OT: Djoker Becomes Undisputed GOAT

[schnakenpopanz]

What I'D rather discuss is people taking Serena over Graf.
Graf is the undisputed GOAT of women tennis.

[DutchManDanFan]

What I'D rather discuss is people taking Serena over Graf.
Graf is the undisputed GOAT of women tennis.

No she's not. Her only real competition was an aging Navratilova. And later Seles who overtook her. Discussion is between Martina and Serena.

[Clav]

The mixed doubles format is pretty good.

I agree - I mean, there are some things to work out for sure, but it was enjoyable to see people in Arthur Ashe cheering for a mixed doubles match on primetime TV.

[MissileMike]

Alcaraz 39-2 in his last 41 matches, about to win Year-End-#1 again (he also won it in 2022), GOAT in the making.

Doesn't it come down to who wins the US Open? It looks like he's not the betting favorite.

[Doctor MJ]

What I'D rather discuss is people taking Serena over Graf.
Graf is the undisputed GOAT of women tennis.

Well okay.

So, I'd say that a) Graf has a GOAT case specifically based around a definition of "prime" which focuses on runs of dominance on the order of what was generally thought of as a prime career, b) Serena has a case based on the duration of her time as the "championship belt" competitor, where for nearly 20 years, whenever she was focused on tennis, and c) Navratilova has the case based on all-around success in singles and doubles.

I'd also give a shout out to Evert for being the most consistent match winner out of anyone in the Open Era, even if she didn't have the same dominance over her competitor at the very top (Martina).

Finally, a shout out to Maureen Connolly whose dominance after World War II was like nothing we've seen before or since. From age 16-19 she won all 9 Slams she played in before a horse riding accident ended her career.

[Doctor MJ]

Alcaraz 39-2 in his last 41 matches, about to win Year-End-#1 again (he also won it in 2022), GOAT in the making.

Doesn't it come down to who wins the US Open? It looks like he's not the betting favorite.

Looks to me like Alcaraz will almost certainly end the season ranked #1... but if he doesn't win the US Open, there's a good chance Sinner will win the POY, which is a bigger deal than being ranked #1 at season's end.

We should always keep in mind that the modern ranking systems in the ATP & WTA are designed to incentivize players to care about more than the Slams because established all-time greats above a certain age really only care about the Slams.

On the other hand, we should also keep in mind that in the deep past, only Australians really cared about the Australian Open as a Slam.

Wimbledon was always king, the US & French the next tier down, and from there the end-of-year championship tournament was a bigger deal than the Aussie until mainstream conversation started focusing on who won the most Slams, which I'd really say was late '80s at he earliest, and arguably not until well into the '90s.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I think that combination of:
* the tour making all court surfaces more similar to each other
* greater attention to the slam titles as a goat measure
* training and medical progress making careers longer
* him being the youngest of the big3 + 90s talent pool being pretty shallow

helped Djokovic's case a lot (something similar happened to Serena).
I still have the feeling that, adjusting to era, Borg was the goat. But he cut his career to short, or his case would have been much stronger.

So, I'll just say:

I believe the primary beneficiary of making all court surfaces more similar to each other was the clay court specialists led by their king, Rafa. Prior to the changes, generally the best players in the world were stronger on hard & grass who would then lose on clay to guys who couldn't do much on a surface that let speed happen and allowed serve & volley tennis - traditionally the most exciting thing in tennis - to flourish. Then, in response to player serves getting too good on the back of the tennis world allowing ridiculously overpowered serves which meant "serve and volley" stopped being actually fun to watch, they made chances that crippled it and render the game one in which two guys stand basically as far away from each other as possible and try to win by tiring the other guy out - which then specifically favored guys who were not as good at tennis but better at cardio and pain tolerance, of which Rafa was again king.

Had they not made the chances, Rafa probably doesn't become a guy who wins on all surfaces. On the other hand, had the tennis world had the foresight to understand the problem of too much technology in a racket - like major league baseball did - Rafa's ultra-spin game simply wouldn't have worked at all, and so he wouldn't have done as well either. Rafa becomes an all-around GOAT candidate then because tennis a) didn't understand how technology would chance the sport, and then b) rather than undoing the issue, they used more technology to solve one part of the problem while creating others. Both moves specifically helped Rafa over everyone else.

