Can someone help me out here? I dont know how Chicken has struggled to grasp this concept?!

People win majors on the basis of talent.

Drivers win tournaments due to equipment.

Ok not sure if there is one cos i don't follow golf but if there was/is a british major in golf and no brit had won it for 50 years and some british bloke came along and won it would people be calling for him to be knighted??

Edinleader

A driver cannot simply drive at that speed, around 60-odd laps and win, without being a skillful driver.

I agree that tennis and F1 is not comparable, but then i didnt bring it up in the first place.

A weak driver can win a grand prix just as much as a weak player can win a tennis compeition.

Chicarito, an Englishman had not won a golf Major in 43-odd years till Justin Rose's triumph at the US Open.

Funny, i did not hear calls for him to be knighted.

"..if there was/is a british major in golf and no brit had won it for 50 years and some british bloke came along and won it would people be calling for him to be knighted??"

-----------

Not only that, no doubt there'd be people in the media telling him he could walk away as there was nothing more to achieve in the sport.

'A driver cannot simply drive at that speed, around 60-odd laps and win, without being a skillful driver.'

I never said anything of the sort, I was saying:

'You can win a championship being the worst driver in the F1, but having the best car.'

A weak driver can win a grand prix just as much as a weak player can win a tennis compeition.


^ not that i was calling Murray weak - just for the record

Edin,

'You can win a championship being the worst driver in the F1, but having the best car.'

================

I disagree with that.

I'm not saying the car doesn't help - but i do not believe any driver could win using the best car.

Firstly why are you comparing one race to a grand prix?

Secondly weak tennis players havent won a major in like, for ever.

Any driver in F1 can, definitely. There is nothing to argue about, they are all talented enough to get the car around the track thus if a car can go 50mph faster than another, then it will win regardless of the driver.

Edin,

Secondly weak tennis players havent won a major in like, for ever.

=====================

I would refer to unseeded players as being considered weak in a sport like tennis. And unseeded players have won Wimbledon. Tournament wildcards have even won it.

I dont know what you could compare an unseed to in F1 but a wildcard would be a driver who didnt even originally qualify to drive in a particular race, and i dont think any of them have ever won a grand prix after being drafted in - can you?

Well doesnt that make your F1 comparison pointless by that comment anyway? ^

When was the last time an unseeded player won Wimbledon btw, in 'for ever' is a good way to describe it.

Edin,

Goran Ivanišević won Wimbledon in 2001 - so just over a decade ago. Not only was he not seeded but he didnt even qualify - he won it after applying for a wiilcard.

Not bad condidering how long Sampras and Federer have been about.

No way should it happen. Next you will be saying we give Knighthoods to the "English" cricketers because the win the Ashes.

What has he done, except win a tennis tournement, for which, by the way, he was well rewarded, financially..

Prefer to see more given to the lads in Afganistan etc.

Getting to be a bit silly giving out sporting awards everytime Cameron needs a bit of a boost., how many after the Olympics?

leilton

Prefer to see more given to the lads in Afganistan etc.

===================

I'm not getting in too much of a debate about this, because its a bit of a sensitive subject, but the lads in Afganistan are simply doing their job.

As respectable job as it is, along with any of the emergency services, they opt to do that job so should only recieve a knighthood (or the VC) for exceptional bravery - which they currently do anyway.

Goran Ivanišević won Wimbledon in 2001 - so just over a decade ago. Not only was he not seeded but he didnt even qualify - he won it after applying for a wiilcard.

===========================

True but that doesn't tell the entire story.

Goran Ivanisevic was a top three player for years and was already runner-up at Wimbledon for three years prior, he had terrible injury worries hence why he was a wildcard during 2001.

It is not as if he came from nowhere. When Nadal was out of the game for a year, if he won Wimbledon, would that have been a shock? Nadal, like Goran were top players.

A more apt comparison is if some journeyman, say Stakhovsky (Fed's conqueror in this year's champs to come and win the damn thing) - it just would not happen.

Agree with part of your comment Chicken. But by same token he chose the career of a tennis profesiional, and gets well paid for it.
So what makes him more deserving of an award then anyone else, (I used lads purely as an example).
Could quite easily have said nurses, teachers etc. NOT HIM

A more apt comparison is if some journeyman, say Stakhovsky (Fed's conqueror in this year's champs to come and win the damn thing) - it just would not happen.


Richard Kraijcek

comment by It's a Mexican Rave!!!! Blood sugar sucker fish in my dish, How many pieces do you wish? (U6687)
posted 3 minutes ago
A more apt comparison is if some journeyman, say Stakhovsky (Fed's conqueror in this year's champs to come and win the damn thing) - it just would not happen.


Richard Kraijcek

===========================

You really prove your paucity of the knowledge of tennis if you think Richard Krajicek was a 'journeyman' - he was a top 10 player on all surfaces, a two-time masters winner and most importantly, the only top player to have a positive H2H against the best player of their time (Sampras).

he wasnt exactly a regular GS finalist or anything close to it, he was a very good player, but he wasnt Ivanisevic, he was a solid top 10 player a david ferrer, a jo wilfried tsonga, a tomas berdych, he wasnt an andy murray was he?

he'd never got past the 4th round of wimbledon before he won it, and had lost in the first round in 94 and 95

But he was no journeyman, Krajicek winning Wimbledon was no major shock as you very well know.

Tomas Berdych , Tsonga...even Ferrer are slam-finalists who have all beaten all members of the 'big four' at different times so it will not be a shock if they do so - Tsonga has beaten Fed in Wimbledon and the FO; Berdych has beaten Nadal at the US etc

so if Tsonga or Berdych wins the US open you wouldnt be shocked? because i bloody would

Why would i be shocked? Tsonga has the talent but his mental game is weak and he doesn't control his aggress ion - he really should have won the 2008 AO.

Berdych also has a solid game built on power, his fh and b/h are not bad and he can move. On the hard courts of Flushing meadows, i would back a Tsonga/Berdych against Nadal.

Granted, Joker and Murray are arguably the best hard court players (Fed was up there but age seems to finally catch up with him) but with the luck of the draw, why not? Any of them could make the final and in the final, anything could happen.

Were you shocked when Del P beat Fed in THE USO 09 final?

I was more shocked by Fed choking and losing his marbles and Del P's semis spanking of Nadal.

Big hitters (with ferocious serves) on fast courts like those at the Flushing meadows are a big risk for any of the big seeds.