World Tour Final: 2016

Slippy wrote:

Tenez wrote:I think it is fair to say no one cares for Djokovic but it's even fair to say to that most of the crowd cares but dislike Murray.

Murray was second behind Federer (albeit a long way behind) in the fans favourite award. He's generally a popular guy with fans and his fellow players.

True. I don't know whats Tenez issue with Andy, but he should be more like me, neutral and a loving fan 

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
The competency of an athlete isn't completely measured by their physical conditioning. Especially when in this case we are talking tennis.

By what then? Murray's great shots? Every player he played in that 02 had better shots than him....even Djoko for the first few games. He just was able to force enough UEs to all his opponents and that's why he won. And how do you force UEs to opponents? By telling them that you will retrieve almost anything and that if it is not good enough, you will have to be running with me.

It's very simple.

Wow, you really do like your sweeping statements and reductionist theories. In your assessment that every player at the O2 had better shots than Murray you're presumably excluding:

Return of serve
Backhand
Volleys
Passing shots
Drop shots
Lobs

Not saying Murray is the best at all these categories, but he's certainly well inside the top half for all of them. Any that you'd care to disagree with? For me, his only relative weaknesses in the shotmaking dept are FHDTL, which he's always struggled with, and 2nd serve, although this does seem to be improving. To be honest, even his 1st serve would probably also be in the top half.

I forget smashes. He's mostly rubbish at those, although strangely proficient at BH smashes, which are supposed to be much harder.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
The competency of an athlete isn't completely measured by their physical conditioning. Especially when in this case we are talking tennis.

By what then? Murray's great shots? Every player he played in that 02 had better shots than him....even Djoko for the first few games. He just was able to force enough UEs to all his opponents and that's why he won. And how do you force UEs to opponents? By telling them that you will retrieve almost anything and that if it is not good enough, you will have to be running with me.
It's very simple.

Wow, you really do like your sweeping statements and reductionist theories. In your assessment that every player at the O2 had better shots than Murray you're presumably excluding:
Return of serve
Backhand
Volleys
Passing shots
Drop shots
Lobs
Not saying Murray is the best at all these categories, but he's certainly well inside the top half for all of them. Any that you'd care to disagree with? For me, his only relative weaknesses in the shotmaking dept are FHDTL, which he's always struggled with, and 2nd serve, although this does seem to be improving. To be honest, even his 1st serve would probably also be in the top half.

Nobody here is saying Murray is a bad player.

Of course he has many good shots, I like his BH slice, and yes, excellent passing shots.
For me that's about it in the elite shots league for Murray.
But then again -  these shots are used mainly for  defensive game, surely with the quality of his BH slice, Murray could visit the net much more often....but he doesn't.

That's neither here nor there, because virtually noone does anyway, except Federer and Pouille. (proper volleying tennis, not the 10th safe putaway shot in a rally)

So where does that leave us with the rest of the field?


Baseline tennis rules.

It requires exceptional talent to win attacking from the baseline now.

Once in a blue moon Stan delivers, Kei lacks better serve, Delpo is not bad either, Verdasco also has a great FH.

But what do all attacking players have which Murray doesn't?

A weapon forehand.

Simple as that. Forehand is the feather in every player's cap.

And if you are objective you'll have to admit Murray''s is not even in top 10 there.

That's why he has to employ all those other shots you have listed...to cover up the lack of FH.

Even Judy Murray openly talks about Murray's fitness training, calling it "religious".

http://www.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/10666578/andy-murrays-rise-world-no-1-built-on-religious-physical-training-says-judy

Tenez wrote:It's not about running for 12h. They can all do it when resting every other game. It's about pulling the risky (little margin) shot ato the end of a 10 or 20 shot rally.

That is difficult and that is what Murray avoids doing and that is why he wins....no different than what Nadal and djoko used to do.

Your confusing 2 different elements. I am specifically talking about the conditioning of a top tennis professional.

Look at the Murray/Raonic encounter. That was nerves that determined that outcome.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
The competency of an athlete isn't completely measured by their physical conditioning. Especially when in this case we are talking tennis.

