Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 12 topics

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 17 09:09PM +1000

On 17/05/2017 3:58 AM, SliceAndDice wrote:
> Good decision imo. Good on the French for not playing favorites and bending over for the Ice Queen.
 
Seriously it's a completely retarded decision.
 
Even if you believe Shara is 100% drug cheat, she has paid her dues & is
out of suspension. The game has an obligation to allow the best players
to compete for the biggest titles.
Fota <contactwellesnet@gmail.com>: May 17 06:02AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:09:44 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:
 
> Even if you believe Shara is 100% drug cheat, she has paid her dues & is
> out of suspension. The game has an obligation to allow the best players
> to compete for the biggest titles.
 
I thought that, as a former FO champion she would have the right to a wildcard. I remember reading some years ago that former US Open champions can DEMAND a wildcard. I don't know if that's true or not.
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: May 17 01:33AM -0700

On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 03:43:39 UTC+5:30, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170515153325-trump-approval-graphic-exlarge-169.jpg
 
This looks like the graphs I used to see on fivethirtyeight.com before the
elections. Hillary represented the red line. Her win was 73% likely.
And we all know what happened.
 
I suppose the polls are usually conducted on educated people and they are
not the people who elected Trump. 'Whites with no college education' is
his constituency.
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: May 17 11:19AM +0100

On 17/05/2017 09:33, ahonkan wrote:
 
 
> I suppose the polls are usually conducted on educated people and they are
> not the people who elected Trump. 'Whites with no college education' is
> his constituency.
 
That's from www.realclearpolitics.com and is based on an average of
polls conducted by various pollsters. This is the current page:
 

<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html>
 
All pollsters ask a random selection of voters but the voters are a
representative cross section of the electorate.
 
This is what Rasmussen says, 'After the surveys are completed, the raw
data is processed through a weighting program to ensure that the sample
reflects the overall population in terms of age, race, gender, political
party, and other factors.'
 
Other factors include education level.
 
Rasmussen tends to favour Republican views, but other pollsters balance
that slight bias out.
 
Other websites also combine polls into an 'average' rating:
 
<http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/trump-job-approval>
<https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/>
 
Those two plus RCP are very close:
 
RCP 40.7-53.9
Huff 40.4-55.1
538 39.9-54.1
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 17 05:27AM -0700

He gave your Hillary, the one you campaigned and voted for a good beating in the election! Trump won!
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 17 05:32AM -0700

Only cos you were scared he was going to clamp down on money obsessed amoral corrupt bankers like you.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 17 05:35AM -0700

You're confusing people that are stuck-up and think they're clever/educated(the types dumb enough to vote Hillary ignoring Syria etc) with people that are actually clever/educated.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 17 05:42AM -0700

The idiot pollsters got the total wrong result for UK general election 2015, Brexit and Trump.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 17 03:49PM +0300

On 17.5.2017 15:27, The Iceberg wrote:
> He gave your Hillary, the one you campaigned and voted for a good beating in the election! Trump won!
 
Yes but every morning after bacon and eggs at the WH, Mr Trump opens the
TV, watches a bit, then quietly sobs and says "nobody loves me".
 
:)
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 17 02:59PM +0200

> You're confusing people that are stuck-up and think they're clever/educated(the types dumb enough to vote Hillary ignoring Syria etc) with people that are actually clever/educated.
 
Excellent post.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 17 05:55AM -0700

Maybe your hero Bouchard can try to be a bit more like Murray and win Wimbledon one day LOL
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 17 05:56AM -0700

Lol
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 17 03:09AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 2:01:02 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
 
> AO 2006 vs AO 2017
> What's more enjoyable?
 
> --
 
You certainly did not have any complaints about players like Sampras exploring his WOW when he was facing tier 0 greats in a lot of his slam finals.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 17 02:28PM +0200


>> --
 
> You certainly did not have any complaints about players like Sampras exploring his WOW when he was facing tier 0 greats in a lot of his slam finals.
 
I don't care about WoO. Sampras exploited it less due to shorter
career.
 
But Sampras took care of other greats very convincingly.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 17 08:41PM +1000

On 17/05/2017 12:24 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> Ouch!
 
> The Verdict?
 
