Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 12 topics

Friday, May 12, 2017

John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 12 09:15PM -0700

> With Federer playing a very limited schedule (wisely so for the almost 36 YO body), and Nadal's impressive form so far this year, I think Nadal has a better chance of becoming No.1 again compared to Murray/Djokovic/Federer. It is almost guaranteed that he will have a massive lead in the ATP points race by the end of FO, and he has nothing to defend in Wimbledon. All he needs to do is perform decently (equivalent to what he had done in the early hard court season), and he is almost guaranteed to end the year with #1.
 
The French Open is what will make or break for Nadal. Even in some of the years when he won FO in the last few years he did not do well at W and USO.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: May 12 09:12PM -0700

Time to reverse the damage Oblunder caused. Continue with excellent choices to SCOTUS, Mr. Trump. Add more Scalias!
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: May 12 09:09PM -0700

If Djokovic wins:
 
#13 on the slam count. Double slam. Gets to within one slam of Sampras and Nadal. With double slam, might be considered on same level by experts. Perhaps higher.
 
If Nadal wins:
#15 on the slam count, pass Sampras. Incredible 10th French. Gets back to a deficit of three on all-time slam record.
 
Madrid semi match will be very interesting, a nice preview. Imagine if they play French final this year. Just think if Djokovic prevents Nadal history @ French, then a few weeks later once again prevents Federer history @ Wimbledon!
 
The conversations and debates would have different tone suddenly!
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 12 07:55PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:32:43 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > Nadal has been resurgent but not yet tested by three of the top 4 (because they have been going out early) and falling short against the one he has played.
 
> "Tested" by three of the top four? I doubt Murray in this form would test Nadal on clay. Murray can't get by Ramos Vinolas on clay these days. Wawrinka wouldn't beat/test this Nadal on clay either (unless Nadal puts on a Djokovic mask and it's slam final. ) As for Djokovic, I would be very surprised if this Djokovic can beat this Nadal on clay tomorrow. As absurd as it sounds, Federer may be the only one able to do it at the moment and I doubt he will be able to beat Nadal at the FO in best of five.
 
> I haven't thought that Nadal looked good enough to beat Djokovic on any surface for two and a half years but the circumstances have changed. Nadal should win tomorrow and if he doesn't, he should feel humiliated.
 
'out of sorts' Djok should pose no problem for a rampaging Nadal.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 12 06:39PM -0400

On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:48:37 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> dumbo.
 
>> bob
 
>You may want to look up his recent comment about FO, stupid. The goal is to win.
 
ahahahha. sure.
 
bob
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 12 07:51PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 6:39:59 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >You may want to look up his recent comment about FO, stupid. The goal is to win.
 
> ahahahha. sure.
 
> bob
 
Plays two tune-ups before W 2017. Did not play FO in 2016, yet reached semis of W 2015 based on tune-ups prep.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 12 07:45PM -0700

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 7:22:40 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> federer, OTOH, was a rising star playing an idol. and winning 7-5 in
> 5th. so it really tells me little of who would win in 1995 conditions.
 
> bob
 
Something else tells you that Sampras would win though:
 
"but....if you take traditional (what i call traditional) fast grass,
i'll take sampras (plus mcenroe or becker) over federer or djokovic or
nadal majority of the time, i don't even hesitate to think it.
no proof needed for that opinion."
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 12 07:34PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 6:49:04 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >And yes, you *did say* you lost a bet on the 2012 W Final, at that time.
 
> i would love to know what the bet was, and with whom. honestly don't
> recall.
 
Probably something like a fancy car.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 12 06:52PM -0400

On Thu, 11 May 2017 18:52:22 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
 
>> > Maybe if Murray and Stan also achieve it, we can revisit it.
 
>> that will simply prove it beyond any doubt.
 
>It would merely give the argument more weight.
 
worried already, eh?
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 12 06:53PM -0400

On Fri, 12 May 2017 03:00:34 -0700 (PDT), kaennorsing
>> winners, to rise substantially in the past 15yrs. IMO.
 
>> bob
 
>Actually in the last 25 years, not 15. Sampras and Agassi raised the bar over the previous (Borg, Connors, Mac) in terms of CGS and slam totals before Fed, Rafa and Djoker raised it again.
 
nah, it's the last 15. CGS and slam totals together, there's a clear
line past 12 years in fact.
 
bob
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 12 07:11PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 6:52:53 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >It would merely give the argument more weight.
 
> worried already, eh?
 
> bob
 
Nope. Let's visit it when it happens.
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com>: May 12 07:33PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 12:41:40 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> bottom Sampras. Fed couldn't even beat Henman at Wimbledon, & got
> crushed by Agassi at 2001 USO. Agassi/Henman were Sampras bunnies.
> That proves peak Sampras would overwhelm Federer.
 
