Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 17 topics

Monday, July 17, 2017

Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 10:49PM +1000

>> https://www.datalounge.com/thread/19274348-why-aren-t-the-women-s-tennis-matches-best-of-5-like-the-men-s-matches-
 
>> Women certainly have the stamina to go a maximum of five matches, so there's no physical reason for this disparity. Plus, if a woman wins in straight sets, the match seems too short. Expanding to a best of 5 would add a lot of excitement to the game.
 
> I've argued they should be BO5 from semis onwards in slams. No more women's finals over in less than an hour.
 
They should only play bo5 if they are attractive.
 
Kuznetsova v Vinci should be just a super tie-breaker;
 
 
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8cpwUYsSXuo/T08n_s0bGQI/AAAAAAAACUk/wOXZ764gLQ4/s1600/Svetlana-Kuznetsova--01.jpg
 
 
http://www.radionz.co.nz/assets/news/47522/eight_col_Roberta_Vinci_16x10.jpg?1442000971
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 06:39AM -0700

Let's talk some tennis for real.
 
Have you thought about Federer serve in Wimbledon, how it's not the fastest, but it's a dependable trusted weapon for him? How efficient it's specially on grass.
 
I know you love Sampy serve, great serve as well, and Sampy loved and trusted his serve as well.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 18 12:04AM +1000

On 17/07/2017 11:39 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> Have you thought about Federer serve in Wimbledon, how it's not the fastest, but it's a dependable trusted weapon for him? How efficient it's specially on grass.
 
> I know you love Sampy serve, great serve as well, and Sampy loved and trusted his serve as well.
 
Fed has a great serve. Not so much in crushing power like a Krajicek,
but in variety. He can put it anywhere with a wide variety of subtle
spins & angles, with varying pace. That's what makes it brilliant &
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.
 
I like it because that's the way I play my service games. Of course
nothing close to his level : ), but mix my serves up really well &
usually hold quickly. Fed doesn't need to hit aces/serve winners as his
back up game is sublime with a lot of options. Yes he'll throw in big
ones, but his bread & butter is getting a return he can really attack &
control the point. Guys like Karlovic have pitiful back up game so have
to try & win most points on the serve or they are toast if the ball is
in play.
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Jesper Lauridsen <rorschak@stofanet.dk>: Jul 17 07:00AM -0700

He is the highest ranked player to have beaten Federer this year.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 07:00AM -0700

Cash is an effin' jerk, but to give credit where due, he did play some clinical
tennis to win his Wimbledon, especially in that Final v Lendl. Good stuff.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jul 17 06:58AM -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.
 
A beat down is no fun when there's a mis-match or injured player, but a beat down among top rivals is its own type of classic (like Serena crushing Sharapova at the 07AO).
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 17 06:56AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:04:29 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
Fed has since admitted that the French Open drubbing he received affected his Wimbledon final performance against Nadal. I don't think these matches can be viewed in isolation. Now that Fed is playing unencumbered by that clay H2H mental burden, we can all see what he is capable of.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 11:36PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 10:04 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>> Yes, but now we know a little bit more about why he did cry. He had the blister injury before the match and I guess he went out there to try his best but realized his mobility was compromised and thus couldn't give his all. Once he realized it, he became emotional. In his press conference post match he said he had put so much work into this grass season and was playing some of his best tennis so it was some bad luck that the blister became as bad as it did right before the final. He said he began to feel the blister in his match vs Querrey and it worsened.
 
> The blister was no issue until Federer chased that ball and flicked into the court and he was on the ground watching,
 
 
That was the point of the match for me. Cilic actually hit a great
shot, but Fed somehow glided over, covered a lot of real estate
effortlessly, & kinda miraculously lasered it onto the line. It's like
the ball had magnets in it & so did the lines.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 11:49PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 10:41 PM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> Disagree. Cilic was honest - he broke down because he realized the
> blister was stopping him from playing his best. It wasn't a choke
> breakdown.
 
Federer said it was a mental breakdown & Cilic was a 'hero' for
finishing the match.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 11:43PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 10:14 PM, stephenJ wrote:
> usenet so no use denying what everyone can see, LOL.
 
> All I've done is criticized buffoons who - after the match was over or
> well under way - jumped on this thread to criticize my prediction.
 
Yes, that's one of my bugbears & why I was calling the Fedfuckers to
join in discussions *during* the final. I was the only one posting there
for a while with tumbleweeds blowing past & crickets chirping. They may
think they are scoring points 'after' the fact, but it doesn't count
when the dust is settled.
 
If they want to land punches they have to put their nuts on the line &
do it before the result is known. Fedfuckers are mostly cowards so hide
out until it's safe to come out.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 11:08PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 1:57 PM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> Nadal will not be in the US open final. Trust me.
 
> Who will be then? Nadal is a lot better on hc than he is on grass.
 
Pete likes to pretend Rafa is a journeyman. Odd fellow.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 06:34AM -0700

> 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*
 
The list I gave was a partial list of players that can take Nadal out in uso.
 
Add Wawrinka, Muller, that Italian guy, etc.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 17 07:38AM -0500

On 7/17/2017 6:49 AM, Whisper wrote:
> broken after he prematurely retired.
 
> It would be different if he were chasing Fed's 19 & finished on 14. Then
> he can say he failed.
 
