30 Jan 12
Longest game in grand slam history, 5 hours 53 minutes of the most grueling physical battles I ever saw. Incredible match, Rafa looked like he was coming back only to lose a break in the 5th set. Both players were very gracious in their short speeches. They are both great ambassadors to the game.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI agree, it was sad that one of them had to lose. I have respect for both of these men
Longest game in grand slam history, 5 hours 53 minutes of the most grueling physical battles I ever saw. Incredible match, Rafa looked like he was coming back only to lose a break in the 5th set. Both players were very gracious in their short speeches. They are both great ambassadors to the game.
31 Jan 12
Originally posted by sonhouseDamn, I was hoping for Rafa to finally win one again. He's lost to Djokovic now about 7-8 times in a row.
Longest game in grand slam history, 5 hours 53 minutes of the most grueling physical battles I ever saw. Incredible match, Rafa looked like he was coming back only to lose a break in the 5th set. Both players were very gracious in their short speeches. They are both great ambassadors to the game.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
31 Jan 12
Originally posted by sonhouseNot even close to the longest match in Grand Slam history. That was Isner-Mahut, Wimbledon, the year before last, and let's hope that we'll never see such a spectacle of boring attrition again. Its final set was longer than Rafa and Djoko's entire match, and frankly, I ran out of steam before Mahut did.
Longest game in grand slam history, 5 hours 53 minutes of the most grueling physical battles I ever saw. Incredible match, Rafa looked like he was coming back only to lose a break in the 5th set. Both players were very gracious in their short speeches. They are both great ambassadors to the game.
This one was, however, the longest Grand Slam final ever. (Well, in the modern game, at least. And before that doesn't count, because they did things very differently then.) It's also the longest match ever at the Aussie Open.
It was also a much, much better match. Very high-quality play. I will still never really be a fan of either player, but that doesn't mean I can't recognise a good performance when I see it.
Richard
31 Jan 12
Originally posted by Shallow BlueAre you a Roger Federer fan?
Not even close to the longest match in Grand Slam history. That was Isner-Mahut, Wimbledon, the year before last, and let's hope that we'll never see such a spectacle of boring attrition again. Its final set was longer than Rafa and Djoko's entire match, and frankly, I ran out of steam before Mahut did.
This one was, however, the longest Grand Slam [i] ...[text shortened]... yer, but that doesn't mean I can't recognise a good performance when I see it.
Richard
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI remember when McEnroe was on court, and people excused his behaviour on the basis that tennis made you exhausted, and that you needed this 'edge' to win.
Longest game in grand slam history, 5 hours 53 minutes of the most grueling physical battles I ever saw. Incredible match, Rafa looked like he was coming back only to lose a break in the 5th set. Both players were very gracious in their short speeches. They are both great ambassadors to the game.
Though I am not a tennis fan, I am glad that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and, dare I say it, Murray, have shown that the 'Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser' is the utter b@llocks I always thought it was.
09 Feb 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderIt isn't utter bollocks it just depends on the person.
I remember when McEnroe was on court, and people excused his behaviour on the basis that tennis made you exhausted, and that you needed this 'edge' to win.
Though I am not a tennis fan, I am glad that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and, dare I say it, Murray, have shown that the 'Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser' is the utter b@llocks I always thought it was.
10 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232Err......if it depends on the person, then the phrase is utter bollocks, as it suggests that you have to behave in an unsportsmanlike manner to be successful. The phrase isn't "Some people have to behave badly to be successful" (which I agree with you is probably true, more's the pity).
It isn't utter bollocks it just depends on the person.
It is the idea that success and bad sportsmanship have to be linked that the current crop of top tennis players disprove. Federer is a good loser, so the phrase is by definition utter bollocks.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
10 Feb 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderMurray has grown up, hasn't he? I used to dislike his demeanor, but, even if he still does and probably always will have a touch of Dour Scot in him (and why not? We don't have to - indeed, shouldn't - all be the same), he is now quite capable of behaving well both during and after the game. Well done, that man.
Though I am not a tennis fan, I am glad that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and, dare I say it, Murray, have shown that the 'Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser' is the utter b@llocks I always thought it was.
Richard (with apologies for the horrible sentence construction...)