All-time players’ top performance by surface (with a constant update) (general methodology + clay)

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
My first big study was https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...om-1877-to-2020-with-a-regular-update.685425/. Now I continue with other types of studies.
The theme “performance by surface” has been always interesting to the tennis fans. The discussions go often with the numbers of slam titles and some other selectively chosen data. More interesting for me is the whole performance of the players on every surface.

Types of surfaces
Basically I split the surfaces into 4 categories:
Clay – includes clay outdoor and indoor;
Grass;
Hard outdoor – includes all hard outdoor surfaces (cement, wood, carpet and any other artificial hard surfaces)
Hard indoor - includes all hard indoor surfaces (wood, carpet, canvas and any other artificial hard surfaces)

Scope
The study covers the players from 1877 to current which have at least 1 title in their careers.
The study covers the tournaments, tours and one-night matches from 1877 to current (after Miami 2021). The tournaments include Davis cup, Nations cup, World team cup and Kramer cup.

Limits
1. Excluded from the number of titles and number of matches are the challengers, the futures and the tournaments with a scrappy competition (especially in the pre-open era). This is made intentionally to place all players on equal terms due to the different functionality, specificity and level of competitiveness of the different eras and every single year.

2. Only the players with at least 100 wins and at least 120 matches played per surface participate in the final rankings by surfaces. Only 1 exception of this rule is made – Novak Djokovic is included in the “grass” section with 95 wins and 113 total matches played on grass. He has the incredible win/loss ratio of 84.1% but has only 6 titles and practically does not affect the rankings.
This criterion has been implied because they are too many players with a limited play on a specific surface and their data distort the chief indicators.

Chief indicators
After a long consideration and analyses of the best possible methods of evaluating the surface’ performance I focused on the following indicators:
1. Number of wins per surface – shows the player’s preference and consistency on a surface;

2. Win/loss (W/L) ratio per surface – shows the level of dominance on a surface;

3. Number of titles per surface – shows the level of efficiency of reaching the target;

Methodology of evaluating the performance by surface
All the players are ranked on each of the three indicators for each surface in descending order. The total ranking is summed by the rankings of the 3 indicators and sorted in ascending order.
Example – a player is ranked 9th by w/l, 6th by wins and 10th by titles. His total ranking is 25 which compared to other players’ total rankings means for example 7th place in total rank.
Players with equal number of wins or equal number of titles get the same ranking for this indicator.

Presentation
For the best viewing options I will present the top 10 players of each indicator and the total rank’s top 10 players – 4 tables in total.
As they are too many tables (16 for all surfaces) I think it’s better that every surface will be presented in a different thread indicated in the thread’s title.

So, let’s start. First reviewed surface is clay. It seemed from the survey that clay was the mostly used surface in the whole history. 40.1% of the tournaments were on clay.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Clay

Total regular wins on clay
Player Wins
1. Bill Tilden 744
2. Guillermo Vilas 699
3. Manuel Orantes 536
4. Nicola Pietrangeli 478
5. Rafael Nadal 474
6. Jaroslav Drobny 473
7. Ken Rosewall 456
8. Ilie Nastase 451
9. Thomas Muster 426
10. Rod Laver 419

* The underlined are the last updated.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Win/Loss ratio on clay
Player W/L ratio
1. Tony Wilding 96,0%
2. Rafael Nadal 91,3%
3. Frank Parker 88,5%
4. Henry George Mayes 87,1%
5. Bjorn Borg 85,8%
6. Bobby Riggs 85,3%
7. Ivan Lendl 82,0%
8. Bryan Grant 81,0%
9. Novak Djokovic 80,37%
10. Francis Lowe 80,35%

* The underlined are the last updated. Djokovic goes from No 10 to No 9.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Total regular titles on clay
Player Sum of Titles
1. Rafael Nadal 66
2. Bill Tilden 64
3. Rod Laver 55
4. Guillermo Vilas 53
5. Tony Wilding 49
6. Ken Rosewall 44
7. Roy Emerson 42
8. Bjorn Borg 40
8. Thomas Muster 40
10. Jaroslav Drobny 39

* The underlined are the last updated. Nadal's titles rise from 65 to 66.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
TOTAL RANKING on clay

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Guillermo Vilas
3. Rod Laver
4. Bill Tilden
5. Roy Emerson
6. Bjorn Borg
6. Ivan Lendl
8. Thomas Muster
9. Manuel Santana
10. Ken Rosewall

* No recent changes
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
This is the most recent update of the data. Effective changes in the top 10 relate to Nadal (2021 results), Djokovic (2021 results) and Tilden.

Tilden's stats have been fully reviewed in the last 4 months from the newspapers, almanacs and annuals. 359 new singles matches and 612 doubles matches have been found. Total Tilden matches reached 2,794 singles matches and 1,747 doubles.

Total regular Tilden singles matches (after deduction of the weak matches) reached 2,281 matches.

Total regular Tilden singles clay matches after deduction reached 984 matches.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Nice work, but was there every any doubt about the outcome?
Ha, interesting question. But ... I didn't made it with specific expectations about the outcome. My idea was not to prove what some people expect (want) to hear. I just wanted to assess objectively the players' careers.
Usually the fans prepare some rankings without knowing many other players' careers but mainly what they have heard or read on internet. My only target was to be objective to every player from the real beginning of tennis.
 
Ha, interesting question. But ... I didn't made it with specific expectations about the outcome. My idea was not to prove what some people expect (want) to hear. I just wanted to assess objectively the players' careers.
Usually the fans prepare some rankings without knowing many other players' careers but mainly what they have heard or read on internet. My only target was to be objective to every player from the real beginning of tennis.
Well done, good stuff, looking forward to seeing the hard and grass ones if you do them.
 

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
My first big study was https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...om-1877-to-2020-with-a-regular-update.685425/. Now I continue with other types of studies.
The theme “performance by surface” has been always interesting to the tennis fans. The discussions go often with the numbers of slam titles and some other selectively chosen data. More interesting for me is the whole performance of the players on every surface.

Types of surfaces
Basically I split the surfaces into 4 categories:
Clay – includes clay outdoor and indoor;
Grass;
Hard outdoor – includes all hard outdoor surfaces (cement, wood, carpet and any other artificial hard surfaces)
Hard indoor - includes all hard indoor surfaces (wood, carpet, canvas and any other artificial hard surfaces)

Scope
The study covers the players from 1877 to current which have at least 1 title in their careers.
The study covers the tournaments, tours and one-night matches from 1877 to current (after Miami 2021). The tournaments include Davis cup, Nations cup, World team cup and Kramer cup.

Limits
1. Excluded from the number of titles and number of matches are the challengers, the futures and the tournaments with a scrappy competition (especially in the pre-open era). This is made intentionally to place all players on equal terms due to the different functionality, specificity and level of competitiveness of the different eras and every single year.

2. Only the players with at least 100 wins and at least 120 matches played per surface participate in the final rankings by surfaces. Only 1 exception of this rule is made – Novak Djokovic is included in the “grass” section with 95 wins and 113 total matches played on grass. He has the incredible win/loss ratio of 84.1% but has only 6 titles and practically does not affect the rankings.
This criterion has been implied because they are too many players with a limited play on a specific surface and their data distort the chief indicators.

Chief indicators
After a long consideration and analyses of the best possible methods of evaluating the surface’ performance I focused on the following indicators:
1. Number of wins per surface – shows the player’s preference and consistency on a surface;

2. Win/loss (W/L) ratio per surface – shows the level of dominance on a surface;

3. Number of titles per surface – shows the level of efficiency of reaching the target;

Methodology of evaluating the performance by surface
All the players are ranked on each of the three indicators for each surface in descending order. The total ranking is summed by the rankings of the 3 indicators and sorted in ascending order.
Example – a player is ranked 9th by w/l, 6th by wins and 10th by titles. His total ranking is 25 which compared to other players’ total rankings means for example 7th place in total rank.
Players with equal number of wins or equal number of titles get the same ranking for this indicator.

Presentation
For the best viewing options I will present the top 10 players of each indicator and the total rank’s top 10 players – 4 tables in total.
As they are too many tables (16 for all surfaces) I think it’s better that every surface will be presented in a different thread indicated in the thread’s title.

So, let’s start. First reviewed surface is clay. It seemed from the survey that clay was the mostly used surface in the whole history. 40.1% of the tournaments were on clay.

This is cool. Curious to see where players land on other surfaces.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
This is cool. Curious to see where players land on other surfaces.


 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Looking forward to it. Thanks for putting it together


 

timnz

Legend
TOTAL RANKING on clay

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Guillermo Vilas
3. Rod Laver
4. Bill Tilden
5. Roy Emerson
6. Bjorn Borg
6. Ivan Lendl
8. Thomas Muster
9. Manuel Santana
10. Ken Rosewall

* No recent changes
By the way, love the work in all of this.

Muster over Wilding?

Wilding barely got beaten on clay ever for about 5 years, including winning 2 majors on clay (out of only 3 distinct clay major tournaments available to him) and all of the important clay court tournaments of the time. More clay titles than Muster, more Majors, More formidable dominance.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
This thread is inaccurate, Nadal has 464 wins in Clay and 62 titles, not 65.
464 is also correct. Rafa has 9 matches on clay indoor. So, it depends where you will add them - to clay outdoor or to the indoor surface. Maybe it's better in clay section.

Yep, 65 titles, incl. 3 Davis.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
By the way, love the work in all of this.

Muster over Wilding?

Wilding barely got beaten on clay ever for about 5 years, including winning 2 majors on clay (out of only 3 distinct clay major tournaments available to him) and all of the important clay court tournaments of the time. More clay titles than Muster, more Majors, More formidable dominance.
Muster is 22nd in W/L ratio (77%), 9th in wins, 8th in titles - total ranking ratio 39.
Wilding is 1st by ratio, 54th by number of wins and 5th in titles - total ranking ratio 60 (No 15 in the ranking)

Playing less matches is giving you more chances to have better ratios. That's why number of wins is included as an important indicator.
 

aman92

Legend
Wonderful work
May I ask how did you undertake this research for players pre Open era? Sources used etc.. Must have been painstaking to go through all the newspaper articles etc to get a clear picture of someone like Tilden. Also are there matches where you know the result but no information necessarily has been given on the surface in which it was played on? How did you go on determining the same?
 
TOTAL RANKING on clay

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Guillermo Vilas
3. Rod Laver
4. Bill Tilden
5. Roy Emerson
6. Bjorn Borg
6. Ivan Lendl
8. Thomas Muster
9. Manuel Santana
10. Ken Rosewall

* No recent changes

What is your basis for this ranking ? Villas higher than Borg ?
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Wonderful work
May I ask how did you undertake this research for players pre Open era? Sources used etc.. Must have been painstaking to go through all the newspaper articles etc to get a clear picture of someone like Tilden. Also are there matches where you know the result but no information necessarily has been given on the surface in which it was played on? How did you go on determining the same?
Painstaking was not because I was highly driven (motivated, emotionally involved) to get the whole picture. Of course this required spending a huge private time for researching, checking, cross-checking, analysing of info and constructing it properly for getting all cross-analyses I wanted.
Like many other people I started my database in the easy way of collecting info from internet sources. Somewhere in 2016 I realised that all these easy internet sources, incl. also ATP database, provide neither full nor correct info in many aspects. Then I took the very hard decision to find it myself.
You think that only pre open era info is hard to find. I would say that part of the info about the late 60s, 70s and 80s is also not easy to find.
The best way to have the correct pre open era information is to be checked in the newspapers, almanacs, annuals and other. This is of course the big jungle where you can find anything but ... you need a plenty of time to read it and to extract manually the info you need. That's the most unpleasant part of the story highly challenging your patience, free time and nerves. :laughing:
About the surfaces - yeah, it looks difficult and it was difficult. In let's say 80-90% of the matches (especially the old ones) the paper sources don't mention directly the surface. So, you have to find the venue, the club, the courts they have been held. Hard outdoor was a rarely used surface. Indoors they played in auditoriums, gymnasiums, halls etc. Grass was traditionally used mostly in Australia and in only some clubs in the USA.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Well done with that work. I do not agree, but great job nonetheless
I understand your view. Like many other you put the point on the slams only. I don't. Rafa is on the top not only because of RG but he was the dominator on all clay courts. And that's the most impressive. So was Vilas, so was Borg. But Borg stopped playing, it was his decision. Shorter career, less matches, less titles.
 
I understand your view. Like many other you put the point on the slams only. I don't. Rafa is on the top not only because of RG but he was the dominator on all clay courts. And that's the most impressive. So was Vilas, so was Borg. But Borg stopped playing, it was his decision. Shorter career, less matches, less titles.
But do you honestly believe that Villas is better or greater than Borg on clay ?
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
But do you honestly believe that Villas is better or greater than Borg on clay ?
"Better" or "greater" are only subjective items. Borg was maybe the greatest talent at the time and definitely the better clay courter than Vilas. But here I measure the performance on clay and I can't ignore the near 900 clay matches of Vilas which is phenomenal. There is no excuse for Borg that he stopped playing tennis in his prime years and turned to parties, alcohol and girls. Thus he had a very short career.
The greater talent and better player doesn't mean automatically that we should give advantage to that. Hundreds of examples for that.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Update of the data as of 31 July 2022

Total regular wins on clay - Nadal goes from No 6 to No 5 with 474 wins. No other changes.

Win/Loss ratio on clay - Djokovic goes from No 10 to No 9 with 80.37%. No other changes.

Total regular titles on clay - Nadal's titles rise from 65 to 66. No other changes.

TOTAL RANKING on clay - No recent changes.
 
Top