Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 8 topics

Thursday, June 8, 2017

calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 07 11:30PM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:10:59 AM UTC+2, TT wrote:
 
> Maybe so, but damn Thiem is playing well - plus Wawrinka can be deadly
> and Murray can be unpenetrable & deadly. If Rafa wants to win this he
> must play his absolute best - no less will be enough.
 
That's nonsense.
 
> As it should be
> for possible crowning to own the greatest record in tennis ever, perhaps
> in all sports too.
 
Does Nadal have the Golden Grand Slam?
 
 
Max
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 08 03:55AM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:10:59 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> must play his absolute best - no less will be enough. As it should be
> for possible crowning to own the greatest record in tennis ever, perhaps
> in all sports too.
 
Thiem played well against a Djokovic who was a shadow of his former self and who gave up and tanked the third set. Nadal won't give Thiem that luxury. Betfair is correct. Nadal is the overwhelming favorite vs Thiem in the SF. for Thiem to win he has to ball bash to perfection and do it long enough to take three sets off Nadal on Chatrier. That's a big feat.
Bharath Purohit <acebharath@gmail.com>: Jun 08 04:22AM -0700

I think max has a point. Graff's all four slams in 1988 plus olympic gold looks better achievement.
 
Rafa's 9 FO is next to this.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 08 02:59PM +0200

>> in all sports too.
 
> Hell, why limit it to sports? It would be the greatest event in Europe since the French Revolution. But why limit it to Europe? Probably the most momentous event on Earth since the K/T extinction event. But why limit it to Earth? There was the Big Bang and now Rafa on the verge of his 10th FO. Wow...I mean, just....wow.
 
> Except for it being on clay.
 
This is funny. ;)
--
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 08 06:15AM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:22:31 AM UTC-4, Bharath Purohit wrote:
> I think max has a point. Graff's all four slams in 1988 plus olympic gold looks better achievement.
 
> Rafa's 9 FO is next to this.
 
Different types of achievement...Graf wins best year hands down. Stats of career accumulation are different and not really comparable.
 
Though if you could only have one and nothing else, what would you take? 4 slams and the best year, or 9 slams and clay goathood?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 08 03:46AM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:13:19 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> > believed that.
 
> Not true. I'm on record on that too. Of course you would have to do the
> searching yourself.
 
Nadal has always been the bigger threat to Federer and I like Nadal. Djokovic lost too many slams at his peak to have ever been a serious threat to Federer no matter how well Djokovic did from 2014-2016. Thus, your theory that I dislike Djokovic because he was a threat to Federer is ridiculous. I dislike Djokovic because he's trashy and often obnoxious.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 08 02:02PM +0300

On 8.6.2017 13:46, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> Not true. I'm on record on that too. Of course you would have to do
>> the searching yourself.
 
> Nadal has always been the bigger threat to Federer
 
Not true. Not long ago Djok was winning NCYGSs and Rafa had problems
getting to 2nd round.
 
Rafa at that point can not have been considered a bigger threat. Anybody
who dismisses this is rewriting history.
 
That's when your boots started shaking. The rest is just the usual
"reinforcement of beliefs" BS. Inconsequential, destined to the bit bucket.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 08 04:16AM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:03:01 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> who dismisses this is rewriting history.
 
> That's when your boots started shaking. The rest is just the usual
> "reinforcement of beliefs" BS. Inconsequential, destined to the bit bucket.
 
Please don't tell me what I thought. I have never been a Djokovic fan from day one and everybody on RST seems to realize that except you. Even when he won the NCYGS I was stating on this ng that he would fall off soon. No ATG player who dominates for five years continues in that fashion when he is 30+. If you couldn't see a crash was coming that's not my problem.
 
IMO he was never a threat to Fed's slam record. He was too far behind and should have won more slams in his prime. He lost too many to Nadal/Murray/Wawrinka. He's the Lendl of his generation.
 
I like Nadal and will continue to like Nadal even if he somehow manages to surpass Fed's slam record.
 
Go try and enjoy RG now that your demigod Porcupine is gone and your second fave, that useless Nishikori, is out. I know you like Thiem too but his time at RG is coming to an end for 2017.
 
You are left with Nadal winning it(which means Djokovic will likely never surpass him) or probably Wawrinka who has been your hero Djokovic's daddy at the slams the past couple of years! Enjoy putz! :)
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 08 02:25PM +0300

On 8.6.2017 14:16, Court_1 wrote:
>> "reinforcement of beliefs" BS. Inconsequential, destined to the bit
>> bucket.
 
> Please don't tell me what I thought.
 
Why not? I'm telling the truth. I first saw the fedfucking boots quiver,
then the seething. The rest is obvious.
 
> Even when he won the NCYGS I was stating on this ng that he would
> fall off soon.
 
