Wimbledon

[french frank]

Controversial!! Laver played five of his best years on the pro circuit, ineligible for Grand Slams. He would certainly have won a lot more.

And Pancho Gonzalez was the No 1 pro in the days when professional tennis hardly figured in most people's consciousness (in this country at least) even though in their standard of tennis, the pros were in a class above.

[Lateralthinking1]

And Pancho Gonzalez was the No 1 pro in the days when professional tennis hardly figured in most people's consciousness (in this country at least) even though in their standard of tennis, the pros were in a class above.

In terms of wins, and not only on grass, Wikipedia gives two different impressions, both accurate:

1. Laver holds the record for most singles titles won in the history of tennis, with 200 career titles. He was the World No.1 player for seven consecutive years, from 1964 to 1970 (from 1964 to 1967 in the professional circuit).

2. He won a record 45 open titles after he turned 30 years old. And despite his relatively advanced age, his win-loss percentage during the open era was around 80% for singles, which places him seventh on the open era list behind Björn Borg, Rafael Nadal, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Roger Federer but ahead of Pete Sampras.

(Gonzalez was No.1 for seven or eight years in the late 1950s and early 1960s - 1964 was the pivotal Gonzalez/Laver year)

[Lateralthinking1]

In terms of wins, and not only on grass, Wikipedia gives two different impressions, both accurate:

1. Laver holds the record for most singles titles won in the history of tennis, with 200 career titles. He was the World No.1 player for seven consecutive years, from 1964 to 1970 (from 1964 to 1967 in the professional circuit).

2. He won a record 45 open titles after he turned 30 years old. And despite his relatively advanced age, his win-loss percentage during the open era was around 80% for singles, which places him seventh on the open era list behind Björn Borg, Rafael Nadal, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Roger Federer but ahead of Pete Sampras.

(Gonzalez was No.1 for seven or eight years in the late 1950s and early 1960s - 1964 was the pivotal Gonzalez/Laver year)

.........On another point, I am now supporting Serena Williams. I really don't like the temperament of the other three. Had Lisicki beaten Kerber, she would have had my vote.

[RobertLeDiable]

After yesterday I would now say that Murray is most likely to go through to the final - the first British man to do so since 1938! Tsonga would have to play brilliantly and Murray badly for it to be the reverse, and that just doesn't seem likely. On the face of it Djokovic should beat Federer tomorrow, but there's just that slight element of doubt. Whichever of them goes through, the final will be tough for Murray if he's there. But this is where the steely resolve we saw yesterday comes in. If he isn't overcome by nerves, he will have a good chance of achieving the long-delayed follow-up to Fred Perry's 1936 triumph.

Hope none of that jinxes him!

[Lateralthinking1]

After yesterday I would now say that Murray is most likely to go through to the final - the first British man to do so since 1938! Tsonga would have to play brilliantly and Murray badly for it to be the reverse, and that just doesn't seem likely. On the face of it Djokovic should beat Federer tomorrow, but there's just that slight element of doubt. Whichever of them goes through, the final will be tough for Murray if he's there. But this is where the steely resolve we saw yesterday comes in. If he isn't overcome by nerves, he will have a good chance of achieving the long-delayed follow-up to Fred Perry's 1936 triumph.

Hope none of that jinxes him!

Well, today is the day, RLD. Thank the Lord that Azarenka's now out of it.

[Northender]

Well, today is the day, RLD. Thank the Lord that Azarenka's now out of it.

Praise be indeed!

[Lateralthinking1]

RLD - On the face of it Djokovic should beat Federer tomorrow, but there's just that slight element of doubt.

The only true Rolls Royce.

[amateur51]

RLD - On the face of it Djokovic should beat Federer tomorrow, but there's just that slight element of doubt.

The only true Rolls Royce.

wonderful match

[Richard Tarleton]

Thank the Lord that Azarenka's now out of it.

Why? (to both). Just wondered.

Back to prize money for a moment - someone in the ST pointed out that if anything it's tipped in favour of the women. They can win a singles match in under an hour, and go on fresh as a daisy to play in a (also lucrative) doubles match, which is out of the question if you're a man and have played a knackering 5 hour game. The other semi was a game of patters.

[vinteuil]

I like Federer; glad he's won.
I dislike Murray; hope he loses...

[Mary Chambers]

I like Federer; glad he's won.
I dislike Murray; hope he loses...

Ditto Suspect he may win, though.

[Anna]

I dislike Murray; hope he loses...

Why? (I don't watch tennis but surely one should cheer on someone who is British?)

[Mary Chambers]

Why? (I don't watch tennis but surely one should cheer on someone who is British?)

Why?

[amateur51]

Why? (I don't watch tennis but surely one should cheer on someone who is British?)

I've never understood this I must say

[Anna]

Why?

Because I don't think a British man has won the championship lately? (I may be wrong, as I said I don't watch, but it's being patriotic isn't it?) Same as you probably cheer on England in cricket, footie or rugby. Same as I cheer on Wales even though they may be abysmal. Edit: I take my patriotism very seriously! Double Edit: I have no interest in tennis so won't say anymore but cannot understand why the English hate a player from Scotland, is he no good then?