PDA

View Full Version : Federer and Nadal's Career Winning Percentage

McEnroeisanartist
03-16-2012, 06:10 AM
At the moment, Federer's career record is 825-188. Nadal's career record is 553-118. What do you think is more likely: Federer reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses? Or Nadal reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses.

Federer would have to go at least 75-12 (86.2%).
Nadal would have to go at least 347-82 (80.9%).

03-16-2012, 06:15 AM
Nadal will probably focus on clay more than ever as he gets older, and cruise to 81%.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-16-2012, 06:22 AM
Nadal will never get close to playing 900 matches. He will retire way before that.

joeri888
03-16-2012, 06:25 AM
Don't think Federer can do it. Don't think Nadal will ever reach 900 matches.

813wilson
03-16-2012, 06:46 AM
Neither of these things will happen - as written/asked.

Federer: will reach 900 wins. But he will also have more than 200 losses. In order for him to reach the +900 w <200 his winning percentage needs to go up 5% points. He is + or - 75 wins from 900. Two more seasons(from today) with 38 wins a piece gets him there. But he only needs to lose 12 more times in those same two years; that is why, as stated, he won't get there.

Nadal: He'll play 900 matches, but that isn't what was asked. He would need the same winning percentage as he currently has - more or less. But, he's been a pro for 11+ years and played 671 matches. He's only 61% of the way to the total of 1100 matches. If we agree he may retire a bit early due to the wear and tear/style of play, Nadal would need to play 5 more years(from today makes him 30) at a rate of 85+ matches per year. That is a huge increase he won't accomplish....

merlinpinpin
03-16-2012, 07:15 AM
Neither of these things will happen - as written/asked.

Federer: will reach 900 wins. But he will also have more than 200 losses. In order for him to reach the +900 w <200 his winning percentage needs to go up 5% points. He is + or - 75 wins from 900. Two more seasons(from today) with 38 wins a piece gets him there. But he only needs to lose 12 more times in those same two years; that is why, as stated, he won't get there.

Nadal: He'll play 900 matches, but that isn't what was asked. He would need the same winning percentage as he currently has - more or less. But, he's been a pro for 11+ years and played 671 matches. He's only 61% of the way to the total of 1100 matches. If we agree he may retire a bit early due to the wear and tear/style of play, Nadal would need to play 5 more years(from today makes him 30) at a rate of 85+ matches per year. That is a huge increase he won't accomplish....

Good, detailed answer. You get my vote. ;)

sbengte
03-16-2012, 07:34 AM
At the moment, Federer's career record is 825-188. Nadal's career record is 553-118. What do you think is more likely: Federer reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses? Or Nadal reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses.

Federer would have to go at least 75-12 (86.2%).
Nadal would have to go at least 347-82 (80.9%).

Do you also have similar data for wins against the top 10 ?

celoft
03-16-2012, 07:50 AM
Nadal will never get close to playing 900 matches. He will retire way before that.

This...............................

TMF
03-16-2012, 09:06 AM
At the moment, Federer's career record is 825-188. Nadal's career record is 553-118. What do you think is more likely: Federer reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses? Or Nadal reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses.

Federer would have to go at least 75-12 (86.2%).
Nadal would have to go at least 347-82 (80.9%).

Nadal is 5 years younger. Wait until he reach 30 and his winning % should dip.

monfed
03-16-2012, 09:12 AM
Nadal has been winning slams since 2005. This is his 8th year and he's still not showing any signs of slowing down. I mean unless they speed up the courts or something really drastic happens, can we really rely on Djokovic to take him out every time? Only Ferrer's beaten him in a slam apart from Djokovic recently in which Nadal was clearly injured.

Tennis players still haven't quite dealt with the topspin assault, this is why its unpredictable to say how much he'll win. Without a career threatening injury, is Nadal just gonna go completely AWOL? I somehow find that hard to believe.

03-16-2012, 10:50 AM
The ATP tour outside of Djokovic says, 'Nadal is tougher to stop than ever before'. Nadal's winning% will reach a career-high once he starts increasing his 16-14 h2h lead over Djokovic.

Crisstti
03-16-2012, 11:06 AM
Godd, detailed answer. You get my vote. ;)

Gets my vote too :)

agentaviles
03-16-2012, 11:14 AM
The ATP tour outside of Djokovic says, 'Nadal is tougher to stop than ever before'. Nadal's winning% will reach a career-high once he starts increasing his 16-14 h2h lead over Djokovic.

Once he starts increasing his h2h? When do you expect this to happen? He hasn't lost 7 consecutive times to Djokovic by accident.

But I don't think either one of these events will happen. Federer will definitely get to 900 wins but he'll be a little over 200 losses.

03-16-2012, 11:25 AM
Once he starts increasing his h2h? When do you expect this to happen? He hasn't lost 7 consecutive times to Djokovic by accident.

Just keep talkin pal, just keep talkin.
http://www.filmsite.org/fotos/rocky3_8.jpg

agentaviles
03-16-2012, 12:00 PM
Hahaha! It's good to see Apollo Creed again.

But you know it's true. Nadal won't be increasing that "lead" anytime soon.

03-16-2012, 12:02 PM
Hahaha! It's good to see Apollo Creed again.

But you know it's true. Nadal won't be increasing that "lead" anytime soon.

