Re: Ask Tenez Thread

[sphairistike]

I never meant to imply anything bad about Novak and his talent(s). I was just trying to answer your question on the slam distribution. IMHO, only Fed would have added to the tally and in a way that would have made any GOAT debate non-existent. Maybe Novak would have started winning more earlier than 2011 or maybe not as really end of 2010 is when he changed his diet to get rid of physical issue and that he boosted his confidence. But from that point on he has been winning bunch of slams anyways and some of them due to his road running abilities but that can be attributed to the courts/balls/conditions being slow so he most certainly would have used other abilities otherwise. But slam distribution wise, I can only see Fed benefiting to a meaningful extent and Rafa being the one left as a one trick pony...

Fair enough.
I think Novak would've sneaked at least one or two more USOs. Nadal definitely would not have won either AO or USO and had the time violation rule been applied properly from "day one" I am not sure he would have won that many RGs either.

This is where we have diverging opinions methinks... USO 2009, he lost to Fed is SF and it was already slower than it used to be, 2010 is the only question mark where Nole won in 5 sets by saving MPs and most likely Nadal would not have been on the other side of the final had it been faster but my bet is Fed would have won it had it been slightly faster and had he known no Nadal was awaiting, 2011 when Nole was at his best, he also won by one mishit serve by Fed (not the one with the return of the year but the next one) and again, had it been faster, no Nadal on the other side and Fed would have won that one for sure. So I would say at best Nole would have had one more USO but IMHO, Fed would have won all USOs till 2011 included, so again, maybe USO 2012 instead of 2011 for Nole, in which case no better result...

[noleisthebest]

Nole played better tennis when the courts were faster. Rallied less, attacked more, served better, too.

I know he was under the radar for you Fed fans, but I followed him closely and my memory is not selective when it comes to him. I was watching all his matches, not just finals and SFs which I guess most of you used to do.

That's one of the things that grieves me about his career, because I think it really suffered because of Fedal engineering of draws and things.
Fed obviously had nothing to do with it, it was all done to slow him down and make think "more interesting" for the masses by propelling Nadal into an "equal" rival. Travesty.

[Tenez]

I think even feds admitted that novak could have won that us open 07 final in straight sets!

Yes, Fed said that but he said he did ot play very well in that final. He was lucky to have won it but there is still a bit of a difference between losing in 3 and winning in 3. I think Fed had everything to lose in that final...Djoko had no reason not to play his best....until he had to crosses the key lines.

I will have another look at that final but when you see how much better was Nole in 2008 and 2009...yet lost to Fed again, I tend to agree with Fed when he says teh level of that 2007 was not great. He essentially played to contain Djoko.

[noleisthebest]

T,
can you please write a little personal overview of how racquets changed ball-striking & game.
I've tried the wooden ones and the modern ones, but don't know much about those in between.
I enjoy watching the old clips more and more as I can relate to those players, not at all to the current ones.
If you could build a perfect racquet to suit today's players and cut out all the insane base-line ping-pong rallies and return the game to all-court , what would it look like?

[Tenez]

It's funny you ask this question...now. A friend of mine who I play tennis with, asked me to help him shoot, this coming thursday, a clip on how the game evolved from wooden to large graphite raquets to lighter racquets played on tour nowadays. He does some BBC editing programs so knows about shooting / editing. However I am in completele disagreement with him regarding how/why the game changed. He thinks it's down to the lighter racquets I stress it's teh strings.....but he doesn;t want to hear it. I believe I will be able to prove on site when we are going to shoot with the 3 types of racquets.

I'll let you know then and we should even post the clip on Youtube.

[noleisthebest]

It's funny you ask this question...now. A friend of mine who I play tennis with, asked me to help him shoot, this coming thursday, a clip on how the game evolved from wooden to large graphite raquets to lighter racquets played on tour nowadays. He does some BBC editing programs so knows about shooting / editing. However I am in completele disagreement with him regarding how/why the game changed. He thinks it's down to the lighter racquets I stress it's teh strings.....but he doesn;t want to hear it. I believe I will be able to prove on site when we are going to shoot with the 3 types of racquets.

I'll let you know then and we should even post the clip on Youtube.

That's amazing!
Look forward to the "answer"

[Tenez]

The shooting is actually going to be today as it was delayed last week due to work. I don;t want to appear on the film anyway.

