basically, all this "it's always been this way" talk is pretty much nonsense, eventually things WILL change as far as the Slams are concerned, but right now there's no logical reason for it to.I can't see any likelihood of a 5th slam at all, what I could see happening though is the AO some years being held in China or some other country - it leaves itself open to this with it's marketing as "Grand Slam of the Asia Pacific". I personally wouldn't like to see this, and I don't think it's likely (the Chinese would have to pay huge money to the Aussies each year they held it I'd imagine), but it's possible.

Cricket, which has been mentioned a few times, and is supposedly a "traditional" sport may provide some interesting lessons in how quickly things can change. I never thought I'd see the day a captain of the West Indies would say he wouldn't be too bothered if he saw test cricket die, to be replaced by the bullshit, baseball version of the game that is 20/20. Thankfully he's in the minority now, but who knows if tests will still be played outside of Ashes series in the years to come. Test cricket is already dead in the women's game.

Btw Wimby has been on grass since 1877, and I'm pretty sure the French Championships has been on clay at least since they were opened up to non-French players. Wimbledon has also only moved once, and that was only a few hundred yards up the road in 1922.

fast_clay
10-13-2009, 12:10 AM
YES! And we should rise the Ten Commandments to Eleven......

already is... Thou shall not double fault...

fast_clay
10-13-2009, 12:34 AM
Just give us a MS1000!

you already have the Petrobas Masters, that is enough for you guys...

GugaF1
10-13-2009, 03:03 AM
Action Jackson who is the red head godess on your avatar, sir?

HKz
10-13-2009, 03:46 AM
I whole heartedly agree with a china slam

borg won 11 slams when the AO was an afterthought no one gave a shit about

the AO is still the slam no one values-

having a china slam instead could liven things up

if it was an indoor FAST CARPET slam

then Nalbandian would be a multiple slam winner :D

Fake tennis fan alert :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Action Jackson
10-13-2009, 05:33 AM
Fake tennis fan alert :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HKz again.

CmonAussie
10-13-2009, 07:53 AM
actually, i'd like to apologize.

A previous post on here made me think of Richard Dawkins, and having to watch his re-write of history to fit his own version of what "Darwin" [lost his daughter- hated God, abandoned his faith- invented a naturalist ideology with the express intent of doing away with any notion of God- which was an incredible failure considering abiogenesis is an untested hypothesis- a bit like evolution then (boom boom) ahem-]= did or not discover (ahem)

so yeah- my opinion on the china slam is that if the AO was moved to china and the slam was renamed the Asia slam, it wouldn't lose its history or pretige but infact would incorporate more asian culture and not just the english criminals who stole the land from the aborigines culture

speaking of which, no one ever mentions the thousands of graves dug up because of Darwin, because they thought aborigine's were the "missing link"



:rolleyes::rolleyes:
So according to your argument, about the way the British people [such as Darwin] abused the Australian aboriginals~~ then it is GB who should be penalised, then Wimbledon should lose its Slam status & moved to China:p

Seriously if you`re going down that track then Australia would be the least guilty country, think of the slavery in USA history, or all the **** & murder both English & French colonists did:sad::sad:

Thus the AO is the only Slam that should be allowed to keep its Slam status,, Wimby, FO & USO can go to China, India, and Brazil [oh no wait- those countries might have shady histories too:eek:]..!!

Action Jackson
10-13-2009, 08:01 AM
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
So according to your argument, about the way the British people [such as Darwin] abused the Australian aboriginals~~ then it is GB who should be penalised, then Wimbledon should lose its Slam status & moved to China:p

Seriously if you`re going down that track then Australia would be the least guilty country, think of the slavery in USA history, or all the **** & murder both English & French colonists did:sad::sad:

Thus the AO is the only Slam that should be allowed to keep its Slam status,, Wimby, FO & USO can go to China, India, and Brazil [oh no wait- those countries might have shady histories too:eek:]..!!

