Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: May 14 06:14AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:51:30 AM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
> > >before Fed reached his first slam final.
 
> > bob
 
> What else is new ? he either did not train hard enough or he was half assed.
 
No, stimpy realized that he was playing a more talented player, similar to connors playing Borg, or Hoad playing Laver!!
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 14 07:00AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:07:07 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> neither were at their peak. the result was probably expected to happen
> 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.
 
 
 
> > And I am serious about my statement. You need to read posts carefully. You say in one post you can't make up your mind, yet you say soon in another post something else. And then, you have started imagining things up recently as well.
 
> cite it if you wish. my opinions on sampras from 2000-spring 2002
> haven't changed in 15 yrs.
 
I did!
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 09:08AM -0500

On 5/14/2017 7:10 AM, bob wrote:
 
>> Remember, concerning form, motivation isn't the totality of it. Form is
>> a function of motivation x skill.
 
> 0 x anything = 0.
 
Obviously, Sampras was still motivated in a non-trivial way after W
2000. He wouldn't have kept playing if he wasn't.
 
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.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 09:10AM -0500

On 5/14/2017 7:12 AM, bob wrote:
>> that happen, LOL.
 
> i saw pics of a young mirka, she was attractive. but really let
> herself go with the kids and the $$ i reckon.
 
At this point, it would probably cost Fed around $100 million to dump
her. IMO, it would be worth it. :)
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 14 07:34AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 10:10:30 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> At this point, it would probably cost Fed around $100 million to dump
> her. IMO, it would be worth it. :)
 
dumping someone who stood by you steadfast all these years? something is wrong here ...
"rec.sport.tennis" <rec.sport.tennis@gmail.com>: May 14 02:28PM

Guess Murray might just get there but other than that hard to see who
it's going to be.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 14 07:14AM -0700

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 7:38:56 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > For all intensive purposes it's the same thing.
 
> > 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?
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 14 07:15AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:01:14 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> but end of the day, it's a grammatical issue by a non native speaker -
> if we really nitpicked grammar in RST it'd be a full time job.
 
> bob
 
No commotion at all.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 14 07:23AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:41:14 AM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:01:14 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> > why all the commotion about grammar courty,
 
> Because "intensive purposes" is incorrect.
 
And, more significantly, W writes for posterity.

> > you make quite a few
> > mistakes
 
> I do not! Typos maybe but not many grammatical errors.
 
Incorrect words need to be corrected for the sake of posterity ;)
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 14 07:09AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:38:16 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >> we've had 3 guys do it (and 1 more is very close) in a 7 year stretch.
 
> >who? name him.
 
> stan needs only a wimbledon, murray needs 2 more.
 
So you actually think two more are really close! The two have a long way to go still.
 
> rfa won CGS in 2010.
> fed won CGS in 2009.
 
> that's 7 yrs, NO???
 
It is 1999, 2009, 2010, 2016. We will have to observe the process for more time before drawing definitive conclusions.
 
> djok won his 1st slam in 2008. he won 11 of his 12 from 2011-2016.
 
> we've seen 44 slams won by 3 guys in a 17year period.
> we've seen 3 CGS won in 7 year period (as i stated).
 
When did CGS gain currency?
 
 
> >Tsk tsk. An electrical engineer bereft of random processes backing. You only work with circuits? I could drill a strong stochastic regimen into you in two months.
 
> a mathematician should be able to subtract 2016-2009 w/out a
> calculator, no?
 
Tell me without using a calculator how long you took to calculate 7.5^2? And, then, how about 15.5^2? :)
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: May 14 04:07PM +0300

On 14.5.2017 15:33, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> bob
 
> Is this your way of admitting that Nadal isn't the second rate player you've made him out to be this year? ;)
 
> His backhand has improved, his serve looks better, his forehand has been back to its consistency on clay, his movement has been supreme, his court positioning has improved. It looks like Carlos Moya has made some positive changes.
 
Better than ever!
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 14 06:18AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 9:07:45 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> > Is this your way of admitting that Nadal isn't the second rate player you've made him out to be this year? ;)
 
> > His backhand has improved, his serve looks better, his forehand has been back to its consistency on clay, his movement has been supreme, his court positioning has improved. It looks like Carlos Moya has made some positive changes.
 
> Better than ever!
 
I don't think he's better than his 2008 clay self but he's very far from the incompetent player Bob is trying to make us believe he is this year. He's made improvements to some areas to compensate for a slight loss of speed and a forehand which has been a bit more inconsistent.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 09:01AM -0500

On 5/14/2017 6:32 AM, bob wrote:
> chased every ball to ever corner, but his BH and FH crossing shots
> were hit hard and heavy, really an offensive shot meant to get the
> opponent of the defensive. no bruguera type stuff here.
 
Basically, Nadal has always been in the mold of the "aggressive
baseliner" that Agassi established almost 30 years ago. Another tip of
the hat due to Andre. :)
 
OK, Borg did it first, LOL.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 14 06:09AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 7:22:39 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> > If he wins final tomorrow and wins Rome and FO it's his best clay
> > season EVER.
 
> If he wins today, he should skip Rome. Heck if he loses today.
 
No he should not skip Rome IMO. He could win five out of five clay events for the first time in his career. Plus, the more clay events he wins the more he gets off and builds his momentum going into the FO.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 14 06:29AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 11:09:47 PM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
> > > season EVER.
 
> > If he wins today, he should skip Rome. Heck if he loses today.
 
> No he should not skip Rome IMO. He could win five out of five clay events for the first time in his career. Plus, the more clay events he wins the more he gets off and builds his momentum going into the FO.
 
I think he should skip Rome, there is enough match play for Nadal now. He should have a rest until FO, he has enough momentum going into FO. Overplaying the tune ups may not help him and he may loss his edge when they get to RG.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 14 06:36AM -0700

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 8:01:02 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> season EVER.
 
> He skipped Barcelona in 2010, to have a rest.
 
> Now 7 years later be plays an ever heavier schedule. ;)
 
So perhaps he would like to win all the clay events in 2017. In doing so, if something untoward like a defeat happens, his fans should accept it gracefully:)
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 14 06:39AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 9:09:47 AM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
> > > season EVER.
 
> > If he wins today, he should skip Rome. Heck if he loses today.
 
> No he should not skip Rome IMO. He could win five out of five clay events for the first time in his career. Plus, the more clay events he wins the more he gets off and builds his momentum going into the FO.
 
And more excuses would be on display should he lose the all-important one in early June.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 14 06:40AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 5:21:55 AM UTC-4, RzR wrote:
 
> >> good one man, i needed a laugh
 
> > You think Nadal can't do a repeat of 2008 and 2010?
 
> nope...too old...
 
Did you expect him to win so much this year?
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 14 06:42AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 7:26:23 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >You think Nadal can't do a repeat of 2008 and 2010?
 
> no
 
> bob
 
bob, your opinion counts for less like TT's. When it is Federer you will say he will romp home with easy wins while Nadal, who continues to be the marauder-in-chief on clay, you will be circumspect.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 14 06:49AM -0700

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 7:36:35 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > good one man, i needed a laugh
 
> > You think Nadal can't do a repeat of 2008 and 2010?
 
> You never know. We have to wait and see what happens and if Federer can continue his superb form of 2017 and perhaps win another W or USO and if Nadal can take his momentum and win more off clay slams.
 
With an 'out of sorts' Nadal, anything can happen :)
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 14 06:51AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 7:27:34 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> i said that yesterday before the match.
 
> > He's nowhere near good enough to win the FO let alone beat Nadal in his current form there. Federer has a better chance to beat this Nadal than this awful Djokovic does if you can believe that but it's true.
 
> bob
 
courty and I said way back, the previous evening ....
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 08:58AM -0500

On 5/14/2017 8:09 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>>> season EVER.
 
>> If he wins today, he should skip Rome. Heck if he loses today.
 
> No he should not skip Rome IMO. He could win five out of five clay events for the first time in his career. > Plus, the more clay events 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.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: May 14 06:10AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 9:01:57 AM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > >Nadal isn't the force he was in his prime
 
> > you don't say??
 
> But he's made many improvements to his game(backhand, serve) and is the best he's been in years. He's making hc finals for the first time in how long? He may win 5 out of 5 clay court events. He never even did that in his prime! Look how he's spanking the competition except for Federer! :)
 
Yes, Rafa is at peak, hope he loses to Stan, Novak or even Fed at the FO!
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 14 06:22AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 9:10:41 AM UTC-4, Guypers wrote:
 
> > > you don't say??
 
> > But he's made many improvements to his game(backhand, serve) and is the best he's been in years. He's making hc finals for the first time in how long? He may win 5 out of 5 clay court events. He never even did that in his prime! Look how he's spanking the competition except for Federer! :)
 
> Yes, Rafa is at peak, hope he loses to Stan, Novak or even Fed at the FO!
 
He won't lose to Stan or Novak at the FO this year. Forget about it.
I don't think Federer will beat him on clay either but he has more of a chance than Wawrinka or Novak IMO. Novak doesn't have enough time to get his form back for the FO. He needs more time that that! Wawrinka won't take three sets off Nadal on clay. No way.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 14 06:53AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 11:22:46 PM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > Yes, Rafa is at peak, hope he loses to Stan, Novak or even Fed at the FO!
 
> He won't lose to Stan or Novak at the FO this year. Forget about it.
> I don't think Federer will beat him on clay either but he has more of a chance than Wawrinka or Novak IMO. Novak doesn't have enough time to get his form back for the FO. He needs more time that that! Wawrinka won't take three sets off Nadal on clay. No way.
 
On form Nadal is the player to beat for FO but a lot of thing can happen in a two week events, the last three GS the form player did not win the event.
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