Who was the tougher opponent based on the "eye test"?

[ADuck]

This is a perfect example on why form on the day, and the "eye test" are actually heavily flawed if you use it solely to rank the strength of a draw.

Federer is clearly a FAR superior clay court player than Kyrgios will ever be on grass and also showed far superior form beating his opponents all the way through to the final than Kyrgios did, but what happened in the final to Federer? He layed an egg and could not impose himself in the match because he knew he was overmatched that day. He lost before the match even began. 6-1 6-3 6-0

Kyrgios by comparison, actually did the best he could, but because he just was not good enough he lost but in closer margins.

This is where you start to say ridiculous things like you'd rather play the Federer in the RG final in 2008 than Kyrgios in the Wimbledon final in 2022 all because you based it on the "eye test." Even though everyone would absolutely bet on Federer kicking his arse into gear if he was about to play anyone other than Nadal that day with likely his only chance at a French open on the line. We saw how he did it in 2009.

 

[Deleted member 629564]

Kyrgios. By a lot.

 

[Standaa]

what do your duck eyes see

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

2008dal would rather play Federer at RG then Kyrgios at Wimbledon, yes. Even if others wouldn't. Federer is normally the tougher opponent but not for peak Claydal that day and Kyrgios would at least keep him longer on court thanks to serving on grass.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Kyrgios. Fed literally had no idea what to do. At the same time though, Nadal’s level was 50x higher than Novak’s so it’s apples and oranges.

 

[ADuck]

what do your duck eyes see

Kyrgios

 

[Backspin1183]

Kyrgios by far. He pushed Djokovic hard with his big serves. Federer on the other hand was a weaponless mug who had no business playing Nadal in a RG final.

 

[Standaa]

everyone needs to watch the match again, Fed didn't play THAT bad, Nadal was just playing everything back

 

[ADuck]

2008dal would rather play Federer at RG then Kyrgios at Wimbledon, yes. Even if others wouldn't. Federer is normally the tougher opponent but not for peak Claydal that day and Kyrgios would at least keep him longer on court thanks to serving on grass.

Your comparison is literally meaningless to the point because Nadal is a god on clay. If Nadal was as good on grass as he is on clay he would rather have played Kyrgios in that Wimbledon final than Federer in the French.

Almost everyone would rather play Kyrgios in the Wimbledon final given their form on grass is at least close to their level on clay.

 

[Bumbaliceps]

Amen.

Players are not generic machines. Djokovic in 2008 was the only other player who could beat Fed in that 08 final. He could have lost 61 60 60 and I would say the same. He peed in his pants and it wouldn't have happened against anyone else.
Just like Thiem would have never crumbled under pressure in USO20 final if he had to face Djokovic. Win or lose, he would have played great

 

[Backspin1183]

everyone needs to watch the match again, Fed didn't play THAT bad, Nadal was just playing everything back

Lol Fedal fans defending the pathetic 2008 final. Did you even watch Nick in the London final? He was serving bombs. Yes, his groundstrokes are weak and error prone but his serves!

 

[Kralingen]

Federer is clearly a FAR superior clay court player than Kyrgios will ever be on grass and also showed far superior form beating his opponents all the way through to the final than Kyrgios did,

This is where you start to say ridiculous things like you'd rather play the Federer in the RG final in 2008 than Kyrgios in the Wimbledon final in 2022 all because you based it on the "eye test." Even though everyone would absolutely bet on Federer kicking his arse into gear if he was about to play anyone other than Nadal that day with likely his only chance at a French open on the line. We saw how he did it in 2009.

1000% couldn't agree more.

This is why Murray of AO '08 was far tougher than Tsonga of AO '08, and why Djokovic of AO '09 was far tougher than Verdasco of AO '09.

After all, they are far better and more successful AO players than Tsonga/Verdasco could ever hope to be.

Shame on Nadal for struggling with such inconsistent mugs who never amounted to much.

And don't get me started on Soderling of RG '09... Who was far easier of an opponent than '18 Thiem, due to the latter's consistency in getting to French Open finals.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Your comparison is literally meaningless to the point because Nadal is a god on clay. If Nadal was as good on grass as he is on clay he would rather have played Kyrgios in that Wimbledon final than Federer in the French.

Almost everyone would rather play Kyrgios in the Wimbledon final given their form on grass is at least close to their level on clay.

