Tennis Planet

Official Freaking Site Of Tennis Freaking Fans Worldwide.

Here’s the next Wall Of Fame contest. First correct answer=Wall Of Fame listing.

Posted by tennisplanet on April 9, 2009

Who are the male players in the open era with winning percentages over 80 at Grand Slam singles tournaments?

Advertisements

21 Responses to “Here’s the next Wall Of Fame contest. First correct answer=Wall Of Fame listing.”

  1. joao said

    Bjorn Borg
    Rafael Nadal
    Roger Federer
    Andre Agassi
    Pete Sampras

  2. Stella said

    Borg89.8%
    Federer 86.6%
    Nadal 86.1%
    Sampras 84.2%
    Connors 82.6%
    Lendl 81.9%
    McEnroe 81.5%
    Agassi 80.9%

  3. zihwye said

    Bjorn Borg (89.8)
    Roger Federer (86.6)
    Rafael Nadal (86.1) 😀
    Pete Sampras (84.2)
    Jimmy Connors (82.6)
    Ivan Lendl (81.9)
    John McEnroe (81.5)
    Andre Agassi (80.9)

  4. O said

    Roger Federer
    Rafael Nadal
    Pete Sampras
    Jimmy Connors
    Ivan Lendl
    John McEnroe
    Andre Agassi
    Björn Borg

  5. andrew said

    Borg

  6. JSZ said

    Bjorn Borg, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Pete Sampras, Jimmy Connors, Agassi, Lendl, and McEnroe

  7. Gerard said

    TP,

    I have made the assumption in answering this question TP, that you are talking about players who have actually won a Grand Slam title and who have a winning percentage of 80 or better. Also some players like Laver, Rosewell, Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Ashe etc. spanned the amateur to professional years and their records in the professional years were adversely affected by this upheaval, so I have not included these greats.

    There are 8 players since the professional era began in 1968 who have had a career winning percentage of 80+% in Grand Slam tournaments they entered. There are a few who finished their careers at 79% but only just missed out on making this exclusive club. I will rightly put them in order of greatest to least.

    1. Bjorn Borg = (141/157) = 89.8% (only 16 losses in 27 attempts = 11 titles)
    2. Roger Federer = (168/194) = 86.59% (so far 26 losses from 39 attempts = 13 titles)
    3. Raphael Nadal = (87/101) = 86.1% (so far only 14 losses from 20 attempts = 6 titles)
    4. Peter Sampras = (203/241) = 84.2% (but this is only 14 titles from 52 attempts no where near as impressive as the top 3)
    5. Jimmy Connors = (235/285) = 82.45% (8 titles)
    5. Ivan Lendl = (222/271) = 81.9% (but with only being able to win 8 titles from the 19 finals he made – he could have been the greatest ever but has thus earned the award for the greatest ever choker, a robotic choker, a meticulously rock hard player to beat except in the finals just ask Pat Cash)
    6. Andre Agassi = (224/277) = 80.86%
    7. John McEnroe = (167/205) = 81.46%
    8. Boris Becker = (163/203) = 80.29%

    I believe this is the full list, I would be interested to find out who I missed out on including in this list. It is also an interesting list when you consider the ones who made this list and the rivalries between some of them. The greatest in terms of Grand Slam titles won was the three way rivalry between Borg, McEnroe and Connors with 26 Grand Slams between them, sort of like what may about to happen with Murray joining the Federer / Nadal rivalry and making it a three way tussle, if Murray can get his break-through maiden Slam this year as is widely anticipated and at the same time Federer’s career is showing the tell-tale signs of being close to over, but hopefully not.

    Cheers
    Gerard

  8. Gerard said

    Obviously a few counting and order errors in my last post, that I am sure the many esteemed contributor’s to this website would have already picked up on and with loaded fingers are at the ready to bring these faux pas’ to my attention. So in acknowledgment of this anticipated response I now correct these errors and apologise profusely.

    …… “There are actually 9 players since the professional era began in 1968 who have had a career winning percentage of 80+% in Grand Slam tournaments they entered. There are a few who finished their careers at 79% but only just missed out on making this exclusive club. I will rightly put them in order of greatest to least.

