Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 14 09:54PM +1000

On 14/06/2017 9:30 PM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Any one who considers Australian open as the lesser slam since 1988 is a fucking idiot. All top players have been playing AO since it moved to Flinders Park.
 
> You cannot remove slams willy-nilly to come up with lists that suit your own agenda. I might as well remove Wimbledon because it is played on that obsolete surface that no one gives a hoot about if not for Wimbledon.
 
> If you take Wimbly off Nadal is twice better than Sampras.
 
Only a class A nincompoop would ever suggest removing Wimbledon from any
stats.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 14 05:04AM -0700

Only a class a douchebag will consider removing Australian Open from any stats.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 14 07:11AM -0500

> as this list suggests. Imo a worldwide poll would have Rafa ahead of
> Federer by a small margin, & this list backs that up. Funny most
> compare Djoker to Lendl, & this list confirms it.
 
Very poor troll. Any worldwide poll would almost surely have Fed > Nadal.
 
Also, It makes no sense to toss out the AO during the years it clearly
has been a full-fledged slam (since 1988) just because in prior years it
wasn't.
 
Heck, truth is, before the 1990s, the FO wasn't regarded as all that big
a deal. In the USA, e.g., Borg was known entirely because of his
Wimbledon wins, virtually nobody in the general sporting public even
knew he had won a bunch of French Opens.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 14 10:15PM +1000

On 14/06/2017 10:04 PM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Only a class a douchebag will consider removing Australian Open from any stats.
 
 
I clearly explained why I did this for this exercise. I'm not
suggesting players not be given credit for AO success (eg Djoker's
amazing 6 titles). This is just to more fairly compare Borg/Mac types
to current guys. How can you compare guys who pretty much only played 3
slams v guys who play 4?
 
It's clear 'historically' AO has not always been considered a true slam.
Your suggestion to drop Wimbledon, which has *always* been considered
the biggest title in the game, is just pure stupidity.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 14 10:17PM +1000

On 14/06/2017 10:11 PM, stephenJ wrote:
> a deal. In the USA, e.g., Borg was known entirely because of his
> Wimbledon wins, virtually nobody in the general sporting public even
> knew he had won a bunch of French Opens.
 
I'm not suggesting any slam gets docked. This is just to more fairly
compare eg Borg v Federer. It's not the only factor by any means, but
it's a pretty big one.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 14 05:21AM -0700

I would actually advocate adding stuff than removing... if we add WCT and ATP YEC, then....
 
Federer - 24
Djoker - 17
Nadal, McEnroe and Lendl - 15
Borg and Sampras - 14
Connors - 11
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 14 05:30AM -0700

Oops forgot to add YEC for Stumpy
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 14 07:33AM -0500

On 6/14/2017 7:17 AM, Whisper wrote:
 
> I'm not suggesting any slam gets docked. This is just to more fairly
> compare eg Borg v Federer. It's not the only factor by any means, but
> it's a pretty big one.
 
I agree with you that in Mac/Borg/Connors era, the AO was not regarded
as a "real slam", which is why those guys (and the top women like MN and
Evert) usually skipped it. So it is kind of unfair to compare them to
current players when current players have 4 slams to win and they had 3.
 
But throwing that 4th slam out is going to the opposite extreme.
Throwing that slam out is a disservice to the guys that have won it when
it mattered.
 
Maybe a proportion thing would work better. E.g., if Nadal won FO and
USO in a given year, then he gets 2/4 credit or 50% for slams won that
year, whereas if Borg also won FO and USO in same year (we know he never
did but if) then he gets 2/3 slam credit for that year, or 66%, to
reflect the fact that even though both guys won the same two slams,
Borg's was regarded as the bigger achievement because he won 2 of 3
major events not 2 of 4? Add up those percentages and we have the career
for each guy.
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 14 07:36AM -0500

On 6/14/2017 7:21 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Nadal, McEnroe and Lendl - 15
> Borg and Sampras - 14
> Connors - 11
 
Problem is, we know this is a bad idea because it creates an extremely
distorted view. E.g., nobody has Joker > Nadal right now, and nobody who
isn't in an insane asylum has Lendl tied with Nadal and ahead of Borg
and Sampras.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 14 05:41AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:36:18 AM UTC-5, StephenJ wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
If you come up with formula with rankings already set in mind, your formula is not just fake but also pointless.
 
