Joseph

@tim_michell Tim if we finished last we wouldn’t pick Walker at 1. I doubt we would we bid on Cochrane either. We’d wait for Walker to be eventually bid on and then if need be go into deficit for next year. We’d probably try and trade into the first round again with some of next years picks.

Can someone explain the draft to me... If Carlton finishes 18th could it bid on Cochrane, select a player pick 2 and then still match a bid for Walker?

@Aleeexanderrrrr @kritisanonfan24 @MuhdBiu Yeah. There’s merit in that argument. But we’ll never know….

@JosephCinque @kritisanonfan24 @MuhdBiu Fair enough The reason as to why I think Roger is the GOAT is because his style is adaptable to any era He started off playing S&V after all And he’s talented enough to play with a wooden racquet

Djokovic fans for absolutely no reason whenever Sinner wins a title:

I wasn’t really comparing Roger and Novak. My point had more to do with Court and Serena. And I used Laver as another example of a distance between eras. I don’t buy into the blind Novak is the goat because look at the titles. I genuinely believe that even though I never saw him play. He retired 20 years before I was born. Lavers record on the men’s side at least is something truly special. Same for Margaret Court. But ultimately it’s impossible to determine who was best between eras.

@JosephCinque @kritisanonfan24 @MuhdBiu Huh? He was leading the h2h with Novak until He was 34 He leads the h2h with Nadal off clay If you wanna call rod the goat I don’t have an issue with that either

See I think that’s a little unfair as well. Personally Roger is the best I’ve seen. Aesthetically at least. But Rod Laver is probably the real goat. All of these guys could only beat whoever was in front of them at the time. Federer for example. For a two to three year stretch before Nadal arrived was literally walking the circuit. His closest competition was Hewitt, Roddick and Safin. There’s no real way to know. In the case of Margaret Court. No one is ever going to touch her achievements. Man or woman. And to say that Serena and the like would best her - how do you know?! You don’t.

@JosephCinque @kritisanonfan24 @MuhdBiu And Novak vulturing over clowns like Ruud and tsisipas is supposed to make me concede that’s he better than Roger ? Why would I ever think that? 😂

@kritisanonfan24 @MuhdBiu @Aleeexanderrrrr Court is the most decorated person in tennis. By some distance. To say that Serena, Steffi and Martina are better than her is more unlikely than likely without ever really being able to know for certain.

@MuhdBiu @Aleeexanderrrrr Margaret Court has more GS than Serena Williams, Steffi Graf & Martina Navratilova but she is not better than them.

@Simi_2210_ 179

If you solve this, you’re different Can you solve ?

@saoirdaya Dune 1 is better than 2.

To this day I don’t know why people thought Dune 1 was boring I literally was fully invested from the first minute and thought it was so good and interesting

Sinner is the superior ball striker. He’s potentially the best the game has ever seen. Carlos is slightly behind. Carlos is a superior mover. Potentially the best the game has ever seen. Sinner is slightly behind. The age difference is a year and a half. They both turned pro at the same time. Sinner only started playing seriously four years before he turned pro. Alcaraz has been training since he was a young child (under 5). Sinner has improved his net play this year and Carlos has improved his serve. Time will tell….

@magnus_cfc Stats aside, Carlos is a far, well-rounded tennis ayer. A successfully all court player that has a complete shot catalogue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful baseline basher with a limited arsenal

Carlos is two years younger with more big titles, including a double slam on each surface. He also achieved his first world no.1 at 19 and the difficult channel slam feat at just 21. Personally, they were never "evenly matched," but the narrative is needed I guess.

No I do see your point. And it’s not like Holmes is an unknown. So I get it. But players like Curnow are harder to find than players like Holmes. Maybe the future will prove me wrong but at this moment I would say that for the next 3 years at least it tilts towards Curnow. I don’t think it would happen anyway….

@JosephCinque Ok but you are missing the point here. The aggregate of the extra years of Holmes means he's easily more valuable. Not to mention the Curnow decline coinciding with Holmes growth. You aren't thinking long term.

Holmes and a first fair for Curnow 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

@AflGlicko Respectfully I disagree. A key forward at his peak for another 3 years at least is a lot harder to find. Having said that I really rate Holmes.

@JosephCinque Ok even if he is worth slightly more add on the six extra years of Holmes and Holmes has more value in the open market.

Unless I’ve misunderstood the outcome of the Curnow trade doesn’t hold a baring on Dean or Walker. If we were to get the right compo for Curnow then it would help in landing a big free agent next season though. Respectfully I can’t agree with not looking at it in isolation because if we did that would yield us the biggest return. I think if this deal were to go through then it would be a fail. Happy in 6 months to be proven wrong though.

I mean, Swans have obviously released the news they want pick 22. Like the Cats' offer I cant see us folding to that. 2 firsts and the two players seems like break even. To get an advantage on the deal would be if Swans paid part of their salary or we got an extra pick.

It doesn’t matter which way you slice it - Curnow for Hayward, Florent and two late firsts is not a good trade for Carlton. I’m looking at it in isolation. And I’m also looking at what it’s worth to Sydney. Even Geelong. Look at it a different way: if we took this exact trade and hand balled it straight over to Port for Butters would their heads be turned. Even if we threw another pick on top. The answer is no.

@paoloseb05 It’s a poor deal for Carlton. Don’t try and put lipstick on a pig.

Add in a little sweetner to nab Swans’ pick 32 to use on Buku Khamis. Deal. 🤝

@BluesLaGoons Respectfully I think you’re looking at this the wrong way. Curnow is 28 and going to be in his prime for at least another 3 years. If the deal Carlton takes can’t be taken to Port (as an example) to turn their heads for someone like Butters then it’s a bad deal for the Blues.

For years I have liked both Hewett and Hayward at the Swans. To possibly have them both, I'm happy. Don't forget, Swanny players are developed differently. Newman and Hewett would be some of our most important players. Add Hayward and Florent for depth, plus 2xR1, I'm signed up!

@drsocratessss @Djoko_UTD On the fastest courts he would he’d be favourite to beat Carlos. And I understood the reasoning - it just seems like all of Twitter is talking about it like Sinner is the big beneficiary. He’s definitely not. He would want them to be as fast as possible.

He can beat anyone except Alcaraz on any surface, at any speed. Roger’s not questioning anyone’s skillset — his point is that faster courts naturally create more chances for upsets. On quicker surfaces, a lower-ranked serve-bot having the match of his life in, say, the third round, can actually take out a top seed. Slower courts reduce that risk, which is exactly what tournaments want; fewer early exits for stars and more marquee matchups in the finals.

Federer said this 2 weeks ago and guess what Shanghai Court speed went down from 42.4 last year to 32.8 (one of the slowest HCs) Federer has been spot on calling out the establishment using court speeds to help Sinner…

I agree. But specific to Sinner - he moves well and serves well but he strikes the ball better than anyone else on tour. Not to mention he’s the best returner as well. So If a court is fast it will be advantageous to him. More so than anyone else. Much like it was with Federer when he was playing.

@JosephCinque @Boromir1 @Djoko_UTD It doesn't matter. There's a limit to human reaction time/how fast a person can move from one corner to another no matter how extraordinary he was. Faster courts mean other players have higher chance of getting lucky shots/winners.

@FJClayPro @Boromir1 @Djoko_UTD The fastest courts on tour are a dream for Jannik. No one can beat him. He robs his opponents of time. On a fast court that’s compounded. So I disagree. And so would Sinner.

@Boromir1 @JosephCinque @Djoko_UTD So Federer was right: slower courts -- less randomness as players have milliseconds extra to think and decide what to do next. Faster courts -- greater opportunity to "get lucky".

@Boromir1 @Djoko_UTD I read it differently. Regardless the point remains. Slowing the courts hurts Sinners game. The faster the court the harder it is for anyone to beat him….

@JosephCinque @Djoko_UTD He is saying they reacted to RF criticism and reduced the speed. That’s how I read this