Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 11 topics

Sunday, June 11, 2017

DavidW <no@email.provided>: Jun 12 05:23AM +1000

On 11-Jun-17 10:20 PM, bob wrote:
> this says practically nothing.
 
The incident with Broady in Auckland, which continues after the handshake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhiBazkhMU
 
Elena Vesnina on Ostapenko's speech after she lost the Miami final
(Ostapenko said she played badly and didn't mention her opponent):
https://twitter.com/EVesnina001/status/851139654762016769
 
And at Eastbourne last year she told her coach at an end-change "I just
don't give a shit about this tournament".
https://twitter.com/EustaceTarwater/status/744570814566174720
 
Most players would be dying to win their first tour title at any
tournament, but not Ostapenko and now she's gone straight to a slam for
her first one.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 04:00PM -0400

>> this says practically nothing.
 
>The incident with Broady in Auckland, which continues after the handshake.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhiBazkhMU
 
broady should let the referee call the match and play the ball. IMO
her behavior is questionable, and it's possible the racket just
slipped.
 
>Elena Vesnina on Ostapenko's speech after she lost the Miami final
>(Ostapenko said she played badly and didn't mention her opponent):
>https://twitter.com/EVesnina001/status/851139654762016769
 
apparently she doesn't like to lose. that's good.
 
 
>Most players would be dying to win their first tour title at any
>tournament, but not Ostapenko and now she's gone straight to a slam for
>her first one.
 
got a bit of mcenroe in her.
 
bob
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 11 08:43PM +0200


>> This is best way to compare versatility without penalizing players
>> for success on certain surface.
 
> Cool, so if Fed wins FO next year he gets to 140?
 
Yes, and wouldn't FO for him be huge? In surface terms.
 
7543 is another thing.
--
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 11 08:41PM +0200


>> you are a moron...only thing that would have him surpass federer is
>> winning 19 grand slams...so 4 more to go...not an unimaginable feat....
 
> Even that wouldn't do it with such a high percentage of those slams on clay. Just think, if all he did was add 4 more FOs, then 73% of his slams would be on the grinder's surface. He'd be increasing his slam count, yes, but the disparity would become more glaring with each one unless he wins some more of them off clay. Maybe that will happen. I tend to doubt it. Especially not with all the "injuries," time off, and mysterious huge fluctuations in form.
 
I think you're not that dumb to suggest Nadal winning *more FO*
titles from now on, takes anything away from his non-FO
accomplishments which are in the Edberg, Becker, Agassi
league?
 
He's second most surface versatile player ever, under fully
objective metric.
 
60pts vs Fed's 70pts.
 
"Clay heavy resume" is a sour grapes, his two thirds on clay are
not much worse than Federer's 94% on two surfaces.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 11 09:09PM +0200


> Never heard of anyone penalizing for success. For lack of success somewhere, that's just how it goes. Nadal is super dominant in Paris, but must be considered relatively weak elsewhere. He doesn't really have a second slam on which he can be called an all-time great. No amount of French Opens can change that. Only wins on those other surfaces can.
 
> You don't have to agree with this. But I think a minimum of three trophies is needed to get in the door of conversation for all-time great at a particular slam. Five is when someone has achieved dominance. The ideal "goats" win twenty and as close to 5 each as possible. Probably too tough a standard for the men's game, but let's hope for someone in the future to get 7-7-3-3. Or 8-6-3-3. 10-5-3-2: ok let's put that out there for Nadal. Running out of time, though.
 
I have no trouble admitting Federer's record is most versatile but
even he has a hole. Just one FO out of 18 slams.

 
Agasi has all e.g. out of just 8.
 
If you're logically going to claim Federer shouldn't penalized for
his success elsewhere, same applies to Nadal.
 
His record is second best ever, in terms of versatility. Right
behind Federer.
 
 
If you're 1111 slammer you have to accept that even 18 would put
him ahead, due to better mix, not even mentioning h2h.

 
 
7543 guys would think differently naturally.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 03:43PM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 20:41:54 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
 
>60pts vs Fed's 70pts.
 
>"Clay heavy resume" is a sour grapes, his two thirds on clay are
> not much worse than Federer's 94% on two surfaces.
 
winning more FO certainly won't reduce nadal's legacy, but there's a
law of diminishing returns if he only wins more on clay. i'd love to
see him win another wimbledon, it would be huge toward legacy if he's
chasing GOAT one day.
 
bob
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 11 07:47PM

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:43:47 -0400, bob wrote:
 
> winning more FO certainly won't reduce nadal's legacy, but there's a law
> of diminishing returns if he only wins more on clay
 
I remember Whisper saying each time Pete won another Wimbledon it counted
infinitely more for his legacy.... no talk of diminishing returns...?
Maybe you guys need to get on the same page?
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 02:44PM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 09:19:43 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
 
>> Without any doubt.
 
>> 15 slams and a olympic gold in singles !!
 
>GOAT at French Open you mean. But each FO he wins underscores further how clay-heavy his resume is. This makes a full TWO-THIRDS of his slams on clay--the grinder's surface.
 
this is true, and for me, a problem. i said for quite a while when fed
had 17, nads 14 that nadal could catch him with 16 but it had to be
another wimbledon + HC. flip side, he does have at least 2 on all
surfaces, plus an OG so that's in his favor. but i don't see 18 slams
coming from him unless he wins another this yr.
 
bob
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 11 02:58PM -0500

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:09:37 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
| Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
|> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
|>> Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
|>> > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:35:37 AM UTC-7, John Liang wrote:
|>> >> On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 2:30:03 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
|>> >> > Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
|>> >> > > On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:04:12 AM UTC-7, Bharath Purohit wrote:
|>> >> > >
|>> >> > >> Without any doubt.
|>> >> > >
|>> >> > >> 15 slams and a olympic gold in singles !!
|>> >> > >
|>> >> > > GOAT at French Open you mean. But each FO he wins underscores further how clay-heavy his resume is. This makes a full TWO-THIRDS of his slams on clay--the grinder's surface.
|>> >
|>> >> > Two thirds? Peanuts.
|>> >> > Federer's won 94% on non clay surfaces.
|>> >
|>> >> That is two surfaces and three different slams.
|>> >
|>> > Yes, and three slams that all count more than the FO. But skriptis already knew that. He was just being his usual arachnid self.
|>>
|>>
|>> Is 66% titles on one surface really worse than 94% of titles on
|>> two surfaces?
|>>
|>> If you want to talk about balance, honestly, Nadal is second best
|>> ever.
|>>
|>> So I don't get this "clay heavy resume".
|>>
|>>
|>> Federer has won
|>> 10 HC × 7 grass × 1 clay
|>> = 70 pts
|>>
|>> Nadal has won
|>> 10 clay × 3 HC × 2 grass
|>> = 60pts
|>>
|>> Another FO would push him to 66, while another Wimbledon would
|>> push him to 90, surpassing Federer.
|>>
|>> This is best way to compare versatility without penalizing players
|>> for success on certain surface.
|>>
|>> 70 Federer
|>> 60 Nadal
|>> 24 Djokovic
|>> 12 Connors, Wilander
|>> 6 Agassi
|>>
|>
|> Federer's best slam tournament is Wimbledon. He's got eleven wins away from it. Djokovic has six away from Australia. Nadal five away from Paris. Sampras seven away from Wimbledon.
|>
|> Never heard of anyone penalizing for success. For lack of success somewhere, that's just how it goes. Nadal is super dominant in Paris, but must be considered relatively weak elsewhere. He doesn't really have a second slam on which he can be called an all-time great. No amount of French Opens can change that. Only wins on those other surfaces can.
|>
|> You don't have to agree with this. But I think a minimum of three trophies is needed to get in the door of conversation for all-time great at a particular slam. Five is when someone has achieved dominance. The ideal "goats" win twenty and as close to 5 each as possible. Probably too tough a standard for the men's game, but let's hope for someone in the future to get 7-7-3-3. Or 8-6-3-3. 10-5-3-2: ok let's put that out there for Nadal. Running out of time, though.
|>
|
|
|
| I have no trouble admitting Federer's record is most versatile but
| even he has a hole. Just one FO out of 18 slams.
|
|
 
A small one as the greatest clay courter stopped him. He'd have six FOs without Rafa.
And Rafa has called Federer 2nd greatest clay courter.
 
FF
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 11 07:08PM

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:04:36 +0000, jdeluise wrote:
 
 
>> how about immediately beginning impeachment proceedings should a
>> president partake in eating ketchup on his steak,
 
> Or Russian dressing on his salad? ;)
 
At any rate, firing one's investigator is a bit more of a serious matter
than condiments on food, no?
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 03:47PM -0400

>> president partake in eating ketchup on his steak, so long as we
>> dislike this particular president?
 
>No, better wait a little bit longer. At some point the orange clown will make an impeachable mistake.
 
very possible. that's why i say, why all the BS about meaningless
things that don't even exist, let alone can be proven?
 
> When his favorability rates are around 30 percent Ryan should pull the trigger. Because then Trump's base is leaving him.
 
he has no base in gov't. his base is his voters. and lots of his
voters also vote for/against congress. they're worried for their own
skin.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 03:48PM -0400


>>> how about immediately beginning impeachment proceedings should a
>>> president partake in eating ketchup on his steak,
 
>> Or Russian dressing on his salad? ;)
 
ahahhahahah.
 
>At any rate, firing one's investigator is a bit more of a serious matter
>than condiments on food, no?
 
no, it's not. comey was slipping into the abyss over the course of an
entire year or more. i liked him, but he wasn't cut out for the job.
 
bob
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 11 02:53PM -0500

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:47:13 -0400, bob <bob@nospam.net> wrote:
| On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 12:01:14 -0700 (PDT), calimero377@gmx.de wrote:
|
|>On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 8:54:37 PM UTC+2, bob wrote:
|>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:56:46 GMT, jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
|>>
|>> >On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:09:24 -0400, StephenJ wrote:
|>> >
|>> >> That said, it obviously is a wrong situation when someone being
|>> >> investigated can order the investigator not to investigate them, or to
|>> >> stop investigating someone else because they fear the trail may lead
|>> >> back to them. Maybe we need Congress to set up a truly 'independent'
|>> >> agency to do this, but I'm not sure how that would work. Police
|>> >> departments have independent internal affairs sections to investigate
|>> >> police. But even special prosecutors can be indirectly fired by the
|>> >> President, as he can order his AG to fire them, like Nixon did in 1973.
|>> >
|>> >How about immediately beginning impeachment proceedings should a
|>> >president partake in such activities?
|>>
|>> how about immediately beginning impeachment proceedings should a
|>> president partake in eating ketchup on his steak, so long as we
|>> dislike this particular president?
|>>
|>
|>
|>No, better wait a little bit longer. At some point the orange clown will make an impeachable mistake.
|
| very possible. that's why i say, why all the BS about meaningless
| things that don't even exist, let alone can be proven?
|
|> When his favorability rates are around 30 percent Ryan should pull the trigger. Because then Trump's base is leaving him.
|
| he has no base in gov't. his base is his voters. and lots of his
| voters also vote for/against congress. they're worried for their own
| skin.
|
| bob
 
 
Exactly! Bunch of cowards ;-)
 
FF
 
ps. Any truly great congressman/woman?
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 11 07:56PM

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:48:28 -0400, bob wrote:
 
> no, it's not. comey was slipping into the abyss over the course of an
> entire year or more. i liked him, but he wasn't cut out for the job.
 
Sure... you liked him when he was vocally investigating Hillary, not so
much when he was investigating your associates of your hero. Typical.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 12:28PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 8:29:49 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
> Wow didn't know that.
 
Does Murray speak english? Strange accent.
Manuel aka Xax <xamigax@gmail.com>: Jun 11 12:42PM -0700

Le dimanche 11 juin 2017 17:29:49 UTC+2, The Iceberg a écrit :
> Wow didn't know that.
 
I'm not saying that Rafa isn't clever, yet he didn't speak french during his victory speech.
What he said was (appart from easy stuff like "merci" and such) "sorry, I'll speak english because it's easier for me"
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 12:33PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 7:47:02 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> career.
 
> Can Stan make history?
 
> I'll be generous & give him 3% chance.
 
Nadal would win 98% of the time if he started a match two sets down. Opponents should be given that handicap just to make things interesting.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 11 03:10PM -0400

On 6/11/2017 11:47 AM, Whisper wrote:
> Laver 55
> Djokovic 53
> Emerson 50
 
 
Could you please remind us all what this formula
measures and who it was that introduced it?
 
I wasn't around here at the time.
DavidW <no@email.provided>: Jun 12 05:26AM +1000

On 12-Jun-17 5:10 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> Could you please remind us all what this formula
> measures and who it was that introduced it?
 
> I wasn't around here at the time.
 
It measures slam prestige and Whisper introduced it.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 12:23PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:25:26 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> He is greater clay player than all of the for sure. But Lendl dominated carpet and hard court.
 
Who is Lendl? I hear he was a great, but why don't I see his name on the list of Wimbledon champions? Strange.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 12:12PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 7:25:42 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> ...still, uncatchable.
 
> bob
 
Doable, why not? But it's probably a good idea to keep the expectations reasonable.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 12:19PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 8:57:38 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
 
> > P
 
> Agreed. Rafa has had a pretty full on 6 months & must be in need of a
> break. Hoping he'll do great at Wimbledon but seems doubtful.
 
This was the best first half start to a season in his career. He's been fantastic. Historically the second halves are more challenging for him.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 11 08:48PM +0200

>> accomplished what he wanted to and broke a many decades old slam race,
>> and century old wimbledon race.
 
> But according to *skriptis' new system, Pete has a fat 0...
 
It's a surface versatility meter.
--
RzR <2r4z0r2@gmail.com>: Jun 11 07:43PM +0200

On 6/11/2017 6:08 PM, *skriptis wrote:
 
> But these guys that won exactly 50% as Rafa did at his best slam,
> they're no kings. It is a ridiculous comparison.
 
> If he wins just another one, they'd be at 45% of his achievement. lol
 
LOL rafa is still at below 85% of Federers achievement LOL
RzR <2r4z0r2@gmail.com>: Jun 11 07:42PM +0200

CONGRATZ Rafa!
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