info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Discuss females
30 views
Skip to first unread message
*skriptis
May 30, 2019, 4:53:07 PM5/30/19
to
Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
horizontal streaks.
Points = (slam titles × 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
horizontal streaks.
Points = (slam titles × 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Calimero
May 30, 2019, 5:22:12 PM5/30/19
to
On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 10:53:07 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
> Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>
> Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
> horizontal streaks.
>
> Points = (slam titles × 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
>
>
> 1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
> 2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
> 3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
> 4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
> 5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
> 6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
> 7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
> 8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
> 9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
Just have a look at whom the players beat in slam finals and which of those slam finals were instant classics.
> Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>
> Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
> horizontal streaks.
>
> Points = (slam titles × 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
>
>
> 1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
> 2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
> 3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
> 4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
> 5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
> 6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
> 7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
> 8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
> 9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
Take Graf for example:
1) Beating #1 Navratilova as a 17-year-old at FO 87 with Navi serving for the match.
2) Beating 7-time defending champ Navratilova in Wim 88 with 5-7 6-2 6-1 after trailing 5-7 0-2 (breaking Navi in all of her last 7 service games).
3) Beating Navratilova 3-6 7-5 6-1 at USO 89 after trailing her 3-6 2-4.
4) Beating Sabatini in Wim 91 after Gaby served for the match twice.
5) Destroying #1 Seles 6-2 6-1 in Wim 92 (worst loss of a #1 player in a slam final in the history of tennis).
6) Beating Novotna in Wim 93 after trailing her 1-4 in the 3rd set.
7) Beating Sanchez in Wim 95 with the famous 11th game in the 3rd set.
8) Beating a returning Seles in front of her home crowd at USO 95 (while Graf's dad had been imprisoned just 4 weeks earlier).
9) Beating Sanchez at FO 96 with 10-8 in 3rd set at FO 96.
10) And the mother of all classics - her win against Hingis at FO 99.
Feel free to make a remotely comparable list for any other of the greats, lolol ...
Max
—
“Certainly, I knew how to clobber the ball and I was top 10 at that point, but I realized immediately that I was a so much worse tennis player than Steffi. … Steffi had shown me my limits in a devastating way and that was a good thing. I began to understand.“
(Andrea Petkovic on her practice session with 41-year-old Steffi Graf in 2011 in Las Vegas, Tennismagazin 06/19)
*skriptis
May 30, 2019, 5:35:18 PM5/30/19
to
Calimero <calim...@gmx.de> Wrote in message:
That's enormously gay because using your criteria you could give
tons of bonus pts to Serena for playing and winning against her
sister in slam finals, and elsewhere. That's obviously incredibly
tough, just remember how Klitschko brothers refuses to compete vs
each other because it's tough.
Navratilova or Lendl were cold war defects and crowds were against
them, it was tough for them, shall we give them bonus
pts?
And what about of Graf's fan removal of her rival through stabbing?
So, you better not start that debate overall. Concentrate on facts
and this relatively simple but quality list that shows us wgat
was won (50%) and in what manner was it won (50%).
tons of bonus pts to Serena for playing and winning against her
sister in slam finals, and elsewhere. That's obviously incredibly
tough, just remember how Klitschko brothers refuses to compete vs
each other because it's tough.
Navratilova or Lendl were cold war defects and crowds were against
them, it was tough for them, shall we give them bonus
pts?
And what about of Graf's fan removal of her rival through stabbing?
So, you better not start that debate overall. Concentrate on facts
and this relatively simple but quality list that shows us wgat
was won (50%) and in what manner was it won (50%).
Calimero
May 30, 2019, 5:48:02 PM5/30/19
to
Come on, even as a Serena fan, can you make a list with 10 (!) Serena slam final wins which have a comparable all-time-classic touch as those 10 I listed from Steffi Graf? It is a fact that almost all Serena slam finals were very forgettable, no drama and no high quality.
Even after 20-30 years people still talk of the Novotna Wimbledon 93 final, the Hingis FO 99 final, the ASV FO 96 final, or the Navi Wim 88 final. And people will talk about them in 20-30 years from now. When all of Serena's slam finals will be long forgotten. Greatness is not just numbers.
*skriptis
May 31, 2019, 8:47:29 AM5/31/19
to
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:
been more dominant with her wins. Many gaps between her titles,
fewer defended titles compared to other top two, many skipped
slams and less streaks.
To Graf's credit, she used Seles stabbing for 93-94 ncygs, ie
horizontal streak and also achieved combo of both horizontal and
vertical streaks in defending FO-Wim-USO titles in 95-96. She did
great as she wasn't simply winning slams, she was dominating.
That's 10 slams, but including 4 defences and 7 consecutives.
That's 31 pts out of 67 she achieved in total.
Let's try similar for men, open era.
1. Federer, 57 pts (20,10,7)
2. Nadal, 45 pts (17,8,3)
3. Djokovic, 41 pts (15,4,7)
4. Sampras, 38 pts (14,6,4)
5. Borg, 33 pts (11,8,3)
6. Lendl, 20 pts (8,4,0)
7. Connors, 19 pts (8,1,2)
7. McEnroe, 19 pts (7,3,2)
9. Agassi, 18 pts (8,1,1)
10. Wilander, 17 pts (7,1,2)
11. Becker, 14 pts (6,1,1)
11. Edberg, 14 pts (6,2,0)
All players have defended slam title at least once (vertical streaks).
Lendl and Edberg are the only players never to have won
consecutive slams (horizontal streaks).
Borg really did max out his score. E.g. 11 slams would translate
to 22 pts if he hadn't defended a title or achieved no streak.
But he did lots of those and he's at 150%.
What we observe here is that there is no fundamental change to
usual slam list. Players who won more have also been more
dominant, and vice versa. So no significant vulturing factor in
men's game.
Djokovic has fewest defended slam titles among top 6, but he's
tied at #1 with Federer in consecutive slams won so overall he's
not lacking in domination factor.
So it's all pretty even in men's game. It all boils down to titles.
> Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>
> Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
> horizontal streaks.
>
> Points = (slam titles × 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
>
>
> 1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
> 2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
> 3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
> 4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
> 5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
> 6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
> 7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
> 8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
> 9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
It's somewhat obvious Serena hasn't been or that she should have
>
> Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
> horizontal streaks.
>
> Points = (slam titles × 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
>
>
> 1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
> 2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
> 3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
> 4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
> 5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
> 6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
> 7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
> 8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
> 9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
been more dominant with her wins. Many gaps between her titles,
fewer defended titles compared to other top two, many skipped
slams and less streaks.
To Graf's credit, she used Seles stabbing for 93-94 ncygs, ie
horizontal streak and also achieved combo of both horizontal and
vertical streaks in defending FO-Wim-USO titles in 95-96. She did
great as she wasn't simply winning slams, she was dominating.
That's 10 slams, but including 4 defences and 7 consecutives.
That's 31 pts out of 67 she achieved in total.
Let's try similar for men, open era.
1. Federer, 57 pts (20,10,7)
2. Nadal, 45 pts (17,8,3)
3. Djokovic, 41 pts (15,4,7)
4. Sampras, 38 pts (14,6,4)
5. Borg, 33 pts (11,8,3)
6. Lendl, 20 pts (8,4,0)
7. Connors, 19 pts (8,1,2)
7. McEnroe, 19 pts (7,3,2)
9. Agassi, 18 pts (8,1,1)
10. Wilander, 17 pts (7,1,2)
11. Becker, 14 pts (6,1,1)
11. Edberg, 14 pts (6,2,0)
All players have defended slam title at least once (vertical streaks).
Lendl and Edberg are the only players never to have won
consecutive slams (horizontal streaks).
Borg really did max out his score. E.g. 11 slams would translate
to 22 pts if he hadn't defended a title or achieved no streak.
But he did lots of those and he's at 150%.
What we observe here is that there is no fundamental change to
usual slam list. Players who won more have also been more
dominant, and vice versa. So no significant vulturing factor in
men's game.
Djokovic has fewest defended slam titles among top 6, but he's
tied at #1 with Federer in consecutive slams won so overall he's
not lacking in domination factor.