Well duh, but if you're using an outlier to assert Kyrgios in a Wimbledon final was easier than Anderson in a USO final, you certainly fail.

 

[ADuck]

Kyrgios. Fed literally had no idea what to do. At the same time though, Nadal’s level was 50x higher than Novak’s so it’s apples and oranges.

This is also another reason why the "eye test" isn't everything.

A lot of the reason why Federer looked pathetic was because of the player he was up against. Even if he did actually play better than Kyrgios that day, most people wouldn't be able to tell.

And on the flip side Nadal was probably absolutely unbeatable to anyone in history that day, but I thought Federer actually made him play worse than he did in the previous rounds. He never really needed to play out of his skin like he would when the match is much closer.

 

[ADuck]

Well duh, but if you're using an outlier to assert Kyrgios in a Wimbledon final was easier than Anderson in a USO final, you certainly fail.

You're only calling it an outlier because it's an example that proves your whole religion wrong, Mr. Superior "because I base everything on the eye test and my judgement is always better than yours"

Unfortunately for you, if you are at all familiar with logic, only one contradiction is needed to prove an entire rule wrong. You could still argue you may be right most of the time, but unfortunately for you this example proves you can never be right 100% of the time.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

This is also another reason why the "eye test" isn't everything.

A lot of the reason why Federer looked pathetic was because of the player he was up against. Even if he did actually play better than Kyrgios that day, most people wouldn't be able to tell.

And on the flip side Nadal was probably absolutely unbeatable to anyone in history that day, but I thought Federer actually made him play worse than he did in the previous rounds. He never really needed to play out of his skin like he would when the match is much closer.

That applies to the entire 2008 run other than a brief stint at the end of the third set vs Djokovic (which wouldn't have happened if Ned didn't get complacent up a double break earlier).

Anyway, you can apply this reasoning to anyone's loss to a great player. Roddick AO 07 was actually better than Medvedev AO 22, he was just up against the mythical peak Federer. If he were facing Oldal, suddenly it's a very different match. If Sadladev were facing Peakerer, he'd have been crushed just as well.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

You're only calling it an outlier because it's an example that proves your whole religion wrong, Mr. Superior "because I base everything on the eye test and my judgement is always better than yours"

Unfortunately for you, if you are at all familiar with logic, only one contradiction is needed to prove an entire rule wrong. You could still argue you may be right most of the time, but unfortunately for you this example proves you can never be right 100% of the time.

I don't remember asserting a particular type of reasoning was ironclad infallible but it sure works well in general.

You would definitely look silly asserting that Anderson would have looked better against anyone else in history bar mythical GOATdal in the final (which is why you won't be seen making such a claim, of course).

 

[Kralingen]

Also where’s the credit for Kyrgios to getting a set off the 7 time Wimby Champ? Djokovic was playing at a peak Pete Sampras level, as evidenced by his 7 Wimbledon titles, no shame in losing to that.

Additionally, Chung of AO ‘18 was much better than Verdasco of AO ‘09, because he beat the 9 time champ while Verdasco struggled with the puny 2 time chump who hadn’t even made an AO final before 2009.

 

[ADuck]

I don't remember asserting a particular type of reasoning was ironclad infallible but it sure works well in general.

You would definitely look silly asserting that Anderson would have looked better against anyone else in history bar mythical GOATdal in the final (which is why you won't be seen making such a claim, of course).

You don't know if it works "well in general." That's simply what you believe. You don't have a time machine to prove your personal "eye test" wrong or right, and scientifically if something cannot be tested, then it cannot be proven.

Dude it's your whole persona you give off on these boards. You're the arrogant person who always needs to convince others they're more arrogant than you are if they dare disagree with you. That's your whole schtick here. The way you talk here makes it look like you haven't spoken to anyone irl in years.

I don't need to do that. This example proves everything I wanted it to. Take a player on any given day and they could lay eggs against players they're worse than, but play much better against players they're closer in level to.

If it's true here, it can be true any other comparison. Including KA in USO 2017.

 

[Rosstour]

I'm not into injury excuses but Fed had Mono in 2008 and was obviously flummoxed by Nadal

Kyrgios wasn't limited by anything physically and made a much better showing.

 

[ADuck]

And now we're hearing "mono" from a poster who infamously says Nadal fakes all his injuries. You gotta laugh at all the hypocrisy on these boards

 

[Kralingen]

Actually, Hyeon Chung's AO '18 run is possibly the highest level ever if not for unlucky injury.

