Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Aug 07 08:00PM -0700


> > Federer bailed on his chance to win calander grand slam; I can see future generations being critical of that move, though, right now looks logical...
 
> > P
 
> Future generations will be critical of that only if Fed wins the open. You have (subconsciously) mailed the Open trophy to him. While jinx in this group were usually not genuine (so not working), I am afraid yours is :))
 
Not really... I was referring to his win at the AO then skipping the FO and having just won at Wimbledon already sets up a kind of oddity, for those that examine sporting historical markers. And I say this because he 'chose' to ignore the FO to prep for a chance at a record 8th W; thus the singular logic/gamble of not participating in the FO... winning the USO would only heighten the retrospective second guessing... but I refer to the common expectations of a) players ALWAYS playing an major they are fit to compete in and b) the only person who can win the current rota of majors or Grand Slam (as they are not constitued per year) is the player who wins the AO in January and yet, Feds had reasons to ignore that unwritten imperative... that was my point...
 
P
changjames32@gmail.com: Aug 07 08:18PM -0700

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:00:22 PM UTC-4, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> > Future generations will be critical of that only if Fed wins the open. You have (subconsciously) mailed the Open trophy to him. While jinx in this group were usually not genuine (so not working), I am afraid yours is :))
 
> Not really... I was referring to his win at the AO then skipping the FO and having just won at Wimbledon already sets up a kind of oddity, for those that examine sporting historical markers. And I say this because he 'chose' to ignore the FO to prep for a chance at a record 8th W; thus the singular logic/gamble of not participating in the FO... winning the USO would only heighten the retrospective second guessing... but I refer to the common expectations of a) players ALWAYS playing an major they are fit to compete in and b) the only person who can win the current rota of majors or Grand Slam (as they are not constitued per year) is the player who wins the AO in January and yet, Feds had reasons to ignore that unwritten imperative... that was my point...
 
> P
 
Got it.
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Aug 07 09:39PM -0700

On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 3:49:30 PM UTC-7, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
> > gravy at the Fed table.
 
> Federer bailed on his chance to win calander grand slam; I can see future generations being critical of that move, though, right now looks logical...
 
> P
 
In his mind, there was a good chance playing the French would cost him Wimbledon. Let's say he somehow wins the French by beating Nadal. Few weeks later, he loses at Wimbledon. He couldn't live with that. He wanted #8 more than anything else. I think he could be 101-1 for the year, but if that one loss came at Wimbledon, he'd be pissed. He'd rather be 7-10 with a Wimbledon win.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Aug 08 03:41AM -0700

Eh! You Fedfans have been saying Nadal would retire "next year" cos of his "physical defensive" game since 2005!
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Aug 08 10:05PM +1000


>> Federer bailed on his chance to win calander grand slam; I can see future generations being critical of that move, though, right now looks logical...
 
>> P
 
> Future generations will be critical of that only if Fed wins the open. You have (subconsciously) mailed the Open trophy to him. While jinx in this group were usually not genuine (so not working), I am afraid yours is :))
 
No such thing as jinx.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Aug 08 07:06AM -0500

On 8/5/2017 6:47 PM, Carey wrote:
> at USO or later or at all?
 
> I think he's done, but ?
 
I think he's unlikely to win this USO, 50-50 to win another slam in his
career.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Aug 08 05:34AM -0700

He was scared of Nadal on clay, there wasn't any strategy involved.
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Aug 08 10:09AM +0100

<http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/08/07/rel7a.-.trump.200.days.v2.pdf>
 
It was commissioned by CNN, but carried out by SSRS polling
company.
 
59% consider his first 6 months 'a failure'.
 
"Thirty percent of those polled said they don't trust anything they hear
from the official White House communications team.
 
Forty-three percent said they trust some of it, while 19 percent said
they trust most of it.
 
Only 5 percent said they trust all of the information coming from the
administration."
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Aug 08 03:37AM -0700

CNN Lol
Brian just can't get enough of em too!
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 08 02:53PM +0300

Brian W Lawrence kirjoitti 8.8.2017 klo 12:09:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
According to last Quinnipiac poll 62% think Trump is not honest.
What's wrong with the remaining 38%?
 
54% said they were embarrassed to have him as president
57% said they he was abusing the powers of his office
60% said they believed he was above the law
71% said Trump was not levelheaded
62% said Trump was not honest
63% said Trump did not have good leadership skills
59% said he did not care about average Americans
63% said he did not share their values
 
His approval rating was 33%
 
It is now 36,6% at fivethirtyeight.
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Aug 08 01:32PM +0100

On 08/08/2017 11:37, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> CNN Lol
> Brian just can't get enough of em too!
 
