Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 10 topics

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 02 10:54PM +1000

On 2/05/2017 11:56 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
 
Only morons wouldn't know Fed's obvious goal, if he could have only 1
more win, is an 8th Wimbledon crown.
heyguys00@gmail.com: May 02 08:03AM -0700

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 7:28:02 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> don't think i'd use the term "out of sorts" - nadal is simply a lesser
> tennis player now than he was from 08-2014.
 
> bob
 
Different player but not necessarily lesser. Nadal usually wins one slam a year (7 one-slam years, 3 multi-slam years). If he wins the FO, combined with his AO final, he'll be right on par with his typical peak year.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 02 10:43PM +1000

On 2/05/2017 4:04 AM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> That said, yes, any tennis player would rather win gold in singles than
> doubles, but the gap is narrow, tiny, because gold is gold. Whereas at
> Wimbledon, doubles is nothing compared to singles.
 
I get what you're saying, but imo the difference between gold in singles
& doubles is like the difference in gold between Phelps' relay gold &
individual gold, same with Bolt.
 
Individual means you get sole credit. That's a massive difference. You
could be the worst player on a soccer team, maybe only play 5 minutes in
the final, yet you get a gold medal if your team wins. That can't
compare to an individual gold medal in any sport.
 
Fed won a gold in doubles, but his partner may end up with a career slam
so no way can Roger take full credit.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 02 10:45PM +1000

On 2/05/2017 4:23 AM, 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.
 
Excellent post.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 02 10:47PM +1000

On 2/05/2017 4:21 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
>> doubles, but the gap is narrow, tiny, because gold is gold. Whereas at
>> Wimbledon, doubles is nothing compared to singles.
 
> erm I think you'll find we've discussed this quite thoroughly before and this is why Murray is now a GOAT contender because Olympic Gold is the equivalent of 16 slams and he's won Gold not once, but twice!
 
Murray is definitely a legend of the game. 2 Wimbledons, USO, defended
Olympic gold (not likely to ever be repeated), Davis Cup.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 02 06:20AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 10:47:53 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> > erm I think you'll find we've discussed this quite thoroughly before and this is why Murray is now a GOAT contender because Olympic Gold is the equivalent of 16 slams and he's won Gold not once, but twice!
 
> Murray is definitely a legend of the game. 2 Wimbledons, USO, defended
> Olympic gold (not likely to ever be repeated), Davis Cup.
 
Tier 4 great at the best below Edberg, Becker and Wilander.
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: May 02 09:58AM -0500

On Tue, 2 May 2017 22:47:44 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> wrote:
| On 2/05/2017 4:21 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
|> On Monday, 1 May 2017 19:04:45 UTC+1, StephenJ wrote:
|>>> On 5/1/2017 7:12 AM, Whisper wrote:
|>>
|>>> If you're going to say Rafa & Fed both won Olympic gold, then you have
|>>> to say Woodridge is greater at Wimbledon than Federer.
|>>
|>> Incorrect. In non-Olympic tennis, singles is far more important than
|>> doubles.
|>>
|>> But in Olympics culture, gold is gold, no matter what you win it in.
|>> You'll never hear athlete X saying to athlete Y "I won gold in the men's
|>> 400 meter sprint and yours is for women's field hockey, so mine is
|>> better". That's not the way it is.
|>>
|>> Why do you think Venus, who knows something about Wimbledon singles
|>> titles and gold medals, entered the Olympic mixed doubles last year
|>> after she crashed out of doubles? Because she wanted a Gold Medal, no
|>> matter what it is in.
|>>
|>> That said, yes, any tennis player would rather win gold in singles than
|>> doubles, but the gap is narrow, tiny, because gold is gold. Whereas at
|>> Wimbledon, doubles is nothing compared to singles.
|>
|> erm I think you'll find we've discussed this quite thoroughly before and this is why Murray is now a GOAT contender because Olympic Gold is the equivalent of 16 slams and he's won Gold not once, but twice!
|>
|
|
|
| Murray is definitely a legend of the game. 2 Wimbledons, USO, defended
| Olympic gold (not likely to ever be repeated), Davis Cup.
|
 
In GB perhaps. Is Wawrinka a legend of the game? My point is he Wawrinka is not
and Murray is also not a legend and both Andy and Stan have 3 slams.
 
FF
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 02 07:09AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 12:01:02 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
 
> start.
> First four games were like how you'd play at 4-4 in the fifth.
> Never seen it, before or after.
 
Good day, Skrips :)
 
Yes, for some time it may have been gripping but it was a crushing nevertheless :)
heyguys00@gmail.com: May 02 07:54AM -0700

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:36:56 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >No, he's not the old Nadal, he's the new Nadal who is re-inventing himself due to his slower movement. His serve and bh have improved more recently. He's making hc finals for the first time in years and he's #2 in the rankings race. He's looking like the favorite to win the FO. He's holding up well for an old guy in tennis just as Federer is. They are both incredible champions.
 
> i agree. just saying that nadal has made a shift in his game that
> nobody's recognizing, and it's obvious why nobody mentions it.
 
Nadal hitting flatter (though still with a ton of spin) is potentially irrelevant since Fed has shifted as well to taking the ball on the rise on the BH and driving it instead of slicing it. With Fed now taking the BH early, it doesn't really matter how high Nadal's ball would bounce because it's never going to get to shoulder height for Fed, which was his issue before.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 02 03:17PM +0300

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission announced the first
step in its plan to kill net neutrality — reversing the Title II
classification of internet service providers. Doing so will remove many
regulations placed on big cable companies, allowing them to erect
barriers and tolls that impede the free movement of data around the
internet.
 
You won't hear Comcast or Verizon complaining, of course — this benefits
them. But young tech companies who need a level playing field on the
internet to succeed are up in arms. After FCC chairman Ajit Pai made
yesterday's announcement, a group of more than 800 startups sent him a
letter objecting to the plans.
 
"Without net neutrality, the incumbents who provide access to the
Internet would be able to pick winners or losers in the market. They
could impede traffic from our services in order to favor their own
services or established competitors. Or they could impose new tolls on
us, inhibiting consumer choice. [...] Our companies should be able to
compete with incumbents on the quality of our products and services, not
our capacity to pay tolls to Internet access providers".
 
Signatories to the letter include some recognizable names, like Y
Combinator, Etsy, Foursquare, GitHub, Imgur, Nextdoor, and Warby Parker.
But the majority of the companies involved will be unknowns to 99
percent of the population.
 
http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/27/15447394/fcc-net-neutrality-roll-back-startups-letter-y-combinator
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 02 05:43AM -0700

How come Google and Facebook aren't opposing this?
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: May 02 09:48AM -0500

On Tue, 2 May 2017 05:43:53 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> wrote:
| How come Google and Facebook aren't opposing this?
 
I thought they were.
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/fcc-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-internet-association-google-facebook-netflix-2017-4
 
FF
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 02 10:10PM +1000

On 2/05/2017 12:53 AM, Guypers wrote:
 
> LOL, official like 7543,
> Came out of whimpys ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
7543 is official, just as ceibs is.
 
I didn't invent 'ceibs', I just gave the phenomena a name. We all know
ceibs exists. You simply have to read tennis literature of any period &
it's always considered the players of the day are the best ever. That
never changes.
 
7543 is the same deal. Only retards think all the slams have the same
value/prestige. Fed/Rafa/Djoker & just about every player think
Wimbledon is no.1 by far.
 
Rst is a weird place sometimes. Lots of hardcore tennis fans seemingly
oblivious to the blindingly obvious. It's like getting blind drunk &
talking about religion/politics.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 02 06:34AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:59:48 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> 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.
 
Rosewall cleaned up your BOAT candidate Hoad when they were in the pro ranks.
 
 
> Federer is the modern version of Rosewall when you think about it.
 
So who is your modern version of Laver ? Nadal ? Well, Nadal's record outside clay is anything but ordinary for a all time great. Nadal won 5 non clay court slams in 12 finals. Sampras never won a single FO and could not even make it to the final.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 02 06:37AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 10:10:09 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> Rst is a weird place sometimes. Lots of hardcore tennis fans seemingly
> oblivious to the blindingly obvious. It's like getting blind drunk &
> talking about religion/politics.
 
Like Tomic was obvious Roddick on steroid or Roddick was Sampras on steroid. I am surprised only bob and icey agree with you. Weird hardcore tennis fans don't agree with tier 1 idiots.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 02 06:39AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 2:30:03 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
 
> Care to explain why del Potro, Murray, Federer, Wawrinka,
> Djokovic, Berdych have won it in recent years, with Nadal as
> well.
 
