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

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 18 08:22PM +1000

On 18/05/2017 7:18 AM, arahim wrote:
 
>> And, it was actually Federer who failed to make the appointment, all
>> three times Nadal got there.
 
> True and Nadal failed to make the appointment the 7 times Federer was there.
 
What explanation do you have for Fed's failure to play Rafa at USO? 3
times Rafa was waiting for him, & all 3 times Fed lost the match before.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 18 08:57PM +1000

On 18/05/2017 8:07 AM, kaennorsing wrote:
> 1st part: Rafa leads 21-8 = 72%
> 2nd part: Fed leads 6-2 = 75%
 
> Pretty telling I would say.
 
Not when you consider 4 of the 6 are WTF matches - essentially exhibition.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 18 09:00PM +1000

On 18/05/2017 8:07 AM, Gracchus wrote:
>> plus a few Monte Carlos etc. In other words Federer is manipulating h2h
>> and still losing.
 
> Federer is focusing on career achievements and longevity. Only in your mind is every choice he makes calculated with Nadal in mind.
 
Actually not true. I turned the radio on the other day in the car & all
the talk on a sports show was how Fed was cowered by Rafa's form on clay
& that's why he was ducking the FO.
 
Surprised me to hear it as it was predominantly a football show.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 18 09:02PM +1000

On 18/05/2017 8:10 AM, arahim wrote:
>> and still losing.
 
> Nadal has "avoided" Federer 8 times, Federer only twice so far in slams.
 
> Since Nadal started winning the slams he has avoided USO twice, Wimbledon twice, AO twice but never the FO.
 
Like I said Rafa was waiting for Fed in USO. 3 times Fed just needed to
win 1 more match to play Rafa at USO, & he lost all 3 times.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 18 09:07PM +1000

On 18/05/2017 8:18 AM, kaennorsing wrote:
 
> Correction:
> 2nd part is 6-3: 66%
 
> Still pretty convincing lead wouldn't you say? And 2 of those 3 Rafa wins were in 2013, Fed's worst career year as a slam winner (post 2002). The 3rd ended in the darkness of night... So I guess you have a point about the sample size being too small: Fed's lead should be bigger.
 
It should actually be less, which is pretty damning imo.
Most of Fed's wins were in WTF exhibition tournament when players were
tired & didn't care anymore after a long yr. Also factor in the fact
Fed is a baseliner & great on clay by today's standards (eg 5 FO
finals), & the h2h feels more like 20-2 in Rafa's favor on balance.
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 18 02:47PM +0300

18.5.2017, 2:54, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> missing from the list ffs). Cimarron Pass not really a Eastwood film but
>> decent generic western with Clint in minor role.
 
> I count 24 that I've seen. There are some very popular ones among them that I never wanted to see and some I've just not gotten around to. It would be tough to pick a favorite.
 
All are worth seeing (yes even the 'brilliant' Chimp Duology)... I don't
think he even has bad films.
 
The worst rating I've given is a 6:
 
Ambush at Cimarron Pass (1958)
The Rookie (1990)
Joe Kidd (1972)
Blood Work (2002)
Sudden Impact (1983)
 
And even those are pretty legendary...
 
All rest are 7-10, and that's including films he only directed.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 18 09:47PM +1000

On 18/05/2017 7:12 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
 
>>> Still pretty convincing lead wouldn't you say? And 2 of those 3 Rafa wins were in 2013, Fed's worst career year as a slam winner (post 2002). The 3rd ended in the darkness of night... So I guess you have a point about the sample size being too small: Fed's lead should be bigger.
 
>> Good points overall but why the insistence on the "darkness of the night" in all the Wim posts ? The conditions were the same for both players.
 
> Yes, but less than ideal playing conditions generally favour the more defensive player. Fed's early shotmaking/returning suffers more in bad light than Rafa's retrieving, don't you think?
 
 
I think Rafa would suffer more as Fed could really take advantage in the
fading light. Hitting the ball early in the dark means Rafa has less
time to see where the ball is going etc
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 18 09:50PM +1000

On 18/05/2017 7:12 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 00:55:59 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:
>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:18:21 PM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
s, but less than ideal playing conditions generally favour the more
defensive player. Fed's early shotmaking/returning suffers more in bad
light than Rafa's retrieving, don't you think?
 
> In fading light it becomes more of a toss up, while Fed was slowly becoming the better player in that match. Say, what if the 2000 Wimbledon final was played an hour later and Sampras lost to Rafter in the dark. You might think there was an asterisk next to the win then?
 
Rafa should have won that match 64 64 63 as I predicted before the match.
 
If Sampras lost to Rafter there would be no *, just as there is no * for
any match in history. Well, before Fed came on the scene & Fedfuckers
put * next to all of his losses.: )
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 18 03:03PM +0300

18.5.2017, 12:12, kaennorsing kirjoitti:
> Yes, but less than ideal playing conditions generally favour the more defensive player. Fed's early shotmaking/returning suffers more in bad light than Rafa's retrieving, don't you think?
 
> In fading light it becomes more of a toss up, while Fed was slowly becoming the better player in that match.
 