By what then? Murray's great shots? Every player he played in that 02 had better shots than him....even Djoko for the first few games. He just was able to force enough UEs to all his opponents and that's why he won. And how do you force UEs to opponents? By telling them that you will retrieve almost anything and that if it is not good enough, you will have to be running with me.

It's very simple.

Wow, you really do like your sweeping statements and reductionist theories. In your assessment that every player at the O2 had better shots than Murray you're presumably excluding:

Return of serve
Backhand
Volleys
Passing shots
Drop shots
Lobs

Not saying Murray is the best at all these categories, but he's certainly well inside the top half for all of them. Any that you'd care to disagree with? For me, his only relative weaknesses in the shotmaking dept are FHDTL, which he's always struggled with, and 2nd serve, although this does seem to be improving. To be honest, even his 1st serve would probably also be in the top half.

Oh because you think it is thanks to those shots that he won Sunday?

How many drop shot winners out of the 64 points he won?
How many winning lobs out of those 64 points?
How many winning volleys?
How many winning smashes?

Let me give you a clue: Djoko made over 30 UEs out of those 64 points Murray needed to win the Final. Same applies with the other players.

and how good woudl be Murray's passing shots without those disproprportionate legs to carry that big frame on a tennis court? He is the new Nadal. That's the fact.....and soon he will need hair implants like Nadal.

Since he served 3 aces, you have to divided those 10 winners he made in that match amongst all those shots you listed. Doesn't make many winners per shot. That's for sure!

Tenez wrote:

Oh because you think it is thanks to those shots that he won Sunday?

How many drop shot winners out of the 64 points he won?
How many winning lobs out of those 64 points?
How many winning volleys?
How many winning smashes?

Let me give you a clue: Djoko made over 30 UEs out of those 64 points Murray needed to win the Final. Same applies with the other players.

and how good woudl be Murray's passing shots without those disproprportionate legs to carry that big frame on a tennis court? He is the new Nadal. That's the fact.....and soon he will need hair implants like Nadal.

Since he served 3 aces, you have to divided those 10 winners he made in that match amongst all those shots you listed. Doesn't make many winners per shot. That's for sure!

This is one really cool match breakdown.
I never look at stats, but the way you put it together makes it so obvious and logical.

Would be interesting to have Stan's stats.

To me, he pulls the trigger quickest of all atm.

Federer builds his points more, hence better consistency.

Pouile has a great balance, too. Esp for a 22 yo.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's not about running for 12h. They can all do it when resting every other game. It's about pulling the risky (little margin) shot ato the end of a 10 or 20 shot rally.

That is difficult and that is what Murray avoids doing and that is why he wins....no different than what Nadal and djoko used to do.

Your confusing 2 different elements. I am specifically talking about the conditioning of a top tennis professional.

Look at the Murray/Raonic encounter. That was nerves that determined that outcome.

Luck first. Murray twice failed to serve for the match. If this is what you call nerves?

As I said so many times, nerves for the attacking player cannot be compared with nerves for retrievers.....not on those slow surfaces.

I think you are teh one confusing teh 2 levels of stamina. This one allowing you to run a marathon and the one allowing you to keep precision in your shots despite running a marathon.

Murray and Djoko bank on that precision (or edge) to get blunt after a few long rallies. To play Murray's game with such a heavy frame one needs to shed his hair...if you know what I mean.

Tenez wrote:

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
The competency of an athlete isn't completely measured by their physical conditioning. Especially when in this case we are talking tennis.

By what then? Murray's great shots? Every player he played in that 02 had better shots than him....even Djoko for the first few games. He just was able to force enough UEs to all his opponents and that's why he won. And how do you force UEs to opponents? By telling them that you will retrieve almost anything and that if it is not good enough, you will have to be running with me.

It's very simple.

Wow, you really do like your sweeping statements and reductionist theories. In your assessment that every player at the O2 had better shots than Murray you're presumably excluding:

Return of serve
Backhand
Volleys
Passing shots
Drop shots
Lobs

Not saying Murray is the best at all these categories, but he's certainly well inside the top half for all of them. Any that you'd care to disagree with? For me, his only relative weaknesses in the shotmaking dept are FHDTL, which he's always struggled with, and 2nd serve, although this does seem to be improving. To be honest, even his 1st serve would probably also be in the top half.

