Quote from: cdticklefan on July 07, 2012, 09:11:34 PMWell done Marray and Nielsen.Just found out about this. First time in 76 years that a British man has won the Men's Doubles @ Wimbledon.
Well done Marray and Nielsen.
For the first time in 30 years I watched a tennis match from start to finish and what struck me was how the match seemed to be played entirely on the baseline which I found pretty boring. Maybe my memory is playing tricks but didn't Nastase, Ashe, Borg etc play up at the net a lot?
I know he doesn't like the English
Quote from: UK Redsox on July 07, 2012, 10:14:10 PMQuote from: cdticklefan on July 07, 2012, 09:11:34 PMWell done Marray and Nielsen.Just found out about this. First time in 76 years that a British man has won the Men's Doubles @ Wimbledon.I can't believe how little attention this has received, it was fairytale stuff. Marray only asked Nielsen to partner him the week before and they entered on a wildcard. They had to beat 5 seeded teams to win, and beat the previous years champs, the Bryan brothers, in straight sets in the semi-final the day before.An amazing achievement really, such a pity that it hasn't received the coverage it deserved. If you can be arsed, check out the match on iplayer.
To be fair Chris, that's a bit like coming on here and asking why the goalkeeper can't pick the ball up anymore from a backpass, or why the non-interfering player is not offised anymore even if he's hanging from the crossbar.The game has totally changed - as have the balls and even the courts at wimbledon.
Quote from: usav on July 09, 2012, 07:18:42 PMTo be fair Chris, that's a bit like coming on here and asking why the goalkeeper can't pick the ball up anymore from a backpass, or why the non-interfering player is not offised anymore even if he's hanging from the crossbar.The game has totally changed - as have the balls and even the courts at wimbledon.Fair enough, remembered why I don't watch it any longer.
I think the turning point was that 20 minute game in the 3rd set which broke Murray...he looked dejected after losing that game physically and mentally.
Quote from: Plumbutt Cooper on June 18, 2012, 10:11:21 PMQuote from: Ad@m on June 18, 2012, 09:26:19 PMA lack of intent when you're negligently reckless is no defence. He may not have intended to injure the line judge but it was obvious that if he kicked the panel with that much force he'd follow through in to the line judges leg. The guy's clearly a dick. No, he was clearly very frustrated and took it out on the nearest object, in this case an advertising hoarding. Ever played sport? Never got annoyed whilst playing sport? If the line judge hadn't have inadvertently got in the way it would have been a code violation and at the most a one game penalty.Did someone say life ban?! Inadvertently got in the way? The judge didn't move from his chair. Yes I did. Partly because he seems to think he shouldn't even have been disqualified. Mainly because I am sick of petulant sportsmen ans women.
Quote from: Ad@m on June 18, 2012, 09:26:19 PMA lack of intent when you're negligently reckless is no defence. He may not have intended to injure the line judge but it was obvious that if he kicked the panel with that much force he'd follow through in to the line judges leg. The guy's clearly a dick. No, he was clearly very frustrated and took it out on the nearest object, in this case an advertising hoarding. Ever played sport? Never got annoyed whilst playing sport? If the line judge hadn't have inadvertently got in the way it would have been a code violation and at the most a one game penalty.Did someone say life ban?!
A lack of intent when you're negligently reckless is no defence. He may not have intended to injure the line judge but it was obvious that if he kicked the panel with that much force he'd follow through in to the line judges leg. The guy's clearly a dick.