** March Poker League Result : =1st Bridscott, =1st Like2Fish, 3rd avongirl **
** Cheltenham Tipster Competition Result : 1st Old codger, 2nd sirspread, 3rd Bathtime For Rupert **
RuleBritaniaa
-
Posts
178 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RuleBritaniaa
-
-
Re: Wimbledon 2013
Murray to beat Djokovic 2.55 Pinnacle (6/10 points) Djokovic when defending the backhand side, or when going laterally to his left you could say and side lunging out wide to play an offensive defensive backhand has to then recover his position, change direction and be ready for the next shot (Or even return to the center of the baseline) that is something he heavily relies on on a hardcourt. It's a luxury that he can't afford on the grass (Particularly this season's grass) as it is slippery. We saw him slipping but still skillfully improvising many times against Del Potro. It's also why Del Potro was able to hit through him more often than you find he is able to on a hardcourt, he wasn't recovering his positing after side-lunging and doing the 3/4 splits. Murray doesn't use the side-lunge and 3/4 split, he uses his slice to reach out at those well hit shots and attempt to neutralise the rally (And at bonus give his opponent a semi-difficult and unable to do much with ball) If Novak side-lunges (3/4 split) when moving to his left and hitting a backhand, I can't see him recovering in time to be in good preparation for the next shot, Murray's going to therefore have natural control of the point. If Novak then goes to the slice instead, he doesn't really have the feel to slice it back, effectively. If Murray gets set on his forehand and goes inside out with pace, with Novak at the center of the baseline, Novak may find it difficult to do what he usually does (Sidestep lunge, 3/4 splits)and then recover for the next shot.22 seconds (Where he does the splits to keep him on an even keel) this is one example I could find, I am sure there's many, but I can't see him being about to do this on a grass consistently whilst avoiding slipping and being able to recover for his next shot. It's a core part of his game and vitally crucial against the top player that's movement is good.
:ok This is why being someone that coaches the sport and has been heavily emerced in the sport from a young age counts for more than a fanboy that only watches the top 10 players in the big grandslams.Why are you asking whether it's because Murray is a member of the big four? It's like you want it to be the reason?, so you can be proved "genius". Yes, we're all influenced cause he's number 2 in the world and really Djokovic is head and shoulders the best player in the world. :zzz We all provided reasons other than that of, he is a member of the top 4, so why are you saying you don't understand why we are going for him? Perhaps try reading? You've basically supported the argument that Murray comes closer to Djokovic on grass, but then said however bla bla bla...... so then how can you say Djokovic should be 1.3? All these stats in grandslam head to heads aren't as significant as you think, player's develop over the years and these stats therefore count for very little. Their Australian Open semi final encounter in 2012 was incredibly close. I don't think it is clear cut whether Dokovic is the better player than Murray, on grass. Certainly on hardcourt, Novak's sheer amazing athletism and movement wins him the upper hand, but having watched the highlights of their match at the Olympics on youtube, I am not so sure Djoker has his number on a grasscourt. Murray has a better first serve also, so a lot will be to do with with howmany first serves he can make and at what times. He also needs to avoid serving outwide to Djoker's clear strength, his backhand on the second serve. If Murray had a better second serve, I'd be more confident than I am now. Just think a lot of people are underestimating the importance of the surface here, hardcourt is mainly only where both of these two have really competed against each other. I have yet to see Djoker beat a really good player on grass in fine form. With movement being less valuable, this is so even. It's fine if you think Djokovic will win but don't try and say you "don't understand" when both me and Czech gave long articulate reasons. Murray posseses just as much power at his disposal and even class in those the longer rallies IMO. Where Novak's ahead is in terms of movement. Murray's a great mover but Novak's an exceptional mover. That's why he has defensive to offensive class in the longer rallies. Novak's an exceptional mover and will need to move exceptionally tomorrow, wheather he will on this grass where it's harder to change direction, is the question for me. :) I reckon not and it's why it becomes even more of an even contest for me. Home tie for Andy and therefore he's the value at this price. Try thinking more outside of the box. ;) -
Re: Wimbledon 2013 Anyway, I'm going to watch the build up to the final rather than sit here and argue with someone that believes his opinions are facts and are so because the rankings and caliber and prestige the player holds in the sport says so. You need to think for yourself more mate, individual thought is the best way to beat the bookmaker, going with rankings and how hyped up player's are usually leads in mug betting / losses. Good luck and see ya.
