An adjusted points system to determine greatness

The system inflates the weight of no.1 and slam wins, but how much should WTF and Olympics be?

  • WTF 1500 Olympics 3000

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • WTF 1500 Olympics 2000

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • WTF 1500 Olympics 1500

    Votes: 6 31.6%
  • WTF 1500 Olympics 750

    Votes: 9 47.4%
  • WTF 2000 Olympics 2000

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • WTF 2000 Olympics 3000

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19

PeterHo

Hall of Fame
having a go at adjusting the points system and other achievements to come up with a total tally indicating greatness.

slam winner 4000
finalist 1500

olympic gold 3000
silver 1000

WTF 1500

Davis Cup 1000

Masters 1000

each year end no.1 4000
each year end no.2 1500

CGS 4000


rationale: up for debate here. slams should be worth way more than what it is atm. i can see the top guys "trading in" 4 masters for 1 slam. finalist should have less than half the points of the winner - 1 win is better remembered than losing 2 finals. olympic has become extremely important now. Davis cup should worth same as a master tourny (non of the big 4 wanted to "not have at least 1"). 1 year end no.1 has 4000 bonus points (yep, so each year end no.1 is worth 1 slam). and bonus points for getting the CGS (worth 1 extra slam).

so given the above system, the tallies are...

1. Federer 149500 points
28000 points over Nadal
2. Nadal 121500 points
20000 points over Nole
3. Djokovic 101500 points
70500 over Murray
4. Murray 31000 points

this year's performance so far:
Federer stretched his lead over Nadal by 4000 points.
Nadal didn't get any points.
Nole has closed in on Nadal by over 22000 points.
Murray gained 3500 points
 
Last edited:

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
olympic gold 3000
giphy.gif
 
N

Nachiket Nolefam

Guest
I see only select few guys giving olympic gold more value than a slam.
Olympics is great for a country. There are sports which specifically train for olympics and tennis is not one of them. 1 week after playing Wimbledon, seriously.

And see the quality of players the top guys face in first few rounds + RR to reach QF. Its more like bad version of WTF + masters 1000 (32 seeds) put together.

Sorry, only Rafans can give olympics more value than a slam or WTF. I hope Nole wins it next so could say this again.

Plus no one will trade 4 slams for one missed slam, except maybe Lendl.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Why giving less than half of points to runners-up compared to winner's points? Final is usually like 60% of the title.
Also, you quadrupled the usual Olympic Gold points value while keeping WTF value the same. Olympics do happen once every 4 years, but WTF is a very unique, ending, elite tournament that only has Slams ahead of it.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
What's wrong with all time ATP points, with maybe a few bonuesses for certain records and special achievements?
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
Great concept. But it's very difficult to objectively rate these different categories relative to each other, I'm afraid..
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
Why giving less than half of points to runners-up compared to winner's points? Final is usually like 60% of the title.
Also, you quadrupled the usual Olympic Gold points value while keeping WTF value the same. Olympics do happen once every 4 years, but WTF is a very unique, ending, elite tournament that only has Slams ahead of it.

Yeah. I kind of agree on that. Reaching the final of tournaments is underated.
 

user

Professional
1. Olympic Gold almost as significant as a Slam. Check.
2. Olympic Bronze missing. Check.
3. Davis Cup (team event). Check.
4. Year end No. 2 :confused:. Check. Still hard to believe someone came up with this.
5. H2H with your main rival. Why is this missing?
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
having a go at adjusting the points system and other achievements to come up with a total tally indicating greatness.

slam winner 4000
finalist 1500

olympic gold 3000
silver 1000

WTF 1500

Davis Cup 1000

Masters 1000

year end no.1 4000
year end no.2 1500

CGS 4000


rationale: up for debate here. slams should be worth way more than what it is atm. i can see the top guys "trading in" 4 masters for 1 slam. finalist should have less than half the points of the winner - 1 win is better remembered than losing 2 finals. olympic has become extremely important now. Davis cup should worth same as a master tourny (non of the big 4 wanted to "not have at least 1"). 1 year end no.1 has 4000 bonus points (yep, so each year end no.1 is worth 1 slam). and bonus points for getting the CGS (worth 1 extra slam).

so given the above system, the tallies are...

