Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 15 topics

Monday, July 17, 2017

Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 08:34PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 1:16 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> Certainly, no one will question this decision now. Remains true even if he wins a third slam. Going for all four in a year might have had opposite effect and tired him out.
 
> I said it was a smart decision then, and it obviously was. Roger came into Wimbledon fresh as a daisy and went through the field like a daisy-cutter.
 
Yes looks like a smart decision. He wasn't going to beat Rafa at FO
anyway, but what if Rafa got injured & pulled out, like last yr?
 
It's a shame a guy like Roger with such a phenomenal record doesn't have
the biggest feather in his cap - calendar slam.
 
8 Wimbledons is next best thing though & a mythical achievement. To be
the greatest ever at the greatest tennis tournament is quite something.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 08:30PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 1:15 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
There's no comparison.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 08:29PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 1:13 AM, John Liang wrote:
> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 1:10:16 AM UTC+10, soccerfan777 wrote:
>> Year end #1... Lol that bogus irrelevant stat. The only one that matters is weeks as #1
 
> The most important record for Fed now is another USO win. YEC No.1 will be great but holding the open era record at USO will be greater.
 
Yes, & what his 6th Wim/USO combo?
 
20 is a nice round number for an all time slam record.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 08:26PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 1:12 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> Nadal will not be in the US open final. Trust me.
 
I'd like to, but there is absolutely no reason to trust you.
Jesper Lauridsen <rorschak@stofanet.dk>: Jul 17 01:00AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 00:30:38 UTC+2, kaennorsing wrote:
 
> But it would be weird if the GOAT doesn't end up with most YE #1, wouldn't it?
 
He has a comfortable lead in weeks at #1, so don't worry.
Jesper Lauridsen <rorschak@stofanet.dk>: Jul 17 01:27AM -0700

On Sunday, 16 July 2017 21:24:44 UTC+2, rec.sport.tennis wrote:
> Nadal is ahead in the race at the moment but not by much. Federer is
> usually much more productive post-Wimbledon than Nadal.
 
Murray and the djoker are so far behind it has to be between Fed and Nadal.
 
> It'll probably come down to who plays more events.
 
Yes.
Garvin Yee <drsmith004@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:44AM -0700

On 7/16/2017 5:01 PM, Carey wrote:
 
>> He also said something like 'Only being #1 matters, any other ranking is pretty much irrelevant'. No doubt he wants it!
 
> Yeah, that's what I thought I heard, too.
 
> Go Fed!
 
The #1 ranking is nice, but Slam titles are more important for
most players.
 
 
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34735015@N03/sets/72157623566520134/
 
http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/garvin+yee/all
 
https://www.facebook.com/garvin.yee.37
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jul 17 01:20AM -0700

Op maandag 17 juli 2017 01:27:10 UTC+2 schreef Jason White:
> What looked inevitable one year ago looks doubtful at the moment. I'll vote yes, but the elbow thing is concerning.
 
I'll say no. He may win two more at max. He should be good for another AO though and most likely ends up with 13. :))
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:41AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 01:43:26 UTC+1, SliceAndDice wrote:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 7:27:10 PM UTC-4, Jason White wrote:
> > What looked inevitable one year ago looks doubtful at the moment. I'll vote yes, but the elbow thing is concerning.
 
> If he gets out of his weird funk, yes he can. But the younger generation is catching up, Fed and Nadal are still playing well. His chances keep diminishing the more he allows this to go on. That said, a few months out of tennis, a la Federer, should help refresh his mental faculties.
 
WHICH YOUNGER GENERATION??? Thiem? lol Kyrgios? lol Tomic? WHO? only Zverev and he might party too much.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 12:53AM -0700

> Read somewhere that Federer was never broken during Wimbledon 2017. Is that correct?
 
> Out of the 19 sets he won, 5 went to tie-breaks. And he won them all. Tie-breaks involve an element of luck, and he seems to have been at least a little lucky. The biggest break was to have Cilic suffering from foot blisters.
 
> I would like US Open last 4 to feature four players without any slam win between them, the way it was at this year's women's French draw. Federer can get his 20th at next year's Wimbledon. I won't mind that. But in spite of his 2 majors this year, the chances of him winning even one more major have always been slim since 2013, and they continue to be slim. I would take the field against him for US Open 2017.
 
do you actually ever watch tennis? Fed walked this Wimbledon, his opponents barely showed up and everyone else retired or was injured. His chances are very very high of another slam (as they long have been) cos of the field.
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jul 17 01:15AM -0700

> Read somewhere that Federer was never broken during Wimbledon 2017. Is that correct?
 
Federer did get broken I think about 5 times this tournament. Most in the first week. Each time he broke back immediately.
 
> Out of the 19 sets he won, 5 went to tie-breaks. And he won them all. Tie-breaks involve an element of luck, and he seems to have been at least a little lucky. The biggest break was to have Cilic suffering from foot blisters.
 
A tiebreak can involve an element of luck, but it's really about who plays the most clutch tennis that wins it. Look at the scorelines for his tiebreaks and almost all were one-sided. Also, I think Fed didn't face any setpoints in the tournament. So no luck involved.
 
> I would like US Open last 4 to feature four players without any slam win between them, the way it was at this year's women's French draw. Federer can get his 20th at next year's Wimbledon. I won't mind that. But in spite of his 2 majors this year, the chances of him winning even one more major have always been slim since 2013, and they continue to be slim. I would take the field against him for US Open 2017.
 
Fed's chances of winning the USO are greater than you think. So far he is 4/4 in so called big tournaments this year (slams+masters). In the two matches he lost (in smaller tournaments) he had matchpoints... So great chance for the USO imo.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:40AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 09:16:01 UTC+1, kaennorsing wrote:
 
> A tiebreak can involve an element of luck, but it's really about who plays the most clutch tennis that wins it. Look at the scorelines for his tiebreaks and almost all were one-sided. Also, I think Fed didn't face any setpoints in the tournament. So no luck involved.
 
> > I would like US Open last 4 to feature four players without any slam win between them, the way it was at this year's women's French draw. Federer can get his 20th at next year's Wimbledon. I won't mind that. But in spite of his 2 majors this year, the chances of him winning even one more major have always been slim since 2013, and they continue to be slim. I would take the field against him for US Open 2017.
 
> Fed's chances of winning the USO are greater than you think. So far he is 4/4 in so called big tournaments this year (slams+masters). In the two matches he lost (in smaller tournaments) he had matchpoints... So great chance for the USO imo.
 
the tiebreaks say it all that is needed, it was a walk in the park. Good post.
Manuel aka Xax <xamigax@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:27AM -0700

Le lundi 17 juillet 2017 02:56:10 UTC+2, DavidW a écrit :
> Wimbledon contest with 12 points!
 
> This was the 3rd win for Manuel aka Xax and the 6th for Michal Jankowski.
 
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~davidw/tennis/contest/rst_2017sp_WM.html
 
Thanks a lot for hosting this funny & ritual contest :-)
 
Thank you for the reminder, Bharath.
I might very well have missed to enter to contest too, given the situation (I'll be moving from Beauvais to Toulouse, which is some 800Kms away, hence quite a bunch to deal with moving house related stuffs)/
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:37AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 09:27:56 UTC+1, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
 
> Thanks a lot for hosting this funny & ritual contest :-)
 
> Thank you for the reminder, Bharath.
> I might very well have missed to enter to contest too, given the situation (I'll be moving from Beauvais to Toulouse, which is some 800Kms away, hence quite a bunch to deal with moving house related stuffs)/
 
yes, thanks DavidW! also well done to Court1 who knew what the exact finals would be, but decided to put something slightly different down just to give the rest of a chance! :)
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:02AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 01:07:38 UTC+1, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
> > > If only Rafa can avoid that one guy that beats him at Wimbledon every year... But then another one shows up, so unlucky!
 
> > yeah well everyone just retires or doesn't bother vs Fed! he'd prob win then!
 
> One retired. Everyone else tried but came up short. Like Nadal at AO 2017.
 
you reckon the Nadal at the AO wasn't out of sorts?
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:32AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 01:57:06 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> Why is difficult for you guys to comprehend that this Nadal is no good on grass to reach the final and this translates to that he would be no threat to Federer if he played him on grass?
 
> It's stupid what people said that if nadal makes it to the second week he will win the title beating Federer.
 
> So they are worried he can lose early but if he doesn't he will win magically.
 
you're saying Nadal couldn't beat the level Fed played against Cilic yday???
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jul 17 01:28AM -0700

Op maandag 17 juli 2017 02:23:38 UTC+2 schreef RaspingDrive:
 
> > > Were this anybody else, I'd be very suspicious of the results and start looking for chemical explanations. The fact that I don't believe PEDs are a factor--and I don't think anyone else does either--speaks very highly of how Federer is regarded.
 
> > Agreed, although I wouldn't say anyone (there is one around here). It's because it's clear to see how his backhand is technically better this year, which has helped his entire game become more offensive and efficient. Then his confidence was built up from the start of the year... And so a fit, well rested Federer full of confidence is just something else.
 
> It helps though that Djok and Murray are not at their best.
 
It wouldn't have mattered much imo. Look what he did to Rafa, his toughest challenger this year... I think this version of Federer is better than peak Djoker and especially Murray. Peak Djoker had enough trouble with the 'old' Federer and Murray never got the better of any Federer, in slams anyway.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 17 11:12AM +0300

jdeluise kirjoitti 17.7.2017 klo 1:24:
> I'm not sure that I'd call him a genius by any means, but "Dawn of the
> Dead" is definitely one of my favorite movies.
 
Let's hope he stays dead too...
 
Yeah, Night of the living dead (1968) and Day of the dead are pretty
decent, didn't care much for Dawn of the dead.
 
Creepshow is also good and I really liked Monkey Shines...
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:01AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 06:27:23 UTC+1, John Liang wrote:
> > > Not taking 6 months off in 2013. If he did he would have > 20 majors by now. It's now clear that he was getting stale. His freedom from serious injury, ironically, kept him from achieving even more.
 
> > I agree. I think an earlier break would have greatly benefitted him like this year. Earlier switch to the bigger frame would have helped as well. As it was he was close to winning majors on a number of occasions, particularly against peak Djoker. A half of a procent here and there could have made all the difference.
 
> Taking on new coaches like Edberg/Ljubu instead of sticking with Annacone would have helped him too.
 
yes, totally agree, Annacone was totally pointless.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 16 11:01PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 7:03:43 AM UTC+10, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > No he wouldn't have won it and it meant nothing for him. He wanted Wimbledon and playing there would lower his chances.
 
> I wouldn't say "it meant nothing to him"... Feds made a strategic decision, which we all know about. The results from today confirm he and his teams thinking.
 
> P
 
For Federer, his top priority is Wimbledon so he wanted to win Wimbledon more than any other events in this calendar year.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 12:59AM -0700

On Sunday, 16 July 2017 22:03:43 UTC+1, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 10:36:56 AM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > No he wouldn't have won it and it meant nothing for him. He wanted Wimbledon and playing there would lower his chances.
 
> I wouldn't say "it meant nothing to him"... Feds made a strategic decision, which we all know about. The results from today confirm he and his teams thinking.
 
yes, he made a strategic decision to be scared enough to not go anywhere near Nadal on clay.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:00AM -0700

On Sunday, 16 July 2017 18:33:36 UTC+1, kaennorsing wrote:
> > That would have meant a calendar slam at this age!
 
> Unlikely, with Rafa at a career high level. He may have beaten everyone apart from Rafa though, but he obviously didn't fancy it.
 
> And, of course, even IF he did he may have then lost Wimbledon, so I'm glad he didn't.
 
if they'd met in earlier rounds and Fed was having a good day, he might've had a chance, but in the final, not against that Nadal.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 16 11:12PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:56:51 PM UTC+10, joh wrote:
 
> > The Williams sisters are the enormous exception, but if it weren't for them, the US wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
 
> > There was a time when both US men and women were dominant forces on the courts. What the hell happened?
 
> The world caught up. If you want to see annihilation watch swedish tennis.
 
Yes, there was a documentary on Swedish tennis in the early 80s - early 2002 called Borg's inheritors. During the documentary they interviewed Peter Lungren who was 25th in the world in mid 80s but 7th in Sweden. Now the best Swede is around 200 in the ranking.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 12:58AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 07:12:28 UTC+1, John Liang wrote:
 
> > > There was a time when both US men and women were dominant forces on the courts. What the hell happened?
 
> > The world caught up. If you want to see annihilation watch swedish tennis.
 
> Yes, there was a documentary on Swedish tennis in the early 80s - early 2002 called Borg's inheritors. During the documentary they interviewed Peter Lungren who was 25th in the world in mid 80s but 7th in Sweden. Now the best Swede is around 200 in the ranking.
 
Spain and France have tennis academies which are both very good systems, way better than the US college system, which I've heard pushes the athletes too hard, East Europe have their academies for ball bashing women and some men - hence their domination of the sport, BUT they clearly neglect the psychology side as they all tend to choke at big competition.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jul 17 12:04AM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 3:09:21 PM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> I did not get the sense that Shakes hates Federer. He is just more of a Sampras/Djoker fan who once was a Fed fan but gave up on him for some reason. Right?
 
That about sums it up. You wouldn't find a thread started by me where I diss Fed's achievements.
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