Originally posted by Scratch
View Post
-
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post. -
Who put 'The' in the thread title?Comment
-
why do the people who call a fault shout so loudly?Contrary to popular belief, I have huge genitals.Comment
-
that was annoying, gotta be Fed's best chance ever now surely'The tide is very much in our court now.'
KeeganComment
-
Murray was seriously lacking today, to be honest I was disappointed with the match, I felt the quality was quite poor overall.
RAFA Comment
-
Buggered my acca. Oh well. Gonzales was much better than him today and deserved itComment
-
i took 25/1 on Soderling after he beat Nadal, sure he wont win but that was a crazy price.Originally posted by -V- View Post_____________________________________
Weak willed, Wank or do they have a masterplan?
Think we have the answer..Slot!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nostradamus View Post
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
-
Interesting stat, but against the four players left in the draw, Federer is unbeaten against 3 of them, and has only lost once to the other (Del Potro i think it was)...wonder if that will give him a bit of a confidence boost.
Comment
-
really looking forward to the fed match tomorrow, i think if he comes through that it's gotta be his first french!?'The tide is very much in our court now.'
KeeganComment
-
You mean if he wins the title? Yes, it would be.Originally posted by Carras_Shin_Pads View Post
I think only five (or it might be four) men in history have won all four Grand Slams. So far..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
i thought it was something like that but i cant find it anywhere'The tide is very much in our court now.'
KeeganComment
-
Roy Emerson (AUS) - 6 (AUS) - 2 (FRE) - 2 (WIM) - 2 (USA) - 1961 - 1967
Rod Laver (AUS) - 3 (AUS) - 3 (FRE) - 4 (WIM) - 2 (USA) - 1960 - 1969
Andre Agassi (USA) - 4 (AUS) - 1 (FRE) - 1 (WIM) - 2 (USA) - 1992 - 2003
Fred Perry (UK) - 1 (AUS) - 1 (FRE) - 3 (WIM) - 3 (USA) - 1933 - 1936
Don Budge (USA) - 1 (AUS) - 1 (FRE) - 2 (WIM) - 2 (USA) - 1937 - 1938_____________________________________
Weak willed, Wank or do they have a masterplan?
Think we have the answer..Slot!!Comment
-
What a legend Agassi is. It was a pleasure to watch him.Comment
Comment