ELO Ranking instead of ATP

[Lord Anomander]

There are many flaws with the current system, but do you think another system such as ELO would be better (http://tennisabstract.com/reports/atp_elo_ratings.html)?

The advantages are rather obvious, losses to weaker players count more, consistency is important, and you can't simply win a big title and shoot up in rankings. But there are also disadvantages such as the status of the tournament itself doesn't matter (which isn't necessarily bad though, if there is a 250/500 with many good players participating you could earn many ELO points and smaller tournaments could be more attractive) and ELO doesn't look at recent performances (at least not the last 52 weeks).

You also don't lose points during injuries which is a good thing in my opinion but could be abused to maintain a good ranking if you are in a bad form.

Despite thinking that Murray deserves the #1 spot I also like to look at the ELO rating as an indicator of performance rather than the official ranking.

 

[xFedal]

what is Djokovic elo rating for 2011 he went on 43 wins streak defeating the best players of all time 10-1 against Fedal... that season he won more points than Feds 07 i think

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

what is Djokovic elo rating for 2011 he went on 43 wins streak defeating the best players of all time 10-1 against Fedal... that season he won more points than Feds 07 i think

His peak Elo came this year after Miami. Shows that Elo ranking, like the official one, isn't necessarily set to reflect current level at all.

 

[xFedal]

His peak Elo came this year after Miami. Shows that Elo ranking, like the official one, isn't necessarily set to reflect current level at all.

But what was djokovic 2011 rating after uso11 he lost 2 matches and 1 was retirement in 9 months in 2011... what was his rating after 2011 uso victory?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

ELO not looking at recent performances is a colossal disadvantage. Thiem gained a huge boost after beating Mugdal on clay and Fedmug on grass, despite them being removed from their prime form. Ditto Raonic at Wimbledon. Zverev Sr. would have gained a massive boost had he beaten Djokovic in Shanghai, and that would be disproportionate, too.

 

[Meles]

But what was djokovic 2011 rating after uso11 he lost 2 matches and 1 was retirement in 9 months in 2011... what was his rating after 2011 uso victory?

That was his peak until he handily surpassed it with his recent run. Statistically Djokovic's serve was much weaker on hard courts in 2011. He's had much more solid serving numbers starting in 2012 and of course he had that crazy good 2nd serve in his recent run until his elbow fell off this season.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

But what was djokovic 2011 rating after uso11 he lost 2 matches and 1 was retirement in 9 months in 2011... what was his rating after 2011 uso victory?

I dunno, but in 2015, his then-peak ranking after RG SF (before the loss to Wawrinka) was 1 point higher than Federer's career peak (Dubai 07), so his ranking after USO '11, whatever it was, must have been lesser, even if close.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Statistically Djokovic's serve was much weaker on hard courts in 2011. He's had much more solid serving numbers starting in 2012 and of course he had that crazy good 2nd serve in his recent run until his elbow fell off this season.

Obviously true, but it's also true that his return was much stronger in 2011 than in any other year, 2011 is his absolute GOAT returning peak.

When you look at individual tournaments to compare Djokovic's AO-USO run in 2011 and 2015, only Wimbledon got better due to improved serve. His AO & USO level was surely better in 2011. RG was maybe around the same, yes he did beat Nadal in 2015, but that was not the fearsome Nadal who hardly ever lost on clay, not the Nadal he straight-setted twice on clay in 2011...

 

[Meles]

ELO not looking at recent performances is a colossal disadvantage. Thiem gained a huge boost after beating Mugdal on clay and Fedmug on grass, despite them being removed from their prime form. Ditto Raonic at Wimbledon. Zverev Sr. would have gained a massive boost had he beaten Djokovic in Shanghai, and that would be disproportionate, too.

Zverev. Sr beat Wawrinka and actually does get some value from taking a set from Djokovic. ELO has Mischa at 59 currently. His ranking is 53. ELO looks superior. It shows Zverev's peak back in 2009 when he got his best ranking.

The system potentially has issues when the top players suddenly retire and their ELOs drop out of the system. Thiem's little spikes have been eroded by all his recent losses. Some may say it fails with Del Potro, but it high rating looks like a success (tennisabstract ELO).

 

[Red Rick]

ELO rankings is a retarted idea. Tennis would lose fans because they don't understand jack **** of the rankings anymore, and it's not even better than the ranking we have now.

It's straight forward
It rewards consistency
It rewards winning big at the highest level.
It's just about perfect.

 

[Meles]

Obviously true, but it's also true that his return was much stronger in 2011 than in any other year, 2011 is his absolute GOAT returning peak.

When you look at individual tournaments to compare Djokovic's AO-USO run in 2011 and 2015, only Wimbledon got better due to improved serve. His AO & USO level was surely better in 2011. RG was maybe around the same, yes he did beat Nadal in 2015, but that was not the fearsome Nadal who hardly ever lost on clay, not the Nadal he straight-setted twice on clay in 2011...

Serve is such a critical component to champions that its hard to rate 2011 highly. Murray's return this year is off the chart, but Djokovic in 2011 did win 0.5% more return points which is decidely better. How a player does in neutral rallies is what we see with our eyeballs, but the game is so much more. Weak serve is not peak. Djokovic has strong return numbers over his recent peak. I'd argue he is a stronger, more flexible player. Big fan of his game until the Guru Imaz phase. I'd thought he could get back in very strong form if the elbow would heel (but it hasn't) and now the Imaz phase looks like a complete disaster in the making. Ugh. Where on earth are Becker and Vajda?:
http://www.foxsports.com.au/tennis/...d/news-story/9414e6d90787392b3bd95701784af704

 

[Meles]

ELO rankings is a retarted idea. Tennis would lose fans because they don't understand jack **** of the rankings anymore, and it's not even better than the ranking we have now.

It's straight forward
It rewards consistency
It rewards winning big at the highest level.
It's just about perfect.

ELO would have Delpo in WTF and even Tsonga. No Thiem. Probably Monday update will have Cilic ahead of Berdy. Looks pretty damn good to me.

ELO might heighten the importance of matches over tournaments. A lot of great tennis happens and its not in the designated events. Great players can meet anywhere.

 

[hipolymer]

like the official one, isn't necessarily set to reflect current level at all.

:facepalm: How exactly do you propose that a points system would measure the "level" of a player? Are you serious?

 

[Lord Anomander]

Serve is such a critical component to champions that its hard to rate 2011 highly. Murray's return this year is off the chart, but Djokovic in 2011 did win 0.5% more return points which is decidely better. How a player does in neutral rallies is what we see with our eyeballs, but the game is so much more. Weak serve is not peak. Djokovic has strong return numbers over his recent peak. I'd argue he is a stronger, more flexible player. Big fan of his game until the Guru Imaz phase. I'd thought he could get back in very strong form if the elbow would heel (but it hasn't) and now the Imaz phase looks like a complete disaster in the making. Ugh. Where on earth are Becker and Vajda?:
http://www.foxsports.com.au/tennis/...d/news-story/9414e6d90787392b3bd95701784af704

This guru stuff is absolute nonsense. There is no way this will help him to get back to where he was pre-FO. Yes, he might seek balance in his life and probably that is exactly what he needs, but seldom a random guy will help you to find it.

I really hope Nole finds back to his usual form because at the moment the Murray dominance is even more lopsided than Djokovic'. Although it only lasted a short amount of time, so no complaints.

Back to topic: yes, as I have said the ELO rating is not perfect but the current system isn't as well. Many people are complaining that GS victories are gifted by an easy draw. An easy draw would give less ranking than a tough one. However, it's true that you can gain many points by winning against a "fading" player. But such a win will only count so much if you don't start losing to lesser ranked players, so I'm sure it evens out somehow and some time.

What I also doubt is that the ELO system is too hard to comprehend. I'm sure you could go so far to adapt the system by using the tournament level as a multiplier. Overall the two ranking lists are not too far apart except by ranking injured players a lot higher. Maybe you could implement a loss in points if you don't play tournaments regularly.

The ATP list might be easy and straightforward, but outliers are dominant. For example, Thiem profits much more from a lucky draw at the FO than from beating Federer with back pain in Rome. The difference is that the FO points are gone after a year but then again: if you don't deliver your ELO points are gone too.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Serve is such a critical component to champions that its hard to rate 2011 highly. Murray's return this year is off the chart, but Djokovic in 2011 did win 0.5% more return points which is decidely better. How a player does in neutral rallies is what we see with our eyeballs, but the game is so much more. Weak serve is not peak. Djokovic has strong return numbers over his recent peak. I'd argue he is a stronger, more flexible player. Big fan of his game until the Guru Imaz phase.

Serve is crucial, but Djok's return was so unearthly in 2011, and his BP-saving clutchness that resulted in quite fewer breaks than simple serve numbers would suggest so strong, that I still don't buy that a strengthened serve, even a substantially strengthened 2nd serve (4% increase!) necessarily makes his level betwen AO & USO 15 higher than between AO & USO 11. Of course his post-USO season was the best in 2015, but had injury not derailed Djovak in 2011, who knows?

I prefer to look on a tournament-to-tournament basis, that allows for more precision...

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

:facepalm: How exactly do you propose that a points system would measure the "level" of a player? Are you serious?

It is indeed impossible, hence any system is a more or less arbitrary way to rank players according to some set parameters, therefore complaining about the existing system being inferior to some other possible system is pointless, as long as the system is fair and rewards everyone equally for equal results.

 

[Meles]

This guru stuff is absolute nonsense. There is no way this will help him to get back to where he was pre-FO. Yes, he might seek balance in his life and probably that is exactly what he needs, but seldom a random guy will help you to find it.

I really hope Nole finds back to his usual form because at the moment the Murray dominance is even more lopsided than Djokovic'. Although it only lasted a short amount of time, so no complaints.

Back to topic: yes, as I have said the ELO rating is not perfect but the current system isn't as well. Many people are complaining that GS victories are gifted by an easy draw. An easy draw would give less ranking than a tough one. However, it's true that you can gain many points by winning against a "fading" player. But such a win will only count so much if you don't start losing to lesser ranked players, so I'm sure it evens out somehow and some time.

What I also doubt is that the ELO system is too hard to comprehend. I'm sure you could go so far to adapt the system by using the tournament level as a multiplier. Overall the two ranking lists are not too far apart except by ranking injured players a lot higher. Maybe you could implement a loss in points if you don't play tournaments regularly.

The ATP list might be easy and straightforward, but outliers are dominant. For example, Thiem profits much more from a lucky draw at the FO than from beating Federer with back pain in Rome. The difference is that the FO points are gone after a year but then again: if you don't deliver your ELO points are gone too.

Imaz is a former top 200 player and runs a tennis academy so he's legit in a way. LOL. I want to see Becker, Vayda, and Imaz at WTF. As a fan, this must be driving you crazy, but it looks like TTW gold from my perspective.


