Seymour Bush Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Jeremy Bates was 54th in the world at the pinnacle of his career, and only won 1(one) singles title in his whole career. What a useless comparison. If it was Barry Cowan you'd brought up I'd have agreed, but not Jez. That's a bit unkind towards Jeremy really..Jeremy was handicapped with not being especially good or fast and he had poor technique,add to that the fact that there was always about 90 players better than he and continually stalked him and entered the same tournaments that jeremy would enter.If it wasn't for those slight minor trivialities Jeremy would have been a great...... However Jeremy Bates remains as successful in major tennis tournaments as Rusedski,Henman and 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour Bush Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Jeremy Bates was 54th in the world at the pinnacle of his career, and only won 1(one) singles title in his whole career. What a useless comparison. If it was Barry Cowan you'd brought up I'd have agreed, but not Jez. That's a bit unkind towards Jeremy really..Jeremy was handicapped with not being especially good or fast and he had poor technique,add to that the fact that there was always about 90 players better than he and continually stalked him and entered the same tournaments that jeremy would enter.If it wasn't for those slight minor trivialities Jeremy would have been a great...... However Jeremy Bates remains as successful in major tennis tournaments as Rusedski,Henman and Murray by way none of them have ever been 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 That's a bit unkind towards Jeremy really..Jeremy was handicapped with not being especially good or fast and he had poor technique,add to that the fact that there was always about 90 players better than he and continually stalked him and entered the same tournaments that jeremy would enter.If it wasn't for those slight minor trivialities Jeremy would have been a great...... However Jeremy Bates remains as successful in major tennis tournaments as Rusedski,Henman and That's a bit unkind towards Jeremy really..Jeremy was handicapped with not being especially good or fast and he had poor technique,add to that the fact that there was always about 90 players better than he and continually stalked him and entered the same tournaments that jeremy would enter.If it wasn't for those slight minor trivialities Jeremy would have been a great...... However Jeremy Bates remains as successful in major tennis tournaments as Rusedski,Henman and Murray by way none of them have ever been Saying it twice won't make it right. Anyway - Jeremy Bates was 54th in the world at the pinnacle of his career there was always about 90 players better than he Explain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arch Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Jeremy was handicapped His playing style might suggest that to be the case, but I don't think he actually was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour Bush Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Saying it twice won't make it right. Anyway - Explain. Apols as double post due ma works computer is shite.....I was reffering to Jeremy's ranking a bit later on in his career and to be honest and put my hands up i never realised that he reached those dizzying heights......What a guy..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Apols as double post due ma works computer is shite.....I was reffering to Jeremy's ranking a bit later on in his career and to be honest and put my hands up i never realised that he reached those dizzying heights......What a guy..... Apology accepted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour Bush Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Apology accepted. Oh God,not another one go and see kilt.....but ye might have to wait untill StewartyMac has finished... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Oh God,not another one go and see kilt.....but ye might have to wait untill StewartyMac has finished... How on earth do you manage to make a link to homosexuality from "Apology accepted"? Love The Phoenix xxxx 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Ah well, back to grooming Kilt then. No grooming required there. Just suggest a time and place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour Bush Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 How on earth do you manage to make a link to homosexuality from "Apology accepted"? Love The Phoenix xxxx It was the wink,i know they usually mean joke or something mentioned tongue in cheek but there was something distinctly odd about your wink morelike where you'd put your tongue and seperate cheeks... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 You have to think, when Federer retires in 2-3 years time, Murray will get his hands on a couple of slams. Nadal needs some new knees, Djokovic likes losing to players he should be bumming, and Del Potro looks like a martian. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewartyMac Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 You have to think, when Federer retires in 2-3 years time, Murray will get his hands on a couple of slams. Nadal needs some new knees, Djokovic likes losing to players he should be bumming, and Del Potro looks like a martian. Aye, and there doesn't appear to be anyone in the 17-20 age bracket who looks like being the next 'Federer' anytime soon. Murray's time will come, I'm sure of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Aye, and there doesn't appear to be anyone in the 17-20 age bracket who looks like being the next 'Federer' anytime soon. Murray's time will come, I'm sure of it. I like the look of Cilic and obviously also Del Potro and Djokovic are a similar age though Murray has the edge on all of them at the moment. In 3 or 4 years when Federer is out of the way though? Who knows. You never know how many chances you are going to get. As I said earlier, he's been very unlucky to run into Federer on top form in both his finals. He ought to get further chances and he ought to win one. However, it wouldn't absolutely astonish me if he didn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Wasn't today his 19th Grand Slam event? Federer didn't win his first until his 17th. And besides, Murray is playing in an era where the quality of player is higher than it's ever been. Imagine how successful he'd have been in the years where fucking Greg Rusedski was the Number 4 player in the world. Rusedski would struggle to get into the top 16 if he was at his peak now. So he'll be winning it b4 grand slam 27. What has the era got to do with it, and surely the higher the quality the less likely he'll win his 1st later in his career. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Two things wrong with this. 1) Andy Murray has eight grand slams to play in before he hits 24. 2) He won't be playing Federer at that level forever. There is every chance he'll be good enough in the future to win a Grand Slam. Oh well he's got an extra chance. Federer will not go downhill sufficiently in the next 2 years, I've no doubt some young upstarts will appear on the scene just in time for Fed retiring. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 However, it wouldn't absolutely astonish me if he didn't. Me either. To be honest, I don't really buy the whole "has to win a major" anyway. Thomas Johansson won a major. Various very average golfers have also. I bet if you offered Paul Lawrie Colin Montgomerie's career instead of his, he'd bite your arms off. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) Check the records. As above, how many win their 1st slam over 24 in the men's game, then add into the mix that he's been on the scene since his teens. Federer had him in his pocket today, I witnessed nowt that suggests he's going anywhere in the next few years, Murray will need to hope someone else takes him out b4 the final, Murray's best game will never be near Fed's level of play in a slam final. He more than matched him in the 3rd set which probably took up over half the match, so in essence you are saying you ignored half the match? Why because i think that far too many modern day sports(ahem)men are just big pussies.Andy Roddick never wept like a bitch when he lost Wimbledon to Federer and Federer didn't when he lost his epic final to Nadal,arguably the best two best two finals at Wimbledon or ever for that matter..... Roddick was bawling his eyes out after he beat Murray in the semis at Wimbledon last year. Federer did the same after losing to Nadal in Melbourne exactly a year ago. You're out of your depth. Edited February 1, 2010 by dubs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtie23 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 In my opinion Andy Murray is the 2nd best player in the world at this moment. Nadal is a shadow of the player he was last year and thst knee injury could b alot more serious than he is making out. Djokovic and Del Potro seem a bit too inconsistant. Roddick has his serve and not much else to be honest, I think his time has past. Cilic looks a star in the making tho. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScarf Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Murray is in the papers today saying he expect Federer to be winning slams until he is 33/34. I have to say I agree with him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBairn Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 In my opinion Andy Murray is the 2nd best player in the world at this moment. From what Ive seen. Id agree with that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.