[noleisthebest]

The shooting is actually going to be today as it was delayed last week due to work. I don;t want to appear on the film anyway.

Have fun !

[Tenez]

It wasn't! And as said I disagree on his main point that it's the larger graphite racquets which killed SVing!!!

[Tenez]

Right guys....Even SkyNews asks Tenez!!!! Yep!

I was interviewed live today by SkyNews about grass courts and they may show some more later today.

But since I want to remain anonymous I'll keep the time quiet!

[noleisthebest]

Right guys....Even SkyNews asks Tenez!!!! Yep!

I was interviewed live today by SkyNews about grass courts and they may show some more later today.

But since I want to remain anonymous I'll keep the time quiet!

I saw the live one at 12.00 and it was 10/10! Sky should offer you a part time job, these pro pundits are seriously losing the plot.
So proud of you, T

[Tenez]

Thanks NITB....your encouragements were really helpful in steadying the emotional ship I am !

[luvsports!]

wow awesome bud!!!
how did it happen?

[Tenez]

Thanks LS.

SkyNews was looking to explain why so many big names fell off yesterday and do a short report on grass. The AE was very reluctant to talk about it as always denied any changes. SO they called our club (Paul Kelzo misspelling intended) which is about half a mile away from the AE and has grass courts. They wanted to interview our coach and the guy responsible for the grass courts maintenance (and that's me). They liked the fact that our courts are maintained by the AE groundsmen...So they asked me basic questions about maintenance and what factors affect grass. If anything was done differently this year, etc...

I came up with the most basic answers as I did not want to bore the public at large....I do enough of getting you all bored with the details.

It was a very funy experience.

You there at Wimbledon tomorrow? NITB and I will be there....hope to see you if so.

[luvsports!]

Wow, nice stuff!

Nah i queued up on monday (will do a write up soon) but back in brum until my tenancy runs out.
Would be funny to meet you guys haha.

[Tenez]

LS, in a PM,  raised an annoying question: Is fed more talented than nalbandian?
I quote" Having watched many of their matches it feels nalby has the upper hand in the rally as he can pull winners from anywhere, especially with that lethal backhand.
His shot making at times makes even feds look second best. Did Feds start to get the upper hand after initially losing due to superior fitness or was he just maturing as a player?"
 
Of course I say "annoying question" cause it is simply very difficult to answer. Along with Nalby I would be tempted to put Davydenko who when at his best simply gave Federer lots of trouble. The FO 2007? versus Davydenko just shows how Davydenko could have won that match in 3 despite losing it in 3. Many close matches between those 3 have gone in Fed's favour since 2003, essentially due to simply better nerves than Nalby and Davydenko...but talent wise is it really obvious that Federer is a level up?
 
My short answer is yes...for the following reasons.
 
First technically: Davy and Nalby have the better weapons on the BH. In our era having opted for a DHBH is a serious advantage...Had Nalby and Davydenko opted for a SHBH, I doubt they would have had the talent to stay with Federer…and more importantly take the ball as early as Fed does, which they do with their DBH. No SHBH has the upper hand over Federer! So despite that advantage from Nalby and Davy (that is a more solid BH), they still crumble first on the key points.....imagine if they had a smaller frame and a SHBH...it would not be close I fear. And as I say many times, the SHBH simply does not lie when it comes to talent. If one has one and you reach the business end of slams one is simply immensely talented. one cannot hide with a SHBH.  
 
Secondly: Creativity. Fed chose to go with SHBH, probably cause at the time his dream was Wimbledon and Wimby was a SHBH kingdom (MC, Edberg, Becker, Pete..to name the multiple winners of fed's youth). That gave him the freedom to create more than those stuck with a DHBH....so technically I would also say that Fed is probably more creative, goes to the net a bit more, move forward and needs less of a rhythm to do something with the ball, while Nalby and Davy are most dangerous when the ball comes nicely deep to the baseline, with no bad bounces. Fed needs to improvise, surprise, and is solid enough from both wings to make it look nice to watch, courageous, without fear he can attack, go to the net, or even lob....all that from his BH as well as FH. To be fair Nalby and Davy are also quite creative and like to mix it up (Nalby more than Davy actually) but they are in my view really helped by the sharp, yet safe, angles they can generate with those 2 hands on the racquets. Fed needs to topspin to generate those same angles safely and that means he loses in pace and surprise effect.
 
