Re: The Best Grass Court Players Ever

by luvsports! Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:56 am

When did he say that tenez?

It is interesting to see you say that LK. So many think murray (behind djoko) has the best bh on the tour (I don't) but I think it's interesting that you think he isn't even in the top 10.

I think it is in the top 10 for consistency, put maybe not for destructiveness.

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:07 am

After losing all those finals versus Djoko in 2011 he said that Djoko's advantage was that he coudl take the ball earlier than him. He also wrote something similar in his book.

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:17 am

The problem I have with Cash argument and LK's parallel to Murray is that neither stress the importance of fitness. It's simply their fitness that set Nadal, Murray and Djoko apart.

Just look at the finals or semi they play....do we marvel at those beautiful BH, FH, and serves? no. Not bad but the top 50 players have similar shots. However none can retrieve and run as much and that also give those 3 a mental edge. ....When those 3 play against each other then what they do with a ball is what really makes the difference. Murray might actually be the more aggressive of the 3 on the day (only since Lendl joined in) but DJoko is more consistently aggressive and his shots are simply better...though more erratic.

It's because those 3 have not teh best shots that they often struggle in the way to finals....but as the slam gets to the business and players get tired, Djoko, Murray and Nadal are always prepared for the long battles. Fed is out of their league in that department.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:35 am

Cash....was it Patrick or cash talking there...

If I could chose anyone's FH or BH it would be Fed's. There is nothing he can't do with those two.

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:40 am

When comparing shots it's also important to consider the surfaces as well. For instance Fed's BH is a liability on clay but pretty good on fast grass.

But at the end of the day...there is no point having like Brands, better shots than Nadal, if you don;t have the lungs to pull them for 3 sets. That's why I think shots quality is near irrelevant nowadays....except when those 3 meet together.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:41 am

luvsports! wrote:When did he say that tenez?

It is interesting to see you say that LK. So many think murray (behind djoko) has the best bh on the tour (I don't) but I think it's interesting that you think he isn't even in the top 10.

I think it is in the top 10 for consistency, put maybe not for destructiveness.

Murray's BH is his best shot and is very good.
Of course, for me DBH is three categories below a SBH, I consider it a cowardly shot, in fact, stg you use if you are not good enough to play SBH.
I don't know even how to categorise DBH, it's neither BH nor FH, a bit of hybrid that has changed how tennis is played now (for worse).
I think Paire has the best DBH at the moment.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:47 am

I have enjoyed the SBH resurgence this spring/summer, and it's probably the fact that older players on the tour are able to take advantage of their stamina, and maybe even the fact that 25 sec rule is being implemented.

DBH enables long rallies, SBH does not.

I don't follow junior tennis and don't know how SBH is faring these days, but know that in UK they teach DBH exclusively.

To me, that is the saddest thing in tennis now: the slow death of SBH.

I hope that there is someone, somewhere talented training now, being inspired by Federer's SBH and persevering with it.
I think if you are talented enough, you can always play well with the SBH.
That is the only reason for me to hope Dimitrov does well, despite the messy game he is playing these days.

I would love him to somehow come out as the leader of the new generation.

by legendkillar Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:59 am

Tenez wrote:The problem I have with Cash argument and LK's parallel to Murray is that neither stress the importance of fitness. It's simply their fitness that set Nadal, Murray and Djoko apart.

Just look at the finals or semi they play....do we marvel at those beautiful BH, FH, and serves? no. Not bad but the top 50 players have similar shots. However none can retrieve and run as much and that also give those 3 a mental edge. ....When those 3 play against each other then what they do with a ball is what really makes the difference. Murray might actually be the more aggressive of the 3 on the day (only since Lendl joined in) but DJoko is more consistently aggressive and his shots are simply better...though more erratic.

It's because those 3 have not teh best shots that they often struggle in the way to finals....but as the slam gets to the business and players get tired, Djoko, Murray and Nadal are always prepared for the long battles. Fed is out of their league in that department.

