I get that it's about performance v. the field. I also get that it's one thing if you suck, and it's another if you're absent due to injury. Having had fewer injury absences, Novak and Roger will have performed better, in streaks, against the field. Roger surely does best, overall. Novak did more poorly in his early years, and had a good run in the middle, before his walkabout/break. We all know that Nadal is the one with the more up-and-down career, due to time lost to injury. But this has also been bracketed by strong come-backs. My point is that, in this particular era, I don't think that this formula tells the whole story. You're talking about streaks at top events, but look at the fact that Nadal has the most MS1000s, and that he has more Majors than Djokovic. He also has a great h2h v. most of the players he's faced. To put a straight-line above a checkerboard seems rather random, to me, if the results are superior. If it were only that Nadal sank via poor performance, it would be one thing. But if he doesn't factor as well because of injury lay-offs, I think it's another.
