Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 11 topics

Sunday, May 7, 2017

stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 07 07:06AM -0500

On 5/6/2017 6:28 PM, bob wrote:
> 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.
Difficult to imagine how Fed, at 35, could be closer to his form-peak
than Rafa is at 30?
What I think you overlook is that unlike Fed or Joker, Rafa was never,
even between 08-14, an all-time titan anywhere but on clay. He's won a
total of 5 non-clay slams, 2 AO, 2 W, and 1 USO. That's great, of
course, but not by GOAT-contender standards. E.g., Fed and Joker have
won at least that many AOs alone.
So you can't expect Rafa to ever have shown GOAT-level form at non-clay
events, which is what you are basing your judgment on when you denigrate
his current form by referencing the past four months of HC play.
Now, if he crashes out badly at the FO, that would be powerful evidence
in your favor. But we do have to wait and see how he plays on clay to
truly judge his current form compared to the past, and so far, his clay
form has been gangbusters.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 07 07:08AM -0500

On 5/6/2017 7:14 PM, bob wrote:
>> No he wouldn't. He'd be calling Federer a chump who only won so many slams back in the day because it was a weak era. We'd be hearing how Nadal has owned Fed and continues to do so therefore Fed can't be GOAT and Nadal is superior. Bob would be telling us how strong a comeback Nadal made after looking so out of it the past few years. He wouldn't be harping on about how poor Nadal's form is if Nadal beat Fed in that AO final that's for sure! He can't accept that Fed has made some positive changes on the bh side and that's the main reason he's beating Nadal off clay these days. It has to be all about Nadal's poor form for him and his agenda.
> fed is no chump, his hardware is the GOAT. but there's always a story
> to go with everything.
Tom Brady is probably exhibit A, B, and C in that regard. :)
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 07 07:10AM -0500

On 5/6/2017 6:38 PM, bob wrote:
>> 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?
It's kind of poetic that the guy who would surpass Sampras as Open Era
GOAT would be the one to knock him out of the top 10 after 11 years.
But the fact that even after that loss and drop, Sampras was still
ranked higher than Fed, and would remain so the rest of 2001, indicates
clearly that he was still closer to his peak than Fed was to his.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 07 07:15AM -0500

On 5/7/2017 1:25 AM, Whisper wrote:
> Fore Pete it was just another routine match he had trouble getting up
> for. It's a real shame they didn't play in the same era. Pete might
> have had a real rival forcing him to play his best stuff.
I can buy that after winning 2000 W Pete's general motivation at most
events slagged off. But it beggars belief that Pete wasn't fully
motivated for a 4th-round match at Wimbledon. And FWIW, he played lights
out and fought tooth and nail to the very end.
Same with USO, that's why even during that stretch, he always made USO
finals playing lights out tennis there.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: May 07 06:47AM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 8:15:41 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Stimpy realized that Fed was a better player, had more talent than himself and was bitter for a long time!
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 07 09:09AM -0700

On Sunday, 7 May 2017 04:32:02 UTC+1, RaspingDrive wrote:
> How true! It was first a slam (WImbledon 2012, which he wins and sheds tears of joy, looking animatedly at his family) and then some, which is O. With the main goal achieved (Reference: see his comment after he fired Annacone), he was 'out of sorts' for the second show (Icey, he he he). As for statements about O, Federer says things for general consumption.
> The Wimbledon 2012 win was arguably the real deal for Federer, initiating a (local) downward spiral that ended only a year or so later (early exits in USO 2012, Wimbledon 2013 etc).
> Lest we forget the main point, "leave Murray out" was based on Wimbledon 2012, 2015, and AO 2014 wins. I didn't say "leave out Djok and Rafa'.
Fed said long ago his main reason for playing was Olympics 2016.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 07 09:16AM -0700

On Sunday, 7 May 2017 13:06:34 UTC+1, StephenJ wrote:
> > closer to it than rafa is.
> Difficult to imagine how Fed, at 35, could be closer to his form-peak
> than Rafa is at 30?
it difficult to imagine,but that's just the way it is. He was only narrowly losing in 2015/2016 at masters/slams to freak guys serving consistently at 140mph and to near-peak level Djoker. The Fedfans seems to refuse to accept this proof that I said for a long time, Fed is clearly well at peak level, I dunno what more he has to do to prove I right.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 07 09:19AM -0700

On Sunday, 7 May 2017 00:38:01 UTC+1, bob wrote:
> >Sampras was #10, Federer #13.
> by then, ranking meant 0 to sampras. the fact he was ranked 12 should
> tell you something.
yep just really good to have official confirmation of what is quite obvious really to anyone who's watch/studied him during this time.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 07 06:22PM +0300

The Senate effectively requires 60 votes to pass most legislation, but
Republicans hold only 52 seats. However, Senate rules allow for the
passage of certain types of legislation using a process known as
reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority. Republicans
planned to use the reconciliation process to go it alone on both health
care and tax reform.
But that process comes with conditions. There's a ticking clock; the
reconciliation instructions that allow for the passage of the health
care bill expire as soon as the next budget resolution is introduced.
And the process does not allow for the passage of legislation that
raises the deficit outside the 10-year budget window via a simple majority.
This, for example, is why the tax cuts passed under President George W.
Bush in 2001 were set to expire after a decade. For tax cuts to be
permanent, they must be deemed "revenue neutral."
That is where the American Health Care Act comes in: It would eliminate
roughly $1 trillion in taxes used to pay for the additional spending in
Obamacare. As a result, it would significantly lower the federal
government's tax revenue baseline. The baseline is an important figure
in congressional budgeting, because it sets expectations for how much
the government is projected, on paper, to spend and raise if current law
remains the same.
The trick, then, is to make the health care bill's tax cuts part of that
baseline by passing them into law before a tax-reform package. This
would provide Republicans with far more room to permanently cut taxes
later in the year. In short, Republicans would be able to devise a tax
bill that collects about $1 trillion less in revenue but that would
still qualify as revenue-neutral under Senate procedure.
This is why Republicans put health care reform at the top of their
agenda. Without the bill to reset the federal government's baseline tax
revenue, Republicans would be much more constrained when it came time to
overhaul the tax code.
An excercise in cynicism. No wonder the Americans wanted to drain the
swamp. Waittaminute ...
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 07 11:03AM -0500

It's heartwarming to know that some in Sweden care about our tax
policies, LOL.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 07 07:02PM +0300

Brussels launched an attack on London's role as Europe's financial center.
A four-page European Commission "communication" released Thursday has
thrown into doubt whether the U.K. will be able to retain its almost €1
trillion euro-clearing business, threatening London's status as the de
facto financial hub of the EU.
It appears to be the first shot fired in the financial services battle
following the U.K.'s Brexit vote, with the EU declaring war on euro
Right now, London handles €927 billion worth of euro-denominated
transactions each day, and as much as 75 percent of euro-denominated
interest-rate derivatives are cleared at clearing houses in the U.K.
Clearing involves an entity standing in the middle of two parties to a
transaction, with the aim of managing the risk that arises if one party
cannot make required payments.
Although the U.K. is outside the eurozone, it is subject to the EU's
landmark derivatives legislation, the European Market Infrastructure
Regulation (EMIR), and to EU supervision.
But after Brexit, that would all change, and the EU is not content to
sit back and watch its currency being traded in a non-member country and
without the ability to intervene in case of financial instability.
"The fact that euro clearing is currently taking place in London and
thereby outside of the eurozone is an anomaly that cannot be maintained
after Brexit," said Markus Ferber, a German conservative MEP and vice
chair of the European Parliament's economic and monetary affairs
committee. "On crucial issues of financial market stability, the EU must
not rely on the mere goodwill of third-country authorities."
Brussels' concerns are likely to lead to legislative action putting
forward two potential options for U.K. clearing houses. They can either
expect to submit themselves to more supervision from the EU, despite
having Brexited, or watch the multibillion industry relocate to another
place within the bloc.
Any move to limit euro clearing in the U.K. would be entirely a
political decision as a result of Brexit, but the topic itself is not new.
The European Central Bank attempted to take a pop at London a few years
ago, arguing in a location policy that any significant euro-clearing
business should be handled in the eurozone.
But in a 2015 ruling, following a U.K. complaint, the EU's General Court
sided with the U.K. Instead of remarking on potential financial
stability concerns of euro clearing taking place outside the eurozone,
the court ruled the ECB had no authority over clearing in the EU.
Specifically, the court declared that the ECB "does not have the
competence necessary to regulate the activity of securities-clearing
The Commission, by contrast, holds the pen on rules for clearing and
looks set to take full advantage of those powers. If so, it would be a
post-Brexit-vote move that's as political as it can get in Europe's
financial services arena.
EU regulators such as the European Securities and Markets Authority and
the ECB could reach an arrangement whereby they are granted enhanced
powers over clearing houses despite those firms being outside the area
of EU regulatory remit. The threat to remove clearing from the U.K.,
however, is sure to be a key item in the inevitable Brexit horse-trading
over the coming months.
For London, the loss would be devastating. Some estimate it would cost
the city £63 billion. The industry is the centerpiece of banking in the
City of London, and any clearing house departures could be followed by
large financial institutions and with it, tens of thousands of jobs.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 07 06:56PM +0300

The main points:
- Unless both parties unanimously agree otherwise, on 30.3.2019, the UK
will become a third country vis a vis the EU. The both meaning 1+27.
- The agreement on future relations can only be reached after the UK is
a third country. (Ms May's 2 point program insists on negotiations on
divorce and future relations to be carried on simultaneously)
- Transitional agreements will be part of the talks on future arrangements.
- No sector-by-sector visits to the cookie jar.
- A non-member can not have the same rights as a member.
- Participation in the Single Market requires acceptance of the four
- There will be no separate talks between individual menmbers and the UK.
- Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
- The agreement will have to respect the role of the Court of Justice of
the EU.
- These directives constitute a moving target.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 07 06:44AM -0500

On 5/5/2017 12:01 PM, Whisper wrote:
>> Sad but true. Tenure can grow dead wood.
> http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/addicted-poker-machine-user-wants-stronger-controls-to-stop-outofcontrol-gambling-20170504-gvygnb.html
People like to make excuses for their bad choices.
FWIW, my wife likes to gamble, really the whole experience of getting
dolled up, having some drinks, playing the slots, etc. We do that once a
I go along because though I know the odds and don't really derive
enjoyment from betting, she looks amazing dressed to the nines and it
puts her in the mood so to speak, but I also maintain a tight budget on
it. To me the moment I withdraw the cash the money is at that moment
lost, I have no expectations of ever seeing it again and of course 95%
of the time we play until we lose it all. Most importantly, it's always
a sum that fits well inside our budget for entertainment so does no harm
to the family finances, and she accepts that once the money for that
outing is spent, that's it, no going to the ATM machine for more, LOL.
Even when we go to Las Vegas, as part of the trip I set an overall
gambling budget in advance, and she knows she has that much to spend and
no more.
It's no different to me than spending the money on anything else that is
consumed instantly, like a steak dinner at a nice restaurant or tickets
to a play or concert.
This professor obviously let things get out of control.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 07 08:45AM -0700

On Sunday, 7 May 2017 08:58:10 UTC+1, Whisper wrote:
> could least afford it spending like 25% of their pension.
> Sure the 'dream' keeps some of them going/living in hope, but why not
> throw $5 at a ticket instead of $100+ every week?
I often buy a ticket or two, it would rule to win the lottery, but spending 10's of pounds on it would be crazy, mind you have known guys earning a lot of money that spend at least £100 on it a month, they say cos it then they're in it with a better chance.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 07 06:28PM +0300

The scorn with which "EU sources" have briefed about Theresa May and
Jean-Claude Juncker's disastrous dinner in Downing Street is an
indication of the dismay felt in Brussels at how the coming Brexit
negotiations are going to disrupt normal EU business.
So far that potential has been vastly underestimated — and the
disruption has only just begun.
Look at the context of the dinner: as POLITICO reported at the end of
last week, the European Commission leadership was exasperated that the
British government would not give consent (albeit in the form of an
abstention) to the proposed mid-term review of 2014-20 EU spending plans.
The British claimed such a politically important decision was
inappropriate during an election campaign — and invoked "electoral
purdah." That prompted an intemperate message from Martin Selmayr, head
of Commission president Juncker's private office, that there would be
reciprocal purdah over the Brexit talks "formal or informal" until after
the British election.
It is plausible that British recalcitrance on the budget review
triggered the briefing against May and her colleagues. To the
Commission, that mid-term review is an important objective — Juncker's
team wants to rebalance the spending priorities that were set before the
current administration took office.
Although the proposal had already been delayed by Italy and
foot-dragging by the European Parliament, indignation at the U.K.
"blocking" it was greater because Britain had previously signaled its
readiness to abstain. On the shelf for the moment, the review may next
be delayed by Germany's elections.
calimero377@gmx.de: May 07 07:09AM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 1:36:59 PM UTC+2, TT wrote:
> If you want to support real journalism then give your money to NYT or
> WAPO, you know the kind of media which actually does real investigative
> journalism. You'll get an actual newspaper as well.
NYT and WaPo are not "real journalism". They are agitators for the Democratic party. Their selection of WHAT they report and their SPIN in everything they report makes them the quintessential "fake media". Far more dangerous then simple liars like Breitbart or Rolling Stone.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: May 07 08:21AM -0700

> > journalism. You'll get an actual newspaper as well.
> NYT and WaPo are not "real journalism". They are agitators for the Democratic party. Their selection of WHAT they report and their SPIN in everything they report makes them the quintessential "fake media". Far more dangerous then simple liars like Breitbart or Rolling Stone.
> Max
Maxboy, stick to nazi politics, dont comment on adult matters!
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: May 07 05:24AM -0700

As has been discussed here: Fed's #1 goal is winning Wimbledon this year. This could be his last realistic chance at that record-breaking 8th title there. However, in prepping for Wimbledon, Fed would be a fool to not give the FO a good try (given the current state with his rivals and himself). The question then becomes how to maximize his chances for the FO (and possible CYGS) without jeopardizing this year's big Wimbledon opportunity.
The draws, health and form of his rivals are not under his control so let's put that aside. What he can control are his own form, (mental) health and fitness level from the FO through Wimbledon. The way to direct and optimize his form and preserve his fitness is to take a leave out of what worked so well at the AO. Now, coming in as a big underdog without anything to lose is already guaranteed by not participating in any clay tune-up before the FO starts.
Secondly, what also worked so well at the AO; Take the ball early and play more aggressively from the return. The team told him: 'nobody is as good as you when taking the ball early, so use that (more) on the return'. Aided by the improved backhand return and drive backhands, he would rush his opponents from the start of the point, not letting a regular/defensive rally occur. This is an area where the SABR comes in handily as a sporadic tactical ploy.
Beyond using the SABR more frequently at the FO he will need a similar tactic to employ on his own service games and to move into net easier and keep points short. The answer is to serve and volley. But... not in the classical sense, where you follow the serve to the net (that he should also use regularly!), but more opportunistically. Meaning position himself well inside the baseline to anticipate the return. I would say move one or two steps further inside the court (after the serve) than he normally would. He can then regularly do a classic serve volley, given his positioning and momentum moving forward. But mostly hold his ground there.
Alls this will help to take time away, put pressure on opponents and score lots of quick (and spectacular) winners. If the return is effective and threatens to land deep in the court, instead of retreat behind the baseline to start controlling the point go for full out aggression and take the ball out of the air. So in short, serve and volley from the baseline... Can it be done? Yes, I think so. Just watch these;
Honestly, he has little to lose imo. This should help him navigate himself safely through the FO and, if nothing else, prepare himself for an all out assault at Wimbledon 2017... Those plays and subtle tactical (s&v) variations will work wonders there. At the very least be quite a spectacle and... maybe, just maybe... change the way the game will be played in the future.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 07 09:43AM -0500

IIRC, the last time someone served/volleyed their way to an FO title was
Yannick Noah.
That happened well over 12,000 days ago, probably longer than you have
been alive. So I doubt it's happening this year.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 06 09:14PM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 10:05:24 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> he was injured by rosol IMO, but delpot was always capable of
> blastiing him out. still is.
> bob
He was blasted out of Wimbledon 3 or 4 years in row and must be injured every year at that time of the year for the last three or four years. Rafa had excellent timing for those injuries and they only happened after he lost matches at Wimbledon.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 07 07:22AM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 12:00:40 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >> bob
> >Didn't you say you lost some prized possession in a bet with your mother-in-law or someone after Federer's Wimbledon 2012 win?
> bet with a mother n law? lol. you have me confused with someone else.
I surely remember you saying you lost a bet after Fed won W 2012. We even joked about in the week following the win. If I were a wizard at ferreting out the post .....
> i did say my father told me around 2002 that fed would rewrite the
> record books, but my father knows little about tennis.
Maybe you should listen to your dad more? :)
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 07 07:29AM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 12:01:40 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >Stop spreading a canard. He was blasted out by Rosol, especially in the fifth set.
> i believe he had a bad knee or ankle after rosol, he took a lot of
> time off for no other reason.
He also had a bad back during/after the spanking he received from Stan. Strange that just two days before that he was spanking Federer with usual elan (grunts, growls, stares, running like a rabbit etc), inflicting on him a straight sets defeat and giving the impression that Federer was never going to beat him anywhere, leave alone slams.
> but delpotro can beat nadal on any given day.
Murray too. Djokovic too, and now Federer too.
calimero377@gmx.de: May 07 07:16AM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 1:22:57 PM UTC+2, TT wrote:
> Saw Comey the other day. He is so full of crap it's unreal...
> Likes to use the word 'integrity' a lot while his actions are completely
> opposite.
I never understood why Comey didn't recommend an indictment for Hillary. Must have been a lot of pressure from Obama, Lynch, B. Clinton.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 07 07:00AM -0500

On 5/5/2017 10:56 PM, Bharath Purohit wrote:
> SF Djokovic
> F Murray/Wawrinka
> Toughest draw possible.
If he drops a set I'll be surprised.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: May 07 05:39AM -0700

Op zondag 7 mei 2017 14:00:54 UTC+2 schreef StephenJ:
> > F Murray/Wawrinka
> > Toughest draw possible.
> If he drops a set I'll be surprised.
To Sousa/Fognini, yes. The others not so much. Madrid has never been Rafa's favorite court, I can't imagine he's that motivated this week and he'll probably welcome a nice break before Rome. As a Fedfan I hope he drains himself and wins/loses the final. Rinse and repeat at Rome and then onto the FO :)
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.


Post a Comment