Roger Federer Wins His 1000th Career Match! [Charts And Videos]

by Staff | January 11th, 2015, 10:14 am

Roger Federer reached another milestone in his career becoming just the third player in the Open Era to reach the 1,000 match win plateau today. And Federer did it in fantastic style beating Milos Raonic 64, 67(2), 64 to win his first Brisbane title, 83rd overall.

“This is a special moment, obviously,” Federer said. “To receive this from you guys – I will never forget this match.”

Highlights from the final:

Here are some of the numbers from Roger’s incredible achievement via the ATP:

Jimmy Connors (USA) 1253-278 .818
Ivan Lendl (CZE/USA) 1071-239 .818
Roger Federer (SUI) 1000-227 .815

1 Guillaume Raoux 1998 Toulouse 1R 62 62
100 Julien Boutter 2001 Basel SF 76 64
200 Mikhail Youzhny 2003 Halle SF 46 76 62
300 Lleyton Hewitt 2004 US Open F 0 76 60
400 Tommy Haas 2006 Australian Open 4R 64 60 36 46 62
500 David Ferrer 2007 Monte-Carlo QF 64 60
600 Thiago Alves 2008 US Open 2R 63 75 64
700 Julian Reister 2010 Roland Garros 3R 64 60 64
800 Juan Monaco 2011 Paris QF 63 75
900 Gilles Simon 2013 Roland Garros 4R 61 46 26 62 63
1000 Milos Raonic 2015 Brisbane F 64 67(2) 64

MOST WINS (10 or more) VS. OPPONENTS (275 TOTAL)
The players that Federer has recorded his most match wins over.
Andy Roddick 21
Nikolay Davydenko, Novak Djokovic 19
Lleyton Hewitt 18
David Ferrer, Robin Soderling 16
Juan Martin del Potro, Mikhail Youzhny, Stan Wawrinka15
Jarkko Nieminen, Radek Stepanek 14
Richard Gasquet, Tommy Haas, Ivan Ljubicic 13
Tomas Berdych, Fernando Gonzalez, Ivo Karlovic, Nicolas Kiefer, Andy Murray 12
Feliciano Lopez, David Nalbandian, Tommy Robredo, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 11
James Blake, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Xavier Malisse, Rafael Nadal, Marat Safin, Andreas Seppi 10

MOST WINS (10 or more) BY COUNTRY (28 TOTAL)
A look at the match wins Federer has recorded in each country.
United States 210
France 102
Great Britain 101
Australia 95
Germany 84
Switzerland 81
United Arab Emirates 42
Italy 38
China 33
Netherlands 32
Canada 31
Monaco 27
Qatar 26
Austria 18
Thailand 10

Hard 621
Clay 198
Grass 131
Carpet 50

Here’s a closer look at how Federer went about getting to 1,000 match wins.
In straight sets (best of 3) 496
In straight sets (best of 5) 241
In decisive sets (best of 3) 168
In decisive sets (best of 5) 22
Retirements (one set) 7
After winning first set 885
Two sets 496
Three sets (inc. best of 3, best of 5) 409
Four sets 66
Five sets 22
Wins after winning first set via retirement 7

Outdoor 748
Indoor 252
vs. Right-handers 898
vs. Left-handers 102

Federer has only beaten six players when they have been No. 1 in the Emirates ATP Rankings. He has a total of 182 Top 10 wins in his career.
No. 1 6
No. 2-5 81
No. 6-10 96
No. 11-20 120
No. 21-30 121
No. 31-50 203
No. 51-75 163
No. 76-100 75
No. 101-150 75
No. 151-200 30
No. 201-300 15
No. 301-400 5
No. 401-500 4
No. 501-1000 1
No. 1001+ 2
Unranked 3

Teenagers 35
20-24 367
25-29 460
30+ 138

ATP World Tour Masters 1000 311
ATP World Tour 250s, 500s 299
Grand Slam Championships 279
Davis Cup, Olympics 63
Barclays ATP World Tour Finals 48

– Federer has victories over 12 players to rank No. 1 in their careers (12 of 25)
– Federer has match wins over 19 players to have won a Grand Slam title in their careers

