Re: Ask Tenez Thread

[noleisthebest]

"Quick hands" question:

How do you see the role of quick hands in connection with hand to eye coordination, reflexes, taking the ball early, and having that inner "feel" in your wrist where you know almost instinctively how hard to hit the ball when out of position and still make it land in (a bit like the wrist control in put-put golf)?

[Tenez]

That's a thread to boost my ego....love it!!!

Quick hands almost don't need eyes, well they do but not as much. It is an acquired feel through hitting 1000s of balls plus millions of year of Darwin evolution.

Fo instance while hitting a FH, you realise the ball is right in the center of the frame, you know you can guide the ball through to the spot of the court you aim at. if you hit the ball slightly up and off center your hand naturally will close the angle of the frame to avoid getting high and long. if on the the hand it's a bit low you will automatically again go underneath and guide it over the net (bit of a FH slice)...and I guess there are many little adjuments we do unconsciously.

This is why Fed is good cause he manages to bring back lots of balls when not well positioned for instance. With Stan you feel that when the swing is released, there is much less control. It's either a great shot or an UEs. painful UEs.
Fed's talent is very much visible through his "hand game".

[Tenez]

Eye hand coordination are of course linked to good hands but it might be less based on experience more natural skills. Having said that both are very much linked on how fast your nerves transfer information from spine to hand and eye and so on. Some have better "cables" than others, it's a simple fact.

[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.

Hi LS - Have you disappeared? You absence has been noted.

BTW, the reason I thought of this question is again the fact that Federer at 32 wins on the fastest tournaments of the year for the 6th times while he lost on slower IW conds.

SO once again, Lydian's dodgy theories exposed!

[noleisthebest]

Ego-boosting time!

With the clay season about to start in style next week, I was wondering if you could throw a bit more light on the scale of physicality Nadal's ball provides and how players with different skill feel that ball.

You mentioned the guy in your club you tried an experiment with once and how it left you dead after a few minutes.

I haven't had that experience, but generally find people who spin, the ball to be quite heavy.
With Nadal's I imagine it must have an enormous amount of energy in it, plus it probably moves not into a straight line when it touches your racquet, so taming it must be so hard.

Especially on clay where the ball bounces higher and he has more time for his next shot.
In theory, it all sounds doable, but in practice, obviously not.

So to play it, you either have to take it early which requires skill and tons of patience, or stand behind the baseline and then hope you can outlast Nadal. I don't remember anyone do it.

Or you can just have "your day" and blast him away without losing any focus i.e. resisting to be drawn into long physical exchanges.

Gulbis was good at that, but still managed to crack.

I feel Fed if fresh should be able to impose himself esp with the bigger frame.
He should have changed it long ago, you were so right about that!
I can't believe Annacone opposed it, doesn't say a lot about him, does it...

[Tenez]

Yes the main problem with taking the ball early is that the bounce is never going to be consistent on clay so all the natural timing skills are almost useless. besides you have Nadal's spin which makes it so much harder as even himself does not hit the ball consistently clean and his shots have more or less spin. He just concentrates in putting as much energy as possible into the ball which has more of less loop in it. Not difficult to do except that one needs lots of energy to hit that hard over a long period and need to retrieve would-be-winners by standing further back and recover lots of balls. Cause despite Nadal's  great spin, many players can actually make him run for his money.

This is why amri was talking nonsense when he talks about nadal being very talented cause if could hit a better ball, with his already amazing fitness, he would be unbeatable...by that I mean all his matches would be 61 61 on that surface. However we see more and more players giving him a good run...even on clay.

But the main problem his opponents have by not being to take the ball early is to have to run those extra steps as his shots are angled thanks to that spin. So even if you make him run, he also does make you run in turn, which was impossible with nat gut. With nat gut, only oine was doing the running. It means that even if you can win a set or 2 against him having to execute precisely for 3 sets is simply impossible. only Sod did it cause he managed to play the important points very well or even lucky at times. A 5th set would have been a guaranteed loss for Sod.

So again, it all comes to Djoko, maybe Murray and other tall hard hitters (delpo)....so in other words Djoko. Djoko is the one able to hit hard enough while being able to cover the ground too. It's that combination which makes it so tough for nadal.

