The view that successful memory performance depends importantly on the extent to which there is a match between the encoding and retrieval conditions is commonplace in memory research. However, Nairne (Memory, 10, 389-395, 2002) proposed that this idea about trace-cue compatibility being the driving force behind memory retention is a myth, because one cannot make unequivocal predictions about performance by appealing to the encoding-retrieval match. What matters instead is the relative diagnostic value of the match, and not the absolute match. Three experiments were carried out in which participants memorised word pairs and tried to recall target words when given retrieval cues. The diagnostic value of the cue was varied by manipulating the extent to which the cues subsumed other memorised words and the level of the encoding-retrieval match. The results supported Nairne's (Memory, 10, 389-395, 2002) assertion that the diagnostic value of retrieval cues is a better predictor of memory performance than the absolute encoding-retrieval match.