Nadal GOAT Argument: A Stat That's Not Talked About

[megamind]

YES, another GOAT argument post.

Looking at match win % (with minimum 200 matches). Nadal is the greatest of all time.

Top 10 of all time

Rank	Country	Name	Winning Pct.	Won	Lost	Played
1	ESP	Rafael Nadal	83.19%	970	196	1166
2	SWE	Bjorn Borg	83.03%	636	130	766
3	SRB	Novak Djokovic	82.71%	890	186	1076
4	SUI	Roger Federer	82.01%	1231	270	1501
5	USA	Jimmy Connors	81.77%	1256	280	1536
6	USA	John McEnroe	81.57%	881	199	1080
7	USA	Ivan Lendl	81.51%	1071	243	1314
8	AUS	Rod Laver	80.27%	476	117	593
9	USA	Pete Sampras	77.44%	762	222	984
10	GBR	Andy Murray	77.42%	672	196	868

^ metal hip mainad is a top 10 player of all time

Top 10 active players

Rank	Country	Name	Winning Pct.	Won	Lost	Played
1	ESP	Rafael Nadal	83.19%	970	196	1166
2	SRB	Novak Djokovic	82.71%	890	186	1076
3	SUI	Roger Federer	82.01%	1231	270	1501
4	GBR	Andy Murray	77.42%	672	196	868
5	ARG	Juan Martin Del Potro	71.69%	438	173	611
6	CAN	Milos Raonic	68.26%	342	159	501
7	JPN	Kei Nishikori	67.96%	403	190	593
8	FRA	Jo Wilfried Tsonga	67.79%	463	220	683
9	GER	Alexander Zverev	65.65%	216	113	329
10	AUT	Dominic Thiem	64.90%	270	146	416

^ it makes me sad to see Del Potro at #5, the closest active player to the big 4, but unfortunately those injuries have really kept his major count down

 

[megamind]

It's also crazy that Mainad has about the same win % as Sampras

Really a testament to his capabilities as a hermit living amongst goats

 

[megamind]

@Yugram @Rafa.the.Magnificent @Mainad @Lleytonstation @StrongRule

 

[Lleytonstation]

Percentage can be useful. However, will it continue to stay that high? With about 1% difference in the top 4 I honestly don't see this being a huge deal. Fed has played 260 more matches and has played 5 years longer. Will Rafa continue his winning percentage later in his career?

It is actually crazy to think Fed is right with them and has played into his twilight and has kept that percentage high while also playing 260 more matches.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Which is better? 4 out of 5? Or 75 out of 100? Percentage wise it is 4 out of 5, but harder to do 75 out of 100.

Rafa would have to win 150 of his next 200 just to equal Fed. While possible, is it likely as he ages?

Then again, Rafa just put up an 89% season at 33, so who knows.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

The answer is always the same.

Spoiler

Clay

 

[megamind]

Percentage can be useful. However, will it continue to stay that high? With about 1% difference in the top 4 I honestly don't see this being a huge deal. Fed has played 260 more matches and has played 5 years longer. Will Rafa continue his winning percentage later in his career?

It is actually crazy to think Fed is right with them and has played into his twilight and has kept that percentage high while also playing 260 more matches.

1) I'm tryna support Rafa, we not trying to be fair!!
2) Being fair, it seems you might be underestimating how big a small percentage can be. For Rafa, to reach Federer's win percentage right now, he'd need to go on a 16 match losing streak. So even if his percentage drops, he still has a good amount of clearance at the moment!

 

[Red Rick]

I'm a big, big believer in the importance of match win%. But let's not talk about Goat for a day

 

[The Blond Blur]

The answer is always the same.

Spoiler

Clay

Only player in the history of the game (that means dudes, dudettes, and anything in between ) with 400+ match wins on clay AND hard courts

 

[ChrisRF]

Percentage can be useful. However, will it continue to stay that high? With about 1% difference in the top 4 I honestly don't see this being a huge deal. Fed has played 260 more matches and has played 5 years longer. Will Rafa continue his winning percentage later in his career?

It is actually crazy to think Fed is right with them and has played into his twilight and has kept that percentage high while also playing 260 more matches.

In fact Federer isn’t even in his twilight already. His stats in the last 3 years were actually BETTER than his career total:

2017: 91.5 %
2018: 83.3 %
2019: 84.1 %

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

Percentage can be useful. However, will it continue to stay that high? With about 1% difference in the top 4 I honestly don't see this being a huge deal. Fed has played 260 more matches and has played 5 years longer. Will Rafa continue his winning percentage later in his career?

It is actually crazy to think Fed is right with them and has played into his twilight and has kept that percentage high while also playing 260 more matches.

Good point...

 

[The Blond Blur]

Percentage can be useful. However, will it continue to stay that high? With about 1% difference in the top 4 I honestly don't see this being a huge deal. Fed has played 260 more matches and has played 5 years longer. Will Rafa continue his winning percentage later in his career?

It is actually crazy to think Fed is right with them and has played into his twilight and has kept that percentage high while also playing 260 more matches.

To be fair my Canadian companion, I have seen a lot of threads bumped recently saying the same thing. "Let's wait and see what RAFA is doing when he's Ol' Rog's age". He's the same age Ol' Rog was back in 2014-2015 and he's performing better. He might not be making slem finals at 38, but he started winning at a younger age. He won his 1st slem at 19 vs 22 for Ol' Rog. That definitely has to be taken into account when comparing their longevity feats. Either way, what both guys are doing is mind boggling

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Only player in the history of the game (that means dudes, dudettes, and anything in between ) with 400+ match wins on clay AND hard courts

It sounds good when you put them together. Clay enhances everything. Even has medicinal properties they say.

 

[Lleytonstation]

To be fair my Canadian companion, I have seen a lot of threads bumped recently saying the same thing. "Let's wait and see what RAFA is doing when he's Ol' Rog's age". He's the same age Ol' Rog was back in 2014-2015 and he's performing better. He might not be making slem finals at 38, but he started winning at a younger age. He won his 1st slem at 19 vs 22 for Ol' Rog. That definitely has to be taken into account when comparing their longevity feats. Either way, what both guys are doing is mind boggling

Absolutely agree, then again, Fed was dealing with a 27 and 28 year old Djoker and rafa (don't forget 27 year old Murray) so the competition was quite different.

 

[The Blond Blur]

It sounds good when you put them together. Clay enhances everything. Even has medicinal properties they say.

So does hemorrhoid cream

 

[The Blond Blur]

Absolutely agree, then again, Fed was dealing with a 27 and 28 year old Djoker and rafa (don't forget 27 year old Murray) so the competition was quite different.

True, but on the other hand they had to deal with a peak Ol' Rog when they were younger. I'd say he had it easier when he was younger, and they have it easier now. Things have more or less balanced out.

 

[Red Rick]

To be fair my Canadian companion, I have seen a lot of threads bumped recently saying the same thing. "Let's wait and see what RAFA is doing when he's Ol' Rog's age". He's the same age Ol' Rog was back in 2014-2015 and he's performing better. He might not be making slem finals at 38, but he started winning at a younger age. He won his 1st slem at 19 vs 22 for Ol' Rog. That definitely has to be taken into account when comparing their longevity feats. Either way, what both guys are doing is mind boggling

Everyone ignores this to my great annoyance when talkinga bout longevity. Nadal beat Federer in their first RG match on his 19th birthday. 2 days later he won his first RG. Both have 62 Grand Slams between their first and last Slam win.

Also, Nadal finnished YE#1 at 33. Fed hasn't been YE#1 since he was 28.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

So does hemorrhoid cream

PeoplesChamp not butthurt over Rafa and his 83 %

 

[Lleytonstation]

True, but on the other hand they had to deal with a peak Ol' Rog when they were younger. I'd say he had it easier when he was younger, and they have it easier now. Things have more or less balanced out.

If it does balance out, then young guys will start to beat Djoker and rafa more often which would bring their percentages down... Which means they would all end around 82%. Unless Fed spirals out of control before retiring.

 

[The Blond Blur]

PeoplesChamp not butthurt over Rafa and his 83 %

All in good fun mate. I just get tired of poasters saying he's only a clay courter when there's ample evidence to the contrary.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

All in good fun mate. I just get tired of poasters saying he's only a clay courter when there's ample evidence to the contrary.

Nah, he's much more than a clay courter, but it is his bread and butter.

 

[Lew II]

Percentage can be useful. However, will it continue to stay that high? With about 1% difference in the top 4 I honestly don't see this being a huge deal. Fed has played 260 more matches and has played 5 years longer. Will Rafa continue his winning percentage later in his career?

It is actually crazy to think Fed is right with them and has played into his twilight and has kept that percentage high while also playing 260 more matches.

Federer has improved his win percentage in the last 5 years.

 

[The Blond Blur]

If it does balance out, then young guys will start to beat Djoker and rafa more often which would bring their percentages down... Which means they would all end around 82%. Unless Fed spirals out of control before retiring.

The reason I think it balances out is because Ol' Rog didn't really have to go through any ATGs on his way to the top (PETE and Andre were old when he came of age). I'm not saying he had a weak era, because I think he had a strong generation of players and he was the last to bloom in his gen. What he did have was a group of ATGs that came after him so that's why I think it balances out. He had a weaker group of ATGs in front of him, but he had a group of ATGs that came right after him. On the flip side, RAFA and company had a peak Ol' Rog vs a bunch of MUGS that came after them.

Edit: I forgot to capitalize MUGS.

 

[Lleytonstation]

The reason I think it balances out is because Ol' Rog didn't really have to go through any ATGs on his way to the top (PETE and Andre were old when he came of age). I'm not saying he had a weak era, because I think he had a strong generation of players and he was the last to bloom in his gen. What he did have was a group of ATGs that came after him so that's why I think it balances out. He had a weaker group of ATGs in front of him, but he had a group of ATGs that came right after him. On the flip side, RAFA and company had a peak Ol' Rog vs a bunch of mugs that came after them.

Yep. Impressive for Rafa, but I just think the idea that this has any meaning for the "tiger" debate is just silly.

Now, imagine a world where Fed gets 4-5 tourneys on grass each year verse 2-3.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Federer has improved his win percentage in the last 5 years.

I agree. Impressive of him. Or shows how poor the tour has been. Either way, that is what Fed has done. Will Djoker and Rafa do the same? If so, then props to them.

 

[Lew II]

In grand slams:

Borg 89.81
Nadal 87.70
Djokovic 86.69
Federer 86.02
Laver 85.71
Sampras 84.23

 

[The Blond Blur]

Yep. Impressive for Rafa, but I just think the idea that this has any meaning for the "tiger" debate is just silly.

Now, imagine a world where Fed gets 4-5 tourneys on grass each year verse 2-3.

 

[Sport]

It is indeed a relevant stat. Thanks for sharing OP.

 

[youngpolyhater]

Yep. Impressive for Rafa, but I just think the idea that this has any meaning for the "tiger" debate is just silly.

Now, imagine a world where Fed gets 4-5 tourneys on grass each year verse 2-3.

Federer getting 4500 points to play with on grass would get many more weeks at the #1 ranking

 

[Lleytonstation]

 

[Sport]

In grand slams:

Borg 89.81
Nadal 87.70
Djokovic 86.69
Federer 86.02
Laver 85.71
Sampras 84.23

Yes, Borg was a beast. Such a shame he played his last Slam match aged 25.

 

[KINGROGER]

Fed takes a hit for his early years between 1999-2002 where he lost a lot of matches, where as Nadal reached the top from 2005 aged 19.

Also Rafa has frequently skipped HC/grass events where he would likely take a L.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Yes, Borg was a beast. Such a shame he played his last Slam match aged 25.

Can you imagine an athlete doing that these days. What if Djoker retired at age 28? Or Messi at 25?

Really is crazy to think about Borg and what he lives with daily. Wonder if he regrets it?

 

[Lew II]

Federer getting 4500 points to play with on grass would get many more weeks at the #1 ranking

Players would be different with more grass or more clay.

Players now perform the best on hardcourt, as it's the most used surface. If grass/clay were the main surface players would perform better on grass/clay.

 

[youngpolyhater]

Players would be different with more grass or more clay.

Players now perform the best on hardcourt, as it's the most used surface. If grass/clay were the main surface players would perform better on grass/clay.

4500 doesn't make it the main surface,just equal with clay - which allows Nadal to vulture loads of points with minimal competition which make up the bulk of his ranking points and help him gain easier draws in off-clay tournaments.
If grass got 3 M1000s Federer and Djokovic would also benefit

Agree about players performing best on hardcourt.

 

[Red Rick]

Yep. Impressive for Rafa, but I just think the idea that this has any meaning for the "tiger" debate is just silly.

Now, imagine a world where Fed gets 4-5 tourneys on grass each year verse 2-3.

Grass being closer to HC in it's play and there being indoors and Fed playing more 250s and 500s evens it all out.

 

[Backspin1183]

Can you imagine an athlete doing that these days. What if Djoker retired at age 28? Or Messi at 25?

Really is crazy to think about Borg and what he lives with daily. Wonder if he regrets it?

To be fair, it was a different time. The big 3 are lucky they had each other to look at and motivate themselves to have such long careers.

 

[Sport]

.

 

[Backspin1183]

By the way, @megamind, Nadal's W/L currently is:

Rafael Nadal

977

197

1174

83.21%

 

[Backspin1183]

It's a great stat to look at, to lead the Open Era W/L record. It's not however such a big deal in the grand scheme of things though. We can look at this when/if he gets the Slam record which is what matters the most.

 

[ibbi]

It's great, but I'd take Federer's 250 odd more wins over the better percentage.

I always find the winning percentage thing kind of meaningless anyway. It's ultimately all about titles, if you have a better win percentage and fewer titles it counts for basically zero.

 

[Lew II]

4500 doesn't make it the main surface,just equal with clay - which allows Nadal to vulture loads of points with minimal competition which make up the bulk of his ranking points and help him gain easier draws in off-clay tournaments.
If grass got 3 M1000s Federer and Djokovic would also benefit

Agree about players performing best on hardcourt.

If grass was a more relevant surface, grass would have stronger competition, so Federer and Djokovic would have it harder.

 

[youngpolyhater]

If grass was a more relevant surface, grass would have stronger competition, so Federer and Djokovic would have it harder.

It would give them more points to play with on their better surfaces, thats the point

 

[Bobby Jr]

In fact Federer isn’t even in his twilight already. His stats in the last 3 years were actually BETTER than his career total:

2017: 91.5 %
2018: 83.3 %
2019: 84.1 %

For most players their numbers will dip at the end of their career if they keep playing.

So, the career percentage win rate is an irrelevant stat until all players being compared have retired. Until then it's just fodder for partisans.

 

[Sport]

It's great, but I'd take Federer's 250 odd more wins over the better percentage.

I always find the winning percentage thing kind of meaningless anyway. It's ultimately all about titles, if you have a better win percentage and fewer titles it counts for basically zero.

In your dreams. Winniing percentage > total matches won.

Following your logic, a player who has won 16 of 17 matches in the ATP is worse than a player who has won 17 of 127 matches in the ATP.

Nadal having the highest winning % in the history of the Open Era (minimum 200 matches) is far more relevant than Federer's extra wins with a lower winning %.

 

[fedfan08]

Fed has 103 titles. Nadal 84. They both won 4 titles this year. Will Nadal end up with more titles than Fed? And what about career prize money? Djokovic tops with $139M. Fed is second with $129M. Nadal is 3rd with $119M. Hard to see how Nadal passes Djokovic there.

 

[Sport]

Fed has 103 titles. Nadal 84. They both won 4 titles this year. Will Nadal end up with more titles than Fed? And what about career prize money? Djokovic tops with $139M. Fed is second with $129M. Nadal is 3rd with $119M. Hard to see how Nadal passes Djokovic there.

True. But 25 of Federer's titles are ATP 250, the second less relevant tournaments of the ATP circuit behind challengers.

It is all about Slams not "overall titles/ATP 250 titles".

 

[Lew II]

It would give them more points to play with on their better surfaces, thats the point

They would have tougher competition, that's the point.

 

[acintya]

YES, another GOAT argument post.

Looking at match win % (with minimum 200 matches). Nadal is the greatest of all time.

Top 10 of all time

Rank	Country	Name	Winning Pct.	Won	Lost	Played
1	ESP	Rafael Nadal	83.19%	970	196	1166
2	SWE	Bjorn Borg	83.03%	636	130	766
3	SRB	Novak Djokovic	82.71%	890	186	1076
4	SUI	Roger Federer	82.01%	1231	270	1501
5	USA	Jimmy Connors	81.77%	1256	280	1536
6	USA	John McEnroe	81.57%	881	199	1080
7	USA	Ivan Lendl	81.51%	1071	243	1314
8	AUS	Rod Laver	80.27%	476	117	593
9	USA	Pete Sampras	77.44%	762	222	984
10	GBR	Andy Murray	77.42%	672	196	868

^ metal hip mainad is a top 10 player of all time

Top 10 active players

Rank	Country	Name	Winning Pct.	Won	Lost	Played
1	ESP	Rafael Nadal	83.19%	970	196	1166
2	SRB	Novak Djokovic	82.71%	890	186	1076
3	SUI	Roger Federer	82.01%	1231	270	1501
4	GBR	Andy Murray	77.42%	672	196	868
5	ARG	Juan Martin Del Potro	71.69%	438	173	611
6	CAN	Milos Raonic	68.26%	342	159	501
7	JPN	Kei Nishikori	67.96%	403	190	593
8	FRA	Jo Wilfried Tsonga	67.79%	463	220	683
9	GER	Alexander Zverev	65.65%	216	113	329
10	AUT	Dominic Thiem	64.90%	270	146	416

^ it makes me sad to see Del Potro at #5, the closest active player to the big 4, but unfortunately those injuries have really kept his major count down

Nadal is Megamind.
Megamind is Nadal.
But I know you are not Nadal. Humbalito would never praise himself in this extent.

 

[fedfan08]

In your dreams. The winning percentage takes into account ALL tournaments (including Slams and Masters 1000). And Slams and Masters 1000 are far more relevant than ATP 250. Therefore, achievements in Slams and Masters 1000 are more important than achievements in ATP 250. As the overall winning percentage is also part of the Slams and Masters 1000 achievements, it follows that % percentage >>>> ATP 250 record.

To have the highest winning record in the history of the Open Era (minimum 200 matches) is far more relevant than any insignificant ATP 250 record. Again, ATP 250 are the less relevant ATP tournaments and the winning record takes into account Slams and jMasters 1000 which are more relevant).

But you also said that "Nadal almost lost the RG 2012 final" despite the fact that Djokovic only won 1 set. So what kind of objectivity can we expect from your posts?

Why are you talking about ATP 250 events? The poster meant 250 more match wins. Federer has 19 more titles than Nadal. And percentages can be meaningless. Coria is #1 in several stats on the ATP website even though he only played 332 matches in his career. The leader in first serve percentage is the great Gilbert Schaller who played a whopping 232 matches in his career. Patrick McEnroe comes in 3rd all time in 2nd serve return points won. He played 246 matches in his career. To me the more meaningful stats are how many slams did you win, how many titles did you win overall and how many weeks did you spend at #1.