Maintaining a 90% winning percentage - the Open Era greats

[eldanger25]

So now that we've entered the postseason lull (congrats again to the one and only N. Djokovic), I thought I'd post early results of a little research project I've been working on here and there - I think it's in roughly decent enough shape to include here, and feels timely as the dust settles on where exactly the most recent greats stand relative to early Open Era stars (i.e. Djokovic v. Connors or Lendl; Nadal v. Borg or Sampras).

Here's the story: I wanted to try to measure both consistency and excellence across Open Era generations, so I decided to research the longest chronological stretches where a player who came of age during the Open Era maintained a 90% winning percentage. I used the following guidelines:

1. Sanctioned matches only (just a matter of stats currently being harder to compile for invitationals/challenge matches etc., not to mention issues regarding relative prestige/seriousness of different invitationals/exos etc.)
2. Contested matches only (thus, for instance, wins or losses via a mid-match default or injury retirement are included, while walkovers etc. are not - there must've been at least one ball in play).
3. To qualify for the list, the player must have maintained an overall 90% record for a period longer than 12 months.
4. Results are added by tournament rather than by match (thus, for instance, if a player peeks briefly above 90% for a 12+ month period partway through a tournament but loses later in the event and falls back below the dividing line, no credit is given).
5. Chronological measurements are prioritized when overlapping time periods are in play (i.e., if a player is at or above 90 percent either between, say February 2005 - May 2006 or April 2005 - June 2006, the former time period obtains).

Anyway, here goes - in the spirit of the project, I'm gonna go chronologically through to the present:

Jimmy Connors

Maintained a 90% record b/w January 1973 - January 1980 (record: 576-64)

Highlights: 5x slam winner (on 3 surfaces); 20-0 at GS events in 1974; 6x slam finalist (on 3 surfaces); 5x ATP YE #1; 251 weeks at #1; Dallas-YEC double in '77; 4x US Pro Indoor titles; 75 sanctioned titles

Bjorn Borg

Maintained a 90% record b/w August 1975 - September 1981 (432-48)

Highlights: 9x slam winner (on 2 surfaces); 3x Channel Slam; 5 straight Wimbledon titles ('76-'80), 4 straight RG titles ('78-'81); 4x slam finalist (all at Open); 2x ATP YE #1; 109 weeks at #1; 2x YEC winner, 1x Dallas winner; 3x Monte Carlo titles; member of 1975 Davis Cup winning team; 53 sanctioned titles

Guillermo Vilas

Maintained a 90% record b/w January 1977 - January 1979 (192-21)

Highlights: 3x slam winner (on 2 surfaces); 2 slam season (1977); 2x slam finalist (on 2 surfaces); 46 match winning streak (1977); 24 sanctioned titles

John McEnroe

Maintained a 90% record b/w March 1981 - November 1985 (361-40)

Highlights: 5x slam winner (on 2 surfaces); 2x Wimbledon-Open double; 3x slam finalist (on 3 surfaces); 4x ATP YE #1; 166 weeks at #1; 2x YEC winner, 3x Dallas winner (YEC-Dallas double in 1983 & 1984) ; 4x US Pro Indoor winner; member of 1981 & 1982 Davis Cup winning team; 42 sanctioned titles

Ivan Lendl

Maintained a 90% record b/w August 1981 - October 1983 (218-24)

Highlights: 2x slam finalist (both at Open); 11 weeks at #1; 2x YEC winner, 1x Dallas winner (YEC-Dallas double in 1982); 30 sanctioned titles

Maintained a 90% record b/w October 1984 - October 1990 (415-46)

Highlights: 7x slam winner (on 2 surfaces); 2x RG-Open double; 5x slam finalist (on 3 surfaces); 4x ATP YE #1; 238 weeks at #1; 3x YEC winner, 1x Dallas winner (YEC-Dallas double in 1985); 3x Canada Open titles; 47 sanctioned titles

Mats Wilander

Maintained a 90% record b/w February 1983 - February 1984 (79-8)

Highlights: 1x slam winner; 1x slam finalist; Monte Carlo, Cincinnati, Stockholm titles; 26-1 record b/w Monte Carlo and RG final; 9 sanctioned titles (on 3 surfaces)

Boris Becker

Maintained a 90% record b/w June 1988 - December 1989 (99-11)

Highlights: 2x slam winner (on 2 surfaces); Wimbledon-Open double in 1989; 1x slam finalist; 1x YEC winner; member of 1988 & 1989 Davis Cup winning teams; 10 sanctioned titles

Roger Federer

Maintained a 90% record b/w October 2003 - November 2009 (447-49)

Highlights: 14x slam winner (on 3 surfaces); Career Slam; 3x slam winner in 2004, 2006-07, 2x slam winner in 2005, 2009 (Channel Slam); 4 straight Wimbledon titles, 5 straight Open titles; 6x slam finalist (on 3 surfaces); 4x ATP YE #1 (5 if you include 2009); 255 weeks at #1; 4x YEC winner; 56 match HC win streak from 2005-06; 53 match grass court win streak from 2004-08 (part of 65 match streak); 15 MS1000 titles; 52 sanctioned titles

Maintained a 90% record b/w August 2011 - September 2012 (83-9)

Highlights: 1x slam winner; 11 weeks at #1; 1x YEC winner; Olympic silver medalist; 4 MS1000 titles; 9 sanctioned titles

Maintained a 90% record b/w June 2016 - June 2018 (81-9)

Highlights: 3x slam winner (on 2 surfaces); 6 weeks at #1; 3 MS1000 titles (IW-Miami double); 10 sanctioned titles

Rafael Nadal

Maintained a 90% record b/w February 2005 - September 2006 (126-14)

Highlights: 2x slam winner (on 1 surface); 1x slam finalist; 62-0 on clay (part of 81 match streak); 6 MS1000 titles; 16 sanctioned titles

Maintained a 90% record b/w March 2008 - August 2009 (112-12)

Highlights: 3x slam winner (on 3 surfaces); Channel Slam; 1x ATP YE #1; 46 weeks at #1; Olympic Gold medal; member of 2008 Davis Cup winning team; 6 MS1000 titles; 13 sanctioned titles

Maintained a 90% record b/w December 2011 - March 2014 (136-15)

Highlights: 3x slam winner (on 2 surfaces); RG-Open double in 2013; 2x slam finalist (both at AO); 1x ATP YE #1; 26 weeks at #1; member of 2011 Davis Cup winning team; 7 MS1000 titles; 16 sanctioned titles

Maintained a 90% record b/w March 2017 - September 2018 (93-10)

Highlights: 3x slam winner (on 2 surfaces); RG-Open double; 1x ATP YE #1; 48 weeks at #1; 5 MS1000 titles; 11 sanctioned titles

Novak Djokovic

Maintained a 90% record b/w December 2010 - August 2016 (415-46)

Highlights: 11x slam winner (on 3 surfaces); 4 majors in a row (2015/16); 2x 3 slam season (2011, 2015); 2 slam season (2016); 6x slam finalist; 4x ATP YE #1; 212 weeks at #1; 4x YEC winner (2012-15); member of 2010 Davis Cup winning team; 43 match winning streak (2010-11); 25x MS1000 titles (including record 6 shields in 2015); 4x IW-Miami double; 48 sanctioned titles

Some overall records:

Longest streaks, consecutive

1. Jimmy Connors (7 years, 0 months)
2t. Bjorn Borg (6 years, 1 month)
2t. Roger Federer (6 years, 1 month)
4. Ivan Lendl (6 years, 0 months)
5. Novak Djokovic (5 years, 9 months)
6. John McEnroe (4 years, 8 months)
7. Rafael Nadal (2 years, 4 months)
8. Ivan Lendl (2 years, 2 months)
9t. Guillermo Vilas (2 years, 0 months)
9t. Roger Federer (2 years, 0 months)
11. Rafael Nadal (1 year, 7 months)
12t. Boris Becker (1 year, 6 months)
12t. Rafael Nadal (1 year, 6 months)
14. Rafael Nadal (1 year, 5 months)
15. Roger Federer (1 year, 1 month)
16. Mats Wilander (1 year, 1 event)

Longest streaks, cumulative

1. Roger Federer (9 years, 2 months) (combined record: 611-67)
2. Ivan Lendl (8 years, 2 months) (combined record: 633-70)
3. Jimmy Connors (7 years, 0 months) (combined record: 576-64)
4. Rafael Nadal (6 years, 10 months) (combined record: 467-51)
5. Bjorn Borg (6 years, 1 month) (combined record: 432-48)
6. Novak Djokovic (5 years, 9 months) (combined record: 415-46)
7. John McEnroe (4 years, 8 months) (combined record: 361-40)
8. Guillermo Vilas (2 years, 0 months) (combined record: 192-21)
9. Boris Becker (1 year, 6 months) (combined record: 99-11)
10. Mats Wilander (1 year, 1 event) (combined record: 79-8)

Most wins during streak, consecutive (best result for each qualifying player)

1. Jimmy Connors - 576
2. Roger Federer - 447
3. Bjorn Borg - 432
4(t). Ivan Lendl - 415
4(t). Novak Djokovic - 415
6. John McEnroe - 361
7. Guillermo Vilas - 192
8. Rafael Nadal - 136
9. Boris Becker - 99
10. Mats Wilander - 79

Most wins during streak, cumulative

1. Ivan Lendl - 633
2. Roger Federer - 611
3. Jimmy Connors - 576
4. Rafael Nadal - 467
5. Bjorn Borg - 432
6. Novak Djokovic - 415
7. John McEnroe - 361
8. Guillermo Vilas - 192
9. Boris Becker - 99
10. Mats Wilander - 79

To be continued...

 

[eldanger25]

Some notes:

1. You'll notice that neither Pete Sampras nor Andre Agassi make the list - this was surprising to me, but accurate as far as I can tell - Pete never was 90 percent or greater for a year or longer (he was semi-close in the 1993/94 period, but couldn't get over the line), while Andre came damn close during his 1994-95 stretch (I think he was briefly above 90 percent from about August 1994 through the latter rounds of the '95 Open, but his famous loss to Petros sent him back under the dividing line, and he never got that close again).

2. Interestingly, these periods tend to begin/end with famous, era-ending or triggering wins and losses. For instance, Connors slipped under 90 percent for good after January 1980 - just a few weeks after his and Borg's last great encounter while the top rivalry in the game (their famous, raucous RR match at the '79 YEC in Madison Square Garden). As well, you have Borg's percentage slipping after his last tournament win in Geneva in September 1981; Mac's percentage slipping just as he was about to take his Hollywood sabbatical in early 1986; and Fed's long stretch ending just before his last great "prime" major win at the 2010 AO.

Conversely, you can track the beginning of great stretches as well, and note the influence of Davis Cup here: Borg's streak begins as he pushes Sweden through the middle rounds of DC during its famous '75 run to the title; Djokovic's great 2010-12 stretch begins with his epic performances at the 2010 DC final, and Nadal's leap off the mat after Novak bullied him across multiple continents throughout 2011 begins with the 2011 DC final. As well, you have Lendl coming into his own in late 1984 (not coincidentally, he'd enjoy his first win over Connors in a final just a few months later, as well as turn the rivalry with Mac around conclusively throughout 1985).

3. Nadal's stretches are both impressive and problematic - on the one hand, his run in 2005/06 mostly as a teenager reminds one of how much of a prodigy he was; on the other, his injury-riddled career means that while he is the only player on the list with 3 separate stretches above 90 percent, the # of matches played is lower than many others.

4. This may illustrate why I find it problematic to elevate modern players via modern achievements (currently re: Djokovic versus Connors/Lendl). As you can see, only Federer and Borg approximate the consistent, day-in and day-out excellence that Connors and Lendl brought to the sport for years and years. Even with Novak's wonderful runs presently and earlier this decade, he is still 3-5 years behind those guys in terms of both consecutive and cumulative year-plus stretches at or above 90%. This doesn't mean he is far from them in terms of overall greatness - I have the three of 'em lumped together in their own category right now - it just means that it isn't as simple as "one more slam and he's past Lendl" etc. There are lots of factors in play here across generations.

5. Looking at these guys just shows to me that maintaining a 90% record is really quite hard - if you have a dip or two for just a few weeks or a month, it'll muck up the whole enterprise, because for every loss you've gotta then win 9 straight matches just to stay in range. I've seen players go on these majestic stretches and just get sunk by a brief lull afterward - it's amazing to me how some of these guys managed it for so long.

6. I'd love to expand this to include pre-Open Era guys, and welcome any thoughts/comments (including regarding whether I failed to include anyone). Hope it's an interesting read.

 

[Russeljones]

Stellar work, once again.

 

[eldanger25]

Stellar work, once again.

Thank you sir - much appreciated. Very much looking forward to your insights on the topic.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Great work eldanger but personally I find it easier to work out a player's W-L% from the beginning of a season to the end or during a specific time frame rather than starting from a certain month of the year. For instance I know that Djokovic has won 343 matches since the beginning of 2011 and lost 39 which I would imagine is at least 90%. For me it's far more simple to work it out that way but kudos to you for all the time you've spent compiling these stats.

 

[Dave1982]

Great job and certainly makes for some interesting observations.

 

[eldanger25]

Great work eldanger but personally I find it easier to work out a player's W-L% from the beginning of a season to the end or during a specific time frame rather than starting from a certain month of the year. For instance I know that Djokovic has won 343 matches since the beginning of 2011 and lost 39 which I would imagine is at least 90%. For me it's far more simple to work it out that way but kudos to you for all the time you've spent compiling these stats.

Thanks Djokovic2011 - he's actually 345-40 since the 2010 DC final, for an 89.6% record. One nice thing (to me) about my approach is that, for instance, if Novak has another several months of stellar play, he could actually reactivate some or all of his missing parts of 2012/13 as part of his 90% run. For now, he's damn close but still a bit short.

 

[BGod]

Again, Lendl>Nadal.

 

[Indio]

Nice job--I've always considered winning percentage to be an important factor in determining a player's ranking in relation to his competitors. It's one of the reasons that I consider McEnroe's 1984 to be the greatest year ever by a male player.

 

[Russeljones]

Jimmy Connors really stands out with the number of matches played in his streak - 640. The second longest streak, Federer's, includes 496 matches. That is a difference of roughly 2 seasons worth of matches by modern standards.

I think Pete and Andre's omission might inadvertently point to the pinnacle of surface specialization in the sport whereby they were both denied the wins necessary (to gain entry in this list) by some stern opposition which today's forum "experts" might call journeymen, mugs, clowns etc.

This thread must have taken a lot of time to compile. Bravo!

 

[eldanger25]

Great job and certainly makes for some interesting observations.

Thanks - much appreciated.

 

[eldanger25]

Nice job--I've always considered winning percentage to be an important factor in determining a player's ranking in relation to his competitors. It's one of the reasons that I consider McEnroe's 1984 to be the greatest year ever by a male player.

Yes, I'm a Mac 1984 partisan as well - best season of the Open Era in my mind, and the fact that he never won another major after the '84 Open is just mind-boggling. The man simply flew too close to the sun.

 

[eldanger25]

Jimmy Connors really stands out with the number of matches played in his streak - 640. The second longest streak, Federer's, includes 496 matches. That is a difference of roughly 2 seasons worth of matches by modern standards.

I think Pete and Andre's omission might inadvertently point to the pinnacle of surface specialization in the sport whereby they were both denied the wins necessary (to gain entry in this list) by some stern opposition which today's forum "experts" might call journeymen, mugs, clowns etc.

This thread must have taken a lot of time to compile. Bravo!

Yeah, the enduring image of Connors is of the strutting lion in winter circa mid-80s through 1991 (and it's a wonderful image), but he was just unreal in the 70s. That version of Connors is somewhat obscured by his later exploits, but that's what happens I suppose when you're part of the sport for basically the first 25 years of Open Era tennis.

I tend to agree re: Pete - in some ways the clay issue was always gonna handicap him, but he'd likely have managed a somewhat stronger record on the surface during other, less specialized decades, which may've vaulted him onto the list given his consistent excellence on faster surfaces. Those factors are also in play for Andre, though I imagine his love-hate affair with the sport may've held him back on this front in any era.

Thanks again too - cross-referencing records for the early Open Era guys definitely gives a few corners of one's brain a heck of a workout.

 

[dondropshot]

Yes, I'm a Mac 1984 partisan as well - best season of the Open Era in my mind, and the fact that he never won another major after the '84 Open is just mind-boggling. The man simply flew too close to the sun.

Did you hear McEnroe address that a month or 2 ago on ESPN? They were talking about Nadal, and McEnroe said that his (McEnroe's) career was crap after age 25. He was "played out" (my quotes) mentally, I guess; alluding to Nadal's situation. I'd always written-off lack of slam wins from the greats because of injury. But, he seemed to imply it was mental. That's the first time I can ever remember a multiple slam winner talk about that.

 

[ABCD]

Nice attempt, but suffers from one major problem. It doesn't take into account the level of opposition. You have to find a way to objectively rank the opposition. This is difficult to do, but it is the only way if you wish to provide an accurate picture. Please, don't be disheartened by my comment. It is a great job you have done, but, for conclusions to be drawn, opposition has to be taken into account.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

This was fascinating to read and reread again. Thank you so much. I loved it.

 

[dh003i]

Wow, Connors is insane...

 

[tacou]

Very good stuff. Crazy how Borg and Connor's runs overlapped .

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Would love to see this for above 85%.

 

[Jaitock1991]

Awesome.

 

[DMP]

6. I'd love to expand this to include pre-Open Era guys, and welcome any thoughts/comments (including regarding whether I failed to include anyone). Hope it's an interesting read.

Sadly I doubt that will be possible without an impossible amount of detective work. For the pre-Open era you had a situation where a selected group of better players only played each other. So to make like-for-like comparisons you would have to compare pre-Open results with the results in the Open era for matches only among the top 8, or a similar figure (that would be a whole discusion in itself!). A further complication with Laver would be that part of his numbers were against the equivalent of lower ranked players (ie before he turned pro) and part against top echelon players.

So probably best to rest on your laurels with what you have done ☺ However for the women it would be seamless because there was no such transformation.

I think it is a great piece of work and for me, as someone who has watched the whole of the Open era, it confirms in numbers what I saw happen.

 

[falstaff78]

Excellent post @eldanger25 and thanks for all the hard work.

Quick question: do you impose a constraint that a player must have maintained 90% for all subsections of the overall time frame, or just from start to finish?

Let me clarify. Suppose:

1) player X achieves a win% of 94% for two years from Jan 1, 2020 to Jan 1, 2022
2) he then proceeds to win at 88% for four years from Jan 1, 2022 to Jan 1, 2026.
3) his overall win rate from Jan 1, 2020 till Jan 1, 2026 turns out to be exactly 90%.

Under this scenario would you credit player X with 6 years of playing 90% ball?

Or would you credit him with 2+ years of 90% ball? (Because starting some time late in 2022, his rolling 12 month win% will fall below 90% and stay that way for the rest of his career. Because he only really played 90% ball for 2 years)

Thanks for the clarification and really great work with the stats!!!

 

[Russeljones]

Quick question: do you impose a constraint that a player must have maintained 90% for all subsections of the overall time frame, or just from start to finish?

I thought about asking this but when I see this

3. The player must've maintained a 90% record for greater than 12 months.

to me it implies that the 90% must be a fact at any given point during that period. Let's see what eldanger25 says.

 

[eldanger25]

Excellent post @eldanger25 and thanks for all the hard work.

Quick question: do you impose a constraint that a player must have maintained 90% for all subsections of the overall time frame, or just from start to finish?

Let me clarify. Suppose:

1) player X achieves a win% of 94% for two years from Jan 1, 2020 to Jan 1, 2022
2) he then proceeds to win at 88% for four years from Jan 1, 2022 to Jan 1, 2026.
3) his overall win rate from Jan 1, 2020 till Jan 1, 2026 turns out to be exactly 90%.

Under this scenario would you credit player X with 6 years of playing 90% ball?

Or would you credit him with 2+ years of 90% ball? (Because starting some time late in 2022, his rolling 12 month win% will fall below 90% and stay that way for the rest of his career. Because he only really played 90% ball for 2 years)

Thanks for the clarification and really great work with the stats!!!

Hey falstaff78 - thanks much for the kind words. The approach I took does not require that every 12 month cycle within the range be above 90%, but rather is the "start to finish" approach (or the stretched rubber band, if you will). Thus, to clarify, my 12 month boundary line is just an initial barrier - basically excluding instances where start to finish the 90% ball was played for less than the equivalent of a calendar year. Sorry for any confusion from my imprecise phrasing.

The reason I chose this approach is because I wanted to use a metric that captured both excellence and consistency. It's true that you'll see 12 month stretches of sub-90 percent results both within some of these periods and at the head and tail, but I think including those periods offers useful information: for instance, the chronological length of these heads and tails of sub-90 percent play reflects both (1) how well the guys were playing just before and after their peaks (i.e., how well did they stick the takeoff and landing), and (2) just how "peak" those peaks were (to the extent substantial time frames well above 90% allow folks to bank winning percentages).

It also rewards players who were able to resume 90%+ play after a brief dip, but only if that intervening period was not too much of a lull. For instance, Lendl's 1988 calendar year was below 90 percent, but not so much so that his return to 90%+ form in 1989 was left on an island. By contrast, his relative lull in 1983-84 required me to split up his great early 80s run from his 1984-90 heyday. Thus, his greater consistency across the late 80s versus the early 80s is (hopefully) captured.

My issue with requiring that each rolling 12 month period be above 90 percent is that, as a practical matter, for the most part it's really just a stand-in for asking how many consecutive calendar seasons of 90% ball a player managed (with a head and tail of some number of months fewer than 12), since by definition the first sub-90% calendar season in either direction ends the streak. That in and of itself is an interesting metric (and worth compiling for sure), but seems designed to capture a little more "peak" and a little less "consistency" than what I was after.

Hope this helps - thanks again for your (and Russeljones's) thoughtful posts on the matter.

 

[prostaff1]

OP-good work, thx. R.O.G.E.R. F.E.D.E.R.E.R.

 

[Russeljones]

Oh, I had it wrong then. I suppose that 3rd condition should then read as:

"3. To qualify for the list, the player must have maintained an overall 90% record for a period longer than 12 months."

What do you think?

 

[eldanger25]

Oh, I had it wrong then. I suppose that 3rd condition should then read as:

"3. To qualify for the list, the player must have maintained an overall 90% record for a period longer than 12 months."

What do you think?

That looks perfect, thanks - I'll edit the original post.

 

[urban]

Good work by Eldanger. It is to be said, that the ranking system changed. The 70s had an average ranking system. Players selected their events more, and Connors for example stepped out before or in the middle of running tournaments a lot, to prevent losses, which could count for the ranking. In the 90s, the only 14 tournaments rule saw many results and losses vanish from the count. So some more losses had no impact on the rankings.
For the pro circuit of the 50s and 60s i gave some win-loss numbers in a thread two years ago. To be reckoned with is the specific structure of the pro tour with playing in an elite group all the time. All pro champs had higher precentages in amateur play before turning pro or in open era, when they were already older. And they played a lot of Tennis, often over 100-120 matches per year. I personally weigh in for years results not only percentages of win-losses, but also differences between wins and losses. I think, Laver in 1962 was 151-14. The heighest win- loss percentage over a period of time is to my knowledge Tildens, who had, following Bud Collins, for his 10 year amateur play 1920-1930 a stunning .937%.

 

[krosero]

Interesting and impressive project. I agree it's more interesting to have the exact dates of 90% ball, rather than just the calendar seasons that are above 90%. Having the exact dates makes possible the connections with famous/triggering matches; and if any more such connections turn up I'd be curious to see them. But interesting project regardless.

 

[Alien]

Honestly it was easier back in the 70s and 80s. First rounds were really like going to the park. Check Vilas, who only had three Slams... he would win and win and win. Field was waaaaay less deep back then.

 

[Indio]

I know of no year, since 1980, during which two players finished with winning percentages of 90 or better, but the year which comes closest is 2013. Nadal: 75-7, 91.4%-----Djokovic, 74-9, 89.2%. Two others that weren't far behind were 1982 and 1985, Lendl and McEnroe in both cases. It's possible that it happened in the 1970s.

 

[eldanger25]

I know of no year, since 1980, during which two players finished with winning percentages of 90 or better, but the year which comes closest is 2013. Nadal: 75-7, 91.4%-----Djokovic, 74-9, 89.2%. Two others that weren't far behind were 1982 and 1985, Lendl and McEnroe in both cases. It's possible that it happened in the 1970s.

Borg (79-7) and Connors (66-6) pulled it off in 1978, and I'm not sure if any other duo managed it during the 70s. 2013 is a great example, one of the best 1-2 seasons of the last several decades. I'm pretty sure Federer and Nadal came close in 2005 as well.

 

[kOaMaster]

Excellent thread!

 

[tennis_pro]

A lot of effort put in these calculations, good thread this.

 

[tennis_pro]

Very good stuff. Crazy how Borg and Connor's runs overlapped .

They didn't face each other that often + Connors played a gazillion mickey mouse tournaments every year.

 

[eldanger25]

They didn't face each other that often + Connors played a gazillion mickey mouse tournaments every year.

I agree that the tour was pretty fractured back then, and that the Riordan tour Connors played earlier in the 70s was of inconsistent quality (though Nastase and Vitas G. were fellow regulars), but by 1978 both guys were maintaining solid schedules, and I do think it's one of the great 1-2 seasons of the Open Era.

As well, the "mickey mouse" stuff doesn't fly to me - it was a barnstorming era, and the fact that these guys were following big money around the world meant they were spreading the tennis gospel, not avoiding each other. Wimbledon and the Open (and, by reputation if not draw strength, RG) were the pinnacle, and the rest of the time it was about growing the game as well as bank accounts while various tour executives - ATP, ITF, WCT, WTT, Riordan, etc. - competed for hearts and minds. A remnant of the old pre-Open Era pro tour mentality in a way.

 

[Enga]

Honestly it was easier back in the 70s and 80s. First rounds were really like going to the park. Check Vilas, who only had three Slams... he would win and win and win. Field was waaaaay less deep back then.

First round is supposed to be a cakewalk. Wawrinka strolls through his first round and he only has 2 slams.

People always say previous generations had smaller talent pools, but that simply doesnt account for the fact that only 1 out of a a hundred million tennis players will put in the time and dedication, have the luck and skill to be the best. Bigger talent pools just means instead of a hundred million not being the best, its two hundred million, or whatever.

I think this talent pool stuff is a dream cooked up to hype up current generations, and give people fantasies of time travelling to the 70's and dominating the supposedly weak field.

Yet here we are, 2015, and this huge talent pool still hasnt produced a player under 25 who can win a slam

 

[Alien]

First round is supposed to be a cakewalk. Wawrinka strolls through his first round and he only has 2 slams.

People always say previous generations had smaller talent pools, but that simply doesnt account for the fact that only 1 out of a a hundred million tennis players will put in the time and dedication, have the luck and skill to be the best. Bigger talent pools just means instead of a hundred million not being the best, its two hundred million, or whatever.

I think this talent pool stuff is a dream cooked up to hype up current generations, and give people fantasies of time travelling to the 70's and dominating the supposedly weak field.

Yet here we are, 2015, and this huge talent pool still hasnt produced a player under 25 who can win a slam

Lol NO. You are speculating. I saw it.
Far less money was involved, less countries playing and you could see all those streaks they had. It is reality. Best players skipped tournaments or even circuits. 70s field was as deep as a puddle.

 

[eldanger25]

Interesting and impressive project. I agree it's more interesting to have the exact dates of 90% ball, rather than just the calendar seasons that are above 90%. Having the exact dates makes possible the connections with famous/triggering matches; and if any more such connections turn up I'd be curious to see them. But interesting project regardless.

Thanks - appreciate the kind words, and as always your opinion is valued immensely.

You'll be interested to hear that I found a solid link between Davis Cup play and the beginning of some of these 90 percent streaks. For example:

1. Borg's streak kick-started around July 1975, around when he was in the midst of dragging Sweden through the middle rounds of DC on its way to the title.
2. Mac's run began in March 1981, with two Davis Cup wins (he'd of course wind up taking home the prestigious Wimbledon-Open-Davis Cup triple in '81).
2. Federer's great six-plus year streak began immediately after his 5-set loss to Hewitt in Davis Cup (not coincidentally Hewitt's last great win over Fed).
3. Djokovic's 2010-12 run began with his leadership for Serbia in the 2010 DC final.
4. Nadal's return to form in 2011-14 began with his work in the 2011 DC final.
5. Becker wouldn't be here without his 10-0 record in Davis Cup in 1988/89, including the two wins in the December 1989 DC final that vaulted him onto the list.

 

[Indio]

Borg (79-7) and Connors (66-6) pulled it off in 1978, and I'm not sure if any other duo managed it during the 70s. 2013 is a great example, one of the best 1-2 seasons of the last several decades. I'm pretty sure Federer and Nadal came close in 2005 as well.

After digging a bit further, I found that another duo did do it, in 1977, Borg and Vilas. Borg: 76-7, 91.6%...Vilas: 134-14, 90.5%. Interestingly, despite Vilas finishing with a 92-5 record on clay, he faced Borg just twice (on clay), losing both. Borg's clay record was 26-1, losing at the US by retirement to Dick Stockton.
You're right about 2005. Nadal: 79-10, 88.8%

 

[StanTheMan]

This is amazing. You're truly awesome for taking the effort.

 

[MichaelNadal]

#KingRafa

 

[Russeljones]

Honestly it was easier back in the 70s and 80s. First rounds were really like going to the park. Check Vilas, who only had three Slams... he would win and win and win. Field was waaaaay less deep back then.

I agree. Which is why you had so many different champions at majors. Oh wait..

 

[Gary Duane]

Great work eldanger but personally I find it easier to work out a player's W-L% from the beginning of a season to the end or during a specific time frame rather than starting from a certain month of the year. For instance I know that Djokovic has won 343 matches since the beginning of 2011 and lost 39 which I would imagine is at least 90%. For me it's far more simple to work it out that way but kudos to you for all the time you've spent compiling these stats.

Actually no, because you have to take total of both wins and losses, like this:

343/(343+39)=89.8

Which is still damned close!

And I would say that Novak has had been up against as close opposition as anyone I can think of in the open era with perhaps the exception of the time when Connors, Borg and McEnroe were all playing at the same time and fighting for slams.

 

[Gary Duane]

Longest streaks, consecutive

1. Jimmy Connors (7 years, 0 months)
2t. Bjorn Borg (6 years, 1 month)
2t. Roger Federer (6 years, 1 month)
4. Ivan Lendl (6 years, 0 months)
5. John McEnroe (4 years, 8 months)
6t. Rafael Nadal (2 years, 4 months)
6t. Novak Djokovic (2 years, 4 months) (ongoing)
8. Ivan Lendl (2 years, 2 months)
9. Guillermo Vilas (2 years, 0 months)
10t. Rafael Nadal (1 year, 7 months)
10t. Novak Djokovic (1 year, 7 months)
12. Boris Becker (1 year, 6 months)
13. Rafael Nadal (1 year, 5 months)
14. Roger Federer (1 year, 1 month)

Longest streaks, cumulative

1. Ivan Lendl (8 years, 2 months) (combined record: 633-70)
2. Roger Federer (7 years, 2 months) (combined record: 530-58)
3. Jimmy Connors (7 years, 0 months) (combined record: 576-64)
4. Bjorn Borg (6 years, 1 month) (combined record: 432-48)
5. Rafael Nadal (5 years, 4 months) (combined record: 374-41)
6. John McEnroe (4 years, 8 months) (combined record: 361-40)
7. Novak Djokovic (3 years, 11 months) (combined record: 280-31)
8. Guillermo Vilas (2 years, 0 months) (combined record: 192-21)
9. Boris Becker (1 year, 6 months) (combined record: 99-11)

To be continued...

This is excellent stuff.

It is another view of what it means to be one of the possible GOATS.

Some thoughts:

Sampras was an anomaly. It is my impression that he coasted more than almost any other player in the open era and was able to bring up his game in big moments. I almost want to use the words "a bit lazy", which is not exactly accurate or fair. It would be interesting to see what his % was on all surfaces but clay.

I don't believe in weak eras, but what I do believe in is that although the overall talent in any ear is probably just about the same, he way that talent is distributed continually changes. We can never be sure whether not the very best players win more because they are "that good", or rather they win more because a bit more of the talent is in the hands of a few and not so much in the others.

The talent right now seems to me to be extraordinarily top-heavy.

 

[krosero]

Thanks - appreciate the kind words, and as always your opinion is valued immensely.

You'll be interested to hear that I found a solid link between Davis Cup play and the beginning of some of these 90 percent streaks. For example:

1. Borg's streak kick-started around July 1975, around when he was in the midst of dragging Sweden through the middle rounds of DC on its way to the title.
2. Mac's run began in March 1981, with two Davis Cup wins (he'd of course wind up taking home the prestigious Wimbledon-Open-Davis Cup triple in '81).
2. Federer's great six-plus year streak began immediately after his 5-set loss to Hewitt in Davis Cup (not coincidentally Hewitt's last great win over Fed).
3. Djokovic's 2010-12 run began with his leadership for Serbia in the 2010 DC final.
4. Nadal's return to form in 2011-14 began with his work in the 2011 DC final.
5. Becker wouldn't be here without his 10-0 record in Davis Cup in 1988/89, including the two wins in the December 1989 DC final that vaulted him onto the list.

Goodness I never even saw this post. I either didn't get the notification or missed it. Anyway, nice list; there's no doubt Davis Cup is a powerful catalyst to player's careers. Long ago in the "dark ages" it WAS a player's career, to exaggerate only a little; Davis Cup was the central event that you worked for. It hasn't been that way for a long time, but still; you'd have to imagine that Davis Cup digs up emotions in a player in a way that nothing else can.

Incidentally, I'm sure you know, Mac had a run in late '78 which included some Davis Cup heroics. Can't recall where exactly the Davis Cup wins were, in his late-season run. I do recall his performance in the DC final set a record for least games lost in a DC final or something like that. Next thing you know, he had his first big year, first major titles.

 

[Tarkovsky]

Thanks Djokovic2011 - he's actually 345-40 since the 2010 DC final, for an 89.6% record. One nice thing (to me) about my approach is that, for instance, if Novak has another several months of stellar play, he could actually reactivate some or all of his missing parts of 2012/13 as part of his 90% run. For now, he's damn close but still a bit short.

If I'm not mistaken, Djokovic has reached 360-40 since December 2010 thus reactivating all of his missing parts of 2012/13 for a continuous record of almost 5 years, overtaking McEnroe.

 

[user]

If I'm not mistaken, Djokovic has reached 360-40 since December 2010 thus reactivating all of his missing parts of 2012/13 for a continuous record of almost 5 years, overtaking McEnroe.

You're right. It has been 4 years 11 months. If he doesn't lose at WTF he will add another 2 months.

 

[KG1965]

Great work because interesting and full of ideas .
Bravo eldanger.

 

[TMF]

This year Nole has another season with a 90% win/loss record. Currently his record is 78-5, or 94%. Even if he loses all 3 rubbers at the WTF, his winning percentage still stay at 90.


Season with 90+ Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
= Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6
12. Ivan Lendl (1989) .919 79-7
= Jimmy Connors(1975) .919 79-7
14. Jimmy Connors(1976) .918 90-8
15. Jimmy Connors(1978) .917 66-6
16. Björn Borg(1977) .916 76-7
17. Rafael Nadal (2013) .915 75-7
18. Ivan Lendl (1987) .914 74-7
19 Novak Djokovic(2015) ???????