Cliché but.......

All non-fitba stuff in here please.

Cliché but.......

Postby Scottish » Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:04 pm

Kylie Minogue, Rupert Murdoch, Dame Edna Everage, Paul Hogan, Ricky Ponting, Allan Border, can you hear me? Your boys took a hell of a beating. Russell Crowe, Russell Crowe, Rolf Harris, Nicole Kidman, can you hear me?
Scottish
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7811
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby John Meffen » Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:41 pm

Russell Crowe is from New Zealand, he is a cousin of the New Zealand former batsmen Martin & Jeff Crowe.

He likes to pretend he is Australian, but he isn't.
John Meffen
 

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby Scottish » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:17 am

John Meffen wrote:Russell Crowe is from New Zealand, he is a cousin of the New Zealand former batsmen Martin & Jeff Crowe.

He likes to pretend he is Australian, but he isn't.


That'll do. Rupert Murdoch is an American citizen (not because he wanted to be a Yankee but to get round laws on press ownership) but he's not getting away with it either.

Just hoping that later today I can write the same about Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić, Nemanja Vidić, Dejan Stanković, Dragan Džajić, Miljan Miljanić and Gavrilo Princip.

And before anyone suggests Marshal Tito, he was part Croat, part Slovene
Scottish
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7811
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby Scottish » Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:36 pm

Never mind the Serbs, where are the homegrown detractors? Hope Leatherstocking watched and enjoyed!
Scottish
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7811
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby Scottish » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:22 am

To put Andy Murray's achievement in proper perspective, it is first of all necessary to ignore everything before 1922, which was when the Challenge Round was abolished at Wimbledon (in other words the holder getting a bye into the final). So, for all the talk of Fred Perry, it's important to remember that Perry wasn't the last in a long line of British winners, he was the ONLY one since the challenge round was abolished. 'Bunny' Austin reached two pre-war finals and lost both.

Post-war there wasn't even a seeded player until Bobby Wilson in 1959. No one got past the last eight until Mike Sangster in 1961. Since then Roger Taylor (3) & Tim Henman (4) have reached the last four. And even then there was a 25-year gap between Taylor's last and Henman's first. Murray has now reached the semis five years running. Even Perry only played in four (though of course turning pro in those all-amateur days meant he was excluded).

Andy Murray has now played in sixteen Grand Slam quarter-finals, the same as Austin and one behind Perry - records he will surely surpass soon. That's six more than his nearest post-war challenger, Henman. He's level with Perry on thirteen semis with Henman next best post-war with six. Again, he looks certain to overtake Perry.

In finals, Perry has ten, Murray seven. He must have a reasonable chance of catching and overhauling Perry at this level as well. The only other finalists have been Austin (2), Colin Gregory and just two post-war - John Lloyd & Greg Rusedski.

The only area where Murray will find it difficult to match Perry is in titles where Perry has eight to Murray's two. The only other winner is Gregory, a surprise winner of the 1929 Australian championship whose only other achievements were to reach three Wimbledon quarter-finals.

The scale of Andy Murray's victory is immense. But so are his other achievements. Like Wimbledon, his US victory last year was the first such British triumph since Perry in 1936. He's played in three Australian finals. 'The Rest' have managed four between them. And even in France, his weakest 'Slam' tournament, his semi-final in 2011 meant he was one of only three British men (Sangster 1963, Henman 2004 are the others) to reach that stage since 1937. Then there's his Olympic gold to be thrown into the mix as well. As I've said in a PM to a site member, if anyone had told me I'd witness British victories in the Tour De France & the Wimbledon Men's Singles in my lifetime, I'd have thought they were mad. Both have occurred inside twelve months.

Next thing you know, Scotland will be qualifying for a major football tournament!
Scottish
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7811
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby the hibLOG » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:55 am

scottish wrote:Next thing you know, Scotland will be qualifying for a major football tournament!


After all that dispassionate analysis you've plunged into wild fantasy now, David.
Fraser
the hibLOG
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:41 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby John Meffen » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:58 pm

I have always detested tennis because it is so exclusive, which is contradictory as my favourite sport is cricket.

Oh, the shame
John Meffen
 

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby the hibLOG » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:10 pm

John Meffen wrote:I have always detested tennis because it is so exclusive, which is contradictory as my favourite sport is cricket.

Oh, the shame


I don't think cricket is exclusive, certainly not in England. Tennis I'd agree is, because it seems to be sequestered in private clubs and is more difficult to play without membership, though I do recall having access to open municipal courts on occasion. I think they're pretty rare nowadays though, and doubtless appallingly maintained. Golf on the other hand is exclusive in England but not so much in Scotland where there are plenty of municipal and cheap courses. You can still see kids chipping balls about public parks, which is something I never recall seeing in England.
Fraser
the hibLOG
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:41 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby John Meffen » Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:51 am

the hibLOG wrote:
I don't think cricket is exclusive, certainly not in England. Tennis I'd agree is, because it seems to be sequestered in private clubs and is more difficult to play without membership, though I do recall having access to open municipal courts on occasion. I think they're pretty rare nowadays though, and doubtless appallingly maintained. Golf on the other hand is exclusive in England but not so much in Scotland where there are plenty of municipal and cheap courses. You can still see kids chipping balls about public parks, which is something I never recall seeing in England.


Had a wee rant yesterday where I disagreed with you, the fundamental reason being that both cricket & tennis exclude because you have to buy stuff to play it, which excludes those without disposable income

Not saying I am right, was just a ranting opinion [and I am often wrong]

http://scribble.scran.ac.uk/user63063/weblog/5133.html
John Meffen
 

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby John Meffen » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:07 am

John Meffen wrote:Russell Crowe is from New Zealand, he is a cousin of the New Zealand former batsmen Martin & Jeff Crowe.


