Murray Set to Challenge Federer for Australian Supremacy? Why Not
by Sean Randall | January 13th, 2008, 5:49 pm
  • 47 Comments

For a guy with so much at stake this year – the Olympics, Pete Sampras’s 14 Slams mark, the French Open – Roger Federer’s start to 2008 hasn’t exactly been ideal. The World No. 1 found himself sidelined from the Kooyong exo after a bout with a stomach virus, meaning he’ll enter the Australian Open for the first time in his career with nary any match practice. But from what Fed said during his presser Sunday, whatever his internal troubles were, have left him and now his focused on the potential troubles on the court.

With that in mind, ‘capping the 2008 Australian Open is much more difficult than I thought it was going to be.

Federer is the obvious choice and the rightful favorite in betting circles. After all, the Swiss has won a ridiculous 26 of his last 27 matches in Melbourne, with his only loss over that span coming in 2005 to Marat Safin, who, by the way, is the last guy other than Federer or Rafael Nadal to win a Slam. And even in that match I think Federer held a matchpoint.

So why bet against him? Well…

Okay, let’s start with the draw.

Federer’s top quarter is also home to likely opponents Fabrice Santoro, who should have his way with John Isner, Joseph Sirianni, and Tomas Berdych setting up a last eight encounter with Fernando Gonzalez. True, Gonzalez has been all but MIA since his shocking final run last year, but what the heck, I think he can pull it together, recapture the magic and actually win a few matches this week over guys like Chris Guccione, Marin Cilic and Sebastien Grosjean to reach the quarterfinals, where he’ll fall to the Fed. Sorry Gonzo.

The second quarter is perhaps the most intriguing of the four in the draw with Lleyton Hewitt, David Nalbandian, Novak Djokovic, Dmitry Tursunov, David Ferrer, Marat Safin, Juan Carlos Ferrero and Marcos Baghdatis all in the mix. In my mind, anyone of those guys could make the semifinals. Okay, well maybe not Hewitt, but I certainly think the rest can. And it’s a tough call who’ll do it. The popular pick may be Djokovic in light of Nalbandian’s back injury – though the Argy is apparently okay to go. But I’m not with the cocky Serb in this one. I think Tursunov takes care of him in round three, meaning a date with Marat will await in 16s. Yup, that Marat, who comes into Melbourne refreshed and healthy enough to put the wood to Baghdatis and Hewitt. But Tursunov will be too tough, and Dmitry should get through to the quarters to face… Ferrer.

Honestly, I’m not sure how Ferrer will get there – he has to beat Juan Martin del Potro, Radek Stepanek-Vaidosova and Nalbandian, which are all very losable matches – but I’m going with him anyway. Slow court, lots of heat, that’s David Ferrer-type conditions. Then again, Spaniards never seem to do well at the Australian Open – quick, name me another Spaniard other than Moya or Ferrero to reach the Australian semifinals in the last 30 years? And hell, while you are looking that up I’ll go ahead and take Ferrer to beat Dmitry.

Onto the bottom half…

The third quarter is by far the weakest. If the surface was any faster I’d probably lean Dr. Ivo to get thru, but from what the players say, the new blue is rather slow and the balls tend to fluff. So Andy Murray is my pick here. After a tough opener against Ali Jr., Murray has little in the way of real resistance until Richard Gasquet or Igor Andreev in round four. Gasquet reached the R16 last year, but in this case I’ll go with the guy who dates Maria Kirilenko, Andreev. Doesn’t really matter anyway, Murray wins whomever emerges and then beats Nikolay Davydenko in the quarters.

The last quarter features Andy Roddick and Rafael Nadal, which would be a great final eight match if it came to pass. Well, I think it will come to pass, and I think Nadal will win it. En route, Nadal has the easier road of the two, with really only Carlos Moya in his way as a potential fourth rounder, though I’m not so sure Moya will even make it there. Roddick will have to deal with Philip Kohlschreiber and Tommy Robredo and the impending ESPN hype, but he’ll serve his way through to get to Rafa. With the slower courts, however, Nadal’s my pick to advance (did you see that Indian Wells match between them last year?)

