W-L records of Open Era Greats

TGV

Rookie
HTML:
							Improvement
	    CAREER		   SLAMS		in slams

Borg	 576-124   82.29%	141-17	89.24%		6.95%
Connors	 1222-269  81.96%	233-49	82.62%		0.67%
McEnroe	 864-194   81.66%	167-38	81.46%		-0.20%
Lendl	 1070-238  81.80%	222-49	81.92%		0.11%
Wilander 571-222   72.01%	144-37	79.56%		7.55%
Edberg	 806-270   74.91%	178-47	79.11%		4.20%
Becker	 713-214   76.91%	163-40	80.30%		3.38%
Sampras	 762-222   77.44%	203-38	84.23%		6.79%
Agassi	 870-274   76.05%	224-53	80.87%		4.82%
Federer	 490-125   79.67%	119-21	85.00%		5.33%
Gathered the career records from atptennis and the slam records from www.tennis28.com

- Interesting to note that while Connors played double the number of matches as Borg and into his late 30's, his winning percentage almost matches Borg's.

- However, Borg's winning percentage (89.24%) of slam matches is phenomenal whereas Connors's is same as his overall percentage.

- Never realized that McEnroe's record was that good. He has more wins and fewer losses than Sampras.

- But again, Sampras rose to the occassion in slams (+6.8% improvement) whereas McEnroe stayed the same.
 

whistleway

Semi-Pro
Just to show how dominant borg was..

Federer has to win 56 more slam matches without loosing a single one to match borg's winning %. And that is 8 slams worth of matches.

Borg was a true freak of nature, however u dice it !!
 
Yeah, Sampras was a strange player. Every other all-time great of the Open Era(Mac, Borg, Connors, Federer, Lendl) was consistently great over the peak years of their primes, week in, week out.

But Sampras gave really poor efforts at non-slam events throughout his career. Amazing that he could just suddenly raise his level so dramatically at the slams(I've seen this guy lose to guys like Bjorkman & Karbacher the weeks before Wimbledon & the US Open, I swear he looked like a challenger type player so many times, yet a few weeks later in the 2nd week of a Grand Slam he looked like a world-beater. Don't think he's the best ever in terms of tennis ability, but mentally he's something special. I've never seen another athlete capable of just turning it on & off that easily.

And Mac was that good. Its a shame many don't know how dominate he was, week in, week out. Slams weren't the only things players played for his time.
Sampras' improvement is higher at slams because Sampras tanked so much outside of slams, while Mac gave 100% everytime he stepped on the court(like Federer)

The alltime title leaders does seem strange, in some ways, when you look at the number of slams these players won, but then you realize how many slams Borg, Connors, & Mac skipped during their primes:

Jimmy Connors 109
Ivan Lendl 94
John McEnroe 77
Pete Sampras 64(pretty far behind for the alltime slam leader, huh?)
Bjorn Borg 62(retired young, otherwise Sampras would be far behind, but Borg was also a bit like Sampras in that he didn't always seem that interested in non slam events, hence his big improvement in the % you mentioned)

It would be interesting to see win-losses just from peak years of those players & their corresponding slam % those years. Sampras' numbers would look even stranger, with a huge increase increase in slam performance %, I imagine, while all the others would be a lot closer in form.
 

eunjam

Rookie
Just to show how dominant borg was..

Federer has to win 56 more slam matches without loosing a single one to match borg's winning %. And that is 8 slams worth of matches.

Borg was a true freak of nature, however u dice it !!
call me stupid.....but, i'd put a bet on that right now.

as long as federer doesn't get injured in the middle of a tourney, i can see him pulling that off.
 

Azzurri

Legend
Yeah, Sampras was a strange player. Every other all-time great of the Open Era(Mac, Borg, Connors, Federer, Lendl) was consistently great over the peak years of their primes, week in, week out.

But Sampras gave really poor efforts at non-slam events throughout his career. Amazing that he could just suddenly raise his level so dramatically at the slams(I've seen this guy lose to guys like Bjorkman & Karbacher the weeks before Wimbledon & the US Open, I swear he looked like a challenger type player so many times, yet a few weeks later in the 2nd week of a Grand Slam he looked like a world-beater. Don't think he's the best ever in terms of tennis ability, but mentally he's something special. I've never seen another athlete capable of just turning it on & off that easily.

And Mac was that good. Its a shame many don't know how dominate he was, week in, week out. Slams weren't the only things players played for his time.
Sampras' improvement is higher at slams because Sampras tanked so much outside of slams, while Mac gave 100% everytime he stepped on the court(like Federer)

The alltime title leaders does seem strange, in some ways, when you look at the number of slams these players won, but then you realize how many slams Borg, Connors, & Mac skipped during their primes:

Jimmy Connors 109
Ivan Lendl 94
John McEnroe 77
Pete Sampras 64(pretty far behind for the alltime slam leader, huh?)
Bjorn Borg 62(retired young, otherwise Sampras would be far behind, but Borg was also a bit like Sampras in that he didn't always seem that interested in non slam events, hence his big improvement in the % you mentioned)

It would be interesting to see win-losses just from peak years of those players & their corresponding slam % those years. Sampras' numbers would look even stranger, with a huge increase increase in slam performance %, I imagine, while all the others would be a lot closer in form.

good assessment on Sampras, but I have to question you using the term"tanK when Sampras won 77% of his career matches.
it seemed almost all the greats were greater in the slams.
 

caulcano

Hall of Fame
Just to show how dominant borg was..

Federer has to win 56 more slam matches without loosing a single one to match borg's winning %. And that is 8 slams worth of matches.

Borg was a true freak of nature, however u dice it !!
Didn't Borg skip quite a few AO's & USO's?

If so, his stats would probably have been lower, because he probably had a higher chance of losing.
 
Top