[noleisthebest]

I think if Nadal is fit, it will still be very difficult to physically subdue Nadal over 5 sets on dry RG  clay.
He is capable of doing it but always manages to mess it up somehow...last year that net cost him the title...how silly, but what can you do about it.

In Miami, it all looked good throughout the entire match, but again, the bounce was even and so was the footing.
I know you mentioned Miami was going to be a good indicator for RG, which I hope it is, but I think Nole can never annihilate Nadal in RG like that, as I believe the clay is more physically taxing.
Will be a nail-biter for sure if ti comes to that match.

[Tenez]

The clay is actually more physically taxing for Nadal than Djoko. It's no much different than on hard court. Sure, Nadal has the advantage of irregular bounce but at the same time, it is harder for Nadal to move right and left which means Djoko has more margins to dictate.

Djoko played inexplicably terrible in that final. I am not talking about the 5th set but 2 3 and 4. He could have lost in 4 but could also have won in 4. He just gave Nadal lots of hope and energy in that 3rd set. Has he played as average as in the 2nd set, Nadal would have been physically dead by end of 4th.

Sure Nadal will always be a tough opponent on clay...but I would be very surprised if Djoko loses to him this season.

[SayonaRa]

Tenez, I thought nadal always cycles up for the clay season and that's what accounted for his invincibility this part of the year. But he doesn't look like he's taken the magic potion. Uncharacteristically sloppy and wobbly still. What's going on?

[Tenez]

Well he looks as strong as ever to me....but it seems it is the originality of his game which is now wearing off. If anything I am surprised it took that long but the reality is, it is still a very tough game to face, cause there is no cutting corners physically. To beat him one needs to cover the ground. Maybe other players are now getting fitter too....and at similar fitness, Nadal becomes easier prey as Djoko showed many times.

Still early days....with Nadal we can never say it's over until it's really over.

[SayonaRa]

Well he looks as strong as ever to me.

Still early days....with Nadal we can never say it's over until it's really over.

You're right AS STRONG AS EVER.

Yesterday turned out to be just a temporary show of insecurity. Today nadal returns to his beastly self again. His power is here to stay now and he will only get stronger all the way to the final and win it with no top-10 players in his way. Barca will be his second trophy without beating a TOP player. In the Rio final he beat Dolgopolov.

[noleisthebest]

Hi T, time for another question!

Recently we talked about east-west and north-east running comparing how the physical demand has changed in modern tennis.
You mentioned the word pain.

I took a note immediately trying to relate from my amateur level: occasional shin splints, back pull, a spell of tennis elbow...all niggling injuries one can play through. 
But would I call them pain? Not really.

Reading an article about Nishikori's co-coach Dante, the word "pain" flashed the light again:

" Maybe a little bit of Kei’s problem with injuries was mental. He didn’t really know how to deal with pain and injury. But he had some very long matches this year, against guys like David Ferrer (Madrid) and Roger Federer (Miami), and then at the U.S. Open. He dealt with those challenges much better, with a different mindset.
“His attitude now is, ‘Okay, I’m having pain, but I think I can deal with it.’ He knows his body better. He knows the difference between pain and injury, and how much he can push himself. Also, because he’s stronger physically he’s become mentally stronger and more able to withstand pain than before.
We’re getting him to toss the ball and then go up and get it. To be aggressive with it.
But to tell the truth, Michael is a good communicator, and we discovered we were talking about the same things, so we fell into harmony. Michael was a very tough player. Kei listens when Michael says, ‘Listen, you’re okay, you can push it, you won’t get injured.’ It’s all been working great."

So, my question is, how much pain do players go through in, say a 5 setter. Is it the cramping pain, fatigue?
Looking at Nishikori, it obviously crosses into psychosomatic realm, as well.
How does the pain affect attacking and how does it affect road-runners. Can pain interrupt the momentum?
How much does it affect confidence?

Federer mentioned how he fought trough pain against Fognini in DC.
Nole's socks were bloodstained after that 6 hour match in AO.

I know all players are different and will have different reaction and threshold, but I think it's worth looking at this side of tennis, as a lot of people aren't even aware of it.
Players are viewed as winning machines that are 100% fit and healthy all the time, whereas in truth that is almost a rarity.

Finally, how would you assess and rate the role of pain across eras, say, since the 90s?