That leaves my head-scratching semifinals as Federer v. Ferrer and Nadal v. Murray. And in the final, I’ll go with Federer beating Murray, who I think will exhibit just enough versatility to do in Rafa, like he almost did a year ago in Melbourne.

Do I feel good about that Final Four? Honestly, not really. Murray’s never even been to a Slam quarterfinal before, so how the hell does he beat an experienced Rafa in a semi? Not totally sure, but I just think Rafa has some problems in Australia and Murray does play well against the top dogs. And what of Ferrer in consecutive Grand Slam semifinals? Can’t be! But, guess what? I’ll stand by it!

Now for the ladies.

The top half is absolutely insane with Justine Henin, Serena Williams, Maria Sharapova, Lindsay Davenport, Amelie Mauresmo and Jelena Jankovic. That’s loaded. So loaded that let’s start with who’s not getting to the finals: Jankovic, who might get bounced in the very first round by Tamira Paszek, Sharapova, who will beat Davenport in the second round, and the injury-plagued Mauresmo. That leaves just Justine and Serena standing in the semifinals, and I’ll take my chances and pick Slim Serena.

The bottom half is wide, wide open, but I’ll go with the favs again: Venus Williams to beat Ana Ivanovic and Svetlana Kuznetsova to overpower Anna Chakvetadze. So will Kuz beat Venus? Not in this event. I’m going sisters final all the way, with Serena winning another Slam title equaling her idol, Monica Seles.

So that’s Federer and Serena the champs, just like last year. That was easy, wasn’t it? Now let’s see how it plays out and just how wrong I am.


Also Check Out:
Murray Lands in Nadal Quarter; Federer v. Djokovic Possible Australian Open SF
Djokovic Outlasts Murray in 5 in Australian Open Semifinal
Djokovic v. Nadal For Australian Open Title, 2012 Supremacy; Who’s The Pick?
Novak Djokovic vs. Maria Sharapova In… [Video]
Novak Djokovic: “I’m Physically Fit And Ready For The Challenges That Will Come”

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get Tennis-X news FREE in your inbox every day

47 Comments for Murray Set to Challenge Federer for Australian Supremacy? Why Not

JCF Says:

“Do I feel good about that Final Four? Honestly, not really. Murray’s never even been to a Slam quarterfinal before, so how the hell does he beat an experienced Rafa in a semi? Not totally sure, but I just think Rafa has some problems in Australia”

What is it about Australia he has problems with? Is it the surface? Can’t be since it’s new. The heat? Nope, he’s used to it. Just superstition?

“That leaves just Justine and Serena standing in the semifinals, and I’ll take my chances and pick Slim Serena.”

Yes… like in the last 3 slams right? Henin is on a 26 match winning streak and hasn’t lost since Wimbledon, so she’s in fine form. Serena is looking fitter than she was last year, but it takes more than power tennis to beat the current best player in the world.


jane Says:

Murray is down two sets to Tsonga, who’s playing v.well, not surprisingly, so this isn’t looking like the Scot’s break through tourney. Too bad. Suppose it’s possible for him to come back, but so far he has no answer for Tsonga’s serve. Jr. Ali is a dangerous player here. If he gets through this match with the W (which he should) who knows how deep he’ll go.


jane Says:

Of course now I’ve checked the score again and Murray’s up a break in the third. That’s showbiz folks – never over till it’s over.


johnnhoj Says:

TSONGAAAAA!!!!!


jane Says:

No kidding – Tsongo showed some mettle; will be a tough loss for Murray though.


johnnhoj Says:

There’s a level of impatience from Murray with his choices of shots that puts him in a tailspin toward the very end of a losing match at Slams. He should have taken the fourth set from his gimpy-legged opponent, but Tsonga kept his head.


Peter Says:

You’re right, johnnjoj. Being lucky enough to live in Melbourne I was courtside for the fourth set, and Murray, as well as being impatient, is at times a bit lazy. Doesn’t take that last step or get right down to use his knees. So he puts a few long. Missed a backhand volley I think at 15-30 on Tsonga’s serve late in the 4th, and maybe a forehand down the line shortly after. Two costly errors.

