TNA Sacrifice 2009 Review Part 5: Nash Vs. Joe
This is part of my TNA Sacrifice 2009 Review Series. If you have read the first part, welcome back! If you are new to the series, you will find a summary of my ranking system in the first part.
Wondering whether the event is worth it to see a replay or the DVD? Wondering about the effectiveness of the show? Not everyone sees PPV's, so the analysis here could be useful.
Continuation of the Review:
Repeat of the Sting package hyping the main event transitioning into some new material. More original material would have been better, especially given TNA’s penchant for replaying video packages to death. They have some great video packages but they way they replay it so much, appeal is lost.
Borash interviews Sting. As far as interviews goes, this is standard fare.
Samoa Joe has a video package moving into Kevin Nash’s.
Kevin Nash vs. Samoa Joe
This match seems too late in the card for me. I would have put it earlier.
The interesting thing about this Nash/Joe match is that it wasn’t touched on enough about Nash having been Joe’s mentor. Instead of a continuation of a teacher/pupil feud with a twist, we have a match that wasn’t as relevant as it could have been, but was still very relevant.
The commentators do comment on this but it wasn’t evident in what Nash did. Nash could have integrated it more in his side of things.
We have duelling chants with “Let’s go Nash,” “Let’s go Joe,” plus “Joe’s gonna kill you,” from what sounds like a solitary fan. We have better crowd reaction here, including a good amount of claps.
Believe it or not, it’s in this match where the pace stops slowing. There is a good variety of moves and they use the outside, which is appropriate, but after the last match this doesn’t have as much impact.
A steel chair and the steel steps are used and used well. There is a small “Joe” chant. Nash gets busted open and there is a good touch here as Nash sells some punches, letting his head ricochet back like a punching bag.
Joe’s difficulty in applying the Coquina Clutch was also a good touch. Likewise, Joe’s reaction after Nash kicks out at one point. He does the same later on in the match as well.
Nash is best when he is on the defence, taking blows and putting guys over, as his movement is slow. Joe is a good opponent for Nash as Joe can cover up some of Nash’s weaknesses as a performer.
The bladejob was appropriate for the situation. Nash didn’t sell the effects apart from the simple way most wrestlers do, but that’s part of the art of selling. The selling overall is average, but there were instances of sophisticated selling.
Nash did an adequate job of making Joe’s offence looks impactful. This match was helped by showcasing the difference between the previous Joe and the current Joe with his new attitude. More could have been done in this way, though.
Joe applies holds in the right places and makes it seem intense. That is a great talent that Joe has.
Post-match was good as Joe took out the referee and security. On this night, the post-match segments have been very good.
On a side note, Jenna Morasca didn’t accompany Joe, which meant that the graphic was misleading. It’s a good thing she wasn’t there as Morasca should be nowhere near Joe in his current state of mind. It might have helped if the commentators noted that Nash told her not to come out.
Placement: 3.8- Below average
Crowd Response: 6.7- Generally average, but had some standout moments
Relevance: 7.1- Above average
Pacing 5.4- Average
Selling: 6.7- Generally average, but had some standout moments
Cohesion: 5.8- Average
Timing: 5.5- Average
Moves: 6.4- Generally average, but had some standout moments
Entertainment Value: 5.6- Average
The Test of Time: 4.5- Generally average, but went below at times
Overall: 57.5- Nothing special, but considering Nash is involved, this was better than it could have been. Joe’s persona didn’t come out enough during the match, which was more sedate than I thought it would be. Nash should have been more motivated.
I have not included an Impact section as I didn't have anything to say.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?