View Full Version : Objective way to define decline - Sets/Games lost to outside top 20 players

03-09-2012, 02:46 PM
I was trying to think of an objective way to measure decline. In general it's hard to measure the decline of a player by benchmarking against another player, because the other player's performance level is not a stationary quantity. But I think that if you benchmark top players vs a group, you probably get a much clearer picture. In particular I think benchmarking against players outside the top 20 is a great way to gauge decline.

I would say 2 years of consecutively performing worse vs those outside the top 20 ( in terms of sets lost, not just matches lost) would be a good indicator of decline.

I haven't pulled any numbers yet, hope someone like Mustard can do that :D

03-09-2012, 04:07 PM
Why use outside top 20? Why not just look at their W-L records for a season. Calculate the average # of losses for a 3 to 4 year window and let that decide your peak years.

03-09-2012, 04:12 PM
Why not go simply by ranking fall?

03-09-2012, 04:24 PM
Why not go simply by ranking fall?

BecAuse some people suggest that competition might get stronger or weaker over time.

03-10-2012, 10:45 PM
Ask clarky.