H_B

Meaning the kid has been missing for days. No one knows where she is, who has her or whether she is alive or not, and the local cops seem none the wiser about any of it. It's hardly a leap of Mystic Meg type proportions to have a bad feeling about the situation!

Not exactly going out on a limb there are you? I agree with the point earlier. If this had been two scumbag junkies from Easterhoose the papers would have flayed them alive. The parents are getting a very easy ride due to their occupations and "class".

I think I mention those bookes earlier on this thread somewhere. They are very entertaining, and pretty similar. Coben is a more talented writer than Child though, no question about that. I was quite disappointed by the latest Reacher one - pretty lazy bit of writing by numbers for me.

I was pleased they lost tonight, as the knuts cost me over 100 notes on Saturday. Never trust anything from Fife.

I've just bought the new Jack Reacher book. Chewing gum for the brain, but entertaining nonetheless.

Not heard "The Broon" unit of measurement used in ages

It's actually quite good news for him overall I think. He did virtually nothing in the clay court season last time round, so he should be picking up points quite easily even with moderate Masters Series performances in Europe in the spring/early summer.

It means he would get less points than he got the season before, yep. If I get 100 points for winning Tourney X on February 1st 2006, I have 100 points from that week contributing to my ranking for the whole year. Then, when I come back to defend Tourney X on February 1st 2007, my ranking for last year was based on 100 points from Tourney X. If I lose in the semis and only get 50 points, I am effectively 50 points down from where I was last year. If I didn't bother my arse to play at all that week, I would have 0 points, and have lost 100 points from my ranking.

Nope, because if he had stayed at home he'd have lost even more points.

Return of the Bunny Suicides - Andy Riley. Genius.

The bookies would agree with you. Murray is long odds-on.

I wouldn't be surprised. I'm impressed that he still seems to have the same hunger for trophies now that he did 5 years ago. When he breaks Sampras's Slam record, wins the French and wins the Davis Cup for Switzerland I wonder whether he will lose the fire a bit.

I haven't exchanged a word with my neighbours in 5 years (admittedly I live in a flat, so dont have anyone living right beside me, but still...). I couldn't tell you any of their names, and am quite happy with that. Admittedly if any of them were foxy chicks, I may have made more of an effort.

For anyone who has any doubts that Federer will continue to dominate mens tennis for as long as he wants (Stewarty ), check out today's match Nadal, Roddick and co aren't playing the same sport.

To dominate though, it's not good enough just to be World Class - you have to be significantly better than all your opponents. Nadal is on clay - he isn't on any other surface. Federer is significantly better than the opposition on grass, indoor and on hard court. I think his age is irrelevant. As I said, some players win Slams at 20 or 21 and never again. Lleyton Hewitt for example peaked at that age - he will never win another Grand Slam. Nadal will win the French a few more times and pick up the odd US and Aussie when Federer moves over the hill. A great career, but not a generationally defining one like Federer. IMO of course.

No he didn't - he only won 3 in his entire career! One Masters Series, one in Austria and some dodgy american clay court tournament where he beat Jason Stoltenberg in the final! Federer has already won 5, including a hat trick of Hamburg Masters series.

He never enjoyed the complete domination Federer has, and never had the all court game Federer has. He also never looked remotely like winning the French Open - Federer is getting closer every year and will IMO complete the Grand Slam if not this year, next year. There may be a better player than Federer emerging in the next few years, but I think it is unlikely. I certainly don't think it will be Nadal - he doesn't have the game to dominate on all surfaces.

I wouldn't be surprised - I'd be amazed. It is irrelevant what Federer was like at Nadal's age. Roddick also had a faster start to his career than Federer did - so did Hewitt. Neither Hewitt or Roddick could kick on from there. Players peak at different times. Federer will be looked on as a freak in 10 years time - the best player of the last 30 years and probably of all time.

Yet Nadal is still a mile behind Federer in the rankings. He has produced flashes of being able to compete at that level, and is clearly the Clay Court Number 1, but Federer does it week in week out.

Yeah, I know his popularity in Aus is pretty mixed. I think some of his comments away from the court haven't endeared him to the public (only going on what Ive been told by an Aussie mate). I don't think the other players like him much either, which is usually a good indication of cockery.

I think hatred for Hewitt is pretty much worldwide.

I quite like those types of film, but I can see where you are coming from. I can understand why it was nominated for several Oscars.

The Constant Gardener. 'twas good.

Will do On that topic, I went to see Fear Factory the other month and my ears are still ringing I think. I fully expect to be deaf by 50, purely due to them

Im off to see them on Saturday.