Could you do me a favour and clear up a few things for me. What is a major tennis tournament? The other day you dismissed the rest of the ATP tournaments and stated clearly that only the opens and the olympics were major tournaments, later in that thread when you were picked apart as usual you suddenly switched (without acknowledging the switch) to say that ALL the ATP tournaments were major tournaments. When asked about this you hid under your duvet and didn't come out again till everyone was gone. So what is a major tournament? Is it just a grand slam or do the rest of them count too? Secondly could you tell me what nationality Bobby Hassell is and what nationality Luke Steele is? Ta
do yourself a favour hemsy and dont answer this , the baying mob are waiting you dont have to answer to such trash
Of course he doesn't have to answer but he isn't a child either and if he's got any balls and conviction to his arguments then surely he won't be scared to answer. He said that ALL british and english sportsmen should be supported and praised yet he slates and derides Hassell and Steele at every opportunity despite them quite clearly being both English and British. Do you think that is acceptable and normal mrx? And he stated that only the grand slams and the olympics were major tournaments, I mentioned that only winning one major tournament is a bit poor and he responded by saying that no, Murray had won 27 major tournaments because the others are major. I asked him about this and he stopped posting in the thread. All I'm asking for is clarification as to what he considers the major tennis tournaments to be. What's wrong with that?
Supertyke i stopped when you said i think Hassell had the same amount of Grand Slams as Murray. HE had won the US Open when you said that. What i was saying was he doesn't play in many small events. He needs ATP points which are graded. 250 500 1000 and i think the Grand Slams are 2000 points. He doesn't play in many 250 events and so don't a lot of the better players. i think he's got about 9000 atp points. I think it's done on your 8 best tournements or something over two years although i might be wrong on that. Some of the events he plays in are done for 32 players and they are normally the best 25 and some wildcards. I was trying to make the point he plays the best week in week out all but normally over the best of 3.
I wouldn't take too much notice of Mrx. He called me a knuckle dragger just because I had a different opinion to him ( I'd said I didn't think Ian Brady deserved any rights anymore) it seems all he can do is insult people if they don't agree with him.....
But you started the thread by showing his last 5 MAJOR tournaments which didn't include any of the others because at the time you didn't consider them major, or rather they didn't fit with your argument. Anyway, I was only taking the piss with my entire 'argument' with you the other night, I think Andy Murray is an exceptional tennis player even if he had never won a grand slam. We have completely the opposite view on things but sometimes they end up with the same result by accident. I personally think that being second best, never winning a grand slam but always finishing in the top 4 is brilliant. I don't think that winning is everything, I think that being up there is still bloody brilliant.
A Wayne Rooney or Murray Nadal can be seen at the age of 10. They can be spotted because they are very good at what they do even at that age but they will keep going and do everything to win. Schools seen determined to drive this out of people with there everyones a winner bull poo.
It's true. It happened to me. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it.
Ah but your last sentence negates your first and second. I, for example, could have been the best tennis player in the country at 10 years old, it would never have been spotted by anyone at all though because school was the only opportunity I had to play 'proper' tennis and at school they weren't looking for anyone who was good. Ability can be spotted at 10, but only if somebody is looking. ps, I wasn't the best in the country.
You can spot the ones early that's true , Dale was always going to be a footballer as he was head and shoulders above the others. We took kids like this to places where they could be spotted - we had players at Wigan and Blackburn- same with the athletes we saw who now run for the Harriers. Ht is also true in saying that we can overcoach kids and kick the talent out - always been a problem in this country. Are we just being picky for picky's sake or it's just because of the poster in question?
There are a lot of knuckle draggers in the weird world of Mr X. Anybody who doesn't agree with his views falls into this category. The major flaw in his categorisation theory is that he doesn't debate anything or argue his point which makes the irony all the greater when he starts making his cerebrum related insults.
Me too. I could have been a contender, I could have been a someone. Instead I'm caught up in the ratrace, feeling like a no-one. Could have been me in the papers, the money and the girls. I could have been the Heavyweight Champion of the World.
Queens is probably the only 250 event he regularly plays and that's only because he's British. Queens isn't as good as it used to be and the rival Halle event is probably slightly ahead of it now.
