It was a doubles match ffs! Its not like he did it all on his own!
In fact i think his partner did all the real work...
See if they are not built up by the press to then fail they get no praise. Doubles or not there are some very good players on the doubles circuit and the lad deserves praise, if it was that easy to win we would not have been waiting 20 years to do so.
Yeah cause Bjorkman is shit at singles.
The pit stop had nothing to do with it though, Ferrari were better on the day.
The Murray brothers are something to look forward to though and doubles or not its a Grand Slam title.
No but the pit stop was a symptom of the day he was having...
He lost 2 seconds mate, he could have got out 4 seconds earlier and it would have meant nothing. Ron Dennis said they made a lot of mistakes with the tires and tactics all weekend. I think the important thing is he maximised his points after Alonso and Raiki, he drove ok the car was just off the pace.
Britain has a losing culture, we never win everything, hence all the football supporters spout on about 66' all the time like it's something to be proud of the fuck tards.
We won the ashes thanks to Glenn McGrath's ankle and the weather tbhLook at the winning culture they have in Australia. I don't believe their cricket team was so successful for so long just because they had a few good players. It was just the absolute, and complete belief that they would win every game. Contrast that with the feeling from England cricket over the same period which was more a case of, 'first don't lose, if we can just about scrape the draw, you never know, a win might be possible.' When we did win the Ashes, for one summer, that style was replaced with a belief that we were good enough and could win. That has since proven to be unsustainable in England cricket, and we're back where we were again.
If you want to see how we as a country can build a great team, read Clive Woodwards book covering his time with England Rugby culminating with the World Cup, and contrast that with the approach of England football.
England Rugby did not have the strongest set of players at the time, but they had decent players (just like England Football). The difference though was the amazingly meticulous preparation put into the national side, and the players and clubs desire to see England do the best that it could. This even went as far as England having first refusal on the players for games and training, over the clubs. (Rooney having a slightly sore ankle for an international on a Wednesday, but playing 90 minutes for Man Utd on the Saturday anyone?).
Every friendly was treated as if it was a full, important international. The strongest side possible was fielded, there was no, 'giving a youngster a run out', no wholesale substitutions at half time, no simply playing a friendly to add money to the RFU's coffers. Each game meant something. Yes, some games were won with ridiculous scores, but it got the players in the habit of scoring, and more importantly winning. It also gave the players the chance to play together for long long periods. Not 45 minutes, and then taken off because 45 minutes was all the club would allow you and a whole new set of players brought on at half time.
There's a huge amount of things mentioned in the book, and a load which didn't go in because it was still secret to England rugby when the book went to print, but the attention to detail is amazing. On the coach on the way to the ground for each match, each player was given a cd and cd player. On that cd was information about their opposite numbers. This had been covered in the week leading up to the match in training, but it was reiterated on the cd. Is the player left or right handed, do they kick left or right footed, when they sidestep, do they tend to push off the left or right foot, where do they tend to stand for kick offs, etc, etc, etc.
England Rugby in 2003 did not have the best players in the world, but they won the world cup by setting out to want to win, and doing everything it took to do that.
Other English teams will win nothing until they have that same approach.
Many other countries have that approach and that ethos, and it's built in from early childhood. Life has winners and losers in all areas, but we, as a country, seem to be afraid of that concept now. I love all sport, but I fear it's going to be a long long time before I see success on a national scale again for English or British teams.
As for friendlies, I would much rather everyone discover that Michael Ricketts is shit in a friendly vs Holland than in a qualifier vs Turkey, the manager needs to have a chance to test new blood without worrying about fuckups and the like.
England isn't unique, but a Clive Woodward approach isn't the answer. What's needed is fewer club games and a manager of the non-donkey variety. We're not going to get the former, but sure the latter isn't beyond us?
As for tennis, you're right we congratulate players for playing well even though they don't win, which seems to bring a mentality of "not to worry, at least I tried my best", Americans and Australians both have a mentality where they HAVE to win, which IMO is the way it should be.
But when they do win something you get the well its only the mixed doubles. At the end of the day its a Grand Slam for the lad, and that can only be good for the youngsters getting into the sport to see a young Scottish lad getting the trophy.
Jamie Murray is a doubles specialist so I hope he can be as successful as people like the Woody's who were probably the best doubles players of the 90s, we also tend to suck at the Davis Cup doubles rubber, so at least with one specialist we can win 1 game in each Davis Cup match
All we need really is Andy Murray to not keep getting injured and we can use both Murrays to win every Davis Cup tie