Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 11 topics

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 01 11:08PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 11:57:08 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > Nadal's old game isn't working against Federer because Federer has made a change to the way he was hitting his bh vs Nadal. This is basic common sense. If Fed doesn't have a weakness vs Nadal how can Nadal continue to dominate that h2h? Nadal will have to come up with another plan when he plays Fed instead of going to Fed's bh all day but the problem is going to Fed's fh won't work either because Fed has one of the best fhs ever in the game.
 
> > > I know you are perplexed by this whole scenario but use some common sense. Without the bh weakness, Fed should be able to beat Nadal off clay more times than not. On clay I think Nadal will still beat Fed in best of five.
 
> I saw somebody on Twitter post the Lub-Nadal IW match where Lub defeated Nadal I think it was and you can see Lub doing the same thing with his bh that Fed was doing at the AO/IW/Miami. Lub was unleashing that bh.
 
Actually I think you should look at Federer's match in 2014, 2015 and this year. Yes, I think he is taking the ball early now, the technical changes to his backhand happened way before this year. His AO matches against Murray in 2014 and Wimbledon match against Murray in 2015 were the two matches I watched again recently.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 01 11:48PM -0700

On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 02:57:08 UTC+1, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > Nadal's old game isn't working against Federer because Federer has made a change to the way he was hitting his bh vs Nadal. This is basic common sense. If Fed doesn't have a weakness vs Nadal how can Nadal continue to dominate that h2h? Nadal will have to come up with another plan when he plays Fed instead of going to Fed's bh all day but the problem is going to Fed's fh won't work either because Fed has one of the best fhs ever in the game.
 
> > > I know you are perplexed by this whole scenario but use some common sense. Without the bh weakness, Fed should be able to beat Nadal off clay more times than not. On clay I think Nadal will still beat Fed in best of five.
 
> I saw somebody on Twitter post the Lub-Nadal IW match where Lub defeated Nadal I think it was and you can see Lub doing the same thing with his bh that Fed was doing at the AO/IW/Miami. Lub was unleashing that bh.
 
it all cos of Fed's bh LOL
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 01 11:49PM -0700

On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 07:08:08 UTC+1, John Liang wrote:
 
> > > > I know you are perplexed by this whole scenario but use some common sense. Without the bh weakness, Fed should be able to beat Nadal off clay more times than not. On clay I think Nadal will still beat Fed in best of five.
 
> > I saw somebody on Twitter post the Lub-Nadal IW match where Lub defeated Nadal I think it was and you can see Lub doing the same thing with his bh that Fed was doing at the AO/IW/Miami. Lub was unleashing that bh.
 
> Actually I think you should look at Federer's match in 2014, 2015 and this year. Yes, I think he is taking the ball early now, the technical changes to his backhand happened way before this year. His AO matches against Murray in 2014 and Wimbledon match against Murray in 2015 were the two matches I watched again recently.
 
Fed's bh LOL
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: May 02 04:33AM -0700

Op dinsdag 2 mei 2017 01:39:44 UTC+2 schreef Court_1:
 
> Not if he keeps going the way he has been for 2017 and continues to make improvements to his serve and backhand (which he has!) At some point if he continues to make finals and win titles, you can't go on with the "Nadal is a lesser player" bullshit. His forehand has been more inconsistent and worse than it has been at his prime but he's trying to compensate for the forehand inconsistency with his serve and backhand. If he gets his forehand clicking (which he has on clay) he'll be hard to beat.
 
> You are just trying to prepare yourself and make yourself feel better in case Federer continues to beat this Nadal!
 
> If you continue with this line of reasoning and Nadal continues to make finals and win tournaments, you will sound as dumb as the Fedfuckers did when they said mono Federer was out of form in 08/09 even though he was making slam final after slam final.
 
Much dumber, actually. Fed's results went from 3 slams a year with 4 finals the previous couple of years to only 1 slam and 3 finals. Rafa has gone from losing 1st round in AO and Miami last year to making every hc final and dominating clay more (so far) than previous years... So Fed declined in 2008 while Rafa clearly improved (so far) this year... Much dumber indeed.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 02 05:09AM -0700

Fed "declined" Lol
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 02 09:59PM +1000

On 2/05/2017 12:14 AM, John Liang wrote:
 
>> For all time purposes it's quite good. It's nothing official like
>> 7543, just fun.
 
