Top Ten In 2012 (Win Loss Ratio)

The best tennis players win more matches than they lose. So who was the best at this in 2012. This is the top ten based on win loss ratio.

1. Nadal .880 (42/6 ie won 42, lost 6)
2. Djokovic .862 (75/12)
3. Federer .855 (71/12)
4. Ferrer .837 (76/15)
5. Del Potro .793 (65/17)
6. Murray .778 (56/16)
7. Berdych .726 (61/23)
8. Tsonga .688 (55/25)
9. Tipsarevec .671 (57/28)
10. Gasquet .656 (42/22)

Ha, that must be your favourite stat ever. Rafa on top, Murray down in sixth.

Rafa historically doesn't do great after Wimbledon, so who knows where his stats would have gone after the grass. He certainly was in great form though before the Rosol defeat.

Murray fans have always been told that his great record across the year, winning masters events and other tournaments, mean nothing if you don't do it when it matters.... He's obviously had a great year taking the US open and Olympic gold, but ironically outside of the the tournaments he prioritised its actually been his most inconsistent year for ages.

Of course some of the names in there have played more tournaments than the top guys.

Just goes to show how there is no dominant player; dominant years have guys losing 4 or 5 matches, not double figures.

Obviously Nadals 6 in the first half isn't all that good, had he missed the first half and played the second he wouldn't even be on that list.

The slams are the priority though, where the relevant percentages are:

1. Djokovic 88.9%
2. Murray 88%
3. Nadal 87.5%
4. Federer 86.3%
5. Ferrer 81.8%

BB aren't you setting he bar a little high for a dominant year 4 or 5 losses. So by your account the only dominant years in tennis history are Mac 84 and Rog 05 and 06?

Agree with the fact that nobody thinks Nadal would have maintained these numbers if he had played on hardcourt and indoors where he has never done that well in comparison to Djokovic and Federer.

Great stats Slippy I have to agree that the grandslam winning percentage to me matters a bit more anyway, glad to see Novak tops that list as well.

socal1976 wrote:BB aren't you setting he bar a little high for a dominant year 4 or 5 losses. So by your account the only dominant years in tennis history are Mac 84 and Rog 05 and 06?

Agree with the fact that nobody thinks Nadal would have maintained these numbers if he had played on hardcourt and indoors where he has never done that well in comparison to Djokovic and Federer.

Great stats Slippy I have to agree that the grandslam winning percentage to me matters a bit more anyway, glad to see Novak tops that list as well.

Also agree with Slippy - as far as the original article goes, considering Rafa falls away after Wimbledon and the number of matches Delpo plays (a lot of which were 250's) makes the whole thing unbalanced!

A stat is a stat, good to see Nadal and Djokovic dominate the year and GS win/loss ratio which ofcourse is expected given their age, whats striking is how Fed still there given his age.

Glad to see Del Po had a good year too.

Born Slippy wrote:The slams are the priority though, where the relevant percentages are:

1. Djokovic 88.9%
2. Murray 88%
3. Nadal 87.5%
4. Federer 86.3%
5. Ferrer 81.8%

Oh dear, what does Hawkeye say about her man being inferior to Murray. Strangely enough, nothing much

I like this stat!!

Last year though, I would have argued against it and stated that the Masters were far more important

socal1976 wrote:BB aren't you setting he bar a little high for a dominant year 4 or 5 losses. So by your account the only dominant years in tennis history are Mac 84 and Rog 05 and 06?

Those are the years that I remember, sitting there and just clapping at the sheer skill of those two (amazingly that was it for Mac)

And significantly, I don't think anyone would argue that they played the best 'jaw dropping' Tennis we've ever seen. Maybe BB should state "out of this world domination"!!

socal1976 wrote:Great stats Slippy I have to agree that the grandslam winning percentage to me matters a bit more anyway

Look I'm all for hitting back at the rather one-eyed Hawkey, but that statement is just plain naughty

socal1976 wrote:BB aren't you setting he bar a little high for a dominant year 4 or 5 losses. So by your account the only dominant years in tennis history are Mac 84 and Rog 05 and 06?

Agree with the fact that nobody thinks Nadal would have maintained these numbers if he had played on hardcourt and indoors where he has never done that well in comparison to Djokovic and Federer.

