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

Saturday, June 10, 2017

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 10 07:48PM +0200


>> Why I'm not surprised you taking Takei's side?
>> --
 
> Most of Shatner's co-stars share Takei's opinion on this, but it's nothing to do with "sides" anyway. I like all of the Trek TOS group including Shatner. Being a prick isn't necessarily a sin. I'm a huge Jimmy Connors fan, and he's one of the biggest pricks ever to step on a tennis court.
 
 
Shatner seems to have s lot of Trump's character. You could never
be hostile to such people as they're so humorous and their humor
is self deprecating too. Most of his colleagues were simply
jealous of him taking big roles, money, spotlight, etc and it's
easier to justify your envy by saying he's such a prick.

 
Essentially, I don't see him as a bad guy, and even if he's a
prick, I don't think it's very negative. I'm ok with Connors too.
Don't like McEnroe types though, obnoxious.
 
 
Shatner isn't a superbly talented actor and is no surprise he won
most awards by virtually playing himself, that guy Denny
Crane.
 
And that guy, in the episode he was asked to run for presidency,
is a prototype for Trump's run. Very fun, remember
that?
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 10 11:18AM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:01:02 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> is self deprecating too. Most of his colleagues were simply
> jealous of him taking big roles, money, spotlight, etc and it's
> easier to justify your envy by saying he's such a prick.
 
It's easy to brush it off as nothing but jealousy. Usually the person accused himself/herself does that. When you hear the pattern of things he actually did, though, there's more to it. Having Captain Kirk as the central character in the show wasn't enough for him. He really wanted it to be *about* Captain Kirk. Gene Roddenberry had to battle with him over that. If there were good lines written for other characters, Shatner would want them changed so Captain Kirk speaks them, etc. And then there's the issue of how he treated his co-stars...he regarded them more as props for William Shatner than actors with supporting roles. These kinds of things understandably build up resentment over a period of years.
 
> Essentially, I don't see him as a bad guy, and even if he's a
> prick, I don't think it's very negative. I'm ok with Connors too.
> Don't like McEnroe types though, obnoxious.
 
I agree with you that Shatner's not a bad guy. IMO a lot of the prickish behavior I described above has to do with an ego that needs to constantly re-inflate itself. Some people are just like that. The bottom line is that I've never seen him act or speak maliciously even when under fire from the former co-stars, so I can't dislike him.
 
 
> And that guy, in the episode he was asked to run for presidency,
> is a prototype for Trump's run. Very fun, remember
> that?
 
I didn't watch the show, but I can imagine he'd play that well.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 02:31PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 09:14:15 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
 
>Damn...the true Batman dead. That sucks.
 
yeah, that's the batman i know. great dry wit IMO.
 
>http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/adam-west-dead-batman-star-832264
 
bob
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 10 02:18PM -0400

I doubt it.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 02:30PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:18:28 -0400, StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>
wrote:
 
>I doubt it.
 
i doubt it also, but then i think it's not like she was a young
budding future superstar or a multiple slam winner who is now going to
lose for psychological reasons. she's been losing slams all her
career.
 
bob
Fota <contactwellesnet@gmail.com>: Jun 10 11:31AM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, StephenJ wrote:
> I doubt it.
 
She seemed OK at the trophy ceremony, but she'll need luck to ever win a slam. This was probably the best shot she'll ever have.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 10 11:04AM -0700

Unfortunately she has no weapons and she may never win one.
Fota <contactwellesnet@gmail.com>: Jun 10 11:16AM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:04:51 PM UTC-5, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Unfortunately she has no weapons and she may never win one.
 
Another Wozniacki. Too much defense, not enough offense. Henin was the same size as Halep, but she had weapons.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 10 11:30AM -0700

Just curious, what do you like about her game?
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 02:31PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Fota
 
>On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:04:51 PM UTC-5, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>> Unfortunately she has no weapons and she may never win one.
 
>Another Wozniacki. Too much defense, not enough offense. Henin was the same size as Halep, but she had weapons.
 
yes. halep's nice enough, but i rarely cheer for the bumrooter who
waits for his/her opponent to make a mistake.
 
bob
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 10 10:53AM -0700

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:33:55 AM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Stop dreaming. Stan isn't going to beat Nadal at the FO when Nadal is in decent form
 
> I just told Stan this and he still insists to play the final.
 
:)))
 
Good one...
 
P
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 10 10:55AM -0700

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 10:40:47 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > > Stop dreaming. Stan isn't going to beat Nadal at the FO when Nadal is in decent form
 
> > I just told Stan this and he still insists to play the final.
 
> I don't care what you told Stan. Stan won't beat Nadal. Nadal will wear him down and frustrate him and he'll start spraying errors. If Stan gets a set it will be a good outcome for him.
 
Courty, do you think the pressure of going for the 'la decima' will be an issue for Rafa?
 
P
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 10 10:57AM -0700

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:16:42 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> > There is a good chance you might have to eat crow from Waleed's hands. :)
 
> Betfair thinks Rafa to win with 83% probability.
 
> I say 75%. For Stan. Rafa is doomed.
 
Really?
 
Interesting...
 
The match-up? The pressure going for 'la decima'? Stan being able to match up with Rafa power wise and having nothing to lose?
 
How do you see this going?
 
P
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 10 11:02AM -0700

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:26:34 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> Also Wawrinka defeated peak djokovic, Nadal, Federer in slams.
 
> I want to Stanimal pushing Rafa, I was to see Wawrinka taking a set, and I hope Rafa doesn't win in str8 sets.
 
> I want to see a good match.
 
So do you think a 5 set war or straits for either guy or (god forbid) a Rafa fold (that would just spin the globe in a different direction)... What is you 'feeling' heading into the match?
 
I've asked a few people because Stan has proven himself to be a solid guy in finals of big events... even the Olympic doubles final he played REALLY well and he tends to play well in big Davis Cup matches as well... So, there's a pattern there... he doesn't often play consistently enough to actually get through to finals at the majors, but, as we all know, once he does he wins... (so far)...
 
 
P
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 10 11:12AM -0700

> So do you think a 5 set war or straits for either guy or (god forbid) a Rafa fold (that would just spin the globe in a different direction)... What is you 'feeling' heading into the match?
 
I've asked a few people because Stan has proven himself to be a solid guy in finals of big events... even the Olympic doubles final he played REALLY well and he tends to play well in big Davis Cup matches as well... So, there's a pattern there... he doesn't often play consistently enough to actually get through to finals at the majors, but, as we all know, once he does he wins... (so far)...
 
Rafa has better defense that can handle Wawrinka assaults but it's proven specially when Nadal got a little older that the defensive player can't maintain the same level for long five sets and the aggressive player prevails.
 
This happened with Murray yesterday where Wawrinka was supposed to win in str8 sets.
 
So I would say we will have a match if Wawrinka takes one of the first two sets otherwise it's Nadal in str8 sets.
 
Another thing I mentioned I spotted moments where Nadal gets nervous for no reasons, and he just looked like a mess. This happened few times and lasted a minute or two when he was winning in str8 sets, so wondering how he will play if he is really pressured. He was not tested and Thiem he defeated was beaten 1 & 0 by djokovic last week.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 10 11:25AM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:16:23 AM UTC-7, MBDunc wrote:
 
> Let's just hope good match. Nevertheless it is again those "legacy-defining" slam final matches unlike FO 94 Bruguera-Berasatequ, AO 99 Kafelnikov-Enqvist or FO 02/03/04 etc.
 
> It not all about Nada's possible 10th FO but he would then get a super leap ahead other for year-end #1. If Nadal gets year-end #1, one relative asterisk is forever removed as he would have one great "ali-type" record of coming back (#1 2008, 2010, 2013...and 2017?). And a chance for " the longest gap between #1 weeks" held by Connors. Nowadays maybe more niche stats than 90:ies and earlier but good stuff still.
 
> .mikko
 
Stan thrives at the majors, when in the position of the underdog.
 
Rafa couldn't have a more difficult in form opponent against which to try and win the historic 'la decima'.
 
All the greater will Rafa's glory be should he do what he's expected to do - win.
 
One note of caution: Stan will not be afraid of Rafa. Rafa knows the historical dimensions of winning this tournament; they are almost too many to notate. And for Stan, he'll be keenly aware of the legacy stakes for him as well.
 
Even with all his experience and greatness on PC Centre Court, Rafa will have to gear up all the same. His tennis will have to go up a couple of levels from who he's been playing so far.
 
P
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 10 11:28AM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 2:33:03 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
 
> > That is the problem with Wawrinka. He's unpredictable, which makes it difficult even for his opponents. He could just as well lose as he could blast through this Nadal.
 
> If he 'blast through' Rafa in this final it'll be the best tennis of his
> career, by a long way. Get the popcorn.
 
Absolutely! And given Rafa's full tank energy reserves at this tournament, Rafa will be running around every ball he can to get it on his forehand to HAMMER...
 
Can Stan mistreat Rafa's service games? That's the one area that's been suspect for Rafa so far this fortnight in Paris...
 
P
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 10 07:49PM +0200


>> Navratilova had some outstanding qualities and weapons, Evert not
>> so much.
 
> Evert won half her slams in the 80s...
 
And the other half?
--
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 10 11:15AM -0700

She doesn't have the killers shots, she just randomly happened to be a set and 3-0 up!
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 10 11:19AM -0700

Good thought-provoking post! This is possible as I'd say Wozzi is very much like this.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 10 10:54AM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 10:45:35 AM UTC-7, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> > Include Chris Evert....awful...
 
> > FF
 
> Yes, hate to say it but Evert isn't really 'sharp' enough nor articulate enough to be more than just mediocre...
 
True. And her nasal voice is annoying too. IMO Tracy Austin was better and easier to listen too. Not sure she's even doing commentary anymore
 
> And J. McEnroe... goodness... Just had occasion to listen to him after not having heard him commentate for 4 or 5 months and it was jarring how bad/annoying his commentary remains...
 
Yeah, he does a lot of talking to say very little.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 10 10:56AM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 10:50:48 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
 
> Yes, one wonders how all these mediocre sports journalists spouting half-
> baked, pseudo-philosophical ramblings resembling beat poetry stay
> employed?
 
That sounds terrible. Where have you ever seen that, JD?
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 10 05:57PM

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 10:54:07 -0700, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Yeah, he does a lot of talking to say very little.
 
He was a little more interesting when he had just retired and was still
very cagey about some of his tough losses. He would get audibly angry if
any of the other commentators mentioned his final loss to Lendl at RG...
it was embarrassing but funny at the same time.
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 10 10:01AM -0500

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 00:56:17 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> wrote:
| On 11/06/2017 12:53 AM, Federer Fanatic wrote:
|> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 00:47:16 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> wrote:
|> | On 11/06/2017 12:34 AM, Federer Fanatic wrote:
|> |> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 00:28:18 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> wrote:
|> |> | On 11/06/2017 12:18 AM, Federer Fanatic wrote:
|> |> |> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 00:06:25 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> wrote:
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> | I love Stan's game - best from a visual perspective this century I
|> |> | reckon - so always happy when he wins a slam. However I also admire
|> |> | Rafa greatly. He's the only clear cut surface goat/boat in tennis
|> |> | history, so it's a massive privilege watching this guy's career in real
|> |> | time. Trust me we won't see a guy dominate a surface to this extent
|> |> | ever again.
|> |> |
|> |> | I'd like to see Rafa make a real run at Fed's 18 slam record so this
|> |> | match is crucial for him. If he loses this it could be career ending
|> |> | for him, given he let a golden opportunity slip by in AO final. If he
|> |> | wins then I think he can win another slam this yr to get to 16.
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |>
|> |> Honest response and your true motivation is revealed ;-) More anti-Fed sentiments
|> |> as if that's a surprise to anyone...
|> |>
|> |> FF
|> |>
|> | It's not really 'anti Fed' though, more a search for the truth. From
|> | what I've seen in the Fed v Rafa rivalry I have no doubt Rafa at his
|> | best beats Fed at his best. At least if I was forced to bet my life on
|> | who wins a match between these 2 guys, I'd always pick Rafa. That being
|> | the case why shouldn't he hold the slam record, given imo he's the
|> | better 'big match' player?
|> |
|> |: )
|> |
|> |
|>
|> Yes. I would want Rafa to play for my life too, but I wouldn't mind Fed either.
|>
|> FF
|>
|
| If I had to pick a great player to win any random match pulled out of a
| hat, to play for my life, then I would pick Federer.
|
|
 
It sounds like your hedging your answer. Fed or Nadal for life? Let's agree
that either guy would be equally preferred?
 
FF
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 10 09:26AM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 5:34:20 PM UTC+2, Garvin Yee wrote:
> Haha!
 
> :)
 
This African chick is done.
 
 
Max
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