I hope Fed will be in Nadal's half

[wkhedr]

And I hope it will be a good match.
Last year Fed should have won the first set, lost the second in TB,
won the third, crashed in the fourth.
I know this is what Nadal has always been doing to his opponents, but
may be Fed will have a better day :)

[felangey]

I hope so too. Should they all make their ranking (and I don't think that's
going to happen) we can have Fed taking another run at Nads here without too
much to lose....all the time with the promise of the RafaSlammed still
hopefully on the table should he not be successful. ;)

[Scott]

that's the best scenario for his slam legacy. If Rog beats Nadal then
he has a chance for another slam. If he doesn't, then maybe Djoko
will.

However, if Rog makes the final again it puts him in a better place to
reach #1, which would eclipse that other guy (Greek fella) for total
weeks. Unfortunately, if Rog plays Rafa in the final we all know what
is coming; i.e., relentless, unwatchable topspin to Roger's BH and the
inevitable result.

[AliAsoag]

No, I want Fed to meet Nadal in the finals (after beating Djoker again
in the semis). With the right attitude and fewer UE's he will win.

[PeteWasLucky]

For Fed to beat Nadal in the final of FO, it will have to be a very
good day for Fed and not so for Nadal.
Fed never was close to do it more than last year.
I don't see this happening on clay, with the small racquet and the way
Fed hits the ball versus nadal's huge racquet, magic strings, and
crazy upward brushing fast air scan motion of nadal.

[AliAsoag]

So it'll be on Roger's racquet again? ;-)

[PeteWasLucky]

> So it'll be on Roger's racquet again? ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As always :)

I honestly believe if Fed went from 90 size racquet to 95 (at least on
clay), it will cut on many of his UE, help him to put more spin on the
ball with less misses.

[jdeluise]

On 24-May-2012, PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I honestly believe if Fed went from 90 size racquet to 95 (at least on
> clay), it will cut on many of his UE, help him to put more spin on the
> ball with less misses.

You don't mess with the racket at this stage of your career, you never know
what it will do. Maybe the bigger sweet spot makes him more consistent, but
cuts into his brilliant shot-making as well?

[PeteWasLucky]

On May 24, 2:00 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

I disagree, life evolves, technology changes our lives, we always have
to see what is new around us to change our life to the better or make
it a little easier.

He is too rich, and has the racquet company behind him, he can fine
tune any new racquet to suit his game.

And by the way, I read an interview for Annocone saying Federer is
always open to changes but he needs to be convinced why he should use
it.

[Shakes]

Big racquets are good for groundies, but they negatively affect the
serve. The best servers always used relatively small head sizes -
Sampras, Becker, Stich, Krajicek, Ivanisevic etc (all between 85-93
sq. in). Much easier to accelerate through the contact point. And I
don't think Fed would risk losing "bigness"/effectiveness of his serve.

[jdeluise]

On 24-May-2012, PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I disagree, life evolves, technology changes our lives, we always have
> to see what is new around us to change our life to the better or make
> it a little easier.
>
> He is too rich, and has the racquet company behind him, he can fine
> tune any new racquet to suit his game.
>
> And by the way, I read an interview for Annocone saying Federer is
> always open to changes but he needs to be convinced why he should use
> it.

Adding consistency and topspin is for younger men, and Fed is approaching
31. Fed needs to focus on what wins him slams... he needs to sharpen his
tactics and his shot-making, he needs to hone the mental side of his game.
Changing the racket now would only serve to blunt his game, in my opinion.

This is not club tennis, these guys have spent thousands of hours tailoring
their games to the hardware they use. It's not trivial to make these kinds
of changes. It took Djok, what, a year or more to adjust to his new racket?

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 24.5.2012 20:08, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> On May 24, 2:00 pm, "jdeluise"<jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24-May-2012, PeteWasLucky<waleed.kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I honestly believe if Fed went from 90 size racquet to 95 (at least on
>>> clay), it will cut on many of his UE, help him to put more spin on the
>>> ball with less misses.
>>
>> You don't mess with the racket at this stage of your career, you never know
>> what it will do. Maybe the bigger sweet spot makes him more consistent, but
>> cuts into his brilliant shot-making as well?
>
> I disagree, life evolves, technology changes our lives,

These aren't iPods.

> we always have
> to see what is new around us to change our life to the better or make
> it a little easier.
>
> He is too rich, and has the racquet company behind him, he can fine
> tune any new racquet to suit his game.
>
> And by the way, I read an interview for Annocone saying Federer is
> always open to changes but he needs to be convinced why he should use
> it.

That's your answer there.

--
http://memedepot.com/uploads/2000/2098_steamboat.gif

[Shakes]

On May 24, 11:18 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yup. That's what Sampras mentioned too regarding suggestions by people
to go to a bigger racquet to have a better chance at the FO. You don't
want to jeopardize anything that has brought you so many wins. It
takes thousands of hrs of practice to build the "muscle memory" with a
particular hardware, to the extent that they don't have to think about
"preparation" in order to hit a shot.

FWIW, I think Fed can probably experiment with adding lead tape to the
racquet head. That makes the off-center hits less "jittery" and will
somewhat minimize shanks. That should be done with caution, however. I
damaged my shoulder when I tried that. But, darn, it made me serve
like I'd never done before. Amazing !!

[PeteWasLucky]

> don't think Fed would risk losing "bigness"/effectiveness of his serve.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Milos Raonic 98
Roddick 100
isner 100
Del Potro 95
Berdych 100

[Shakes]

Look at the sizes/physicality of these guys. I'm pretty sure Fed
wouldn't be able to swing a big racquet like these guys.

[PeteWasLucky]

> wouldn't be able to swing a big racquet like these guys.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Big frame does not mean bad serve or difficult swing.
Other things decide: balance point, weight, string tension and
stiffness.

[felangey]

>But, darn, it made me serve like I'd never done before. Amazing !!

If the difference was so pronounced....there is a good chance it was
psychosomatic. How much did you use?

[PeteWasLucky]

> don't think Fed would risk losing "bigness"/effectiveness of his serve.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The weight and balance point are the things that affect the serve.
There is nothing there that impact the serve when you use a bigger
frame. It's just the big servers you remember are connected to small
frames in the back of your mind, but this was in the golden era (:-))
when all frames were small.

[Shakes]

In smaller frames, the chances of hitting the serve off-center is
smaller too, by practice. The bigger sweet-spot which is useful in
hitting groundies is not as helpful on the serves. The "precision" is
higher with smaller head-sized racquets. Not to mention other things
like "wind resistance" through the larger head size etc. Further, most
of those frames had a smaller thickness/cross-section which also
helped.

[Shakes]

I think I used 3 inches on each side at 3 and 9. But it was not
psychosomatic. :-)) I clearly remember a guy who I played with as
being surprised by the "weight". I hurt my shoulder in the process,
though.

[PeteWasLucky]

Serve is the only shot you control, and if you miss hit the ball
during serve, better forget tennis.
Look, we all like what we do and what we use and resist changes, but
to achieve bigger goals we have to be open minded a little.
Going from 90 to 95, while maintaining other specs, would add a good
amount of zip to his strokes on clay and cut on these mishits. Still
95 will be on the small size compared to the tour.

[felangey]

> >But, darn, it made me serve like I'd never done before. Amazing !!
>
> If the difference was so pronounced....there is a good chance it was
> psychosomatic. How much did you use?

>I think I used 3 inches on each side at 3 and 9. But it was not
psychosomatic. :-)) I clearly remember a guy who I played with as
being surprised by the "weight". I hurt my shoulder in the process,
though.<

So, assuming the wider 1/2" tape, you added 3grams all told....I don't see
that changing your serve from chalk to cheese.....but if you say so...I'll
believe you! ;)

[Shakes]

Not true. As much as the toss is in your control, the hardware does
make a difference.

Here is a piece about this from a former player and coach of Courier
during his formative years:

Smaller sized racquets offer:

- More pinpoint accuracy.

- More penetration, ball stays centered at contact, while in larger
frames it often
drops off.

- Almost no torque or less chance of torque because balls are rarely
hit off center.

- More racket head speed.

- Easier to handle in volleys.

- Easier to handle in creative situations.

- Offer more disguise when needed.

Read more: http://www.tenniscruz.com/would-a-larger-racket-head-frame-help-roger-federers-woes/#ixzz1voiYxUL4

[Shakes]

Well, yes, it was 1/2". I wouldn't say from chalk to cheese, :-), but
it was noticeable. The satisfaction was psycho-somatic, I agree. :-))

[TT]

More honestly, what you really hope is Fed NOT being in Nadal's half...

[TT]

24.5.2012 20:20, PeteWasLucky kirjoitti:

> I don't see this happening on clay, with the small racquet and the way
> Fed hits the ball versus nadal's huge racquet, magic strings, and
> crazy upward brushing fast air scan motion of nadal.

New excuse for you - Scott came up with this long time ago.

Even funnier was you using racket head size as an excuse why Rafa beat
Djoker in Rome... guess you forgot the 7 losses before, with same rackets.

[Court_1]

On May 24, 12:26 pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> And I hope it will be a good match.
> Last year Fed should have won the first set, lost the second in TB,
> won the third, crashed in the fourth.
> I know this is what Nadal has always been doing to his opponents, but
> may be Fed will have a better day :)

Why on earth would you hope Federer is in Nadal's half and that they
meet in the SF rather than the finals? Federer made it to the final
last year and he has those points to defend. I think it is much better
for Federer and Djokovic to be in the same half and there is a chance
that Federer will be on his game and will defeat Djokovic. He will
then have to meet Nadal in the final and he will probably lose there
but making a final is better than making a SF, especially for an old
guy like Federer whose worst surface and slam has always been the FO.

I would like to see Federer in the final and if he has to play against
Nadal in the final, hopefully it will not be a repeat of the same
tired script.

[TT]

25.5.2012 0:12, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On May 24, 12:26 pm, wkhedr<wkh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> And I hope it will be a good match.
>> Last year Fed should have won the first set, lost the second in TB,
>> won the third, crashed in the fourth.
>> I know this is what Nadal has always been doing to his opponents, but
>> may be Fed will have a better day :)
>
> Why on earth would you hope Federer is in Nadal's half and that they
> meet in the SF rather than the finals?

It's rather obvious, he's not being honest...

He scares Rafa beating Fed SO MUCH that he makes up these things. He's
panicking already. :)

[Court_1]

Why would I want to see Federer get battered in the SF against Nadal
when Federer could have the chance to get into the finals. He has the
same chance of losing to Nadal whether it be the SF or the F so it may
as well be the final where he may just have one good day against Nadal
and win the title (doubtful for sure but one never knows.) Why
should Federer even bother to show up and play the slams if he is not
going to make the finals? That thinking is sheer stupidity imo.

[kaennorsing]

Yes. I also think a bigger head will mess up his slice backhand, at
least that's my experience... And Fed's slice is his go to shot when
in trouble, needs it to go from defence to attack, make sure of a
return and mix in the dropshot (which has been a successful tactic
since only a few years).

[PeteWasLucky]

This is what I am hoping for, I hope you don't mind.

[Court_1]

So you would rather see Federer possibly get thrashed in the SF
against Nadal instead of defending his points and meeting Nadal in the
final? No I don't mind if that is the way you think, but to me that
view is the coward's way out.

[wkhedr]

Why are you b**ching about everything?

[wkhedr]

> Read more:http://www.tenniscruz.com/would-a-larger-racket-head-frame-help-roger...

Shake, we are talking about going fom 90 to 95, not from 85 to 110.
Federer against Nadal on clay hits differently specially on his
backhand to put some spin on the ball specially when he is pressured
and not able to have full swing, trying to make the short ball spin
forward and higher reducing the chance the ball would be attacked the
same way Nadal's short balls on clay create some depth as the result
of extreme spin they have.
Federer's racquet is a great one but is stiff, having a little extra
head space would help him a lot to put the spin he needs.
I have been playing with this racquet since it came out, and it is
effortless when you master it, because there is no way to play with it
except having great timing and mechanics.
But I grew up playing on clay and know what a bigger racquet allowed
me to do on clay.
Btw, federer does not buy a racquet like us, they are customized for
him, so I am sure he can build something that works great for him.
The real question is does he care that much at this point of his
career to change a racquet?
My guess, no.
Wondering if any of the great players switched to a different racquet
late in their careers.

[Court_1]

Somebody is taking this all a little too seriously aren't they little
boy? ;) Chill out and don't have a little boy tantrum, it is only
tennis, it is not so important! Sheesh!

[Shakes]

Yeah, I understand. But my point is that something even as much as 5%
change is huge for the pros. It will take weeks (if not months) of
practice to get used to it. Further, it might help him on clay but it
will be a disadvantage on grass/HC (read serves, slices, volleys
etc.). Not sure if Fed would make that gamble.

As far as I know, except Connors (who switched briefly from T2000 to
Estusa late in his career), Agassi (Donnay to Head), and some players
during the wood-graphite transition, nobody tampered with their
racquets until Djok recently tried (and lost a yrs worth). Guys like
Becker and Sampras even took the moulds of their favourite frames
(Puma, Wilson).

These top pros are fanatics when it comes to equipment. :-)

[moduli]

You sure you're not Whisper? ;-)

[Wile E.]

This is rst, no?

[Court_1]

On May 24, 8:14 pm, moduli <mathd...@nospam.com> wrote:

Ha, ha!

Whisper may be a Sampras fanboy with an irrational hatred for Federer,
but he is not stupid. I hate stupidity. What kind of Fed fan would
want Federer to reach the SF's and lose rather than reach the finals
and have a chance to win no matter how slim that chance is? I don't
understand that kind of logic. Do you? What are your thoughts on the
issue? You are a Fed fan right?

[wkhedr]

Oh man, I thought you said it is not that important, chill out, but it
seems you can't really stop.

[Court_1]

I am asking moduli what his/her (?) opinion is on the subject of
Federer and whether he/she thinks it is better for Federer to reach
the SF or the F of a grand slam. I know moduli is a sock but I am not
sure for whom. Is it you?

[Superdave]

hey Courtie, how's about some legover and chips?

[wkhedr]

> sure for whom. Is it you?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't play these games, I post under two accounts, both identify me
(this one and PeteWas..).

[Court_1]

So who is moduli? Do you know?

[moduli]

On 2012-05-25, Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Obviously it's preferable that he lose a final even if the Fedhaters
later pointed out the increasing bad h2h. On clay, Fed is simply inferior
to Nadal. That became clear early, especially after the loss in the Rome
final in 2006.

[moduli]

On 2012-05-25, Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I use to post under different name years ago. Got weary
of some of the Fedhaters and decided to reappear under a more ambiguous
persona. Seems a little more fun playing both sides. I'm like you that
I respect Nadal but don't appreciate his style. I'm hoping that someone
in the clown brigade would step up, it looked like delPO for a little while
but the guy hurt his wrist and as you noted seems a little clownish, sigh,
at the moment.

[wkhedr]

> at the moment.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Okay Ryan.

[bob]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:06:48 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 24, 11:38 am, "felangey" <her...@re.com> wrote:
>> >But, darn, it made me serve like I'd never done before. Amazing !!
>>
>> If the difference was so pronounced....there is a good chance it was
>> psychosomatic. How much did you use?
>
>I think I used 3 inches on each side at 3 and 9. But it was not
>psychosomatic. :-)) I clearly remember a guy who I played with as
>being surprised by the "weight". I hurt my shoulder in the process,
>though.

any injuries i've had in tennis have always come from switch to
lighter, not heavier, rackets. feeling no "resistance" seems to throw
the shoulder out a bit.

bob

[bob]

you seem to have more balls than most male fedfans in rst.

bob

[bob]

it's actually very common logic. the hatred of nadal is so great some
fedfans would rather see fed lose 1R than lost to nadal in final.

let me put this in terms of something you might comprehend more: a
girl would rather not get asked to prom herself, rather have a season
long breakout of zits, than see her best friend asked by the popular
QB of the football team. eh? :-)

bob

[wkhedr]

On May 26, 7:17 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 17:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You are very smart man, did you figure it out yourself?!
Everything you said is wrong, I explained why already.

[Court_1]

On May 26, 7:17 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 May 2012 17:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Let me put this in terms of something you might comprehend more? Your
condescending attitude knows no bounds apparently. I don't know what
kind of women you associate with but for your information, I would
never choose to have one zit let alone a face full of zits in lieu of
seeing my best friend asked out to the prom by the QB! There are
plenty of fish in the sea.

How about I put it in terms that you and your ilk will understand. Men
think with their dicks and as long as that has been the case, women
have taken advantage of and outsmarted men since the beginning of
time. True story. ;)

Surely you could have used a better and less sexist example than the
one you chose. (rolls eyes)
Try to be a little more original next time.

[Whisper]

So they're not genuine when they say h2h doesn't matter? Appears it's
the most important stat, given they'd rather he lost 1st rd to a nobody
than r/up to Rafa.

[Whisper]

It's Jaros.

[Whisper]

On 25/05/2012 10:28 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> On May 24, 8:14 pm, moduli<mathd...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-05-25, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Somebody is taking this all a little too seriously aren't they little
>>> boy? ;) Chill out and don't have a little boy tantrum, it is only
>>> tennis, it is not so important! Sheesh!
>>
>> You sure you're not Whisper? ;-)
>
> Ha, ha!
>
> Whisper may be a Sampras fanboy with an irrational hatred for Federer,

Maybe exaggerated? People who take themselves a bit too seriously are
open targets.

> but he is not stupid. I hate stupidity. What kind of Fed fan would
> want Federer to reach the SF's and lose rather than reach the finals
> and have a chance to win no matter how slim that chance is? I don't
> understand that kind of logic. Do you? What are your thoughts on the
> issue? You are a Fed fan right?

Never understood this. I always wanted Mac to play the best win or
lose, not Chris Lewis. I was really praying Hewitt would make 2002 USO
final so he & Sampras could have rematch of 2001 USO final. If you're a
fan of a player you would want them to be tested to the hilt & win. If
they win by playing journeymen it's pretty unsatisfying win. Almost by
default.

Graf won 22 slams, many v lesser players nobody remembers. The gems
that stand out are her battles v Navratilova & Seles. We still talk
about Borg v Mac, Sampras v Agassi, Fed v Rafa etc. Yes the overall
numbers are important, but in slams you really want to see the best v
best, not best v Bagditis or Pioline. Yes you take the wins, but they
are nothing to write home about.

[wkhedr]

On May 27, 12:46 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 27/05/2012 9:17 AM, bob wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 17:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Court_1

> > <Olympia0...@yahoo.com>  wrote:

Exactly. This is why sampras's record in the FO is so great.

[wkhedr]

If you are a big fan of tennis as you say, you would not be shitting
your pants everyday coming with bs like 7543, yec is an exo, blue
slams, etc to argue your case that Sampras is the goat.

[Carey]

Women are generally clever, no doubt. See Bok: Why Women Lie.

But.. accepting what you've said as true, why do they make, even in
the most 'enlightened' societies, no more that 3/4 of equivalent male
income?

Signed, Curious.

[Court_1]

Well Curious,what is an "enlightened" society to you, living in a
ditch?

You can't expect me to seriously answer that question and it is beyond
the scope of this group, but I can tell you one thing, it is not
because the women aren't equally if not more qualified than the men.
In addition, the world I grew up in, was a professional world where
the admissions in law/medical/dental schools were 50% or more women.
Those women make equal or more than their male counterparts in most
cases.

[Carey]

Dear 'Court1',

I agree that skills are not the issue.

So with that as a given, and the cleverness
you've already assigned to the female since
time immemorial:

Why are women not running
the world (and I'd hope doing a better job than
have men)?

Signed,
Curiouser

[Court_1]

Who says they are not? Have there not been women leaders in various
nations and are there not powerful women in politics?

[Carey]

You seem to be backpedaling.

but..

if you consider Margaret Thatcher a positive
development then perhaps you're right. ;)

[Court_1]

Backpedaling? I don't think so.

I guess male leaders such as Mussolini, Hitler and Gaddafi were
examples of greatness according to you.

Please go away and don't post to me, you are out of your league. I
knew you were bad news as soon as I saw your PMS comments to Uly. I
don't have patience to deal with people like you. Thanks kindly.

[TT]

Good point. fair argument for h2h actually being the most important stat.

[moduli]

A lot of science fairs are filled with women and many of them win. I've
seen a lot of NASA engineers who are women. The reality is women are only
at the beginning of their resurgence worldwide. One thing I have not
seen is top level mathematics and hard physics seems to be sparsely populated
by women.

[TT]

27.5.2012 19:13, moduli kirjoitti:
> One thing I have not
> seen is top level mathematics and hard physics seems to be sparsely populated
> by women.

Discussing with Courtsie and Uly makes me wonder why.
:-P

[moduli]

Perhaps :-) Although Court_1 is very sharp poster with respect to tennis. I think
she did a reasonable job on the Hingis' legacy as an exceptional tennis talent.

[Gracchus]

On May 27, 11:28 am, moduli <mathd...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Perhaps :-) Although Court_1 is very sharp poster with respect to tennis. I think
> she did a reasonable job on the Hingis' legacy as an exceptional tennis talent.

Certainly should have, since no one ever disputed that.

[moduli]

Based on the h2h she did resonably well against power players, when some folks were arguing
that it was one-sided in favour of the power hitters. Obviously the context of the matches
may provide further insights.

[Gracchus]

On May 27, 11:35 am, moduli <mathd...@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 2012-05-27, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Based on the h2h she did resonably well against power players, when some folks were arguing
> that it was one-sided in favour of the power hitters. Obviously the context of the matches
> may provide further insights.

The stats reflect a better record than what I would have expected, I
agree. And it indeed would be interesting to examine the trends in
more detail.

Just the same, I for one never questioned that Hingis was an
"exceptional tennis talent." What I said about her legacy essentially
was that she was a minor champion relative to the all-time greats, and
nothing close to most talented ever.

[moduli]

On 2012-05-27, Gracchus <cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I agree, athletically she's not even close to the greats like Graf, Navratilova,
or the Williams sisters and yet she held her own. Her court sense was simply uncanny.
I remember her completely dismantling Seles which gave me great pleasure.

[Gracchus]

On May 27, 12:06 pm, moduli <mathd...@nospam.com> wrote:

> I agree, athletically she's not even close to the greats like Graf, Navratilova,
> or the Williams sisters and yet she held her own. Her court sense was simply uncanny.
> I remember her completely dismantling Seles which gave me great pleasure.

Me too. :) Hingis once said that she always could "read" Seles's game
well.

[moduli]

On 2012-05-27, Gracchus <cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes, it was a relief that someone was finally able to counter Seles' ugly game
along with her shrieking.

[Pelle Svanslös]

For once, I have to agree.

--
http://memedepot.com/uploads/2000/2098_steamboat.gif

[bob]

you knew it was tongue in cheek, no? wow.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 14:46:20 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

no fedfan will admit to rather having fed lose 1R than to nadal in
finals, but you know it's in there...

bob

[Patrick Kehoe]

On May 27, 4:35 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 14:46:20 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 27/05/2012 9:17 AM, bob wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 May 2012 17:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Court_1

> >> <Olympia0...@yahoo.com>  wrote:

> >>>>> Somebody is taking this all a little too seriously aren't they little
> >>>>> boy? ;)  Chill out and don't have a little boy tantrum, it is only
> >>>>> tennis, it is not so important! Sheesh!
>
> >>>> You sure you're not Whisper? ;-)
>
> >>> Ha, ha!
>
> >>> Whisper may be a Sampras fanboy with an irrational hatred for Federer,
> >>> but he is not stupid. I hate stupidity. What kind of Fed fan would
> >>> want Federer to reach the SF's and lose rather than reach the finals
> >>> and have a chance to win no matter how slim that chance is? I don't
> >>> understand that kind of logic. Do you? What are your thoughts on the
> >>> issue? You are a Fed fan right?
>
> >> it's actually very common logic. the hatred of nadal is so great some
> >> fedfans would rather see fed lose 1R than lost to nadal in final.
>
> >So they're not genuine when they say h2h doesn't matter?  Appears it's
> >the most important stat, given they'd rather he lost 1st rd to a nobody
> >than r/up to Rafa.
>
> no fedfan will admit to rather having fed lose 1R than to nadal in
> finals, but you know it's in there...
>

> bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No... that's a Whisper/bob invention... you guys can have it all to
yourselves...

P

[Court_1]

Nope, did not not get the tongue in cheek vibe there sorry.

[Court_1]

On May 27, 1:16 pm, moduli <mathd...@nospam.com> wrote:

Love or hate Seles' shrieking or ugly game, the woman had talent. Her
two-handed fh and bh was interesting to watch at the time, not ugly at
all imo.

[Court_1]

On May 27, 12:13 pm, moduli <mathd...@nospam.com> wrote:

That will change in time especially with the Asian population being as
it is and expanding as quickly as it is.

[Court_1]

Merci!

[Whisper]

Seles, Shara & co;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsPjL8SUAFc

[Court_1]

Ewww! That is oddly disgusting and cute at the same time!

[bob]

next time i'll put "tongue in cheek" in plain quotes at end of post
for u.

bob

[Court_1]

That would be kind of you! ;)

[Superdave]

can i put my tongue between yours?

[bob]

i am very kind.

bob