Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 14 topics

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 08:18PM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:09:45 PM UTC-7, DavidW wrote:
> > need to maintain a subscription to the crappy CBS All Access to watch it
> > (from what I understand).
 
> Forget Star Trek. Watch Dark Matter.
 
Does one need to pick one or the other?
 
I've been watching and enjoying "Dark Matter" for a couple of years. It's fun, engaging space opera that doesn't delve deeply into philosophy or pretend to. "Killjoys" is good too. Those who want something a bit weightier might like "The Expanse."
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 13 03:37AM

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:09:44 +1000, DavidW wrote:
 
> Forget Star Trek. Watch Dark Matter.
 
Ha, we're watching the latest episode right now. Fun show, pretty light-
hearted but with the right mix of action and drama... decent character
development. I can see some Firefly influence in this show, at least
early on.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 08:45PM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:37:13 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> hearted but with the right mix of action and drama... decent character
> development. I can see some Firefly influence in this show, at least
> early on.
 
You know, the latest episode is the 3rd season premiere. If this is what you're starting with, you'll lose a lot of context. I agree that there's some "Firefly" influence evident.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 08:46PM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:45:19 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
> > development. I can see some Firefly influence in this show, at least
> > early on.
 
> You know, the latest episode is the 3rd season premiere. If this is what you're starting with, you'll lose a lot of context. I agree that there's some "Firefly" influence evident.
 
Oops, never mind. I misread your post.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 13 03:55AM

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 20:46:44 -0700, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> what you're starting with, you'll lose a lot of context. I agree that
>> there's some "Firefly" influence evident.
 
> Oops, never mind. I misread your post.
 
Yes, my post wasn't very clear. I did indeed start at the beginning of
the series and have enjoyed it overall... the second season wasn't as
good/interesting I didn't think although still worth watching.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 09:08PM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:55:02 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
 
> Yes, my post wasn't very clear. I did indeed start at the beginning of
> the series and have enjoyed it overall... the second season wasn't as
> good/interesting I didn't think although still worth watching.
 
**SPOILERS** below for those who haven't watched this show yet.
 
What surprised me in the first season was that the crew discovered their identities only a few episodes in. It ended up not hurting the story though since their actual memories remain elusive and the characters develop in their "new" identities. The second season was a bit patchy, yeah. The prison scenes, temporary clone bodies, etc. I thought it picked up toward the end of the season, especially the short-lived encounter with the alt-universe Wexler group. The third season is showing good promise, though I'm not thrilled with the emphasis on "Four" and his home world.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 13 09:27PM +1000

On 13/06/2017 2:14 AM, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>> PeteWasLucky says Fed could have...easily if he'd used special tactics!
 
> :)))))))))
 
> Fed would have gone in straights yesterday as well.
 
No doubt. Given the way Rafa played I agree it was a wise decision for
Fed to skip FO.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 13 09:35PM +1000

On 13/06/2017 2:25 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> Fed would have gone in straights yesterday as well.
 
> Whisper called Federer's decision to skip the FO "dumb." Far from it. No way he would have beaten the howler monkey in his favorite dirt pit might have gotten injured besides.
 
> Meanwhile, the Great Man is working on more important things--grass court prep for Stuttgart with a new haircut that means he's ready for business!
 
It's only in hindsight that Fed's decision to skip FO seems to be a
masterstroke. Any time a great player has any remote chance of winning
a calendar slam they should go for it. Rafa may have got injured,
suffered a fluke loss on a very bad day etc. It's obvious now had he
met Rafa at FO this yr he would have got absolutely creamed.
 
I am now comfortable with Fed's decision to skip FO. Even if he wins
Wim/USO there will be no talk of 'coulda/woulda' as far as calendar slam
goes, because he would have got roasted by Rafa anyway.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 13 09:25PM +1000

On 13/06/2017 2:06 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> Is he in for a serious 'corrective/correction'? Might this be the season he makes a concerted run through the USO? Can it be done in today's tennis?
 
> Interesting that you don't mention Wimbledon, since it's coming right up.
 
> As for the USO, Nadal won't be "timed" for perfect performance anymore. Popeye will be all out of spinach.
 
