Sir Andy Murray

[Bluto10]

Lol

[Bluto10]

Jogging

[Guest]

I wouldn't know about all time best but Borg and McEnroe were class back in the day and Boris Becker was really exciting to watch, a tremendous athlete who showed passion diving all over the court. It was after Becker that I sopped watching Wimbledon. It just got so boring after him, when Sampras became unbeatable.

 

But nothing is so boring as an Andy Murray interview. I respect everything he's done in the game and if any of you have read the excellent Overachievement book by Doc Eliot (grandson or great-grandson of T.S.), I reckon Murray fits that genre in that he's got the max out of himself and that is the best anyone can be expected to do.

 

As sotr said, he's just not in the same class as the best three so 4th best this decade or century or whenever you want to measure it. Which isn't the best, which many want him to be, including himself I'd wager. The fud was just quoted on the news as saying that even if he gets to 95% fitness, he's good enough to compete and win. Fucking dream on son.

[vanderark14]

The boy is ALWAYS looking for opportunities for confrontation Bloots. EVERY time I say black, he says white. He's one of the mutants I completely ignore now. He twisted the context of my words to try and say na na na na na and look at him, a self-proclaiming expert in everything. He goes jogging too which kinda tells us everything we need to know. Zero debating integrity. A boy with issues.

As much as I think parklife can go OTT to prove his point, I think youre being harsh on him in this instance. He is a big tennis fan and I cant see what hes said wrong. Hes admitted Murray hasnt had the success of the big three but he has competed with and beaten them to win numerous tournaments and three grand slams. Hes also spot on with the tim henman comment.

[Parklife]

The boy is ALWAYS looking for opportunities for confrontation Bloots. EVERY time I say black, he says white. He's one of the mutants I completely ignore now. He twisted the context of my words to try and say na na na na na and look at him, a self-proclaiming expert in everything. He goes jogging too which kinda tells us everything we need to know. Zero debating integrity. A boy with issues.

 

Nope. Don't agree with that. We disagreed with something in relation to a football match. You then didn't read what i'd said correctly (that there was loads of excellent play in the match) and argued that i was talking shite because there was loads of excellent play in the match.

 

If it makes you feel better about being wrong on that occasion, you can call me a "mutant" though. I'm all for folk doing whatever makes them happy.

I wouldn't know about all time best but Borg and McEnroe were class back in the day and Boris Becker was really exciting to watch, a tremendous athlete who showed passion diving all over the court. It was after Becker that I sopped watching Wimbledon. It just got so boring after him, when Sampras became unbeatable.

 

But nothing is so boring as an Andy Murray interview. I respect everything he's done in the game and if any of you have read the excellent Overachievement book by Doc Eliot (grandson or great-grandson of T.S.), I reckon Murray fits that genre in that he's got the max out of himself and that is the best anyone can be expected to do.

 

As sotr said, he's just not in the same class as the best three so 4th best this decade or century or whenever you want to measure it. Which isn't the best, which many want him to be, including himself I'd wager. The fud was just quoted on the news as saying that even if he gets to 95% fitness, he's good enough to compete and win. Fucking dream on son.

 

In your first paragraph you say you stopped watching Wimbledon. Do you still watch other tennis?

 

Andy Murray is an articulate, intelligent and well spoken guy actually. His voice is pretty monotone but i'd say it's more important to judge the content of what someone says, rather than how they sound saying it. It's definitely popular to slag him off and call him boring though.

 

He was winning slams and was number 1 in the world when he was less than 95% fit. Very few top level tennis players will ever feel 100%, due to the extremely demanding nature of the sport and the packed schedule they play. If Andy gets to how he felt when he got to #1, then there's no reason he can't compete for majors.

As much as I think parklife can go OTT to prove his point, I think youre being harsh on him in this instance. He is a big tennis fan and I cant see what hes said wrong. Hes admitted Murray hasnt had the success of the big three but he has competed with and beaten them to win numerous tournaments and three grand slams. Hes also spot on with the tim henman comment.

