Digest for alt.sports.football.pro.sf-49ers@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 2 topics

Monday, July 31, 2017

John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Jul 31 04:52PM -1000

49ers' practice report: QBs go deep with safeties sidelined
By Eric Branch Updated 6:30 pm, Monday, July 31, 2017
 
http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/49ers-practice-report-QBs-go-deep-with-11721859.php
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Jul 31 11:29AM -1000

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 07:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Benard Atkins
 
>Posted By Grant Cohn on July 29, 2017
>Here's what stood out to me during practice Saturday morning: http://bit.ly/2v8m7vD
 
I'm impressied with his first practice, but you'd want to see him
against a real defense in a regular season game.
 
Tank Carradine, can't even figure out which foot to to put down first
on a pass rush? After repeated instructions?
Benard Atkins <batkins700@gmail.com>: Jul 31 04:00PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 2:29:29 PM UTC-7, John Walsh wrote:
> against a real defense in a regular season game.
 
> Tank Carradine, can't even figure out which foot to to put down first
> on a pass rush? After repeated instructions?
 
Still, an overall upgrade from what they had last season.
John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Jul 31 04:16PM -1000

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:00:46 -0700 (PDT), Benard Atkins
 
>> Tank Carradine, can't even figure out which foot to to put down first
>> on a pass rush? After repeated instructions?
 
>Still, an overall upgrade from what they had last season.
 
Agreed ... :)
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 alt.sports.football.pro.sf-49ers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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

soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jul 31 08:51PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 7:31:15 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> president. he was a victim of a few unlucky (and bad) decisions and
> very bad timing. but in the end, yes, the results were poor.
 
> bob
 
He was President during the worst financial crisis in the world - the late 70s. He cannot be blamed. I saw documentaries of all the Presidents so far and Jimmy seemed the nicest guy by far.
 
read this...
 
http://www.newsweek.com/jimmy-carter-was-better-president-you-think-368843
 
"And despite his personal big government sympathies, Carter's most lasting legacy is as the Great Deregulator. Carter deregulated oil, trucking, railroads, airlines and beer"
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jul 31 08:56PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 2:44:30 PM UTC-5, jdeluise wrote:
 
> > Carter is a good guy. The only politician I liked apart from Sanders.
> > Rest are pure scum
 
> You liked him? Weren't you something like 4 when he left office?
 
And I was 4 when Borg retired. Does it mean I cannot appreciate his tennis by watching old tennis. He is my fourth favorite after Lendl, McEnroe and Federer.
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/51pmax/jimmy_carter_was_our_best_modern_president_and_is/?st=j5t1rkzy&sh=edf027a9
 
He was advised to invade Iran to secure his re-election, but he told his advisors he wouldn't start a war just to win an election. (When does this ever happen?)
He stood against the military industrial complex and denied the military excess funding.
He was the ONLY president since World War II to not bomb a single country.
He pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers (It was their right to not be conscripted)
He appointed Paul Volcker
He deregulated several industries
He didn't run the country trillions into debt (Looking at you Reagan, Bush and Obama)
He slowed down the incarceration rate before it quadrupled under Reagan, Bush, Clinton
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jul 31 08:56PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:44:19 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:
> >> Rest are pure scum
 
> > You liked him? Weren't you something like 4 when he left office?
 
> News travel slow to India.
 
Bwahahaha... good one. Yeah we still watch Remington Steele as Conan says.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jul 31 09:05PM -0700

https://nightly.net/topic/73947-in-retrospect-jimmy-carter-is-a-highly-underrated-president/
 
But I was thinking about it this morning, and I wondered if I had let the conventional wisdom bias my thinking. I realized, that in actuality, maybe Carter is just remembered as a "bad" president because he got owned in the 1980 debate with Reagan, and due to cirumstances largely outside his control, than anything he really did.
 
Here are some of the successes of Carter's presidency:
 
-Reduced capital gains tax from over 40% to 28%.
-Appointed Volcker as Fed chairman, possibly the best Fed chairman we had, and probably the true cause of the 80s boom (which is misattributed to Reagan). Though in fairness, Reagan re-appointed Volcker as well.
-Instrumental in the negotiation of the Camp David Accords. Arguably the only positive thing in the past 50 years to happen in the Middle East. People point to Clinton's Oslo Accords, but let's be honest here- they ain't done sh-t.
-Continued relations with China, including recognizing One China, which was key to establishing our trade network.
-SALT II, which was a success.
-Led a fiscally conservative and responsible presidency; implemented necessary austerity measures (though they were unpopular), which were important in curbing inflation.
-De-regulation of many industries (finance, railroads, etc), but most importantly airlines. This is the only reason why any of you people on this message board are able to fly today. While I personally kinda wish the skies were still exclusively for the rich, I will reluctantly confess that de-regulation of the airlines has been a huge win for the American consumer.
 
One item that is a "mixed bag," and that is the Carter Doctrine and our support of the Mujaheddin. I'm conflicted on this one, because while we succeeded in a short term goal of expelling the Soviets from any route to the Gulf, we ended up creating a monster, in Islamic radical theocracy, that has come back to haunt us. If we're gonna blame Carter for this though, I think we also have to blame Reagan, because he continued the same policy.
 
Now as far as the so-called Carter failures:
 
-Iran Hostage Crisis. I think this is unfairly attributed to Carter. First off, he didn't put the Shah there, that was Eisenhower. Second, it's not like he caused the '79 Iran Revolution either. All of these events were completely out of his control- he just happened to be in office when the climax of decades of US policy towards Iran came about. I understand he gets blamed for "inaction," but that is an outright falsehood. First off, there was Operation Eagle Claw. Yes, it was a catastrophic failure, but someone explain to me why that is Carter's fault. Second, what eventually led to the hostages release was due in large part to Carter's freezing of Iranian assets. That was the key to the negotiations at the Algiers Accords, which happened before Reagan was in office. The fact that the hostages were released a day into Reagan's presidency is irrelevant, because the negotiations for their release were actually conducted by Carter over the frozen bank assets. Reagan, I'm sorry to say, didn't do sh-t.
 