Just keep talkin pal, just keep talkin..
http://www.filmsite.org/fotos/rocky3_8.jpg

Tennis_Hands
03-16-2012, 12:18 PM
Hahaha! It's good to see Apollo Creed again.

But you know it's true. Nadal won't be increasing that "lead" anytime soon.

This is unrealistic expectation. Nadal WILL win some matches against Djokovic this year (actually, I believe in IW or at some of the clay Masters/RG). That doesn't mean, that he will be cruising against everybody else all the time, or Djokovic will let him do whatever he pleases at the Majors. It is not like he was crushed at their previous meetings. Many of their matches were highly competitive and a win or two is bound to happen at some point. Not, that nadalwonwhateverhedreamsof has any basis for his "predictions", other than his tardism, but it will happen nonetheless.

03-16-2012, 12:30 PM
This is unrealistic expectation. Nadal WILL win some matches against Djokovic this year (actually, I believe in IW or at some of the clay Masters/RG). That doesn't mean, that he will be cruising against everybody else all the time, or Djokovic will let him do whatever he pleases at the Majors. It is not like he was crushed at their previous meetings. Many of their matches were highly competitive and a win or two is bound to happen at some point. Not, that nadalwonwhateverhedreamsof has any basis for his "predictions", other than his tardism, but it will happen nonetheless.

Tardism? How old are you, 6?

agentaviles
03-17-2012, 03:39 PM
This is unrealistic expectation. Nadal WILL win some matches against Djokovic this year (actually, I believe in IW or at some of the clay Masters/RG). That doesn't mean, that he will be cruising against everybody else all the time, or Djokovic will let him do whatever he pleases at the Majors. It is not like he was crushed at their previous meetings. Many of their matches were highly competitive and a win or two is bound to happen at some point. Not, that nadalwonwhateverhedreamsof has any basis for his "predictions", other than his tardism, but it will happen nonetheless.

Well, I didn't mean to imply that Djokovic will beat Nadal EVERY TIME they play from here on out. As you said, Nadal is bound to win one sooner or later. However, being that Djokovic will win the vast majority of their matches Nadal will not even have a career lead against him pretty soon.

Tennis_Hands
03-17-2012, 03:51 PM
Well, I didn't mean to imply that Djokovic will beat Nadal EVERY TIME they play from here on out. As you said, Nadal is bound to win one sooner or later. However, being that Djokovic will win the vast majority of their matches Nadal will not even have a career lead against him pretty soon.

Maybe I misunderstood you, in which case I apologize. When you said "will not be increasing that "lead" any time soon", I automatically thought of the scenario, where Nadal wins their next encounter (which I thought was a very probable scenario, should they have met in the IW final), in which case he would have been increasing his lead in the h2h. I did not realize, that you are speaking longterm.

In any case, it is still a bold prediction, since Djokovic has to put another extended period of dominance over Nadal (8 months to 1 year) to turn it around completely.

03-17-2012, 03:56 PM
Well, I didn't mean to imply that Djokovic will beat Nadal EVERY TIME they play from here on out. As you said, Nadal is bound to win one sooner or later. However, being that Djokovic will win the vast majority of their matches Nadal will not even have a career lead against him pretty soon.

You don't seem to understand that streaks occur in a h2h. Nadal beat Djok 5 straight times. Djok beat Nadal 7 straight times. Its just the way sport goes. Don't be surprised if Nadal wins their next 6 meetings.

Towser83
03-17-2012, 04:07 PM
You don't seem to understand that streaks occur in a h2h. Nadal beat Djok 5 straight times. Djok beat Nadal 7 straight times. Its just the way sport goes. Don't be surprised if Nadal wins their next 6 meetings.

4 out of those 5 matches Nadal won were on clay where nadal obviously had an advanatge and he still should have lost Madrid 2009, the one hc win was where Nole won more games and choked in the final set. By contrast 3 of the 7 matches Djokovic has won in a row have been clay/grass where Nadal has the advantage, 4 on HC where Nole has the advantage, so a pretty even spread.

Nadal has never owned Novak on HC, where as recently Djokovic has owned him on all surfaces. Big difference.

03-17-2012, 04:14 PM
4 out of those 5 matches Nadal won were on clay where nadal obviously had an advanatge and he still should have lost Madrid 2009, the one hc win was where Nole won more games and choked in the final set. By contrast 3 of the 7 matches Djokovic has won in a row have been clay/grass where Nadal has the advantage, 4 on HC where Nole has the advantage, so a pretty even spread.

Nadal has never owned Novak on HC, where as recently Djokovic has owned him on all surfaces. Big difference.

Djok owned Nadal on clay in straight sets twice (Rome/Madrid) last year more than hardcourt. Based on that, it would mean more for Nadal to own Djok on clay than on hardcourt. Djok never beat Nadal in straight sets on hard/grass last year. Matchups are never as simple as which surface is a player's best. Either way you look at it, it wouldn't surprise anyone logical if Nadal won their next 6 meetings, be it on clay, grass, hardcourt (but based on last year, clay is the toughest place for Nadal to beat Djok).

agentaviles
03-19-2012, 09:21 AM
Maybe I misunderstood you, in which case I apologize. When you said "will not be increasing that "lead" any time soon", I automatically thought of the scenario, where Nadal wins their next encounter (which I thought was a very probable scenario, should they have met in the IW final), in which case he would have been increasing his lead in the h2h. I did not realize, that you are speaking longterm.

In any case, it is still a bold prediction, since Djokovic has to put another extended period of dominance over Nadal (8 months to 1 year) to turn it around completely.

Well I believe that Nadal holds a 2 win edge in their career H2H, so Djokovic only has to beat him 3 more times to gain the edge. It will be difficult for sure, but I wouldn't bet against it.

agentaviles
03-19-2012, 09:23 AM
You don't seem to understand that streaks occur in a h2h. Nadal beat Djok 5 straight times. Djok beat Nadal 7 straight times. Its just the way sport goes. Don't be surprised if Nadal wins their next 6 meetings.

I very much understand that streaks occur in H2H matchups. However, Nadal beat Djokovic 5 straight times before he became Djokovic 2.0, I don't anyone can refute that. Since Djokovic became the best player in the world last year, he hasn't lost to Nadal, he's really a different player now.

agentaviles
03-19-2012, 09:26 AM
Djok owned Nadal on clay in straight sets twice (Rome/Madrid) last year more than hardcourt. Based on that, it would mean more for Nadal to own Djok on clay than on hardcourt. Djok never beat Nadal in straight sets on hard/grass last year. Matchups are never as simple as which surface is a player's best. Either way you look at it, it wouldn't surprise anyone logical if Nadal won their next 6 meetings, be it on clay, grass, hardcourt (but based on last year, clay is the toughest place for Nadal to beat Djok).

Are you listening to yourself? It wouldn't surprise anyone if Nadal beat Djokovic the next 6 meetings?!? Honestly, it would surprise me if Djokovic beat Nadal the next 6 times, simply because he's won the last 7 (3 of them being Slam Finals). According to the law of averages, Nadal is due for a win, but I can't see him beating Djoker multiple times in a row.

03-19-2012, 09:27 AM
I very much understand that streaks occur in H2H matchups. However, Nadal beat Djokovic 5 straight times before he became Djokovic 2.0, I don't anyone can refute that. Since Djokovic became the best player in the world last year, he hasn't lost to Nadal, he's really a different player now.

If Djokovic 2.0 is the guy that took 6 hours to beat Nadal in the AO final, and the guy that lost in the Dubai and Indian Wells semis, I like Nadal's chances.

agentaviles
03-19-2012, 09:58 AM
If Djokovic 2.0 is the guy that took 6 hours to beat Nadal in the AO final, and the guy that lost in the Dubai and Indian Wells semis, I like Nadal's chances.

You like Nadal's chances, even though he hasn't won a single tournament since Roland Garros? You go ahead and take those chances...

03-19-2012, 10:02 AM
You like Nadal's chances, even though he hasn't won a single tournament since Roland Garros? You go ahead and take those chances...

Of course, he's about to begin the clay season where he won all 3 of his titles last year, and always has a huge chance, because its very hard to beat him before the finals. He has plenty of shots at titles. And before that, Miami, and that is the event where he lost in a 3rd set tie-breaker to Djokovic last year.

agentaviles
03-19-2012, 10:09 AM
Of course, he's about to begin the clay season where he won all 3 of his titles last year, and always has a huge chance, because its very hard to beat him before the finals. He has plenty of shots at titles. And before that, Miami, and that is the event where he lost in a 3rd set tie-breaker to Djokovic last year.

Let's look at those 3 titles:

Monte Carlo: Federer went out early and Djokovic didn't even play the event.

Barcelona: Nadal is the only top 4 player that plays that event, so it's basically a free W for him.

Roland Garros: He played Federer in the finals, who he obviously has an edge over.

Yet, both times he played Djokovic on clay last year he lost in straight sets.

TMF
03-19-2012, 10:11 AM
You don't seem to understand that streaks occur in a h2h. Nadal beat Djok 5 straight times. Djok beat Nadal 7 straight times. Its just the way sport goes. Don't be surprised if Nadal wins their next 6 meetings.

I would be surprised because the only way it's going to happen is Nole decline and Nadal improved. Unlikely scenario.

03-19-2012, 10:14 AM
Let's look at those 3 titles:

Monte Carlo: Federer went out early and Djokovic didn't even play the event.

Barcelona: Nadal is the only top 4 player that plays that event, so it's basically a free W for him.

Roland Garros: He played Federer in the finals, who he obviously has an edge over.

Yet, both times he played Djokovic on clay last year he lost in straight sets.

So surprises there, Nadal never looked good last year on clay. He said after Roland Garros that he felt nervous during the clay season because he was focused on equaling Borg's record of 6 Roland Garros titles. I hope going for 7 isn't as stressful for him. Either way, clearly Djokovic 2.0 isn't as good this year, if Dubai and Indian Wells is anything to go by. Even the Australian Open, Djokovic's best slam surface, was a 6 hour marathon.

jukka1970
03-19-2012, 10:15 AM
I have no doubt that Federer will make it to 900 wins. As for being able to do it before he reaches 200 losses, I don't see that happening.

ok, so essentially he would have to get 75 wins and no more then 11 losses. He would essentially need to win 7 of every 8 games that he plays consistently. 75/11 = 6.8 which is where the 7 out of 8 comes from. This is a lot to ask for from anyone. It's not impossible, but certainly is a tall order for the Swiss to pull off. Going by the numbers and percentages says that Nadal has the better chance, however he also has to play another 342 games just to reach the possibility of 900, and that's without losing another game which is never going to happen. He'll probably need the full 414 games to pull it off, and that's a lot of playing left for Nadal.

