rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com
Google Groups
Topic digest
View all topics
Fed being massively tested today - 2 Updates
No "Weekend with Bernie" - 6 Updates
Looks like Nole will have to earn his FO, unlike Federer.... - 5 Updates
Rafa bans Carlos Bernardes - 2 Updates
Federer's game so far - 2 Updates
Bad play by Federer today - 1 Update
Heavy slow conditions until the QF - 1 Update
Bouchard loses again - 2 Updates
AQI, ISI, and ISIL: a chain that exposes the MMC (megalo-maniacal cynicism) of American denial! - 2 Updates
cancel - 1 Update
Kuznetsova vs Schiavone - 1 Update
Fed being massively tested today
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 29 06:25AM -0700
The fixed draw today has Fed playing the 3rd round vs some guy called "Damir Dzumhur" who's from Bosnia, apparently. I think they went for this guy as he's the most unknown player ever unheard of and ca1houn was on holiday.
alinefx@alinefx.com: May 29 07:00AM -0700
And you're a person who really needs a life.
Back to top
No "Weekend with Bernie"
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: May 28 02:24PM -0800
> Bernie's" where two people try to create the impression that their boss
> named Bernie is still alive. I argued that Tomic often played like he
> was dead, and that he rarely made the weekend of a slam.
I'm trying to imagine these paragraphs read in the voice of Brent Spiner.
Though, the contraction in the first sentence ruined it.
"Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net>: May 28 09:08PM -0400
In article <42b21b7e-6d77-4296-b5d1-6561824acbbe@googlegroups.com>,
> > <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098627/?ref_=nv_sr_1>
> > <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108539/>
> Ever write for Seinfeld?
No, I never wrote for either the series or the comedian.
However, you might like the following line that I originated at my
recent nuclear power plant job:
A guy named Darryl Brogle was "singing" "All I Want to Do Is Have Some
Fun". I told him,
"Darryl, while you're not Sheryl, your singing reminds me of a Crow."
The key to humor is quick timing. If I said it five or ten minutes
later, it wouldn't have been nearly as great.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: May 28 07:14PM -0700
On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 9:08:39 PM UTC-4, Thomas R. Kettler wrote:
> later, it wouldn't have been nearly as great.
> --
> Remove blown from email address to reply.
Lol, good one!
"Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net>: May 28 10:36PM -0400
In article <2f35078f-1995-46a8-9e4b-7e7735276d23@googlegroups.com>,
> > The key to humor is quick timing. If I said it five or ten minutes
> > later, it wouldn't have been nearly as great.
> Lol, good one!
Thank you.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
"Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net>: May 28 10:49PM -0400
In article <2f35078f-1995-46a8-9e4b-7e7735276d23@googlegroups.com>,
> > The key to humor is quick timing. If I said it five or ten minutes
> > later, it wouldn't have been nearly as great.
> Lol, good one!
If you like what I've shown here, you may wish to check some of my other
lines from the archives.
As examples, I have provided lines about the Pistorius trial, Graf's
nose (which always get a rise from Calimero), my dislike of Andy Murray
(grif thought I was from the UK from those) or the pomposity of most
tennis analysts, especially McEnroe.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 29 06:48AM -0700
On Thursday, 28 May 2015 23:13:05 UTC+1, Thomas R. Kettler wrote:
> Here's the movie and its sequel:
> <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098627/?ref_=nv_sr_1>
> <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108539/>
heheh <bow> (nice pointer to one of my old posts - good memories)
Back to top
Looks like Nole will have to earn his FO, unlike Federer....
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 29 09:08AM -0400
On Mon, 25 May 2015 06:33:34 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> HOPS for touting gasquet. selective memories, this RST.
>> bob
>OK, spotting Rafa's precocity, *if* that were indeed true, cancels out incorrectly exalting Roddick's potential. However, what about that count of 1 which actually became 17? That is an abysmal prediction in the annals of forecasting. Additionally, how did a so-called shrewd observer fail to detect a so-called clown era? Those who are prone to open the orifice to spew out incessant drivel are generally the objects of pillory -- There appears to be nothing selective there.
i don't think anyone could've forseen the clown era of 2003-2007.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 29 09:22AM -0400
>and not hit the wall. But Roddick is enormously talented when it comes
>to serving... and his groundgame wasn't that bad either, perhaps
>focusing too much on consistency.
your description is perfect: roddick hit the wall.
he hit the wall because he just wasn't a tennis fanatic like fed,
nadal, djokovic - or sampras and othersw before - were. he loved
limelight success and fame; didn't love practicing tennis.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 29 09:25AM -0400
On Wed, 27 May 2015 15:56:47 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Essentially it tells me he has no principles, he doesn't really stand
>> for anything.... what he says yesterday he'll argue against tomorrow.
