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

Monday, July 17, 2017

Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 18 12:36PM +1000

On 18/07/2017 3:29 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>> I'm referring more to the uniformity of surfaces & playing styles,
> rather than quality of field.
 
> Where is the uniformity of surfaces if Nadal won 10 out of 15 on clay, djokovic won 7/12 in the AO, and the GOAT won 8 grass, 5 uso, 5ao and one on clay?
 
 
They were pretty much in every slam semi on every surface for 10 yrs.
 
3 guys have won career slam, & Stan is 1 away from joining them, &
Murray has a good chance too. Before that only Agassi did it in 40 yrs.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 18 12:45PM +1000

On 18/07/2017 4:15 AM, ahonkan wrote:
 
>> I'm referring more to the uniformity of surfaces & playing styles,
>> rather than quality of field.
 
> Then wouldn't the same guy dominate at all slams?
 
 
It's been the same 4 fucking guys in every slam semi. Did that escape
your attention?
 
Rafa is better on clay, but take him out & Fed has 5 or 6 FO's, Djoker
the same (lost 6 times to Rafa at FO), & even Murray probably has 3,
Stan 2 or 3.
 
You can't argue surface diversity is the same as previous eras when it's
1 guy at any given slam stopping the other 3 from racking up huge
numbers. McEnroe & Sampras are 2 of the best players of all time, yet
Mac made just 1 FO final & Sampras 0. Becker made 7 Wimbledon finals,
but never won a clay title. Lendl/Wilander never got a look in at
Wimbledon.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: Jul 17 09:08PM -0700

On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 08:15:39 UTC+5:30, Whisper wrote:
 
> Mac made just 1 FO final & Sampras 0. Becker made 7 Wimbledon finals,
> but never won a clay title. Lendl/Wilander never got a look in at
> Wimbledon.
 
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 and reached 5 finals at the 4th, losing 4 times
to the #1 guy there. The other 2 (Murray doesn't even count) are good
at just one slam out of 4. So Roger is the clear GOAT.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 09:41PM -0700

> It's been the same 4 fucking guys in every slam semi. Did that escape
your attention?
 
Do these four players have to be very bad on one or two surfaces to satisfy you?
 
These four players have complete games, and they never stopped getting better.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 09:25PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 7:43:18 PM UTC-4, undecided wrote:
 
> > 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.
 
> This is quite common actually. 1st week is the toughest with grass being at its most slippery. Also, players that are playing it that are not the most comfortable at it, start to 'get it' after a few matches. That's why if Nadal had made the final, he would have been a real danger.
 
It's true he would have been a real danger if he made the final against Federer and would have been Fed's toughest competitor but IMO he would have been a real danger and then lost to Federer. Federer is simply better than Nadal off clay and these days he isn't troubled by the FO beatings Nadal would bestow upon him which screwed with his mind when they had to play off clay. More time has past now for Federer to distance himself from that bad psychology.
 
Hopefully they will meet at the USO. Their battles in slams finals will always be close ones. It's just the nature of the rivalry.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 09:35PM -0700

> Hopefully they will meet at the USO. Their battles in slams finals will always be close ones. It's just the nature of the rivalry
 
The AO went to five sets since it was the first time Federer was testing his new strategy and aggressive play against Nadal.
 
After he got the confirmation that it works, he defeated nadal very easily in str8 sets in the next two meetings.
 
Federer will beat nadal easily on fast HC and grass if he is still healthy and in good form.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 09:41PM -0700

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:35:57 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> The AO went to five sets since it was the first time Federer was testing his new strategy and aggressive play against Nadal.
 
> After he got the confirmation that it works, he defeated nadal very easily in str8 sets in the next two meetings.
 
> Federer will beat nadal easily on fast HC and grass if he is still healthy and in good form.
 
Easily in a slam final in best of five? I don't think so. Maybe in four is my guess. I don't think it would ever be a straight set result between these two in any slam final.
 
Hopefully we'll find out. I'd love to see a USO Fedal final. I can't watch these other mopes.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 09:37PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:09:33 PM UTC-4, ahonkan wrote:
> year after year for at least making the final when simple logic and
> past history suggests his glory days at W are long past.
> It is illogical to suggest that Rafa woulda beaten Cilic.
 
Because I think if he got past that Muller match he would have been more prepared to dispose of Cilic who has a terrible record vs Big Four players including Nadal.
 
I also agree with undecided that there is no question that if Nadal made the final to play Federer, he would have been a much better challenge for Federer and it probably would have gone to four or five sets. Where I disagree with undecided is with my opinion that Federer and not Nadal would likely win the match on a grass surface.
 
We'll never know obviously and it's all speculation. Maybe we can see a Fedal final at the USO. I hope so. Why? Because they are the two best players this year and they are two of the best competitors of all time. I'm sick and tired of watching a lot of these horrible competitors. Cilic was injured so it's understandable why he couldn't compete well vs Federer in the final but that match was a complete letdown.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 09:32PM -0700

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?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 18 12:31PM +1000


> If Sampras had been chasing Borg's or McEnroe's 8 titles, he would have finished his career with multiple first round losses in 2002-3-4-5, and if one of those losses was against Federer, it could have featured a double-bagel. Don't forget that Sampras finished his Wimbledon career with a miserable early round loss to a complete nobody.
 
Possibly, or he may have finished with 10 Wimbledon titles.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 09:07PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 4:36:16 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> established record, rather than trying to further your own lead.
 
> It's not like he was too old or lacked ability to win slams. He just
> lacked the desire & he was already on top of the pile.
 
Pete was the man of his era. Nothing to hang his head about. What's happening now is just natural, linear evolution. It's true that Federer has the benefit of going after a benchmark, but he's also pushed by two active greats. They have kept him motivated.
Makarand Patil <sportsfan123@cooltoad.com>: Jul 17 09:31PM -0700


> The only ones who keep getting gutted are mindless fanatics who swore by 7543, then switched from GOAT to BOAT to H2H to considering 2014, 2015 Federer to be "PEAK", then WEAK era, ...
 
> And are still sucking wind or dick, as they project a Fedal final at the USO '17 which somehow is going to leave the year tied with TWO SLAMS each.
 
> That being the same ass, who claimed that you win Wimbledon and one more slam, and that is the best for the year.
 
Missed this earlier. Great post! Absolutely spot on!
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jul 17 05:52PM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 8:10:09 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> He looks phenomenal. The best by far out of all the past greats.
 
I thought you were very neutral towards Edberg back in his heyday ?
dn.usenet@gmail.com: Jul 17 07:04PM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017, Court_1 wrote:
 
> For sure good genes. All of that sun damage after years on the tour has made most of the players look 10 years older but not Edberg (and he has fair skin!)
 
While the woman who beat Serena Williams at USO-2015 to deny her Grand Slam looked like a member of Senior Tour for players above 55, many players do look their age only. Chris Evert, Navratilova, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Clijsters, et al do not look older than their age.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 09:26PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 8:52:11 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 8:10:09 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > He looks phenomenal. The best by far out of all the past greats.
 
> 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?
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jul 18 03:00AM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 23:19:43 +0000, lo yeeOn wrote:
 
> Ah Resty, wise, dear netizen friend of mine!
 
Careful now, my deep state associates might have to delete this post!
bmoore@nyx.net: Jul 17 09:21PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 8:00:12 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 23:19:43 +0000, lo yeeOn wrote:
 
> > Ah Resty, wise, dear netizen friend of mine!
 
> Careful now, my deep state associates might have to delete this post!
 
Not if my deep state associates delete it first!
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jul 17 02:59PM -0700

Op maandag 17 juli 2017 18:01:32 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:
> psyche hm out with all that experience.
 
> It's great watching a champion with so much experience do his thing.
> Reminds me a bit of Sampras' last match.
 
Agreed, wonderful to watch a master put it all together. However, the final was a bit of a letdown and Cilic failed to push Federer after the first couple of games. Berdy actually did a much better job in the semi and forced Roger to serve volley more and come up with some brilliant passes under pressure.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 17 05:47PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:01:32 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> psyche hm out with all that experience.
 
> It's great watching a champion with so much experience do his thing.
> Reminds me a bit of Sampras' last match.
 
