Like to see us talk about Slams + Season end finals + masters 1000 rather than just Slams, when it comes to evaluating players 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 pre-1990 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. 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 pre-mid 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. 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. Forinstance 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). Latest Update: Djokovic closing in on Becker. They now have the same number of slams, slam finals, Masters 1000 equivalents. It is just in season end finals that Becker has the lead. It is likely that Djokovic will pass Becker this year. 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) + (21 x 1) = 49 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) + (13 x 1) = 32.6 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 NOTE: You may disagree with the weightings. But remember these are not my weightings. They are the present ATP weightings for tournaments.

I don't buy the way the points used for this calculation is so close in relationship to points on offer in the rankings. For example, a runner up at a major is a much more significant achievement in the greater scheme of tennis than winning a Masters 1000 tournament - twice a great at least imo... not 1.2 times. It should be more like: Slam win 5, year ending championship 2.5, slam runner-up 2, Masters 1000 title 1... A relative scaling more like this would be more consistent with how tennis players are viewed historically and in the respect/admiration they get for past achievements. For example, Rios vs Ivanisevic. No one at all cares that Rios was a number one player compared to Ivanisevic who won a major. Rios won 5 Masters series tournaments to Ivanisevic's 2... but the ranking above would rate Rios higher (I only did it quickly - could be wrong). That is folly imo - at the peak of the game Ivanisevic succeeded, Rios did not - and so will be remembered in higher regard than Rios ever will be.

Agree but... Hi Bobby, I completely agree with the sentiment of the weightings of Slams relative to other events. For instance, reflect on what would have happened if Murray had won that Australian Open. We would be left with Djokovic being number 1 with no current slam titles and Murray number 3 with 2 slam titles. Problem though is this. It is completely subjective. What should be the relative weight of a slam vs a Masters 1000? I feel it should be about 3000 points, you say 5000 points. And we could make good arguments either way. However, at the end of the day who gets to decide? The best I could do was take personal opinions out of it....and just use the point weights that the ATP use. Like it or not (and I don't) the ATP says that a Slam wins is 2 x the points of a Masters 1000. I guess we just have to live with it. The purpose of this ranking was to take personal opinion out of it altogether. It was to say, on an objective basis - based on achievement - what was someone's tournament achievements at Masters 1000 equivalent basis or higher, compared to other open era champions. No personal opinions - just the facts - based on the ATP's current weightings (to take personal opinion out of it).