Djokovic's Holy Grail - La Coupe Des Mousquetaires

Djokovic has made no secret of the fact that the trophy he desires above all others is la Coupe des Mousquetaires. Winning the Australian Open didn't distract him from the task and he used his post final interviews to tell everyone of his desire to win the FO. Maybe at that time the task looked a little easier as the "owner" of the French Open trophy was injured and there was speculation that he would not be able to defend his title.

When Nadal returned the task must have looked a bit more tricky again but that didn't stop Djokovic from dreaming. In fact he used every opportunity to explain how he was working towards this goal. It convinced many that it was his destiny. Beating Nadal in Monte Carlo made Djokovic's wishes sound all the more convincing. Despite Nadal winning the following two Masters titles in Rome and Madrid and Djokovic going out early speculation was that Djokovic's losses could be tactical. He didn't want or need Rome or Madrid only the French would do.

No wonder Djokovic wanted that trophy so badly. With it he would complete a career slam, gain the 2nd leg of a grand slam and if he could beat Nadal in the process make a huge, huge statement about his ability... and also deliver a body blow to his main rival.

But we all know what happened... Credit to Djokovic for re-grouping and doing much better than I expected at Wimbledon. But I can't help thinking working so hard and so single mindedly towards a goal and then failing must be damaging. If only for the short term.

I also wonder was he wise to make his desire public considering the difficulty of the task. Did this work against him? Was it an attempt to play mind games with Nadal? Did it?

Hmmm, an article about the French Open. Very topical.

Has there been a slam since then HE? What were your thoughts on that?

Djoko would find it more difficult mentally to regroup after Wimbledon loss to Andy than FO loss to Rafa, now Djoko have to fight a real Andy from here on who won't melt down in the finals.

I think the RG defeat was tougher, personally, Djoker made it known that 2013 was about dethroning Nadal, and worst is that he came whiskers. Yesterday would have hurt, but hes probably more frustrated with how poor he played, than the dream dashed

kingraf wrote:Yesterday would have hurt, but hes probably more frustrated with how poor he played, than the dream dashed      

I think he played poor coz of Andy's level of play, I don't think Djoko could have done many things different, had it not been Andy's jitter playing for the Wimbledon title it could been a complete horror for Djoko, now after Wimbledon he knows his opponents have put it back on him, now its Fed's turn do it on USO finals and that would be intriguing .  

Im sorry, but as well as Andy played, Djokovic doesnt drop 4-1 & 4-2 leads in consecutive sets because Murray was simply better. I called a straight set win, and I think Murray peak v peak is better on grass, but yesterday was poor from Nole

Danny_1982 wrote:Hmmm, an article about the French Open. Very topical.

Has there been a slam since then HE? What were your thoughts on that?

What happens in the FO can sometimes influence what happens at Wimbledon. Don't you agree? Or even in tournaments beyond. I would be very interested to see a match up between Djokovic and Nadal at the US... As always hoping that Nadal is fit.

invisiblecoolers. Djokovic didn't target Wimbledon as he did the FO and I can understand why. Do you think Djokovic sees Murray as the same sort of threat as Nadal? Maybe you should look back at the history of their rivalry. Nadal has been this force in place since the beginning of Djokovic's career.

I think Djokovic probably does view Murray as a threat at least equal to Nadal. He's been his opponent in his last 3 slam finals.

The easy thing to do is to speak of Rafa with as much disdain as you do with Murray, but I like Rafa and providing he is fit he will be a contender for all the big titles in future.

Do I think the French Open affected the result yesterday? No. Not at all. I think Novak, who all through Wimbledon was playing better than Murray, came up against an inspired opponent who exhibited more maturity than we've ever seen before.

hawkeye wrote:
invisiblecoolers. Djokovic didn't target Wimbledon as he did the FO and I can understand why. Do you think Djokovic sees Murray as the same sort of threat as Nadal? Maybe you should look back at the history of their rivalry. Nadal has been this force in place since the beginning of Djokovic's career.

But the problem is Djoko don't mind going down to Fedal but certainly not to Murray, so this defeat would hurt him big time, in FO this year and Wimbledon last year he was still the underdog against the Fedals inspite of being World No.1, but thats not the case in this Wimbledon Finals he was the favourite to win the title over Murray.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

kingraf wrote:Yesterday would have hurt, but hes probably more frustrated with how poor he played, than the dream dashed      

I think he played poor coz of Andy's level of play, I don't think Djoko could have done many things different, had it not been Andy's jitter playing for the Wimbledon title it could been a complete horror for Djoko, now after Wimbledon he knows his opponents have put it back on him, now its Fed's turn do it on USO finals and that would be intriguing .  

He could have gotten some first serves in, stopped shortening the points and stopped firing stupid drop shots  

invisiblecoolers wrote:
But the problem is Djoko don't mind going down to Fedal but certainly not to Murray, so this defeat would hurt him big time.

But not as much as Murray's victory would have hurt hawkeye

JuliusHMarx wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:
But the problem is Djoko don't mind going down to Fedal but certainly not to Murray, so this defeat would hurt him big time.

But not as much as Murray's victory would have hurt hawkeye

DON'T MENTION THE WAR! : 

invisiblecoolers wrote:

hawkeye wrote:
invisiblecoolers. Djokovic didn't target Wimbledon as he did the FO and I can understand why. Do you think Djokovic sees Murray as the same sort of threat as Nadal? Maybe you should look back at the history of their rivalry. Nadal has been this force in place since the beginning of Djokovic's career.

But the problem is Djoko don't mind going down to Fedal but certainly not to Murray, so this defeat would hurt him big time, in FO this year and Wimbledon last year he was still the underdog against the Fedals inspite of being World No.1, but thats not the case in this Wimbledon Finals he was the favourite to win the title over Murray.

Well what you've said makes sense. But when I see Djokovic lose to either Federer or Nadal he does look and act as if it bothers him more than when he loses to other players. And the opposite of course those are the wins that inspire all the shirt ripping stuff. I do still think whoever Djokovic was playing he had more to win at the French and less to lose at Wimbledon.

Also I'm sure he could give himself more let out clauses at Wimbledon (mentally tired from failed FO campaign, tired from epic semi, the heat, the crowd or playing uncharacteristically poorly). Just to be clear I'm not arguing about how valid any of these reasons may be. Just saying Djokovic could possibly use them as a balm so as not to be too hurt by the loss. Some also say that Djokovic likes Murray and so would have been pleased for him.

Julious.  I suppose you have no thoughts on how Djokovic's failed attempt at capturing the FO may have affected him.

HE, I had my thoughts on that before Wimbledon started. You had your thoughts on it after Murray won Wimbledon. It's not difficult to explain that difference.
If Rafa had beaten Djoko in the final, I'm 100% certain you'd have written exactly the same article  

JuliusHMarx wrote:
If Rafa had beaten Djoko in the final, I'm 100% certain you'd have written exactly the same article  

Or if Djokovic had won the French Open it would have been something like 'Djokovic wasn't too bothered about Wimbledon'.

This will probably drop me in trouble with the powers that be but so be it. Hawkeye in all the years I have known you as a poster you have held a super negative obsession with Murray. For years posters have had to put up with (what must be hundreds) of anti-Murray articles and the majority of them have been invented and twisted by yourself and we have had to put up with it. We have listened to your insistance that Murray would never win a slam as well. And now that he has won two I still await to here you be congratulatory, hold your hands up to admit you were wrong, say Murray done well or even a simple congratulations without any buts added in. For me that just shatters any credibility you have as a poster and leaves you as so one-dimensional it is untrue. I have seen Federer, Djokovic and Nadal fans as well as a Del Potro fan post sanely about Murray's win and offer their congratulations even though they may have no time for him but nothing for you. It would not be so bad if you banned yourself from discussing Murray at all - you know no negative stuff and no positive stuff. Just a thought.

Er ......... Craig......... she's not posting about him.

bogbrush wrote:Er ......... Craig......... she's not posting about him.

Not directly but the digs are there if you read through the topic.

And telling her it annoys you is going to stop it?

No most probably not but its good to let people know where I stand on this. I mean heck we know socal is no fan of Roger but he can still post positive stuff about him like admitting he is GOAT etc. Lydian has openly admitted he is not keen on Murray yet can still offer congratulations. My point is we have to listen to her negative stuff which is continuous and she does so freely without a care in the world but her stuff contains stuff that have been blown out of the water ie he will never win a slam but she hasn't the decency to come out and say: 'Okay I was wrong.' As you know BB I have done that before with yourself and other posters it is common courtesy in my eyes but that seems to be beyond her sadly.

CaledonianCraig. You don't appear to have read my article. Do you know anything about how Djokovic said that his aim this season was win the FO? If you have no interest in this topic or if it annoys you why even read it? Seriously what's up with you policing everything and shouting at people not just for saying things that you disagree with but for not saying exactly what you want? Stop making up lies about me too as I have no wish to get into petty arguments about such things.

Please can people try and stick to topic. IMO it is an interesting one. Having two slams so close together is always tough but especially for players with so much riding on the first. Physical recovery is one thing but emotional recovery must be difficult too.

The fact that Novak got the the final of Wimbledon having won his first 5 maches in straight sets and coming through a difficult battle with Delpo (who beat him for Olympic bronze albeit in bo3). The final was a lot closer than the scoreline suggests so that would imply he wasn't carrying too much emotional baggage from his FO Semi defeat this year.

Look at the past two years. In 2011 he suffered his first defeat of the year to Federer in the FO semi. People watched to see how that would affect him. He went on to win Wimbledon. The final being against Nadal the FO winner. So he didn't carry too much emotinal baggage from that defeat.

In 2012, like this year I would imagine that the FO would have been his major objective. If he had won it he wolud have held all 4 slams at the same time. He lost to Nadal then came to Wimbledon and went down pretty tamely to Federer in straight sets. It colud be said that he was carrying emotional baggage from the FO defeat but then again Federer played very well.

It must be difficult playing two slams on different surfaces in close proximity but that's the way it has been at this time of year as far as I can remember. The top players though have enough back up support to give them the best chance of dealing with it.

HE - I think Craig is trying to reiterate that whilst Novak did probably want the French more than any other slam this year, this would not have diminished his determination, emotional energy or desire to win Wimbledon once he was in the final.

First round, maybe he felt a bit flat and not up for it... But it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that he wouldn't have been 'up' for the biggest most prestigious final in tennis once he'd got there. Perhaps this is being seen as a way to dilute the achievement of the victor, not that I could imagine you'd ever do such a thing...

Can you imagine the morning of the final:

Team to Novak: Novak, this is the biggest trophy in tennis and you are in the final again. The chance to become a multiple Wimbledon champion, win your second slam of the year and step even closer to the status of one of the all time greats. Are your ready for this? Are you fired up and ready to do anything to win?

Novak: meh....

Team: Erm... Novak, this is the Wimbledon final! The holy grail of tennis. What's wrong?

Novak (with big bottom lip): just, you know... That French open semi... Just a bit kinda down about it. Not totally up for this, you know, emotionally....

Team: you're down about the French?.. TODAY? Get a grip man!!!

Novak (now with arms crossed too): ..... No!... leave me alone!... Bloody meanie!

Well said CaledonianCraig.

I would also like to extend my congratulations to Mr Murray. He certainly is growing on me. I'm not a massive fan of his style of tennis. And I'd be interested to know if a player who has such a poor second serve has ever won Wimbledon before? I think it's countered by the fact that Murray has the best return of a return (if that makes sense or is even a thing lol), I think I've ever seen.

Anyway, back on topic. The problem is HE, that it is really quite obvious that Djokovic had more to win at RG. It's fairly obvious that from now to when he retires he is always going to target RG up until he actually wins it. Why? Because it's the only one he hasn't won.

Did it have any material affect on the outcome at Wimbledon? Absolutely not. So lets just state it now:

By Nadal beating Djokovic at the French, this did not make Murray's task any easier in any way shape or form.

He played his previous 6 matches at Wimbo in very dominant fashion (SF excluding - best match of the tournament). He wasn't carrying any emotional baggage.

Murray played better than him. As did Nadal at the French. Credit to both players (although clearly that will be impossible for you to admit).

The thing is if you read your post impartially, you don't mention Wimbledon to the 3rd line from the end. It is merely a foot note. This article is clearly about Nadal (because he stopped Djokovic - if it was anyone else I doubt this article would exist) and the French. Nadal is mentioned (or referred to) at least 6 times before you even mention Wimbledon. Your closing paragraph/sentence is even directed solely at RG.

It's another "I devauled the AO, then the USO and now I have gone for the hat-trick by devauling Wimbledon because the French Open seems to be the only my place my idol can win" thread

For someone that is a tennis fan, they certainly don't show it!

