Lew II
G.O.A.T.
To make this stat, yes.
Average winning percentage across surfaces
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Very aware I'd suspect. It's been posted here beforeDo you think that NoleFam was aware of that when he tried to pile 1998-2001 with the rest of Federer's "best athletic years" or was that omission "accidental"?
Tennis_Hands
Banned
NatF
Bionic Poster
Well it certainly doesn't give a fair account of those players across all surfaces as it omits a big chunk of their results.
Very aware I'd suspect. It's been posted here before
For me, the much worse part than actually doing it, is faking any knowledge or intent. I don't think he even fooled himself, let alone anyone else, so why go through with it?
The lumping together of Fed fans as big bad bullies and completely dismissing he made a really stupid move is just cherry on the cake.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
He's a seasoned vet at this. The truth always comes out in the end though.
RaulRamirez
Legend
It is utterly amazing that you take a section of a post that was written in appreciation of what Gary wrote - and in appreciation of all three greats - and find a way to take offense. Thankfully, I don't have that mentality - one that consistently degrades what could be a terrific forum.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
If you're going to talk crap, have the balls to tag me so I know what you are saying. I am many things but fake is not one of them. I say what I mean, mean what I say and if someone cannot accept it or process that, then that's on them. I have no idea what I am supposed to be faking. That Federer's winning percentage increased as his career went on? Proven correct. That he didn't win as high of a percentage of matches as Nadal and to lesser extent Djokovic at a younger age? Proven correct. Laughable that someone has to have an agenda if they post anything that does not say Federer is #1. As if anyone is going to care about winning percentage when people discuss who is the greatest player(s). Just absurd. Also, don't try to group yourselves with the great Fed fans on here or try to create a generalization from my point. The great Fed fans are not wasting their time replying to something that doesn't matter at the end of the day.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Just read their crap man. A bunch of grown, rusty men having a meltdown over some imaginary disrespect of their idol. Tragic.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
It is your own post that i elaborated / clarified / exposed - if you have objection to that , then you are merely throwing mud on yourself.
I did not add anything to your post - just exposed for what it is - you happen to put that "section" in the middle of a long post which needed to be called out.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
What exactly are you seasoned vet of? Posting derogatory comments about Djoko 24/7 ad nauseam? Groundbreaking.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
I could've said a lot worse, but I chose to be above that. If you read yesterday's match thread I complimented Djokovic on his clutch play and said it was one of the best matches of the year. There are a lot worse fans here than me. I give him credit when he deserves it. I also know when one of you is trying to put a spin on something.
Grampa
Semi-Pro
You are a hardcore Djokovic fan who really hates Federer. Okay. It's great that you accepted your fault. But omitting carpet is unfair to the old timers. Tennis is not just about the big 3. And even they played on the surface. Omit it just for this thread, won't be the first time you cherry pick, but do include it for the others if you can. Appreciate your stats rarely, still the contribution is great as it does keep this place active.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Oh no, I could have said a lot worse but I mostly ignore the things you say. Oh so you made one nice Djokovic comment out of 50. You get the star of the day. Don't try to be slick and say something indirectly to me as if I won't call you out when I see it. No you are seeing things out of pure delusion. There is no spin. Nadal was better as a youngster and to a lesser extent so was Djokovic, which is why they have higher career winning percentages. That's a fact, not spin. Deal with it.
RaulRamirez
Legend
...
Last edited:
Grampa
Semi-Pro
Well this didn't age like fine wine
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
I am still looking for a honest answer and it is not coming.
How come they are "all equal" now yet when someone crosses Fed, Fed becomes lower than them ?
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
I expected you to notice it and glad you did lol. My ratio is better than 1 out of 50 btw. The mistake you are making is assuming that Djokovic and Nadal will maintain their % like Fed has. It will slip a little. Everyone knows they were better as youngsters, but will they be better as old men? That's the question. Don't act like Fed's % went up past 30. He maintained a good %, but it didn't go up if you exclude his first years. How can it go up with years like 2013 and 2016? C'mon man.
