rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com
Google Groups
Topic digest
View all topics
So Whisper, Stephens, and others - 7 Updates
Life is not fair - 1 Update
987543 updated -- No new No.1 will be crowned today - 6 Updates
Venus and Serena face toughest challenge - 1 Update
Woohoo Netanyahu - 1 Update
The Orange Buffoon ... - 1 Update
Gap between 1st and 22nd slam - Graf vs Serena - 1 Update
Lose-lose scenario for Sampras fans - 1 Update
What Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal might write to each other - 5 Updates
Dimitrov, quite not bad for a "clown" :-) - 1 Update
So Whisper, Stephens, and others
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: Jan 28 09:51PM
On 28/01/2017 21:29, RaspingDrive wrote:
>>> You learn something every day on RST. Next Whisper will be throwing Dimitrov into the mix and saying Fed has no chance vs him. Or maybe it will be a Challenger level player next?
>> I learnt something new today - that apparently Sir Andy has never beaten Fed in a slam. Poor Andy, just never gets any recognition. And to be fair to Sir Scotland, not that many will remotely care, many of Fed's recent wins over Sir Surly came when he was still recovering from his back surgery. You yourself thought that Clayray would skewer Fed if they had met at this AO.
> Sir Andy beat Fed in a five setter at AO 2013, when he seemed to have the upper hand over Fed. He then had the surgery and Fed reciprocated by inflicting on him a four-set loss in AO 2014. Am I correct? :)
"..Murray(who have never defeated Fed in a slam).."
You know what else I learned today ? That Courty's grammar has gotten worse since she started criticising others about their lack of grammar :P
PeteWasLucky <Waleed.Khedr@gmail.com>: Jan 28 02:11PM -0800
Maybe in a slam final.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 28 03:45PM -0800
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:47:42 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:
> You need to be careful basing predictions solely on past record. If you
> think like that you'd think Stan had zero chance of beating Rafa in 2014
> AO final, given it was 12-0 h2h & Stan never won a set.
Why do I need to be careful when my prediction re Stan vs Roger for this AO result was correct and yours wasn't? If Stan and Roger played again tomorrow at the AO I wouldn't change my viewpoint.
Just say you were wrong this time! It shouldn't be that difficult. But you can't do it. People with Narcissistic Personality Disorder are incapable of such a normal reaction.
> Also you'd foolishly tip Hillary to beat Trump based on biased media
> reporting.
Ha ha. The twisting and desperation continues. Now we are bringing politics into the discussion about Stan vs Roger? Priceless.
Yes, I predicted that Hillary would win. I overestimated the intelligence of many Americans and didn't realize the hopelessness of so many deplorables.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 28 03:52PM -0800
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:42:55 PM UTC-5, StephenJ wrote:
> wrong."
> If you're not woman enough to admit you screwed up, then you should
> probably get counseling.
Here we go. Another RST baby. The problem is that you said Stan was the BIG favorite when in actuality he never was. You also said Fed had a 20% chance and that Stan was the better player. All of those statements are incorrect.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 28 04:00PM -0800
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:53:25 PM UTC-5, grif wrote:
> I learnt something new today - that apparently Sir Andy has never beaten Fed in a slam.
Oops, I forgot that Murray did beat Fed one time in a slam. My mistake. Their slam h2h is 5-1 for Fed.
> You yourself thought that Clayray would skewer Fed if they had met at this AO.
Yes, I did think that but I have changed my mind since then. I think if they would have met at this AO, Fed probably would have won. I didn't expect Fed to come out playing the way he did at this tournament.
The only player I`m not sure if Fed can beat here is Nadal. We`ll soon find out.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jan 28 04:02PM -0800
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:51:17 PM UTC-5, grif wrote:
> "..Murray(who have never defeated Fed in a slam).."
> You know what else I learned today ? That Courty's grammar has gotten worse since she started criticising others about their lack of grammar :P
Ha ha. You are right. That is disgusting grammar! Shame on me! I think the danger of social media is that you see so much poor grammar that it starts to rub off on you.
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: Jan 29 12:18AM
On 29/01/2017 00:00, Court_1 wrote:
> Oops, I forgot that Murray did beat Fed one time in a slam. My mistake. Their slam h2h is 5-1 for Fed.
>> You yourself thought that Clayray would skewer Fed if they had met at this AO.
> Yes, I did think that but I have changed my mind since then.
You can't just keeping changing your mind like that. Next thing you know, you'll be all over Dimi and shouting "Go cutie!" whenever he plays. Hang on a minute, you did do that once upon a time, then you gave him clown status after he started displeasing you with his poor performances. Now, you're back to buying posters of him again! Sheesh, these players are just objects for your personal gratification :p
Back to top
Life is not fair
AZ <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com>: Jan 28 04:16PM -0800
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:30:03 AM UTC+6, *skriptis wrote:
> --
Fedfucker?
Back to top
987543 updated -- No new No.1 will be crowned today
TennisNut <ahande@gmail.com>: Jan 28 02:27PM -0800
I am talking of the 987543 record.
9 = Wimbledon points before 2002
8 = US Open points before 2002
7 = French Open points before 2002
5 = Australian open points before 2002
7 = Wimbledon points after 2002
5 = US open points after 2002
4 = French Open points after 2002
3 = Australian open points after 2002
This accounts for all the substandard opposition that the top players have had to face since 2002.
Sampras has 9*7 + 8*5 + 7*0 + 5*2 = 113 points
Federer has 7*7 + 5*5 + 4*1 + 3*4 = 90 points
Nadal has 7*2 + 5*2 + 4*9 + 3*1 = 63 points
So, a Federer win today will be getting him to 93 points. A Nadal win today will get him to 66 points. Far below the 113 points that the GOAT Sampras has.
A win today for Federer and 3 more Wimbledon wins in the next 3-4 years (or 2 Wimbledons and 2 US opens would work too) might just put him in GOAT contention. Nadal would need another 10 French titles and 3 Wimbledons to put him in GOAT contention.
Anybody who doesn't agree with this new formula is a retard who doesn't see the greatness of the GOAT Sampras.
TennisNut <ahande@gmail.com>: Jan 28 02:41PM -0800
I couldn't tell how many people have held this record in history. I just know that when Sampras set the record it was never going to be broken ever again. Not in 11 years, not in a 100 years or a million years.
AZ <arnab.zaheen@gmail.com>: Jan 28 03:06PM -0800
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 4:41:41 AM UTC+6, TennisNut wrote:
> I couldn't tell how many people have held this record in history. I just know that when Sampras set the record it was never going to be broken ever again. Not in 11 years, not in a 100 years or a million years.
I like it. What about the missing 6, 2 and 1? We should have one that uses all the digits from 9 to 1.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jan 28 06:13PM -0500
On 1/28/2017 5:27 PM, TennisNut wrote:
> and 3 Wimbledons to put him in GOAT contention.
> Anybody who doesn't agree with this new formula is a retard who
> doesn't see the greatness of the GOAT Sampras.
I am in favor of this GOAT formula.
Can we get a consensus on rst?
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jan 28 03:32PM -0800
Rst is entering Trump era
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com>: Jan 28 03:48PM -0800
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 5:27:05 PM UTC-5, TennisNut wrote:
> So, a Federer win today will be getting him to 93 points. A Nadal win today will get him to 66 points. Far below the 113 points that the GOAT Sampras has.
> A win today for Federer and 3 more Wimbledon wins in the next 3-4 years (or 2 Wimbledons and 2 US opens would work too) might just put him in GOAT contention. Nadal would need another 10 French titles and 3 Wimbledons to put him in GOAT contention.
> Anybody who doesn't agree with this new formula is a retard who doesn't see the greatness of the GOAT Sampras.
Good, but how about this instead:
9 - Wimbledons before 2002
8 - USOs before 2002
7 - AOs before 2002
1 - FOs any time
7 - Wimbldons from 2002
5 - USOs from 2002
4 - AOs from 2002
Calculating, we find:
Pete - 7*9 + 5*8 + 7*2 = 117
Roger - 7*7 + 5*8 + 4*4 = 105
Rafa - 7*2 + 2*5 + 4*1 + 9*1 = 33
Using 9871754, we conclude that Pete is certainly GOAT; there is no dispute on this.
Back to top
Venus and Serena face toughest challenge
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jan 28 11:53PM +0100
> It's hard to watch because they are sisters & will be very sad for the
> loser etc. I'll have the tv on but won't be paying much attention....
I didn't think I'd be sharing this sentiment but thinking about it
now rhalf a day later really makes me sad.
Venus might be done ie play her last final and was probably unable
to give it all because she played her sister.
So sad.
S
--
Back to top
Woohoo Netanyahu
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jan 28 11:36PM +0100
Benjamin Netanyahu
@netanyahu
President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel's southern
border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great
idea.
It's a sad world when normal ideas, normal, logical, sane concepts
are considered great. It shows an overall mental degradation.
This tweet feels like a rst post that concludes Wimbledon might be
the greatest tournament.
In normal circumstances you'd feel it's troll speaking, but when
you realize you have freaks who actually believe the opposite
then I guess, that post might be considered great and necessary.
A shocking concept. Prevent intrudes from coming in. Unheard of.
--
Back to top
The Orange Buffoon ...
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jan 28 04:49PM -0600
On 1/28/2017 1:03 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> belittled Trump's crowd before Trump talked to the NPS about it.
> You conveniently snipped out the part that the media turned out to be
> correct.
The media was correct only about the nitzy-meaningless thing, the actual
crowd size. Trump was correct about the Big Thing behind the media
harping about the crowd size, his legitimacy to carry out his anti-Obama
agenda.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Back to top
Gap between 1st and 22nd slam - Graf vs Serena
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jan 28 04:45PM -0600
On 1/28/2017 3:52 AM, Whisper wrote:
> Venus is just about to lose, but had she won she'd be at nearly 16 yrs.
My head was for Serena because she had more legacy at stake, but my
heart was for Venus because i think she would have savored a win more.
Too bad...
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Back to top
Lose-lose scenario for Sampras fans
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jan 28 04:43PM -0600
On 1/28/2017 6:13 AM, bob wrote:
>> When they list tennis greats, they will always list them by number of slams, and Sampras will be in the third place.
> probably be 4th soon also. but that won't take away he held the record
> at one time and in my book the best grass court player i've seen.
Federer has a better grass record overall so he has to be #1, but I'll
admit that if a match was to be played on real pre-2002 fast grass
Wimbledon and my life was at stake and I had to pick a champion to play
for me, I'd take Sampras just to make sure he wasn't the guy my champion
had to beat, LOL.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Back to top
What Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal might write to each other
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com>: Jan 28 02:06PM -0800
Thx, AZ.
PeteWas, lots of good ideas. :)
PeteWasLucky <Waleed.Khedr@gmail.com>: Jan 28 02:10PM -0800
Not mine, it's from ESPN.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jan 29 12:22AM +0200
28.1.2017, 23:11, PeteWasLucky kirjoitti:
> Rafa
> http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/18569665/imagine-roger-feder
> er-rafael-nadal-exchanged-letters-eve-their-australian-open-final
How romantic!
PeteWasLucky <Waleed.Khedr@gmail.com>: Jan 28 02:33PM -0800
When will Nadal have children?
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jan 28 02:40PM -0800
> Nice, but milquetoast. We need our resident bard Scott to write these exchanges.
I thought it was "Greg" someone ?
Back to top
Dimitrov, quite not bad for a "clown" :-)
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jan 28 04:30PM -0500
On 1/28/2017 1:58 PM, Guypers wrote:
>> Dmitrov will always be a clown to Courty. :) She never grows up.
> Common, all the old farts are playing out of their skin, no chemical
> help????
I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Do they do compulsory drug tests after the final matches like
in other sporting events?
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.