Interesting tennis fact, at least I think so

[gamecockcat]

Since 1991 when official stats started being kept, only 3 players have won more than 54% of the total points they've played. To no one's surprise they are, in order: Nadal at 54.55%, Joker at 54.40% and Fed at 54.17%. Now before anyone concludes that this makes Rafa the GOAT, Fed has played 67,000 more points that either Rafa or Joker so let's let them get a few more years on them and see where the rankings are.

But, I found it interesting that the three most dominant tennis players in the past 30 years have only won 54% of all the points they played. With the number of GS wins and weeks at #1, I would have thought these three would have won >60% of all points for sure and perhaps as much as 65+%. I'm sure their match winning percentage is probably more like 80+% but to still only win a few more points here and there on average was very surprising.

 

[Bill - Shy Cat]

Watched Becker, Conners, McEnroe, Lendl, and many more play in the tournament in Cincinnati many years ago. Enjoyed the outer court matches when we could watch from a few feet away. Attended for several years. Conners was the biggest ******* of the group, but very entertaining

 

[Ron Mehico]

The difference between very good and great is incredibly small, in pretty much all aspects and fields of life. Michael Jordan needed multiple last second shots to win championships. Someone being first in their class versus fifth in their class could be determined by one test question. People don’t seem to appreciate that.

 

[WayneDougan_rivals170043]

Do they break it down by service vs non-service?

 

[gamecockcat]

Do they break it down by service vs non-service?

The information I looked at didn't break it down that way. I've seen other stats re: 1st serve winning % (about 80% for most) vs 2nd serve winning % (52% or so for the best players). Since service games rotate back and forth I would expect the total number of points to be almost equal for serving and returning.

 

[gamecockcat]

The difference between very good and great is incredibly small, in pretty much all aspects and fields of life. Michael Jordan needed multiple last second shots to win championships. Someone being first in their class versus fifth in their class could be determined by one test question. People don’t seem to appreciate that.

And, when you consider that to win a game in tennis you must win by at least 2 points and these three have obviously won way more than 54% of the games during their career, it makes your point even more valid. Razor's edge between GOAT and merely 'very good' in a lot of sports.

 

[nom de plume_rivals392166]

Makes you wonder what Serena's numbers would be.

Growing up watching Connors, McEnroe, and Borg... when Lendl came along I felt he was sort of the new kind of player that ushered in more of the modern game. I LOL because I think I remember McEnroe accusing Lendl of practicing too much. Borg vs McEnroe and McEnroe vs Connors was an event... it's what drew me into watching and then playing tennis and I was a very good player up into my late 30s but shin splints shut down my singles tennis playing and I never played doubles.

 

[uk_bill]

In MLB the differnce from being a .300 hitter vs a .250 hitter is one hit per week for a normal full time player...