Match-ups and the Big 3

[Biotic]

List of non Big 3 players that beat Nadal at Slams during his "peak":

2005 W - Muller
2005 USO - Blake
2006 USO - Youzhny
2007 AO - Gonzalez
2007 USO - Ferrer

 

[metsman]

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.

Yeah his old way of having a decisive movement advantage over a declining Federer. The new way of having a mild movement advantage didn't work well for him at all. Which is nothing new, historically the Ned doesn't do very well off clay unless every single star and bottle has aligned itself.

That being said, Federer just played a horrible match in 2014, he was still relatively early into his post-13 comeback and just wasn't prepared for a legit opponent. Of course Ned in the same situation and same age got beaten twice as bad by a 31.5 year old Djokovic.

 

[metsman]

List of non Big 3 players that beat Nadal at Slams during his "peak":

2005 W - Muller
2005 USO - Blake
2006 USO - Youzhny
2007 AO - Gonzalez
2007 USO - Ferrer

compared to Tsonga, Murray x2, Soderling, Delpotro, Ferrer, DNP x2, Rosol, Darcis during the "real peak" of 08-13.

 

[nolefam_2024]

List of non Big 3 players that beat Nadal at Slams during his "peak":

2005 W - Muller
2005 USO - Blake
2006 USO - Youzhny
2007 AO - Gonzalez
2007 USO - Ferrer

Before 2008 Nadal is nobody on hc.

 

[Biotic]

compared to Tsonga, Murray x2, Soderling, Delpotro, Ferrer, DNP x2, Rosol, Darcis during the "real peak" of 08-13.

Anyone with basic math skills will tell you 08-13 is twice as long and 05 AO loss to BUMwitt before Ned won his 1st slam wasn't even included. Only bad loss here, claimed injuries aside, is Darcis, and yet no one would blink an eye had it happened in 05-07 on HC/grass.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Anyone with basic math skills will tell you 08-13 is twice as long and 05 AO loss to BUMwitt before Ned won his 1st slam wasn't even included. Only bad loss here, claimed injuries aside, is Darcis, and yet no one would blink an eye had it happened in 05-07 on HC/grass.

Good

 

[Rosstour]

I think all of the B3 were vulnerable to an extent to the same kind of player. Even Fed was incredibly consistent and won a lot of his matches with his legs.

Their shock losses were almost always to guys who just came out swinging. Rosol/Darcis/Kyrgios, Popyrin, DelPo

 

[metsman]

Anyone with basic math skills will tell you 08-13 is twice as long and 05 AO loss to BUMwitt before Ned won his 1st slam wasn't even included. Only bad loss here, claimed injuries aside, is Darcis, and yet no one would blink an eye had it happened in 05-07 on HC/grass.

and 10 is 2x as much as 5, believe it or not. Losing to luminaries such as Rosol, struggling to win games against Delpo and Tsonga, getting smoked by DNP twice without even winning a game is just business as usual I guess for the peak the nadal. Oh and losing to Ferrer in 2007 is a terrible loss apparently but getting destroyed by him in 2011 is just fine.

 

[Aabye5]

I think all of the B3 were vulnerable to an extent to the same kind of player. Even Fed was incredibly consistent and won a lot of his matches with his legs.

Their shock losses were almost always to guys who just came out swinging. Rosol/Darcis/Kyrgios, Popyrin, DelPo

Delpo wasn't really a shock loss. Even the Kyrgios loss wasn't really, except that he was young.

 

[Holmes]

I think all of the B3 were vulnerable to an extent to the same kind of player. Even Fed was incredibly consistent and won a lot of his matches with his legs.

Their shock losses were almost always to guys who just came out swinging. Rosol/Darcis/Kyrgios, Popyrin, DelPo

That tends to be the type of player that beats the biggies. It was Phillippoussis in Pietr's days.

 

[Rosstour]

That tends to be the type of player that beats the biggies. It was Phillippoussis in Pietr's days.

I wondered why you brought Philipoopiss up in that context, as he was a top-8 player at his peak. But then I realized that if you make him a journeyman giant-killer as opposed to a legit player, you can slap an asterisk on Wimbledon 2003

 

[mike danny]

I wondered why you brought Philipoopiss up in that context, as he was a top-8 player at his peak. But then I realized that if you make him a journeyman giant-killer as opposed to a legit player, you can slap an asterisk on Wimbledon 2003

Guy straight-setted Sampras in a slam as a teenager, but is a scrub when Fed faces him in a slam final.

 

[Holmes]

I wondered why you brought Philipoopiss up in that context, as he was a top-8 player at his peak. But then I realized that if you make him a journeyman giant-killer as opposed to a legit player, you can slap an asterisk on Wimbledon 2003

I brought him up because he knocked Pietr out in Australia in 1996, and gave him a scare in 1999 at Wimbledon.

One wonders what would happen were you to channel your imagination to more productive ends.

 

[Holmes]

Guy straight-setted Sampras in a slam as a teenager, but is a scrub when Fed faces him in a slam final.

This is quickly evolving into a "pick your own adventure" type narrative.

 

[SonnyT]

The last four slam winners are Thiem, Medvedev, Alcaraz and Sinner! It has never been easy to win slams!

 

[Aabye5]

I think all of the B3 were vulnerable to an extent to the same kind of player. Even Fed was incredibly consistent and won a lot of his matches with his legs.

Their shock losses were almost always to guys who just came out swinging. Rosol/Darcis/Kyrgios, Popyrin, DelPo

Why did Wawrinka trouble Djokovic but not Federer and Nadal, though? And why did Rafa struggle against Blake early on, when Fed and Nole could defeat him easily? There's more to their styles.