tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 29 Dec 2008 12:59:51
From:
Subject: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...

22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
title in Open era:

1974 Connors
1981 McEnroe
1987 Cash
1988 Edberg
1991 Stich
1992 Agassi
1993 Sampras
2003 Federer
2008 Nadal

(also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)

Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...






 
Date: 31 Dec 2008 07:47:37
From:
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
On Dec 31, 3:55=A0am, wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <4e3e2893-107e-4fc3-99af-ae2f61532...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> gregor...@hotmail.com () wrote:
>
> > ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>
> History doesn't suggest that at all. It suggests that *if* they're ever
> going to win it, 22 might be the age at which they win the first one. But
> there's no reason to suppose either will ever do it.
>

Yes, but there's a reasonable chance that one of them will win at
least one title in their career.

>
>
> > 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
> > title in Open era:
>
> > 1974 Connors
> > 1981 McEnroe
> > 1987 Cash
> > 1988 Edberg
> > 1991 Stich
> > 1992 Agassi
> > 1993 Sampras
> > 2003 Federer
> > 2008 Nadal
>
> And, against that: Ivanisevic, Becker, Krajicek, Curran...
>

It would surely be amazing if every single first-time winner won at
age 22. There are obviously others.

Krajicek was pretty much a fluke winner and Curran didn't win it at
all.

Becker was a prodigy who defied all logic so he's hardly a great
example.

I actually counted 16 first-time winners of Wimbledon in the Open era
- 9 won at 21/22 (counting Hewitt), 2 at younger ages (Becker, Borg),
and only 5 older than that (Smith, Kodes, Ashe, Krajicek and Goran).


>
> > (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>
> > Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...
>
> So will lots of other guys. :)

Who will have presumably much less chance of winning Wimbledon 2009
than Djokovic or Murray as they are not ranked #3 and #4 in the world?




 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 21:55:38
From:
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
In article
<4e3e2893-107e-4fc3-99af-ae2f61532d4f@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com >,
gregorawe@hotmail.com () wrote:

>
> ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...

History doesn't suggest that at all. It suggests that *if* they're ever
going to win it, 22 might be the age at which they win the first one. But
there's no reason to suppose either will ever do it.

>
> 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
> title in Open era:
>
> 1974 Connors
> 1981 McEnroe
> 1987 Cash
> 1988 Edberg
> 1991 Stich
> 1992 Agassi
> 1993 Sampras
> 2003 Federer
> 2008 Nadal

And, against that: Ivanisevic, Becker, Krajicek, Curran...

>
> (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>
> Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...

So will lots of other guys. :)

wg


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 16:21:22
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article
> <4e3e2893-107e-4fc3-99af-ae2f61532d4f@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> gregorawe@hotmail.com () wrote:
>
>> ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>
> History doesn't suggest that at all. It suggests that *if* they're ever
> going to win it, 22 might be the age at which they win the first one. But
> there's no reason to suppose either will ever do it.
>
>> 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
>> title in Open era:
>>
>> 1974 Connors
>> 1981 McEnroe
>> 1987 Cash
>> 1988 Edberg
>> 1991 Stich
>> 1992 Agassi
>> 1993 Sampras
>> 2003 Federer
>> 2008 Nadal
>
> And, against that: Ivanisevic, Becker, Krajicek, Curran...
>



Curren never won a slam.


   
Date: 31 Dec 2008 15:15:24
From:
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
In article <495b0154$0$22082$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au >,
beaver999@ozemail.com.au (Whisper) wrote:

>
> Curren never won a slam.

I'm really being mental these days. No. He was a finalist.

wg


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 06:31:31
From: ahonkan
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
>
> TOn Dec 30, 6:38=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:

>
> Sorry if I let you guys down this time...I don't want to make it as a
> habit to denigrate former tennis greats.
ell your mother I said hi, cheers TT
>
> --
> "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"

Touche!
But I do hope that Fed proves you wrong and reclaims
the title he lost to darkness and Rafa :-)


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 03:10:48
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?


