Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 10 topics

Sunday, July 16, 2017

RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 16 05:49PM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 7:12:31 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
 
> Apparently it takes more than "having the game" to actually win them
> though. I'm a fan of Cilic and have been for a long time, but this was a
> bad showing for him, blisters or no blisters.
 
The blisters perhaps did not trouble him as much in the third set. Otherwise the scoreline would read 6-2 6-1 6-0. Andy's hip pain caused him to lose the last two sets 1-6 1-6! To Querrey!
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 16 10:52PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:47:50 AM UTC+10, Jason White wrote:
> > bad showing for him, blisters or no blisters.
 
> What if Cilic played Berdych instead? Just trying to weigh opponent vs. injury for the bad showing. Fully healthy, it was gonna be a tough climb against Federer. The injury took the suspense away.
 
> Maybe people put too much stock into that one match when he crushed Federer in NY. The potential is there, just needs to summon it consistently. That's the tough part. Record vs. the Big Four is worse than I expected.
 
It would be a close match given their history of previous meetings but I think Cilic may have a slight edge because he actually won the last 2 meetings, Berdych would also be nervous that may help Cilic in settling his own nerves.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 16 10:27PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:24:30 AM UTC+10, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op zondag 16 juli 2017 17:45:11 UTC+2 schreef Tuan:
> > 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.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 16 10:23PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 10:43:26 AM UTC+10, 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.
 
Yes, Pipe cleaner needs a break from tennis.
dn.usenet@gmail.com: Jul 16 09:12PM -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.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 16 09:16PM -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.
 
Berdych broke him in the semis. Dimitrov broke him in the fourth round. May have been more.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 16 09:16PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:16:05 AM UTC-4, 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.
 
Oh yes..Lajovic too. Very first game.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 16 10:20PM -0700

> Read somewhere that Federer was never broken during Wimbledon 2017. Is that correct?
 
In the final. No, he was never broken but Berdych did break him in the first set of the semi in the eighth game of the first set.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 16 10:08PM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 6:07:59 PM UTC-4, Breeder wrote:
 
> 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.
 
LMAO that PEDS aren't a factor. Get real.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 16 09:16PM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 2:36:49 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > > : (
 
> > I had the same discussion with a friend after Cilic's awful performance in the final. If Rafa were there we would have been treated to another thriller,probably 5 sets.
 
> The tournament already had a 5-set Rafa thriller--his 4th-round loss to the titan Gilles Müller.
 
He's right though. IF Nadal had somehow made it to the final vs Federer, it would have likely been a competitive match. Much more competitive than the horrible Cilic-Federer final or the just as horrible Wawrinka-Nadal final at the FO.
 
Nobody wants to see lopsided finals, or at least I don't. The FO and Wimbledon were mostly snoozers this year--for both the men and women. That Ostapenko-Halep FO final was an embarrassment for Halep after being up a set and a break. Then we got the Wimbledon final between Venus and Muguruza where Venus had a meltdown after almost winning the first set. Then we had the thrashing of Wawrinka by Nadal in the FO final (never in doubt but not interesting to watch) and then we had this Cilic-Federer Wimbledon clunker where Cilic basically had his own meltdown. Bad tennis for the past few months. No truly memorable matches.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 16 09:20PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > The tournament already had a 5-set Rafa thriller--his 4th-round loss to the titan Gilles Müller.
 
> He's right though. IF Nadal had somehow made it to the final vs Federer, it would have likely been a competitive match. Much more competitive than the horrible Cilic-Federer final or the just as horrible Wawrinka-Nadal final at the FO.
 
> Nobody wants to see lopsided finals, or at least I don't. The FO and Wimbledon were mostly snoozers this year--for both the men and women. That Ostapenko-Halep FO final was an embarrassment for Halep after being up a set and a break. Then we got the Wimbledon final between Venus and Muguruza where Venus had a meltdown after almost winning the first set. Then we had the thrashing of Wawrinka by Nadal in the FO final (never in doubt but not interesting to watch) and then we had this Cilic-Federer Wimbledon clunker where Cilic basically had his own meltdown. Bad tennis for the past few months. No truly memorable matches.
 
Muller-Nadal was memorable. Among the women, Muguruza-Kerber. If Kerber made it past Mugu, I sincerely think she would have won Wimbledon. She played the best I have seen her since the Open.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 16 09:25PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:20:09 AM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> Muller-Nadal was memorable. Among the women, Muguruza-Kerber. If Kerber made it past Mugu, I sincerely think she would have won Wimbledon. She played the best I have seen her since the Open.
 
Ok, those two matches were good and I agree that it's good to see Kerber playing well again. She's a great fighter.
 
I was speaking more about the finals of the FO and W--all were stinkers--both men and women.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 16 09:28PM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 8:28:51 PM UTC-4, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
> > > Interesting. And your explanation for N's early losses in the five previous years?
 
> > Come on man, everyone except 1 guy loses at Wimbledon each year. We know his game is not suited to grass and yet he has achieved more there than most players dream of achieving. This year, his game looked great even on grass. He poor ROS got exposed by Muller but Muller was the exact stereotypical bad match up for him on grass. Had he gotten past Muller I am confident that he would have been in the final against Fed and we would have seen an awesome final.
 
> Be mindful he would have crossed paths with a blister-less Cilic before the final.
 
