Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 13 topics

Sunday, June 4, 2017

calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 04 10:29AM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 6:07:33 PM UTC+2, StephenJ wrote:
> > On 6/3/2017 5:09 PM, calimero377@gmx.de wrote:
 
> > Just joking ...
 
> You're on a roll, keep 'em coming. ūüėĀ
 
Even corrupt bankers hate those liberal millionaire hypocrites.
 
 
Max
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 04 10:49AM -0700

This was before he started doing talks for Wall St! :)
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 04 10:50AM -0700

Lol Al Gore says it's a "complex relationship" :)
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 04 08:32PM +0300

... it was 6-4, 6-1. MC 2015 ...
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 04 01:40PM -0400

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 20:32:14 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los>
wrote:
 
>... it was 6-4, 6-1. MC 2015 ...
 
djok won 1st set but he looks tentative, like no confidence.
 
bob
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 04 10:49AM -0700

Players believe they can beat him and they are playing their best but I believe djok opponent will get tired soon.
 
Btw, it was great leftie practice for djokovic.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 04 08:45PM +0300

One UE, a FH 5cm long, between Novak and Busta-Vinolas.
 
To Novak's eternal credit, he's holding his head down. Does give it
everything he has. It's not quite what it should be, but you gotta play
with what you got.
 
Vamos!
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 04 10:48AM -0700

Maybe he will slowly get better? Does he meet Stan later on?
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 04 10:28AM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 6:06:39 PM UTC+2, StephenJ wrote:
> :( :( :(
 
 
Superclown era.
 
 
Max
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 04 01:41PM -0400

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:12:27 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky
 
>Venus played horrible.
 
horribly.
 
bob
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 04 10:48AM -0700

Correct, really bad.
It was like they were both inviting each other to take the match.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 04 07:57PM +0300

PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 4.6.2017 klo 19:14:
> I thought people said Nadal wasn't close to his best when he was beaten three times this year by the great man!
 
If by 'great man' you mean Roger... yes, Rafa wasn't playing as well
then as he is now.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 04 01:43PM -0400

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 08:48:00 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
>After the 1-2-2 destruction by Humbalito.
>The little fella here knows better, of course.
 
nadal's playing better on clay, as usual. but his confidence has grown
since 6 months ago.
 
anyone who doesn't see a difference in style of nadal from Jan-Mar VS
Nadal of 08-2014 isn't being very honest.
 
bob
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 04 08:46PM +0300

On 4.6.2017 19:57, TT wrote:
>> beaten three times this year by the great man!
 
> If by 'great man' you mean Roger... yes, Rafa wasn't playing as well
> then as he is now.
 
The difference was HC and play Rafa had no answers to. Otherwise, Rafa's
been in this form for while now.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 04 10:46AM -0700

Bwhahahahaha...Gracchus you have been funny since your comeback. Haven't you got the memo...Bootard is the new Melanie Oudin
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 04 10:46AM -0700

Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 04 01:45PM -0400

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:40:43 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
 
>> Missing Federer? :)
 
>> What will we do when he quits? :)
 
>Troll rst forever?
 
that's a given.
 
bob
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 04 10:11AM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 12:10:24 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
name applies to a series of related guns, the first one officially called the 8.8 cm Flak 18, the improved 8.8 cm Flak 36, and later the 8.8 cm Flak 37.[N 1] Flak is a contraction of German Flugzeugabwehrkanone[3][N 2] meaning "aircraft-defense cannon", the original purpose of the eighty-eight. In English, "flak" became a generic term for ground anti-aircraft fire. In informal German use, the guns were universally known as the Acht-acht ("eight-eight").[N 3]
 
 
 
Flak is the operative word!
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 04 10:27AM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 7:11:15 PM UTC+2, Guypers wrote:
 
> name applies to a series of related guns, the first one officially called the 8.8 cm Flak 18, the improved 8.8 cm Flak 36, and later the 8.8 cm Flak 37.[N 1] Flak is a contraction of German Flugzeugabwehrkanone[3][N 2] meaning "aircraft-defense cannon", the original purpose of the eighty-eight. In English, "flak" became a generic term for ground anti-aircraft fire. In informal German use, the guns were universally known as the Acht-acht ("eight-eight").[N 3]
 
> Flak is the operative word!
 
