Lendl touches on the very reason that top heavy eras are the best, hmmm who said that first?

First topic message reminder :

"Other than when he lost to Novak here in 2011, he has always played the No1 player in the world in the finals and those are difficult to win. "[Andre] Agassi beat Rainer Schüttler, I beat [Miroslav] Mecir. I'm not trying to say they were bad players, however they were not No1 at the time they were in the finals.

"This is the era the way it is, the top four are clearly better than everyone else. You don't get No7 in the finals. Andy didn't have any of those yet.

"Of course, when you get them, you have to take advantage of that as well, but it's just a tough era, as we keep saying all the time.

This is what I keep saying about the nature of tournament tennis, parity is really not that important. Whether the number 50 player is two percent better or worse doesn't really impact a player like murray or Djokovic or federer in winning a slam. Having to beat two legends in the semi and the final is what makes an era tough. Look at the physical and emotional toll it took on murray. The top 4 or 5 guys at most, at most determine who wins the major honors, they define the era.

Even lendl touched on it, I beat Mecir in a final, Andy doesn't have that luxury, neither does Novak and neither does roger and when Rafa comes back either. It is the top dogs that determine an eras strength and funny that Ivan Lendl agrees with socal, and seems to dispute this idea that all eras are the same and equally tough.

Wait I know what your response is going to be because I am Nostrafreakingdamus....wait for it...David ferrer!!!!!!!!!

Agree with IMBL, the final opponents of federer in the early days were not nearly of the competitive level we see today. And IMBL, correctly points out what Lendl is saying, that those tough semi and final matches are what defines the difficulty of a slam. Sure the also rans can create an upset of top guy here and there but they aren't the ones who by in large decide the winners of the major trophies. Federer's early slam rivals in the finals were highly soft, Roddick, baggy, phillipousis, and gonzalez in particular were not the quality of grandslam finalists that we have seen in recent years.

I must have missed the bit where Lendl mentioned the semi-finals
His point is to explain why Andy has only won 1 out of 6 finals - because he didn't have to play Mecir, Tsonga, Peurta, Berdych, Soderling etc. in the final

JuliusHMarx wrote:I must have missed the bit where Lendl mentioned the semi-finals
His point is to explain why Andy has only won 5 out of 6 finals - because he didn't have to play Mecir, Tsonga, Peurta, Berdych, Soderling etc. in the final

5 out of 6? His record is improving

Is it still a golden era?

Helloooooo, hellooooooo,

can someone me direct towards the golden era.

What I find amusing is that over the last 2.5 years the following players have iirc been in the top 10: Youzhny, Fish, Melzer, Monaco ( ), Ferrer (had his best season ever last year). I'm sure there were others. All players from Fed's generation.

Then Lubicic won a masters title in 2010, something he couldn't manage during the whole preceeding 15 years.

Additionally the like of Lopez, Seppi, Kohlschreiber, Mayer and a whole bunch of others have had their career highest ranks in the last 18 months.

All of these guys are oldies and these are the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

Isn't approx a quarter of the top hundred composed of players who are 30+

Isn't this the oldest top hundred, like, forever?

What does all that mean? Either the Nadal/Djokovic/Murray generation are crap or Federer's generation was actually very good to still be competitive at close to 30 years of age or older. In fact the only guys who seem not to have remained competitive are the guys who were decimated by injury like Nalby, Hewitt and Davy.

Personally I think that outside of the other top three players this generation is weaker in depth than Fed's generation. Additionally Fed's generation had some dangerous players from the previous generation who've now retired like Agassi.

Overall it's pretty even.

Even at the top I don't see a world of difference between Fed, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalby and Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Po.

Infact Nadal was in Fed's era for all but the first two years.



emancipator

carrieg4 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I must have missed the bit where Lendl mentioned the semi-finals
His point is to explain why Andy has only won 5 out of 6 finals - because he didn't have to play Mecir, Tsonga, Peurta, Berdych, Soderling etc. in the final

5 out of 6? His record is improving

Haha - I wish! Edited it now.

