Some high points in career winning percentages, open era

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Benhur, Mar 4, 2013.

  1. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    I agree with you, but another Bobby(junior) in the current section pointed to me that Connors played a lot of smaller tournaments AND less slams per years. Playing a lot of smaller event can really help to increase the winning percentage, as even in an old age, a player of this caliber with the dedication to win can do it.

    Obviously the AO didn't had a strong field at the moment and even if he had played it, the argument could be made (weak field). Still, it is probably true that he played a lot of tournaments without facing the top guys.

    Trivia: more than 10% of Connors's defeat were given by Borg or Mac.
     
    #51
  2. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    hewitt, safin, djokovic, ferrero, nalbandian were there as well ....

    nadal was very good on grass from 2006 onwards ...

    the only think weak is your knowledge about tennis, the modern era even more so ....
     
    #52
  3. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I was tempted to call twins Stolle and Roddick
    Both unfortinate to lose 3 Wimbly finals and never win a title
    But then I remembered that Roddick won 1 major while Stolle won 2
    Of course not adding doubles as well...
     
    #53
  4. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,375
    Connors stats are excellent, and he did play a high level of tough opponents through his whole career. He even was rated the best of the open era by a scientific study 2 years ago on the basis of playing and winning against the highest percentage of top ten players. I am not saying, that this study is right or cannot be debated, but it cannot be debated that Connors played a heck of excellent opponents.
     
    #54
  5. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,871
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    http://phys.org/news/2011-03-tennis-player.html

    This one I assume.

    No Laver and Roddick is on there lol.
     
    #55
  6. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    I've taken a look at Sampras record. His career percentage peaked in 1999 at 78.9

    But his best single year in terms of W/L had been 5 years earlier, in 1994, with 77-12 (86.5).

    His career percentage at the end of 1994 was 76.5.

    He brought it up gradually over the course of the next 5 years to a peak of 78.9 in 1999 (which was also his second best year in percentage, at 83.3%), then gradually down over the next 3 years to his final total of 77.44
     
    #56
  7. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Exactly, I'm with you 100% on this:)

    Honestly Connors is so underrated, but this sort of stat really helps show how great he was!

    I am going to start my Connors thread soon, but am still building more evidence to show that he is the 3rd best player of all time.
     
    #57
  8. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    It is indeed a superb bit of work to calculate this. I think seeing as this is the "former players" section, it might be best not to mention current players in the original posts from now on, as possible great threads like this get taken over by nonsense arguments about Federer/Nadal etc. Those 2 are amazing players but not "former players".
     
    #58
  9. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Yes, I agree, and I didn't know this stat until you've worked it out, honestly brilliant stuff!

    I obviously really liked Connors (he is my favourite ever player), but again I agree he could be an idiot sometimes, but even that was fun to watch in my opinion. These stats show how much of a competitor he was!
     
    #59
  10. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    I really need to see that scientific study, Wow:shock:

    More evidence of just how great Connors was, I need to see this!
     
    #60
  11. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,871
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Whats a good match to watch or find clips of to show how
    great Connors was?
     
    #61
  12. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    #62
  13. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,871
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Good quality so far. Will watch it all over the next couple of days. Connors had some backhand!
     
    #63
  14. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    He´s top 5 in the cathegory of more entertaining players...why not start a thread under this concept?

    Hopefully for him, he played in his era and not current
     
    #64
  15. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    I'll have a close look to this study and write about it later. I'm not willing/able to go into the statistical model by I will be able to understand how the data were built.
     
    #65
  16. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    The study is fully available here:http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017249

    The aim of the study is not to rank tennis players, but to develop a methodological model which could be applied to a lot of different data.

    The data used in this study are all the Grand Slam and ATP World Tour Final matches from 1968 to 2010. I don't know what they mean for the ATP World Tour Final tournaments. As the datas were provided by the ATP, it is probably the equivalent of the actual WTF.

    The ranking was measured by measuring :)shock:) the H2H of players, weighted to a prestige rank attributed do each player. I'm not sure wether or not the prestige ranking change over time.

