baxus

@AncalagonTheBlack You are aware that, as a Liverpool fan, you can't complain about the refs even when refs admit their mistake, aren't you?

Djokovic was not the same person in 2021 as in 2010/2011. The same goes for all of us, obviously.

So? Nadal was not injured by some opponent sliding in studs up and tearing his ankle ligaments in the third round of a Grand Slam or by playing on substandard courts or anything like that. And don't forget that Djokovic also had a serious elbow injury, supposedly the reason why Del Potro bitchslapped him in Rio Olympics Speaking of Del Potro, there's a player whose career was ravaged by injuries. Not Nadal. I'll never say Djokovic transformation is not suspicious, but why is Nadal any less suspicious? Regarding Serena, if a male player was as physically dominant over his competition as she was over hers everyone would scream their lungs out.

FFP does not limit money club can spend on transfers, wages etc. to a specific amount, but to an amount proportionate to the club's income. Clubs have different incomes, for various reasons. Manchester United is commercially one of the biggest clubs in the world and have an advantage over the rest of the league when it comes to marketing money, the same way, for example, Liverpool has an advantage over, for example, Luton when it comes to match day revenue. Should clubs with higher incomes be punished for their commercial/financial success? Or should the owners just pocket the profit, like Glazers have been doing for decades now? No one is saying that Newcastle can't spend more money but they need to do it in a way that won't put the club at risk of ruin if their owners just decide to quit at some point.

It wasn't me who arbitrarily appointed 2006 as year zero.

I can't even begin to count all the times I've had that argument with my friends. For some reason, they actually believe that Djokovic transformed from a player that was a walking medical timeout in a five setter into a Superman who played Murray for 5 hours in AO semifinal and Nadal for 6 hours in AO final (and it only took him a couple of months) by dropping gluten. That's not the way doping works, though.

Success brings more money that allows spending more to maintain success, it's the same across Europe. But which rich owners are lending money to the team in the top 6, other than City and, previously, Chelsea? Spurs owners are notoriously tightfisted, Arsenal and Liverpool's owners have been accused of it as well (though nowhere near as bad as Spurs, of course), United fans are crying over how Glazers have been running the club for decades now... That case can only be made for City and Chelsea. Unfortunately, that is absolutely correct. We'd all like to see a small club win trophies with academy players, but the whole system makes that impossible. Salary cap and drafts would make it a less unlikely but still not very likely. I mean, smaller teams rarely win trophies even in American pro leagues.

All data since (and including) 2005/06. "Top 6" missing out on Europe: Liverpool missed out on CL 7 times, played in EL twice (5 seasons out of Europe) Arsenal missed out on CL 6 times, played in EL 4 times (2 seasons out of Europe) Tottenham missed out on CL 12 times, played in EL 8 times (4 seasons out of Europe) United missed CL 4 times, played in EL 3 times (1 season out of Europe) Chelsea missed CL 3 times, played in EL once (2 seasons out of Europe) City missed CL 5 times, played one season in EL. (4 seasons out of Europe; obviously, this was at the beginning of this period) So, in total there's 18 times these clubs ended outside of European spots. On average, 1 team per season. Plus, maybe some of these teams ended in Europe on winning the Cup instead of through League positions but I'm not checking that now. Different teams that have played Europa League since 2006: Blackburn Everton Bolton Villa Fulham Newcastle Southampton West Ham Burnley Wolves Leicester Brighton So, 12 different clubs outside of "top 6" have made it to Europe (not including Conference League).

But that's not what you said, is it? You said that 5 of those 6 clubs end top 6 every season.

Don't compare anti-doping in tennis and cycling. Cycling is willing and ready to take out their biggest stars, while tennis is obviously not. The list of star cyclists suspended and stripped of their trophies is a mile long but the only high profile tennis player to be suspended for doping was Sharapova who tested positive for a heart medication some 3 weeks after it was banned. Btw, I don't think Nadal's proper and valid doping test results would make any less interesting reading material than Djokovic's.

But that is not what happens, is it? Liverpool have spent their fair share outside of the top 6 until Klopp took over, Arteta was under fire for Arsenal finishing at #8 for a couple of seasons (haven't done much better even before he took over) and Chelsea are well on their way to do their time outside of top 6, and let's not even get into it with Spurs. The only team that has been in the top 6 every single season over the last decade or so is City, and, as Consigliere said, they are being investigated. Also, you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone in this thread who is in favour of what City is doing. You are the one that comes closest to that with this whole "Newcastle isn't allowed to compete" theory. Btw, that would sit much better if they haven't played in the Champions League this very season.

Nadal is just one year older than Djokovic. It's not as if Djokovic caught him in his 30s when his career was on the decline. And why would anyone take Nadal's injuries as a reason to diminish his losses? It's his playing style that contributed significantly to those injuries, and it's his own fault for not taking care of his body the way Federer did or Djokovic does. We need to differentiate between "my favourite" and "the best". If we're talking favourite, Djokovic is nowhere near the other two. If we're talking about who is the best and make the criteria about who is the most successful, then all the data points to Djokovic being the best, despite him being the least popular by far. Why are we not putting an asterisk on Federer's success before Nadal and Djokovic came along (and got to the top level) and are putting it on Djokovic success after the two of them declined? It's a bit of a double standard, really. Why are Alcaraz and Sinner seen as "lesser talents" than Roddick, Hewitt and that lot? Btw, I googled and found that Nadal didn't beat Djokovic at all in 7 matches in 2015 and 2016. I'd call that consistent, wouldn't you? And I'd say that if Nadal was no longer in his prime at the age of 28-30, then that is his problem. P.S. Screw you guys for making me side with Djokovic in this argument.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this. Sure, today's players are living a lifestyle that is improving their performance and longevity, their habits are healthier overall and all that, but it's not because players of yesteryear were refusing the rules but rather that the rules were different in their day. And what would happen to Newcastle United if they bought "the whole Brazil, Spain and France squads" and Saudis just stopped pouring in the money one day? For whatever reason. It might happen in a year because they just got bored, or it could be in 10 years because they didn't need any more promotion for Saudi Arabia World Cup, or in 50 years when Saudi king decides to invest in American football instead. Now, I'm not saying whether any of those scenarios is likely or not, but clubs need to be protected from their owners whims. Remember Chelsea's situation that forced Abramovich to sell? Who would've thought back in 2005 that would happen?

I'd be hardly pressed to think of two players more different than Djokovic and Federer. Also, saying that Djokovic never had a Nadal to stop him is just nonsense, with two of them having played each other 60 times, most of the times in semifinals and finals of masters and GS tournaments. EDIT: Btw, I'm far from a Djokovic fan, though that's mostly due to his off the court shenanigans.

I didn't mean to say that all the players from older generations were model professionals while all the players of today aren't, you know. It's just that shut up and do the work mentality was a lot more prevalent 20 or 30 years ago than it is today. And that's not just in football, mind you. Btw, you can bet your house that if Sancho was at Maradona's level, United (or any other club) would have bent over backwards to accommodate all his quirks.

Well then, if United knew all that and weren't ready to do the same (I'm definitely not blaming them) then they shouldn't be surprised when their outcome with Sancho varies from Dortmund's. Or they shouldn't have bought him in the first place. Once again, I'd love it if all the players had the mentality of the older generation but they don't and that needs handling. It's just that if you spend 70+M£ on a player than it would be reasonable to do everything you can to maximise his performance.

Well, Sakho clearly hasn't shown his best at Liverpool but neither was he handled well at the club. The way he was ran out of the club is enough proof of that claim. Still, I'm not sure I'd compare Sancho to Sakho at this point since there's still a chance Sancho gets back to top level at Dortmund, and maybe play at that level for United next season. Sakho clearly dropped off a cliff after Klopp basically kicked him out. EDIT: To reiterate, I'm not saying that Sancho's free of blame for his status at United, but that it's possible that he would've been in a much better position (which would help the club, obviously) if the club took a more personal approach with him.

I didn't mean to say Sancho is free of all blame. Obviously, being late for training and not putting in the work is down to him but if the club spends a fortune to sign him then they should obviously try to handle him better, finding out what the issue is and helping him through it. In a perfect world, every player would have an insane work ethic, be able to leave the problems in front of training centre or stadium and give 100% at all time, but in reality some players need to be coddled and, if that's all it takes to get the best out of them, it would be in clubs' interest to just fucking coddle them.

To be honest, if a player is playing great at one club and then moves to a new club and his performance goes to shit, we need to at least take into account the possibility that it's at least partially down to his new club.

You think the leagues had no connections to gambling before? And even if they had none, they had a clear interest in protecting star players, by calling fouls against them more eagerly than the other way around, among other things.

It's the same all over, the moment coach/manager says anything about referees they pay a fine. And refs still get to do their thing as if nothing happened.

Star players get preferential treatment in all the leagues in all the sports around the world, and NBA is among the worst when it comes to that. Hadn't Toronto coach made some comments a couple of days ago about Lakers taking 22 free throws more than his team in the last quarter alone?

Why would Elves, Dwarves and men send a Fellowship of nine and trust in secrecy and all that and then send armies across the continent to fight in battles to help Rohan and Gondor while their own homes are under attack?

The thing is that from the books I got this impression of Lorien fighters being more of lightly armoured skirmishers and an elite woodland guerrilla, rather than this regimented armoured unit that shows up in Helm's Deep. Also, such a force would be much more useful slowing down enemy's progress, attacking supply lines, taking out enemy scouts etc. rather than on the ramparts of Helm's Deep. Could be a misinterpretation on my part, obviously. And, to be clear, I do have an issue with Elves showing up at Helm's Deep but that's another topic.

It would be great to see Djokovic more consistently challenged, at the very least. I just hate whenever someone dominates the sport, whatever the sport may be.