Fed's career winning % isn't lower than Rafa's (and Borg's, and Connors') because he's older (until what age did Connors play again?). It's lower because he hasn't been consistently enough all throughout his career. He had comparatively poor results for several years early on.No this is not the same sample size, sorry. Since Fed has so much more matches. Same sample size is the same numbers of matches. I'm not against bringing the win rate. But you know Fed is older and when you are older, your rate drops a lot. Rafa will start to lose more too. Any player does. But what is strange is that you know this and still using it. I thought you wanted to be objective.
Btw, Fed is undefeated against Ferrer. Fed is dominating Ferrer more than Rafa.
AFAIK Fed has never had a better career winning % than Rafa has right now.
This has been explained several times, but some people (like you) try to keep on pretending Fed's winning % has just gone down now.
Lol, that's not a fallacy. It's a fact.Which is my premise also. Rafa better on clay, Fed better on HC/grass.
Since HC/grass is about 70% of tennis, Fed is better overall.
Overall doesn't mean in every category.
Can't wait fans responding to this with a fallacy, but clay is only 30%, so Fed has more chances to win, it's not fair.