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

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 12 05:44AM -0700

Steals the first set with TWO breaks of the Cilic serve. Very impressive stuff from the veteran.
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jul 12 01:26PM +0100

When I looked at player rankings (in another thread) I saved the top 200
at 23 June. Just out of interest the age distribution was:
 
39 1 Hidalgo
38 2 Karlovic, Stepanek
37 1 Robert
36 2 Burgos, Melzer
35 9
34 3
33 10
32 12
31 12
30 10
------
62 over-30s [31% of 200]
 
29 17
28 11
27 18
26 16
25 18
24 14
23 12
22 7
21 6
20 8
------
127 20s [63.5%]
 
19 8
18 3
------
11 teens [5.5%]
 
Looking at top 50 only:
 
38 1 Karlovic [23]
35 4 Federer [3], Lopez [25], Lorenzi [33], Ferrer [39]
34 1 Muller [26]
33 1 Verdasco [35]
32 5 Wawrinka [5], Tsonga [10], Isner [21], Simon [36],
Zeballos [49]
31 6 Nadal [2], Berdych [14], Cuevas [24], Gasquet [27],
Troicki [40], Anderson [45]
30 5 Murray [1], Djokovic [4], Monfils [16], Fognini [29],
Haase [38]
------
23 [46.0%]
 
29 4 B Agut [19], R-Vinolas [22], Querrey [28], M Zverev [30]
28 3 Cilic [6], del Potro [32], Paire [43]
27 5 Nishikori (9), Johnson [31], Klizan [44], Young [47],
Struff [50]
26 3 Raonic [7], Dimitrov [11], Goffin [13]
25 2 C Busta [17], Harrison [41]
24 2 Sock [18], Schwartzman [37]
23 3 Thiem [8], Pouille [15], Vesely [46]
22 2 Kyrgios [20], Edmund [48]
21 1 Khachanov [34]
20 2 A Zverev [12], Coric [42]
------
27 [54.0%]
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: Jul 12 05:41AM -0700

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 17:56:07 UTC+5:30, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> 20 2 A Zverev [12], Coric [42]
> ------
> 27 [54.0%]
 
Did the potential multi-slam champ, talented 'Atomic' Tomic get bored
of being in the top 50?
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 12 04:25AM -0700

> So when would he lose? Earlier or later?
 
Earlier
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jul 12 04:55AM -0700

23 aces, 77 winners, 12 or so UE. Pretty good for Rafa, no?
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 12 05:07AM -0700

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 6:37:25 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> > just brush it off as a 'bad match' of no consequence!
 
> > Do you realize why you are not taken seriously?
 
> So it was a good match from Rafa?
 
He did his best but couldn't win. He should have watched Federer's 2014 win over Muller before his match.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 12 05:40AM -0700

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 11:37:25 UTC+1, Whisper wrote:
> > just brush it off as a 'bad match' of no consequence!
 
> > Do you realize why you are not taken seriously?
 
> So it was a good match from Rafa?
 
he only lost cos of Muller's improved backhand.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 12 05:41AM -0700

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 13:07:22 UTC+1, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
> > > Do you realize why you are not taken seriously?
 
> > So it was a good match from Rafa?
 
> He did his best but couldn't win. He should have watched Federer's 2014 win over Muller before his match.
 
that wouldn't have helped much cos it would just show Muller totally folding.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jul 12 05:38AM -0700

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 6:36:23 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> > Was that a surprise given he had his runs of out at Wimbledon winning about 5 matches in 4 he played. He had 3 big hitters in his draw and the surprise is Muller took him out, most thought Cilic would take him out in QF.
 
> I thought Muller would be dangerous, but to lead 63 64 leads me to think
> concussion was a factor? And yes Cilic is looking ominous.
 
You picked him to go out in the first round. How about giving Muller some credit? Not many players would have hung with Nadal in the 5th set like he did. And he has beaten Nadal here before, so no fluke.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 12 07:18AM -0500

On 7/12/2017 3:30 AM, TT wrote:
> pretentious, slow and uneventful art films - hence the low rating. I've
> also seen at least Monsieur Verdoux and Mon Oncle but may have to watch
> them again before rating.
 