Yes and the physical primes of those players in their late 20s and early 30s dominating the tour happens to coincide with the last 5 or 6 years that have been particularly strong. The idea that somehow Nadal isn't part of the long term tennis landscape eventhough injured for a couple of slams is bizarre to me. When the guy comes back he most likely will be much better than any of federer's contemporaries were back during the roll over generation. I just find it telling that by END OF 2007 federer's closest rivals were not established stars in their physical primes. His two closest rivals in terms of rankings and play by the end of 2007 were a 19 year old Djokovic and a 20 year old Nadal. It wasn't Nalbandian, it wasn't roddick it wasn't Hewitt, Safin, or Ferrero. If the flagships of the early 2000s completely dissappear from the scene and are replaced by a 19 and 20 year old respectively, guess what maybe the new boys are just that much better.

-Philippousis x1 60% Murray
-Safin x1 50% Murray
-Roddick x4 60% Murray (50/50 at Wimbledon, 75% Murray elsewhere)
-Hewitt x1 60% Murray (Hewitt as his peak was very good)
-Agassi x1 50% Murray (Agassi was the better player, but Murray was at his peak, but Agassi would still anyway have had experiece to win againnst the 2008-2010 Murray but not the 2012 version)
-Nadal x8 20% Murray (bearing in mind most of these would have been on clay)
-Gonzalez x1 50% Murray (Gonzalez played extremely well that tournament)
-Baghdatis x1 75% Murray
-Djokovic x1 30% Murray
-Soderling x1 50% Murray (this would have been on clay)
-Del Potro x1 40% Murray (Murray is a better player overall, but doubt he would have downed Del Potro the way he played in 2009)

That comes to 5-6 wins for Murray out of those matches, 12 is way optimistic.

But how many of those finals would Murray have actually reached. As alluded to in other comments, only in the last couple of years has Murray being getting to semis consistently, in 2008-2010 R3 and R4 defeats were occurring with alarming regularity. Maybe he would have made half of those finals. If Murray's peak years had peak 2003 - 2007, and Federer hadn't been playing, I think he might have had about 2-4 slams perhaps in those four years combined instead of the 1 he managed in reality in the last 4-5 years of trying. Assuming 2003 Murray = 2008 Murray and 2007 Murray = 2012/2013 Murray. Let's not also forget Murray has the benefit of ever improving fitness regimes, strings etc that he wouldn't have had had he peaked at that time.

EDIT: Let me clarify my points about strings. From what I understanad strings improved/changed sometime around 2000-2005 (very roughly). Whether they have continued improving since then I am not sure. However even if they didn't I still think Murray would have an advantage because as a young teenager presumably he trained on the new strings whereas presumably Federer didn't and would have had to adapt later?

socal1976 wrote:Check that Roger didn't have that luxury after about 07, before that he had a very luxurious time of it.

I won't be surprised if Novak doesn't have luxury after 2015 , so will that become a weak era or strong era?

I think you give a fair estimate Henman bill, albeit conservative. The fact is however that none of the socalled super stars of that period other than federer ever one anything or could even maintain their relevance in the sport once the Murray/Novak/Nadal/Berdy/and Tsonga group took over. Wow Ljubi won one masters trophy, the guy was a top 3-4 player at one time I should hope if he has a hot serving tournament he can win a lone masters at some point.

As others have pointed out it is illogical to assume that every group of players and every generation is equally difficult to compete and win in. IN life everything goes in cycles, in the longterm the trend is always up with players getting better. But I find it very hard to equate Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin as equal competition to Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic. And in fact even when compared to their predecessors those players are not the equal of Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Courier, or becker either. In short we are not comparing these players t Pancho or Bill Tillden. The weaker era players are considerably weaker than the champions who came immediately before and immediately after them.

This is ridiculous. One of the reasons Murray hadn't got many Slams is the list of allegedly mediocre players who have beaten him before he reached the other 'top' guys.

Circular, circular, as always.

Still, if exactly the same statements get said often enough, they'll come true. Right?

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Check that Roger didn't have that luxury after about 07, before that he had a very luxurious time of it.

I won't be surprised if Novak doesn't have luxury after 2015 , so will that become a weak era or strong era?

So, what is your point, here IC I just don't get it. Barring serious injury I think he will be in the thick of it for quite some time. Maybe he won't be number 1 or maybe he will but for the last couple of years he has been getting better and better. With his improved serve I would not be surprised if he goes multi-slam this year again and is a dominant number 1. If the worst Novak detractors can do is to sit around and wait for 2015 then I say go ahead and I hope you have the patience of job.

By the way IC, I really am loving Diamond Rings, from the Toronto indie scene, have you heard of him, downloaded some of the stuff it sounds like an updated version of talking heads?

When you mention Federer's era you cannot speak of it without including Federer in that era hence your statement (Socal) that Safin, Hewitt, Roddick is worse than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray is wrong because you excluded the best player from the first era.

Federer, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick is better than Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro.

Nadal straddles both. The guy has been a grand slam champ since 05 and beating Fed since '04.

How disingenous of you to completely remove him from Fed's era.

Just shows how biased your reasoning is.

emancipator wrote:When you mention Federer's era you cannot speak of it without including Federer in that era hence your statement (Socal) that Safin, Hewitt, Roddick is worse than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray is wrong because you excluded the best player from the first era.

Federer, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick is better than Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro.

Nadal straddles both. The guy has been a grand slam champ since 05 and beating Fed since '04.

How disingenous of you to completely remove him from Fed's era.

Just shows how biased your reasoning is.

True, the pre-2008 era includes peak Federer and very strong Nadal. Quite possibly two of the top four players ever, alongside Borg and Sampras.

And that's a weak era?

bogbrush wrote:
True, the pre-2008 era includes peak Federer and very strong Nadal. Quite possibly two of the top four players ever, long side Borg and Sampras.

And that's a weak era?

Good point BB, but I really feel Nadal started to mature off-clay post-2007.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
True, the pre-2008 era includes peak Federer and very strong Nadal. Quite possibly two of the top four players ever, long side Borg and Sampras.

And that's a weak era?

Good point BB, but I really feel Nadal started to mature off-clay post-2007.

Doesn't matter, the combination of those two at that stage of their careers is supposed to constitute a weak era, while a Djokovic and Murray is golden?

Baffling.

emancipator wrote:When you mention Federer's era you cannot speak of it without including Federer in that era hence your statement (Socal) that Safin, Hewitt, Roddick is worse than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray is wrong because you excluded the best player from the first era.

Federer, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick is better than Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro.

Nadal straddles both. The guy has been a grand slam champ since 05 and beating Fed since '04.

How disingenous of you to completely remove him from Fed's era.

Just shows how biased your reasoning is.

Ok federer plus the rollover generation. I just find it interesting that by the end of 2007 federer's closest rivals in the rankings were a 19 year old screech look like and 20 year old spaniard.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
True, the pre-2008 era includes peak Federer and very strong Nadal. Quite possibly two of the top four players ever, long side Borg and Sampras.

And that's a weak era?

Good point BB, but I really feel Nadal started to mature off-clay post-2007.

Doesn't matter, the combination of those two at that stage of their careers is supposed to constitute a weak era, while a Djokovic and Murray is golden?

Baffling.

???
Can't remember using the labels 'weak' and 'golden.'

I have said before that it is generally harder to win a slam if it is a 'top heavy' era- ie many world class competitors at the top.
Sorry but atm I'm not sure this is the case, Nadal is injured, Federer on the decline; so we have two left if these two retire (as they may soon).

Those descriptions are not attributable to you, but we hear them often enough. Ad nauseum, actually.

socal1976 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Check that Roger didn't have that luxury after about 07, before that he had a very luxurious time of it.

I won't be surprised if Novak doesn't have luxury after 2015 , so will that become a weak era or strong era?

So, what is your point, here IC I just don't get it.

The point is simple Socal, every body have a small time as peak years, in Fed's case his peak lasted for almost 7 years, I am not sure Novak's peak will last that long, if Fed cannot give the same performance of the peak years that indicates he has past his peak and thats normal gradual process of ageing, its not as if Novak, Murray and the rest have become monsters overnight.

Like many pointed, this is the same era Ferrer is having the best run, Fed still having a run, outside him, all Tsonga, Isner, Melzer etc,. are at their top, so in my view Novak's success is more to do with lack of competition than his success owing to some magic all of a sudden, if its really a magic then Novak's success should continue deep till he is 32 like Fed i.e we are looking at 2020 ? even die hard Novak fan like you would not have imagined in your dreams, coz you know your boy.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
True, the pre-2008 era includes peak Federer and very strong Nadal. Quite possibly two of the top four players ever, long side Borg and Sampras.

