Federer's Longevity

This is the exclusive 800+ Career Wins Club, of which Federer is a part.

===================

Player	Career Wins	Career Losses	ATP Highest Rank	Year of 1000+ Matches	W (Y-1000+)	L (Y-1000+)	Cumulative W	Cumulative L	Cumulative Matches	ATP Rank in that Year	Titles in that Year
Connors	1242	285	1	1982	78	11	858	146	1004	3	7
Lendl	1071	239	1	1990	54	12	905	156	1061	3	5
Vilas	923	285	2	1983	56	18	838	207	1045	11	3
McEnroe	875	199	1	1991	33	18	843	180	1023	28	1
Agassi	870	274	1	2003	47	10	785	241	1026	4	4
Federer	838	190	1	2012	31	4	838	190	1028	3	4
Edberg	806	270	1	1995	42	20	760	244	1004	23	1

The Year of 1000+ Matches (column 4) is an approximation for Connors and Vilas because ATP has been tracking this information from 1973 onwards. I will update this with ITF validation once that exercise is complete.

This table is in 'Wins' Order. The Agassi and McEnroe numbers are achievable for Federer sometime next year, barring any unforeseen events.

The W(Y-1000+) and L(Y-1000+) numbers are for the season when the player achieved close to 1000+ career matches. For example, Connors reached 1000+ matches in 1982 and has an amazing 78-11 season in 1982 (Source is ATP Playing Activity for the specific year - I did not actually count the W/L by hand, but trusted the ATP information). The Cumulative W and L numbers are for that specific year as well. For example, Connors was at 915 total matches in 1981. Lendl was at 995 matches in 1989, and Federer was at 993 matches in 2011. Cumulative matches is the total Career matches when the 1000+ match mark was crossed.

Vilas, McEnroe and Edberg rankings when they reached 1000+ matches are 11, 28 and 23 respectively in that specific year of 1000+ matches achievement (at the very tail end of their respective careers).

==================

Player	Career Wins	Career Losses	ATP Highest Rank	Year	W	L	Cumulative W	Cumulative L	Cumulative Matches	ATP Rank in that Year	Titles in that Year
Sampras	762	222	1	2002	27	17	762	222	984	13	1
Becker	713	214	1	1999	10	6	713	214	927	131	0
Muster	622	274	1	1999	5	11	622	271	893	189	0

Muster (second coming not included), Becker and Sampras were close to a 1000+ matches when very close to retirement, but were selected to showcase their respective achievements.

===============

The remaining members of the current Top 4 were included to show where their respective careers are without any bias towards their individual achievements.

Player	Career Wins	Career Losses	ATP Highest Rank	Year	W	L	Cumulative W	Cumulative L	Cumulative Matches	ATP Rank in that Year	Titles in that Year
Djokovic	424	116	1	2012	30	5	424	116	540	1	2
Nadal	574	120	1	2012	33	4	574	120	694	2	3
Murray	345	114	2	2012	22	7	345	114	459	4	1

If we assume 75 matches is the usual season average, the following approximations are worth discussing

1. Nadal would need to play 40 matches in 2012 and 3+ seasons (75 * 3.5 ~ 260 matches) to get to a 1000+ matches, so about 2016. He will be roughly 29 with a 15-year career.

2. Djokovic would need to play 40 matches in 2012 and ~6 seasons to get to 1000+ matches, so about 2018. He will be roughly 32 years of age with a 15-year career.

3. Murray would need to play 40 matches in 2012 and ~8 seasons to get to 1000+ matches, so about 2019-2020. He will be roughly 33 years of age with a 15-year career.

I wish Tennis is gentle to the current Top 4, so they can continue and thrill and entertain us.

I am not sure if the poll should be done separately for each player knowing the differences in their playing styles?

Let me know if you see any errors.

I see Federer finishing with the 3rd highest wins when he stops and second to McEnroe in losses.

If it were body alone he could be playing in 4 years no problem, and if the sport swings a bit away from the slow court trend he could be competitive until then.

laverfan. I love charts and numbers and things so thankyou for this.

If you want my honest opinion looking at the figures I think that Nadal will get to 800 career wins like Federer. If I hadn't seen the figures I would have guessed that Djokovic would too but now I'm not sure in fact if pushed I would say no. Sorry but I doubt that Murray will. If he's still playing at 33 it would be difficult to imagine him clocking up wins at the rate required. Still these are very high standards so no disgrace not to get there.

Also Connors is amazing!

A true test for a Federer fan...how many of those wins and losses can you name? (ie which opponent, and which tournament?)

That should keep you going for a few days...

Chazfazzer wrote:A true test for a Federer fan...how many of those wins and losses can you name? (ie which opponent, and which tournament?)

That should keep you going for a few days...

and the scores...

wow chaz that is ambitious

bogbrush wrote:I see Federer finishing with the 3rd highest wins when he stops and second to McEnroe in losses.

What amazes me most about McEnroe is that my numbers do not include his 71 Doubles career titles and the corresponding matches during the same time he was playing Singles.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Mc/J/John-Mcenroe.aspx?t=tf

bogbrush wrote:If it were body alone he could be playing in 4 years no problem, and if the sport swings a bit away from the slow court trend he could be competitive until then.

I agree.

hawkeye wrote: I love charts and numbers and things so thankyou for this.

You are welcome, HE. (Despite your Murray comment. )

hawkeye wrote:If you want my honest opinion looking at the figures I think that Nadal will get to 800 career wins like Federer.

Yes. He usually wins 60-70 matches a year (2011 was 69-15).

hawkeye wrote:If I hadn't seen the figures I would have guessed that Djokovic would too but now I'm not sure in fact if pushed I would say no.

Putting a 2011-like season together is very hard, but he may settle down and continue at 60+ matches a year.

hawkeye wrote:Sorry but I doubt that Murray will. If he's still playing at 33 it would be difficult to imagine him clocking up wins at the rate required. Still these are very high standards so no disgrace not to get there.

It is difficult to predict, hence I left the conjectures open-ended.

hawk eye wrote:Also Connors is amazing!

Very similar to Rosewall. Rather unfortunate that pre-Open Era information is much harder to find. The Pro-Am divide has stolen many records from marvelous players.

I think Mr Nadal will keep going. Also considering Mr Nadal puts about 30% more effort into his matches than Mr Federer, he must already be close to Federer in terms of total ergs expended.

Chazfazzer wrote:A true test for a Federer fan...how many of those wins and losses can you name? (ie which opponent, and which tournament?)

That should keep you going for a few days...

Losses before 2001 (1998-2001) are probably harder, but post-2003 should be easier to recall. The H2h with the other members of Top 4.

The much harder ones are one-off loses like Gulbis in R2 Rome, or Gasquet in Rome R16, 2005 MC. Recently there is a lot of talk about the Felix Mantilla 2003 loss or the Horna at FO R128, or Rafter at FO or Ancic at W 2002, or Kuerten at FO 2004, etc.

This is probably a memory test for me. (I could probably list Nadal's on Clay easier ).

Of Nads, Djok and Murray, I can see Murray retiring first.

Other one-off losses that spring to mind would be vs Volandri in 2007, Canas in 2007 (although that was more of a twice off) and Fish in 2008. I remember that match against Fish well...I'm pretty sure I could have beaten Roger that day.

Nadal will be finished. Very soon.

Chazfazzer wrote:Other one-off losses that spring to mind would be vs Volandri in 2007, Canas in 2007 (although that was more of a twice off) and Fish in 2008. I remember that match against Fish well...I'm pretty sure I could have beaten Roger that day.

Simon in Toronto, Karlovic in Cincy, Blake at Olympics, Nalbandian (Madrid, Paris, TMC), Soderling at FO.

Seifer Almasy wrote:Nadal will be finished. Very soon.

They all come and go, but leave their mark on Tennis history, in some unique way, even Arnaud Di Pasquale.

I remember two losses to Roddick in Miami , to Isner at Davis cup, one to Baggy and Wawrinka in 2008, indeed in 2008 he lost so many matches, he was completely unfit that year and started losing to jack and jill players.

To Soderling in FO, Nalby in Madrid/Paris WTF, to Gonzales in WTF 2007,

Ancic in W, Safin in AO, Guga in FO, to Tim Henman in W [and so many other losses to him].

Ofcourse to Nadal in Fo 2008, and 4 losses to Murray in that year, AO loss to Nole in 2008 and the 2 USO semi's.

Last but not least USO 2009 and WTF 2009 loss to Del Boy , He also suffered the rarest of defeats at the hands of Donkey that year

Coming back to poll, I guess Nadal will easily achive it, I doubt the other two will get anywhere close to it.

Yes you would expect to Nadal to get to 800 with a similar W:L to Federer, maybe even better - he currently has highest highest ratio (approx. 80%). McEnroe's ratio would have benefitted from an effectively early retirement, even more so with Borg.
Nice work LF

laverfan wrote:...

Seifer Almasy wrote:Nadal will be finished. Very soon.

They all come and go, but leave their mark on Tennis history, in some unique way, even Arnaud Di Pasquale.

I suspect Seifer will retire before Nadal does.

Seifer Almasy wrote:Nadal will be finished. Very soon.

I think he will take another 3 years to get to the 800 wins target. If you think he will have finished any sooner than that I suspect you may be one of those mythical Nadal fangirls.

The career winning % is so close it is scary.

Connors - 81%
Lendl - 81%
McEnroe - 81%
Federer - 81%
Vilas - 76%
Agassi - 76%
Edberg - 74%

Sampras - 77%
Becker - 76%
Muster - 69%

Djokovic - 78%
Nadal - 82%
Murray - 75%

Not surprising that Nadal has the best career winning % thus far, though I am surprised that Murray has a better % than Edberg and Muster.

May be difficult for the other three of the big four to match Fed for consistency and fitness. As Rafa says in his book, Fed's style and movement is so much more different to that of the other players than he takes far less out of himself.
Mind you, every time we write off Rafa and say he can't carry on playing in this way, he bounces back. However, he'll be 26 shortly and whether he can carry on at this pace for another five years (Fed, after all, will be 31 in August) remains to be seen.
Djoko also has an all-out style and in some ways may be Murray may outlast the other two. Andy could also be driven to carry on as he strives to match or approach the achievements of the others.

Well it certainly can't be a surprise Murray is ahead of Thomas Muster. Muster never got beyond the 1st Round at Wimbledon, never beyond the quarter-finals at US Open with his slam win coming in the French Open (his only slam final). They have a similar record at Masters Cups thus far and titles won per those entered is probably similar as well. Murray more consistent in the slams though.

I voted "no" because I don't think that all three can do it.

I agree that Nadal is more likely to get there than the other two but it's still a tall order even for him. I agree with the OP that he's got to keep up his current rate and he'd be looking at getting the 800 wins by the end of 2015 He's got to manage 234 more wins to get to 800 - at his current rate he could achieve that at the end of 2015. bit 1,000 matches would take longer. The only way to play as many matches as that each year is to keep up the win rate at 80% odd - a lot can happen to him over the next 3 years of getting older to make that difficult, a glance back at the prevoius 3 years can tell us that.

Andy may or may not be strongest mentally, but is physically strong. If he gets a slam major, he can outlast many in the playing years. Like a late bloomer, to be counted from the first win. But if he does not in the next two years, loss of interest could be a natural outcome. Until that stage, motivation will be stronger, unlike those who have only one way to go (down).

One notable exception is Borg from here but he did retire early though and didnt get to lose more as his career progressed. Connors W/L is remarkable given how long he played for.

I dont see Nadal's style as physically demanding as Djokovic's actually. Djokovic seems to need to almost do the splits on every retrieval shot...Nadal is using muscle to get around, Djokovic is more about tendons and ligament stretches...and those wear out quicker and more seriously than muscle. It wouldnt surprise me if Novak develops ankle and groin problems in the next few years. I think the level Nadal physically plays at is only possible by one player - Nadal. Djokovic did it last year but look what it did to him post-USO. It killed him off almost completely...and I think its still a factor coming into 2012 for he knows first hand what it takes to beat Nadal, to utterly push himself beyond where he would normally go. And I wonder if that has left its mark deep in Novak's psyche? Does he want to go through that pain each time...he knows a few battles like that may write off another long part of the season...whereas for Nadal he can spring back as he's shown us for many seasons now. He know to beat Nadal at slams takes herculean efforts...and its hard for any player to keep doing that, especially when it takes so much out of them. So its funny how since AO Novak doesnt seem as keen getting embroiled in long ralleys with Nadal like before...so I do wonder what impact those mega-fights across the last 2-3 slams has left on him even though he won. Maybe Nadal actually "won" in the long-term from those battles?

Murray's style has become more physical to try to emulate and compete with Nadal. I think he needs to go back to what made him so hard to play when he was 18/19/20...all that guile and touch he had. If he chooses this physical route, which I think is unnatural for him (but not for Nadal), then I think he'll be shortening his career and limiting what he could have achieved had he been more Mecir-like.

It is unlikely anyone else will.... 33 consecutive Quarter finals in slams and winning masters events into 30's is almost unheard of (well the 33 IS unheard of). Murray has no chance... He has 2 years at his best left.. Nadal is in decline. Djokovic has 2 years left. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray rely on baseline defence and counter punching. The reason Federer has managed to last so long is because he has ultra ability to compensate for the lack of pace.

2 years, by what logic are you basing that on?

Fed now on 850-192 - Mac and Agassi are much closer than I thought they could ever be at the beginning of the year. With Fed close to certain to play another 7 tournaments (maximum of 38 matches) it would be a surprise if he did not get another 20 wins - I reckon he'll be somewhere between Agassi and Mac for wins by the year end.

If he plays 2013 and can start the year in the low 870's you've got to believe that Vilas's win total is in range for that year barring a sudden drop of form or health. Who knows what he might do after that, but my suspicion is that 950 is the highest milestone he could pass, and I'm far from convinced he's got another 100 wins in him - he'd certainly have to go into 2014 for that.

legendkillarV2 wrote:2 years, by what logic are you basing that on?

If you look at the decline of most players it starts around 25 and it is all over by 30. It is steady and it is downhill for Nadal and Djokovic and Murray in the coming years, especially since they are baseline defenders who rely more on speed than skill. Murray and Nadal will fare worst. They have 2 years left.

Seifer Almasy wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:2 years, by what logic are you basing that on?

If you look at the decline of most players it starts around 25 and it is all over by 30. It is steady and it is downhill for Nadal and Djokovic and Murray in the coming years, especially since they are baseline defenders who rely more on speed than skill. Murray and Nadal will fare worst. They have 2 years left.

http://sweetzara.hubpages.com/hub/how-to-stop-verbal-diarrhea