Whisper wrote:
> Carey wrote:
> >
> > gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> That's my opinion, Nadal will win Wimbledon...or Federer for 2nd
> >>> favourite. Murray and Djoker I don't believe it: Murray was disemboweled
> >>> by Nadal and Djoker lost to Safin although played well when still losing
> >>> to Nadal at Queens. I believe Djoker has reached his max level and
> >>> Murray has a losing game against Nadal on grass imo.
> >>>
> >>> Age of 22 has nothing to do with who will win Wimbledon, especially if
> >>> we're talking about players who might never win it.
> >> If you bothered to read the post, I didn't say that Djokovic or Murray
> >> would definitely win Wimbledon, or that Nadal or Federer wouldn't.
> >>
> >> It's merely somewhat interesting to look at past history, it doesn't
> >> prove anything will happen in the future. Nadal himself was one of the
> >> players involved.
> >>
> >> Of course you are such a Nadal-fucker that you can't look past him for
> >> a single second.
> >>
> >> I didn't "pour my heart" into the post either - took me about three
> >> minutes to type it. Three minutes wasted on the likes of you, of
> >> course ...
> >
> > I don't put any stock in the particular-age hypothesis,
> > but of the two players you mentioned, I'd easily go with
> > Murray. He is more versatile, ie an improvisor, and
> > his self-belief is steadily increasing: three wins over
> > Federer in '08 can't have hurt.
>
>
> Can't underestimate the Brit factor - if he were any other nationality
> his odds would be far more favorable.

"Far more favorable"? What a pleasant cop-out.
But then Our Lisper has always been a fair-weather
flier...


 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 00:16:21
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?


gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > That's my opinion, Nadal will win Wimbledon...or Federer for 2nd
> > favourite. Murray and Djoker I don't believe it: Murray was disemboweled
> > by Nadal and Djoker lost to Safin although played well when still losing
> > to Nadal at Queens. I believe Djoker has reached his max level and
> > Murray has a losing game against Nadal on grass imo.
> >
> > Age of 22 has nothing to do with who will win Wimbledon, especially if
> > we're talking about players who might never win it.
>
> If you bothered to read the post, I didn't say that Djokovic or Murray
> would definitely win Wimbledon, or that Nadal or Federer wouldn't.
>
> It's merely somewhat interesting to look at past history, it doesn't
> prove anything will happen in the future. Nadal himself was one of the
> players involved.
>
> Of course you are such a Nadal-fucker that you can't look past him for
> a single second.
>
> I didn't "pour my heart" into the post either - took me about three
> minutes to type it. Three minutes wasted on the likes of you, of
> course ...

I don't put any stock in the particular-age hypothesis,
but of the two players you mentioned, I'd easily go with
Murray. He is more versatile, ie an improvisor, and
his self-belief is steadily increasing: three wins over
Federer in '08 can't have hurt.


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 21:06:39
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
Carey wrote:
>
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> That's my opinion, Nadal will win Wimbledon...or Federer for 2nd
>>> favourite. Murray and Djoker I don't believe it: Murray was disemboweled
>>> by Nadal and Djoker lost to Safin although played well when still losing
>>> to Nadal at Queens. I believe Djoker has reached his max level and
>>> Murray has a losing game against Nadal on grass imo.
>>>
>>> Age of 22 has nothing to do with who will win Wimbledon, especially if
>>> we're talking about players who might never win it.
>> If you bothered to read the post, I didn't say that Djokovic or Murray
>> would definitely win Wimbledon, or that Nadal or Federer wouldn't.
>>
>> It's merely somewhat interesting to look at past history, it doesn't
>> prove anything will happen in the future. Nadal himself was one of the
>> players involved.
>>
>> Of course you are such a Nadal-fucker that you can't look past him for
>> a single second.
>>
>> I didn't "pour my heart" into the post either - took me about three
>> minutes to type it. Three minutes wasted on the likes of you, of
>> course ...
>
> I don't put any stock in the particular-age hypothesis,
> but of the two players you mentioned, I'd easily go with
> Murray. He is more versatile, ie an improvisor, and
> his self-belief is steadily increasing: three wins over
> Federer in '08 can't have hurt.


Can't underestimate the Brit factor - if he were any other nationality
his odds would be far more favorable.




 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 06:31:23
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?

<gregorawe@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4e3e2893-107e-4fc3-99af-ae2f61532d4f@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...


That of course, if we're to assume that one of them is bound to win
Wimbledon.
But I think both could end thier careers without winning Wimbledon, very
easily.

If I am forced to pick just between those two, I think Djokovic has a better
shot. I give advantage to both Fed and Rafa and some surprise pick before
Djokovic and Murray.

