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

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 19 12:27AM +1000

On 18/05/2017 11:34 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> and ... anything, and it will be just as effective. McEnroe drools when
> he sees it on TV.
 
> All this with catgut and a 85 sqin paddle. The times were a changing.
 
Only change was Sampras fading. Fed couldn't breathe with Henman on a
grasscourt in 2001.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: May 18 08:08AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 10:27:18 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
If peak Fed played peak one dollar greek, it would be hewitt redux, 6-0,6-2,6-0!!!!!!!!!
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 08:12AM -0700

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:27:18 AM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
Are you sure he wasn't played half assed, or without ass in that match?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 19 12:23AM +1000

On 18/05/2017 10:39 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> relative of mine, takes the ball right off the bounce and THWOCK ... the
> 29 year old soon to be ex-GOAT dowsn't know what hit him.
 
> Well, he was the last of his kind ...
 
Federer wasn't fit to carry Henman's jockstrap in 2001. He had a lot of
work to do to be as good as Tim on grass.
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 08:09AM -0700

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:23:25 AM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> > Well, he was the last of his kind ...
 
> Federer wasn't fit to carry Henman's jockstrap in 2001. He had a lot of
> work to do to be as good as Tim on grass.
 
Sampras wasn't fit to carry Van Rensburg's jockstrap 10 years earlier.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 19 12:28AM +1000

On 18/05/2017 11:51 PM, John Liang wrote:
 
>> What explanation do you have for Fed's failure to play Rafa at USO? 3
>> times Rafa was waiting for him, & all 3 times Fed lost the match before.
 
> Federer made 7 USO finals where was Nadal in those finals ? Federer also made 10 Wimbledon finals where was Nadal in 7 of those finals ? Federer also made 6 AO finals where was Nadal in 4 of those finals ? What explanation do you have for Nadal's failure to play Federer in 18 finals ?
 
Wait, you're arguing Rafa was scared of facing Fed in slams?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 18 04:03PM +0200


>> What explanation do you have for Fed's failure to play Rafa at USO? 3
>> times Rafa was waiting for him, & all 3 times Fed lost the match before.
 
> Federer made 7 USO finals where was Nadal in those finals ? Federer also made 10 Wimbledon finals where was Nadal in 7 of those finals ? Federer also made 6 AO finals where was Nadal in 4 of those finals ? What explanation do you have for Nadal's failure to play Federer in 18 finals ?
 
 
You don't get it do you?
 
If Federer is the "king" of those surfaces like Nadal is on clay,
it's his "duty" to be in every final there and wait Nadal, who'll
naturally, reach less of those final.
 
So it's Federer's personal failure not to meet Nadal twice in
Australia, twice in Wimbledon and thrice at USO.

 
It's 7 failures. More than two failures per slam. Nadal otoh
failed just once at FO.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 19 12:31AM +1000

On 18/05/2017 11:58 PM, John Liang wrote:
>> the talk on a sports show was how Fed was cowered by Rafa's form on clay
>> & that's why he was ducking the FO.
 
> False, it was barely mentioned in most of the sport show I watched and heard. .
 
 
Not false. I was genuinely surprised they were talking about tennis, &
the consensus was Fed was scared of Rafa's great clay form & that's why
he pulled out.
 
I personally don't hold that view, but the suggestion that it's not
common out in the real world is very wrong.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 07:42AM -0700

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:30:02 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
 
> If Federer is the "king" of those surfaces like Nadal is on clay,
> it's his "duty" to be in every final there and wait Nadal, who'll
> naturally, reach less of those final.
 
If this is sort of logic then it is pretty poor. So it must be in your mind that 7 times Nadal could not make was also Federer's failure, smae to go with three times he could not make AO final and 6 time he could not make the USO final.
> Australia, twice in Wimbledon and thrice at USO.
 
> It's 7 failures. More than two failures per slam. Nadal otoh
> failed just once at FO.
 
And Nadals failure in all slams is 18 that is 4.5 failures per slam. Learn some maths.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 18 08:00AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 4:00:42 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> the talk on a sports show was how Fed was cowered by Rafa's form on clay
> & that's why he was ducking the FO.
 
> Surprised me to hear it as it was predominantly a football show.
 
Well that says it all, then. They don't know shit about tennis.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 18 08:08AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 4:47:14 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> Sudden Impact (1983)
 
> And even those are pretty legendary...
 
> All rest are 7-10, and that's including films he only directed.
 
"The Rookie" and "Blood Work" were rather weak, yes. As was "Sudden Impact." IMO only the first three Dirty Harry films were really good (the first two being great). I liked "Joe Kidd" though. Duvall's performance, John Saxon's over-the-top Mexican accent as Luis "Chayma," and the nasty henchman Eastwood keeps smacking around. Not an A-1 Eastwood western, but still fun.
 
I never could get through the "chimp trilogy." Not even the first one.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 08:06AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:04:33 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> Sampras exploited nothing. He actually took the foot off the pedal &
> played half arsed most of the way. Federer didn't have enough talent to
> do that. He had to play 100% all the way through.
 
Sampras exploiting the opportunity well, he had no consistent rivals, the guys who could challenge him on fast court Becker and Edberg were practically out of the game after 93. He got his American Pals such as Chang, Courier and AGassi as his only rivals, those guys were mediocre on grass and fast hard court. 1997 AO and Wimbledon were pretty good example of Sampras exploiting the weak draw, also 94 Wimbledon was another good example when Pioline got through to the final.
 
> players going all out in every match. Sampras was lazy & refused to do
> that. There is no doubt Sampras is the much superior player in absolute
> terms.
 
What is this absolute term rubbish ? If Sampras was lazy or half assed that was his problem, at the end of their career the only thing matter is the silver ware. Sampras wasn't superior to Fedrer in any grand slams, he was poorer performer in 3 out of 4 slams compare to Federer. You'd better sell your excuses on Sampras to bob, strip or icey they will buy it and I don't.
 
I'm very sad they didn't play in the same era. If they did
> Sampras would have taken the game more seriously & we would have seen
> his A game a lot more than once every couple of yrs or so. The tennis
> quality would have been epic, with Sampras winning 90% of their h2h.
 
Again would, coulda, shoulda and you know what that means. Zilch.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 18 04:14PM +0200

So in one of his notes we read that Trump asked Commie to be loyal
to him.
 
Commie says that he refused that. So it means he said he'd be
disloyal to his president. Ok.
 
We have to believe him, after all it's his notes.
 
 
In another note, we find out Trump says how Flynn was a good guy,
which supposedly should mean, whatever, that he tried to
influence the investigation of some Russian hoax.

 
 
So a guy who proclaims himself to be disloyal to president Trump,
and proudly states that in his notes, wants us also to be believe
he's trustworthy when it comes to Trump?
 
Doesn't really compute.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 08:06AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> and proudly states that in his notes, wants us also to be believe
> he's trustworthy when it comes to Trump?
 
> Doesn't really compute.
 
Maybe take a good computing course ;)
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 18 07:53AM -0700

Not yet. We watched Bahubali 1 recently. Some of the CGI was terrible. They have spent a lot of money. The sorry is so-so, the romantic angle in the movie was ridiculous and there is a twist at the end. Standard Indian commercial movie fare. I don't get the hype.
 
Yeh last good made Indian movie I saw was Dangal
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 08:04AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 10:53:45 AM UTC-4, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Not yet. We watched Bahubali 1 recently. Some of the CGI was terrible. They have spent a lot of money. The sorry is so-so, the romantic angle in the movie was ridiculous and there is a twist at the end. Standard Indian commercial movie fare. I don't get the hype.
 
> Yeh last good made Indian movie I saw was Dangal
 
Bahubali 2 is the highest grossing movie ever from India. Just hype wouldn't make it earn upward of 1,000 crores.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 18 07:58AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 4:55:55 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> > most everyone was prating on about recently.
 
> Turner is a goddess. And yes, she was femme fatale in Body Heat... which
> I think is often categorized as Neo-Noir.
 
It's intentional neo-noir for sure. Kasdan understood the genre well enough to make it work. Some directors try it just thinking a voiceover or fedora will do the job.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 18 04:22PM +0200


>> Of course. Any way you can move the goalposts to exclude Federer from greatness and place him into mediocrity, we know you'll attempt it. Too bad your "estimation" is worthless.
 
> I wasn't responding to you. You're one the few quality analysts in rst
> I find hard to argue with.
 
:)
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 19 12:33AM +1000

On 19/05/2017 12:08 AM, John Liang wrote:
>> Two slams is too few to overcome the h2h deficit... especially when we
>> consider that Nadal would hold the most impressive tennis record in history.
 
> Dominating 1 slam is not comparable to having the best record in two grand slams.
 
Tilden has 7 USOs, Djokovic/Emerson have 6 AOs, Sampras has 7
Wimbledons, Nadal has 9 FO's.
 
Where are these 2 slams that Fed owns?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 07:35AM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:10:13 AM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > Well, as always with your tennis analysis, you are out to lunch. No real and reputable tennis analyst would agree with your idiotic and unusual opinions.
 
> > Convincing counter-argument as usual...
 
> There's no need for any counter-argument as your "theories" with respect to Nadal are out in left field. Nadal has been the clay GOAT for years. Winning another FO to get to 10 is incredible but all it does is further cement his clay GOAT/FO status. It doesn't change the fact that he would need another four slams to surpass Roger's slam record or that he is far behind Roger in weeks @ #1.
 
10 FOs will be indelible for about a hundred, if not a thousand, years. In that sense it is a very precious record, of stunning magnitude, arguably more precious than any slam count record that Federer can set from now on. It seems the current slam record can be more easily broken than Nadal's FO record.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 07:48AM -0700

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:33:16 AM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> > Dominating 1 slam is not comparable to having the best record in two grand slams.
 
> Tilden has 7 USOs, Djokovic/Emerson have 6 AOs, Sampras has 7
> Wimbledons, Nadal has 9 FO's.
 
Did Tilden played in the open era of tennis ? Renshaw also won Wimbledon 7 times and he was seldom mentioned as a Wimbledon great as Sampras or Federer.
 
> Where are these 2 slams that Fed owns?
 
Federer has best Wimbledon record in open era and won the same number of USO as the other greats.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 18 07:53AM -0700

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:33:16 AM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> > Dominating 1 slam is not comparable to having the best record in two grand slams.
 
> Tilden has 7 USOs, Djokovic/Emerson have 6 AOs, Sampras has 7
> Wimbledons, Nadal has 9 FO's.
 
Emerson have 12 slams, interestingly he was considered by many as lesser great than Edberg, Newcombe and Becker because most of his titles were in amateur era, Emerson could not win a single slam after 1968.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: May 18 10:42AM -0400

-- "Damn you, you...... howling monkey!"
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 18 04:25PM +0200

Djokovic-Bautista-Agut
 
In person, at Italian open, third round.
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 18 04:05PM +0200

> from BBC Radio 4's Today programme yesterday.
 
> It's well known that the President doesn't have time to read books,
> or indeed any other written material.
 
 
Reading is for the young people.
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
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