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

Monday, June 12, 2017

Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 12 10:51AM -0700

So C1, is your claim that a healthy Stan cannot beat a healthy Nadal at USO?
Wanna make sure I understand.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 12 01:58PM -0400


>> 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.
 
You still didn't answer my question, why is Nadal loss to Wawrinka
in the AO 2014 one-off?
 
What about all Nadal losses to other non top 10 players in uso,
Wimbledon, ao?
 
Try to answer... Put some efforts
 
 
 
>> 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.
 
 
So Nadal wins when he is in a good form and loses when he is a bad
form, this is the kind of logic you want us to believe?
 
You mean the opponent has no role at all?
 
Why does nadal have 10 slams on one surface and 5 on three
surfaces combined? Because he was not in good form on other
surfaces?
 
 
 
>> 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.
 
 
Again i said Wawrinka had a chance to win and maybe using your
logic if Nadal's back gets injured, another one-off victory kind,
what do you think, was it possible?
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 12 10:59AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 1:51:45 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
 
> So C1, is your claim that a healthy Stan cannot beat a healthy Nadal at USO?
> Wanna make sure I understand.
 
Yes. I don't like Stan's chances to beat a healthy Nadal at any slam. I like Stan's chances to beat Murray and Djokovic. Federer is also a terrible match-up for Stan except for on clay. If it's Fed vs Stan at W or the USO, Stan loses IMO.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 12 11:11AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 1:58:13 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:


 
> What about all Nadal losses to other non top 10 players in uso,
> Wimbledon, ao?
 
> Try to answer... Put some efforts
 
I've answered PWL. Look at their h2h. It's a bad match-up for Stan. Nadal's losses to other top ten players have what exactly to do with his match-up vs Stan? We're talking about Stan vs Nadal here. I've already said that IMO a healthy Nadal doesn't lose to Stan in any slam. Got it? Bookmark it for future reference.
 
> So Nadal wins when he is in a good form and loses when he is a bad
> form, this is the kind of logic you want us to believe?
 
When Nadal is healthy he won't lose to Stan in a slam. How many more times do I need to say it? I've put it on record so let's see.
 

 
> Why does nadal have 10 slams on one surface and 5 on three
> surfaces combined? Because he was not in good form on other
> surfaces?
 
We are talking about ONE match-up only. Of course Nadal is much better on clay than he is off of it. But in his match-up vs Stan, he's superior. His overwhelming h2h on all surfaces over Stan backs that up. Are you that stupid?
 
 
 
> Again i said Wawrinka had a chance to win and maybe using your
> logic if Nadal's back gets injured, another one-off victory kind,
> what do you think, was it possible?
 
Again, you can't admit you were wrong. Another RST imbecile. There are many posts where you called me out for giving my opinion about what would happen in that slam final and I was correct and you weren't so have the decency to admit it otherwise I'm done with you on this topic.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 11:31AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:38:16 AM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
 
> > "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.
 
Yes, it's a fine episode. Harlan Ellison has been complaining for decades that they mauled his original script, but I've read it and IMO the changes were necessary. Some of Ellison's dialogue wasn't true to the characters as we know them. I always thought it would have been a wicked twist if after Kirk let Edith Keeler die, the crew discovered that the true cause of the time rift was not her, but the wino that was killed by McCoy's self-destructing phaser. :)
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 09:38PM +0300

Shakes kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 19:38:
 
>> "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.
 
The one with Joan Collins!
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 12 02:42PM -0400

>> Wimbledon, ao?
 
>> Try to answer... Put some efforts
 
> I've answered PWL. Look at their h2h. It's a bad match-up for Stan. Nadal's losses to other top ten players have what exactly to do with his match-up vs Stan? We're talking about Stan vs Nadal here. I've already said that IMO a healthy Nadal doesn't lose to Stan in any slam. Got it? Bookmark it for future reference.
 
But healthy Nadal lost to Stan and many other players outside top ten.
 
How many slams did nadal play on HC and grass and he won five only?
 
This will give you the number of matches healthy Nadal lost.
 
If he lost all these matches to players like fognini and others,
then definitly a player that won three slams can beat
him.
 
 
 
 
 
>> So Nadal wins when he is in a good form and loses when he is a bad
>> form, this is the kind of logic you want us to believe?
 
> When Nadal is healthy he won't lose to Stan in a slam. How many more times do I need to say it? I've put it on record so let's see.
 
You can repeat million times but it doesn't make sense except
Nadal is considered unhealthy when he loses and was unhealthy in
all his grass and HC losses during his career.
 
 
>> logic if Nadal's back gets injured, another one-off victory kind,
>> what do you think, was it possible?
 
> Again, you can't admit you were wrong. Another RST imbecile. There are many posts where you called me out for giving my opinion about what would happen in that slam final and I was correct and you weren't so have the decency to admit it otherwise I'm done with you on this topic.
 
I am not wrong, it's you that have no sense of logic. If you want
to argue that you are a person that makes sense and can follow
some logic, answer my questions above.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 12 11:52AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
 
 
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 12 08:50PM +0200


> 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.
 
