Slam winners that didn't drop a set: Ranked.

Some fun before the storm next week.


In the Open Era, winning a slam without losing a set has been accomplished 10 times by 5 players. Who's performance tops this club?

First the asterisks

Disqualifying
Rosewall - AO '71
Not even taking the prestige of AO into account. He only had to play 5 matches.​
I only found stats for his last two matches, and he was broken at least twice.​

Medium
Nastase - RG '73
First two rounds were Bo3​
found stats for final 3 matches, was broken at least 7 times.​
Pedantic
Nadal - RG '17
QF ended after only 2 games into the 2nd set​
Federer - W '17
1R ended after only 3 games into the 2nd set​
--------------------------------

Rankings

1. Borg - RG '78. Lost 32 games. Broken 6 times. 1 tiebreaker. 6 bagels.
2. Borg - RG '80. Lost 38 games. Broken 7 times. 0 tiebreakers. 4 bagels.
3. Nadal - RG '17. Lost 35 games. Broken 6 times. 0 tiebreakers. 3 bagels.
4. Borg - W '76. Lost 70 games. Broken unknown (3-6). 1 tiebreaker. 1 bagel.
5. Federer - W '17. Lost 74 games. Broken 4 times. 5 tiebreakers. 0 bagels.
6. Nadal - RG '08. Lost 42 games. Broken 9 times.1 tiebreaker. 3 bagels.
7. Federer - AO '07. Lost 72 games. Broken 14 times. 3 tiebreakers. 2 bagels.
8. Nadal - RG '10. Lost 71 games. Broken 11 times. 3 tiebreakers. 0 bagels.
9. Nastase - RG '73. Lost 49 games. Broken unknown (8-10). 1 tiebreaker. 2 bagels.
10. Rosewall - AO '71. Lost 55 games. Broken unknown (4-6). 2 tiebreakers. 1 bagel.

--------

Once again, Borg RG '78 stands tall.

Just for fun, here is Sampras' resume when he set the slam record by only losing serve twice.

Sampras - W '97. Lost 3 sets (all tiebreakers). Lost 88 games. Broken 2 times. 5 tiebreakers. 0 bagels.
 
Last edited:

Lozo1016

Hall of Fame
Wow, didn't realize Nadal '17 was more dominant than Nadal '08 at RG. In my mind, it's the other way around.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
Wasn't somebody broken 0 times before the final?

I can't remember who.

In the last 3 years I thought.

J
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
There have been 5 times in the history of the open era when the winner averaged over 75.5% of games. ALL of them were at RG. Four of those times were Nadal and Borg. The reason is simple. The largest margins are on the slowest surface.

The next highest is Vilas again, but this time at the USO, 77, on clay again. So for highest game% the top 6 slots are on clay. Then next is HC at the USO, again Vilas, again 77.

Mac in 84 won the highest % ever on grass, at Wimbledon. He's the first name to appear on grass, 19th place.

So you are dead wrong concluding that things are most competitive on HC. They are most competitive on grass. The reason is the surface.

There are smaller margins, and upsets are therefore more likely. You can't go by years when a player won with no sets lost because that is too random.

For all these reasons there are fewest breaks of serve by % at wimbledon but the fewest games lost at RG.

Players continue to value winning Wimbledon above all else because of the tradition and fame. You will see players competing even though they don't have a prayer of winning because everyone wants a shot at the glory.
 

ChrisRF

Legend
Really nice work, but some notes to the "asterisks":

I only agree for Rosewall with 5 matches and (to a bit lesser degree of course) for the Best of 3 matches of Nastase.

The hint about how many times someone was broken is an interesting footnote, but doesn’t have a meaning IMO. Because it doesn’t matter if someone dominates with his service game or return game.

2017 RG and Wimbledon for Nadal and Federer have that one retirement, but it is as clear as daylight that both would have won that match in 3 sets as well.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
There have been 5 times in the history of the open era when the winner averaged over 75.5% of games. ALL of them were at RG. Four of those times were Nadal and Borg. The reason is simple. The largest margins are on the slowest surface.

The next highest is Vilas again, but this time at the USO, 77, on clay again. So for highest game% the top 6 slots are on clay. Then next is HC at the USO, again Vilas, again 77.

Mac in 84 won the highest % ever on grass, at Wimbledon. He's the first name to appear on grass, 19th place.

So you are dead wrong concluding that things are most competitive on HC. They are most competitive on grass. The reason is the surface.

There are smaller margins, and upsets are therefore more likely. You can't go by years when a player won with no sets lost because that is too random.

For all these reasons there are fewest breaks of serve by % at wimbledon but the fewest games lost at RG.

