Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 196 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated │ New Stats 76 & 77 & 113!

I was looking some stats of Connors of how many matches he won after 30 years but I was really suprised when I see his winning percentage until his 30 years it was 85.45%!!!, then I checked Lendl and was 85.30%, McEnroe 84.09%. I don't think Nadal will improve his winning percentage in the next two years and I don't know if Borg would have this record if he would played a couple of more years. For me this is a useless stats to measure the greatness of any player.



Player by player

Jimmy Connors



Ivan Lendl



Roger Federer



Bjorn Borg



Rafael Nadal



John McEnroe



Novak Djokovic



Pete Sampras



Andre Agassi



 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,577 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

Frauderer exposed yet again

edit: So Frauderer had higher winning percentage in 2012 than at any other point in his career? :spit: Just proves that was peak Fraud in 2012 and no such thing as Olderer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,522 Posts
Frauderer exposed yet again

edit: So Frauderer had higher winning percentage in 2012 than at any other point in his career? :spit: Just proves that was peak Fraud in 2012 and no such thing as Olderer.
No. It just proves the last years are the real weak era. :wavey:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
692 Posts
What is your point?

If anything, winning percentage is a relevant stat. Borg and Nadal are the most dominant, it's not hard to tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

Frauderer exposed yet again

edit: So Frauderer had higher winning percentage in 2012 than at any other point in his career? :spit: Just proves that was peak Fraud in 2012 and no such thing as Olderer.
Already campaigning hard for next year's ACC? lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
692 Posts
Very interesting that Federer actually improved in 2012 compared to 2006 and 2007. I always thought he played better in 2012 than before. Now stats prove I am right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

Frauderer exposed yet again

edit: So Frauderer had higher winning percentage in 2012 than at any other point in his career? :spit: Just proves that was peak Fraud in 2012 and no such thing as Olderer.
The problem with Federer were his fisrt years [1999-2003] he didn't have the early succes like the other players his winning percentage until 2003 was 68.21% really low for a Top Player, he had a lot of losing H2H by that date [Nalbandian, Hewitt, Agassi, Rafter, Haas]. To be honest I will be surprised if he reitre with a better percenatge than 80
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,577 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

Very interesting that Federer actually improved in 2012 compared to 2006 and 2007. I always thought he played better in 2012 than before. Now stats prove I am right.
Of course that was peak Fraud. Would 2004-2007 Fraud have been able to do this?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

What is your point?

If anything, winning percentage is a relevant stat. Borg and Nadal are the most dominant, it's not hard to tell.
No, the winning percentage of Borg and Nadal is overrated because the first retired early and the second is still playing if Connors would have retired at his 30 years he would have better numbers than Borg and Nadal, the winning percenatge of Nadal will drop in the next years...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

Of course that was peak Fraud. Would 2004-2007 Fraud have been able to do this?

It's hard to explain but all the players are better in their last stages of their careers but they don't have the same body and that its a big problem. If Djokovic, Nadal or Federer with the same skills as today and they would have 5 less years they would be unstoppable
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,577 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

The problem with Federer were his fisrt years [1999-2003] he didn't have the early succes like the other players his winning percentage until 2003 was 68.21% really low for a Top Player, he had a lot of losing H2H by that date [Nalbandian, Hewitt, Agassi, Rafter, Haas]. To be honest I will be surprised if he reitre with a better percenatge than 80
That's because from 1999-2003, Safin, Hewitt, Agassi, Rafter, Henman, and Haas were at their peaks. :facepalm:

Safin was USO champion.
Hewitt was twice YE#1
Agassi had that amazing year in 1999 and another one in 2001.
Rafter was irrelevant after 2001
Henman stopped playing well after 2004, which was ("coincidentally") the year Fraud started to peak on tour)
Haas reached the Olympic final in 2000


Safin, Hewitt, Haas, and Nalbandian then started to have injury problems, right around the time Fraud was "peaking"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
692 Posts
Woulda shoulda coulda.

