Couuple of Old Scottish drunks disrupt Andy Murray press conference

[Gromit]

A lapse in security perhaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUYH8hZ90S4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Duncer]

Hypothetical piffle; they cannot play, and they cannot be compared, except to judge them in their own respective eras, and that is how history judges the greats.

Young Andrew has indeed got the advantages of equipment, fitness advice, diet and other imponderables. Fred will be judged by what he won - Slam events. Andy has yet to do so but perhaps tonight will prove me wrong?

[Kerosene]

Dunce,

There's absolutely no 'hypothetical piffle' involved, mate: See the proof above. The first link is Fred Perry winning the 1934 Wimbledon. The second is Murray beating Federer at this year's Olympics.

Sorry, old bean, but even a one legged man could have moved quicker than Perry and the other guy, not to mention any of the modern day women.
I could easily have returned either Perry's or the other serve, they were so slow it's like watching paint dry!

Contrast that with the lightning serves/reflexes/returns etc of Murray and Federer and Perry would be vanquished in about 10 minutes - at best?

This is proof positive that regardless of what happens to Murray tonight, win or lose, he would have whupped Perry any day of any week - fact.

[Kerosene]

Woops, the Perry link is here:

[Duncer]

Keros

It proves nothing. Perry was a great in his era - Murray is yet to prove himself such in this one. Perry competed and won against his peers, Murray is only on the verge of doing so.

I reckon most modern top division teams could beat the 5-in-a-row European Cup winning Real Madrid team, but they are still greats. Most premier league sides are not.

[Kerosene]

Sorry Duncey,

The irrefutable evidence is there in front of you. Any of the top male players over the past 30-40 years would have wiped the floor with Perry who was obviously extremely lucky that not only did he play like a big Jessie, but his opponents were even worse!

He wouldn't have lasted two minutes nowadays - or from the 1960s onward.

[mccfluff]

that's never sean connery.....

[Kerosene]

Yes it is, the auld b*gger's about 80?

[Duncer]

Kerry

As previously stated, you can only beat those you are faced with and, of his era, Fred Perry was a great. The quality of play back then is irrespective, he was a Grand Slam champion in his day. Murray is not.

The imporverment in standards applies to ALL players, and Murray has not yet proved himself a winner and separated himself from the non Slam winners. Perry did. The fact Murray could beat a man from the 1930's is utterly irrelevant.

The current Norwich City side could probably beat the great Real Madrid side, as could sides like Stoke City and Spurs.