ATP Year-End Ranking: Number 1 v Number 5 or 10.
- Thread starter KG1965
- Start date
2019
1) NADAL 9985
5) MEDVEDEV 5705 .. 57,14%
10) MONFILS 2530 .. 25,34%
2018
1) DJOKOVIC 9045
5) DEL POTRO 5300 .. 58,60%
10) ISNER 3155 .. 34,88%
2017
1) NADAL 10645
5) THIEM 4015 .. 37,72%
10) CARRENO BUSTA 2615 .. 24,57%
Djokovic's numbers in 2015 seem very poor for a number one.
Even those of Thiem as number 5.
1) NADAL 9985
5) MEDVEDEV 5705 .. 57,14%
10) MONFILS 2530 .. 25,34%
2018
1) DJOKOVIC 9045
5) DEL POTRO 5300 .. 58,60%
10) ISNER 3155 .. 34,88%
2017
1) NADAL 10645
5) THIEM 4015 .. 37,72%
10) CARRENO BUSTA 2615 .. 24,57%
Djokovic's numbers in 2015 seem very poor for a number one.
Even those of Thiem as number 5.
Last edited:
2016
1) MURRAY 12410
5) NISHIKORI 4905 .. 39,52%
10) BERDYCH 3060 % .. 24,66
2015
1) DJOKOVIC 16585
5) NADAL 5230 .. 31,53%
10) TSONGA 2635.. 15,89%
2014
1) DJOKOVIC 11360
5) NISHIKORI 5025 .. 44,23%
10) FERRER 4045 .. 35,61%
2016 Murray's numbers are big, Djokovic 2015 is alien.
The gap of numbers 5 and 10 is abysmal.
1) MURRAY 12410
5) NISHIKORI 4905 .. 39,52%
10) BERDYCH 3060 % .. 24,66
2015
1) DJOKOVIC 16585
5) NADAL 5230 .. 31,53%
10) TSONGA 2635.. 15,89%
2014
1) DJOKOVIC 11360
5) NISHIKORI 5025 .. 44,23%
10) FERRER 4045 .. 35,61%
2016 Murray's numbers are big, Djokovic 2015 is alien.
The gap of numbers 5 and 10 is abysmal.
Last edited:
2011
1) DJOKOVIC 13630
5) FERRER 4925 .. 36,13%
10) ALMAGRO 2380 .. 17,46%
2010
1) NADAL 12450
5) SODERLING 5580 .. 44,82%
10) YOUZHNY 2920 .. 23,45%
Always excellent performances by Nadal and Djoker at the top.
Also the one from Soderling number 5 is good.
Now comes Federer's five-year term.
1) DJOKOVIC 13630
5) FERRER 4925 .. 36,13%
10) ALMAGRO 2380 .. 17,46%
2010
1) NADAL 12450
5) SODERLING 5580 .. 44,82%
10) YOUZHNY 2920 .. 23,45%
Always excellent performances by Nadal and Djoker at the top.
Also the one from Soderling number 5 is good.
Now comes Federer's five-year term.
Last edited:
Tennisbase uses a ranking similar to the latest ATP one for all years. Nole 2015 has bigger gaps than Mac 1984.
Last edited:
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Peak of the strong baseliner era.
NonP
Legend
Pfft. Doesn't matter how big this "gap" is when you can separate yourself like this::
Not terribly close when you compare the game/set %s. Factor in doubles and it's hard not to declare Mac's '84 season the 2nd best of the Open Era, and arguably the most dominant.
Just two things.
Laver 1969 is still probably the best Open Era season, but he didn’t win the top event in every surface. Top hardcourt event was Las Vegas, by far. And the indoor one is debatable, for example I would say MSG Open was the best one (but Philly/Wembley are there too).
Mac had a very dominant season but 1984 schedule was less strict than 2006-2015 schedule. Make him play Montecarlo and Rome/Madrid like Fed and Nole did. Red clay is not green clay and in fact Mac lost 2 of his matches on red clay. Also, make him play (a player like) Nadal 3 times on red clay and you’ll see how his numbers drop
NonP
Legend
Still prefer Laver's '69 campaign myself. Not sure I'd agree that Vegas was the #1 HC event "by far." Johannesburg is generally referred to as a top HC event and of course Big Pancho lost there to Drysdale himself.