When one talks about dominance, Nadal's stats have to be mentioned. It is the best reference to greatness. Sure,these stats will change. So what? Borg made a decision and retired earlier. Smart move to retire at peak form.

Your argument does not make sense at all. A stat is stat, no matter how you look at it, one is better than the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

No, the winning percentage of Borg and Nadal is overrated because the first retired early and the second is still playing if Connors would have retired at his 30 years he would have better numbers than Borg and Nadal, the winning percenatge of Nadal will drop in the next years...
Borg retired early, but there are two other factors with his career percentage:

- Borg played a TON as a teenager. Very many matches starting at the age of 15 and amassing more than 100 per year starting at 17. Conversely, Nadal missed many matches when he was a teenager, so his early percentages are not hit nearly as hard.

- Borg had the unsuccessful comeback in the 1990s which, as you can see from the numbers, pushed his career percentage down quite a bit. That probably did more to hurt his numbers than had he remained in the game for another 3-4 years.

So, no, I don't think Borg's career percentages are overrated. Besides who looks at career percentages anyway? If you're interested to learn of Borg's dominance, all you have to do is look at his production year-to-year. His prime phase dominance in particular.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

Something to say about Connors is that in the 1970s he spent much of his time playing on the diluted Riordan tour, which is why his winning percentages then are so high, in spite of his relative lack of dominance in majors.

To put this another way, due to the lack of standardization in the 1970s era, Connors competed in many Mickey Mouse tournaments, which inflated his numbers (and his singles titles totals).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

Federer's career percentages are low because he was somewhat of a late bloomer. Played a lot, while very young, before catching fire in 2003.

Again, cumulative percentages are useless info.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,577 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

Federer's career percentages are low because he was somewhat of a late bloomer.
late bloomer = all your major rivals becoming injury-riddled headcases?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

Woulda shoulda coulda.

When one talks about dominance, Nadal's stats have to be mentioned. It is the best reference to greatness. Sure,these stats will change. So what? Borg made a decision and retired earlier. Smart move to retire at peak form.

Your argument does not make sense at all. A stat is stat, no matter how you look at it, one is better than the other.
It's more fact than something that didn't happen.

Borg after 736 matches 82.74 %, Connors after 766 matches 85.63 %, Lendl after 779 matches 84.33 %, McEnroe after 753 matches 85.52%.

Nadal after 846 matches 83.45%, Connors after 855 matches 85.38 %, Lendl after 860 matches 85.00 %, McEnroe after 826 matches 84.74%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

It's more fact than something that didn't happen.

Borg after 736 matches 82.74 %, Connors after 766 matches 85.63 %, Lendl after 779 matches 84.33 %, McEnroe after 753 matches 85.52%.

Nadal after 846 matches 83.45%, Connors after 855 matches 85.38 %, Lendl after 860 matches 85.00 %, McEnroe after 826 matches 84.74%.
You are taking these numbers out of context. They don't mean anything in isolation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,181 Posts
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

I was looking some stats of Connors of how many matches he won after 30 years but I was really suprised when I see his winning percentage until his 30 years it was 85.45%!!!, then I checked Lendl and was 85.30%, McEnroe 84.09%. I don't think Nadal will improve his winning percentage in the next two years and I don't know if Borg would have this record if he would played a couple of more years. For me this is a useless stats to measure the greatness of any player.
Can you explain the table? What is the first column - age? The second column is that yearly winning percentage or cumulative winning percentage to date?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,559 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Re: Nadal & Borg winning percentage is really overrated [Stats]

You are taking these numbers out of context. They don't mean anything in isolation.
This is the point that I want to prove, I put that in the Fisrt Post for me this its a useless stat. I am not saying that Borg wasn't a dominant player he was one of the most dominant players and he was really close to be the best players of all times but his lack of US Open titles its a big hole in his resume. I am only saying that a lot of users here thinks that the Winning percentage means a lot. I only wanto prove that its false.
 
1 - 20 of 196 Posts
Top