Not Funny Or Clever Just Disrespectful Gamesmanship

First topic message reminder :

Saw what is described as Murray's failed attempt at a "tweener" discussed elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tyH3JV-dEw&feature=player_embedded

When a player is forced to hit a through the legs shot because it is the only option and it comes off it's impressive because they have turned round what looks like an impossible situation by using a difficult shot. For example when a player is lobed and then scrambles back but has no time to turn and hit a conventional shot.

But that's not what Murray does here and not what I've seen Murray do on previous occasions. He could hit a conventional shot as he is facing his opponent. He instead chooses to show off by playing a trick shot. I wouldn't even describe it as a "tweener" as it's relatively easier than what I described above. The message Murray was attempting to send was that he thinks he's so good he doesn't even need to try. If I was Wawrinka I would have been furious as it's so disrespectful. (even though it didn't work this time Ha ha!) But maybe that's the idea? That's why it's gamesmanship as potentially it could make an opponent so mad they could lose concentration.

IMO this sort of behaviour has no place in competitive pro play as it goes against the rules and spirit of players trying their best for a win. Murray should have received a warning from the umpire. He should also expect to be criticized for resorting to such disrespectful gamesmanship.

CaledonianCraig wrote:That one V Roddick was the only one that was marginal and even then if you look at it there is no way he could have got right in behind it and played an effective shot. End of the day he hit a winner, other times it has been less successful just like any other shot in tennis. The only one here making something of this is a poster who has spent Murray's entire career on a crusade of character assassination and berating his lack of talent and insisting he'd never win a slam. But now that he has do we see an admittance she was wrong - oh so wrong. Of course not so that negates her opinion for me.

Depends what you mean by effective shot. He couldn't have run around them, fully steadied himself and smacked a forehand (although the Roddick one he probably actually did have time to do that) but he could have got them back in play easily enough. He has decided as the ball goes over his head that he is going to hit a tweener. You can tell that from his movement back, which is never intended to get him behind the ball.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but my days of conducting a conversation with you cease from now until I read a concessionary post about how wrong you were about Murray. For eight years you have droned on unfairly about how Murray would never win a slam, ridiculed him at every chance (and more) and now that you have been proved oh so wrong you continue as if nothing has happened. Run along and post a congratulations thread on Murray on winning a slam and admit where you were so wrong and why you were so wrong and I may open up dialogue again.

Oh that's sad. Sometimes I quite like talking to you and I was going to respond to your post but now there would be no point...

Born Slippy wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:That one V Roddick was the only one that was marginal and even then if you look at it there is no way he could have got right in behind it and played an effective shot. End of the day he hit a winner, other times it has been less successful just like any other shot in tennis. The only one here making something of this is a poster who has spent Murray's entire career on a crusade of character assassination and berating his lack of talent and insisting he'd never win a slam. But now that he has do we see an admittance she was wrong - oh so wrong. Of course not so that negates her opinion for me.

Depends what you mean by effective shot. He couldn't have run around them, fully steadied himself and smacked a forehand (although the Roddick one he probably actually did have time to do that) but he could have got them back in play easily enough. He has decided as the ball goes over his head that he is going to hit a tweener. You can tell that from his movement back, which is never intended to get him behind the ball.

When you play tennis you judge where the ball is going to land and then make a decision on how you are going to deal with it. The better you are at judging the expected flight of the ball and the quicker you can decide what your next move is the better your chance of successfully putting thought into action. Of course Federer will have decided early that he has to hit a tweener. He is Federer after all...

Bless you. Thanks for explaining that to me. Of course, sometimes even the best have to improvise - doesn't that make the way Murray deals with Tsonga's smash after running past it even more special?

hawkeye wrote:

IMO this sort of behaviour has no place in competitive pro play as it goes against the rules and spirit of players trying their best for a win. Murray should have received a warning from the umpire. He should also expect to be criticized for resorting to such disrespectful gamesmanship.

Can you clarify which rules have been broken and why the umpire should have given a warning.

Anyway lookng at the the clip you attached. Wawrinka hits a shot to Murray's back hand side, Murray starts to move across to return it but the ball clips the net which a) slows it down b) means Murray has readjust (read what you said in your last post about shot anticipation). Wawrinka is standing around the service line near centre court so any touch back is going to be easy to deal with. Therefore he improvises a shot , gets it wrong and loses the point.

