Paes is the real role model for sports in India. If these kids cud have learnt the "never say die attitude" from him rather than showing him attitude, we could have seen a better outcome today.
..these NRI's...look at the quality and pride with which Paes played the Open - he put us out there on the map with some historic wins even when he was younger than these bunch of ganbangin' egotistical neanderthals. He fought each point like his life depended on it. He had the hunger and desire to win. He so badly wanted to do it for his country - yet these losers like Hesh, Kash, Fors (and all those four letter words that you can come up with for these morons that masquerade as tennis players) were allowed to oust him from the party - no wonder then!! Big surprise there - yea rt..
Re: Losers..
by mahim on Sep 20, 2008 01:39 PM
what's fors?
btw there is no question leander overachievement(considering his ranking)in davis cups and the reason was his hert but we have never won the davis cup and lender has been a low level player as he has a career high ranking of 73 which btw is a lot better than 217 of mahesh.
Re: Losers..
by YoBro on Sep 21, 2008 08:48 PM
Fors is for that buffon "Bofors"..I don't know his real name. Coming to your point, everyone should play within their limits..when he was at the peak of his singles career (and btw, that included a rare individual event Olympic medal that you conveniently chose to forget!), he chose to focus on doubles, keeping in mind his age, illness, funding and his chances at winning more accolades for the country - so it was a sacrifice in a large measure...so if you don't understand how these things came about, I'd advise you read more and wise up.
Re: Re: Losers..
by mahim on Sep 22, 2008 03:46 PM
to yobro -
u r talking all rubbish i never forgot paes's olympic medal but in those days the olympic field was not like todays coz olympic tennis was not considered important as it is today and in any case - slams has always been the yardstick for tennis and its singles tennis - doubles is useless it is stupid to say that paes made a sacrifice in giving up singles - singles is the only deal - doubles is rubbish and btw i know as much tennis as one can - u need to wise up the point is that its better if u achieve beyond your limit - a lendl, a wilander, a lleyton hewitt(all champions, come to mind).paes choose doubles coz he knew that he will never be a top singles player. btw, don't defend paes, he like saurav ganguly, is the biggest liar, he said that he won the tournament in which he beat sampras though he lost in the quaters of that tournament, he said that i had cancer when he never had cancer and he talks about playing at the commonwaelth games when tennis is not finalised at the commonwaelth games and there are many such examples. he says that he sacrificed his singles career for mahesh when it is crap to think that any player will leaving singles for stupid doubles. paes and mahesh say that they are legends when it is nothing but fooling indian people - doubles players in any country that has ever been a top tennis nation, don't get a secong look, doubles is crass, singles is all that matters.
Re: Re: Re: Losers..
by YoBro on Sep 23, 2008 04:46 AM
read my post more carefully - you're not only misquoting me...you are trying to contradict what I said with...exactly what I said. Never said doubles was better...just that he gave it up bcos there was not going to be enough money in it for him if he continued to fund himself...among other reasons. And quit believing all that tabloid garbage that you seem to read or hear about.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Losers..
by mahim on Sep 23, 2008 12:41 PM
all of ur writing, typing, saying is crazy, i do not need to read senseless and dustbin indian tabloids like you i know about tennis as much as one can, its always been my favourite passion paes did not quit singles, nobody does, paes is a low level player who has a career high ranking not any better than players who are completely unknown in countries that are tennis giants.
Re: Losers..
by YoBro on Sep 23, 2008 04:43 AM
yea, rt..Agassi fought with sweat and blood that year to take gold - why do you think he needed to that? maybe you forgot that he almost given a jolt by Paes...wise up bro. He'd beaten Sampras around the time he quit singles to focus on doubles.
