Can Djokovic join the all-time successful Wimbledon competitors?

Spencer Gore

Spencer Gore

Legend
As the wonderful Wimbledon champions are about to begin, I thought it would be fun to look at the current table of most successful entrants. Those who have won the championships the highest percentage of times. Djokovic is bubbling under but has a chance this year to join the most successful players in Wimbledon history.

Current Top 10 most successful Wimbledon competitors

1. Renshaw: 70% wins
2. Borg: 55.5% wins
3. Sampras 50% wins
4. Tilden: 50 % wins
5. L. Doherty: 42 %wins
6. Wilding: 40% wins
7: Federer: 38% wins
8: Perry: 37.5 wins
9: Laver: 36% wins
9= Baddeley: 36% wins

11: Djokovic: 33% wins

If Djokovic wins this year he will go to 37.5% wins and join Perry in joint 7th place. If Federer fails to win he will drop to joint 9th.
 
D

Deleted member 748597

Guest
Spencer_gore.jpg
 
Spencer Gore

Spencer Gore

Legend
RF-18 said:
But this is the main question though: should Renshaw be in such list? In his time defending champions didn't have to play in the main draw. They had a bye to the final to try and defend the crown.
Click to expand...
Which could also work against them as they weren't match fit when they played the Challenge Round. Would it be easier for Djokovic to win this year if he didn't play a single match for the entire two weeks till the final?
 
RF-18

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Spencer Gore said:
Which could also work against them as they weren't match fit when they played the Challenge Round. Would it be easier for Djokovic to win this year if he didn't play a single match for the entire two weeks till the final?
Click to expand...

I think so, yes. He would find other ways to prepare, like playing the grass warm ups. Of course it would be easier to just play 1 match instead of playing 7.
 
RF-18

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Milehigh5280 said:
Number of titles is way more important than win percentage. Like if Fed plays until he's 42 and fails to win another Wimbledon, would it hurt his legacy? It shouldn't
Click to expand...

I don't think the OPs aim is to say this metric is the be end all. Read closely what he actually said. "Most successfull entrants". He just posted stats related to this metric.
 
Spencer Gore

Spencer Gore

Legend
RF-18 said:
I don't think the OPs aim is to say this metric is the be end all. Read closely what he actually said. "Most successfull entrants".
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's another way of looking at it.

If a player won 7 titles in 7 attempts and then retired -to be undefeated with a 100% record -are they greater than a player who wins 8 out of 21/22 attempts?
 
Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
Spencer Gore said:
Exactly. It's another way of looking at it.

If a player won 7 titles in 7 attempts and then retires -to be undefeated with a 100% record -are they greater than a player who wins 8 out of 21/22 attempts?
Click to expand...
Simple and logical answer is no. At the very least they didn't prove it.
 
40-15 still haunts me

40-15 still haunts me

Banned
Spencer Gore said:
Exactly. It's another way of looking at it.

If a player won 7 titles in 7 attempts and then retired -to be undefeated with a 100% record -are they greater than a player who wins 8 out of 21/22 attempts?
Click to expand...
No, because 8 titles are more than 7 lol. You should never punish a player for longevity. The argument here is that the player who won 7/7….why didn’t they carry on playing, what stopped them?
 
P

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
7/7 finals for Sampras is very misleading since it relies on the luck of the draw. Had Sampras drawn Krajicek in the opposite half of the draw, he would have lost the final to him instead of the QF. Remember Pete was straight settled by Richard during his absolute peak, albeit tight sets. There is no doubt he would have lost no matter when they faced each other.

Thus, the luck of the draw preserves 7/7, hence it's meaninglessness.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
Of course he can. He’s the overwhelming favourite.
 
Feather

Feather

Legend
PilotPete said:
7/7 finals for Sampras is very misleading since it relies on the luck of the draw. Had Sampras drawn Krajicek in the opposite half of the draw, he would have lost the final to him instead of the QF. Remember Pete was straight settled by Richard during his absolute peak, albeit tight sets. There is no doubt he would have lost no matter when they faced each other.

Thus, the luck of the draw preserves 7/7, hence it's meaninglessness.
Click to expand...

Many people overlook that. Imagine if Robin Soderling was in Roger's half in 2009? Roger wouldn't have won French Open. Or if Robin Soderling was in Rafa's half in 2010? We would have never known that Robin could beat Roger and Roger would have had one more French Open final most likely
 
S

SonnyT

Legend
At one time, the Wimbledon defending champion just had to win one match to retain his title. The tournament was to select the one challenger, who would then play the defending champion for the title.

I don't know if that applied to Renshaw.
 
T

T007

Hall of Fame
Spencer Gore said:
As the wonderful Wimbledon champions are about to begin, I thought it would be fun to look at the current table of most successful entrants. Those who have won the championships the highest percentage of times. Djokovic is bubbling under but has a chance this year to join the most successful players in Wimbledon history.

Current Top 10 most successful Wimbledon competitors

1. Renshaw: 70% wins
2. Borg: 55.5% wins
3. Sampras 50% wins
4. Tilden: 50 % wins
5. L. Doherty: 42 %wins
6. Wilding: 40% wins
7: Federer: 38% wins
8: Perry: 37.5 wins
9: Laver: 36% wins
9= Baddeley: 36% wins

11: Djokovic: 33% wins

If Djokovic wins this year he will go to 37.5% wins and join Perry in joint 7th place. If Federer fails to win he will drop to joint 9th.
Click to expand...
A completely misleading post first of all we should avoid what happened before open era cos the level of competition is known to all.

