Sets dropped in Big 3 slam wins

[Towny]

Since we all know that lowest sets dropped with no context considered is obviously one of the best measures of peak level, to determine who really is the GOAT/BOAT/TIGER, I thought it best to look at how many sets the Big 3 dropped en-route to their slam wins;

0 sets
Nadal - 4 (RG 08, RG 10, RG 17, RG 20)
Federer - 2 (AO 07, Wim 17)
Djokovic – 0

1 set
Nadal - 4 (RG 07, USO 10, RG 12, RG 18)
Federer - 3 (Wim 03, Wim 05, Wim 06)
Djokovic - 2 (AO 08, AO 11)

2 sets
Federer - 6 (AO 04, Wim 04, USO 06, USO 07, AO 10, AO 18)
Nadal - 3 (USO 13, RG 14, RG 19)
Djokovic - 3 (RG 16, USO 18, AO 19)

Total
Nadal – 11
Federer – 11
Djokovic - 5

And to correct for a tough Final opponent bringing the numbers down:

0 sets before final
Nadal - 7 (RG 07, RG 08, RG 10, USO 10, RG 12, RG 17, RG 20)
Federer - 4 (Wim 06, AO 07, Wim 17, AO 18)
Djokovic - 1 (AO 08)

1 set before final
Nadal - 6 (Wim 08, USO 13, RG 14, RG 18, RG 19, USO 19)
Federer - 6 (Wim 03, Wim 04, Wim 05, USO 06, Wim 07, Wim 09)
Djokovic - 3 (AO 11, RG 16, AO 20)

2 sets before final
Djokovic - 6 (AO 15, Wim 15, USO 15, USO 18, AO 19, Wim 19)
Nadal - 4 (RG 05, RG 06, AO 09, RG 11)
Federer - 4 (AO 04, USO 05, USO 07, AO 10)

Total
Nadal – 17
Federer – 14
Djokovic - 10

As we can clearly see - Nadal > Federer > Djokovic

Conclusions (or What it tells us?)
Either Nadal clearly has the highest average level in his slam wins, followed by Federer then Djokovic with the lowest level

or

Looking at sets dropped in slam win/finals runs without any context or other factors considered is maybe not the best way to determine level of play.

Disgust.

 

[Sport]

I will take the conclusion A): Nadal has the highest average level in his Slams wins, followed by Federer then Djokovic.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Come through and slay

 

[Phoenix1983]

I appreciate your diligence in disproving a certain other poster's conclusions, @Towny

 

[DSH]

Since we all know that lowest sets dropped with no context considered is obviously one of the best measures of peak level, to determine who really is the GOAT/BOAT/TIGER, I thought it best to look at how many sets the Big 3 dropped en-route to their slam wins;

0 sets
Nadal - 4 (RG 08, RG 10, RG 17, RG 20)
Federer - 2 (AO 07, Wim 17)
Djokovic – 0

1 set
Nadal - 4 (RG 07, USO 10, RG 12, RG 18)
Federer - 3 (Wim 03, Wim 05, Wim 06)
Djokovic - 2 (AO 08, AO 11)

2 sets
Federer - 6 (AO 04, Wim 04, USO 06, USO 07, AO 10, AO 18)
Nadal - 3 (USO 13, RG 14, RG 19)
Djokovic - 3 (RG 16, USO 18, AO 19)

Total
Nadal – 11
Federer – 11
Djokovic - 5

And to correct for a tough Final opponent bringing the numbers down:

0 sets before final
Nadal - 7 (RG 07, RG 08, RG 10, USO 10, RG 12, RG 17, RG 20)
Federer - 4 (Wim 06, AO 07, Wim 17, AO 18)
Djokovic - 1 (AO 08)

1 set before final
Nadal - 6 (Wim 08, USO 13, RG 14, RG 18, RG 19, USO 19)
Federer - 6 (Wim 03, Wim 04, Wim 05, USO 06, Wim 07, Wim 09)
Djokovic - 3 (AO 11, RG 16, AO 20)

2 sets before final
Djokovic - 6 (AO 15, Wim 15, USO 15, USO 18, AO 19, Wim 19)
Nadal - 4 (RG 05, RG 06, AO 09, RG 11)
Federer - 4 (AO 04, USO 05, USO 07, AO 10)

Total
Nadal – 17
Federer – 14
Djokovic - 10

As we can clearly see - Nadal > Federer > Djokovic

Conclusions (or What it tells us?)
Either Nadal clearly has the highest average level in his slam wins, followed by Federer then Djokovic with the lowest level

or

Looking at sets dropped in slam win/finals runs without any context or other factors considered is maybe not the best way to determine level of play.

Disgust.

Great thread, Towny!

Unlike the mumbo jumbo of others.

 

[Towny]

Got to say, context or no, Nadal's dominance at RG is INSANE.

Truly the King of clay with no rival!

 

[DSH]

Got to say, context or no, Nadal's dominance at RG is INSANE.

Truly the King of clay with no rival!

Master of the Universe, you would say!

 

[Deleted member 775898]

Djokovic not so BOATY after all, sad !

 

[Backspin1183]

Mods, stop this.

 

[StrongRule]

Next thread should be about number of tournaments won 10+ times.

 

[MeatTornado]

Sets dropped is the most significant statistic when talking about dominance.

Unless you do it in a weak era, in which case it's actually held against you.

 

[Crazy Finn]

Nice post!!

 

[ADuck]

@Lew II

 

[Lew II]

Clay and grass are easier to dominate.

In fact Fedal won only 1 slam on hard by dropping 0/1 sets.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Clay and grass are easier to dominate.

I think clay is only true for Nadal really and Borg. Between Borg's last RG and Nadal's first there were 15 different winners over 23 editions.

 

[ADuck]

Clay and grass are easier to dominate.

In fact Fedal won only 1 slam on hard by dropping 0/1 sets.

But there's 2 HC slams. Djokovic has twice as many slams on his favorite surface as Nadal/Federer do.

Also even if you get rid of clay/grass, Djokovic is barely leading.

 

[Lew II]

Slams won without dropping sets in the Open Era:

Clay 7
Grass 3
Hard 1

Nole's favourite surface (hard) is tougher to dominate than Nadal's (clay) and Federer's (grass).

 

[Lew II]

But there's 2 HC slams. Djokovic has twice as many slams on his favorite surface as Nadal/Federer do.

Also even if you get rid of clay/grass, Djokovic is barely leading.

See my last post. In all Open Era only once a player won a hc slam without dropping sets. With so many slams on hard why only once a player was able to dominate?

 

[ADuck]

Slams won without dropping sets in the Open Era:

Clay 7
Grass 3
Hard 1

Nole's favourite surface (hard) is tougher to dominate than Nadal's (clay) and Federer's (grass).

Is that excluding or including Federer/Nadal?

 

[Lew II]

Is that excluding or including Federer/Nadal?

Including.

Excluding them: clay 3, grass 2, hard 0.

 

[ADuck]

Including.

Excluding them: clay 3, grass 2, hard 0.

So Federer could do it but Djokovic couldn't?

 

[Lew II]

By the way, Nadal and Djokovic may have a higher peak than Djokovic on a specific surface, I've never questioned that. Especially Nadal.

What I think is Djokovic has the highest level across all surfaces.

 

[Lew II]

So Federer could do it but Djokovic couldn't?

Props to him for that.

 

[Bender]

Slams won without dropping sets in the Open Era:

Clay 7
Grass 3
Hard 1

Nole's favourite surface (hard) is tougher to dominate than Nadal's (clay) and Federer's (grass).

lol the circular logic in this one is amazing

It literally is the same as saying that clay and grass are the easiest surfaces to dominate because Nadal and Federer achieved 4/7 and 1/3 of them respectively

Ie it's easy to dominate clay and grass because the clay and grass GOAT have dominated on it

 

[Lew II]

lol the circular logic in this one is amazing

It literally is the same as saying that clay and grass are the easiest surfaces to dominate because Nadal and Federer achieved 4/7 and 1/3 of them respectively

Without Federer and Nadal: clay 3, grass 2, hard 0.

