tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 30 Jan 2009 14:16:38
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Longest ever match at the AO
Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.

Stats:

Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs

Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.

Sheesh!

--
Cheers,

vc




 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 21:29:50
From: David W
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On Jan 31, 3:29=A0pm, pltrgyst <pltrg...@spamlessxhost.org > wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:57:51 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>> Yes. They managed to squeeze in 99 more points in 14 fewer minutes.
>
> >>> 14 _less_ minutes.
>
> >> ....Is it not "fewer" for countable plural nouns?
>
> >Time is continuous.
>
> It doesn't matter that time is continuous -- minutes alone are not contin=
uous.

Yes they are. Look at the minute hand of a clock.

> You don't run the "four-minutes mile;" you run the "four-minute mile." Fe=
wer is correct.

Are two-and-a-half apples less than or fewer than three apples?

> Check any major style book you like, or check with our former resident
> RST language guru, Bill Walsh, Washington Post copy editor and author of
> "Lapsing into a Comma."

I would be surprised if most major style guides address cases of
continuous quantities. I can't find it in Fowler.

> > The actual time difference could have been 14.54386
> >minutes. However, in this case where the times have been rounded to minu=
tes I
> >suppose there's a case for 'fewer'.
>
> Generous of you, considering you're wrong. =A08;) =A0The time period is n=
ot being
> "rounded"; it's being expressed in discrete units.

Which is why I think it could be acceptable.

> It's sort of liike
> approximating pi as 3.
>
> >There's a quiz show in Australia called "The Einstein Factor". Before ea=
ch
> >contestant's first round the host says, "Your 90 seconds begin now." It =
always
> >bugs me that he doesn't say, "Your 90 seconds begins now."
>
> Wrong again.

Suppose it was 90.5 seconds. What should he say then?

> Maybe it would make you feel better to imagine him saying "Your 90
> second period begins now."

My argument is based on logic. If established style disagrees, then it
is wrong. The use of 'fewer' with units of time implies that we
suddenly jump from one to the next, which we don't. Time is continuous
and is measured with real numbers in whatever units you choose, not
integers.


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 13:20:57
From: Pareee
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
Truth always rests with the UEs.


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 13:10:50
From:
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On Jan 30, 8:57=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 8:31 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> >>> Petter Solbu wrote:
> >>>> Gordon Cameron wrote:
>
> >>>>> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>
> >>>> Yep. That match was only 5 hours exactly. More short points, you
> >>>> know.
>
> >>>> PS.
>
> >>> Yes. They managed to squeeze in 99 more points in 14 fewer minutes.
>
> >> 14 _less_ minutes.
>
> > Is it?
>
> > Is it not "fewer" for countable plural nouns?
>
> Time is continuous. The actual time difference could have been 14.54386
> minutes. However, in this case where the times have been rounded to minut=
es I
> suppose there's a case for 'fewer'.
>

Minutes are units of time, so they are countable. I think it is right
to say "less time" but "fewer minutes".





 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 13:02:46
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cac1439f-a326-43d6-8f81-0823bfa8a5df@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 6:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> john wrote:
> >> > "Gordon Cameron" <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:61a49438-0b06-438a-af57-cbb8de60a495@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>
> >> >> Stats:
>
> >> >> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
> >> >> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
> >> >> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>
> >> >> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>
> >> >> Sheesh!
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Cheers,
>
> >> >> vc
>
> >> > This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>
> >> > Roddic/El Aynaoui was not as long as Becker - Camporese's match in 2nd
> >> > round
> >> > of AO 91.
> >> > I went to see that match at year with a $20 ground pass on the old
> >> > court 1.
> >> > After watching
> >> > this match I think Federer might actually prefer to play Nadal instead
> >> > of
> >> > Verdasco. For someone
> >> > who played his first grand slam semi Verdasco was not nervous at all
> >> > except
> >> > in the last game of
> >> > the match. He has an explosive serve and a searing forehand, he can
> >> > actually flat out those ground
> >> > shots even more than Nadal. The position where Nadal returned serve
> >> > today
> >> > will give Federer a lot
> >> > of confidence in the final match.
>
> >> Rafa was nervous the whole match - tough playing another Spaniard in a
> >> huge match.
>
> >> He will have no such nerves in the final. Roger I'm afraid I can't say
> >> the same.
>
> >> He won't like losing the last 3 slam finals he's played Rafa, on 3
> >> surfaces.
>
> > Give me a break, Verdasco is Nadal's patsy -
> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playe...
>
> > He'd only taken one set off Nadal once previously - 2 years ago, and
> > the last time they played he got absolutely creamed. You need a
> > retractable roof to hide your idiocy from the world.
>
> Clearly you're unable to *read from those stats*.

The stats show that Verdasco played an amazing match. To claim that
Nadal was nervous against someone he's owned his entire career is
ridiculous.


  
Date: 30 Jan 2009 23:06:24
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO

<andrew.reys@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:c258401f-0d41-4ec6-b1ad-156706ac1d43@y23g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 1:36 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:cac1439f-a326-43d6-8f81-0823bfa8a5df@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 30, 6:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> john wrote:
>> >> > "Gordon Cameron" <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:61a49438-0b06-438a-af57-cbb8de60a495@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> >> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from
>> >> >> Verdasco.
>>
>> >> >> Stats:
>>
>> >> >> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
>> >> >> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
>> >> >> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>>
>> >> >> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>>
>> >> >> Sheesh!
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Cheers,
>>
>> >> >> vc
>>
>> >> > This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>>
>> >> > Roddic/El Aynaoui was not as long as Becker - Camporese's match in
>> >> > 2nd
>> >> > round
>> >> > of AO 91.
>> >> > I went to see that match at year with a $20 ground pass on the old
>> >> > court 1.
>> >> > After watching
>> >> > this match I think Federer might actually prefer to play Nadal
>> >> > instead
>> >> > of
>> >> > Verdasco. For someone
>> >> > who played his first grand slam semi Verdasco was not nervous at all
>> >> > except
>> >> > in the last game of
>> >> > the match. He has an explosive serve and a searing forehand, he
>> >> > can
>> >> > actually flat out those ground
>> >> > shots even more than Nadal. The position where Nadal returned serve
>> >> > today
>> >> > will give Federer a lot
>> >> > of confidence in the final match.
>>
>> >> Rafa was nervous the whole match - tough playing another Spaniard in a
>> >> huge match.
>>
>> >> He will have no such nerves in the final. Roger I'm afraid I can't
>> >> say
>> >> the same.
>>
>> >> He won't like losing the last 3 slam finals he's played Rafa, on 3
>> >> surfaces.
>>
>> > Give me a break, Verdasco is Nadal's patsy -
>> >http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playe...
>>
>> > He'd only taken one set off Nadal once previously - 2 years ago, and
>> > the last time they played he got absolutely creamed. You need a
>> > retractable roof to hide your idiocy from the world.
>>
>> Clearly you're unable to *read from those stats*.
>
> The stats show that Verdasco played an amazing match. To claim that
> Nadal was nervous against someone he's owned his entire career is
> ridiculous.

It would be a great blow for Nadal had he lost it, it was a match he "had to
win".

That alone is enough to be nervous.

And there are other factors.




   
Date: 30 Jan 2009 22:47:54
From: Jesper Lauridsen
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On 2009-01-30, *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
>
><andrew.reys@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c258401f-0d41-4ec6-b1ad-156706ac1d43@y23g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> The stats show that Verdasco played an amazing match. To claim that
>> Nadal was nervous against someone he's owned his entire career is
>> ridiculous.
>
> It would be a great blow for Nadal had he lost it, it was a match he "had to
> win".
>
> That alone is enough to be nervous.

I didn't hear this "nervous" talk when Federer played Berdych.


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 13:02:08
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On Jan 31, 2:57=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 8:31 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> >>> Petter Solbu wrote:
> >>>> Gordon Cameron wrote:
>
> >>>>> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>
> >>>> Yep. That match was only 5 hours exactly. More short points, you
> >>>> know.
>
> >>>> PS.
>
> >>> Yes. They managed to squeeze in 99 more points in 14 fewer minutes.
>
> >> 14 _less_ minutes.
>
> > Is it?
>
> > Is it not "fewer" for countable plural nouns?
>
> Time is continuous. The actual time difference could have been 14.54386
> minutes. However, in this case where the times have been rounded to minut=
es I
> suppose there's a case for 'fewer'.

In fact, there's is a stronger case for "fewer" than for "less".
Minutes are countable units of time.

But in informal usage, "less" and "fewer" are pretty much
interchangeable.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 08:31:07
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2:57 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 8:31 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>>>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>>>>> Gordon Cameron wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>>
>>>>>> Yep. That match was only 5 hours exactly. More short points, you
>>>>>> know.
>>
>>>>>> PS.
>>
>>>>> Yes. They managed to squeeze in 99 more points in 14 fewer
>>>>> minutes.
>>
>>>> 14 _less_ minutes.
>>
>>> Is it?
>>
>>> Is it not "fewer" for countable plural nouns?
>>
>> Time is continuous. The actual time difference could have been
>> 14.54386 minutes. However, in this case where the times have been
>> rounded to minutes I suppose there's a case for 'fewer'.
>
> In fact, there's is a stronger case for "fewer" than for "less".
> Minutes are countable units of time.

By saying 'fewer' you are implying that minutes exist as distinct packages,
like apples and vacuum cleaners. They don't. Minutes are just convenient
divisions on a continuous line.

Suppose you run a 100m race and finish 2.0 seconds behind the winner. If you
say, "He ran it in two fewer seconds" you imply that it could have been 1
second or 3 seconds, but not 1.8 seconds or 2.3 seconds. It's only an accident
that it happened to be 2.0 seconds. It shouldn't be a special case.

> But in informal usage, "less" and "fewer" are pretty much
> interchangeable.

The group that is aware of the distiction is fairly large.





 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 12:38:48
From:
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On Jan 30, 8:31=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> > Petter Solbu wrote:
> >> Gordon Cameron wrote:
>
> >>> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>
> >> Yep. That match was only 5 hours exactly. More short points, you
> >> know.
>
> >> PS.
>
> > Yes. They managed to squeeze in 99 more points in 14 fewer minutes.
>
> 14 _less_ minutes.

Is it?

Is it not "fewer" for countable plural nouns?



  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 07:57:51
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 30, 8:31 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>>> Gordon Cameron wrote:
>>
>>>>> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>>
>>>> Yep. That match was only 5 hours exactly. More short points, you
>>>> know.
>>
>>>> PS.
>>
>>> Yes. They managed to squeeze in 99 more points in 14 fewer minutes.
>>
>> 14 _less_ minutes.
>
> Is it?
>
> Is it not "fewer" for countable plural nouns?

Time is continuous. The actual time difference could have been 14.54386
minutes. However, in this case where the times have been rounded to minutes I
suppose there's a case for 'fewer'.

There's a quiz show in Australia called "The Einstein Factor". Before each
contestant's first round the host says, "Your 90 seconds begin now." It always
bugs me that he doesn't say, "Your 90 seconds begins now."





   
Date: 30 Jan 2009 23:29:21
From: pltrgyst
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:57:51 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote:

>>>> Yes. They managed to squeeze in 99 more points in 14 fewer minutes.
>>>
>>> 14 _less_ minutes.
>>
>> ....Is it not "fewer" for countable plural nouns?
>
>Time is continuous.

It doesn't matter that time is continuous -- minutes alone are not continuous.
You don't run the "four-minutes mile;" you run the "four-minute mile." Fewer is
correct. Check any major style book you like, or check with our former resident
RST language guru, Bill Walsh, Washington Post copy editor and author of
"Lapsing into a Comma."

> The actual time difference could have been 14.54386
>minutes. However, in this case where the times have been rounded to minutes I
>suppose there's a case for 'fewer'.

Generous of you, considering you're wrong. 8;) The time period is not being
"rounded"; it's being expressed in discrete units. It's sort of liike
approximating pi as 3.

>There's a quiz show in Australia called "The Einstein Factor". Before each
>contestant's first round the host says, "Your 90 seconds begin now." It always
>bugs me that he doesn't say, "Your 90 seconds begins now."

Wrong again. Maybe it would make you feel better to imagine him saying "Your 90
second period begins now."

-- Larry (Jeez, but Nadal/Verdasco was boring. Not nearly as entertaining a
match as Gonzalez/Gasquet...)


    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:58:17
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:29:21 -0500, pltrgyst
<pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org > wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:57:51 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>
>>>>> Yes. They managed to squeeze in 99 more points in 14 fewer minutes.
>>>>
>>>> 14 _less_ minutes.
>>>
>>> ....Is it not "fewer" for countable plural nouns?
>>
>>Time is continuous.
>
>It doesn't matter that time is continuous -- minutes alone are not continuous.
>You don't run the "four-minutes mile;" you run the "four-minute mile." Fewer is
>correct. Check any major style book you like, or check with our former resident
>RST language guru, Bill Walsh, Washington Post copy editor and author of
>"Lapsing into a Comma."
>
>> The actual time difference could have been 14.54386
>>minutes. However, in this case where the times have been rounded to minutes I
>>suppose there's a case for 'fewer'.
>
>Generous of you, considering you're wrong. 8;) The time period is not being
>"rounded"; it's being expressed in discrete units. It's sort of liike
>approximating pi as 3.
>
>>There's a quiz show in Australia called "The Einstein Factor". Before each
>>contestant's first round the host says, "Your 90 seconds begin now." It always
>>bugs me that he doesn't say, "Your 90 seconds begins now."
>
>Wrong again. Maybe it would make you feel better to imagine him saying "Your 90
>second period begins now."
>
>-- Larry (Jeez, but Nadal/Verdasco was boring. Not nearly as entertaining a
>match as Gonzalez/Gasquet...)

Nadal/Verdasco was fantastic. I didn't see Gonzalez/Gasquet, everyone
has been saying it was great.

You sure watch a lot of AO, considering you don't watch it :-)



     
Date: 31 Jan 2009 11:57:54
From: pltrgyst
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:58:17 +0200, Sakari Lund <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote:

>>-- Larry (Jeez, but Nadal/Verdasco was boring. Not nearly as entertaining a
>>match as Gonzalez/Gasquet...)
>
>Nadal/Verdasco was fantastic. I didn't see Gonzalez/Gasquet, everyone
>has been saying it was great.

IMO, the play and tactics were a lot more varied in the G/G match. N/V was a
real baseline slugfest, but I generally find those boring.

>You sure watch a lot of AO, considering you don't watch it :-)

It's the confluence of DVR and winter boredom. I eventually watch it all, since
I'm a tennis fiend, but I don't make a special effort to watch everything that I
can live, as I do for the three actual Grand Slam events. 8;)

-- Larry


    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 00:08:53
From: pltrgyst
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:29:21 -0500, pltrgyst <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org > wrote:

>You don't run the "four-minutes mile;" you run the "four-minute mile."
^s

Duh, lost my "s".

-- Larry


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 09:33:30
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On Jan 30, 6:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> john wrote:
> > "Gordon Cameron" <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote in message
> >news:61a49438-0b06-438a-af57-cbb8de60a495@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>
> >> Stats:
>
> >> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
> >> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
> >> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>
> >> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>
> >> Sheesh!
>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
>
> >> vc
>
> > This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>
> > Roddic/El Aynaoui was not as long as Becker - Camporese's match in 2nd round
> > of AO 91.
> > I went to see that match at year with a $20 ground pass on the old court 1.
> > After watching
> > this match I think Federer might actually prefer to play Nadal instead of
> > Verdasco. For someone
> > who played his first grand slam semi Verdasco was not nervous at all except
> > in the last game of
> > the match. He has an explosive serve and a searing forehand, he can
> > actually flat out those ground
> > shots even more than Nadal. The position where Nadal returned serve today
> > will give Federer a lot
> > of confidence in the final match.
>
> Rafa was nervous the whole match - tough playing another Spaniard in a
> huge match.
>
> He will have no such nerves in the final. Roger I'm afraid I can't say
> the same.
>
> He won't like losing the last 3 slam finals he's played Rafa, on 3 surfaces.

Give me a break, Verdasco is Nadal's patsy -
http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=N409&playernum2=V306

He'd only taken one set off Nadal once previously - 2 years ago, and
the last time they played he got absolutely creamed. You need a
retractable roof to hide your idiocy from the world.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 12:01:45
From: john
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO

<andrew.reys@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:cac1439f-a326-43d6-8f81-0823bfa8a5df@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 6:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> john wrote:
>> > "Gordon Cameron" <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote in message
>> >news:61a49438-0b06-438a-af57-cbb8de60a495@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>>
>> >> Stats:
>>
>> >> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
>> >> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
>> >> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>>
>> >> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>>
>> >> Sheesh!
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>>
>> >> vc
>>
>> > This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>>
>> > Roddic/El Aynaoui was not as long as Becker - Camporese's match in 2nd
>> > round
>> > of AO 91.
>> > I went to see that match at year with a $20 ground pass on the old
>> > court 1.
>> > After watching
>> > this match I think Federer might actually prefer to play Nadal instead
>> > of
>> > Verdasco. For someone
>> > who played his first grand slam semi Verdasco was not nervous at all
>> > except
>> > in the last game of
>> > the match. He has an explosive serve and a searing forehand, he can
>> > actually flat out those ground
>> > shots even more than Nadal. The position where Nadal returned serve
>> > today
>> > will give Federer a lot
>> > of confidence in the final match.
>>
>> Rafa was nervous the whole match - tough playing another Spaniard in a
>> huge match.
>>
>> He will have no such nerves in the final. Roger I'm afraid I can't say
>> the same.
>>
>> He won't like losing the last 3 slam finals he's played Rafa, on 3
>> surfaces.
>
> Give me a break, Verdasco is Nadal's patsy -
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=N409&playernum2=V306
>
> He'd only taken one set off Nadal once previously - 2 years ago, and
> the last time they played he got absolutely creamed. You need a
> retractable roof to hide your idiocy from the world.


Whisper, why was Nadal nervous the whole match ? Nadal had a 6:0 head to
head record
against Verdasco, played in 10 GS semi compare to a player who was in his
first slam semi.
Big match experience, big h2h lead and stronger mental and physical
toughness all going
in favour of Nadal. If Nadal was nervous against FV why he would not be
nervous in the
final. stupid analysis by Whispy and defence by Skriptis..




  
Date: 30 Jan 2009 22:36:30
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO

<andrew.reys@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:cac1439f-a326-43d6-8f81-0823bfa8a5df@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 6:40 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> john wrote:
>> > "Gordon Cameron" <gcame...@neteze.com> wrote in message
>> >news:61a49438-0b06-438a-af57-cbb8de60a495@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>>
>> >> Stats:
>>
>> >> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
>> >> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
>> >> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>>
>> >> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>>
>> >> Sheesh!
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>>
>> >> vc
>>
>> > This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>>
>> > Roddic/El Aynaoui was not as long as Becker - Camporese's match in 2nd
>> > round
>> > of AO 91.
>> > I went to see that match at year with a $20 ground pass on the old
>> > court 1.
>> > After watching
>> > this match I think Federer might actually prefer to play Nadal instead
>> > of
>> > Verdasco. For someone
>> > who played his first grand slam semi Verdasco was not nervous at all
>> > except
>> > in the last game of
>> > the match. He has an explosive serve and a searing forehand, he can
>> > actually flat out those ground
>> > shots even more than Nadal. The position where Nadal returned serve
>> > today
>> > will give Federer a lot
>> > of confidence in the final match.
>>
>> Rafa was nervous the whole match - tough playing another Spaniard in a
>> huge match.
>>
>> He will have no such nerves in the final. Roger I'm afraid I can't say
>> the same.
>>
>> He won't like losing the last 3 slam finals he's played Rafa, on 3
>> surfaces.
>
> Give me a break, Verdasco is Nadal's patsy -
> http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=N409&playernum2=V306
>
> He'd only taken one set off Nadal once previously - 2 years ago, and
> the last time they played he got absolutely creamed. You need a
> retractable roof to hide your idiocy from the world.


Clearly you're unable to *read from those stats*.




 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 06:20:42
From: Gordon Cameron
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On Jan 30, 6:16=A0am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net > wrote:
> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>
> Stats:
>
> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>
> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>
> Sheesh!
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> vc

This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 01:34:55
From: john
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO

"Gordon Cameron" <gcameron@neteze.com > wrote in message
news:61a49438-0b06-438a-af57-cbb8de60a495@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net > wrote:
> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>
> Stats:
>
> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>
> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>
> Sheesh!
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> vc

This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?

Roddic/El Aynaoui was not as long as Becker - Camporese's match in 2nd round
of AO 91.
I went to see that match at year with a $20 ground pass on the old court 1.
After watching
this match I think Federer might actually prefer to play Nadal instead of
Verdasco. For someone
who played his first grand slam semi Verdasco was not nervous at all except
in the last game of
the match. He has an explosive serve and a searing forehand, he can
actually flat out those ground
shots even more than Nadal. The position where Nadal returned serve today
will give Federer a lot
of confidence in the final match.




   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 01:40:04
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
john wrote:
> "Gordon Cameron" <gcameron@neteze.com> wrote in message
> news:61a49438-0b06-438a-af57-cbb8de60a495@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>>
>> Stats:
>>
>> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
>> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
>> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>>
>> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>>
>> Sheesh!
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> vc
>
> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>
> Roddic/El Aynaoui was not as long as Becker - Camporese's match in 2nd round
> of AO 91.
> I went to see that match at year with a $20 ground pass on the old court 1.
> After watching
> this match I think Federer might actually prefer to play Nadal instead of
> Verdasco. For someone
> who played his first grand slam semi Verdasco was not nervous at all except
> in the last game of
> the match. He has an explosive serve and a searing forehand, he can
> actually flat out those ground
> shots even more than Nadal. The position where Nadal returned serve today
> will give Federer a lot
> of confidence in the final match.
>
>



Rafa was nervous the whole match - tough playing another Spaniard in a
huge match.

He will have no such nerves in the final. Roger I'm afraid I can't say
the same.

He won't like losing the last 3 slam finals he's played Rafa, on 3 surfaces.



    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 02:04:05
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:40:04 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Rafa was nervous the whole match - tough playing another Spaniard in a
>huge match.

Come on, it is not Rafa who is nervous playing other Spaniards. It is
the other way around. Except today Verdasco wasn't nervous either.


    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 00:53:03
From: TT
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
Whisper wrote:
> john wrote:
>> "Gordon Cameron" <gcameron@neteze.com> wrote in message
>> news:61a49438-0b06-438a-af57-cbb8de60a495@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>>>
>>> Stats:
>>>
>>> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
>>> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
>>> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>>>
>>> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>>>
>>> Sheesh!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> vc
>>
>> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>>
>> Roddic/El Aynaoui was not as long as Becker - Camporese's match in 2nd
>> round of AO 91.
>> I went to see that match at year with a $20 ground pass on the old
>> court 1. After watching
>> this match I think Federer might actually prefer to play Nadal instead
>> of Verdasco. For someone
>> who played his first grand slam semi Verdasco was not nervous at all
>> except in the last game of
>> the match. He has an explosive serve and a searing forehand, he can
>> actually flat out those ground
>> shots even more than Nadal. The position where Nadal returned serve
>> today will give Federer a lot
>> of confidence in the final match.
>>
>
>
>
> Rafa was nervous the whole match - tough playing another Spaniard in a
> huge match.
>
> He will have no such nerves in the final. Roger I'm afraid I can't say
> the same.
>
> He won't like losing the last 3 slam finals he's played Rafa, on 3
> surfaces.
>


Will that be called Nadal slam if he wins?

Or a Career Feddy Slam?

--
"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: 31 Jan 2009 11:39:38
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
TT wrote:
> Whisper wrote:
>> john wrote:
>>> "Gordon Cameron" <gcameron@neteze.com> wrote in message
>>> news:61a49438-0b06-438a-af57-cbb8de60a495@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>>>>
>>>> Stats:
>>>>
>>>> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
>>>> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
>>>> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>>>>
>>>> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>>>>
>>>> Sheesh!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> vc
>>>
>>> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>>>
>>> Roddic/El Aynaoui was not as long as Becker - Camporese's match in
>>> 2nd round of AO 91.
>>> I went to see that match at year with a $20 ground pass on the old
>>> court 1. After watching
>>> this match I think Federer might actually prefer to play Nadal
>>> instead of Verdasco. For someone
>>> who played his first grand slam semi Verdasco was not nervous at all
>>> except in the last game of
>>> the match. He has an explosive serve and a searing forehand, he can
>>> actually flat out those ground
>>> shots even more than Nadal. The position where Nadal returned serve
>>> today will give Federer a lot
>>> of confidence in the final match.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rafa was nervous the whole match - tough playing another Spaniard in a
>> huge match.
>>
>> He will have no such nerves in the final. Roger I'm afraid I can't
>> say the same.
>>
>> He won't like losing the last 3 slam finals he's played Rafa, on 3
>> surfaces.
>>
>
>
> Will that be called Nadal slam if he wins?
>
> Or a Career Feddy Slam?
>


It's called a 'Who's your daddy' slam.



