Comparing Djokovic and Nadal’s slam-for-slam competition

[TheFifthSet]

Alright, this might cause some fire-fights but I’m bored so here goes:

There’s been an increasingly common contention around these boards that Djokovic vultured slams to a far greater degree than Ned did, due to CIE (which I believe *is* a thing, so withdraw your pitchforks) and such.


But is it true? How about I examine their competition, slam-for-slam (up to slam #22, to be fair to Nadal) and y’all tell me if or where I’ve gone wrong?


‘05 RG vs. ‘08 AO: Nadal gets the slight edge. It’s Fed’s weaker surface, but ‘08 AO Fed was MonoFed, and they both faced surprise finalists that punched above their weight.

‘06 RG vs. ‘11 AO: Again a slight edge to Nadal. Fed played much better than Murray, but Fed still underperformed in sets 2-4 of that final. Mathieu and Hewitt were inspiring underdogs. Yadayada.

‘07 RG vs. ‘11 Wimby: tie. ‘07 ClayFed is the best opponent, but ‘11 Tsonga > ‘07 Clay Greenkovic.

‘08 RG vs. ‘11 USO: Finally, Djokovic is on the board (although with how good ‘08Dal was, the draw wouldn’t have mattered).

‘08 Wimby vs. ‘12 AO: A wash.

‘09 AO vs. ‘13 AO: slight edge Nadal.

‘10 RG vs. ‘14 Wimby: clear edge Joco.

‘10 Wimby vs. ‘15 AO: a wash.

‘10 USO vs. ‘15 Wimby: edge to Djokovic.

‘11 RG vs. ‘15 USO: edge Ned’s draw

‘12 RG vs. ‘16 AO: edge Nadal

‘13 RG vs. ‘16 RG: edge Nadal.

‘13 USO vs. ‘18 Wimby: edge Djoko (to heck with “name over form”).

‘14 RG vs. ‘18 USO: edge Dal.

‘17 RG vs. ‘19 AO: slight edge Djoko.

‘17 USO vs. ‘19 Wimby: edge Djokovic.

‘18 RG vs. ‘20 AO: tied.

‘19 RG vs. ‘21 AO: slight edge Djokovic

‘19 USO vs. ‘21 RG: edge Djokovic.

‘20 RG vs. ‘21 Wimby: clear edge Dal

‘22 AO vs. ‘22 Wimby: a wash (yes, really, as Kyrgicringe served up a storm).

‘22 RG vs. ‘23 AO: clear edge Nadal.

The finally subjective tally is 9 (Nadal), 8 (Djokovic), 5 (even).

Where have I erred, if at all?

Regardless of whether I’ve gotten this-or-that slam wrong, the bottom line is: when you factor in that Djokovic has **since** tacked on two slams that were **at least** better than Nadal’s weakest…it is a bridge-too-far to argue or imply he has been unduly fortunate compared to him. Perhaps he has had the weaker average draw (my own evaluation sez so), but the differences have been close to negligible over the course of their slam wins.

 

[MichaelNadal]

They both have over 20 slams. Yawn.

 

[TheFifthSet]

They both have over 20 slams. Yawn.

Yes, if you read on you’ll see I think it’s pretty even wrt to slam win competition.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Yes, if you read on you’ll see I think it’s pretty even wrt to conception.

Make no mistake too, I’m not hating on you my good man, just personally tired of where this is already going to end up going. That’s just the thing, it’s all pretty even and their careers are so ridiculous the differences only matter to crazed fanboys.

 

[Third Serve]

only fraud fans have the moral high ground in this discussion, glad to hear it

bamos and come jet ski

 

[TheFifthSet]

Make no mistake too, I’m not hating on you my good man, just personally tired of where this is already going to end up going.

Ya, my boredom-quenching quest gave me the itch to start this loathsome battle. Alas…

 

[TheFifthSet]

only fraud fans have the moral high ground in this discussion, glad to hear it

bamos and come jet ski

To an extent sure. To be fair I think Fed’s average slam draw difficulty might also be close to or perhaps slightly lower than either of theirs* (haven’t done this exercise with him) **but** he struggled less en route to his wins, and his average slam-losing draw was also MUCH tougher in their remaining deep runs (dem late-career losses to Peakdal and Peakovic). So that more than evens out.

*Edit: after a cursory evaluation I’ve got it 9-8-3 for Fed after their first 20. So I was wrong about my hunch, especially considering I’m pitting 1 run vs. 2 in this comp (unfavourable to Fed) and yet he still comes out ahead by my reckoning.

 

[Kralingen]

Interesting. I’d have to dig into draw-for-draw opponent-for-opponent stuff to give a clear answer to some of these but nothing jumps out as flagrantly wrong off first glance. 2018 WB Nadal over 2013 USO Djoko as an opponent is maybe the one that would be most controversial, as well as some of the 17-19 RGs compared to 19-21 AO comparisons.

I’d say you’ve chosen slightly flawed methodology doing it chronologically, as it’s a set of 22 arbitrary H2H matchups - perhaps the best way would be to rank all 46 Slams by difficulty, but of course would be impossible to do - but in general it looks good.

I think the case of Nadal is often overstated that “he won in the strongest era” implying that he always beat strong competition and mostly lost to Big 3 members, which is actually untrue. He lost to Murray 2x, Ferrer 2x, Darcis, Rosol, Gonzalez, and Tsonga from 07-13 outside of the famous Fedovic losses.

To me, his actual wins and losses draw for draw are not and have never been much tougher (it at all) than Fedovic. If anything Nadal’s narrative should be one of lacking opportunity - his issue is not that any human being was strongest competition, but instead his own body. By far his most glaring issue is his lack of availability to consistently play throughout the year, which has sapped his #1 ranking/YE #1 for obvious reasons, as well as his Masters, Slam, and even YEC opportunities, either due to withdrawing from these tournaments completely, or being unable to bring a competitive level due to injury (see RG/WB/USO 09, 3 slams smack dab in the middle of his peak where he was far from his best or even skipped outright)

 

[Third Serve]

To an extent sure. To be fair I think Fed’s average slam draw difficulty might also be close to or perhaps slightly lower than either of theirs (haven’t done this exercise with him) **but** he struggled less en route to his wins, and his average slam-losing draw was also MUCH tougher in their remaining deep runs (dem late-career losses to Peakdal and Peakovic). So that more than evens out.

Yeah fair enough. In a little bit I’ll send you a DM with my take on that since I don’t want to derail this thread too much.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

only fraud fans have the moral high ground in this discussion, glad to hear it

bamos and come jet ski

Always good to visit a thread where we can sit back and watch the peasant rabble have a punch up amongst the bins.

