Most Dominant Slam Performance?

hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
The other day I was looking at some of Mo Connolly's slam performances. In one she lost only 15 games for the entire tournament. Of course this is a great score because she needs to win only two sets for each round.

A number of male players have won slam titles without dropping a set (Borg three times, Fed at the 2007 AO, and Nadal twice at the French).

I was wondering who has won a slam dropping the fewest games, thus having a completely dominant performance?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
hoodjem said:
The other day I was looking at some of Mo Connolly's slam performances. In one she lost only 15 games for the entire tournament. Of course this is a great score because she needs to win only two sets for each round.

A number of male players have won slam titles without dropping a set (Borg three times, Fed at the 2007 AO, and Nadal twice at the French).

I was wondering who has won a slam dropping the fewest games, thus having a completely dominant performance?
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head I think Lenglen lost only five games in winning Wimbledon one year. It was less rounds than usual. I believe six rounds.

Vines in his last two rounds I think in the final two rounds at the 1932 Wimbledon was acclaimed for utter dominance.
 
boredone3456

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
For the ladies

Mary Pierce 1994 French Open, before she bombed the final

Maria Sharapova 2008 Australian Open

Justine Henin 2007 US Open

Davenport winning 3 majors and not dropping a set en route to any of them
 
7

70sHollywood

Guest
pc1 said:
Off the top of my head I think Lenglen lost only five games in winning Wimbledon one year. It was less rounds than usual. I believe six rounds.

Vines in his last two rounds I think in the final two rounds at the 1932 Wimbledon was acclaimed for utter dominance.
Click to expand...

I was actually looking at this recently. Lenglen lost five games at Wimbledon in 1925, in five matches. In the 1926 French Championships she only lost four games in five matches (3 in one match). A year earlier in the French she only lost seven games in five matches.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
70sHollywood said:
I was actually looking at this recently. Lenglen lost five games at Wimbledon in 1925, in five matches. In the 1926 French Championships she only lost four games in five matches (3 in one match). A year earlier in the French she only lost seven games in five matches.
Click to expand...
Her dominance in women's tennis is perhaps unparalleled! It must be tough for a player that even a close match win looks bad.
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Moose Malloy said:
yeah Borg has the record at 78 RG. Lost 32 games.
Next best is Jack Kramer at 1947 Wimbledon. Lost 37 games.
Click to expand...

I knew Borg was the record holder, but didn't realise how dominant Kramer had been.

Bizarrely though, although he only lost 37 games at the 1947 Wimbledon, he did lose one set, against Dinny Pails in the semis (and that was by the score of 1-6!) So, in one sense, he wasn't as dominant as, say, Nadal and Federer in their greatest winning runs - since they didn't lose a set...
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Phoenix1983 said:
I knew Borg was the record holder, but didn't realise how dominant Kramer had been.

Bizarrely though, although he only lost 37 games at the 1947 Wimbledon, he did lose one set, against Dinny Pails in the semis (and that was by the score of 1-6!) So, in one sense, he wasn't as dominant as, say, Nadal and Federer in their greatest winning runs - since they didn't lose a set...
Click to expand...
I agree that it's more important not to lose a set.

However that is one of the reasons I don't rule out that Kramer was the best ever at his peak. In order to be so dominant at Wimbledon you have to be able to break serve well. Kramer was also known for being a Tennis serving machine, extremely hard to break. I could go more in-depth but I'll just leave it that it seems that he was excellent on all surfaces and did some amazing things like sweeping an entire tour on the Old Pro Tour.

I also combine that with the subjective opinions of so many that have called Kramer The greatest player they have faced. Yes I know it's opinion but you have to take that into account.

By the way I'm not saying I truly think he is the greatest ever at his best but I don't rule it out.
 
M

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
@Phoenix1983
My sources have Kramer losing that set in the 1947 semis by the score of 6-3, not 6-1.

Tennis historian Rino Tomassi rates Kramer very highly, I believe he had him winning a fantasy tournament in 1995, which had all the major winners at the time in the draw.

Personally, I'm not sure if losing no sets is more impressive than losing less games. Mac lost a set at 1984 Wimbledon for example.
And there are a lot of 5 setters that really aren't that close compared to many 4 setters. And many 4 setters that aren't that close compared to some 3 setters. Total points won is probably the most fair way to measure dominance in a match or tournament, but we only have stats available on that for the fedal era.
 
Last edited:
7

70sHollywood

Guest
Helen Wills lost only eight games in six matches at the 1929 US Championships, with six of those games coming in the final. I believe that was the only time Wills managed to avoid losing less than ten games.


Phoenix1983 said:
I knew Borg was the record holder, but didn't realise how dominant Kramer had been.

Bizarrely though, although he only lost 37 games at the 1947 Wimbledon, he did lose one set, against Dinny Pails in the semis (and that was by the score of 1-6!) So, in one sense, he wasn't as dominant as, say, Nadal and Federer in their greatest winning runs - since they didn't lose a set...
Click to expand...

In a lot of these dominant performances there does seem to always be one match that sticks out. Just looking at Borg's run he lost twelve games against Tanner. So he lost only twenty games in the other six matches.

I think what makes the Borg run even more impressive is that he beat top players - Tanner, Ramirez, Barazzutti, Vilas - all seeded in the top 10 for that tournament.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
70sHollywood said:
Helen Wills lost only eight games in six matches at the 1929 US Championships, with six of those games coming in the final. I believe that was the only time Wills managed to avoid losing less than ten games.




In a lot of these dominant performances there does seem to always be one match that sticks out. Just looking at Borg's run he lost twelve games against Tanner. So he lost only twenty games in the other six matches.

I think what makes the Borg run even more impressive is that he beat top players - Tanner, Ramirez, Barazzutti, Vilas - all seeded in the top 10 for that tournament.
Click to expand...
I remember in watching Borg defeat Vilas (the defending champion) in the final that I was convinced that Borg had another one of his jumps in playing level. I told a friend I felt that Borg wouldn't just beat Connors at Wimbledon but would crush him.
 
W

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
We should divide this by surface. Of course, by numbers clay performances will dominate

In Open era, Rosewall and Borg only ones to win on grass without loss of set. Federer only one to do so on hard court

Without crunching numbers, my favourite was Richard Krajicek 96 Wimbledon, he was unstoppable. It's ironic that his win came smack in the middle of an unprecedentedly dominant reign - but his 1 shot was probably more dominant than any of Pete Sampras' 7

On hard courts, Agassi 03 Aus. I believe he set a record for highest %age games won (either for Aus or hard courts, not sure). Lost a set, but lost as few as 4 games in a set just twice otherwise - incredible for hard court

On clay, Nadal's 08 the best i've seen - by far

Borg's 78 figures trump it comfortably of course as does his 80

Perhaps 80 > 78 on the grounds of toughest match in 78 being lot tougher than anything in 80 (probably not)

Poor Barazutti got in the way both years. Won 7 games to Borg's 6 sets combined
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Don Budge in his Grand Slam year of 1938 won Wimbledon without the loss of a set. He won 129 games and lost 48 for a percentage of 72.88.

Jack Kramer holds the record at the 1947 Wimbledon with 130 games won and he lost only 37 for a percentage of 77.84! Kramer did lose one set.

Vilas won the 1977 French Open. He won 128 games and lost only 43 games for a percentage of 74.85%. Vilas did lost one set.
 
Last edited:
D

DMan

Professional
I created this thread last year:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...en-era-performance-in-a-major-goes-to.574308/

These are my nominations and result:

==========
Chris Evert, for her 1976 U.S. Open victory.

First, the nominees:

1. Guillermo Vilas, 1977 French Open
2. Bjorn Borg, 1978 French Open
3. Steffi Graf, 1988 French Open
4. Martina Navratilova, 1983 U.S. Open
5. Chris Evert, 1976 U.S. Open

Why have I selected Chris' 1976 U.S. Open win?

For starters, Evert lost 12 games in total in THE ENTIRE TOURNAMENT! (Just a little side comparison, in 1995 Graf won the US Open, as #1 seed. Graf lost just 1 match all year heading into the US Open, yet she lost 12 games in her 1R match against Amanda Coezter!)

The 1976 US Open draw as expanded to 96 players for the first time. True, Evert received a 1R bye, which meant she only played 6 matches, versus the 7 that's been required for all majors since 1988.

The 1976 US Open also seeded 16 players for the first time, and followed the WTA computer rankings for seeding for the first time.

Evert injured her right index finger less than 2 weeks before the US Open, and her hand was in a splint. She was considered somewhat doubtful heading into the 1976 US Open due to her injury.

On paper, and on current form, she did not have the easiest of draws.

In her 2R match, she faced Greer Stevens, a young South African on the rise (who would go on to hand Chris a rare Florida defeat just 2-1/2 years later), who ended 1976 ranked #17. Evert blitzed Greer 6-1,6-0.

In her 3R match, Evert blanked British #3 and world #39 Glynis Coles 6-0, 6-0.

in her 4R match, Evert was paired against reigning French and German Open champ Sue Barker, who was unlucky to be seeded #9 and even unluckier to face Evert in the R16. Chris gave a glimpse of who would have won at the French, by blasting Sue 6-1,6-0. Evert's run of the final 3 games of the first set vs Stevens, her second set whitewash, and her double bagel over Coles, and quick start against Barker totalled 23 consecutive games won. And it meant that entering the last 8, Evert had LOST a GRAND TOTAL of 2 GAMES!

In the QF, Evert beat Russian Natasha Chymreva, the 1975 US Open junior champ, and #13 seed, 6-1,6-2.

The #4 seed in the event was Virginia Wade. Wade would never be a threat to Chris on clay, and Miss Wade was unfortunate to draw Mima Jausovec of Yugoslavia in the 1R. Jausovec was ranked #20 at the time, but was the reigning Italian and Canadian Open champ (and would win the 1977 French Open).

Jausovec finished 1976 ranked #11 by the WTA (and #7 by Bud Collins an TENNIS Magazine), and was one of the top 8 clay court players in that era. Evert beat Jausovec in the US Open semis 6-3,6-1. (In fact, Chris never lost to Mima in their career H2H.) The 4 games Jausovec won represented 1/3 of the total games won by Evert opponents and the most # of games Evert lost.

The 1976 Forest Hills US Open final between #1 seed Chris Evert and #2 seed Evonne Goolagong was a match to determine who would be #1 for the year. Goolagong was the reigning Australian Open champ and beat Evert to win the 1976 Virginia Slims Championships. The two staged a great Wimbledon final just 2 months earlier, with Evert eeking out a 6-3,4-6,8-6 win. The previous year in the US Open final, Goolagong played Evert on even terms until the final few games of the match, with Chris winning 5-7,6-4,6-2.

Evonne got off to a quick 2-0 start in the 1976 final. And she won just 1 more game in the match. Evert demolished Goolagong 6-3,6-0 to win her 2nd straight US Open title, and cement her #1 status in the women's game!

Chris Evert lost a total of 12 games in 6 matches. An average of 2 games lost per match. Five of 12 sets won were at love. Another 4 sets were won 6-1. If that's not domination, I don't know what is!

Very few women (or men) have won regular tour events, requiring 4 or 5 match wins with the loss of just 12 games. Evert won a major title losing a mere 12 games the entire event. None of her opponents defaulted or retired either. They just got creamed.

Chris was untouchable at that 1976 US Open!
 
Last edited:
D

DMan

Professional
I will also state that the other 4 finalists: Vilas, Borg, Navratilova, and Graf, were just as dominating and phenomenal.

Vilas winning his first and only French in '77, as the favorite, crushing the field, and Brian Gottfried in the final, with the loss of 3 games. Borg reclaiming his French crown in '78, ruthlessly trashing a top clay courter in Barazzutti in the semis (losing 2 games) and defending champ Vilas in the finals 6-1,6-1,6-3! Navratilova losing only 10 games to 3 top ten opponents, including #2 and defending champ Evert en route to her first US Open title in '83. And Steffi not losing a single game in the '88 French final to Zvereva. Graf was tested by Sabatini in the semis, winning 6-3,7-6. Graf lost 11 games to the other 6 opponents she faced.
 
D

DMan

Professional
hoodjem said:
The other day I was looking at some of Mo Connolly's slam performances. In one she lost only 15 games for the entire tournament. Of course this is a great score because she needs to win only two sets for each round.

A number of male players have won slam titles without dropping a set (Borg three times, Fed at the 2007 AO, and Nadal twice at the French).

I was wondering who has won a slam dropping the fewest games, thus having a completely dominant performance?
Click to expand...

Chris Evert lost 12 games in total to 6 opponents in the 1976 US Open. Which translates to an average winning score in a major of 6-1,6-1 (or 6-2,6-0, or 6-0,6-2). Either way you slice it, that's a lot of breadsticks and bagels served up by Miss Evert!
 
Gary Duane

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
There is a major problem in comparing dominance without considering surface.

I have a list of all major winners in the OE and the % of games they won.

McEnroe in 1984 is 19th on my list. My % might differ slightly from someone else's because I count TBs, but it should not make much difference here.

I have JMac as 68.02%

That looks pretty average compared to Borg in '78:

79.87%

But JMac has the OE record on grass.

Agassi tops the list in 2003 on HCs

Lendl was best at the USO in '87, HC

The list totally changes when we look at the final three rounds.

I think it's misleading to compare amateur slam winners to winners in the OE.

No one in the OE has numbers that compare with Kramer on grass.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
DMan said:
Chris Evert lost 12 games in total to 6 opponents in the 1976 US Open. Which translates to an average winning score in a major of 6-1,6-1 (or 6-2,6-0, or 6-0,6-2). Either way you slice it, that's a lot of breadsticks and bagels served up by Miss Evert!
Click to expand...
C'est vrai.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
W

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Phoenix1983 said:
1980 FO must hold some kind of record in the men's game in that the winner never lost more than 4 games in any set (both Borg in 1978 FO and Nadal in 2008 FO faced tiebreaks).
Click to expand...

It's been matched now by Nadal 2017

Figures for Borg 80 and Nadal 17 remarkably similar

Borg 1980 ---- Nadal 2017
Games 126-38 ---- Games 116-35
Win % 76.829 ----- Win % 76.821

Both lost 4 games in a set twice
 
D

DMan

Professional
I still like Evert's winning % at the 1976 US Open.

72 games won, 12 lost (85.7%).
Never lost more than 3 games in a set, only two players (Jausovec in semis and Goolagong in finals won 3 games in a set vs Chrissie. And were made to pay as a result: Jausovec got 1 game in the 2nd set; Goolagong didn't win any). Chris also won 5 of the 12 sets she played in the 1976 US Open at love!
 
Last edited:
MLRoy

MLRoy

Hall of Fame
DMan said:
I still like Evert's winning % at the 1976 US Open.

72 games won, 12 lost (85.7%).
Never lost more than 3 games in a set, and that only happened twice. Won 5 of 12 sets at love!
Click to expand...
She or Court had to have been the Queen of Bagels. For years when I was a kid, the only way to keep track of all the weekly tourneys was that little column in the "Scoreboard" section of the newspaper. Even then it amazed me how everyday their winning scores would be "6-1 6-0", all the way & including the finals a lot of the time. I remember watching a great match on TV for The Maureen Connelly Brinker Cup, speaking of. The final was Evert against Julie Heldman (another very underrated quality player with wins against everyone; Evert may have been the exception. I think she may have beaten Court once.) Heldman was a great baseliner, and I remember the rallies were long. Julie played well, and threw everything at her, including an underhand-serve. And for all that effort and great play, I think the score was 6-3 6-0.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Most dominant grand slam winners
Replies
15
Views
2K
Moose Malloy
M
Solat
Most dominant Grand Slam win
Replies
38
Views
10K
andreh
A
M
Greats of All Time and Dominance at Grand Slams
Replies
4
Views
909
tennis-hero
tennis-hero
K
Djoker , the most dominant (Open Era)
Replies
19
Views
1K
Djokovic2011
Djokovic2011
InsideOut900
  • Poll
Best WTA Slam run in Open Era
Replies
26
Views
931
InsideOut900
InsideOut900
Top