Care to explain why Berdych was never considered a major winner by most of tennis fan and players themselves. Only true idiot like you believe Davis Cup is a major.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 02 07:05AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 8:10:09 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> > Came out of whimpys ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
> 7543 is official, just as ceibs is.
 
Nopes mopes, it's not official. Get real.
 
> I didn't invent 'ceibs', I just gave the phenomena a name. We all know
 
It's time you swallowed your pride and came up with this admission. You introduced the acronym, we concede that.
 
> ceibs exists. You simply have to read tennis literature of any period &
> it's always considered the players of the day are the best ever. That
> never changes.
 
Wow, what a find. W, you are great ;)
 
> 7543 is the same deal. Only retards think all the slams have the same
> value/prestige. Fed/Rafa/Djoker & just about every player think
> Wimbledon is no.1 by far.
 
Stop using abusive words, retard ;) Address the main issue, namely that 7543 is not a big deal. Wimbledon is most coveted, sure. How badly did Djok or Nadal or Federer covet the CGS? After the FO 2016 win, Djok was 'absent' for the rest of the year, including Wimbledon. He didn't think he was missing out on W's fabulous 7 points he he he. The FO must have been the most precious for him in 2016, not Wimbledon of which he already had three. For 10+ slam winners, GOAT contenders, CGS, NCYGS, CYGS are all so significant that one more Wimbledon without any of those would arguably pale into insignificance. Specifically, the sole Wimbledon win, if it were to materialize (for 10+ multi Wimbledon, multi USO, multi FO winners) that year will increase the slam count by 1 and its significance would end there, unless it were the record eighth one. By the way, Nadal > Sampras already. The CGS is THAT important.
 
 
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 02 04:35PM +0300

Last Wednesday, April 25th, May met the President of the European
Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, for dinner in London. Senior members of
the British and EU negotiating teams were also present.
 
The dinner was a total disaster. But just how badly it went, at least
from the European Commission's point of view, has only just been revealed:
 
"Today's FAZ report on May's disastrous dinner with Juncker - briefed by
senior Commission sources -is absolutely damning.
 
May had said she wanted to talk not just Brexit but also world problems;
but in practice it fell to Juncker to propose one to discuss.
 
May has made clear to the Commission that she fully expects to be
reelected as PM.
 
It is thought [in the Commission] that May wants to frustrate the daily
business of the EU27, to improve her own negotiating position.
 
May seemed pissed off at Davis for regaling her dinner guests of his ECJ
case against her data retention measures-three times.
 
EU side were astonished at May's suggestion that EU/UK expats issue
could be sorted at EU Council meeting at the end of June. Juncker
objected to this timetable as way too optimistic given complexities, eg
on rights to health care.
 
Juncker pulled two piles of paper from his bag: Croatia's EU entry deal,
Canada's free trade deal. His point: Brexit will be v v complex.
 
May wanted to work through the Brexit talks in monthly, 4-day blocks;
all confidential until the end of the process. Commission said
impossible to reconcile this with need to square off member states &
European Parliament, so documents must be published.
 
EU side felt May was seeing whole thing through rose-tinted-glasses.
"Let us make Brexit a success" she told them. Juncker countered that
Britain will now be a third state, not even (like Turkey) in the customs
union: "Brexit cannot be a success".
 
May seemed surprised by this and seemed to the EU side not to have been
fully briefed. She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as
a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in
reality. May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs
set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared.
I.e., as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience)
then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit.
 
"The more I hear, the more sceptical I become" said Juncker (this was
only half way through the dinner).
 
May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because
there is nothing to that effect in the treaties. Her guests then
informed her that the EU is not a golf club. Davis then objected that EU
could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said
Juncker, then no trade deal.
 
Leaving EU27 with UK's unpaid bills will involve national parliaments in
process (a point that Berlin had made repeatedly before).
 
"I leave Downing St ten times as sceptical as I was before" Juncker told
May as he left.
 
Next morning at c7am Juncker called Merkel on her mobile, said May
living in another galaxy & totally deluding herself. Merkel quickly
reworked her speech to Bundestag to include her now-famous "some in
Britain still have illusions" comment.
 
FAZ concludes: May in election mode & playing to crowd, but what use is
a big majority won by nurturing delusions of Brexit hardliners?
 
Juncker's team now think it more likely than not that Brexit talks will
collapse & hope Brits wake up to harsh realities in time.
 
What to make of it all? Obviously this leak is a highly tactical move by
Commission. But contents deeply worrying for UK nonetheless. The report
points to major communications/briefing problems. Important messages
from Berlin & Brussels seem not to be getting through. Presumably as a
result, May seems to be labouring under some really rather fundamental
misconceptions about Brexit & the EU27.
 
Also clear that (as some of us have been warning for a while...) No 10
should expect every detail of the Brexit talks to leak."
 
Cliffe's analysis (third paragraph from the end) implies that May has
made a terrible mistake. She has put hardline Brexiteers in charge of
negotiating the UK's exit from the EU and its new trade relationships
after Brexit. They appear to be systematically deceiving her. As a
result, she is not in possession of the true facts.
 
Presumably these wrecking tactics are intended to further the
Brexiteers' real aim of a no-deal exit from the EU - the so-called
'clean Brexit'. But the cost of such an exit for the UK would be
terrible. Such behaviour from the Brexiteers is unbelievably
irresponsible. And it undermines May's own credibility, just as she is
seeking a new mandate from the British people to strengthen her hand in
the negotiations.
 
If the UK is to secure the smoothest possible end to the UK's membership
of the EU and the best possible relationship between the UK and the EU
in the future, the British team must conduct the negotiations in good
faith and with good will. The Brexiteers have demonstrated neither. May
must sack them.
 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/04/30/the-uk-government-is-completely-deluded-about-brexit/#255e76a64f04
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 02 10:30PM +1000

On 2/05/2017 1:27 AM, kaennorsing wrote:
 
> 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.
 
Class effort from Roger & he's a credit to the game. Laver would be proud.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 02 10:33PM +1000

On 2/05/2017 1:45 AM, *skriptis wrote:
 
> If he had Nishikori's results nobody would even think of him.
 
Good points. Roger is ok, but people here don't have any concept of
history & are like Bieber fans. Arthur Ashe, just to pluck a random
name out of the past, was much more of a good sportsman than Roger.
 
 
 
--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 02 06:22AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 10:33:27 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> name out of the past, was much more of a good sportsman than Roger.
 
> --
> "A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"
 
Yes, a lot of people don't have any concept of history like you. And they don't repeatedly making the mistake of judging old players base on 3 minutes youtube loop like you do with Hoad.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 02 11:04PM +1000

On 2/05/2017 11:18 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> It will be interesting to see how difficult it will be to transition from my Wilson prostaff 90.
 
> I have been using them since Sampras days but switched from the 85 to 90 when Federer came.
 
> Classical racquet, stiff, heavy, you need to have great timing to utilize their magic otherwise you won't be able to play with them.
 
Sounds like a perfect fit for my game. I'm happy with my Slazengers
though. I have 3 of these (Henman & Mauresmo used them at peak);
 
http://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=92Sny8kf&id=6DB3C538F65A5A48506CD086B13BACF5F335BFA4&thid=OIP.92Sny8kfa4_P1K9qX-DrhQEsCC&q=slazenger+tennis+racket+henamn&simid=608029759811092615&selectedIndex=19&ajaxhist=0
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: May 02 09:10AM -0400


Yours is much lighter, about 305 grams unstrung, these Wilson's
are 340 grams unstrung.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 02 06:08AM -0700

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 7:48:10 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> didn't care or train too much for 1.5 yrs. the ONLY reason he even
> gave much effort in spring 2002 was he was feeling disrespected by the
> press.
 
It is understandable to lose some motivation after securing a record, which winning the 7th Wimbledon surely is. However he only had a six (or 7 at that time?) slam winner in Agassi, his bunny, to contend with so even with some loss of motivation, and injuries, could have won a few more. The situation is similar to Federer's case in 2012, when he won the seventh Wimbledon and experienced a subsequent 'let-down' of sorts but then continued gamely until he won his 18th slam some four years later. He had to contend with two 10 plus slam winners, one of whom was piling up slam wins just at that time. Federer is great, right ;)
 
 
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: May 02 05:46AM -0700

The guy was struggling in school, give him a break.
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