Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 13 topics

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 09:43PM -0700

> Then you ask me to write in two sentences how the rest of 2017 (August to December) will play out for Nadal, Fed, and in your response you write 6-7 sentences about how the 2017 so far (January to July) has played out. I have already said, in one sentence, how I assess USO 2017 : 30% chance to Federer, 25% total for the rest of the big 3-4.
 
Lol, so when Federer has 30% chance do you consider him the favorite?
dn.usenet@gmail.com: Jul 17 10:22PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> Lol, so when Federer has 30% chance do you consider him the favorite?
 
The word 'favourite' can mean several things, depending on the context. In 1982 Wimbledon, I thought McEnroe was 60% favourite to beat Connors. In 1984 Wimby, McEnroe was a near-100% favourite to beat Connors.
 
If I had estimated before this year's FO that Muguruza was 30% likely to win, and three other players each had a 20% chance, and rest of the field 10%, then, yes, Muguruza is the relative favourite. If 3 players have 30% chance each and rest of the field 10%, then those 3 players are co-favourites.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:44PM -0700


> I had disputed somebody's claim that 'age doesn't coming into it' (not the exact words) when trying to predict Federer's future. And you are saying that 'Fed and Nadal have already dominated in 2017'. Who is disputing that? I am only saying that I give Fed only 30% chance at USO. Last December I would have given him about 2% chance of winning even one more slam, and here he is, having already won two more. This has been an epic, epic comeback, but it will soon run out of steam.
 
> Then you ask me to write in two sentences how the rest of 2017 (August to December) will play out for Nadal, Fed, and in your response you write 6-7 sentences about how the 2017 so far (January to July) has played out. I have already said, in one sentence, how I assess USO 2017 : 30% chance to Federer, 25% total for the rest of the big 3-4.
 
> Federer is lucky that Djokovic's form has dipped, and it is to his credit that it is he, at 35, and not somebody aged around 20, that is capitalizing on the opening created due to Djokovic's eclipse. If Djokovic had been at his 2011 or 2015 peak, Federer's comeback would have been similar to Venus William's. A highly creditable pair of runs to two GS finals, both resulting in losses to superior opponent.
 
What are you basing this on? Fed in 2011 beat Djoker at the French and held match points at the US Open. Fed in 2015 played Djoker very close as well (missed numerous opportunities at the US Open, for example). And 2017 Roger is playing better than 2011 or 2015 Roger.
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: Jul 18 12:05AM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 18:12:01 UTC+5:30, RaspingDrive wrote:
> > > http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
> > Roger has nothing to defend for the rest of the year. He could become number 1 without doing much.
 
> He has to defend himself against a possible resurgent and dangerous Rafa. If he can perform another AO 2017 act at USO 2017 beating Rafa in another final, Federer will perhaps be regarded as an unassailable greatest of his era.
 
What if Rafa refuses to keep his side of the bargain at USO as he has
done almost his entire career? Would it be Fed's fault if he beats
someone else for the USO title?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 10:13PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:00:19 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> final when I don't have a rooting interest. If my favorite player or
> team is in it, I want them to squash the competition like a bug. No need
> to experience the stress of a close game/match, LOL.
 
That's how I feel about it. I don't mind seeing my favorite players issue beatdowns on lesser players in earlier rounds of slams but when it comes to the SFs or final, I want to see competitive matches. I don't want to watch finals like the FO 2017 final where Wawrinka struggled to get a few games from Nadal or like Wimbledon 2017 where Cilic was injured and couldn't move. It's ridiculous. Give me an AO 2017 type final any day even though I was full of anxiety watching that one because I was afraid Federer would lose.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 18 08:59AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 8:13:
>> team is in it, I want them to squash the competition like a bug. No need
>> to experience the stress of a close game/match, LOL.
 
> That's how I feel about it. I don't mind seeing my favorite players issue beatdowns on lesser players in earlier rounds of slams but when it comes to the SFs or final, I want to see competitive matches. I don't want to watch finals like the FO 2017 final where Wawrinka struggled to get a few games from Nadal or like Wimbledon 2017 where Cilic was injured and couldn't move. It's ridiculous. Give me an AO 2017 type final any day even though I was full of anxiety watching that one because I was afraid Federer would lose.
 
The difference with 2017 RG and Wimbledon finals was that probably
nobody would have been able to do much better against Nadal than
Wawrinka did, Rafa was playing that well. That's worth the admission.
 