Oh because you think it is thanks to those shots that he won Sunday?

How many drop shot winners out of the 64 points he won?
How many winning lobs out of those 64 points?
How many winning volleys?
How many winning smashes?

Let me give you a clue: Djoko made over 30 UEs out of those 64 points Murray needed to win the Final. Same applies with the other players.

and how good woudl be Murray's passing shots without those disproprportionate legs to carry that big frame on a tennis court? He is the new Nadal. That's the fact.....and soon he will need hair implants like Nadal.

Since he served 3 aces, you have to divided those 10 winners he made in that match amongst all those shots you listed. Doesn't make many winners per shot. That's for sure!

So, of 64 points won, 34 were won with Murray's good shots (either through clean winners or forcing errors out of the best defensive player on the planet)? Doesn't seem unreasonable, particularly given that Novak was missing often early in rallies. 

Against Stan, Andy won 47 points out of 74 total points through clean winners or forcing errors (64%). Is that an unreasonable amount? It seems you are trying to make events match the conclusion you have already reached. 

As for the bizarre argument that Andy's legs help with passing shots, he was a phenomenal player against net rushers even when he was 18. His passing shots have always been world class. Like returns, his ability at those shots is due to inherent talent and feel.

Nice way to turn the stats around. The fact is Murray pulled 10 winners out of 64 shots...and this is why I am not a fan of his game. No other reason. I can like someone as brat as Mcenroe as long as talent shines but like many people out there I have no patience for a bad tempered player with a Granollers game.

In fact going back to this wtf final...I wonder whether Djoko did tank it. 30 UES out of 110pts. That's ridiculous by his standard. He was not playing that badly on his way to the final and some of those UES were unreal....in particular 2 when he was at the net and had the whole court but still managed to fund the net.

As savvy Newcastle was saying this is the guy who would struggle to make 20 UES in one tournament.

30 UES is nearly like giving a 3/0 40/0 head start in each set to Murray!!!

Ridiculous!

Tenez wrote:30 UES is nearly like giving a 3/0 40/0 head start in each set to Murray!!!

Ridiculous!

you suggesting match fixing tenez?
NITB has alluded to that re djokovic at wimbledon vs murray before...
i personally dont know about match fixing but it certainly looked like he handed murray the win on a silver plate

Tenez wrote:In fact going back to this wtf final...I wonder whether Djoko did tank it. 30 UES out of 110pts. That's ridiculous by his standard. He was not playing that badly on his way to the final and some of those UES were unreal....in particular 2 when he was at the net and had the whole court but still managed to fund the net.

As savvy Newcastle was saying this is the guy who would struggle to make 20 UES in one tournament.

He didn't throw the match. Let's not forget he managed 100 errors against Simon in January and he won that match and the tournament!

Slippy wrote:

Tenez wrote:In fact going back to this wtf final...I wonder whether Djoko did tank it. 30 UES out of 110pts. That's ridiculous by his standard. He was not playing that badly on his way to the final and some of those UES were unreal....in particular 2 when he was at the net and had the whole court but still managed to fund the net.

As savvy Newcastle was saying this is the guy who would struggle to make 20 UES in one tournament.

He didn't throw the match. Let's not forget he managed 100 errors against Simon in January and he won that match and the tournament!

Fair point. I just thought it was bizarre the way he lost quite uncharacteristic. I don't think he badly wanted it. he started quite well by sending FHs in the corner and making Murray run but then he started to be much more careful (or careless) about his shots.

I woudl not be surprised if he was told not win anything since the FO. From holding the 4 and losing everything since...Can anyone remember such a fall? McEnroe 85 maybe?

Veejay wrote:

Tenez wrote:30 UES is nearly like giving a 3/0 40/0 head start in each set to Murray!!!

Ridiculous!

you suggesting match fixing tenez?
NITB has alluded to that re djokovic at wimbledon vs murray before...
i personally dont know about match fixing but it certainly looked like he handed murray the win on a silver plate

Yes.....some of those UEs were very weird. Each tome he had a chance to turn things around he came up with an absurd mistake.