Thank you.

[Bluto10]

What's Tim Henman got to do with it?

Decent honest pro.

 

Murray.

Very good, multiple slam winner.

Up there with those who have won three slams before.

 

 

Nadal-djok

legends

 

 

Samprass\McEnroe etc.

 

Fed-Unit.

Prob the greatest.

[Guest]

As much as I think parklife can go OTT to prove his point, I think youre being harsh on him in this instance. He is a big tennis fan and I cant see what hes said wrong. Hes admitted Murray hasnt had the success of the big three but he has competed with and beaten them to win numerous tournaments and three grand slams. Hes also spot on with the tim henman comment.

Read my Henman comment and then his response. I was talking about a different point. You may remember the deification of the hapless posh England kid and how desperate "the country" was for him to succeed. That's when Henman Hill was born, since renamed Murray's Mount.

 

Whether or not you recognise and remember the skin-crawling behaviour of the English establishment - BBC and tabloids - towards Henman, you must remember the stick that Murray endured for daring to be Scottish and having the temerity to wave a Saltire and pass comment on Indyref?

 

You must also know from history that Murray has long been forgiven, coincidentally when he started looking like he might win things, such is the need for success on which to hang their jingoistic hat, having been starved of any British interest in the latter stages of the Men's game at Wimbledon for many decades. You may also recall the OTT acclamation that Sue Barker and particularly Virginia Wade in 77 got.

 

So I'm talking about (in that one line) establishment attitudes towards the prospect of British success over the years and that poster twists it to say that I don't understand tennis?

 

It's not the first time. Only a fool can't appreciate the massive diff between the records of Murray and Henman and yet he tries to use that to belittle and insult me. What you won't be aware of is that this is the third consecutive time that this poster has targeted my posts to take a contrary view of. That's brilliant, I love an argument and a debate, a chance to discuss alternative points of view (as you know). But the snidey comments he throws in when he does it turns my stomach and not that I need to explain this to you, may be why you consider me harsh on him. I think it's best for the forum if I continue not to address him directly but you crack on with him. You two may have a lot in common actually with your love of jogging.

[DD1903]

 

Federer, Djokovic & Nadal are just better than him in my opinion. Sometimes you have accept there are others, who are better, out there. It's very fine margins at that level.

 

There is always that argument about Murray being up against it, playing in the current era, with 3 players who, in terms of honours won, have a legitimate claim to be the GOAT... the merits of this argument will be debated forever IMO!

 

In terms of bridging the gap, I think Nadal and Federer are entering their swansong (they can't go on forever)... Djokovic has really suffered with injury over the past 12 months too. Although I think Murrays days of competing for majors are over now...

 

However, I don't believe the new generation will dominate the game for 15-odd years, the same way that the departing players have...

The steroid abuse must also have helped Feds, nads and djoks?

[Parklife]

Read my Henman comment and then his response. I was talking about a different point. You may remember the deification of the hapless posh England kid and how desperate "the country" was for him to succeed. That's when Henman Hill was born, since renamed Murray's Mount.

 

Whether or not you recognise and remember the skin-crawling behaviour of the English establishment - BBC and tabloids - towards Henman, you must remember the stick that Murray endured for daring to be Scottish and having the temerity to wave a Saltire and pass comment on Indyref?

 

You must also know from history that Murray has long been forgiven, coincidentally when he started looking like he might win things, such is the need for success on which to hang their jingoistic hat, having been starved of any British interest in the latter stages of the Men's game at Wimbledon for many decades. You may also recall the OTT acclamation that Sue Barker and particularly Virginia Wade in 77 got.

 

So I'm talking about (in that one line) establishment attitudes towards the prospect of British success over the years and that poster twists it to say that I don't understand tennis?