    I think the prestige ranking was measured himself by the H2H result. Winning against players who themselves win against prestigious increase the prestige (the author provide only a formula to explain how the prestige is measured).

    The results in tournament is not taken into account. A player doesn't win more prestige if he win a tournament than if he only reach the final. Reaching consistently the final stage of a tournament, when a player meet and beat the other prestigious players, is more useful than winning half of them but failing to go deep in the other half. The prestige is strongly related to the total number of win against prestigious opponents.

    According to this study, the top 10 of the open era are:

    1. Connors
    2. Lendl
    3. McEnroe
    4. Vilas
    5. Agassi
    6. Edberg
    7. Federer
    8. Sampras
    9. Nastase
    10. Borg

    Nadal and Rosewall are respectively ranked 24 and 27. Laver is outside the top 30.

    If someone can understand better how the prestige is measured, I'm interested.
     
    #66
  17. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Even though Jimmy lost, always great to watch this!
     
    #67
  18. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    This is just superb:)

    The conclusion makes sense, but i don't understand exactly how the stats were calculated (Surprising to see Vilas, Edberg and Nastase so high on the list).

    The results will obviously be worse for the players that mainly did well in the 1960's (Laver and Rosewall), because this looked at the Open era from what I can see.

    And again current players (Federer and Nadal) will again be lower because they are only part way through their career and are yet to play against future champions, which will move them further up the list. I very much believe you can't judge a players career properly until it is over. Federer will I think go on to be the best player of all-time.

    So anyway this is more evidence to support my opinion that Connors is the 3rd best player of all-time! (Behind Laver and Federer).
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2013
    #68
  19. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    It is at least an evidence that Connors was very good at beating prestigious players. He was helped there by is longevity, as he was able to face, and beat, a lot of slam winners. And his 100ish titles were not won against mug fields!

    If you add to this his longevity, consistency, ant least but not last, how good is name sound, you have a worthy candidate!
     
    #69
  20. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562

    That 1984 US Open Super Saturday stands in his own category in the history of tennis. I think venues like the tennis channel should recreate it in full one day, perhaps on the 30-year aniversary in 2014.
    It’s impossible to come up with a better day.
    McEnroe was at the peak of his powers in what still stands as the best single-season winning percentage of the open era. Connors, Lendl and Evert not far from from their best. And Navratilova was right in the middle of that unearthly 5-year period, where from the beginning of 1982 through the end of 1986 her yearly winning percentages ranged from 94.4 to 98.8 every single year. She was also in the middle of a 74 match winning streak. Every match went the distance. A full day of tennis with these characters. What a day it was.
     
    #70
  21. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,871
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Who did Lendl play?

    That sounds like an incredible day of tennis. Some of the recods these women players have is unreal, unlikely to see anything like it in the game ever again.

    I must admit the standard of tennis in the match is very high so far. Very entertaining. Thank you for posting it.
     
    #71
  22. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    Lendl played Pat Cash in the other semi ....
     
    #72
  23. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    CBS' broadcast began that day with a 3 set senior men's doubles match as well(because they were concerned that all 3 matches may be blowouts like the year before)
    I'm guessing that match has never been rebroadcast.

    ESPN classic has showed the 3 super saturday matches many times over the years.
     
    #73
  24. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,624
    You're right, strictly speaking it's not enough to beat one's own percentage in the early years; you've got to beat the cumulative average as it stands, in whatever year you're talking about.

    Poor percentages in the early years do keep the later cumulative percentages lower, which in turn makes it easier to have a "bad year" later in your career and still improve your career percentage.
     
    #74
  25. Indio

    Indio Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    335
    The sharpest video (by far) I've seen from the Connors era is that of Connors and Borg playing the third-set tiebreaker in the USO final of 1976. It's on Youtube. It may not be Connors at his greatest, but the quality of the video is astonishing in comparison to just about everything else from that period.
     
    #75
  26. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    Does anyone know Connors match record in 1972 after he turned pro? The ATP doesn't have any information on playing activity beyond 1973.
     
    #76
  27. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    We know he competed at Masters
     
    #77
  28. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    If you envision a chart for each player showing the progress of his year-by-year percentages vs his cumulative career percentage, what you would see is that the year by year is a lot jumpier in its progress, while the career % is much smoother, because it becomes increasingly more difficult to dislodge as it picks up weight from the accumulation of matches.

    Part (but only part) of the explanation of Connors lead is that he didn’t start playing full time on the professional circuit until the age of 20, whereas McEnroe, Lendl and Federer started doing so at 18 (Federer also played 21 matches at ATP level and above before the age of 18 ). And Nadal started at the age of 17 (played 10 matches before that age at ATP level and above).

    Connors seems to have stormed out of the blocks and already had a 85% record on his second year on tour (age 20-21). I don’t know his record on the first year.

    As time allows in the next few days or weeks, I intend to compile the numbers for each of these 6 players year by year, showing each year’s W/L record and percentage, as well as the cumulative (career) record and percentage at the end of each year, at least until the moment they reached their peak career percentage. My progress will depend both on work and weather. If the weather is nasty, I'll work faster.
     
    #78
  29. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    Those of you who participate in Wikipedia articles may wish to make a little correction in the Connors page. In the fourth paragraph there is this sentence:

    [...] His career win-loss record of 1243–277 (81.77%) is third after Björn Borg (82.7%) and Ivan Lendl (81.8%)[..]

    That's wrong. Actually Connors is second in this category, not third. They are comparing it to Lendl's rounded up to 81.8. You could say they are both at 81.8. But if you wish to keep splitting numbers (why not?) and round it up to the next place, then Connors is ahead of Lendl by 2 hundredths of one percent.

    Borg 608-127 = 82.72
    Connors 1243–277 = 81.78
    Lendl: 1071-239 = 81.76

    You could say this is extremely anal, but you would be pots addressing a kettle. Aren't we all monsters of anality around here? And I am more of a Lendl fan, by the way. But smudging numerical truth should not be tolerated.
     
    #79
  30. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Thanks, I'm going to watch this right now:)
     
    #80
  31. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Excellent info thanks!

    I was aware Lendl's was rounded up, but didn't realise Connors actually had a better number. I was going to change this myself on Wiki, but it said you have to login etc, so I didn't bother. If someone could please change this though, that would be great.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2013
    #81
  32. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    I've calculated what must have been Connors 1972 record by substracting his 1973-1996 totals from the career totals (1243-277) given at the ATP site. So I get 97-31 for his first year on tour. Seems like a lot of tennis, and it would be the most matches he played in one season, by some distance, but if he started early in the year it's quite possible that he played 128 matches that year (Lendl played 138 in 1980).
    I need to use something for 1972 if I want to keep track of his career percentage progress through the years. So unless somebody has very good reasons to think that 97-31 is impossible, that's what I will use.
     
    #82
  33. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    ^some of those matches were definitely in '71 & '70. have you looked up Bud Collins' book? maybe he has win-loss for those years.

    I own a copy of Vainquers(by Michel Sutter) which is often sited on wiki for records on older players.

    According to it Connors' 1st final was San Diego '70(lost to Rahim)

    In '71 he lost 3 finals(including a rather famous one to Gonzales in LA)

    He made 10 finals in '72, won 7
     
    #83
  34. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,624
    #84
  35. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,375
    If i recall it right, then Connors won Queens Club in 1972, and went in at Wim ( without WCT Players) as a sort of dark horse favorite. He beat Bob Hewitt in first round and lost to Nastase in quarters.
     
    #85
  36. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    True, he reached the quarters at Wimbledon.Clearly he was one of tne best non WCT players and reached the semsi at the Masters, again losing to the eventual winner, Nastase.I think he also played most of the european cc season, but didn´t have good results there.
     
    #86
  37. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    Thanks for the input all of you. So what you guys are saying is that he didn't really "turn pro" in 1972 as indicated in the ATP page. Or maybe he did (technically) but the ATP total record (1243-277) seems to include some matches at the pro level prior to 1972.

    The record I get from 1973 through 1996 at the ATP profile pages is 1146-246, so what's missing is 97-31. I've double checked these totals.

    Now, looking at the "Jimmy Connors Career Statistics" page on wikipedia, there is this box: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors_career_statistics#Singles_performance_timeline

    And on that box they list a W/L record for 1970, 71 and 72.

    The total for those years is 97-39 (instead of 97-31).

    If I use 97-39 as a starting point, there will be a slight discrepancy in the overall record with respect to the ATP. I hate to do that because I am using ATP records for everyone else, and Wikipedia is not necessarily more reliable.

    Sorting this out with any kind of certainty would be beyond my means (if it can be done at all).

    So what I will do is go ahead and use the 97-31 record that can be deduced from the ATP as a starting point for 1972, with the understanding it represents a cumulative record for 1970, 71 and 72. This way everything will be as per the ATP site starting in 1973. Otherwise, none of the cumulative percentages would match the ATP.

    Thanks again. I should be done with this in the next few days.
     
    #87
  38. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Connors played pro tennis in 1972 that I guarantee althoough I don´t know wheh ne became a pro.Maybe at the end of 71.
     
    #88
  39. Nadal_Power

    Nadal_Power Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    506
    #89
  40. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,375
    For these early open years, the term pro is very difficult to describe. It means contract pro under the banner of the WCT or NTL (defunct in 1970). Then there were independent pros and licensed players with no direct promotional contract (with Lamar Hunt) and amateurs under the banner of the national federations. Nastase for instance was a state amateur, he was major in the Rumanian army. So he could compete in the Davis Cup, which was until 1973 closed for contract pros. Stan Smith was amateur and licensed player until 1973, when he joined WCT.
    Connors stayed outside the WCT until 1975. His manager Riordan made an own circuit since 1973 with Connors and Nastase. I am not sure when Connors turned from amateur to (independent) pro (i think 1972), he played pro tournaments since 1970. The ATP was a players union. Interesting enough, Connors didn't join the ATP and in fact suited them many times. So he competed in Wim 1973, when the ATP boycotted the event.
     
    #90
  41. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Yes, Borg,Nastase,Kodes and Connors entered the 73 event.Connors never liked the ATP who " told the players when to hit a perfect overhead or miss it..." in his own words.Borg felt very much the same...
     
    #91
  42. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    Yes, there seem to be some gray areas there, which may account for a little discrepancy I get in Borg's record as well.

    Borg's totals at the ATP site are 608-127. But if you add up the ATP record year by year, starting in 1973, you get 602-119 (and this includes the few matches he played in 82, 83, 84, 91, 92 and 93)

    So there is an invisible 6-8 record there that must come from 1972 or earlier, even though they say he turned pro in 1973.
     
    #92
  43. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,624
    A separate issue you may want to account for is Davis Cup. For Borg it's particularly important because he won 37 Davis Cup singles but only 7 of them are listed at the ATP site.

    http://www.daviscup.com/en/players/player/profile.aspx?playerid=10002258

    http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Bo/B/Bjorn-Borg.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=0#

    All of his matches through '78 are missing, except for the Davis Cup final that he won (over Kodes and Hrebec in '75). So he's missing, in singles, 30 wins and 3 losses altogether.

    Sorting through this issue would be a pain but there's an inherent imbalance in the ATP stats because Davis Cup matches are recorded in full only for the newer players. I'm not sure what year(s) the ATP database starts to record Davis Cup fully, but I know Davis Cup matches in the 1970s are routinely missing at the ATP.
     
    #93
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Benhur,

    I believe that Borg had an even better winning percentage. But I don't have the numbers, alas.
     
    #94
  45. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,624
    #95
  46. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    Thanks Krosero.

    I am done with calculations year by year and I’ve been playing around with different ways to view it.

    From what you are saying, it looks like Borg’s final career % would go up by 0.35 and McEnroe’s up by 0.13. This would not affect their standing in this category, but it will have some effect in mid career cumulative percentages.

    In order to do this properly I would have to introduce the DC record in the respective years where it belongs (and will have to check Connors and Lendl’s DC record also). I won't do it right now because any change no matter how small would imply changing all subsequent years and redoing all the calculations from that point on. But I will definitely go back to this later once I figure out exactly what DC records need to be added for which years and which players.
    In the meantime, I will post what I have, based on the ATP records.
     