I can't imagine that in the split second he had to readjust that he was thinking I'll do a tweener that will upset him.

Slightly off topic. We read so much on here about how boring tennis is becoming with all these base liners wanting to play extended rallies. So when players (I'm not just talking about Murray here) try to use an innovative shot to try and win a point why criticise them.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Watched those clips and I'd agree with BB as in I couldn't see how he could have played those shots in any other way. However, going by OP it is surely still deemed as disrespectful to there opponents. We cannot have one law/rule for one and one for another. Simples.

By the way this is just another failed attempt a character assassination by the OP. I would read more into this if Stan took offence and has been in the press complaining and refused to shake hands at the end but he didn't so we can presume that the man who has most reason to feel disrespected saw nothing in this but the OP did how odd? But wait a minute this is a poster we are still waiting to congratulate a player for winning his first slam. Graciousness is lost on her it would seem.

Is it really about 'laws'? That seems a bit bizarre, I don't understand where you're coming from there Craig.

hawkeye wrote:

When you play tennis you judge where the ball is going to land and then make a decision on how you are going to deal with it. The better you are at judging the expected flight of the ball and the quicker you can decide what your next move is the better your chance of successfully putting thought into action

keyboard coach!

Born Slippy wrote:Bless you. Thanks for explaining that to me. Of course, sometimes even the best have to improvise - doesn't that make the way Murray deals with Tsonga's smash after running past it even more special?

Mmm... I may have to give you that. Not funny or clever just disrespectful gamesmanship and "special".

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Really necessary? The bit about Federer being so fast he could track those down pass them, turn around and play a normal groundstroke was quite funny.

Still, I'm sure you know that. You're probably just very enthusiastic about Andy.

Are you serious? Watch the first two clips in the compilation in HE's post. The one against Roddick he practically stops to give himself time to play the tweener. Note the difference in acceleration when he then sprints in to reach the drop shot. it is sweet when someone is so defensive of any perceived criticism of Federer but I'm not actually being critical of him. It's a great shot to play.

Ok, if you think its possible to play a conventional shot in that USO semi v Djokovic, it looks like its delusion then.

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Really necessary? The bit about Federer being so fast he could track those down pass them, turn around and play a normal groundstroke was quite funny.

Still, I'm sure you know that. You're probably just very enthusiastic about Andy.

Are you serious? Watch the first two clips in the compilation in HE's post. The one against Roddick he practically stops to give himself time to play the tweener. Note the difference in acceleration when he then sprints in to reach the drop shot. it is sweet when someone is so defensive of any perceived criticism of Federer but I'm not actually being critical of him. It's a great shot to play.

Ok, looks like its delusion then.

Always quite amusing when someone resorts to insults because they have no sensible response. Try giving a straight answer - do you think Federer could have played a conventional forehand to Roddick's backspin lob which landed on the baseline?

Apparently sarcasm shows an argument lost, but insulting someone that disagrees with you is just fine.

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Really necessary? The bit about Federer being so fast he could track those down pass them, turn around and play a normal groundstroke was quite funny.

Still, I'm sure you know that. You're probably just very enthusiastic about Andy.

Are you serious? Watch the first two clips in the compilation in HE's post. The one against Roddick he practically stops to give himself time to play the tweener. Note the difference in acceleration when he then sprints in to reach the drop shot. it is sweet when someone is so defensive of any perceived criticism of Federer but I'm not actually being critical of him. It's a great shot to play.

Ok, looks like its delusion then.

Always quite amusing when someone resorts to insults because they have no sensible response. Try giving a straight answer - do you think Federer could have played a conventional forehand to Roddick's backspin lob which landed on the baseline?

Always quite amusing when people use words like 'sweet' to patronise isn't it?

If I recall correctly, your statement was that apart from one USO tweener (Dabul, not the semi) they were all unnecessary. Why not stick with that rather than squirming?

Hmm, you seem to have changed your post. I'm guessing you have watched the clips again and realised that Fed could have ran around a number of them. The Djokovic one is questionable I grant you but my feeling is that he probably could have got round it if he had needed to. Point is though, and on this I'm sure we can agree, he didn't need to try because he had absolute confidence in his ability to hit the tweener.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Watched those clips and I'd agree with BB as in I couldn't see how he could have played those shots in any other way. However, going by OP it is surely still deemed as disrespectful to there opponents. We cannot have one law/rule for one and one for another. Simples.

