IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
I still believe that its the grand slams that count as far as the players are concerned. Djokovic didn't turn up for this tournament and Federer didn't give it his all. I still believe that Murray will never win Wimbledon. At 25 knowone since ivanisovic has won their first wimbledon older than 22.
robbiex wrote: I still believe that its the grand slams that count as far as the players are concerned. Djokovic didn't turn up for this tournament and Federer didn't give it his all. I still believe that Murray will never win Wimbledon. At 25 knowone since ivanisovic has won their first wimbledon older than 22.
Federer didn't give it his all? Did you watch the semi-final with Del Potro? And did you see what winning a bronze medal for his country meant to Del Potro? Federer would have loved to have won his first Olympic gold at Wimbledon.
That 'nobody older than' statistic is a little misleading because since Ivanisovic wimbledon has been dominated by Federer and Nadal who both started winning early. Federer can't go on much longer and Nadal's knees are possibly finally bugggered. Djokovic had one exceptional year, but has already shown that he likely won't be able to maintain that. Furthermore, there is hardly a single promising young tennis player who looks like they might challenge the top 4 in the next few years (which just confirms the bad luck of Murray to have been playing in the same era as the two greatest players ever).
Federer might have been a little tired from the semi, but it was clear that Murray played his best match ever. There was A LOT of pressure on Murray to win a Gold, and he handled it.
BTW, I think Scotland have won 6 or 7 of Britain's gold medals now.