Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Some high points in career winning percentages, open era (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=456623)

Benhur 03-04-2013 07:56 PM

Some high points in career winning percentages, open era
 
These calculations were done to find out at which point in these players careers they reached their respective highest cumulative career percentages. They are done at year end because otherwise it would take way too long.

Connors was still above 85% at the end of 1984, but his highest point seems to be the end of 1982. On the other hand, McEnroe’s career percentage was a bit higher at the end of 1985 than at the end 1984, which at first I found surprising. Also a bit surprising was that Federer's percentage has continued to rise with respect to what it was at the end of his best period.

Connors (through 1982) 859-138: 86.16
Lendl (through 1989) 851-144: 85.53
McEnroe (through 1985) 644-109: 85.52
Borg (through 1981) 605-112: 84.38
Nadal (current) 595-123: 82.87
Federer (current) 888-201: 81.54

BobbyOne 03-05-2013 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benhur (Post 7251501)
These calculations were done to find out at which point in these players careers they reached their respective highest cumulative career percentages. They are done at year end because otherwise it would take way too long.

Connors was still above 85% at the end of 1984, but his highest point seems to be the end of 1982. On the other hand, McEnroe’s career percentage was a bit higher at the end of 1985 than at the end 1984, which at first I found surprising. Also a bit surprising was that Federer's percentage has continued to rise with respect to what it was at the end of his best period.

Connors (through 1982) 859-138: 86.16
Lendl (through 1989) 851-144: 85.53
McEnroe (through 1985) 644-109: 85.52
Borg (through 1981) 605-112: 84.38
Nadal (current) 595-123: 82.87
Federer (current) 888-201: 81.54

Benhur, Thanks. This confirms that Federer is not (almost) invincible...

NadalDramaQueen 03-05-2013 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyOne (Post 7252201)
Benhur, Thanks. This confirms that Federer is not (almost) invincible...

If you look at the full statistics you will see that Fed's winning percentage at his best was very high.

For example, Nadal has never hit the highs that Fed has, but he hit the ground running, so to speak, so has the better percentage.

Don't be so simplistic, Bobby.

NatF 03-05-2013 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyOne (Post 7252201)
Benhur, Thanks. This confirms that Federer is not (almost) invincible...

You're a petty man taking a dig at Federer instead of praising greats like Lendl and Connors. Federer had 3 consecutive seasons with over 90% win percentage. He was nigh invincible at his peak. He has the highest win percentage on grass and hardcourt ever.

BobbyOne 03-05-2013 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen (Post 7252206)
If you look at the full statistics you will see that Fed's winning percentage at his best was very high.

For example, Nadal has never hit the highs that Fed has, but he hit the ground running, so to speak, so has the better percentage.

Don't be so simplistic, Bobby.

NDQ, Federer's winning percentage was very high when the competition was not the best one.

It was not me who brought the list of percentages. It's not simplistic.

forzamilan90 03-05-2013 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyOne (Post 7252201)
Benhur, Thanks. This confirms that Federer is not (almost) invincible...

his winning % from 2003 when he got really good-now is sick
anyway some stats from wikipedia, not up to date for 2013 but still
  • Federer is the first male to achieve 84.6% ratio of Grand Slam finals reached after making it to more than 10 semifinals (22 finals/26 semi-finals), this is between 2003 Wimbledon Championships and 2010 US Open. He has since made it to 24 Grand Slam finals from 32 semi-finals giving him a career ratio of 75%. From the 2004 Australian Open to the 2009 US Open he had a ratio of 87% (20 finals/23 semi-finals).
  • Federer is currently the only male player to have winning percentage over 85% in three Grand-Slam tournaments (all except French Open). Only Federer and Rafael Nadal have winning percentage over 80% in all the four Grand-Slam tournaments.
  • Federer is the only male to achieve winning percentage of 95% in Grand-Slam tournaments in three different seasons (2004, 2006 and 2007).
  • As of 2012 US Open, Federer's match record in Grand Slam tournaments is 247–37, giving him an 87.0 winning percentage, being third behind Borg (89.8) and Nadal (87.7)

tons more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Roger_Federer

BobbyOne 03-05-2013 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatF (Post 7252214)
You're a petty man taking a dig at Federer instead of praising greats like Lendl and Connors. Federer had 3 consecutive seasons with over 90% win percentage. He was nigh invincible at his peak. He has the highest win percentage on grass and hardcourt ever.

NaturallyFederer, What is wrong to read statistics provided by other posters??? It's only a serious reaction to those who praise Federer more than it is reasonable.

If you Federer fanatics would not worship Federer to such an exaggerated extent, I would not be enticed to give a contra...

I don't have an agenda against Federer, but some Fed fans have an agenda against me...

NatF 03-05-2013 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyOne (Post 7252874)
NaturallyFederer, What is wrong to read statistics provided by other posters??? It's only a serious reaction to those who praise Federer more than it is reasonable.

If you Federer fanatics would not worship Federer to such an exaggerated extent, I would not be enticed to give a contra...

Poor you, no one I've seen converse with you worships Federer (except maybe TMF). Most recognise his talent and achievements. The fact you don't is the reason why you have a distorted view of his fans. They tell you the facts and you're too stubborn to accept it.

You can ofcourse read statistics, the fact that you only single out Federer to mention and that in a negative manner is all the evidence anyone needs for your agenda.

NadalDramaQueen 03-05-2013 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyOne (Post 7252854)
NDQ, Federer's winning percentage was very high when the competition was not the best one.

It was not me who brought the list of percentages. It's not simplistic.

Give it a rest Bobby, you're the only one interested in denigrating players. Sometimes, if you have nothing positive to say, say nothing at all.

NatF 03-05-2013 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen (Post 7252889)
Give it a rest Bobby, you're the only one interested in denigrating players. Sometimes, if you have nothing positive to say, say nothing at all.

This.

10char.

forzamilan90 03-05-2013 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyOne (Post 7252854)
NDQ, Federer's winning percentage was very high when the competition was not the best one.

It was not me who brought the list of percentages. It's not simplistic.

Since the year of the first slam win (2003 for Fed, 2005 for Nadal) actually Fed has the better winning percentage compared to the 2nd best player of the era, Nadal.

Federer
2003 78-17 82.11%
2004 74-6 92.50%
2005 81-4 95.29%
2006 92-5 94.85%
2007 68-9 88.31%
2008 66-15 81.48%
2009 61-12 83.56%
2010 65-13 83.33%
2011 64-12 84.21%
2012 71-12 85.54%
Average 87.12%

Nadal
yet to win a slam title
yet to win a slam title
79-10 88.76%
59-12 83.10%
70-15 82.35%
82-11 88.17%
66-14 82.50%
71-10 87.65%
69-15 82.14%
42-6 87.50%
Average 85.27%


2012 winning percentage says hi. :) 85+% is pretty damn high by whoever standards you choose and that is Fed in twilight years (turned pro in 1998) vs the 5 years younger rivals all in their prime.

I should give myself for medal for not cursing out or insulting, trying to hold back.

NatF 03-05-2013 02:27 PM

2012 is really unfair to include for Nadal too seeing as he played his best part of the season and skipped the rest...

forzamilan90 03-05-2013 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatF (Post 7252922)
2012 is really unfair to include for Nadal too seeing as he played his best part of the season and skipped the rest...

valid point...but humble me, wanted to throw the guy a bone. Love me some Capy Rafa.

jimbo333 03-05-2013 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benhur (Post 7251501)
These calculations were done to find out at which point in these players careers they reached their respective highest cumulative career percentages. They are done at year end because otherwise it would take way too long.

Connors was still above 85% at the end of 1984, but his highest point seems to be the end of 1982. On the other hand, McEnroe’s career percentage was a bit higher at the end of 1985 than at the end 1984, which at first I found surprising. Also a bit surprising was that Federer's percentage has continued to rise with respect to what it was at the end of his best period.

Connors (through 1982) 859-138: 86.16
Lendl (through 1989) 851-144: 85.53
McEnroe (through 1985) 644-109: 85.52
Borg (through 1981) 605-112: 84.38
Nadal (current) 595-123: 82.87
Federer (current) 888-201: 81.54

Thanks for calculating these stats, brilliant stuff!

Further evidence that Connors is underrated by many here. As I've said before, I would have him 3rd of all-time behind Laver and Federer. Many people disagree I know, but the above is one reason among many as to why I put him 3rd.

BobbyOne 03-05-2013 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NatF (Post 7252887)
Poor you, no one I've seen converse with you worships Federer (except maybe TMF). Most recognise his talent and achievements. The fact you don't is the reason why you have a distorted view of his fans. They tell you the facts and you're too stubborn to accept it.

You can ofcourse read statistics, the fact that you only single out Federer to mention and that in a negative manner is all the evidence anyone needs for your agenda.

NaturallyFederer, I DON'T have an anti-Federer agenda, but you and your Fed colleagues have an agenda against me...

It's my right to put Federer (and the former GOAT, Sampras) in the correct perspective, at least according to my opinion. That's all I try to do. It could be at the most that I'm wrong with my Federer consideration but that's NOT identic with an "agenda" which needs an intention. Hope I was able to explain it...

You are right: I'm a rather poor man: got not too many "Euros".

forzamilan90 03-05-2013 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyOne (Post 7253029)
NaturallyFederer, I DON'T have an anti-Federer agenda, but you and your Fed colleagues have an agenda against me...

It's my right to put Federer (and the former GOAT, Sampras) in the correct perspective, at least according to my opinion. That's all I try to do. It could be at the most that I'm wrong with my Federer consideration but that's NOT identic with an "agenda" which needs an intention. Hope I was able to explain it...

You are right: I'm a rather poor man: got not too many "Euros".


BobbyOne 03-05-2013 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen (Post 7252889)
Give it a rest Bobby, you're the only one interested in denigrating players. Sometimes, if you have nothing positive to say, say nothing at all.

NDQ with the agenda against me: I'm not only allowed to praise a given player (even though you Federer fanatics have blamed me for praising Rosewall) but also to criticize a given player (f.i. Federer) in case he is overrated by many people. Imagine a poster would rank Karlovic as an alltime top ten player. Would not you contradict and tried to show that Ivo is not???

BobbyOne 03-05-2013 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forzamilan90 (Post 7253040)

Forza, You are right: there is a Federer army here.

You are wrong: I do have still many hairs...

NadalDramaQueen 03-05-2013 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyOne (Post 7253044)
NDQ with the agenda against me: I'm not only allowed to praise a given player (even though you Federer fanatics have blamed me for praising Rosewall) but also to criticize a given player (f.i. Federer) in case he is overrated by many people. Imagine a poster would rank Karlovic as an alltime top ten player. Would not you contradict and tried to show that Ivo is not???

Not if the thread had nothing to do with discussing Ivo's greatness where my agenda to hate on Ivo would fit right in. :)

By the way, there is a reason that not everyone rates Ivo that high but they do rate Federer so highly. Perhaps you should open your mind just a bit.

forzamilan90 03-05-2013 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyOne (Post 7253048)
Forza, You are right: there is a Federer army here.

You are wrong: I do have still many hairs...

hahaha well congrats, I do think this is the first time I actually laughed at a humorous post of yours.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:15 AM.

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