The Most Difficult Grand Slam Title Runs of the Open Era

[NonP]

So you mugs were somehow better than useless this past Labor Day weekend, giving moi this idea of looking into an overlooked part of tennis history.

Since the title is self-explanatory let's dive into the numbers. Some of you already know about Tennis28's reverse GW% leaderboard (scroll to the bottom), but that hasn't been updated since the '14 AO so let's unveil the current top (bottom?) 30 plus two, TBs included:

1. 2001 WIM - Ivanišević, 53.51% (160/299)
2. 1975 AO* - Newcombe, 55.56% (145/261)
3. 1969 AO - Laver, 55.97% (136/243)
4. 2000 USO - Safin, 56.04% (153/273)
5. 1994 AO - Sampras, 56.13% (142/253)
6. 1988 WIM - Edberg, 56.36% (155/275)
7. 2014 AO - Wawrinka, 56.44% (127/225)
8. 1985 WIM - Becker, 56.85% (166/292)
9. 1992 USO - Edberg, 56.99% (163/286)
10. 1974 AO* - Connors, 57.08% (125/219)
11. 1991 AO - Becker, 57.09% (149/261)
12. 1985 AO* - Edberg, 57.14% (140/245)
13. 1991 WIM - Stich, 57.20% (155/271)
14. 1999 RG - Agassi, 57.20% (151/264)
15. 1973 USO - Newcombe, 57.41% (155/270)
16. 2002 AO - T. Johansson, 57.58% (152/264)
17. 2002 USO - Sampras, 57.63% (151/262)
18. 1980 AO* - Teacher, 57.71% (131/227)
19. 2014 WIM - Djokovic, 57.97% (160/276)
20. 2016 USO - Wawrinka, 58.01% (163/281)
21. 2022 USO - Alcaraz, 58.18% (160/275)
22. 1979 AO* - Vilas, 58.22% (124/213)
23. 1998 WIM - Sampras, 58.23% (145/249)
24. 2004 RG - Gaudio, 58.24% (152/261)
25. 2009 WIM - Federer, 58.24% (159/273)
26. 2017 AO - Federer, 58.27% (155/266)
27 (tie). 1999/2005 AO - Kafelnikov and Safin (yup, both Russians), 58.30% (151/259)
29. 1984 AO* - Wilander, 58.37% (129/221)
30 (tie). 1992 WIM and 2009 RG - Agassi and Federer, 58.43% (156/267)
32. 1977 WIM - Borg, 58.48% (162/277)

*The 1979/80 AOs were majors in name only and the 1974/75/84/85 editions arguably don't deserve full Slam status, but for the sake of completeness.

Wanted to fit all sub-58.5% runs in there, hence the admittedly forced inclusion of Borg's '77 Wimbledon, though you could say that with the '79/80 AOs removed I did get the real(-ish) OE top 30.

And here are the rest under 59% plus one to round out the top 40:

33. 1973 WIM* - Kodeš, 58.70% (162/276)
34. 1968 USO - Ashe, 58.70% (145/247)
35. 1981 AO* - Kriek, 58.72% (128/218)
36 (tie). 1982 RG and 1993/2000 WIM - Wilander and Sampras (yes, he won win the same exact % both times), 58.8%** (147/250)
39. 1976 RG - Panatta, 58.82% (150/255)
40. 1996 USO - Sampras, 59.06% (150/254)

*The same caveat applies to the de facto status of '73 Wimby and the '81 AO.
**As you might have gathered from my past efforts I omit unnecessary decimal points if the division amounts to an exact number.

There you have it. Now before I proceed... notice the curious absence of a certain ATG from the list (unless you count arguable cases like Courier, Murray, Hewitt and Rafter, though Muzz barely escaped with 59.52% for the '12 USO). How can anyone possibly win more than 20 majors without struggling like these studs even once? Looks like we've uncovered who the real vulture is!

(FYI for statheads: UTS includes TBs in its GW%s up to '90 but omits them from '91 on when the ATP began keeping match stats including the TB scores, with a few exceptions like Becker's '91 AO QF vs. Forget whose 7-2 score for the 2nd-set TB is somehow missing from the ATP database. So that TB is part of Boris' tournament GW% on UTS while his other breakers in 3R/4R/SF are not.)

More to follow.