MajesticTennisManiac
Rookie
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?help/terms/
Can some moderator take action ?
This post is clearly against the terms of the forum.
@
RaulRamirez
Legend
Why do I dedicate more time to this futile exercise. Anybody of anything approaching objectivity who has seen me on this forum knows that I try to resist tribalistic talking points and imbecilic arguments.
Yes, I am of the opinion that in The Big 3, we have the three greatest players of the OE - and three players who are essentially equal. Why one man's opinion - which is backed by non-cherry-picked stats and logic - would offend you is beneath my comprehension. Please move on; this is not interesting.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
It doesnt offend me at all .I just question your double standards. While you say there are equal now , you say they wouldn't be when things "change".
RaulRamirez
Legend
I said if anything appreciable (or to that effect) changes for any of them. I have never written off Fed from winning more majors and big titles. Still.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Why don't you be bold enough to suggest what that "appreciable" change is ? Is it 21 majors, 26 majors or 30 ?
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Ok mostly speculation but whatever. They still will most likely remain over 82% career winning percentage. What exactly is the point here?
Why exactly are you trying to prove with this? It went up over time, including all the years in his entire career. That's the main point. It says career winning percentage, not winning percentage for the years I want to count. Federer maintained an 84.2% career winning percentage in his 30's which shows why the overall percentage increased. By the end of 2007, he was just over 80% after 9 years on tour. This is all just annoying and vacuous to me at this point. I don't have the capacity for patience for anyone who cannot accept this.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
It is enough to know that no matter what happens they are "essentially equal", and since they are not equal in achievements now, but according to him they are "essentially equal" that would mean that it is entirely his imagination that "awards" them their status. It is then logical that he is now bound to that personal measure to think of them the same, if one of the others eclipses Federer, so , in reality, he is bound by his word to treat them equally in the future, even if they don't have equal achievements. Noone else is, but he is.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Yes it is mostly speculation and yes including every single year is the only fair way. At the same time, there's always an agenda about Fed's age hidden behind every so called objective post. It's like a lot of you are scared to death that Djokovic won't get the credit he deserves for beating old Fed. The fact is that he has played way more matches and win % tends to go down slightly at the end of a career. We'll just have to see just like with the slam count.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Oh so now the truth finally comes out. That's what this is all about. This rains on the myth of "old Federer" and in your eyes may make Djokovic's wins more valuable so you rebel? You guys really need to get out more and enjoy life. None of this even crossed my mind but it shows where your mentality lies. I don't care what credit Djokovic gets for his wins. The titles speak for themselves and I am not that invested in something so trivial. I'm moving on now.
Last edited:
Grampa
Semi-Pro
Djokovic's career winning % at the end of 2015 was 82.45 (686-146 W/L). At the moment it is 82.7%. So I guess he has improved too?
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Amazing feat considering the strength of the field
Tennis_Hands
Banned
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
His winning percentage improved correct? Isn't 82.7 > 82.45? I never once said Federer's level improved. I said he improved his winning percentage which disproves that playing longer caused his percentage to decrease. Reading is fundamental man.
Grampa
Semi-Pro
I never did say it didn't. % did go up, likewise for both. But your posts were repeatedly posing a defensive front for Djokovic, but we all have our biases (you can surely guess where my priorities lie). NO bloodshed. All's well.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
No, it doesn't "disprove" anything, because you are not comparing apples to apples. If Federer played also clay his winning percentage because of the clay matches and because of his overall strained level would have been lower. The history of the sport also confirms that.
Reading is fundamental, but understanding is invaluable.
Like you said: move on (and stop embarrassing yourself).
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
What exactly do I have to defend Djokovic from? There is something seriously wrong with the way a group of you on here think.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
No, it doesn't "disprove" anything, because you are not comparing apples to apples. If Federer played also clay his winning percentage because of the clay matches and because of his overall strained level would have been lower. The history of the sport also confirms that.
Reading is fundamental, but understanding is invaluable.
Like you said: move on (and stop embarrassing yourself).
But Federer didn't play clay did he? And based on how good he was on clay this year at 37 that is just speculation because you have run out of ideas to support a baseless opinion. You have gone beyond the point of embarrassment at this point. It's just tragic.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
You are right: there is nothing that "defends" Djokovic as the competition is what is is.
Also, his career winning percentage is going down. Book it.
Grampa
Semi-Pro
I am not in the mood for an argument at the moment. Farewell
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Exactly because he didn't play on clay he was able to maintain his high winning percentage as he was able to concentrate his effort on playing on his preferred surfaces. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
He is good on clay this year? He is 4-1, once withdrawing due to unclear circumstances and losing in another QF. Basically he is good for his age but in any of his prime years that would have been considered absolute disaster (and that is without playing many tournaments).
Oh, I know that he was THAT good on clay that he didn't even play in 2017 and 2018. I guess that that is more factual proof what his level was than your speculation (after running out of ideas, apparently) that he would have been good.
Highly entertaining stuff.
I don't know whether I should advice you to carry on or move on.
itrium84
Hall of Fame
Only valuable comments I've found in this thread came from Raul and Gary, genuinely honest guys bringing real value to the conversation.
About those percentages - big3 are so close to each other within insane level of 83th percentage, that it's impossible to make any valid conclusion from minor decimal differences.
Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
About those percentages - big3 are so close to each other within insane level of 83th percentage, that it's impossible to make any valid conclusion from minor decimal differences.
Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
Grampa
Semi-Pro
This should really mark the end of this thread.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Thank you. I very much appreciated Gary's post, and his considered approach to discussing/analyzing tennis. There are some very good posters here, and I really could not care less who they personally prefer, or even who they judge to be greater, if some thought goes into their judgments, and if they are respectful of others.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
OK. Let's go back to the first post. What is this about? At the end we see that Carlsson gets 43.32%. Where does that come from? Apparently by taking his winning% on each surface and dividing by 3.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.
First of all, that seems very unfair to a guy who didn't play on grass, because it is linking his winning % to a surface he did not play on, and let's take that idea further. This is going to skew everything. Anyone with a surface specialty will either be hurt or helped by this method. This will actually be rather good for play on grass for guys like Fed and Sampras, who obviously did not play 1/3 of their matches on grass, and it will actually hurt someone who's best winning record is on HC who also played way more matches on that surface. It might also highlight a surface weakness if a guy has a weak record on a surface but does not play much on that surface - I'm thinking now of Sampras, who is going to have a weak record on clay but not a terribly large number of matches whose 1/3 part of this surface average is going to make him look weaker.
I don't even want to think about how unfair this is going to be to this or that player, or how leaving out carpet is going to make a huge mess out of it all. This is an example of a stat that will be meaningless. Is it meant to prove one player is better by cherry-picking? I don't know. But it isn't going to tell us anything important.
That's the main problem I see, which is why I don't like Lew's stats, because I sense an agenda. Sometimes his numbers seem relevant, other times not. And as far as I can tell he has already decided that Novak is the GOAT and sets out to prove it over and over again with numbers. That's why I suspect his motives.
This is going to hurt anyone who was great on grass but did not get to play on it much, and to a lesser extent it will even be unfair to clay players. Some people think there was an incredibly amount of play on grass in the early OE, but actually no. Even then there was an incredible amount of play on HCs, though HC play obviously did not yet dominate in majors, so if you average surfaces, for the moment deleting carpet, it's going to boost players who played a lot on
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Now a second point, which is important:
I did an average between the winning percentages on the three main surfaces (hard, clay, grass):
I'm sticking with Fed for the moment because I just updated my own file, to make sure things are right. I still insist that this number doesn't tell us anything special, but let's look closer:
This is, in fact, wrong at this moment, although it is not important. At this moment it is 82.04 because the number, according to the ATP, is missing the last two wins.
But this brings up a much more important point. The ATP, for it's own reasons, carefully cherry-picks which matches are counting. For those of you who have not checked, DC was NOT counted. But the Olympics WERE counted. And now, for reasons only known to this bizarre body, Olympics are still counted, I think, but no points. There is a tentative and uncomfortable alliance between the ITF and the ATP, and I don't even know what DC is linked to. But let's look at Tennis Abstract, which is great for scouring matches:
1229-279
And of course that is very different from the ATP, which will have 1202-263 when it adds Fed's last two wins.
Now we have 81.5, which is less flattering. But which is correct? Which should we pay attention to?
Tennis Abstract's tally includes all his matches, including Challengers and Jr. matches. I would have guessed that would be favorable, but it's not. It also includes DC and Olympics. No exhibitions.
You will have this same problem for every ATG, and it's even more complicated when you go way back. It's a nightmare for guys like Connors, Borg and so on, worse for Laver and Rosewall. Back then they couldn't agree on anything, and when you throw in the small events with only a few players, things you might think would benefit the ATGs, it usually doesn't.
This is about the numbers so far - which numbers do you use?
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%
The first list is made only by ATGs, arguably the 15 greatest players in the Open Era.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Last point: It is pointless to argue dominance by only match % when the players you are comparing are still playing. It's bad enough comparing careers, but why compare three incomplete careers with those of other ATGs whose careers are over? With each ATG you will get a very difficult picture by focusing on this or that surface, and this or that period. If I want to make Rafa look best, I'll stick mostly to clay and emphasize that. For Fed, there is his period from late 2003-2007. Concentrate on that. For Novak, stick to very late 2010-the first half of 2015.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%
The first list is made only by ATGs, arguably the 15 greatest players in the Open Era.
If you want to highlight peaks, pick Rafa's 2008 defense on clay, something like 51% of return games that year. For Novak, 2011 return on HC, I believe around 41%. You can pick amazing stats like that for each of the Big Three. But none of this proves they are the best players who have ever played the game. And nothing proves the contrary.
In the end you end up believing what you believe, then most people pick numbers carefully to support those beliefs. That's why I don't pay attention to "fans" who attempt to prove though numbers that their faves are best through those numbers. I distrust their motives and their logic.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Every @Lew II thread I've seen turns into a salt mine, one way or another. I don't agree with his interpretation of the statistics, but everyone needs to chill out. It's not like he just launched nuclear weapons.
There's a way to disagree and not throw a hissy fit about it.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not dissing the people who are just harmlessly trolling. It's what a forum is meant to be, anyway.
There's a way to disagree and not throw a hissy fit about it.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not dissing the people who are just harmlessly trolling. It's what a forum is meant to be, anyway.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
With that being said...
While the GOAT debate should probably be discussed in full only when all the concerning players retire, win percentage is one of those stats that absolutely must be added up only when a player's career is over. Didn't Federer have his career best win/loss record after starting 2018 with a 17-match streak? We saw how the rest of the season impacted that, right?
Since Federer was a late starter, it's only natural that his win percentage has visibly increased over the years. Likewise, Nadal as an early bloomer has a slowly stagnating win percentage. For us to get a truly infallible analysis, both players need to retire.
While the GOAT debate should probably be discussed in full only when all the concerning players retire, win percentage is one of those stats that absolutely must be added up only when a player's career is over. Didn't Federer have his career best win/loss record after starting 2018 with a 17-match streak? We saw how the rest of the season impacted that, right?
Since Federer was a late starter, it's only natural that his win percentage has visibly increased over the years. Likewise, Nadal as an early bloomer has a slowly stagnating win percentage. For us to get a truly infallible analysis, both players need to retire.
Couldn’t you just have a minimum of, say, 50 matches? Wilander, for one, would take a huge hit if we included carpet (he sucked on it), while Becker would improve. I think his best match win percentage was on carpet. Seems quite unfair to him (and others like McEnroe and Lendl) to exclude it.
Though obviously guys like Nadal and Djokovic didnt play enough on it for it to be representative in any way, so it seems fair to exclude it for guys like them.
Sure, there is something seriously wrong with the way a group of people thinks, because it can't be your idiotic posts, right? Not just fake, but arrogant as well - and not the good kind of arrogant where you earned it, but more the Kyrgios type.
Get a grip on yourself, buddy, you are all over the place.