Updated Open Era Rankings based on Masters 1000 equivalents and higher tournaments

[timnz]

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.

I have only included tournaments of Masters 1000 equivalency and greater to take away the discussion about the depth of field that the older players had to deal with vs today. The thinking is that if we only consider these tournaments of top value then that goes someway to levelling the playing field.

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, 1.4 for Season end finals * (including WCT finals), 1.2 for Losing slam finals, 1 x for Masters 1000 equivalents

* I weight the Season end finals at 1.4. The reason for this is that not all of the Masters Cup winners won the tournament in an unbeaten fashion. Forinstance 1 of Federer's 6 wins he lost a match in the round robin. In 2001 Hewitt was an unbeaten winner but as the 2002 winner he lost one round robin match. No one has lost more than 1 match and gone on to win the tournament - so I thought on average then we could weight it half way between an unbeaten winner (1500 points) and a one match loser (1300 points) but overall winner - to arrive at 1.4. (Currently in the ATP each round robin win is worth 200 points).

Latest Update: Djokovic has extended his lead over Edberg and Wilander and now is heading towards Beckers totals.

Calculations

Federer = (17 x 2) + (6 x 1.4) + (7 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 71.8

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 +1) x 1.4)) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) = 59.6

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (5 x 1.4)) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 50.8

Nadal = (11 x 2) + (0 x 1.4) + (5 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 49

McEnroe (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.4)) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 47.6

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((2 + 1) x 1.4)) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) = 47.2

Connors = (8 x 2) + ((1 + 2) x 1.4)) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 45.6

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (1 x 1.4) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 42.8

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((3 +1) x 1.4)) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 35.4

Djokovic = (5 x 2) + (1 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 29.2

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (1 x 1.4) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 27.4

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 26.8

NOTE: You may disagree with the weightings. But remember these are not my weightings. They are the present ATP weightings for tournaments.

[rofl_copter3]

It does make it interesting how Lendl is so much higher ranked when using this system... it kinda makes you realize how under rated he is... I don't think he the second best in open era but outside of the slam win count he he was extremely solid on par with JMac and Agassi for sure

[timnz]

Originally Posted by rofl_copter3

It does make it interesting how Lendl is so much higher ranked when using this system... it kinda makes you realize how under rated he is... I don't think he the second best in open era but outside of the slam win count he he was extremely solid on par with JMac and Agassi for sure

He actually had twice has many Masters 1000 equivalent wins than Sampras (22 to 11). That is the main reason he is ahead of him (and also the large number of slam finals Lendl reached also propells him up the ladder). In fact Sampras won the least Masters 1000's of the top 10 players of the open era (according to this system).

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by rofl_copter3

It does make it interesting how Lendl is so much higher ranked when using this system... it kinda makes you realize how under rated he is... I don't think he the second best in open era but outside of the slam win count he he was extremely solid on par with JMac and Agassi for sure

I think Lendl is very underrated. He's easily one of the 10 GOATs in my mind. Probably 5 for me.

[Cup8489]

The problem for Lendl is he lost the majority of major finals. He was in as many as sampras was, but won 6 less. He couldve been one of the best ever if he'd been stronger in the major finals.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

The problem for Lendl is he lost the majority of major finals. He was in as many as sampras was, but won 6 less. He couldve been one of the best ever if he'd been stronger in the major finals.

Reaching a Slam final is a positive not a negative (that's why the ATP counts it as 1200 points worth). Lendl's problem wasn't his lack of strength in Major finals - it was who he played against. All but one of the 11 slam final losses were against players who were number 1 sometime in their career.

[joeri888]

Interpretation is debatable, but you sure gave an intersting perspective OP! Thanks!

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by timnz

Reaching a Slam final is a positive not a negative (that's why the ATP counts it as 1200 points worth). Lendl's problem wasn't his lack of strength in Major finals - it was who he played against. All but one of the 11 slam final losses were against players who were number 1 sometime in their career.

Of course, it's a positive, but the fact is he was weak in major finals. 8 wins is great, but 11 losses is bad no matter who he lost to.

[jokinla]

Not a surprise, another category Fed leads.

[No1e]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

All ***** are pathetic and your being one too

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

I know fed's chances are unlikely but doesnt change the fact that you are GodNovak

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

GodNovak aka No1e wants Delpo to win so novak has an easy ride to #1

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

I didnt personally attack you I just stated that im not offensive, again different story but the fact that you know who GodNovak was just proves your his double account welcome aboard to the ***'s the *********'s and now the GodNovak's who says this this is a week era of trolling in TTW???

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

i find your post exceptionally entertaining but since you were so annoyed i thought i might be able to help you out. No need to Thanks me. Its ok

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

Typical GodNovak cant come up with anything other than personal insults but then again so are all ***** and you are one

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

im not a **** im a fedfan i can view things objectively unlike you. Plus im not extreme and offensive

So are your false accusations and personal attacks against me allowed by TW rules? You are just trolling here, aren't you?

[PeteD]

The top ten includes three active players (Fed, Rafa, and Nole) whose scores are still increasing. If Rafa returns to the Tour in decent condition, he is on the verge of surpassing Pete for #3. If Rafa can do reasonably well from now until he retires, say maybe a slam, a few finals and/or some tourneys, he will overtake Lendl by this system and become #2 player of the Open Era. Nole will have to keep playing extremely well for years to crack the top 5, which he could do but going higher, probably not possible. As far as the #1 spot, Rog could retire today and no one is going to overtake him until the reincarnation of somebody like Gonzalez or Laver, if that ever happens.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by PeteD

The top ten includes three active players (Fed, Rafa, and Nole) whose scores are still increasing. If Rafa returns to the Tour in decent condition, he is on the verge of surpassing Pete for #3. If Rafa can do reasonably well from now until he retires, say maybe a slam, a few finals and/or some tourneys, he will overtake Lendl by this system and become #2 player of the Open Era. Nole will have to keep playing extremely well for years to crack the top 5, which he could do but going higher, probably not possible. As far as the #1 spot, Rog could retire today and no one is going to overtake him until the reincarnation of somebody like Gonzalez or Laver, if that ever happens.

I could definitely see Nadal making the top 2 or 3 but I think that Djokovic would be extremely pushed to make the top 5. He is currently in the late 20s in total and needs to get to the late 40s to make the top 5. He is capable, but it would be hard.

[Agassifan]

Fed, as usual a cut above the rest

[PeteD]

Originally Posted by timnz

I could definitely see Nadal making the top 2 or 3 but I think that Djokovic would be extremely pushed to make the top 5. He is currently in the late 20s in total and needs to get to the late 40s to make the top 5. He is capable, but it would be hard.

Agree, Murray is the same age and is improving; and there's going to be a new crop of talent before long.

[Bartelby]

What about taking only their best five years to see who are the most brilliant?

Lendl and Connors were hard working and had long careers but clearly not the most brilliant!

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

What about taking only their best five years to see who are the most brilliant?

Lendl and Connors were hard working and had long careers but clearly not the most brilliant!

Yes it is interesting the two measures of greatness ie overall career achievement vs peak peformance. Problem is while the former is objective - the player either won or didn't win an event, the latter is more subjective. Who determines the peak 5 years of a player? Do they have to be in a consecutive sequence of years? (If so what do you do with a player like agassi who was up one year and down the next, or connors whose best 3 years were 1974, 1976 and 1982). And why 5 years? Why not 3 years or 1 year or even just their peak performance in. a single match (some think Hoad's peak for 1 match would be the greatest ever). All are valid, but which one? In the end I decided to just go for objective career achievement because that is more straight forward.

[Agassifan]

Amazing that Rafa has a chance to finish at #2. All credit to him.

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by Agassifan

Amazing that Rafa has a chance to finish at #2. All credit to him.

Your sig is mind blowing