Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 04:32PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 1:12:58 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
> It massively different playing on grass, it's much lower and takes a while to get used to, Nadal being sensibly careful with that! Also Murray will be playing so that a tough one.
 
Andy Murray is a tough one for Nadal on a grass surface? Isn't the grass h2h 3-0 for Nadal? *rolls eyes*
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 14 10:27PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:32:51 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 1:12:58 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
> > It massively different playing on grass, it's much lower and takes a while to get used to, Nadal being sensibly careful with that! Also Murray will be playing so that a tough one.
 
> Andy Murray is a tough one for Nadal on a grass surface? Isn't the grass h2h 3-0 for Nadal? *rolls eyes*
 
Keep rolling. How was Nadal's general performance on grass since 2011 compare to Murray's ? Murray won 2 Wimbledons out of the last 4 and how many did Nadal win during the last four years ? Did Nadal get through even QF in the last four years ?
DavidW <no@email.provided>: Jun 15 02:25PM +1000

On 15/06/2017 1:16 AM, Gracchus wrote:
>> 2) Tommy Haas is without a doubt the best looking professional male
>> tennis player ever. So handsome.
 
> You don't think the backwards cap negates that?
 
A backwards cap should disqualify a player from just about everything.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 14 09:35PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 9:25:19 PM UTC-7, DavidW wrote:
> >> tennis player ever. So handsome.
 
> > You don't think the backwards cap negates that?
 
> A backwards cap should disqualify a player from just about everything.
 
Haas has been wearing one for his whole career. It looks stupid enough on a 19-year-old. But 39?
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 14 10:23PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:27:08 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > Still, this result has no bearing on Wimbledon one way or the other. I don't expect Federer to actually win the thing anyway. He'll be 36 in a couple of months, and he lost to that oaf Raonic last year. So assuming that he'll win or even get to the final is too much. It *could* happen, but I certainly don't expect it.
 
> Truthfully, I doubt the result in a 250 event is indicative of what his result will be at Wimbledon. I get the feeling that Federer probably gifted that match to Haas (who is retiring this year and who was playing in front of his family in Germany.) People shouldn't panic about a 250 result which means zero to Federer at this stage of his career. He probably went to Stuttgart to pick up a nice appearance fee and give the fans there a thrill before he retires.
 
> That said, I have a strange feeling Nadal may take Wimbledon this year but there's a long way to go for that to happen so we'll see and specifically we'll see how the Wimbledon draw turns out. It may be a Fed-Nadal final.
 
I have a feeling nadal will bomb out again this year like he did every other year.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 01:44AM +0200


>> I can only comment on the stuff that's been leaked out.
 
> You don't care if it's false? You have criticized other news as "fake". Why do you give this one (which actually *is* fake) as pass?
 
 
 
Well if it's fake it's fake. I'm not the one faking it. So what do
you want me to say?
 
It has not come from Trump's supporters but from those ego
disliked him and wanted him humiliated, harmed, etc.

 
So, same source.
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 02:26AM +0200


>> Nadal was always honoured when meeting the King as was Murray I
>> believe meeting his Queen.
 
> That's a very different thing. First of all, kings and queens aren't elected officials. They come from a line of succession with deep cultural roots in their country. Second, the USA has very different origins than those countries. We were borne of dissent, rebellion, and a tradition of individuality. Americans as a rule don't automatically kowtow to kings, queens, or presidents. And last but not least, unlike many statesman who have spent a lifetime cultivating respect, Trump in a mere five months as president has devalued and desecrated the office he holds. In America, respect for officials isn't an entitlement, it is something earned. Our less-than-illustrious "leader" simply hasn't earned it.
 
 
 
You're cute with this attempt of saying president is just an
"ordinary" citizen, while even retired ones are treated as almost
semi deities, capital being named after the first one, and every
one getting at least an aircraft carrier named after him.

 
;)
 
Ok joking a bit. If you say so ok, I'm just saying how does it
look to me, I mean to an outsider. You know lot more, and I could
certainly be wrong, and perhaps I am, but it's not entirely
impossible you're wrong, at least partially no?
 
Why?
 
You know when you have a situation when a girl and then a woman
who has aged and turned 50 isn't aware of the fact and still
thinks she could dress like a 20-year old? She's like, in a
denial, projecting certain qualities she no lnger has or simply
being unaware of the change. I'm not talking about her being
ugly, just not young anymore. That kind of denial. Pasage of time
and change.
 
 
Some of the things you mention, individuality, rebellion, etc are
the things that are part of your national psyche and that you're
proud of, but they may not necessarily be there, or at least not
in the amount you see or think you see them.
 
Bottom line I think qualities you posses collectively, like
willingness to act, being hard-working, innovative or fearless,
and definitely individualistic I'd agree, but rebellion, hm, no.

I don't see people there storming white house ever like the French
stormed Bastille. Or Russians who overthrew couple of regimes in
the past century. Those are considered rebellious.

 
You probably like to think that about yourself, but nobody here
would really associate word "rebellion" to America. At least not
to USA.
 
Now, correction. There a symbol of yours that's quintessential
symbol of rebellion in Europe, and often used by southern
provinces vs north ones, and by periphery vs the metropolitan
area. Football/soccer fans love it too.
 
The confederate war flag.
But that's not to your liking I suppose?
 
 
For most people here Trump is the most American president, after
Kennedy, for how they perceive America, as he dares to dream the
boldest dreams and act in inspiring manner. Being a winner.

 
Kennedy's promise that they'll be on the Moon by the end of the
decade and fulfilment of that even after he died is still
spectacularly remembered. So America = success, courage, balls,
dreams around here. Pretty much what's Trump all about.

 
I'm not talking about sjw types. Their hero is Obama, true.
 
So a lot of it, but you're not considered rebellious. Sorry.
 
Individual selfishness as a negative trait, or positive
individualism and libertarianism aren't "rebellious". If the
effort isn't collective, it's not rebellious,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 14 06:08PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:30:03 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
 
 
> You probably like to think that about yourself, but nobody here
> would really associate word "rebellion" to America. At least not
> to USA.
 
The USA came into existence via a major rebellion and lengthy war. I don't see why an armed uprising every generation is necessary to re-establish the original rebellion's spirit. That is to say, we didn't want an external or internal monarchy ruling us. Had things begun to go that way again, I expect there would have been more rebellions.
 
> area. Football/soccer fans love it too.

> The confederate war flag.
> But that's not to your liking I suppose?
 
People don't object to the Confederate flag as a symbol of rebellion, but because it represented the Confederacy's wish to maintain the institution of slavery. Certainly the causes of the Civil War are more complex than that, but the two still can't be separated. The existence of that flag doesn't bother me because it's part of history. As an aside, I disagree with the trend of razing Confederate statues and monuments, which IMO is essentially a type of cultural revisionism.
 
> For most people here Trump is the most American president, after
> Kennedy, for how they perceive America, as he dares to dream the
> boldest dreams and act in inspiring manner. Being a winner.
 
I don't see him as a winner at all. More like half petulant, entitled child and half bullshit artist. His daddy gave him a huge head start in life and business, therefore he can't be considered a true self-made man. He fancies himself a president in the mold of Andrew Jackson, but Jackson proved many times over that he truly did have balls. He stood up to British soldiers during the Revolution at age 14. He was a winning general. He fought dozens of duels. Trump dodged his way out of the military with a fake bone spur. It's clear he has no cohesive vision because it changes every week. Most of his "bold" threats or pronouncements eventually turn out to be bluff.
 
> decade and fulfilment of that even after he died is still
> spectacularly remembered. So America = success, courage, balls,
> dreams around here. Pretty much what's Trump all about.
 
Um...no, it really isn't.

> I'm not talking about sjw types. Their hero is Obama, true.
 
> So a lot of it, but you're not considered rebellious. Sorry.
 
Where? In the Balkans?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 03:38AM +0200

>> would really associate word "rebellion" to America. At least not
>> to USA.
 
> The USA came into existence via a major rebellion and lengthy war. I don't see why an armed uprising every generation is necessary to re-establish the original rebellion's spirit. That is to say, we didn't want an external or internal monarchy ruling us. Had things begun to go that way again, I expect there would have been more rebellions.
 
 
Well considering the fawning over Kennedy dynasty, establishment
of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, Trudeau in Canada, you're far
from immune from it. Yet you think you are immune.

 
That was my point about self deception. E.g. It's unthinkable in
China that Xi's son might inherent him or in Russia that Putin's
daughter or a close relative would succeed him.
 
Yet it's all possible and even likely there with you. It's not
constitutional in any way but it's very real. 50% safe bet. Kim
in Korea is 99%.
 
 
 
 
 
>> The confederate war flag.
>> But that's not to your liking I suppose?
 
> People don't object to the Confederate flag as a symbol of rebellion, but because it represented the Confederacy's wish to maintain the institution of slavery. Certainly the causes of the Civil War are more complex than that, but the two still can't be separated. The existence of that flag doesn't bother me because it's part of history. As an aside, I disagree with the trend of razing Confederate statues and monuments, which IMO is essentially a type of cultural revisionism.
 
Agree.
 
 
 
>> Kennedy, for how they perceive America, as he dares to dream the
>> boldest dreams and act in inspiring manner. Being a winner.
 
> I don't see him as a winner at all. More like half petulant, entitled child and half bullshit artist. His daddy gave him a huge head start in life and business, therefore he can't be considered a true self-made man. He fancies himself a president in the mold of Andrew Jackson, but Jackson proved many times over that he truly did have balls. He stood up to British soldiers during the Revolution at age 14. He was a winning general. He fought dozens of duels. Trump dodged his way out of the military with a fake bone spur. It's clear he has no cohesive vision because it changes every week. Most of his "bold" threats or pronouncements eventually turn out to be bluff.
 
 
Different times, different people. He's not perfect, nor the old
classic guy in any sense, but what chance in Twitter and reality
show world would have a guy like Jeff Sessions?
These times are superficial, hypersexusalized, fast food both in
nutrition and reading, infotainment etc.
Trump is what works.
 
 
 
 
 
>> I'm not talking about sjw types. Their hero is Obama, true.
 
>> So a lot of it, but you're not considered rebellious. Sorry.
 
> Where? In the Balkans?
 
 
I can speak for myself only. If you're interested, that is, no
need to send crypto insults. Yes, here, but worldwide too. I
don't know, you try asking others.
 
A war fought 240 years ago that's been more about money and less
about ideals, doesn't make you, 10 generations later rebellious.
It's a nice national myth.
Which is fine, every nation needs one or more of those as ideals
to aspire to.
 
Some of them are more true, some less. Some were true more, some
are lost through decades and centuries. The rebellious thing is
pretty much, yeah, off.
 
I know it's a popular cliche, found everywhere, from star wars and
popular culture, but, show me something in practice?
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 15 03:45AM +0100


>> I don't think Murray has met the Queen.
 
> It appears he did.
 
> http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/12/knighthoods-for-murray-and-farah-in-new-years-honors-list/63009/
 
AFAIK he hasn't 'been knighted' yet, that was just the announcement of
the award. The media often says they are awarded by the Queen, but they
are usually decided by a government committee and recommended to the
Palace. Anyone receiving a UK honour receives it in person, usually at
Buckingham Palace, but often it doesn't happen for several months after
it has been announced. The person is 'invested' with the honour, but not
necessarily by the Queen. For example, Murray received an OBE in 2013,
which was invested by the Duke of Cambridge. The Queen has performed
fewer investitures herself in recent years.
 
That said, on reflection I suspect that he may have attended a reception
in October 2012 for the medalists from the London Olympics, or possibly
a similar reception after Rio.
 
The Queen did visit Wimbledon during the 2010 Championships, and was
introduced to him then - as well as Federer, Serena and many others.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 08:23PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:45:06 PM UTC-7, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
 
Any idea why Julian Bream never received this honor? A travesty IMO.
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 15 05:14AM +0100

On 15/06/2017 04:23, Carey wrote:
 
> Any idea why Julian Bream never received this honor? A travesty IMO.
 
On checking I found that he received an OBE in 1964 and a CBE in 1985, a
third award - almost certainly a knighthood - would probably not have
been considered for several years after 1985, by which time, I believe
that, he wasn't performing very much. Therefore I suspect he was simply
overlooked. Also although outstanding in his field, it's not a very
high-profile calling in terms of honours. Perhaps there is still time -
the media tries to create pressure for certain 'celebrities' to get
honours. A social media campaign might work.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 14 09:26PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:01:03 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
 
> Well considering the fawning over Kennedy dynasty, establishment
> of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, Trudeau in Canada, you're far
> from immune from it. Yet you think you are immune.
 
As with any country, not all Americans are the same. I think you're right about those dynasties. I've never understood why any of those families are revered, or why some people wanted the Kennedys to be America's "royalty."
 
 
> A war fought 240 years ago that's been more about money and less
> about ideals, doesn't make you, 10 generations later rebellious.
> It's a nice national myth.
 
If you want to split hairs, we haven't had a lot of full-fledged rebellions compared to many countries. I'm not even sure why that would be important.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 09:36PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 9:14:22 PM UTC-7, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
 
Thanks for that info. It's something I've wondered about for some time. Bream retired from performing
around 2000 I think, FWIW. Not a high-profile field, but he is a giant, regardless.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 10:10PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:01:03 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
 
> So, same source.
 
Not only do they editorialize and try to pass their opinions as fact. Now they print outright lies. Pure trash. Again, fuck the left.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 14 10:15PM -0400

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN195385
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 14 09:36PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 4:15:47 AM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
 
Reuters?
 
Lol
 
 
Max
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 10:07PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:15:47 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN195385
> --
 
Fuck the democrats and the left piece of shit media.
nisharads@gmail.com: Jun 14 08:06PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:59:43 PM UTC-5, Carey wrote:
> > Okay it was some other Greek dude then. I forgot, sue me. And yes I used to do that long back like 12 years ago back when I was immature. I have grown up. Seems like Whisper is stuck in the same rut.
 
> Galileo wasn't Greek.
 
> Christ. You're probably an IT guy.
 
lol... What has that got to do with IT... I forgot history I learnt in 5th grade. Sue me. All I need is a wikipedia read...
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 08:25PM -0700


> > Galileo wasn't Greek.
 
> > Christ. You're probably an IT guy.
 
> lol... What has that got to do with IT... <
 
 
If you don't know, my telling you would not help. OTOH, maybe I'm just getting old.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 14 04:49PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:22:54 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > > 17 year old Rafa was beating your peakity 'goat' on hard...
 
> > ...which makes 35-year-old Fed's AO Final win over N even more impressive.
 
> So there we have it. 2017 is Rafa's best start ever, just as Galileo maintained the Earth is round even when Xerxes forced him to eat hemlock for saying it. The voices of truth shall never be silenced by tyranny.
 
Not Socrates?
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 04:52PM -0700

unzoo obscuration
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 05:00PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:20:19 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> > Just admit this is Rafa's best first 6 months of any year
 
> Obviously it is not, or otherwise he wouldn't have lost to Fed of all
> people.
 
Nadal was playing very well in that AO final and Federer took the match from him. That's the truth you need to accept. However, Nadal was playing even better on the clay and if he can find a way to translate that clay form off clay he will be tough to beat. His draw at Wimbledon will be important and he needs to stay away from guys like Kyrgios, Querrey, Zverev, Rosol(lol), etc.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 02:56AM +0200


>> Hes been good, yes.
 
> You conveniently forgot Djoker. Plus who else was he supposed to beat? Murray wasn't good enough to beat him and Fed didn't play but there is little doubt what would have happened if they played Rafa at the French: They would have struggled to win games like the rest of them. Forget about winning the match.
 
> Just admit this is Rafa's best first 6 months of any year, which is always the most important part of Rafa's year. And that is despite the 3 losses to Fed... I know it hurts, but it's best to simply admit it. Even 2011 Djoker would have struggled to win a set from him at the FO this year. That is because the areas of improvement in Rafa's game were particularly designed to outplay Djoker; better serves, earlier strikes, flatter groundstrokes.
 
I didnt want to mention but I could have.
So what's more impressive, beating Federer, Federer, Federer to
win FO-Wim-AO in 2008-09?
or
Winning FO-Wim-USO by beating Soderling, Berdych, Djokovic (who
won 0 ATP1000s that year, so much for his level, he's a guy win
30 of those).
 
2010 was Rafa's most successful season but even TT charts don't
suggest it was his peak form.
 
Overall, on all surfaces, Rafa actually played better in 2011,
beating Murray in HC major for the first time, reaching second
consecutive Wimbledon final and reaching all first 5 masters
finals that year and enjoying a career best streak of 5
consecutive slam finals.
 
Now TT will say I'm a Djokovic fucker but it's true. Rafa was
totally peak, probably his best average level on all three
surfaces, but Djokovic had a game for him that season, those 12
months, dissected his game. He dominated Nadal far more than the
tour imo. By the clay season 2012 Rafa found the antidote and
Djokovic declined a bit too.
 
Likewise I feel Rafa's peak on clay-hard was 2013.
 
 
It's pointless to discuss this Rafa vs any previous peak versions
of Djokovic or Federer. Why start meaningless coulda
woulda?
 
This is statistically his best first 6 months ever, I don't need
to admit that, numbers speak for themselves. But I told you avout
2010 which turned out to be his best ever season done by beating
lesser players and not being at his highest peak.

 
ll I'm saying there were far more challenging periods and seasons
in recent years. First half of 2017 we see Nadal and Federer back
but Murray and Djokovic are completely off and the guy who won
most points and won everything until April, Federer skipped clay
season.
 
And you're amazed resurgent Nadal swept clay? Ok, whatever.
 
He's the best ever on clay and next 3 best guys are all off or
missing and that means Rafa is peak peak?
 
 
He's played well, but this FO was one of the easiest to win, if
not the easiest one.
 
Even 2010 might have been more difficult from a psychological
point of view, he was there trying to reclaim the title for the
first time and facing the man who beat him the year before.

 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 14 01:05PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 10:51:25 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
> > realizes his defensive and grinder skills are down a notch.
 
> IMO, you've equated his game changing with it declining. But change
> doesn't necessarily mean decline, it can mean improvement.
 
Yes, if Nadal makes tweaks to his game and it increases his effectiveness against all but one player, it's still an improvement in his game. It's no different than Fed's game back in the day being tuned to beat the field instead of tailored to beat Nadal. I think it's fair to say if Nadal played his previous style built on amazing defense but w/o the needed court coverage abilities, Fed might have beaten him more easily.
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