Good fighting, Tsonga, though. He’s got some big groundstrokes on him.


Tag Says:

Everyone seems to be talking about Murray as the next big thing to happen to tennis. He was expected to challenge Fed-Ex for the Australian Open.
And what do we have here? A fit, raring to go Murray knocked out in the first round.
Talent and all is fine. he just seems to lack the mental consistency required to win say, 1 top level title, talk about challenging the likes of Fed Ex.
Anyway, lets wait and watch…


jo will. tsonga Says:

Hey Sean Randell,

Pwn3d


JCF Says:

Yeah Sean… your finalist pick just got ousted in the first round. That must hurt for you more than it does Murray himself…

It’s always been my opinion that your picks are often baseless. You might rant on and on about one player, and then dismiss another without a single word of explanation. Even though they’re currently the hottest player (Henin) and have beaten the one you picked as AO champion, in three slams straight (Serena).

I think you need a new day job, seriously.

Or at least, you should be allowed to revise your picks if someone you picked for semifinalist or finalist gets beaten in the first round. That would make your article somewhat relevant.


Giner Says:

“Murray Set to Challenge Federer for Australian Supremacy? Why Not”

Laughable headline now….

“Do I feel good about that Final Four? Honestly, not really. Murray’s never even been to a Slam quarterfinal before, so how the hell does he beat an experienced Rafa in a semi? Not totally sure”

Not totally sure…? that just says it all. Your credibility as a pundit just went down the crapper.


ATP NO Says:

As soon as I read the title “…Why Not” I knew it was going to baseless and lame. If you’re not going to give it a lot of thought, why write it? Do you just not give a shit? Alright, let me lay a “why not” on you…

Murray is physically weak, inexperienced, is a second-degree headcase and does not yet have a handle on his variety… I would never have picked him for the final.

Nope, I’ll take Safin. Why not?

Dickhead.


colleen soden Says:

Ferru! Ferru!


rogers twin sister Says:

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh Sean….do YOU have egg all over your face today? “Murray has little in the way of resistance until Gasquet..,” then comes the first roud exit LOL. This is way too precious for words. What other pearls of wisdom do you have to offer? You probably think Fatty Paszek can beat Jankovic, don’t you? OOPS he’s done it again…WRONG! LOL..I’m thoroughly enjoying this, as you can see.


jane Says:

Well…people…many in the sports press were touting Murray to break through at Oz, not only Sean. But most also knew Tsonga would be a tough contender; he gave Roddick something to think about last year, beat Hewitt recently, not to mention picking up a doubles title last week. So, while Murray may have lost, it’s not like he lost to a “nobody,” and it’s not like his career is over either. Plenty of great players have lost in the first round of a slam. Murray is still a tennis player to watch.


rogers twin sister Says:

Jane, I agree that Murray is still a tennis player to watch. Still, I can’t help laughing at Sean’s deplorable “picks” blowing up so soon.


Hahaha Says:

So much for your British bias now? You Murray cheerleader. There have been a lot of pre-AO articles coming out of Britain about Murray dethroning Federer this year. Murray this, Murray that! Experts, pundits. What crap!

Bagdatis is better than Murray. No talk of him dethroning Federer. No talk of anyone but Murray.

Guess TSONGA brought all of you back to Earth, hun?


johnnhoj Says:

Too bad about Frank Dancevic, that five-set loss to Nieminen (6-3,6-1,5-7,2-6,6-1).

Who’s the real dark horse this year? Will there be one?


Sean Randall Says:

To JW Tsonga, thanks for that.

Egg on my face? Yes. Scrambled egg, why not? A bad pick, no doubt, but I’d like to see how many people actually picked Murray to lose that match.

That said I’m not completely shocked by what JW did, I did think that early on that JW was Murray’s toughest hurdle. Oh well…Let’s see how Day Two unfolds.


Von Says:

“johnnhoj Says:
Too bad about Frank Dancevic, that five-set loss to Nieminen (6-3,6-1,5-7,2-6,6-1).”

I agree. I thought Dancevic would have at least gotten to the fourth round. I don’t know whether you watched the ’07 AO wherein Dancevic played against Gonzalez. Dancevic was winning and got a bad call, which irritated him so much that his frustration got the better of him. Gonzalez won, and then went on to get to the finals. Dancevic was robbed.

Speaking of bad calls. Can anyone tell me why is it that the AO does not have Hawkeye on all of the courts. I can’t believe they are only employing the use of Haweye on 2 courts, shotspot on a few and then some of the courts have nothing. The slams are so important, how could they be lax about such an important device.


andrea Says:

andy murray always seems to get tossed in as a contender or a strong ‘dark horse’ at grand slams for reasons i have yet to see. i know he has talent but it never seems to come together for him when it really counts.

maybe this will improve…..


Von Says:

andrea Says:
“andy murray always seems to get tossed in as a contender or a strong ‘dark horse’ at grand slams for reasons i have yet to see. i know he has talent but it never seems to come together for him when it really counts.”

I can somewhat understand why for the AO he was thought of as a fierce contender because of his prior success after returning from his wrist injury, and his recent win at Doha.

Unfortunately, for him, the slams seem to pose a high degree of intimidation and he crumbles. Added to the mental problem, he no longer has Gilbert on whom he can unleash his frustrations when he gets tight. It’s all part of the learning curve.

Sean however, writes these articles to get the fans’ ire really cooking; end result = a lot of hits for his article. Oh Sean, you’ve done it again.


Sean Randall Says:

Von, in regards to Hawkeye I’m sure it costs a pretty penny to set all that up. When the costs go down or the profits go up I’m sure then they will have it available on all the courts.

Andrea, Murray does get a lot of hype thanks to the British papers and Brad Gilbert, so I imagine he’ll continue to be a “dark horse” at every Slam until he finally breaks through like his peers Djokovic, Gasquet, Baghdatis.

To Murray’s credit, he has played well at the ATP events and has faired well vs. the game’s elite. Now he needs to translate that into Grand Slam wins. I thought – and thought wrongly – given his form entering and his favorable draw he’d do some damage.


Sean Randall Says:

Von, so you are saying I picked Murray just to get “hits”? Not sure I follow you.


JCF Says:

I think based on Tsonga’s performances lately, there was a good chance of an upset. Maybe it would have been closer to 60/40 in Murray’s favor. Murray would have been favorite, but not clear cut favorite. Tsonga is better than many give him credit for.


Von Says:

TO: Sean Randall:

“Von, in regards to Hawkeye I’m sure it costs a pretty penny to set all that up. When the costs go down or the profits go up I’m sure then they will have it available on all the courts.”

I understand what you’re saying. Those economists are working overtime. Hawkeye is costly, but profits aside,I feel that they can afford to employ enhanced technology = Hawkeye. Players, lines persons and umpires would be a lot less frazzled if the challenge system/Hawkeye were employed on all of the “grand slam” courts. The grand slams are the creme’ de la creme’ of the tennis tournaments. To put up the argument of cost and profits is a lame excuse, especially if a top player loses a match because of a bad call which cannot be refuted. And, I truly believe that they make enough of a profit to invest in the Hawkeye technology. Hawkeye has become so much of a reliable tool to everyone on the courts so much so,that its unavailability is more like giving candy to a baby and then taking it away.

“Von, so you are saying I picked Murray just to get “hits”? Not sure I follow.”

“Murray Set to Challenge Federer for Australian Supremacy? Why Not”

It didn’t have to be Murray, it could have ben anyone else. But you would have written an article along those line. Just read your caption.

I am speaking purely from a psychological point of view that you do get more hits if you write an article that arouses the anger of the Fed fans and would also spark some interest in the anti-Fed fans that they would want to post. Just look at the posts regarding this article.

From what I have seen, the majority of the posts are from Fed’s fans. The anti-fed fans hardly ever post, e.g.,ratio between Fed fans vs. anti-Fed fans is about 10-1. I post but I had a difficult time with the Fed fans. That’s the reason a lot of anti-Fed fans do not post. I’ve been called names and labeled as dumb, crazy, brain of a six yearold, et al., than I would want to remember.

