Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 5 topics

Monday, June 26, 2017

Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 26 04:55PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 10:02:43 AM UTC-4, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op maandag 26 juni 2017 14:53:13 UTC+2 schreef Court_1:
 
> > I think Federer is the firm favorite to win the title.
 
> No doubt he's the favorite now after firing on all cilinders in the Halle final. That was magical. If he can tap into that form when necessary he'll be tough to stop for anyone... He does need to avoid a bad day vs a big hitter early in the tournament.
 
The draw will be important for all the Big Four players.
 
But yeah, Federer looked fabulous vs Zverev in that Halle final. The poor kid didn't know what hit him. This is the same kid who demolished Djokovic in Rome a few weeks before. *cackles*
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 27 11:33AM +1000

On 26/06/2017 10:52 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>> form he showed in FO final will easily translate to Wimbledon & could
>> possibly overwhelm Fed.
 
> You know how I've been skeptical about Federer's chances vs Nadal in slams for a long time considering their past history but I feel at this moment that if Nadal does make it to the final and Federer is waiting there that Federer will win this time. I think if Nadal can't pick on Federer's backhand it will be more difficult for Nadal to beat him especially on a grass surface. I have to wait and see the draw but at the moment I'm liking Federer for the title.
 
You can make a case for both guys winning a potential final here eg both
playing great, plenty of experience, both confident after winning recent
slams etc. I'd go with Rafa because imo his best game will always beat
Federer. AO final was great tennis from Roger & very good from Rafa, but
it was a long way short of what we saw at FO from Rafa. He was a just a
beast. Yes this is grass, but that's not as big a factor in this era &
between these 2 guys.
 
Regardless I'm hoping for a cracker quality final if they both get
there. If they both carry on the trajectory they have this yr I'll say
Rafa in 3 or 4.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 27 11:35AM +1000

On 26/06/2017 10:53 PM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> He'll be playing a couple matches at Hurlingham exo this week. Murray
>> plays there too.
 
> I think Federer is the firm favorite to win the title.
 
It could appear that way on paper, but dig a little deeper & we see Fed
was on fire in AO final yet still down 1-3 in 5th. That Rafa was about
50% of FO final Rafa.
 
Having said that we'll probably have a Kyrgios/Zverev final.
 
: )
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 27 01:37AM

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:55:30 -0700, Court_1 wrote:
 
> But yeah, Federer looked fabulous vs Zverev in that Halle final. The
> poor kid didn't know what hit him. This is the same kid who demolished
> Djokovic in Rome a few weeks before. *cackles*
 
He really did look good and confident against Zverev, but that's how he
always looks when he plays freely and confidently and *without thinking
too much*... Against these young up-and-comers it's much easier for him
to play that way though, for whatever reason.
 
Federer's downfall throughout his career in the big matches against
established, tough players is that he seems to think too much in them.
The doubts creep in after a couple of "wow" shots are returned for
winners and he becomes tentative, second guesses himself (it particularly
manifests itself with poor net approach selections and sometimes rather
desperate looking SABR attempts). Against guys like Djok and Nadal, and
Murray at times if only he could turn that part of his psyche off I think
he'd have a much better record against them would and would already be
going for #10 at Wimbledon. Do you think Shakes could take that? :) Ah
well, we all have weaknesses.
 
All that being said, I can't really read too much into his win over
Zverev, but I do agree it was impressive and I loved seeing him play as
well as he did.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 26 06:41PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 9:33:28 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> You can make a case for both guys winning a potential final here eg both
> playing great, plenty of experience, both confident after winning recent
> slams etc.
 
Yes.
 
 
> I'd go with Rafa because imo his best game will always beat
> Federer.
 
Not these days with Fed's improved bh, ROS and increased confidence vs Nadal.
 
> AO final was great tennis from Roger & very good from Rafa, but
> it was a long way short of what we saw at FO from Rafa.
 
That was at the FO where Nadal is one of a kind.
 
>Yes this is grass, but that's not as big a factor in this era &
between these 2 guys
 
Of course it's a factor! One has 7 Wimbledon titles and one has 2!
 
 
> Regardless I'm hoping for a cracker quality final if they both get
> there. If they both carry on the trajectory they have this yr I'll say
> Rafa in 3 or 4.
 
If they both get to the final, no way will it be decided in three sets! What are you smoking? It will be a battle. At the moment I say it's a slight edge to Federer on a grass court as long as he can continue with his great serving, super aggressive bh and aggressive ROS.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 26 06:44PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 9:36:04 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:


> It could appear that way on paper, but dig a little deeper & we see Fed
> was on fire in AO final yet still down 1-3 in 5th. That Rafa was about
> 50% of FO final Rafa.
 
I don't have to dig a little deeper because Federer won vs Nadal at the AO, IW and Miami.
 

> Having said that we'll probably have a Kyrgios/Zverev final.
 
I don't think so.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 26 04:32PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 11:23:24 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > Not IMO. Below average for an actress for sure. Kong was better looking. She's a Plain Jane.
 
> > http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/brie-larson.jpg
 
> What do you mean "for an actress"? There are lots of actresses that aren't beauties and always were. They just didn't have the "screen goddess" roles. Larson is passable, no worse than Helen Hunt, who still got cast in romantic pairings.
 
I said "especially" for an actress but IMO she's would be plain jane in the general population too. She looks like she just finished her shift at the local diner serving greasy burgers, coffee and apple pie. She has that cheap look to her IMO. I really don't find her attractive. I think we've discussed this before? As for Helen Hunt, I find her average looking too. Probably in the same category as Larson. Each to his/her own.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 26 04:32PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 12:15:24 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> >> http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/brie-larson.jpg
 
> > https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/60/12/1a/60121aa7a60575641f423f3a77d57b82.jpg
 
> http://media.paperblog.fr/i/798/7980441/allison-brie-larson-L-npHNbz.jpeg
 
That looks like a mug shot!
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 26 04:33PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 12:32:38 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > Plain Jane... reminds me of that bitch from The Office every nerd was going crazy about.
 
> > Another nerd fantasy - Emma Stone. Nerds have sub standard taste.
 
> Yeah, Raja, I'm sure you've had lots of better-looking women than Emma Stone. **cough cough**
 
I don't find Emma Stone particularly attractive either. She's got that E.T. look.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 26 04:35PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 6:03:55 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
Is that the official Captain Underpants assessment? ;)
 
Personally, I couldn't get through Skull Kong Island, it was that bad so I couldn't even give it a 5/10.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 26 04:58PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 4:32:02 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/brie-larson.jpg
 
> > What do you mean "for an actress"? There are lots of actresses that aren't beauties and always were. They just didn't have the "screen goddess" roles. Larson is passable, no worse than Helen Hunt, who still got cast in romantic pairings.
 
> I said "especially" for an actress but IMO she's would be plain jane in the general population too. She looks like she just finished her shift at the local diner serving greasy burgers, coffee and apple pie. She has that cheap look to her IMO. I really don't find her attractive. I think we've discussed this before? As for Helen Hunt, I find her average looking too. Probably in the same category as Larson. Each to his/her own.
 
Yes, we discussed it before, but last time it was cherry pie. :)
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 26 05:04PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 4:33:40 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > Another nerd fantasy - Emma Stone. Nerds have sub standard taste.
 
> > Yeah, Raja, I'm sure you've had lots of better-looking women than Emma Stone. **cough cough**
 
> I don't find Emma Stone particularly attractive either. She's got that E.T. look.
 
Do you think she and Halep are sisters separated at birth?
 
Pictures of Stone run the gamut. I think it has to do with her extraordinarily large eyes and how they are featured. In some lighting she looks good and other times not nearly so good. But never like E.T. IMO.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 26 05:47PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Pictures of Stone run the gamut. I think it has to do with her extraordinarily large eyes and how they are featured. In some lighting she looks good and other times not nearly so good. But never like E.T. IMO.
 
She's got that big-eyed E.T. look:
 
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2522932/images/o-EMMA-STONE-HAIRSTYLE-facebook.jpg
 
 
http://wortraub.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ET_thegreenplanet_icon.png
 
She's nicer looking than Brie Larson though IMO.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 27 12:57AM

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:04:39 -0700, Gracchus wrote:
 
> extraordinarily large eyes and how they are featured. In some lighting
> she looks good and other times not nearly so good. But never like E.T.
> IMO.
 
