Saturday, 20 July 2013

107 Things You Ought To Know About Professional Tennis

The text you're looking for has been moved to my new all-tennis blog, in the link below, where everything else tennis-related is:


  1. oh wht a waste of time

    1. And you realized this by the time you got to 84...?

      Only one other question remains: are you a Fedtard or a Serenocretin?

      Vjetropev, Tennis Educator

  2. I read your other article about Federer's achievements and also think all the points are valid there and here I am reading this article. I have to admit, I am seriously impressed. Considered myself too as a tennis follower for more than 20 years and been a die hard fan of several players to the tour none so more than pete sampras, it pains me to no extent seeing your #32. I would like to clear the air about it for you and for all other people who might visit this site.Here's how I would like to contest your #32.

    #32 Pete Sampras is overrated: No he is not. for the following reasons

    1. Your claim is his game is all about aces and serves at wimbledon and US open: If the game were only to be about aces and serves then how come did he break serves of his opponents at far greater frequency than any other player during his time which even included your much admired 'agassi', whom you should be revering as the greatest rally maker of all time, well the truth is Sampras used to toy with agassi, breaking agassi's serve at will, their H2H record is much more lopsided if you see only GS performances, and for the record sampras did not only break agassi's serve , but also of several other legendary baseline players like lendl, courier, brugera, muster, kuerten, with such a ease that has never been seen before or after. And he was even more effective against other big serving couterparts like ivanisevic, rafter, philipousses, krajicek.

    And for the record about your second claim about sampras not winning on clay, as it is mentioned that he reached up until semi final in the year 1996 (I guess) and lost in straight sets. And is that the end of the matter there !!!! no, coz of the following reasons, en route to semi final there sampras beat two past champions courier and brugura in 5 sets. Does that mean nothing to you ?????? and another reason is the sampras did loose in S/F, but it was to Kafelnikov, now some history matters here, just in the year previous to their meeting on clay at RG Sampras beat Kafelnikov on clay in cold winter in Russia for a davis cup final tie that is so much revered in Russia in those days. Dont you think that historical perspective is of no consequence ??? in their RG match. May be not, and further question arises why sampras did not come back to win again after 1996, simply because he did not care, and that is as simple as that and that's it. But the point here is he is no slouch on clay considering all above things.

    Even in 2007, Sampras was still good enough to beat federer in an exhibition-but-very-competitively played matches. In fact it is only since his loss to Pete that several other player on tour(including nadal ) started beating Federer on courts other than clay. To paraphrase he has shown the current generation of players that federer is beatable. It is highly debatable is federer had not played those exhibition matches then had he been beatable at all on any other surface than clay. Now that is how good sampras was !!! The reason you think he is overrated is purely due to ignorance on your part though still still of a lot of grip on tennis knowledge, but you might have missed watching sampras. Just watch one match he played against alex corretja in 1996 US open Q/F and that will completely change your impression about him.

    1. First of all, I am very careful how I word my texts. I described Sampras as “overrated”, not “useless” or “a crap player”. His talent was apparent to anyone with half a brain cell. By overrated I mean that he won far too many slams considering his abilities (which are undisputed), sort of like Safin won too few, and that he did in fact rely on his serves which nearly always worked. He profited from the 90s which was a haven for the big servers – unlike the current Era which does not favour blasters that much. How many ace-machine players have won anything of value in the past decade?

      OK, now I will address your points one by one.

      1) “Sampras broke serve easily”. A tad exaggerated, but for the sake of argument let’s assume it was true. One, Sampras didn’t have to deal with his OWN power when returning serve, when facing the likes of Courier, Rafter and Agassi. Two, it is much easier to return when you’re comfortable in the knowledge that you will hold your serve no matter what, and that will at least get you to the tie-break - which then favours ace-machines. Agassi did not have that luxury; he was constantly under pressure to excel while returning. i.e. the aces were an additional psychological advantage for Sampras, aside from giving him a plethora of free points devoid of “real tennis” i.e. rallies.

      2) At Wimby, it really WAS all about aces and service winners. Re-watch any QF, SF or F matches and you will be reminded of this – unless you fall asleep beforehand, because Wimby tennis used to be a sleeping pill back then, unlike now where it’s damn attractive tennis.

      3) Sampras struggled greatly against Krajicek who had a positive H2H against him, at least for the majority of both their careers.

      4) That Sampras “toyed with Agassi” is rather ludicrous, a bit too much poetic license on your part. “Breaking Agassi at will” is even more absurd. I’d have expected a 34-0 H2H in Pete’s favour had this been the case, but it was actually 20-14. Agassi beat him in 3 slam matches, including a finale, so Pete couldn’t have possibly toyed with him. Or are you implying Pete lost those 3 because he was lazy or didn’t care that much? Pete was the consummate pro, took every major extremely seriously.

      5) Yes, Sampras’s tally against Agassi in crucial matches was lopsided, and I think I addressed that briefly in the list. Agassi was mentally a ZERO when it came to playing Pete and Jim, totally unlike the confidence he had playing Becker or Stich. This was more about Andre’s fear of losing to his biggest home-grown rivals than anything else. It was a prestige thing, st he didn't have to worry about when playing the Germans, for example, and st he dealt with quite badly on average. If Andre had had 15% of Nadal’s or Novak’s mental strength, he would have beaten Sampras in at least one more slam finale, but Agassi was a notorious choker when it came to Sampras and Courier. Watch his losses to Pete in 1990 US and Jim in 1991 FO. Choking par excellence. Anybody who thinks Agassi played anywhere close to his best in those two is very much mistaken.


    2. 6) 1996 French Open. By this time, both Courier and Bruguera were only half the players they used to be, way past their prime, with fairly low rankings, so beating them as “past champions” is a bit like regarding an astounding feat that Youzhny this year beat Hewitt at the U.S. Open., a former champ there. Not to mention the fact that Courier choked like a bunny in the QFs where he had a 2-0 sets lead. Sampras always was mentally a powerhouse, I would never deny that. Technically he was brilliant too, but prone to making many errors the moment he got engaged in a rally with more than 4-5 shots. Obviously, on his great days, even his rallies were generally impressive, i.e. he could keep a ball in play long, but that was fairly rare. To me, the talent exhibited today by Nadal, Novak, Roger, and Murray in playing lengthy offensive rallies is infinitely more impressive than how Pete achieved greatness, i.e. with aces and service winners primarily. Serve... point over... serve... point over. Had Delpo been born 15 years earlier, he’d have won a bunch of slams in the 90s with his serve alone. Hence Pete had a lot of luck being born at the right place at the right time. I already mentioned the factor of luck in considering that Becker today would have been an “average” top 20 player, simply due to his size and relative lack of speed. Rafter, for example, would have had a zero career nowadays, simply because serve&volley players nowadays can’t achieve anything major. The less said about the fairly (relatively-speaking) talent-free Edberg, the better; Stefan had no forehand to speak of, and could hold the ball in play only with slices i.e. junk tennis.

      7) As for the Sampras-Federer exhibition match, well that’s a ridiculous argument. I’ve seen no.1 players lose to absolute nobody’s in such matches. I wouldn’t take those results seriously for one second.

      8) Regarding Sampras-Kafelnikov DC 1996, that is of course DAVIS CUP, i.e. an event with its own strange rules and unpredictability. Kafelnikov lost that because he wasn’t up to the occasion, feeling pressure from the home crowds, it was the final, etc. Sampras had much less to lose, having already won DC whereas Yevgeniy hadn’t. Besides, that is ONE match, not at all like winning the FO.

      Fact is and always will be – FO was always the toughest slam to win, especially in the 90s where even ace-machines had to actually start working for every point. Make Pete work for every point, and his game diminishes to something that was a shade of his grassy/fast-cementy self. Bottom line, he played ALL FOs from 1991-2002, and reached just ONE semis there, in what is and always will be the hardest major to win. That hardly impresses me.


    3. I misspelled "nobodies". Well, nobody's perfect!


  3. You a clearly an dellusional idiot . In response to your "Fedtard or Serenocretin" comments :
    1. Serena Williams isn't a popular player at all. There are many examples where the crowd turns on her . For example take this years Wimbledon v Lisiki . A complete unknown player had unanimous support against her, and even in her home gram slam she has been booed countless times the most obvious example being agaisnt Kim Kim Clijsters in the final.
    2.You mentioned being popular is related to being good at tennis, and to some extent you are right. But in the case of Federer not because fans support him knowing he would bring glory. He is ranked number 6 in the world and had an awful year which never promised glory but he won the Official Fans Favorite award. By your logic Nadal or Djokovic would have won it as they promise victories. People applaud Federer becuase of his game style. Another example of this being the in thr Madrid Masters the crowd unanimously supporting Dimitrov or Djokovic. If your 'theory' holds people would support the player with more grand slam, which clearly isn't true as they look for gamestyle instead of glory.
    3. Finally if Serena had won 2 or 3 slams she would have few fans but she has few fans anyway. And if RF had won 2 or 3 slams he would still be the most popular player on the tour. You believe people support the top players but this isn't true. Fans always will root for players like Del Potro, Tsonga, Monflis ... over a Murray, Djokovic or Nadal. The fans were supporting Rosol over Nadal in Wimbeldon for example.
    Much of your article is factually incorrect , so please if you respond only use facts as I'm not going to pick through lies.