Re: Losers..
by mahim on Sep 23, 2008 12:35 PM
yea, rt.. - what the hell do you men by this? u need to wise up agassi beat paes in straight sets and paes beat smpras just once in a low level tournament, he did not quit singles, he was never even a mid level singles player and again - doubles is dustbin and garbage
Re: Losers..
by YoBro on Sep 21, 2008 08:48 PM
Fors is for that buffon "Bofors"..I don't know his real name. Coming to your point, everyone should play within their limits..when he was at the peak of his singles career (and btw, that included a rare individual event Olympic medal that you conveniently chose to forget!), he chose to focus on doubles, keeping in mind his age, illness, funding and his chances at winning more accolades for the country - so it was a sacrifice in a large measure...so if you don't understand how these things came about, I'd advise you read more and wise up.
23 is mid 20s and 242 is such a low ranking that you cannot play with the pros - he wont crack the top 50 in his career - its commonsense - he wont make it to top 100 either.
Re: to alfred
by YoBro on Sep 23, 2008 04:49 AM
Dude...what's with you? Read my post carefully - can't u freakin' understand things from the context...I said "loser Amritraj boy", rt? "Kash" is a joker who'll soon be forgotten.
Re: to alfred
by mahim on Sep 23, 2008 03:45 PM
is kash prakash?what is rt? what's with you fellow........................? u r freakin' confusing....................... try to write what people can understand?do not go on and on about the same stuff btw no indian athlete has ever been a global star ramanathan krishnan was a top ameteur player though he never won a slam cricket, hockey, etc. are not world sports
its interesting that people in r country(india)have no clue about the fact that the only yardstick to judge tennis players in singles and doubles does not matter coz we have never had anybody win a slam in singles whereas lee and hesh have won slams in doubles.the fact is that the only top player that we have had is ramanathan krishnan(our only top 10 player though not a great player as he did not win a slam or reach in a final for that matter but i do believe that he is our greatest ever sportsperson as he is the only top sportsperson we have produced in a global sport). the only mid-level players that we have had are vijay,ramesh and sania(our only top 50 players). the rest of our players have been low level players as there ranking has always been outside the top 50. in countries that have been tennis powerhouses-it is assumed that when you talk of tennis,you talk of singles. we have this biased sunil gavaskar who makes lee and hesh's slams sound as if they have come in the actual tennis which is the singles. coming back to the davis cup-we will loose 4-1 coz their singles players are better than ours never mind that they have the huge home advantage.
Re: its commonsense its only singles buddy
by ashish sachi on Sep 19, 2008 07:30 PM
But we have also top players Abhinav Bindra and Gagan Narang in shooting , which is also a global sport.
Re: its commonsense its only singles buddy
by mahim on Sep 19, 2008 07:38 PM
no ashish - narang has never won an individual olympic medal or for that matter an olympic medal.you need an individual olympic medal to be a top shooter(remember olympics are the pinnacle in shooting and you look at the pinnacle in every olympic sport) shooting is an olympic sport but not global - most people in the world cannot name a single shooter even in disguise whereas tennis players, footballers, golfers, formula 1 drivers are household names around the world and then unlike tennis-shooting is a niche sport-tennis is mainstream and spectator and media friendly glamourous - shooting is none of that.the more high profile the sport - the tougher the test.
Re: its commonsense its only singles buddy
by Partha Choudhury on Sep 19, 2008 07:12 PM
I'd still put my money on Somdev. Somdev has a cool head on his shoulder and has shown tremendous promise in the 3 months he's been in the circuit.
Re: its commonsense its only singles buddy
by mahim on Sep 19, 2008 07:29 PM
what the hell $10?
talk to me when he enters top 50
get some commonsense - this guy is in his mid 20s and never cracked the top 300 and tennis is a relatively young sport - most tennis players are past their prime by their late 20s - do you know any tennis?
Re: its commonsense its only singles buddy
by Partha Choudhury on Sep 19, 2008 08:07 PM
He turned pro only this year and on Aug 18 he was ranked 239. I agree with you that he may not have enough years left to "win" grand slams, but he has talent and fitness to be in the top 50. In fact there's enough tournaments happen throughout the year for someone win a few to advance a couple of hundred ranks.
Re: its commonsense its only singles buddy
by bhushan hegde on Sep 19, 2008 08:03 PM
mahim is the world champion in criticism... sadly it is not an olympic sport or we would have had another gold medal.