You don't need to convince me of the difference between red and green clay, but one of Mac's two losses on the former came indoors and in a DC tie at the year-end to boot. Plus he was toying with his opponents just about everywhere so I doubt his game/set %s would've been affected all that much. Remember, we're dealing with roughly 3-4%/5% differences here. Those gaps would be close enough if we were comparing CC seasons only, but not when we're talking a mere 3 matches out of whole seasons. Case in point: even if you assume Mac loses every single game of an extra 3 best-of-5 matches his game % in '84 would drop to 63.6% only, still an almost full point higher than '15 Novak's.
Vegas had way better prize money (40k to 25k) and better competition with almost the full top15.
It would be nice to see the stats Mac-Fed taking clay away from both. And taking into consideration that overall serve was less effective in 1984 than 2006, so easier to break.
NonP
Legend
Yes but the SA Open draw was no peanuts, either. And it's quite debatable whether completing a Grand Slam on 2 surfaces is less challenging than pulling off the same on 3. In fact one could well argue the opposite as the lack of a HC major presumably makes the grass-clay transition even more difficult.
Don't have '84 Mac's breakdown but I've got Fed's GW% sans clay: 62.1% (1214/1955), so hardly much better than his actual 61.7%. Like I said 3 matches ain't likely to change a yearlong stat by much.
And it's indeed undeniable that serves overall were less effective in '84, but the opposite is also true which would more or less cancel each other out. Plus Mac's serve is probably at least as good as Fed's if not even better relatively speaking, so I don't think the service factor would be decisive either way.
My point on the 1969 season is not if it’s more or less difficult to sweep the four majors. It is about the harcourt best event. Johannesburg was very good, but probably the third best. PSW has better competition too. Johannesburg was deeper, but first two rounds were filled by desperate South Africans.
Laver season is the best in my opinion, with or without the best hardcourt event in his pocket, but Pancho nailed the two top hardcourt events.
Regarding Mac/Fed/Nole, if service is less effective, the best player wins the most points as he’s not penalized by big serves. So I’m not so sure that the ”opposite would more or less cancel each other out”. In a few words: on their serves they win most of the games, on their return games Mac had big advantage on Fed/Nole.
2007
1) FEDERER 7180
5) FERRER 2750 .. 38,30%
10) ROBREDO 1765 .. 24,58%
2006
1) FEDERER 8370
5) LJUBICIC 2495 .. 29,81%
10) GONZALEZ 2015 .. 24,07%
Similar numbers between 5 and 10, the difference is Federer who in 2006 (in comparison with 2007, however very good) has an impressive score.
In fact, the gap between 5 and 10 is narrow but between Roger and the two is enormous.
1) FEDERER 7180
5) FERRER 2750 .. 38,30%
10) ROBREDO 1765 .. 24,58%
2006
1) FEDERER 8370
5) LJUBICIC 2495 .. 29,81%
10) GONZALEZ 2015 .. 24,07%
Similar numbers between 5 and 10, the difference is Federer who in 2006 (in comparison with 2007, however very good) has an impressive score.
In fact, the gap between 5 and 10 is narrow but between Roger and the two is enormous.
Last edited:
2005
1) FEDERER 6725
5) DAVYDENKO 2390 .. 35,54%
10) GAUDIO 2050 .. 30,48%
2004
1) FEDERER 6335
5) MOYA 2520 .. 39,78%
10) GAUDIO 1920 .. 30,31%
Federer's data in the first two years from number 1 are less impressive than the following ones.
The distance with the 5th is always similar but it is the tenth one (Gaudio curiously in both years) which is not wide. In other words Gaudio is quite close to 5th place.
1) FEDERER 6725
5) DAVYDENKO 2390 .. 35,54%
10) GAUDIO 2050 .. 30,48%
2004
1) FEDERER 6335
5) MOYA 2520 .. 39,78%
10) GAUDIO 1920 .. 30,31%
Federer's data in the first two years from number 1 are less impressive than the following ones.
The distance with the 5th is always similar but it is the tenth one (Gaudio curiously in both years) which is not wide. In other words Gaudio is quite close to 5th place.
NonP
Legend
But these two matters aren't mutually exclusive. Surely one of the reasons we rate the (calendar) Grand Slam so high is because it shows the player's ability to conquer different surfaces/conditions, and we wouldn't be discussing which HC event was the best of the year if not for that consideration.
Anyhoo I agree that Vegas was the strongest HC event, but I'd rate SAO and PSW about equal. It's not unusual for a tourney to favor its local players and SAO's disproportionate # of South African participants is largely offset by its extra round. Plus SAO and PSW offered about the same $$$ ($25k vs. $24,500).
It's a fact that RG/clay tends to produce the highest % of games won so your point is valid, but I doubt it holds that much sway outside clay. We're not talking about Tilden/Budge/Vines' heyday where even top players struggled to hold 70% of the time, and while there's no doubt the hold % has been steadily increasing (as I've painstakingly documented myself) the gap in % of return games won between '84 and '06 probably isn't this chasm that would so disproportionately favor Mac as to render the comparison illegitimate.
Also those #s clearly show that Mac was at worst one of the best servers ever and his serve would be that much more potent in '06. Put Mac or Fed in their own respective year and their game/set %s would most likely be closer, but not IMO enough to offset the actual 4%/5% differences. Mac wasn't a typical power/finesse S&Ver who would be subject to the usual trade-offs in tennis. Think the guy's sui generis game would give opponents fits in any era, though that also happens to be why its peak probably wouldn't last as long as Fed's or Novak's regardless of personal distractions as it requires exquisite timing and pinpoint footwork to work its full magic.
2000
1) KUERTEN 4195
5) KAFELNIKOV 2935 .. 69,96%
10) HENMAN 2020 .. 48,15%
1999
1) AGASSI 5048
5) KUERTEN 2601 .. 51,53%
10) KRAJICECK 2095 .. 41,50%
Kuerten's numbers resemble those of Roddick and Hewitt. His gap on the 5th and 10th is line.
Does better Agassi.
Nothing to do with the champions who will come later.
1) KUERTEN 4195
5) KAFELNIKOV 2935 .. 69,96%
10) HENMAN 2020 .. 48,15%
1999
1) AGASSI 5048
5) KUERTEN 2601 .. 51,53%
10) KRAJICECK 2095 .. 41,50%
Kuerten's numbers resemble those of Roddick and Hewitt. His gap on the 5th and 10th is line.
Does better Agassi.
Nothing to do with the champions who will come later.
Last edited:
1998
1) SAMPRAS 3915
5) KUERTEN 3159 .. 80,69%
10) KRAJICECK 2548 .. 65,08%
1999 has an extremely short ranking. Number 1 has a very high margin on both 5 and 10 which seems to be due to a very good performance of the numbers 5 and 10 compared to many other years but above all to an extremely low Sampras score. ..looks like a number 3 or 4.
Seems a number 2 (.. or 3).
1) SAMPRAS 3915
5) KUERTEN 3159 .. 80,69%
10) KRAJICECK 2548 .. 65,08%
1999 has an extremely short ranking. Number 1 has a very high margin on both 5 and 10 which seems to be due to a very good performance of the numbers 5 and 10 compared to many other years but above all to an extremely low Sampras score. ..looks like a number 3 or 4.
Seems a number 2 (.. or 3).
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
...except that he lost the first major final he reached (French Open), showing mental weakness when distracted in that match. Also, he lost against three men that year, whereas Federer in 2006 lost against only two - it's just that Roger met clay god Nadal multiple times.
I'll keep Mac 1984 at 4th on my list, thank you very much.
NonP
Legend
Sorry but it's hard to take your post seriously when you're trotting out the hackneyed Mac-let-it-slip-away myth. Go see (since you clearly haven't) the 3rd set and then ask yourself if it was indeed Mac giving it away or Lendl upping his game and turning the match around.
As I've pointed out already that loss to 6th-ranked Sundstrom came in a DC tie and at the very end of the year to boot, whereas your boy, as was his wont back then, skipped DC except to keep his country in the WG. And Murray was ranked only 21st when he upset Fed at Cincy.
The mere fact that Fed played the clay god three times is irrelevant if he would lose to Lendl as well. Call me biased but I prefer Ivan in this matchup, not just because he was more dominant going into the FO final but also because Mac had beaten him twice on clay (granted once on the green stuff) and yet he was still able to prevail.
And it's not just his superior match-win % but also his big edge in % of games/sets won as well as his doubles success that pushes Mac over his competition except '69 Laver. You're free to keep him where you want but don't expect serious fans to take your half-baked rationale seriously.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I'm not denying that Lendl turned it around, he was clearly a great player himself - although one prone to choking on the biggest occasions during those years. It was Mac who was the supposed big match player, yet he allowed the Czech choker (as he was then) back into the match.
Federer isn't "my boy", by the way - that would be Sampras. Anyhoo, moving on from that slur, the point is that McEnroe lost to Sundstrom and Amritraj (who was ranked outside the top 100), whereas Federer lost several times to the undisputed greatest player ever on a particular surface, and a future 3-time slam champion in Murray. Sure, Federer had one more loss, but the calibre of those he was defeated by was on average higher.
Federer was a shanked forehand away from defeating Nadal at the Rome tournament in 2006. Of course we can never prove cross-era hypotheticals, but I think 2006 Federer would have had a good chance of defeating 1984 Lendl on clay. Note, I am not claiming he would have put together a finer clay career than Ivan overall - but in those particular years, Roger would have stood a decent chance of prevailing.
I'm not sure why the % of games/sets won is so important to you. What's the point of racking up 6-0, 6-1, 6-1 type scorelines in the early rounds if you're going to be bested by Lendl in the final? I maintain that Mac 1984 remains the 4th greatest season of the Open Era, behind Laver (1969), Novak Djokovic (2015) and Federer (2006).
NonP
Legend
How was that allowing Lendl back into the match when you acknowledge he was the one who turned it around? A single break means next to nothing on clay, as you should well know from all those Fedal matches at RG. And Ivan played a hell of a return game (or several) to change the flow of the match.
Again it's a fact that Sundstrom (6th) was ranked higher at the time than Murray (21st). Andy in fact never got past the 4th round at any of the Slams in '06, whereas Henrik made the QF at '84 RG which of course shared the same type of surface as the DC finals in December. And I repeat, that's a loss that Mac could've easily avoided by not participating.
So the proper comparison is between (a very green) Murray and 70th-ranked (not outside the top 100 - not sure where you got that from) Amritraj. It certainly seems to favor the Brit, until you recognize that the big-serving Amritraj could take down anyone and probably posed a bigger threat on select days than young Murray ever did, especially on Cincy's fast HC (in fact the very fastest, if the numbers were similar back then). A post hoc shout-out to Murray's overall resume here is like touting Arnaud Boetsch as a good dirtballer 'cause he was able to knock out Lendl at '94 RG.
The '06 Rome final is a classic and rightly so, but as Novak and Fed himself would tell you it's one thing to put together a flawless performance at a Masters or smaller event and quite another to replicate it at a major. Hell that's exactly what Mac would tell you, too. Plus Fed probably never came in much more on clay than in that final, and unless you happen to be a Panatta or Noah who's spent his whole career honing a specialized kind of net rushing for dirt (as opposed to full-on S&V) you're not likely to have consistent success at repeating the same balance between aggression and patience.
As I've explained time and again that consistency as well as patience generally wins over flashes of brilliance on clay in the long term. And Lendl's edge % of games won in '84 vs. Fed's in '06 was not an anomaly. Fed has cracked the magic 60% mark only once in his competitive years while it's almost certain Lendl pulled it off more than 2-3 times, and probably by a comfortable margin at that. CC tennis is an almost different game, and while atypical (relatively speaking - there are hardly any genuine dirtballers today) standouts like the '06 Rome F or the '11 FO SF may get most of the attention it's actually more "boring" matchups like Lendl-Wilander or Bruguera-Courier that produce a more lasting formula for winning on clay. Of course it's possible Fed brings his '06 Rome brilliance to his hypothetical showdown with Lendl, but I say it's unlikely, especially given Ivan's hunger at the time.