 

It's not the first time. Only a fool can't appreciate the massive diff between the records of Murray and Henman and yet he tries to use that to belittle and insult me. What you won't be aware of is that this is the third consecutive time that this poster has targeted my posts to take a contrary view of. That's brilliant, I love an argument and a debate, a chance to discuss alternative points of view (as you know). But the snidey comments he throws in when he does it turns my stomach and not that I need to explain this to you, may be why you consider me harsh on him. I think it's best for the forum if I continue not to address him directly but you crack on with him. You two may have a lot in common actually with your love of jogging.

That's a shame. There was no intention to twist anything, nor be snidey.

[vanderark14]

Read my Henman comment and then his response. I was talking about a different point. You may remember the deification of the hapless posh England kid and how desperate "the country" was for him to succeed. That's when Henman Hill was born, since renamed Murray's Mount.

 

Whether or not you recognise and remember the skin-crawling behaviour of the English establishment - BBC and tabloids - towards Henman, you must remember the stick that Murray endured for daring to be Scottish and having the temerity to wave a Saltire and pass comment on Indyref?

 

You must also know from history that Murray has long been forgiven, coincidentally when he started looking like he might win things, such is the need for success on which to hang their jingoistic hat, having been starved of any British interest in the latter stages of the Men's game at Wimbledon for many decades. You may also recall the OTT acclamation that Sue Barker and particularly Virginia Wade in 77 got.

 

So I'm talking about (in that one line) establishment attitudes towards the prospect of British success over the years and that poster twists it to say that I don't understand tennis?

 

It's not the first time. Only a fool can't appreciate the massive diff between the records of Murray and Henman and yet he tries to use that to belittle and insult me. What you won't be aware of is that this is the third consecutive time that this poster has targeted my posts to take a contrary view of. That's brilliant, I love an argument and a debate, a chance to discuss alternative points of view (as you know). But the snidey comments he throws in when he does it turns my stomach and not that I need to explain this to you, may be why you consider me harsh on him. I think it's best for the forum if I continue not to address him directly but you crack on with him. You two may have a lot in common actually with your love of jogging.

 

I've had plenty run ins with parklife both on here and on another board, I got suspended from another board because he was being a sanctimonious prick...............the suspension was because I called him a sanctimonious prick. I still think he is a sanctimonious prick but I agree with him on occasion. I can see why Parklife may have taken your point the way he did, you've expanded on your point which now makes a lot more sense. I agree with you regarding the treatment of Murray prior to his success, it was disgusting.

[Bluto10]

Calm down vda

 

No it wasn't.

 

He just generally was a dour cunt back then.

 

Now he is far more media friendly now.

Prob for commercial readons

[vanderark14]

Calm down vda

 

No it wasn't.

 

He just generally was a dour cunt back then.

 

Now he is far more media friendly now.

Prob for commercial readons

 

shut up bluto and stop posting grabage.

[Guest]

If you are genuinely remorseful, let me try to help you understand.

 

Sanctimonious may well be what you are but however you come across, it's as a total prick.

 

Example: -

 

1. If it makes you feel better about being wrong on that occasion, you can call me a "mutant" though. I'm all for folk doing whatever makes them happy.

 

Andy Murray is an articulate, intelligent and well spoken guy actually. His voice is pretty monotone but i'd say it's more important to judge the content of what someone says, rather than how they sound saying it. It's definitely popular to slag him off and call him boring though.

 

Now remember that this is AFTER I had written you off.

 

1. Arrogant. You've already decided you were right and I was wrong.

 

Your opening salvo was that I was "chugging" off by daring to show enthusiasm for one football game. We didn't actually disagree on that - the main point I was making - yet you contrived an argument that didn't exist.

 

2. Insulting and a lie.

 

Anyone judging tone over substance is an idiot. You are saying I'm an idiot even though I don't do that.

 

Further, you say I'm such a fucking feeble mind that I follow the crowd? Just because you like the cunt, it doesn't mean we all have to.

 

Please don't address me directly. There's good reason why I have ignored your attempts at conflict.

[Parklife]

If you are genuinely remorseful, let me try to help you understand.