 

[ibbi]

I thought about this a couple of years ago and I thought the best thing you could do to try and determine it the way everyone wants to determine everything these days, with numbers, was to add up how many sets each of their opponents had dropped in the tournament prior to facing them (i.e. how many did their R2 opponent drop in R1, how many did their F opponent drop in all 6 previous rounds, etc). It's still not a very good method for a variety of reasons (the general nature of playing on different surfaces above all, you drop less on clay/more on grass, etc.), but it was amusing to calculate one lazy afternoon.

The results were as such in those brief few months when they each had 20 majors to their name;

SETS DROPPED BY OPPONENTS AT MAJORS WON

Federer
W03 -11
AO04 - 14
W04 - 8
UO04 - 11 (6 matches)
W05 - 12
UO05 - 18
AO06 - 24
W06 - 19
UO06 - 10
AO07 - 13
W07 - 11 (6 matches)
UO07 - 9
UO08 - 18
RG09 - 10
W09 - 16
AO10 - 10
W12 - 13
AO17 - 16
W17 - 12
AO18 - 10

265 total // 87AO (14.5 per title) // 10RG //102W (12.75 per title) // 66UO (13.2 per title)

Nadal
RG05 - 11
RG06 - 10
RG07 - 10
RG08 - 11
W08 - 13
AO09 - 13
RG10 - 17
W10 - 15
UO10 - 18
RG11 - 7
RG12 - 9
RG13 - 9
UO13 - 16
RG14 - 10
RG17 - 8
UO17 - 14
RG18 - 9
RG19 - 14
UO19 - 16 (6 matches)
RG20 - 11

241 total // 13AO // 136RG (10.4 per title) // 28W (14 per title) // 64UO (16 per title)

Djokovic
AO08 - 11
AO11 - 13
W11 - 13
UO11 - 9
AO12 - 9
AO13 - 8
W14 - 9
AO15 - 8
W15 - 15
UO15 - 13
AO16 - 11
RG16 - 15
W18 - 17
UO18 - 10
AO19 - 11
W19 - 11
AO20 - 11
AO21 - 11
RG21 - 9
W21 - 18

232 total // 93AO (10.3 per title) // 24RG (12 per title) // 83W (13.8 per title) // 32UO (10.6 per title)

 

[JFK_32]

‘22 RG vs. ‘23 AO: clear edge Nadal.

You think Rafa RG draw was easiest than AO 23 djokovic? You joking or i dont get it

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Nadal was sandwiched between peak Fed/Nole.. He will ALWAYS Have the tougher draw than Djokovic as much I love him. Anything post 2015 or so is complete trash for slam draws

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nadal was sandwiched between peak Fed/Nole.. He will ALWAYS Have the tougher draw than Djokovic as much I love him. Anything post 2015 or so is complete trash for slam draws

Are you sure. Look at his 2010 2013 2017 and 2019 USOpen. He had 2 times beaten Djokovic. But till final he had nothing. What do you mean by tougher draw etc bs. He was stopped by Nole only twice in Wimbledon. It's not like Nadal was losing to them every slam. He literally was no show for many slams or lost early. He always played and won Roland Garros. Don't feel sympathy for him. Pete doesn't.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Interesting. I’d have to dig into draw-for-draw opponent-for-opponent stuff to give a clear answer to some of these but nothing jumps out as flagrantly wrong off first glance. 2018 WB Nadal over 2013 USO Djoko as an opponent is maybe the one that would be most controversial, as well as some of the 17-19 RGs compared to 19-21 AO comparisons.

Yeah I’ll admit choosing ‘18 Nadal over ‘13 Djokovic seems risible on the surface, but Djoko’s error-proneness and 2 donated sets only leaves name-over-form as a potential trump card. Even his movement was a bit off (by normal standards) from the Wawa clash. Of course there’s also the matter of ‘13 Nadal being a different animal and the match being closer than the scoreline makes it seem, but next years loss showed even (age-wise) Prime Djoko’s form could wildly fluctuate at the USO.

I’d say you’ve chosen slightly flawed methodology doing it chronologically, as it’s a set of 22 arbitrary H2H matchups - perhaps the best way would be to rank all 46 Slams by difficulty, but of course would be impossible to do - but in general it looks good.

Yep, it’s a quick and messy shorthand meant to dispatch some of the lower-hanging fruit, but it’s certainly not without flaws. I feel like ranking draw difficulties is just as hair-splitty tho because I would bet that at least half of them are interchangeable wrt how they’d cross-impact either players chance of winning in the others stead.

I think the case of Nadal is often overstated that “he won in the strongest era” implying that he always beat strong competition and mostly lost to Big 3 members, which is actually untrue. He lost to Murray 2x, Ferrer 2x, Darcis, Rosol, Gonzalez, and Tsonga from 07-13 outside of the famous Fedovic losses.

To me, his actual wins and losses draw for draw are not and have never been much tougher (it at all) than Fedovic. If anything Nadal’s narrative should be one of lacking opportunity - his issue is not that any human being was strongest competition, but instead his own body. By far his most glaring issue is his lack of availability to consistently play throughout the year, which has sapped his #1 ranking/YE #1 for obvious reasons, as well as his Masters, Slam, and even YEC opportunities, either due to withdrawing from these tournaments completely, or being unable to bring a competitive level due to injury (see RG/WB/USO 09, 3 slams smack dab in the middle of his peak where he was far from his best or even skipped outright)

Agreed, although I’d add Nadal gets maybe too much credit here because he was far from even being 1st favourite for most of the slams he skipped. Still definitely left the most on the table injury-wise. Interesting how many swing events/causes all three were handicapped by that prevented them from winning even more:

Nadal - injuries, injuries galore

Djokovic - COVID and other aberrant non- tennis related things (‘20 USO) blocking him in slams he was favoured in, 18 month down period where he refused to get the wrist operated on, pre-‘11 physical woes.

Federer - game being less suited to the era he was in, changing racquets later than he arguably should’ve, intensity drop when he was far ahead the slam race, unprecedented # of close-match bottlings for a Tier 1 great, inordinately strong competition after he passed his physical peak (important because I think even despite his occasionally lack-lustre early-career comp, his form was good enough to be resilient vs. stronger draws).

Goes to show how no one, even these charmed individuals, can have everything fall their way.

You think Rafa RG draw was easiest than AO 23 djokovic? You joking or i dont get it

Other way around gud sir. ‘23 AO was easier.

 

[ADuck]

17 RG vs. ‘19 AO: slight edge Djoko.

‘19 RG vs. ‘21 AO: slight edge Djokovic

‘22 AO vs. ‘22 Wimby: a wash (yes, really, as Kyrgicringe served up a storm).

These ones seem dubious to me.

'17 RG vs. '19 AO:
First of all, if you're gonna say Wimb 2018 Nadal > USO 2013 Djokovic, then by the same token I'm not sure I'd put AO 2019 Nadal above RG 2017 Wawrinka and Thiem.

'19 RG vs '21 AO:
Federer and Thiem for me > Zverev and Medvedev

'22 AO vs '22 WB:
Medvedev > Kyrgios for me. Kyrgios served well, but I struggle to remember him winning any baseline rally, which made him a non-factor once Djokovic settled in to the match.

In terms of the method used, as Kralingen said, it's just 22 slams that are arbitrarily compared with one another. If you compared them in different orders, you could arrive at multiple different results, so it doesn't really say much by itself. I actually do think ranking draw difficulties is a better method.

 

[TheFifthSet]

These ones seem dubious to me.

'17 RG vs. '19 AO:
First of all, if you're gonna say Wimb 2018 Nadal > USO 2013 Djokovic, then by the same token I'm not sure I'd put AO 2019 Nadal above RG 2017 Wawrinka and Thiem.

Fair enough. The added element of Wawrinka being a spent force after the long semi with Murray tips things for me, but Nadal’s play in ‘19 was not rosy to say the least…however I do think ‘19 AO Nadal would be able to hold up better against a non-zoning opponent than ‘17 Wawa. Then there’s Med making a good showing of himself in the first two sets…it’s not much, but enough for a slender edge imo.

'19 RG vs '21 AO:
Federer and Thiem for me > Zverev and Medvedev

Geezer Clay Fed ~ Z on HC and that’s being generous imo, especially since Zverev was actually treeing for large parts of their match….as was Foe. Hell, even Raobot played REALLY well in their first two sets (set 2 is the best I’ve ever seen him play against Djokovic).

Name-wise it was an underwhelming draw (as most have been post-‘16), but at least four of his opponents served devastatingly in that AO. That’s enough to give the draw a pass, and I have some doubts about a non-prime Nadal navigating past that many good serving days in succession given his susceptibility to getting blown off a quicker court.

'22 AO vs '22 WB:
Medvedev > Kyrgios for me. Kyrgios served well, but I struggle to remember him winning any baseline rally, which made him a non-factor once Djokovic settled in to the match.

Honestly thought I was being a bit kind by calling those tournies a push considering Sinner at least showed up in multiple sets, Nadal being the beneficiary of a walkover, etc. Kyrgios serving well is putting it mildly; that’s about the best anyone has served in a slam final in the last decade. Considering Djokovic also returned well, the fact that he yielded BP’s in only three service games is very impressive. While Med has more cred as a top player, I find it difficult to look past Kyrgios giving Nadal and Djokovic a handful in each of the four times they played a BO5 match. But yes, Med did play well too. And I have a long-standing, vocal bias against losing performances that are “good” on the aggregate where the losing player does his best work while well behind…so, A2D here.

In terms of the method used, as Kralingen said, it's just 22 slams that are arbitrarily compared with one another. If you compared them in different orders, you could arrive at multiple different results, so it doesn't really say much by itself.

Yes, it’s a flawed methodology, I make no bones about that. Regardless, it’s an upgrade from the normal discourse seen here and I welcome better approaches still. At the very least I think it is safe to conclude that Djokovic hasn’t had notably more draw/competition luck than Nadal.

 

[The_Order]

The fact that you give the difficulty edge to Djok in 5 of his total of 8 after 2017 RG v AO2019 AO onward is significantly telling here...

The fact that 3 (17RG v 19AO, 19RG v 21AO, 22AO v 22WIM) of those 5 are line ball as to how **** they are is even more telling...

The fact that you gave 7 of Nadal's total of 9 when comparing matches prior to 2017 is even more telling...

It is a significant difference... and the only conclusion is this:


- Nadal had the tougher path during his prime yet still won 12 majors from 07-14
- Djok has had a much easier path post prime and has won 12 majors from 18-23

 

[helterskelter]

Ya, my boredom-quenching quest gave me the itch to start this loathsome battle. Alas…

I only read the first two entries but I disagree with both: I’d rate Djokovic’s competition at AO 08 above Nadal at RG 05 because I think surface > mono and Tsonga beat Nadal 62 63 62 while Puerta went five with Canas and Clayvdenko. By contrast I’d put Nadal’s RG 06 competition way above Djokovic’s AO 11, not merely slightly.

 

[TheFifthSet]

The fact that you give the difficulty edge to Djok in 5 of his total of 8 after 2017 RG v AO2019 AO onward is significantly telling here...

The fact that 3 (17RG v 19AO, 19RG v 21AO, 22AO v 22WIM) of those 5 are line ball as to how **** they are is even more telling...

The fact that you gave 7 of Nadal's total of 9 when comparing matches prior to 2017 is even more telling...

It is a significant difference... and the only conclusion is this:

We can go through which evaluations you disagree with and why.

I do give Nadal a fair few nods before ‘17, but they’re usually small ones, just as most of Djokovic’s advantages are small.

- Nadal had the tougher path during his prime yet still won 12 majors from 07-14

All of that work amounted to a modest 14-12 edge in majors even just pre-CIE, despite being a year older.

Call Nadal’s comp a bit tougher if you must…won’t protest…but it doesn’t mean the wrong guy is ahead right now, which is the main point of all this. They are a roughly similar calibre of player and Djokovic is no less deserving of the top spot of the slam leaderboard (considering he’s two ahead and will likely widen the gap, that’s really about as openhanded as I can get).

 

[jl809]

Alright, this might cause some fire-fights but I’m bored so here goes:

There’s been an increasingly common contention around these boards that Djokovic vultured slams to a far greater degree than Ned did, due to CIE (which I believe *is* a thing, so withdraw your pitchforks) and such.


But is it true? How about I examine their competition, slam-for-slam (up to slam #22, to be fair to Nadal) and y’all tell me if or where I’ve gone wrong?


‘05 RG vs. ‘08 AO: Nadal gets the slight edge. It’s Fed’s weaker surface, but ‘08 AO Fed was MonoFed, and they both faced surprise finalists that punched above their weight.

‘06 RG vs. ‘11 AO: Again a slight edge to Nadal. Fed played much better than Murray, but Fed still underperformed in sets 2-4 of that final. Mathieu and Hewitt were inspiring underdogs. Yadayada.

‘07 RG vs. ‘11 Wimby: tie. ‘07 ClayFed is the best opponent, but ‘11 Tsonga > ‘07 Clay Greenkovic.

‘08 RG vs. ‘11 USO: Finally, Djokovic is on the board (although with how good ‘08Dal was, the draw wouldn’t have mattered).

‘08 Wimby vs. ‘12 AO: A wash.

‘09 AO vs. ‘13 AO: slight edge Nadal.

‘10 RG vs. ‘14 Wimby: clear edge Joco.

‘10 Wimby vs. ‘15 AO: a wash.

‘10 USO vs. ‘15 Wimby: edge to Djokovic.

‘11 RG vs. ‘15 USO: edge Ned’s draw

‘12 RG vs. ‘16 AO: edge Nadal

‘13 RG vs. ‘16 RG: edge Nadal.

‘13 USO vs. ‘18 Wimby: edge Djoko (to heck with “name over form”).

‘14 RG vs. ‘18 USO: edge Dal.

‘17 RG vs. ‘19 AO: slight edge Djoko.

‘17 USO vs. ‘19 Wimby: edge Djokovic.

‘18 RG vs. ‘20 AO: tied.

‘19 RG vs. ‘21 AO: slight edge Djokovic

‘19 USO vs. ‘21 RG: edge Djokovic.

‘20 RG vs. ‘21 Wimby: clear edge Dal

‘22 AO vs. ‘22 Wimby: a wash (yes, really, as Kyrgicringe served up a storm).

‘22 RG vs. ‘23 AO: clear edge Nadal.

The finally subjective tally is 9 (Nadal), 8 (Djokovic), 5 (even).

Where have I erred, if at all?

Regardless of whether I’ve gotten this-or-that slam wrong, the bottom line is: when you factor in that Djokovic has **since** tacked on two slams that were **at least** better than Nadal’s weakest…it is a bridge-too-far to argue or imply he has been unduly fortunate compared to him. Perhaps he has had the weaker average draw (my own evaluation sez so), but the differences have been close to negligible over the course of their slam wins.

I think there are a couple of things here.

Firstly, comparing player A from slam 1 to player B from slam 2 is quite tough.. I’d be lost trying to compare a random Fed from the USO to a random Fed from the AO where court speed is as much a factor as anything for example. Not sure how to solve that

More than that, though, this ignores what I think is Fed fans’ biggest issue, which is that the strength of a draw matters more when you’re 36 than when you’re in your prime / peak, and that when you play like Nadal did in the 07 clay season for example, draw doesn’t really matter at all.

For example, when people complain about Fed’s weak era, Fed fans will turn round and say “cool, put prime Djoker in these weak Wimbledon / US Open draws then”. They’d back their guy because he’s already playing at a level which could have handled more than just Roddick etc, and they’d be right according to TTW - it’s the consensus on this forum that prime Fed >> prime Djoker at Wim and the USO.

Whereas if you put someone like prime Fed in Djoker’s recent AO / USO wins, no-one but the most insane biased rosy tinted Djoker fans would argue that he is beating Fed there. So it was more “helpful” that his draw was weaker

I think that has to weight somehow into considering strength / weakness of slams. It’s why Ned’s AO 22, Djoker’s USO 23 aren’t just “weak” like Fed’s Wimbledon 2005 is. They’re sort of “super weak”. They NEEDED draws like Chokerdev + Shelton / Berry etc to get through

 

[The_Order]

We can go through which evaluations you disagree with and why.

I do give Nadal a fair few nods before ‘17, but they’re usually small ones, just as most of Djokovic’s advantages are small.



All of that work amounted to a modest 14-12 edge in majors even just pre-CIE, despite being a year older.

Call Nadal’s comp a bit tougher if you must…won’t protest…but it doesn’t mean the wrong guy is ahead right now, which is the main point of all this. They are a roughly similar calibre of player and Djokovic is no less deserving of the top spot of the slam leaderboard (considering he’s two ahead and will likely widen the gap, that’s really about as openhanded as I can get).

We don't need to go through anything...

Like I said, you even listed it yourself. Nadal got the edge on the vast majority of your ratings prior to 2017 matches...

After that, Djok's draws started rating higher... but given how weak the era is, his "difficult" draws were really not that difficult whereas Rafa's difficult draws were.

Look at this fact:

AO09: def Federer #2
RG12: def #1 Djokovic
WIM08: def #1 Federer
US13: def #1 Djokovic

This is against fellow big 3 all in their prime.

Come back when you can find Djok with anywhere near those level of victories across the 4 majors.

The fact is, he almost has a double career slam after turning 34... he didn't get his first single career slam until he was 29...

And now I'm supposed to believe he hasn't been inflating his numbers? Come on.

Look, obviously it's not his fault, can't blame him for taking advantage. What is his fault is that he couldn't do it as well as Nadal did when the real competition was there...

 

[TheFifthSet]

We don't need to go through anything...

Like I said, you even listed it yourself. Nadal got the edge on the vast majority of your ratings prior to 2017 matches...

After that, Djok's draws started rating higher... but given how weak the era is, his "difficult" draws were really not that difficult whereas Rafa's difficult draws were.

Look at this fact:

AO09: def Federer #2
RG12: def #1 Djokovic
WIM08: def #1 Federer
US13: def #1 Djokovic

This is against fellow big 3 all in their prime.

Come back when you can find Djok with anywhere near those level of victories across the 4 majors.

The fact is, he almost has a double career slam after turning 34... he didn't get his first single career slam until he was 29...

And now I'm supposed to believe he hasn't been inflating his numbers? Come on.

Look, obviously it's not his fault, can't blame him for taking advantage. What is his fault is that he couldn't do it as well as Nadal did when the real competition was there...

This isn’t a response to anything I said ITT, just a series of disjointed and regurgitated arguments that we’ve discussed in several other threads, with the exact same talking points being raised, all of which I had responded to in the other threads.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I think there are a couple of things here.

Firstly, comparing player A from slam 1 to player B from slam 2 is quite tough.. I’d be lost trying to compare a random Fed from the USO to a random Fed from the AO where court speed is as much a factor as anything for example. Not sure how to solve that

More than that, though, this ignores what I think is Fed fans’ biggest issue, which is that the strength of a draw matters more when you’re 36 than when you’re in your prime / peak, and that when you play like Nadal did in the 07 clay season for example, draw doesn’t really matter at all.

For example, when people complain about Fed’s weak era, Fed fans will turn round and say “cool, put prime Djoker in these weak Wimbledon / US Open draws then”. They’d back their guy because he’s already playing at a level which could have handled more than just Roddick etc, and they’d be right according to TTW - it’s the consensus on this forum that prime Fed >> prime Djoker at Wim and the USO.

Whereas if you put someone like prime Fed in Djoker’s recent AO / USO wins, no-one but the most insane biased rosy tinted Djoker fans would argue that he is beating Fed there. So it was more “helpful” that his draw was weaker

I think that has to weight somehow into considering strength / weakness of slams. It’s why Ned’s AO 22, Djoker’s USO 23 aren’t just “weak” like Fed’s Wimbledon 2005 is. They’re sort of “super weak”. They NEEDED draws like Chokerdev + Shelton / Berry etc to get through

I agree that there’s more to it, and have touched on Federer having a more draw-proof game throughout much of his peak (which I rate as the best of the OE), how he won by large margins and how his average slam-losing draw (among the deep runs) was much tougher on average, especially after his prime ended. This thread isn’t really about Fed tho.

