Rafa at RG from 2017-2020 is the greatest 4-year-period at a Slam in tennis history

[ChrisRF]

Sets lost for every player who won a Slam 4 times in a row after the old Challenge Round modus. If someone won 5 or 6 times in a row, then I show both or all three 4-year-periods.

Tilden USO 1920-23 lost at least 6 sets (2+1+3+0) - not all early rounds known
Tilden USO 1921-24 lost at least 7 sets (1+3+0+3) - not all early rounds known
Tilden USO 1922-25 lost at least 8 sets (3+0+3+2) - not all early rounds known
Emerson AO 1963-66 lost 8 sets (1+0+3+4)
Emerson AO 1964-67 lost 10 sets (0+3+4+3)
Borg WIM 1976-79 lost 15 sets (0+6+3+6)
Borg WIM 1977-80 lost 19 sets (6+3+6+4)
Borg RG 1978-81 lost 5 sets (0+3+0+2)
Sampras WIM 1997-00 lost 12 sets (3+3+2+4)
Federer WIM 2003-06 lost 5 sets (1+2+1+1)
Federer WIM 2004-07 lost 7 sets (2+1+1+3)
Federer USO 2004-07 lost 10 sets (3+3+2+2)
Federer USO 2005-08 lost 10 sets (3+2+2+3)
Nadal RG 2005-08 lost 7 sets (3+3+1+0)
Nadal RG 2010-13 lost 8 sets (0+3+1+4)
Nadal RG 2011-14 lost 10 sets (3+1+4+2)
Nadal RG 2017-20 lost 3 sets (0+1+2+0)

 

[victorcruz]

Ombulleeeble

 

[StrongRule]

This stat is a bit misleading. It doesn't mean this run is better than the previous ones.

He arguably should have lost more sets (some were very close, but he was clutch on the big points), and I think the rain delay really saved him in 2018 against Schwartzman, he was going to lose this match. That being said, Nadal was playing on a very high level in all 4 finals.

 

[E36BMWM3]

Sets lost for every player who won a Slam 4 times in a row after the old Challenge Round modus. If someone won 5 or 6 times in a row, then I show both or all three 4-year-periods.

Tilden USO 1920-23 lost at least 6 sets (2+1+3+0) - not all early rounds known
Tilden USO 1921-24 lost at least 7 sets (1+3+0+3) - not all early rounds known
Tilden USO 1922-25 lost at least 8 sets (3+0+3+2) - not all early rounds known
Emerson AO 1963-66 lost 8 sets (1+0+3+4)
Emerson AO 1964-67 lost 10 sets (0+3+4+3)
Borg WIM 1976-79 lost 15 sets (0+6+3+6)
Borg WIM 1977-80 lost 19 sets (6+3+6+4)
Borg RG 1978-81 lost 5 sets (0+3+0+2)
Sampras WIM 1997-00 lost 12 sets (3+3+2+4)
Federer WIM 2003-06 lost 5 sets (1+2+1+1)
Federer WIM 2004-07 lost 7 sets (2+1+1+3)
Federer USO 2004-07 lost 10 sets (3+3+2+2)
Federer USO 2005-08 lost 10 sets (3+2+2+3)
Nadal RG 2005-08 lost 7 sets (3+3+1+0)
Nadal RG 2010-13 lost 8 sets (0+3+1+4)
Nadal RG 2011-14 lost 10 sets (3+1+4+2)
Nadal RG 2017-20 lost 3 sets (0+1+2+0)

PhenomeNADAL... just mind-blowing stats

 

[E36BMWM3]

This stat is a bit misleading. It doesn't mean this run is better than the previous ones.

He arguably should have lost more sets (some were very close, but he was clutch on the big points), and I think the rain delay really saved him in 2018 against Schwartzman, he was going to lose this match. That being said, Nadal was playing on a very high level in all 4 finals.

MISLEADING?! How lol... he’s only lost 3 sets, end of story. There are zero asterisks here, no what ifs... THREE SETS!!!!

 

[StrongRule]

MISLEADING?! How lol... he’s only lost 3 sets, end of story. There are zero asterisks here, no what ifs... THREE SETS!!!!

And? It doesn't mean he played better than in tournaments where he dropped more sets. In this tournament he was very lucky he didn't lose a set against Sinner.

 

[ibbi]

I mean greatest purely in terms of sets lost, sure. The fact is you tend to lose fewer sets on clay than certainly on grass. Those Federer grass stats are pretty cray cray compared to all the other grass numbers, though certainly there's clear reasons for that too.

