Brains

[Guypers]

Does Nishikori have any??

[John Liang]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 2:52:01 AM UTC+10, Guypers wrote:
> Does Nishikori have any??

No, he just hit the ball and there is no thought process in his game. And I think he is pretty much peaked and the only way for him right now is going down. I expect to see him going outside of top 10 this year.

[John Liang]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 2:52:01 AM UTC+10, Guypers wrote:
> Does Nishikori have any??

Nadal is not playing great tennis but Nishikori is very dependable when it comes to shitting his own pants at the crucial points in the match.

[TT]

Nishi played actually great. He was absolutely crushing the ball and
would probably have beaten Djokovic with today's play.

[TT]

Rubbish analysis.

[Court_1]

Nadal is playing better tennis than everybody else except for Djokovic. He's #2 in the live rankings race. Which player(other than Djokovic) do you reckon would beat Nadal in a clay court final? Nadal has defeated the other strongest clay court players in the field in the past two weeks, i.e. Wawrinka, Thiem, Nishikori, etc. In this sport, you never know what will happen as things can change quickly. It's nice to see Nadal doing well again IMO. I hope he keeps going and can challenge Djokovic again.

[Court_1]

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 2:03:48 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:


> would probably have beaten Djokovic with today's play.

NO. He's not there yet IMO. But if Djokovic's form dips a little, then that's a different story.

[Gracchus]

Rubbish is better than nonsense, though, isn't it? I believe "balderdash" is somewhere in between.

Anyway, nice win for Rafa, but we must face facts: Nishi sucks.

[Court_1]

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 2:20:56 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> Anyway, nice win for Rafa, but we must face facts: Nishi sucks.

But is there another player outside of Djokovic you think would have defeated this Nadal on clay? If so, which player(s)?

[TT]

Nishi played great.

[TT]

Djokovic would have lost to Rafa of today, probably also to Nishi...

[Court_1]

Don't be stupid please! Djokovic would not have lost to Nishikori and if the Djokovic of the last year and a half showed up, he would have probably defeated Nadal. What will have to happen is that Djokovic will have to dip a little in form and lose some confidence and Nadal will have to keep rising in confidence. THEN, a shift may occur. I sure hope it happens.
We'll have to see what happens in Madrid and Rome. It's still too early to make any conclusions about the FO. It's a race between Djokovic and Nadal at the moment.

[Court_1]

Not in the big points he didn't. 3/13 in break points for Nishikori? Nadal was better in the big moments.

[undecided]

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 12:52:01 PM UTC-4, Guypers wrote:
> Does Nishikori have any??

It's clay. Nishi's worst surface. He is a really good HC player, mediocre on clay as he doesn't have as much spin.

[TT]

Actually I think clay is his best surface...

Clay 71%
Hard 68%
Grass 57%

[John Liang]

That sounds awfully similar to what you posted to RST in 2014. The groundhog is back.

[Court_1]

But the difference is he is winning tournaments again. I thought he would make a comeback in 2014 but maybe he will do so in 2016? I think he has found a new potent cocktail. :)

[Gracchus]

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 4:42:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:

> But the difference is he is winning tournaments again. I thought he would make a comeback in 2014 but maybe he will do so in 2016? I think he has found a new potent cocktail. :)

Careful--Uncle Toni might read that. We don't want to break his heart.

[Court_1]

LOL. Oh yes I forgot, according to TT, Toni doesn't know about the cocktails. :):)

[bob]

you have to admit though, in energy level alone, he looked like the
old rafa today.

but i'm thinking he's still a solid underdog to djok at FO. and likely
about equal to fed at best. but he's got a month to imporove more.

bob

[Pelle Svanslös]

He had peak Rafa on the ropes almost throughout the 1st set. With his
groundies, that is. He was just focused on putting the errors on BPs.

--
“Hiss first. Listen later."

[TT]

Yeah, confidence cocktail.

[TT]

You also forgot that according to you Rafa can't dope because of
biopassport. Another bs theory from you proven wrong... I told you Rafa
will be back.

[The Iceberg]

on the ropes? looked pretty even to me.

[TT]

Rafa played great on BPs though - even hit a couple line licking vintage
IO forehands from bh corner. But I agree that Nishi played same
level/better for a while in the first set... Rafa did really well to
keep it close and then win the set.

I think Rafa could still improve on ROS and punishing mid court balls
(finishing points) though... which seem to be currently his "weak" areas
relatively speaking (relative to his old self). Also his bh wasn't quite
as good - this match - as it has been recently.

But his forehand looked vintage as did his mental strength. That's
really good news. His bh has been very strong recently and his ROS has
been gradually improving.

[Pelle Svanslös]

But quite frankly, this time he's a bit too back and a bit too fast.

A month ago he was losing to guys ranked in the 50s, every Tom, Dick and
Harry took him to three sets. He was royally flushed against Djok in the
second set at IW, retired with exhaustion at Miami ...

... now, he's in the middle of a 20 match clay streak and "won't go away".

Nuff of the fairy tales.

[The Iceberg]

what about your biopassport theory?