So all in all I guess not much difference in talent but it would probably be clearer if Nalby and Davy had had a SBH.
 
Between those 3 the mind is certainly what make the difference, notably 17 slams v 1 Final between the 2 of them! However, I would like to point that before Fed got “fit” in 2003…Nalby had the “mental” upper hand…fed even admitted that Nalby was his worst opponent.

[luvsports!]

beaut! ta bud!

[Tenez]

Thanks! for the ann..good question again. I am curious to know what is your and others views on this.

[noleisthebest]

He,he....
Just saw he question, and before I co tinue to read your answer here's mine:

SBH vs DBH - no brainer....

[noleisthebest]

And now that I read your answer....glad we agree!!

I think people seriously underestimate the differences between the two and don't appreciate SBH enough, esp in these slow conditions.

Fed's and Justine's BHs were an absolute miracle in tennis.
Paire is he only player I have seen play properly attacking tennis with a DBH.

[luvsports!]

Ten: I know you don't get on but I think this is a great post from Lydian on Feds.

I am interested to see your response to this please

"Federer was a guy brought up on clay then trained indoors from 14 onwards. This left him highly adept on fast/medium to slower courts, but much lesser so on truly fast ones due to his fundamental clay underpinnings. This shows with his titles on treacle slow Hamburg and fast-medium surfaces such as USO/Cincy.


However, on truly quick surfaces Federer struggled against talented fast court players. Look at his H2H vs fast court guru Henman. Up to and including Rotterdam 2004 Henman was 6-1 up...yes all on fast surfaces and Tim was nearly 30 yr old by then! Infact Federer's only win was a Henman retirement. He also struggled against talented fast condition players Rafter, Nalbandian, Kafelnikov...and yes Hewitt, again up to around 2004.


His W:L on carpet from 1999-2007 was 72%, his lowest of any of the surfaces he's played on.


Its highly noticeable that Federer started turning his results around significantly from late 2003 onwards after conditions had slowed tremendously and he'd reinvented himself as a much more physical player through a new gruelling regime to suit the new ralley-extended conditions. He was over 22 by then which is actually quite old for someone of his talent to break through. This is because in my opinion he needed the time for surface slowing to bite in enough to then perfectly suit his game. By 2003/4 onwards the much slower sand heavy HC and changed grass conditions suited his game better than previous carpet or truly fast HC (I mean proper old school fast courts not the much slower HC DecoTurf/Plexi sand heavy type surfaces of recent years). The only problem was that other highly adept, highly physical medium/slow court players were to come along in time.


Dont get me wrong. Federer is highly talented across pretty most surfaces due to his all court game and exceptional movement but I strongly believe it wasnt until conditions had significantly slowed down after 2003 and continued to slow up to around 2009 (don't think they've changed much since) that Federer found his true mojo and calling. He simply wasn't the true fast court player people think he was...he was great on pretty fast courts to much slower ones...i.e. conditions we've had since the big changes earlier in the 00s.


This is not a sleight or attack on his skills. No way - I marvel at his game & ability. It's just an observation that the slowed conditions probably far more suited his clay-derived, attacking baseline game than the generally much quicker pre-2003 conditions would have done. 


Federer may say conditions have slowed during his career, which they have, but they had already done so to tremendously benefit him to begin with! So he shouldnt be complaining too much really otherwise guys like Henman and newer versions of Henman on continued slicker surfaces, inc grass & USO, would have made his career much more difficult IMO. Anyway...keep or sweep! "

Thoughts?

[noleisthebest]

Thoughts?
What a load of nonsense.

[N2D2L]

^Probably the biggest compliment Lydian could get.

Of course Lydian is spot on again, an expert when it comes to tennis.

[noleisthebest]

^Probably the biggest compliment Lydian could get.

Of course Lydian is spot on again, an expert when it comes to tennis.

On the contrary, it just shows a complete lack of understanding of tennis.

This paragraph really takes the cake:

"This is not a sleight or attack on his skills. No way - I marvel at his game & ability. It's just an observation that the slowed conditions probably far more suited his clay-derived, attacking baseline game than the generally much quicker pre-2003 conditions would have done. "

Out of interest, what made you choose this particular post, LS?

