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

Saturday, May 6, 2017

bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 08:06PM -0400

On Tue, 2 May 2017 18:52:59 -0700 (PDT), Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
>> >> know his trainers.
 
>> bob
 
>A fukking mind reader, Jesus!!
 
not at all. i just know the people working with him, and they told me.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:58PM -0400

>> wasn't afraid to stay out all day and wear you down, this rafa fears
>> that.
 
>This Rafa is 30 years old.
 
30 going on 40.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 08:02PM -0400

On Tue, 2 May 2017 19:02:57 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> he wins 2017, which he hasn't yet, you're saying he's back to normal.
 
>> my gosh woman.
 
>If he wins the FO after making hc finals for the first time since 2013 you would have to say he's in great form, yes! Again, if he won the AO beating Fed you would have not been harping on about his poor form. Federer has finally figured out how to play Nadal on the bh side and Fed should win most of their off clay matches if he keeps that up. It's not difficult to figure this out.
 
rafa's form isn't terrible, 2015-2016 was terrible. it's just not
close to his peak.

 
>> federer had no reason to drop off. he didn't spend 2+ yrs losing
>> challengers at age 3+ for chrissakes.
 
>Federer hadn't won a slam since 2012! Then he came back in 2017 in better form and won the AO. Nadal was in poor form since early 2014 but he has come back as well and is in good form. They are both in good form. Fed is #1 in the points race and Nadal is #2! Nadal is playing the best he's played in years! His forehand is looking lethal again on clay!
 
agree to disagree.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 08:03PM -0400

On Tue, 2 May 2017 19:08:03 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> old nadal????
 
>> bob
 
>Nadal has made up for some of his loss in speed/great defense by improving his bh and now his serve! He's trying to play a little more aggressively.
 
thank you! that's exactly what i've been saying. he's playing a VERY
different style/strategy from the man who won 14 slams. it's not bad,
but no way is it the real rafa.
 
> He's trying to evolve just as Fed is and has done! His forehand was inconsistent at IW and Miami but it looks like it's back to lethal form on clay!
>Quit your nonsense!
 
? you're basically making my point, as i knew you would.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 08:04PM -0400

On Wed, 3 May 2017 05:12:17 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> This hilarious, can't believe anyone can be so clueless about tennis as to follow what some idiots journos have written about Fed's bh and let that lead to the conclusion Nadal is now playing at his 2008 peak form! This really is v funny,
>> Whisper right, rst is Amazing place! It like Fedfan Thicko Land!
 
>Icey, 18 slams and counting. Will he win Wimbledon this year?
 
he very well could. if i really had to bet on 1 man, i think he'd be
my favorite.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 08:05PM -0400

On Tue, 2 May 2017 21:12:28 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> old nadal????
 
>> bob
 
>Remember even the healthy retriever (2008-2014 Nadal, according to you) got blasted out by Rosol, Delpotro, Murray etc.
 
he was injured by rosol IMO, but delpot was always capable of
blastiing him out. still is.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:43PM -0400

>> changed, and he's done nothing to make me alter it.
 
>Good thing for Trump that nothing in his world revolves around, or is
>even remotely impacted by, your opinion of him. Eh?
 
i think of all the sleep lost these past 6 months by trump's haters,
it's really a staggering number i believe.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:46PM -0400

>> to realize CNN, MSNBC and the rest are no better than Fox or
>> Breitbart. once you're there, you'll see the light.
 
>I have a close friend who had a number of high-powered jobs in the government and we do occasionally discuss politics, but I don't consider him a "source".
 
maybe you should. i also have my own background, which we don't need
to go into details either. but mostly it's just common sense: quit
believign 1 biased source only.
 
>For high-profile MSM, I prefer the NYT or the WSJ, but each to his own. But that doesn't mean I am one of their "sheep" and it's presumptive to imply otherwise.
 
kind of hard to believe both of them, eh? brian, IMO you're a little
out of your league here. i wouldn't presume to tell you what's going
on in the UK by reading the daily mail, so you shouldn't do the same
here.
 
but you are a good conversationalist, and i feel you're coming aorund
to a more reasonable view......
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:48PM -0400

>> your posts reveal.
 
>> bob
 
>Trump can barely speak above a 3rd grade level, but he's doing alright so far. The recent budget resolution continued funding for planned parenthood, increased the NIH budget by $2B, made coal miner health provisions permanent, no wall funding, funds for PR medicaid, restored Pell grants for low-income students, etc. All D priorities mind you. Perfectly acceptable funding bill IMO.
 
the congress crossed party lines (i.e. saving their own skin) to
increase the NIH budget btw, overriding trump.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:51PM -0400

>> your posts reveal.
 
>I could say plenty of positive *and* negative things about Bush, Obama and H. Clinton, but I cannot find much positive to say about Trump. (OK, I like the stock market right now :-)
 
>I enjoy Kimmel a bit but don't care much about what he has to say about politics. He's obviously going through a tough time and I wish him the best.
 
i wish his poor son the very best, and hope he gets the treatment
needed to have a full life.
 
as for kimmel, turning that into a political anti trump rant was
disgusting and 1 sided. i couldn't care less if he drove off a cliff
tomorrow.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:52PM -0400

>- abolishing stupid banking regulations
>- lowering taxes
>- showing leftist media (NYT, WoPo, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, ESPN) their place.
 
damn good post!!
 
>Proves that even fascists can do good here and there.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:53PM -0400

On Fri, 5 May 2017 00:34:53 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg
 
>You only can't find something positive to say cos your parents have always voted Democrat and you've been fooled by the media for so long, perhaps look at some other news sources?
 
lmao!
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:54PM -0400

On Thu, 4 May 2017 09:32:22 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> did kimmel say obama reduced NIH funding by 40% related to GDP over
>> the past 8 years though? nope.
 
>Links, please.
 
just google it, that's all i did.
 
>1) BTW, it's the Congress that appropriates the funds. This time around,
>the Congress increased NIH funding despite Trump's proposal to cut it.
>Don't know what Obama actually proposed himself.
 
correct.
 
>https://www.aaas.org/news/science-and-technology-funding-under-obama-look-back
>It's not related to GDP but that can easily be done. Just eyeballing
>around says the 40% figure might be somewhat, um, exaggerated.
 
the chart i saw showed about 20bil down to 13. whatever it is, it's a
big long term consistent cut. yet kimmel didn't bother to mention it.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:56PM -0400

On Wed, 3 May 2017 13:01:07 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
 
>>> Yeah, because Trump's average "citizens" are so much more thoughtful than Brian :-)
 
>> trump has 300+ million citizens. whether some of them like it or not.
 
>Interesting terminology. 'his citizen', 'has .. citizens'
 
i'm just responding to the "not my president" folks. if you're an
american citizen, trump is your president. quit whining about it, and
move on.
 
>Rather than the citizens being his, he is their president - whether they
>like it or not. He's supposed to serve all of them - whether he likes
>it or not.
 
can't please every person every time.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:56PM -0400

On Wed, 3 May 2017 16:36:50 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
>> you belong to the Queen?
 
>bob can do what he likes, but his post implies that 300+ millions share
>the same status - citizens of the president.
 
300+ million share them as their president. period.
 
>I am a citizen of the UK and a subject of the Queen, the two do not have
>the same nor equivalent meaning.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:57PM -0400

On Wed, 3 May 2017 18:47:07 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
> belonging to anyone and are "free" unlike others who are
> supposedly week minded and need leaders?
 
>I must say, very cunning.
 
he's a cunning linguist.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:40PM -0400

On Tue, 2 May 2017 21:15:24 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> here.
 
>> bob
 
>Fed's foremost goal is to up his slam count. If it is through Wimbledon, so be it. The eighth Wimbledon title is very coveted, sure.
 
federer said at the beginning of this year, someone posted here in RST
even, that his #1 goal was wimbledon. i'm only going by what he said
(and it makes complete sense btw).
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:26PM -0400

On Tue, 2 May 2017 21:00:47 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
 
>> >Leave Murray out of this. He has beaten Federer, what, once in slams?
 
>> demolished him in an OG final at wimbledon.
 
>one off. not a slam.
 
one off, yes. but it was a slam (and then some) to federer.
 
> nothing unusual that Berdych and Blake didn't do. After that Federer shut out Murray in AO 2014 and Wimbledon 2015. Don't forget Wimbledon 2012 final where Murray cried after losing.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:28PM -0400

On Tue, 2 May 2017 19:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>> i'm not
>> criticizing his AO whatsoever.
 
>Shut up! That's exactly what you are doing! You are telling us that Fed only won the AO because Nadal was out of form.
 
i am definitely saying that nadal isn't nearly as good as he was for
the 6 yrs of his peak from about 08 to 14.
 
i'm also not saying federer is the same as his peak, but he sure is
closer to it than rafa is.
 
> But an out of form Nadal doesn't make hc finals and an out of form Nadal wouldn't have been up a break in the fifth set at the AO! Nadal could have won that AO if Fed had done what he did in the past vs Nadal i.e. collapse mentally. Instead Fed changed the script and took it to Nadal. Nadal was shocked and pissed off! Nadal's forehand was working as it always had in the past vs Fed in that AO final. The difference was Fed's bh (both in his bh groundstroke and his bh ROS!)
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:31PM -0400


>... but you always fail to mention that even though Sampras wasn't at
>his peak, he was closer to his than Fed was to *his*. Sampras played
>better that year than Fed did.
 
not IMO. in time, sampras was about equally close. in level no way
IMO. plus you have a kid playing his idol, and an old man playing an
unknown kid. huge difference.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:37PM -0400


>No, that's where it was as of the 2002 USO. But at 01 W, he had won
>Wimbledon a year earlier. At the time of that match, Sampras was #12,
>Federer was #14.
 
no way to convince you of any of it, but you could be #1 one day, and
then break your leg the next day and not be able to beat #100,000.
however you're only "1 day removed from #1." that's the fallacy of the
argument.
 
sampras, the very day after wim 2000, was a different person. i saw it
on court, but the people working with him said so to me personally.
nobody has to believe it if they don't want, doesn't matter, i know
what i know and sampras from wim 2000 - spring 2002 just went through
the motions. he showed up to slams hoping to win, trying for 2 weeks
to win, but not prepping/training as usual, and motivation way gone,
and oft with minor nagging injuries, plus aging by his standard. his
LEVEL was way off, regardless if it was "1 year removed" from a wim
championship.
 
>And Pete actually outplayed Federer the rest of the year. Year-end 2001,
>Sampras was #10, Federer #13.
 
by then, ranking meant 0 to sampras. the fact he was ranked 12 should
tell you something.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:38PM -0400

>Sampras was actually #6 and Federer #14.
 
>Trivia: The loss to Federer at 01 W knocked Sampras out of the Top 10
>for the first time in almost 11 years.
 
does that tell you anything?
 
>for 565 straight weeks, since the week of 9/10/1990, after he won his
>first US Open.
 
>After losing to Federer, Sampras's ranking dropped from 6 to 12.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:39PM -0400

On Thu, 4 May 2017 04:59:15 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg
 
>What happened when he lost to George Bastl?
 
i guess sampras was only 2 yrs removed from being wimbledon champion,
hence was almost peak. :-)
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:25PM -0400

On Tue, 2 May 2017 18:14:57 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
 
>Good post.
 
>BTW you'd maybe be surprised to know that many people here in 'Murrica like Putin. What is amazing though- never thought I'd live to see this-
>is that most of them are on the Right. And we have what passes for a center-left screaming "OMG Russia, Russia, Russia!"
 
not sure that people so much like putin, as they'd like to see this
perpetual conflict with russia end at some point and stop wasting
time, energy and money towards it.
 
saw hillary on CNN the other day, she's still taking it hard - still
blaming putin, comey and the deplorables. :-)
 
>Strange times here in the late-capitalist dystopia (as elsewhere, of course).
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 06 07:22PM -0400

>> to win.
 
>> bob
 
>Let's be honest: the guy is a complete egotistical arsehole.
 
anyting related to tennis, i agree. off court, he seems pretty good.
 
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