 

[NonP]

After perusing the GW%s some of you might argue it's the sets that matter rather than the games, and it's a fair point, but I say we should consider both. Case in point: as @BorgTheGOAT and @King_olaf_the_hairy noted next door Borg lost an OE-record (shared with Becker at '85 Wimby and Kuerten at '97 RG) 8 sets in his maiden title run at '74 RG, but if you take a closer look even in his 5-set 4R/QF/F vs. van Dillen/Ramirez/Orantes the 18-year-old won his sets in pretty convincing fashion. So he averaged "only" an overall 61.74% (142/230) of GW that fortnight - subpar by his Nadalian standards, for sure, but still well above the 60% benchmark. So can this really be said to be among the least dominant runs? (I should add here that '74 RG is another early OE Slam that may be downgraded slightly due to an incomplete draw.)

Or take Pistol's '97 AO where he was pushed to 5 sets by Hrbaty the GOAT killer and the crafty A. Costa in 4R/QF but otherwise breezed through the draw to end up with a dominant 63.79% (148/232) of GW, not far below Courier's and Fraud's career-best outings (65.20% and 65.24% in '93/04). Seems kinda absurd to group this with the above runs based on those two matches alone, especially considering his demolition jobs on Muster and Moya in the SF/F.

So let's strike a happy medium and look at some of the OE title runs that meet these two criteria: 1) at least two 5-setters and 2) reasonably close to 60% of GW for the tournament. Here they are (yeah most of 'em originate from that other thread, but this time with revisions), with # of sets lost and, if unlisted earlier, GW% in parentheses:

1973 WIM (6 SL) - Yes, 'twas the year of the ATP boycott. Included for completeness as Kodes' QF/SF vs. Amritraj and Roger Taylor went to 5 sets.

1973 USO (5) - This is the most bookend-y run I've come across, Newk eking out a 5-set W in 1R/F vs. Marcelo Lara (I know) and Kodes but largely breezing through the rest of the draw including pre-'74 Jimbo in the QF.

1974 RG (8, 61.74% or 142/230) - See above.

1975 AO (7) - Newcombe had no business being pushed to the limit by Rolf Gehring and fellow Aussie Geoff Masters in 2R/4R, but the 3rd 5-setter vs. Roche in the SF was an understandably hard-fought battle and he capped it off by dispatching the defending champ Connors in 4 sets.

1977 WIM (6) - Ice-Borg's SF vs. Vitas is justly considered one of the greatest matches, the F vs. Jimbo not far behind. But you might not know that he had yet another 5-setter vs. Mark Edmondson in 2R.

1985 WIM (8) - Boris' famous coming-out party as a 17-year-old - unsurpassed to this day at SW19 and bested only by Chang at '89 RG - was expectedly bumpy with 5-set 3R/4R vs. Nystrom and Mayotte, and even his 4-set QF/SF/F vs. Leconte, Jarryd and red-hot Curren were closer than they look (h/t @buscemi and Moose). One of the clutchest runs ever... let alone by a teenager!

1985 AO (5) - Edberg had to fend off Masur and Lendl in 5-set 4R/SF, but he had a bye into 2R and the AO field wasn't quite 100% yet. Far from his toughest test (see below).

1989 RG (7, 60.54% or 158/261) - Perhaps the most celebrated of all gutsy runs at any major, and I was surprised that this doesn't even make the OE top 40 in GW%. But that's because this inspired 17-year-old Chang needed a 5th set only against Lendl and Edberg in the storied 4R/F, though he narrowly avoided it vs. Agenor and Chesnokov in the QF/SF (h/t Moose, again).

1992 WIM (6) - Dre in his surprise run would make his supremacy over Boris complete with his 5-set W in the QF and successfully counter Goran's barrage of aces for the grand finale, at worst one of the most sensational serve-return exhibitions in tennis history.

1992 USO (7) - Yes, this is Stefan's legendary run where he had to survive three consecutive 5-set marathons vs. Krajicek, Lendl and Chang in 4R/QF/SF followed by a hardly gimme F vs. pre-Pistoling Pete. Very possibly the roughest road to a Slam title ever.

1996 USO (5) - Every tennis maven is intimately familiar with the Sampras-Corretja QF where Pete uncorked the biggest of all 2nd-serve aces to save his season and ultimately his legacy. The other 5-setter vs. Jiri Novak in 2R is more surprising, but then Pistol gave up only one more set to bomb-throwing Goran in the SF to defend his USO title.

1997 RG (8, 59.77% or 159/266) - Unsurprisingly Kuerten's maiden run as the 2nd-lowest ranked Slam champ ever was a slog, with a murderers' row of opponents including Muster, A. Medvedev and defending champ Kafelnikov in 3R/4R/QF which all went the distance and a resurgent Bruguera in the F.

1999 RG (7) - Dre needed 5 sets to outlast Clement and a rejuvenated AMed in 2R/F, but the rest were relatively straightforward affairs.