    1. Bjorn Borg = (141/157) = 89.8% (only 16 losses in 27 attempts = 11 titles)
    2. Roger Federer = (168/194) = 86.59% (so far 26 losses from 39 attempts = 13 titles)
    3. Raphael Nadal = (87/101) = 86.1% (so far only 14 losses from 20 attempts = 6 titles)
    4. Peter Sampras = (203/241) = 84.2% (but this is only 14 titles from 52 attempts no where near as impressive as the top 3)
    5. Jimmy Connors = (235/285) = 82.45% (8 titles)
    6. Ivan Lendl = (222/271) = 81.9% (but with only being able to win 8 titles from the 19 finals he made – he could have been the greatest ever but has thus earned the award for the greatest ever choker, a robotic choker, a meticulously rock hard player to beat except in the finals just ask Pat Cash)
    7. John McEnroe = (167/205) = 81.46%
    8. Andre Agassi = (224/277) = 80.86%
    9. Boris Becker = (163/203) = 80.29%

    any more let me know … sorry …
    Gerard

  9. Nate said

    Only Borg and Federer.

  10. Anonymous said

    You really should let us auzzie’s know when your running your WOF comps 😦

    Answer is:

    Björn Borg
    Roger Federer
    Rafael Nadal
    Rod Laver
    Pete Sampras
    Ken Rosewall
    Jimmy Connors
    Ivan Lendl
    Roy Emerson
    John McEnroe

  11. Blake said

    I swear I just posted but I think it deleted it?

    Björn Borg
    Roger Federer
    Rafael Nadal
    Rod Laver
    Pete Sampras
    Ken Rosewall
    Jimmy Connors
    Ivan Lendl
    Roy Emerson
    John McEnroe

  12. McLovin30 said

    Bjorn Borg, Roger Federer, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, and Ivan Lendl. 😉

  13. boxingary said

    Gerard wrote:

    “6. Ivan Lendl = (222/271) = 81.9% (but with only being able to win 8 titles from the 19 finals he made – he could have been the greatest ever but has thus earned the award for the greatest ever choker, a robotic choker”

    ——————-

    Well, Gerard, you went 1-for-3 this time:

    It is TRUE that Lendl was only “able to win 8 titles from the
    19 Finals he made.”

    It is FALSE that Lendl “could’ve been the greatest ever”,
    since he clearly had the LEAST tennis talent in terms of
    footwork and shot-improvisation of the 9 players you list.

    It is FALSE that he was the “greatest ever choker”.
    OVERACHIEVER is the word you’re looking for — OVERACHIEVER!
    The greatest ever choker would probably be Ilie Nastase,
    who despite having Federer-like talent,
    made it to only 5 Slam Finals and lost 3 of them.

