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

Monday, May 15, 2017

RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 15 04:08PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:10:54 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
> actually brings the writer's meaning in to doubt, so that clarification
> is needed. When wisp said 'cowered' everyone knew what he meant so no
> point mentioning it other than waste RST time/space.
 
No disrespect to you. The finality with which you dismiss things that appear incorrect/inappropriate to you is disturbing. There are several others who may not share your view. Let them be.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 16 01:13AM +0300

http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170515153325-trump-approval-graphic-exlarge-169.jpg
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: May 15 11:07PM

On Tue, 16 May 2017 01:13:29 +0300, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170515153325-trump-approval-
graphic-exlarge-169.jpg
 
Is he tired of winning yet?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 15 03:08PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:36:38 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> > was. Especially on clay.
 
> The opposition doesn't really matter on clay if Rafa is better than ever
> as you claim...
 
What will happen after the clay season though? If somebody put a gun to your head now, would you bet on Nadal or Federer doing better from Wimbledon to to the WTF?
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 15 04:02PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 1:50:23 PM UTC-4, kaennorsing wrote:
 
> > Murray and Djok are out of sorts.
 
> sort of
 
> But... I thought it was Rafa who was out of sort? I'm confused now.
 
Even Icey cannot say that rafa is out of sorts now. People will laugh directly into his face.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 15 02:50PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 12:59:47 PM UTC-7, Guypers wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 2:13:51 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
 
> > Is there a youtube link to this episode ? I think I might have missed it when it actually happened.
 
> Fed said shut up to Novak Sr, he should have said, shut the fuck up, you euro trash, and take your whorewife with you, mac said that at the us open to a corp sponsor!!!
 
Were they heckling him ?
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 15 02:55PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 1:30:03 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
> >> no name fans.
 
> > So what you said here is it is perfectly fine for Djoker's parents to behave terribly towards Federer but Federer was wrong and classless to return the volley of abuses. So Djoker's parents are no usual no name fan they are allow to abuse other players. Who give the privilege to Djoker's parents to do that to the other players?
 
> Are you troll? Please say you are.
 
Troll, that is what you are, you said Nole's parents are no usual tennis fan so they have the right to be louder to support their fan than other fans.
 
 
> What proof do you have they behaved "bad" or terribly towards
> Federer? Not even he himself said it.
 
What proof do you have ? show us.

> bizarre fantasy in which Djokers parents came there to hackle
> their son's opponent.
 

> But you have to be of subpar intelligence to believe that.
 
Again personal insult is that all you can bring to a debate when you are losing the debate.

 
> I've already said, umpire takes care of the situation. If
> necessary he asks the crowd to be more quiet, asks not to take
> photos etc.
 
Again, players can take action if they see fit
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 16 12:34AM +0200


>> > Is there a youtube link to this episode ? I think I might have missed it when it actually happened.
 
>> Fed said shut up to Novak Sr, he should have said, shut the fuck up, you euro trash, and take your whorewife with you, mac said that at the us open to a corp sponsor!!!
 
> Were they heckling him ?
 
Of course not!
 
But that's logical conclusion for fanbois.
 
That's why Federer's act was despicable. He knew very well how
will it all look like to the outsiders, casual fans etc, they'd
assume Djokovic parents heckled him or something like that. While
in fact, if anything, they were just vocal in support for their
son.
 
That's pretty much allowed, if done in between points, and the way
rules allow, isn't it?
 
 
Let's face it, it was Monte Carlo 2008, couple of months after
Djokovic beat him at the AO and won there. Djokovic started
dethroning Federer, Nadal only did it at Wim half a year later.
So Federer was pissed off.
 
 
But deliberately and publicly shaming his opponent's parents, is a
sneaky mind game, trying to undermine your opponent. It could be
considered as form of slander as well. He did bring bad PR upon
them. Maybe they should have sued him?
 
At least he didn't get an Edberg reward that year, I think 2008
was the only one he missed out?
 
But he got one in 2014 as well, when Mirka actually heckled
Wawrinka. ;)
 
He even tried to bully the umpire afterwards.
 
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rogerfederer/11238769/Rog
er-Federer-criticises-umpire-Cedric-Mourier-for-confirming-his-wif
e-Mirka-did-heckle-Stanislas-Wawrinka.html>
 
 
You'll remember even Nadal saying he doesn't want Carlos Bernardes
to be be in charge of his matches.
 
 
Otoh I don't recall classless Djokovic bullying umpires, linesmen,
other player's boxes?
 
Oh, yeah, he yells in the heat of the match and scares ballboys.
 