>Like I said before, if Whisper was as hardcore a Fed fan as most here, nobody would've had any problem with him, even with his contradicting opinions and his cocksureness.
if whisper used his tone, demeanor, knowledge and wit as a fedfan,
he'd be RST's most popular/amired/respected poster by a wide margin.
because he uses it to call it how he sees it, he gets scorned. tough
going against the grain sometimes, i know the feeling.
>> eat crow on all his failed talent picks, especially when he was so
>> cocksure and rude about it.
>I've seen lots of folks dismissive of a contrary opinion - Vari, Arnab, Felangey etc. etc. - except they weren't as cocksure. That's Whisper's problem.
actually that's vari, arnzab and felangey's problem. i recall the day
felangey pouted out of RST for a year after rafa whipped feddy in that
FO final.
>Folks should've contended with him when he made those projections, by putting forth their own projections. I think it's easy to wait until he's proved wrong and then pile on him.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 29 09:28AM -0400
On Thu, 28 May 2015 13:42:08 -0800, jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Whisper getting carried away in his prediction, and then trying to
>> defend himself. Like TT said, he should just laugh it off and move on.
>It's a character flaw.
i'm glad nobody else in RST, particularly you, has any character
flaws. sigh.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 29 09:31AM -0400
On Fri, 29 May 2015 10:55:42 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
>admitting wrongs, because as I said that means I'm learning something
>and that's something I always hope to get out of rst. I won't be
>coerced by the likes of you & john into a false position. No point in that.
you are guilty of the same simple sin that a few of us others are: not
believing federer to be the boat and believing he got quite lucky in
the weakness of the field for about 8 slams worth.
it's just honest opinion a few of us share, no matter that fed is a
great player who has won more slams at the biggest venues than anyone
else, is achievement GOAT (for now), plays more consistently longer
than anyone, etc.. we all admit that.
bob
Back to top
Rafa bans Carlos Bernardes
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk: May 29 06:31AM -0500
> > Can you post a list of titles?
> Many are on www.tennisbooks.com, but that site hasn't had new
> acquisitions added to it for ten years.
I have a pretty reasonable collection, too, which means that a lot on that
list I already have.
I don't suppose you have the data in a format I could import into a
spreadsheet?
wg
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk: May 29 08:18AM -0500
In article <BI2dnQgJ0Pu10_XInZ2dnUU78IGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> on that list I already have.
> I don't suppose you have the data in a format I could import into a
> spreadsheet?
Never mind...solved it now.
wg
Back to top
Federer's game so far
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 29 09:13AM -0400
On Tue, 26 May 2015 13:36:19 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>> overall # count got touted so highly more or less recently) is an
>> advantage.
>No. Does not matter. All play for big wins -one at the time- Bolt is not training for 2020 Olympics, but 2016 Olympics....Everyone is trying to win Masters or The Open....not to get absolute Nicklaus numbers...
it does matter - in a huge way. give a runner a 9.8 sec 100m to shoot
for and he'll train for it; give him 9.7 sec and he'll shoot for that.
it matters hugely.
>> fo similtaneously, too many clay specialists + surfaces were too
>> different. agassi probably came closest with 1 each.
>Clay specialists - yes there were more of those because it was easier to make journeyman career with focusing on clay only (best of 14 rank system and overally more clay tournaments)...but this is still marginal, very marginal...you could vice verac claim that today it is extra hard for all because everyone is actually specialized in current homogenous slow conditions?
that's just the pt: you don't need to "specialize" in anything in
particular for the homogeneous era. the 4 men who have dominated the
past 10 years play quite a similar game, minus fed's 1H BH (the lone
exposed weakness that cost him about 8-10 slams).
>Edberg
>Courier
>Agassi
********
>Federer 4x
>Nadal 5x
>Djokovic
*********
and there you have it! i love when your numbers come to my rescue
mikko. this almost goes to "clown era" too, my friend. :-)
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 29 09:17AM -0400
On Mon, 25 May 2015 05:56:33 -0700 (PDT), "Rodjk #613"
>> Again saying Sampras is not top rated clay court player in no way diminish his win on other surfaces. He would not be considered top 10 on his own era that is based on what other players in his era did on clay. You just have to accept that Samrpas never manage to transfer his power game successfully onto clay.
