What Elo stats don't tell us: Why has Djokovic failed to win a slam without dropping a set?

[Nadalfan2013]

His fans pretend that he has the highest peak and that he is the "best" of all time yet he has NEVER managed, not even once, to win a slam without dropping a set along the way.

He never played invincible tennis in our four biggest tournaments, not even at the AO and not even in 2011, 2015, 2021, in order to dominate his opponents in a slam. They always had a chance and were able to give him competition by winning sets.

Meanwhile Nadal at his best was able to win a slam without dropping a set, an incredible 4 times. Now THAT is high peak and incredible level, when he is ON then his opponents have zero chance. Borg also did it 3 times and Federer 2 times.

Discuss.

 

[El Dude]

As always, you pick things that make Nadal look good and Novak look bad (or, at least, worse). It is called "cherry-picking."

This stat is way down the list, in terms of quantifying greatness. It is an impressive feat, but so too is acing someone with your second serve, and I don't see you bringing that into the topic.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

As always, you pick things that make Nadal look good and Novak look bad (or, at least, worse). It is called "cherry-picking."

This stat is way down the list, in terms of quantifying greatness. It is an impressive feat, but so too is acing someone with your second serve, and I don't see you bringing that into the topic.

Tons of articles have been written about this huge accomplishment and the list of players who did it also figures in all tennis record related websites. It shows dominance and high peak. Your example of acing on a second serve is absolutely ridiculous.

Top 5 : They have won a Grand Slam without losing a single set | We Are Tennis

After 2008 et 2010, Rafael Nadal has won a third Roland-Garros without losing a single set. But this performance in a Grand Slam tournament, as crazy as it may sound, had already been achieved by four other players.

wearetennis.bnpparibas

Rafael Nadal is the only male player to win 4 Grand Slams without dropping a set

Rafael Nadal is the male player with the most Grand Slams in tennis history so far. The Spaniard won his 21st Major earlier this year at the 2022 Australian Open.

www.sportskeeda.com

5 players who won Australian Open without losing a set - EssentiallySports

Players at the Australian Open who had an extraordinary run lifting the trophy without dropping a single set.

www.essentiallysports.com

5 men who won Wimbledon without dropping a set

Wimbledon is fast approaching, with a stage being readied at the most iconic of Grand Slam events. Here we take a look at 5 men who won Wimbledon without dropping a set.

www.chaseyoursport.com

Players Who Won A Grand Slam Without Dropping A Set In This Decade

The players to win a Grand Slam title during the decade 2010 to 2019 without dropping a set.

www.sportskeeda.com

Tennis: Top five players to win Grand Slam without dropping a set

Here’s a list below of the players who’ve won Tennis Grand Slams without dropping a set. Only two men have done it three times in the recent past.

khelnow.com

 

[Nadalfan2013]

@Fiero425

 

[Fiero425]

@Fiero425

The desperation's still there I see! Like it's such an accomplishment, you figure it'll cancel out how much Novak has owned this era! Try again!

 

[Moxie]

As always, you pick things that make Nadal look good and Novak look bad (or, at least, worse). It is called "cherry-picking."

This stat is way down the list, in terms of quantifying greatness. It is an impressive feat, but so too is acing someone with your second serve, and I don't see you bringing that into the topic.

Still, I didn't know he hadn't, so it's surprising, if nothing else. There's been much talk of how Novak dominated a decade, and lots of other ways that the word gets thrown around, so I think it's worth noting, given the constant comparisons of the Big 3. Surely, it's a pretty big sign of "dominance," especially given Bo5 at the Majors. I know Roger did it at least twice, on two surfaces. I'd say it's fair to point it out. It's not that obscure a statistic. Surely, I knew about Nadal and Federer, as they were great achievements, noted at the time. I just thought Roger had done it twice at Wimbledon, but can't seem to clarify that. But he definitely did it once at the AO and once at Wimbledon. (And, no, I didn't look at those links from the OP...let HIM tell me. )

 

[Nadalfan2013]

The desperation's still there I see! Like it's such an accomplishment, you figure it'll cancel out how much Novak has owned this era! Try again!

Yes, he has owned his era with his dismal 7-11 h2h record in slams against his biggest rival and of course with his Bronze medal. And who could also forget his endless pushing? He certainly owns that department too.

 

[El Dude]

Still, I didn't know he hadn't, so it's surprising, if nothing else. There's been much talk of how Novak dominated a decade, and lots of other ways that the word gets thrown around, so I think it's worth noting, given the constant comparisons of the Big 3. Surely, it's a pretty big sign of "dominance," especially given Bo5 at the Majors. I know Roger did it at least twice, on two surfaces. I'd say it's fair to point it out. It's not that obscure a statistic. Surely, I knew about Nadal and Federer, as they were great achievements, noted at the time. I just thought Roger had done it twice at Wimbledon, but can't seem to clarify that. But he definitely did it once at the AO and once at Wimbledon. (And, no, I didn't look at those links from the OP...let HIM tell me. )

I don't know why you defend your village idiot, except that he's your village's idiot ;-). I mean, it is one thing to say "This is an impressive feat" -- which it is -- quite another to use in an endless (and I'd say rather insecure..."the lady doth protest too much") attack on Novak, which is what this silly person is doing. If they were saying "this was a cool accomplishment" I would agree with them, but using it as fodder to try to convince everyone that Novak is lesser than Rafa is simply imbecilic and shouldn't be defended.

