60% years

[Gary Duane]

There are only a few years in which any player came CLOSE to winning 60% or more of all games for a year, on EACH surface, at least since 1991 when the ATP started keeping stats.

2015:
#1 Djokovic: 89/34 123.90 (ATP says 123 because of rounding error)
:::::: HC: 88/37 124.74-----------------AO------------USO
:::::: Clay: 91/33 123.69
:::::: Grass: 95/24 119.25 ---------------W

2005:
#1 Federer 89/31 119.94
:::::: Grass 93/26 119.14 -------------------------------WIMBLY
:::::: HC 91/30 121.64 -------------------------------USO
:::::: Clay: 85/35 120.42

2004
#1 Federer 92/30 122
:::::: Grass 95/35 130 -------------------------------WIMBLY
:::::: HC 92/29 121 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
:::::: Clay: 88/30 118.31

1999
#1 Agassi 88/34 122
:::::: Grass: 94/26 119.44
:::::: HC: 90/36 126 -------------------------------USO
:::::: Clay: 80/43 123 -------------------------------FO

Any guess as to which player or players actually did it, and in what years?

 

[Sysyphus]

Fed's 130 on grass is madness, and must be quite singular for that surface I imagine.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

This basically tells us that Djoker is winning at Wimbledon because he lacks a true capable force, like Agassi had in 1999.

 

[Sysyphus]

Agassi's 1999 was solid by the numbers too. Somewhat surprising that he put down higher service numbers in 99 than Novak did this year, given the general trend of greater hold percentage during that period.

Obviously great over the board this your from ****** too. Chokingly dominant, that man.

 

[metsman]

Fed 06 was at least 120 everywhere right?

 

[metsman]

Fed 06 was at least 120 everywhere right?

I assume Djoker 2011 was too

 

[metsman]

actually fed 06 was 118 on clay

 

[metsman]

mac 84 maybe?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

OP, you mention 60%, but no averaged percentages are given in the data.
I know we can work it out ourselves, but we shouldn't have to.

Pls divide by two for us lol, I'm too lazy.

 

[Gazelle]

OP, you mention 60%, but no averaged percentages are given in the data.
I know we can work it out ourselves, but we shouldn't have to.

Pls divide by two for us lol, I'm too lazy.

+1

I'm too lazy to make sense out of these posted numbers, at least at this moment of the day.

 

[Gary Duane]

Fed's 130 on grass is madness, and must be quite singular for that surface I imagine.

I think it is highest I have seen on grass. Grass is weird because there are so few matches. In Fed's best years he generally played 12 matches, 5 in a tune-up and 7 at Wimbly.

That number can be off +/- 1, although that is extremely rare, so I'll calculate it out precisely later. For instance when Fed went 95/35 that could be: 95.49999 + 35.49999 or 130.99999 (131) or 94.5 + 34.5 or 129. That's the fault of the ATP rounding, but you can get the correct by dividing games won/games played.

So it is unlikely that someone who totals 130 should round to 131, while another with the same total would round to 129, but when there is a tie it is safest to do the extra math.

Agassi went 92/39 131 in 1995, but that was only 6 matches when he lost in the SF at Wimbly. So grass totals can vary hugely from year to year because of the relatively few matches played, even by winners.

Of course you divide the last number for %, so there can be a max error of 1% before checking more closely.

 

[Gary Duane]

+1

I'm too lazy to make sense out of these posted numbers, at least at this moment of the day.

Take the last number. If it is 120 or greater, that's 60%. If it is 120 or greater on each surface, then it will be over 120 for all surfaces. The rarity is to be so strong on all surfaces.

Right now I am collected all names of all years that are above 60% or very close to if over the last 24 years.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Well, obviously Fed managed it in 2006 (92+30) and Nadal in several years overall but I'm guessing they didn't achieve it on all the surfaces individually or you would have included them.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I hear McEnroe was at 130-131 (so 65+% of games won) for the 1984 season, so that seems like an obvious candidate season.

 

[xFedal]

I hear McEnroe was at 130-131 (so 65+% of games won) for the 1984 season, so that seems like an obvious candidate season.

He won the heightest percentages of games 65.32% nobody else comes close. Not even Nole or Fed.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

He won the heightest percentages of games 65.32% nobody else comes close. Not even Nole or Fed.

Mac is still a GOAT contender IMO.
He underachieved because of extremely high competition (basically the Golden Era of tennis with Borg, Connors, Lendl).

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Nice 124 for Novak on HC this year too, with absolutely tons of HC matches played.

 

[xFedal]

Mac is still a GOAT contender IMO.
He underachieved because of extremely high competition (basically the Golden Era of tennis with Borg, Connors, Lendl).

Not he went down hill due to drugs after 1984 his best season he went down hill no more majors? Not cos of competition.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

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

These stats are for the Slems only, but it will probably give a good indication of which seasons to look to for your proposed milestones @Gary Duane IV.

 

[Gary Duane]

I went down to 119, knowing that there can be an error of 1/2%. 90/29 could be 90.4999.../29.499...., which would be 199.99...
2011:
#1 Djokovic: 86/39 125.26
:::::: HC: 85/41 126 -------------------------------USO--------------AO
:::::: Clay: 88/37 125
:::::: Grass: 91/31 122 -------------------------------WIMBLY
2015:
#1 Djokovic: 89/34 123.90 (almost 124 because of ATP rounding error)
:::::: HC: 88/37 124.74-----------------AO------------USO
:::::: Clay: 91/33 123.69
:::::: Grass: 95/24 119.25 ---------------WIMBLY
1995
#2 Agassi 87/36 123.03
:::::: Grass: 92/39 130.84 (Lost in SF to Becker at WIMBLY)
:::::: HC: 88/36 123.99 -------------------------------AO ----------(Lost in F to Sampras at USO)
:::::: Clay: 83/37 120.26 (FO lost to Kafelnikov in QF)
2013:
#1 Nadal 88/34 122
:::::: Clay: 87/38 125 ----------------------------FO
:::::: HC: 89/30 119 ----------------------------USO
:::::: Grass: 82/12 94
2012:
#1 Djokovic 87/35 122
:::::: HC 89/37 126 -------------------------------AO
:::::: Grass 91/28 119
:::::: Clay: 81/33 114
1999
#1 Agassi 88/34 122.23
:::::: Grass: 94/26 119.44
:::::: HC: 90/36 126 -------------------------------USO
:::::: Clay: 80/43 123 -------------------------------FO
2004:
#1 Federer 92/30 122.04
:::::: Grass 95/35 130 -------------------------------WIMBLY
:::::: HC 92/29 121 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
:::::: Clay: 88/30 118.31
2005:
#2 Nadal 84/38 122.03
:::::: Clay 84/46 130 -------------------------------FO
:::::: HC: 85/29 114
:::::: Grass: 89/16 105
2006:
#1 Federer 90/32 121.75
:::::: Grass 94/30 124 -------------------------------WIMBLY
:::::: HC 91/32 123 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
:::::: Clay: 85/33 118 (very few games on clay)
2008:
#1 Nadal 88/33 121.25
:::::: Clay: 84/51 135 -------------------------FO
:::::: Grass 95/22 117 ---------------------------- WIMBLY
:::::: HC 87/30 117
2013:
#2 Djokovic 88/33 121.12
:::::: HC: 89/34 123.59 ------------------------- AO
:::::: Clay: 83/34 117.41
:::::: Grass 89/25 114.32
2014:
#1 Djokovic 88/33 121.00
:::::: HC: 89/34 122.75
:::::: Clay: 83/37 120.44
:::::: Grass: 92/23 11.165 -----------------------W
2014:
#3 Nadal 85/35 120.25
:::::: HC 86/30 116
:::::: Clay: 83/44 127 -------------------------FO
:::::: Grass: 90/20 110
2005:
#1 Federer 89/31 119.94
:::::: Grass 93/26 119.14 -------------------------------WIMBLY
:::::: HC 91/30 121.64 -------------------------------USO
:::::: Clay: 85/35 120.42
2010:
#1 Nadal 90/29 119.45
:::::: Clay: 91/41 132 ------------------------------FO
:::::: Grass: 91/26 117 -------------------------------WIMBLY
:::::: HC: 89/26 115 -------------------------------USO
2015:
#3 Federer: 92/27 119.22
:::::: HC: 92/30 122
:::::: Clay: 89/25 114.02
:::::: Grass: 96/21 117
2007:
#2 Nadal 86/33 119.19
:::::: Clay: 87/45 132 -------------------------------FO
:::::: Grass: 91/24 115
:::::: HC 84/28 112

 

[Steve0904]

Mac's 84 would be my first guess. Maybe Federer's 2006.

 

[Tennisanity]

What's the point? Isn't 60% arbitrary?

 

[Gary Duane]

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

These stats are for the Slems only, but it will probably give a good indication of which seasons to look to for your proposed milestones @Gary Duane IV.

This correlates VERY well with what I compiled. Unfortunately I could only go back to 1991, but a simple list of all games won and lost for each year by the best players will complete it. That's all I need.

I used the ATP stats and did it the hard way because I wanted to see the balance between aggression and defense.

It turns out it stays pretty steady all year, and a few things become obvious.

Getting to 60% or very close, all year is the usual thing for players who win multiple slams. This shows up for Fed in all his 3 slam years, for Nadal in 2010, Novak in 2011. It also shows up in years when a player only wins one slam but is in contention for all the slams. So Agassi shows up both on this slam list and on my list in 1995. Only one slam, but he was so close in the others. That's not the only time this has happened, not by a long shot.

So Nadal's 2 slam 2013 is on the list, also Nadal's 2011.

Nadal shows up on this list 7 years.
Federer shows up 7 years.
Connors 7 years.
Borg 6 years.
Lendl 6 years.
McEnroe 4 years.
* Novak 3 years, which should now be 4 or 5, because 2015 is not included, and 2014 might be very close.
Becker 3 years.
Vilas 3 years.
Sampras 2 years.
Rosewall 2 years.
Laver 2 years.
Courier 2 years.
Wilander 2 years.
Edberg 2 years.

By the way, 5/7 of the years Connors is in this elite group he was at three of the slams, and we all know why he was not at the AO more often, and when a couple years he was only in two slams. This suggests to me that he continues to be underrated as ONE of the best of all time. I don't have figures for Novak for 2015, but I am absolutely positive that 2015 belongs on this list, and 2014 will be very close.

The biggest anomaly of the Open Era is Sampras, who only made this list a couple times, both for all year and for slams.

 

[Gary Duane]

What's the point? Isn't 60% arbitrary?

If you look at Nathaniel's list of who has won 60% of games in a year for slams in the Open Era, then how this correlates to winning 60% off all games all year, then seeing who has won more than 60% of games all year on a surface, surely you can see something important, right?

 

[Gary Duane]

Mac's 84 would be my first guess. Maybe Federer's 2006.

Feds's 2006 misses it by a hair:

2006:
#1 Federer 90/32 122
:::::: Grass 94/30 124 -------------------------------WIMBLY
:::::: HC 91/32 123 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
:::::: Clay: 85/33 118

I don't have the figures for Mac's '84. I'd look first to players who were good on HCs but also on grass and clay. I'd love to have all the figures for Borg, Mac and Connors. Also Lendl, Vilander.

In general super aggressive players are a bit lower in %, day in and day out. This is why Sampras is not very often on the list, either list. He is close, but I believe he coasted more than any other champion. His record at Wimbledon, however, should be very high, as would also be true of Fed and Borg.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

I don't get the numbers? Let's say it's 90/30 120. Do I get this right: 90 = number of games won, 30 = number of games lost, 120 = total played games?

If so, why do some people in this thread keep saying that it's important to be over 130? Isn't the sole importance to just divide number of games won with total games played?

 

[jm1980]

I don't get the numbers? Let's say it's 90/30 120. Do I get this right: 90 = number of games won, 30 = number of games lost, 120 = total played games?

If so, why do some people in this thread keep saying that it's important to be over 130? Isn't the sole importance to just divide number of games won with total games played?

I'm guessing the OP is just being lazy and adding the % of service games won + % of return games won found on the ATP website, giving you an idea of the % of total games won.

The flaw with this system is TBs are not included in either of those stats

 

[metsman]

Mac is still a GOAT contender IMO.
He underachieved because of extremely high competition (basically the Golden Era of tennis with Borg, Connors, Lendl).

nah...he failed to adapt to the new era (of course coke and his marriage had something to do with that). At the end of the day I don't think Mac was physical enough to succeed on all surfaces and dominate in an era with power.

 

[metsman]

I'm guessing the OP is just being lazy and adding the % of service games won + % of return games won found on the ATP website, giving you an idea of the % of total games won.

The flaw with this system is TBs are not included in either of those stats

which heavily underrates a guy like Fed...that's ok though.

 

[jm1980]

which heavily underrates a guy like Fed...that's ok though.

Fed's career TB win % is 65%, so I'm not sure it "heavily" underrates him (Djokovic: 63%; Nadal: 62%)

 

[metsman]

Fed's career TB win % is 65%, so I'm not sure it "heavily" underrates him (Djokovic: 63%; Nadal: 62%)

Djokovic has played over 300 fewer tiebreaks and Nadal I think 285 fewer so Fed's tiebreak record(best ever besides Ashe who is irrelevant here) would hold a lot more weight. I mean you add a 65% tiebreak record weighted accordingly it'll push some of his closer years on certain surfaces over 120.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Fed's career TB win % is 65%, so I'm not sure it "heavily" underrates him (Djokovic: 63%; Nadal: 62%)

Federer's had years of decline though for that stat to go down.
Novak is at his peak, that 63% isn't going to stick around (neither is Nadal's 62%).

 

[Gary Duane]

I'm guessing the OP is just being lazy and adding the % of service games won + % of return games won found on the ATP website, giving you an idea of the % of total games won.

The flaw with this system is TBs are not included in either of those stats

Yes. But also remember that both %s can be off +/- 1%. 90/30 is 120 or 60%, but because the ATP rounds off, it may actually be around 59.5% or 60.5%. I was careful to compute the actual number, assuming I did not make a mistake, which is possible.

I agree, but the problem would be how much weight to give those TBs.

TBs are a real logical problem.

 

[Gary Duane]

I'm guessing the OP is just being lazy and adding the % of service games won + % of return games won found on the ATP website

The OP was not lazy. The OP divided total number of game won/total number of games played, for both serving and returning, because in some cases both numbers were almost 1/2% off and resulted in up to 1% error.

Then checked each result against the AT figure.

Unfortunately I could find no source for total number of games played vs number of games won, and that also gives no idea of the relationship between dominant serving and dominant returning.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

I don't get a **** off this... Can someone please make a logical explication and not only showing a bunch of numbers?

 

[Gary Duane]

I don't get a **** off this... Can someone please make a logical explication and not only showing a bunch of numbers?

90/30 120

90% of all games won serving, 30% of all games won returning. Add and divide by two:

90/30 120 = 60%
90/35 115 = 57.5%

It is easier to deal with whole numbers. 110 = 55%, 120 = 60%, 130 = 65%, very rare on any surface.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

90/30 120

90% of all games won serving, 30% of all games won returning. Add and divide by two:

90/30 120 = 60%
90/35 115 = 57.5%

It is easier to deal with whole numbers. 110 = 55%, 120 = 60%, 130 = 65%, very rare on any surface.

Thank you.

 

[Gary Duane]

Thank you.

Again, the problem is that the ATP gives rounded off numbers.

If you look to see who is serving best and find three players tied at winning 90% of all games, that could be 89.5, or 90.4999999999. I found that the hard way by calculating the true numbers. When you see several players tied, the one at the top is really higher, and the one at the bottom is really lower. It turns out that the undivided round number I'm using for a total is never off more than one.

That means if the total is 121, the very lowest it really should be is around 120, and it could be almost 122. That turns out to be a full % error, or very close to it, which is why I calculated what the ATP is using but is not showing.

If they showed games won to games played for ALL games, it would be a 1000 times simpler, and if it showed this for all surfaces and for each surface it would be simple. It turns out that to find the % of service games and % of return games, on all surfaces combined than on each surface along, you have to check 8 pages for each player, for each year, in their stats. Same thing in All Stats.

So compiling this list was not fast, and it was not easy.

 

[dr325i]

This basically tells us that Djoker is winning at Wimbledon because he lacks a true capable force, like Agassi had in 1999.

And THAT is why he's winning at W? LOL

 

[Rovesciarete]

It is an old thread with a bit of an arbitrary cutoff, but interesting to see the development of Djokovic and Tennisabstract has made things almost effortless for the user. Since 2011 Novak finished in 9 out of 13 full seasons over this very rare mark!

​

DJOKOVIC Tour-Level Seasons Top​

Mouse over column headers (on all tables) for stat definitions. Click on years for results from that season.

Year​	Game W-L​	Game%​	TPW​
2024	158-116​	57.7%​	54.1%​
2023	1044-704​	59.7%​	54.9%​
2022	712-490​	59.2%​	55.1%​
2021	1044-673​	60.8%​	55.4%​
2020	685-450​	60.4%​	54.9%​
2019	949-607​	61.0%​	55.4%​
2018	1056-736​	58.9%​	54.5%​
2017	576-420​	57.8%​	53.8%​
2016	1054-674​	61.0%​	55.2%​
2015	1367-825​	62.4%​	55.8%​
2014	1085-695​	61.0%​	55.3%​
2013	1345-841​	61.5%​	55.6%​
2012	1305-826​	61.2%​	55.5%​
2011	1108-655​	62.8%​	56.0%​
2010	1179-862​	57.8%​	53.1%​
2009	1346-989​	57.6%​	53.5%​
2008	1151-808​	58.8%​	54.0%​
2007	1280-972​	56.8%​	52.9%​
2006	819-688​	54.3%​	51.8%​
2005	318-319​	49.9%​	49.3%​
2004	62-64​	49.2%​	48.0%​
Career	19643-13414​	59.4%​	54.5%​

 

[Rovesciarete]

Nadal got 10 full season over that benchmark, only shy of having 0.2% of having a full career of over 60%!

NADAL Tour-Level Seasons Top​

Mouse over column headers (on all tables) for stat definitions. Click on years for results from that season.

Year​	Game W-L​	Game%​	TPW​
2024	41-27​	60.3%​	55.7%​
2023	59-66​	47.2%​	49.0%​
2022	767-559​	57.8%​	53.7%​
2021	451-300​	60.1%​	54.6%​
2020	507-321​	61.2%​	55.6%​
2019	987-576​	63.1%​	56.0%​
2018	789-474​	62.5%​	55.5%​
2017	1165-743​	61.1%​	55.7%​
2016	707-499​	58.6%​	53.5%​
2015	1134-844​	57.3%​	53.4%​
2014	788-529​	59.8%​	54.9%​
2013	1225-774​	61.3%​	54.8%​
2012	716-424​	62.8%​	56.1%​
2011	1235-831​	59.8%​	54.4%​
2010	1218-810​	60.1%​	54.6%​
2009	1101-760​	59.2%​	54.1%​
2008	1298-824​	61.2%​	55.0%​
2007	1233-842​	59.4%​	54.3%​
2006	1069-778​	57.9%​	53.6%​
2005	1318-834​	61.2%​	55.2%​
2004	595-503​	54.2%​	51.8%​
2003	300-268​	52.8%​	51.2%​
2002	16-20​	44.4%​	48.7%​
Career	18719-12606​	59.8%​	54.5%​

 

[Red Rick]

Fed's 130 on grass is madness, and must be quite singular for that surface I imagine.

This is why 2004 Roddick >> 2009 Roddick in Wimbly final

 

[Rovesciarete]

You can see the outcome of Roger not playing so much on clay and being relative to his peers more reliant on his serve. Still a brilliant returner, especially on grass and he managed get four times over the 60 GW percentage:

FEDERER Tour-Level Seasons Top​

Mouse over column headers (on all tables) for stat definitions. Click on years for results from that season.

Year​	Game W-L​	Game%​	TPW​
2021	225-204​	52.4%​	51.2%​
2020	122-95​	56.2%​	52.8%​
2019	958-668​	58.9%​	54.6%​
2018	902-661​	57.7%​	54.4%​
2017	923-635​	59.2%​	54.9%​
2016	440-328​	57.3%​	53.8%​
2015	1110-740​	60.0%​	55.0%​
2014	1274-893​	58.8%​	54.7%​
2013	957-733​	56.6%​	53.8%​
2012	1286-907​	58.6%​	54.4%​
2011	1141-784​	59.3%​	54.9%​
2010	1145-803​	58.8%​	54.5%​
2009	1211-866​	58.3%​	54.0%​
2008	1228-866​	58.6%​	54.5%​
2007	1207-818​	59.6%​	54.9%​
2006	1552-962​	61.7%​	55.6%​
2005	1340-859​	60.9%​	55.2%​
2004	1245-769​	61.8%​	55.5%​
2003	1356-934​	59.2%​	54.6%​
2002	1130-873​	56.4%​	52.6%​
2001	1069-927​	53.6%​	51.9%​
2000	886-850​	51.0%​	50.4%​
1999	389-414​	48.4%​	49.0%​
1998	46-48​	48.9%​	49.4%​
Career	23142-16637​	58.2%​	54.1%​

 

[Rovesciarete]

Even if we all know how truly extraordinary Rafa was on clay, 64% of games won is just mind-blowing! 67.3% of tiebreaks, 46.8% of all return points won...

RAFA Career Tour-Level Splits Top​

Split​	Game W-L​	Game%​	TB%​	SPW​	RPW​	TPW​	DR​
Hard	9460-6983​	57.5%​	58.4%​	67.6%​	40.4%​	53.6%​	1.25​
Clay	7385-4153​	64.0%​	67.3%​	66.3%​	46.8%​	56.2%​	1.39​
Grass	1780-1356​	56.8%​	63.8%​	70.1%​	37.4%​	53.3%​	1.25​
Carpet	94-114​	45.2%​	33.3%​	60.3%​	30.5%​	46.2%​	0.77​
Grand Slams	6876-4401​	61.0%​	62.8%​	68.6%​	42.7%​	55.2%​	1.36​
Masters	6217-4279​	59.2%​	61.1%​	66.7%​	42.6%​	54.3%​	1.28​
Other Tours	4629-3181​	59.3%​	60.7%​	66.7%​	42.5%​	54.2%​	1.28​
Best of 5	7534-4805​	61.1%​	63.1%​	68.4%​	42.7%​	55.0%​	1.35​
Best of 3	11185-7801​	58.9%​	59.5%​	66.7%​	42.2%​	54.1%​	1.27​
Finals	1908-1571​	54.8%​	54.2%​	63.5%​	40.4%​	51.9%​	1.11​
Semi-finals	2355-1816​	56.5%​	63.5%​	65.5%​	40.7%​	52.9%​	1.18​
Quarter-finals	3037-2272​	57.2%​	55.6%​	66.3%​	41.2%​	53.5%​	1.22​
vs Righties	16764-11418​	59.5%​	59.7%​	67.2%​	42.3%​	54.4%​	1.29​
vs Lefties	1933-1174​	62.2%​	71.4%​	68.7%​	43.6%​	55.6%​	1.39​
vs Top 10	4036-3500​	53.6%​	50.4%​	63.5%​	39.4%​	51.4%​	1.08​

 

[Rovesciarete]

You can see how good Novak was and is on hardcourt, almost 60% of all games won! 54.7% total points, almost 2/3 of the tiebreaks...

NOVAK Career Tour-Level Splits Top​

Split​	Game W-L​	Game%​	TB%​	SPW​	RPW​	TPW​	DR​
Hard	12001-8039​	59.9%​	65.9%​	68.1%​	42.0%​	54.7%​	1.32​
Clay	5017-3501​	58.9%​	66.0%​	65.0%​	43.7%​	54.2%​	1.25​
Grass	2464-1747​	58.5%​	68.4%​	70.3%​	39.5%​	54.3%​	1.33​
Carpet	161-127​	55.9%​	57.1%​	64.2%​	37.5%​	51.0%​	1.05​
Grand Slams	8076-5304​	60.4%​	65.5%​	68.4%​	42.3%​	54.9%​	1.34​
Masters	6179-4346​	58.7%​	68.0%​	66.5%​	42.3%​	54.2%​	1.26​
Other Tours	3815-2620​	59.3%​	62.0%​	67.5%​	41.8%​	54.4%​	1.29​
Best of 5	8732-5764​	60.2%​	66.2%​	68.4%​	42.3%​	54.9%​	1.34​
Best of 3	10911-7650​	58.8%​	66.2%​	67.0%​	41.9%​	54.2%​	1.27​
Finals	1997-1696​	54.1%​	64.1%​	65.0%​	39.4%​	52.0%​	1.13​
Semi-finals	2782-2185​	56.0%​	58.9%​	66.2%​	39.7%​	52.9%​	1.18​
Quarter-finals	3016-2118​	58.7%​	63.6%​	67.0%​	41.7%​	54.2%​	1.27​
vs Righties	17048-11512​	59.7%​	66.0%​	67.8%​	42.2%​	54.6%​	1.31​
vs Lefties	2540-1872​	57.6%​	68.4%​	66.4%​	41.6%​	53.8%​	1.24​
vs Top 10	5425-4541​	54.4%​	65.5%​	65.4%​	39.3%​	52.2%​	1.13​

 

[Rovesciarete]

Roger won an incredible amount of tiebreaks on grass, slightly more than Novak while on hardcourt it is the other way around. He has the highest serve percentages and won most points on grass.

ROGER Career Tour-Level Splits Top​

Split​	Game W-L​	Game%​	TB%​	MS​	SPW​	RPW​	TPW​	DR​
Hard	13866-9732​	58.8%​	65.6%​	902​	69.7%​	40.0%​	54.3%​	1.32​
Clay	4429-3344​	57.0%​	60.3%​	280​	67.1%​	40.6%​	53.5%​	1.24​
Grass	3826-2696​	58.7%​	68.6%​	219​	72.3%​	38.2%​	54.6%​	1.38​
Carpet	1021-865​	54.1%​	65.3%​	57​	67.5%​	38.0%​	52.3%​	1.17​
Grand Slams	8432-5776​	59.3%​	67.3%​	429​	70.2%​	40.5%​	54.8%​	1.36​
Masters	6350-4758​	57.2%​	61.9%​	484​	68.9%​	39.3%​	53.6%​	1.26​
Other Tours	6392-4686​	57.7%​	65.9%​	469​	69.6%​	39.0%​	53.9%​	1.28​
Best of 5	9810-6784​	59.1%​	67.0%​	453​	70.0%​	40.5%​	54.6%​	1.35​
Best of 3	13332-9853​	57.5%​	64.2%​	1005​	69.3%​	39.2%​	53.8%​	1.28​
Finals	2437-2033​	54.5%​	55.1%​	156​	67.5%​	38.1%​	52.5%​	1.17​
Semi-finals	2986-2432​	55.1%​	71.0%​	207​	68.8%​	37.7%​	52.7%​	1.21​
Quarter-finals	3525-2681​	56.8%​	64.7%​	236​	68.6%​	39.1%​	53.5%​	1.24​
vs Righties	20658-14772​	58.3%​	65.2%​	1292​	69.6%​	39.8%​	54.2%​	1.31​
vs Lefties	2484-1865​	57.1%​	65.8%​	166​	69.0%​	39.3%​	53.7%​	1.27​
vs Top 10	5308-4567​	53.8%​	58.1%​	340​	66.8%​	37.6%​	51.9%​	1.13​