[Tenez]

[quote="luvsports!"]Ten: I know you don't get on but I think this is a great post from Lydian on Feds.

I am interested to see your response to this please

"Federer was a guy brought up on clay then trained indoors from 14 onwards. This left him highly adept on fast/medium to slower courts, but much lesser so on truly fast ones due to his fundamental clay underpinnings. This shows with his titles on treacle slow Hamburg and fast-medium surfaces such as USO/Cincy.

You see straight away I cannot agree to that. Training on clay young does not mean you don't have the needed natural skills to play on grass, which are essentially eye/hand coord. being the best on fast grass is about serve and eye/hand coord and who better than Fed in that Dep? He proved it on fast grass v Pete in 2001 and in 2003 v Roddick and Philipousis. SO just there Lydian is wrong again as his agenda is again to denigrate Fed on pure skills...didn't he say that Bjorkman had better eye/hand coord than Fed? Ask him....it's written somewhere!

However, on truly quick surfaces Federer struggled against talented fast court players. Look at his H2H vs fast court guru Henman. Up to and including Rotterdam 2004 Henman was 6-1 up...yes all on fast surfaces and Tim was nearly 30 yr old by then! Infact Federer's only win was a Henman retirement. He also struggled against talented fast condition players Rafter, Nalbandian, Kafelnikov...and yes Hewitt, again up to around 2004.
So Henman is his only argument? Fed was only 19 and emotionally all over the place when he played Henman (had just beaten Pete). As we know being 30 is an advantage not a liability in tennis...compared to a 22 or 23 yo. What about his record v Goran and Kraji already at a very young age? Does Lydian mention those? And henman had the advantage of being a more mature player....which we know now is an advantage. But instead of throwing stupid comparison with players, ask yourself what a player needs to win on fast grass? Great returns, great serve and superb reflexes....so who else that Fed in that depart? Bjorkman?   Once you read Lydian Agenda everything is clear. I don't have an agenda...Federer is simply the best in those department...whether I like him or not .

His W:L on carpet from 1999-2007 was 72%, his lowest of any of the surfaces he's played on.
But Sure...yup to 2007 means nothing. Carpet almost entirely disappeared before Feds time so he could only play versus those who were used to play on it...but by the age of 23 24 he would have been again the best on it. If I remember he beat the best on that surface too....even if sporadically.


I answer the rest tomorrow. But Lydian is as biased as Amris's views on Lydian. Lydian knows a bit butis simply intent on seeing what he wants to see. He doesn't like Fed's arrogance so has constantly been routing for Pete's record and then for Nadal. His most biased theory is about grass (pretending Wimby 2001 was slow) and that topspining requires more talent than hitting flat.....I exposed him badly on the BBC..it's still there somewhere if you are interested.

[N2D2L]

Once you read Lydian Agenda everything is clear. I don't have an agenda.

  
Good comedy.

[Tenez]

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=I034

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=K214

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=P338

..and Pete Wimby 2001..
============================
Not bad on carpet and fast grass for a young guy who only trained on clay apparently. Did Lydian include those in his argument?

[Tenez]

Once you read Lydian Agenda everything is clear. I don't have an agenda.

  
Good comedy.

Yes I know that for a fan like you amri it is difficult to understand that it is tennis style which really interests me while for you it is all about the player.

[N2D2L]

It's all about Federer for you Tenez, you're not tricking anyone.
The only difference is as a Federer fan you will go out of your way to degrade and disrespect any of his serious rivals (funny how you only praise his 'rivals' who have never really troubled him..); while I as a Nadal fan can appreciate that his rivals are also world class players and I enjoy the challenges they bring.

[noleisthebest]

Amri,
Federer IS tennis.

[N2D2L]

Amri,
Federer IS tennis.

Phew thank goodness, I was doubting what you were saying there; then I noticed  you had 'is' in capitals and that changed everything....

-----------------------------
No he isn't. There is more to tennis than Federer, just like there is more to tennis than Nadal. They are both tennis players.