You Might Like:
Novak Djokovic Is On The Practice Courts In Monte Carlo [Video]
Dancing Juan Martin Del Potro Will Put A Smile On Your Face [Video]
Roger Federer Doesn’t Want To Cut Himself Shaving [Video]
Federer Tames Dimitrov, Seeks 1000th Career Win Against Raonic In Brisbane Final; Berdych Baffles In Doha
Roger Federer Sets No. 1 Records [Charts]

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

Get the FREE TX daily newsletter

55 Comments for Roger Federer Wins His 1000th Career Match! [Charts And Videos]

Daniel Says:

Wow, Fed can reach the 300 Grand Slam match wins this season if he wins 21 matches. He needs to go semis or beyond in all Slams.
Also 50 WTF matches win if he qualifies this year and wins 2 matches.
I don’t think Connors level of longevity could be broken (1253 matches won), but he can pass Lendl and also the number of titles. He is in 83 and I think 90 titles is a reachable number specially if he wins finals as he reverted compared to first semester last year where he as 2-4 before Cincinnati.
Just hope he could get one more Slam this year, preferably Wimbledon. 18 Would be a much better number than 17:-)
Who knows, as long as he is out there, healthy, fit he always have a shot even if slim one, but eventually age will win. That’s why I think this year is his last chance. Already thought it was last year but the way he one this season with a title and with end of last years results who knows..?

jane Says:

congrats to federer on an incredible milestone.

madmax Says:

Congratulations Roger. We are so proud of you.

dari Says:

Wow Roger

skeezer Says:

Awesome. The highlights were some racetrack stuff with great shotmaking. Fed , at the moment, still has plenty of great looking magical stuff. Congrats.
PS: keep that great movement going!

KatH Says:

Congrats to Fed. Great achievement 1000 wins. He’ll have lots more 3-set wins but I’d bet my house he won’t win another Grand Slam. As for Milos – yes improving but this is not yet his time to win a Grand Slam – bet half my house on that.

Brando Says:

Stefan Edberg: ”The longer Roger stay’s in tennis the better it is for tennis”:

hit the nail on the head with that one, spot on!

andrea Says:

what’s left?

congrats roger. was nice to see him so pumped up after his win.

happy that milos could make a match of it. was looking like a fedex steamroll until milos broke back in the 2nd.

have to say, milos is looking much better these days. he’s not just a serve. his groundstrokes were on fire against kei and roger.

wonder if they would have carted those giant ‘1000’ numbers to the aussie open if roger didn’t win tonight?

dari Says:

Still plenty left, Andrea, don’t worry!
Like Nike said “not the finish line, just a milestone”.
Plenty of big tournaments to be played and hopefully won this year.
Vamos Rog

Joe Says:

Amazing that Federer has the best winning percentage of 1000+ match winners as Connors and Lendl’s stats are puffed up from the days when there were multiple tours and shitty events set up for the stars to win. Not exactly the Masters Series days.

autoFilter Says:

“Federer has only beaten six players when they have been No. 1 in the Emirates ATP Rankings.”

How many players have had a turn at number one during his career? I can’t imagine that doesn’t account for most of them. Or does that stat actually just mean that he had 6 wins over a number 1 ranked opponent. Probably the latter, huh?

I’d love to see a breakdown of how many wins he accrued by his own ranking.

RZ Says:

Congrats to the Fed. Onward and upward!

RZ Says:

@autofilter- good point. The 6 number looks low until you remember that Fed was #1 for 301 weeks so during that time (which is almost 6 years) he couldn’t have beaten a #1 player

Tennis Fan Says:

KatH Says … He’ll have lots more 3-set wins but I’d bet my house he won’t win another Grand Slam. As for Milos – yes improving but this is not yet his time to win a Grand Slam – bet half my house on that.

Kat must have missed seeing match. Because the level of play displayed by bith Fed and raonic suggests you may soon be homeless.

alex Says:

Simply awesome !! Thanks.

sienna Says:

he hasnt defeated #1 so many times because he has been ranked #1 himself for 302 weeks and that in his most winningest periode.

KatH Says:

To Tennis Fan

The main point was too many 5-setters (as in Grand Slam) will be dodgy for Federer and will be less difficult for Raonic who will eventually get there given that he’s a decade younger.

Giles Says:

Mister Sleeve MIGHT win a GS in two years time.

Tennis Island Says:

Good start for feed! Looking for the same results in AO!

autoFilter Says:

RZ, thanks. I do wonder how many of his wins came as the world number one. Do you figure about half? Maybe more since he so consistently went so deep in nearly every tournament throughout that period.

Sienna, yes, that was part of my point. Also, he’s spent most of the rest of the time (at least since age 22) within the top 4, so the opportunities to meet the no 1 ranked player generally only come in the semis or later, assuming both players make it that far.

RZ Says:

@autoFilter – About half seems a little high if you consider that Federer has put together a lot of wins while being ranked 2 or 3, especially between 2010 and 2014. I haven’t seen a clean statistic for that but was aware of this list of all of Fed’s match wins.

A very quick Excel pivot table analysis shows it’s about 417 matches that he won as the #1 player. This may be off by a few as the chart has 1002 matches rather than 1000. Regardless, very impressive!!!!

RZ Says:

^ And you were quite close with your guess of half.

autoFilter Says:


Oh wow, thanks! And what an intense website… As you said, I was a little high. But, yeah, I’d say that’s prrrretty impressive. Knowledge seems just to make me hungry for more, though, because now I’d like to know how many matches were won by each reigning number 1…

Alas, I am too lazy for that endeavor. If one were to do a ranking of champions according to that breakdown, though, I have a hunch that there’d be some discrepancy between it and that of time spent at number 1. And then we could all argue about who was more dominant/which era was too weak to challenge. So, yeah, maybe it’s best avoided, ha.

Daniel Says:

Speaking of #1, if Federer is to win AO and Djoko loses before R16, Federer would be #1 after AO. Seems a very slim chance but that is the beauty with Slams, so many points that a shift in rankings is almost always possible.;-)

Matador Says:

Daniel you live in Wonderland!
Federer is not winning AO and Djokovic is the GOAT of plexicushion.
He is the big, big favorite to win for the fifht time. a recod I know he wants badly.

jane Says:

eek daniel! i am fine if nole loses number 1 at some point in the near future, but i hope he doesn’t lose before R16 at the AO. :/

Matador Says:

Raonic will defeat Federer in a major this year. He has the the courage and motivation to do it instead of the overrated Dimitrov.

Wog Boy Says:

jane, don’t worry, don’t you remember posts after Shanghai, Roger fans posts, we had to read day after day, how is he going to win Basel, Paris, London and overtake No1e…well, he won Basel:)

skeezer Says:

“Raonic will defeat Federer in a major this year”
Fed has already beaten Roanic this year. Old news. How about someone he hasn’t played this year but will beat them. Like Nadal?
@Wog Boy,
In a little mood lately aren’t we about Fed fans? ;). I don’t remember the majority of Fed fans saying all that. They were hoping, and face it he was threatening, which cracked me up @ 33, but No1e was in the driver seat and Fed was chasing. All turned out the way it should have.

Wog Boy Says:

skeezer, no, not all Federer fans, just certain fans, and you, Daniel are not one of them. I have good memory, those certain fans will never ever give due credit to Nole. Night he beat Nishikori in London we had old and “new” Federer fans posting ugly posts and calling Nole names just because their favorite missed on #1. You remember that well because you were the only Federer fan who came out and told to that poster something in the lines “it is not nice to post like that about Nole because that is how they use to insult Roger when he was winning”.

autoFilter Says:

Hey, I’m a Federer fan who’s happy to stand up for Novak.

Sometimes, though, I just can’t do it. Because it’s hard to type when your eyes roll so far back in your head that you’re looking at your brain stem. Like when people characterize the second most consistent slam player of the open era as “vulnerable”…

Wog Boy Says:


Sorry, of course you are and there is more but I just mentioned skeezer and Daniel since their post were last on this thread.

autoFilter Says:

Haha, no worries. I’m just feeling a little rowdy tonight, so any excuse will do, I guess ;]

Kimberly Says:

I just don’t see it conceivable that anyone other than djoker wins the aussie—unless it’s another random

Daniel Says:

Matador I don’t think that will happen either, think Djoko have 70 to 80% chance of winning this AO. Just wanted to highlighted that the possibility exist and that’s the great thing about Slams. Even Djoko having a 1500 points lead and defending only QF points from last year, rankings could shift.

Don’t think that would happen mainly to Djoko not losing R2 or 3, because Federer also performs well in AO, he reached every semis or better for the last 11 years in a row, so think he will be in the later stages again as will Djoko.

Daniel Says:

I also think and posted (expecting him to win multiple Slms again as it is about time for him) that this year has Djoko all over it. He already got married, baby, establish relationship with Boris, adapted to new racquet, is fit, ready and on top of his game. Every thing is in right place and no distractions or transition periods. Just focus on his game and play. If he improve his frustration specially with New York crowd and belief an extra inch in himself he can do it.

Add to that all his main rivals have a few question marks (Nadal finding his groove again, Federer age that can show up after a long match any day, Murray still trying to find his full confidence, Wawa pressure to defend, young guys pressure to perform etc…) makes a winning combo for him. Let’s see if he’ll deliver.

elina Says:

Novak is certainly one of the most consistent of players reaching slam finals (and even more so semis). Amazing stats!

But he is relatively vulnerable in the finals with a 7-7 win-loss record (compared to other greats with more slams to their name):

Emerson 80%
Sampras 78%
Nadal 70%
Borg 69%
Federer 68% (at 33 no less!)
Tilden 67%
Laver 65%
Connors 53%
Agassi 53%

Djokovic 50%
Rosewall 50%

Lendl 42%

Even Djokovic, the great player that he is, has recognized this relative vulnerability which is why he said he hired Boris and why he expressed the importance of winning Wimbledon last year.

I think Djokovic has recognized this and has taken the right steps.

Given the state of the game, he has a real opportunity for the calendar slam, a greater chance than any other player has had in decades. Still a tough ask nut I think he wins two at a minimum this year but most likely three.

RZ Says:

@Elina – and some of that has to do with whom Djokovic has played in finals. A lot of losses have come to Rafa and Fed, which makes that 50% look even better as he is in a very tough era. I’d be curious to see what his percentage was before 2011 and after 2011.

elina Says:

1-2 pre 2011 (33%)
3-0 in 2011 (100%)
3-5 post 2011 (38%)

RZ Says:

Thanks Elina. Interesting. My guess is that his post 2011 % will go up.

autoFilter Says:

Hi elina,

I appreciate that you’ve presented facts to make your point. Here’s how I see it with respect to those facts:

If you only contrast someone with those who have done better, than that someone will necessarily come out on the bottom. Personally, I don’t think his record in slam finals at all warrants the characterization of “vulnerability.” One of those losses was to Federer at the US Open in 2007. 3 of those losses were to Nadal at RG. 2 were to Murray during the peak of his career thus far. These are guys who trade wins and losses with one another, but one of them has consistently gone deeper than the others in the past few years.

Also, I don’t see that Novak’s recognition of having room to improve is any proof of such a characterization. He strives to approach perfection and judges himself accordingly. But if anything less than perfection is to be considered “vulnerable,” then the term no longer has a meaningful definition anyway.

I mean, it’s all opinion really, but that’s mine. I do understand and respect where you are coming from, but I disagree. In the end, though, I suppose it comes down to how you want to define vulnerability.

I will say, though, that in order to even lose in a grand slam final, you have to make it there first, and Novak is the only one to have done so 11 of the last 16 times.

elina Says:

Novak wants to be up there with those guys and this is I believe how he would judge himself. He is that kind of Champion and would only compare himself against the very best which many would say is the mark of a true great.

I think while extremely happy with his career and seven slams, he feels he should have converted on more chances (which I believe he is on record as saying – maybe I am wrong).

But, I already agreed with you about his consistency in reaching so many finals and semi finals. Amazing consistency!

Regardless, one of the best ways to win more slams is to have a higher conversion rate which is largely why the players above him have more slams. A bit unfair because most of those guys are retired of course but Nadal is a good example as they are just a year apart. With Nadal’s conversion rate, Novak would have 10 slams now (and perhaps at the expense of Nadal)!

As you say, so many factors and all just opinions!

autoFilter Says:

I fully agree that he (as far as I know) judges himself to such high standards, and I believe you are correct in your recollection of his comments (I recall the same, anyway). My point about that, though, is I don’t see that the one follows from the other. If, for example, Usain Bolt feels that he should really be squeezing a little more speed out of improved form, that doesn’t mean he’s slow. I can’t reasonably sit here and say, “See, I told you Usain Bolt is slow. He himself said he should be able to run faster.” Do you know what I mean?

