Federer and Nadal's Career Winning Percentage

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
At the moment, Federer's career record is 825-188. Nadal's career record is 553-118. What do you think is more likely: Federer reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses? Or Nadal reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses.

Federer would have to go at least 75-12 (86.2%).
Nadal would have to go at least 347-82 (80.9%).
 
Neither of these things will happen - as written/asked.

Federer: will reach 900 wins. But he will also have more than 200 losses. In order for him to reach the +900 w <200 his winning percentage needs to go up 5% points. He is + or - 75 wins from 900. Two more seasons(from today) with 38 wins a piece gets him there. But he only needs to lose 12 more times in those same two years; that is why, as stated, he won't get there.

Nadal: He'll play 900 matches, but that isn't what was asked. He would need the same winning percentage as he currently has - more or less. But, he's been a pro for 11+ years and played 671 matches. He's only 61% of the way to the total of 1100 matches. If we agree he may retire a bit early due to the wear and tear/style of play, Nadal would need to play 5 more years(from today makes him 30) at a rate of 85+ matches per year. That is a huge increase he won't accomplish....
 
813wilson said:
Neither of these things will happen - as written/asked.

Federer: will reach 900 wins. But he will also have more than 200 losses. In order for him to reach the +900 w <200 his winning percentage needs to go up 5% points. He is + or - 75 wins from 900. Two more seasons(from today) with 38 wins a piece gets him there. But he only needs to lose 12 more times in those same two years; that is why, as stated, he won't get there.

Nadal: He'll play 900 matches, but that isn't what was asked. He would need the same winning percentage as he currently has - more or less. But, he's been a pro for 11+ years and played 671 matches. He's only 61% of the way to the total of 1100 matches. If we agree he may retire a bit early due to the wear and tear/style of play, Nadal would need to play 5 more years(from today makes him 30) at a rate of 85+ matches per year. That is a huge increase he won't accomplish....
Click to expand...

Good, detailed answer. You get my vote. ;)
 
Last edited:
McEnroeisanartist said:
At the moment, Federer's career record is 825-188. Nadal's career record is 553-118. What do you think is more likely: Federer reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses? Or Nadal reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses.

Federer would have to go at least 75-12 (86.2%).
Nadal would have to go at least 347-82 (80.9%).
Click to expand...

Do you also have similar data for wins against the top 10 ?
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
At the moment, Federer's career record is 825-188. Nadal's career record is 553-118. What do you think is more likely: Federer reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses? Or Nadal reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses.

Federer would have to go at least 75-12 (86.2%).
Nadal would have to go at least 347-82 (80.9%).
Click to expand...

Nadal is 5 years younger. Wait until he reach 30 and his winning % should dip.
 
Nadal has been winning slams since 2005. This is his 8th year and he's still not showing any signs of slowing down. I mean unless they speed up the courts or something really drastic happens, can we really rely on Djokovic to take him out every time? Only Ferrer's beaten him in a slam apart from Djokovic recently in which Nadal was clearly injured.

Tennis players still haven't quite dealt with the topspin assault, this is why its unpredictable to say how much he'll win. Without a career threatening injury, is Nadal just gonna go completely AWOL? I somehow find that hard to believe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The ATP tour outside of Djokovic says, 'Nadal is tougher to stop than ever before'. Nadal's winning% will reach a career-high once he starts increasing his 16-14 h2h lead over Djokovic.
 
nadalwon2012 said:
The ATP tour outside of Djokovic says, 'Nadal is tougher to stop than ever before'. Nadal's winning% will reach a career-high once he starts increasing his 16-14 h2h lead over Djokovic.
Click to expand...

Once he starts increasing his h2h? When do you expect this to happen? He hasn't lost 7 consecutive times to Djokovic by accident.

But I don't think either one of these events will happen. Federer will definitely get to 900 wins but he'll be a little over 200 losses.
 
agentaviles said:
Once he starts increasing his h2h? When do you expect this to happen? He hasn't lost 7 consecutive times to Djokovic by accident.
Click to expand...

