PDA

View Full Version : Djokovic has the best match winning percentage after winning first set (Open Era)


5555
10-15-2012, 12:06 AM
1. Djokovic .955
2. Borg .954
3. Nadal .949
4. Connors .946
5. McEnroe .943

Link http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-After-Winning-First-Set-Career-List.aspx

Evan77
10-15-2012, 12:36 AM
where is Fed? no chance his Royall Gayness is not winning here. :oops::lol::lol::lol:

seriously tho, not surprised at all to see Connors so high.

No1e
10-15-2012, 12:59 AM
Glad that Djokovic has been slowly establishing his GOATness.

djokovic2008
10-15-2012, 01:22 AM
On his way to greatness more stats will come, what's his win/loss record this year and last few years.

dr325i
10-15-2012, 03:43 AM
Ouch, where are the Fedturds?
Googling their brains out???

Metalica
10-15-2012, 03:48 AM
Evan, why do you hate Fed so much?

Steve0904
10-15-2012, 05:57 AM
Nice stuff from Novak. It is also quite obvious I would think that this percentage would drop as one got older. After all, the large majority of the reason Borg has a lot of the percentage records in tennis history is because he retired at 26, before he really passed his prime. He's still great don't get me wrong, but that's a big reason why he has a lot of records to do with percentages.

TennisLovaLova
10-15-2012, 06:00 AM
stupid stat is stupid
only slams count

No1e
10-15-2012, 06:15 AM
stupid stat is stupid
only slams count

Thanks for telling us the 300 weeks at #1 thing is stupid.

merwy
10-15-2012, 06:32 AM
Jimmy Conners 1077-62

How can that guy have played so many matches!? I don't understand! I get it, he played until he was like 40 or something, but how did he do that without dying? Could you imagine Federer or Nadal(lol) playing until 40? The game must have been a lot less demanding in the physical aspect back then.

Andres
10-15-2012, 06:34 AM
Fed is #7 at .933. Lendel is 6th at .934.
Murray is 8th and Del Potro is 10th.

RF20Lennon
10-15-2012, 06:35 AM
Evan, why do you hate Fed so much?

Evan doesn't hate fed he's just annoyed at the number of fed threads and now he himself has become super annoying he used to be a decent posters a while back

Clarky21
10-15-2012, 06:36 AM
What were his stats before he found Dr. Igor?

RF20Lennon
10-15-2012, 06:36 AM
How can that guy have played so many matches!? I don't understand! I get it, he played until he was like 40 or something, but how did he do that without dying? Could you imagine Federer or Nadal(lol) playing until 40? The game must have been a lot less demanding in the physical aspect back then.

Well he did have to get a hip replacement

kishnabe
10-15-2012, 08:06 AM
Goes to show Djokovic knows how to finish a match unlike Murray.

Federer not being in the top 5 in this list is fine. He has many more number 1 and 2 finshes on other lists.

Still impressed that Djokovic is better than Borg. Borg never play past his prime years so the percentage could be skewed there.

Even more Impressive is that Connors has such a high percentage from playing since the early 70's to the middle 90's.

20+ years keeping that average winning the first set. You would think as you get older....that you would give in to the latter sets.

TennisLovaLova
10-15-2012, 10:21 AM
Thanks for telling us the 300 weeks at #1 thing is stupid.

Of course it's a stupid number too
But it proves his consistency at #1
What does this % stat prove really?

All these number only mean something once you retire

Bursztyn
10-15-2012, 10:45 AM
IMHO it is wrong to compare active and inactive players, it is also wrong to compare active players that are in diffferent stages of their career. One can compare inactive players.

It seems to me that those stats are biased in favour of active players.

Also the statement that Djoko is better than Borg is not valid. They are virtually even. However it is correct to compare Djoko and Borg; both players have never played past their prime - Borg decided to quit when he was in his prime (26), and Djoko is in his prime now (25).

Steve0904
10-15-2012, 10:55 AM
IMHO it is wrong to compare active and inactive players, it is also wrong to compare active players that are in diffferent stages of their career. One can compare inactive players.

It seems to me that those stats are biased in favour of active players.

Also the statement that Djoko is better than Borg is not valid. They are virtually even. However it is correct to compare Djoko and Borg; both players have never played past their prime - Borg decided to quit when he was in his prime (26), and Djoko is in his prime now (25).

I'm assuming you mean in terms of this stat only.

Bursztyn
10-15-2012, 11:03 AM
Sure. We are talking only about this particular stat.

jokinla
10-15-2012, 11:07 AM
It's easy to lead Fed in a stat when you have less than half of the matches to compare, similar to the thread a few weeks ago that had Murray leading a stat in returning, but the two of them aren't comparing equal number of matches/years on tour.

jokinla
10-15-2012, 11:10 AM
1. Djokovic .955
2. Borg .954
3. Nadal .949
4. Connors .946
5. McEnroe .943

Link http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-After-Winning-First-Set-Career-List.aspx

We can revisit this when Djoker is retired, see where his and Nads numbers are compared with Fed and the other retired guys.

Cup8489
10-15-2012, 11:18 AM
Definitely an underrated aspect of Novak Djokovic.

He's a ridiculously good front-runner.

dominikk1985
10-15-2012, 02:16 PM
Definitely an underrated aspect of Novak Djokovic.

He's a ridiculously good front-runner.

yes. but if you said it more negatively you could also say he is a little bit of a bully (not meant in a disrispectful way but a bully likes to dominate and can be frustrated if he faces resistance). when he is rolling he is extremely tough to beat and while he is certainly able to come from behind he can be easier frustrated then fed and nadal. fed and nadal never show negative emotions while novak can occasionally drag himself down with nagging and complaining although it got a lot better over the years.

Cup8489
10-15-2012, 02:17 PM
yes. but if you said it more negatively you could also say he is a little bit of a bully (not meant in a disrispectful way but a bully likes to dominate and can be frustrated if he faces resistance). when he is rolling he is extremely tough to beat and while he is certainly able to come from behind he can be easier frustrated then fed and nadal. fed and nadal never show negative emotions while novak can occasionally drag himself down with nagging and complaining although it got a lot better over the years.

Very true.

InvisibleSoul
10-15-2012, 02:33 PM
Just wondering... what was Federer's percentage before 2010?

Joseph L. Barrow
10-15-2012, 02:51 PM
Djokovic is in the peak of his career right now, and so has an advantage over the other guys being discussed; his percentage here will probably drop if he plays a few more years on tour.

TennisLovaLova
10-15-2012, 03:06 PM
^^ yep and fed bageled him this year, at this so called djoko peak...

This stat is dumb really, the more he'll play the more that number will drop it's inevitable

dr325i
10-15-2012, 03:20 PM
It's easy to lead Fed in a stat when you have less than half of the matches to compare, similar to the thread a few weeks ago that had Murray leading a stat in returning, but the two of them aren't comparing equal number of matches/years on tour.

Thank you, the opposite also applies (for now)...

TheF1Bob
10-15-2012, 05:00 PM
******s upset cause their hero isn't that good compared to Novak.

Maybe he should train harder or learn new skills, no?

jokinla
10-15-2012, 10:58 PM
******s upset cause their hero isn't that good compared to Novak.

Maybe he should train harder or learn new skills, no?

I know you're just trolling, but are you suggesting the 31 year old, that just two months ago, in their last meeting, gave him a 6-0 beatdown, and is currently #1, "isn't that good".

TennisLovaLova
10-16-2012, 12:54 AM
I know you're just trolling, but are you suggesting the 31 year old, that just two months ago, in their last meeting, gave him a 6-0 beatdown, and is currently #1, "isn't that good".

Exactly what I said earlier.
Djoko fans have short term memory problems, maybe due to watching too much grinders' tennis

Cesc Fabregas
10-16-2012, 04:49 AM
His stats are skewed because of the last couple of years. Not a constant in his career like Nadal or Borg.

Mustard
10-16-2012, 07:25 AM
How can that guy have played so many matches!? I don't understand! I get it, he played until he was like 40 or something, but how did he do that without dying? Could you imagine Federer or Nadal(lol) playing until 40? The game must have been a lot less demanding in the physical aspect back then.

Connors had a hunger for competition that is legendary. He played until he physically couldn't anymore.

jokinla
10-16-2012, 10:18 AM
His stats are skewed because of the last couple of years. Not a constant in his career like Nadal or Borg.

Yep, this and he has about 1/2 as many matches as these guys.

Agassifan
10-16-2012, 10:52 AM
What if you just include best of 5 ? Best of 3 is skewing the stats.

LuckyR
10-16-2012, 01:13 PM
So what does it take to dominate this stat? That when you are going to lose, that you lose right from the beginning? So sucking from the get go (if you are destined to lose) makes you superior to someone with a similar W/L record?