    #96
  47. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,624
    With Connors and Lendl it's much easier, because they played so much less Davis Cup than the others.

    Lendl is missing only 4 matches, all losses: to Cox and Mottram in 1978 and Panatta and Barazzutti in 1979.

    Connors is missing only 4 matches as well, all in '75: wins over Andrew, Hose and Lara; and a loss to Ramirez.
     
    #97
  48. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    These are the W/L records (year-by-year, followed by the cumulative or career record at the end of each year) for Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Federer and Nadal, which are the players with the best numbers in the open era in these categories, especially Connors. The numbers are based on the ATP site. It doesn’t imply that I view this category as more fundamental than others, and I still think that Sampras is in the top 3 (or perhaps top 2) in the open era, in spite of the fact that his numbers in these departments would not match up well with these players. For some reason, the 90s did not produce great numbers in this department. Whereas Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl were at home with cumulative percentages in the mid-80s for much of their careers, once they retired we had to wait until Federer for anyone to even break 80 at any point. Connors record in particular is very striking. On 9 different years, he ended the year with a higher career percentage than anyone in the open era has ever attained at any point in their careers. Whereas no player from the 1990's ever reached the 80% mark in career percentage at any point, Connors spent 23 years with a career percentage above 80. If he had retired at the age of 38, he would have retired with a higher total career percentage than Borg.

    I may do some revisions later based on DC records that seem to be missing from the ATP in the 1970s, which would affect mostly Borg. When introduced, it appears that Borg’s 608-127 final record will go up to 638-130, and so his final percentage would change from 82.72 to 83.07. McEnroe would go from 875-198 to 883-198, and his percentage would move from 81.55 to 81.68. This would imply no change in their standing in this category, but it would have a slight effect on the peak career percentages in some years.

    After the data, I thought of some possible ways in which it may be viewed and classified. Anyone can sit down and invent ways to play with it.

    CONNORS

    1970 through 1972: .............................97-31 (75.78 )
    1973 (age 21): 80-14 (85.11) – Career: 177-45 (79.73)
    1974 (age 22): 93-6 (93.94) – Career: 270-51 (84.11)
    1975 (age 23): 79-8 (90.80) – Career: 349-59 (85.54)
    1976 (age 24): 90-8 (91.82) – Career: 439-67 (86.75)
    1977 (age 25): 68-15 (81.93) – Career: 507-82 (86.07)
    1978 (age 26): 66-6 (91.67) – Career: 573-88 (86.69)
    1979 (age 27): 73-12 (85.88 ) – Career: 646-100 (86.59)
    1980 (age 28 ): 74-15 (83.15) – Career: 720-115 9 (86.22)
    1981 (age 29): 61-12 (83.56) – Career: 781-127 (86.01)
    1982 (age 30): 78-11 (87.64) – Career: 859-138 (86.16)
    1983 (age 31): 52-11 (82.54) – Career: 911-149 (85.94)
    1984 (age 32): 74-14 (84.09) – Career: 985-163 (85.80)
    1985 (age 33): 48-14 (77.42) – Career: 1033-177 (85.37)
    1986 (age 34) 45-15 (75.00) – Career: 1078-192 (84.88 )
    1987 (age 35) 52-19 (73.24) – Career: 1130-211 (84.26)
    1988 (age 36) 40-10 (80.00) – Career: 1170-221 (84.11)
    1989 (age 37) 31-13 (70.45) – Career: 1201-234 (83.52)
    1990 (age 38 ) 0-3 (00.00) – Career: 1201-237 (83.51)
    1991 (age 39) 19-14 (57.58 ) – Career: 1220-251 (82.94)
    1992 (age 40) 17-15 (53.12) – Career: 1237-266 (82.30)
    1993 (age 41) 3-5 (37.50) – Career: 1240-271 (82.06)
    1994 (age 42) 1-3 (25.00) – Career: 1241-274 (81.91)
    1995 (age 43) 2-2 (50.00) – Career: 1243-276 (81.83)
    1996 (age 44) 0-1 (00.00) – Career: 1243-277 (81.78 )