Though reading into it, it would seem the Crowe Family was quite Trans-Tasman, having an NZ and an Aus branch, and it would seem Jeff Crowe learnt his cricket growing up in South Australia where he played before he had played before he had played any NZ domestic cricket.

So it is a moot, point. But Russell was definitely born a Kiwi
John Meffen
 

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby John Meffen » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:14 am

John Meffen wrote:But Russell was definitely born a Kiwi


But as we have said before, being born somewhere, does not govern where you are from. I am pretty sure James Richardson - Kelvinbank [1877/78], Falkirk [1878/79-1880/81] who happened to be born in Peru, didn't speak with a deep Sudamericano accent.
John Meffen
 

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby the hibLOG » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:16 am

John Meffen wrote:Had a wee rant yesterday where I disagreed with you, the fundamental reason being that both cricket & tennis exclude because you have to buy stuff to play it, which excludes those without disposable income

Not saying I am right, was just a ranting opinion [and I am often wrong]

http://scribble.scran.ac.uk/user63063/weblog/5133.html


The equipment thing is certainly valid but with cricket it's widely played at school in England so kids can play without necessarily having to invest in gear. After school it's still, as a consequence, a game played by all classes.

Tennis on the other hand is irredeemably snobby in the UK as a whole. Access to the facilities is much more closely held by private clubs. It's much more of a people's game in France for example, which is undoubtedly why they have produced more high quality players than the UK over recent years. I remember watching the crowded public courts in the Jardins de Luxembourg once and marvelling at the astonishingly high standard of play.
Fraser
the hibLOG
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:41 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby the hibLOG » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:17 am

John Meffen wrote:But as we have said before, being born somewhere, does not govern where you are from. I am pretty sure James Richardson - Kelvinbank [1877/78], Falkirk [1878/79-1880/81] who happened to be born in Peru, didn't speak with a deep Sudamericano accent.


Joe Baker, etc...
Fraser
the hibLOG
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:41 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby John Meffen » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:29 am

[quote="the hibLOG"It's much more of a people's game in France for example.[/quote]

Please excuse my ignorance. but do the french not spend a lot more on municipal facilities which [whilst they might cost] are not so expensive to be exclusive
John Meffen
 

Re: Cliché but.......

Postby Scottish » Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:45 am

Hmmm. Cricket never used to be considered particularly up-market. Many Scottish football teams were founded by cricket players to give themselves something to do in the winter. It was played by schoolchildren in my village (where the 'poshest' boy was the Doctor's son) at a time when the football season ended on the last Saturday of April and didn't start again until the pre-season friendlies on the first Saturday of August. Of course when I say cricket, I mean using the same tennis ball which was used for football at school (to avoid windows being broken) and also for tennis itself. Mighty useful thing, that wee ball. We also had a council-run tennis court (though just the one, which often meant an interminable wait to play and by the time it was your turn you were probably well into a game of twenty half time, forty-one the winner).

Try going into one of the former mining villages in the NE of England when there's a cricket match on and telling them they are playing an 'exclusive' game. You'll get pretty short shrift - as well as an industrial mouthful. As for equipment, what's the price of a pair of football boots these days, let alone a strip and socks. Decent snooker cues don't come cheap either but you won't find anyone saying snooker is exclusive.

Golf is undoubtedly a more egalitarian sport in Scotland (though no thanks to the R&A) and even where municipal courses exist in England their presence seems to be a closely guarded secret by those using them who don't want a wider public to cotton on to the fact that there's a cheap course where clubs can be hired, so that they can continue to get tee times quite easily.

But as far as tennis in the UK is concerned, it's the attitude and organisation of the AELTC which is the problem. They've pissed hundreds of millions up against the wall since the commencement of the open era in 1968 with sod all to show for it. Countries like Germany, Holland & Sweden show how it can be done. None of them are blessed with better weather or more daylight hours than the UK yet for decades they've been producing champions - and at young ages too. Bjorn Borg was scarcely out of his teens when he won Wimbledon and Boris Becker just 17. If it can be done there it can - and should - be done in Britain too.

I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the handful of successful British tennis players have come from outside the strawberries and cream set. Bunny Austin and Tim Henman came up via that route but Fred Perry was the son of a cotton spinner. Perry started out on public courts, not exclusive clubs. Roger Taylor, the most successful British player in the sixty years between the start of the Second World War and the rise of Henman, was the son of a Sheffield steelworker. And we all know that Andy Murray had to go to Spain to make good his potential.

To reach the top requires dedication way beyond what most are prepared to do. The Murrays and the Messis of sport have given up large parts of their childhood and their entire adolescence and teenage years to reach the top. Not everyone is prepared to do that. And even those who are can see their careers cut short by injury. It's doubtful if Rafa Nadal, just turned 27, will ever be the player he once was. Jose Maria Olazabal's career was wrecked by rheumatoid arthritis - a condition which can make it absolutely agonising and at times impossible to swing a golf club (trust me, I speak from experience here).

I have only attended Wimbledon twice. The second time was in 1995 and one of the finest performances I saw that year was in the Boys Doubles - a competition which in the past had proven to be the stepping stone to success for the likes of Pat Cash, Greg Rusedski & Mark Philippoussis and since then for David Nalbandian and some guy called Federer. In 1995 the winners were Britain's Martin Lee & Jamie Trotman. You would have put a lot of money on both succeeding at the highest level yet a string of injuries ruined both their careers. They never made the breakthrough to the big time but it was through no fault of their own. Eventually both had to retire from the game in their early twenties.
Scottish
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7811
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm

Next

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest