Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No, and before I go any further, I don't dislike Murray because he is Scottish. I do however think he comes across as a bit of a sh!t. Federer is an amazing player, and seems a nice chap. I also never much liked Sampras, and would like his record beaten rather than equalled.

jimmy two times Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So what. He's British and he's good.


He's good. admittedly.


Does he still wear that Paraquay shirt that he wore when they played England?


We will let YOU know his Nationality depending on how successful he is/isn't.


Usual rules apply:


Wins or does very well : He's a proud, resolute BRITISH Winner, almost English even.>:D<


Performs moderately or worse: He's a tight-fisted Scot who shouldn't be allowed in God's Green and Pleasant Land and please close the Border on your way back Andrew:X

Awkward 19 year old attempts awkward joke, egged on in context of jokey interview. Gets slaughtered for it. Goes back into shell. People complain he's captain grumpy. He gives them what they want for a couple of years. No surprise in that.


Have you seen/ heard him recently? He's funny.


And he never wore a Paraguay shirt either. A myth.


I find the sense of ownership the Wimbledon public has over tennis players very weird. But Murray did a deal with the devil by going to crowd at 0-2 in sets during his game vs Gasquet last year. It rather gave the lie to his supposed indifference to the Union Flag Face Paint brigade. They own his arse now, and at some point will make him pay for it.

The pressure on Brit players at Wimbledon is well OTT, but you can also be adored, so you can't really have it both ways.


Maybe you're right Ted, I've not seen much of him recently. I still want Federer to win though because I liked him. I always used to like Agassi, and would have cheered him over Henman.

I like Murray, he is a typical laconic Scot. Dry humour.


As Ted Max said he is young and let's face it the whole of Scotland is the same when it comes to football. It's mostly said as a bit of fun and a bit of sour grapes as the Scots do spectacularly badly at the footy.


It must be very difficult to have a mic thrust in your face 2 mins after coming off court and I reckon he does not bad.


He plays a great game of tennis and he's more exciting to watch than Federer who never seems to beak a sweat, Andy gets emotional out there.

bigbadwolf Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Really BBW - have just turned on the TV.

> >

> > So all those people with the "I am the Stig" T

> > shirts were filty lyers - the same people as

> uesd

> > to wear the JR T shirts. Scum.

>

> I like what you did there Mic Mack. Ommitting the

> 'H'from filthy, really conveyed your Oirish

> accent. You did however slip up in failing to

> include 'oi' between 'L' and 'Y' in 'lyers'.

> Still, very sporting of you none the less.



Cheers BBW - I noticed my spelling error after posting and yes, realised it sounded a little Oirish, so left it. "Filty" sounds really really filthy. Pure filth.

The Andy Murray comment about England/football was taken out of context. The other guys were teasing him about Scotland not getting into the World Cup, so he just took the piss back. Funny how these things get blown out of proportion.


My predictions:

SF1: Murray vs Del Potro

SF2: Djokovic (or maybe Cilic) vs Federer

Final: Del Potro vs Federer


Federer to win.

Asset Wrote:

Actually, a lot of the reason the Scots won't support England at the footy is that they despise the way the fans behave. You don't see the sort of horrendous pissed-up violence at a Scots away game that can happen with the English fans. They

stay at home for that.


Off Topic but while very true, this only partially tells the tale.


When I walked through Princess Street with my Black Girlfriend a few years ago she heard a Girl say to me "English Bestard" which I'm glad she didn't tell me at the time ( I'm lying as she was a 6ft+ giant so I'm glad I did NOT hear it)...


Back in the early 1970's onwards it was The Scots who caused mayhem around Wembley and when 70,000 used to take over Central London ( remember the famous pitch invasion when they broke the nets and swung on the crossbar?) and no sane Englishman would travel to Hampden Park for the return International every other year!)...so its not just that.


Bonnie Prince Charlie, Bannockburn and all...I love the passion of The Scots and the atmosphere they create and along with The Irish, The Tartan Army are welcomed the World over unlike the English Fans who are often reviled, understandably.

I think tennis is much more of a game about individual's and less about the country the players are from. I understand why people want to see a British winner at Wimbledon after all these years, but personally I agree with Keef. I support the individual whose style of play I prefer to watch, or whose personality I warm to. Hence why I am backing Federer this year.


Did anyone see that match last night? Benneteau v's Djokovic? It kept me on my sofa and well away from my scheduled run around Peckham Rye... I had a lot of respect for Benneteau, particularly after he suffered two nasty falls and seemed to play through the pain barrier. What a great game for the first day. I fear my level of fitness is going to suffer over the next fortnight...

Gerrard - you have a point, it does tend to transcend nationalities, and tennis fans still love watching great players, even when no brit is involved. I still think majority of us would like to see a british winner (myself included). But if/when Murray is knocked out, I imagine most tennis fans will root for someone based on talent, style of play, and personality.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...