Us Open 2012

[amolbhatia50k]

because you can't hide your utter disappointment at Murray winning it.

You're trying to see something that isn't there. I would have preferred Djokovic to win but I wasn't really fussed either way. If I really was I'd have stayed up watched the match. Seems like you're trying hard to convince yourself I'm affected. Or something.

I love big rallies, so do thousands of fans. Its great.

Good for you. But it's just your opinion. You'd do well to respect other's.

Its like people who don't like Barcelona winning things so try to convince themselves their passing football is actually a complete bore.

Hehe. You're as pathetic on this topic as you are on that one. You're one of those individuals who can't take an opposing view. Seriously, grow up.

If you don't think Murray attacks then go and watch him beat Federer at the Olympics

Now it also seems as though your understanding of tennis is a bit shit. Murray is an aggressive tennis player? Or a counter puncher? It's fine for you to like his game. I have no issues with others preferences (unlike someone) but let's not twist facts.

 

[Cheesy]

He has a point when all you seem to do is constantly moan if a player doesn't play the same type of game as Federer. Like football, you need variety. Those who love tiki-taka accept that not every team will play that way and that you need variety. That's what we have with tennis.

Last night's match was fantastic. There were some superb rallies between the two players who played to their strengths. It was intense and exciting. Anyone who accuses it of a borefest is, to be quite frank, just butthurt because they don't like either of the two finalists. Do you really hate anything that isn't like Federer's style of play in tennis?

 

[Snake Plissken]

Yeah I know bull shit and i can't take another opinion.

He played an aggressive match against Federer.

but hey, you wan't the courts altered so you get to see YOUR preferred style of play, you can't argue with that

What a clown

 

[Snake Plissken]

He has a point when all you seem to do is constantly moan if a player doesn't play the same type of game as Federer. Like football, you need variety. Those who love tiki-taka accept that not every team will play that way and that you need variety. That's what we have with tennis.

Last night's match was fantastic. There were some superb rallies between the two players who played to their strengths. It was intense and exciting. Anyone who accuses it of a borefest is, to be quite frank, just butthurt because they don't like either of the two finalists. Do you really hate anything that isn't like Federer's style of play in tennis?

thank you!


Maybe if Federer doesn't crash out early at the Aussie open he can sit up wanking to his gutsy attacking play (even if he loses) rather than moan at Murray and Djokovic's refusal to take stupid risks in poor conditions.

 

[Cheesy]

Murray is hardly passive either. It's generally a bit of a myth that's developed. At times he was passive in the first set tie break, but that was understandable. He pulled through anyway.

People seem to think because he's more of a baseline player who doesn't constantly run to the net that he's passive. He prefers to sit in front of the baseline and he can sometimes be very attacking from there. He was so at times last night and destroyed Federer at the Olympics with his attacking play. People just have to accept he's in the top bracket of players now.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

You lot are a bit weird really. Why would me having a preference for a kind of tennis mean I'm "butt hurt"? Bizarre. I mean, seriously, you have to be able to be mature enough to deal with others opinions and preferences.

Oh, and I do like Djokovic. So wrong again there. I like all the presumptions both of you are making about me and getting so horribly wrong.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

People just have to accept he's in the top bracket of players now.

Who are these "people" who aren't accepting that exactly? You sound like a Liverpool fan with your victim attitude. I'm not bothered about Murray's win. He's always been good enough for a slam. I don't think he's a prick like some do either. I find his game dull but that's about it.

You're very defensive about Murray aren't you? It's as if you're seeing an attack on him when there is none.

 

[Snake Plissken]

again, i have no problems with people having differing opinions. But when they back it up or 'justify' it with a lot of nonsense I tend to let them know. Discussion forum after all

 

[Cheesy]

It's the fact that you almost state it as fact that Federer's game is better to watch than others and almost demand for the courts to be sped up just because you're too impatient to watch longer rallies.

Different players have different styles. Not everyone can play like Federer all the time and they will do what they can with their game. If they're good at it, then good. Tennis is in a great era at the moment with great players. Nothing needs to be changed about the game just to suit your bizarre belief's that defensive styles that don't constantly go for the winners are boring.

Sorry if I'm offensive but this shit got annoying in the Wimbledon thread. It's blatant Federer fanboying because you can't appreciate and recognise other styles.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Maybe if Federer doesn't crash out early at the Aussie open he can sit up wanking to his gutsy attacking play (even if he loses) rather than moan at Murray and Djokovic's refusal to take stupid risks in poor conditions.

Heh, you sound very wound up. As usual when people don't see things your way. As I said, very childish behavior.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Heh, you sound very wound up. As usual when people don't see things your way. As I said, very childish behavior.

you're not even worth the time. When ever you're backed into a corner its the same old 'as usual you cant take a different opinion, you're so childish'

Happy wanking over Federer and god help you if you ever have to watch another tennis match where they don't try and mirror Roger's game

 

[amolbhatia50k]

again, i have no problems with people having differing opinions. But when they back it up or 'justify' it with a lot of nonsense I tend to let them know. Discussion forum after all

Ah, right. What was the nonsense I used to justify my opinion? And I didn't try and justify my opinion. I don't need to do that.

All I did was state my preference and you got wound up like a clock good and proper. Like you do in all the Barca threads. Nothing new here. Like I said, can't take an opposing view. Shame.

 

[Snake Plissken]

It's the fact that you almost state it as fact that Federer's game is better to watch than others and almost demand for the courts to be sped up just because you're too impatient to watch longer rallies.

Different players have different styles. Not everyone can play like Federer all the time and they will do what they can with their game. If they're good at it, then good. Tennis is in a great era at the moment with great players. Nothing needs to be changed about the game just to suit your bizarre belief's that defensive styles that don't constantly go for the winners are boring.

Sorry if I'm offensive but this shit got annoying in the Wimbledon thread. It's blatant Federer fanboying because you can't appreciate and recognise other styles.

at the same time he thinks I'm childish and not accepting his opinion.

he's a master of irony

 

[Cheesy]

It's not that you have a different view, it's that you state it as fact. You say the courts are too slow, as opposed to you saying you prefer them to be faster. You say Roger's style is the best, as opposed to it being your favourite.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

you're not even worth the time. When ever you're backed into a corner its the same old 'as usual you cant take a different opinion, you're so childish'

Well, you know, when I see someone be childish and throw hissy fits instead of using logic to make a point, I tend to let them know. Discussion forum and all.

Happy wanking over Federer and god help you if you ever have to watch another tennis match where they don't try and mirror Roger's game

Oh I watch and enjoy a lot of tennis. Don't you worry about that.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Ah, right. What was the nonsense I used to justify my opinion? And I didn't try and justify my opinion. I don't need to do that.

All I did was state my preference and you got wound up like a clock good and proper. Like you do in all the Barca threads. Nothing new here. Like I said, can't take an opposing view. Shame.

say it enough times and it will be true...............oh wait

 

[Cheesy]

My non-childish opinions happen to be getting ignored now. Funny that.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

It's not that you have a different view, it's that you state it as fact.

See, that's where you're getting defensive for no reason. I never state my opinions as fact. If people interpret them as such, there's nothing I can do, can I?

You say the courts are too slow, as opposed to you saying you prefer them to be faster. You say Roger's style is the best, as opposed to it being your favourite.

Are you having a laugh? Am I supposed to use certain words to qualify my posts to being obviously my opinion? Should I start using IMO in every sentence?

As for the courts being too slow, I genuinely believe that the game would benefit from them being faster.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

say it enough times and it will be true...............oh wait

I'll say it when I see it happen. Depends on you how often enough that is.

 

[Cheesy]

See, that's where you're getting defensive for no reason. I never state my opinions as fact. If people interpret them as such, there's nothing I can do, can I?




Are you having a laugh? Am I supposed to use certain words to qualify my posts to being obviously my opinion? Should I start using IMO in every sentence?

As for the courts being too slow, I genuinely believe that the game would benefit from them being faster.

You do it all the time. You feel the need to say it constantly when the fact is you've already said it many times before. A few times, fine, but why come into the thread and mention it again when there was a massive, long discussion on the matter of it at Wimbledon? It's boring and annoying to have to read time and time again.