>One of the reasons that I post so rarely (even though I read pretty much every post) is because I find that others say things much more concisely and elequently than I...
>As a Sampras fan, I find that what John said is quite reasonable.
nobody argues that sampras' FO results were poor for a top caliber
champion. john mentioning that isn't new ground. what we've all been
discussing for over a decade is WHY, not WHAT. if nobody can add to
the why, there's not much more to say.
bob
Back to top
Bad play by Federer today
PeteWasLucky <Waleed.Khedr@gmail.com>: May 29 06:15AM -0700
He will have to clean and raise his game to have a chance of beating Monfis.
Back to top
Heavy slow conditions until the QF
PeteWasLucky <Waleed.Khedr@gmail.com>: May 29 05:28AM -0700
Weather in Paris expected to stay in sixties and low seventies until the QF.
This in my opinion favors djokovic against Nadal.
We will see I guess.
Back to top
Bouchard loses again
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk: May 29 06:23AM -0500
In article <97d0e7bb-cb45-42b7-888f-e71b0f519423@googlegroups.com>,
> I think that all Larry was saying was that others before Bouchard
> have fallen off rapidly, and I looked up the Oudin story to make
> sure that I had my facts straight.
What's different in Bouchard's case is that she did *so* well, and now
can't seem to string two wins together. I think it's a good example of the
way that defending points and achievements can be harder and more
pressured than making those wins and achievements in the first place.
This sort of thing can get into a spiral: you want to repeat what you did,
you dohn't really know how you did it, and then you panic because you're
not doing it. I don't think all the hype last year helped her, either.
(I've often thought that one reason Capriati struggled so much when her
early whip up the rankings stalled was that everyone had been telling her
for so long that she was going to be the Next Huge Chris Evert Thing that
when it turned out to be harder than she thought she saw herself as a
failure instead of seeing the task as really, really hard; I always
thought the match that broke her heart was the 1991 US Open semifinal that
was so, so close and which Seles won (of course). Capriati had some great
wins after that, notably the gold Olympic medal, beating Graf in the final
in 1992, before her flameout in 1993.
wg
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk: May 29 06:24AM -0500
In article <3e78d830-7c2e-4849-af9c-9d1e7f4ec1a8@googlegroups.com>,
> her character seems fine to me, she wants to win, I'm glad she
> ditched Laura Robson, shows what's important to her.
I don't believe we know who ditched whom. But it seems like a bad sign to
me, not a good one: you shouldn't have to hate your competitors. The tour
is lonely enough as it is. Lots of top players have managed to be good
friends with their closest competitors.
wg
Back to top
AQI, ISI, and ISIL: a chain that exposes the MMC (megalo-maniacal cynicism) of American denial!
acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn): May 29 06:53AM
This edition corrects a few mistakes from the earlier one. E.g., Jeb
and Hillary are competing to be our president starting 2017, not 2016.
The MMC of American denial: "the world is better off because Saddam
Hussein is no longer in charge in Iraq".
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/may/18/marco-rubio/rubios-statements-iraq-have-shifted-not-flipped/
In other words, no matter who is now in charge in Iraq, the world is
better off. In other words, the world is still better off even though
Iraq is now in the process of being taken over by the Islamic State,
which could be in possession of nukes and ready to use them next year.
People have forgotten that the demonization of Saddam prior to his
overthrow was about as credible as the charge that his government was
in possession of WMD, since all those innuendos also came from the
same sources. People still have their heads in the sand - they still
say: The world is better off, the world is still better off, no matter
how bad IS is. That's called the MMC or the megalo-maniacal cynicism
of American denial!
According to the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/05/27/jeb-bushs-claim-that-islamic-state-didnt-exist-when-my-brother-was-president/
The National Counterterrorism Center puts it this way: "Al Qaeda in
Iraq (AQI), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and more
recently the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), was
established in April 2004 by long-time Sunni extremist Abu Mus'ab
al-Zarqawi. The NCTC notes that Zarqawi was killed by a
U.S. airstrike in 2006 and afterwards his successor announced the
formation of the Islamic State."
So, at a glance, we have the following chart for who begat whom:
Iraq -> AQI -> ISI -> ISIL
Saddam Zarqawi successor(Zarqawi)
<2003/03/19 2004/~04 2006 now
Since the NCTC claims that Zarqawi was a long-time Sunni extremist,
that means he was around but reigned in by a functioning Iraqi state
under Saddam and his Ba'ath party, until G W Bush rudely turned the
country upside down. At that moment, there was a clear and present
external enemy for many Iraqis to rally themselves against, and they
did so under Zarqawi, when the movement rose to prominence in 2004.
So, G W Bush was totally responsible for giving AQI/ISI the influence
it had and bringing ISIL to its current prominence.
But the neocons are the real masters behind US foreign policy. The
havoc they created did not stop there.
When Obama came in as a raw president, the Democratic party made him
accept Hillary Clinton as a kind of co-president. In the role of
Sec. of State, Hillary continued to execute the foreign policy that
the Bush administration undertook. The first of Hillary Clinton's
accomplishments was taking the lead to turn Libya upside down -
laughing at the painful demise of Muammar Qaddafi for the world to
see, proclaiming: "We came, we saw, and he died! A-ha, ha, ha, ..."
She continued to work "hard" to inflict the same to Assad's Syria...!
But what can we expect? Why... of course, she also succeeded to cause
the Islamic State to expand... to now include not just poor Iraq, but
also Syria. And thus, ISIL was born!
So, you see, ISIL, or Islamic State as we know it today, is the child
of havoc and megalomaniacal cynicism. The Islamic State was born out
of the union of two families - the Bushes and the Clintons, which
happen to be the two most prominent and ambitious clans of the
oligarchical class of the United States of America today. So, Jeb
Bush and Hillary Clinton are fighting to be your president starting
2017!
lo yeeOn
acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn): May 29 08:15AM
In article <2b897854-58a8-4d2b-b672-f563771e31ac@googlegroups.com>,
>the evil that one sees and the evil that one has yet to see. The other
>issue is megalomaniacal leaders and ignorant people. A combination for
>disasters.
The first issue you mentioned is apparently, at a minimum, supported
by the following observation Paul Waldman of "The Week" made today:
One might think that the experience of the last decade and a half
would have taught us all that. In justifying their support for the
Iraq War, Republicans will often say that "the world is better off
without Saddam Hussein," as though it were self-evident that
conditions improve once you remove a brutal dictator. But it's not
at all clear that that's true - Saddam is gone, but a couple hundred
thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed, a corrupt sectarian
government in Baghdad allowed ISIS to take hold, Iran's strength in
the region was enhanced - all things that the architects of the Iraq
War either didn't consider or thought wouldn't happen.
Of course, personally, I think stronger statements can be made against
the evil in G W Bush's Iraqi invasion. I don't think "removing a
brutal dictator" was the Bush-Cheney_Wolfowitz-led neocons' real goal.
If it were a real cakewalk as they had originally envisioned, they
would have gone on to attack Iran and North Korea, since they had
already designated the other two countries part of the "axis of evil".
Is it the case that Iran, e.g., was ruled by a "brutal dictator"? Of
course, not!
But at the height of the "War on Terror" frency, the neocons and their
sycophants insisted that those Iranian mullahs were posing a threat to
the world even without nuke. Ergo, they would have also insisted the
same old tired line that "the world is now a better place without the
mullahs, blah, blah, blah", had they actually had a chance to invade
that country.
Now, the Bush family is hoping that by getting Jeb in, they will get
to make sure that the historians will say that the Iraq War was not a
mistake - as Jeb is already saying, despite the facts to the contrary.
And they will keep saying that it's a mess now only because of Obama.
Your second issue - the issue of megalomaniacal leaders combined with
ignorant people - is of course very valid. It's painfully plaguing
this country today. Hopefully, we'll hear more people talk about the
causality between our "War on Terror" and the growth of Islamic State.
So far only candidate Rand Paul is brave enough to say it like it is.
"[Rand Paul] even tied his Republican colleagues to the despised
Hillary Clinton: "ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in
my party loved Hillary Clinton's war in Libya, they just wanted more
of it."
For as long as it is the case that no one who can say it like it is
will be nominated (for president), this country is in deep trouble.
I'm particularly concerned that even as the Fed Reserve chairwoman
Janet Yellen is not ruling out an interest rate hike in the next 6
months, people are still totally oblivious to the cost of more wars
abroad.
We're already trillions in debt because of these frivolous wars. When
shall we wake up to disasters that we cannot pull ourselves out from?
lo yeeOn
Rand Paul is pushing the GOP to confront its terrorism problem. Too
bad the other 2016 candidates won't listen. By Paul Waldman
http://theweek.com/articles/557284/rand-paul-pushing-gop-confront-terrorism-problem-bad-other-2016-candidates-wont-listen
[Democrats or Independents should also pay attention: Hillary Clinton
is also culpable of creating the influence ISIL enjoys today. See
below for what Rand Paul had to say about that.]
Any time there's a genuine difference of opinion concerning a policy
issue within a presidential primary it's worthy of note, even if
there's only one candidate standing apart from the others. Rand Paul
may be the one you'd expect would dissent from his peers when it comes
to foreign policy, but he nevertheless surprised many when he said on
Wednesday that it was his own party that bore responsibility for the
rise of ISIS.
When asked on Morning Joe how he'd respond to attacks from foreign
policy hawks like Lindsey Graham, Paul responded, "ISIS exists and
grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms
indiscriminately, and most of these arms were snatched up by ISIS." He
even tied his Republican colleagues to the despised Hillary Clinton:
"ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved
Hillary Clinton's war in Libya, they just wanted more of it."
Whatever you think of the particulars of Paul's analysis, his charges
probably aren't going to go over too well in a party where the
consensus is that everything in Iraq was going swimmingly until Barack
Obama came in and mucked it all up. Jeb Bush spoke for the other
candidates when he recently said, "ISIS didn't exist when my brother
was president. Al Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out when my brother was
president." As it happens, neither of those assertions is even
remotely true.
. . .
The prevailing view among Republicans is that the most important thing
when confronting terrorism is, as with all foreign policy questions,
strength. If you are strong, any problem can be solved. Likewise, all
failures come from weakness. Barack Obama fails because he is weak
(and also because he hates America, but that's another story).
Rand Paul, even in his unsophisticated way, is saying something
fundamentally different: Strength not only isn't enough, sometimes it
can make things worse. Seemingly alone among the Republican
candidates, he realizes that there's such a thing as unintended
consequences. . . .
One might think that the experience of the last decade and a half
would have taught us all that. In justifying their support for the
Iraq War, Republicans will often say that "the world is better off
without Saddam Hussein," as though it were self-evident that
conditions improve once you remove a brutal dictator. But it's not at
all clear that that's true - Saddam is gone, but a couple hundred
thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed, a corrupt sectarian
government in Baghdad allowed ISIS to take hold, Iran's strength in
the region was enhanced - all things that the architects of the Iraq
War either didn't consider or thought wouldn't happen.
ISIS itself offers a demonstration of a common unintended consequence
terrorism analysts have been talking about for a while, which is that
a strategy aimed at decapitating terrorist groups can actually produce
more violence. When one leader is killed, his successor feels the need
to prove his mettle by expanding the group's ambitions and increasing
its level of brutality. ISIS started out as Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI),
led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; after Zarqawi was killed by an American
airstrike, an action hailed at the time as a great victory, the group
not only didn't disappear, it evolved into the ISIS we see today.
Yet to hear most of the Republicans tell it, all we need to solve the
problem is strength. They quote action heroes as though there might
be some genuine insight from Hollywood B-movies on how to combat
terrorism. "Have you seen the movie Taken?" says Marco Rubio. "Liam
Neeson. He had a line, and this is what our strategy should be: 'We
will look for you, we will find you, and we will kill you.'" Or Rick
Santorum: "They want to bring back a 7th-century version of jihad. So
here's my suggestion: We load up our bombers, and we bomb them back to
the 7th century." So strong.
Yet when it comes time to say what specifically they would do about
ISIS or Syria if they were to become president, the candidates grow
suddenly vague. It's almost as though, the tough talk notwithstanding,
they know that getting into too much detail about the policy challenge
will inevitably force them to confront the possibility that saying
they'll be strong doesn't quite answer the question.
Perhaps on a debate stage a few months from now, Rand Paul will manage
to get his opponents to address that possibility. Or maybe they'll be
able to just give a look of steely resolve, quote a movie they saw,
get an ovation from the crowd, and move on.
Back to top
cancel
acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn): May 29 06:48AM
<mk64an$e2s$1@reader1.panix.com> was cancelled from within trn.
Back to top
Kuznetsova vs Schiavone
pltrgyst <nntp@xhost.org>: May 28 09:16PM -0400
Replaying right now (9:15 pm EDT) on Tennis Channel, in all its
extremely loud glory.
-- Larry
Back to top
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.