Non-AFL chat thread

[Scary_Foot_9]

I adore Rafa and have never been a massive Fed fan but can't deny the fact that there was a massive smile on my face as he won. Amazing story, amazing player. Feel so privileged to have experienced this era of tennis.

Do you think there's any chance Djokovic/Nadal can catch him now, Dan?

4 (Nadal)

6 (Djokovic)

Seem a lot given likes of Sascha Zverev and Thiem coming into their own in the few years don't they? (Not even to mention the likes of Nishikori and Dimitrov)

 

[Pugz89]

I adore Rafa and have never been a massive Fed fan but can't deny the fact that there was a massive smile on my face as he won. Amazing story, amazing player. Feel so privileged to have experienced this era of tennis.

Yep, was actually thinking that tonight. I barely remember the Agassi/Sampras/Rafter era, then now we get the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic era.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Do you think there's any chance Djokovic/Nadal can catch him now, Dan?

4 (Nadal)

6 (Djokovic)

Seem a lot given likes of Sascha Zverev and Thiem coming into their own in the few years don't they? (Not even to mention the likes of Nishikori and Dimitrov)

I really struggle with this question - there are so many factors at play here. Sorry for the long-winded post but it's something I've put a lot of thought into.

I think, based on the past 12 months, you have to count Djokovic out of the conversation. Only two players have ever won more than one slam after they turned 30 and there have been pretty clear signs pointing to his demise. Now there's a very fair argument to be made that he has simply lost the drive after completing the career grand slam, and he may well get it back. However six slams is a hell of a lot and whether it's lack of motivation or "the cliff," it's too many to be deemed realistic in my opinion.

Turning to Nadal. I think Rafa wins the French this year because he's fitter than he has been for years and there's still nobody that can play on clay as well as he can. Not even close. I'd back Rafa at 70% against anybody at the French. Others have won the title over the past few years but a fit Nadal wins every single one for mine. He's just the perfect clay player. A 2017 French title brings the gap back to a manageable three slams. But we've never seen a player grind like Nadal. It seems we predict his demise every year but at some point his body just has to give out given his style of play and age. I contend that he is unlikely to win the US or Wimbledon again, which means that he needs four titles between the Australian and French Opens before his body gives out. He's racing the clock. I think he's capable of equalling or even surpassing Federer's slam record, but a lot needs to go right and he needs to stay fit (and perhaps even get picky with scheduling).

Here's where it gets tricky though: I'm not as optimistic on the next generation as you appear to be. I think Zverev is a future world number one but I think he's further off challenging than many do. I watched him live against Rafa and left very impressed, but nonetheless with the feeling that he was a few years off at least. He has all the shots but he's too prone to pushing the ball, lapses of concentration and unforced errors at crucial stages. This is very unpopular but if he screwed his head on right Kyrgios could win a slam this year, but it's impossible to predict his career path while he's so fragile. Past those two...I don't see another Rafa/Federer/Djokovic and I'm not even certain I see a Wawrinka. Raonic can win a slam but his weaknesses are always going to limit him. Nishikori just isn't that good, nor is he that young anymore. Thiem is good but not in that real superstar bracket for mine. Goffin isn't good enough. Dimitrov has looked very good this year and perhaps has the talent to be "that" good, but we need to see it more consistently. I need to see more of Pouille/Coric/Opelka/Fritz/Tiafoe.

We are on the brink of losing an astonishing amount of depth in the men's game: Federer, Nadal, Tsonga, Wawrinka, Murray, Djokovic, Monfils, Berdych, Gasquet, Isner, Ferrer, Simon and, sadly, Del Potro are just a few of the names that you would expect would start, or have already started to decline. I fear we don't have enough talent coming through to replace that depth, and I fear we don't have anybody coming through that can truly establish themselves as the best player in the world. When that happens, strange results emerge. In this situation, it becomes more realistic for the likes of Djokovic or Nadal to buck the trend and win more slams.

If you asked me right now, I would say that neither of them will surpass his record. Djokovic will be lucky to win another 1-2 and Nadal may just miss out given tonight's result. With that said, I don't foresee the arrival of any dominant forces for a few years at least. As we've seen this fortnight, without a dominant force, chaos prevails - and if things go the way I envisage, pinching 1-4 slams in addition to 1-3 French Open titles may not be out of the question for Nadal. I see Djokovic's charge as being less likely, but in this scenario it's not out of the question either.

 

[Scary_Foot_9]

I really struggle with this question - there are so many factors at play here. Sorry for the long-winded post but it's something I've put a lot of thought into.

I think, based on the past 12 months, you have to count Djokovic out of the conversation. Only two players have ever won more than one slam after they turned 30 and there have been pretty clear signs pointing to his demise. Now there's a very fair argument to be made that he has simply lost the drive after completing the career grand slam, and he may well get it back. However six slams is a hell of a lot and whether it's lack of motivation or "the cliff," it's too many to be deemed realistic in my opinion.

Turning to Nadal. I think Rafa wins the French this year because he's fitter than he has been for years and there's still nobody that can play on clay as well as he can. Not even close. I'd back Rafa at 70% against anybody at the French. Others have won the title over the past few years but a fit Nadal wins every single one for mine. He's just the perfect clay player. A 2017 French title brings the gap back to a manageable three slams. But we've never seen a player grind like Nadal. It seems we predict his demise every year but at some point his body just has to give out given his style of play and age. I contend that he is unlikely to win the US or Wimbledon again, which means that he needs four titles between the Australian and French Opens before his body gives out. He's racing the clock. I think he's capable of equalling or even surpassing Federer's slam record, but a lot needs to go right and he needs to stay fit (and perhaps even get picky with scheduling).

Here's where it gets tricky though: I'm not as optimistic on the next generation as you appear to be. I think Zverev is a future world number one but I think he's further off challenging than many do. I watched him live against Rafa and left very impressed, but nonetheless with the feeling that he was a few years off at least. He has all the shots but he's too prone to pushing the ball, lapses of concentration and unforced errors at crucial stages. This is very unpopular but if he screwed his head on right Kyrgios could win a slam this year, but it's impossible to predict his career path while he's so fragile. Past those two...I don't see another Rafa/Federer/Djokovic and I'm not even certain I see a Wawrinka. Raonic can win a slam but his weaknesses are always going to limit him. Nishikori just isn't that good, nor is he that young anymore. Thiem is good but not in that real superstar bracket for mine. Goffin isn't good enough. Dimitrov has looked very good this year and perhaps has the talent to be "that" good, but we need to see it more consistently. I need to see more of Pouille/Coric/Opelka/Fritz/Tiafoe.

We are on the brink of losing an astonishing amount of depth in the men's game: Federer, Nadal, Tsonga, Wawrinka, Murray, Djokovic, Monfils, Berdych, Gasquet, Isner, Ferrer, Simon and, sadly, Del Potro are just a few of the names that you would expect would start, or have already started to decline. I fear we don't have enough talent coming through to replace that depth, and I fear we don't have anybody coming through that can truly establish themselves as the best player in the world. When that happens, strange results emerge. In this situation, it becomes more realistic for the likes of Djokovic or Nadal to buck the trend and win more slams.

If you asked me right now, I would say that neither of them will surpass his record. Djokovic will be lucky to win another 1-2 and Nadal may just miss out given tonight's result. With that said, I don't foresee the arrival of any dominant forces for a few years at least. As we've seen this fortnight, without a dominant force, chaos prevails - and if things go the way I envisage, pinching 1-4 slams in addition to 1-3 French Open titles may not be out of the question for Nadal. I see Djokovic's charge as being less likely, but in this scenario it's not out of the question either.

Brilliant analysis as always.

Health permitting, I think I lean also towards a Rafa tying him (2-3 RG's + 1-2 others at some point). I think tonight made it very hard for him to surpass though (especially if Fed wins another).

Perhaps Zverev's match against Rafa is to fresh in the memory, but to me he seems to have the great combination of immense talent and the right mindset. I dunno, he is only 19 still, maybe a few years away from majorly contending.

Thiem seems like a Gasquet type player with more backbone/desire/unknown quality that Gasquet is missing. Perhaps I'm blinded by the one-hander but I think he's got the game to win slams. I like him long term more than someone Raonic who I think is pretty limited when the rally goes past 3 shots, especially on clay and slower hardcouts.

Kyrgios I can't predict. But you're correct he has the talent to be somewhere in the equation somewhere I guess.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Brilliant analysis as always.

Health permitting, I think I lean also towards a Rafa tying him (2-3 RG's + 1-2 others at some point). I think tonight made it very hard for him to surpass though (especially if Fed wins another).

Perhaps Zverev's match against Rafa is to fresh in the memory, but to me he seems to have the great combination of immense talent and the right mindset. I dunno, he is only 19 still, maybe a few years away from majorly contending.

Thiem seems like a Gasquet type player with more backbone/desire/unknown quality that Gasquet is missing. Perhaps I'm blinded by the one-hander but I think he's got the game to win slams. I like him long term more than someone Raonic who I think is pretty limited when the rally goes past 3 shots, especially on clay and slower hardcouts.

Kyrgios I can't predict. But you're correct he has the talent to be somewhere in the equation somewhere I guess.

I love Zverev, but yep, still very young. Hard to see him being a genuine top-liner within the next two or so years, and that's the point that is relevant to this discussion imo, given Rafa's questionable longevity.

I think Thiem's return game is an issue that will stand in the way of him becoming a true star - at least in the next few years. His backhand is gorgeous but has quite a large backswing (in fact his forehand has a big wind up as well) which negates his effectiveness on the quicker surfaces (grass in particular) and on return. When he gets pushed off the baseline his defensive game is also ordinary. As a result, for such a high-ranked player, his slam record is mediocre. I do really like him, and can definitely see him winning multiple slams in future. I don't, however, see him becoming a dominant force within the next two or so years, and that's why I think the likes of Nadal are primed to pinch a couple of slams.

Who knows with Kyrgios. He has the game to win a slam tomorrow and it's worth mentioning that if his head was screwed on this AO, there weren't many players left in his draw that he couldn't have beaten. Until he figures himself out though, he's nothing more than an entertaining sideshow in slams.

 

[immortalmike]

Torture hasn't been brought back at all.

It's not through a lack of trying with Trump's executive order. But it's unlikely that you'd know that it would need senate approval to pass (the last vote lost 78-21 IIRC) if your only sources of news are the Guardian and The Young Turks.
The narrative building on both sides of politics as of recent has been truly frightening. Orwell warned of this.

 

[Werewolf]

It's not through a lack of trying with Trump's executive order. But it's unlikely that you'd know that it would need senate approval to pass (the last vote lost 78-21 IIRC) if your only sources of news are the Guardian and The Young Turks.
The narrative building on both sides of politics as of recent has been truly frightening. Orwell warned of this.

I thought Trump said he'd leave the final decision to Mattis, who opposes using torture?

 

[immortalmike]

I thought Trump said he'd leave the final decision to Mattis, who opposes using torture?

My understanding was that his executive order rescinded some of Obama's protections against torture (which seemed to have been mostly decorative anyway), but I'm open to a different interpretation.

 

[Pugz89]

Vince McMahon really knows how to ruin a promising show.

 

[Dav1d]

Vince McMahon really knows how to ruin a promising show.

I thought everything was good
Then entrant 30s music started to play..

 

[immortalmike]

I thought everything was good
Then entrant 30s music started to play..

Should have been Joe.

 

[immortalmike]

Vince McMahon really knows how to ruin a promising show.

Eh better than Roman looking strong.
Wanted it to be Jericho though.

 

[Dav1d]

Should have been Joe.

27 & 30 were bad bad BAD choices
They sent out all of the jobbers & midcarders mostly in that first 15-20

Reigns should not have got to appear twice, unless he was not originally supposed to be at 30
Which I had a feeling that he wasn't..

 

[timtamWB]

27 & 30 were bad bad BAD choices
They sent out all of the jobbers & midcarders mostly in that first 15-20

Reigns should not have got to appear twice, unless he was not originally supposed to be at 30
Which I had a feeling that he wasn't..

Who do you think was originally supposed to be there?

Omega and Angle were no chance. I'm guessing you're going to say Balor?

 

[Dav1d]

Who do you think was originally supposed to be there?

Omega and Angle were no chance. I'm guessing you're going to say Balor?

Honestly I thought Triple H
I wasn't sure Balor would be ready, but I'm sure they'll use him in some way between now & Wrestlemania

 

[immortalmike]

Who do you think was originally supposed to be there?

Omega and Angle were no chance. I'm guessing you're going to say Balor?

I think it was always going to be Reigns.

 

[Igloo]

Should have been Joe.

Hey, it was Joe. A Samoan Joe.

Just not the one you wanted.

 

[Dav1d]

Hey, it was Joe. A Samoan Joe.

Just not the one you wanted.

 

[Bemoreboyddog]

The KO and Reigns match was pretty good. The Styles and Cena match was amazing. Being a big Cena fan, and although not as fun as he used to be, was great to see him equal Flair's record.

The Rumble itself was a bit lacklustre. Only perked up a bit when Lesnar hit the ring. Was really disappointed to see Big Show disappear so quickly, thought his recent remodel was a good chance at a re-birth for him, but like Mark Henry, they'll just hang about for promotional stuff and collect a pay check, wrestling for them is probably over.

Also wonder where Luke Harper goes from here. Wherever Erick Rowan went I'm guessing? My major disappointment for this years Rumble was the quality and surprise factor of the surprise entrants. Pretty bland. Actually expected to see Samoa Joe. Was hoping for Balor and Triple H, although thought it wouldn't happens after what went down at NXT the night before. Held out a glimmer of hope for Kurt Angle. An Angle and Lesnar suplex off would have been a sight to behold.

All in all pretty happy. Nia Jax, Cena and KO won so I'm pleased.

 

[Pugz89]

27 & 30 were bad bad BAD choices
They sent out all of the jobbers & midcarders mostly in that first 15-20

Reigns should not have got to appear twice, unless he was not originally supposed to be at 30
Which I had a feeling that he wasn't..

Lol he was always gonna be in the match. It's Roman. Ffs

 

[Pugz89]

The KO and Reigns match was pretty good. The Styles and Cena match was amazing. Being a big Cena fan, and although not as fun as he used to be, was great to see him equal Flair's record.

The Rumble itself was a bit lacklustre. Only perked up a bit when Lesnar hit the ring. Was really disappointed to see Big Show disappear so quickly, thought his recent remodel was a good chance at a re-birth for him, but like Mark Henry, they'll just hang about for promotional stuff and collect a pay check, wrestling for them is probably over.

Also wonder where Luke Harper goes from here. Wherever Erick Rowan went I'm guessing? My major disappointment for this years Rumble was the quality and surprise factor of the surprise entrants. Pretty bland. Actually expected to see Samoa Joe. Was hoping for Balor and Triple H, although thought it wouldn't happens after what went down at NXT the night before. Held out a glimmer of hope for Kurt Angle. An Angle and Lesnar suplex off would have been a sight to behold.

All in all pretty happy. Nia Jax, Cena and KO won so I'm pleased.

Imagine Angle Lesnar and Goldberg all in ring at same time. Ah well. And surely trips could have gone in, Seth runs down, eliminates him and builds feud even more.

 

[Bemoreboyddog]

Imagine Angle Lesnar and Goldberg all in ring at same time. Ah well. And surely trips could have gone in, Seth runs down, eliminates him and builds feud even more.

Totally agree with all of that, which is why pulling Rollins out of the Rumble was a poor move really. Sure it suits the angle that it pisses him off, but there's two ways to skin a cat.

 

[Dav1d]

I'm actually quite happy with Orton winning although I believe the second half of the rumble (despite having its best wrestlers come out then), felt lacklustre & rushed.

 

[Pugz89]

I'm actually quite happy with Orton winning although I believe the second half of the rumble (despite having its best wrestlers come out then), felt lacklustre & rushed.

Its funny that the winner of the 2009 rumber is still pulling off wins in big matches. Surely there was someone younger that could benefit from a push. I remember when the Rumble was a way to elevate a mid-carder to main event status yet it seems the winners of late are already at the main event level.

 

[Chicago1]

I was very glad to see that four old people played in the Australian Open Finals. Stuff you, Millennials!