That should answer your question about the importance of GW%, but even on faster surfaces it's a fairly good barometer as you can see that Fed's and Novak's %s were very close. @NoMercy thinks Mac's % would take a dip in this serve-friendly era where his return % would suffer accordingly, and it's a reasonable guess, but I disagree. Rather I think Mac's unique mix of lefty disguise and spin, preternatural touch and net coverage, unreal return positioning (think SABR but even beter), and impossible-to-describe racquet wizardry would discombobulate pretty much anyone* especially in this era, and that more than anything else probably explains Mac's sizable edge over both '06 Fed and '15 Novak.
*While I'm at it I think out of all ATGs/GOATs Sampras would handle that deadly combo of Mac's the best. Pete was rather "simple" in his mindset and approach, and if you couldn't blow him off the court or make him feel threatened even on 2nd serves - basically do to him what he did to everybody, yes - he was pretty much in cruise control even against the biggest names on his good days. Of course Mac's lack of "power" is highly exaggerated and he'd bring a special set of challenges that no one else could, but I still think Pete takes this the majority of times.
The problem on what you are doing is that distance between W-F-SF-QF-R16-R32-R64 changed proportionally during the eras. Now it’s almost 1:2 every round, before it was a lot less. That’s way the more you go back, the more the 5th and the 10th are closer to the 1st
Great intuition NoMercy.
Indeed it is problematic to compare different decades. Perhaps the only use is to compare ten close years (a decade). I don't know, I finish the little job (slowly) ... then ... we'll see.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Thanks, that's a very comprehensive answer. I'll need to read more into the importance of game win %.
Still not necessarily sure I would put Mac's 1984 as the undisputed No 2 season of the Open Era, but I can see where you're coming from.
That’s why I wrote about the Tennisbase rankings. The system is the same and for the Open era works pretty good.
NonP
Legend
Not undisputed, obviously, and '06 Fed and '15 Novak are clearly legit contenders. Just saying, this stock argument that those guys had to play the other Big 3 doesn't pass scrutiny on its own.
Also I'm hardly alone in thinking Fed and Djoko on the whole played better tennis in '05 and '11 respectively, and not just 'cause in the latter case Nole won a higher % of games. Makes you question this whole exercise of looking at the trophies only.
Two more things:
1) As you may know I generally treat smaller events as warm-ups for the majors, and '84 Mac more than delivered at Wimbledon and the USO, winning 68.0% (the highest in the Open Era) and 68.3% (#6) of his games respectively. (His '90 AO run doesn't count, of course.) In fact that USO % would be the 4th highest if you excluded Vilas' '75 and '77 runs on Har-Tru, and even then you could say Mac's dominance was the most impressive as '85-'87 Lendl didn't have to face an opponent as good as '84 Jimbo in one of the very greatest USO matches. Not half bad, I say.
2) Still it's possible to render all that irrelevant on faster surfaces as the likes of Pete, Newk, Becker, Stich and Goran would tell you, but if you click on that link and scroll down to the lowest win %s for Slam champs you can see that most of 'em are big-serving attackers who could blow anyone off the court. And while Fed and even Novak are no slouches on serve themselves it's quite telling that only '99 Agassi was able to go all the way at RG despite winning such a low %. Which is more reason to think, realistically speaking, Lendl's greater consistency, patience and shot tolerance would likely prevail over Fed's aggression and brilliance in a FO final.
1994
1) SAMPRAS 5097
5) IVANISEVIC 2936 .. 57,60%
10) MARTIN 2307 .. 45,26%
1993
1) SAMPRAS 4128
5) IVANISEVIC 2571 .. 62,28%
10) MARTIN 2012 .. 48,74%
The numbers of Sampras are very good in the period 1994-97 (4 years).
