tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 30 Jan 2009 07:17:05
From: stephenj
Subject: did some Nut here claim ...
.. that Verdasco would roll over for Nadal? rofl!

--

I do not think the United States would come to an end if
we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do
think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make
that declaration as to the laws of the several States.

- Oliver Wendell Holmes, on the SCOTUS




 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 22:45:55
From: Jesper Lauridsen
Subject: Re: did some Nut here claim ...
On 2009-01-30, stephenj <sjex@cox.com > wrote:
> .. that Verdasco would roll over for Nadal? rofl!

Plenty of people claimed Berdych would roll over for Federer.



 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 10:53:28
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: did some Nut here claim ...
stephenj <sjex@cox.com > wrote:
> .. that Verdasco would roll over for Nadal? rofl!
>

Before this match, he had won 1 set in 6 matches against Nadal, and gotten
waxed (worse than Federer!) in their last match:

2008
Roland Garros
France
R16
Nadal
6-1 6-0 6-2

2007
ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
CA, U.S.A.
Hard
R32
Nadal
6-4 6-4

2006
London / Queen's Club
England
Grass
R16
Nadal
2-6 7-6(3) 7-6(3)

2005
Stuttgart
Germany
Clay
R16
Nadal
6-3 6-2

2005
ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A.
Hard
R32
Nadal
6-2 6-2

2005
Doha
Qatar
Hard
R16
Nadal
6-2 6-4


  
Date: 30 Jan 2009 16:04:04
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: did some Nut here claim ...

"Javier Gonzalez" <ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote in message
news:obdb56-ptv.ln1@despair.pu239.ru...
> stephenj <sjex@cox.com> wrote:
>> .. that Verdasco would roll over for Nadal? rofl!
>>
>
> Before this match, he had won 1 set in 6 matches against Nadal, and gotten
> waxed (worse than Federer!) in their last match:


Past matches mean nothing when the players change, and Verdasco is on a
streak.
Of all those matches the most relevenat was the only HC match since it's
Verdasco best surface.



> 2007
> ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
> CA, U.S.A.
> Hard
> R32
> Nadal
> 6-4 6-4




  
Date: 30 Jan 2009 14:09:51
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: did some Nut here claim ...

doesn't look good for Nadal does it ?


On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:53:28 -0300, Javier Gonzalez
<ja.gon.zal@gmmmmail.com > wrote:

>stephenj <sjex@cox.com> wrote:
>> .. that Verdasco would roll over for Nadal? rofl!
>>
>
>Before this match, he had won 1 set in 6 matches against Nadal, and gotten
>waxed (worse than Federer!) in their last match:
>
>2008
>Roland Garros
>France
>R16
>Nadal
>6-1 6-0 6-2
>
>2007
>ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
>CA, U.S.A.
>Hard
>R32
>Nadal
>6-4 6-4
>
>2006
>London / Queen's Club
>England
>Grass
>R16
>Nadal
>2-6 7-6(3) 7-6(3)
>
>2005
>Stuttgart
>Germany
>Clay
>R16
>Nadal
>6-3 6-2
>
>2005
>ATP Masters Series Miami
>FL, U.S.A.
>Hard
>R32
>Nadal
>6-2 6-2
>
>2005
>Doha
>Qatar
>Hard
>R16
>Nadal
>6-2 6-4


 
Date: 30 Jan 2009 05:31:12
From:
Subject: Re: did some Nut here claim ...
On Jan 30, 8:17=A0am, stephenj <s...@cox.com > wrote:
> .. that Verdasco would roll over for Nadal? rofl!
>
> --
>
> I do not think the United States would come to an end if
> =A0 we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do
> =A0 think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make
> =A0 that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
>
> - Oliver Wendell Holmes, on the SCOTUS

I pretty sure it was a hazel variety.


  
Date: 30 Jan 2009 13:34:42
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: did some Nut here claim ...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:31:12 -0800 (PST), jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Jan 30, 8:17 am, stephenj <s...@cox.com> wrote:
>> .. that Verdasco would roll over for Nadal? rofl!
>>
>> --
>>
>> I do not think the United States would come to an end if
>>   we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do
>>   think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make
>>   that declaration as to the laws of the several States.
>>
>> - Oliver Wendell Holmes, on the SCOTUS
>
>I pretty sure it was a hazel variety.


I LIED.

Get over it !