 
Nice that there a people here who read Wikipedia for us.
 
 
Max
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 04 09:41AM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 9:27:10 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> Lowered standards for modern films.
 
> Maybe a better comparison would be Bergman's 'Cries and Whispers', which
> is also about a dying relative & stuff.
 
I don't know whether that's about older vs. modern films as much as Hollywood vs. "art" films. I mean, a movie with father & daughter Fondas + Hepburn is pure Hollywood even if the subject matter is serious. I'm not a huge fan of it actually. I found it annoying that Henry and Jane were working out their real-life father daughter baggage onscreen and got applauded for it. And Henry got a big tailwind at the Oscars because everyone knew he wasn't much longer for this world. If the film's stature has faded somewhat, no huge surprise.
 
Not to say that I think "Amour" is better. I didn't like it as much as C1 did, but still thought it was decent. It's been a while since I've seen it, but compared with "45 Years" it has more to do with the indignities that old age and decay reduces us all to if we live long enough.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 04 07:53PM +0300

Gracchus kirjoitti 4.6.2017 klo 19:41:
 
>> Maybe a better comparison would be Bergman's 'Cries and Whispers', which
>> is also about a dying relative & stuff.
 
> I don't know whether that's about older vs. modern films as much as Hollywood vs. "art" films. I mean, a movie with father & daughter Fondas + Hepburn is pure Hollywood even if the subject matter is serious.
 
You're right... Amour gets extra points from critics etc because of the
director.
 
I'm not a huge fan of it actually. I found it annoying that Henry and
Jane were working out their real-life father daughter baggage onscreen
and got applauded for it. And Henry got a big tailwind at the Oscars
because everyone knew he wasn't much longer for this world. If the
film's stature has faded somewhat, no huge surprise.
 
Sounds like you had some baggage when seeing it. Forget about real life
relations and Oscars and watch it for the film and performances...
 
> Not to say that I think "Amour" is better. I didn't like it as much as C1 did, but still thought it was decent. It's been a while since I've seen it, but compared with "45 Years" it has more to do with the indignities that old age and decay reduces us all to if we live long enough.
 
Golden Pond was also about indignities etc, I just think it was more
multilayered and positive. Definitely more enjoyable.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 04 10:26AM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 9:52:55 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> film's stature has faded somewhat, no huge surprise.
 
> Sounds like you had some baggage when seeing it. Forget about real life
> relations and Oscars and watch it for the film and performances...
 
Makes sense. I saw it as a young person, so maybe I need to see it again as a much older young person. :) I'll make the effort to detach what I know of the Fondas and focus on the film as a whole.
 
> > Not to say that I think "Amour" is better. I didn't like it as much as C1 did, but still thought it was decent. It's been a while since I've seen it, but compared with "45 Years" it has more to do with the indignities that old age and decay reduces us all to if we live long enough.
 
> Golden Pond was also about indignities etc, I just think it was more
> multilayered and positive. Definitely more enjoyable.
 
Yes, I do recall that it deals with similar territory as well as parent-child issues. There's much room to explore with that subject matter.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 04 10:23AM -0700

Good practice
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 04 10:17AM -0700

Those that stay on the baseline trying to control the rally are in disadvantage on clay except they get lucky later in the match and the opponent gets tired running right and left retrieving and hammering balls.
 
This is why Nadal is the best on clay because he never gets tired later.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jun 04 09:46AM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 3:01:52 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > No, nothing like that. I want Djok to win the tournament, doesn't matter who it is against.
 
> You'll have to pray very hard then and hope against hope there is a God who can answer your prayers.
 
 
> A Sampras/Edberg fan liking Djokovic of all players. *rolls eyes*
 
I thought you would pick up on that. :) I only liked Djok after quite a while; basically, only after he stopped being a quitter and proved himself to be a fighter.
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