 

[messiahrobins]

Make no mistake too, I’m not hating on you my good man, just personally tired of where this is already going to end up going. That’s just the thing, it’s all pretty even and their careers are so ridiculous the differences only matter to crazed fanboys.

I agree. Reality is all the fighting is a waste of time. Nobody now says sampras was greater than agassi. People remember the rivalry and maybe go back to watch some of their matches.
Nobody ever says Borg was goat of his era. People talk about the borg/mcenroe rivalry and throw in connors as part of it albeit to this day that puzzles me as borg v connors was a more natural rivalry age wise.
Thrre is one thing left to fight for next season for nadal djokovic and alcaraz and make no mistake all 3, however far fetched we might think it is, will be aiming for it because they are animalistic winners. Emulate graf 1988. Im now looking forward to next season. Rezt of season i expect rune and tsitsipas to look good and sinner. Get hyped again then bottle it every major next season.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I think there are a couple of things here.

Firstly, comparing player A from slam 1 to player B from slam 2 is quite tough.. I’d be lost trying to compare a random Fed from the USO to a random Fed from the AO where court speed is as much a factor as anything for example. Not sure how to solve that

More than that, though, this ignores what I think is Fed fans’ biggest issue, which is that the strength of a draw matters more when you’re 36 than when you’re in your prime / peak, and that when you play like Nadal did in the 07 clay season for example, draw doesn’t really matter at all.

For example, when people complain about Fed’s weak era, Fed fans will turn round and say “cool, put prime Djoker in these weak Wimbledon / US Open draws then”. They’d back their guy because he’s already playing at a level which could have handled more than just Roddick etc, and they’d be right according to TTW - it’s the consensus on this forum that prime Fed >> prime Djoker at Wim and the USO.

Whereas if you put someone like prime Fed in Djoker’s recent AO / USO wins, no-one but the most insane biased rosy tinted Djoker fans would argue that he is beating Fed there. So it was more “helpful” that his draw was weaker

I think that has to weight somehow into considering strength / weakness of slams. It’s why Ned’s AO 22, Djoker’s USO 23 aren’t just “weak” like Fed’s Wimbledon 2005 is. They’re sort of “super weak”. They NEEDED draws like Chokerdev + Shelton / Berry etc to get through

Djokovic could have handled more at this USO too. He won in straights in 6 of the 7 matches including the final against Medvedev. Medvedev routined Alcaraz, so it wasn't the easy rival some would like to think was. If he had beaten Alcaraz, nobody would be talking about weak draws or inflation and whatnot. But he beats the guy that routined him 2 days prior and it's like he beat Devvarman.

At RG he did beat Alcaraz, just like he did in Cinci. So to suggest he got lucky avoiding him is silly. And when he lost it was a five-setter where he had SP for a 2-0 lead and a BP in the fifth. And at the AO, the mug he beat (in straights, again) in the final beat BOTH Federer and Nadal at that same slam.

So it's not like Djokovic is struggling with these easy draws that one could say, well, a bit of tougher competition and he would lose. He is 9-0 in sets in the final in the 3 slams he won.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Djokovic could have handled more at this USO too. He won in straights in 6 of the 7 matches including the final against Medvedev. Medvedev routined Alcaraz, so it wasn't the easy rival some would like to think was. If he had beaten Alcaraz, nobody would be talking about weak draws or inflation and whatnot. But he beats the guy that routined him 2 days prior and it's like he beat Devvarman.

At RG he did beat Alcaraz, just like he did in Cinci. So to suggest he got lucky avoiding him is silly. And when he lost it was a five-setter where he had SP for a 2-0 lead and a BP in the fifth. And at the AO, the mug he beat (in straights, again) in the final beat BOTH Federer and Nadal at that same slam.

So it's not like Djokovic is struggling with these easy draws that one could say, well, a bit of tougher competition and he would lose. He is 9-0 in sets in the final in the 3 slams he won.

Big lol. Lad need Karl to UE his way out of winning opportunities to grab sets 1&4. Only set 2 was a real rout. Djokovic's singular most important advantage over Alcaraz was being able to sustain rallies while rarely giving up early errors. Clearly Garfia has some growing to do yet.

Double lol at praising the RG victory when it depended on Alcaraz cramping like a rookie, thereby completely defeating himself as a supposed worthy competitor.

Triple lol at bringing the wins over those levels of Fedal as something huge, I guess Millman and Tiafoe boat too, just like Chung and Istomin.

 

[jl809]

I agree that there’s more to it, and have touched on Federer having a more draw-proof game throughout much of his peak (which I rate as the best of the OE), how he won by large margins and how his average slam-losing draw (among the deep runs) was much tougher on average, especially after his prime ended. This thread isn’t really about Fed tho.

Ah sure I get that, was just thinking that should be translated across to Ned and Novak for this thread. I suspect it won’t end well for Ned but haven’t though about it that much

 

[RS]

If some did this for Masters that would be something a bit different. Probably too long though because of how much they play.

 

[Kralingen]

Yeah I’ll admit choosing ‘18 Nadal over ‘13 Djokovic seems risible on the surface, but Djoko’s error-proneness and 2 donated sets only leaves name-over-form as a potential trump card. Even his movement was a bit off (by normal standards) from the Wawa clash. Of course there’s also the matter of ‘13 Nadal being a different animal and the match being closer than the scoreline makes it seem, but next years loss showed even (age-wise) Prime Djoko’s form could wildly fluctuate at the USO.




Yep, it’s a quick and messy shorthand meant to dispatch some of the lower-hanging fruit, but it’s certainly not without flaws. I feel like ranking draw difficulties is just as hair-splitty tho because I would bet that at least half of them are interchangeable wrt how they’d cross-impact either players chance of winning in the others stead.

That’s the tough part, when you’re talking about contemporaries who were mostly in the same draws.

Agreed, although I’d add Nadal gets maybe too much credit here because he was far from even being 1st favourite for most of the slams he skipped. Still definitely left the most on the table injury-wise. Interesting how many swing events/causes all three were handicapped by that prevented them from winning even more:

Nadal - injuries, injuries galore

Djokovic - COVID and other aberrant non- tennis related things (‘20 USO) blocking him in slams he was favoured in, 18 month down period where he refused to get the wrist operated on, pre-‘11 physical woes.

Federer - game being less suited to the era he was in, changing racquets later than he arguably should’ve, intensity drop when he was far ahead the slam race, unprecedented # of close-match bottlings for a Tier 1 great, inordinately strong competition after he passed his physical peak (important because I think even despite his occasionally lack-lustre early-career comp, his form was good enough to be resilient vs. stronger draws).

Goes to show how no one, even these charmed individuals, can have everything fall their way.

Also goes to show that the Big 3 were really something like 30-35 Slam talents impacted by misfortune. Imagine if there was only one of them. Hell, imagine if there were only two.

