Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Winning percentages - Open era - Talk Tennis
Career percentages in the open era (rounded to the first decimal).
I am including the current top 4 players, and it is understood that their percentages can still change significantly before they retire.
The numbers are calculated from the career win-loss totals at the ATP site.
Borg 608-127 (82.7%)
Nadal 384-84 (82.0%)
Lendl 1071-239 (81.6%)
Connors 1241-277 (81.6%)
McEnroe 875-198 (81.5%)
Federer: 664-156 (81.0%)
Sampras 762-222 (77.4%)
Becker 713-214 (76.9%)
Vilas 923-284 (76.5%)
Agassi 870-274 (76.0%)
Roddick 505-160 (75.9%)
Ashe 640-206 (75.6%)
Edberg 806-270 (74.9%)
Hewitt 514-177 (74.4%)
Murray 208-73 (74.0%
Djokovic 238-84 (73.9%)
Nastase 755-289 (72.3%)
Wilander 571-222 (72.0%)
From a longevity perspective (career length) the most impressive numbers in this category so far seem to be Connors, Lendl and McEnroe, especially Connors considering how long he played.
All three have almost identical winning percentages.
(It is likely that Lendl and McEnroe's numbers might improve slightly if many seemingly valid tournaments not recognized by the ATP were included.)
As far as peak years, I know that the top one is McEnroe’s 1984 with 96+ percent, followed very closely by one of Federer’s years (can't remember which).
I know for certain that, Borg, Lendl, McEnroe and Federer have surpassed the 90% mark at least once.
Lendl did it 5 times, Federer 3 times.
I am not sure how many times Borg did it, but it must have been at least 2 or 3.
McEnroe did it once.
For comparison and perspective, I think Sampras' most dominant year was about 87%.
And as good and dominant a year as Nadal had in 2008, he was just short of 90%, so it is a very hard mark to reach.
By the time you are in the 80%+ range, each additional percentage point increase becomes so much more difficult to get than the previous one.
I may be missing some names whose percentages are higher than the lowest ones on the list above, but I can’t think of them, so everyone is welcome to add additional information to this particular topic.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Boris Becker 76.9% (weird- tenniscorner.net works out to 76.2% and has something like a 50-match discrepancy with the ATP site)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Roddick: 76.1%
Lleyton Hewitt: 74.7%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, as far as i know, McEnroe was no.1 for peak years.
Astonishing 82-3 back in '84: (96.5%)
Federer was 81-4 in 2005: (95.3% )
and 92-5 in 2006: (94.8%)
Also 74-6 in 2004 74-6: (92.5%)
and had a ridiculous 314-24 (92.9%) for 4 years 2004-2007
(He's running at a mere 87% so far this year)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Wizard of id and akv89.
I knew I probably was missing some important names.
I've corrected the list, adding the players you mentioned (I don't get the exact same percentages as you for Hewitt and Roddick - I've used the win-loss figures from the ATP site for the entire list)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : of id Yes, as far as i know, McEnroe was no.1 for peak years.
Astonishing 82-3 back in '84: (96.5%)
Federer was 81-4 in 2005: (95.3% )
and 92-5 in 2006: (94.8%)
Also 74-6 in 2004 74-6: (92.5%)
and had a ridiculous 314-24 (92.9%) for 4 years 2004-2007
(He's running at a mere 87% so far this year) Interesting.
I have Borg at 314-26 (92.4%) between the years 1977-1980, inclusive.
Pretty close.
I counted the jan 1981 masters as a 1980 event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: :
Borg 608-127 (82.7%)
Nadal 384-84 (82.0%)
Lendl 1071-239 (81.6%)
Connors 1241-277 (81.6%)
McEnroe 875-198 (81.5%)
Federer: 664-156 (81.0%)
Sampras 762-222 (77.4%)
Becker 713-214 (76.9%)
Vilas 923-284 (76.5%)
Agassi 870-274 (76.0%)
Roddick 505-160 (75.9)
Edberg 806-270 (74.9%)
Hewitt 514-177 (74.4)
Murray 208-73 (74.0%
Djokovic 238-84 (73.9%)
Nastase 755-289 (72.3%)
Wilander 571-222 (72.0%) Interestingly Rod Laver, in the open part of the career sits just below Federer with his win-loss record.
For the open era (I don't look at the ATP because they are missing many tournaments during 1968-70), I have Laver win-loss for the period at 581-153 for 79.15%.
Considering this included the end of his long career it shows how good a player he was even though he was past his peak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Interesting.
I have Borg at 314-26 (92.4%) between the years 1977-1980, inclusive.
Pretty close.
I counted the jan 1981 masters as a 1980 event.
Federer's and Borg's are the best averages for 4 consecutive years.
I have Lend's best 4 years at 92.5% (this is for the years 82, 85, 86 and 89).
The average for his best 5 years (the above plus 1987) is 92.1%.
This I based on averaging the percentages from a previously posted calculation of all his >90% years, which came out as follows:
1982: 92.2%
1985: 93.4%
1986: 92.5%
1987: 90.3%
1989: 92.0%
Borg, Lendl and Federer seem to be in a different plane when it comes to dominance in multiple years.
Connors career percentage never ceases to amaze me, for someone who played until the age of 40 or so.
I have never calculated the percentages for Connors' best years, but maybe they are almost as impressive.
Interesting also that the top career percentages are in the late 70s and 80s, from players of equal or overlapping generations.
Also, note that there is a very large gap between the Borg-Lendl-Connors-McEnroe-Federer group, and the next player on the list, Sampras.
And the gap shows both in career percentages and in peak years, where it is even wider (7 percentage points is absolutely huge in that range, and I think Sampras average for his best 4 years must be about 85%).
