Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 27 12:22PM -0700

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/technology/online/hacking/how-the-cia-can-hack-your-iphone-android-and-smart-tv-and-listen-in-on-you/news-story/6ecb8025599b39728c3e2c5e4f5be930
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 27 12:43PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 9:23:01 PM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/technology/online/hacking/how-the-cia-can-hack-your-iphone-android-and-smart-tv-and-listen-in-on-you/news-story/6ecb8025599b39728c3e2c5e4f5be930
 
 
I'm surprised that you, Carey and TennisGay accuse the Government so openly here in RST of mass murder. Aren't you afraid that they will come and silence you all??
 
 
Max
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 27 01:47PM -0700

> I'm surprised that you, Carey and TennisGay accuse the Government so openly here in RST of mass murder. Aren't you afraid that they will come and silence you all??
 
Did you find some brain cells to read the article?
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 27 02:16PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 10:47:23 PM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > I'm surprised that you, Carey and TennisGay accuse the Government so openly here in RST of mass murder. Aren't you afraid that they will come and silence you all??
 
> Did you find some brain cells to read the article?
 
I'm afraid the NSA might detect that I read the article. And terminate me ...
 
Max
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 27 02:42PM -0700

> On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 7:33:13 PM UTC+2, Carey wrote:
> > https://news.utexas.edu/2017/06/26/the-mere-presence-of-your-smartphone-reduces-brain-power
 
> Most probably the CIA hides evil mini microchips in all smartphones. So that the government ("they") can control us better.
 
you and Raja must love it!
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 27 02:27PM -0700

He's not that many points and with Murray on holiday, does anyone know how many more matches he has to win to get there?
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 27 02:41PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 5:27:33 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
> He's not that many points and with Murray on holiday, does anyone know how many more matches he has to win to get there?
 
He has to earn more than 105 ranking points than Murray at W (assuming they both don't go out too early, in which case Stan and Djok have a chance mathematically).
 
http://live-tennis.eu/en/forecast-atp-ranking
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 27 11:42PM +0300

stephenJ kirjoitti 27.6.2017 klo 21:46:
> Test, "designed to ensure breathing room for the messy, chaotic, ad
> hominem, passionate, and even racist speech that may be part of the
> American political conversation."
 
If that's good enough excuse for you then don't criticize Depp either.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 27 02:18PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 10:42:27 PM UTC+2, TT wrote:
> > hominem, passionate, and even racist speech that may be part of the
> > American political conversation."
 
> If that's good enough excuse for you then don't criticize Depp either.
 
Depp said that it was time that an actor again killed a president. A true "Depp".
Hollywood does everything to get Trump reelected.
 
 
Max
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 27 02:36PM -0700

On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 14:21:43 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslos wrote:
> liability must be shifted to one or both of them".
 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-rally-violence-237302
 
> Lol.
 
LOL what a joker!
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 27 09:22PM +0200


> Perhaps in the time to come they will develop new sports that will focus more on the female physical attributes. Gymnastics is an example where some of the men's events are simply different from women's (for example women will have uneven bars and men will have pommel horse and rings).
 
> Or take the example of the women's softball pitcher who was bamboozling the major league players who were unable to get bat on ball partly because they had not optimized themselves for that sort of pitch.
 
> One may hold up chess as an example (some may not consider it a sport) which has less to do with physical (as in haw the body can and needs to move) attributes where women have still not played at the very top level. It could be that just not as many women have yet tried the sport seriously. But again it may be that chess was optimized for the kind of spatial non-verbal thinking that men are better at which by itself has been a controversial topic ( This does not mean they are better at all kinds of thinking).
 
Most horses run faster than humans, but no, it doesn't mean
they're better at it.
 
:)
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: Jun 27 08:30PM +0100

On 27/06/2017 06:40, ahonkan wrote:
 
> Murray's second serve is usually slower than Serena's. Agreed it's just one
> part of the game, but powerful players like Serena, Azarenka & Kvitova won't
> exactly be pushovers for men ranked below, say, 500.
 
http://thebiglead.com/2017/06/27/serena-williams-to-david-letterman-in-2013-andy-murray-would-beat-me-6-0-6-0-in-five-to-six-minutes/
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 27 01:14PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 7:25:29 PM UTC+2, ahonkan wrote:
> > What no one mentioned in this thread is how mentally weaker women are compared to the men. The number of times they get broken is probably twice more. Their second serves are significantly slower. They also have great trouble getting in positions for good return of serve. So basically they have a more trouble converting offense to defense. And not to mention they dont play 5 sets, so they dont have the stamina to play best of 5 either.
 
> So you think Serena is mentally weaker than the current men's #1 Murray?
> Even Murray will disagree!
 
I don't know where the myth comes from that Serena is mentally strong. Just because she screams furiously now and then? Has a mean stare?
 
Come on, she has had a ton of surprising losses, especially in slams, against journeywomen. How many great come-from-behind wins has she had?
 
 
Max
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 27 01:35PM -0700


> I don't know where the myth comes from that Serena is mentally strong. Just because she screams furiously now and then? Has a mean stare?
 
> Come on, she has had a ton of surprising losses, especially in slams, against journeywomen. How many great come-from-behind wins has she had?
 
> Max
 
Qualifying and quantifying 'clutch'
 
Meet Benjamin Tom.
 
He's a complicated fellow, who played on Cal-Berkeley's national championship club tennis team. He also graduated with a degree in Business Administration -- and in Molecular & Cellular Biology. He was wafting along at the Georgetown University School of Medicine when he suddenly wondered if he really wanted to be a doctor. He asked the school's administration for a leave of absence, which was granted. Now, he's pursuing his dream -- sports analytics.
 
His parents, naturally, are very proud.
 
Tom happened to be coaching ESPN analyst Pam Shriver's son, George, on a Southern California under-10 team, when the two got to talking.
 
"Pam and I were brainstorming," Tom explained, "about how to look at the numbers differently in tennis."
 
He was aware of how some analytics people quantified NBA clutch play, measuring a player's contributions in the last two minutes of a game and when the score differential was five or less. Could the two come up with a similar model for tennis?
 
Here is what Tom and Shriver settled on for defining clutch moments in tennis:
 
• All break points
 
• All set points
 
• All tiebreaker points
 
• All deuce or advantage points when a total of eight or more games have been played, including 30-all and 40-30.
 
• All points played in the deciding set, when the game differential is no greater than three -- the third set for women and the deciding set for men, either three or five.
 
So while you've been enjoying Serena's march through the Grand Slams, Tom has been busy breaking down that trek -- in excruciating detail.
 
And here's what he's discovered:
 
In winning all seven matches at Wimbledon, Serena outperformed the field in 9 of 10 statistically comparable categories, many by a substantial margin. While the other 127 players average 67 percent of first-serve points won, Serena won 80.3 percent. The field averages winners 15.3 percent of the time, while Serena was at a robust 24.4. Her edge in ace percentage was 18.3 to 5.
 
But that is reasonably predictable stuff.
 
Tom also calculated how Serena did measured against herself, comparing her total points to "clutch" points. Of the 962 points she played at the All England Club, 695 were defined as non-clutch points, with 267 deemed to be "clutch."
 
Serena's already extraordinary play elevated to a higher level in the crucible of clutch. She was better in 8 of 10 categories, including dramatic improvements in winners versus unforced errors, first-serve percentage and aces.
 
Looking at Serena's 26 matches Grand Slam matches, Tom isolated her third-set statistics versus the overall stats for all those matches. As you might expect, Serena plays markedly better in the third set.
 
Serena surpasses herself in 7 of 8 categories and is even (60 percent) in first-serve percentage. Of particular note, the ratio of winners to unforced errors (which goes from 1.4 to 1.67) and percentage of total points won (56 to 60) improve appreciably.
 
"It would be the equivalent of having an NBA or major league player, who already leads the league in nearly every statistic, get even better if we only measure their stats in overtime or extra innings," Tom said.
 
And then there is the ultimate comparison -- the third-set numbers versus the overall numbers of those 11 three-set matches.y.
 
Across the board, the margins increase and, in some cases, double or more.
 
The critical category of break-point conversions, for instance, improves from a 1 percent increase to 6 percent. Likewise, second-serve winning percentage, receiving points won and winner/unforced error ratios all soared when it mattered most.
 
"We have always felt that Serena has been the greatest of clutch players," Shriver concluded. "With Ben Tom's analytics, we can put more value and context to her amazing levels under at the biggest stages, especially in final sets."
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: Jun 27 01:57PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 4:27:43 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> racket etc) than women.
 
> At what age would Mac's 'maleness' stop being the deciding factor v peak
> Serena? 60? 65? 70?
 
Last year Mcenroe took at out Wilander, nine years his junior (then 48), 62 62 at the ATP Champion's Tour event. Now champions tour is not as rigorous but it does have a lot of variability in age; perhaps late 30s to forever. Mcenroe's (or for that matter anyone else's) matches against different players can give some indication of how he lines up against players 10 to 15 years is juniors. Of course not everyone keeps to same fitness levels so some younger players may be way out of shape.
 
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: Jun 27 02:01PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 1:57:54 PM UTC-7, arahim wrote:
 
> > At what age would Mac's 'maleness' stop being the deciding factor v peak
> > Serena? 60? 65? 70?
 
> Last year Mcenroe took at out Wilander, nine years his junior (then 48), 62 62 at the ATP Champion's Tour event. Now champions tour is not as rigorous but it does have a lot of variability in age; perhaps late 30s to forever. Mcenroe's (or for that matter anyone else's) matches against different players can give some indication of how he lines up against players 10 to 15 years is juniors. Of course not everyone keeps to same fitness levels so some younger players may be way out of shape.
 
Correction: It should read Muster (not Wilander). Wilander is only 6 years younger and ended up in the third spot in the same tournament.
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: Jun 27 02:15PM -0700


> So while you've been enjoying Serena's march through the Grand Slams, Tom has been busy breaking down that trek -- in excruciating detail.
 
> And here's what he's discovered:
 
> In winning all seven matches at Wimbledon, Serena outperformed the field in 9 of 10 statistically comparable categories, many by a substantial margin. While
 
Have you looked at the field? The women's field has not been that great since the time of Dinara Safina at number one and pretty much everyone will say that accept for Serena the number ones have been exceptionally weak. As they say among the blind the one eyed is king.
 
Any one who is a dominant player in the field will be likely to lead these stats.
 
 
of the number ones from her onwards
the other 127 players average 67 percent of first-serve points won, Serena won 80.3 percent. The field averages winners 15.3 percent of the time, while Serena was at a robust 24.4. Her edge in ace percentage was 18.3 to 5.
 
> But that is reasonably predictable stuff.
 
> Tom also calculated how Serena did measured against herself, comparing her total points to "clutch" points. Of the 962 points she played at the All England Club, 695 were defined as non-clutch points, with 267 deemed to be "clutch."
 
Yes but why is her "non-clutch" play not as good.
 
> Serena's already extraordinary play elevated to a higher level in the crucible of clutch. She was better in 8 of 10 categories, including dramatic improvements in winners versus unforced errors, first-serve percentage and aces.
 
> Looking at Serena's 26 matches Grand Slam matches, Tom isolated her third-set statistics versus the overall stats for all those matches. As you might expect, Serena plays markedly better in the third set.
 
this is as to be expected from a great player. If the match goes to a 5th set for Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (when they are not playing among each other) they are usually expected to win it more often than not. Serena in the second half of her career just did not have to deal with players equivalent to Nadal and Djokovic, Murray.
 
 
> Across the board, the margins increase and, in some cases, double or more.
 
> The critical category of break-point conversions, for instance, improves from a 1 percent increase to 6 percent. Likewise, second-serve winning percentage, receiving points won and winner/unforced error ratios all soared when it mattered most.
 
> "We have always felt that Serena has been the greatest of clutch players," Shriver concluded. "With Ben Tom's analytics, we can put more value and context to her amazing levels under at the biggest stages, especially in final sets."
 
This looks like Whisper's analysis where first you decide what is great and then devise a system to fit.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 27 02:35PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 5:15:45 PM UTC-4, arahim wrote:
 
> > The critical category of break-point conversions, for instance, improves from a 1 percent increase to 6 percent. Likewise, second-serve winning percentage, receiving points won and winner/unforced error ratios all soared when it mattered most.
 
> > "We have always felt that Serena has been the greatest of clutch players," Shriver concluded. "With Ben Tom's analytics, we can put more value and context to her amazing levels under at the biggest stages, especially in final sets."
 
> This looks like Whisper's analysis where first you decide what is great and then devise a system to fit.
 
You're welcomed to post some independent evidence of your viewpoints.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 27 11:09PM +0300

Gracchus kirjoitti 27.6.2017 klo 20:18:
 
>> Ok, but if Nadal somehow loses early at Wimbledon or makes the final and loses there (especially to Federer) don't go claiming his form dropped again.
 
>> The truth is his form has been incredible all year. If he's making hc slam finals he's playing some of his best tennis. Also, you said repeatedly after the AO final that Nadal's level was high in that final and that Federer grew some balls and outplayed him for once. Don't go back on that now and look like a weasel.
 
> I knew that Whisp would eventually do that after the AO. He tried to play the good sport for a few weeks about how glad he was to see Federer step up, and all that bullshit. Then after a couple of months, it's Rafa was up 3-1 and let it slip away, Rafa was playing 50% of his FO level (as if the slow red clay weren't a factor in that??). Can't keep the weasel in its den forever I guess.
 
Do I get credit for saying immediately after same as now?
...Rafa blew it, choked and gifted the match against best form ever
doped to the gills Federer. It was a sad day for tennis and for humanity.
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jun 27 01:17PM -0700

Op dinsdag 27 juni 2017 22:09:38 UTC+2 schreef TT:
 
> Do I get credit for saying immediately after same as now?
> ...Rafa blew it, choked and gifted the match against best form ever
> doped to the gills Federer. It was a sad day for tennis and for humanity.
 
You think Rafa made the mistake of giving Fed the secret to his doping regimine to thank him for opening his sportsdoping centre?
 
:))
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 27 11:21PM +0300

kaennorsing kirjoitti 27.6.2017 klo 19:51:
 
>> Come on, anyone can see Rafa v Stan FO final was much higher standard
>> from Rafa than AO.
 
> So Rafa is as good on other surfaces as he is on clay? Oh wow,
 
Stop playing stupid...
 
It's obvious that Rafa RG form was much higher standard RELATIVE to the
surface. It was very close to his best clay form if not the best.
...Rafa's best hard form was probably at USO 2010 and AO wasn't even
close to that.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 27 11:33PM +0300

kaennorsing kirjoitti 27.6.2017 klo 20:58:
> Op dinsdag 27 juni 2017 19:01:04 UTC+2 schreef *skriptis:
 
>> You do realize Nadal won IW, Canada, Cincinnati, US Open in 2013?
 
> All but IW have yet to take place this year. I'm talking about what happened so far this year in comparison to the same periods in earlier years. When did Rafa have a better run than he has so far this year? Or something at least equal to it? 2005? Take out Fed and he's near perfect, close to unbeatable throughout the first 6 months. Including on hard, his toughest surface historically.
 
What the hell are you talking about...
 
Rafa has swept nearly every year the whole clay season PLUS he has
actually won hard court tournaments before it.
 
For example in 2009 he had won same amount of slams but more masters at
this point. His best year/form ever? Not even close.
 
As for 2013, Rafa had won more than now despite not even playing AO/Miami...
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics#Singles
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 27 01:57PM -0700

> I am waiting for an answer from TT and Whisper.
The question again: TT and Whisper say Nadal wasn't in top form when he lost to Federer three times in 2017 but he found his top form when clay started and it's not because nadal is playing on clay (lol).
 
So will he be top form if he loses on grass or on HC the rest of the year?
 
 
 
We are waiting
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 28 12:26AM +0300

PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 27.6.2017 klo 23:57:
 
> So will he be top form if he loses on grass or on HC the rest of the year?
 
> We are waiting
 
Don't you know that a player can only be top form if he doesn't lose - I
learned that from Fedfans!
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 27 11:43PM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 27.6.2017 klo 20:30:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf3Kk713A-o&feature=youtu.be
 
> Or is he just moaning and groaning and playing possum as usual?
 
> Imagine if he doesn't play Wimbledon how lopsided the draw will be.
 
I read that Andy will skip tomorrow's exo but is planning to play on Friday.
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