Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 5 topics

Monday, June 12, 2017

Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 12 09:14AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:10:25 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
> PeteWasLucky says Fed could have...easily if he'd used special tactics!
 
:)))))))))
 
Fed would have gone in straights yesterday as well.
 
P
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 12 09:15AM -0700

It would have been very interesting, but from what I could see this is the best Nadal has played in over 3 years. I have an idea Nadal would've still won but perhaps in 4 or 5, a slightly easier version of that epic semi-final they played.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 09:25AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-7, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > PeteWasLucky says Fed could have...easily if he'd used special tactics!
 
> :)))))))))
 
> 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!
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jun 12 09:38AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:28:42 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> > "... boldly go(ing) where no man has gone before".
 
> "To boldly go where no man has gone before"
 
> ...That's the only acceptable use of the phrase. Engage.
 
Yes, but I was trying to phrase it in the right tense. :) Just the other day I was watching one of the better episodes of TOS: The City on the Edge of Forever.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 12 09:42AM -0700

> P.S. PeteWasLucky, does this match answer my question I posed after the AO 2014 about whether that Stan win over Nadal was an oddity? I think it probably does.
 
Does Federer victory defeating nadal in the AO 2017 and two masters in 2017 invalidate​ Nadal victories against Federer in the last ten years?
 
Why does nadal victory in 2017 on clay invalidate Wawrinka victory on HC in 2014?
 
What kind of lawyer are you?
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jun 12 09:42AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:33:00 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > "To boldly go where no man has gone before"
 
> > ...That's the only acceptable use of the phrase. Engage.
 
> Yes, that's the correct original version. Picard used "no one" because he was more of a PC fairy than a real man like J.T. Kirk.
 
Picard has his fans but I never felt that his character had the same charisma and commanding presence that Kirk's did.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 12 10:15AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 12:42:23 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > P.S. PeteWasLucky, does this match answer my question I posed after the AO 2014 about whether that Stan win over Nadal was an oddity? I think it probably does.
 
> Does Federer victory defeating nadal in the AO 2017 and two masters in 2017 invalidate​ Nadal victories against Federer in the last ten years?
 
> Why does nadal victory in 2017 on clay invalidate Wawrinka victory on HC in 2014?
 
Who is talking about invalidating Stan's AO victory? You try and twist everything around. You are the one who quoted my post from 2014 after the AO when I questioned whether the Stan win over Nadal was a one-off. I responded to you that we'd find out on Sunday. Well, Nadal carved Stan a new asshole in that final so if you take that result and combine it with the 19-3(or whatever it is) h2h Nadal holds over Stan, it's pretty safe to say that the AO 2014 was an oddity.
 
Furthermore, you were going on with some song and dance about how Wawrinka was going to impose his game on Nadal in the same way he did vs clay God Andy Murray and how Wawrinka was going to control the match. In fact, the complete reverse happened which is that Nadal imposed HIS game on Wawrinka and Wawrinka didn't know which end was up. The result is more in line with my prediction as I said Nadal would win in straights or four. So just freaking admit you were way off base on this one and don't be a damn crybaby. There's nothing more unattractive than a man who can't admit when he's wrong.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 12 10:19AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 12:14:32 PM UTC-4, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> :)))))))))
 
> Fed would have gone in straights yesterday as well.
 
> P
 
Absolutely. Federer made a good move by avoiding clay. What did he need to be thrashed by Nadal at the FO for and lose the momentum/mental edge he had built up over Nadal thus far in 2017.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 12 01:28PM -0400


>> Does Federer victory defeating nadal in the AO 2017 and two masters in 2017 invalidate? Nadal victories against Federer in the last ten years?
 
>> Why does nadal victory in 2017 on clay invalidate Wawrinka victory on HC in 2014?
 
> Who is talking about invalidating Stan's AO victory? You try and twist everything around. You are the one who quoted my post from 2014 after the AO when I questioned whether the Stan win over Nadal was a one-off. I responded to you that we'd find out on Sunday. Well, Nadal carved Stan a new asshole in that final so if you take that result and combine it with the 19-3(or whatever it is) h2h Nadal holds over Stan, it's pretty safe to say that the AO 2014 was an oddity.
 
 
How can a match on clay in 2017 decide that a match Wawrinka won
on HC 2014 was one-off?
 
Can you explain?
 
Does this mean all Nadal losses to a long list of non top 10
players in slams outside FO were one-off as well?
 
 
> Furthermore, you were going on with some song and dance about how Wawrinka was going to impose his game on Nadal in the same way he did vs clay God Andy Murray and how Wawrinka was going to control the match. In fact, the complete reverse happened which is that Nadal imposed HIS game on Wawrinka and Wawrinka didn't know which end was up. The result is more in line with my prediction as I said Nadal would win in straights or four. So just freaking admit you were way off base on this one and don't be a damn crybaby. There's nothing more unattractive than a man who can't admit when he's wrong.
 
I didn't say Wawrinka will win, I said Nadal is the solid favorite
but giving Wawrinka no chance is stupid.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 12 07:16PM +0200


>> > ...That's the only acceptable use of the phrase. Engage.
 
>> Yes, that's the correct original version. Picard used "no one" because he was more of a PC fairy than a real man like J.T. Kirk.
 
> Picard has his fans but I never felt that his character had the same charisma and commanding presence that Kirk's did.
 
It did from a different perspective.
Tos vs tng fights are stupid anyway.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 10:34AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:42:50 AM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
 
> > > ...That's the only acceptable use of the phrase. Engage.
 
> > Yes, that's the correct original version. Picard used "no one" because he was more of a PC fairy than a real man like J.T. Kirk.
 
> Picard has his fans but I never felt that his character had the same charisma and commanding presence that Kirk's did.
 
I didn't mind Picard. It was a good idea not to try and make him another Kirk because it never would have worked anyway. There's more than one variety of commander, after all. But to my taste, Picard was too much of a conciliatory touchy-feely guy. An example that comes to mind is when the crew realizes that the ship has become sentient, and Picard starts worrying all about the ship's feelings, how to accommodate its free will, the moral ramifications, etc. Kirk would have just said screw what the ship feels--I'm the captain, so find a way to fry those those self-developed electronic synapses and put me back in charge again.
 
Another thing about Picard is that he knew too damn much to be realistically possible. In real life, technicians spend years learning to master one specialty, and that's mainly what they know. But let's say for instance that the chief engineer got injured or otherwise put out of action, Picard would be able to step in right away and start fixing the problem himself.
 
And more generally, Kirk had realistic flaws that countered his strengths. He could be overly impetuous or short-tempered in times of stress. Picard was always the paragon. What flaw did the writers give him--that he didn't like kids on the ship? Stupid flaw.
 
Once the TNG films started, they tried to make Picard more into an "action figure"--essentially more Kirk-like. It failed miserably. Patrick Stewart is too slightly-built a guy for anyone to believe that he could kick a Klingon's ass (yes, there was actually at least one story where this happened). They should have just left him as he was, because Picard could never be even a quasi-Kirk.
 
Trek rant complete.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 10:38AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 10:30:02 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
 
> > Picard has his fans but I never felt that his character had the same charisma and commanding presence that Kirk's did.
 
> It did from a different perspective.
> Tos vs tng fights are stupid anyway.
 
No stupider than "my tennis champion is good and yours isn't." Sorry dear arachnid, but your chronic relativism has to apply across the board.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 12 10:44AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 1:28:07 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 

> How can a match on clay in 2017 decide that a match Wawrinka won
> on HC 2014 was one-off?
 
How about their overall h2h? 19-3 for Nadal. IMO Nadal is a terrible match-up for Stan and I would never pick Stan over Nadal in any slam match on or off clay. Stan vs Djokovic is a different story.
 

> Does this mean all Nadal losses to a long list of non top 10
> players in slams outside FO were one-off as well?
 
We're discussing Stan vs Nadal at the moment. Hopefully they'll meet at Wimbledon or the USO and you'll see what I'm talking about. If Nadal is in good form, Stan won't win. Bookmark this post for future reference. Note, I'm only talking about slam matches.
 

> I didn't say Wawrinka will win, I said Nadal is the solid favorite
> but giving Wawrinka no chance is stupid.
 
 
LOL. You intimated that Stan had a good chance to beat Nadal and you posted how he would do it, i.e. by controlling the match and hitting through Nadal. The exact opposite happened so please just admit that you were off base. It really shouldn't be that difficult for a person to admit such a thing. I was right and you weren't in this case. Period. Have the decency to admit it otherwise you're a turd IMO.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 12 10:49AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 1:38:25 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Sorry dear arachnid
 
Dear arachnid. Ha ha. Don't insult arachnids by comparing *shitsstrips to them.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 12 09:23AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:06:41 AM UTC-7, 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.
 
Personally, I don't see Rafa getting to the Wimbledon final; but, Rafa remains a guy who runs 'on fight and form' meaning playing a lot ties into his competences and ability to generate great play/results. So, without injury as a stopper, he has been able (when very young) to run his FO results right into a run at Wimbledon and do that successfully. Yes, it was a long time ago and he's 31; that's my core query. Can the mental, physical and emotional issues be dealt with to make that happen BECAUSE he isn't showing any 'limiting' PHYSICAL issues at the moment.
 
Mentally, he going to have to come down off an enormous high of attaining 'la decima' as it has been termed. That's not insignificant, obviously. And the reality of quick court tennis puts back in play NickyK, Zverev, Milos, along with Feds, Murray and Nole, even a mentally fractured Nole.
 
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
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 12 09:37AM -0700

> 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?
 
Rafa looked great during the clay season and it suggests he will continue the great run for the rest of the year but it's not only about the physicality of the game even he is 31 years old now but it's about the mental part as well.
I was saying that djokovic was due to mental burnout when he was dominating and said the longer he resists the mental burnout the longer he will stay in it when it comes and he we go watching him unable to recover.
So Rafa pushed himself hard during 2017 to stay peak after losing the AO and two HC masters, pushed himself to dominate the clay season, and this is what Federer expected for him in Miami final ceremony when he said he will tear the clay courts. So the question is how much mental pressure and efforts Nadal endured during the first six months of the year and how this will impact him.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 12 10:27AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 12:03:22 PM UTC-4, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
 
> Can Rafa can his 'run' going?
 
> 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?
 
> P
 
You never know with Nadal what will happen once he gets some confidence and if he can stay healthy. He could bomb out in the first week of Wimbledon again or he could win the whole thing. Same with the USO. The scary part about his current game is that he's playing more aggressively to compensate for the slight loss of movement/speed with a better serve and bh.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 12 10:29AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-4, 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.
 
Don't be so sure. With Djokovic and Murray out of form and two generations of useless younger players, Nadal could do some damage. You can't write him off.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 12 10:31AM -0700

> Don't be so sure. With Djokovic and Murray out of form and two generations of useless younger players, Nadal could do some damage. You can't write him off.
 
It's about time Zverev and Kyrgios to do some damage.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 10:36AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 10:29:14 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > 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.
 
> Don't be so sure. With Djokovic and Murray out of form and two generations of useless younger players, Nadal could do some damage. You can't write him off.
 
Obviously he's won before, but look at his pattern over the years. True though about Djoke and Murray. These days we have TWO capons.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 12 01:30PM -0400

On 6/12/2017 8:16 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
> Yes it quite funny/wrong how Fed is there, but Whisper has long said
> unfortunately it wasn't designed to take into account the clown era
> or Fed taking advantage when the better players weren't around.
 
Maybe, just maybe, at the time it was designed he was trying to cement
Sampras as the greatest?
 
BTW, what do you guys think about his post yesterday about 7543?
 
The dust hardly had a chance to settle at Roland Garros
and 'you know who' makes a post updating the 7543 numbers!
 
What was he trying to do?
 
Perhaps show that despite Nadal's victory, he still
had a long way to go before he surpassed Sampras?
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 06:23PM +0300

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPm3o6RM7XU
 
Rafa didn't give Stan much chance to attack, good depth and moving the
opponent around & immediately punishing when given the opportunity.
 
Stan said that this was Rafa's best clayform ever. Also thought Rafa's
serve was good. Maybe so, at least Rafa's backhand looks better than
ever or at least roughly 2008 RG level.
 
On top of great form Rafa was mentally perfect imo. I worried a bit that
he might have lapses but he was all iron and never let his foot off the
gas pedal. Looks like he timed his form perfectly...
 
Rafa also said himself that usually his best clay form comes at some
other clay tournament but this time around it was at RG.
Sort of like in 2008...
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 08:11PM +0300

TT kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 18:23:
 
> Stan said that this was Rafa's best clayform ever.
 
> Rafa also said himself that usually his best clay form comes at some
> other clay tournament but this time around it was at RG.
 
I did the stats... Stan may be correct...
 
https://s16.postimg.org/jzmg6jnqt/Rafa_clay.jpg
 
Nadal won a record breaking 62,2% of total points at RG, which is even
better than his 2008 RG at 60,7%.
 
This RG was Rafa's second most dominating clay event ever; below 2010 MC
where he won a whopping 63,7% of all points.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 12 10:14AM -0700

> Stan said that this was Rafa's best clayform eve
 
He said it's been Nadal's best form on non clay as well in 2017.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 06:32PM +0300

Patrick Kehoe kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 18:27:
 
> Ten for Rafa stands as a unique metric/number.
 
> Anyone check?
 
> P
 
The second best is 7. :)
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