Thanks for the ratings. I'll keep those in mind when considering what
classics to view next.
 
 
> So... are we to believe you have watched likes of...
 
LOL ... I figured that when your bubble was burst, when it was shown
that I have seen more of all kinds of films than anyone around here,
that you/C1 would retreat to your last bunker, just outright claiming I
was lying about what I'd seen. Pathetic, really, but of no consequence.
 
 
> These are pretty much films one watches only if going systematically
> through important classics. 'Best of Youth' is pretty obscure and 6
> hours long.
 
Yes it is. But then again, I've told you all along, I've seen many, many
films over a long period of time.
 
> And... you lolled at C1 seeing Royal Wunderbaums only now while you had
> seen it 15 years ago - nothing to brag really, many did.
 
Not bragging about it, just laughing at C1 as she actually described it
being 'highly esteemed' or some such, as if the rest of the cinematic
world wasn't aware of it. BTW, did you see it 15 years ago, or recently
on Netflix?
 
> ...What is interesting though is that Courtsie also mentioned 'World of
> Apu' - while you have seen the first two films of Apu Trilogy but didn't
> mention it which would have been much more impressive.
 
There's nothing 'impressive' or lack thereof about having seen a
particular film. Or discussing it on a tennis forum.
 
> Courtsie also bragged with 'A Very Long Engagement' - which you must
> also have seen since it's on the list. Maybe you just didn't want to rub
> it in?
 
IIRC, I saw that in the theater about 12 years ago. But I discuss what I
want to discuss. Usually, that's what I'm seeing right now, I'm less
interested in discussing films seen long ago and have already discussed
with others.
 
> But seeing films is not a competition. (Maybe at listchallenges it is)
 
That's true. But guess what? You can C1 seem to regard it as such.
That's the only reason I jumped in to the 'lists' thing. I wasn't sure
I'd seen more of all kinds of films than you, but I was pretty sure.
 
I mean, I've seen a ton. I'm actually surprised you're as close to me as
you are, though I suspect if we only included films seen in public
theaters, the only real way to see a film, the gap would be much larger.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 12 07:22AM -0500

On 7/12/2017 6:04 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>> on Paprika? Intolerance? Pather Panchali? Woman in the Dunes? Stalker?
>> Eyes of Laura Mars?
 
> Yes, all valid points. He's FOS. He just randomly picked out some numbers to try and divert the conversation. Who >would quote numbers instead of actual movie titles?
Why quote numbers? Well, because it make the process a whole lot quicker
than typing out movie titles?
 
Good Lord, you are pathetic. Your final bubble was burst - it's now
clear that I have seen far more films of ALL kinds, not just
'blockbusters', than you- so you resort to pathetically claiming I
haven't seen films? On this at least, you have no shame, or integrity.
 
As for discussing films - what part of "I like to discuss films with
real cinephiles on actual movie forums, not on tennis newsgroups" didn't
get through. You really think so much of yourself that if I'm not
interested in discussing a film with you that this means I didn't see it?
 
LMAO!
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 12 06:56AM -0500

I'm not sure I've ever seen Rafa more disappointed with himself after a
match. He complimented his opponent as he always does, but man, he spent
a lot of time replaying the big points he missed. Seemed to remember
details about every single one of them.
 
In addition to winning W, a title he covets and hasn't won in 7 years, i
think Rafa understood that with his present form, this was a golden
opportunity to close the slam-gap on Fed, an opportunity now lost.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 12 10:17PM +1000

On 12/07/2017 9:56 PM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> In addition to winning W, a title he covets and hasn't won in 7 years, i
> think Rafa understood that with his present form, this was a golden
> opportunity to close the slam-gap on Fed, an opportunity now lost.
 
Perhaps Rafa was looking beyond that match? If so, fatal mistake.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 12 05:05AM -0700

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 6:32:42 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> He looks like my nephew, who everyone says looks like me.
 
> Most Croats are very good looking.
 
> ; )
 
Perhaps not as insufferable? ;)
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 12 07:03AM -0500

>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
> It's illegal to facilitate foreign involvement in an US election or receive anything of value (doesn't have to be >money).
 
Actually, the best legal experts are saying that campaign finance law -
the law being mentioned, not 'election' law - applies only to money or
things with direct tangible economic value. Only liberal legal experts
eager to get Trump think it can be interpreted so expansively so as to
cover 'information'.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 12 06:58AM -0500

> I was sure she would lose. All the ass clown rsr analysts got it wrong.
 
Yes, you were right about this - for once. Happens about as often as a
full solar eclipse passing over Houston.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 12 04:43AM -0700

On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 15:04:03 UTC+1, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
> > > makes sense, he's GOAT
 
> > nah, Nadal always whooped him.
 
> On clay, yes. On HC, parity has been restored.
 
it only took several years and Nadal to be out of sorts.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 12 04:43AM -0700

On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 12:35:28 UTC+1, joh wrote:
 
> > > makes sense, he's GOAT
 
> > nah, Nadal always whooped him.
 
> only when fed was out of sorts
 
oh yes he had mono lol
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 12 04:52AM -0700

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:30:18 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
> > > Yet another idiot plays out of skin, his very best match ever, like he's never ever played like before, against Nadal! Yet if he was played Fed, the git would choke to bits. It is beyond annoying!
 
> > No nadal best tennis comes on clay only idiot
 
> only an idiot would say Muller has ever played like this before, but then it is you, eh! 911 was a conspiracy!
 
Muller played as well as he usually does, perhaps with more confidence (he running his life year and all that!). What was evident was Nadal's clueless game on grass, highly susceptible to crafty competition that doesn't simply bash the ball.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 12 04:54AM -0700

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:43:44 AM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> > > nah, Nadal always whooped him.
 
> > On clay, yes. On HC, parity has been restored.
 
> it only took several years and Nadal to be out of sorts.
 
Isn't Nadal ranked higher than Federer?
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 12 04:55AM -0700

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:43:53 AM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> > > nah, Nadal always whooped him.
 
> > only when fed was out of sorts
 
> oh yes he had mono lol
 
oh yes Nadal is out of sorts but ranked higher than Federer lol
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 12 04:51AM -0700

On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 16:30:00 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> This is another lie like global warming :)
 
yep it is :
 
Looking at 177 well-studied mammal species, the authors found that all had lost at least 30 per cent of the geographical area they used to inhabit between 1990 and 2015. And more than 40 per cent of these species had lost more than 80 per cent of their range. The authors concluded that population extinction were more frequent than previously believed and a "prelude" to extinction.
 
DID YOU PEOPLE ACTUALLY READ THAT?! basically it just saying man is taking over the areas the animals lived in, how you can conclude 'mass extinction' from that is just plain dishonest.
By all means promote conservation and/or stopping pollution, but it is annoying they have to invent nonsense like this instead of just being honest about it.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 12 04:25AM -0700

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:00:07 AM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
 
> Djokovic has by far the easiest of the draw, his form is solid but not sure his form is better than Federer's.
 
Yes. Djokovic's draw is the easiest out of all the Big Four players without a doubt. I think if both get to the SF, Federer should beat him this time and if he doesn't, he should be ashamed. What has Djokovic done all year?
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 12 04:43AM -0700

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 12:25:25 UTC+1, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:00:07 AM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
 
> > Djokovic has by far the easiest of the draw, his form is solid but not sure his form is better than Federer's.
 
> Yes. Djokovic's draw is the easiest out of all the Big Four players without a doubt. I think if both get to the SF, Federer should beat him this time and if he doesn't, he should be ashamed. What has Djokovic done all year?
 
Fed looks blooming amazing!
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 12 07:45PM +1000

On 12/07/2017 12:59 AM, SliceAndDice wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 10:51:35 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
>> Unique returning stance - she shuffles to the left, then right & then
>> hops up in the air as Venus serves. Fun to watch.
 
She just played the last 2 games badly - up to that point the match
looked evenly balanced & like it could go either way.
 
 
 
---
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