Roger Federer Joins Six Other Players To Win 800 Career Matches
by Tom Gainey | November 11th, 2011, 2:16 pm

Congrats to Roger Federer who today won his 800th career match with a 63, 75 win over Juan Monaco in the BNP Paribas Masters quarterfinals in Paris.

According to the ATP, that puts Federer in 7th place on the all time wins leaderboard, still far behind top man Jimmy Connors who amassed 1,242 career victories.

1. Jimmy Connors 1,242
2. Ivan Lendl 1,071
3. Guillermo Vilas 923
4. John McEnroe 875
5. Andre Agassi 870
6. Stefan Edberg 806
7. Roger Federer 800

“It’s nice. It’s a lot of matches, a lot of tennis [that] I’ve played – I know that,” Federer said. “But I know there are many other players that have played more tennis than I have. So it’s just another win, but it’s a special one nevertheless, because 800 is definitely a big number.”

In his Saturday semifinal Federer will play rival Tomas Berdych who upset Andy Murray today in a three-set thriller.

You Might Like:
Korda Collects First ATP Title In Parma, Joins Father In Winner’s Cirlce
Haas Wins 500th, Joins Del Potro in Vienna QFs; Tsonga, Berdych Advance In Stockholm; Venus Alive In Luxembourg
Roddick Answers Querrey, Reaches 500; Federer Joins Nadal in Canada
Rafael Nadal Clinches Year-End No. 1 Ranking
Unseeded Sharapova Joins Halep, Ostapenko in Shenzhen Title Chase; Preview

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

39 Comments for Roger Federer Joins Six Other Players To Win 800 Career Matches

jane Says:

Nice milestone and company.

Brando Says:

Yep. Well done roger. I cannot see anyone, including roger, beating connors 1,242- that is an insane no. of wins!!!

But, roger does have the game and fitness levels to give it a try!

mjt308 Says:

Shouldn’t the title be “Roger Federer Joins SIX Other Players…”?

Also, well done, Roger!! I can see him beating McEnroe’s mark comfortably, but Vilas’s total might be a bit of a stretch.

Tom Gainey Says:

@mjt308: You are 100% correct. I’ve fixed it.

I will also add a quote from Roger when available.

Tennis Vagabond Says:

Agree with mjt. It’s shocking to think that Vilas, playing in the era of such greats, could have had such an incredible career himself.

Dory Says:

Wow Roger the GOAT. He will get to 1000 easily. 1200 is difficult though but not impossible for the legend.

Paris Masters is his to win this time, although both Berdych and Tsonga are dangerous (sorry no chance for all-serve-and-no-game Isner)

grendel Says:

I stand to be corrected, no doubt, but I have a feeling a lot of Vilas’s wins were in minor tourneys in far flung quarters of the globe.

The commentators came up with a very curious piece of info yesterday – sorry, have forgotten the source. All kinds of players, from Borg to Federer, were shown to have a 7 year-ish gap between their first and last slams. Becker rather bucked this trend, I think, but it was surprisingly uniform. A remarkable correlation which does suggest, somewhat anyway, that a player’s tennis age can be counted (at least in terms of major success) by how long he has been gracing the tennis courts, and not this bitter earth.

Nadal’s time, b.t.w., in this scenario, will be up next year some time. So if he wants to catch Federer, he needs to get cracking in the coming year – one slam won’t be enough. This actually looks quite feasible, since more and more it is beginning to look as if Djokovic’s annus mirabilis is of the one off variety.

chris ford Says:

Great milestone for Roger. Even if he isn’t #1, he adds to his contribution and all the silly and not so silly categories in the record books.
Net wins is one of the not so silly records. It’s like wins in American baseball pitching – you have to be good to win so much, and you have to be a machine! A lot of wins is an important mark.

And that said, what a fine tribute to the underappreciated Guga and Ivan Lendl – who perhaps don’t get the “great” designation when their names come up – that they merit.
And a reminder that Jimmy Connors, for his faults..was an absolute tennis playing animal!!

Federer, if he stays around as long as he says he’d like to, can perhaps make it to #3 on this list. Impressive when you consider he was a late bloomer and didn’t rack up the early wins some other prodigys of the game did.

chris ford Says:

Oops, sorry, I used Keurtens nickname. I meant Vilas!

SAhmed Says:

chris ford, dangerouse to think how his careere would have developed if he started winning earlier

scary thought, late bloomer but still GOAT

hard work, desire and never-say-die attitude paid off int the end

RZ Says:

If Roger plays 2 more years, he should easily move up to #4 on this list. If he plays 3 more years and is still playing well, he could easily be #3.

Tennislover Says:

Grendel: Connors also played a lot of small events. I like Agassi’s numbers though.

As for the seven-year “trend”, Sampras, Agassi, Connors and Becker bucked it if my memory serves me well. Laver and Edberg could be part of this list too but I am not sure about it.

Mario C Says:

I think he’s got a good shot at the record. He commented that Jimmy Connors played into his 40’s and that he’d like to do something similar – being a player that spans generations. If anything, I think he’d at least playing another 5 or 6 years, if not longer.

Eric Says:

Fed will obviously pass Edberg.. probably will pass Mac and Andre… quite possibly Vilas. Can’t see him getting 272 more wins though!

grendel Says:

this so-called 7 year “trend” – I wish I’d paid a bit more attention, and also could source it. I think one can make a case for almost including the players you mention, Tennislover, except for Laver, who was a special case. You know, all that professional and amateur stuff. Most confusing.

Sampras – you could look at his first (1990) and last (2002) slams as outliers, particularly when you think of the luck that went into winning the last one; I mean,someone bribed the gods, don’t you think, everything just fell in his lap, you must know the story. Then, 93-99 (the interval containing the rest of his slams)fits.

Agassi – exactly the same. His first slam at Wimbledon in 92 was sort of a fluke, the hard court youth somehow triumphing on grass and anyway, Ivanesevic should have won. And then his last slam in 2003 against Schuettler can hardly be said to count. I mean, Schuettler, come on. The merits of Rainer Schuettler are many, and I am the first to applaud them – but his credentials as a grand slam champion are not among them.. Other than that, the 7 year thing works.

Edberg – ’85 to ’92, well now, if we count thus: from ’86 to ’87 is one year, and so on – rather than starting with ’86 as the first year, we do get 7. Counting is always more difficult than you think, because there is this annoying ambiguity about whether you count the lamposts (so to speak) or the gaps in between.

But, larking around aside, one thing stands out. Even if the 7 year thing is not exact, if, in short, it fails somewhat in precision, it nevertheless provides a nice indication. For – after all – what is an outlier or two when you are chasing big records? In other words, although Nadal may, say, get a slam or two in 5 years time say, to have a realistic chance of overhauling Federer (if history is any guide) he needs to do the heavy lifting next year. And although the odds must be quite heavily against him, I think a betting man might like to sneak in a sly fiver. Let’s face it, Djokovic isn’t going to do the stuff again. Murray might. But then again, Murray might not. Know what I mean? Know the sort of thing I’ve got in mind? And Federer? Now come on. Federer may be good for an outlier, but let’s be serious.

So next year is the year where Nadal is concerned. It’s 2012 – or bust.

Andrea Says:

Nice win Roger…..berdych will be a tough nut if he is on fire…they have had some close 3setters. God luck. I think this is the furthest he has gotten at this event….

mortimer Says:

Some of the players on that list were able to stay away from injuries for about a decade or so, which in my opinion is outstanding athleticism. Federer is part of that group – never injured, always fit, always more or less on top of his game, year after year after year.

Tahir Shah Says:

Roger you are the most gracious player tennis has ever produced on this planet. No one can match you. your style of playing and your variety is something every tennis player will be dreaming of. You are without any doubt the GOAT. Not only as a player but also as a human being, r u a role model for every one around. Thanks for your services to tennis and humanity. We salute you.

Michael Says:

Another milestone for the great CHAMPION. If Federer plays to this level, he can certainly continue for a few more years in the circuit. All the best to him and his Team !!

skeezerweezer Says:

800 Career ATP match wins = 16 Grand Slam titles. Simply….. The Best….. by far!!

Contemperory Says:

Is there any kind of danger of Fed dropping out of the top four? This article makes us to think so:


congratulations, fed is the best.

alison hodge Says:

roger continues to go from strenth to strength,reaching another milestone in his ever ilustrious career,like my favourite rafa says about his great friend and rival,a complete freak of nature,is there nothing this man is not capable of,truly amazing,roger scales the heights others can only dream of.

alison hodge Says:

contemperory just a thought but isnt roger probably closer to reclaiming the number 3 ranking after muzza lost yesterday,if he were to win here in paris that is?

