Evert doesn't think Fed can win USO

[Carey]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/25/tennis/evert-federer-us-open/index.html

I like her final quote in the article.

[stephenJ]

>On 8/25/2017 1:31 PM, Carey wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/25/tennis/evert-federer-us-open/index.html
>
> I like her final quote in the article.
>

Everyone knows the USO is a tough test. It's hot, humid, and late in the
year when guys are banged up. And it's a fairly neutral surface, so
everyone likes their chances and is motivated.

But that's true for everybody.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Manco]

Seriously that's her analysis? She thinks Roger is just a wild shotmaker like Fabio Fognini? The 19-time GS champion?

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 8:32:01 PM UTC+2, Carey wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/25/tennis/evert-federer-us-open/index.html
>
> I like her final quote in the article.

That Evert still counts as a serious tennis pundit in the USA is truly baffling.


Max

[TennisGuy]

On 8/25/2017 4:49 PM, Manco wrote:
> Seriously that's her analysis? She thinks Roger is just a wild
> shotmaker like Fabio Fognini? The 19-time GS champion?
>

That's what I thought too.

She loves Roger though. She's just pulling a stephenJ (reverse jinx).

[PeteWasLucky]

Federer practice in Dubai, lol ;)

Also people need to look at the weather next two weeks, it's not hot.

Does Federer play night matches? :)

[SliceAndDice]

I don't understand this sudden loss of confidence in Roger. Is it because he lost one match or is it because people suspect he is injured? I think we should wait and watch.

[Carey]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 8:38:07 PM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:

>
> I don't understand this sudden loss of confidence in Roger. Is it because he lost one match or is it because people suspect he is injured? I think we should wait and watch.

For me the reasons are 1) thirty-six 2) law of averages 3) back injury (?)
and 4) thirty-six.

[Court_1]

Nadal's quarter looks like a gift from the Gods. Seriously, who can stop him in his quarter? I don't have faith in Berdych or Dimitrov to do so. Nadal should make at least the SF.

[joh]

Op zaterdag 26 augustus 2017 05:48:02 UTC+2 schreef Carey:

@2: you mean the gambler's fallacy? As the name suggests that's a fallacy.

[Carey]

I realize that the odds of a particular coin toss coming up heads or tails are always one in two (assuming a two-sided coin!), no matter what has come before.

[Carey]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:17:07 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> Nadal's quarter looks like a gift from the Gods. Seriously, who can stop him in his quarter? I don't have faith in Berdych or Dimitrov to do so. Nadal should make at least the SF.

Foggy?

[*skriptis]

Carey <carey...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

Everyone says so, but hardly anyone deep down believes it. ;)


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Carey]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 10:59:31 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> Carey Wrote in message:

Skrip, I have to say, you often make me think. ;)

[TennisGuy]

I think we should flesh out what we mean here.
Because joh is fixating on the technical side.

If all the players were robots/coins, then they would have
a 50% chance of winning a match/slam.

But we know that all the players are not robots/coins.

First of all most players will never win a slam in their life.

On to Federer.

Maybe at the peak of his career you could give him 50% odds of winning
the U.S. Open.

But if you look at how he's performed over the last five years, aging
and all, he hasn't been racking up the slams like he did when he was
at peak.

Why is that joh? Shouldn't he have a 50% chance of winning each slam?
And if so, shouldn't he have won 50% of the slams in the last five years?

[TT]

Gasquet

[Whisper]

He's been pretty hopeless at USO - hasn't won since 2008, often getting
smashed in straights by guys like Cilic etc. He's just not that good at
USO.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Whisper]

Fed has lost that 50-50 toss for nearly 10 yrs running. What are the
odds? Guess it's nowhere near 50-50 for him, more like in 1 in 20.

[Tim]

As good as Sampras was. So I guess Sampras must have been crap at USO too.

--
Please support mental health research and world community grid
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/
https://join.worldcommunitygrid.org?recruiterId=123388

[Whisper]

On 26/08/2017 7:41 PM, Tim wrote:
> On 26/08/2017 10:23, Whisper wrote:
>> On 26/08/2017 1:48 PM, Carey wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 8:38:07 PM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand this sudden loss of confidence in Roger. Is it
>>>> because he lost one match or is it because people suspect he is
>>>> injured? I think we should wait and watch.
>>>
>>> For me the reasons are 1) thirty-six  2) law of averages  3) back
>>> injury (?)
>>> and 4) thirty-six.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> He's been pretty hopeless at USO - hasn't won since 2008, often getting
>> smashed in straights by guys like Cilic etc.  He's just not that good at
>> USO.
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
>>
>
> As good as Sampras was. So I guess Sampras must have been crap at USO too.
>

Fed isn't remotely as good as Sampras at USO. He won there day 1 & also
his last ever match. Fed could only win when he peaked & before the
rest of the big 4 were out of their teens. It's nearly 10 yrs since Fed
won USO (2008), & he's ranked top 3 pretty much the whole time. The
conclusion is he's not a big force at USO outside peak clown era 10 yrs ago.

