Interesting Year End Ranking of Mats Wilander - 1983 and 1985

[KG1965]

Among other things, it's interesting to note which ATP tournaments scored more points.

423 USO
388 WIMBLY
353 FRENCH OPEN (Noah)
-------------------------------
290 AO
-------------------------------
215 CANADA
203 CINCY
186 PHILADELPHIA
186 MILAN
182 ROME (Arias)
180 INDIANAPOLIS (Arias)
175 LAS VEGAS
173 QUEEN'S
166 MEMPHIS
163 STOCKHOLM
161 MONTECARLO
161 HAMBURG (Noah)
158 BRUSSELS (McNamara)
156 TOKYO
149 WEMBLEY

 

[Waspsting]

Among other things, it's interesting to note which ATP tournaments scored more points.

423 USO
388 WIMBLY
353 FRENCH OPEN (Noah)
-------------------------------
290 AO
-------------------------------
215 CANADA
203 CINCY
186 PHILADELPHIA
186 MILAN
182 ROME (Arias)
175 LAS VEGAS
173 QUEEN'S
166 MEMPHIS
163 STOCKHOLM
161 MONTECARLO
158 BRUSSELS (McNamara)
156 TOKYO
149 WEMBLEY

Great stuff, man.

These breakdowns include the 'quality points' @Moose Malloy mentioned? (Does that include more points for a thrashing in 3 sets than for a hard fought 5 set win?)

Flat rates for Aus must be even poorer than it looks. Wilander beat top 2 seeds McEnroe and Lendl in the event (as well as 5th seed and double defending champion Kriek)

French too. Noah beat Lendl and Wilander there.

The new oddity is is US Open having more ranking points than Wimbledon. The routes for the winners doesn't look all that different. I did notice US Open had greater prize money

Of the non-slams you've listed, only Queens is less than 250,000 prize money. Milan at 350,000 was the most

 

[KG1965]

Great stuff, man.

These breakdowns include the 'quality points' @Moose Malloy mentioned? (Does that include more points for a thrashing in 3 sets than for a hard fought 5 set win?)

Flat rates for Aus must be even poorer than it looks. Wilander beat top 2 seeds McEnroe and Lendl in the event (as well as 5th seed and double defending champion Kriek)

French too. Noah beat Lendl and Wilander there.

The new oddity is is US Open having more ranking points than Wimbledon. The routes for the winners doesn't look all that different. I did notice US Open had greater prize money

Of the non-slams you've listed, only Queens is less than 250,000 prize money. Milan at 350,000 was the most

1)The "quality points" of @Moose Malloy I think are bonuses but I do not think 6-0 6-0 >> 7-6 at 5th ... I think they are wins with the top players 10 or 20.

2) Flat rates for Aus must also be worse than they seem....
260 points for the win + 30 bonus points = 290

3) The new oddity is that US Open has more points than Wimbledon....
410 + 13 bonus points = 423 - USO
370 + 18 bonus points = 388 - WIMBLY

4) For non-slams you have listed, only Queens is less than 250,000 prizes. Milan at 350,000 was the most
140 + 33 = 173
180 + 6 = 186
...Milan is a supertournay , Queen's no.
But Connors beats Mac & Lendl.

 

[KG1965]

ATP ranking does not suck at all, it's ok if number one is clearly the best (1974, 76, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 ...).
In 1978 Borg is probably> Connors but the two are close so the possible criterion error (which I do not notice) can stay.
In 1975, 1977 and 1982 some criterion problems came out:
1) too many points to losing finalists;
2) a few points to WCT tournaments (1975);
3) too many penalties for those who play many tournaments;
4) too much penalties for winning in poor tournaments.

1983 is an abnormal year because the competitors are 4 and very close, but Wilander is extremely penalized.

The discussion remains open.

 

[KG1965]

1983 - Winner's points ATP "Master 9 equivalent":

with bonus points

215 CANADA (Lendl)
203 CINCY (Wilander)
186 PHILADELPHIA (McEnroe)
186 MILAN (Lendl)
182 ROME (Arias)
180 INDIANAPOLIS (Arias)
175 LAS VEGAS (Connors)
173 QUEEN'S (Connors)
166 MEMPHIS (Connors)


without bonus points

200 CANADA (Lendl)
180 CINCY (Wilander)
180 MILAN (Lendl)
170 PHILADELPHIA (McEnroe)
170 ROME (Arias)
170 INDIANAPOLIS (Arias)
170 LAS VEGAS (Connors)
160 MONTECARLO (Wilander)
150 MEMPHIS (Connors), HAMBURG (Noah), TOKYO (Lendl)

8 tournaments are the same in both cases. It's difficult to choose just the ninth. While the Queen's was harder to win (high bonus points) and Monte Carlo was more important in the calendar.

 

[Waspsting]

Flat rates for Aus ...260 points for the win + 30 bonus points = 290

3) The new oddity is that US Open has more points than Wimbledon....
410 + 13 bonus points = 423 - USO
370 + 18 bonus points = 388 - WIMBLY
.

And French I'm guessing is 330 + 23 bonus points?

Leaving aside the US Open flat rate being greater than Wimbledon (justification?)... McEnroe got 18 bonus points for the latter to Connors' 13 for the former

At Wimbledon, McEnroe beat 2 seeds - 14 Scanlon and 3 Lendl

At US Open, Connors beat 3 seeds - 14 Teltscher, 16 Scanlon and 2 Lendl

(I don't know if the rankings "don't suck at all", but my early supposition that they were a bit "bonkers" isn't getting dispelled here)

 

[KG1965]

And French I'm guessing is 330 + 23 bonus points?

340 + 13.
I can not explain the reason for the bonus-points.

 

[jrepac]

ATP ranking does not suck at all, it's ok if number one is clearly the best (1974, 76, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 ...).
In 1978 Borg is probably> Connors but the two are close so the possible criterion error (which I do not notice) can stay.
In 1975, 1977 and 1982 some criterion problems came out:
1) too many points to losing finalists;
2) a few points to WCT tournaments (1975);
3) too many penalties for those who play many tournaments;
4) too much penalties for winning in poor tournaments.

1983 is an abnormal year because the competitors are 4 and very close, but Wilander is extremely penalized.

The discussion remains open.

there is an article in this month's Tennis magazine that talks about Vilas in 1977. How he did not reach the #1 ranking is truly baffling. just pointed out the weakness in the system....your point#1 is true, right? Connors held onto # 1 because he reached 2 major finals and won a bunch of lesser tourneys, keeping up his average. Though in '82, it was hard to see how he wasn't ranked #1 sooner on the ATP....the results were obviously solid and an improvement from '81. Sometimes, it is just strange.

 

[Moose Malloy]

@Waspsting there were still bonus points in the early 90s, you can see under Sampras, edberg, Agassi player activity pages what the points were and how much each major fluctuated year to year (and that the Australian was still far behind the others)
I thought having quality points was pretty fair, wish they kept doing that.

 

[helterskelter]

When you get a spare moment, type "Wittgenstein meaning as use" into google.

Yes, you could. I believe it came from the card game Bridge.

My point is that when McEnroeisanartist writes this:

And I write this:
Budge won a Grand Slam.
or
Laver won a Grand Slam.
or
Graf won a Grand Slam.

There appears to be no difference. You and I know that there is a difference, but one wonders if some distinction is lost in 'in the real world'.

Yes, I am aware of what the masses believe, know, or don't know. (I guess I am fighting a losing battle against the 200-word vocabularies that sociologists tell us most people actually use.)

IMHO, distinctions matter, subtleties matter, meanings matter, and because communicating these is important, thus words matter.

I can accept "slam" or "slams", or "one of the Grand Slam tournaments". I can even accept that Agassi "won a career grand slam", because of the qualifier that indicates it happened over the length of his career. I can accept that Wilander won eight slams, or he won one of the Grand Slam tournament in 1983, which is what McEnroeisanartist meant. But I cannot accept that Wilander won a Grand Slam--because he did not.

 

[Waspsting]

I thought having quality points was pretty fair, wish they kept doing that.

I like the attempt to quantify aspects of the game that we as fans intuitively value; Compare -

"Nalbandian won Madrid 2007" to "Nalbandian won Madrid 2007, beating Nadal, Djokovic and Federer along the way"

Was thinking of extending it further to including margin of victory. Compare -

"McEnroe beat Connors 6-1 6-1 6-2" to "Connors beat McEnroe 3-6 6-3 6-7 7-6 6-4"

That said, on principle I dislike how many points a player makes being outside the essentials of getting as far as you can every tournament. Why should you get more or less because of how other players are doing?

I lean towards preferring no bonus point - and leave quality to my subjective sense of appreciation

Don't want to police the game too much - or next thing you know, someone will come up with bonus points for # of winners or points won in under 4 shot rally!

 

[KG1965]

there is an article in this month's Tennis magazine that talks about Vilas in 1977. How he did not reach the #1 ranking is truly baffling. just pointed out the weakness in the system....your point#1 is true, right? Connors held onto # 1 because he reached 2 major finals and won a bunch of lesser tourneys, keeping up his average. Though in '82, it was hard to see how he wasn't ranked #1 sooner on the ATP....the results were obviously solid and an improvement from '81. Sometimes, it is just strange.

It would take a long time to explain ... but basically in 1977 this happened:

1) the lost Connors's finals .......weighs heavily (Philadelphia and Indy, too);
2) the 5 Connors tournaments ..... weighs heavily (including Maui where he scores 3 top 10) - not are lesser tournay;
3) are excluded from the Masters GP counting, WCT Finals, WCT Challenge Cup wins from Connors;
4) .... but most of all weighs the following titles won by Vilas: Springfield, B. Aires, Virginia Beach, Kitzbuhel, South Orange, Paris, Bogotá, Santiago, Buenos Aires. If Vilas did not participate and won Guillermo would be number one.

 

[KG1965]

there is an article in this month's Tennis magazine that talks about Vilas in 1977. How he did not reach the #1 ranking is truly baffling. just pointed out the weakness in the system....your point#1 is true, right? Connors held onto # 1 because he reached 2 major finals and won a bunch of lesser tourneys, keeping up his average. Though in '82, it was hard to see how he wasn't ranked #1 sooner on the ATP....the results were obviously solid and an improvement from '81. Sometimes, it is just strange.

In my opinion:
- It is right that ATP considered the high points attributed to Jimmy's titles ;
- ATP mistakenly considered counting points to the lost finals but had to consider at least the two finals (GP & WCT) ;
- ... but above all it had to consider more Vilas's small tournaments.
ATP would have to consider Vilas number one of the rankings, even with a big advantage.
Different is the talk if we add both the 2 Finals and the 1977 special events. I think it's fair to consider Vilas the best, but little on Connors .

 

[Waspsting]

@KG1965

Got another strange one for you -

Jim Courier was Year End World #1 in 1992, Pete Sampras was #3.

In1993 itself,

Courier won Australian Open, Indian Wells, Rome and was runner up at French Open

Sampras won Miami


Sampras took over the number #1 position before Wimbledon

----

Not looking for one of your great analysis - I can do this one myself from the ATP site (apparently the change came when Sampras beat Courier in the final of Hong Kong - prize money 275,000. By comparison, Rome Masters was 1.5 million)

But this is another example of rankings system being a bit bonkers... or as you put it

ATP ranking does not suck at all

 

[KG1965]

@KG1965

Got another strange one for you -

Jim Courier was Year End World #1 in 1992, Pete Sampras was #3.

In1993 itself,

Courier won Australian Open, Indian Wells, Rome and was runner up at French Open

Sampras won Miami


Sampras took over the number #1 position before Wimbledon

----

Not looking for one of your great analysis - I can do this one myself from the ATP site (apparently the change came when Sampras beat Courier in the final of Hong Kong - prize money 275,000. By comparison, Rome Masters was 1.5 million)

But this is another example of rankings system being a bit bonkers... or as you put it

While memory can help me in the previous period, I remember a bit of the 1990s.

IMO the problem in this case is the system that uses the "waste", it does not start on January 1 and ends December 31.

In this way, Courier, that won so much in 1993 but had won so much in 1992, must discard many points from the beginning of 1993. In addition, in the second part of 1992 he went bad.

While Pete had done better than jim in the second half of 1992, he benefits, because he has so much improvement in the early part of 1993.

Before the season on red clay Courier was objectively the number one but the ranking is ... even in this case.

I DO NOT HAVE NUMBERS AND SUPPORT STATISTICS.

 

[Waspsting]

I DO NOT HAVE NUMBERS AND SUPPORT STATISTICS.

I do! - and they're bonkers

http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/pete-sampras/s402/player-activity?year=1993
http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/jim-courier/c243/player-activity?year=1993

Sampras became World Number 1 on April 12 - after winning the Tokyo outdoors

However, in what we could call the "points race" (i.e. counting points won to date in the calendar year), After Tokyo, he had fewer points (1336) than Courier 1368)

He moved ahead in the "points race" by winning Hong Kong, in which Courier was runner-up (Sampras 1540, Courier 1502 after the event)

(its a bit 'iffy' already... but now is where it really goes haywire...)

At Rome, Courier won 410 points to Sampras' 175
At French Open, Courier won 459 points to Sampras' 199

At the end of French Open, Courier was on 2317 points, Sampras 1986.
But Sampras was World number 1 from April 1st all the way to August

---

In todays system, there's the points race and there's the world ranking

Lets take players X and Y

If X starts the year with higher world ranking, that means he has more points than Y
If at any point along the year X leads Y in points race... he must be ranked higher

Apparently, this wasn't the case in 1993... were they still on average points per tournament system (I was sure that ended before 93)

---

The start of another mystery....