So it's all pretty even in men's game. It all boils down to titles.
Whisper
May 31, 2019, 10:48:37 AM5/31/19
to
On 31/05/2019 10:47 pm, *skriptis wrote:
> Let's try similar for men, open era.
>
>
> 1. Federer, 57 pts (20,10,7)
> 2. Nadal, 45 pts (17,8,3)
> 3. Djokovic, 41 pts (15,4,7)
> 4. Sampras, 38 pts (14,6,4)
> 5. Borg, 33 pts (11,8,3)
What's interesting about that list is the age of the players seems to be
> Let's try similar for men, open era.
>
>
> 1. Federer, 57 pts (20,10,7)
> 2. Nadal, 45 pts (17,8,3)
> 3. Djokovic, 41 pts (15,4,7)
> 4. Sampras, 38 pts (14,6,4)
> 5. Borg, 33 pts (11,8,3)
the defining factor on ranking. Borg retired at 25 & Sampras at 31, &
Fed/Rafa/Djoker are all older than this;
Borg 25
Sampras 31
Djokovic 32
Nadal 33
Federer 38
That's the reverse order of your list above.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
bob
May 31, 2019, 11:49:26 AM5/31/19
to
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 00:48:27 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:
>On 31/05/2019 10:47 pm, *skriptis wrote:
>> Let's try similar for men, open era.
>>
>>
>> 1. Federer, 57 pts (20,10,7)
>> 2. Nadal, 45 pts (17,8,3)
>> 3. Djokovic, 41 pts (15,4,7)
>> 4. Sampras, 38 pts (14,6,4)
>> 5. Borg, 33 pts (11,8,3)
>
>
>
>What's interesting about that list is the age of the players seems to be
>the defining factor on ranking. Borg retired at 25 & Sampras at 31, &
>Fed/Rafa/Djoker are all older than this;
>
>
>Borg 25
>Sampras 31
>Djokovic 32
>Nadal 33
>Federer 38
>
>That's the reverse order of your list above.
watered down #s?
bob
wrote:
>On 31/05/2019 10:47 pm, *skriptis wrote:
>> Let's try similar for men, open era.
>>
>>
>> 1. Federer, 57 pts (20,10,7)
>> 2. Nadal, 45 pts (17,8,3)
>> 3. Djokovic, 41 pts (15,4,7)
>> 4. Sampras, 38 pts (14,6,4)
>> 5. Borg, 33 pts (11,8,3)
>
>
>
>What's interesting about that list is the age of the players seems to be
>the defining factor on ranking. Borg retired at 25 & Sampras at 31, &
>Fed/Rafa/Djoker are all older than this;
>
>
>Borg 25
>Sampras 31
>Djokovic 32
>Nadal 33
>Federer 38
>
>That's the reverse order of your list above.
bob
bob
May 31, 2019, 11:50:34 AM5/31/19
to
On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:53:06 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
<skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>
>Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
> horizontal streaks.
>
>Points = (slam titles в 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
<skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>
>Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
> horizontal streaks.
>
>
>
>1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
>2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
>3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
>4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
>5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
>6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
>7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
>8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
>9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
i never understood the full logic behind "defending" a title. liang
>
>1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
>2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
>3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
>4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
>5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
>6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
>7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
>8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
>9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
used this daily about rafa, never defends non clay, etc. defending is
nice, but say you play 16 yrs and win every other yr. never a defense,
yet 8 titles? i'll take it. why defending is so important, not sure.
bob
bob
May 31, 2019, 11:52:23 AM5/31/19
to
On Thu, 30 May 2019 14:47:59 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
<calim...@gmx.de> wrote:
>On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 11:35:18 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
>> Calimero <calim...@gmx.de> Wrote in message:
>> > On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 10:53:07 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
>> >> Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>> >>
>> >> Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
>> >> horizontal streaks.
>> >>
>> >> Points = (slam titles в 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
<calim...@gmx.de> wrote:
>On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 11:35:18 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
>> Calimero <calim...@gmx.de> Wrote in message:
>> > On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 10:53:07 PM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
>> >> Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>> >>
>> >> Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
>> >> horizontal streaks.
>> >>
the "magic #."
tried to warn ya back then when i realized athletes were starting to
play 5-10 yrs longer than previous generations...
bob
*skriptis
May 31, 2019, 12:03:33 PM5/31/19
to
bob <b...@bob.com> Wrote in message:
Maybe in people's mind you stamp your authority much more if you
win 8/8 than 8/16?
> On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:53:06 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
> <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>>Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>>
>>Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
>> horizontal streaks.
>>
>>Points = (slam titles × 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
> <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>>Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>>
>>Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
>> horizontal streaks.
>>
>>
>>
>>1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
>>2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
>>3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
>>4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
>>5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
>>6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
>>7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
>>8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
>>9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
>
> i never understood the full logic behind "defending" a title. liang
> used this daily about rafa, never defends non clay, etc. defending is
> nice, but say you play 16 yrs and win every other yr. never a defense,
> yet 8 titles? i'll take it. why defending is so important, not sure.
Good question, but I think it increases prestige?
>>
>>1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
>>2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
>>3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
>>4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
>>5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
>>6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
>>7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
>>8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
>>9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
>
> i never understood the full logic behind "defending" a title. liang
> used this daily about rafa, never defends non clay, etc. defending is
> nice, but say you play 16 yrs and win every other yr. never a defense,
> yet 8 titles? i'll take it. why defending is so important, not sure.
Maybe in people's mind you stamp your authority much more if you
win 8/8 than 8/16?
*skriptis
May 31, 2019, 12:06:55 PM5/31/19
to
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:
Because if you win 8 consecutives that's 8/8 just as much it's
8/16 or 8/100.
:)
Whisper
May 31, 2019, 12:11:24 PM5/31/19
to
On 1/06/2019 1:50 am, bob wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:53:06 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
> <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>>
>> Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
>> horizontal streaks.
>>
>> Points = (slam titles × 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
> On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:53:06 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
> <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>>
>> Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
>> horizontal streaks.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
>> 2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
>> 3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
>> 4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
>> 5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
>> 6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
>> 7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
>> 8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
>> 9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
>
> i never understood the full logic behind "defending" a title. liang
> used this daily about rafa, never defends non clay, etc. defending is
> nice, but say you play 16 yrs and win every other yr. never a defense,
> yet 8 titles? i'll take it. why defending is so important, not sure.
>
> bob
>
Me neither. If anything you could argue it's taking advantage of a
>>
>> 1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
>> 2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
>> 3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
>> 4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
>> 5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
>> 6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
>> 7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
>> 8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
>> 9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
>
> i never understood the full logic behind "defending" a title. liang
> used this daily about rafa, never defends non clay, etc. defending is
> nice, but say you play 16 yrs and win every other yr. never a defense,
> yet 8 titles? i'll take it. why defending is so important, not sure.
>
> bob
>
competition lull.
Whisper
May 31, 2019, 12:22:26 PM5/31/19
to
Fed/Rafa/Djoker/Sampras/Borg/McEnroe etc in the field then wow amazing.
If it's Bagditis/Hewitt/Roddick etc then not so much imo.
bob
May 31, 2019, 12:34:57 PM5/31/19
to
On Fri, 31 May 2019 18:03:32 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
times?
makes no difference to me.
bob
<skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>bob <b...@bob.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:53:06 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
>> <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>>Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>>>
>>>Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
>>> horizontal streaks.
>>>
>>>Points = (slam titles в 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
>bob <b...@bob.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:53:06 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
>> <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>>Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>>>
>>>Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
>>> horizontal streaks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
>>>2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
>>>3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
>>>4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
>>>5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
>>>6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
>>>7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
>>>8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
>>>9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
>>
>> i never understood the full logic behind "defending" a title. liang
>> used this daily about rafa, never defends non clay, etc. defending is
>> nice, but say you play 16 yrs and win every other yr. never a defense,
>> yet 8 titles? i'll take it. why defending is so important, not sure.
>
>
>
>Good question, but I think it increases prestige?
>
>Maybe in people's mind you stamp your authority much more if you
> win 8/8 than 8/16?
yes, but i'm not talking about 8/8. maybe 8/20, but you defended 3
>>>
>>>1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
>>>2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
>>>3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
>>>4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
>>>5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
>>>6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
>>>7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
>>>8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
>>>9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
>>
>> i never understood the full logic behind "defending" a title. liang
>> used this daily about rafa, never defends non clay, etc. defending is
>> nice, but say you play 16 yrs and win every other yr. never a defense,
>> yet 8 titles? i'll take it. why defending is so important, not sure.
>
>
>
>Good question, but I think it increases prestige?
>
>Maybe in people's mind you stamp your authority much more if you
> win 8/8 than 8/16?
times?
makes no difference to me.
bob
bob
May 31, 2019, 12:35:46 PM5/31/19
to
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 02:11:15 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:
>On 1/06/2019 1:50 am, bob wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:53:06 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
>> <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>>>
>>> Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
>>> horizontal streaks.
>>>
>>> Points = (slam titles в 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
bob
wrote:
>On 1/06/2019 1:50 am, bob wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:53:06 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
>> <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>>>
>>> Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
>>> horizontal streaks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
>>> 2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
>>> 3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
>>> 4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
>>> 5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
>>> 6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
>>> 7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
>>> 8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
>>> 9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
>>
>> i never understood the full logic behind "defending" a title. liang
>> used this daily about rafa, never defends non clay, etc. defending is
>> nice, but say you play 16 yrs and win every other yr. never a defense,
>> yet 8 titles? i'll take it. why defending is so important, not sure.
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>Me neither. If anything you could argue it's taking advantage of a
>competition lull.
most certainly. easy to defend roddick; rafa, not so much.
>>>
>>> 1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
>>> 2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
>>> 3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
>>> 4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
>>> 5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
>>> 6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
>>> 7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
>>> 8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
>>> 9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
>>
>> i never understood the full logic behind "defending" a title. liang
>> used this daily about rafa, never defends non clay, etc. defending is
>> nice, but say you play 16 yrs and win every other yr. never a defense,
>> yet 8 titles? i'll take it. why defending is so important, not sure.
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>Me neither. If anything you could argue it's taking advantage of a
>competition lull.
bob
bob
May 31, 2019, 12:37:32 PM5/31/19
to
>On 1/06/2019 1:50 am, bob wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:53:06 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
>> <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>>>
>>> Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
>>> horizontal streaks.
>>>
>>> Points = (slam titles в 2) + (title defences) + (consecutive titles)
>> On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:53:06 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
>> <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a list for those who want to discuss females.
>>>
>>> Half of the points are titles, second half are vertical and
>>> horizontal streaks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
>>> 2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
>>> 3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
>>> 4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
>>> 5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
>>> 6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
>>> 7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
>>> 8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
>>> 9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
>>
>> i never understood the full logic behind "defending" a title. liang
>> used this daily about rafa, never defends non clay, etc. defending is
>> nice, but say you play 16 yrs and win every other yr. never a defense,
>> yet 8 titles? i'll take it. why defending is so important, not sure.
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>Me neither. If anything you could argue it's taking advantage of a
>competition lull.
the strongest proponents we have on "defense of title" are liang and
>>>
>>> 1. Court, 70 pts (24,10,12)
>>> 2. Graf, 67 pts (22,10,13)
>>> 3. Serena, 60 pts (23,6,8)
>>> 4. Wills, 55 pts (19,10,7)
>>> 5. Navratilova, 52 pts (18,8,8)
>>> 6. Evert, 45 (18,6,3)
>>> 7. King, 32 pts (12,4,4)
>>> 8. Connolly, 29 pts (9,5,6)
>>> 9. Seles, 27 pts (9,5,4)
>>
>> i never understood the full logic behind "defending" a title. liang
>> used this daily about rafa, never defends non clay, etc. defending is
>> nice, but say you play 16 yrs and win every other yr. never a defense,
>> yet 8 titles? i'll take it. why defending is so important, not sure.
>>
>> bob
>>
>
>Me neither. If anything you could argue it's taking advantage of a
>competition lull.
raja. that alone should tell us it's not worth a turd.
bob
0 new messages