Also, he is playing unburdened by pressure. He said yesterday that he was perfectly satisfied with 17 slams, the rest is just gravy. I cannot even imagine how much pressure he has had to deal with, even on clay against Nadal he was expected to find a way to win. If he won a match in 5 sets, he was playing badly. He was expected to play perfectly day in and day out on every surface. That is a tremendous amount of pressure, and while he has done a stellar job of living up to expectations, it had to take its toll. That break somehow helped him hit the reset button and now he is playing with freedom, fully satisfied with his career and ready to hang up his racquet on his own terms.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 09:12PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 5:47:05 PM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> > It's great watching a champion with so much experience do his thing.
> > Reminds me a bit of Sampras' last match.
 
> Also, he is playing unburdened by pressure. He said yesterday that he was perfectly satisfied with 17 slams, the rest is just gravy. I cannot even imagine how much pressure he has had to deal with, even on clay against Nadal he was expected to find a way to win. If he won a match in 5 sets, he was playing badly. He was expected to play perfectly day in and day out on every surface. That is a tremendous amount of pressure, and while he has done a stellar job of living up to expectations, it had to take its toll. That break somehow helped him hit the reset button and now he is playing with freedom, fully satisfied with his career and ready to hang up his racquet on his own terms.
 
Tennis has no off-season. That needs to change. In other sports, athletes get 4-6 months of down time. Season shouldn't go longer than end of October. Nov-Dec totally off.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 05:35PM -0700

> Federer's two slams in 2017 have been wonderful news, but some Fedfans here seem to believe that he is about to embark on another 2004 to 2007 type dominant run. And that is not going to happen.
 
We are talking about 2017 only and he has had dominant run already
dn.usenet@gmail.com: Jul 17 06:49PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 5:35:48 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> We are talking about 2017 only and he has had dominant run already
 
Nadal was also dominant at FO in 2017. Then he regressed to the mean, the mean being that he loses early at Wimbledon. Federer will also regress to the mean and then retire, all of this to happen fairly soon. Federer's mean is that he had won 1 major between 2011 and 2016. Bad things tend to happen when a player is in his 30s. Federer may be the best bet for USO (say, 30% chance), with other big 4 (Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Stan) having 25% chance between them, and rest of the field 45% . I am pulling these numbers out of a hat to make a point, but I do think these are realistic probabilities. Iceberg's contention was to disregard his age altogether and that is wrong.
 
By the way, I just noticed that both of Muguruza's major wins so far have had an odd end to the match. At last year's FO, she threw a lob on the last point, not expecting it to land; and when no OUT call came, she belatedly realized that she was FO-2016 champion. And this year she won Wimbledon-2017 after disputing a linesman's non-call when Venus Williams hit a shot long and Muguruza stopped playing the point to successfully challenge the linesman.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 07:14PM -0700

> Nadal was also dominant at FO in 2017
 
You are writing long pages, can you just write two sentences describing how the rest of 2017 will be for Fed, nadal and the rest of players?
 
 
Here is mine: Federer and nadal were the top two players for the first half.
 
Federer dominated HC and grass, and saved himself for the rest of the season.
 
Nadal has always been great on clay and he didn't take a break to dominate the clay season.
 
The rest of the season is all HC and indoor tennis and there is one slam left on fast hc.
 
Federer won two slams and Nadal won one.
 
How do you want to change these facts?
 
 
Even if Federer and Nadal didn't win the US open they have dominated 2017 already.
nani3skip45@hotmail.com: Jul 17 09:12PM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 7:14:45 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Nadal was also dominant at FO in 2017
 
> You are writing long pages, can you just write two sentences describing how the rest of 2017 will be for Fed, nadal and the rest of players?
 
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. I would be very happy if Federer won his 20th title (and 21st and 22nd); I think he has been cheated out of several titles by PED-exempted Nadal. But the above-under for Federer winning one more major are under 50, if I am to make a guess.
 
- dn / usenet
 
 
 
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jul 18 03:03AM

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 17:06:16 -0700, arahim wrote:
 
> The oldest guy around on the ATP rankings is...yes he is still around
> Younis El Aynoui at 45 (ranked 1783)
 
Wow, he's still playing?
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