And that's a weak era?

Good point BB, but I really feel Nadal started to mature off-clay post-2007.

But I see the other way, may be the competition eased or may be surface homogenization and weak competition bundled together led to Nadal's success past 2007, what do you think so?

BB, that may not be attributable to me, but many other things are.
For example on this site I believe I have made clear that I do believe that a 'top heavy' era is the hardest to win Grand Slams in.
Ie having many cutting edge world class players at the top of their game playing, having 3+ of these generally means the slams will be shared and it's harder for one person to dominate.
Do you agree with me on this one Bogbrush? I do know normally you disagree with me, what do you think here

If Nadal and Federer retire this year, then we have only Djokovic and Murray left at the top of the game in terms of players I would view as 'cutting edge world class' (I know it's a bit of a vague phrase, apologies for that but hopefully you get what I mean).
So it wouldn't really be that strong. Quite strong as Djokovic and Murray are all very strong on all surfaces (apart from Murray on clay) but that's it. Below that not sure I really rate Ferrer, Tsonga and Berdych very highly to challenge realistically.

It's a meaningless distinction. Top heavy is just another way of saying shallow depth.

Doesn't sound so great then.

How long until people accept you cannot compare any time periods...?
The game was different even just 5 years ago...
Nadal is different than 2004/5.

No it isn't meaningless BB, why then would lendl make a big deal of it an mention it?

I will concede this, if Nadal doesn't comeback we can call a close to 07-2012 golden period because then it would be a murray and Djoko duopoly pretty much unless others rise to the challenge. If nadal comes back and plays like the old Nadal. And not to mention Del Po continues to develop then we still are in a very strong period. Fed's retirement and Nadal not being himself will certainly impact the quality of the period.

On clay a strong era started perhaps with the Nadal-Federer semi of 2005. One player one of the best clay courters of all time if not the best, and the other a player who would have probably won at least 3 RGs and 5-10 clay masters without the other and himself been a clay great. Actually, Federer's peak could not possibly have come at a worse moment on clay. In any other era, he might have won more than one RG? Although it's interesting that this 2005 French Open also seems to mark the end of the great clay specialists like Musta, Moya, Coria, Ferrero, Kuerten, Bruguera. So in some other respects maybe the clay strength in depth got weaker from 2005 onwards. Hard to know how Federer would have done on clay against that lot at their peak? Probably won some and lost some.

Off clay, Nadal is not peak in 2005 and 2006, with losses in slams occuring at almost any stage. His run to the 2006 Wimbledon final was impressive over achieving (R2 the year before) and featured a recovery from 2-0 down against qualifier Robert Kendrick in R2.

Exactly, outside Nadal the later 2000s are a barren period for clay courters.
Most of those you mentioned were long done by 2005.
Infact, Federer is arguably lucky there were less of them around.

At RG 2004 Federer met the last great clay courter before Nadal, Kuerten.
Roger lost in straight sets.

socal1976 wrote:No it isn't meaningless BB, why then would lendl make a big deal of it an mention it?

I will concede this, if Nadal doesn't comeback we can call a close to 07-2012 golden period because then it would be a murray and Djoko duopoly pretty much unless others rise to the challenge. If nadal comes back and plays like the old Nadal. And not to mention Del Po continues to develop then we still are in a very strong period. Fed's retirement and Nadal not being himself will certainly impact the quality of the period.

Because its nonsense.

Top heavy = no depth. Take your pick of labels, depends on the opinion you're looking to vindicate.

lydian wrote:Exactly, outside Nadal the later 2000s are a barren period for clay courters.
Most of those you mentioned were long done by 2005.
Infact, Federer is arguably lucky there were less of them around.

At RG 2004 Federer met the last great clay courter before Nadal, Kuerten.
Roger lost in straight sets.

Quite an emphatic statement there.

Till 2005, Federer made to 4 finals of masters 1000 on clay, won 3 and lost 1 (to Felix Matilla).

In 2002 at Hamburg, he defeated Kuerten in quarters (one bagel), Safin in the final.

In 2003 at Rome, defeated Ferrero in semi, Volandri in quarters (not a world beater but not a mug on clay either) before losing to Mantilla in the final.

In 2004 Hamburg, defeated Moya in quarters, Hewitt in semis and Coria in the final.

In 2005 Hamburg, defeated Coria in quarters. (Semi and final opponents were not clay specialists in Davydenko and Gasquet but form players at that time).

So yes, arguably he was lucky. There is a strong argument that he would have done alright against them between 2005-07.

Federer beating a Murray at AO 2010.

Stan and Cilic beating Murray. Murray reaching the USO 2008 final beating Nadal.

Federer beating Djokovic at W 2012 and then Murray W 2012.

Maligning Baggy, Colonel, Hewitt, Gonzo, Blake, Looby is a disservice to Tennis history.

Berdych showed up in 2010? I wonder who beat Federer at Athens Olympics.

Prefer HM's logic. It must be a strong era, because my favourite player is in it and winning. If he/she were losing, I cannot explain it.

@IMBL... Miami and Dubai get brought up regarding Federer v Nadal. Can you please identify what years these are in?

lydian wrote:How long until people accept you cannot compare any time periods...?

Never, it would seem.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:How long until people accept you cannot compare any time periods...?

Never, it would seem.

The comparison is now done by calling players' peers and comparing peers of peers. It is all pear-shaped now.

Federer and Looby are peers, Nadal and Federer are peers, Nadal and Djokovic are peers, Djokovic and Murray are peers. Hence Murray and Ljubicic are peers, ad infinitum ad nauseam. I would even question how one defines a 'time period', because it is arbitrary.

Spuranik, Kuerten had hip surgery less than 3 months prior to that loss in 2002. No one is arguing Federer isn't great on clay, but by 2005 onwards there were no good claycourters left in their prime besides Nadal. In terms of clay prowess I'd put Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten ahead of Federer (he's top 10 for sure though).

Indeed JHM.

Conclusion: Nadal won his clay titles in a weak clay era.

Yes it was likely weaker. But I'm not sure it would have made a whole lot of difference whatever clay era Nadal cropped up in given he was able to beat the defending RG champion, Albert Costa, in straight sets at Monte Carlo 2003 as a 16 year old...

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
True, the pre-2008 era includes peak Federer and very strong Nadal. Quite possibly two of the top four players ever, long side Borg and Sampras.

And that's a weak era?

Good point BB, but I really feel Nadal started to mature off-clay post-2007.

Yet he won 3 of his 4 masters titles on HC before 2008.

Infact 5 of his 11 HC titles were won in this period (05-07) despite the post 2008 period being 2 years longer.

For the record I do agree that he became a better HC player as the years passed by but I don't think the difference is as clear cut as some would like to make it. He didn't just wake up in 2008 as a good HC player. He was already a good player on HC's. I don't think it's fair to excuse his pre-2008 slam losses on the HC's simply because he hadn't matured on the HC's - his opponents deserve credit.

Yes, he beat Federer, then #1 player, at Miami 2004 on a relatively quick HC. He played v.aggressive tennis. Not quite sure why he wasn't able to do better on HC up to 2009 AO really but I think some of it is that he changed his style quite a bit after 2006 to become more defensive and less defensive...he embraced the stamina approach. It was a mistake in my opinion despite his successes.
Only from 2010 onwards has he started to become more aggressive again...back towards the player than burst onto the scene 2003-5. I'll be interested to see what style of play he has when he returns this time...I suspect more aggressive again, hence the racquet changes also.

My point is that he has always been a good HC player, very good in fact.

Agreed. He's just a very very good tennis player. Some even say an all-time great you know. His mistake was to go more defensive between 06-09...probably UncT insisting the better way to win was to grind more, forgetting the style that announced Nadal as a prodigious talent in 2003/4. A lot of damage, literally, was done to Nadal's career during that period IMO. He was forced to become too defensive, play too many matches, with not enough focus on developing technique and technology (should have progressively moved to a heavier racquet some time back). This is where Toni showed his lack of high end modern technique and knowledge of where the game was going. He tried to turn Nadal into the archetypal Spanish clay courter, which Toni was comfortable with, when in fact Nadal had always been much more than that, perhaps much more talented across non-clay surfaces than he realised.

