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

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 28 03:19AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 8:02:48 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> > The question again: TT and Whisper say Nadal wasn't in top form when he lost to Federer three times in 2017 but he found his top form when clay started and it's not because nadal is playing on clay (lol).
 
> > So will he be top form if he loses on grass or on HC the rest of the year?
 
> Don't have a crystal ball.
Even if you do you don't know how to use it.
 
 
> I treat Fed & Rafa by the same rules.
 
Sure, the rule always change so are the acronyms. FO used to be worse than AO if it wasn't on clay remember. In Sampras' day FO wasn't the bluest of bluechip slam because Sampras couldn't be assed about or just lost to too many clowns in that slam was enough for you to declare it as the above.
 
If Fed loses 1st rd Wimbledon I
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 28 03:30AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 7:54:38 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> > He's the friggin' GOAT you RST morons! If he wins this Wimbledon there will be ZERO doubt left. I really hope Federer wins this Wimbledon so you can all choke on your own bile. Please Fed, don't fuck up. You have one more big job to do!
 
> Imo Rafa will beat Fed in straights if they meet & he plays with the
> same intensity as FO final.
 
Of course Fed is only 5% chance of winning against Nadal in AO, that was your prediction, you also said after that match Nadal would be fav against Fed in the next match, we all know what happened in the next two matches. Fed must be on his lucky break to have Nadal not playing with the same intensity..
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 28 08:47PM +1000

On 28/06/2017 8:30 PM, John Liang wrote:
 
>> Imo Rafa will beat Fed in straights if they meet & he plays with the
>> same intensity as FO final.
 
> Of course Fed is only 5% chance of winning against Nadal in AO, that was your prediction,
 
 
 
Yes, 5% is not 0%.
 
5% is something like a 5 set final where Fed is down 1-3 in 5th but
manages to win in the end.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 28 04:14AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 5:55:43 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> I made these same claims straight after AO final so no backflipping.
 
 
Sorry? That's a lie. You did nothing but praise Fed's performance after the AO and you said Nadal was playing well. Do you think we suffer from amnesia and don't remember? Just to remind you, here are some of your comments after the AO. They were all comments from Jan 29-31/17:
 
"Probably a bit unfair to Roger as he simply rode his luck & went for his
shots. I've never seen him take these kind of chances v Rafa before.
Didn't expect that for sure. Nobody can say Fed didn't deserve this, &
yes Rafa had good chances to win too."
 
"That's why it's hard to have any gripes. Rafa did play very well, just
that Fed took his chances & they came off."
 
"Yes, overall the mindset & the improved backhand. Rafa played very well
so no excuses. "
 
"Yes, I must say Roger paced himself perfectly. I can't recall a slam
where he His backhand was noticeably improved & had Rafa on the backfoot
a few times, & also came in more."
 
"The overriding aspect for me was Fed's attitude. He looked determined
the whole match. A couple of wobbles here or there, but very minor.
The better backhand fortified his efforts so he must have felt less
vulnerable than he usually does v Rafa."
 
And the comments I found above are only a handful. There are many more. The bottom line is you said Federer's bh had improved and his attitude improved and that Nadal was playing very well. So you are ABSOLUTELY backtracking now. Don't start with me! I sniff out inconsistent statements like I breathe air.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 28 04:16AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 5:54:38 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:

> Imo Rafa will beat Fed in straights if they meet & he plays with the
> same intensity as FO final.
 
> That's my honest opinion & not a troll post.
 
LOL. No matter what happens, I can pretty much assure you that it won't be a straight set outcome either way.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 28 08:05PM +1000

On 28/06/2017 3:36 AM, Guypers wrote:
 
>>> I knew that Whisp would eventually do that after the AO. He tried to play the good sport for a few weeks about how glad he was to see Federer step up, and all that bullshit. Then after a couple of months, it's Rafa was up 3-1 and let it slip away, Rafa was playing 50% of his FO level (as if the slow red clay weren't a factor in that??). Can't keep the weasel in its den forever I guess.
 
