Grinning Greg Strikes Again

Just as I thought it was safe to get back into the water... along comes Greg!!

http://sport.uk.msn.com/tennis/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=159964402

So Greg, the nearly 27 year old Tsonga is the next Nadal, where Andy - 2 years younger than Jo-Wilfred, needs to win a slam soon. So I assume, that when he's 27 he won't be the new anything

Go figure

Then again, don't bother, it's just our Greg

The fact that you have people like him PAID to commentate tell you how sick tennis establishment and circles are.

Very odd, I agree !

I happen to quite like Greg myself (your comments are way OTT nitb) but maybe he'd had a glass or two when he came up with these pearls

Quite apart from the age difference pointed out by banbotram, Greg seems to have forgotten that the younger Andy has 21 career titles to his name + 3 Slam final appearances, versus JWT figures of 7 + 1

If JWT is indeed about to raise his status to something akin to that of Nadal, he's done well to conceal from us all these years any obvious signs of the imminent transformation

lags72 wrote:Very odd, I agree !

I happen to quite like Greg myself (your comments are way OTT nitb) but maybe he'd had a glass or two when he came up with these pearls

Quite apart from the age difference pointed out by banbotram, Greg seems to have forgotten that the younger Andy has 21 career titles to his name + 3 Slam final appearances, versus JWT figures of 7 + 1

If JWT is indeed about to raise his status to something akin to that of Nadal, he's done well to conceal from us all these years any obvious signs of the imminent transformation

What do you like about him: persona, eloquence, accent, spark, courage?

Anyone can play safe in the commentating box like he does. It's the in-depth knowledge combined with sharp intelligence, a bit of wit that usually make a good commentator. Greg, just like Tim is just safe and plain boring, catering to people who watch tennis 2 seeks a year.

I don't know. I think Greg is not as bad as he sounds.

I woudl also give Tsonga more chance to win a slam than Murray atm. Tsonga is a natural, talent wise and physically. It seems Murray struggles to add wins in a row without having some form of injuries.

Questions about commentator personal likes & dislikes are little different from those about players, so I've little interest in sparring on this

He's not the best and he's not the worst. If you don't like his commentary, then just watch the tennis - for however many weeks a year.

You'd struggle to name a commentator - in any sport - that EVERY fan approves of !

lags72 wrote:Questions about commentator personal likes & dislikes are little different from those about players, so I've little interest in sparring on this

He's not the best and he's not the worst. If you don't like his commentary, then just watch the tennis - for however many weeks a year.

You'd struggle to name a commentator - in any sport - that EVERY fan approves of !

most would like McEnroe and Koening.

lags72 wrote:Questions about commentator personal likes & dislikes are little different from those about players, so I've little interest in sparring on this

He's not the best and he's not the worst. If you don't like his commentary, then just watch the tennis - for however many weeks a year.

You'd struggle to name a commentator - in any sport - that EVERY fan approves of !

Actually I agree. However, as they are getting paid considerable sums presumably for specialised information, i.e. insights / thoughts that us mere mortal non-proffessional Tennis players haven't thought of - I think we can expect better than calling Tsonga the new Nadal

Not only is it ridiculous to call a 26 and a half year the 'new' anything, but Nadal is the last person that Tsonga resembles

"he has the looks,"

From Greg's PoV, should slams be now beauty contests.

lags72 wrote:I happen to quite like Greg myself (your comments are way OTT nitb) but maybe he'd had a glass or two when he came up with these pearls

Please do not take this personally, but should commentators be given Breathalyser tests before being asked questions?

Tenez wrote:I don't know. I think Greg is not as bad as he sounds.

I woudl also give Tsonga more chance to win a slam than Murray atm. Tsonga is a natural, talent wise and physically. It seems Murray struggles to add wins in a row without having some form of injuries.

It wouldn't be a 'Tenez' comment, without the dig at Murray. At least Murray can get nearly 20 wins on a trot

I actually wouldn't argue and actually never have, that talent wise Tsonga is as good as Murray. But then again 'talent wise' Murray is better than Nadal

Unfortunately, Tsonga's problem is putting together 5 or 6 wins to get nearer to the 7 Masters that Murray has (rather than his one) as he often gets injured after 3 or 4 wins on the trot

He should be part of a 'Fab Five', but underachieves terribly and even in the second half of this year has had some poor lows. Not certain that this will ever change - but we can keep hoping

NITB, i dont agree with Rusedski here but there is no need to attack him personally. I took a peep at the MTL Murray thread and they are ripping him apart, calling him a has been etc.

Rusedski has lived the tour, which is more than any poster on this forum or that has done and that alone that deserves respect. As I said doesn't mean his opinions need to be agreed with but respect surely is deserving.

As for commenting from a safe position, Rusedski coached the British Juniors to the DC championship. So he did lay his coaching credibility on the line.

coolpixel wrote:NITB, i dont agree with Rusedski here but there is no need to attack him personally. I took a peep at the MTL Murray thread and they are ripping him apart, calling him a has been etc.