Knowing Djokos wife is taking 50% of his illicitly gained tax evaded money, I think Djoko will be cheap to buy now 

Jahu wrote:Knowing Djokos wife is taking 50% of his illicitly gained tax evaded money, I think Djoko will be cheap to buy now 

i bet shes definitely making him pay for that affair,probably the most expensive sex he will ever have

Tenez wrote:

Slippy wrote:

Tenez wrote:In fact going back to this wtf final...I wonder whether Djoko did tank it. 30 UES out of 110pts. That's ridiculous by his standard. He was not playing that badly on his way to the final and some of those UES were unreal....in particular 2 when he was at the net and had the whole court but still managed to fund the net.

As savvy Newcastle was saying this is the guy who would struggle to make 20 UES in one tournament.

He didn't throw the match. Let's not forget he managed 100 errors against Simon in January and he won that match and the tournament!

Fair point. I just thought it was bizarre the way he lost quite uncharacteristic. I don't think he badly wanted it. he started quite well by sending FHs in the corner and making Murray run but then he started to be much more careful (or careless) about his shots.

I woudl not be surprised if he was told not win anything since the FO. From holding the 4 and losing everything since...Can anyone remember such a fall? McEnroe 85 maybe?

losing everything since the FO is rather suspicious, but i find it hard to believe that he would loose that many tournaments/matches because he was told to 
i think that a lot of it has to do with his confidence and perhaps his personal issues

Veejay wrote:

Jahu wrote:Knowing Djokos wife is taking 50% of his illicitly gained tax evaded money, I think Djoko will be cheap to buy now 

i bet shes definitely making him pay for that affair,probably the most expensive sex he will ever have

Yes, but you got to feel a little for Djoko, that's why marrying a elementary school girl stright to marriage does not work, as Djoko never tasted anything better than her all his life, then suddenly he is flush with money, gives it a go with some different girls, tries to compensates the lack of variety he's been missing all his life, and suddenly his wife is You Can't have none of it!!! Divorce!!! 50% of everything!!! Lame peasant girl will have her money when you have puppies like Djoko to milk 

i wonder if he is trying to work things out because theres no pre-nup
he doesnt seem happy with her,certainly nowhere near as how smitten federer is with mirka

Of course there is a pre-nup, insisted by Monaco Bankers and his mother in law.

Sure, in the end I don't like to see anyone marriage ruined, especially with children in the mix, but hope Djoko gets an ultimatum from his wife, ME OR TENNIS!!! and he quits tennis never to be seen again, and they live happily ever after, yada yada yada

Veejay wrote:
losing everything since the FO is rather suspicious, but i find it hard to believe that he would loose that many tournaments/matches because he was told to 
i think that a lot of it has to do with his confidence and perhaps his personal issues

But how can someone who holds for the first time since Road Laver the 4 slams lose suddenly confidence? Sure this story about his relation can mess him up like it messed up Tiger Woods. Strange still.

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:
losing everything since the FO is rather suspicious, but i find it hard to believe that he would loose that many tournaments/matches because he was told to 
i think that a lot of it has to do with his confidence and perhaps his personal issues

But how can someone who holds for the first time since Road Laver the 4 slams lose suddenly confidence? Sure this story about his relation can mess him up like it messed up Tiger Woods. Strange still.

it is very strange,maybe nitb is right that he got caught 
he has certainly lost a lot of weight and that also doesnt make much sense to me

I am not sure about the weight bit but yesterday I rewatched a bit of that final and he looked like he was ridiculously tensed, or not bothered and not focused. When 5/1 down in the second he showed he could still make the difference if he wanted to ...but kind of gave it up.

Of course, He might just have been tensed and played an awful match..happens. We will never know I guess.

Tenez wrote:I am not sure about the weight bit but yesterday I rewatched a bit of that final and he looked like he was ridiculously tensed, or not bothered and not focused. When 5/1 down in the second he showed he could still make the difference if he wanted to ...but kind of gave it up.