>> Ha ha, exactly and he's so predictable. You could see him stewing in his juices and knew this new angle was coming to try and diminish Fed's great AO performance(one he told us over and over was a great and ballsy Fed performance!) Vomit!
 
> Croatian euro-trash in Europe, Oz or Bklyn, same shitpile?!? LOL
 
Please abide by rst rules - play the ball not the man.
 
Be more careful in future.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 28 09:52PM +1000

On 28/06/2017 9:16 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>> same intensity as FO final.
 
>> That's my honest opinion & not a troll post.
 
> LOL. No matter what happens, I can pretty much assure you that it won't be a straight set outcome either way.
 
No offense, but your assurance & $2 buys me a $2 coffee.
 
: )
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 28 09:57PM +1000

On 28/06/2017 9:14 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 5:55:43 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
>> I made these same claims straight after AO final so no backflipping.
 
> Sorry? That's a lie. You did nothing but praise Fed's performance after the AO and you said Nadal was playing well. Do you think we suffer from amnesia and don't >remember?
 
Nadal was playing very well & I still praise Fed for that win. Nothing
has changed in that regard.
 
However there have been developments since then, namely Rafa's intensity
in clay season, & particularly FO. Yes he pretty much always plays
great on clay, but I don't think I've seen him with this kind of
intensity ever. He willed himself to play a truly astonishing level of
tennis in FO final. Imo a repeat of that level would see him beat Fed
64 64 63 type at Wimbledon.
 
 
 
> The better backhand fortified his efforts so he must have felt less
> vulnerable than he usually does v Rafa."
 
> And the comments I found above are only a handful. There are many more. The bottom line is you said Federer's bh had improved and his attitude improved and that Nadal was playing very well. So you are ABSOLUTELY backtracking now. Don't start with me! I sniff out inconsistent statements like I breathe air.
 
I stand by all those posts & still agree 100% with them. What none of
us knew back then was how Rafa would respond. Now we know. He's really
upped that level considerably.
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 28 01:44PM +0200


> Yes, 5% is not 0%.
 
> 5% is something like a 5 set final where Fed is down 1-3 in 5th but
> manages to win in the end.
 
 
Good post. Great way of explaining the math, odds and numbers.
 
Lots of idiots around here who assume that having e.g. 40% chance
means the player will lose.
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 28 05:20AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 8:01:03 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
 
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
Rafael won't be around the second week at Wimbledon, not good Enough!
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 28 05:21AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 8:01:03 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
 
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
Your turn sukkydiky?
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 28 06:57AM -0700

On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 6:36:04 PM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> 50% of FO final Rafa.
 
> Having said that we'll probably have a Kyrgios/Zverev final.
 
> : )
 
1. Ya, when Rafa is raging, Federer seldom plays his 'best' tennis. That's an over all and anecdotal type statement of "past reality", if you will. Technically, the problem Federer will have/might have will be 'the old backhand to forehand issue'. The issue seemingly solved of late in Federer's favour. Why? Because on grass Federer hits about 10 to 15% more slice backhands on grass and that doesn't help him against Rafa (who can tag even low balls onto his forehand - even on grass - with the buggy-whip forehand). On hardcourt, Fed can now break him down precisely because that percentage is higher.
 
UNLESS, Fed throws out the grass court percentage he uses on the backhand slice on grass at this Wimbledon. Note: he used 60-64% slices on the backhand to win Halle last week, in important matches.) That percentage doesn't help him versus an in form Rafa. (Yes, Rafa will have to go all the way to face Feds; just citing issues here.)
 
And Rafa's own forehand down the line has come back on line in a MASSIVE way the last 2 months. So, who will force the other into defensive positions MORE OFTEN. There's you winner.
 
2. The arrival of Lubo has dramatically changed Federer's tactical awareness OR, let's say, Federer's tactical approaches. Finally, Feds has an answer to Toni Nadal. Lubo has Feds buying into a handful of key adjustment tactics that really has put the hurt on Rafa, specifically, but the entire field in general, as well. That's a CRITICAL issue when considering a Feds-Rafa Wimbledon final. Finally, Federer has the ability to put the kind of wrinkles in his offence and return game that has unravelled Toni Nadal's 'normal' tactical mastery over him.
 
3. Rafa will want pay back for AO and Sunshine Double defeats. Can't underestimate just gut instinct for getting back at Roger. If Federer has a mental edge, then Rafa has a major chip on the proverbial shoulder heading into any encounter with Feds now. Suddenly HE'S the hunter - mentally - and Rafa LOVES being the hunter, the Fed-Hunter. And we all know the ultimate Fed-Hunter is Rafa.
 
4. So, an interesting give and take set of possibilities. Still, Rafa will be in tough to get to a final. That's going to be a real challenge for him.
 
P
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 27 08:45PM -0700

Anybody who actually watched the three videos in the link I provided above,
and can claim afterwards that WTC7 fell merely as a result of fire, and some incidental damage from WTC1 and 2... well, I've got some property in FL you'll surely be interested in...
 
"There's a sucker born every minute."
 
PT Barnum
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 28 08:23PM +1000

On 28/06/2017 10:19 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> Or partial survive of the steal skelton?
 
You're making Gracchus very angry.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 28 12:45PM +0100

On 23/06/2017 18:32, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> *** Almost 10 years ago N.I.S.T. (a U.S. government agency) finally
> admitted that WT7 was indeed in free fall for more than 3 seconds. ***
 
Wrong.
 
> The significance of that admission cannot be overstated.
 
And yet you did.
 
> In essence it was an admission that 9/11 was an inside job.
 
No it's not. Read the report - cancel that, you wouldn't understand it.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 28 08:26PM +1000

On 28/06/2017 10:43 AM, bob wrote:
>> wrong & she rams home her serve/power & edges him 64 64? Be fun to watch.
 
> if he beat her it'd be his volleying that would make the difference.
 
> bob
 
That would be a big headache for Serena - he could put the volley in any
corner, any angle, dropshot etc
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 28 08:14PM +1000

On 28/06/2017 6:57 AM, arahim wrote:
 
>> At what age would Mac's 'maleness' stop being the deciding factor v peak
>> Serena? 60? 65? 70?
 
> Last year Mcenroe took at out Wilander, nine years his junior (then 48), 62 62 at the ATP Champion's Tour event. Now champions tour is not as rigorous but it does have a lot of variability in age; perhaps late 30s to forever. Mcenroe's (or for that matter anyone else's) matches against different players can give some indication of how he lines up against players 10 to 15 years is juniors. Of course not everyone keeps to same fitness levels so some younger players may be way out of shape.
 
Good point. Which leads me to another question - is McEnroe the best
ever 58+ player?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 28 12:37PM +0100

<http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/06/serena-williams-cover-story>
 
Photos by Annie Liebowitz.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 28 08:30PM +1000

On 28/06/2017 11:41 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>> LMAO. !!!!
 
> I don't use laptops any more.
 
Still can't use any sharp pointy things where you are?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Pelle Svanslos <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 28 10:30AM +0300

On 28/06/2017 0.36, The Iceberg wrote:
 
>> http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-rally-violence-237302
 
>> Lol.
 
> LOL what a joker!
 
"Whatta joker. But he's OUR joker!"
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 28 07:42AM +0200

> based) was one of hillary's largest donors last year (like top 5).
 
> wonder if TT or tennisguy could find this person's identity.
 
> bob
 
 
Let's dox her. ;)
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 27 09:18PM -0400

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:57:41 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
 
>> i think i'll read it while on the train to berchtesGADEN.
>> :-)
 
>Great idea! Then afterward you can discuss it with locals at the Biergärten. Maybe Merkel will even be there.
 
that was my plan. read, and have group chat along the way.
 
bob
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 28 07:34AM +0200


>>Great idea! Then afterward you can discuss it with locals at the Biergärten. Maybe Merkel will even be there.
 
> that was my plan. read, and have group chat along the way.
 
> bob
 
A book club. ;)
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
"Ooga" <ooga@reddit.com>: Jun 28 07:08AM +0200

Serena Williams was completely taken aback by her pregnancy,
taking six home tests before believing she was expecting her
first child, the tennis superstar told Vanity Fair magazine.
 
Williams, who poses nude on the cover of the magazine for its
August issue, said she still had not come to terms with the
prospect of being a mother, and said she plans to be back on
court in January.
 
"It just doesn't seem real. I don't know why. Am I having a
baby?" Williams, 35, said in the interview released on Tuesday.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tennis-serena-williams-
idUSKBN19I2ED
acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn): Jun 28 03:26AM

In article <45e6afc4-95ca-45a5-ab39-eb045dd39943@googlegroups.com>,
>After Warmbier was detained, his health and life were in North Korea's
>hands. North Korea is answerable for what hapoened to him.
 
>Wakalukong
 
If this were the accepted practice, then Milosevic's death would be
logically in the hands of the ICC. Can we absolve the United States,
the principal who launched the bombing and breakup of Yugoslavia and
who is principally responsible for the Serb politician's arrest?
 
And using your argument, any nation state that accepts your argument
cannot have a prison system because a certain percentage of the prison
population will die, partly from statistics and partly from the loss
of freedom and other unfavorable living conditions.
 
Until you think that all laws should be abolished, prison sentencing
will probably be unavoidable.
 
If so, then who is going to automatically take responsibility for a
prisoner's death like you have suggested?
 
That's why we need to be less extreme but more thoughtful and to try
to understand where the responsibilities truly lie before we start
pointing our accusatory finger and fan the flame of war against North
Korea.
 
As it is, there is already too much destruction on this planet without
further inflaming the situation over there.
 
By the way, the ICC itself has recently exonerated Milosevic - the
last of the Yugoslav presidents. So, there, an innocent person
unfortunately had to die under a situation that would be best
described as a miscarriage of justice!
 
But if we honestly accept your argument, then the U.S. should be the
first, but not the only party, to be held responsible for the death
prisoner Milosevic. Whether the person deserved to die because he
committed XYZWuV is irrelevant, if I understand your position
correctly.
 
And we can be holding our breath about Liu Xiaobo! And then do the
same about Julian Assange. In the case of Liu, China would be
culpable, and in the case of Assange, the U.S. government and the
Queen of England would be likewise because these are the parties
who have held various persons in captivity. And there is always a
nonvanishing probability that those people could die in captivity.
 
And worse yet, if you google "rate of death among those incarcerated",
you see all kinds of statistics. Here is one:
 
How often do prisoners die behind bars? - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/.../how-often-do-prisoners-die-behind-bars/
 
Jul 23, 2015 - About 4,400 jail and prison inmates die every year,
federal statistics ... among inmates facing a crisis situation that
could predispose them to ...
 
Controversy and questions continue to surround the death of Sandra
Bland, a 28-year-old African American woman found hanging in her
cell earlier this month. Local authorities ruled her death a
suicide, while her family and friends said it was "unfathomable"
that she would have taken her own life.
 
Even as Bland's death has created a national firestorm, with the
traffic stop that preceded her arrest drawing heavy criticism, this
situation also points to another reality of the U.S. criminal
justice system: The staggering number of inmates who die behind bars
each year.
 
An average of about a dozen inmates die each day, according to the
Justice Department. About 4,400 jail and prison inmates die every
year, federal statistics show, a tally that does not include
executions (which are infrequent, numbering in the dozens each year
and adding up to just a fraction of all other inmate deaths).
 
. . .
 
In short, they said, jails tended to exacerbate suicidal behavior:
 
Experts theorize that two primary causes for jail suicide exist:
 
(1) jail environments are conducive to suicidal behavior and
 
(2) the inmate is facing a crisis situation. From the inmate's
perspective, certain features of the jail environment enhance
suicidal behavior:
 
fear of the unknown, distrust of an authoritarian environment,
perceived lack of control over the future, isolation from family
and significant others, shame of incarceration, and perceived
dehumanizing aspects of incarceration. In addition, certain
factors are prevalent among inmates facing a crisis situation that
could predispose them to suicide: recent excessive drinking and/or
drug use, recent loss of stabilizing resources, severe guilt or
shame over the alleged offense, current mental illness, prior
history of suicidal behavior, and approaching court date. In
addition, some inmates simply are (or become) ill equipped to
handle the common stresses of confinement.
 
. . .
 
On one hand, all these horrible facts ought to teach us - every
responsible citizen - to be more cautious about making accusations
against people or parties without first taking up a careful and
thorough investigation. On the other, we should try to reform the
government we have, which has been allowing these horrible things to
happen and happen again.
 
We need to reform our prison or criminal justice system.
 
We need to reject fake news because it tends to demonize.
 
And we need to take our troops home and stop working regularly to
violently overthrow sovereign countries.
 
These tasks are not unrelated. When we are obsessed with war
externally, we have more unrest internally because our economy is
bound to decline while social unrest is bound to rise, against which
our expedient rulers are inclined to use harsher means against their
discontented subjects in order to retain control.
 
And in the fake news department, even as we speak, the US government
is said to be warning Syria not to use chemical weapons, as if it can
predict Assad's war plan on demand! Why is it doing that?
 
My interpretation is that Washington wants to protect certain rebel
groups that the Syrian military wants to get rid of. To protect them
means to stop the Syrian military from bombing them. As in the past,
when bombs were dropped, suddenly, chemical weapons were said to have
exploded nearby.
 
With so many players and in such a chaotic situation as in today's
Syria, we don't know where the chemical stuff really comes from.
 
It doesn't make sense for Assad's military to drop that stuff since
it's not militarily effective and the publicity is extremely
unfavorable for Assad. But reasoning like this doesn't stop Macron
and the Trump administration from trying to fix the blame on Assad,
even ahead of any bombing raid.
 
So, this time, they forecast the crime and promise the penalty, the
latter of which will no doubt be worse than the 60 Tomahawk missiles
that Syria had to face last time. Of course, by framing Syria ahead
of time, Washington is actually preemptively stopping the Syrian
military from doing anything to those groups we want to protect.
Washington is doing what it can to prolong the Syrian civil war.
 
(Maybe Robert E. Lee was just born in the wrong century --- had
he staged a rebellion these days, some hegemon might have helped
him out and stopped the Union from regaining control. Assad
has it harder than ol' Abe ever did.)
 
So, the Washington/Paris message to Assad's forces is if you don't
attack the rebel groups allied with us, then you can't be accused.
But if you attack them, then you'll be held accountable, even though
you may not actually explode any chemical weapons.
 
It might be part of war. But this kind of deception - fake news - and
this kind of bearing false witness about our "enemy" as a part of our
violent foreign policy is pretty sick!
 
And holding North Korea accountable for Otto Warmbier's death that
took place back home in the States without a thorough probe will not
make any more sense than the way we're accusing of Syria of using
chemical weapons. The motive of either accusation sounds similar: We
want to go to war against them and try to fix the blame to justify our
belligerence.
 
If Kim is bad, Washington and its propaganda machine should at least
take the logs out of their eyes first before they talk about
punishment for him or his colleagues.
 
lo yeeOn
 
---------------------------------------------------------------
 
August 1, 2016
The Exoneration of Milosevic: the ICTY's Surprise Ruling
by Andy Wilcoxson
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/01/the-exoneration-of-milosevic-the-ictys-surprise-ruling/
 
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
in The Hague has determined that the late Serbian president Slobodan
Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed during the
1992-95 Bosnian war.
 
In a stunning ruling, the trial chamber that convicted former
Bosnian-Serb president Radovan Karadzic of war crimes and sentenced
him to 40 years in prison, unanimously concluded that Slobodan
Milosevic was not part of a "joint criminal enterprise" to victimize
Muslims and Croats during the Bosnian war.
 
The March 24th Karadzic judgment states that "the Chamber is not
satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to
find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan" to
permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian
Serb claimed territory.[1] . . .
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