Hahaha, well China colonised Tibet and East Turkestan, but of course our friend has forgotten this.

FiBeR
10-13-2009, 06:08 PM
you already have the Petrobas Masters, that is enough for you guys...

and you have a grand slam champion... oh wait, not!

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
10-13-2009, 06:13 PM
YES! And we should rise the Ten Commandments to Eleven......

sometimes i wonder if i read a different bible to everyone else

because in the bible i read, Jesus did add another commandment

love everyone as you love yourself


(yes i know it sounds like a hippy command, but thats why i love the guy)

so yep- already are 11 commandments

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
10-13-2009, 06:17 PM
Hahaha, well China colonised Tibet and East Turkestan, but of course our friend has forgotten this.

ill adress the china tibet issue

when the media addresses the palestine-israel issue fairly

in other words when pigs fly

oranges
10-13-2009, 06:21 PM
ill adress the china tibet issue

when the media addresses the palestine-israel issue fairly

in other words when pigs fly

Good that you addressed all those other relevant issues :lol: Darwin offspring to decide on slams :rocker2:

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
10-13-2009, 06:25 PM
Fake tennis fan alert :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

http://unprofessionalfoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/pot-kettle-black-300x225.jpg

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
10-13-2009, 06:28 PM
Good that you addressed all those other relevant issues :lol: Darwin offspring to decide on slams :rocker2:

oh so glad you brought it up

whilst watching masters coverage today, the presenters brought up the issue of evolution in tennis

and how cillic, berdych and mon fils were all big guys who moved well- compared to even the 90s when a guy like todd martin could hardly move

they figured it was simply tennis evolution, or the game getting better overall

i'd love to know what the nostalgia fans thought about the game today being considered better than the 90s

oranges
10-13-2009, 06:32 PM
Another issue relevant for the discussion at hand. Lame troll attempt, have to do better.

Action Jackson
10-14-2009, 04:24 AM
Good that you addressed all those other relevant issues :lol: Darwin offspring to decide on slams :rocker2:

Yes, Israel is going to host a Slam.

Sapeod
10-14-2009, 05:58 AM
http://unprofessionalfoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/pot-kettle-black-300x225.jpg
Racist.

Sapeod
10-14-2009, 06:02 AM
How is this tennis-hero's rep bar not red yet? The amount of bullshit coming out of him gives bullshit a run for its money.

Winston's Human
10-14-2009, 12:06 PM
I think China needs to put a few more fans in the stands before they can even think about hosting a 5th slam.

Farrow
10-14-2009, 12:51 PM
sometimes i wonder if i read a different bible to everyone else



Nah, it's just you're the only one who actually reads the bible anymore.

fast_clay
10-15-2009, 05:48 PM
and you have a grand slam champion... oh wait, not!

it is fortunate for you guys that he slipped through the net raymo... fortunate indeed... he should be playing rugby for sure, though from what i understand his tendency to get emotional in public kind of ruled him out...

fast_clay
10-15-2009, 05:50 PM
oh so glad you brought it up

whilst watching masters coverage today, the presenters brought up the issue of evolution in tennis

and how cillic, berdych and mon fils were all big guys who moved well- compared to even the 90s when a guy like todd martin could hardly move

they figured it was simply tennis evolution, or the game getting better overall

i'd love to know what the nostalgia fans thought about the game today being considered better than the 90s

tennis players in the 90's had mad skillz not like today... that is all you need to know...

Har-Tru
10-15-2009, 05:59 PM
oh so glad you brought it up

whilst watching masters coverage today, the presenters brought up the issue of evolution in tennis

and how cillic, berdych and mon fils were all big guys who moved well- compared to even the 90s when a guy like todd martin could hardly move

they figured it was simply tennis evolution, or the game getting better overall

i'd love to know what the nostalgia fans thought about the game today being considered better than the 90s

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/9/30/128988263968046659.jpg