I did say that Murray's US Open triumph was largely down to the part of consistent passive play in windy conditions and also the stamina to last in those matches.

Ten the whole argument with fitness is that if you were to put it on Berdych or Del Potro or Raonic they wouldn't become better players overnight to the extent of challenging. Movement and fitness for me are as one. Faster courts would compensate the big movers not having to exhaust so much energy staying in rallies. Berdych and Del Potro move so well for big guys and have had to because of current conditions.

Federer is unique because he does combine the aggression of big hitters and also the movement of the more quick movers. Fed is probably the most economical player in terms he doesn't burn un-necessary energy large in part to not having the capacity for energy that the fittest players have.

Federer has the strength in mind against most of the field to maintain consistency in matches. I think against the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray that Federer is slightly nervous. Yes the balls coming back makes a huge difference, but I think he doesn't back himself in longer rallies. Look at Federer's H2H with Ferrer. Now Ferrer without a doubt is lungs and lots of them. However, lacks firepower in his shots. That shows that fitness is part of the formula.

LS. I meant Murray doesn't have the best BH in the top 10 smiley

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:15 am

Ten the whole argument with fitness is that if you were to put it on Berdych or Del Potro or Raonic they wouldn't become better players overnight to the extent of challenging. Movement and fitness for me are as one.

Yes mouvement is very important. But this mouvement can only work based on lungs capacity. Lungs are the base of many sports and even tennis nowadays. Look at Nadal and Murray falling apart v Djoko (most of the time) as the match extends.

What Delpo misses in terms of stamina he can make it up with some of his shots. If you look at Delpo the way he beat Murray and Djoko at IW this year and could have beaten Nadal in the final with a bit more lungs I don't know what would prevent him to win more if he could last longer. Being able to rally gives a player many more options.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:25 am

BlueClay wrote:
NITB, get off your high horse. With all due respect this is just your opinion, it does not make it a world wide fact. On every tennis forum you see stupid posters but I must say that some of the posts you make are world-class in the WTF dept! You have quite a reputation on other forums you know!

Also, Nadal is far from my favourite player, I just don't irrationally hate him the way you do. YOU are definitley the one with blinkers on. Did you or did you not say Nadal had no chance to win the last FO? And saying Djokovic is more talented than Nadal is laughable. They are both obvioulsy talented but you make it seem like Nadal is some kind of tennis mug. He is way above Djokovic on any and every greatest of all time list and I doubt Djokovic will ever catch up with him. Djokovic is not the likeable saintly character you make him out to be and he certainly is not more popular world wide than Nadal or heaven help us Federer is. How many true fans does Djokovic have? About 50?

Wow, I've finally made it! Laugh

As for the rest of the post, I think it's best if we leave it there as there is no point taking it any further. I am glad you like watching "greats" and enjoying tennis that way.
I was only trying to suggest ways of you making that enjoyment far greater.
I don't dislike Nadal per se, just all he has done to tennis, I'll say it one last time: I see him as a pest spreading its negative effects and that saddens me.
I don't want ignorant little children starting to play tennis to be copying his FH. All they see is the winning side. I want them all to have a beautiful all-court game and a SBH.
I don't want tennis players to win just because they are physically more enduring or stronger. And all that enables them to do it.
I want to see magic on the court, not grunting bullying saddism.

I gather that there are many more who will disagree with me, just like there are many more who will buy/listen/"enjoy" junk music of today as opposed to classical.

by legendkillar Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:35 am

Tenez wrote:
Ten the whole argument with fitness is that if you were to put it on Berdych or Del Potro or Raonic they wouldn't become better players overnight to the extent of challenging. Movement and fitness for me are as one.
Yes mouvement is very important. But this mouvement can only work based on lungs capacity. Lungs are the base of many sports and even tennis nowadays. Look at Nadal and Murray falling apart v Djoko (most of the time) as the match extends.

What Delpo misses in terms of stamina he can make it up with some of his shots. If you look at Delpo the way he beat Murray and Djoko at IW this year and could have beaten Nadal in the final with a bit more lungs I don't know what would prevent him to win more if he could last longer. Being able to rally gives a player many more options.

I agree more lungs might have helped, but if he had beaten the 3 of them that would've been a hell of an achievement and that would've been right up as one of the most outstanding results in the game. I think Delpo was clever in using the slice to hang on in rallies and punish the short ball. Delpo certainly is a canny cat and you could put him with Federer in terms of being a genuine challenge to the Djokovic's, Murray's and Nadal's in tournaments.

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:38 am

Delpo covered also lots of ground in those 3 days. He is also a bit of a rallier strangely enough as one woudl not expect such a big frame to move as much.

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:50 am

Here are my top 5 grass court players ever (Open era):

1 - Federer
2 - Sampras
3 - Laver
4 - Borg
5 - Edberg?

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:51 am

Tenez wrote:Here are my top 5 grass court players ever (Open era):

1 - Federer
2 - Sampras
3 - Laver
4 - Borg
5 - Edberg?

No Mac?

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:15 am

Forgot about that one. Yes I would put him even above Borg actually as a better grass player....though not greater.

I have a big dilemma when arguing about Better v Greater. In thory they should be the same but they are not.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:22 am

Tenez wrote:Forgot about that one. Yes I would put him even above Borg actually as a better grass player....though not greater.

I have a big dilemma when arguing about Better v Greater. In thory they should be the same but they are not.

when it comes to Borg & Mac, it's a nice dilemma to mull over:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-BwXwUzMLo

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:28 am

Hey, you've got to see the guy in the crowd clapping after a point with a cigar in his mouth at 4.34 mins. in that clip, Those were the days Rose

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:42 am

Yes really reminded me the good times. I could really relate to those "great" athletes who look like they play in slow mo compared to today's guys.

But thanks to the evolution of the game we have seen the best of what Federer could deliver and the next genius will bring the bar even higher than him.....it might take a few decades...but someone I am sure will show even more talent on day.

Imagine if Federer had played in the 80s. He would have had as good a record if not better but not being half as good as he is now. The evolution of tennis has really pushed all players to get better. It's important that the game evolves. FOr now Nadal, Murray and Djoko have set the physical bar like Hewitt did it for federer in the early 00s.

Those coming next are going to be able to hit past them.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:49 am

I think the evolution has reached the full cycle with Federer and is going backward now.
It has produced the physical generation peaking with Nadal whose Uncle has created Frankenstein in order to slay the talent. Obviously did the best he could with what he had.
Now, the big hitters are the "future". If you can't outrun them, blow them off the court. As the players are becoming taller and bigger, the court is appearing smaller and the game turned on its head: talent<running<blasting<?

I am hoping the trend starts to revert a bit toward the good old days smiley

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:12 pm

You could have said the same after McEnroe. Not many of us thought one could do better than Genius Mac. But the fact is nowadays a few people have McEnroe's talent if not better. Federer for sure has better skills, reflexes.

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:20 pm

Or shoudl I say better because he trained his reflexes against players who where hitting faster and harder.

Nadal, Djoko and Murray have gone backwards shotmaking wise but physically they are really ahead of the field and that is the best base to train the new generation.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:14 pm

Tenez wrote:You could have said the same after McEnroe. Not many of us thought one could do better than Genius Mac. But the fact is nowadays a few people have McEnroe's talent if not better. Federer for sure has better skills, reflexes.

I can imagine as talented, but not as graceful and beautiful as Federer. I'd love to be wrong, of course.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:17 pm

Tenez wrote:Or shoudl I say better because he trained his reflexes against players who where hitting faster and harder.

Nadal, Djoko and Murray have gone backwards shotmaking wise but physically they are really ahead of the field and that is the best base to train the new generation.

How much do you think the new strings/racquet size/weight compromise shotmaking?
I know they can cover up lack of talent, but do you think they don't quite encourage it, either?

