Ostapenko and Halep: Winners vs Unforced Errors

[Garvin Yee]

They flashed it on the screen briefly, and it
was roughly 50 winners, 50 UEs for Ostapenko, and
about 8 winners, 8 UEs for Halep, which obviously
shows the difference in style.

But it was good for tennis that the more aggressive player
ultimately won.

Tigran Pertrosian was a World Chess Champion, who played a
mostly defensive style, which although it made him an extremely
difficult man to beat, it caused most of his games to end with a
draw, which put the chess world to sleep.

Too much defense leading to boring games....which is the same
for tennis.

Ditto for the boxing world with Floyd Mayweather, who remained
undefeated with many unanimous decisions, but never had the knockout
excitement of a Mike Tyson.

Congrats to Ostapenko....let's hope she keeps it up....


--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34735015@N03/sets/72157623566520134/

http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/garvin+yee/all

https://www.facebook.com/garvin.yee.37

[Guypers]

Bobby Fischer beat Petrosian 6-0 ???? In the prelims, beat Spassky 6 1/2 - 2 1/2 ??? To win it all?

[Guypers]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 10:32:32 PM UTC-4, Garvin Yee wrote:

[SliceAndDice]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 10:32:32 PM UTC-4, Garvin Yee wrote:

> They flashed it on the screen briefly, and it
> was roughly 50 winners, 50 UEs for Ostapenko, and
> about 8 winners, 8 UEs for Halep, which obviously
> shows the difference in style.
>
> But it was good for tennis that the more aggressive player
> ultimately won.
>
> Tigran Pertrosian was a World Chess Champion, who played a
> mostly defensive style, which although it made him an extremely
> difficult man to beat, it caused most of his games to end with a
> draw, which put the chess world to sleep.
>
> Too much defense leading to boring games....which is the same
> for tennis.
>
> Ditto for the boxing world with Floyd Mayweather, who remained
> undefeated with many unanimous decisions, but never had the knockout
> excitement of a Mike Tyson.
>
> Congrats to Ostapenko....let's hope she keeps it up....
>

I finally got around to watching the match. I was surprised to see many people comment here that Halep choked. To be honest, I never felt that the match was on Halep's racquet at any point of time. 108 points were decided by Ostapenko winners or errors. Halep herself admitted that she was a mere spectactor for much of the match. She could have taken some more of the initiative herself and to her credit she tried, but I do not think she has the tools or the mindset to do so.

Ostapenko..well...I stand with the Seles comparison. She has the Seles-like talent to take the ball on the rise and find incredible angles from impossible positions. She also seems to have a lot of upper body strength and I saw her absolutely pounding some high balls. Some of her winners had me gasping for sheer imagination and audacity. But, UNLIKE Seles, she has not displayed the patience to construct points and pulls the trigger far too quickly and unnecessarily, at times. It could be that the pressure of her first slam final got to her, but I suspect that it is her natural instinct. I hope her coach helps her tame that instinct a bit (not too much, I like her aggressive style), bring some variety into her game and help her improve her second serve. She could go places, if led in the right direction.

[Court_1]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:24:26 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:

> I finally got around to watching the match. I was surprised to see many people comment here that Halep choked. To be honest, I never felt that the match was on Halep's racquet at any point of time.

You don't think Halep choked when she was up a set and 3-0? *confused*

> Ostapenko..well...I stand with the Seles comparison. She has the Seles-like talent to take the ball on the rise and find incredible angles from impossible positions. She also seems to have a lot of upper body strength and I saw her absolutely pounding some high balls. Some of her winners had me gasping for sheer imagination and audacity. But, UNLIKE Seles, she has not displayed the patience to construct points and pulls the trigger far too quickly and unnecessarily, at times. It could be that the pressure of her first slam final got to her, but I suspect that it is her natural instinct. I hope her coach helps her tame that instinct a bit (not too much, I like her aggressive style), bring some variety into her game and help her improve her second serve. She could go places, if led in the right direction.

I agree with you about the Seles comparison. What Ostapenko needs to develop asap is a much better serve, first and second.

[SliceAndDice]

On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:31:46 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:24:26 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
>
> > I finally got around to watching the match. I was surprised to see many people comment here that Halep choked. To be honest, I never felt that the match was on Halep's racquet at any point of time.
>
> You don't think Halep choked when she was up a set and 3-0? *confused*
>

Nope. Ostapenko made her shots when it mattered. The match was never on Halep's racquet as I said.

[Court_1]

If a player is up a set and 3-0 and loses, it's a choke. A player with a more solid mentality would have won that match. There's no way any player should lose when she is winning by that scoreline.

In any case, when you snooze you lose and Halep snoozed. She screwed up her best chance to win a FO title. She can console herself with the $1 million she won I guess.

[SliceAndDice]

I disagree. Halep was up 6-4 and 3-0 because Ostapenko was missing more than she was making. The trend reversed in the second set. Look at the stats. Halep was mostly just putting the ball in play. As for 3-0, that is hardly a big deficit to overcome on clay. Even men lose double break leads on clay, forget an average server like Simona.

[calim...@gmx.de]

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 6:29:31 AM UTC+2, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:33:58 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:31:46 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:24:26 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
> > >
> > > > I finally got around to watching the match. I was surprised to see many people comment here that Halep choked. To be honest, I never felt that the match was on Halep's racquet at any point of time.
> > >
> > > You don't think Halep choked when she was up a set and 3-0? *confused*
> > >
> > Nope. Ostapenko made her shots when it mattered. The match was never on Halep's racquet as I said.
>
> If a player is up a set and 3-0 and loses, it's a choke. A player with a more solid mentality would have won that match. There's no way any player should lose when she is winning by that scoreline.
>
>

WTF?
Navratilova led the great Steffi 7-5 2-0 in the famous Wim 88 final only to lose with 7-5 2-6 1-6.
No one ever suggested that Navi choked.


Max

[grif]

On 11/06/2017 04:18, Guypers wrote:
> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 10:32:32 PM UTC-4, Garvin Yee wrote:
>>
>> But it was good for tennis that the more aggressive player
>> ultimately won.
>>
>> Tigran Pertrosian was a World Chess Champion, who played a
>> mostly defensive style, which although it made him an extremely
>> difficult man to beat, it caused most of his games to end with a
>> draw, which put the chess world to sleep.
>>
>> Too much defense leading to boring games....which is the same
>> for tennis.
>>
>>

>> Congrats to Ostapenko....let's hope she keeps it up....
>>
>

> Bobby Fischer beat Petrosian 6-0 ???? In the prelims, beat Spassky 6 1/2 - 2 1/2 ??? To win it all?
>

From Stephen Moss's "The Rookie: An Odyssey through Chess (and Life)":
"..Brady had been advising Tobey Maguire, who was making a film of the Fischer-Spassky match - the movie, "Pawn Sacrifice", surfaced a few months after Brady and I met. Maguire wanted to know how Fischer walked - 'rangy, like an athlete,' said Brady - and talked and moved the pieces. The fact that a movie was being made of Fischer's life underlined chess's problem. He remains box office. No one has come along to replace him, whatever the inflated claims made for the appeal of Magnus Carlsen. Fischer was difficult, unpredictable, brilliant, mesmerising; a genius and a madman. He had everything and many observers in the US say that, if he hadn't walked away from the sport after 1972, chess would have implanted itself on the American psyche far more forcibly. Fischer is both the blessing and the curse of US chess: even now, more than 40 years after he won the world title, he casts a long shadow. His is still the name the public know; his death in 2008 made front pages around the world; it is Fischer who is endlessly debated and memorialised on film. Fischer's rise and fall, and to a lesser extent Garry Kasparov's defeat by the Deep Blue supercomputer in 1997 (also being turned into a movie as I toured the US), were the only stories in town for the mainstream media. It was as if chess time had stood still.
..
..
In "Profile of a Prodigy" Brady has a beautiful phrase to sum up his endlessly frustrating hero: 'If he is the rainbow, he is also the storm.' That captures Fischer perfectly: the games he has left us are things of clarity, beauty, deep logic; his role in popularising chess in the 1960s and 1970s was immense; and yet his endless arguments with officialdom and his withdrawal from the sport without defending his world championship also did great damage. He was lonely, fatherless, had an intense but double-edged relationship with his brilliant and especially eccentric mother Regina, and once he had achieved his goal of winning the world championship went off the rails, spending more than a decade as a recluse in California and then another 20 years wandering the world looking for God knows what before dying from a kidney complaint which he refused to have treated. It was a sort of suicide - first as a player, then as a man. The once implacable Fischer had no resistance left. That he should die at 64 - the number of squares on the chessboard - was the ultimate irony, as fitting as it was tragic. What a waste, yet what a life. No wonder it is Fischer's story that film-makers still want to tell.
..
..
One question kept recurring throughout my odyssey: why do we play chess ? Hans Ree hymns its eternal beauty; Emanuel Lasker relished the fight; Fischer enjoyed crushing his opponents psychologically; Botvinnik sought to establish a scientific method; Tal loved the tactical possibilites; Bronstein delighted in the free play of the imagination; Arnold Denker saw it as an act of rebellion; Jon Speelman seeks transcendence; the chess hustlers in Washington Square - not unlike pros all over the world - are trying to earn a few dollars.
..
Professional chess is an affirmation of individuality, a cry for freedom - and a way of staying in bed until midday.
.."

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 11.6.2017 5:31, Garvin Yee wrote:
>
> They flashed it on the screen briefly, and it
> was roughly 50 winners, 50 UEs for Ostapenko, and
> about 8 winners, 8 UEs for Halep, which obviously
> shows the difference in style.
>
> But it was good for tennis that the more aggressive player
> ultimately won.

From the stats of it, she's yet another coin tosser. 54 UE, 54 W in 27
games. That's 2 UE/game. In quality tennis, that's a mortifying stat.
And indeed, Halep had 16 BPs. That's more that 1/service game. That's
only for the winner of the match.

How do you spell unwatchable?

This match doesn't seem to be an exception either. If she's on a hot
streak, I wonder what the lukewarm streak looks like. Won't be taking
another look at her match stats to find out though.

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[Whisper]

Yes, she also had 2 or 3 pts to make it 4-0, & chances to go 4-2, & also
led 3-1 in 3rd.

Textbook choke job. Similar to Novotna's meltdown in Wimbledon final
leading Graf 6-7 6-1 4-1.

This match should be viewed by all youngsters so they recognize chokes &
are ready when they become pros.

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

[Whisper]

I agree Ostapenko is a much better player, & minus the pressure of the
situation should smash Halep every time. But on this occasion it
definitely was a big choke from Halep. She didn't seem to know how to
finish off a match.

[DavidW]

On 11-Jun-17 12:31 PM, Garvin Yee wrote:
>
> They flashed it on the screen briefly, and it
> was roughly 50 winners, 50 UEs for Ostapenko, and
> about 8 winners, 8 UEs for Halep, which obviously
> shows the difference in style.
>
> But it was good for tennis that the more aggressive player
> ultimately won.
>
> Tigran Pertrosian was a World Chess Champion, who played a
> mostly defensive style, which although it made him an extremely
> difficult man to beat, it caused most of his games to end with a
> draw, which put the chess world to sleep.

You're generally a very annoying poster, particularly with your
obsession with the flawed and untrustworthy Hawkeye and your massive
over-use of exclamation marks, but you deserve credit for turning the
discussion to chess. Kasparov was not a defensive player and was robbed
v. Deep Blue.

[DavidW]

On 11-Jun-17 4:36 PM, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> WTF?
> Navratilova led the great Steffi 7-5 2-0 in the famous Wim 88 final only to lose with 7-5 2-6 1-6.
> No one ever suggested that Navi choked.

That's right. No choke. Steffi switched to a broken racquet and hit Navi
off the court.

[Court_1]

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:34:44 AM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:

> I disagree. Halep was up 6-4 and 3-0 because Ostapenko was missing more than she was making. The trend reversed in the second set. Look at the stats. Halep was mostly just putting the ball in play. As for 3-0, that is hardly a big deficit to overcome on clay. Even men lose double break leads on clay, forget an average server like Simona.

Well, I'll meet you halfway. Yes, Ostapenko started to play better and she took the match away from Halep but Halep at 6-4, 3-0 started to revert back to her old "poor body language and bad attitude" days of old. She became very negative and that cost her. She should have been able to hold it together mentally and come up with a better plan to put herself into winning positions. As I said, somebody like Chris Evert would have NEVER lost that match with that type of scoreline. It was a monumental choke despite Ostapenko raising her game.

[Whisper]

Yes, it is what it is.

Having said that Ostapenko is a breath of fresh air & potentially a real
multi slam type. She seems like a delightful young woman, very cute, &
has the world at her feet atm.

She seems to have more going on than Muguruza/Kerber. Let's all wish
her the best going forward.

Amazing effort winning your 1st title at a slam.

[Garvin Yee]

That's incorrect.

Bobby was an astounding 12-0 against Taimanov and Larsen, but
finally lost a game to Petrosian, which finally broke his winning streak
en route to the world championship.

He ended up 6½–2½ (+5−1=3) against the older Petrosian.

Remember that Chess becomes a physical sport when the matches
are hours long, and so has always been a younger person's game.

[Garvin Yee]

The great thing about Fischer, was that he hated draws, and always
fought for the win, which made for exciting chess.

Ditto for Ostapenko!

[Garvin Yee]

Fuck you, asswipe.

Hawkeye has changed Tennis for the better, and should be used for
the French. I'll make a post about it just to piss you off! :)

Kasparov was deeply influenced by Fischer, and both were fierce
attacking players.

