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

Friday, May 19, 2017

Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: May 18 10:17PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:39:02 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
 
> > 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?
 
> No, I wouldn't have put any asterisk if Rafter had won the 2000 Wim F in the dark.
 
> Look, my point is the conditions were the same for both the players. So I don't see why any asterisk has to be assigned to Nadal's gutsy win.
 
1. Fed had won the 4th set, carried momentum and was the better server... had a significant set of advantages going into the 5th...
 
2. Toni Nadal said on a number of occasions after the match that going into the 2008 final vs Federer the Nadal camp were of one mind: Rafa absolutely HAD to win that final... their thinking was to lose 3 finals in succession might be something/amount to something recoverable... it was THAT much of a concern to Rafa and Toni and the team at that time...
 
3. As great of a final as it was, having watched it many times in subsequent years, I really do think that though that final was well played and the skill level was high, they did play better tennis against each other in other finals, from a technical efficiency point of view... sacrilegious to say, I know! :)
 
4. I don't get why so many fans feel so protective of Federer in relation to the Nadal matches... fair is fair: Rafa really did have his number, A LOT... and tended to beat Feds in very important matches for much of their careers... it's just the way it was... interesting to see Federer reversing it so very late in his career...
 
5. As for the decision to continue on into virtual darkness... of course there was a logistical imperative to get the match concluded... HOWEVER, the mega irony is that GIVEN how icon that final has become, CAN YOU IMAGINE IF THEY HAD HELD IT OVER UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY... unprecedented in the open era... no matter who would have won (though Rafa winning makes for a better narrative - speaking from a journalistic point of view)... that would have FURTHER enshrined the final onto an even more precious and precarious mantle of singularity than it currently rests...
 
P
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 18 11:03PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 10:17:13 PM UTC-7, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> 3. As great of a final as it was, having watched it many times in subsequent years, I really do think that though that final was well played and the skill level was high, they did play better tennis against each other in other finals, from a technical efficiency point of view... sacrilegious to say, I know! :)
 
> 4. I don't get why so many fans feel so protective of Federer in relation to the Nadal matches... fair is fair: Rafa really did have his number, A LOT... and tended to beat Feds in very important matches for much of their careers... it's just the way it was... interesting to see Federer reversing it so very late in his career...
 
> 5. As for the decision to continue on into virtual darkness... of course there was a logistical imperative to get the match concluded... HOWEVER, the mega irony is that GIVEN how icon that final has become, CAN YOU IMAGINE IF THEY HAD HELD IT OVER UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY... unprecedented in the open era... no matter who would have won (though Rafa winning makes for a better narrative - speaking from a journalistic point of view)... that would have FURTHER enshrined the final onto an even more precious and precarious mantle of singularity than it currently rests...
 
Are you channeling Howard Cosell's ghost here or what?
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: May 19 01:38AM -0700

Op donderdag 18 mei 2017 23:39:02 UTC+2 schreef Shakes:
 
> > 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?
 
> No, I wouldn't have put any asterisk if Rafter had won the 2000 Wim F in the dark.
 
> Look, my point is the conditions were the same for both the players. So I don't see why any asterisk has to be assigned to Nadal's gutsy win.
 
So if Rafter and Sampras played blindfolded and Rafter won that Wimbledon final you wouldn't say there needed to be an asterisk? :)
 
Look, there doesn't need to be an asterisks in general. But in the context of the discussion between h2h stats (which we were on) and the small sample size between the two on grass, the one win Rafa has there is (not only razor thin but) tainted; we'll just never know if Federer would have continued his epic comeback in daylight/normal conditions, as he did for example in Miami 2005 vs Rafa (and AO 17 to a lesser extent). It's not as if it was a normal ending, so it will forever be a topic of discussion... It's just a part of the charm/tragedy of that classic.
reilloc <reilloc@gmail.com>: May 19 12:54AM -0500

On 5/18/2017 8:34 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> he sees it on TV.
 
> All this with catgut and a 85 sqin paddle. The times were a changing.
 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG70ifjGLqQ#t=22m24s
 
You call this the "Millenium FH," and characterize it by describing a
full turn in preparation. Is that it? The Millenium FH uses a full turn
in preparation? Like nobody before 2001 ever did that?
 
You make a point of dismissing the racket by describing its strings as
ordinary and size as small(er than what's commonly in used today and
what Federer uses now) but I believe the truth is that *is* the
racket--coupled with a mature physicality that grew up using it and made
it into the weapon that produced your so-called "Millenium FH."
 
Do you not agree that if the year were the same and the point were
identical and if Federer took "a full turn" and hit the same shot but
with a Kramer Autograph or a Maxply or any other wooden racket, you
wouldn't be exclaiming that it was "Breathtaking"(?)
 
LNC
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 19 12:01AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 6:34:03 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> he sees it on TV.
 
> All this with catgut and a 85 sqin paddle. The times were a changing.
 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG70ifjGLqQ#t=22m24s
 
Don't know about "Millenium FH", but, yes, Fed's FH is an awesome shot, a very versatile shot. He strikes the right balance, for the most part, between the classical FH and the modern FH.
 
What's with your bait-posts on S/V, Sampras etc. lately ? I always thought this was a very good match, a well-fought match, that Fed won. I wouldn't call it a demolition by any means, though. And it didn't/doesn't change my opinion that Sampras was the best fast-court player that I've seen for the last 30+ years, though Fed may very soon move past him in the Wim greatness stakes soon should he win Wim this year.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: May 19 10:22AM +0300

On 19.5.2017 8:54, reilloc wrote:
 
> You call this the "Millenium FH," and characterize it by describing a
> full turn in preparation. Is that it? The Millenium FH uses a full turn
> in preparation? Like nobody before 2001 ever did that?
 
I did not characterise it in any way. The full turn is there to start a
story about why Sampras is left guessing. Practically every shot starts
with one.
 
The Millenium FH could best be characterised by this:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOyx-2KVFdw
 
> what Federer uses now) but I believe the truth is that *is* the
> racket--coupled with a mature physicality that grew up using it and made
> it into the weapon that produced your so-called "Millenium FH."
 
An open-throated graphite helps, definitely. But if the claim is that
without the racquet there would not have been a "Millenium FH", then I'm
less sure.
 
> identical and if Federer took "a full turn" and hit the same shot but
> with a Kramer Autograph or a Maxply or any other wooden racket, you
> wouldn't be exclaiming that it was "Breathtaking"(?)
 
I've seen some pretty nice stuff done with a woodie too. But I usually
don't think much about them. In 1992 they had already been playing with
graphite for almost 10 years.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 19 03:58AM +0200

> FBI? Let's be real here, Trump foolishly thought he could make his
> problems go away by firing his investigator and that nobody would be the
> wiser. He's a "dumbo", as you'd say...
 
 
 
My first point about oath is not the real stuff. It's almost a
joke. I'll comment on that later.
 
The real stuff is this issue of Trump being *prevented* from doing
his job, a job he's been elected to.
 
He's been atypical politician, he's actually not a politician. But
he's been one of the the most trustworthy ones in the history of
politics. Not because he's so nice or moral, I'm sure he's not a
saint, but he's been honest and willing to fulfill his promises,
and act according to his beliefs, whatever they are, primarily
and simply because he can afford himself do it.
 
He's an independent man, and a man with a big ego. For a
president, that's actually great.
 
 
Now, what was one of his messages, during the campaign? Fix
relations with Russia? Try to find some common ground, and build
some new mutual trust. If it can be done, of course.

 
And like iceberg, says, he WON. People voted for it, among other
stuff he promised, and voted for him.
 
He's entitled to do it, to pursue such policies towards Russia,
and not just entitled, given the fact that it was one of his core
promises, he's morally obliged to pursue that policy. Otherwise
he'd be a fraud.
 
The whole narrative of this Russia hoax, from emails, hacking,
Flynn, Sessions, embassies, ambassadors, their FM Lavrov planting
bugs in oval office, banks, all the nonsense you can't even name
it all, everything is to there prevent him from doing his job as
he promised to the people.
 
It means there are some major powers in USA who even try to block
and prevent president from pursuing a different policy, to that
of his predecessor.

But Hillary didn't win, and neither did Bush, McCain or Graham.
 
If Trump can't be his own man, it means he's a puppet president
and USA is effectively a dictatorship, with presidential election
being meaningless.
 