At least, before Pepe arrived. Now he's all love and peace.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: May 15 02:48PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:00:55 AM UTC+10, TT wrote:
 
> That's typically unfair. It's not like Federer for example EVER managed
> to beat Rafa at MC, Rome or RG. And this is a guy who made 5 RG finals,
> as many as Lendl and Wilander.
 
But Federer managed to beat just about every other players on clay during his peak and was prevented to win more FO by one player. With Federer you always knew during his peak years he had the 2nd best chance to win a clay court major after Nadal, I just don't get the same feeling with Thiem at the moment.
 
 
> > Solid top ten player who can be fun to watch but that's all. He's a level 2 guy. It tells you how bad the current clay field is if he's a top contender.
 
> In that case the hard the court field must be even worse since Goffin
> has exactly same win% on hard.
 
60% is pretty poor for a very good player. That is why he has not win big tournament. He won 2 titles in his career, hardly surprise when he is winning 3 out of every five matches, most of the tournament would have players playing 4 or 5 matches to win a tournament.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 16 01:19AM +0300

16.5.2017, 0:41, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>> to beat Rafa at MC, Rome or RG. And this is a guy who made 5 RG finals,
>> as many as Lendl and Wilander.
 
> It's not unfair at all. Federer lost many times to Nadal on clay but he did beat Nadal a couple of times at clay tournaments
 
Yes, at Hamburg and Madrid when Nadal had knee problems after marathon
matches. Not much different from Thiem's win. So your comparison is
still unfair.
 
>> currently...
 
> I see. But when a 36 year old Federer beats a youngster you have the opposite reaction, i.e. why the hell can't this loser beat an old man?
 
No, that's you.
 
> It's unprecedented that none of these younger generation players can beat these older great players. It's a problem.
 
The age remains irrelevant if these older players are able to still play
their best as Federer has done on HC and Nadal on clay this year.
 
 
>> In that case the hard court field must be even worse since Goffin
>> has exactly same win% on hard.
 
> There are more players who are competent on hc than there are on clay. That's only logical considering hc tournaments make up over 70% of the tennis year.
 
I don't think so... all top players are baseliners and come from clay
countries. This applies to 'youngsters' as well apart from Kyrgios.
 
Even Murray has game and stamina to suit clay, and practised in Spain
when young - yet he is not good enough to make a serious impact on clay
but often loses on early rounds. Maybe that's because the field is so
strong.
 
As for Goffin, he seems to be more impressive on clay yet has equally
good winning percentage on hard... now that would logically mean that
the level on clay is actually higher than it is on hard.
 
> On clay currently there is Nadal who is the GOAT on clay and then there are level 2 players like Thiem/Goffin. Djokovic is a top tier clay player but he's in another world at the moment. Murray is competent on clay but he's in the Twilight Zone for now. Federer is competent on clay but he's absent. Wawrinka is excellent on clay but there is a good chance Zombie Stan will show up at the FO. Del Potro is good on clay so let's see if he can do anything.
 
Same applies for HC this year.
 
And you can't use Federer's absence since he's skipping clay because he
doesn't believe he can win on it. That hardly suggests that the level of
competition is bad.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 16 01:35AM +0300

16.5.2017, 0:48, John Liang kirjoitti:
>> to beat Rafa at MC, Rome or RG. And this is a guy who made 5 RG finals,
>> as many as Lendl and Wilander.
 
> But Federer managed to beat just about every other players on clay during his peak and was prevented to win more FO by one player. With Federer you always knew during his peak years he had the 2nd best chance to win a clay court major after Nadal, I just don't get the same feeling with Thiem at the moment.
 
Who has Thiem lost to on clay this year?
 
Rio: Won the title
MC: lost to Goffin
Barcelona: lost to Nadal in the final
Madrid: lost to Nadal in the final
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 15 03:39PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 6:19:43 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
 
> Yes, at Hamburg and Madrid when Nadal had knee problems after marathon
> matches. Not much different from Thiem's win. So your comparison is
> still unfair.
 
Nadal had knee problems so that's why Fed beat him? You sound like the Fed nutters who talk about Fed's mono when he reached every slam final that year. Shut up. Comparing Thiem to Federer is insanity. Thiem's won nothing of relevance so far. If he were such a clay beast, he should have won some Masters 1000s on clay by now or how about some 500s on clay? How many of those has he won? I don't feel like checking.
 
 
> > I see. But when a 36 year old Federer beats a youngster you have the opposite reaction, i.e. why the hell can't this loser beat an old man?
 
> No, that's you.
 
Weren't you calling Kyrgios a loser/choker when he lost that close match to Fed in Miami?
 

> > It's unprecedented that none of these younger generation players can beat these older great players. It's a problem.
 
> The age remains irrelevant if these older players are able to still play
> their best as Federer has done on HC and Nadal on clay this year.
 
No it doesn't only mean that. It also means the youngsters aren't good enough.

 
> > There are more players who are competent on hc than there are on clay. That's only logical considering hc tournaments make up over 70% of the tennis year.
 
> I don't think so... all top players are baseliners and come from clay
> countries. This applies to 'youngsters' as well apart from Kyrgios.
 
Yet most can't win two clay matches in a row?
 

> when young - yet he is not good enough to make a serious impact on clay
> but often loses on early rounds. Maybe that's because the field is so
> strong.
 
LOL, no. It's because Murray's not good enough on clay.
 

> As for Goffin, he seems to be more impressive on clay yet has equally
> good winning percentage on hard... now that would logically mean that
> the level on clay is actually higher than it is on hard.
 
He's a level two player across the board. Zzzzzz.
 

> > On clay currently there is Nadal who is the GOAT on clay and then there are level 2 players like Thiem/Goffin. Djokovic is a top tier clay player but he's in another world at the moment. Murray is competent on clay but he's in the Twilight Zone for now. Federer is competent on clay but he's absent. Wawrinka is excellent on clay but there is a good chance Zombie Stan will show up at the FO. Del Potro is good on clay so let's see if he can do anything.
 
> Same applies for HC this year.
 
But there are more players who can cause upsets on hc.
 

> And you can't use Federer's absence since he's skipping clay because he
> doesn't believe he can win on it. That hardly suggests that the level of
> competition is bad.
 
He doesn't want to injure his old body grinding it out on clay with people 5-12 years younger. He could probably beat this Murray and Djokovic easily on clay. Perhaps Thiem/Goffin/Kyrgios/Zverev could give him trouble and for sure Nadal would. It's much better for him to focus on Wimbledon to the WTF where he has a much better chance to do damage.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 16 01:59AM +0300

16.5.2017, 1:39, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>> matches. Not much different from Thiem's win. So your comparison is
>> still unfair.
 
> Nadal had knee problems so that's why Fed beat him? You sound like the Fed nutters who talk about Fed's mono when he reached every slam final that year. Shut up. Comparing Thiem to Federer is insanity. Thiem's won nothing of relevance so far. If he were such a clay beast, he should have won some Masters 1000s on clay by now or how about some 500s on clay? How many of those has he won? I don't feel like checking.
 
And how many did Federer win during his 100 year career when Nadal
played in the tournament...
 
>>> I see. But when a 36 year old Federer beats a youngster you have the opposite reaction, i.e. why the hell can't this loser beat an old man?
 
>> No, that's you.
 
> Weren't you calling Kyrgios a loser/choker when he lost that close match to Fed in Miami?
 
I don't think so.
 
 
>> The age remains irrelevant if these older players are able to still play
>> their best as Federer has done on HC and Nadal on clay this year.
 
> No it doesn't only mean that. It also means the youngsters aren't good enough.
 
OF COURSE they are not good enough if Rafa does his best stuff on clay.
 
I think Kyrgios has beaten big three.
 
 
 
>> I don't think so... all top players are baseliners and come from clay
>> countries. This applies to 'youngsters' as well apart from Kyrgios.
 
> Yet most can't win two clay matches in a row?
 
?
 
>> but often loses on early rounds. Maybe that's because the field is so
>> strong.
 
> LOL, no. It's because Murray's not good enough on clay.
 
There you go. Others are better.
 
>> good winning percentage on hard... now that would logically mean that
>> the level on clay is actually higher than it is on hard.
 
> He's a level two player across the board. Zzzzzz.
 
Probably.
 
 
>> Same applies for HC this year.
 
> But there are more players who can cause upsets on hc.
 
Links?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 15 02:53PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 5:37:44 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> > I've answered the doping question a thousand times. I think Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all dope. You could make a case for all of them on that subject.
 
> You just can't tell us that Federer is doping currently without 'but all
> dope'.
 
Are you nuts or dim or both? I've stated numerous times that I think Fed, Djokovic and Nadal all dope? Why are you not comprehending this information and more importantly, what's your problem?

> for Federer if he had not avoided Nadal on clay. And this is not the
> first time, he has also skipped MC in past because he didn't believe he
> could beat Rafa.
 
LOL @ you talking about a skewed h2h and Fed avoiding Nadal. That has been Nadal's speciality. How many times has Federer been waiting to meet Nadal off clay all these years but Nadal couldn't get there thus skewing their h2h?
 
Just worry about Nadal winning his 10th FO and stop obsessing about Federer. He knows what he's doing and if Nadal is better/greater than Federer, he'll surpass his slam count. Right? ;)
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 16 12:54AM +0300

16.5.2017, 0:37, stephenJ kirjoitti:
 
> Nadal has dominated clay seasons before and Federer still always played
> the FO. Nadal didn't dominate the clay season at all last year and
> Federer didn't show up at the FO anyway.
 
He did play MC and Rome.
 
> So your explanation is suspect.
 
> Mine? He's an old man and needs to pick his spots. The FO isn't his spot
> like W and USO are.
 
He may need a lighter schedule but obviously not THIS light. He has no
injuries.
 
It's sort of like Trump's initial excuse for firing Comey.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 15 11:43PM +0200


>> FF
 
> This coming from someone who calls himself a 'Federer Fanatic' and
> apparently supports Trump.
 
If there were posters here, more people would ridicule your
political position. ;)
 
 
--
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 15 05:04PM -0500

On 5/15/2017 4:54 PM, TT wrote:
>> the FO. Nadal didn't dominate the clay season at all last year and
>> Federer didn't show up at the FO anyway.
 
> He did play MC and Rome.
 
So?
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 15 03:44PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:05:52 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> > Reason ?
 
> Cowardice. Said earlier this year that a reason for his poor success
> against Rafa has been the scheduled beating on clay.
 
Rather prudence? He knows he cannot beat almost peak Rafa so why give him the edge going to Wimbledon?
 
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 15 03:46PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:30:52 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> >> I think Ljubicic told him that he should avoid Rafa on clay.
 
> > :)) I am sure Nadal was also hoping to regain the mental edge with a victory on clay.
 
> Pretty damn pathetic from Fed.
 
No, he is probably challenging Nadal to meet him in the finals at Wimbledon and/or USO. Will Nadal be up for the challenge?
 
 
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 15 03:46PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:30:32 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > against Rafa has been the scheduled beating on clay.
 
> > I think Ljubicic told him that he should avoid Rafa on clay.
 
> It was wisdom. He shouldn't waste his time on the FO whether Rafa is there or not. He risks injuring himself in that dirt-pit when he should grab a head start tuning himself up for Wimbledon. Smart choice from the Great Man.
 
Exactly. Now that he has made his decision, seems to be a wise one.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 15 03:49PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> > It was wisdom. He shouldn't waste his time on the FO whether Rafa is there or not. He risks injuring himself in that dirt-pit when he should grab a head start tuning himself up for Wimbledon. Smart choice from the Great Man.
 
> It could also backfire, yes he keeps h2h and aura intact but could also
> lose competitive edge.
 
He surmised he would only end up losing energy going for the FO title.

> One could also note that he's practically giving up on #1, guess it
> isn't that important after all. Then again he wouldn't have won anything
> during clay season anyway the way Rafa is playing.
 
He probably reckons more slams is more important than Number 1.
 
 
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 15 03:56PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 5:06:33 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> And federer is so scared of Nadal during clay season that he skips it
> altogether, isn't that even more precious...
 
> What... a... coward.
 
Federer has conceded to Nadal on clay. What is so difficult to fathom? He thinks he has a better chance against Nadal on grass or HC. Nadal should now try and beat him in the final on those surfaces.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: May 15 03:25PM -0700

On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 7:18:52 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> > I saw the match and yes it was close in the first set and Nadal was clutch but Nadal won in straights. Thiem is a mindless, one-dimensional ball-basher who stands so far back he could be in China. Endless hype about Thiem who has won nothing substantial in tennis. I find his tennis boring with a capital "B." People who are hoping this is the next clay court titan will be disappointed. He may win a clay title if Nadal drops dead.
 
> So you admit it was close, but diss Thiem because you don't like him. I see.
 
I admitted the FIRST set was close but Nadal still won in straights. How is that close? Thiem can't even take Nadal to three sets.
 
I like Thiem's demeanor. He seems well-adjusted and is a hard worker. I just don't particularly enjoy watching his tennis. I find him one-dimensional. He bashes the ball as hard as he can but when that doesn't work and his shots misfire(as they always do), he has no plan B. I don't find him to be tactically smart. Nadal is so much better tactically vs Thiem it's a joke.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: May 16 12:43AM +0300

A nice slideshow. Enjoy.
 
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/photos/2017/04/donald-trump-100-days-failure
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: May 16 01:21AM +0300

16.5.2017, 0:43, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
> A nice slideshow. Enjoy.
 
> http://www.vanityfair.com/news/photos/2017/04/donald-trump-100-days-failure
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBPQT2Ia8fU
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