re: The Unofficial Wimbledon Thread of 2016

Morning news show on NBC ran a story about how there is a ton of criticism that the skirts are too short on the Nike uniforms for the women this year. There is outrage and they need to make changes.

This tells me I need to start tuning in.

Djoker is going to win this. Federer looked frustrated a little this morning against Marcus.

Yeah, and they're moving matches around and waiting for rain, in some cases, to let up. Just put the covers on and play.

quote:

---

Kyrgios is -810??? That's entirely too large of a spread. I actually have Dustin winning that match, as I think his game will frustrate Nick greatly.

---

Hold on, like you're presented with both options as even money propositions and you're going with Dustin Brown?

That's dumb. Kyrgios will roll him.

I feel like you may not have your brain wrapped around Nick Kyrgios yet. He's really good at tennis. As in, he could win this tournament outright. And I think you can really only say that about five or six players this year.

quote:

---

Morning news show on NBC ran a story about how there is a ton of criticism that the skirts are too short on the Nike uniforms for the women this year. There is outrage and they need to make changes.

This tells me I need to start tuning in

---

I'd never heard of the girl Ag Rad was playing, but I would have put it balls deep in her. Butterface for sure, but no doubt about the balls depth.

quote:

---

It's pure, unadulterated darwinism at every step along the way: Futures. Qualies into Challengers, Challengers, Qualies into ATP events, Qualies into majors, 250s, 500s, Masters, Majors.

---

I agree with every word of this, and the rest of your post that I didn't quote. But, one of the biggest factors that makes tennis a great meritocracy also results in a huge disparity in earnings that, in my opinion, is unfair and hurts the game.

In individual matches, the better player wins extremely often, and in major tournaments, the best players win almost every time. While this is optimal for determing a champion, it keeps the have-nots from being able to compete with the haves when it comes to coaches, travel, nutrition, etc.

Do I have a solution? No, not off hand. Plus I'm on mobile so it's tough to research. I'm as anti-socialist as anyone you will find, but Novak or Murray winning another couple million at Wimbledon really doesn't do any good for anyone in the long run.

The best comparison to tennis I can think of is golf. I would say about 4-5 times a year, some no-name player wins a tourney and pockets over a million. Now, is that fair? Maybe not. The PGA Tour is a little too luck-based, in my opinion. But, their system does level out the playing field more.

Fan-interest throws another wrench into this topic. If you were to say that Monfils or Kyrgios deserve a bigger share of the pie because fans flock to their matches, I couldn't really argue with you. Just don't tell me that women deserve as much as men. That, I will argue.

quote:

---

1) Pretty sure that's not the same girl. No amount of makeup could turn Kozlova's face into that.

2) No harm in posting the pic either way.

---

1) Interesting point
2) Agreed

Lol, good work hoggie. We have some serious degenerates betting on this stuff, but at least it's in the majors where guys are trying. MidnightVibe is insane betting on 250 level events where dudes are probably getting paid more by the mob to throw matches than they would earn in prize money.

Online gambling just got to the point where it was too much of a PITA for me to load up. In the good old days, you could just do it on a credit card. Then, I had to move to e-check. Then, when it technically became illegal, I figured it wasn't worth getting disbarred over.

good stuff, keep it rolling