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

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:47PM -0400

On Mon, 1 May 2017 22:46:48 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
>> press.
 
>> bob
 
>We know you are like whisper a fucked up Sampras fan. Look Sampras knew what he was doing in the last two years, he did not care much about tune ups but he like many champions before him always thought he had a slam in him until around 2002. He stuck around for 2 years because he knew he had a genuine chance of winning more grand slam. It is ridiculous to claim Sampras did not care about winning grand slams but continuing to get to the final of USO three years in a row just falling one match short on two occassion, if Sampras did not care why he was cared to win 6 matches but not the last match ? Mr 104 percent it does not make any sense at all just like many of your other contributions but it will surely please your master.
 
john, i'm sorry, but you didn't understand what i wrote. i know it's
your 2nd language, so you deserve slack for it, but when you're
confused just ask. here it is again, just read it slowly and try to
comprehend it. it's not what you repeat above so you're either lying
or trolling.
 
i never said sampas "didn't want to win a slam." i said sampras lost
much motivation, was injured often and trained far less. for the 2
weeks he actually played slams, he tried very hard. for the other 44
weeks of the year (weeks he usually prepped religiously) he didn't
give a rats ass about prepping or training.
 
please re-read. and you've now used your 2017 quota, have a nice year.
 
>> career's dream. he lost motivation, he developed some back injuries
>> and he barely trained, while considering retirement. i know cause i
>> know his trainers.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:48PM -0400

On Tue, 2 May 2017 06:08:33 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> 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 ;)
 
of course federer is great. anyone over 10 slams is certainly a
"great." federer had his circumstances, sampras had his.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:39PM -0400

On Mon, 1 May 2017 19:09:59 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>> 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 was pummeling his fh to Fed's bh the exact same way he has been his entire life in the AO 2017 final and he almost won the match doing it. The difference was Fed instead of being a shrinking violet continued to unleash his bh and went all out in the fifth vs Nadal. It paid dividends. Whisper who is also a Fed hater can see it so why can't you?
 
so now you're agreeing with whisper after 10 yrs of dismissing him?
gotcha.
 
 
>> >If Nadal wins the FO and makes finals off clay(and may even win some off clay) you can't continue with the Nadal is done and dusted
 
>> done and dusted, no. but a shell of his former self? surely.
 
>Well this "shell of his former self" is probably going to win the FO 2017 and has been making hc finals for the first time since 2013.
 
he won FO 9 times. most of those were walk throughs no sweat. and if
he wins 2017, which he hasn't yet, you're saying he's back to normal.
 
my gosh woman.
 
>You sound as foolish as the Fedfuckers who claimed Fed was out of form due to mono in 2008/09 and yet he was making every slam final.
 
federer had no reason to drop off. he didn't spend 2+ yrs losing
challengers at age 3+ for chrissakes.
 
my gosh woman.
 
> Nadal was the better player vs Fed in those days but these days Fed has turned the tables and it isn't against a Nadal who is a shell of his former self if Nadal is making bloody hc finals and almost beat Fed on a quicker AO hc this year. Nadal and Fed are both past prime but both are showing their best form in years.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:41PM -0400


>> 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.
 
thank you. finally someone posts what i've been baiting those to say.
and that's fine, but when nadal starts hitting the same and chasing
the same, he'll be NADAL.
 
do you not recall every fedfan in RST for a good 7-8 yrs saying nadal
was ONLY A RETRIEVER???? and now nadal's old, injured, and his
"retrieving" is down a couple notches, so how can he POSSIBLY be the
old nadal????
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:21PM -0400


>> you 2 bring incredibly weak arguments. oh well.
 
>You have no credibility until you reveal some of your news sources. I
>know, I know, it's scary...
 
i got a prius for sale jd, in great shape, low miles...very earth
friendly?
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:24PM -0400

>> know, I know, it's scary...
 