> "Sonny, don't play like I do".
 
 
The serve was slow, volley midcourt & just sat up.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 17 04:46AM -0700

That's why he didn't even bother to use a clip like Agassi Rafter at Wim 2001.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 17 09:27PM +1000

On 17/05/2017 11:16 AM, Jason White wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:34:59 AM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/sports/tennis/roger-federer-french-open.html?_r=0
 
> He's beyond obsessed with eighth Wimbledon title. He probably has practiced on clay for a millisecond. Why would he play the French? Nadal is part of it, but Federer wouldn't even get to that stage. A host of players could knock him out.
 
Maybe, but when the ultimate tennis prize is still alive he really
should be giving it a go.
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: May 17 05:50AM -0500

On Tue, 16 May 2017 14:29:05 -0700 (PDT), arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com> 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.
 
He's paying Nadal back for beating him at AO ;-)
 
FF
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 17 09:18PM +1000

On 17/05/2017 7:41 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
> 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?
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: May 17 01:24AM -0700

On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 04:37:47 UTC+5:30, arahim wrote:
> Nadal
> Djokovic
> Murray
 
6 months ago, I'd have said
Fed, Rafa, Djoker, Murray
Today, I expect it would be:
Murray, Djoker, Rafa, Fed
 
How things (appear to) have changed!
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: May 17 03:19AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:24:45 AM UTC-7, ahonkan wrote:
> Today, I expect it would be:
> Murray, Djoker, Rafa, Fed
 
> How things (appear to) have changed!
 
And will Wawrinka outlast them all?
 
Murray hit 30 a couple of days ago and Djokovic will do so in another 5 days at which point the top five will all be over 30.
 
Tsonga, Berdych, Mofils are in the top 15 at over 30. Still threatening the top 10 or finally passed for good by the under 30 crowd?
 
There are another 6 who are 35 or above in the top 100. Karlovic the oldest at 38 and the previous persistent number 5 Ferrer now 35.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 17 03:04AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:18:54 AM UTC+10, TT wrote:
 
> If it's so self-evident that Federer is the better player then I wonder
> why you guys have to pretend that Nadal's injuries are something else.
> It goes to silent-ban territory of madness/self-deception.
 
If there is so much evidence to say Nadal was better on all surfaces then why you could not tell us why Federer had 17 hard/grass court grand slam titles to Nadal's 5 .
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 17 02:59AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 8:17:35 AM UTC+10, arahim wrote:
> Outdoor Grass: Federer 2-1 (Nadal 33.33%, Federer 66.67%)
 
> Equalizing for surfaces (If they played a 100 on each surface):
> Nadal 198.21, Federer 201.79
 
This is actually meaningless, the important stats is how well they did against the pool of competitors they faced. Purely on the stats you showed Nadal should also have more hard court slam titles because most of the slam are played in outdoor venues, but the reality is Federer won more on hard court because he was superior against the same competition they both faced.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 17 02:55AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:10:48 PM UTC+10, Jason White wrote:
 
> > Laver CYGS in 1969, Agassi CGS in 1999, Fed in 2009, Nadal in 2010, Djok in 2016.
 
> > Personally, I would say it's clear that winning the CGS has gotten easier relatively, but if you think you need to see Murray or Wawrinka also complete it before you are convinced, sure.
 
> Nobody forced McEnroe and Edberg to play S/V at the French. If their groundstrokes and baseline game weren't good enough, too bad. Today's champs are slightly better at closing the deal. Would love to see those old guys bring their weak S/V shit to wimbledon today. They would win nothing.
 
For Mac and Edberg s/v was their best percentage play and during their era, the fast hard court and grass court allowed their style of game to be more effective then on a slow court. Both guys were No.1 during their career so their ground strokes were good against the world class players back in their era. I wouldn't care if they can't win anything in today's environment after all that is just pure and meaningless speculation, and we could be saying the same thing thirty years later about Federer and Nadal.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 17 11:30AM +0300

On 17.5.2017 1:49, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/16/politics/trump-james-comey-memo/
> index.html
 
Poor Trump. I hope bob is not wearing his "drain the swamp" T.
 
"Gross incompetence is not an impeachable offense". It should be.
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