ATP Ranking Points Totals Chart: 2009–present

[Nathaniel_Near]

@jm1980 kindly produced a chart for the week by week ranking totals for The Big Four + Wawrinka (@Mainad love you bro).

SMALL NOTE: Figures accurate from 2010-present. The 2009 figures are slightly inflated due to points being doubled according to the old 2000-2008 ranking system for the first year of the current ranking system (2009 onwards). Still, the contours are illustrative.

You can access @jm1980 's interactive version: http://jsbin.com/wirikewogu/1/edit?output​

On the interactive version, you can compare the precise totals of the players in parallel over time and you can click on the names to remove them from or add them to the chart - very handy indeed.

Put it on JSBin instead, so now it uses more screen space. Incidentally:

Minimum difference between #1 and #2:
2013-10-07 - 40 points (Nadal: 11160, Djokovic: 11120)

Maximum difference between #1 and #2:
2015-09-14 - 6740 points (Djokovic: 16145, Federer: 9405)

Minimum total #1 + #2:
2010-05-17 to 2010-05-31: 16910 points (Federer: 10030, Nadal: 6880)

Maximum total #1 + #2:
2009-04-20: 26150 points (Nadal: 15390, Federer: 10760)

Some quick thoughts:

• Djokovic's ranking points total hasn't dropped below 10000 since May 9, 2011. That's ridiculous. He's maintained a minimum total seemingly higher than Murray's career peak points total, for the last 4 years.

• Also interesting to observe is the clash of peaks between Djokovic-Nadal in 2011 — where it seems clear that Djokovic ascended beyond Nadal — and in 2013, where Nadal proved to be the only player capable of producing a stint of form that was able to crash through Mr.Minimumof10000points for the #1 spot.

• It seems to reinforce the idea that Murray can't realistically take #1 from Djokovic unless Djo has a significant decline and Murray goes beyond where he's ever gone before.

• Djokovic's rivals accrued points totals that would have sufficed for #1 in some other years, but Djokovic's time at #1 is well and truly earned and of extremely high quality.

• Currently, we are not sure if the figures for 2009 are correct. @jm1980 and anyone else .. is there a strange inflation due to the way point were calculated as a follow on from the old system used from 2000-2008?

There are lots of other things I could say, but will let this simmer a while. Worth discussing I think; even though it only illuminates a general image that we already know of, it's nice to be able to play around with it like this and really get a handle on it.

Federer-Murray

Nadal-Djokovic

Djokovic-Murray

 

[RNadal]

Yer. Glutenovic's consistency is unreal. It's even better than Grandfatherer from the 2000's. Although that one was a truly god in slams.

 

[GabeT]

This is really great and one of the reasons I love this site. Not just people who are passionate about tennis but also that show an incredible level of knowledge and technical expertise. Thanks.

On the numbers in a perfect world we could go back much further in time and the ranking system would remain the same, allowing for clearer comparisons. But I know that's not the case. Still, even this that goes back only six years provides a lot of detail that is otherwise missing in many of our debates.

To me this is also a great example of why looking only at Slam wins is so misleading. Pros do so much more than that and while they care about Slams more than any other tournaments they also care, and a lot, about the rest of the tour events. And the ranking system captures it all.

Thanks again.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

The one thing that really stuck out to me was that Djokovic's minimum sustained level over the course of one year since he hit his peak amounts to a total of 10,010 points (Nov 3 and 10, 2014). As far as I can tell, Murray hasn't reached that figure once in his entire career. For someone to take #1off Djokovic while he's just plain old primin', they'll need to have an exceptional year themselves.

Pray for decline? It took Nadal having one of his great peaks to puncture the Novak train in 2013.

 

[mike danny]

The one thing that really stuck out to me was that Djokovic's minimum sustained level over the course of one year since he hit his peak amounts to a total of 10,010 point (Nov 3 and 10, 2014). As far as I can tell, Murray hasn't reached that figure once in his entire career. For someone to take #1off Djokovic while he's just plain old primin', they'll need to have an exceptional year themselves.