So I give the edge to Federer for pulling it off, but being realistic I don't see either pulling it off.

Jukka

03-19-2012, 10:17 AM
I would be surprised because the only way it's going to happen is Nole decline and Nadal improved. Unlikely scenario.

So far so good.
Djokovic played better in the 2011 AO than in the 2012 AO.
And Nadal played better in the 2012 AO than in the 2011 AO.

agentaviles
03-19-2012, 10:26 AM
So surprises there, Nadal never looked good last year on clay. He said after Roland Garros that he felt nervous during the clay season because he was focused on equaling Borg's record of 6 Roland Garros titles. I hope going for 7 isn't as stressful for him. Either way, clearly Djokovic 2.0 isn't as good this year, if Dubai and Indian Wells is anything to go by. Even the Australian Open, Djokovic's best slam surface, was a 6 hour marathon.

So what if it was a 6 hour marathon? He still WON. And clay will always be Nadal's best surface, so if he doesn't dominate there that's bad for his point totals as well as his confidence.

Djokovic may not be playing as well this year as he was last year, but he doesn't have to be at his best to beat Nadal, as he proved in the AO Final ;)

03-19-2012, 10:33 AM
So what if it was a 6 hour marathon? He still WON. And clay will always be Nadal's best surface, so if he doesn't dominate there that's bad for his point totals as well as his confidence.

Djokovic may not be playing as well this year as he was last year, but he doesn't have to be at his best to beat Nadal, as he proved in the AO Final ;)

I agree, Djokovic has always been a better AO player than Nadal. He should beat him every time on that surface. That is why I was astounded by Nadal's performance.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-19-2012, 10:40 AM
I agree, Djokovic has always been a better AO player than Nadal. He should beat him every time on that surface. That is why I was astounded by Nadal's performance.

Hasn't Djokovic beaten Nadal at the AO every time?

agentaviles
03-19-2012, 10:41 AM
I agree, Djokovic has always been a better AO player than Nadal. He should beat him every time on that surface. That is why I was astounded by Nadal's performance.

I believe that was the first time that they have ever met at the AO, so it was definitely a good first performance.

cknobman
03-19-2012, 10:42 AM
Grand Slam Percentages:

Finals:
Roger: 16 - 7 = 69% win percentage
Nadal: 10 - 5 = 66% win percentage

Total match wins:
Roger: 232 - 35 = 86.9% win percentage
Nadal: 149 - 21 = 87.6% win percentage

To sum things up:

DjokovicForTheWin
03-19-2012, 10:45 AM
Grand Slam Percentages:

Finals:
Roger: 16 - 7 = 69% win percentage
Nadal: 10 - 5 = 66% win percentage

Total match wins:
Roger: 232 - 35 = 86.9% win percentage
Nadal: 149 - 21 = 87.6% win percentage

To sum things up:

?????? ISn't Nadal's 87.6 > Roger's 86.9?

cknobman
03-19-2012, 10:49 AM
?????? ISn't Nadal's 87.6 > Roger's 86.9?

You have to count the intangibles ;)

Nathaniel_Near
03-19-2012, 11:01 AM
Neither of these things will happen - as written/asked.

Federer: will reach 900 wins. But he will also have more than 200 losses. In order for him to reach the +900 w <200 his winning percentage needs to go up 5% points. He is + or - 75 wins from 900. Two more seasons(from today) with 38 wins a piece gets him there. But he only needs to lose 12 more times in those same two years; that is why, as stated, he won't get there.

Nadal: He'll play 900 matches, but that isn't what was asked. He would need the same winning percentage as he currently has - more or less. But, he's been a pro for 11+ years and played 671 matches. He's only 61% of the way to the total of 1100 matches. If we agree he may retire a bit early due to the wear and tear/style of play, Nadal would need to play 5 more years(from today makes him 30) at a rate of 85+ matches per year. That is a huge increase he won't accomplish....

Godd, detailed answer. You get my vote. ;)

I'm not following the logic.

Federer needs 86 or so percent to get to 900 wins for 200 or less losses and in his last 3 years has won 84, 83 and 84% of his matches. Therefore, it isn't out of the question. In his best years he won more than 90% of his matches. So far, his record for this year is 92%.

813wilson
03-19-2012, 12:45 PM
I'm not following the logic.

Federer needs 86 or so percent to get to 900 wins for 200 or less losses and in his last 3 years has won 84, 83 and 84% of his matches. Therefore, it isn't out of the question. In his best years he won more than 90% of his matches. So far, his record for this year is 92%.

The logic is this:

You stated that he's won 84,83,84 percent of his matches in the last three complete years. I agree with that. However, in those same years you referenced, he lost: 12 matches(2011), 13 matches(2010) and 12 matches(2009) respectively. So, if he repeats just one of those years, he goes over 200 losses.

In fact, where you reference his best years - God mode - it is only his 1st two of those years that would keep him under the 200 loss total.

I'm not discounting what he's doing - just answering the OP question. He'll get 900 wins but there is no way he stays under 200 losses.
That is all I'm saying......

As well as he is playing - do you really see him staying on a 92% winning percentage for the year?

Nathaniel_Near
03-19-2012, 12:51 PM
The logic is unsound because you assert that there is 'no way' he stays under 200 losses (200 or less) when in fact the possibility is plausible, even reasonable. The rate of his wins and losses in the first FOUR years of his dominance would suffice, not just the first two, btw.

Nathaniel_Near
03-19-2012, 12:56 PM
Facts are:

Roger needs 86-87% to wins up to 900 wins from now on to get there without incurring more than 200 losses.

Roger has won a higher percentage of matches than this in 4 calender years during his career.

Whilst he has only managed 84, 83 and 84% over the last 3 years, it isn't unreasonable to think he could give himself a shot at this meaningless statistic over the next year or so by winning 87% of his matches. It isn't a ludicrous suggestion.

The original logic was unsound and ignorant because it alluded to the fact that Roger would need to score about 5% points above his career average, which is obviously skewed by the poorer results he had when first coming onto the tour, before his prime. This is why I took issue with the logic in the first place.

I give him say a 25% chance of achieving it, rather than 0.000001%.

I think he'll probably get to 900 wins with about 202 losses. Oh, and I doubt he will keep up 92% for the rest of the year, but like I've more or less said, 86/87/88% is a possibility, especially with his blistering start.

Nathaniel_Near
03-19-2012, 01:04 PM
At the moment, Federer's career record is 825-188. Nadal's career record is 553-118. What do you think is more likely: Federer reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses? Or Nadal reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses.

Federer would have to go at least 75-12 (86.2%).
Nadal would have to go at least 347-82 (80.9%).

For Roger, he is now at 829-188 so his task has now been made easier.

He needs 71 wins - 12 losses ... = 85.5% required :twisted: (as opposed to more 86.2% +)

LOL at debating over a meaningless statistic.

813wilson
03-19-2012, 05:01 PM
^^^
My fault. You're right. You're "loling" a meaningless statistic "whilst" putting Twisted Evil markers in your mail.

a) You brought up the past three years of play. That is why I focused on the "two" combination. Don't change to four now that you want to.
b) you say that the chances are "plausible even reasonable", give him a 25% chance of doing it, then say he'll be 900 wins and 202 losses. Which is it?
c) you brought up his % in four calendar years. He only has four complete years less than 10 losses.
d) to fulfill the orginal scenario he needs to go 71 and 11. 71+11=82. 71 wins against 11 losses(max) does, in fact, equal 86.585

Lastly - please don't use the term "ignorant". The original premis was Career Winning Percentage. I was staying closer to that premis when I posted the numbers and what would need to occur.....

piece
03-19-2012, 05:32 PM
^^^
My fault. You're right. You're "loling" a meaningless statistic "whilst" putting Twisted Evil markers in your mail.

a) You brought up the past three years of play. That is why I focused on the "two" combination. Don't change to four now that you want to.
b) you say that the chances are "plausible even reasonable", give him a 25% chance of doing it, then say he'll be 900 wins and 202 losses. Which is it?
c) you brought up his % in four calendar years. He only has four complete years less than 10 losses.
d) to fulfill the orginal scenario he needs to go 71 and 11. 71+11=82. 71 wins against 11 losses(max) does, in fact, equal 86.585

Lastly - please don't use the term "ignorant". The original premis was Career Winning Percentage. I was staying closer to that premis when I posted the numbers and what would need to occur.....

It's unclear what you're getting at with point a). Point b) is completely misguided - the claims you list aren't mutually exclusive. As for point c), NN brought up these years precisely because he wished to demonstrate that Federer is clearly capable of achieving the required winning percentage as evidenced by his past performances. Point d) is mistaken - he does not need to limit his losses to 11 to follow the original scenario. See bold:

At the moment, Federer's career record is 825-188. Nadal's career record is 553-118. What do you think is more likely: Federer reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses? Or Nadal reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses.

Federer would have to go at least 75-12 (86.2%).
Nadal would have to go at least 347-82 (80.9%).

And your last point, that you're staying closer to the original premise of the OP's post by taking your cues from career winning percentage, is just a poor excuse to make use of far less than ideal information. Federer doesn't lose anywhere near as often these days as he did when he started his career. The most relevant information we have is his winning percentage over the past few years. This more recent data is far better suited to forecasting Federer's winning percentage in the (relatively) short term than his overall career winning percentage.

Nathaniel_Near
03-19-2012, 06:39 PM
Looks like piece took care of my business while I was sleeping! As for declaring your analysis as ignorant, maybe that WAS a bit harsh. I rather mean, misguided. My apologies, sir.

piece
03-19-2012, 06:50 PM
Looks like piece took care of my business while I was sleeping! As for declaring your analysis as ignorant, maybe that WAS a bit harsh. I rather mean, misguided. My apologies, sir.

Alright now you stand watch while I get some shut eye.

Nathaniel_Near
03-19-2012, 07:00 PM
Alright now you stand watch while I get some shut eye.

Heh heh. Sleep well, guardian.:twisted:

TopFH
03-19-2012, 07:28 PM
You don't seem to understand that streaks occur in a h2h. Nadal beat Djok 5 straight times. Djok beat Nadal 7 straight times. Its just the way sport goes. Don't be surprised if Nadal wins their next 6 meetings.

I would be extremely surprised if Nadal wins 2 consecutive matches against Djoker.

ZeroSkid
03-19-2012, 07:59 PM
I would be extremely surprised if Nadal wins 2 consecutive matches against Djoker.

