Jump to content

Tenis u doba Korone


gggggggg

Recommended Posts

ali pazi ovaj put koji bi neki teniseri trebalo da naprave (ako uzmemo u obzir da top 30 na kraju 2020 imaju obavezu da igraju sve 1000 turnire na koje upadnu po renkingu, uz ona tri uslova za izuzece, plus obavezni 500 turnir posle USO).

 

prvo su u avgustu u USA,

pa imaju jednu sedmicu pauze i od sredine septembra su u Evropi (Metz i St Petersburg)

neki mogu da ostanu u Sofiji naredne sedmice, a drugi lete za Kinu (Chengdu, Zhuhai)

pa onda masters u Shangaju

pa IW

pa nazad u Evropu.

Znaci u 5 sedmica obidju zemaljsku kuglu (i prodju sve vremenske zone): oko sveta za 35 dana (ne za 80 kao Fileas Fog).

 

IW je totalno van svakog konteksta i povezanosti s i jednim drugim turnirom u to doba u Severnoj Americi.

 

Sad, ako se otkazu turniri u Kini onda bi to bilo samo letenje izmedju Evrope i USA (vremenska razlika do IW nekih 9 sati, cini mi se).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ljudi će birati ili jedan ili drugi masters. Vidim i da su Tokio i Peking otkazani, onda ne verujem da će se igrati Šangaj. Da li ima neki info u vezi bodova sa ta dva otkazana turnira, deli se po pola ili se čuvaju svi bodovi?

 

Novak da izabere Indijen Vels, imaće dovoljno vremena i da se odmori 4 nedelje uz lagani trening posle USO-a. Ako bude preskočio, deluje mi puno da 7 nedelja do Pariza ne igra ni jedan turnir i to u godini kada bi mogao još jednom da ugrabi prvo mesto za kraj godine. Ne sumnjam da će se Medvedev i Cicipas truditi da odigraju sve turnire uprkos vremenskim zonama.

 

Baš je užasan raspored na kraju sezone, nema ni jedan ATP500 sem Beča koji je odmah pre Pariza.

 

Takođe se ne isplati ići u Kinu samo zbog Šangaja ako ga bude bilo, jer tu vremenska linija ne odgovara, 3 nedelje posle USO i 3 nedelje pred Pariz. Bolja kombinacija IW, 4 nedelje posle USO i 2 nedelje pred Pariz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Drakaris said:

Ljudi će birati ili jedan ili drugi masters. Vidim i da su Tokio i Peking otkazani, onda ne verujem da će se igrati Šangaj. Da li ima neki info u vezi bodova sa ta dva otkazana turnira, deli se po pola ili se čuvaju svi bodovi?

 

Novak da izabere Indijen Vels, imaće dovoljno vremena i da se odmori 4 nedelje uz lagani trening posle USO-a. Ako bude preskočio, deluje mi puno da 7 nedelja do Pariza ne igra ni jedan turnir i to u godini kada bi mogao još jednom da ugrabi prvo mesto za kraj godine. Ne sumnjam da će se Medvedev i Cicipas truditi da odigraju sve turnire uprkos vremenskim zonama.

 

Baš je užasan raspored na kraju sezone, nema ni jedan ATP500 sem Beča koji je odmah pre Pariza.

 

Takođe se ne isplati ići u Kinu samo zbog Šangaja ako ga bude bilo, jer tu vremenska linija ne odgovara, 3 nedelje posle USO i 3 nedelje pred Pariz. Bolja kombinacija IW, 4 nedelje posle USO i 2 nedelje pred Pariz.

ja sam negde procitala da se kao diskutuje da se nadje neka zamena za Shangaj (negde drugde), verovatno u Evropi.

 

Ne znam sta ce biti s onim turnirima u Kelnu (tj. mozda jedan bude odigran i ove godine, mozda kao neka zamena za Peking/Tokio/Basel)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

Tim nije bio zarazen tokom Adria tura (i potom onog igranja egzibicija u Austriji i Fancuskoj), a potom se ne secam da je bio odsutan s nekog turnira jer je pozitivan.

Zverev (i Rubljov) takodje nije bio zarazen tokom Adria tura (ali mu roditelji i brat jesu, nesto kasnije, tokom nekog chelendzera u Italiji), a takodje se ne secam da je bio odsutan s nekog turnira jer je bio pozitivan. Zverev je cak mislio da se zarazio u Kini tokom egzibicija s Federerom pre pocetak sezone 2020.

Znam da je Wawrinka u neko doba bio pozitivan, Fonjini, Mevedev takodje. Mislim da Tsitsipas nije (on je non-stop igrao), Tiafoe i Kei su bili pozitivni, Verdasco, de Minaur, Gofan, Kveri takodje. Bilo je i nekih nizeranigranih igraca, ali posto oni nisu bas eksponirani onda se tek sporadicno culo za to.

Edited by wwww
Link to comment
Share on other sites

stavila sam na temi o coroni, mozda nije lose da stvim i ovde: komentar WHO o uvodjenju obavezne vakcinacije covid-19 vakcinama:

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340841/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy-brief-Mandatory-vaccination-2021.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

 

jedan interesantan deo:

 

Quote

Contemporary forms of “mandatory vaccination” compel vaccination by direct or indirect threats of imposing restrictions in cases of non-compliance (2). Typically, mandatory vaccination policies permit a limited number of exceptions recognized by legitimate authorities (e.g., medical contraindications) (3). Despite its name, ‘mandatory vaccination” is not truly compulsory, i.e., force or threat of criminal sanction are not used in cases of non-compliance. It is therefore the kind of mandatory vaccination described at the beginning of this paragraph to which we refer in this document. Still, “mandatory vaccination” policies limit individual choice
in non-trivial ways by making vaccination a condition of, for example, attending school or working in particular industries or settings, like health care. Such policies are not uncommon (2), although it should be noted that the World Health Organization (WHO) does not presently support the direction of mandates for COVID-19 vaccination, having argued that it is better to work on information campaigns and making vaccines accessible (4). In addition, WHO recently issued a position statement that national authorities and conveyance operators should not require COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of international travel (5).
Laws and the legal justifications for mandatory vaccination differ by jurisdiction (6). A legal obligation to be vaccinated is distinct from an ethical obligation insofar as the latter is not enforced by threats of restrictions in the case of non-compliance. The focus of this document is ethical considerations and caveats for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies.

 

Quote

Mandatory vaccination should be considered only if it is necessary for, and proportionate to, the achievement of an important public health goal (including socioeconomic goals) identified by a legitimate public health authority. If such a public health goal (e.g., herd immunity, protecting the most vulnerable, protecting the capacity of the acute health care system) can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions (e.g., public education), a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio (1).
As mandates represent a policy option that interferes with individual liberty and autonomy, they should be considered only if they would increase the prevention of significant risks of morbidity and mortality and/or promote significant and unequivocal public health benefits. If important public health objectives cannot be achieved without a mandate – for instance, if a substantial portion of individuals are able but unwilling to be vaccinated and this is likely to result in significant risks of harmtheir concerns should be addressed, proactively if possible. If addressing such concerns is ineffective and those concerns remain a barrier to achievement of public health objectives and/or if low vaccination rates in the absence of a mandate put others at significant risk of serious harm, a mandate may be considered “necessary” to achieve public health objectives. In this case, those proposing the mandate should communicate the reasons for the mandate to the affected communities through effective channels and find ways to implement the mandate such that it accommodates the reasonable concerns of communities. Individual liberties should not be challenged for longer than necessary. Policy-makers should therefore frequently re-evaluate the mandate to ensure it remains necessary and proportionate to achieve public health goals. In addition, the necessity of a mandate to achieve public health goals should be evaluated in the context of the possibility that repeated vaccinations may be required as the virus evolves, as this may challenge the possibility of a mandate to realistically achieve intended public health objectives.

 

znaci, citava ova hajka na tenisere, a posebno Novaka, i to od strane pojedinih novinara i fanova na SM (plus nekih politicara) je totalno protiv preporuka WHO.

Kakva god da je WHO ipak su oni mnooooogo strucniji od Bena Rotenberga &Co i prosecnog konzumenta SM.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

samo sam procitala tekst (nemam zivaca za bulaznjenje doricnog), i imam jedno pitanje: kog klinca zovu ovu budalu u goste? Ta NovaTV je kao fol normalna TV, kog onda djavola zovu ovu budalu da tu nekome soli pamet? :twak:  Niti je selektor srpske DC reprezentaicje (kaze da je kineske, mada nesto sumnjam) niti je ikakva mustra ili strucnjak i za sta.

Zemlja Srbija! :ajme::twak:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahahahah, kakva budala, odgledala sam nekih 7 minuta, smo hvali Kinu i nista drugo ne prica :lol_2:

jedina zemlja na svetu koja se izborila sa kovidom i koja zna kako treba je Kina :Hail: Kina je najbolja :Hail:

 

Vrhunac je sto on prevodi Kinezima sta nas krizni stab saopstava, a Kinezi se smeju :lol_2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...