Peak tennis ELO ratings: Djokovic at #1

[money_ball]

ELO ratings are very useful in chess. It can also be useful in tennis as well. However there are a number of differences, as professional tennis player play far more matches than professional chess players, as well as a far more variety of players.

So perhaps ELO ratings in tennis is best used as a gauge of how well these players match up against their respective peers. Also unlike in chess, tennis players have no say in who they play in tournaments, so a tennis player cannot influence his ELO rating as much as he could influence his ranking.

• Historic ELO ratings
  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/djokovic-and-federer-are-vying-to-be-the-greatest-of-all-time/
  
  
• ELO ratings of current players
  http://tennisabstract.com/reports/atp_elo_ratings.html

Looks like the greatest tennis players in terms of peak ELO ratings are Djokovic, Federer, Borg, McEnroe, Nadal, etc.

Those of you that are more knowledgable about ELO ratings and have more data, articles, etc. to share would be greatly appreciated!

 

[NoleFam]

Use this site man. It's awesome.

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

You can actually change the metrics and what you want to be most important criteria to influence the GOAT rankings. I actually like it for the all the other charts that show the different levels of the greatest players including ELO ratings.

 

[NatF]

Still think ELO is garbage for tennis.

 

[sarmpas]

I don't see the point of this peak-rating-by-methodology-X stuff. Are they to make the fans of said top rated player feel better because they have less of the achievements which players actually play for and target during the season/ their careers. Top players and those who want to be the best aim for the top titles and #1 status.

I doubt Nadal, Sampras, Novak and Federer regularly work out their ELO rating. Do they even know what ELO is.

 

[boredone3456]

ELO ratings are very useful in chess. It can also be useful in tennis as well. However there are a number of differences, as professional tennis player play far more matches than professional chess players, as well as a far more variety of players.

So perhaps ELO ratings in tennis is best used as a gauge of how well these players match up against their respective peers. Also unlike in chess, tennis players have no say in who they play in tournaments, so a tennis player cannot influence his ELO rating as much as he could influence his ranking.

Just a note, As someone who plays chess recreationally and used to play intercollegiate competitions where ELO was used. Chess players don't choose who they play it tournaments, it is decided by a computerized system. There are many different types of chess tournaments, such as knockouts (where seeds are determined by ELO and resemble your typical tennis draw), Swiss (which has a variety of different variations), or other tournament variations such as round robin or double round robin. Names are entered and players are drawn to face each other by the computer depending on the type of system used. I never had a choice of who I played in competition in college. Believe me if I could have chosen specifically who I played in tournaments I would have done a lot better.

 

[swordtennis]

It does not have its head firmly up feds arse therefore it is garbage. Need more fanboyism and emotion involved.
Forgot to add needs hypotheticals as well.

 

[cc0509]

ELO ratings, lol. Who gives a sh*t about that metric?

 

[NatF]

It does not have its head firmly up feds arse therefore it is garbage. Need more fanboyism and emotion involved.
Forgot to add needs hypotheticals as well.

Like you're any less transparent in your motivations?

ELO has Murray's 2009 season above any season Sampras ever had, so yes it's garbage. Your defence of it is nice and revealing though...

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It's just a ranking originally designed for chess. Tennis has its own ranking system. Quality of play has nothing to do with it.

 

[Devin]

Like you're any less transparent in your motivations?

ELO has Murray's 2009 season above any season Sampras ever had, so yes it's garbage. Your defence of it is nice and revealing though...

Elo seems to have inflated a bit, I don't know. Even when this era of tennis is garbage compared to a stronger tennis era of the 60s-80s, the players now all seem to have higher ratings than strong players from older times.

That being said, you have to look more at their achievements and do the eye test in terms of level of play, as a computer ranking system isn't really going to help here.

 

[sarmpas]

Sorry I need to look this up...........so Aus Open 4R, FO QF, Wimbledon SF, USO 4R, plus possible mini-mouse titles so I yes it's garbage when applied to tennis assuming Murray's 2009 > any of Sampras's seasons.

Like you're any less transparent in your motivations?

ELO has Murray's 2009 season above any season Sampras ever had, so yes it's garbage. Your defence of it is nice and revealing though...