-
Re: Wimbledon 2013
It wasn't an easier passage to the final, he's talking out his arse and acting obsessive with caliber. If player's don't perform to their caliber, then it counts for nothing, both Berdych and especially Tommy Haas, did not play to their caliber as players. Haas was dreadful compared to what we had witnessed of him in the past year. The way he simply threw away the 4-2 lead with 4 unforced errors was disgusting, Simon would have dealt with him nicely on that day.i will say that you can only beat whats in front of you and its hardly murrays fault that tsonga federer and nadal all flopped. that said surely an easier passage to the final is a positive for murray not a negative? for what its worth i despise murray (mainly due to his mothers presence) but will be backing him today, he has got over the hump now and knows what it takes to win a slam i also am no tennis expert Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2 -
Re: Wimbledon 2013
Can some neutral people please step in and help out here because this is getting silly. Haas/Berdych/Del Potro or Youzhny/Verdasco/Janowicz. It isn't even a debate. Go and ask 100 tennis experts and they'll tell you the same thing. I haven't even mentioned ranking' date=' so I'm not sure why that was brought into it.[/quote'] You are simply dismiss youzhny/verdasco/janowics as inferior players "this tournament"? Which is wrong... based on this tournament Verdasco was playing better than Berdych, it's an entirely subjective view that you are taking. Tommy Haas does not have the fitness for best of 5 set matches, so even had he taken the second set after being up 4-2, would have easily folded in the end. Del potro had a moe than impressive wimbledon, but he';s not that comfortable on grass. Djokovic should have finished him off much earlier with all the break point opportunities he had in the second set, not to mention the match points he survived in the fourth. It is very much a debate, because you are going on the sole caliber of each player, caliber is one thing, playing well in every tournament is another, Berdych didn't play up to his caliber this wimbledon and he continued to be mentally very poor. I don't need to ask 100 tennis experts, because I am one. Incase you didn't know, I'm not new to tennis, lol, I drink, eat, coach and sleep the sport. Youzhny is a very tricky customer on the grass, Berdych doesn't have Jerzy's steel Haas cannot last best of 5 set matches, despite his fluke victory over Novak on Novak's bad day at the office with his injured ankle in a masters event. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013 [TABLE=width: 100%]
[TR] [TD=class: font14b lightBlue]Jun 25 2007[/TD] [TD=class: font14b verylightBlue, width: 5] [/TD] [TD=class: font14b verylightBlue]Wimbledon ATP Slam (GBR) Grass, R16[/TD] [TD=class: font14b verylightBlue, width: 5] [/TD] [TD=class: font14b verylightBlue](2)Nadal(2,4.61) d (14)Youzhny(13,3.10)[/TD] [TD=class: font14b verylightBlue, width: 5] [/TD] [TD=class: font14b verylightBlue]4-6 3-6 6-1 6-2 6-2 [/TD] [TD=class: font14b verylightBlue, width: 100, align: left][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] -
Re: Wimbledon 2013
Oh please be quiet and stop acting like your own opinion is the right opinion. No one is insulting anyone's opinions. I am giving you my own opinion, stop acting like you know everything mate, because trust me, you don't. Just because Haas, Berdych and Del Potro are higher ranked doesn't make them more difficulter opponents to deal with than Youzhny, Verdasco and Jerzy in good form. Verdasco when he's on song is a dangerous top 10 player, Youzhny as well, Youzhny's just a headcase, that's why he hasn't achieved as much as he should have.... ontop of this you've got Jerzy, who's a future grandslam champion. With the exception of Berdych, you have no a leg to stand on. Whether plenty of people agree with you saying it was a harder run to the final for Djoker makes no difference either... "Just because everyone believes something, doesn't make it true". Youzhny is a very good grasscourter, you're just obsessed with