wwww

pa, ako ispadnu NAdal i Tsitsipas meni totalno sve jedno ko ce pobediti, moze i Botic

svidelo mi se i sto nije prihvatio Kurijerovo opravdavanje publike kako oni "samo imitiraju Ronalda" (hau jes nou ) videcemo da li ce Danil imati dovoljno svezine do kraja (jer je imao veoma kratku medjusezonu). Ne bih se bunila za finale Zverev-Medvedev.

odlican Danil!

Nik razlupao reket. Cekam sad da vidim zgrazavajuce napise u novinama nemacki komentatori su samo konstatovai da je razlupao reket i odmah prebacili pricu kako Nik u ma kraljevske krvi, bla, bla, bla... da bi onda samo kratko prokomentarisali kako ce verovatno slomljeni reket dati nekom fanu. toliko o "nedolicnom ponasanju" koje samo Srbenda Djokovic upraznjava i na koje se svi onda zgrazavaju.

Ucutkao Danil publiku, totalni muk 5:2 u 4.

Sasvim fin i elokventan intervju na terenu posle meca. Danka kao da vec godinama to radi, i to na odlicnom engleskom. ako sam dobro videla, napisala na kameri IDEMO, plus je to i rekla.

Bravo, Danka! Ode Ema, Britanci (i Oziji) izvode kolektivni harakiri

nemacki komentatori svrsavaju (da se izrazim popularnim recnikom ) na ovu Nikovu proslavu brejka.

ma treba definitivno negativan pcr test da bi usao u avion. ovo za 14 dana da nije putovao: samo ako tako klikne na onom elektronskom formularu. ne znam da li se otvara neki novi "prozor" ako se tu klikne "yes" tj. da li se otvara linija na kojoj se upisuje gde je sve putovao, a odakle bi (u normalnim okolnostima) onaj na granici mogao da proceni da li je bio u nekoj kriticnoj zemlje (zbog politickih ili epidemioloskih razloga).

Rubljov je valjda bio pozitivan kad se testirao da bi mogao da leti za Australiju (tamo gde je bio lociran), pa zbog toga nije ni igrao ATP Cup niti i jedan drugi turnir pred AO. Interesanto je da su mu dozvolili da udje u zemlju s pozitivnim testom, bez obzira na kolicinu virusa koju su mu nasli (za koju kaze da je bila mala). sto ce reci da nesto "moze da bidne (pravilo), ali ne mora da znaci"

samo za @urosg3 i @Angelia sta mislite koliko je ovo ubedljiv argument?

Preporuke ministarstva zdravlja Viktorije, Australija:

ダニエル太郎 NIsta od karijernog slema... (Mek odahnuo ) Endi se vrlo kratko pozdravio s Tarom, jedva sekund ili dve. Nisu svi darezljivi kad gube...

Danku ne komentarisem dok ne zavrsi mec

za malo da Medvedev pogodi skupljaca loptica: dete trcalo s druge strane mreze da pokupi neku lopticu koja se zaustavila tu oko mreze, a Danil izvadio iz dzepa lopticu i lagano je udario u pravcu skupljaca loptice na drugoj strani terena (jer sledeci servira Kirios). I tu za malo da pogodi dete (kome apsolutno nista ne bi falilo, loptica je totalno bila bezopasna).

ocigledno da u ovoj fazi treba promeniti nacin ocenjivanja rizika po opste zdravlje i malcice iznijansiranije posmatrati/analizirati/diskutovati podarke.

c, c, c, podstices coveka na krivicno delo.

Mark Pechi sad silno ishvali opsesiju Endija Marija da igra tenis i da pobedjuje. Ja sam mislila da je opsesija losa stvar u sportu ili je samo kad su pojedini igraci u pitanju...

3. TB izmedju FAA i ADF Endi brejknut u 3. gemu. Tsitsipas vodi 2:1 Per vodi 2:0 u setovima protiv Dimitrova Per vodi protiv bilo koga

Novak Djokovic was deported from Australia in part due to the ‘media portrayal’ of his choice not to be vaccinated, the judges have confirmed. A week-long saga came to an end on the eve of the Australian Open with Djokovic failing in his bid to have a court rule a Ministerial order to deport him was unreasonable. Minister for Immigration Alex Hawke cancelled Djokovic’s visa on the grounds his presence in Australia unvaccinated could fuel ant-vaccination sentiment in the country. However, despite conceding there was ‘no evidence’ that Novak Djokovic has never ‘fostered anti-vaccination sentiment,’ the judges ruled Hawke had grounds for his decision based upon the media and public perception of the Serbian’s decision not to take the vaccine. The ruling states: “That he had a reason not to have a vaccination at the time of the decision in January 2022, apparently having contracted COVID-19 on or about 16 December 2021, did not say anything as to the position for the many months from the availability of vaccines to December 2021. “It was plainly open to the Minister to infer that Mr Djokovic had chosen not to be vaccinated because he was opposed to vaccination or did not wish to be vaccinated. “Whilst the Minister had not asked Mr Djokovic about his present attitude to vaccines, that only meant that there was no express statement to the contrary of what could be inferred to be his attitude up to January 2022. “Mr Djokovic had not volunteered any information when interviewed at the airport by officers of the Department of Home Affairs. He did not give evidence of any apparent change of attitude. “It was also open to the Minister to infer that the public would view his attitude as the media had portrayed: that he was unwilling to be vaccinated. “The central proposition of Mr Djokovic’s argument was that the Minister lacked any evidence and cited none that his presence may “foster anti-vaccination sentiment”. “There was no evidence, it was submitted, that he had urged people not to be vaccinated. Nor was there any evidence that in the past his circumstances had fostered such a sentiment in other countries. “However, it was open to infer that it was perceived by the public that Mr Djokovic was not in favour of vaccinations. It was known or at least perceived by the public that he had chosen not to be vaccinated.” So basically, those perceived pro-choice are punishable with deportation.