I wouldn't at all, he almost won last time so this time he will probably win

MG1
03-19-2012, 10:40 PM
As of IW 2012

Fed needs 71-12 (85.54%)

Rafa needs 346-81 (81.03%)

DMan
03-19-2012, 10:49 PM
Neither of these things will happen - as written/asked.

Federer: will reach 900 wins. But he will also have more than 200 losses. In order for him to reach the +900 w <200 his winning percentage needs to go up 5% points. He is + or - 75 wins from 900. Two more seasons(from today) with 38 wins a piece gets him there. But he only needs to lose 12 more times in those same two years; that is why, as stated, he won't get there.

Nadal: He'll play 900 matches, but that isn't what was asked. He would need the same winning percentage as he currently has - more or less. But, he's been a pro for 11+ years and played 671 matches. He's only 61% of the way to the total of 1100 matches. If we agree he may retire a bit early due to the wear and tear/style of play, Nadal would need to play 5 more years(from today makes him 30) at a rate of 85+ matches per year. That is a huge increase he won't accomplish....

Agree it's unlikely Federer will record 900 career wins before he has his 200th loss.

And also agree it's unlikely Nadal will play 1100 matches. Also, who thinks Nadal is going to be winning an event like Indian Wells in 5 years? Really, I mean who?

813wilson
03-20-2012, 04:12 AM
It's unclear what you're getting at with point a). Point b) is completely misguided - the claims you list aren't mutually exclusive. As for point c), NN brought up these years precisely because he wished to demonstrate that Federer is clearly capable of achieving the required winning percentage as evidenced by his past performances. Point d) is mistaken - he does not need to limit his losses to 11 to follow the original scenario. See bold:

And your last point, that you're staying closer to the original premise of the OP's post by taking your cues from career winning percentage, is just a poor excuse to make use of far less than ideal information. Federer doesn't lose anywhere near as often these days as he did when he started his career. The most relevant information we have is his winning percentage over the past few years. This more recent data is far better suited to forecasting Federer's winning percentage in the (relatively) short term than his overall career winning percentage.

Piece,

allow me to be more clear.

A) NN brought up Fed's winning % over the last 3 complete years. Then, in a later post referenced 4 years. I was replying(because I've stated two years as the barometer for Nadal and Fed in this thread) that only one combined total of his best ever years keeps him under the 11 or 12 loss total - thereby putting him at or under 200 losses. Further, I'm saying that the three, then four years NN referenced, in terms of winning percentage, are not good enough, in actual losses to keep him below 200 losses.
B) How is my comment misguided? And, they aren't my claims, they're NN's. If you don't think these three statements are conflicting: "plausible, even reasonable", " I give him a 25% chance of acheiving it", and " I think he'll get to 900 wins with about 202 losses" - then we'll have to disagree. He basically is saying in the 1st two there is a decent chance, then says he'll be over 200 losses. That doesn't seem consistant, does it?
C) Bringing up winning percentages to show he is capable is a flawed point. My point is this: in his last four years his record - not percentage shows that he would exceed 200 total losses. BTW - those four years? his winning % is 83.1 and any one of those years repeated puts him over 200 losses.
D) Sorry - you're right, I was going from memory - thought it was under 200 losses not 200 or under.

Now, lets talk about your last point. What is your definition of "these days"? What is your definition of "the past few years"?
This season aside(only because it isn't complete), "Federer doesn't lose anywhere near as often these days as when he started his career." True. However, he has been losing more than at his peak run. And, as I just noted above - the most recent 4 years is a winning % of 83.1. So my career cues are a poor excuse, as is your comment about "the most relevant information we have is his winning percentage over the last few years."

McEnroeisanartist
10-30-2012, 06:31 AM
Currently Federer is is 875-196. He would have to go 25-3 to win 900 matches with less than 200 losses.

After his Davis Cup loss to Isner, Federer went 29-3. After his Rome loss to Djokovi, he went 29-3 again.

RAFA2005RG
10-30-2012, 07:03 AM
Nadal has a 98.1% winning percentage at Roland Garros. 52 of 53.

Not sure what Federer's winning percentage is at Wimbledon, but I suspect its crap, considering he's lost in the 1st Round THREE times.

And interestingly during Federer's career there have been very few players who call grass their favorite surface. Whereas there are plenty of players known for claycourt tennis.

augustobt
10-30-2012, 07:07 AM
Nadal has a 98.1% winning percentage at Roland Garros. 52 of 53.

Not sure what Federer's winning percentage is at Wimbledon, but I suspect its crap, considering he's lost in the 1st Round THREE times.

And interestingly during Federer's career there have been very few players who call grass their favorite surface. Whereas there are plenty of players known for claycourt tennis.

I think that this thread is about "career", and Roland Garros/Wimbledon is just a single part of it.

RAFA2005RG
10-30-2012, 07:15 AM
I think that this thread is about "career", and Roland Garros/Wimbledon is just a single part of it.

Yes, the BIGGEST single part of it.

McEnroeisanartist
10-30-2012, 07:21 AM
Yes, the BIGGEST single part of it.

yes, I would say Wimbledon, The U.S. Open, French Open, and Australian Open are the biggest parts of a player's career.

cknobman
10-30-2012, 07:37 AM
YEC records:

Federer: 39-7 = 84.78%

YEC is a pretty big part of a top 10 players career as well. Seems Nadal has a crap record there while Federer does not.

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-30-2012, 07:45 AM
YEC records:

Federer: 39-7 = 84.78%

YEC is a pretty big part of a top 10 players career as well. Seems Nadal has a crap record there while Federer does not.

That's only one tournament. And besides, it's pointless to try to look at percentages when the player hasn't played that many matches. Otherwise you can do this:

Federer vs Nadal slam H2H: 2-8 = 20% :shock::shock::shock:

beast of mallorca
10-30-2012, 08:12 AM
That's only one tournament. And besides, it's pointless to try to look at percentages when the player hasn't played that many matches. Otherwise you can do this:

Federer vs Nadal slam H2H: 2-8 = 20% :shock::shock::shock:

hahaha......pwned

paulorenzo
10-30-2012, 08:28 AM
Nadal has a 98.1% winning percentage at Roland Garros. 52 of 53.

Not sure what Federer's winning percentage is at Wimbledon, but I suspect its crap, considering he's lost in the 1st Round THREE times.

And interestingly during Federer's career there have been very few players who call grass their favorite surface. Whereas there are plenty of players known for claycourt tennis.

an even more interesting notion is that for nadal, wimbledon is the most special.

merlinpinpin
10-30-2012, 09:04 AM
And interestingly during Federer's career there have been very few players who call grass their favorite surface. Whereas there are plenty of players known for claycourt tennis.

Really? Name one except for Nadal. Just one. Shouldn't be too difficult if there are plenty of them, should it?

Sabratha
10-30-2012, 09:25 AM
Really? Name one except for Nadal. Just one. Shouldn't be too difficult if there are plenty of them, should it?
Coria. Gustavo Kuerten.

merlinpinpin
10-30-2012, 09:49 AM
Coria. Gustavo Kuerten.

Nice try. You might also add Borg, Vilas, and Muster to the list, so long as you're digging into the past. ;)

Now, let's start again: please name *one* player who is a contemporary of Nadal (ie played at the same time as he did and actually contested the clay court leadership, and not just said hello to him when he was beginning his career and they were going out) and who is "known for claycourt tennis". Just one.

...

...

...

Still waiting... ;)

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-30-2012, 09:51 AM
Really? Name one except for Nadal. Just one. Shouldn't be too difficult if there are plenty of them, should it?

I can't speak for him, but Ferrer, Almagro, Montanes, Bellucci, Monaco, Del Potro.

AnotherTennisProdigy
10-30-2012, 09:54 AM
The "surface specialist" doesn't exist anymore, for grass or clay. Clay has become faster and grass has become slower allowing players to excel at all surfaces. The only exception may be Nadal, but even he is expanding to other surfaces.

Steve0904
10-30-2012, 09:54 AM
hahaha......pwned

Not really. If we consider the record at slams and the WTF to be the biggest parts of a career then bringing up the slam H2H between two players doesn't have a huge bearing on everything in the grand scheme of things.

merlinpinpin
10-30-2012, 09:57 AM
I can't speak for him, but Ferrer, Almagro, Montanes, Bellucci, Monaco, Del Potro.

Thanks for proving my point. Any list that has Montanes a 3rd threat on a surface can only be GOAT-worthy... :lol:

Now, the best of them result-wise on clay is obviously Ferrer, and by a country mile. The guy is 30, and has made all of *one* semi at RG and two M1000's finals on the surface. In a career spanning 13 years. And *that* is the biggest threat you could dig out. Congratulations.

By way of comparison, there were litterally tons of grass specialists during Federer's dominant run at Wimbledon, we're not even talking of the same order of magnitude... :roll:

Sabratha
10-30-2012, 10:06 AM
Nice try. You might also add Borg, Vilas, and Muster to the list, so long as you're digging into the past. ;)

Now, let's start again: please name *one* player who is a contemporary of Nadal (ie played at the same time as he did and actually contested the clay court leadership, and not just said hello to him when he was beginning his career and they were going out) and who is "known for claycourt tennis". Just one.

...

...

...

Still waiting... ;)

jokinla
10-30-2012, 10:44 AM
I can't speak for him, but Ferrer, Almagro, Montanes, Bellucci, Monaco, Del Potro.

Sure you can, just switch over to that profile.

absurdo
10-30-2012, 10:45 AM
That's only one tournament. And besides, it's pointless to try to look at percentages when the player hasn't played that many matches. Otherwise you can do this:

Federer vs Nadal slam H2H: 2-8 = 20% :shock::shock::shock:

man, be serious. you say having a 9-10 record at the YEC is not an interesting stat and the percentage is not valid because those are only 19 matches, but then you give the 8-2 advantage nadal has against federer in majors. do you realise those are 10 matches played?

Jackuar
10-30-2012, 11:08 AM
At the moment, Federer's career record is 825-188. Nadal's career record is 553-118. What do you think is more likely: Federer reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses? Or Nadal reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses.

Federer would have to go at least 75-12 (86.2%).
Nadal would have to go at least 347-82 (80.9%).

As you mentioned in another thread about Fed getting something similar to this even if he loses in WTF SF -- that means he should do another 2012, not necessary in 12 months but atleast in 18 months. Losing just 12 matches in 18 months is a bit difficult to ask for... Its like asking him to repeat his pat 18 months which is indeed phenomenal considering his age and is really difficult when he gets past 32. Unless he decides to go for it over 3 years.

cknobman
10-30-2012, 11:49 AM
man, be serious. you say having a 9-10 record at the YEC is not an interesting stat and the percentage is not valid because those are only 19 matches, but then you give the 8-2 advantage nadal has against federer in majors. do you realise those are 10 matches played?

