Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 12 topics

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 06:57PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 5:51:18 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> erer-and-pete-sampras-coach-paul-annacone-to-join-stan-wawrinkas-t
> eam-6701344/amp/
> --
 
 
Cool. Hope it helps Stan. Love to see him win W.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 11 07:02PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:57:52 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
> > eam-6701344/amp/
> > --
 
> Cool. Hope it helps Stan. Love to see him win W.
 
No, Fed will beat him in the fifth 13-11 for his eigth! In the dark?!
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 07:06PM -0700

I think I would have a better chance of being the next Pope than Wawrinka winning a Wimbledon. It's hard to see how Wawrinka will win a Wimbledon. Forget about that the Big Four are all better at Wimbledon than he is, there are plenty of other players who could knock him out there. Heck, there are plenty of players who could knock Fed out there with an unlucky draw.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jun 11 07:06PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:01:02 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> Africa today is a more dangerous alfa predator who bullies other
> lions and fights for females, than his predecessor 2 thousands
> years ago was.
 
Well, the lion is manifesting his naturally attuned predatory/instinctual survival 'skills' he's not playing a 'game' or sport which has governing law/rules conditioning performance. So, there's that... :)
 
> they're talented, but what we're seeing is probably most
> *motivated* generation of players that keep motivating each other
> and push each other.
 
Motivation runs concurrently through 'generations' so, it's 'more' normative as a factor, than others...

> Like the cycling teams.
 
yes...
 

> That could mean e.g. sharp decline in quality once they retire,
> with having Kyrgios types winning slam or two and then go
> partying.
 
But within the given generation (the one in ascendency, chronological and/or by merit) there are still elites and those (or the one) that dominate(s) the elites... and typically over the generations competences (normative performance ability) tends to improve precisely because it takes outlying excellence to enact dominance incrementally all along the time line of progressive insurgency at each phase just to be a champion and then enact dominance... that's what pro sport becomes, methodologies for enacting dominance to re-create patterns for continued success game after game, season after season, with ever changing oppositions and conditions. In 1988, it looked for all the world that the defining great player after the Borg would be either Lendl or young Becker and within an eye blink came Sampras... :)
 
P
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 11 06:47PM -0700

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 3:30:03 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
 
> > The truth is Federer is almost 5 years older than Nadal and almost 6 years older than Djok and Murray, Federer's own mobility and enurance also declined as he got older.
 
> Re-read his post.
> --
 
That is unnecessary.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 06:57PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 7:33:36 AM UTC-4, Geeam wrote:
> So Heinz Günthardt believes that Nadal is now defensively much weaker than he was a few years ago. He only got away with it, because no one was really able to put pressure on his game so far.
> As I see it, the absolute key to the match is whether Wawrinka can constantly hit through Nadal or not. That's how Stan frustrated Djokovic who thought he could retrieve every ball with ease and suddenly had to realize there was one man where he just couldn't.
 
Graf's coach and you Geeam, two other brilliant tennis "analysts" who got it wrong. Yes, Nadal is defensively much weaker these days and Wawrinka constantly hit through Nadal! Good job! *rolls eyes*
 
Again and this is key, what Wawrinka can do to Djokovic on clay is irrelevant to his match-up with Nadal! My God, did you people just fall off turnip trucks? It's been a while since I've seen such stupidity in tennis analysis.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 06:58PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 7:39:14 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> noticed it at AO and in the hardcourt season. he is less patient, less
> topspin, less chasing and a little flatter.
 
> he's had success, but not the old nadal IMO.
 
LOL! Keep going by all means! It's good comedy!
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 06:49PM -0700

Do we have to be subjected to 100 embarrassing threads from you?
 
Nadal is not the GOAT at this point.
 
Go back to your cave and don't come out until Nadal has equalled or surpassed Federer's slam count.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 04:14AM +0300

Jason White kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 3:22:
>> ...If your answer is 'no' - then your 'superior at 3/4 slams' comparison
>> has a serious logical flaw.
 
> Sampras being better at 3 of 4 isn't up for debate. That's simply true. Whether that makes him the better tennis player than Nadal is for each person to decide.
 
Obviously that debate is nonsensical since Nadal would be better in this
comparison with 2 AOs and 1 USO which makes no sense.
 
