Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Bharath Purohit <acebharath@gmail.com>: May 13 12:13AM -0700

ROME MASTERS 2017 draw analysis
 
Potential opponents:
 
[1] Andy Murray
 
1R - Bye
2R - Fabio Fognini
3R - Alex Zverev
QF - Tomas Berdych/Milos Raonic
SF - Stan Wawrinka/David Goffin
F - Rafa Nadal/Novak Djokovic
 
Verdict: Tough, tough draw. Murray has been in bad form this year and this draw is not kind on his struggles. Fognini is one of the hardest players to draw in your first match at a clay tournament. Sascha Zverev right after is even harder. Then a quarterfinal which should not be too hard. A semi against an in-form Goffin or a possibly-resurgent Wawrinka will be difficult for Andy in his present condition, and if he makes it all the way to the final, it will most likely be either Nadal or Djokovic in his way.
 
[2] Novak Djokovic
 
1R - Bye
2R - Gianluca Mager
3R - Nick Kyrgios/Gilles Simon
QF - Kei Nishikori/Juan Martin del Potro
SF - Rafa Nadal
F - Andy Murray/David Goffin
 
Verdict: Moderate draw. Novak should have no problems in the second round, but the third round will feature players that have either beaten him already this year or have come very close to beating him. While Kyrgios is not the biggest threat on clay, Simon can be devastating on the surface, and had a deciding set lead against Novak in their Monte Carlo meeting last month. The quarter could be yet another walkover from Nishikori, or perhaps del Potro, who has also given Djokovic problems recently. The semi could be a rematch against Rafa, and if he gets through, a final against Goffin, Wawrinka or Andy is plausible.
 
[4] Rafa Nadal
 
1R - Bye
2R - Andreas Seppi
3R - Diego Schwartzman
QF - Dominic Thiem
SF - Novak Djokovic
F - David Goffin/Andy Murray
 
Verdict: Easy draw. This is not the easiest draw in the world, but in Rafa's current form, it looks like it won't be much trouble. Rafa has a straightforward route to the quarters. Neither Seppi nor Schwartzman are truly capable of beating him on clay, even if they can trouble him. Thiem in the quarters could be a challenge, with Thiem having beaten Rafa on clay before. However, Rafa crushed him in their most recent meeting, the Barcelona final from last month. A semi against Novak beckons, and if Rafa can get through that, the final doesn't seem too hard, against guys he is very comfortable playing on clay.
 
[3] Stan Wawrinka
 
1R - Bye
2R - Benoit Paire
3R - Albert Ramos-Vinolas
QF - David Goffin/Marin Cilic
SF - Andy Murray
F - Rafa Nadal/Novak Djokovic
 
Verdict: Hard draw. Poor Stan's bad luck continues with a miserable draw. First up is Paire, who just beat him in Madrid. Right after is Monte Carlo finalist Ramos-Vinolas, who is having a great run this clay season. If he gets through them he has to face Goffin, another guy in great form. After all those struggles, a semi against the World No. 1 and a final against either the King of Clay or the World No. 2... poor, poor Stan.
 
POTENTIAL INTERESTING MATCHES:
 
1R:
Tomas Berdych v/s Mischa Zverev
Ivo Karlovic v/s Tommy Haas (oldest ATP match since 1982)
David Ferrer v/s Feliciano Lopez
Juan Martin del Potro v/s Grigor Dimitrov
Nick Kyrgios v/s Roberto Bautista-Agut
 
2R:
Andy Murray v/s Fabio Fognini
Milos Raonic v/s Tommy Haas
Stan Wawrinka v/s Benoit Paire
David Goffin v/s Fernando Verdasco
Dominic Thiem v/s Pablo Cuevas
Kei Nishikori v/s David Ferrer
Gilles Simon v/s Nick Kyrgios
 