A little below the range in 1993, expiring in 1998 for a number one, which seems the worst of all those examined so far (together with 2018 to 2019.
1) SAMPRAS 5097
5) IVANISEVIC 2936 .. 57,60%
10) MARTIN 2307 .. 45,26%
1993
1) SAMPRAS 4128
5) IVANISEVIC 2571 .. 62,28%
10) MARTIN 2012 .. 48,74%
The numbers of Sampras are very good in the period 1994-97 (4 years).
A little below the range in 1993, expiring in 1998 for a number one, which seems the worst of all those examined so far (together with 2018 to 2019.
Last edited:
1990
1) EDBERG 3889
5) SAMPRAS 1888 .. 48,55%
10) GILBERT 1419 .. 36,49%
In 1990 the Edberg v 5th and 10th gap is wider. A very good year for Stefan.
Going back in time I have not found the rankings of the 80s, while there are all the years from 1974 to 1980. However, the first ATP year, 1973, is missing.
1) EDBERG 3889
5) SAMPRAS 1888 .. 48,55%
10) GILBERT 1419 .. 36,49%
In 1990 the Edberg v 5th and 10th gap is wider. A very good year for Stefan.
Going back in time I have not found the rankings of the 80s, while there are all the years from 1974 to 1980. However, the first ATP year, 1973, is missing.
Last edited:
As I wrote a few days ago, it is not possible for me to recover the results of the period 1981-1989, the dominated years of McEnroe (1981-84) and Lendl (1985-87, and 1989) and with the splendid ride by Mats Wilander who outperformed his opponents in 1988. Then I start again from 1980 the year dominated by Bjorn Borg.
1980
1) BORG 106,75
5) VILAS 53,94 .. 50,53%
10) TELTSCHER 34,32 .. 32,15%
1980
1) BORG 106,75
5) VILAS 53,94 .. 50,53%
10) TELTSCHER 34,32 .. 32,15%
Last edited:
1977
1) CONNORS 59,80
5) GOTTFRIED 46,73 .. 78,14%
10) STOCKTON 25,17 .. 42,09%
Compared to 1978 where the gap between Connors and the number 5 was conspicuous, in 1977 it was small, demonstrating that the ranking is narrow (Jimmy, Vilas, Borg, Gerulaitis and Gottfried are very close).
This is not due to an incredibly high performance of the 5th but to the average of the number one much lower than 1978, a sign of a much lower performance.
1) CONNORS 59,80
5) GOTTFRIED 46,73 .. 78,14%
10) STOCKTON 25,17 .. 42,09%
Compared to 1978 where the gap between Connors and the number 5 was conspicuous, in 1977 it was small, demonstrating that the ranking is narrow (Jimmy, Vilas, Borg, Gerulaitis and Gottfried are very close).
This is not due to an incredibly high performance of the 5th but to the average of the number one much lower than 1978, a sign of a much lower performance.
1975
1) CONNORS 42,72
5) ORANTES 35,48 .. 83,05%
10) LAVER 23,40 .. 54,78%
In 1975 it doesn't exist a real number one, in the sense that the first 5 players are "glued", but Laver (10th) is also close.
As a year it is similar to 1977 even if the ranking is even closer.
The reason is not the good performances of the 5th and 10th (less relevant than others fifths and tenths), but the reason is the number one that has an extremely low score (and consequently also the advantages on the numbers 2, 3, 4 (Ashe , Borg and Vilas) are of very low profile; a poor year.
1) CONNORS 42,72
5) ORANTES 35,48 .. 83,05%
10) LAVER 23,40 .. 54,78%
In 1975 it doesn't exist a real number one, in the sense that the first 5 players are "glued", but Laver (10th) is also close.
As a year it is similar to 1977 even if the ranking is even closer.
The reason is not the good performances of the 5th and 10th (less relevant than others fifths and tenths), but the reason is the number one that has an extremely low score (and consequently also the advantages on the numbers 2, 3, 4 (Ashe , Borg and Vilas) are of very low profile; a poor year.
Now after finishing the first part of the work (where unfortunately, I repeat, the years 1981-1989 are missing) we can easily add the various periods in which the following players arrived at the top.