How would the game genuinely benefit? It's going through one of it's best periods in it's history and people love watching it. There's no need to change it. I don't think you really think it would benefit the game, you'd just prefer it to be that way because you're a fan of Federer. If that's true, admit it, don't bother keep on acting as if it really would benefit the game when it's in a golden era the way it is.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

You do it all the time. You feel the need to say it constantly when the fact is you've already said it many times before. A few times, fine, but why come into the thread and mention it again when there was a massive, long discussion on the matter of it at Wimbledon? It's boring and annoying to have to read time and time again.

I feel the need to express my opinion. Doesn't everyone here?

Maybe I feel strongly about it enough to say it more than a few times? It might be boring and annoying for you but maybe some of your posts are like that for others? Deal with it. I deal with other's views I disagree with all the time on this forum.

How would the game genuinely benefit? It's going through one of it's best periods in it's history and people love watching it. There's no need to change it. I don't think you really think it would benefit the game, you'd just prefer it to be that way because you're a fan of Federer. If that's true, admit it, don't bother keep on acting as if it really would benefit the game when it's in a golden era the way it is.

You can choose to believe what you want with regards to my opinion but they're just assumptions based on little.

I do think it would benefit the game because pretty much every top player now is a baseliner and usually a fairly defensive one. Where has serve and volley gone? Why do people not serve and volley anymore? I think it would provide more variety and balance in the future to have faster courts. I'd like for there to be another Sampras one day. But I can't see anyone wanting to serve and volley right now.

Your free to disagree. Unlike both of you, I have no problem with that. It doesn't get to me at all. I welcome differing views. Just like I'd to see more players take up serve and volley and more players who have it in them be encouraged to move forward more often. I'd like to see a balance between 30 shot rallies and quick fire points. My opinion, you don't have to let it affect you.

 

[wr8_utd]

Yeah, Nadal beat the GOAT at the French Open, a slam he had never won by that point and a surface which is by far his weakest and Nadal's strongest.

They obviously didn't have it easy, but actually getting to go into a final and not face of the the very best is a great thing. Shame Murray didnt have that in 2008 when he beat Nadal in the semi's.

Nadal was just the Number 4 at that point and Federer was still pretty darn good at clay even if he wasn't as good as he is on the other surfaces. Oh and Federer has been brought up playing on clay courts so all this nonsense about him hating clay and not being that good on it is only brought up because Nadal reguarly humiliates him there. Federer is very very good on clay but has been unlucky to be up against the greatest ever on the surface.

And Murray had a decent enough draw to get to the final this time with no Rafa here. But yes my point was that Djokovic and Nadal had to face equally hard battles to win their first Slam.

 

[Cheesy]

I feel the need to express my opinion. Doesn't everyone here?

Maybe I feel strongly about it enough to say it more than a few times? It might be boring and annoying for you but maybe some of your posts are like that for others? Deal with it. I deal with other's views I disagree with all the time on this forum.



You can choose to believe what you want with regards to my opinion but they're just assumptions based on little.

I do think it would benefit the game because pretty much every top player now is a baseliner and usually a fairly defensive one. Where has serve and volley gone? Why do people not serve and volley anymore? I think it would provide more variety and balance in the future to have faster courts. I'd like for there to be another Sampras one day. But I can't see anyone wanting to serve and volley right now.

Your free to disagree. Unlike both of you, I have no problem with that. It doesn't get to me at all. I welcome differing views. Just like I'd to see more players take up serve and volley and more players who have it in them be encouraged to move forward more often. I'd like to see a balance between 30 shot rallies and quick fire points. My opinion, you don't have to let it affect you.

Why do you have to say it constantly though? It's not a case of you saying it occasionally; you do it after every single grand slam. Even when Federer won back at Wimbledon, you did it then. You just complained and moaned about the courts when nothing is wrong with them.

You're acting as if there literally is no serving and volleying in the game, when there are plenty of big men still about whose serves are what they depend on. In fact, I struggle to see what's so exciting about an average player, for example, aceing their ways to victory? Karlovic would be a prime example. He's an extremely average tennis player who is solely reliant on having a massive serve. He's not particularly exciting to watch though. Hardly any breaks of serve with him and him getting constant aces. That's certainly a lot more 'boring' than the baseline tennis you seem to have it in for.