He is too stupid to realize that, plus Nadal would have more matches there if:

He won more matches to make it to the SF and/or F more often
Actually played the event instead of skipping it. (this year will be the 3rd year Nadal has not played the YEC).

You gotta remember in a NadFan ******s mind any stat that favors Nadal is valid and any stat that a. favors Federer or b. does not favor Nadal is not valid which is why you see these fools try and play off the YEC record and lack of title as insignificant (remember its a glorified exo :rolleyes:)

Sartorius
10-30-2012, 12:04 PM
Sure you can, just switch over to that profile.

:)

McEnroeisanartist
10-30-2012, 12:07 PM
As you mentioned in another thread about Fed getting something similar to this even if he loses in WTF SF -- that means he should do another 2012, not necessary in 12 months but atleast in 18 months. Losing just 12 matches in 18 months is a bit difficult to ask for... Its like asking him to repeat his pat 18 months which is indeed phenomenal considering his age and is really difficult when he gets past 32. Unless he decides to go for it over 3 years.

This was posted on 3/16/12. At that time Federer was 825-188.

Since then, Federer has gone 50-8. Hence to win 900 matches and have less than 200 losses, he will have to to 25-3 from here on out. Seems possible.

Gonzo_style
10-30-2012, 12:37 PM
Coria. Gustavo Kuerten.

Nadal and Kuerten, they have never played!

Coria yes, but only in 2005 and 2006...

Mustard
10-30-2012, 01:22 PM
I would be extremely surprised if Nadal wins 2 consecutive matches against Djoker.

It's 3 consecutive matches now. How surprised are you? ;)

Prisoner of Birth
10-30-2012, 01:24 PM
It's 3 consecutive matches now. How surprised are you? ;)

2 consecutive wins = 1 surprise

3 consecutive wins = 1 x 3/2 surprises = 1.5 surprises

kOaMaster
10-30-2012, 03:48 PM
Currently Federer is is 875-196. He would have to go 25-3 to win 900 matches with less than 200 losses.

After his Davis Cup loss to Isner, Federer went 29-3. After his Rome loss to Djokovi, he went 29-3 again.

well, theoretically possible of course but hard to ask for during the next 3-4 months.
especially at the WTF. he would have to win it again and then stay clear of any pre-AO loss in doha (or retire). then I could see it happen (5 wtf-wins, 5 in doha, probably 4-5 at the AO (loss in the semis?). maybe 1-2 DC wins following the AO, playing in rotterdam and/or dubai with at least 4 wins each he could make it just.

smoledman
10-30-2012, 04:35 PM
Nadal carefully planning long absences to preserve his career winning % over Fed.

TopFH
10-30-2012, 05:00 PM
It's 3 consecutive matches now. How surprised are you? ;)

I forgot I wrote that! I was a bit surprised to see Nadal beat Djokovic at all 3 clay matches. I was definitely expecting Djokovic to win at least one.

joeri888
10-31-2012, 12:46 AM
well, theoretically possible of course but hard to ask for during the next 3-4 months.
especially at the WTF. he would have to win it again and then stay clear of any pre-AO loss in doha (or retire). then I could see it happen (5 wtf-wins, 5 in doha, probably 4-5 at the AO (loss in the semis?). maybe 1-2 DC wins following the AO, playing in rotterdam and/or dubai with at least 4 wins each he could make it just.

I think if he goes unbeaten at WTF, he will do it. If he loses 1 match, he's got a shot. if he loses 2 matches, no way.

Sabratha
10-31-2012, 05:42 AM
Nadal carefully planning long absences to preserve his career winning % over Fed.
But he hasn't played as many matches so it's not as special.

RAFA2005RG
10-31-2012, 08:05 AM
Really? Name one except for Nadal. Just one. Shouldn't be too difficult if there are plenty of them, should it?

Every Spanish player obviously, and there are A LOT.

Sabratha
10-31-2012, 08:23 AM
When was the last time a French player actually won the French Open? It's been a long while now.

Mustard
10-31-2012, 08:33 AM
When was the last time a French player actually won the French Open? It's been a long while now.

Mary Pierce in 2000 for the women. Yannick Noah in 1983 for the men.

jokinla
10-31-2012, 11:22 AM
Every Spanish player obviously, and there are A LOT.

He's not asking for a list of clay court journeymen.

joeri888
11-16-2012, 01:54 AM
Every Spanish player obviously, and there are A LOT.
I think Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick are better grass court player than any of these spanish idiots are 'great' claycourters. I respect the fact that they made a prolife with it, but that's about it. Almagro and Ferrer are decent, Verdasco is streaky. But none of them would win a slam in any era, with the possible exception of Ferrer in a very easy draw and year.

augustobt
11-19-2012, 06:47 AM
I think Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick are better grass court player than any of these spanish idiots are 'great' claycourters.

You are insane... Ferrer is the best claycourter apart from the top 3. Almagro is surely top10, and Verdasco apart from his mental issues is a serious guy on the dirt.

joeri888
11-19-2012, 06:50 AM
You are insane... Ferrer is the best claycourter apart from the top 3. Almagro is surely top10, and Verdasco apart from his mental issues is a serious guy on the dirt.

I am not sure if you are serious here.