Slam final conversion rate

Lew II

Hall of Fame
This is the conversion rate in Slam finals.

1-2 time finalists (Okker, Crealy, Franulovic, M.Anderson, Proisy, Parun, Pilic, Metreveli, Dent, Edmondson, Panatta, Solomon, Gottfried, Lloyd, Marks, Pecci, Sadri, Teacher, Warwick, Noah, Lewis, Pernfors, Leconte, Gomez, Berasategui, Muster, Krajicek, Washington, Rusedski, Rios, Enqvist, Medvedev, Norman, Clement, Johansson, Costa, Nalbandian, Schuettler, Verkerk, Gaudio, Coria, Puerta, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer, Nishikori, Raonic, Thiem, Orantes, Tanner, Kriek, Denton, Curren, Mecir, Korda, Pioline, Martin, Moya, Corretja, Philippoussis, Soderling, Del Potro, Anderson): 15/81 (18.5%)

3-5 time finalists : (Roche, Smith, Gerulaitis, Cash, Stich, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Ferrero, Cilic, Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Wawrinka, Ashe, Kodes, Nastase, Roddick) 35/74 (47.3%)

6-11 time finalists (Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Vilas, Courier, Becker, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Murray) 51/90 (56.7%)

15-19 time finalists (Connors, Agassi, Borg, Sampras, Lendl): 49/83 (59.0%)

24-30 time finalists (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer): 53/80 (66.25%)

(updated after RG 2019)
 
Last edited:

Towny

Hall of Fame
So Lew's point here is that in general, the more finals you make, the better your conversion rate. As ghostofMecir aptly put it, this is to be expected.

But a trend can't be used to generalise for specific examples. Guga made 3 finals but won all 3. Lendl made 19 finals but only won 8. Sampras has a better conversion rate than any of the Big 3, but has made far fewer finals. There are always going to be exceptions. Murray made 11 finals but that doesn't make him better than Becker (though it is strong evidence he's not just a mug).

Furthermore, slam conversion rate does not equate to peak. Nadal has a better finals rate conversion at the USO than Sampras. Does he have a higher peak there?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
This is the conversion rate in Slam finals.

1-2 time finalists (Okker, Crealy, Franulovic, M.Anderson, Proisy, Parun, Pilic, Metreveli, Dent, Edmondson, Panatta, Solomon, Gottfried, Lloyd, Marks, Pecci, Sadri, Teacher, Warwick, Noah, Lewis, Pernfors, Leconte, Gomez, Berasategui, Muster, Krajicek, Washington, Rusedski, Rios, Enqvist, Medvedev, Norman, Clement, Johansson, Costa, Nalbandian, Schuettler, Verkerk, Gaudio, Coria, Puerta, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer, Nishikori, Raonic, Thiem, Orantes, Tanner, Kriek, Denton, Curren, Mecir, Korda, Pioline, Martin, Moya, Corretja, Philippoussis, Soderling, Del Potro, Anderson): 15/80 (18.7%)

3-5 time finalists : (Roche, Smith, Gerulaitis, Cash, Stich, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Ferrero, Cilic, Chang, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Wawrinka, Ashe, Kodes, Nastase, Roddick) 35/74 (47.3%)

6-11 time finalists (Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Vilas, Courier, Becker, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Murray) 51/90 (56.7%)

15-19 time finalists (Connors, Agassi, Borg, Sampras, Lendl): 49/83 (59.0%)

24-30 time finalists (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer): 52/79 (65.8%)
6-11 time finalists are at 60.76% without Murray, he lowers the percentage a whole 4% - minus him that group is actually level with 15-19.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
I'm binge watching westworld in between game og thrones and I was thinking, what would a crossover look like?

Like imagine a game of thrones episode and halfway through it peels off and turns out they are all androids. except for some minor characters who are the guests. and then the rest of the episode is about the guests and stuff.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
More slam finals will make it easier to have a higher % of them won. This is basic numbers.
What? No it wont.

The reason the guys with the most majors have the highest finals percentage win rate is because they're all time greats who, naturally, only rack up the big numbers by virtue of well.... being greater than the vast majority.
 
What? No it wont.

The reason the guys with the most majors have the highest finals percentage win rate is because they're all time greats who, naturally, only rack up the big numbers by virtue of well.... being greater than the vast majority.
Exactly, which is why they have a higher winning percentage in finals. They get to the finals a lot, this means they are playing good a lot, and this means they statistically will win a lot.

Now, with that being said, if you break up the big 3 and look at their individual stats, that might tell a different story.
 

ghostofMecir

Hall of Fame
I'm binge watching westworld in between game og thrones and I was thinking, what would a crossover look like?

Like imagine a game of thrones episode and halfway through it peels off and turns out they are all androids. except for some minor characters who are the guests. and then the rest of the episode is about the guests and stuff.
To be honest, the second season of Westworld was already more convoluted and weirder than this scenario.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
So is the correlation between age and slam finals reached;).
Since 2015 the trend in age has changed (all slam finalists were 28+ years old except for two times) but the correlation between peak and consistency didn't change: Big4 won all slam finals against <4 time finalists (Anderson x2, Cilic x2, Raonic, Del Potro, Thiem).
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
6-11 time finalists are at 60.76% without Murray, he lowers the percentage a whole 4% - minus him that group is actually level with 15-19.
Why should I exclude Murray? He lost finals only to players who reached 2/3 times more finals than him, which confirms my theory.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
So Lew's point here is that in general, the more finals you make, the better your conversion rate. As ghostofMecir aptly put it, this is to be expected.

But a trend can't be used to generalise for specific examples. Guga made 3 finals but won all 3. Lendl made 19 finals but only won 8. Sampras has a better conversion rate than any of the Big 3, but has made far fewer finals. There are always going to be exceptions. Murray made 11 finals but that doesn't make him better than Becker (though it is strong evidence he's not just a mug).

Furthermore, slam conversion rate does not equate to peak. Nadal has a better finals rate conversion at the USO than Sampras. Does he have a higher peak there?
Kuerten never beat a 4+ time finalist in his 3 finals.
Lendl lost finals only to 10+ time finalists, except once to Cash.
Murray lost finals only to 24+ time finalists.

They're not exactly exception. Murray not at all, since he lost only to players much greater than him.

By the way exceptions exist, as I always tell you no method is flawless. On average more consistent players have a higher win rate, that's what I'm interested to.
 
Last edited:

Jonas78

Legend
Since 2015 the trend in age has changed (all slam finalists were 28+ years old except for two times) but the correlation between peak and consistency didn't change: Big4 won all slam finals against <4 time finalists (Anderson x2, Cilic x2, Raonic, Del Potro, Thiem).
Sinse 2015 is too short of a time, its just temporary. I calculated slam finals reached for Big4 pr age, and its pretty similar to the open era as a whole. Most of the finals for Big4 are reached at age 24-27, nothing has changed. Big4 are exceptional players, they won a billion slams in their 20s, they can still win slams in their 30s. When they retire things will go back to normal.
 
Last edited:

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Sinse 2015 is too short of a time, its just temporary. I calculated slam finals reached for Big4 pr age, and its pretty similar to the open era as a whole. Most of the finals are reached at age 24-27, nothing has changed. Big4 are exceptional players, they won a billion slams in their 20s, they can still win slams in their 30s. When they retire things will go back to normal.
The whole tour changed.

There was a post by a user who showed that there were more >28yo than <25yo in the top10/25/50/100.
 

Jonas78

Legend
The whole tour changed.

There was a post by a user who showed that there were more >28yo than <25yo in the top10/25/50/100.
Seriously?

YE top5 2009 was Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Del Potro and Murray.

YE top5 2018 was Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Del Potro and Zverev.

Its 10 years, nothing changed, 4 out of 5 players are the same. Only change is that Murray got his hip replaced, or else top5 would be the same, 10 years later.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Seriously?

YE top5 2009 was Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Del Potro and Murray.

YE top5 2018 was Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Del Potro and Zverev.

Its 10 years, nothing changed, 4 out of 5 players are the same. Only change is that Murray got his hip replaced, or else top5 would be the same, 10 years later.
I meant the age of top players has changed.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Well of course, people do get older??

So when the same players are top5 in both 2018 and 2009, wouldnt the proper way to define "peak" likely be to see at which age these players reached most of their slam finals?
Age is not only about Big3/4. Many other players reached their best results in their 30s (Ferrer, Wawrinka, Anderson, Isner, Lopez, etc.). The average of top players at different levels (top-10, 20, 50, 100, 200...) in the last years is closer to 30 than it is to 20.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
So is the correlation between age and slam finals reached;).

By the way:
Finals reached Federer 2004-AO2010:
21/25 = 84%
Finals reached Federer 2010FO-now
8/32 = 25%

Murray reached more finals than Federer 2010-2017.
Yeah, Fed's consistency fell off the cliff post 2010 AO but that was expected to happen at some point. He is not a robot after all :)
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Age is not only about Big3/4. Many other players reached their best results in their 30s (Ferrer, Wawrinka, Anderson, Isner, Lopez, etc.). The average of top players at different levels (top-10, 20, 50, 100, 200...) in the last years is closer to 30 than it is to 20.
Thank you for confirming that the two generations that were supposed to take over from Nadal and Djokovic are a waste of time.

In comparison, the current new generation is winning tournaments at an alarming for certain people rates and already making inroads into the the top ten. In a couple of years it will be only them and whoever of the big 3 manages to survive the onslaught of talent and youth.

:cool:
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Thank you for confirming that the two generations that were supposed to take over from Nadal and Djokovic are a waste of time.

In comparison, the current new generation is winning tournaments at an alarming for certain people rates and already making inroads into the the top ten. In a couple of years it will be only them and whoever of the big 3 manages to survive the onslaught of talent and youth.

:cool:
The whole tour has got older, it's not about an ATG missing.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
127 finals out of 190 (66.84%) were won by the player who reached more finals in his career.
 

Sport

Legend
So Lew's point here is that in general, the more finals you make, the better your conversion rate. As ghostofMecir aptly put it, this is to be expected.

But a trend can't be used to generalise for specific examples. Guga made 3 finals but won all 3. Lendl made 19 finals but only won 8. Sampras has a better conversion rate than any of the Big 3, but has made far fewer finals. There are always going to be exceptions. Murray made 11 finals but that doesn't make him better than Becker (though it is strong evidence he's not just a mug).

Furthermore, slam conversion rate does not equate to peak. Nadal has a better finals rate conversion at the USO than Sampras. Does he have a higher peak there?
In my opinion (which I see you do not share), Nadal has a higher peak at the USO than Sampras. Nadal defeated twice Mr. Djokovic, the potential hard court GOAT who has twice as many Slams as Agassi, and thus is a far stronger rival than any player Sampras faced.

To illustrate your point, I think a better/less controversial example would be: Wawrinka vs Federer at the USO. Only because Wawrinka has a 100% in conversion rate of USO finals, it doesn't follows he has a higher peak level than Federer at the USO.
 

Jonas78

Legend
Age is not only about Big3/4. Many other players reached their best results in their 30s (Ferrer, Wawrinka, Anderson, Isner, Lopez, etc.). The average of top players at different levels (top-10, 20, 50, 100, 200...) in the last years is closer to 30 than it is to 20.
There have always been players doing well in their 30s. Wawrinka is a rare exception though, other than that its mainly the big servers that do well late career. As i said earlier, Big4 are doing well in their 30s, but they still did better in their 20s. Their "slam finals reached" pr age stat correlate pretty well with Open Era as a whole. Statistically, "peak age" hasnt changed that much, but i agree the top100 mean age will probably stay higher, because players generally do have longer careers nowadays.

Good thing is, we will get the answer:). Im 99% sure the mean age of top10 and the age of slam finalists will drop significantly once Big4 are done. I see no reason why YE top5 2009 cant happen again. We will see.
 
Last edited:
Top