Winning percentages of All Time Greats at the Slams

xan said:
I was thinking of walkovers.
Click to expand...
I understand. I did it the way it's usually done. If somebody wants to calculate with walkovers included, they can. I guess any method is ok as long as you make it completely clear what you include or not.
 
tennisaddict said:
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 %
Click to expand...

So then why doesn't Fed's 1999 USO loss in QUALIFYING (which came after he played in both the Wimb and FO that year) count as a loss, which would lower his USO %? If he wasn't even good enough to qualify its the same thing as a R1 loss by your logic isn't it. Ah but it applies to Fraud not Dull, so you don't concern yourself with it.

Also lol at not calling out Vero's WTF win % for Fed which should have another loss due to WTF 14 Withdrawl by your logic.

biased trash tier poster, gonna bias trash tier :lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
SpicyCurry1990 said:
So then why doesn't Fed's 1999 USO loss in QUALIFYING (which came after he played in both the Wimb and FO that year) count as a loss, which would lower his USO %? If he wasn't even good enough to qualify its the same thing as a R1 loss by your logic isn't it. Ah but it applies to Fraud not Dull, so you don't concern yourself with it.

Also lol at not calling out Vero's WTF win % for Fed which should have another loss due to WTF 14 Withdrawl by your logic.

biased trash tier poster, gonna bias trash tier :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Don't get your panties in a bunch. Everything should be factored.

All losses due to common cold, SARS, anthrax, Ebola, etc., need to be considered as well.
 
Last edited:
veroniquem said:
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
Click to expand...

Nice work here. A few surprises:
Fed's poor record at Paris (indoor HC) and Rome (where he is loved).
Fed is lower than Nadal at IW and Canada
Djokovic's poor performance at Cincy
Nadal's horrific record at the WTF (but that wasn't really a surprise I guess)
 
Nadalgaenger said:
Nice work here. A few surprises:
Fed's poor record at Paris (indoor HC) and Rome (where he is loved).
Fed is lower than Nadal at IW and Canada
Djokovic's poor performance at Cincy
Nadal's horrific record at the WTF (but that wasn't really a surprise I guess)
Click to expand...
I agree with all the surprises (and about the last one not really being one)
What I also found interesting is : Djoko slightly higher than Fed at RG (it will make it all the more annoying if he doesn't win it),
Djoko higher than Nadal at W (doesn't seem logical, Nadal has more finals there but that illustrates the spectacular collapse of Nadal's grass game over the last few years).
Nadal being higher than Djoko at Cincy is a bit hilarious. (Especially since Djoko is 2-0 vs Nadal at that event)
 
jm1980 said:
66-1 is 98.48%. It's not over 98.5, and it's closer to 98% than 99%
Click to expand...

Nope. How hard is it to divide 66 by 67?

Looks like you did 65 by 66.

Anyways the more accurate is good, fine by me. But I'm just saying consistent with the rounded figures of the OP, the 99 percent was right, despite the protest. End of story.
 
Nadal at WTF: A colossal failure at one of the most important tournaments in the history of tennis (smoothed out to accommodate the relevant changing parameters (venue, surface, format, etc.)).

A colossal failure. Who can explain this without detracting from Nadal's immense stature as an all time great in the history of our sport?
 
veroniquem said:
I agree with all the surprises (and about the last one not really being one)
What I also found interesting is : Djoko slightly higher than Fed at RG (it will make it all the more annoying if he doesn't win it),
Djoko higher than Nadal at W (doesn't seem logical, Nadal has more finals there but that illustrates the spectacular collapse of Nadal's grass game over the last few years).
Nadal being higher than Djoko at Cincy is a bit hilarious. (Especially since Djoko is 2-0 vs Nadal at that event)
Click to expand...

Djokovic is the 6th best clay court in history based purely on win percentage on the surface. Of course he will need RG titles before he can back up his status as a top 5 clay courter. Fed is tied with Laver at place 13 on that list, so I am not surprised.

Nadal has lost in early rounds at the last 3 Wimbledons he has played in, so no surprise that his winning percentage has greatly suffered as a result of that.

Djokovic has the highest win percentage of any HC player in history (higher even than Fed) but his Cincinnati record is a big blemish on his resume (as is his lack of USO titles).
 
125downthemiddle said:
Nope. How hard is it to divide 66 by 67?

Looks like you did 65 by 66.

Anyways the more accurate is good, fine by me. But I'm just saying consistent with the rounded figures of the OP, the 99 percent was right, despite the protest. End of story.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I find it ridiculous that people would spend time arguing about whether Nadal has won 98% or 99% of his FO matches when he is clearly the clay GOAT. We'll see this year whether that percentage begins to fall.
 
Nadalgaenger said:
Djokovic has the highest win percentage of any HC player in history (higher even than Fed) but his Cincinnati record is a big blemish on his resume (as is his lack of USO titles).
Click to expand...

Yep, 83.3, the record on hard, above Fed, Connors etc but only 1 USO title. Isn't that crazy? Cincy is less shocking insofar as there are 6 masters on hard (+ WTF) and he has a really good record in all the others.
Every year, I think "for sure he's going to bag another USO" and every year I end up with "damn I really can't rely on logic for that one". Too funny.

But regardless of results, he is my favorite player to watch on hard. His game just makes sense on that surface. I know not everybody agrees but to me, it "flows".
 
Nadalgaenger said:
Djokovic is the 6th best clay court in history based purely on win percentage on the surface. Of course he will need RG titles before he can back up his status as a top 5 clay courter. Fed is tied with Laver at place 13 on that list, so I am not surprised.

Nadal has lost in early rounds at the last 3 Wimbledons he has played in, so no surprise that his winning percentage has greatly suffered as a result of that.

Djokovic has the highest win percentage of any HC player in history (higher even than Fed) but his Cincinnati record is a big blemish on his resume (as is his lack of USO titles).
Click to expand...

Winning % will go down as he plays well into 30s though...
 
tennisaddict said:
Don't get your panties in a bunch. Everything should be factored.

All losses due to common cold, SARS, anthrax, Ebola, etc., need to be considered as well.
Click to expand...

You literally said:

tennisaddict said:
All of Federer and Novak's grand slam appearances have been factored in the percentages.
Click to expand...

Which was a blatant lie. You then took the time to try to undermine Nadal's #s at RG, by using an asinine "recount' counting a tournament Nadal didn't even play in and came before he even played a single RG. Yet you neglected a USO Fed actually played in and lost in qualifying.

tennisaddict said:
Vero, please factor in Nadal's withdrawals
Click to expand...

Literally said this without also mentioning Fed's inflated stats that don't account for his withdrawl from the last edition of the World Tour Finals

And now you don't even own up to your biased BS.
 
125downthemiddle said:
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" :oops:
Click to expand...

he lied because 1 ouf of 67 doesnt represent 3% but rather 1,49%


thus 66/67 would represent 98,51% which is approximated to 99%..
 
GingerRafa said:
99%... we will never see someone aproaching his 30's with this kind of win % in any grand slam.
Click to expand...

Never say never. It will happen again. Records are made to be broken (repeat theme until it happens).

Edit added: Well, you write "we"; this may well be true. "We" live in a small slice of history--barely a sliver, if that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Poll Poll
GS matches with the most drama (Women)
Replies
7
Views
1K
pabloJD
pabloJD
ravenousRublev
Rate the Big 3 based Peak level at Grandslams/Masters(1000) /100
Replies
3
Views
545
Third Serve
Third Serve
lud
Best player born from 1970-2000
Replies
26
Views
2K
EvonneFedererBorgster
E
Razer
Beating your rivals in Slams Many Years apart, must be a pleasing feeling to know you still have it in you....
Replies
6
Views
856
Razer
Razer
Sunny014
Why is the period 1990s-03 such a volatile phase in win% ?? ... Looks like a weak era ...... Why so?
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
tkramer15
T
Back
Top