And of course, sometimes people defend their titles for a few years, it's
not like there is a new player winning Wimbledon at the age of 22 every
year.
Most likely the title at the age of 22 is reserved for someone like Gulbis
or someone from that group.




 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 20:17:38
From: Carey
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?


Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Dec 29, 3:12?pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 9:01?pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
> >
> > > > 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
> > > > title in Open era:
> >
> > > > 1974 Connors
> > > > 1981 McEnroe
> > > > 1987 Cash
> > > > 1988 Edberg
> > > > 1991 Stich
> > > > 1992 Agassi
> > > > 1993 Sampras
> > > > 2003 Federer
> > > > 2008 Nadal
> >
> > > > (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
> >
> > > > Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...
> >
> > > Neither, Nadal has multiple titles in him.
> >
> > Wow, was it even two minutes before your (knee-)jerk response?
> >
> > Can't think past your Nadal obsession for even a moment can you? Why
> > not look at the stats and acknowledge they are at least reasonably
> > interesting, or not (assuming you didn't know them already). Or is
> > that too much for your tiny brain?
>
> Look at the positive: Its a TT post that doesn't contain anything
> derogatory aimed at Federer.
>
> Rodjk #613

An oversight. I'm sure he'll correct it posthaste.


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 15:38:28
From: TT
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
Carey wrote:
>
> Rodjk #613 wrote:
>> On Dec 29, 3:12?pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 29, 9:01?pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>>>>> 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
>>>>> title in Open era:
>>>>> 1974 Connors
>>>>> 1981 McEnroe
>>>>> 1987 Cash
>>>>> 1988 Edberg
>>>>> 1991 Stich
>>>>> 1992 Agassi
>>>>> 1993 Sampras
>>>>> 2003 Federer
>>>>> 2008 Nadal
>>>>> (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>>>>> Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...
>>>> Neither, Nadal has multiple titles in him.
>>> Wow, was it even two minutes before your (knee-)jerk response?
>>>
>>> Can't think past your Nadal obsession for even a moment can you? Why
>>> not look at the stats and acknowledge they are at least reasonably
>>> interesting, or not (assuming you didn't know them already). Or is
>>> that too much for your tiny brain?
>> Look at the positive: Its a TT post that doesn't contain anything
>> derogatory aimed at Federer.
>>
>> Rodjk #613
>
> An oversight. I'm sure he'll correct it posthaste.

Sorry if I let you guys down this time...I don't want to make it as a
habit to denigrate former tennis greats.

Tell your mother I said hi, cheers TT

--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 16:13:44
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
On Dec 29, 3:12=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 29, 9:01=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>
> > > 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
> > > title in Open era:
>
> > > 1974 Connors
> > > 1981 McEnroe
> > > 1987 Cash
> > > 1988 Edberg
> > > 1991 Stich
> > > 1992 Agassi
> > > 1993 Sampras
> > > 2003 Federer
> > > 2008 Nadal
>
> > > (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>
> > > Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...
>
> > Neither, Nadal has multiple titles in him.
>
> Wow, was it even two minutes before your (knee-)jerk response?
>
> Can't think past your Nadal obsession for even a moment can you? Why
> not look at the stats and acknowledge they are at least reasonably
> interesting, or not (assuming you didn't know them already). Or is
> that too much for your tiny brain?

Look at the positive: Its a TT post that doesn't contain anything
derogatory aimed at Federer.

Rodjk #613


 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 15:36:59
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
On Dec 30, 2:59=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>
> 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
> title in Open era:
>
> 1974 Connors
> 1981 McEnroe
> 1987 Cash
> 1988 Edberg
> 1991 Stich
> 1992 Agassi
> 1993 Sampras
> 2003 Federer
> 2008 Nadal
>
> (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>
> Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...

Going by what happened last year, I think Murray has a better chance
than Djokovic to win this year's Wimbledon.

But note that none of the 22 year olds listed above is British. So may
be it's even steven?


 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 15:26:46
From:
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
> lol, this is from the guy who's convinced that going by past experience that
> Nadal cannot possibly under any circumstance win the USO (despite bettering
> himself there this year).

You've got the wrong person - I've never said that at all. Care to
retract?



 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 15:13:52
From:
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
> That's my opinion, Nadal will win Wimbledon...or Federer for 2nd
> favourite. Murray and Djoker I don't believe it: Murray was disemboweled
> by Nadal and Djoker lost to Safin although played well when still losing
> to Nadal at Queens. I believe Djoker has reached his max level and
> Murray has a losing game against Nadal on grass imo.
>
> Age of 22 has nothing to do with who will win Wimbledon, especially if
> we're talking about players who might never win it.

If you bothered to read the post, I didn't say that Djokovic or Murray
would definitely win Wimbledon, or that Nadal or Federer wouldn't.

It's merely somewhat interesting to look at past history, it doesn't
prove anything will happen in the future. Nadal himself was one of the
players involved.

Of course you are such a Nadal-fucker that you can't look past him for
a single second.

I didn't "pour my heart" into the post either - took me about three
minutes to type it. Three minutes wasted on the likes of you, of
course ...








  
Date: 29 Dec 2008 23:25:13
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
<gregorawe@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4958c5ad-f8f0-49c6-92e0-277d3594cf02@p2g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> That's my opinion, Nadal will win Wimbledon...or Federer for 2nd
>> favourite. Murray and Djoker I don't believe it: Murray was disemboweled
>> by Nadal and Djoker lost to Safin although played well when still losing
>> to Nadal at Queens. I believe Djoker has reached his max level and
>> Murray has a losing game against Nadal on grass imo.
>>
>> Age of 22 has nothing to do with who will win Wimbledon, especially if
>> we're talking about players who might never win it.
>
> If you bothered to read the post, I didn't say that Djokovic or Murray
> would definitely win Wimbledon, or that Nadal or Federer wouldn't.
>
> It's merely somewhat interesting to look at past history, it doesn't
> prove anything will happen in the future. Nadal himself was one of the
> players involved.
>
> Of course you are such a Nadal-fucker that you can't look past him for
> a single second.
>
> I didn't "pour my heart" into the post either - took me about three
> minutes to type it. Three minutes wasted on the likes of you, of
> course ...

lol, this is from the guy who's convinced that going by past experience that
Nadal cannot possibly under any circumstance win the USO (despite bettering
himself there this year).




 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 14:40:53
From:
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
On Dec 29, 9:36=A0pm, "Iceberg" <big_bad_iceb...@moc.oohay > wrote:
> <gregor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:aa6f72fb-1783-4145-a549-40bd3bb6d275@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 29, 9:01 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>
> > > 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
> > > title in Open era:
>
> > > 1974 Connors
> > > 1981 McEnroe
> > > 1987 Cash
> > > 1988 Edberg
> > > 1991 Stich
> > > 1992 Agassi
> > > 1993 Sampras
> > > 2003 Federer
> > > 2008 Nadal
>
> > > (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>
> > > Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...
>
> > Neither, Nadal has multiple titles in him.
>
> >Wow, was it even two minutes before your (knee-)jerk response?
>
> >Can't think past your Nadal obsession for even a moment can you? Why
> >not look at the stats and acknowledge they are at least reasonably
> >interesting, or not (assuming you didn't know them already). Or is
> >that too much for your tiny brain?
>
> how rude. If Nadal plays like he did this year, it will definitely be a
> Murray vs Nadal final at the least.

Has the draw been done already?



 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:14:06
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>
> 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
> title in Open era:
>
> 1974 Connors
> 1981 McEnroe
> 1987 Cash
> 1988 Edberg
> 1991 Stich
> 1992 Agassi
> 1993 Sampras
> 2003 Federer
> 2008 Nadal
>
> (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>
> Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...
>
>


Of those 2 Murray - but needs to be fit & avoid extra Brit pressure.

Could be most open Wimbledon in years. Maybe all the obvious picks get
upset & Roddick beats Gasquet in final?



  
Date: 29 Dec 2008 21:36:09
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:49593d9e$0$22076$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>>
>> 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
>> title in Open era:
>>
>> 1974 Connors
>> 1981 McEnroe
>> 1987 Cash
>> 1988 Edberg
>> 1991 Stich
>> 1992 Agassi
>> 1993 Sampras
>> 2003 Federer
>> 2008 Nadal
>>
>> (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>>
>> Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...
>>
>>
>
>
> Of those 2 Murray - but needs to be fit & avoid extra Brit pressure.
>
> Could be most open Wimbledon in years. Maybe all the obvious picks get
> upset & Roddick beats Gasquet in final?

It would be nice and deserved if Andy did win it.