2000 RG (6, 59.45% or 151/254) - Yev proved a nasty thorn in Guga's side once again, and in the same round to boot - every one of their five meetings at RG, Flushing and the '00 Olympics came in the QF, if you can believe it - and Mosquito also pushed him to 5 in the SF. But I'm sure Gustavo wasn't complaining about dropping only 6 sets this time around.

2000 USO (6) - Marat did struggle early, going a full 5 sets vs. Pozzi and Grosjean in 2R/3R, but as you'd gather from that spectacular beatdown on Pistol he did raise his game later on.

2001 WIM (7) - Everyone knows about Goran's nail-biters vs. Henman and Rafter. Before the SF/F, though, the wild card was in commanding form with some of the most sensational serving you'll ever see.

2004 RG (7) - Yes, this is the one with Coria's notorious chokejob in the F, and Gaudio also needed 5 sets to fend off Canas and Jiri Novak in 1R/2R. At the same time he broke serve a possibly OE-record (confirmed at least since '91) 62 times.

2009 RG (6) - Y'all know about that FH in 4R vs. Haas which secured Fed's TMFhood, and the SF vs. Delpo was an even better contest with Fraud emerging victorious in another nerve-racking 5 sets. His pinpoint serving against Soderling in the F didn't hurt, either.

2014 WIM (6) - Rather surprisingly this is Djoker's most difficult run, with the 5-set QF/F vs. Cilic and Fraud and tight sets throughout. Perhaps Boris had yet to work his full magic?

2017 AO (7) - Fraud's toughest and sweetest W, with grueling 5-setters vs. Kei, Stan and, of course, his one-trick nemesis in 4R/SF/F.

2021 RG (6, 62.25% or 155/249) - Strictly speaking Djoker did play two 5-setters vs. Musetti and Tsits in 4R/F, but the last 3 sets of both matches were lopsided in his favor. Even Bull in the SF couldn't keep up his intensity for long.

2022 AO (6, 59.84% or 149/249) - The so-called asterisk Open with its greatest champ out, and Bull's 5-set struggles against Shapo and Med in the QF/F seem to support that view... except he was never really pushed for the rest of the fortnight.

2022 USO (7) - Y'all already know about Carlitos' 5-set 4R/QF/SF vs. Cilic, Sinner and Tiafoe, but since his first three rounds were straight-setters his GW% is a tad higher than you'd expect.

So what's the gutsiest run in GS history? (Let's go easy on puns re: that Corretja match.) My money is still on Edberg's '92 USO, just ahead of Becker's '85 Wimby and Kuerten's '97 RG even considering their one extra SL and age/inexperience at the time. I mean it just doesn't get harder than Krajicek, Lendl, Chang and Sampras in the last rounds of the most physically demanding major, and as Moose (yes, once again) correctly noted some of Stefan's stats from that streak are just staggering. The whole run may rank "only" 9th in GW% but we know better.

That's enough for now. FYI the above list of difficult Slam runs is by no means exhaustive, so y'all are invited to add your own discoveries. (The focus is on OE runs, hence the exclusion of Ted Schroeder's '49 Wimby, but you're welcome to go back as far as you want.) Hell, even fan wars are welcome as long as y'all keep 'em deletion-free! Let's grow these lists in the days and years to come!

 

[Lleytonstation]

 

[Beerus]

NonP exposing Nadal.

 

[Mediterranean Might]

This is a flawed metric, but I suppose it depends what you’re trying to measure.

The metric, whether it’s games or sets, punishes a player who is able to crush lesser opponents. It’s why a player like Goran is at the top of the first post - a servebot who plays a ton of tiebreaks.

Your method as outlined lets us know how much the eventual winner struggled en-route. If we’re looking to normalize for a winner with exceptional form, then something like avg or median seeds beaten or a more nuanced metric like opponent win percentage on the respective surface would work better

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

 

[Debraj]

If we include pre-open era in discussion,then i think cochet in1927 Wimbledon deserves a honourable mention (please ignore any grammatical mistake)

 

[The Blond Blur]

When you’re too dominant you don’t get pushed to 5 setters

 

[NonP]

This is a flawed metric, but I suppose it depends what you’re trying to measure.

The metric, whether it’s games or sets, punishes a player who is able to crush lesser opponents. It’s why a player like Goran is at the top of the first post - a servebot who plays a ton of tiebreaks.

Your method as outlined lets us know how much the eventual winner struggled en-route. If we’re looking to normalize for a winner with exceptional form, then something like avg or median seeds beaten or a more nuanced metric like opponent win percentage on the respective surface would work better

Nobody but a blockhead thinks one metric explains everything, LOL.