these "big names". Try watching the Youzhny's performances at Halle. Go and watch Verdasco when he's playing well, search australian open vs nadal 2009... these player's may not be consistent seasoned pro's but when they turn it on, they are DANGEROUS! Verdasco was playing very well all tournament. As for Jerzy, if you think he's a gimmie, then more fool you. I am not insulting your intelligence but I am questioning your ability to think without basing everything on ranking. Rankings mean very little in tennis. It's like you only started watching tennis this season, not knowing how good Verdasco can be. You probably thought it was murray playing rubbish I imagine. lolYou're insulting my intelligence by typing that Haas, Berdych, Del Potro (on grass) is an easier passage than Youzhny, Verdasco, Janowicz (on grass.) You're insulting your own intelligence if you actually believe that. Plenty of people will confirm which is the easier route, I'd hope it should be obvious though. The prices the bookies released were very similar to what they are now. It would be different if they had started Djokovic much shorter and he'd been backed out to 1.6. There's no need to get so worked up about someone having a different opinion. (6 replies in half an hour, all on the same theme.) Calm down, enjoy the game, as I said previously, the proof will be in the pudding. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013 The bookies don't go on opinion, but even if they did and shared the same opinion as you, they wouldn't make a player they thought would win 3-2 .. 1.3 odds.
-
Re: Wimbledon 2013
Oh and this is the most superficial thing I have ever read. That was clay, this is grass, Nadal's a great competitor and Djokovic would have won had he not touched the net but how does this relate to this matchup on a completely different and separate surface? Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal anyway, so that's a separate issue. Tennis is about matchups mate.The guy can now compete with Nadal on clay' date= so competing with and beating Murray on grass is not that big an ask in comparison. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013 Anyway, like I said, gun to head and I'd go with Djokovic, but I would seriously be fearing for my life after saying it. It's very even, the books are spot on, good luck with your bet.
-
Re: Wimbledon 2013
I think 3-2 or 3-1 are the most likely scores' date=' yes, but I would price him around 1.3. Remember, most games which go to a deciding set/frame/leg/whatever are close to 50/50 however some players are better in that situation than others. Djokovic is one of those. John Higgins in snooker is another example I can think of off the top of my head.[/quote'] How can you price a player at 1.3 if you think they will lose 1 or 2 sets? You need to understand, you are basically saying that you make Djokovic 1.3 to deal with the big points well. You're saying you make him 1.3 to come through a close encounter. The bookies cannot afford to think the way you do financially, they would get burried alive. If the bookies think there is a good chance a player will lose 1 or 2 sets on the way to winning a best of 5 set encounter, they can no way price that player at 1.3, that would be the dumbest thing they could ever do. So with all this said how can you critisise the bookmakers? lol I don't get what you're saying. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013 Some people just can't look past Djokovic simply because they're so used to him winning. The odds are about right. Djokovic is clearly the most mentally toughest player I think that's ever played the sport but to say Murray should be 3.5 or higher in a home tie on grass, when Novak beats him in 5 sets in slams and they are pretty much even in masters, is silly. Shanghai final, Murray had 20 match points and lost? lol It's so 50/50. Good luck though, I am going with the value, the home player with the davis cup type of support behind him and the player that doesn't lunge and do the splits on court to hit his backhand, which on this slippery grass will prove VERY TRICKY.