Johnyjeep wrote:
I would also like to extend my congratulations to Mr Murray. He certainly is growing on me. I'm not a massive fan of his style of tennis. And I'd be interested to know if a player who has such a poor second serve has ever won Wimbledon before?

I thinks Evonne Goolagong's was even slower, if I recall correctly. Maybe not, it's tight.

Lol that Lady needs all the good fortune she can get with that name!

Best second serve I ever saw was when Michael Chang did Ivan Lendl (I think) with an underarm serve.

I often wonder why (especially at RG and against Nadal - to keep this topical), people don't try the underarm drop-shop on a serve as he stands soooooo far back. I have no idea how easy that would be to do.

But when they are bouncing the ball in the stance (just before tossing it up in the air) it wouldn't take that long to quickly flash the raquet at the ball would it?

Thank-you to those that made sensible contributions to my article and I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond to your comments. This is because I was banned from 606v2 for posting this article on Djokovic. I was of course shocked and surprised by this. As far as I know I have broken no rules and despite some extreme harassment always respect other posters and their views even when I disagree with them.

That apparently is not enough anymore on 606v2 as only certain views appear to be acceptable. Anyone who doesn't agree or in this case wants to write about something that won't be found on a Murray fan site is first subject to the "clique" barracking the article with spam nonsense and in my case gets silenced. The "clique" includes a moderator. According to 606v2 rules - "Generally moderators are there to prevent people going off-topic or posting abusive or offensive material."

hawkeye wrote:Thank-you to those that made sensible contributions to my article and I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond to your comments. This is because I was banned from 606v2 for posting this article on Djokovic. I was of course shocked and surprised by this. As far as I know I have broken no rules and despite some extreme harassment always respect other posters and their views even when I disagree with them.

That apparently is not enough anymore on 606v2 as only certain views appear to be acceptable. Anyone who doesn't agree or in this case wants to write about something that won't be found on a Murray fan site is first subject to the "clique" barracking the article with spam nonsense and in my case gets silenced. The "clique" includes a moderator. According to 606v2 rules - "Generally moderators are there to prevent people going off-topic or posting abusive or offensive material."

Seriously Hawkeye? After everything, all your articles that served no purpose but to slag off one player, you are still trying to play the innocent? Your whole agenda is to belittle the achievements of Murray, at least be woman enough to own up to this. if you are planning to continue posting in the same manner you really need to grow a pair as the victim card is not working.

Rant over. Maybe you can start afresh? Igore Murray or post rational criticism as many others do. There are many non Murray fans on 606v2 and any rational criticism is well received and discussed. Just try to avoid falling for tabloid headlines hook, line and sinker and you'll be fine.

Anyway, Nadal should hopefully be back playing soon so there will be something for you to enjoy  

You got banned?

I take my hat off

legendkillarV2 wrote:You got banned?

I take my hat off

That was my first reaction too LK  

 

hawkeye wrote:Maybe you should look back at the history of their rivalry

Away from the dirt, since 2010, here are some stats;-

1) Novak has a 5-0 record against Rafa. Three of those are Slams and significantly one of those was at Wimbledon.
2) With Andy, he leads 7-5 in the same spell. They share the four slam they've competed in. Significantly two of Novak's defeats were both on the grass at Wimbledon

hawkeye wrote:Nadal has been this force in place since the beginning of Djokovic's career.

On clay, yes. But, away from the dirt, as soon as he beat him in three consecutive slams, and started having a more even record with Murray - then that statement is just a statement in fact about their rivalry up to the end of 2010

hawkeye wrote:Do you think Djokovic sees Murray as the same sort of threat as Nadal?

I think we can clearly see, given the statistical evidence I've presented - that the answer is 'yes' and he probably sees him more of a threat. Away from clay, this is


Instead of trying to get sympathy on these boards, let's have a proper debate. Please answer my post, stating whether, given this evidence, you've changed your mind - and if not why not

Incidentally, even taking into the clay stats, aince 2010 Rafa still has won proportionately less matches than Murray

I don't bring these matters into the public domain unless another poster does so first, but I reserve the right of reply.
One of the other site rules is "Listen to the Moderators and/or Admins and follow their instructions". Some time ago Hawkeye was PM'ed by an Admin, with details of what was acceptable/unacceptable behaviour on the forum. Since this wasn't followed, a ban should not have caused any shock or surprise. Perhaps the surprise came from expecting Mods to be ever tolerant of such behaviour only to find that we have our limits after all.

Nor has HE reported any extreme harassment to the Mods.

HE, as has been said by another poster "all your articles that served no purpose but to slag off one player, you are still trying to play the innocent?" - it cuts no ice with me. It's not about any imaginary clique, it's about behaving in a manner that is respectful to the forum as a whole - something you have been unable to do.

JuliousHMarx

The only PM I have ever had from an Admin was this general one (I had to search for it when you mentioned it as it was way back in March) that I was told was sent to other posters alerting me to the existence of this article

https://www.606v2.com/t41972-to-all-users-of-the-tennis-section-please-read#1931829

By mentioning this PM you have given the impression that I have not played by the rules. I believe that I have. I only post articles about my genuine opinions and I have no idea about why my speculation about Djokovic broke the rules. If you look through the thread and ignore the comments that had nothing to do with the topic it is clear that it created some interesting debate. I haven't reported harassment to the mods because I felt able to deal with it myself. After all it's clear or everyone to see and I suppose I have always felt that harassment is often dealt with by my fellow posters. I try and ignore it and only respond to posters who have something genuine to say.

And what of your constant slagathon murray articles HE?

HE, I stand by my decision to ban you and the reasons behind it, as per my post above and the Admin PM which did indeed point to that link and the information it contained.
The PM was sent to a number of users who felt needed to pay particular attention to that link.
If you genuinely need further explanation please request via PM.

hawkeye wrote:and only respond to posters who have something genuine to say.

Really? OK. Answer my last post

Hawkeye, having been away from the boards for a long time, I have noticed that although they seem a lot cleaner and less vindictive than before, many people are debating the same old arguments that were being thrashed about, over a year ago.

Now that Nadal has not been so prominent on the tennis scene for a while, the animosity towards him has shifted onto Murrays back.

Its quite noticable to me, there was always a certain amount of negativity towards Andy and Rafa and a little towards Novak, but the bulk is now aimed at Murray especially now that he has won the coveted crown.

Mostly its not direct, sometimes it is, sometimes its thinly disguised as sarcasm or banter but its ongoing and continuous.

I was hoping that certain posters may have grown out of it, considering the admin's continual messages and warnings, but it seems old habits die hard. I'm not completely innocent, I've done my fair share, but it does rankle a bit when posters who are prevalent Murray bashers or criticisers can't take a bit of heat themselves. But this just ends up in insults going round and round, forever voyaging and the only people that can stop it is us.

HE does not like Andy, and she likes to post anti-Andy articles and posts, and that is why she was banned?

Sure, HE likes to WUM, but her WUMing is rather high brow - her posts are well written, with a good sense of humor, and - while often they are extreme caricatures of reality - they are hardly ever entirely unrelated to reality.  To the extent her posting involves insults, they are almost always directed at her, rather than the other way around.

While she is pretty consistently anti Andy, she does not exactly go out of her way to spam all forum articles with her views.  Instead, she is more likely to write her own articles, thus making it fairly easy to avoid for those who do not like her posting.

My guess (hopefully incorrect) is that she was banned simply because sufficiently many posters found her annoying.  A pretty sad state of the forum if that is enough to ban a poster.

summerblues wrote:HE does not like Andy, and she likes to post anti-Andy articles and posts, and that is why she was banned?

Sure, HE likes to WUM, but her WUMing is rather high brow - her posts are well written, with a good sense of humor, and - while often they are extreme caricatures of reality - they are hardly ever entirely unrelated to reality.  To the extent her posting involves insults, they are almost always directed at her, rather than the other way around.

While she is pretty consistently anti Andy, she does not exactly go out of her way to spam all forum articles with her views.  Instead, she is more likely to write her own articles, thus making it fairly easy to avoid for those who do not like her posting.

My guess (hopefully incorrect) is that she was banned simply because sufficiently many posters found her annoying.  A pretty sad state of the forum if that is enough to ban a poster.

I couldn't have put it better summerblues.

Your second paragraph is absolutely on the button - I am sure I will get right up the wrong peoples' noses if I say I would rather read or ignore HE (depending on my mood) any day of the week than have to read some of the insufferably pompous and self righteous posts lecturing all and sundry that have become a little more common over the last week.

HE is never rude to other posters - surely the cardinal rule of posting?  Slight over reaction methinks.