Don't you see how something like that *undermines* US democracy?
 
Not Putin.
 
 
 
 
As for him asking Commie to be loyal to him? It's his non standard
way of communicating, but like I said, let's be realistic, we all
want to do business with people whom we find trustworthy, not
with those we don't.
 
When he won back in November there was an interview in the
newspapers with the Croatian guy who owned license for miss
Croatia and miss Slovenia for 20 years. Of course he said all the
best about trump, but he also explained how he got those licenses
from him.
 
He was running a restaurant in New York which trump visited often.
One day in the 90s he asked Donald if he could get license and
Trump asked him one question.
 
Are you a good man?
 
He said, yes I am, and he got those licenses.
 
 
I don't know about you, but I'm perfectly comfortable with his
expressive and no bullshit behaviour. He's definitely relying on
intuition a lot, judging by that anecdote I mentioned, but being
a self made billionaire, you'd assume his initiation, is at
least, ok?
 
He's a man who seems very loyal and demands loyalty from his
associates. Those two things are white necessary, it means you
can be sure in someone, be confident in him, trust him that he'd
do his job.
 
Like I said, he's not a politician, don't judge him for evaluating
people the way he's been doing his entire life.
 
 
Imagine you're at the altar with a woman, you ask her will she
respect you and be faithful to you for the rest of your life, and
she says, I won't.
 
Would you marry her?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: May 19 03:25AM

On Fri, 19 May 2017 03:58:55 +0200, *skriptis wrote:
 
> He's definitely relying on
> intuition a lot, judging by that anecdote I mentioned, but being a self
> made billionaire, you'd assume his initiation, is at least, ok?
 
He grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth and inherited a fortune. Or
are you implying he killed his father and covered it up maybe?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 19 07:28AM +0200

>> made billionaire, you'd assume his initiation, is at least, ok?
 
> He grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth and inherited a fortune. Or
> are you implying he killed his father and covered it up maybe?
 
 
I take a simple view.
 
Even born rich, you either go down, end up like a drug addict,
alcoholic and waste your fortunes, two, stay at the same level
and do nothing much, or three, go level up in terms of wealth,
success etc.
 
There's no point denying he's case number 3.
 
 
I know there's some trolling on your part how he'd be equally
wealthy had he done nothing. That, even if true, tells us you
don't appreciate achievements.
 
Not only has he become a billionaire, but also a famous celebrity,
staring in movies and tv shows, a pop icon, later having his own
successful show, and now president.
 
He's probably the only great world leader eg Putin would respect
on a personal level for his life acomplishments and CV.

 
Went to military school, achieved success in construction (dealing
with construction mafia) and then taking on entire political
establishment and beating them.
 
The man is a collosos.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: May 19 07:08AM +0100

On 18/05/2017 15:14, *skriptis wrote:
 
> So a guy who proclaims himself to be disloyal to president Trump,
> and proudly states that in his notes, wants us also to be believe
> he's trustworthy when it comes to Trump?
 
But you made up that drivel based on what evidence? Have you read
Comey's memos? If not what were your sources? Just asking.
 
> Doesn't really compute.
 
Your post certainly doesn't.
 
The FBI Director may be, has been, and is now required to investigate
potentially criminal, unethical or unconstitutional acts by other
members of the Executive, Judiciary or Legislature, which is why
both he personally and the Bureau collectively are independent.
 
Potentially asking for loyalty, suggesting that an ongoing investigation
should be dropped, and firing the Director without reasonable cause are
all arguably 'illegal' - obstruction of justice is certainly a criminal
offence in US law.
 
Also, while the FBI, the House and the Senate have ongoing
investigations into Russia's interference in the 2016 election, the
appointment of Special Counsel Bob Mueller gives him scope to widen the
investigations into other areas of concern.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: May 19 07:22AM +0100

On 19/05/2017 06:28, *skriptis wrote:
> with construction mafia) and then taking on entire political
> establishment and beating them.
 
> The man is a collosos.
 
Classic Dunning-Kruger :-)
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
bmoore@nyx.net: May 18 11:57PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 11:23:02 PM UTC-7, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> > establishment and beating them.
 
> > The man is a collosos.
 
> Classic Dunning-Kruger :-)
 
Dunning-Kruger basically says that dumb guys don't know that they're dumb.
 
