What was the path in a major (then won) with the highest difficulty coefficient for a member of the big three?

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
There is a lot of talk these days about what path Djokovic should take to try to win his 25th slam in this edition of the Australian Open.
Limited to the last 5 rounds;

Machac
Lehecka
Alcaraz (possible)
Zverev (possible)
Sinner (possible)

Only between possible quarterfinal, semifinal and final, in theory he should try to beat the current top 3 players in the ranking in succession, which is already quite an anomalous case, given that I don't think that since the existence of the computerized ranking system there have been many cases of players capable of winning a slam after beating the top 3 players in the ranking.

Having said this, the thread asks what was the most complicated path that a single member of the big three had to face within a major to achieve success.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
I mean, there are a million ways you can come at this, but what comes to mind for me is which one of them was the worst at which major, as that surely has to factor in, and that's almost surely Nadal at Wimbledon. So you could go with one of those.

If we just talk strength of competition on the particular surface then the first ones I think of are Wimbledon 2006, Roland Garros 2008 (but how tough are either of these really for THESE guys?) Roland Garros 2013, Wimbledon 2014, Wimbledon 2015, Australian Open 2017.
 

Winner Sinner

Hall of Fame
Think 2012 Aussie has to be the answer for Novak
Do you think it was superior to the 2011 US Open?
Okay in the first 5 rounds he didn't have a difficult path, but this is compensated by the fact that between the semifinal and the final he had to face Federer and Nadal, the defending champion (Nadal) and the one who had won that tournament 5 times with 6 finals in the previous 7 years (Federer).
 

Pheasant

Legend
If Djoker can beat Alcaraz, Zverev, and then Sinner to bag the title, then this would be up there. Those 3 players are all playing the best tennis of their lives at the same time.

Zverev- career-high #2 YE ranking in 2024
Sinner- He had the exclusive 70+ win and .900+ winning pct season, along with YE #1, and 2 slam titles
Alcaraz- Channel Slam, youngest in the Open Era to put that off.

Edit: This would be Djoker's best run, when we factor his age into the equation. But let's see what happens first.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Let's see ELO

Djokovic is ahead of both Alcaraz and Zverev in ELO as well as HC ELO.

Zverev is number 2 in ranking but has taken much more losses. Djokovic beat Zverev beater Fritz in Shanghai in straight sets.

So mathematically this might not be best difficulty especially till the final. But considering Nole is 4 months from 38, its as hard as RG 2022.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
IF he pulls that off, with no upsets of 3, 2 and 1 prior to him, it would be a very tough gauntlet...or is it gantlet?

Keep in mind that the Big-3 were usually seeded 1, 2 or 3 at slams, so they didn't have to face more than two top-3 players. On the other hand, two Big-3 members may be equal to, or harder than, three "Little 3" members.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
IF he pulls that off, with no upsets of 3, 2 and 1 prior to him, it would be a very tough gauntlet...or is it gantlet?

Keep in mind that the Big-3 were usually seeded 1, 2 or 3 at slams, so they didn't have to face more than two top-3 players. On the other hand, two Big-3 members may be equal to, or harder than, three "Little 3" members.
No no , no no.

There is no little 3. Zverev is ranked number 2 but at age 27, he has zero slams. He is not big anything.

Alcaraz and Sinner are big 2. Not little.

And there was usually no back to back matches among big 3 because nadal flopped outside of clay courts many a times.

23 times nadal was in semis of non clay slams. That's low compared to fedkovic outside their favorite slams.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
If Djoker can beat Alcaraz, Zverev, and then Sinner to bag the title, then this would be up there. Those 3 players are all playing the best tennis of their lives at the same time.

Zverev- career-high #2 YE ranking in 2024
Sinner- He had the exclusive 70+ win and .900+ winning pct season, along with YE #1, and 2 slam titles
Alcaraz- Channel Slam, youngest in the Open Era to put that off.

Edit: This would be Djoker's best run, when we factor his age into the equation. But let's see what happens first.

I would agree.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
No no , no no.

There is no little 3. Zverev is ranked number 2 but at age 27, he has zero slams. He is not big anything.

Alcaraz and Sinner are big 2. Not little.

And there was usually no back to back matches among big 3 because nadal flopped outside of clay courts many a times.

23 times nadal was in semis of non clay slams. That's low compared to fedkovic outside their favorite slams.
Those considerations aside, my main point was that it was rare for any of the Big3 to potentially have to face all top 3 seeds, as they would've usually held the top 3 seeds among them.

"Little 3" was only used for this comparison. You're right: Zverev can't be lumped in with Alc and Sinner. But in a given slam match (prior to the finals, anyway) he's a rough opponent.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Those considerations aside, my main point was that it was rare for any of the Big3 to potentially have to face all top 3 seeds, as they would've usually held the top 3 seeds among them.

"Little 3" was only used for this comparison. You're right: Zverev can't be lumped in with Alc and Sinner. But in a given slam match (prior to the finals, anyway) he's a rough opponent.
Agreed with all else but alcaraz and Sinner are BIG and zverev is half. So maybe instead of little 3 they are big 2.5
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I mean, there are a million ways you can come at this, but what comes to mind for me is which one of them was the worst at which major, as that surely has to factor in, and that's almost surely Nadal at Wimbledon. So you could go with one of those.

If we just talk strength of competition on the particular surface then the first ones I think of are Wimbledon 2006, Roland Garros 2008 (but how tough are either of these really for THESE guys?) Roland Garros 2013, Wimbledon 2014, Wimbledon 2015, Australian Open 2017.
Fed didn't play well, but overall Nadal made the tournament win look so much easier than it was.
 

The Guru

Legend
Do you think it was superior to the 2011 US Open?
Okay in the first 5 rounds he didn't have a difficult path, but this is compensated by the fact that between the semifinal and the final he had to face Federer and Nadal, the defending champion (Nadal) and the one who had won that tournament 5 times with 6 finals in the previous 7 years (Federer).
Think AO nadal was better than USO Fed Ao Murray was better than USO nads and ao had better depth but ofc USO 11 is a tremendously strong win from Novak.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
I think Fed was capable of much better he just mentally chose to not die the slow death. Just chose to play kamikaze tennis instead of getting grinded down.
Yeah I think he kind of gave up a little bit and that's extremely rare for a big 3 player. Either way even if Fed played well he would have only got a few more games.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Depends if form is most important or context/timing matters more, if we factor in timing then Wimbledon 2012 and AO 2017 are up their for Fed. Considering form I'd throw Wimbledon 2004 into the mix, Johansson (next year SF'ist, slam winner on the comeback trail), Karlovic (dangerous on grass for sure), Hewitt (former winner, coming back into top form), Grosjean (extremely consistent on grass in 03-05) and then Roddick (in career best form) - the first two rounds were freebies though.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I think Fed was capable of much better he just mentally chose to not die the slow death. Just chose to play kamikaze tennis instead of getting grinded down.
I guess just putting up a fight wasn’t enough anymore if it wasn’t gonna lead to a win after the previous 3 years.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Yeah I think he kind of gave up a little bit and that's extremely rare for a big 3 player. Either way even if Fed played well he would have only got a few more games.
Who knows how respectable the final scoreline would’ve been if Fed had broken in the 2nd which he was close to doing
 

The Guru

Legend
Depends if form is most important or context/timing matters more, if we factor in timing then Wimbledon 2012 and AO 2017 are up their for Fed. Considering form I'd throw Wimbledon 2004 into the mix, Johansson (next year SF'ist, slam winner on the comeback trail), Karlovic (dangerous on grass for sure), Hewitt (former winner, coming back into top form), Grosjean (extremely consistent on grass in 03-05) and then Roddick (in career best form) - the first two rounds were freebies though.
Form of opponents or of Fedr?
 

Tano

Hall of Fame
Depends if form is most important or context/timing matters more, if we factor in timing then Wimbledon 2012 and AO 2017 are up their for Fed. Considering form I'd throw Wimbledon 2004 into the mix, Johansson (next year SF'ist, slam winner on the comeback trail), Karlovic (dangerous on grass for sure), Hewitt (former winner, coming back into top form), Grosjean (extremely consistent on grass in 03-05) and then Roddick (in career best form) - the first two rounds were freebies though.
What would have happened if that edition of Wimbledon had not been rainy and Federer had faced Djokovic outdoors?
Even in his match against Murray in the final, sets 3 and 4 were played indoors.
Up to that point on the circuit, Federer was clearly the best player in those conditions.
 

Tano

Hall of Fame
2004 Federer beat Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, and Safin to win his first slam down under. He entered the tournament 1-5 vs Nalbandian and 2-7 vs Hewitt.
Ferrero played very poorly and Safin arrived exhausted.
His biggest rival was Nalbandián in that edition.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
What would have happened if that edition of Wimbledon had not been rainy and Federer had faced Djokovic outdoors?
Even in his match against Murray in the final, sets 3 and 4 were played indoors.
Up to that point on the circuit, Federer was clearly the best player in those conditions.
Fed would’ve most likely still won. He served great and had better movement and FH
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
2016 USO Egg if he had won. Adjusted for difficulty, geometric mean, and difficulty coefficient all carefully calculated.
I found my thrill
... on Lewberry Hill :whistle:
f2u_pixel_music_note_divider__black__by_distorteddevil-d8dwlsp.gif
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Ferrero played very poorly and Safin arrived exhausted.
His biggest rival was Nalbandián in that edition.
Ferrero GOATed in 2 sets and played one average one.

Nalbandian AO 2004 was about on the level of AO 2012 Murray.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
There’s a lot of ways you could interpret the OP but if you’re asking for what I think was the toughest Slam for each of the Big 3 to win based on opponent quality, W 2007, AO 2009, and AO 2012 are relatively uncontroversial picks I’d think.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
Ferrero played very poorly and Safin arrived exhausted.
His biggest rival was Nalbandián in that edition.
Ferrero was pretty decent.

But yes Safin was exhausted. He played an alright first set but was bad the other two.
 
Top