The Federer 1,000 Wins

by sirfredperry Tue 04 Nov 2014, 2:14 pm

The three-set triumph today over Raonic gives Roger Federer his 1,000th career win - something only Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl have achieved. Here are some stats, hoping they are accurate, of the Fed "grand".
Have been trawling through the head to head records and have come up with some interesting stats.

OPPONENTS FEDERER HAS BEATEN AT LEAST TEN TIMES (win-loss totals with Fed's score first)

Roddick 21-3
Davydenko 19-2
Djokovic 19-17
Hewitt 18-9
Ferrer 16-0
Soderling 16-1
Youzhny 15-0
del Potro 15-5
Wawrinka 15-2
Niemenen 14-0
Stepanek 14-2
Haas 13-3
Ljubicic 13-3
Gasquet 13-2
Karlovic 12-1
Gonzalez 12-1
Kiefer 12-3
Berdych 12-6
Murray 12-11
Robredo 11-1
Tsonga 11-5
Nalbandian 11-8
Lopez 10-0
Seppi 10-0
Blake 10-1
Malisse 10-1
Safin 10-2
JC Ferrero 10-3
Nadal 10-23

Nadal, by far, is Fed's worst match up, while more than 50 of his defeats have come against just three opponents - Rafa, Djoko and Murray.

There are only a few players with whom Fed has a losing record and some of these defeats came when Rog was just a rookie:

Apart from those he has played only the once, among those he has a losing record against are:

Ferreira 1-2
Rafter 0-3
Squillari 0-2
Corretja 2-3
Kuerten 1-2
Enqvist 1-3
Kafelnikov 2-4

Those who have held their own, and who he has met at least three times, include:

Gulbis 2-2
Canas 3-3
Rosset 2-2

TIM HENMAN:

Fed was, at one stage, 6-1 down in the head-to-heads with Henman before winning the last six of their meetings to finally make it 7-6. By my reckoning, Henman is one of only nine players to have beaten Fed more than four times

These are among the guys who fared ne'er too well against Rog. After the Brisbane final you could chuck in Raonic as well, whose now 1-8 against Fed:

Johansson 8-0
O Rochus 8-0
Kohlschreiber 8-0
Moya 7-0
Starace 7-0
Falla 7-0
Matthieu 7-0

Too numerous to mention are the players who have never beaten Fed. Statistically, I suppose, Ferrer has the worst-ever record against him, while Roddick and Davydenko aint got too much to be happy about either.

Apart from the other "big three", Fed has had the most trouble, at least early in his career, with Henman, Nalbandian and Hewitt, although he took it out on them later on.

As I said, this is by no means definitive, but I hope it proves interesting.

by Jahu Tue 04 Nov 2014, 2:27 pm

Well done, some great stats. clap

by HM Murdock Tue 04 Nov 2014, 2:51 pm

Great post.

Following on from your comment, those 51 defeats to Nadal, Djokovic and Murray account for 23% of Federer's total career losses.

by DirectView2 Tue 04 Nov 2014, 3:30 pm

Great posts and great stats thumbsup

Some of the other worst affected list should included Soderling , such a power packed player struggled to win against Fed on the first 11 attempts I guess, Robredo should be one lucky chap to taste a win on the very unlikely of the time.

But the most unluckiest player to have never tasted a win against Fed were David Ferrer and Mike Youzhny, its very sad Daveed could never catch Fed on off guard any time given Fed had so much off season let alone off time.

Simon Giles should be another player who held 2-0 on Fed once and now down by 2-4/5 I guess.

by sirfredperry Tue 04 Nov 2014, 3:39 pm

Ta for the kind responses. Simon, I make, now trailing Fed by 5-2 after the recent loss.
I guess that after "only" a 45-win season for Fed in 2013, there was speculation that he would not reach the 1,000 mark. But the 68 wins this year have taken him to the brink.
Tis interesting to think about just who else might reach this milestone. Rafa should and Djoko could. But that's probably it from the current crop.

by HM Murdock Tue 04 Nov 2014, 4:21 pm

sirfredperry wrote: Tis interesting to think about just who else might reach this milestone. Rafa should and Djoko could. But that's probably it from the current crop.

Rafa may struggle.

He's on 706, so he'd need 5 more seasons of about 60 wins. That seems an achievable figure but 2012 and 2014 produced a smaller number of wins than that due to injury absence.

