-
thanks anikh. you are a part of this success too here at Emma's Café. thanks as always for your support and for being an elite member of Camelot Elite Tennis Society.
I think Andy will win tomorrow. Andy is crafty and he is solid off the ground. only question mark is fitness but I think he is making progress there.
almagro has the tendency to go big and play somewhat low percentage tennis. that will work against him tomorrow when he faces Andy.
here is the order of play for tomorrow:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Scores/schedule.aspx?EventId=1536 -
-
Yes Emma that is true although Lendl never really copped any criticism over here so will all depend on how successful Andy is. I think all his fans are on the same wavelength generally. He needs balance between someone he respects and will improve him but also someone he gets on well with him.
I must admit Lendl took a lot of risk when he took the job of Andy's coach but then again, Andy was only half a step away from winning his first Slam. But had he not succeeded, Lendl would have seen a world of criticism from the Brits. And Andy too of course.
In fact, I was on Murray's World when Lendl was hired and a lot of them freaked out at the prospect.They thought Lendl was going to mess Andy's game up. Also, a lot of them didn't think the pair would see any success given Lendl's rigidness and Andy's stubbornness. Of course it was only a miscalculation on their part since Andy was really desperate to have someone like Lendl in his corner. At least he knew what he was doing and I suppose so did Lendl.
All good things too come to an end but of course that doesn't mean it's the end of everything but just the end of one phase. The nest phase is about to begin. -
-
the crazy think about nadal is that he could have been so much better than he already was or had become.
he never got around to developing a more of an assault oriented game. for example can you imagine if he had been able to volley like Edberg or Sampras.
nadal was one of the greatest athletes of all times. surely he could have learned to volley at an early age but who the hell knows what happened. he just wanted to mow people down from the baseline. given his heavy topspin game, that style of play took its toll on him too. so he spent a lot of time being injured.
the game would have been easier for nadal if he had learned a killer slice and a deadly net game at an early age. that would have also given him more options.
I feel though herc, things pan out the way they are supposed to. Nadal is doing great regardless. Do you take his H2H over Federer lightly? Because I don't. I am sure it's one of the greatest achievements in tennis history. Nadal basically put Federer in place and firmly so. If anything it is a sheer delight to see this reality of things. It's a prime example to all those hypothetical situations. No matter how you want to play it now and I bet it's fun too, but the fact and reality is, you haven't got a clue. No amount of arguments will prove anything otherwise because not only you can't change a past result, but also, you can't really project a 'could have' or 'would have' based on what you think it should be. If you put Federer against Sampras, Federer won't be leading Sampras 17-2; however, he will be leading in that way only in your fantasy. You may even sleep better based on your fantasy but you should also know that you are deluded since you think your projected fantasy is more real than the actual outcome, which you clearly haven't got a clue. Neither are you all that bright if you want to still dispute it.
Anyway, Nadal does volley occasionally and he does it very well but he only does it when he's very sure of the point. Also, he loves playing from the baseline. So he may have a natural disliking playing at the net - whether he's good at it or not perhaps doesn't matter to him.
A great player is always a great player, herc and great at everything but they perhaps exceed expectation in one thing they are most talented about. Otherwise it would be like saying Mozart wouldn't have been a great composer if he were to be born in this era. Or Van Gogh or Monet wouldn't been a great painters etc. Tennis is very competitive sport and we tend to put one against the other and yes, some are better than others but that doesn't take away the fact that, they are all individually great players. -
-
I just came across this article about andy:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis/andy-murray-can-retain-wimbledon-3494786?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co
Well, I have no reason to jinx Andy! If he's destined he will win it.
-
-
Wow Clay fantastic sig thanks! I am very impressed. Not sure my name has ever been so much in lights
Hahaha Anikh, that was so funny! You should bring your funny side out more. I love funny people.
But what does 8030 stand for? If you don't mind my asking? And forgive me if it's your double agent secret code. I am sure you wouldn't want to give that away.
-
-
Congrats everyone on the landmark number of views. Clay and Emma you deserve all the success with the time you put in the forum. Andy will play Almagro tomorrow. Going to be one heck of a challenge considering little clay preparation.
Hey, Almagro had it really tough today so who knows, eh? I say there's hope! -
-
congrats emma, anikh, and company.
you folks hit 20,000 views at Emma's Café.
cool milestone. I knew you were going to do it.
I also know that one day you will hit 1 million views here.
Drinks are on the house, dear lurkers! Please feel free to drink as much as you want and get mighty drunk. After all, you have contributed so much just viewing us on a daily basis.
-
-
Btw, I had no idea...absolutely none that Mirka was so close to giving birth to her babies. A friend of mine told me today that Mirka must have been taking all those ...what's it call I forget, anyway, to get pregnant and it had then landed her with twins each time.
Anyway, congrats to the proud parents! -
-
I had the tetanus shot you know a few weeks ago and no one told me anything before or after the shot, but I can tell you I wasn't able to move my arm all that much. It always felt like as if someone punched me in the arm.
Then I had the Hepatitis B shot (I was not-immune to it because I never took this vaccine) just yesterday and my doctor told me that I might get a slight fever and that my arm would be a bit sore for a day and two. And the girl who gave me the shot told me and I quote, "you'll feel as if someone had punched you in the arm" and guess what? Not a single reaction so far. I was so ready with tylenol etc. and some pampering to self perhaps, but now am so very disappointed. haha. Oh well..
Apparently, they haven't discovered the vaccine for Hepatitis C yet. She just told me to be careful and not use used syringe (I don't do drugs) or exchange ahem...saliva etc. and some other stuff. So you know folks, be careful out there. -
-
This is a very good article on twins. Wikipedia has some stats on twins as well and describes very well on the history behind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twin Pregnancy
How You Get Pregnant With Twins
By Robin Elise Weiss, LCCE
"Types of Twins"
People are very fascinated with twins and other multiples. It seems mysterious how one pregnancy can result in more than one baby.
Multiple pregnancies are on the rise in recent years with more and more twins and other types of multiples being born. The majority of the reason for this rise is the increased use of fertility drugs.
How Twins Are Made
There are a couple of ways that multiples are conceived:
Multiple eggs are released or there is more than one ovulation. Both (or more) eggs are fertilized and you have fraternal twins. This can happen with or without fertility drugs.
One egg is release but splits in two. Identical twins are made. This can happen with or without fertility drugs.
In cases of IVF, there are usually 3 or more fertilized eggs put back into the uterus. The rationale is that not all of these will implant, though sometimes they do.
Once conceived you have a lot of possibilities on placentas, implantation locations, number of amniotic sacs. For example, you can have two babies, two placentas, and two sacs. You can have two babies one placenta, two sacs. It will be important to know exactly what you are dealing with, particularly when it comes to amniotic sacs.
How Multiples Are Discovered
Many people learn about their multiples at an early ultrasound. Although some critics say that before twelve weeks gestation there is still a high risk of Vanishing Twin Syndrome (VTS), where one baby stops growing and is either absorbed back into the mother's body or is still born when the other twin is born.
Some people find a rapid rate of grow in their uterus which leads some to suspect twins. I will say, for all of you second timers out there, that your bellies will grow faster than with your first pregnancy, so don't automatically assume twins.
Sometimes multiple heart beats are heard, leading your practitioner to believe that there is more than one bundle of joy in your uterus.
Some women find out when they have abnormally high levels on the AFP test that multiples are on the way, since multiple babies would increase the levels of these hormones. It's also sometimes possible to detect multiples with serial hCG levels in early pregnancy. The more babies the faster the rate of rise in the hCG which should nearly double every 48 hours with a singleton.
About 3% of all twin pregnancies are undetected until birth. It is possible to have an ultrasound and not see the other baby, though rare.
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/pregnancy/a/Twin-Pregnancy.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twins are apparently on the rise in a major way. -
-
Anikh, will you be watching Andy tomorrow? The time frame seems to work in Brit viewers' favour, no?
-
-
congrats emma, anikh, and company.
you folks hit 20,000 views at Emma's Café.
cool milestone. I knew you were going to do it.
I also know that one day you will hit 1 million views here.
Drinks are on the house, dear lurkers! Please feel free to drink as much as you want and get mighty drunk. After all, you have contributed so much just viewing us on a daily basis.
summer is here now and all those drinks are so perfect emma. I think I will try all of them.
cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeers.
that reminds me. I need to order some cheap beer for the great Baron next door. -
-
the crazy think about nadal is that he could have been so much better than he already was or had become.
he never got around to developing a more of an assault oriented game. for example can you imagine if he had been able to volley like Edberg or Sampras.
nadal was one of the greatest athletes of all times. surely he could have learned to volley at an early age but who the hell knows what happened. he just wanted to mow people down from the baseline. given his heavy topspin game, that style of play took its toll on him too. so he spent a lot of time being injured.
the game would have been easier for nadal if he had learned a killer slice and a deadly net game at an early age. that would have also given him more options.
I feel though herc, things pan out the way they are supposed to. Nadal is doing great regardless. Do you take his H2H over Federer lightly? Because I don't. I am sure it's one of the greatest achievements in tennis history. Nadal basically put Federer in place and firmly so. If anything it is a sheer delight to see this reality of things. It's a prime example to all those hypothetical situations. No matter how you want to play it now and I bet it's fun too, but the fact and reality is, you haven't got a clue. No amount of arguments will prove anything otherwise because not only you can't change a past result, but also, you can't really project a 'could have' or 'would have' based on what you think it should be. If you put Federer against Sampras, Federer won't be leading Sampras 17-2; however, he will be leading in that way only in your fantasy. You may even sleep better based on your fantasy but you should also know that you are deluded since you think your projected fantasy is more real than the actual outcome, which you clearly haven't got a clue. Neither are you all that bright if you want to still dispute it.
Anyway, Nadal does volley occasionally and he does it very well but he only does it when he's very sure of the point. Also, he loves playing from the baseline. So he may have a natural disliking playing at the net - whether he's good at it or not perhaps doesn't matter to him.
A great player is always a great player, herc and great at everything but they perhaps exceed expectation in one thing they are most talented about. Otherwise it would be like saying Mozart wouldn't have been a great composer if he were to be born in this era. Or Van Gogh or Monet wouldn't been a great painters etc. Tennis is very competitive sport and we tend to put one against the other and yes, some are better than others but that doesn't take away the fact that, they are all individually great players.
all great baseliners learned to be effective at the net. borg forced himself to be able to volley competently at the net. Agassi and wilander also went forward when they had to and could volley somewhat effectively.
I don't know much about Connors and Lendl. guess I need to read up. how were they at the net.
nadal is just a practitioner of very high percentage tennis. there is almost no risk with a heavy topspin game from the baseline if you can consistently hit it deep. and you only go in on your own terms. you pull the trigger at exactly the right shot.
going to the net entails risk and nadal simply chooses to take as little risk as possible. and how the hell can we argue with him anyway: he can always say that he has the highest winning percentage of any player in the open era. and that he owns a winning record against 100% of the top 30 players.
my deal is one of improvement and thereby making the sport easier on his body. he could have forced himself to improve more. -
-
Playing at the net is of course a very high risk game. They all avoid it, herc not only Nadal.
Lendl was more like Nadal. He too was known for his topspin and would dictate the play with his forehand. Connors was more of an enigma. lol but I read somewhere that he was known for his service return game and had a lot of determination or will to win. I guess we could safely deduct that Nadal is a combination of the those if you like that description, herc darling. -
-
I think you are right princess emma.
lendl did not care much for the net either. he preferred to blast them off the court from the baseline.
I read somewhere that he did not have a topspin backhand when he turned pro. it was all slice evidently.
and then he got grounded in reality quickly. he learned that he needed a devastating topspin backhand to be a top flight pro. -