Now, of course Novak actually lost the matches you are talking about, which to me is a different (and far more persuasive) argument than what he had to say about those losses. And that does bring us back to percentages (among other things, such as to whom those losses came). And, yeah, 50% in isolation certainly does not exemplify domination. And, no, it does not compare well with Nadal’s 68%. But if the bar starts with Nadal, well then we can say there have been 3 people so far who aren’t “vulnerable” in grand slam finals (also, lucky for Nadal that the bar didn’t start at 69% or then we’d be down to just Sampras and Emerson). Although if we’re talking about grand slams in general, then we certainly can’t say Nadal hasn’t been vulnerable, can we? So maybe I don’t even know what that word really means to people.

Again, though, you are right that 50% is not great, but I don’t think that number tells the whole story. The one final I can recall where I felt like he really had no business losing was to Nadal at the US Open. That, to me, was a bad loss. I can’t call losing to Nadal at Roland Garros indicative of vulnerability, although I do think Novak had his chances. Still, having watched (on TV) most of the matches Nadal’s ever played at RG, I’d be hard pressed to say a match on Philippe Chartrier isn’t ultimately on Nadal’s racket. As for losing to Murray, I happen to fall into the camp that believes Murray is possessed of a tennis IQ about as high as has ever graced the court (although I don’t think he always uses it). So I don’t exactly see losing to him while he was really putting all the pieces together right as a black mark on anyone’s resume. Especially not on grass. And Federer at the US Open in 2007 was Federer at the US Open in 2007. Novak’s first final. And IIRC, Nole made a good go of it. Then he used that experience to catapult to victory at the following Australian Open. So from my perspective that was all on the upswing.

Yeah, I dunno. It’s been nice discussing it with you, though, Elina. And I hope you don’t feel like I’m arguing with you like RARGH arguing, because I’m not and certainly don’t mean to come across that way in case I do. I’m enjoying your perspective (among everyone else’s above).

Daniel Says:


what is interesting is that he is pretty much tied with all his main rivals in Slams finals with exception of Nadal where he is 3-4.

Djoko x Federer: 1-1
Federer won US 07′, Djoko Wimbleodn last year

Djoko x Nadal: 3-4
Djoko won 1 AO 12′, 1 WImby 11′ and 1 USO 11′, Nadal won 2 USO (10′,13′) and 2 RG (12′,14′)

Djoko x Murray: 2-2
Djojko won 2 AO (11′, 13′) and Murray won 1 Wimby 13′ and 1 USO 12′

So in view of whom he was playing it is a decent Slam record. But overall indeed is not impressive because he is at 50%, not above 60% as most of the greats of the game. Maybe if he wins more final than lose in the future he may be able te close to 60% or pass that mark which will make his results more fitting. If he keeps the trend and loses 1 and win 1, his percentage won;t increase but his Slam count (which is what matters deep down) will:-)

To me if Federe from now on loses 1 final and win another, I am fine with that, even that it diminishes his percentage. Actually he is 1-2 in his last 3 Slams finals post 2010 when he had his last rreally stellar run.

After AO 2010 Federer was clear cut #1, had won 3 of the last 4 Slams losing a final in USO to Delpo and than he won only 1 Wimby in 2012, lost 2 more major finals and never went to finals of a Hard Court Slam ever again. Nadal and Djoko raised both having years with 3 Slams wins (Nadal in 2010 and Djoko in 2011) and Federer was never the same again bar that Wimpy 2012 run which propelled him to a few more weeks as #1.

That is the thing with tennis, suddenly everything changes and you don’t see it coming that’s why they have to use the most they got when at the top.

autoFilter Says:


I’m inclined to agree that, in the end, the slam count will be more important than the percentage. In general I think actual achievements are what carry the weight, because the stats don’t account for anomalies. Or, rather, anomalies affect the stats, but the numbers don’t necessarily say what one might think they are saying.

One such glaring “anomaly” in this era has been the extraordinary Rafael Nadal. So strong has his reign at the FO been that every other player has been statistically penalized for making it to the final. Had Djokovic never challenged him there, his current percentage would be just above 58. Had Federer never challenged him there, well, I’m not doing all that math… But for both, they’d have better stats had they done worse. Which, to me, is problematic.

Anyway, if my numbers are right, Nole’s fastest route to 60% is to win the next 4 GS finals he contests, which would leave him just above 61% (11/18). That’s a tough ask. It’s a tall order for anyone to even make it to 4 GS finals. Some years back (actually, I think Novak had only claimed the AO at that point), I made the guess that Novak would end his career with 11 grand slams. Now I think he can surpass even that. I think he’ll probably need to win more than 50% of the titles he contests going forward in order to do it, but I’m not convinced he’s ever going to get the overall percentage above 60.

I’m with you on Federer. Really I think everything is gravy at this point, but I want to see him keep going deep and would love to see him contest more finals. And I don’t want him to have to do so without ever claiming another title, because it would be sad to come that close but not succeed.

So true too about the way everything changes. But we are certainly seeing a tenacious group of champions who may well be picking up a few scattered GS titles for years to come after the regularity of their doing so has long since passed. I don’t know. We are yet to see a consistent field beneath them but for a few suspects.

elina Says:

Here is a great chart of number of slams compared to age…

autoFilter, no problems! Great chatting.

autoFilter Says:

Awesome, elina. I’m glad to hear it :)

At risk of being banned for inciting a GOAT debate, I want to share an article I’d read awhile back. It’s a touch outdated now but still insightful, but I can’t recall having ever seen it linked on Tennis-X. I think it presents another insightful look at numbers with regard to longevity and consistent performance. Again, though, I don’t think it tells the whole story.

jane Says:

loving your posts autofilter and daniel. :) nice to read all the reasoning / stats.

autoFilter Says:

Great to know, jane, thanks :)

elina Says:

Haha autoFilter, I think you are at no risk of getting moderated here with that article as 7 of 8 metrics has Roger well above Nadal. As you say, not necessarily a complete picture as can often be the case.

However an interesting one no less to be sure.

One can’t be too careful though and I will hold my personal opinions on a one true GOAT title holder (if there really is one) as this is an unsanctioned area for such debate!

Besides, my own allegiances are with Monfils and Gulbis. I just love those two personalities in spite of their success rates.

Strange that Monfils has not appeared at a warm up event. I hope he is ok for Melbourne.

autoFilter Says:

Ha, no comment re moderation.

From a historical perspective, I have a GOAT opinion, but I’ll refrain from sharing it on this thread as well. I think a different but related debate is that of who has displayed, at some given point or points in time, the highest level of tennis. To my mind, that’s a more difficult question to answer, and there are quite possibly some very seemingly unlikely candidates. It seems from recent posts, for instance, that Sienna might be inclined to choose Marin Cilic. But surely no one would choose him as the GOAT.

One of the points of interest for me in that article is how well Djokovic figures into the mix with even just (at the time) 6 slams to his name. For me, Djokovic has already solidified his place among the greats and is also very much in the conversation regarding those who have put together performances of the highest level.

I can’t say I have any particular allegiance towards either of the, um, enigmatic characters you’ve mentioned, but I do find them both to be quite talented and entertaining.

Hmm, that is odd. I’ve not heard a peep about Monfils that I can recall, actually, and I do follow many tennis-related feeds on Twitter. So maybe no news is good news? Let’s hope for the best, especially given this already injury-riddled start to the season.

elina Says:

Well I will comment on level.

For me, Novak set a new bar during the first eight months of 2011.

I’ve never personally witness tennis played at such a high level. He hasn’t quite gotten back to that amazing level since.

I agree, he is one of the elite greats right up there with Nadal, Federer and Sampras and generally (not everywhere) I feel he doesn’t get the respect he deserves.

jane Says:

elina, are you saying you’re a gulbis and monfils fan foremost? ha! how cool, if so. i believe there was news about monfils earlier – he missed auckland (?) for personal reasons.

elina Says:

jane, well at least until they are eliminated so very much part-time then!

courbon Says:

Interesting article about racquet technology

Top story: Monfils v Auger-Aliassime Headlines Day 1 Laver Cup; Shelton v Fils