Great stats Slippy I have to agree that the grandslam winning percentage to me matters a bit more anyway, glad to see Novak tops that list as well.

No, I don't think so. Dominant is a big word (well a moderate length word with a big meaning) and I think it needs reserving for...well, domination. Maybe there's a year out there with 6 or 7 defeats, I'd throw that in too.

Interesting article HE

Not sure we can read too much into it though, but I think shows that Nadal was playing some very good tennis before his injury. To be fair I think he normally plays good tennis in this time period anyway.
I'm surprised Murray is 6th, maybe it's because this year he gave slams priority and just wanted to peak for them??

It actually shows that at the end of the day we add the Slams, Masters Cups and Olympic medals

As let's be honest, the rest of the tournies were arguably Andy's pooret since 2007 - for the first time in 50-odd months he is not the holder of a Masters title

I disagree about Rafa. He's always at his best in the first half of the yeat - the fact is that it's his style of Tennis that causese the issues

We saw the oppoiste. A Federer despite numerous tough battles look 'as fresh as a daisy' as he he put Andy in place at the O2 and caused Nole all manner of problems

Natural talent, means that there is less stess on the body

Well Djokovic won WTF.

Fed played well though, but in the latter part of the year I'm not sure he looked 'as fresh as a daisy' at all.

All these guys are naturally talented...geez.

It Must Be Love wrote:Interesting article HE

Not sure we can read too much into it though, but I think shows that Nadal was playing some very good tennis before his injury. To be fair I think he normally plays good tennis in this time period anyway.
I'm surprised Murray is 6th, maybe it's because this year he gave slams priority and just wanted to peak for them??

I think there is something in that IMBL, certainly before the US open anyway.

What disappointed me a little was his form during the rest of the year. A few times he didn't really look engaged. Though I read somewhere its quite common, a bit of a mental dip after your first slam. Am I right in saying nobody has EVER won the next slam after breaking through for their first? An astonishing stat that one.

It Must Be Love wrote:Fed played well though, but in the latter part of the year I'm not sure he looked 'as fresh as a daisy' at all.

For a 31 year old - his comeback against Murray after looking like he was heading for a similar spanking to thier Olympics meetings, was pretty impressive

My point is, that players who need less coaching and have a natural talent tend to expend less energy

Mac was unfortunate in as much, at his peak their was so much more to get out of an individual's body - that no amount of 'natural talent' could save him

[quote="Danny_1982]Though I read somewhere its quite common, a bit of a mental dip after your first slam. Am I right in saying nobody has EVER won the next slam after breaking through for their first? An astonishing stat that one.
[/quote]


Certainly true since Conners first one a Slam

Be hilarious if Andy does it as suddenly he'll be in severe danger of carving out a few nice niches. First Olympic and US Open winner in the same summer. First winner of first two slams at consecutive events

Could you imagine what Hawkeye would be saying if Rafa isn't fit enough for the French and by some fluke Murray wins his first clay event - I'd almost pay to see the articles

Back to reality

hawkeye wrote:The best tennis players win more matches than they lose. So who was the best at this in 2012. This is the top ten based on win loss ratio.

1. Nadal .880 (42/6 ie won 42, lost 6)
2. Djokovic .862 (75/12)
3. Federer .855 (71/12)
4. Ferrer .837 (76/15)
5. Del Potro .793 (65/17)
6. Murray .778 (56/16)
7. Berdych .726 (61/23)
8. Tsonga .688 (55/25)
9. Tipsarevec .671 (57/28)
10. Gasquet .656 (42/22)

Interesting stats. Murray clearly had a better year than Del Potro and Ferrer. I think those 2 played more minor tournaments and committed to them more, I guess that would be the difference. Still a little surprised though.

I think Nadal is only first because of injury. He played his winningest part of the season on clay, and avoided his losingest part of the season on the fastest surfaces. I think he might have fallen to around 2nd, 3rd or 4th place if he'd been fully fit. You could have seen him playing about 6-7 tournaments on hard and winning perhaps 1 of those. Nadal's most impressive stat in win loss is his win ratio against fellow top players, but his win ratio against none top 10 tends to be lower - at least vs 2011-2012 Djokovic and Federer.