Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 9 updates in 5 topics

Monday, May 8, 2017

calimero377@gmx.de: May 08 11:02AM -0700

> > types, etc. I know it's hard to face the facts, but you picked a dud.
 
> > < cue "but Hillary" replies >
 
> Trump is getting done exactly what he wants to get done, which is make money for himself. Every visit to one of his properties makes him money. He's playing nice with every country where he has deals pending. That's his priority. He'll also help Rs pass some of their priorities (especially if it undoes some of Obama's legacy), basically in exchange for them looking the other way and not investigating any of it.
 
 
Trump has enough money. Liberal idiots like you still don't understand this clown. That's why you lost. And that's why you will lose again if you are unwilling to understand what drives Trump.
 
 
Max
heyguys00@gmail.com: May 08 11:22AM -0700


> > Trump is getting done exactly what he wants to get done, which is make money for himself. Every visit to one of his properties makes him money. He's playing nice with every country where he has deals pending. That's his priority. He'll also help Rs pass some of their priorities (especially if it undoes some of Obama's legacy), basically in exchange for them looking the other way and not investigating any of it.
 
> Trump has enough money. Liberal idiots like you still don't understand this clown. That's why you lost. And that's why you will lose again if you are unwilling to understand what drives Trump.
 
> Max
 
Trump is never going to get what he really wants...proxies are the best he can do.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 08 08:35PM +0200


>> < cue "but Hillary" replies >
 
> Trump is getting done exactly what he wants to get done, which is make money for himself. Every visit to one of his properties makes him money. He's playing nice with every country where he has deals pending. That's his priority. He'll also help Rs pass some of their priorities (especially if it undoes some of Obama's legacy), basically in exchange for them looking the other way and not investigating any of it.
 
So he's not dumb after all?
 
Remember 'liberals' were molesting us with how inadequate,
incapacitated, stupid etc he is.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
heyguys00@gmail.com: May 08 12:09PM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 3:01:02 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
I don't think anyone ever said he was dumb in terms of taking advantage of a situation...that's what everyone said he's best at. If you gave him a US citizenship test he'd probably fail, though.
Manuel aka Xax <xamigax@gmail.com>: May 08 12:05PM -0700

> > Yep.
 
> Fortunately Macron is no Hillary.
 
> Max
 
Which isn't saying much
Manuel aka Xax <xamigax@gmail.com>: May 08 12:03PM -0700

Le vendredi 5 mai 2017 13:30:02 UTC+2, *skriptis a écrit :
 
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
Not everyone, that jerk Pepe Imaz is staying, from what I've read...
Really weird move.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 08 11:15AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:37:00 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> > > There is never going to be a consensus on this. My question about this is not so much on the probability of having 3 of the greatest champions (in terms of slam counts) in one era, but on the probability of having all three of them being career slammers. That is something, IMO, that has been influenced by other factors than just the talent of those 3 champions.
 
> > If three high achievers is possible, the CGS is not far behind. Each achiever wants to emulate and transcend the other. They work very hard, are very focused, and leave nothing to chance. Federer kept knocking on the door until Nadal relented and had the exquisite talent to capitalize on the WoO at its first availability. Nadal did the same and in fact went one up to upset Federer on grass and HC. Who will grudge him his wins against a strong GOAT contender, even if bob and his ilk object (the last added for rhetorical effect he he)? Djok kept knocking until Nadal relented and then had to wait for a while more to get his CGS. Their work ethic is arguably second to none.
 
> I disagree. It's one thing to like Fed or any other player from this generation, but it's another thing to not look at all the variables that have changed over the past 15 years. Have surfaces changed ? Yes, they have. Have racquets/strings changed ? Yes, they have. Have playing styles changed as a consequence of the previous two developments ? Yes, they have. So how can we not question the premise as to what would've happened if these factors had not changed ?
 
The question is whether these changes are significant enough to warrant casting doubts on the strength of the achievement (the CGS) of, mind you, three ATG's and potential GOAT contenders, when the same feat was also achieved by an 8-slam winner of the era just past, who, by all accounts, was also quite distracted during his peak. I mean, if NO-ONE achieved it for a LONG LONG time and then suddenly three do it, then yes there may be a case. Maybe if Murray and Stan also achieve it, we can revisit it.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 08 11:50AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 11:15:59 AM UTC-7, RaspingDrive wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:37:00 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> > I disagree. It's one thing to like Fed or any other player from this generation, but it's another thing to not look at all the variables that have changed over the past 15 years. Have surfaces changed ? Yes, they have. Have racquets/strings changed ? Yes, they have. Have playing styles changed as a consequence of the previous two developments ? Yes, they have. So how can we not question the premise as to what would've happened if these factors had not changed ?
 
> The question is whether these changes are significant enough to warrant casting doubts on the strength of the achievement (the CGS) of, mind you, three ATG's and potential GOAT contenders, when the same feat was also achieved by an 8-slam winner of the era just past, who, by all accounts, was also quite distracted during his peak.
 
Let's look at it another way. Since we agree that playing conditions (surface speeds, bounces), playing styles, and equipment have changed from the 90's to the 2000's, let's look at the kind of playing styles faced by champions back then and now.
 
Just as an example, here is a small sample of opponents Agassi, Sampras at Wim:
 
Agassi in 1992: Chesnokov/Rostagno/Becker/Mac/Ivanisevic
 
Sampras in 1993: Agassi/Becker/Courier
 
What do you see ? You see average baseliners, great baseliners, average S/V'ers, great S/V'ers, big servers etc. You can compare that to what players in the recent eras have faced at Wim/USO, and you wouldn't find any S/V'ers of the caliber of Becker/Sampras/Edberg. Let's leave aside the assumption whether Fed/Nadal/Djok would still have won the CGS had they faced that variety esp on the faster surfaces. The fact is that they didn't have to face that variety of opponents.
 
Now Agassi in 1992 at least beat Becker who was already a 3-time champion at Wim and was a grass court player of higher pedigree. So it's quite different from Nadal or Djok winning the same. Did they beat any S/V'ers of the caliber of even Mac of 1992, leave alone Becker ?
 
> I mean, if NO-ONE achieved it for a LONG LONG time and then suddenly three do it, then yes there may be a case. Maybe if Murray and Stan also achieve it, we can revisit it.
 
Murray has a chance as he has made all 4 F's before.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 08 08:10PM +0200


> --
> ?Donald Trump is the weak man?s vision of a strong man.?
> -- Charles Cooke
 
Good interview, so everyone can see what he is.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
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