rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com
Google Groups
Topic digest
View all topics
Greatest GOAT formula - 2 Updates
fed's chance for 18 - 2 Updates
McEnroe and Connors nearly coming to blows - 2 Updates
YES!!! GOODNIGHT, SWEET HIPPO! - 6 Updates
Federer is known for his most varieties but his opponents .... - 1 Update
Federer and Me: A Story of Obsession - 8 Updates
Season over....but doesn't Roger rush it? - 3 Updates
Serena Williams can pack me anytime - 1 Update
Greatest GOAT formula
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Sep 18 06:54PM +1000
On 18/09/2015 4:22 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
> discussing choice coffee.
> Perhaps it would be a good idea to get some tips from it so you are
> wider awake before you start posting under the wrong identity?
You're no Columbo/Kojak.
Inspector Clouseau perhaps.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Sep 18 07:30PM +1000
On 18/09/2015 7:35 AM, MBDunc wrote:
> Toying a bit:
> - If Scientists and tennis expert combine their forces and put supercomputers running to find out the absolute BOAT. The answer - HOAD!
> - the question, does this make Laver's trophy case lesser and does he then lose all GOAT claims?
No, but then he loses BOAT claims. To be GOAT you need more than just
talent. You need luck, good health & a weaker field helps a lot.
GOAT & BOAT are different concepts. To be a GOAT when you're not a BOAT
you have to be opportunistic. A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become
GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT.
By the way I'm copyrighting that;
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"
> Laver/Pancho/Rosewall 15 slams eact = 45 slams (bold assumption)
> Segdman, Hoad, Emerson, Cooper, Trabert, Fraser = 15 slams total (harder to assume, but thereabouts?)
> That is alone 60 slams - enough for 15 years.
The very best/BOAT types would win the most, so Laver/Pancho would each
probably have 20 or more while Rosewall would steal a few here or there
when they tripped. He'd be like Federer, always in the finals but
losing to the very best.
> And that leaves out respectable set of 50/60:ies names like Santana, Pietrangelo, Stolle, Roche, Ashe, Patty, Segura, Kramer, Schoeder, Drobny...
Those guys would be the Berdych's of today.
>> small band of fanatics considers him the best we've ever seen. As a
>> tennis fan I really wish he was the best. He simply was not.
> As there can be only one "THE BEST" and as in your realm Mac, Hoad and Sampras clearly remain there forever...
I'd throw Laver into that group for sure. I hope it's not 'forever'.
As a tennis fan I want to see more greats of that caliber come along.
the best Fed could have ever gotten from you is 4th. So it really does
not matter, right?
> Especially when every additional succee Fed has gotten during his career has been in your books just an extended evidence of "clown era" - Fed cannot win against this formula...
I think most of us can see the big problem with Roger. He lacks that
assassin/killer instinct in the biggest matches. It really is puzzling
& weird to watch it repeat every time. I think we're all adult enough
to admit this.
Back to top
fed's chance for 18
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Sep 18 07:08PM +1000
On 18/09/2015 5:29 AM, undecided wrote:
>> OLY.
>> bob
> He has a great chance. He is clearly the #2 player in the world right now. If Djoker doesn't make the slam final, Fed can get more. It's quite incredible but it's true.
You think? It looks to me like Fed will just find a way to lose to
someone else - eg Cilic last yr.
MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net>: Sep 18 02:18AM -0700
perjantai 18. syyskuuta 2015 12.08.36 UTC+3 Whisper kirjoitti:
> You think? It looks to me like Fed will just find a way to lose to
> someone else - eg Cilic last yr.
These kind of "cilic/seppi/robrero/"-losses just did not happen ten years ago. Wonder what has changed...
.mikko
Back to top
McEnroe and Connors nearly coming to blows
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Sep 18 06:55PM +1000
On 18/09/2015 4:29 AM, Tier3 wrote:
> I bought 2 Max 200Gs, but the 'Maxply McEnroe' was a wood racket loosely
> based on the Maxply Fort. I had all 3 rackets. <<
> Bought 2? Say, you must be pretty good!
They were pretty expensive in 1984 for a teen.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Sep 18 07:01PM +1000
On 18/09/2015 5:00 AM, jdeluise wrote:
>> Bought 2? Say, you must be pretty good!
> In the past he's claimed that he just buys them off the shelf pre-strung
> and makes no adjustments... sounds like a weekend hacker to me.
I had a stringer when I played seriously. Now I'm even thinking about
breaking out a wood racket against some of the lesser players. I'm the
least serious player at my club, but also the best. I have no interest
in playing competitively as I've won a lot & will never be as good as I
was, but still love playing the game.
Back to top
YES!!! GOODNIGHT, SWEET HIPPO!
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail>: Sep 18 12:38PM +1000
On 18/09/2015 2:56 AM, TT wrote:
> I think Serena is already greater champion than Graf...
> Cause she had stronger competition and fared better against it.
> Definitely the greatest/best of Open Era.
I disagree on both counts, but it's arguable. She does have longevity
on her side, & that's a huge plus.
calimero377@gmx.de: Sep 17 10:19PM -0700
> > > > Many pros look their career in terms of seasons. Some seasons are very good, some are not. Its just psychology. You start out losing AO and FO and your whole year seems fucked. If you win both your whole season seems amazing. Even though in both situation you might end up with the same amount of majors in that year.
> > > > When Steffi did calendar slam in 1988 it was monumental.
> > > A monumental achievement yes. But all the commentators were noting how much less media focus/pressure there was back in 1988. No social media, no people with phone cameras following a player incessantly, way fewer media channels, etc. The magnitude of media attention Serena got dwarfed what Graf had to deal with.
Let me guess - you are American?
> > Gimme a break. A calendar slam is a calendar slam. It was huge in 1988. A lot of pressure in Germany, from Europe, Asia and other continents apart from North America.
> Sure it was a lot of pressure. But the media environment was different worldwide...not just the U.S.
> Graf is lucky she didn't have to deal with the 1990 "scandal" in the age of social media--she might have retired right then...lol
Max
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Sep 18 06:15PM +1000
On 18/09/2015 2:56 AM, TT wrote:
> I think Serena is already greater champion than Graf...
> Cause she had stronger competition and fared better against it.
> Definitely the greatest/best of Open Era.
That would be a no.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Sep 18 06:25PM +1000
>> Many pros look their career in terms of seasons. Some seasons are very good, some are not. Its just psychology. You start out losing AO and FO and your whole year seems fucked. If you win both your whole season seems amazing. Even though in both situation you might end up with the same amount of majors in that year.
>> When Steffi did calendar slam in 1988 it was monumental.
> A monumental achievement yes. But all the commentators were noting how much less media focus/pressure there was back in 1988. No social media, no people with phone cameras following a player incessantly, way fewer media channels, etc. The magnitude of media attention Serena got dwarfed what Graf had to deal with.
The media hype was huge in '88 too, but yes there was no internet so
it's more suffocating these days. On the flipside she got possibly the
easiest possible opponents for the semis & final, so goes to show how
huge the mental pressure was.
Graf was better equipped to handle pressure, & it probably helped she
was 18/19 rather than 30+. Evert said she was mentally tougher in her
youth than later on, because when you're older you realize you have a
lot to lose.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Sep 18 06:30PM +1000
On 18/09/2015 3:11 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
>> I think Serena is already greater champion than Graf...
>> Cause she had stronger competition and fared better against it.
> This is subjective nonsense. And no Graf had better competition. Navratilova had 90% win loss in both 1988 and 1989. She also won a slam in 1990. So she was strong competition.
Yes, Graf had tougher competition. Consider between 1985-1991 Graf
played Navratilova 5 times at USO & lost 4. The 1 time she won
Navratilova led 6-3 4-2. Serena hasn't really faced a great player of
that scale.
> Serena won most of the slams post Sharapova surgery in 2008, Ivanovic slide downwards in 2008 after winning FO and Henin retirement in 2008. Clijsters was also gone by 2008, she came back but she again retired.
> Serena has dominated a true clown era.