Of course, He might just have been tensed and played an awful match..happens. We will never know I guess.

i have to agree with you tenez,every time it looked like he could turn the match around he made some schoolboy error that youd normally never see him make
at the start of the week it was really obvious to me how much weight he lost,he looked really bonny and anorexic to me

So we're back to libel and wild accusations, eh?

Someone is losing more = Must have been caught doping or must be throwing matches.

Wow.

Glad you guys don't play pro tennis and then pop onto this forum.

It's not even "strange" - it happens all the time. People lose confidence after suffering some heavy defeats. Age affects consistency. There are tons of reasons. I predicted it would happen last year. Unless you think I'm really Djoko in disguise haha.

You guys need to sit back and just look at the cannabis-like paranoia you are spewing. You think Nadal has been doping from the time he was on his mother's tit, you think Murray is doping ('cause he can run fast and has stamina), you think Djoko is doping ('cause he can run fast and has stamina); some of you have even said Federer is doping ('cause he can run fast and has stamina)!

The whole tour is doping, is it?  Even a JFK conspiracist knows his limits.

so what did you predict daniel? was it a vage prediction or were you pretty spot on that he would lose every tournament after winning 4 majors in a row?

Does anyone dope Daniel?

Tenez wrote:

Slippy wrote:

Tenez wrote:In fact going back to this wtf final...I wonder whether Djoko did tank it. 30 UES out of 110pts. That's ridiculous by his standard. He was not playing that badly on his way to the final and some of those UES were unreal....in particular 2 when he was at the net and had the whole court but still managed to fund the net.

As savvy Newcastle was saying this is the guy who would struggle to make 20 UES in one tournament.

He didn't throw the match. Let's not forget he managed 100 errors against Simon in January and he won that match and the tournament!

Fair point. I just thought it was bizarre the way he lost quite uncharacteristic. I don't think he badly wanted it. he started quite well by sending FHs in the corner and making Murray run but then he started to be much more careful (or careless) about his shots.

I woudl not be surprised if he was told not win anything since the FO. From holding the 4 and losing everything since...Can anyone remember such a fall? McEnroe 85 maybe?

Well I said that ages ago...

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Slippy wrote:

Tenez wrote:In fact going back to this wtf final...I wonder whether Djoko did tank it. 30 UES out of 110pts. That's ridiculous by his standard. He was not playing that badly on his way to the final and some of those UES were unreal....in particular 2 when he was at the net and had the whole court but still managed to fund the net.

As savvy Newcastle was saying this is the guy who would struggle to make 20 UES in one tournament.

He didn't throw the match. Let's not forget he managed 100 errors against Simon in January and he won that match and the tournament!

Fair point. I just thought it was bizarre the way he lost quite uncharacteristic. I don't think he badly wanted it. he started quite well by sending FHs in the corner and making Murray run but then he started to be much more careful (or careless) about his shots.

I woudl not be surprised if he was told not win anything since the FO. From holding the 4 and losing everything since...Can anyone remember such a fall? McEnroe 85 maybe?

Well I said that ages ago...

i dont remember you saying that unless i missed it but i do remember you saying that he got caught like sharapova did
it would be nice if you could give more info on that

Veejay wrote:so what did you predict daniel? was it a vage prediction or were you pretty spot on that he would lose every tournament after winning 4 majors in a row?

I was pretty spot on that Djokovic would lose a few matches and then suffer a severe lack of form, yeah. He's also approaching the latter part of his career... the bad part. Like Murray is (so don't expect him to go on for much longer, either). I am not sure how many people I argued with online that Djok wasn't going to win every tournament going this year - It was an awful lot. People don't look at stats, or science, or long term trends. They look at short term trends, wishful thinking, and the immediate present. Even the pros and media were harping on about the Calandar Slam - and it being so easily on the cards for Djok to beat Fed's 17.  

It's like I am the only one using a brain sometimes.

luvsports!Does anyone dope Daniel?

