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

Sunday, May 14, 2017

stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 06:26AM -0500

On 5/12/2017 12:11 PM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>>> FF
 
>> Gracchus is ok. Not too sharp, but I enjoy 5% of his posts.
 
> Whisp, there's no need to feel stung and get all touchy just because I stated an obvious truth.
 
You've been owned here. Just get back to talking tennis and not trying
to play the diction police.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 08:01AM -0400

On Sat, 13 May 2017 16:38:55 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>> > For all intensive purposes it's the same thing.
 
>> You mean for all "intents and purposes." And no, it isn't. Are you sure there are schools in Australia, or is this just a Whisper issue?
 
>LOL. I just read Whisper's "intensive purposes" post and was just going to correct him until I saw your post.
 
why all the commotion about grammar courty, you make quite a few
mistakes considering it's your 1st language. every week i let 1-2 of
yours slide, i don't find it a big deal.
 
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.
 
i understand graccus' issue though: it's not the grammatical error,
it's that he thinks whisp should own up to mistakes rather than defend
them, and he's making the case it's part of a larger whisp character
issue. that's the issue here, and gracchus is entitled to his opinion.
but end of the day, it's a grammatical issue by a non native speaker -
if we really nitpicked grammar in RST it'd be a full time job.
 
bob
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 14 01:52PM +0200

> http://www.newsweek.com/2016/03/25/novak-djokovic-father-exclusive-interview-436106.html
 
> FF
 
> ps. I like Djoker---albeit mostly because he beats the Howler Monkey.
 
I know that interview, but it's wrong to attribute that to him
being intoxicated.
 
 
We all know Federer was arrogant. Remember how he molested
Djokovic's parents in Monte Carlo?
 
Do Novel's dad probably had that in mind too but didn't speak
about himself.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 06:39AM -0500

On 5/13/2017 5:50 AM, kaennorsing wrote:
> 2010 (1 year gap)
> 2016 (6 year gap)
 
> The 30 year gap is what stands out. Indicating a change started in the 90's.
 
No, the 10 year gap stands out as well. That's a big gap, longer than
the peaks of basically all champs, a totally new generation of players.
In 1973, nobody had ever heard of Borg, 10 years later he was gone from
the tour. In 1977 nobody ever heard of Mac, 10 years later he was long
past slam winning, etc. A long time in tennis.
 
What's really telling is the lack of an "open the floodgates" effect
right after Agassi did it. That often happens in sports, as one guy
breaking through on an achievement lifts the psychological barrier for
other guys as well. But it didn't happen.
 
What Agassi did in 99 was singular, a nonesuch, for 40 years. That's a
tennis eternity.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 06:48AM -0500

On 5/11/2017 6:32 PM, bob wrote:
 
> and i agree, and this has also been addressed for a long time.
 
> and btw, mikko isn't saying "3 of the greatest" (which i agree with)
> he's saying "the 3 greatest." that's where i say it's fishy.
 
Nobody with a brain can argue that it isn't easier to win the CGS now
than it was before the early 2000s. We know there has been court
homogenization. That alone makes it easier.
 
And really, that's nothing new but rather in a strange sense a return to
what we historically had in tennis. Before 1975, there was big
homogenization, as 3 of 4 slams were played on grass. S/V tennis was
thus THE style of play, and that's why you had S/V maestros like Laver
and Rosewall contesting FO finals back then.
 
Historically, the 25 or so year period from 1978 - 2002, with big
surface differences across slams, was an anomaly. And it made it a lot
tougher to win all of them.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 07:42AM -0400

On Sat, 13 May 2017 16:04:59 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> of top 4 guys still. if nadal were to drop out early, i think fed
>> would likely take it.
 
>What if Fed does the unthinkable and beats Nadal at the FO?
 
if fed prepped for it, it wouldn't be unthinkable at all in their 2017
form. but with fed skipping 2 months of tennis i doubt it'll happen.
 
> Extremely unlikely but he has a better shot than Murray/Djokovic/Wawrinka at the moment IMO. Also Federer if he continues with his AO form, will beat Murray and Djokovic at the FO. They are awful at the moment.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 07:43AM -0400

On Sat, 13 May 2017 15:58:06 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 6:16:07 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
>> Plus Dr Zhivago,
 
>Do you know that I've never seen that film? Definitely on my to watch list. Did you like it?
 
really? yes you should watch it.
 
>> On Golden Pond
 
>I liked that film a lot.
 
:-(
 
>> and The Shootist. The last
>> one is John Wayne's last film and something Gracchus would surely like.
 
>John Wayne. No thanks. ;)
 
:-(
 
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 07:36AM -0400

>>:)
 
>unless djok has done a complete rebound in the past few weeks that i
>missed his form is really bad and he likely won't make it to the SF.
 
i was responding to another post showing the whole rome draw for rafa,
djok, murray. got this reply in the wrong thread.
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 14 12:43PM +0300

14.5.2017, 12:39, The Iceberg kirjoitti:
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
>> 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.
 
> he hasn't played like that for years and years, it's a myth about him being 'defensive'.
 
Bingo
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: May 14 01:40PM +0300

On 14.5.2017 12:43, TT wrote:
 
>> he hasn't played like that for years and years, it's a myth about him
>> being 'defensive'.
 
> Bingo
 
Rafa's always been both. Defensive and ultra-aggressive. All within the
same point.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiUmLBZ6UtI
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 05:55AM -0500

On 5/14/2017 3:59 AM, kaennorsing wrote:
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
>> 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.
 
> At his best he's always been really aggressive (and impressive) but he's specifically going for more on the > serve and forehand. A few more errors therefore but much more interesting to watch.
 
Yes, one of the biggest misconceptions on this forum is the belief that
Nadal has historically been a defensive grinder. He's always been
essentially an aggressive baseliner, looking to hit a winner when he can.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 07:32AM -0400


>Yes, one of the biggest misconceptions on this forum is the belief that
>Nadal has historically been a defensive grinder. He's always been
>essentially an aggressive baseliner, looking to hit a winner when he can.
 
i said many yrs ago, when attacked for liking a "bumrooter," that
nadal was the most offensive modern baseliner i knew of. he may have
chased every ball to ever corner, but his BH and FH crossing shots
were hit hard and heavy, really an offensive shot meant to get the
opponent of the defensive. no bruguera type stuff here.
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 14 12:40PM +0300

14.5.2017, 12:02, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
> sleeve, in general plays a flatter, more baseline hugging (although on
> clay not that apparent) game. The trademark banana DTL FH has been back
> for a long time now, ...
 
His serve seems to have also improved.
 
But he's not better than ever, he has suffered a bit on movement,
consistency and still doesn't quite have the depth of shots of his best
clay form I feel. But he may be getting there.
 
> Yeah, I think he's better than ever. And the competition in terms of top
> guys on clay, worse than ever. Bad cookie.
 
Djok looks like crap atm, other than that there are many good young
claycourters coming through... Thiem, Goffin etc. Their level is pretty
damn high... probably not enough against in-form Rafa but then again
what would be...
 
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.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 07:28AM -0400

On 13 May 2017 16:08:53 GMT, "rec.sport.tennis"
 
>Nadal's playing well but he's not the force he used to be. Djokovic is in
>crisis.
 
good post
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 07:28AM -0400

On Sat, 13 May 2017 16:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> > Nadal's playing well but he's not the force he used to be.
 
>> Could be after this win though.
 
>Nadal isn't the force he was in his prime
 
you don't say??
 
> but he doesn't have to be on clay. There's nobody good enough to stop him at the moment.
 
bob
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 06:22AM -0500

On 5/13/2017 6:31 PM, *skriptis wrote:
 
>> You think Nadal can't do a repeat of 2008 and 2010?
 
> If he wins final tomorrow and wins Rome and FO it's his best clay
> season EVER.
 
If he wins today, he should skip Rome. Heck if he loses today.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 06:24AM -0500

On 5/13/2017 1:24 PM, Jason White wrote:
>> Looks to be a certainty with the clobbering of Djok at Madrid. Wow.
 
>> Ten FO's. Wow. Federer's 18 is unsafe! He better play for O 2020, meaning he better try getting more slam titles. Iceeeyyy he he he.
 
> Perhaps the only positive. Djokovic won't have the defending champion's pressure in Paris. Nadal has it (not that it bothers him). Most people will think Djokovic will have no chance, so maybe the ability to swing >freely will help.
 
Thing is, Joker is the opposite of 'swinging freely' right now. Not that
he was going to win, but yesterday vs Nadal he passed on opportunity
after opportunity to be aggressive and go for big shots off short Nadal
balls and passed on just about all of them. The confidence is just not
there.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 07:26AM -0400

On Sat, 13 May 2017 15:32:50 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
 
>> A HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
 
>> good one man, i needed a laugh
 
>You think Nadal can't do a repeat of 2008 and 2010?
 
no
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 14 07:27AM -0400

On Sat, 13 May 2017 16:34:21 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>> > Ten FO's. Wow. Federer's 18 is unsafe! He better play for O 2020, meaning he better try getting more slam titles. Iceeeyyy he he he.
 
>> Perhaps the only positive. Djokovic won't have the defending champion's pressure in Paris. Nadal has it (not that it bothers him). Most people will think Djokovic will have no chance, so maybe the ability to swing freely will help.
 
>THIS Djokovic has NO chance.
 
i said that yesterday before the match.
 
> He's nowhere near good enough to win the FO let alone beat Nadal in his current form there. Federer has a better chance to beat this Nadal than this awful Djokovic does if you can believe that but it's true.
 
bob
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: May 14 02:42AM -0700

On Monday, 1 May 2017 05:41:47 UTC+2, Bharath Purohit wrote:
> Amazing stuff by Rafa.
 
> Is Federer talented enough to win 2 tournaments (a master and a 500 event) 10 times each?
 
We know Rafa isn't talented enough to win the YEC even once! ;-)
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 06:00AM -0500

On 5/11/2017 6:19 PM, bob wrote:
>>> the other on the way down in a lagging system.
 
>> I accounted for the lag in the previous post -
 
> not correctly...
 
The best, really the only, evidence we have that is independent of our
biased personal perceptions is the rankings. Sampras was ranked ahead of
Fed at all times before the W match, at the time of the W match, right
after the W match, and six months after the W match. And most
importantly, his ranking advantage over Fed actually increased slightly
in those six months after the W match, evidence that there was no
form-lag the rankings weren't catching.
 
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. :)
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 06:05AM -0500

On 5/11/2017 6:22 PM, bob wrote:
> course the few weeks he was actually in slam matches themselves.
> federer, OTOH, was a rising star playing an idol. and winning 7-5 in
> 5th.
 
Remember, concerning form, motivation isn't the totality of it. Form is
a function of motivation x skill. Sampras may have been less motivated
than Federer during the totality of 2001, but he was more skilled,
that's why he stayed ranked ahead of him despite lesser motivation.
 
Add both together, and Pete was clearly closer to his peak than Fed was
to his. And it makes sense because even though it's hard to fathom, but
at that W 2001 match, Fed was still a full two years away from his first
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.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 14 06:21AM -0500

On 5/11/2017 6:23 PM, bob wrote:
>>> that hurt. :-) fed said brady had potential as a doubs partner!
 
>> Brady probably asked him why he ended up stuck with Mirka. :)
 
> aw, c'mon, brady's a great guy and very polite!
 
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.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 14 02:50AM -0700

On Saturday, 13 May 2017 12:10:24 UTC+1, John Liang wrote:
 
> > > By Troll Tennis.
 
> > Murray's draw is fairly easy after Fabio, but that won't matter, it's down to him and whether he can be bothered playing.
 
> Why don't you feed him one of your special burgers ...
 
Good Idea!!! :)
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 14 02:41AM -0700

On Sunday, 14 May 2017 04:30:03 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
> couple of days for Sampras.
 
> Age-wise he's now where Sampras was in 1988, and Federer in 1998.
 
> He's touted as a great talent, can he win USO 2019 to match Sampras?
 
will try to catch him at Wimbledon, remember couple of years ago seeing #1 Taylor Fritz and he had great timing and a big jerky serve, but unfortunately not much else, be interesting to see this new kid play.
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