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

Monday, July 17, 2017

calimero377@gmx.de: Jul 17 02:26PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:01:19 PM UTC+2, StephenJ wrote:
> it, I'll apologize and admit I was wrong for saying you hadn't. It will
> be the first time I've mischaracterized you- unlike the reverse.
 
> This space reserved for your match prediction w/scoreline:
 
Jaros, it's never a good idea to drink excessively and then go into the internet/usenet and post randomly.
 
 
Max
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 11:41AM -0700

> so what, it's technique, Sampras was the same height, it a cracking serve.
 
You are saying Federer without serve will be average player, so I was saying he isn't an Isner or Karlovic.
 
Plus take the backhand away from djokovic and nadal, or take nadal fh and they are average players.
 
Your posts are very low IQ, stop breathing grease.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:50PM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 19:41:36 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > so what, it's technique, Sampras was the same height, it a cracking serve.
 
> You are saying Federer without serve will be average player, so I was saying he isn't an Isner or Karlovic.
 
> Plus take the backhand away from djokovic and nadal, or take nadal fh and they are average players.
 
his height is irrelevant to the effectiveness of his serve and how he relies on it to win matches. Also it's unrelated and quite different to Djoker or Nadal's bh, they don't suddenly get into trouble and run around their bh to hit repeated winners, sheesh.
 
> Your posts are very low IQ, stop breathing grease.
 
your posts are incredibly dumb sometimes, why don't you tell us some more lies about why you voted for Hillary.
AZ <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com>: Jul 17 02:14PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 8:04:51 PM UTC+6, 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.
 
LMAO! Whimpy suddenly waxing lyrical about Fed after the 8th? "Fedfucker" bandwagon jump nearly complete? Hahaha!
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: Jul 17 11:23AM -0700

Or at least better bowers, on the average, than the not so great servers? And vice versa.
 
Would a server with more control and variety show more control and variety as a bowler?
 
Would great receivers have the advantage in batting?
calimero377@gmx.de: Jul 17 01:47PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 8:23:02 PM UTC+2, arahim wrote:
> Or at least better bowers, on the average, than the not so great servers? And vice versa.
 
> Would a server with more control and variety show more control and variety as a bowler?
 
> Would great receivers have the advantage in batting?
 
 
What is a "bowler"?
And where is Batting?
 
Questions over questions...
 
 
Max
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:51PM -0700

> And where is Batting?
 
> Questions over questions...
 
> Max
 
Fed would make a great batsman, Andy a great fielder, Rafa a great boweler, Novak a great all-rounder?!
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jul 17 02:13PM -0700

Op maandag 17 juli 2017 20:23:02 UTC+2 schreef arahim:
> Or at least better bowers, on the average, than the not so great servers? And vice versa.
 
> Would a server with more control and variety show more control and variety as a bowler?
 
> Would great receivers have the advantage in batting?
 
Not necessarily. One is overhand, the other under hand. Totally different mechanics. Might be better to ask if great volleyers would make great badminton players, or great baseliners great ping-pong players.
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jul 17 02:08PM -0700

Op maandag 17 juli 2017 18:06:01 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:
 
> > What does it tell us about the state of 1990s tennis that a player with a clownish record at the French Open could win 7 Wimbledon titles? Today #s 5 to 8 may be clowns, but back then even #1 was a clown. It tells us something like that.
 
> That's my point. Why didn't the top players figure in all the slam
> finals like they do today? The top 4 have all appeared in every slam final.
 
Why is that so surprising? Mac and Borg would have made all finals if they didn't skip AO so many times. Same can be said for Connors at the FO. Edberg, Lendl and Agassi also made all finals. It's nothing new. Of the greats only Sampras and Becker failed to make finals of the FO. The rest did fairly well everywhere they played.
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jul 17 02:09PM -0700

Op maandag 17 juli 2017 19:14:15 UTC+2 schreef RaspingDrive:
 
> Federer is special. An 8-time winner of the most prestigious title. Not seen in a hundred plus years.
 
Never seen before you mean.
"Javier González" <jagonzal@gmail.com>: Jul 17 11:50AM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Is that 100 points on the fabled 7543 scale?
 
> Hey, you said Federer isn't winning this one :)
 
Indeed I did - sometimes I just love being wrong :-D
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 11:54AM -0700

> Indeed I did - sometimes I just love being wrong :-D
 
np, we would like a repeat before the USO.
alinefx@alinefx.com: Jul 17 11:54AM -0700

It's funny cos the icedipshit is loosing his mind
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:51PM -0700

> It's funny cos the icedipshit is loosing his mind
 
Trump won!
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jul 17 11:44AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 10:42:47 AM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> "What I feel is a bit wrong in the rankings system is, if you have a great run and play a quarters, like Andy did, for instance, fought, loses in five sets, walks away with 360 points. I walk away with 2,000 points. I feel the gap's too big. It's only been like this since a few years. To win eight 250s to make up for a slam, I find it too much.
 
