He retired with an injury in the second round match.
He wasn’t injured, there was nothing wrong with him. He called the physio and doctor out and they did nothing, the physio just stood there, there was was no treatment given. All the doctor gave him was some caffine tablets and that was it. There was no injury, he just retired because he was being beaten.
You’re speculating. He retired with an injury.
No you’re not. You are speculating.
Head to head record - Pouille 2 Thiem 0. Thiem hasn’t even taken a set off Pouille.
http://www.stevegtennis.com/head-to-head/men/Dominic_Thiem/Lucas_Pouille/
I’m not speculating, I watched the match, there was no injury, there was nothing wrong, all it was was Thiem had an off day and that was it.
Im only saying that Thiem’s slam pedigree is much greater than that of Pouille. It’s like the time you tried to argue big serves had no correlation with success at Wimbledon. You argued, argued and argued some more that this was not the case up until the point we had two giraffes, one 6ft8, the other 6ft10 battling it out in a semi final. We had a deciding set that lasted 50 games and a match with over 100 aces in the last 4. You are a joke figure when it comes to tennis knowledge.
6ft11 Reilly Opelka is my dark horse for Wimbledon this year BTW. He is a former junior champion at Wimbledon and we all know big serving giraffes excel there.
You speculated that Thiem (who crashed out in Round 2) would have beaten Pouille (semi finalists) if they had met in Melbourne over the last week. Pure speculation on your part and breathtaking double standards when you were incorrectly accusing @tazdedub of engaging in speculation at the same time.
You are now trying to bring an argument that was had during the Championship six months ago into it, purely for deflection purposes. I destroyed you on that one as well in any case. Obsessing non stop about 6ft 10 journeyman like Ivo Karlovic and 6ft 8 Big Kevin Anderson, who you call giraffes. In the near 140 years of the Championship stretching all the way back back to its inception in 1881, its only been won 5 times by players taller than 6ft 3. Yvon Petra (6ft 5) in 1946, Stan Smith (6ft 4) in 1972, Michael Stich (6ft 4) in 1991, Richard Kraijcek (6ft 5) in 1996 and Goran Ivanisevic (6ft 4) in 2001.
Here’s the definitive list of the height of the Championship winners all the way back to 1881. Not many of your prototype 6ft 8 and 6ft 10 giraffes featuring on it. In fact there’s none.
https://www.topendsports.com/sport/tennis/anthropometry-wimbledon.htm
I don’t see your issue with thinking a player with a better slam pedigree would beat a player with an inferior slam pedigree.
You are still very bitter about the way my prophecy unfolded as you were trying to create fantasies about grass court tennis. It always has and always will be the preserve of big serving giraffes, if you have a big serve at Wimbledon you will go very far. As I said earlier, 6ft11 Reilly Opelka is the name to watch out for this year ar Wimbledon.
He is a spoofer, anyone that is puts Wawrinka above Murray is nothing but a spoofer and shows that person hasn’t a bogs notion what they are talking about.
Anyone who puts a guy who has won three different slams above a guy who has only won two different slams is a spoofer?
Odd logic and very poorly presented.
1 Like
Anyone who puts a guy who has only made 4 slam finals above a guy that has made 11 slam finals in all slams is a spoofer or a idiot? Which are you?
Or are you just going to ignore a players overall performances in the career that seen them reach the Number 1 player in the world just to suit your argument. Again are you spoofer or an idiot?
As the saying goes “The choice is yours”.
They have both won the same amount of slams. Wawrinka has done it at more opens therefore he out ranks Murray. It is fairly self explanatory.
Only in your tiny little mind it does. The only reason you have racked Wawrinka above Murray is because he won the french open and that is all that matters to you. As far as you are concerned all the other slams are a joke and therefore don’t count, which is an idiots view.
Murray has a superior record to Wawrinka in nearly every other aspect of the game except slam wins and there they have both won 3. As I said only a spoofer or an idiot would put Wawrinka above Murray.
Dominic Thiem has a very poor Grand Slam pedigree on the faster courts. One quarter final appearance from 16 between Australia, the Championship and the US Open is poor for a player ranked in the world top 10 for a few years now.
Nope. It’s a matter of fact that Wawrinka has won 3/4 of the slam events and Murray has only won 2/4.
3/4 > 2/4
Faster courts suit monster servers.
The Championship is the big one. Sir Andy has won it twice, Wawrinka has never won it.
We squared this one off last year. You had two giraffes facing off in the last four, seing out a 50 game final set serve-off in a match that had over 100 aces in it.
Grass court tennis is the preserve of big serving giraffes. It’s a joke.
1 Like
What’s a giraffe in tennis terms? You’ve never actually clarified the parameters. The three players that you constantly refer to as giraffes are Ivo Karlovic (6ft 11), John Isner (6ft 10) and Big Kevin Anderson (6ft 8). Reilly Opelka (6ft 11) the latest you’ve referred to as a giraffe now today. Is 6ft 8 the minimum height requirement to be in the giraffe club?
A monster server over 6ft5. You’ll see plenty of them in the latter stages of Wimbledon every year.