To put 60 wins into context, Rafa won 69 in 2011. That was a year where he was fit and beating everyone except Djokovic. 60 wins per year is a pretty good total. If he has any more long term ailments, 1000 wins will be hard to reach.

Djokovic will struggle too. He's just past 600. He needs almost 7 seasons of 60 wins to reach 1000. If he has another couple of big seasons of 70+ wins, he may achieve it but it will be tough.

by DirectView2 Tue 04 Nov 2014, 6:58 pm

sirfredperry wrote:Ta for the kind responses. Simon, I make, now trailing Fed by 5-2 after the recent loss.
I guess that after "only" a 45-win season for Fed in 2013, there was speculation that he would not reach the 1,000 mark. But the 68 wins this year have taken him to the brink.
Tis interesting to think about just who else might reach this milestone. Rafa should and Djoko could. But that's probably it from the current crop.

I think Djoko will struggle to reach that mark for sure, his entire career amounted for 600 wins and now you are expecting him to reach 400 wins in next 4-5 years? thats 40% of his total career wins in 4-5 years when he has taken close to 10 years for 600 wins, I see that as impossible considering he will have ot more challenges in the upcoming years than what he had from 2011 to 2014.

My calculation would be 2 more good seasons of 60+ [say on average 65] and 1 good year of 50+ [say 55] and 2-3 years of 40ish [say 120]

So 130 +55 +120 = 305 + 600 => 905ish, so after say like 6 years he might hit 900ish and he will be 33 at that time. This itself will be a miracle, anything more than that then there is good chance he will get past 17 slams and become GOAT.

by sirfredperry Wed 05 Nov 2014, 7:57 am

DV2. Yeah, may be it is asking too much of Djoko to make the 1,000. A few more of the Fed head-to-heads here, with Fed's wins first:
Santoro 9-2
Monfils 8-2
Agassi 8-3
Clement 8-3
Baghdatis 7-1
Pavel 7-1
Mirnyi 7-2
Hanescu 6-0
Chela 6-0
Istomin 6-0

by Silver Wed 05 Nov 2014, 2:29 pm

I believe his only* losing records to active players are Nadal and Delbonis (0-1). Often overlooked due to how Rafa dominates the entire tour, but Federer's not done too badly for himself in this department.

*could change with Nishikori next week.

by sirfredperry Wed 05 Nov 2014, 3:45 pm

Silver wrote:I believe his only* losing records to active players are Nadal and Delbonis (0-1). Often overlooked due to how Rafa dominates the entire tour, but Federer's not done too badly for himself in this department.

*could change with Nishikori next week.

Ta, Silver. Could also change with Murray next week ! Apart from Delbonnis Fed has a few other 0-1 h-to-hs from earlier-vintage players, including Bruguera, Medvedev and K Carlsen. There are also a few other current-day players (apart from those already mentioned in earlier posts) he's level with including Stakhovsky (1-1) Brands (1-1) and Volandri (1-1)..

by sirfredperry Mon 05 Jan 2015, 9:37 am

Have updated the figures to the end of the 2014 season. Clearly Fed, now on 996 wins, is going to reach this mark very shortly and has improved his record against some of the top guys following four wins at the 02 plus the Davis Cup final.
One question is - will anyone else reach this figure? May be not.

by bogbrush Mon 05 Jan 2015, 6:06 pm

I can't see Nole doing it, and I doubt Rafa will too as I expect his results to stop off a cliff rather than decline once his physical peak passes.

There's a reason that it's a very small club up there.

by sirfredperry Tue 06 Jan 2015, 2:51 pm

No chance of Fed getting to Connors total (1,253) but there's a chance that he could overtake Lendl (1,071 wins).

by CaledonianCraig Tue 06 Jan 2015, 4:03 pm

sirfredperry wrote:No chance of Fed getting to Connors total (1,253) but there's a chance that he could overtake Lendl (1,071 wins).

I would bet on Roger getting past Lendl's mark if he has another good season in him or carries on for at least another season after this. However, I cannot see him overhauling Jimmy Connors unless he carries on playing into his mid-thirties.

by DirectView2 Tue 06 Jan 2015, 4:41 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
sirfredperry wrote:No chance of Fed getting to Connors total (1,253) but there's a chance that he could overtake Lendl (1,071 wins).

I would bet on Roger getting past Lendl's mark if he has another good season in him or carries on for at least another season after this. However, I cannot see him overhauling Jimmy Connors unless he carries on plating into his mid-thirties.

He is already in his mid 30's, he will be 34 by August this year, did you by chance mean late 30's or early 40's.

