I think Andy Murray has just become Scottish again. He was British in the first set against Nadal, but gradually became more Scottish as the match went on. And I can't help thinking that if he didn't eat so many deep-fried Mars bars, he might do a bit better.
Andy Murray
Collapse
X
-
Mahlerei
-
Glad the better player won.
It seems when BBC comentators can't pronounce or bother to remember a name, they simpy refer to the nationality. During the quarter-final women's match between Petra Kvitova and the beautiful, lithe, non-grunting Tsvetana Pironkova, the commentators resorted to "the Czech girl" and "the Bulgarian Girl". Neither name is difficult to pronounce. Yet in today's semi-final we didn't get "the Spaniard" and "the Brit/Scot".
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by mercia View Postlooks like a British boy might win the boys' title if Broady keeps up this performance"...the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices..."
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by mercia View Postare tennis players the only sportsmen who sweat? all this constant towelling-down has IMO gone too far
Comment
-
-
Lateralthinking1
As the years go by, patriotism means less and less to me. It doesn't really concern me whether Murray is Scottish or British. I prefer the way Nadal plays and find him to be a more pleasant person. In these international times, one might think that this would be the common outlook. Such, though, is the emphasis on nationality in sport that even I couldn't quite bring myself to support Nadal. I simply decided not to watch the match. I'm now looking forward to a final which will be between two gifted players, neither of whom I would support more than the other. Let the best man on the day win but, more than this, let it be high quality tennis and fine entertainment.
The womens' final this afternoon was not a classic but it was very enjoyable. And what impresses about Wimbledon is not its Britishness but the long-term tradition of being a place where present and past meet happily. It is always a good feeling to have so many past winners and participants coming back to it in one form or another. That is only spoiled by the occasional shot of a Deputy Prime Minister and some slight hints here and there of class snobbery. Having attended many times, I have always found even the audience somewhat removed from the players' spirit. They tap in more to the competition than the history. To see Maria Bueno, for example, is to be reminded of Dan Maskell and all of the players of that era - she was, of course, his favourite, if long before my time, and known for her grace - and you can see already how today's winner will fit very easily into the club which for all of the money - particularly among the more recent ones - remains meaningful as a gathering point.
If we are to obsess about British tennis and Wimbledon, it seems to me that the emphasis on Fred Perry needs to be altered. Yes, it is true that no one from this island has won the mens' singles since him and that clearly is felt by the British players as a pressure. Perhaps what we should do instead is remind ourselves that Perry won in 1934, 1935 and 1936. That is arguably the standard to which they should aspire rather than just winning it once. In an odd way, I think that it would take the pressure off them a bit to recognise that they need to raise their game even further than is generally believed.Last edited by Guest; 02-07-11, 18:57.
Comment
-
I don't really 'support' anyone, but I wanted Nadal to win, and he did. I find Andy Murray most offputting.
I was pleased that someone beat Sharapova, because she makes too much noise.
Liam Broady and the Australian who beat him looked almost like twins, with their straw-coloured hair.
You can tell I take tennis really seriously
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mary Chambers View Post
I was pleased that someone beat Sharapova, because she makes too much noise.
Comment
-
Comment