PDA

View Full Version : Fun Facts, Top 5'ers since 1980 (partially 1973) Part A


jukka1970
02-23-2009, 11:30 PM
Hi all. I wanted to change up the fun facts a bit, as the others have been in relations to Nadal and Federer. First a few important notes.
1. The rankings didn't start until 1973
2. For the rankings from Jun 1984 onward there is sufficient data every posting.
3. Because of number 2, for the years 1982 and 1983 I checked the top 50 listed in January to see where they eventually landed.
4. Finally because of number 2, in Dec 1980 I checked the top 100.

I stopped there, because of lack of data for positions changing, and because it seemed to be a good year that at least gave people more then 5 years to make the cut. Therefore there will be big names missing such as Laver, Rosewall, etc. Nastase is there because in 1980 he was still in the top 100, and therefore got looked up.

1. Unbelievably within all this data only 76 people have been ranked within the top 5 at some point in their career.

2. 23 players have held the number 1 position, 9 have held the number 2 position, 10 have held the number 3 position, 22 have held the number 4 position, and 12 have held the number 5 position. (meaning the highest rank achieved) And oddly enough more have held the number 1 position then any of the other 4 positions as highest rank.

3. Of the Number 1 players Bjorn Borg leads the win % at 82.60 (730 games), while Marat Safin is at the lowest win % at 62.21% (651 games).
For the Number 2 players, Guillermo Vilas leads with 76.47% (1,207 games), while Magnus Norman is at the lowest at 57.96% (421 games)
For the Number 3 players, Novak Djokovic leads with 72.9% (262 games), while Ivan Ljubicic is at the lowest at 59.79% (577 games)
For the Number 4 players, Andy Murray leads with 71.79% (234 games), while Jonas Bjorkman is at the bottom with 53.35% (776 games)
and Finally for the Number 5 players, Eddie Dibbs leads with 69.86% (836 games), while Rainer Schuettler is at the bottom with 51.47% (577 games)

4. Of all the players, the top 5 amount of games played professionally are the following
Jimmy Connors (1518)
Ivan Lendl (1310)
Guillermo Vilas (1207)
Andre Agassi (1144)
Stefan Edberg (1076) just edging out John McEnroe (1073)

Remember that big names are missing because of when the rankings started, as I'm sure Laver and other names would be somewhere in these groups if they had been born later then they were.

Jukka

veroniquem
02-24-2009, 08:56 AM
Very interesting. Could you also post the statistics about how many weeks each player spent at #2, 3, 4 and 5 (if you have them)? I have it for #1 but not for the other positions, thanks! For #1, I'm surprised that Ferrero had a better win % than Safin. I would never have guessed that Borg would come first at #1 as I thought he hadn't won that much on hard courts. Maybe it's also because he had a short career, he didn't go through the years when the % starts falling a bit, still Borg was a beast!
And to think #1 is the easiest spot to hold (relatively), that's kind of funny... I also had no idea Edberg played so much! I would have guessed about the other players but not Edberg for whatever reason.

seffina
02-24-2009, 09:13 AM
I would like to know that as well. I tried to find it, but I was not able to. I know Nadal held number 2 for a record 160 weeks, but I don't know whose record he broke. Thanks!

veroniquem
02-24-2009, 03:46 PM
I would like to know that as well. I tried to find it, but I was not able to. I know Nadal held number 2 for a record 160 weeks, but I don't know whose record he broke. Thanks!
Exactly, it would be real cool if somebody could find that info somewhere!

jukka1970
02-24-2009, 09:21 PM
Very interesting. Could you also post the statistics about how many weeks each player spent at #2, 3, 4 and 5 (if you have them)? I have it for #1 but not for the other positions, thanks! For #1, I'm surprised that Ferrero had a better win % than Safin. I would never have guessed that Borg would come first at #1 as I thought he hadn't won that much on hard courts. Maybe it's also because he had a short career, he didn't go through the years when the % starts falling a bit, still Borg was a beast!
And to think #1 is the easiest spot to hold (relatively), that's kind of funny... I also had no idea Edberg played so much! I would have guessed about the other players but not Edberg for whatever reason.

I'll do some looking into seeing how long they spent at each ranking. It's a bit tougher because I'll have to go through their entire history of playing and watch the ranks. For some it'll be fairly easy as they tended to stay on one path, ie Nadal, Federer, meaning that they weren't flip flopping between the top 5 numbers, as opposed to people like Sampras, Agassi who did a lot of flip flopping between 1 and 2 depending on what time of the year it was.

I was really surprised myself at how much Edberg played, and was amazed just how many years I had to go back til he was finally out of the top 10. I mean, he was obviously out of the top 10 toward the end of his career, but once he was in the top 10, I had to go back a long ways before his name wasn't there. (Checking in reverse order of years and dates made it much easier to see who was where)

And I know, isn't that a hoot that it seemed easier to make it to number 1 then the other 4 positions.

Jukka

davey
02-24-2009, 09:46 PM
It makes sense that the Djokovic and Murray have the best winning percentages at 3 and 4. They are still on the upswing in their careers. If they don't get any higher by the time they retire most likely their winning percentages will have come down and whoever is the current number 3 or 4 will have the best winning percentage. Nadal would probably have the best #2 percentage if he hadn't overtaken Federer for #2 and since Federer has already been #1 he doesn't count for #2. So of retired players, who has the best winning percentage at 3 and 4?

veroniquem
02-24-2009, 09:51 PM
I'll do some looking into seeing how long they spent at each ranking. It's a bit tougher because I'll have to go through their entire history of playing and watch the ranks. For some it'll be fairly easy as they tended to stay on one path, ie Nadal, Federer, meaning that they weren't flip flopping between the top 5 numbers, as opposed to people like Sampras, Agassi who did a lot of flip flopping between 1 and 2 depending on what time of the year it was.

I was really surprised myself at how much Edberg played, and was amazed just how many years I had to go back til he was finally out of the top 10. I mean, he was obviously out of the top 10 toward the end of his career, but once he was in the top 10, I had to go back a long ways before his name wasn't there. (Checking in reverse order of years and dates made it much easier to see who was where)

And I know, isn't that a hoot that it seemed easier to make it to number 1 then the other 4 positions.

Jukka
Yes very funny, maybe it's because the #1 players have reached that spot by being exceptionally good and when you're exceptionally good it's easier to remain dominant? Anyway a lot of work you've been doing to gather that info, congrats!

jukka1970
02-25-2009, 01:53 AM
It makes sense that the Djokovic and Murray have the best winning percentages at 3 and 4. They are still on the upswing in their careers. If they don't get any higher by the time they retire most likely their winning percentages will have come down and whoever is the current number 3 or 4 will have the best winning percentage. Nadal would probably have the best #2 percentage if he hadn't overtaken Federer for #2 and since Federer has already been #1 he doesn't count for #2. So of retired players, who has the best winning percentage at 3 and 4?

Good point that they're probably up there because of being in the beg-middle to middle of their careers. And you're right if Nadal hadn't made it to number 1 yet, he would have been a huge distance ahead of the other number 2's as Vilas was at 76.47% and the next best was Orantes at 72.29%. And because Fed's already been to number 1, he also wouldn't be grouped with the 2's. So yes both Nadal and Fed, way ahead of the number 2's best %.

As for the other 2, Djokovic at #3 is leading pretty well at about 2% ahead of the next best, but at #4 Murray is only .09% ahead of the next in line. The other thing to remember is that to keep these averages they need to be winning a little more then 7 games out of every 10 that they play, just 7 will actually lower their average, and because it's early in their careers this will weigh heavier with less games played overall.

But of course the other thing is it all depends how how Nadal and Federer are doing, because if Djokovic and Murray keep winning then yes they keep the %'s up, but could pass either each other or move up in rank. So it's kind of interesting how people can have great %, but be stopped from the upper tier.

Jukka

TheMagicianOfPrecision
02-25-2009, 04:19 AM
Exactly, it would be real cool if somebody could find that info somewhere!

I think Michael Chang held the no 2 spot for 109 weeks.