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

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 10 08:21PM +0100

On 09/06/2017 16:34, Carey wrote:
 
> It'll be interesting to watch Treeza Mayhem and Arlene Foster, now [shudders].
 
It's being reported that the agreement is a 'confidence and supply'
arrangement. In essence the 10 DUP MPs will vote with the government
on motions of confidence/no confidence or supply (budget). MPs can also
abstain instead if they prefer to do that.
 
Foster may gain some benefits in return for the support, but is not
likely to have much (or any) influence in policy.
 
In practice the government only needs a couple of DUP votes. The seven
Sinn Fein MPs will not take their seats, and the 4 speakers (the
official speaker has three deputies - two Labour MPs and one
Conservatives - Speaker Bercow is a Conservative MP) only vote from
the Speaker's chair if a motion is tied. This means that there are
a maximum of 639 MPs who can vote, so only 320 votes are needed for
a majority.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 10 03:17PM -0400

Never watched more than a few games of Halep prior to this with the
sound turned on.
Boy does she ever have an annoying artificial grunt!
 
The kind that lasts until the ball has traveled well over the net
and is interfering with the other player's concentration when they are
making contact with the ball.
 
Aural feedback that occurs when contact is made with a ball is very
important in tennis.
 
If that aural feedback for a player is compromised in any way their
stroke production can be affected.
 
Halep's grunts are distracting and deliberate. Many points she is too
busy concentrating on just retrieving the ball that she FORGETS to grunt!
This provides concrete proof that the grunts are not a natural result of
stroke production.
Just like Sharapova's shrieks.
 
If the WTA and ATP would enforce a point penalty for every artificial
grunt/shriek, tennis would be a lot more enjoyable to watch and fair
for the opponents.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 10 11:36AM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 3:11:03 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
 
> Agreed. It will be a big surprise if Nadal doesn't close this out. Stan
> has a chance, but it's a small one.
 
> Nadal wins 6-4 6-3 7-5
 
The first set is massive in this match, and oddly enough, I say that while believing that the winner will win the second set.
 
Rafa tends to be - though no one is totally bullet proof at the majors - really good in the second set, win or lose the first set, though especially if he loses the first set.
 
If Stan takes the second set, it will (IMO) be a long match for sure.
 
Rafa's so consistent on clay; and on the clay he has time to run around most of what comes at him, facilitating his punishing forehand offensive game.
 
It's just that Stan has that vaporising power that can actually blunt Rafa's power game on clay. Which sort of makes this 2017 French Open final a 60/40 or 50/50 proposition, to my mind.
 
P
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 10 11:54AM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:12:42 AM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> 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.
 
Good post PWL. My mind goes back to something Jimmy Connors told Tim O'Brien at the US Open about 26 or 27 years ago on the CBS broadcast in a sit down interview. Connors was explaining what he meant by having some hard matches early in a major. O'Brien queried, "wouldn't you want to save as much energy as you can though." Connors smirked and said it wasn't about the energy or conserving for a long run. He needed the feeling of being challenged and pushed competitively BEFORE it REALLY mattered. "Then you really feel your shots are under control; you really KNOW you are ready for the heat."
 
My only concern for Rafa is that he's skated though to this final. If Stan finds his best hitting form and wins either the first or second set, will the nerves come into it for Rafa?
 
Rafa did really well in the AO final. He played through his nervous moments amazingly well; so, credit to Rafa.
 
However, this final stands as a historical final for Rafa and a legacy final for Stan. Nerves enough to go around. Who will settle more quickly and hold to their respect 'best games' at the key junctures in sets one and two. For me that will go a long way in determining the winner of the men's final.
 
P
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 03:07PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Kehoe
 
>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.
 
i think stan may actually intimidate rafa, even if slightly.
 
> 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.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 03:08PM -0400


>I think he is... hit deeper, make him move etc.
 
>That's what he did against Söderling in 2009 final, had great depth and
>forced Söds on backfoot.
 
soderling isn't wawrinka, or even close though. sods was pitiful.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 03:16PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:36:35 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Kehoe
 
>If Stan takes the second set, it will (IMO) be a long match for sure.
 
>Rafa's so consistent on clay; and on the clay he has time to run around most of what comes at him, facilitating his punishing forehand offensive game.
 
>It's just that Stan has that vaporising power that can actually blunt Rafa's power game on clay. Which sort of makes this 2017 French Open final a 60/40 or 50/50 proposition, to my mind.
 
me too. stan was able to hit djokovic right off the court during the
time that djok was peak and primed. i could see him doing it tomorrow.
i don't think the odds favor stan, maybe 1/3 chance, but no way i'd be
surprised to see it.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 02:34PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 19:48:16 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
 
>Shatner isn't a superbly talented actor and is no surprise he won
> most awards by virtually playing himself, that guy Denny
> Crane.
 
shatner did a 1 man broadway gig a few yrs ago to very good reviews. i
was going to see it 1 day and didn't for no good reason, a regret.
 
>And that guy, in the episode he was asked to run for presidency,
> is a prototype for Trump's run. Very fun, remember
> that?
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 02:40PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:18:45 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> 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.
 
you have to consider the logic that geniuses (or people great at
something) often like to take the lead, refuse compromise, make things
all about themselves and often refuse to share the glory. that makes
them come across as pricks to many of us. steve jobs being 1 example.
i'm not saying shatner was a performing genius, but he was immensely
popular and kept that popularity for a long long time so maybe he was.
and definitely in his own mind. but i can't knock captain kirk, nope.
:-)
 
>> 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
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 10 08:53PM +0200

>> 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.
 
 
 
Here's a two minute clip of that.
 
https://vimeo.com/1316146
 
 
 
 
--
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: Jun 10 08:13PM +0100

On 10/06/2017 18:37, TT wrote:
 
> Olivia de Havilland will be 101 1st of July...
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/emmys-olivia-de-havilland-bette-davis-joan-crawford-feud-994699
 
> Oh and... RIP Adam West. His Batman was damn hilarious.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsYA8Gr5NTY
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 10 03:11PM -0400

On 6/1/2017 9:05 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> may fall due to the pressure even without any heavy hitters in her
> half of the draw. She's clearly the best clay court player at the
> moment but her mental frailties are her biggest enemy.
 
 
 
Well in the end, she never did crap her pants.
But that wasn't good enough to win.
 
She may win a slam in the future, but only if players
with more talent get pregnant or fall by the wayside in a draw
before they have a chance to meet her.
 
Oh and she clearly isn't the best clay court player at the moment. :)
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 03:10PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 10:45:34 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Kehoe
 
>> 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...
 
agree, she's terrible and i think you're right: she's just not very
bright.
 
>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...
 
disagree. great commentator!
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 02:58PM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 00:28:18 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
 
>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.
 
if rafa had played a little better in that AO 5th, this would be for
GOAT IMO. that AO final really put a dent in me, i mean rafa.
 
i don't think he ever catches 18 even with a win tomorrow. would be
nice though.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 03:06PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 10:22:37 -0500, Federer Fanatic
>Rafa on grass or hardcourt? Obviously if it was a round robin tournament where a series
>of matches determined your life Fed would clearly be the choice as he beats everyone
>thoroughly.
 
on clay, obviously peak rafa over anyone. on grass and hc, much
tougher choice. rafa wasn't consistent enough to play fed all that
often in HC/grass slam finals, but he did win 1 of 3 at wimbledon, and
the 2 he lost he was very young.
 
since 08, it's 4-1 rafa in slams OFF clay, fed's lone win this past
AO.
 
>ps. You find Fed unappealing as a person? Irrelevant from the tennis point of view....
 
federer seems like a great guy: dad, husband, charity work.
lebron james seems like a great guy: dad, husband, charithy work.
 
but 2 yrs ago lebron said, "sure we can beat the warriors, i'm the
best player in the world." to me fed's always said things that make me
think he's rather arrogant about his tennnis. he wins, sure, GOAT,
fine, but i don't care for arrogance regardless. from lebron, jordan
or fed.
 
bob
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 10 12:03PM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 8:14:46 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
> Have to say was fun to watch. She hit 64 winners!
 
What commitment to her shots! The kid showed great mental foritude at a set down and 0-3. Amazingly!
 
P
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 02:44PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:11:46 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:04:53 AM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
>> Dear oh dear.
 
>Yep, Halep is a choker and she's very vulnerable to power players. Always has been.
 
then why'd ya pick her? :-)
 
ok ok she did better than konta.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 02:48PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 10:17:41 -0500, Federer Fanatic
>|
>| She didn't really choke...
 
>No. She's a defensive player. Without killer shots it's hard to beat big hitters like Jelena Stapenko.
 
totally agree. in the end, halep loses IMO cause she causes no damage
to an opponent, and somewhere in the match the opponents get wind of
it and take control and confidence.
 
like a boxer who never throws a punch, just dances around making you
miss. eventually you step in closer, unafraid, and take him out.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 02:50PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:27:00 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>> No. She's a defensive player. Without killer shots it's hard to beat big hitters like Jelena Stapenko.
 
>> FF
 
>Tell that to Chirs Evert who won 18 slams with her mostly defensive style. It's that Halep is missing that champion's mentality. She was three games away from the title in the second and blew it. There's no other way to spin it.
 
but when a great offenseive player or 2 came along, she was toast. and
she was the best of the best in consistency. and not tally defensive
either. she hit corners, she had good groundies.
 
we really should decipher between baseliners and bumrooters, not the
same thing to me. defensive retrievers are 1 thing, attacking ground
strokes quite another.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 02:51PM -0400

>> > Dear oh dear.
 
>> Yep, Halep is a choker and she's very vulnerable to power players. Always has been.
 
>Halep is better than 95 % of all power players.
 
true, she's an excellent defensive player. but at that level,
eventually nearly aways it's almost good enough but not quite. how
many times do we see a tentative retriever almost win? often.
 
bob
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 10 12:01PM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:51:35 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> eventually nearly aways it's almost good enough but not quite. how
> many times do we see a tentative retriever almost win? often.
 
> bob
 
Ostapenko was quite smart actually from a tactical sense or at least in a POSITIONAL sense. If you can get back Halep first driving ball - which a LOT of players have difficulty with - she sort of backs herself off the front foot. And with a hitting like Ostapenko, she just launches something deep and starts you running right away - which is PRECISELY what Halep does to 95% of the field. It's just that THIS GIRL can actually hit it for a clean winner - many times- off the initial ball, she strikes it with such venom. Well, Halep's entire game just gets blunted right there. It's just that it takes TREMENDOUS hitting off both wings to blunt Halep in that manner. But this kid can do it, even from extreme angles she can rip it through Halep's coverages. Which impressed me!
 
P
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 10 11:55AM -0700

On Saturday, 10 June 2017 19:16:13 UTC+1, Fota wrote:
> 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.
 
so much defense she was a set and 3-0 + break point up. What rubbish, it was to do with being afraid to win.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 10 11:54AM -0700

Serena is still at the top because she did what she needed to improve. Her serve got even better, modern strings helped her consistency with no loss of power, and a professional coach improved her strategy. Serena w/o all this maybe wins half the slams she won since 2012 and prob no FOs.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 10 02:43PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:14:26 -0700, Garvin Yee <drsmith004@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
 
> Awesome! And she didn't seem too surprised to win!
 
> :)
 
if she can actually do this a couple more times i've got a new girl to
root for going forward. it's been a while. maybe it's just me, but
she's got sort of an "it" factor IMO.
 
bob
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 11 12:08AM +1000

On 10/06/2017 11:55 PM, Garvin Yee wrote:
 
> I guessed Halep in 3.
 
> But Jelena playing well for her first slam final!
 
Looks like Halep 64 63 type?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
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