Rafa may well have his best ever yr on tour. He needs to win Wim/USO
again though. That would take him to 17 slams.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 13 09:31PM +1000

On 13/06/2017 2:23 AM, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> So more danger points for Rafa heading in than in Paris. We know that. I'm wondering how much sheer drive and confidence has he balled up; how much momentum can he really carry on the grass? Or does he hit a wall?
 
> I say he hits a wall, but, I was wondering what others think.
 
> P
 
Well, historically that seems to be the case. However he has a new
coach & looks like a new outlook on life/tennis. Who knows - he may be
pumped to carry on, possibly play even better now that he's achieved
this stunning goal.
 
I'll keep an open mind. It wouldn't surprise me if he lost early at
Wimbledon, or played his best stuff & won the title.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 13 09:27PM +1000

On 13/06/2017 2:11 AM, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> Seems sort of 'quaint' by comparison.
 
> :))))
 
> Rafa might have that record for 50 or 60 years. Just mind boggling. He might have it LONGER.
 
Must be pretty good odds for him to raise that to 11, 12 or 13 no? I
mean he never came close to losing a single set here this year.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 13 09:21PM +1000

On 13/06/2017 1:45 AM, TT wrote:
>> Has that ever happened before? The FO has gone all out honoring Nadal
>> for #10.
 
> I don't think it has been done before.
 
They realize what Rafa has done will never happen again.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 13 06:12AM -0500

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:56:38 -0400 (EDT), PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
| http://changingminds.org/explanations/personality/disorders/narcis
| sistic_personality.htm
 
 
Court1? Or Whisper?
 
FF
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 12 10:47PM -0700

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 4:37:32 AM UTC+2, SliceAndDice wrote:
> https://twitter.com/bgtennisnation/status/874453908763979776
> Not even close @usopen is very close to @Wimbledon + the most physical event to win French nowhere near as prestigious
 
Let me guess - Gilbert is American?
Maybe even from New York?
 
Wonder how a Frenchman from Paris would look at things ....
 
 
Max
 
 
BTW, did you know that Navratilova, McEnroe, Evert, Trump, Davenport, BJ King think that Serena is GOAT? yes, really!!
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 13 12:49PM +0200


>>https://twitter.com/bgtennisnation/status/874453908763979776
>>Not even close @usopen is very close to @Wimbledon + the most physical event to win French nowhere near as prestigious
 
> i think most players and tennis folks agree with this. even rafa.
 
 
Historically. But AO is becoming more and more prestigious, due to
proximity of giant Asia market primarily, all the players playing
it and AO effectively being the pinnacle of hardcourt season,
that starts in July and ends in March.
 
I think '3' in 7543 will be the first one to go.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 13 01:15PM +0300

Welcome to Pyongyang:
 
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-meeting/index.html
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 13 11:45AM +0100

On 13/06/2017 11:15, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> Welcome to Pyongyang:
 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-meeting/index.html
 
Liked Chuck Schumer's parody meeting.
 

<http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/06/12/schumer-staff-mocks-trump-cabinet-meeting-nr.cnn>
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 13 12:37PM +0200

> Welcome to Pyongyang:
 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-meeting/index.html
 
 
Excellent meeting.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 13 03:27AM -0700

No baaaaab, you don't care about Nadal. You just luuuuv Sampras, MCenroe and Whisper
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 13 03:26AM -0700

Pretty sure you weren't, baaaab
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 13 12:14PM +0300

To understand the sensational outcome of the British election, one must
ask a basic question. What happens when phony populism collides with the
real thing?
 
Last year's triumph for Brexit has often been paired with the rise of
Donald Trump as evidence of a populist surge. But most of those joining
in with the ecstasies of English nationalist self-assertion were
imposters. Brexit is an elite project dressed up in rough attire. When
its Oxbridge-educated champions coined the appealing slogan "Take back
control," they cleverly neglected to add that they really meant control
by and for the elite. The problem is that, as the elections showed, too
many voters thought the control should belong to themselves.
 
Theresa May is a classic phony Brexiter. She didn't support it in last
year's referendum and there is no reason to think that, in private, she
has ever changed her mind. But she saw that the path to power led toward
the cliff edge, from which Britain will take its leap into an unknown
future entirely outside the European Union. Her strategy was one of
appeasement—of the nationalist zealots in her own party, of the voters
who had backed the hard-right UK Independence Party (UKIP), and of the
hysterically jingoistic Tory press, especially The Daily Mail.
 
