hypochondriac

Well that's just speculation founded on very little. Since Cortese have been here this is certainly the poorest reaction to a kit I have seen (and I include offline friends and acquaintances in that)

I don't see why that is so funny. It is after all an opinion and we don't have that many different designs for home kits to choose from.

I realise as a historian you may have more of an emotional connection to this sort of thing, but it is just a kit at the end of the day that we will have for less than a year. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a rubbish kit, I just don't see what the fuss is about. There are stories that have come from the club that are far more concerning than this sort of thing.

How is he not a loser? By definition, if he fails to win a grand slam then he is a loser.

A grand slam win is a very good achievement. Failing to win a tournament is not very good IMO. It's better than Britain has done historically but that isn't saying much.

Seems the kit is pretty unpopular, on here at least. It does make you wonder how they come up with these kits and if there is any consultation before release (you would suspect not.)

FFS the statue is second now

TBH I don't like it but it's only a kit for a season so I'm not going to lose any sleep about it.

Tickets for youngsters is catching up a little bit. Just a few more people needed until Monday.

Grand slam wins are what matter and what he will be remembered for.

Well you could argue that a concession is a perk of being a student. You know exactly what he meant, he isn't asking for anything other than what he is entitled to as a student. I mean if he was asking for something that he wasn't entitled to then fair enough but he isn't...

He will make the semi and lose.

It is amazing that so many saints fans have voted for the statue. PMSL. Some more inspiration:

TBF I believe they have offered to play as many games in the past. I do take your point though about appeal. I mean the male players bring in the lions share of revenue.

Fats Domino for me.

Ace. My reminder was worth it then!

I loved the bit when he walked through city hall and the editing in the swimming pool also made me LOL. I am Alan's biggest fan (other than Jed).

Just a reminder to vote for the statue if you haven't already. It's just 7 votes ahead. https://www.facebook.com/npowerfootballleague/app_177019582409952 Here is some motivation for you:

A rather lengthy but disgusting post on POL. Sums them up...

Why is it unfair to call his tennis (and him a lot of the time in interviews and the way he carries himself) negative and boring in comparison to the big three? I watch tennis all year round and see it with my own eyes. Roger has always been the most graceful and easy on the eye whilst the other two have had their moments and the power they can generate is amazing at times. Murray just cannot compare and when I largely watch tennis to be entertained, I am left underwhelmed by Andy a fair amount. I just do not find getting the ball in until an opponent makes an error a particularly good watch and would much rather that he actually played to win a lot of his shots like most of the other top players do rather than play to not lose the point. Even on his wikipedia page (not the most reliable but in this case backed up with quotes) he is described as "a defensive counter-puncher."

Not sure why you think that is the sole reason people are not fans of Murray. As someone who watches tennis regularly (and most likely before you had the ability to watch it) there are quite a few things I am not too keen on about Murray (and some of them his fellow professionals have commented on too such as his ridiculous injury thing.) I have outlined some of them above.

I was talking about the majority of his displays against the top three (which are the games that really matter.) Both his losses to Federer in the slam finals were hugely disappointing from his perspective. Not only was he hugely outclassed, he let himself down by the incredibly boring and negative tactics he employed when in actuality he can play a lot better. I also do not find his interview technique and demeanour both on and off court particularly appealing most of the time. It irritates me that he makes a big show of "injuries" when you have the likes of Roger and Rafa who go through a lot more physically yet rarely let it show unless it is a serious problem. And why you care so much about a comfortable first round win I have no idea, it is completely expected. If it had been either of the other three then no one would have batted an eyelid. I'm not sure Federer has lost a first round match at a slam for about a decade for goodness sake (maybe his first Wimbledon) regardless of who he played. If Murray fails to win again then absolutely nobody is going to remember his comfortable first round victory.

Yep. And if his tactics were less boring and defensive.

lol, Bit desperate asking on here arent we?

Erm no he hasn't. Fred Perry achieved loads more. He actually won something for a start.