And Karparov lost fair and square to Deep Blue...even he admits
it now!

[DavidW]

On 11-Jun-17 8:17 PM, Garvin Yee wrote:
> On 6/11/2017 2:34 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> On 11-Jun-17 12:31 PM, Garvin Yee wrote:
>>>
>>> They flashed it on the screen briefly, and it
>>> was roughly 50 winners, 50 UEs for Ostapenko, and
>>> about 8 winners, 8 UEs for Halep, which obviously
>>> shows the difference in style.
>>>
>>> But it was good for tennis that the more aggressive player
>>> ultimately won.
>>>
>>> Tigran Pertrosian was a World Chess Champion, who played a
>>> mostly defensive style, which although it made him an extremely
>>> difficult man to beat, it caused most of his games to end with a
>>> draw, which put the chess world to sleep.
>>
>> You're generally a very annoying poster, particularly with your
>> obsession with the flawed and untrustworthy Hawkeye and your massive
>> over-use of exclamation marks, but you deserve credit for turning the
>> discussion to chess. Kasparov was not a defensive player and was robbed
>> v. Deep Blue.
>>
>
> Fuck you, asswipe.
>
> Hawkeye has changed Tennis for the better, and should be used for
> the French. I'll make a post about it just to piss you off! :)

Hawkeye is having a dreadful influence. Apart from its mistakes there
are too many dumb commentators who think it's infallible just because it
puts up a graphic with a ball mark, as though that was the reality. It
led Fred Stolle at this FO to claim that the umpire had got it wrong a
couple of times, _after_ inspecting the actual marks, because Hawkeye
disagreed.

> Kasparov was deeply influenced by Fischer, and both were fierce
> attacking players.
>
> And Karparov lost fair and square to Deep Blue...even he admits
> it now!

No, he doesn't. The computer cheated.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/chess-master-garry-kasparov-still-a-sore-loser-two-decades-after-deep-blue-20170601-gwipie.html

[*skriptis]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:33:58 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:31:46 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
>> > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:24:26 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
>> >
>> > > I finally got around to watching the match. I was surprised to see many people comment here that Halep choked. To be honest, I never felt that the match was on Halep's racquet at any point of time.
>> >
>> > You don't think Halep choked when she was up a set and 3-0? *confused*
>> >
>> Nope. Ostapenko made her shots when it mattered. The match was never on Halep's racquet as I said.
>
> If a player is up a set and 3-0 and loses, it's a choke. A player with a more solid mentality would have won that match. There's no way any player should lose when she is winning by that scoreline.

Would you win if you had that score vs Ostapenko?

Probably not as, despite your great mental straight, she'd
outperform you from that point on, which is the same thing that
happened to Halep.

There are far more clowns among rst analysts than there are among
players.





--

[DavidW]

On 11-Jun-17 8:12 PM, Whisper wrote:

> Having said that Ostapenko is a breath of fresh air & potentially a real
> multi slam type. She seems like a delightful young woman, very cute, &
> has the world at her feet atm.

I don't think the locker room thinks she's delightful after a number of
incidents, but I agree she's a breath of fresh air and good luck to her.

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 19:31:45 -0700, Garvin Yee <drsmi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> They flashed it on the screen briefly, and it
>was roughly 50 winners, 50 UEs for Ostapenko, and
>about 8 winners, 8 UEs for Halep, which obviously
>shows the difference in style.
>
> But it was good for tennis that the more aggressive player
>ultimately won.
>
> Tigran Pertrosian was a World Chess Champion, who played a
>mostly defensive style, which although it made him an extremely
>difficult man to beat, it caused most of his games to end with a
>draw, which put the chess world to sleep.
>
> Too much defense leading to boring games....which is the same
>for tennis.
>
> Ditto for the boxing world with Floyd Mayweather, who remained
>undefeated with many unanimous decisions, but never had the knockout
>excitement of a Mike Tyson.
>
> Congrats to Ostapenko....let's hope she keeps it up....

completely agree. i believe the final match stats had slightly more
UEs than winners for both players, but i'll take the high winners/UEs
over the defensive bumrooter any day.

bob

[bob]

she hits a muich flatter and harder ball than seles, and of course a
1H FH.

though effective, seles IMO had the ugliest game in recent memory.

bob

[bob]

agree. i don't know if inside halep was feeling pressure, but her game
seemed the same to me throughout. it was ostapenko who raised/lowered
her game and controlled the outcome.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:29:30 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:33:58 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:31:46 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
>> > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:24:26 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
>> >
>> > > I finally got around to watching the match. I was surprised to see many people comment here that Halep choked. To be honest, I never felt that the match was on Halep's racquet at any point of time.
>> >
>> > You don't think Halep choked when she was up a set and 3-0? *confused*
>> >
>> Nope. Ostapenko made her shots when it mattered. The match was never on Halep's racquet as I said.
>
>If a player is up a set and 3-0 and loses, it's a choke. A player with a more solid mentality would have won that match. There's no way any player should lose when she is winning by that scoreline.

i ask you to rethink this, it's ridiculous.

in order for it to be a choke, the player in the lead must start to
play worse, their game must begin to falter. the opponent raising
their level doesn't indicate a choke.