Not CNN, American voters,
 
"The study was conducted for CNN via telephone by SSRS, an independent
research company. Interviews were conducted from August 03 – August 06
2017 among a sample of 1018 respondents. The landline total respondents
were 396 and there were 622 of cell phone respondents. The margin of
error for total respondents is +/-3.6% at the 95% confidence level."
 
SSRS (Social Science Research Solutions) <http://ssrs.com/>
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Aug 08 08:12AM +0100

On 07/08/2017 21:05, Carey wrote:
 
> Then, you win."
 
> The Salon article has a link (third paragraph I think) to the Neoliberal IMF's own study which concludes that Neoliberalism doesnt't work... except for the rich, that is.
 
> It was ever thus.
 
<http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm#author>
 
The main finding states, "There is much to cheer in the neoliberal
agenda. The expansion of global trade has rescued millions from abject
poverty. Foreign direct investment has often been a way to transfer
technology and know-how to developing economies. Privatization of
state-owned enterprises has in many instances led to more efficient
provision of services and lowered the fiscal burden on governments.­
 
However, there are aspects of the neoliberal agenda that have not
delivered as expected. Our assessment of the agenda is confined to the
effects of two policies:
 
removing restrictions on the movement of capital across a country's
borders (so-called capital account liberalization);
 
and fiscal consolidation, sometimes called "austerity," which is
shorthand for policies to reduce fiscal deficits and debt levels.
 
An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad
neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:
 
•The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to
establish when looking at a broad group of countries.­
 
•The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs
epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some
aspects of the neoliberal agenda.­
 
•Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of
growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal
agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the
distributional effects.­"
 
So, the IMF Research Department was only looking at 'capital account
liberalization' & 'fiscal consolidation', not neoliberalism in toto.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Aug 08 11:47AM +0300

On 08/08/2017 10.12, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> distributional effects.­"
 
> So, the IMF Research Department was only looking at 'capital account
> liberalization' & 'fiscal consolidation', not neoliberalism in toto.
 
OTOH, "fiscal consolidation" is a rather huge part of it, central even.
I'd argue it would be pointless to talk about neoliberalism at all
without "fiscal consolidation".
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Aug 08 10:35AM +0100

On 07/08/2017 22:43, *skriptis wrote:
 
>> But I suppose you probably don't believe in the moon landings?
 
> How can I confirm it? I don't know if it really happened, but I'm
> impressed regardless.
 
How will you be able to confirm anyone actually landing on Mars?
 
> Either with the actual achievement or wirh a successful lie of
> such magnitude.
 
> That's what humanity needs. Goals, inspiration, striving.
 
True, but it needs other things too.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 08 11:50AM +0200


>> How can I confirm it? I don't know if it really happened, but I'm
>> impressed regardless.
 
> How will you be able to confirm anyone actually landing on Mars?
 
 
Better cameras, more advanced technology, available to more
countries and individual people, etc.
 
I mean you act as if a person should believe everything automatically.
 
Bush sent Collin Powell to U.N. to lie to the entire human race
about Saddam Hussein developing wmd in order to start his own
hitlerite-war.
 
There are big liars and conspirators out there. We should be careful.
 
 
 
 
>> such magnitude.
 
>> That's what humanity needs. Goals, inspiration, striving.
 
> True, but it needs other things too.
 
 
Not really, as in most cases "other things" boil down to
transgender toilets and some feminist bitching about sexual
harassment if you touch her minimally at the workplace.

 
We need to go to Mars, nothing else. Once you start working hard
for that goal, everything else in a society aligns itself
perfectly.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 08 02:56PM +0300

>> http://www.salon.com/2016/05/31/wrong_all_along_neoliberal_imf_admits_neoliberalism_fuels_inequality_and_hurts_growth/
 
> Salon, really?
 
> Lol
 
You sound like Trump.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Aug 08 07:09AM -0500

> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 5:25:17 PM UTC+2, Carey wrote:
>> //
 
> Neoliberal ideas are responsible for the huge economic progress the world has made in the last 40 years.
 
Good point.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Aug 08 01:19PM +0100

On 08/08/2017 10:50, *skriptis wrote:
 
>> How will you be able to confirm anyone actually landing on Mars?
 
> Better cameras, more advanced technology, available to more
> countries and individual people, etc.
 
Not sure how that helps, but never mind.
 
> I mean you act as if a person should believe everything automatically.
 
Do I? How? When have I ever written anything to suggest that?
 
> Bush sent Collin Powell to U.N. to lie to the entire human race
> about Saddam Hussein developing wmd in order to start his own
> hitlerite-war.
 
Do you know this happened, or do you believe that it happened? The SoS
certainly addressed the UN (04 Feb 2003 I think), that much is true.
 
> There are big liars and conspirators out there. We should be careful.
Not just 'out there'.
 
 
> Not really, as in most cases "other things" boil down to
> transgender toilets and some feminist bitching about sexual
> harassment if you touch her minimally at the workplace.
 
!
 
> We need to go to Mars, nothing else. Once you start working hard
> for that goal, everything else in a society aligns itself
> perfectly.
 
We don't 'need' to go to Mars, we didn't 'need' to go to the Moon.
We went to the Moon to achieve that goal before anyone else (ie the
Soviet Union) did. It was a cold war goal. Going to Mars will likely
be a global project with no opponents to beat. It would be a
technological, engineering goal with little real purpose beyond that.
Chances are no government will want to spend the money, and so it
may need to be a business-led project, with profit being the motive.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Aug 08 03:20PM +0300

On 08/08/2017 15.09, stephenJ wrote:
 
>> Neoliberal ideas are responsible for the huge economic progress the
>> world has made in the last 40 years.
 
> Good point.
 
Not really. Global trade and reducing trade barriers, which is what has
pulled millions out of poverty, is hardly a "neoliberal" idea or
something only "neoliberals" subscribe to.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 08 03:31PM +0300

Brian W Lawrence kirjoitti 8.8.2017 klo 12:35:
 
>>> But I suppose you probably don't believe in the moon landings?
 
>> How can I confirm it? I don't know if it really happened, but I'm
>> impressed regardless.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
 
> How will you be able to confirm anyone actually landing on Mars?
 
Good question...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Aug 08 10:03PM +1000

On 8/08/2017 12:25 PM, Carey wrote:
>> Heroic stuff from Federer. Down 1 set to 2. On the verge of losing Wimbledon, Federer manged to save 2 championship points. Saved the first one with an inch perfect unreturnable serve. 7-7. Saved the second one with probably the best down the line backhand ever under pressure, with Nadal rushing to the net and expecting a weak response. 8-8. Then Federer set up the set point with a third kind of a gem, a magnificent inside out forehand that forces Nadal to his fh corner, genrating a weak response from Nadal, only for Federer to finish the job with a cross court forehand, comfortably out of reach of Nadal's backhand. Which is amazing considering Nadal's mad running and retrieving abilities.
 
>> Too bad that Federer played like $#it in the first two sets.
 
> That BH pass Fed hit match point down at 7-8 was so clutch. Inncredddible.
 
One of the most astonishing match point saves in history - Newk gasped
on air. Would have become iconic had Fed won the match.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Aug 07 10:16PM -0700

On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 8:45:17 AM UTC+10, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> > Fine, but he is still the best clay court player and that is how he will be remembered.
 
> The guy who was thee most screwed by the lost years in the era before 'Open tennis'had to be Rosewall and not Laver, actually. Rosewall doubled Laver's amount of 'pro majors' during that period... Rosewall 15 titles and 4 losses in finals and Laver 9-6... It might well be Rosewall at the all time leader in majors not Federer... [Gonzales 12 with 6 lost finals]
 
> P
 
Then again if the pros were allowed to played slam Rosewall and Laver probably would not win the slam they won in early part of their career. I think emmo benefit a great deal from pro-amateur era, he won his 12 slams when the pro were absent from the slams and it is like taking out top 4-5 players from that era. Just think about if we take top 5 out layers like Nishikori, Dimitrov would probably become slam winners.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Aug 08 10:02PM +1000

On 8/08/2017 11:14 AM, Tim wrote:
>> arguably 4th best on grass. Newk has 7.
 
> Weak argument. More slams were played on grass in the days of
> Emerson,Laver and Tilden.
 
But none of the top guys in pre open era got to play the slams for as
long as Fed.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Aug 07 11:39PM -0700

On Monday, 7 August 2017 15:11:45 UTC+1, Guypers wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
> > Why would anyone re-watch an out of sorts Nadal? Oh yes the Fedfans
 
> Fantastic, fifth set, tore rafalito a new asshole, great job fed!!
 
yeah out of sorts Nadal even getting a break up, yeah really took it to him, must be that new backhand. LOL
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Aug 07 11:47PM -0700

On Monday, 7 August 2017 09:34:15 UTC+1, TT wrote:
> > to-youtube/>
 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJQP7kiw5Fk
 
> Oh well... let's just say that I've heard better and more original songs...
 
yeah but at the mo nothing gets you dancing at work or in the pub more than this song!!
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