Just keep talkin pal, just keep talkin.
rocky3_8.jpg
 
agentaviles said:
Hahaha! It's good to see Apollo Creed again.

But you know it's true. Nadal won't be increasing that "lead" anytime soon.
Click to expand...

This is unrealistic expectation. Nadal WILL win some matches against Djokovic this year (actually, I believe in IW or at some of the clay Masters/RG). That doesn't mean, that he will be cruising against everybody else all the time, or Djokovic will let him do whatever he pleases at the Majors. It is not like he was crushed at their previous meetings. Many of their matches were highly competitive and a win or two is bound to happen at some point. Not, that nadalwonwhateverhedreamsof has any basis for his "predictions", other than his ****ism, but it will happen nonetheless.
 
Tennis_Hands said:
This is unrealistic expectation. Nadal WILL win some matches against Djokovic this year (actually, I believe in IW or at some of the clay Masters/RG). That doesn't mean, that he will be cruising against everybody else all the time, or Djokovic will let him do whatever he pleases at the Majors. It is not like he was crushed at their previous meetings. Many of their matches were highly competitive and a win or two is bound to happen at some point. Not, that nadalwonwhateverhedreamsof has any basis for his "predictions", other than his ****ism, but it will happen nonetheless.
Click to expand...

****ism? How old are you, 6?
 
Tennis_Hands said:
This is unrealistic expectation. Nadal WILL win some matches against Djokovic this year (actually, I believe in IW or at some of the clay Masters/RG). That doesn't mean, that he will be cruising against everybody else all the time, or Djokovic will let him do whatever he pleases at the Majors. It is not like he was crushed at their previous meetings. Many of their matches were highly competitive and a win or two is bound to happen at some point. Not, that nadalwonwhateverhedreamsof has any basis for his "predictions", other than his ****ism, but it will happen nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't mean to imply that Djokovic will beat Nadal EVERY TIME they play from here on out. As you said, Nadal is bound to win one sooner or later. However, being that Djokovic will win the vast majority of their matches Nadal will not even have a career lead against him pretty soon.
 
agentaviles said:
Well, I didn't mean to imply that Djokovic will beat Nadal EVERY TIME they play from here on out. As you said, Nadal is bound to win one sooner or later. However, being that Djokovic will win the vast majority of their matches Nadal will not even have a career lead against him pretty soon.
Click to expand...

Maybe I misunderstood you, in which case I apologize. When you said "will not be increasing that "lead" any time soon", I automatically thought of the scenario, where Nadal wins their next encounter (which I thought was a very probable scenario, should they have met in the IW final), in which case he would have been increasing his lead in the h2h. I did not realize, that you are speaking longterm.

In any case, it is still a bold prediction, since Djokovic has to put another extended period of dominance over Nadal (8 months to 1 year) to turn it around completely.
 
Last edited:
agentaviles said:
Well, I didn't mean to imply that Djokovic will beat Nadal EVERY TIME they play from here on out. As you said, Nadal is bound to win one sooner or later. However, being that Djokovic will win the vast majority of their matches Nadal will not even have a career lead against him pretty soon.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand that streaks occur in a h2h. Nadal beat Djok 5 straight times. Djok beat Nadal 7 straight times. Its just the way sport goes. Don't be surprised if Nadal wins their next 6 meetings.
 
nadalwon2012 said:
You don't seem to understand that streaks occur in a h2h. Nadal beat Djok 5 straight times. Djok beat Nadal 7 straight times. Its just the way sport goes. Don't be surprised if Nadal wins their next 6 meetings.
Click to expand...

4 out of those 5 matches Nadal won were on clay where nadal obviously had an advanatge and he still should have lost Madrid 2009, the one hc win was where Nole won more games and choked in the final set. By contrast 3 of the 7 matches Djokovic has won in a row have been clay/grass where Nadal has the advantage, 4 on HC where Nole has the advantage, so a pretty even spread.

Nadal has never owned Novak on HC, where as recently Djokovic has owned him on all surfaces. Big difference.
 