>In any case, when you snooze you lose and Halep snoozed. She screwed up her best chance to win a FO title. She can console herself with the $1 million she won I guess.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:06:41 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 12:34:44 AM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
>
>> I disagree. Halep was up 6-4 and 3-0 because Ostapenko was missing more than she was making. The trend reversed in the second set. Look at the stats. Halep was mostly just putting the ball in play. As for 3-0, that is hardly a big deficit to overcome on clay. Even men lose double break leads on clay, forget an average server like Simona.
>
>Well, I'll meet you halfway. Yes, Ostapenko started to play better and she took the match away from Halep

that's not halfway, that's conceding defeat. :-)

bob

[bob]

the commentators alluded to that, do tell some details?

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 18:02:57 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/06/2017 2:29 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:33:58 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:31:46 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:24:26 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I finally got around to watching the match. I was surprised to see many people comment here that Halep choked. To be honest, I never felt that the match was on Halep's racquet at any point of time.
>>>>
>>>> You don't think Halep choked when she was up a set and 3-0? *confused*
>>>>
>>> Nope. Ostapenko made her shots when it mattered. The match was never on Halep's racquet as I said.
>>
>> If a player is up a set and 3-0 and loses, it's a choke. A player with a more solid mentality would have won that match. There's no way any player should lose when she is winning by that scoreline.
>>
>> In any case, when you snooze you lose and Halep snoozed. She screwed up her best chance to win a FO title. She can console herself with the $1 million she won I guess.
>>
>
>Yes, she also had 2 or 3 pts to make it 4-0, & chances to go 4-2, & also
>led 3-1 in 3rd.
>
>Textbook choke job. Similar to Novotna's meltdown in Wimbledon final
>leading Graf 6-7 6-1 4-1.

novotna's was a huge choke. she started to play in a hesitant way,
lowered her own level. she was a classic choker though.

>This match should be viewed by all youngsters so they recognize chokes &
>are ready when they become pros.

i'm not sure a choker can do much to fix it. it's just in some
players.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:17:40 -0700, Garvin Yee <drsmi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/11/2017 2:34 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> On 11-Jun-17 12:31 PM, Garvin Yee wrote:
>>>
>>> They flashed it on the screen briefly, and it
>>> was roughly 50 winners, 50 UEs for Ostapenko, and
>>> about 8 winners, 8 UEs for Halep, which obviously
>>> shows the difference in style.
>>>
>>> But it was good for tennis that the more aggressive player
>>> ultimately won.
>>>
>>> Tigran Pertrosian was a World Chess Champion, who played a
>>> mostly defensive style, which although it made him an extremely
>>> difficult man to beat, it caused most of his games to end with a
>>> draw, which put the chess world to sleep.
>>
>> You're generally a very annoying poster, particularly with your
>> obsession with the flawed and untrustworthy Hawkeye and your massive
>> over-use of exclamation marks, but you deserve credit for turning the
>> discussion to chess. Kasparov was not a defensive player and was robbed
>> v. Deep Blue.
>>
>
> Fuck you, asswipe.

don't sugar coat it now. haha.

> Hawkeye has changed Tennis for the better, and should be used for
>the French. I'll make a post about it just to piss you off! :)

agree, they use it unofficially for the tv viewers.

> Kasparov was deeply influenced by Fischer, and both were fierce
>attacking players. And Karparov lost fair and square to Deep Blue...even he admits
>it now!

was deep blue the ibm?

