• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Tennis

Page 90 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re:

T_S_A_R said:
He was at the school. To say that he didn't suffer a traumatic experience because he wasn't in the actual room is bizarre and disrespectful.

Also given that he was on tour for 8 years before speaking publicly about it and has never linked the incident to performance I fail to see the comparison with Froome/Badzilla.
i'm not saying any of that :confused:

do you know whether he suffered a trauma? of course you don't. you can only speculate.
as you can only speculate about the severity of his trauma (which would obviously differ according to how close to the shooting he actually was).

so my point remains, don't be too gullible, especially wrt stories from the background of top-athletes.
see Delgados' post to which i responded and you'll understand what i mean.

i totally agree with your second point, btw.
 
sniper: Reading an official account of a story in which someone was present at a mass murder scene does not make one gullible.
I was going on memory (which is clearly flawed--he was not in the room), but I don't think it's crazy to speculate an incident like that could leave some long-lasting scars.
If memory serves (again, totally unreliable), I remember that Murray's mom was acquainted with the guy. I could be flat out wrong or gullible or whatever; but if true, I'm sure you'd agree it would hurt even more.
 
Mar 3, 2014
19
0
0
Somebody calling themselves SNIPER makes disgusting allegations that a man who survived a massacre by a deranged gunman is a fake.

The clinic, where morals, truth and basic human decency go to die.

Jamie Murray was hiding under the Headmaster's desk when Thomas Hamilton was murdering children just down the corridor. Andy Murray was huddled together with his classmates hoping that he wasn't next.

Every parent in Dunblane and surrounds had the trauma of walking into the school and waiting to find out if their child was alive or dead.

But on the clinic Andy Murray is smeared as a doper with not a shred of evidence ever offered so he clearly deserved to be killed as a schoolboy.

You're even sicker than blackcat with his paedophile obsession and freddy the frog who has taken more crystal meth than one brain can handle.
 
Jun 16, 2015
161
0
2,830
Re:

the delgados said:
sniper: Reading an official account of a story in which someone was present at a mass murder scene does not make one gullible.
I was going on memory (which is clearly flawed--he was not in the room), but I don't think it's crazy to speculate an incident like that could leave some long-lasting scars.
If memory serves (again, totally unreliable), I remember that Murray's mom was acquainted with the guy. I could be flat out wrong or gullible or whatever; but if true, I'm sure you'd agree it would hurt even more.
Murray was luckily led away in a group of fellow schoolchildren and knew nothing of the incident at the time it happened.

A far more likely influence on his life and disposition was the separation and divorce of his parents. More so than most perhaps as it was his mother who initially walked out with his father being left to pick up the pieces.
 
Aug 22, 2014
302
0
0
Re:

Peter70 said:
But on the clinic Andy Murray is smeared as a doper with not a shred of evidence ever offered so he clearly deserved to be killed as a schoolboy.
Utterly embarrassing hyperbole.
 
Re:

T_S_A_R said:
Murray and his brother were both at the school the day of the shooting. Neither were in the gymnasium where the shooting took place but why lie about it Sniper?

Also rather than the family exaggerating the story they have played down and rarely spoke of it. The would be pariahs in Dunblane if they lied or exaggerated regarding this.

(FYI I think Murray got on a program after Nadal destroyed him at Wimbledon SF 2010)
If a guy can make 2 seperate Grand Slam finals in the modern era clean then I have vastly overrated the potency of PED's
 
May 2, 2010
1,504
0
0
Re:

T_S_A_R said:
Murray and his brother were both at the school the day of the shooting. Neither were in the gymnasium where the shooting took place but why lie about it Sniper?

Also rather than the family exaggerating the story they have played down and rarely spoke of it. The would be pariahs in Dunblane if they lied or exaggerated regarding this.

(FYI I think Murray got on a program after Nadal destroyed him at Wimbledon SF 2010)
Murray was on a program before 2010.
 
Apr 24, 2011
19
0
0
Re:

Peter70 said:
Somebody calling themselves SNIPER makes disgusting allegations that a man who survived a massacre by a deranged gunman is a fake.

The clinic, where morals, truth and basic human decency go to die.

Jamie Murray was hiding under the Headmaster's desk when Thomas Hamilton was murdering children just down the corridor. Andy Murray was huddled together with his classmates hoping that he wasn't next.

Every parent in Dunblane and surrounds had the trauma of walking into the school and waiting to find out if their child was alive or dead.

But on the clinic Andy Murray is smeared as a doper with not a shred of evidence ever offered so he clearly deserved to be killed as a schoolboy.

You're even sicker than blackcat with his paedophile obsession and freddy the frog who has taken more crystal meth than one brain can handle.
I doubt if Andy even knew what was going on, let alone be 'huddled with his classmates'. Either way, it doesn't really have much bearing on any doping that he may have done...
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
Re:

Peter70 said:
You're even sicker than blackcat with his paedophile obsession and freddy the frog who has taken more crystal meth than one brain can handle.
lol, wtf is this dude?
 
Re:

Peter70 said:
Somebody calling themselves SNIPER makes disgusting allegations that a man who survived a massacre by a deranged gunman is a fake.

The clinic, where morals, truth and basic human decency go to die.

Jamie Murray was hiding under the Headmaster's desk when Thomas Hamilton was murdering children just down the corridor. Andy Murray was huddled together with his classmates hoping that he wasn't next.

Every parent in Dunblane and surrounds had the trauma of walking into the school and waiting to find out if their child was alive or dead.

But on the clinic Andy Murray is smeared as a doper with not a shred of evidence ever offered so he clearly deserved to be killed as a schoolboy.

You're even sicker than blackcat with his paedophile obsession and freddy the frog who has taken more crystal meth than one brain can handle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSj9D5mWFqg

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for Bodybreak!
Keep fit and have fun!
 
Jun 16, 2015
161
0
2,830
If, as has been hinted, Odesnik was supplying peds as well as using, what chance the US federal authorities doing a Joe Papp number on him to 'request' his further cooperation and help uncover the actualité of doping in tennis?

At the moment we have a situation where there's a swirl of suspicion around the sport but little or no direct evidence regarding the doping practices of elite players. Tennis itself is hardly going to make an effort to do this. Anti-doping agencies like UKAD seem useless too, otherwise why have dopers like Mo Farah not been busted yet? It seems the only way progress on tennis will be made will be through the exercise of powers under criminal law such as seen with pro-cycling in France, Italy and the US.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
@delgados: fair enough

@zebadeedee: is that you, zebedee?

@blackcat: dunno who that guy is, but I reported the post. wtf indeed. (i'm waiting for Freddy to confirm or deny the allegations though :D )
 
Jun 16, 2015
161
0
2,830
I hadn't been able to sign in for ages as the change password facility doesn't work. The admin end of this forum doesn't communicate either. In the end I used another email address.

All that stuff about Murray and Dunblane is baloney, a distraction. Best to move on to the meat.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re:

Zebadeedee said:
I hadn't been able to sign in for ages as the change password facility doesn't work. The admin end of this forum doesn't communicate either. In the end I used another email address.
yeah, i figured, good to see you back.
All that stuff about Murray and Dunblane is baloney, a distraction. Best to move on to the meat.
:cool: agreed
 
Jul 15, 2013
315
0
0
Have to say I was delighted Stan won another Slam. His power is suspicious given what i believe to be the scale of doping in tennis but i think he has had this power for a long time, there is not much new about his play over the last 3 years imo that i would put down to obvious doping.

The main difference in Stan since 2013 and Magnus Norman coming on board is his mental strength and focus imo. He made a gradual improvement all through 2013 before winning the AO in Jan 2014. Since 2013 he had gone to 5 sets with djokovic 4 times in a row before the FO final. Stan was 6+/1 to win the final, which was madness given the closeness of their previous meetings, the pressure and expectation on djokovic to complete the career slam and the fact that clay has always been Stan's best and favourite surface (imo).

Add to that the lack of recognition he received after becoming a slam winner in 2014 (the general consensus amongst tennis fans and media is that he only won the AO14 because Rafa was injured - before that match Nadal had won 11/11 matches v Stan, without losing a set, hence the general consensus). I think that affected him for most of 2014 and he was quite píssed about it, that and about Nadal limping around the court in the final and taking away from his slam win). Basically he came into this year's FO final with the experience and know-how of a slam winner, with the hunger and point to prove of somebody who hadn't won one before imo. It really was a terrible match-up for djokovic in the circumstances. Stan had zero pressure on him and nothing to lose. I think he was also v píssed about the bagel djokovic gave him in the last set of their previous 5 setter (AO15) and was highly motivated to cause an upset and wreck djokovic's day.

I have watched tennis every day for over 6 years now and I always thought Wawrinka had the talent and skill to make it to the very top of the game. He has always hit massive shots and played some amazing stuff. He has always had a huge serve too. He was an absolute money making machine before 2013, you just waited for him to do the hard part (go a break up) and serve for a set and he would lose focus, hit double faults, unforced errors, lose the head and hand the set back to his opponent on his own at times. Almost guaranteed every time.

It wasn't so much that he was inconsistent, he was consistent enough until he went ahead and then became inconsistent. That is why i think it is more about improving his concentration levels, focus and mental consistency than anything else. Norman has definitely massively improved his fitness, before he seemed to be carrying too much weight and wasn't able to compete physically with the top guys for more than a set and a half. With this improved fitness his overall game and mental focus/belief/confidence improved as well, initially gradually but he had all of that when he won AO 2014.

I do not see this as a 'transformation' like a djokovic, it is more mental than physical for me and he had a lot of room for physical improvement, wheres djokovic was almost entirely physical going from a guy out of breath after 2 sets v Niemenen in Basel in Nov 2010 to a guy who won 53 or so matches from the next month, beating nadal in 4 finals in a row, 2 of them on clay. Stan's change may well be down to doping but it is not as obvious to me. If you look at the earlier round match v Fed, he was hitting the same shots, bombs painting the lines, and it was the same v rafa in Rome a month earlier. When he really wants to, he can play like that.

Wawrinka hasn't had a consistent year but i think that is more down to being inconsistent in his attitude to certain tournaments. If he really wants to win a tournament he is more than capable of keeping his focus for the entirety and he also has the belief that he can beat all of the top players, something he never had before 2014. His head to head against djok, fed and nadal was abysmal before then but is a lot lot closer since.

But it is great for the game, to see a guy like djokovic, on a 28 match winning streak get outplayed like that and being incapable of doing anything about it. Better than seeing two obvious druggies playing a 6.5 hour marathon where endurance wins the match. That defeat and the manner of it is something that could affect djokovic in big pressure matches for a long, long time, who knows.
 
Jul 7, 2014
49
0
0
Re:

bewildered said:
Have to say I was delighted Stan won another Slam. His power is suspicious given what i believe to be the scale of doping in tennis but i think he has had this power for a long time, there is not much new about his play over the last 3 years imo that i would put down to obvious doping.

The main difference in Stan since 2013 and Magnus Norman coming on board is his mental strength and focus imo. He made a gradual improvement all through 2013 before winning the AO in Jan 2014. Since 2013 he had gone to 5 sets with djokovic 4 times in a row before the FO final. Stan was 6+/1 to win the final, which was madness given the closeness of their previous meetings, the pressure and expectation on djokovic to complete the career slam and the fact that clay has always been Stan's best and favourite surface (imo).

Add to that the lack of recognition he received after becoming a slam winner in 2014 (the general consensus amongst tennis fans and media is that he only won the AO14 because Rafa was injured - before that match Nadal had won 11/11 matches v Stan, without losing a set, hence the general consensus). I think that affected him for most of 2014 and he was quite píssed about it, that and about Nadal limping around the court in the final and taking away from his slam win). Basically he came into this year's FO final with the experience and know-how of a slam winner, with the hunger and point to prove of somebody who hadn't won one before imo. It really was a terrible match-up for djokovic in the circumstances. Stan had zero pressure on him and nothing to lose. I think he was also v píssed about the bagel djokovic gave him in the last set of their previous 5 setter (AO15) and was highly motivated to cause an upset and wreck djokovic's day.

I have watched tennis every day for over 6 years now and I always thought Wawrinka had the talent and skill to make it to the very top of the game. He has always hit massive shots and played some amazing stuff. He has always had a huge serve too. He was an absolute money making machine before 2013, you just waited for him to do the hard part (go a break up) and serve for a set and he would lose focus, hit double faults, unforced errors, lose the head and hand the set back to his opponent on his own at times. Almost guaranteed every time.

It wasn't so much that he was inconsistent, he was consistent enough until he went ahead and then became inconsistent. That is why i think it is more about improving his concentration levels, focus and mental consistency than anything else. Norman has definitely massively improved his fitness, before he seemed to be carrying too much weight and wasn't able to compete physically with the top guys for more than a set and a half. With this improved fitness his overall game and mental focus/belief/confidence improved as well, initially gradually but he had all of that when he won AO 2014.

I do not see this as a 'transformation' like a djokovic, it is more mental than physical for me and he had a lot of room for physical improvement, wheres djokovic was almost entirely physical going from a guy out of breath after 2 sets v Niemenen in Basel in Nov 2010 to a guy who won 53 or so matches from the next month, beating nadal in 4 finals in a row, 2 of them on clay. Stan's change may well be down to doping but it is not as obvious to me. If you look at the earlier round match v Fed, he was hitting the same shots, bombs painting the lines, and it was the same v rafa in Rome a month earlier. When he really wants to, he can play like that.

Wawrinka hasn't had a consistent year but i think that is more down to being inconsistent in his attitude to certain tournaments. If he really wants to win a tournament he is more than capable of keeping his focus for the entirety and he also has the belief that he can beat all of the top players, something he never had before 2014. His head to head against djok, fed and nadal was abysmal before then but is a lot lot closer since.

But it is great for the game, to see a guy like djokovic, on a 28 match winning streak get outplayed like that and being incapable of doing anything about it. Better than seeing two obvious druggies playing a 6.5 hour marathon where endurance wins the match. That defeat and the manner of it is something that could affect djokovic in big pressure matches for a long, long time, who knows.
Perhaps. Or maybe he just took a little something to propel him to the next level just like Soderling (Norman's ex-pupil) before him. After his loss against Djokovic at US Open 2013, Wawrinka said about Djokovic "He's f*****g strong". Yes Djokovic was too strong for him then, well not anymore :D

I remember reading this comment online:

PED’s Transform Mediocre Athletes into Pros!
PED’s Transform Pro Athletes into Hall-of-Famers!
Apt.

But as for the mental aspect, Wawrinka is still a head case 90% of the time, one never knows how he will perform at a tournament. After he won Rotterdam, he had a string of early loses. During that time I don't think a lot of people would have picked him to win Roland Garros.

Also he's shown that he would do anything to get to the very top of the game. The man abandoned his family in 2011 because he felt that he's career was too short:
http://www.tennisperspective.com/2011/01/stanislas-wawrinka-divorces-wife-of-one-year-to-focus-on-tennis.html.

Yeah... But maybe I'm reaching.
 
Jul 15, 2013
315
0
0
there has to be more to the family story than that. I'd imagine they weren't happy together and the kid kept them together for a while but wasn't enough. He left her and the kid and went back to them and then left them again. I don't think that would have happened if he was in love with her and i don't think he'd have put his career first if he loved her either. I don't think he will ever be happy with Ilhan and he knows that, not a crime and probably for the best for the kid. He is rumoured to be involved with Donna Vekic for some time now. She was in his box for a match the other day. She is 19 later this month.

I remember that comment after USO 13 v djokovic. It was made on the court immediately after the match and completely took the interviewer by surprise. I did laugh. Not the only tennis player to do that, Halep and other players have used the word 'shít' in interviews to describe their performances, not realising that it is a swear word.

He more than likely is on something given Norman's history and the improvement in his game. But as I said the benefits from that are more mental than physical. He is still a headcase most of the time, yes, but more because of his attitude to certain tournaments rather than an inability to remain calm and composed. If he really wants to win he can retain focus and composure now whereas he had no control before 2013. I think he is more interested in Slams and matches against the top 4 than anything else. Even Masters 1000 events he doesn't seem too bothered about. But perhaps doping has given him that confidence in himself, knowing that the other guys aren't unbeatable anymore.
 
Jun 19, 2015
8
0
0
Re: Re:

the sceptic said:
Bernie's eyesore said:
the sceptic said:
Bernie's eyesore said:
Can any tennis experts name a player who has undergone a more ridiculous transformation than Warwinka? The power he had when hitting the ball today was absolutely insane. This from a player who was routinely dumped out of Grand Slams in the third or fourth round until he suddenly became a top player at the age of 28.
Djokovic
Any serious answers?
Djokovic used to be one of the weakest physically on tour. He would frequently retire and he would usually be dead on his feet after a 5 set match in slams.

Then magically he became even fitter than Nadal over the course of a few months, and could suddenly play back to back 5 hour matches without any issues at all.
Marginal grains?
 
Re: Re:

etphonehome said:
the sceptic said:
Bernie's eyesore said:
the sceptic said:
Bernie's eyesore said:
Can any tennis experts name a player who has undergone a more ridiculous transformation than Warwinka? The power he had when hitting the ball today was absolutely insane. This from a player who was routinely dumped out of Grand Slams in the third or fourth round until he suddenly became a top player at the age of 28.
Djokovic
Any serious answers?
Djokovic used to be one of the weakest physically on tour. He would frequently retire and he would usually be dead on his feet after a 5 set match in slams.

Then magically he became even fitter than Nadal over the course of a few months, and could suddenly play back to back 5 hour matches without any issues at all.
Marginal grains?
Hold the phone! Nice first post, chapeau.

BTW, Djoko way more conspicuous than Stan.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Dopovic may top the transformer rankings, but Stan is right up there as well.
His transformation at age 28 reminds me of a certain Thomas Muster.

(regardless, that was an excellent post on Stan, bewildered)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts