tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 23 Jan 2009 19:11:51
From: Pedro Dias
Subject: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
quarters look?

My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the top
four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas (match of
the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v. Safin) tonight;
then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of the two being more
likely to trouble him than the former; then a quarterfinal against
either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon. In my opinion, just
about the toughest road possible, given the seeding system and current
form.

Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect him
to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known to catch
on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.

Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming Roddick's
rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be interesting. They
split matches last year, but the surface should widen the edge
Djokovic enjoys to start with.

I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.

In the semis, the top half is really, really hard to call, but I'll go
with Murray. I'm a smidge surer of Federer winning his (which is
nowhere near positive).

No interest in calling that final. It should be very interesting, so
I'll just enjoy it, if that's okay with folks.




 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:47:43
From: Calimero
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 25, 5:19=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Jan 24, 6:25=A0pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 1:31=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > >>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were =
wrong
> > > >>> after reading you analysis.
> > > >>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can =
play
> > > >>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray=
,
> > > >>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
> > > >> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dips=
hit.
>
> > > > That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
> > > > "Stapler" said
>
> > > > "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>
> > > > I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>
> > > Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing t=
o
> > > do with it so piss off.
>
> > You sure get testy when it comes to Nadal. Why?
>
> Of all the super-biased partisans in RST, I think TT is perhaps the
> only one who sincerely believes in his point of view. In other cases,
> the explanation for the constant hyperbole seems to be gluttony for
> farce (Hazel-Fed), displaced lust (Giovanna-Fed, Max-Graf), calculated
> mendacity (Whisper-Sampras), or just low-level buffoonery (Stapler/
> aranci/ocea, etc.).

What do you mean by "displaced" ...?


Max


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 13:14:51
From:
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 24, 9:20=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> Delpo is like Ferrer - will be completely forgotten within 12 months.


Ferrer has his TMC final. Del Potro wont even have that.


 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 13:13:04
From:
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 25, 3:25=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:

> You write a lot of crap Joe Ramirez.
>


Jeez, what do you expect from a senile old fart? He is probably
changing his soiled adult diapers right now.



 
Date: 25 Jan 2009 01:03:34
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 24, 5:04=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > >> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro=
.
>
> > > > > Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
> > > > > I wonder why it that so, Se=F1or.
>
> > > > Cilic has a shot to beat Federer, Del Potro none.
>
> > > cilic would have no chance- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Agreed, but sheesh these guys are 20 years old. We're supposed to
> > expect them to beat a 13-time Slam
> > champ still close to peak?
>
> Didn't a 20-year-old Safin beat a 13-time Slam champ still close to
> peak at the 2000 USO?

Yes, that was a shocker. As it would be if Fed lost to DelPo.


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 22:02:42
From: Pedro Dias
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 25, 12:44=A0am, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:42=A0pm, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 8:21=A0pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > >news:FOKel.25198$Sp5.9062@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> > > > "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:5bf0c75e-f68e-4b21-b93a-d70c97eb4266@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.c=
om...
> > > > On Jan 23, 11:13 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > > >> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.=
com...
>
> > > >> > I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro=
.
>
> > > >> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
> > > >> I wonder why it that so, Se=F1or.
>
> > > > Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
> > > > the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
> > > > without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
> > > > Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.
>
> > > > Well I have several thousand pounds staked on the assumption that C=
ilic
> > > > will win. At the least I need him to take a set to break even.
>
> > > So far so good.
>
> > So far so not terribly great.
>
> I didn't know the goal of gambling was to break even. What fun is
> that?

To be fair to Grunts, if you do it for a living, fun is not the point.
He clearly backed the wrong horse, but hedging the bet is the smart
thing to do in any case.


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 21:44:34
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 24, 9:42=A0pm, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net > wrote:
> On Jan 24, 8:21=A0pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:FOKel.25198$Sp5.9062@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> > > "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
> > >news:5bf0c75e-f68e-4b21-b93a-d70c97eb4266@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com=
...
> > > On Jan 23, 11:13 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > >> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.co=
m...
>
> > >> > I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> > >> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
> > >> I wonder why it that so, Se=F1or.
>
> > > Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
> > > the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
> > > without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
> > > Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.
>
> > > Well I have several thousand pounds staked on the assumption that Cil=
ic
> > > will win. At the least I need him to take a set to break even.
>
> > So far so good.
>
> So far so not terribly great.

I didn't know the goal of gambling was to break even. What fun is
that?


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 11:06:08
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
"Sao Paulo Swallow" <Sao_Paulo_Swallow@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:c1a7e336-f780-4b00-8669-9c8e7c8d8700@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 24, 9:42 pm, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net > wrote:
> On Jan 24, 8:21 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:FOKel.25198$Sp5.9062@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> > > "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
> > >news:5bf0c75e-f68e-4b21-b93a-d70c97eb4266@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jan 23, 11:13 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > >> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> > >> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
> > >> I wonder why it that so, Seņor.
>
> > > Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
> > > the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
> > > without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
> > > Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.
>
> > > Well I have several thousand pounds staked on the assumption that
> > > Cilic
> > > will win. At the least I need him to take a set to break even.
>
> > So far so good.
>
> So far so not terribly great.

I didn't know the goal of gambling was to break even. What fun is
that?



>
>
>

Breaking even is not as good as winning but better than losing



  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 16:51:01
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:42 pm, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 8:21 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:FOKel.25198$Sp5.9062@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:5bf0c75e-f68e-4b21-b93a-d70c97eb4266@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jan 23, 11:13 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>>>>> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
>>>>> I wonder why it that so, Seņor.
>>>> Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
>>>> the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
>>>> without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
>>>> Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.
>>>> Well I have several thousand pounds staked on the assumption that Cilic
>>>> will win. At the least I need him to take a set to break even.
>>> So far so good.
>> So far so not terribly great.
>
> I didn't know the goal of gambling was to break even. What fun is
> that?


More fun than losing.



 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 21:42:17
From: Pedro Dias
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 24, 8:21=A0pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:FOKel.25198$Sp5.9062@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>
>
> > "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
> >news:5bf0c75e-f68e-4b21-b93a-d70c97eb4266@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Jan 23, 11:13 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> >> > I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> >> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
> >> I wonder why it that so, Se=F1or.
>
> > Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
> > the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
> > without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
> > Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.
>
> > Well I have several thousand pounds staked on the assumption that Cilic
> > will win. At the least I need him to take a set to break even.
>
> So far so good.

So far so not terribly great.


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 21:34:41
From: Pedro Dias
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 24, 7:54=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Pedro Dias wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 11:13 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> >>> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
> >> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
> >> I wonder why it that so, Se=F1or.
>
> > Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
> > the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
> > without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
> > Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.
>
> You are wrong.

Apparently not so much. Wish I could put it down to wisdom, but
clearly that's a market you've cornered.


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 20:19:37
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 24, 6:25=A0pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> On Jan 24, 1:31=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wr=
ong
> > >>> after reading you analysis.
> > >>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can pl=
ay
> > >>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
> > >>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
> > >> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshi=
t.
>
> > > That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
> > > "Stapler" said
>
> > > "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>
> > > I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>
> > Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
> > do with it so piss off.
>
> You sure get testy when it comes to Nadal. Why?

Of all the super-biased partisans in RST, I think TT is perhaps the
only one who sincerely believes in his point of view. In other cases,
the explanation for the constant hyperbole seems to be gluttony for
farce (Hazel-Fed), displaced lust (Giovanna-Fed, Max-Graf), calculated
mendacity (Whisper-Sampras), or just low-level buffoonery (Stapler/
aranci/ocea, etc.). But TT seems convinced of the complete accuracy of
his Nadal-centric view of the tennis world, so he may experience
genuine anger and/or anxiety when it is challenged in any way.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 18:45:44
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:19:37 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
<josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote:

>On Jan 24, 6:25 pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 1:31 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > >>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
>> > >>> after reading you analysis.
>> > >>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
>> > >>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
>> > >>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
>> > >> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
>>
>> > > That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
>> > > "Stapler" said
>>
>> > > "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>>
>> > > I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>>
>> > Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
>> > do with it so piss off.
>>
>> You sure get testy when it comes to Nadal. Why?
>
>Of all the super-biased partisans in RST, I think TT is perhaps the
>only one who sincerely believes in his point of view.

But is that a good or bad thing?


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 14:43:26
From:
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Joe Ramirez <josephmramirez@netzero.com > writes:

> On Jan 24, 6:25 pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 1:31 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > >>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
>> > >>> after reading you analysis.
>> > >>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
>> > >>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
>> > >>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
>> > >> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
>>
>> > > That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
>> > > "Stapler" said
>>
>> > > "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>>
>> > > I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>>
>> > Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
>> > do with it so piss off.
>>
>> You sure get testy when it comes to Nadal. Why?
>
> Of all the super-biased partisans in RST, I think TT is perhaps the
> only one who sincerely believes in his point of view. In other cases,
> the explanation for the constant hyperbole seems to be gluttony for
> farce (Hazel-Fed), displaced lust (Giovanna-Fed, Max-Graf), calculated
> mendacity (Whisper-Sampras), or just low-level buffoonery (Stapler/
> aranci/ocea, etc.). But TT seems convinced of the complete accuracy of
> his Nadal-centric view of the tennis world, so he may experience
> genuine anger and/or anxiety when it is challenged in any way.

TJT seems to carry a lot of baggage. When you go on court with a state
of mind like that, it's just a matter of time that you loose focus. The
tiniest of things first become annoyances and then major points of
grievance. Before you know it, you'll be smashing racquets over a
perceived injustice on a meaningless point. From there on, you've driven
yourself into the loosing corner.

To the tiered analysts following the events, it could well seem that the
dubious call here and the low serving % there were the reasons for the poor
performance. But all the while it was the luggage.

WTF could be in it?



  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 10:25:09
From: TT
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 24, 6:25 pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 1:31 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
>>>>>> after reading you analysis.
>>>>>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
>>>>>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
>>>>>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
>>>>> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
>>>> That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
>>>> "Stapler" said
>>>> "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>>>> I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>>> Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
>>> do with it so piss off.
>> You sure get testy when it comes to Nadal. Why?
>
> Of all the super-biased partisans in RST, I think TT is perhaps the
> only one who sincerely believes in his point of view. In other cases,
> the explanation for the constant hyperbole seems to be gluttony for
> farce (Hazel-Fed), displaced lust (Giovanna-Fed, Max-Graf), calculated
> mendacity (Whisper-Sampras), or just low-level buffoonery (Stapler/
> aranci/ocea, etc.). But TT seems convinced of the complete accuracy of
> his Nadal-centric view of the tennis world, so he may experience
> genuine anger and/or anxiety when it is challenged in any way.
>
> Joe Ramirez

You write a lot of crap Joe Ramirez.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 16:03:10
From: David W
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 25, 10:10 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net > wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
> > Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> >> DavidW wrote:
> >>> Pedro Dias wrote:
> >>>> Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
> >>>> quarters look?
>
> >>>> My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the
> >>>> top four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas
> >>>> (match of the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v.
> >>>> Safin) tonight; then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of
> >>>> the two being more likely to trouble him than the former; then a
> >>>> quarterfinal against either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v.
> >>>> Simon. In my opinion, just about the toughest road possible, given
> >>>> the seeding system and current form.
>
> >>>> Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
> >>>> back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
> >>>> there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect
> >>>> him to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known
> >>>> to catch on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.
>
> >>>> Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming
> >>>> Roddick's rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be
> >>>> interesting. They split matches last year, but the surface should
> >>>> widen the edge Djokovic enjoys to start with.
>
> >>>> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> >>>> In the semis, the top half is really, really hard to call, but I'll
> >>>> go with Murray. I'm a smidge surer of Federer winning his (which is
> >>>> nowhere near positive).
>
> >>>> No interest in calling that final. It should be very interesting, so
> >>>> I'll just enjoy it, if that's okay with folks.
> >>> Just give us a big final. No more nobodies getting through, never to
> >>> figure in a big match again.
>
> >> How do you figure tennis players make their names?
>
> > By winning slams, not fluking their way to one final and losing.
>
> You appear to want only slam winners to make it to slam finals.

Non sequitur. Your logic circuit needs rewiring.

> What is a fluke in your opinion?

Schuettler, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Tsonga. Guys who on previous form
should not make it to a final. If they get there and win, fine, but
what usually happens is an easy win to the top player.

> I suspect that your definition will make 3 of Sampras's 7 Wimbledons flukes.

You are getting all mixed up. Did I call the guy who wins a fluker?

What I am getting at is that the AO has had enough of these guys in
recent years. For _once_, let us have a big final between two of the
top four.


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 15:25:28
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 24, 1:31=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wron=
g
> >>> after reading you analysis.
> >>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
> >>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
> >>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
> >> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
>
> > That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
> > "Stapler" said
>
> > "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>
> > I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>
> Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
> do with it so piss off.
>

You sure get testy when it comes to Nadal. Why?


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 10:25:40
From: TT
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
> On Jan 24, 1:31 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
>>>>> after reading you analysis.
>>>>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
>>>>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
>>>>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
>>>> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
>>> That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
>>> "Stapler" said
>>> "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>>> I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>> Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
>> do with it so piss off.
>>
>
> You sure get testy when it comes to Nadal. Why?

Actually I get testy when it comes to Greg.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 14:13:24
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On 24 jan, 23:04, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> kaennorsing wrote:
> > On 24 jan, 22:56, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> kaennorsing wrote:
> >>> On 24 jan, 22:42, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 24, 9:31 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
> >>>>>>>> after reading you analysis.
> >>>>>>>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
> >>>>>>>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
> >>>>>>>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
> >>>>>>> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
> >>>>>> That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
> >>>>>> "Stapler" said
> >>>>>> "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
> >>>>>> I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
> >>>>> Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
> >>>>> do with it so piss off.
> >>>> I said a number of times in that thread that Nadal played well -
> >>>> however I think he can play better
> >>> TT suggested Murray will appear similarly helpless if Nadal plays the
> >>> same level against him. Don't argue with him, just be patient for a
> >>> couple days and have a good laugh.
> >> Ah the loser stalks in.
>
> > I'm a loser for pointing out how silly you are? Maybe I wouldn't feel
> > the urge to do that if you didn't pat yourself on the back for your
> > 'great analyses'.
>
> No. What bugs you are my opinions on Federer and his game. However you
> do not touch this subject but rather concentrate on side topics for your
> "payback"...as if it were you who I was "insulting" personally and not
> Federer.
> That's the level of your fedfucking my friend. Inexcusable lack of honesty.

No, I couldn't care less what your opinions are, since they lack any
trace of intelligence. What amuses me is your consideration of
yourself as a good analyst. Now, that is truly hilarious :D


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 00:25:42
From: TT
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
kaennorsing wrote:
> On 24 jan, 23:04, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> kaennorsing wrote:
>>> On 24 jan, 22:56, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> kaennorsing wrote:
>>>>> On 24 jan, 22:42, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 24, 9:31 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
>>>>>>>>>> after reading you analysis.
>>>>>>>>>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
>>>>>>>>>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
>>>>>>>>>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
>>>>>>>>> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
>>>>>>>> That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
>>>>>>>> "Stapler" said
>>>>>>>> "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>>>>>>>> I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>>>>>>> Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
>>>>>>> do with it so piss off.
>>>>>> I said a number of times in that thread that Nadal played well -
>>>>>> however I think he can play better
>>>>> TT suggested Murray will appear similarly helpless if Nadal plays the
>>>>> same level against him. Don't argue with him, just be patient for a
>>>>> couple days and have a good laugh.
>>>> Ah the loser stalks in.
>>> I'm a loser for pointing out how silly you are? Maybe I wouldn't feel
>>> the urge to do that if you didn't pat yourself on the back for your
>>> 'great analyses'.
>> No. What bugs you are my opinions on Federer and his game. However you
>> do not touch this subject but rather concentrate on side topics for your
>> "payback"...as if it were you who I was "insulting" personally and not
>> Federer.
>> That's the level of your fedfucking my friend. Inexcusable lack of honesty.
>
> No, I couldn't care less what your opinions are, since they lack any
> trace of intelligence. What amuses me is your consideration of
> yourself as a good analyst. Now, that is truly hilarious :D

Sure. I have never read an analysis worth anything from you either.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 14:04:11
From:
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
> > > >> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> > > > Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
> > > > I wonder why it that so, Se=F1or.
>
> > > Cilic has a shot to beat Federer, Del Potro none.
>
> > cilic would have no chance- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Agreed, but sheesh these guys are 20 years old. We're supposed to
> expect them to beat a 13-time Slam
> champ still close to peak?

Didn't a 20-year-old Safin beat a 13-time Slam champ still close to
peak at the 2000 USO?





 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 14:00:23
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On 24 jan, 22:56, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> kaennorsing wrote:
> > On 24 jan, 22:42, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Jan 24, 9:31 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> >>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
> >>>>>> after reading you analysis.
> >>>>>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
> >>>>>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
> >>>>>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
> >>>>> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
> >>>> That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
> >>>> "Stapler" said
> >>>> "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
> >>>> I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
> >>> Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
> >>> do with it so piss off.
> >> I said a number of times in that thread that Nadal played well -
> >> however I think he can play better
>
> > TT suggested Murray will appear similarly helpless if Nadal plays the
> > same level against him. Don't argue with him, just be patient for a
> > couple days and have a good laugh.
>
> Ah the loser stalks in.

I'm a loser for pointing out how silly you are? Maybe I wouldn't feel
the urge to do that if you didn't pat yourself on the back for your
'great analyses'.


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 00:04:37
From: TT
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
kaennorsing wrote:
> On 24 jan, 22:56, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> kaennorsing wrote:
>>> On 24 jan, 22:42, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Jan 24, 9:31 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
>>>>>>>> after reading you analysis.
>>>>>>>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
>>>>>>>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
>>>>>>>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
>>>>>>> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
>>>>>> That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
>>>>>> "Stapler" said
>>>>>> "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>>>>>> I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>>>>> Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
>>>>> do with it so piss off.
>>>> I said a number of times in that thread that Nadal played well -
>>>> however I think he can play better
>>> TT suggested Murray will appear similarly helpless if Nadal plays the
>>> same level against him. Don't argue with him, just be patient for a
>>> couple days and have a good laugh.
>> Ah the loser stalks in.
>
> I'm a loser for pointing out how silly you are? Maybe I wouldn't feel
> the urge to do that if you didn't pat yourself on the back for your
> 'great analyses'.

No. What bugs you are my opinions on Federer and his game. However you
do not touch this subject but rather concentrate on side topics for your
"payback"...as if it were you who I was "insulting" personally and not
Federer.
That's the level of your fedfucking my friend. Inexcusable lack of honesty.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 13:55:09
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On 24 jan, 22:42, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:31=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wr=
ong
> > >>> after reading you analysis.
> > >>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can pl=
ay
> > >>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
> > >>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
> > >> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshi=
t.
>
> > > That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
> > > "Stapler" said
>
> > > "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>
> > > I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>
> > Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
> > do with it so piss off.
>
> I said a number of times in that thread that Nadal played well -
> however I think he can play better

TT suggested Murray will appear similarly helpless if Nadal plays the
same level against him. Don't argue with him, just be patient for a
couple days and have a good laugh.


  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 23:56:32
From: TT
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
kaennorsing wrote:
> On 24 jan, 22:42, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 9:31 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
>>>>>> after reading you analysis.
>>>>>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
>>>>>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
>>>>>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
>>>>> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
>>>> That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
>>>> "Stapler" said
>>>> "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>>>> I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>>> Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
>>> do with it so piss off.
>> I said a number of times in that thread that Nadal played well -
>> however I think he can play better
>
> TT suggested Murray will appear similarly helpless if Nadal plays the
> same level against him. Don't argue with him, just be patient for a
> couple days and have a good laugh.

Ah the loser stalks in.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 13:53:13
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On 24 jan, 22:16, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:13:27 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >Sakari Lund wrote:
> >> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:55:38 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> >>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>
> >>>> I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match in
> >>>> Australia.
> >>> Nadal said this Nadal said that...ffs, haven't you heard fedfuckers at
> >>> rst telling that it was only because Haas sucked?
>
> >> I don't think so. People said before the match that Haas had played
> >> really well, and the reports said he played pretty well in this match
> >> too.
>
> >> And I am not going to get involved in this hating stuff, so don't even
> >> try. This looks to be too good tournament to be spoiled by that. I am
> >> just going to enjoy it.
>
> >I guess you didn't understand what I said. Fedfuckers here claimed after
> >the match that Nadal didn't play so well, it was because Haas sucked.
> >Now they're quiet though after they've realized that they were wrong and
> >my analysis was spot on...once again.
>
> I guess you didn't understand what I said.

He often has that. He also struggles a lot with what he sees. No need
to mention his 'analysing' what he saw, let alone interpreting and
arguing about what you said and you both saw.

Hopeless.


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 00:00:49
From: TT
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
kaennorsing wrote:
> On 24 jan, 22:16, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:13:27 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:55:38 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>> I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match in
>>>>>> Australia.
>>>>> Nadal said this Nadal said that...ffs, haven't you heard fedfuckers at
>>>>> rst telling that it was only because Haas sucked?
>>>> I don't think so. People said before the match that Haas had played
>>>> really well, and the reports said he played pretty well in this match
>>>> too.
>>>> And I am not going to get involved in this hating stuff, so don't even
>>>> try. This looks to be too good tournament to be spoiled by that. I am
>>>> just going to enjoy it.
>>> I guess you didn't understand what I said. Fedfuckers here claimed after
>>> the match that Nadal didn't play so well, it was because Haas sucked.
>>> Now they're quiet though after they've realized that they were wrong and
>>> my analysis was spot on...once again.
>> I guess you didn't understand what I said.
>

> He often has that.

Nope. Sakari misunderstood and made a rather weak comeback by falsely
claiming back(without explaining) that it was I who misunderstood. And
you of course didn't understand any of it.


He also struggles a lot with what he sees. No need
> to mention his 'analysing' what he saw, let alone interpreting and
> arguing about what you said and you both saw.
>
> Hopeless.

You better not go into specifics since you have none, cocksucker.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


   
Date: 25 Jan 2009 18:42:13
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:00:49 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>kaennorsing wrote:
>> On 24 jan, 22:16, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:13:27 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:55:38 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>>>> I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match in
>>>>>>> Australia.
>>>>>> Nadal said this Nadal said that...ffs, haven't you heard fedfuckers at
>>>>>> rst telling that it was only because Haas sucked?
>>>>> I don't think so. People said before the match that Haas had played
>>>>> really well, and the reports said he played pretty well in this match
>>>>> too.
>>>>> And I am not going to get involved in this hating stuff, so don't even
>>>>> try. This looks to be too good tournament to be spoiled by that. I am
>>>>> just going to enjoy it.
>>>> I guess you didn't understand what I said. Fedfuckers here claimed after
>>>> the match that Nadal didn't play so well, it was because Haas sucked.
>>>> Now they're quiet though after they've realized that they were wrong and
>>>> my analysis was spot on...once again.
>>> I guess you didn't understand what I said.
>>
>
>> He often has that.
>
>Nope. Sakari misunderstood and made a rather weak comeback by falsely
>claiming back(without explaining) that it was I who misunderstood. And
>you of course didn't understand any of it.

LOL. You still haven't understood what I said.


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 13:42:44
From:
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 24, 9:31=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wron=
g
> >>> after reading you analysis.
> >>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
> >>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
> >>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
> >> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
>
> > That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
> > "Stapler" said
>
> > "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>
> > I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>
> Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
> do with it so piss off.

I said a number of times in that thread that Nadal played well -
however I think he can play better





 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 13:26:35
From:
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
>
> > What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
> > after reading you analysis.
>
> > I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
> > better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
> > since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
>
> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
>

That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
"Stapler" said

"Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"

I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.





  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 23:31:36
From: TT
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
>>> after reading you analysis.
>>> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
>>> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
>>> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
>> I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.
>>
>
> That was the whole point of the original post in the other thread.
> "Stapler" said
>
> "Nadal in this form will destroy the rest fo the field, no doubts"
>
> I argued that he wouldn't destroy Murray.
>
>

Nadal played great which you denied. Stapler or Murray have nothing to
do with it so piss off.


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 13:19:58
From:
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 24, 9:13=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:55:38 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> >> Sakari Lund wrote:
>
> >>> I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match i=
n
> >>> Australia.
> >> Nadal said this Nadal said that...ffs, haven't you heard fedfuckers at
> >> rst telling that it was only because Haas sucked?
>
> > I don't think so. People said before the match that Haas had played
> > really well, and the reports said he played pretty well in this match
> > too.
>
> > And I am not going to get involved in this hating stuff, so don't even
> > try. This looks to be too good tournament to be spoiled by that. I am
> > just going to enjoy it.
>
> I guess you didn't understand what I said. Fedfuckers here claimed after
> the match that Nadal didn't play so well, it was because Haas sucked.
> Now they're quiet though after they've realized that they were wrong and
> my analysis was spot on...once again.

What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
after reading you analysis.

I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).







  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 21:52:07
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:55:38 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match in
>>>>> Australia.
>>>> Nadal said this Nadal said that...ffs, haven't you heard fedfuckers at
>>>> rst telling that it was only because Haas sucked?
>>> I don't think so. People said before the match that Haas had played
>>> really well, and the reports said he played pretty well in this match
>>> too.
>>> And I am not going to get involved in this hating stuff, so don't even
>>> try. This looks to be too good tournament to be spoiled by that. I am
>>> just going to enjoy it.
>> I guess you didn't understand what I said. Fedfuckers here claimed after
>> the match that Nadal didn't play so well, it was because Haas sucked.
>> Now they're quiet though after they've realized that they were wrong and
>> my analysis was spot on...once again.
>
> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
> after reading you analysis.
>
> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
>

Even Haas may agree with you on that last one.

Nadal looks rested and hungry and has had easy matches so far. The
pattern in the past years is that he gets knackered by too much running
in early rounds. That is not happening anymore and his winner totals are
looking much healthier than in past years.

He seems to be peaking at the right time.

--
Cheers,

vc


  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 23:23:23
From: TT
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:13 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:55:38 +0200, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>> I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match in
>>>>> Australia.
>>>> Nadal said this Nadal said that...ffs, haven't you heard fedfuckers at
>>>> rst telling that it was only because Haas sucked?
>>> I don't think so. People said before the match that Haas had played
>>> really well, and the reports said he played pretty well in this match
>>> too.
>>> And I am not going to get involved in this hating stuff, so don't even
>>> try. This looks to be too good tournament to be spoiled by that. I am
>>> just going to enjoy it.
>> I guess you didn't understand what I said. Fedfuckers here claimed after
>> the match that Nadal didn't play so well, it was because Haas sucked.
>> Now they're quiet though after they've realized that they were wrong and
>> my analysis was spot on...once again.
>
> What are you drivelling on about? Nobody could realise they were wrong
> after reading you analysis.
>
> I certainly said that Nadal did play well (though I think he can play
> better) - but that level of play may not be enough to beat Murray,
> since he is a lot better that Haas (in my opinion).
>

I don't fucking care what you think about Nadal vs Murray you dipshit.


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 12:30:42
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 24, 3:26=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:11:51 -0800 (PST), Pedro Dias
>
> <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
> >Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
> >quarters look?
>
> >My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the top
> >four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas (match of
> >the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v. Safin) tonight;
> >then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of the two being more
> >likely to trouble him than the former; then a quarterfinal against
> >either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon. In my opinion, just
> >about the toughest road possible, given the seeding system and current
> >form.
>
> I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match in
> Australia. I have only seen his first match, which was a joke, but he
> seems to be playing better than I expected. He should beat Gonzo and
> Monfils/Simon relatively easily.
>
> >Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
> >back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
> >there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect him
> >to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known to catch
> >on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.
>
> I didn't see Murray today either, but the reports said he too played
> really well. I was pretty confident before the tournament that Murray
> will make the final, but I am not so sure now. Rafa is playing well,
> and will be very tough mentally in the SF.
>
> >Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming Roddick's
> >rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be interesting. They
> >split matches last year, but the surface should widen the edge
> >Djokovic enjoys to start with.
>
> If I had to pick one quarter as the easiest, this would be it. But
> still not easy. Djokovic seems the most beatable of =A0the top 4. He
> might lose in some other quarter, but I think he will get through
> here.
>
> >I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> I have a feeling Federer will have a tough match against Berdych. I am
> not as convinced about Fed as most people. He has been solid, but he
> hasn't been tested yet. He might be tested here. And after that Del
> Potro or Cilic is tough too.

I don't see Berdych as the type to trouble Fed (despite that one
Olympics match). He just doesn't move
well enough to hang in there against Roger's weapons. Potro or Cilic I
would think would do well to win a set off Fed.

I think Fed's draw is favorable only because of the match-up
situation. Simon or Monfils, for example, would be potentially tougher
opponents because of their great defensive skills.


  
Date: 25 Jan 2009 18:47:23
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:30:42 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
<jason-catlin@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 24, 3:26 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:

>> I have a feeling Federer will have a tough match against Berdych. I am
>> not as convinced about Fed as most people. He has been solid, but he
>> hasn't been tested yet. He might be tested here. And after that Del
>> Potro or Cilic is tough too.
>
>I don't see Berdych as the type to trouble Fed (despite that one
>Olympics match). He just doesn't move
>well enough to hang in there against Roger's weapons. Potro or Cilic I
>would think would do well to win a set off Fed.

Told you.


   
Date: 25 Jan 2009 20:29:30
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:30:42 -0800 (PST), Jason Catlin
> <jason-catlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 24, 3:26 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
>>> I have a feeling Federer will have a tough match against Berdych. I am
>>> not as convinced about Fed as most people. He has been solid, but he
>>> hasn't been tested yet. He might be tested here. And after that Del
>>> Potro or Cilic is tough too.
>> I don't see Berdych as the type to trouble Fed (despite that one
>> Olympics match). He just doesn't move
>> well enough to hang in there against Roger's weapons. Potro or Cilic I
>> would think would do well to win a set off Fed.
>
> Told you.

Good call on your part. Court positioning in the first 2 sets was
unusual and enlightening. Berdych at the baseline hitting screamers and
Federer almost in the shadows trying to defend with very mixed results.
Berdych has to have the most casual looking stroke that results in shots
that are close to 100mph.

If Federer can't disrupt del Potro's rhythm, he will regret it.

--
Cheers,

vc


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 12:27:07
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 24, 7:59=A0am, Adam Thirnis <adam.thir...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:53=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > *skriptis wrote:
> > > "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
> > >news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com=
...
> > >> Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
> > >> quarters look?
>
> > >> My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the t=
op
> > >> four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas (match o=
f
> > >> the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v. Safin) tonight=
;
> > >> then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of the two being mor=
e
> > >> likely to trouble him than the former; then a quarterfinal against
> > >> either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon. In my opinion, just
> > >> about the toughest road possible, given the seeding system and curre=
nt
> > >> form.
>
> > >> Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
> > >> back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
> > >> there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect h=
im
> > >> to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known to cat=
ch
> > >> on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.
>
> > >> Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming Roddick=
's
> > >> rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be interesting. The=
y
> > >> split matches last year, but the surface should widen the edge
> > >> Djokovic enjoys to start with.
>
> > >> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> > > Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
> > > I wonder why it that so, Se=F1or.
>
> > Cilic has a shot to beat Federer, Del Potro none.
>
> cilic would have no chance- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Agreed, but sheesh these guys are 20 years old. We're supposed to
expect them to beat a 13-time Slam
champ still close to peak?


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 22:26:39
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:11:51 -0800 (PST), Pedro Dias
<pedrodias@snip.net > wrote:

>Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
>quarters look?
>
>My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the top
>four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas (match of
>the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v. Safin) tonight;
>then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of the two being more
>likely to trouble him than the former; then a quarterfinal against
>either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon. In my opinion, just
>about the toughest road possible, given the seeding system and current
>form.

I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match in
Australia. I have only seen his first match, which was a joke, but he
seems to be playing better than I expected. He should beat Gonzo and
Monfils/Simon relatively easily.

>Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
>back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
>there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect him
>to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known to catch
>on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.

I didn't see Murray today either, but the reports said he too played
really well. I was pretty confident before the tournament that Murray
will make the final, but I am not so sure now. Rafa is playing well,
and will be very tough mentally in the SF.

>Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming Roddick's
>rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be interesting. They
>split matches last year, but the surface should widen the edge
>Djokovic enjoys to start with.

If I had to pick one quarter as the easiest, this would be it. But
still not easy. Djokovic seems the most beatable of the top 4. He
might lose in some other quarter, but I think he will get through
here.

>I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.

I have a feeling Federer will have a tough match against Berdych. I am
not as convinced about Fed as most people. He has been solid, but he
hasn't been tested yet. He might be tested here. And after that Del
Potro or Cilic is tough too.




  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 22:55:38
From: TT
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Sakari Lund wrote:

> I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match in
> Australia.

Nadal said this Nadal said that...ffs, haven't you heard fedfuckers at
rst telling that it was only because Haas sucked?


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


   
Date: 24 Jan 2009 23:04:51
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:55:38 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>
>> I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match in
>> Australia.
>
>Nadal said this Nadal said that...ffs, haven't you heard fedfuckers at
>rst telling that it was only because Haas sucked?

I don't think so. People said before the match that Haas had played
really well, and the reports said he played pretty well in this match
too.

And I am not going to get involved in this hating stuff, so don't even
try. This looks to be too good tournament to be spoiled by that. I am
just going to enjoy it.


    
Date: 24 Jan 2009 23:13:27
From: TT
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:55:38 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match in
>>> Australia.
>> Nadal said this Nadal said that...ffs, haven't you heard fedfuckers at
>> rst telling that it was only because Haas sucked?
>
> I don't think so. People said before the match that Haas had played
> really well, and the reports said he played pretty well in this match
> too.
>
> And I am not going to get involved in this hating stuff, so don't even
> try. This looks to be too good tournament to be spoiled by that. I am
> just going to enjoy it.

I guess you didn't understand what I said. Fedfuckers here claimed after
the match that Nadal didn't play so well, it was because Haas sucked.
Now they're quiet though after they've realized that they were wrong and
my analysis was spot on...once again.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


     
Date: 24 Jan 2009 23:16:52
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:13:27 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:55:38 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>
>>>> I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match in
>>>> Australia.
>>> Nadal said this Nadal said that...ffs, haven't you heard fedfuckers at
>>> rst telling that it was only because Haas sucked?
>>
>> I don't think so. People said before the match that Haas had played
>> really well, and the reports said he played pretty well in this match
>> too.
>>
>> And I am not going to get involved in this hating stuff, so don't even
>> try. This looks to be too good tournament to be spoiled by that. I am
>> just going to enjoy it.
>
>I guess you didn't understand what I said. Fedfuckers here claimed after
>the match that Nadal didn't play so well, it was because Haas sucked.
>Now they're quiet though after they've realized that they were wrong and
>my analysis was spot on...once again.

I guess you didn't understand what I said.




      
Date: 24 Jan 2009 23:22:15
From: TT
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:13:27 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:55:38 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't see Nadal today, but he said he played his best ever match in
>>>>> Australia.
>>>> Nadal said this Nadal said that...ffs, haven't you heard fedfuckers at
>>>> rst telling that it was only because Haas sucked?
>>> I don't think so. People said before the match that Haas had played
>>> really well, and the reports said he played pretty well in this match
>>> too.
>>>
>>> And I am not going to get involved in this hating stuff, so don't even
>>> try. This looks to be too good tournament to be spoiled by that. I am
>>> just going to enjoy it.
>> I guess you didn't understand what I said. Fedfuckers here claimed after
>> the match that Nadal didn't play so well, it was because Haas sucked.
>> Now they're quiet though after they've realized that they were wrong and
>> my analysis was spot on...once again.
>
> I guess you didn't understand what I said.
>
>

Does it echo here or what?

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 06:14:33
From:
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
I go out on a limb and say I don't think Federer will dispose of
Berdych easily.

Marcos Baghdatis(CYP) vs. Novak Djokovic(SRB)

? - Novak, easily? He should be able to.


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 04:59:34
From: Adam Thirnis
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 24, 12:53=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> *skriptis wrote:
> > "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
> >news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com..=
.
> >> Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
> >> quarters look?
>
> >> My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the top
> >> four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas (match of
> >> the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v. Safin) tonight;
> >> then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of the two being more
> >> likely to trouble him than the former; then a quarterfinal against
> >> either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon. In my opinion, just
> >> about the toughest road possible, given the seeding system and current
> >> form.
>
> >> Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
> >> back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
> >> there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect him
> >> to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known to catch
> >> on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.
>
> >> Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming Roddick's
> >> rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be interesting. They
> >> split matches last year, but the surface should widen the edge
> >> Djokovic enjoys to start with.
>
> >> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> > Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
> > I wonder why it that so, Se=F1or.
>
> Cilic has a shot to beat Federer, Del Potro none.

cilic would have no chance


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 11:36:00
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Pedro Dias wrote:

> My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the top
> four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas (match of
> the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v. Safin) tonight;
> then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of the two being more
> likely to trouble him than the former; then a quarterfinal against
> either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon. In my opinion, just
> about the toughest road possible, given the seeding system and current
> form.

I don't think he would be troubled by Haas or Gasquet (who seems to win
his match against Gonzo). But Monfils is definitely difficult.

> Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
> back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
> there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect him
> to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known to catch
> on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.

On paper the simplest draw. But Verdasco seems, by his results, to be in
good shape! He literally killed Stepanek tonight. Anyone watched this
match? And Tsonga has played well although he has a sore back.

> Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming Roddick's
> rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be interesting. They
> split matches last year, but the surface should widen the edge
> Djokovic enjoys to start with.

To med Djokovic has the most difficult draw. Baghdatis is in great shape
in this tournament. And Roddick seems to play controlled and smarter
than I have seen him in a while. Not at all confident that Djokovic will
reach a semifinal.

> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.

Agree. Federer has by far the simplest draw from here on. But that of
course has something to do with his stats against these kind of players.
For Nadal this draw would be more difficult.

> In the semis, the top half is really, really hard to call, but I'll go
> with Murray. I'm a smidge surer of Federer winning his (which is
> nowhere near positive).

Yes, Murray seems to be playing at his best. So I think he will reach a
semi. I guess Roger against Murray in the final before the tournament,
and I will stick to that.

PS.


 
Date: 23 Jan 2009 20:43:03
From: Pedro Dias
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 23, 11:13=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>
> news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
> I wonder why it that so, Se=F1or.

Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.



  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 20:25:09
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
"Pedro Dias" <pedrodias@snip.net > wrote in message
news:5bf0c75e-f68e-4b21-b93a-d70c97eb4266@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 23, 11:13 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>
> news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
> I wonder why it that so, Seņor.

Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.


>
>
>

Well I have several thousand pounds staked on the assumption that Cilic will
win. At the least I need him to take a set to break even.



   
Date: 25 Jan 2009 01:21:28
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
"Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:FOKel.25198$Sp5.9062@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "Pedro Dias" <pedrodias@snip.net> wrote in message
> news:5bf0c75e-f68e-4b21-b93a-d70c97eb4266@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 23, 11:13 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>>
>> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
>> I wonder why it that so, Seņor.
>
> Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
> the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
> without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
> Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Well I have several thousand pounds staked on the assumption that Cilic
> will win. At the least I need him to take a set to break even.



So far so good.



   
Date: 24 Jan 2009 22:53:18
From: TT
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
> "Pedro Dias" <pedrodias@snip.net> wrote in message
> news:5bf0c75e-f68e-4b21-b93a-d70c97eb4266@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 23, 11:13 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>>
>> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
>> I wonder why it that so, Seņor.
>
> Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
> the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
> without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
> Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Well I have several thousand pounds staked on the assumption that Cilic
> will win. At the least I need him to take a set to break even.

I think delpo will win. Cilic is good but delpo is better.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


    
Date: 25 Jan 2009 13:20:42
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
TT wrote:
> Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>> "Pedro Dias" <pedrodias@snip.net> wrote in message
>> news:5bf0c75e-f68e-4b21-b93a-d70c97eb4266@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 23, 11:13 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> > I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>>>
>>> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
>>> I wonder why it that so, Seņor.
>>
>> Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
>> the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
>> without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
>> Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well I have several thousand pounds staked on the assumption that
>> Cilic will win. At the least I need him to take a set to break even.
>
> I think delpo will win. Cilic is good but delpo is better.
>


Delpo is like Ferrer - will be completely forgotten within 12 months.



  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 23:54:07
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Pedro Dias wrote:
> On Jan 23, 11:13 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
>> I wonder why it that so, Seņor.
>
> Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
> the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
> without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
> Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.
>



You are wrong.


  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 16:23:17
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Pedro Dias wrote:
> On Jan 23, 11:13 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>>
>> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
>> I wonder why it that so, Seņor.
>
> Ignorance? I haven't seen much of Cilic, and Del Potro's results in
> the last six months have been much better. So I pencilled him in
> without much reflection, since that's about all I had to go on.
> Wouldn't mind being wrong, for what it's worth.

Cilic has been very, very impressive so far.





 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 05:13:31
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)

"Pedro Dias" <pedrodias@snip.net > wrote in message
news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
> quarters look?
>
> My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the top
> four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas (match of
> the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v. Safin) tonight;
> then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of the two being more
> likely to trouble him than the former; then a quarterfinal against
> either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon. In my opinion, just
> about the toughest road possible, given the seeding system and current
> form.
>
> Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
> back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
> there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect him
> to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known to catch
> on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.
>
> Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming Roddick's
> rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be interesting. They
> split matches last year, but the surface should widen the edge
> Djokovic enjoys to start with.
>
> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.



Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
I wonder why it that so, Seņor.




  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 23:53:22
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
*skriptis wrote:
> "Pedro Dias" <pedrodias@snip.net> wrote in message
> news:334e97a7-ef94-4299-9c04-e10a67f7aa85@f18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>> Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
>> quarters look?
>>
>> My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the top
>> four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas (match of
>> the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v. Safin) tonight;
>> then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of the two being more
>> likely to trouble him than the former; then a quarterfinal against
>> either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon. In my opinion, just
>> about the toughest road possible, given the seeding system and current
>> form.
>>
>> Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
>> back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
>> there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect him
>> to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known to catch
>> on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.
>>
>> Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming Roddick's
>> rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be interesting. They
>> split matches last year, but the surface should widen the edge
>> Djokovic enjoys to start with.
>>
>> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
>
>
> Why are you so sure about Del Potro beating Cilic?
> I wonder why it that so, Seņor.
>
>


Cilic has a shot to beat Federer, Del Potro none.



 
Date: 23 Jan 2009 19:56:38
From: Pedro Dias
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 23, 10:31=A0pm, wkhedr <wkh...@my-deja.com > wrote:
> On Jan 23, 10:11=A0pm, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
> > quarters look?
>
> > My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the top
> > four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas (match of
> > the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v. Safin) tonight;
> > then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of the two being more
> > likely to trouble him than the former; then a quarterfinal against
> > either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon. In my opinion, just
> > about the toughest road possible, given the seeding system and current
> > form.
>
> > Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
> > back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
> > there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect him
> > to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known to catch
> > on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.
>
> > Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming Roddick's
> > rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be interesting. They
> > split matches last year, but the surface should widen the edge
> > Djokovic enjoys to start with.
>
> > I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> > In the semis, the top half is really, really hard to call, but I'll go
> > with Murray. I'm a smidge surer of Federer winning his (which is
> > nowhere near positive).
>
> > No interest in calling that final. It should be very interesting, so
> > I'll just enjoy it, if that's okay with folks.
>
> Where is Simon?

Towards the end of the second paragraph: "...then a quarterfinal
against either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon..."


 
Date: 24 Jan 2009 14:45:59
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Pedro Dias wrote:
> Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
> quarters look?
>
> My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the top
> four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas (match of
> the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v. Safin) tonight;
> then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of the two being more
> likely to trouble him than the former; then a quarterfinal against
> either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon. In my opinion, just
> about the toughest road possible, given the seeding system and current
> form.
>
> Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
> back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
> there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect him
> to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known to catch
> on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.
>
> Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming Roddick's
> rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be interesting. They
> split matches last year, but the surface should widen the edge
> Djokovic enjoys to start with.
>
> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> In the semis, the top half is really, really hard to call, but I'll go
> with Murray. I'm a smidge surer of Federer winning his (which is
> nowhere near positive).
>
> No interest in calling that final. It should be very interesting, so
> I'll just enjoy it, if that's okay with folks.

Just give us a big final. No more nobodies getting through, never to figure in
a big match again.





  
Date: 24 Jan 2009 13:59:11
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
DavidW wrote:
> Pedro Dias wrote:
>> Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
>> quarters look?
>>
>> My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the top
>> four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas (match of
>> the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v. Safin) tonight;
>> then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of the two being more
>> likely to trouble him than the former; then a quarterfinal against
>> either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon. In my opinion, just
>> about the toughest road possible, given the seeding system and current
>> form.
>>
>> Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
>> back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
>> there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect him
>> to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known to catch
>> on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.
>>
>> Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming Roddick's
>> rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be interesting. They
>> split matches last year, but the surface should widen the edge
>> Djokovic enjoys to start with.
>>
>> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>>
>> In the semis, the top half is really, really hard to call, but I'll go
>> with Murray. I'm a smidge surer of Federer winning his (which is
>> nowhere near positive).
>>
>> No interest in calling that final. It should be very interesting, so
>> I'll just enjoy it, if that's okay with folks.
>
> Just give us a big final. No more nobodies getting through, never to figure in
> a big match again.
>
>
>

How do you figure tennis players make their names?

--
Cheers,

vc


   
Date: 25 Jan 2009 09:29:44
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> DavidW wrote:
>> Pedro Dias wrote:
>>> Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
>>> quarters look?
>>>
>>> My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the
>>> top four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas
>>> (match of the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v.
>>> Safin) tonight; then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of
>>> the two being more likely to trouble him than the former; then a
>>> quarterfinal against either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v.
>>> Simon. In my opinion, just about the toughest road possible, given
>>> the seeding system and current form.
>>>
>>> Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
>>> back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
>>> there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect
>>> him to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known
>>> to catch on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.
>>>
>>> Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming
>>> Roddick's rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be
>>> interesting. They split matches last year, but the surface should
>>> widen the edge Djokovic enjoys to start with.
>>>
>>> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>>>
>>> In the semis, the top half is really, really hard to call, but I'll
>>> go with Murray. I'm a smidge surer of Federer winning his (which is
>>> nowhere near positive).
>>>
>>> No interest in calling that final. It should be very interesting, so
>>> I'll just enjoy it, if that's okay with folks.
>>
>> Just give us a big final. No more nobodies getting through, never to
>> figure in a big match again.
>>
>
> How do you figure tennis players make their names?

By winning slams, not fluking their way to one final and losing.





    
Date: 24 Jan 2009 23:10:10
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
DavidW wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> DavidW wrote:
>>> Pedro Dias wrote:
>>>> Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
>>>> quarters look?
>>>>
>>>> My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the
>>>> top four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas
>>>> (match of the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v.
>>>> Safin) tonight; then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of
>>>> the two being more likely to trouble him than the former; then a
>>>> quarterfinal against either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v.
>>>> Simon. In my opinion, just about the toughest road possible, given
>>>> the seeding system and current form.
>>>>
>>>> Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
>>>> back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
>>>> there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect
>>>> him to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known
>>>> to catch on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.
>>>>
>>>> Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming
>>>> Roddick's rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be
>>>> interesting. They split matches last year, but the surface should
>>>> widen the edge Djokovic enjoys to start with.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>>>>
>>>> In the semis, the top half is really, really hard to call, but I'll
>>>> go with Murray. I'm a smidge surer of Federer winning his (which is
>>>> nowhere near positive).
>>>>
>>>> No interest in calling that final. It should be very interesting, so
>>>> I'll just enjoy it, if that's okay with folks.
>>> Just give us a big final. No more nobodies getting through, never to
>>> figure in a big match again.
>>>
>> How do you figure tennis players make their names?
>
> By winning slams, not fluking their way to one final and losing.
>
>
>

You appear to want only slam winners to make it to slam finals. What is
a fluke in your opinion?

I suspect that your definition will make 3 of Sampras's 7 Wimbledons flukes.

--
Cheers,

vc


 
Date: 23 Jan 2009 19:31:09
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: AO Men's Draw, Revisited (possible 3rd round spoilers)
On Jan 23, 10:11=A0pm, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net > wrote:
> Okay, so now that some of the dust has settled, how do the various
> quarters look?
>
> My original impression was that Nadal had the toughest draw of the top
> four. Now, to get to the final, he must get by a sharp Haas (match of
> the round, rather than the sexier-sounding Federer v. Safin) tonight;
> then Gasquet/Gonzales in the fourth, the latter of the two being more
> likely to trouble him than the former; then a quarterfinal against
> either Monfils or the winner of Ancic v. Simon. In my opinion, just
> about the toughest road possible, given the seeding system and current
> form.
>
> Murray... If Tsonga weren't walking around wincing and holding his
> back, that might be a tough QF. He should have no trouble getting
> there, both Melzer and Stepanek being favorable matchups. I expect him
> to meet Tsonga, since Blake and Andreev are not exactly known to catch
> on fire at the Slams. And I expect him to win.
>
> Djokovic should have little trouble with Baghdatis. Assuming Roddick's
> rejuvenation gets him past Robredo, the QF might be interesting. They
> split matches last year, but the surface should widen the edge
> Djokovic enjoys to start with.
>
> I don't see Federer having any trouble with Berdych or Del Potro.
>
> In the semis, the top half is really, really hard to call, but I'll go
> with Murray. I'm a smidge surer of Federer winning his (which is
> nowhere near positive).
>
> No interest in calling that final. It should be very interesting, so
> I'll just enjoy it, if that's okay with folks.

Where is Simon?