 

[Holmes]

Are you sure. Look at his 2010 2013 2017 and 2019 USOpen. He had 2 times beaten Djokovic. But till final he had nothing. What do you mean by tougher draw etc bs. He was stopped by Nole only twice in Wimbledon. It's not like Nadal was losing to them every slam. He literally was no show for many slams or lost early. He always played and won Roland Garros. Don't feel sympathy for him. Pete doesn't.

Hey now, he was known as Sweet Pete for a reason.

 

[The Guru]

‘05 RG vs. ‘08 AO: Nadal gets the slight edge. It’s Fed’s weaker surface, but ‘08 AO Fed was MonoFed, and they both faced surprise finalists that punched above their weight.

I'd call this one a wash. Think Tsonga over Puerta makes up the gap between the Feds.

‘06 RG vs. ‘11 AO: Again a slight edge to Nadal. Fed played much better than Murray, but Fed still underperformed in sets 2-4 of that final. Mathieu and Hewitt were inspiring underdogs. Yadayada.

Again tempted to call this one a wash and gun to my head Djokovic's draw is probably the tougher one he was just stronger so he navigated it easier. I don't think much of the 06 final and the 11 SF is much more competitive than people remember Fed played a solid match. It was actually a closer match by DR than the 06 final. Mathieu did play a very good match and I can see giving the edge based on that but my hunch is Murray/Berdych weren't worse the PHM and Hewitt Djokovic was just better than Nadal.

‘08 Wimby vs. ‘12 AO: A wash.

I cannot see how this is not Djokovic by a large margin. Even if you think 08 Fed>12 Nadal (big if) Murray was a very strong opponent in the semi and Nadal had a cakewalk to the final. No way is this a wash.

‘10 Wimby vs. ‘15 AO: a wash.

Stan/Murray seems enough of an edge over Berd/Slightly worse Murray. Murray was pretty solid in 10 though so I can see calling that even and the Stan match wasn't great but he put up more fight than Berdych. I can see wash here but a slight edge to Novak seems right here.

‘17 RG vs. ‘19 AO: slight edge Djoko.

I'd call this one a wash. Don't think Nadal was meaningfully better than Thiem or Stan. And Nadal would've beaten down a Med equivalent in the same manner he beat down Thiem and Stan imo.

‘22 AO vs. ‘22 Wimby: a wash (yes, really, as Kyrgicringe served up a storm).

Tempted to give this one to Djokovic too. Sinner was way better than Shapo (that match was truly horrible) or Berr both of whom I don't think even brought a relevant level. Sinner+Kyrgios probably tougher than Daniil was.

The finally subjective tally is 9 (Nadal), 8 (Djokovic), 5 (even).

Where have I erred, if at all?

My final tally would then be Nadal 7 Djokovic 10 Even 5

Djokovic is certainly helped here by having two of his weakest slams be his last two.

 

[Third Serve]

I'd call this one a wash. Think Tsonga over Puerta makes up the gap between the Feds.

I’d take Puerta over Tsonga actually.

Puerta is closer to 2005 SF Fed in level.

 

[ADuck]

Geezer Clay Fed ~ Z on HC and that’s being generous imo, especially since Zverev was actually treeing for large parts of their match….as was Foe. Hell, even Raobot played REALLY well in their first two sets (set 2 is the best I’ve ever seen him play against Djokovic).

Name-wise it was an underwhelming draw (as most have been post-‘16), but at least four of his opponents served devastatingly in that AO. That’s enough to give the draw a pass, and I have some doubts about a non-prime Nadal navigating past that many good serving days in succession given his susceptibility to getting blown off a quicker court.

I'm not really respecting Rao or Foe the way you are. If we're respecting those names, we may as well respect Goffin who redlined for a brief period and managed to take a set off Nadal. Thiem was also a tougher opponent than anyone Djoker faced in that draw imo. In general, I also put more marks on the opponents in later rounds, as struggling in earlier rounds is more so reflective of Nadal/Djokovic in the process of gaining form throughout the tournament, rather than it is reflective of it actually being a tough opponent. I don't think Nadal would be susceptible to losses against either those two. We saw what was supposed to be a better version of Rao get dismantled by Nadal in AO 2017, and Foe I really don't respect at all.

Honestly thought I was being a bit kind by calling those tournies a push considering Sinner at least showed up in multiple sets, Nadal being the beneficiary of a walkover, etc. Kyrgios serving well is putting it mildly; that’s about the best anyone has served in a slam final in the last decade. Considering Djokovic also returned well, the fact that he yielded BP’s in only three service games is very impressive. While Med has more cred as a top player, I find it difficult to look past Kyrgios giving Nadal and Djokovic a handful in each of the four times they played a BO5 match. But yes, Med did play well too. And I have a long-standing, vocal bias against losing performances that are “good” on the aggregate where the losing player does his best work while well behind…so, A2D here.

Don't get me wrong, Kyrgios put up a respectable performance for what he was capable of, but serving alone doesn't put him above Med for me. If you're severely lacking in baseline ability, enough so that you're irrelevant from the baseline after one set, that's as much of a negative as his serving was a positive.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I'd call this one a wash. Think Tsonga over Puerta makes up the gap between the Feds.

Puketra would be a putrid slam finals opponent normally, but Dopetra was very formidable and by dint of his great play almost took that one to a 5th. Very strong stuff. They’re equal in these respective settings imo, and ‘05 Fed seals it for Ned.

Again tempted to call this one a wash and gun to my head Djokovic's draw is probably the tougher one he was just stronger so he navigated it easier. I don't think much of the 06 final and the 11 SF is much more competitive than people remember Fed played a solid match. It was actually a closer match by DR than the 06 final. Mathieu did play a very good match and I can see giving the edge based on that but my hunch is Murray/Berdych weren't worse the PHM and Hewitt Djokovic was just better than Nadal.

I wanted to give it to Djoko but Murray was very bad imo. For someone with that many AO finals he has almost no impressive wins to his name there. Berd’s second set was good but he didn’t serve well that day and was meek in the other two.

I cannot see how this is not Djokovic by a large margin. Even if you think 08 Fed>12 Nadal (big if) Murray was a very strong opponent in the semi and Nadal had a cakewalk to the final. No way is this a wash.

Yeah, I think ‘08 Fed on grass is still a more impressive win. While he wasn’t quite at 03-07 levels he was still an all-timer on the surface that was made to look worse by a match-up edge that Ned earned. Murray helps even things out a bit for Djokovic, but the rest of Nadal’s draw wasn’t that bad actually. ‘08 Murray played a horrible match but Gulbis was game for three sets and Kiefer/Youz are two dangerous grass floaters.

Stan/Murray seems enough of an edge over Berd/Slightly worse Murray. Murray was pretty solid in 10 though so I can see calling that even and the Stan match wasn't great but he put up more fight than Berdych. I can see wash here but a slight edge to Novak seems right here.

I think Sod put up about as good a fight in the QF as ‘15 Murray in the first 2.5 sets. Then there’s Haase serving like a madman, Petz playing good all-court tennis and ‘10 Murray actually playing a very good match (one of the better ones you’ll see for a straight-set loser). I’m sure some of Nadal’s early round struggles were due to serving limitations + the regular aversion to first week courts but not all of it, and not enough to give Djokovic’s draw the advantage.

I'd call this one a wash. Don't think Nadal was meaningfully better than Thiem or Stan. And Nadal would've beaten down a Med equivalent in the same manner he beat down Thiem and Stan imo.

Fair enough.

Tempted to give this one to Djokovic too. Sinner was way better than Shapo (that match was truly horrible) or Berr both of whom I don't think even brought a relevant level. Sinner+Kyrgios probably tougher than Daniil was.

Shapo played very well in sets 3-4 and parts of set 5; the fact that it didn’t happen in sets 1-2 is why I’d call it a wash (again my bias against come-from-behind efforts that fall short rears it’s head) but still good enough for me.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I'm not really respecting Rao or Foe the way you are.

Oh, I am unkind to just about any player from those generations and have to steer away from my negative bias lest it affects the appraisals of their play...but it's hard to argue against how well his R64-QF opponents all served (and that's in relatively quick conditions). Those matches actually represented 4 of Djokovic's 7 highest vAce %'s that year. Gives '21 a surprising amount of depth uncharacteristic of slam draws these days.

If we're respecting those names, we may as well respect Goffin who redlined for a brief period and managed to take a set off Nadal.

I do. Goffin did his part for a set, and I factor that in.

Thiem was also a tougher opponent than anyone Djoker faced in that draw imo.

Could be, though its hard to tell after how he completely folded in sets 3-4. Tough to maintain intensity after a virtually flawless second set, though.

In general, I also put more marks on the opponents in later rounds, as struggling in earlier rounds is more so reflective of Nadal/Djokovic in the process of gaining form throughout the tournament, rather than it is reflective of it actually being a tough opponent. I don't think Nadal would be susceptible to losses against either those two.

Each their own. I just don't see Nadal being upset-proof against 4 great serving performances on a quicker court.

We saw what was supposed to be a better version of Rao get dismantled by Nadal in AO 2017, and Foe I really don't respect at all.

Well Zed was stronger in theory in '21 than he was in '17, and yet he pushed Nadal harder than he pushed Djok, **** happens and Raonic was absurdly good for a large chunk of their '21 match.

Don't get me wrong, Kyrgios put up a respectable performance for what he was capable of, but serving alone doesn't put him above Med for me. If you're severely lacking in baseline ability, enough so that you're irrelevant from the baseline after one set, that's as much of a negative as his serving was a positive.

I wouldn't even put Kyrgios above per se, him and Sinner just did well enough to make this a deadlock (which IMO makes it enough to give Djokovic the W here, but it's close enough to think it would be cheap to add to his tally). The impression I got from that final was that Djokovic didn't even underperform to be taken to a 4th set TB (despite returning well), and that speaks volumes. Relatively ineffectual from the baseline or not, Kyrgios managed to deliver the goods in every single BO5 match he's played vs. Djokodal, never doing worse than a 4th set TB.

 

[ADuck]

Each their own. I just don't see Nadal being upset-proof against 4 great serving performances on a quicker court.

Well Zed was stronger in theory in '21 than he was in '17, and yet he pushed Nadal harder than he pushed Djok, **** happens and Raonic was absurdly good for a large chunk of their '21 match.

Which Nadal is losing to either Raonic or Tiafoe? Certainly not any healthy version besides maybe 2015/2016. It's not typically the big servers who are giving him trouble on outdoor HC's, it's the guys who play at a high enough level and have the weapons to hang with him on the baseline (for e.g. Thiem, Cilic, Tsonga, Del Potro). I don't see either Raonic or Tiafoe (especially) on that level, and certainly not over BO5. I'm also not sure I see the logic of using Nadal here? Nadal on HC != Djokovic on HC obviously. Djokovic on HC != Nadal on clay either. On average, Djokovic will just lose more sets in a HC slam than Nadal will in a clay slam because he's not on the same level.

There was also a matter of that "injury" Djokovic had. Now even though I believe it to be greatly exaggerated, he was clearly managing his body in such a way that he would put more effort into important points (break points, pressure points, set points, games near the end of the set). This resulted in a sort of rubber band effect within his matches because his opponents would pick up momentum when he was playing hesitantly, but then when push came to shove, Djokovic just won all the points that mattered. This was particularly visible in the Zverev match because it synchronised somewhat with Zverev's choking. Point being, his matches may have appeared closer than what they actually were.

Now Zed/Med I respect, which is why I used him in my original response. For me, combo of Fed/Thiem > Zed/Med and the rest of the draw is kinda irrelevant. But A2D then.

 

[The Guru]

Puketra would be a putrid slam finals opponent normally, but Dopetra was very formidable and by dint of his great play almost took that one to a 5th. Very strong stuff. They’re equal in these respective settings imo, and ‘05 Fed seals it for Ned.

Tsonga was pretty close to taking it 5 too and I think Djok was stronger but fair enough.

I wanted to give it to Djoko but Murray was very bad imo. For someone with that many AO finals he has almost no impressive wins to his name there. Berd’s second set was good but he didn’t serve well that day and was meek in the other two.

My feeling here is Djok in this tournament was as close to Peakdal on clay as we’ve ever seen so he just smothered what was actually pretty solid competition. Kinda like 08 Djok wasn’t bad but still got routined.

Yeah, I think ‘08 Fed on grass is still a more impressive win. While he wasn’t quite at 03-07 levels he was still an all-timer on the surface that was made to look worse by a match-up edge that Ned earned. Murray helps even things out a bit for Djokovic, but the rest of Nadal’s draw wasn’t that bad actually. ‘08 Murray played a horrible match but Gulbis was game for three sets and Kiefer/Youz are two dangerous grass floaters.

Agree to disagree re Fed but it doesn’t matter. AO 12 is still stronger even if Fed is the stronger opponent. This is just not even close AO 12 is one of the strongest slam wins in the history of tennis. It might be the single strongest.

I think Sod put up about as good a fight in the QF as ‘15 Murray in the first 2.5 sets. Then there’s Haase serving like a madman, Petz playing good all-court tennis and ‘10 Murray actually playing a very good match (one of the better ones you’ll see for a straight-set loser). I’m sure some of Nadal’s early round struggles were due to serving limitations + the regular aversion to first week courts but not all of it, and not enough to give Djokovic’s draw the advantage.

Fair enough

Shapo played very well in sets 3-4 and parts of set 5; the fact that it didn’t happen in sets 1-2 is why I’d call it a wash (again my bias against come-from-behind efforts that fall short rears it’s head) but still good enough for me.

No idea what you were watching. I think the Shapo match is probably the worst match ever played by a slam winner in the history of tennis (at least as long as I’ve been watching). It was truly a horrible match. Not even played at a top 20 level.

 

[Clay lover]

This only works for the Ned fans who cry weak era though and doesn't disprove both might have played in a relatively weak era at the tail end of their careers

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Unless there is a major discrepancy between competition as Serena Williams and Margaret Court in slams, I don't think this metric makes much dent in either direction. Both players in this topic often have been called "vultures" from rival fan bases. Djokovic won 24 slams and defeated 35 past or future GS champs en route to those titles. His figure might be lower due to the modern generation failing to win slams and the dominance of the "big 3." There are 3 slams in which Djokovic didn't defeat a GS champion and Federer has 1, and Nadal has 0. Nadal defeated 38 GS champions in his 22 wins with each win including a win over a GS champion. Federer has 35 wins over GS champions in his 20 titles. Perhaps each player had a few lucky draws but as another poster stated once you win 20 or more it's more about your skills than being a vulture.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Tsonga was pretty close to taking it 5 too and I think Djok was stronger but fair enough.

My feeling here is Djok in this tournament was as close to Peakdal on clay as we’ve ever seen so he just smothered what was actually pretty solid competition. Kinda like 08 Djok wasn’t bad but still got routined.

I’m not a fan of outcome-based analysis either so I sympathize with where you’re coming from, but I disagree with the example. ‘08 Djokovic played one of the best lost sets I’ve ever seen in the third. Federer, despite the onslaught from Djok, played a pretty pedestrian match by his standards. I do think Djokovic’s dual-winged pressure made him look a lot worse, but these are apples and oranges cuz Nadal didn’t make Djokovic look bad in any way.

Agree to disagree re Fed but it doesn’t matter. AO 12 is still stronger even if Fed is the stronger opponent. This is just not even close AO 12 is one of the strongest slam wins in the history of tennis. It might be the single strongest.

I think both are in the upper echelon but I’d fall short of saying either are a GOAT draw candidate. ‘08 Fed > ‘12 Nadal, ‘12 Murray > ‘12 Gulbis, similar depth. Definitely an A2D as we probably won’t make much headway past this.

No idea what you were watching. I think the Shapo match is probably the worst match ever played by a slam winner in the history of tennis (at least as long as I’ve been watching). It was truly a horrible match. Not even played at a top 20 level.

I don’t think it was a good level from him, just as I don’t think Sinner’s aggregate level was all that high either tbh, but Shapo’s level was good for a few sets; both draws were bad so I acknowledge that these are the slimmest of pickings. Do I think Nadal’s draw didn’t suck? No, of course not. I’m grading on a curve. I also think Shapo is made to look worse by his visually horrendous lows (the obscene over/mis-hitting—this was present in the ‘21 semi too). Not really a lot to go on here.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Which Nadal is losing to either Raonic or Tiafoe? Certainly not any healthy version besides maybe 2015/2016.

Perhaps no version; depends on how they serve. But beating him isn’t the only way they can dent his title-winning odds. We saw how worn down Nadal was at the ‘18 USO after long affairs with Khachanov, Basilashvili and Thiem. These are different player-types, but the point is that their efforts chained together had an accumulative effect.

Also the reason I brought up the ‘17/‘21 Z comparison is to show that an ostensibly ‘worse’ version of a player can still out-perform expectations. Nadal and Raonic have played one BO5 match and Rao underwhelmed, so? ‘17 AOdal was the best of all his ‘15-‘23 iterations and Rao still probably should’ve won the second set.

It's not typically the big servers who are giving him trouble on outdoor HC's,

Come to think of it, how many has he really faced in slams?

‘04 USO - Roddick: a beatdown, but Ned was too young for us to draw conclusions from it

‘06 USO - Scud: The Bachelor was way past it.

‘07 and ‘08 AO - Tsonga: don’t think he quite qualifies as a big server, but he’s borderline, and they split wins. Omit this one if you’d like.

‘08 USO - Querrey: very tight four set win.

‘10 AO - Karlovic: ho-hum four set win.

‘11 USO - Roddick: a beatdown in the opposite direction, equally unhelpful.

‘17 AO - Raonic: covered.

‘17 USO - Anderson: good, dominant win.

‘20 AO - Kyrgios: extended to a 4th set TB.

i don’t think we can summarily dismiss the chances a big server (or a non-bot serving beyond his normal level) would have against Nadal on outdoor HC based on this minuscule sample.

it's the guys who play at a high enough level and have the weapons to hang with him on the baseline (for e.g. Thiem, Cilic, Tsonga, Del Potro). I don't see either Raonic or Tiafoe (especially) on that level, and certainly not over BO5.

Fair enough, though I explain above why I don’t feel they don’t necessarily have to even beat an older Nadal to qualify as pests.

I'm also not sure I see the logic of using Nadal here? Nadal on HC != Djokovic on HC obviously. Djokovic on HC != Nadal on clay either. On average, Djokovic will just lose more sets in a HC slam than Nadal will in a clay slam because he's not on the same level.

Yes that’s part of it, though Djokovic also doesn’t have quite the same metronomic focus in early rounds either.

Also, are you referring to my dismissal of Thiem’s efforts?

There was also a matter of that "injury" Djokovic had. Now even though I believe it to be greatly exaggerated, he was clearly managing his body in such a way that he would put more effort into important points (break points, pressure points, set points, games near the end of the set). This resulted in a sort of rubber band effect within his matches because his opponents would pick up momentum when he was playing hesitantly, but then when push came to shove, Djokovic just won all the points that mattered. This was particularly visible in the Zverev match because it synchronised somewhat with Zverev's choking. Point being, his matches may have appeared closer than what they actually were.

Hmm, I think this is very have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too. If Djokovic’s ailments were enough to cause a dramatic shift in his normal strategy, to the point where he’s dumping multiple sets, I think it’s fair to shed the “”. Minor niggles that don’t impede your play are “”””“injuries”””””. Don’t see how one can have it both ways here.

In any case I do agree a fully healthy Djokovic probably dispatches that draw with a bit more aplomb, which is why I wouldn’t call it a tough one—just a bit tougher than Nadal’s IMO. Also agree that opponent futility/success on the scoreboard isn’t the only way with which to gauge toughness, otherwise most of Nadal’s RG draws end up looking like historic cakewalks.

Now Zed/Med I respect, which is why I used him in my original response. For me, combo of Fed/Thiem > Zed/Med and the rest of the draw is kinda irrelevant. But A2D then.

Fair enough.