How did they ever get funding for that? :-)
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: May 19 09:52AM +0300

On 19.5.2017 3:38, bob wrote:
 
>> impeachment time!!!!
 
> what a bunch of spoil sports who sit around for months waiting for a
> president they don't like to be impeached.
 
Sour grapes !!! Trump WON !!!! Get over it !!!!
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: May 19 09:45AM +0300

On 19.5.2017 0:41, bob wrote:
 
> ? i'm not saying trump didn't want to cut it more than obama, i said
> why single out ONLY TRUMP in terms of cutting NIH funding when in real
> $$ terms, obama did the same over 8 long yrs?
 
No. Obama did not *cut* anything. Either in real or nominal terms.
 
1) It is the inflation or whatever it is that affects the dollar value
that is to blame. It affects my bank savings too and I won't be blaming
Obama or even Trump for that. And it works irrespective of who's in the
uffici.
2) In 2003 dollar value, the purchasing power of Obama's NIH budget fell
10-11%. A far cry from your claimed 40%. Please man up and apologise for
the lies.
3) It is standard practice to not adjust budgets continually to the real
dollar value. There are other constraints, like the 2008 crisis. Welcome
to the real world.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 09:23PM -0400

On Thu, 18 May 2017 18:13:53 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> HC? hmmm. fed, agassi, djokovic, even sampras, seem like up there. i
>> might give slight nod to fed.
 
>Fed beat Pete in their lone encounter.
 
yawn.
 
> He also tied Pete at W without putting the audience to sleep by bombing serves. Edge to Roger.
 
grass court tennis is about a lot of s/v to me. not just serve.
 
fed won 7 of them, as borg win 5, playing baseline tennis. they could
each get away with it for their own reasons but IMO sampras and
mcenroe, and perhaps becker, played real grass court tennis. if the
grass courts played like they used to, IMO sampras would be the best
grass court player, perhaps mac next. i'll give fed the benefit of
being top 3-4 just because he did win 7 wimbledons through overall
talent and IMO weak field, but i wouldn't put borg top 4 on grass, and
he won 5 of them.
 
unfortunately, either that style is dead or nobody has the guts to try
it, but it was at least during wimbledon far more fun to watch.
 
grass: sampras, mcenroe, becker, fed
clay: rafa, borg, maybe guga, vilas, muster
HC: fed, agassi, lendl, djokivoc
 
no specific order. :-)
 
bob
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 06:29PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 4:43:52 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > I wasn't responding to you. You're one the few quality analysts in rst
> > I find hard to argue with.
 
> What's your angle here? *suspicious* ;)
 
Ha ha. That's an expression of W's overture to goodwill.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 19 04:15AM +0200

> HC: fed, agassi, lendl, djokivoc
 
> no specific order. :-)
 
> bob
 
 
Regarding clay, Rafa, Borg and even Guga stand out with huge
number of titles won.
 
 
But Muster has
FO, 3 Rome, 3 Monte Carlo
 
Djokovic
FO, 4 Rome, 2 Monte Carlo, 2 Madrid
 
Vilas
1 FO out of 4 finals, same as Djokovic.
 
 
Must swept everything in '95 on clay and Vilas has some insane
records on clay, but big achievements-wise all three are
similar, no?
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 19 12:11AM -0400

On Fri, 19 May 2017 04:15:06 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
 
>Must swept everything in '95 on clay and Vilas has some insane
> records on clay, but big achievements-wise all three are
> similar, no?
 
yes, achievement wise.
 
but my post was more about players who played most naturally on a
surface, played a game best suited to a given surface.
 
as far as results, i didn't put borg in grass top 4 even though he won
5 wimbledons and mac 3 cause i still believe mac's grass game is a far
better grass game than borg's. same becker. same logic for djok on
clay, though maybe djok could slip into the clay hub. but djok
definitely is in the HC top tier.
 
bob
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 19 03:26PM +1000

On 19/05/2017 12:48 AM, John Liang wrote:
 
> Federer has best Wimbledon record in open era and won the same number of USO as the other greats.
 
Sampras & Fed both have 7 Wimbledon & 5 USO titles.
 
If you say Fed is better at Wimbledon because he made more finals, how
come you never say Sampras was better than Fed at USO because he made
more finals?
 