[The Iceberg]

yes, good analysis, only thing are those mid-court balls, he needs to work on those a lot to beat and then he'll have a good chance vs Djoker.

[TT]

Stop trolling.

He looked like crap against Kohli. His fitness has not been an issue,
but how he's hitting the ball and playing big points. That should be
obvious to anyone who understands what they see. Unless you think he
took a drug before the final which allowed him to hit his forehand better.

[TT]

Speaking of those mid-court balls... have you noticed that Rafa has lost
one crucial element in his game/court awareness... he doesn't know any
more what his opponent is doing. Rafa used to always see where the
opponent was going and calmly put the ball in another corner... now he
often hits the kill shot back to his opponent.

That's probably because of nerves and confidence, I think. He focuses so
much on hitting the ball that he forgets to track the opponent.

Rafa USED to be one of the very few players who always seemed to know
what their opponent is doing. That doesn't seem to be the case
currently. I hope that'll change when he gains more confidence in his game.

[*skriptis]

Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:

It does look weird.
--


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

[TT]

25.4.2016, 13:40, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:

What happened to "Djoko shouldn't have lost, now Rafa plays like a
different man"? Dishonest scum.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 25.4.2016 14:06, TT wrote:
> 25.4.2016, 13:40, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
>> On 25.4.2016 13:13, TT wrote:
>>> 25.4.2016, 3:00, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 7:56:22 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 4:42:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But the difference is he is winning tournaments again. I thought he
>>>>>> would make a comeback in 2014 but maybe he will do so in 2016? I
>>>>>> think he has found a new potent cocktail. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Careful--Uncle Toni might read that. We don't want to break his heart.
>>>>
>>>> LOL. Oh yes I forgot, according to TT, Toni doesn't know about the
>>>> cocktails. :):)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You also forgot that according to you Rafa can't dope because of
>>> biopassport. Another bs theory from you proven wrong... I told you Rafa
>>> will be back.
>>
>> But quite frankly, this time he's a bit too back and a bit too fast.
>>
>> A month ago he was losing to guys ranked in the 50s, every Tom, Dick and
>> Harry took him to three sets. He was royally flushed against Djok in the
>> second set at IW, retired with exhaustion at Miami ...
>>
>> ... now, he's in the middle of a 20 match clay streak and "won't go
>> away".
>>
>> Nuff of the fairy tales.
>
> Stop trolling.
>
> He looked like crap against Kohli. His fitness has not been an issue,

He did retire citing exhaustion ...

> but how he's hitting the ball and playing big points. That should be
> obvious to anyone who understands what they see. Unless you think he
> took a drug before the final which allowed him to hit his forehand better.

Fitness/footwork is the prerequisite to every FH. The more you run
around the BH to hit FHs, the more fitness/footwork is needed. Nobody
does this more than Rafa.

It was patently obvious to any astute observer that Nishi was getting
more and more ragged around the edges as the match went on. Rafa, OTOH,
was begging for more. The Andy match was more of the same.

Just a month ago it was in reverse. Rafa throwing in the towel. Never
seen anything like what's going on now.

[TT]

Not because of fitness you dishonest wanker.

>> but how he's hitting the ball and playing big points. That should be
>> obvious to anyone who understands what they see. Unless you think he
>> took a drug before the final which allowed him to hit his forehand
>> better.
>
> Fitness/footwork is the prerequisite to every FH. The more you run
> around the BH to hit FHs, the more fitness/footwork is needed. Nobody
> does this more than Rafa.

Not answering my point at all.

> Just a month ago it was in reverse. Rafa throwing in the towel. Never
> seen anything like what's going on now.

More dishonesty...
Just a day ago it was "Djokovic shouldn't have lost and give Rafa
confidence"...

[Pelle Svanslös]

WTF is being "tired" then? And don't forget the second set against Djok.
Looked a lot like "I've had enuff".

>>> but how he's hitting the ball and playing big points. That should be
>>> obvious to anyone who understands what they see. Unless you think he
>>> took a drug before the final which allowed him to hit his forehand
>>> better.
>>
>> Fitness/footwork is the prerequisite to every FH. The more you run
>> around the BH to hit FHs, the more fitness/footwork is needed. Nobody
>> does this more than Rafa.
>
> Not answering my point at all.

It is. Improving legs improves everything that depend on them. And
everything in tennis does depend on legs. Nobody uses them more than Rafa.

>> Just a month ago it was in reverse. Rafa throwing in the towel. Never
>> seen anything like what's going on now.
>
> More dishonesty...

Just calling as I see it.

> Just a day ago it was "Djokovic shouldn't have lost and give Rafa
> confidence"...

Don't know what this is about. Maybe you should post a link to what's
been said and perhaps some context too. Perhaps we can then settle the
"issues" you seem to have whit the above.

[TT]

25.4.2016, 16:28, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
> Don't know what this is about. Maybe you should post a link to what's
> been said and perhaps some context too. Perhaps we can then settle the
> "issues" you seem to have whit the above.