Players continue to value winning Wimbledon above all else because of the tradition and fame. You will see players competing even though they don't have a prayer of winning because everyone wants a shot at the glory.
Why the bold and underlining?
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Some fun before the storm next week.


In the Open Era, winning a slam without losing a set has been accomplished 10 times by 5 players. Who's performance tops this club?

First the asterisks

Disqualifying
Rosewall - AO '71
Not even taking the prestige of AO into account. He only had to play 5 matches.​
I only found stats for his last two matches, and he was broken at least twice.​

Medium
Nastase - RG '73
First two rounds were Bo3​
found stats for final 3 matches, was broken at least 7 times.​
Pedantic
Nadal - RG '17
QF ended after only 2 games into the 2nd set​
Federer - W '17
1R ended after only 3 games into the 2nd set​
--------------------------------

Rankings

1. Borg - RG '78. Lost 32 games. Broken 6 times. 1 tiebreaker. 6 bagels.
2. Borg - RG '80. Lost 38 games. Broken 7 times. 0 tiebreakers. 4 bagels.
3. Nadal - RG '17. Lost 35 games. Broken 6 times. 0 tiebreakers. 3 bagels.
4. Borg - W '76. Lost 70 games. Broken unknown (3-6). 1 tiebreaker. 1 bagel.
5. Federer - W '17. Lost 74 games. Broken 4 times. 5 tiebreakers. 0 bagels.
6. Nadal - RG '08. Lost 42 games. Broken 9 times.1 tiebreaker. 3 bagels.
7. Federer - AO '07. Lost 72 games. Broken 14 times. 3 tiebreakers. 2 bagels.
8. Nadal - RG '10. Lost 71 games. Broken 11 times. 3 tiebreakers. 0 bagels.
9. Nastase - RG '73. Lost 49 games. Broken unknown (8-10). 1 tiebreaker. 2 bagels.
10. Rosewall - AO '71. Lost 55 games. Broken unknown (4-6). 2 tiebreakers. 1 bagel.

--------

Once again, Borg RG '78 stands tall.

Just for fun, here is Sampras' resume when he set the slam record by only losing serve twice.

Sampras - W '97. Lost 3 sets (all tiebreakers). Lost 88 games. Broken 2 times. 5 tiebreakers. 0 bagels.
This interests me a lot. It's information I never looked at. I would say there are a couple factors you want to think about as well as majors where there were less rounds.

Notice that your lost games figure is lowest on clay. It's no accident that the slams at the top of your list are at the top of the list for game%.

As you can see 6 of the slams with all straight sets happened at RG. That's no fluke. The fewest upsets happen at RG which gives guys like Borg and Nadal the chance to totally dominate. I'm not talking about upset winners in all years but predictability based on the clay season and who has won the most games. RG looks more random because it does not seed by clay.

Of course the fewest breaks happened on grass.

But because margins are smaller on grass, I'd tend to give more weight to Wimbledon. My reasoning: Going down my list Mac is in 20th place for % of games won. That does not sound too impressive. Borg is 38. But on grass he is #4, with Rosewall above twice at the AO and Federer once. And of course those others dropped a set. So I'd put Borg right on the top because of the necessity to handicap grass.

Borg has got to be kind because he did it on two surfaces and in such a small window.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Why the bold and underlining?
To highlight the overal point rather than the numbers.

Your concept is dead wrong. HC is not more competitive. It's just dominant in terms of most events and two slams a year. You have zero proof that players compete harder on HC than on grass (or for that matter harder than on clay.) Now so you have proof that the 128 men who are seeded at Wimbledon are in any way weaker than the field of the other majors.

You are making assumptions based on nothing.

Every year players win the smallest % of points and games on grass, more on HCs and more yet on clay. That's a fact. If competition were lower on grass, top grass players would dominate more. But they don't.

And you ignore the power and prestige of Wimbledon and its history.

If you say "USO", many people will think you are talking about golf. If you say Flushing Meadows or Forest Hills, only tennis fans will know these names. But people who know nothing about tennis have heard a lot about Wimbledon.

It's still the biggest prize in tennis, not because it deserves it, not because it should be that way, but just because that's the reality of what casual fans know about.

It is what it is.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
@Gary Duane

Upsets (lower ranked player beating higher ranked player) in the last 10 editions:

AO: 25.06%
RG: 25.59%
WI: 28.33%
UO: 26.89%

At Wimbledon upsets seem to be more frequent. But it is also the tournament with the least different winners per edition (Open Era):

French Open 0.52
US Open (on hardcourt) 0.46
Australian Open (on hardcourt) 0.44
Wimbledon 0.41
 
Last edited:

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
To highlight the overal point rather than the numbers.