Pray for decline? It took Nadal having one of his great peaks to puncture the Novak train in 2013.

Federer also took the no,1 spot away from Peakovic. Even before Nadal.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Right now, Djokovic has trended up to beyond his past points peak and Murray is trending up to somewhere close to his former points peak. Federer has stabilised since being upset in 2013 by fitness issues. Will Murray ascend substantially past his old points peak (improvements on clay) or will he stabilise for a while at that sort of constant 8000-9000 points level that he was constantly at pre-surgery? Djokovic is likely to drop a bit from this Zenith even if he might increase it a little in the short term but he'd need to fall off a cliff to give anybody a realistic chance of being #1 next year. Federer hasn't reached 10k+ since 2012, when he managed to puncture Djokovic's ranking dominance for a short while. It takes a Nadalian or Federian peak to break through the Djokovic shield. Wawrinka will never be a realistic threat for the #1 spot.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Great pic, nice work @jm1980
Nice to point out that Djokovic did not drop below 10k since may 2011. It also looks like he has the highest amount of points ever, which is 16145 now, while since 2009, his lowest amount of points was still the best among all other's worst points tally. His is 5635, Nadal's is 2930, Federer's is 3805 and Murray's is 3040. Fine consistency from Djoko.
It is a fact that Djokovic will only drop points in or keep the ones he has in 2016, but someone has to break over 10k to even challenge the number 1 spot. Who can that be, it is hard to tell...

 

[tennisaddict]

I wish we could plot cumulative points of top 12 (minus big 4+ Stan) over the period, to see how they have performed to reflect the competitiveness of the era.

It just seems Ferrer, Delpo,Tsonga, Soderling did better than Raonic/Nishikori/Cilic.

Other remarks :

- Nadal's graph is like a heart monitor for a patient who has sudden heart attacks
- Novak's domination as expected is crazy. He seems to have as many points as the number 2 and 3 put together for the last year.

 

[jm1980]

Currently, we are not sure if the figures for 2009 are correct. @jm1980 and anyone else .. is there a strange inflation due to the way point were calculated as a follow on from the old system used from 2000-2008?

Looking at Nadal's 2008 playing activity explains what happened. They converted the 2008 points to the new system, but fudged the conversion. For whatever reason, they inflated Slam SFs to 900 points (instead of 720), Masters finals to 700 instead of 600; they gave Nadal 240 points for the Chennai final (instead of 150), 450 for winning Queens (even though it was a 250 at the time), and other mistakes.

The result is Nadal started 2009 with 1000+ extra points that came out of nowhere. I looked at Djokovic and Fed's points and the same thing was happening. It's safe to assume everyone's points suffered from the same problem; basically everyone's points in early 2009 were inflated.

By my calculations, Nadal's peak points total of 15390 (2009-04-20) is inflated by 780 points.

 

[Djokodal Fan]

very nice insight. Great work!

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Federer slipped earlier than Murray but got back on the bike earlier, which means he's always just been that bit more prepared and ahead for their recent matches. To change next season? Federer has stabilised and Murray is back on schedule.

 

[xFedal]

Great pic, nice work @jm1980
Nice to point out that Djokovic did not drop below 10k since may 2011. It also looks like he has the highest amount of points ever, which is 16145 now, while since 2009, his lowest amount of points was still the best among all other's worst points tally. His is 5635, Nadal's is 2930, Federer's is 3805 and Murray's is 3040. Fine consistency from Djoko.
It is a fact that Djokovic will only drop points in or keep the ones he has in 2016, but someone has to break over 10k to even challenge the number 1 spot. Who can that be, it is hard to tell...

Apart from Murray I see nobody else going past 10k Points, Even then it will be incredibly difficult to surpass Novak as the No.1, you need to have Nadal 2013 year like performance just to break the Ultron Shield.

 

[xFedal]

I wish we could plot cumulative points of top 12 (minus big 4+ Stan) over the period, to see how they have performed to reflect the competitiveness of the era.