  14. Gerard said

    Here we go again Boxingary,

    I am sort of getting your name now, I think you derive pleasure or you like to stir up controversy with your comments and put in some fighting words …. alas on this attempt … tsk tsk. You are kidding if you believe losing 3 from 5 finals is a bigger choke than 11 from 19, how so? Nastase’s supposed mercurial talent you embellish him with only took him to 5 finals not 19 as in Lendl’s case. This fact alone would highlight for those who can count past 2 digits that Lendl lost more than twice the number of finals that Nastase made…. Now considering that throughout all the threads you and I have read and contributed to on this website there has been an established understanding and sound agreement that we only escalate the talk of the greats being those players who have won more than 8 Grand Slam titles, Lendl made that group, Nastase didn’t, hence his name was not one of the players who were being discussed in this thread, so to mention him in this thread is out of context and a red herring. As you have mentioned Nastase with his 3 losses from 5 finals pales into insignificance to the number of losses and finals Lendl made if you understand the enormity of making it all the way to a grand Slam final and then fall at the last hurdle so often…. so Blundergary what morsel of inaccuracy can you tempt me with next time to debunk … lol…. a final nail in this conjecture you raise is that; Nastase in those 5 finals needed to play 35 matches to get there and won 32 of them = 94.2% winning percentage. However, Lendl played 133 matches to get to his 19 finals and won 122 of them = 91.7% winning percentage… Surprise, Surprise Nastase won more matches percentage wise than Lendl did, so sort of another cruel blow to undo your claim as to who was the bigger choker of these 2 players in finals …. = he who has the lower winning percentage, which is Ivan (the choker) Lendl… now seriously though Lendl was a great player without doubt and deserves to be considered and discussed with the greats (i.e. those who have won 8 grand Slams or more and McEnroe has been added with his 7 as the exception). Lendl like Greg Norman in golf and many other sporting greats across all the sports over the years, as dominant as they were throughout the years in their particular sport by winning tour titles ad-nauseum and earning the points and prestige to earn the number 1 ranking year after year seemed to just choke at the last hurdle on the biggest stages… this was Lendl’s legacy and you would be the first tennis fan I know to not acknowledge this fact, even Lendl knows he choked in the big ones more than he would have liked… Pat Cash was one of the most thankful recipient’s of this demon Lendl couldn’t shake. As for the red-herring part in your response by trying to rephrase for me my use of the word choker and substitute it with your preferred word and I quote from you, “OVERACHIEVER is the word you’re looking for — OVERACHIEVER!”. I am fine with the word I used when describing Lendl as a choker, it was the most apt and accurate word to use thanks. As for Lendl being an Overachiever as you try to describe, I find that an insult to Lendl and if you can back that statement up with any facts, stats or authority I would love to hear your claims. Lendl was a perfectionist, he was also very dour and sour with his on-court demeanour but that was all to do with his focus. Lendl introduced professionalism and meticulous attention to detail to raise the bar in tennis with his unwrapping of a new racquet every 7 games which he pioneered and is now the norm. The rewrapping of the overgrips at each change of ends which didn’t take off thankfully, the sand or dust in his pocket to keep the handle grip dry. He was a great and almost impossible to beat, except in finals. So how is he an Overachiever if he set the benchmarks in many ways that his peers at the time and those that followed had to adopt to compete at the level he raised the bar to. The only way he was beatable seems to have been in finals of the majors and only champions ever get to taste the success of making it to a Grand Slam final, Lendl tasted that level of success more than any other player in history, 1 more than Federer is at the moment who is the second of all time tied with Sampras and 1 ahead of Borg and Laver. Funny how all these same greats seem to always be in the mix when we talk about all the greatest players in any stat or benchmark that comes up. Lendl’s name is always near the top in just about all of these. So how is he an Overachiever? He isn’t and never was. He is a great of our game who unbeknown to himself and tennis fans who watched him play and dominate also saw him choked in finals. So if he had won all of his 19 finals which transcended all surfaces and all four Grand Slams, he would have been the greatest of all time without a doubt. He didn’t win all 19 however because he choked in 8 out of those 11 finals that he lost.

    My statement that he was robotic is how he was perceived by tennis fans and commentators alike back then with his attention to detail and anally retentive habits that he persisted with at changes of ends, with his racquets and on-court demeanor which lacked charisma and warmth which fans around the world had trouble with in trying to appreciate and like him on-court, admire him we did and respect his talents for sure, but he did not have an on-court personality that endeared him to fans regrettably. So talented he was, overachiever he was definitely not and is such an insult to say that he was. He had amazing talent and a tennis brain and steely focus …. which only seemed to desert him in finals of Grand Slams. I don’t believe any of the 9 players I listed in this list would agree with you that he had the least talent of them all or the poorest shot-improvisation and footwork as you suggest he did … that is an intangible speculative comment that is baseless and non provable. So a comment that I don’t think anyone could categorically state across all 9 players that Lendl was the worst of them all.

    Thanks for your comment Boxingary, but try to keep your comments objective and less provocative, it only allows for holes to be shot in your statements with simple ease. Try to make supportive comments where you can and if you disagree, only disagree with facts not opinion, because we are both entitled to ours and we should respect that. So less attack and more substance and keep your disagreements with supporting facts to just the facts and not the person or their opinion. Cheers.

    Gerard

    Now that this error as to who the choker tag belongs to between Nastase and Lendl has been corrected for you in the preceding paragraph I will now unpick with pleasure and ease your second attempt to discredit and dismiss my comments you sought to make known ….

  15. boxingary said

    Gerard wrote:

    “You are kidding if you believe losing 3 from 5 finals is a bigger choke than 11 from 19, how so”

    —————————–

    I know when I’m kidding, and I’m not here.
    As you like to say, stick to facts instead of opinions.

    Nastase lost 3 of 5, so he won 40.00000 percent.

    Lendl lost 11 of 19, so he won 42.10526 percent.

    That’s how so.

  16. boxingary said

    Gerard wrote:

    “I am sort of getting your name now, I think you derive pleasure or you like to stir up controversy with your comments and put in some fighting words …. alas on this attempt … tsk tsk”

    ———————–

    Even if your pleasure/controversy hypothesis is true —
    and it may or may not be — you are “sort of getting”
    NOTHING when it comes to my name.

    I followed the sport of boxing for over 25 years,
    amassing a world-class video/book/magazine collection.

    I created the name to advertise that fact, pure and simple.

  17. boxingary said

    Gerard wrote:

    “Now considering that throughout all the threads you and I have read and contributed to on this website there has been an established understanding and sound agreement that we only escalate the talk of the greats being those players who have won more than 8 Grand Slam titles, Lendl made that group, Nastase didn’t, hence his name was not one of the players who were being discussed in this thread”

    ————————

    (1) I’m guessing you mean EIGHT GRAND SLAM TITLES OR MORE,
    not “more than 8 Grand Slam titles.”

    (2) In this thread — that YOU started, remember! —
    you referred to Lendl as the “greatest ever choker”.
    If you merely thought/think that he was the
    GREATEST CHOKER ON YOUR SHORT-LIST OF 9 PLAYERS,
    then that’s what you should’ve said.

  18. boxingary said

    Gerard wrote:

    “As for Lendl being an Overachiever as you try to describe, I find that an insult to Lendl and if you can back that statement up with any facts, stats or authority I would love to hear your claims”

    ————————-

    (1) From Wikipedia’s page on Lendl — paragraph 1, sentence 3:

    “TENNIS Magazine named him as one of the ten greatest
    tennis players since 1966, calling him ‘the game’s
    greatest overachiever’ and emphasizing his importance
    in the game’s history.”

    (2) I, personally, think OVERACHIEVER is the greatest label
    any athlete could hope to earn — a veritable BADGE OF HONOR.
    But….I guess there’s no accounting for taste.

  19. boxingary said

    Gerard wrote:

    “even Lendl knows he choked in the big ones more than he would have liked”

    I’m guessing EVERY great player, in their heart of hearts,
    would have to confess to that…
    [ Other than Bjorn, of course. :-> ]

    “… Pat Cash was one of the most thankful recipient’s of this demon Lendl couldn’t shake”

    (1) Pat Cash, for the brief period of his career where he was
    fully healthy, was a superior grass-court serve-and-volleyer.
    Lendl improved, certainly — he did make it to the semi-finals
    at Wimby in FIVE different years other than the two where he lost the final — but you-can’t-put-in-what-God-left-out,
    as they say…

    (2) Lendl was 1-and-6 in his first 7 Slam Finals,
    and 7-and-5 in his last 12. At least a PARTIAL shake? No?

  20. boxingary said

    Gerard:

    “He didn’t win all 19 however because he choked in 8 out of those 11 finals that he lost.”

    ——————

    In keeping with my seemingly never-ending effort
    to understand how your mind works, I’ll bite:

    Which 3 Slam Final defeats DIDN’T Lendl choke in?

  21. boxingary said

    Gerard wrote:

    “I don’t believe any of the 9 players I listed in this list would agree with you that he had the least talent of them all or the poorest shot-improvisation and footwork as you suggest he did”

    ——————————–

    (1) Shot-improvisation:

    Fill-in-the=blank, from the OTHER EIGHT NAMES on your list:

    ___________ was as bad, or worse, of a volleyer than Lendl.

    (2) Footwork:

    In one of my books on tennis [ written by either Peter Bodo
    or John Feinstein, can’t remember which ], the author says
    that if McEnroe and Lendl were playing each other,
    he ( the author ) could tell which player was on which end
    of the court EVEN WITH HIS EYES CLOSED — McEnroe’s feet
    made no sound, while Lendl sounded like someone moving
    heavy furniture.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: