Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

Thursday, May 18, 2017

John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 07:02AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:17:55 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> He certainly would be the only clear cut surface goat/boat.
 
> As it stands most people will still have Laver on top as far as
> 'greatest tennis records'.
 
Are you sure about that ? I remember one idiot name whisper said a few years ago Laver only won 5 open era slams that was too fewer to be considered GOAT. Was he the same Whisper ?
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 07:08AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 7:57:35 AM UTC+10, TT wrote:
 
> I have always said this and it is what I firmly believe: 10 RG titles
> would eclipse all other records, 18 slams is peanuts compared to it - an
> inferior record which will be broken relatively quickly.
 
So 18 is peanuts, OK, out of those 18 there is 7 Wimbledons, 5 AO and 5 USO, Nadal's total on those slam is not even a 1/3 of that peanuts.
 
> If you want to look it that way, then Nadal would have 15+1 and the h2h.
> Two slams is too few to overcome the h2h deficit... especially when we
> consider that Nadal would hold the most impressive tennis record in history.
 
Dominating 1 slam is not comparable to having the best record in two grand slams.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 07:18AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:42:54 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> record on all/any surface.
 
> As for 'weeks'... well, Federer is currently showing you how unimportant
> that is, electing not to fight for #1.
 
Federer will be playing the rest of the year and will have a chance at #1 should he replicate his early 2017 wins. Two slams, four masters 1000, and the YEC account for 9,500 points. If he wins one slam, two masters and the YEC he will have close to 10,000 points. Continuing with this 'Whisperian' method, add one more slam and one more masters and he is surely #1 by the end of the year.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 19 12:19AM +1000

On 18/05/2017 10:04 PM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> So in my estimation the 2 most solid
>> greats in tier 1 are Laver & Nadal.
 
> Of course. Any way you can move the goalposts to exclude Federer from greatness and place him into mediocrity, we know you'll attempt it. Too bad your "estimation" is worthless.
 
I wasn't responding to you. You're one the few quality analysts in rst
I find hard to argue with.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: May 18 06:26AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 3:22:56 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
 
> > True and Nadal failed to make the appointment the 7 times Federer was there.
 
> What explanation do you have for Fed's failure to play Rafa at USO? 3
> times Rafa was waiting for him, & all 3 times Fed lost the match before.
 
Same as Wawrinka waiting for Federer in 3 slam finals I presume.
 
 
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: May 18 06:30AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 4:50:20 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
 
> If Sampras lost to Rafter there would be no *, just as there is no * for
> any match in history. Well, before Fed came on the scene & Fedfuckers
> put * next to all of his losses.: )
 
Don't you have multiple asterisks for Sampras at the FO...year after year.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 06:51AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:22:56 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> > True and Nadal failed to make the appointment the 7 times Federer was there.
 
> What explanation do you have for Fed's failure to play Rafa at USO? 3
> times Rafa was waiting for him, & all 3 times Fed lost the match before.
 
Federer made 7 USO finals where was Nadal in those finals ? Federer also made 10 Wimbledon finals where was Nadal in 7 of those finals ? Federer also made 6 AO finals where was Nadal in 4 of those finals ? What explanation do you have for Nadal's failure to play Federer in 18 finals ?
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 06:52AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 9:50:20 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> light than Rafa's retrieving, don't you think?
 
> > In fading light it becomes more of a toss up, while Fed was slowly becoming the better player in that match. Say, what if the 2000 Wimbledon final was played an hour later and Sampras lost to Rafter in the dark. You might think there was an asterisk next to the win then?
 
> Rafa should have won that match 64 64 63 as I predicted before the match.
 
Just like your roddick was Sampras on steroid prediction, it was wrong the match went to five sets and finished 9:7 in the fifth.
 
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 06:56AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:57:42 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> > 2nd part: Fed leads 6-2 = 75%
 
> > Pretty telling I would say.
 
> Not when you consider 4 of the 6 are WTF matches - essentially exhibition.
 
That certainly wasn't your tone when Sampras was winning them in the 90s.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 06:58AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 9:00:42 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> Actually not true. I turned the radio on the other day in the car & all
> the talk on a sports show was how Fed was cowered by Rafa's form on clay
> & that's why he was ducking the FO.
 
False, it was barely mentioned in most of the sport show I watched and heard. .
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 19 12:17AM +1000

On 18/05/2017 10:03 PM, TT wrote:
>> becoming the better player in that match.
 
> Nonsense.
 
> And if you can't see well the bigger server gets the advantage.
 
Yes, the guy who is more aggressive has the advantage in poor light.
It's hard enough to react in broad daylight, let alone in dusk.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 07:12AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:07:44 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
Of course he was not smart as someone who saw Roddick winning 12 slams and I am sure he probably would do a lot better at primary school level maths than you did.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 07:08AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:32:34 AM UTC-4, soccerfan777 wrote:
> I still haven't watched that movie. Nice troll attempt Iceberg
 
Raja, have you watched Bahubali 2?
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 18 05:57AM -0700

That was his best ever clay performance!
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 18 06:04AM -0700

What on Earth makes you reckon Sampras wouldn't be a dominant net player? With a modern racquet and today's opposition he would be like a super Tsonga but with 1000000 times better volleys! He'd be stupid not to volley them all the bits. You nuts went overboard when the SABR (slow attack by Roger) happened, the Sampras version would be like that but 10000000 times better.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 18 03:35PM +0200

> What on Earth makes you reckon Sampras wouldn't be a dominant net player? With a modern racquet and today's opposition he would be like a super Tsonga but with 1000000 times better volleys! He'd be stupid not to volley them all the bits. You nuts went overboard when the SABR (slow attack by Roger) happened, the Sampras version would be like that but 10000000 times better.
 
Very sensible post.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 18 03:31PM +0200

> Ivanka is overrated in terms of beauty and even more overrated in terms of brains
 
 
She's even overrated in terms of personal wealth. Trump is worth
only couple of billions but has three wives and at least 5 kids,
legitimate ones.
 
Her share is probably under 1 billion yet people think she's all
that immensely, beautiful, smart and wealthy.
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: May 18 03:00PM +0100

"People who are briefing President Trump say he has a short attention
span. They've taken to including his name in each paragraph so he is
drawn to continue reading the memo. That's really rather sad. There's a
broad sense that this President might not have the proper skills for
this job."
 
Professor Stefan Halper
 
Halper served in the Nixon, Ford & Reagan administrations, and is
currently a Professor at Cambridge University. I think the quote was
from BBC Radio 4's Today programme yesterday.
 
It's well known that the President doesn't have time to read books,
or indeed any other written material.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 18 04:34PM +0300

Second serve, decent return, Rogi forced to move a step back.
 
In preparing, Rogi takes a full turn. He can go either corner from that
stance and Sampras is left guessing. When the blow comes -- again early
ball, spinny, heavy bullet with great placement -- it's too late.
Sampras has to lift the ball up and the wrong-footing finishing off is
with equal precision.
 
Breathtaking. The great news is that that FH can be taken on clay, HC
and ... anything, and it will be just as effective. McEnroe drools when
he sees it on TV.
 
All this with catgut and a 85 sqin paddle. The times were a changing.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG70ifjGLqQ#t=22m24s
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 18 03:53PM +0300

18.5.2017, 15:43, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
 
> "Conservatives begin to whisper: President Pence".
 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/17/mike-pence-president-trump-238525
 
> I knew I'd love the Trump ... um, term.
 
Let's hope they'll put him to testify under oath...
Easy to impeach him on lying under oath then.
 
"You said that you have no business connections with Russia, is this true?"
 
Same goes for Pence...
 
"When did you know about Flynn's connections with Russia/Turkey?"
 
On best case scenario this would lead to impeachment AND then
prosecution on his illegal business practices etc which will probably
now be looked more closely...
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 18 04:00PM +0300

18.5.2017, 15:46, The Iceberg kirjoitti:
> Yep the deep state is going full steam ahead after him, they real desperate, shame there's nothing about Russia or are they going to argue against that the popular vote went to Hilllary?
 
Sure there is loads of stuff on Russia.
 
Flynn connections, Trump's business connections, secret meetings with
Russians for backdoor deals etc etc.
 
Look, Trump got info on hacked material which had been published and
quickly withdrawn from some obscure Russian language site...Trump used
that info in his rallies the same day. Roger Stone knew that Podesta had
been hacked when nobody else did etc. There was collaboration, that is
certain...
 
Can they prove it with other than circumstantial evidence is another
matter. Why would one hope that they can't?
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: May 18 09:02AM -0400

> upon... If he doesn't get Trump on collaboration with Russia or
> obstruction of justice etc, he will get him for his criminal business
> practices, bribery etc.
 
It will be about how Trump reacts going forward to do more serious
mistakes.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 18 06:14AM -0700

Thanks! Am curious about how and what, as Pelle just writes and never explains anything.
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: May 18 02:17PM +0100

On 18/05/2017 13:46, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> Yep the deep state is going full steam ahead after him, they real desperate,
> shame there's nothing about Russia or are they going to argue against that the popular vote went to Hilllary?
 
"Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians"
 

<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social>
 
"Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump's campaign were in
contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least
18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016
presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the
exchanges told Reuters.
 
The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now
being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian
interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between
Trump's campaign and Russia.
 
Six of the previously undisclosed contacts described to Reuters were
phone calls between Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the United
States, and Trump advisers, including Flynn, Trump's first national
security adviser, three current and former officials said.
 
Conversations between Flynn and Kislyak accelerated after the Nov. 8
vote as the two discussed establishing a back channel for communication
between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the
U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile
to improved relations, four current U.S. officials said."
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 18 03:27PM +0200

> 18.5.2017, 15:42, The Iceberg kirjoitti:
>> Lol pity there's no evidence. They going to show Russia fixed the election, too funny, what a waste of time, just like that pro-Hillary liar Jill Stein's biased recount.
 
> There is PLENTY of evidence...
 
Evidence for what?
Sure yes.
 
He even MET AND TALKED both to Russian ambassador AND Russian
foreign minister they other day.
 
Intolerable.
 
IMPEACH NOW.
 
hahaha
--
 
 
----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