Obscure stat of the day: Nadal has won as many Grand Slams losing 1 set or less as Federer/Djokovic/Sampras combined

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
Federer has won slams without dropping a set on two different surfaces. Only he and Borg have pulled that off in the Open Era. Borg's feat is more impressive, since he did that on clay and grass, which are two polar opposites.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Federer has won slams without dropping a set on two different surfaces. Only he and Borg have pulled that off in the Open Era. Borg's feat is more impressive, since he did that on clay and grass, which are two polar opposites.
Was Borg's competition in a transition state like Federer's?
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
Federer has won slams without dropping a set on two different surfaces. Only he and Borg have pulled that off in the Open Era. Borg's feat is more impressive, since he did that on clay and grass, which are two polar opposites.
Yeah Nadal should have won USO 2010 without dropping a set though.. Lost a close one to Djokovic. Federer winning Aus Open 2007 without dropping a set was seriously impressive
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
Was Borg's competition in a transition state like Federer's?
1976 Wimbledon: Nastase was a #3 seed and entered the final against Borg not having dropped a single set. He was crushing his opponents until Borg destroyed him. Borg's victims were from QF-F were: #6 seed Vilas, #7 seed Tanner, and #3 Nastase. That's a really good run against quality opponents. Borg's wins on clay were against some good opponents as well.

I think that the 1980s is when tennis stepped up to a whole new level, however. I don't see Federer or Borg pulling off that stint in the 1980s. Nobody was going to take out peak McEnroe in straight sets on grass and I highly doubt Borg beats Lendl and Wilander in straight sets at the FO. Lendl and Wilander were always going deep at the FO. You'd likely need to take out both of them to win the trophy. As a case in point, baby Lendl pushed the 25 year old Borg to 5 sets in the 1981 FO final. And that's before Lendl stepped his game up a few notches after changing his diet at the end of 1984(doctor said his horrible cholesterol level is why he was always running out of gas). And then, you had Yannick Noah and his dreadlocks winning the 1983 FO. He was unreal that year and I love watching him play. Nobody could touch him that one year. He just zoned, kind of like how Pat Cash zoned at the 1987 Wimby tourney, or how Delpo zoned at the 2009 USO. Sometimes, a good player plays like a maniac for one tournament in his career.

Either way, I think Borg wins this. The FO and WI tourneys were polar opposites then. Granted, I only caught the tail-end of Borg's career. But he was fun to watch.
 
Obscure stat of the day: Nadal has won as many Grand Slams losing just 1 set in the Grand Slam as Federer, Djokovic, and Sampras combined.

Grand Slams won losing just 1 set or less:

Nadal - 8
Federer - 5
Djokovic - 2
Sampras - 1
Sampras used the first week for practice, always. He lost a set to a Japanese player at Wimbledon who was ranked somewhere on the deep end. Everyone freaked, he was just passing time, trying new things getting ready to wipe up in the second week. I'm totally a Nadal fan, love the man and what he stands for but he really didn't need to write all those checks on his body as Aggasi said. Every point isn't the last point at Wimbledon.
 

ibbi

Legend
does that apply to Nadal only or generally?

I get that there are fewer breaks of serve on clay, not sure why you would lose fewer sets.
I mean I don't have any stats to back it up, I was just going off the top of my head. That's the impression I've always gotten:unsure: Mainly I'm thinking of the difference between grass and clay, historically. On grass it's like a crapshoot where a couple of points can mean the end of a set, clay is more steady, the stronger, more clay suited player more likely to dominate.

I actually found the question intriguing enough that I just spent the last hour crunching numbers, and my findings... Don't really back up my point:-D but there's lots of variables also to take into account (less matches played, best of 3 sets in some of the early rounds), so take it all with a pinch of salt.

Sets dropped by major winners in the Open era:-

Australian Open on grass
3, 2, 0, 1, 1, 4, 7, 6, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 5, 3
3.3 average

Australian Open on hard
4, 2, 1, 4, 2, 1, 4, 1, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 7, 1, 2, 5, 5, 0, 1, 4, 2, 1, 5, 4, 5, 3, 3, 7, 2, 2, 3, 5
3.3 average

Roland Garros

5, 4, 4, 4, 6, 0, 8, 1, 5, 1, 0, 3, 0, 2, 6, 1, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 7, 2, 6, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 8, 3, 7, 6, 5, 5, 3, 7, 3, 3, 1, 0, 6, 0, 3, 1, 4, 2, 3, 2, 0, 1, 2, 0, 6
3.2 average

Wimbledon 69-00

6, 4, 3, 5, 6, 7, 6, 0, 6, 3, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 1, 8, 2, 1, 7, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 1, 6, 1, 3, 3, 2, 4 - 3.9
Wimbledon 01-21

7, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 5, 4, 5, 3, 6, 3, 2, 0, 4, 4, 2 - 3.1
3.5 average

US Open on grass

4, 2, 4, 7, 5, 4
4.3 average

US Open on har-tru

5, 1, 1
2.3 average

US Open on hard

3, 1, 6, 5, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 5, 5, 4, 2, 7, 2, 4, 3, 5, 2, 6, 4, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 2, 3, 3, 6, 3, 2, 3, 3, 1
3.3 average
 

Standaa

G.O.A.T.
I mean I don't have any stats to back it up, I was just going off the top of my head. That's the impression I've always gotten:unsure: Mainly I'm thinking of the difference between grass and clay, historically. On grass it's like a crapshoot where a couple of points can mean the end of a set, clay is more steady, the stronger, more clay suited player more likely to dominate.

I actually found the question intriguing enough that I just spent the last hour crunching numbers, and my findings... Don't really back up my point:-D but there's lots of variables also to take into account (less matches played, best of 3 sets in some of the early rounds), so take it all with a pinch of salt.

Sets dropped by major winners in the Open era:-

Australian Open on grass
3, 2, 0, 1, 1, 4, 7, 6, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 5, 3
3.3 average

Australian Open on hard
4, 2, 1, 4, 2, 1, 4, 1, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 7, 1, 2, 5, 5, 0, 1, 4, 2, 1, 5, 4, 5, 3, 3, 7, 2, 2, 3, 5
3.3 average

Roland Garros

5, 4, 4, 4, 6, 0, 8, 1, 5, 1, 0, 3, 0, 2, 6, 1, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 7, 2, 6, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 8, 3, 7, 6, 5, 5, 3, 7, 3, 3, 1, 0, 6, 0, 3, 1, 4, 2, 3, 2, 0, 1, 2, 0, 6
3.2 average

Wimbledon 69-00

6, 4, 3, 5, 6, 7, 6, 0, 6, 3, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 1, 8, 2, 1, 7, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 1, 6, 1, 3, 3, 2, 4 - 3.9
Wimbledon 01-21

7, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 5, 4, 5, 3, 6, 3, 2, 0, 4, 4, 2 - 3.1
3.5 average

US Open on grass

4, 2, 4, 7, 5, 4
4.3 average

US Open on har-tru

5, 1, 1
2.3 average

US Open on hard

3, 1, 6, 5, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 5, 5, 4, 2, 7, 2, 4, 3, 5, 2, 6, 4, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 2, 3, 3, 6, 3, 2, 3, 3, 1
3.3 average
you were still right by one tenth of a set so good job.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
I mean I don't have any stats to back it up, I was just going off the top of my head. That's the impression I've always gotten:unsure: Mainly I'm thinking of the difference between grass and clay, historically. On grass it's like a crapshoot where a couple of points can mean the end of a set, clay is more steady, the stronger, more clay suited player more likely to dominate.

I actually found the question intriguing enough that I just spent the last hour crunching numbers, and my findings... Don't really back up my point:-D but there's lots of variables also to take into account (less matches played, best of 3 sets in some of the early rounds), so take it all with a pinch of salt.

Sets dropped by major winners in the Open era:-

Australian Open on grass
3, 2, 0, 1, 1, 4, 7, 6, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 5, 3
3.3 average

Australian Open on hard
4, 2, 1, 4, 2, 1, 4, 1, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 7, 1, 2, 5, 5, 0, 1, 4, 2, 1, 5, 4, 5, 3, 3, 7, 2, 2, 3, 5
3.3 average

Roland Garros

5, 4, 4, 4, 6, 0, 8, 1, 5, 1, 0, 3, 0, 2, 6, 1, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 7, 2, 6, 1, 3, 2, 2, 1, 8, 3, 7, 6, 5, 5, 3, 7, 3, 3, 1, 0, 6, 0, 3, 1, 4, 2, 3, 2, 0, 1, 2, 0, 6
3.2 average

Wimbledon 69-00

6, 4, 3, 5, 6, 7, 6, 0, 6, 3, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 1, 8, 2, 1, 7, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 1, 6, 1, 3, 3, 2, 4 - 3.9
Wimbledon 01-21

7, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 5, 4, 5, 3, 6, 3, 2, 0, 4, 4, 2 - 3.1
3.5 average

US Open on grass

4, 2, 4, 7, 5, 4
4.3 average

US Open on har-tru

5, 1, 1
2.3 average

US Open on hard

3, 1, 6, 5, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 5, 5, 4, 2, 7, 2, 4, 3, 5, 2, 6, 4, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 2, 3, 3, 6, 3, 2, 3, 3, 1
3.3 average
So, Nadal and Borg are pretty much the only reason RG average is lower...
 

TennisFan3

G.O.A.T.
Obscure stat of the day: Nadal has won as many Grand Slams losing just 1 set in the Grand Slam as Federer, Djokovic, and Sampras combined.

Grand Slams won losing just 1 set or less:

Nadal - 8
Federer - 5
Djokovic - 2
Sampras - 1
So, what you're saying is that Medvedev has as many as Sampras already?
Just goes to show how dominant Nadal is on clay. No player has EVER dominated a single surface so much.
 

mahesh69a

Semi-Pro
Obvious clay goat.

How many titles (not slams, ANY tournament) has he defended off clay? One - that too when both Djokovic and Federer skipped that tournament.

 
Last edited:
Top