    1. I may be a delusional cretin but I'm not a Serenocretin. That's what gives me the edge over you.

      On a slightly more serious note...

      The reason Fed still gets all that fan support is precisely because he still has the most slams, plus hugely successful veterans generally get more sympathy than the younger players, it's usually been that way. (Connors who was always an asshole, albeit a charismatic one unlike the thin Swiss, was hugely popular in the 90s at the end of his career.) Slam wins do not get taken away every year, i.e. the Swiss still has his record 17 no matter how bad his season, and fedtards get "strength" just from this knowledge. If Nadal somehow surpasses him in slam wins, or Djokovic wins 20, all thosefFedtards will forget about their skinny idol in a jiffy. They are fickle, because they don't support him for his charisma - as he has none, sort of like why teenie-boppers quickly abandon their pop idol and switch their focus on the next "teen sensation". He is a grumpy-looking accountant on the court, supremely arrogant, and humorless. What's there to root for? He wins, it's as simple as that, or at least used to.

      I'd never dispute that Sereno has many detractors in the States. Her behaviour is so over-the-top sociopathic that even some tennis fans who generally latch on only to winners cannot get themselves warm to the idea of joining the Serenocretin Army. Nevertheless, she proves my point, in a way, because in spite of her total unlikability she has a fairly large following.

      As for Rosol, Wimbledon crowds are notorious fedtards, so obviously they'd root against Nadal who nearly always beats their skinny idol in majors. They weren't rooting for Rosol - they were rooting against Rafa. Certainly you should have deduced that.

      Roger having 2 or 3 slam titles would have put him in the vicinity of Hewitt, i.e. someone nobody gives three shits about anymore. You're definitely a fanatical fedtard which means none of these logical arguments will have any effect on you, other than to piss you off coz deep down you know that I am right.

      I believe that even Murray, who is very likable but not overtly charismatic, would have a lot more fans than Fed if he had half the slams the Swiss ballerina has.

      As for Delpo, Tsonga, and Monfils, if any of these guys had 2-3 slams, much like the likes of Rafter or Safin who were very charismatic hence popular, they'd be bigger than the Fed amongst fans. Or at least among fans who do not have an almost pathological compulsion to support only the guy with the most slams.

  4. let's b honest here, if the GRAND SLAMS were made mathematically correct in terms of the DRAW, we MAY or may NOT hav seen more variety in terms of winners.

    the draw in grand slams shud only b made for players unseeded coming into the slam. ie. the Top 32 seeds (generally the Top 32 players in the world UNLESS one of em' drops out therefore number 33/34/35 become seeded) should know precisely which other top 32 players will b in their DRAW.

    each grandslam has 128 players, right? so lets divide the draw into 8 groups.
    obviously the Top 8 seeds in the tournament occupy each group.
    lemme break it down this way:
    in group one:
    from the seeded players ie. Top 32, u SHOULD hav the following: 1,9,17,25

    in group 2: 2,10,18,26

    in group 3: 3, 11, 19, 27

    in group 4: 4,12, 20, 28

    in group 5: 5, 13, 21, 29

    in group 6: 6, 14, 22, 30

    in group 7: 7, 15, 23, 31

    in group 8: 8, 16, 24, 32

    if u haven't caught on to the pattern the ur a FUCKING idiot.

    anywayz, getting back 2 wat i am saying...
    with regards to the other 96 players who make up the rest of the DRAW, THEY r the ones who can b drawn randomly to fill up the spots in the 8 groups.

    every grand slam & master 1000 IMHO should b made mathematically fair with complete ignorance to who's ranked where. this would ensure a fair draw to EVERYBODY at least within the Top 32 which is what matters the most.