[wen...@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article <366ee3e0-e641-4883...@googlegroups.com>,

vish...@gmail.com (SliceAndDice) wrote:

> I don't understand this sudden loss of confidence in Roger. Is it
> because he lost one match or is it because people suspect he is
> injured? I think we should wait and watch.

Yes: he lost a match, he pulled out of Cincinnati, and there are questions
about his back. It's because of his age: people overreact to everything he
does.

wg

[John Liang]

Let's see how Fed is not remotely as good as Sampras. Both won 5 and in fact Federer won 5 in a row and was going for 6th he lost in five, he also lost another final to Djokovic in 2015 when he was 34, so 5 wins in 7 finals against 5 wins in 8 finals for Sampras how was that for not remotely as good as Sampras at USO. And Sampras could only win against Piolines and his bunny Chang and Agassi but lost in straight against slam final rookies like Hewitt and Safin. Pete is great against bunnies and Piolines.

[PeteWasLucky]

> Let's see how Fed is not remotely as good as Sampras. Both won 5 and in fact Federer won 5 in a row and was going for 6th he lost in five, he also lost another final to Djokovic in 2015 when he was 34, so 5 wins in 7 finals against 5 wins in 8 finals for Sampras how was that for not remotely as good as Sampras at USO. And Sampras could only win against Piolines and his bunny Chang and Agassi but lost in straight against slam final rookies like Hewitt and Safin. Pete is great against bunnies and Piolines.

Whisper is trying to survive being a Federer fan.

[stephenJ]

Federer won 5 USOs in a row, matching what Borg did at Wimbledon.





---

[Whisper]

Yes, but 2008 is ancient history - it's 2018 in a few months.

[Carey]

[distant sound of logic-bomb landing in Newcastle]

[stephenJ]

Yep, and it had been 7 years since he won AO and 5 since he won W. Just
as I don't put anything past Nadal, I don't put anything past Fed. He is
the Open Era GOAT/BOAT/TOAT/MOAT, etc. after all.



---

[Court_1]

I doubt it. I don't think lightning will strike twice and Fognini will beat Nadal at the USO again. The last time he did it was in 2015 when Nadal had the worst year of his career. Also, I doubt Fognini will get to Nadal. Berdych probably will.

I said last week that Nadal's chances will depend on the draw. Well, his quarter looks like a direct entry into the SF.

[stephenJ]

Nadal's draw before the SF is tougher than Fed's. Wouldn't want Dmitrov
in my quarter.

[John Liang]

But it still ridiculous to claim a 5 times champion and 2 time runner ups is not remotely as good as another 5 times champion and 3 times runner ups of the same grand slam. If Fed only won 2 USO like Nadal what you said make sense.

[Court_1]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 11:45:39 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:

> Nadal's draw before the SF is tougher than Fed's.

No, it isn't!

> Wouldn't want Dmitrov
> in my quarter.

Which Dimitrov is that? The Dimitrov who is 5-27 against the Big Four players and 1-8 vs Nadal? Dimitrov wins Cinci with a completely depleted field and all of a sudden he's a world beater?

Nadal has a dream draw here up until the SF. Imagine if Federer is bounced early and doesn't meet Nadal in the SF. Whom would you count on to beat Nadal in the SF then?

[Court_1]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:48:24 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:

> Fed isn't remotely as good as Sampras at USO. He won there day 1 & also
> his last ever match. Fed could only win when he peaked & before the
> rest of the big 4 were out of their teens. It's nearly 10 yrs since Fed
> won USO (2008), & he's ranked top 3 pretty much the whole time. The
> conclusion is he's not a big force at USO outside peak clown era 10 yrs ago.

Poor Whisper! You better hope and pray Federer doesn't win his sixth USO as that will leave Sampras in the dust once again.

[John Liang]

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:58:49 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 11:45:39 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
>
> > Nadal's draw before the SF is tougher than Fed's.
>
> No, it isn't!
>
>
> > Wouldn't want Dmitrov
> > in my quarter.
>
> Which Dimitrov is that? The Dimitrov who is 5-27 against the Big Four players and 1-8 vs Nadal? Dimitrov wins Cinci with a completely depleted field and all of a sudden he's a world beater?

Didn't Nadal have the same depleted field to contend with at Cinci?