What ever Fed chance of overhauling Jimmy Connors is as small as Murray joining 1000 club.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 06 Jan 2015, 5:12 pm

First up Direct View Roger is 33 and mid-thirties means just that and that is 35 and was thinking up until 36. Three good seasons may push him to within touching distance of Connors mark. Second up what has Murray got to do with this?

by bogbrush Tue 06 Jan 2015, 9:56 pm

At 50 wins a year Federer would have to be 39. That's late I think.

I think going on 34 is mid 30's, personally.

by CaledonianCraig Wed 07 Jan 2015, 6:54 am

Yes but 33 is certainly not mid-thirties. In retrospect the mid-thirties would probably be 34, 35 and 36. anything before would be early thirties and anything after is the late thirties.

In any case I stand by my original view that Roger can certainly pass Lendl's mark but Connors is another matter.

by DirectView2 Wed 07 Jan 2015, 5:24 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:First up Direct View Roger is 33 and mid-thirties means just that and that is 35 and was thinking up until 36. Three good seasons may push him to within touching distance of Connors mark. Second up what has Murray got to do with this?

Roger will celebrate his 34th this year, so you mean to say that you expect Roger to break Jimmy's record in 2 and 1/2 years time? now agree you got it wrong and now trying to manipulate your sentence like the old "spejaculation to speculation" laughing

Close to 260 wins in 2 years and 8 months means he has to score 100 odd wins almost every year.

You got a good sense of humor CC. Laugh

Btw whats difficult to understand the following

"What ever Fed chance of overhauling Jimmy Connors is as small as Murray joining 1000 club."

Don't you see how well I compared your ridiculous joke with another one? kiss

by DirectView2 Wed 07 Jan 2015, 5:27 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
In any case I stand by my original view that Roger can certainly pass Lendl's mark but Connors is another matter.

Now that not what you said, you seem to have selective amnesia.

Let me quote what you said in the earlier post

CaledonianCraig wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
sirfredperry wrote:
No chance of Fed getting to Connors total (1,253) but there's a chance that he could overtake Lendl (1,071 wins).

I would bet on Roger getting past Lendl's mark if he has another good season in him or carries on for at least another season after this. However, I cannot see him overhauling Jimmy Connors unless he carries on plating into his mid-thirties.

Fed will carry on til mid-thirties but won't get past Connors by then.

by CaledonianCraig Wed 07 Jan 2015, 5:29 pm

Oh sorry Direct View if my opinion didn't factor in small details but main gist was what people would agree with in that he will probably pass Lendl but not Connors so why are you harping on as if I made a ridiculous prediction? Nope I don't see the need for an Andy Murray comparison but since it was directed at me I think we can all see what it was meant as. Wink

by CaledonianCraig Wed 07 Jan 2015, 5:33 pm

DirectView2 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
In any case I stand by my original view that Roger can certainly pass Lendl's mark but Connors is another matter.

Now that not what you said, you seem to have selective amnesia.

Let me quote what you said in the earlier post

CaledonianCraig wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
sirfredperry wrote:
No chance of Fed getting to Connors total (1,253) but there's a chance that he could overtake Lendl (1,071 wins).

I would bet on Roger getting past Lendl's mark if he has another good season in him or carries on for at least another season after this. However, I cannot see him overhauling Jimmy Connors unless he carries on plating into his mid-thirties.

Fed will carry on til mid-thirties but won't get past Connors by then.

Gee whizz I am not a PC that can recall every single post I make on here. Basic point was it was my opinion he can and probably will pass Lendl's mark but not Connors. The only fault being the mid-thirties whereas yes he'd need to carry on until his late thirties but that probably would still leave him short unless he has strong seasons.

by DirectView2 Wed 07 Jan 2015, 5:36 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Oh sorry Direct View if my opinion didn't factor in small details but main gist was what people would agree with in that he will probably pass Lendl but not Connors so why are you harping on as if I made a ridiculous prediction? Nope I don't see the need for an Andy Murray comparison but since it was directed at me I think we can all see what it was meant as.

I only compared Murray for the joke coz I know you like Murray and you are a fan of him.

It was a light hearted dig Hug

Connors records deserve to stand the test of the time, I don't want Fed to break it and I don't think so he will break it, if he attempts to do that he will have to play another 7-8 years minimum in my view, I don't think so he will win more than 50 games from 2016 onward and he needs atleast 5 full years of 50+ wins to break it, if he wins 50 + games in 2015 it should be a great achievement in itself given he will be 34 end of 2015.

by CaledonianCraig Wed 07 Jan 2015, 6:00 pm

The thing is with your 'light dig' is you are way off the mark in terms of what it achieves. Speaking purely from my own point of view I have never even given it a thought about how many wins Andy retires with - it just doesn't float my boat. I watch his career and takes and enjoy each win as it comes and look no further than that. I've said it before and will say it again - he could retire tomorrow and he'd still have had a great career - better than other British tennis fans could ever have hoped and I am happy enough with that. Forever silenced are those that said he'd never reach a slam final, then it was that he'd never win a slam final and then it was Wimbledon he'd never win but those boxes have all been ticked off.

by Jahu Wed 07 Jan 2015, 8:45 pm

CC, hi

by sirfredperry Thu 08 Jan 2015, 1:45 pm

Well, the Fed total is now up to 997 following his win over John Millman in Brisbane today.
But it looked for a while as if Rog was going to go into the AO later in the month still stuck on 996, as Millman was not only a set up but a break-up in the second set as well.
It's all got a bit too much for the official ATP website who had Fed on 996 wins after the Millman match. This was later corrected.

by sirfredperry Fri 09 Jan 2015, 11:32 am

Now 998 wins following demolition job on Duckworth today. First Dimi then (probably) Nishi stand between Fed and the 1,000.

by Silver Fri 09 Jan 2015, 12:07 pm

Would be quite symbolic for him to dispatch the two brightest young(ish) guns to make it.

I wonder if he's thinking about the 1000? That's a lot of matches. A lot of players that he's seen come and go.

by sirfredperry Fri 09 Jan 2015, 1:04 pm

Silver Today - Well two of his opponents, Agassi (8-3 head to head in Rog's favour) and Sampras (1-0 in THAT match), date from the 1980s.
Not sure just who of Rog's many adversaries goes back the furthest. I've not quite had the patience to work out just how many DIFFERENT players he's come up against. Nearly 400 of his wins have come versus the 30 or so guys he's chalked up at least 10 victories against.

by Guest Fri 09 Jan 2015, 3:02 pm

It's interesting. Federer season win average is 58! A few of them and he could run Connors close.

by TRuffin Fri 09 Jan 2015, 4:56 pm

Last 4 in Brisbane is really interesting to see. 3 of the best of the newest generation and old man Federer still hanging with the guys two tennis generations younger. Quite a good last 4 for a 250 tournament. A Masters 1000 would be happy with that.

by bogbrush Sat 10 Jan 2015, 10:36 am

999 after beating up on Dimitrov (so much for him as a likely successor).

by Guest Sat 10 Jan 2015, 11:17 am

The Rolls Royce of the sporting world.

Effortlessly brilliant.

ghost

emancipator

by Mad for Chelsea Sat 10 Jan 2015, 11:18 am

Dimitrov is fairly average. People got excited because he has a single-handed BH (gasp!) and his game, on a very simple aesthetic level, somewhat resembles Federer's (shock horror!). The fact that he may be good enough to win a slam or two once the current crop finally packs it in is a rather damning indictment of the lack of talent breaking through.

Nishikori-Raonic seems like it was a fascinating match BTW, and people wonder why I'm not in favour of returning courts to their 90's speed Wink

On a (somewhat) positive point, watched Murray yesterday against Matosevic, and he looked pretty sharp. Here's hoping he can have a strong season, because with no one quite sure where Nadal's at, it could get pretty dull otherwise... Also looked like Murray was mixing things up more, did a spot of S&V, and certainly looked to be standing his ground on the baseline a lot more, good signs IMO.

by LuvSports! Sat 10 Jan 2015, 11:27 am

Yes but Matosevic....

by Guest Sat 10 Jan 2015, 11:41 am

And??

by Mad for Chelsea Sat 10 Jan 2015, 11:56 am

well it was the game that I watched, given it was on at a reasonable hour here. However reports are he dispatches Paire and Janowicz in similarly good fashion, so for me the signs are good...

after all a couple of matches ago Feds was nearly losing to Millman (who incidently, also nicked a set off Murray in Brisbane a few years back Very Happy

)

by LuvSports! Sat 10 Jan 2015, 12:01 pm

Everyone looks good against him.

by Born Slippy Sat 10 Jan 2015, 12:01 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Dimitrov is fairly average. People got excited because he has a single-handed BH (gasp!) and his game, on a very simple aesthetic level, somewhat resembles Federer's (shock horror!). The fact that he may be good enough to win a slam or two once the current crop finally packs it in is a rather damning indictment of the lack of talent breaking through.

Nishikori-Raonic seems like it was a fascinating match BTW, and people wonder why I'm not in favour of returning courts to their 90's speed

On a (somewhat) positive point, watched Murray yesterday against Matosevic, and he looked pretty sharp. Here's hoping he can have a strong season, because with no one quite sure where Nadal's at, it could get pretty dull otherwise... Also looked like Murray was mixing things up more, did a spot of S&V, and certainly looked to be standing his ground on the baseline a lot more, good signs IMO.

Yeah, I just don't get the view that Dimitrov is any more than an average top 10 player. Tennis.com's preview of his year says something like he should win a Masters this year, perhaps even a slam. There is just no evidence to support that sort of belief.

Haven't seen any tennis this week but note that the combined talents of Ferrer, Djoko and Kei (3 of the 4 best returners on tour in my view) managed a combined zero breaks from 53 service games fired down by Ivo/Rao. I'm guessing both surfaces are relatively quick?

Promising signs from Andy this year. He looks fit and as though he is at least seeking to work on his weaknesses. Would be good to see him back in the top 4 post Oz. Hope he is in Stan's sector rather than Novak's!

by sirfredperry Sat 10 Jan 2015, 12:56 pm

Thought Dimi would certainly do better than getting just four games. 999 for Fed now, or if you're in the USA it's only 911.

by Guest Sat 10 Jan 2015, 1:01 pm

Federer, at 33, still does EVERYTHING better than Dimitrov. These comparisons are an insult to the king.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 10 Jan 2015, 1:04 pm

LuvSports! wrote:Yes but Matosevic....

Yes I see where you are coming from. I won't be getting carried away just yet but during those dark days last year these were the type of matches he was perhaps still winning but failing to do so with any confidence or sense of comfort. That in itself is confidence-boosting and it continues building a little momentum as he has yet to lose beating Lopez and Nadal last week and Paire, Janowicz and Matosevic this week. Little steps and momentum/confidence/self-belief building you would hope.

by Guest Sat 10 Jan 2015, 1:17 pm

I think Murray is starting to look sharp.

A definite contender for AUS. Favourites:

1) Djokovic
2) Run rabbit
3) King
4) Murray

Looks like a familiar list Whistle

emancipator

by bogbrush Sat 10 Jan 2015, 1:40 pm

emancipator wrote:Federer, at 33, still does EVERYTHING better than Dimitrov. These comparisons are an insult to the king.

Indeed. Dimitov is said not to like being called 'baby Fed' but it's probably the greatest compliment he'll ever be given, deserved or not.

The Maestro encourages us that tennis might be worth watching for a little while longer.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 10 Jan 2015, 1:48 pm

bogbrush wrote:

The Maestro encourages us that tennis might be worth watching for a little while longer.

Yes but like Luv Sports says it was only Matosevic. Wink

by **laverfan** Sat 10 Jan 2015, 1:56 pm

bogbrush wrote:The Maestro encourages us that tennis might be worth watching for a little while longer.

by **laverfan** Sat 10 Jan 2015, 1:58 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:

The Maestro encourages us that tennis might be worth watching for a little while longer.

Yes but like Luv Sports says it was only Matosevic.

One step at a time. Glad to see Murray getting better as AO approaches. Any reports on Murray's back issues, CC?

by CaledonianCraig Sat 10 Jan 2015, 2:00 pm

laverfan wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:

The Maestro encourages us that tennis might be worth watching for a little while longer.

Yes but like Luv Sports says it was only Matosevic.

One step at a time. Glad to see Murray getting better as AO approaches. Any reports on Murray's back issues, CC?

No back issues as far as I know but he has been troubled by twinges in his left shoulder but that should be no problem to him.

by TRuffin Sat 10 Jan 2015, 2:36 pm

Amongst those 4 rising stars in the Brisbane semis, that Federer kid looks really really good. i think he will be the brightest star and the future of tennis out of those guys.

I predict he will win 1000 matches in his career.

by summerblues Sat 10 Jan 2015, 3:04 pm

Born Slippy wrote:the combined talents of Ferrer, Djoko and Kei (3 of the 4 best returners on tour in my view) managed a combined zero breaks from 53 service games fired down by Ivo/Rao.

It will be interesting to see if Fed can do better than that.

by Sponsored content