Nonsense.
 
And if you can't see well the bigger server gets the advantage.
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: May 18 05:38AM -0500

On Thu, 18 May 2017 20:06:09 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> wrote:
| On 17/05/2017 11:24 PM, RaspingDrive wrote:
|> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
|>> John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
|>>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 2:01:02 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
|>>
|>> I don't care about WoO. Sampras exploited it less due to shorter
|>> career.
|>
|> There is ample scope for WoO to manifest in a 12-year period.
|>
|>> But Sampras took care of other greats very convincingly.
|>> --
|>
|> You need to give more respect to the three *exceptional* 10+ slam winners currently playing.
|>
|
| I respect them greatly. They are extremely fortunate to not play in
| Sampras era. Both Sampras & Agassi would own all the top players today,
| except Rafa on clay.
|
 
Pure speculation...but it certainly would have been interesting to see Pete
use the modern racquets. I suspect he'd play like Fed but not as naturally. And
he would NOT be a net dominant player as you would like to delude yourself into
believing---his baseline game was pretty impressive and would be truly awe inspiring
in today's game.
 
FF
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 18 01:46PM +0200

> Sampras would have taken the game more seriously & we would have seen
> his A game a lot more than once every couple of yrs or so. The tennis
> quality would have been epic, with Sampras winning 90% of their h2h.
 
 
My thoughts exactly.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 18 04:58AM -0700

Ivanka is overrated in terms of beauty and even more overrated in terms of brains
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: May 18 05:35AM -0500

On Thu, 18 May 2017 20:07:34 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> wrote:
| On 17/05/2017 11:27 PM, John Liang wrote:
|> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 9:18:56 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
|>> On 17/05/2017 7:41 AM, Gracchus wrote:
|>>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-7, arahim wrote:
|>>>> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 1:37:17 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
|>>>>> 15.5.2017, 23:21, kaennorsing kirjoitti:
|>>>>>> Let's see how TT reacts if Rafa tactically skips Wimbledon (or any other slam) 5 years from now.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> You reckon Rafa will skip Wimbledon 2022 to avoid Federer? I doubt it.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> There's a difference between taking a break and avoiding your rival on
|>>>>> purpose which Fed is certainly doing now. Rafa never did that, hell he
|>>>>> even went to Basel to lose to Federer... I seem to forget Fed paying
|>>>>> back the compliment by attending Barcelona?
|>>>>
|>>>> Looks like Federer decided to skip clay altogether. Does not seem to be about avoiding one player. There were other "better" years for him to try and do that but he always showed up. Way more than Nadal ever did at all slams. Federer was showing up in all matches in 2013-2014 against Nadal when he was definitely sub-par and ranked much further down.
|>>>
|>>> It's about setting his sights on the real prize. Makes perfect sense. (1) his chances of even getting to the final on the grinders' surface are slim no matter the field. Good results on hard court in first half of 2017 doesn't change that (2) high risk of injury or compromising his health at the FO. It's caused many players to withdraw from Wimbledon over the years (3) winning an 8th Wimbledon would be an enormous, career-crowning achievement for the GOAT (4) he's 36, so realistically, how many more chances--if any--will he get?
|>>>
|>>> Assuming that Nadal doesn't get dusted in an early round of the FO, it might make winning the thing more satisfying if he beats Federer along the way, but from Federer's perspective, who cares about wallowing with Nadal in the dirt? Roger has bigger fish to fry in London. Maybe chips too.
|>>>
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>> There's a bigger fish than calendar slam?
|>
|> Wimbledon and USO are Federer's best chance to win more slams, Federer made a realistic assessment of his chance at FO so there is nothing illogical about his decision to pull out to maximized his chance at Wimbledon and also reduce the chance of injury at most grinding tournament in tennis.
|>
|
| Disagree. Imo Fed is just not that smart. Only morons would give up a
| chance on a calendar slam.
|
 
It would have been nice, but clearly without some preliminary clay prep
it would have been unwise.
 
I wait with baited breath for your effusive praise if Fed wins Wimbledon and sets the
all time record ;-)
 
FF
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 18 02:55PM +0300

18.5.2017, 4:09, Carey kirjoitti:
> Speaking of femmes fatale, I thought Kathleen Turner was really good in Body Heat, but I'm no film
> expert. Opinions? And... *that's a woman* there, not like Ellison's GF (emphasis on girl) that
> most everyone was prating on about recently.
 
Turner is a goddess. And yes, she was femme fatale in Body Heat... which
I think is often categorized as Neo-Noir.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 17 05:10PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:57:35 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
 
> If you want to look it that way, then Nadal would have 15+1 and the h2h.
> Two slams is too few to overcome the h2h deficit... especially when we
> consider that Nadal would hold the most impressive tennis record in history.
 
Well, as always with your tennis analysis, you are out to lunch. No real and reputable tennis analyst would agree with your idiotic and unusual opinions.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 17 05:17PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:02:02 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> Btw, I actually have NOT been obnoxious about Nadal. It is actually
> Fedfards who are making these silly fedtard threads here. Clearly they
> are most distraught at the moment...
 