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:19 pm

Strings have actually brought variation the shots even if for now it has killed style variation such as SVing.

Now you can do more things with a FH and a BH and even a serve can be worked much better. When I first used it I hated it cause you don't get the same feel than you get with natgut but after getting used to it you realise how much more power AND control you get with luxlion type strings. Even SHBH are easier cause the ball stays longer in the racquet and you can add the spin to make shots safer or get sharper angles.

I woudl not like to revert to natgut only. It woudl be a better way to select talent from others but that coudl actually be achieved by speeding up balls and surfaces.

The problem is also the fact that 3 players pushed fitness to new levels. If you did not have those, you'd have quite an open field with quite a bit of turn over at the end of slams. But with those 3 very solid players strings have played a huge role in making their shot more "solid" than they woudl have been with gut. To me the real problem is not so much the strings but the combination of strings and fitness making it impossible for talent to thrive in a best of 5. Again faster balls would be a great way to balance the strings.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:26 pm

Tenez wrote:Strings have actually brought variation the shots even if for now it has killed style variation such as SVing.

Now you can do more things with a FH and a BH and even a serve can be worked much better. When I first used it I hated it cause you don't get the same feel than you get with natgut but after getting used to it you realise how much more power AND control you get with luxlion type strings. Even SHBH are easier cause the ball stays longer in the racquet and you can add the spin to make shots safer or get sharper angles.

I woudl not like to revert to natgut only. It woudl be a better way to select talent from others but that coudl actually be achieved by speeding up balls and surfaces.

The problem is also the fact that 3 players pushed fitness to new levels. If you did not have those, you'd have quite an open field with quite a bit of turn over at the end of slams. But with those 3 very solid players strings have played a huge role in making their shot more "solid" than they woudl have been with gut. To me the real problem is not so much the strings but the combination of strings and fitness making it impossible for talent to thrive in a best of 5. Again faster balls would be a great way to balance the strings.

Interesting how the strings have enabled better shot variation and yet the game has never been so dull. The formula is followed almost by all top 10 players: get fit and rally hard and long, how else could a guy like Tipsarevic or Ferrer stay so long in the top 10?
It's good to know about the balls.
What are they all waiting then! Grr

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:36 pm

It's down to the Dimi Sharapova couple. If the crowd likes them (him) they might do everything for him. SO I think the nationalite is important.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Tenez wrote:It's down to the Dimi Sharapova couple. If the crowd likes them (him) they might do everything for him. SO I think the nationalite is important.

He,he...they look a bit like a commercial cash cow, maybe a new Fedal in the making....not genuine love doves to me, and both ways.
how kitch and chavvy, tough Sad

by Tenez Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:20 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
how kitch and chavvy, tough

You could be french with your critical mind!

by N2D2L Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:42 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
I don't dislike Nadal per se,

Phew, thanks goodness for that.
I was getting a bit worried about the proposition for a while I must admit.

by BlueClay Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:56 pm

Tenez wrote: Really? I'd like to know what is your reputation on those other forums. Even Nadal says Djokovic is more talented. Since Djokovic matured (2009) he beat Nadal 11 times to only 6 to Nadal and most of the 6 wins were on clay. So I am not sure what is laughable about saying Nadal is more talented. It's an opinion and a pretty valid one shared I'd by most ......including Nadal and Tony as I said.

The forums I am talking about where NITB and YOU for that matter have a bad reputation, I am not a member of. I have just lurked at those places.

Nadal does NOT say Djokovic is more talented, he has said Federer is more talented. Show me one link where Nadal has said Djokovic is more talented?

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:56 pm

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
how kitch and chavvy, tough

You could be french with your critical mind!

That could explain a thing or two.....

by BlueClay Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:01 pm

luvsports! wrote:Sure. Think we are done here .

We are definitely done because comparing the talent of a Gasquet to a Nadal is laughable. Gasquet is a beautiful backhand and that is about it. What is the h2h between Gasquet and Nadal? If Gasquet is so talented why has he not been able to beat the topspin monkey?

by BlueClay Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:05 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
BlueClay wrote:
I don't care what Tenez's definition of talent is. No offense but I disagree with most of what he says.

I have outline the reasons I feel overall Nadal is more talented than Djokovic. If you don't agree with those reasons that is fine but that does not mean my opinion is incorrect. I think you would find very few tennis analysts who would say Djokovic is more talented than Nadal.

P.S. I do not think Nadal's knees are wrecked. I think he was likely serving a silent supsension for 6 plus months. I think he may have some problems with his knees but his camp overstates the seriousness of the situation imo.

I don't buy much of what those paid "analysts" say in front of cameras.
You seem to be happy to believe their talk about Nadal's talent but not his injured knees. Pretty selective.

Just like you can't imagine them talking about silent bans, they equally can't tell the masses how pathetic Nadal is as a player.

You are hysterical. That kind of hatred you have for a tennis player you don't even know personally is not healthy and is going too far. You should have some kind of outlet to vent your hostilities. Do you have a job?

by BlueClay Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:09 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
BlueClay wrote:
I don't care what Tenez's definition of talent is. No offense but I disagree with most of what he says.

That is not just his definition, that's THE definition of tennis talent. The only reason you don't like it is because Nadal does not fit well in it.
It's a shame you don't want to see it, because once you take the blinkers off and understand tennis is not about "them against us", then you'll be able to enjoy it a lot more.
Sticking up for any player, especially Nadal is definitely not worth it.

Are you a cult leader because it sure seems like you are trying to attract members to your anti-Nadal cult and honestly it is pathetic. Let people think for themselves, your views are not THE views and they are quite wacky. I think you are the only one who can't see it.

by N2D2L Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:10 pm

BlueClay wrote:
luvsports! wrote:Sure. Think we are done here .

We are definitely done because comparing the talent of a Gasquet to a Nadal is laughable. Gasquet is a beautiful backhand and that is about it. What is the h2h between Gasquet and Nadal? If Gasquet is so talented why has he not been able to beat the topspin monkey?

Gasquet has a pretty BH which is pretty lethal, but his FH is poor.

He's also generally very passive and defensive, but against Wawrinka he showed signs of improving there.

by BlueClay Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:12 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
BlueClay wrote:
luvsports! wrote:Sure. Think we are done here .

We are definitely done because comparing the talent of a Gasquet to a Nadal is laughable. Gasquet is a beautiful backhand and that is about it. What is the h2h between Gasquet and Nadal? If Gasquet is so talented why has he not been able to beat the topspin monkey?
Gasquet has a pretty BH which is pretty lethal, but his FH is poor.

He's also generally very passive and defensive, but against Wawrinka he showed signs of improving there.

Gasquet is lovely to watch at times but for me he is very overrated despite his lovely tennis style.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:14 pm

BlueClay wrote: Are you a cult leader because it sure seems like you are trying to attract members to your anti-Nadal cult and honestly it is pathetic. Let people think for themselves, your views are not THE views and they are quite wacky. I think you are the only one who can't see it.

Of course they are THE views. It's just you aren't able or ready to understand and appreciate them.
One day you'll come back here and say: NITB, how silly was I once not to see Nadal was death of tennis like you did all those years ago..... smiley

by N2D2L Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:17 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
BlueClay wrote: Are you a cult leader because it sure seems like you are trying to attract members to your anti-Nadal cult and honestly it is pathetic. Let people think for themselves, your views are not THE views and they are quite wacky. I think you are the only one who can't see it.

Of course they are THE views. It's just you aren't able or ready to understand and appreciate them.
One day you'll come back here and say: NITB, how silly was I once not to see Nadal was death of tennis like you did all those years ago.....

Yes, just like he'll come back and agree that Nadal won't win another Grand Slam after Feb 2013 as his game his obsolete against the top 10.

Oh wait a sec...

by N2D2L Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:18 pm

BlueClay wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
BlueClay wrote:
luvsports! wrote:Sure. Think we are done here .

We are definitely done because comparing the talent of a Gasquet to a Nadal is laughable. Gasquet is a beautiful backhand and that is about it. What is the h2h between Gasquet and Nadal? If Gasquet is so talented why has he not been able to beat the topspin monkey?
Gasquet has a pretty BH which is pretty lethal, but his FH is poor.

He's also generally very passive and defensive, but against Wawrinka he showed signs of improving there.

Gasquet is lovely to watch at times but for me he is very overrated despite his lovely tennis style.

He's BH is pretty as I said. He is really passive at times though, it's bizarre.

btw regarding this forum- there are a few sensible posters who aren't hysterical and a bit crazy- Truffin, Luvsports, Amritia used to post here a while back as well, Summerblues and some others.

by luvsports! Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:37 pm

BlueClay wrote:
luvsports! wrote:Sure. Think we are done here .

We are definitely done because comparing the talent of a Gasquet to a Nadal is laughable. Gasquet is a beautiful backhand and that is about it. What is the h2h between Gasquet and Nadal? If Gasquet is so talented why has he not been able to beat the topspin monkey?

Do you realise how absurd you are sounding now? WHAT IS THE HEAD TO HEAD OF FEDAL?!!?! Feds is sooooo much more talented than nadal but he has not been able to solve that "topspin monkey".
Screw it let's just end it there and say we agree to disagree and not say our arguments are "laughable".

by N2D2L Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:41 pm

LS- try pressing switch editor mode for quoting- I know the new system is a bit of a pain.

Fed has a much closer head2head against Nadal than Gasquet.

And even if we are making blatantly dishonest 'defintions' to try and suit an argument or an agenda (which I'm not pointing the finger at you here, I am talking about others on the forum...not you) then Gasquet still struggles to make the cut.

He is one of the most passive players in the top 20, in general. He has spells of aggression though, but not nearly often enough.

by luvsports! Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:45 pm

cheers JS.

Ok you guys are clearly not convinced by gasquet. How about wawrinka or dolgopolov?? (two players are see as way more talented than nadal.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:52 pm

luvsports! wrote:cheers JS.

Ok you guys are clearly not convinced by gasquet. How about wawrinka or dolgopolov?? (two players are see as way more talented than nadal.

LS,

has Amri been banned on v2 since he seems to be back here with a few new names at the same time (incl JS)?
I don't get it why he is having a conversation with you on this forum when he's got v2.

by luvsports! Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:55 pm

Amri is "Red" on v2 and I don't think he has been banned there.

I don't think JS is amri nitb. I can't see amri putting himself in JS's "sensible posters" bit 2bh.

I got no beef with nobody Big Grin

by N2D2L Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:01 pm

Well I'm not Amritia, I do know her from another forum though. I'm not on 606v2 either.

by luvsports! Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:03 pm

haha amritia is a guy smiley

btw i replied to ya pm bud.

by N2D2L Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:04 pm

luvsports! wrote:

Ok you guys are clearly not convinced by gasquet.

LS, there's nothing wrong with people having different opinions, even though I disagree with you re Gasquet I am not going to pretend only I know the 'truth' or whatever. I can see why people may say Gasquet is more talented.

Wawrinka had improved a lot this year, still his FH is a bit of a weakness. He used to lack control at times, but now he is starting to find his accuracy more often.
I really don't rate Dolgo, I watch him in 250 events and think he's pretty crap.

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:07 pm

luvsports! wrote:Amri is "Red" on v2 and I don't think he has been banned there.
I don't think JS is amri nitb. I can't see amri putting himself in JS's "sensible posters" bit 2bh.
I got no beef with nobody

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6EaoPMANQM

by luvsports! Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:11 pm

I agree JS but when people start saying its laughable it doesn't help matters and then the convo spirals downwards.

nitb, gotta love fawlty!

by noleisthebest Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:40 pm

Who is/are your best grass court player(s) and why?

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31