Serena deserves credit for hanging around the top for 16+ years (MN,
Evert & Graf all had about 12 yrs). If you can do that then good chance
you will break the slam record.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Sep 18 12:44AM -0800
> Sure it was a lot of pressure. But the media environment was different
> worldwide...not just the U.S.
er, Serena is supposedly an active Jehovah's Witness, a dangerous cult
that discourages members from using the Internet, particularly
unmarried women. How could she possibly know about any of this Internet
pressure? ;)
Back to top
Federer is known for his most varieties but his opponents ....
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Sep 18 06:35PM +1000
On 18/09/2015 3:16 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> In my opinion this is why he is very low on converting break chances specially against top players because they know Federer will grind instead of going for big shots lifting huge pressure from their shoulders allowing them to rally and save break points.
> This is the big change Federer will need to have and it's difficult for him to achieve because it's part of his greatness as well but he will have better success if he can change this part of his game, going for big shots on break points.
Yes, if he can create so many break points then it would be very wise to
go for the big winner a lot. With so many chances you will break
through. If you grind away you allow your opponent a good chance to get
back in, & Djoker/Rafa are master grinders who give you very little.
The % play is to go for the big winner constantly.
Back to top
Federer and Me: A Story of Obsession
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Sep 18 06:06AM +0300
18.9.2015, 1:45, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> You should watch more of them. There are some great ones from most countries. I could list decent foreign language films from pretty much every country.
Right. I've seen films from all 196 countries except 10, as follows...
Can you recommend any good films from Uganda? Burkina Faso? Kiribati?
Yemen? Qatar? Myanmar? Lithuania? Saint Kitts and Nevis? Serbia? North
Korea?
Thanks in advance. Also, what's your favourite Finnish film?
> Yes, they show Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments on tv around Easter/Passover time. They are both brilliant movies.
No doubt, although Ben Hur gets a bit Jesusy in the end... But sort of
fitting way.
10 Commandments is just way too religious in sort of cringeworthy blind
faith of way, still good though. Also Anne Baxter is ok as Nefertiri but
way too prototype American vamp.
Might have as well gone all the way and picked Joan Collins for the
role. She was great on Land of the Pharaos (1955) anyway. Then again
might have been filmed at the same time.
https://cdn.9cloud.us/images/21/piccit_joan_collins_promotional_sho_98953183.jpg
The burning bush scene is a hoot.
"I AM YOUR GOD..."
Jesus what a religion.
>> Such as?
> If I had time and could think about it I could compose a huge list. But right now off the top of my head better horror/thriller movies than The Shining are:
> Rosemary's Baby,
10. I agree.
> Dead Calm,
8, But you can't really compare these two films they're so different.
Dead Calm is more mass production thriller, although very good at what
it's doing.
Also, Dead Calm is not all original, Polanski did the same thing already
in early 60s...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056291/reference
> The Others, Psycho, The Birds, Jaws,
8, 7, 9, 7...
(I rate Shining as 9)
Jaws definitely is not even close to Shining... Jaws is ok and memorable
"classic", but also pretty campy...
I agree that campy can also be good. For example The Wicker Man.
> Open Water (movies about being stranded in dark vast waters scare the crap out of me),
Tried to watch that, didn't seem special at all. Quit.
> The Silence of the Lambs, The Fly, The Exorcist, Dracula, etc. etc. etc.
8, 5/7, 8, 9...
I would rather pick The Omen instead of The Exorcist...
Although I like Dracula (I suspect you're referring to Gary Oldman
version) it would take guts to claim it greater film than The Shining. 0
critics agree, on my conservative estimation.
In other words I may LIKE Dracula more but greater film it is not.
> I saw The Terminator years after it originally came out. It was playing at a theater and my boyfriend at the time knew I hadn't seen it and said I must see it in the theater. I mean it was ok but I don't get all the hype surrounding it.
You didn't answer the question. :-P
>> serious and adult towards the end. The discussions these young people
>> have are very profound.
> LOL @ profound discussions in that film!
Well at least if we compare to Clueless, which is as far from profound
as I can seriously imagine. I think BC is the finest 80s teen flick
there is, best of its genre, hence the 10.
>>>> 1987 Nuts
> Nah. Definitely NOT Streisand's best film performance. She was better in about a dozen other films.
Nah, you didn't get the excellence of her performance...
She really pulls off great her performance as a very smart woman who
fights against being committed to mental institution.
>> Of course Hongkong Kung fu flicks are a chapter by themselves. Some
>> great, often fluff.
> PASS!
You see you do have some "passes" on some genres...
No Jackie Chan, no James Bond, no Dolph Lundgren, no Vin Diesel, no
Chuck Norris, no Van Damme, no Linda Lovelace, no Beastmaster, no
Sheena, no zombies - the boys' stuff...
That's an important part of cinephile's camp gear.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Sep 18 06:11AM +0300
18.9.2015, 1:46, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> Have you ever read Austen's novel Emma
>> How many men do you know who have?
> How many classic novels have you read? Which ones?
Depends what's a classic. Does "Ready player one" count? :)
I guess you mean likes of Hemingway, HG Wells etc. Many, haven't
counted. Especially scifi.
And I would try to avoid Jane Austen if that's what you're asking. He
was handsome she was shy... please no.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Sep 18 06:33AM +0300
18.9.2015, 2:19, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> What about Stanley Kubrick's other movies ? "A Clockwork Orange", "Dr. Strangelove", and "Full Metal Jacket" ? I thought they were all good movies.
What happened to 2001: A Space Odyssey?
> I need to revisit some Kubrick films. I haven't seen the ones you mentioned for ages, and others I haven't seen at all. Most recently I watched "The Killing," from 1956, which I liked a lot. "Spartacus" is one of my favorite films (though some don't consider it a "pure" Kubrick film). I plan to watch "Paths of Glory" & "A Clockwork Orange" again and see "Barry Lyndon" at some point.
> I know that a lot of people love "Full Metal Jacket," but that one I'm not a fan of.
> Have you seen the documentary "Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures"? I thought it was pretty interesting.
I haven't, although I recently saw "Room 237"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2085910/reference
...Which is a documentary about different "interpretations" about The
Shining... mostly by wacky conspiracy theorists looking at the film
frame by frame etc. Sort of amusing.
The Killing is my lowest rated Kubrik film currently at 6. I'm not sure
I've ever watched Barry Lyndon all the way through - certainly not Dr,
Strangelove... I don't get AT ALL its popularity, never could watch it
to the end, it's just idiotic and trying so hard to be funny not
succeeding at all on my case.
Maybe I need to watch it some day all the way through but it's hard to
see a change in opinion on this one...
Peter Sellers, really? Doh.
Yeah, I try to avoid those horrible "Pink Panther" movies as well. Sort
of got disappointed the first time I tuned into one, was expecting the
funny cartoon but got Sellers clowning around. :)
I like Full metal jacket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EKqDCFcIck
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Sep 18 06:37AM +0300
18.9.2015, 2:35, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 7:29:28 PM UTC-4, grif wrote:
>> I've seen the film with Knightley and actually have the BBC series on DVD somewhere. I still prefer the BBC miniseries.
> Good boy! Tell that to TT who thinks only women watch those things. *rolls eyes*
I've seen the BBC miniseries in the 80s, or at least parts of it.
I'd imagine that Grif is correct and it's better than the films...
However if you want to see a TRULY GREAT period peace BBC miniseries
then watch "Brideshead Revisited", the TV series NOT film.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083390/reference
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Sep 17 09:24PM -0700
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 8:33:08 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> The Killing is my lowest rated Kubrik film currently at 6.
Sure, cause it's a noir. :)
> I'm not sure
> I've ever watched Barry Lyndon all the way through
Some critics have compared it to a painting. That may be why I've put off watching it.
> Maybe I need to watch it some day all the way through but it's hard to
> see a change in opinion on this one...
> Peter Sellers, really? Doh.
I haven't seen that many Peter Sellers films. But I thought the movie "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers" with Geoffrey Rush was really enjoyable. Seems that a lot of people who knew the guy thought his personality bordered on evil. The movie starts with a scene where Sellers gets mad at his young son for putting paint on his car, so he goes in the house and stomps the kid's toys to rubble. There's another great scene where Sellers is at an awards ceremony to introduce Blake Edwards. Before he brings Edwards onstage, he tells the audience at length what a mediocrity the director is--and he wasn't joking. Now if these stories are true, you've got to love Sellers at least a little.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Sep 18 08:15AM +0300
18.9.2015, 7:24, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 8:33:08 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>> I've ever watched Barry Lyndon all the way through
> Some critics have compared it to a painting. That may be why I've put off watching it.
Yeah, that doesn't make it sound much fun does it...
> I haven't seen that many Peter Sellers films. But I thought the movie "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers" with Geoffrey Rush was really enjoyable. Seems that a lot of people who knew the guy thought his personality bordered on evil. The movie starts with a scene where Sellers gets mad at his young son for putting paint on his car, so he goes in the house and stomps the kid's toys to rubble. There's another great scene where Sellers is at an awards ceremony to introduce Blake Edwards. Before he brings Edwards onstage, he tells the audience at length what a mediocrity the director is--and he wasn't joking. Now if these stories are true, you've got to love Sellers at least a little.
Heheh. Maybe he though he was Groucho Marx.
If you must watch films of his I can only recommend "Being There", which
is actually brilliant.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078841/reference
...The again it's not slapstick / over the top as some of his other
"funny" films.
-
Elvis Presley's favourite film was:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063415/reference
Imo it isn't quite worthy of its reputation though. And Elvis didn't
make his songs, so there's that too.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Sep 18 06:19PM +1000
O
>> in last 6 yrs while maintaining elite ranking. It really is
>> 'relatively' pathetic.
> Sure, or you applaud him for switching up his equipment and game to stay competitive, even if it's not enough to win BO5 slam finals. If he hadn't made changes he'd be down where Nadal is now and you'd use that against him too...lol
So you don't see Fed dropping his game in slam finals? Interesting.
How come he generates eg 30 break points but can't actually pull the
trigger? It's not a case of him being overwhelmed by a better opponent
on the day, it's more his inability to play great when it counts - &
even more damning to play dumb when boldness is required.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Sep 18 06:32PM +1000
On 18/09/2015 3:13 AM, TT wrote:
> Some breaks are bigger than others.
> And no, Nadal didn't get breaks at RG, he faced another great in the
> final 67% of the time which is as hard as it gets.
Agreed. Rafa faced Fed/Djoker 12 times at FO & only lost once. No easy
draws.
Back to top
Season over....but doesn't Roger rush it?
karavanaayi@gmail.com: Sep 17 07:25PM -0700
During big points...why the hell doesn't he take it a tad bit slow when serving or receiving...like...collect his mind and strategy for the big point...and be really ready to impose will...to keep sending those subtle messages to opponents.
Both Nadal and Djoker do that...meaning...with them it always seems like it is all about NOW...everything else is BS...at big points.
I felt Roger rushed it a bit at big points...as if...they are the same kind of routine points...(or, god forbid, to get it over with it soon?)
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Sep 18 06:40AM +0300
> I felt Roger rushed it a bit at big points...as if...they are the same kind of routine points...(or, god forbid, to get it over with it soon?)
That is often the case why someone rushes the points, to get it over
with as they are nervous. Fast players are normally also chokers.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Sep 17 09:26PM -0700
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 8:40:43 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> > I felt Roger rushed it a bit at big points...as if...they are the same kind of routine points...(or, god forbid, to get it over with it soon?)
> That is often the case why someone rushes the points, to get it over
> with as they are nervous. Fast players are normally also chokers.
Graf and Seles were both fast players and they choked their way to 30+ slams.
Back to top
Serena Williams can pack me anytime
Paul <quiller123@gmail.com>: Sep 17 09:24PM -0700
On 9/17/2015 6:00 PM, Holder Drug Sales wrote:
>> A gorilla shit on his face.
> Why do they have trees along the steets in Oakland?
> Public transportation.
LOL!! YOU STUPID HONKIES ARE JUST PISSED OFF THAT SERENA KICKS
ASS!!! HAHA!
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.