I wouldnt give a toss if pools played crap every game and won it 1-0.

Entertaining people doesn't pay for mortgages and put your kids through school, winning is the reason for playing every sport.

You have the brain of a 5 year old

I know what you're trying to say, but if we're winning one nil all the time, I think some people would raise concerns over the performance.

Ner i wouldn't

I don't know any fan who would take entertainment overy victory.

It can, you can earn a lot more money if you're an entertaining player: Rooney, Ronaldo for example.

Exactly, Tim Heneman was know as a nice chap on the tour and entertained, he will be put down forever in that sport as a looser, (I bet he would swop all his prize money for £850,000 and the wimbeldon championship)

I give up, compo your on your own.

Look I know about as much about Tennis as you its apparent you do (fook all!) but wasn't the final last year between Federer and Nadal considered one of the greatest matches of all time?

Sport at the top level is about being the best, and surely appreciating somone who is the best is in it's own way entertaining. I suspect you don't find it entertaining because you know fook all about Tennis and can't appreciate how good he is.

I don't think he was a loser. If he was a loser, the BBC wouldn't have taken him on as a pundit.

Give up POK you must be on a wind up!!

Henman is/was a loser, Nice guy and all that an entertainer too, thats for sure.

The reason he was selected as a pundit for BBC is simple.... He's British and knows how to play Tennis.

If your going on that arguement, Sue Barker was once a Tennis player (A shite one at that) but she was a Tennis Player and now she's a "Pundit / Presenter" for the Wimbledon coverage.

Yeah and we all know why Nadal beat Federer in that final. Because Nadal is a way more powerful player than Federer.

Surely that's why we watch sport in the first place anyway: for entertainment.

I'm not on a wind up.

I dodn't believe Henman was a loser. He just kept getting beat by players that were better than here.

Sue Barker wasn't rubbish - she won the French Open once.

If he gets beat all the time then that makes him a loser!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about Andrew Castle?

He's a 'lovely lovely person', a loser, and twice a 'lovely lovely person'.

He was a semi-finalist 4 times. That doesn't tell me that he was a loser.

Henman was way more successful than Andrew Castle.

Yes, 4 times.

Yeah, but calling him a loser implies that he wasn't a good person.

And they didn't call him "Tiger Tim" for nothing.

'Tiger Tim'

No it doesn't it just implies that he didn't have the steel or talent required to be a champion, like people like Federer have in abundance which makes them winners.

Andrew Castle..... or as the missus calls him .... Mr Stiffy cos he has the personality of a sheet of suave plywood.

him and that fooking kate garroway are crap i would rather watch in the night garden then them two planks

If they got the jobs, what the feck were the losing applicants like.

Quite frankly, I didn't even know he used to play tennis professionally, I thought he was just an ordinary journalist when I watch him on GMTV.

I think Eamonn Holmes and Fiona Phillips made a great team when they were on that show - they helped it make it the institution that it's become.

The only time Fiona Phillips would appeal to me, is if we were the sole occupants of a life boat and no other provisions were available.

I'd go and see a life boat provisions provider if I were you.

You could visibly see that Eamon Holmes despised the woman, he couldn't hide it. Rapists have better chemistry with their victims.

It is one of the worst things on television.

I would shoot dead Castle, that fooking Romano woman who's normally in LA, and Richard bastad Arnold and serve my time happy in the knowledge that what I'd done was for the good of British public. I actually watch it to put me in a foul mood before I go out to work.

I would then go to Wimbledon and shoot everone there, then the Eurovison bastad song contest, do you know what I'd even make a trip to Britania fooking High and I'd shoot them twice.

According to MrI shes a very nice lady...

he's so home counties he's unbelieveable... Your names not Rupert PoK is it? cos if it ain't it should be...


PoK--- Translation wannabe posh get... (bet he's even got a blazer and a straw fookin boater! )

Have you ever been in an institution Mr Kent??

So you assesment on whether a player is successfull is if he has a good nickname or gets a job with the BBC.

Can I return to July 3rd, 4.33, and change my mind about starting this thread?

no,it has been good watching how pok has manipulated them,it's been like watching a cat playing with a mouse before getting bored with it and killing it off

Well, of course not.

But I believe that you can be successful in other ways than necessarily winning a tournament.

Henman has expertise as a person who's tried to win Wimbledon - that's why he's a BBC pundit.

Nonsense,its really based on how fit his bird is

I've tried to 'win' Wimbledon but got no further then my own back yard, does that mean the BBC will let me be 'pundit'?

It's actually very strange, in that 'pundit' is the Indian word for expert, whereas none of the people mentioned so far are Indian.

In case people were wondering, the word you are looking for is 'yoni.'

So some people are 'pundits' and some people are 'yonis.'

Which category would you put Mr Kent in??

Is he a pundit or a yoni??

You'd beat Alex Bogdanovic, in straight sets. You should apply for a 'wlid card' all you have to do is lose when you get their and they give you ten grand.

Isn't a Yoni a receptacle for a Lingam? Or is that your point.

That is exactly my point Mr Billog.

Seeing as we're making free with the Indian language.

My reading of the Kama Sutra 30 odd years ago did leave an impression then.

Lingam?

Andy or Dave?