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

Monday, June 12, 2017

TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 06:26PM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 4:40:
 
> It wasn't a fake injury! You know how I mistrust many of Nadal's "injuries" but at that AO 2014, Nadal started serving powder puff serves.
 
> I'm willing to say that if a healthy Nadal and Wawrinka meet at any slam (any surface) I'd be confident in a Nadal win. Nadal is a bad match-up for Wawrinka as I've been bellowing about for a week!
 
> Just because Wawrinka beat Pipe Cleaner like a drum in two slam finals and is a bad match-up for him, that doesn't have anything to do with his match-up vs Nadal.
 
It may be a difficult matchup for Stan but the real reason why Rafa
crushed him was how damn well Rafa played in the final. Nobody could
have beaten this Rafa.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 06:28PM +0300

Shakes kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 6:03:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 7:47:15 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
 
>> Yup. Kudos for going out on a limb, and boldly go where no man has gone before ! :))
 
> "... boldly go(ing) where no man has gone before".
 
"To boldly go where no man has gone before"
 
...That's the only acceptable use of the phrase. Engage.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 12 08:29AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:31:16 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
 
> > > Yup. Kudos for going out on a limb, and boldly go where no man has gone before ! :))
 
> > On this ng, you have to use the word "man" loosely. :)
 
> :) I just wanted to use this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdjL8WXjlGI. Don't ask me why.
 
You aren't saying Courty is 'da man' though? Right? :))
 
Well done to Courty!
 
P
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 08:32AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:28:42 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> > "... boldly go(ing) where no man has gone before".
 
> "To boldly go where no man has gone before"
 
> ...That's the only acceptable use of the phrase. Engage.
 
Yes, that's the correct original version. Picard used "no one" because he was more of a PC fairy than a real man like J.T. Kirk.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 12 06:37PM +0300

On 12.6.2017 18:26, TT wrote:
 
> It may be a difficult matchup for Stan but the real reason why Rafa
> crushed him was how damn well Rafa played in the final. Nobody could
> have beaten this Rafa.
 
The guy with a 7-6 peak v. peak clay record against Rafa could well
have. Very convenient that he sunk. Clay Clown Era convenient.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 12 08:43AM -0700

This is a good post, except it gives the impression Nadal has been playing like he did yesterday for ages, he hasn't he's been out of sorts until pretty much yesterday.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 12 09:05AM -0700

Good post!
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 12 09:08AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:43:29 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
> This is a good post, except it gives the impression Nadal has been playing like he did yesterday for ages, he hasn't he's been out of sorts until pretty much yesterday.
 
Well, he made the FO final and almost won that, making the IW final. Crushed the key clay court events/season topping it with a massive FO win. That would make it Five months+ of amazing tennis. His FO win didn't materialize out of thin air, now did it? We have to give him the credit he deserves; Rafa has been a monster throughout 2017.
 
P
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 12 09:10AM -0700

PeteWasLucky says Fed could have...easily if he'd used special tactics!
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 06:42PM +0300

SliceAndDice kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 17:50:
 
>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~davidw/tennis/contest/rst_2017sp_RG.html
 
>> Thanks for running this, much appreciated, all in good fun!
 
> Great strike rate, man. Hope you are making some money off this as well! :)
 
No sum of money can match RST bragging rights. :)
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 12 09:09AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:42:27 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> >> Thanks for running this, much appreciated, all in good fun!
 
> > Great strike rate, man. Hope you are making some money off this as well! :)
 
> No sum of money can match RST bragging rights. :)
 
:)))))))))))))))
 
P
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 12 09:03AM -0700

arahim wrote:
 
"Counting up to the FO this is Nadal's best year results wise: Finalist at AO and winner at FO; He had the same results in 2012 and 2014 but in 2014 he only had one master's win (he has two so far this year). He had two in 2012 but this year he made an additional final. For the remaining parts of 2012 and 2014 Nadal was basically absent (no shows at USO, early exits at Wimbledon and except for one all remaining masters skipped). This year he does not seem to be in a state to quit for the remainder of the year. Additionally with Djokovic and Murray still not at their best can Nadal turn it around on Grass and second half of the season to have his best year ever (FO, W, USO in 2010)?"
 
Thanks for the post arahim!
 
Got me thinking: Just what kind of a) efforts and b) reliability and c) results will Rafa post (be able to post) for the balance of what has already been an astonishing tennis year. Having turned 31 and with his 'established' pattern of falling off after MONSTER AO/ClayCourt/FO runs, will he be able to break that patterns THIS year.
 
Can Rafa can his 'run' going?
 
Is he in for a serious 'corrective/correction'? Might this be the season he makes a concerted run through the USO? Can it be done in today's tennis?
 
P
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 12 09:06AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:03:22 AM UTC-7, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> Got me thinking: Just what kind of a) efforts and b) reliability and c) results will Rafa post (be able to post) for the balance of what has already been an astonishing tennis year. Having turned 31 and with his 'established' pattern of falling off after MONSTER AO/ClayCourt/FO runs, will he be able to break that patterns THIS year.
 
> Can Rafa can his 'run' going?
 
> Is he in for a serious 'corrective/correction'? Might this be the season he makes a concerted run through the USO? Can it be done in today's tennis?
 
Interesting that you don't mention Wimbledon, since it's coming right up.
 
As for the USO, Nadal won't be "timed" for perfect performance anymore. Popeye will be all out of spinach.
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 12 12:02PM -0400

On 6/11/2017 7:21 PM, bob wrote:
 
> raja is on some sort of rampage lately, i wonder if his wife left him
> for a club level tennis player? or perhaps someone who works cleaning
> latrines at the local tennis club?
 
LOL ... 😜
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 12 12:04PM -0400

On 6/11/2017 9:04 PM, soccerfan777 wrote:
>>> Surface king is another bullshit bogus stat invented by Whisper. Nadal has always been the better and greater player than Sampras.
 
>> That's an incredibly dumb thing to say, even by your standards.
 
> Fuck you asshole...
 
It was an incredibly dumb thing to say. Really, really stupid.
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 12 11:57AM -0400

On 6/12/2017 7:50 AM, John Liang wrote:
> On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:14:51 PM UTC+10, soccerfan777 wrote:
>> Yes the 1987 AO loss to Cash might have caused psychological damage
 
> No, I think the damage was 90 semi against Edberg. Lendl came into Wimbledon winning Queens beating Mac and Becker with 2,3 type score line. He was really looking good for Wimbledon but his form seemed to be falling apart after each round in the championship. He met an inspired Edberg in semi was soundly thrashed in the semi.
 
I'd agree, Lendl certainly did go all out to win W that year, and Edberg
wiped him out anyway, but he was almost finished at the top by then
anyway, so it couldn't have had much impact overall on his career.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 12 07:58AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 3:50:32 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> " if rafa wins 3 easy sets i'll admit i read it wrong. but if it's
> close, i think i read it right."
 
> So Bob, come clean. We're waiting with bated breath for you to admit your mistake. If you don't admit it, you are a lost cause/weasel. :)
 
 
C1, you seem to be working from the assumption that the RST poster in question has a bit of integrity.
 
An interesting notion.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 06:41PM +0300

>>> your mistake. If you don't admit it, you are a lost cause/weasel. :)
 
>> He went on one of his well-timed business trips I imagine.
 
> Now that it's confirmed beyond any doubt that Fed beat Nadal three times during Nadal's best Jan-June ever...
 
Desperate fedfan stuff. Nadal came from long break etc and it appears he
timed his best form exactly at RG final...
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 12 11:53AM -0400

On 6/12/2017 6:50 AM, Court_1 wrote:
 
> " if rafa wins 3 easy sets i'll admit i read it wrong. but if it's
> close, i think i read it right."
 
> So Bob, come clean. We're waiting with bated breath for you to admit your mistake. If you don't admit it, you are a lost cause/weasel. :)
 
bob, I, and others are still waiting for you to post a pic proving
you're not a 4. :)
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 06:44PM +0300

DavidW kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 9:47:
> election, or would condone presidential interference into an FBI
> investigation into such an activity. What sort of a government do you
> want, anyway?
 
Apparently they voted Trump to 'drain the swamp'. lol
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 12 11:48AM -0400

On 6/12/2017 2:47 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> justice? Of course not. Presidents do that all the time."
 
> What a terrible justification. He gets off on a technicality and that's
> okay?
 
I don't think that a system that allows those being investigated to fire
the investigators is OK. The problem is designing a system that gives
investigators the freedom to investigate, while also maintaining
investigator accountability to the broader political system.
Investigators can't be fully independent, because that would mean they
are a power unto themselves.
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 12 11:50AM -0400

> On 6/12/2017 10:42 AM, heyguys00@gmail.com wrote:
>There is nothing the president can do about state crimes.
 
Yes, the pardon power is only for offenses against the "United States",
meaning federal crimes.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 12 08:49AM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 1:25:09 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> What is Sampras remembered for now? Certainly he wouldn't be better
> remembered or as legendary if he'd won a couple more AOs and couple less
> Wimbledons...
 
And... athletes who are champions to such a degree they become something more, well, that something more tends to depend other aspects. Sampras was a dominant winner of majors compiling a then unmatched total. That defined and enshrined him, if you will. But, what he didn't have was additional dimensions of either social significance, true technical innovation on court, generational personality markers, etc; thus, for Pete, it's greatness and numbers. A great legacy to have, but, as some have suggested a less 'indelible' type of greatness than a Rod Laver or Bjorn Borg...
 
P
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 06:45PM +0300

StephenJ kirjoitti 11.6.2017 klo 18:53:
> Has that ever happened before? The FO has gone all out honoring Nadal
> for #10.
 
I don't think it has been done before.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 12 08:27AM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 5:11:16 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
> So, Nadal has now won 10 French Open titles! Can somebody tell me, does this mean Nadal has now won the greatest number of mens singles titles ever at a slam, ever, in world history?
 
Truly a fantastic achievement.
 
I haven't checked but off the top of my head, I believe no 'male' has ever attained that number at either the USO, French Open, AO or Wimbledon.
 
Ten for Rafa stands as a unique metric/number.
 
Anyone check?
 
P
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