If there are more baseliners, then you have to just let them flourish. That's what we have in the game at the moment and there's nothing wrong with it. The courts are balanced as they are at the moment, so why change it to favour certain players? Is there any legit reason apart from it benefitting your favourite player? I don't see it. You say it would benefit the game and the excitement of it, but as you'll find in this thread it's hardly as if we have a majority who prefer your preferred style of tennis.

Before you say it's in favour of baseliners at the moment, I really don't see it. If the game really didn't favour servers, then how come we saw an epic such as Isner-Mahut a couple of years ago? How come Federer was able to win on these courts that apparently put him at a massive disadvantage? In the era of Sampras there may have been more serve and volley players, but the game changes and so do the players. It can't always favour what you want it to and I think you have to accept that.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Why do you have to say it constantly though? It's not a case of you saying it occasionally; you do it after every single grand slam. Even when Federer won back at Wimbledon, you did it then. You just complained and moaned about the courts when nothing is wrong with them.

Again, it's your opinion that the courts are fine. I disagree so I'll say it as long as I feel passionately about it. Do you not go on about something you feel passionately about ? A lot of "sitting on high horses" happening. Like I said, deal with it. Going on and on about your dislike for me expressing that view isn't going to make me stop anyway.

You're acting as if there literally is no serving and volleying in the game, when there are plenty of big men still about whose serves are what they depend on.

Since when does someone serving big equate to serve & volley? Serve and volley is pretty much dead. I can't see how you can argue otherwise. I'd like to see more of a balance with more styles about rather than pretty much everything being played from the back

Alright this is getting a bit weird now. There's a lot of things to argue about but someone's preference is about the strangest.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Nadal was just the Number 4 at that point and Federer was still pretty darn good at clay even if he wasn't as good as he is on the other surfaces. Oh and Federer has been brought up playing on clay courts so all this nonsense about him hating clay and not being that good on it is only brought up because Nadal reguarly humiliates him there. Federer is very very good on clay but has been unlucky to be up against the greatest ever on the surface.

And Murray had a decent enough draw to get to the final this time with no Rafa here. But yes my point was that Djokovic and Nadal had to face equally hard battles to win their first Slam.

pressure in the final isn't going to be the same as in a semi. So i'd say thats probably not quite the case.

You're right about Nadal, but hes the king of clay, hes far better than any other opponent on Clay, and federer had never been good enough to win that tournament at that point so I wouldn't say its a particularly great feat beating Roger there.

beating him at Wimbledon however was massive.

lest we forget Murray has Beaten Nadal in slam semi finals before, hes just never had the luxury of playing the big final against a slam-less opponent.

 

[Cheesy]

Again, it's your opinion that the courts are fine. I disagree so I'll say it as long as I feel passionately about it. Do you not go on about something you feel passionately about ? A lot of "sitting on high horses" happening. Like I said, deal with it. Going on and on about your dislike for me expressing that view isn't going to make me stop anyway.



Since when does someone serving big equate to serve & volley? Serve and volley is pretty much dead. I can't see how you can argue otherwise. I'd like to see more of a balance with more styles about rather than pretty much everything being played from the back

Alright this is getting a bit weird now. There's a lot of things to argue about but someone's preference is about the strangest.

So basically you're going to keep on saying the same thing over and over when everyone already knows what you think, on a matter there's nothing wrong with, at the most pointless and irrelevant times?

 

[Agent Red]

See, that's where you're getting defensive for no reason. I never state my opinions as fact. If people interpret them as such, there's nothing I can do, can I?

Are you having a laugh? Am I supposed to use certain words to qualify my posts to being obviously my opinion? Should I start using IMO in every sentence?

As for the courts being too slow, I genuinely believe that the game would benefit from them being faster.

A lot of posters do this, including myself. Distinguishes fact from opinion and gives posts a less arrogant tone. It's perfectly possible to make it clear that something's an opinion whilst have your words still read lucidly. Doesn't have to be as explicit as adding 'IMO' after everything.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

So basically you're going to keep on saying the same thing over and over when everyone already knows what you think, on a matter there's nothing wrong with, at the most pointless and irrelevant times?

 

[Cheesy]

Well this is an example of a pointless time. Instead of congratulating Murray on his hard earned win you comment on how boring a match it was, when it wasn't, and then talk about the courts being sped up again.

 

[Snake Plissken]

its the same nonsense on football threads too.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Well this is an example of a pointless time. Instead of congratulating Murray on his hard earned win you comment on how boring a match it was, when it wasn't, and then talk about the courts being sped up again.

Ah, I'm sorry I didn't know people were supposed to congratulate Murray in this thread. Maybe they should add that to the thread title.

When did I say it was a boring match? I said it wasn't a match up I like that much. That's only with reference to the way the points are played rather than the drama those points were played in context of.

 

[wr8_utd]

I kind of agree with amol. If anyone goes against Murray in this thread and/or doesn't praise him, he's looked down upon and considered tedious/biased etc.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

A lot of posters do this, including myself. Distinguishes fact from opinion and gives posts a less arrogant tone. It's perfectly possible to make it clear that something's an opinion whilst have your words still read lucidly. Doesn't have to be as explicit as adding 'IMO' after everything.

Fair enough. It's a nice touch for posters to include in their posts. But I don't see it as a compulsion. The people who disagreed with my view don't either.

 

[Cheesy]

Ah, I'm sorry I didn't know people were supposed to congratulate Murray in this thread. Maybe they should add that to the thread title.

When did I say it was a boring match? I said it wasn't a match up I like that much. That's only with reference to the way the points are played rather than the drama those points were played in context of.

Quick question. If people came into the Wimbledon thread after Federer had won it, and started saying that the courts were in favour of him too much and said that it would benefit the game for them to be slowed down, would you be happy and leave it? You'd probably jump on them right away for it. You don't have to congratulate Murray, but not doing so and going on about the same record which you broke months ago only increases your growing rep as a Federer fanboy who can't accept it when he doesn't win.

I really don't see what your problem is with baseline tennis, especially last night's. Do you actually like any style which isn't Federer's? Some of the rallies were brilliant last night with excellent shots. You'd have been praising Federer to the heavens had he won them.

 

[Snake Plissken]

I kind of agree with amol. If anyone goes against Murray in this thread and/or doesn't praise him, he's looked down upon and considered tedious/biased etc.

you would say that, most of your posts aren't far behind on the tedious scale

 

[Cheesy]

I kind of agree with amol. If anyone goes against Murray in this thread and/or doesn't praise him, he's looked down upon and considered tedious/biased etc.

It's not necessarily just not praising him. That's fine if it's how you feel, but why not? What's wrong with him? Wouldn't you want the same thing to happen if it was your player? He simply came in and called their rallies boring, simply because neither of them are called Roger Federer. He simply can't recognise anything that isn't his tennis as being good in any way.

 

[Agent Red]

I kind of agree with amol. If anyone goes against Murray in this thread and/or doesn't praise him, he's looked down upon and considered tedious/biased etc.

I don't think that's true, I think it's the comments about Murray being dull/a twat that get picked up on. Because they're subjective and saying it after he's done well seems unnecessary so people challenge them.

I haven't seen anyone challenged over simple comments like 'I would have preferred Djokovic to win' unless they've tacked another bit on the end.

 

[Neutral]

The last couple of pages

 

[amolbhatia50k]

That's fine if it's how you feel, but why not? What's wrong with him? Wouldn't you want the same thing to happen if it was your player?

What? That's the sillest thing ever. Just because he's "your player" means you should go up in arms when people don't praise him?

He simply came in and called their rallies boring, simply because neither of them are called Roger Federer.

Boo Hoo I didn't praise Murray and lamented the long rallies instead. Get over it. And the Federer bit is an assumption as well pretty much like the rest of your responses in this thread. Based on.... nothing.

He simply can't recognise anything that isn't his tennis as being good in any way.

What is "my tennis"? I don't have a particular brand of tennis of my own. I like Federer's and Tsonga's style the most out of current players. Plenty of other players I like as well. Particularly the more agressive ones.

And I don't actually dislike the true baseliners either. As you said there should be variety. But I do think there's a bit of overkill happening. How could I have a preference eh?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

you would say that, most of your posts aren't far behind on the tedious scale

He posts better than you anyday.