The actual result of the referendum last year was narrow and ambiguous.
Fifty-two percent of voters backed Brexit but we know that many of them
did so because they were reassured by Boris Johnson's promise that, when
it came to Europe, Britain could "have its cake and eat it." It could
both leave the EU and continue to enjoy all the benefits of membership.
Britons could still trade freely with the EU and would be free to live,
work, and study in any EU country just as before. This is, of course, a
childish fantasy, and it is unlikely that Johnson himself really
believed a word of it. It was just part of the game, a smart line that
might win a debate at the Oxford Union.
 
But what do you do when your crowd-pleasing applause lines have to
become public policy? The twenty-seven remaining member states of the EU
have to try to extract a rational outcome from an essentially irrational
process. They have to ask the simple question: What do you Brits
actually want? And the answer is that the Brits want what they can't
possibly have. They want everything to change and everything to go as
before. They want an end to immigration—except for all the immigrants
they need to run their economy and health service. They want it to be
1900, when Britain was a superpower and didn't have to make messy
compromises with foreigners.
 
To take power, May had to pretend that she, too, dreams these impossible
dreams. And that led her to embrace a phony populism in which the narrow
and ambiguous majority who voted for Brexit under false pretences are be
reimagined as "the people."
 
This is not conservatism—it is pure Rousseau. The popular will had been
established on that sacred referendum day. And it must not be defied or
questioned. Hence, Theresa May's allies in The Daily Mail using the
language of the French revolutionary terror, characterizing recalcitrant
judges and parliamentarians as "enemies of the people" and "saboteurs."
 
This is why May called an election. Her decision to do so—when she had a
working majority in parliament—has been seen by some as pure vanity. But
it was the inevitable result of the volkish rhetoric she had adopted. A
working majority was not enough—the unified people must have a unified
parliament and a single, uncontested leader: one people, one parliament,
one Queen Theresa to stand on the cliffs of Dover and shake her spear of
sovereignty at the damn continentals.
 
And the funny thing is that this seemed possible. As recently as late
April, with the Labour Party in disarray and its leftist leader Jeremy
Corbyn deemed unelectable, the polls were putting the Tories twenty
points ahead and telling May that her coronation was inevitable. All she
had to do was repeat the words "strong and stable" over and over and
Labour would be crushed forever. The opposition would be reduced to a
token smattering of old socialist cranks and self-evidently traitorous
Scots. Britain would become in effect a one-party Tory state. An
overawed Europe would bow before this display of British staunchness and
concede a Brexit deal in which supplies of cake would be infinitely renewed.
 
There were three problems. Firstly, May demanded her enormous majority
so that she could ride out into the Brexit battle without having to
worry about mutterings in the ranks behind her. But she has no clue what
the battle is supposed to be for. Because May doesn't actually believe
in Brexit, she's improvising a way forward very roughly sketched out by
other people. She's a terrible actor mouthing a script in which there is
no plot and no credible ending that is not an anti-climax. Brexit is a
back-of-the-envelope proposition. Strip away the post-imperial
make-believe and the Little England nostalgia, and there's almost
nothing there, no clear sense of how a middling European country with
little native industry can hope to thrive by cutting itself off from its
biggest trading partner and most important political alliance.
 
May demanded a mandate to negotiate—but negotiate what exactly? She
literally could not say. All she could articulate were two slogans:
"Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal." The first
collapses ideology into tautology. The second is a patent absurdity:
with "no deal" there is no trade, the planes won't fly and all the
supply chains snap. To win an election, you need a convincing narrative
but May herself doesn't know what the Brexit story is.
 
Secondly, if you're going to try the uno duce, una voce trick, you need
a charismatic leader with a strong voice. The Tories tried to build a
personality cult around a woman who doesn't have much of a personality.
May is a common or garden Home Counties conservative politician. Her
stock in trade is prudence, caution, and stubbornness. The vicar's
daughter was woefully miscast as the Robespierre of the Brexit
revolution, the embodiment of the British popular will sending saboteurs
to the guillotine. She is awkward, wooden, and, as it turned out, prone
to panic and indecision under pressure.
 
But to be fair to May, her wavering embodied a much deeper set of
contradictions. Those words she repeated so robotically, "strong and
stable," would ring just as hollow in the mouth of any other
Conservative politician. This is a party that has plunged its country
into an existential crisis because it was too weak to stand up to a
minority of nationalist zealots and tabloid press barons. It is as
strong as a jellyfish and as stable as a flea.
 