Beats 2x AO finalist, world #1 and Slam champ Medvedev, in STRAIGHTS no less
beats HC Slam finalist, 2x YEC winner, and world #4 Zverev, a top opponent by any metric
beats 9 time champ and 30 year old Djokovic in STRAIGHTS, nuff said
straight sets in 1R and QF as well so his DR was on point.
Only loses to 2nd greatest AO player ever, 6 time Champ Roger Federer, but was doing well before injury.

As was just proven above, AO '18 was the toughest, deepest Slam of the modern era.

I can't think of a player who had worse luck than Chung. Had he won AO '18 it would have been the greatest Slam win of all time.

 

[ADuck]

All I said was "the eye test isn't everything" and now people are going crazy

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Dude it's your whole persona you give off on these boards. You're the arrogant person who always needs to convince others they're more arrogant than you are if they dare disagree with you. That's your whole schtick here. The way you talk here makes it look like you haven't spoken to anyone irl in years.

I don't need to do that. This example proves everything I wanted it to. Take a player on any given day and they could lay eggs against players they're worse than, but play much better against players they're closer in level to.

If it's true here, it can be true any other comparison. Including KA in USO 2017.

Now we're going meta, how interesting. I wonder how you see yourself as different in terms of apparently looking down on others on the basis of disagreement, because I surely don't see it, really.

But of course, mon cher, everything is possible and nothing can be proven or disproven conclusively, so anyone is free to espouse absolutely any take and express it in any way, right? What's the problem then?

 

[ADuck]

Now we're going meta, how interesting. I wonder how you see yourself as different in terms of apparently looking down on others on the basis of disagreement, because I surely don't see it, really.

But of course, mon cher, everything is possible and nothing can be proven or disproven conclusively, so anyone is free to espouse absolutely any take and express it in any way, right? What's the problem then?

If you're serious, it's the difference in the way you address others and their arguments. You often make passive aggressive remarks about people and their arguments (for example in this thread to me), and when not keep your insults generalised aka "dullbots" (or whatever iteration of that it is) so you can get a hit in without anyone knowing what specifically you're referring to. It makes you come across arrogant and like you're actually superior to them. Sometimes when I engage you, you can do the opposite and make a genuine attempt at engaging with the person and their arguments without displaying that attitude, but for whatever reason that isn't your default mode.

Now I might certainly be guilty of doing this from time to time when I lose my cool, but I certainly wouldn't say I have a habit of doing that and I at least TRY not to do it. And I wouldn't say I "look down" on anyone who is at least making an effort to use common sense. I would say in this situation for example I am actually arguably "looking up" at someone because they have displayed behaviours that I mentioned that indicate they "look down" on others because they believe themselves to be better just for a difference of opinion, even if the opinion is argued earnestly.

 

[BlueB]

what do your duck eyes see

Ducks cannot even look at the things with both eyes.

 

[Deleted member 762343]

Also where’s the credit for Kyrgios to getting a set off the 7 time WimbyChamp?Djokovic was playing at a peak Pete Sampras level, as evidenced by his 7 Wimbledon titles, no shame in losing to that.

Additionally, Chung of AO ‘18 was much better than Verdasco of AO ‘09, because he beat the 9 time champ while Verdasco struggled with the puny 2 time chump who hadn’t even made an AO final before 2009.

Kwon took a set off him.

 

[ADuck]

Ducks cannot even look at the things with both eyes.

No biggie. I can look at it things with one eye at a time.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

If you're serious, it's the difference in the way you address others and their arguments. You often make passive aggressive remarks about people and their arguments (for example in this thread to me), and when not keep your insults generalised aka "dullbots" (or whatever iteration of that it is) so you can get a hit in without anyone knowing what specifically you're referring to. It makes you come across arrogant and like you're actually superior to them. Sometimes when I engage you, you can do the opposite and make a genuine attempt at engaging with the person and their arguments without displaying that attitude, but for whatever reason that isn't your default mode.

Now I might certainly be guilty of doing this from time to time when I lose my cool, but I certainly wouldn't say I have a habit of doing that and I at least TRY not to do it. And I wouldn't say I "look down" on anyone who is at least making an effort to use common sense. I would say in this situation for example I am actually arguably "looking up" at someone because they have displayed behaviours that I mentioned that indicate they "look down" on others because they believe themselves to be better just for a difference of opinion, even if the opinion is argued earnestly.

How do you think an undisprovable argument is to be addressed? Certainly I regularly mock arguments I find wholly incorrect(ly applied) - why not, if you can dish it you can take it. You personally are at least sufficiently disagreeable to be an acceptable target, not like a poor inoffensive poster... I like to engage seriously as well, but how exactly do you actually set about this? Ah right, if only I weren't so stubborn to deny godal's intrinsic superiority. No you lol.

 

[ADuck]

How do you think an undisprovable argument is to be addressed?

You say this as the head commander in chief of undisprovable arguments aka eye tests and openly use them to further your agenda of Federer being the easily superior player to Nadal or Djokovic.

Certainly I regularly mock arguments I find wholly incorrect(ly applied) - why not, if you can dish it you can take it. You personally are at least sufficiently disagreeable to be an acceptable target, not like a poor inoffensive poster... I like to engage seriously as well, but how exactly do you actually set about this? Ah right, if only I weren't so stubborn to deny godal's intrinsic superiority. No you lol.

There we go, no further words your honour. You wanted the difference between us, now you have it.

Not sure I understand your question there, feel free to rephrase.

Oh lol cmon man what a cop out. It must be because I dislike that you deny Nadal's superiority? I couldn't care less. I don't mind anyone saying they believe Federer is better than Nadal, what I take issue with is what I pointed out to you. I don't even believe Nadal is better than Federer by the way, gun to my head I don't know who I'd choose because they both got arguments. Oh and please remind me of a time where I ever obnoxiously trumpeted Nadal's overall superiority over Fed or Djok? I have been in defensive mode on this forum since day 1, and you say this when you openly scoff the idea that either Djokovic or Nadal could have displayed a superior level of play than Federer did.

 

[BlueB]

No biggie. I can look at it things with one eye at a time.

Or look at Fed with one and at Nick with other?

 

[RS]

Kyrgios played a better match imo but if they played 20 times Federer would win pretty much them all.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I'll never forget Fed saying before the match he was gonna try new tactics he thought would work, bc everyone kept saying to him after 05, 06, 07 that he needed to change something. He thought he had a chance lol. Nadal was like:

 

[InsideOut900]

This is where you start to say ridiculous things like you'd rather play the Federer in the RG final in 2008 than Kyrgios in the Wimbledon final in 2022 all because you based it on the "eye test." Even though everyone would absolutely bet on Federer kicking his arse into gear if he was about to play anyone other than Nadal that day with likely his only chance at a French open on the line. We saw how he did it in 2009.

So the premise of a thread is perfectly true.

The reliability of a player does matter, because when faced with players above their paygrade or at least not someone who has a big tennis and mental edge on them they will perform.

However talking about Nick, especially in the context of other Slam finalists in the past 6 years it's a very sensitive matter.

We all know Nick has some game and reliability based on some of his previous performances (Wimbledon 2014/2019 matches against Nadal, Acapulco/IW/Miami in 2017, Cincy win vs. Nadal in 2017), but he is an outlier because he didn't try for most of his career and that's basically undeniable.

Nick reverting to his previous best still makes him a somewhat serviceble or even good Slam finalist in the context of 2017-2022 finalists

 

[TheNachoMan]

Fed was pure garbage in that final. Played like his name was Casper Ruud.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

A nice angle on the whole shebang, but this is dangerously hypothetical you know Surely the form of the opponent in the actualized circumstances carries the necessary weight to validate the contrary? The eye test itself that tells us quite resoundingly that Nadal had an easer time that day than not only Djokovic did against Kygs, but than he himself did in any other RG final. No scoreboard required; it's a visual slam dunk. You could of course point to Nadal simply being too good rather than Fed forgetting he's a mammal for a few hours, but that would also be a visual interpretation given the zero summation of it all. "...and also showed far superior form beating his opponents all the way through to the final' demonstrates how ingrained our manner of judgment really is, we just like to meme the whole approach because numbers am the simple. Or something.

 

[The Guru]

You say this as the head commander in chief of undisprovable arguments aka eye tests and openly use them to further your agenda of Federer being the easily superior player to Nadal or Djokovic.

There we go, no further words your honour. You wanted the difference between us, now you have it.

Not sure I understand your question there, feel free to rephrase.

Oh lol cmon man what a cop out. It must be because I dislike that you deny Nadal's superiority? I couldn't care less. I don't mind anyone saying they believe Federer is better than Nadal, what I take issue with is what I pointed out to you. I don't even believe Nadal is better than Federer by the way, gun to my head I don't know who I'd choose because they both got arguments. Oh and please remind me of a time where I ever obnoxiously trumpeted Nadal's overall superiority over Fed or Djok? I have been in defensive mode on this forum since day 1, and you say this when you openly scoff the idea that either Djokovic or Nadal could have displayed a superior level of play than Federer did.

The arguing tactics on this stuff are very dirty imo. People who dare say Djokovic/Nadal are better than Fed get ripped to shreds and then when they defend themselves they say see you are doing the same thing I am you are peddling your narrative you care about convincing everyone you "dish it" you are also arrogant etc. when in reality all you were doing was defending yourself after getting attacked for merely stating an opinion. Just wanted to say I feel you man. I came to this forum looking to have chill discussions and this sort of bs has made me jaded af. Drags you down to that level and it sucks.

 

[RS]

The arguing tactics on this stuff are very dirty imo. People who dare say Djokovic/Nadal are better than Fed get ripped to shreds and then when they defend themselves they say see you are doing the same thing I am you are peddling your narrative you care about convincing everyone you "dish it" you are also arrogant etc. when in reality all you were doing was defending yourself after getting attacked for merely stating an opinion. Just wanted to say I feel you man. I came to this forum looking to have chill discussions and this sort of bs has made me jaded af. Drags you down to that level and it sucks.

They did used to but probably not as much anymore

The forum dynamic used to favour Fed a lot more. I remember when I joined it was still fairly heavily in favour of Fed.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

The arguing tactics on this stuff are very dirty imo. People who dare say Djokovic/Nadal are better than Fed get ripped to shreds and then when they defend themselves they say see you are doing the same thing I am you are peddling your narrative you care about convincing everyone you "dish it" etc. when in reality all you were doing was defending yourself. Just wanted to say I feel you man. I came to this forum looking to have light hearted discussions and this sort of bs has made me jaded af. Drags you down to that level and it sucks.

You say this as if it isn't a three-way free-for-all artillery exchange of faeces, though I empathise strongly with the jaded outlook (if that wasn't self-evident by now).

 

[BGod]

OP is right.

Fed had lost 1-6 sets before with 2006 French Final, it's that 2nd set that broke him and of course he had zero incentive to do anything in the 3rd. He only tried to maybe hold serve for integrity but honestly at that point would it have mattered to lose 2-6 instead? No, he wanted the day done with.

Thing to understand is Djokovic being 35 and having a history of coasting/holding back to conserve energy. And even past his prime could have rapped Kyrgios up. Nadal on clay in 2008 was arguably at his zenith and routined Fed who was far and away the 2nd best player then.

It's too easy looking at the score.

Borg in the 78 French Final beat Vilas 6-1, 6-1, 6-3. A guy coming off one of the best classes seasons in 77.

 

[BGod]

Actually, Hyeon Chung's AO '18 run is possibly the highest level ever if not for unlucky injury.

Beats 2x AO finalist, world #1 and Slam champ Medvedev, in STRAIGHTS no less
beats HC Slam finalist, 2x YEC winner, and world #4 Zverev, a top opponent by any metric
beats 9 time champ and 30 year old Djokovic in STRAIGHTS, nuff said
straight sets in 1R and QF as well so his DR was on point.
Only loses to 2nd greatest AO player ever, 6 time Champ Roger Federer, but was doing well before injury.

As was just proven above, AO '18 was the toughest, deepest Slam of the modern era.

I can't think of a player who had worse luck than Chung. Had he won AO '18 it would have been the greatest Slam win of all time.

So 20 months before making first Slam Final beating Dimitrov, Medvedev and over 2 years before making Slam Final, Zverev?????

Sampras in 2001 USO beat Agassi who won in 99 then defending champion Safin to then lose to YE #1 Hewitt. Also beat Rafter 97-98 champ in R16.

 

[Nadal_King]

Nadal at Rg 08 is perhaps greatest level in tennis so whatever you against Federer there will make Federer look worse but in reality it’s Nadal who is miles better

 

[weakera]

Gee, let's see,

Federer 4 sets dropped in 6 matches before the final
Kyrgios 5 sets dropped in 5 matches before the final

Federer 73 games dropped in 6 matches before the final
Kyrgios 87 games dropped in 5 matches before the final

Federer dominance ratio until the final = 1.68
Kyrgios dominance ratio until the final = 1.22



Wow, which was the tougher opponent?

 

[weakera]

what do your duck eyes see

Is this LOTR reference

 

[Clay lover]

Comparing tournament difficulties has no purpose other than to stroke egos and I don't see how it's a meaningful exercise.

Because of how different match-ups interact differently it's really impossible to tell who's a more difficult opponent for whom on an absolute level anyways. For example, everyone would say Wawa is a harder finalist for Djokovic at FO2015 than Thiem for Nadal 2019 but if you put
2015 Wawa into the 2019 final Nadal probably demolishes him harder than he did Thiem - it's about match-ups and that's why eye tests comparing two match-ups involving four different players are never going to be reliable.

 

[weakera]

Comparing tournament difficulties has no purpose other than to stroke egos and I don't see how it's a meaningful exercise.

Because of how different match-ups interact differently it's really impossible to tell who's a more difficult opponent for whom on an absolute level anyways. For example, everyone would say Wawa is a harder finalist for Djokovic at FO2015 than Thiem for Nadal 2019 but if you put
2015 Wawa into the 2019 final Nadal probably demolishes him harder than he did Thiem - it's about match-ups and that's why eye tests comparing two match-ups involving four different players are never going to be reliable.

Kyrgios is a big server/bot with limited ground game, historically the most favorable matchup for Djokovic imaginable

 

[NatF]

This is a perfect example on why form on the day, and the "eye test" are actually heavily flawed if you use it solely to rank the strength of a draw.

Federer is clearly a FAR superior clay court player than Kyrgios will ever be on grass and also showed far superior form beating his opponents all the way through to the final than Kyrgios did, but what happened in the final to Federer? He layed an egg and could not impose himself in the match because he knew he was overmatched that day. He lost before the match even began. 6-1 6-3 6-0

Kyrgios by comparison, actually did the best he could, but because he just was not good enough he lost but in closer margins.

This is where you start to say ridiculous things like you'd rather play the Federer in the RG final in 2008 than Kyrgios in the Wimbledon final in 2022 all because you based it on the "eye test." Even though everyone would absolutely bet on Federer kicking his arse into gear if he was about to play anyone other than Nadal that day with likely his only chance at a French open on the line. We saw how he did it in 2009.

Even if the answer here is Fed it doesn't make Anderson a tougher finalist than Kyrios...

 

[Clay lover]

Kyrgios is a big server/bot with limited ground game, historically the most favorable matchup for Djokovic imaginable

Thing is if every player interacts differently with one another regardless of ranking the exercise of comparing match-ups is just futile. A can lose to B but beats C but C can beat B with all of them having no fluctuations in form. Then how do you even determine who's the tougher opponent? You consider a player a "harder draw" despite being weak just because he's a tough match-up for that person and that person only? You consider a player an "easier draw" just because he has a match-up problem against that particular player in that round?

 

[weakera]

Thing is if every player interacts differently with one another regardless of ranking the exercise of comparing match-ups is just futile. A can lose to B but beats C but C can beat B with all of them having no fluctuations in form. Then how do you even determine who's the tougher opponent? You consider a player a "harder draw" despite being weak just because he's a tough match-up for that person and that person only? You consider a player an "easier draw" just because he has a match-up problem against that particular player in that round?

I hear what you are saying but in a vacuum, any player whose biggest strength is his first serve is virtually always easy pickings for Djokovic.

 

[beltsman]

This is a perfect example on why form on the day, and the "eye test" are actually heavily flawed if you use it solely to rank the strength of a draw.

Federer is clearly a FAR superior clay court player than Kyrgios will ever be on grass and also showed far superior form beating his opponents all the way through to the final than Kyrgios did, but what happened in the final to Federer? He layed an egg and could not impose himself in the match because he knew he was overmatched that day. He lost before the match even began. 6-1 6-3 6-0

Kyrgios by comparison, actually did the best he could, but because he just was not good enough he lost but in closer margins.

This is where you start to say ridiculous things like you'd rather play the Federer in the RG final in 2008 than Kyrgios in the Wimbledon final in 2022 all because you based it on the "eye test." Even though everyone would absolutely bet on Federer kicking his arse into gear if he was about to play anyone other than Nadal that day with likely his only chance at a French open on the line. We saw how he did it in 2009.

What exactly is the question?