Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 11 topics

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Aug 13 06:59AM -0700

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 3:33:38 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

> > was 29+.
 
> You mean the same guy at 29 who's winning slams at 39? That's the worst
> fanboi excuse in the history of fanboikind.
 
 
It doesn't matter. Federer is still not at his peak currently and he wasn't at his peak at age 29+ when Djokovic started to beat him at slams which is what we are talking about here.
 
It's not Fed's problem if the other players on tour aren't good enough or aren't capable of stepping up and stopping him just like players weren't capable of doing so when Djokovic was winning slams from 2014-2016. It's been a weak field since 2014 so let's see if kids like Zverev, Shap, etc. can do something about it in the near future.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Aug 13 07:03AM -0700

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 6:59:19 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > fanboi excuse in the history of fanboikind.
 
> It doesn't matter. Federer is still not at his peak currently and he wasn't at his peak at age 29+ when Djokovic started to beat him at slams which is what we are talking about here.
 
> It's not Fed's problem if the other players on tour aren't good enough or aren't capable of stepping up and stopping him just like players weren't capable of doing so when Djokovic was winning slams from 2014-2016. It's been a weak field since 2014 so let's see if kids like Zverev, Shap, etc. can do something about it in the near future.
 
 
That Zverev BH is fearsome, and his whole game is very solid. I expect a tough
match, not like his last beatdown by Fed at all.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Aug 13 05:35PM +0300

On 13.8.2017 16:59, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> You mean the same guy at 29 who's winning slams at 39? That's the worst
>> fanboi excuse in the history of fanboikind.
 
> It doesn't matter.
 
Nice handwave. If he wins slams at 39, he doesn't have any age excuses
in 29+, the new 19+. That much should be clear.
 
He lost to Djok because Djok was better.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 13 04:14PM +0300

*skriptis kirjoitti 13.8.2017 klo 15:00:
 
> So make up your mind is that David Duke guy satisfied with Trump
> or not?
 
Not satisfied until every wetback is back to Mexico and every negro hanged.
calimero377@gmx.de: Aug 13 06:49AM -0700

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 3:14:41 PM UTC+2, TT wrote:
 
> Not satisfied until every wetback is back to Mexico and every negro hanged.
 
 
Nazis and Putin endorse the orange clown, Castro and ISIS prefer the DemocRats.
No surprise ...
 
 
Max
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Aug 13 09:01AM -0500

On 8/13/2017 8:14 AM, TT wrote:
 
>> So make up your mind is that David Duke guy satisfied with Trump
>> or not?
 
> Not satisfied until every wetback is back to Mexico and every negro hanged.
 
David Duke, the KKK, and the neo-Nazis are all despicable characters. I
don't know anyone outside of themselves who thinks otherwise. They
should be denounced as such by everyone who isn't a hateful moron.
 
But a fundamental USA value is that even despicable, hateful, moronic
characters have the right to publicly voice their opinions in the form
of rallies and the like, we call that 'free speech'. Sadly, there have
been numerous examples this past year of left-wingers using
violent/disruptive tactics to prevent right-wingers of many stripes
from exercising those rights.
 
Not just to protest right-wing speech, left wingers have that right too,
but to protest in physically disruptive ways that results in the right
wingers being unable to hold their lawful speech events. That's wrong,
and a fundamental threat to a core American value.
 
As of right now, none of us know who started and escalated the violence
in Charlottsville, but until we do, it's wrong to talk only about
"neo-Nazi violence", etc. and ignore the possibility, not unrealistic at
all, that counter-protesters were also responsible for the outbreak of
violence and rioting, or what Trump called "many sides".
 
But the mainstream media doesn't seem interested in determining this,
which is the crucial fact of the entire situation. What they want to do
is denounce Trump for not focusing solely on what the Alt-Right did.
E.g., CNN spent almost all of last evening complaining that Trump
denounced violence from "many sides" and didn't spend all his time
lambasting only neo-Nazi violence like they wanted him too. They are
still doing it right now as i watch.
 
Violence from any source at political events is wrong. Neo-nazis holding
a rally don't have the right to physically assault counter-protestors,
or just bystanders, they hate because of their race, religion, immigrant
status, gender status or just not being enough like themselves in some
way, and counter-protesters don't have the right to physically assault
"alt-right" types they despise. The former seems obvious, but the latter
bears repeating because some left-wingers don't seem to understand this:
the fact that the other guy is a hateful bigot shouting out racist
slogans doesn't mean you have the right to physically assault him or
engage in rioting to prevent him from speaking. It doesn't, no matter
how bitter and despicable his words are. That's a core American value as
well.
 
Trump was correct for denouncing violence from many/any sides, he should
be applauded for doing so.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Aug 13 05:12PM +0300

On 13.8.2017 15:59, stephenJ wrote:
>>> mayor for violent clashes". Would have been more accurate.
 