 

[ADuck]

By the way, Nadal and Djokovic may have a higher peak than Djokovic on a specific surface, I've never questioned that. Especially Nadal.

What I think is Djokovic has the highest level across all surfaces.

Anyway, you're missing the main point which is that your earlier threads should be totally disregarded as Federer/Nadal had far less opportunities to face Djokovic when he lost a less number amount of sets. Whereas Djokovic got many more opportunities to face Federer/Nadal when they do that, and thus looks good in comparison.

 

[Bender]

Without Federer and Nadal: clay 3, grass 2, hard 0.

And how many clay, grass, and HC slams have been held in the Open Era?

 

[Lew II]

Anyway, you're missing the main point which is that your earlier threads should be totally disregarded as Federer/Nadal had far less opportunities to face Djokovic when he lost a less number amount of sets. Whereas Djokovic got many more opportunities to face Federer/Nadal when they do that, and thus looks good in comparison.

The thread doesn't explain that. It only shows sets dropped in Slams they won.

 

[Lew II]

And how many clay, grass, and HC slams have been held in the Open Era?

56, 79, 76

 

[ADuck]

The thread doesn't explain that. It only shows sets dropped in Slams they won.

Read it again, it shows sets dropped in slams they didn't win either.

 

[Lew II]

Read it again, it shows sets dropped in slams they didn't win either.

True that.

 

[Lew II]

Total
Nadal – 17
Federer – 14
Djokovic - 10

That pretty much disproves my last thread.

I'm an honest person and I acknowledge mistakes.

 

[Antonio Puente]

That pretty much disproves my last thread.

I'm an honest person and I acknowledge mistakes.

You ready to come clean about Murray?

 

[Gary Duane]

Since we all know that lowest sets dropped with no context considered is obviously one of the best measures of peak level, to determine who really is the GOAT/BOAT/TIGER, I thought it best to look at how many sets the Big 3 dropped en-route to their slam wins;

0 sets
Nadal - 4 (RG 08, RG 10, RG 17, RG 20)
Federer - 2 (AO 07, Wim 17)
Djokovic – 0

1 set
Nadal - 4 (RG 07, USO 10, RG 12, RG 18)
Federer - 3 (Wim 03, Wim 05, Wim 06)
Djokovic - 2 (AO 08, AO 11)

2 sets
Federer - 6 (AO 04, Wim 04, USO 06, USO 07, AO 10, AO 18)
Nadal - 3 (USO 13, RG 14, RG 19)
Djokovic - 3 (RG 16, USO 18, AO 19)

Total
Nadal – 11
Federer – 11
Djokovic - 5

And to correct for a tough Final opponent bringing the numbers down:

0 sets before final
Nadal - 7 (RG 07, RG 08, RG 10, USO 10, RG 12, RG 17, RG 20)
Federer - 4 (Wim 06, AO 07, Wim 17, AO 18)
Djokovic - 1 (AO 08)

1 set before final
Nadal - 6 (Wim 08, USO 13, RG 14, RG 18, RG 19, USO 19)
Federer - 6 (Wim 03, Wim 04, Wim 05, USO 06, Wim 07, Wim 09)
Djokovic - 3 (AO 11, RG 16, AO 20)

2 sets before final
Djokovic - 6 (AO 15, Wim 15, USO 15, USO 18, AO 19, Wim 19)
Nadal - 4 (RG 05, RG 06, AO 09, RG 11)
Federer - 4 (AO 04, USO 05, USO 07, AO 10)

Total
Nadal – 17
Federer – 14
Djokovic - 10

As we can clearly see - Nadal > Federer > Djokovic

Conclusions (or What it tells us?)
Either Nadal clearly has the highest average level in his slam wins, followed by Federer then Djokovic with the lowest level

or

Looking at sets dropped in slam win/finals runs without any context or other factors considered is maybe not the best way to determine level of play.

Disgust.

First there is the matter of what is unpredictable. Clay is most predictable. Slow tennis produces the biggest winning margins, fast the smallest. Probably the lowest margins ever were on old fast grass. So it would be useful to see this same idea on different surfaces.