[Court_1]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:00:34 PM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:

> >
> > Which Dimitrov is that? The Dimitrov who is 5-27 against the Big Four players and 1-8 vs Nadal? Dimitrov wins Cinci with a completely depleted field and all of a sudden he's a world beater?
>
> Didn't Nadal have the same depleted field to contend with at Cinci?
>
> >
> > Nadal has a dream draw here up until the SF. Imagine if Federer is bounced early and doesn't meet Nadal in the SF. Whom would you count on to beat Nadal in the SF then?

Yes, but he had Kyrgios(whose game is the perfect antidote to Nadal's) defeat him. Kyrgios is nowhere near him in the USO draw and I just can't see Fognini, Berdych/Dimitrov getting the job done.

[John Liang]

He had Shap in the tournament before Cinci I am sure that you would expect him to get through that one as well.

[Court_1]

True but Shap is a young talent who plays aggressive tennis. He had no history vs Nadal and nothing to lose. Berdych/Dimitrov have a history vs Nadal and it's a terrible one. Nadal has Gasquet, Monfils, Berdych, Dimitrov in his quarter. He couldn't have asked for a better draw. And as I said, eventually you have to figure luck would be in Nadal's corner again where he could take advantage of the draw. This could be that time.

[Carey]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:

>
> Nadal's draw before the SF is tougher than Fed's. Wouldn't want Dmitrov
> in my quarter.

I agree with this. If Nadal and Dimitrov meet up I think Dimi has a *real good*
shot.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 8:48:02 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 8:38:07 PM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't understand this sudden loss of confidence in Roger. Is it because he lost one match or is it because people suspect he is injured? I think we should wait and watch.
>
> For me the reasons are 1) thirty-six 2) law of averages 3) back injury (?)
> and 4) thirty-six.

I agree... and let me add: thirty-six, and law of averages...

With Feds playing Rafaesque games of deflection... on his chances to win the USO, "It would be a joke..."

Feds thinking, 'how far CAN I fly under the radar and not run into Rafa?' Which of them can hide in plain sight more competently... :)

P

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:17:07 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> Nadal's quarter looks like a gift from the Gods. Seriously, who can stop him in his quarter? I don't have faith in Berdych or Dimitrov to do so. Nadal should make at least the SF.

Rafa vs. Dimitrov, would be a kind of rematch of their AO semi which rang in their respective championship seasons...

P

[Court_1]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:28:48 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:


> I agree with this. If Nadal and Dimitrov meet up I think Dimi has a *real good*
> shot.

A "good shot" to lose you mean? I doubt Dimitrov will even get to Nadal. Monfils will probably beat Dimitrov. Monfils has a 4-1 record vs Dimitrov, 3-1 on hc and 2-0 at the USO. Dimitrov has never been past the 4th round at the USO. I just don't have faith in him. I'd have to see it to believe it.

[joh]

Op zaterdag 26 augustus 2017 08:20:59 UTC+2 schreef TennisGuy:

> On 8/26/2017 12:37 AM, Carey wrote:
> > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:22:55 PM UTC-7, joh wrote:
> >> Op zaterdag 26 augustus 2017 05:48:02 UTC+2 schreef Carey:

> >>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 8:38:07 PM UTC-7, SliceAndDice
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't understand this sudden loss of confidence in Roger. Is
> >>>> it because he lost one match or is it because people suspect he
> >>>> is injured? I think we should wait and watch.
> >>>
> >>
> >>> For me the reasons are 1) thirty-six 2) law of averages 3) back
> >>> injury (?) and 4) thirty-six.
> >>

> >> @2: you mean the gambler's fallacy? As the name suggests that's a
> >> fallacy.
> >
> >
> > I realize that the odds of a particular coin toss coming up heads or
> > tails are always one in two (assuming a two-sided coin!), no matter
> > what has come before.
> >
> >
> >
>

> I think we should flesh out what we mean here.
> Because joh is fixating on the technical side.
>
> If all the players were robots/coins, then they would have
> a 50% chance of winning a match/slam.
>
> But we know that all the players are not robots/coins.
>
> First of all most players will never win a slam in their life.
>
> On to Federer.
>
> Maybe at the peak of his career you could give him 50% odds of winning
> the U.S. Open.
>
> But if you look at how he's performed over the last five years, aging
> and all, he hasn't been racking up the slams like he did when he was
> at peak.
>
> Why is that joh?

Aging and all.

Shouldn't he have a 50% chance of winning each slam?

No, why?

> And if so, shouldn't he have won 50% of the slams in the last five years?

No. You don't seem to have a clue about statistics.

Perhaps you or Carey should expand a bit on that law of averages. I'm not really sure what we're discussing now.

