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

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 08 06:57PM +1000

On 8/06/2017 1:41 PM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> Will Stanimal's #4 come before Muzza's?
>> I will certainly pick Stan to beat Andy if Andy makes it past Nishi.
 
> Stan is the slight favorite vs Murray but it's basically a toss-up match. Murray is smart and knows how to play Stan.
 
Murray can win if Stan comes out tight & missing a lot. If he's hitting
free & loose it will be 3 tight sets for Stan.
 
Remember when Murray was defending USO champ & Stan crushed him 64 63
62? A great offensive game will always beat a great defender.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 08 06:59PM +1000

On 8/06/2017 1:48 PM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>>> Stan is the slight favorite vs Murray but it's basically a toss-up match. Murray is smart and knows how to play Stan.
 
>> If Stan plays like he did today, Andy is toast.
 
> I didn't see the Stan vs Cilic match but Murray is not Cilic. Murray is a completely different match-up for Stan. I think Stan is the favorite over Murray but I wouldn't be surprised if Murray won.
 
Murray certainly can win as Stan is due to have a flat match, but Stan
is the clear fave overall.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 08 05:32AM -0500

On 6/7/2017 10:53 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 11:50:52 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
>> Can't disagree with you there. Murray is going to get way more balls in play than Cilic.
 
> Didn't Murray beat Stan at the FO last year? It's a 50-50 match.
 
Yeah, that's the best way to view it - a 50/50 match. Nobody can say
they will be surprised if either guy wins.
 
That's one reason its a match worth tuning in for.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 08 05:33AM -0500

On 6/7/2017 10:54 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 11:50:52 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
>> Can't disagree with you there. Murray is going to get way more balls in play than Cilic.
 
> I hope Stan wins because I prefer his tennis style if he's serious and zoning.
 
Yes, Murray's lobs and drop shots are things of beauty rare in the
modern game, particularly when he uses them in conjunction. Stan doesn't
have anything worth watching other than a brutally powerful one-handed BH.
 
But, I like seeing great finals, and even though I want Nadal to win
this title, I want him to work for it, and I think Stan would make him
work for it more than Murray.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 08 05:35AM -0500

On 6/8/2017 3:57 AM, Whisper wrote:
> free & loose it will be 3 tight sets for Stan.
 
> Remember when Murray was defending USO champ & Stan crushed him 64 63
> 62? A great offensive game will always beat a great defender.
 
Murray is far more than a defender. He can blast service winners and
groundstroke winners off both wings.
 
Murray has played himself into this event, he wins 4-6 6-4 7-6 7-5.
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 08 01:01AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 8:30:03 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> > LOL https://twitter.com/AnnaK_4ever/status/872422380932665344
 
> Excellent, hahaha.
> --
 
The second one is even better LOL:
https://twitter.com/BrunTenebreux/status/872464480545976321
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 08 11:45AM +0300

On 8.6.2017 11:01, SliceAndDice wrote:
>> --
 
> The second one is even better LOL:
> https://twitter.com/BrunTenebreux/status/872464480545976321
 
http://www.tennisworldusa.org/news/news/Rafael_Nadal/39880/donald-trump-nadal-is-my-favourite-player-i-love-him-/
 
:)
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jun 08 03:30AM -0700

Op donderdag 8 juni 2017 10:01:14 UTC+2 schreef SliceAndDice:
 
> The second one is even better LOL:
> https://twitter.com/BrunTenebreux/status/872464480545976321
 
A wise man, after all!
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 08 03:34AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 8:36:18 PM UTC+10, Federer Fanatic wrote:
> Looks pretty robotic ...
 
> FF
 
He needs to run a different operating system as he gets older.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 08 05:30AM -0500

> On 6/7/2017 11:03 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
> Could be one of the shortest coaching relations on record.
 
Doubtful someone as meticulous as joker would make a change so close to
the next slam, but it's possible.
 
I was surprised this relationship happened to begin with. Among all the
top players, nobody is more dependent on a dedicated, supportive team
apparatus than Joker, and surely since day one Andre has made it clear
he can only be a part-time consultant, not a true traveling 100%
dedicated to joker coach.
 
Definitely not joker's preference, so must reflect his deep respect for
Agassi's tennis knowledge.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 08 05:21AM -0500


>> Don't argue with these dumb Grafans, they are just bitter that Steffi
>> was blown past. Pointless.
 
> Not bitter but slightly amused.
 
It's wonderful: In the end, after 15 years of bickering about it, Graf
was beaten, surpassed in the GOAT/Legacy standings. In the end, the
stabber didn't get away with it, the GraFans lost, Steffi lost. She'll
forever be Open Era #2!
 
Over and done with! That's the way it finished up.
 
Bye Bye Steffi !!!!! Gone Baby Gone!!! LMAO!
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 08 11:30AM +0300

On 8.6.2017 7:45, TT wrote:
 
> Well that's a load of bull, after all people do see the greatest films
> ever made in their home, that is: classics.
 
> Unless of course you prefer Captain Underpants?
 
This is like the DF court speed correlation all over again. Jaros is a
gold mine for these.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 08 02:57AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:45:33 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> > You are avoiding the topic. We want to get an idea of how many of the films considered some of the greatest of all time on that list (everything to big budget classics to classic indies and some foreign language films) you've seen. The fact that you're avoiding it makes me think you are a film buff mostly of current and bigger budget films of the last 20 years(that's ok but at least admit it.) And no, the fact that you see 100s of films in the cinema a year doesn't make you more of a film buff than other people who enjoy films in whatever way they choose to watch them.
 
> Well put.
> I've now rated 800 titles from that list. :)
 
I thought you had seen 900+ films from the list I posted?
 
I watched the Danish supernatural thriller/horror film "Shelley" (2016.)
 
It's a slow burn with a demon-baby, Rosemary's Baby vibe. There's ambiguity throughout including an ambiguous ending which can be up for various interpretations. Nice cinematography. Underrated rating on IMDb IMO.
 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013688/?ref_=nv_sr_2
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 08 05:14AM -0500

On 6/7/2017 11:45 PM, TT wrote:
>> having seen on TV, or in theatre.
 
> Well that's a load of bull, after all people do see the greatest films
> ever made in their home, that is: classics.
 
The part after the comma doesn't support the "load of bull" comment at
all. Just because people - including me - do something doesn't make it
valid. Any real cinephile doesn't even need it explained to them why
viewing a "film" at home on TV is a pale quasi-viewing compared to
seeing a film as it was meant to be presented by its makers, in a
cinema. Is it sometimes the best we can do? Sure. Is it better than not
seeing a movie at all? Sure. But it shouldn't be confused with an actual
in-theater experience. It's not just an aesthetically inferior
experience, you also don't get the full artistic experience so come away
with less knowledge of the quality of the film as well. So two
check-boxes for these lists would be way better.
 
It really is quasi-viewing, should only get half-credit or somesuch. I
don't feel like I've fully/truly seen a film until I've seen it on the
big screen, and basically all true cinephiles feel this way. TV,
Netflix, cable, Hulu, etc. clearly inferior.
 
> Unless of course you prefer Captain Underpants?
 
You keep revealing your philistine outlook by wrongly, Grachus-like,
making comments about movies that you haven't seen. Just makes you look
ignorant about what it takes to have a useful opinion about a movie.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 08 05:17AM -0500

On 6/7/2017 11:42 PM, TT wrote:
>> You guys seem to have an endless supply of lists you fill out. I'm too
>> busy watching movies, LOL.
 
> You're too busy seeing Captain Underpants...
 
It was a pretty good film. You should go see it - funny and with some
insights.
 
Really, cracks and asides about films you haven't seen just knock points
off your cinephile credibility, and comes across as just a pale attempt
to distract attention from weak points you are struggling to make.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 08 11:37AM +0300

On 8.6.2017 8:18, TT wrote:
> Rafa would own the greatest record in tennis ever. One can not do
> something remarkable with good 'distribution'. You sir do not understand
> sports records at all.
 
They reflect what we see every day. Rafa's great on clay, a sucker on
other surfaces.
 
That's another way of writing: 1 trick pony.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 08 11:41AM +0300

On 8.6.2017 6:33, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> Fed had won 9-10 slams before Joker showed up, Nadal several as well,
>> but he's had to battle those guys, and Murray, his whole career.
 
> I've stated my reasons for disliking Djokovic
 
Everything boils down to fedfuckery. You hate him because at one point
he represented the biggest threat to Rogi's slam record.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 08 02:48AM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 4:41:13 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> > I've stated my reasons for disliking Djokovic
 
> Everything boils down to fedfuckery. You hate him because at one point
> he represented the biggest threat to Rogi's slam record.
 
It has absolutely nothing to do with Federer. I like Nadal and he has always been the biggest threat to Federer. Also, Djokovic was NEVER the biggest threat to Federer at any point. Only fools like yourself believed that. Djokovic screwed up at too many slams in his prime for him to have ever been a legit threat to Fed's slam record.
 
I dislike Djokovic for the reasons I have outlined.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 08 01:13PM +0300

On 8.6.2017 12:48, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> Everything boils down to fedfuckery. You hate him because at one
>> point he represented the biggest threat to Rogi's slam record.
 
> It has absolutely nothing to do with Federer.
 
*Rolls eyes* Lol.
 
> I like Nadal and he has
> always been the biggest threat to Federer.
 
Things looked a bit different a year or two ago.
 
Also, Djokovic was NEVER
> the biggest threat to Federer at any point. Only fools like yourself
> believed that.
 
Not true. I'm on record on that too. Of course you would have to do the
searching yourself.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 08 01:11PM +0300

... or to forward the interests of Americans in some way?
 
61% of Americans think he fired Comey for protecting himself.
 
http://time.com/4810257/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-poll/
 
Damning. "Bye Bye Donald!"
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 08 12:27PM +0300

On 8.6.2017 1:12, bob wrote:
 
> he was within legal powers to sign it, whatever "it" is as much as
> he's within his legal powers to eat cornflakes for breakfast. but it
> doesn't mean much.
 
Duh.
 
> if obama did it the right way, like many other things, trump couldn't
> easily dismantle it.
 
Well, the right way involves some political realities (which you choose
to igneore). The bottom line is this: Obama was within his legal rights
to sign Paris, and you were wrong in saying he was not.
 
Write this on the blackboard 50 times.
 
> plus obama went to tremendous lengths to keep the terminology of this
> "pact" very vague, and not use the word treaty.
 
My guess is, it's because under US law it was not a "treaty".
 
>> now. Nobody is questioning this.
>> Except you.
 
> i questioned the legality of calling paris a "treaty."
 
There you go again. Tut tut, bob.
 
You didn't even mention the word "treaty". You said:
 
"obama had no legal grounds to "sign" the "paris
accords" to begin with".
 
There is only one interpretation of this sentence.
 
>> results.
 
> oh my you silly goose. paris is what, .000001% of greenhouse gas? NDC
> was a very bad concept from the get-go.
 
They are not a bad concept. Even though they are voluntary, for example
France has hinted at tightening its own targets because of US leaving
Paris. Others take voluntary targets seriously.
 
You, the environmentalist, voted for abolishing them..
 
 
> yoo hoo!
 
> let it go pelle, hillary lost and hillary likely needs psychiatric
> care for the rest of her life.
 
Nobody cares a hoot about Hillary.
 
Incidentally what happened to the strange statement of the UNFCCC being
"bunk" in some way. I asked you to explain it, you snipped it out.
 
That's a nice dodge. If you think snipping the dodges aren't noted,
you're wrong.
 
You seem to be wronging all the time.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 08 06:23PM +1000

On 8/06/2017 12:51 AM, ahonkan wrote:
 
> Still he's better at defending slams than Rafa, who has not defended a
> single non-clay slam in his entire career. Heck, he hasn't defended a
> single non-clay title in his entire career!
 
Yet it seems to have zero effect on his legacy?
 
His 2010 is still the best year by any player aside from Laver's 1969.
 
Nadal is the only guy in history to win the 3 biggest slams - Wimbledon,
USO & FO, on 3 different surfaces (grass, hard & clay) in the 1 year.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 08 01:31AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 7:51:22 AM UTC-7, ahonkan wrote:
 
 
> Still he's better at defending slams than Rafa, who has not defended a
> single non-clay slam in his entire career. Heck, he hasn't defended a
> single non-clay title in his entire career!
 
 
Those are amazing off-clay stats for Humbalito.
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 08 08:42AM +0100

<https://www.forbes.com/athletes/list/#tab:overall>
 
4. Federer $64.0m
16. Djokovic $37.6m
26. Nishikori $33.9m
33. Nadal $31.5m
40. Murray $28.8m
51. S Williams $27.0m
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 08 12:26AM -0700

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtQF0SjLG6s
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