Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 8 topics

Monday, May 8, 2017

"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: May 08 08:19PM +0300

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_TLSbjW0AAd0de.jpg
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
calimero377@gmx.de: May 08 10:58AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 7:19:35 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> --
> "Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
> -- Charles Cooke
 
 
Many Brits are deluded, thinking the UK is still a world power. Good luck outside of the EU!
 
Max
calimero377@gmx.de: May 08 08:48AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 11:15:26 AM UTC+2, TT wrote:
> election while not saying a word about investigation on Trump&Russia. As
> partisan as it gets and his defence on the matter in front of a
> committee a week ago was just laughable and disingenuous.
 
Comey had promised to the Senate (who were furious about him letting Hillary skate) that he would inform them if new information came up warranting a reopening of investigations. Which he duly did when until then unknown Hillary e-mails popped up on this Dem perv's computer. Should he have buried that information? What if Hillary had been elected and then a crime had been revealed?
 
Reveal a FBI investigation by the Obama administration against the Trumpers just before the election? You think that would have helped your precious Hilly? I mean, really ... ?
 
Max
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 08 10:56AM -0700

Don't forget there's an important investigation about how elite Russian haxors hacked election machines and fixes the election despite Jill Stein's recount and Hillary getting the popular vote and CIA hackers pretending to be Russian Ha ha hahahahahahaha!
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: May 08 08:19PM +0300

Monocle: You are a product of France's elite education system and on the
rise despite an anti-elite populist wave. How do you explain that?
Emmanuel Macron: I owe a great deal to the French meritocratic system –
I support it. I want to recreate social and economic mobility. I
denounce the rules of a system that has closed in on itself and which
today has created unhappiness in our societies. There is a crisis of the
middle classes. In western societies, due to the globalisation of
capitalism, the "1 per cent" – the richest – have profited enormously.
The middle classes of emerging nations have as well but the middle
classes of western countries have not. The transformation of global
capitalism, which we are going through, is threatening our democracy. I
am all for denouncing the current political system but I try to do so
with rational arguments and by discussing facts, while at the same time
making dynamic propositions.
 
M: When viewed from abroad, France's inability to cut its 10 per cent
unemployment rate seems incomprehensible.
EM: We have a system which aims at an economy of recovery, not an
economy of innovation. In fact we are the single largest European
country today not to have solved the problem of mass unemployment. We
need a system similar to those of Germany and Scandinavian countries. In
France we haven't been able to reach the kind of social compromise
needed to create the English-speaking world's model, which tolerates
much more inequality.
 
M: In France it seems that the level of attachment to the EU has
increased and yet the crisis within the EU is worsening.
EM: We should not leave criticism of Europe to the anti-Europeans. The
pro-Europeans must criticise Europe in order to improve it. We have to
explain what Europe is protecting itself from. Confronted with
migration, terrorism, digitalisation, the challenge of climate change
and energy transition, Europe offers the right level of sovereignty. We
must persuade the people of Europe of this evidence.
 
M: But why has the EU thus far failed to create real links between
Europeans?
EM: Our political leaders have watered down the EU a lot – they have let
Europe become bureaucratic. Since the middle of the 1990s, our national
politicians have no longer wanted strong leaders in Brussels. Much
weaker leaders were appointed, with no vision and less legitimacy.
 
M: Let's talk about Brexit. What is the best response to the UK when it
comes to negotiations?
EM: I am a hard Brexiter. I think that Europe has made a mistake
negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the "special status" deal
David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a
precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to
its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go
along with it, which was a big mistake.
 
Britain must understand that our interest in the medium to long term is
to have clear rules. So if Britain wants to trade with Europe it has to
choose a model, such as the Swiss, Norwegian or Canadian. We have to
accept that there are losses. But it's the British who will lose the
most. You cannot enjoy rights in Europe if you are not a member –
otherwise it will fall apart. Europe is what has enabled us since 1945,
in an unprecedented way, to preserve peace, security, freedom and
prosperity in our continent. The British are making a serious mistake
over the long term. [Foreign secretary] Boris Johnson enjoys giving
flamboyant speeches but has no strategic vision; the turmoil he created
the day after Brexit proves it. [Former leader of Ukip] Nigel Farage and
Mr Johnson are responsible for this crime: they sailed the ship into
battle and jumped overboard at the moment of crisis. Theresa May has
handled it but what has been happening since then? On the geopolitical
level as well as on the financial, realignment and submission to the US.
What is going to happen is not "taking back control": it's servitude.
 
M: Following the election of Donald Trump, is Europe and the US still
united?
EM: I believe in the western bloc. I think that today, in terms of
security and economy, we need it even more. We have geopolitical
instability in our neighbourhood, in the Middle East and also in parts
of Africa, where there is more religious radicalisation and terrorism.
On the economic level, a recomposition of the world is taking place:
China is reorganising itself, the Silk Road is being rebuilt. Then there
is entrepreneurial Africa, which will profoundly shake up the world in
the next 20 years.
 
So we need a coherent, converging western block. But we are witnessing
the end of a model: the American disengagement from the Middle East, the
weakening of the Bretton Woods institutions. So the question that must
be asked of Mr Trump is, "Do you want to rebuild the model of
contemporary regulation with us or without us?"
 
M: Has France's role in the world changed in recent years?
EM: For the past 10 years, French foreign policy has swayed away from
its tradition. Opting for more interventionism it has abandoned the
policy of equilibrium, on which its credibility is founded. From 2007
onwards we entered a phase, much encouraged by Washington, where France
opted for more interference, destabilising states such as Libya and
Syria. France has to hold to its values – I'm not in favour of
flattering Bashar al-Assad or Vladimir Putin. We have to reassert our
diplomatic tradition, which also means updating and building up a
European diplomacy. France has a special part to play, not least because
building a common diplomatic and defence policy with 27 members states
will be difficult.
 
M: What role can France play with Germany on the global stage?
EM: Paris and Berlin have to reinforce a much stronger partnership that
is in line with our common interests. Angela Merkel is well aware of the
current dangers and challenges. Germany is becoming a great military
power again. Two per cent of its GDP will be spent on defence – more
than France, which hasn't happened since 1945. Burdened by its history,
Germany cannot handle this alone. France is not strong enough
economically to play the role it once had at international level. Paris
must reinforce an independent diplomacy and at the same time build new
areas of discussion and co-operation with Berlin.
 
M: Should Europe be doing more for refugees?
EM: These are people who risk their lives, people who are fighting for
freedom and they symbolise our values. We must welcome them – it's a
political and moral duty. If not, what becomes of our political ideals?
Why are we fighting against Isis? In the end we're fighting because we
have different notions of freedom and emancipation. We're fighting
because we don't have the same relationship with culture. We're fighting
because our vision of humanity is not the same. If we internalise a part
of their aggression by saying, "I'm scared of the other person; this
Syrian looks like a terrorist and so I'm not going to allow him to
integrate," our defeat has begun.
 
https://monocle.com/magazine/issues/101/eyes-on-the-elysee/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=6fdf84d7f2-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-6fdf84d7f2-189735345
 
Congrats France.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 08 08:41AM -0500

On 5/7/2017 7:10 PM, bob wrote:
> repeal obamacare. i'd say it's a victory for anyone who would like
> obamacare repealed, no doubt. whether it's in the books yet, or not,
> doesn't mean it's not a victory and step in the right direction.
 
 
Amazing that 'jdeluise' was never able to grasp that, even though we all
know it's not in the books yet.
 
I chalk it up to deep denial over the fact of Trump's presidency?
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 08 08:47AM -0500

On 5/7/2017 7:16 PM, bob wrote:
> couple decades to periodically go into a casino and either play for
> hours losing very little, or actually win maybe once in a blue moon.
> but great fun!
 
That's the best way to handle gambling - view the rolls of the dice or
spins of the wheel as entertainment, and you are paying to be
entertained. Then the "loss" of money is fine, as long as it fits your
budget.
 