Yeah, really funny that.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 18 11:13PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 7:45:24 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > I thought you detested shallowness? ;) You often call me out for being too shallow and concerned with appearance and yet you make a comment like this one? Ha ha ha!
 
> First of all, you're choosing weak ground to try an attack like this.
 
Attack? It's nothing of the kind. I'm replying in good humor to your reply which was also in good humor.
 
 
> Anyone who can't see that I was making a quip would have to be an idiot, and since I know you're not an idiot, you knew my intent.
 
I knew you were making a quip. However, there's some truth to what I said. You can be shallow whenever it suits your fancy but if I'm shallow I'm the villain.
 

> Second, where have I ever said that looks meant nothing to me? Being a human male--a biological unit--an attractive woman catches my immediate attention much faster than one less attractive.
 
You don't say? ;)
 
 
>The difference between us is in values and priorities.
 
There's no difference between us in terms of values and priorities.
 
>For example, if I were presented with the choice of a vapid, cold-hearted woman with "10" looks vs. a non-bombshell who is clever, funny, and compassionate, it would be no contest. I'd choose the woman #2 in a heartbeat to actually *be* with, and a relationship with her would be far more gratifying (although...I'd still bang the vapid "10" once if she asked nicely).
 
I wouldn't choose either for a long term relationship. Why should I make any compromises for a long term relationship? But forget choosing a non-bombshell for #2, what about a person you found homely but a person who had a great personality and was compassionate? You'd choose that option? I'd take a pass on both options.

> Anyone who claims that looks count zero for them in attraction or seeking a romantic partner isn't being honest. I've certainly never made that claim
 
You're taking this too seriously. Calm down.:)
 

> And although we're all guilty here of jokes about celebrities' looks, for me that's mostly about disliking the person's character and grabbing an easy handle to flail them. You're far quicker than I am to utterly dehumanize someone based on looks alone (example: "woof woof" for Linda and Yoko, talking about Susan Boyle types as if they're animals, etc.).
 
You're being a hypocrite again. When you do it, it's perfectly fine and not shallow or dehumanizing but when I do it it's both. *rolls eyes*
 
When did I talk about Susan Boyle types as if they were animals by the way?
MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net>: May 18 10:15PM -0700

Watched some recent Nadal extended highlights... (yesterday's Sock match also)
 
...and 10th FO should be in his bag barring injuries or miracles like "soderling". Especially when every other realistic contender are ebbing and walkabouting.
 
Scary good stuff vs Sock (and Sock did play well). The best part was that Nadal was oozing confidence...
 
.mikko
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: May 18 10:25PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 10:15:21 PM UTC-7, MBDunc wrote:
 
> ...and 10th FO should be in his bag barring injuries or miracles like "soderling". Especially when every other realistic contender are ebbing and walkabouting.
 
> Scary good stuff vs Sock (and Sock did play well). The best part was that Nadal was oozing confidence...
 
> .mikko
 
Yes... Rafa looking imperious... and doesn't look at all like he's feeling anything like physical distress or a slow burn down or anything like it... impressive...
 
Would be something if Rafa won 10th and Federer could win his 8th Wimbledon... of course, should they both fail to do so, that sets up other twists in the current narratives... or one winning and the other NOT winning has other ramifications, either way... so, there are many threads of possibility to try and sort out in the coming month and a half-ish...
 
P
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: May 18 10:13PM -0400

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/101846962/
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 06:23PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 9:15:34 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >> bob
 
> >With the understanding that we disagreed amicably and that I did not 'dismiss' your PoV in a cavalier and haughty manner. We will continue to agree on some and disagree on others :)
 
> we're always amicable. i have no issue with you personally.
 
Same here. At present I have no issue with *anyone* here :)
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 09:33PM -0400

On Thu, 18 May 2017 18:23:02 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
 
>> >With the understanding that we disagreed amicably and that I did not 'dismiss' your PoV in a cavalier and haughty manner. We will continue to agree on some and disagree on others :)
 
>> we're always amicable. i have no issue with you personally.
 
>Same here. At present I have no issue with *anyone* here :)
 
i had to put the clamps on john liang, other than him, i'm happy to
see various pts of view.
 
bob
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