Sweet Darth, I hate to break it to you. Grey hair is coming. And whether early or late, depending on if you live long enough, and your genes, so is balding. So is losing your eyesight for small print. These are just the irritations. But remember, it's better than dying young and leaving a good looking corpse.
Nice read, thanks. But it was in retrospect. Sure, he has to be contented with what he'd done, so many years after he'd quit. I still don't think it was lack of motivation that pushed him out of the game. I think he hated losing. At least Roger has withstood it, to come back and win Majors. Interesting from Pete, though, about resisting racquet change that could have helped him at the French. I do think that if he'd lived in this time, and had Roger/Rafa/Novak to compete against, he'd have stayed longer and made changes.
Sweet Darth, I hate to break it to you. Grey hair is coming. And whether early or late, depending on if you live long enough, and your genes, so is balding. So is losing your eyesight for small print. These are just the irritations. But remember, it's better than dying young and leaving a good looking corpse.
It is true that you don't get so many grudge matches. Funny that a couple have involved Nadal, whom I find a fairly decorous person.
He's easy for you to hate, and it's obvious why. The rest you put out there because you want him to be despicable, and his family, too. To those who are without agenda, I think this is unreasonable.
I think it's quite obvious that I have less of an agenda than you do. Or, at the very least, I don't spend as much time trash-talking the others as you do Rafa. My "agenda" is counter-pointing all of the nastiness and untruths that you hail down on Nadal. When have I ever "hated" on Roger or Novak? When have I ever used words such as "cunt" or "peasant" or anything like scourge on tennis to describe your favorite tennis player, or anyone else's? Decried that tennis needed to be "saved" from them? You hate Nadal to an extent that very much verges on trolling. If I didn't like you so much, I'd put you on ignore. Yes, I think you have an agenda...an endless, ponderous, pounding litany that Nadal is a terrible person. Why? Because he's beaten your man too much. It's patently obvious. But I won't stop fighting you in your pathetic little digs. That's my "agenda."And you don't have an agenda? Having you talk all nice about Ralph is as meaningful as Judy Murray talking about Deliciano
The bookies that we've already decided don't know shit from shinola? That's a 1 in 4 chance. What do YOU think?
No, a better player doesn't necessarily win even if he plays A game, a lesser player with potential actually has a say. There is no question, zero, that Novak is better than Stan. Yet when Stan shows up, usually in big matches, he can play at a level that Novak just cant handle even though we all see that he actually plays well, much above his average. Nick is similarly explosive, perhaps more, and clearly he is wired in a way that he shows up against the best players...…….while often at other time he becomes pathetic when opposition is average. It can't be a coincidence that he is tied with Nadal, and leads Novak and Roger actually got a bit lucky in some matches when it was on Nick's racquet to close those out. I do believe he is confused how he is naturally wired like that, sometimes he is incredible and sometimes he becomes so flat.