3R:
Andy Murray v/s Alex Zverev
Milos Raonic v/s Tomas Berdych
David Goffin v/s Marin Cilic
Dominic Thiem v/s Lucas Pouille
Kei Nishikori v/s Juan Martin del Potro
Novak Djokovic v/s Nick Kyrgios
 
PREDICTIONS:
 
QF:
Alex Zverev v/s Milos Raonic
Stan Wawrinka v/s David Goffin
Dominic Thiem v/s Rafa Nadal
Juan Martin del Potro v/s Novak Djokovic
 
SF:
Alex Zverev v/s David Goffin
Rafa Nadal v/s Novak Djokovic
 
F:
David Goffin v/s Rafa Nadal
 
W: Rafa Nadal
 
By Troll Tennis.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 13 02:26AM -0700

On Saturday, 13 May 2017 08:13:20 UTC+1, Bharath Purohit wrote:
> David Goffin v/s Rafa Nadal
 
> W: Rafa Nadal
 
> By Troll Tennis.
 
Murray's draw is fairly easy after Fabio, but that won't matter, it's down to him and whether he can be bothered playing.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 13 01:35PM +0300

13.5.2017, 10:13, Bharath Purohit kirjoitti:
> ROME MASTERS 2017 draw analysis
 
Thanks
 
 
> [1] Andy Murray
 
> 1R - Bye
> 2R - Fabio Fognini
 
Fogs has had pretty unlucky draws this clay season.
 
> SF - Stan Wawrinka/David Goffin
> F - Rafa Nadal/Novak Djokovic
 
> Verdict: Tough, tough draw. Murray has been in bad form this year and this draw is not kind on his struggles. Fognini is one of the hardest players to draw in your first match at a clay tournament. Sascha Zverev right after is even harder. Then a quarterfinal which should not be too hard. A semi against an in-form Goffin or a possibly-resurgent Wawrinka will be difficult for Andy in his present condition, and if he makes it all the way to the final, it will most likely be either Nadal or Djokovic in his way.
 
Still, Rafa & Djok are on other side of the draw.
 
> SF - Rafa Nadal
> F - Andy Murray/David Goffin
 
> Verdict: Moderate draw. Novak should have no problems in the second round, but the third round will feature players that have either beaten him already this year or have come very close to beating him. While Kyrgios is not the biggest threat on clay, Simon can be devastating on the surface, and had a deciding set lead against Novak in their Monte Carlo meeting last month. The quarter could be yet another walkover from Nishikori, or perhaps del Potro, who has also given Djokovic problems recently. The semi could be a rematch against Rafa, and if he gets through, a final against Goffin, Wawrinka or Andy is plausible.
 
Simon is expected to play well but not great, as normal. Meanwhile
Kyrgios was slaughtered by Rafa and Nishikori is injured as is probably
Delpo. Should be pretty easy until semis.
 
> SF - Novak Djokovic
> F - David Goffin/Andy Murray
 
> Verdict: Easy draw. This is not the easiest draw in the world, but in Rafa's current form, it looks like it won't be much trouble. Rafa has a straightforward route to the quarters. Neither Seppi nor Schwartzman are truly capable of beating him on clay, even if they can trouble him. Thiem in the quarters could be a challenge, with Thiem having beaten Rafa on clay before. However, Rafa crushed him in their most recent meeting, the Barcelona final from last month. A semi against Novak beckons, and if Rafa can get through that, the final doesn't seem too hard, against guys he is very comfortable playing on clay.
 
Easy early draw but QF+ is tough. Thiem is apparently in excellent form.
 
> SF - Andy Murray
> F - Rafa Nadal/Novak Djokovic
 
> Verdict: Hard draw. Poor Stan's bad luck continues with a miserable draw. First up is Paire, who just beat him in Madrid. Right after is Monte Carlo finalist Ramos-Vinolas, who is having a great run this clay season. If he gets through them he has to face Goffin, another guy in great form. After all those struggles, a semi against the World No. 1 and a final against either the King of Clay or the World No. 2... poor, poor Stan.
 
Not a hard draw at all imo. He's on other side of the Nad/Djok and the
only potential problem should be Goffin... but he doesn't necessarily
play every match as well as he did yesterday.
 
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 12 09:32PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 6:19:34 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:


> One that I thoroughly enjoyed recently was "Feud: Bette and Joan" about the battle between Davis & Crawford during "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane" and beyond.
 
I've heard that it's good.
 
 
>I know that you're not a Sarandon fan,
 
That's an understatement! :)
 
> but try to set that aside and have a look at this eight-parter. Ryan Murphy created something brilliant here with really sharp writing and performances.
 
I may have a peek at it. Although I'm not a big Sarandon fan I do think she's been good in a few things I've seen. Plus, I do like Jessica Lange's work and the story sounds like something I may like.
 
Are they equally good in their roles? Sounds like they will be the darlings at the Emmy awards. There are a lot of other good actors in it as well I believe, i.e. Kathy Bates, Stanley Tucci, etc.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 12 09:58PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 6:40:43 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> As for me, I've been watching a shitload films...
 
Color me shocked! :)
 
> too long a list to
> even start..
 
What were the best ones?
 
The only films I've watched in the past couple of months were the biopic The Founder(2016) and the horror/thriller Get Out (2017.) Both were entertaining enough.
 
> and enjoy rest of the clay season and Trump presidency with us. ;)
 
> If Raja reads this post, I have to mention that you were right: AUTUMN
> SONATA is indeed a brilliant film.
 
Which classics did you watch?
 
I have to watch some Ingmar Bergman films. I don't think I've ever seen a Bergman film the whole way through but just parts I've caught on tv over the years. They are probably films/stories I would be attracted to.
 
I don't think I've seen any John Cassavetes directed films either. I've seen a film directed by John's daughter Alexandra Cassavetes called Kiss of the Damned. It was a vampire movie and it was actually not bad. And of course John's son Nick Cassavetes directed the one and only The Notebook! Who doesn't like that movie? Come on, admit it! :) He also did My Sister's Keeper which wasn't terrible. I've seen a lot worse. Oh, I also saw The Other Woman which he directed and that was awful.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 12 10:05PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 7:41:06 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> I'm a little worried about the clay season with Rafa in form. Trying to brace myself for the possibility of him getting another slam--albeit the grinder one. ;)
 
What if Federer steals the show instead at the FO? Can you imagine if that unlikely possibility occurs? But I agree with you that it looks like this clay season will be the Nadal Show. I figured you would stay hidden and off RST until Wimbledon! :)
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 12 10:33PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:32:43 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > but try to set that aside and have a look at this eight-parter. Ryan Murphy created something brilliant here with really sharp writing and performances.
 
> I may have a peek at it. Although I'm not a big Sarandon fan I do think she's been good in a few things I've seen. Plus, I do like Jessica Lange's work and the story sounds like something I may like.
 
> Are they equally good in their roles? Sounds like they will be the darlings at the Emmy awards. There are a lot of other good actors in it as well I believe, i.e. Kathy Bates, Stanley Tucci, etc.
 
Sarandon's big eyes give her a head start. I've heard that when Bette Davis was still alive, she thought Sarandon would be a good choice to play a younger version of her. I was less convinced by Lange initially, but she hit her stride as the series went on and both of them capture the essence of the stars while wisely avoiding flat out imitation. Plus it helps that the writing is so damn good and it's very well-researched. Sometimes I wondered, "Would Davis/Crawford really have done that?" But whenever I checked, usually they did! It's a blast, and yeah, the supporting actors are excellent too--especially Tucci, Judy Davis, and Alfred Molina. If I had known Murphy could make something this good, I would have watched the O.J. Simpson thing you recommended. Even while watching "Feud," I thought it was something you'd appreciate. Make sure to watch at least two eps before deciding how you feel, because a lot of ep 1 is set-up. It's still a very good ep, but the rest IMO are great.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 12 10:41PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:58:57 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> I don't think I've seen any John Cassavetes directed films either.
 
I liked the original "Gloria" (1980). Not to be confused with the horrible remake starring Sharon Stone.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 12 10:50PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 10:05:07 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 7:41:06 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > I'm a little worried about the clay season with Rafa in form. Trying to brace myself for the possibility of him getting another slam--albeit the grinder one. ;)
 
> What if Federer steals the show instead at the FO? Can you imagine if that unlikely possibility occurs? But I agree with you that it looks like this clay season will be the Nadal Show. I figured you would stay hidden and off RST until Wimbledon! :)
 
Well there's still ample time to duck out. ;) My attention is very divided on various things this year, and I usually don't spend much time here during the FO anyway. It's always been my least favorite slam, well before Nadal even entered the scene. Although I'm thrilled with Federer's AO and other recent wins over Nadal, I seriously don't see him taking 3-of-5 from the howler monkey on red clay. Seems like too much to hope for.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 13 02:31AM -0700

On Friday, 12 May 2017 21:45:14 UTC+1, Court_1 wrote:
 
> A person goes overboard if you idolize the person she is going overboard about? Is that how it works? What about Freedom of Speech? If you don't like what Bouchard has to say, turn the volume off on your tv or don't read about it (you don't read the news it seems anyway as you didn't know that pregnant Serena had recaptured #1.)
 
> So what if Bouchard advocates a lifetime ban for Sharapova? I say that as somebody who actually likes Sharapova. I certainly respect what Sharapova has achieved in the game a lot more than what Bouchard has achieved.
 
> There are plenty of WTA players complaining about Sharapova and her return to the game, her getting wildcards, etc. but the difference is nobody cares what those women have to say whereas Bouchard because of her looks has a bigger audience. People like the catfight between two attractive women.
 
like skrip said, nobody minds other players moaning/disagreeing about Sharapova being given wildcards, that's fair enough, but Bouchard turned it into some personal tirade, even lying about other players looking up to her. It obs just feminine rivalry cos she's envious of Sharapova's popularity and success. They're both competing to be hottest on tour!
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 13 01:16PM +0300

13.5.2017, 7:58, Court_1 kirjoitti:
 
> Color me shocked! :)
 
>> too long a list to even start..
 
> What were the best ones?
 
The above mentioned Autumn Sonata, The Silence. Also previously
mentioned Donnie Brasco, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Shoeshine and
Excalibur. Plus Dr Zhivago, On Golden Pond and The Shootist. The last
one is John Wayne's last film and something Gracchus would surely like.
 
Also have watched a few important short films and these two animations
were the best:
 
Hedgehog in the Fog (1975) - 9/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW0jvJC2rvM
 
The Old Mill (1937) - 10/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYEmL0d0lZE
 
-
 
Of more recent 'classics', didn't like Rushmore (1998) or Lincoln
(2012). Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) is rather good in its own
trippy way... sort of like doing drugs without actually doing drugs
yourself.
 
 
> The only films I've watched in the past couple of months were the
> biopic The Founder(2016) and the horror/thriller Get Out (2017.) Both
> were entertaining enough.
 
Ok
 
> seen a Bergman film the whole way through but just parts I've caught
> on tv over the years. They are probably films/stories I would be
> attracted to.
 
I think good place to start would be Autumn Sonata or Virgin Spring.
'Sommaren med Monica' (Summer with Monica) is also pretty good and
accessible.
 
> it! :) He also did My Sister's Keeper which wasn't terrible. I've
> seen a lot worse. Oh, I also saw The Other Woman which he directed
> and that was awful.
 
Cassavetes is an odd case. Not a real professional director who knows
his craft while his films often are quite 'avant garde' aka rather
experimental cinema and not something I would recommend. Also couple
noticeable features in his films seem to be the meandering nature; long
scenes which don't advance the plot a bit - and endings which don't
bring solution, sort of leaves it hanging.
 
Imo Cassavetes films worth watching are 'Woman under the influence' and
'Killing of the chinese bookie', the first one for everyone and the
latter for men who like 70s cinema. Also 'Gloria' which I saw long back
and recall liking it.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 13 01:26PM +0300

13.5.2017, 8:33, Gracchus kirjoitti:
 
>> I may have a peek at it. Although I'm not a big Sarandon fan I do think she's been good in a few things I've seen. Plus, I do like Jessica Lange's work and the story sounds like something I may like.
 
>> Are they equally good in their roles? Sounds like they will be the darlings at the Emmy awards. There are a lot of other good actors in it as well I believe, i.e. Kathy Bates, Stanley Tucci, etc.
 
> Sarandon's big eyes give her a head start. I've heard that when Bette Davis was still alive, she thought Sarandon would be a good choice to play a younger version of her. I was less convinced by Lange initially, but she hit her stride as the series went on and both of them capture the essence of the stars while wisely avoiding flat out imitation. Plus it helps that the writing is so damn good and it's very well-researched. Sometimes I wondered, "Would Davis/Crawford really have done that?" But whenever I checked, usually they did! It's a blast, and yeah, the supporting actors are excellent too--especially Tucci, Judy Davis, and Alfred Molina. If I had known Murphy could make something this good, I would have watched the O.J. Simpson thing you recommended. Even while watching "Feud," I thought it was something you'd appreciate. Make sure to watch at least two eps before deciding how you feel, because a lot of ep 1 is set-up. It's still a very good ep, but the rest IMO are great.
 
Speaking of Sarandon, watched finally 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' where
she's semi-nude lots of the time. Best part of the film.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 12 10:12PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 10:55:26 PM UTC-4, RaspingDrive wrote:
 

> 'out of sorts' Djok should pose no problem for a rampaging Nadal.
 
Those are my thoughts.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 13 01:23PM +0300

13.5.2017, 8:12, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 10:55:26 PM UTC-4, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
>> 'out of sorts' Djok should pose no problem for a rampaging Nadal.
 
> Those are my thoughts.
 
Djoko is a bad matchup and his demise is exaggerated I feel. So he could
pose a problem in BO3 high altitude.
 
But yes Rafa is in better form and I also like his recent out-wide serve
on deuce court which should be very effective against Djokovic. Rafa is
the favourite but not a foregone conclusion I think... Rafa should win
IF he's playing as well and being as mentally strong as he has recently
been.
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: May 12 10:49PM -0700

> With Federer playing a very limited schedule (wisely so for the almost 36 YO body), and Nadal's impressive form so far this year, I think Nadal has a better chance of becoming No.1 again compared to Murray/Djokovic/Federer. It is almost guaranteed that he will have a massive lead in the ATP points race by the end of FO, and he has nothing to defend in Wimbledon. All he needs to do is perform decently (equivalent to what he had done in the early hard court season), and he is almost guaranteed to end the year with #1.
 
This is not a given. Despite getting probably the best start to 2017, he is
still at #5. His max point total from the clay season is 5500 and that's
probably not enough to get to #1. He generally wins everything between
April & June and nothing in the remainder of the year.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 13 02:27AM -0700

On Saturday, 13 May 2017 05:15:10 UTC+1, John Liang wrote:
> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 3:55:53 AM UTC+10, fymido...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > With Federer playing a very limited schedule (wisely so for the almost 36 YO body), and Nadal's impressive form so far this year, I think Nadal has a better chance of becoming No.1 again compared to Murray/Djokovic/Federer. It is almost guaranteed that he will have a massive lead in the ATP points race by the end of FO, and he has nothing to defend in Wimbledon. All he needs to do is perform decently (equivalent to what he had done in the early hard court season), and he is almost guaranteed to end the year with #1.
 
> The French Open is what will make or break for Nadal. Even in some of the years when he won FO in the last few years he did not do well at W and USO.
 
yeah! you always said he couldn't ever scientifically possibly win the USO!
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 13 10:48AM +0300

On 13.5.2017 2:48, bob wrote:
 
> https://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY16/Approp%20History%20by%20IC%20FY%202000%20-%20FY%202016.pdf
 
> from 09-2016 NIH budget went from 30.5-32.3 bil. 5.9% increase.
> from 09-2016 GDP went from 14.4-18.5 tril. 28.4% increase.
 
NIH/GDP = 2.12 in 2009. 1.75 in 2016. (2.12-1.75)/2.12 amounts to a 17%
decrease in NIH/GDP. Still not over 25% or even close to the 40%.
 
Trump proposed a 5.8B cut. 3 more years of the that, and you would not
have a NIH. Kimmel might be tacky, but is 100% right: Whoever pulls
Trump's strings is the real menace.
 
So where did you pick the 40% up from?
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 13 02:22AM -0700

On Saturday, 13 May 2017 08:48:33 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> have a NIH. Kimmel might be tacky, but is 100% right: Whoever pulls
> Trump's strings is the real menace.
 
> So where did you pick the 40% up from?
 
you're just still bitter cos Trump won and your Saudi-Wall-St-backed side lost. It clear you don't mind Obama decreasing the NIH budget, yet whinge when Trump follows the trend. It's clear you REALLY don't care one single bit about Healthcare, it pretty weird, you also voted Remoan, which again is what all the huge corp business, greedy $$$ banks wanted, are you a corporate shill or something?
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 13 02:22AM -0700

> > >sermons on how to be honest and even-handed WRT the newsfeeds:
 
> > it's on the NIH website. wake up.
 
> If you actually wanted to educate, you wouldn't be so condescending - you would just point directly to something that confirms your claim.
 
I like educating everyone that your parents always voted Democrat and that's the only reason you do.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 13 01:37AM -0700

LOL
 
http://www.cityam.com/264389/canadian-pension-fund-psp-boss-andre-bourbonnais-weve
 
Canadian pension fund PSP boss Andre Bourbonnais: We've picked London as our base as it'll be Europe's financial heartland after Brexit
 
One of Canada's largest pension fund managers has picked London as its new European headquarters, insisting the UK capital "is and will remain the financial centre of Europe".
 
The Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP), which serves the Royal Canadian Mounted Police alongside other civil servants and boasts C$125.8bn (£70.7bn) of assets under management, will today launch a hub in Victoria. PSP said the move signals the fund's "commitment to Europe".
 
The president and chief executive of PSP Andre Bourbonnais told City A.M.: "There is a strong conviction within the senior management team and the board that London is and will remain the financial centre of Europe.
 
We're all aware of the possible implications of Brexit. But in our mind with the talent that is here and the fact that London has been the financial centre of Europe for decades, we are committed to it and we think it is the best place for us.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 13 05:30PM +1000

On 13/05/2017 3:10 AM, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
> Gracchus was not mistaken.
 
Depends what you mean by mistaken. If mistaken = correct then you're right.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 13 06:21PM +1000

On 13/05/2017 3:17 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> Gracchus was not mistaken.
 
> Perhaps FF should have checked definitions of both words before saying that I was. A person may cower, but not be "cowered by" someone else.
 
Are you gainfully employed?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 13 06:31PM +1000

On 13/05/2017 3:17 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> Gracchus was not mistaken.
 
> Perhaps FF should have checked definitions of both words before saying that I was. A person may cower, but not be "cowered by" someone else.
 
For all intensive purposes it's the same thing.
"rec.sport.tennis" <rec.sport.tennis@gmail.com>: May 13 08:07AM

Win or narrow defeat and you think the old Djokovic is on the way back
 
easy win for Nadal and Joker's got lot of work to do to win slams again
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: May 13 09:04AM +0100

On 12/05/2017 00:11, bob wrote:
 
> he got confirmed a supreme court justice.
 
How did he do that exactly? I'm suggesting he had very little to
do with Gorsuch's confirmation.
 
and obamacare is on the way
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment