

Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
04212013, 11:50 AM  #1 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,324

Updated Open era rankings
Like to see us talk about Slams + Season end finals + masters 1000 rather than just Slams, when it comes to evaluating players Open era 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 pre1990 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. So 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 premid 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. Becker in 1988 didn't play in all the slams but he did win the WCT finals (over Edberg), as was the case with Connors in 1977 and 1980 and Borg in 1976. 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. For instance 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). NOTE: You may disagree with the weightings. But remember these are not my weightings. They are the present ATP weightings for tournaments. Every time I post these rankings using these weightings people disagree with them, which of course they have a right to do. The problem is, how can we come to an agreement about them with so many opinions? We can't of course. The best I can do is just use the current ATP weightings. Latest Update: Djokovic has nearly caught up with Becker! Just a couple more Masters 1000's or another Slam will do it 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) + (22 x 1) = 50 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 = (6 x 2) + (2 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (14 x 1) = 33.6 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 Last edited by timnz; 04212013 at 11:58 AM. 
04212013, 08:30 PM  #2 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: A bloke in Brighton, England.
Posts: 3,432

so djokovic is up with 'the legends' already then.
__________________
All we are saying..is give Geese a chance. 
04222013, 07:07 AM  #3 
Professional
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,119

Sorry.
Any formula that has Lendl over Borg and Sampras must be fatally deficient. 
sunof tennis 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by sunof tennis 
04222013, 08:42 AM  #4  
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,540

Quote:
As much as I appreciate the OP's efforts, you can't rank Lendl higher than any of Sampras, Borg or Nadal.
__________________
Sloane Stephens and Laura Robson: future WTA world No 1 and 2. 

Phoenix1983 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by Phoenix1983 
04222013, 12:08 PM  #5  
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,324

Quote:
What other criteria would you add? Weeks at number 1?, total number of titles?  in both those criteria Lendl would completely dwarf Nadals achievements  so he would even be further ahead. It was interesting to me when I first did this....like you I was surprised that Lendl was so far up the list...but it helped me see how we tend to completely ignore things outside slam wins when assessing a career. But those Season end final, slam finals and Masters 1000 wins weren't nothing  less important yes, but that is why there is the weightings. Last edited by timnz; 04222013 at 12:52 PM. 

04222013, 12:25 PM  #6 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,016

Any ranking between different eras is flawed, but it is fun anyway I guess.
Why do you "stop" on M1000 equivalents? Prior to 2000 there were other tournaments (not M1000 equivalents) with virtually the same amount of points than what you call M1000 equivalents (one could get even more points in a nonM1000 equivalent depending on the bonus points). 
04222013, 12:28 PM  #7  
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,233

Quote:


DropShotArtist 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by DropShotArtist 
04222013, 12:41 PM  #8 
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 392

Sure there was/is. It's a subjective choice to apply ATP yearly points to a GOAT analysis. It may be a defensible decision, but it's still a decision. The Official Bureau of Tennis Legacies (were there such a thing) does not dictate that choice.
There's also subjectivity inherent in the ATP's own assignment of point values. The only thing "objective" about your process is the calculations (sort of  the question about counting the WCT could be decided otherwise). Here's a relatively simple alternative, which I do not pretend is objective except, again, in the calculations. I will stick with your count that includes the WCT for some players, although I don't really agree with it. GS = 10 GSF = 3 YEC = 2 MM = 1 Applying this formula, which in my subjective opinion better represents how these tennis accomplishments are viewed over the long term, yields: 1. Federer, 224 2. Sampras, 173 3. Lendl, 147 3. Nadal, 147 5. Borg, 146 
04222013, 12:53 PM  #9 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,324

How? See my reasons in the thread above.
Last edited by timnz; 04222013 at 12:58 PM. 
04222013, 12:57 PM  #10  
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,324

Quote:
Last edited by timnz; 04222013 at 01:06 PM. 

04222013, 01:04 PM  #11  
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,324

Quote:
Last edited by timnz; 04222013 at 01:08 PM. 

04222013, 01:19 PM  #12  
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 392

From my head ... and from being a close observer of professional tennis for many years. I've already admitted that the weights are subjective, but it's subjectivity informed by experience.
Quote:
I agree with you that it can be enlightening to create an alltime ranking system that does not depend entirely on slam wins  I particularly think it is good to recognize slam finals  but it should be done realistically. It is not realistic to extrapolate from yearly point values to alltime point values. The smaller events simply do not have anything near the legacy value, nor the staying power in memory, of the biggest events. 

04222013, 01:22 PM  #13 
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,233

QFT...........

DropShotArtist 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by DropShotArtist 
04222013, 01:35 PM  #14  
Rookie
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 392

Quote:
Quote:
Even purporting to follow the ATP's point assignments thus leads to purely subjective decisions that remove from consideration huge swaths of the tour. That doesn't mean your decision to ignore such tournaments was wrong; in fact, it was right. But it was a subjective departure, and a large one at that, from the ATP points scheme. 

04222013, 01:42 PM  #15 
SemiPro
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL U.S.A.
Posts: 658

Agree with the criticism that the proposed relative weighting of events is nonsensible. It is also indefensible to suggest that results of regular tour events have no role in this hierarchy.

04222013, 01:51 PM  #16  
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,324

Quote:
Last edited by timnz; 04222013 at 01:55 PM. 

04222013, 01:53 PM  #17 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,324

I experimented in the past putting other tournament wins in these ranking and weighted them at 0.375 each ie halfway between Atp 500 and Atp 250 weightings. From memory it had almost no impact on the overall rankings.

04222013, 01:58 PM  #18 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,324

Do you mean the ATP weightings I have chosen are 'nonsensible' or the discussion on relativism of weightings is nonsensible and you agree with me about sticking to the atp weightings?

04222013, 02:05 PM  #19 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,998

No matter which way you count it, Roger Featherer is #1.

04222013, 02:33 PM  #20  
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,016

Quote:
Just few rapid examples from memory: In 1990 Lendl won Tokyo Indoor that gave him 346 points, which was more than the 314 points Edberg got for winning Indian Wells, the 314 points that Chesnokov got for winning Monte Carlo, the 336 points Chang got for winning the Canadian Open and virtually the same ( 348 ) points Muster got for winning Rome. Also in 1990 Sampras got 334 points for winning Philadelphia, which was more than the 314 points Edberg got for winning Indian Wells, the 314 points that Chesnokov got for winning Monte Carlo, and virtually the same ( 336 ) Chang got for winning the Canadian Open. In 1991 Sampras got 339 points for winning Indianapolis, which was more than the 319 points Bruguera got for winning Monte Carlo, the 315 points Emilio Sanchez got for winning Rome, the 294 points Chesnokov got for winning the Canadian Open and the 338 points Novacek got for winning Hamburg. Also in 1991 Lendl got 338 points for winning Philadelphia, which was equal or more points than the points winner for four of the 9 M1000 tournaments that year. In 1992 Medvedev got 371 points for winning Stuttgart Outdoor (on clay during the summer), which was more than the 314 points Chang got for winning Indian Wells, the 335 points Muster got for winning Monte Carlo, the 355 points Edberg got for winning Hamburg, the 362 points Courier got for winning Rome, the 311 points Agassi got for winning the Canadian Open, and virtually the same ( 373 and 373 ) Sampras and Ivanisevic got for their win in Cincinnati and Stockholm respectively. I.e. Medvedev got more points for that title than five M1000 winners that year, and equal than other two M1000 winners, that year. Also in 1992, Ivanisevic got 356 points for winning Stuttgart Indoor (in February), Lendl got 338 for winning Tokyo Indoor and Sampras got 321 for winning Indianapolis, each of them being more points than several winners of M1000 tournaments that year. There were of course more cases those three years (and obviously many more cases any other year in any previous era). That is why it doesn't make sense to count the M1000 "equivalents" as if they were as important as they are in the last 510 years. In other words, it could make some sense (even if being as biased as any other choice) to take the M1000 tournaments into account (and not the ATP500 and ATP250 ) for the current players (last 510 years). But it doesn't make sense to take the 9 M1000 equivalents AND not other 810 tournaments that gave virtually the same amount of points (sometimes more points indeed depending of the year, prize money and bonus points obtained) when analyzing players from past eras (prior to 2000 for example). This is the problem when people try to look at "all eras" under current glasses. Today is much more important to win Indian Wells (for example) than any ATP500 or ATP250. But this is only true in the last 10 years more or less. In the 70s, 80s, 90s there wasn't such a "cut" from those 9 tournaments and "the rest". In fact many times the draws were harder in other tournaments and that is why they could get more points than in many of those 9 M1000 equivalents. So imagine in the future they change again (they will probably, though not exactly in this way) and only count 3 GS (for example, they drop the Australian Open) and they only mantain 5 M1000 (let's say Miami, Madrid clay, Canadian Open, Shanghai and Paris) and so people from 2030 start to make "rankings" like this: Federer: 13 GS and 8 M1000 Nadal: 10 GS and 3 M1000 Djokovic: 2 GS and 8 M1000 It could be fun, but it wouldn't reflect the reality of that era. Your ranking is the same, it is fun, but it doesn't reflect reality. No acrosseras ranking can reflect reality. 


Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  