 

[KG1965]

I do! - and they're bonkers

http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/pete-sampras/s402/player-activity?year=1993
http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/jim-courier/c243/player-activity?year=1993

Sampras became World Number 1 on April 12 - after winning the Tokyo outdoors

However, in what we could call the "points race" (i.e. counting points won to date in the calendar year), After Tokyo, he had fewer points (1336) than Courier 1368)

He moved ahead in the "points race" by winning Hong Kong, in which Courier was runner-up (Sampras 1540, Courier 1502 after the event)

(its a bit 'iffy' already... but now is where it really goes haywire...)

At Rome, Courier won 410 points to Sampras' 175
At French Open, Courier won 459 points to Sampras' 199

At the end of French Open, Courier was on 2317 points, Sampras 1986.
But Sampras was World number 1 from April 1st all the way to August

---

In todays system, there's the points race and there's the world ranking

Lets take players X and Y

If X starts the year with higher world ranking, that means he has more points than Y
If at any point along the year X leads Y in points race... he must be ranked higher

Apparently, this wasn't the case in 1993... were they still on average points per tournament system (I was sure that ended before 93)

---

The start of another mystery....

I agree with you that the system stinks, but the calculations I think are correct (they were also corrected in the 70's and 80's, was the criterion that was fallacious).

Even the system now stinks.

Federer is clearly number one.
Rafa clearly number two.
Then there is the vacuum.

Instead number one is Murray, and number two is Nole. A nonsense.

The 1993 system provided for waste.
It did not start at the beginning of the year.

ATP Ranking had belated all the hardcore results Jim had done in the second half of 92, while Sampras won two big tournaments at Cincy & Indy.

When starting January 1, nothing starts from scratch, in March that Sampras still has Cincy & Indy.

 

[KG1965]

I do! - and they're bonkers

http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/pete-sampras/s402/player-activity?year=1993
http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/jim-courier/c243/player-activity?year=1993

Sampras became World Number 1 on April 12 - after winning the Tokyo outdoors

However, in what we could call the "points race" (i.e. counting points won to date in the calendar year), After Tokyo, he had fewer points (1336) than Courier 1368)

He moved ahead in the "points race" by winning Hong Kong, in which Courier was runner-up (Sampras 1540, Courier 1502 after the event)

(its a bit 'iffy' already... but now is where it really goes haywire...)

At Rome, Courier won 410 points to Sampras' 175
At French Open, Courier won 459 points to Sampras' 199

At the end of French Open, Courier was on 2317 points, Sampras 1986.
But Sampras was World number 1 from April 1st all the way to August

---

In todays system, there's the points race and there's the world ranking

Lets take players X and Y

If X starts the year with higher world ranking, that means he has more points than Y
If at any point along the year X leads Y in points race... he must be ranked higher

Apparently, this wasn't the case in 1993... were they still on average points per tournament system (I was sure that ended before 93)

---

The start of another mystery....

I'll give you an example (data is improvised aside from the total of December 31, 1992)

Al 31.12.1992
Courier has 3600, Sampras 3000 points.

Let's assume that Courier has come up with this result:
2600, January 1992-May 1992
1000, June 1992-December 1992

Sampras hypothesize as follows....
1000, January 1992-May 1992
2000, June 1992-December 1992

If Courier totals 2700 from January 1993 to May 1993 he reaches 3700 (because it must deduct 2600)

Sampras totals only 1800 and becomes number one:
3000-1000 + 1800 = 3800.

 

[Waspsting]

I'll give you an example (data is improvised aside from the total of December 31, 1992)....

Yes, your right..

If X starts the year with higher world ranking, that means he has more points than Y
If at any point along the year X leads Y in points race... he must be ranked higher

This was wrong - my mistake

 

[Waspsting]

@KG1965 - just wanted to confirm your theory - its perfect

Post French Open 1992 - End of 1992, Sampras won 2,343 points to Courier's 1,117

This is roughly akin to what would have happened if Djokovic had edged Murray for #1 last year. With Djokovic having mountains of points to defend in early 2017 and Murray not much... Murray, as long as he improved slightly on his pervious years results at the same events, would have skipped ahead even if Djokovic had won everything in sight in early 2017

For example,

Even if Djokovic had won Australian Open, Indian Wells and Miami... Murray would have gone over him with results like SFs and QFs at the Sunshine Masters