Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Blue chip slam list

117 views
Skip to first unread message

Whisper

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 6:51:09 AM11/29/18
to

Top 5

1 Nadal 16
2 Federer 14
3 Sampras 12
4 Borg 11
5 Tilden 10




the rest;

Laver 8
Djokovic 8

McEnroe 7
Connors 7
Lacoste 7
Cochet 7
Perry 7
Sears 7
Renshaw 7
Larned 7





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

John Liang

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 10:10:35 AM11/29/18
to
The bluest of blue chip list in Open Era

1. Federer 8 Wimbledon + 5 USO = 13
2. Sampras 7 Wimbledon + 5 USO = 12
3. Djokovic 4 Wimlbedon + 3 USO = 7
3. McEnroe 3 Wimbledon + 4 USO = 7
3. Connors 2 Wimbledon + 5 USO = 7
6. Borg 5 Wimbledon
6. Nadal 2 Wimbledon + 3 USO = 5
8. Becker 3 Wimbledon + 1 USO =4
8. Edberg 2 Wimbledon + 2 USO =4

Pelle Svanslös

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 10:25:10 AM11/29/18
to
On 29/11/2018 17.10, John Liang wrote:
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:51:09 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
>> Top 5
>>
>> 1 Nadal 16
>> 2 Federer 14
>> 3 Sampras 12
>> 4 Borg 11
>> 5 Tilden 10
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> the rest;
>>
>> Laver 8
>> Djokovic 8
>>
>> McEnroe 7
>> Connors 7
>> Lacoste 7
>> Cochet 7
>> Perry 7
>> Sears 7
>> Renshaw 7
>> Larned 7
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> https://www.avg.com
>
> The bluest of blue chip list in Open Era
>
> 1. Federer 8 Wimbledon + 5 USO = 13

I thought these were the original blue chips?

guypers

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 10:33:00 AM11/29/18
to
Fed 13, kneedl 5, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

RaspingDrive

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 10:45:16 AM11/29/18
to
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:25:10 AM UTC-5, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 29/11/2018 17.10, John Liang wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:51:09 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
> >> Top 5
> >>
> >> 1 Nadal 16
> >> 2 Federer 14
> >> 3 Sampras 12
> >> 4 Borg 11
> >> 5 Tilden 10

> > The bluest of blue chip list in Open Era
> >
> > 1. Federer 8 Wimbledon + 5 USO = 13
>
> I thought these were the original blue chips?

The new list is a lot better than the old one.

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 10:58:26 AM11/29/18
to
Hahahaha, Whisper at his peak:)

Pelle Svanslös

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 11:03:33 AM11/29/18
to
There once might have been a time to divide slams into haves and have
nots. I think we're about 30 years past that.

heyg...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 11:18:39 AM11/29/18
to
Now do the blue chip scores by 754. How does that look? :-)

Whisper

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 12:44:47 PM11/29/18
to
Can't ignore clay/FO. That's moronic analysis.



--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

Whisper

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 12:46:06 PM11/29/18
to
16 v 14

Too bad too sad.

John Liang

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 2:26:34 PM11/29/18
to
When FO is considered a slam that requires the least amount of natural skill to win, we can easily ignore it.

John Liang

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 2:27:16 PM11/29/18
to
Yes, when FO is not the bluest of blue chip slams.

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 2:31:11 PM11/29/18
to
> Can't ignore clay/FO. That's moronic analysis.

Too bad Sampras is missing one of the blue Chip slams.

Why do you include Sampras in this honor list?

First, to be in the list, the player needs to have all the blue Chip slams, then we can order them by the slams count.

The Iceberg

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 6:39:40 PM11/29/18
to
hey JLiang, who won the USO in 2013?

The Iceberg

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 6:40:28 PM11/29/18
to
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 11:51:09 UTC, Whisper wrote:
> Top 5
>
> 1 Nadal 16
> 2 Federer 14
> 3 Sampras 12
> 4 Borg 11
> 5 Tilden 10
>
>
>
>
> the rest;
>
> Laver 8
> Djokovic 8
>
> McEnroe 7
> Connors 7
> Lacoste 7
> Cochet 7
> Perry 7
> Sears 7
> Renshaw 7
> Larned 7

yes good list! should put a * by Fed as they slowed Wimbledon down to make it easier for him.

bob

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 9:02:42 PM11/29/18
to
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 07:58:24 -0800 (PST), PeteWasLucky
<waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hahahaha, Whisper at his peak:)

actually don't laugh, very relevant stuff there. and whisp delivers
the goods once again.

bob

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 9:26:06 PM11/29/18
to
> actually don't laugh, very relevant stuff there. and whisp delivers
the goods once again.

Yes, I delivered the adequate reply as well.

Check in the thread.

Whisper

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 11:36:53 PM11/29/18
to
On 30/11/2018 6:26 am, John Liang wrote:
> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 4:44:47 AM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
>> On 30/11/2018 2:10 am, John Liang wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:51:09 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
>>>> Top 5
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>> https://www.avg.com
>>>
>>> The bluest of blue chip list in Open Era
>>>
>>> 1. Federer 8 Wimbledon + 5 USO = 13
>>> 2. Sampras 7 Wimbledon + 5 USO = 12
>>> 3. Djokovic 4 Wimlbedon + 3 USO = 7
>>> 3. McEnroe 3 Wimbledon + 4 USO = 7
>>> 3. Connors 2 Wimbledon + 5 USO = 7
>>> 6. Borg 5 Wimbledon
>>> 6. Nadal 2 Wimbledon + 3 USO = 5
>>> 8. Becker 3 Wimbledon + 1 USO =4
>>> 8. Edberg 2 Wimbledon + 2 USO =4
>>>
>>
>>
>> Can't ignore clay/FO. That's moronic analysis.
>
> When FO is considered a slam that requires the least amount of natural skill to win, we can easily ignore it.
>>

In this era none of the slams require god-like skills/talent. All
surfaces play the same & there is no variety in player styles.




Whisper

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 11:37:26 PM11/29/18
to
Today it is because Guga types would also win Wim/USO.


Whisper

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 11:39:04 PM11/29/18
to
Sampras played in a different environment where FO champ was unlikely to
win Wim/USO. Today it's ranking that determines success, not surface.

It took more talent/skill to win Wim/USO before this era.

Whisper

unread,
Nov 29, 2018, 11:51:44 PM11/29/18
to
You didn't hit a winner though - I smashed it back high to your bh &
approached the net.

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 12:06:43 AM11/30/18
to
> Sampras played in a different environment where FO champ was unlikely to
win Wim/USO. Today it's ranking that determines success, not surface.

It took more talent/skill to win Wim/USO before this era.

Borg had difficulty winning Wimbledon and FO? lol

Don't make a fool of yourself.

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 12:08:39 AM11/30/18
to
> You didn't hit a winner though - I smashed it back high to your bh &
approached the net.

Why? I just volleyed back your volley. Read my reply :)
Players these days have good defense as well :)

John Liang

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 12:15:25 AM11/30/18
to
Interest if that is the reason why didn't you suit up at Wimbledon and win it I thought you always rate yourself highly with 'god-like' talent. If all surfaces played the same why did Nadal have problem getting even past the QF of Wimbledon prior for almost 6 years.

John Liang

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 12:17:51 AM11/30/18
to
And pete hit the high bouncing smash with the a return backhand smash that left whisper speechless. Well the ball stuck in Whisper's mouth.

John Liang

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 12:19:12 AM11/30/18
to
So maybe you should consider rating the Wimbledon and USO in pete's era lower than 7 and 5.

Whisper

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 2:51:11 AM11/30/18
to
Borg was the exception. Today all the no.1 players do it easy. It
would be much harder if they had to play under the difficult conditions
of earlier eras.

I'm surprised you don't see this, being a serious long time tennis fan?
Odd as it's pretty obvious & discussed in the media every day. Maybe
you're just xmas trolling?

Whisper

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 2:51:46 AM11/30/18
to
As well as what?

Whisper

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 2:52:43 AM11/30/18
to
He made 5 Wimbledon finals in a row, Fed made 5 FO finals, Djoker 4 etc
- it's all the same, no more variety in tennis.

Whisper

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 2:54:13 AM11/30/18
to
On 30/11/2018 4:19 pm, John Liang wrote:
> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 3:39:04 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:
>> On 30/11/2018 6:31 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>>>> Can't ignore clay/FO. That's moronic analysis.
>>>
>>> Too bad Sampras is missing one of the blue Chip slams.
>>>
>>> Why do you include Sampras in this honor list?
>>>
>>> First, to be in the list, the player needs to have all the blue Chip slams, then we can order them by the slams count.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sampras played in a different environment where FO champ was unlikely to
>> win Wim/USO. Today it's ranking that determines success, not surface.
>>
>> It took more talent/skill to win Wim/USO before this era.
>>
>>
>
> So maybe you should consider rating the Wimbledon and USO in pete's era lower than 7 and 5.
>



I would if the clay/grass/hc played the same like today. I think you
mean I should lower them for this era because it's easier to win today?