Even you predicted his slam win rate would slow down. Not that it would
stop completely. Ergo, with a NCYGS in his pocket and a couple of more,
he's the biggest threat to Rogi's GOAThood.
 
Just recall how Rafa wet his bed when he had the NCYGS on the line.
*Rolls eyes*
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 08 02:26PM +0200

>> But he did beat Fed in 2008 at the AO
 
> And would have probably had his career best year if Rafa would not have
> crushed his psyche at RG and finished off the wreck at Wimbledon.
 
 
Yes Nadal did great. But.
 
Federer was in 10 straight gs finals from 05-07. And Djokovic
stopped him at AO 08 from making it 11.
 
Only after that, after Federer lost one of his grounds (AO, a
lesser one to be fair) to Djokovic, has Nadal managed to dethrone
Federer at Wimbledon.
 
Sure, he was always ahead on clay, but from present point of view,
it looks as if Djokovic had softened Federer and made furst
intrusion into his realms. Not Nadal.
 
Federer later went on to make another 7 consecutive GS finals, and
again, the man to stop him was Djokovic at AO 11.

 
 
Maybe that AO 08 dethroning by Djokovic was pivotal in crushing
Federer's confidence to deal with non clown challengers from that
point onwards. You had FO collapse later, and that Wim
match.
 
So I'm saying, if you make it some confidence/crushing issue,
focusing on FO, but omitting Djokovic's AO 08 is totally
misleading.
 
After all we've seen what happens when non scared Federer takes on
Nadal, AO 17. The great man always has a chance. Assuming he's
not shitting his pants.
 
 
 
--
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 08 02:49PM +0200


> Sure... the guy finally managed to win RG because Rafa was playing crap
> - and after that title Djokovic never touched a tennis racket. What a
> legend.
 
 
Well a NCYGS is definitely a bigger claim for boathood over little
slam (FO-WIM-USO).
 
It's a no brainer. 4>3 and Djokovic's opponents were more
respectable anyway, Federer 2x and Murray 2x and YEC thrown in
between, vs Rafa's little slam done vs Soderling, Berdcyh and one
slammer Djokovic at the time? Yeah.
 
How about record ATP points? It means his peak = highest peak.
Record ELO too, so different approach, gives same result.
 
Even his match winning streak (the one in 2011 and stopped by
Federer) is longer/better than overall streaks done by Nadal or
Federer.
 
He bested them in peak/boat matters. Fact.
 
Nadal's clay peak is better though. And he's clay goat.
 
I see you've one of those who can't be rational and admit certain
things when you dislike them. It's ok when we clash our opinions,
e.g. peak Federer vs peak Sampras in Wimbledon, who'd win etc. I
can understand that. Similar numbers, etc, it boils down to our
preferences.
 
 
But when you have clear numbers and it's telling you of someone's
superiority, and you go denying that? E.g. Nadal vs Borg at FO. I
can't understand that.
 
 
 

--
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 08 06:03AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 10:30:57 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 6:36:07 PM UTC-7, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Djok has had his chances. Before this year he and Nadal had made the same number of slam finals...he just wasn't as good as Nadal at winning them.
 
> Yes, until 2011 he wasn't as good as winning slam F's. But he still beat peak Nadal in 2011/2012. You can try and discount his victories over Fed but not Nadal given that they are roughly of the same age.
 
All his wins against Nadal are legit. Though Djok's slam final win rate 2011 and after is the same as Nadal's full career slam final win percentage and less than Fed's full career slam final win percentage. Even at his best Djok hasn't been as good as Fed's career average when it comes to slam finals.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 08 06:10AM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 9:01:03 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> superiority, and you go denying that? E.g. Nadal vs Borg at FO. I
> can't understand that.
 
> --
 
What's the value in being BOAT if it doesn't show up in slam finals, where it counts. During Djok's best years, 2011-2016, he won 61% of his slam finals (11 of 18). Fed's at 64% for his whole career (71% during his 2004-2010 run).
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 08 01:16PM +0100

On 07/06/2017 18:44, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> How come you haven't posted any UK election polls? It all happens tomorrow, is it cos Trump
> Isn't in them or something? I wanna know what they are saying!
 

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017#2017>
 
The Conservative lead since Sunday averages 7.3%.
 
This a pretty good prediction:
<http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/gainloss.html>
 
The quick summary of that: Con to gain 31 seats, lose 4; Lab to gain 6,
lose 20; Lib-Dems to lose 5; SNP to lose 7 - all others remain the same.
 
Total MPs Con 358, Lab 218, L-D 3, SNP 49, PC 3, Green 1 (N.Ireland 18)
 
CON absolute majority 33, but a bigger working majority than that - some
NIrl MPs support Conservatives, Sinn Fein refuse to take their seats.
 
Generally most of the pollsters have tended to overestimate the Labour
vote and underestimate the Conservative.
 
*Incumbent parties tend to lose ground during the campaign, but regain
some of that during the last few days.
 
The big unknown for pollsters is what Labour and UKIP Remainers do. In
theory many of them might be expected to vote Conservative, but how many
and in which constituencies isn't easy to predict.
 
Recent activity has seen Labour (Corbyn really) campaigning in safe
Labour seats and Conservative (mostly May) campaigning in seats they
could take from Labour (or SNP). This suggests that Labour have been
trying to ensure a respectable share of the total vote, while Tories
are still aiming to gain seats.
 
Personally I would not be surprised by an overall Conservative majority
of between 50 & 100.
 
I didn't post anything on the assumption that not many other posters
have much interest.
Tim <firemonkey@gatty.co.uk>: Jun 08 01:28PM +0100

On 08/06/2017 13:16, Brian Lawrence wrote:
> of between 50 & 100.
 
> I didn't post anything on the assumption that not many other posters
> have much interest.
 
. If the young turnout to vote more than they usually do Labour will do
better than expected. I expect a slightly increased Tory majority
though,but very much hope I'm wrong.
 
--
Please support mental health research and world community grid
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/
https://join.worldcommunitygrid.org?recruiterId=123388
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 08 01:39PM +0100

As an afterthought, %age of vote for two main parties in recent elections:
 
CON-LAB Leaders
===============================
2015 36.9-30.4 Cameron-Milliband
2010 36.1-29.0 Cameron-Brown
2005 32.4-35.2 Blair-Howard
2001 31.7-40.7 Blair-Hague
 
Conservative share in polls published since Sunday is between 41 & 46%
(excluding the Qruisly/Wired poll, which is not a conventional poll).
 
Labour between 33 & 41%
 
The Conservatives look like getting their biggest share of the vote
since 1992, while Labour could see their biggest since 2001.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 08 05:59AM -0700

Why would anyone young vote Labour? One of first things they prob remember is that war criminal Bliar illegally invading Iraq.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 08 03:50AM -0700

Nadal vs Thiem
Murray vs Wawrinka
 
What say you?
 
I'll go with Nadal in four and Wawrinka in four.
Tim <firemonkey@gatty.co.uk>: Jun 08 12:00PM +0100

On 08/06/2017 11:50, Court_1 wrote:
> Nadal vs Thiem
 
Nadal definitely.
 
> Murray vs Wawrinka
 
Hard to tell, but Murray *if* he's up for it
 
--
Please support mental health research and world community grid
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/
https://join.worldcommunitygrid.org?recruiterId=123388
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jun 08 04:25AM -0700

Op donderdag 8 juni 2017 12:50:41 UTC+2 schreef Court_1:
> Murray vs Wawrinka
 
> What say you?
 
> I'll go with Nadal in four and Wawrinka in four.
 
Hoping for Thiem to pull through, he'll definitely win the FO in the future. But this year Rafa is peaking so I have to say Rafa in 4 or 5.
 
Stan over Andy in 3 or 4
 
Final: Rafa in 4
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 08 04:16AM -0700

> Yeah, Stan isn't a mope like Murray. The head-pointing thing gets tiresome, but he's Polish so must cut him some slack.
 
Stan is a better clay player than Murray but he played the wrong way in Murray's hands last year. Hitting hard without sharp angles to move Murray out and open the court will be disastrous for Wawrinka again.
 
If Wawrinka can play with a strategy to beat Murray he will be very dangerous on Sunday.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 08 04:18AM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:16:08 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> If Wawrinka can play with a strategy to beat Murray he will be very dangerous on Sunday.
 
LOL.
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jun 08 03:44AM -0700

Op donderdag 8 juni 2017 07:22:01 UTC+2 schreef TT:
> According to Betfair Nadal is 86% likely to lose a set.
> 65% likely to win the tournament.
 
> Does not compute.
 
Why not?
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 08 05:40AM -0500

On 6/7/2017 4:55 PM, bob wrote:
 
>> Hopefully the cutie will roll in the third.
 
> 2-6, 2-5 and she wins. didn't watch it, not sure how the other girl
> let it slip.
 
It looked hopeless. The other girl was just way better, hitting Halep
off the court with huge, accurate groundies. Looked fresher too. Really,
the match should have ended 6-2 6-2. Even as Halep battled back to even
the second set, it was sheer struggle, every game seemed to go to deuce,
and Halep always seemed like on verge of defeat. Halep looked doomed,
even in the tiebreaker she was down and only won the set on a let-cord
that dribbled over for her.
 
Third set, her young opponent was just mentally crushed by the
exasperating failure to win easily in straights. That's how a vet takes
down a younger, hotter (in tennis terms only, LOL) opponent.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 08 07:32AM +0300

I'll just let the thought linger a while.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anvVasBFINs#t=258.485167
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