Sampras had a very good percentage but he quit at 31. At sampras age Federer had 7/13 which is even better than sampras himself.

The percentage dropping 38% is a result of Federer playing in his deep 30s with injuries and setbacks.

Djokovic at 30 had it even worse winning 3/10. He picked 2 in last 3-4 years which changed his stats.

Still Federers 7/16 is better than djokovics 5/15 at 34.
 
C

coupergear

Professional
Contrived stat. Favors players who have success at Wimbledon and short careers. Players who have longevity are punished as their stats revert to the mean. Also, the stat assigns no value to runner-up or other results You either win the whole thing or get dinged for trying. This is not how sports works.

If Becker retires after three Wimbledons he's 2-1 and leads the modern era field in this stat. But he keeps playing and drops off the list.
 
Fiero425

Fiero425

Legend
Milehigh5280 said:
Number of titles is way more important than win percentage. Like if Fed plays until he's 42 and fails to win another Wimbledon, would it hurt his legacy? It shouldn't.
Click to expand...

...but it does hurt his legacy! IMO, these last few years have hurt him more than helped! If Federer had retired after winning Wimbledon in 2012, dropping that Olympic final too, we would be saying how much more he could've won if he hadn't left the game so early! It would be sorta what's been going on with Borg since I was a kid! Roger went 5+ years waiting for Djokovic to have a "dry spell" and renewed his rivalry with Nadal acquiring 3 more majors! My question is, "was it worth it?" He's still going to get passed by his 2 closest rivals in the end! He won't even retire on top as Sampras did for 8+ years! Woulda, coulda, shoulda's is probably weighing on all concerned! :sneaky:
 
TearTheRoofOff

TearTheRoofOff

G.O.A.T.
Spencer Gore said:
Which could also work against them as they weren't match fit when they played the Challenge Round. Would it be easier for Djokovic to win this year if he didn't play a single match for the entire two weeks till the final?
Click to expand...
It's only by virtue of your inclusion of 'this year' that you might actually have a point.
 
N

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
Spencer Gore said:
Federer won 8 times in 21 attempts.

Sampras won 7 times in 14 attempts.

Renshaw won 7 times in 10 attempts.

Borg won 5 times in 9 attempts.

It's an interesting discussion.
Click to expand...

So if Federer retires after 2012 he would be equal to Sampras and if he retires in 2009 he becomes greater than Sampras in your book. Am I reading it right or is there another twist in your stats.
 
N

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
Fiero425 said:
...but it does hurt his legacy! IMO, these last few years have hurt him more than helped! If Federer had retired after winning Wimbledon in 2012, dropping that Olympic final too, we would be saying how much more he could've won if he hadn't left the game so early! It would be sorta what's been going on with Borg since I was a kid! Roger went 5+ years waiting for Djokovic to have a "dry spell" and renewed his rivalry with Nadal acquiring 3 more majors! My question is, "was it worth it?" He's still going to get passed by his 2 closest rivals in the end! He won't even retire on top as Sampras did for 8+ years! Woulda, coulda, shoulda's is probably weighing on all concerned! :sneaky:
Click to expand...

Have you asked a question more stupid than this before?

What you are suggesting that Novak has such an easy run since 2015 that it takes a 35 year old to just wait for a while to start sweeping stuff when he is not around.
 
Fiero425

Fiero425

Legend
Nole_King said:
Have you asked a question more stupid than this before?

What you are suggesting that Novak has such an easy run since 2015 that it takes a 35 year old to just wait for a while to start sweeping stuff when he is not around.
Click to expand...

Just looking at the big picture here! It took Fed almost 7 yrs to acquire those last 3 majors! Nole wins his majors in bunches and has snuck up on Fedal with #19! :-D
 
Last edited:
N

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
Fiero425 said:
Just looking at the big picture here! It took Fed over 7 yrs to acquire those last 3 majors! Nole wins his majors in bunches and has snuck up on Fedal with #19! :-D
Click to expand...

And the opposite is it took him 9 years to achieve 17. There will be always an other side to an argument when the numbers are stacked so close.
 
N

Nole_King

Hall of Fame
aman92 said:
Damn feddy should have retired at 25 and conserved his winning record as a % of titles competed for. Being on top of Spencer's list supercedes everything
Click to expand...

Dont be too hard on Spencer. The way I see it, he is the only one that seems somewhat capable of uniting all 3 fanbases. He is an asset to this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RF-18
Djokovic - Interesting All Time Records So Far
2 3
Replies
115
Views
8K
RF-18
RF-18
M
Let's play the game--what if the Big 3 were all born in 1981?
2
Replies
66
Views
3K
serve
S
H
Was there ever a case when the reigning champion of 3 Slams and ATP finals wasn‘t No. 1 in the rankings?
Replies
36
Views
697
NAS
NAS
TripleATeam
Big 3 Match Wins per major
Replies
43
Views
2K
TripleATeam
TripleATeam
S'in-net
Bobby Riggs - William Renshaw - AELTC All Time Trophy retaining records Djokovic is chasing...
Replies
6
Views
295
ttbrowne
ttbrowne
Top