Average winning percentage across surfaces

[Lew II]

I did an average between the winning percentages on the three main surfaces (hard, clay, grass):

1) Borg 82.35
2) Djokovic 82.24
3) Nadal 82.22
4) Federer 82.16
5) Connors 81.34
6) Laver 81.28
7) Lendl 79.51
8) McEnroe 79.43
9) Murray 77.20
10) Rosewall 76.86
11) Sampras 75.50
12) Becker 75.32
13) Agassi 75.21
14) Edberg 75.17
15) Wilander 74.35

You can see some change with the normal winning percentage:

1) Borg 83.03
2) Nadal 82.86
3) Djokovic 82.69
4) Federer 82.02
5) Connors 81.77
6) McEnroe 81.57
7) Lendl 81.51
8) Laver 80.27
9) Murray 77.63
10) Sampras 77.47
11) Becker 76.91
12) Vilas 76.49
13) Agassi 76.14
14) Ashe 75.69
15) Edberg 74.79

At no.16 in this list there is Kent Carlsson with 74.77% of wins, but in the first list he would be only at 43.32% (76.12% clay, 53.85% hard, 0% grass).

The first list is made only by ATGs, arguably the 15 greatest players in the Open Era.

 

[falstaff78]

Wait, I have a stat

 

[ABCD]

Wait, I have a stat

You tried once, but gave up.

 

[MichaelNadal]

 

[Towny]

No geometric mean? Disappointing

 

[Towny]

I did an average between the winning percentages on the three main surfaces (hard, clay, grass):

1) Borg 82.35
2) Djokovic 82.24
3) Nadal 82.22
4) Federer 82.16
5) Connors 81.34
6) Laver 81.28
7) Lendl 79.51
8) McEnroe 79.43
9) Murray 77.20
10) Rosewall 76.86
11) Sampras 75.50
12) Becker 75.32
13) Agassi 75.21
14) Edberg 75.17
15) Wilander 74.35

You can see some change with the normal winning percentage:

1) Borg 83.03
2) Nadal 82.86
3) Djokovic 82.69
4) Federer 82.02
5) Connors 81.77
6) McEnroe 81.57
7) Lendl 81.51
8) Laver 80.27
9) Murray 77.63
10) Sampras 77.47
11) Becker 76.91
12) Vilas 76.49
13) Agassi 76.14
14) Ashe 75.69
15) Edberg 74.79

At no.16 in this list there is Kent Carlsson with 74.77% of wins, but in the first list he would be only at 43.32% (76.12% clay, 53.85% hard, 0% grass).

The first list is made only by ATGs, arguably the 15 greatest players in the Open Era.

Winning percentage across all surfaces is an interesting stat in that it in that it prevents the data from being skewed by a single surface specialist. But how are the surfaces weighted? Equal weighting becomes problematic because complete dominance on hard or clay can be undone by a few bad showings at Wimbledon

 

[NatF]

Winning percentage across all surfaces is an interesting stat in that it in that it prevents the data from being skewed by a single surface specialist. But how are the surfaces weighted? Equal weighting becomes problematic because complete dominance on hard or clay can be undone by a few bad showings at Wimbledon

So what you're saying is geometric mean?

 

[ABCD]

I did an average between the winning percentages on the three main surfaces (hard, clay, grass):

1) Borg 82.35
2) Djokovic 82.24
3) Nadal 82.22
4) Federer 82.16
5) Connors 81.34
6) Laver 81.28
7) Lendl 79.51
8) McEnroe 79.43
9) Murray 77.20
10) Rosewall 76.86
11) Sampras 75.50
12) Becker 75.32
13) Agassi 75.21
14) Edberg 75.17
15) Wilander 74.35

You can see some change with the normal winning percentage:

1) Borg 83.03
2) Nadal 82.86
3) Djokovic 82.69
4) Federer 82.02
5) Connors 81.77
6) McEnroe 81.57
7) Lendl 81.51
8) Laver 80.27
9) Murray 77.63
10) Sampras 77.47
11) Becker 76.91
12) Vilas 76.49
13) Agassi 76.14
14) Ashe 75.69
15) Edberg 74.79

At no.16 in this list there is Kent Carlsson with 74.77% of wins, but in the first list he would be only at 43.32% (76.12% clay, 53.85% hard, 0% grass).

The first list is made only by ATGs, arguably the 15 greatest players in the Open Era.

Good thinking. This is how it should be done. You have resolved the problem of surface bias. Excellent.

 

[Lew II]

Good thinking. This is how it should be done. You have resolved the problem of surface bias. Excellent.

It's not that good. The three surfaces don't have the same importance. Hard > clay > grass.

I just thought this was interesting.

 

[ABCD]

It's not that good. The three surfaces don't have the same importance. Hard > clay > grass.

I just thought this was interesting.

I think its good as for me all surfaces are equally important (why I think that is complex so I will skip explanation for now). .

 

[ollinger]

Lew, does K-Mart suck?

 

[ghostofMecir]

I think its good as for me all surfaces are equally important (why I think that is complex so I will skip explanation for now). .

I think by “importance” @Lew II means “how much the surface contributes to overall winning %.” Players play more matches on hard and clay than they do on grass.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Didn't read OP stats.

Assumes it favours Novak Djokovic and disparages Federer.

 

[Silentchimera]

Federer is so close to Nadal and Djokovic when he is 5 and 6 years older respectively. It is amazing how he has adapted to still win so much despite his physical decline.

I would be interested to see a stat that shows their cumulative win percentage at each age and then win % for each age.

For example show Djokovic's win % for the single year he was 26 years old, and then his career win % at 26 years of age. Then do this for Nadal and Federer as well and compare.

Then you could try doing this with equal weighting of each surface as well.

 

[RaulRamirez]

It's not that good. The three surfaces don't have the same importance. Hard > clay > grass.

I just thought this was interesting.

Importance or prevalence? I think it's interesting and there's nothing damning here for any of The Big 3, who, obviously, are excellent on three surfaces. I looked at it quickly, but I think Fed and Edberg were the only two whose percentages went up (if marginally) with this approach. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Wait, I have a stat

fedr is so ovrrtd

 

[BrokenGears]

Federer is so close to Nadal and Djokovic when he is 5 and 6 years older respectively. It is amazing how he has adapted to still win so much despite his physical decline.

I would be interested to see a stat that shows their cumulative win percentage at each age and then win % for each age.

For example show Djokovic's win % for the single year he was 26 years old, and then his career win % at 26 years of age. Then do this for Nadal and Federer as well and compare.

Then you could try doing this with equal weighting of each surface as well.

You realize that Fed’s been playing longer than Nadal and Novak right?

Lol...

 

[Silentchimera]

You realize that Fed’s been playing longer than Nadal and Novak right?

Lol...

I don't think you understand what I am saying. Of course I know Federer has been playing longer and that has no bearing on the value of the statistical data I am seeking.

I am asking for a comparison of each players win percentage by age.

For example show how high Federer's win % was when he was 26 and compare that to how high Nadal's and Djokovic's win percentage was when they were 26. For Federer this was 2008 whilst for Djokovic this was 2014 and for Nadal this was 2013.

Then you could work out their career win % which is their cumulative win % by the time they were 26 years of age. Obviously Federer has played more years and has more data and only time will tell if Nadal and Djokovic can post similar win % at the same age Federer posted his.

 

[BrokenGears]

I don't think you understand what I am saying bro. Of course I know Federer has been playing longer and that has no bearing on the value of the statistical data I am seeking.