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 20:46:46 +1000, DavidW <n...@email.provided> wrote:

>On 11-Jun-17 8:17 PM, Garvin Yee wrote:
>> On 6/11/2017 2:34 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>> On 11-Jun-17 12:31 PM, Garvin Yee wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They flashed it on the screen briefly, and it
>>>> was roughly 50 winners, 50 UEs for Ostapenko, and
>>>> about 8 winners, 8 UEs for Halep, which obviously
>>>> shows the difference in style.
>>>>
>>>> But it was good for tennis that the more aggressive player
>>>> ultimately won.
>>>>
>>>> Tigran Pertrosian was a World Chess Champion, who played a
>>>> mostly defensive style, which although it made him an extremely
>>>> difficult man to beat, it caused most of his games to end with a
>>>> draw, which put the chess world to sleep.
>>>
>>> You're generally a very annoying poster, particularly with your
>>> obsession with the flawed and untrustworthy Hawkeye and your massive
>>> over-use of exclamation marks, but you deserve credit for turning the
>>> discussion to chess. Kasparov was not a defensive player and was robbed
>>> v. Deep Blue.
>>>
>>
>> Fuck you, asswipe.
>>
>> Hawkeye has changed Tennis for the better, and should be used for
>> the French. I'll make a post about it just to piss you off! :)
>
>Hawkeye is having a dreadful influence.

disagree. joe ramirez said it best, after a discussion about the
physics and potential pitfalls of hawkeye: whether hawkeye is right or
wrong, it's right enough to eliminate the arguments. +1 for hawkeye.

>Apart from its mistakes there
>are too many dumb commentators who think it's infallible just because it
>puts up a graphic with a ball mark, as though that was the reality. It
>led Fred Stolle at this FO to claim that the umpire had got it wrong a
>couple of times, _after_ inspecting the actual marks, because Hawkeye
>disagreed.
>
>> Kasparov was deeply influenced by Fischer, and both were fierce
>> attacking players.
>>
>> And Karparov lost fair and square to Deep Blue...even he admits
>> it now!
>
>No, he doesn't. The computer cheated.
>http://www.smh.com.au/world/chess-master-garry-kasparov-still-a-sore-loser-two-decades-after-deep-blue-20170601-gwipie.html

bob

[Court_1]

On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 7:47:53 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:

> >If a player is up a set and 3-0 and loses, it's a choke. A player with a more solid mentality would have won that match. There's no way any player should lose when she is winning by that scoreline.
>
> i ask you to rethink this, it's ridiculous.
>
> in order for it to be a choke, the player in the lead must start to
> play worse, their game must begin to falter. the opponent raising
> their level doesn't indicate a choke.

You can ask all you want but it won't matter. At 6-4, 3-0 Halep reverted to her past usual bad body language and poor attitude on court and because of it started to play worse and her head wasn't clear. Her negative mentality didn't help her. It was a choke of the highest order despite the fact that Ostapenko also raised her level. Halep should have absolutely won that match with that type of scoreline. Somebody with a more solid mentality wouldn't have let it slip.

[*skriptis]

bob <b...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:

> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:29:30 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:33:58 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:31:46 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
>>> > On Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 11:24:26 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I finally got around to watching the match. I was surprised to see many people comment here that Halep choked. To be honest, I never felt that the match was on Halep's racquet at any point of time.
>>> >
>>> > You don't think Halep choked when she was up a set and 3-0? *confused*
>>> >
>>> Nope. Ostapenko made her shots when it mattered. The match was never on Halep's racquet as I said.
>>
>>If a player is up a set and 3-0 and loses, it's a choke. A player with a more solid mentality would have won that match. There's no way any player should lose when she is winning by that scoreline.
>
> i ask you to rethink this, it's ridiculous.
>
> in order for it to be a choke, the player in the lead must start to
> play worse, their game must begin to falter. the opponent raising
> their level doesn't indicate a choke.

Correct. Especially since Halep hasn't established herself as a
big match player.
Closing out the match successfully means you have that extra
ability to "raise your game" in a key moment.

Halep hasn't showed she has it throughout her career. Since when
is a lack of extra gear, a choke?

She played virtually the same, and combined with Ostapenko rising,
it was her undoing.

If she was beaten by Ostapenko completely in the third, I might
think she collapsed but it was competitive in the third again, so
she simply wasn't good enough.





--

[Court_1]

You know Bob, there is this thing called Google. Perhaps you should use it?

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/news/news/all/29297/10-Things-to-Know-About-Tennis-New-Bad-Girl---Jelena-Ostapenko/1/

[bob]

this says practically nothing.

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 05:00:59 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 11, 2017 at 7:47:53 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> >If a player is up a set and 3-0 and loses, it's a choke. A player with a more solid mentality would have won that match. There's no way any player should lose when she is winning by that scoreline.
>>
>> i ask you to rethink this, it's ridiculous.
>>
>> in order for it to be a choke, the player in the lead must start to
>> play worse, their game must begin to falter. the opponent raising
>> their level doesn't indicate a choke.
>
>You can ask all you want but it won't matter. At 6-4, 3-0 Halep reverted to her past usual bad body language and poor attitude on court and because of it started to play worse and her head wasn't clear.