>> It's implied.
 
> No it wasn't.
 
"More attendees are expected to flock to Charlottesville - normally a
quiet, liberal-leaning university city..."
 
How many quiet, liberal-leaning university towns have noisy Trumpsters
as mayors?
 
While you're banging your head against peripheral issues, what's your
opinion on the main issue, your fellow white supremacists on a rampage?
 
I see your CiC also managed to skirt the issue by condemning hatred on
"many sides", instead of explicitly condemning the side that caused the
violence.
 
Pitiful.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Aug 13 09:31AM -0500

On 8/13/2017 9:12 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
>> No it wasn't.
 
> "More attendees are expected to flock to Charlottesville - normally a
> quiet, liberal-leaning university city..."
 
That, and none of your other blather, change the fact that it wasn't.
Good Lord. :(
 
And about the violence in Virginia more generally, I already commented
on that in a reply to TT, so read your own thread for crissakes.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 13 05:34PM +0300

stephenJ kirjoitti 13.8.2017 klo 17:01:
> Trump was correct for denouncing violence from many/any sides
 
While threatening with nuclear first strike. Great guy.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 13 04:19PM +0300

stephenJ kirjoitti 13.8.2017 klo 16:06:
 
> We all know Nadal has been brilliant on surfaces other than clay - USO
> 2010 and Wimbledon 2008 come immediately to mind - but the mark of a
> great champ is being able to do it consistently, and Nadal just hasn't.
 
He doesn't have a great serve...
 
If you have a great serve it's much easier to win on fast surfaces. Most
opponents seem to fold.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Aug 13 08:29AM -0500

On 8/13/2017 8:19 AM, TT wrote:
>> 2010 and Wimbledon 2008 come immediately to mind - but the mark of a
>> great champ is being able to do it consistently, and Nadal just hasn't.
 
> He doesn't have a great serve...
 
I agree. Give Nadal a great serve and he might have won the CYGS a
couple of times.
 
FWIW, Nadal has served very well this year at times. I think he has a
good chance to win this US Open, anyone who discounts his chances
because of the Montreal loss (like when Fed lost to Haas at W tuneup) is
fooling themselves.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Aug 13 07:04AM -0700

> I think he has a
good chance to win this US Open
 
Don't you want to attach a percentage chance to your prediction?! :)
 
I really enjoy your numbers :)
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Aug 13 09:09AM -0500

On 8/13/2017 9:04 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>> I think he has a
> good chance to win this US Open
 
> Don't you want to attach a percentage chance to your prediction?! :)
 
Not yet. :)
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 13 04:29PM +0200


> We all know Nadal has been brilliant on surfaces other than clay - USO
> 2010 and Wimbledon 2008 come immediately to mind - but the mark of a
> great champ is being able to do it consistently, and Nadal just hasn't.
 
 
I'm more referring to the issue of defending titles.
 
I think it's not such a big deal that could disqualify a guy with
Edberg type off clay credentials. Nadal has 5 slams there.

 
Connors too hasn't defended Wimbledon title, and has defended USO
just once, even though he won it 5 times. Nobody talks about that
as it's irrelevant.
 
Otoh, Courier defended both his AO and FO titles so what?
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Aug 13 07:08AM -0700

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 10:16:43 PM UTC-4, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> Both players need to clean up unforced errors, especially Shap.
> Double faults, to lose games? Come on!
 
You do realize he's only 18? He just managed to do what only a select group of players like Borg, Chang, etc were able to do as young teens, i.e.make it far at an ATP Masters 1000 level or greater tournament and he beat two grand slam winners (Del Potro and Nadal) to get there.
 

> He plays more percentage tennis. He thinks more on court.
> Does not play impulsively like Shap.
> His shots are more consistent than Shap's.
 
I think you have it backwards. I think Shap is more creative and thinks more on court whereas Zverev is more robotic.
 

> Both excellent movers/retrievers for such tall men.
 
> Fun to watch, but not BIG four quality (not yet anyway).
 
We'll see what they are capable of in the next little while. Certainly they are
more interesting to watch than Murrovic (especially Shap's tennis.)
Tuan <phamquangtuan48@gmail.com>: Aug 13 07:26AM -0700

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:08:14 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > Fun to watch, but not BIG four quality (not yet anyway).
 
> We'll see what they are capable of in the next little while. Certainly they are
> more interesting to watch than Murrovic (especially Shap's tennis.)
 
Once Zverev ceases to be a novelty he'll be exceedingly boring I'm afraid. Look at how many times he comes to the net in a match.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 13 04:27PM +0300

PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 13.8.2017 klo 16:09:
> few points... is he Russian born / of Russian heritage?
 
> Mentally not at his best apart from RG? lol
 
> Why? Is his brain buried under clay, and he plugs it in when he is on clay?
 
I'm not sure why but it's the truth. Playing big moments and especially
break points poorly. Probably an extended confidence issue, which has
been improving but still not fully there.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Aug 13 07:23AM -0700

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 9:01:12 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> where he was great in all aspects.
 
> Shapovalov did play and serve great though, which made it a matter of
> few points... is he Russian born / of Russian heritage?
 
Shap's parents were both born in what was formerly the Soviet Union. They emigrated to Tel Aviv and that's where Denis was born and then the family moved to Canada before Dennis was a year old.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Aug 13 07:00AM -0700

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 4:11:57 AM UTC-7, Manuel aka Xax wrote:
 
<snip>
 
> For more players, seeing that, despite having an incredible year on his own, Nadal still is *somewhat* more vulnerable when not playing on clay.
> Cannot but give a bit extra boost to a wider bunch of players (those having already beat Nadal on HC, and those who came quite close to).
 
 
+1
calimero377@gmx.de: Aug 13 06:55AM -0700

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 11:28:37 AM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> On Friday, 11 August 2017 21:49:15 UTC+1, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > If NK use nuclear weapons and US retaliates with nuclear, all bets are off. Iran, Pakistan, Israel and India and Russia follow suit
 
> so you actually reckon there's going to be a nuclear war cos of Trump?!
 
 
Raja is a typical liberal wimp.
 
 
Max
calimero377@gmx.de: Aug 13 06:50AM -0700

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 3:07:36 PM UTC+2, TT wrote:
 
> > Ended their nuclear program I mean.
 
> > Max
 
> How?
 
Throwing Marshmallows?
 
 
Max
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Aug 13 08:24AM -0500

On 8/13/2017 6:15 AM, Whisper wrote:
> Otherwise it's always 'disputed'.
 
> Fed would loom a lot larger had he won all 11 Wimbledon finals he's
> contested so far.
 
I agree with all of this, which is why I mentioned the open/pre-open
caveat.
 
So to be clear, when I say "undisputed" GOAT, i mean "open era"
greatest, not literally "greatest of all time, open and pre-open".
Laver, e.g., cannot be surpassed by Fed/Nadal or anyone in the open era
because the eras aren't comparable, for example because of all those
peak-years slam chances Laver and all other pre-open era greats missed
out on.
 
That said, I agree that slam count by itself doesn't necessarily grant
undisputed status even among open-era players. E.g., Wilander won 7
slams and Edberg and Becker won 6, but I think the consensus is that
they are all essentially equal legacy-wise, and you can find a lot of
folks who put Edberg and/or Becker above Wilander. Ditto for Lendl with
8 slams compared to Mac with 7.
 
Again though, those situations are obvious, because when you are dealing
with small numbers, like 6 and 7, that means a guy is likely to have an
obvious deficiency, e.g. Lendl and Wilander never won Wimbledon. That's
the kind of massive slam-related deficiency that can neutralize a slam
count disadvantage.
 
But when comparing Nadal and Federer, the numbers are huge, 15 and 19,
so you just don't see those deficiencies. They've won everything, so the
resume weaknesses are relative, not obvious things. E.g., some around
here saying Nadal "only" won two Wimbledons, even though that's the same
number as Edberg and only one less than Mac and Becker. With these guys,
it's stuff like "never won more than one" or "never won 4 in a row" or
other stuff that clearly doesn't rise to the level of equaling an actual
slam trophy on the mantle.
 
At Nadal/Fed level, it will just come down to who wins the most total
slams, because that's an obvious enormous factor with no
counter-balancing weaknesses for either guy.
 
So it will come down to who wins the most.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 13 04:12PM +0300

Manuel aka Xax kirjoitti 13.8.2017 klo 14:21:
> Thanks for sharing, I've read about 15%
 
Two minute man?
Manuel aka Xax <xamigax@gmail.com>: Aug 13 04:02AM -0700

Le samedi 12 août 2017 16:13:30 UTC+2, SliceAndDice a écrit :
 
> > Well, Kyrgios isn't really in that group, at least by age... I hope he decides
> > he wants it, because he too has 'it', and can be electrifying.
 
> Agreed. Seeing Zverev and maybe Shap doing well might light a fire in his belly too. I also think Kokkinakis is a talented kid, has been very unlucky with injuries.
 
+1
Manuel aka Xax <xamigax@gmail.com>: Aug 13 04:02AM -0700

Le dimanche 13 août 2017 01:15:30 UTC+2, undecided a écrit :
 
> > nothing. Combined 0 slams, 0 MS-1000, 0 weeks at #1, 0 YEC wins. Pathetic.
 
> > It will be up to born 97-01(Zverev, Shap, auger-aliassime, ruud) to take over around 2018-2019.
 
> Tomic was never in the discussion, only some rabbid aussies touted him.
 
+1
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