Open era ranking based on the Slams + Season end finals

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by timnz, Aug 13, 2012.

  1. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    Like to see us talk about Slams + Season end finals + masters 1000 rather than just Slams, when it comes to evaluating players careers. The season end finals is now a tournament with a rich and strong tradition with great depth of players (over 40 years and top 8 respectively) and the masters 1000's or equivalents pre-1990 have very deep fields. Also there is the WCT finals to consider.

    NOTE: Thought that I would update this thread initial post with the latest data and calcuations.....

    How to go somewhere to creating a level playing field between current players who tend to play 4 slams a year vs older players of the 70's and early 80's who tended to play only 3 slams a year.

    Players pre-mid 1985 tending to only play 3 Slams a year versus players today playing 4. There is also the other issue of the WCT finals which was a very important event and the need to include it. Players shouldn't get 6 events where they can gain points in this methodology because that would be unfair to modern players who only get 5 events where they can gain points. The solution proposed is to ONLY include Dallas if a player who won the WCT finals didn't play all the slams in that year. That way the modern players are not disadvantaged. So for example, Lendl's 1982 WCT finals win gets included because he didn't play all the slams that year but his 1985 win doesn't get included because he played all the slams that year. In McEnroe's case 4 out of 5 of his WCT finals get included as he played all the slams in 1983 when he won the 1983 Dallas event.

    Weightings
    Slams + Season End Finals and WCT finals (only if the player didn't play all the Slams that year) + Losing Finals in Slams + Masters 1000 equivalents, with a weighting factor depending on the importance of the event ie 2 x for slams, 1.5 for Season end finals (including WCT finals), 1.2 for Losing slam finals, 1 x for Masters 1000 equivalents

    Calculations

    Federer = (17 x 2) + (6 x 1.5) + (7 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 72.4

    Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 +1) x 1.5)) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) = 60.3

    Sampras = (14 x 2) + (5 x 1.5)) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 51.3

    Nadal = (11 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 49

    McEnroe (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.5)) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 48.3

    Borg = (11 x 2) + ((2 + 1) x 1.5)) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) = 47.5

    Connors = (8 x 2) + ((1 + 2) x 1.5)) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 45.9

    Agassi = (8 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 42.9

    Becker = (6 x 2) + ((3 +1) x 1.5)) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 34.3

    Edberg = (6 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 27.5

    Djokovic = (5 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (3 x 1.2) + (12 x 1) = 27.1

    Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 26.8
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2012
    #1
  2. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    Revised that

    Slams + Season End Finals + Masters 1000 equivalents, with a weighting factor depending on the importance of the event ie 2 x for slams, 1.5 for Season end finals, 1 x for Masters 1000 equivalents

    Federer = (17 x 2) + (6 x 1.5) + (20 x 1) = 63

    Sampras = (14 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (11 x 1) = 46.5

    Lendl = (8 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (22 x 1) = 45.5

    Nadal = (11 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (21 x 1) = 43

    Borg = (11 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (15 x 1) = 40

    McEnroe (7 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (19 x 1) = 37.5

    Connors = (8 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (17 x 1) = 34.5

    Agassi = (8 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (17 x 1) = 34.5

    Becker = (6 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (13 x 1) = 29.5

    Djokovic = (5 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (12 x 1) = 23.5

    Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (8 x 1) = 22

    Edberg = (6 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (8 x 1) = 21.5
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2012
    #2
  3. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    So what? it just proves how weak Fed´s opposition was till 2007 or 2008...
     
    #3
  4. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    Opposition

    How can a player make their opposition stronger? No, all a player can do is go out and play their best with the opposition they have. One could have endless discussions about discounting someone's win due to lack of opposition, but that would be the start of a neverending debate. The only way forward is to say - well did they win the title? If they did, they get credit for it.

    My statistics were meant to show the top level of tennis weighted according to the importance of the event. It also drops off everything below Masters 1000 level so that players who were in era where the field was thin and got lots of tournament wins at today's 500 and 250 level aren't advantaged. Only 1000 points and up equivalent tournaments are mentioned.

    Nadal actually comes a lot higher up the list than I would have expected. It's interesting to see how Similar Connors and Agassi come out. That seems intuitively right to me.
     
    #4
  5. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,986
    Very nice stats.

    I like the weighting also, no use counting small tournaments as they just fill in the season and participation is dicey.

    Fed again is in his own tier.
     
    #5
  6. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,372
    I think, that the season end event gained special importance since the 80s, when the ATP structure was established. No wonder that Lendl comes up high, especially if one would add other events (ATP events plus some other tournaments). In the 70s, the Masters was the ITF Grand Prix series play off (rivalling other series), often the leading players like Borg and Connors skipped it or played only to get the bonus money from the Grand Prix circuit. It got more significant since 1978/80, when it went to Madison Square Garden. Also for the 70s, the problematic situation of the majors due to the political struggles is to be considered.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2012
    #6
  7. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    Players listed

    The earliest Year end Masters winner I have listed is Connors who won it in January 1978 - a year I recall it was hotly contested. So I think my data stands.
     
    #7
  8. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,221
    That's a great stats. Slam finalist is worth more than the MS title. If we also include slam finalist, Roger would be even further ahead.

    Roger is the goat.
     
    #8
  9. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    Only a ******* can appreciate such mediocrity. Only winning counts and NO, Federer doesn't get extra points for losing to Nadal 6 times in major finals.

    I think Pro and Amateur majors should be included because that's what was available to the former greats.

    Federer is not GOAT!!
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2012
    #9
  10. BauerAlmeida

    BauerAlmeida Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Argentina
    It's a good way to measure. But you could include Olympic Gold also. It wouldn't be fair for the older generations that weren't able to play but it's not fair for Nadal or Agassi who won it.
     
    #10
  11. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    I said in the Opening thread that this was for Open era.
     
    #11
  12. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    Adding slam finals with weighting of x 1.2

    Slams + Season End Finals + Losing Finals in Slams + Masters 1000 equivalents, with a weighting factor depending on the importance of the event ie 2 x for slams, 1.5 for Season end finals, 1.2 for Losing slam finals, 1 x for Masters 1000 equivalents

    Federer = (17 x 2) + (6 x 1.5) + (7 x 1.2) + (20 x 1) = 71.4

    Lendl = (8 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) = 58.8

    Sampras = (14 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 51.3

    Nadal = (11 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 49

    Borg = (11 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) = 46

    Connors = (8 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 42.9

    Agassi = (8 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 42.9

    McEnroe (7 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 42.3

    Becker = (6 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 34.3

    Edberg = (6 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 27.5

    Djokovic = (5 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (3 x 1.2) + (12 x 1) = 27.1

    Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (3 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 25.6


    What's really interesting is that Lendl jumps over Sampras into the number 2 spot. Initial reaction is - but that's not right! But then I thought about it more....
    Lendl has nearly 3 times as many finalist placing at Slams as Sampras (11 to 4) and twice as many Masters 1000 equivalents (22 to 11). So below the level of Slam winner Lendl's achievements far outweigh Sampras'. Below his winning of Slams, Sampras wasn't anywhere as succesful (which reflects his philosophy at the time that only Slams were important (and season end finals it seems)). A lot of people put it as a negative mark against Lendl that he lost 11 slam finals, but we have to remember that 8 wins and 11 losing finals is incredibly superior to 8 wins and 0 losing finals. This is because getting to a slam final is a great achievement in itself.

    I got the 1.2 weighting from the ATP which gives 1200 points to losing finalists of Slams.

    Note: Personally I would rate Sampras over Lendl. And I would also rate Borg over Nadal - but it is still really interesting to see Masters 1000 and plus events weighted - how they all appear.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2012
    #12
  13. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    Olympic Gold and weightings

    Olympic Gold is on the rise in people's minds but at the moment the ATP and ITF give only 750 points for it. Ultimately I think it will go to around 1500 points. But if you balance it over time since 1988 - 750 points is about right. So even if you add 0.75 points to Nadal it doesn't make a lot of difference. I chose to only show events where points are 1000 and greater under the present regime.

    Slam winner = 2000 points - hence 2 x factor

    WTF winner = 1500 points (yes it could be that they only win 1200/1300 points but in the past the masters was very very highly rated - so on balance 1.5 factor seemed right) - hence 1.5 x factor

    Slam finalist = 1200 points - hence 1.2 factor

    Masters 1000 winner = hence 1 x factor

    And that's it. They are the only ways you can win at least 1000 points in a tournament.
     
    #13
  14. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,221
    That's your opinion. Most of the players never make the slam final in their entire career, so it does proved that it's not easy to reach the final.

    And most fans believe Federer is the greatest.
     
    #14
  15. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,221
    I agree with you timnz. It doesn't seem right to give Lendl zero credit for his 11 finals. There's not a whole lot of player can make at least one slam final. I don't think Korda 1 slam win is better than Lendl's 11 finals, and yet he gets 2 point while Lendl gets nothing. Afterall, slam finalist do earn a trophy too.

    If we base on purely winning titles alone, then we're not completely seeing the whole picture of one's overall achievement.

    However, I do agree rating Sampras slam performance over Lendl because of his 14 slams, but career achievement wise, I wouldn't ignore Lendl's 11 finalists.
     
    #15
  16. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    And most fans believe that McDonalds is the world's greatest restaurant.

    We've been over this before--it means nothing. Stop repeating this useless and meaningless statement.

    (Most people think Nadal is the greatest, and Djokovic is second. But I believe they are wrong.)
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2012
    #16
  17. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    Masters 1000 - Sampras

    What really lets down Sampras is his lack of Masters 1000's. He only has 11, compared to 22 for Lendl, 20 for Federer and 21 for Nadal. The latter two will probably finish their Careers in the 25 to 30 range. This is no criticism of Pete's amazing career - who I consider the best fast court player ever (no way would Federer beat the 1999 Masters Cup finals Sampras on fast indoor carpet or 1996 Masters Cup finals Sampras for that matter). However, making Slam finals and winning Masters 1000's should be recognized not forgotten. So to that extent it is wrong to say that 'only Slams count'. Yes Masters 1000's and Slam finals count less -but that is why I have the weighting factor.
     
    #17
  18. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    Objectivity

    Remember this thread is only about the Open era (referring to the poster talking about comparing pre-open era players with Federer). I am using this stat calculation to give some objectivity to things. Yes, opinions vary and wax and wane, but hard stats remain.
     
    #18
  19. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,743
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I have no issues with you Tim. I am referring to TMF's repeated, baseless, blanket statements about his narrow awareness of purported mass opinions, which have absolutely nothing to do with stats.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
    #19
  20. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    And, that is probably the strongest argument against Fed being the greatest.
     
    #20
  21. Iron Man

    Iron Man Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    231
    that's your opinion , giving two examples of matches won by Sampras in a convincing way doesn't mean he's the best fast court player . I can mention many matches where Federer was untouchable on fast courts . so please try not to take your opinion for an absolute truth.

    thanks for the topic anyway which I find very interesting .

    best regards
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
    #21
  22. Iron Man

    Iron Man Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    231
    most fans , most experts and ex - great players ( Laver among them ) believe he's the greatest . I don't know what's the deal with Federer being the GOAT ?

    if we say Laver is the greatest it's ok for you but with Federer things change utterly ?
     
    #22
  23. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,423
    It's actually not a half bad start at creating a calculation of relative greatness.

    One thing which I'd also add in - which may complicate it is an additional factorial for times when a player wins 2, 3 or 4 majors in a year. Supremely great years should be rewarded better imo.

    E.g. if a player wins all four in a calendar year (Laver for example) those four majors are worth double. If they win three those three are multiplied by 1.5 (so would rate a 4.5 instead of 3), and two multiplied by 1.25 (so would rate at 2.5 instead of 2).

    It would mean a player who won two majors a year for two years in a row would rate higher than someone who won one major four years in a row.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
    #23
  24. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,211
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Aside from his inane anti-Federer drivel, I think The-Champ unwittingly brings up a good point: the major wins need to be weighted more. Currently, you have a system which rewards players the same way the ATP would; their rankings are designed to keep players competing all-year round, so that winning a major hardly guarantees you a spot in the year-end top 4 (a la Safin 2005, Johansson 2002, del Potro 2009). From a historical perspective, however, I think major wins are worth more - it's hard to put a quantitative value on something like that, but I would say, leaving all else the same (MS1000 = 1, major finalist = 1.2, etc.), majors should be worth at least 3, if not 4 or even 5.

    Think of it this way - in your current system, Andy Murray, whose recent play and attitude has impressed me immensely, would rank higher than Kuerten. You could maybe argue the case of Lendl over Sampras, or shrug it off as a statistical quirk, but Murray over a three-time major champion, YEC winner, and year-end number one? That's an extremely tough sell.
     
    #24
  25. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    Laver himself also said that with a wood racquet he (Laver) would not be afraid of playing anyone.

    Bear in mind that most great champions are very gracious and want to be nice to other greats. John McEnroe for example used to say Pete Sampras was the GOAT. However he also let slip out that if he (McEnroe) was in his prime he would like his chances against Sampras.

    Champions tend to believe in themselves and I'm sure many believe they are the greatest ever but they may not come out and say it all the time. If a champion says one player is the GOAT it may not be what they believe.
     
    #25
  26. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    only a brain-dead moron filled with Fed-hate can come up with such drivel, because the OP clearly states open-era only.
     
    #26
  27. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    to the Laver-worshippers ("historians"), it does. To them, Laver is the best thing since sliced bread, and they'd place him in the top 5 of every tennis-related ranking, yet, if Federer is ranked high in many categories, you'll hear the usual nonsense that blind "fed-tardism" is the reason why Federer gets ranked so high in many categories..
     
    #27
  28. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,221
    Exactly. I don't know how much tennis hoodjem have watch lately for the past years, but to my knowledge, I've heard too many historians/experts/ex-players have said Roger is the greatest. Even on this board, we have posted countless numbers of quotes from the experts(e.g. Lendl, Flink, Sampras, Laver himself) have said the same thing. It doesn't mean it's unanimous, all I was saying is most people pick Federer. There's no need to get all upset.
     
    #28
  29. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,221
    He claim Serena is the greatest, who happen to be way behind Graf/Navratilova. But Federer isn't not the goat. LOL
     
    #29
  30. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,221
    Don't you know this is a Laver Forum? You're not allow to consider Fed is goat.
     
    #30
  31. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Which equivalents for Masters 1000 have you choosen for 1970 and 1980?
     
    #31
  32. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    1970's and 1980's Masters 1000's equivalents

    This is not perfect or infallible. However, it seems a pretty good list. (By the way, I have grave doubts whether such a thing as a 'Championship Series' even existed then. However, these tournaments had deep fields at the time):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Prix_Championship_Series

    What I like about the list is it is sensitive to the changing value of the various championships eg London Indoor was dropped off from 1972 to 1975 when it moved from Wembley to the Royal Albert Hall - so it wasn't included in those years. Miami came to promonence in the 1980's so it kicked in there on the list. Again, not perfect but a pretty good list. I know that players weren't working under the same rules of events being compulsory then - like most of the Masters series are now, but it is best we have to go with. Tournaments like Philadelphia were hotly contested events with very deep fields.

    The only thing that I have struggled with in my formula is the lack of recgonition I have given to the WCT finals (they are included anywhere). I have omitted it because there is no post-1990 equivalent - and I wanted to do my best to make the playing field even. Players like McEnroe and Connors have suffered in the calculation because of that (McEnroe won 5 WCT finals and only 3 Masters and Connors won 2 WCT finals and 1 masters - I have only credited them with their Masters wins).
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
    #32
  33. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    Timnz,

    You have to include the WCT tournaments. They are essentially majors and preferred for the longest time over tournament majors like the Australian. You can't eliminate them but they did win them.

    Lendl would be hurt in these type of calculations also.

    I understand what you're trying to do and I think it's great you're doing it but it is so hard to find a perfect math formula for this. How do you rank Laver's 13 straight victories in the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic? Very prestigious and the field was super elite. It's tough.

    We have to take into account Connors, Borg, Lendl, McEnroe and players from that era didn't play that many majors in one year.

    I admire what you're doing but I would be remiss if I didn't try to point it out.
     
    #33
  34. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    If Brain-dead morons are those who do not glorify Federer from dusk till dawn, then yes, I am one of those. Gladly!

    I wasn't referring to open-era obviously, that's why i mentioned amateurs and pro majors. When discussing the overall GOAT, everything they have won should be included, that's off-topic I know.
     
    #34
  35. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    Wrong. We put Federer's forehand as the greatest fh of all time for instance, I don't think you can find someone here refuting that.
     
    #35
  36. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    WCT Finals

    I agree to a certain point. I think the WCT finals wins of the 70's and early 80's were defacto majors. I also think that Lavers 1970 and 1971 Tennis Champion Classic Victories were at least worth a major each (probably double actually - imagine playing a major today where you faced Rosewall in the first round and Newcombe in the second round - and had to play 13 rounds - all for best of five sets - yes, it was spread over a few months - but still a phenominal achievement).

    The problem I have is this - you have to judge players on a level playing field. A fair few of the younger players on that list had no opportunity to play the WCT finals or Tennis Champions classic. So how do we compare apples with Apples. I have thought that for WCT finals I could take a players best result of EITHER the WCT finals or the Masters and include this - but again that isn't fair because then the 1970's and 1980's players had two attempts a year to do well at the top indoor event, whereas today's players only have 1. If I did include the WCT finals then what do you think the eqivalent 'extra event' could be for Federer and Nadal and Djokovic? The temptation is to say the Olympics. But I don't think that is right for a lot of reasons. One reason is that the Olympics has only been in the acendency since the 2008 Olympics when Nadal has won. Before that people didn't put a lot of stock into it. Hence, to rate it evenly since 1988 is not correct at all. It still is only 750 points. The other reason, which is the main reason is that it is only every 4 years. That means it doesn't really even up the playing field with the older players since the WCT finals was every year. If you have any ideas of an 'extra event' with WCT finals equivalency today - I'm happy to hear of it and consider including it.

    I am seeking to develop a Metric to compare players on a rational objective manner. Now my goal is impossible because various events have come and gone in weight and value - but at some point you have to cut your losses and say - well this is all we have got.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
    #36
  37. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    Yes, for me she is when she is playing at her very best. I didn't mean achievement-wise, which I've stated several times in other threads.
     
    #37
  38. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    Relative points of the Slams

    I actually agree with you. I don't think the Slams are rated correctly relative to the Masters 1000's. I have felt for a long time that the a Masters 1000 win is equivalent to reaching a slam semi-final (not nearly a Slam final which is what it is at present) and that probably Slam wins should be 3x a Masters 1000 wins. However, that is just my opinion. I put the weighting factors in to move away from opinion to simply use what the current ATP use in these tournaments ie 2 X for Slams, 1.5 x for Season end finals, 1.2 x for Slam finalist, 1 x for Masters 1000 champions.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
    #38
  39. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    You're not the only one who believes that. I know a number of top tennis writers who go back many decades. They don't believe Serena is the best ever but they also believe her level of play at her best may be the highest ever. Serena is fantastic and it must be a comfort to her to know that if she plays her top game she will win.
     
    #39
  40. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    Idea for the WCT finals

    Thanks. And I agree with this point. But at some point you have to find some sort of commonality to judge all of these players.

    The only way I could think of doing it is to add the WCT finals wins to players who only played 3 or less majors in one year. Hence, you could add the WCT finals as a 'Major' to Lendl for 1982 as he didn't play Wimbledon that year or the Australian Open. But you couldn't add it to McEnroe for 1983 as McEnroe played all 4 majors that year. What do you think? And in a way that would be fair to Federer and Nadal etc as players these days tend to play all 4 traditional majors where as pre-1983 or so the top players only mostly played 3 traditional majors a year.
     
    #40
  41. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    Yeah at her best, she is the best I've seen. Powerful fh, bh and that serve :D Achievement-wise she is far from it though.

    Anyway, a tennis connoisseur such as yourself should definitely give your insights on this: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=290077
     
    #41
  42. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,622
    I'd hate to see the Dallas Finals not included in such a list, because it was such a big event in the early Open Era. But you're right, if you include it, along with the Masters, you no longer have a level playing field across the decades. And you have to have that if you're going to do any comparisons across decades.

    One way we've done it on this board is to choose, every year, between Dallas and the Masters, as the "big" circuit-ending event. And it's fairly simple, if you choose Dallas every year from 1971 through 1976, and the Masters from that point forward. In the '77 season the Masters moved to New York and, as Urban pointed out, really stepped up a level then.

    It makes sense because it's not like the two tournaments were both equally important at the same time. When Dallas was a big event, the Masters was not well attended and not as strong as the later incarnation in New York (or even as strong as the current WTF). After the Masters moved to New York, Dallas decreased in importance and was no longer the huge event that Rosewall and Laver played.

    The two events kind of see-sawed, in other words.

    If you did it that way, you would keep a level playing field across generations.

    One remaining problem is what to do with the excluded tournament. In the years when you pick Dallas, what do you do with the Masters tournament? It was not as strong an event as it would become later, but it was nevertheless an event of some significance. Was it as big as a Masters 1000? Perhaps. And perhaps the WCT Finals of the 1980s was on that level too.

    No question, you'd be losing some significant events, by choosing between the two tournaments. But is there really any way to avoid such imperfections in such a system? The tour was not structured back then the way it is now; there's no way to make a perfect correspondence between eras.

    Like you say, sometimes you just have to take what there is and call it the best we have, imperfections and all.
     
    #42
  43. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    A way to include the WCT finals

    One way as I was discussing is to take advantage of two things that happened in history.

    1/ pre-mid 1980's players tended to play 3 slams a year. Hence, they are disadvanged when compared to today's players, who, unless injured, play all 4 slams.

    2/ In roughly the same period as (1) those same players tended to play the WCT finals.

    Hence, the solution is to include the WCT finals wins ONLY if the player didn't play all the slams in that same year. So include Lendl's 1982 WCT win and don't include McEnroe's 1983 win. And they be given Season end masters weight ie 1.5 X if they are included.

    This way WCT finals AND Masters get included and modern players aren't disadvantaged (because the older players don't get an 'extra' event to score points) because they only get included if a player didn't play all the slams in that year.

    Therefore, I have some questions:

    1/ Did Boris Becker play all the Slams in 1988?

    2/ Did McEnroe play all the Slams in 1979, 1981 or 1989?
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012
    #43
  44. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,546
    WCT Finals



    This is a good idea. If I can beg your indulgence, I have suggested another way ahead in my most recent posing to this thread.
     
    #44
  45. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,372
    The problem is, that this ranking - which has of course merits - is basing on the recent ATP structure of the calender. It goes back imo to the year 1983, when the AO got more attention and the ATP began to take over as the main promoting group. The 70s remain a diffcult period in this system.
    OK. So why not add all tournaments on the basis of the points which are awarded today. I would also make a point for Davis Cup rounds, at least singles matches. In some ATP ranking years, DC World Group matches were integrated in the ranking, i think this year they are giving points. For players like like Borg, Mac, Becker, Agassi, Davis Cup was a milestone in their legacy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2012
    #45
  46. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    what part of many categories do you not get?
     
    #46
  47. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    thanks for admitting that you don't miss a chance to take a dump on Federer, as evidenced by your introduction of irrelevant data to the discussion at hand.

    And no, brain-dead morons are those who indulge in non sequitur.. and you fit the bill.
     
    #47
  48. RF20Lennon

    RF20Lennon Legend

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,225
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    ofcourse its federers fault for making his opposition so weak!! how arrogant of him! :twisted:
     
    #48
  49. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,622
    Not a bad way to go as far as I can see. Maybe someone else can chime in but it seems to work fine.

    I checked, and nearly all of WCT winners missed at least one Grand Slam event in the year that they won the WCT Finals (in the 70s the missed Slam was almost always the AO). The exceptions were McEnroe in '83, Lendl in '85 and Mecir in '87. Not sure about Jarryd in '86.
     
    #49
  50. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I agree.The basics is 5 big events to count.Another chance is switch from WCT finals and include Miami from 1990 onwards.Them, you have 6 big tournaments, no matter if a player played them all or not.
     
    #50

Share This Page