Thirdly, the idea of a single British people united by the Brexit vote
is ludicrous. Not only do Scotland, Northern Ireland, and London have
large anti-Brexit majorities, but many of those who did vote for Brexit
are deeply unhappy about the effects of the Conservative government's
austerity policies on healthcare, education, and other public services.
(One of these services is policing, and May's direct responsibility for
a reduction in police numbers neutralized any potential swing toward the
Conservatives as a result of the terrorist attacks in Manchester and
London.)
 
This unrest found a voice in Corbyn's unabashedly left-wing Labour
manifesto, with its clear promises to end austerity and fund better
public services by taxing corporations and the very wealthy. May's
appeal to "the people" as a mystic entity came up against Corbyn's
appeal to real people in their daily lives, longing not for a date with
national destiny but for a good school, a functioning National Health
Service, and decent public transport. Phony populism came up against a
more genuine brand of anti-establishment radicalism that convinced the
young and the marginalized that they had something to come out and vote for.
 
In electoral terms, of course, the two forces have pretty much canceled
each other out. May will form a government with the support of the
Protestant fundamentalist Democratic Unionist Party from Northern
Ireland. That government will be weak and unstable and it will have no
real authority to negotiate a potentially momentous agreement with the
European Union. Brexit is thus far from being a done deal: it can't be
done without a reliable partner for the EU to negotiate with. There
isn't one now and there may not be one for quite some time—at least
until after another election, but quite probably not even then. The
reliance on a spurious notion of the "popular will" has left Britain
with no clear notion of who "the people" are and what they really want.
 
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/06/10/britain-the-end-of-a-fantasy/
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 13 12:01PM +0300

Key elements of the new [Brexit neg] reality:
 
- The election result has significantly weakened Theresa May and means
she is unlikely to survive for long as prime minister and party leader –
how long is a moot question.
 
- However long she stays, she now needs the support of political rivals
inside the Conservative party, including "pragmatists" such as the
chancellor, Philip Hammond, who favour a softer Brexit.
 
- The prime minister is also reliant for her majority on Northern
Ireland's DUP, whose demand for a "frictionless border" with the
Republic could necessitate staying in both the customs union and the
single market.
 
- The support of pro-European Scotland's cohort of new Conservative MPs
will also be critical. Their newly powerful leader, Ruth Davidson, has
already called on the government to pursue an "open" Brexit.
 
- The so-called "Norway option" is back. Previously dropped because it
requires free movement of people, this would see the UK retain full
access to the single market by rejoining the European Free Trade
Association (Efta).
 
- Which is not, of course, to say that any of the above will happen.
Other factors may prevail (and increase the chances of a car-crash
Brexit), including:
 
- Although only a soft Brexit may now command broad parliamentary
support, any softening of the government's approach risks angering
Eurosceptic Tories and precipitating a rebellion (in the pro-Brexit
press, too).
 
- The EU27 will demand a price for full single market access that will
include accepting budgetary contributions, the continued jurisdiction of
the European court of justice, and free movement of labour.
 
- Labour looks conflicted on the single market, with the shadow
chancellor, John McDonnell, saying voters would interpret staying in the
single market as "not respecting the result of the referendum", but
other MPs say different.
 
In any event, it seems as though the start of Brexit talks – like the
Queen's speech – may now well be delayed.
 
The view from Europe
 
Concretely, the election result changes little for the EU27: they still
want to get on with it, they will still insist the UK respects their
schedule of "divorce first, trade talks second", and their Brexit red
lines remain unaffected – just as they would have if May had won a large
majority.
 
Europe is worried, however, that a weakened prime minister will no
longer be able to bring her party to compromises. Senior EU diplomats
also say the election has magnified their uncertainty about what the UK
really wants, as London has not sent Brussels a single position paper.
 
Several leaders and EU officials warned about delaying the start of the
talks by too long, pointing out that the clock was already ticking on
the two-year time period allowed for the article 50 divorce negotiations.
 
Others called the election a "disaster" and an "own goal" that would
"make already complex negotiations even more difficult", and risked
increasing the chances of the talks breaking down altogether.
 
Senior EU sources also said that if London insisted on talking about a
free trade deal before the issues of the divorce bill, citizens' rights
and the border in Ireland, the EU would take a year to draft a new
mandate for its chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, in effect killing the
negotiations.
 
OTOH
 
In The Guardian, Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform
thinktank is optimistic about a softer Brexit, arguing that May's
crumbling authority offers a new chance for compromise:
 
"The EU will make it clear that if you want more economic integration,
you must give up sovereignty. In recent months they have grown
increasingly frustrated with May, her team and the key Whitehall
ministries, accusing them of being ill-prepared, lacking expertise and
making too many unrealistic demands ... The 27 hope for a softer and
more realistic British approach – whether they have to talk to May Mk II
or a new prime minister. If the British oblige, the EU could scale back
some of its demands, for example on money. And then a deal would become
more likely."
 
On Project Syndicate, Ngaire Woods, dean of the Blavatnik school of
government at Oxford University, offers negotiating tips for a weakened
UK government, saying that thus far it has been too combative and too
self-interested, and has created altogether unrealistic expectations:
 
"May called the recent election because she wanted a stronger mandate to
negotiate a good deal for her country. She didn't get it. Now more than
ever, securing a deal will require shifting to a collaborative,
outward-looking, and realistic negotiating strategy."
 
And in a brilliant essay in the New York Review of Books, Fintan O'Toole
argues that this tumultuous election showed above all that the Brexit
chickens were finally coming home to roost:
 
"Brexit is a back-of-the-envelope proposition. Strip away the
post-imperial make-believe and the Little England nostalgia, and there's
almost nothing there, no clear sense of how a middling European country
with little native industry can hope to thrive by cutting itself off
from its biggest trading partner and most important political alliance …
 
The Brits want what they can't possibly have. They want everything to
change and everything to go as before. They want an end to immigration –
except for all the immigrants they need to run their economy and health
service. They want it to be 1900, when Britain was a superpower and
didn't have to make messy compromises with foreigners. To take power,
May had to pretend that she, too, dreams these impossible dreams. And
that led her to embrace a phoney populism in which the narrow and
ambiguous majority who voted for Brexit under false pretences are be
re-imagined as "the people" …
 
May's appeal to "the people" as a mystic entity came up against Corbyn's
appeal to real people in their daily lives, longing not for a date with
national destiny, but for a good school, a functioning National Health
Service, and decent public transport. Phoney populism came up against a
more genuine brand of anti-establishment radicalism that convinced the
young and the marginalised that they had something to come out and vote
for."
 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/brexit-weekly-briefing-shock-election-result-means-new-negotiation-calculus
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 13 10:16AM +0300

On 13.6.2017 5:08, Court_1 wrote:
 
>>> Where did the stupid term BOAT come from? It's not something used in day to day expert tennis analysis. It's DUMB.
 
>> It came from the same guy who developed 7543 because 7543 as a numerical system could no longer put Sampras on top in any meaningful measures in term of slam record, record at each individual slams.
 
> They are both stupid concepts and only used on this ng.
 
Any concept that doesn't award anything to your dearie is "stupid". Oh
no, make that "STUPID".
 
Just relax and admit to yourself what every commentator of the game has
admitted, that Djok played BOAT tennis in 2015-2016.
 
No question about that one. And his BOAT-epsilon level was enough to pwn
a couple of ATGs on all surfaces. Not just on your pet surface.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 13 06:23AM +0100

On 13/06/2017 01:09, bob wrote:
 
> clinton did wonders for the mcdougal's and a host of other financial
> elites just before leaving the WH.
 
Really? The list of 140 pardons he made on Jan 20 2001 includes Susan
McDougal, who had already completed a prison term. If you are including
her ex-husband, James McDougal, he had been dead for three years. That
pardon doesn't appear to have had much of an impact on 'the mcdougals'.
 
Also, 'a host of other financial elites' - how many of the 140 were
'financial elites'?
 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/my-reasons-for-the-pardons.html>
 
Anyway, what a former-president did is relevant how? Most presidents
pardoned many people:
 

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_granted_clemency_by_the_President_of_the_United_States>
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 13 12:04AM -0400

On 6/11/2017 10:02 PM, Guypers wrote:
>>> --
 
>> Cool. Hope it helps Stan. Love to see him win W.
 
> No, Fed will beat him in the fifth 13-11 for his eigth! In the dark?!
 
Yes in the dark with sunglasses! :)
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