-
Re: Wimbledon 2013
I disagree with all of what you've said, I don't think all of the top 4 are very even on grass. Nadal is no longer a member of the top 4 and rightfully so, he isn't fit to play on the grass and Ferrer is no exceptional mover on grass. Again, this is all your opinion, there's no way Del Potro should be 1/7 against Djokovic and then 6/10 against Murray? Del Potro is not that guy you saw beat Roger Federer in the 2009 US Open anymore and even if he was, Djokovic and Murray have risen the standard since. When the man is 6,6... known for numerous injury issues, actually carrying 2 knee injuries, both on the same knee and NEVER beaten Djokovic in a grandslam, then he probably deserves to be a really big outsider. Best of 5 sets will never suit Del Potro, especially against these athletic and brilliant movers. It's clear you are a little bit of a fan of Djokovic and can't see him losing to anybody. "It all comes down to who is playing best on this surface?" Pointing out the obvious much? You just sound like a fan more than anything. Did you see the way Verdasco played? He's using a bigger frame and he played tennis that was dating back to his australian open 2009 run. Youzhny is a very tough player on grass to beat. Djokovic had a far easier passage, it's not as simple as that, you're clearly obsessed with Djokovic and can't see past him. I just think you're so used to seeing Djokovic come through big matches and win everything that you have closed your mind off to him winning and that is shown by the superficial nature of all these arguments you have put forward. I don't think Federer came into this Wimbledon with bad form, he just happened to lose on the day to an inspired player who was playing the big points well and Federer was a bit off. Murray beat Djokovic at the Olympic games, that was on grass, it's going to be a similar sort of atmosphere to that. If you put a gun to my head and my life was depending on choosing the correct result, I would HAVE TO go with Djokovic, but to say this is anything more than 55/45 in favour of Djokovic or 60/40 at the most would be silly. Especially with the arguments you have used. Djokovic has had a harder route to the final? His only difficult player was Del Potro. Djokovic barely loses best of 5 set matches? I think you treat it more like a soap opera in all honesty rather than looking at the matchup on the surface. Djokovic may well win and he is rightly favourite but the fact you have even said he'll probably win 3-2 shows me you know it will be close, therefore you really can't say the odds are wrong and everyone is wrong. Also the bookies are not favouring Murray. What happens is they release a price on two players and then move that price accordingly based on how much money has gone on each player. It's "you" "us" the punters that decide the odds essentially, not the bookies, the bookies simply dictate the opening line.I think you've misunderstood some of what I said. I wasn'tse suggesting your tips were based on Murray's 'Big Four' status, I was suggesting that the bookies' odds for Murray compared to Del Potro were based a lot on one being in the 'Big Four' and one not. Murray and Del Potro BOTH beat Djokovic at the Olympics last year. There's just no way Djokovic should be 1/7 against Del Potro and then 6/10 against Murray, the odds should be far closer to each other than that. During this tournament and several other recent tournaments the bookies have over-estimated 'Big Four' players and their odds don't reflect the fact that the 'Big Four' are no longer the dominant force they once were. So, that comment was aimed at the bookies, not at any of you on here. Moving on, grass is the one surface where the 'Big Four' are all very even - I wish more than one month of the season could be played on this surface. It all comes down to who is playing best on this surface. Last year Federer and Murray found their form but this year Murray hasn't played to that level yet whereas Djokovic's serve looks immense and he is the one in form on the grass. If Murray had Djokovic's route to the final, I don't think he'd be there. Simple as that. Murray could magically find his previous grass court form today but I'd be wanting more than 2-point-whatever odds on that happening. Djokovic rarely loses these big 5 set matches and even more rarely loses them to Murray. The mental side of things is where he has a big advantage, as much as Murray has worked on that side of his game, it just isn't and perhaps won't ever be where Djokovic is. I could write a lot more but I think it's better at this stage to just say 'the proof will be in the pudding.' I can't see past Djokovic and previous history says 3-1 or 3-2. The guy can now compete with Nadal on clay, so competing with and beating Murray on grass is not that big an ask in comparison. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013