[Tenez]

Also, because he’s stronger physically he’s become mentally stronger

How many times have I made that statement?

Players are viewed as winning machines that are 100% fit and healthy all the time, whereas in truth that is almost a rarity.

So true.

Regarding your question, I really do not know. I watched tennis for years never thinking players could struggle physically, bar the niggle there and then. But I remember already that in the 80s Connors would be getting injections to be rehydrated after a match. Then yuo hear Lendl and Connors saying they were both nackered in the US final cause they had played some long matches in semi the day before. However Agassi is the one who really made me aware of the physical challenge that was tennis already then. it all became clear in 2003/4 when Agassi was talking about having to "exocet" himself to return and at 33/4 it was simply too much for him.

So then came Hewitt and more so Nadal reaching physical levels that I did not think possible. There I felt the only thing worth talking in tennis was fitness and stamina. How much pain they go through? not sure I expect the pain to be actually much worse the following day than during the match anyway. This is why usually players can usually win long matches but then not turn up in their next round...or just to be present like fed v Cilic or maybe even Nishi v Cilic. Th epain is much worse the following day than during the match when the body is warm and the adrenaline flows.

Best example is Nadal v Djko in Australia fighting like crazy, running everywhere but when the ceremony came, and the body cooled down, neither coudl stand on their feet! They had to be seated.

But one has to be a professional to know what hey go through. And I am just a lazy player enjoying mixed doubes! so wrong person to ask I guess.  

[noleisthebest]

Thanks, T.
I suppose I'll have to ask a pro as soon as I get the chance, hopefully during this WTF, will let you know how I go, as I'm quite curious to get to the bottom of it.

I have another question!

You string your own racquet. What makes you chose  particular strings and tension?
Every player obviously has a unique setting that suits their strengths and I often read new racquets reviews where testers comment and grade how the racquet performs on power, serving, precision, manoeuvrability etc...and it never seems to be good for "everything"...so I end up wondering is there such a thing as a as a "perfect" racquet?

And how do we club players find out what the best racquet is for us...I have tried a few different ones and am quite happy with the current Wilson one which has standard string setting, but just wonder how changing the weight (I mean tension, which is measured in pounds in racquet specs) would impact say the serve or groundstrokes?

Our courts are annoyingly bouncy with those ridiculous HEAD balls everyone seem to be carrying in their bags...

[noleisthebest]

Just for you, T!

[Tenez]

You string your own racquet. What makes you chose  particular strings and tension?
Every player obviously has a unique setting that suits their strengths and I often read new racquets reviews where testers comment and grade how the racquet performs on power, serving, precision, manoeuvrability etc...and it never seems to be good for "everything"...so I end up wondering is there such a thing as a as a "perfect" racquet?

Of course there is not a perfect racquet...but there are plenty of pretty good ones but none as good as the one you get used to. Regarding strings, it certainly depends on a few factors:

1 - Style of play (more less flat/spinny)
2 - Arm strength (the less strength in the arm, the looser the tension I would advise)
3 - feel requirements (control power (tensed) v Control touch (looser)).

At club level I thing most players I string racquets to are happy with a Babolat Hurricane pro (which is a kind of Synth/Luxilon string) but easier on the arm and the tension between 23 et 24kgs (51/53lb).
I like the new synth strings cause they give more options, and by having loose tension (I usually string at 22-23kg (48/50lb)) you get a good feel cause the ball stays a bit longer in your racquet.

And how do we club players find out what the best racquet is for us...I have tried a few different ones and am quite happy with the current Wilson one which has standard string setting, but just wonder how changing the weight (I mean tension, which is measured in pounds in racquet specs) would impact say the serve or groundstrokes?

The looser the more powerful in general and the less control....but that's not quite true as I explained above. Players who like feel and touch actually play with loose tension. Whereas those looking for power and control would use tighter tension (27kg/60lb and above).

I am pretty sure if you use those new synth strings with a 24kg tension you cannot go too wrong.

Our courts are annoyingly bouncy with those ridiculous HEAD balls everyone seem to be carrying in their bags...[/quote]

[noleisthebest]

Thanks, T.
I just had a look and my racquet tension says 22-27 kg (standard one on the spec).
As you say, they are all ok once you get used to them but still vary quite a lot.
I find this Wilson one to be perfect for me as it's reasonably heavy (313g unstrung) but the weight is really well distributed so you don't feel it at all.

I just lost the thread on this week's tournaments (beginning to hate the ipad  ), will repost it from the desktop later, sunshine is calling!

[Tenez]

your racquet seems a bit heavy to me.

Glad I did not buy an ipad while in the states. I hate mac cause they try to chain you to their stuff. (i used to be their biggest fan).

[noleisthebest]

The racquet only sounds heavy!
It really doesn't feel that weight at all for some reason. I practised two solid hours with the ball machine today and played an hour before that, and have no fatigue in the arm or elbow.
I am even thinking of getting another one as it's a discontinued line.
You should try it.

As for the Ipad, it's only horrible for posting threads, for some reason when I have more than one window opened, if I go back to the first one it reloads the content and I lose all I had written!
The strange thing is it doesn't happen all the time.

I still love Apple products, not an addict, just that they keep things simpler than PCs. And are lovely to look at and hold, esp the older models of Imac.
The new models/design are all starting to look too modern and metallic now
Just like cars...all look the same these days.

[Tenez]

Agree about the cars.

[luvsports!]

Sorry nitb

[luvsports!]

Please Tenez can you give outline the positives and negatives of a shbh in comparison to a dhbh?

[Tenez]

That's quite easy LV.

SHBH +: Versatility, creativity, abilty to create sharper cross court angles, easier to transition to volleying, and more importantly better reach and quicker execution.

DHBH: Power and consistency.

So on slower conds DHBH is a big advantage as reach advantage is diminished and power is emphasised.
On faster conditions, a SHBH can really be a key advantage. In the 90s when conds were very fast, only Agassi (cause he had quick hands) could rival with all the SHBHs.

[luvsports!]

Why is it then that Gasquet, Stan etc have bh's that can be THE most powerful?

[Tenez]

They can be more powerful cause if you swing "freely" with one hand you certainly can swing faster than when you have 2 hands on it (shorter swing). Try to do the move without a racquet even and you can see you have more swing/leverage with one hand. So in theory  you can whip the ball better with one hand than 2.

problem is since the sweet spot is smaller (racquet only held by one hand), SHBHers don't swing freely most of the time. They don;t also use the body moving forward. Only the arm generate the pace.

For a DHBHer the 2 hands allow them a bigger sweet spot,, therefore more secure but also can use their whole body/torso into the ball. Shorter swing but added consistency. (see Nalby, Davy, Davenport using their bodies to add weight to their short swing.

[noleisthebest]

How's your BH going these days, T?

I thought of you when I tried that Yonex the other day, don't know why, but although it was smaller than my Wilson, it gave me quite more pace on it.
It's neck/handle heavy.

Is yours the 97"?
Have you tried the 89" one?

[Tenez]

I moved to head again since. My elbow hurts less nowadays. Heads are excellent for single HBH too. More power. I play with 100in frame nowadays...shameless!

I quite like my SBH actually. It's a table tennis shot..except that in table tennis it was even better.

[noleisthebest]

100" !!! VERY shameless, indeed

I know that racquet, too much power for me, couldn't control it all when I tried last year.
I just can't play with light racquets for some reason, they feel like badminton.

I suppose if you were good at table tennis, big tennis must be a piece of cake!

It's fun once you get going.

I don't follow table tennis at all, but I can't imagine much doping going on there...

[Tenez]

Doping is fierce there (TT) as well. It's extremely physical like all sports played at highest level....(well bar golf, snooker and few others).

Yes when I first played on a tennis court after playing TT I thought" Ouah...that's easy plenty of space to put the ball away from the player". I was an attacking player on a TT so it felt much easier to attack even on a tennis court......that was before i experienced the Wilander and Nadal types of players. And strangely enough you also have them in TT.

[N2D2L]

And strangely enough you also have them in TT.

I'm getting really good at table tennis, tennis used to be my strongest sport but now TT has overtaken it.

My serve is a low slice one which is pretty quick, after which I always take one step back. After that I simply play really high topspin shots which bounce on the baseline and kick up. Either the opponent tries to out rally me which is really fun, because eventually they normally run out of patient; or they try and attack. I prefer it when they attack actually, I can take another step back and run around like a headless chicken getting everything back in play with topspin. I actually probably run around more in table tennis than I do in tennis.

[luvsports!]

How fast was the US Open when Hewitt beat Sampras (01) in straights.
Had it slowed down a lot then? 
I just ask because if Hewitt had success then, could that also mean that a djoko or even rafa maybe could have had success in that time?

[Tenez]

Good question. Again the honest answer is I don't  know whether they slowed teh USO at that time. I remember having written a thread about the average time a ball was taking to get from one baseline to the other on different surfaces including the USO, based on multiple rallies. I found out that the pace of rallies was about 20% faster in 2006 than in 2010 but that was also emphasised by the fact I clocked Fed/Blake (2006) and then fed/Murray or Fed Djoko and even Nadal/Djoko in 2010.

However what I know is that the USO slowed down in 2010 by introducing for the first time bigger ball.

Going back to your question, the pace of the court did not much to allow Hewitt to win. The strings are the reason why Pete got beaten on faster surfaces by Hewitt. he was beaten on grass too remeber. So Djoko and Nadal woudl also crush Pete on 2000-2007 surface. Cause the strings are the reason why SVeying died. Once the serve can be returned in the feet (dipping down) which was very difficult to do with nat gut, Pete had no advantage going to the net. And while on the baseline Hewitt's luxilon strings were much better at extending and controlling the rally. This is why Djoko, Murray and Nadal would easily beat Pete in 2002 like they woudl beat easily a Pete 97.

However as I mentioned taking the strings away from nadal and Djoko would be like asking Pete to win on clay with second serves only.

That's why there is no point comparing those 2 eras. Completely different game.

Fed did very well to adapt, essentially because he has all the shots. The adoption of Luxilon in 2002 gave him a huge boost of confidence...a bit like his bigger frame now.....except that his body is probably hurting him too much nowadays and tempers his susccess.

[luvsports!]

Next up  Connors.
Your views on him.
From what I have heard of him he was a great returner but really what got him where he was, was his indomitable spirit, rather than his talent which paled in comparison to say McEnroe's.
Thoughts?

[truffin1]

Next up  Connors.
Your views on him.
From what I have heard of him he was a great returner but really what got him where he was, was his indomitable spirit, rather than his talent which paled in comparison to say McEnroe's.
Thoughts?

Story on Connors.  back in late 70's- a guy I knew in the sports industry used to pay Connor $1000 a match to play him on weekends. . Like a tennis "hooker"  :-).    The guy was actual a certified masochist-  married a woman that hated him, invited fights,etc.   The guy was a decent player and would try like hell to rile Conners up so Conners would turn it on and yell at him, run him in the ground....   and I think Conners relished it...      kind of funny if you can imagine the scene.  I haven't thought of that story in years...

[Tenez]

Next up  Connors.
Your views on him.
From what I have heard of him he was a great returner but really what got him where he was, was his indomitable spirit, rather than his talent which paled in comparison to say McEnroe's.
Thoughts?

A very crafty player but poor technique. I guess self taught though his mother was his coach at first, if I remember correctly.

He certainly was a fighter but a cheat. Most of his important wins came from unsettling his opponents.

I did not like him (I still don't). A dirty player.

[luvsports!]

One of the least talented multi slam winners? He did have insane longevity and was at no1 for ages. 
Wilander up there as well?

[noleisthebest]

Story on Connors.  back in late 70's- a guy I knew in the sports industry used to pay Connor $1000 a match to play him on weekends. . Like a tennis "hooker"  :-).    The guy was actual a certified masochist-  married a woman that hated him, invited fights,etc.   The guy was a decent player and would try like hell to rile Conners up so Conners would turn it on and yell at him, run him in the ground....   and I think Conners relished it...      kind of funny if you can imagine the scene.  I haven't thought of that story in years...

That is really funny!
I can see why his wife hated him...

That guy was probably educated in (English) boarding schools...Connors, being a working class boy, must've enjoyed every moment of it!

[Tenez]

One of the least talented multi slam winners? He did have insane longevity and was at no1 for ages. 
Wilander up there as well?

he had talent. returning and razor sharp BH required talent. I'd say craftmanship maybe more than talent but still skilled.

the least talented multi slam winner is actually Nadal, cause without his fitness he is close to nothing. Besides we learnt recently that steroids taken once have an efect for 10 years. So imagine Nadal without those big muscles and his spinny shots would be the easiest shots to handle on the tour.

But more importantly Toni certainly doesn't want Nadal to use his talent. He wants him to use power and simple strategy.

[luvsports!]

Would you say Connors overachieved with his talent?
And Wilander?

[Tenez]

Certainly both. Connors won 5 of his 8 slams in the US helped by a delirious, partial crowd. Had Lendl been American Lendl woudl have got 10 or 11 slams and Connors 3 or 4.

Wilander was very fair on the court. But very much a fit moonballer....but a smart player too.

[luvsports!]

comment by ZahraIhsanphile (U20361)
posted 3 weeks, 2 days ago

I miss you Tenez!

http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/128014


Browsing the old forum and came across this!

[Tenez]

I dunno Zara...but if you post there LS...please mention our forum...

I found that and thought it was funny in retrospect.

Re: Was Federer better in 2006? (Poll added)
Post by lydian on Mon 26 Sep 2011, 1:47 pm

I agree Droogle, Federer is as fit as they come - this part of the argument just doesnt wash with me, never has and never will.

With fatigue, the first thing to go is the footwork...because the body is the biggest thing to move around the court...getting into position will go first, and this affects shot timing as players start to over-reach. Also, as the core muscles get fatigued, so timing is also affected again...players start to under- or over-rotate to compensate for lack of energy. This is way its always been. Part of Federer's problem has been sticking wioth the 90sq in racquet. He changed from 85 to 90 because he was shanking too much...so it doesnt need Einstein to work out a move to 95 would reduce the shanking further. No modern player coming into the game now will choose a 90sq in racquet. But I suspect Federer is too scared to change this late on...but its a limitation in his armoury to not have a bigger racquet.

So, what is the argument here, that we remove fitness as a factor in tennis - how far should the pendulum swing to pure technique only deciding matches? Is Tenez saying tennis should NOT be a physical sport, and that fitness should NOT be important? Where is the line drawn Tenez? And how do you get to that line? The argument also assumes there is no talent on display with the current brand of tennis which is clearly wrong.

[luvsports!]

Thoughts?
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/conspiracy-string-theory-how-new-technology-killed-american-mens-tennis

[noleisthebest]

Yes, the strings have killed not only American, but tennis on general.
New strings allow spin, spin allows control, control allows muscle, dope allows muscle....Spain allows dope and voille!

Tenez is sure an expert on the subject of strings!

[luvsports!]

A big thing for me is also the fact that participation rates are dropping and athletes are going for the more lucrative US sports.

In Aus for example there was a huge drop in tennis participation by 1/3. Oddly they have had a quite a few youngsters come through recently.

[Tenez]

Thoughts?
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/conspiracy-string-theory-how-new-technology-killed-american-mens-tennis

Exactly.

Agassi:
hThe advent of a new elastic polyester string, which creates vicious topspin, has turned average players into greats, and greats into legends. [Coach Darren Cahill] puts the string on one of my rackets... In a practice session I don't miss a ball for two hours. Then I don't miss a ball for the rest of the tournament. I've never won the Italian Open before, but I win it now, because of Darren and his miracle string.

That's the problem. Average shpt makers are now looking great cause their fitness makes the difference.

[Tenez]

A big thing for me is also the fact that participation rates are dropping and athletes are going for the more lucrative US sports.

The problem is that it is not in American's mentality to be patient. They want to win according to their terms. Big serve, big forehand, big volley. Of course they will find the successful retriever one day but so far the one they had was actually of asian origin (Chang). I think Federer is more likely what they put them off. To see a foreigner having what they could only dream of having. Americans really appreciated Federer's talent I think and know that this kind of talent can't be acquired...But the day they produce a champion with as much talent, they will get back into the sport .

[

[luvsports!]

They cheer for Nadal as well, much more than for djoko but then that isnt saying miuch.

[luvsports!]

Do you think any good pundit (imo goodall, koenig, courier, petchey, mats, mercer) would think that Chardy is more talented than Murray if you asked them off the record?

[noleisthebest]

He, he..."L'Ecosse Amdy Murray"

[Sponsored content]