    so now for example, in the fourth round of a grand slam, NO player should/would b allowed 2 face a player that is at least 8 ranking positions away.
    & thatz how it wud b for everyone in their respective 8 groups.

    like for example again, in the fourth round, the highest seeded player a #8 seeded player could POTENTIALLY face is #16.

    so lets wrap this up. the highest seeded player a seeded player can POTENTIALLY (since upsets r ALWAYS on the cards) face in 3rd round should b 16 positions away.
    4th round: 8 positions away.
    QF stages: 4 positions away
    SF stages: 2 positions away

    if u give me ur email address, i can email u an actual DRAW of where the top 32 places wud actually b positioned on it.
    there wud b NO names on it.

    my way of doing a DRAW is mathematically fair to everybody in the Top 32.
    the way the DRAW is in tennis, it is only fair to the Top 2, since i've seen draws where the #2 is drawn to POTENTIALLY face #3 in SF stages. so therefore it obviously means that #1 has gotten #4 for a POTENTIAL clash which is FUCKING unfair.
    y shud the #2 b facing a player that is ONE fucking position away while the #1 player gets a player who is THREE positions away.

    i think/HOPE u get my point by now.



    1. Your effort is appreciated, but I think you're completely missing the point here.

      The only aspect of the draw that needs to be FAIR as far as possible is who plays whom from the QF onwards, or perhaps also last 16. The IRRELEVANT players that you seem to think it is important to place in the numerically appropriate places are just that - unimportant. They're mostly shit! Whether Nadal CRUSHES a no.87 in the R1 or R3 is completely irrelevant - except for the no.87 who would prefer to lose in R3 than R1. Whether Djokovic plays a no.70 or no.90 in R1 won't change anything at all.

      The whole problem with modern men's tennis is precisely that the DENSITY of quality has gone down drastically, so perhaps your "mathematically perfect" (or we could almost call it autistic) draw would make a little more sense in the 90s when the lower ranked players were much better than today.

      I also do NOT understand the "logic" of saying that a SF with 1 vs. 4 and 2. vs. 3 is unfair. How is it unfair? 2-3 & 1-4 is the fairest system of them all! Where would you prefer Djokovic and Murray meet, in R4????
      What is distinctly unfair is when 1 plays 3 in the semis, thereby REWARDING the no. 2 player for being lower ranked than the no.1, which is a joke. What is also very unfair is when the no.1 plays the no.5 in the QF - that is absolutely ridiculous, and actually PUNISHES the best player in the world by giving him the toughest 5 to 8 player to face already that early.

      To sum up: the Big 4 are so MUCH BETTER than the rest, especially those irrelevant players outside of the top 50 that you seem to think we should care about what round they meet the top guys. The Big 4 are so much better that it doesn't MATTER how you arrange the draw as far as when they play the low-ranked players. If these low guys were any good they'd beat Nadal & co. a long time ago, but they hardly ever do.

  5. Fun to read. Some of it was intelligent some just rude but funny. I think the article about why Federer isn't GOAT was better. I don't get wawrinec our whatever it was as a nic-name, please explain.

    1. Well, by being Mr. Wawrinec I am saying he is pussy-whipped, i.e. that she's wearing the pants.

  6. Es verdad todo acerda de Roger Federer? ya saben, lo de que es un arrogante, y toda esa historia de que Mirka nomas lo usa por dinero y de que es gay?? si es cierto que desilusion

    1. Estoy casi seguro de que es gay, pero no puedo decir que estoy 100% seguro. Su relación siempre parecía muy sospechoso.

  7. isn't the serve supposed to help you in tennis? hence why more hard courts than clay courts, don't you think? ; ) oh and agassi actually played in the 1991 wimbledon championships, losing in 5 sets in the quarters ; D

    1. The point you are trying to make about hard courts and the serve is lost on me. Please try again - after you've mastered that sometimes elusive art of writing down your thoughts in a coherent and intelligent manner.

      Agassi played in Wimby 1991, yes. And? I fail to see any relevance to anything I've written about him.

  8. We talked on your other article about Fed's not greatest. In fact, we agreed on all points. But on this article, this is very good except on some few points that seems questionable to me:
    1) The claim about Serena's masculinity. I think we all know she's a female. Let's not bash her for the way she looks. She's muscular and/or too male looking, but so is Sam stosur, schiavone etc
    2) About Serenecretin or something. While you are right that some fans can be ridiculous, Serena has always been the victim of too much hatred that I dont support with that flow. In every forum I go, I have read nasty comments about Serena just because she's not the typical women's tennis player. The reality is Serena is not really "unbeatable". Its the problem of the other players for being so mentally weak. All you had to do is stay with Serena and she usually tires easy(obviously due to her big frame)...So unlike Fedtards, serenecretins is negligible...