Why are you asking whether it's because Murray is a member of the big four? It's like you want it to be the reason?, so you can be proved "genius". Yes, we're all influenced cause he's number 2 in the world and really Djokovic is head and shoulders the best player in the world. :zzz We all provided reasons other than that of, he is a member of the top 4, so why are you saying you don't understand why we are going for him? Perhaps try reading? You've basically supported the argument that Murray comes closer to Djokovic on grass, but then said however bla bla bla...... so then how can you say Djokovic should be 1.3? All these stats in grandslam head to heads aren't as significant as you think, player's develop over the years and these stats therefore count for very little. Their Australian Open semi final encounter in 2012 was incredibly close. I don't think it is clear cut whether Dokovic is the better player than Murray, on grass. Certainly on hardcourt, Novak's sheer amazing athletism and movement wins him the upper hand, but having watched the highlights of their match at the Olympics on youtube, I am not so sure Djoker has his number on a grasscourt. Murray has a better first serve also, so a lot will be to do with with howmany first serves he can make and at what times. He also needs to avoid serving outwide to Djoker's clear strength, his backhand on the second serve. If Murray had a better second serve, I'd be more confident than I am now. Just think a lot of people are underestimating the importance of the surface here, hardcourt is mainly only where both of these two have really competed against each other. I have yet to see Djoker beat a really good player on grass in fine form. With movement being less valuable, this is so even. It's fine if you think Djokovic will win but don't try and say you "don't understand" when both me and Czech gave long articulate reasons. Murray posseses just as much power at his disposal and even class in those the longer rallies IMO. Where Novak's ahead is in terms of movement. Murray's a great mover but Novak's an exceptional mover. That's why he has defensive to offensive class in the longer rallies. Novak's an exceptional mover and will need to move exceptionally tomorrow, wheather he will on this grass where it's harder to change direction, is the question for me. :) I reckon not and it's why it becomes even more of an even contest for me. Home tie for Andy and therefore he's the value at this price. Try thinking more outside of the box. ;)The tips on here are 2-0 in favour of Murray at the moment and I find that baffling. Djokovic was around 1.14 to beat Del Potro and is around 1.6 to beat Murray. Why the massive difference in prices? Is it simply because Murray is a member of the 'Big Four?' To me, the odds on Djokovic should have been around the 1.3 mark in both the Del Potro and Murray matches. Bookies seem reluctant to offer someone from the 'Big Four' at any sort of decent odds - in a game like this I think that provides us with big value on the favourite, ie Djokovic. Murray's record in Grand Slam finals is 1-5. Djokovic's is (I think) 6-4. If you take the 'new Djokovic' (from 2011 onwards) his record is 6-2. What is the Grand Slam record between these two? I can only think of one Murray win. Djokovic is totally dominant in the head-to-heads and the only major win which Murray had between them came with some serious help from the wind anyway. Granted, grass is the one surface Murray COULD compete with Djokovic on. However, I feel Djokovic is on top of his game on grass and Murray is not at his best on grass at the moment. I think Djokovic will match 2011 in terms of the specific Grand Slams he wins this year. 3-2 Djokovic would be my prediction if pushed. I already have big money riding on Djokovic (effectively a free bet, as I get my stake back if Murray wins) from the start of the tournament and I think I'll have bets on the result being either 3-1 Djokovic or 3-2 Djokovic tomorrow. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013 Murray to beat Djokovic 2.55 Pinnacle (6/10 points) Djokovic when defending the backhand side, or when going laterally to his left you could say and side lunging out wide to play an offensive defensive backhand has to then recover his position, change direction and be ready for the next shot (Or even return to the center of the baseline) that is something he heavily relies on on a hardcourt. It's a luxury that he can't afford on the grass (Particularly this season's grass) as it is slippery. We saw him slipping but still skillfully improvising many times against Del Potro. It's also why Del Potro was able to hit through him more often than you find he is able to on a hardcourt, he wasn't recovering his positing after side-lunging and doing the 3/4 splits. Murray doesn't use the side-lunge and 3/4 split, he uses his slice to reach out at those well hit shots and attempt to neutralise the rally (And at bonus give his opponent a semi-difficult and unable to do much with ball) If Novak side-lunges (3/4 split) when moving to his left and hitting a backhand, I can't see him recovering in time to be in good preparation for the next shot, Murray's going to therefore have natural control of the point. If Novak then goes to the slice instead, he doesn't really have the feel to slice it back, effectively. If Murray gets set on his forehand and goes inside out with pace, with Novak at the center of the baseline, Novak may find it difficult to do what he usually does (Sidestep lunge, 3/4 splits)and then recover for the next shot.