    BORG
    Prior to 1973...6-8 (42.86)
    1973 (age 17): 43-22 (66.15) – Career: 49-30 (62.03)
    1974 (age 18 ): 87-21 (80.56) – Career: 136-51 (72.73)
    1975 (age 19): 77-17 (81.91) – Career: 213-68 (75.80)
    1976 (age 20): 57-12 (82.61) – Career: 270-80 (77.14)
    1977 (age 21): 76-7 (91.57) – Career: 346-87 (79.91)
    1978 (age 22): 70-7 (90.91) – Career: 416-94 (81.57)
    1979 (age 23): 84-6 (93.33) – Career: 500-100 (83.33)
    1980 (age 24): 70-6 (92.10) – Career: 570-106 (84.31)
    1981 (age 25): 35-6 (85.37) – Career: 605-112 (84.38 )
    1982 (age 26) 2-1 (66.67) – Career: 607-113 (84.30)
    1983 (age 27) 1-1 (50.00) – Career: 608-114 (84.21)
    1984 (age 28 ) 0-1 (00.00) – Career: 608-115 (84.09)
    1991 (age 35) 0-1 (00.00) – Career: 608-116 (83.98 )
    1992 (age 36) 0-8 (00.00) – Career: 608-124 (83.06)
    1993 (age 37) 0-3 (00.00) – Career: 608-127 (82.72)

    McENROE
    1976 (age 17) 1-1 (50.00)
    1977 (age 18 ): 28-14 (66.67) – Career 29-15 (65.91)
    1978 (age 19): 79-19 (80.61) – Career: 108-34 (76.06)
    1979 (age 20): 89-14 (86.41) – Career: 197-48 (80.41)
    1980 (age 21): 84-19 (81.55) – Career: 281-67 (81.55)
    1981 (age 22): 76-10 (88.37) – Career: 357-77 (82.26)
    1982 (age 23): 71-9 (88.75) – Career: 428-86 (83.27)
    1983 (age 24): 63-11 (85.14) – Career: 491-97 (83.50)
    1984 (age 25): 82-3 (96.47) – Career: 573-100 (85.14)
    1985 (age 26): 71-9 (88.75) – Career: 644-109 (85.52)
    1986 (age 27): 22-5 (81.48 ) – Career: 666-114 (85.38 )
    1987 (age 28 ): 34-12 (73.91) – Career: 700-126 (84.75)
    1988 (age 29): 30-10 (75.00) – Career: 730-136 (84.30)
    1989 (age 30): 47-11 (81.03) – Career: 777-147 (84.09)
    1990 (age 31): 33-15 (68.75) – Career: 810-162 (83.33)
    1991 (age 32): 33-18 (64.71) – Career: 843-180 (82.40)
    1992 (age 33): 32-18 (64.00) – Career: 875-198 (81.55)

    LENDL
    1978 (age 18 ): 9-7 (56.25)
    1979 (age 19): 41-19 (68.33) – Career: 50-26 (65.79)
    1980 (age 20): 110-28 (79.71) – Career: 160-54 (74.76)
    1981 (age 21): 96-14 (87.27) – Career: 256-68 (79.01)
    1982 (age 22): 106-9 (92.17) – Career: 362-77 (82.46)
    1983 (age 23): 75-16 (82.42) – Career: 437-93 (82.45)
    1984 (age 24): 62-16 (79.49) – Career: 499-109 (82.07)
    1985 (age 25): 84-7 (92.31) – Career: 583-116 (83.40)
    1986 (age 26): 74-6 (92.50) – Career: 657-122 (84.34)
    1987 (age 27): 74-7 (91.36) – Career: 731-129 (85.00)
    1988 (age 28 ): 41-8 (83.67) – Career: 772-137 (84.93)
    1989 (age 29): 79-7 (91.85) – Career: 851-144 (85.53)
    1990 (age 30): 54-12 (81.82) – Career: 905-156 (85.29)
    1991 (age 31): 55-18 (75.34) – Career: 960-174 (84.66)
    1992 (age 32): 50-24 (67.56) – Career: 1010-198 (83.61)
    1993 (age 33): 33-23 (58.93) – Career: 1043-221 (82.52)
    1994 (age 34): 28-18 (60.87) – Career: 1071-239 (81.76)

    FEDERER
    1998 (age 17): 2-3 (40.00)
    1999 (age 18 ): 13-17 (43.33) – Career: 15-20 (42.86)
    2000 (age 19): 36-30 (54.55) – Career: 51-50 (50.49)
    2001 (age 20): 49-21 (70.00) – Career: 100-71 (58.48 )
    2002 (age 21): 58-22 (72.50) – Career: 158-93 (62.95)
    2003 (age 22): 78-17 (82.10) – Career: 236-110 (68.21)
    2004 (age 23) 74-6 (92.50) – Career: 310-116 (72.77)
    2005 (age 24) 81-4 (95.29) – Career: 391-120 (76.52)
    2006 (age 25) 92-5 (94.85) – Career: 483-125 (79.44)
    2007 (age 26) 68-9 (88.31) – Career: 551-134 (80.44)
    2008 (age 27) 66-15 (81.48 ) – Career: 617-149 (80.55)
    2009 (age 28 ) 61-12 (83.56) – Career: 678-161 (80.81)
    2010 (age 29) 65-13 (83.33) – Career: 743-174 (81.03)
    2011 (age 30) 64-12 (84.21) – Career: 807-186 (81.27)
    2012 (age 31) 71-12 (85.54) – Career: 878-198 (81.60)

    NADAL
    2002 (age 15-16): 1-1 (50.00)
    2003 (age 17): 14-11 (56.00) – Career: 15-12 (55.55)
    2004 (age 18 ): 30-17 (63.83) – Career: 45-29 (60.81)
    2005 (age 19): 79-10 (88.76) – Career: 124-39 (76.07)
    2006 (age 20): 59-12 (83.10) – Career: 183-51 (78.21)
    2007 (age 21): 70-15 (82.35) – Career: 253-66 (79.31)
    2008 (age 22): 82-11 (88.17) – Career: 335-77 (81.31)
    2009 (age 23): 66-14 (82.50) – Career: 401-91 (81.50)
    2010 (age 24): 71-10 (87.65) – Career: 472-101 (82.37)
    2011 (age 25): 69-15 (82.14) – Career: 541-116 (82.34)
    2012 (age 26): 42-6 (87.50) – Career: 583-122 (82.69)

    ==========================================

    Some ideas to play around with these numbers. The possibilities are endless.

    Rank of best single year percentages
    McEnroe 1984: 96.47
    Federer 2005: 95.29
    Federer 2006: 94.85
    Connors 1974: 93.94
    Borg 1979: 93.33
    Lendl 1986 / Federer 2004: 92.50
    Lendl 1985: 92.31
    Lendl 1982: 92.17
    Borg 1980: 92.10
    Lendl 1989: 91.85
    Connors 1976: 91.82
    Connors 1978: 91.67
    Borg 1977: 91.57
    Lendl 1987: 91.36
    Borg 1978: 90.91
    Connors 1975: 90.80

    Rank of best cumulative percentages at year end
    Connors 1976: 86.75
    Connors 1978: 86.69
    Connors 1979: 86.59
    Connors 1980: 86.22
    Connors 1982: 86.16
    Connors 1977: 86.07
    Connors 1981: 86.01
    Connors 1983: 85.94
    Connors 1984: 85.80
    Connors 1975: 85.54
    Lendl 1989: 85.53
    McEnroe 1985: 85.52
    McEnroe 1986: 85.38
    Connors 1985: 85.37
    Lendl 1990: 85.29
    McEnroe 1984: 85.14
    Lendl 1987: 85.00

    Number of years above 80% (single-year %)
    Connors: 13
    McEnroe / Federer: 10
    Lendl: 9
    Borg / Nadal: 8

    Number of years above 90% (single-year %)
    Lendl: 5
    Connors / Borg: 4
    Federer: 3
    McEnroe: 1
    Nadal 0
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2013
    #98
  49. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Great info. thanks!
     
    #99
  50. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Really Fantastic work there!
     

Share This Page