Retirement? Nah. Losing to Fed only makes Andre hungrier [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Retirement? Nah. Losing to Fed only makes Andre hungrier

Tennis Fool
03-21-2004, 12:13 AM
"He raised his game at the most crucial time. One or two points separated that match. That's the frustrating part. But it's also the good part, which is I'll make him do it again next time we play."

--Andre on his three set loss to Federer at the 2004 Pacific Life Open

AgassiFan
03-21-2004, 12:24 AM
"He raised his game at the most crucial time. One or two points separated that match. That's the frustrating part. But it's also the good part, which is I'll make him do it again next time we play."

Oh fuck no!

This gracious, Zen Agassi doesn't work for me.

Fuck sportsmanship, I want the KILLER Agassi who blows people off the court and demoralizes them back. His "quest for excellence" has produced timid losses to Coria, Philli, Fish. He failed to win the big points against Ferrero and Federer twice now in the last 4 months.

Serve better. Hit backhand better. Lo and behold, you'll start winning some of those "frustratingly close" matches.

Billabong
03-21-2004, 12:28 AM
It's great to see Andre motivated, I'm waiting for some other great matches this year:)!

WyveN
03-21-2004, 12:30 AM
He is still, even at 34, a top 5 player. Last 4 big tournaments, US/MC/AO/IW, he's gone SF/F/SF/SF, better than anyone except
Federer - granted all on hardcourt, AA's best surface. And he's not getting blown out, save the MC.

The 'near misses' may encourage him. A few breaks
today and he's in the final. I would be shocked if he won another slam though.

Shy
03-21-2004, 12:34 AM
It is funny that Fed has been winning easily, but the two that can give him a match aren't the young one.

Tennis Fool
03-21-2004, 12:46 AM
Oh fuck no!

This gracious, Zen Agassi doesn't work for me.

Fuck sportsmanship, I want the KILLER Agassi who blows people off the court and demoralizes them back. His "quest for excellence" has produced timid losses to Coria, Philli, Fish. He failed to win the big points against Ferrero and Federer twice now in the last 4 months.

Serve better. Hit backhand better. Lo and behold, you'll start winning some of those "frustratingly close" matches.

Well, gracious, Zen Agassi wasn't there in his loss against Fish, so I doubt that would help his game. In fact, when he becomes more petulant, then I'll begin to worry.

Ray
03-21-2004, 06:03 AM
I think Agassi did a very good job even though he lost.
Before the match begon i thought Agassi would lost in straight sets. I'm very happy that Agassi disproved me :worship:
Would've been so much more lovely to see him win though, but Good job to Agassi :)

And on the retirement part I think it would be wise for Agassi to retire at the end of this year and being very smart i think Agassi will :)
No offense to anyone, Agassi my idol too, but I would hate for him to go on as Sampras and go on till he loses to everyone.
I think people will respect him more and look up more if he retired while still in 'the blaze of glory' .
Meaning I think he'd better stop when he's still winning and not go on till he can't win no more.

Tennis Fool
03-21-2004, 07:17 AM
But Agassi isn't losing to "everyone".

CooCooCachoo
03-21-2004, 07:22 AM
This gracious, Zen Agassi doesn't work for me.

LOL ;)

Well, way to go Roger. Andre is ready for retirement on one hand, but on the other he is still capable of winning tournaments and reaching semis and finals. He might just turn out to be the male Navratilova in a few years.

WyveN
03-21-2004, 07:40 AM
Agassi my idol too, but I would hate for him to go on as Sampras and go on till he loses to everyone.


Is this the same Sampras who is the only player in the open era to play a winning grand slam final as his last official match?

AgassiFan
03-21-2004, 07:45 AM
The 'near misses' may encourage him. A few breaks
today and he's in the final

I don't buy it. Loss to Safin in AO Semis or Philli in Wimbledon? Sure, they were Andre's to lose....But this loss to Federer was predetermined. I mean how the HELL did Andre expect to win against a great returner like Roger when he served at 50% in the 3rd set? His serves are ordinary at best, the surface was on the slow side AND still only half of them got in......That has "I do not want to win this match" all over it.

No offense to anyone, Agassi my idol too, but I would hate for him to go on as Sampras and go on till he loses to everyone.