[Tenez]

Its highly noticeable that Federer started turning his results around significantly from late 2003 onwards after conditions had slowed tremendously and he'd reinvented himself as a much more physical player through a new gruelling regime to suit the new ralley-extended conditions. He was over 22 by then which is actually quite old for someone of his talent to break through. This is because in my opinion he needed the time for surface slowing to bite in enough to then perfectly suit his game. By 2003/4 onwards the much slower sand heavy HC and changed grass conditions suited his game better than previous carpet or truly fast HC (I mean proper old school fast courts not the much slower HC DecoTurf/Plexi sand heavy type surfaces of recent years). The only problem was that other highly adept, highly physical medium/slow court players were to come along in time.

================================================
And again…how can we agree to this? In 2003 he is 22…isn’t that the time when most players mature, especially those with a complex game? Besides, I explained many times to Lydian that Wimby 2003 was quite fast. Wimby learnt their lessons of introducing big deal balls in 2002 and did not want a 2002 Hewitt/Nalby final! In 2003 Hewitt gets blasted by Karlo in the first round and all the usual grass court players reach the business end of Wimbledon.
 
The main reason Fed improved oin 2003 is that he certainly became fitter (as he says himself) and was not scared to rally anymore in those slower conds. His maturing game allowed him to pick the right shot and not rush into UEs like in the past. Especially against Nalby and Hewitt who extended rallies at will.
 
I cannot believe one can fall for that argument. So typically biased.
 

Dont get me wrong. Federer is highly talented across pretty most surfaces due to his all court game and exceptional movement but I strongly believe it wasnt until conditions had significantly slowed down after 2003 and continued to slow up to around 2009 (don't think they've changed much since) that Federer found his true mojo and calling. He simply wasn't the true fast court player people think he was...he was great on pretty fast courts to much slower ones...i.e. conditions we've had since the big changes earlier in the 00s.

=======================
Dear oh dear…I am trying to find good points not too sound too biased…but Lindyan is himself so biased that it is impossible. Who do you think would have won those fast Wimby titles if they had kept the fast balls? Nadal? Stepanek?.....or Bjorkman again maybe? Please LS don’t ask ne to comment on Lydian again.
 

This is not a sleight or attack on his skills. No way - I marvel at his game & ability. It's just an observation that the slowed conditions probably far more suited his clay-derived, attacking baseline game than the generally much quicker pre-2003 conditions would have done.

============================
Sure the nice words which try to establish some objectivity there….but it is a smoke screen…for those who know him too well.
 

Federer may say conditions have slowed during his career, which they have, but they had already done so to tremendously benefit him to begin with! So he shouldnt be complaining too much really otherwise guys like Henman and newer versions of Henman on continued slicker surfaces, inc grass & USO, would have made his career much more difficult IMO. Anyway...keep or sweep! "

There is no faster conditions than playing Karlo on grass…even slow grass. Hewitt lost in 4 at Wimby 2003….Fed played Karlo twice on grass and never lost a set….just shows how great and underestimated Fed’s returns are. The 19yo  who returned Pete’s serve in 2 would have no problem returning Henman either.
 
2001 Wimbledon
England Grass Q Henman, Tim
7-5, 7-6(6), 2-6, 7-6(6) Stats
 
 
That was pretty close isn’t it? Again not bad for a 19 yo player having grown up on clay, who was playing again the home boy, on top form, still under full emotion of having beaten the greatest of them all?
 
How do you want me to take Lydian seriously?

[luvsports!]

Lydian is now calling me a mini-tenez...
I do have thoughts of my own! 

Sorry I won't ask you again (re Lydian) but just think of it from my perspective. 

You are a new fan of Leeds United!
You have a decent understanding and knowledge of the club but are still very eager to learn
from people (leeds fan A and Leeds fan B) who know a lot more about it than you. 
Heated discussions ensue and you see merits in both arguments. Until you know a lot more about that subject you cannot speak with such authority and knowledge as A and B.

I am eager to learn from 2 posters who I feel are very knowledgeable about tennis. Simple really.

[noleisthebest]

Lydian is now calling me a mini-tenez...
I do have thoughts of my own!.

  

LS,
I'd take that as a great compliment!

[Tenez]

Lydian is now calling me a mini-tenez...
I do have thoughts of my own! 

Sorry I won't ask you again (re Lydian) but just think of it from my perspective. 

You are a new fan of Leeds United!
You have a decent understanding and knowledge of the club but are still very eager to learn
from people (leeds fan A and Leeds fan B) who know a lot more about it than you. 
Heated discussions ensue and you see merits in both arguments. Until you know a lot more about that subject you cannot speak with such authority and knowledge as A and B.

