Wimbledon - Crystal Ball Time

by Guest Mon 10 Jun 2013, 4:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

I have to say I am rather looking forward to it.

Who will the grass gods favour for 2013? Well I think it is interesting.

Nadal. His last visit should be one his supporters would like to forget and one his detractors do not stop mentioning. Given his recent run of form I see a player who could actually win it. Ever since his comeback many have predicted a decline. Without question he is a step slower. Even on the Clay many of his opponents were able to find winners except Nishikori and Ferrer who just were a bad match up. He won Indian Wells. Lost in Monte Carlo, but won Madrid and Rome and then topped it off winning his 8th French Open crown. I believe Nadal hits harder now on the FH especially because of the overwhelming weakness on his BH due to his knees. I think like Federer he needs a good draw. Players like Del Potro, Berdych and even Tsonga become a greater threat because of the contrast in surface. He isn't playing Halle and maybe lack of practice could count against him. Also will he begin to tire after having played so much Clay tennis this year?

Defending champion and 7 time winner Federer. Downed by Murray at the AO and Tsonga at the FO. It is a question now of how fit is he. 32 this year and you have to wonder how much his Slam hopes rest on his physical prowess much rather than a favourable draw. Could this be his last year to win a Slam? Last year the back was hurting and he was facing defeat against Benneteau and he summoned every effort and genius to come back and win the tournament. Does he have that type of inspiration left in his tank? He will hope that the British Summer becomes a wash out so he can take advantage of the roof. I am sure he will be doing rain dances leading up to the event.

Novak Djokovic. World No.1. LAst year he won Miami and had to wait 5 months to taste another tournament win. He suffered a very bitter defeat to Rafael Nadal. The weather gods intervened just as he was ready to drop the hammer on Nadal. Oddly enough his performances were below par, but he was winning. At Wimbledon the wheels slipped off even more. He was defeated by Federer. He picked up again in Toronto and on the eve of the US Open was dismantled by Federer again. However this year has seen Djokovic become the aggressor. Who could forget the AO where he outlasted Wawrinka and then destroyed Ferrer in straight sets? He went on and downed Murray despite dropping the first set. He went to IW and Miami where he was defeated by Del Potro and Haas respectively. He then went to Monte Carlo and de-throned the king. He then came agonisingly close to beating Nadal again at RG to fall short again. Up and down like last year a bit. I think however he is made of sterner stuff and will look to win another Wimbledon title. If the mindset is right and conditions heavy, we could see the Serb strike back.

Great Britain. Always a tormentous time to be British. Murray fresh off the back of lay off from Roland Garros. Has been practicing on the grass since last week. Is he due to win his 2nd Slam at Wimbledon? 3 semi's back to back and runner up last year. He broke his Slam duck at New York last year. However, this year has been up and down. Out-grinded by Djokovic in Australia but then outlasted Ferrer in a painstaking gruelling match in Miami. Clay was a miss for him. You have to wonder with the results he has grinded out since Wimbledon last year if that brand of tennis is enough to win the Wimbledon title on top of the expectation of the tennis public. He must show more aggression if he is to end the Wimbledon hoodoo.

It will be a cracker.

Who is your money on?

by _homogenised_ Thu 13 Jun 2013, 11:57 pm

Nadal has won it twice in his entire career, hasn;t won it since 2010, and was made to look foolish last year by a rank 100. Not sure why anyone would place him favourite above Djok.... or even Fed.

by User 774433 Fri 14 Jun 2013, 12:31 am

_homogenised_ wrote:Nadal has won it twice in his entire career, hasn;t won it since 2010, and was made to look foolish last year by a rank 100. Not sure why anyone would place him favourite above Djok.... or even Fed.

That's a pretty sharp point you've made there.

by Guest Fri 14 Jun 2013, 5:30 am

Danny_1982 wrote:
_homogenised_ wrote:If your head was in a guillotine and you had to guess the winning player this year, who would not say Djokovic? Admit it, we all would.

I think I'd say Rafa personally. But the four of them are so congested in this slam you could find reasonable arguments for any order of likelihood between those 4.

Compare that to clay where Rafa has only lost one match, and Novak was seen as his only challenge... And Murray - had he played - is so far behind the other 3 a QF would have been a result.

That's why this years Wimbledon excites me. It's genuinely the most difficult slam to predict in years.

What, you mean since last Wimbledon ? Wink

But yeah, W is probably the most unpredictable, followed by the USO.

FO, obviously is the most boring.

by FedsFan Fri 14 Jun 2013, 8:57 am

banbrotam wrote:
Silver wrote:I'm favouring Murray more due to question marks over his rivals than anything else, although his record at Wimbledon over the last few years also speaks for itself. Federer's out of form, it's Novak's weakest surface and Nadal may not be tuned up enough and susceptible to an early exit. In addition, for some reason I see Murray as the guy who's nailed on to reach the latter stages - in my mind it'll be nearly impossible for a lower ranked player to take him out, and his games matches up well against other contenders such as Tsonga. I can't say that about the others.

I agree 100% with this. As is the way sometimes, it's a matter of who has the best worst Tennis - something Roger memorably alluded to, after that equally memorable press conference, after his Novak Miami 09' defeat

Nadal not been tuned up and could have an early exit? Is this Rafael Nadal we are talking about or some other Nadal on tour? He IS fired up as he knows this is his next best chance of winning another slam on the green clay. He knows the hard courts are not kind to his knees (though you would not imagine at the moment) and he has Djokovic who is best on h/c. Here he can take advantage of Djoko's weakest surface, Federer's descent in form and Murray's inability to get a win over him when he's playing fully fit at a major plus the pressure/expectations of playing at Wimbledon. Nadal's focus is on overtaking Federer and though he says its light years away (which I think is just him being him down playing his chances, just as he did saying he wasnt the favourite in the FO final!) he knows it is achievable in the next couple of years. I would not be too surprised if he levels Federer next year.

My pick for the win is Nadal. He is on a roll now and that 7 month break has really helped him recharge whereas the others just look jaded.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 14 Jun 2013, 9:09 am

Fedsfan - to level Fed next year he would have to win 5 out of the next 6 slams.
Isthis the same way Rafa was going to win the calendar GS in 2011 and Djoko was going to win the calendar GS in 2012.
Since 2010, Rafa has won the FO 3 times, and no others. Now you're expecting him to win 4 out of the next 5 slams off-clay?

by CaledonianCraig Fri 14 Jun 2013, 9:23 am

I agree JHM. Levelling Federer's slam total by next year is silly talk. However, if he can rediscover the art of winning non-clay slams then surely it is quite feasible that Nadal will surpass Federer's total before he retires - providing he remains without any further knee trouble. I know there a lot of ifs in there but it is not out of the question.

by lydian Fri 14 Jun 2013, 9:50 am

Even with good knees his slam winning years are unlikely to extend beyond 30yo, i.e. Wimb16.
That's only 13 slams to go - to beat Federer he needs to win 50% of them.
He would likely need to win RG14/15/16, Wimb twice and AO/USO once.
It isn't going to happen - especially with Djoko and Murray breathing down his neck.

by LuvSports! Fri 14 Jun 2013, 9:54 am

Interesting lydian. You say djoko and murray.
Do you think there will be a shift in their rivalry? I still can't see murray getting the better of rafa.

by User 774433 Fri 14 Jun 2013, 9:56 am

Nadal has no chance to get more slams than Federer- a preposterous proposition if I've ever seen one.

by lydian Fri 14 Jun 2013, 10:09 am

Well I said as much the other day re: Murray but I'm open-minded enough to wonder what difference Murdl'13 has made to the rivalry.
We'll see.

by FedsFan Fri 14 Jun 2013, 11:05 am

Okay, perhaps I was a little too hasty to write that he can achieve 17+ in the next couple of years. I would say 3 years. I know a lot of you guys think it is an insane statement to make but his injuries aside, he can still do it. He is 5 behind Federer and that is not an unachievable number. His only two rivals are Djokovic and Murray, the former being the only player to cross the finish line in a slam final bar RG whereas Murray has got only 2 wins vs Nadal in slams and one of those wins was a retirement. The rest of the pack do not appear to be able to mount a serious challenge with the exception of JMDP and he seems to not be in the same 'zone' he was in when he won the USO.

I think it is possible unless Fed can put a little more distance between him and that seems questionable at the moment.

by Born Slippy Fri 14 Jun 2013, 11:19 am

Its stating the obvious to say whether Nadal catches Federer depends how he can do off clay. If he can grab either wimbledon or the us open this year then I personally would regard it as 50-50 whether he could grab 4 more probably over 4 or so years at the top of the tour.

by time please Fri 14 Jun 2013, 11:24 am

17 slams seemed a ridiculous amount and 17 plus seems insane, but actually when you stop and really think about it it is not only possible, but extremely probable that Rafa will catch and surpass Fed's tally.

Because many players have been past their most successful at the ages of 26/27, we tend to assume that it may well be the same for Nadal/Djokovic and Murray. But, unlike Fed or any of the great champions before him, there is no credible young challenger who is looking like they can threaten the rest of the field (the field that has fallen short against N/D and M!) on a consistent basis, let alone challenge the three big guns - hell, they can't even effectively challenge Hewitt who, great former champion that he is, can no longer live with the top four.

Nadal and co have it their own way until they hang up their racquets - only injury can prevent that.

by bogbrush Fri 14 Jun 2013, 11:34 am

It's all down to Djokovic and Murray; there's no threats coming through and Federer is in decline. If those other two got themselves settled at a high level he wo't do it, but otherwise why not?

The only other variable is Federer; if he wins a Slam it's a double-whammy - one Rafa can't have and another he has to get. That's been the experience since Australia 2009, at which point many thought Rafa would overhaul him easily. Since then he's made very little ground at all - just 2 more than Federer.

by CaledonianCraig Fri 14 Jun 2013, 11:46 am

FedsFan wrote:Okay, perhaps I was a little too hasty to write that he can achieve 17+ in the next couple of years. I would say 3 years. I know a lot of you guys think it is an insane statement to make but his injuries aside, he can still do it. He is 5 behind Federer and that is not an unachievable number. His only two rivals are Djokovic and Murray, the former being the only player to cross the finish line in a slam final bar RG whereas Murray has got only 2 wins vs Nadal in slams and one of those wins was a retirement. The rest of the pack do not appear to be able to mount a serious challenge with the exception of JMDP and he seems to not be in the same 'zone' he was in when he won the USO.

I think it is possible unless Fed can put a little more distance between him and that seems questionable at the moment.

Fed's final chance comes at Wimbledon this year. If he doesn't win there (and that is looking unlikely) then at the current rate of deterioration he won't win another slam.

by HM Murdock Fri 14 Jun 2013, 11:56 am

I thought at the time and I still think now that Federer getting #17 took him out of Nadal's reach.

It may end up being close but my hunch is 5 more slams (let alone 6 more to actually overtake Fed) is a step too far.

by The Special Juan Fri 14 Jun 2013, 12:05 pm

I think I said this earlier but I don't see Nadal winning another one on a hard court because Djokovic is just too superior on that surface to Nadal. He'll no doubt win every RG up until he's finished which leaves Wimbledon to be contested by the big 3 (sorry Roger) for the next few years. It'll be very close indeed.

by lydian Fri 14 Jun 2013, 12:06 pm

Slam count to me is simply is a battle between Nadal & Federer on that metric, not who is GOAT. We assume Nadal will go on a slam tear everytime he wins a slam but barring 2010 its not happened.

by barrystar Fri 14 Jun 2013, 12:23 pm

I thought that 17 was probably a step too far for Nadal. As Lydian points out, years in which Nadal has won more than 1 slam are rare indeed. He did it in 2008 (2) and in 2010 (3). To pick up on Lydian's theme, it looks now that he's coming into Wimbledon on a tear, just as it did in 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012, but only in the most distant of those two of those years did he win Wimbledon.

If you compare career trajectories, 2013 for Nadal is the rough age equivalent of 2008 for Fed. At the end of 2008 Fed was on 13 slams, Nadal is currently on 12; by the end of 2009 Fed was on 15 slams - in order to keep up with Fed's pace he's got to win 3 of the next 6 slams, and then to overtake he must win 2+ more after he's 29 (I assume that Aus Open 2015 will be beyond him). I think he can push it pretty close and probably muscle his way level with or past Sampras, but he won't get level with Fed, let alone past him, unless he achieves something this year that he hasn't done for 3 years. And the reason he hasn't done it for 3 years is that it's extremely difficult to do.

Of course, you never know with the guy, but the odds are against him it seems to me.

I rate Fed's chances of winning Wimbledon as very low - I think we've seen his last slam win unless he gets into the gym PDQ.

by lags72 Fri 14 Jun 2013, 12:29 pm

I'm with many others here in thinking that although it is a difficult ask, it IS feasible.