1. Federer 149500 points
28000 points over Nadal
2. Nadal 121500 points
20000 points over Nole
3. Djokovic 101500 points
70500 over Murray
4. Murray 31000 points

this year's performance so far:
Federer stretched his lead over Nadal by 4000 points.
Nadal didn't get any points.
Nole has closed in on Nadal by over 22000 points.
Murray gained 3500 points
Peter, what about the old Head to Head tour that determined the World Champion in the old days? That's far bigger than a major because unlike a major it guarantees you the World Championship. They also often played over 100 matches before it ended. It is imo more important than several majors. You also have to include the old Pro Majors. And of course Year End Number One which means you are the World Champion.
 
Last edited:

tacou

G.O.A.T.
The issue is, most players would trade in every single win of their entire career for a slam. That doesn't mean a slam should be worth 30,000 ranking points.
 

PeterHo

Hall of Fame

I see only select few guys giving olympic gold more value than a slam.
Olympics is great for a country. There are sports which specifically train for olympics and tennis is not one of them. 1 week after playing Wimbledon, seriously.

And see the quality of players the top guys face in first few rounds + RR to reach QF. Its more like bad version of WTF + masters 1000 (32 seeds) put together.

Sorry, only Rafans can give olympics more value than a slam or WTF. I hope Nole wins it next so could say this again.

Plus no one will trade 4 slams for one missed slam, except maybe Lendl.

Take one look at his avatar and then read my tagline...says it all. Rafool's army never sleeps!

Looks like your entire scoring system to inflate rafas numbers.

1. Olympic Gold almost as significant as a Slam. Check.
2. Olympic Bronze missing. Check.
3. Davis Cup (team event). Check.
4. Year end No. 2 :confused:. Check. Still hard to believe someone came up with this.
5. H2H with your main rival. Why is this missing?


not a nadal fan, why can't i be a murray fan too? or a fed fan (silver) for that matter? only NOLE doesn't have any points in the olympics category.

The bonus NO.1 points I give for Fed more than offsets any olympic or davis cups for Nadal. It's not like NO.1 is officially counted for points. Fed's got 2 more years no.1 and also the SAME no.2 years at 5 each. Also the slam points are inflated (doubled). So in fact i have given Federer an extra 10000+ points padding over Nadal... and of course, i am not including the controversial h2h here. how many points do you award h2h??? is that even possible? The single biggest puller for Nadal as the greatest, is hardly a real achievement. His wins in the H2H has already resulted in many slam titles which have been counted. are we double counting? at most, i could give him bonus points (similar to no.1 ranking and CGS) for the feat, say an extra 5000. That doesn't change the big picture.

anti-Nadal fans don't see the full balance of this system.

there is no doubt in fed and nole's mind, olympics is right up their list of targets. it is more important for them to win it next year than to win WTF 16. its rated less than a slam, but more important than any other tournament.

The system just confirms Fed is above the other 2 in terms of achievements so far. And that in itself supports him as the current greatest of this millenium. There is no debate on whether Nadal is greater, 28000 points is pretty much 2 great years away (2 slams or more), near impossible for Nadal now. And fed is still racking up an average 5000 points year on year, at 30+.
 
O

OhYes

Guest
Olympic not only that is scarce, but it is also played mostly in 2 sets until final. In Olympics you have 1 round less than in Slam. Therefore Olympics are more close to Masters than to Slam.
You could also value FO more than any other slam. :rolleyes:
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
having a go at adjusting the points system and other achievements to come up with a total tally indicating greatness.

slam winner 4000
finalist 1500

olympic gold 3000
silver 1000

WTF 1500

Davis Cup 1000

Masters 1000

year end no.1 4000
year end no.2 1500

CGS 4000


rationale: up for debate here. slams should be worth way more than what it is atm. i can see the top guys "trading in" 4 masters for 1 slam. finalist should have less than half the points of the winner - 1 win is better remembered than losing 2 finals. olympic has become extremely important now. Davis cup should worth same as a master tourny (non of the big 4 wanted to "not have at least 1"). 1 year end no.1 has 4000 bonus points (yep, so each year end no.1 is worth 1 slam). and bonus points for getting the CGS (worth 1 extra slam).

so given the above system, the tallies are...

1. Federer 149500 points
28000 points over Nadal
2. Nadal 121500 points
20000 points over Nole
3. Djokovic 101500 points
70500 over Murray
4. Murray 31000 points

this year's performance so far:
Federer stretched his lead over Nadal by 4000 points.
Nadal didn't get any points.
Nole has closed in on Nadal by over 22000 points.
Murray gained 3500 points
Seems fine to me, except for Olympic Gold = 3000.
That should be 1500, same as WTF.

750 is too low though.
750 for silver.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Seems fine to me, except for Olympic Gold = 3000.
That should be 1500, same as WTF.

750 is too low though.
Shouldn't even be the same as the WTF, the field at the Olympics hasn't been good/great until 2008.
 

PeterHo

Hall of Fame
The issue is, most players would trade in every single win of their entire career for a slam. That doesn't mean a slam should be worth 30,000 ranking points.
and so, we need to strike a balance.

the slams should be worth way more than what it currently is. 2000 points, really, 2 master wins? anybody remember players with 2 master wins and never won a slam??

but a guy like berdych only has 1 master win, ask him trade all his wins they won't even be worth 1 slam. He's not good enough to get 1 slam, thats the verdict.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Shouldn't even be the same as the WTF, the field at the Olympics hasn't been good/great until 2008.
I know, but I do consider it to be a rare tournament which clearly means a lot to the players.
I rate it very similarly to the WTF.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
and so, we need to strike a balance.

the slams should be worth way more than what it currently is. 2000 points, really, 2 master wins? anybody remember players with 2 master wins and never won a slam??

but a guy like berdych only has 1 master win, ask him trade all his wins they won't even be worth 1 slam. He's not good enough to get 1 slam, thats the verdict.
Agreed.
Slams should be 3000-4000 points at least I reckon.

The fact that numerically, 2 Masters = 1 Slam, is ridiculous IMO.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I know, but I do consider it to be a rare tournament which clearly means a lot to the players.
I rate it very similarly to the WTF.
But it only means a lot to players in recent times. I can't put it up there with the WTF when in my opinion it is harder to win.

Sampras for example couldn't care less about the Olympics.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
But it only means a lot to players in recent times. I can't put it up there with the WTF when in my opinion it is harder to win.

Sampras for example couldn't care less about the Olympics.
But modern players do care about it, so what can we do?
Possibly say it's worth more now than then, kind of like the AO?

The WTF is harder to win on a per-tournament basis IMO, but the Olympics is held four times less often.
So I think classing it as a 1500 along with the WTF works well.
Just my opinion.
 

70後

Hall of Fame
I have said before; imo, olympic tennis should be considered part of olympics, not part of tennis.

To hilariously inflate it to 3000 and then claim silver should be worth as much as a masters, that puts you way over the top. It is clear what your intention is.
 

PeterHo

Hall of Fame
Why giving less than half of points to runners-up compared to winner's points? Final is usually like 60% of the title.
Also, you quadrupled the usual Olympic Gold points value while keeping WTF value the same. Olympics do happen once every 4 years, but WTF is a very unique, ending, elite tournament that only has Slams ahead of it.

Yeah. I kind of agree on that. Reaching the final of tournaments is underated.

Olympic not only that is scarce, but it is also played mostly in 2 sets until final. In Olympics you have 1 round less than in Slam. Therefore Olympics are more close to Masters than to Slam.
You could also value FO more than any other slam. :rolleyes:

Seems fine to me, except for Olympic Gold = 3000.
That should be 1500, same as WTF.

750 is too low though.
750 for silver.

Shouldn't even be the same as the WTF, the field at the Olympics hasn't been good/great until 2008.

I know, but I do consider it to be a rare tournament which clearly means a lot to the players.
I rate it very similarly to the WTF.

slam final: yes it is an underrated achievement. the actual difficulty should be 50% of winner points. however, in reality, how many slam finals do we remember for these guys, and guys in history, for that matter? off the top of my head, i can't remember how many slam finals players have, even the big 3. in tennis, winner takes all.

so the debate is how many points should the olympics be.

yes i have quadrupled the points - we all know its only played once every four years, which means the difficulty of even winning 1 olympics is quadrupled.

In the big picture, the olympics points is hardly relevant, given that theres only 3, 4 opportunities for a player to win it, the points given doesn't impact the total tally much (+ or - 3000). The change in points in other categories, eg. slams and no.1s, impacts the overall tally far greater. If anything, the system gives much more weight in no.1 ranking and slam wins.

maybe the olympics and WTF should worth the same, say 2000 points. if i get enough people agreeing to a figure then that will be the case.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
But modern players do care about it, so what can we do?
Possibly say it's worth more now than then, kind of like the AO?


The WTF is harder to win on a per-tournament basis IMO, but the Olympics is held four times less often.
So I think classing it as a 1500 along with the WTF works well.
Just my opinion.
I see where you're coming from. I don't know though, I don't think it has gained enough prestige yet to put it on the same level as the WTF.

But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, fair enough.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
and so, we need to strike a balance.

the slams should be worth way more than what it currently is. 2000 points, really, 2 master wins? anybody remember players with 2 master wins and never won a slam??

but a guy like berdych only has 1 master win, ask him trade all his wins they won't even be worth 1 slam. He's not good enough to get 1 slam, thats the verdict.
Strike a balance? 4000 points seems just as arbitrary as any number.
 

PeterHo

Hall of Fame
Peter, what about the old Head to Head tour that determined the World Champion in the old days? That's far bigger than a major because unlike a major it guarantees you the World Championship. They also often played over 100 matches before it ended. It is imo more important than several majors. You also have to include the old Pro Majors. And of course Year End Number One which means you are the World Champion.
Right now we are looking just at the new atp ranking system. I'm a bit thin in terms of knowledge of the pre open era years. if somebody here can award points for the different achievements in the earlier eras that would be a good starting point.
 

PeterHo

Hall of Fame
Strike a balance? 4000 points seems just as arbitrary as any number.
and so what do you suggest? gimme a no. that represents both the difficulty and the prestige in winning a slam. You can also say it should remain at 2000.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
having a go at adjusting the points system and other achievements to come up with a total tally indicating greatness.

slam winner 4000
finalist 1500

olympic gold 3000
silver 1000

WTF 1500

Davis Cup 1000

Masters 1000

year end no.1 4000
year end no.2 1500

CGS 4000


rationale: up for debate here. slams should be worth way more than what it is atm. i can see the top guys "trading in" 4 masters for 1 slam. finalist should have less than half the points of the winner - 1 win is better remembered than losing 2 finals. olympic has become extremely important now. Davis cup should worth same as a master tourny (non of the big 4 wanted to "not have at least 1"). 1 year end no.1 has 4000 bonus points (yep, so each year end no.1 is worth 1 slam). and bonus points for getting the CGS (worth 1 extra slam).

so given the above system, the tallies are...

1. Federer 149500 points
28000 points over Nadal
2. Nadal 121500 points
20000 points over Nole
3. Djokovic 101500 points
70500 over Murray
4. Murray 31000 points

this year's performance so far:
Federer stretched his lead over Nadal by 4000 points.
Nadal didn't get any points.
Nole has closed in on Nadal by over 22000 points.
Murray gained 3500 points
No, this does not look right. May I suggest a few improvements:

Wim, AO, USO: 2000 points
RG: 8000 points
OSG: 3000 points
WTF: 100 points

Weeks at #2: 200 points per week
Wins over Federer: 1000 points per win

Butt picks: 100 per pick
Bottle alignments: 200 per alignment
Moonballs hit to the BH: 300 per moonball
 

PeterHo

Hall of Fame
I have said before; imo, olympic tennis should be considered part of olympics, not part of tennis.

To hilariously inflate it to 3000 and then claim silver should be worth as much as a masters, that puts you way over the top. It is clear what your intention is.
and the intention is?? to inflate nadal and murray over fed, and all 3 of them over Nole? my favourite player?

Nole's going to be many years no.1, any lack of olympic gold is easily cancelled out.

The system gives bonuses to all of the big 4. If anything it mostly disadvantages Murray, who has the least slams and never been YE top 2.

It gives a much heavier weight to slams and no.1 ranking, the 2 most important achievements in tennis.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
No, this does not look right. May I suggest a few improvements:

Wim, AO, USO: 2000 points
RG: 8000 points
OSG: 3000 points
WTF: 100 points

Weeks at #2: 200 points per week
Wins over Federer: 1000 points per win

Butt picks: 100 per pick
Bottle alignments: 200 per alignment
Moonballs hit to the BH: 300 per moonball
I think OP said before that he is a Djokovic fan. I may be wrong though.
 

PeterHo

Hall of Fame
No, this does not look right. May I suggest a few improvements:

Wim, AO, USO: 2000 points
RG: 8000 points
OSG: 3000 points
WTF: 100 points

Weeks at #2: 200 points per week
Wins over Federer: 1000 points per win

Butt picks: 100 per pick
Bottle alignments: 200 per alignment
Moonballs hit to the BH: 300 per moonball
haters gonna hate.

all this system confirms is federer >nadal> nole in terms of achievements. nothing more, nothing less. and it also shows nadal is closer to nole than is to federer, which the 17-14-10 DOES NOT suggest.

a nadal fan would be better off arguing H2H is the most important stat, and should be awarded 20000+ points.
 

Dave1982

Professional
having a go at adjusting the points system and other achievements to come up with a total tally indicating greatness.

slam winner 4000
finalist 1500

olympic gold 3000
silver 1000

WTF 1500

Davis Cup 1000

Masters 1000

year end no.1 4000
year end no.2 1500

CGS 4000


rationale: up for debate here. slams should be worth way more than what it is atm. i can see the top guys "trading in" 4 masters for 1 slam. finalist should have less than half the points of the winner - 1 win is better remembered than losing 2 finals. olympic has become extremely important now. Davis cup should worth same as a master tourny (non of the big 4 wanted to "not have at least 1"). 1 year end no.1 has 4000 bonus points (yep, so each year end no.1 is worth 1 slam). and bonus points for getting the CGS (worth 1 extra slam).

so given the above system, the tallies are...

1. Federer 149500 points
28000 points over Nadal
2. Nadal 121500 points
20000 points over Nole
3. Djokovic 101500 points
70500 over Murray
4. Murray 31000 points

this year's performance so far:
Federer stretched his lead over Nadal by 4000 points.
Nadal didn't get any points.
Nole has closed in on Nadal by over 22000 points.
Murray gained 3500 points

Nice work for having a go & giving us all something to comment on...however I honestly think you've been largely subjective in trying to create an objective outcome....the result being an absolute and undignified mess!

Also you forgot H2H bonus points for wins against top 10 players...that should provide you with further buffer for what you're trying to achieve.
 

PeterHo

Hall of Fame
Nice work for having a go & giving us all something to comment on...however I honestly think you've been largely subjective in trying to create an objective outcome....the result being an absolute and undignified mess!

Also you forgot H2H bonus points for wins against top 10 players...that should provide you with further buffer for what you're trying to achieve.
yes, indeed the system is not complete, that's why its up for debate, comments, improvements.

H2h against top players... mmm
 

Dave1982

Professional
yes, indeed the system is not complete, that's why its up for debate, comments, improvements.

H2h against top players... mmm

May I ask what's specifically wrong with current system?
I note you say 1 win is better than 2 Finals...don't necessarily disagree however any points system should also recognize & reward consistency. Runner Up at a Slam is still a phenomenal achievement & better than 126 others who entered.

Davis Cup - what happens if your country wins but you lose your rubbers, still get 1000 - Does Fed get full 1000 last year even though he lost opening match?

Olympics - I think you're significantly overstating it's importance in regards to tennis. Sure everyone would like to win one but tennis could be excluded from the Olympics tomorrow & other than the odd quote from top players saying they're disappointed, life would go on & their lives would be largely unaffected.

Why would you award points for YE#1? Finishing YE#1 whilst an achievement is simply a byproduct of other achievements & you're therefore really just double dipping!
 

CYGS

Legend
haters gonna hate.

all this system confirms is federer >nadal> nole in terms of achievements. nothing more, nothing less. and it also shows nadal is closer to nole than is to federer, which the 17-14-10 DOES NOT suggest.

a nadal fan would be better off arguing H2H is the most important stat, and should be awarded 20000+ points.
You are the hater. You hate tennis.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
and so what do you suggest? gimme a no. that represents both the difficulty and the prestige in winning a slam. You can also say it should remain at 2000.
I think 2000 is fine, but as I said, all these numbers seem random
 
O

OhYes

Guest
great link, thx ! :)

in addition to the pleasant presentation, it makes it easier to compare players by "ace eaten"... i'll be able to check if my "monfils might be the least aced player" is true of if we can find a player who's less aced ;)
It's so packed with stat. :confused: I've posted this link from tennis.com because I know it will be lost. Monfils is on 476th place with 3,90% Martin Jaite is last 487 - 2,73%
Wawrinka and Ferrer are also good, Federer 5.66%, Djokovic 6.16%, Nadal 7.11%.:)

Edit: Sorry, just saw your topic about this.
 
N

Nachiket Nolefam

Guest
No, this does not look right. May I suggest a few improvements:

Wim, AO, USO: 2000 points
RG: 8000 points
OSG: 3000 points
WTF: 100 points

Weeks at #2: 200 points per week
Wins over Federer: 1000 points per win

Butt picks: 100 per pick
Bottle alignments: 200 per alignment
Moonballs hit to the BH: 300 per moonball
Lol. I think everyone should agree with this system ;)
 

PeterHo

Hall of Fame
May I ask what's specifically wrong with current system?
I note you say 1 win is better than 2 Finals...don't necessarily disagree however any points system should also recognize & reward consistency. Runner Up at a Slam is still a phenomenal achievement & better than 126 others who entered.

Davis Cup - what happens if your country wins but you lose your rubbers, still get 1000 - Does Fed get full 1000 last year even though he lost opening match?

Olympics - I think you're significantly overstating it's importance in regards to tennis. Sure everyone would like to win one but tennis could be excluded from the Olympics tomorrow & other than the odd quote from top players saying they're disappointed, life would go on & their lives would be largely unaffected.

Why would you award points for YE#1? Finishing YE#1 whilst an achievement is simply a byproduct of other achievements & you're therefore really just double dipping!

davis cup - i have not deducted points for not winning the rubbers. however in this study i've only included achievements that have more than 1000 points, anything less is deemed too insignificant to impact the overall picture. If we have two players within a few thousand points then we can analyse them in more detail.

olympics - sure everybody is entitled to their opinion. at this moment according to the poll, averaging total points by the 11 voters is giving us 2000 points for olympics.

YE no.1 - this is recognising the achievement of players for their total ranking points for the year. we haven't counted all their other tournaments, and their sfs, qf points. The year end ranking is the best representation of consistency throughout the year, and thus should be awarded bonus points.
 

Dave1982

Professional
olympics - sure everybody is entitled to their opinion. at this moment according to the poll, averaging total points by the 11 voters is giving us 2000 points for olympics.

You do understand how, averages, mean values & probability work dont you???

To start mate, the fact you've coupled WTF & Olympics into a single poll means no such individual conclusion can be drawn.

Secondly the disparity in values means a single vote can throw the average out significantly. Work on a mean value & you'll get a far more accurate understanding of your results....which agin brings me back to original question, what's wrong with current system?

Could keep going as you've contradicted yourself & blown holes in your own system plenty more times but really can't be bothered with it anymore.
 

timnz

Legend
Wtf 1500/ Olympics 1250

It is very important that the Olympics is never more than the wtf because that would be detrimental to the tradition over 45 years of the wtf being the top event after the slams. I agree the Olympics should now be worth more than 750 but not higher than 1250
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
All I know is they should get 5000 points for beating prime Rafa, 10000 for doing it on clay, 20000 for doing it on clay over 5 sets, 7000 if they make their opponent cry, and 12 points if they make Andy Murray swear.
 
Top