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

Thursday, June 29, 2017

bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 29 10:17PM -0400

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:59:24 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky
 
>> back in a couple weeks. if i get a chance to post i will, but between
>now and monday no way and that's when picks are due.
 
>Why did you violate your probation? :)
 
shhhh.
 
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 29 08:54PM -0400

i'll be out for a few weeks so forced to make my wimbledon prediction
without the draw.
 
federer over murray
konta over venus
 
bob
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 29 07:55PM -0700

On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> now and monday no way and that's when picks are due.
> f
> Why did you violate your probation? :)
 
LOL, oh booby
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 29 10:27PM -0700

On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 6:13:03 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
 
> i won't have my laptop with newsreader, only a company cell, so i'll
> take a wimbledon guess now.
 
> bob
 
May the POTUS bless you on your travels.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 29 09:51PM -0400

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:47:16 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>> 1 more time: because he's older, has endured lots of injuries, and
>> knows his body and what it can and cannot do. it's not difficult.
 
>But that has nothing to do with how he played Federer the last three times. He kept hitting his topspin fh to Fed's bh but Fed had some surprises in store.
 
he hit a flatter lest patient type of stroke. that's what i saw and
commented on it multiple times.

>> >On the other hand you have Whisper admitting to us after the AO final that Nadal played great and that the difference was that Federer altered his bh and slowly but surely over the past few weeks Whisper has tweaked that theory to Nadal elevated his level at the FO vs Stan so that must mean that at Wimbledon on a grass court Nadal can do same to Federer, i.e. thrash Fed in embarrassing straights.
 
>> whisp is correct here IMO.
 
>Whisper is correct that how Nadal played Stan at the FO will translate to grass and that Fed will beat Nadal in easy straights?
 
i predicted nadal won't make the 2nd week. but if he plays fed in the
final, i think he'll beat fed. said it yesterday. what's not to
understand?
 
bob
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 29 07:54PM -0700

> i predicted nadal won't make the 2nd week. but if he plays fed in the
final, i think he'll beat fed. said it yesterday. what's not to
understand?
 
I don't understand how someone believes nadal will lose early but if he didn't lose early and manages to reach the final, he will beat Federer in the final.
 
This means they don't believe he is that good on grass if he loses early.
But if he didn't lose early and reaches the final, then he is either really good on grass which contradicts with what people think about him that he isn't good on grass, or he is still bad on grass but finds ways to reach the final and beats someone that is known to be great on grass that beat him the last four times they played.
 
Any ideas?
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 29 07:56PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 6:46:49 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> didn't hit any backhands in them but rather ran around it.
 
> So my conclusion is that knees are still a problem, at least problem
> enough to 'save' them at the moment. It is a factor.
 
Serious question here TT. What do you mean he has 'knee issues' on grass? What does that mean exactly, because I'm trying to remember if he's ever made a statement to that effect or not. Honestly, I can't recall him ever doing so.
 
Can you give us some background on this matter?
 
Thanks,
P
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 29 08:11PM -0700

> Serious question here TT. What do you mean he has 'knee issues' on grass? What does that mean exactly, because I'm trying to remember if he's ever made a statement to that effect or not. Honestly, I can't recall him ever doing so.
 
Can you give us some background on this matter?
 
He had back issues when he lost to Wawrinka in the AO, he wasn't playing his best when he lost to Federer in the AO, he was playing his best when the clay season started, he has bad knees when clay season ended and grass season started, ....
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 29 08:28PM -0700

On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 7:45:15 AM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> > http://www.avg.com
 
> If it is to be a Fedal final -and we should be so lucky- the interest would
> be off the charts. Can you imagine the eyeballs they'd get?
 
Ya, agreed. The interest would be just staggering. Not the USA so much, sports casts and newspapers barely following the 2017 Rafa-Roger Duel of Demi-Gods, sad to say. Sports Illustrated not leading the way, as per usual. The major US sports talk shows rarely mention Fed-Rafa. But nevertheless, globally, a Feds-Rafa Wimbledon final would be a mega event in the making.
 
P
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 29 08:50PM -0700

On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 6:13:56 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> First he told us that Nadal was in poor form and that's why Federer beat him but then when he saw that was not going to work because Nadal has made seven out of 10 finals, he came up with the Nadal has changed his game too much vs Fed theory. Why the hell would Nadal be changing anything w/ respect to a guy he owned in the past especially with his OCD? That makes no sense.
 
> On the other hand you have Whisper admitting to us after the AO final that Nadal played great and that the difference was that Federer altered his bh and slowly but surely over the past few weeks Whisper has tweaked that theory to Nadal elevated his level at the FO vs Stan so that must mean that at Wimbledon on a grass court Nadal can do same to Federer, i.e. thrash Fed in embarrassing straights.
 
> You have to love these characters on RST.
 
Well, Rafa has been working out 2 major adjustments (among others) but 2 principle ones: 1) hitting harder 1st and 2nd serves to try and ward off opponents t-ing off on his second serve AND 2) he's playing 'higher up in the court' maybe 30-40% more often that he ever has, over all.
 
Being more aggressive and pro active has netted him wins and thus confidence, which have had the combined effect of his getting his forehand up the line back to A+ status. On clay, with that shot added to the mix, Rafa's almost unbeatable.
 
BUT Rafa playing so well (as you and others rightly note) from AO through SS tournaments and then his unparalleled clay domination this season = a Rafa hyper cycle of winning, which in the past he could squeeze into Wimbledon as well. It's just since he turned 26, he doesn't seem to have a) the physical energy left over [running around everything on the clay] and b) his brain and emotions are just fried after making those protracted winning clay runs.
 
That's partly why he's been fly-swatted at Wimbledon. The internal resources can only keep the cycle going for 3-4 months then he bottoms out. [Also part of his historical pattern, with only a few exceptions]. This has been the pattern the last, what, 5-ish years, with these beat-downs at Wimbledon 1st week. I agree that Rafa's going to have a very difficult time rebooting the brain and the will so soon after this long run of amazing tennis, precisely because he's kept on a roll. Fed took a break and should be optimal (at least a 35 year old optimal) for W.
 
With Murray and Nole dinged/dazed and NickyK and Raonic wounded, well, Rafa might have an opening; he's certainly entertaining thoughts of getting back Feds for AO and SS double drubbings... But logic would suggest, Rafa's going in with the tires a bid balding. [No pun intend!]
 
P
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 29 08:57PM -0700

On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 7:54:40 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> This means they don't believe he is that good on grass if he loses early.
> But if he didn't lose early and reaches the final, then he is either really good on grass which contradicts with what people think about him that he isn't good on grass, or he is still bad on grass but finds ways to reach the final and beats someone that is known to be great on grass that beat him the last four times they played.
 
> Any ideas?
 
bob keeps to the Rafa, ultimately, owns Feds, especially in finals and more so at the majors and finals of majors. And there history does support him/this contention.
 
But as you and I and other have discussed, Federer does seem to have resolved the 'technical' issues that made playing Rafa so problematic for so long. With those issues neutralized, Rafa doesn't have critical advantages. And the result has been Federer's not afraid of Rafa and his 'game' any more. That's a big deal, a big development. :)
 
P
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 29 08:58PM -0700

On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 8:12:01 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Serious question here TT. What do you mean he has 'knee issues' on grass? What does that mean exactly, because I'm trying to remember if he's ever made a statement to that effect or not. Honestly, I can't recall him ever doing so.
 
> Can you give us some background on this matter?
 
> He had back issues when he lost to Wawrinka in the AO, he wasn't playing his best when he lost to Federer in the AO, he was playing his best when the clay season started, he has bad knees when clay season ended and grass season started, ....
 
:)))
 
P
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 29 07:44PM -0700

> My head hurts thinking about the controlled demolition "theory". How
about you explain that one to me?
 
This is a good start. Check my posts I never said controlled demolition but this doesn't eliminate the possibility that it may have happened.
 
Also I don't deny that planes crashed into the towers. As I mentioned my manager was on one of them.
 
I will not get into much details but the odds for me that these three towers collapse and collapse the way they did is extremly low.
 
Also think about other planes, Pentagon, whoever we were told to have done it, etc.
 
Do you think we know everything, and if we were told the full truth?
 
That day was very tough for me and has been tough all these years trying to stop myself thinking again when these doubts strike.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 29 11:01PM -0400

On 6/29/2017 8:37 PM, bob wrote:
 
> protect the facade (no pun intended) of a "controlled demolition"?
 
> huh?
 
> bob
 
I'm sorry but I have to say it. I can only bite my tongue for so long
before it starts to bleed!
 
Your ignorance about the very basics of what happened that day are
staggering.
 
Look let me put it to you this way.
 
A few years ago I WAS JUST AS IGNORANT AS YOU ARE NOW ABOUT 9/11!
 
I have no problem saying that. There were reasons for my ignorance.
 
However, when the time came and I was forced to look into the details
about what happened that day I did not shy away. Maybe it was because of
my curious nature?
 
Maybe it was because I am not an American and so the patriotic cop out
of, "My country would never do that to its citizens!" never was a
concern for me.
 
The fact is, I started doing research. I read and read and read.
Articles, books. I watched videos.
I totally immersed myself in it because I knew many things just didn't
add up with the official story.
 
You can't do this in a day, or a week. It takes months and months of
research before you get to the heart of the matter.
 
I'll finish now by saying you can lead a horse to water but you can't
make it drink.
 
For many they refuse to get serious and do research on this because deep
down in their gut they know that if they were wrong, their entire life
would be turned upside down and they would rather not risk that.
 
There is just too much at stake to even begin research into this.
It's much much easier to just put people down and continue living life
as usual, talking about how important/unimportant Trump/Clinton is yada
yada yada.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 30 03:29AM

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 19:44:12 -0700, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> manager was on one of them.
 
> I will not get into much details but the odds for me that these three
> towers collapse and collapse the way they did is extremly low.
 
I have always been open to the idea that the planes were allowed to hit
the towers. I'm not so sure about that anymore either, but I won't
completely discount it. The controlled demolition "theory" is simply a
logical leap too far, and it's something that conspiracy theorists like
TennisGuy won't actually address. Not one but three fully operational
skyscrapers with thousands of people filtering in and out on a daily
basis were rigged with explosives without anyone being the wiser? Sorry,
that's just silly.
 
Now I'm sure TennisGuy will send me a five paragraph angry letter because
I used the word "rigged", that it proves I am a deep state operative or
something.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 30 03:30AM

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 23:01:44 -0400, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> It's much much easier to just put people down and continue living life
> as usual, talking about how important/unimportant Trump/Clinton is yada
> yada yada.
 
Yeah, you're the paragon here, you never insulted anyone because they
don't buy into your "proven" theories that you're simply parroting.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 29 08:38PM -0700

> Not one but three fully operational
skyscrapers with thousands of people filtering in and out on a daily
basis were rigged with explosives without anyone being the wiser? Sorry,
that's just silly.
 
It sounds silly but how difficult is it really?
 
These buildings were like cities, thousands of people, lot of companies, etc.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 29 08:40PM -0700

> It sounds silly but how difficult is it really?
 
These buildings were like cities, thousands of people, lot of companies, etc.
 
This is why I don't want to think about it, it's painful.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 29 10:16PM -0400

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:54:05 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> polishing the lies, i don't mind a rough around the edges for a
>> change.
 
>No--I don't want a polished or unpolished liar as president. Do I really have to choose one? I hope not, cause I didn't. :)
 
yeah, i can't blame your abstinence.
 
> I thought the only good that might come from a Trump presidency is that the ensuing chaos might destroy the old party system. He's not even doing that right.
 
as a rookie, he's being influenced by some of the swamp. i don't like
that. but at the same time some of the other swamp has lost sleep.
that part's ok.
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 30 03:51AM +0300

bob kirjoitti 30.6.2017 klo 3:46:
 
> 140 characters in a tweet's all u get. and from a 70 yr old non tech
> savvy businessman. what do you expect a novel?
 
> bob
 
Well what do you expect from your president... tweets that sound like
coming from a severely disturbed teen? Shameful.
Darkfalz <darkfalz.public@gmail.com>: Jun 29 07:41PM -0700

On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 4:42:11 AM UTC+10, TT wrote:
 
> "how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came … to
> Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on
> joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!"
 
You do realise these two clowns (one of them who claims to be a republican) have been calling Trump all sorts of names for the better part of two years?
 
Trump is teaching people everywhere that it's always okay to stand up for yourself.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 29 09:17PM -0400


>> bob
 
>Well what do you expect from your president... tweets that sound like
>coming from a severely disturbed teen? Shameful.
 
i've got an opinion on the tweets, hasn't changed in a year now.
 
1. i like that he tweets, i'm happy to hear anything right from the
horse's mouth with no CNN intervention. i wish more politicians
tweeted more often, actually. and i think we can all agree by now that
media from both sides lies, fakes the news and such.
 
2. yes, i wish he's put more thought into the tweets, take his time,
have someone proofread the details, grammar, etc.
 
again, tweets are compact mini messages, everybody that tweets comes
up with bad grammar, mis spellings, words that don't exist, etc. not a
perfect thing for sure, but we get the point.
 
bob.
alinefx@alinefx.com: Jun 29 08:14PM -0700

Enlighten Us as to which particular establishment you are referring to
 
Also, saying it's OK doesn't refute anything. It's a typical Trump response because logic doesn't make sense And it's a typical cop out when faced with the absolute reality that your guy is a complete fucking sellout, even worse than Hillary and Obama were. insults and crazy shit only means something if you're a trumptard. There is absolutely no way to explain it away and it's a complete sellout of the country to the establishment right now by turd orange, that's why you'll talk about how different he is and how he tweets and He is so different from the standard politician. That's just the outward appearance, he's just another sellout inside, probably the biggest one ever
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 29 07:43PM -0700

Novak to play big hitting Medvedev tomorrow at Eastbourne on the grass; the young Russian has a seriously powerful game. Should be a really good test for Nole and give us some read on where he stands. With a win he gets the winner of Monfils and Gasquet, which looks to be Richard, given his form of late. Another good test for Nole either way, with Wimbledon nearing.
 
 
P
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 29 09:40PM -0400

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:15:29 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Kehoe
 
>> bob
 
>Lemon seems caught between a rock and a politically correct place.
 
>P
 
CNN has made a fool of itself, seriously.
 
:-) rock on patrick!! rst poet!
 
bob
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