Idiot of RST

[TT]

Some Ulysses quotes, years of being an obnoxious idiot:

-

Does it even matter what Murray's short-term or long-terms goals are?
He is never winning a slam

Besides Murray's mother and the desperate Brit press, who ever predicted
this guy would ever win a slam

Murray will never be #1 because he's almost 25 and has never won a slam.
He shows no signs of ever winning
one.

You're 21 and have watched Murray matches for 6 years. Why not leave
the historical perspective to people older and more well-versed in
tennis history?....
Alex, seriously... find another guy to root for because Murray ain't
evah payin' out...
In any case, can't you see that Nadal is never getting to 13 slams? If
he gets 11, it will be providence. But he sure as hell isn't getting
any more than that.

Muzz: Um... a big fat zero. Which ain't changing anytime soon (like never).

Murray 0, Nadal 11 (final slam tally)

But how can Murray beat Djoker in a slam? He just doesn't have the
game

I really believe Murray will never win a slam, but will give the candy
corn toothed psycho the benefit of the doubt. He may pick up an AO if
the rest of the field all gets food poisoning or the plague. If he
would face Olivier Rochus in the final, I give Murray a good chance at
a slam title.

And Murray is
never winning a slam, I don't care if Jesus Christs himself was his
coach.

Does it even matter what Murray's short-term or long-terms goals are?
He is never winning a slam unless the entire field is wiped out from
Legionaire's Disease, the plague or a massive natural disaster.


Once an clueless windbag, always a clueless windbag, as Pat Cash
eloquently proves yet again....
Oh.. and this nugget is best of all: "Murray will be number 1 within
the year with a grand slam under the belt."

and he's never come close to
achieving it. Nothing's going to change this fortnight or next year or
forever for Muzzette.

I don't see Murray winning a slam, never did and never will.

Winning Cincy or Indy is of no importance when he's never won the USO

Murray's never winning a slam and neither is beast-Berdych. Nole will
demolish Muzzette in straights on Sunday.

So in the coming
years I think Murray can get unbelievably easy draws since there's no
competition outside Djoker, Rafa and old Fed.

[felangey]

Productive morning? :)

[ahonkan]

On Sep 18, 3:08 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> Some Ulysses quotes, years of being an obnoxious idiot:

None of us has the time to quote your
thousands of posts, every single of
which qualifies as either sheer Fed-hate
or blind Rafa-love or insane attacks on
fellow posters. You have yet to display
any tennis intelligence in your posts,
simply because you have a fixed agenda.

Just remember that people living in glass
houses don't throw stones at others.

A majority of us were wrong about Murray
but are sensible enough to admit it. No
such luck of admitting mistakes in your
case, though.

[TT]

18.9.2012 14:51, ahonkan kirjoitti:
> On Sep 18, 3:08 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> Some Ulysses quotes, years of being an obnoxious idiot:
>
> None of us has the time to quote your
> thousands of posts, every single of
> which qualifies as either sheer Fed-hate
> or blind Rafa-love

Sort of like your "Rafa never had injuries, all of them were doping
bans" comments, eh?

> or insane attacks on
> fellow posters. You have yet to display
> any tennis intelligence in your posts,
> simply because you have a fixed agenda.

Yet I always maintained that Murray will win a slam. Looks like my
tennis analysis has been rather accurate.

Why on earth would you be defending ulysses, it is she who always
attacks my persona with non tennis related bs. You are defending a bully.

[felangey]

> Yet I always maintained that Murray will win a slam. Looks like my tennis
> analysis has been rather accurate.

I don't recall you saying that too often....but hey....even a blind man can
sometimes hit the back end of a bus with a banjo, eh? :)

[TT]

Guess so. What happened with your banjo at Hops' 2012 though? :-P

[drew]

On Sep 18, 8:42 am, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>
> Yet I always maintained that Murray will win a slam. Looks like my
> tennis analysis has been rather accurate.

Sure. And twice I told you to bet the farm on Murray in a final.
First time he lost to Roger
at the AO in straights and this time he won against Djoker at the USO.

That makes me a genius 50% of the time.

And this is just to illustrate THAT....if I were in the business of
selling advice I'd tell half
of my clients to back A and the other half to back B. Half of my
clients will be shaking my
hand and blowing me....the other half will call me an idiot.

So much for tennis 'analysis'.

[drew]

It's like having a drawer full of socks. Half white and half black.
You pull 3 and you're guaranteed
to win a matching pair. Pure genius.

[TT]

We're talking about different subject... winning a certain slam final vs
ever winning a slam.

[ahonkan]

On Sep 18, 6:29 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>
> We're talking about different subject... winning a certain slam final vs
> ever winning a slam.

This is pure woulda-coulda territory, but would
you have picked Murray ever again had he lost
the USO in 5 to Djoker after being 2 sets up?
I think that's what Uly was convinced about &
you'd have to agree that she was not far off :-)

[drew]

On Sep 18, 9:29 am, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> > So much for tennis 'analysis'.
>
> We're talking about different subject... winning a certain slam final vs
> ever winning a slam.

Sorry...and all this time I thought is was just heads vs. tails. :-)

[drew]

On Sep 18, 10:05 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:

>     This is pure woulda-coulda territory, but would
>     you have picked Murray ever again had he lost
>     the USO in 5 to Djoker after being 2 sets up?
>     I think that's what Uly was convinced about &
>     you'd have to agree that she was not far off :-)

This is why the great tennis analysis bullshit makes me laugh.
When a match goes 5 sets it usually can go either way and often the
win comes down to just a couple of points here or there. It can
change
the entire perception of a player....as it may have in Murray's
case.

Of course once you go up by two sets you've got another 3 tries to get
it right.

[Court_1]

On Sep 18, 10:05 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with you that it was easy to write Murray off since he had
choked in so many slams prior to this USO win, but for anybody who was
observant, you could see a steady increase in Murray's abilities
little by little since the AO this year. It was especially evident at
this year's Wimbledon and even more so at the Olympics where Murray
dispatched Djokovic and Federer easily to win the gold. That Olympic
win should have been the big clue for most people, not so much because
Murray won the gold but how he did it--i.e. by basically demolishing
Federer and making Federer look ordinary and old.

I was going to pick Murray to win the USO in Hops and I should have
gone with my brain and gut instinct instead of my heart with my
Federer pick.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Sep 18, 8:25 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It was especially evident at
> this year's Wimbledon and even more so at the Olympics where Murray
> dispatched Djokovic and Federer easily to win the gold. That Olympic
> win should have been the big clue for most people, not so much because
> Murray won the gold but how he did it--i.e. by basically demolishing
> Federer and making Federer look ordinary and old.