This is one of the main reasons I sometimes think that Borg has, all things considered, a better record than Sampras.
It's a matter of whether the very large discrepancy in their level of dominance can be considered enough to override the 3 slam difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Interestingly Rod Laver, in the open part of the career sits just below Federer with his win-loss record.
For the open era (I don't look at the ATP because they are missing many tournaments during 1968-70), I have Laver win-loss for the period at 581-153 for 79.15%.
Considering this included the end of his long career it shows how good a player he was even though he was past his peak.
Actually Lavers perecentage comes out a bit higher than that using the ATPs match record on him: 413-107 (79.4%)
Of course this is a meaningless figure because it excludes his best years, which is why I didn't include him in the list for the open era.
But as you say, it is still revealing in that it shows an amazingly high percentage for someone already in his 30s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it interesting how much of a difference there is in career win % in majors & career win % overall for some of these players.
Connors, Lendl, & Mac played basically at the same high level whatever the event.
While Borg, Sampras, & Fed raised their level considerably more at majors(esp Sampras - minus matches at majors, his career win % is below that of Agassi & Becker!
Talk about just playing for the 'big ones' )
Grand Slam Win %
Borg 141-17 89.2%
Fed 182-26 87.5%
Nadal 90-15 85.7%
Sampras 203-38 84.2%
Connors 233-49 82.6%
Lendl 222-49 81.9%
Mac 167-38 81.5%
If you take away all matches played in majors:
Lendl 849-190 81.7%
Mac 708-160 81.6%
Connors 838-190 81.5%
Borg 467-110 81%
Nadal 294-69 81%
Fed 482-130 78.8%
Sampras 559-184 75%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federer's percentage is skewed due to his many flawed, green years prior to 2003, but it seems nonetheless true that he does up the ante in the majors.
Especially now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many of the percentages for Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Laver and others in the Open Era are very off because of the awful record keeping.
The winning percentages may very well be higher.
I've seen figures for Borg in the mid-80's in percentage for example.
Quote: : Federer's and Borg's are the best averages for 4 consecutive years.
I have Lend's best 4 years at 92.5% (this is for the years 82, 85, 86 and 89).
The average for his best 5 years (the above plus 1987) is 92.1%.
This I based on averaging the percentages from a previously posted calculation of all his >90% years, which came out as follows:
1982: 92.2%
1985: 93.4%
1986: 92.5%
1987: 90.3%
1989: 92.0%
Borg, Lendl and Federer seem to be in a different plane when it comes to dominance in multiple years.
Connors career percentage never ceases to amaze me, for someone who played until the age of 40 or so.
I have never calculated the percentages for Connors' best years, but maybe they are almost as impressive.
Interesting also that the top career percentages are in the late 70s and 80s, from players of equal or overlapping generations.
Also, note that there is a very large gap between the Borg-Lendl-Connors-McEnroe-Federer group, and the next player on the list, Sampras.
And the gap shows both in career percentages and in peak years, where it is even wider (7 percentage points is absolutely huge in that range, and I think Sampras average for his best 4 years must be about 85%).
This is one of the main reasons I sometimes think that Borg has, all things considered, a better record than Sampras.
It's a matter of whether the very large discrepancy in their level of dominance can be considered enough to override the 3 slam difference.
As far as Connors was concerned.
I think one of the reasons for his very high winning percentage was that his strokes were so solid and pure that he rarely was subject to bad streaks like some of the players on this list.
Connors was almost never upset by lesser players and usually played deep into the tournaments.
Connors was arguably the best pure hitter of the ball ever.
You almost never saw him mishit the ball like so many other players.
According to the ATP and I suppose this is what they have for the Open Era, Ken Rosewall was 445-153 for a winning percentage of 74.41%.
This is astounding since Open Tennis didn't start until Rosewall was 34 in 1968 and he played until the late 1970's.
They missed a lot of Rosewall matches there, clearly most of them were played before the Open Era.
Arthur Ashe, according to the ATP was 640-206 for a winning percentage of 75.65%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Thanks Wizard of id and akv89.
I knew I probably was missing some important names.
I've corrected the list, adding the players you mentioned (I don't get the exact same percentages as you for Hewitt and Roddick - I've used the win-loss figures from the ATP site for the entire list) I know numbers are numbers, but with Borg return in the 90s his percentage go down a bit.
And that Borg was not THE BORG, you know what I talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe BTURNER made a similar thread...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, he did it: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=192004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : of id Yes, as far as i know, McEnroe was no.1 for peak years.
Astonishing 82-3 back in '84: (96.5%)
Federer was 81-4 in 2005: (95.3% )
and 92-5 in 2006: (94.8%)
Also 74-6 in 2004 74-6: (92.5%)
and had a ridiculous 314-24 (92.9%) for 4 years 2004-2007
(He's running at a mere 87% so far this year) Federer's impressive high percentage years and most dominating title years correspond to the years that his main rival, Nadal, was not yet dominant or hurt.
The same could be said for McEnroe and Lendl, but they each also competed with many other multi-slam winners during those periods of dominance.
We need some more multi-slam winner to now compete with Federer and Nadal.
Looks like Roddick, Djokovich, Murray may get a few more in the coming years and this is why Federer and Nadal should not really be evaluated until after completion of thier respective careers.
This should also be the rule to any type of GOAT discussion but its almost impossible to stop this kind of speculation about the future based on the current playing stat's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : sch Federer's impressive high percentage years and most dominating title years correspond to the years that his main rival, Nadal, was not yet dominant or hurt.
The same could be said for McEnroe and Lendl, but they each also competed with many other multi-slam winners during those periods of dominance.
Same could be said of Sampras and Agassi too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|