tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 12 Jan 2009 16:45:48
From: Whisper
Subject: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious


No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
what the fuck they were talking about.

Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.



http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UKOMCKFW






 
Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:51:34
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Jan 13, 2:04 am, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c14410ce-4761-4de4-a39c-d0d7f1a7a894@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 11:07 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> >> On Jan 11, 9:45 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
> >> > what the fuck they were talking about.
>
> >> > Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>
> >> >http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UKOMCKFW
>
> >> ++ Don't know what is up with those that try and play down
> >> Wimbledon... Wimbledon is thee most prestigious tennis tournament, at
> >> least it has been since I have followed tennis c.1970...
>
> >> P
>
> > Its relative prestige has been dropping, and that's undeniable.
>
> no it hasn't its been gaining prestige, as this show proves.

Let the grown-ups talk, will you?


 
Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:52:00
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Jan 13, 4:30 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Iceberg wrote:
> > <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c14410ce-4761-4de4-a39c-d0d7f1a7a894@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jan 12, 11:07 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> >>> On Jan 11, 9:45 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
> >>>> what the fuck they were talking about.
> >>>> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
> >>>>http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UKOMCKFW
> >>> ++ Don't know what is up with those that try and play down
> >>> Wimbledon... Wimbledon is thee most prestigious tennis tournament, at
> >>> least it has been since I have followed tennis c.1970...
>
> >>> P
> >> Its relative prestige has been dropping, and that's undeniable.
>
> > no it hasn't its been gaining prestige, as this show proves.
>
> Correct. The producers woulda been insane to pick say FO - nobody even
> knows what that means.

Just because you're senile doesn't mean everyone is.


 
Date: 13 Jan 2009 03:56:36
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Jan 12, 11:24 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Then the whole of the 1990s seems to be a blank, since they were
> > unsure of Sampras but knew about Federer ...
>
> I can't say I'm surprised they blanked out on Sampras.

Well he was a pretty unmemorable chap. Except of course to one
particular Aussie who regularly acts as Pete's sex slave.


  
Date: 13 Jan 2009 12:09:16
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:56:36 -0800 (PST), GOAT
<thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

>On Jan 12, 11:24 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Then the whole of the 1990s seems to be a blank, since they were
>> > unsure of Sampras but knew about Federer ...
>>
>> I can't say I'm surprised they blanked out on Sampras.
>
>Well he was a pretty unmemorable chap. Except of course to one
>particular Aussie who regularly acts as Pete's sex slave.


You know that guy too huh ? He's the one who makes up those funny
numbers to rate slams that are tailored to fit Pete's record like a
glove right ?


 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 15:52:06
From: Raja
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Jan 11, 11:45=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
> what the fuck they were talking about.
>
> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>
> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3DUKOMCKFW

Why are you so desperate? Federer is ultimately gonna wipe out Sampras
Wimbledon record as well.



 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 15:19:19
From:
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Jan 12, 10:59=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:44:26 -0800 (PST), gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Jan 12, 10:05=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> Sakari Lund wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:48 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.a=
u >
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't kno=
w
> >> >> what the fuck they were talking about.
>
> >> >> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>
> >> >>http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3DUKOMCKFW
>
> >> > Oh boy, oh boy, that would have been easy money!
>
> >> > Notice that they had started with Navratilova and Federer. They were
> >> > thinking long about Sampras =A0:-) =A0They didn't mention Graf or Mc=
Enroe
> >> > at all. They almost said Rosewall. Fun stuff =A0:-)
>
> >> There you go Greg...Rosewall. ;)
>
> >These guys were completely clueless.
>
> >They pulled Goolagong out of the fire (a name which would be miles
> >down the list) before even mentioning McEnroe, Becker, Graf, Edberg,
> >etc.
>
> >Bizzarely mentioned Emerson a few times even though he's not a common
> >name these days - maybe cos he was Australian?
>
> >The fact that they mentioned Rosewall is not surprising given their
> >general lack of knowledge
>
> These guys were average Aussies who were no tennis experts. That's why
> it was interesting to see what they said. They mentioned Aussie
> players, Margaret Court, OK, quite obvious, but I wouldn't have
> mentioned her in the first 10 or so, Goolagong, I wouldn't have
> mentioned at all, wasn't sure, Laver obviously, then they talked about
> Emerson, Newcombe, Rosewall because they are Aussies.
>
> But it is also interesting that they started with Navratilova and
> Federer. They were thinking long about Sampras, and didn't mention
> Graf and McEnroe at all. What does that tell about what average people
> know about tennis? What does Whisper think? What does Max think? Let
> me guess, they are Australian?

Odd - knowing about Emerson suggests a bit more knowledge than
average, since he was not a huge name compared to Laver/Rosewall and
they don't look old enough to have seen him play.

Mentioning Connors and Becker suggests reasonable knowledge of 70s/80s
tennis, but then McEnroe should be obvious.

Then the whole of the 1990s seems to be a blank, since they were
unsure of Sampras but knew about Federer ...



  
Date: 13 Jan 2009 23:29:07
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 12, 10:59 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:44:26 -0800 (PST), gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 12, 10:05 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:48 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
>>>>>> what the fuck they were talking about.
>>>>>> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>>>>>> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UKOMCKFW
>>>>> Oh boy, oh boy, that would have been easy money!
>>>>> Notice that they had started with Navratilova and Federer. They were
>>>>> thinking long about Sampras :-) They didn't mention Graf or McEnroe
>>>>> at all. They almost said Rosewall. Fun stuff :-)
>>>> There you go Greg...Rosewall. ;)
>>> These guys were completely clueless.
>>> They pulled Goolagong out of the fire (a name which would be miles
>>> down the list) before even mentioning McEnroe, Becker, Graf, Edberg,
>>> etc.
>>> Bizzarely mentioned Emerson a few times even though he's not a common
>>> name these days - maybe cos he was Australian?
>>> The fact that they mentioned Rosewall is not surprising given their
>>> general lack of knowledge
>> These guys were average Aussies who were no tennis experts. That's why
>> it was interesting to see what they said. They mentioned Aussie
>> players, Margaret Court, OK, quite obvious, but I wouldn't have
>> mentioned her in the first 10 or so, Goolagong, I wouldn't have
>> mentioned at all, wasn't sure, Laver obviously, then they talked about
>> Emerson, Newcombe, Rosewall because they are Aussies.
>>
>> But it is also interesting that they started with Navratilova and
>> Federer. They were thinking long about Sampras, and didn't mention
>> Graf and McEnroe at all. What does that tell about what average people
>> know about tennis? What does Whisper think? What does Max think? Let
>> me guess, they are Australian?
>
> Odd - knowing about Emerson suggests a bit more knowledge than
> average, since he was not a huge name compared to Laver/Rosewall and
> they don't look old enough to have seen him play.


Yes, but everyone knew Sampras broke Emerson's all time slam record,
thus an all timer like that shoulda won Wimbledon a bit.

>
> Mentioning Connors and Becker suggests reasonable knowledge of 70s/80s
> tennis, but then McEnroe should be obvious.
>
> Then the whole of the 1990s seems to be a blank, since they were
> unsure of Sampras but knew about Federer ...
>


Well, Federer is playing right now so would be embarrassing not to pick
him. One guy was confident about Sampras the other was a bit of a dork.

Incidentally these guys played on & ended up winning $325,000 total
before losing last night.



  
Date: 13 Jan 2009 01:35:20
From: TT
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 12, 10:59 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:44:26 -0800 (PST), gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 12, 10:05 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:48 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
>>>>>> what the fuck they were talking about.
>>>>>> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>>>>>> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UKOMCKFW
>>>>> Oh boy, oh boy, that would have been easy money!
>>>>> Notice that they had started with Navratilova and Federer. They were
>>>>> thinking long about Sampras :-) They didn't mention Graf or McEnroe
>>>>> at all. They almost said Rosewall. Fun stuff :-)
>>>> There you go Greg...Rosewall. ;)
>>> These guys were completely clueless.
>>> They pulled Goolagong out of the fire (a name which would be miles
>>> down the list) before even mentioning McEnroe, Becker, Graf, Edberg,
>>> etc.
>>> Bizzarely mentioned Emerson a few times even though he's not a common
>>> name these days - maybe cos he was Australian?
>>> The fact that they mentioned Rosewall is not surprising given their
>>> general lack of knowledge
>> These guys were average Aussies who were no tennis experts. That's why
>> it was interesting to see what they said. They mentioned Aussie
>> players, Margaret Court, OK, quite obvious, but I wouldn't have
>> mentioned her in the first 10 or so, Goolagong, I wouldn't have
>> mentioned at all, wasn't sure, Laver obviously, then they talked about
>> Emerson, Newcombe, Rosewall because they are Aussies.
>>
>> But it is also interesting that they started with Navratilova and
>> Federer. They were thinking long about Sampras, and didn't mention
>> Graf and McEnroe at all. What does that tell about what average people
>> know about tennis? What does Whisper think? What does Max think? Let
>> me guess, they are Australian?
>
> Odd - knowing about Emerson suggests a bit more knowledge than
> average, since he was not a huge name compared to Laver/Rosewall and
> they don't look old enough to have seen him play.
>
> Mentioning Connors and Becker suggests reasonable knowledge of 70s/80s
> tennis, but then McEnroe should be obvious.
>
> Then the whole of the 1990s seems to be a blank, since they were
> unsure of Sampras but knew about Federer ...
>

Other guy mentioned something about reading stuff. Perhaps they knew
beforehand on what areas the questions will be.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


  
Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:24:14
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Then the whole of the 1990s seems to be a blank, since they were
> unsure of Sampras but knew about Federer ...

I can't say I'm surprised they blanked out on Sampras.




 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 14:47:46
From:
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Jan 12, 5:45=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
> what the fuck they were talking about.
>
> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>
> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3DUKOMCKFW

Raja woulda said "Lendl, of course" as his first answer and got wiped
out immediately with $0 ...



 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 14:46:36
From:
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Jan 12, 1:18=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:48 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
> >what the fuck they were talking about.
>
> >Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>
> >http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3DUKOMCKFW
>
> Oh boy, oh boy, that would have been easy money!
>
> Notice that they had started with Navratilova and Federer. They were
> thinking long about Sampras =A0:-) =A0They didn't mention Graf or McEnroe
> at all. They almost said Rosewall. Fun stuff =A0:-)

Which one was Whisper though?


 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 14:44:57
From:
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Jan 12, 10:05=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:48 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
> >> what the fuck they were talking about.
>
> >> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>
> >>http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3DUKOMCKFW
>
> > Oh boy, oh boy, that would have been easy money!
>
> > Notice that they had started with Navratilova and Federer. They were
> > thinking long about Sampras =A0:-) =A0They didn't mention Graf or McEnr=
oe
> > at all. They almost said Rosewall. Fun stuff =A0:-)
>
> There you go Greg...Rosewall. ;)

These guys were completely clueless.

They pulled Goolagong out of the fire (a name which would be miles
down the list) before even mentioning McEnroe, Becker, Graf, Edberg,
etc.

Bizzarely mentioned Emerson a few times even though he's not a common
name these days - maybe cos he was Australian?

The fact that they mentioned Rosewall is not surprising given their
general lack of knowledge





 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 14:44:26
From:
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Jan 12, 10:05=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:48 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
> >> what the fuck they were talking about.
>
> >> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>
> >>http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3DUKOMCKFW
>
> > Oh boy, oh boy, that would have been easy money!
>
> > Notice that they had started with Navratilova and Federer. They were
> > thinking long about Sampras =A0:-) =A0They didn't mention Graf or McEnr=
oe
> > at all. They almost said Rosewall. Fun stuff =A0:-)
>
> There you go Greg...Rosewall. ;)

These guys were completely clueless.

They pulled Goolagong out of the fire (a name which would be miles
down the list) before even mentioning McEnroe, Becker, Graf, Edberg,
etc.

Bizzarely mentioned Emerson a few times even though he's not a common
name these days - maybe cos he was Australian?

The fact that they mentioned Rosewall is not surprising given their
general lack of knowledge





  
Date: 13 Jan 2009 00:59:54
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:44:26 -0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Jan 12, 10:05 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> > On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:48 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
>> >> what the fuck they were talking about.
>>
>> >> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>>
>> >>http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UKOMCKFW
>>
>> > Oh boy, oh boy, that would have been easy money!
>>
>> > Notice that they had started with Navratilova and Federer. They were
>> > thinking long about Sampras  :-)  They didn't mention Graf or McEnroe
>> > at all. They almost said Rosewall. Fun stuff  :-)
>>
>> There you go Greg...Rosewall. ;)
>
>These guys were completely clueless.
>
>They pulled Goolagong out of the fire (a name which would be miles
>down the list) before even mentioning McEnroe, Becker, Graf, Edberg,
>etc.
>
>Bizzarely mentioned Emerson a few times even though he's not a common
>name these days - maybe cos he was Australian?
>
>The fact that they mentioned Rosewall is not surprising given their
>general lack of knowledge

These guys were average Aussies who were no tennis experts. That's why
it was interesting to see what they said. They mentioned Aussie
players, Margaret Court, OK, quite obvious, but I wouldn't have
mentioned her in the first 10 or so, Goolagong, I wouldn't have
mentioned at all, wasn't sure, Laver obviously, then they talked about
Emerson, Newcombe, Rosewall because they are Aussies.

But it is also interesting that they started with Navratilova and
Federer. They were thinking long about Sampras, and didn't mention
Graf and McEnroe at all. What does that tell about what average people
know about tennis? What does Whisper think? What does Max think? Let
me guess, they are Australian?




 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 14:34:48
From: Scott
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Jan 12, 12:45=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
> what the fuck they were talking about.
>
> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>
> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3DUKOMCKFW

yes, good ol' Wimbledon. It plays so slow today that players must
stay at the baseline whenever possible.

regarding the quiz show, i'm sure that they screen the contestants
beforehand. You wouldn't want a Tier One Analyst in the crowd produce
all the names, making it look very simple.





 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 14:32:07
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Jan 12, 11:07 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
> On Jan 11, 9:45 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
> > what the fuck they were talking about.
>
> > Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>
> >http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UKOMCKFW
>
> ++ Don't know what is up with those that try and play down
> Wimbledon... Wimbledon is thee most prestigious tennis tournament, at
> least it has been since I have followed tennis c.1970...
>
> P

Its relative prestige has been dropping, and that's undeniable.


  
Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:04:41
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
<andrew.reys@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:c14410ce-4761-4de4-a39c-d0d7f1a7a894@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 12, 11:07 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 9:45 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
>> > what the fuck they were talking about.
>>
>> > Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>>
>> >http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UKOMCKFW
>>
>> ++ Don't know what is up with those that try and play down
>> Wimbledon... Wimbledon is thee most prestigious tennis tournament, at
>> least it has been since I have followed tennis c.1970...
>>
>> P
>
> Its relative prestige has been dropping, and that's undeniable.

no it hasn't its been gaining prestige, as this show proves.




   
Date: 13 Jan 2009 23:30:17
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
Iceberg wrote:
> <andrew.reys@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c14410ce-4761-4de4-a39c-d0d7f1a7a894@r40g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 12, 11:07 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 9:45 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
>>>> what the fuck they were talking about.
>>>> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>>>> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UKOMCKFW
>>> ++ Don't know what is up with those that try and play down
>>> Wimbledon... Wimbledon is thee most prestigious tennis tournament, at
>>> least it has been since I have followed tennis c.1970...
>>>
>>> P
>> Its relative prestige has been dropping, and that's undeniable.
>
> no it hasn't its been gaining prestige, as this show proves.
>
>



Correct. The producers woulda been insane to pick say FO - nobody even
knows what that means.



 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 11:07:58
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Jan 11, 9:45=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
> what the fuck they were talking about.
>
> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>
> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3DUKOMCKFW

++ Don't know what is up with those that try and play down
Wimbledon... Wimbledon is thee most prestigious tennis tournament, at
least it has been since I have followed tennis c.1970...

P


 
Date: 12 Jan 2009 15:18:27
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:48 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>
>
>No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
>what the fuck they were talking about.
>
>Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>
>
>
>http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UKOMCKFW
>

Oh boy, oh boy, that would have been easy money!

Notice that they had started with Navratilova and Federer. They were
thinking long about Sampras :-) They didn't mention Graf or McEnroe
at all. They almost said Rosewall. Fun stuff :-)


  
Date: 13 Jan 2009 00:05:56
From: TT
Subject: Re: More evidence Wimbledon = most prestigious
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:45:48 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> No way would this work with the other 3 slams - people wouldn't know
>> what the fuck they were talking about.
>>
>> Damn wish it was me there - woulda won 250k in about 2 minutes.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UKOMCKFW
>>
>
> Oh boy, oh boy, that would have been easy money!
>
> Notice that they had started with Navratilova and Federer. They were
> thinking long about Sampras :-) They didn't mention Graf or McEnroe
> at all. They almost said Rosewall. Fun stuff :-)

There you go Greg...Rosewall. ;)

I would've begun with Renshaw and Wilding. Probably wouldn't have
remembered that Greece descent American hairy guy...

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"