But that's almost 50 Slams or nearly a quarter of all title runs since '68. You'll be hard-pressed to find many more examples of eventual champs having to navigate a comparable draw even if you try.

If we include pre-open era in discussion,then i think cochet in1927 Wimbledon deserves a honourable mention (please ignore any grammatical mistake)

Good call:

1927 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

7 SLs so falls just short of the all-time record. Too bad Lacoste couldn't complete his 0-2 comeback in the SF vs fellow Musketeer Borotra, cuz that was his best chance to go a perfect 3-0 at the majors (as you know most top players skipped the Australian at the time).

When you’re too dominant you don’t get pushed to 5 setters

In other words... the real vulture!

 

[The Blond Blur]

In other words... the real vulture!

I mean he just has the OE record for most schlems Juan without dropping a single set. Moi’s boi is just too stronk

 

[The_Order]

Ahh... so the difficulty of the slam is determined by how crap you are...

 

[RaulRamirez]

Ahh... so the difficulty of the slam is determined by how crap you are...

To me, I don't know how telling these numbers are.
The numbers are, well, the numbers, and then we can analyze if there's any importance to them.
Did, say, Ivanisevic '01 have the toughest path or did he make it appear that way by having a somewhat limited game?
Did his closer margins of victory (per this stat, anyway) indicate a tough draw, his clutch play or other factors?
I applaud the work involved in crunching these numbers, and some of those runs bring back some memories (although my memory isn't that detailed, in most cases) -- that's good enough for me.

 

[Third Serve]

I mean he just has the OE record for most schlems Juan without dropping a single set. Moi’s boi is just too stronk

that’d be “mon”

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Lol.

 

[NonP]

To me, I don't know how telling these numbers are.
The numbers are, well, the numbers, and then we can analyze if there's any importance to them.
Did, say, Ivanisevic '01 have the toughest path or did he make it appear that way by having a somewhat limited game?
Did his closer margins of victory (per this stat, anyway) indicate a tough draw, his clutch play or other factors?
I applaud the work involved in crunching these numbers, and some of those runs bring back some memories (although my memory isn't that detailed, in most cases) -- that's good enough for me.

Goran was ranked 125th at the time, well past his prime. Hence his wild card. Literally nobody saw that run coming (and if anyone tells you otherwise, they're, uh, lying).

What changed was his outlook. He'd just received his diagnosis on that shoulder and knew he'd have to go under the knife soon, so he threw caution to the wind cuz he knew this was it. He probably even didn't serve as well as he did in '92/94/95 and certainly didn't return as well, but that extra motivation proved to be the difference. Put another way, his younger selves would put up better numbers... and likely fall short of the last hurdle in Rafter.

And the work isn't complete. If you think of any other bumpy run in the OE or even before, do share!

that’d be “mon”

Nah brah, it's always "moi." No need to get highfalutin!

 

[Debraj]

Another one from pre-oe,rod laver for 1962 french open,first round was a bye though.

 

[ChrisRF]

The metric, whether it’s games or sets, punishes a player who is able to crush lesser opponents. It’s why a player like Goran is at the top of the first post - a servebot who plays a ton of tiebreaks.

Why punishes? I mean, certainly it's good to be at the other end of the charts here, but that should be obvious from the beginning.

 

[Backspin1183]

That's some great work, man.
But I need a summary of the OP.

 

[NonP]

Another one from pre-oe,rod laver for 1962 french open,first round was a bye though.

Damn how could've I forgotten that one?

1962 French Championships – Men's singles - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So we've now got 5 runs with 8 sets dropped. Surely there must be more?

That's some great work, man.
But I need a summary of the OP.

Bull = the real vulture

 

[ibbi]

Did his closer margins of victory (per this stat, anyway) indicate a tough draw, his clutch play or other factors?

They indicate he was playing on a quick surface where breaks of serve are a rarity, hence why one end of the list is dominated by Roland Garros/Har-Tru US Open winners, and one end by guys playing on grass. The exceptions to that are the really interesting ones to look at.

 

[Backspin1183]

Bull = the real vulture

Which bull?

 

[NonP]

They indicate he was playing on a quick surface where breaks of serve are a rarity, hence why one end of the list is dominated by Roland Garros/Har-Tru US Open winners, and one end by guys playing on grass. The exceptions to that are the really interesting ones to look at.

All other things equal, the slower the surface the easier it is indeed to dominate due to its higher margin for error and vice versa. That's why most of the top 20 GW% leaders are RG champs (off the top of my head Bull's '17 and '20 runs now stand in the top 10):

Game W/L% - Slam Tournament

Of course that doesn't necessarily apply to elite fast-courters like Pistol, Fraud and Mac. For the average player, though? Clay is the right pick if his aim is to maximize GW%.