But I should probably heed Twain's advice: "Never argue with a fool, for onlookers might not be able to tell the difference." (in case it isn't clear, I'm not talking about you, Moxie)

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I don't know why you defend your village idiot, except that he's your village's idiot ;-). I mean, it is one thing to say "This is an impressive feat" -- which it is -- quite another to use in an endless (and I'd say rather insecure..."the lady doth protest too much") attack on Novak, which is what this silly person is doing. If they were saying "this was a cool accomplishment" I would agree with them, but using it as fodder to try to convince everyone that Novak is lesser than Rafa is simply imbecilic and shouldn't be defended.

But I should probably heed Twain's advice: "Never argue with a fool, for onlookers might not be able to tell the difference." (in case it isn't clear, I'm not talking about you, Moxie)

This has nothing to do with greatest of all time or accomplishments and it has everything to do with best of all time and highest level. For you to stand there with a straight face and deny that winning a slam in straight sets is a huge accomplishment and that it shows that a champion rolled through the competition without anyone being able to test them, is a new low from any fan base. The fact that Djokovic couldn't do it in the biggest tournaments of our sport, not even once (not at the AO, not in 2011, 2015, 2021, not anywhere or anytime), shows that his opponents always have a chance and can compete with him or push him. He is not the "unplayable" man that some of his fans claim him to be.

Did you also know that Nadal and Federer have all been able to win 6-0 sets against Djokovic while he hasn't be able to do the same to them? Again, another example that has nothing to do with whether he is successful or not, but that when it comes to high level and being the "best" of all time there are many arguments against him. Maybe if you'd obsess a little less about the "Elo" stuff and accept that Djokovic is not your boyfriend and that he has flaws then you might actually become more open about different kind of discussions and be able to expand your knowledge.

 

[Moxie]

I don't know why you defend your village idiot, except that he's your village's idiot ;-). I mean, it is one thing to say "This is an impressive feat" -- which it is -- quite another to use in an endless (and I'd say rather insecure..."the lady doth protest too much") attack on Novak, which is what this silly person is doing. If they were saying "this was a cool accomplishment" I would agree with them, but using it as fodder to try to convince everyone that Novak is lesser than Rafa is simply imbecilic and shouldn't be defended.

But I should probably heed Twain's advice: "Never argue with a fool, for onlookers might not be able to tell the difference." (in case it isn't clear, I'm not talking about you, Moxie)

I have rarely responded to this poster, or acknowledged them. I get that he's a troll. All I said, (and expecting push-back,) was that it was interesting. Something I did not know, and I commented. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I knew I'd catch shit from somebody, but it's still more interesting that a random factoid, or fan-drool. If someone else had said it, would you have taken it more on board? Does it matter more than the Channel Slam, for example? (Also recently mentioned.) My point was that winning a Slam without dropping a set speaks to a kind of dominance, especially in men's tennis, (being Bo5). And I hear a lot about "dominance" in terms of weeks at #1, etc. So, I thought it was worth discussing.

 

[Jelenafan]

Hold on a second here. Nadalfan2013 brought up an interesting stat, you may not agree with how relevant and indicative that stat is regarding dominance, but he didn't pluck it out of thin air.

And if we are going to name names, and label Nadalfan13 a troll, well when I first got on this board so called respectable posters routinely called Nadal names like "C*ntadal" or in spanish "Pendenjo" "Cabron" which in English translates to A***hole, etc. Not naming names, but those posters such as Darthfeder would not only do that, but also disrupt any live discussion of Nadal matches by constantly berating him during those matches so that Nadal fans had a hard time even live discussing the matches here. But because those posters had buddies here, used code words to denigrate and insult, they could get away with IMO genuinely TROLL behavior just because.

So sorry if I think Nadalfan2013 is a fan who is enthusiastic, but like 99.99% of the posters here , I may not agree with everything he posts, but let's get serious as to some of the genuine trolls we've had in this discussion forum.

Sorry but I hate double standards.

 

[nehmeth]

This achievement of 4 French Opens without dropping a set highlights Ralfs utter dominance on clay, as do his multiple titles at RG, Rome, Monte Carlo, Barcelona. I doubt there will ever be another player to reach such heights.

Rafael Nadal is the only male player to win 4 Grand Slams without dropping a set

Rafael Nadal is the male player with the most Grand Slams in tennis history so far. The Spaniard won his 21st Major earlier this year at the 2022 Australian Open.

www.sportskeeda.com

 

[Kieran]

As always, you pick things that make Nadal look good and Novak look bad (or, at least, worse). It is called "cherry-picking."

This stat is way down the list, in terms of quantifying greatness. It is an impressive feat, but so too is acing someone with your second serve, and I don't see you bringing that into the topic.

