Whose career has been impaired most by injuries?

[Chanwan]

That probably is why Novak has a lower %; think Fed's indoor win % may be at a similar % as Novak at age 31 and the subsequent years of competition have enabled Fed to improve his %. It remains to be seen if Novak can do it too.

tbh, I'm not sure if Fed has improved that most. The 2013 season is included in the post 31, remember? Maybe a bit though. He actually has a 75 % win record on carpet to my surprise. Novak hasn't played enough on carpet (14 matches, 10-4) for it to make a big impact on his overall percentage.

 

[FHtennisman]

tbh, I'm not sure if Fed has improved that most. The 2013 season is included in the post 31, remember? Maybe a bit though. He actually has a 75 % win record on carpet to my surprise. Novak hasn't played enough on carpet (14 matches, 10-4) for it to make a big impact on his overall percentage.

Think he did well indoors in 13, obviously not at the level of years where he reached a slam final but think he got to the final of Basel and SF of ATP Finals. Both Federer and Novak's carpet records are below their overall percentage so it makes sense to me that once carpet was no longer used on the tour, their indoor record improved.

 

[Chanwan]

Think he did well indoors in 13, obviously not at the level of years where he reached a slam final but think he got to the final of Basel and SF of ATP Finals. Both Federer and Novak's carpet records are below their overall percentage so it makes sense to me that once carpet was no longer used on the tour, their indoor record improved.

Well excuse me for saying this, but it sounds as if you're talking out of your behind right now and just going by 'what you feel'. Carpet did have an impact on both of them, but it's pretty miniscule for Novak and not that big for Fed either.

1) I already showed you Novak's carpet record. It was lower than his average percent, but because of the few times he played there, it didn't impact his percentage that much. Without carpet, Novak goes from 78,5 to 79,1. Without carpet, Fed (who played 4 times as much on carpet, but also had a better winning percentage (75,4 vs. 71,4)) moves from 81,0 to 82,2 %.
2) Federer did have a poor 2013 indoors, he went 11-5, a win percentage of 68,75 %. Removing 2013 from Fed's indoor record would spark his percentage up to 81,6 % for his entire career - i.e. half of the lift that carpet gave him.

But count it as part as his post turning 31 years and my gut feel would be, that it's enough to pull it down. However, having checked, it turns out my gut feel was incorrect. While he did have a poor 2012-2013 (71,0 % in total), his excellent 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018 campaigns more than make up for it, so overall he's 64-12 = 84,2 % indoors post turning 31. You're welcome.

p.s.
Counting from 2002, Fed's win % is: 221/259 = 85,3
Counting from 2003 it's: 197/228 = 86,4 (more or less identical with his overall record from 2003 onwards)

In other words: Just like his overall record, it's his first so and so years that hurt his percentages. That includes carpet, but carpet isn't the main explanation as his carpet record was just as good/just as poor in his early years as his overall indoor record (68 on carpet, 67,5 indoor up until 1.1.2003) and he didn't play that much on it (see how much removing carpet means for his percentage above).

 

[FHtennisman]

Well excuse me for saying this, but it sounds as if you're talking out of your behind right now and just going by 'what you feel'. Carpet did have an impact on both of them, but it's pretty miniscule for Novak and not that big for Fed either.

1) I already showed you Novak's carpet record. It was lower than his average percent, but because of the few times he played there, it didn't impact his percentage that much. Without carpet, Novak goes from 78,5 to 79,1. Without carpet, Fed (who played 4 times as much on carpet, but also had a better winning percentage (75,4 vs. 71,4)) moves from 81,0 to 82,2 %.
2) Federer did have a poor 2013 indoors, he went 11-5, a win percentage of 68,75 %. Removing 2013 from Fed's indoor record would spark his percentage up to 81,6 % for his entire career - i.e. half of the lift that carpet gave him.

But count it as part as his post turning 31 years and my gut feel would be, that it's enough to pull it down. However, having checked, it turns out my gut feel was incorrect. While he did have a poor 2012-2013 (71,0 % in total), his excellent 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018 campaigns more than make up for it, so overall he's 64-12 = 84,2 % indoors post turning 31. You're welcome.

p.s.
Counting from 2002, Fed's win % is: 221/259 = 85,3
Counting from 2003 it's: 197/228 = 86,4 (more or less identical with his overall record from 2003 onwards)

In other words: Just like his overall record, it's his first so and so years that hurt his percentages. That includes carpet, but carpet isn't the main explanation as his carpet record was just as good/just as poor in his early years as his overall indoor record (68 on carpet, 67,5 indoor up until 1.1.2003) and he didn't play that much on it (see how much removing carpet means for his percentage above).

Well, there's no need to be disrespectful, this is just a tennis discussion not anything personal.

I concede that carpet doesn't explain the entire movement in Federer's record but at least an aspect of it along with his general improvement on all surfaces since 2003; carpet has had negligible impact on Novak's record.

Thanks for pulling up the numbers, turns out I was right overall regarding Fed's post 30 record indoors. It remains to be seen if Novak can emulate Roger and play excellently indoors for the next few years but I think it will most likely be an uphill task and that Roger will go down as the better indoors player, although Novak can nab another ATP Finals win to the their tallies there.

 

[Chanwan]

Well, there's no need to be disrespectful, this is just a tennis discussion not anything personal.

I concede that carpet doesn't explain the entire movement in Federer's record but at least an aspect of it along with his general improvement on all surfaces since 2003; carpet has had negligible impact on Novak's record.

Thanks for pulling up the numbers, turns out I was right overall regarding Fed's post 30 record indoors. It remains to be seen if Novak can emulate Roger and play excellently indoors for the next few years but I think it will most likely be an uphill task and that Roger will go down as the better indoors player, although Novak can nab another ATP Finals win to the their tallies there.

I didn't try to be disrespectful (and given the rest of my comment, I don't really think I was), I just found your comment lazy in as much as I had already accounted for carpet and you then still continued saying: "Both Federer and Novak's carpet records are below their overall percentage so it makes sense to me that once carpet was no longer used on the tour, their indoor record improved."

As for this bit:
"I concede that carpet doesn't explain the entire movement in Federer's record but at least an aspect of it along with his general improvement on all surfaces since 2003; carpet has had negligible impact on Novak's record."
Carpet explains 1,2 % to be precise. Remove the 1998-2002 years (including some carpet) and he gains 4,3 %. In other words: Even with regards to Fed, carpet ain't the main explainer.

Anyhow, it's all good. Just watching FAA now, I like what I see

 

[FHtennisman]

I didn't try to be disrespectful (and given the rest of my comment, I don't really think I was), I just found your comment lazy in as much as I had already accounted for carpet and you then still continued saying: "Both Federer and Novak's carpet records are below their overall percentage so it makes sense to me that once carpet was no longer used on the tour, their indoor record improved."

As for this bit:
"I concede that carpet doesn't explain the entire movement in Federer's record but at least an aspect of it along with his general improvement on all surfaces since 2003; carpet has had negligible impact on Novak's record."
Carpet explains 1,2 % to be precise. Remove the 1998-2002 years (including some carpet) and he gains 4,3 %. In other words: Even with regards to Fed, carpet ain't the main explainer.

Anyhow, it's all good. Just watching FAA now, I like what I see

Regarding carpet, I've conceded that and said so in my previous post that - carpet and the general improvement of Federer's game since 2003 account for his overall superior percentage since 2003. So agree with you that it isn't the main reason, but a partial one.

Good to see that FAA played well (won't talk about the result in GPPD), how did he look?

 

[Chanwan]

Regarding carpet, I've conceded that and said so in my previous post that - carpet and the general improvement of Federer's game since 2003 account for his overall superior percentage since 2003. So agree with you that it isn't the main reason, but a partial one.

Good to see that FAA played well (won't talk about the result in GPPD), how did he look?

Se the PP. I liked his serve a lot. He ran more around his backhand than I remembered (I regard his backhand as pretty good). Had trouble controlling his forehand every now and again (1-2 meters long), but plenty of spin and plenty of winners with it too. Still knows how to move forward and has a willingness to seek the net. Served a couple of aces on big points. All in all, good Masters 1000 debut.

 

[FHtennisman]

Se the PP. I liked his serve a lot. He ran more around his backhand than I remembered (I regard his backhand as pretty good). Had trouble controlling his forehand every now and again (1-2 meters long), but plenty of spin and plenty of winners with it too. Still knows how to move forward and has a willingness to seek the net. Served a couple of aces on big points. All in all, good Masters 1000 debut.

Will hopefully catch the highlights later on but yeah I like that he's an attacking player with a good serve and solid ground game, the caveats to his progression are that he is quite tall (6'3 as per ATP site but not sure regarding its accuracy) consistently having good movement and footwork is going to be a perennial key for him and also avoiding injuries. If he tackles those two well, then he has the ingredients to being a quality player at the top of the player.

 

[Kuclas]

I don’t think any on the list. I choose Aaron Krickstein. Remember him? Very talented player. But always injured. Never lived up to his full potential.

 

[kramer woodie]

The ones you mention dead as their age being over mid 20s, and still hardly anyone has heard of them, means there career wasn't affected much by it as they were obviously never that good to start with.
Try at least grand slam winners . number 1 players etc, then make a point about their career being affected.
How do we know these players were ever going to be good?

kevaninho

Duh? It should be obvious we will never know how great the dead one could have been. Why? Because they are dead. Oh, I get it. You
have never heard of them, thus the dead are irrelevant.

As for Maureen Connolly, she won 9 Grand Slam single titles and was the first woman to win all four Grand Slams in a calendar year. Her
tennis career was over at the age of nineteen. She then pasted away from cancer in her mid-thirty's.

Aloha

 

[Slicerman]

Out of active players on tour probably Del Potro. If he stayed healthy throughout his peak then the whole "big four" dynamic would have unfolded completely differently.

But including everyone after 2000, I would have to say Tommy Haas. He's almost had every kind of injury possible and still managed to come back every time.

 

[73west]

kevaninho

Duh? It should be obvious we will never know how great the dead one could have been. Why? Because they are dead. Oh, I get it. You
have never heard of them, thus the dead are irrelevant.

As for Maureen Connolly, she won 9 Grand Slam single titles and was the first woman to win all four Grand Slams in a calendar year. Her
tennis career was over at the age of nineteen. She then pasted away from cancer in her mid-thirty's.

Aloha

For many of the players on your list, they had played long enough that we know with almost certainty that they were never going to be elite players. When someone is 30 and ranked 700th and has never done damage at an ATP level event, as tragic as a car accident may be it did not rob them of great achievement in tennis.

 

[Rhino]

Tommy Haas, Del Potro

 

[kishnabe]

Tommy Haas

 

[Nadalgaenger]

How can you put Nadal on the list ahead of Murray, Djokovic, Tommy Haas, Tsonga or even Federer who'eve had real injuries requiring surgeries ?

Nadal is one of the healthiest players on tour. Never had anything serious enough to even need a surgery (please don't cite appendectomy).

Nadal has missed a lot more slams than Fed, Murray, and Djokovic due to injury.

 

[victa]

Which current ATP player’s career has been limited most by injuries?

Here are the arguments for each:
Delpo: Massive game in 2009, awesome promise, brutal groundstrokes on both wings impaired significantly because of injuries and surgeries on both wrists. Might have 4-5 slams if he had been healthy.

Nishikori: Would be a slam winner and perennial top 5 player if his body didn’t constantly break down. As it stands, may never win a meaningful title despite excellent technique and talent.

Nadal: Could he rival the slam record if he had been healthy throughout? Missed several slams due to injury and hampered at various others. What might he have achieved with fewer ailments?

You can add Raonic to that list as well.

 

[kevaninho]

For many of the players on your list, they had played long enough that we know with almost certainty that they were never going to be elite players. When someone is 30 and ranked 700th and has never done damage at an ATP level event, as tragic as a car accident may be it did not rob them of great achievement in tennis.

Exactly what my point was.

 

[clarkey73]

Exactly what my point was.

"As for Maureen Connolly, she won 9 Grand Slam single titles and was the first woman to win all four Grand Slams in a calendar year. Her
tennis career was over at the age of nineteen. She then pasted away from cancer in her mid-thirty's."

Many are mid twenties, you dont know what would have happened.

Anyway, I dont know why nadal is on this list. His injury breaks and returns are key strategy to win. If anything he has overachieved. If he played all year like everyone else he would be losing to any old mug on clay and would not take advantage of USO 2017, 2010 etc type draws as he would be fatigued. So his injuries balance out

Djokovic has lost out past few years and early in his career with many retirements and other problems so he has lost out far more than nadal. Fed has had injuries and illness but is skilled enough to still always make it deep in tournaments

 

[Chanwan]

Nadal has missed a lot more slams than Fed, Murray, and Djokovic due to injury.

Murray spend all of 2014 trying to get back to his level post surgery. Pretty poor from early 2017 onwards. Looks as if he might be finished as a slam-contender now. Meanwhile, Rafa's missed a slam here and there, but he's always been able to come back to his peak level fairly quickly. And he's never had to do surgery unlike Hewitt, Haas, Delpo, Murray, Djokovic and Federer.

 

[kramer woodie]

Hey, maybe it's for the best that Djoke, Murray, and Nadal retire because of injuries. Why? Simple. The current generation of admirers
of these players will have something to grouse about for the unseeable future. I can just hear all the "what if" future analysis by talking
heads and armchair quarterbacks and hero worshippers.

Aloha

 

[sbengte]

Nadal has missed a lot more slams than Fed, Murray, and Djokovic due to injury.

Depends how you look at it. Most players play even when injured, not 100% and take their losses. Nadal has mentioned when sitting out of slams that he won't compete because he thinks 'he can't win'.