I have one question and one question only DL...just wtf do you want from a game of tennis? You criticise just about everything, you hate serve bots, you hate pushers, you hate baseline rallies...I don't know for the life of me why you watch it...some of the more bizarre comments from you suggest you don't. Just what do you call a good game?
![]()

Murray was immense.
He outdid Djokovic at his own game - incredible returns, impossible shots, relentless accuracy, fewer unforced errors, exceptional fitness and stamina, exceptional mental strength.
He's reached the final of the last five Grand Slams he's played in, winning two. He's unbeaten on grass in three tournaments since last year's Wimbledon final. And he's even better on New York's hard courts. He could be number 1 by the end of the year.
How can anyone say he's just a "pusher" and bad for the game?
To be fair we have been spoilt by watching Federer and Nadal over watching recent years so it's hard to compare Murray and Djokovic to those two.
To answer your question I prefer watching offensive baseliners that try to dictate rallies. Djokovic and Murray's playing styles are very similar and when they play each other the matches tend to be long, endless baseline rallies boiling down to who will crack first.
Murray had a tremendous amount of luck this year but IMO he should have won it last year and would have but for the farcical roof situation. Yesterday wasn't a good tennis match by any means, but Murray was a worthy winner![]()
I don't think Murray is bad for the game, but by slowing down the courts, you pretty much give the big 4 an unprecedented advantage. Grass is a surface that, in theory, should reward attacking play. Del Potro was bludgeoning forehands that should not have been returnable but were.
It would seem the main 4 plus the likes of Del Potro play this way, and the only way you see anything one-sided is when one of them isn't quite on top of their game. Djok said that in his interview pretty much. He didn't deal with the key points, Murray did. The situation was reversed in the Aussie Open, Murray came off 2nd best in the key points. Just because Murray won in straight sets doesn't mean it was a walkover, the last game was amazing and had it fell Djok's way which it easily could have, we could have been on for a longer epic, but those are the fine lines at the top.
Same in football DL, how many Super Sundays last season were dull affairs? (NOT how I'm describing the Wimb. Final btw!)...a good few! The best protagonists on paper don't always provide the predicted fireworks, doesn't mean that particular sport is in a bad way, or the individuals playing or their methods are sub-standard in any way, not imo.
Same in football DL, how many Super Sundays last season were dull affairs? (NOT how I'm describing the Wimb. Final btw!)...a good few! The best protagonists on paper don't always provide the predicted fireworks, doesn't mean that particular sport is in a bad way, or the individuals playing or their methods are sub-standard in any way, not imo.
That's what the best do in any sport -they raise their game at the crucial time. No individual or team has the physical or mental capacity to be at their best all the time. Many have the ability to be the best on a given day ("on their day"), but the top performers are able to reach those heights more often, at the most decisive times and at times when they are not in peak form or condition. That's what we saw with Murray - and not just in the final. That is why he is rated as top class and why he can win against any other player on any surface at any time now.

These journos have got to be taking the piss... why Stoke? - a city which is less far north than about half the clubs in the league, thereby likely to be less dark, less cold, and less 'up' than many other grounds... surely Sunderland would be more appropriate?http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/08/spurs...er-than-expected-thanks-to-tech-fail-3874025/
"The away-kit, on the other hand, seems to be a bright aqua affair, which seems to be keeping with many clubs’ persistence in having a fluorescent change of strip for those cold, dark winter nights up in Stoke."
These journos have got to be taking the piss... why Stoke? - a city which is less far north than about half the clubs in the league, thereby likely to be less dark, less cold, and less 'up' than many other grounds... surely Sunderland would be more appropriate?