Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 8 topics

Sunday, May 14, 2017

John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 14 05:53AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 10:01:02 PM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
> being intoxicated.
> We all know Federer was arrogant. Remember how he molested
> Djokovic's parents in Monte Carlo?
We knew what Djoker's parents were up to in that match, didn't we ?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 14 06:05AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:53:53 AM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
> We knew what Djoker's parents were up to in that match, didn't we ?
Djokovic's parents are trailer trash. There's a reason Novak banned his obnoxious father from attending his matches for years.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 14 05:45AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 5:02:26 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> for a long time now, ...
> Yeah, I think he's better than ever. And the competition in terms of top
> guys on clay, worse than ever. Bad cookie.
I don't agree that Nadal is better than ever but I do agree that he's made some tactical changes to compensate for some of his areas of decline. I don't think he's as one-dimensional as many people claim he is. He's made improvements and has adapted his entire career.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 14 05:51AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 5:25:44 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> There are plenty of good players on clay at the moment.
Like? Nadal has no real competition on clay at the moment.
> All young guns
> seem to be great claycourters.
No they aren't!
> Thiem was ripping the ball yesterday and
> hitting winners at will.
Against Cuevas? :)

> challenge top form Rafa on clay. Thiem might have a small chance today.
> Let's see...
> Betfair gives Thiem 15% chance for upset.
I don't think Thiem seems good enough on clay to beat Nadal in his current form.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 14 05:55AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 5:39:59 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> If fact, the part of Djoko being crap is probably because of young guns,
> he's already lost this year twice to Kyrgios and once to Goffin.
> Hopefully likes of Goffin/Thiem/Zverev will beat him at RG as well.
Sorry, but that is false. Djokovic is playing like crap,like a completely different player than the player of 2011-2015 and it's not because the young guns are playing exceptionally.
I'm no Djokovic fan but he's in a funk and his form is shot at the moment. I think he'll find his way back again to some extent if he's still committed.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 14 06:01AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 7:28:38 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >> Could be after this win though.
> >Nadal isn't the force he was in his prime
> you don't say??
But he's made many improvements to his game(backhand, serve) and is the best he's been in years. He's making hc finals for the first time in how long? He may win 5 out of 5 clay court events. He never even did that in his prime! Look how he's spanking the competition except for Federer! :)
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:04AM -0400

>> not correctly...
>The best, really the only, evidence we have that is independent of our
>biased personal perceptions is the rankings.
you know the lagging rankings are bunk steve.
>Really, the only thing you have is your gosh-darn belief that Sampras's
>form was farther from his peak, and that's saturated in your wishful
>thinking. :)
i know it for a fact. and nothing to do with the fed match
particularly, but *everything* after wim 2000. i don't dismiss any of
his many losses of the 90s.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:07AM -0400

On Sat, 13 May 2017 09:12:34 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> >no proof needed for that opinion."
>> bob
>But I never proclaimed that Federer will beat Sampras. I have acknowledged Sampras's super game and that the W 2001 loss was a one-off.
the W 2001 loss wasn't exactly a one-off, that would mean that it was
a fluke. it wasn't a fluke, it was 1 man playing at a level before he
reached his prime, another playing at a level after he reached his.
neither were at their peak. the result was probably expected to happen
repeatedly given their 2001 forms. a one-off is a lucky fluke IMO.
this wasn't that.
> And I am serious about my statement. You need to read posts carefully. You say in one post you can't make up your mind, yet you say soon in another post something else. And then, you have started imagining things up recently as well.
cite it if you wish. my opinions on sampras from 2000-spring 2002
haven't changed in 15 yrs.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:10AM -0400

>> 5th.
>Remember, concerning form, motivation isn't the totality of it. Form is
>a function of motivation x skill.
0 x anything = 0.
> Sampras may have been less motivated
>than Federer during the totality of 2001,
from wim 2000 onward. federer wasn't an issue for sampras, federer was
a kid who had won nothing yet. like fed playing kyrgios today. means a
lot more to kyrgios than fed. but that's not even relevant, the
relevance is sampras didn't do what he did for 10 yrs prior: train and
prep with meticulous detail, focus 100% on that game. it showed losing
to many others besides federer in that 1 match.
>slam final! After that 01 W match, Sampras would in fact reach the
>finals of one slam, and the win another slam, all a good 10 months
>before Fed reached his first slam final.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:12AM -0400

>Sure, but isn't it amazing that ordinary Joes like us have women that
>are more attractive than world-famous, super-rich, and 15+ years younger
>Federer has?
> If I was Fed i'd look in the mirror and wonder how i let
>that happen, LOL.
i saw pics of a young mirka, she was attractive. but really let
herself go with the kids and the $$ i reckon.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 14 05:51AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 10:10:59 PM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> >finals of one slam, and the win another slam, all a good 10 months
> >before Fed reached his first slam final.
> bob
What else is new ? he either did not train hard enough or he was half assed.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 14 05:41AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 8:01:14 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> why all the commotion about grammar courty,
Because "intensive purposes" is incorrect.
> you make quite a few
> mistakes
I do not! Typos maybe but not many grammatical errors.
> considering it's your 1st language. every week i let 1-2 of
> yours slide, i don't find it a big deal.
How do you know what my first language is or how many languages I speak?

> i don't even speak another language minus a smidgeon of italian so i
> try not to go for the jugular on grammar/syntax by a non native
> speaker like whisp who speaks at least 2, probabably more, languages.
You may want to work on your own spelling (it's smidgen and probably.)
How do you know what Whisper's first language is or how many languages he speaks?

> i understand graccus' issue though: it's not the grammatical error,
> it's that he thinks whisp should own up to mistakes
It's both.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:25AM -0400

On Sun, 14 May 2017 01:29:38 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
>> Get help.
>I don't deny Fed's tennis talent at all. In pure tennis terms he has to
>be top 15, maybe top 10.
i'd go top 5. because only top talent could be that consistent. i'd
put mac #1 cause only top talent could be that good w/out practice.
> Easily the most talented of this era, bar Stan
>on his hottest days.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:25AM -0400

On Sat, 13 May 2017 05:01:55 -0700 (PDT), kaennorsing
>> something "fishy" in the air. :-)
>> bob
>Yes, starting in the 90's. :-)
haha. perfected in the 2000s.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:38AM -0400

On Sat, 13 May 2017 08:46:57 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> about 1999. last yr of the decade.
>> we've had 3 guys do it (and 1 more is very close) in a 7 year stretch.
>who? name him.
stan needs only a wimbledon, murray needs 2 more.
djok won CGS in 2016.
rfa won CGS in 2010.
fed won CGS in 2009.
that's 7 yrs, NO???
but admittedly, i don't have the dates of this history memorized. let
me look them up so i can speak to exact time frames here:
fed won his 1st slam in 2003. he won 17 of his 18 from 03-2012.
rafa won his 1st slam in 2005. he won all from 2005-2014.
djok won his 1st slam in 2008. he won 11 of his 12 from 2011-2016.
we've seen 44 slams won by 3 guys in a 17year period.
we've seen 3 CGS won in 7 year period (as i stated).
>> slams. unprecedented stuff.
>> something "fishy" in the air. :-)
>Tsk tsk. An electrical engineer bereft of random processes backing. You only work with circuits? I could drill a strong stochastic regimen into you in two months.
a mathematician should be able to subtract 2016-2009 w/out a
calculator, no?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 14 05:26AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 4:17:47 AM UTC-4, Tuan wrote:
> Must admit Nadal is much more watchable now - more aggressiveness, going for the lines more often and earlier. Perhaps he realizes he can't continue grinding it out any more, or is developing a new approach to counter NeoFed.
Yes, I think he's looking more aggressive than ever lately. His backhand has been a real weapon more recently. He's really improved that shot. His serve placement looks better too. He's definitely made some tactical changes.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 14 05:28AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:40:20 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> > Bingo
> Rafa's always been both. Defensive and ultra-aggressive. All within the
> same point.
Sounds like you are back on the Nadal bandwagon and are off of your Djokovic high horse. What's wrong, you can't take all of Djokovic's losing lately? ;)
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 14 02:14PM +0200

> were hit hard and heavy, really an offensive shot meant to get the
> opponent of the defensive. no bruguera type stuff here.
> bob
Yup. In their matches outside Wimbledon Federer was much more
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 14 05:33AM -0700

On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 7:32:33 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> were hit hard and heavy, really an offensive shot meant to get the
> opponent of the defensive. no bruguera type stuff here.
> bob
Is this your way of admitting that Nadal isn't the second rate player you've made him out to be this year? ;)
His backhand has improved, his serve looks better, his forehand has been back to its consistency on clay, his movement has been supreme, his court positioning has improved. It looks like Carlos Moya has made some positive changes.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:14AM -0400

>> besides, you've criticized me for a few weeks now regularly, telling
>> you to "wake up" and look at all sides isn't particularly mean.
>Yeah, but your inference that those of us who disagree with you are only looking at one side is flat out wrong. It's particularly obvious in this case. Oh well.
it's not the disagreeing that bothers me, it's your posts that quote
only NYT and WaPO. until you admit they're just as biased as
breitbart, then you're only looking at 1 side of the coin. and i told
you this before and you said they're more reputable (why, i'm not
sure). you need to realize this is a mini war here and nobody is
reputable in the media atm.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:15AM -0400

>>> So where did you pick the 40% up from?
>> breitbart.
>Fake, extremely biased and unprofessional.
damn TT, all this pressure on rafa to win his 10th FO has you really
slipping. can't see simple sarcasm.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:15AM -0400

On Sat, 13 May 2017 05:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>
>> > breitbart.
>> Fake, extremely biased and unprofessional.
>Now we know who reads that shit!
got their app on my phone home screen!
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:21AM -0400

On Sat, 13 May 2017 16:47:02 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.com>
>absolute value on a steady path poses no *immediate* threat to anybody.
>In 50 years, maybe.
>Kimmel is SO right again. His children were in the crosshairs.
not at all.
until we have a national health plan, people like kimmel don't need
insurance - they just write a check for whatever it costs. everyone
else i reckon has insurance as obamacare enforces it. just some get it
free, some pay. i don't get your point? if NIH is important why did
obama reduce it every year for 8 yrs?
>> biased whiny
>> sore losers. shame on him/them.
>That's rich. Who's the one caught with his pants down? Again.
>> breitbart.
>Of course of course. The whole concept of relating NIH funding to the
>GDP was fishy as hell from the get go.
absolutely not. you can't compare raw dollars as time goes by. why not
compare raw defense budget $$ to WWII era? it's irrelevant.
> Total US government spending and
>GDP growth don't go hand in hand in general, why should it go hand in
>hand in the particular case of the NIH?
because it's 1 of the few benchmarks we can use.
>NIH/GDP is just a way to make the numbers look worse than they are.
bullshit. raw #s over time is wrong, need to compare it to something.
comapre it to inflation, REAL inflation not the silly 1% #s the gov't
gives you. makes obama look worse.
> Too bad you can't see that the same mechanism will make the Trump numbers
>look bad too. Not to mention the numbers Trump would dearly have wanted.
i agree they make trump's #s look bad, fine. but obama's do too, why
wasn't he mentioned? that is my problem.
because the media is a biased joke intent on discrediting 1 person
while letting another slide for the same offense.
that's why you're in the dark still.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:23AM -0400

>> already knew, you are a dishonest and morally bankrupt individual.
>OK, he is a Trumper.
>But those Hillary voters are at least as dishonest and morally bankrupt as Bob.
thank you, coming to my defense like that! :-)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 13 04:52PM -0700

On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 12:22:58 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> 13.5.2017, 19:12, Patrick Kehoe kirjoitti:
> > The talk that his parents have fallen out with his wife
> She seems rather mousy though.
Mousy in terms of strength of personality? I don't think so. She's educated and involved in a lot of different things. Her personality seems strong to me at least it appears that way to the outside world.
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