Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

AZ <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com>: May 16 11:32PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:49:41 PM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7, AZ wrote:
 
> > Shakes will say you cherry-picked a poor serve and volleyer to demonstrate your point.
 
> Well, he picked someone ranked 176 to make his point.
 
It doesn't matter. I remember you once dismissed my example of 3 time doubles GS champ Llodra (career-high doubles ranking: 3 and career high singles ranking: 21 at the time) as a poor s/v player. You are hopelessly biased.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 16 11:37PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:32:21 PM UTC-7, AZ wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:49:41 PM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:
 
 
> > Well, he picked someone ranked 176 to make his point.
 
> It doesn't matter.
 
It does matter. I wonder why he didn't pick the Agassi-Rafter matches of 2000-2001 in that case.
 
> I remember you once dismissed my example of 3 time doubles GS champ Llodra (career-high doubles ranking: 3 and career high singles ranking: 21 at the time) as a poor s/v player.
 
How good was he compared to Henman, Rafter both in ranking and performance ?
 
> You are hopelessly biased.
 
Yes, against poor examples.
AZ <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com>: May 17 12:53AM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:37:02 PM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:
 
> > > Well, he picked someone ranked 176 to make his point.
 
> > It doesn't matter.
 
> It does matter. I wonder why he didn't pick the Agassi-Rafter matches of 2000-2001 in that case.
 
Because the ATP tour is not restricted to a handful of top 10 players and their rare GS semifinal encounters in the late 1990s. I think Pelle is trying to have a general discussion.
 
> > I remember you once dismissed my example of 3 time doubles GS champ Llodra (career-high doubles ranking: 3 and career high singles ranking: 21 at the time) as a poor s/v player.
 
> How good was he compared to Henman, Rafter both in ranking and performance ?
 
Again with the scope shifting. Henman and Rafter were great S/V players priming in the late 1990s, but we should not forget that they were also good ground-stroke makers.
 
Llodra, on the other hand, is primarily a doubles player, 3 times doubles GS champ, a great S/V player by any measure, but compared to Henman/Rafter not so great a baseliner. Also, and this is crucial, he is NOT playing in the 1990s. Why is this crucial? Because the court surfaces are not the same as in the late 1990s. They are in general (especially Wimbledon) much slower and more homogenized. What's more, the number of fast surface tournaments have dropped. So who knows? If Wimbledon was as fast as in the 1990s, maybe Llodra too would make it to the semis/finals of Wimbledon.
 
You do not take these factors into account in a deliberate fashion and just bring up Henman/Rafter's late 1990s performance and ranking whenever it's convenient to dismiss players Llodra as poor examples of S&V players. This is highly disingenuous. The efficiency of a S&V tennis player depends on many different factors such as average surface speed and bounce, the level of the field on fast surfaces, the availability of fast surface tournaments, the state of racket technology available to the receiver of the volley, etc. It is clear that in the late 1990s, all of these factors were much more advantageous to S&V players than in the late 2010s. Take Wimbledon as an example. The surface is objectively shown to be slower and bouncier, making the return of volley much easier, even more so due to racket tech improvement. What's more, the number of fast, low-bounce tournaments have dwindled so there is less opportunity for s&v players to take advantage of niche tournaments to boost their overall ranking. And the nail in the coffin is that on the homogenized surfaces of today, there is a throng of highly efficient baseliners ready to take out a S&V more than ever before, especially when they know that all the chips are in their favor.
 
So bringing up late 1990s ranking and slam performance to dismiss legit examples like Llodra as "poor" is at willful ignorance best, dishonesty at worst.

> > You are hopelessly biased.
 
> Yes, against poor examples.
 
As I said, it doesn't matter. If you deliberately set your scope withing late 90s top ten volleyers and late 90s GS quarters/semis/finals, ignore all other changes that have happened on the tour and sweepingly call everything else poor examples, there is no general discussion possible. It's hopeless. You are a hopeless biased-for-90s poster.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 17 01:14AM +0200


> It's about setting his sights on the real prize. Makes perfect sense. (1) his chances of even getting to the final on the grinders' surface are slim no matter the field. Good results on hard court in first half of 2017 doesn't change that (2) high risk of injury or compromising his health at the FO. It's caused many players to withdraw from Wimbledon over the years (3) winning an 8th Wimbledon would be an enormous, career-crowning achievement for the GOAT (4) he's 36, so realistically, how many more chances--if any--will he get?
 
> Assuming that Nadal doesn't get dusted in an early round of the FO, it might make winning the thing more satisfying if he beats Federer along the way, but from Federer's perspective, who cares about wallowing with Nadal in the dirt? Roger has bigger fish to fry in London. Maybe chips too.
 
It's 20-30% about preserving his body, 70-80%
about preserving his
aura.
 
 
Just remember his interview at AO when he said that not meeting
Nadal has helped him. No reason to think he feels differently
now.
 
 
Not that others haven't done similarly. Nadal skipped how many
slams over the years, out of sudden, and early Djokovic retired
from many matches when he was unable to compete and knew he'd
lose.
 
Sometimes they think it's smart not to go through beatings. Ok, if
they want it that way, so be it, but I'm always kinda sad when
draws are incomplete.
 
I'm a fanfucker, want to see all the best reaching later stages
and taking on each others in a heavyweight manner.

 
I know many fedfuckers were hoping Dimitrov would make AO final,
they were scared of Nadal but hasn't it turned out for the better
this way even for them?
 
 
 
If Nadal is injured or suffers shock loss, Federer would have been
among top faves, if not #1 fave at FO.
Otoh who knows what happens by the time Wimbledon starts. Maybe
Murray or Djokovic are restored, some big server or young gun
goes on a streak etc.
 
 
 
I can't say he made a bad or stupid decision by skipping FO,
perhaps I'd done the same, but it's not a brilliant decision
either.
 
If he thinks it's good for him, ok.
 
 
 
--
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: May 16 06:20PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 2:21:51 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > altogether, isn't that even more precious...
 
> > What... a... coward.
 
> I've answered the doping question a thousand times. I think Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all dope. You could make a case for all of them on that subject.
 
Whaaaat? Clarify what you mean by that, please. Are you saying they are purposefully and knowingly using stuff that's been declared illegal and banned??
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: May 16 10:11PM -0700

On Tuesday, 16 May 2017 20:00:03 UTC+5:30, *skriptis wrote:

> Brown not Young.
 
> I know Donald Young is brown and Dustin Brown is not young so it's
> confusing.
 
Thanks for the correction. An absent-minded mistake.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 16 06:49PM -0500

On 5/16/2017 12:58 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
> Good decision imo. Good on the French for not playing favorites and bending over for the Ice Queen.
 
Terrible decision. No Serena, and now no Sharapova? What reason is there
to watch?
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 16 04:59PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:49:58 PM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
 
> > Good decision imo. Good on the French for not playing favorites and bending over for the Ice Queen.

> Terrible decision. No Serena, and now no Sharapova? What reason is there
> to watch?
 
Bouchard!
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: May 16 05:05PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:59:52 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > Terrible decision. No Serena, and now no Sharapova? What reason is there
> > to watch?
 
> Bouchard!
 
Didn't make the cut at Rome due to rankings and didn't wan to play the qualifiers...
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 16 05:52PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 5:05:36 PM UTC-7, arahim wrote:
> > > to watch?
 
> > Bouchard!
 
> Didn't make the cut at Rome due to rankings and didn't wan to play the qualifiers...
 
Well there goes that then.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 16 06:05PM -0700

Wow fucking bad that she can't even qualify!!! She is a two time champion FFS!
 
That is ridiculous. They got pressured, the French wimps. Hopefully the Brits have some common sense.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 16 06:06PM -0700

No Federer or Sharapova. The French are gonna lose a lot of money.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: May 16 06:32PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:58:50 AM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
> Good decision imo. Good on the French for not playing favorites and bending over for the Ice Queen.
 
Right. While cheats like Simone Biles get away with things via "doctor's note."
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 16 06:58PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:05:27 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
 
> Wow fucking bad that she can't even qualify!!! She is a two time champion FFS!
 
> That is ridiculous. They got pressured, the French wimps. Hopefully the Brits have some common sense.
 
If the Brits give her another slap in the face, maybe then she'll get the message and retire. Many thousands of ears will thank her.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 17 04:15AM +0200

> Wow fucking bad that she can't even qualify!!! She is a two time champion FFS!
 
> That is ridiculous. They got pressured, the French wimps. Hopefully the Brits have some common sense.
 
 
 
I don't think they're pressured in any way. Who could pressure
them? Bouchard or Mladenovic? lol
 
I think it's their usual non pragmatic mindset, as opposed to
British pragmatism you mention. French like to boast with their
self-righteousness.
 
That's why you have e.g. Macron winning even in the Parisian
neighbourhood of last year's terrorist attacks. Jihadists
immigrants kill almost 100 people and the neighbourhood votes for
more immigration. ;)
 
So, asking common sense from them might be asking too much.
 
 
Now Macron won, you have to be naive to think she'd get a wild
card for FO from these guys with all the anti-Russian hysteria
there that's now going to be even more official policy under him.