You've said for over a week now that Djokovic shouldn't have lost
because Rafa looked a different man after that. Now you suddenly change
your tune to "doping". You're simply too dishonest to discuss with.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 25.4.2016 16:36, TT wrote:
> 25.4.2016, 16:28, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
>> Don't know what this is about. Maybe you should post a link to what's
>> been said and perhaps some context too. Perhaps we can then settle the
>> "issues" you seem to have whit the above.
>
> You've said for over a week now that Djokovic shouldn't have lost
> because Rafa looked a different man after that.

Where?

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

So Rafa is shitting pants at the prospect of meeting Djokovic? He
needs to have Djokovic drop his level in order to have a shot at
him and now that Vesely loss hinted Djokovic's level might be
dropping Rafa is back with confidence?

Ok, but then it seems that peak Djokovic tops peak Rafa.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Have to say, that doesn't ring a bell at all. Just checked my posts a
week back, some pretty good ones I must say, didn't find anything of
that sort.

Are you sure you haven't read somebody else?

[TT]

(Thread: "Vesely sinks the BOAT")
"I feared this might happen. A lifetime opportunity for Rafa to rise
from the ruins."

-

"There's more good news for Rafa. Cuevas and Foggy are out too. Rafa
better make this opportunity count.

Next up a Thiem rematch. Vamos, Thiem!"

-

"Rafa was irrelevant in the first set. It was all on Dominic's FH. Too
bad he ground himself down. Played too much Rafa's BH side.

Rafa looks SO stressed out there ... Lol. "I gonna crumble!""

-----

Now don't tell me that your posts weren't about Rafa finding his
confidence...

[bob]

i'm not sure the reason, and i'm not suspecting any doping that didn't
exist before, but rafa's energy level VS nishi was the best i've seen
from him in 2 yrs. hope he's back on track for at least another month.

bob

[TT]

25.4.2016, 16:49, *skriptis kirjoitti:
> TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:
>> 25.4.2016, 16:28, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
>>> Don't know what this is about. Maybe you should post a link to what's
>>> been said and perhaps some context too. Perhaps we can then settle the
>>> "issues" you seem to have whit the above.
>>
>> You've said for over a week now that Djokovic shouldn't have lost
>> because Rafa looked a different man after that. Now you suddenly change
>> your tune to "doping". You're simply too dishonest to discuss with.
>>
>
>
>
> So Rafa is shitting pants at the prospect of meeting Djokovic?

I didn't say that. It's not about that, but rather about Rafa restoring
his confidence by winning titles.

[bob]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:10:59 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
wrote:

>On 25.4.2016 16:43, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 25.4.2016 16:36, TT wrote:
>>> 25.4.2016, 16:28, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
>>>> Don't know what this is about. Maybe you should post a link to what's
>>>> been said and perhaps some context too. Perhaps we can then settle the
>>>> "issues" you seem to have whit the above.
>>>
>>> You've said for over a week now that Djokovic shouldn't have lost
>>> because Rafa looked a different man after that.
>>
>> Where?
>
>Have to say, that doesn't ring a bell at all. Just checked my posts a
>week back, some pretty good ones I must say

you sure those weren't mine?

bob

[bob]

that's a pretty tough question, as we really haven't seen peak rafa in
about 2 yrs, and that's exactly when we've seen peak djokovic.

this FO in particular, and this summer in general, might settle a lot
of shit actually.

bob

[TT]

Djokovic has been peak since 2010 USO.

Probably before that as well, as for example in summer of 2008.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 25.4.2016 17:15, TT wrote:
> 25.4.2016, 16:43, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
>> On 25.4.2016 16:36, TT wrote:
>>> 25.4.2016, 16:28, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
>>>> Don't know what this is about. Maybe you should post a link to what's
>>>> been said and perhaps some context too. Perhaps we can then settle the
>>>> "issues" you seem to have whit the above.
>>>
>>> You've said for over a week now that Djokovic shouldn't have lost
>>> because Rafa looked a different man after that.
>>
>> Where?
>
> (Thread: "Vesely sinks the BOAT")
> "I feared this might happen. A lifetime opportunity for Rafa to rise
> from the ruins."

Well, saying something once isn't exactly saying it for a week, is it?

Besides, it's true! I did have a feeling Djok might lose, and of course
Djok losing is a huge break for old Rafito. Hard to see what the
commotion is about this.

And doesn't have anything to do with Rafa being an energizer bunny
reborn, either. It's not *all* about confidence, if that's what you think.

You might consider an apology.

[TT]

"A lifetime opportunity for Rafa to rise from the ruins" is self
explanatory. Djokovic losing has zero effect to Rafa's alleged doping.

[TT]

25.4.2016, 17:38, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:

> You might consider an apology.

Here's another gem from you...

"Because spreading unsubstantiated rumours does nobody any good. Except
for the gossip rags and the trailer trash that consume them."

Notice any contradiction with your posts in this thread?

[Pelle Svanslös]

It is! WIth Djok in the draw, no rise from the ruins!

> Djokovic losing has zero effect to Rafa's alleged doping.

They are completely unrelated. I agree.

Still waiting for the apology.

[Pelle Svanslös]

I see substance now.

[TT]

The "ruins" here means his confidence. That is perfectly clear from your
desperation for Rafa not to win the title. You were afraid that Rafa
would gain confidence by winning the title and then beat your hero at RG
etc.

Naturally no one can out-dope Pedovic - or "Djoper", as you liked to
call him.

[TT]

Apology accepted.

[Court_1]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:13:51 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> You also forgot that according to you Rafa can't dope because of
> biopassport. Another bs theory from you proven wrong... I told you Rafa
> will be back.

I NEVER said that. I think the bio passport is bullshit for the most part. Just a smoke screen. Uly said the bio passport must be the reason Nadal isn't doping and so did your buddy Pelle(a former Nadal robot who is now a Djokovic robot.) Don't get confused. I did say that Nadal may have been having problems for the past year and a half because he was forced to stop whatever cocktail he was on. Maybe his body was rejecting it or whatever. But I never said it had to do with the bio passport. It appears he has found a new recipe and it's all good with me if that's the case. As long as he can be competitive with Djokovic!

[*skriptis]

And Nadal?

[Pelle Svanslös]

Who wrote it? You or me?

It's a descriptive term, not analytic. It doesn't mean anything *specific*.

The tea leaf readers of RST ... Geez.

Can you just spit out the apology now?

[Pelle Svanslös]

You didn't get one.

[TT]

You did say exactly that about biopass. No use to deny it.

According to your latest revised theory Rafa must have lost around 10
slams because of his unprofessional doping - couple years without
"correct mix" and all those "silent bans"...

[TT]

Of course it means something specific: Rafa's chance to gain
confidence... or otherwise you wouldn't care whether he wins or not at all.

Your posts related to Thiem clearly confirm that this was the case.

[Pelle Svanslös]

I must say, you're insistent. But wrong.

> Rafa's chance to gain
> confidence... or otherwise you wouldn't care whether he wins or not at all.

This might come as a surprise ... but yes, I don't really care a rat's
ass whether Rafa wins or not.

The apology sure takes some time in coming.

[TT]

But you clearly did with your posts. And the reason is because you
didn't want him to gain confidence so that your latest crush could keep
on exploiting the clown era.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Sorry, nope again. I'll hate it if he wins TdF though. No bones about that.

How about that apology now? It won't hurt.

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

Was Nadal exploiting clown era before 2011?

[Court_1]

I NEVER said the bio passport was responsible for Nadal's demise for the past year and a half. NEVER. I have said over and over that I think the bio passport means nothing. Here is exactly what I said about Nadal and the bio passport from the "What to make of high slam counts" thread:

"Exactly what I was just going to point out. It makes no sense. The biological passport is not the reason Nadal is stumbling now. The biological passport means fuck all. Djokovic is as strong as ever despite the mighty biological passport.

It may be that Nadal's body was rejecting or reacting poorly to the steroid/PED abuse after all those years and he had no choice but to tail off and that may in part explain his current poor form but it isn't the biological passport. That is a red herring." from 7/14/15.

So please don't lie and say I said something I didn't. Thanks.

Yes, I think Nadal dopes and I think Djokovic dopes. That's not exactly an uncommon opinion is it? You look like an idiot accusing only Djokovic of doping when you are a Nadal fan and vice versa. Isn't it more likely they are both doping and furthermore, who cares if they dope and want to do possible harm to their own bodies? They aren't sexually assaulting children are they? (as far as we know) We aren't going to change doping in pro sports. Worry about something which matters and stop trying to deny Nadal dopes. You look pitiful. He needs a new recipe if he wants to beat Djokovic again and compete with Djokovic's recipe. So dope away Nadal! :)

[TT]

Speaking of doping... Rafa has now sued Bachelot:

https://twitter.com/christophclarey/status/724618002503704576

[TT]

What was it again... "Never in million years will Rafa..." :-P

I just hope they use guillotine.

[PeteWasLucky]

Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:
> On 25.4.2016 14:06, TT wrote:
>> 25.4.2016, 13:40, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
>>> On 25.4.2016 13:13, TT wrote:
>>>> 25.4.2016, 3:00, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 7:56:22 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

>>>>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 4:42:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the difference is he is winning tournaments again. I thought he
>>>>>>> would make a comeback in 2014 but maybe he will do so in 2016? I

>>>>>>> think he has found a new potent cocktail. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Careful--Uncle Toni might read that. We don't want to break his heart.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL. Oh yes I forgot, according to TT, Toni doesn't know about the
>>>>> cocktails. :):)

>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You also forgot that according to you Rafa can't dope because of
>>>> biopassport. Another bs theory from you proven wrong... I told you Rafa
>>>> will be back.
>>>

>>> But quite frankly, this time he's a bit too back and a bit too fast.
>>>
>>> A month ago he was losing to guys ranked in the 50s, every Tom, Dick and
>>> Harry took him to three sets. He was royally flushed against Djok in the
>>> second set at IW, retired with exhaustion at Miami ...
>>>
>>> ... now, he's in the middle of a 20 match clay streak and "won't go
>>> away".
>>>
>>> Nuff of the fairy tales.
>>
>> Stop trolling.
>>
>> He looked like crap against Kohli. His fitness has not been an issue,
>
> He did retire citing exhaustion ...
>
>> but how he's hitting the ball and playing big points. That should be
>> obvious to anyone who understands what they see. Unless you think he
>> took a drug before the final which allowed him to hit his forehand better.
>
> Fitness/footwork is the prerequisite to every FH. The more you run
> around the BH to hit FHs, the more fitness/footwork is needed. Nobody
> does this more than Rafa.
>
> It was patently obvious to any astute observer that Nishi was getting
> more and more ragged around the edges as the match went on. Rafa, OTOH,
> was begging for more. The Andy match was more of the same.
>
> Just a month ago it was in reverse. Rafa throwing in the towel. Never
> seen anything like what's going on now.
>