22 seconds (Where he does the splits to keep him on an even keel) this is one example I could find, I am sure there's many, but I can't see him being about to do this on a grass consistently whilst avoiding slipping and being able to recover for his next shot. It's a core part of his game and vitally crucial against the top player that's movement is good. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013
:ok Much better at the men's game.Fernando Verdasco to beat Ernest Gulbis 2.41 Pinnacle (5/10 points) Verdasco should be the marginaly favourite here. He performed much better in his first two lead up matches to that of how Gulbis performed. Whilst Gulbis has still been serving well, I think the rest of his game has been a little eratic to say the least. He beat Tsonga by default and Verdasco looked like the man that he once was momentunarily during the 2009 season when he ever so almost reached the aussie open final. I understand the swing in odds and why most people are backing Gulbis. Verdasco is too unpredictable and you just have no idea which version of him is going to turn up, however, he does tend to produce consistent quality if he has done it in earlier rounds of that tournament. Gulbis has shown he is motivated this season and taking his tennis a little more seriously, he also has a good record against left handers, but just looking at their first and second round performances, you would say that Verdasco is the one playing the better on the grass. Verdasco leads the head to head 2-1, his only defeat was this season on clay when Verdasco was really low on confidence and out of form, gifting away matches. This could be one of those grandslams where verdasco is just the invincible verdasco we all know and at 2.41 I am willing to take the chance that he is. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013 Fernando Verdasco to beat Ernest Gulbis 2.41 Pinnacle (5/10 points) Verdasco should be the marginaly favourite here. He performed much better in his first two lead up matches to that of how Gulbis performed. Whilst Gulbis has still been serving well, I think the rest of his game has been a little eratic to say the least. He beat Tsonga by default and Verdasco looked like the man that he once was momentunarily during the 2009 season when he ever so almost reached the aussie open final. I understand the swing in odds and why most people are backing Gulbis. Verdasco is too unpredictable and you just have no idea which version of him is going to turn up, however, he does tend to produce consistent quality if he has done it in earlier rounds of that tournament. Gulbis has shown he is motivated this season and taking his tennis a little more seriously, he also has a good record against left handers, but just looking at their first and second round performances, you would say that Verdasco is the one playing the better on the grass. Verdasco leads the head to head 2-1, his only defeat was this season on clay when Verdasco was really low on confidence and out of form, gifting away matches. This could be one of those grandslams where verdasco is just the invincible verdasco we all know and at 2.41 I am willing to take the chance that he is.
-
Re: Wimbledon 2013 Bouchard to beat Suarez Navarro 2.09 Pinnacle (8/10 points) If we're being honest Navarro was lucky to beat Lucic, Lucic practically beat herself. I see her struggling with the Bouchard kick serve outwide to her backhand (Even though it's her best shot)
-
Re: Wimbledon 2013
That doesn't mean much really, it's simply not accurate to suggest if player X beats player Y and player Y beats player Z, that player X must then beat player Z, or atleast push him close. It's about matchups, Mahut is a difficult matchup for Murray on grass. Remember Mahut had played a whole host of tennis in the build up to Wimbledon and in his 30s came into a best of 5 set match against a moonballer. In his match against Robredo he had a whole host of bps in the first set and probably should have won it and ended up losing it by the odd point in the tie break, same thing happened in the 3rd set really. Robredo doesn't have enough weight of shot to trouble Murray in my view, if this was clay he may have been able to stand 50 feet behind the baseline and roll the ball in court and cause Murray trouble, but it's not. Murray should thrash him in all honesty. That's just my view. Good luck with whatever you go with.I like Melzer, Robredo +9 and Monaco -5, not sure if I have the confidence to back them! Robredo looks like he can be a threat to Murray, Mahut gave Murray a close game at Queens and Robredo beat Mahut 3-0.... Melzer usually does well here and is the better opponent, Stak is favourite because he beat Fed. These are not tips just thoughts! Opinions appreciated! -
Re: Wimbledon 2013
Girogi to beat Bartoli 2.71 Pinnacle (7/10 points) I love Giorgi to beat her, already taken it. The Italian has a savvy game and gets down low to balls well due to her diminutive physique, she has no issues dealing with flat hitters, her defence is top notch and she beat Bartoli only a few months ago on clay. Bartoli serves far toomany double faults at inopportune times and let's remember Giorgi reached the round of 16 here last year. Once you get Bartoli on the move, her ball striking is a lot more hit or miss, she's only good when she has time to set herself. Giorgi is a smart Italian player and will use the full width of the court. Bartoli's awful moving forward to the net too and unlike Mchale, Giorgi has a lot of varity.Any thoughts on Bartoli and Giorgi? Bartoli is not one to ultimately put faith in and Giorgi won their only head to head this season on clay 6-3 6-2. But can't ignore that Giorgi has just about got 50% of her first serves in, in both matches so far and against Cirstea last time she served 11 double faults and made 36 unforced errors in two sets. Surely, if she plays anything like this against Bartoli, Bartoli wins. 3 points on Bartoli beating Giorgi @ 4/7 Ladbrokes -
Re: Wimbledon 2013
Vesna Dolonc leads series 2-0 Forgot to add. 2009 hardcourt, straight sets and 2007, indoor hardcourt, straight sets. [TABLE] [TR] [/TR] [TR] [/TR] [TR] [/TR] [TR] [/TR] [TR] [/TR] [/TABLE]Dolonc to beat Flipkens 2.94 with Pinnacle (7/10 points) Everyone thinks flipkens is some grass court genius because she has a slice backhand, it's not true, she's effective on the grass, but she's no Vinci or Radwasnka on the surface. Dolonc is a young and capable player, she's still learning the trade but she more than can match it with the top girls. She outplayed Jankovic and showed me one thing, she can deal with player's that can now and again be passive and rely on changing the variation up in terms of the pace of the ball. She has an aggressive game and Flipkens hasn't proven to be mentally the most toughest lately. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013
Apparently Melzer is retiring this season, this is a huge match for him, that's why I'm staying away.Stakhovsky to beat Melzer 8/11 Ladbokes I also think Stakhovsky will win after his high level against Federer and as an earlier poster has said that Melzer is injured I am happy to take lower odds in order to collect in case Melzer retires. A fully fit Melzer would struggle with Stakhovsky in his current form anyway. -
Re: Wimbledon 2013 Dolonc to beat Flipkens 2.94 with Pinnacle (7/10 points) Everyone thinks flipkens is some grass court genius because she has a slice backhand, it's not true, she's effective on the grass, but she's no Vinci or Radwasnka on the surface. Dolonc is a young and capable player, she's still learning the trade but she more than can match it with the top girls. She outplayed Jankovic and showed me one thing, she can deal with player's that can now and again be passive and rely on changing the variation up in terms of the pace of the ball. She has an aggressive game and Flipkens hasn't proven to be mentally the most toughest lately.
-
Re: Wimbledon 2013 I knew Dimitrov would disappoint. Why didn't I go with my instinct? Ah!
-
Re: Wimbledon 2013
This was as priceless as a tip. Nice one. :)I got it from Chinese media. http://news.sina.com.tw/article/20130627/10003260.html Basically the articles says Peng slipped twice in the first round. (It seems no slippery is unusual here@@ ) And the change of court from clay to hard (she played at her National Games last week) to grass puts pressure on her knees. She feels uncomfortable with her kness after the match and will do a thorough check after Wimbledon. Good news is she thinks her new coach is suitable for her and they work well.
Wimbledon 2013
in Tennis Betting Tips & Predictions
Posted
Re: Wimbledon 2013