Is Andy Murray the Fifth Best Among Youngsters? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is Andy Murray the Fifth Best Among Youngsters?

SheepleBuster
02-03-2010, 07:54 PM
I know it's too early to read too much into Andy Murray's humiliating loss at AO, but I think he is overrated. Djokovic, Nadal, Delpotro have all made their breakthrough. And Cilic looks more likely to do it than Murray. He might win a few slams but is he really third best player in the world when there are 4 youngsters that are better than him?

abraxas21
02-03-2010, 07:58 PM
there's nothing humilliating in losing in 3 sets to the greatest player to have ever picked up a racquet. in fact, he gave quite a battle in the third set. murray should be proud of himself.

as federer declines, i personally expect pony boy and muray to fight for the GS in the future. Djokovic is going to be a force too but i don't think he'll be as strong as those 2.

noctilux
02-03-2010, 08:09 PM
Well, mentally, Murray does seem to have issues. The pressure on him is greater, applied both by his entourage and, especially, the British media. However, talent-wise I think he is probably ahead of his peers. Cilic is a good player, but, like Del Potro, he seems to have little options aside from hitting the ball as hard as he can. Clever players like Murray or Federer will probably find their way past them more often than not.
Djokovic has the mental strength to do well, but has issues with playing on a high level consistently these days and, to me, seems to have lost some of his drive. Nadal, well, I wouldn't put him in the same category as Murray; he's obviously at a later stage of his career.
I'd rank the four like this:
1. Murray
2. Djokovic (tough call, could be ahead of Murray)
3. Del Potro
4. Cilic
If Murray manages to play a more relaxed game, I think he'll emerge the winner from this group of youngsters.

tennishero
02-04-2010, 12:28 AM
Well, mentally, Murray does seem to have issues. The pressure on him is greater, applied both by his entourage and, especially, the British media. However, talent-wise I think he is probably ahead of his peers. Cilic is a good player, but, like Del Potro, he seems to have little options aside from hitting the ball as hard as he can. Clever players like Murray or Federer will probably find their way past them more often than not.
Djokovic has the mental strength to do well, but has issues with playing on a high level consistently these days and, to me, seems to have lost some of his drive. Nadal, well, I wouldn't put him in the same category as Murray; he's obviously at a later stage of his career.
I'd rank the four like this:
1. Murray
2. Djokovic (tough call, could be ahead of Murray)
3. Del Potro
4. Cilic
If Murray manages to play a more relaxed game, I think he'll emerge the winner from this group of youngsters.

murray should be moved down to 3rd in that list, djokovic and delpo both have slams, no way around that.

paseo
02-04-2010, 02:40 AM
Give Murray a break, please. He lost a GS final to Fed, not some lower ranked player that he supposed to beat.

SheepleBuster
02-04-2010, 05:01 AM
Give Murray a break, please. He lost a GS final to Fed, not some lower ranked player that he supposed to beat.

Yes. But if he can't win against an aging Fed while being ahead head to head and having a slam final experience against the same guy then I don't know. Del Po was destroyed by Fed here last year but still pulled it out against Roger at the US Open. Nadal is nadal. and I feel Cilic is actually closer to a title than Murray which is surprising. Federer may have been right all along. Murray is too conservative with some of his shots. It works against mugs like Blake or Melzer but not against Roger

paseo
02-04-2010, 07:20 AM
Yes. But if he can't win against an aging Fed while being ahead head to head and having a slam final experience against the same guy then I don't know. Del Po was destroyed by Fed here last year but still pulled it out against Roger at the US Open. Nadal is nadal. and I feel Cilic is actually closer to a title than Murray which is surprising. Federer may have been right all along. Murray is too conservative with some of his shots. It works against mugs like Blake or Melzer but not against Roger

I already post a respond to something like this in another thread. Here it is. saves me time from typing :)

.... If Fed played like he did against Murray, Del potro would lost straight sets too. Don't get me wrong, Del Potro is good, but people are overrating him. He's lucky Fed played like crap that night, but credit to him to have seized the opportunity.

Bottom line :
Fed at AO2010 final & USO08 final >>>>> Fed at USO09 final.

I thought we're only talking about GS finals here. Look, I'm not trying to take anything away from Del Potro here. It's not his fault that Fed was playing bad, he was the better player on that day and a deserved winner. But, come on man. You gotta admit that Fed was playing so much better in the finals against Murray. So much better.

You can say that Del Potro didn't allow Fed to play that well. Okay, fair argument. But, there's one shot that the opponent can't do anything about, it's the serve. And Fed's serve let him down that night against Del Potro. Unlucky for Fed, lucky for Del Potro. And like I said, credit to Del Potro for capitalizing on that. Heck, not many players can do it before against Fed, well no one except Nadal in fact.

Don't take this as a bad thing for Del Potro, though. Every champion needs luck. Fed, Nadal, and all past champions had their fair share of luck, too.

Allegretto
02-04-2010, 07:44 AM
You know what I haven't had in a while? Big League Chew.

serveandvolley80
02-04-2010, 07:48 AM
Cilic is a good player, but, like Del Potro, he seems to have little options aside from hitting the ball as hard as he can.

I wish people would actually watch tennis for a change before commenting on a said player.

Cilic is an excellent net player, has great movement laterally and from back to the front of the court, his Fitness is great for a big man.

I don't get where we have this idea that Cilic is only a ball basher just because hes tall, has you actually watched him play?

ExcaliburII
02-04-2010, 09:38 AM
Murray 4th/5th fighting with Cilic.

Dini
02-04-2010, 10:27 AM
Murray 4th/5th fighting with Cilic.

How are they even mentioned in the same sentence?

I like Cilic's attitude and respect his achievements, but they pale in comparison to Murray's in every single way. Sure, Marin is younger and has some catching up to do, but as things stand Andy is miles ahead (highest ranking: 2, ATP titles: 14, best GS performance: finals x 2). :p

Plus, I'm not even sure that Nadal should be counted as a youngster in tennis terms anymore. He's 24 this year having had 9 years of professional experience. He's nearly a veteran. :p

Sophocles
02-04-2010, 10:43 AM
At the moment, he's 2nd best, behind Djokovic. At the end of the year I expect him to be ranked around 4th, behind Fed, Del Potro, & Nadal.

rocketassist
02-04-2010, 10:44 AM
How are they even mentioned in the same sentence?