Prior to his comeback, I was giving Rafa just two more prime Slam-winning years, which would mean him taking six from eight Slams to match Federer, seven to pass him. A near impossibility.

But after the most successful first half of a season of his entire tour career, he is now sitting comfortably with 12 Slams AND looking very strong.... the fearsome opponent of old once again, as seen in his characteristic battling, never-say-die attitude. Even when he goes through spells of having his serve regularly broken, he is proving extremely difficult to 'put away'

On this evidence I feel now he should have three more (or maybe even four ...?) good years ahead, in which case he can target six Slams from twelve - assuming of course he is fit enough to appear at all twelve.

So that would still be very tough - but far from impossible. One description I think very few people would genuinely ascribe to his prospects of equalling, or surpassing, the current record is "preposterous"

by lydian Fri 14 Jun 2013, 12:35 pm

Good post barry and lags. The only way I see it being done is if one of Nadal's main rivals gets injured...e.g. Djokovic.
Its not unreasonable to assume it either given Djoko and Murray are showing more physical frailty this year.
Nadal's rivals might have arguably gained at his injury woes...the tables could turn if it happened to others.
Not that I wish injury on anyone I hasten to add.
I agree with lags it IS possible to reach 17...but its such a huge ask, plus the pressure will be insanely massive if he gets anywhere near it.

by **laverfan** Fri 14 Jun 2013, 12:37 pm

Red wrote:Nadal has no chance to get more slams than Federer- a preposterous proposition if I've ever seen one.

W/L for 2013 43-2, 7 titles since his come back, albeit all on Clay, he should be the 128th favorite since he is in the main draw.

Are you going to quote this, if and when he does? Laugh

by CaledonianCraig Fri 14 Jun 2013, 12:38 pm

The big key is whether he can rediscover the slam-winning knack on another surface other than clay. If he can then he has a fair to good chance. I mean it is reasonable to assume he can win another three French Opens so that would take his slam total to 15 leaving him to find two slams from nine (non-clay slams) in the next three years. Wimbledon I would say afford him his best chances but will his knees hold up?

by **laverfan** Fri 14 Jun 2013, 12:40 pm

lydian wrote:
I agree with lags it IS possible to reach 17...but its such a huge ask, plus the pressure will be insanely massive if he gets anywhere near it.

Sames as Federer trying to get 14 and then 15. If he stays healthy, and manages his schedule, and continues his clay dominance, it will be much easier.

If the clay dominance is challenged significantly (except Djokovic), then confidence erosion comes into play, motivation, etc., come into play.

by lydian Fri 14 Jun 2013, 12:45 pm

Yes but LF Nadal will be older to get to 17 (probably 30yo at best) than Federer was to get to 14 (27yo - RG'09).

We'll just have to see about slams outside clay...in 2012 he was a whisker from winning AO, then won RG.
His form at Wimb12 we have to assume was injury related given he disappeared for 8 mths afterwards.
So he's an unknown now. Given he's not played grass for 12 months, and he's not doing Queens/Halle, its a monumental task to expect him to go deep, never mind win Wimb 13.

by The Special Juan Fri 14 Jun 2013, 12:50 pm

No warm-up tournament either for Nadal but with his pedigree you'd expect him to find his feet during the first two matches. I suppose he'd want to avoid someone like Davydenko or Isner in the first round though. Djokovic isn't too big on grass warm-up tournaments either and he does alright.

by lydian Fri 14 Jun 2013, 1:23 pm

True enough and good point TSJ...I guess I'm just saying I don't expect much from him at Wimb this year.
But who knows...all these guys can play a little.

by FedsFan Fri 14 Jun 2013, 1:49 pm

Thank you Lags, BB and Time Please!

It is feasible Nadal can make it there. I think if he misses chunks out of the season and arrives at the FO/Wimbledon fresh he can easily do it.

You cannot expect Djokovic to win all the h/c slams preventing Nadal a win. If he carries on that way we will be having another discussion on whether he will surpass 17! I am still not convinced Murray can get a win over Nadal at Wimbledon or if Nadal is playing at 100% in any slam.

I think is more than likely and as mentioned above, all Nadal needs to do is show up at RG and try and take his chances at the other slams.
Comparing age to slams won by that age to me makes no sense. Each person is different and decline will set in at different times. You can be younger and bow out early due to various issues or carry on into your 30's and get a win.

In any case Federer should be at about 20 considering he lost a few matches that he should never have lost!

by barrystar Fri 14 Jun 2013, 3:27 pm

Of course age comparisons are inexact and everyone is different - but what is interesting about Federer and Nadal is that the latter started collecting slams very much quicker than Federer - Nadal was winning his 5th slam at a comparable age to Federer winning his 1st, since then Nadal's rate slowed by comparison - he has picked up another 7 compared to Federer having picked up 11 during a comparable period in his life. If anything that suggests that time is less likely to be on Nadal's side if he falls behind on an absolute basis.

Of course Nadal could do it - he could very conceivably be 3-4 slams to the good by August 2014 - but the margins at the top of the game are narrow, it does not take much of a drop in standard for top players to struggle against guys they'd expect to beat (especially away from clay in Nadal's case). I still think the odds are against.

Nadal has made a habit of bucking statistics and history, but the charts below are a pretty good indicator that whichever way you cut it, in the past 27-28 has been something of a watershed for slam winners. I agree that age-wise we are in very unusual times with nobody seeming to come up through the ranks, but things can quickly change http://www.tennis28.com/charts/winner_ageslam.GIF http://www.tennis28.com/charts/mw_slam_ages.GIF

by **laverfan** Sun 16 Jun 2013, 2:12 pm

Red wrote:Nadal has no chance to get more slams than Federer- a preposterous proposition if I've ever seen one.

W/L for 2013 43-2, 7 titles since his come back, albeit all on Clay, he should be the 128th favorite since he is in the main draw.

Are you going to quote this, if and when he does? Laugh

by Henman Bill Sun 16 Jun 2013, 9:29 pm

One factor you may be missing is there's no guarantee Nadal will run out of steam at the age of around 30 and retire or be out of contention by then. With his physical game and injury history, there is a strong chance of that, but not guarantee. Some people's predictions would have had Nadal retired or falling down the rankings already.

If not at the other slams, at the very least at the FO, if he is motivated and stays fit surely he'll be a contender at the very least, at the age of even 32 or even 34, unless a new phenomenen emerges.

I think it's 50/50 with Federer.

In a way, Nadal is ahead. Federer racked up the slams in 2004-2007 when he didn't have to play a great legend all the time in finals and semis. At the same age, Nadal was disadvantaged by having to play Federer. Conversely, at the end of his career it was harder for Federer to add to his total because of the tough competition from the fellow big 4 - younger players coming though. Nadal looks set to have it easier perhaps in terms of younger players coming through. Making his slam winning potential easier in this later years. In that respect, it's advantage Nadal.

by lydian Mon 17 Jun 2013, 8:47 am

Speaking of age, 30 year old Hantuchova beat 16 year old Vekic at the Birmingham AEGON Classic yesterday. Daniela could be a dangerous floater at Wimby.

by HM Murdock Mon 17 Jun 2013, 9:00 am

lydian wrote:Speaking of age, 30 year old Hantuchova beat 16 year old Vekic at the Birmingham AEGON Classic yesterday. Daniela could be a dangerous floater at Wimby.

After the pics you put up last week, I'll definitely be watching out for her...

by lydian Mon 17 Jun 2013, 9:08 am

Lol HMM, she was sporting some interesting fashion gear yesterday as seen in this winner's photograph...

Wimbledon - Crystal Ball Time - Page 3 2013-ageon-classic-dani-hant-donna-vekic-400x300-getty

Wimbledon - Crystal Ball Time - Page 3 2013-ageon-classic-dani-hant-donna-vekic-400x300-getty

by barrystar Mon 17 Jun 2013, 9:33 am

Henman Bill wrote:
In a way, Nadal is ahead. Federer racked up the slams in 2004-2007 when he didn't have to play a great legend all the time in finals and semis. At the same age, Nadal was disadvantaged by having to play Federer. Conversely, at the end of his career it was harder for Federer to add to his total because of the tough competition from the fellow big 4 - younger players coming though. Nadal looks set to have it easier perhaps in terms of younger players coming through. Making his slam winning potential easier in this later years. In that respect, it's advantage Nadal.

Funnily enough that's absolutely not right about 2004-2007. Federer beat Nadal in two slams during that period (W 2006-2007), and Nadal beat Federer in 3 slams (RG 2005-07). Federer has never stood in the way of Nadal's accumulation of slams - if you're looking for one individual it's Djokovic who pegged him back big time in 2011 and 2012 and who is still there. Nadal's slam-winning pattern has been that he's a close cert for RG; until last year he'd only lost to injury or the top player at Wimbledon since 2006; and, in the HC slams usually some HC player on form would see him off before the final, but his struggles have been relative as he's made two finals each and one won each. I don't see his HC slam form improving substantially, but for me the most interesting slam is Wimbledon - whether last year was a one-off or Wimbledon will prove as difficult for him as HC slams in the future is the question this coming tournament will do a lot to answer. I can't help agreeing with Neil Harman of the Times this morning that Nadal and Djokovic are coming into this Wimbledon as the two favourites. My observation has also always been that Nadal needs to skip Aus Open or be knocked out early for his exertions there not to affect the rest of his season adversely - one reason why this year may involve a reversion to 2008 (but not 2010 I don't think).

by FedsFan Mon 17 Jun 2013, 10:10 am

I think Wimbledon last year was a one off where Nadal was concerned. I doubt that would happen again. I think if Nadal is to lose it has to be in the first couple of rounds as he plays himself into tournaments. Slow at the start and gradually gains momentum.

I think Nadal/Djoko are favourites with Murray/Fed behind. Just because Murray won yesterday means nothing as most of us up here know. I think he has had less success at Wimbledon the years he has won Queens but I maybe wrong this year. Same with Fed. The media report 4 of his 7 titles have come when he's won Halle. Again this is meaningless. Positives for Fed are he was serving better and maybe hes due a good run whereas the others have hit form more or less and perhaps may have a slight dip in the coming weeks.

by The Special Juan Mon 17 Jun 2013, 1:59 pm

Wimbledon qualifying is underway today. Bogdanovic has won his first match as has Jamie Baker.

by ryan86 Mon 17 Jun 2013, 2:13 pm

Matt Reid and Somdev Devvarman currently 13-12 in the 3rd. It could have all been so different, Somdev served for the match at 5-4.

by **laverfan** Mon 17 Jun 2013, 2:45 pm

Goodall lost to Sam Groth. Udomchoke (interesting name - 'choke') won 12-10 in the third.

Basic (of the Halle fame) lost. Crying or Very sad

PS: I stand corrected. Basic won due a retirement.

by The Special Juan Mon 17 Jun 2013, 2:47 pm

laverfan wrote:Goodall lost to Sam Groth. Udomchoke (interesting name - 'choke') won 12-10 in the third.

Basic (of the Halle fame) lost.

He had to get taken away in an ambulance from the court due to a knee injury. Hope he's ok.

by **laverfan** Mon 17 Jun 2013, 2:49 pm

New thread for Qualifying here - https://www.606v2.com/t45393-wimbledon-qualifying-match-thread

by lydian Mon 17 Jun 2013, 3:34 pm

Groth - he of 163mph serve...maybe he served at his knee?

by **laverfan** Mon 17 Jun 2013, 3:35 pm

lydian wrote:Groth - he of 163mph serve...maybe he served at his knee?

I though violence was banned on Tennis courts.

by ryan86 Mon 17 Jun 2013, 3:39 pm

I could have been a Wimbledon champion, but then I took a tennis ball to the knee.

by FedsFan Mon 17 Jun 2013, 3:43 pm

I remember watching Udomchoke 6 years ago in the second round vs A-ROD on a roofless CC. Made a match of it and didn't just had it to Roddick.

by **laverfan** Mon 17 Jun 2013, 3:57 pm

FedsFan wrote:I remember watching Udomchoke 6 years ago in the second round vs A-ROD on a roofless CC. Made a match of it and didn't just had it to Roddick.

He is also a capable Doubles player. This is what I remember him for though - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V0-o9H9Ml4

by LuvSports! Mon 17 Jun 2013, 6:15 pm

ryan86 wrote:I could have been a Wimbledon champion, but then I took a tennis ball to the knee.

That comment may be wasted on most posters haha.

by The Special Juan Mon 17 Jun 2013, 6:21 pm

LuvSports! wrote:
ryan86 wrote:I could have been a Wimbledon champion, but then I took a tennis ball to the knee.
That comment may be wasted on most posters haha.

Brilliant.

by Sponsored content