They were different just as grass and clay are different. If you
like tennis, you'll like them both, not necessarily in a same
way.
 
But it got more stupid and absurd post tng, to the point it become
a laughing stock.
 
The newest film promoting Hillary types. Disgusting.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jun 12 12:04PM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 10:34:39 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
 
> 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.
 
That's an excellent rant and I have to say I agree with most of it. Probably a manager vs. leader kind of analogy could be made ?
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: Jun 12 11:36AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
 
> > And Sampras has a cool 0.... nice system you've got there *skriptis!
 
> He's not 0.
> We reward "best performance" with 0.5 finals, 0.3 SF, 0.2 QF.
 
If you are counting best performance once only then all slams on a surface should count as one. If you are including results besides wins then include all results at a slam.
 
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 12 08:53PM +0200


>> He's not 0.
>> We reward "best performance" with 0.5 finals, 0.3 SF, 0.2 QF.
 
> If you are counting best performance once only then all slams on a surface should count as one. If you are including results besides wins then include all results at a slam.
L
 
 
No. Flawed.
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 12 11:05AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 11:41:02 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> > Now that it's confirmed beyond any doubt that Fed beat Nadal three times during Nadal's best Jan-June ever...
 
> Desperate fedfan stuff. Nadal came from long break etc and it appears he
> timed his best form exactly at RG final...
 
Desperate attempt at rationalization by Nadal fans. How convenient that he discovered his best form almost immediately after Miami and barely lost sets (even games) after that. And FYI, Federer was back from an even longer break AND is 5 years older.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 09:26PM +0300

SliceAndDice kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 21:05:
 
>> Desperate fedfan stuff. Nadal came from long break etc and it appears he
>> timed his best form exactly at RG final...
 
> Desperate attempt at rationalization by Nadal fans. How convenient that he discovered his best form almost immediately after Miami and barely lost sets (even games) after that. And FYI, Federer was back from an even longer break AND is 5 years older.
 
Rafa has played whole year well, but his form and confidence have
improved gradually. He wasn't nearly as strong mentally at AO as he was
at RG.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 12 11:32AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 2:26:45 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> Rafa has played whole year well, but his form and confidence have
> improved gradually. He wasn't nearly as strong mentally at AO as he was
> at RG.
 
No, it has nothing to do with mental strength. He is at a different level on clay compared to the other surfaces. Just look at his results.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 12 11:48AM -0700

> No, it has nothing to do with mental strength. He is at a different level on clay compared to the other surfaces. Just look at his results.
 
So he won ten FO in 13 years, during these 13 years he played 39 other slams, he won 5 out of them.
 
His mental strength on clay is 10/13 but it's 5/39 everywhere else. It must be mental toughness :)
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 12 11:12AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 1:27:45 PM UTC-4, Court_1 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?
 
> > 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.
 
Wimbledon is going to be tougher, especially in the first week. There are many more players that can play well on grass, compared to the paucity of competition on clay. I am not ruling him out though. He seems to draw confidence from his clay seasons, and by any standards, he has had a great one.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 12 11:21AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 2:12:09 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> > > 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.
 
> Wimbledon is going to be tougher, especially in the first week. There are many more players that can play well on grass, compared to the paucity of competition on clay. I am not ruling him out though. He seems to draw confidence from his clay seasons, and by any standards, he has had a great one.
 
Who knows if he'll even play Wimbledon. He's already bitching about his knees because of the bending he has to do on a grass surface. I guess he'll see how he feels at Queens.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 09:30PM +0300

Gracchus kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 19:06:
 
>> 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.
 
We can feel your pain...
:-P
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 11:38AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 11:30:17 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> > As for the USO, Nadal won't be "timed" for perfect performance anymore. Popeye will be all out of spinach.
 
> We can feel your pain...
> :-P
 
No pain here. Last I saw, Rafaela Marcellus Clay was still trailing the Great Man. Should he win Wimbledon, I might feel some twinges.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 12 09:11AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:32:06 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> > Anyone check?
 
> > P
 
> The second best is 7. :)
 
Seems sort of 'quaint' by comparison.
 
:))))
 
Rafa might have that record for 50 or 60 years. Just mind boggling. He might have it LONGER.
 
P
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 12 11:28AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 6:11:50 PM UTC+2, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> :))))
 
> Rafa might have that record for 50 or 60 years. Just mind boggling. He might have it LONGER.
 
> P
 
Want to bet?
 
 
Max
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 09:12PM +0300

PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 20:14:
>> 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.
 
No he did not.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 12 11:14AM -0700

> No he did not.
 
He did
 
"For sure, he's playing the best he's ever played," declared Wawrinka. "But not only here. I think since the beginning of the year, you can see he's playing more aggressive, staying more close from the line. But that's clearly his best he's ever played. That's why he's winning so much again."
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 12 11:17AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 2:14:16 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > No he did not.
 
> He did
 
> "For sure, he's playing the best he's ever played," declared Wawrinka. "But not only here. I think since the beginning of the year, you can see he's playing more aggressive, staying more close from the line. But that's clearly his best he's ever played. That's why he's winning so much again."
 
LOL
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