I was wondering what the Win/Loss Record of Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic was in "Big Matches" - Grand Slam and ATP Tour Finals semifinals and finals
Sampras - 43-14 - 57 matches
Let me warn you that Sampras is a statistical anomaly.
The common wisdom around here is not to pay too much attention to tourneys that are not important.
@Meles
The idea is that lesser players rack up stats that way, and right now there is a big anti-Thiem wave going on because his great stats this year are only from a small clay tourney. They idea is that even though he did well at RG last year, we shouldn't care about stats in M250s and M500s.
In other words, it's a great way for even great players to pad their match stats.
And I'm not going to argue for or against this idea, in general, though I think the facts probably will not support it.
But for Pete, it is reversed:
Pete on grass, filtering out Wimbledon, and these are all %
56.2890 of games
77.4390 of matches
For the record, most of those are Queen's and Manchester, with one early Davis Cup match on grass and two at Halle.
That's not a very impressive record. In fact, it's quite ordinary. No GOAT evidence there.
Now Wimbledon only, career:
59.1964 of games
90.0000 of matches
What do you do with a guy who plays like a maniac on what is still probably the most prestigious major in tennis and THE prize on grass?
Now, let's take a look at Roger the same way:
I want to use the same rules, so here is everything leaving out Wimbledon:
57.1209
85.0000
That included the London Olympics, but when I filter that out it is about the same.
Fed so far looks a LOT better, and looking only at this, I'd guess he is much better on grass and should have been much better at Wimbledon.
Fed at Wimbledon:
59.7482
88.4211
HELLO! What just happened?
Bear also in mind that game% should be weighted by serve, and service games are going up and up and up in this era. Pete was a better server in the 90s than Fed is today, so weighting in that direction explains why they are around equal in slam matches.
Certainly Fed's record over the last few years has brought down those results a bit, and I think it's fair to say that both Pete and Roger are clearly the Wimbeldon GOATS of the last 25 years, and Borg has to be right there.
But isn't it obvious that the top players simply don't care as much about all other tourneys. It is also likely that this was more marked in the 90s, when everything was about majors.
Regardless, Pete had a relatively non-caring attitude about losses in everything but majors, and it is very obvious.
)
