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

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

heyguys00@gmail.com: May 09 07:13AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 4:01:02 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
 
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
You don't think the head of the government should know enough to pass a rudimentary civics test?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 08 05:58PM -0700

Genie Bouchard tweeted this after her win over Sharapova:
 
https://twitter.com/geniebouchard/status/861718970264637441
 
and Serena the GOAT liked the tweet. :)
 
https://twitter.com/serenawilliams/likes
 
Genie will probably lose in the next round or two though or maybe this could inspire her? Who knows with these players?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 08 06:07PM -0700

Bwhahaha, Genie is milking it. Post match comments from her(from journalist Jose Morgado's Twitter) :
 
Bouchard. 'There was a lot of players coming to me privately and wishing me good luck. I won for all of them'
 
Bouchard. 'I still have the same opinion about Sharapova'
 
Bouchard. 'Most people have my opinion but are scared of saying it'
 
https://twitter.com/josemorgado?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 08 07:52PM -0700

This is so bitchy. Shararpova served her time. There is no time to keep hating on her.
 
I hope Genie gets squished in the next round.
 
Sharapova has not improved one bit! Her first serve percentage is still pathetic. She deserved to lose.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 09 02:03AM -0700


> > Sharapova is still rich, famous, and beautiful. And neither you nor
> > anyone you know offline is any of those things.
 
> Hillary is still rich, famous, and intelligent. And you aren't any of those things.
 
that not very nice, is Hillary not quite beautiful?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 09 09:25PM +1000

On 9/05/2017 5:51 AM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> Sharapova is still rich, famous, and beautiful. And neither you nor
> anyone you know offline is any of those things.
 
Also achieved 'best in the world' status in her profession, won all 4
slams etc.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 09 09:26PM +1000

On 9/05/2017 6:08 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
 
>> Sharapova is still rich, famous, and beautiful. And neither you nor
>> anyone you know offline is any of those things.
 
> How does that change that this is embarrassing for her? She is losing to the same player who called her a cheat and asked her to be banned for life.
 
er, tennis is about being the 'better player on the day'. There is no
deserved.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 09 07:11AM -0700

Not talking about deserved, bozo. Maria ayrf poor. Poor first serve percentage, too many mid court shots and not enough aggressiveness. It is disappointing she hasn't improved much since her ban. She had 15 months to do so
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: May 09 05:17AM -0700

Op maandag 8 mei 2017 12:25:56 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:
> >> been alive. So I doubt it's happening this year.
 
> > I'm talking about serve volleying from the baseline, not the traditional serve volley.
 
> Pretty sure that's illegal?
 
Why would it be illegal?
 
> Sampras would have won 40 slams if he s/v'd from baseline.
 
I know you're the most crazed Sampras fanatic but this takes it to another level entirely.
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: May 09 06:12AM -0700

Op zondag 7 mei 2017 19:39:57 UTC+2 schreef StephenJ:
> >> been alive. So I doubt it's happening this year.
 
> > I'm talking about serve volleying from the baseline ...
 
> That's a new concept. I wonder what it means? ūüôĄ
 
Serve and position a meter or so inside the baseline to anticipate the incoming return. If it comes deep; volley directly. If semi-deep; (full swinging) half volley. If short; easy putaway.
 
This is obviously not recommended for anyone other than those with great serves and follow-up skills like these;
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCkXzJEoeGQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JuNUW9ipcM
 
Sp pretty much only for Federer.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 09 04:22PM +0300

On 9.5.2017 16:12, kaennorsing wrote:
 
> Serve and position a meter or so inside the baseline to anticipate
> the incoming return. If it comes deep; volley directly. If semi-deep;
> (full swinging) half volley. If short; easy putaway.
 
This is pretty much what people already do. If the ball is handy, take
it as a drive volley. But I don't think anybody would want to
deliberately position themselves in no-man's land. If you end up there,
well, do what's required.
 
> This is obviously not recommended for anyone other than those with
> great serves and follow-up skills like these;
 
Anybody can drive volley.
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: May 09 07:10AM -0700

Op dinsdag 9 mei 2017 15:22:15 UTC+2 schreef Pelle Svanslös:
> it as a drive volley. But I don't think anybody would want to
> deliberately position themselves in no-man's land. If you end up there,
> well, do what's required.
 
I'm not talking about anybody. Just Federer.
 
> > This is obviously not recommended for anyone other than those with
> > great serves and follow-up skills like these;
 
> Anybody can drive volley.
 
Sure. Not everybody can pick shots up from the bounce consistently or aggressively from both sides though.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 08 09:15PM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 3:32:21 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> > > Fed said long ago his main reason for playing was Olympics 2016.
 
> > For consumption of folks like you. In 2008 he loses O to B and then beats M for the USO title.
 
> eh? but he said it was his main motivation for the next 3 years at least. It was the one thing he had missing, do you not get that? crikey it's really hard for some people on this group eh.
 
His main motivation was to remain as the slam count leader for a long time. He could not have been impervious to Rafa's increasing rate of slam 'production'.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 09 09:12PM +1000

On 8/05/2017 11:35 PM, stephenJ wrote:
>> reality is 'lights out' Sampras should be able to win a tune-up
>> somewhere in 2 yrs.
 
> You can't save this argument by pushing the tuneup angle.
 
 
 
 
Just accept the fact that yes, Sampras was a 'lights out' type player at
various points throughout his career - but history surely will not
consider his rockbottom 2001 anywhere near 'lights out'. It was his
worst year ever.
 
Unless you meant his light had gone out?
 
: )
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 09 06:37AM -0700

On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 05:15:23 UTC+1, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
> > > For consumption of folks like you. In 2008 he loses O to B and then beats M for the USO title.
 
> > eh? but he said it was his main motivation for the next 3 years at least. It was the one thing he had missing, do you not get that? crikey it's really hard for some people on this group eh.
 
> His main motivation was to remain as the slam count leader for a long time. He could not have been impervious to Rafa's increasing rate of slam 'production'.
 
you sound silly, he already had the slam record, that's why his motivation was the Olympics, you really don't understand do you.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 09 07:06AM -0500

> Completely deluded.
 
> A world power, lol ...
> East Germany had the most gold medals in the 1970s.
 
More than the USSR?
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 09 06:35AM -0700


> A world power, lol ...
> East Germany had the most gold medals in the 1970s.
> The best financial centre? Still in 5 years from now ... ? Lol, lol, lol!
 
yep Definitely will be, RaspingDrive got whooped when he said the same thing back in 2009! LOL number of people fleeing France, Germany, the EUSSR just to get to London is incredible. oh please come back cries Macron LOL
RzR <2r4z0r2@gmail.com>: May 09 08:04AM +0200

On 5/8/2017 6:26 PM, The Iceberg wrote:
> Yeah What are the players that make a good living by being paid-off by him going to do?
 
how can you still talk after all the crap Fedex stuffed down your throat?
RzR <2r4z0r2@gmail.com>: May 09 08:05AM +0200

>> I shudder to think what the ATP tour will be like, sans Roger.
 
>> It will be one big server against another, both competing with snowshoes.
 
> It will be almost as bad as the WTA became when Graf retired.
 
nah, we have serena...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 09 09:16PM +1000


> It will be almost as bad as the WTA became when Graf retired.
 
> Max
 
By far the worst day was when McEnroe retired.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 08 09:06PM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 2:50:10 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> Now Agassi in 1992 at least beat Becker who was already a 3-time champion at Wim and was a grass court player of higher pedigree. So it's quite different from Nadal or Djok winning the same. Did they beat any S/V'ers of the caliber of even Mac of 1992, leave alone Becker ?
 
> > I mean, if NO-ONE achieved it for a LONG LONG time and then suddenly three do it, then yes there may be a case. Maybe if Murray and Stan also achieve it, we can revisit it.
 
> Murray has a chance as he has made all 4 F's before.
 
Nice arguments forwarding your PoV, Shakes. Let's see if Murray makes it.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 09 03:33AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 4:50:10 AM UTC+10, Shakes wrote:
 
> Agassi in 1992: Chesnokov/Rostagno/Becker/Mac/Ivanisevic
 
> Sampras in 1993: Agassi/Becker/Courier
 
> What do you see ? You see average baseliners, great baseliners, average S/V'ers, great S/V'ers, big servers etc. You can compare that to what players in the recent eras have faced at Wim/USO, and you wouldn't find any S/V'ers of the caliber of Becker/Sampras/Edberg. Let's leave aside the assumption whether Fed/Nadal/Djok would still have won the CGS had they faced that variety esp on the faster surfaces. The fact is that they didn't have to face that variety of opponents.
 
Were Edberg/Becker the same calibre of serve and volleyer after 92/93 as they were in late 80s ? Edberg did not contest a single slam final after 93 and Becker won just 1 slam after 91. Sampras did not have a consistent serve and volleyer in 90s that was remotely consistent or as skilful as Edberg and Becker of late 80s, the most consistent serve and volleyer he faced that actually had some level of consistency was Rafter.
 
 
> Now Agassi in 1992 at least beat Becker who was already a 3-time champion at Wim and was a grass court player of higher pedigree.
 
 
 
So it's quite different from Nadal or Djok winning the same. Did they beat any S/V'ers of the caliber of even Mac of 1992, leave alone Becker ?
 
And when was the last time Becker won Wimbledon ? 1989. Becker was a great grass court player but his form in 93 is not that special. He lost first round in Queens, won tough five setters against Ferreira and Martin Damm, a tough four setter against Shelton with last two sets going to tiebreaks. It was also during this period that Becker went through GS event without reaching a single final for two years from 91 Wimbldon to 93 Wimbledon.

"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 09 01:43PM +0300

On 9.5.2017 13:33, John Liang wrote:
>> have to face that variety of opponents.
 
> Were Edberg/Becker the same calibre of serve and volleyer after 92/93
> as they were in late 80s ?
 
And how would Edberg have done today? Edberg lost a bunch of matches on
grass to the bumrooters of his day. I'd be very skeptical of his chances
today. Much of the same goes for Becker.
 
Variety for variety's sake does not mean quality.
bmoore@nyx.net: May 08 07:38PM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
 
> >> Wow, you are like a caricature of yourself! I know you don't understand what that means, but fortunately, this little detail has never prevented you from responding.
 
> >you can use all the long words misunderstandable words you like, it obvious your parents vote Democrat!
 
> on the dole too you reckon??
 
Iceberg just misunderstands a lot.
bmoore@nyx.net: May 08 08:40PM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 1:37:36 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> >> Links, please.
 
> > just google it, that's all i did.
 
> Not one link in Google.
 
All fake news!
 
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-trump-budget-nih-20170316-story.html
 
If approved, the proposed budget would reverse what has been a brief spurt in growth for the NIH after President Obama boosted its budget by $2 billion in 2016 and again in 2017.
Under President Trump's proposal, NIH funding would lose almost as much ground in a single year as it did between 2003 and 2014, when inflation steadily eroded budgets that remained stagnant for a decade.

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