* Fed had already won the real gold, Wimbledon, a couple of weeks ago,
demolishing Murray there.
* Fed was hammered after the DelPo semifinal.
* Federer is not supposed to play extremely well in back to back
tournament at this stage of his career.

So, in hindsight, Murray's win doesn't look that impressive.

Besides, if Murray was really that good, he should have closed out
Djokovic in 3 or 4 sets in that USO final. Djokovic had big problems
in the first two sets with the wind. Once the wind died down, Djokovic
won 2 sets in a row and then lost the 5th because of exhaustion and
leg cramp.

Too many things went well for Murray.

[TennisGuy]

On Sep 18, 11:12 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Too many things went well for Murray.

Now *that* is a really strange sounding sentence! :)

[Ulysses]

Yet again TT proves the utter vacuous nature of his/her existence,
spending endless hours perusing old quotes of mine from RST. People
who have options in life actually live life (they have jobs, intimate
relationships, vacations, friends, etc.) and don't need to pour
through old posts from a total stranger. I suppose devades of enforced
isolation creates these compulsions.

But I guess ones options are limited when you're middle-aged,
unemployed, live in mama's basement and live vicariously through a
hobbled Spanish tennis star!

[TT]

18.9.2012 18:58, Ulysses kirjoitti:
> On Sep 18, 8:27 am, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 11:12 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Too many things went well for Murray.
>>
>> Now *that* is a really strange sounding sentence! :)
>
> Yet again TT proves the utter vacuous nature of his/her existence,
> spending endless hours perusing old quotes of mine from RST.

Hours? Try minutes... there's plenty of same nonsense where these quotes
came from, one doesn't need to dig deep. Such is the depth of your
hyperbole and stupidity.

> People
> who have options in life actually live life (they have jobs, intimate
> relationships, vacations, friends, etc.) and don't need to pour
> through old posts from a total stranger.

LOL!

Such irony coming from you...

How many posts like this have you written about me... countless. One
couldn't be more obsessed with a total stranger. All I need to do is
sneeze and there you go again with your rant, totally unrelated to
discussion at hand...
When it comes to work, relationships and age - We know you lie about
your work, post pics from 70's and don't have any relationships...who
could possibly stand your personality and lies? You're a bitter old hag,
reflected in every post of yours... last person in world anybody wants
to interact with. But hey, keep on that hyperbole, maybe someone at
internet will want to reply. lol

[CTS]

"You're a bitter old hag"

"You are defending a bully."

TT, two true statements
--------------------------------------
"you're middle-aged"

Ulysses, happy 51st!

[Sakari Lund]

So saying Murray will never win a slam is the dumbest thing ever said
in rst? Then you can count me in the same group. I have said it at
least as often as Ulysses. Although I consider it just a prediction
that turned out tp be wrong. I can easily think of hundreds of dumber
things said by Uly, me, you and everyone else.

[jdeluise]

On 18-Sep-2012, Sakari Lund <sakar...@welho.com> wrote:

> So saying Murray will never win a slam is the dumbest thing ever said
> in rst? Then you can count me in the same group. I have said it at
> least as often as Ulysses. Although I consider it just a prediction
> that turned out tp be wrong. I can easily think of hundreds of dumber
> things said by Uly, me, you and everyone else.

Yeah, I think the majority of rst felt that Murray would never win a slam...
including myself. However, Uly used extreme exaggeration to make that
point, as usual. So in that regard she probably does deserve a little extra
helping of egg on her face.

[Ulysses]

On Sep 18, 11:37 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is not extreme exaggeration to have called Muzzy a matted-hair
platypus. Here is eloquent proof:

http://thetennistimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/andy-murray-interview.jpg

When Muzzy cleaned up, shaved and had a nice haircut for the Wimbledon
final and the Olympics, I praised him:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Sport/Pix/pictures/2012/6/21/1340304750072/Andy-Murray-008.jpg

And it's rather bizarre to suggest I exaggerate when others here
proclaim with a straight face:

1. One Olympics equals 17 slams
2. Eight straight Monte Carlo's exceeds 1 Wimbledon win
3. Winning 5 straight Wimbledons is not as great as 5 DC's
4. YEC is a meaningless exo

All of those are beyond the realm of exaggeration, they veer off into
"serious pathology" territory.

Now all Muzzy has to do is fix his teeth, dump mum Judy from his box,
quit grabbing his appendages when losing, cease shouting obscenities
after every missed shot. never beat Roger again and cease all facial
grimaces:

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01074/snn2823murray280_1074231a.jpg

I trust Ivan will attend to all these foibles in 2013 and make them a
distant memory (except the reference to Rogi).

[TT]

Exactly. The manner and frequency are crucial here. Not to mention her
being similar with many other things. Frankly she's full of it.

I do think Sakari deserves an egg as well, although his manner might not
be so over the top. So Sakari, egg on your face with your analyst
prowess. :-P

[Sakari Lund]

Murray is a little slip, and very little as I was right about it for
long, and he still was lucky to win. The real, consistent, long-term
predictive abilities are shown in the following tables :-)

Most Points
302 Sakari Lund
281 Michal Jankowski
269 Hops
268 Laurent
256 Luke Tang
238 Whisper
232 bg
224 Jesper Lauridsen
215 ahonkan
211 Scott
211 Invisible

Most Points - ATP
178 Sakari Lund
173 Laurent
169 Michal Jankowski
164 Hops
152 Luke Tang
147 Scott
144 Jesper Lauridsen
143 bg
140 Whisper
139 ahonkan

Most Points - WTA
124 Sakari Lund
112 Michal Jankowski
105 Hops
104 Luke Tang
98 Whisper
95 Laurent
89 bg
80 Jesper Lauridsen
79 Invisible
78 Maria Miller

[ahonkan]

On Sep 18, 11:49 pm, Ulysses <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:

For a minute, I'll pretend to be TT & respond to you:

>
> And it's rather bizarre to suggest I exaggerate when others here
> proclaim with a straight face:
>
> 1. One Olympics equals 17 slams

Because it really is - Federer himself has said it so often!

> 2. Eight straight Monte Carlo's exceeds 1 Wimbledon win

Because it has never been done and will never be repeated.
Somebody wins Wimbledon every year.

> 3. Winning 5 straight Wimbledons is not as great as 5 DC's

Federer lucked out in a clown era. How many DC titles does
he have? 2 Wimbledon titles + 4 DCs > 7 Wimbledons and
you can take it to the bank.