> "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.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:45PM -0700

On Monday, 17 July 2017 18:42:47 UTC+1, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> "What I feel is a bit wrong in the rankings system is, if you have a great run and play a quarters, like Andy did, for instance, fought, loses in five sets, walks away with 360 points. I walk away with 2,000 points. I feel the gap's too big. It's only been like this since a few years. To win eight 250s to make up for a slam, I find it too much.
 
> "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."
 
heheh this coolest Fed interview ever - very refreshing to hear Fed likes a drink or two at the bar, will post if I end up having a beer with Fed one Wimbledon night after my work shift, we would have a good conversation I reckon! :D also he make very good points about the points system, if only he hadn't upped the prize money, the young guns would have more incentive instead of just partying all the time. The reason none of the young guns serve/volley is cos of all the dumb tennis journos repeatedly hollering how it's impossible to do it nowadays, which Whisper/bob/me/etc have been saying is coblers for years, wonder if they'll change their mind now!
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 03:34PM -0400

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/17/sport/federer-wimbledon-us-open-
grand-slam-twenty/index.html
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
calimero377@gmx.de: Jul 17 12:42PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:34:17 PM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/17/sport/federer-wimbledon-us-open-
> grand-slam-twenty/index.html
> --
 
Sounds funny in English, doesn't it?
I'm quite sure he said in German "Das wäre ein Witz."
Witz = joke
 
A little bit like the English use of "ridiculous". "He was in ridiculous form this week." Meaning "in great form", but not anything to actually laugh about.
 
"Das wäre ein Witz" means that it would be incredible, absolutely "insane"!
 
 
Max
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:00PM -0700

>Sounds funny in English, doesn't it?
I'm quite sure he said in German "Das wäre ein Witz."
Witz = joke
 
A little bit like the English use of "ridiculous". "He was in ridiculous form this week." Meaning "in great form", but not anything to actually laugh about.
 
"Das wäre ein Witz" means that it would be incredible, absolutely "insane"!
 
 
Makes sense, good post.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:06PM -0700


> A little bit like the English use of "ridiculous". "He was in ridiculous form this week." Meaning "in great form", but not anything to actually laugh about.
 
> "Das wäre ein Witz" means that it would be incredible, absolutely "insane"!
 
> Max
 
His interviews in swiss-german sound pretty weird!
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jul 17 01:19PM -0700

Swiss German is pretty weird.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jul 17 01:32PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 10:06:22 PM UTC+2, Guypers wrote:
 
> > "Das wäre ein Witz" means that it would be incredible, absolutely "insane"!
 
> > Max
 
> His interviews in swiss-german sound pretty weird!
 
 
Yes, almost as funny as some Texans trying to speak English. Butchering the language ...
 
 
Max
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 17 10:33AM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 11:10:09 AM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
> He looks phenomenal. The best by far out of all the past greats.
 
Fed and he exchanged a warm hug and pleasantries after the win. Was nice to see that they are still friends and in touch. Edberg deserves a lot of credit for how good Fed has been volleying these days and for laying the foundation for his ultra-aggressive style, a style Ljubicic has subsequently tweaked for the modern game.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 18 12:20AM +1000

On 18/07/2017 12:15 AM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>> else is more likely?
 
>> PeteWasLucky gave a list of players he thinks are more likely than Nadal to make a USO final in another thread--Berdshit, Dimitrov, Kyrgios, Zverev and Djokovic. Ha ha. Oh boy! *rolls eyes*
 
> Nadal is much more prone to being upset at the US Open than he is on clay. He has made a grand total of 3 finals in his career. Therefore it is premature to speculate on this "dream" final at this point. It could be a Wimbledon-like scenario, for example: Fed vs a surprise finalist. If Kyrgios screws his head on right and Zverev continues improving as he is, both are capable of taking Nadal out on hard. As is Cilic.
 
 
 
Hmm, Fed last won USO in 2008 right? That's *9* years ago - nearly a
decade.
 
Rafa has won it twice since then.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 17 07:33AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 10:20:12 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> Hmm, Fed last won USO in 2008 right? That's *9* years ago - nearly a
> decade.
 
> Rafa has won it twice since then.
 
Agree, but a lot of those losses were mental. He should have really won: 2010-11 USO semi, 2009 and 2015 USO finals but his mental game was off (2009 he just did not seem to care too much, first and only time I have seen him that way and I attribute it to him being a first time father). The 2017 Fed is the best *mentally* I have seen him since 2007. The Fed of the last 7 or so years would have probably lost to Berdych in the semis or made it awfully complicated.
 
The USO is no gimme for Fed. But it isn't for Nadal either.
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