Unfortunately, I haven't yet mastered mind-reading. I go on facts and evidence. On that basis, I can't even accuse Nadal - though he is a very suspicious case and I would not be surprised. Serena Williams should have been banned for missing that other test. Sharapova is guilty - and HAS been banned and HAS been found guilty of breaking rules. But it isn't for me to say they have or have not. It isn't for anyone to label someone a drug cheat without evidence. I won't play that silly game.

The problem isn't whether a few players are doping or not - it's this constant witch hunt that equates every little small thing to proof of a grand conspiracy. Exactly the kind of mumbo-jumbo bullshit that JFK, 911, and Moon Landing conspiracists masturbate over.

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I woudl not be surprised if he was told not win anything since the FO. From holding the 4 and losing everything since...Can anyone remember such a fall? McEnroe 85 maybe?

Well I said that ages ago...

i dont remember you saying that unless i missed it but i do remember you saying that he got caught like sharapova did
it would be nice if you could give more info on that

I did say someone from LTA I know told me (back in July) Nole was not going to win anything until the end of the year.

Daniel wrote:




 JFK, 911, and Moon Landing conspiracists masturbate over.

Will try this tonight and give feedback here. Stay tuned, stay dry!!

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I woudl not be surprised if he was told not win anything since the FO. From holding the 4 and losing everything since...Can anyone remember such a fall? McEnroe 85 maybe?

Well I said that ages ago...

i dont remember you saying that unless i missed it but i do remember you saying that he got caught like sharapova did
it would be nice if you could give more info on that

I did say someone from LTA I know told me (back in July) Nole was not going to win anything until the end of the year.

Yes, friend of a friend, who knows a friend that has no friends.

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I woudl not be surprised if he was told not win anything since the FO. From holding the 4 and losing everything since...Can anyone remember such a fall? McEnroe 85 maybe?

Well I said that ages ago...

i dont remember you saying that unless i missed it but i do remember you saying that he got caught like sharapova did
it would be nice if you could give more info on that

I did say someone from LTA I know told me (back in July) Nole was not going to win anything until the end of the year.

hmm...so would that be his punishment for failing a drugs test?
its crazy if theres any credibility in it,how corrupt could thing be behind the scenes 
funny part is that he hasnt won anything since RG

Jahu wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I woudl not be surprised if he was told not win anything since the FO. From holding the 4 and losing everything since...Can anyone remember such a fall? McEnroe 85 maybe?

Well I said that ages ago...

i dont remember you saying that unless i missed it but i do remember you saying that he got caught like sharapova did
it would be nice if you could give more info on that

I did say someone from LTA I know told me (back in July) Nole was not going to win anything until the end of the year.

Yes, friend of a friend, who knows a friend that has no friends.

lol jahu

Daniel wrote:

Veejay wrote:so what did you predict daniel? was it a vage prediction or were you pretty spot on that he would lose every tournament after winning 4 majors in a row?

I was pretty spot on that Djokovic would lose a few matches and then suffer a severe lack of form, yeah. He's also approaching the latter part of his career... the bad part. Like Murray is (so don't expect him to go on for much longer, either). I am not sure how many people I argued with online that Djok wasn't going to win every tournament going this year - It was an awful lot. People don't look at stats, or science, or long term trends. They look at short term trends, wishful thinking, and the immediate present. Even the pros and media were harping on about the Calandar Slam - and it being so easily on the cards for Djok to beat Fed's 17.  

It's like I am the only one using a brain sometimes.

luvsports!Does anyone dope Daniel?

Unfortunately, I haven't yet mastered mind-reading. I go on facts and evidence. On that basis, I can't even accuse Nadal - though he is a very suspicious case and I would not be surprised. Serena Williams should have been banned for missing that other test. Sharapova is guilty - and HAS been banned and HAS been found guilty of breaking rules. But it isn't for me to say they have or have not. It isn't for anyone to label someone a drug cheat without evidence. I won't play that silly game.

The problem isn't whether a few players are doping or not - it's this constant witch hunt that equates every little small thing to proof of a grand conspiracy. Exactly the kind of mumbo-jumbo bullshit that JFK, 911, and Moon Landing conspiracists masturbate over.

to be fair daniel,thats not really much of a prediction,i mean its only common sense that djokovic isnt going to win every tournament and the older he gets the harder it becomes 
when djokovic's father claimed that his son could win another 10 majors i laughed and said that id be surprised if he manages to win eve half of that

I agree it might be a bit far fetch and there is not many clues to back up my suggestion. However I think it s important to keep an open mind about it. The media has been talking about silent bans way after some of us were aware about it.