By the way this is just another failed attempt a character assassination by the OP. I would read more into this if Stan took offence and has been in the press complaining and refused to shake hands at the end but he didn't so we can presume that the man who has most reason to feel disrespected saw nothing in this but the OP did how odd? But wait a minute this is a poster we are still waiting to congratulate a player for winning his first slam. Graciousness is lost on her it would seem.

Is it really about 'laws'? That seems a bit bizarre, I don't understand where you're coming from there Craig.

By laws I mean standards etc that the OP sets up as in it is fine for any other player to play a flashy shot or unconventional shot but if Andy Murray plays it then it is unsporting gamesmanship.

Born Slippy wrote:Hmm, you seem to have changed your post. I'm guessing you have watched the clips again and realised that Fed could have ran around a number of them. The Djokovic one is questionable I grant you but my feeling is that he probably could have got round it if he had needed to. Point is though, and on this I'm sure we can agree, he didn't need to try because he had absolute confidence in his ability to hit the tweener.

No, my position was that your post was either a joke or delusional. That's pretty much obvious.

You seem to be coming around, bit slow though.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Watched those clips and I'd agree with BB as in I couldn't see how he could have played those shots in any other way. However, going by OP it is surely still deemed as disrespectful to there opponents. We cannot have one law/rule for one and one for another. Simples.

By the way this is just another failed attempt a character assassination by the OP. I would read more into this if Stan took offence and has been in the press complaining and refused to shake hands at the end but he didn't so we can presume that the man who has most reason to feel disrespected saw nothing in this but the OP did how odd? But wait a minute this is a poster we are still waiting to congratulate a player for winning his first slam. Graciousness is lost on her it would seem.

Is it really about 'laws'? That seems a bit bizarre, I don't understand where you're coming from there Craig.

By laws I mean standards etc that the OP sets up as in it is fine for any other player to play a flashy shot or unconventional shot but if Andy Murray plays it then it is unsporting gamesmanship.

I don't think she said that. I think she was pretty much going with whatever was causing the commentators to say what they did.

It's fairly obvious really; either it's the shot you HAVE to do, or the one you CHOOSE to. At least that's what they seem to say, I don't think it's much of an issue really.

Calder106 wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

IMO this sort of behaviour has no place in competitive pro play as it goes against the rules and spirit of players trying their best for a win. Murray should have received a warning from the umpire. He should also expect to be criticized for resorting to such disrespectful gamesmanship.

Can you clarify which rules have been broken and why the umpire should have given a warning.

Anyway lookng at the the clip you attached. Wawrinka hits a shot to Murray's back hand side, Murray starts to move across to return it but the ball clips the net which a) slows it down b) means Murray has readjust (read what you said in your last post about shot anticipation). Wawrinka is standing around the service line near centre court so any touch back is going to be easy to deal with. Therefore he improvises a shot , gets it wrong and loses the point.

I can't imagine that in the split second he had to readjust that he was thinking I'll do a tweener that will upset him.

Slightly off topic. We read so much on here about how boring tennis is becoming with all these base liners wanting to play extended rallies. So when players (I'm not just talking about Murray here) try to use an innovative shot to try and win a point why criticise them.

Well there is some sort of rule about always giving the best effort. I don't think deliberate "showboating" is something the ATP want to encourage.

I disagree about Murray being "forced" to play the shot. IMO he could have played a conventional shot but instead chose to play a shot that was more difficult (not as difficult as a true tweener though). Maybe we will just have to disagree on that.

As far as boring goes. I have to admit that although I don't find Murray the most entertaining of players to watch he is interesting in his own way.

I can't see any offence to punish. If I were his opponent I might be tempted to have a quiet word in the changing room but that's between players, nobody ese.

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Hmm, you seem to have changed your post. I'm guessing you have watched the clips again and realised that Fed could have ran around a number of them. The Djokovic one is questionable I grant you but my feeling is that he probably could have got round it if he had needed to. Point is though, and on this I'm sure we can agree, he didn't need to try because he had absolute confidence in his ability to hit the tweener.

No, my position was that your post was either a joke or delusional. That's pretty much obvious.

You seem to be coming around, bit slow though.

You are a funny chap aren't you? I've tried to debate sensibly with you but it appears all you can do is insult people who disagree with you. An unfortunate characteristic normally associated with people who don't know what they are talking about.