[PeteWasLucky]

> law of averages

Yes law of averages should work for Federer winning the two slams he played and winning 2/3 masters.

[Court_1]

I think Dimitrov may flop out before that.

[joh]

Op zaterdag 26 augustus 2017 18:29:45 UTC+2 schreef Patrick Kehoe:

Law of averages again. What does it mean?

[Carey]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 9:35:57 AM UTC-7, joh wrote:

>
> No. You don't seem to have a clue about statistics.
>
> Perhaps you or Carey should expand a bit on that law of averages. I'm not really sure what we're discussing now.

Reversion to the mean would have been the apter term.

Hope that helps. :)

[Carey]

C1, I do share your general suspicion of Dimi-in-general, but between his play
v Nadal at AO, his Master win over Kyrgios at Cincy, and Raffi's losses in this
HC season so far... yeah I do think Dimi's got a good shot; now-or-never, in
fact. We'll see.

[changj...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 11:45:39 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:

The key figure here is Kyrgios who would not care win/lose the Open so to play a listless game in most matches until he gets Fed where he'd be hyper-pumped to release all energy (again the immature guy doesn't care winning the title but like the attention to beat Fed, Djok and Nadal. He had conquered Nadal in Wimbledon so he was not too excited in Cinci and he had beaten Djork twice earlier so Fed is his major target now. I don't think he cares the record against Murray)
What it means is that Fed could lose to him or if Fed wins, it could be several tight tie breaks which would spend him, especially mentally. I guess that Fed would prefer to face both Murray and Lanky russian to just one dicey Kyrgios. Even though Kyrgios would play a listless game in the first three rounds, given his opponents, he'd have a good chance to reach Fed where he'd make it as the Final.
Right now, I'd rate Fed's draw is tougher than Rafa's.

[Carey]

What a good post.

As I've said before, this USO has changing of the guard written all over it.

[Whisper]

Arguably none of those, but certainly he's in the conversation in all
categories.

Even with his truncated slam career Laver still outdoes him (3 varieties
of calendar slam v 0 zero for Fed), Rafa proved his superior h2h at peak
(imo Sampras is better than both in absolute terms), & McEnroe is still
the most naturally gifted I've ever seen.

If you think Fed ticks all boxes I'm happy for you. I'm also jealous as
I haven't experienced that level of certainty yet. Heck I'm not even
convinced Rafa would top peak Borg on clay.

[TennisGuy]

On 8/26/2017 5:24 AM, Whisper wrote:

> On 26/08/2017 2:37 PM, Carey wrote:
>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:22:55 PM UTC-7, joh wrote:
>>> Op zaterdag 26 augustus 2017 05:48:02 UTC+2 schreef Carey:

>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 8:38:07 PM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand this sudden loss of confidence in Roger. Is it
>>>>> because he lost one match or is it because people suspect he is
>>>>> injured? I think we should wait and watch.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> For me the reasons are 1) thirty-six  2) law of averages  3) back
>>>> injury (?)
>>>> and 4) thirty-six.
>>>

>>> @2: you mean the gambler's fallacy? As the name suggests that's a
>>> fallacy.
>>
>>
>> I realize that the odds of a particular coin toss coming up heads or
>> tails are always one in two (assuming a two-sided coin!), no matter
>> what has come before.
>>
>>
>>
>

> Fed has lost that 50-50 toss for nearly 10 yrs running.  What are the
> odds?  Guess it's nowhere near 50-50 for him, more like in 1 in 20.


joh, Whisper gets it.

[changj...@gmail.com]

36: yes obviously. "law of averages": wrong if it is used as a prediction to the outcome (including gain or lose confidence) of any particular tournament.

[Carey]

[limpy readjusts goalposts as carefully as Raffi does his water bottles]

[Whisper]

I'd like to see Rafa win USO to revitalize slam chase, Fed my 2nd fave
for the title.

[Carey]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 10:49:30 AM UTC-7, changj...@gmail.com wrote:

snip

"law of averages": wrong if it is used as a prediction to the outcome (including gain or lose confidence) of any particular tournament.

An interesting assertion. Can you explain it a bit?

[Whisper]

Agreed. His chance to beat Rafa was at AO. If they play again at USO
it'll be a routine win for Rafa.

[Whisper]

> -



He's like Gasquet - perennial loser.

[changj...@gmail.com]

Not yet from p.o.v. of Nadal. Recent whines of uncle Tony both after Wimbledon and recent comments of tennis styles tell how much Nadal and Tony wants to chase the slam record. This USO is a good opportunity for him so far based on his draw. His result would likely determine his chance to catch Fed (below or above 50% to say the least)

[Carey]

The Nadal camp can *want* whatever they like. I want a pony.

[changj...@gmail.com]

This assertion is equivalent to Gambler's fallacy that you guys have discussed here using the example of tossing a fair coin.

[Court_1]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 2:17:46 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:

> The Nadal camp can *want* whatever they like. I want a pony.

I agree with that but Nadal's draw really is a great opportunity for him. Until these younger players like Zverev can start showing they can win slams, I have to go with the Big Four to continue to rack them up. Murray has a kind draw too so the only question is whether or not he is healthy enough to take advantage.

If Federer can get by Kyrgios assuming Kyrgios doesn't mug things up before then, I'll like Federer's chances to go far but I have this nagging feeling Federer could lose early this time. I hope I'm wrong.

[Carey]

I think Fedal are done. Maybe Murray [gags] will come out of nowhere and take
it... it's been that kind of year. At least there can be no Murray/Djork.

[Jason White]

Things would get fun if Nadal wins 2 of next 3, and Federer stays at 19. There aren't that many chances left, realistically. Young guys are making their pushes, and Djokovic will be back.

[Court_1]

By the time Djokovic gets back, guys like Zverev should be ready to make their move at slams. I think Djokovic will have a much tougher time when he returns given his style of tennis and given the tennis style of Zverev/Kyrgios/Shap who are all aggressive monsters and who can take the racket out of Pipe Cleaner's hands. In addition to Djokovic's physical aging, we don't know if he'll ever be as motivated mentally. Hopefully, Djokovic is done and dusted and we see guys like Zverev/Shap/Kyrgios rise.

[Court_1]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 2:54:44 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 11:39:39 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 2:17:46 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:

> I think Fedal are done.

For this tournament or for good?

> Maybe Murray [gags] will come out of nowhere and take
> it... it's been that kind of year.

Yep, you never know.

>At least there can be no Murray/Djork.

Thank God for that!

[TennisGuy]

On 8/26/2017 3:20 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 2:54:44 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 11:39:39 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 2:17:46 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
>
>> I think Fedal are done.
>
> For this tournament or for good?
>
>> Maybe Murray [gags] will come out of nowhere and take
>> it... it's been that kind of year.
>
> Yep, you never know.

Well now we do know. It won't happen this year at the U.S. Open.

[TennisGuy]

Just for the record it was not me who used the "law of averages" argument.

However I do know what Carey and Patrick meant.

For me it is all about odds.
Can Fed win? Yes.
How are his odds? Pretty good actually.

Is he a shoe-in? Far from it.
He just needs a bad day and a good day from a decent opponent to
upset the apple cart.

Years ago we wouldn't even talk about "bad days".
At age 36, it now has to be considered all the time.

[joh]

Op zaterdag 26 augustus 2017 19:45:46 UTC+2 schreef TennisGuy:

That's not necessarily a good sign.

[joh]

Op zaterdag 26 augustus 2017 22:34:17 UTC+2 schreef TennisGuy:

Ok, agreed to all that.

[RaspingDrive]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 9:11:18 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> On 26/08/2017 11:08 PM, stephenJ wrote:
> > On 8/26/2017 4:48 AM, Whisper wrote:
> >> On 26/08/2017 7:41 PM, Tim wrote:
> >>> On 26/08/2017 10:23, Whisper wrote:

> >>>> On 26/08/2017 1:48 PM, Carey wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 8:38:07 PM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't understand this sudden loss of confidence in Roger. Is it
> >>>>>> because he lost one match or is it because people suspect he is
> >>>>>> injured? I think we should wait and watch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For me the reasons are 1) thirty-six  2) law of averages  3) back
> >>>>> injury (?)
> >>>>> and 4) thirty-six.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>

> >>>> He's been pretty hopeless at USO - hasn't won since 2008, often getting
> >>>> smashed in straights by guys like Cilic etc.  He's just not that
> >>>> good at
> >>>> USO.
> >>>>

> >>>> ---

> >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >>>> http://www.avg.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> As good as Sampras was. So I guess Sampras must have been crap at USO
> >>> too.
> >

> >> Fed isn't remotely as good as Sampras at USO.  He won there day 1 &
> >> also his last ever match.  Fed could only win when he peaked & before
> >> the rest of the big 4 were out of their teens.  It's nearly 10 yrs
> >> since Fed won USO (2008), & he's ranked top 3 pretty much the whole
> >> time.  The conclusion is he's not a big force at USO outside peak
> >> clown era 10 yrs ago.
> >

> > Federer won 5 USOs in a row, matching what Borg did at Wimbledon.
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes, but 2008 is ancient history - it's 2018 in a few months.

Fellow who won 5 consecutive USO's not remotely as good as Sampras? Clueless, take a break.