I promised myself to not respond to your Tier Four commentary but it becomes impossible to ignore. Every post you make here disregards Fed's obvious talent. The talent is so obvious that Laver is practically a Fed groupie.
 
Get help.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 12 07:30PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 2:49:33 PM UTC-4, Federer Fanatic wrote:
> synonyms: intimidate, daunt, browbeat, bully, tyrannize, scare, terrorize, frighten, dishearten, unnerve, subdue;
 
> are certainly similar but technically different types of verbs. Who really cares? Obviously we know what Whisp meant...
 
> FF
 
Perhaps the word 'cowered' tickles his fancy that he continues employing it (incorrectly).
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 12 04:41PM -0700

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 3:40:43 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> even start.. Watched a bunch of Bergmans (great in general), Cassavetes
> (so-so) and all kinds of classics. Anyway, really nice to have you back
> and enjoy rest of the clay season and Trump presidency with us. ;)
 
Many thanks, compadre. I appreciate it. I'm not sure why I lack the patience to watch feature-length narrative film these days. Some temporary mental block, I guess. I don't think I'll ever be a Bergman fan no matter how many of his films I watch.
 
I'm a little worried about the clay season with Rafa in form. Trying to brace myself for the possibility of him getting another slam--albeit the grinder one. ;)
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 12 07:52PM -0400

On Fri, 12 May 2017 16:41:04 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> and enjoy rest of the clay season and Trump presidency with us. ;)
 
>Many thanks, compadre. I appreciate it. I'm not sure why I lack the patience to watch feature-length narrative film these days. Some temporary mental block, I guess. I don't think I'll ever be a Bergman fan no matter how many of his films I watch.
 
>I'm a little worried about the clay season with Rafa in form.
 
"in form?" really now...
 
 
> Trying to brace myself for the possibility of him getting another slam--albeit the grinder one. ;)
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 13 03:21AM +0300

13.5.2017, 2:41, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> (so-so) and all kinds of classics. Anyway, really nice to have you back
>> and enjoy rest of the clay season and Trump presidency with us. ;)
 
> Many thanks, compadre. I appreciate it. I'm not sure why I lack the patience to watch feature-length narrative film these days. Some temporary mental block, I guess. I don't think I'll ever be a Bergman fan no matter how many of his films I watch.
 
A friend said recently the same thing about lacking patience. It may be
age related. Then again I'm same age as him so...
I guess it's about finding some new genres etc, for me it has been
recently art films. Oh and 40s 50s films too. Always loved 60s-80s films
and still do. So I guess I'm sort of fed up with modern films currently,
they feel usually pretty bad (Oscar winner 'Moonlight' was good
though...despite being totall... half-homo film).
 
I would say that Bergman is REALLY good director, and his Swedish
cinematographer is brilliant. However, I wouldn't consider all Bergman
films good or entertaining... and overall I think all his films have
rather slow tempo plus he's obsessed with death, religion and
relationships with relatives - those themes appear to be in all his
films except perhaps 'Wild Strawberries' which I don't remember that well.
 
From 'new' films of his I watched recently I liked most Autumn Sonata,
The Silence and The Virgin Spring. Hour of the Wolf was imo terrible
(but well filmed) and made no sense whatsoever. Winter Light is passable.
 
Also watched bunch of Woody Allens and still don't like him. Doh.
 
> I'm a little worried about the clay season with Rafa in form. Trying to brace myself for the possibility of him getting another slam--albeit the grinder one. ;)
 
Tomorrow should be a good match, they say Djoko is showing signs of
rejuvenation as well. A regular virgin spring.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 13 02:37AM +0300

13.5.2017, 2:26, bob kirjoitti:
 
> then you wouldn't like the spanish movie either.
 
> no, not the one about rafa's comeback, the 'sea inside.' :-)
 
> bob
 
I'd like to see both...
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 13 02:39AM +0200


> anyway, she's serena's toy dog for over a decade. :-)
 
> bob
 
I've already said that I don't even know much about her bio and
early career. :)
 
But my point about economic collapse was maybe that they could
have supported 100 players in Moscow, but not another 100 across
the country? Maybe there wasn't enough for everyone and certainly
not in Siberia so why should she take that personally?
 
You seem to be surprised that she's not (more) resentful to her
country but this is one of those beautiful cultural exchanges and
chats? I think Russians probably have a higher bar for tolerating
injustices, compared to westerners.
 
If they dropped her or, didn't support her for whatever reason,
whether it's corrupt trainers, lack of funds, if she's patriotic
as she seems to be, all that isn't enough to turn her away from
her country.
 