Not sure I agree. Sampras's mission was to not just to achieve the goal
of becoming the slam/wimbledon king, he also surely wanted to hold those
titles for decades to come. That was part of it, it always is - when you
set a record, you want to push it out as far as you can to make it
tougher for the next guy to break it, because you know others will try
to break it. As Michael Dell once said in the 1990s, when Dell computers
was on top - always cannibalize your core business, because your corse
business won't last, so much better that you be the one to do it rather
than a competitor. In 2002, Pete still had a record to beat - his own
record of 14 slams, just as Fed does now.
 
As Mac said, Pete fully expected to be the slam king, meaning open era
GOAT, for decades, probably for his lifetime. Had to be a shock to have
it lost so quickly.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 11:30PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 9:48 PM, stephenJ wrote:
>> keep 'tying up his laces'.
 
> Quite possibly. That's why it makes sense to keep playing, you never
> know who is coming up behind you.
 
That's more salient today where the no.1 guys can win any slam as the
surfaces are similar & opponent styles uniform. Up to when Sampras set
the record 6 slams was considered an excellent career (Becker/Edberg),
so 14 was like 20 today.
 
Tangible goals are very different motivators to intangible goals.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 06:08AM -0700

> Have any players won more slams after 30? I can't think of any since
the early 1900s.
 
There is huge difference between after 30 and after 35.
 
You know 35 is considered after 20 as well.
 
So let's see the numbers for 35+
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jul 17 02:30PM +0100

On 17/07/2017 13:58, stephenJ wrote:
> (and by 'recent' i mean open era) I can think of with slams won pre-30
> and post-30 with more won in their 30s, and also didn't have his slam
> career interrupted by going pro in the pre-open era.
 
Indeed, I didn't think very hard :-)
 
Arthur Ashe
Andrés Gimeno *
Ken Rosewall *
Jaroslav Drobný
 
* The only two older than Rog.
 
There are probably a few more.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 11:26PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 9:46 PM, John Liang wrote:
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
 
> Completely different scenario comparing 1950s grand slam to open era.
 
Yes, no softcock crybabies back then, lots of grass court experts etc.
 
 
 
--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 11:10PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 2:16 PM, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
>> 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.
 
> Berdych broke him in the semis. Dimitrov broke him in the fourth round. May have been more.
 
Alternate facts?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 06:23AM -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.
 
 
One of the any things I like about tennis is that luck is, in fact, minimized.
One has to win a game by two points, a set by two games, a TB by two points even.
 
If a player 'gets lucky' over and over and over and over, perhaps something more
than luck is involved. ;)
CQ Huang <nick@devx.co.nz>: Jul 17 06:15AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 11:16:48 PM UTC+12, Whisper wrote:
> Djoker needs 1 more AO to be stand alone AO king. What are the odds
> this could happen in 1 era?
 
> What does it tell us about the state of current day tennis?
 
The rest of the tour are all clowns?
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 17 08:13AM -0500

>> think Trump working with Russians to release dirt on Hillary is a mortal
>> sin, we'll vote him out 3 years from now.
 
> "High crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't need a criminal offense.
 
That's true, it is whatever the House and Senate say it is. But you
think a GOP controlled House/Senate is going to impeach Trump *without*
an actual crime?
 
Seriously?
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 17 07:20AM -0500

On 7/17/2017 7:08 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> done so well at USO, Fed should be the hottest favourite,
 
> Fed is the best player in the world right now & most certainly will be
> fave for USO. However you'd be foolish to discount Rafa.
 
Rafa almost beat Fed on HC this spring, and he is burning with desire to
make one big push to blast past Fed in legacy/GOAT standings. Losing to
Fed in AO final was a huge blow to him. Not in a demoralizing sense but
in a raise-the-hackles sense.
 
That's why this loss at W hurt so bad, and why Uncle T had his outburst
against W officials. Coming off of the clay, both thought Rafa was in
Fed-beating form going into this event, and with Murray and Joker
obviously slumping, this W was a huge chance for Rafa to close the gap
to just two slams. That's why Rafa has taken this loss about as hard as
any I've ever seen him take a loss. And then Fed winning the title
doubles the pain.
 
I agree Nadal will come out guns blazing for the US Open. But IMO he has
to plan for it, as HC is rough on his body and the USO is a tough grind
for everyone. He's in a tougher position than Fed because historically,
his game is less "hop off couch" than Fed's, he needs court time to get
his timing down on HC. It's a dilemma - play fewer tuneups and come to
USO fresher but maybe rusty, or play more and come to USO in the zone,
but with more wear/tear on the body.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 17 05:22AM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 2:23:08 PM UTC-4, ahonkan wrote:
> > http://www.avg.com
 
> Given that Murray & Djoker may be out for some time and Rafa has not
> done so well at USO, Fed should be the hottest favourite,
 
Now that the slam gap is again 4, I expect Rafa, still a GOAT contender, to perk up and be competitive at USO. He may even beat Federer there. Its going to be a great USO 2017.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 17 05:24AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 8:20:56 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
> his timing down on HC. It's a dilemma - play fewer tuneups and come to
> USO fresher but maybe rusty, or play more and come to USO in the zone,
> but with more wear/tear on the body.
 
Good post.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 08:41PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 1:21 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Whisper should be proud
 
Stunning.
 
---
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.

0 comments:

Post a Comment