rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com
Google Groups
Topic digest
View all topics
OT: NY debate tonight - 12 Updates
Films 5 - 3 Updates
Can the BOAT turn into a GOAT? - 1 Update
That was one nervy set! - 5 Updates
Nadal doesn't think Federer is a natural clay player - 4 Updates
OT: NY debate tonight
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Apr 17 02:25PM -0700
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 10:20:16 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> There are entire entire lines of scholarship dedicated to individual aspects of the Civil War and slavery in America for a reason: they are complex issues.
But you somehow believe that your meat-and-potatoes perspective is more sophisticated than bob's because you take the most cynical position at the opposite end of the spectrum. Saying that Lincoln "freed the slaves" to collapse the Confederate economy isn't even accurate. His decision hardly changed anything about plantation life until the war ended because the Union Army had no power to enforce it. The easiest choice from a purely economic standpoint would have been to make a deal with the South that preserved the Union and allowed slavery to continue in a limited number of states.
Gracchus, you are missing the entire point and taking it to a level which is irrelevant for the purpose of the original conversation which was that Bob suggested slavery was abolished for reasons other than economic benefit and that simply isn't the case. Lincoln may have thought slavery was morally wrong but that certainly was not his overriding factor when it came down to making the original decision to emancipate the slaves. His original worry was the state of the Union. Period. What ensured AFTER he enacted the Emancipation Proclamation isn't the point here. The point is he enacted it to preserve the state of the Union by weakening the South. He placed the Union above all other considerations.
> Canadians may come from a similar culture bordering the U.S., but will always view history here through a different lens than someone native-born. Even within the U.S., this is true to some extent. I lived in northern states growing up, but the experience of spending a few years in southern states much later was an eye-opener. As one Tennessee resident told me, "For you in the north, the Civil War is something that happened 150 years ago. For us, it's like it happened last week."
What about Canadians who reside in the US(part of full time) or Canadians who do a lot of business in the US and have spent time in the South because part of their business operation occurs in the South? You can't make such a sweeping generalization that because a person is born a US citizen he or she automatically knows more about US history or sees it through a different lens. That simply isn't true.
> I know that there are quality universities in major Canadian cities. Not sure how it follows that education in Moose Jaw is better than most places in the USA though.
Moose Jaw. Sure cherry pick some hick city. All I know is that outside of the Ivy League colleges in the US, you guys have a lot of inferior colleges for dummies on practically every street corner. We don't have that in Canada at least not to the same extent.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Apr 17 02:35PM -0700
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 11:50:09 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> eveolve and change his mind. plus this is quote made smack dab in the
> middle of the war, which at that pt in time i'm not sure he was
> winning. i'd like to know what he really felt.
What he really felt wasn't the impetus for change--the State of the Union was which was my original point. You asked how the abolishment of slavery was based on a financial benefit. I answered that the original impetus for change was all about the Union and nothing about what was right morally for African Americans. The moral considerations were secondary.
> >As for supporting Clinton, as I have said over and over, for me she beats the alternatives. The alternatives are more nauseating--Trump, Cruz and Sanders--the Three Stooges.
> 3 stooges and a liar.
Trump isn't a liar as well? He lies as easily as breathing air.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Apr 17 02:42PM -0700
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 11:55:22 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> some decision are made based on power, or financial, or greed, or
> alterior motives, sure they are or can be. to say NO decision is made
> on principle, you're wrong.
The underlying factor for every major political decision is the bigger picture which is how that decision will financially/economically benefit the country in the long run. Politicians may frame their theory for change on "principle" but it's never the chief motivator.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Apr 17 02:47PM -0700
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 12:04:> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 07:20:14 -0700 (PDT),
> she works for the canadian nuclear regulatory agency near toronto.
> kinda scary...
> bob
I've worked with lots of Americans over the years who were educated in the US and in this case I'm not talking about an Ivy League education (I have a lot of friends who went to Ivy League universities and that's a different issue) and many of them had trouble spelling their own names. I wouldn't be bragging about your secondary education system outside of Ivy League universities.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Apr 17 07:48PM -0400
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 14:47:31 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> kinda scary...
>> bob
>I've worked with lots of Americans over the years who were educated in the US and in this case I'm not talking about an Ivy League education (I have a lot of friends who went to Ivy League universities and that's a different issue) and many of them had trouble spelling their own names. I wouldn't be bragging about your secondary education system outside of Ivy League universities.
i'm not bragging about ours. i'm dissing yours. :-)
you're a bit behind the times though, as stanford, cal tech and a few
others are likely better educations than ivy IMO. you might not get
the connections of ivy, just talking education alone.
it just so happens ivy accepts many applicants of large donors, those
with connections, those whose parents went to ivy, etc. not that
they're not great schools, but not invincible.
i think the american university system is pretty overdone, i mean we
have something like 4000 colleges and universities. maybe 2000 of em
shouldn't exist. but you really oughta make sure you don't live near
an ontario nuke plant for your own good. :-)
bob
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Apr 17 04:49PM -0700
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 2:25:30 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > There are entire entire lines of scholarship dedicated to individual aspects of the Civil War and slavery in America for a reason: they are complex issues.
> But you somehow believe that your meat-and-potatoes perspective is more sophisticated than bob's because you take the most cynical position at the opposite end of the spectrum. Saying that Lincoln "freed the slaves" to collapse the Confederate economy isn't even accurate. His decision hardly changed anything about plantation life until the war ended because the Union Army had no power to enforce it. The easiest choice from a purely economic standpoint would have been to make a deal with the South that preserved the Union and allowed slavery to continue in a limited number of states.
> Gracchus, you are missing the entire point and taking it to a level which is irrelevant for the purpose of the original conversation which was that Bob suggested slavery was abolished for reasons other than economic benefit and that simply isn't the case. Lincoln may have thought slavery was morally wrong but that certainly was not his overriding factor when it came down to making the original decision to emancipate the slaves. His original worry was the state of the Union. Period. What ensured AFTER he enacted the Emancipation Proclamation isn't the point here. The point is he enacted it to preserve the state of the Union by weakening the South. He placed the Union above all other considerations.
I know exactly what your point was in saying it to bob, and the reason I responded that you were simplifying the issue is because the complexities are integral to the discussion. It *does* matter what happened after the Emancipation Proclamation, because Lincoln knew beforehand that it would carry no force until the war ended. Saying that slaves were free certainly didn't mean that slaves could immediately stop working and walk off the plantations in Confederate territory, so how could such a declaration crush the Southern economy?
If you are going to make the argument that Lincoln did it primarily to preserve the Union, better to say--and FAR more accurate--that he chose that time to recast the war as a moral struggle at a time when many in the North thought the losses they were suffering were not worth the cost in terms of human lives. Many were arguing for ending the war with a compromise that *would* preserve the Union with some form of slavery intact, so there's no way you can say this is irrelevant.
Nor I am not trying to argue that it genuinely was all about morality, because that is inaccurate as well. But it is no small matter that the Republicans were an antislavery party from the beginning, and Lincoln argued strongly for abolition in debate. This is why they hated him so much in the South even before his election that there were serious worries someone would assassinate him on his way to Washington to take office. Furthermore, his views on slavery did evolve during the war due in part to meetings and discussions with black abolitionists like Fredric Douglass.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Apr 17 08:02PM -0400
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 14:25:27 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> There are entire entire lines of scholarship dedicated to individual aspects of the Civil War and slavery in America for a reason: they are complex issues.
> But you somehow believe that your meat-and-potatoes perspective is more sophisticated than bob's because you take the most cynical position at the opposite end of the spectrum. Saying that Lincoln "freed the slaves" to collapse the Confederate economy isn't even accurate. His decision hardly changed anything about plantation life until the war ended because the Union Army had no power to enforce it. The easiest choice from a purely economic standpoint would have been to make a deal with the South that preserved the Union and allowed slavery to continue in a limited number of states.
>Gracchus, you are missing the entire point and taking it to a level which is irrelevant for the purpose of the original conversation which was that Bob suggested slavery was abolished for reasons other than economic benefit and that simply isn't the case.
my off the cuff response to you claiming every gov't decision in
history is based on some fatcat thinking he can profit, i said that
perhaps slavery was abolished as a general good intention rather than
thining about who it might make rich...
your response didn't exactly hit the mark, as you provided an 1862
quote that lincoln said his intention was to "keep the union
together." the quote didn't say he needed to improve the economy, or
needed to make some of his friends rich.
that alone makes my pt: he did something on principle - save the
union. got any more good ideas?
> Lincoln may have thought slavery was morally wrong but that certainly was not his overriding factor when it came down to making the original decision to emancipate the slaves. His original worry was the state of the Union. Period.
his quote, that you provided was to "save the union." that goes to
principle.
> What ensured AFTER he enacted the Emancipation Proclamation isn't the point here. The point is he enacted it to preserve the state of the Union by weakening the South. He placed the Union above all other considerations.
courty, you're getting back to your logically challenged defense
here...
>> Canadians may come from a similar culture bordering the U.S., but will always view history here through a different lens than someone native-born. Even within the U.S., this is true to some extent. I lived in northern states growing up, but the experience of spending a few years in southern states much later was an eye-opener. As one Tennessee resident told me, "For you in the north, the Civil War is something that happened 150 years ago. For us, it's like it happened last week."
>What about Canadians who reside in the US(part of full time) or Canadians who do a lot of business in the US and have spent time in the South because part of their business operation occurs in the South? You can't make such a sweeping generalization that because a person is born a US citizen he or she automatically knows more about US history or sees it through a different lens. That simply isn't true.
many americans don't know anything about their own country's history
or laws or gov't. i'm no historian myself, though i like to learn
whenever possible. gracchus' point was we're still americans, day in
and day out living within the country being discussed.
canadians, while neighbors, are outside the fence. like mexicans. :-)
>> I know that there are quality universities in major Canadian cities. Not sure how it follows that education in Moose Jaw is better than most places in the USA though.
>Moose Jaw. Sure cherry pick some hick city. All I know is that outside of the Ivy League colleges in the US, you guys have a lot of inferior colleges for dummies on practically every street corner. We don't have that in Canada at least not to the same extent.
we have about 4000 universities. 8 are ivy. 3992 (john liang, check
the maths pls) aren't. there are probaly 50 excellent top notch
universities in the USA, 25 at the very least. there are at least 5-10
or more universites that are as good/better than some ivy league.
so do you live inside the moosejaw city limits or in the burbs?
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Apr 17 08:05PM -0400
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 14:35:18 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> middle of the war, which at that pt in time i'm not sure he was
>> winning. i'd like to know what he really felt.
>What he really felt wasn't the impetus for change--the State of the Union was which was my original point. You asked how the abolishment of slavery was based on a financial benefit. I answered that the original impetus for change was all about the Union and nothing about what was right morally for African Americans. The moral considerations were secondary.
your reply was to say he wanted to keep the union together. you did
not say he wanted to get rich or make the banks rich. so perhaps the
war was on principle, eh?
>> >As for supporting Clinton, as I have said over and over, for me she beats the alternatives. The alternatives are more nauseating--Trump, Cruz and Sanders--the Three Stooges.
>> 3 stooges and a liar.
>Trump isn't a liar as well? He lies as easily as breathing air.
i'm sure trump is a liar at times. and ted cruz' nickname is now lyin
ted. but nobody can match hillary and bill there. they're king/queen
of the fibs.
bob
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Apr 17 05:08PM -0700
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 8:02:34 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> or more universites that are as good/better than some ivy league.
> so do you live inside the moosejaw city limits or in the burbs?
> bob
More than 100 are very good schools, outside Ivy 8!
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Apr 17 08:15PM -0400
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 17:08:21 -0700 (PDT), Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> so do you live inside the moosejaw city limits or in the burbs?
>> bob
>More than 100 are very good schools, outside Ivy 8!
certainly far more than the ivy 8, who take an overwhelming number of
kids and grandkids of alumni and donors.
do yo live in moosejaw too guypers? :-)
bob
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Apr 17 04:50PM -0800
> i'm not bragging about ours. i'm dissing yours. :-)
In my experience the Canadian educational system is excellent, unlike
the expensive joke the US system is.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Apr 17 06:03PM -0700
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 8:15:44 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> kids and grandkids of alumni and donors.
> do yo live in moosejaw too guypers? :-)
> bob
Not very bright are you boobsy, more than 100 US schools are pretty good schools, quite a few in NY state alone, hard for you to comprehend? Fihures! Wait for whimpy to explain?
Back to top
Films 5
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Apr 18 03:00AM +0300
Here's a bunch I've watched in recent times... essential art-films, war,
classics...
Miss Bala (2011)
...Mexican film about wannabe beauty queen who gets involved with drug
cartels. You don't want to watch this before your trip to Mexico. Sort
of "City of God" feel to it, but without kids.
7/10
-
The Hidden Fortress (1958)
...Pretty accessible and entertaining Kurosawa. I can see the parallels
with Star Wars and feel that the bickering, humorous tone of the film
definitely originates from "Fortress". There are "droids", the princess,
"rebels & empire", sword fight (although with spears) and "medal
ceremony". Even the "emperor" has face malfunction and struggles between
choosing sides.
8/10
-
Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
...Gripping "Stranger comes to town" modern "western", starring Spencer
Tracy. One of the best of its genre, imo.
8/10
-
Täältä tullaan, elämä! (1980)
(Life, here we come!)
...Gritty Finnish film telling a story on couple teens in special class
for problem kids in Helsinki. Realistic feel and so 80s... First film
role for Kati Outinen, I think.
7/10
-
Come and See (1985)
...Russian war film about Operation Barbarossa and it's horrors from the
point of view of young Soviet resistance fighter who strays from his
group. Realistic yet surreal and artistic, brutal yet anti-war. One of
the best if not the best war films ever made, shouldn't leave any viewer
cold and indifferent. Come and see indeed!
9/10
-
The Mirror (1975)
... Tarkovsky's visual "masterpiece" on his early life. This film
doesn't really have a linear story, it's rather events taken here and
there. My problem with watching this film was probably trying to make
sense of the story, when there really wasn't much of one. It's visually
good looking art-film with atmospheric cinematography and I can imagine
liking it more on further viewings, when having less expectations and
misconceptions about the story that wasn't there. I think Tarkovsky is
most pretentious film-maker and incredibly poor storyteller/entertainer
- his aim seems to be actually the opposite, to un-entertain the viewer.
However; in the case of scifi classic "Solaris" I think his enigmatic
storytelling, meditative camerawork and overly philosophic dialogue
works better - sort of adds to the mystery.
6/10
-
Andrei Rublev (1966)
...Historic biopic on mediaval iconographer of same name - not the
tennis player. The film is focused on events and time Rublev lived in,
rather than showing him actually in his work of painting. I thought the
film was very tedious and I couldn't relate with the characters
emotionally at all. What I thought was good in the film though was its
realistic (I imagine) depiction of medieval Russia, perhaps most
realistic film on the topic... far removed from Hollywood fiction.
Cinematography is good, but not great, imo. The film is in b/w, except
when it isn't...
6/10
-
Cria Cuervos (1976)
...Nice Spanish art-film with fine atmospheric cinematography of closed
spaces and brilliant acting from then child actress Ana Torrent.
Geraldine Chaplin as the mother. Nice theme song... Also watched sort of
related "Spirit of the Beehive" with young Ana Torrent but didn't think
it was as good. Cria Cuervos has been said to be one of the best Spanish
films of the 70s.
8/10
-
Freedomland (2006)
...Underrated Hollywood drama/crime with Samuel L Jackson and Julianne
Moore. Somewhat unrealistic but held in its grip all the way through,
mostly because of Moore's great performance as a woman whose child has
been kidnapped.
7/10
-
Zardoz (1974)
...Sean Connery in weird artsy scifi flick. I think pretty watchable
with interesting story and cinematography. Sean Connery's outfit has to
be seen to believe though, dear lord... At least his middle aged hairy
glory was balanced by lots of topless women with hair buns.
6/10
-
Lenny (1974)
...Lenny Bruce biopic...Great b/w cinematography and good performances
from Hoffman and especially Valerie Perrine who got Oscar nomination
from her depiction as Lenny's empty-headed stripper girlfriend.
7/10
-
The Turin Horse (2011)
...Art-film with big A from Hungarian Bela Tarr. Wonder if I should also
watch 7 hour long "Satantango" from same director - the golden standard
for being a film buff. Glorious b/w cinematography with rather minimal,
slow and repetitive story. Yet mesmerizing and unforgettable. I learned
a new way to peel potatoes too, the hardcore way. Not a film for
everyone, the trailer tells everything without revealing nothing...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNkN_xCXozw
7/10
-
A Special Day (1977)
...A quality adult drama, located in Mussolini's Italy, starring Loren
and Mastroianni. Great acting and atmospheric cinematography (as always
with Italian directors). I'm not a huge fan of Mastroianni but he was
more bearable here as he played against his stereotyped usual character.
Loren was great as well as a housewife with marital problems.
8/10
-
Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence (1983)
...David Bowie in Japanese prison camp... I liked Empire of the Sun
more. Let's face it, Bowie couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. He
just looked like... BOWIE! (faints)
6/10
-
The Killers (1946)
...Burt Lancaster and (peak) Ava Gardner. This film-noir didn't really
captivate me apart from first 20 minutes plus a party scene where Ava
Gardner sings half a song - which is sort of a movie magic moment. The
film went downhill after Edmond O'Brien took the lead and the story was
a bit of a convoluted mess. Still, it had its noir moments and hard to
forget a name like "Kitty Collins"...
6/10
-
Letter Never Sent (1960)
...Visually stunning film from Mikhail Kalatozov (Cranes Are Flying)
about a group of geologists searching for diamonds in Siberia.
Captivating basic man vs wilderness story. Probably most cinematic film
I have ever seen, one could print and hang almost every frame on your
wall... magical atmospheric experience. Makes me wonder why Tarkovsky is
the famous Russian director; clearly Kalatozov makes more stunning
films, not to mention the storytelling. I guess I'll have to watch his
"I Am Cuba" as well.
RianJonhnson showed this film (and Twelve O'Clock High) to his crew
before starting to film "Star Wars Ep VIII".
9/10 - Probably the most impressive cinematography there ever was.
-
Twelve O'Clock High (1949)
...Gregory Peck as hard-as-nails general in this pretty good film about
US bomber pilots handling the pressures of war. What is special about
this film though is its authentic WWII aerial fight footage edited
seamlessly to action scenes in the film... so THAT is how it really
looks like... awesome.
7/10
-
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
...Horrible, plastic, over-the-top action comedy. Avoid at all costs.
The only good thing about it was Demi Moore who looked better than any
of the "angels".
3/10
-
Baby Doll (1956)
...Typical Tennessee Williams' high quality writing, a satire about
sexual tension and warped values & characters in deep south small cotton
town. Fine professional direction from Kazan and good looking
cinematography, which puts the story first. The best thing in this film
was probably acting performances though; Karl Malden playing the fool he
always seems to play... young Eli Wallach was rather good as well and
Carroll Baker was simply brilliant in her role as sensuous "Baby Doll".
I thought the film went a bit over the top towards the end and would
have preferred a more serious take throughout, but still a classic and
hard to forget...
8/10
-
The Desert Rats (1953)
...Richard Burton and James Mason in "sequel" to "Desert Fox", where
Mason played Rommel. Has anyone seen/remembers "Desert Fox" and if it's
any good? Anyway, this film was by the book and rather average war film,
imo.
6/10
-
Last Year at Marienbad (1961)
...Sort of cult art-film from Frenchie Alain Resnais, with great looking
imagery. Unconventional storytelling while most of the time you don't
even understand what the heck the film is all about... if you didn't
read the reviews - and reading them doesn't help much either. It's sort
of mystery/drama/romance for hardcore art-film fans. For the first half
an hour I though this may be the worst film I've ever seen but slowly
and surely the mystery took over my curiosity and the filming my senses.
However, in the end I though the mystery was sort of a letdown and the
film was mostly style over substance... It's a film which people likely
either love or hate - and rarely understand (hence the high ratings)...
as if only one clear explanation would be possible on such a story of
contradictions.
Marienbad, imo, is also a great meter on one's pretentiousness. My
pretentiousness level is currently at...
5/10 - or at least that's what I'd like to tell myself. :-P
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Apr 17 05:27PM -0700
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 5:00:59 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
> ...Gripping "Stranger comes to town" modern "western", starring Spencer
> Tracy. One of the best of its genre, imo.
I've watched this about four times now and love it. Tightly-would story with excellent script, acting, and direction. IMO Robert Ryan was a hugely underrated actor. One small quibble is that Spencer Tracy looked older than his 55 years at the time, which made him questionable as a veteran of then-recent WW II. His performance was great nevertheless.
> related "Spirit of the Beehive" with young Ana Torrent but didn't think
> it was as good. Cria Cuervos has been said to be one of the best Spanish
> films of the 70s.
If you get a chance, watch Alejandro Amenabar's "Tesis," which I've mentioned here before. This stars Ana Torrent as an adult, and is an interesting film too (though Amenabar's "Abre Los Ojos" a notch better).
> Last Year at Marienbad (1961)
> Marienbad, imo, is also a great meter on one's pretentiousness.
Yes, "Marienbad" and Godard's "Weekend" are the two most pretentious films I can think of off the top of my head. I am in the camp that hates "Marienbad." Listening to the soundtrack is the sonic equivalent of a root canal.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Apr 17 05:33PM -0700
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 8:00:59 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> The only good thing about it was Demi Moore who looked better than any
> of the "angels".
> 3/10
I haven't seen the others on your list but this was a horrible movie. I only watched it because I was on an airplane and had nothing better to do.
Demi Moore is no Farrah Fawcett--THE ultimate Charlie's Angel. The rest are pretenders. I saw Jaclyn Smith in person about 8 years ago. Pretty but she's had a lot of work done. Farrah was always my favorite angel. She was spectacular in those days IMO(she aged poorly after Charlie's Angels however.)
The only movie I have watched lately which I liked was "Blood and Black Lace" (1964.) It's a Mario Bava Italian giallo movie which I think you rated a 6? I can't believe I'm saying this but I would actually rate it higher at around a 7.5. It was an incredibly stylish film with such a rich and vivid use of color and shadows. Exquisite. I could literally live in the beautiful settings created in this film (minus the crazed killer on the loose of course) and the fashions are to die for. The acting is poor and often hokey but it doesn't matter much as the style, color and focus on the murders are the substance of the film.
There are many red herrings thrown in and the thriller/suspense part is decent and is quick moving although the villain and motive are not difficult to figure out.
I liked this Bava film and it is a must see for any horror fan as it helped set the standard for the giallo, horror, serial killer genres which followed.
Twisted and super stylish work of art.
There you go. Bava (the mentor of Dario Argento)is definitely a better director than Dario Argento in the Italian Giallo genre. No contest.
Back to top
Can the BOAT turn into a GOAT?
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Apr 17 05:19PM -0700
On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 3:32:31 AM UTC+10, jdeluise wrote:
> Look, in the 90s the clay specialists failed to prevent two clay clowns
> (Sampras and Becker) from competing in the Rome final in '94. That's a
> pretty embarrassing testament to their value.
Also those 90s clay court specialist rarely did well in their main events like FO. bob mentioned Emilio Sanchez and the only big event Sanchez won was Italian Open and otherwise all the clay court titles he won were really 3rd tier clay court titles, we are talking about 500 or 250 point level events. Emilio's FO performance is worse than fast court expert like Edberg, Becker and Sampras. Look like there is too much credit given to these 90s clay court expert.
Back to top
That was one nervy set!
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Apr 17 02:57PM -0700
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 11:21:24 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >Still, grinded the set. Phew.
> his form doesn't look good enough to me today to win FO. but he's got
> a month to get better.
He's definitely not ready to win the FO. If he played the way he did in the final vs Monfils against the Djokovic we've seen for the past year and a half, Djokovic would devour him. But, there is a long way to go before the FO and Nadal could improve or Djokovic's form could dip. We'll have to see how it goes.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Apr 17 03:00PM -0700
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 12:09:08 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> He was just feeling the nerves because he had lots to prove. Winning
> this should loosen up his game a bit...
> We'll see next week when he's chasing down his 9th Barcelona title...
But Djokovic isn't playing Barcelona. Look, the only thing that matters at this point is whether or not he can compete with Djokovic and beat Djokovic. To me, it doesn't look like he's there yet but we'll have to see how Djokovic looks when he comes back to play on the clay. You never know when he'll have a dip in form.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Apr 17 07:16PM -0400
>He was just feeling the nerves because he had lots to prove. Winning
>this should loosen up his game a bit...
>We'll see next week when he's chasing down his 9th Barcelona title...
i thought he was pushing a lot of BHs long in the middle of rallies
that he shouldn't do, and can't do to win FO.perhaps you have stats on
it.
but he is definitely improved from last yr's form, so it's a good
sign.
>8 Barcelona
>7 Rome
>And still going strong.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Apr 17 07:29PM -0400
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 15:00:04 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> this should loosen up his game a bit...
>> We'll see next week when he's chasing down his 9th Barcelona title...
>But Djokovic isn't playing Barcelona. Look, the only thing that matters at this point is whether or not he can compete with Djokovic and beat Djokovic. To me, it doesn't look like he's there yet but we'll have to see how Djokovic looks when he comes back to play on the clay. You never know when he'll have a dip in form.
based on today's form, djok would've beat rafa. but rafa's improved
from his last 18mos, there's a chance.
bob
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Apr 18 01:42AM +0200
> 8 Barcelona
> 7 Rome
> And still going strong.
4 Madrid/Hamburg titles deserve no mention?
Is it because Federer has 6 there?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Back to top
Nadal doesn't think Federer is a natural clay player
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Apr 17 01:52PM -0700
On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 2:01:03 AM UTC+10, *skriptis wrote:
> But you seem to ignore my main argument. Or you're incapable of
> understanding it. That even those 2 results don't necessarily
> tell with a certainty who's better.
I am ignoring your argument because in tennis we compare achievements not compare it base on draw or what could have happen if he draw another opponent in certain part of draw.
> It was twist of fate for Rafa and Novak to meet 7 out of 8 times
> before the final. Should have been 4 out 8, realistically.
Should have, could have or would have does not mean anything. There is just so many should have, could have or would have scenario that could happen to any one single player. Stay with fact not woulda, coulda and shoulda.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Apr 17 07:35PM -0400
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 11:35:58 -0400 (EDT), PeteWasLucky
>lol, definitely you were never on my list of people that would be
> able to see the differences or understand the details of the
> tennis game.
the day you see federer change his game in some dramatic way to try
and reverse a long trend of losing to rafa and now djok, i'll listen
to your white noise.
however, admitedly i haven't watched much past 2 yrs, maybe he's
changed dramatically and i missed it? got some stats to show?
from 04-2014, minus a racket change and an improved serve just based
on the racket, i see fed do the same style, same strategy, and same
results against all non-rafa/djok opponets.
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Apr 17 07:41PM -0400
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 17:55:48 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
> tell with a certainty who's better.
>It was twist of fate for Rafa and Novak to meet 7 out of 8 times
> before the final. Should have been 4 out 8, realistically.
actually just horrible luck to have to play rafa at FO no matter the
round. he's the clay BOAT and GOAT so no matter who played him at his
peak - fed, djok, whoever - the outcome was likely to be a loss. had
djok been seeded to a pt where he always got fed in the SF, rafa in
the F, we'd have known the fed/djok situation. also have to take into
count the age difference though.
> more finals doesn't say much or anything really about who's
> better between him and Djokovic. Both lost against Nadal anyway.
> Federer only got to play Nadal round latter than Djokovic.
very true.
you could possibly look at fed/rafa VS djok/rafa stats and scorelines,
but being that djok/fed have an age gap, might not be that legit. plus
a>b>c>a comparison type stuff doesn't hold as a rule in tennis.
bob
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Apr 17 04:43PM -0700
On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 9:35:32 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> the day you see federer change his game in some dramatic way to try
> and reverse a long trend of losing to rafa and now djok, i'll listen
> to your white noise.
bob, I was expecting the greater player in Sampras at much younger age than Federer right now to make that dramatic change against the softcock game of Hewitt and reversing that trend of 1 win and 4 losses in the last five matches. What happen there he wasn't great enough to make that change against even lesser player ?
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.