Name an elite athlete (any gender) who is not borderline cocky.Espn reporting "What they’re saying about Bianca Andreescu: ‘borderline cocky"
Told u shes a phoney she'll call security if u look at her the wrong way
I'll wait.
Name an elite athlete (any gender) who is not borderline cocky.Espn reporting "What they’re saying about Bianca Andreescu: ‘borderline cocky"
Told u shes a phoney she'll call security if u look at her the wrong way
happ, if we get you a doll, can you show us where the mean woman (women?) hurt you?Espn reporting "What they’re saying about Bianca Andreescu: ‘borderline cocky"
Told u shes a phoney she'll call security if u look at her the wrong way
Laver's first Grand Slam came playing against amateurs.Laver never had the quality of opposition that Nadal had to face against Federer and Djokovic,
Hahaha, yes we can't have that in Canada! We might actually get too good at all kinds of shit, and what then will the rest of the world think us? Being world class champions is not for us, no siree Bob! Go low Canada, Go low :canada: ...sorryOh borderline cocky better kick her out of the country. We don't need no borderline cocky in this country
Most of the best players wanted to maintain their amateur status so that they could play tournaments like Wimbledon. As such, your attempt at downplaying his accomplishments fails.Laver's first Grand Slam came playing against amateurs.
So obviously that was a very strong era in tennis during which Laver won 200 titles.I think when Laver won his first Grand Slam as an amateur in 1962, "Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad and Andrés Gimeno, and also Pancho Gonzales" were all professionals.
"When Laver turned professional in 1963 he initially lost consistently to Rosewall and Hoad. In the beginning of 1963, Laver was beaten consistently by both Rosewall and Hoad on an Australasian tour. Hoad won the first eight matches against Laver, and Rosewall won 11 out of 13."
Yes but Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic have ruled the grand slams well into their thirties, I'm not the only one saying it all the commentators say this is the greatest era of men's tennis.Maybe, maybe not. Laver had to go against Ken Rosewall, John Newcombe, Stan Smith and Arthur Ashe. Makes you wonder what they could have done with today's rackets. The difference is tennis in the 60's was the domain of Americans and Australians, it started to become international in the 70's.
It's a matter of succession, after 69 Laver lost every match he played against Newcombe, after 74 Newcombe lost every match he played against Jimmy Connors.......
Yes they are Hall of Famers, but compare their records to the big 3 in this era, it's not even closeEmerson, Newcombe, Roche, Pancho Gonzales, Arthur Ashe, Ken Rosewall. They are all Hall of Famers.
But that era had much more depth than this one. They were all so good that, aside from Laver, no one else could dominate.Yes they are Hall of Famers, but compare their records to the big 3 in this era, it's not even close
And hockey players are faster and shoot harder.the game has changed tremendously since the 70's. Those rackets. Newcombe doesn't play with any power. Those ground strokes are like what you would see in the women's game these days. Those serves are like 2nd serves now in the men's game.
Wow Thank you ...she's hot !!! She's a sweet girl I'm so happy she won.You all just wanna fuck her admit it shes a hole https://thetennistime.com/bianca-andreescu-shared-a-photo-in-a-bathing-suit-photos/amp/
Is that a rash on her crack scroll down with ur dix
Hence why compare who is better a player now or a player from a different era. Imagine Nylander putting on Keon skates he would be skating like Colton Orr.And hockey players are faster and shoot harder.
Baseball players hit more homers and pitchers throw harder.
Football players re bigger and stronger and taller and faster and (for darts) they kick longer field goals.
Golfers hit it waaay further.
It is not just the nature of sports for things to evolve that way but it is the nature of the human race. Nothing in this world stays the same.