Definitely agree with pelle, nadal's energy sky rocketed 4-5 times
than few weeks ago.
If you can't observe yourself the amount of work and energy he
spent in every match in the last two tournaments then the
discussion is useless.

Nadal have been looking until this clay season like a broken man,
he would be done physically after a set or two.

He was spent after the first set against Djokovic.

Clearly he is back fishing :)

Anyway, not bad if he can take Djokovic out, let's hope the best
doper wins :)

[TT]

25.4.2016, 19:58, PeteWasLucky kirjoitti:
> Definitely agree with pelle, nadal's energy sky rocketed 4-5 times
> than few weeks ago.
> If you can't observe yourself the amount of work and energy he
> spent in every match in the last two tournaments then the
> discussion is useless.

Obviously you didn't watch Barcelona... most matches were pretty easy
and Rafa looked like he didn't even bother, just going through the
motions while winning in straights. Virtual sleepwalking. Nishi was the
only tough match plus second set against Fognini.

But naturally you had to join the usual "Rafa won something - he must
dope/cheat". You're too early though, it should normally be done just
before/during RG. Watch the forums get filled with time wasting and
doping when Fed and Djoko fans notice that Rafa looks his unbeatable self.

[TT]

25.4.2016, 15:51, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
>
> It was patently obvious to any astute observer that Nishi was getting
> more and more ragged around the edges as the match went on.

I didn't notice that, Nishi seemed just as energetic all through the match.

> The Andy match was more of the same.
>

Andy is like Monfils...playing stupid. He can run himself to exhaustion
during one point. Rafa of course uses this running him left and right.

> Just a month ago it was in reverse. Rafa throwing in the towel.

I agree, Rafa can't match Djokovic physically, no one can. Not even
Murray and Rafa back to back days. Ferrer is gasping for air after a
set. Ok, Federer can, cause he never gets tired... maybe that's why he's
competitive against Djokovic... Swiss drugs.

[Gracchus]

He's the only player in the field who goes from 98-pound weakling to Charles Atlas within a 4-week period. You're his #1 fan and were sticking forks in him yourself a few weeks ago. Then, incredibly, you just as quickly reassemble the illusion that a little "confidence" can instantly restore Rafa's form as an unstoppable force. Popeye eats his spinach...Hercules puts on his ring...Sinbad pulls his belt...Rafa regains "confidence." Flashes of lightning turn night into day and crashes of thunder shake the landscape. :)

Denying reality is just more trouble than it's worth, amigo. Why can't we just all agree that Nadal dopes and move on?

[Court_1]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:30:40 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> > Speaking of doping... Rafa has now sued Bachelot:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/christophclarey/status/724618002503704576
>
> What was it again... "Never in million years will Rafa..." :-P

Ok, I was wrong. It's rare but it happens. :)

I did also say that IF Nadal does sue it probably won't get very far. They won't get to the stage of digging into Nadal's doping history as that would be counter-productive for Nadal. I think what will probably happen now is that Bachelot will issue a public retraction and that will be that. The French defamation laws are different than the North American ones. I think in France the system is designed to reward the claimants who feel they have been defamed.

Nadal filing this lawsuit doesn't change my view that he dopes. After all, Armstrong sued the Sunday Times and journalist David Walsh and won BEFORE he was found out to be a doper. Right? ;)

[bob]

pre 2011 was peak fed era, no? :-)

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:30:57 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>25.4.2016, 17:22, bob kirjoitti:

>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:49:54 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis

>> <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

>>>> 25.4.2016, 16:28, Pelle Svanslös kirjoitti:
>>>>> Don't know what this is about. Maybe you should post a link to what's
>>>>> been said and perhaps some context too. Perhaps we can then settle the
>>>>> "issues" you seem to have whit the above.
>>>>
>>>> You've said for over a week now that Djokovic shouldn't have lost

>>>> because Rafa looked a different man after that. Now you suddenly change
>>>> your tune to "doping". You're simply too dishonest to discuss with.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So Rafa is shitting pants at the prospect of meeting Djokovic? He
>>> needs to have Djokovic drop his level in order to have a shot at
>>> him and now that Vesely loss hinted Djokovic's level might be
>>> dropping Rafa is back with confidence?
>>>
>>> Ok, but then it seems that peak Djokovic tops peak Rafa.
>>
>> that's a pretty tough question, as we really haven't seen peak rafa in
>> about 2 yrs, and that's exactly when we've seen peak djokovic.
>>
>
>Djokovic has been peak since 2010 USO.
>Probably before that as well, as for example in summer of 2008.

by my definition of peak, i agree since 2010-2011ish. but i think he's
at his absolute last 2 yrs.

bob

[bob]

that was me who said it - and if you agree i better rethink.

bob

[TT]

25.4.2016, 21:13, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> Ok, I was wrong. It's rare but it happens.:)
>

Call the ambulance.

> I did also say that

The lesson you should learn from this is that you should try and use
your own brain. You just bring here some juvenile nonsense copied from
other forums, written by some dumbest teens on Earth. Or maybe it's just
a coincidence that you have same flawed rationale as they do...

[TT]

When you admit that Fed dopes.

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

Pelle told you. He was grasping for air in tough matches for
months and years and mow he runs even more while being more
energetic.

[TT]

Nah, I think he just had lesser competition at the top past couple years.

[bob]

i gotta believe they all dope or none. til he's caught he's just
"confident rafa." :-)

bob

[TT]

When Rafa beats Nishikori he dopes. When Federer at 34 hangs with
Djokovic for 5 sets he's old. Can't you see?

[bob]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:13:52 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:30:40 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>
>> > Speaking of doping... Rafa has now sued Bachelot:
>> >
>> > https://twitter.com/christophclarey/status/724618002503704576
>>
>> What was it again... "Never in million years will Rafa..." :-P
>
>Ok, I was wrong. It's rare but it happens. :)

"rare?" or "medium well?"

>I did also say that IF Nadal does sue it probably won't get very far. They won't get to the stage of digging into Nadal's doping history as that would be counter-productive for Nadal. I think what will probably happen now is that Bachelot will issue a public retraction and that will be that. The French defamation laws are different than the North American ones. I think in France the system is designed to reward the claimants who feel they have been defamed.
>Nadal filing this lawsuit doesn't change my view that he dopes. After all, Armstrong sued the Sunday Times and journalist David Walsh and won BEFORE he was found out to be a doper. Right? ;)

courty was wrong!
courty was wrong!
courty was wrong!
courty was wrong!
courty was wrong!
courty was wrong!
courty was wrong!
courty was wrong!

yee haw!!

bob

[bob]

she's no spring chicken, i'd have thought she'd learn this by now. but
hey, is what it is.

i'm begging you, pleading, do NOT jinx rafa and start acting like he's
got djok where he wants him...he needs to raise his game 1 more level
to be there.

bob

[Court_1]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 2:28:42 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> The lesson you should learn from this is that you should try and use
> your own brain. You just bring here some juvenile nonsense copied from
> other forums,

I think you should take your own advice when it comes to Nadal and doping. His immature and stupid teen fans don't think he dopes and neither do you yet you point your fingers at all of his rivals like Federer and Djokovic. It's laughable that you could claim Djokovic and Federer dope but not Nadal. It makes zero sense. They all likely dope. What's the problem with admitting it and really who cares if they dope? Tennis is entertainment. That's it.

As for Nadal and this lawsuit, sure cut off the substance of what I said to suit your own naive agenda:

1) This lawsuit will probably be quick with Bachelot issuing a public retraction as French law favors the claimant (the one who is being defamed.)

2) Nadal filing this lawsuit doesn't mean he isn't a doper and I used Armstrong suing the Times and David Walsh before it was confirmed he was a doper as a perfect example.

Grow up. Elite players dope and for sure Nadal dopes.

[bob]

maybe - chicken/egg.

bob

[TT]

25.4.2016, 21:45, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> 2) Nadal filing this lawsuit doesn't mean he isn't a doper and I used Armstrong suing the Times and David Walsh before it was confirmed he was a doper as a perfect example.

But not understanding that before copying "Nadal will not sue in million
years" from other forums means that you do not use your own head before
commenting on these things. Same with "silent bans" etc.

[Gracchus]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 11:41:58 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:13:52 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:30:40 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> >> What was it again... "Never in million years will Rafa..." :-P

> >Ok, I was wrong. It's rare but it happens. :)

> "rare?" or "medium well?"

Rare that she admits it, that is. She'd rather write volumes a-slippin' and a-slidin' than say those words even when everyone else knows it. But to her credit, she at least occasionally will swallow that bitter pill and make such an admission. I can't recall Whisper ever doing the same in the 10 years I've been here.

[Court_1]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 2:43:38 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:


> she's no spring chicken, i'd have thought she'd learn this by now. but
> hey, is what it is.

I'm a lot younger than you are. You must have a good 10-15 years on me. And what am I learning exactly? Nadal filing a lawsuit means what? That he doesn't dope? This is coming from you, a person who thought Armstrong was being bullied by his team members? No dummy, Armstrong was running the whole show.

> i'm begging you, pleading, do NOT jinx rafa and start acting like he's
> got djok where he wants him...he needs to raise his game 1 more level
> to be there.

Are you 12 years old? There is no such thing as jinxing!

[TT]

But Whisper has never been wrong.

[Court_1]

Not understanding what? I didn't think Nadal would sue but the fact that he is suing doesn't change my stance on whether or not he's a doper.

You are the one who acts like an immature Nadal worshipper believing everything that comes out of the Nadal camp. I on the other hand believe little of what comes out of the camps of any of the elite players. Most of it is PR nonsense to appease uneducated and naive fans who need a hero to worship. You are like
an adolescent in your hero-worshipping of Nadal. It's ridiculous yet you can't see it.

[Gracchus]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 11:53:29 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 2:43:38 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> > she's no spring chicken, i'd have thought she'd learn this by now. but
> > hey, is what it is.

> I'm a lot younger than you are. You must have a good 10-15 years on me.

Men are allowed to get old and women aren't. Hasn't anyone ever explained this stuff to you? Double-standard, I know, but it's how society works. Hollywood reflects this: Male prunes rule. Female plums scrounge for roles as soon as they're slightly prunish.

> > i'm begging you, pleading, do NOT jinx rafa and start acting like he's
> > got djok where he wants him...he needs to raise his game 1 more level
> > to be there.

> Are you 12 years old? There is no such thing as jinxing!

How do you know? I suspect you're the kind to be scoffing at "hocus pocus" until some houngan puts a curse on you, and then you'd be sweating bullets!

[Court_1]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> Rare that she admits it, that is. She'd rather write volumes a-slippin' and a-slidin' than say those words even when everyone else knows it. But to her credit, she at least occasionally will swallow that bitter pill and make such an admission. I can't recall Whisper ever doing the same in the 10 years I've been here.

I always admit when I'm wrong but I'm not wrong that often when it comes to most things on this ng. By the way, I don't recall seeing you swallowing any bitter pills on the occasions where you have been wrong. How many times have you said defiantly that Nadal won't win this match or this tournament for example only to be completely wrong? You've started many threads bellowing from the top of your lungs that the clay monkey would be destroyed. I don't recall seeing any "oops I was wrong" posts after your bad predictions have failed. I am much better with that than you are or than Bob, TT, Pelle, Whisper, etc are.

[bob]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:53:28 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 2:43:38 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>
>> she's no spring chicken, i'd have thought she'd learn this by now. but
>> hey, is what it is.
>
>I'm a lot younger than you are. You must have a good 10-15 years on me.

i'm thinking i've got 5 on you. max.

> And what am I learning exactly? Nadal filing a lawsuit means what? That he doesn't dope? This is coming from you, a person who thought Armstrong was being bullied by his team members?

bullied? never, i never said that. i said he was turned in by his
teammates just because he was such a jerk. armstrong was the bully.

> No dummy, Armstrong was running the whole show.

i agree, i never said otherwise. until they had enough of him and
somebody cooperated with the investigators.

>> i'm begging you, pleading, do NOT jinx rafa and start acting like he's
>> got djok where he wants him...he needs to raise his game 1 more level
>> to be there.
>
>Are you 12 years old? There is no such thing as jinxing!

in that case i dare you, in your most confident words, to predict a
federer victory!

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 11:53:29 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 2:43:38 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> > she's no spring chicken, i'd have thought she'd learn this by now. but
>> > hey, is what it is.
>
>> I'm a lot younger than you are. You must have a good 10-15 years on me.
>
>Men are allowed to get old and women aren't. Hasn't anyone ever explained this stuff to you? Double-standard, I know, but it's how society works. Hollywood reflects this: Male prunes rule. Female plums scrounge for roles as soon as they're slightly prunish.

30yo gal tells me last week, "men can age, and they are still
attractrive - look at george clooney - sexiest man alive in his 50s.
look at brad pitt. no women will EVER get anything like that."

this wk jennifer aniston voted prettiest woman alive, at 46 (i mean, i
don't see it that way, but who am i to judge).

>> > i'm begging you, pleading, do NOT jinx rafa and start acting like he's
>> > got djok where he wants him...he needs to raise his game 1 more level
>> > to be there.
>
>> Are you 12 years old? There is no such thing as jinxing!
>
>How do you know? I suspect you're the kind to be scoffing at "hocus pocus" until some houngan puts a curse on you, and then you'd be sweating bullets!

steve jaros believes enough in jinxes to claim serena was the underdog
past 5 yrs! it's real i tell you!

bob

[TT]

25.4.2016, 22:01, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 2:51:31 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>> 25.4.2016, 21:45, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> 2) Nadal filing this lawsuit doesn't mean he isn't a doper and I used Armstrong suing the Times and David Walsh before it was confirmed he was a doper as a perfect example.
>>
>> But not understanding that before copying "Nadal will not sue in million
>> years" from other forums means that you do not use your own head before
>> commenting on these things. Same with "silent bans" etc.
>
> Not understanding what?

You didn't initially understand that whether Nadal sues has no relevance
to whether he dopes. That means you're not thinking these matters in
logical manner.

> You are the one who acts like an immature Nadal worshipper believing everything that comes out of the Nadal camp. I on the other hand believe little of what comes out of the camps of any of the elite players. Most of it is PR nonsense to appease uneducated and naive fans who need a hero to worship. You are like
> an adolescent in your hero-worshipping of Nadal. It's ridiculous yet you can't see it.
>

Now here's another thing you don't seem to understand. Read carefully...