I like Cilic's attitude and respect his achievements, but they pale in comparison to Murray's in every single way. Sure, Marin is younger and has some catching up to do, but as things stand Andy is miles ahead (highest ranking: 2, ATP titles: 14, best GS performance: finals x 2). :p

Plus, I'm not even sure that Nadal should be counted as a youngster in tennis terms anymore. He's 24 this year having had 9 years of professional experience. He's nearly a veteran. :p

Never, ever take Pablin seriously. :p

Dini
02-04-2010, 10:46 AM
Never, ever take Pablin seriously. :p

Lesson learnt. :lol:

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 10:47 AM
Cilic is thousand times better than Murray. He's more disciplined and more aggressive than Murray and he has hard clean shots.

Murray and his fans are totally deluded. They still insist Murray doesn't have to change anything, and try to make something positive out of every failure, like this AO loss, where Murray had absolutely had no chance. Compare him to Delpo at the USO, where even when Delpo sucked and lost sets he sometimes totally blew Fed off the court. He made Fed look like a little girl at times. While Murray never had any chance. He tried to play chess with Fed, but unfortunately FEd is much better at it, and Murray has no power or balls like Delpo.

Even Rafa, who has won 6 gss admitted that the field is changing and he will have to play more aggressively if he wants to win anything, then the zero slam Murray and his fans why insist that nothing's wrong with Murray's game? Someone please explain that to me.

rocketassist
02-04-2010, 10:50 AM
Cilic is thousand times better than Murray. He's more disciplined and more aggressive than Murray and he has hard clean shots.

Murray and his fans are totally deluded. They still insist Murray doesn't have to change anything, and try to make something positive out of every failure, like this AO loss, where Murray had absolutely had no chance. Compare him to Delpo at the USO, where even when Delpo sucked and lost sets he sometimes totally blew Fed off the court. He made Fed look like a little girl at times. While Murray never had any chance. He tried to play chess with Fed, but unfortunately FEd is much better at it, and Murray has no power or balls like Delpo.

Even Rafa, who has won 6 gss admitted that the field is changing and he will have to play more aggressively if he wants to win anything, then the zero slam Murray and his fans why insist that nothing's wrong with Murray's game? Someone please explain that to me.

No, Fed sucked shit in that final, ffs did you see his forehand, it was softer than a bloody tampon.

Most of Murray's fans support him because we want to, not because he's won X and Y. Looks like we have a Man U/RM fanboy on our hands here.

Sophocles
02-04-2010, 10:52 AM
Even Rafa, who has won 6 gss admitted that the field is changing and he will have to play more aggressively if he wants to win anything, then the zero slam Murray and his fans why insist that nothing's wrong with Murray's game? Someone please explain that to me.

Show me a Murray fan who denies Murray needs to play more aggressively, working on his forehand & 2nd serve.

DartMarcus
02-04-2010, 10:53 AM
Cilic is thousand times better than Murray. He's more disciplined and more aggressive than Murray and he has hard clean shots.

Murray and his fans are totally deluded. They still insist Murray doesn't have to change anything, and try to make something positive out of every failure, like this AO loss, where Murray had absolutely had no chance. Compare him to Delpo at the USO, where even when Delpo sucked and lost sets he sometimes totally blew Fed off the court. He made Fed look like a little girl at times. While Murray never had any chance. He tried to play chess with Fed, but unfortunately FEd is much better at it, and Murray has no power or balls like Delpo.

Even Rafa, who has won 6 gss admitted that the field is changing and he will have to play more aggressively if he wants to win anything, then the zero slam Murray and his fans why insist that nothing's wrong with Murray's game? Someone please explain that to me.
No way. Cilic is like 24316 times worse than Murray. He even almost managed to lose to injured and no-serve Roddick. No way Cilic becomes top 3.
Del Potro is good. I don't like him but have to admit he can win Slams.
Djokovic will win one more Slam in a career and will be satisfied with it.
Murray will win at least 2 Slams. :rocker:

Dini
02-04-2010, 10:56 AM
Cilic is thousand times better than Murray. He's more disciplined and more aggressive than Murray and he has hard clean shots.

A thousand times better than Murray? Is this a post I'm not supposed to take seriously, too? :p I'm no big fan of Murray, but it's bleeding damn obvious who's got the better resume. You may not like the way Murray plays, but it is his gamestyle and everyone plays to their abilities. Murray will never have the power to hit so hard off both wings, so he has to do a lot more thinking on court rather than ballbash his way to victory. His consistency off the baseline and his all court game (yes, he's a competent volleyer and moves his opponents effectively around to awkward positions) are his strengths.

Murray and his fans are totally deluded. They still insist Murray doesn't have to change anything, and try to make something positive out of every failure, like this AO loss, where Murray had absolutely had no chance. Compare him to Delpo at the USO, where even when Delpo sucked and lost sets he sometimes totally blew Fed off the court. He made Fed look like a little girl at times. While Murray never had any chance. He tried to play chess with Fed, but unfortunately FEd is much better at it, and Murray has no power or balls like Delpo.

I don't think this is true. I've heard a lot of Murray fans moan about his defensiveness when it matters. Secondly, Federer in that USO final was lacklustre in so many ways: his first serve percentage was very low, he hit countless DFs, was mentally fried. I think he gave away quite a few gifts to DelPo (taking nothing away from his victory of course, JMDP was supreme when it mattered). He wasn't as charitable to Murray - I thought Andy actually played well, but Fed ticked all the boxes, especially mentally, where he saw a lot of break points come and go yet managed to recompose himself in his service games, and he was clutch when he was behind in the 3rd set.

Unfair to compare USO F 09 Fed to AO F '10 Fed. Even Stevie Wonder can see the difference.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 11:05 AM
Cilic is like 24316 times worse than Murray. He even almost managed to lose to injured and no-serve Roddick.

YEa after he took Delpo out in huge battle.

Anyway, based on stupid stats you can't say MUrray is better than Cilic, Cilic is much younger and he can straight-set pwn Murray in a GS and beat Roddick and Delpo in the AO, while MUrray has NO WEAPONS WHATSOEVER. If you can't see it you're blind. and Murray has an endless history of GS failures even at his relatively advanced age.

So Murray can kick 100000 coaches for telling him the truth (that he won't be a Great GS player with that sucky junkballer game) it won't change his dark and sucky future as a tennis player.

Sophocles
02-04-2010, 11:07 AM
while MUrray has NO WEAPONS WHATSOEVER.

Murray has more weapons than Hewitt, & Hewitt won 2 slams.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 11:11 AM
Hewitt won 2 slams.

When the field was shit. But ok, let's suppose those weapons are enough, I'll be waiting to see Murray's GSs.

saniapower
02-04-2010, 11:34 AM
nope

rocketassist
02-04-2010, 12:23 PM
When the field was shit. But ok, let's suppose those weapons are enough, I'll be waiting to see Murray's GSs.

The field was not shit when Hewitt won 2 slams. :lol:

rocketassist
02-04-2010, 12:23 PM
YEa after he took Delpo out in huge battle.

Anyway, based on stupid stats you can't say MUrray is better than Cilic, Cilic is much younger and he can straight-set pwn Murray in a GS and beat Roddick and Delpo in the AO, while MUrray has NO WEAPONS WHATSOEVER. If you can't see it you're blind. and Murray has an endless history of GS failures even at his relatively advanced age.

So Murray can kick 100000 coaches for telling him the truth (that he won't be a Great GS player with that sucky junkballer game) it won't change his dark and sucky future as a tennis player.

No Nadull fan can say anything about defensive players or have a pop at them.

tea
02-04-2010, 12:32 PM
I know it's too early to read too much into Andy Murray's humiliating loss at AO, but I think he is overrated. Djokovic, Nadal, Delpotro have all made their breakthrough. And Cilic looks more likely to do it than Murray. He might win a few slams but is he really third best player in the world when there are 4 youngsters that are better than him?
good that you listed, i have practically died of impatience to find out those 4 while the page was being loaded.

Nadal = one-dimensional claycourt mug. done for good by the age of 23, the age when Murray's prime is about to begin.
Delpotro = one-dimensional hardcourt mug. never thought one could have less brain(tennis wisdom) than Nadal, but we've got yet another confirmation of the darwin's theory that some human beings didn't go far from the monkeys.
Cilic = one-dimensional hardcourt amateur. if i remember right it took him 5 sets to beat a baby in oz. more disgusting things happened but this one is close, ugh.
Djokovic = the 'my first slam' sequel is doomed to be never released, because Daddy is done with that mono thing now. also, the amount of slams that were won in finals against Clownga should be multiplied by zero and forgotten. so, this Nole is an okay player but Basel will remain his biggest achievement in a lifetime.
Murray = his time will come and it will be awesome for the sport. just wait and see.

jcempire
02-04-2010, 12:38 PM
This AO Final is still his second Slam Final in whole career....... He is still very young......

Come on. He need to gain some experience......

Give little bit more time for him.....

I still believe He is the best today... If he got same experience as Fed does...that He should be better. No doubt about it

SheepleBuster
02-04-2010, 02:00 PM
I've got two words for ya. Cerdic Pioline

Jōris
02-04-2010, 02:04 PM
1 Djokovic
2 Murray, Del Potro
3 Cilic

This is the order you were looking for.

JesusFederer
02-04-2010, 02:12 PM
1 Djokovic
2 Murray, Del Potro
3 Cilic

This is the order you were looking for.

1) Murray, Del Potro
2) Djokovic
3) Cilic

No, this is.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 02:42 PM
No Nadull fan can say anything about defensive players or have a pop at them.

Yes We can. Nadal is über-pro on clay, has 4 Gss there, he has Wimby on grass, and he could beat Fed even on Murray's alleged home-turf, on hard at the AO, none of which can be said about MUrray. He sucks even on hard, he has no topspin for clay, to tell you the truth Murray's future in this field is very dark.

SheepleBuster
02-04-2010, 02:51 PM
Cilic, Del Potro, and Djokovic all have more aggressive games than Murray. I am not sure Murray can change his defensive mindset. Roger tried to give him some help but Murray was a brat about it. By the way, how pathetic is BBC? Every freaking person picked Murray over Federer there. Becker, Henman, Lloyd, Sue, whoever. All picked Murray. What a joke. Of course, we all know how Reed picked that match.

gusavo
02-04-2010, 03:50 PM
But if he can't win against an aging Fed while being ahead head to head and having a slam final experience against the same guy then I don't know.
what does this even mean?
of course he can, anyone can.
what aging. it doesent matter if youre playing agassi, fed or nishikori. what matters is how the guy on the other side is hitting the ball.
"It works against mugs like Blake or Melzer but not against Roger" 7-5...
apparently it works against any player.
"and I feel Cilic is actually closer to a title than Murray which is surprising"
yes its very surprising someone would say that. hard to see how someone could get it so rediculously wrong.

Cilic is thousand times better than Murray. He's more disciplined and more aggressive than Murray and he has hard clean shots.

Murray and his fans are totally deluded.
look at yourself, this is crazy. just check the odds, god. could everyone thinking this just check the odds...

They still insist Murray doesn't have to change anything, and try to make something positive out of every failure, like this AO loss, where Murray had absolutely had no chance.
of course he doesent have to change anything. hes second/third best in the world, whats the problem. he could change some small things for small improvements, maybe.
he had a ton of chance.

But ok, let's suppose those weapons are enough, I'll be waiting to see Murray's GSs.
he has a 47% chance to have one gs, 13% to have two, and 40% to have zero, judging by grand slam finals allone.
it doesent matter because it should be obvious to anyone that the weapons of course are enough, what does that comment even mean. hes the second/third best player in the world. anyones weapons are enough.

rocketassist
02-04-2010, 03:53 PM
Yes We can. Nadal is über-pro on clay, has 4 Gss there, he has Wimby on grass, and he could beat Fed even on Murray's alleged home-turf, on hard at the AO, none of which can be said about MUrray. He sucks even on hard, he has no topspin for clay, to tell you the truth Murray's future in this field is very dark.

He won his RGs playing the most defensive tennis ever.

Mechlan
02-04-2010, 04:08 PM
while MUrray has NO WEAPONS WHATSOEVER.

Yet he's the only person to have beaten Nadal twice in a GS out of all the others you mentioned. Explain that to me, since all this time i've been thinking Nadal is the best defensive player out there.

I bet it's driving you nuts that he has a winning record against Del Potro and Cilic and has won the past 3 in straights against Djokovic. Luckiest guy ever this Murray.

JesusFederer
02-04-2010, 04:19 PM
I will refine my list.

1) Delpo-recently won a slam, big threat in teh future with a huge game and mentally strong(bar AO '10).
2) Murray-he is making progress, however slow, and cant be too far away from a slam win. And even if he still has to wait a couple of years, he is one of teh main threats to Roger in slams in teh future.
3) Djokovic- even though hes won a slam, it was when Roger had mono. Murray could have done teh same had Roger been in that kinda shape. Seems to have stagnated.
4) Cilic. Improving all teh time, will be a force to reckon with in teh future.

SheepleBuster
02-04-2010, 04:37 PM
I feel Murray will need a Phillipousis like opponent in a final to win his first slam. Or maybe a mug like I don't know, blake?

ExcaliburII
02-04-2010, 04:59 PM
Blake will never ever reach a GS final, so no.

I strongly beleive Murray will never be able to beat Federer or Delpotro in a GS again.

SheepleBuster
02-04-2010, 05:00 PM
Blake will never ever reach a GS final, so no.

I strongly beleive Murray will never be able to beat Federer or Delpotro in a GS again.

Yes. I know. But who thought Phillipousis could reach a final against Roger. Or Baghdatis. Or Gonzo. I mean they were tough opponents but Murray can always get lucky and get a good match up.

Dini
02-04-2010, 05:04 PM
Phillipoussis reached another final as well didn't he?

SheepleBuster
02-04-2010, 05:45 PM
Phillipoussis reached another final as well didn't he?

Lightening strikes the same place twice after all.

SheepleBuster
02-04-2010, 05:46 PM
what does this even mean?
of course he can, anyone can.
what aging. it doesent matter if youre playing agassi, fed or nishikori. what matters is how the guy on the other side is hitting the ball.
"It works against mugs like Blake or Melzer but not against Roger" 7-5...
apparently it works against any player.
"and I feel Cilic is actually closer to a title than Murray which is surprising"
yes its very surprising someone would say that. hard to see how someone could get it so rediculously wrong.


look at yourself, this is crazy. just check the odds, god. could everyone thinking this just check the odds...


of course he doesent have to change anything. hes second/third best in the world, whats the problem. he could change some small things for small improvements, maybe.
he had a ton of chance.


he has a 47% chance to have one gs, 13% to have two, and 40% to have zero, judging by grand slam finals allone.
it doesent matter because it should be obvious to anyone that the weapons of course are enough, what does that comment even mean. hes the second/third best player in the world. anyones weapons are enough.

Haha. Really? Take those small tournaments away and Murray is #5 in the world at best.

Dini
02-04-2010, 06:15 PM
Haha. Really? Take those small tournaments away and Murray is #5 in the world at best.

What do you count as a small tournament? Do you include ATP 1000s too?

DrJules
02-04-2010, 06:23 PM
I know it's too early to read too much into Andy Murray's humiliating loss at AO, but I think he is overrated. Djokovic, Nadal, Delpotro have all made their breakthrough. And Cilic looks more likely to do it than Murray. He might win a few slams but is he really third best player in the world when there are 4 youngsters that are better than him?

Nadal should not be in the list. He has probably his best years in the past like Federer.

Djokovic has achieved more than Murray, but Del Potro and Cilic have not. If you evaluate all the achievements of Murray and Del Potro then Murray is still ahead; there is a reason Del Potro has only been ranked higher than Murray for 1 week.

rocketassist
02-04-2010, 06:26 PM
cyrusking taking over from FedFan as the glory hunter's voice. :lol:

DrJules
02-04-2010, 06:27 PM
Blake will never ever reach a GS final, so no.

I strongly beleive Murray will never be able to beat Federer or Delpotro in a GS again.

While Federer has never lost to Murray in a grand slam Del Potro has never won against Murray in a grand slam. Murray plays a style of play that works against players like Del Potro and Cilic.

Possibly agree on the Federer point, but then he is an exceptional player. Del Potro and Cilic will never be compared to Federer in achievements.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 06:32 PM
If you evaluate all the achievements of Murray and Del Potro then Murray is still ahead; there is a reason Del Potro has only been ranked higher than Murray for 1 week.

Is that a joke? Delpo's 1 GS is >>>>>>>>>>>> than Murrays little tourneys that no one cares about. They measure a champ in GSs and not little tourneys where all the champs tank.

Clydey
02-04-2010, 06:34 PM
Is that a joke? Delpo's 1 GS is >>>>>>>>>>>> than Murrays little tourneys that no one cares about. They measure a champ in GSs and not little tourneys where all the champs tank.

It's only February and I think we've found the ACC 2010 winner.

DrJules
02-04-2010, 06:34 PM
Is that a joke? Delpo's 1 GS is >>>>>>>>>>>> than Murrays little tourneys that no one cares about. They measure a champ in GSs and not little tourneys where all the champs tank.

Master series events are not minor events and usually include most top players.

If what you say is true then they might as well play only 4 events a year.

JesusFederer
02-04-2010, 06:38 PM
It's only February and I think we've found the ACC 2010 winner.

He may have said it in a way that displeases you, but he is right. And it doesnt make him ACC material either. If he is ACC material then you are too cos of the way you cant stand that Delpos one GS>>>>>Murrays MS wins.

Iluzionista
02-04-2010, 06:41 PM
To be honest, I'm not sure what to say. Murray is not a big hitter and I really don't like his defensive style of play, although he can pull some amazing shots, but still he's done so well in the past. Time will show, I guess. He has a potential, but the pressure on him to win a GS is so big, and obviously he wasn't able to cope with it yet.

DrJules
02-04-2010, 06:41 PM
He may have said it in a way that displeases you, but he is right. And it doesnt make him ACC material either. If he is ACC material then you are too cos of the way you cant stand that Delpos one GS>>>>>Murrays MS wins.

Based on the ATP: 1GS = 2MS (Points system basis for rating events).

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 06:42 PM
Master series events are not minor events and usually include most top players.

If what you say is true then they might as well play only 4 events a year.

Haha, funny, it's a GS what all britain is crying for, it's what Murray and the Brits expect from Murray, he can win all the master series events, it will satisfy neither the Brits nor Murray. Why do you think Murray is talking about winning a GS all the time? Because that's what he can't do and that's what he wants. Even the wooden handed Ducky has a GS and the "super talented" Murray can't win one.

Clydey
02-04-2010, 06:43 PM
He may have said it in a way that displeases you, but he is right. And it doesnt make him ACC material either. If he is ACC material then you are too cos of the way you cant stand that Delpos one GS>>>>>Murrays MS wins.

I was more referring to his contribution to this thread as a whole.

But since you brought it up, I have no problem with Del Potro's GS. I just wish people would stop comparing, as though things are black and white. People seem to think that all major wins are essentially the same. However, there's no doubt in my mind that Murray beats the Federer that turned up in the USO 09 final.

DrJules
02-04-2010, 06:44 PM
To be honest, I'm not sure what to say. Murray is not a big hitter and I really don't like his defensive style of play, although he can pull some amazing shots, but still he's done so well in the past. Time will show, I guess. He has a potential, but the pressure on him to win a GS is so big, and obviously he wasn't able to cope with it yet.

He certainly was not able to handle Federer.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 06:44 PM
Based on the ATP: 1GS = 2MS (Points system basis for rating events).

Tell that to Murray, maybe he will find solace in that.

rocketassist
02-04-2010, 06:46 PM
Tell that to Murray, maybe he will find solace in that.

I hate ****s like you, FedFan and cyrusking who only come on here to trashtalk/fanboy about the top 5 or whoever they are and don't understand what tennis is all about, the entire tour and its personalities.

I pity thee.

Clydey
02-04-2010, 06:49 PM
Tell that to Murray, maybe he will find solace in that.

Do you actually watch tennis outside the majors? Do you think that Murray turns up at Masters events and competes with players in the 100-200 range? It's the same field as a major on a smaller scale. It doesn't carry the same prestige, but all the top players turn up. People need to give those events a bit more respect. Either that or you can piss off and watch tennis four times per year.

MalwareDie
02-04-2010, 06:54 PM
However, there's no doubt in my mind that Murray beats the Federer that turned up in the USO 09 final.

QFT. GrandpaFed probably wouldn't have even been able to take a set off Murray playing like how he did during the USO.

JesusFederer
02-04-2010, 06:55 PM
Based on the ATP: 1GS = 2MS (Points system basis for rating events).

Based on importance, 1GS > 10MS

I was more referring to his contribution to this thread as a whole.

But since you brought it up, I have no problem with Del Potro's GS. I just wish people would stop comparing, as though things are black and white. People seem to think that all major wins are essentially the same. However, there's no doubt in my mind that Murray beats the Federer that turned up in the USO 09 final.

Well all major wins are not the same, thats why its much more meaningful when a player wins 2 GS, because then the chances are much less of it being a fluke. I have no doubt Potro will win more slams, although he did disappoint me at the AO. I think yoo miss the fact that Potro played an exceptional match vs Roger at the USO, and it was only one or two points that made teh difference. Roger was serving in teh 2nd set being a set and a break up, and lost concentration for a split second, on which Potro capatalized amazingly well. Remember those passing shots? That was where teh match was won and lost, i dont care what anyone says.

Anyway i dont think Murray would have beaten Roger there. Murray has shown once again that he is timid in teh big moments, playing way too defensively in teh AO final. Potro would not have done that, he would have gone for his shots no matter what. On teh lighter side for you, Murray has shown signs of being more attacking, for example in the Nadull match. I just think hes taking longer to learn than Delpo, cos he has so much pressure on his shoulders from various sources.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 06:56 PM
People need to give those events a bit more respect.

Hey, I give those events respect, it's Murray who wants that GS so bad. Unfortunately when he gets good directions from his coach how to become a champ he kicks the coach and goes the mug way.

BTw I'm not trashtalking and fanboying. I also admit that Rafa has become soft and sucky nowadays, and that Fed is a smarter and wiser player, but at the same time Rafa at least can see his weaknesses and is trying to eliminate them.

JesusFederer
02-04-2010, 06:56 PM
QFT. GrandpaFed probably wouldn't have even been able to take a set off Murray playing like how he did during the USO.

:silly:

MalwareDie
02-04-2010, 06:56 PM
I think yoo miss the fact that Potro played an exceptional match vs Roger at the USO

They were both thoroughly mediocre.

Clydey
02-04-2010, 06:58 PM
Based on importance, 1GS > 10MS



Well all major wins are not the same, thats why its much more meaningful when a player wins 2 GS, because then the chances are much less of it being a fluke. I have no doubt Potro will win more slams, although he did disappoint me at the AO. I think yoo miss the fact that Potro played an exceptional match vs Roger at the USO, and it was only one or two points that made teh difference. Roger was serving in teh 2nd set being a set and a break up, and lost concentration for a split second, on which Potro capatalized amazingly well. Remember those passing shots? That was where teh match was won and lost, i dont care what anyone says.

Anyway i dont think Murray would have beaten Roger there. Murray has shown once again that he is timid in teh big moments, playing way too defensively in teh AO final. Potro would not have done that, he would have gone for his shots no matter what. On teh lighter side for you, Murray has shown signs of being more attacking, for example in the Nadull match. I just think hes taking longer to learn than Delpo, cos he has so much pressure on his shoulders from various sources.

I'm considering not responding to you until you learn how to spell "the". I'm not sure why you have a hardon for typing "teh", but it makes me want to beat you over the head with a dictionary.

JesusFederer
02-04-2010, 07:00 PM
I'm considering not responding to you until you learn how to spell "the". I'm not sure why you have a hardon for typing "teh", but it makes me want to beat you over the head with a dictionary.

Now dont get mad at me, but the real reason you wana beat me over teh head with a dictionary is cos im right.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 07:01 PM
I'm considering not responding to you until you learn how to spell "the". I'm not sure why you have a hardon for typing "teh", but it makes me want to beat you over the head with a dictionary.

Yeah, let's all forget about Murray's unwon GS and learn to spell.

Clydey
02-04-2010, 07:03 PM
Now dont get mad at me, but the real reason you wana beat me over teh head with a dictionary is cos im right.

I get mad at people who purposely butcher the English language.

JesusFederer
02-04-2010, 07:03 PM
They were both thoroughly mediocre.

But of course they were.

MalwareDie
02-04-2010, 07:04 PM
SetSampras, Nekromanta, JesusFederer, and Logical are too strong. They should be the top 4 seeds.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 07:05 PM
I get mad at people who purposely butcher the English language.

That's the attitude that makes the Brits better at snobbery than at sports.

JesusFederer
02-04-2010, 07:06 PM
I get mad at people who purposely butcher the English language.

Not purposely old sport. I just dont care.

Clydey
02-04-2010, 07:07 PM
Yeah, let's all forget about Murray's unwon GS and learn to spell.

Unwon? The fuck?

Look, I have no problem discussing Murray's lack of major success. I simply cannot take someone seriously who deliberately misspells words. It reminds of the fuckheads I used to come across on Usenet, who would replace letters with numbers and alternate small and capital letters.

JesusFederer
02-04-2010, 07:08 PM
That's the attitude that makes the Brits better at snobbery than at sports.

This.

/thread.

Clydey
02-04-2010, 07:11 PM
Not purposely old sport. I just dont care.

Of course you care. If you didn't care, you would spell the word correctly. You have a reason for misspelling it. I don't want to veer too far off-topic, but I'm curious now. Do you think it makes you look cool? Do you think people are sitting there going, "Fuck me, he swapped the position of the e and the h in the word 'the'!"?

Clydey
02-04-2010, 07:13 PM
That's the attitude that makes the Brits better at snobbery than at sports.

Yeah, I'm just not "down" with the kids today.

Ur t00 h1p 4 m3.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 07:21 PM
Of course you care. If you didn't care, you would spell the word correctly. You have a reason for misspelling it. I don't want to veer too far off-topic, but I'm curious now. Do you think it makes you look cool? Do you think people are sitting there going, "Fuck me, he swapped the position of the e and the h in the word 'the'!"?

He swapped the letters to piss you off, and you know that's why he did it, and still you caught the bait and got mad. And now you pretend you don't know why the heck he did that. The typical Murray fan. We don't know why Murray got straight-set pwned by Fed, look at the good side of it. He fought hard, he's still young he's so talented, bla bla bla

Clydey
02-04-2010, 07:28 PM
He swapped the letters to piss you off, and you know that's why he did it, and still you caught the bait and got mad. And now you pretend you don't know why the heck he did that. The typical Murray fan. We don't know why Murray got straight-set pwned by Fed, look at the good side of it. He fought hard, he's still young he's so talented, bla bla bla

What remarkable foresight. He's been misspelling "the" since he came on the forum all in an elaborate attempt to troll me. I clearly haven't given him enough credit. Despite not knowing anything about me, he knew that I would pick him up on it? This dude deserves his own television show. Move over, Derren Brown.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 07:33 PM
What remarkable foresight. He's been misspelling "the" since he came on the forum all in an elaborate attempt to troll me. I clearly haven't given him enough credit. Despite not knowing anything about me, he knew that I would pick him up on it? This dude deserves his own television show. Move over, Derren Brown.

Well, he does a good job pissing off all the girly snobs who give a heck about spelling on a sport forum.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 07:41 PM
So what, he's a youngster who grew up on the net who cares. Anyway, get back to the topic, what do you think Murray's chances are at the RG?

Clydey
02-04-2010, 07:44 PM
So what, he's a youngster who grew up on the net who cares. Anyway, get back to the topic, what do you think Murray's chances are at the RG?

At RG? No chance, assuming he hasn't improved beyond all recognition on the dirt. Clay is about damage limitation for Murray.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 07:51 PM
At RG? No chance, assuming he hasn't improved beyond all recognition on the dirt. Clay is about damage limitation for Murray.

Dunno, although he still has not enough power, his movement and angles improved a lot. Also, don't forget last year he was somewhat better at RG. Maybe if Nadal still sucks by RG and Delpo has a dislocated ankle and Djoker a sore lung Murray will have more chance to take Fed out than at the AO. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Clydey
02-04-2010, 07:56 PM
Dunno, although he still has not enough power, his movement and angles improved a lot. Also, don't forget last year he was somewhat better at RG. Maybe if Nadal still sucks by RG and Delpo has a dislocated ankle and Djoker a sore lung Murray will have more chance to take Fed out than at the AO. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Power isn't a problem. He can generate it easily, as he has demonstrated many times in the past. It's whether he's willing to do it more frequently. I think Murray will improve at RG this year and on clay in general, but I think the semis at RG would be an outstanding result for him. His biggest problem on clay is his backhand, not his forehand. It's too flat and doesn't penetrate on clay the way it does on hard. I think his forehand will be just fine. I've already seen a massive improvement in the depth and weight of the shot this year.

Arkulari
02-04-2010, 07:59 PM
another issue Murray has on clay is movement and because of that he doesn't have the same timing he has in other surfaces, someone is good enough in clay can take him out (see Monaco for example, he's not 10% of the player Murray is but can take him out in clay)

JesusFederer
02-04-2010, 07:59 PM
Of course you care. If you didn't care, you would spell the word correctly. You have a reason for misspelling it. I don't want to veer too far off-topic, but I'm curious now. Do you think it makes you look cool? Do you think people are sitting there going, "Fuck me, he swapped the position of the e and the h in the word 'the'!"?

There there, this too shall pass :hug:

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 08:04 PM
Also, he's the hungriest of all the guys, I can see Nole or delpo tank this year (look at their motivation at AO pffff), maybe this will be Murray's big chance. +, all the pressure will be off him.

Clydey
02-04-2010, 08:04 PM
another issue Murray has on clay is movement and because of that he doesn't have the same timing he has in other surfaces, someone is good enough in clay can take him out (see Monaco for example, he's not 10% of the player Murray is but can take him out in clay)

It's the sliding he hasn't quite got down yet. It's not natural. It's almost as if he has to remind himself to slide, rather than doing it out of habit like Nadal or Djokovic. The weirdest part about it is that he was considered a clay courter in the juniors. He was like a Spaniard, for obvious reasons. He couldn't play on grass. And then randomly he played some blinding tennis on grass when he turned pro and couldn't play for shit on clay.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 08:11 PM
So you think he has more chance at Wimby than at RG? Wimby where Roddick is trying his best and Delpo and Nole are less likely to give up, and where Fed is master?

Clydey
02-04-2010, 08:14 PM
So you think he has more chance at Wimby than at RG? Wimby where Roddick is trying his best and Delpo and Nole are less likely to give up, and where Fed is master?

He absolutely has more chance at Wimbledon. He'd wipe the floor with Del Potro on the grass, whereas I don't see him beating DP on clay. Same goes for Djokovic, although the gap is smaller on grass.

Nekromanta
02-04-2010, 08:16 PM
He absolutely has more chance at Wimbledon. He'd wipe the floor with Del Potro on the grass, whereas I don't see him beating DP on clay. Same goes for Djokovic, although the gap is smaller on grass.

Hmm, well, I wish good luck for Murray and you.

decrepitude
02-04-2010, 09:25 PM
Not purposely old sport. I just dont care.

Do I smell a double account here? Which ex-poster was it who often used the dreadfully out-of-date phrase, "old sport"?

Xenosys
02-04-2010, 11:37 PM
He absolutely has more chance at Wimbledon. He'd wipe the floor with Del Potro on the grass, whereas I don't see him beating DP on clay. Same goes for Djokovic, although the gap is smaller on grass.

Yeah, DP lost last year in the 2nd RD if I'm not mistaken, and that obviously doesn't equal good form when it comes to the green stuff. Murray stands a chance at Wimbledon because there aren't as many grass specialists on the tour as there are as on clay/hard courts, but he'll still have a job beating the likes of Federer if he were to get to a final there.

In response to the question, he's probably the most talented out of the five, & his game is taking longer to mature than some of the others on that list, but he's even said it himself that he thinks he'll be at his peak around 24-25, which would make it 2011-2012.

Clydey
02-05-2010, 01:44 AM
Do I smell a double account here? Which ex-poster was it who often used the dreadfully out-of-date phrase, "old sport"?

Clay Death uses it, but I doubt that's CD.

Arkulari
02-05-2010, 01:50 AM
you're right James, Murray would wipe the floor with Juan on grass, but he will still lose to Duck or Roger (maybe with Rafa as well) who are much better in the surface ;)

I think Murray's best chance to win his maiden slam is in HC, if he does that he can go and win Wimbledon one day, but the pressure on home soil can be asphyxiating for a breakthrough

Clydey
02-05-2010, 02:04 AM
you're right James, Murray would wipe the floor with Juan on grass, but he will still lose to Duck or Roger (maybe with Rafa as well) who are much better in the surface ;)

I think Murray's best chance to win his maiden slam is in HC, if he does that he can go and win Wimbledon one day, but the pressure on home soil can be asphyxiating for a breakthrough

I wouldn't say Roddick is much better on the surface. Their match at Wimbledon couldn't have been tighter. If they met again on grass, I'd put my money on Murray.

But yes, his best chance is on hard. It always will be his best surface.

Arkulari
02-05-2010, 03:12 AM
I think Duck is top 3 grasscourter of the last years, only Roger and Rafa are up there with him and you saw how he pushed Roger to 5, so I would give the edge to him though I wouldn't be surprised if Murray improves and beats the guy ;)

The only Slam I definitely don't give Murray any chance is RG, same as I wouldn't give Juan a chance in Wimbledon

Guga_fan
02-05-2010, 06:09 AM
Also, he's the hungriest of all the guys, I can see Nole or delpo tank this year (look at their motivation at AO pffff), maybe this will be Murray's big chance. +, all the pressure will be off him.
Del Potro lost in a 5-setter to an on-fire Cilic while he had grueling matches in the last rounds and a wrist problem. Djokovic was headed for a win over Tsonga when his body turned against him. How is that lack of motivation from them?

KaiserT
02-05-2010, 06:20 AM
I sometimes think that Murray will 'die wondering' with the way he plays his tennis. 'What if'.

Marin Cilic will not.

Tom Paulman
02-05-2010, 06:31 AM
So many people putting Del Potro ahead of Murray, am I the only one who thinks that he will remain a one slam wonder?

paseo
02-05-2010, 08:06 AM
So many people putting Del Potro ahead of Murray, am I the only one who thinks that he will remain a one slam wonder?

I think people are overrating Del Potro and underrating Murray, but I also think that Del potro will win another slam. Not this year, though.

Dini
02-05-2010, 09:22 AM
Clay Death uses it, but I doubt that's CD.

Fedfan_2007 used to use it a lot too, especially when chatting to CD. I really think mods should look into it because this guy knows also what ACC is and no newbie generally does. :p

Nekromanta
02-05-2010, 09:24 AM
Del Potro lost in a 5-setter to an on-fire Cilic while he had grueling matches in the last rounds and a wrist problem. Djokovic was headed for a win over Tsonga when his body turned against him. How is that lack of motivation from them?

Del Potro was giving attitudes during the whole match, making funny faces, he wasn't focused at all. Nole too. You have to take a crap?
Then swallow some carbon tablets but nole pulled of the usual "Martyr Nole" stuff. These 2 were very unprofessional and unmotivated during the AO.

As for Delpo being overrated, are you kidding? When he's on his game is more paralyzing then Nole's. Murray, on the other hand always gives his opponents tons of opportunities.

JesusFederer
02-05-2010, 10:39 AM
Fedfan_2007 used to use it a lot too, especially when chatting to CD. I really think mods should look into it because this guy knows also what ACC is and no newbie generally does. :p

Oh come off this double account nonesense will ya? Ive been reading in this forum for months and finally decided to join. Deal with it.

paseo
02-05-2010, 10:46 AM
Del Potro was giving attitudes during the whole match, making funny faces, he wasn't focused at all. Nole too. You have to take a crap?
Then swallow some carbon tablets but nole pulled of the usual "Martyr Nole" stuff. These 2 were very unprofessional and unmotivated during the AO.

As for Delpo being overrated, are you kidding? When he's on his game is more paralyzing then Nole's. Murray, on the other hand always gives his opponents tons of opportunities.

Just like Safin, right? The key is consistency. I think Del Potro still needs a lot of work to become the player that everybody's making him out to be.

gusavo
02-05-2010, 11:16 AM
but he will still lose to Duck or Roger (maybe with Rafa as well) who are much better in the surface ;)

this is so funny, hed be a big favourite, just like last year.

TheBoiledEgg
02-05-2010, 04:36 PM
22 coming to 23 isnt young
its nearly coming to a time where you'll never win a slam.

its 2010 or 2011 to win his 1st or never win one.

blank_frackis
02-05-2010, 05:45 PM
So many people putting Del Potro ahead of Murray, am I the only one who thinks that he will remain a one slam wonder?

Some people judge players entirely on how many slams they've won. Nothing else matters - ranking, overall tournaments won, consistency, head to head records, etc. I think there's a case for saying Del Potro is better than Murray, but the fact that he won his grand slam final and Murray has lost two doesn't overwrite everything else in their careers.

Clydey
02-05-2010, 05:53 PM
22 coming to 23 isnt young
its nearly coming to a time where you'll never win a slam.

its 2010 or 2011 to win his 1st or never win one.

Ivan Lendl agrees with you.

JesusFederer
02-05-2010, 05:59 PM
Ivan Lendl agrees with you.

Murrays problem is that he plays in the era of FedGOD. If FedGOD plays for a few more years, which is going to be the case, Murray may just find it very hard to win a slam. If he wants to do it he will have to grow a pair like Potro has. Thats his safest bet.

Clydey
02-05-2010, 06:09 PM
Murrays problem is that he plays in the era of FedGOD. If FedGOD plays for a few more years, which is going to be the case, Murray may just find it very hard to win a slam. If he wants to do it he will have to grow a pair like Potro has. Thats his safest bet.

It's going to be very hard no matter what. And please, let's not pretend that the difference between Murray and Del Potro in those finals was balls. There was a hell of a lot more to it than Del Potro displaying brass balls.

JesusFederer
02-05-2010, 06:12 PM
It's going to be very hard no matter what. And please, let's not pretend that the difference between Murray and Del Potro in those finals was balls. There was a hell of a lot more to it than Del Potro displaying brass balls.

You dont think Potro has bigger nuts than Murray? :eek:

Clydey
02-05-2010, 06:21 PM
You dont think Potro has bigger nuts than Murray? :eek:

Thanks for that mental image.

JesusFederer
02-05-2010, 06:26 PM
Thanks for that mental image.

Why do you always say something 'smart' to evade the question?

Clydey
02-05-2010, 06:33 PM
Why do you always say something 'smart' to evade the question?

I didn't realise it was a serious question. Metaphorically speaking, do I think Del Potro has bigger balls than Murray? No, I don't.

R.Federer
02-05-2010, 07:12 PM
If he's third best in the world, it is sort of weird to think that in a smaller subset he is fifth best. Weirdness

JesusFederer
02-05-2010, 07:29 PM
I didn't realise it was a serious question. Metaphorically speaking, do I think Del Potro has bigger balls than Murray? No, I don't.

You thought i was talking about the physical size of their testicles? :scratch:

How can you think Potro does not have more balls than Murray? Potro has never shown any fear of any player, while Murray has been timid in teh slams on countless occasions!

If he's third best in the world, it is sort of weird to think that in a smaller subset he is fifth best. Weirdness

MTF logic.

Clydey
02-05-2010, 07:43 PM
You thought i was talking about the physical size of their testicles? :scratch:

How can you think Potro does not have more balls than Murray? Potro has never shown any fear of any player, while Murray has been timid in teh slams on countless occasions!

Sorry, but I don't think one match proves Del Potro has bigger balls than Murray. That's essentially what it boils down to: one match. It had nothing to do with the size of Del Potro's stones. No one in their right mind would think that he faced the same Federer that Murray played in the AO final. He did brilliantly, and no one can take that away from him. You'd have to be in severe denial to think that he didn't catch a huge break in that final, though.

Guga_fan
02-05-2010, 07:47 PM
Del Potro was giving attitudes during the whole match, making funny faces, he wasn't focused at all. Nole too. You have to take a crap?
Then swallow some carbon tablets but nole pulled of the usual "Martyr Nole" stuff. These 2 were very unprofessional and unmotivated during the AO.

As for Delpo being overrated, are you kidding? When he's on his game is more paralyzing then Nole's. Murray, on the other hand always gives his opponents tons of opportunities.
Not being able to focus is not necessarily lack of motivation, he was obviously tired after all those matches, and already with an injury (although not really serious), and still gave his all to take the match to 5 sets, can't see how this is lack of motivation.

Djokovic was ill in that match, and played through it, don't know how this is unprofessional. :confused:

By the way, Delpo has a really big game indeed, but I still can't rate him over an in-form Djokovic, he is improving really fast though, it may be just a matter of time.

JesusFederer
02-05-2010, 07:50 PM
Sorry, but I don't think one match proves Del Potro has bigger balls than Murray. That's essentially what it boils down to: one match. It had nothing to do with the size of Del Potro's stones. No one in their right mind would think that he faced the same Federer that Murray played in the AO final. He did brilliantly, and no one can take that away from him. You'd have to be in severe denial to think that he didn't catch a huge break in that final, though.

Nah not one match. Potro has that aura about him. You can see he aint scared of anyone. He ripped Rafa a proper one and then beat Roger. I mean the guy is just fearless. Murray on teh other hand smells scared in the big time. I actually predicted he would get scared in the AO final again. Mentally Potro is on another level than Murray. Hes got a bigger game as well.

And 'huge break' is just BS. Roger lost concentration for 1, maybe 2 points at 40-15 in teh second set and Potro hit like 2 or 3 scary passing shots to break. It was an extremely thin margin. You have to be in heavy denial not to see that. He almost beat Roger at the FO as well.

out_here_grindin
02-05-2010, 07:53 PM
Nah not one match. Potro has that aura about him. You can see he aint scared of anyone. He ripped Rafa a proper one and then beat Roger. I mean the guy is just fearless. Murray on teh other hand smells scared in the big time. I actually predicted he would get scared in the AO final again. Mentally Potro is on another level than Murray. Hes got a bigger game as well.

Why does that equate more balls? Does Korolev have more balls than Micheal Chang?

Also this was not being said about Del potro after his 6-3 6-0 6-0 beatdown he took last year in Australia. He has improved a lot but its not like he has always been a mental giant

JesusFederer
02-05-2010, 07:59 PM
Why does that equate more balls? Does Korolev have more balls than Micheal Chang?

Also this was not being said about Del potro after his 6-3 6-0 6-0 beatdown he took last year in Australia. He has improved a lot but its not like he has always been a mental giant

Learn to read.

out_here_grindin
02-05-2010, 08:04 PM
Learn to read.

I must have missed something

Snoo Foo
02-05-2010, 08:35 PM
Oh come off this double account nonesense will ya? Ive been reading in this forum for months and finally decided to join. Deal with it.

bye-bye orgasmatron

:wavey:

MalwareDie
02-05-2010, 09:41 PM
bye-bye orgasmatron

:wavey:

Good riddance. That's who I thought it was.