Towser83 said:
4 out of those 5 matches Nadal won were on clay where nadal obviously had an advanatge and he still should have lost Madrid 2009, the one hc win was where Nole won more games and choked in the final set. By contrast 3 of the 7 matches Djokovic has won in a row have been clay/grass where Nadal has the advantage, 4 on HC where Nole has the advantage, so a pretty even spread.

Nadal has never owned Novak on HC, where as recently Djokovic has owned him on all surfaces. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Djok owned Nadal on clay in straight sets twice (Rome/Madrid) last year more than hardcourt. Based on that, it would mean more for Nadal to own Djok on clay than on hardcourt. Djok never beat Nadal in straight sets on hard/grass last year. Matchups are never as simple as which surface is a player's best. Either way you look at it, it wouldn't surprise anyone logical if Nadal won their next 6 meetings, be it on clay, grass, hardcourt (but based on last year, clay is the toughest place for Nadal to beat Djok).
 
Tennis_Hands said:
Maybe I misunderstood you, in which case I apologize. When you said "will not be increasing that "lead" any time soon", I automatically thought of the scenario, where Nadal wins their next encounter (which I thought was a very probable scenario, should they have met in the IW final), in which case he would have been increasing his lead in the h2h. I did not realize, that you are speaking longterm.

In any case, it is still a bold prediction, since Djokovic has to put another extended period of dominance over Nadal (8 months to 1 year) to turn it around completely.
Click to expand...

Well I believe that Nadal holds a 2 win edge in their career H2H, so Djokovic only has to beat him 3 more times to gain the edge. It will be difficult for sure, but I wouldn't bet against it.
 
nadalwon2012 said:
You don't seem to understand that streaks occur in a h2h. Nadal beat Djok 5 straight times. Djok beat Nadal 7 straight times. Its just the way sport goes. Don't be surprised if Nadal wins their next 6 meetings.
Click to expand...

I very much understand that streaks occur in H2H matchups. However, Nadal beat Djokovic 5 straight times before he became Djokovic 2.0, I don't anyone can refute that. Since Djokovic became the best player in the world last year, he hasn't lost to Nadal, he's really a different player now.
 
nadalwon2012 said:
Djok owned Nadal on clay in straight sets twice (Rome/Madrid) last year more than hardcourt. Based on that, it would mean more for Nadal to own Djok on clay than on hardcourt. Djok never beat Nadal in straight sets on hard/grass last year. Matchups are never as simple as which surface is a player's best. Either way you look at it, it wouldn't surprise anyone logical if Nadal won their next 6 meetings, be it on clay, grass, hardcourt (but based on last year, clay is the toughest place for Nadal to beat Djok).
Click to expand...

Are you listening to yourself? It wouldn't surprise anyone if Nadal beat Djokovic the next 6 meetings?!? Honestly, it would surprise me if Djokovic beat Nadal the next 6 times, simply because he's won the last 7 (3 of them being Slam Finals). According to the law of averages, Nadal is due for a win, but I can't see him beating Djoker multiple times in a row.
 
agentaviles said:
I very much understand that streaks occur in H2H matchups. However, Nadal beat Djokovic 5 straight times before he became Djokovic 2.0, I don't anyone can refute that. Since Djokovic became the best player in the world last year, he hasn't lost to Nadal, he's really a different player now.
Click to expand...

If Djokovic 2.0 is the guy that took 6 hours to beat Nadal in the AO final, and the guy that lost in the Dubai and Indian Wells semis, I like Nadal's chances.
 
nadalwon2012 said:
If Djokovic 2.0 is the guy that took 6 hours to beat Nadal in the AO final, and the guy that lost in the Dubai and Indian Wells semis, I like Nadal's chances.
Click to expand...

You like Nadal's chances, even though he hasn't won a single tournament since Roland Garros? You go ahead and take those chances...
 
agentaviles said:
You like Nadal's chances, even though he hasn't won a single tournament since Roland Garros? You go ahead and take those chances...
Click to expand...

Of course, he's about to begin the clay season where he won all 3 of his titles last year, and always has a huge chance, because its very hard to beat him before the finals. He has plenty of shots at titles. And before that, Miami, and that is the event where he lost in a 3rd set tie-breaker to Djokovic last year.
 
nadalwon2012 said:
Of course, he's about to begin the clay season where he won all 3 of his titles last year, and always has a huge chance, because its very hard to beat him before the finals. He has plenty of shots at titles. And before that, Miami, and that is the event where he lost in a 3rd set tie-breaker to Djokovic last year.
Click to expand...

Let's look at those 3 titles:

Monte Carlo: Federer went out early and Djokovic didn't even play the event.

Barcelona: Nadal is the only top 4 player that plays that event, so it's basically a free W for him.

Roland Garros: He played Federer in the finals, who he obviously has an edge over.

Yet, both times he played Djokovic on clay last year he lost in straight sets.
 
nadalwon2012 said:
You don't seem to understand that streaks occur in a h2h. Nadal beat Djok 5 straight times. Djok beat Nadal 7 straight times. Its just the way sport goes. Don't be surprised if Nadal wins their next 6 meetings.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised because the only way it's going to happen is Nole decline and Nadal improved. Unlikely scenario.
 
agentaviles said:
Let's look at those 3 titles:

Monte Carlo: Federer went out early and Djokovic didn't even play the event.

Barcelona: Nadal is the only top 4 player that plays that event, so it's basically a free W for him.

Roland Garros: He played Federer in the finals, who he obviously has an edge over.

Yet, both times he played Djokovic on clay last year he lost in straight sets.
Click to expand...

So surprises there, Nadal never looked good last year on clay. He said after Roland Garros that he felt nervous during the clay season because he was focused on equaling Borg's record of 6 Roland Garros titles. I hope going for 7 isn't as stressful for him. Either way, clearly Djokovic 2.0 isn't as good this year, if Dubai and Indian Wells is anything to go by. Even the Australian Open, Djokovic's best slam surface, was a 6 hour marathon.
 
I have no doubt that Federer will make it to 900 wins. As for being able to do it before he reaches 200 losses, I don't see that happening.

ok, so essentially he would have to get 75 wins and no more then 11 losses. He would essentially need to win 7 of every 8 games that he plays consistently. 75/11 = 6.8 which is where the 7 out of 8 comes from. This is a lot to ask for from anyone. It's not impossible, but certainly is a tall order for the Swiss to pull off. Going by the numbers and percentages says that Nadal has the better chance, however he also has to play another 342 games just to reach the possibility of 900, and that's without losing another game which is never going to happen. He'll probably need the full 414 games to pull it off, and that's a lot of playing left for Nadal.

So I give the edge to Federer for pulling it off, but being realistic I don't see either pulling it off.

Jukka
 
TMF said:
I would be surprised because the only way it's going to happen is Nole decline and Nadal improved. Unlikely scenario.
Click to expand...

So far so good.
Djokovic played better in the 2011 AO than in the 2012 AO.
And Nadal played better in the 2012 AO than in the 2011 AO.
 
nadalwon2012 said:
So surprises there, Nadal never looked good last year on clay. He said after Roland Garros that he felt nervous during the clay season because he was focused on equaling Borg's record of 6 Roland Garros titles. I hope going for 7 isn't as stressful for him. Either way, clearly Djokovic 2.0 isn't as good this year, if Dubai and Indian Wells is anything to go by. Even the Australian Open, Djokovic's best slam surface, was a 6 hour marathon.
Click to expand...

So what if it was a 6 hour marathon? He still WON. And clay will always be Nadal's best surface, so if he doesn't dominate there that's bad for his point totals as well as his confidence.

Djokovic may not be playing as well this year as he was last year, but he doesn't have to be at his best to beat Nadal, as he proved in the AO Final ;)
 
agentaviles said:
So what if it was a 6 hour marathon? He still WON. And clay will always be Nadal's best surface, so if he doesn't dominate there that's bad for his point totals as well as his confidence.

Djokovic may not be playing as well this year as he was last year, but he doesn't have to be at his best to beat Nadal, as he proved in the AO Final ;)
Click to expand...

I agree, Djokovic has always been a better AO player than Nadal. He should beat him every time on that surface. That is why I was astounded by Nadal's performance.
 
nadalwon2012 said:
I agree, Djokovic has always been a better AO player than Nadal. He should beat him every time on that surface. That is why I was astounded by Nadal's performance.
Click to expand...

I believe that was the first time that they have ever met at the AO, so it was definitely a good first performance.
 
Grand Slam Percentages:

Finals:
Roger: 16 - 7 = 69% win percentage
Nadal: 10 - 5 = 66% win percentage

Roger > Nadal so far.

Total match wins:
Roger: 232 - 35 = 86.9% win percentage
Nadal: 149 - 21 = 87.6% win percentage

Roger > Nadal so far.

To sum things up:

Roger > Nadal so far.
 
cknobman said:
Grand Slam Percentages:

Finals:
Roger: 16 - 7 = 69% win percentage
Nadal: 10 - 5 = 66% win percentage

Roger > Nadal so far.

Total match wins:
Roger: 232 - 35 = 86.9% win percentage
Nadal: 149 - 21 = 87.6% win percentage

Roger > Nadal so far.

To sum things up:

Roger > Nadal so far.
Click to expand...

?????? ISn't Nadal's 87.6 > Roger's 86.9?
 
813wilson said:
Neither of these things will happen - as written/asked.

Federer: will reach 900 wins. But he will also have more than 200 losses. In order for him to reach the +900 w <200 his winning percentage needs to go up 5% points. He is + or - 75 wins from 900. Two more seasons(from today) with 38 wins a piece gets him there. But he only needs to lose 12 more times in those same two years; that is why, as stated, he won't get there.

Nadal: He'll play 900 matches, but that isn't what was asked. He would need the same winning percentage as he currently has - more or less. But, he's been a pro for 11+ years and played 671 matches. He's only 61% of the way to the total of 1100 matches. If we agree he may retire a bit early due to the wear and tear/style of play, Nadal would need to play 5 more years(from today makes him 30) at a rate of 85+ matches per year. That is a huge increase he won't accomplish....
Click to expand...

merlinpinpin said:
Godd, detailed answer. You get my vote. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not following the logic.

Federer needs 86 or so percent to get to 900 wins for 200 or less losses and in his last 3 years has won 84, 83 and 84% of his matches. Therefore, it isn't out of the question. In his best years he won more than 90% of his matches. So far, his record for this year is 92%.
 
Nathaniel_Near said:
I'm not following the logic.

Federer needs 86 or so percent to get to 900 wins for 200 or less losses and in his last 3 years has won 84, 83 and 84% of his matches. Therefore, it isn't out of the question. In his best years he won more than 90% of his matches. So far, his record for this year is 92%.
Click to expand...



The logic is this:

You stated that he's won 84,83,84 percent of his matches in the last three complete years. I agree with that. However, in those same years you referenced, he lost: 12 matches(2011), 13 matches(2010) and 12 matches(2009) respectively. So, if he repeats just one of those years, he goes over 200 losses.

In fact, where you reference his best years - God mode - it is only his 1st two of those years that would keep him under the 200 loss total.

I'm not discounting what he's doing - just answering the OP question. He'll get 900 wins but there is no way he stays under 200 losses.
That is all I'm saying......

As well as he is playing - do you really see him staying on a 92% winning percentage for the year?
 
The logic is unsound because you assert that there is 'no way' he stays under 200 losses (200 or less) when in fact the possibility is plausible, even reasonable. The rate of his wins and losses in the first FOUR years of his dominance would suffice, not just the first two, btw.
 
Facts are:

Roger needs 86-87% to wins up to 900 wins from now on to get there without incurring more than 200 losses.

Roger has won a higher percentage of matches than this in 4 calender years during his career.

Whilst he has only managed 84, 83 and 84% over the last 3 years, it isn't unreasonable to think he could give himself a shot at this meaningless statistic over the next year or so by winning 87% of his matches. It isn't a ludicrous suggestion.

The original logic was unsound and ignorant because it alluded to the fact that Roger would need to score about 5% points above his career average, which is obviously skewed by the poorer results he had when first coming onto the tour, before his prime. This is why I took issue with the logic in the first place.


I give him say a 25% chance of achieving it, rather than 0.000001%.

I think he'll probably get to 900 wins with about 202 losses. Oh, and I doubt he will keep up 92% for the rest of the year, but like I've more or less said, 86/87/88% is a possibility, especially with his blistering start.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
McEnroeisanartist said:
At the moment, Federer's career record is 825-188. Nadal's career record is 553-118. What do you think is more likely: Federer reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses? Or Nadal reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses.

Federer would have to go at least 75-12 (86.2%).
Nadal would have to go at least 347-82 (80.9%).
Click to expand...

For Roger, he is now at 829-188 so his task has now been made easier.

He needs 71 wins - 12 losses ... = 85.5% required :twisted: (as opposed to more 86.2% +)

LOL at debating over a meaningless statistic.
 
^^^
My fault. You're right. You're "loling" a meaningless statistic "whilst" putting Twisted Evil markers in your mail.

a) You brought up the past three years of play. That is why I focused on the "two" combination. Don't change to four now that you want to.
b) you say that the chances are "plausible even reasonable", give him a 25% chance of doing it, then say he'll be 900 wins and 202 losses. Which is it?
c) you brought up his % in four calendar years. He only has four complete years less than 10 losses.
d) to fulfill the orginal scenario he needs to go 71 and 11. 71+11=82. 71 wins against 11 losses(max) does, in fact, equal 86.585

Lastly - please don't use the term "ignorant". The original premis was Career Winning Percentage. I was staying closer to that premis when I posted the numbers and what would need to occur.....
 
813wilson said:
^^^
My fault. You're right. You're "loling" a meaningless statistic "whilst" putting Twisted Evil markers in your mail.

a) You brought up the past three years of play. That is why I focused on the "two" combination. Don't change to four now that you want to.
b) you say that the chances are "plausible even reasonable", give him a 25% chance of doing it, then say he'll be 900 wins and 202 losses. Which is it?
c) you brought up his % in four calendar years. He only has four complete years less than 10 losses.
d) to fulfill the orginal scenario he needs to go 71 and 11. 71+11=82. 71 wins against 11 losses(max) does, in fact, equal 86.585

Lastly - please don't use the term "ignorant". The original premis was Career Winning Percentage. I was staying closer to that premis when I posted the numbers and what would need to occur.....
Click to expand...

It's unclear what you're getting at with point a). Point b) is completely misguided - the claims you list aren't mutually exclusive. As for point c), NN brought up these years precisely because he wished to demonstrate that Federer is clearly capable of achieving the required winning percentage as evidenced by his past performances. Point d) is mistaken - he does not need to limit his losses to 11 to follow the original scenario. See bold:


McEnroeisanartist said:
At the moment, Federer's career record is 825-188. Nadal's career record is 553-118. What do you think is more likely: Federer reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses? Or Nadal reaches 900 wins with 200 or less losses.

Federer would have to go at least 75-12 (86.2%).
Nadal would have to go at least 347-82 (80.9%).
Click to expand...

And your last point, that you're staying closer to the original premise of the OP's post by taking your cues from career winning percentage, is just a poor excuse to make use of far less than ideal information. Federer doesn't lose anywhere near as often these days as he did when he started his career. The most relevant information we have is his winning percentage over the past few years. This more recent data is far better suited to forecasting Federer's winning percentage in the (relatively) short term than his overall career winning percentage.
 
Last edited:
Looks like piece took care of my business while I was sleeping! As for declaring your analysis as ignorant, maybe that WAS a bit harsh. I rather mean, misguided. My apologies, sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Federer and Records/Career Achievements at 2010 French Open
Replies
13
Views
2K
Speranza
Speranza
M
Achievements for Federer to look forward to in 2016
Replies
22
Views
3K
Netspirit
N
H
  • Poll Poll
How long until Nadal's career winning percentage dips below Borg's?
Replies
35
Views
3K
helterskelter
H
M
Federer and Finishing Season with 90% Winning Percentage
Replies
13
Views
2K
dangalak
D
M
Federer and Records at this year's Wimbledon
Replies
0
Views
647
McEnroeisanartist
M
Back
Top