Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 28 09:43PM -0400

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:36:10 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky
 
>> what guypers and tennisguy likely don't realize this, is this is a
>vector equation. direction counts. :-)
 
>So Bob what is the importance of that equation in this topic ?
 
the topic says "Cilic will be dangerous in Wimbledon" so probably has
no relevance to Cilic's form at wimbledon, except that when a racket
hits a ball it applies a force, and a direction! woohoo!
 
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 28 06:46PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 9:36:34 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> i thought he did, but if i'm wrong, well he at least pulled out of the
> FO while doing very well, certainly that wasn't faking an injury?
 
> bob
 
He never had surgery for his chronic wrist or knee injuries which is VERY strange. He may not have been faking an injury when he retired from the FO in 2016 but if he withdraws from Wimbledon due to a "knee problem" that will be a fake injury IMO.
 
I mean how dumb can come of his fans get? How does one run around on clay like a fiend for three months almost sweeping the entire clay season with perfect knees and then claim knee problems when Wimbledon comes around? And don't tell me it's just the fact that he has to get down lower on a grass surface than he does on clay. Have you seen some of the positions he was in on clay this season? He was running around out there like it was 2008 again.
 
I'm feeling a "knee problem" announcement may be imminent.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 29 04:46AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 29.6.2017 klo 4:31:
>> of his knees rather than his game/mental side which I believe to be good
>> now.
 
> LOL. Here we go with the knee excuse all ready by the Vamos Brigade! It never fails! And if he somehow makes the final of Wimbledon for the first time in six years and somehow loses to Federer, what will that mean about the state of his poor knees?
 
It is no excuse but a fact! The knees are an issue for him on grass.
 
Unless you think that he fluked the Wimbledon final 5 times early his
career and never a SF after that. Do you?
 
Of course he could do well regardless but that will remain to be seen.
 
I didn't see anything from today's match except a short practice clip
with Bird where he hits TWO odd backhands with a one-hander... which he
never does. I also remarked from his Mallorca practice clips that he
didn't hit any backhands in them but rather ran around it.
 
So my conclusion is that knees are still a problem, at least problem
enough to 'save' them at the moment. It is a factor.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 29 04:49AM +0300

bob kirjoitti 29.6.2017 klo 4:36:
 
>> WRONG! Nadal never had wrist surgery. Has he ever had surgery for any of his "chronic injuries?" All of his injuries tend to magically heal or progress again depending on whether it's clay season or not.
 
> did nadal not have wrist surgery after pulling out of the middle of
> the FO and then the grass tuneups last yr?
 
Wrist injury, no surgeries.
 
The only surgery he has had was for appendicitis but C1 thinks that's
fake news and was actually a 'silent ban' lol.
 
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 28 06:52PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 9:38:28 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> if he makes the F and loses to fed i'll believe fed has upped his game
> and nadal would be at or near his own peak. but i don't think it's
> going to go down like that.
 
 
No, you can't do that. You've already admitted to us that he was in peak condition again at the FO! You can't change his level according to whether or not he beats Federer. He's made seven out of ten finals so far this year. His level has been fabulous. If he makes it into the second week of W this year after five years, that will confirm his high level (win or lose at that point.) If he loses in the first week or withdraws from Wimbledon entirely, that doesn't negate his great level so far this season. It would only mean he's decided he isn't good enough to compete on a "grass surface" again.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 28 09:54PM -0400

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:46:44 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> FO while doing very well, certainly that wasn't faking an injury?
 
>> bob
 
>He never had surgery for his chronic wrist or knee injuries which is VERY strange.
 
his doctor said he needed at least 6 weeks rest for the inflammation
to heal. makes sense, i've had tendinits of the knee before, seems
reasonable.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2016/06/01/rafael-nadal-forced-to-pull-out-of-queens-with-wrist-injury/
 
> He may not have been faking an injury when he retired from the FO in 2016 but if he withdraws from Wimbledon due to a "knee problem" that will be a fake injury IMO.
 
why? you think he doesn't want to win wimbledon, or thinks he can't?
he loves wimbledon.
 
>I mean how dumb can come of his fans get? How does one run around on clay like a fiend for three months almost sweeping the entire clay season with perfect knees and then claim knee problems when Wimbledon comes around? And don't tell me it's just the fact that he has to get down lower on a grass surface than he does on clay. Have you seen some of the positions he was in on clay this season? He was running around out there like it was 2008 again.
>I'm feeling a "knee problem" announcement may be imminent.
 
perhaps.
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 29 04:55AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 29.6.2017 klo 4:52:
> If he loses in the first week or withdraws from Wimbledon entirely, that doesn't negate his great level so far this season. It would only mean he's decided he isn't good enough to compete on a "grass surface" again.
 
That's a headscratcher of a statement... why would he think he's not
good enough now when his game is much more suitable for grass than the 5
times he made the final...
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 28 09:57PM -0400


>> i thought he did, but if i'm wrong, well he at least pulled out of the
>> FO while doing very well, certainly that wasn't faking an injury?
 
>> bob
 
i know rafa's had a lot of tendinitis in his career, both in the knees
and wrist. and that's nothing odd, very common, especially for someone
who plays like he does. vamos!!
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 28 09:58PM -0400

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:52:10 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> and nadal would be at or near his own peak. but i don't think it's
>> going to go down like that.
 
>No, you can't do that. You've already admitted to us that he was in peak condition again at the FO! You can't change his level according to whether or not he beats Federer. He's made seven out of ten finals so far this year. His level has been fabulous. If he makes it into the second week of W this year after five years, that will confirm his high level (win or lose at that point.) If he loses in the first week or withdraws from Wimbledon entirely, that doesn't negate his great level so far this season. It would only mean he's decided he isn't good enough to compete on a "grass surface" again.
 
? did you read what i wrote? or are you so rabidly against me you
jumped to conclusions? again:
 
 
>> if he makes the F and loses to fed i'll believe fed has upped his game
>> and nadal would be at or near his own peak. but i don't think it's
>> going to go down like that.
 
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 28 06:59PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 9:40:40 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> believe he sucked better part of last 2 yrs, and during early 2017 he
> was finding form again. no excuses. you can print that and remind me
> of it after the tournament. unless he gets hurt. :-)
 
I see, so his level is now "there" but if he makes it to Federer and loses it's because he changed his game, the same game by the way which got him to his first hc slam final in years and has seen him make seven out of ten finals this year. So you have a built-in excuse with this " he changed his game?" This "changed game" has resulted in him thrashing everybody in sight this year but somehow if that "changed game" results in a Federer loss you would break out the "Nadal is not the same" excuse.
 
We get it. We see the goal posts shifting daily. You are really bad at this game.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 28 07:03PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 9:46:49 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> didn't hit any backhands in them but rather ran around it.
 
> So my conclusion is that knees are still a problem, at least problem
> enough to 'save' them at the moment. It is a factor.
 
I sniff an imminent Nadal withdrawal from Wimbledon. His fans can't see this act?
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 28 10:05PM -0400

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:59:44 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> was finding form again. no excuses. you can print that and remind me
>> of it after the tournament. unless he gets hurt. :-)
 
>I see, so his level is now "there" but if he makes it to Federer and loses it's because he changed his game, the same game by the way which got him to his first hc slam final in years and has seen him make seven out of ten finals this year.
 
now you're getting my logic. but it won't matter - nadal's changing
his game cause he's older, slower, and has suffered a lot of off time
due to injuries past few yrs. but being a little less of a player
cause you're older is to be expected, you compensate in other ways -
nadal's changing strategy for ex.
 
but i'm not knocking it, nadal may win 5 slams next 2 yrs and wish he
played that way all his life.
 
> So you have a built-in excuse with this " he changed his game?" This "changed game" has resulted in him thrashing everybody in sight this year but somehow if that "changed game" results in a Federer loss you would break out the "Nadal is not the same" excuse.
>We get it. We see the goal posts shifting daily. You are really bad at this game.
 
it's no "built in excuse" that rafa has beaten fed 2/3 of their H2H
and 3/4 in slams, with a large sample space. now that they're both
old, they're both different.
 
i listened to everybody tell me fed's not at peak for the past 7
years, how could he be after 30? now you want to ignore that? nope.
 
but i will have no excuse if fed beats rafa at wimbledon, in fact i'll
give him a lot of credit just like it did at AO. fed's been impressive
this yr.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 28 10:07PM -0400

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 18:59:44 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> of it after the tournament. unless he gets hurt. :-)
 
>I see, so his level is now "there" but if he makes it to Federer and loses it's because he changed his game, the same game by the way which got him to his first hc slam final in years and has seen him make seven out of ten finals this year. So you have a built-in excuse with this " he changed his game?" This "changed game" has resulted in him thrashing everybody in sight this year but somehow if that "changed game" results in a Federer loss you would break out the "Nadal is not the same" excuse.
 
>We get it. We see the goal posts shifting daily. You are really bad at this game.
 
didn't you say you find it unappealing when a male can't accept blame
for anything? i'm guessing your hubby does that regularly...am i warm?
 
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 28 07:08PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 9:49:22 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> Wrist injury, no surgeries.
 
> The only surgery he has had was for appendicitis but C1 thinks that's
> fake news and was actually a 'silent ban' lol.
 
I don't think it was a silent ban but I'm not sure I believe the appendicitis story. Nobody plays tennis when they are having an appendicitis attack the way Nadal did.
 
This whole knee problem depending on whether he is playing on clay or not is ridiculous. He has been out there for three months moving on clay like he was a teenager. You can't do that if you have chronic knee problems. Clue in already.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 28 07:10PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 9:55:28 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> That's a headscratcher of a statement... why would he think he's not
> good enough now when his game is much more suitable for grass than the 5
> times he made the final...
 
If he withdraws from Wimbledon it will obviously mean he doesn't think he can compete well enough on a grass surface. It can't mean anything else.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 29 05:14AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 29.6.2017 klo 5:08:
 
>> The only surgery he has had was for appendicitis but C1 thinks that's
>> fake news and was actually a 'silent ban' lol.
 
> I don't think it was a silent ban but
 
So what changed your mind? Fed's recent silent bans?
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 29 05:15AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 29.6.2017 klo 5:10:
>> good enough now when his game is much more suitable for grass than the 5
>> times he made the final...
 
> If he withdraws from Wimbledon it will obviously mean he doesn't think he can compete well enough on a grass surface. It can't mean anything else.
 
Your avoiding the answer with generalization, that's not what you meant...
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 28 07:17PM -0700

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 9:59:01 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >No, you can't do that. You've already admitted to us that he was in peak condition again at the FO! You can't change his level according to whether or not he beats Federer. He's made seven out of ten finals so far this year. His level has been fabulous. If he makes it into the second week of W this year after five years, that will confirm his high level (win or lose at that point.) If he loses in the first week or withdraws from Wimbledon entirely, that doesn't negate his great level so far this season. It would only mean he's decided he isn't good enough to compete on a "grass surface" again.
 
> ? did you read what i wrote? or are you so rabidly against me you
> jumped to conclusions? again:
 
I read what you wrote and this is the summary of the moment from you:
 
You feel that Nadal's level is "there" but if he makes it to Federer and loses to Federer in the final it will mean he's changed his game too much, the same game which got him to his first hc slam final in how many years and got him to the finals of seven out of ten tournaments. :)
 
There's always a built-in excuse from you. Just be a man about it and admit that Nadal is at the best level he's been at for years and his losses to Federer have been more about what Federer has changed and less about what Nadal has changed. Nadal has OCD and is a creature of habit and when he plays Federer, he's always won the same way, i.e. to pound that topspin fh into Fed's relatively weak bh and wait for Federer to mentally implode. If Fed has improved his bh and his mental fragility, how can Nadal have mastery over him like in the past?
alinefx@alinefx.com: Jun 28 06:46PM -0700

Are you fucking kidding me, Bob? The young turks is the most progressive news outlet in the fucking world you idiot. The combined smarts of everyone on the young turks would make Rush Limbaugh look even more like fucking lunatic and he belongs in asylum in comparison.
 
You should go hide your face in the sand and not show it to anyone for even recommending Rush Limbaugh. Only a xenophobic racist moronic idiot would recommend Rush Limbaugh.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 28 09:51PM -0400


> Are you fucking kidding me, Bob? The young turks is the most progressive news outlet in the fucking world you idiot. The combined smarts of everyone on the young turks would make Rush Limbaugh look even more like fucking lunatic and he belongs in asylum in comparison.
>You should go hide your face in the sand and not show it to anyone for even recommending Rush Limbaugh. Only a xenophobic racist moronic idiot would recommend Rush Limbaugh.
 
i'm showing rush limbaugh to make people realize that any biased
person or group can say anything, but doesn't make it gospel, and
normally comes with a slant. including the "young turks." including
CNN. including breitbart and rush limbaugh.
 
being progressive also means "with a slant" just as being conservative
does. the truth is the truth. period.
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 29 04:11AM +0300

bob kirjoitti 29.6.2017 klo 3:58:
>> comparison.
 
> i gave that about 6/10. gene hackman was far bettr than costner IMO.
 
> bob
 
The original 'No Way Out' is film noir The Big Clock (1948), with Ray
Milland and Maureen O'Sullivan...
 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040160/reference
 
I gave both a 7. But if you're talking about 'The Conversation' then
yeah, that's one of the best films ever made imo. The 'sequel' is pretty
good too (enemy of state).
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 29 02:38AM +0200


> The WTA tour calls itself a women's tour (and checks for it) so what is Mcenroe supposed to call it's greatest player if not the greatest women's/female tennis player. Infact in the past some women have bitterly complained about other women on the tour not being "totally" women as Hingis did about Mauresmo.
 
>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
 
 
I thought the joke was about "Serena considering playing in the ATP"?
 
What's to consider there? It's as if she could have but didn't
opted for it in the end.
It smells of trolling.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 28 09:07PM -0400


>> you don't see that as a problem?
 
>> bob
 
>What should be the problem here? You think this is news?
 
i think it's interesting that 4 CNN anchors are so upset that ossoff
lost. why should neutral journalists from MSM be upset that anyone
won/lost? aren't they there to report what happened?
 
tons of similar to this night of the presidential election too btw.
 
bob
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 29 12:11AM +0200


>> You know what's interesting ? You might actually like "High Noon" or "Rio Bravo". Gracchus has already made some good comments about them. Also, Grace Kelly's character in "High Noon" isn't a completely hapless Western female lead, and "Rio Bravo" has the customary amusing dialogue of a Howard Hawks film, as well as a sassy Angie Dickinson.
 
>> What do you reckon Gracchus ? Would either appeal to Courty ?
 
> Rio Bravo is very entertaining, Brennan, Martin, Ricky Nelson at their best, watched it in College dorms around mid nite with a bunch of foreign students, they adored it!
 
So you're a janitor in college dorm and home students ignored you?
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 29 01:09AM +0200

Favorites from his interview.
 
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Cilic
4. Murray
5. Djokovic
 
 
Interestingly though, Federer is the only one that has no "ifs"
along his name.
 
 
Nadal will win, but if he makes it though the first week,
especially if he reaches final, regardless whom he meets.

 
Federer is always in form and a contender, more so this year.
 
Cilic is dangerous, and would win if he plays aggressively and to
the best of his abilities.
 
Murray and Djokovic are out of sorts, but you shouldn't never
count them out.
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
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