I'll ask you the same question again. Do you accept Federer could have run around the Roddick lob? You do understand don't you that, whilst I believe a normal athlete could have run around all bar one of them, the point I was making (that he will choose to do the crowd pleasing tweener even when not strictly necessary in case you hadn't grasped it) works even if he could have only done so on one of them?

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Watched those clips and I'd agree with BB as in I couldn't see how he could have played those shots in any other way. However, going by OP it is surely still deemed as disrespectful to there opponents. We cannot have one law/rule for one and one for another. Simples.

By the way this is just another failed attempt a character assassination by the OP. I would read more into this if Stan took offence and has been in the press complaining and refused to shake hands at the end but he didn't so we can presume that the man who has most reason to feel disrespected saw nothing in this but the OP did how odd? But wait a minute this is a poster we are still waiting to congratulate a player for winning his first slam. Graciousness is lost on her it would seem.

Is it really about 'laws'? That seems a bit bizarre, I don't understand where you're coming from there Craig.

By laws I mean standards etc that the OP sets up as in it is fine for any other player to play a flashy shot or unconventional shot but if Andy Murray plays it then it is unsporting gamesmanship.

I don't think she said that. I think she was pretty much going with whatever was causing the commentators to say what they did.

It's fairly obvious really; either it's the shot you HAVE to do, or the one you CHOOSE to. At least that's what they seem to say, I don't think it's much of an issue really.

Precisely. Not much of an issue yet the OP is, of course, here making it an issue yet has refused to make an article/issue of a player winning a slam who she has worn would never win a slam yet she fails to concede how wrong she has been. Heck slag a player off is she so wishes but also hold up her arms and graciously concede she was so very wrong about what Murray could achieve in the sport. I wouldn't have made an issue about this but the OP has been on numerous tennis forums for the last nine years swearing Murray would never win a slam repetitively, over-confidently and ridiculously and so now I believe she should admit to the errors of her ways as reward to all those Murray fans and other tennis fans who have had to listen to her ramming this down our throat.

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Hmm, you seem to have changed your post. I'm guessing you have watched the clips again and realised that Fed could have ran around a number of them. The Djokovic one is questionable I grant you but my feeling is that he probably could have got round it if he had needed to. Point is though, and on this I'm sure we can agree, he didn't need to try because he had absolute confidence in his ability to hit the tweener.

No, my position was that your post was either a joke or delusional. That's pretty much obvious.

You seem to be coming around, bit slow though.

You are a funny chap aren't you? I've tried to debate sensibly with you but it appears all you can do is insult people who disagree with you. An unfortunate characteristic normally associated with people who don't know what they are talking about.

I'll ask you the same question again. Do you accept Federer could have run around the Roddick lob? You do understand don't you that, whilst I believe a normal athlete could have run around all bar one of them, the point I was making (that he will choose to do the crowd pleasing tweener even when not strictly necessary in case you hadn't grasped it) works even if he could have only done so on one of them?

Funny and sweet?

Thank God you're not patronising, otherwise you'd come across as a right hypocrite.

As for your analysis I'm pretty certain it was impossible to beat those balls, turn, and hit a meaningful shot. Same as just about everyone else who's posted on this thread.

C'mon Craig, do bears s**t in the woods? If you see the words 'Murray' and 'Hawkeye' in the same thread you can't claim to be surprised what you read!

I know BB but what I said stands. She has freely posted on numerous forums over the years slating Murray, swearing he'd never win a slam, berating him and character assassinating him at every chance for the best part of nine years - and that has been relentless. Andy Murray won the US Open and blew her little unsubstantiated theories and ideals out of the water yet she has neither the guts or common decency to come out and admit how wrong she was as way of apology to those she has ridiculed. That is totally classless and really I can do without conversing with someone like that until they show some humility.

I know, but at least you can have the reassurance that you're not going to have to go on forums being told it'll never happen. Personally, I'd extract value from that rather than getting annoyed!

bogbrush wrote:I know, but at least you can have the reassurance that you're not going to have to go on forums being told it'll never happen. Personally, I'd extract value from that rather than getting annoyed!

That is true BB but it doesn't stop the likes of hawkeye posting her personal character assassination on Murray without a care for what nonsense she is posting even though her past history and predictions about Andy Murray have been so wrong wrong wrong - yet she continues without any shame.