Which bull?

Touché.

 

[Underdog]

Interesting metric, yet a flawed one. Do you think Rafael vultured RG ‘08 having to go past Verdasco, Almagro, Djokovic and Federer? Yet, since he played unbelievably, he goes down as having had an easy tourney. That would apply to multiple French Open wins.
Edit: Take a hard look at RG ‘13. What a vulture. Coming from injury and beating Fognini, Nishikori, Wawrinka, Djokovic and Ferrer. Lucky Bull.

 

[DSH]

Interesting metric, yet a flawed one. Do you think Rafael vultured RG ‘08 having to go past Verdasco, Almagro, Djokovic and Federer? Yet, since he played unbelievably, he goes down as having had an easy tourney. That would apply to multiple French Open wins.
Edit: Take a hard look at RG ‘13. What a vulture. Coming from injury and beating Fognini, Nishikori, Wawrinka, Djokovic and Ferrer. Lucky Bull.

'LuckyDal'; indeed.

 

[abmk]

Top 3 actually toughest ones are (not necessarily in order)

Kuerten RG 97 - Muster, med, kafel, bruguera

Wilander RG 82 - Lendl, Clerc, Higueras, Vilas

Edberg USO 92 - Krajicek, Lendl, Chang, Sampras

 

[abmk]

Toughest semi+final in chronological order

Borg - Gerulaitis+Connors in Wim 77
Mac - Connors+Borg in USO 80
Safin - Federer+Hewitt in AO 05
Nadal - Dasco+Fed in AO 09
Djokovic - Murray+Nadal in AO 12

 

[aman92]

Djokovic USO 2023 is set to be the toughest

 

[Unseeded Player]

Djokovic USO 2023 is set to be the toughest

Like US17?

 

[Bubcay]

When you’re too dominant you don’t get pushed to 5 setters

Is that Fritz???

 

[canta_Brian]

Never have I seen so much work done to completely misinterpret some stats.

 

[DSH]

Like US17?

Peak Anderson would not drop sets to Djere.

 

[El_Yotamo]

I'm a young researcher, so I make a living off of constructing models and analyzing data. In every model, certain assumptions have to be made and later on accounted for, otherwise the results can be quite nonsensical. In short, researchers, and especially researchers in my field of research have to be very sharp and critical of the assumptions corresponding to any given model, because otherwise the whole thing just falls apart and becomes meaningless.

That being said, I believe the premise here is indeed very flawed, as the assumptions involved in constructing the model do not account for the real physical picture here. Let's also establish that unlike in the world of physics, we don't have a direct model here but in essence all we have are stats - numbers which we can interpret given a more, eh, let's call it qualitative approach.

While you would expect a tougher draw to yield a lower GW%/SW%/what have you, one would at least equally expect the quality of the player in question to play a role in determining this stat. Therefore, the assumption invoked here is at least that to some quantifiable extent all the GS champs played on a more or less equal level. However, this assumption cannot be proven in any way and in fact is most likely counterintuitive to most people. Therefore, unless there is solid "experimental" proof of this it doesn't hold up. Furthermore, as was mentioned in one of the subsequent posts in this thread the GW% will often depend on the surface, since typically two players with the same "gap" in level between them will engender different "gaps" in the GW% because it's usually easier to hold serve on faster surfaces and so on. Clearly, this is not really accounted for here, nor is there really a reasonable way to account for it here by solely analyzing GW%/SW%.

In fact, at the risk of seeming like I'm engaging in reductio ad absurdum, let's change around our assumptions a little bit and see how quickly and easily our conclusions can get out of hand to a quite nonsensical (and obviously biased) end. Instead of assuming that the player in question is of a similar level at all slams, let's assume that it is the average level of the opponents faced which is not changing, i.e. the average level of the seven opponents is more or less equal across the board. Under this assumption, which is equally as unjustified as the original (no more no less mind you, at least IMO), we would conclude that our list entails the weakest level slam champs, which would clearly paint a very different picture to that of the OP. In fact, we could take an extra step by relaxing our initial assumption outside of some time frame and say that if these guys had such low levels in winning their slams in this time frame, they must have been gifted easier draws overall to be able to win multiple majors outside of these. After all, the numbers support the conclusion, right? Well, only if our assumption is the unjustified one I've introduced here.

To (almost) conclude, one needs to think clearly about their biases and assumptions before jumping to conclusions based on "stats", which can just as often be a random array of numbers when theoretical modelling and context are missing. I have seen the OP make a great number of these kinds of threads and often did not read very deeply into them much less reply (mainly because I don't have that much time on my hands typically), however having read through this I can pretty confidently say that this is the case here.