Contemperory Says:

May be you are right. How about the points to defend for Ferrer and Federer? Is there any way Fed will slip below Ferrer this year?

Brando Says:

@Alison: he would surpass Murray. I cannot see andy finishing 3rd if roger wins bercy. He would need roger to lose twice at WTF, which atm seems very unlikely. I could be wrong though, since I do not know the actual no. .

Swiss Maestro Says:

If my math is right, Federer has seen off the ferrer challenge. even if Fedex doesn’t win a match from here on and ferrer wins ALL his matches at WTF, fed goes home with a no.4 finish at the least.

If fed can win Paris, it will be a good fight for the no.3 in London. Right now murray is 1380 points of Roger. So fed has some serious work to catch murray.

Allez Rogi!

Contemperory Says:

@Swiss Maestro:

If Murray is ahead by 1380 points, by winning the title, fed adds 640 points. So the deficit becomes 740 then. Correct? But at the same time Fed also needs to defend the WTF points. So what needs to happen so that Fed gets No. 3?

shyamsundara Says:

Roger can overtake Jimmy’s score if he keeps on playing for about five more years because in every tournament he is bound to reach the quarter finals atleast.However, his primary focus should be on winning two more majors in the next 24 months to be beyond the reach of the two greatest tennis beasts ever- Nadal and Djokovic. Federer in order to keep his GOAT image intact should give his best essay to win two Majors as soon as possible and retire.

Swiss Maestro Says:


The points i mentioned are year-to-date or race points. so there is no “defending points”

if fed wins paris, he gets 1000 points. murray gets 180 points for qf showing. so fed cuts the 1380 deficit by 820 points. so murray will be 560 points ahead at WTF.

Fed will have to win and murray not make the finals for fed to get to no.3 if murray doesn’t make the semis, a finals showing for fed will do it.

can someone confirm my calculations?

Contemperory Says:

Oh, when you said 1380 points I was thinking that it is the total points including the defending points. I am clear now, so your calculations seem correct to me. All we need to think about (in case he wins the title),is that how to arrive at the 560 points using permutations and combinations.

shyamsundara Says:

Federer has been ranked no.1 for so many years and broken most of the records in tennis history.Unfortunately,being on the wrong side of thirty, his prime is slowlyly, but unobtrusively and impalpably, leaving him. In order to beat Nadal, Djokovic or Murray and win Majors he should not overstrain himself by playing too many tournaments. He has already attained a demi-god status in tennis just like Maradona and Pele in football. He shouldn’t care much about his ranking. Being ranked 100 or 200 wii not harm him.

jeanius Says:

Am I the only person surprised that Sampras is not on this list? And that Edberg is?

B-Lab Says:


Not really surprised about Pete because although Sampras was No. 1 six times, he wasn’t a dominant win-em-all type player a la Federer, or an iron man like Connors.

Edberg did surprise me, he was the one guy I wasn’t able to guess when I saw the headline.

Tennislover Says:

Grendel: Agassi had two different periods with a big gap between them and one could argue that Clement, who Agassi beat to win the 2001 AO, wasn’t the greatest of players if Schuttler sounds “lucky” to you. Johansson actually beat Safin to win an AO. Agassi ended 2002 as world no.2 (behind Hewitt but ahead of Safin) and he was pretty much a contender- even favorite- at the 2003 AO. Agassi’s wimby win was surely a surprise but Goran’s incredible serve deserted him when he needed it the most. Becker, Edberg, Stich and Sampras were there as much higher seeds. He beat Becker and Mac on his way to the final. Goran also had beaten Rosset, Lendl, Edberg and Sampras along the way and was in blazing form. Agassi earned that one.

Having said that, I can’t say I disagree much with your line of reasoning if you put it that way. However, I’d then go further than that. I think the absolute prime of really great players lasts around four years or so. Borg(mid-’76 to mid-’80), Sampras(mid-’93 to mid-’97) and Federer(2004-2007) did their heavy lifting in roughly similar amount of time. If one takes 2008 as the first such year for Nadal, 2012 could be his last such year which incidentally agrees with your 7-year theory. However, if Djokovic’s 2011 is his first such year, then his fans can hope for at least three more years in which case the prospects of Nadal and Murray will suffer unless Murray himself decides to join the party. The problem with this theory is that we have the benefit of hindsight in the case of Borg, Sampras and Federer(more or less). How the careers of Nadal, Djokovic and especially Murray will pan out is difficult to predict. This obviously has consequences for their respective slam prospects. At the same time, one doesn’t see any hot young talent which will challenge these guys in the near future. Djokovic’s technique is not as pure as, say, Federer’s and I am concerned about its ill-effects on his body. If he can remain focused and injury-free, I think he can have multiple-slam years in the future especially if Nadal and Murray can’t stop him. Nadal already has a lot of intense tennis in his body and Murray continues to disappoint at the majors. I can’t see who is going to challenge Djokovic in the next three to four years unless Murray gets his act, especially the mental bit, together.

Nadal will probably contend for the FO for some more years. He has a good shot at Wimby too. The proposed Monday final at USO will help him as well. I always thought that Nadal would do a Borg and just get fed up with it. PRP seems to have done wonders to his knees and he sounds as motivated as ever. However, I do feel there’s only so much emotional and mental reserve a player can have.

Tennislover Says:

Swiss Maestro: The gap between Murray and Federer, depending on the outcome of Bercy final, will be 710 or 1110 points going into London. There’s very little chance Murray will be overtaken even if Federer wins Bercy. Murray appears the favorite for WTF although I have a feeling that Nadal will be extremely determined to win this time around. Federer doesn’t get affected much being 3 or 4. He needs to guard against going lower than 4.

grendel Says:

Tennislover – gosh, imagine Clement with a grandslam! That Johansson win – rumour has it that Safin partied the night before. Sounds plausible to me – hard to forgive him for that. The gods cursed him by blessing him too young. By the time he put those treacherous creatures behind him, it was almost too late.

It’s true there’s noone coming up to challenge Djokovic etc (perhaps there is some Clement/Johansson type, lurking in the wings..) but there are plenty of great players about who can spring surprises. Talking of Johansson, when he beat Murray at Queens – it was on the occasion Murray nearly fainted, he just collapsed in a heap, it was like something in a silent movie – he was asked how far he thought Murray would go. Bear in mind Murray had been giving Johansson a bit of a tennis lesson, and the Swede only won cause Murray’s legs gave out. Well, he sort of praised him – “very promising” – and predicted he’d make it to the top 50. The revenge of the hardbitten pro. Murray remains an enigma. I very much hope he breaks the Nadal/Djokovic duopoly. It’s silly to assume anything, I think – and that includes saying he’ll never quite make it.

“I do feel there’s only so much emotional and mental reserve a player can have.” – your comment on Nadal. Funnily enough, Peter Fleming made (I thought) an illuminating remark about Federer in this respect. Everyone knows how the nature of Federer’s game acts as a kind of preservative to his body. But Fleming pointed out that Federer’s laid back style -(if that’s right? it’s a kind of calm intensity which is not quite the same)- inhibits the expenditure of adrenalin. Therefore, the emotional and mental reserve you talked about remains relatively intact.

Tennislover Says:

I don’t know how exaggerated the reports of Safin being a Rasputin-like figure were. Australia- apart from Moscow of course- seemed to have been a particularly favorite “hunting” ground for him given the colorful reports that used to come out about his exploits off the court. He had so much charisma that women- and I daresay even men- must have found him irresistible:)

While I can agree about the economical nature of Federer’s physical and emotional expenditure, things do start withering away at the margins. The loss of half a step is a huge factor imho. His game is about tiny margins and his best game is all about absolute precision in timing. A tiny little thing goes off and things threaten to unravel.

With fatherhood, things have changed drastically for Federer. Focus has got to be his biggest issue now. More than any physical thing, the absolute prime I alluded to requires an absolutely focused approach. It just isn’t possible to have the same hunger when you have won everything as compared to when you were aiming for the first few big titles.

grendel Says:

Safin claimed nerves were responsible for his Johansson loss. Could be. But then again, he was young and success came too early for him, I am sure. After all, he didn’t beat Sampras at the US Open final, he thrashed the living daylights out of him. Becker was another who possibly tasted success too early to know how to cope with it. Safin’s loss to Federer 2 years later was simply a matter of “running out of gas” as he put it himself. Coming back off an injury, 5 setters against Agassi and Roddick, and then the Fed – too much. The next year in Aussie, he came good – that was the mature Safin. Parties after the match, not before. Takes a while to learn one’s priorities.

Top story: Berrettini To Battle Norrie For Queen's Title