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

Saturday, August 12, 2017

calimero377@gmx.de: Aug 12 05:29PM -0700

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 2:02:23 AM UTC+2, TT wrote:
> > but i have an open mind. there are cases where preemptive strikes are
> > incredibly valuable.
 
> No. Not a pre-emptive strike with nukes. That's crazy.
 
Only if it is possible to take out NK's nuclear capabilities with conventional weapons.
 
 
Max
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 13 03:35AM +0300


>> No. Not a pre-emptive strike with nukes. That's crazy.
 
> Only if it is possible to take out NK's nuclear capabilities with conventional weapons.
 
> Max
 
Can it be done with nukes then... without destroying the whole country
and millions of innocent people...
 
The correct path would be negotiations but Trump hasn't even tried!
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 13 05:03AM +0200


> Can it be done with nukes then... without destroying the whole country
> and millions of innocent people...
 
> The correct path would be negotiations but Trump hasn't even tried!
 
 
lol
 
And you know that how exactly?
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: Aug 12 06:28PM -0700

... is there anything more to say?
If Rafa is unable to win anything off clay even in his most consistent
form all year and loses not just to his erstwhile nemesis thrice in a row
but also to nobodies and newbies, there's nothing left to prove.
The 'mentally strongest' or 'best ever clutch' player tag is similarly
undeserved. Rafa has lost 4 straight final-set TBs and lost many more
times after being up a break or more in the final set. And these losses
have been to all kinds of players, not just the top players. The number of
times he loses in straight sets also belies the 'mentally strongest' tag.
It's true that Rafa is still one of the best defending BPs, but that's
about it.
Manco <musefan2009@gmail.com>: Aug 12 07:07PM -0700

Yeah but 10 French Opens is unreal.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 13 04:48AM +0200

> times he loses in straight sets also belies the 'mentally strongest' tag.
> It's true that Rafa is still one of the best defending BPs, but that's
> about it.
 
 
 
He's lost his edge and is past his peak.
 
You can criticize him for falling or praise Federer for keeping up
longer and managing to stay closer to his best level, fine.

 
But to negate obvious Nadal's peak vs peak superiority?
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Aug 12 07:53PM -0700

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:48:01 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
 
 
 
> You can criticize him for falling or praise Federer for keeping up
> longer and managing to stay closer to his best level, fine.
 
> But to negate obvious Nadal's peak vs peak superiority?
 
 
So if he had this peak superiority, why could Nadal *never in his career*, peak
or otherwise, defend a single title off of his beloved dirt?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 13 05:02AM +0200


>> But to negate obvious Nadal's peak vs peak superiority?
 
> So if he had this peak superiority, why could Nadal *never in his career*, peak
> or otherwise, defend a single title off of his beloved dirt?
 
 
Let's be honest about it, excluding slams, it's a bogus stat anyway.
 
It's just something haters use.
I remember some clown poster mocking Djokovic around here in 2008
or 2009, for the same, not defending tune-up or such and Djokovic
later won 4 consecutive YEC, most ever, and YEC is a tournament
where you meet most top players.
 
 
In Nadal's case, due to his seasonal dynamics and on-off periods
it just didn't happen.
 
But remember if Djokovic hadn't gone mad in 2011, Nadal most
likely defends FO-Wim-USO 2010-11.
 
You can't better than that. So he was pretty much there knocking
at the door of the highest achievement in terms of defending
titles. Didn't make it in the end. So would have defending Doha
or Indian Wells made such a difference now?
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 13 03:32AM +0300

> soon appeared and we began to converse, but not really. In campaigns, we
> candidates do most of the talking; because we like to, and because
> people ask us lots of questions. Not this time. Not by a long shot.
 
Seeing pictures of his apartment makes apparent his lack of common sense.
 
> point of our meeting, and to one another. That he seldom even attempted
> segues made each tale seem more disconnected from reality than the last.
> It was funny at first, then pathetic, and finally deeply unsettling.
 
Nice to have two narcissistic megalomaniacs exchanging insults. Hope
Trump and Kim leave it at that.
 
And if they do leave it at that then what did Trump achieve other than
worsen the already poor relationship between the two countries. Trump
promised to negotiate and make a deal with Kim - and the only thing he
has done is warmongering and threats of nuclear war.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 13 04:51AM +0200

> worsen the already poor relationship between the two countries. Trump
> promised to negotiate and make a deal with Kim - and the only thing he
> has done is warmongering and threats of nuclear war.
 
Yeah, he miscalculated terribly by not keeping you informed of his
secret negotiations with Kim.
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
calimero377@gmx.de: Aug 12 05:35PM -0700

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 1:58:36 AM UTC+2, TT wrote:
> > guys, let's not pretend Trump is responsible for this mess. Bill Clinton had a chance to deal with North Korea in 1994 and let Jimmy Fucking Carter undermine our foreign policy. Then you had 16 years of Bush & Obama doing jack shit. Suddenly Trump is the one you are going to blame for this crisis that 23 years of previous administrations did nothing? Was Winston Churchill to blame for Hitler in 1940?
 
> And what could the previous presidents have done?
> Is your solution to have war against or nuke the North Korea?
 
20 years ago the USA could have ended the DPRK easily.
 
 
Max
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 13 03:38AM +0300

>> Is your solution to have war against or nuke the North Korea?
 
> 20 years ago the USA could have ended the DPRK easily.
 
> Max
 
How?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 13 04:50AM +0200


>> Max
 
> How?
 
 
 
Same way as today. Raze them to the ground.
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Aug 12 10:15PM -0400

On 8/12/2017 12:36 AM, Manco wrote:
> they will help save us from the sheer monotony of Federer/Nadal dominance.
 
> They will win so much they will have us begging them to stop winning so much.
 
Cough cough.....
 
 
Well I just watched their debut match as rivals.
 
It remains to be seen just how their futures will play out.
 
But from what I saw in this match, this is my report.
 
First off, what a pleasure to see two players play as quietly as these
two. No intimidating, fake grunts etc.
 
Both players need to clean up unforced errors, especially Shap.
Double faults, to lose games? Come on!
 
Their styles are set.
Both play aggressively, Shap going for broke much more often than Zverev.
 
I like Zverev more than Shap.
Why?
He plays more percentage tennis. He thinks more on court.
Does not play impulsively like Shap.
His shots are more consistent than Shap's.
 
Both excellent movers/retrievers for such tall men.
 
Fun to watch, but not BIG four quality (not yet anyway).
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Aug 12 07:34PM -0700

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:16:43 PM UTC-7, TennisGuy wrote:
> His shots are more consistent than Shap's.
 
> Both excellent movers/retrievers for such tall men.
 
> Fun to watch, but not BIG four quality (not yet anyway).
 
 
Thanks for writing this. Shap will probably always go for more than the
very solid Zverev, but remember the kid is *eighteen*. If he can tighten
up the UEs I think he can go far. I like his deal.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Aug 12 05:54PM -0700

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:55:54 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
> > > ...was clutch. So deep and spinny. Mighta won him the match.
 
> > Just watched the third set tiebreak. Nadal played poorly.
 
> My thinking is that his opponent had something to do with that.
 
You don't think Nadal self destructed? Next time they play will reveal the dynamics. Now Zverev is serving for the first set.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Aug 12 07:27PM -0700

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 5:54:52 PM UTC-7, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
 
> > My thinking is that his opponent had something to do with that.
 
> You don't think Nadal self destructed? Next time they play will reveal the dynamics. Now Zverev is serving for the first set.
 
 
Not based on watching their TB once... if you find a link that includes
the TB, post it and I'll look again (I couldn't find one just now).
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Aug 12 06:16PM -0700

On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 12:59:03 PM UTC-4, grif wrote:
 
> >> Lol, I only meant you could help translate for the trailer, not the entire movie! Well, you could watch both films and report back which one you preferred.
 
> > The kid, presumably Ramanujan, asks whether 0 divided by 0 will yield one and whether giving 0 mango to 0 persons will result in each getting 1. His frustrated father asks what is the use in getting 100/100 in math but failing in all other courses. His school headmaster (presumably) remarks that they will be satisfied with a student being average in all the subjects instead of being a genius. A prospective employer rejects him saying his company accounts will be completely 'confused', so Ramanujan is not a fit for the position. His mom (presumably) opines that according to Hindu 'sashtras' crossing seas to go from one country to another country is not 'dharma' (not a proper thing). In another scene Ramanujan is asking whether his mental condition is proper or not.
 
> Thanks RD!
 
The movie is available on YouTube! The two chief protagonists acted very well. Failed to portray the S.Indian milieu convincingly. There was at least one misrepresentation like the wife cutting his hair, which didn't happen. Not much either. Was an OK watch.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Aug 12 06:16PM -0700

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 9:16:06 PM UTC-4, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
> > > The kid, presumably Ramanujan, asks whether 0 divided by 0 will yield one and whether giving 0 mango to 0 persons will result in each getting 1. His frustrated father asks what is the use in getting 100/100 in math but failing in all other courses. His school headmaster (presumably) remarks that they will be satisfied with a student being average in all the subjects instead of being a genius. A prospective employer rejects him saying his company accounts will be completely 'confused', so Ramanujan is not a fit for the position. His mom (presumably) opines that according to Hindu 'sashtras' crossing seas to go from one country to another country is not 'dharma' (not a proper thing). In another scene Ramanujan is asking whether his mental condition is proper or not.
 
> > Thanks RD!
 
> The movie is available on YouTube! The two chief protagonists acted very well. Failed to portray the S.Indian milieu convincingly. There was at least one misrepresentation like the wife cutting his hair, which didn't happen. Not much either. Was an OK watch.
 
Not much *math* either.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Aug 12 06:27PM -0700

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 9:16:51 PM UTC-4, RaspingDrive wrote:
 
> > > Thanks RD!
 
> > The movie is available on YouTube! The two chief protagonists acted very well. Failed to portray the S.Indian milieu convincingly. There was at least one misrepresentation like the wife cutting his hair, which didn't happen. Not much either. Was an OK watch.
 
> Not much *math* either.
 
Kanigel wrote a brilliant book on Rama.......
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Aug 12 05:44PM -0700

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 5:20:37 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
JW said as follows:
 
> >>>> If he had to always play peakest Djokovic, would he have won any? Nobody beats peakest Novak, not even Spanish caveman.
 
Courty countered:
 
> >>> LOL. Peakest Djokovic could only win 2 USOs. Give me a break. *rolls eyes*
 
To which you crowed:
 
 
> > Djok beat Federer who beat Stan who beat Djok.
 
> I can answer only questions that are in front of me. This time it was:
> "If he had to always play peakest Djokovic, would he have won any?"
 
It appeared you were not directing your answer to only part of JW's original comment(s). In any case, peak DJok is really good, only that Federer was no more peakity peak.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Aug 12 05:48PM -0700

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 6:46:33 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 5:20:37 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> > I can answer only questions that are in front of me.
 
> Can you answer the question as to where Tiger Djokovic is now or how he will perform once he does come back? Where is he? He's licking his wounds somewhere.
 
Peak Djok lost to Murray in two slams, to Nadal at USO 2013, to Stan at FO 2015 and USO 2016, Istomin, Querrey, Berdych, and probably a few others. He indeed beat a dilapidated Federer many times, who also returned the favor in FO 2011 and W 2012.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: Aug 12 05:51PM -0700

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 6:46:33 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 5:20:37 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> > I can answer only questions that are in front of me.
 
> Can you answer the question as to where Tiger Djokovic is now or how he will perform once he does come back? Where is he? He's licking his wounds somewhere.
 
Also, the only guy who dominated Federer is Nadal. His clay prowess is the ultimate, sustained over a long period of time. Such dominance.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Aug 12 05:40PM -0700

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
> > and there's not much there left.
 
> That you'd prefer to be watching the Safe Three rather than the guys who
> are in left in Montreal speaks volumes.
 
+1.
 
It's the reverse of what TT said, i.e. the Zverev-Shap SF is the most interesting match-up to hit a big tournament in years. These two are the immediate future. Shap for me is the most interesting young player besides Kyrgios to watch. He has such flair and such a cool "it" factor. The CDN commentators I'm watching were just saying how Shap is being flooded with endorsement offers at the moment. Screw Murrovic and bring on Zverev-Shap-Kyrgios.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 13 03:49AM +0300

Carey kirjoitti 13.8.2017 klo 3:12:
>> and there's not much there left.
 
> That you'd prefer to be watching the Safe Three rather than the guys who
> are in left in Montreal speaks volumes.
 
And why the hell would anyone want to watch Federer vs Haase?
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