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

Monday, May 15, 2017

Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 14 10:21PM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 5:39:31 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> and i saw it months later. and i'm going to buy max a beer at a
> fascist rally in munich this summer.
 
> bob
 
Didn't you and Amy used to argue/debate a lot back then ? Or was that someone else ?
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 14 10:24PM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 4:16:24 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 2:09:03 PM UTC-7, Federer Fanatic wrote:
 
> > When did you last visit him? He's Croatian isn't he?
 
> Really? That's pretty funny.
 
Yes, IIRC, Whisper has Croatian blood in him. Not sure if both his parents are Croatian, though.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 15 08:29PM +1000

On 15/05/2017 12:14 AM, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
>>> You mean for all "intents and purposes." And no, it isn't. Are you sure there are schools in Australia, or is this just a Whisper issue?
 
>> LOL. I just read Whisper's "intensive purposes" post and was just going to correct him until I saw your post.
 
> I suppose you missed 'disingenuine' and 'ease drop'. Are there words like that?
 
You missed a few more.
 
: )
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 15 08:34PM +1000

On 15/05/2017 12:23 AM, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
>>> why all the commotion about grammar courty,
 
>> Because "intensive purposes" is incorrect.
 
> And, more significantly, W writes for posterity.
 
It's funny how angry some people get when they see 'intensive purposes'.
Never fails to get a response.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 15 08:36PM +1000

On 15/05/2017 1:10 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
Most people probably smirk & move on without comment. I like the
emotional responses better.
joh <joshorst@gmail.com>: May 15 12:01AM -0700

Op maandag 15 mei 2017 03:30:02 UTC+2 schreef *skriptis:
 
> In that case it's simple. Remove any slam win other than FO and
> he's pretty much the same player with the same record.
 
> Remove FO and he's toast.
 
As in 'Remove FO and he's Sampras' level' ?
"rec.sport.tennis" <rec.sport.tennis@gmail.com>: May 15 07:11AM

On Sun, 14 May 2017 16:04:26 -0700, Scott wrote:
 
 
> 2001 W 4th round Fed upsets Pete in five thrilling, hard-fought sets.
 
> ****
 
> Which match is most important for Fed's legacy?
 
2003 Wimbledon Semi - soundly beats tournament favorite Roddick -
announces himself as a champion rather than just a player with great
potential
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 15 11:46AM +0300

15.5.2017, 2:04, Scott kirjoitti:
 
> 2001 W 4th round Fed upsets Pete in five thrilling, hard-fought sets.
 
> ****
 
> Which match is most important for Fed's legacy?
 
Don't kid yourself, 2008 Wimbledon final is the only match of relevance.
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: May 15 03:31AM -0700

Op maandag 15 mei 2017 10:46:54 UTC+2 schreef TT:
 
> Don't kid yourself, 2008 Wimbledon final is the only match of relevance.
 
And why is that? Why not, for instance, 2007 Wimbledon final?
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: May 15 03:36AM -0700

Op maandag 15 mei 2017 09:11:33 UTC+2 schreef rec.sport.tennis:
 
> 2003 Wimbledon Semi - soundly beats tournament favorite Roddick -
> announces himself as a champion rather than just a player with great
> potential
 
That was a superb performance and a great legacy match indeed! As to the OP's question: The 2003 Wimbledon final may be the answer as it was his first slam win. His overall dominance, Wimbledon streak and slam record started there.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 15 08:23PM +1000

On 15/05/2017 12:00 AM, RaspingDrive wrote:
>> repeatedly given their 2001 forms. a one-off is a lucky fluke IMO.
>> this wasn't that.
 
> Perhaps we have different interpretations. A 'one-off' according to me is just that -- a single win on which conclusions should not be definitively drawn. Like Federer's FO title is a one-off and that a second title would clear any lingering doubts about his clay prowess. The same reasoning is why a second CGS is important.
 
There are no lingering doubts. He's made 5 FO finals.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 15 08:26PM +1000

On 15/05/2017 12:08 AM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> His motivation had gone down significantly, sure, but he was still
> closer to his peak than Fed was to his. All the relevant objective
> evidence says so.
 
Only if you go by ranking, which imo is a poor way of judging this.
Watching him play it looked like he was in the worst form & shape of his
career, by a long way.
 
When did he look worse than 2001?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 15 08:29PM +1000

On 15/05/2017 12:10 AM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> At this point, it would probably cost Fed around $100 million to dump
> her. IMO, it would be worth it. :)
 
If he wanted to bang younger, hotter chicks it most definitely would be
worth it. You only live once & he'll never go hungry.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 15 08:21PM +1000

On 14/05/2017 11:58 PM, stephenJ wrote:
>> he wins the more he gets off and builds his momentum going into the FO.
 
> Too much risk of injury or getting worn out mentally or physically
> before FO, IMO.
 
Rome is a big title though - should have skipped Madrid.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 15 02:52AM -0700

My wife and I had a baby boy yesterday. Both mom and son are doing well.
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: May 15 05:12AM -0500

On Mon, 15 May 2017 02:52:50 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com> wrote:
| My wife and I had a baby boy yesterday. Both mom and son are doing well.
 
Congrads! Name?
 
FF
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: May 14 09:06PM -0700

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 9:08:55 AM UTC-7, rec.sport.tennis wrote:
> Nadal's playing well but he's not the force he used to be. Djokovic is in
> crisis.
 
Time to pull some positives. Djokovic got broken early again in second set, but was able to even it up 2-2. He also had at least one break chance to get back to 5-5. He was battling. Would love to see them play against this week.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 15 11:50AM +0300

15.5.2017, 3:26, Court_1 kirjoitti:
 
>>> I don't think Thiem seems good enough on clay to beat Nadal in his current form.
 
>> He sure wasn't far off.
 
> How was he not far off? He lost in straights.
 
Obviously you didn't see the match. Thiem had set points in first set
and break back points in set 2 for 5-5.
 
If Rafa would not have been extremely clutch he could have lost easily.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 15 03:06AM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:50:58 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> Obviously you didn't see the match. Thiem had set points in first set
> and break back points in set 2 for 5-5.
 
> If Rafa would not have been extremely clutch he could have lost easily.
 
I saw the match and yes it was close in the first set and Nadal was clutch but Nadal won in straights. Thiem is a mindless, one-dimensional ball-basher who stands so far back he could be in China. Endless hype about Thiem who has won nothing substantial in tennis. I find his tennis boring with a capital "B." People who are hoping this is the next clay court titan will be disappointed. He may win a clay title if Nadal drops dead.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 15 11:48AM +0300

15.5.2017, 3:24, Court_1 kirjoitti:
 
>> Looks like they're currently playing better than Murray and Djokovic,
>> only behind Nadal. I sense a future three way clay rivalry here.
 
> How would it be a three way rivalry between Nadal, Thiem and Goffin if Thiem and Goffin can't ever beat Nadal and Nadal has defeated them all in straights in every match at the clay tune-ups? *rolls eyes*
 
Thiem has beaten Nadal.
 
It's called Federer-Nadal rivalry too, despite Federer being unable to
beat Nadal at slams between 2007 Wimbledon and 2017 AO...
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 15 11:48AM +0300

15.5.2017, 11:48, TT kirjoitti:
>> Thiem and Goffin can't ever beat Nadal and Nadal has defeated them all
>> in straights in every match at the clay tune-ups? *rolls eyes*
 
> Thiem has beaten Nadal.
 
On clay.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 15 02:00AM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6:48:27 PM UTC+10, TT wrote:
 
> Thiem has beaten Nadal.
 
> It's called Federer-Nadal rivalry too, despite Federer being unable to
> beat Nadal at slams between 2007 Wimbledon and 2017 AO...
 
Federer played Nadal in a lot of slam finals. Has Thiem and Goffin even contested a slam final ?
RzR <2r4z0r2@gmail.com>: May 15 11:21AM +0200

On 5/15/2017 10:48 AM, TT wrote:
 
> Thiem has beaten Nadal.
 
> It's called Federer-Nadal rivalry too, despite Federer being unable to
> beat Nadal at slams between 2007 Wimbledon and 2017 AO...
 
how stupid are you?
 
nadal hasnt been able to beat fedex since 2014
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 15 02:59AM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 4:48:27 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> > How would it be a three way rivalry between Nadal, Thiem and Goffin if Thiem and Goffin can't ever beat Nadal and Nadal has defeated them all in straights in every match at the clay tune-ups? *rolls eyes*
 
> Thiem has beaten Nadal.
 
In Buenos Aires in 2016 when Nadal's form was way off.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 15 11:52AM +0300

15.5.2017, 3:56, bob kirjoitti:
> it. his legacy is on the line, and he's not ducked any other clay
> tourneys this year.
 
> bob
 
He'll play Rome, said so after the Madrid win.
 
It's stupid and greedy but what can you do but just hope he doesn't
injure himself again.
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