SB, you say they are "often they are extreme caricatures of reality", but HE says they are "genuine opinions". There seems to be a conflict of views there.

If wumming doesn't upset people then fine. If wumming upsets people, then the wummer gets a warning, with instructions not to keep wumming. If the wummer keeps wumming, and that wumming keeps upsetting people, the wummer gets a temp ban.

In the end I have to make a decision. I always and only have the best interests of the forum in mind. I strive to be impartial, but obviously the judgement as to the best interests is mine. Some people will agree, others will not agree. I'm fine with that.

summerblues wrote:HE does not like Andy, and she likes to post anti-Andy articles and posts, and that is why she was banned?

Sure, HE likes to WUM, but her WUMing is rather high brow - her posts are well written, with a good sense of humor, and - while often they are extreme caricatures of reality - they are hardly ever entirely unrelated to reality.  To the extent her posting involves insults, they are almost always directed at her, rather than the other way around.

While she is pretty consistently anti Andy, she does not exactly go out of her way to spam all forum articles with her views.  Instead, she is more likely to write her own articles, thus making it fairly easy to avoid for those who do not like her posting.

My guess (hopefully incorrect) is that she was banned simply because sufficiently many posters found her annoying.  A pretty sad state of the forum if that is enough to ban a poster.

I am all for a little wummery. Even if it is light heartening, but there comes a point when you think ok 2-3 isn't a crime, but when someone posts the same thing over and over again it gets boring and laborious and whilst banning a poster is extreme, what about the posters or new posters that then refuse to post because of the same stuff being repeated over and over again.

I feel the same for posters who might post on their favourite player galore. What I would like to see on this forum is variety. Not the same intentional articles serving to diminish and demean the same player over and over and articles designed to increase the career achievements of the same player over and over again to the diminshment of tournaments and other players.

The poster in question granted never used offensive language or insulted anyone, but they were warned and proceeded to ignore those warnings. As JHM the admin look at for the best interests of the forum as a whole, not the interests of one poster.

WUM has been redefined on this forum.  Where I come from it means to deliberately cause irritation.  The sole reason for posting has to be an attempt at trolling.  That simply doesn't happen with me or hawkeye.  I think some of you think that because you get wound up by a post, that constitutes a poster being gagged and called a WUM. My Andy Murray thread was not an attempt at trolling or otherwise for example, it was simply expressing my own views and countering the Murray love-in.  Grow a pair.  Not everyone adores Nadal and Murray.

I get wound up by people who over-hype Murray, think he's great, or support him just because he is Scottish. Doesn't mean I go round abusing people, calling them WUM, and asking for bans. Like a playground here.

_homogenised_ wrote:WUM has been redefined on this forum.  Where I come from it means to deliberately cause irritation.  The sole reason for posting has to be an attempt at trolling.  That simply doesn't happen with me or hawkeye.  

Danny_1982 wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:WUM has been redefined on this forum.  Where I come from it means to deliberately cause irritation.  The sole reason for posting has to be an attempt at trolling.  That simply doesn't happen with me or hawkeye.  

What you have just done there is though.  Thanks for the example.

A is a WUM where you come from? Interesting.

I don't mind mind most of HE's articles to be honest, she's quite intelligent in the new subtle ways she manages to have a dig.

The in your face "Murray is crap/lucky" is a more dull.

But I'm not complaining. Keep going! It makes a week ago even sweeter.

_homogenised_ wrote:I get wound up by people who over-hype Murray, think he's great, or support him just because he is Scottish.

That's a shame. Maybe you'd deal with it better if you grew a pair.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:I get wound up by people who over-hype Murray, think he's great, or support him just because he is Scottish.

That's a shame. Maybe you'd deal with it better if you grew a pair.

The difference is I accept it, and don't come here telling people what to think.  Genius. You are the worst moderator I have ever seen.

No you just write pointless articles trying to cheapen his achievements  

_homogenised_ wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:I get wound up by people who over-hype Murray, think he's great, or support him just because he is Scottish.

That's a shame. Maybe you'd deal with it better if you grew a pair.

The difference is I accept it, and don't come here telling people what to think.  Genius.  You are the worst moderator I have ever seen.

Actually you come on here telling people what to think a lot more than most other posters do, but either you're unaware that you do it, or you know that you do it, but deny it. Genius. You're not the worst poster I've ever seen, but you're right up there.