In the first two columns there are the numbers one with the best margins on the number 5.
In the other two columns there are the best margins on the number 10.
It's an irrelevant statistic because obviously the numbers one are favored only for a year (or two) over those that have been alvertice for 5 or 6 years.
It's rather more intriguing the statistics divided between numbers one for only one year, for two or for 5-6 years.
In the first two columns there are the numbers one with the best margins on the number 5.
In the other two columns there are the best margins on the number 10.
It's an irrelevant statistic because obviously the numbers one are favored only for a year (or two) over those that have been alvertice for 5 or 6 years.
It's rather more intriguing the statistics divided between numbers one for only one year, for two or for 5-6 years.
| 1 – 5 | | 1 – 10 |
MURRAY | 39,52% | DJOKOVIC | 23,18% |
DJOKOVIC | 42,47% | NADAL | 24,45% |
FEDERER | 43,26% | MURRAY | 24,66% |
NADAL | 44,08% | FEDERER | 27,13% |
AGASSI | 51,53% | RODDICK | 35,50% |
BORG | 56,86% | BORG | 36,84% |
CONNORS | 58,06% | CONNORS | 40,22% |
HEWITT | 64,07% | AGASSI | 41,50% |
SAMPRAS | 64,73% | HEWITT | 45,03% |
KUERTEN | 69,96% | KUERTEN | 48,15% |
COURIER | 70,30% | SAMPRAS | 48,16% |
RODDICK | 73,43% | COURIER | 50,46% |
As NoMercy observed, it is too difficult to seriously compare the 70s rankings with the current ones.
The basic idea is to compare the number one ATP vs. its NON main opponents that can be assumed to have always played at a fairly similar level.
That is, there are no very important differences between the 10th number of 1979 and the 10th number of 2008.
The yield instead of the 5th number instead could be a little different from year to year.
What is clear is that during the number one years of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal (extremely close) the gap with the numbers 5th and 10th is abysmal.
The average is huge because the difference with the numbers 5th and 10th is huge every year.
The three make 5 perfect years with no major ups and downs.
It's also very relevant the difference between Connors and the numbers 5th and 10th (but 1975 greatly lowers the average).
Sampras also did well but the gap was on average smaller.
Being unable to evaluate the 80s (with Supermac and Lendl number one for 4 years) there are no ATP numbers 1 for 3 or 4 years.
Borg's numbers are a little better than Hewitt's in the two years.
As a single year, however, Murray 2016 and Agassi's excellent 1999 are impressive.
The basic idea is to compare the number one ATP vs. its NON main opponents that can be assumed to have always played at a fairly similar level.
That is, there are no very important differences between the 10th number of 1979 and the 10th number of 2008.
The yield instead of the 5th number instead could be a little different from year to year.
What is clear is that during the number one years of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal (extremely close) the gap with the numbers 5th and 10th is abysmal.
The average is huge because the difference with the numbers 5th and 10th is huge every year.
The three make 5 perfect years with no major ups and downs.
It's also very relevant the difference between Connors and the numbers 5th and 10th (but 1975 greatly lowers the average).
Sampras also did well but the gap was on average smaller.
Being unable to evaluate the 80s (with Supermac and Lendl number one for 4 years) there are no ATP numbers 1 for 3 or 4 years.
Borg's numbers are a little better than Hewitt's in the two years.
As a single year, however, Murray 2016 and Agassi's excellent 1999 are impressive.
| 1 – 10 | ||
DJOKOVIC | 23,18% | ||
NADAL | 24,45% | ||
FEDERER | 27,13% | ||
CONNORS | 40,22% | ||
SAMPRAS | 48,16% | ||
2 years ATP number one | | ||
BORG | 36,84% | ||
EDBERG | 39,68% | ||
| HEWITT | 45,03% | ||
1 year ATP number one | | ||
MURRAY | 24,66% | ||
RODDICK | 35,50% | ||
AGASSI | 41,50% | ||
KUERTEN | 48,15% | ||
COURIER | 50,46% |
Last edited:
