Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Dominant Tournament Statistics (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=310678)

Nathaniel_Near 02-02-2010 04:06 AM

Dominant Tournament Statistics
 
http://www.tennis28.com/slams/games_...ournament.html

I don't have many concrete opinions about this yet, but don't you think it's odd that most of the very dominating performances in terms of % of games won come 1970's and 1980's? The general difference isn't even slight; it's huge.

I think these stats are for the open era only. There are other interesting stats on this page...I haven't finished looking through them yet.

Thoughts?


edit: Oh yeah, of course not all of these are slam victories, but many of them are.

hoodjem 02-02-2010 04:13 AM

Bruguera above Fed.!? Most interesting.

Nathaniel_Near 02-02-2010 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodjem (Post 4363407)
Bruguera above Fed.!? Most interesting.

I mean of course, this can happen because clay means you cannot cover weaknesses so easily on the serve, so Bruguera could win a higher % of games on clay than Federer on grass, as I'm sure you figured immediately anyway.

There are some things that could be quite strongly and confidently claimed but I am sure this will bring up a lot of interesting discussion. At least I hope it will.

abmk 02-02-2010 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodjem (Post 4363407)
Bruguera above Fed.!? Most interesting.

on clay - where it is easier for the champion to break ( he'd hold because he was pretty good on that surface anyways )

anyways bruguera's run in 93 RG is highly under-rated. He triple bagelled champion in the first round, lost only one set till the finals ( to sampras ) , ripped apart medvedev in the semis and won a hard fought battle against defending champion courier in the finals .....

Nathaniel_Near 02-02-2010 04:20 AM

I find these statistics even more interesting :

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/games_...y_leaders.html

http://www.tennis28.com/slams/games_winpct_year.html


The statistics In this thread are for the Slam events only.

abmk 02-02-2010 04:28 AM

just noticed - that list isn't updated , rafa's 2008 RG run which should come third overall (?), isn't there ....

Nathaniel_Near 02-02-2010 04:32 AM

Nope I just realized too. Some statistics go up to about 2008 and other to about 2006, which is a shame. =D

pc1 02-02-2010 04:45 AM

These stats have been done for the entire year. Tony Trabert's 1955 season is the best so far. In the Open Era, Borg in 1978 is the best with over 66% for the entire season. Federer's best is 61% for a few years.

McEnroe in 1984 was at 65.32% which is the third highest of the Open Era next to two years by Borg. I believe Borg averaged over 65% for a few years which is like hitting .450 in baseball or shooting a 55 in the Masters Golf Tournament for one round.

jrepac 02-02-2010 09:48 AM

70's and 80's
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near (Post 4363401)
http://www.tennis28.com/slams/games_...ournament.html

I don't have many concrete opinions about this yet, but don't you think it's odd that most of the very dominating performances in terms of % of games won come 1970's and 1980's? The general difference isn't even slight; it's huge.

I think these stats are for the open era only. There are other interesting stats on this page...I haven't finished looking through them yet.

Thoughts?


edit: Oh yeah, of course not all of these are slam victories, but many of them are.

It just speaks to the caliber/quality of the players at the time...you are looking at hall of famers here... Bjorn, Mac, Connors, Vilas, Lendl....these are multi slam winners all....compared to today when it is Fed, Nadal (when not hurt) and not much else...

But, everyone insists today's competition is much, much, better than back then....uh-huh

DMan 02-02-2010 10:30 PM

These are just numbers. In tennis, it is utterly meaningless. In tennis, it's who wins the final point. You can win 0-6,7-6,7-6, and still win the match, same as winning 6-0,6-0.

Was funny looking at the list, and seeing John McEnroe's 1990 Australian Open result in the top 10 for winning percentage! I mean what does that say ? ? ? McEnroe was defaulted from the 1990 Australian Open! Further proof this list is meaningless.

Goran Ivanisevic barely won more games than he lost at 2001 Wimbledon. A worse record than some on the best winning percentage list. But Goran won Wimbledon! That's what counts the most!

pc1 02-03-2010 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMan (Post 4366196)
These are just numbers. In tennis, it is utterly meaningless. In tennis, it's who wins the final point. You can win 0-6,7-6,7-6, and still win the match, same as winning 6-0,6-0.

Was funny looking at the list, and seeing John McEnroe's 1990 Australian Open result in the top 10 for winning percentage! I mean what does that say ? ? ? McEnroe was defaulted from the 1990 Australian Open! Further proof this list is meaningless.

Goran Ivanisevic barely won more games than he lost at 2001 Wimbledon. A worse record than some on the best winning percentage list. But Goran won Wimbledon! That's what counts the most!

Of course you're right but the point of the thread is DOMINANT tournament stats. It is interesting to know. Over the long run the players with more dominant stats in this category should have better winning percentages.

It's like stats in baseball. Everything equal the teams with better stats will win more.

Nathaniel_Near 06-04-2012 11:37 AM

http://tennis28.com/slams/games_winpct_tournament.html

Nadal is on course to produce another top 5 entry for most dominant Slam Event performances( by numbers) of the Open Era.

One Slam - Open Era (100+ games, 65%+)
Rank Player       Year Tournament Games W-L Game W%

1 Bjorn Borg*   1978 Roland Garros 127-32 79.9%
2 Bjorn Borg*   1980 Roland Garros 126-38 76.8%
3 Rafael Nadal*  2008 Roland Garros 128-41 75.7%
4 Guillermo Vilas* 1977 Roland Garros 128-43 74.9%
5 Guillermo Vilas* 1977 US Open      106-41 72.1%

In 2008 and by the end of round 4, Nadal had lost 22 games, and yet this year he has only lost 19 up to the same stage. In the 2008 quarter-finals, Nadal defeated Almagro in brutal fashion: 6-1, 6-1, 6-1. It will take a tremendous effort to keep ahead of schedule but he has a good chance of notching another top 5 effort of the Open Era (by the numbers).

kiki 06-04-2012 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abmk (Post 4363416)
on clay - where it is easier for the champion to break ( he'd hold because he was pretty good on that surface anyways )

anyways bruguera's run in 93 RG is highly under-rated. He triple bagelled champion in the first round, lost only one set till the finals ( to sampras ) , ripped apart medvedev in the semis and won a hard fought battle against defending champion courier in the finals .....

For once, I agree.He was very underrated.can you refresh me whom did he triple bagelled in the first round?

kiki 06-04-2012 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrepac (Post 4364287)
It just speaks to the caliber/quality of the players at the time...you are looking at hall of famers here... Bjorn, Mac, Connors, Vilas, Lendl....these are multi slam winners all....compared to today when it is Fed, Nadal (when not hurt) and not much else...

But, everyone insists today's competition is much, much, better than back then....uh-huh

take a full 10

Limpinhitter 06-04-2012 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near (Post 4363401)
http://www.tennis28.com/slams/games_...ournament.html

I don't have many concrete opinions about this yet, but don't you think it's odd that most of the very dominating performances in terms of % of games won come 1970's and 1980's? The general difference isn't even slight; it's huge.

I think these stats are for the open era only. There are other interesting stats on this page...I haven't finished looking through them yet.

Thoughts?


edit: Oh yeah, of course not all of these are slam victories, but many of them are.

Nothing before 1970?

Nathaniel_Near 06-04-2012 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter (Post 6596506)
Nothing before 1970?

Sorry Limpin, but it seems whoever runs the site only has statistics for the Open Era.

So to answer your question, yes but no.

pc1 06-04-2012 05:05 PM

Jack Kramer lost the fewest games in Wimbledon history at the 1947 Wimbledon I believe. He lost one set however in that tournament. Not sure what the games won and lost were.

Nadal_Power 06-05-2012 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pc1 (Post 6596612)
Jack Kramer lost the fewest games in Wimbledon history at the 1947 Wimbledon I believe. He lost one set however in that tournament. Not sure what the games won and lost were.

Never knew about this, amazing run

http://www.tennisarchives.com/coureu...coureurid=3674

According to this source, he lost 37 games, and that one set


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse