Number of Players who played Top 5 ranked players 10+ times in an year

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Number of Players who played Top 5 ranked players 10+ times

1973 - 7
1974 - 1
1975 - 4
1976 - 8
1977 - 7
1978 - 3
1979 - 9
1980 - 6
1981 - 1
1982 - 2
1983 - 4
1984 - 5
1985 - 3
1986 - 2
1987 - 8
1988 - 0
1989 - 5
1990 - 3
1991 - 6
1992 - 4
1993 - 3
1994 - 5
1995 - 4
1996 - 2
1997 - 1
1998 - 3
1999 - 3
2000 - 1
2001 - 2
2002 - 1

2003 - 1
2004 - 3
2005 - 0
2006 - 3
2007 - 4
2008 - 4
2009 - 9
2010 - 3
2011 - 7
2012 - 7
2013 - 5
2014 - 5
2015 - 9
2016 - 4
2017 - 1
2018 - 1
2019 - 1
2020 - 1
2021 - 2

2022 - 1
2023 - 7


Statistically 2017-2022 was indeed a superweak era due to the 1990s gens being losers.....?
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
If top players meet all the time, it could be because of two different scenarios or somewhere in between.

1. The top players are much better quality than the rest of the field and so they always make it to the later stages of tournaments even if the competition is strong. You would see many close matches in early rounds even if the top players win.
2. Or the field is very weak and there are just a few top players who always beat everyone else easily and make it to later rounds. You would see many beatdowns in the early rounds with the top players blowing past the others.

If you look at the WTA in the 70s/80s, there would be massive beatdowns by the top players of all the other players and it was always many familiar faces in the late rounds - I think it was more because it was the second scenario where the field was weak. Nowadays it is rare for even ATG players to win in straight sets in the first few rounds of ATP tournaments even if they make it to the final stages of tournaments - to me it is because it is closer to the first scenario. When I attend tournaments, I feel like the level of players is very high in the ATP and it keeps getting better.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
If top players meet all the time, it could be because of two different scenarios or somewhere in between.

1. The top players are much better quality than the rest of the field and so they always make it to the later stages of tournaments even if the competition is strong. You would see many close matches in early rounds even if the top players win.
2. Or the field is very weak and there are just a few top players who always beat everyone else easily and make it to later rounds. You would see many beatdowns in the early rounds with the top players blowing past the others.

If you look at the WTA in the 70s/80s, there would be massive beatdowns by the top players of all the other players and it was always many familiar faces in the late rounds - I think it was more because it was the second scenario where the field was weak. Nowadays it is rare for even ATG players to win in straight sets in the first few rounds of ATP tournaments even if they make it to the final stages of tournaments - to me it is because it is closer to the first scenario. When I attend tournaments, I feel like the level of players is very high in the ATP and it keeps getting better.

Yeah but that still doesn't explain why only 1 player was facing double digit top 5 ranked players per year from 2017 till 2022, this has never happened before, this stretch surely suggests some problems with the players born in 1990s. A guy born in 1990 is already physically in his prime in 2013, so likewise 2016 onwards the 1990s gens are the ones who are supposed to make the later rounds repeatedly, if they dont have a group of fellows dominating the tour then something is wrong with them as the guys of the previous decades are growing old as well. Sinner and Alcaraz have replaced this vacuum in 2023 onwards, the tour is now back to normal.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Read the 3rd post of the thread, it's been explained.
It doesn’t explain anything. Why would the number of players meeting top 5 players 10+ times be of any relevance at all? Why would 7 such players in a given year be better than 2 players?
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
It doesn’t explain anything. Why would the number of players meeting top 5 players 10+ times be of any relevance at all? Why would 7 such players in a given year be better than 2 players?

Why are less top seeds playing each other? It is the proof of a weak era. 2017-2022 consistently is at 1 every year without any fluctuation, you dont think thats because of the absence of 90s gen at the top ? The 80s gens playing limited schedules, the 1990s gen unable to reach the top, see the spike in 2023, you will now find 4+ every year from 2024 onwards because now the field is stronger and more consistent than the one after 2016. Is it a coincidence that in 2009, 2011, 2012 the field had so many players meeting 10+ top 5 candidates that year? The top players were strongest in this phase in the last 20-25 odd years, it is a no brainer.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Why are less top seeds playing each other? It is the proof of a weak era.
no, it’s not

Sorry, but you are just making up conclusions

The fact that in year A more players played 10+ matches against top 5 players than in year B tells us nothing about the level of play of all players involved
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
no, it’s not

Sorry, but you are just making up conclusions

The fact that in year A more players played 10+ matches against top 5 players than in year B tells us nothing about the level of play of all players involved

Any generation without alphas is automatically playing at a lower level. When I use words like alpha in this context I am implying player(s) who are best of their generation clearly, that means not just Big 3, even SInner, Alcaraz can be put in this category. However you cannot put Med/Zverev/Thiem/Tsitsipas etc etc in this category, these guys are not even clearly best in their generation, there are too many of them in the second tier league.

Only people who stand out in their own generation can actually beat the oldies and the next gens, no? If you cannot even stand out among your same aged peers consistently then how exactly are you going to win slams over the oldies ? If Federer was losing to Nalbandian/Hewitt in the 2000s then how would be expected to beat Agassi ? That was the case before 2004 until federer raised his level among his peers and hence above Agassi. In the same vein, the 1990s gen if it had a supreme player who would consistently beat all of the guys of his generation then he would also have the strength to take out Novak and Rafael too, but that was not the case. This brings us to our main point, inconsistent fellows unable to meet at the top.

Your views on this please ? @Kralingen @NeutralFan @BorgTheGOAT
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Any generation without alphas is automatically playing at a lower level. When I use words like alpha in this context I am implying player(s) who are best of their generation clearly, that means not just Big 3, even SInner, Alcaraz can be put in this category. However you cannot put Med/Zverev/Thiem/Tsitsipas etc etc in this category, these guys are not even clearly best in their generation, there are too many of them in the second tier league.

Only people who stand out in their own generation can actually beat the oldies and the next gens, no? If you cannot even stand out among your same aged peers consistently then how exactly are you going to win slams over the oldies ? If Federer was losing to Nalbandian/Hewitt in the 2000s then how would be expected to beat Agassi ? That was the case before 2004 until federer raised his level among his peers and hence above Agassi. In the same vein, the 1990s gen if it had a supreme player who would consistently beat all of the guys of his generation then he would also have the strength to take out Novak and Rafael too, but that was not the case. This brings us to our main point, inconsistent fellows unable to meet at the top.

Your views on this please ? @Kralingen @NeutralFan @BorgTheGOAT
You are making a bunch of unrelated and unsupported assertions. We’d need a new thread just to go over them.

What you haven’t done is explain why the number of players that meet a top 5 player 10+ times is indicative of anything
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
You are making a bunch of unrelated and unsupported assertions. We’d need a new thread just to go over them.

What you haven’t done is explain why the number of players that meet a top 5 player 10+ times is indicative of anything

So you don't find it odd that there 9 players in 2009, 7 each in 2011 and 2012 but only 1 in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2022 and just 2 in 2021 ?

Now what can be the reason for this in your own observation ?
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
So you don't find it odd that there 9 players in 2009, 7 each in 2011 and 2012 but only 1 in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2022 and just 2 in 2021 ?

Now what can be the reason for this in your own observation ?
You are the one that claims that this metric measures overall era strength. I keep asking you to explain why and you can’t
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
You are the one that claims that this metric measures overall era strength. I keep asking you to explain why and you can’t

In 2009 - Year end rank 9 Verdasco played top 5 players 14 times
In 2017 - Year end rank 9 Wawrinka played top 5 players only 3 times

What does this tell you ?
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
In 2009 - Year end rank 9 Verdasco played top 5 players 14 times
In 2017 - Year end rank 9 Wawrinka played top 5 players only 3 times

What does this tell you ?
With respect to overall level/strength of players? Nothing

what do you think this is telling you?

edit: Are you claiming that the average ranking a top 10 player faces in a given season is a good metric to measure overall season strength?
 
Last edited:

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Any generation without alphas is automatically playing at a lower level. When I use words like alpha in this context I am implying player(s) who are best of their generation clearly, that means not just Big 3, even SInner, Alcaraz can be put in this category. However you cannot put Med/Zverev/Thiem/Tsitsipas etc etc in this category, these guys are not even clearly best in their generation, there are too many of them in the second tier league.

Only people who stand out in their own generation can actually beat the oldies and the next gens, no? If you cannot even stand out among your same aged peers consistently then how exactly are you going to win slams over the oldies ? If Federer was losing to Nalbandian/Hewitt in the 2000s then how would be expected to beat Agassi ? That was the case before 2004 until federer raised his level among his peers and hence above Agassi. In the same vein, the 1990s gen if it had a supreme player who would consistently beat all of the guys of his generation then he would also have the strength to take out Novak and Rafael too, but that was not the case. This brings us to our main point, inconsistent fellows unable to meet at the top.

Your views on this please ? @Kralingen @NeutralFan @BorgTheGOAT
Well generally I do think that these numbers to some extent can indicate strong or weak eras. If there are basically no guys consistently reaching later rounds but you find new players in the final stages of slams every time then it sure means that no strong players are around like we had in the WTA for some years. Sure, you can also see it the other way round and assume we have a very balanced field of strong players, but let's be real, typically, if everyone can beat everyone it usually does not scream strong era. That being said, number of players playing top 5 for 10+ times sounds a little arbitrary. You can for instance have 4 guys who played top 5 players 9 times but zero players who played 10+ times and so on. Also, two GOAT candidates weigh more than 5-6 mere low-level HOF players.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Well generally I do think that these numbers to some extent can indicate strong or weak eras. If there are basically no guys consistently reaching later rounds but you find new players in the final stages of slams every time then it sure means that no strong players are around like we had in the WTA for some years. Sure, you can also see it the other way round and assume we have a very balanced field of strong players, but let's be real, typically, if everyone can beat everyone it usually does not scream strong era. That being said, number of players playing top 5 for 10+ times sounds a little arbitrary. You can for instance have 4 guys who played top 5 players 9 times but zero players who played 10+ times and so on. Also, two GOAT candidates weigh more than 5-6 mere low-level HOF players.

When we limit the cut-off it to 9 still the results don't vary much, 2017-2022 remains as controversial as ever, lol.

2002 - 2
2003 - 2
2004 - 3
2005 - 0
2006 - 3
2007 - 6
2008 - 5
2009 - 11
2010 - 6
2011 - 10
2012 - 9
2013 - 10
2014 - 6
2015 - 10
2016 - 6
2017 - 1
2018 - 1
2019 - 2
2020 - 1
2021 - 2
2022 - 1

2023 - 8

Till 2016 the 1980s gen players were there along with Big 3 to make their numbers wide, 2017 onwards this just fell flat as 1980s gens are all old and flat while 1990s gens have not replaced them, next 6 years this shows with 1s and 2s until 2023 when Sinner, Alcaraz & even Rune (9) have joined the fold along with Djokovic & some 90s gen players to put up a number of 8 and this will only go up or remain the same in 2024, the eras is no longer weak now, the field is now evolving towards a strong one. You could still say 2023 was a weak year in terms of competition for Djokovic but it is technically moving towards a stronger field than the years before it as the competition did get more consistent on paper.
 
Last edited:

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
I love the fact 2017 til 2022 is brought up a lot especially when mentioning Djokovic but when Djokovic went awol Federer and Nadal won 6 slams in a row.

2017 until 2022 was definitely weaker than the years before but all big 3 inflated slams during it
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
21-23 period included Ruud and tsitipas as top 5 players reaching slam finals, plus berretini as a top 10er. Let that sink in for a moment.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
GOAT's 2011-15 era is the strongest ever
Borg's 1976-80 era next
GOAT's last 3-slam year 2023 is stronger than any of Fed's 3-slam year, or Pete's slam year



OU7.gif
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I love the fact 2017 til 2022 is brought up a lot especially when mentioning Djokovic but when Djokovic went awol Federer and Nadal won 6 slams in a row.

2017 until 2022 was definitely weaker than the years before but all big 3 inflated slams during it

Yes, of course, I mean it is not to undermine Novak in any way, he earned his hard tough slams in 2008-2016 period, but if you look at it then the field collapsed entirely in 2016, this enabled Federer and Nadal to come back and win 6 slams on a trot, now Novak saw this and this lit a fire in him too that as he rectified his injury and he returned to reduce the field to dust for years at a stretch, lol, thats what this 2017-2022 period signifies, it is some sort of an inflation. Alcaraz and Sinner have given some backbone to the field with their rise.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
2023 Tommy Paul, Tsitsipas, cramping done after 2 sets Alcaraz, Ruud, Shelton and returning from row Z Medvedev

stronger than

2007 On fire Gonzalez, peak Nadal, 07 Djokovic, Roddick, Davydenko.


Brilliant.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
2023 is not stronger than 2007 but the trend upwards began in 2023.
Djokovic’s 3 slams specifically were even weaker in 2023 than 2021. At least 2021 had a decent Nadal for 3 sets and a decent Zverev at AO. 2023 had literally 0 competition from anyone other than the slam he lost.
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
2023 Tommy Paul, Tsitsipas, cramping done after 2 sets Alcaraz, Ruud, Shelton and returning from row Z Medvedev

stronger than

2007 On fire Gonzalez, peak Nadal, 07 Djokovic, Roddick, Davydenko.


Brilliant.
Let’s not overrate it due to the players they turned out to be as Nadal in 07 was average on HC and Djokovic was 19. Fed was in his peak and was simply way better than them versions. Gonzalez was one of my favourites ever but again he was hit and miss. Federer also owned Roddick.

If you are saying that people **** on 07 and underrate the players I agree but overall Federer was the only thing good about this year.

I always stick to the point that Fed did have a soft enough era from 04-07 but even then peak Djokovic or peak Nadal doesn’t win what he won during that time.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Let’s not overrate it due to the players they turned out to be as Nadal in 07 was average on HC and Djokovic was 19. Fed was in his peak and was simply way better than them versions. Gonzalez was one of my favourites ever but again he was hit and miss. Federer also owned Roddick.

If you are saying that people **** on 07 and underrate the players I agree but overall Federer was the only thing good about this year.

I always stick to the point that Fed did have a soft enough era from 04-07 but even then peak Djokovic or peak Nadal doesn’t win what he won during that time.

He is right

Gonzales is better than Tsitsipas for a finalist at AO
Nadal/Federer in a final is better than a weak pu$$y like Casper Ruud or Baby Carlos cramping
Wimbledon is the closest slam but Fedal are better as a combo than Djoker and Alcaraz... so a slight edge there
US open again 07 is slightly better.... Medvedev in 2023 is a better opponent than Baby Novak in 07 but Roddick was a man in great touch in 07 USO while Nole never faced anyone respectable till the final in 23....
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
He is right

Gonzales is better than Tsitsipas for a finalist at AO
Nadal/Federer in a final is better than a weak pu$$y like Casper Ruud or Baby Carlos cramping
Wimbledon is the closest slam but Fedal are better as a combo than Djoker and Alcaraz... so a slight edge there
US open again 07 is slightly better.... Medvedev in 2023 is a better opponent than Baby Novak in 07 but Roddick was a man in great touch in 07 USO while Nole never faced anyone respectable till the final in 23....
Yes while I agree you are basing things on a full career. Yes I love Gonzales and even when he was off it he is better than Tsitsipas but if Alcaraz wins 15 slam then people will put him down as such a tough final for Djokovic.

I’m not saying 2023 was better then 07 I’m just saying it was overrated based on people seeing Nadal and Djokovic but neither were near the level they became.

Djokovic beating Sinner from 2 sets down at Wimbledon a years years back overall wasn’t that much of an achievement but if sinner wins 15 slams it will be looked at as a huge win but overall it wasn’t.

Djokovic 07 was good but nowhere near what he became. Gonzalez as I said was unbelievable when he peaked but most of the time his level was good at best.

As I said 04-07 might not be the strongest but Fed made it look even weaker by dismantling everyone
 

SonnyT

Legend
Djokovic plays more top ranked players than anyone else, because his record against them is outstanding. His winning percentage against top 10 is 70%, second only to Borg's 71%, and surpassing Federer and Nadal's 65%.

One player making the list in '17-23, I assume that player had to be Djokovic most of those years.
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
Djokovic plays more top ranked players than anyone else, because his record against them is outstanding. His winning percentage against top 10 is 70%, second only to Borg's 71%, and surpassing Federer and Nadal's 65%.

One player making the list in '17-23, I assume that player had to be Djokovic most of those years.
This is correct.

Djokovic 370 matches 257 wins 69.5%
Federer 347 matches 224 wins 64.5%
Nadal 288 matches 186 wins 64.5
 
Top