 

[NatF]

Elo seems to have inflated a bit, I don't know. Even when this era of tennis is garbage compared to a stronger tennis era of the 60s-80s, the players now all seem to have higher ratings than strong players from older times.

That being said, you have to look more at their achievements and do the eye test in terms of level of play, as a computer ranking system isn't really going to help here.

I think ELO tends to stack as time goes on, I don't think it differentiates between surfaces either.

I have no issue with someone claiming Djokovic reached the pinnacle of dominance in the OE, that' not my point - ELO just has too many flaws.

 

[RF-18]

Still think ELO is garbage for tennis.

Of course. It's not without reason that you think that

 

[NatF]

Of course. It's not without reason that you think that

I explained why, I have no problem with the conclusion just the method. I find it funny that its the most hilariously biased posters on here that call me out. I must be doing something right.

 

[Red Rick]

Still think ELO is garbage for tennis.

Any system that tries to compare eras and accomplishments by standardizing certain variables is obviously gonna have errors. Still it's good to look at.

At least it's an objective attempt, which makes it invariably better than the good ol' "it's better cause I say so"

Would be nice to see what's closer to the YE rankings in 2018. Current ranking or current ELO ranking. I'm betting the latter.

I think it would definitely be nice to do some analysis to check if ELO is a decent metric to predict success in the next year compared to some other metrics.

Naturally, tennis has it's own ranking system, which it should. Ranking by ELO would be bollocks as it would confuse fans wayy too much and tournament need to have set value. However, I don't think fans should just discard it as garbage cause it doesn't fit their paradigm. It's just another point of view, and we might learn something from it.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Like you're any less transparent in your motivations?

ELO has Murray's 2009 season above any season Sampras ever had, so yes it's garbage. Your defence of it is nice and revealing though...

I wouldn't say it's garbage, just very limited in scope/explanatory power and susceptible to some ambitious extrapolations. This can lead to some wacky results that ought to be discarded (like the Murray-Sampras comparison).

What Elo does is assign a numerical value to a player which builds up or declines in near-linear increments. Precipitous Elo declines are pretty much impossible, even when our own eyes and conventional results tell us that a player is better or worse than their current Elo has them at. Take Djokovic for instance; per TA, his current Elo is higher than Federer's current Elo. This is by virtue of Novak's extraordinary 18 month run from 2015-16. For the ATG's, a peak Elo rating represents their highest point of sustained dominance, usually racked up over the course of a few years years, rather than momentary or absolute peak playing level (which is even HARDER to quantify).

Look at Federer at the end of his venerated 2004 breakthrough year. His Elo rating was in the mid-2400's (I believe), and it would have gotten HIGHER even if his '05 and '06 years were slightly worse than his '04 (say, if he won 2 majors and 3 masters in each year). So, he could conceivably have had worse years and yet still seen his Elo spike. Does that make sense? It wouldn't if one were arguing which individual year was the greatest (historic years that were preceded by comparatively average years take a hit, like Djokovic's 2011 or or Wilander in '88), but if one were to try and objectively determine a results-based, accumulated 'summit' of a player, it might. However, even for the latter this methodology has its limitations. We tend to value Majors more, in relation to other tournaments, than the points and Elo ratings would reflect, e.g we may value them three or four-fold more rather than the 2-1 ratio the ATP gives. This is probably the main reason Murray's Elo peak is higher than Pete's, Andy was awesome in B03 in '09, had numerous quality wins against the elite guys...yet utterly failed at the Majors. Another limitation is that margin of victory isn't usually factored in at all, like it would be in the ELO rankings of a team in a team sport. I believe the TA, 538 and UTS systems treat Nadal's RG '08 the same as if he lost a bunch of sets along the way.

I basically agree with your implied point that people can have ulterior motives for using and misinterpreting Elo to try and settle a subjective debate that the system simply can't settle (and doesn't try to). For what this system ACTUALLY tries to determine (and not what some overzealous Fedkodal fans might think it does), it can be moderately useful...but still nowhere near definitive. I'm not surprised that the top 5 is almost always (in no order) Djok-Fed-Nadal-Borg-Lendl. That's about what you'd expect.

 

[NoleFam]

Like you're any less transparent in your motivations?

ELO has Murray's 2009 season above any season Sampras ever had, so yes it's garbage. Your defence of it is nice and revealing though...

You're basically taking an example from someone who clearly made a mistake in their calculations and using this as an excuse to dismiss ELO as garbage. ELO has been the standard rating for the World Chess Federation since 1970 so it's unfair to call it garbage. The example you're looking at from Jeff is very flawed and incorrectly calculated. On the ultimate tennis website, which is more accurate, Murray is quite a bit away from Sampras' top ELO ratings on his dominant surfaces and the only surface where he leads Sampras is clay, which is expected. ELO for tennis is in fact flawed but it has a lot of truth to it as well.

 

[Red Rick]

You're basically taking an example from someone who clearly made a mistake in their calculations and using this as an excuse to dismiss ELO as garbage. ELO has been the standard rating for the World Chess Federation since 1970 so it's unfair to call it garbage. The example you're looking at from Jeff is very flawed and incorrectly calculated. On the ultimate tennis website, which is more accurate, Murray is quite a bit a away from Sampras' top ELO rating and the only surface where he leads Sampras is clay, which is expected. ELO for tennis is in fact flawed but it has a lot of truth to it as well.

And if I understand correctly, ELO doesn't take into account at which tournament matches are played, and Sampras typically didn't do as great in smaller tournaments. A few of his YE#1 years have seen lower win percentages than some of Murray's YE#4 years. I don't argue that Murray's year would be better, just that there's an explanation.

 

[TheFifthSet]

You're basically taking an example from someone who clearly made a mistake in their calculations and using this as an excuse to dismiss ELO as garbage. ELO has been the standard rating for the World Chess Federation since 1970 so it's unfair to call it garbage. The example you're looking at from Jeff is very flawed and incorrectly calculated. On the ultimate tennis website, which is more accurate, Murray is quite a bit away from Sampras' top ELO rating and the only surface where he leads Sampras is clay, which is expected. ELO for tennis is in fact flawed but it has a lot of truth to it as well.

What are the main differences between the two?

I'll be honest, I'm only vaguely familiar with the different tennis ELO ratings. I know just enough to see that many people misinterpret them at first.


Edit: is this ranking outdated? Because here I see that Murray is ahead of Pete in peak ELO (although it was on the strength of Andy's '16 campaign rather than '09) :

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

 

[NoleFam]

And if I understand correctly, ELO doesn't take into account at which tournament matches are played, and Sampras typically didn't do as great in smaller tournaments. A few of his YE#1 years have seen lower win percentages than some of Murray's YE#4 years. I don't argue that Murray's year would be better, just that there's an explanation.

True but I think Jeff just missed something when he calculated. Even if Sampras didn't do as well in those smaller tournaments, Murray in 2009 should never have approached his rating at his best. Sampras is so bad on clay that it drags his entire rating down but he has a clear advantage on hard and grass compared to Murray. According to ultimate tennis, he hit his peak on hard 1997 and on grass in 1999. Murray hit his peak on hard in 2016 and his peak on grass in 2013. Because Murray is so good on all surfaces, his clay rating is enough to boost his overall ELO over Sampras' although he trails on 2/3 surfaces.

 

[NoleFam]

What are the main differences between the two?

I'll be honest, I'm only vaguely familiar with the different tennis ELO ratings. I know just enough to see that many people misinterpret them at first.


Edit: is this ranking outdated? Because here I see that Murray is ahead of Pete in peak ELO (although it was on the strength of Andy's '16 campaign rather than '09) :

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

Well I've seen at least 3 or 4 different sites calculate ELO and Jeff's is probably the most off. Some of his are correct and some are not.

Yea Murray is ahead of Pete because of clay. (Pete is so horrible on clay and his rating around 2200+.) When you look at surfaces separately, Sampras is clearly better on his dominant surfaces.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Well I've seen at least 3 or 4 different sites calculate ELO and Jeff's is probably the most off. Some are correct and some are not.

Yea Murray is ahead of Pete because of clay. (Pete is so horrible on clay and his rating around 2200+.) When you look at surfaces separately, Sampras is clearly better on his dominant surfaces.

True, but that's still another chink in ELO's armor. Which one is correct is largely subjective, since they seem to value Majors, M1000's, opponent quality and other miscellaneous factors differently.

I think we both occupy a middle ground here. It's a nice but flawed system, as is basically any tennis metric that is passed off as all-encompassing. This ain't like WAR in baseball (which I also have my gripes with, but to a lesser degree). Tennis is inherently tougher to whittle down to a science than a sport like baseball.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Of course. It's not without reason that you think that

Well, what's your take on the system? You can deride him for his supposed biases, but have you looked into it?

 

[NoleFam]

True, but that's still another chink in ELO's armor. Which one is correct is largely subjective, since they seem to value Majors, M1000's, opponent quality and other miscellaneous factors differently.

I think we both occupy a middle ground here. It's a nice but flawed system, as is basically any tennis metric that is passed off as all-encompassing. This ain't like WAR in baseball (which I also have my gripes with, but to a lesser degree). Tennis is inherently tougher to whittle down to a science than a sport like baseball.

Yes true. There's a clear formula but how close to that formula is everyone getting? The main flaw with ELO is it doesn't distinguish between level of tournaments. It doesn't weigh those GS tournaments differently and weighs everything the same which I think is how it becomes more inaccurate.

Agreed. Tennis is much harder to calculate than baseball and some other sports. However, it's nice to study it even though it has some disadvantages. I think it's good to see the advantages it has as well.

 

[NoleFam]

@TheFifthSet, @Red Rick
Just curious, what is your opinion on these ELO rankings by surface on ultimate tennis? I think for grass I would rearrange the top four, for starters.

Hard
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Agassi
6. Lendl

Grass
1. Borg
2. Federer
3. Connors
4. Sampras
5. Edberg
6. Djokovic

Clay
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Djokovic
4. Lendl
5. Vilas
6. Federer

 

[TheFifthSet]

@TheFifthSet, @Red Rick
Just curious, what is your opinion on these ELO rankings by surface on ultimate tennis? I think for grass I would rearrange the top four, for starters.

Hard
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Agassi
6. Lendl

Grass
1. Borg
2. Federer
3. Connors
4. Sampras
5. Edberg
6. Djokovic

Clay
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Djokovic
4. Lendl
5. Vilas
6. Federer

It looks like Borg gets quite a bit of deserved (but maybe misleading, in the context of this discussion) credit for beating some very formidable GC opponents, often by the skin of his teeth. Federer may have had a marginally less challenging grass court field to contend with, but he ran roughshod over his opposition, barely losing sets. That, combined with the eye test, would vault his peak grass play over Borg's peak in my eyes. However, as we alluded to, since the system actually doesn't gauge peak the way that us and other TTW denizens generally do (it's about sustained dominance as opposed to tournament-specific, in-a-vacuum peak play) Borg-Fed at 1-2 is about what I would expect. Floored that Connors is above Sampras (I think Fed-Pete are 1-2 as far as open era grass peak is concerned), but after some examination I could see how Sampras ended up so low. He usually didn't put much effort into grass tune-ups and the field was a little bit different in the 90's...more dangerous floaters but less consistent grass-court giants.

Every ELO rating I've ever seen has Djok-Fed 1-2 on HC, so no surprise there. Thought Lendl would place much higher before I remembered HC wasn't as prevalent in his day (same goes for Sampras and Agassi, to a lesser extent), so they didn't get the same chance to build up a high HC ELO during their best years. With that taken into consideration, nothing too aberrant.

I suspect modern-day clay courters have it a little easier, rating-wise, with the emergence of Poly. The 90's clay court scene was like the wild wild west, deep but top-light. I think Kuerten today would have been a behemoth on clay. Still, if you're looking only at results, and weigh the Majors the same way the ATP does, this is also about the ranking you would expect.

 

[Red Rick]

@TheFifthSet, @Red Rick
Just curious, what is your opinion on these ELO rankings by surface on ultimate tennis? I think for grass I would rearrange the top four, for starters.

Hard
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Agassi
6. Lendl

Grass
1. Borg
2. Federer
3. Connors
4. Sampras
5. Edberg
6. Djokovic

Clay
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Djokovic
4. Lendl
5. Vilas
6. Federer

It's kinda hard cause ELO doens't really give a lot of credit for being at 90% for a super long time. Djokovic/Federer is close on HC, but I gotta give it to Fed especially since there's 2 slams difference now, but I can understand where it comes from. I disagree most with Nadal being on 3 on HC. Djokovic seems a bit high on clay, but he's only really been stopped at RG by Nadal for quite a few years, and imagine that losing to Nadal on clay doesn't really bring your ELO on clay down too much. Grass is a pain cause it's only 1/2 or max 3 tournaments a year, and the top guys really only meet the other top guys on Wimbly. I'd have both Fed and Sampras over Borg, Connors not in top 5, and I don't know about Djokovic. I imagine Nadal's peak ELO on grass is pretty high as well?

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[TheFifthSet]

It's kinda hard cause ELO doens't really give a lot of credit for being at 90% for a super long time. Djokovic/Federer is close on HC, but I gotta give it to Fed especially since there's 2 slams difference now, but I can understand where it comes from. I disagree most with Nadal being on 3 on HC. Djokovic seems a bit high on clay, but he's only really been stopped at RG by Nadal for quite a few years, and imagine that losing to Nadal on clay doesn't really bring your ELO on clay down too much. Grass is a pain cause it's only 1/2 or max 3 tournaments a year, and the top guys really only meet the other top guys on Wimbly. I'd have both Fed and Sampras over Borg, Connors not in top 5, and I don't know about Djokovic. I imagine Nadal's peak ELO on grass is pretty high as well?

The thing is that it's natural for Elo to diverge from our perception of who the actual best guys were at their peak...because its concept of 'peak' is fundamentally different. It's definitely not the sort of 'peak' we generally refer to. What peak Elo ends up gauging is consistency/sustained dominance.

 

[TahoeTennis]

peak ELO baby groot style vice city

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

I doubt Nadal, Sampras, Novak and Federer regularly work out their ELO rating. Do they even know what ELO is.

the nadal might have missed the last train to london...

 

[metsman]

@TheFifthSet, @Red Rick
Just curious, what is your opinion on these ELO rankings by surface on ultimate tennis? I think for grass I would rearrange the top four, for starters.

Hard
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Sampras
5. Agassi
6. Lendl

Grass
1. Borg
2. Federer
3. Connors
4. Sampras
5. Edberg
6. Djokovic

Clay
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Djokovic
4. Lendl
5. Vilas
6. Federer

#3 on all lists is laughable. Nice symmetry though lol

 

[NoleFam]

It looks like Borg gets quite a bit of deserved (but maybe misleading, in the context of this discussion) credit for beating some very formidable GC opponents, often by the skin of his teeth. Federer may have had a marginally less challenging grass court field to contend with, but he ran roughshod over his opposition, barely losing sets. That, combined with the eye test, would vault his peak grass play over Borg's peak in my eyes. However, as we alluded to, since the system actually doesn't gauge peak the way that us and other TTW denizens generally do (it's about sustained dominance as opposed to tournament-specific, in-a-vacuum peak play) Borg-Fed at 1-2 is about what I would expect. Floored that Connors is above Sampras (I think Fed-Pete are 1-2 as far as open era grass peak is concerned), but after some examination I could see how Sampras ended up so low. He usually didn't put much effort into grass tune-ups and the field was a little bit different in the 90's...more dangerous floaters but less consistent grass-court giants.

Every ELO rating I've ever seen has Djok-Fed 1-2 on HC, so no surprise there. Thought Lendl would place much higher before I remembered HC wasn't as prevalent in his day (same goes for Sampras and Agassi, to a lesser extent), so they didn't get the same chance to build up a high HC ELO during their best years. With that taken into consideration, nothing too aberrant.

I suspect modern-day clay courters have it a little easier, rating-wise, with the emergence of Poly. The 90's clay court scene was like the wild wild west, deep but top-light. I think Kuerten with Poly strings would have been a behemoth on clay. Still, if you're looking only at results, and weigh the Majors the same way the ATP does, this is also about the ranking you would expect.

It's kinda hard cause ELO doens't really give a lot of credit for being at 90% for a super long time. Djokovic/Federer is close on HC, but I gotta give it to Fed especially since there's 2 slams difference now, but I can understand where it comes from. I disagree most with Nadal being on 3 on HC. Djokovic seems a bit high on clay, but he's only really been stopped at RG by Nadal for quite a few years, and imagine that losing to Nadal on clay doesn't really bring your ELO on clay down too much. Grass is a pain cause it's only 1/2 or max 3 tournaments a year, and the top guys really only meet the other top guys on Wimbly. I'd have both Fed and Sampras over Borg, Connors not in top 5, and I don't know about Djokovic. I imagine Nadal's peak ELO on grass is pretty high as well?

The reason Connors is that high is because he won two USO on grass and one AO. So based on ELO that's 3 more grass tournaments, his Wimbledons and his smaller grass tournaments. Yea if I'm looking at pure peak play, I would take Connors out of the top 3 and put the order as Sampras, Fed and Borg. I probably would actually place McEnroe fourth, Edberg 5th and leave Djokovic where he is. Before 2015, I wouldn't place Djokovic that high but afterwards, I would. Connors could never beat Borg at Wimbledon and has a bad top 10 record there so I don't think he should be that highly ranked. So the next three slots I would give to Becker, Nadal and Connors in some order.

Hardcourt, I would put Fed at #1, Djokovic at #2, Sampras at #3, Agassi at #4, Lendl at #5, McEnroe at #6 and probably push Nadal down to #7. Some might say I'm being a bit generous here. Nadal's hardcourt peaks were high though being that he swept all the American hardcourt tournaments in 2013, won Indian Wells multiple times, AO in 2009, etc.

Clay, #1 and #2 are not going to change for decades if even then. I would move Djokovic though. I do think his clay peak is high but guys like Lendl and Kuerten had high peaks as well, and their peaks coincided with more RG titles. I would put Lendl at #3, Kuerten at #4 and Djokovic at #5.

 

[NoleFam]

#3 on all lists is laughable. Nice symmetry though lol

That's because ELO doesn't know you only won one RG or you only won 3 hardcourt Slams. It just knows that you beat the clay GOAT more than everyone else as well as a lot of other top players, and won multiple clay tournaments. Same for Nadal in beating the #1 and #2 multiple times, many other top players and winning multiple hardcourt titles. This is where the biggest flaw in ELO lies.

 

[Jaitock1991]

It does not have its head firmly up feds arse therefore it is garbage. Need more fanboyism and emotion involved.
Forgot to add needs hypotheticals as well.

Kind of the same as you reacting to it because it has its head firmly up Djovak's arse instead and therefore anyone claiming it's garbage is delusional, you mean?

 

[Tennisanity]

ELO is meaningless because otherwise Murray > Sampras, check the numbers.

Murray also had more ELO points than Laver ever did. No one in their right might would put peak Murray over peak Laver.

Hence, this completely nullifies ELO for tennis.

 

[metsman]

That's because ELO doesn't know you only won one RG or you only won 3 hardcourt Slams. It just knows that you beat the clay GOAT more than everyone else as well as a lot of other top players, and won multiple clay tournaments. Same for Nadal in beating the #1 and #2 multiple times, many other top players and winning multiple hardcourt titles. This is where the biggest flaw in ELO lies.

exactly, ELO takes name over form and goes to the extreme. ELO would be good for a rankings system maybe in addition to the current one, but not for a system that determines playing level.

 

[NoleFam]

exactly, ELO takes name over form and goes to the extreme. ELO would be good for a rankings system maybe in addition to the current one, but not for a system that determines playing level.

I wouldn't say it takes name over form but it does equalize all tournaments. This causes the most problems because top players play their best tennis in the Slams which ELO doesn't recognize. Name over form is not what the main problem is or what it does exactly, and Djokovic's hardcourt peak was in January 2016 which ELO calculates. Djokovic's clay peak was in June 2016 and his grass peak was in July 2015. ELO has all of this correct so clearly it can compute a player's highest playing level but it is also inconsistent.

 

[abmk]

True but I think Jeff just missed something when he calculated. Even if Sampras didn't do as well in those smaller tournaments, Murray in 2009 should never have approached his rating at his best. Sampras is so bad on clay that it drags his entire rating down but he has a clear advantage on hard and grass compared to Murray. According to ultimate tennis, he hit his peak on hard 1997 and on grass in 1999. Murray hit his peak on hard in 2016 and his peak on grass in 2013. Because Murray is so good on all surfaces, his clay rating is enough to boost his overall ELO over Sampras' although he trails on 2/3 surfaces.

Sampras in 94 was MUCH better than Murray on clay in 09.
(Rome win, RG QF).

So basically, the method had Murray of 09 higher than Sampras in 94 is rubbish.

 

[metsman]

I wouldn't say it takes name over form but it does equalize all tournaments. This causes the most problems because top players play their best tennis in the Slams which ELO doesn't recognize. Name over form is not what the main problem is or what it does exactly, and Djokovic's hardcourt peak was in January 2016 which ELO calculates. Djokovic's clay peak was in June 2016 and his grass peak was in July 2015. ELO has all of this correct so clearly it can compute a player's highest playing level but it is also inconsistent.

I would say Djokovic's hard and clay peak was AO-USO in 2011 but obviously his 15-16 level is in the discussion so it's not that bad. However, it has Federer's clay peak from 08-09 and his grass peak from 07-08 which is complete nonsense levelwise and no one would argue otherwise (05-07 for clay, 03-06 for grass). Also has Sampras' HC peak in 96-97 and grass peak in 98-99 which is pretty off as well (94 for both).

 

[NoleFam]

Sampras in 94 was MUCH better than Murray on clay in 09.
(Rome win, RG QF).

So basically, the method had Murray of 09 higher than Sampras in 94 is rubbish.

Well like I said his calculation was off and not the method itself. Sampras' peak clay rating in 1994 was 2255 and Murray's in 2009 was 2100. So the calculation on ultimate tennis is more accurate.

 

[True Fanerer]

Smh

 

[metsman]

The reason Connors is that high is because he won two USO on grass and one AO. So based on ELO that's 3 more grass tournaments, his Wimbledons and his smaller grass tournaments. Yea if I'm looking at pure peak play, I would take Connors out of the top 3 and put the order as Sampras, Fed and Borg. I probably would actually place McEnroe fourth, Edberg 5th and leave Djokovic where he is. Before 2015, I wouldn't place Djokovic that high but afterwards, I would. Connors could never beat Borg at Wimbledon and has a bad top 10 record there so I don't think he should be that highly ranked. So the next three slots I would give to Becker, Nadal and Connors in some order.

Hardcourt, I would put Fed at #1, Djokovic at #2, Sampras at #3, Agassi at #4, Lendl at #5, McEnroe at #6 and probably push Nadal down to #7. Some might say I'm being a bit generous here. Nadal's hardcourt peaks were high though being that he swept all the American hardcourt tournaments in 2013, won Indian Wells multiple times, AO in 2009, etc.

Clay, #1 and #2 are not going to change for decades if even then. I would move Djokovic though. I do think his clay peak is high but guys like Lendl and Kuerten had high peaks as well, and their peaks coincided with more RG titles. I would put Lendl at #3, Kuerten at #4 and Djokovic at #5.

Connors won 1 USO on grass, 76 was on Har Tru.

 

[abmk]

Well like I said his calculation was off and not the method itself. Sampras' peak clay rating in 1994 was 2255 and Murray's in 2009 was 2100. So the calculation on ultimate tennis is more accurate.

I was pointing about about Sampras in 94 and Muray in 09 on clay in the earlier rating.
Atleast Ultimate tennis seems to have got the order right.

The one on UltimateTennis is a more customized formula than the earlier one I think.
So not necessarily about the calculations in the earlier one.

 

[NoleFam]

I would say Djokovic's hard and clay peak was AO-USO in 2011 but obviously his 15-16 level is in the discussion so it's not that bad. However, it has Federer's clay peak from 08-09 and his grass peak from 07-08 which is complete nonsense levelwise and no one would argue otherwise (05-07 for clay, 03-06 for grass). Also has Sampras' HC peak in 96-97 and grass peak in 98-99 which is pretty off as well (94 for both).

Djokovic has never played at a level higher on hardcourt than he did in that 2016 AO SF against Federer. It's really not even subjective because of the clear difference, and that was obviously his peak. I would also rate his level in the final of 2016 RG at the highest in a BO5 clay match.

It has Federer's clay peak at September 2009 and I really don't see the controversy with this being that he had just won RG, Madrid and got to the SF of Rome. I didn't see something so spectacular in those years, besides Rome 2006, for me to believe he was at a higher level. It is the grass peak that is where the issue comes into play since it has it at 2008. This is where the flaws come into play and how it is not always accurate.

I would go with Sampras' hardcourt peak in 1994. Ultimate tennis has it at 2534 in 1994 and 2553 in 1997, and they are close and his two highest levels in his career. I would stay with his grass peak in 1999 because what his did to a resurgent and high level Agassi in that Wimbledon final was of another world. I have never seen him play quite that intense before that.

 

[abmk]

I would also rate his level in the final of 2016 RG at the highest in a BO5 clay match.

really ? with that 1st set ? no way.
The SF vs Thiem itself was better.

RG 15 QF vs Nadal was better as well.

I daresay his RG 2011 SF level vs federer was a tad better as well, but you'll never agree with that.

It has Federer's clay peak at September 2009 and I really don't see the controversy with this being that he had just won RG, Madrid and got to the SF of Rome. I didn't see something so spectacular in those years, besides Rome 2006, for me to believe he was at a higher level.

Hamburg 2007 final ?

 

[abmk]

I would stay with his grass peak in 1999 because what his did to a resurgent and high level Agassi in that Wimbledon final was of another world. I have never seen him play quite that intense before that.

His best 2 Wimbledons were in 94 , 97.
If we're talking about one match, I'd say 3 matches are in contention - vs Agassi in 99, vs Becker in 95 , vs Stich in 92. I'd actually go with the last one because his returning was stellar vs the defending champ in Stich and he completely dominated him. I'd suggest you watch it, if you haven't already.

 

[NoleFam]

really ? with that 1st set ? no way.
The SF vs Thiem itself was better.

RG 15 QF vs Nadal was better as well.

I daresay his RG 2011 SF level vs federer was a tad better as well, but you'll never agree with that.




Hamburg 2007 final ?

One set does not vastly effect the entire level of play in the other 3 sets in a BO5 match. Djokovic hit more than double the amount of winners against Murray than he did against Thiem. He was excellent in the Nadal match but Nadal has played much better than he did that day. Murray was a tougher opponent at that point in time who had won Rome and got to the final of Madrid. Why would I agree that his 2011 RG SF was a higher level when his backhand down the line misfired so often that day, and he hadn't played a match in 5 days? We've been down this road before so no need rehashing this all over again.

 

[NoleFam]

His best 2 Wimbledons were in 94 , 97.
If we're talking about one match, I'd say 3 matches are in contention - vs Agassi in 99, vs Becker in 95 , vs Stich in 92. I'd actually go with the last one because his returning was stellar vs the defending champ in Stich and he completely dominated him. I'd suggest you watch it, if you haven't already.

When I say peak, I mean one match of that smaller time period. A whole tournament is not always the true answer because Djokovic in the 4th round 2016 AO and the SF is incomparable. I'm talking about the peak match of that particular tournament. I saw the Agassi and Becker matches live but never saw the Stich one. Maybe I will watch it one day.

 

[metsman]

Djokovic has never played at a level higher on hardcourt than he did in that 2016 AO SF against Federer. It's really not even subjective because of the clear difference, and that was obviously his peak. I would also rate his level in the final of 2016 RG at the highest in a BO5 clay match.

It has Federer's clay peak at September 2009 and I really don't see the controversy with this being that he had just won RG, Madrid and got to the SF of Rome. I didn't see something so spectacular in those years, besides Rome 2006, for me to believe he was at a higher level. It is the grass peak that is where the issue comes into play since it has it at 2008. This is where the flaws come into play and how it is not always accurate.

I would go with Sampras' hardcourt peak in 1994. Ultimate tennis has it at 2534 in 1994 and 2553 in 1997, and they are close and his two highest levels in his career. I would stay with his grass peak in 1999 because what his did to a resurgent and high level Agassi in that Wimbledon final was of another world. I have never seen him play quite that intense before that.

The Wimbledon final was a spectacular performance but overall on grass it has to be 94 or maybe 97 for the stupidly good serving (but I'd go with 94 without thinking twice). One match doesn't change that, and the 94 Wimbledon final is about as good as Sampras ever played. Playing Agassi gave him more shotmaking opportunities than playing Ivanisevic did.

The biggest with problem ELO is summarized by that 1997 ranking. It's probably in some part due to destroying Agassi at San Jose on hard when agassi was probably rated very highly by ELO due to his 95 results on hard when the fact was that he was already into his tailspin.