I know that tennis is often a numbers game, and it can be tempting to look at everything through a solely numerical lens, but without the right context numbers are meaningless. That's why every single time I am presented numerical data I make sure that the information I take from it is strictly within the context of a proper and justified model, and never rush to conclusions because we are all biased. That's just a part of being human. I'm not sure I'll have the time for further replies going forward, but in a world where misinformation so often masquerades as truth "by numbers", I feel the need to help whenever I am in a position to. Cheers guys.

 

[Unseeded Player]

Peak Anderson would not drop sets to Djere.

But he would lose against Edmund

 

[darthrafa]

Djokovic USO 2023 is set to be the toughest

Djokovic USO 2023 is set to be the toughest not to win

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Top 3 actually toughest ones are (not necessarily in order)

Kuerten RG 97 - Muster, med, kafel, bruguera

Wilander RG 82 - Lendl, Clerc, Higueras, Vilas

Edberg USO 92 - Krajicek, Lendl, Chang, Sampras

On paper Mac’s 1980 USO also looks great beating Lendl, Connors and Borg in succession. His earlier rounds were not tough though and for Lendl it was his first quarter at a slam.

 

[nolefam_2024]

When you’re too dominant you don’t get pushed to 5 setters

Oh no but then what will happen to those Epic Nadal moments @MichaelNadal

 

[RaulRamirez]

I'm a young researcher, so I make a living off of constructing models and analyzing data. In every model, certain assumptions have to be made and later on accounted for, otherwise the results can be quite nonsensical. In short, researchers, and especially researchers in my field of research have to be very sharp and critical of the assumptions corresponding to any given model, because otherwise the whole thing just falls apart and becomes meaningless.

That being said, I believe the premise here is indeed very flawed, as the assumptions involved in constructing the model do not account for the real physical picture here. Let's also establish that unlike in the world of physics, we don't have a direct model here but in essence all we have are stats - numbers which we can interpret given a more, eh, let's call it qualitative approach.

While you would expect a tougher draw to yield a lower GW%/SW%/what have you, one would at least equally expect the quality of the player in question to play a role in determining this stat. Therefore, the assumption invoked here is at least that to some quantifiable extent all the GS champs played on a more or less equal level. However, this assumption cannot be proven in any way and in fact is most likely counterintuitive to most people. Therefore, unless there is solid "experimental" proof of this it doesn't hold up. Furthermore, as was mentioned in one of the subsequent posts in this thread the GW% will often depend on the surface, since typically two players with the same "gap" in level between them will engender different "gaps" in the GW% because it's usually easier to hold serve on faster surfaces and so on. Clearly, this is not really accounted for here, nor is there really a reasonable way to account for it here by solely analyzing GW%/SW%.

In fact, at the risk of seeming like I'm engaging in reductio ad absurdum, let's change around our assumptions a little bit and see how quickly and easily our conclusions can get out of hand to a quite nonsensical (and obviously biased) end. Instead of assuming that the player in question is of a similar level at all slams, let's assume that it is the average level of the opponents faced which is changing, i.e. the average level of the seven opponents is more or less equal across the board. Under this assumption, which is equally as unjustified as the original (no more no less mind you, at least IMO), we would conclude that our list entails the weakest level slam champs, which would clearly paint a very different picture to that of the OP. In fact, we could take an extra step by relaxing our initial assumption outside of some time frame and say that if these guys had such low levels in winning their slams in this time frame, they must have been gifted easier draws overall to be able to win multiple majors outside of these. After all, the numbers support the conclusion, right? Well, only if our assumption is the unjustified one I've introduced here.

To (almost) conclude, one needs to think clearly about their biases and assumptions before jumping to conclusions based on "stats", which can just as often be a random array of numbers when theoretical modelling and context are missing. I have seen the OP make a great number of these kinds of threads and often did not read very deeply into them much less reply (mainly because I don't have that much time on my hands typically), however having read through this I can pretty confidently say that this is the case here.

I know that tennis is often a numbers game, and it can be tempting to look at everything through a solely numerical lens, but without the right context numbers are meaningless. That's why every single time I am presented numerical data I make sure that the information I take from it is strictly within the context of a proper and justified model, and never rush to conclusions because we are all biased. That's just a part of being human. I'm not sure I'll have the time for further replies going forward, but in a world where misinformation so often masquerades as truth "by numbers", I feel the need to help whenever I am in a position to. Cheers guys.