    1. We DON'T all know that Sereno is a female. Perhaps a female rhino, but certainly not a human one. Have you checked that bulge under her/his pants recently? It doesn't look like a German sausage to me. An overgrown clit from another planet? A spare tennis racket? Whatever it is, it ain't a human female sexual organ as present science knows it, that's for sure.

      Unlike my "Is Roger Federer The Greatest Player Of All Time?" article, which is more straight-forward, the "101 Facts" list is not to be taken THAT seriously. The views I express on all my posts are my own - to be sure - and I stick to them, but not everything is written with utter seriousness. This entire blog (except for the political blog I have) is anyway a fun thing that isn't meant to be taken overly seriously. Only a very perceptive person (or someone who knows me well) will be able to know exactly when I'm joking, when I'm half-joking, and when I'm not joking at all.

      As for Sereno getting so much hate, there are two types of hated celebrities: the ones who have been unfairly handled by the semi-retarded asshole press hence the public as well, and the ones that have brought hatred upon themselves by behaving like assholes, divas, bitches, retards and whatever else. Mike Manzilla Williams Tyson definitely belongs to the latter category. Sereno has used the Race Card, the Victim Card, and whatever other cards white-guilt liberals have handed over to blacks in recent decades in that once-powerful but now merely silly downward-slide nation we call the U.S. of A., so she is not only an egotistical bitch, but also a megalomaniac lunatic who always lays blame for each one of her own numerous fuck-ups and steroidal rage-attacks on other people, never on himself/herself. She/he never ever admits to having been rude or selfish in any issue, and this is the thing that makes Manzilla uniquely hate-worthy on the WTA. No other player, not even Navratilova and Graf, have shown such levels of egotism, underhandedness and self-obsession as this she-male beast from the nether regions of "ghetto" America. The saying that "the worst rich people are often those who made it from nothing" is very true, certainly when it comes to cavewomen and cavemen.

      I have never seen him behave in any way but as an utter cunt. Or prick. Depending on which sex you think he/she has got stashed under that huge-ass skirt.

      I agree that Muscles aka Sereno wins a lot of his matches because of his mental strength. But you need to also understand that he has an unfair advantage - aside from his drug use and male muscles - and that's the large amounts of confidence that excess testosterone brings, something other female players don't have nearly as much of. Look it up on the net, "testosterone and confidence". That's what I'm talking about.

      Admittedly, Sereno isn't the only beast on the WTA tour, but he IS an 18-slam winning beast, which is why the focus is on him and not on Amanmuradov(a) who is perhaps just as penis-suspicious as our favourite bitch-queen/king.

      Am I joking now? Hard to tell, even for me. Grey area.

    2. LOL..come on now, we know she's female. Some people(mostly blacks) do have the natural physique. But you maybe right that she's on to something...but in reality, in today's sport, who is'nt?

      As for serena's behaviour, dont get me wrong. She's a bitch; just like sharapova. But given the social history of blacks in the US of A, I am not as hard to her as screamapova.

    3. I can't judge easily who dopes and who doesn't, that's usually a tough one, but with Sereno it's more than obvious, especially in light of the vast and unnatural difference between his build and that of his sister Penus. Either one of them got adopted, or Sereno was a genetic experiment stolen by Mr. Williams in a CIA lab in which he worked. But I am not implying that Sereno is doped just because of the difference in his and Penus's build, there are many other obvious indicators.

      Speaking of which, Penus is proof that NOT all black girls are built like offshore oil-rigs and male boxers. Francoise Abanda is another slim black girl, and then there are black women such as Diana Ross and a host of others. I think you've been perhaps watching way too many rap videos in which ugly, large-assed, cellulitis-legged skanks dance around like idiots. (Rappers' taste in women is just like their taste in music - shite.) Fact is, many black women are slim, have a wonderful build. You can even argue that white women are mostly bulky if you only focus on Wal Mart, or if you only go to beaches where Scandinavian and German tourists reside.

