[Sanya]

Originally Posted by Mooza2011

Lopez played way above average, especially first two sets.

Well, then we can always say player X played great against top - see, he made 3 winners in game 4 and played decent 15 minutes in the end of the match!

Tennis doesn`t work like it, all match should be observed and estimated. Just IMO, though.

[Murray Mint]

Originally Posted by Filo V.

A loser losing. No shocker here. Good to see talent come through.

What a donkey Almost as if the Olympics and US Open never happened. But then it could be one of those Nadal fans that believe no tournament sans Rafa is worth anything!

[safin-rules-no.1]

Originally Posted by Filo V.

A loser losing. No shocker here. Good to see talent come through.

[Sapeod]

According to Filo V, a loser is someone who doesn't look attractive enough for him

Originally Posted by Filo V.

A loser losing. No shocker here. Good to see talent come through.

To insinuate Raonic is more talented than Murray shows your lack of tennis knowledge, not that I ever doubted your lack of tennis knowledge to begin with.

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by Sapeod

According to Filo V, a loser is someone who doesn't look attractive enough for him

To insinuate Raonic is more talented than Murray shows your lack of tennis knowledge, not that I ever doubted your lack of tennis knowledge to begin with.

Filo V has zero tennis knowledge. Been following his comments for a while now. You'd think a guy who watches tennis for a living would at least know something.

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

It will include:

-
- Murray was awful today, played at 10% of his ability
- If he plays at 50%, he's better than everybody on tour
- Ok, maybe JesusFed could take a set off him
- He won a slam
- He won a FUCKING slam
- Some statement ending in
-

Originally Posted by Sapeod

Raonic played near his best and Andy played terribly. That was the only way he was going to win and it happened. Even though Andy was absolutely awful, he is still made the match as close as this. Says a lot about him when at 30% he can push 100% (give or take) Raonic that far.

Not really fussed about the result. Enjoy the win, Murray haters. Andy at least has something that Raonic will never have

You're saying Johansson is above Andy? For a slam champion, Johansson's career is pathetic.

Trash hasn't been playing on tour for the past couple of months.

Hmm...poor effort from Sapeod this time. He went for the 30% this time, should've seen it coming. Lack of smileys is disturbing to say the least.

[Filo V.]

Originally Posted by Honestly

Filo V has zero tennis knowledge. Been following his comments for a while now. You'd think a guy who watches tennis for a living would at least know something.

Stay pressed.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by Honestly

Filo V has zero tennis knowledge. Been following his comments for a while now. You'd think a guy who watches tennis for a living would at least know something.

You should replace 'tennis knowledge' with 'atp tennis knowledge' because knowing who is ranked where, who has won what and strengths and weaknesses of players does not equate to 'tennis knowledge'. To me, tennis knowledge is mainly understanding the biomechanical, tactical and psychological aspects of the sport and this forum isn't really the place to discuss as much.

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by Burrow

You should replace 'tennis knowledge' with 'atp tennis knowledge' because knowing who is ranked where, who has won what and strengths and weaknesses of players does not equate to 'tennis knowledge'. To me, tennis knowledge is mainly understanding the biomechanical, tactical and psychological aspects of the sport and this forum isn't really the place to discuss as much.

Oh I know that. Who is ranked where is not tennis knowledge. Knowing who has won what and knowing strengths and weaknesses of players is some tennis knowledge. But you last sentence is mostly what I'm referring to when I talk about Filo V and most of this forum. Filo V may know players' rankings but that's as far as it goes.

[Burrow]

Originally Posted by Honestly

Oh I know that. Who is ranked where is not tennis knowledge. Knowing who has won what and knowing strengths and weaknesses of players is some tennis knowledge. But you last sentence is mostly what I'm referring to when I talk about Filo V and most of this forum. Filo V may know players' rankings but that's as far as it goes.

What is the difference between knowing who is ranked where and who has won what? Why is only the latter classed as tennis knowledge in your book? Being able to identify strengths and weaknesses of players can only really be quantified as about 5% tennis knowledge, or something, because any Tom, Dick or Harry could do that.

As I said, ATP tennis knowledge and knowledge of the sport itself are two entirely different things.

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by Burrow

What is the difference between knowing who is ranked where and who has won what? Why is only the latter classed as tennis knowledge in your book? Being able to identify strengths and weaknesses of players can only really be quantified as about 5% tennis knowledge, or something, because any Tom, Dick or Harry could do that.

As I said, ATP tennis knowledge and knowledge of the sport itself are two entirely different things.

Negative Burrow. Knowing how mant Wimby's or slams Edberg won shows some tennis kowledge because it shows you have been following the game for some time, whereas anyone can find out what the current rankings is and it doesn't mean shit. Knowing strengths and weaknesses of players also shows tennis knowledge because first of all not anyone can identify them, and second not anyone is interested to. If you ever played tennis on any serious level whatsoever you would know that it's very important to know that about your opponent. So as a fan it would just be natural to identify them as well.

[Saberq]

Dani being pathetic again..............poor Scott....hahahaha I wish all the worst for Murray.Tennis wise

[xargon]

Poor sport handshake at the net.

[Federer_28]

Originally Posted by Singularity

What a joke. A guy who's reached 5 slam finals is now a 'fluke' because he loses in some MM tournament.

Who are you referring to here ?

[Moozza]

Originally Posted by Federer_28

Who are you referring to here ?

US Open 2008
Australian Open 2010
Australian Open 2011
Wimbledon 2012
US Open 2012

That's 5 I believe.