In contrast to 06-09, look at his match vs Coria at Rome 2005 on YouTube ...ok it's clay, but its fast clay. Look at how aggressive Nadal was back then...I have no idea why Uncle T changed this approach post 2005. No idea at all but I think it somewhat blunted his progress on non-clay surfaces afterwards. For me it wasn't until 2010 that he started to revert back to his pre-2006 aggressive instincts...and funnily enough it was when the 2 of them started falling out again...climaxing with huge fall out in 2011 that almost split their relationship completely.

Maybe he thought it wasn't the best way for nadal to win so many slams?
Maybe he had a plan all along way back to when he went from a righty to a lefty?

There's a lot of misunderstanding about the so called right to left change. Toni didn't change him at all as some type of grand plan to exploit "leftyism". Rafa simply preferred playing with his left hand - Toni noticed it so encouraged the change of dominant side. He got that bit right...

Lydian is spot on.
I've been through this debate before.

Nadal never played tennis right-handed.
He played tennis double-handed left handed when he was young, and just changed it it to single handed left handed on the FH.

And yes before you ask, there is a difference between left handed double handed FH, and right-handed double-handed FH, the position of your stronger hand is always further up the racket.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1117130/Rafael-Nadal

is that in his book? can't dispute that if it is, never read it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-01XvmcF6Ak

So let me get this straight no era is weak except the current era which has no depth and the clay court era nadal dominated, but the era federer dominated against giant talents like empanada dave nalbandian and one shot Andy was as strong as any era? Is that the party line? We have never been at war with Eurasia

All made up.

T.M.: So, you took charge of little Rafa and perhaps, you made the most important decision of his life: to let him play with his left hand whereas he’s a natural right-hander.

Toni: No! That’s a legend... But it’s really not the truth. At the start, he played with two hands but using one hand to direct. I had the impression that he was stronger on his left side than on his right side.

So, I figured that he was left-handed; it’s as simple as that.

Besides, even if he ate with his right hand, he also played football with his left foot. However, at no point did I tell him: “He needs to play with his left hand because that way, he will be much stronger.” However, since I’m not completely stupid, I simply advised him to use his strongest hand. That’s it.

Besides, I don’t think that it’s that much more advantageous to be left-handed. Just look at the world’s best players: there are not many of them there. No, the only thing I did advise Rafa was that at the age of 10, he needed to stop playing his forehand with two hands because no top player had a two-handed forehand and I couldn’t imagine my nephew being the first. So, this is all there is to this story. Would Rafa be as strong now if he used his right hand? That’s something we don’t know and we will never know.

http://www.soyouwanttowinwimbledon.com/TG%20TONI%20NADAL%20INTERVIEW.pdf

I don't know Lydian I played a left handed flame thrower last night and his serve was very difficult to handle with the spin, but the kid managed to steal it! 6-3,1-6 we played the last set as a tiebreaker 7-5 for SoCal match point he makes the mistake of giving me a soft return on the forehand that was all she wrote. He had a mean shbl and big serve but lacked consistency

Lefties are just 5 percent of the population yet Connors, Mac, laver, nadal all lefties I hate returning a lefty serve sucker dances on you

socal1976 wrote:I he makes the mistake of giving me a soft return on the forehand that was all she wrote.

Is that a Springsteen reference you're chucking in there?

and from my nineteenth bday i got a union card and a wedding coat,
we went down to the courthouse and the judge put it all to rest,
no wedding day smiles no walk down the aisle,
now flowers no wedding dress

That night we went down tooooooooo the rivvvveeeerrrrr
and into the riiivveeerr we'd dive ohhhhh down to the river we did ride!

mahooooosivvveee boss fan here seeing him again this year at the ricoh!
BRRRRRRRUUUUUUUCCCCCEEEEEEEEEE

LuvSports! wrote:mahooooosivvveee boss fan here seeing him again this year at the ricoh!
BRRRRRRRUUUUUUUCCCCCEEEEEEEEEE

Consider yourself moved up a notch in my estimation, LuvSports! I blooming love Bruce!

HM Murdoch wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:mahooooosivvveee boss fan here seeing him again this year at the ricoh!
BRRRRRRRUUUUUUUCCCCCEEEEEEEEEE

Consider yourself moved up a notch in my estimation, LuvSports! I blooming love Bruce!

Oo’er missus. You don’t wear pink shoelaces as well do you HM?