I think it's worth discussing, so I brought it up.
 
Rafa has career golden slam while Pete doesn't. End of debate.
 
I would consider Nadal's case to be stronger with 3-7-2-3 vs. 1-10-2-2.
 
No. Better be extraordinary at something than mediocre at everything. At
least when it comes to sports records.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 11 06:19PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 8:14:22 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:
 
> I would consider Nadal's case to be stronger with 3-7-2-3 vs. 1-10-2-2.
 
> No. Better be extraordinary at something than mediocre at everything. At
> least when it comes to sports records.
 
1-10-2-2 is better than 2-0-7-5 for sure.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 06:46PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:14:22 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> I would consider Nadal's case to be stronger with 3-7-2-3 vs. 1-10-2-2.
 
> No. Better be extraordinary at something than mediocre at everything. At
> least when it comes to sports records.
 
It makes great sense. He maintains his clear advantage on clay, while being narrowing the deficit in other areas. In fact, it would be 6 vs 7 on hard courts. Basically equal to Sampras on hard, clearly better on clay, not as good on grass.
 
Career golden slam, so Baldy is now in the mix? That's interesting. So you do value balance more than you think. Or are you playing both sides? 1-1-1-1 or 4-0-0-0? One is balance, while the other is being extraordinary at one thing.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 06:43PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:23:55 PM UTC-4, Bharath Purohit wrote:
> May be couple of decades ago while watching SRK's Kuch Kuch hota hai 🤔
 
> VAMOOS BABY VAMOOS !!
 
Are you 12 years old?
 
Shut up you immature imbecile!
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 06:28PM -0700

To the posters who said:
 
1) But Stan handily beat Djokovic at the FO so it follows that Stan will beat the freaking clay GOAT, a guy who had 9 FOs(before today) and a solid clay h2h vs Stan. I think this particular comment was a Bob special! *rolls eyes*
 
2) Stan beat an injured Nadal in the AO 2014 final (on hc) so that must mean he would beat a Nadal in great form at the FO.
 
3) Stan is a beast in slam finals so he can't lose(hint: he beat his pigeon Djokovic twice and an injured Nadal at the AO 2014.)
 
4) Whatever other nonsense I've read on this ng about this final and how Stan had a good chance to impose his game on Nadal!
 
I told you Nadal would absolutely smoke Stan you fools!
 
P.S. PeteWasLucky, does this match answer my question I posed after the AO 2014 about whether that Stan win over Nadal was an oddity? I think it probably does.
 
P.S.S. Bob, Nadal sure looks like he's in poor form in 2017 and this isn't the "same" Nadal according to you. No, it's a better Nadal is some ways! Dumbo!
 
P.S.S.S. Shakes, it looks like I'm not the one eating crow! :)
 
 
Toodles
xoxo
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 11 06:33PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:28:05 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> To the posters who said:
 
> 2) Stan beat an injured Nadal in the AO 2014 final (on hc) so that must mean he would beat a Nadal in great form at the FO.
 
It was a fake injury, but still makes no sense that the HC win would have any relevance to a FO encounter.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 06:40PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 9:33:08 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > To the posters who said:
 
> > 2) Stan beat an injured Nadal in the AO 2014 final (on hc) so that must mean he would beat a Nadal in great form at the FO.
 
> It was a fake injury, but still makes no sense that the HC win would have any relevance to a FO encounter.
 
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.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 11 06:10PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-5, *skriptis wrote:
 
> It's about motivation, not quality. And we know McEnroe had issues
> with that.
> --
I heard Lendl and Borg were half arsed too when they were not winning slams.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jun 11 06:15PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 5:10:54 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
 
> >Just like Rios. Reached #1 and decided he didn't care. He would easily have won 20+ slams with a little more motivation. So from a certain perspective, he's the best to ever play the game.
 
> rios had really beautiful groundstrokes.
 
> bob
 
There was a Rios-Agassi match at Miami that I really enjoyed at the time. Agassi/Gilbert had just trash-talked a little about Rios before the match, and Rios went on to win that match. It was beautiful to watch him frequently wrong-foot Agassi, even though it was clear that Agassi had the greater firepower.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 11 06:28PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:15:12 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
 
> > rios had really beautiful groundstrokes.
 
> > bob
 
> There was a Rios-Agassi match at Miami that I really enjoyed at the time. Agassi/Gilbert had just trash-talked a little about Rios before the match, and Rios went on to win that match. It was beautiful to watch him frequently wrong-foot Agassi, even though it was clear that Agassi had the greater firepower.
 
I remember that well. Rios TOYED with Agassi. Made him look totally foolish. But as I recall, Rios injured himself and had to retire.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 11 06:30PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:28:06 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > > bob
 
> > There was a Rios-Agassi match at Miami that I really enjoyed at the time. Agassi/Gilbert had just trash-talked a little about Rios before the match, and Rios went on to win that match. It was beautiful to watch him frequently wrong-foot Agassi, even though it was clear that Agassi had the greater firepower.
 
> I remember that well. Rios TOYED with Agassi. Made him look totally foolish. But as I recall, Rios injured himself and had to retire.
 
Just checked this and it looks like they played twice in Miami. Rios won the first one and retired in the other. The only other match they played Rios also won, so Agassi never learned how to deal with him.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 11 06:18PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:07:50 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
 
> > They are regularly omitted from conversations. But they played in an time where professionals weren't allowed to play at Wimbledon. Not their fault. Sounds like they were probably good enough to win at least once and are given benefit of doubt.
 
> > Lendl, ouch. What from I've seen on TV, nice guy. Funny guy. But no Wimbledon, no goat.
 
> Agree to disagree then. For me he is there with Federer, Connors, MecEnroe, Borg and Nadal.
 
I'm willing to give Lendl a bit of a break. It must have been tough to play in London and NY every year, given the era and where he was raised. His grass record was pretty good, deserved a Wimbledon title more than Agassi. As is, he's grouped with Wilander.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 12 04:16AM +0300

Guypers kirjoitti 12.6.2017 klo 3:29:
>> This was the 6th win for Guypers, all in the last 10 contests.
 
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~davidw/tennis/contest/rst_2017sp_RG.html
 
> Thanks for running this, much appreciated, all in good fun!
 
Congrats... you're on a really good streak!
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 07:35PM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:57:05 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> but since it's my yardstick, i get to judge. :-)
 
>> bob
 
>I vaguely recall your saying a few yrs ago that you don't mind a gracious winner and sore loser, or an arrogant winner and a gracious loser, but not an arrogant winner and a sore loser. :)
 
yes, that's a direct quote, can't have it both ways. sure all great
athletes hate to lose and love to win. how you behave in both
circumstances goes to sportsmanship IMO. if you're arrogant when
winning, don't whine when losing.
 
all the people's problems here with nadal is quoting him as "false"
and just pretending to be a good sport, while employing gamesmanship
to the highest degree, angry when losing, etc. - i just don't see that
from rafa. he has some nervous tics, but i just don't see him as a
cheater or poor sport.
 
if you want to say it's "false modesty" to always claim the underdog,
perhaps that's true. but still, maybe he thinks being polite, even
overly so, is just the way to be.
 
bob
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 11 04:42PM -0700

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 4:35:14 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
 
> if you want to say it's "false modesty" to always claim the underdog,
> perhaps that's true. but still, maybe he thinks being polite, even
> overly so, is just the way to be.
 
So when throws a tantrum for getting a time warning and demands to see the referee, I guess that's one of his nervous tics. :)
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 11 08:15PM -0400

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 16:42:12 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> perhaps that's true. but still, maybe he thinks being polite, even
>> overly so, is just the way to be.
 
>So when throws a tantrum for getting a time warning and demands to see the referee, I guess that's one of his nervous tics. :)
 
in the 12yrs i've watched rafa his outbursts have been minimal though.
i think the time warning and outburst happened once, wimbledon? today
stan was taking 22sec/pt, while rafa 28sec/pt (rule is 20) so they let
it go normally like foot faults.
 
to say rafa is a temper problem is really untrue. now false modesty,
if you want to make a claim there i'm all ears.
 
bob
DavidW <no@email.provided>: Jun 12 10:13AM +1000


>> Yeah, I like that one.
 
> I don't like people like that.
> I prefer Steffi types. Cool on court, warm-hearted off court.
 
Steffi is a special case. I wouldn't have liked her to talk like that
either.
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