Novak Djokovic was deported from Australia in part due to the ‘media portrayal’ of his choice not to be vaccinated, the judges have confirmed. A week-long saga came to an end on the eve of the Australian Open with Djokovic failing in his bid to have a court rule a Ministerial order to deport him was unreasonable. Minister for Immigration Alex Hawke cancelled Djokovic’s visa on the grounds his presence in Australia unvaccinated could fuel ant-vaccination sentiment in the country. However, despite conceding there was ‘no evidence’ that Novak Djokovic has never ‘fostered anti-vaccination sentiment,’ the judges ruled Hawke had grounds for his decision based upon the media and public perception of the Serbian’s decision not to take the vaccine. The ruling states: “That he had a reason not to have a vaccination at the time of the decision in January 2022, apparently having contracted COVID-19 on or about 16 December 2021, did not say anything as to the position for the many months from the availability of vaccines to December 2021. “It was plainly open to the Minister to infer that Mr Djokovic had chosen not to be vaccinated because he was opposed to vaccination or did not wish to be vaccinated. “Whilst the Minister had not asked Mr Djokovic about his present attitude to vaccines, that only meant that there was no express statement to the contrary of what could be inferred to be his attitude up to January 2022. “Mr Djokovic had not volunteered any information when interviewed at the airport by officers of the Department of Home Affairs. He did not give evidence of any apparent change of attitude. “It was also open to the Minister to infer that the public would view his attitude as the media had portrayed: that he was unwilling to be vaccinated. “The central proposition of Mr Djokovic’s argument was that the Minister lacked any evidence and cited none that his presence may “foster anti-vaccination sentiment”. “There was no evidence, it was submitted, that he had urged people not to be vaccinated. Nor was there any evidence that in the past his circumstances had fostered such a sentiment in other countries. “However, it was open to infer that it was perceived by the public that Mr Djokovic was not in favour of vaccinations. It was known or at least perceived by the public that he had chosen not to be vaccinated.”

Novak Djokovic was deported from Australia in part due to the ‘media portrayal’ of his choice not to be vaccinated, the judges have confirmed. A week-long saga came to an end on the eve of the Australian Open with Djokovic failing in his bid to have a court rule a Ministerial order to deport him was unreasonable. Minister for Immigration Alex Hawke cancelled Djokovic’s visa on the grounds his presence in Australia unvaccinated could fuel ant-vaccination sentiment in the country. However, despite conceding there was ‘no evidence’ that Novak Djokovic has never ‘fostered anti-vaccination sentiment,’ the judges ruled Hawke had grounds for his decision based upon the media and public perception of the Serbian’s decision not to take the vaccine. The ruling states: “That he had a reason not to have a vaccination at the time of the decision in January 2022, apparently having contracted COVID-19 on or about 16 December 2021, did not say anything as to the position for the many months from the availability of vaccines to December 2021. “It was plainly open to the Minister to infer that Mr Djokovic had chosen not to be vaccinated because he was opposed to vaccination or did not wish to be vaccinated. “Whilst the Minister had not asked Mr Djokovic about his present attitude to vaccines, that only meant that there was no express statement to the contrary of what could be inferred to be his attitude up to January 2022. “Mr Djokovic had not volunteered any information when interviewed at the airport by officers of the Department of Home Affairs. He did not give evidence of any apparent change of attitude. “It was also open to the Minister to infer that the public would view his attitude as the media had portrayed: that he was unwilling to be vaccinated. “The central proposition of Mr Djokovic’s argument was that the Minister lacked any evidence and cited none that his presence may “foster anti-vaccination sentiment”. “There was no evidence, it was submitted, that he had urged people not to be vaccinated. Nor was there any evidence that in the past his circumstances had fostered such a sentiment in other countries. “However, it was open to infer that it was perceived by the public that Mr Djokovic was not in favour of vaccinations. It was known or at least perceived by the public that he had chosen not to be vaccinated.”

jos jedan "novinar" "zaboravio" da stavi sve relevantne informacije u "breaking news" naravno, oni koji komenarisu ponovo pokazuju da takodje pojma nemaju ni o cemu (najmanje o tome cemu sluze vakcine, a cemu terapije protiv bolesti), ali je bitno da su spremni odmah da opljunu i da se pridruze medijskoj hajki i lincu (sve pozivajuci se na nauku i "u ime nauke" 🦜 ) . i onda im svima na kraju kriva "nauka" kad im ne ispuni "ono sto je obecala", iako ta ista nauka nista slicno nije "obecala" novim "vernicima" (koji oksimoron), samo nije imao ko ni da slusa ni da razume sta im se kaze...