? perhaps her "body language" was when she realized the opponent was
starting to play better and she knew she couldn't?

i admit she's not a tough competitor, but i have a hard time calling
yesterday's match a "choke." she was beaten by a better player who was
entirely in control of the match, win or lose.

> Her negative mentality didn't help her. It was a choke of the highest order despite the fact that Ostapenko also raised her level. Halep should have absolutely won that match with that type of scoreline. Somebody with a more solid mentality wouldn't have let it slip.

bob

[Pelle Svanslös]

Dorky link, thanks ... NOT! There's NOTHING there.

What else is the WTA good for than catfights. If you promise us one,
please deliver or STFU!

--
“Donald Trump is the weak man’s vision of a strong man.”
-- Charles Cooke

[Federer Fanatic]

Good post. Yes. I think the Latvian just started to groove a bit. Halep does not have a killer mentality normally. So
choke is a harsh assessment albeit a partial chock perhaps.

FF

[Garvin Yee]

It's been an awesome influence.

It has a supposedly less than 4mm uncertainty, but that's still
a hell of a lot better than relying on the slow human eye!

It's needed at the French, because umpires and players routinely
pick the wrong smear mark that the ball supposedly made.

It has greatly reduced arguments during games, because although
not perfect, it's the best system humans have at the moment, and it's
unbiased.

>
>> Kasparov was deeply influenced by Fischer, and both were fierce
>> attacking players.
>>
>> And Karparov lost fair and square to Deep Blue...even he admits
>> it now!
>
> No, he doesn't. The computer cheated.
> http://www.smh.com.au/world/chess-master-garry-kasparov-still-a-sore-loser-two-decades-after-deep-blue-20170601-gwipie.html
>

Bullshit. Even Garry admits he is a sore loser! He was beaten
fair and square....he just couldn't admit it at the time. Just think
about it: What human could have advised Deep Blue on a better move,
playing the current world champion? No one, and an average desktop
computer of today could beat Magnus Carlsen.

[jdeluise]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:45:44 -0700, Garvin Yee wrote:

> It's needed at the French, because umpires and players routinely
> pick the wrong smear mark that the ball supposedly made.

But you don't know if they did or not... you're only surmising that
because the machine that may not have seen where the ball landed
"surmised" it based on lab conditions.

[Garvin Yee]

Agreed.

Hawkeye's decision is only debatable if the ball just clips the
line by less than 4mm or so. But it's clear the umpires and linesmen
can miss even when the ball very clearly lands directly on the line,
or misses the line by an inch or more.

[*skriptis]

Garvin Yee <drsmi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Computers are racists.

--

[Patrick Kehoe]

:))))))))

They hate all humans?

P

[*skriptis]

Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

No, they become white supremacists.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/13/ai-programs-exh
ibit-racist-and-sexist-biases-research-reveals





--

[grif]

On 11/06/2017 16:45, Garvin Yee wrote:
> On 6/11/2017 3:46 AM, DavidW wrote:
>> On 11-Jun-17 8:17 PM, Garvin Yee wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2017 2:34 AM, DavidW wrote:
>>>> On 11-Jun-17 12:31 PM, Garvin Yee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tigran Pertrosian was a World Chess Champion, who played a
>>>>> mostly defensive style, which although it made him an extremely
>>>>> difficult man to beat, it caused most of his games to end with a
>>>>> draw, which put the chess world to sleep.
>>>>
>>>> You're generally a very annoying poster, particularly with your
>>>> obsession with the flawed and untrustworthy Hawkeye and your massive
>>>> over-use of exclamation marks, but you deserve credit for turning the
>>>> discussion to chess. Kasparov was not a defensive player and was robbed
>>>> v. Deep Blue.
>>>>
>>

>>> Kasparov was deeply influenced by Fischer, and both were fierce
>>> attacking players.
>>>
>>> And Karparov lost fair and square to Deep Blue...even he admits
>>> it now!
>>
>> No, he doesn't. The computer cheated.
>> http://www.smh.com.au/world/chess-master-garry-kasparov-still-a-sore-loser-two-decades-after-deep-blue-20170601-gwipie.html
>>
>
> Bullshit. Even Garry admits he is a sore loser! He was beaten
> fair and square....he just couldn't admit it at the time. Just think
> about it: What human could have advised Deep Blue on a better move,
> playing the current world champion? No one, and an average desktop computer of today could beat Magnus Carlsen.
>

Since there's apparently going to be a movie based on their famous match (http://en.chessbase.com/post/disney-to-produce-film-on-kasparov-vs-deep-blue-300913), I might keep an eye out for Kasparov's "Deep Thinking: Where Machine Intelligence Ends and Human Creativity Begins".
http://www.kasparov.com/dennis-hassabis-reviews-deep-thinking-april-26th-2017/

I liked the story of a new mysterious player called "Master" appearing out of nowhere and crushing the very best players in online games of Go (even more complex than chess!). This mysterious challenger turned out to be fucking AlphaGo, lol.
https://qz.com/993147/the-awful-frustration-of-a-teenage-go-champion-playing-googles-alphago/

[DavidW]

On 11-Jun-17 10:20 PM, bob wrote:
> this says practically nothing.

The incident with Broady in Auckland, which continues after the handshake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhiBazkhMU

Elena Vesnina on Ostapenko's speech after she lost the Miami final
(Ostapenko said she played badly and didn't mention her opponent):
https://twitter.com/EVesnina001/status/851139654762016769

And at Eastbourne last year she told her coach at an end-change "I just
don't give a shit about this tournament".
https://twitter.com/EustaceTarwater/status/744570814566174720

Most players would be dying to win their first tour title at any
tournament, but not Ostapenko and now she's gone straight to a slam for
her first one.

[bob]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 05:23:34 +1000, DavidW <n...@email.provided> wrote:

>On 11-Jun-17 10:20 PM, bob wrote:
>> this says practically nothing.
>
>The incident with Broady in Auckland, which continues after the handshake.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhiBazkhMU

broady should let the referee call the match and play the ball. IMO
her behavior is questionable, and it's possible the racket just
slipped.

>Elena Vesnina on Ostapenko's speech after she lost the Miami final
>(Ostapenko said she played badly and didn't mention her opponent):
>https://twitter.com/EVesnina001/status/851139654762016769

apparently she doesn't like to lose. that's good.

>And at Eastbourne last year she told her coach at an end-change "I just
>don't give a shit about this tournament".
>https://twitter.com/EustaceTarwater/status/744570814566174720

>Most players would be dying to win their first tour title at any
>tournament, but not Ostapenko and now she's gone straight to a slam for
>her first one.

got a bit of mcenroe in her.

bob

[DavidW]

On 12-Jun-17 6:00 AM, bob wrote:
>> And at Eastbourne last year she told her coach at an end-change "I just
>> don't give a shit about this tournament".
>> https://twitter.com/EustaceTarwater/status/744570814566174720
>
>> Most players would be dying to win their first tour title at any
>> tournament, but not Ostapenko and now she's gone straight to a slam for
>> her first one.
>
> got a bit of mcenroe in her.

Yeah, I like that one.

[calim...@gmx.de]

I don't like people like that.
I prefer Steffi types. Cool on court, warm-hearted off court.

Max

[bob]

and that's fine. but the WTA could use a little spice right now.

bob

[DavidW]

Steffi is a special case. I wouldn't have liked her to talk like that
either.

[Whisper]

Awesome. Hope she keeps this up & annoys Bouchard & Sharapova.

: )



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

[DavidW]

I don't mind Bouchard or Sharapova, but I agree it's awesome. I'm
looking forward to more of Ostapenko shaking things up.

[Whisper]

Aside from enjoying the theatre of it I'm also on her side. Pretty much
100% of the women on tour, especially the ones ranked outside say top
10, are very bitchy. They hate to see any young upstart fly past them so
you can imagine the conversations/backstabbing that goes on in the
locker room.

Good to see Ostapenko not putting up with any of that bullshit. Lesser
girls might succumb to the emotional bullying, so great that she can
stand up for herself & let them have it.

That girl in the 1st link is hilarious - she was actually crying the
umpire didn't default Ostapenko, & was pleading for it! This is great
fun. Hope to see more of it.

I can just see players like Bouchard being absolutely livid with
Ostapenko already established as a slam champ - wouldn't take much to
start a catty war there.

[SliceAndDice]

> The incident with Broady in Auckland, which continues after the handshake.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhiBazkhMU

To me, it is Broady who is clearly in the wrong here. It is for the ball kid to give his or her version of the events, and for the umpire to adjudicate on it. She has no business interfering, and comes across as self-serving, trying to get an easier win by getting her opponent disqualified.

>
> Elena Vesnina on Ostapenko's speech after she lost the Miami final
> (Ostapenko said she played badly and didn't mention her opponent):
> https://twitter.com/EVesnina001/status/851139654762016769

Yeah she could have been more gracious here. But probably bummed after playing a bad final. She's young, will learn.

[bob]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2017 18:09:58 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

me too!

bob