John Liang

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 3:19:21 AM11/30/18
to
What happened after those 5 finals?

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 8:42:02 AM11/30/18
to
> Borg was the exception. Today all the no.1 players do it easy. It
would be much harder if they had to play under the difficult conditions
of earlier eras.

Who are the number one players that did it over the last 15 years?
Only three players, one of them is the greatest clay ever that won 11 times and two other players that won 14 and 20 slams but managed to win the FO once.

Agassi did it too if I remember correctly.

So if Borg was an exception, Agassi with 8 slams is an exception, then let's consider the greatest three players ever to be exception as well, which they are, correct?

The Iceberg

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 9:41:11 AM11/30/18
to
says it all!

MBDunc

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 10:14:29 AM11/30/18
to
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 6:37:26 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
> Today it is because Guga types would also win Wim/USO.

Only Fed/Murray/Rafa/Djoker -types have won multiple Wimb/USO slams since 2003.

Thiem is perhaps the closest "Guga-type" we have and he is very clay oriented (2 x FO SF, 1 x FO final vs no other slam succee)

.mikko

Whisper

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 10:48:40 AM11/30/18
to
Sampras is still no.2 as per 7543. Rafa will match Pete's 80 pts with a
FO win next yr.

It's also pretty obvious the slam record was artificially low due to pro
tour, many skipping AO & FO etc. Rosewall won 8 slams while missing his
13 peakest yrs. How many of those 52 slams he missed would he have
added to his 8? Most likely the slams record would be somewhere around
the women's 24 mark, if not higher.

How many slams would Federer/Djoker/Rafa have won if they missed their
peakest 13 yrs? 2 or 3 maybe?

*skriptis

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 10:59:50 AM11/30/18
to
Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:
Rosewall won 4 in "clown era", ie amateurs.

I do think Federer got very lucky until 2007, but I can't claim
2003-2006 was an official clown era, as nothing happened with the
tour.

But Rosewall won 4 in what has to be called a clown era. Giving
him hypothetical slams for that 13-year period is fine by me, but
then we should subtract those 4 amateurs.


He won 15 pro slams out of 39 in those 12 years. That's 38%.

So if he played in real slams with that success rate he'd have won
20 slams?

Plus 4 in the open era, yup 24 total.

Or adding everything up, amateurs, pro and open, you get 23 which
is similar.
--

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 12:17:40 PM11/30/18
to
> Sampras is still no.2 as per 7543. Rafa will match Pete's 80 pts with a
FO win next yr.

It's also pretty obvious the slam record was artificially low due to pro
tour, many skipping AO & FO etc. Rosewall won 8 slams while missing his
13 peakest yrs. How many of those 52 slams he missed would he have
added to his 8? Most likely the slams record would be somewhere around
the women's 24 mark, if not higher.

How many slams would Federer/Djoker/Rafa have won if they missed their
peakest 13 yrs? 2 or 3 maybe?

We were talking blue colors then you switched to 7543, which one do you want to discuss?

Also too much would should if....

heyg...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 1:22:51 PM11/30/18
to
This men’s era has shown that men’s slam wins and women’s slam wins really are 1:1 comparable in terms of measuring overall career accomplishments (meaning 14 slams for a man isn’t about equal to 20 slams for a woman). If the big three had been the big two (a la Chrissie and Martina) those two men players would’ve probably hit Graf/Serena/Court numbers.

*skriptis

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 1:27:54 PM11/30/18
to
heyg...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> This men’s era has shown that men’s slam wins and women’s slam wins really are 1:1 comparable in terms of measuring overall career accomplishments (meaning 14 slams for a man isn’t about equal to 20 slams for a woman). If the big three had been the big two (a la Chrissie and Martina) those two men players would’ve probably hit Graf/Serena/Court numbers.
>


Only a woman
or a feminist would post this.


Of course the numbers are similar and comparable because the slams
are the same. You have 4 slams per year both for women and for
men, requiring 7 wins for a title etc.






--

MBDunc

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 4:24:40 PM11/30/18
to
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 5:48:40 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
> It's also pretty obvious the slam record was artificially low due to pro
> tour, many skipping AO & FO etc.

Captain Obvious.

> Rosewall won 8 slams while missing his
> 13 peakest yrs. How many of those 52 slams he missed would he have
> added to his 8? Most likely the slams record would be somewhere around
> the women's 24 mark, if not higher.

Slams run out. Only four/year. You cannot give all Gonzo/Hoad/Laver/Rosewall 15-25 slams each. There were no 7 slams/year as someone love to calculate.

If you somehow do against all math: then why it is not similar "clown era" as 2005-2007, 2009-2011, 2014-2018. (note I left out years you declared "clown era is over")

> How many slams would Federer/Djoker/Rafa have won if they missed their
> peakest 13 yrs? 2 or 3 maybe?

Speculative. It was name of the game back then and reason why Pancho is thereabout tier1 still.

.mikko

heyg...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 7:25:21 PM11/30/18
to
———-

Good that you agree. There was a time people basically equated Pete’s 14 to Graf’s 22.

*skriptis

unread,
Nov 30, 2018, 7:35:56 PM11/30/18
to
heyg...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
Well, the opportunities give chances, but it's not linear.

E.g. there are 4 slams vs 9 masters series.

So you'd expect, if you win 20 slams, you could win 45 masters
series? And Federer has won 27 or 28?


Likewise, ou still need to win 21 set in men's game vs 14 in
women's game to win one slam.

It doesn't necessarily mean it's easier, but it's different.


But important thing, people claimed Sampras > Graf because of
level of competition. The pool of men's player is bigger.


I bet they claim now that as well, any of the big 3 > Serena, who
has had no rival.

--

Whisper

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 4:22:32 AM12/1/18
to
My point is you can't make direct comparisons based solely on slam
counts. Borg probably wins 5 or 6 AOs by age 26 if he played every yr.
Had he played on til age 30 he may have won 25 slams who knows?

Sure it's better to have them on your resume (current top guys) than not
(past greats who didn't play all the slams for many reasons), but nobody
is really satisfied that eg 20 slams is something unthinkable by past
greats.

Whisper

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 4:30:05 AM12/1/18
to
If Pancho is tier 1 then why not Hoad? He was 1 match from calendar
slam (lost to great Rosewall in USO final after beating him in Wimbledon
final), & Pancho, Laver, Ken etc all said Hoad was the best player ever
at peak. These guy's opinions are very important imo.

MBDunc

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 4:48:27 AM12/1/18
to
On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 11:30:05 AM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
> If Pancho is tier 1 then why not Hoad? He was 1 match from calendar
> slam (lost to great Rosewall in USO final after beating him in Wimbledon
> final), & Pancho, Laver, Ken etc all said Hoad was the best player ever
> at peak. These guy's opinions are very important imo.

Pancho won for example US pro 8 times and was h2h king on pro tour for seven years.

Hoad won nothing on pro circuit and was 2nd/3rd at his best. Even Trabert and Sedgman have better records (+ about same amateur creds) but they are never mentioned.

For every expert's "Hoad is boat" claim there are 100 x more Sampras is boat/Djoker is boat/Fed is boat/Nadal is boat -claims. So relying on 100y testimonials have null value. It is like saying Hicham Arazi is the most talented...so what: where are the results?

Hoad's slam creds are amateur slams. When the best were playing pro circuit (Pancho, Segdman, Trabert)

But Budge....won real GS, 6 slams in-a-row and was instantly #1 pro as well. He could be argued tier1?

.mikko

The Iceberg

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 5:15:40 AM12/1/18
to
Except Guga would've thrashed Thiem on clay.

MBDunc

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 5:33:16 AM12/1/18
to
On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 12:15:40 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> > Thiem is perhaps the closest "Guga-type" we have and he is very clay oriented (2 x FO SF, 1 x FO final vs no other slam succee)
>
> Except Guga would've thrashed Thiem on clay.

Maybe, maybe not. Opinions. CEIBS vs PEIBS. Personal biases. Hate/fanhood.

.mikko

jdeluise

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 5:35:49 AM12/1/18
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 20:29:57 +1100, Whisper wrote:

> If Pancho is tier 1 then why not Hoad? He was 1 match from calendar
> slam (lost to great Rosewall in USO final after beating him in Wimbledon
> final), & Pancho, Laver, Ken etc all said Hoad was the best player ever
> at peak. These guy's opinions are very important imo.