[Carey]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:03:24 PM UTC-7, RaspingDrive wrote:

> > Yes, but 2008 is ancient history - it's 2018 in a few months.
>
> Fellow who won 5 consecutive USO's not remotely as good as Sampras? Clueless, take a break.

Fed's beating the seven-time and defending Champ on Centre Court Wimbledon
must've been devastating for the poor dear. Unforgiveable sin. ;)

[RaspingDrive]

That damn 8th Wimbledon! Poor Whisper. Poor Icey. bob and Skriptis have taken it fairly well though. Good for them.

[TennisGuy]

That's true.
What are the odds that Whisper gets anything right? LOL!

[stephenJ]

For open era, which excludes Laver before 1968, he ticks all boxes.
There's just no denying it now, the achievements swamp everyone else.
Can Nadal change that? Yes he can. But he has work to do.





---

[*skriptis]

RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Vulturing
a slam vs hobbled Cilic and that being his record 8th
there was fine with me. :)

Can't get more WoO-ish than that.

And it's not like I have many regrets with Sampras losing record.
He shared it with Renshaw anyway, and as proven by Rafa at FO, 7
isn't such a big number, so it was bound to be broken eventually.



AO was a big thing though. If he does it again vs Nadal at USO,
now being the fave, I'll give it to him. No more h2h asterisks.


Then the only hole left would be the lack of CYGS. Imagine that as
you biggest (-).




--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[RaspingDrive]

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 8:28:23 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 9:07:19 PM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
> >> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:03:24 PM UTC-7, RaspingDrive wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Yes, but 2008 is ancient history - it's 2018 in a few months.
> >> >
> >> > Fellow who won 5 consecutive USO's not remotely as good as Sampras? Clueless, take a break.
> >>
> >>
> >> Fed's beating the seven-time and defending Champ on Centre Court Wimbledon
> >> must've been devastating for the poor dear. Unforgiveable sin. ;)
> >
> > That damn 8th Wimbledon! Poor Whisper. Poor Icey. bob and Skriptis have taken it fairly well though. Good for them.
>
>
> Vulturing
> a slam vs hobbled Cilic and that being his record 8th
> there was fine with me. :)

Cilic is not a force on grass. Even a well-below-his best Federer beat him in 2016.

> Can't get more WoO-ish than that.

WoO no doubt, but which came to pass with Djokovic being absent. Federer never lost to Andy at W, and Nadal is poor on grass to be a tenable threat to Federer.

> And it's not like I have many regrets with Sampras losing record.
> He shared it with Renshaw anyway, and as proven by Rafa at FO, 7
> isn't such a big number, so it was bound to be broken eventually.

Fair enough.

> AO was a big thing though. If he does it again vs Nadal at USO,
> now being the fave, I'll give it to him. No more h2h asterisks.

It is not going to happen, since they only meet in the semis.

[*skriptis]

Semis will do.
3-1 in wim/uso legacy matches and 4-4 at ao/wim/uso isn't
remarkable but it's enough to bury the h2h issues.


Nadal is undefeated at FO and (so far) both are undefeated at USO.
Should Nadal win, Federer would find himself unable ever to score
a win vs Nadal at both FO and USO. That would look bad.

Otoh, should he win h2h is gone for good.


Btw Murray is such an asshole for ruining the draw. It's marketing
I guess.

[Jason White]

Federer does have a winning record in finals outside of Paris, 3-2. That Australian win really gave him a boost on several levels. Worst case, it has bought some additional time as top dog. May not last forever, but will likely hold while he's active at least.

It's a shame Murray had to do that. He has known all along he wasn't gonna be ready, so should've withdrew his name prior to the draw. Un-knight like.

[TennisGuy]

Everything you post has and will always have an asterisk next to it.
It's in your blood.

[RaspingDrive]

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:05:43 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 8:28:23 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

> >> AO was a big thing though. If he does it again vs Nadal at USO,
> >> now being the fave, I'll give it to him. No more h2h asterisks.
> >
> > It is not going to happen, since they only meet in the semis.
>
>
> Semis will do.
> 3-1 in wim/uso legacy matches and 4-4 at ao/wim/uso isn't
> remarkable but it's enough to bury the h2h issues.

It would be pointless though were Nadal to beat Federer but lose in the final. With his continuing decline on HC's, he would be had-pressed to overhaul the slam count mark of 19, so Federer may continue to be the achievement goat. That's why the situation at USO is unlike AO 2017. Bloody Murray did a lot of damage by withdrawing when he did.

> Nadal is undefeated at FO and (so far) both are undefeated at USO.
> Should Nadal win, Federer would find himself unable ever to score
> a win vs Nadal at both FO and USO. That would look bad.