Meanwhile the Wimbledon final was mainly due to Cilic's abysmal
performance. Put Nadal, Djokovic or Murray in the final and it would
have been much more exciting, Federer could easily have lost.
 
And what's up with all the zillion posts here, looks like Fedfans have
completely lost the plot...
alinefx@alinefx.com: Jul 17 11:57PM -0700

It's you who has lost the plot
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: Jul 18 12:01AM -0700

On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 11:29:19 UTC+5:30, TT wrote:
 
> Meanwhile the Wimbledon final was mainly due to Cilic's abysmal
> performance. Put Nadal, Djokovic or Murray in the final and it would
> have been much more exciting, Federer could easily have lost.
 
I didn't know you had such a great sense of humour! Fed beat the guy who
beat the guy who beat Rafa, he beat the guy who beat Djoker and he beat
the guy who beat the guy who beat Andy. So why could he 'easily have lost'
to them? He is 8-0 vs top 10 this year, incl 3 wins over Rafa. If they
want to meet Fed in the semi/final, they better win 5/6 matches to
achieve that. Rafa hasn't reached the QF since 2011 and you think he'd
beat Fed easily? He had never lost to Fed at AO until this year too and
hadn't lost 4 in a row to Fed until this year either.
 
> And what's up with all the zillion posts here, looks like Fedfans have
> completely lost the plot...
 
No, it's the Fedhaters that have gone bonkers ...
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: Jul 17 11:55PM -0700

Rohit Brijnath may be the best sportswriter in the world.
Here's his letter to his granddaughter, written on July 17, 2017:
http://www.straitstimes.com/sport/tennis/letter-to-my-granddaughter-i-hope-you-have-a-federer-too-when-you-grow-up
 
I believe Roger is at peace with himself and sure of his place in history.
That shows in his increased graciousness this year.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jul 17 11:41PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:26:29 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 8:52:11 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> > I thought you were very neutral towards Edberg back in his heyday ?
 
> I was. But what does that have to do with my observation that Edberg has aged fabulously?
 
Nothing actually. But I thought you meant to say he is very good looking now. So I became curious as to how you didn't think he was great looking in his youth but now you find him very good looking. If, by phenomenal, you are referring to his not ageing, then that answers my query.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 18 09:05AM +0300

ahonkan kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 7:08:
> I extrapolated your argument and said that even though the surfaces
> are playing similar, only one guy stands out and that's Roger. He's
> #1 or #2 at 3 slams
 
That's nonsense. Emerson and Djokovic won AO 6 times, while USO has
several 7 times winners.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 10:19PM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 4:48:12 PM UTC-4, Ulysses wrote:
 
> Yeah, it is!! Wanted to say hi to Courty on this special day for Fed fans! I have been posting on the Talk Tennis Warehouse for a couple of years now.
 
Hi Uly! Nice to see you.
dn.usenet@gmail.com: Jul 17 10:26PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 3:29:29 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
 
> Yes, & what (about) his 6th Wim/USO combo?
 
He only has 4 Wim/USO combos so far : 2004-5-6-7.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 18 09:02AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 8:19:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 4:48:12 PM UTC-4, Ulysses wrote:
 
>> Yeah, it is!! Wanted to say hi to Courty on this special day for Fed fans! I have been posting on the Talk Tennis Warehouse for a couple of years now.
 
So that's why they call it Talk Tennis Whorehouse nowadays...
 
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 18 08:52AM +0300

I predicted after round 2 that the final amount of aces at Wimbledon
(men) would be 2520 (+- 202 with 95% certainty).
 
The final amount of aces was 2532 - 13 more than my prediction.
 
Totally normal speed courts this year, of course.
 
Wimbledon Aces/points
2004 0,089
2005 0,092
2006 0,089
2007 0,086
2008 0,090
2009 0,100
2010 0,113
2011 0,092
2012 0,095
2013 0,101
2014 0,111
2015 0,104
2016 0,096
2017 0,093
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 10:08PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 5:42:44 AM UTC-7, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
 
> Have any players won more slams after 30? I can't think of any since
> the early 1900s.
 
> Maybe that wasn't what you meant?
 
People are living longer, taking better care of their bodies. Modern medicine has helped. For tennis, maybe 35 is the new 30. And the expected breakthrough age should be bumped up also.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 18 08:37AM +0300

Brian W Lawrence kirjoitti 18.7.2017 klo 1:43:
 
> That article ignores anyone before the Open Era - three players were
> older than Muscles, Bill Larned in 1911 (38), Arthur Gore in 1908 & 09
> (40 & 41) & Andre Vacherot in 1901 (41). Vacherot being the oldest.
 
That is incorrect. First: Vacherot was not older than Gore. Second: He
played French Championships which was not slam yet and was open only to
French players.
 
Any case, here are my updated stats:
 
Oldest Slam Winners

41,5 1909 Wim Arthur Gore
40,5 1908 Wim Arthur Gore
38,7 1911 USO William Larned
37,7 1910 USO William Larned
37,4 1930 Wim William Tilden
37,2 1972 Aus Ken Rosewall
36,7 1909 USO William Larned
36,6 1914 Wim Norman Brookes
36,6 1929 USO William Tilden
36,2 1971 Aus Ken Rosewall
36,1 1887 Wim Herbert Lawford
35,9 2017 Wim Roger Federer
35,9 1970 USO Ken Rosewall
35,7 1908 USO William Larned
35,5 2017 Aus Roger Federer
35,0 1948 Aus Adrian Quist
 
Number of slam titles after turning 30

5 William Tilden
5 William Larned
4 Ken Rosewall
4 Rod Laver
3 Roger Federer
3 Arthur Gore
2 Andre Agassi
2 Jimmy Connors
2 Roy Emerson
2 Jaroslav Drobny
2 Frank Parker
2 Norman Brookes
2 John Hartley
2 Stan Wawrinka
 
Slam winning span (years)

19,0 Ken Rosewall
14,0 Roger Federer
12,0 Rafael Nadal
12,0 Pete Sampras
12,0 Adrian Quist
10,6 Andre Agassi
10,6 Boris Becker
10,0 William Tilden
10,0 William Larned
09,7 Jimmy Connors
09,6 Rod Laver
08,4 Novak Djokovic
OW <bjmet1@aol.com>: Jul 17 09:47PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 11:32:19 PM UTC-5, Jason White wrote:
> Who will be the next first time men's winner at Wimbledon? Old or young?
 
> Even tougher: who will emerge to be the next multiple men's winner at Wimbledon?
 
Whoever it is, it won't be anyone soon, besides the big four. They've had a stranglehold on the W trophy for 15 years now.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 09:49PM -0700

Will be old.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 10:01PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:49:33 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Will be old.
 
What age would you consider as the cut off between young and old? Should Cilic be considered old? If it's Cilic vs A. Zverev, that would an interesting final.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:07PM -0700

> What age would you consider as the cut off between young and old? Should Cilic be considered old? If it's Cilic vs A. Zverev, that would an interesting final.
 
Yes, Cilic is old.
 
I'd say 27.
 
Dimitrov will be in there soon.
Garvin Yee <drsmith004@gmail.com>: Jul 17 09:52PM -0700

On 7/17/2017 12:34 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/17/sport/federer-wimbledon-us-open-
> grand-slam-twenty/index.html
 
That wouldn't be "a joke," it would be an incredible
achievement.
 
 
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34735015@N03/sets/72157623566520134/
 
http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/garvin+yee/all
 
https://www.facebook.com/garvin.yee.37
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 09:52PM -0700

> Hopefully we'll find out. I'd love to see a USO Fedal final. I can't watch these other mopes.
 
It'd be nice to have them both in the uso final. Maybe we won't have both :)
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 18 12:46PM +1000

On 18/07/2017 4:44 AM, Shakes wrote:
 
>> "That's why, by playing little and making so many points at slam level, it puts me in a totally different situation. I can really start picking and choosing my moments when to attack [the rankings].
 
>> "But it is how it is. The good thing is that the best player in the world should be the one winning the biggest tournaments. That's an aspect I understand: that we have a lot of points in Masters 1000s, slams and then the World Tour Finals."
 
> Thanks !! Some very good points by Fed.
 
Yes, essentially what I've been saying in rst from day 1.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 17 04:31PM -0500

On 7/17/2017 9:04 AM, Whisper wrote:
> incredibly difficult to read. He can hit it anywhere with the same toss
> & set-up - incredibly tough for the returner to get comfortable as he
> has no idea what's coming.
 
That's an advantage of developing the 'trophy' service motion, you can
hit anywhere without tipping off where you're going with it.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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