It just seems Ferrer, Delpo,Tsonga, Soderling did better than Raonic/Nishikori/Cilic.

Other remarks :

- Nadal's graph is like a heart monitor for a patient who has sudden heart attacks
- Novak's domination as expected is crazy. He seems to have as many points as the number 2 and 3 put together for the last year.

Novak is the most dominant no.1 Ever! The 16,000+ points he has made are the highest.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Apart from Murray I see nobody else going past 10k Points, Even then it will be incredibly difficult to surpass Novak as the No.1, you need to have Nadal 2013 year like performance just to break the Ultron Shield.

The good thing is Djokovic still depends solely on himself. If he keeps this level through 2016, he will reach much greater heights.

 

[xFedal]

The good thing is Djokovic still depends solely on himself. If he keeps this level through 2016, he will reach much greater heights.

This level in 2016 would mean another 3 slam season, I want Novak to do 1 match better at the Slams by winning all 28/28 matches.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

This level in 2016 would mean another 3 slam season, I want Novak to do 1 match better at the Slams by winning all 28/28 matches.

Well, I couldn't be happier for that too, but even winning next 2 Slams will be extremely hard.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Apart from Murray I see nobody else going past 10k Points, Even then it will be incredibly difficult to surpass Novak as the No.1, you need to have Nadal 2013 year like performance just to break the Ultron Shield.

Federer might be "old" but I still think he could squeak out 10k again. Murray's never got there so to achieve it he'd have to achieve unprecedented consistency in his case - or perhaps there's a bit more room for him to get there compared to some previous years. You count out Nadal?

 

[xFedal]

Well, I couldn't be happier for that too, but even winning next 2 Slams will be extremely hard.

In 2016 Novak should go on to tie Federer with 5 YE-No.1, what do you have say about that achievement?

 

[xFedal]

Federer might be "old" but I still think he could squeak out 10k again. Murray's never got there so to achieve it he'd have to achieve unprecedented consistency in his case - or perhaps there's a bit more room for him to get there compared to some previous years. You count out Nadal?

Yes I count out Nadal because I believe he won't be able to win 10 titles and 2 slams in a year again, we are forgetting that in 2013 a guy named Rafael Nadal had to win 10 titles and 2 slams and then after winning 10 titles he became world no.1 and Novak was only behind him by 1000 points. Someone else apart from Novak has to win 5 Masters and 2 slams just to be in the same conversation as Novak.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

In 2016 Novak should go on to tie Federer with 5 YE-No.1, what do you have say about that achievement?

That would be great, and it is quite amazing that the gap between him and Federer is not that huge. I guess everything that happened in 2015 made the picture change so quickly.
But, taking it one step at a time. First, go for 6th Beijing title, and only then plan the rest.

 

[ledwix]

It's a great chart showing many things, of which I will mention a few more:

• Wawrinka had significant upward momentum from 2012-2013 going into his famous slam-winning seasons. The top-heavy distribution of points can make it difficult to see, but he did not exactly come out of nowhere.

• Federer's stint at #1 in 2012 is also highlighted for what it was: an admirable but short-lived aberration in the middle of Djokovic's domination. And late 2014 stands out as the last opportunity for Fed to capture the #1 ranking. He would have needed to win WTF and do better than Djokovic at AO 2015 to have a chance.

• With the theoretical maximum being around 19k, Djokovic will probably flatten out soon. I think he will play fewer events and stall around his peak average of 13k for the next couple of seasons.

• Nadal's chart looks like a time-reversal of the American stock exchanges in the last couple of decades: downward momentum trailing his three distinct peaks.

 

[zep]

Nadal-Djokovic

Great thread, thanks.

Quick question:

I see a small period in 2010 (around Feb-May) when Djokovic was ranked higher than Nadal (I almost forgot about it actually). Was that the only time from 2003 (when Djokovic turned pro) till July 2011 when Djokovic was ahead of Nadal in the rankings?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Great thread, thanks.

