Sorry but this is not the Nadal of the old days
wkhedr
Ali Asoag
> Not even close!
Do you want to insult TT?
Vari L. Cinicke
> Not even close!
Which old days?
--
Cheers,
vc
wkhedr
I'm not used to see nadal losing long rallies or hitting backhands in
the bottom of the net.
TT
Well he isn't.
--
"Ave Rafa, morituri te salutant!"
Patrick Kehoe
++ :))))))))
Rafa looks strong and sure of himself again...
P
Sakari Lund
wrote:
>Not even close!
I thought Wawrinka was clearly the better player from the baseline in
the first set. His backhand is wonderful when he really goes for it.
He won his service games very easily, and Nadal had to work hard for
his, and was actually saved by his serve. Until Stan was serving at
4-5, and then Nadal broke. Stan didn't really believe in himself in
the 2nd set.
But I got the feeling from the matches that I saw in Monte Carlo that
even though Nadal won them with convincing scores, he didn't do
anything amazing, but his opponents made a lot of errors. I thought if
someone played really well, he could trouble Nadal. Now Stan played
really well and he did trouble Nadal. But the problem is he was still
a long from even winning a set...
But I agree, this is not 2008 Nadal.
TT
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:20:48 -0700 (PDT), wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not even close!
>
> I thought Wawrinka was clearly the better player from the baseline in
> the first set. His backhand is wonderful when he really goes for it.
> He won his service games very easily, and Nadal had to work hard for
> his, and was actually saved by his serve. Until Stan was serving at
> 4-5, and then Nadal broke.
Stan was also serving better. So how did he lose the 1st set?
>Stan didn't really believe in himself in
> the 2nd set.
>
> But I got the feeling from the matches that I saw in Monte Carlo that
> even though Nadal won them with convincing scores, he didn't do
> anything amazing, but his opponents made a lot of errors. I thought if
> someone played really well, he could trouble Nadal. Now Stan played
> really well and he did trouble Nadal.
Nadal is beatable. You just have to have really big weapons and play
perfect. Easy as that.
Some succeed to do that even 4 points in a row. :-P
> But the problem is he was still
> a long from even winning a set...
>
> But I agree, this is not 2008 Nadal.
I think it's pretty darn close. Nadal is playing very aggressive clay
tennis, just like in 2008 FO
Definitely better than 2009 version.
TT
>
> I think it's pretty darn close. Nadal is playing very aggressive clay
> tennis, just like in 2008 FO
>
> Definitely better than 2009 version.
>
Also served well today. Promises nice things for his Wimbledon defence.
RzR
"TT" <n...@email.org> wrote in message
news:ZNGCn.3040$if1....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
>
> Also served well today. Promises nice things for his Wimbledon defence.
>
lol...hes not the current champion, so he forfeited his title before the
tournament even began...what a chicken...
felangey
Heh heh....if only it worked like that, eh?
Sakari Lund
>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:20:48 -0700 (PDT), wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Not even close!
>>
>> I thought Wawrinka was clearly the better player from the baseline in
>> the first set. His backhand is wonderful when he really goes for it.
>> He won his service games very easily, and Nadal had to work hard for
>> his, and was actually saved by his serve. Until Stan was serving at
>> 4-5, and then Nadal broke.
>
>
>Stan was also serving better. So how did he lose the 1st set?
Nadal hung on until 4-5 (you can't deny Stan won his service games
much more easily until then), and then was ready when the important
moment came. That's what the great players can do.
>>Stan didn't really believe in himself in
>> the 2nd set.
>>
>> But I got the feeling from the matches that I saw in Monte Carlo that
>> even though Nadal won them with convincing scores, he didn't do
>> anything amazing, but his opponents made a lot of errors. I thought if
>> someone played really well, he could trouble Nadal. Now Stan played
>> really well and he did trouble Nadal.
>
>Nadal is beatable. You just have to have really big weapons and play
>perfect. Easy as that.
>
>Some succeed to do that even 4 points in a row. :-P
>
>> But the problem is he was still
>> a long from even winning a set...
>>
>> But I agree, this is not 2008 Nadal.
>
>I think it's pretty darn close. Nadal is playing very aggressive clay
>tennis, just like in 2008 FO
To me he isn't. That's just the difference. In 2008 I thought he
really dominated the points and made the winners. Now it has been more
playing solid and letting the opponent make the errors. Still
obviously more aggressive than 2005-2006, but less than 2008.
Sakari Lund
>TT wrote:
>>
>> I think it's pretty darn close. Nadal is playing very aggressive clay
>> tennis, just like in 2008 FO
>>
>> Definitely better than 2009 version.
>>
>
>Also served well today. Promises nice things for his Wimbledon defence.
I know, Kim also defended her 2005 USO in 2009. Succesfully, I might
add.
Joe Ramirez
> TT wrote:
> Promises nice things for his Wimbledon defence.
LOL -- and so a new tendentious meme is born. Net anthropologists will
be eager to observe whether it succeeds in colonizing new niches or,
like its spiritual predecessor "idefix," remains confined to a single,
unusually hospitable host.
Joe Ramirez
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:20:48 -0700 (PDT), wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Not even close!
>
> I thought Wawrinka was clearly the better player from the baseline in
> the first set. His backhand is wonderful when he really goes for it.
> He won his service games very easily, and Nadal had to work hard for
> his, and was actually saved by his serve. Until Stan was serving at
> 4-5, and then Nadal broke. Stan didn't really believe in himself in
> the 2nd set.
Wawrinka firing on all cylinders does possess a game to threaten
almost anyone. Unfortunately for him, he also possesses a ferocious
"find a way to lose" mentality that has limited him to two minor ATP
titles in his entire career.
TT
I've seen "Idefix" used in other forum too!
TT
...But I think it was Manco or somesuch...
TT
"I think that in the first set today I was in trouble for a long time,"
reflected Nadal. "He was doing his serve much better than I was and I
only won one point before 5-4 and for the whole game, my serve was hard.
The important thing was that I was very concentrated because he was
playing very well and perhaps better than me in the beginning. But from
the 5-4, I started to play it well.
"I don't think I played my best match tonight. I think that the level in
Monte-Carlo was unbelievable and the final I played unbelievably and
also in the semi-final too. I played well (today) but I was probably
playing better in Monte Carlo."
felangey
almost anyone. Unfortunately for him, he also possesses a ferocious
"find a way to lose" mentality that has limited him to two minor ATP
titles in his entire career.<
Aye...most noteably imo against Murray at Wimbledon. To be fair the crowd
were mental that night, in the first sweaty indoor match at
Wimbledon.....but Murray got a lucky escape.
TennisGuy
> > TT wrote:
> > Promises nice things for his Wimbledon defence.
>
> LOL -- and so a new tendentious meme is born. Net anthropologists will
> be eager to observe whether it succeeds in colonizing new niches or,
> like its spiritual predecessor "idefix," remains confined to a single,
> unusually hospitable host.
You need to dumb it down a bit Joe. I don't think TT understood a
word you said. :)
TT
That was kindergarten stuff compared to a poster called "Flasherly" at
movie discussion...
TT
One example:
"Uhm...that's most certainly not science fiction, but Departmental
Branch Refutability Studies;- Such that, for a quantifiable
observation of falsehoods, there then exists correlation, a
testability confidence level, within empirical means;- Logically,
assertion follows, a) 'All men are mortal' within such a corroborative
structure, b) 'Where there's right there's might': Prefixed at an
overlap upon Principle X(1), stated to be, that man begot of woman is
capable righteously to exist, for a Quality P, then further to connote
a selfsame right, (see Kant for ought designate), Q is ascribed for
testability, at an intersection of X(2), deductively for man-of-woman
inimitably bound by pragmatic linguistics [Choamsky];- In sum, and to
concur with X(1-2), that Q=P is within falsifiable manipulations
common to a validity shared by hypothesis, proposition, or theory.
What I suggest [you may better have meant by intent to say] is
precisely that to document belief, is to account disbelief within an
accepted selfsame means belief is a premise.