I think she's vastly overrated as an actress, although I admit I find her
voice and speaking style grating more than anything.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 26 06:07PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 5:47:15 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2522932/images/o-EMMA-STONE-HAIRSTYLE-facebook.jpg
 
> http://wortraub.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ET_thegreenplanet_icon.png
 
> She's nicer looking than Brie Larson though IMO.
 
Those pics prove my point! E.T. has blue eyes and Stone has greenish eyes.
 
Anyway, for someone who thinks she's ugly, you sure raved over that mediocre "La La Land." Or was it just the husband's expensive suit that won you over? ;)
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 26 06:11PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 5:57:51 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> > IMO.

> I think she's vastly overrated as an actress, although I admit I find her
> voice and speaking style grating more than anything.
 
That's nice to know, but neither her acting nor voice relate to a discussion of her appearance.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 27 01:17AM

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 18:11:18 -0700, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> her voice and speaking style grating more than anything.
 
> That's nice to know, but neither her acting nor voice relate to a
> discussion of her appearance.
 
I don't like the way she speaks, in particular the way she moves her
mouth. I don't think that I would be able to detect that without seeing
her. But OK, I'll butt out.. it's a rather vapid conversation in any
case.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 26 06:39PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 6:17:38 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
 
> I don't like the way she speaks, in particular the way she moves her
> mouth. I don't think that I would be able to detect that without seeing
> her. But OK, I'll butt out..
 
I wasn't trying to be brusque, just saying it's a separate issue. I'm neutral toward Stone actually. Her voice doesn't bother me, but I do agree that her ascent to A-list actress is a lot of hype. I've seen her in about five movies and she's been okay, but only okay.
 
> it's a rather vapid conversation in any
> case.
 
Blame Court 1 for drawing me into it. You know I prefer the deep stuff. ;)
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 27 01:43AM

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 18:39:43 -0700, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> mouth. I don't think that I would be able to detect that without
>> seeing her. But OK, I'll butt out..
 
> I wasn't trying to be brusque, just saying it's a separate issue.
 
Well even if you were I probably deserved it :)
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 27 11:44AM +1000

On 26/06/2017 10:58 PM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> She's cute/attractive - easy 7.
 
> Not IMO. Below average for an actress for sure. Kong was better looking. She's a Plain Jane.
 
> http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/brie-larson.jpg
 
That's not the best pic. She's better than 'plain' imo;
 
http://therichest.imgix.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/larson.jpg?auto=format&q=90&lossless=1
 
 
http://img.v3.news.zdn.vn/w1024/Uploaded/abhuuah/2016_02_21/King_Kong_II_21_zing.jpg
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 27 11:37AM +1000

On 26/06/2017 10:55 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
 
> Perfect grass court tennis. On a grass surface, Fed's still the best.
 
A raging Rafa his only nemesis?
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 26 06:43PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 6:37:16 PM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> On 26/06/2017 10:55 PM, Court_1 wrote:

> > Perfect grass court tennis. On a grass surface, Fed's still the best.
 
> A raging Rafa his only nemesis?
 
Rafa the raging 'roid monster.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 27 11:38AM +1000

On 26/06/2017 10:56 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 8:05:27 AM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
 
>> He played the final a bit like 2008, but the rest he was still somewhat tentative like he was at the AO, pussycat! (Lololol)
 
> No he wasn't tentative anywhere so far in 2017. He's been a beast all year.
 
He's been a beast at FO, & very solid all yr. He'll need to unleash the
beast again to win Wimbledon.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 26 04:37PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:41:47 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> Agree with you here. I only tune in to watch the second week of slams. Never before was there such a paucity of skill in the younger generations.
 
It sounds like somebody's getting nervous about the possible #8 Wimbledon? ;)
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jun 26 06:14PM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 4:37:04 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:41:47 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> > Agree with you here. I only tune in to watch the second week of slams. Never before was there such a paucity of skill in the younger generations.
 
> It sounds like somebody's getting nervous about the possible #8 Wimbledon? ;)
 
:) Who can we call to jinx the Fed ?
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