I’m saying that it’s a testament to how good Nadal and Djokovic are that they’ve been able to reach and surpass Fed even tho Fed’s been playing longer

Ofc one can complain about homogeneity and weak eras I guess, but it’s still an achievement

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I did an average between the winning percentages on the three main surfaces (hard, clay, grass):

1) Borg 82.35
2) Djokovic 82.24
3) Nadal 82.22
4) Federer 82.16
5) Connors 81.34
6) Laver 81.28
7) Lendl 79.51
8) McEnroe 79.43
9) Murray 77.20
10) Rosewall 76.86
11) Sampras 75.50
12) Becker 75.32
13) Agassi 75.21
14) Edberg 75.17
15) Wilander 74.35

You can see some change with the normal winning percentage:

1) Borg 83.03
2) Nadal 82.86
3) Djokovic 82.69
4) Federer 82.02
5) Connors 81.77
6) McEnroe 81.57
7) Lendl 81.51
8) Laver 80.27
9) Murray 77.63
10) Sampras 77.47
11) Becker 76.91
12) Vilas 76.49
13) Agassi 76.14
14) Ashe 75.69
15) Edberg 74.79

At no.16 in this list there is Kent Carlsson with 74.77% of wins, but in the first list he would be only at 43.32% (76.12% clay, 53.85% hard, 0% grass).

The first list is made only by ATGs, arguably the 15 greatest players in the Open Era.

Murray beats Sampras and Agassi in BOTH.
Guy’s top 10 all-time and ridiculed here.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I did an average between the winning percentages on the three main surfaces (hard, clay, grass):

1) Borg 82.35
2) Djokovic 82.24
3) Nadal 82.22
4) Federer 82.16
5) Connors 81.34
6) Laver 81.28
7) Lendl 79.51
8) McEnroe 79.43
9) Murray 77.20
10) Rosewall 76.86
11) Sampras 75.50
12) Becker 75.32
13) Agassi 75.21
14) Edberg 75.17
15) Wilander 74.35

You can see some change with the normal winning percentage:

1) Borg 83.03
2) Nadal 82.86
3) Djokovic 82.69
4) Federer 82.02
5) Connors 81.77
6) McEnroe 81.57
7) Lendl 81.51
8) Laver 80.27
9) Murray 77.63
10) Sampras 77.47
11) Becker 76.91
12) Vilas 76.49
13) Agassi 76.14
14) Ashe 75.69
15) Edberg 74.79

At no.16 in this list there is Kent Carlsson with 74.77% of wins, but in the first list he would be only at 43.32% (76.12% clay, 53.85% hard, 0% grass).

The first list is made only by ATGs, arguably the 15 greatest players in the Open Era.

Interesting footnote:
Fed has moved up on this list post-Prime. In his prime he was behind Connors and MAC because of his early career and inconsistency before 2004.

 

[True Fanerer]

I’m saying that it’s a testament to how good Nadal and Djokovic are that they’ve been able to reach and surpass Fed even tho Fed’s been playing longer

Ofc one can complain about homogeneity and weak eras I guess, but it’s still an achievement

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He's had way more chances to lose. A bigger sample size and is still close to them. It doesn't tell anything positive about Djokovic and Nadal other than their percentage is higher for now with less matches played. That's it. That's all it tells.

 

[Deon Sanders]

The three main surfaces are hard, carpet, and grass

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

I’m saying that it’s a testament to how good Nadal and Djokovic are that they’ve been able to reach and surpass Fed even tho Fed’s been playing longer

Ofc one can complain about homogeneity and weak eras I guess, but it’s still an achievement

Winning % tends to go down the longer you play. Just look at how this season will bring down Nadal's clay win %.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

I think Djokovic was already #1 in winning % ahead of Borg after RG 2016. His crappy 2017 and early 2018 let Nadal get back ahead.

Likewise, I think Nadal was #1 after 2013. His crappy 2015 and 2016 allowed Djokovic to overtake him.

 

[Silentchimera]

I’m saying that it’s a testament to how good Nadal and Djokovic are that they’ve been able to reach and surpass Fed even tho Fed’s been playing longer

Ofc one can complain about homogeneity and weak eras I guess, but it’s still an achievement

They have a higher win percentage now but they have played in less years outside of their athletic peak than what Federer has. Only time will tell if they can match Federer's win percentages he has posted at 33-38 years of age.

 

[BrokenGears]

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He's had way more chances to lose. A bigger sample size and is still close to them. It doesn't tell anything positive about Djokovic and Nadal other than their percentage is higher for now with less matches played. That's it. That's all it tells.

He's also had way more chances to win?

 

[Silentchimera]

He's also had way more chances to win?

See my post above.

 

[NoleFam]

They have a higher win percentage now but they have played in less years outside of their athletic peak than what Federer has. Only time will tell if they can match Federer's win percentages he has posted at 33-38 years of age.

Federer's winning percentage from 1998-2012 was 81.6%. Federer increased his winning percentage in his later years. And why wouldn't he when he was ranked in the top 3 most of the time? You guys need to stop all these age excuses everytime he is not #1 in a stat.

 

[Silentchimera]

Federer's winning percentage from 1998-2012 was 81.6%. Federer increased his winning percentage in his later years. And why wouldn't he when he was ranked in the top 3 most of the time? You guys need to stop all these age excuses everytime he is not #1 in a stat.

It's not an excuse. He increased his winning percentage in his later years in spite of being out of his athletic prime. It is a credit to Federer that he was able to do this. Let's see if Nadal and Djokovic can maintain their winning percentage lead after another 5, 6 years of play.

 

[Lleytonstation]

This puts into question whether longevity is respected. If it is, then Fed's percentage being lower should not be a big deal as he has played longer and still kept a very good winning percentage. This is assuming Djokovic and Nadal drop percentage level as they start to age.

But what if they retire in the next 3 years? Does this Stat still hold value?

 

[NoleFam]

It's not an excuse. He increased his winning percentage in his later years in spite of being out of his athletic prime. It is a credit to Federer that he was able to do this. Let's see if Nadal and Djokovic can maintain their winning percentage lead after another 5, 6 years of play.

You implied they have a higher winning percentage because of Federer's age so it is an excuse, especially when him playing later actually helped him. He would be behind Connors otherwise. If they can remain healthy, I think their percentages aren't changing that much especially not negatively.

 

[helterskelter]

The three main surfaces are hard, carpet, and grass

Nonsense. You are right to downplay clay, a miserable surface from a benighted continent. But grass is even worse: at least continental Europeans are old enough not to have a curfew. No, the only surfaces that count are the New World ones: deco turf, plexicushion, and rebound ace.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He's had way more chances to lose. A bigger sample size and is still close to them. It doesn't tell anything positive about Djokovic and Nadal other than their percentage is higher for now with less matches played. That's it. That's all it tells.

Fed’s gotten better here, not worse due to fact his pre 2004 years were wrecking percentages.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Federer's winning percentage from 1998-2012 was 81.6%. Federer increased his winning percentage in his later years. And why wouldn't he when he was ranked in the top 3 most of the time? You guys need to stop all these age excuses everytime he is not #1 in a stat.

EXACTLY!! People ignore this key point.

 

[NoleFam]

EXACTLY!! People ignore this key point.

Federer has been excellent in older age. I wish they would give the guy more credit and be pleased with what he has done instead of living in the past. The reason why Federer is not #2 or #3 in this stat is because Djokodal were exceptional youngsters and bloomed faster, not because he is 37 and still playing.

 

[Jonas78]

Federer's winning percentage from 1998-2012 was 81.6%. Federer increased his winning percentage in his later years. And why wouldn't he when he was ranked in the top 3 most of the time? You guys need to stop all these age excuses everytime he is not #1 in a stat.

Well his winning percentage 1998-2012 varied from 43%-95%. Its at least debatable if it makes a good average.

 

[NoleFam]

Well his winning percentage 1998-2012 varied from 43%-95%. Its at least debatable if it makes a good average.

After 2007, it was 80.4%.

 

[Jonas78]

After 2007, it was 80.4%.

Sure. Federer still played at a very high level in his thirties

 

[Silentchimera]

You implied they have a higher winning percentage because of Federer's age so it is an excuse, especially when him playing later actually helped him. He would be behind Connors otherwise. If they can remain healthy, I think their percentages aren't changing that much especially not negatively.

No that's not what I implied. The point was that an overall winning percentage stat does not show the full story until we see how well Nadal and Djoker perform from 33-38.

We are yet to see what happens to Nadal and Djokovic's overall winning percentage after they play five more years on tour out of their athletic prime the way that Federer has done. Federer was able to lift his winning percentage. Will Nadal and Djokovic be able to play another 5,6 years and keep their winning percentage above Federer after this? Time will tell.

 

[smoledman]

Federer at 82% having played nearly 1500 matches. No way Djoker & Nadal maintain their > 82% for much longer.

Also Borg is less than 1% above Federer with 50% less matches played!

More evidence that Fed is GOAT.

 

[Lew II]

Interesting footnote:
Fed has moved up on this list post-Prime. In his prime he was behind Connors and MAC because of his early career and inconsistency before 2004.

He was like 6th of his gen up to 2004. Behind Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Ferrero, Nalbandian.

Then he annihilated them.

 

[Lew II]

Importance or prevalence? I think it's interesting and there's nothing damning here for any of The Big 3, who, obviously, are excellent on three surfaces. I looked at it quickly, but I think Fed and Edberg were the only two whose percentages went up (if marginally) with this approach. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Also Laver, Rosewall and Wilander.

 

[Gary Duane]

Federer's winning percentage from 1998-2012 was 81.6%. Federer increased his winning percentage in his later years. And why wouldn't he when he was ranked in the top 3 most of the time? You guys need to stop all these age excuses everytime he is not #1 in a stat.

Yes, but these percentages vary according to when you start. When you start with 1998 there are losses that are statistically going to be slow to overcome.

For example, just go by a career %, then look at years above and below. That career % is brought down not only by matches in later years and matches in very early years. On the other hand, you start with 2004-2007, throw in the end of 2003, then Fed has been going down somewhat since 2008.

It turns out to be a deceptive game the way most people compute because they set out to prove their favorites are clearly superior.

 

[True Fanerer]

Fed’s gotten better here, not worse due to fact his pre 2004 years were wrecking percentages.

1998-2002 kill the percentage.

 

[Lew II]

1998-2002 kill the percentage.

But he was young and strong.

Peaking like Nadal and Djokovic in 2004-08.

 

[Jonas78]

It turns out to be a deceptive game the way most people compute because they set out to prove their favorites are clearly superior.

.

I hope the whole forum read these words.

 

[Lew II]

Djokovic is close to 80% of wins on his worst surface (clay): 79.77%.

Second best is Nadal on grass, more than 2 points distant: 77.65%.

 

[ABCD]

Yes, but these percentages vary according to when you start. When you start with 1998 there are losses that are statistically going to be slow to overcome.

For example, just go by a career %, then look at years above and below. That career % is brought down not only by matches in later years and matches in very early years. On the other hand, you start with 2004-2007, throw in the end of 2003, then Fed has been going down somewhat since 2008.

It turns out to be a deceptive game the way most people compute because they set out to prove their favorites are clearly superior.

If it is factually correct, there is no bad statistics. Each finding will tell you a story. What is important, it is to apply same criteria for all. As an example, if you would like to assess/compare careers in its entirety, you will start from the first official ATP match and end with the last ATP match (first ATP is 1998 for Federer; 2003 for Djkokovic etc.) . If you select a particular period, you need to justify why this period is selected. Lew II does excellent job. What he offers tell many great stories.

 

[NoleFam]

Yes, but these percentages vary according to when you start. When you start with 1998 there are losses that are statistically going to be slow to overcome.

For example, just go by a career %, then look at years above and below. That career % is brought down not only by matches in later years and matches in very early years. On the other hand, you start with 2004-2007, throw in the end of 2003, then Fed has been going down somewhat since 2008.

It turns out to be a deceptive game the way most people compute because they set out to prove their favorites are clearly superior.

Not necessarily. Not if you're Nadal. He had a 88.8% season when he was 19. Federer on the other hand was at 54.5% at 19. That's the main difference.

The later years helped Federer not hurt him in any way in this stat. The truth is, Federer's overall percentage has basically gradually increased over time and it's basically at its highest point or close to it. I also think basing anyone's overall percentage on their peak though is a mistake since there is no way anyone can maintain that over a 20 year career.

The other two are ahead because of their younger years and I actually think this stat is pretty straightforward.