 

[ChrisRF]

This stat is a bit misleading. It doesn't mean this run is better than the previous ones.

He arguably should have lost more sets (some were very close, but he was clutch on the big points), and I think the rain delay really saved him in 2018 against Schwartzman, he was going to lose this match. That being said, Nadal was playing on a very high level in all 4 finals.

I understand what you mean (stats aren’t everything and so on), but 3 is significantly better than 7/8/10 and you can find "should-have-situations" for all of those runs. For example Mathieu in 2006 had him on the ropes as well, maybe more so than Schwartzman in 2018. Well, at least if we want to call it that way, because everyone knows how long the way still is after winning just ONE set against Nadal in Best of 5 on clay.

But I don’t want to argue here. I’m a Federer fan who always promised I would recognize Rafa as his equal if he matches him in numbers, and I hold my promise. So only positive things from me about him today.

However, 2021 will be the next and possibly most decisive year in the GOAT race. Who knows, maybe Federer will be alone at the top after AO again before Rafa ties him at RG again.

 

[The_Order]

Definitely has something to do with Moya imo...

He is playing more aggressively at RG than he used to, shortening points more often... it's actually made him finish opponents off quicker/with more ease..

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Nice thread.

I did skip the first 5 rows though.

Emerson and Tilden? Come on... let's stick to pro tennis here, otherwise I'll insist you include my 4-year domination at the local tennis club...

 

[NonP]

BS comparisons. There's a higher margin for error on clay which means the best grinders stand to lose the lowest number of sets/games at RG, and baseliners tend to win a higher % of games than S&Vers/net rushers (save Mac who's in a class of his own) for the same reason. Guess which style of play has been prevalent at Wimbledon since the mid-'00s?

But then what else do you expect from these teenyboppers that like to think tennis didn't start until after Fedal met at '05 RG.

 

[clout]

Who were the three who took sets off of him recently? Too lazy to google it

 

[MichaelNadal]

Incredible

 

[zuluzazu]

Who were the three who took sets off of him recently? Too lazy to google it

Schwartzman 2018
Goffin 2019
Thiem 2019

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

The most dominant, yes. Greatest considering lower margins, probably grasserer TBGOATerer.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

 

[ChrisRF]

Nice thread.

I did skip the first 5 rows though.

Emerson and Tilden? Come on... let's stick to pro tennis here, otherwise I'll insist you include my 4-year domination at the local tennis club...

Tilden was clearly the best tennis player of his time, but I agree that Emerson is just included for having it complete. He never was the best player in the world for a longer period (if at all) and only won that many Australian titles because Laver and Rosewall were professionals in those years. And of course international competition was mainly absent in Australia anyway.

But I wanted to show that even technically Rafa’s current RG dominance was never beaten.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Tilden was clearly the best tennis player of his time, but I agree that Emerson is just included for having it complete. He never was the best player in the world for a longer period (if at all) and only won that many Australian titles because Laver and Rosewall were professionals in those years. And of course international competition was mainly absent in Australia anyway.

But I wanted to show that even technically Rafa’s current RG dominance was never beaten.

OK, but these eras are just not comparable, amateur eras, 5-round slam eras, unknown scores...

 

[xFedal]

YES EXCELLENCE!

 

[Feather]

BS comparisons. There's a higher margin for error on clay which means the best grinders stand to lose the lowest number of sets/games at RG, and baseliners tend to win a higher % of games than S&Vers/net rushers (save Mac who's in a class of his own) for the same reason. Guess which style of play has been prevalent at Wimbledon since the mid-'00s?

But then what else do you expect from these teenyboppers that like to think tennis didn't start until after Fedal met at '05 RG.

Roger Federer didn't lose a single set in 2017 Wimbledon. It was the only time he won it without losing a set. Using the logic of OP, Wimbledon 2017 , at age almost 36, was the best performance of Roger at Wimbledon !

 

[roysid]

The stat is misleading. It's just that Rafa didn't have that strong a competition in 2017-20 like in previous runs.
When he had Federer, Djokovic and many others but he overcome them all.
Plus he was very intense from 2017-20. He knew if his level drop a little, they could beat him. Eg. Beat Djokovic in 2020 in straight sets but next year when he gave some room, Djokovic beat him.
Unlike in earlier years when he could bounce back and win the match