It's important to raise doubts as we don't want to be the stuffed turkey fan who thinks the world is wonderful and is the last one to learn that a Armstrong or Frome is doping.

Well, clearly it was a good prediction, because you and everyone else here had him as YE N1 and winning US OPen and Wimb. And continuing the same form forever and a day.  I did not.

Daniel wrote:Well, clearly it was a good prediction, because you and everyone else here had him as YE N1 and winning US OPen and Wimb. And continuing the same form forever and a day.  I did not.

im not one that generally predicts things on here,i usually always say who i would like to win,some times i say who i think will win but having an opinion and making a bold prediction to me are two very different things 
but even if i or anyone else did make a bold prediction and it turned out to be wrong,theres nothing wrong with being wrong if you own up to it
im sure you have made many wrong predictions on the past as i dont think that anyone could ever get it 100% correct every single time

Fed and Mirka enjoying F1 on Abu Dhabi.

Daniel wrote:Well, clearly it was a good prediction, because you and everyone else here had him as YE N1 and winning US OPen and Wimb. And continuing the same form forever and a day.  I did not.

Let's not get carried away here, shall we?

Daniel wrote:1.  Fed to retire this year
2.  Kyrgios and Raonic to finish Top 10
3.  A new slam winner
4.  No slams for Andy
5. Less than 2 slams for Djokovicf
6. Nadal to finish outside top 3.
7.  Olympics win by Federer.
9. Federer to win 0 slam

i dont get the point of making bold predictions
its like someone wants to prove to the world how intelligent they are,how much they know,or how smarter they are then the rest of the bunch on a particular subject
it comes off as a bit of a know it all and only makes someone look really stupid if they are proven wrong
as seen so many times in sport,especially tennis,anything can happen.players get hot and cold all the time,upsets happen all the time,nothing is guaranteed

It's just fun, opens up a conversation...though some take their fun seriously.

noleisthebest wrote:It's just fun, opens up a conversation...though some take their fun seriously.

youre right NITB maybe that comment should be directed to people who take the fun of it too seriously

Predictions are good fun, but we all lose here except nitb who has friends at LTA, WTA, NBA, UN & Mars.

Daniel wrote:

luvsports!Does anyone dope Daniel?

Unfortunately, I haven't yet mastered mind-reading. I go on facts and evidence. On that basis, I can't even accuse Nadal - though he is a very suspicious case and I would not be surprised. Serena Williams should have been banned for missing that other test. Sharapova is guilty - and HAS been banned and HAS been found guilty of breaking rules. But it isn't for me to say they have or have not. It isn't for anyone to label someone a drug cheat without evidence. I won't play that silly game.

The problem isn't whether a few players are doping or not - it's this constant witch hunt that equates every little small thing to proof of a grand conspiracy. Exactly the kind of mumbo-jumbo bullshit that JFK, 911, and Moon Landing conspiracists masturbate over.

Good post. That's the problem I have with the factual statements that players are doping. Very few tennis matches are decided by fitness and there's no way to tell if any player is doping. The type of "evidence" referred to on here just isn't actual evidence at all. 

There will be some players who are doping. Of course, some players are bound to take a risk to try and give themselves an edge. However, I'm unconvinced that it will be widespread. It would require a lot of different individuals to make the decision to cheat, with no immediate guarantee of better results.

This is an approach you were forgiven to have in the 90s. But now 99% of them dope or use special ways to legally dope (egg chamber, TUEs, etc...).

No need to read the minds, just the performance. If the game is based on fitness as opposed to shot making there is no choice but dope to get to the top...no different than cycling.

I know it chatters your idea of sport and more so of your idols but it's only because fans are gullable and credulous than they systematically dope.

If Wada says probably 9/10 dope you can be sure it's likely to be 99% if not 100%.