Then you have Federer who could just do everything tennis. He'd be elite on any surface in any era, because he's the best tennis ball stroker in history, but would have particularly excelled in an era where ultra spin wasn't possible because that ultra spin kills the one-handed backhand (the single most beautiful stroke in the game of tennis) for normal-sized people.

As for Djokovic, to be honest, I see him as more like Federer. He's not as good with the racket as Federer - no one is - but he's taller, more flexible, more athletic, and better with the pain tolerance and late match endurance. For these reasons, it's very possible that Djokovic would be the better non-grass court player in any era, and so once the game went from grass-dominant to hard-dominant, Djokovic comes out on top as the top overall player.

Re: Borg. While I think you can definitely argue that Borg had the most dominant prime of the 20th century Open era, I have a hard time seeing his peak as matching McEnroe on grass & hard court. Borg would translate better to the modern singles game generally though as I think the changes made to the game would really hurt McEnroe's GOAT volley game's ability to shine. In later eras, McEnroe probably is just a double specialist... which frankly I would point to as a huge problem for the popularity of tennis going forward.

The fact that volleying has been relegated to such insignificance in the modern singles game just makes me shake my head. I find it a bit like what the NFL would look like if they changed the actual football to something that couldn't be thrown accurately and it was all 3 years and a cloud of dust forever.

I don't disagree, I think all big 3 stats must be put in context, not just Novak's. Pretty sure he was not going to win so many Wimbledon's in a different era, though.
But they point for him vs the other 2 I think it's the last one. He won 12 majors after turning 30. Rafa 8, Roger 4.
That's where he built his advantage over the other two, at the age guys used to be washed at, when no new real threats arrived on the tour for many years.

Let me also say that people sleep over Roger's movement and overall athleticism. He was just so elegant that it didn't stand out as much as Rafa's hustle or Nole's flexibility.

EDIT: didn't address Rafa. I still think Agassi winning Wimbledon was the craziest thing ever, and I don't think Rafa could have done the same. But I see no reason to think he couldn't win on hardcourts.
The poly strings helped everybody, I am pretty sure he would have kept his edge.

[Cavsfansince84]

What I'D rather discuss is people taking Serena over Graf.
Graf is the undisputed GOAT of women tennis.

She's not even the consensus goat of women's tennis. Also, Seles did pretty much overtake her while in her prime and Graf owes a lot of her slam wins after 94 to a crazy German guy stabbing Seles. So you gotta use some context. Serena dominated women's tennis over 2-3 different eras and waves of competition.

[Clav]

Djokovic had a rough set2 last night, but did win in straights. I'm not sure how his body will hold up this US Open, same as the previous tournaments this year.

Alcaraz and Sinner are yet to play, so let's see how their draw ends up. Sinner had to retire in the Cincy Final with an illness so I wonder how fit he is., but Alcaraz seems like this will be a big 2 weeks for him if he plays well.

[Gregoire]

They’re all great for different reasons. Personally I’ll take Rafa’s 3 consecutive majors on each surface. Fed’s 2006 record was special tho. 92-5 with his only losses coming to Rafa (4) and Muzz (1) is insane.

Yeep, IMO in absolute sense GOAT peak is Nadal. But adjusting to era (or how good he might be in our era) - maybe Borg.

[Gregoire]

Peaks for me

absolute:
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djok
4. Sampras
5. Borg

relative to era:
1. Borg
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Federer
5. Djok

[AleksandarN]

They’re all great for different reasons. Personally I’ll take Rafa’s 3 consecutive majors on each surface. Fed’s 2006 record was special tho. 92-5 with his only losses coming to Rafa (4) and Muzz (1) is insane.

Yeep, IMO in absolute sense GOAT peak is Nadal. But adjusting to era (or how good he might be in our era) - maybe Borg.

How was Nadal’s peak greater than Novak’s 2011 or 2015 also Novak won 4 consecutive slams

[Gregoire]

They’re all great for different reasons. Personally I’ll take Rafa’s 3 consecutive majors on each surface. Fed’s 2006 record was special tho. 92-5 with his only losses coming to Rafa (4) and Muzz (1) is insane.

Yeep, IMO in absolute sense GOAT peak is Nadal. But adjusting to era (or how good he might be in our era) - maybe Borg.

How was Nadal’s peak greater than Novak’s 2011 or 2015 also Novak won 4 consecutive slams

Overall competition level+injuries+ Nadal was also dominant across all GS in 2010 for example.

[Gregoire]

I think that combination of:
* the tour making all court surfaces more similar to each other
* greater attention to the slam titles as a goat measure
* training and medical progress making careers longer
* him being the youngest of the big3 + 90s talent pool being pretty shallow

helped Djokovic's case a lot (something similar happened to Serena).
I still have the feeling that, adjusting to era, Borg was the goat. But he cut his career to short, or his case would have been much stronger.

So, I'll just say:

I believe the primary beneficiary of making all court surfaces more similar to each other was the clay court specialists led by their king, Rafa. Prior to the changes, generally the best players in the world were stronger on hard & grass who would then lose on clay to guys who couldn't do much on a surface that let speed happen and allowed serve & volley tennis - traditionally the most exciting thing in tennis - to flourish. Then, in response to player serves getting too good on the back of the tennis world allowing ridiculously overpowered serves which meant "serve and volley" stopped being actually fun to watch, they made chances that crippled it and render the game one in which two guys stand basically as far away from each other as possible and try to win by tiring the other guy out - which then specifically favored guys who were not as good at tennis but better at cardio and pain tolerance, of which Rafa was again king.

Had they not made the chances, Rafa probably doesn't become a guy who wins on all surfaces. On the other hand, had the tennis world had the foresight to understand the problem of too much technology in a racket - like major league baseball did - Rafa's ultra-spin game simply wouldn't have worked at all, and so he wouldn't have done as well either. Rafa becomes an all-around GOAT candidate then because tennis a) didn't understand how technology would chance the sport, and then b) rather than undoing the issue, they used more technology to solve one part of the problem while creating others. Both moves specifically helped Rafa over everyone else.

Then you have Federer who could just do everything tennis. He'd be elite on any surface in any era, because he's the best tennis ball stroker in history, but would have particularly excelled in an era where ultra spin wasn't possible because that ultra spin kills the one-handed backhand (the single most beautiful stroke in the game of tennis) for normal-sized people.

As for Djokovic, to be honest, I see him as more like Federer. He's not as good with the racket as Federer - no one is - but he's taller, more flexible, more athletic, and better with the pain tolerance and late match endurance. For these reasons, it's very possible that Djokovic would be the better non-grass court player in any era, and so once the game went from grass-dominant to hard-dominant, Djokovic comes out on top as the top overall player.

Re: Borg. While I think you can definitely argue that Borg had the most dominant prime of the 20th century Open era, I have a hard time seeing his peak as matching McEnroe on grass & hard court. Borg would translate better to the modern singles game generally though as I think the changes made to the game would really hurt McEnroe's GOAT volley game's ability to shine. In later eras, McEnroe probably is just a double specialist... which frankly I would point to as a huge problem for the popularity of tennis going forward.

The fact that volleying has been relegated to such insignificance in the modern singles game just makes me shake my head. I find it a bit like what the NFL would look like if they changed the actual football to something that couldn't be thrown accurately and it was all 3 years and a cloud of dust forever.

Very good post, even I disagree and I believe Nadal had best peak overall. Analogy from basketball^ if you haave aliens attacking Earth and you need to take one player (at his peak) and you dont know where (surface) and agaisnt which creature your player would play, who you got? I get Nadal 2010 with best probability to win. Note: if healthy, injuries dont count.

Interesting to elaborate your note about rackets...

I wonder why in basketball here it is considered that the game is developing and it is necessary to compare players as they would play in modern times (I do not necessarily agree), but here you are on the contrary, as if comparing by the standard of the past, that is, the game has degraded? and the best is considered the one who would win with a regular racket on old surfaces for you? Again, I do not necessarily disagree, but I wonder...

[maxpower8888]

Yeep, IMO in absolute sense GOAT peak is Nadal. But adjusting to era (or how good he might be in our era) - maybe Borg.

How was Nadal’s peak greater than Novak’s 2011 or 2015 also Novak won 4 consecutive slams

Overall competition level+injuries+ Nadal was also dominant across all GS in 2010 for example.

Djokovic has the highest elo rating of all time which takes into account the strength of your competition.

[AleksandarN]

Yeep, IMO in absolute sense GOAT peak is Nadal. But adjusting to era (or how good he might be in our era) - maybe Borg.

How was Nadal’s peak greater than Novak’s 2011 or 2015 also Novak won 4 consecutive slams

Overall competition level+injuries+ Nadal was also dominant across all GS in 2010 for example.

And a year later when Nadal was still in his peak 2011 Nadal wasn’t injured that year and Novak dominated him in 2011 head to head. You can’t possibly say injuries in 2011 can you?

Djokovic ended the year with 70–6 record, including an impressive 10–1 record against Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer, the other two best players of the year. From the start of the year, he went undefeated until the French Open semifinals in June (losing to Federer), compiling a 41-match winning streak. Djokovic won ten tournaments, of which three were major events: the Australian Open, Wimbledon Championships and the US Open. He won a then-record (later broken by himself) five Masters titles: Indian Wells, Miami and Canada, played on hard courts, and Madrid and Rome, on clay. Djokovic also won titles in Dubai and in Serbia.

[Rust_Cohle]

Yeep, IMO in absolute sense GOAT peak is Nadal. But adjusting to era (or how good he might be in our era) - maybe Borg.

How was Nadal’s peak greater than Novak’s 2011 or 2015 also Novak won 4 consecutive slams

Overall competition level+injuries+ Nadal was also dominant across all GS in 2010 for example.

No way, Djokovic was a far more all surface varied player than nadal. Especially at their respective peaks

[Doctor MJ]

I think that combination of:
* the tour making all court surfaces more similar to each other
* greater attention to the slam titles as a goat measure
* training and medical progress making careers longer
* him being the youngest of the big3 + 90s talent pool being pretty shallow

helped Djokovic's case a lot (something similar happened to Serena).
I still have the feeling that, adjusting to era, Borg was the goat. But he cut his career to short, or his case would have been much stronger.

So, I'll just say:

I believe the primary beneficiary of making all court surfaces more similar to each other was the clay court specialists led by their king, Rafa. Prior to the changes, generally the best players in the world were stronger on hard & grass who would then lose on clay to guys who couldn't do much on a surface that let speed happen and allowed serve & volley tennis - traditionally the most exciting thing in tennis - to flourish. Then, in response to player serves getting too good on the back of the tennis world allowing ridiculously overpowered serves which meant "serve and volley" stopped being actually fun to watch, they made chances that crippled it and render the game one in which two guys stand basically as far away from each other as possible and try to win by tiring the other guy out - which then specifically favored guys who were not as good at tennis but better at cardio and pain tolerance, of which Rafa was again king.

Had they not made the chances, Rafa probably doesn't become a guy who wins on all surfaces. On the other hand, had the tennis world had the foresight to understand the problem of too much technology in a racket - like major league baseball did - Rafa's ultra-spin game simply wouldn't have worked at all, and so he wouldn't have done as well either. Rafa becomes an all-around GOAT candidate then because tennis a) didn't understand how technology would chance the sport, and then b) rather than undoing the issue, they used more technology to solve one part of the problem while creating others. Both moves specifically helped Rafa over everyone else.

Then you have Federer who could just do everything tennis. He'd be elite on any surface in any era, because he's the best tennis ball stroker in history, but would have particularly excelled in an era where ultra spin wasn't possible because that ultra spin kills the one-handed backhand (the single most beautiful stroke in the game of tennis) for normal-sized people.

As for Djokovic, to be honest, I see him as more like Federer. He's not as good with the racket as Federer - no one is - but he's taller, more flexible, more athletic, and better with the pain tolerance and late match endurance. For these reasons, it's very possible that Djokovic would be the better non-grass court player in any era, and so once the game went from grass-dominant to hard-dominant, Djokovic comes out on top as the top overall player.

Re: Borg. While I think you can definitely argue that Borg had the most dominant prime of the 20th century Open era, I have a hard time seeing his peak as matching McEnroe on grass & hard court. Borg would translate better to the modern singles game generally though as I think the changes made to the game would really hurt McEnroe's GOAT volley game's ability to shine. In later eras, McEnroe probably is just a double specialist... which frankly I would point to as a huge problem for the popularity of tennis going forward.

The fact that volleying has been relegated to such insignificance in the modern singles game just makes me shake my head. I find it a bit like what the NFL would look like if they changed the actual football to something that couldn't be thrown accurately and it was all 3 years and a cloud of dust forever.

Very good post, even I disagree and I believe Nadal had best peak overall. Analogy from basketball^ if you haave aliens attacking Earth and you need to take one player (at his peak) and you dont know where (surface) and agaisnt which creature your player would play, who you got? I get Nadal 2010 with best probability to win. Note: if healthy, injuries dont count.

Interesting to elaborate your note about rackets...

I wonder why in basketball here it is considered that the game is developing and it is necessary to compare players as they would play in modern times (I do not necessarily agree), but here you are on the contrary, as if comparing by the standard of the past, that is, the game has degraded? and the best is considered the one who would win with a regular racket on old surfaces for you? Again, I do not necessarily disagree, but I wonder...

First Gregoire, thank you for your kind words and positive tone in a topic where we disagree. I really appreciate it!

In terms of who I got, well, Djokovic.

If I knew it's on clay I'd go Nadal, followed by Djokovic and Federer of course.
Hard court? Djokovic, Federer, Nadal
Grass court? Federer, Djokovic, Nadal

So if there was a 1 in 3 chance of each of the surfaces, I'd say Djokovic sees strongest.

Re: rackets, etc.

Well first to be clear, I consider Djokovic the GOAT and that really has nothing to do with old technology.

Why do I bring up the old technology? Because a) it's important that this is understood, and b) tennis provides a noteworthy example now of how blind adoption of technology can damage the aesthetic of the game which then can hurt popularity.

Now we can debate whether it actually has hurt popularity, and if it really hasn't, than I'm just a cranky old guy.

I have a hard time believing though that part of McEnroe's popularity wasn't due to the fact that he was always trying to get to the net, and when he got there, he was spectacular.

Sliding over to basketball, what I'd note is that they've been really, really good about trying to steer the sport aesthetically. They don't always make the right move, but they understand why they need to think about this stuff. Fostering the finesse game in the 1920s, pushing flow between possessions in the 1930s, outlawing goaltending in the 1940s, widening the paint in the 1950s, as-needed crackdowns on hand-checks turning into shove/holds - all that stuff is essential to why we're right now taking on a basketball forum.

[Gregoire]

So, I'll just say:

I believe the primary beneficiary of making all court surfaces more similar to each other was the clay court specialists led by their king, Rafa. Prior to the changes, generally the best players in the world were stronger on hard & grass who would then lose on clay to guys who couldn't do much on a surface that let speed happen and allowed serve & volley tennis - traditionally the most exciting thing in tennis - to flourish. Then, in response to player serves getting too good on the back of the tennis world allowing ridiculously overpowered serves which meant "serve and volley" stopped being actually fun to watch, they made chances that crippled it and render the game one in which two guys stand basically as far away from each other as possible and try to win by tiring the other guy out - which then specifically favored guys who were not as good at tennis but better at cardio and pain tolerance, of which Rafa was again king.

Had they not made the chances, Rafa probably doesn't become a guy who wins on all surfaces. On the other hand, had the tennis world had the foresight to understand the problem of too much technology in a racket - like major league baseball did - Rafa's ultra-spin game simply wouldn't have worked at all, and so he wouldn't have done as well either. Rafa becomes an all-around GOAT candidate then because tennis a) didn't understand how technology would chance the sport, and then b) rather than undoing the issue, they used more technology to solve one part of the problem while creating others. Both moves specifically helped Rafa over everyone else.

Then you have Federer who could just do everything tennis. He'd be elite on any surface in any era, because he's the best tennis ball stroker in history, but would have particularly excelled in an era where ultra spin wasn't possible because that ultra spin kills the one-handed backhand (the single most beautiful stroke in the game of tennis) for normal-sized people.

As for Djokovic, to be honest, I see him as more like Federer. He's not as good with the racket as Federer - no one is - but he's taller, more flexible, more athletic, and better with the pain tolerance and late match endurance. For these reasons, it's very possible that Djokovic would be the better non-grass court player in any era, and so once the game went from grass-dominant to hard-dominant, Djokovic comes out on top as the top overall player.

Re: Borg. While I think you can definitely argue that Borg had the most dominant prime of the 20th century Open era, I have a hard time seeing his peak as matching McEnroe on grass & hard court. Borg would translate better to the modern singles game generally though as I think the changes made to the game would really hurt McEnroe's GOAT volley game's ability to shine. In later eras, McEnroe probably is just a double specialist... which frankly I would point to as a huge problem for the popularity of tennis going forward.

The fact that volleying has been relegated to such insignificance in the modern singles game just makes me shake my head. I find it a bit like what the NFL would look like if they changed the actual football to something that couldn't be thrown accurately and it was all 3 years and a cloud of dust forever.

Very good post, even I disagree and I believe Nadal had best peak overall. Analogy from basketball^ if you haave aliens attacking Earth and you need to take one player (at his peak) and you dont know where (surface) and agaisnt which creature your player would play, who you got? I get Nadal 2010 with best probability to win. Note: if healthy, injuries dont count.

Interesting to elaborate your note about rackets...

I wonder why in basketball here it is considered that the game is developing and it is necessary to compare players as they would play in modern times (I do not necessarily agree), but here you are on the contrary, as if comparing by the standard of the past, that is, the game has degraded? and the best is considered the one who would win with a regular racket on old surfaces for you? Again, I do not necessarily disagree, but I wonder...

First Gregoire, thank you for your kind words and positive tone in a topic where we disagree. I really appreciate it!

In terms of who I got, well, Djokovic.

If I knew it's on clay I'd go Nadal, followed by Djokovic and Federer of course.
Hard court? Djokovic, Federer, Nadal
Grass court? Federer, Djokovic, Nadal

So if there was a 1 in 3 chance of each of the surfaces, I'd say Djokovic sees strongest.

Re: rackets, etc.

Well first to be clear, I consider Djokovic the GOAT and that really has nothing to do with old technology.

Why do I bring up the old technology? Because a) it's important that this is understood, and b) tennis provides a noteworthy example now of how blind adoption of technology can damage the aesthetic of the game which then can hurt popularity.

Now we can debate whether it actually has hurt popularity, and if it really hasn't, than I'm just a cranky old guy.

I have a hard time believing though that part of McEnroe's popularity wasn't due to the fact that he was always trying to get to the net, and when he got there, he was spectacular.

Sliding over to basketball, what I'd note is that they've been really, really good about trying to steer the sport aesthetically. They don't always make the right move, but they understand why they need to think about this stuff. Fostering the finesse game in the 1920s, pushing flow between possessions in the 1930s, outlawing goaltending in the 1940s, widening the paint in the 1950s, as-needed crackdowns on hand-checks turning into shove/holds - all that stuff is essential to why we're right now taking on a basketball forum.

Thanks for another great answer! I know you are an unbiased and knowledgeable poster, so even if we disagree, I have a lot to learn from you (unlike the fanboys who just rattle off the same old stuff).

As for the best in history, I don't have a definitive answer, I was asking more about the best peak on a particular surface and on all surfaces.

For me, on one surface, Nadal is clearly the most dominant.

On three, if we take points from one to 10, let's say:
Grass - Federer - 9, Djok - 8, Nadal - 7
Clay - Nadal - 10, Djok - 7, Federer - 6
Hard - Djok - 9, Federer - 8, Nadal - 7

One note also - hard and grass are more similar.

I'm talking about the peak, not about the career, about the career, longevity is very important here. That's why Borg is out, and all the old players will be out due to lack of longevity.

About rackets and surfaces. I didn't mean the aesthetics, although your reasoning about this is very interesting and correct, but Im talking about defining the best.

Let's say what is considered "perfect tennis in a vacuum" or "perfect basketball in a vacuum". How do we define the best peak? If Russell is better in the 1960s with wooden sneakers, and Wemby is better now, then who is better overall? Or is the one who is better on average in all scenarios and conditions throughout history?

Same with tennis. You say that surfaces have become similar and rackets have become better to spin, and that's why Nadal has become the best. So how do we define who is better? If Federer played better (and we still don't know for sure) with wooden rackets than Nadal, does that add points to him or not? Or is the one who is better in the most modern conditions? Or by the sum of all conditions throughout history? I don't know if I explained it clearly...

Like if we take Curry (Nadal) and Jokic (Federer) and say that in modern times they have the same peak (let's say), but in the 1950s Jokic would have been better because of wooden floors and bad balls and no 3-point line (and Nadal because of bad rackets and different surfaces), who gets a plus and who gets a minus? Interesting question...