...Another example
It's not as much Polanski, but Pascal Bruckner and a conservative
strain loosely lumped and widely adaptable for Progressivism. Noir,
the gumshoe and a down-&-out underdog, simplistically cannot fit as
prominently into allusions for Socialist Liberalism, a direct
framework better to suspect Bruckner exerts to implicate, within a
tenor of Polanski's work, in championing Lunes de Fiel. Bruckner, a
French representative of intellectually reticent satire, can be
characterized by what commoner sorts, couch potatoes, might aspire to
when referring to Liberal Elitism;- et al., that we are invited to
view, inasmuch to partake of an exclusive membership privy to distant
and esoteric cruise parties, fetchingly beyond means withal we
employ;- that we, the voyeurs of such peep-showers, within some
certainty can be expected to exhibit, collectively for an appeal to be
aroused, and be turned within a baser fare elitism designs, for a
satisfactory transfer mechanism of all the right whores, our money
indirectly buys, in all the right positions attending to their
consequent debasement, having not actually bought anything, much less
a whore. Perhaps as much for a recurrent "morality tale" that's older
than time, itself, I suppose, at some significant temperance intended
to carry forward in a stylistically critical format;. . .howsoever
sincerely taken, provisionally justified that its constituents never
form to coagulate by absolutist terminology, such as Liberalism
conveys;- that, therein, is a certain necessary hypocrisy imperatively
embedded in Gauche Caviar, at its furthermost Inner Circle, as little
to doubt what other than can be intended, between a woman's bare
thighs when she squat upon a man's face, her hands in a triplicate
engaged to spread herself, first having him fitted to Don The Mask of
a Pig, among high society, before pissing upon a transcendent face
that, we the collective, should know all the more truer our baser
origins.
I suppose.
I don't think it's possible to flesh-out Grant and Coyote, a minor to
a dimension of Grant. Grant an omnibus to its delivery, hardly a
third-person omniscient point of view, for a dimension Grant contrasts
unaffectedly to convey, much as Coyote implies a vapid prop alongside
and conducive to institutional marriage his interests otherwise
belie. Once, Last Tango in Paris shockingly highlighted a mainstream
Brando, whereas here, although counterposed to Grant at some odds from
Scheider, Lunes de Fiel plays out less directly, diluted;- its added
devices apparent, it isn't intended a directly linear play. The
Pianist is another of late with sadomasochist shockvalue. Cinema
overall has reached a stage where it finds itself limited for directly
impacting shock-value to erotica. It's run a course into a wall and
need back down to fundamental drama if it's to develop a uniqueness to
the story and a supportive dialog for erotica within a identifiable
sense of universal appeal. Bruckner provides a story of a reminder of
danger inherent to needlessly flitting with excesses;- Variously
sordid to be after an oft' told tails and pieces, I suppose;- Although
a greatness Bruckner won't stay by fates for Thomas Hardy's Tess, best
that we warrant.
arnab.z@gmail
This is a lousy piece of writing. Don't insult Joe.
Joe Ramirez
Flasherly is famous for writing incomprehensible gibberish. There was
a thread about it just yesterday, in fact. I've compared his word
salads to the stream-of-rant lyrics by the Fall's Mark E. Smith, which
didn't make him too happy. :)
TT
I disagree. I've found that often he has rather interesting things to
say...you just have to bend your mind a bit to understand what he's
saying because of the presentation - which can be rather interesting
itself, or perhaps exhausting depending on your point of view or
capability to understand.
I've had some interesting discussions with the man, he does have nice
angles to matters discussed and despite the language he seems like a
fair guy, no ill intent, I see it as an exercise in writing instead
of...well...I haven't seen him saying to anyone that "Maybe you lack
understanding in English" - unlike some other showboats I've met at
Usenet, wink wink.
It appears that his level of communication goes way above most people's
heads. Not very good for communication, since most people, often myself
included, lack the patience to decipher the actual message behind the form.
But it's unusual and interesting way of writing, perhaps even educating
for a non native English speaker as myself.
TT
Ok, I'm not surprised for no comments. That's what Joe usually does when
he doesn't find a word. May I add, Flasherly truly pawned Joe in
discussion mentioned.
Superdave
too long
TT
Yeah. Joe always disappears when he's fucked in the arse. I guess he's
ashamed.
Joe Ramirez
Lately you've taken to whining a lot, and then replying to your own
posts, when you're disappointed in the lack of endless follow-up to
your nonsense. Hint: other people have lives apart from RST. I played
in a music festival today and visited family. If your only friends are
Q, W, E, R, T, and Y, I'm sorry.
> May I add, Flasherly truly pawned Joe in discussion mentioned.
Importing Flasherly's tripe into RST, and then trying to defend it as
something worthwhile, is just another symptom of your silly
contrarianism. Just gotta be on the dumb side of every issue, I
suppose. But don't expect me to debate anyone vicariously through you.
Ciao.
TT
Nah. I think you're just jealous to Flasherly.
greg...@hotmail.com
You're a bit of a wanker, aren't you?
TT
At least I don't have a problem with Flasherly only because he might be
smarter than I am.
TT
Nice to know that you're an asshole. Always wondered if you're just
stupid...unfortunately not.
felangey
"Jealous *of*" wee man. See what I mean about your English? Great....just
not worth bragging about yet.
TT
Jealous off, felangey.