I have the best formula - pick 7 years with the best win-loss% for all the players. Include only 5 slam winners in the list. It is the fairest formula of them all
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 14 05:44AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:17:31 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:
> > Wimbledon wins, virtually nobody in the general sporting public even
> > knew he had won a bunch of French Opens.
 
> I'm not suggesting any slam gets docked.
That is exactly what you are doing, dickehad
 
> This is just to more fairly
> compare eg Borg v Federer. It's not the only factor by any means, but
> it's a pretty big one.
 
If you are a proper slammist, you will multiply Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Becker and Edberg count by 4/3 to make it even with the rest if the champions post 80s.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 14 07:42AM -0500

On 6/12/2017 7:05 PM, bob wrote:
 
>>> 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.
 
> rios used agassi's power against him IMO.
 
IMO, Rios was to the 90s what Mecir was to the 80s. A guy who was hyped
for a year or so and never came close to actually winning anything to
justify it. Yet has has a Legend in certain minds that just won't die.
 
Has always baffled me. To me, both were guys with clever groundies but
no serve so obviously weren't going to win much.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 14 04:52AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:42:20 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 

> You've been more bullish re Rafa catching Fed straight after AO than
> anyone else (most had written him off), so credit for that insight.
 
He's three slams away still. Do slams grow on trees for 30+ year old players? Don't overhype. Wait until he wins a couple more first. What if the unthinkable (for you) happens and Federer wins #19 at Wimbledon? Then what happens to Nadal's slam chase?
 
After all this hype by their fan groups, Federer and Nadal will probably both lose early at Wimbledon.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 14 09:56PM +1000

On 14/06/2017 9:43 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>> the dark?
 
>> : )
 
> I'm rooting for Fed on this one. I want to see that #8 Wimbledon. ;)
 
If that happens I have a feeling Fed may retire on the spot.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 14 09:58PM +1000

On 14/06/2017 9:52 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>> anyone else (most had written him off), so credit for that insight.
 
> He's three slams away still. Do slams grow on trees for 30+ year old players? Don't overhype. Wait until he wins a couple more first. What if the unthinkable (for you) happens and Federer wins #19 at Wimbledon? Then what happens to Nadal's slam chase?
 
> After all this hype by their fan groups, Federer and Nadal will probably both lose early at Wimbledon.
 
Maybe. Wouldn't be a huge surprise. I would love to see Fed v Rafa at
least once at USO, so hoping that comes about.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 14 07:26AM -0500

On 6/14/2017 6:52 AM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> You've been more bullish re Rafa catching Fed straight after AO than
>> anyone else (most had written him off), so credit for that insight.
 
> He's three slams away still. Do slams grow on trees for 30+ year old players? Don't overhype. Wait until he wins a couple more first. What if the unthinkable (for you) happens and Federer wins #19 at Wimbledon? Then what happens to > Nadal's slam chase?
 
Yes, not even a single slam is every guaranteed, and a player can stop
winning them at any time. Heck, who woulda guessed that after he became
the first guy to hold all four slams since Laver that a year later Joker
would hold none of them? Or that when Nadal won the 2014 FO that he
wouldn't win another for three years?
 
That's I've never predicted that Nadal will catch and surpass Federer,
I've just said he has a good chance to do so.
 
Then again, it can work the other way too, slams can come in bunches. In
August 2014, Serena was 33, had 17 slams, had lost before the QFs in the
previous three including at W, and the notion that she'd surpass Graf
seemed like a pipe-dream. Then she won the next four slams in a row.
 
Nadal and Joker both have literally years on Fed age-wise. That gives
both of them a real chance to catch him. And Fed keeps setting the
precedent. He recently confirmed for those guys that it does make sense
to stick around until 35 because you can win a slam at that age. If he
wins this USO, he'll prove you can do it at 36.
 
Very interesting situation. Again, nobody can counts slams before they
hatch, and so long as he has the most, Fed is the Man, the Open Era
GOAT, but if I were him I'd ... keep playing. :)
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 14 09:46PM +1000

On 14/06/2017 2:26 PM, Carey wrote:
 
>> The thing is that I feel that since the AO, IW, Miami that Nadal has improved in some areas, i.e forehand stronger, bh much better and the serve is definitely better than it was at the AO/IW/Miami. If Federer and Nadal do face each other in the upcoming slams I think it could probably be some fierce battles. Let's hope it happens because it's a lot more entertaining to watch than Murrovic.
 
> I don't see N getting far at Wimbledon (though I reserve the right to be wrong), but what I'd like to
> see is Fed and Nadal finally meeting in a USO Final. Showdown at the OK Corral to end the year.
 
Yes that would be fitting. Maybe Fed/Rafa share all the slams this yr?
Woulda gotten good odds on that before AO.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 14 02:52PM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 14.6.2017 klo 6:42:
> The thing is that I feel that since the AO, IW, Miami that Nadal has
>improved in some areas, i.e forehand stronger, bh much better and the serve > is definitely better than it was at the AO/IW/Miami.
 
Yes. And also mentally better. I thought he definitely was hitting his
fh better at RG final than even rest of the clay season. Plus of course
bh was clicking and there were zero mental walkabouts.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 14 02:43PM +0300

TT kirjoitti 14.6.2017 klo 14:06:
 
> Best case scenario is that Moya told him to rest and he gets a good
> grass practice before Wimbledon including Boodles exo... and goes to
> Wimbledon rested, healthy and practised.
 
Here's an interesting week old article...
 
Carlos Moya: The biggest challenge is to keep Rafael Nadal off court
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2017/06/03/carlos-moya-biggest-challenge-keep-rafael-nadal-court/
 
"Sometimes it's more important what you do off the court than on.
Resting is part of training. You have to see and detect when more is
better and when less is better."
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 14 02:48PM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 14.6.2017 klo 14:29:
>> grass practice before Wimbledon including Boodles exo... and goes to
>> Wimbledon rested, healthy and practised.
 
> So he runs around and slides like a fiend on the dirt but he can't bend low on the grass because of his knees? That makes no sense whatsoever.
 
But that's how it is and has been for some years. That is a known fact.
Different kind of movement.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 14 12:09PM +0200


> What has Trump truly said about blacks? The violence and killings in places like Chicago is unacceptable and must stop. Don't see anything wrong with that. He also said All Lives Matter, in response to the Black Lives Matter rally group. He wants immigration to be legal. He wants background checks before outside people are allowed in. Companies hire, screen, and interview before hiring people. People have no problem with that. But when it comes to borders, apparently it's different.
 
> Sounds like these players are looking for any reason to be upset and bitch about something.
 
Why are you telling me this? ;)
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 14 08:24PM +1000

On 14/06/2017 12:59 AM, John Liang wrote:
 
> Well, his record at Wimbledon is behind Federer right now, he is marginally ahead of Federer at USO,
 
 
 
 
 
No man has ever won more Wimbledons than Sampras, & he was unbeatable in
Wimbledon finals.
 
No other guy can make these claims.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 14 08:59AM +0100

As soon as I hit send I remembered another observation.
 
The Conservatives were 8 MPs short of winning a majority. Looking at the
8 seats where Labour candidates defeated Conservative candidates by the
smallest margins, if only around 400 Labour voters had voted
Conservative - in the necessary constituencies - the Tories could have
had a majority.
 
I think that was true recently in another election :-)
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 14 12:11PM +0300

On 14.6.2017 10:54, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> 600. With 600 MPs elected any party will need 301 for a majority. The
> Conservatives would have won 298, leaving them short by three. Labour
> would have won 245.
 
Thanks.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 14 11:22AM +0300

On 14.6.2017 1:58, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> Court1? Or Whisper?
 
>> FF
 
> I'm no narcissist.
 
:)
 
> I can admit when I'm wrong.
 
:)
 
> Narcissists have no
> accountability.
 
:)
 
> opinions. He has done this on multiple occasions and not only on the
> Nadal-Wawrinka FO final. He's a crybaby x 100. He can't take being
> upstaged or outargued.
 
:)
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