Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 15 topics

Monday, July 17, 2017

RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 17 05:14AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 4:02:50 AM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> > > yeah well everyone just retires or doesn't bother vs Fed! he'd prob win then!
 
> > One retired. Everyone else tried but came up short. Like Nadal at AO 2017.
 
> you reckon the Nadal at the AO wasn't out of sorts?
 
Check their respective rankings at AO 2017. Also, An 'out of sorts' Nadal gets taken out in earlier rounds. Berdych (yes, the Birdman!) beat him at AO in one year in an earlier round. His Nov 15th born (forget the name now) Spanish countryman took him out in another AO first round.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Jul 17 05:16AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 4:32:22 AM UTC-4, The Iceberg 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.
 
> you're saying Nadal couldn't beat the level Fed played against Cilic yday???
 
sill(ice)y, the level doesn't remain static. If it were so, Federer should have lost AO 2017.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 04:54AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 7:46:24 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> Clinton-level dissembler. And no, picking Federer to win the tournament
> isn't the same as making a match prediction with scoreline.
 
> You are deeply delusional, about multiple things.
 
The only delusional person here is you. I predicted Federer would beat Cilic; you didn't and in fact said the opposite, i.e. that Cilic would destroy Federer.
You were wrong, yet again and yet again can't admit it. That's a sickness.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 17 07:01AM -0500

On 7/17/2017 6:54 AM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> You are deeply delusional, about multiple things.
 
> The only delusional person here is you. I predicted Federer would beat Cilic; you didn't and in fact said the opposite, i.e. that Cilic >would destroy Federer.
> You were wrong, yet again and yet again can't admit it. That's a sickness.
 
Where's your prediction with score line? If you posted that and I missed
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:
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 05:09AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 8:01:19 AM UTC-4, 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:
 
I didn't predict a scoreline but why do I have to predict a scoreline to be right? I very adamantly said Federer would not lose to Cilic in a slam final and you said that not only would Cilic beat Federer but he would destroy him. You were wrong. You posted your incorrect prediction that Cilic would beat Federer a few times in a few different threads. It's all there in the archives.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 17 07:14AM -0500

On 7/17/2017 7:09 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>> be the first time I've mischaracterized you- unlike the reverse.
 
>> This space reserved for your match prediction w/scoreline:
 
> I didn't predict a scoreline but why do I have to predict a scoreline to be right? I very adamantly said Federer would not lose to Cilic >in a slam final and you said that not only would Cilic beat Federer but he would destroy him. You were wrong.
 
I see, you didn't predict a scoreline, so you have zero grounds to
criticize mine. As for me being wrong about Cilic beating Federer,
obviously i was wrong, and I haven't denied it. Unlike you, I do
understand that some things are actually archived in black and white on
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.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Manuel aka Xax <xamigax@gmail.com>: Jul 17 05:11AM -0700

Le lundi 17 juillet 2017 10:27:56 UTC+2, Manuel aka Xax a écrit :
 
> Thanks a lot for hosting this funny & ritual contest :-)
 
> Thank you for the reminder, Bharath.
> I might very well have missed to enter to contest too, given the situation (I'll be moving from Beauvais to Toulouse, which is some 800Kms away, hence quite a bunch to deal with moving house related stuffs)/
 
I might very well have missed to enter THAT contest too, given the situation (I'll be moving from Beauvais to Toulouse, which is some 800Kms away, hence quite a bunch to deal with moving house related stuffs) !
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 09:57PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 3:40 AM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> Pretty Amazing. Think of everything Pete accomplished, and it was
> incredible, and yet if he won two more W and another USO, he'd still be
> behind Federer on 7/5/4/3.
 
Sure, but Pete wasn't chasing anything at the time. You do wonder how
he would have gone if he were chasing 19? Would he have retired at 31,
or played on another 5+ yrs like Roger?
 
That makes it interesting as 5 more yrs would have taken him to 2007,
right when Fed was at his physical peak.
 
Roddick won 2003 USO, & Sampras crushed Roddick 63 62 64 in 2002 USO Q/F.
 
Perhaps Fed & Sampras would have faced off in 2003-2007 Wimbledon?
 
Too bad there's no way of ever knowing.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 10:08PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 4:23 AM, 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,
 
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.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 17 07:10AM -0500

On 7/17/2017 6:57 AM, Whisper wrote:
 
> Sure, but Pete wasn't chasing anything at the time. You do wonder how
> he would have gone if he were chasing 19? Would he have retired at 31,
> or played on another 5+ yrs like Roger?
 
Good question, and there is no answer. On one hand, surely Pete wouldn't
have wanted to retire without the most slams, and without the most
Wimbledons. On the other, as of age 31, he had just won his 14th slam.
Five slams was a LONG way away in terms of the trajectory of his career.
 
Even before he broke all the existing records, when he was in 'chase'
mode, Pete hadn't won multiple slams in a year since 1997. From
1998-2000, he won one. At that rate, as of 2003 he would have been five
years and age 36 away from matching 19 slams, and that's assuming he
could win a slam a year. Nobody else has at that age - Federer went 4.5
years in his 30s between winning 2012 W and 2017 AO.
 
So tempering his desire to be slam king would be the reality of the
situation, which is how human motivation always seems to work.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 10:01PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 3:42 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>> What does it show ?
 
> Your posts in the past showed how much you never wanted Federer to win the 8th and for you to stop watching after Djokovic lost simply shows how much you hate Federer watching anyone you think can derail Federer's train.
 
Not necessarily. He just may enjoy a more s/v type game. I admire
Djoker & Murray, but would never watch their matches as they bore me &
can't hold my interest.
 
I prefer a Mac/Sampras/Laver game, but also enjoy watching Fed & Rafa,
to a lesser extent.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 05:06AM -0700

> I prefer a Mac
 
I hate Mac and cheese
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 10:05PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 3:56 AM, Carey wrote:
 
> Yes. Cash's last criticism of Fed: he keeps his head down too long after
> striking the ball.
 
Cash's claim to fame is winning Wimbledon - a big deal when guys like
Lendl/Wilander couldn't do it, & he beat them both at Wimbledon. He
dines on that for yrs. Along comes Fed & essentially says 'no big deal
I can do it in my sleep'. Diminishes Cash's relevance.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 04:49AM -0700

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 7:45:03 AM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
> > http://www.avg.com
 
> 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.
 
> Shit happens.
 
I knew there had to be some physical reason that he became so emotional. The guy mowed through players like water at the USO 2014 and has had experience playing the best players in big matches. The guy lost his movement because of the bad blister.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 05:04AM -0700

> 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, got broken and got broken again. Federer was returning his serve hard below Cilic feet.
 
If it was Berdych in the final against Cilic, would Cilic have cried?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 09:50PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 3:35 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Funny really
 
?
 
They are the 2 best players in the world & played a 5 set AO final.
 
Not sure what amuses you?
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 17 05:00AM -0700

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 1:35:15 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Funny really
 
It's not funny at all. None of those players you mentioned in the other thread will probably do much at the USO, i.e. Dimitrov (lol), Berdshit(he'll maybe make the QF and lose to a Big Four player), Kyrgios (hip injury and brain dead), Zverev (probably not ready yet), Djokovic (not in good enough form yet),etc.
 
Seriously, the field of players are crap and Federer and Nadal are so far above the field at the moment.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 17 06:56AM -0500

On 7/17/2017 6:20 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> comparison is.
 
> 18 was such a big number when Evert/Navratilova ruled. Hard to believe
> a man has won more than that.
 
Good point. It seemed way, way out there, and at that time, Borg had the
most with 11.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 09:51PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 3:36 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> No he wouldn't have won it and it meant nothing for him. He wanted Wimbledon and playing there would lower his chances.
 
Only if Rafa retired hurt, which is always a chance (like last yr FO).
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 17 06:48AM -0500

On 7/17/2017 6:29 AM, Whisper wrote:
 
> Makes you wonder how he would have finished his career if he were
> chasing Fed's 8 titles? Obviously he'd have plenty of motivation to
> 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.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 09:49PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 3:35 AM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> Still, the sporting ego is tough. Despite all he has, I bet it was a
> tough day for Pete seeing Fed win #8. Being the undisputed Wimbledon
> King was the thing he took pride in the most.
 
But he can take solace in the fact he didn't fail. The records were
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.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 17 07:48AM -0400

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/tennis/roger-federer-partied-lon
g-into-the-night-and-early-morning-after-his-historic-wimbledon-wi
n/news-story/4e3122f2a7fc4ddb7ff6de7f709bd9e2
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Jesper Lauridsen <rorschak@stofanet.dk>: Jul 17 03:52AM -0700

Jimmy Conners holds the record for most ATP level titels with impressive
109 titles (Lendl 94, Federer 93), but in wins against top 10 players
he's only a joint 10th with 83 wins (Federer 207, Djokovic 181).
 
Was this due to some problems in the early days of the rankings, or
did Conners seek out weak tournaments to boost his totals?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 08:48PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 1:31 AM, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
> Roger has nothing to defend for the rest of the year. He could become number 1 without doing much.
 
He's no.1 right now without a doubt. Maybe if Rafa wins USO it's a coin
toss.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 17 08:46PM +1000

On 17/07/2017 1:29 AM, RaspingDrive wrote:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
>> Sabine Cilic needs a Valium.
 
> Crybaby Cilic. Didn't congratulate Federer on his record.
 
Looks like he had a bona fide mental breakdown & probably won't remember
a lot of what went on. People in that state get off murder charges so I
guess cut him some slack. He's too nice a guy to not congratulate Fed.
 
---
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