Match-ups and the Big 3

[Aabye5]

Lots of threads about hypothetical matches between big 3 rivals and modern players, but it's interesting how much matchups play a role in results. Taking a step back and looking at the big 3 themselves, even they had types of players they would prefer not to play (even if they had a winning h2h).

Roger Federer - arguably fought some of his toughest matches against "aggressive retrievers". Both Djokovic and Nadal fit into this category, but also Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, and Dominic Thiem. If I had to pick a modern player that could trouble him, I think Jannik Sinner would be able to test him on hard courts, and even could push it to 4 on grass, but not on clay. Would Lendl be a good matchup for him?

Rafael Nadal - never loved playing the "aggressive shotmaker". Nick Kyrgios, James Blake, Dustin Brown all fit into this category, and to a lesser extent Nikolay Davydenko and Robin Soderling. Carlos Alcaraz would probably challenge even young Rafa on all surfaces for this reason. For the same reasons, I would say that Pete Sampras would prefer to play Rafa compared to Novak or Federer, although their surface preferences also plays into that.

Novak Djokovic - not sure how I would describe the player, but Marat Safin, Stan Wawrinka, Nick Kyrgios, and Jiri Vesely are representatives. Honestly, I can't think of a player who plays in this fashion now, much less who can pull it off consistently. Holger Rune might come the closest?

 

[Aabye5]

Is it fair to pick Dominic Thiem as the player that all 3 would hate to play in the semis of a Slam?

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

Is it fair to pick Dominic Thiem as the player that all 3 would hate to play in the semis of a Slam?

That'd be Delpo

 

[Aabye5]

That'd be Delpo

Delpo was also my first thought, but technically he wasn't as troublesome for Djokovic.

 

[Mainad]

And of course no mention of the 1 player who had more success against Federer and Djokovic than any other player and who straight setted the other one twice at his home tournament on the surface he dominated like nobody else!

 

[Lleytonstation]

Djokers only matchup issue is himself. His walkabouts.

Otherwise he doesn't seemed bother by who or what they bring.

 

[Aabye5]

Djokers only matchup issue is himself. His walkabouts.

Otherwise he doesn't seemed bother by who or what they bring.

And Rafa never lost except when injured. I know.

 

[Aabye5]

And of course no mention of the 1 player who had more success against Federer and Djokovic than any other player and who straight setted the other one twice at his home tournament on the surface he dominated like nobody else!

Lol, I intentionally left out Murray. I'm not quite convinced he is a matchup issue. He's just a really good player.

In the sense, that if you had a 'lesser Murray', he wouldn't necessarily trouble them in the same way that Dimitrov being sort of a 'lesser Federer' doesn't really trouble Djokovic and Nadal. Do you think Hurkacz, for example, would have caused half as much trouble?

 

[Mainad]

Lol, I intentionally left out Murray. I'm not quite convinced he is a matchup issue. He's just a really good player.

In the sense, that if you had a 'lesser Murray', he wouldn't necessarily trouble them in the same way that Dimitrov being sort of a 'lesser Federer' doesn't really trouble Djokovic and Nadal. Do you think Hurkacz, for example, would have caused half as much trouble?

Lol....Murray was far more of a match-up issue than most of those other names you dragged out. His record against them speaks for itself. No-one else matched up against them better than he did (Nadal aside maybe). This phenomenon of Murray constantly getting ommitted from these type of discussions is part and parcel of the strange and frustrating disrespect he so often gets on here.

 

[Mustard]

Djokers only matchup issue is himself. His walkabouts.

Otherwise he doesn't seemed bother by who or what they bring.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I remember being happy af Safin beat him at Wimbledon lol. Then Federer smoked him

 

[Mustard]

I remember being happy af Safin beat him at Wimbledon lol. Then Federer smoked him

Safin had a run all the way to the semis first, including beating a tough matchup in Wawrinka, which was Safin's best Wimbledon run. Federer beat Safin 6-3, 7-6, 6-4 in the semi finals.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Safin had a run all the way to the semis first, including beating a tough matchup in Wawrinka, which was Safin's best Wimbledon run. Federer beat Safin 6-3, 7-6, 6-4 in the semi finals.