Yes, lustful. It seems like there is some homoerotic element involved the way you slobber over Nadal and yes you have been obnoxious about Nadal recently. The only thing that will shut up you is if Federer continues his good form and waxes Nadal a few more times post clay season.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 18 08:17PM +1000

On 18/05/2017 6:22 AM, TT wrote:
>> Rafa then eclipse Pete in the GOAT rankings?
 
> In my opinion with 10 RG titles Nadal would hold the greatest tennis
> record ever and would eclipse everyone.
 
He certainly would be the only clear cut surface goat/boat.
 
As it stands most people will still have Laver on top as far as
'greatest tennis records'.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 18 08:18PM +1000

On 18/05/2017 6:45 AM, Scott wrote:
>> weeks and months to come on rst?
 
>> Are you are sadist?
 
> If we can keep the trolls of this thread we can have a serious discussion about slam quality vs. quantity. Unfortunately, the trolls won't stay away. :(
 
Good to see you're finally admitting to being a 7543 advocate.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 18 08:20PM +1000

On 18/05/2017 7:08 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> 1. TT
> 2.
> 3.
 
TT is overstating it, but I think we all agree Rafa is the standout
goat/boat on a surface no? Who has ever dominated a surface to the
extent Rafa has on clay?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 18 08:28PM +1000

On 18/05/2017 7:19 AM, Court_1 wrote:
 
> LOL. Do you see what I mean about your propensity to worship to the extreme at the House of Nadal? Keep it in your pants. Goodness me.
 
> 10 FOs would give him 15 slams. He needs 4 more to eclipse Roger in the real world not the fantasy world you inhabit. *rolls eyes*
 
> On topic, it's a tough call but with that 15th slam I think Nadal would slightly eclipse Sampras. Sampras has the better #1 stats and dominated at two slams and Nadal has the CGS and the GOAT FO record but with all things considered plus that additional slam over Sampras, I think you have to give it to Nadal if he wins 15.
 
TT has a point in that Rafa will forever be in tier 1 group with Laver.
 
Laver & Nadal hold records that are least likely to be broken.
 
Laver has many great records (eg 200 singles titles), but he's best
loved for his 2 calendar slams. That looks like a very unbreakable
record.
 
You have to be on some strong drugs to think Rafa's clay record has a
realistic chance of being broken. So in my estimation the 2 most solid
greats in tier 1 are Laver & Nadal.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: May 18 05:31AM -0500

On Thu, 18 May 2017 20:20:43 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> wrote:
| On 18/05/2017 7:08 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
|> On 5/17/2017 4:22 PM, TT wrote:
|>> 17.5.2017, 23:13, Scott kirjoitti:
|>>> If Nadal wins RG this year he will have 15 slams to Pete's 14. Would
|>>> Rafa then eclipse Pete in the GOAT rankings?
|>>>
|>>
|>> In my opinion with 10 RG titles Nadal would hold the greatest tennis
|>> record ever and would eclipse everyone.
|>
|>
|> Here we go:
|>
|> Troll #1.
|>
|>
|> Trolls:
|>
|> 1. TT
|> 2.
|> 3.
|>
|
|
| TT is overstating it, but I think we all agree Rafa is the standout
| goat/boat on a surface no? Who has ever dominated a surface to the
| extent Rafa has on clay?
|
|
 
Agreed. Especially since he was able to handle Federer decisively, someone
who Nadal views as the 2nd greatest claycourter?
 
FF
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 18 02:48PM +0300

18.5.2017, 3:10, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>> Two slams is too few to overcome the h2h deficit... especially when we
>> consider that Nadal would hold the most impressive tennis record in history.
 
> Well, as always with your tennis analysis, you are out to lunch. No real and reputable tennis analyst would agree with your idiotic and unusual opinions.
 
Convincing counter-argument as usual...
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 18 02:54PM +0300

18.5.2017, 3:17, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>> Fedfards who are making these silly fedtard threads here. Clearly they
>> are most distraught at the moment...
 
> Yes, lustful. It seems like there is some homoerotic element involved the way you slobber over Nadal and yes you have been obnoxious about Nadal recently. The only thing that will shut up you is if Federer continues his good form and waxes Nadal a few more times post clay season.
 
Links?
 
You really have a few screws loose... as usual, you are criticizing me
on things that occur only in your own head.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 18 01:53PM +0300

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/18/robert-mueller-fbi-director-trump-investigation-238537
 
"He's no bulls—ter".
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 18 01:42PM +0300

Barack Obama minced no words after an election night call with Donald
Trump — calling him "nothing but a bulls—ter," People magazine reported
Wednesday.
 
Obama gave his frank assessment to two friends after the conversation,
in which an uncharacteristically effusive Trump told the president he
had "respect" and "admiration" for him, the mag reported.
 
Asked if Obama's opinion has changed since Trump took office, one of the
sources said: "Well, it hasn't gotten any better."
 
http://nypost.com/2017/05/17/what-barack-obama-really-thinks-about-donald-trump/
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