Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 10 topics

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 10 03:11AM -0700

50-50 I think. Ostapenko has the game to blow Halep off the court but Halep is good at absorbing pace and if Ostapenko doesn't hit a winner in the first shot or two, Halep will keep on getting balls back and should win most of those longer rallies.
 
Ostapenko has the nothing to lose attitude and Halep has the experience.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 10 08:24PM +1000

On 10/06/2017 6:58 PM, Garvin Yee wrote:
 
> I would guess Halep, because she has been to the French final
> once before, but the very little I saw of Jelena was quite impressive.
 
> I'll say Halep in 3....
 
Logically Halep is the fave, but then she is also under pressure to win
a 1st slam. The youngster can just go for it with nothing to lose.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 10 08:31PM +1000

On 10/06/2017 8:11 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> 50-50 I think. Ostapenko has the game to blow Halep off the court but Halep is good at absorbing pace and if Ostapenko doesn't hit a winner in the first shot or two, Halep will keep on getting balls back and should win most of those longer rallies.
 
> Ostapenko has the nothing to lose attitude and Halep has the experience.
 
Yep, looks 50-50 to me. Maybe 10-8 in 3rd?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 10 01:33PM +0300

On 10.6.2017 13:24, Whisper wrote:
 
>> I'll say Halep in 3....
 
> Logically Halep is the fave, but then she is also under pressure to win
> a 1st slam. The youngster can just go for it with nothing to lose.
 
The WTA does seem like a tour of rookies. Every time I see a point of
the women playing, I have to walk away. Sad.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 10 06:33AM -0400

On 6/10/2017 6:04 AM, Whisper wrote:
 
>> Both were bad. That is the final word. ;)
 
> Haven't seen it so won't comment. How was the competition that yr?
> Guessing quite lame?
 
The USA consensus then, and probably now, was that Saving Private Ryan
was the most deserving for Best Picture. Steven Spielberg certainly
thought so, LOL. And I agree it was a better film.
 
But yes, 1998 wasn't the very best year for American film by a long
shot. Especially coming on the heels of 1997, which was a really great year.
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 10 06:11AM -0400

On 6/9/2017 10:45 PM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> he beat an incredibly motivated and in form djokovic. a zoned stan
>> could win no doubt.
 
> Again, Djokovic at the FO ain't Nadal in good form at the FO. Stan "could" win but he won't IMO.
 
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
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 10 07:09PM +1000

On 10/06/2017 3:40 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>>> Stop dreaming. Stan isn't going to beat Nadal at the FO when Nadal is in decent form
 
>> I just told Stan this and he still insists to play the final.
 
> I don't care what you told Stan. Stan won't beat Nadal. Nadal will wear him down and frustrate him and he'll start spraying errors. If Stan gets a set it will be a good outcome for him.
 
Agreed. Rafa is not letting this slam slip away from his grasp like the
last one.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 10 08:18PM +1000

On 10/06/2017 3:00 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
>> also not aggressive much.
 
>> Nadal of today could lose to in-form Wawrinka.
 
> He didn't need to play better. Rafa did well enough to allow Thiem to completely self-distruct. I expect him to have to step it up in the final.
 
Agreed. I think we're going to see something special from Rafa - he'll
be unleashing it all in the final. After AO he won't be leaving
anything out there.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 10 01:22PM +0300

kaennorsing kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 8:00:
>> also not aggressive much.
 
>> Nadal of today could lose to in-form Wawrinka.
 
> He didn't need to play better. Rafa did well enough to allow Thiem to completely self-distruct. I expect him to have to step it up in the final.
 
Probably so.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 10 12:02PM +0200


>> > Nadal of today could lose to in-form Wawrinka.
 
>> He didn't need to play better. Rafa did well enough to allow Thiem to completely self-distruct. I expect him to have to step it up in the final.
 
> Nadal has been completely untested this Roland Garros. Not that it has mattered in the past, but if Stan comes swinging away and Nadal being a little vulnerable in finals recently, anything can happen.
 
Yup. That's why I say, 75% contrary to bettors 83%
--
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 09 11:50PM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 2:11:30 AM UTC+2, TT wrote:
 
> Besides, according to Comey's testimony Trump had already promised to
> keep him previously, but questioned the position again during the 'hope
> discussion'. Damn clear threat...play ball or else...
 
But couldn't he just have ORDERED Comey to drop the investigation? He is the President!
So nothing illegal here.
 
 
Max
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 10 06:17AM -0400

On 6/9/2017 8:11 PM, TT wrote:
 
> Besides, according to Comey's testimony Trump had already promised to
> keep him previously, but questioned the position again during the 'hope
> discussion'. Damn clear threat...play ball or else...
 
You can keep declaring that things are 'clear cut' all you want, but the
words Trump actually used can only "clearly" mean what you claim if you
are biased against Trump and want to think the worst about him.
 
Proof of this is that, and Comey, have to mention things like Trump
"clearing the room" and "well then why did he fire him?" to assign
meaning to the words. If they were clear cut, they would speak for
themselves, no blather about 'context' needed.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 10 01:28PM +0300

>> discussion'. Damn clear threat...play ball or else...
 
> But couldn't he just have ORDERED Comey to drop the investigation? He is the President!
> So nothing illegal here.
 
Well Nixon did.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 10 08:16PM +1000

On 10/06/2017 2:37 PM, ahonkan wrote:
 
> Djoker 'woulda' beaten Rafa in 2014 at F) had the rains not interrupted.
> Rafa was really looking clueless out there. It was a different match the
> next day and Rafa romped home.
 
 
Nobody knows what woulda happened so no point talking coulda/woulda.
 
 
> In the last 3 years, Djoker has had a winning H2H vs Nadal everywhere incl
> clay and so it's unfair to say Djoker won 'because Rafa was in the worst
> form of his life'.
 
But he probably was? It's not an excuse as players have to play through
varying levels of form throughout their careers.
 
 
 
> Wawrinka showed brilliant shotmaking vs one of the best retrievers in the
> game, Murray. It is conceivable he could do the same vs Rafa.
 
You can't really compare Murray to Rafa on clay. It's not some kind of
cosmic fluke Rafa has won many clay events 8, 9, 10 times. How do you
fluke wins on clay 10 yrs in a row?
 
 
> Thiem got a
> ton of BPs but converted just 1. So it isn't like Rafa is playing in
> God mode. He can be beaten.
 
Any player 'can' be beaten at any time, we're discussing probability/% etc.
 
Your BPs stat above doesn't prove much as it's judged in hindsight. eg
Had Rafa lost 2 or 3 of those points earlier he may have prevented more
BPs arising by changing strategy etc. Again this is all crystal
ball/coulda woulda stuff that doesn't clinch any argument. I wish it did.
 
 
> But Wawrinka needs to avoid the kind of mistakes
> he made against Murray that took the match to 5 sets.
 
 
Stan has to play the match of his life v the clay goat/boat in bo5 FO
final. Technically sure he can do it, but it's going to take redline
tennis. The odds aren't great, but hell I'd go so far as giving him 10%
chance. That makes it a possibility.
 
Can't wait to watch it.
 
: )
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 10 03:17AM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 6:00:18 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:


> I agree if Stan wins it could be the best match this century so far.
> That's what it's going to take down Rafa in this form in a FO final he
> desperately wants to win - sublime winners, few errors etc
 
It will more likely be a disappointment than it will a classic.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 10 01:21PM +0300

ahonkan kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 7:37:
> Djoker 'woulda' beaten Rafa in 2014 at F) had the rains not interrupted.
 
On the contrary, the rain helped Djokovic to try an claw back into the
match - took all bounce away from Rafa's shots. In the end when they
they quit the match it wasn't a clay court any more.
 
Djokovic can only blame himself for not playing good enough when the
play resumed the next day.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 10 01:26PM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 8:27:
>> In 2016, Rafa withdrew due to an 'injury' (that no one saw or noticed) &
>> Djoker won beating his favourite doormat Murray.
 
> Obviously Nadal had an injury in 2016. He was doing well on clay and at the FO until he withdrew. Don't be silly.
 
Nah, Rafa just didn't have guts to face Granollers at RG 3rd round. Or
that's at least what 'ahonkan' would want us to believe... totally
worthless tennis analysis!
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 10 01:27PM +0300

On 10.6.2017 13:17, Court_1 wrote:
>> That's what it's going to take down Rafa in this form in a FO final he
>> desperately wants to win - sublime winners, few errors etc
 
> It will more likely be a disappointment than it will a classic.
 
This year's clay clown season was etched in stone at MC, including what
happens tomorrow. Nothing has changed since.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 10 01:10PM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 6:01:
> On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:05:41 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
 
>> that's the whole problem with him, he fun and entertaining to watch, but it sounds like exactly the same as usual, he was tired.
 
> Thiem wasn't tired; he's simply not good enough.
 
I think he's good but perhaps not just a great big match player...
At least yet.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 09 10:40PM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 12:15:16 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> ----------- end of post-------
 
> - since then Wawrinka won the FO beating Federer & peak djokovic and winning the US open beating peak djokovic.
 
> Will he beat nadal, no one knows, nadal is the favorite for sure, but it's fun reading that person comments on how this person never has a chance and that person will win everything.
 
But in that post from the past I merely asked the question at the time, i.e. will the Wawrinka win over Nadal at the AO be the new normal? Wawrinka and Nadal haven't played in a slam since that 2014 AO so we don't know the answer. I was also merely questioning Wawrinka vs Djokovic at the time and whether Wawrinka could continue to beat Djokovic. I didn't say he wouldn't. We got the answer to the Wawrinka-Djokovic match-up in future slams but we won't know about Wawrinka-Nadal until Sunday.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 09 10:41PM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:13:55 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >Will he beat nadal, no one knows, nadal is the favorite for sure, but it's fun reading that person comments on how this person never has a chance and that person will win everything.
 
> reads like a court1 post.
 
> bob
 
But all I did was question at the time whether Stan could continue to beat Nadal in slams. They haven't played at a slam since the AO 2014.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 10 08:06PM +1000

On 10/06/2017 2:15 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> ----------- end of post-------
 
> - since then Wawrinka won the FO beating Federer & peak djokovic and winning the US open beating peak djokovic.
 
> Will he beat nadal, no one knows, nadal is the favorite for sure, but it's fun reading that person comments on how this person never has a chance and that person will win everything.
 
I don't see anything wrong with that post? Stan was quite old to be
winning a 1st slam, & his h2h v Rafa was woeful before that match -
12-0, never even won a set.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 09 11:54PM -0700

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 1:24:48 AM UTC+2, bob wrote:
 
> >We have to give the orange clown some credit here.
 
> you've given him a lot of "credit" lately.
 
Yes, deregulation of the financial sector, attacking the climate cult, stepping up the war against ISIS/Assad.
 
Max
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 10 02:04AM -0700

Since most of the world aggrees on global warming the deniers are the cult. Just like the holocaust deniers
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 10:14PM -0400

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 18:32:27 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> together did so many illegal and immoral things for 2 decades, to get
>> him for the BJ? sad IMO. :-)
 
>People are overusing the term "witch hunt." It doesn't apply to what's going on with Trump or what happened to the Clintons (unless referring specifically to Hillary :)). I do agree that Whitewater and all all it spawned--including the Lewinsky scanda--was whipped up out of proportion. But IIRC, he wasn't impeached for the blowjob, the cigar, etc. He stepped in quicksand by lying to the public, the media, and finally committing perjury.
 
witch hunt might not be the right word, but a constant observance
hoping for someone to slip up in some way isn't really in the best
faith of supporting the elected president either, whether it's from
the press, people or congress. granted he must be accountable, but i
think he needs to do something that is a legitimate problem. if we
took this level of scrutiny back the past 200 yrs i wonder how many
impeachments we'd have?
 
as far as clinton, they asked him a question they knew'd he'd have to
lie to, then impeached him for lying. :-) i wasn't in favor of it at
the time. i voted for him, but as time went by recognize his faults
and the long crooked history.
 
>> trump may very well do something impeachable. but i don't believe it's
>> happened yet. after all, he's not a politician really.
 
>I can't wait to see his lawyer try that defense. :)
 
haha. don't put it past him lol.
 
> could have any number of expert advisors available to ask before deciding to sign an executive order, issue a press release, or tweet something. He chooses to follow the advice of other political neophytes and his own seriously flawed judgement.
 
he's definitely a rookie in this game. but rookies sometimes turn out
ok with experience. i don't think he'll change what he is, or his
pesonality, but he may learn to keep quiet.
 
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