 
Sharapova is an easy target, being actually guilty of doping usage
in the past and being a Russian (meaning evil) too. An
opportunity for them to show off with their righteousness, ideals
and principles, totally ignoring real life.
 
In the end, it's their tournament, their choice whom to give
wildcards.
 
 
But as you say, British would have given her a wild card. ITF
doesn't forbid giving wildcards to formerly banned players and as
long as that is the rule, and since it's better to have stars in
the draw, than not, pragmatic treatment director would do it.

 
If the banned players served their time, and there is no rule to
say it's forbidden, it's a common sense to give a wild card to a
great player that attracts viewers.
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
calimero377@gmx.de: May 16 07:56PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 4:30:03 AM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
> neighbourhood of last year's terrorist attacks. Jihadists
> immigrants kill almost 100 people and the neighbourhood votes for
> more immigration. ;)
 
 
Wow, people who have been attacked by islamofascists vote against fascists. That's really a surprise ...
 
 
 
> If the banned players served their time, and there is no rule to
> say it's forbidden, it's a common sense to give a wild card to a
> great player that attracts viewers.
 
Screamerova a "great" player .. ?
 
Lol ...
 
 
Max
calimero377@gmx.de: May 16 07:56PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 3:06:05 AM UTC+2, soccerfan777 wrote:
> No Federer or Sharapova. The French are gonna lose a lot of money.
 
How this?
 
Max
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 17 05:34AM +0200

>> immigrants kill almost 100 people and the neighbourhood votes for
>> more immigration. ;)
 
> Wow, people who have been attacked by islamofascists vote against fascists. That's really a surprise ...
 
 
 
Fascists are radical. Kinda.
Nothing radical with Le Pen.
 
Their voters had following options.
 
 
1. Extremely fast suicidal policy
-200 thousands immigrants imported per year, done presently and
advocated by Macron to continue. France is 1% less French every
year.
 
2. Slow suicidal policy
-10 thousands immigrants imported per year advocated by Le Pen.
Same course, just slower.
 
No one offered
 
3. Moderate policy
-halting immigration and determining, thinking more deeply and
thoroughly why are immigrants even necessary, what the fuck is
going on with the natives, why don't they reproduce sufficiently,
what's bothering them, economically, socially, morally and
helping them and helping society as a whole to function, to
maintain itself.
 
4. Radical, fascist policy
-Everything under 3) plus expelling immigrants, because well,
fascist would do that too.
 
5. Criminal, nazi policy
-everything under 3 plus killing immigrants.
 
 
I consider myself a moderate on these issues. And of each of those
policies, 1, 2 and 4, 5 is criminal in its own way.

 
So Le Pen was just little less crooked than Macron.
 
 
Does anyone seriously expect a 39-year old guy with 64-year-old
wife to have a capacity, both moral and spiritual depth, to think
in those basic human terms of self-preservation, values of life,
maintenance, reproduction and adherence to natural
laws?
 
 
Both leaders of present day Germany and France are two individuals
who have no offsprings of their own.
 
Europe has degenerated and is dying. Literally.
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
calimero377@gmx.de: May 16 04:16PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:34:59 PM UTC+2, Carey wrote:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/sports/tennis/roger-federer-french-open.html?_r=0
 
 
NYT?
 
Lol ...
 
 
Max
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 16 04:18PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:28:51 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> 16.5.2017, 19:34, Carey kirjoitti:
> > https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/sports/tennis/roger-federer-french-open.html?_r=0
 
> NYT lol
 
Would you prefer the Washington Post?
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: May 16 04:33PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:34:59 AM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/sports/tennis/roger-federer-french-open.html?_r=0
 
Interesting that he is still talking about preserving for many years to come and plans to return to FO next year.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: May 16 06:16PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:34:59 AM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/sports/tennis/roger-federer-french-open.html?_r=0
 
He's beyond obsessed with eighth Wimbledon title. He probably has practiced on clay for a millisecond. Why would he play the French? Nadal is part of it, but Federer wouldn't even get to that stage. A host of players could knock him out.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 16 06:06PM -0700

Sharapova... After how the assholes are treating her
calimero377@gmx.de: May 16 04:18PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 2:09:12 AM UTC+2, StephenJ wrote:
 
> Every day, he wakes up as President of the USA. If that's not Winning,
> nothing is.
 
> And all you hater-clowns know it, LOL.
 
I wouldn't say I hate the clown. "Detesting" is the better word.
 
Max
calimero377@gmx.de: May 16 04:15PM -0700

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:49:10 AM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/16/politics/trump-james-comey-memo/
> index.html
 
CNN?
"Sources" .... ?
 
I mean - really ...?
 
 
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!
 
 
 
Max
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