Federer and Nadal's Career Winning Percentage

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by McEnroeisanartist, Mar 16, 2012.

  1. McEnroeisanartist

    McEnroeisanartist Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,196
    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%).
     
    #1
  2. nadalwon2012

    nadalwon2012 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,334
    Nadal will probably focus on clay more than ever as he gets older, and cruise to 81%.
     
    #2
  3. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Nadal will never get close to playing 900 matches. He will retire way before that.
     
    #3
  4. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,120
    Don't think Federer can do it. Don't think Nadal will ever reach 900 matches.
     
    #4
  5. 813wilson

    813wilson Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Tampa area
    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....
     
    #5
  6. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    Good, detailed answer. You get my vote. ;)
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2012
    #6
  7. sbengte

    sbengte Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    8,698
    Do you also have similar data for wins against the top 10 ?
     
    #7
  8. celoft

    celoft Guest

    This...............................
     
    #8
  9. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    Nadal is 5 years younger. Wait until he reach 30 and his winning % should dip.
     
    #9
  10. monfed

    monfed Guest

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2012
    #10
  11. nadalwon2012

    nadalwon2012 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,334
    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.
     
    #11
  12. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,260
    Location:
    Chile
    Gets my vote too :)
     
    #12
  13. agentaviles

    agentaviles Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    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.
     
    #13
  14. nadalwon2012

    nadalwon2012 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,334
    Just keep talkin pal, just keep talkin.
    [​IMG]
     
    #14
  15. agentaviles

    agentaviles Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Hahaha! It's good to see Apollo Creed again.

    But you know it's true. Nadal won't be increasing that "lead" anytime soon.
     
    #15
  16. nadalwon2012

    nadalwon2012 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,334
    Just keep talkin pal, just keep talkin..
    [​IMG]
     
    #16
  17. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,795
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    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.
     
    #17
  18. nadalwon2012

    nadalwon2012 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,334
    Tardism? How old are you, 6?
     
    #18
  19. agentaviles

    agentaviles Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    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.
     
    #19
  20. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,795
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2012
    #20
  21. nadalwon2012

    nadalwon2012 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,334
    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.
     
    #21
  22. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    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.
     
    #22
  23. nadalwon2012

    nadalwon2012 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,334
    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).
     
    #23
  24. agentaviles

    agentaviles Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    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.
     
    #24
  25. agentaviles

    agentaviles Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    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.
     
    #25
  26. agentaviles

    agentaviles Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    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.
     
    #26
  27. nadalwon2012

    nadalwon2012 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,334
    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.
     
    #27
  28. agentaviles

    agentaviles Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    You like Nadal's chances, even though he hasn't won a single tournament since Roland Garros? You go ahead and take those chances...
     
    #28
  29. nadalwon2012

    nadalwon2012 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,334
    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.
     
    #29
  30. agentaviles

    agentaviles Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    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.
     
    #30
  31. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    I would be surprised because the only way it's going to happen is Nole decline and Nadal improved. Unlikely scenario.
     
    #31
  32. nadalwon2012

    nadalwon2012 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,334
    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.
     
    #32
  33. jukka1970

    jukka1970 Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    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
     
    #33
  34. nadalwon2012

    nadalwon2012 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,334
    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.
     
    #34
  35. agentaviles

    agentaviles Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    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 ;)
     
    #35
  36. nadalwon2012

    nadalwon2012 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,334
    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.
     
    #36
  37. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Hasn't Djokovic beaten Nadal at the AO every time?
     
    #37
  38. agentaviles

    agentaviles Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    242
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    I believe that was the first time that they have ever met at the AO, so it was definitely a good first performance.
     
    #38
  39. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,082
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    Grand Slam Percentages:

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

    Roger > Nadal so far.

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

    Roger > Nadal so far.

    To sum things up:

    Roger > Nadal so far.
     
    #39
  40. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    ?????? ISn't Nadal's 87.6 > Roger's 86.9?
     
    #40
  41. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,082
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    You have to count the intangibles ;)
     
    #41
  42. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,939
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    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%.
     
    #42
  43. 813wilson

    813wilson Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Tampa area


    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?
     
    #43
  44. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,939
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    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.
     
    #44
  45. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,939
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
    #45
  46. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,939
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    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.
     
    #46
  47. 813wilson

    813wilson Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    322
    Location:
    Tampa area
    ^^^
    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.....
     
    #47
  48. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2012
    #48
  49. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,939
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    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.
     
    #49
  50. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    Alright now you stand watch while I get some shut eye.
     
    #50

Share This Page