Winning percentages of All Time Greats at the Slams

[Nadalgaenger]

Federer
AO 86%
FO 81%
W 89%
USO 88%

Nadal
AO 83%
FO 99%
W 83%
USO 84%

Djokovic
AO 89%
FO 81%
W 85%
USO 85%

Sampras
AO 83%
FO 65%
W 90%
USO 89%

McEnroe
AO 78% (usually absent)
Fo 71%
W 84%
USO 85%


Borg
AO 50% (almost always absent; 1-1 career record)
FO 96% (scary good)
W 93% (amazing)
USO 82%

 

[torpantennis]

Federer, at age of Nadal 2015:
AO 89%
RG 80%
W 91%
USO 91%

 

[HipRotation]

Federer, at age of Nadal 2015:
AO 89%
RG 80%
W 91%
USO 91%

Good thing he didn't retire then with a substandard <81% at RG

 

[JanowiczJ]

99% LOL! Absurd stuff.

 

[veroniquem]

Ha ha Nadal at RG defies logic!

 

[MichaelNadal]

99% LOL! Absurd stuff.

#kingRafa

 

[tennisaddict]

Rafa's percentages are wrong. Count all withdrawals as 1R loss. The numbers are as under:

AO- 80%
RG - 97%
Wimb - 79%
USO - 80 %

 

[smoledman]

Bull@RG defies logic!

 

[laughingcavalier]

Federer, at age of Nadal 2015:
AO 89%
RG 80%
W 91%
USO 91%

So Federer from aged 28+ up until near 34 has actually managed to IMPROVE his French Open stats... by 1%.Not bad for a player in decline

 

[RF-18]

Djoko and Fed, as expected, better at the other three slams than Nadal.

 

[Algo]

Am I the only one really impressed with Borg's?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Djoko and Fed, as expected, better at the other three slams than Nadal.

 

[RF-18]

^^What's the matter?

 

[Charlemagne]

Love this outfit Rafa wore at 2010 USO. One of the best looking outfits in tennis history!

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Am I the only one really impressed with Borg's?

I suspect you are as Borg's numbers are superficially impressive in comparison to the others given his 'early' retirement.

 

[veroniquem]

Since we are talking winning %, some interesting facts (since 2004):

- The highest winning % (over a season) of the last 10 years was Fed's but not in 2006, in 2005. 90+ % since 2003:
1- 2005 Fed: 95.2
2- 2006 Fed: 94.8
3- 2004 Fed: 92.5
4- 2011 Djoko: 92.1
5- 2013 Nadal: 91.4
Where do you think Djoko's 2015 will place? seems like an appropriate question at the moment

- Djoko's lowest % was in 2010 (77.2) but it was still higher than Murray's 2014 (74.6)
- Djoko had a higher winning % in 2013 (89.1) than he did in either 2012 (86.2) or 2014 (88.4)
- The player with the highest winning % in 2009 was Murray! (85.7 vs 83.5 for Fed and 82.5 for Nadal) It is Murray's highest winning % career-wise
- Nadal had a higher winning % in 2005 (88.7) than in 2008 (88.1) or 2010 (87.6)
- In 2010, Murray had a lower winning % than Roddick (71.8 vs 72.7)
- In 2011, Fed had a higher winning % than Nadal (84.2 vs 82.1)
- In last decade, the player with the lowest winning % to win a tier 1 was Berdych in 2005 (Paris master): 53.9
- In 2012, Nadal had a higher winning % than Djoko (87.5 vs 86.2) and Fed (85.5)
- The biggest difference in winning % between #1 and #2 was 2004: Fed 92.5, Roddick 80.4
- And finally, Nadal's lowest % since 2005 was 2014 (81.3)
Will it stay under 80 in 2015?

Let's wait and see.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Djokovic's W-L % so far in 2015 is 93.75 so there's an excellent chance for him to have another 90% + W-L record this year.

 

[FedTheMan]

Nadal is just unbelievable at RG. Never seen domination like that at a major.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Rafa's percentages are wrong. Count all withdrawals as 1R loss. The numbers are as under:

AO- 80%
RG - 97%
Wimb - 79%
USO - 80 %

Wow, you really are a biased hater/fanboy.

Don't buy into your withdrawal=r1 loss logic, however I can accept it as something I disagree with and a point that people can consider.

But you just flat out lied/made something up about RG. Remind when did Rafa ever withdraw from RG? He's lost 1 time there and won 66 times with no withdrawals. Truly embarrassing "mistake"

 

[Djokovic2011]

Wow, you really are a biased hater/fanboy.

Don't buy into your withdrawal=r1 loss logic, however I can accept it as something I disagree with and a point that people can consider.

But you just flat out lied/made something up about RG. Remind when did Rafa ever withdraw from RG? He's lost 1 time there and won 66 times with no withdrawals. Truly embarrassing "mistake"

Didn't Nadal withdraw from RG in 2003 and 2004? One could certainly argue that his overall W-L% wouldn't be so high had he played those years.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Djoko and Fed, as expected, better at the other three slams than Nadal.

Nadal is better overall at USO.

2 titles >1. Yes his winning percentage is marginally better.

Djoko may pass him there soon, but it's not a given.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Didn't Nadal withdraw from RG in 2003 and 2004? One could certainly argue that his overall W-L% wouldn't be so high had he played those years.

He played his 1st RG at age 18/19. Counting "withdrawals" before then is absurd, then you should count Fed and Novak's withdrawals to slams he didn't make at the same age.

 

[RF-18]

Nadal is better overall at USO.

2 titles >1. Yes his winning percentage is marginally better.

Djoko may pass him there soon, but it's not a given.

Yea, but the thread was concerning winning percentages.

Djoko will atleast add one more USO at worst. He is not done there yet.

 

[veroniquem]

Nadal is better overall at USO.

.

It's a close call. Nadal has 2 titles and 1 extra final, Djoko has 1 title but 4 extra finals and a higher winning % overall. Nadal has been more successful but Djoko has been more consistent.

 

[chjtennis]

This kind of statistics are quite interesting but it is not correct to directly compare different players' winning percentages because they all have varied career longevity. Had Borg played past 30, for example, his winning percentage would've been lower(as he was starting to get beaten by McEnroe more and more). Certain stats, however, confirms the obvious truth(such as Rafa's winning percentage in FO). Federer is also getting close to his mid-30s and Djokovic's and Nadal's percentage will go down significantly like Federer's if they stay on tour that long.

 

[tennisaddict]

Wow, you really are a biased hater/fanboy.

Don't buy into your withdrawal=r1 loss logic, however I can accept it as something I disagree with and a point that people can consider.

But you just flat out lied/made something up about RG. Remind when did Rafa ever withdraw from RG? He's lost 1 time there and won 66 times with no withdrawals. Truly embarrassing "mistake"

What are you talking about ?

Rafa started playing majors from 2003 Wimbledon.

He skipped 2004 FO, which is a loss in my book.

He has 66 wins and 2 losses. 66/68 is 97 %

 

[tennisaddict]

He played his 1st RG at age 18/19. Counting "withdrawals" before then is absurd, then you should count Fed and Novak's withdrawals to slams he didn't make at the same age.

All of Federer and Novak's grand slam appearances have been factored in the percentages.

 

[RF-18]

What are you talking about ?

Rafa started playing majors from 2003 Wimbledon.

He skipped 2004 FO, which is a loss in my book.

He has 66 wins and 2 losses. 66/68 is 97 %

But you can't lose a match you didn't participate in. Withdrawals doesn't count as a loss, nor a win.

 

[tennisaddict]

But you can't lose a match you didn't participate in. Withdrawals doesn't count as a loss, nor a win.

Only for ATP statisticians.

If a player is injured, out of form, mentally burnt , serving bans they don't play.

Obviously they are not winning had they competed. So, has the same effect.

If they had a chance to win, they would have shown up.

 

[90's Clay]

Pete still #1 at Wimbledon/Flushing

 

[tennisaddict]

Pete still #1 at Wimbledon/Flushing

Pete quit the sport at age 30.

Even otherwise, how does the overall win-loss across all majors look ?

 

[Bobby Jr]

This kind of statistics are quite interesting but it is not correct to directly compare different players' winning percentages because they all have varied career longevity.

This is the post to end the thread.

Nadal is in his prime still (maybe nearer the end though), as are Djokovic and Murray so they haven't had their numbers softened by the usual decline players suffer with age. Similarly for Borg, his numbers are all elevated because he pulled the pin on tennis before he got to that point.

Someone earlier made the point about treating non-playing at an event as a 1st round loss. As silly as is sounds the idea makes a point because of the obvious way being absent can boost you numbers. Muster for example didn't play Wimbledon because he couldn't be bothered at least 6 times. Even thought his numbers were terrible regardless there shouldn't be a free ride percentages-wise by simply not showing up.

 

[pdcosta]

And, how many AO, W, and USO that Nadal has skipped? LOL.

What if there is a player who is active as an ATP pro player for only 1 year, and wins a CYGS? So this player will have 100% winning percentage in every Slam.

 

[90's Clay]

Pete quit the sport at age 30.

Even otherwise, how does the overall win-loss across all majors look ?

Pete also missed some USO/AO as well in his prime years. 1999 (when he was playing PEAK tennis) he missed both the AO/USO that year.

 

[tennisaddict]

Pete also missed some USO/AO as well in his prime years. 1999 (when he was playing PEAK tennis) he missed both the AO/USO that year.

How was he at his peak when his HC record for that year was 23–5 ? That was the year he slipped from No.1 ranking as well.

 

[90's Clay]

How was he at his peak when his HC record for that year was 23–5 ? That was the year he slipped from No.1 ranking as well.

Level wise, one can definitely argue 1999 was Pete's highest level.. Based off his summer performances from his beatdown of peaking Agassi at both Wimbledon and the YEC. But he was got screwed over by injuries which cost him a 3 slam year that year. No way in hell does anyone beat him at the USO open that year, and probably the AO

 

[Feather]

Level wise, one can definitely argue 1999 was Pete's highest level.. Based off his summer performances from his beatdown of peaking Agassi at both Wimbledon and the YEC. But he was got screwed over by injuries which cost him a 3 slam year that year. No way in hell does anyone beat him at the USO open that year, and probably the AO

Enough with this exaggeration!

Pete never had a three slam year. He lost in 4R and SF of 1997 and 1998 US opens and you claim that no way in hell anyone will beat him at 1999 US?

And regarding Pete a lock for AO 1999 :lol: :lol: :lol:

I am not saying Pete wouldn't have won but to talk as if he would have never lost at AO 1999 and US 1999 is nonsense

 

[Feather]

Level wise, one can definitely argue 1999 was Pete's highest level.. Based off his summer performances from his beatdown of peaking Agassi at both Wimbledon and the YEC. But he was got screwed over by injuries which cost him a 3 slam year that year. No way in hell does anyone beat him at the USO open that year, and probably the AO

Still Pete struggled to beat weak era clown teen ager Lleyton Hewitt in 1999 Queens (4-6, 6-4,7-6)? :lol: :lol:

Imagine if peak Pete could only barely scrape through teen age Hewitt on grass, then what would have happened if Pete played peak Hewitt on grass? :lol: :lol:

 

[90's Clay]

Still Pete struggled to beat weak era clown teen ager Lleyton Hewitt in 1999 Queens (4-6, 6-4,7-6)? :lol: :lol:

Imagine if peak Pete could only barely scrape through teen age Hewitt on grass, then what would have happened if Pete played peak Hewitt on grass? :lol: :lol:

Pete didn't give a crap about Queens. Who cares what happens at Queens for god sakes. If he wins there he wins there but he isn't go the extra mile and kill himself for a warmup tourney. . Im talking SLAMS. Pete's level was insane at wimbledon in the finals and would have been insane at the USO. Just like it was at Wimbledon/YEC that year. His dominance from the Summer would only carry on to the Fall

 

[AngieB]

#Forget the fact you omitted 80+ years of tennis greats. Can't individually blame you, because a lot of you kids weren't even born until the late 1980's. You could expand your frame of reference for credibility.

The #OpenEraFanboys are real.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB​

 

[Sirius Black]

Pete still #1 at Wimbledon/Flushing

By 1 percent in both categories.

 

[xan]

Wow, you really are a biased hater/fanboy.

Don't buy into your withdrawal=r1 loss logic, however I can accept it as something I disagree with and a point that people can consider.

But you just flat out lied/made something up about RG. Remind when did Rafa ever withdraw from RG? He's lost 1 time there and won 66 times with no withdrawals. Truly embarrassing "mistake"

99-1 is 99%
66-1 is not.

@poster about Borg, I'm equally impressed. retirement or not, the years he played on were unreal.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

99-1 is 99%
66-1 is not.

@poster about Borg, I'm equally impressed. retirement or not, the years he played on were unreal.

All of the percentages were rounded. 66 and 1 is over 98.5 percent. It is certainly not 97 percent. You seem to have missed the point entirely.

 

[veroniquem]

It is 98.5 (or 98.50). I do not understand that rounding business. The more accurate, the better.

 

[torpantennis]

Pete still #1 at Wimbledon/Flushing

Relatively early retirement, that's why.

 

[veroniquem]

Here is the winning % for Fed, Nadal, Djoko in all tier 1 events (rounded to 1st decimal):

AO:
D 89.2
F 86.2
N 83.3

IW:
D 87.2
N 84.6
F 82.5

Miami:
D 87.8
N 77.7
F 77.1

M-C:
N 92.9
D 80
F 70

Madrid (clay):
N 88
F 85.7
D 76.9

Rome:
N 93.7
D 85.2
F 65.8

RG:
N 98.5
D 80.7
F 80.2

W:
F 89
D 84.9
N 82.9

Canada:
D 83.8
N 81.2
F 77.5

Cincinnati:
F 82.2
N 69.2
D 68.7

USO:
F 87.8
D 84.7
N 83.6

Shanghai:
D 86.3
F 81.2
N 64.2

Paris indoor:
D 77.7
N 75
F 68.9

WTF:
F 81.3
D 71.8
N 54.1

 

[tennisaddict]

Vero, please factor in Nadal's withdrawals

 

[veroniquem]

Vero, please factor in Nadal's withdrawals

You don't factor in withdrawals for winning % lol. You don't even factor in walkovers (all benefit to Fed's % at WTF ...) This is win/loss ratio for matches played.

 

[xan]

Isnt withdrawal basically a loss?
How do you not factor in a loss while determing a win %?

 

[veroniquem]

Isnt withdrawal basically a loss?
How do you not factor in a loss while determing a win %?

A withdrawal has NOTHING to do with a loss. A withdrawal means the player doesn't even enter the tournament. You cannot count imaginary matches in events players do not participate in.
If the player retires during the match, it still counts as a loss.
A withdrawal in the middle of an event is called a walkover and that is more arguable whether it should count or not but winning % is different than titles won/lost, it evaluates the # of matches one wins vs the number one loses and if no match happens, there is nothing one can evaluate in that perspective.