Rusedski has lived the tour, which is more than any poster on this forum or that has done and that alone that deserves respect. As I said doesn't mean his opinions need to be agreed with but respect surely is deserving.

As for commenting from a safe position, Rusedski coached the British Juniors to the DC championship. So he did lay his coaching credibility on the line.

How did I attack him personally?

as for his creds, I am not really interested in his coaching, juniors, role in DC championship etc etc; those who gave him commentating job obviously think that matters.
I was not even aware of any those activities you mention, the expertise should shine through what he says, now what's written on his CV.
If he's so good at coaching he should do exactly that, let the people who are good at commenting comment!
His price tag is probably not that high anyway, which is probably another reason why he is hired.
Andrew Castle is another case in point...It's all a small clique that drags the standards down.

Gergs a decent guy but when I'm looking for tennis insight I don't hang on his words.

If Rusedski is going to comment he should at least get his facts straight.

He cites Murray as being 25 years old - wrong.

He states that Federer would not have been happy with his quater-final losses (at the slams) in 2011 - wrong, Fed only had one quarter final loss at Wimbledon.

The problem I have with Greg is that his comments always seem to be a case of speaking without thinking. This is pretty obvious when he commentates or is interviewed. The guy just babbles endlessly with very little coherence. He really should not commentate or analyse. Good commentators are able to speak eloquently and succintly; he does neither.

And what the hell is this comment about:

"Tsonga has the talent, he has the looks, he has the persona he just needs to be a bit cleverer when it comes to the big points."

What a buffoon!



emancipator

Ah LF, I see you beat me to it

He was commenting long before the DC coaching role. Re the commenting, there is a Market for him and Castle and all the others. Why shouldn't YHWH make a living that way?

coolpixel wrote:He was commenting long before the DC coaching role. Re the commenting, there is a Market for him and Castle and all the others. Why shouldn't YHWH make a living that way?

Because there are probably better candidates who just don't know the right people to get the job.

I agree with NITB.

Why do the TV stations put up with mediocrity?

Just because Rusedski is a former player and DC teammate the old boys immediately give him a job as a commentator/analyst.

How about appointing according to competence and skills? Is it too much to ask for the right person for the job?

The grinning buffoon.

I hates it, I hates iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit



emancipator

On the looks point, there is a long held adage that you should look the Part to get the part. Rusedski is probably alluding to this. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer look the part on court not just becauSe its fun but it's part of the metal conditioning..... In the same way that all if us would be beat groomed for an interview or presentation. I don't see what's wrong with that comment.

Frankly they should get me on to do the expert commentary and insight.

Or, being serious, any one of about 12 people from here. We seem to know more about it than is evident from his or their pronouncements.

bogbrush wrote:Frankly they should get me on to do the expert commentary and insight.

Or, being serious, any one of about 12 people from here. We seem to know more about it than is evident from his or their pronouncements.

I am not sure our "Nadull" and "mooballing" comments would go down very well with the audience at large.

coolpixel wrote:On the looks point, there is a long held adage that you should look the Part to get the part. Rusedski is probably alluding to this. Nadal, Djokovic and Federer look the part on court not just becauSe its fun but it's part of the metal conditioning..... In the same way that all if us would be beat groomed for an interview or presentation. I don't see what's wrong with that comment.

So you and Greg think that Tsonga looks more the part than Murray, even though the Scot has only blown 4 out of 10 'big' finals (Masters / Slams) and Tsongo more or less the lot - simply because Jo-Wilfred smiles more???

If Greg had said, 'I think that potentially Tsonga has a better chance of winning a Slam than Murray, because when he gets it right he looks the best player in the world' and then explained why, no-one would be fussing

But what he said was utter garbage. I mean the next Nadal? Come on!!

Hope Tsonga and Murray, both do well.

A good player/coach does not necessarily make a good commentator. Greg has a bit of a band-wagoneer attitude towards players.

I had much rather hear Goodall, Koenig, Lester than our dear Greg.

I reckon Boggo would be worth a try...he'd have priceless insight into the first round of Wimbledon...

"So you and Greg think that Tsonga looks more the part than Murray, even though the Scot has only blown 4 out of 10 'big' finals (Masters / Slams) and Tsongo more or less the lot - simply because Jo-Wilfred smiles more???"


it probably helps to read my posts in the entiretly, understand the context, and see that i am no longer talking about Tsonga and Murray, but am pointing out that when he says looks , then looks overall can contribute to the mental conditioning of a winner.

coolpixel wrote:"So you and Greg think that Tsonga looks more the part than Murray, even though the Scot has only blown 4 out of 10 'big' finals (Masters / Slams) and Tsongo more or less the lot - simply because Jo-Wilfred smiles more???"


it probably helps to read my posts in the entiretly, understand the context, and see that i am no longer talking about Tsonga and Murray, but am pointing out that when he says looks , then looks overall can contribute to the mental conditioning of a winner.

How?

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Frankly they should get me on to do the expert commentary and insight.

Or, being serious, any one of about 12 people from here. We seem to know more about it than is evident from his or their pronouncements.

I am not sure our "Nadull" and "mooballing" comments would go down very well with the audience at large.

Are you kidding? Think about the viewing figures and the phone ins? We'd go Global!

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Frankly they should get me on to do the expert commentary and insight.

Or, being serious, any one of about 12 people from here. We seem to know more about it than is evident from his or their pronouncements.

I am not sure our "Nadull" and "mooballing" comments would go down very well with the audience at large.

Are you kidding? Think about the viewing figures and the phone ins? We'd go Global!

Ideally, it would be BB/Tenez, Wooffie/Deecoco & Moi plus a hot Murray fan when needed (Banbro/Yummy) the atmosphere would be so spicy, insightful, human and passionate in the studio, ESPN & SKY would be buying T rights from BBC

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Frankly they should get me on to do the expert commentary and insight.

Or, being serious, any one of about 12 people from here. We seem to know more about it than is evident from his or their pronouncements.

I am not sure our "Nadull" and "mooballing" comments would go down very well with the audience at large.

Are you kidding? Think about the viewing figures and the phone ins? We'd go Global!

Ideally, it would be BB/Tenez, Wooffie/Deecoco & Moi plus a hot Murray fan when needed (Banbro/Yummy) the atmosphere would be so spicy, insightful, human and passionate in the studio, ESPN & SKY would be buying T rights from BBC

Careful, someone could reference THAT website. Then we'd all be in trouble.........

It's the most shamelessly sad thing I've ever seen. Makes me wanna

How?

By looks i mean grooming. I post via a mobile most of the times so don't expect perfect syntax from me.

Back to grooming ( which is what Rusedski also meant I would bet by using that word), are you saying being well groomed does not contribute to mental conditioning for big events? Do you go unshaven, unwashed , scruffy shoes, and un- ironed to a big event in your life?

I think Rusedski meant he's good looking.

It's exactly the kind of non-sequitor, twaddly thing Rusedski always comes out with.

I doubt very much that he was referring to grooming.

Such an extension of thought is beyond him.



emancipator

I like Rusedski. He loves tennis, is enthusiastic, knows the game well and isn't scared to give his honest opinion even if he knows it won't be well recieved. I also think he's got a nice smile...

hawkeye wrote:I like Rusedski. He loves tennis, is enthusiastic, knows the game well and isn't scared to give his honest opinion even if he knows it won't be well recieved. I also think he's got a nice smile...

You musta been a fan of jaws

I much prefer the commentating Greg to the pointing-to-the-towel-between-every-point Greg...

lags - i can think of one who everyone loved! in rugby the great bill mclaren! 'thumping on like a runaway milkfloat' , 'the whole of wales is after him'
'he flicks like a little phantom' , 'he could run through a barn door' .
Iconic, fantastic and a joy to listen to the best there has been IMO may he R.I.P.
sorry for getting sidetracked

Haha... I like Greg's enthusiasm, but come on!

Tsonga (26) is the new Nadal and could challenge the top guys, but Murray (24) has to win a slam soon?? Eh?!

Federer will be desperate to make up for his quarter final losses?.... Plural?...

And looks play a part in a players ability? How the hell did Lendl do so well then?

Greg, Greg, Greg...

coolpixel wrote:How?

By looks i mean grooming. I post via a mobile most of the times so don't expect perfect syntax from me.

Back to grooming ( which is what Rusedski also meant I would bet by using that word), are you saying being well groomed does not contribute to mental conditioning for big events? Do you go unshaven, unwashed , scruffy shoes, and un- ironed to a big event in your life?

Although I know who you are getting at in a slightly exaggerated way I actually agree with your sentiment. I was thinking while watching the WTF's how much mental advantage the way Federer dresses immaculately gives him. When a player sees an icon of the game at the other side of the net looking fully professionally prepared even down to kit it must have some mental impact.

All players at the top are well groomed to an extent. All the top guys are sponsored by big sportswear companies, and so are never going to turn up to a big event in anything but quality equipment.

In terms of how they look, and the effort they put into essentially 'looking nice' it might have some commercial impact... But impact on the result of a match? Sorry, not for me. I think it's nonsense. Do I think Murray (or any player) has more or less of a chance in a semi final of a big event based on whether he's shaved or not? No. And I think trying to deduce how mentally prepared a player is by whether he's used a razor that morning is analysis gone too far!

Federer obviously takes pride in his appearance, and fair play to him for that... But those that don't aren't less mentally prepared. They're just different people.

I have yet to see Federer wipe his face with his shirt, he always gets a towel, in contrast to Tsonga using his shirt as a towel. Should that count as well?