I don't know whether Nadal dopes. But my arguments here are against YOUR
flawed reasoning that he does! What do I mean by your flawed
reasoning... the examples are far too numerous but for example couple
near past examples are:

"everyone dopes but only Nadal gets silent bans" - POOR LOGIC
"Nadal would never sue in million years" - WRONG
"he found a good cocktail after two years" - POOR LOGIC

If you're interested if I think whether Nadal, Federer, Djokovic,
Murray, Nishikori etc dope - I do not know. Maybe they all do. The only
one I'm pretty certain of is Djokovic, because of his incredible
improvement in fitness. And after Sharapova I'm not even certain about
that any more... Perhaps he uses "legal" doping aka CVAC, Nikethamide,
Meldonium etc. But I'm not sure if those drugs alone give such physical
improvement.

The point is uour logic simply does not make sense. Saying that doesn't
make me some "disgusting super fan" or whatever.

[bob]

i don't recall her ever admitting she was wrong without a long
"but...." afterwards. even today about this lawsuit.

bob

[Court_1]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 3:05:35 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> Men are allowed to get old and women aren't.

Nonsense. It isn't a pretty sight when men get older, lose their hair, get paunchy, etc. either. Growing old is not good for anybody. And this is RST not Hollywood. Bob is clearly about 10-15 years older than I am and he is a hell of a lot more naive than I am that's for sure. He also never admits when he is wrong even when there are tons of posts in the archive which prove it and he is a narcissist. I think he's worse than Whisper because at least Whisper is a bit smarter. Speaking of age, you are probably about 20 years older than I am, probably more?

> Hasn't anyone ever explained this stuff to you? Double-standard, I know, but it's how society works. Hollywood reflects this: Male prunes rule. Female plums scrounge for roles as soon as they're slightly prunish.

Man are you ever bitter lately since I revealed a bit more about my background and since I said I would be happy when Colonel Sanders is out of the picture. We are on different sides of the political spectrum. So what? Deal with it. That's why I said, politics and religion shouldn't be discussed in detail on this tennis ng. Tennis and movies are safer even if I think your choice in Westerns suck. :)

> How do you know? I suspect you're the kind to be scoffing at "hocus pocus" until some houngan puts a curse on you, and then you'd be sweating bullets!

????? What does that even mean?

[bob]

just say something to the effect, "i'm shocked nadal sued, i never
thought he would, i was wrong." ctrl-c, ctrl-v.

to be honest, i didn't think he would either. maybe he's got a trick
up his sleeve- wait, he wears short sleeves!

bob

[TT]

Or to put it in different manner:
I'm the agnostic here, YOU are the believer (in doping).

[Court_1]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 3:22:30 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:53:28 -0700 (PDT), Court_1

> >I'm a lot younger than you are. You must have a good 10-15 years on me.
>
> i'm thinking i've got 5 on you. max.

No way. You have more that on me.

[bob]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:30:28 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 3:05:35 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

>> Men are allowed to get old and women aren't.

>Nonsense. It isn't a pretty sight when men get older, lose their hair, get paunchy, etc. either. Growing old is not good for anybody. And this is RST not Hollywood. Bob is clearly about 10-15 years older than I am

you said you were in your 40s - i mathematically cannot be 15yrs older
than you, and very likely i'm 3-5yrs older.

your idol ulysses had the guts to post photos, albeit form the 80s.
you? nah, i'm betting you're ulysses house maid.

> and he is a hell of a lot more naive than I am that's for sure. He also never admits when he is wrong even when there are tons of posts in the archive which prove it and he is a narcissist.
> I think he's worse than Whisper because at least Whisper is a bit smarter. Speaking of age, you are probably about 20 years older than I am, probably more?

>> Hasn't anyone ever explained this stuff to you? Double-standard, I know, but it's how society works. Hollywood reflects this: Male prunes rule. Female plums scrounge for roles as soon as they're slightly prunish.
>
>Man are you ever bitter lately since I revealed a bit more about my background and since I said I would be happy when Colonel Sanders is out of the picture. We are on different sides of the political spectrum. So what? Deal with it.

> That's why I said, politics and religion shouldn't be discussed in detail on this tennis ng. Tennis and movies are safer even if I think your choice in Westerns suck. :)
>
>> How do you know? I suspect you're the kind to be scoffing at "hocus pocus" until some houngan puts a curse on you, and then you'd be sweating bullets!
>
>????? What does that even mean?

bob

[Court_1]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 3:26:39 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> 30yo gal tells me last week, "men can age, and they are still
> attractrive - look at george clooney - sexiest man alive in his 50s.
> look at brad pitt. no women will EVER get anything like that."

That's bullshit. Look at Michelle Pfeiffer for example. This isn't year 1850. Better health, fitness, nutrition, cosmetic procedures, knowledge about sun damage, etc. have changed things. Genetics is also a big factor and people age differently. Plus, a good looking more mature woman is often better than most average women of any age.

Clooney and Brad Pitt? They do nothing for me. Cary Grant at any age on the other hand and I'm in! :)

> this wk jennifer aniston voted prettiest woman alive, at 46 (i mean, i
> don't see it that way, but who am i to judge).

Proof right there that a 46 year old woman today can still be considered sexy. This isn't the 1800s as I said.