Your concept is dead wrong. HC is not more competitive. It's just dominant in terms of most events and two slams a year. You have zero proof that players compete harder on HC than on grass (or for that matter harder than on clay.) Now so you have proof that the 128 men who are seeded at Wimbledon are in any way weaker than the field of the other majors.

You are making assumptions based on nothing.

Every year players win the smallest % of points and games on grass, more on HCs and more yet on clay. That's a fact. If competition were lower on grass, top grass players would dominate more. But they don't.

And you ignore the power and prestige of Wimbledon and its history.

If you say "USO", many people will think you are talking about golf. If you say Flushing Meadows or Forest Hills, only tennis fans will know these names. But people who know nothing about tennis have heard a lot about Wimbledon.

It's still the biggest prize in tennis, not because it deserves it, not because it should be that way, but just because that's the reality of what casual fans know about.

It is what it is.

Please don't do it again. Bolding/underlining It's like screaming.

Hardcourt gives more ATP points than clay and grass combined, I think. It is also the most used surface in the world. This is way players train more for hardcourt and their game is more adapt to it, therefore on hardcourt the level is higher.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Please don't do it again. Bolding/underlining It's like screaming.

Hardcourt gives more ATP points than clay and grass combined, I think. It is also the most used surface in the world. This is way players train more for hardcourt and their game is more adapt to it, therefore on hardcourt the level is higher.
Lew, don't know how else to say this: I'll bold, italicize and underline as I please. If you have a problem with the way I format, don't read my posts. I'm not here to please you. All caps is shouting. Formatting text is not.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
@Gary Duane

Upsets (lower ranked player beating higher ranked player) in the last 10 editions:

At Wimbledon upsets seem to be more frequent. But it is also the tournament with the least different winners per edition (Open Era):

French Open 0.52
US Open (on hardcourt) 0.46
Australian Open (on hardcourt) 0.44
Wimbledon 0.41
I don't understand what those numbers mean.
 
D

Deleted member 733170

Guest
I’ll take my cheeseburger with fries on the side with ketchup and pickled Lew.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Lew, don't know how else to say this: I'll bold, italicize and underline as I please. If you have a problem with the way I format, don't read my posts. I'm not here to please you. All caps is shouting. Formatting text is not.
I think it's rude.

I will still read your posts because they're interesting.
 

thrust

Legend
Some fun before the storm next week.


In the Open Era, winning a slam without losing a set has been accomplished 10 times by 5 players. Who's performance tops this club?

First the asterisks

Disqualifying
Rosewall - AO '71
Not even taking the prestige of AO into account. He only had to play 5 matches.​
I only found stats for his last two matches, and he was broken at least twice.​

Medium
Nastase - RG '73
First two rounds were Bo3​
found stats for final 3 matches, was broken at least 7 times.​
Pedantic
Nadal - RG '17
QF ended after only 2 games into the 2nd set​
Federer - W '17
1R ended after only 3 games into the 2nd set​
--------------------------------

Rankings

1. Borg - RG '78. Lost 32 games. Broken 6 times. 1 tiebreaker. 6 bagels.
2. Borg - RG '80. Lost 38 games. Broken 7 times. 0 tiebreakers. 4 bagels.
3. Nadal - RG '17. Lost 35 games. Broken 6 times. 0 tiebreakers. 3 bagels.
4. Borg - W '76. Lost 70 games. Broken unknown (3-6). 1 tiebreaker. 1 bagel.
5. Federer - W '17. Lost 74 games. Broken 4 times. 5 tiebreakers. 0 bagels.
6. Nadal - RG '08. Lost 42 games. Broken 9 times.1 tiebreaker. 3 bagels.
7. Federer - AO '07. Lost 72 games. Broken 14 times. 3 tiebreakers. 2 bagels.
8. Nadal - RG '10. Lost 71 games. Broken 11 times. 3 tiebreakers. 0 bagels.
9. Nastase - RG '73. Lost 49 games. Broken unknown (8-10). 1 tiebreaker. 2 bagels.
10. Rosewall - AO '71. Lost 55 games. Broken unknown (4-6). 2 tiebreakers. 1 bagel.

--------

Once again, Borg RG '78 stands tall.

Just for fun, here is Sampras' resume when he set the slam record by only losing serve twice.

Sampras - W '97. Lost 3 sets (all tiebreakers). Lost 88 games. Broken 2 times. 5 tiebreakers. 0 bagels.
Rosewall was 36 at the 71 AO, In which he beat great grass court players Ashe and Emerson. How old was Borg in 80?
 

Goof

Professional
Wow, didn't realize Nadal '17 was more dominant than Nadal '08 at RG. In my mind, it's the other way around.

'08 seemed more dominant overall simply because of the extreme dominance in the final, losing only 4 games total.
 
Top