 
Maybe if you could cite her, where she showed lack of respect or
threw a dig at America?
 
 
I know it's not the same but eg Murray went to Spain, Kuznetsova
as well, those places to a larger or lesser degree enabled them
to become champions. It's how tennis works.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 12 09:11PM -0400

On Sat, 13 May 2017 02:39:19 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
> country but this is one of those beautiful cultural exchanges and
> chats? I think Russians probably have a higher bar for tolerating
> injustices, compared to westerners.
 
never said she should be resentful, never said she shouldn't love
russia.
 
what i said was she seemed to take a stance that was meant to offend
either the USTA or american fed cup team, perhaps the captain, not
sure. but in a way it mildly offends many americans who think "wow,
she's kind of dissing the country that made her a rich, famous star."
 
analogy:
your neighbor has a child, the father is drunk and negligent and
doesn't provide for his child at all. in fact he kicks the child to
the streets at age 9 and tells the child he needs more time with his
girlfriend. you have your own kids but take in the child and treat
that child as your own. you feed, clothe, protect this child, and send
the child to college on your own money. the child graduates, and finds
the cure for a dreaded disease, gets the nobel prize, and says, "i
would like to thank my father, for without him i could not be here."
and you go, HUH? :-)
 
now, do you hate the child for this? of course not.
do you hate that he loves father? of course not.
do you understand blood is thicker than water? of course you do.
but still, does it not make you wonder WTF???
 
> whether it's corrupt trainers, lack of funds, if she's patriotic
> as she seems to be, all that isn't enough to turn her away from
> her country.
 
it's not a war, it's tennis. and IMO she did it just because russia's
economy was growing rapidly and she smelled more $$$ (or whatever the
equivalent sign of rubles is).
 
>I know it's not the same but eg Murray went to Spain, Kuznetsova
> as well, those places to a larger or lesser degree enabled them
> to become champions. It's how tennis works.
 
some leave for tax havens i believe. i just think the sharapova issue
was a little different - the fed cup thing was a dig. murray doesn't
play for spain.
 
bob
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 12 06:48PM -0700

Thanks TT. Ingrid was great in it as well as the other Swedish Actress - Liv Ullman?
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 12 06:53PM -0700

Dude bob...chill...she was just joking. She obviously loves both USA and Russia. You will never get Eastern/Oriental sense of humor.
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: May 13 01:20AM +0100

On 12/05/2017 22:54, TT wrote:
 
> Ah thanks... I remembered it was some other pic. But that's the best one I could find too. (I started making a list of most gorgeous actresses and their best films, which I intend to publish at listchallenges.com some day)
 
> I like this one as well:
> http://www.movpins.com/big/MV5BODk4Njc4MTQ0OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzQ3ODIwMjE/michelle-pfeiffer-in-dangerous-liaisons-1988-large-picture.jpg
 
Been watching some of "The Fast and the Furious" franchise and Gal Gadot is stunning.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 13 03:25AM +0300

13.5.2017, 3:20, grif kirjoitti:
> Been watching some of "The Fast and the Furious" franchise and Gal Gadot
> is stunning.
 
She sure is!
 
Noticed that when I saw the latest Batman vs Superman nonsense. Not a
big fan of F&F franchise though.
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: May 13 01:36AM +0100

On 13/05/2017 01:25, TT wrote:
>> is stunning.
 
> She sure is!
 
> Noticed that when I saw the latest Batman vs Superman nonsense. Not a big fan of F&F franchise though.
 
I couldn't remember where I left off at, as it was ages ago since I last saw it, so started with the latest one and worked my way back. It's changed quite a bit from what I remember. It is so hilariously over the top now that they are like superheroes. If you can accept that, then it's as entertaining as you can come to expect from a hollywood blockbuster. I liked the testosterone-fuelled banter between Statham and The Rock, and Theron makes a nice villain.
 
From F&F 7:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSwN4P3tBO4
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 12 07:48PM -0400

>> it wrong.
 
>Can you present any facts (alternative or otherwise) to back up the above
>words?
 
https://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY16/Approp%20History%20by%20IC%20FY%202000%20-%20FY%202016.pdf
 
from 09-2016 NIH budget went from 30.5-32.3 bil. 5.9% increase.
from 09-2016 GDP went from 14.4-18.5 tril. 28.4% increase.
from 09-2016 S&P index went from 700-2000. 285% increase.
(that obama, a real enemy of the banks, eh? btw did you like his
$400,000 speech on wallstreet last wk? warren loved it!)
 
obama, a big spender for the NIH, eh? yet let's slam trump for
continuing the downtrend in its funding. piss off kimmel.
 
and you should quit being argumentative just cause you hate trump.
 
bob
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