I think Nadal would have defeated Cilic.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 16 10:02PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:28:18 PM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > Come on man, everyone except 1 guy loses at Wimbledon each year. We know his game is not suited to grass and yet he has achieved more there than most players dream of achieving. This year, his game looked great even on grass. He poor ROS got exposed by Muller but Muller was the exact stereotypical bad match up for him on grass. Had he gotten past Muller I am confident that he would have been in the final against Fed and we would have seen an awesome final.
 
> > Be mindful he would have crossed paths with a blister-less Cilic before the final.
 
> I think Nadal would have defeated Cilic.
 
I doubt it and even if he get past Cilic, he could lost to the next guy. He just does not do well against the big hitters, it is not just this year but for the past 6 Wimbledons. I think Cilic was overwhelmed by the occasion in playing a final. In an earlier round he might not be as nervous as he was in the final. Remember last year in his QF against Federer Cilic was fearless in his ball striking and was certainly not handicapped by his emotion. It is often easier to upset a great player in early round than in the final when the occasion often get to the lesser guy.
joh <joshorst@gmail.com>: Jul 16 09:56PM -0700

> https://www.datalounge.com/thread/19274393-what-happened-to-us-professional-tennis-
 
> 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.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 16 09:11PM -0700

> Who will be then? Nadal is a lot better on hc than he is on grass
 
He won two grass slams in one tournament and three HC slams in two tournaments.
I think we will see one of these in the final: Kyrgios, Zverev, Dimitrov, Berdych, Cilic, Djokovic.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 16 09:12PM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 8:57:13 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 11:12:51 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky 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.
 
Shall we quote you on this? Choo! Choo! ;)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 16 09:39PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:11:38 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Who will be then? Nadal is a lot better on hc than he is on grass
 
> He won two grass slams in one tournament and three HC slams in two tournaments.
> I think we will see one of these in the final: Kyrgios, Zverev, Dimitrov, Berdych, Cilic, Djokovic.
 
Kyrgios? He has a hip injury and doesn't give two shits. Zverev isn't good enough yet. Berdshit? Come on. Cilic--maybe. It depends on his draw. Dimitrov is completely useless and Djokovic is dealing with all kinds of crap at the moment. If he plays the USO, I doubt he'll make the final. His form isn't back to where it needs to be yet. Nadal made the AO final. Then we have to see if Wawrinka can defend the USO(if he doesn't have to play Djokovic in a final, does he really have a chance? :) )
 
Let's see what happens at the Masters 1000s--Canada and Cinci first.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 16 09:41PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:12:23 AM UTC-4, Gracchus 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.
 
> Shall we quote you on this? Choo! Choo! ;)
 
No, not yet. Let's see how the hc Masters 1000s go first and then let's see the USO draw and then you can quote me.
 
I'm hoping for a Fedal USO final because I can't stand watching most of these other fools disintegrate against top players. If Djokovic and Murray aren't in good form, who's left? Federer and Nadal.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 16 09:52PM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 9:41:36 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > Who will be then? Nadal is a lot better on hc than he is on grass.
 
> > Shall we quote you on this? Choo! Choo! ;)
 
> No, not yet. Let's see how the hc Masters 1000s go first and then let's see the USO draw and then you can quote me.
 
Fair enough.
 
> I'm hoping for a Fedal USO final because I can't stand watching most of these other fools disintegrate against top players. If Djokovic and Murray aren't in good form, who's left? Federer and Nadal.
 
Yes, amazing how few mentally robust players there are in the current top 20. Back in the day, I don't remember guys like Gerulaitis melting down against Borg, Connors, etc. He lost to them because simply because he had no big weapons.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jul 16 09:53PM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 9:39:21 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > I think we will see one of these in the final: Kyrgios, Zverev, Dimitrov, Berdych, Cilic, Djokovic.
 
> Kyrgios? He has a hip injury and doesn't give two shits. Zverev isn't good enough yet. Berdshit? Come on. Cilic--maybe. It depends on his draw. Dimitrov is completely useless and Djokovic is dealing with all kinds of crap at the moment. If he plays the USO, I doubt he'll make the final. His form isn't back to where it needs to be yet. Nadal made the AO final. Then we have to see if Wawrinka can defend the USO(if he doesn't have to play Djokovic in a final, does he really have a chance? :) )
 
> Let's see what happens at the Masters 1000s--Canada and Cinci first.
 
On hardcourts, it's more competitive. It's the main surface of the tennis tour, so everyone is good on it. Don't forget how close some of those Australian matches were. Federer barely escaped a few times. I expect the US Open will contain more competitive matches, similar to Australia. Whereas he's virtually untouchable on grass.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 16 09:06PM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 8:25:51 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > Jaros said he had a 45% chance.
 
> > Didn't he also say that Cilic will crush Federer?
 
> Yes. Repeatedly.
 
LOL. What a jackass.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 16 09:17PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:06:56 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > > Didn't he also say that Cilic will crush Federer?
 
> > Yes. Repeatedly.
 
> LOL. What a jackass.
 
I thought he was reverse jinxing as usual.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 16 09:44PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:17:20 AM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> > > Yes. Repeatedly.
 
> > LOL. What a jackass.
 
> I thought he was reverse jinxing as usual.
 
I thought so too until Cilic lost and then I saw StephenJ's responses(he got all defensive) and I knew he was serious about his Cilic will crush Federer prediction.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 16 08:59PM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 11:53:05 PM UTC-4, Darkfalz wrote:
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
> Cilic got taken apart like the big serving clown he is. I think most of the top players would have taken him apart.
 
Cilic is more than a big server but he does have a terrible record vs all of the Big Four players. He got lucky Nadal and Murray lost earlier IMO because I doubt he would have made it past both.
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