It would look bad but the 19 slams will trump that lacuna unless Nadal gets to it.

> Otoh, should he win h2h is gone for good.

It will firmly move in Federer's direction.

> Btw Murray is such an asshole for ruining the draw. It's marketing
> I guess.

Fellow came all the way to NY just to withdraw?

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 9:42:02 AM UTC-7, joh wrote:
> Op zaterdag 26 augustus 2017 18:29:45 UTC+2 schreef Patrick Kehoe:

> > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 8:48:02 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 8:38:07 PM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand this sudden loss of confidence in Roger. Is it because he lost one match or is it because people suspect he is injured? I think we should wait and watch.
> > >
> > > For me the reasons are 1) thirty-six 2) law of averages 3) back injury (?)
> > > and 4) thirty-six.
> >

> > I agree... and let me add: thirty-six, and law of averages...
> >
> > With Feds playing Rafaesque games of deflection... on his chances to win the USO, "It would be a joke..."
> >
> > Feds thinking, 'how far CAN I fly under the radar and not run into Rafa?' Which of them can hide in plain sight more competently... :)
> >
> > P
>
> Law of averages again. What does it mean?

Law of averages would (hypothetically) rule out Federer from winning a third major in a season, because to do so is a statistical anomaly against the normative pattern of success (historically), even at the elite level... additionally, since he's already accomplished it more than anyone else in the Open Era, that could be 'read' as putting him farther out on the reaches of improbability to AGAIN make happen something so manifestly unlikely... :)

P

[Patrick Kehoe]

Yes you did... I was making a joke earlier... repeating the phrase to make light of the entire issue of probability (watered field, Feds great 2017 form) vs. the improbable (Just hard to do, certainly at 36! and manifest laws of universal kismet)... :)

P

[bob]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 11:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/25/tennis/evert-federer-us-open/index.html

she may know more about federer's health than we do. but if healthy
he's a heavy heavy favorite.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 09:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:45:39 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
>
>>
>> Nadal's draw before the SF is tougher than Fed's. Wouldn't want Dmitrov
>> in my quarter.
>
>

>I agree with this. If Nadal and Dimitrov meet up I think Dimi has a *real good*
>shot.

i'm doubtful nadal makes 2nd week.

bob

[TennisGuy]

Please show me the post where I used the term "law of averages".
Wasn't me.

[*skriptis]

TennisGuy <TG...@techsavvy.com> Wrote in message:

:)

I don't get it why fedfans are such daisies. Surely it's not
sacrilegious to talk about holes in anyone's resume?

You guys get personally offended and then start ad hominem rampage
when someone simply mentiones that Federer might not have the
ideal, godlike perfect record.

With him winning lots in 2017, changing h2h, his achievements (and
holes) change.

[TennisGuy]

On 8/27/2017 4:00 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>
> :)
>
> I don't get it why fedfans are such daisies. Surely it's not
> sacrilegious to talk about holes in anyone's resume?
>
> You guys get personally offended and then start ad hominem rampage
> when someone simply mentiones that Federer might not have the
> ideal, godlike perfect record.
>
> With him winning lots in 2017, changing h2h, his achievements (and
> holes) change.

As a Fedfan I am the first to agree that Roger does not have an ideal,
godlike perfect record and I am in no way offended by anyone who brings
this up.

Having said that, he is the BEST that we've got/had that comes closest
to an ideal, godlike perfect record.

Read the above carefully. There is an important distinction between the
two sentences.

[Patrick Kehoe]

Sorry... Fake News then... my bad...

P

[Whisper]

You'd have a point if the conditions were the same historically. Due to
standardization 18 slams in this era is worth about 10 in earlier eras,
3 slams per yr is akin to 2 previously.






--
"A GOAT who isn't BOAT can never become GOAT if he plays alongside BOAT"

[PeteWasLucky]

> Agreed. His chance to beat Rafa was at AO. If they play again at USO
it'll be a routine win for Rafa.

Very similar to str8 sets win for Rafa over Federer in Wimbledon :)

Nadal isn't going to beat Federer on HC or grass after he switched to the new RF97 racquet.

As I explained in many posts, the new racquet changed the bh from a liability to a weapon.

Now try to relax.

[Carey]

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 3:46:00 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:

>
> You'd have a point if the conditions were the same historically. Due to
> standardization 18 slams in this era is worth about 10 in earlier eras,
> 3 slams per yr is akin to 2 previously.

Why then does Raffi have ten at FO but only two at his next best Major;
Djerk six at AO but only three at his next best; Fed eight at Wimbledon
but only five at his next best?

