Jump to content

Free Northman Reborn

Members
  • Content Count

    8,144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Free Northman Reborn

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Interests
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

15,405 profile views
  1. Interesting. Didn’t realise NZ had a right wing. But I guess it’s all relative. Right of Ardern, maybe. But point taken.
  2. A Pacific alliance against Chinese aggression is crystallising - The US, India, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and probably others as well. It is a shame that NZ chooses to be a Chinese client state instead. Quick to lecture Australia on every perceived human rights violation, from immigration to nuclear submarine choices, while remaining utterly silent on the elephant in the room - China. Guess every left wing value has a price.
  3. Who does NZ run to in the case of aggression from a stronger antagonist though, if not the US and Australia? Seems like they want to have their cake and eat it. Edit But the bigger concern is probably that Ardern seems to have used the nuclear excuse as a convenient way to subtly join her Chinese masters in signalling displeasure at this submarine deal. (By the way, has she managed to grudgingly condemn the Chinese actions against the Uyghurs as genocide yet?)
  4. www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/jacinda-ardern-and-new-zealand-ban-any-future-australian-nuclear-submarine/news-story/1469e5e955678beaadbe60bea31fd935%3Famp And in other news just in: Ewoks Ban Imperial Star Destroyers From Endor Orbital Space.
  5. Lol. We are in a cold war with the genocidal, totalitarian CCP and you’re trying to pitch it as some kind of example of xenophobia?
  6. The fact that China is unhappy with the deal should be all you need to confirm it as a great outcome. Clearly this places Australia in a stronger position to oppose Chinese aggression.
  7. Sorry, but how have they lost control? Cases are minuscule compared to almost anywhere else in the world.
  8. Really sad we didn’t get to see history made. Oh well, that’s sport. 3 out of 4 Slams is as good a year as most players can only dream of achieving. Enjoy your rest, and refocus on the Australian Open, Novak. (If TaliDan allows it to proceed in 2022, that is.)
  9. How many times have we seen this from Novak’s opponents in crucial matches though? Federer lost at least two Grand Slam Finals/ Semis against Novak after being match point up. Thiem, Tsitsipas, Zverev - they’ve all cracked against him when the stakes are highest, after being on their way to victory. Novak just has a quality that makes opponents whither mentally when it really matters. Regarding Novak-Nadal since 2017, let’s also see it in context. Matches between them since 2017: Clay - 6 (Nadal 5-1) Grass - 1 (Novak 1-0) Hard courts - 2 (Novak 2-0) More significantly - Grand slam matches (best out of five sets) - 4: Clay - 2 (Nadal 1, Novak 1) Grass - 1 (Novak 1-0) Hard courts - 1 (Novak 1-0)
  10. In RJ’s notes, made public after his death, it is revealed that Taim was originally Demandred. There is some confusion over when RJ changed his mind on this, with at least some indication that it happened mid-book in LoC, which is damn weird given that parts of LoC clearly indicate Demandred as Taim’s impersonator, while the Prologue disproves it. It suggests the Prologue was written well after the rest of the book, but RJ didn’t make the effort to go back and update the rest of the book, or else decided to leave the original hints in there as deliberate misdirection.
  11. Must admit best out of three matches just don’t do it for me. Does anyone know the reason the women don’t play best out of five? I mean, it’s not like women’s soccer games are shorter, or women’s athletics does 90m instead of 100m sprints, for example. Why this discrepancy in tennis?
  12. Had another look at the Djokovic-Nadal head to head stats, give their similar ages. It is a tale of different development phases. As youngsters, Nadal was better. Up to 2010 (when Nadal turned 24 and Novak 23), Nadal dominated their head to heads 16-7. Then for the next 5 years up to 2015 (arguably in an athlete’s prime years up to when Nadal turned 29 and Novak 28), Novak dominated 15-7. But Novak managed this with a playing style that didn’t reduce his longevity. Allowing him to continue winning beyond that point, after Nadal started breaking down physically. In the end I would say Djokovic was the better hard court and grass court player, while Nadal was the better clay court player.
  13. Look, as much as I’m a big Novak fan and like to imagine him reaching ever greater heights, these days I go into every Slam uncertain as to the outcome. If he really gets to 25 it would be extraordinary.
  14. I do think Rafa has a good chance of getting to 21 Slams, purely based on his French Open dominance. So Djokovic still has a lot to play for if he wants to cement his legacy. And it’s getting tougher each year. He looks mentally tired to me. Maybe a good break until the Australian Open will rejuvenate him. It’s been a heck of a year.
×
×
  • Create New...