-'79 energy crisis. Again- unfairly attributed to Carter. The panic, sparked by the Iran Revolution and uneven OPEC production, was mainly fueled by people remembering the '73 energy crisis and freaking out, and that crisis was due to Nixon's support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War. I don't see how any of this has to do with Carter, if anything Carter helped the situation due to deregulating gas price controls.
 
-'70s stagflation. This was caused by the oil supply shock above, which was not Carter's doing. Carter actually deserves credit for ending stagflation, because the appointment of Volcker led to the necessary tight monetary policy and austerity measures, which admittedly caused a recession via high interest rates, but that was the only way to cure the problem. By the time credit was loosened again in 1980, inflation was under control and the recession came to a relatively quick end. However, Carter had already lost re-election by that point and so Reagan gets the credit for the recovery, even though Reagan had actually only been in office for a few months and didn't really do anything.
 
 
There is no denying that Carter is a Southern, Dixiecrat bible-thumping Baptist farmer redneck, which tends to be everything I depise. But a careful look at his presidency reveals that he actually didn't make any bad decisions. He just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't think he is a great president, or even a good president, but he in no way deserves to be lumped in the same group as Pierce or Buchanan.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jul 31 09:12PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 2:44:30 PM UTC-5, jdeluise wrote:
 
> > Carter is a good guy. The only politician I liked apart from Sanders.
> > Rest are pure scum
 
> You liked him? Weren't you something like 4 when he left office?
 
Also I never saw Lendl or McEnroe win a single slam. I started watching tennis since 1986. And they used to show mostly Wimbledon back then. And never the AO.
They might have shown USO, but I dont remember watching it. USO was late night anyway. And I was too young back then to wake up that late. And 1989 FO was the first FO I remember... that bloody pygmy rat winning it. I never supported Edberg but I did for that final. I watched almost all the slams since 1990 FO though.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 31 11:04PM -0700

On Monday, 31 July 2017 20:27:34 UTC+1, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Carter is a good guy. The only politician I liked apart from Sanders. Rest are pure scum
 
yet you campaigned and voted for Hillary.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 31 11:07PM -0700

On Tuesday, 1 August 2017 05:05:43 UTC+1, soccerfan777 wrote:
 
> -'79 energy crisis. Again- unfairly attributed to Carter. The panic, sparked by the Iran Revolution and uneven OPEC production, was mainly fueled by people remembering the '73 energy crisis and freaking out, and that crisis was due to Nixon's support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War. I don't see how any of this has to do with Carter, if anything Carter helped the situation due to deregulating gas price controls.
 
> -'70s stagflation. This was caused by the oil supply shock above, which was not Carter's doing. Carter actually deserves credit for ending stagflation, because the appointment of Volcker led to the necessary tight monetary policy and austerity measures, which admittedly caused a recession via high interest rates, but that was the only way to cure the problem. By the time credit was loosened again in 1980, inflation was under control and the recession came to a relatively quick end. However, Carter had already lost re-election by that point and so Reagan gets the credit for the recovery, even though Reagan had actually only been in office for a few months and didn't really do anything.
 
> There is no denying that Carter is a Southern, Dixiecrat bible-thumping Baptist farmer redneck, which tends to be everything I depise. But a careful look at his presidency reveals that he actually didn't make any bad decisions. He just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't think he is a great president, or even a good president, but he in no way deserves to be lumped in the same group as Pierce or Buchanan.
 
so he was the one that sold out to China and led to Obama being China's poodle.
joh <joshorst@gmail.com>: Jul 31 11:07PM -0700

Op dinsdag 1 augustus 2017 03:06:28 UTC+2 schreef RaspingDrive:
 
> > What I know is whisper felt the need to share this encounter with rst.
> > I'm not too interested in speculating on details.
 
> Whisper was perhaps trying to bring some levity to the proceedings so we should cut him some slack for that. I was kidding, Whisper, no offense meant.
 
I think he's an attention whore.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Aug 01 09:06AM +0300

On 1.8.2017 3:29, bob wrote:
 
>> So the foul-mouthed billionaire Sicilian is gone anyway, at least from that position.
 
> it took about 30mins to tell scaramucci didn't have the right
> personality for communication director.
 
It took about 5 seconds to determine that Trump isn't cut out to be a POTUS.
 
> at this pt, i think trump needs to start hiring solely from the
> entertainment business. after all, it's a heckuva show atm!
 
The "I inherited a mess. A MESS" show.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 09:12PM -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:07:35 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
 
>> he has 10, borg had 6. that's your version of double?
 
>> bob
 
>Hopefully you also read my correction.
 
yes, but i didn't feel like commenting on that. :-)
 
bob
Tuan <phamquangtuan48@gmail.com>: Jul 31 08:39PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:20:03 PM UTC+10, StephenJ wrote:
 
> What's being denied is the analytical value of disregarding Nadal's wins
> over other players like Fed and Joker when evaluating them. Because
> there is no analytical value in doing that, quite the opposite.
 
Fine. You can deny the analytical value of discounting the value of Court's AOs and place Court above Serena and Graf. It's your right to follow numbers blindly and disregarding all other evidence. But the majority of tennis followers would prefer a more sophisticated approach.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 09:08PM -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:40:26 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> Agreed. That is what stands out in the article.
 