I am eager to learn from 2 posters who I feel are very knowledgeable about tennis. Simple really.

 
You see I don't even try to have views of my own...I simply try to describe what I view.
 
Lydian has some knowledge but he uses to support his subjective views. He liked Lendl and so did I so on that ground we can agree on Lendl's strength and weaknesses. He was no fan of Mc....like me at the time....but tennis comes first and I saw Mc's genius, I did not become blind because I did not like McEnroe....Lydian again belittles Mc (though he will deny it again) cause he simply did not like his brat side...but does his best to appear "neutral".
 
I don't use my knowledge to up or down a player, unlike Lydian. I did not like Nalbandian at first but became a fan when I realised how talented he was...same for Davy....nothing could really make me like Davy but his game and, now that I know him more, his personality too. I remember when all were calling him a journey player...even using him an argument for a poor era as he was in top 10 when frankly the guy is an immense talent. If Nalby was more talented than fed I would be behind Nalby....but in sport it is important to deliver talent under pressure...and there, only Mc and more so Federer were able to deliver consistently over my 40 years of watching tennis. The other great champions had something else to rely upon. Even Lendl who I believe was immensely talented could not deliver it in slams until his fitness improved considerably. Pete was relying on a very precise serve in an era where pace was so quick that a serve was roughly 40% of your game.
 
Do you really think Federer thrived essentially because the courts were slowed? who else would have won those fast Wimby slams you think, had they kept the fast balls?

[noleisthebest]

Factual knowledge is shallow and useless, but understanding is something completely different.
Plenty of trivia regurgitating uninsightful people around forums, spouting charts, stats and historical trivia, but so few of those who observe the game with their eyes and mind and apply some thought to it.
Each to their own.

[Daniel]

Factual knowledge is shallow and useless, but understanding is something completely different.
Plenty of trivia regurgitating uninsightful people around forums, spouting charts, stats and historical trivia, but so few of those who observe the game with their eyes and mind and apply some thought to it.
Each to their own.

Precisely. Real intelligence is about applying knowledge to a given situation.  Not simply accumulating knowledge.

[noleisthebest]

It took me a while to realise that the French use the same word for tennis as the English.
My question is, are tenez and sphairstike obsolete, and do ordinary French people refer to those two words in terms of tennis at all these days?
The only time I ever saw "tenez" in France was in the Paris underground esclator.

[Tenez]

We never used tenez for tennis. Tennis was actually called "jeu de paume" and tenez was just the word players used to say when sending the ball. A kind of "have it".

[noleisthebest]

That's funny, because all these years I thought your name meant tennis!
I even looked it up once and came with the translation of  "take that!", which summed up tennis pretty nicely, in fact.

[Tenez]

Tenez is the origin of the word tennis. because we said "tenez" when we were hitting the ball in the "jeu de paume", the English who took on the game called it based on what they heard, or what they thought they heard.

Same thing with "Love" which was actually Oeuf (egg) ...image representation of 0 and the scoring system was like a camember divided in quarters: 15, 30, 45, 0.

[noleisthebest]

I think I read about the egg before, but didn't know about the camamber!
Very yummy, although I prefer brie

How did the English end up with "love" for zero!!!???

[N2D2L]

Tenez is the origin of the word tennis.

So in many ways our usernames are similar !

[Tenez]

oeuf and love kind of sound similar.

[Tenez]

Tenez is the origin of the word tennis.

So in many ways our usernames are similar !

how come?

[noleisthebest]

Tenez is the origin of the word tennis.

So in many ways our usernames are similar !

Not just one, but MANY ways.....I can't wait to read the answer.
Come on Amri, no form fluctuation on this one! 

[N2D2L]

Tenez is the origin of the word tennis.

So in many ways our usernames are similar !

how come?

How is it not?

[N2D2L]

If you say Julia Santamaria enough times in the right way, it can sound like a potential Nadal Sharapova rally.

Juuughlia SantamariAAAA

[noleisthebest]

Amri, you are losing it!
You must have had a really tough week...

[N2D2L]

You must have had a really tough week...

No, I've had a great week actually

Amri, you are losing it!

No I'm in a really jolly mood

[Sponsored content]