Quick question:

I see a small period in 2010 (around Feb-March) when Djokovic was ranked higher than Nadal (I almost forgot about it actually). Was that the only time from 2003 (when Djokovic turned pro) till July 2011 when Djokovic was ahead of Nadal in the rankings?

http://tennis28.com/charts/No1_Players.GIF

Appears so, yes.

 

[duaneeo]

• Federer's stint at #1 in 2012 is also highlighted for what it was: an admirable but short-lived aberration in the middle of Djokovic's domination.

Though the stint at #1 was short-lived, the path to get there was a 10-month process. During the 2011 summer season, it appeared Federer was going to follow the traditional path of a past-his-prime great, and go on a continual downslide while the next era took over. But he dominated the fall season, and in 2012 won Rotterdam, Dubai, Indian Wells, Madrid, and the Wimbledon to earn the #1 ranking (eventually surpassing Sampras' most-weeks-at-#1 record). The "short lived aberration in the middle of Djokovic's domination" is an amazing achievement.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Though the stint at #1 was short-lived, the path to get there was a 10-month process. During the 2011 summer season, it appeared Federer was going to follow the traditional path of a past-his-prime great, and go on a continual downslide while the next era took over. But he dominated the fall season, and in 2012 won Rotterdam, Dubai, Indian Wells, Madrid, and the Wimbledon to earn the #1 ranking (eventually surpassing Sampras' most-weeks-at-#1 record). The "short lived aberration in the middle of Djokovic's domination" is an amazing achievement.

He wasn't finished at Wimbledon either, his great run of form continued onto Cincinnati where he won. His wonderful form started to dip at the US Open however, when he was upset by Tomas Berdych in the quarterfinals.

 

[Druss]

From the graphs you could see that Murray has always been a step and half behind the big 3, and Wawrinka a further step and half behind Murray. I really can't see him taking the No 1 mantle from Djokovic any time soon, geez he can't even unsettle Federer from the No 2 spot, let alone. Incredible consistency from Djokovic over the 2009-15 period, especially from 2011, whereas Nadal had big time highs and lows. Federer was pretty consistent in top 3, except for that year in 2013 where he had a major blip.

 

[xFedal]

Though the stint at #1 was short-lived, the path to get there was a 10-month process. During the 2011 summer season, it appeared Federer was going to follow the traditional path of a past-his-prime great, and go on a continual downslide while the next era took over. But he dominated the fall season, and in 2012 won Rotterdam, Dubai, Indian Wells, Madrid, and the Wimbledon to earn the #1 ranking (eventually surpassing Sampras' most-weeks-at-#1 record). The "short lived aberration in the middle of Djokovic's domination" is an amazing achievement.

Federer clearly owes that short lived stint at No.1 to Nadal, as Rafa prevented Nole from winning MC-RO and French Open.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Federer clearly owes that short lived stint at No.1 to Nadal, as Rafa prevented Nole from winning MC-RO and French Open.

He owes it to himself.

If Nole defended Wimbledon, he'd have held onto #1.

 

[xFedal]

He owes it to himself.

If Nole defended Wimbledon, he'd have held onto #1.

What about winning Roland Garros + he lost points by not defending Rome.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

What about winning Roland Garros + he lost points by not defending Rome.

He gained points by reaching the Roland Garros final so I'd say it evens out.

 

[duaneeo]

He owes it to himself.

If Nole defended Wimbledon, he'd have held onto #1.

Exactly, and he also didn't defend Dubai, Indian Wells, or Madrid.

 

[jm1980]

Post 2017 AO update:

http://jsbin.com/qivuzehaho/edit?output

(CC @-NN-)

 

[-NN-]

Post 2017 AO update:

http://jsbin.com/qivuzehaho/edit?output

(CC @-NN-)

Thanks for this. Was going to ask you about this soon enough - you beat me to it. A staggering level of superiority over the field from Djokovic over 2015-16.