I agree with you, and still applaud NonP's effort in compiling these numbers.
"Most Difficult Slam Title Runs" seems to be the sticking point for some, as it (again) seems to connote "best" or "toughest", or possibly, "worst".
I just take the numbers for what they are - at face value -- it's a table from lowest GW% in a slam title run to (if complete) highest.
We can - with certain assumptions and biases - decide if it tells us anything further. It's good data.

Questions such as: Did Player A have the toughest draw on paper? Did he have the toughest draw in actuality? Did he make it look tougher by not being as dominant? There are lots of variables, as for example, I'm guessing that Rafa would not have minded seeing Verdasco as his AO09 semifinal opponent, but he was pushed into playing one of his best-ever HC matches just to get to the final.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Oh no but then what will happen to those Epic Nadal moments @MichaelNadal

They will live forever

 

[nolefam_2024]

They will live forever

Because your guy isn't good to beat in 3/4 sets ?

 

[abmk]

On paper Mac’s 1980 USO also looks great beating Lendl, Connors and Borg in succession. His earlier rounds were not tough though and for Lendl it was his first quarter at a slam.

yeah, Mac 80 USO is definitely in the top 10, maybe even top 5.
I had put this as well above.

Toughest semi+final in chronological order

Borg - Gerulaitis+Connors in Wim 77
Mac - Connors+Borg in USO 80
Safin - Federer+Hewitt in AO 05
Nadal - Dasco+Fed in AO 09
Djokovic - Murray+Nadal in AO 12

 

[aldeayeah]

I don't think game winning % over a whole GS run is a particularly valuable metric for level, because of the weight it gives to mostly irrelevant early rounds.

 

[NatF]

I guess we could say these were the most difficult runs relative to the winners own level but nothing more than that.

 

[El_Yotamo]

I agree with you, and still applaud NonP's effort in compiling these numbers.
"Most Difficult Slam Title Runs" seems to be the sticking point for some, as it (again) seems to connote "best" or "toughest", or possibly, "worst".
I just take the numbers for what they are - at face value -- it's a table from lowest GW% in a slam title run to (if complete) highest.
We can - with certain assumptions and biases - decide if it tells us anything further. It's good data.

Questions such as: Did Player A have the toughest draw on paper? Did he have the toughest draw in actuality? Did he make it look tougher by not being as dominant? There are lots of variables, as for example, I'm guessing that Rafa would not have minded seeing Verdasco as his AO09 semifinal opponent, but he was pushed into playing one of his best-ever HC matches just to get to the final.

I have no problem with this, however it is typically considered unscientific to publish results with a conclusion derived from unjust assumptions. In fact manuscripts attempting to do this are most often rejected as one might expect. I would not have said a thing nor had any problem if the data was posted as is and the thread title (and focus) changed.

 

[SonnyT]

2022 Alcaraz didn't beat nobody, who has done anything: Sinner, Tiafoe

Where was 2011 USO?

 

[NonP]

Interesting metric, yet a flawed one. Do you think Rafael vultured RG ‘08 having to go past Verdasco, Almagro, Djokovic and Federer? Yet, since he played unbelievably, he goes down as having had an easy tourney. That would apply to multiple French Open wins.
Edit: Take a hard look at RG ‘13. What a vulture. Coming from injury and beating Fognini, Nishikori, Wawrinka, Djokovic and Ferrer. Lucky Bull.

You VB/Fedal cheerleaders are taking that tongue-in-cheek aside way too seriously, LOL.

But it's telling that you highlight Bull's '13 RG cuz that happens to be his toughest run on his turf with 60.905% of GW, just a fraction higher than 60.909% at '06 RG. In other words you're just making my point for moi.

While you would expect a tougher draw to yield a lower GW%/SW%/what have you, one would at least equally expect the quality of the player in question to play a role in determining this stat. Therefore, the assumption invoked here is at least that to some quantifiable extent all the GS champs played on a more or less equal level. However, this assumption cannot be proven in any way and in fact is most likely counterintuitive to most people. Therefore, unless there is solid "experimental" proof of this it doesn't hold up. Furthermore, as was mentioned in one of the subsequent posts in this thread the GW% will often depend on the surface, since typically two players with the same "gap" in level between them will engender different "gaps" in the GW% because it's usually easier to hold serve on faster surfaces and so on. Clearly, this is not really accounted for here, nor is there really a reasonable way to account for it here by solely analyzing GW%/SW%.

I appreciate your thorough reply but you're drawing the wrong assumption. Nowhere did I make the kind of sweeping conclusion some of you are attributing to me, and when I singled out Becker's '85 Wimbledon, Edberg's '92 USO and Kuerten's '97 RG as the gutsiest runs I made clear that I was considering level of opposition and age/experience in addition to form.

Speaking of which:

Top 3 actually toughest ones are (not necessarily in order)

Kuerten RG 97 - Muster, med, kafel, bruguera

Wilander RG 82 - Lendl, Clerc, Higueras, Vilas

Edberg USO 92 - Krajicek, Lendl, Chang, Sampras

Again my exact word was "gutsiest." If we're talking the toughest overall Mats' '82 RG is indeed a worthy choice.

I'm actually not so sure about Guga's maiden run, though. Muster (yes, due to his flattened shots) and Bruguera weren't quite their former dominant selves, and while Yev and AMed were tough matchups for Guga I suspect his fellow 3-timers (or Sergi and Jim, for that matter) would've dealt with 'em better. I still gave '97 Kuerten a shout-out due to, again, his low ranking and inexperience at the time.

Toughest semi+final in chronological order

Borg - Gerulaitis+Connors in Wim 77
Mac - Connors+Borg in USO 80
Safin - Federer+Hewitt in AO 05
Nadal - Dasco+Fed in AO 09
Djokovic - Murray+Nadal in AO 12

I'd throw in Goran and Boris for Pistol at '95 Wimby.

On paper Mac’s 1980 USO also looks great beating Lendl, Connors and Borg in succession. His earlier rounds were not tough though and for Lendl it was his first quarter at a slam.

Missed this big one. Yeah not quite the toughest, but probably top 10.

I don't think game winning % over a whole GS run is a particularly valuable metric for level, because of the weight it gives to mostly irrelevant early rounds.

This is fair enough but... Bull = the real vulture!

Seriously y'all have been spoiled by this Big 3 era with 32 seeds. In the 20th century it was hardly unusual for top dogs to face dangerous floaters early on.

2022 Alcaraz didn't beat nobody, who has done anything: Sinner, Tiafoe

Where was 2011 USO?

That no-serve Nadal would've been destroyed by any strong USO champ past or present, and indeed by Djoker himself if not for his own serving woes. Not even remotely the toughest run of Novak's career, let alone all time.

 

[Underdog]

You VB/Fedal cheerleaders are taking that tongue-in-cheek aside way too seriously, LOL.

But it's telling that you highlight Bull's '13 RG cuz that happens to be his toughest run on his turf with 60.905% of GW, just a fraction higher than 60.909% at '06 RG. In other words you're just making my point for moi.

Not really, mate. RG ‘13 maybe score high because of that semifinal, which, sure, being against an ATG makes perfect sense in this analysis, but my point is that the rest of the field is also strong but didn’t offer much resistance because, well, it’s RG

 

[NonP]

An addendum and a minor correction:

I'd throw in Goran and Boris for Pistol at '95 Wimby.

Mailman and Punisher at the '95 USO were tougher at least on paper, though Goran and Boris probably posed bigger challenges at SW19.

Also shoulda said Bull's GW% at '13 RG is a fraction lower than his '06 one, but y'all got the gist of it.

Now a quickie:

Not really, mate. RG ‘13 maybe score high because of that semifinal, which, sure, being against an ATG makes perfect sense in this analysis, but my point is that the rest of the field is also strong but didn’t offer much resistance because, well, it’s RG

Well, but he dropped a set each to Brands and Klizan which is arguably even worse. By his lofty standards Bull was nowhere near peak throughout the '13 clay season, and it showed in both seasonal and Slam GW%s.

 

[NeutralFan]

Like US17?

Like FO 2023, Wimbledon 2021,2022 , AO2021 ,USO2018, uSo 2023 and 90% of his draws in last 4years?

 

[fedfan24]

Like FO 2023, Wimbledon 2021,2022 , AO2021 ,USO2018, uSo 2023 and 90% of his draws in last 4years.

yikes those are bad. add in AO23 and RG23 too. tommy paul, mental midget, no bh, no return tsitsipas, cramping alcaraz (freebie win after 1-1 in sets) then ruud

edit you already had 2023rg. that was criminally weak, and fed 05/06/07/11, djokovic 11/12/13 levels come away empty handed compared to this vulturing

 

[Underdog]

Also shoulda said Bull's GW% at '13 RG is a fraction lower than his '06 one, but y'all got the gist of it.

Now a quickie:


Well, but he dropped a set each to Brands and Klizan which is arguably even worse. By his lofty standards Bull was nowhere near peak throughout the '13 clay season, and it showed in both seasonal and Slam GW%s.

That resonates with what people said about it being as much a metric of how bad a player was as it is of how hard the draw was. Nadal has played good enough to straight set all of those guys, but, as you said, his ‘13 clay season was not his particular best.