Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 05:05 PM 
Started by mackym - Last post by Aileen
To lose to Cilic, even when perhaps tired, shows the weakness in not being able to be supreme over the opposition. I do the parallel with Mo Farah. He won despite being tripped in one race and then in the next when he admitted to being tired (and it showed). His opposition have no belief that they can win against HIM whereas Andy's can see an opportunity can arise. This is rarely the case with Novak.
I don't see the logic behind that either because Andy was tired all tournament (running on fumes according to Jamie Delgado), suffering from the effects of a cold and had a shoulder injury, albeit not a serious one.  Also I still maintain that had it been another night match Andy might have fared better because, rather unusually, all his earlier matches were night ones, and he did seem to be struggling a bit to adjust to the daytime conditions.  Another example was the DC against France last year which he played, again with very little left in the tank.  The only 'weakness' Andy has which is of benefit to his opponents is that, unfortunately, he tends to let all his feelings show, something the other top players rarely do.

 2 
 on: Today at 04:51 PM 
Started by mackym - Last post by marathonarthur
plj,

No, I cannot compare international stars with club athletes.  I can though compare competitors at any chosen level which is what I said. It is a battle between minds for supremacy where standard is sometimes irrelevant. At whatever level when others come not to expect to beat you then their chances of doing so then become remote. That is what I am referring to.  I did not mean to be disrespectful to Andy.

Andy's record is one of not being as successful as his skills suggest he could be. That is factual. He is the one of the 'big four' with the least slam successes. I am hoping that is now changing. To get to three finals is where he should be. Rafa has always said he is the most skillful player!  The next stage is to win most of those slams each year.  If he always could play as he has done for his country in Davis Cups and at the Olympics then he would be the TOP player!  I have been a supporter for 13 years of his attitude and play but I have always felt  that his win rate did not represent his ability. 

As a matter of fact my opposition was domestic. I started before athletics went professional and had no wish for sport to be more important than my chosen profession so it was not my priority. To do well at anything that I did was!  I am a fierce competitor by nature.

 3 
 on: Today at 04:50 PM 
Started by boogers - Last post by boogers
BFD. This is what politics is all about.  Just look at our House of Lords. Packed with cronies and stooges.   Twas ever thus. I don't condone it but faux outrage over Clinton's Foundation is totally misplaced.

It's hilarious. Pay for access? The payment was aids drugs for 11 million people.

 4 
 on: Today at 04:49 PM 
Started by boogers - Last post by boogers
What I am intrigued by is whether "good democrats" can bring themselves to vote Clinton. It is quite a leap for some perhaps only possible blinded by party loyalty?

And "good republicans" voting for trump? Are you intrigued by that?

 5 
 on: Today at 04:36 PM 
Started by boogers - Last post by Fiverings
^elections are not won or lost on the blind allegiance vote.  They are won by those who weigh up the totality of options presented and decide accordingly. On that criterion, Clinton is heading for a landslide, her only fear being those who might prefer her as the lesser of two evils may think that this is what's going to happen may stay away from the polls

 6 
 on: Today at 04:02 PM 
Started by mackym - Last post by plj
[quote author=marathonarthur
 22 games unbeaten is good so he has improved but he should win more tournaments. I can sympathise as I was a regular, in athletics, at not quite making the top spot at my level. 

I mean no disrespect but are you comparing the people you ran against with the people Murray plays against?

 7 
 on: Today at 03:59 PM 
Started by boogers - Last post by marathonarthur
A thought from a neutral to American politics.

Do you think that email scandals will make any difference to how people vote?

Around the world people vote by some sort of blind allegiance to ideas whether wrong or right.

Rural white America I expect to vote Trump and those in the cities and most of the intellectuals I expect to vote Democratic. What I am intrigued by is whether "good democrats" can bring themselves to vote Clinton. It is quite a leap for some perhaps only possible blinded by party loyalty?

 8 
 on: Today at 03:47 PM 
Started by mackym - Last post by marathonarthur
MA:  you don't consider Andy a top player?  Fair enough that you don't consider him  the top player, given he's not number one, but surely he has been a top player for some time?  shocking

I think that he is the best player in the world to watch because he has greater skills and flair than the others.

You are right he is not the TOP player (my words were poor as I found it impossible to say what I felt). Using your better wording to me he is not the top player for one simple reason.  I think that he still has yet to solve the riddle of how to win consistently. 22 games unbeaten is good so he has improved but he should win more tournaments. I can sympathise as I was a regular, in athletics, at not quite making the top spot at my level.  

To lose to Cilic, even when perhaps tired, shows the weakness in not being able to be supreme over the opposition. I do the parallel with Mo Farah. He won despite being tripped in one race and then in the next when he admitted to being tired (and it showed). His opposition have no belief that they can win against HIM whereas Andy's can see an opportunity can arise. This is rarely the case with Novak.

Does that sound better? I welcome your assistance in helping me to clarify my own mind!

 9 
 on: Today at 02:39 PM 
Started by mackym - Last post by waverlybear
Most news sites still seem to have not realised that that 3 of the 4 Grand Slams use the rankings to determine seedings. The Daily Mail are not alone in that respect, the BBC for example used the headline "Murray and Konta learn US Open seedings".

Thanks Matthew2408.   

 10 
 on: Today at 02:14 PM 
Started by boogers - Last post by Fiverings
The current controversy is based on new emails just released. The Associated Press broke the story yesterday that Clinton sold access in the form of donations to the foundation while in the position of Secretary of State. So far there's no proof that access led to policy influence but that's the current speculation from both sides based on the sources of some of those donations.

"These latest emails are further evidence that Mrs. Clinton set up her private server to prevent the public from seeing how Hillary and Bill mixed public power with their personal financial and political ambitions via the family foundation. When she got caught, Mrs. Clinton cherry-picked the emails she’d turn over to State and tried to destroy the rest. Meanwhile, everyone important in the world understood that a gift to the Clinton Foundation was a way to influence the U.S. government." - The Washington Post

BFD. This is what politics is all about.  Just look at our House of Lords. Packed with cronies and stooges.   Twas ever thus. I don't condone it but faux outrage over Clinton's Foundation is totally misplaced.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10