Which match would be a more one-sided beatdown? (part 2)

[Megafanoftennis100]

I decided to make a part 2 of the "Which match would be more one-sided" series.
Surely, Nadal at 2008 Wimbledon delivered arguably his best performance ever on grass. He was at the peak of his powers here, and finally dethroned prime Roger Federer after years of trying. And 11 years later, they had a rematch at the Centre Court, which resulted in Federer beating Rafa in 4 sets, but of course, by then, both players were significantly out of prime (Nadal even more so). And undoubtedly, as good as Nadal was at 2019 Wimbledon, his 2008 form was light years better and would obliterate 2019 Federer any day of the week on grass.

On the other hand, this year, we saw Alcaraz winning Wimbledon by beating Djokovic in an epic five-set match. Now, as impressive as Alcaraz this year, the version of Djokovic that he beat was nowhere near his prime. It was a 36-year-old guy, who is pretty much on the brink of retirement and lost so much speed and power in his groundstrokes compared to when he was in his 20s. I think that everyone, even the Djokovic haters, can agree that had Carlos faced 2011-2015 Djokovic, especially in the semis or finals, he would have been completely thrashed in straight sets. Not to mention that if Alcaraz had to face Novak not only in his prime but also at the Australian Open Rod Laver Arena (which is his most successful Slam), he could even receive bagels and breadsticks.

Now, since Alcaraz did not participate at AO this year, we consider his performances between the 2022 USO and 2023 Cincinnati.

So, which match do you guys think would be more one-sided?

 

[Kralingen]

2019 Federer’s serve and general hold game on grass is so strong that I don’t expect he’d ever be part of a “one-sided beatdown” on Centre Court. Now, I expect Nadal could break his serve and definitely would favour him to win, but Fed’s serve and attacking play gets him out of trouble more often than not. The scoreline would be respectable, Federer would be able to hold and probably get to a tiebreak.

2023 Alcaraz didn’t play at the AO so it’s very hard to create hypotheticals around him.

But just generally a returner like 2011 Djokovic on HC vs a mediocre server like Alcaraz has the potential for a more lopsided scoreline. He fed Berdych two breadsticks in the QFs and broke the serve of the hapless Andy Murray 7 times in the final.

 

[RS]

Surely, Nadal at 2008 Wimbledon delivered arguably his best performance ever on grass. He was at the peak of his powers here, and finally dethroned prime Roger Federer after years of trying. And 11 years later, they had a rematch at the Centre Court, which resulted in Federer beating Rafa in 4 sets, but of course, by then, both players were significantly out of prime (Nadal even more so). And undoubtedly, as good as Nadal was at 2019 Wimbledon, his 2008 form was light years better and would obliterate 2019 Federer any day of the week on grass.

On the other hand, this year, we saw Alcaraz winning Wimbledon by beating Djokovic in an epic five-set match. Now, as impressive as Alcaraz this year, the version of Djokovic that he beat was nowhere near his prime. It was a 36-year-old guy, who is pretty much on the brink of retirement and lost so much speed and power in his groundstrokes compared to when he was in his 20s. I think that everyone, even the Djokovic haters, can agree that had Carlos faced 2011-2015 Djokovic, especially in the semis or finals, he would have been completely thrashed in straight sets. Not to mention that if Alcaraz had to face Novak not only in his prime but also at the Australian Open Rod Laver Arena (which is his most successful Slam), he could even receive bagels and breadsticks.

Now, since Alcaraz did not participate at AO this year, we consider his performances between the 2022 USO and 2023 Cincinnati.

So, which match do you guys think would be more one-sided?

8-2 Nadal
9-1 Djokovic

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

8-2 Nadal
9-1 Djokovic

Nah, I think that both will be 10-0, but the question will be, which one would have a smaller negative value?

 

[RS]

Was being generous to Alcaraz probably and he didn't really play. Think Fed's serve could get him 1 or 2 honestly.

 

[Mivic]

Djokovic Alcaraz without question.

 

[alexio]

monstrovic and tiny more like, agree with guys above

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Was being generous to Alcaraz probably and he didn't really play. Think Fed's serve could get him 1 or 2 honestly.

Actually, I changed my mind, and I think I could agree that 2019 Fed could put up somewhat of a fight against 2008 Nadal.
The thing is, 2008 Nadal, while his level was undoubtedly ultra high, was more 'specialized' at defeating the mid-2000s Federer. But 2019 Federer is a very different player compared to 2008. While he was by no means better in 2019, his playing style changed dramatically, and with his notably improved backhand, Nadal will find it noticeably more difficult to exploit it like he did before. Combined with Federer's improved serve and tennis IQ, it may not be such a straightforward win for Rafa, and I could see him getting thrown off guard at some moments. While he would emerge victorious without a doubt, it wouldn't be too much of a "beatdown".
I would actually agree with @RS opinion that it would be 8-2 in favor of 2008 Nadal.
On the other hand, 2011 Djokovic at AO was a virtually unbeatable monster playing at one of the highest levels in tennis history. His defense was out of this world, his speed and athleticism were incredible and his shotmaking and aggression were off the charts. Especially his backhand was a thing of beauty. So far in his career, Alcaraz has not shown us anything that is even remotely close to the level that Djokovic showed in 2011 AO. His 2022 US Open win seemed rather overrated - I think even 2011 Nadal would have beaten this Alcaraz in max 4 sets. I cannot see Carlos, even on his very best day, winning more than 3-4 games per set against a 2011 Djokovic going all-out at AO. Heck, he might even get bagelled.

 

[tennis3]

2011 Djokovic vs 2023 Alcaraz at AO

This couldn't be easier. Alcaraz was injured and had to withdraw from 2023 Australian Open. So I'd think Djokovic would win 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. It would probably look something like the last 2 sets of the 2023 French Open match they played.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

2011 Djokovic vs 2023 Alcaraz at AO

This couldn't be easier. Alcaraz was injured and had to withdraw from 2023 Australian Open. So I'd think Djokovic would win 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. It would probably look something like the last 2 sets of the 2023 French Open match they played.

Please read the initial post carefully.

I said at the beginning: "since Alcaraz did not participate at AO this year, we consider his performances between the 2022 USO and 2023 Cincinnati."

 

[helterskelter]

I decided to make a part 2 of the "Which match would be more one-sided" series.
Surely, Nadal at 2008 Wimbledon delivered arguably his best performance ever on grass. He was at the peak of his powers here, and finally dethroned prime Roger Federer after years of trying. And 11 years later, they had a rematch at the Centre Court, which resulted in Federer beating Rafa in 4 sets, but of course, by then, both players were significantly out of prime (Nadal even more so). And undoubtedly, as good as Nadal was at 2019 Wimbledon, his 2008 form was light years better and would obliterate 2019 Federer any day of the week on grass.

On the other hand, this year, we saw Alcaraz winning Wimbledon by beating Djokovic in an epic five-set match. Now, as impressive as Alcaraz this year, the version of Djokovic that he beat was nowhere near his prime. It was a 36-year-old guy, who is pretty much on the brink of retirement and lost so much speed and power in his groundstrokes compared to when he was in his 20s. I think that everyone, even the Djokovic haters, can agree that had Carlos faced 2011-2015 Djokovic, especially in the semis or finals, he would have been completely thrashed in straight sets. Not to mention that if Alcaraz had to face Novak not only in his prime but also at the Australian Open Rod Laver Arena (which is his most successful Slam), he could even receive bagels and breadsticks.

Now, since Alcaraz did not participate at AO this year, we consider his performances between the 2022 USO and 2023 Cincinnati.

So, which match do you guys think would be more one-sided?

None of them would be as big a beatdown as was Anakin Skywalker versus Emperor Palpatine on board the Death Star, and what's more remarkable about that beatdown is that it occurred very shortly after Anakin had woken up after a nap that had lasted more than 20 years (which means he must have been feeling pretty groggy) and in the immediate aftermath of him very narrowly winning an epic tussle against Darth Vader (which means he must have been feeling pretty tired). Moreover, because he had just thrown a fight against Luke Skywalker, he had no weapon and only one hand. Given that Anakin absolutely demolished Palpatine in about five seconds while fighting with one hand and being both tired and groggy, we must wonder whether it would even have taken him a single second to defeat him were he fully handed, well rested, and feeling fresh and alert.

I suppose it's appropriate for Palpatine to go out in so one-sided a manner, given that your putative defeat for Federer at WI 2019 is in the match that all-but ended his career, and that facing 2011 Djokovic would have put a permanent end to any pretensions Alcaraz has of becoming an ATG. Given the premise "ATG or bust," such a loss would have been the end of his moral career, too.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

None of them would be as big a beatdown as was Anakin Skywalker versus Emperor Palpatine on board the Death Star, and what's more remarkable about that beatdown is that it occurred very shortly after Anakin had woken up after a nap that had lasted more than 20 years (which means he must have been feeling pretty groggy) and in the immediate aftermath of him very narrowly winning an epic tussle against Darth Vader (which means he must have been feeling pretty tired). Moreover, because he had just thrown a fight against Luke Skywalker, he had no weapon and only one hand. Given that Anakin absolutely demolished Palpatine in about five seconds while fighting with one hand and being both tired and groggy, we must wonder whether it would even have taken him a single second to defeat him were he fully handed, well rested, and feeling fresh and alert.

I suppose it's appropriate for Palpatine to go out in so one-sided a manner, given that your putative defeat for Federer at WI 2019 is in the match that all-but ended his career, and that facing 2011 Djokovic would have put a permanent end to any pretensions Alcaraz has of becoming an ATG. Given the premise "ATG or bust," such a loss would have been the end of his moral career, too.