   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 09:30:02
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
Iceberg wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:49593d9e$0$22076$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>>>
>>> 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
>>> title in Open era:
>>>
>>> 1974 Connors
>>> 1981 McEnroe
>>> 1987 Cash
>>> 1988 Edberg
>>> 1991 Stich
>>> 1992 Agassi
>>> 1993 Sampras
>>> 2003 Federer
>>> 2008 Nadal
>>>
>>> (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>>>
>>> Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Of those 2 Murray - but needs to be fit & avoid extra Brit pressure.
>>
>> Could be most open Wimbledon in years. Maybe all the obvious picks get
>> upset & Roddick beats Gasquet in final?
>
> It would be nice and deserved if Andy did win it.
>
>


He could sneak through under the radar with the right draw.



 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 13:12:45
From:
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
On Dec 29, 9:01=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>
> > 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
> > title in Open era:
>
> > 1974 Connors
> > 1981 McEnroe
> > 1987 Cash
> > 1988 Edberg
> > 1991 Stich
> > 1992 Agassi
> > 1993 Sampras
> > 2003 Federer
> > 2008 Nadal
>
> > (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>
> > Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...
>
> Neither, Nadal has multiple titles in him.

Wow, was it even two minutes before your (knee-)jerk response?

Can't think past your Nadal obsession for even a moment can you? Why
not look at the stats and acknowledge they are at least reasonably
interesting, or not (assuming you didn't know them already). Or is
that too much for your tiny brain?





  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 01:05:36
From: TT
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 29, 9:01 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>>> 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
>>> title in Open era:
>>> 1974 Connors
>>> 1981 McEnroe
>>> 1987 Cash
>>> 1988 Edberg
>>> 1991 Stich
>>> 1992 Agassi
>>> 1993 Sampras
>>> 2003 Federer
>>> 2008 Nadal
>>> (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>>> Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...
>> Neither, Nadal has multiple titles in him.
>
> Wow, was it even two minutes before your (knee-)jerk response?
>
> Can't think past your Nadal obsession for even a moment can you? Why
> not look at the stats and acknowledge they are at least reasonably
> interesting, or not (assuming you didn't know them already). Or is
> that too much for your tiny brain?
>
>

Iceberg is correct, very rude response. Shame on you. Does my quick
reply somehow make it worse? Is this a topic you poured your hart into
and I just went and shamelessly torpedoed it? Is saying one's opinion
forbidden if the opinion is pro-Nadal?

That's my opinion, Nadal will win Wimbledon...or Federer for 2nd
favourite. Murray and Djoker I don't believe it: Murray was disemboweled
by Nadal and Djoker lost to Safin although played well when still losing
to Nadal at Queens. I believe Djoker has reached his max level and
Murray has a losing game against Nadal on grass imo.

Age of 22 has nothing to do with who will win Wimbledon, especially if
we're talking about players who might never win it.

--
"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: 29 Dec 2008 21:36:16
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
<gregorawe@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:aa6f72fb-1783-4145-a549-40bd3bb6d275@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 9:01 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>
> > 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
> > title in Open era:
>
> > 1974 Connors
> > 1981 McEnroe
> > 1987 Cash
> > 1988 Edberg
> > 1991 Stich
> > 1992 Agassi
> > 1993 Sampras
> > 2003 Federer
> > 2008 Nadal
>
> > (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>
> > Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...
>
> Neither, Nadal has multiple titles in him.
>
>Wow, was it even two minutes before your (knee-)jerk response?
>
>Can't think past your Nadal obsession for even a moment can you? Why
>not look at the stats and acknowledge they are at least reasonably
>interesting, or not (assuming you didn't know them already). Or is
>that too much for your tiny brain?

how rude. If Nadal plays like he did this year, it will definitely be a
Murray vs Nadal final at the least.




 
Date: 29 Dec 2008 23:01:39
From: TT
Subject: Re: Who will win Wimbledon in 2009 - Djokovic or Murray?
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> ... at least history tends to suggest that one of them will win ...
>
> 22 (or close to it) is the most common age to win a first Wimbledon
> title in Open era:
>
> 1974 Connors
> 1981 McEnroe
> 1987 Cash
> 1988 Edberg
> 1991 Stich
> 1992 Agassi
> 1993 Sampras
> 2003 Federer
> 2008 Nadal
>
> (also Hewitt was 21 in 2002)
>
> Djokovic and Murray will both turn 22 in May ...
>
>

Neither, Nadal has multiple titles in him.

--
"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"