You’re a good tactician, and you know the pattern. I don’t blame you for writing those articles — that’s your job, but surely, you’re not saying that you are unaware of what subject matter is going to give you more hits? You had to envision that writing an article with that caption will surely get the Fed fans’ adrenalin flowing. I don’t think you’re that naive.

Please remember that this is just my opinion. My saying that you’re a “tactician” is a compliment to you. You know your job, and you get it done!


Von Says:

TO: Sean Randall:

Please excuse the typos as follows:

s/b “it could have ben, s/b “been”;
along those line, s/b “lines.”


Sean Randall Says:

Von, in time we will see Hawkeye on all the courts, but that probably won’t be for another five years. True, at the Slams it’s important to get the calls right, but again the costs are likely just too high. You need the hawkeye technology (I’m not really sure on how that all works!), a big video screen and a technician on each court at least. Then multiply that by 15 courts or so and you have quite the bill.

As for my articles, I don’t write with “hits” in mind. Nor do I really write to directly draw the ire of Fed or anti-Fed fans. If I am a tactician as you suggest, so be it. But I don’t try to be one. Maybe I am and I just don’t know it!

I really wanted to write that Federer would lose to Nadal this week in Australia, which really would have incited Fed fans, but I pulled back the reigns.


Skorocel Says:

To Von:
Totally agree with everything what you’ve said about the Hawk Eye system… If they wanted it, then let’s give it to all, isn’t it?

Believe me or not, after reading this article, my adrenalin isn’t flowing at all (even though I’m a BIG Fed fan!)… This piece just got me laughing:-) You know, “Andy Murray whatever” – and then he goes out in the very 1st round… Bingo!

About that Fed Cup prize money… Yes, the players are paid something, though it isn’t as much as they receive in the tournaments (at least as far as I know). The winning team of course receives more bucks (though the losers don’t go with empty hands either), and the team captain will then split the money according to a certain pattern. I don’t quite remember this, but I guess it’s the most obvious criteria (i.e. the higher the given player is positioned in the rankings, the more he’ll receive). Hantuchova probably got less than she deserved, so she complained, you know…

P.S. Where did you hear about her parents’ divorce? I’ve never heard about that…


Von Says:

TO SEAN:

“Von, in time we will see Hawkeye on all the courts, but that probably won’t be for another five years.”

Thanks for the reply. But 5 years, is a long time between replays. I’m going to be positive and hope that it’s more like 2 years.

“If I am a tactician as you suggest, so be it. But I don’t try to be one. Maybe I am and I just don’t know it!”

It’s not a negative action, it’s a positive one. You get the juices flowing and fans come out of their shells. You are able to eek out a response from even the shy people. You know all that stuff with dichotomy, you are able to achieve.

I didn’t mean to offend you, I was just being logical and truthful. If I offended you, please accept my apology.

“I really wanted to write that Federer would lose to Nadal this week in Australia, which really would have incited Fed fans, but I pulled back the reigns.”

If you feel very strongly about the above article, write it. At least you have the courage of your convictions. Freedom of the press. A reporter should write from the heart, and if you feel that your articles reflects what you believe in, then by all means, fire away. However, be prepared for a hot debate.

I am neither a Fed nor a Nadal fan. But, my personal opinion is that Nadal’s heyday has come and passed. He needs to rest and give his injuries time to heal. The match he played last night, he won, but he had to work for it.

Good luck, Sean, and keep those articles coming.


Von Says:

TO; Skorocel:

“Where did you hear about her parents’ divorce? I’ve never heard about that…”

Listening to the ESPN and the Tennis Channel commentators on two occasions during one of her matches.


rogers twin sister Says:

“I’ve been called names and labeled as dumb, crazy, brain of a six yearold, et al., than I would want to remember.” – Von

Kernel of Truth Theory.


rogers twin sister Says:

Sean: Tossed salad and scrambled eggs? Glad to see you have a good sense of humor even while being egged.

As a Scot, I’d love to see Murray succeed, but his petulant, whinging ways just grate on my nerves. That said, he could be a top contender some day when he matures both physically and psychologically.


Shawn Says:

Nice prediction. Don’t…I mean quit your day job.


Von Says:

rogers twin sister

“Kernel of Truth Theory.” What are you saying? Explain.


Skorocel Says:

One more thing to the Hawk Eye debate:

I mean, it comes pretty handy when it shows the spectators & players that the ball was CLEARLY out or in, but what if it’s REALLY, I mean REALLY CLOSE (?)… I remember when Nadal played Youzhny in Dubai last year – in the 1st set breaker, the Russian had a setpoint, and then hit (supposedly) a winner. Nadal, of course, asked for the HE, which maybe showed the actual mark, but (even after the zooming) it still wasn’t 100 % clear whether the ball was in or out. BUT, the HE said it was IN, and thus Youzhny won the point (and the set as well)… Nadal, of course, got totally mad, yelling at the umpire that “it was out!” Funny enough, the umpire responded him: “I know…”

I must say I always wondered if it’s indeed some technician who decides whether it will read IN or OUT, or whether the whole process is purely automatical (i.e. if there’s some space between the ball and the line, it will automatically read OUT, and vice versa)… Bud judging from that faux paux which happened in one of Mauresmo’s matches at last year’s AO (where a ball which was clearly out read IN), I guess it’s indeed the staff who’s responsible for the final verdict…

Anyway, I just can’t understand why on earth they have that zoom if it still can’t tell you DEAD CERTAIN whether the ball was in or out? I mean, if you follow those marks closely, you’ll notice they often have a somewhat thin edges, which (if the ball is really close) can often be rather confusing, since someone may think there’s a space between the ball and the line, and someone not… Personally, I considered that Youzhny’s shot as good, but Nadal and the umpire thought otherwise – and frankly, I’m not wondering…


Sean Randall Says:

Von, no apology needed. I’m not offended. I didn’t write the Fed-Nadal scenario because frankly I didn’t think Nadal would be able to beat two Andys. Now he only needs to beat one, which will be no easy task.

Shawn, don’t worry, this isn’t my day job, thank god!

Rogers Twin, of the egg family I like scrambled the best. Maybe a fried egg if time is short. I think Murray is too stubborn in his ways overusing certain tactics that may play to his opponents strength. I will be interested to see how he recovers. My pick that he will finish top 5 is not looking likely now!

Regarding Hawkeye, five years for full implementation is very hopeful IMO. They are still working out some kinks from what I can tell – I guess it failed during the Ivanovic-Cirstea match yesterday.


Von Says:

Sean Randall:

I am happy to know I did not offend you.

“Regarding Hawkeye, five years for full implementation is very hopeful IMO. They are still working out some kinks from what I can tell – I guess it failed during the Ivanovic-Cirstea match yesterday.”

I have often wondered, and I have seen it happen, wherein Hawkeye picks up the previous play or one that is similar to the point in question and replays it, and then the technician has to rewind the tape or whatever it’s stored on to the last shot. Are they aware of this?


Zola Says:

Sean,
I think everyone thought the way Murray was firing, he would be a threat. I was about 80% sure Rafa could beat him again, but then I knew he would have been very tired afterwards, like last year. So, as much as I like Andy, I am not too sad for his departure.

I just didn’t like it that he blamed his loss on “lack of experinece??”" what the h***. Tsonga is much less experienced than him on Grand Slams. Apart from that, I think there was too much pressure on Andy to win something right away and it proved to be too much right after his break-up with Brad Gilbert. I believe his better days are ahead of him!

About your Rafa-Fed prediction, as much as I am thrilled at the thought, I want to see Rafa in the semi-final first. Then I might think of a final or even a win. Equally I won’t be sad if by some magic Fed is out of the tournament say in the hands of Nalby or Djoker.


rogers twin sister Says:

Re Hawkeye: Of course, there will be times when it is wrong, but over the long run, it won’t matter since every player will eventually have an IN called OUT erroneously, and vice versa. The same standard applied to erroneous calls by linespersons before the advent of Hawkeye. It all evens out. On the plus side is that Hawkeye has pretty much put an end to all the squabbling about calls. The players are less emotional and can continue play without wondering, “What if?” Also, it calms the spectators.

Re Tsonga: His body type and play style remind me very much of Taylor Dent, and we all know that he never realized the heights predicted by the pundits. I’m guessing he’ll be top 20 at best. We’ll see.


Von Says:

Zola:

‘Equally I won’t be sad if by some magic Fed is out of the tournament say in the hands of Nalby or Djoker.”

My sentiments as well.


Von Says:

Re: Waltzing Matilda – I should have stated to the tune of Waltzing Matilda.

Re: Taylor Dent. He has had many back surgeries. Thus, he had to stop playing. He can’t advance in his ranking if he has been out sick with his back for close to two years. Can he?


Von Says:

rogertwinsister:

The following might be of interest to you. I remember the time when there were debates over the selection of Waltzing Matilda as the National Anthem. For some reason that scenario is stuck in my head.

Australia’s National/Royal Anthems

“Australia used to use the Royal Anthem “God Save The Queen” as its National Anthem. However it now uses the song “Advance Australia Fair” for this purpose.”

“Some people have tried (unsuccessfully) to get the song “Waltzing Matilda” selected as Australia’s National Anthem.”

Genesis Networks’ Australian Links Collection


rogers twin sister Says:

Ah…so on this thread you admit to being wrong, yet on the other thread you still insist that “Waltzing Matilda” is the Aussie National Anthem.

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”


Von Says:

rogers twin sister:

You probably won’t believe this, but when I answer someone’s post I click on the little heading of the blogs and wherever it takes me, I post. It’s nothing to do with right or wrong and on which site, there’s nothing devious in my actions.

If it would make you feel better I’ll post it on whatever thread you want me to post it. I don’t have a problem being wrong, I admitted it to you, but not on the right thread, and I did’nt even realise it. There are so many of them that I lose track and as I said I clicked on your post name at the side and it took me to this thread. There is only so much room for the most recent posts, so if 6 other posts appear between the time you last posted and my post, it’s hard to find.

I found this post of yours quite by accident, I was looking for something someone else had posted. And, there’s no need to write your pearls of wisdom, it’s not that I don’t understand what you are trying to do. I don’t want to continue in that vein of tiny jabs, e.g, kernel of truth theory. I knew what you meant, but I wanted to see you answer it. However, you did not answer, instead you come up with this.

I apologized to you about a month ago for getting angry. You didn’t acknowledge my apology instead I get these one liner jabs from you. It’s up to you if you want to continue doing this, I just won’t acknowledge your post.


Quarterfinals Preview: Henin v. Sharapova; Federer, Nadal Headline at Australian Open Says:

[...] So there’s my quarterfinals selections. Now walk, don’t run to the nearest betting parlor and place your wagers. Again, if you do the opposite of me – yes, I picked Andy Murray to reach the final – you may just strike it rich. And if you do don’t be shy about returning the favor and sending a few bucks my way. Share: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]


marie Says:

I never believed Murray would get very far in this tournament, but to go out in the first round…. Basically, I think he has received some unnecessary hype since getting on the tour. Yes, he’s got talent – but, who doesn’t in the top 50?

Top story: Isner Upset (Literally) In Washington; Serena Returns With A Roar In Stanford, Azarenka-Venus Tonight
  • Recent Comments
Rankings
ATP - Jul 28 WTA - Jul 28
1 Novak Djokovic1 Serena Williams
2 Rafael Nadal2 Na Li
3 Roger Federer3 Simona Halep
4 Stan Wawrinka4 Petra Kvitova
5 Tomas Berdych5 Agnieszka Radwanska
6 David Ferrer6 Maria Sharapova
7 Milos Raonic7 Eugenie Bouchard
8 Juan Martin Del Potro8 Angelique Kerber
9 Grigor Dimitrov9 Jelena Jankovic
10 Andy Murray10 Victoria Azarenka
More: Tennis T-Shirts | Tennis Shop | Live Tennis Scores | Headlines

Copyright © 2003-2014 Tennis-X.com. All rights reserved.
This website is an independently operated source of news and information and is not affiliated with any professional organizations.