[scratches head]

[Whisper]

You have a very tenuous grip on reality. Rafa led 3-1 in 5th set in AO
final - how many times do you have to be told? It wasn't a 61 63 60
romp like '08 FO final.

[Whisper]

Because only 1 of the top 4 can be 'the best' at any one time. The
surface has little to do with it when it's just 1 guy stopping Fed &
Djoker from winning 5 FO's each no? Rafa made 5 Wimbledon finals in a
row, 4 AO finals etc. In previous eras it was the surface that
confounded players. That simply doesn't happen today. Not because
these guys are so versatile & change from s/v on grass to baseline on
clay, but because the courts all play very similar. They play the same
game all yr round on all surfaces. They wouldn't be able to do it in
past eras. I doubt Rafa would make a single Wimbledon final in '80's
for eg.

[PeteWasLucky]

> You have a very tenuous grip on reality. Rafa led 3-1 in 5th set in AO
final - how many times do you have to be told? It wasn't a 61 63 60
romp like '08 FO final.

And Rafa never won another game in the fifth, and lost in str8 sets to Federer in the next two masters.

Do I need to show you Rafa face expressions seeing Federer backhands crushing winners?

[PeteWasLucky]

PeteWasLucky <waleed...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> > You have a very tenuous grip on reality. Rafa led 3-1 in 5th set in AO
> final - how many times do you have to be told? It wasn't a 61 63 60
> romp like '08 FO final.
>

> Do I need to show you Rafa face expressions seeing Federer backhands crushing winners?
>

https://youtu.be/HxtyOnGrfk8?t=06m15s

You can watch the entire clip if you like

[MBDunc]

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 3:41:07 PM UTC+3, Whisper wrote:
. Not because
> these guys are so versatile & change from s/v on grass to baseline on
> clay, but because the courts all play very similar. They play the same
> game all yr round on all surfaces. They wouldn't be able to do it in
> past eras. I doubt Rafa would make a single Wimbledon final in '80's
> for eg.

So Lendl was more talented and better on grass than Rafa?
(the same Rafa who was the 2nd peakest grass player ever 2008 after Sampras' Wimb final '99 -@whisper during Wimb 08)

40y ago there was Borg who dominated both clay and grass same time for several years.

.mikko

[kaennorsing]

Op zaterdag 26 augustus 2017 11:48:24 UTC+2 schreef Whisper:

> On 26/08/2017 7:41 PM, Tim wrote:
> > On 26/08/2017 10:23, Whisper wrote:

> >> On 26/08/2017 1:48 PM, Carey wrote:
> >>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 8:38:07 PM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't understand this sudden loss of confidence in Roger. Is it
> >>>> because he lost one match or is it because people suspect he is
> >>>> injured? I think we should wait and watch.
> >>>
> >>> For me the reasons are 1) thirty-six  2) law of averages  3) back
> >>> injury (?)
> >>> and 4) thirty-six.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>

> >> He's been pretty hopeless at USO - hasn't won since 2008, often getting
> >> smashed in straights by guys like Cilic etc.  He's just not that good at
> >> USO.
> >>

> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >> http://www.avg.com
> >>
> >

> > As good as Sampras was. So I guess Sampras must have been crap at USO too.
> >
>
>
>
> Fed isn't remotely as good as Sampras at USO. He won there day 1 & also
> his last ever match. Fed could only win when he peaked & before the
> rest of the big 4 were out of their teens. It's nearly 10 yrs since Fed
> won USO (2008), & he's ranked top 3 pretty much the whole time. The
> conclusion is he's not a big force at USO outside peak clown era 10 yrs ago.

Sampras could only win if with Andre or some old guys in the finals. As soon as he had to play the next gen (Safin/Hewitt) he was toast. Lucky for him Andre showed up one more time. That's why he retired immediately after. He knew he couldn't cut it going forward against the likes of Safin, Hewitt... Let alone Federer. Sampras retired just in time.

[*skriptis]

kaennorsing <ljub...@hotmail.com> Wrote in message:

Sampras is the more recent
slam winner between him and Hewitt.


--

[The Iceberg]

Lol Sampras had ALREADY retired by the time Hewitt and Safin showed up, he had broken and invented the slam chase race, it was obvious to anyone that he didn't really know why he was still playing. If Emmerson had got 15, Sampras would've been smashing past Safin etc

[The Iceberg]

So how on earth did he get 2 sets AND a break beforehand then? Good Fedfanism though, it hilarious.

[stephenJ]

You do realize that no matter how you spin it, the Fed-Nadal AO final
was extremely close, and had a point or two gone the other way, Rafa
probably wins?

That's not to take anything away from Fed at all, he won those big
points and deserved the trophy. But it is the way it was.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus