You're right. Must have been 2.5 since he was good enough to get to the FO final for the first time :shock:
Djokovic 2.0 is like injury-free Nadal.
If Djokovic loses it's because it wasn't Djokovic 2.0 who showed up.
If Nadal loses its because he's injured.
However, only one of them can be proven empirically.
Only the other can and should be believed.
Djokovic 2.0 is unpreventable when he isn't prevented.
Nadal is unbeaten when he wins.
Djokovic 2.0 can't be prevented by extraneous factors such as his opponent playing well.
Nadal's injuries can show up independently of extraneous factors.
If Djokovic 2.0 doesn't show up, he will when it rains heavily, in which case there is nothing wrong with playing in such conditions.
If uninjured Nadal doesn't show up, he will when he loses, in which case it's because his injured heart ruptures his knees and breaks his feet.
Djokovic 2.0 can't be beaten except when he is beaten, in which case he's not Djokovic 2.0 but v1.0-1.9
Uninjured Nadal can't be beaten except when he is beaten, in which case he's injured.
Only 2011 Djokovic is Djokovic 2.0 except when he beats Nadal.
Djokovic is always Djokovic 2.0 according to Clarky.
Everybody is Djokovic 2.0 according to Clarky.
Nadal according to NSK is Djokovic X where X is equal to the total number of his accounts.
Nadt@rds are deluded to believe what they believe.
Fedt@rds/Nadal haters are hypocrites to simultaneously criticise Nadt@rds and hold the same beliefs themselves.
Both are ducking noroms.