My assumption is that aggressive servers who win a lot of games altogether win more easily. ATG returners are more likely to struggle. They have to keep the pressure on in every return game because they can glitch at any moment serving, and that's where sets get away. But these ATG returners have a corresponding strength in knowing their chances of breaking back are higher, and that could translate to being more dangerous later in long matches. For this reason I believe Fed has been more successful later in his career in winning Bo3, but Nadal and Djokovic have been more dominant in Bo5. Meanwhile, Nadal's clay dominance is going to skew things in his direction if you are using stats from all surfaces.

 

[socallefty]

Sets dropped is the most significant statistic when talking about dominance.

Unless you do it in a weak era, in which case it's actually held against you.

Good point. When someone wins easily or wins a lot, is it because they were that much better than everyone else or because everyone else is that weak? By TTW logic, if your favorite wins easily or wins a lot, it is because they are that much better. If the players you don’t like win a lot or win too easily, it is because it is a weak era.

In reality, there is no way to prove this one way or the other.

 

[Lew II]

Sets dropped in the tournament by Slam finalists:

2006 - 22
2015 - 13

I will check it for every year.

 

[MeatTornado]

Good point. When someone wins easily or wins a lot, is it because they were that much better than everyone else or because everyone else is that weak? By TTW logic, if your favorite wins easily or wins a lot, it is because they are that much better. If the players you don’t like win a lot or win too easily, it is because it is a weak era.

In reality, there is no way to prove this one way or the other.

Hence why the arguing has been going on non-stop since this forum was created

 

[mike danny]

Hence why the arguing has been going on non-stop since this forum was created

In fairness, there were easier times during its inception. Less trolling.

 

[MeatTornado]

In fairness, there were easier times during its inception. Less trolling.

Weak poasting era

Top posters had it so easy back then. The trolling depth of field was terrible.

 

[mike danny]

Weak poasting era

Top posters had it so easy back then. The trolling depth of field was terrible.

Back when TTW was created, there was no Pro Match Discussion until 2 years later. And there weren't extensive live matches talks, only some threads labeled x vs y (spoiler).

 

[blablavla]

Clay and grass are easier to dominate.

In fact Fedal won only 1 slam on hard by dropping 0/1 sets.

so why Djokovic doesn't dominate clay / grass like Nadal and Federer did / do?
isn't Djokovic the best grass player? he is 3-0 vs Fed in Wimbledon finals I was told

@abmk @mike danny can you confirm the 3-0 in Wim finals?

 

[blablavla]

I think clay is only true for Nadal really and Borg. Between Borg's last RG and Nadal's first there were 15 different winners over 23 editions.

dismissed as clay skew

 

[mike danny]

so why Djokovic doesn't dominate clay / grass like Nadal and Federer did / do?
isn't Djokovic the best grass player? he is 3-0 vs Fed in Wimbledon finals I was told

@abmk @mike danny can you confirm the 3-0 in Wim finals?

Yep, against peak Fed too.

 

[NoleFam]

He called you out so you were supposed to come back harder than that. Lol. You could have said...

Top 5 wins in Slam title runs
1. Djokovic - 25
2. Nadal - 24
3. Federer - 19

Djokovic has 3 less Slams but played the top 5 more times than the other two in his runs....or

Wins against 100+ ranked players in Slam title runs
1. Federer - 19
2. Nadal - 17
3. Djokovic - 12

This can be negated that Djokovic has the least Slams among them so he played lower ranked players less, but overall, Djokovic has played 14 more matches at the Slam level than Nadal, and still has played 5 less matches against 100+ ranked players. Against the top 20, he has played 13 more matches.

Sets dropped in the tournament by Slam finalists:

2006 - 22
2015 - 13

I will check it for every year.

But being more serious, OP, Federer and Nadal do have a higher average peak level in Slam runs. I think this is something that was known. Federer and Nadal are more likely to go all out throughout their Slam wins and Djokovic is more likely to coast and turn it on when needed, sort of like Sampras did. Sampras lost quite a few sets before a Wimbledon final often, only once winning it dropping just one set, and then only lost serve 4 times in a final and only once lost a set that wasn't a tiebreak. Overall, impressive from Nadal and Federer though.