> It is stupid, how many people think Emerson is a greater player than Nadal and Djokovic with his '20' major wins. or Rosewall greater than Federer and Sampras with his '28' majors ? Davis Cup used to bring the best amateur players into a team competition, but since the 90s top players regularly opting out of Davis Cup ties to give them extra rest and place more priority on regular tour events. .
 
My personal view is Rosewall is def not boat (Laver/Hoad/Pancho were
more 'boatier'), but he's an excellent goat candidate once you factor in
his insane longevity, winning slams in teens & nearly 40, while missing
about 13 of his very best peak years.
 
Rosewall was the kind of guy who cleaned up when the very best players
were slightly off. And he kept that up for 20 yrs.
 
Federer is the modern version of Rosewall when you think about it.
bmoore@nyx.net: May 01 09:45PM -0700

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 4:39:52 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
 
> >For most of us it won't matter much unless he causes a war or something.
 
> >BTW, I don't think all news outlets are "the same" as some do here. That's sloppy thinking. And insinuating that people who think Trump is awful are "sheep" is more of the same.
 
> blindly following a biased MSM makes you a sheep.
 
Choosing not to quote Fox news is not the same as "blindly following a biased MSM".
 
> disliking trump doesn't.
 
Yet you have not shown any respect for the opinions of any of the people here who recognize how awful Trump is.

> you 2 bring incredibly weak arguments. oh well.
 
Who is "you 2"? Instead of "playing the ball", you repeatedly dismiss all negative assertions against Trump because of what sources are used. That's about as weak as one can get.
 
Address the point, not the source.
bmoore@nyx.net: May 01 09:53PM -0700

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 6:56:43 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
 
> > you 2 bring incredibly weak arguments. oh well.
 
> You have no credibility until you reveal some of your news sources. I
> know, I know, it's scary...
 
He doesn't seem to have preferred "sources". Nothing wrong with that. He just soaks it all in and forms an opinion. Much like the rest of us. The difference is that most of the rest of us don't dismiss posters' opinions based merely on what sources they quote.
 
It's a straw man.
bmoore@nyx.net: May 01 09:59PM -0700

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 4:38:49 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> >really matters little to me what goes on in the next 1,360 or so days.
> >Thankfully he's not my president.
 
> thankfully you're not his citizen.
 
Yeah, because Trump's average "citizens" are so much more thoughtful than Brian :-)
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 02 03:24AM -0700

Well there wasn't much thought or consideration when you voted Hillary, you only did cos the entire mass media told you to and your parents have always voted Democrat and would vote for them if their main policy was destroying Libya and Syria, which it was.
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: May 02 11:50AM +0100

On 02/05/2017 11:24, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> Well there wasn't much thought or consideration when you voted Hillary, you only did cos the entire mass media told you to and your parents have always voted Democrat and would vote for them if their main policy was destroying Libya and Syria, which it was.
 
Classic :-)
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 02 04:01AM -0700

You, jd the Hillary voter, Brian and co always dismiss stuff like Fox and Brietbart.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 02 04:41AM -0700

Oh Twump is soooooo awful, Hilllary would've been much better, I can't say how and despite Libya, Iraq and Syria disasters she woulda been! Lol
MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net>: May 01 10:59PM -0700

It has felt that it is 2006/2007 again. Well...
 
Arguably the five most prestigious tournaments (so far) have had same winners than 2006:
 
Fed: AO, IW, KB
Nadal: Monte Carlo, Barcelona
 
.mikko
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: May 02 04:21AM -0700

Op dinsdag 2 mei 2017 07:59:57 UTC+2 schreef MBDunc:
 
> Fed: AO, IW, KB
> Nadal: Monte Carlo, Barcelona
 
> .mikko
 
Yes, quite amazing. Plus NO losses for EITHER Fed OR Rafa in ANY of these tournaments other than to each other (Rafa to Fed). This is entirely different from the "out of sorts" type of play, which some of the looneys around this place would have you believe.
 
Both are peaking in form, albeit being obviously (much) older versions of their physical peak. Both have improved technical and tactical (and Fed the instrumental) parts of their game from their physical peak to compensate for the loss of youthfulness and dominate again... Let's see how long it lasts.
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: May 02 11:49AM +0100

University of Virginia, Center for Politics commissioned a survey
by Public Opinion Strategies.
 
There were two parts:
 
Online survey of 1,000 Trump voters from April 17-19
 
Eight focus groups in five locations including both
Trump voters and Independents & Democrats who voted for
Clinton or a 3rd-party candidate. Carried out from April
4-18.
 
Headlines - 93% of Trump voters approve of the President's
100 days, although only 42% 'strongly approve', with 51%
who 'somewhat approve'.
 
There are three pdf files with more detail:
 

<http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Trump_voter_poll_summary.pdf>
 
Note: 105pp
 

<http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Trump_voter_poll.pdf>
 
Note: 18pp
 

<http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Trump_voter_poll_crosstabs.pdf>
 
Note: 594pp (five hundred and 94)
 
"The focus groups were conducted in electorally important battleground
areas of states Barack Obama won in 2012 that Trump flipped in 2016 —
Columbus; Pittsburgh; Oak Creek, WI (Greater Milwaukee); and Canton, MI
(Greater Detroit) — as well as in Houston, where Clinton strongly
outperformed Obama's 2012 showing."
 
Perhaps the most interesting is the first file which includes a lot of
verbatim comments from Trump voters - a look inside the mind of a Trump
voter perhaps.
 
Maybe the strangest question asked was, "If Donald Trump were an animal,
what kind of animal would he be and why?" Top answer was a Lion.
 
Also of interest, 57% who voted for Trump did so because they were FOR
him, while 43% did so to vote AGAINST Clinton.
 
27% were 'shy' Trump voters, reluctant to tell anyone they were/did
vote for him.
 
Only 28% follow Trump on Twitter.
 
Only 55% approve of his tweets (16% strongly, 39% somewhat)
 
The advice from the focus groups was 'stop using Twitter'.
 
"I think it hurts. Like I don't need
to see that much of the President
unpolished. Like go, think about
what you're going to say, make a
statement, an official statement,
and then release it. I don't need
to hear what you're thinking like
I'd want to hear a comedian or
something." Male Canton
Trump/Obama Supporter
 
"This thing with the tweets, you know, he just shoots
from the hip, and then he has to back up from it. And
he's just got to get away from those Quick Draw
McGraw efforts." Male Pittsburgh Trump Supporter
 
"And while I don't like all his little tweets, when you sit back, and
you look at it, you realize he's trolling. He sends a lot of those out
to send the media out on their little wild goose chases, and then he
goes back and gets things done. There's a strategy to what he does. And
that's the only reason I'm not like entirely unhappy with the tweeting
part, because I can see where he's going with it. He just, he knows
they'll run after something. Let them all chase down that little bunny
rabbit trail, then I'm going to go this way, and I'll get things done."
Female Canton Trump Supporter
 
The first file is packed with these comments in speech bubbles!
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: May 02 10:50AM +0300

After puzzling comments about 19th Century abolitionist Frederick
Douglass and marveling that no one knew Abraham Lincoln was a
Republican, President Donald Trump has just unloaded another historical
non sequitur.
 
In the latest strange aside, Trump said that Andrew Jackson, the
populist rabble-rousing President with whom he has begun to claim
political kinship, had strong thoughts about the Civil War -- even
though he died 16 years before the conflict broke out.
 
"He was really angry that -- he saw what was happening with regard to
the Civil War," Trump said in an interview with Salena Zito, a
Washington Examiner reporter and CNN contributor, on Sirius XM radio.
"He said, 'There's no reason for this.' "
 
Trump's comment makes little sense because Jackson died in 1845 and
therefore could have had limited knowledge about events leading up to
the conflagration pitting his native South against Northern states.
 
It was not clear whether Trump might have been trying to suggest that
Jackson had extreme foresight and believed that a clash between the
North and the South was inevitable sooner or later over the issue of
slavery.
 
But later, on Monday evening, the President took to Twitter to clear up
his comment. "President Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the
Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry. Would never have let it
happen!" Trump wrote.
 
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/donald-trump-andrew-jackson-us-history/
 
:)
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 02 11:50AM +0200


> --
> ?Donald Trump is the weak man?s vision of a strong man.?
> -- Charles Cooke
 
Why are you trolling with da fake news
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: May 02 04:31AM -0500

On Mon, 01 May 2017 19:01:15 -0400, bob <bob@nospam.net> wrote:
| On Mon, 1 May 2017 17:45:51 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
|<skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
|
|>kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:
|>> For those who don't understand why he's always voted sportsman of the year by his colleagues... It's encapsulated perfectly in this interview after the charity match for Africa;
|>>
|>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h3XF1vF7Y8
|>>
|>> Everything put together; nobody's been a better representative for tennis, period. It's a no-brainer. It's the GOAT.
|>>
|>
|>
|>A true sportsman would have come over to umpire in 2015 USO final,
|> asked for mic and asked the crowd to respect his opponent during
|> his serve, or in between serves, and stop distracting him.
|> Aplauding after point is one thing, it's showing your preference
|> but interfering with serve is an abuse and an attempt to unfairly
|> influence the result.
|>Djokovic was similarly abused in Davis cup QF in Croatia which I
|> was watching live and Ljubicic did exactly this. Asked the mic
|> and asked us to behave.
|>That's sportsmanship.
|>So no, I don't see Federer as someone worthy of that reward and
|> all those accolades. Let's face it, he's getting them because
|> he's successful and popular, not because he really is a true
|> sportsman.
|>If he had Nishikori's results nobody would even think of him.
|
| i agree with you. he may be a great father, fundraiser and supporter
| of the under privileged. off court he's maybe the nicest guy who ever
| played for all i know. but on court, his sportsmanship is just so-so.
| that's ok by me, because he's an intense competitor trying his hardest
| to win.
|
| bob
 
Is this not a characteristic of most great players in sports....admittedly
I would laud Wayne Gretzy in hockey the most humble superstar.
 
FF
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 01 10:00PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 4:23:27 AM UTC+10, The Iceberg wrote:
> > means to realize he probably wasn't at his best regarding mixing
> > serve, having idea etc.
 
> Sampras didn't even know why he was playing those last 2 years - he'd broken the slam record and invented the slam chase race, he was then pretty much retired, but didn't know what else to do. He lost to George Bastl and Wimbledon and that guy's doubles partner called Federer the year before.
 
Of course Sampras knew what he was playing for in the last two years, he wanted to win more grand slams and there was no secret about it. He battled on like many other great that always believe they have one more slam left in them. Idiot like you never understand that and the only thing you ever came up that was both dumb and funny was the Sampras and pizza thing at FO 96
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 02 12:01AM -0700

On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 06:00:28 UTC+1, John Liang wrote:
> > > serve, having idea etc.
 
> > Sampras didn't even know why he was playing those last 2 years - he'd broken the slam record and invented the slam chase race, he was then pretty much retired, but didn't know what else to do. He lost to George Bastl and Wimbledon and that guy's doubles partner called Federer the year before.
 
> Of course Sampras knew what he was playing for in the last two years, he wanted to win more grand slams and there was no secret about it. He battled on like many other great that always believe they have one more slam left in them. Idiot like you never understand that and the only thing you ever came up that was both dumb and funny was the Sampras and pizza thing at FO 96
 
nah once he'd hit his target he kind of retired, he didn't win a tournament for 2 years, you must be pretty dumb not to realise that, mind you, you said that it was absolutely scientifically and technically impossible for Nadal to even consider winning the USO and still refuse to say who had the best year in 2013.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 02 12:09AM -0700

On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 00:22:11 UTC+1, bob wrote:
 
> >But in Olympics culture, gold is gold, no matter what you win it in.
 
> to you and i, yes. but you're talking about the ego of roger federer
> here. :-))
 
it nice that they reckon this!
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 01 11:53PM -0700

On Tuesday, 2 May 2017 01:08:16 UTC+1, bob wrote:
> > ridicule and perceive him as a perv, won't get nearly as much bad
> > treatment in msm e.g. in that SNL sketch.
 
> no, he's the media darling.
 
wonder if Brian will try to say this is not the case with Macron.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 01 10:46PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:48:10 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> gave much effort in spring 2002 was he was feeling disrespected by the
> press.
 
> bob
 
We know you are like whisper a fucked up Sampras fan. Look Sampras knew what he was doing in the last two years, he did not care much about tune ups but he like many champions before him always thought he had a slam in him until around 2002. He stuck around for 2 years because he knew he had a genuine chance of winning more grand slam. It is ridiculous to claim Sampras did not care about winning grand slams but continuing to get to the final of USO three years in a row just falling one match short on two occassion, if Sampras did not care why he was cared to win 6 matches but not the last match ? Mr 104 percent it does not make any sense at all just like many of your other contributions but it will surely please your master.
PaxPerPoten <PPP@USA.org>: May 02 12:36AM -0500

On 5/1/2017 10:33 PM, lo yeeOn wrote:
> In article <a1ac44e5-7128-4511-8399-fbebe0c9c5de@googlegroups.com>,
> PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Obama again? Obama is not the president.
 
I think it is time for you to move on. This American NG already has its
quota of anti-American propagandists!
 
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
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