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Hmm, you seem to have changed your post. I'm guessing you have watched the clips again and realised that Fed could have ran around a number of them. The Djokovic one is questionable I grant you but my feeling is that he probably could have got round it if he had needed to. Point is though, and on this I'm sure we can agree, he didn't need to try because he had absolute confidence in his ability to hit the tweener.

No, my position was that your post was either a joke or delusional. That's pretty much obvious.

You seem to be coming around, bit slow though.

You are a funny chap aren't you? I've tried to debate sensibly with you but it appears all you can do is insult people who disagree with you. An unfortunate characteristic normally associated with people who don't know what they are talking about.

I'll ask you the same question again. Do you accept Federer could have run around the Roddick lob? You do understand don't you that, whilst I believe a normal athlete could have run around all bar one of them, the point I was making (that he will choose to do the crowd pleasing tweener even when not strictly necessary in case you hadn't grasped it) works even if he could have only done so on one of them?

Funny and sweet?

Thank God you're not patronising, otherwise you'd come across as a right hypocrite.

As for your analysis I'm pretty certain it was impossible to beat those balls, turn, and hit a meaningful shot. Same as just about everyone else who's posted on this thread.

Your first two posts were insulting and patronising. Perhaps if you don't like being mildly patronised in response you would be better off engaging politely to begin with?

The Roddick one is a backspin chip which barely travels beyond the baseline. Federer also very obviously jogs most of the way back to it. I can accept that you might believe he had to play some of the others through the legs but that one could very obviously have been played conventionally. Not accepting that just makes it appear you just don't want to accept you could possibly be wrong.

Craig - Murray has had a summer beyond his wildest dreams, and Rafa has been out and has question marks hanging over his fitness and future.

Combined, this is HE's worst nightmare and she has to express that in some way. That's why I have stopped debating with her as there's nothing to debate. I just have a bit of fun with it (when I can be bothered) because this frustration from her is music to my ears.

To be fair, since the USO win, there is a note of desperation to HE's Murray threads. I cannot comprehend disliking a player so much that I would post more than all their fans combined in an attempt to discredit everything they do. It is quite sad really.

Back to the thread, there is just one tweener in the Fed video where the commentators say he could have got his legs out of the way and that is the one I was alluding to. Mainly I disagreed with the point that all tweeners when the players are facing away from the net are "necessary" and all tweeners facing the net are not. Way too much of a generalisation. In the Wawrinka clip, it looked to me like he made an a%se of his timing getting to the ball, tried to recover and failed. Not really worthy of a mention, let alone a thread. I have always been critical of the Wimbledon tweener.

Just one note on listening to the commentators. H$ll will freeze over before I unmute John Lloyds commentary.

You're the one who started complaining slippy, lets not try to rewrite that one. You like your patronising moments, I see you threw one at another poster on this thread too.

I didn't even bother getting round to looking at how 'tough' it was for Murray to have played a normal shot. Why bother? McEnroe called it.

I'm beginning to think that legendkillarV2 was correct in his assessment that "you're all just a bunch of towels". If someone had come along and admitted that the so called "tweener" that Murray hit against Wawrinka was ill advised this whole thread would have consisted of three or four comments. But instead in attempts to paint Murray as whiter than white all kinds of (deliberate?) misunderstandings, elaborate excuses, far fetched explanations and attempts to paint poor Federer (who wasn't even playing in the match) in a bad light have resulted. Not to mention all kinds of totally made up insults directed at me... and on top of that being told I won't even be listened to if I reply.

Pfft! legendkillarV2 you have great insight...

Ill advised and disrespectful gamesmanship are different things. Very different.

Ill advised I might have agreed with. It lost him the point after all.

Nobody else on this forum would have turned this molehill into a mountain. It's a nothing incident.

Ah so all you want is people to agree with you. Wouldn't be much of a debate then. Maybe you over egged your original post by saying it was against the rules and the umpire should have given a code violation. I still think in this instance it was a spur of the moment shot caused by the fact he had to deal with a net cord and readjust his position.

Danny_1982 wrote:Ill advised and disrespectful gamesmanship are different things. Very different.

Ill advised I might have agreed with. It lost him the point after all.

Nobody else on this forum would have turned this molehill into a mountain. It's a nothing incident.

Yep, I may have gone with ill advised for the same reason, but that is not what the OP said.

Calder106 wrote:Ah so all you want is people to agree with you. Wouldn't be much of a debate then. Maybe you over egged your original post by saying it was against the rules and the umpire should have given a code violation. I still think in this instance it was a spur of the moment shot caused by the fact he had to deal with a net cord and readjust his position.

Exactly

Haven't yet watched the videos, will watch them now.
One thing I can say while reading the comments is this:
When you do a tweener it's because:

a) You have to play it.
b) You choose to play it, even when you could just play a conventional shot.

If it is option B here, which I don't know yet as I haven't watched it, then I would say that could be either very careless, or 'showboating.'
I don't really see it as gamesmanship at all, I don't put showboating or trick shots under gamesmanship, unless it was a pre-planned tactic to annoy your opponent which is very unlikely.
This applies to Murray, Federer, and everyone.

OK have now watched the clip, I think it was option B. He didn't have to play it I don't think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlBg2_oUqUI
That is definitely option B, Federer could have easily played a conventional shot there.
HE, why didn't you also write an article on that one??

btw these were option A (i.e. he had to play it):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37qyvTRVus8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEzgysQEmyg

hawkeye wrote:I'm beginning to think that legendkillarV2 was correct in his assessment that "you're all just a bunch of towels". If someone had come along and admitted that the so called "tweener" that Murray hit against Wawrinka was ill advised this whole thread would have consisted of three or four comments. But instead in attempts to paint Murray as whiter than white all kinds of (deliberate?) misunderstandings, elaborate excuses, far fetched explanations and attempts to paint poor Federer (who wasn't even playing in the match) in a bad light have resulted. Not to mention all kinds of totally made up insults directed at me... and on top of that being told I won't even be listened to if I reply.

Pfft! legendkillarV2 you have great insight...

No one has painted Fed in a poor light and Murray's shot was clearly ill advised as it was not the right shot given the way the ball approached him. However, it was not gamesmanship, which is what you state in the article.

bogbrush wrote:You're the one who started complaining slippy, lets not try to rewrite that one. You like your patronising moments, I see you threw one at another poster on this thread too.

I didn't even bother getting round to looking at how 'tough' it was for Murray to have played a normal shot. Why bother? McEnroe called it.

I don't recall complaining but you may understand my comments better than I do. I do like the way you keep telling me what you can't be bothered to explain. I'll save you the trouble, Murray didn't need to do the second tweener against Tsonga nor did he need to do the one against Tsonga. It was showboating. The difference between us is that I have no problem with any player creating enjoyment for spectators. It is a risk for them as they are more likely to miss it but it isnt something to criticise. Look at Ronnie playing left handed at snooker, KP switch hitting or Pirlo's penalty against England. All are examples of sublime skill, not gamesmanship. The fact that you won't even acknowledge that the one against Roddick could have been played in a different way tells me all I need to know about your ability to accept opposing views.

I found this when I was looking for some other posts and it made me laugh. Wawrinka apparently was as incensed as hawkeye was by that showboating tweener - he hasn't let Murray win a set since

Are we talking abut Andy 'part-timer' Murray?

YvonneT wrote:I found this when I was looking for some other posts and it made me laugh. Wawrinka apparently was as incensed as hawkeye was by that showboating tweener - he hasn't let Murray win a set since

Ha ha! what comes around goes around...

bogbrush wrote:C'mon Craig, do bears s**t in the woods? If you see the words 'Murray' and 'Hawkeye' in the same thread you can't claim to be surprised what you read!    

Considering this statement, it's amazing to find you at your most passionate, in defence of yet another WUM article from HE  

I'll have to remember this and see if you will be so 'reasonable' when I go on ad-naseam about Fed's lack of grace in the late nougties, i.e. for the 100th time as opposed to HE's;- 'I don't like Murray and I'll show you why - Part 1000'  

As CC stated earlier, some of us never engage with an HE article about Murray, because what's the point? A few weeks ago, she got twisted up in her strange logic - I pointed it out and asked for an answer, didn't get one. Just like BS has done above - same result

So a pointless article, purely designed to annoy - gets your robust defence. We barely saw you during Wimby or the US Open - yet, strangely, here you are as cerebral as ever, on a non-event

Umm, just a reminder - this article, and most of the posts, are a year old

Ooops!!!  

That's 1-0 to BB

and 5-0 to HE for getting to visit one of her articles a year apart

^ Just so you know. It wasn't me that bumped this article up

I know that not even you would stoop so low  

I like how HE referenced the power of towels! Good girl indeed!

Just for the record....You're all still a bunch of towels!