ATP Career Winning Percentage (Open Era)

Bud

Bionic Poster



Woohoo... Nadal finally topped the great Borg! :cool:


Will Nadal equal Borg's 6 FO titles today with another win over Federer in a Grand Slam final? The match is scheduled to be played in approximately 4 hours... so, stay tuned ;)


- - -

Will update this thread periodically to reflect any changes :)
 
That's very impressive. Another interesting thing is that Nadal just turned 25 and you can see that he's approaching Borg's total matches played 621 (Nadal) vs. 735 (Borg). Borg's number also includes about 14 matches (approx.) that he lost in the early 90's when he had been away from competitive tennis for years. Borg played a very heavy schedule even through the age of 25. Overall, that's a very impressive top 10! Can't wait for the final. I wonder if Bjorn will be there to watch? He may not be. I recall him saying that he felt a bit nervous at Wimbledon when he was going for #4 in 1979 because Fred Perry was there watching and everyone was talking about whether he could surpass the record of three Wimbledon titles in a row that had stood for 42 years.
 

ibbi

Legend
So winning percentage determines GOAT status?
Why not? It's as good a determining factor as anything else. I mean I don't put much stock in it because you just have to look at how much less the top 2 have played compared to the 4 guys below them, but still...winning is winning.
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Of course it does, especially in Nadals case, hes playing with a ton of hall of famers---federer,hewitt,agassi, djokovic, safin..........nadal is as good as it gets. Rafa is truly the greatest of all time.
So if he starts losing more and is sure to go below Borg if he plays in 2012...should he retire with 9 or 10 slams, and still be greatest ever?

Stupid logic. By that standard, McEnroe is greater than Federer. And McEnroe played against Borg and Connors, so tough era. Yet you'd be ******** if you think McEnroe would rather have his career than Federer's.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
So if he starts losing more and is sure to go below Borg if he plays in 2012...should he retire with 9 or 10 slams, and still be greatest ever?

Stupid logic. By that standard, McEnroe is greater than Federer. And McEnroe played against Borg and Connors, so tough era. Yet you'd be ******** if you think McEnroe would rather have his career than Federer's.
I think we should creat the GOAT-o-meter, once you lose some matches it goes down.
 

JeMar

Legend
The winning percentage doesn't really matter that much until a player retires. Once he gets older, he'll lose more matches. Borg's is so high because he pretty much quit when he started losing matches.
 

The Baseline

Professional
Nadal is the best ever. Hes only 25 years old, has a ton of slams, highest winning percentage, beats federer a lot, what more can you ask for. Nadals the greatest of them all.
 

ibbi

Legend
yes. nadal is yet to have his decline phase. I guess fed was even higher at 25.
Nah, at the end of 2006 Federer's record was 466-110, but it doesn't mean much, because Nadal was a wonderkid, he was better earlier, so of course it will be skewed against him in that way.
 

urban

Legend
The two most astonishing percentage numbers here are imo those of Connors and Laver. Connors has a ridiculously high percentage for the over 1200 matches he played all his career. And those numbers for Laver are only those of his open tennis matches (a bit imcomplete by the way), the late stage of his career, when he was 30-40 years old.
 
Top