Uhh, we are not talking about Star Wars in this thread, but OK, I will try to play along.

I do believe that 2023 Alcaraz vs 2011 Djokovic would be about as one-sided as putting Rey against True Form Abeloth. Seriously, anyone who has watched tennis in 2011 would agree with this one. If narrowly beating a 36-year-old post-prime guy who choked terribly, on a field that is not even his best surface. is his greatest feat, then surely, he will stand zero chance against 2011 Djokovic. It's like, how can someone who has significant trouble defeating Empire Strikes Back Yoda, come close to threatening Revenge of the Sith Yoda?

 

[The Sinner]

It's not debatable. Djoko at one of his best slam runs ever... at his pet slam. Straight sets drubbing of Alcaraz, for sure.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

I decided to make a part 2 of the "Which match would be more one-sided" series.
Surely, Nadal at 2008 Wimbledon delivered arguably his best performance ever on grass. He was at the peak of his powers here, and finally dethroned prime Roger Federer after years of trying. And 11 years later, they had a rematch at the Centre Court, which resulted in Federer beating Rafa in 4 sets, but of course, by then, both players were significantly out of prime (Nadal even more so). And undoubtedly, as good as Nadal was at 2019 Wimbledon, his 2008 form was light years better and would obliterate 2019 Federer any day of the week on grass.

On the other hand, this year, we saw Alcaraz winning Wimbledon by beating Djokovic in an epic five-set match. Now, as impressive as Alcaraz this year, the version of Djokovic that he beat was nowhere near his prime. It was a 36-year-old guy, who is pretty much on the brink of retirement and lost so much speed and power in his groundstrokes compared to when he was in his 20s. I think that everyone, even the Djokovic haters, can agree that had Carlos faced 2011-2015 Djokovic, especially in the semis or finals, he would have been completely thrashed in straight sets. Not to mention that if Alcaraz had to face Novak not only in his prime but also at the Australian Open Rod Laver Arena (which is his most successful Slam), he could even receive bagels and breadsticks.

Now, since Alcaraz did not participate at AO this year, we consider his performances between the 2022 USO and 2023 Cincinnati.

So, which match do you guys think would be more one-sided?

Voted

 

[jm1980]

It would be 10-0 for 11 Djokovic because 23 Alcaraz wasn't fit to play at all

Whereas 08 Nadal would beat 19 Fed more often than not but it would be much closer than OP is expecting

 

[Mivic]

It would be 10-0 for 11 Djokovic because 23 Alcaraz wasn't fit to play at all

Whereas 08 Nadal would beat 19 Fed more often than not but it would be much closer than OP is expecting

I’m assuming OP wants us to come to a guess as to what Alcaraz’ form at AO might have looked like had he been fit to play based on an extrapolation of his HC form throughout the remainder of the year rather than assuming he shows up in a hampered or unfit state.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

It would be 10-0 for 11 Djokovic because 23 Alcaraz wasn't fit to play at all

Whereas 08 Nadal would beat 19 Fed more often than not but it would be much closer than OP is expecting

You mean, the 37-year-old Federer that got breadsticked by a post-prime Nadal who was running on half a leg and hitting with less than 50% of the groundstroke power he had in 2008? If it hadn't been for Nadal's silly backhand error at 5-4, 30-40 in the 4th set, the match would very well have gone to a 5-setter.
As much as I respect Federer's performance at SW19 4 years ago, he wasn't really all that amazing tbh. I mean, he could not even finish off Djokovic, who was playing at an unusually subpar level (compared to his standards). Djokovic played better even in 2018 semi-final, and certainly way better in 2014/2015.

On the other hand, 2008 Federer was playing at an extremely high level, perhaps one of his best Wimbledon performances ever, and yet, he still could not defeat 2008 Nadal, and had it not been for the rain delay, the match could very well have ended in a straightforward 4-setter.

The only thing about the 2019 Federer that would allow him to last against 2008 Nadal is the fact that his style of playing is dramatically different from his 2008 self, with a better serve, better net game and improved backhand. Plus, him having overcome his mental block against Nadal by then.
8-2 is the best I can give. But what do you think? Would you agree?

 

[jm1980]

You mean, the 37-year-old Federer that got breadsticked by a post-prime Nadal who was running on half a leg and hitting with less than 50% of the groundstroke power he had in 2008? If it hadn't been for Nadal's silly backhand error at 5-4, 30-40 in the 4th set, the match would very well have gone to a 5-setter.
As much as I respect Federer's performance at SW19 4 years ago, he wasn't really all that amazing tbh. I mean, he could not even finish off Djokovic, who was playing at an unusually subpar level (compared to his standards). Djokovic played better even in 2018 semi-final, and certainly way better in 2014/2015.

On the other hand, 2008 Federer was playing at an extremely high level, perhaps one of his best Wimbledon performances ever, and yet, he still could not defeat 2008 Nadal, and had it not been for the rain delay, the match could very well have ended in a straightforward 4-setter.

The only thing about the 2019 Federer that would allow him to last against 2008 Nadal is the fact that his style of playing is dramatically different from his 2008 self, with a better serve, better net game and improved backhand. Plus, him having overcome his mental block against Nadal by then.
8-2 is the best I can give. But what do you think? Would you agree?

You make it sound like 2019 Nadal was some kind of cripple. But that SF at Wimbledon was sandwiched by titles in Rome, RG, Canada, and the USO

Fed would keep the scoreline close thanks to his service games, that's all I'm saying

 

[helterskelter]

You mean, the 37-year-old Federer that got breadsticked by a post-prime Nadal who was running on half a leg and hitting with less than 50% of the groundstroke power he had in 2008? If it hadn't been for Nadal's silly backhand error at 5-4, 30-40 in the 4th set, the match would very well have gone to a 5-setter.
As much as I respect Federer's performance at SW19 4 years ago, he wasn't really all that amazing tbh. I mean, he could not even finish off Djokovic, who was playing at an unusually subpar level (compared to his standards). Djokovic played better even in 2018 semi-final, and certainly way better in 2014/2015.

On the other hand, 2008 Federer was playing at an extremely high level, perhaps one of his best Wimbledon performances ever, and yet, he still could not defeat 2008 Nadal, and had it not been for the rain delay, the match could very well have ended in a straightforward 4-setter.

The only thing about the 2019 Federer that would allow him to last against 2008 Nadal is the fact that his style of playing is dramatically different from his 2008 self, with a better serve, better net game and improved backhand. Plus, him having overcome his mental block against Nadal by then.
8-2 is the best I can give. But what do you think? Would you agree?

You haven't been on TTW for long, so I will forgive you for not knowing how age works, but for future reference, Federer was NOT 37 at Wimbledon 2019. Age rounds up. You can round it up to 38, if you wish, but it's probably more accurate to round it up to 40, and one could argue that 50 or even 100 is preferable. One thing that's for sure is that Federer was a very, very old man at the time of Wimbledon 2019. He'd transitioned to being Methusalerer by then. Just because Methusalkovic is still winning local events against MUGs such as RUDD and a PlayStation Pro, it doesn't follow that we should understate the age disadvantage that Methusalerer faced long, long before Wimbledon 2019.

 

[jm1980]

You haven't been on TTW for long, so I will forgive you for not knowing how age works, but for future reference, Federer was NOT 37 at Wimbledon 2019. Age rounds up. You can round it up to 38, if you wish, but it's probably more accurate to round it up to 40, and one could argue that 50 or even 100 is preferable. One thing that's for sure is that Federer was a very, very old man at the time of Wimbledon 2019. He'd transitioned to being Methusalerer by then. Just because Methusalkovic is still winning local events against MUGs such as RUDD and a PlayStation Pro, it doesn't follow that we should understate the age disadvantage that Methusalerer faced long, long before Wimbledon 2019.

According to Fed fans he was already old starting in 2009

 

[helterskelter]

According to Fed fans he was already old starting in 2009

And right they are! Just as Moral Historians have uncovered the truth that Healthy Nadal is a purely fictional concept and thus that Nadal is morally unbeaten because he has never lost fair and square, so Hypothetical Historians have uncovered the truth that Hypothetical Peak Federer is lost to the mists of time and so that Federer is morally unbeaten because he has never lost fair and square. A clash between Healthy Nadal and Peak Federer would truly be more than a clash of the titans and ascend to the realm of immovable object versus unstoppable force!

 

[mike danny]

You haven't been on TTW for long, so I will forgive you for not knowing how age works, but for future reference, Federer was NOT 37 at Wimbledon 2019. Age rounds up. You can round it up to 38, if you wish, but it's probably more accurate to round it up to 40, and one could argue that 50 or even 100 is preferable. One thing that's for sure is that Federer was a very, very old man at the time of Wimbledon 2019. He'd transitioned to being Methusalerer by then. Just because Methusalkovic is still winning local events against MUGs such as RUDD and a PlayStation Pro, it doesn't follow that we should understate the age disadvantage that Methusalerer faced long, long before Wimbledon 2019.

I mean, it's not wrong to say he was closer to 38 than 37.

 

[helterskelter]

I mean, it's not wrong to say he was closer to 38 than 37.

It is wrong! It implies that he was not yet 38, which is wrong. He was 38! (Which means that he was 40, because 38 rounds up to 40). (Which means that he was 50, because 40 rounds up to 50). (Which means that he was 100, because 50 rounds up to 100).



(Please don't take my silly satire too seriously!)