Have you yet been able to name which matches of Hoad you have or have
seen on video? I know it's something you've been asked for years and I
for one have never seen even a single attempt at an answer from you.
Shit or get off the pot.

Whisper

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 7:57:08 AM12/1/18
to
All Thiem has achieved is losing twice to Rafa at FO in straight sets.
Completely forgettable. Even Rosewall laughed at his performance in FO
final like it was huge embarrassment.

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 8:19:38 AM12/1/18
to
> My point is you can't make direct comparisons based solely on slam
counts. Borg probably wins 5 or 6 AOs by age 26 if he played every yr.
Had he played on til age 30 he may have won 25 slams who knows?

Sure it's better to have them on your resume (current top guys) than not
(past greats who didn't play all the slams for many reasons), but nobody
is really satisfied that eg 20 slams is something unthinkable by past
greats.

But he chose not to play them and he chose to retire early, so who cares?!!

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 8:21:35 AM12/1/18
to
> Even Rosewall laughed at his performance in FO
final like it was huge embarrassment.

You have to read what Rosewall said a month before that FO, something like he will give the trophy to Rafa since all players are afraid of him.

*skriptis

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 8:29:56 AM12/1/18
to
Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:
> On 1/12/2018 9:33 pm, MBDunc wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 12:15:40 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
>>>> Thiem is perhaps the closest "Guga-type" we have and he is very clay oriented (2 x FO SF, 1 x FO final vs no other slam succee)
>>>
>>> Except Guga would've thrashed Thiem on clay.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. Opinions. CEIBS vs PEIBS. Personal biases. Hate/fanhood.
>>
>> .mikko
>>
>
> All Thiem has achieved is losing twice to Rafa at FO in straight sets.
> Completely forgettable. Even Rosewall laughed at his performance in FO
> final like it was huge embarrassment.


Thiem may have disappointed with his effort and performances but
he has fantastic results already.

In FO mpoat, he's #33 with 7 pts (0%).
In slam mpoat, he's #81 with 9 pts (0%).

That's entire open era!


Players at #33, having 7 pts in FO mpoat are:

33. a) Soderling (3+3+1)
33. b) Thiem (3+2+2)
33. c) Orantes (3+2+1+1)
33. d) McEnroe (3+2+1+1)
33. e) Becker (2+2+2+1)
33. f) Ramirez (2+2+1+1+1)

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

sawfish

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 9:54:12 AM12/1/18
to
In my opinion, Thiem has all the physical tools to win some of the slams, but has mental difficulties at times. They are not cowardly problems, but rather it's like his competitive fire never gets lit, or if it does, it goes out fairly easily.

It's like damp wood.

An example of a competitive court fire that stays lit throughout a match would be Rafa. Mac had it, and boy, oh boy, did Connors ever have it. There are always a few "off days" but not many.

Again, my opinion and open to discussion.

Whisper

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 10:25:45 AM12/1/18
to
Ken was right. Imagine being afraid of playing tennis against someone?
Afraid of playing a sport you love against a legend? That's weird. It
should be a dream not a nightmare. Every pro should relish a match
against an overwhelming fave. You have nothing to lose as everyone
expects you to lose. The pressure is on Rafa to not fuck up.

RaspingDrive

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 10:27:36 AM12/1/18
to
Good post. Keep up the good work, Skriptis.

Whisper

unread,
Dec 1, 2018, 10:30:00 AM12/1/18
to
That's a good description of Thiem. He strikes me as a nice 'rich boy'
type who grew up with all the privileges & had a bit of tennis talent.
He seems to lack that hunger/mongrel element that can make him a
contender. It seems like his best chance of winning a slam is if all
the top guys are out for some reason & he has a good draw with a newbie
in the final.

MBDunc

unread,
Dec 2, 2018, 11:48:39 AM12/2/18
to
On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 5:30:00 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
> That's a good description of Thiem. He strikes me as a nice 'rich boy'
> type who grew up with all the privileges & had a bit of tennis talent.
> He seems to lack that hunger/mongrel element that can make him a
> contender. It seems like his best chance of winning a slam is if all
> the top guys are out for some reason & he has a good draw with a newbie
> in the final.

A.Gomez and FO 1990? Gomez had lost to Lendl four? times in FO during 80:ies. Then Lendl skips FO 1990 and Gomez wins the event beating wig-wearing newbie in the final.

.mikko
0 new messages