Well we don’t really measure greatness in second serve stats but this is an impressive feat by Rafa, made all the more impressive when we see how he hammered the FO field - including both Roger and Novak - in 2008 then dropped only 3 sets in Wimbledon, that year too.

In his two channel slams, he dropped only 8 sets across 28 matches. That’s an extraordinarily high bar…

 

[nehmeth]

Well we don’t really measure greatness in second serve stats but this is an impressive feat by Rafa, made all the more impressive when we see how he hammered the FO field - including both Roger and Novak - in 2008 then dropped only 3 sets in Wimbledon, that year too.

In his two channel slams, he dropped only 8 sets across 28 matches. That’s an extraordinarily high bar…

Yep. And he didn‘t need to lose the two sets to Roger in the 08 final, but there were a lot of nerves on both sides of the court that day.

 

[El Dude]

This has nothing to do with greatest of all time or accomplishments and it has everything to do with best of all time and highest level. For you to stand there with a straight face and deny that winning a slam in straight sets is a huge accomplishment and that it shows that a champion rolled through the competition without anyone being able to test them, is a new low from any fan base. The fact that Djokovic couldn't do it in the biggest tournaments of our sport, not even once (not at the AO, not in 2011, 2015, 2021, not anywhere or anytime), shows that his opponents always have a chance and can compete with him or push him. He is not the "unplayable" man that some of his fans claim him to be.

I don't deny that it is impressive at all. I was commenting on your endless highly biased attempt to prove that Rafa is better than everyone else, which as I said above, seems rather insecure. You find things that support your Rafa worship and ignore things that don't.

And I have often said that Rafa on clay is the highest peak. But not overall, on all surfaces. Rafa on clay is the best player I've ever seen. But overall, across all surfaces? Novak's peak was higher - he was more consistent across all surfaces. Both Roger and Novak were better on hards and grass than Rafa, but Rafa was better on clay than either were on grass or hards.

Did you also know that Nadal and Federer have all been able to win 6-0 sets against Djokovic while he hasn't be able to do the same to them? Again, another example that has nothing to do with whether he is successful or not, but that when it comes to high level and being the "best" of all time there are many arguments against him. Maybe if you'd obsess a little less about the "Elo" stuff and accept that Djokovic is not your boyfriend and that he has flaws then you might actually become more open about different kind of discussions and be able to expand your knowledge.

You do realize that I don't have a horse in this race (Novak vs. Rafa)? I like both players, but my guy among the Big Three is Roger. As I've said before, I think all three have different, unique flavors of greatness and are the three greatest players of the Open Era (along with Laver, if we include his pre-Open career). I do think that Novak has a slight edge overall, though, as the "first among near-equals."

 

[El Dude]

Well we don’t really measure greatness in second serve stats but this is an impressive feat by Rafa, made all the more impressive when we see how he hammered the FO field - including both Roger and Novak - in 2008 then dropped only 3 sets in Wimbledon, that year too.

In his two channel slams, he dropped only 8 sets across 28 matches. That’s an extraordinarily high bar…

That was not my point, at all (re: second serve stats). My point was how a certain poster cherry-picks, yet ignores or downgrades everything that doesn't suit their ridiculous quest to prop Rafa up as better than Novak.

There are lots of ways to frame greatness, or to find stats or accomplishments that highlight it. My point was that if we care at all about tennis history beyond our adoration of a particular player, we should be willing to look through a variety of lenses, not just those that highlight our particular favorite's greatness.

 

[Kieran]

That was not my point, at all (re: second serve stats). My point was how a certain poster cherry-picks, yet ignores or downgrades everything that doesn't suit their ridiculous quest to prop Rafa up as better than Novak.

There are lots of ways to frame greatness, or to find stats or accomplishments that highlight it. My point was that if we care at all about tennis history beyond our adoration of a particular player, we should be willing to look through a variety of lenses, not just those that highlight our particular favorite's greatness.

Of course, but it is a stat worth a mention, especially in the modern game…

 

[El Dude]

Of course, but it is a stat worth a mention, especially in the modern game…

I didn't say it wasn't! But again, the thread wasn't simply about how impressive that stat was - most of the original post was using it as yet another attempt to diminish Novak's greatness.

 

[Kieran]

I didn't say it wasn't! But again, the thread wasn't simply about how impressive that stat was - most of the original post was using it as yet another attempt to diminish Novak's greatness.

Well we all have our favourite stats, but actually this one is among the most impressive in tennis history but we never hear of it. It is a stat that’s in Rafa’s favour in terms of his rivals, especially looking at the two channel slams and how dominant he was those summers…

 

[El Dude]

Well we all have our favourite stats, but actually this one is among the most impressive in tennis history but we never hear of it. It is a stat that’s in Rafa’s favour in terms of his rivals, especially looking at the two channel slams and how dominant he was those summers…

AGAIN, my problem isn't about the stat. And you know I use and like a range of stats (not just those that support Roger!)

Are you deliberately being obtuse?