Federer and Nadal's Career Winning Percentage

[cknobman]

Originally Posted by DjokovicForTheWin

?????? ISn't Nadal's 87.6 > Roger's 86.9?

You have to count the intangibles

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by 813wilson

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....

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Godd, detailed answer. You get my vote.

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%.

[813wilson]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

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%.

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?

[Nathaniel_Near]

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.

[Nathaniel_Near]

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.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

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%).

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 (as opposed to more 86.2% +)

LOL at debating over a meaningless statistic.

[813wilson]

^^^
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.....

[piece]

Originally Posted by 813wilson

^^^
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.....

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:

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

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%).

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.

[Nathaniel_Near]

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.

[piece]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

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.

Alright now you stand watch while I get some shut eye.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by piece

Alright now you stand watch while I get some shut eye.

Heh heh. Sleep well, guardian.

[TopFH]

Originally Posted by nadalwon2012

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.

I would be extremely surprised if Nadal wins 2 consecutive matches against Djoker.

[ZeroSkid]

Originally Posted by TopFH

I would be extremely surprised if Nadal wins 2 consecutive matches against Djoker.

I wouldn't at all, he almost won last time so this time he will probably win

[MG1]

As of IW 2012

Fed needs 71-12 (85.54%)

Rafa needs 346-81 (81.03%)

[DMan]

Originally Posted by 813wilson

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....

Agree it's unlikely Federer will record 900 career wins before he has his 200th loss.

And also agree it's unlikely Nadal will play 1100 matches. Also, who thinks Nadal is going to be winning an event like Indian Wells in 5 years? Really, I mean who?

[813wilson]

Originally Posted by piece

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.

Piece,

allow me to be more clear.

A) NN brought up Fed's winning % over the last 3 complete years. Then, in a later post referenced 4 years. I was replying(because I've stated two years as the barometer for Nadal and Fed in this thread) that only one combined total of his best ever years keeps him under the 11 or 12 loss total - thereby putting him at or under 200 losses. Further, I'm saying that the three, then four years NN referenced, in terms of winning percentage, are not good enough, in actual losses to keep him below 200 losses.
B) How is my comment misguided? And, they aren't my claims, they're NN's. If you don't think these three statements are conflicting: "plausible, even reasonable", " I give him a 25% chance of acheiving it", and " I think he'll get to 900 wins with about 202 losses" - then we'll have to disagree. He basically is saying in the 1st two there is a decent chance, then says he'll be over 200 losses. That doesn't seem consistant, does it?
C) Bringing up winning percentages to show he is capable is a flawed point. My point is this: in his last four years his record - not percentage shows that he would exceed 200 total losses. BTW - those four years? his winning % is 83.1 and any one of those years repeated puts him over 200 losses.
D) Sorry - you're right, I was going from memory - thought it was under 200 losses not 200 or under.

Now, lets talk about your last point. What is your definition of "these days"? What is your definition of "the past few years"?
This season aside(only because it isn't complete), "Federer doesn't lose anywhere near as often these days as when he started his career." True. However, he has been losing more than at his peak run. And, as I just noted above - the most recent 4 years is a winning % of 83.1. So my career cues are a poor excuse, as is your comment about "the most relevant information we have is his winning percentage over the last few years."

[McEnroeisanartist]

Currently Federer is is 875-196. He would have to go 25-3 to win 900 matches with less than 200 losses.

After his Davis Cup loss to Isner, Federer went 29-3. After his Rome loss to Djokovi, he went 29-3 again.

[RAFA2005RG]

Nadal has a 98.1% winning percentage at Roland Garros. 52 of 53.

Not sure what Federer's winning percentage is at Wimbledon, but I suspect its crap, considering he's lost in the 1st Round THREE times.

And interestingly during Federer's career there have been very few players who call grass their favorite surface. Whereas there are plenty of players known for claycourt tennis.

[augustobt]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Nadal has a 98.1% winning percentage at Roland Garros. 52 of 53.

Not sure what Federer's winning percentage is at Wimbledon, but I suspect its crap, considering he's lost in the 1st Round THREE times.

And interestingly during Federer's career there have been very few players who call grass their favorite surface. Whereas there are plenty of players known for claycourt tennis.

I think that this thread is about "career", and Roland Garros/Wimbledon is just a single part of it.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by augustobt

I think that this thread is about "career", and Roland Garros/Wimbledon is just a single part of it.

Yes, the BIGGEST single part of it.