I feel bad for this professor and her partner (?), but no way do they
deserve a cent back from her losses, that is 100% on her. Heck, if they
refund her money how do they avoid doing so for everyone else who lost
at their casino the past three years? She enjoyed the ride of gambling
(and she sure wasn't going to give any money back had she won, LOL) and
now wants a bailout. Sad.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 08 08:51AM -0500

On 5/7/2017 7:17 PM, bob wrote:
> ass off. you chumped that woman in the worst way and she hadn't a
> clue!
 
> herb and rich have blocked me i believe - and i'm happier that way.
 
Yes, i get nothing from them these days either though we're still
'friends' too. Funny, because while I was extremely disappointed by
Obama's election (twice!) i never threw tantrums and cut people off.
 
Rich i can take or leave, i just know him from a college football forum,
but Herb and i grew up together, I met him as a 3rd grader in 1973 and
we were friends/classmates through high school. Worry about him too
because he seems very troubled.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: May 08 07:07AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 9:51:41 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
Rich and Herb, who????
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 08 06:02PM +0300

On 8.5.2017 17:07, Guypers wrote:
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
> Rich and Herb, who????
 
If the coherence of Jaros posts as of late is anything to go by, they're
things you put in your pipe.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: May 08 04:05PM

On Sun, 07 May 2017 20:10:46 -0400, bob wrote:
 
> obamacare repealed, no doubt. whether it's in the books yet, or not,
> doesn't mean it's not a victory and step in the right direction.
 
> bob
 
He wrote 'Trump is getting everything he said he would done'... so far
he's spent tens of millions on travel expenses on your dime so he can
consume entire weekends on the golf course while his most prominent
executive orders are shot down... Obamacare isn't repealed/replaced, no
wall in sight, the "swamp" is filled with billionaire goldman sachs
types, etc. I know it's hard to face the facts, but you picked a dud.
 
 
< cue "but Hillary" replies >
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 08 09:22AM -0700

Yes must be very embarrassing that you voted Remoan and jd voted and campaigned for Hillary! Lol
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 08 09:25AM -0700

Hillary lost, Trump, it been over 100 days now, just get over it!
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: May 08 04:32PM

On Mon, 08 May 2017 09:25:09 -0700, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> Hillary lost, Trump, it been over 100 days now, just get over it!
 
Seems the only people who can't get over it are part of the Trump mob...?
heyguys00@gmail.com: May 08 09:58AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:05:59 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
> wall in sight, the "swamp" is filled with billionaire goldman sachs
> types, etc. I know it's hard to face the facts, but you picked a dud.
 
> < cue "but Hillary" replies >
 
Trump is getting done exactly what he wants to get done, which is make money for himself. Every visit to one of his properties makes him money. He's playing nice with every country where he has deals pending. That's his priority. He'll also help Rs pass some of their priorities (especially if it undoes some of Obama's legacy), basically in exchange for them looking the other way and not investigating any of it.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 08 09:36AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 2:06:26 AM UTC-7, RaspingDrive wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 1:17:07 AM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> > There is never going to be a consensus on this. My question about this is not so much on the probability of having 3 of the greatest champions (in terms of slam counts) in one era, but on the probability of having all three of them being career slammers. That is something, IMO, that has been influenced by other factors than just the talent of those 3 champions.
 
> If three high achievers is possible, the CGS is not far behind. Each achiever wants to emulate and transcend the other. They work very hard, are very focused, and leave nothing to chance. Federer kept knocking on the door until Nadal relented and had the exquisite talent to capitalize on the WoO at its first availability. Nadal did the same and in fact went one up to upset Federer on grass and HC. Who will grudge him his wins against a strong GOAT contender, even if bob and his ilk object (the last added for rhetorical effect he he)? Djok kept knocking until Nadal relented and then had to wait for a while more to get his CGS. Their work ethic is arguably second to none.
 
I disagree. It's one thing to like Fed or any other player from this generation, but it's another thing to not look at all the variables that have changed over the past 15 years. Have surfaces changed ? Yes, they have. Have racquets/strings changed ? Yes, they have. Have playing styles changed as a consequence of the previous two developments ? Yes, they have. So how can we not question the premise as to what would've happened if these factors had not changed ?
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 08 09:26AM -0700

Yeah What are the players that make a good living by being paid-off by him going to do?
calimero377@gmx.de: May 08 09:28AM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 11:38:09 PM UTC+2, Scott wrote:
> I shudder to think what the ATP tour will be like, sans Roger.
 
> It will be one big server against another, both competing with snowshoes.
 
 
It will be almost as bad as the WTA became when Graf retired.
 
 
Max
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 08 08:39AM -0500

On 5/7/2017 7:06 PM, bob wrote:
>> been alive. So I doubt it's happening this year.
 
> not to mention noah was a natural s/v player, federer is not even
> though he has a very good serve.
 
Noah's performance at the 83 FO left me and many others at the time
scratching our heads as time went by as to why he could never do it
again. He exhibited tremendous S/V skills and athleticism at that event.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 08 08:20AM -0500

On 5/7/2017 7:20 PM, bob wrote:
 
>> What I think you overlook is that unlike Fed or Joker, Rafa was never,
>> even between 08-14, an all-time titan anywhere but on clay.
 
> but he had a couple yrs he dominated everywhere, even HC.
 
He never dominated off of clay for any length of time we couldn't write
off to fluke conditions. Even in summer 2008 he was thrashed soundly by
Murray at USO semis. So it makes little sense to expect dominance from
him off clay, especially vs guys like Fed and Joker who have dominated
off clay.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 08 08:22AM -0500

On 5/8/2017 5:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> clearly that he was still closer to his peak than Fed was to his.
 
> Fed was winning titles in 2001 so was closer to his peak than Sampras,
> who couldn't win a chook raffle for 2 yrs.
 
The rankings tell us far more than who was winning tuneup titles.
Sampras was ranked ahead of Fed the entire year. That sums it up.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 08 08:24AM -0500

On 5/7/2017 7:24 PM, bob wrote:
>> peak than Fed was to his. Every indicator says so.
 
> pete was closer to his peak in time, not form. one was on the way up,
> the other on the way down in a lagging system.
 
I accounted for the lag in the previous post - it actually favored
Sampras, not Federer. No getting around it: Pete was closer to his peak
than Fed was to his.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 08 08:28AM -0500

On 5/7/2017 7:28 PM, bob wrote:
> that made him that force for the 2 weeks at slams over a 10yr period.
> he just showed up, more or less. at least compared to what he did the
> previous 10 years.
 
I agree that Sampras's general lack of motivation rubbed off to his
daily training, which then contributed to a decline in skill (see Bastl,
2002 among other results). That's why he wasn't at his peak (which is a
combination of desire/effort and skill) when he lost to Fed.
 
But, as indicated elsewhere, he was clearly still closer to his peak at
their 01 W match than Fed was to his.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 08 08:35AM -0500

On 5/8/2017 5:13 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> finals playing lights out tennis there.
 
> It may have looked like 'lights out' tennis to newbies, but the reality
> is 'lights out' Sampras should be able to win a tune-up somewhere in 2 yrs.
 
You can't save this argument by pushing the tuneup angle. Sampras never
valued tuneups, and slam results are far more indicative. Serena has won
one tuneup during the past 21 months, and zero off of clay, but has won
W and AO during that time.
 
The rankings do a much better job of capturing overall form, and Sampras
was ranked ahead of Fed all of 2001, start to finish.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 08 08:36AM -0500

On 5/7/2017 7:29 PM, bob wrote:
 
>> Tom Brady is probably exhibit A, B, and C in that regard. :)
 
> i saw brady and fed all chummy at the met gala last week btw. damn,
> that hurt. :-) fed said brady had potential as a doubs partner!
 
Brady probably asked him why he ended up stuck with Mirka. :)
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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