Huh? Pete won 2000 Wimbledon and made USO Finals in 2000, 2001 before winning it in 2002. Not bad at all for someone who was beaten by "everyone".

If Andre has a chance to win 2 more Slams but the condition is that he would have to play through 2006 to get them, I bet he would do it even if it means early exits at FO and Masters Series events and pretty much falling out of the top 10. He is only 3 Slam Final apperances away from Sampras. He is more vain and ambitious than you give him credit for, and the only way I see him retiring (barring a serious injury of course) is if he really takes this tennis commisioner bullshit seriously or wants to concentrate on politics, etc.

From the fitness spandpoint, Agassi will probably be 36-37 before he gets to the point where Pete was at 32. Fitness is not Agassi's problem, even if he can no longer run balls down like Chang or Coria.

The problem: His backhand has deteriorated in the last 12 months to the point where the 2nd service returns that he used to send for winners, he now merely punches back. Also, his serves are still poor and low % -- something that he could afford in the past when he was smashing winners and passing shots left and right, but as it stands now, unless he becomes one of the most efficent/accurate servers in the game, thus taking some pressure of his ground strokes, he will never be competitive against the big players.

J. Corwin
03-21-2004, 08:42 AM
You're always so critical of Andre, AF.
Andre is doing just fine. He lost to the #1 player today...in 3 tight sets to boot. Andre, imo, has never been THE dominant player for very long. But he's always hung around the top 5 or so (save the black hole in '97 of course). He's gonna win a lot and lose a few, usually to the top players. He'll still get his fair share of wins. And who knows, if he goes on a tear or gets a lil lucky, he may still win a big one.

Aurora
03-21-2004, 08:49 AM
I'm not informed on how attached Andre is to IW, but I think he started his first official tournament on the tour there (correct me if I'm wrong). But he obviously didn't say goodbye to crowd or stadium yesterday like some said he did at AO. I don't wanna hear the retirement thing again! Ok? Denial!

AgassiFan
03-21-2004, 09:12 AM
You're always so critical of Andre, AF.

Out of love, jackson, out of love. I rip because I care.

tennischick
03-21-2004, 11:51 AM
if Andre had lost to say Labadze, i would be worried. he lost to the #1 player. yes i too would prefer him to win but if you gotta lose, lose to the best i say. ;)

Buddy
03-21-2004, 03:24 PM
great attitude from andre!!!

sigmagirl91
03-21-2004, 07:02 PM
Agassi doesn't look like he's any closer to retirement now than in 1997-1998, when his ranking was in the 100s. Which makes the suggestion that he will retire after his close three-set encounter with Federer seem absurd....

AgassiFan
03-21-2004, 07:44 PM
Hey, if the man hangs around until he is 36-38, I have no problem with that. Connors played until 39 and he had WAY more wear-n-tear, both physical and mental, than Agassi.

I really doubt Andre's body would be able to take abuse it takes to stay in the top 10, but since he only cares about the 4 Slams (and 2-3 TMS/YEC tourneys), with lighter schedule and some luck health-wise, he might just win a couple big ones if he hands around for 2 years after 2004.

He is a tennis lifer. I wish he doesn't have illusions of grandeur off the court.

lalaland
03-21-2004, 08:10 PM
Andre played a lousy match yesterday, making too many UEs. But he was still only one point away from taking over the match. Don't see why he needs to think retirement. He is the only one in this tournament to push Fed to the limit so far. Every Fed's match was onesidedly boring until he faces Andre, I think we still need the old master around.

AgassiFan
03-21-2004, 08:25 PM
Andre played a lousy match yesterday, making too many UEs

You sound suprised -- when was the last time he DIDN'T play a lousy match?

Agassi Excellence Rule of Thumb: when was the last time he

a) Had more winners than UE in the match
b) Served 65+ %

When you think about it, in these terms, the last time he played a truly excellent match against a tough opponent was the magnificent 2001 USO 1/4 against Pete. 2.5 years ago. His dominance at 2003 AO doesn't count because he didn't face Federer ro Sompras.

lalaland
03-21-2004, 08:56 PM
You are saying his losses in the past 3 years had nothing to do with his opponents?

During TMC, both his loss to Fed was that Fed was too good, IMO. Yesterday, Fed wasn't too good, Andre just playing poorly. The BP he had in the third set, he didn't put that volley away. To me, seems that he think the point is over and it's an easy put away as long as he put the ball back into the open court. That's careless and playing too timidly IMO, very unlike Andre.

Top players usually win when they have more winners than UEs and when they serve at 65% and above. Agassi' mindset is to play every match like solving problems. When he doesn't play as well as he likes, his challenge is to find a way to win. I think he almost did yesterday.

LCeh
03-21-2004, 09:05 PM
I don't get it, that volley was for him to hold serve. Even if Rogi couldn't save it he would have just lost a chance to break, so how would that make Andre "take over the match"?

AgassiFan
03-21-2004, 09:20 PM
You are saying his losses in the past 3 years had nothing to do with his opponents?

Coria? no.
Philli? no.
Ferrero? no to a lesser extent

Agassi was flat against all of them from 1st set on.

He thought they would be intimidated (Coria because of his age, lack of firepower and consecutive 5-setters played days before, playing against his hero......Philli because of his injury history and lack of recent success.....and Ferrero because he was playing on 3rd consecutive day, with many more sets, nursing a tender thigh/hamstring, on a surface which is not his strong suit.) by him and they played good matches, very consistent and determined -- and we all know how pissed off Andre gets when he DOESN'T get his way.

Andre didn't raise his game, served poorly and committed a ton of UE, with insufficient amount of winners in those matches. Sorry, he just didn't play well.

J. Corwin
03-21-2004, 11:17 PM
I don't get it, that volley was for him to hold serve. Even if Rogi couldn't save it he would have just lost a chance to break, so how would that make Andre "take over the match"?

Yes, it was just to hold serve.

Leo
03-22-2004, 04:30 AM
This was most likely Andre's last IW appearance. He must hate continuously losing in semifinals to these New Balls.

Leo
03-22-2004, 04:32 AM
AF is a sad excuse-maker and a pathetic fan.

AgassiFan
03-22-2004, 05:29 AM
<<<<<AF is a sad excuse-maker and a pathetic fan.>>>>>

As a perennial Cheerios pissee, your opinion means a great deal.[/green]

WyveN
03-22-2004, 06:40 AM
andre is not going to play any better.........he should be thankful he is keeping it close against the top guys at this age

AgassiFan
03-22-2004, 11:51 PM
andre is not going to play any better.........

You may be right, you may be wrong. I don't remember the last time he played an "Agassi" match since 2003 AO. Do you? If you do, be kind and point it out to me so i can look at secondary stats.

Is 65-70% first serve too much to ask? I am not asking for 20 aces a match. I am not asking for 130mph velocity. I realize tha at 5'11'' he is not going to be a serve demon...... But 50% in this day and age is ridiculous, esp against Roger Federer.

When was the last time Andre had more W than UE?

I can live with him playing well and getting out-played. But that's the thing, Andre is NOT playing well. He is sort of....there.

Leo
03-23-2004, 12:04 AM
AgassiFan is a dumb shit. To think that Andre's losses in Slams have nothing to do with his opponents and that Andre is playing badly if he has less winners than unforced errors is just plain stupid and shows that he lacks a good understanding of his supposed favorite player's game.

Goodnight.

AgassiFan
03-23-2004, 03:34 AM
AgassiFan is a dumb shit

Thanks, I must be doing something right to draw ire of a vapid dork like yourself, Leo.

Cheers. :wavey:

WyveN
03-23-2004, 04:08 AM
You may be right, you may be wrong. I don't remember the last time he played an "Agassi" match since 2003 AO. Do you? If you do, be kind and point it out to me so i can look at secondary stats.


What is a Agassi match?


Is 65-70% first serve too much to ask? I am not asking for 20 aces a match. I am not asking for 130mph velocity. I realize tha at 5'11'' he is not going to be a serve demon...... But 50% in this day and age is ridiculous, esp against Roger Federer.


Andre's first serve % is almost irrelevant. Regardless of whether it is a first serve or a second serve it is unlikely that Andre will get a free point so I can understand his logic in putting a little bit extra on his first serve now (which leads to a lower first serve %) in a attempt to at least get SOME free points. I assume at this stage he doesn't want to be running around to much and ANY free points are a terrific bonus.

Andre has always been about backing up the serve rather then the actual serve and he admits it often in interviews.



When was the last time Andre had more W than UE?


Eh? some fan you are. Against Safin AO semi.


I can live with him playing well and getting out-played. But that's the thing, Andre is NOT playing well. He is sort of....there.

There is no reason Agassi should be as good at 34 as he was at 28. Of course his peak/average standard has dropped. You should be happy that he is still sort of......there at the top.

Leo
03-23-2004, 05:11 AM
Thanks, I must be doing something right to draw ire of a vapid dork like yourself, Leo.

Cheers. :wavey:

Oooh, big vocabulary. I'm so impressed, dumb shit. :D :wavey:

AgassiFan
03-23-2004, 06:12 AM
Andre's first serve % is almost irrelevant.

NOBODY's 1st serve is irrelevant at this level -- if not because of velocity then certainly because of spin and location of the serve-- for instance, how many 2nd serves clip the lines? Come on.

In a close match talent-wise, serving at 65% 1st serve as opposed to 55% 1st serve can be the difference between winning 7-5, 7-5 and losing 7-5, 7-5. Vast archives of tennis history as well as basic common sense support it.

Regardless of whether it is a first serve or a second serve it is unlikely that Andre will get a free point so I can understand his logic in putting a little bit extra on his first serve now (which leads to a lower first serve %) in a attempt to at least get SOME free points.

Of course we're talking about SOME cheap/easy points -- he is never gonna serve like Pete or Goran. The problem is, he cannot survive on 50 %, "little something extra" or not. Period. I cannot believe this point is even being contested by you. Pick your battles.

I assume at this stage he doesn't want to be running around to much and ANY free points are a terrific bonus.

Yes, and that's why I loved his serve in 2001 USO QF match against Pete -- he not only went almost tit-for-tat in ace department, but, more importantly, got close to 70% of his first serves in, which kept Pete from doing ANYTHING on his serve. Nada.

Whereas in his 1995 loss to Pete, a much younger Andre served poorly -- it provided a real contrast -- and as a result Pete got a lot of good looks on Andre's weak 2nd serves on Pete's favorite FH side.....

Andre has always been about backing up the serve rather then the actual serve.

Yes, and that's why I said that he can NO LONGER afford it. Because his overall game will be naturally declining over the next few years, he NEEDS something to compensate for it, to take pressure of his ground-strokes and his old legs. He is able to generate enough velocity on his 1st serves and his kick serving is solid. The PROBLEM is, it goes for naught as he misses on his 1st serve TOO MANY times and it forced him to punch a get-me-over 2nd serve which his opponents proceed to pounce on.

At some point, it becomes counter-productive.

If he can't make his serve at least a decent semi-weapon on hard court as he's done in 2001-2002 and ot lesser extent 2003 USO, then he will continue losing close matches like the one against Safin at AO SF and Federer yesterday. Right now Andre is a below-average server. He needs to become at least average accuracy wise. Not great or good-- just AVERAGE. 5'11'' is not THAT short.

BTW..... Rule of Thumb still stands: 65+% 1st serve and W exceeding UE. How many matches do you think he lost when playing clean tennis like that?

ETA: where do you for archives? Like if you were to look up secondary stats from a match in 2000, where would you go on the Net?

AgassiFan
03-23-2004, 06:26 AM
Eh? some fan you are. Against Safin AO semi.

1st % over 65 or under? And by how much?

WyveN
03-23-2004, 06:33 AM
60% first serve in

AgassiFan
03-23-2004, 06:55 AM
60% first serve in

Thanks.

Fell just short. The game was decided literally on a couple of points in the first 2 sets. 65% would have probably tipped the scales to where Andre would have been the one pulling it out. IMO anyway.

Do you have the 1st serve/winner-UE #'s from the 2001 USO QF? I've been looking for those.

Action Jackson
03-23-2004, 07:19 AM
Agassi made only 12 UEs in the 2001 Wimbledon semi final against Rafter and still didn't win the match.

Just because a player has lower unforced errors and a high service percentage doesn't mean that they are always going to win, though in most cases that might be the case.

AgassiFan
03-23-2004, 07:32 AM
Agassi made only 12 UEs in the 2001 Wimbledon semi final against Rafter and still didn't win the match

How many winners?

Just because a player has lower unforced errors and a high service percentage doesn't mean that they are always going to win, though in most cases that might be the case

In life it's all about the odds, all you can ever hope to do is increase them.

Of course it's not 100% guarantee -- for example, the way Pete was serving in 1999 Wimbledon final, I don't care if Andre served 80% for the match -- Pete would have still won in all likelyhood.

3rd set against Federer on Sunday -- Agassi serves at 50% and pisses away the lead. Had he served at 65%, he might have still lost, but I think his chances of winning would have doubled.

AgassiFan
03-23-2004, 07:34 AM
Again....where do you guys/gals get your match stats from years past? On the net I mean

WyveN
03-23-2004, 09:03 AM
In the first set against Roger, Andre served at 65% and only had 2 unforced errors - he still needed a shocking game from Roger to break otherwise Fed would have most likely won the set.

Obviously it is almost impossible to keep that standard up for the whole match.

I don't get the stats anywhere on the net, don't think anyone keeps archives. I had the stats from the AO match by luck

alfonsojose
03-23-2004, 02:39 PM
What about Agassi's down the line backhand?. I think he has lost something on that shot. Anyway, it was a good match and good for Agassi if he used some weak moments of Federer (he's not perfect). Against Fish, Federer wasn't playing his best and Fish was unable to do something else.

I guess AgassiFan misses the 2001 Agassi. The 2004 is great but i feel the "show" is ending. While he consistenly challenges the top 10, i'll be happy . I dont' want to see him losing against top 30 player or lower.

good luck , Andre ;)

Tennis Fool
03-23-2004, 02:53 PM
:eek:

I just can't believe some of these comments. You guys realize A-man was the only player to give Fed a *match* in a supposed Masters tournament. In fact, Fed said all his matches prior to Agassi were too easy.

AgassiFan
03-23-2004, 04:24 PM
In the first set against Roger, Andre served at 65% and only had 2 unforced errors - he still needed a shocking game from Roger to break otherwise Fed would have most likely won the set.

You have to realizie that every rule has exceptions that only reinforce it. I know you know it. Roger Federer is a special player -- as Sampras was. Against them, 65% and W-UE may NOT be enough. When Pete served at 80% and hit TWICE as many winners as UE, obviously, it wouldn't get it done.......Duh.

But it quite often IS enough against 99% of the players on tour -- for me, it's a barometer for just how "quality" Andre's tennis is at the moment. When he serves well-to-very-well and doesn't commit lots of UE, it is ASSUMED that he is forcing his opponents to run all day and is hitting winners/passing shots.

Obviously it is almost impossible to keep that standard up for the whole match.

Since Andre is not expected to put lots of velocity on the serve, but to place it in the corners with a kick/spin, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect 65-70% 1st serve. He's done it before. I think it's a matter of SURIVIVAL against the likes of Federer. Ditto for winners and errors -- assuming Andre is not playing a super-safe tennis and lobbing ground-strokesback in order to avoid UE at any cost, that is..........

And, hell WyverN, so what if I expect a "clean" tennis from Andre --- at his age anything BUT cleaner and sharper tennis will simply NOT get it done not only against Federer but also against Roddick, 'danian, Ferrero and Safin. IMO anyone with top 3 ranking or Slam title aspirations has to play to that standard.

Do you have the numbers from Federer's Wimbledon SF win against Roddick?

AgassiFan
03-23-2004, 04:36 PM
What about Agassi's down the line backhand?. I think he has lost something on that shot.

No kidding. I feel his BH is vastly overrated.

I guess AgassiFan misses the 2001 Agassi. The 2004 is great but i feel the "show" is ending. While he consistenly challenges the top 10, i'll be happy . I dont' want to see him losing against top 30 player or lower.

Pre-1999 Andre used to lose to Top 30 platers all the time.

And I don't care what he does in smaller tournaments -- as long as he gives himself a chance at 2 more Slam titles, let him play 2 more years after 2004 for all I care. ATP ranking does NOT interest me at this point. As long as he plays a clean and powerful tennis.....even if he loses to younger oppoenents, there is no shame in that.

I just do not want to see efforts like the one against Coria at 2003 FO or Mardy Fish recently. As long as he plays "Agassi" tennis and gets a favorable draw, anything is possible.

Tennis Fool
03-23-2004, 05:10 PM
So, AgassiFan, when exactly did you become a fan of Agassi's? What other players do you like?

tangerine_dream
03-23-2004, 05:20 PM
Andre's not playing well? You're kidding. You can count on him at least making the QFs of tourneys now. He's the only one who's taken sets off of Federer lately (in Houston and IW) and he's ranked No. 3 in the world.

With these results, if he were 23 years old, would you still be saying he's "not playing well"?

AgassiFan
03-23-2004, 05:49 PM
Andre's not playing well? You're kidding. You can count on him at least making the QFs of tourneys now.

Not well enough, how's that? QF's??? WTF are you talking about. It's all about WINNING.

He's the only one who's taken sets off of Federer lately (in Houston and IW) and he's ranked No. 3 in the world.

I don't give a shit. His BH is unacceptable, he still made too many errors and didn't serve well in 2003 FO, 2003 USO and to lesser extent 2004 AO SF against Marat.

With these results, if he were 23 years old, would you still be saying he's "not playing well"?

He is not 23. He doesn't have time. It's all about winning 2 more Slams.

I am not a HOMER like most Agassi fans on this site. I am like a coach -- I am critical. Take it or leave it. Whatever.

tangerine_dream
03-23-2004, 05:59 PM
Why does it have to be two more slams that he must win? :scratch:

vene
03-23-2004, 06:39 PM
to get to a round 10!

J. Corwin
03-23-2004, 08:06 PM
Why does it have to be two more slams that he must win? :scratch:

As a coach, that is AgassiFan's goal for Andre. ;)

AgassiFan
03-27-2004, 05:30 AM
I know I've been unfairly harsh on Count Lightbulb in the last year, but this tournament is his to win. As usual, it won't be pretty -- his serve is still crappy and he still makes errors, but this time he'll scratch and claw and claw it.

Is it true he is skipping, Monte Carlo, Rome and Hamburg as well as Rolan Garros?

WyveN
03-27-2004, 05:36 AM
his only playing Roland Garros I think, probably just to say goodbye

Miami isn't Agassi's to win as he needs a couple of guys to get knocked out to have a decent chance

swellde
03-27-2004, 08:38 AM
In my opinion, it's almost unfair to talk about Andre's game being off. At 34 he's just an unbelievably talented player in the twilight of his career, and the new guns are taking over, as every "new balls" generation has done in the past. Tennis is always evolving into a better game with updated players. Shots like Agassi's backhand and return of serve, were once weapons of destruction, now they're just shots that are taught as tennis shots to the new generation. I would tend to think Agassi and his coach know what the best game plan for winning is better than anyone else. For Agassi to win tournaments, an ideal formula has to be used so he can go the distance.

J. Corwin
03-27-2004, 10:22 AM
I think he'll still play next year...although that may be because I'm naive (?)

WyveN
03-27-2004, 11:01 AM
Depends if he makes a slam final this year. If he doesn't make a slam final I would be really surprised if he doesn't retire - he is hardly going to be better next year.

AgassiFan
03-27-2004, 09:12 PM
Depends if he makes a slam final this year. If he doesn't make a slam final I would be really surprised if he doesn't retire - he is hardly going to be better next year.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Agassi the Statesman, Agassi the Comissioner, Agassi the Phillantropist, Agassi the Analyst, Agassi the Husband and father will take a second place to Agassi the Tennis Player.

If he is a top 5 or even top 10 player in the world, he should not quit. While his legs are healthy and strong, he needs to play. ANYBODY in a top 20 can win a Slam if he catches fire and gets a favorable schedule.

If Andre retires in the 2-3 years, it's because he is sick taking abuse workout-wise or is injured. Not because he doesn't think he can't win anymore. He's got legacy to build on. Besides double-digit slams, there's 700+ wins, record match wins at Golan Garros, etc, etc, etc. He LOVES the game in a way Safin or Roddick could not love it. He regrets not working as hard as Pete did in his youth and wants to make up for it by playing into his late 30's.

Injuries should be his #1 concern. They are very common -- every player plays with them -- but at his advanced age it's THAT much harder and takes a bigger toll on the recovery time.

As far as WyveN.......I didn;t say Agassi is the FAVORITE to win -- with Roger in the bracket, NOBODY is the favorite --, but rather that he WILL win simply because he will fight harder and is more successful as an UNDERDOG anyway.

J. Corwin
03-27-2004, 11:49 PM
Hyper much?