      I don't know where you get the theory that Orgasmapova is a bitch. Granted, she is not ideal, and she did carry the Russian flag for Putin, but she never struck me as being particularly nasty or unlikable. Certainly compared to Sereno she is a lamb.

      Your argument about not being hard on Sereno (no pun intended, trust me) because of her background sounds like white-guilt liberal nonsense to me. How much longer is slavery going to be an excuse for certain types of behaviour? The Germans and the Jews managed to make peace - despite Germans slaughtering 6 million Jews just over 60 years ago! The Japanese and the Americans are getting along fine, neither side is asking for restitution money, and the Germans and the French - who fought so many bloody wars against each other over the centuries - are now the best of chums. But somehow blacks still can't "forgive" whites for some crap that happened a century ago. You must be joking.

      No, Sereno has no excuse. In fact, by treating blacks differently - because of a "different social background" - you are in essence being a racist. Just think about it.

      Btw, if you're gonna "forgive" people based on their "tough backgrounds", how about forgiving Sugarpova then? The poor girl was born in SIBERIA which is as harsh an environment as any in the world - certainly 1000 times tougher than any so-called U.S. ghetto - and Russians in general are hardly known for their gentle nature or being soft or kind. Give the girl a break. She screams a lot yes, but does that bother you when you're having sex with your girlfriend? Don't be a damn hypocrite. You know you love the screams, you know you do.

      And no, I won't believe you that Sereno is a female unless you have actual proof. What I need you to do is next time you go to a WTA event, ask him to lift his skirt for you. If he says no and punches you in the face you will be in severe pain for weeks, but IF you succeed, think of the accolades. You never know, you might just catch Sereno in a rare mood when he is willing to share his male genitals with others.

      By share I mean have a look at them, not use them for any unsavioury and weird behaviour.

  9. i see you say roger is an asshole but he's won the stefan edberg multpile times. From what i know, its voted by peers and staff and not the fans. And i have seen roger complain numerous times following defeats and making excuses etc but don't all players do that? A few year ago, Nadal refused to play in blue clay when he was losing and demanded the clay be changed to the red dirt. Novak fakes a lot of injuries in matches such as the Wimbledon 2014 Championships. At the end of the day, these players are all friends between each other.

    1. Some of what you say has some truth to it. But.

      There are a lot of friendships on the tour, but most of them aren't very deep, and there is also some well-hidden animosity between certain players, though some of it occasionally gets leaked into the media.

      It's no secret that Djokovic and Federer don't like each other much although their relationship has improved a little since the early years. Djokovic and Nadal aren't in bad relations but they are certainly not anywhere close to being friends. Murray does get along very well with Rafa and Novak, especially Rafa. Federer of course has a lot of friends on the tour because he is gay and hence sees guys from a different perspective than straight players.

      Can you imagine what fun Federer has in the changing rooms and showers with all those naked and semi-naked sweaty guys?

      Perhaps that's why Federer wins the Fave Player award so often. He is being flirty with the other players but they are misinterpreting that as friendliness. After all, Roger does not want people to know he's gay (which is why he married so early to a woman who is his manager and who basically looks like shit, let's be frank here), so his flirtiness is very subtle.

      Nadal bitching about blue clay. I've got news for you: many players were complaining about the blue clay. The only reason Federer wasn't complaining was because he figured "if Rafa hates blue clay then I love it, coz my chances of beating him go up (from 3% to 8% most likely)".

      Yes, many players moan and bitch and make excuses but not all of them pretend to be such goodie-two-shoes do-gooders as Roger does. He has an extremely well-manicured image (not just his nails) that is controlled by his powerful sponsors - with PLENTY of help from sycophantic journalists and the ATP which foolishly thinks they would go bankrupt without Federer. A lot of money is at stake and everything is being done to portray Roger as some sort of infallible moral superman - which is total bullshit, of course. He has displayed on many occasions - very subtly so that most tennis fans don't notice it - his egotism, his tendency to be a bit of a sore loser who makes up excuses, etc. Whenever he is losing to Rafa or Novak he grumbles to the referee to time their service breaks or complains that Rafa's hair smells or that Novak's box is too loud or that Novak's brothers haven't washed their feet or whatever. Very very petty stuff like that which is very telling about his true character.

      An award named after the phony Stefan Edberg - who stole his Davis Cup's team-mate's girlfriend and made her his wife - is not an award that I can take seriously at all. Any more than that I can take the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize seriously - which is often won by terrorists and corrupt politicians.