The rankings system is fine and we have our race to the WTF. I really see ELO as another tool for evaluating players. It is such a simple number compared to going through a bunch of stats and then people complain that some players played lesser tournaments. ELO takes care of that and people can nit pick about beating someone when they're sick or off form, but it all evens out at the end of the day.

Murray in 2009 is a great example. It had been his peak year which is strange considering he'd only just had that 2008 US Open final and then the Wimby SF. You'd be tempted to say ELO is off, but its also Murray's best stats year on hard courts until this year.

ELO can't be used in place of ranking because you could have someone out for several months at the end of the year still maintain a great ELO, but they'd not be worthy having not played in several months. Race points catches that.

It would very cool if ELO was used by some tournaments for seeding. Maybe alternates for WTF (we'd get Delpo instead of Berdy.). Qualification seeding. I see as a problem for race points. It would be cool maybe to use ranking for direct entry into events, but ELO for seeding. Wimbledon does something like this. Players need to be rewarding for playing by getting into future events.

Seeding would be cool with ELO. Its such an advantage being a 1 or 2 seed versus 3 or 4. ELO kind of looks through all those advantages accumulated due to seeding so it would be a fairer way to go. Murray's ELO is actually down right now from just after the Olympics whereas his points are through the rough lately. ELO takes care of all those weak field arguments with Murray.

 

[Meles]

Serve is crucial, but Djok's return was so unearthly in 2011, and his BP-saving clutchness that resulted in quite fewer breaks than simple serve numbers would suggest so strong, that I still don't buy that a strengthened serve, even a substantially strengthened 2nd serve (4% increase!) necessarily makes his level betwen AO & USO 15 higher than between AO & USO 11. Of course his post-USO season was the best in 2015, but had injury not derailed Djovak in 2011, who knows?

I prefer to look on a tournament-to-tournament basis, that allows for more precision...

Well it certainly was a special a year and a bolt of lighting that hit the top players of the tour. Players had to adapt to a new number one. I'm going to pull the Djokovic hard court stats from 2011 through the US Open...
That just changed my opinion on 2011.
Djokovic goes up to a whopping 46.8% of return points won; that is simply legendary.
Serve points won goes up a little bit to 67.0%, but 2015 on hard courts was 69.1%. The Dominance ratio is the same as 2015, but I'd now have to give a strong nod to 2011 through the US Open because Nole won an astounding 56.9% of his hard court points. That is really something. His 56.0% years are top of the heap ATG, but 56.9% is just huge.

People can claim Federer or so and so was not strong that year, but the points numbers are against everyone so they won't get inflated much because of a few poor performances in big matches. I'm on board. @Djokovic2011 was his best year. That evil Federer beating him at the French in 2011.

 

[Meles]

:facepalm: How exactly do you propose that a points system would measure the "level" of a player? Are you serious?

ELO is a better and more reactive system than rankings, but move to something like grass play and it really does become impossible to measure the level of a player. Any short time span has this issue. If you are betting or predicting, ranking is a valuable tool and ELO might be more valuable.

Tennis Abtract has something called JRank that does very well forecasting matches:
http://tennisabstract.com/jrank/atp-hard.html

It has hard court ratings:
1 Novak Djokovic 8842
2 Andy Murray 6347
3 Roger Federer 4689
4 Stanislas Wawrinka 3346
5 Kei Nishikori 3324
6 Milos Raonic 2893
7 Nick Kyrgios 2884
8 Rafael Nadal 2808
9 Juan Martin Del Potro 2713
10 Gael Monfils 2256
11 Marin Cilic 2234
12 Alexander Zverev 2198
13 Jo Wilfried Tsonga 1971
14 Grigor Dimitrov 1956
15 Richard Gasquet 1868
16 Jack Sock 1857
17 Tomas Berdych 1611
18 Roberto Bautista Agut 1523
19 Dominic Thiem 1522
20 Kevin Anderson 1519

and clay court ratings:
1 Novak Djokovic 13763
2 Andy Murray 9008
3 Stanislas Wawrinka 3922
4 Rafael Nadal 3749
5 Roger Federer 3481
6 Kei Nishikori 3141
7 Nick Kyrgios 2945
8 Milos Raonic 2315
9 Gael Monfils 2187
10 Jo Wilfried Tsonga 2082
11 Dominic Thiem 2012
12 Grigor Dimitrov 1801
13 Richard Gasquet 1724
14 Tomas Berdych 1632
15 Marin Cilic 1558
16 Jack Sock 1509
17 Alexander Zverev 1487
18 David Goffin 1325
19 David Ferrer 1145
20 Gilles Simon 1133

Overall ratings:
1 Novak Djokovic 10539
2 Andy Murray 7331
3 Roger Federer 4470
4 Stanislas Wawrinka 3674
5 Kei Nishikori 3356
6 Rafael Nadal 3231
7 Nick Kyrgios 2988
8 Milos Raonic 2890
9 Gael Monfils 2261
10 Marin Cilic 2109
11 Jo Wilfried Tsonga 2044
12 Grigor Dimitrov 1949
13 Alexander Zverev 1912
14 Richard Gasquet 1851
15 Juan Martin Del Potro 1801
16 Jack Sock 1743
17 Dominic Thiem 1742
18 Tomas Berdych 1622
19 Kevin Anderson 1386
20 David Goffin 1353

I really like the overall ratings. Berd ditch 18. Zverev 13. Dimitrov 12. Krygios 7. Thiem down at 17 and Lucky Pouille only gets a 31 which is much lower than ranking or ELO. This is a very nice ranking system and passes the eyeball test. This looks like the real top 20 on current level.

"JRank is a ranking system for professional tennis that better predicts match outcomes than ATP or WTA rankings. It awards points based on opponents beaten and the recency of each match rather than tournament type and round."

 

[Dave1982]

The ELO Rankings system has been proposed & debated on these boards many times over & just like current ranking system used by ATP it has its pros & cons.

In many ways the ELO system is very similar to the current FIFA system used for ranking International teams...which no one fully understands. I like the idea of weighting a players win/loss based upon perceived strength/weakness of opposition however that in itself of course isn't fool proof & there are many real life scenarios where you'd question the fairness of the ultimate point distribution.

The current points system used by the ATP for ranking players is actually pretty good as its easy to understand, rewards consistency & allows tournaments to be easily distinguished.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Well it certainly was a special a year and a bolt of lighting that hit the top players of the tour. Players had to adapt to a new number one. I'm going to pull the Djokovic hard court stats from 2011 through the US Open...
That just changed my opinion on 2011.
Djokovic goes up to a whopping 46.8% of return points won; that is simply legendary.
Serve points won goes up a little bit to 67.0%, but 2015 on hard courts was 69.1%. The Dominance ratio is the same as 2015, but I'd now have to give a strong nod to 2011 through the US Open because Nole won an astounding 56.9% of his hard court points. That is really something. His 56.0% years are top of the heap ATG, but 56.9% is just huge.

People can claim Federer or so and so was not strong that year, but the points numbers are against everyone so they won't get inflated much because of a few poor performances in big matches. I'm on board. @Djokovic2011 was his best year. That evil Federer beating him at the French in 2011.

I told you, see
I had looked up those numbers myself, and they are really convincing that this may be the overall highest level across all surfaces throughout the AO-USO stretch (perhaps shared with McEnroe's 84, that year is hailed as legendary, evil Lendl coming back from two sets to love down at RG ), yet Peakingforslamserer had something to say about RG and almost said it about the USO too, but Nole got to him just in time to shut him up. That was not even peak Fed, though, and this is the factoid that gives credence to the idea that Federer is Djokovic's equal at RG and better at the USO peak for peak, and Wimbledon is obvious.

Still, I should watch more of 2011ovic's matches to see this level with my own eyes, it must have been something uniquely awesome with such percentages. Maybe I'll grow more partial to Djovak over watching

 

[Meles]

I told you, see
I had looked up those numbers myself, and they are really convincing that this may be the overall highest level across all surfaces throughout the AO-USO stretch (perhaps shared with McEnroe's 84, that year is hailed as legendary, evil Lendl coming back from two sets to love down at RG ), yet Peakingforslamserer had something to say about RG and almost said it about the USO too, but Nole got to him just in time to shut him up. That was not even peak Fed, though, and this is the factoid that gives credence to the idea that Federer is Djokovic's equal at RG and better at the USO peak for peak, and Wimbledon is obvious.

Still, I should watch more of 2011ovic's matches to see this level with my own eyes, it must have been something uniquely awesome with such percentages. Maybe I'll grow more partial to Djovak over watching

Djokovic 2011 was dominant on clay and would have beat Nadal that year. I'd rate him over Federer on clay for sure, but Federer is very, very strong on clay. Federer is better at US Open and Wimbledon. Djkovic is better for more of the season, so he's right up there with Federer and statistically a bit better on hard courts, but again Federer has the better serve and that's very, very important for slams especially. Serve is what's held Murray back all these years and now that he's getting a bit better on serve its making all the difference for him.

I need to watch some Djokovic 2011 its been five years.

Federer is actually a rough match up for Djokovic so head to head is a bit of a trap like it is when comparing Nadal and Federer. Murray and Djokovic are about the same age, but Djokovic seemed to be about a year ahead of Murray. Now it seems Murray is about to have his peak run. Djokovic had two peaks more or less with his prime years starting in 2011. His stats before 2011 aren't in the same league. (Murray 2009 makes my head shake every time I think of it, showed more potential that year than Djoko did before 2011 when looking at points stats and ELO.)

 

[Tarkovsky]

The ELO Rankings system has been proposed & debated on these boards many times over & just like current ranking system used by ATP it has its pros & cons.

In many ways the ELO system is very similar to the current FIFA system used for ranking International teams...which no one fully understands. I like the idea of weighting a players win/loss based upon perceived strength/weakness of opposition however that in itself of course isn't fool proof & there are many real life scenarios where you'd question the fairness of the ultimate point distribution.

The current points system used by the ATP for ranking players is actually pretty good as its easy to understand, rewards consistency & allows tournaments to be easily distinguished.

ELO is an interesting system, it has pros & cons, it is moving slower, here is a comparison between ATP points and ELO ratings this year:

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Djokovic 2011 was dominant on clay and would have beat Nadal that year.

Likely so, although not a given, since Nadal is/was notably tougher at RG than anywhere else.

'd rate him over Federer on clay for sure, but Federer is very, very strong on clay.

I do agree with this; I was considering a peak comparison at RG specifically. Djokovic has shown a higher peak level at the clay masters than RG, I think.

Federer is better at US Open and Wimbledon. Djkovic is better for more of the season, so he's right up there with Federer and statistically a bit better on hard courts, but again Federer has the better serve and that's very, very important for slams especially. Serve is what's held Murray back all these years and now that he's getting a bit better on serve its making all the difference for him.

Federer perfected the art of peaking of the slams + YEC, leaving even the great Sampras behind in this skill. This is what has given him the edge in the most important statistic. Mastersovic is of course more consistent overall, hence Masters GOAT, completely deserved.

I need to watch some Djokovic 2011 its been five years.

Federer is actually a rough match up for Djokovic so head to head is a bit of a trap like it is when comparing Nadal and Federer.

Seriously, it's this lopsided not because of some mythical match-up advantage clueless folks are talking about. There are three factors:
a) Nadal owns Federer on clay+slow Miami. No wonder, since Nadal is the clay GOAT, and Miami is Fed's worst masters by level of play (lucky to catch a break between Agassi and Djokovic in Miami, but unlucky at MC/Rome to run into strong Nadal/Djokovic/Wawrinka, it evens out) - total H2H 15-3 for Nadal there. Now as for why it is this lopsided, think whatever, maybe match-up advantage, I think Nadal is just plain better.
b) Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009, the two most famous losses that Rafatards drool over every day. Blaming match-up for those is stupid, Federer was simply mentally shot after the RG ownage (still fought back immensely at Wim and almost clawed his way to victory, that's a heroic act if anything). Could've won if not for unforced errors in crucial times because he lacked confidence, silly fedmug. Mental advantage sure goes to Nadal; nothing to do with match-up, everything to do with the clay season coming first and messing with Fed's head, because he always loses.
c) Nadal vulturing wins over Weakerer in 2013 and early 2014. Nice free wins for prime/peak Rafa. He was even nice enough to return the favour in Basel '15. Three extra wins on Roger's territory still swing the H2H nicely.

Conclusion: Rafael has a strong mental edge on fedmug for an assortment of reasons, and that's it. What's this "match-up" mugs are talking about?

Murray and Djokovic are about the same age, but Djokovic seemed to be about a year ahead of Murray. Now it seems Murray is about to have his peak run. Djokovic had two peaks more or less with his prime years starting in 2011. His stats before 2011 aren't in the same league. (Murray 2009 makes my head shake every time I think of it, showed more potential that year than Djoko did before 2011 when looking at points stats and ELO.)

murry goat

 

[Meles]

Likely so, although not a given, since Nadal is/was notably tougher at RG than anywhere else.


I do agree with this; I was considering a peak comparison at RG specifically. Djokovic has shown a higher peak level at the clay masters than RG, I think.



Federer perfected the art of peaking of the slams + YEC, leaving even the great Sampras behind in this skill. This is what has given him the edge in the most important statistic. Mastersovic is of course more consistent overall, hence Masters GOAT, completely deserved.






Seriously, it's this lopsided not because of some mythical match-up advantage clueless folks are talking about. There are three factors:
a) Nadal owns Federer on clay+slow Miami. No wonder, since Nadal is the clay GOAT, and Miami is Fed's worst masters by level of play (lucky to catch a break between Agassi and Djokovic in Miami, but unlucky at MC/Rome to run into strong Nadal/Djokovic/Wawrinka, it evens out) - total H2H 15-3 for Nadal there. Now as for why it is this lopsided, think whatever, maybe match-up advantage, I think Nadal is just plain better.
b) Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009, the two most famous losses that Rafatards drool over every day. Blaming match-up for those is stupid, Federer was simply mentally shot after the RG ownage (still fought back immensely at Wim and almost clawed his way to victory, that's a heroic act if anything). Could've won if not for unforced errors in crucial times because he lacked confidence, silly fedmug. Mental advantage sure goes to Nadal; nothing to do with match-up, everything to do with the clay season coming first and messing with Fed's head, because he always loses.
c) Nadal vulturing wins over Weakerer in 2013 and early 2014. Nice free wins for prime/peak Rafa. He was even nice enough to return the favour in Basel '15. Three extra wins on Roger's territory still swing the H2H nicely.

Conclusion: Rafael has a strong mental edge on fedmug for an assortment of reasons, and that's it. What's this "match-up" mugs are talking about?



murry goat

Yes the H2H is stupid. No one now in their right mind would claim Nadal is betterer and Federer. Federer has a less pronounced similar advantage over Djokovic. Given the age gap what Federer has done against Djokovic is phenomenal, but you can't quite use that as an argument that he's a better player overall. Djokovic was more dominant in his best years. Federer has the better career and is the longevity GOAT. Federer clearly is the greater player, but Djokovic's peak years stand above most players.

If you are a Djokovic fan, my condolescences for the upcoming Imazing period in his career.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Given the age gap what Federer has done against Djokovic is phenomenal, but you can't quite use that as an argument that he's a better player overall.

Well, the thing is, Oldеrer has no mental advantage over Djokovic at all, so when he wins, it must be simply because his game is better.
I agree that listing his numerous BO3 victories over prime Novak doesn't add anything, because the more important point is where rather than how many. Indeed, Servebotterer could still snub Djok on fast surfaces without getting broken once (which is huge against Djokovic!) despite Novak's GOAT return and stuff (to me, this just demonstrates that, as a standalone shot, the serve beats the return when both are on equal level, with Federer's peak serving performances being near-GOAT level for sure), but, due to improved serve game, he was actually close to peak Federer in overall game on fastest hard courts, so the age argument is improper.

Djokovic was more dominant in his best years. Federer has the better career and is the longevity GOAT. Federer clearly is the greater player, but Djokovic's peak years stand above most players.

Well, tbh this can still be challenged. Extremely dominant in 2011, but faltered post-USO due to injury. Masters record in 2015, but 6 losses in a season vs Fed's 4 in 2005 and 5 in 2006. More accomplished season - 2015. More dominant? Probably not.

I imagine the battle for #1 between peak Djokerer (suppose Nadal is temporarily removed from the equation due to injury or something) would have been fierce, and I've no conviction either way, both were insanely dominant against others, and it's close between them two. I think, though, that Federer's "peak for the majors" approach, even at the cost of lesser tournaments, could net him more slams on average (Wim + USO combo, yeah)...but Djok could stll end it as #1, and we'd get forums in ruins like this year.

If you are a Djokovic fan, my condolescences for the upcoming Imazing period in his career.

I'm not, but I respect him and wouldn't want whatever mental issues he's been struggling with to really obstruct his life. I hope Djokovic sorts himself out before any long-term damage is done; he doesn't deserve to go haywire.

 

[KINGROGER]

Peak Federer vs Peak Djokovic isn't really close. Post prime Gramperer owned Peak Djokovic at RG and Wimbledon, outplayed him at USO but choked, outplayed him 1st set of AO SF but choked again.

Fed's 06 year is better than both 11 and 15. 2011 was a great year, but slightly overrated I feel due to the lucky USO SF and the fact that he avoided Federer at Wimbledon.

Anyway, put Djokovic's prime in 04-09 instead of 11-16 and how many slams would he win? Maybe 08 AO still (loses 04-07 to Fed , Safin, Fed, Fed on Rebound Ace, then 09 to Fedal) maybe 04 FO then zero other RG. Zero Wimbledon. Zero USO.

So 2-3 slams at most really. Djokovic vultured most of his slams once Fedal declined (to his credit). To be fair Federer vultured 09 FO with Rafa losing early, but at least he beat class acts Haas, Del Potro, Soderling. The 2016 FO field was pathetic.

 

[Meles]

Peak Federer vs Peak Djokovic isn't really close. Post prime Gramperer owned Peak Djokovic at RG and Wimbledon, outplayed him at USO but choked, outplayed him 1st set of AO SF but choked again.

Fed's 06 year is better than both 11 and 15. 2011 was a great year, but slightly overrated I feel due to the lucky USO SF and the fact that he avoided Federer at Wimbledon.

Anyway, put Djokovic's prime in 04-09 instead of 11-16 and how many slams would he win? Maybe 08 AO still (loses 04-07 to Fed , Safin, Fed, Fed on Rebound Ace, then 09 to Fedal) maybe 04 FO then zero other RG. Zero Wimbledon. Zero USO.

So 2-3 slams at most really. Djokovic vultured most of his slams once Fedal declined (to his credit). To be fair Federer vultured 09 FO with Rafa losing early, but at least he beat class acts Haas, Del Potro, Soderling. The 2016 FO field was pathetic.

The 2016 clay season was loaded. You are claiming Haas as some kind of clay great?

Hmmm. The head to head is a minor factor unless you care to entertain Nadal as GOAT.

Which AO SF are you talking about (not 2016.) Federer is decidely better at the US Open and Wimbledon so you don't need to argue that and I'd argue as good as Djokovic was at the US Open in 2015, the conditions greatly aided him against Federer. Federer in 2015 was a different player despite what all the so called experts on here maintain. He'd beaten Djokovic easily in Cincy and would have probably won in hotter conditions in 2015. I rate Federer's recent hard court game very, very highly. We can delude ourselves about stats, but the reality is Fed has adapted to a different tour and produced excellent results with a very strong serve game and a very nice return game on hard courts (he's not anywhere near peak on grass or clay for return, but serve game is solid.) If you understand that Federer was a very dominant hard court player through the 2016 Australian Open back into 2015 then you'd appreciate Djokovic a bit more. Sadly most Folderer fans dismiss all stats and fall prey to ridiculuous ideas that the tour is decidely weaker than it was in Fed's prime which is lunacy.

Be happy on clay that Federer spoiled the Djokovic2011 slam. Federer is and was a great clay court player, but when you look at his early and later years its clear that its his weakest surface. Djokovic is better on clay.

I won't pretend to be an expert on the differences between rebound ace and plexicushion. Its a nice story that Djokovic won Auz the first year of plexicushion, but rebound ace was also a slow surface. I'm sure (like Agassi), Djokovic would have been very, very strong on that surface. Federer was able to win Auz in 2010 on plexicushion so I'm not so sure that the difference is earth shattering.

You over rate Nadal highly if you think Djokovic's (or now Murray's prime) would have left him out of the mix with Fedal with only 2-3 slams, escpecially in the later years of their prime period. Murray and Djokovic are vastly superior in their later years though if Federer had made adjustments to his game and equipment long before 2015 he might have done much better in his middle years.

Safin is a joke. Move him on today's tour and he'd be crushed with his complete lack of training. Move prime Federer and Nadal into the later years they would lose a lot of slams. Their games are antiquated. Nadal does not have the return or serve game to compete. Federer would not dominate the heavy ground game of today. It would be totally different.

These fantasies are a TTW speciality for which I care little. The game has changed. We know Djokovic is playing worse at this point of the year than last year. We know Murray is better. We know Federer and Nadal were fools with their injuries in 2016. When we start going back more than a few years its much harder to compare.

I'm glad you acknowledge the Djokovic prime is from 2011-2016. Many Fed fans want to say Djokovic 2008-2010 was prime.

Djokovic and Murray have a small window to add to their resume. Federer had a very nice window and Nadal had some opportunities right after Federer's early prime period. The heat was on in 2011 and Djokovic took all comers in the big 4 near or around their prime. Federer had no where near the same level of competition when he dominated the tour. Sorry Federer 2006 was a nice year, but he had Nadal on clay and that was it as far as top tier competition. I'd rate Djokovic higher in both 2011 and the 2015 into early 2016 period. Djokovic held all 4 slams at one time; deal with it.

 

[KINGROGER]

The 2016 clay season was loaded. You are claiming Haas as some kind of clay great?

Hmmm. The head to head is a minor factor unless you care to entertain Nadal as GOAT.

Which AO SF are you talking about (not 2016.) Federer is decidely better at the US Open and Wimbledon so you don't need to argue that and I'd argue as good as Djokovic was at the US Open in 2015, the conditions greatly aided him against Federer. Federer in 2015 was a different player despite what all the so called experts on here maintain. He'd beaten Djokovic easily in Cincy and would have probably won in hotter conditions in 2015. I rate Federer's recent hard court game very, very highly. We can delude ourselves about stats, but the reality is Fed has adapted to a different tour and produced excellent results with a very strong serve game and a very nice return game on hard courts (he's not anywhere near peak on grass or clay for return, but serve game is solid.) If you understand that Federer was a very dominant hard court player through the 2016 Australian Open back into 2015 then you'd appreciate Djokovic a bit more. Sadly most Folderer fans dismiss all stats and fall prey to ridiculuous ideas that the tour is decidely weaker than it was in Fed's prime which is lunacy.

Be happy on clay that Federer spoiled the Djokovic2011 slam. Federer is and was a great clay court player, but when you look at his early and later years its clear that its his weakest surface. Djokovic is better on clay.

I won't pretend to be an expert on the differences between rebound ace and plexicushion. Its a nice story that Djokovic won Auz the first year of plexicushion, but rebound ace was also a slow surface. I'm sure (like Agassi), Djokovic would have been very, very strong on that surface. Federer was able to win Auz in 2010 on plexicushion so I'm not so sure that the difference is earth shattering.

You over rate Nadal highly if you think Djokovic's (or now Murray's prime) would have left him out of the mix with Fedal with only 2-3 slams, escpecially in the later years of their prime period. Murray and Djokovic are vastly superior in their later years though if Federer had made adjustments to his game and equipment long before 2015 he might have done much better in his middle years.

Safin is a joke. Move him on today's tour and he'd be crushed with his complete lack of training. Move prime Federer and Nadal into the later years they would lose a lot of slams. Their games are antiquated. Nadal does not have the return or serve game to compete. Federer would not dominate the heavy ground game of today. It would be totally different.

These fantasies are a TTW speciality for which I care little. The game has changed. We know Djokovic is playing worse at this point of the year than last year. We know Murray is better. We know Federer and Nadal were fools with their injuries in 2016. When we start going back more than a few years its much harder to compare.

I'm glad you acknowledge the Djokovic prime is from 2011-2016. Many Fed fans want to say Djokovic 2008-2010 was prime.

Djokovic and Murray have a small window to add to their resume. Federer had a very nice window and Nadal had some opportunities right after Federer's early prime period. The heat was on in 2011 and Djokovic took all comers in the big 4 near or around their prime. Federer had no where near the same level of competition when he dominated the tour. Sorry Federer 2006 was a nice year, but he had Nadal on clay and that was it as far as top tier competition. I'd rate Djokovic higher in both 2011 and the 2015 into early 2016 period. Djokovic held all 4 slams at one time; deal with it.

As I said most years in 04-09 Federer would win the hard court and grass slams, Nadal the clay ones. Djokovic would win 3-4 most, nowhere near 11-12, in my opinion. Post prime 30s Federer best Peak Djokovic at RG and Wimbledon, and should've won twice at USO but choked. I'm confident Peak 20s Federer would dominate that match up.

I agree Djokovic is more successful on clay, and did beat Nadal but imo 11-13 Claydal was diminished a bit compared to 05-09 version. Federer had to deal with that match up and I think he'd have a slight edge over Djokovic overall in his prime.

But overall good and well thought out postx

 

[KINGROGER]

Also comparing years I was talking about dominance. Federer had a higher win % more wins less defeats and would've been near invincible but for one player, where as Djokovic in 2015 blew CYGS to Wawrinka of all players, faced a Grandad in 2 Finals, had less wins, more defeats worse win % than 2006, statistically all he has is 1 extra masters, which evens out considering masters were BO5 in 2006 and Fed skipped one of them due to this.

If we're talking strictly competition then I'd rate Federer's 04 or 07 higher than 15, and also Djokovic's 2011 higher than 15 too in that regard,

 

[Meles]

Also comparing years I was talking about dominance. Federer had a higher win % more wins less defeats and would've been near invincible but for one player, where as Djokovic in 2015 blew CYGS to Wawrinka of all players, faced a Grandad in 2 Finals, had less wins, more defeats worse win % than 2006, statistically all he has is 1 extra masters, which evens out considering masters were BO5 in 2006 and Fed skipped one of them due to this.

If we're talking strictly competition then I'd rate Federer's 04 or 07 higher than 15, and also Djokovic's 2011 higher than 15 too in that regard,

Has anyone done the two exercises of lining up the big 4 primes with each other moving backwards and forwards? Lets say from the Djokovic prime window and from the Federer prime window.

 

[I Am Finnish]

ELO is a better and more reactive system than rankings, but move to something like grass play and it really does become impossible to measure the level of a player. Any short time span has this issue. If you are betting or predicting, ranking is a valuable tool and ELO might be more valuable.

Tennis Abtract has something called JRank that does very well forecasting matches:
http://tennisabstract.com/jrank/atp-hard.html

It has hard court ratings:
1 Novak Djokovic 8842
2 Andy Murray 6347
3 Roger Federer 4689
4 Stanislas Wawrinka 3346
5 Kei Nishikori 3324
6 Milos Raonic 2893
7 Nick Kyrgios 2884
8 Rafael Nadal 2808
9 Juan Martin Del Potro 2713
10 Gael Monfils 2256
11 Marin Cilic 2234
12 Alexander Zverev 2198
13 Jo Wilfried Tsonga 1971
14 Grigor Dimitrov 1956
15 Richard Gasquet 1868
16 Jack Sock 1857
17 Tomas Berdych 1611
18 Roberto Bautista Agut 1523
19 Dominic Thiem 1522
20 Kevin Anderson 1519

and clay court ratings:
1 Novak Djokovic 13763
2 Andy Murray 9008
3 Stanislas Wawrinka 3922
4 Rafael Nadal 3749
5 Roger Federer 3481
6 Kei Nishikori 3141
7 Nick Kyrgios 2945
8 Milos Raonic 2315
9 Gael Monfils 2187
10 Jo Wilfried Tsonga 2082
11 Dominic Thiem 2012
12 Grigor Dimitrov 1801
13 Richard Gasquet 1724
14 Tomas Berdych 1632
15 Marin Cilic 1558
16 Jack Sock 1509
17 Alexander Zverev 1487
18 David Goffin 1325
19 David Ferrer 1145
20 Gilles Simon 1133

Overall ratings:
1 Novak Djokovic 10539
2 Andy Murray 7331
3 Roger Federer 4470
4 Stanislas Wawrinka 3674
5 Kei Nishikori 3356
6 Rafael Nadal 3231
7 Nick Kyrgios 2988
8 Milos Raonic 2890
9 Gael Monfils 2261
10 Marin Cilic 2109
11 Jo Wilfried Tsonga 2044
12 Grigor Dimitrov 1949
13 Alexander Zverev 1912
14 Richard Gasquet 1851
15 Juan Martin Del Potro 1801
16 Jack Sock 1743
17 Dominic Thiem 1742
18 Tomas Berdych 1622
19 Kevin Anderson 1386
20 David Goffin 1353

I really like the overall ratings. Berd ditch 18. Zverev 13. Dimitrov 12. Krygios 7. Thiem down at 17 and Lucky Pouille only gets a 31 which is much lower than ranking or ELO. This is a very nice ranking system and passes the eyeball test. This looks like the real top 20 on current level.

"JRank is a ranking system for professional tennis that better predicts match outcomes than ATP or WTA rankings. It awards points based on opponents beaten and the recency of each match rather than tournament type and round."

What about the grass stats?

 

[Meles]

What about the grass stats?

You can do career, but its just too short a season. You are really reading the tea leaves in a given year because just based on a small number of matches.

 

[citybert]

ELO is based on strength of opponents so by that measure this already is better. The top guys usually run into each other but for 10-100 it is probably much much better

 

[nolefam_2024]

The obvious flaw with Elo ranking.

Novak Djokovic is third atm in Elo ranking. He is highest on clay and grass over Roger Federer.

Roger has won 3 slams on hard court and grass in last 18 months. Possibly 4th in a month.

Novak has dropped from his lofty heights of 2016 a lot. Still because he was so high in 2016, I think his current ranking is predicting him to be among top 3 players.

We can forget that Novak has lost the 6 months in 2017 and his ATP ranking is suffering from it, but even then in race, he is barely in top 20. That's where his current level is.

 

[Max G.]

There are many flaws with the current system, but do you think another system such as ELO would be better (http://tennisabstract.com/reports/atp_elo_ratings.html)?

The advantages are rather obvious, losses to weaker players count more, consistency is important, and you can't simply win a big title and shoot up in rankings. But there are also disadvantages such as the status of the tournament itself doesn't matter (which isn't necessarily bad though, if there is a 250/500 with many good players participating you could earn many ELO points and smaller tournaments could be more attractive) and ELO doesn't look at recent performances (at least not the last 52 weeks).

You also don't lose points during injuries which is a good thing in my opinion but could be abused to maintain a good ranking if you are in a bad form.

Despite thinking that Murray deserves the #1 spot I also like to look at the ELO rating as an indicator of performance rather than the official ranking.

The biggest problem is that you're missing half of the point of the ranking system that ELO doesn't address - the incentives.

The point of a ranking system is to be an incentive for players. You assume that everyone is going to do what they can to maximize their ranking, and the ranking system has to be designed so that when players decide what they have to do to get their rank higher, the answer is "play a full schedule with all of the biggest tournaments they can, but get no reward for playing much more than that".

In ELO, not playing is better than playing and losing. So that will incentivize players to carefully manage their schedule to avoid playing anytime they think they're likely to lose - skipping tournaments on their bad surfaces, withdrawing if they're playing badly in practice, etc. ELO is fine in cases where matches are mostly interchangeable and players can't predict their own performance. But if players know in advance what matches and tournaments they'll play "better than their rating" or "worse than their rating" in, as is the case in tennis because of the variation in conditions and in play level, ELO is becomes an easily gamed system.

In addition, ELO includes no incentive to play a 'full' schedule. Many tournaments rely on the ATP ranking system to give top players some incentive to play more than they otherwise would.

 

[PMChambers]

The Electric Light Orchestra was wanky in the 70s, bringing it back to present day just makes it worse.
Let the 'Livin' Thing' die. No ELO

 

[MatsPhilander]

The Electric Light Orchestra was wanky in the 70s, bringing it back to present day just makes it worse.
Let the 'Livin' Thing' die. No ELO

It shines a little love in our lives.