 

Sanctimonious may well be what you are but however you come across, it's as a total prick.

 

Example: -

 

 

Now remember that this is AFTER I had written you off.

 

1. Arrogant. You've already decided you were right and I was wrong.

 

Your opening salvo was that I was "chugging" off by daring to show enthusiasm for one football game. We didn't actually disagree on that - the main point I was making - yet you contrived an argument that didn't exist.

 

2. Insulting and a lie.

 

Anyone judging tone over substance is an idiot. You are saying I'm an idiot even though I don't do that.

 

Further, you say I'm such a fucking feeble mind that I follow the crowd? Just because you like the cunt, it doesn't mean we all have to.

 

Please don't address me directly. There's good reason why I have ignored your attempts at conflict.

 

I'm not remorseful for anything and never stated i was. I was merely clarifying that your interpretation of what i had said was not what i had intended to convey.

 

I may well come across as a prick, yet you're the one who's abusing folk all over the board. Thinking you are some kind of superior being, despite mainly talking absolute shite.

 

1. You were wrong. You decided i was saying it wasn't a good game, when i had pointed out that there was loads of great things about it. You argued against something that wasn't said and were completely unwilling to debate what i had actually said and take cognisance of it.

 

2. I'm not saying you're an idiot, nor have a feeble mind and i'm also not saying you have to like someone to find them interesting. Andy Murray consistently speaks well on a whole host of subjects (doping and equality are two) that most sportspeople shy away from for fear of being too controversial. In interviews when he lets his guard down and is speaking to someone he respects, he gives great insight in to his game and tennis generally. Quite often though he gets frustrated with the moronic questions interviewers pose ( like "tell us how you feel, Andy?" after he's just won a big match, etc), he can be pretty dull and give bland answers.

 

I don't know how much you follow tennis but maybe you see more of the latter and less of the former, like most of the general public. Hence the perception he's "boring".

 

There's no attempts at conflict. There's an attempt to express my opinion, challenge opinions i don't agree with and have a debate. Debate and disagreement doesn't always have to be conflict. If you're not interested in debate or engaging with me, then feel free to ignore my posts, it's no skin off my nose.

[Guest]

 

I've had plenty run ins with parklife both on here and on another board, I got suspended from another board because he was being a sanctimonious prick...............the suspension was because I called him a sanctimonious prick. I still think he is a sanctimonious prick but I agree with him on occasion. I can see why Parklife may have taken your point the way he did, you've expanded on your point which now makes a lot more sense. I agree with you regarding the treatment of Murray prior to his success, it was disgusting.

 

I thought I was going mad when I saw the vigour of his last post above so I revisited the EPL thread. On pages 3 & 4 it is very clear that he was choking for a fight. There's just no doubt... apart from in his mind so my question to you is... is he mad?

 

What's the history between you? Should we be flattered by his attentions? His revisionism is quite disturbing, isn't it? Is he one of those with a sad life who hates his job and needs conflict to remind himself that he's alive?

[Parklife]

Nope, no revisionism. I complimented the game and good points of it, while also pointing out the dogshite defending and finishing.

 

Now because you've been talking nonsense you accuse me of being "mad". Priceless

[vanderark14]

 

I thought I was going mad when I saw the vigour of his last post above so I revisited the EPL thread. On pages 3 & 4 it is very clear that he was choking for a fight. There's just no doubt... apart from in his mind so my question to you is... is he mad?

 

What's the history between you? Should we be flattered by his attentions? His revisionism is quite disturbing, isn't it? Is he one of those with a sad life who hates his job and needs conflict to remind himself that he's alive?

 

He likes an argument like we all do but we had a heated exchange on another board, I felt he was following another poster around and trying to keep an argument from a different thread going. I told him to fuck off back to the other thread, he didn't like that and it escalated. No big deal, I doubt I will ever get on with him just I will never get on with MT.

 

I'm not sure why I was the only one suspended, he fired abuse at me but the mods over there didn't seem to like the term "sanctimonious prick"

[Guest]

Nope, no revisionism. I complimented the game and good points of it, while also pointing out the dogshite defending and finishing.

 

Now because you've been talking nonsense you accuse me of being "mad". Priceless

 

Let's deal with your revisionism shall we?

 

As I said above, your opening salvo contained this: -

 

How can folk chug off about a game being brilliant when in reality, most of the "brilliant" bits were just shite defending meaning chances were created?

 

Is that not provocative? Were you not looking for a reaction? Are those words not desperately seeking confrontation?

 

 

I didn't respond so you tried again to provoke me...

 

Absolute nonsense all-round. There was some excellent football on display last night in an attacking sense. However, it is a game that would be loved by the FIFA generation of football fans more than anyone and one that would have "football aficionados" in a rage at the complete inability of extremely proficient managers to set their teams up correctly. It was excitement over top-level quality. A game that the EPL has grew their whole brand on. Bakayoko was all over the shop and couldn't keep his position, Arsenal were undone by hoofs up the pitch (twice!!) and we had numerous players who couldn't beat a goalkeeper from incredible positions.

 

There was some excellent play but in ignoring the horrendous defensive performances of both teams and inability of players to follow basic tactical instructions, you're only kidding yourself that this was some kind of incredible game. The "so few mistakes" claim makes me wonder if you actually watched the game...

 

Thrilling and exciting? Definitely. Top class and free of mistakes? Definitely not.

 

I hadn't said anything other that I enjoyed the game at this stage. YOU decided that I had ignored things within it, like my enjoying the game wasn't permissible because you know more than anyone else?

 

Then, after I did test the water - on just one point - with you, your reaction was to engage an emoji: -

 

Nope, they were hoofs up the pitch that any well organised defence would've coped with. For the first one the Arsenal player ran the completely wrong direction, while his left centre back played Morata about 4 yards onside.

 

 

Followed by twisting the record to fit your agenda of conflict-provocation and full blown insults: -

 

 

Yup. Did you even read what i said? For example where i said "There was some excellent football on display last night in an attacking sense"? I then spoke about how good Ozil was/is.

 

Did you just want me to say everything was wonderful, just because that's what you seem to think?

 

Now you're telling me I didn't read and my mind is so closed I can't consider an alternative view: -

 

How so? As you didn't actually read what i'd typed or because you're not interested in an alternative viewpoint?

 

And yet, the ONLY view I had offered at this stage was how much I enjoyed the game.

 

You then made the assumption that I enjoyed the game because of the "excitement" levels, even though I had posted very early in the first half why I was enjoying the game: -

 

 

I did enjoy the game. Much of the play was excellent (as i've said in previous posts). I'm just not subscribing to the view that the entertainment was all due to wonderful play. Much of the excitement was generated due to inept defending. I just felt the praise being given, both on here and on TV after the game, was far too effusive and never referenced the poorer aspects of each teams play.

 

Although i appreciate i'm one of the few folk who likes to watch good defending, it'd still be nice for the ineptness of some of it to be mentioned!

 

Nah mate, you've been caught. And as I said, your attitude was stinking. You can't change the record.

[Guest]

 

He likes an argument like we all do but we had a heated exchange on another board, I felt he was following another poster around and trying to keep an argument from a different thread going. I told him to fuck off back to the other thread, he didn't like that and it escalated. No big deal, I doubt I will ever get on with him just I will never get on with MT.

 

I'm not sure why I was the only one suspended, he fired abuse at me but the mods over there didn't seem to like the term "sanctimonious prick"

 

He's been following me around on three different threads now.

 

I'll not be ignoring him from now on. I will give him what he wants.

[Parklife]

 

Let's deal with your revisionism shall we?

 

As I said above, your opening salvo contained this: -

 

 

 

Is that not provocative? Were you not looking for a reaction? Are those words not desperately seeking confrontation?

 

 

I didn't respond so you tried again to provoke me...

 

 

I hadn't said anything other that I enjoyed the game at this stage. YOU decided that I had ignored things within it, like my enjoying the game wasn't permissible because you know more than anyone else?

 

Then, after I did test the water - on just one point - with you, your reaction was to engage an emoji: -

 

 

 

Followed by twisting the record to fit your agenda of conflict-provocation and full blown insults: -

 

 

Now you're telling me I didn't read and my mind is so closed I can't consider an alternative view: -

 

 

And yet, the ONLY view I had offered at this stage was how much I enjoyed the game.

 

You then made the assumption that I enjoyed the game because of the "excitement" levels, even though I had posted very early in the first half why I was enjoying the game: -

 

 

Nah mate, you've been caught. And as I said, your attitude was stinking. You can't change the record.

No revisionism at all. I'm never after "conflict" merely a strong debate. Not everyone wants "conflict", like you seem to want to in most of the threads you post in. As i said, i'm here to discuss and debate things with folk. Maybe i don't always express my point in the politest manner, sometimes things which are typed can come across a bit more harshly than they would be expressed in face-to-face conversation.

 

I said you ignored what i said in that thread because you did. You then made the smart arsed comment below, implying that you were a "football aficionado" and people disagreeing with you were not (part of a trend of you acting like you are superior to other folk on here, when you get in to an argument with them).

 

 

 

 

Only football aficionados would have appreciated that last night

 

 

There were no "full-blown insults" (or even half-blown insults) in anything you've quoted here. Even if there were, it seems a bit hypocritical to be getting annoyed about them when you are in here calling me a "mutant", "mad" and saying I "have issues". Not one of these things bothers me, as from your previous posts on here, you seem to constantly lash out at folk who disagree with you or who you think have slighted you in some way. Water off a ducks back to me anyway. I'm not here to fall out with folk or start giving folk abuse.

 

You may think my attitude was "stinking", you may even be right to the neutral observer (my viewpoint of that is obviously biased).

 

 

He's been following me around on three different threads now.

 

I'll not be ignoring him from now on. I will give him what he wants.

I've what? Genuinely no idea what you're on about. Commenting on your posts on threads isn't "following you around". If you don't want to engage with me, or don't like my style of posting, then please put me on ignore. I doubt either of us can be arsed with petty tit-for-tat arguments like the one in this thread.

[Guest]

As I said already...

 

Forget it mate. Waste of time.

 

How so? As you didn't actually read what i'd typed or because you're not interested in an alternative viewpoint?

 

No, your attitude more than anything.

 

It's fine that you didn't enjoy the game as I did. It's fine that where I saw much to admire, you saw tons of amateurish mistakes. We didn't agree. that's cool.

 

You invent and fabricate things in your mind to justify your need for conflict.

 

There will be reasons in your life why you doing this.

 

Ask yourself why that's both me and vda who have come across the same patterns of behaviour within you?

 

Introspect dude. You do have issues, LOTS of them.

[Parklife]

As I said already...

 

 

 

 

You invent and fabricate things in your mind to justify your need for conflict.

 

There will be reasons in your life why you doing this.

 

Ask yourself why that's both me and vda who have come across the same patterns of behaviour within you?

 

Introspect dude. You do have issues, LOTS of them.

You continually stating i "have a need for conflict" does not make it thus. Interesting that you didn't include me reply to the last post you quoted there but never mind. This is a waste of time. You'll never accept that you may be wrong. Instead you'd rather accuse me of being "mad" or having some mental illness You better not use that insult too much more, it's already losing weight.

 

No bother. See you later, RS. Enjoy your evening.

[Guest]

You continually stating i "have a need for conflict" does not make it thus. Interesting that you didn't include me reply to the last post you quoted there but never mind. This is a waste of time. You'll never accept that you may be wrong. Instead you'd rather accuse me of being "mad" or having some mental illness You better not use that insult too much more, it's already losing weight.

 

No bother. See you later, RS. Enjoy your evening.

 

Your first posts on page 3 of the EPL thread PROVE your need for conflict.

 

What do vda and I have in common that you don't?

 

That's where you will find your answers, if you're not too arrogant to introspect.

[Parklife]

 

Your first posts on page 3 of the EPL thread PROVE your need for conflict.

 

What do vda and I have in common that you don't?

 

That's where you will find your answers, if you're not too arrogant to introspect.

And half the posts you make on every thread you post in PROVE (caps, so I must be right...) youre an egotist with a misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.

 

Ive no idea what you think you and VDA have in common. I think its strange that you think you can analyse someones character and personality from a few posts on a daft message board tbh. Youre welcome to think what you like though, it bothers me not one iota.

[Guest]

And half the posts you make on every thread you post in PROVE (caps, so I must be right...) youre an egotist with a misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.

 

Ive no idea what you think you and VDA have in common. I think its strange that you think you can analyse someones character and personality from a few posts on a daft message board tbh. Youre welcome to think what you like though, it bothers me not one iota.

 

Grow up for fuck sake. You are in your mid 30's? What is frustrating you so much?

 

Go out for a run to release the tension. Jog on son.

[Parklife]

 

Grow up for fuck sake. You are in your mid 30's? What is frustrating you so much?

 

Go out for a run to release the tension. Jog on son.

Nothing is frustrating me. You're the one who's flinging insults about.

 

Anyway, I'm sure this is boring you as much as it is me, so I'll call it a day here.

[Guest]

Nothing is frustrating me. You're the one who's flinging insults about.

 

Anyway, I'm sure this is boring you as much as it is me, so I'll call it a day here.

 

Prove that you are an adult and that you weren't doing what we both know you were doing.

 

What was the root source of our disagreements? Articulate it.

[Parklife]

Parky I think youve made some good points on this thread, thoughts on the Wimbledon winner this year gents ?

Hard to predict before we've seen much tennis this year. Would have it as a toss-up between Federer and Djokovic (assuming he's fit) at this point.

 

Hopefully Murray can be back to full fitness then too but, without the matches of the 1st half season in his legs, I'd be surprised.

 

Even the Aussie Open this year is so difficult to predict. Assuming federer is still federer, you'd say he's favourite. However at his age, you can never be sure he'll still be the same. If Djokovic is 100%, given his record in Melbourne, he'll be fancying his chances.

 

I'd imagine guys like Thiem, Zverev and Dmitrov will be thinking that this is their best chance yet at a slam.

[DD1903]

Safe to say Djokovic is struggling... I'm not sure he (along with Andy) will ever hit the heights of where they were in professional tennis ever again.

 

Nadal seems to have found a juice program again where he's managing to perform at a great level.

 

Federer is just Federer and will always be to me, the GOAT.

 

Hopefully that wee cunt Kyle somebody makes the final though, I'd maybe take an interest.

 

I've not seen any of the Aussie Open this year, I've not been interested for some reason (nothing to do with Murray's non involvement).

I think federer may have the same gluten free diet that djokovic did a few years ago, and the one that nadal has been using for years...

 

I dont think for one minute that hes come back quicker and stronger at his age without something aiding him...

[DD1903]

 

As much as I agree to a certain extent... has he come back quicker and stronger?

 

I think it's simply everyone else who were at the top level have turned to shit.

 

There will be some form of 'aiding' however I agree, but if Djoko and Murray along with Tsonga, Del Potro, Kyrkios and Nadal were at the top of their game, Federer would be nowhere near the top IMO.

Other form dropping doesnt result in his personal performance levels improving though!

 

It was discussed on TV last year, during one of the slams, Thta since his return from his lay off his serves were quicker, he was quicker around the court and his stamina was increased. Federer even suggested this himself, saying he didnt feel tired after a match that had gone to tie breaks. Strange for a 35 year old

 

His noticeable change in physique, in terms of appearing more vascular, also imply some form of doping.