Safin was my moms fav player when she got into tennis

 

[Tano]

Safin had a run all the way to the semis first, including beating a tough matchup in Wawrinka, which was Safin's best Wimbledon run. Federer beat Safin 6-3, 7-6, 6-4 in the semi finals.

'Mono' Federer was far superior to the versions of Federer that Djokovic defeated in 2014, 2015 and 2019.

 

[platypus50]

Djokovic

• Struggled against players who denied him the pace and rhythm he craves and loves when exchanging baseline rallies
• Kyrgios in the 2 matches he won against Djokovic kept Djokovic off-balance by hitting huge serves (even on 2nd serves), junkballing, netrushing and refused to get drawn into long baseline rallies

Nadal

• Struggled against opponents who consistently took the ball early, rushed him and hit hard, fast and flat to his forehand
• Davydenko and Djokovic on HC fall into this category

Federer

• Struggled against opponents who were consistent retrievers and kept making him play one more shot, Federer's own impatience grew when he was unable to put away his opponent and the unforced error count would increase

 

[Aabye5]

Lol....Murray was far more of a match-up issue than most of those other names you dragged out. His record against them speaks for itself. No-one else matched up against them better than he did (Nadal aside maybe). This phenomenon of Murray constantly getting ommitted from these type of discussions is part and parcel of the strange and frustrating disrespect he so often gets on here.

I said Murray was a really good player. It's not a diss, but make some case that he is actually a match-up issue.

Can Federer beat Nadal? Of course. Can Nadal beat Djokovic? Absolutely. But there is a reason why there was a lot of talk about how Nadal was a bad matchup against Federer. Thiem, likewise. Wawrinka against Djokovic and Blake against Nadal are other examples.

How is Murray a matchup issue rather than just another great player?

 

[TTMR]

Djokovic

• Struggled against players who denied him the pace and rhythm he craves and loves when exchanging baseline rallies
• Kyrgios in the 2 matches he won against Djokovic kept Djokovic off-balance by hitting huge serves (even on 2nd serves), junkballing, netrushing and refused to get drawn into long baseline rallies

Nadal

• Struggled against opponents who consistently took the ball early, rushed him and hit hard, fast and flat to his forehand
• Davydenko and Djokovic on HC fall into this category

Federer

• Struggled against opponents who were consistent retrievers and kept making him play one more shot, Federer's own impatience grew when he was unable to put away his opponent and the unforced error count would increase

Djokovic struggles against one handed clay court type players, example Wawrinka and Thiem. So you could probably throw Kuerten in there as someone who'd trouble him.

Nadal struggles against tall guys with two handers who can tree from time to time. Soderling, Delpo, Rosol. Nadal tends to learn his opponent after a loss though, so novelty is the key against Nadal.

Fed struggles against pusher/retriever types, like Simon, early Murray and Canas. Ferrer and Hewitt would seem like exceptions, but both actually try to hit as hard as possible and are unable to hit hard, while with Simon and Canas it's clearly a strategy, so that could be a major difference.

 

[Aabye5]

Djokovic struggles against one handed clay court type players, example Wawrinka and Thiem. So you could probably throw Kuerten in there as someone who'd trouble him.

Nadal struggles against tall guys with two handers who can tree from time to time. Soderling, Delpo, Rosol. Nadal tends to learn his opponent after a loss though, so novelty is the key against Nadal.

Fed struggles against pusher/retriever types, like Simon, early Murray and Canas. Ferrer and Hewitt would seem like exceptions, but both actually try to hit as hard as possible and are unable to hit hard, while with Simon and Canas it's clearly a strategy, so that could be a major difference.

Hewitt was more of a problem for Federer than Simon. That's why I would say he faced more of a problem against aggressive retrievers.

You are right, Kuerten against Djokovic would be a very interesting matchup.

Davydenko and even Blake weren't very tall, and Blake didn't even have a two-hander. I think it was more about the ability to redirect Rafa's power than it was about height.

What's interesting with Simon is that he is another player like Thiem and del Potro who could push all 3.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Djoker was just young. Not a matchup issue.

 

[NatF]

Hewitt was more of a problem for Federer than Simon. That's why I would say he faced more of a problem against aggressive retrievers.

You are right, Kuerten against Djokovic would be a very interesting matchup.

Davydenko and even Blake weren't very tall, and Blake didn't even have a two-hander. I think it was more about the ability to redirect Rafa's power than it was about height.

What's interesting with Simon is that he is another player like Thiem and del Potro who could push all 3.

Nadal has difficulty with players than can rob his forehand of time and/or have the timing or height to take his balls at the top of their bounce.

 

[mike danny]

I said Murray was a really good player. It's not a diss, but make some case that he is actually a match-up issue.

Can Federer beat Nadal? Of course. Can Nadal beat Djokovic? Absolutely. But there is a reason why there was a lot of talk about how Nadal was a bad matchup against Federer. Thiem, likewise. Wawrinka against Djokovic and Blake against Nadal are other examples.

How is Murray a matchup issue rather than just another great player?

Wouldn't day Thiem was a bad match-up for Fed, he just caught an out of form and then very old Fed.

 

[Mustard]

Djoker was just young. Not a matchup issue.

At the time of 2008 Wimbledon, Djokovic was world number 3 behind Federer and Nadal, was the reigning champion of the Australian Open, Indian Wells and Canadian Open, had just lost a very close 2008 Queen's Club final to Nadal, as well as having been within 1 match of being world number 2 at 2008 Hamburg when facing Nadal in the semi finals. Safin had not done much impressive stuff for a good 3 years at the time, and his ranking was at world number 75 at the time of 2008 Wimbledon.

 

[Mainad]

I said Murray was a really good player. It's not a diss, but make some case that he is actually a match-up issue.

Can Federer beat Nadal? Of course. Can Nadal beat Djokovic? Absolutely. But there is a reason why there was a lot of talk about how Nadal was a bad matchup against Federer. Thiem, likewise. Wawrinka against Djokovic and Blake against Nadal are other examples.

How is Murray a matchup issue rather than just another great player?

Because of his record against them! Nobody else has had as much success, such as it was, against the Big 3 (especially Fed and Novak) so why wouldn't he be considered a match-up issue any less than any of those others you mentioned??

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

At the time of 2008 Wimbledon, Djokovic was world number 3 behind Federer and Nadal, was the reigning champion of the Australian Open, Indian Wells and Canadian Open, had just lost a very close 2008 Queen's Club final to Nadal, as well as having been within 1 match of being world number 2 at 2008 Hamburg when facing Nadal in the semi finals. Safin had not done much impressive stuff for a good 3 years at the time, and his ranking was at world number 75 at the time of 2008 Wimbledon.

Everyone always provides context for Djokovic but never for Safin. Safin hadn’t won a title in more than 3 years. He was pretty much washed up. And Safin hates grass. He once said, "I don't like to play on this surface. I don't feel like I'm moving. I don't know how it's going to bounce. It's a nightmare for me. I hate it. So after a while, I get bored. I completely lose motivation, and I give up." Nobody expected Safin to win, especially not in straights.

 

[platypus50]

Everyone always provides context for Djokovic but never for Safin. Safin hadn’t won a title in more than 3 years. He was pretty much washed up. And Safin hates grass. He once said, "I don't like to play on this surface. I don't feel like I'm moving. I don't know how it's going to bounce. It's a nightmare for me. I hate it. So after a while, I get bored. I completely lose motivation, and I give up." Nobody expected Safin to win, especially not in straights.

From memory, Djokovic had a terrible serving day against Safin (served 10 double faults in 3 sets) and he finished the match serving 2 consecutive double faults if I'm not mistaken.

Very few people would have picked Safin to straight set Djokovic that day, I had even pencilled in Federer vs Djokovic SF that year with Federer getting his revenge on Djokovic after what happened at AO that year. That is why the matches have to be played out because you just never know sometimes.

 

[Aabye5]

Wouldn't day Thiem was a bad match-up for Fed, he just caught an out of form and then very old Fed.

No, there does seem to be a matchup issue at play with Thiem. Old Fed was more than able to hold his own against Med, Zed and Stef, none of whom had games that could trouble him. Take the losses and the wins in stride, friend.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Nalbandian would have been hands down the biggest issue for all three guys if he kept in shape. He’s the only player that beat all 3 guys in the same tournament. Otherwise I don’t see anyone else. Davydenko is a bit of an issue or could have been

 

[Aabye5]

Because of his record against them! Nobody else has had as much success, such as it was, against the Big 3 (especially Fed and Novak) so why wouldn't he be considered a match-up issue any less than any of those others you mentioned??

When your level of play is high enough, you become a problem for everyone. It's not necessarily a matchup issue. For example, Fed and Novak weren't really troubled by big servers, but even they have tough matches and losses against Karlovic and Isner.

 

[Vincent-C]

Lol....Murray was far more of a match-up issue than most of those other names you dragged out. His record against them speaks for itself. No-one else matched up against them better than he did (Nadal aside maybe). This phenomenon of Murray constantly getting ommitted from these type of discussions is part and parcel of the strange and frustrating disrespect he so often gets on here.

This will be documented in full.

 

[SonnyT]

People didn't realize what a beast Federer became with his new racquet and backhand. Below were the pre- and post-2014 (starting from 1/14) records of Nadal, Murray & Berdych, the three players who had the most success against Federer pre-14, aside from Djokovic.

Name**pre**post
Nadal 9-23 7-1
Murray 9-11 5-0
Berdych 9-6 11-0
Total 27-40 23-1

I moved Nadal's victory at '14 AO from post to pre-14, since it took place in the initial weeks of the switch. Federer's group pre-14 record changed from .402 to .958, the only loss occurring at RG. Except you have to account for Djokovic, who spoiled the party and took away 5 grand slams (3WB, 1AO, 1US) from Federer.

So without Djokovic, Federer with the new backhand would have five more slams, plus the three that he actually won, for a total of 8 grand slams after 2014. Nadal won 5 slams after 2019, and Djokovic won 8 slams after 2020.

 

[Mustard]

People didn't realize what a beast Federer became with his new racquet and backhand. Below were the pre- and post-2014 (starting from 1/14) records of Nadal, Murray & Berdych, the three players who had the most success against Federer pre-14, aside from Djokovic.

Name**pre**post
Nadal 9-23 7-1
Murray 9-11 5-0
Berdych 9-6 11-0
Total 27-40 23-1

I moved Nadal's victory at '14 AO from post to pre-14, since it took place in the initial weeks of the switch. Federer's group pre-14 record changed from .402 to .958, the only loss occurring at RG. Except you have to account for Djokovic, who spoiled the party and took away 5 grand slams (3WB, 1AO, 1US) from Federer.

So without Djokovic, Federer with the new backhand would have five more slams, plus the three that he actually won, for a total of 8 grand slams after 2014. Nadal won 5 slams after 2019, and Djokovic won 8 slams after 2020.

Nadal's change of gamestyle? Aren't you going to mention that? Nadal went from high intensity, big speed/mobility and high balls to the backhand, to shortening points and waiting his time to run flat out. That change worked against the field when Nadal was into his 30s, but it was worse against Federer. Nadal was very close to winning the 2017 Australian Open final, anyway, and that was the biggest match of the year between him and Federer.

 

[SonnyT]

I thought of mentioning Federer, and I hadn't thought of mentioning everything under the sun!

 

[mike danny]

No, there does seem to be a matchup issue at play with Thiem. Old Fed was more than able to hold his own against Med, Zed and Stef, none of whom had games that could trouble him. Take the losses and the wins in stride, friend.

I think it's more of a case that Thiem is just better than those guys since he troubled Nadal and Djokovic too.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Djokovic historically has changed his game as per opposition. Pure problem solver.

Vs someone like Roger he can play counter puncher role very well.

At the same time vs counter punchers like Andy Murray he can play Puncher or All court game very well.

And then for players with huge weakness like tsonga tsitsipas raonic etc he can play aggressive baseliner role at his best.

Sinner can play counter and aggressive baseliner very well but I am yet to see all court game.

 

[nolefam_2024]

There is no specific way to beat Djokovic at all. Nadal on clay is probably only bad matchup he had. You won't beat him by tactics much. Fed tried a lot in 2011 and 2015 usopen but lost both

 

[nolefam_2024]

And Roger didn't need aggressive grinder. He just needed grinder to beat him. Canas beat him 2 times in a row.

Sinner has already shown he can go toe to toe vs raz on clay so he can go toe to toe with Roger as well. Sinner is just so good on baseline it's ridiculous.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Is it fair to pick Dominic Thiem as the player that all 3 would hate to play in the semis of a Slam?

It won't be fair.

Roger can beat thiem just like Stan can. Roger never played thiem when Roger was at his best as far as I remember. He dissects these brainless players.

Nadal always had issues with thiem.

Roger and Novak had some bad losses vs thiem at the end of the year where these old guys are at natural disadvantage.

In ao wimby USO both would not mind him
They would prefer him over Andy Murray

 

[nolefam_2024]

Djokers only matchup issue is himself. His walkabouts.

Otherwise he doesn't seemed bother by who or what they bring.

And Nadal on clay of course. Nadal is our guys chief rival. Honestly even last year I didn't lose hope at rg because I thought nole can beat anyone including young Carlos.

 

[Mustard]

There is no specific way to beat Djokovic at all.

The top 3 things necessary to beat Djokovic:

1. Be prepared to stay out there all day in a physical and mental sense
2. Dictate and be relentless in rallies, assuming that no point is won until it is
3. Use slice and down the line forehands a lot

Djokovic will crack before Nadal does if that is the pattern of the matches.

Nadal on clay is probably only bad matchup he had. You won't beat him by tactics much. Fed tried a lot in 2011 and 2015 usopen but lost both

You've got to be relentless to beat Djokovic, a mixture of variety and overwhelming him with power consistency. An older Federer found this hard.

Nadal's comfort zone play is to target the right-handed opponent's backhand in cross-court forehand to backhand exchanges, but in 2011 that play suddenly didn't work against Djokovic. Even before 2011, it was a tough matchup. Nadal adapted in 2012-2013 by hitting a lot more forehands down the line, i.e. to the Djokovic forehand side.

 

[nolefam_2024]

The top 3 things necessary to beat Djokovic:

1. Be prepared to stay out there all day in a physical and mental sense
2. Dictate and be relentless in rallies, assuming that no point is won until it is
3. Use slice and down the line forehands a lot

Djokovic will crack before Nadal does if that is the pattern of the matches.


You've got to be relentless to beat Djokovic, a mixture of variety and overwhelming him with power consistency. An older Federer found this hard.

Nadal's comfort zone play is to target the right-handed opponent's backhand in cross-court forehand to backhand exchanges, but in 2011 that play suddenly didn't work against Djokovic. Even before 2011, it was a tough matchup. Nadal adapted in 2012-2013 by hitting a lot more forehands down the line, i.e. to the Djokovic forehand side.

The pattern you said only Nadal can do this. Only Nadal. And he hasn't beaten Djokovic off clay for 10 years.

There is no formula to beat djokovic. He can play 5 hrs. He can play defense. He can play offense.

 

[NatF]

Wawrinka made his career by beating Djokovic in slams with a combination of controlled aggression, heavy groundstrokes and angles. Federer has slice and diced Djokovic on many occasions, he simply lacked the physicality to do it over 5 sets after 2012. The idea that you can't best him with tactics is another delusion of the Nolefam, one of many.

 

[Mustard]

There is no formula to beat djokovic. He can play 5 hrs. He can play defense. He can play offense.

Djokovic is like a computer programmed for efficiency, I must admit. But you must stick with him, and don't crack first. Variety, with use of the slice, is also essential, as is power consistency.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Djokovic is like a computer programmed for efficiency, I must admit. But you must stick with him, and don't crack first. Variety, with use of the slice, is also essential, as is power consistency.

Serve as well. Musetti is not able to do any damage. He can do these things.

 

[Aabye5]

I think it's more of a case that Thiem is just better than those guys since he troubled Nadal and Djokovic too.

I don't know if he's better than Medvedev. The other two, sure.

 

[Aabye5]

It won't be fair.

Roger can beat thiem just like Stan can. Roger never played thiem when Roger was at his best as far as I remember. He dissects these brainless players.

Nadal always had issues with thiem.

Roger and Novak had some bad losses vs thiem at the end of the year where these old guys are at natural disadvantage.

In ao wimby USO both would not mind him
They would prefer him over Andy Murray

Thiem isn't brainless. He troubled both Rafa and Novak often enough. Even a straight sets defeat of your guy at RG. Not to mention pushing him to 5 at Novak's main event. He never pushed Rafa to 5 at RG, and he was a better clay court player than hard court player. Sit down, fanboy.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Thiem isn't brainless. He troubled both Rafa and Novak often enough. Even a straight sets defeat of your guy at RG. Not to mention pushing him to 5 at Novak's main event. He never pushed Rafa to 5 at RG, and he was a better clay court player than hard court player. Sit down, fanboy.

I mean any body could beat Djokovic that year

What the f

2017 Djokovic was injured and thiem got him. It's nothing to be proud about. Thankfully Rafa pulled his pants off in RG semis.

 

[Aabye5]

I mean any body could beat Djokovic that year

What the f

2017 Djokovic was injured and thiem got him. It's nothing to be proud about. Thankfully Rafa pulled his pants off in RG semis.

Anybody could beat Djokovic in 2020? He had one bad loss to Sonego the whole year. His other losses were to Thiem, Rafa and Medvedev, excluding the disqualification.

 

[Holmes]

Nadal's change of gamestyle? Aren't you going to mention that? Nadal went from high intensity, big speed/mobility and high balls to the backhand, to shortening points and waiting his time to run flat out. That change worked against the field when Nadal was into his 30s, but it was worse against Federer. Nadal was very close to winning the 2017 Australian Open final, anyway, and that was the biggest match of the year between him and Federer.

Wonder why it was worse against Federer from. 2015 on, especially since it was so effective against him in Melbourne in 2014.

 

[Mustard]

Wonder why it was worse against Federer from. 2015 on, especially since it was so effective against him in Melbourne in 2014.

Because Nadal's best gameplan against Federer is high intensity, a lot of speed and mobility, and high balls to the backhand. That's how Nadal played in earlier years, including in 2014, but not so 2017 to present. Nadal's old way of doing things was better against Federer.

 

[Holmes]

Because Nadal's best gameplan against Federer is high intensity, a lot of speed and mobility, and high balls to the backhand. That's how Nadal played in earlier years, including in 2014, but not so 2017 to present. Nadal's old way of doing things was better against Federer.

Nadal played dominant against Federer in 2014 at the Aussie and he utterly dominated him as the score suggests.