>What stands out ?
 
>To me, his statement of "having a crack at 16 more slams or 20 more slams if I keep playing till 30 or 31" clearly means that he says he can get to play 16 or 20 more slams. He doesn't seem to be saying he can WIN 16 MORE slams or 20 more slams. That would be silly, even for someone as arrogant as Sampras. The article was in 1997, presumably after he was 26 yrs. So 4 more yrs or 5 more yrs would mean being able to play 16 or 20 slams.
 
yes, i agree with your interpretation.
 
>I don't believe Sampras would ever proclaim about winning 20 slams even if he thinks that in his mind.
 
i highly doubt he ever thought that. winning 14 then was huge, winning
16 would be incredible.
 
>> Pretty much the exact opposite to what Whisper repeats ad nauseam. Sampras put everything he had into winning the missing FO and aimed at double digit slam numbers. He knew how essential those would be for him to become the GOAT.
 
>Agreed about his attitude towards the FO. He gave it his best shot. But how do you explain the fact that Sampras played more and more S/V as his career progressed even though he knew that it was detrimental on the clay ? And his results at the FO corroborate that fact. His best results were from 1992-1996 when he was more all-court. As he became a pure S/V'er, his FO results nosedived.
 
sampras tried as hard as he could to win a FO, provided it meant
changing nothing about his game with the real prize, Wimbledon, 2-3
weeks away. sure he wanted to win it, but no way was he going to do
anything that would jeopardize a potential Wimbledon title.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 09:10PM -0400

>about Pete was telling him, there's no other conclusion to draw other
>than Pete told him that his goal was to win 14 of those 16 or 20 slams
>he figured he had left to play, is there?
 
IMO the writer either badly misinterpreted somheard, or was just
trying to create a stir.
 
to suggest that sampras at any point in his life was thinking about 24
- or 20 - slams is ludicrous.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 09:11PM -0400

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 02:44:10 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
>> than Pete told him that his goal was to win 14 of those 16 or 20 slams
>> he figured he had left to play, is there?
 
>It feels like reporter's interpretation.
 
exactly
 
bob
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 01 03:11AM +0200

> with his biggest foe. that flaw isn't as great as not winning the FO
> IMO, but still, not perfect. what's nadal's flaw? "only" 2 wimbledons.
> i guess that's it.
 
 
Nadal's yes, but with Federer for me it's he's the fact he's
essentially a WoO guy. The best ever, superseding everyone but
still a WoO guy.
 
I adhere to 7543 and he is a goat as he has most impressive
collection of silverware at home.
 
I accept and respect that, just as we accept and respect the fact
that a guy who makes all slam finals, all 9 masters finals,
Olympic and YEC final, and wins none, is a world number 1.

--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 06:21PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 6:11:58 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
 
> I accept and respect that, just as we accept and respect the fact
> that a guy who makes all slam finals, all 9 masters finals,
> Olympic and YEC final, and wins none, is a world number 1.
 
 
Yep. Roger Federer: into his fifteenth year now of getting lucky.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 31 06:24PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 8:50:24 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> though, the career slam wasn't won by anyone but agassi (barely) for
> 30 something years, so it seemed really difficult. nowadays, we have 3
> guys win it in a decade, and a 4th pretty close.
 
Yet pretty far. Mikko's Edberg example readily comes to mind.
 

> with his biggest foe. that flaw isn't as great as not winning the FO
> IMO, but still, not perfect. what's nadal's flaw? "only" 2 wimbledons.
> i guess that's it.
 
Very unfavorable? 2 wins on grass against one loss, parity at AO finals', and unclear at USO. Not trying to discount Nadal's win at FO, where he is the King. Also, Nadal hasn't won any YEC titles, though he tried hard at least twice, if not more.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 31 06:27PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:11:58 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
 
> I accept and respect that, just as we accept and respect the fact
> that a guy who makes all slam finals, all 9 masters finals,
> Olympic and YEC final, and wins none, is a world number 1.

Poor post, Skriptis.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 06:28PM -0700

Never being able to defend a *single title off clay* in an entire career is a
big flaw. Not to mention only two Wimbledons. Not to mention ugliest ever
game of an ATG.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 09:29PM -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:21:05 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
>> that a guy who makes all slam finals, all 9 masters finals,
>> Olympic and YEC final, and wins none, is a world number 1.
 
>Yep. Roger Federer: into his fifteenth year now of getting lucky.
 
lol. roger also lost a lot of F and SF, so he was always in the mix,
even when all his fans said he was over the hill and i argued
otherwise. and fed will probably win that 20th slam at USO, i've
already got it penciled in.
 
but to look at it realistically, if we want to keep talking about
sampras' lack of a FO being a flaw, we can look at everyone's flaws
(rather than strengths as we normally do).
 
sampras' flaw(s)? lack of FO.
 
fed's flaw(s)? nadal problem is the biggest for him, IMO. we could
probably go with the lack of OG i reckon, since fed himself touted it
so much.
 
nadal's flaw(s)? too few wimbledons. he has everything else. but too
few wimbledons is a severe problem IMO. wimbledon is too important to
come up short there.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 09:50PM -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:28:20 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
>Never being able to defend a *single title off clay* in an entire career is a
>big flaw.
 
>Not to mention only two Wimbledons.
 
to me, this hurts. he needs at least 1 more Wimbledon to ever be
considered GOAT no matter what he does at FO. and IMO that's not
happening.
 
>Not to mention ugliest ever game of an ATG.
 
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
 
bob
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 01 04:02AM +0200

>> that a guy who makes all slam finals, all 9 masters finals,
>> Olympic and YEC final, and wins none, is a world number 1.
 
> Poor post, Skriptis.
 
 
Well to put it otherwise if I was Federer WoO label would be the
thing I'd be most pissed off with.
 
Not lacking OG, or not wining a slam in my teens, and stuff like
those.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:46PM -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:53:33 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los>
wrote:
 
>> people.
 
>Then you go and vote for Trump who is 110% for increasing those
>inequalities.
 
as were the clintons.
 
>You have a lot of principles and they go cheap too.
 
bob
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 06:59PM -0700

I was doing some reading in the French press via translation and found
the Bachelot, the former French Minister of Sport and Health, actually
has a Doctorate in Pharmacy.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 06:15PM -0700

"Coverage" is a con. Humans need health *care*, not coverage.
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.

Digest for alt.sports.hockey.nhl.mtl-canadiens@googlegroups.com - 5 updates in 2 topics

Jim Bauch <j.bauch@ca.rr.com>: Jul 31 09:42AM -0700

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 1:00:34 PM UTC-7, Gerry wrote:
> Teams would be pretty smart to get their hands on the Habs' 1st rounders, though... Bergevin will probably still assume they'll be low picks, but they could end up being a lot higher than he thinks.
 
Yeah, we're starting to enter that particular danger zone, where a GM's incentives to save his job are not aligned with the long-term interests of the franchise. If a draft-picks-for-a-center deal doesn't work out, most of the negative fallout will be on the next GM's watch.
 
To be clear, I'm not saying I expect Bergevin to be fired within the next year. He may well have a longer leash than that.
 
Jim
Gerry <gerry14@hotmail.com>: Jul 31 11:36AM -0700

I would think that Bergevin will have an uncomfortably long leash. He has what, 5 years left on his current deal. I guess relative to player salaries, those of coaches and GMs are pretty minimal and you'd think they could be readily digested by teams if a firing did become a priority, however. I think it was rumoured at one point Bergevin was making around $2.5M per? It's not a lot compared to players, at least.
 
Anyway, I think if the team pretty much totally tanked next season (e.g. not just missed the playoffs, but was not ever in the race at all and finished bottom 5 in the entire league), then Bergevin would still get another year to try to right the ship. Molson seems to be pretty much enamoured with him.
 
It will take a couple of dismal seasons in a row before any action was taken, I predict.
 
And while I don't see the Habs showing evidence of any progression or reason for high hopes in the coming years, I also have a hard time imagining that they'd be bad enough long enough for change to come. I can see them more likely just missing the playoffs a couple times, or just sneaking in, basically wallowing in aimless mediocrity in general. Maybe a dismal season here or there, but not sustained enough for Bergevin to get axed anytime soon.
 
And really, I don't have any reason to believe they'd be better off with whoever they hire next either. The team hasn't had a lot of success with their off-ice personnel decisions for a very long time.
 
l8r,
Gerry
Jim Bauch <j.bauch@ca.rr.com>: Jul 31 02:56PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:36:32 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote:
 
> Anyway, I think if the team pretty much totally tanked next season (e.g. not just missed the playoffs, but was not ever in the race at all and finished bottom 5 in the entire league), then Bergevin would still get another year to try to right the ship. Molson seems to be pretty much enamoured with him.
 
> It will take a couple of dismal seasons in a row before any action was taken, I predict.
 
> And while I don't see the Habs showing evidence of any progression or reason for high hopes in the coming years, I also have a hard time imagining that they'd be bad enough long enough for change to come. I can see them more likely just missing the playoffs a couple times, or just sneaking in, basically wallowing in aimless mediocrity in general. Maybe a dismal season here or there, but not sustained enough for Bergevin to get axed anytime soon.
 
Well, your guess is as good as mine. All I would say is that Geoff Molson seems to be the type of owner who doesn't want to interfere or be seen as interfering, so I wouldn't expect him to do a lot of Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder style public complaining or leaking to friendly reporters about his dissatisfaction with the GM. So Molson will "seem" to be enamored with MB up until the day he fires him.
 
I think ultimately it's a results-driven business, and if after this season the Habs appear not to be any closer to a Cup, and MB is still shrugging his shoulders and saying how really really hard it is to be a GM in the NHL, that Molson has to think about replacing him. Especially if Weber has a less-than-great year, and the trade starts to look worse. Suddenly you've got a team that's heading in the wrong direction, with its core no longer young, and a GM who appears out of ideas, whose big signature move was a bust, who couldn't even talk his one successful free agent signee into coming back for another year, overseeing a system that can't develop young players.... at some point, Molson has to start seeing what we see, doesn't he?
 
 
> And really, I don't have any reason to believe they'd be better off with whoever they hire next either. The team hasn't had a lot of success with their off-ice personnel decisions for a very long time.
 
Ok, but does that really predict anything about the future? The current Molson ownership group can really only be held responsible for Gauthier (who was a terrible hire, but perhaps partly excusable given that he was Gainey's chosen successor and the circumstances of Gainey's resignation) and Bergevin (who seemed like a reasonable hire at the time -- a guy with experience in a successful front office, fluently bilingual, and polished).
 
I guess the bottom line is that it's really hard to evaluate team owners, especially in a market like Montreal where it's a given that the franchise will have financial stability. Owners basically just make a couple of decisions a decade, and it takes a while to see how they pan out.
 
Jim
Marty <martytest2004@hotmail.com>: Jul 31 08:50AM -0500

What a joke. Can't get it done with Radulov, thanks to a partly "take it
or leave it" offer. A suspect trade for offence that gives up a MAJOR
defensive prospect. Trading Beaulieu for garbage. Signing Prince to a
contract that is NOT even close to getting a hometown discount, more like
a hometown premium. However, the icing on the cake is just letting Markov
walk the plank even though he would do a 1-year deal and the Hab's have
NINE MILLION in free cap space!!! Instead, they dumpster dive with Streit
who wasn't good enough to play for Pittsburgh in the play-offs!
 
Bergevin shows he has no clue how to negotiate contracts this off-season.
Sending Markov adrift is a classless, baffling move. Does he get a bonus
if they have a massive amount of unused cap space or something?
 
Anyway, I seriously can't believe Markov is going to play in the KHL when
the Hab's have more cap space than they know what to do with. The only
reason Markov is walking is because Bergevin is too stupid to realize
that, yes, Markov was acting as his own agent and may not know how to play
the negotiation game properly. It was Bergevin's job to keep
communicating and walk him towards a deal. Instead, he signs an inferior
player just so he doesn't have to back off he "take it or leave it" offer.
Pathetic.
Gerry <gerry14@hotmail.com>: Jul 31 07:01AM -0700

But Marty, he's not finished yet. Just wait until you see the grand unveiling of the Master Plan. Suddenly everything will make sense!
 
I think I need to watch that FA Frenzy presser again. He had those take it or leave it offers for Radulov and Markov, suggested they could only afford 1, like it was taken for granted that they would at least get one of them... but according to Radulov they came back to him anyway with an amended offer, but he left anyway. And according to Markov he came back with a 1-year counter too, but chose to leave anyway as well. Bergevin tripped over his ego on those ones. I think he's in over his head in this job, it's just becoming more and more evident.
 
l8r,
Gerry
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 alt.sports.hockey.nhl.mtl-canadiens+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 11 topics

stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 31 07:00PM -0500

On 7/31/2017 10:42 AM, Tuan wrote:
 
>>> Borg has a clay win ratio of .860 compared with Nadal's 0.912. You can't blame early retirement for that. If he had continued past his peak years like most others his win ratio would probably be even less. Most of Nadal's clay losses occur during his after-injury comebacks else his figure would be even better.
 
>> Hope you're not including Borg's green clay matches to calculate those ratios!
 
> The ATP figures don't make the distinction. Most people agree green clay is still closer to red clay than to hard courts, or at most halfway.
 
It's important. If Borg lost most of his matches on green clay, that
would be worth recalibrating those win %s for, as green clay doesn't
play the same as red clay - unlike your desire to toss out losses to Nadal.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 09:02PM -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 03:07:39 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
 
>> > No, not a clown era, but maybe a "clown slam". It is a PROVEN fact (looking at the seed list) that the AO was poorly attended by northern top ranked players. The clown era concept, on the other hand, is based on the completely UNPROVEN belief that certain eras have little competition. The trouble with some RST posters is that they cannot distinguish between fact and fiction!
 
>> The funny thing is that those RST-ers who are most opposed to admitting that Nadal is a unique clay great in the face of all the evidence, are also those who believe in the silly, unproven concept of clown eras!
 
>Nadal is indubitably the unique clay GREATEST. Who else would come anywhere near him? He has double Borg's clay slams. It may take 500 years to break his record.
 
he has 10, borg had 6. that's your version of double?
 
bob
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 31 06:07PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:02:30 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >Nadal is indubitably the unique clay GREATEST. Who else would come anywhere near him? He has double Borg's clay slams. It may take 500 years to break his record.
 
> he has 10, borg had 6. that's your version of double?
 
> bob
 
Hopefully you also read my correction.
joh <joshorst@gmail.com>: Jul 31 03:35PM -0700

Op maandag 31 juli 2017 23:34:32 UTC+2 schreef RaspingDrive:
 
> > > He predicted Tomic will have more than 1 slam, didn't he? He explained that also, I guess.
 
> > Yeah, he was out of sorts at that time because some asian guy waved his dick at him.
 
> Ha ha. But do you mean he waved his weapon at Whisper's posterior, since Whisper reportedly was facing in the other direction?
 
What I know is whisper felt the need to share this encounter with rst.
I'm not too interested in speculating on details.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 31 06:06PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 6:35:34 PM UTC-4, joh wrote:
 
> > Ha ha. But do you mean he waved his weapon at Whisper's posterior, since Whisper reportedly was facing in the other direction?
 
> What I know is whisper felt the need to share this encounter with rst.
> I'm not too interested in speculating on details.
 
Whisper was perhaps trying to bring some levity to the proceedings so we should cut him some slack for that. I was kidding, Whisper, no offense meant.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 09:05PM -0400


>I agree that CNN is exceedingly biased, although your anecdotal evidence
>having worked 3 blocks away is exceedingly vague. You "see" them? What
>does that mean exactly?
 
i eat in their cafeteria sometimes, that week right before and after
the election there was a "mood" that was pretty clear what they were
feeling.
 
but besides the pt, they're biased and are in a war with the
president. that's fine, but don't call yourself a news organization. i
heard this same stuff about fox for over a decade but those same folks
won't admit it for CNN.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:53PM -0400

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 20:13:18 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
 
>> bob
 
>Thank you. That a substantial number of people still buy the dog and pony
>show of "Democrat" and "Republican" is surprising to me.
 
it's not surprising to me because the people organizing it are very
well organized and well funded.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:55PM -0400


>> Thank you. That a substantial number of people still buy the dog and pony
>> show of "Democrat" and "Republican" is surprising to me.
 
>Spoken like a true Fascist or Communist.
 
is it to be communist to want all people willing to put an effort to
have a decent standard of living?
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:56PM -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:46:59 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los>
wrote:
 
 
>Obama said at some point -- he too has said many things, I agree -- that
>if he was to build healthcare from scratch he would go single payer. But
>since that is against political realities,
 
why is it against political realities?
 
>The expanded coverage has already proved to be useful: it's hard to
>dismantle once in place. So, maybe see it as a step towards the eventual
>goal.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 09:00PM -0400

>> >Republicans are made of.
 
>> a health care plan shouldn't be a partisan issue first of all.
 
>You might want to look at the Republican's conduct on this over the last 8 or 9 years.
 
i never said i supported the republican's conduct on the ACA. and what
8 years? the aca basically went into effect in 2014.
 
but what i did say was the ACA was an unfair and poor solution to the
problem. the word "affordable" should be eliminated from its title.
"half assing" the solution because it's "all he could get" is still a
poor solution.
 
>> goofballs like you make it a democrat/republican issue says a lot
>> about how little you understand what's going on.
 
>Or maybe they've actually looked at what the current healthcare system is and what the Republican proposals have been and decided that the one which isn't going to cause 16-30 million people to lose coverage is the better idea?
 
you need to take a look at the entire population to determine who
wants coverage, who wants to pay for coverage, and what those who want
coverage want to pay for it. study up on that, then study up on the
previous 30 years and tell me where the word "affordable" comes into
play. seriously, your post is just a silly over used catch phrase,
look deeper into what it really is.
 
bob
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jul 31 04:40PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 1:20:19 PM UTC-7, kaennorsing wrote:
 
> Agreed. That is what stands out in the article.
 
What stands out ?
 
To me, his statement of "having a crack at 16 more slams or 20 more slams if I keep playing till 30 or 31" clearly means that he says he can get to play 16 or 20 more slams. He doesn't seem to be saying he can WIN 16 MORE slams or 20 more slams. That would be silly, even for someone as arrogant as Sampras. The article was in 1997, presumably after he was 26 yrs. So 4 more yrs or 5 more yrs would mean being able to play 16 or 20 slams.
 
I don't believe Sampras would ever proclaim about winning 20 slams even if he thinks that in his mind.
 
> Pretty much the exact opposite to what Whisper repeats ad nauseam. Sampras put everything he had into winning the missing FO and aimed at double digit slam numbers. He knew how essential those would be for him to become the GOAT.
 
Agreed about his attitude towards the FO. He gave it his best shot. But how do you explain the fact that Sampras played more and more S/V as his career progressed even though he knew that it was detrimental on the clay ? And his results at the FO corroborate that fact. His best results were from 1992-1996 when he was more all-court. As he became a pure S/V'er, his FO results nosedived.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jul 31 04:42PM -0700

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 12:36:17 PM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Amazing tennis??? Bwahahahaha.. Amazing aceing yes
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnfchBsJmk&t=0m55s
 
There's nobody in the world who can/could've hit that volley off of that return.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jul 31 04:53PM -0700

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 11:47:52 AM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/26/sports/tennis-breakfast-champions-4.96-hon-pete-sampras-wild-all-right-like-maple-syrup.html?pagewanted=1
 
 
 
https://youtu.be/6SetdGdJFRQ
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 31 06:56PM -0500

On 7/31/2017 6:40 PM, Shakes wrote:
 
>> Agreed. That is what stands out in the article.
 
> What stands out ?
 
> To me, his statement of "having a crack at 16 more slams or 20 more slams if I keep playing till 30 or 31" clearly means that he says he can get to play 16 or 20 more slams. He doesn't seem to be saying he can WIN 16 MORE slams or 20 more slams. That would be silly, even for someone as arrogant as Sampras. The article was in 1997, presumably after he was 26 yrs. So 4 more yrs or 5 more yrs would mean being >able to play 16 or 20 slams.
 
Here's what the reporter says before that quote:
 
"Sampras, a savvy high school dropout, figures he will play tennis into
his 30's, long enough not just to surpass but ideally to double Roy
Emerson's career men's record for Grand Slam singles titles. Emerson has
a dozen, but Sampras, who won the Australian Open and Wimbledon this
year, has 10."
 
The reporter was there, talking with Sampras. Unless you think he lied
about Pete was telling him, there's no other conclusion to draw other
than Pete told him that his goal was to win 14 of those 16 or 20 slams
he figured he had left to play, is there?
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jul 31 05:15PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:56:38 PM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
> about Pete was telling him, there's no other conclusion to draw other
> than Pete told him that his goal was to win 14 of those 16 or 20 slams
> he figured he had left to play, is there?
 
I stand corrected but I was responding to/interpreting Sampras' own quote, the one that you put in your earlier post.
 
Regarding this quote by the reporter, yes, it does state what you said. How much of it was the reporter's addendum though ? He says Sampras figures he will play into his 30's, and then adds that that is long enough to double Emerson's count. He doesn't say that Sampras figures he will double Emerson's slam count.
 
Of course, I am sure that in 1997 Sampras wouldn't have thought that he was going to win only 4 more slams over the next 5 yrs. But I still doubt that he would put out a number that could come back and haunt him should he fail to hit it.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 01 02:44AM +0200

> about Pete was telling him, there's no other conclusion to draw other
> than Pete told him that his goal was to win 14 of those 16 or 20 slams
> he figured he had left to play, is there?
 
 
It feels like reporter's interpretation.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:50PM -0400

>playing them.
 
>He also made it clear that he understood the importance of winning the
>FO to his attempt to be regarded as GOAT.
 
not winning the FO was definitely a flaw that stuck out for most
sampras detractors. and it was a fairly serious flaw. for his time
though, the career slam wasn't won by anyone but agassi (barely) for
30 something years, so it seemed really difficult. nowadays, we have 3
guys win it in a decade, and a 4th pretty close.
 
i've not seen a player yet who doesn't have a flaw, even with
federer's 19 slams he still has the 1 flaw of a very unfavorable H2H
with his biggest foe. that flaw isn't as great as not winning the FO
IMO, but still, not perfect. what's nadal's flaw? "only" 2 wimbledons.
i guess that's it.
 
bob
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 31 06:00PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 8:44:11 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> > than Pete told him that his goal was to win 14 of those 16 or 20 slams
> > he figured he had left to play, is there?
 
> It feels like reporter's interpretation.
 
From 1993 to 1997, arguably his peak period, Sampras won 9 out of 20. In the next 5 year period, he needed to get 10 out of 15 (leaving the 5 FO's out), a rather tall order when, furthermore, his peak would also be in the past. It certainly does feel like the reporter may have been over reaching.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:46PM -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:53:33 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los>
wrote:
 
>> people.
 
>Then you go and vote for Trump who is 110% for increasing those
>inequalities.
 
as were the clintons.
 
>You have a lot of principles and they go cheap too.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:46PM -0400


>> max, do you even know what CO2 (or for that matter what H2O) is? :-)
 
>> bob
 
>Wrong thread, bob. Again.
 
hahah. just thought i'd throw that out there!
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:44PM -0400

>had dinner with Borg and Borg told him his inability to win the USO
>drove him from the game:
 
>http://www.newsweek.com/samprass-feat-clay-173136
 
borg quitting because of not winning the USO. interesting.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:31PM -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:35:46 -0700 (PDT), StephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>
wrote:
 
>On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 2:27:34 PM UTC-5, soccerfan777 wrote:
>> Carter is a good guy. The only politician I liked apart from Sanders. > >Rest are pure scum
 
>Pretty good guy, though he does have a vindictive streak. Poor President.
 
carter had good intentions, and IMO could've been a much better
president. he was a victim of a few unlucky (and bad) decisions and
very bad timing. but in the end, yes, the results were poor.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:29PM -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:59:59 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
>goes or I do...", and with Kelly just having replaced the hapless Priebus, Mr.
>Trump decided he couldn't deal with any more fires right now.
 
>So the foul-mouthed billionaire Sicilian is gone anyway, at least from that position.
 
it took about 30mins to tell scaramucci didn't have the right
personality for communication director.
 
at this pt, i think trump needs to start hiring solely from the
entertainment business. after all, it's a heckuva show atm!
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:24PM -0400

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:24:04 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
>campaign apparatus here in CA, before being elected to fill the late
>Philip Burton's seat in *1987*. The grift runs pretty deep and fast in
>Dem politics here.
 
no foolin. another of the vermin that makes me yearn for term limits.
 
well i guess she needs a lot of money for plastic surgery and hair
salons.
 
bob
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 03:41PM -0700

https://squawker.org/all/steven-wasserman-brother-of-debbie-wasserman-schultz-to-oversee-awan-family-investigation/
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.

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

Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 03:34PM -0700

Curious group, there.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jul 31 12:28PM -0700

What a doofus Scaramoochi. Complete Italian thug.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jul 31 12:29PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:07:56 PM UTC+2, TT wrote:
> care of L-G-B-T-Q people I promise. Day one.
 
> Clown show... I'd say that the insane asylum has been taken over by the
> patients...
 
 
What are "Q people"??
 
 
Max
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jul 31 12:29PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 3:07:56 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> care of L-G-B-T-Q people I promise. Day one.
 
> Clown show... I'd say that the insane asylum has been taken over by the
> patients...
 
When will the clown leave? Frog marched out?
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jul 31 10:34PM +0300

> The clown show continues!
 
Could Spicer be back?
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jul 31 12:38PM -0700

I was finding The Mooch more entertaining than Spicer. Could they do better and get a real thug?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jul 31 11:08PM +0200

> What a doofus Scaramoochi. Complete Italian thug.
 
 
Behave
yourself.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 31 02:39PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 3:38:06 PM UTC-4, soccerfan777 wrote:
> I was finding The Mooch more entertaining than Spicer. Could they do better and get a real thug?
 
Raja, Scara moochu paechu ninnu pochu! (breath and chatter stopped). Idhu eppdi irukku? (How is this?). Since you know some Tamil I couldn't resist writing this!
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 02:59PM -0700

It is getting interesting in DC, I gotta say.
 
A possible interpretation on Scaramucci: John Kelly apparently asked Mr. Trump
to ask Scaramucci to step down. I'm thinking that Kelly's implication was "he
goes or I do...", and with Kelly just having replaced the hapless Priebus, Mr.
Trump decided he couldn't deal with any more fires right now.
 
So the foul-mouthed billionaire Sicilian is gone anyway, at least from that position.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jul 31 12:27PM -0700

Carter is a good guy. The only politician I liked apart from Sanders. Rest are pure scum
calimero377@gmx.de: Jul 31 12:30PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:27:34 PM UTC+2, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Carter is a good guy. The only politician I liked apart from Sanders. Rest are pure scum
 
Sanders?
The old guy who thought Venezuela is a role model for USA?
Are you nuts?
 
 
Max
StephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 31 12:35PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 2:27:34 PM UTC-5, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Carter is a good guy. The only politician I liked apart from Sanders. > >Rest are pure scum
 
Pretty good guy, though he does have a vindictive streak. Poor President.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jul 31 07:44PM

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:27:32 -0700, soccerfan777 wrote:
 
> Carter is a good guy. The only politician I liked apart from Sanders.
> Rest are pure scum
 
You liked him? Weren't you something like 4 when he left office?
calimero377@gmx.de: Jul 31 01:46PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:44:30 PM UTC+2, jdeluise wrote:
 
> > Carter is a good guy. The only politician I liked apart from Sanders.
> > Rest are pure scum
 
> You liked him? Weren't you something like 4 when he left office?
 
 
A four-year-old little Indian guy perhaps found Carter a good guy because he was weakening the USA and by this the western world. And now he makes his money there!
 
 
Max
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 01 12:44AM +0300

jdeluise kirjoitti 31.7.2017 klo 22:44:
 
>> Carter is a good guy. The only politician I liked apart from Sanders.
>> Rest are pure scum
 
> You liked him? Weren't you something like 4 when he left office?
 
News travel slow to India.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 31 02:34PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:09:54 AM UTC-4, joh wrote:
 
> > > Is it necessary ? We knew you said he would lucky to be in another slam final I am sure not a lot of people thought Federer would go on win 19 slam in 2003 but predicting him to have just 1 slam titles and lucky to be in another slam final is just totally clueless.
 
> > He predicted Tomic will have more than 1 slam, didn't he? He explained that also, I guess.
 
> Yeah, he was out of sorts at that time because some asian guy waved his dick at him.
 
Ha ha. But do you mean he waved his weapon at Whisper's posterior, since Whisper reportedly was facing in the other direction?
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 31 02:31PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:30:55 PM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
> > 7 - Agassi, Murray
> > 6 - Sampras, Roddick, Ferrer, Berdych
 
> > Surprising or not?
 
What is surprising is how many time these guys gone on to make the semi.
 
Federer 13/13
Edberg 8/10
Djoker 6/9
Lendl 7/8
Agassi 6/7
Murray 6/7
Sampras 5/6
Roddick 4/6
Nadal 5/9
Wilander 5/5
 
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 02:02PM -0700

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-democrats-wont-work-with-trump-to-privatize-medicare-va/
 
 
Good one, Nancy! Here, pull the other one!
 
 
Pelosi, btw, has a net worth of just under $200,000,000. Her CONgressional
salary is $193k per annum.
 
Mmm.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jul 31 02:06PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:02:45 PM UTC+2, Carey wrote:
 
> Pelosi, btw, has a net worth of just under $200,000,000. Her CONgressional
> salary is $193k per annum.
 
> Mmm.
 
 
She has been a successful entrepreneur before her stint in the Congress, hasn't she?
 
 
Max
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 02:24PM -0700


> She has been a successful entrepreneur before her stint in the Congress, hasn't she?
 
> Max
 
 
Well, yes, in a sense she was, having been involved in the Democrat™ party
campaign apparatus here in CA, before being elected to fill the late
Philip Burton's seat in *1987*. The grift runs pretty deep and fast in
Dem politics here.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 31 02:16PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 7:24:39 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> form & age? Sure.
 
> He also entered 3 slams in his last yr & was in the final of all 3,
> losing only to the most gifted player of all time.
 
Focus on clay. Focus focus, Whisper. Borg perhaps lost motivation? Whatever may be the reason, his FO count is 6 and no more. Nadal's is 10 and, based on his performance and desire, promises to become 12 in two to three years. He is certainly an outlier even now. Ten is a mind boggling number.
 
> claycourters overall. I doubt Nadal & Guga were the only players in
> history who crushed peak Federer at FO. That's nonsensical. The truth
> is many great clay greats would have beaten Fed/Djoker.
 
The adjustment is not totally a preposterous notion. They faced a RAMPANT outlier who was in every final 10 out 13 years and won every final he played, and, thus, whose record may be indelible for 500 years. The 'lesser' achievers (than Nadal on clay, that is) thus far clearly left more chances (read: WoO) for their contemporaries than Nadal left for his.
 
Remember to answer nicely, otherwise I will throw you out ;)
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jul 31 01:20PM -0700

Op zondag 30 juli 2017 23:15:56 UTC+2 schreef StephenJ:
 
> merely for Emmerson's 12. This helps us understand that he really did
> win all he was capable of winning, wasn't cut short by a lack of
> motivation:
 
Agreed. That is what stands out in the article. Pretty much the exact opposite to what Whisper repeats ad nauseam. Sampras put everything he had into winning the missing FO and aimed at double digit slam numbers. He knew how essential those would be for him to become the GOAT.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jul 31 01:29PM -0700

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 4:20:19 PM UTC-4, kaennorsing wrote:
> > win all he was capable of winning, wasn't cut short by a lack of
> > motivation:
 
> Agreed. That is what stands out in the article. Pretty much the exact opposite to what Whisper repeats ad nauseam. Sampras put everything he had into winning the missing FO and aimed at double digit slam numbers. He knew how essential those would be for him to become the GOAT.
 
Yes, can never be GOAT!! Neither can Borg, Mac or Pete!
 
Only Rod, Fed, Rafa, Djoker, Budge?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jul 31 11:10PM +0200

>> win all he was capable of winning, wasn't cut short by a lack of
>> motivation:
 
> Agreed. That is what stands out in the article. Pretty much the exact opposite to what Whisper repeats ad nauseam. Sampras put everything he had into winning the missing FO and aimed at double digit slam numbers. He knew how essential those would be for him to become the GOAT.
 
You can spin it all you want, but you won't succeed.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 30 04:44PM +1000

On 30/07/2017 9:49 AM, jdeluise wrote:
> apparent injury and he had just completed smashing his racket. Kohl just
> walked over to a surprised Mayer and offered his hand (then smashed
> another racket). These gutless retirements have got to stop!
 
Yes, they really couldn't give 2 fucks about the fans who pay to come
watch a decent effort.
 
Only way is to reduce their prizemoney in some way. Sure some legit
retirements may be unfairly punished, but the vast majority are not
legit rather calculated business decisions.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.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.