Measuring Strength of Field

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
When considering the strength of the field for an ATP event, what do you think is most important?:

# of players in Top 10
" 20
Average ranking of the entire field
Number of players in the field who've won an ATP event

Something else?
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
No one else will answer.
They love hypotheticals on here and weakera this and that.
I'll say a combo of all the above.
First would be numbers in top ten, then it will get stronger with titles won and top 20.
so if you have all top ten in the draw and all have won majors then that would be the strongest draw.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Given the players ranked 2-10 , I say any tournament without Novak is good.

With Novak around , it makes it boring due to dead matches against Murray, Berdych, Gasquet, Ferrer and the likes.
 

RSH

Professional
The form of the players -- specifically of those ranked #1-32 in masters level tournaments and above.
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
For slams it's the number players in the draw who has got a serious chance of winning the title. In the golden era of tennis you'd have almost entire top 10 (Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Courier, Becker, Lendl, Bruguera, Muster etc etc).

The last few years it's only been 2-3 and the last year it's only been 1 player who's got a serious bid on the title. Weak era that is.
 

Krish872007

G.O.A.T.
Let preference be determined in the set P = {0,1} - 1 = love the player, 0 = hate the player
Let D(.) denote "dominance function" - so D(1) implies favourite player dominating.
Define another set S = {0,1}, 0 = weak era, 1 = strong era, where "s" refers to the outcome of the era relative to D

Then we have a direct mapping: D(0) implies s = 0, D(1) implies s = 1.
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
Imo, the strength of a field is 100% a result of the level of play(for a field; the average level of play of the field), which as of now is pretty much completely impossible to quantify in a logical, numerical way. Telling people to look at a series of matches and then determine the quality of them relative to each other is not possible. Too many variables, and waaaaay too much bias. It ends up being 100% subjective.

You could try to quantify things with the logical use of numbers and statistics(the most sensible way imo, if the person that does this understands perfectly what those numbers actually mean(often extremely complicated)), but that's just it. In a given match, one player's great numbers are the other player's bad numbers. And in a given field of players, the great numbers of the top guys is a result of the inferior numbers of the rest of the players. It says NOTHING about the quality of this field of players relative to earlier fields of players.

Saying that "this era is weak" and "that era was strong" etc. really is as clueless as it gets.
 
Last edited:

Jonas78

Legend
The mathematics is as follows: If your favorite player isn't winning enough then he plays in a strong era. If a player you despise is winning a lot, then the current era is an utter disaster and historically garbage.
I agree! But what if your favourite player IS winning a lot? :D. Then you also usually want to find reasons for calling it a strong era;).
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
No one else will answer.
They love hypotheticals on here and weakera this and that.
I'll say a combo of all the above.
First would be numbers in top ten, then it will get stronger with titles won and top 20.
so if you have all top ten in the draw and all have won majors then that would be the strongest draw.
Thanks. Appreciate it. That's what I was thinking some equation - 25% x A + 40% x B + 30% x C + 5% x D.

And I had 0 intention of creating another 'era' debate - don't care if it's this year, last, or 1992. Just interested in what people look at.
 

djokerer

Banned
When considering the strength of the field for an ATP event, what do you think is most important?:

# of players in Top 10
" 20
Average ranking of the entire field
Number of players in the field who've won an ATP event

Something else?
Who cares about ATP.
For slams, if top players consistently making qfs and Sfs, then it's a strong field.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Who cares about ATP.
For slams, if top players consistently making qfs and Sfs, then it's a strong field.
You mean, except for the fact that one has to have some level of success at those ATP events to get into the majors?

But interesting that you should bring majors up: because if you just average the ranking, they aren't at the top. Due to the number of wildcards they give out. 1000's are actually higher. And as a fan who goes to 3-4 tournaments a year, offer up better matches in the 1st round than the majors.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
When considering the strength of the field for an ATP event, what do you think is most important?:

# of players in Top 10
" 20
Average ranking of the entire field
Number of players in the field who've won an ATP event

Something else?
I'm assuming you mean the 250s and 500s?

I'd say: # of top 10 players, number of collective titles, Average Live Ranking for all players
 
N

nowhereman

Guest
Strength of Field = How well your favorite is playing or how well the player you hate is playing

Favorite playing well = strong era, perhaps the strongest era of all time

Favorite not playing well or player you hate is playing well = weak era, perhaps the weakest era of all time
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
Thanks. Appreciate it. That's what I was thinking some equation - 25% x A + 40% x B + 30% x C + 5% x D.

And I had 0 intention of creating another 'era' debate - don't care if it's this year, last, or 1992. Just interested in what people look at.
You are welcome. Me too.
That is a good calculation. Very simple keeps it very succinct.
Just being able to beat a top ten player who has never won a major let alone a master's is rediculously not easy.
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
I wonder what player had the hardest draw in the history of tennis if we use that calculation? That would be cool to find out.
 

xFedal

Legend
For slams it's the number players in the draw who has got a serious chance of winning the title. In the golden era of tennis you'd have almost entire top 10 (Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Courier, Becker, Lendl, Bruguera, Muster etc etc).

The last few years it's only been 2-3 and the last year it's only been 1 player who's got a serious bid on the title. Weak era that is.
More like 1 man dynasty.
 

6august

Hall of Fame
For slams it's the number players in the draw who has got a serious chance of winning the title. In the golden era of tennis you'd have almost entire top 10 (Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Courier, Becker, Lendl, Bruguera, Muster etc etc).

The last few years it's only been 2-3 and the last year it's only been 1 player who's got a serious bid on the title. Weak era that is.
This is a typical generalizing.

1. The so called serious chance of winning the title ... almost entire top 10

Muster: Besides 1 FO title, he NEVER came to the final of ANY other Slam!
Bruguera: His best result off clay is 4th round of other Slam. I repeat, 4TH ROUND!

Can't believe they are mentioned as serious bid in Slams.

2. The so called golden era

Sampras born 71
Agassi 70
Edberg 66
Courier 70
Lendl 60
Becker 67

Look at their year of birth, it's so funny to include all of them in 1 era. Lendl is even 11 years older than Sampras! Lend vs Edberg, Becker or Edberg, Becker vs Sampras, Agassi, Courier is exactly like Federer vs Djokovic, Murray.

3. Take Favorite surface + age difference + other.... into consideration, saying entire top 10 had chance to win at any Slam in the 90's is far beyond extreme.

4. There's no weak era. Or every era is weak era.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
When considering the strength of the field for an ATP event, what do you think is most important?:

# of players in Top 10
" 20
Average ranking of the entire field
Number of players in the field who've won an ATP event

Something else?
Most of the time there are 10 players in the top 10 and 20 players in the top 20.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Imo, the strength of a field is 100% a result of the level of play(for a field; the average level of play of the field), which as of now is pretty much completely impossible to quantify in a logical, numerical way. Telling people to look at a series of matches and then determine the quality of them relative to each other is not possible. Too many variables, and waaaaay too much bias. It ends up being 100% subjective.

You could try to quantify things with the logical use of numbers and statistics(the most sensible way imo, if the person that does this understands perfectly what those numbers actually mean(often extremely complicated)), but that's just it. In a given match, one player's great numbers are the other player's bad numbers. And in a given field of players, the great numbers of the top guys is a result of the inferior numbers of the rest of the players. It says NOTHING about the quality of this field of players relative to earlier fields of players.

Saying that "this era is weak" and "that era was strong" etc. really is as clueless as it gets.
Agree generally but still there is some time you can argue one way or the other. For example in 2005 you had Federer, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal, Agassi, Coria competing in high level matches. The next year, Federer and Nadal are roughly playing at the same level, but Safin, Coria, Agassi and Hewitt are no more top players, Roddick has a bad year, and they are replaced by Ljubicic, Davydenko, Blake, etc. I have a lot of respect for them but let's be honest. These players made it to the top of the game at that time because there was a void. Davydenko became later a greater player but not at that time.

Same for 2009. Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, Soderling, Del Potro. In 2010, Del Potro and Davydenko are injured, Federer and Djokovic play like crap until the USO.

More recently it's commonly accepted that Federer, Nadal and Ferrer are not playing at their best level, probably Murray too, and yet they remain very well ranked because the pack behind them keep losing against mostly anyone.

So I would agree that we can tell whole era as weak or strong, but from one year to another you can have huge change with a few injuries or lack of form of certain player.
 
The mathematics is as follows: If your favorite player isn't winning enough then he plays in a strong era. If a player you despise is winning a lot, then the current era is an utter disaster and historically garbage.
+1

That idea is further reinforced , if the two players in question play at the same time (in the same historical period)...

.... and then the fun begins

:cool:
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
I'm assuming you mean the 250s and 500s?

I'd say: # of top 10 players, number of collective titles, Average Live Ranking for all players
Yes. The 1000s and majors are easy and mostly equal (although some wildcards can slightly weaken the field). Every top player who's healthy shows up.

Titles is an interesting addition - and you could add a weighting factor for the surface of the tournament.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
Yes. The 1000s and majors are easy and mostly equal (although some wildcards can slightly weaken the field). Every top player who's healthy shows up.

Titles is an interesting addition - and you could add a weighting factor for the surface of the tournament.
Agreed. # of titles can be a bit misleading, for instance an older player who has a lot of titles but hasn't won in years could screw things up, but winning your first title is always a tough ask. It's always dangerous playing someone who knows how to win a tournament.
 
Top