Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

Friday, August 11, 2017

Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Aug 10 08:15PM -0700

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:09:11 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> Well don't worry because Nadal can't reach Federer, lol! Shapovalov is a STAR!
 
 
Yep, he is now.
Giovanna <giovanapel@bol.com.br>: Aug 10 08:18PM -0700

Too bad he's already leaving :)
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Aug 10 08:32PM -0700

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > Watching close finals between the two is more preferable to watching beatdowns either way for me. I want to see the battle between them and the element of surprise to be in play. It's much more satisfying that way IMO.
 
> > Disagree. I am a Fed fan and I want him to beat Nadal over and over again. Prefererably not close matches. I had no problem Fed wiping the floor with Hewitt and Roddick. Same with Nadal. I am not a "close battle" fan just for the sake of it. If some of the matches are close, or all of them, or none of them, I don't care. All I care is that Fed beats him 10 in a row from here on. That's the ideal scenario for me. H2h in favor of Fed, overall.
 
> Well don't worry because Nadal can't reach Federer, lol! Shapovalov is a STAR!
 
Its gotta be Federer vs Zverev for the title now. Can Shappy continue to surprise though?
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: Aug 10 09:27PM -0700

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:44:04 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > 40 is the new 30. i heard. :-)
 
> And 30 is the new 20
 
So a 20 year old just lost to an 8 year old?
changjames32@gmail.com: Aug 10 09:48PM -0700

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 1:26:23 PM UTC-4, kaennorsing wrote:
> > Rafa has been "all business" since he arrived in Canada. Friends of mine who are covering the Rogers Cup in Montreal tell me he's been stone faced and focused all week so far, at practice, walking the grounds and with most of the media. The sense some are taking away from his keen business approach centers around the perception that Rafa sees the Rogers Cup as a likely showdown venue against Federer. Having spoken with a member of the Nadal camp, one of my former writers tells me Rafa has been preping to try and put an end to Federer's run of wins against him ASAP, meaning in Montreal, should they make the final. Also, Rafa feels that his draw stacks up as one of the most challenging he's faced at a Masters level event this season.
 
> > P
 
> Both guys do look to be on a collision course with their year so far and the way they looked in their opening matches. How long can this revival of a tennis classic fairytale last? I wouldn't mind if Rafa gets one back if Federer goes on and wins the US open. Now imagine if Fed beats Rafa in the final... Rafa will be #1 on Monday but everyone will see Federer as the real #1, having won every masters and slam match this year so far.
 
It is a good news for Fed that Nadal was out. Again facing Nadal before the open, either win or lose, is a disadvantage IMO: a lose is certainly bad because it gives Nadal the needed confidence; a win doesn't add much (may actually lower the guard) and the younger opponent can still turn it around in the best of 5 match that demands a lasting concentration of the form. Now the chance to face Rafa be fore the open is cut half.
Question: if Fed wins Montreal, what does he need in Cinci to claim No.1 entering the open (for your scheduling advantage of the old man)? This question would probably depend on what Nadal get in Cinci (you have to assume Rafa would try the hardest in Cinci). I still think it is not wise for Fed to try too hard in Montreal and Cinci for No.1 benefit in Open unless he can get it with relative ease.
changjames32@gmail.com: Aug 10 10:38PM -0700

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:03:50 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> you better be hopeful that rafa doesn't turn it around and win the
> next 5. very well could happen.
 
> bob
 
It is true. Unfortunately it'd be more likely to happen first in Slam matches because of the form of best of 5. The only way to bail him out is that players of next generations come to dominate. So far the only candidate is Zverev but it is highly doubtful that the new Kafelnikov will stop Nadal, Djok in foreseeable future.
It's why he should do whatever in this open, win or lose, when he still has a saying on the fate.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Aug 11 03:51PM +1000

On 11/08/2017 4:48 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> As much as I root for Federer when he plays Nadal and some long awaited revenge has been nice to watch, I don't want to see any lopsided rivalries between all time great players. Federer appears to have Nadal's number off clay but I doubt Federer will beat Nadal the next 10 times in a row(if Nadal can make it to Federer in the first place) because I think Nadal's too good to let that happen. Remember the AO 2017 final was down to the wire.
 
That's the difference between a normal Federer fan like yourself & rst
Fedfuckers. You acknowledge the obvious fact Rafa had a lead in the
final set & the match went down to the wire, while Fedfuckers say the
result was never in doubt & Fed smashed him.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
ed scheuert <bescheuertekuh@gmail.com>: Aug 10 10:59PM -0700

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 12:51:42 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
While you Samprasfuckers (turned neo-Nadalfuckers) pretend that Wimbledon 2008 was a blowout in Rafa's favor. If you weren't the most hypocritical poster in this group, people might actually take you seriously.
changjames32@gmail.com: Aug 10 11:24PM -0700

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 1:51:42 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
That's not true. If you review the whole match, Fed did have an upper hand in general. Remember Sampras-Rafter Wimbledon final where many thought that Pete was lucky because Rafter almost got 2 sets, but when you looked at both sets before the tiebreak, Sampras did have an upper hand….
There could be one thing that worked against Rafa in that match: if you looked his way of lying on the ground at the end of his semi with Dimitrov, he acted like he won the slam. I guess that he miscalculated his chance based on his past results with Fed at AO and the fact that Fed just came back from 6 month break. Now it could be Fed's turn when people calling him goat birthday, practice with goat etc.. (a debatable word that should be restricted in this group, not used when a player is still playing). It is hard not to be gloating.
AZ <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com>: Aug 11 12:05AM -0700

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:51:42 AM UTC+6, Whisper wrote:
> Fedfuckers. You acknowledge the obvious fact Rafa had a lead in the
> final set & the match went down to the wire, while Fedfuckers say the
> result was never in doubt & Fed smashed him.
 
I cannot recall a single rst Fedfan that said AO 2017 was never in doubt for Fed. Your penchant for making up lies is pathological.
 
 
AZ <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com>: Aug 11 12:06AM -0700

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:59:02 AM UTC+6, ed scheuert wrote:
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > http://www.avg.com
 
> While you Samprasfuckers (turned neo-Nadalfuckers) pretend that Wimbledon 2008 was a blowout in Rafa's favor. If you weren't the most hypocritical poster in this group, people might actually take you seriously.
 
Good post.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Aug 10 11:38PM -0700

On Friday, 11 August 2017 00:31:42 UTC+1, AZ wrote:
 
> No. You are wrong.
 
> It's why I was the first to point out Fed's poor volleying techniques/kills over 10 years ago and the Fedfans went wild at me BUT they could NEVER dispute my point. His fh stomp volley was a total joke, he's improved a slight bit the past few years since Edberg, but Nadal and Murray are better than him.
 
> Your cute anecdotes and unwarranted confidence in your wrong opinion means nothing. You're wrong.
 
nah you're wrong, you being a Fedfan and clearly knowing nothing much about tennis other than what some hyped media articles tell you, proves your opinion is worth much less than mine. Fed's volley technique is pretty poor, his timing is out and he's no natural serve/volleyer, the hours and hours and hour of practice with Edberg prove this. His stomp fh volley was always a joke, yep am right there too.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Aug 10 11:39PM -0700

On Friday, 11 August 2017 00:38:12 UTC+1, Guypers wrote:
 
> > It's why I was the first to point out Fed's poor volleying techniques/kills over 10 years ago and the Fedfans went wild at me BUT they could NEVER dispute my point. His fh stomp volley was a total joke, he's improved a slight bit the past few years since Edberg, but Nadal and Murray are better than him.
 
> > Your cute anecdotes and unwarranted confidence in your wrong opinion means nothing. You're wrong.
 
> Cheeseburger, pepsi!
 
certainly sir, gotta say please first though! :)
AZ <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com>: Aug 11 12:00AM -0700

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 12:38:28 PM UTC+6, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> > It's why I was the first to point out Fed's poor volleying techniques/kills over 10 years ago and the Fedfans went wild at me BUT they could NEVER dispute my point. His fh stomp volley was a total joke, he's improved a slight bit the past few years since Edberg, but Nadal and Murray are better than him.
 
> > Your cute anecdotes and unwarranted confidence in your wrong opinion means nothing. You're wrong.
 
> nah you're wrong, you being a Fedfan and clearly knowing nothing much about tennis other than what some hyped media articles tell you,
 
Wrong. Fedahater.
 
>proves your opinion is worth much less than mine.
 
Wrong.
 
>Fed's volley technique is pretty poor,
 
Wrong.
 
>his timing is out
 
 
Wrong.
 
 
> and he's no natural serve/volleyer, the hours and hours and hour of practice with Edberg prove this.
 
Nonsense.
 
>His stomp fh volley was always a joke, yep am right there too.
 
Unusual obsession with the stomp volley. And wrong.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Aug 10 11:40PM -0700

On Thursday, 10 August 2017 14:58:26 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> Of course, for bob, being nuts is now kosher. Just because Trump happens
> to be nuts.
 
> Fanbois ...
 
Hillary wasn't nuts?!
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Aug 10 11:33PM -0700

On Thursday, 10 August 2017 22:31:19 UTC+1, StephenJ wrote:
> signs of old age were settling in. After the film, they aired an
> interview with the 87 year old Eastwood, and he's still tougher than nails.
 
> A- in 1992, A- now.
 
his son is in the new Fast & Furious movie!!! cool, eh!!
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Aug 10 11:32PM -0700


> > > Diversity training? What the hell is that?
 
> > Diversity is an old, old, wooden ship, used in the Spanish civil war.
 
> US civil war, dummy ...
 
it's a funny quote from a funny film, knew you'd miss it, thicko.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Aug 10 11:31PM -0700

> > Please shut up pretending you care in the least bit about refugees or the Middle East, when you supported Obama and Hillary's destruction of Libya and causing the biggest refugee disaster in 100 years, which they did for nothing except to try to get rid of Russia's last Middle East base and to make a name for themselves.
 
> Which Russian Middle East base, Trumpette?
 
> Max
 
the one in Syria, Tartus.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Aug 10 11:30PM -0700

> > > (Neville Chamberlain, London, 1938)
 
> > we forget Pelle and max are completely TERRIFIED that there'll be a nuclear war cos of Trump! LOL
 
> Which max?
 
you, your only answer about Trump being a fascist was that he might start nuclear war LOL
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Aug 10 10:19PM -0700

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:28:07 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> > 1) Fewer slams, the big elephant.
 
> er, he has more than anyone in history bar Fed. Plus he has potential
> to win more as he is younger.
 
No doubt, but he lacks the record as of now.
 
> means they get credit for weeks where no tennis was played. Dumb, & of
> zero value imo. All that matters in no.1 stats is yr-end, as that means
> you accumulated most points in that tennis season.
 
er, it is your opinion.
 
> > 3) Zero YEC titles.
 
> I'd rather win 1 Olympic gold than 6 YEC's.
 
Rafa should win at least one YEC, which is lacking in his resume.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Aug 10 10:20PM -0700

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 2:59:13 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
> Everyone in the universe would rather have Fed's trophy case than Rafa's.
 
> Rafa can do it, but he has work to do, has to win at least 5 more slams
> to be undisputed goat.
 
well said.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Aug 10 10:27PM -0700

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:01:22 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >When someone is in the reckoning for goat, the player will be expected to have slams on all surfaces (CGS), especially the prestigious W. In the absence of such a feat the player will have to give way to others who have the credentials. Since all the goat contenders have multiple W wins, based on empirical evidence, your scenario appears unlikely.
 
> so a many with 5 wim, 5 USO, 5 FO, 0 AO is less than a man with 1 of
> each in your book? nah.
 
don't forget to factor in the slam count supremo, a prerequisite for goat-ship.
 
 
> i know. and only cause rafa had a bad year or was hurt and lost to
> soderling. we know. but he did make about 5 finals? so he's no clay
> fluke.
 
goat-ship criterion looks at slams wins foremost.
 
> last month, i have to stay true to my beliefs that fed's 8th wimbledon
> and 19 slams (the last 2 with murray, djok and rafa all on tour -
> albeit in bad form) puts him in the catbird seat unfortunately.
 
last two? what about 2010 and 2012 wins? Carey would continue calling you disingenuous :)
 
> if rafa can get 1 more F'ing Wimbledon, and close that gap i can start
> rambling and making enemies, but til then i just can't see it. fed's
> flaws are smaller than rafa's.
 
Let's wait and see whether he gets four more FO's at least (with Fed remaining at 19).
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Aug 10 10:29PM -0700

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:42:23 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >great bulk of people out there. Only partisans will claim one or the other.
 
> if they both have 19 and rafa has that 3rd wimbledon, i'll take rafa.
> by the narrowest of margin. if not, tough call.
 
For me it is simple. Rafa gets to 19, Fed remains static, and Rafa is the achievement goat by virtue of H2H. I hope Fed bags four more.
 
> >For Rafa, it's pretty clear: To retire as undisputed GOAT, he has to win
> >at least 20 slams. Nothing else will do it.
 
> maybe but i think he'd be more than happy with 19.

He and TT. Although TT anointed him already.
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: Aug 10 09:40PM -0700

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:11:57 PM UTC-7, ed scheuert wrote:
 
> > I'll say. Takes out Raffi 7-4 in a final-set TB.
 
> > heh
 
> After being down 3-0 in the TB. Not a bad run for the youngster.
 
Nadal won 115 points to Shapovalov's 110.
Last set Nadal 52 points to Shapovalov's 53. Nadal 0 for 6 in breakpoints. Shapovalov had none.
 
Shapovalov had no break points in sets 1 and 3.
joh <joshorst@gmail.com>: Aug 10 09:45PM -0700

Op vrijdag 11 augustus 2017 05:11:57 UTC+2 schreef ed scheuert:
 
> > I'll say. Takes out Raffi 7-4 in a final-set TB.
 
> > heh
 
> After being down 3-0 in the TB. Not a bad run for the youngster.
 
Front running not so lucrative for Rafa these days
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