    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 01:47:55
From: john
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4983114b$0$14863$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> john wrote:
>> "Gordon Cameron" <gcameron@neteze.com> wrote in message
>> news:61a49438-0b06-438a-af57-cbb8de60a495@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>>>
>>> Stats:
>>>
>>> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
>>> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
>>> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>>>
>>> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>>>
>>> Sheesh!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> vc
>>
>> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>>
>> Roddic/El Aynaoui was not as long as Becker - Camporese's match in 2nd
>> round of AO 91.
>> I went to see that match at year with a $20 ground pass on the old court
>> 1. After watching
>> this match I think Federer might actually prefer to play Nadal instead of
>> Verdasco. For someone
>> who played his first grand slam semi Verdasco was not nervous at all
>> except in the last game of
>> the match. He has an explosive serve and a searing forehand, he can
>> actually flat out those ground
>> shots even more than Nadal. The position where Nadal returned serve
>> today will give Federer a lot
>> of confidence in the final match.
>
>
>
> Rafa was nervous the whole match - tough playing another Spaniard in a
> huge match.
>
> He will have no such nerves in the final. Roger I'm afraid I can't say
> the same.
>
> He won't like losing the last 3 slam finals he's played Rafa, on 3
> surfaces.


Typical rubbish from Tier 0 Anal-yst. Rafa was outgunned by FV's serve and
was returning
from 3 metres+ deep and retrieving 5 or more metres behind the baseline. I
am afraid nobody
take you seriously, Federer will win the AO on Sunday and will regain his
Wimbledon title
in July.
>




  
Date: 30 Jan 2009 14:26:16
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
Gordon Cameron wrote:
> On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>>
>> Stats:
>>
>> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
>> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
>> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>>
>> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>>
>> Sheesh!
>>
>
> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?

The previous longest was a Becker-Camporese match at 5 hours and 11 minutes.

The Roddick-El Aynaoui match was *only* 5 hours long despite the 21-19
5th set.

--
Cheers,

vc


  
Date: 30 Jan 2009 15:23:11
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
Gordon Cameron wrote:
> On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>>
>> Stats:
>>
>> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
>> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
>> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>>
>> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>>
>> Sheesh!
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> vc
>
> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?

Yep. That match was only 5 hours exactly. More short points, you know.

PS.


   
Date: 30 Jan 2009 14:29:37
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
Petter Solbu wrote:
> Gordon Cameron wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>>>
>>> Stats:
>>>
>>> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
>>> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
>>> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>>>
>>> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>>>
>>> Sheesh!
>>>
>>
>> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>
> Yep. That match was only 5 hours exactly. More short points, you know.
>
> PS.

Yes. They managed to squeeze in 99 more points in 14 fewer minutes.

Roddick 250 points, El Aynaoui 234 points

--
Cheers,

vc


    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 07:31:48
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> Petter Solbu wrote:
>> Gordon Cameron wrote:
>>>
>>> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>>
>> Yep. That match was only 5 hours exactly. More short points, you
>> know.
>>
>> PS.
>
> Yes. They managed to squeeze in 99 more points in 14 fewer minutes.

14 _less_ minutes.





     
Date: 30 Jan 2009 20:38:17
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
DavidW wrote:
> Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> Petter Solbu wrote:
>>> Gordon Cameron wrote:
>>>> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>>> Yep. That match was only 5 hours exactly. More short points, you
>>> know.
>>>
>>> PS.
>> Yes. They managed to squeeze in 99 more points in 14 fewer minutes.
>
> 14 _less_ minutes.
>
>
>

You should make fewer posts and less often. ;-)

--
Cheers,

vc


    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 01:31:05
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Longest ever match at the AO
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
> Petter Solbu wrote:
>> Gordon Cameron wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 6:16 am, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>> Nadal wins in 5 hours and 14 minutes on a double fault from Verdasco.
>>>>
>>>> Stats:
>>>>
>>>> Nadal 193 points, Verdasco 192 points
>>>> Nadal 52 winners, Verdasco 95 winners
>>>> Nadal 25 UES, Verdasco 76 UEs
>>>>
>>>> Nadal gives nothing away. 25 UEs in more than 5 hours of play.
>>>>
>>>> Sheesh!
>>>>
>>>
>>> This was longer than Roddick/El Aynaoui?
>>
>> Yep. That match was only 5 hours exactly. More short points, you know.
>>
>> PS.
>
> Yes. They managed to squeeze in 99 more points in 14 fewer minutes.
>
> Roddick 250 points, El Aynaoui 234 points
>



Lots of 1 stroke points in that one.