>He doesn't seem to have preferred "sources". Nothing wrong with that. He just soaks it all in and forms an opinion. Much like the rest of us. The difference is that most of the rest of us don't dismiss posters' opinions based merely on what sources they quote.
>It's a straw man.
 
1 source, and i won't reveal a name. i dated a girl for many many yrs
who later worked (in IT no less) for 5 yrs in the state dept under
obama and hillary.
 
i have a couple others, but no need to go wacky about it. mostly just
read various sources and make common sense. and for god's sake, start
to realize CNN, MSNBC and the rest are no better than Fox or
Breitbart. once you're there, you'll see the light.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:33PM -0400


>Choosing not to quote Fox news is not the same as "blindly following a biased MSM".
 
>> disliking trump doesn't.
 
>Yet you have not shown any respect for the opinions of any of the people here who recognize how awful Trump is.
 
? i'm not giving trump an A+ grade so far. but i'm very happy h
clinton isn't in.

>> you 2 bring incredibly weak arguments. oh well.
 
>Who is "you 2"? Instead of "playing the ball", you repeatedly dismiss all negative assertions against Trump because of what sources are used. That's about as weak as one can get.
 
i'm not dismissing trump negativity, i am dismissing 1 sided
viewpoints. you are ONLY about trump negativity, not about obama or
clinton negativity (though i suspect you're happy to throw in some
bush negativity, eh?)
 
i don't want to rant, but did you watch jimmy kimmel last night? maybe
the 1st time i've ever seen kimmel, i was doing other things and i
hear the man crying openly, sobbing really. seems his son born last wk
has a heart defect, and he turned that into a political anti trump
rant (trump wants to cut some funding from the NIH). he blamed trump
for not having birth defects solved and he blamed trump for "only rich
people being able to afford health care for their kids."
 
did kimmel say obama reduced NIH funding by 40% related to GDP over
the past 8 years though? nope. THAT biased prick kimmel is a fraud to
do that. if you only see ONE side, then you're the same fraud.
 
open up your darned eyes. be open. look at it all.
 
>Address the point, not the source.
 
true. but you 2 are in this discussion with me, so i'm simply saying
you consistently only see 1 point of view. or at least that's what
your posts reveal.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:34PM -0400

>> >Thankfully he's not my president.
 
>> thankfully you're not his citizen.
 
>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.
 
bob
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: May 02 04:54PM -0400

On 5/2/2017 9:10 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> Yours is much lighter, about 305 grams unstrung, these Wilson's are
> 340 grams unstrung.
 
Still can't touch my Dunlop Max 200G that I play with.
355 g. :)
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: May 02 04:56PM -0400

On 5/2/2017 4:54 PM, TennisGuy wrote:
 
Yours is much lighter, about 305 grams unstrung, these Wilson's are
 
> Still can't touch my Dunlop Max 200G that I play with. 355 g. :)
 
Sorry, make that 360 g!
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: May 02 02:17PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 4:56:49 PM UTC-4, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> > Still can't touch my Dunlop Max 200G that I play with. 355 g. :)
 
> Sorry, make that 360 g!
 
Play with Wilson profile 2.7 14oz, 110 sqins, for real men!!
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: May 02 07:11PM -0400

On 5/2/2017 5:17 PM, Guypers wrote:
 
>> Sorry, make that 360 g!
 
> Play with Wilson profile 2.7 14oz, 110 sqins, for real men!!
 
Is that what you play with?
Which pro endorses it?
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: May 02 04:33PM -0700

> Still can't touch my Dunlop Max 200G that I play with.
355 g. :)
 
I played with it, also played with wood.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: May 02 05:01PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 7:33:14 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Still can't touch my Dunlop Max 200G that I play with.
> 355 g. :)
 
> I played with it, also played with wood.
 
Dunlop Maxply fort?
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: May 02 05:33PM -0700

> Dunlop Maxply fort?
 
No, the 200g.
 
The wooden was if I remember correctly was Ascot. Omg, this was very heavy.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 02 04:21PM -0500

> On 4/28/2017 11:25 AM, Scott wrote:
 
> You need to distinguish between credible tennis analysis and fanboism. Rosewall would NOT defeat Fed on any surface, at any time.
 
I suspect that if they played in 1960 with Rosewall's equipment, he
wins, and if they played in 2010 with Fed's, Fed would win.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: May 02 03:03PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 5:21:15 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
LOL, Ken would be lucky to get a game, even if they played with broomsticks!!!
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:21PM -0400


>> You need to distinguish between credible tennis analysis and fanboism. Rosewall would NOT defeat Fed on any surface, at any time.
 
>I suspect that if they played in 1960 with Rosewall's equipment, he
>wins, and if they played in 2010 with Fed's, Fed would win.
 
it's not just the equipment. it's the training, the technology, the
hours put in by today's guys in a more competitive world where kids
train hours at both tennis, gym, and diet from age 5.
 
it's a million things really. and 20 yrs from now it'll be a million
more. but fanboys will be fanboys.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:17PM -0400

On Mon, 1 May 2017 18:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> at their peaks, on most surfaces, i believe rafa is a solid favorite.
>> maybe fast HC i'd give the nod to fed.
 
>But it wouldn't have been that way had Federer corrected his weakness against Nadal, i.e the bh.
 
again, he's able to correct it because nadal changed his FH and his
tactics.
 
 
>> i'd normally tend to agree except that if he beats this version of
>> murray/djokovic it doesn't say much.
 
>This Nadal would beat an in form Murray or Djokovic on clay IMO.
 
djokovic, who manhandled peak nadal on clay when he was zoning? tough
to say. but yeah, i'd take nadal more often, sure.

 
>> >It has nothing to do with what is happening between Federer and Nadal.
 
>> it has everything to do with nadal making finals.
 
>Huh? Nadal is making hc finals for the first time in years.
 
and, once again, where are murray and djokovic? losing 1R.
 
> He almost beat Federer on a faster hc at the AO and as I said if Nadal had defeated Fed on this faster hc surface we would not be hearing this "out of form" Nadal story from you.
 
it's not what i'd call "out of form." it's what i'd call a drop in
level, and a strategy change.
 
 
>> it's a chicken/egg question. i'm egg, you're chicken. it's not
>> perplexing at all.
 
>Quit the crap.
 
chicken shit? :-)
 
> I'm fairly neutral as a Fedal fan so I don't have an agenda.
 
ahahahahha. sure. like you were neutral with "crazy bernie" and
"asshole trump" and "queen hillary." lol.
 
> Fed and Nadal are the two best players in 2017. Fed made some changes to his bh which makes the difference off clay in that match-up. It doesn't mean Fed will win all of their off clay matches but he has a much better chance if he continues to take the bh early and plays aggressively. Nadal is looking dominant on clay again. I doubt even an in form Djokovic will take three sets off this Nadal at the FO. Djokovic was only able to beat Nadal at the FO in 2015 when Nadal was completely off. Fed was never able to beat Nadal at the FO.
 
>Stop saying Nadal is off. He's sweeping the clay season so far. He was losing to nobodies on clay in 2015 and 2016.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:18PM -0400

On Mon, 1 May 2017 21:56:21 -0400, TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> never said he wasn't happy with his career, i just said the 2 holes
>> he wants filled are a singles OG and 8th wim.
 
>If you have the right to tell us what Fed wants, then I do too!
 
fed told us that.
 
in fact this year he said his main focus in on wimbledon, he said it
months ago. read up.
 
>And I say he wants to win another F.O. So there!
 
fed didn't agree with you. quit being argumentative just cause it's me
here.
 
bob
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: May 02 04:27PM -0500

On Tue, 02 May 2017 11:14:39 -0500, Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid> wrote:
| On Tue, 2 May 2017 08:37:10 -0700 (PDT), The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> wrote:
|| Murray's a legend cos he won Wimbledon, did it twice in-fact and more importantly he was the first Brit to win it in
|| decades - he also won the Olympics twice - these are giant global marketing factors - you either don't understand that
|| or live in a basement, after Fed and Nadal, he's definitely the world's most well known tennis player.
|
| After Djoker? LOL. You know what kings did with court jesters right that failed to please?
 
Before Djoker LOL....
 
 
| You're living dangerously Icey...;-)
|
| Murray is a disgruntled, melencholy Scot....is he a capable talent....certainly...not a legend
| in the world outside of GB. Nobody would miss him if he quit tomorrow...at least no one with
| any rational thoughts coursing through their brains....I guess that excludes you? ;-)
|
| FF
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:01PM -0400

On Mon, 1 May 2017 20:31:54 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> "new style" (which is 2 notches below his peak IMO) gets him to some
>> finals.
 
>Leave Murray out of this. He has beaten Federer, what, once in slams?
 
demolished him in an OG final at wimbledon.
 
> That was in AO 2013, a poor season for Federer by his exalted standards. Nadal and Djok are the two main obstacles for Federer.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 08:12PM -0400

On Mon, 1 May 2017 19:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
> <If Nadal won the AO we wouldn't be hearing this Nadal is out of form crap from you and you know it. We would be hearing how weak Federer is.>
 
>No, I think that if Nadal had won the AO, defeating the Great Man in the Final,
>then bob would be praising Fed to the skies- *cause Nadal beat him*.
 
don't think so. IMO federer won 10 slams against a weak field, but
they all count, and those last 8 he won against the likes of nadal,
djok, murray more or less. i surely don't think he beat a peak nadal
at AO this year, but he's 35 and he did make it to the finals. i'm not
criticizing his AO whatsoever.
 
>It's (still!) all about Sampras, and pathetic attempts to make Fed look bad in comparison. Hence the latest incarnation of the Clown Era meme: "the field's so
>bad even old Nadal can win!" Too funny.
 
sampras held the record a good while, and since then federer and 2
other players have either passed or approached his record. plus 3 guys
have a career slam, something not achieved for 40yrs before agassi. so
like mikko said, either something's fishy in the air or these are the
3 best players in history all at one time, by chance.
 
if you think they're the 3 best players in history, it's possible. for
fun, we could compare to other sports:
magic johnson and michael jordan played together, but peaked many yrs
apart. are they the 2 greatest ever?
jack nicklaus and arnold palmer played together, but peaked many yrs
apart. are they the 2 greatest ever?
wayne gretzky and mario lemieux played together (i believe), but
peaked many yrs apart. i doubt they're the 2 greatest ever.
 
we could go on and on, but the odds that 3 guys are the greatest in
history all play same time, and peak within 3-5 years of each other?
could be, but not likely.
 
>As I said before, they got nuthin'.
 
nobody can make an argument that sampras or anyone else has achieved
as much as fed, or even that close. 18 slams is way ahead of the rest
including nadal with his OG.
 
but....if you take traditional (what i call traditional) fast grass,
i'll take sampras (plus mcenroe or becker) over federer or djokovic or
nadal majority of the time, i don't even hesitate to think it.
no proof needed for that opinion. in fact federer's win over sampras
makes me believe it even more so, federer should've won that match in
easy straights the way sampras was playing that year.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 07:56PM -0400

>> the world.
 
>> bob
 
>What is le Pen "feeling"?
 
le Pen? was referring to macron.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 02 07:49PM -0400

On Tue, 02 May 2017 04:31:11 -0500, Federer Fanatic
>| bob
 
>Is this not a characteristic of most great players in sports....admittedly
>I would laud Wayne Gretzy in hockey the most humble superstar.
 
it is, which is why it's nothing for fed or anyone else to apolgize
for.
 
but i agree, he's no wayne gretzky when it comes to true
sportsmanship. though he may be a better dad, husband and off field
person than gretzky.
 
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