> 4. YEC is a meaningless exo

Are we still arguing about it? If Rafa can't win it, it can't
be worth winning.

>
> All of those are beyond the realm of exaggeration, they veer off into
> "serious pathology" territory.

That's TT in a nutshell. (I am back to being myself)

[guyana]

Agree, bad teeth, body odor, ugly, like the Aussie, big and empty like his Country!

[TT]

18.9.2012 22:22, Sakari Lund kirjoitti:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:08:45 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>
>> 18.9.2012 21:37, jdeluise kirjoitti:
>>> On 18-Sep-2012, Sakari Lund <sakar...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So saying Murray will never win a slam is the dumbest thing ever said
>>>> in rst? Then you can count me in the same group. I have said it at
>>>> least as often as Ulysses. Although I consider it just a prediction
>>>> that turned out tp be wrong. I can easily think of hundreds of dumber
>>>> things said by Uly, me, you and everyone else.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I think the majority of rst felt that Murray would never win a slam...
>>> including myself. However, Uly used extreme exaggeration to make that
>>> point, as usual. So in that regard she probably does deserve a little extra
>>> helping of egg on her face.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. The manner and frequency are crucial here. Not to mention her
>> being similar with many other things. Frankly she's full of it.
>>
>> I do think Sakari deserves an egg as well, although his manner might not
>> be so over the top. So Sakari, egg on your face with your analyst
>> prowess. :-P
>
> Murray is a little slip, and very little as I was right about it for
> long, and he still was lucky to win.

I don't think he was "lucky", rather "overdue".

How about "Nadal will never win USO" then...

The real, consistent, long-term
> predictive abilities are shown in the following tables :-)
>

So you like to tell us. I'd rather look at averages than totals...

[Ulysses]

On Sep 18, 12:08 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> 18.9.2012 21:37, jdeluise kirjoitti:
>

Really? Said by the most prolific poster here by far and the only one
(that I know of) who has at least 6 other aliases. "Frequency" of
posts should be the last of your concerns (talk about projecting). You
recently registered with yet another phantom email address in order to
erase the evidence of 1,000+ posts a month for literally years here.
This is supposed to be a tennis group but your knowledge of tennis
(past or present) revolves solely around Nadal so you can't contribute
anything relevant about past champions or matches.

In fact your entire existence revolves around Nadal, someone you will
never meet or speak to. This type of obsessional, stalking behavior is
also evident by starting baiting threads about other posters because
you're so desperate for attention, just like Wile, Iceberg and your
many aliases. You are quite obviously never around other human beings,
thus don't realize how transparent and pathetic all this is. No one
with anything going on in their life posts threads about other
posters. They are here sporadically for a few minutes or more
regularly during slams or tournaments.

[TT]

18.9.2012 22:33, Ulysses kirjoitti:
> On Sep 18, 12:08 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> 18.9.2012 21:37, jdeluise kirjoitti:
>>
>>> On 18-Sep-2012, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> So saying Murray will never win a slam is the dumbest thing ever said
>>>> in rst? Then you can count me in the same group. I have said it at
>>>> least as often as Ulysses. Although I consider it just a prediction
>>>> that turned out tp be wrong. I can easily think of hundreds of dumber
>>>> things said by Uly, me, you and everyone else.
>>
>>> Yeah, I think the majority of rst felt that Murray would never win a slam...
>>> including myself. However, Uly used extreme exaggeration to make that
>>> point, as usual. So in that regard she probably does deserve a little extra
>>> helping of egg on her face.
>>
>> Exactly. The manner and frequency are crucial here. Not to mention her
>> being similar with many other things. Frankly she's full of it.
>>
>> I do think Sakari deserves an egg as well, although his manner might not
>> be so over the top. So Sakari, egg on your face with your analyst
>> prowess. :-P
>
> "The manner and frequency are crucial here."
>
> Really? Said by the most prolific poster here by far and the only one
> (that I know of) who has at least 6 other aliases.

And what does that have to do with your frequency and manner of claims
that Murray will never win a slam? Nothing. The connection is in your
illogical and twisted mind. Guess you just needed to rant and rave
again, to ease the pain...

lol

[Court_1]

On Sep 18, 11:12 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> * Fed had already won the real gold, Wimbledon, a couple of weeks ago,
> demolishing Murray there.

Federer did not demolish Murray at W. W went to four sets at least
whereas the Olympics was a straight set blow out. It was one of the
worst matches I have ever seen Federer play, akin to that FO final in
2008 against Nadal. It literally made me sick to my stomach to see
Federer lose the way he did to Murray at the Olympics and for me it is
worrisome.

> * Fed was hammered after the DelPo semifinal.

True.

> * Federer is not supposed to play extremely well in back to back
> tournament at this stage of his career.

And that is the problem with Federer in slams these days, he simply is
not consistent. He seems to be unbothered in best of three tournaments
at this stage.

> So, in hindsight, Murray's win doesn't look that impressive.

In hindsight or whatever sight you want to choose, Murray's win DID
look very impressive to me. He has improved his serve and his
forehand, not to mention his mentality.

> Besides, if Murray was really that good, he should have closed out
> Djokovic in 3 or 4 sets in that USO final. Djokovic had big problems
> in the first two sets with the wind. Once the wind died down, Djokovic
> won 2 sets in a row and then lost the 5th because of exhaustion and
> leg cramp.

Bullshit. Djokovic has been a shadow of his former self this whole
year, that is why it was much easier to predict that Murray could win
a slam. Also, who cares if Murray won the USO in five sets. Is there
some law that says a player has to win a slam in three or four? A win
is a win. Many matches in slam finals have gone five sets. Look at
Federer and Nadal's matches at Wimbledon, especially that 2008 match.
Should we throw out Nadal's win there because it was a very close
match and Nadal won in five?

In addition, too bad that Djokovic could not play in the wind. I was
not impressed at all with Djokovic and his attitude in that match
because of the wind. You can't play in the wind Djokovic? Too bad,
this is the big leagues and you have to play in many different
conditions. Federer and Nadal have shown that they can adjust to windy
conditions and so can Murray. Djokovic does not get a free pass here.

> Too many things went well for Murray.

We can say that about a lot of players in past slam matches, but that
is how it goes. A win is still a win, no matter what the
circumstances. Murray won fair and square. I like Murray. He seems
like a really laid back kind of guy who is not too concerned with all
of the bullshit stuff outside of tennis and being a "star." He appears
to be a no nonsense type of guy and I like that about him. I hope he
can win a few more slams and does not become a one-slam wonder.

[guyana]

Good post!

[Ali Asoag]

On 9/18/2012 6:42 AM, TT wrote:
> 18.9.2012 14:51, ahonkan kirjoitti:

>> On Sep 18, 3:08 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>> Some Ulysses quotes, years of being an obnoxious idiot:
>>

>> None of us has the time to quote your
>> thousands of posts, every single of
>> which qualifies as either sheer Fed-hate
>> or blind Rafa-love
>
> Sort of like your "Rafa never had injuries, all of them were doping
> bans" comments, eh?
>
>> or insane attacks on
>> fellow posters. You have yet to display
>> any tennis intelligence in your posts,
>> simply because you have a fixed agenda.

>
> Yet I always maintained that Murray will win a slam. Looks like my
> tennis analysis has been rather accurate.

The only "analyst" here on RST is Whisper. Don't compete with him. You
see how good he is!

LOL

[Dave Hazelwood]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 21:51:56 -0600, Ali Asoag <ali.a...@arcor.de>
wrote:

>The only "analyst" here on RST is Whisper. Don't compete with him. You
>see how good he is!
>
>LOL

English translation ...

The only "anal myst" here on RST is Whisper. Don't contact with him.
You see how bad he smells!

LOL

[Whisper]

Actually I would, mainly because he has the Olympic Gold behind him via
a straight set thrashing of Federer at Wimbledon. If he didn't have
that then I'd have big doubts.

[Whisper]

Played a doubles match yesterday & we won 1st 2 sets 62 60, then lost
the 3rd 1-6 & went down 0-5 in 4th. Saved a couple set points at 2-5, 1
with a sting fh winner dtl, & took lead 6-5 before winning t/b 7-4.
Talk about a fluctuating match - 62 60 16 76.

Perfect conditions in 1st 2 sets & made everything. Then the wind got
up, got a little complacent, opponents cranked it up etc. Funny game
tennis - there's always time to come back & almost anything can happen.

[Whisper]

Not me. I picked him to win 5 slams many yrs ago.

[Whisper]

Titles won is the most critical stat.

[Whisper]

On 19/09/2012 5:26 AM, guyana wrote:
> Agree, bad teeth, body odor, ugly, like the Aussie, big and empty like his Country!
>

You still crying? Harden up princess.

[Whisper]

On 19/09/2012 8:58 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>
>> Too many things went well for Murray.
>
> We can say that about a lot of players in past slam matches, but that
> is how it goes. A win is still a win, no matter what the
> circumstances. Murray won fair and square. I like Murray. He seems
> like a really laid back kind of guy who is not too concerned with all
> of the bullshit stuff outside of tennis and being a "star." He appears
> to be a no nonsense type of guy and I like that about him. I hope he
> can win a few more slams and does not become a one-slam wonder.
>

Murray has also been unlucky in not getting a patsy in any of his slam
finals, like Fed, Rafa & Djoker got.

[bob]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:08:36 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>Some Ulysses quotes, years of being an obnoxious idiot:

she's proven way wrong on murray, and i called her out on it a few
times already. but *only murray* you quote? surely there's much much
more? enquiring minds want to know! :-)

bob

[bob]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:52:17 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

the thing that makes it relatively easier to recover from a tennis
deficit is the fact that the score resets after each set, opposed to
everything else that is a running tally. IMO...

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:25:06 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sep 18, 10:05 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Sep 18, 6:29 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > We're talking about different subject... winning a certain slam final vs
>> > ever winning a slam.
>>

>>     This is pure woulda-coulda territory, but would
>>     you have picked Murray ever again had he lost
>>     the USO in 5 to Djoker after being 2 sets up?
>>     I think that's what Uly was convinced about &
>>     you'd have to agree that she was not far off :-)
>

>I was going to pick Murray to win the USO in Hops and I should have
>gone with my brain and gut instinct instead of my heart with my
>Federer pick.

lol.

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:12:09 -0700 (PDT), "arnab.z@gmail"
<arnab....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 18, 8:25�pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It was especially evident at
>> this year's Wimbledon and even more so at the Olympics where Murray
>> dispatched Djokovic and Federer easily to win the gold. That Olympic
>> win should have been the big clue for most people, not so much because
>> Murray won the gold but how he did it--i.e. by basically demolishing
>> Federer and making Federer look ordinary and old.

>
>* Fed had already won the real gold, Wimbledon, a couple of weeks ago,
>demolishing Murray there.

>* Fed was hammered after the DelPo semifinal.

>* Federer is not supposed to play extremely well in back to back
>tournament at this stage of his career.

>So, in hindsight, Murray's win doesn't look that impressive.

>Besides, if Murray was really that good, he should have closed out
>Djokovic in 3 or 4 sets in that USO final. Djokovic had big problems
>in the first two sets with the wind. Once the wind died down, Djokovic
>won 2 sets in a row and then lost the 5th because of exhaustion and
>leg cramp.

>Too many things went well for Murray.

murray's OG and 1st slam will lift all the pressure. anxious to see if
he now goes on a roll of confidence or takes a breather.

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:58:02 -0700 (PDT), Ulysses <uly...@mscomm.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 18, 8:27 am, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 11:12 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> > Too many things went well for Murray.
>>

>>  Now *that* is a really strange sounding sentence!   :)
>
>Yet again TT proves the utter vacuous nature of his/her existence,
>spending endless hours perusing old quotes of mine from RST.

but when mikko drags up somethign i said in 2002 that's ok?

> People
>who have options in life actually live life (they have jobs, intimate
>relationships, vacations, friends, etc.) and don't need to pour
>through old posts from a total stranger. I suppose devades of enforced
>isolation creates these compulsions.
>But I guess ones options are limited when you're middle-aged,
>unemployed, live in mama's basement and live vicariously through a
>hobbled Spanish tennis star!

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:54:29 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>18.9.2012 18:58, Ulysses kirjoitti:
>> On Sep 18, 8:27 am, TennisGuy <Jeffery21...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 18, 11:12 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Too many things went well for Murray.
>>>
>>> Now *that* is a really strange sounding sentence! :)
>>
>> Yet again TT proves the utter vacuous nature of his/her existence,
>> spending endless hours perusing old quotes of mine from RST.
>

>Hours? Try minutes... there's plenty of same nonsense where these quotes
>came from, one doesn't need to dig deep. Such is the depth of your
>hyperbole and stupidity.

>
>> People
>> who have options in life actually live life (they have jobs, intimate
>> relationships, vacations, friends, etc.) and don't need to pour
>> through old posts from a total stranger.
>

>LOL!
>
>Such irony coming from you...
>
>How many posts like this have you written about me... countless. One
>couldn't be more obsessed with a total stranger. All I need to do is
>sneeze and there you go again with your rant, totally unrelated to
>discussion at hand...
>When it comes to work, relationships and age - We know you lie about
>your work, post pics from 70's

totally unfair! those slacks were early 80s...

> and don't have any relationships...who
>could possibly stand your personality and lies? You're a bitter old hag,
>reflected in every post of yours... last person in world anybody wants
>to interact with. But hey, keep on that hyperbole, maybe someone at
>internet will want to reply. lol

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:18:51 -0700 (PDT), Ulysses <uly...@mscomm.com>
wrote:

>Here's the bottom line: TT needs to get a life and desperately so. He
>is pissed that demolishing him on RST is literally like shooting fish
>in a barrel. He ineptly baits people, hurls invective every which way
>and most of all.. HAS NO HUMOR. Thus he loses. It's impossible to best
>another person when you are a
>humorless non-entity: no job, no intimacy, no relationship, no
>existence, no ability to banter. And why bother "besting" a stranger?
>Who cares? Who spends one minute ruminating about a faceless entity? I
>invariably ignore faceless bottom feeders, but I can't help responding
>to someone of this ilk.
>
>He/she is humorless, pretends to live in Finland when I strongly
>presume they live in New Jersey... thus is a clueless, humorless,
>inert and spectularly inept empty suit. And it kills TT that I call
>him out every time and call a spade a spade: a loser in all areas of
>life. The truth always inflicts a deft blow.
>
>He/she doesn't have the cognitive ability to legitimately have a
>battle of wits with someone who is educated, reasonably well-
>socialized and doesn't present a ridicuously false front on the
>Internet. And he/she
>too stupid to realize that starting threads attacking another person
>merely illuminates this point. Again... he/she is too ignorant, too
>inexperienced in life and too unsuccessful to make the deduction any 7
>year old could make.
>
>He/she spent all summer naively believing his masturbatory God, Rafa,
>would return in Toronto, Cincy, Winston-Salem (this one is beyond
>hilarious!) and the USO...then DC, the Asian swing... blah, blah,
>blah.
>
>Get a life. Erasing your posting history again merely illuminates RST
>is your sole reason for existence and and blatantly advertises it to
>every regular poster. If you were remotely experienced in life, you'd
>innately grasp this fact. The operative word is "if."

this post rivals felangey's rant after the FO.

bob

[bob]

i'm guessing saks is on that 20yr career...

bob

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Sep 19, 4:58 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 11:12 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > * Fed had already won the real gold, Wimbledon, a couple of weeks ago,
> > demolishing Murray there.
>
> Federer did not demolish Murray at W. W went to four sets at least
> whereas the Olympics was a straight set blow out. It was one of the
> worst matches I have ever seen Federer play, akin to that FO final in
> 2008 against Nadal. It literally made me sick to my stomach to see
> Federer lose the way he did to Murray at the Olympics and for me it is
> worrisome.
>

Oh please. 2008 Fed had mono and was playing peak Nadal on his worst
surface. How does this compare to 31 year old exhausted Fed in a
tournament that has little legacy value against a zero-slam winner.
How can you even compare the two and make similar conculsions?

> > * Fed was hammered after the DelPo semifinal.
>
> True.
>
> > * Federer is not supposed to play extremely well in back to back
> > tournament at this stage of his career.
>
> And that is the problem with Federer in slams these days, he simply is
> not consistent. He seems to be unbothered in best of three tournaments
> at this stage.
>

You seem surprised? Hello ! He's 31.

> > So, in hindsight, Murray's win doesn't look that impressive.
>
> In hindsight or whatever sight you want to choose,

In hindsight, of course. You look at things more objectively that way.

> Murray's win DID
> look very impressive to me. He has improved his serve and his
> forehand, not to mention his mentality.

Murray has been serving well for years now. And his forehand has also
been good for a long time. That had nothing to do with the Olympic
win. Murray was at the right place at the right time. Fed was less
hungry because he already won the big one (Wimbledon), too nervous for
the gold, too tired from the semi. Murray was quite lucky there.

> > Besides, if Murray was really that good, he should have closed out
> > Djokovic in 3 or 4 sets in that USO final. Djokovic had big problems
> > in the first two sets with the wind. Once the wind died down, Djokovic
> > won 2 sets in a row and then lost the 5th because of exhaustion and
> > leg cramp.
>
> Bullshit. Djokovic has been a shadow of his former self this whole
> year, that is why it was much easier to predict that Murray could win
> a slam.

Murray could win a slam, yes. Muray did win a slam. But in hindsight,
it wasn't impressive and too many things had to fall in place for it
to happen.

> Also, who cares if Murray won the USO in five sets.

Oh no, not the "who cares" refrain again. What are you, a thirteen
year old teenager?

If you win a slam final in five after winning the first two sets, it
means you choked in the third and. DUH !

> Is there
> some law that says a player has to win a slam in three or four?

That is not the issue. You are making it sound like Murray was a heavy
favorite in your mind for this USO and that you were not surprised to
see him win it. You are justifying your preference based on a single
win by Murray against a tired Fed in the Olympics. I am sorry but that
doesn't hold up to the nuances of reality. It sounds too
supernatural.

> A win
> is a win. Many matches in slam finals have gone five sets. Look at
> Federer and Nadal's matches at Wimbledon, especially that 2008 match.
> Should we throw out Nadal's win there because it was a very close
> match and Nadal won in five?

Who is "throwing out" Murray or Nadal's wins? All I am saying is that
Murray's win was not as gloriously one-sided as you are making out to
be. Your posts suggests as if Murray was an almost lock against
Djokovic in the USO final, as if one win in the Olympics against a
fatigued Fed opened the floodgates for mighty Murray. These are all
exaggerations. The reality is more nuanced. And no, "who cares" is not
a good argument and "a win is a win" is not what we are discussing
here.

[Court_1]

On Sep 19, 5:20 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh please. 2008 Fed had mono and was playing peak Nadal on his worst
> surface.

On who's worst surface? Grass is neither Federer or Nadal's worst
surface. Fed's worst surface is clay and Nadal's is HC.

> Murray has been serving well for years now. And his forehand has also
> been good for a long time.

No he has not. He has one of the weakest second serves in the men's
game and he has only recently improved his first serve. Same goes with
his forehand--that shot was always the easiest to breakdown for his
opponents. He has improved it greatly over the past year. Do you
actually watch tennis?

> That had nothing to do with the Olympic
> win. Murray was at the right place at the right time. Fed was less
> hungry because he already won the big one (Wimbledon), too nervous for the gold, too tired from the semi. Murray was quite lucky there.

LOL, how many more excuses are you going to come up with for Federer
at the Olympics? You sound like TT making excuses for Nadal. Federer
was too nervous for the gold? But I thought you said that Federer did
not care about winning the gold because it was not a priority for him?
Which is it, it can't be both. Federer was talking about winning the
OG for years and he has won 17 slams, you want me to believe he was
too nervous to compete in the Olympics? LOL!

I realize that Federer is 31 and he was no doubt tired out from the
Del Potro match, but stop making excuses for him, he lost that Olympic
match against Murray BADLY and it was an embarrassing performance. It
is what it is, don't try and sugarcoat it. Murray mauled him.

> Murray could win a slam, yes. Muray did win a slam. But in hindsight,
> it wasn't impressive and too many things had to fall in place for it
> to happen.

But things have to fall into place for every slam winner, every year.
What a dumb comment!

> Oh no, not the "who cares" refrain again. What are you, a thirteen
> year old teenager?

But it is the truth, who cares how many sets it took Murray to win the
slam? Nobody cares about that at all. He won a slam, end of story.

> That is not the issue. You are making it sound like Murray was a heavy
> favorite in your mind for this USO and that you were not surprised to
> see him win it.

That is because I was not surprised at all to see him win it. Look at
Scott's poll prior to the USO final asking who everybody thought would
win and would like to win. I answered Murray for both and was one of
the only poster's who did so. Most people picked Djokovic for both
including you if I recall correctly. The problem with many posters
here is that they are so obsessed with their favorite players, they
can't predict things objectively. If anybody had cared to look
objectively, it was easy to ascertain that after Murray's Olympic
performance he was a favorite for the USO. In Hops I picked Federer to
win only for sentimental reasons, in my mind I had a hunch Murray
would win and I should have gone with my gut instinct. In the future I
will always go with my head not my heart.

> You are justifying your preference based on a single
> win by Murray against a tired Fed in the Olympics. I am sorry but that
> doesn't hold up to the nuances of reality. It sounds too
> supernatural.

No, I am not justifying my pick on a single win. It was clear from the
AO this year and then W and the Olympics that Murray was the man to
beat. Wake up ffs.

> Your posts suggests as if Murray was an almost lock against
> Djokovic in the USO final, as if one win in the Olympics against a
> fatigued Fed opened the floodgates for mighty Murray. These are all
> exaggerations. The reality is more nuanced. And no, "who cares" is not
> a good argument and "a win is a win" is not what we are discussing
> here.

I did not think Murray was a lock against Djokovic but if you look at
their h2h it is almost even and I thought Murray would win that match
and posted so many times before the final. Yes, I did think that
Murray thrashing Federer at the Olympics opened up the floodgates for
him to win a slam. I don't know how any person could see that match
and think otherwise. And based on the OG and USO win, if Murray and
Federer were to meet tomorrow on HC or grass I would give Murray a 60%
chance of winning now that he has the momentum in his favor.

[arnab.z@gmail]

I can't argue with a woman in love.

[TT]

> LOL!
>

There is a psychology term for the above, it's called "projection".
Maybe you should post above for nth time to show us how little you care.

Your life must suck big time.

[TT]

She's totally paranoid. Must be her admitted drug habit.

Greeting from New Jersey,
TT

[bob]

are you a "jersey girl" TT?

bob

[bob]

same here for wimbledon. i thought fed would win it or at least make
finals and i picked djok/nadal thinking (and said so before wimbledon)
that i had a feeling 1 would get upset early.

[bob]

this woman in love makes more solid and rational arguments than you.

bob

[arnab.z@gmail]

Says who?

[Court_1]

Anybody with a brain who is not entrenched too far up his/her favorite
player's ass. You don't have any valid arguments, all you do is try
and criticize a poster's arguments or opinions that you don't agree
with but you don't come up with any valid counter-arguments yourself
that make much sense. JMO.

[Whisper]

On 19/09/2012 11:15 PM, bob wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 02:51:03 -0700 (PDT), Court_1

>> In Hops I picked Federer to
>> win only for sentimental reasons, in my mind I had a hunch Murray
>> would win and I should have gone with my gut instinct. In the future I
>> will always go with my head not my heart.
>
>
> same here for wimbledon. i thought fed would win it or at least make
> finals and i picked djok/nadal thinking (and said so before wimbledon)
> that i had a feeling 1 would get upset early.
>
>

I had food poisoning during Wimbledon which impaired my judgment,
resulting in 0 points in Hops. Pity as I won the other 3 slams this yr.

[Court_1]

LOL, good one.

No joking around about food poisoning though. I have had it a couple
of times and one time I thought I was going to die, it was awful. I
was out of town in California of all places in a hotel. I was marooned
in there for two straight days and had to miss my flight home and
reschedule. There was no way I could get on a plane and it took me
about a month to get back to normal after that really bad case of food
poisoning. I would not wish that on anybody.

[phamqu...@optusnet.com.au]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 7:51:03 PM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sep 19, 5:20 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oh please. 2008 Fed had mono and was playing peak Nadal on his worst
>
> > surface.
>
>
>
> On who's worst surface? Grass is neither Federer or Nadal's worst
>
> surface. Fed's worst surface is clay and Nadal's is HC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Murray has been serving well for years now. And his forehand has also
>
> > been good for a long time.
>
>
>
> No he has not. He has one of the weakest second serves in the men's
>
> game and he has only recently improved his first serve. Same goes with
>
> his forehand--that shot was always the easiest to breakdown for his
>
> opponents. He has improved it greatly over the past year. Do you
>
> actually watch tennis?
>
>
>
> > That had nothing to do with the Olympic
>
> > win. Murray was at the right place at the right time. Fed was less
>
> > hungry because he already won the big one (Wimbledon), too nervous for the gold, too tired from the semi. Murray was quite lucky there.
>
>
>
> LOL, how many more excuses are you going to come up with for Federer
>
> at the Olympics? You sound like TT making excuses for Nadal. Federer
>
> was too nervous for the gold? But I thought you said that Federer did
>
> not care about winning the gold because it was not a priority for him?
>
> Which is it, it can't be both. Federer was talking about winning the
>
> OG for years and he has won 17 slams, you want me to believe he was
>
> too nervous to compete in the Olympics? LOL!
>
>
>
> I realize that Federer is 31 and he was no doubt tired out from the
>

> Del Potro match, but stop making excuses for him, ...

Right after making two excuses for him, she tells people not to make excuses for him... :)

> he lost that Olympic
>
> match against Murray BADLY and it was an embarrassing performance. It
>
> is what it is, don't try and sugarcoat it. Murray mauled him.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Murray could win a slam, yes. Muray did win a slam. But in hindsight,
>
> > it wasn't impressive and too many things had to fall in place for it
>
> > to happen.
>
>
>
> But things have to fall into place for every slam winner, every year.
>
> What a dumb comment!
>
>

Obviously among the things that fell into place was the fact that none of the top three were at their best. That's not a dumb comment. But it would be dumb to not see it.

[Court_1]

On Sep 19, 10:23 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:


> Obviously among the things that fell into place was the fact that none of the top three were at their best. That's not a dumb comment. But it would be dumb to not see it.

Of course, things have to fall into place for every slam winner in
every match. It is not just about talent and skill level of a player.
My point is more that Murray appeared to me to be in a good spot to
win the USO after his Wimbledon and Olympic performances. He clearly
looked to me like he was the most in form player going into the USO. I
think even if Murray had met Federer at the USO Murray would still
likely have won. I think he probably would have defeated Nadal there
too. It just seemed like it was his time and he was peaking for it.

[Whisper]

Wow never heard of it that bad. Couple days at most for me.

[arnab.z@gmail]

And who would that favorite player be? I have no emotional attachment
for Murray. All I can see is that you are too far up your own ass to
consider any contrary opinion. And you often respond with
exaggerations, insults, rants and other posturing that makes you look
like a troll and makes having a decent, normal, calm discussion an
impossibility. It is I who have been very patient in all this and
given you the attention you don't deserve.

> You don't have any valid arguments,

Really? Who decided that? You?

> all you do is try
> and criticize a poster's arguments or opinions that you don't agree
> with

LOL. What am I supposed to do then if I don't agree with a poster's
arguments or opinions? This group is all about debating, disagreeing,
agreeing, discussing about things related to tennis. Are you accusing
me of doing something that everybody else does? What's wrong with you?

> but you don't come up with any valid counter-arguments yourself
> that make much sense.

Oh please. Saying it doesn't make it so. You can shout it from the
rooftop with the most powerful megaphone in the world, nobody would
care. This is not a shouting contest.

> JMO.

Rant rant rant. The moment you have a dimwit like bob cheering you on,
it's evident that you have lost. :)

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Sep 20, 10:00 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 10:23 pm, phamquangt...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> He clearly
> looked to me like he was the most in form player going into the USO.

Oh yeah? How was Murray's performance in the HC tune-ups leading up to
the USO ? Toronto and Cincy masters in particular?

> I
> think even if Murray had met Federer at the USO Murray would still
> likely have won. I think he probably would have defeated Nadal there
> too. It just seemed like it was his time and he was peaking for it.

What a hoot. Can I also have a set of those tennis tarrot cards
please?

[Court_1]

On Sep 20, 5:56 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:


> And who would that favorite player be? I have no emotional attachment
> for Murray. All I can see is that you are too far up your own ass to
> consider any contrary opinion. And you often respond with
> exaggerations, insults, rants and other posturing that makes you look
> like a troll and makes having a decent, normal, calm discussion an
> impossibility. It is I who have been very patient in all this and
> given you the attention you don't deserve.

Oh please, spare me with your BS! Calm and normal discussion? You
were the one who started up with me when I said I thought Murray was a
better player than your loverboy Berdych. I don't give a flying fig if
you respond to me or not. All I can tell you is you are a terrible
debater. You don't debate an issue you argue about whether or not a
person likes the players you like and question them when they don't,
that is not a debate.

> Really? Who decided that? You?

Yes of course "I" decided that. Who else would I answer to if not
myself?

> LOL. What am I supposed to do then if I don't agree with a poster's
> arguments or opinions? This group is all about debating, disagreeing,
> agreeing, discussing about things related to tennis. Are you accusing
> me of doing something that everybody else does? What's wrong with you?

Well then why are you bothering me for stating my opinions on a tennis
group? This is a place where various opinions are put forth and we are
not supposed to all agree with each other so take your own advice and
realize that fact instead of being critical if a person does not agree
with you about your favorite players.

> Oh please. Saying it doesn't make it so. You can shout it from the
> rooftop with the most powerful megaphone in the world, nobody would
> care. This is not a shouting contest.

I care and that is all that matters to me.

> Rant rant rant. The moment you have a dimwit like bob cheering you on,
> it's evident that you have lost. :)

I don't agree with a lot of things that Bob has to say, but he is not
often critical of other posters when they disagree with him and attack
them based on their differing opinions unlike yourself, he is pretty
patient. In any case, this is all played out, if you don't want to
hear or see what I have to say on various things, don't read my posts
and don't directly respond to my posts, it is very simple right? I am
sure we can agree on at least that. ;) Why don't you use your kill
file like baby felangey if somebody has a negative thing to say about
Federer, lol!

[bob]

lol. and the moment you respond in this way it's evident she's under
your skin. she's simply out-debating you, friend.

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:49:34 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

i figured it was mono. i've been to SF many times now and ready for
breakthrough.

bob

[bob]

if you watched any tennis since january you would've drawn the same
conclusion.

bob

[Court_1]

On Sep 20, 6:25 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 10:00 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> > He clearly
> > looked to me like he was the most in form player going into the USO.
>
> Oh yeah? How was Murray's performance in the HC tune-ups leading up to
> the USO ? Toronto and Cincy masters in particular?

Tune-ups mean zilch or very little once a player has won a lot of
them. Murray tanked in Toronto. I judged his USO potential based on
his Wimbledon and Olympic performances and to me it looked like he
improved a lot in the past year starting at the AO. Not my fault if
you are not as observant as I am! ;)

> > I
> > think even if Murray had met Federer at the USO Murray would still
> > likely have won. I think he probably would have defeated Nadal there
> > too. It just seemed like it was his time and he was peaking for it.

> What a hoot. Can I also have a set of those tennis tarrot cards
> please?

Ok smarty pants, let's see how we both do at predicting the winner at
the AO when it comes around. You were clearly wrong about who was
going to win the USO and basically said Murray had zero chance and
laughed it off. You thought Djokovic was going to win, I did not.

[arnab.z@gmail]

She's out-ranting me, yes. Very persistent. I have seen worse.

[arnab.z@gmail]

See this is where we disagree. Strike that. This is where I believe
your analysis skills are severely lacking. Your results in january is
not a reliable indicator of what will happen to you in september.

[arnab.z@gmail]

On Sep 20, 4:47 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 6:25 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 20, 10:00 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > He clearly
> > > looked to me like he was the most in form player going into the USO.
>
> > Oh yeah? How was Murray's performance in the HC tune-ups leading up to
> > the USO ? Toronto and Cincy masters in particular?
>
> Tune-ups mean zilch or very little once a player has won a lot of
> them.

Is this the gospel truth? So Fed and Djok should have skipped all
those "tune-ups" if they wanted to thrash Murray? Interesting theory.

> Murray tanked in Toronto. I judged his USO potential based on
> his Wimbledon and Olympic performances

Except Murray was third-favorite behind Fed and Djok to win the USO by
the majority of people.

> and to me it looked like he
> improved a lot in the past year starting at the AO. Not my fault if
> you are not as observant as I am! ;)

? Of course, Murray has improved. He is getting better incrementally.
But did he improve enough to beat the triumvurate in a slam? No IMO.
Rafa defaulted, Fed was incosistent, Djok's level dropped and then the
wind, boy did the stars line up for Murray or what?

> > > I
> > > think even if Murray had met Federer at the USO Murray would still
> > > likely have won. I think he probably would have defeated Nadal there
> > > too. It just seemed like it was his time and he was peaking for it.
> > What a hoot. Can I also have a set of those tennis tarrot cards
> > please?
>
> Ok smarty pants, let's see how we both do at predicting the winner at
> the AO when it comes around.

I am sorry. I don't play the prediction game. In fact, that is my beef
with you in this thread. You are taking credit for your "prediction
skills" based on your "feelings". You are a quack.

> You were clearly wrong about who was
> going to win the USO

So what? Yes I picked Djokovic over Murray in the final. That was the
only "prediction" thread I participated in on the eve of the final.
And really, how can I be "wrong" about it? It's not some conclusion
based on some elaborate calculation and proposed with a certain
statistical certainty? It was a goofy prediction thread. Yes, you were
"right". Do you want an old tournament pamphlet for it? LOL.

> and basically said Murray had zero chance and
> laughed it off.

What elaborate nonsense ! Now you are inventing stuff out of thing
air. I said nothing about Murray's chance being zero or some other
number. I didn't "laugh it off". Again with the exaggeration. You
can't help it, can you? It's tough to hold back, isn't it?

> You thought Djokovic was going to win, I did not.

So what? Are you suggesting that you knew it was going to be windy in
the first two sets of the final and that it would favor Murray? What
next?

[bob]

not necessarily, as injury can always happen. but murray was in a
situation that if you could see or realize it, would've led to the
conclusion that he was peaking despite a minor dip in early lendl
results, that if followed through, would lead to a very legit attempt
at slams. look just as 1 example at murray's 2nd serve. night/day from
2 yrs ago. look at his mentality. night/dusk (which is a lot for him)
from 2 yrs ago. if you watched you'd have seen it. but all you look at
is fed.

bob

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 19, 9:49 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> On 19/09/2012 11:15 PM, bob wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 02:51:03 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> >> In Hops I picked Federer to
> >> win only for sentimental reasons, in my mind I had a hunch Murray
> >> would win and I should have gone with my gut instinct. In the future I
> >> will always go with my head not my heart.
>
> > same here for wimbledon. i thought fed would win it or at least make
> > finals and i picked djok/nadal thinking (and said so before wimbledon)
> > that i had a feeling 1 would get upset early.
>
> I had food poisoning during Wimbledon

From eating your words?

[Court_1]

On Sep 20, 7:34 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Except Murray was third-favorite behind Fed and Djok to win the USO by
> the majority of people.

How do you know this? Did you take your own international poll? It is
true that going into the USO Fed and Djokovic were the favorites for
many but there were plenty of people including so-called experts who
predicted Murray would win--i.e. Wilander, Boris Becker, etc. etc. It
is not my fault if most people are not insightful observers.

> ? Of course, Murray has improved. He is getting better incrementally.
> But did he improve enough to beat the triumvurate in a slam? No IMO.
> Rafa defaulted, Fed was incosistent, Djok's level dropped and then the
> wind, boy did the stars line up for Murray or what?

That remains to be seen whether Murray will be able to beat Nadal,
Federer and Djokovic in the slams moving forward but from what I have
seen of his performance at Wimbledon, the Olympics and now the USO, I
am pretty certain he can and will defeat them in future slams. There
is no reason why he can't. Your problem is you hold on to the past but
the past is gone and things change in tennis in a minute. Murray now
has the momentum on his side. He could crash out and burn and be a one-
slam wonder or he can win a few more, we'll have to wait and see.

> I am sorry. I don't play the prediction game. In fact, that is my beef
> with you in this thread. You are taking credit for your "prediction
> skills" based on your "feelings". You are a quack.

Yes, but at least I am an insightful quack unlike yourself! ;)

> So what? Yes I picked Djokovic over Murray in the final. That was the
> only "prediction" thread I participated in on the eve of the final.
> And really, how can I be "wrong" about it? It's not some conclusion
> based on some elaborate calculation and proposed with a certain
> statistical certainty? It was a goofy prediction thread. Yes, you were
> "right". Do you want an old tournament pamphlet for it? LOL.

I will be offering lessons on how to observe who the best player is
before the AO. Sign up now for lessons, you need them! :)

> What elaborate nonsense ! Now you are inventing stuff out of thing
> air. I said nothing about Murray's chance being zero or some other
> number. I didn't "laugh it off". Again with the exaggeration. You
> can't help it, can you? It's tough to hold back, isn't it?

When it comes to responding to jokers like you, you are correct, I
can't help myself! ;)

> So what? Are you suggesting that you knew it was going to be windy in
> the first two sets of the final and that it would favor Murray? What
> next?

LOL, still going on about the fact that Murray only won because of the
wind. How dumb is that? That should only be a positive for Murray not
a negative. Last time I checked Djokovic was a tennis pro and former
number one in the world, don't you think he should learn how to play
in the wind like the other top three players?

[drew]

On Sep 20, 12:00 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

He clearly
> looked to me like he was the most in form player going into the USO.

I think he probably would have defeated Nadal there
> too.

Murray would have lost to Nadal in the wind. Almost certainly.

[arnab.z@gmail]

Keep talking to yourself. Nobody's listening.

[Court_1]

Obviously you are, you responded didn't you?