Peak tennis ELO ratings: Djokovic at #1

[metsman]

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.

I'd throw the 94 final in there too, one of Sampras' most underrated matches. Goran was serving out of a tree, but Sampras didn't give him any mistakes to capitalize on the first two sets. His returning in the first two sets was actually tremendous, but Goran rained down some big serves on break points. Still clutched out the tiebreaks though. 92/94 Wimbledon was the best Goran ever served and Sampras handled his serve in that final like it was nothing and served at a very high level himself.

 

[NatF]

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.

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.

You both make some good points. I'll retract my statement of ELO being garbage and simply say it's too flawed to be used definitively in tennis

 

[NoleFam]

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.

Serve fests bore me so I probably would appreciate the Agassi match more than the Ivanisevic one. I've actually never seen that match but did see some of Sampras' matches that year. I like when Sampras plays someone like Agassi with a great return and groundstrokes because it forces him to volley even better than usual, and it's a contrast of styles.

No the ELO rates him high in 1997 because he was holding 9 hardcourt titles at that point in time, including the USO and AO, and had beaten quite a few top players. ELO doesn't recognize the Sunshine Double in 1994 as a bigger achievement and all titles weigh the same, and he was only holding 7 or 8 hardcourt titles in 1994 at the highest rating.

 

[NoleFam]

You both make some good points. I'll retract my statement of ELO being garbage and simply say it's too flawed to be used definitively in tennis

So basically just rewording your statement to sound a little better? Fair enough.

 

[abmk]

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.

except, you missed the part where Murray inexplicably decided to drop his level massively after winning set 1 and played mediocre in sets 2-4 of the RG 2016 final.

(did no better in the last 3 sets than Nadal did in the RG 15 QF)

He served at 50% in the final.

-----

murray in 1st set :

10 W to 6 UEs

rest of the sets

13 W to 33 UEs

Ended up with 23 W to 39 UEs

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...vs-2-andy-murray.564678/page-50#post-10364858


Djokovic hit 41 W to 37 UEs in the final, forced 42 errors from Murray.

So was +46 in W+FEs to UEs

Djokovic won 122 points, Murray won 97 points. Total = 219

So % = 46/219 = 21%
Murray's % was = 21/219 = 9.59%
----

vs Thiem,

Djokovic was 15 W to 15 UEs, but he forced 44 errors from Thiem. So he was +44.

(https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-djokovics-performance-in-his-rg-list.564679/)

Djokovic won 93 points, Thiem won 63 points. Total = 156.
So % = 44/156 = 28.2%

Thiem was +14 in W+FE to UEs.
His % was 14/156 = 8.97%

So only slightly lesser than Murray's in the final.
But djokovic's was considerably higher in the SF than in the F.

Basically if you just take the last 3 sets of the RG final, its on the same level as the semi , but considering the 1st set as well, it goes down.

 

[NatF]

So basically just rewording your statement to sound a little better? Fair enough.

Garbage means I don't think it has much merit at all. Too flawed means I think it can show some interesting stuff but when you end up with Nadal at #3 on HC clearly there's some issues. Any system where you get more credit for beating a top player in a terrible match than you do for beating someone less celebrated but playing out of their skin is going to draw some eye rolls from me.

 

[abmk]

I'd throw the 94 final in there too, one of Sampras' most underrated matches. Goran was serving out of a tree, but Sampras didn't give him any mistakes to capitalize on the first two sets. His returning in the first two sets was actually tremendous, but Goran rained down some big serves on break points. Still clutched out the tiebreaks though. 92/94 Wimbledon was the best Goran ever served and Sampras handled his serve in that final like it was nothing and served at a very high level himself.

it was a pretty good match from Sampras, but I don't rate it as highly as you do. A notch below the 3 I mentioned.
Sampras did return well, but not his very best (ala vs Stich in 92 Wim QF).
Someone like Fed/Agassi/Murray would probably be able to break Goran atleast once in the first 2 sets I think.

 

[NoleFam]

except, you missed the part where Murray inexplicably decided to drop his level massively after winning set 1 and played mediocre in sets 2-4 of the RG 2016 final.

murray in 1st set :

10 W to 6 UEs

rest of the sets

13 W to 33 UEs

Ended up with 23 W to 39 UEs

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...vs-2-andy-murray.564678/page-50#post-10364858


Djokovic hit 41 W to 37 UEs in the final, forced 42 errors from Murray.

So was +46 in W+FEs to UEs

Djokovic won 122 points, Murray won 97 points. Total = 219

So % = 46/219 = 21%
Murray's % was = 21/219 = 9.59%
----

vs Thiem,

Djokovic was 15 W to 15 UEs, but he forced 44 errors from Thiem. So he was +44.

(https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-djokovics-performance-in-his-rg-list.564679/)

Djokovic won 93 points, Thiem won 63 points. Total = 156.
So % = 44/156 = 28.2%

Thiem was +14 in W+FE to UEs.
His % was 14/156 = 8.97%

So only slightly lesser than Murray's in the final.
But djokovic's was considerably higher in the SF than in the F.

Basically if you just take the last sets of the RG final, its on the same level as the semi , but considering the 1st set, it goes down.

Djokovic in those last three sets against Murray was scary good. 41 winners to 37 unforced errors and 26/33 net points won. That's probably the only time in his career that he was that excellent at net in a clay match. That's basically 83 winners + FEs to 37 UE's on clay which is pretty special. Once again, that formula is only showing how often they hit a winner or forced error, and not how well they played. Thiem was +14 and Murray was +21 so that means Murray played better. Djokovic was +46 against Murray and +44 against Thiem, which means he played better in the final.

 

[NoleFam]

Garbage means I don't think it has much merit at all. Too flawed means I think it can show some interesting stuff but when you end up with Nadal at #3 on HC clearly there's some issues. Any system where you get more credit for beating a top player in a terrible match than you do for beating someone less celebrated but playing out of their skin is going to draw some eye rolls from me.

Relax man. I was only joking. There was supposed to be a smiley there so you know I was kidding. Fixed.

 

[NatF]

Relax man. I was only joking. There was supposed to be a smiley there so you know I was kidding. Fixed.

I am relaxed. I was just elaborating on my thoughts. Maybe you should relax

 

[NoleFam]

I am relaxed. I was just elaborating on my thoughts. Maybe you should relax

I am relaxed and chill...see?

 

[NatF]

I am relaxed and chill...see?

But are you chillaxed?

 

[NoleFam]

But are you chillaxed?

Always.

 

[abmk]

Djokovic in those last three sets against Murray was scary good. It's not even close really. 41 winners to 37 unforced errors and 26/33 net points won. That's probably the only time in his career that he was that excellent at net in a clay match. That's basically 83 winners + FEs to 37 UE's on clay which is pretty special. Once again, that formula is only showing how often they hit a winner or forced error, and not how well they played. Thiem was +14 and Murray was +21 so that means Murray played better. Djokovic was +46 against Murray and +44 against Thiem, which means he played better in the final.

jeez, the lengths of the matches were different. 156 points and 219 points.
Hence the use of %s. Did that go completely over your head ?

(and its not like one match was much longer than the other to bring in fatigue and other stuff into play to make them incomparable)

the statement in bold is idiotic - considering djokovic got the +44 vs Thiem in only 156 points and +46 vs Murray in 219 points.

When a player is playing well, the W+FE to UE differential goes on increasing as the match goes on.

% wise, for the whole matches, it wasn't even close.
Djoko was 28.2% in the Thiem match and 21% in the Murray match.

The last 3 sets of the Murray match was basically at the same level as the Thiem match (3 sets).

--------------

83W+FEs to 37 UEs on clay isn't that special

Federer was 121W+FEs to 40 UEs in the RG 11 SF . (yeah, lighter balls, but djokovic was playing much better in the RG 11 SF than Murray was in the RG 16 F. and that's massive difference even with the difference in balls)

Nadal was 101W+FEs to 41 UEs in the RG 13 SF (somewhere around that)

 

[NoleFam]

jeez, the lengths of the matches were different. 156 points and 219 points.
Hence the use of %s. Did that go completely over your head ?

(and its not like one match was much longer than the other to bring in fatigue and other stuff into play to make them incomparable)

the statement in bold is idiotic - considering djokovic got the +44 vs Thiem in only 156 points and +46 vs Murray in 219 points.

When a player is playing well, the W+FE to UE differential goes on increasing as the match goes on.

% wise, for the whole matches, it wasn't even close.
Djoko was 28.2% in the Thiem match and 21% in the Murray match.

The last 3 sets of the Murray match was basically at the same level as the thiem match (3 sets).

The length of the match is actually irrelevant in this instance. How is my statement idiotic when it is logical and common sense? If player A has played 156 points and he is at +44, and he hits 1 winner or forced error, and 1 UE for the remainder of the match until he reaches 219 points, he will stay at +44. It will not change. There is no guarantee that that ratio will increase or decrease. Case in point: Djokovic was +39 in the 2013 RG SF even though it was much longer match and he played 335 points. You're +/- ratio in regards to winners+forced errors to UE's is only relative to how well you played in a BO5 match. By using that formula, you're only calculating how often player A and player B hit a winner or forced an error in the match.

2011 is lighter balls so entirely different conditions and you cannot use that in relation to 2013 or 2016.

 

[abmk]

The length of the match is actually irrelevant in this instance. How is my statement idiotic when it is logical and common sense? If player A has played 156 points and he is at +44, and he hits 1 winner or forced error, and 1 UE for the remainder of the match until he reaches 219 points, he will stay at +44. It will not change. There is no guarantee that that ratio will increase or decrease. Case in point: Djokovic was +39 in the 2013 RG SF even though it was much longer match and he played 335 points. You're +/- ratio in regards to winners+forced errors to UE's is only relative to how well you played in a BO5 match. By using that formula, you're only calculating how often player A and player B hit a winner or forced an error in the match.

The length absolutely matters.

At the bold part. No.

The % is not just W+FE/total # of points.
its W+FE-UE/total # of points

which includes a -ve for the UEs ...


For the first set, from

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20160605-M-Roland_Garros-F-Andy_Murray-Novak_Djokovic.html
(point by point description)

points won by game :

Djokovic won : 4,2,0,1,1,5,6,5,3 --- Total = 27
Murray won : 0,4,4,4,4,3,8,3,5 --- Total = 35

Total points = 62.

murray in 1st set :

10 W to 6 UEs

djokovic in the 1st set :

8 W to 13 UEs

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...vs-2-andy-murray.564678/page-50#post-10364858

so basically djokovic forced 13 errors from Murray in the first set.
Djokovic was 21 W+FEs to 13 UEs (+8)

now remove that and just take the last 3 sets :

djokovic is +38 in W+FEs ....# of points in last 3 sets combined = 219 - 62 = 157 points .
Djoko won the last 3 sets of the Murray final : 6-1, 6-2, 6-4

The Djoko Thiem match had 156 points. Djoko won it 6-2, 6-1,6-4

As close as it possibly gets.

Djokovic was +44 in W+FEs in the semi vs Thiem.

Unless you are playing well below par, you do not go -ve in the W+FE-UE stat in a set(you need to remember that this is not the W-UE which fluctuates far more)
So every set, the W+FE-UE stat goes on increasing unless the player is playing well below par.


Murray was actually 22W+FEs to 6 UEs in the 1st set. So +16.

Total of +21. For the last 3 sets combined, he was only a measly +5.

Thiem was +14 in his match.


----------

Now, lets get to the RG 2013 SF, well, duh, he was playing Nadal who was playing at a considerably higher level than either Thiem/Murray in RG 2016.

2011 is lighter balls so entirely different conditions and you cannot use that in relation to 2013 or 2016.

even the lighter balls don't account for that massive difference . Plus like I said, Djokovic played MUCH better in the 2011 RG SF than Murray did in the RG 2016 final.

 

[metsman]

it was a pretty good match from Sampras, but I don't rate it as highly as you do. A notch below the 3 I mentioned.
Sampras did return well, but not his very best (ala vs Stich in 92 Wim QF).
Someone like Fed/Agassi/Murray would probably be able to break Goran atleast once in the first 2 sets I think.

Sampras had 7 break points the first two sets, won more than 30% of return points, Goran was serving around 60%, pretty good for his standards, with tons of aces. Goran hit 4-5 aces to save those break points. I don't see Agassi/Murray doing any better. Federer, maybe, but I suspect that he'd still need 2 tiebreaks like the 03 final.

 

[metsman]

You both make some good points. I'll retract my statement of ELO being garbage and simply say it's too flawed to be used definitively in tennis

It's absolute garbage to determine peak level. Determining who has a better peak level among all time greats basically comes down to evaluating a few matches, and anyone can do that with a much finer level of granularity than ELO does. To use for ranking purposes, maybe it has more of a use.

 

[NoleFam]

At the bold part. No.

The % is not just W+FE/total # of points.
its W+FE-UE/total # of points

which includes a -ve for the UEs ...


For the first set, from

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20160605-M-Roland_Garros-F-Andy_Murray-Novak_Djokovic.html
(point by point description)

points won by game :

Djokovic won : 4,2,0,1,1,5,6,5,3 --- Total = 27
Murray won : 0,4,4,4,4,3,8,3,5 --- Total = 35

Total points = 62.

murray in 1st set :

10 W to 6 UEs

djokovic in the 1st set :

8 W to 13 UEs

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...vs-2-andy-murray.564678/page-50#post-10364858

so basically djokovic forced 13 errors from Murray in the first set.
Djokovic was 21 W+FEs to 13 UEs (+8)

now remove that and just take the last 3 sets :

djokovic is +38 in W+FEs ....# of points in last 3 sets combined = 219 - 62 = 157 points .
Djoko won the last 3 sets of the Murray final : 6-1, 6-2, 6-4

The Djoko Thiem match had 156 points. Djoko won it 6-2, 6-1,6-4

As close as it possibly gets.

Djokovic was +44 in W+FEs in the semi vs Thiem.

Unless you are playing well below par, you do not go -ve in the W+FE-UE stat (you need to remember that this is not the W-UE which fluctuates far more)
So every set, the W+FE-UE stat goes on increasing unless the player is playing well below par.


Murray was actually 22W+FEs to 6 UEs in the 1st set. So +16.

Total of +21. For the last 3 sets combined, he was only a measly +5.

Thiem was +14 in his match.


----------

Now, lets get to the RG 2013 SF, well, duh, he was playing Nadal who was playing at a considerably higher level than either Thiem/Murray in RG 2016.




even the lighter balls don't account for that massive difference . Plus like I said, Djokovic played MUCH better in the 2011 RG SF than Murray did in the RG 2016 final.

The point is it is not guaranteed to increase or decrease. It could stay the same, increase or decrease but there is no guarantee either way. Your + ratio means you hit a winner/forced error this many times more than a UE. Bottom line is that Murray was +21 and Thiem was +14 in their ratios so Murray hit 21 more winners/forced errors than UEs and Thiem only did 14.

Your formula is basically saying player A hit this many more winners/forced errors than UEs or xyz% of the time in the match. That percentage doesn't really mean player A or player B played better because there are other factors at play that it does not count for.

Of course Nadal was playing better than them but Djokovic was only +39 in that match, which means he made more UEs than winners/forced errors than either the Thiem or Murray matches. This is a clear example of how that ratio does not always increase in a longer match, and there are other factors at play as well.

2011 was outlier and cannot be compared to any of these matches since the conditions are not the same.

 

[abmk]

Sampras had 7 break points the first two sets, won more than 30% of return points, Goran was serving around 60%, pretty good for his standards, with tons of aces. Goran hit 4-5 aces to save those break points. I don't see Agassi/Murray doing any better. Federer, maybe, but I suspect that he'd still need 2 tiebreaks like the 03 final.

2 games in the first set out of 6
1 game in the 2nd set out of 6

So 3 games in which he had BP chances out of 12

----

I'm re-watching the Wim 92 final.

Goran served at 58% in that one.

Agassi has BP chances in 2 games in the 1st set, 3 in the 2nd set, 2 in the 3rd set. ..

1 in the 4th set and 1 in the 5th set ...so 9 overall

9 games in which he BP out of 25 return games overall.

a better rate than Sampras' in the first 2 sets (the 3rd set was basically a tankjob from Goran) -- he clustered his return points better basically.

----

federer really should've taken the 3rd set vs Scud 6-4. He missed an easy FH on BP.

 

[abmk]

The point is it is not guaranteed to increase or decrease. It could stay the same, increase or decrease but there is no guarantee either way. Your + ratio means you hit a winner/forced error this many times more than a UE. Bottom line is that Murray was +21 and Thiem was +14 in their ratios so Murray hit 21 more winners/forced errors than UEs and Thiem only did 14.

Your formula is basically saying player A hit this many more winners/forced errors than UEs or xyz% of the time in the match. That percentage doesn't really mean player A or player B played better because there are other factors at play that it does not count for.

Of course Nadal was playing better than them but Djokovic was only +39 in that match, which means he made more UEs than winners/forced errors than either the Thiem or Murray matches. This is a clear example of how that ratio does not always increase in a longer match, and there are other factors at play as well.

2011 was outlier and cannot be compared to any of these matches since the conditions are not the same.

Like I said,

last 3 sets of the Djokovic-Murray match.

157 points
Djoko was +38
Murray was +5

The Djoko-Thiem match

156 points
Djoko was +44
Thiem was +14

I've reduced it a very similar sample size, with the 3 best sets for djokovic in the RG 2016 final and it still falls short of the RG 2016 semi stats.

(We both know the first set for Djoko in the RG 2016 final was the worst out of the 7 sets)

I'd still say both were on a similar level (Thiem match a tad ahead maybe). But the 1st set pulls the RG 16 final clearly below the semi.


The W+FE-UE increases within a given match, provided the player is not playing clearly below par.
Set by set, it increases. Again, read it. Within a given match.

When you are comparing different matches (say with RG 13 semi), you have to take into account that Nadal was playing MUCH better than Murray or Thiem in RG 13 SF. I'm not saying all longer matches will necessarily have a better W+FE-UE ratio than a shorter one. Not even close.

 

[NatF]

The point is it is not guaranteed to increase or decrease. It could stay the same, increase or decrease but there is no guarantee either way. Your + ratio means you hit a winner/forced error this many times more than a UE. Bottom line is that Murray was +21 and Thiem was +14 in their ratios so Murray hit 21 more winners/forced errors than UEs and Thiem only did 14.

Your formula is basically saying player A hit this many more winners/forced errors than UEs or xyz% of the time in the match. That percentage doesn't really mean player A or player B played better because there are other factors at play that it does not count for.

Of course Nadal was playing better than them but Djokovic was only +39 in that match, which means he made more UEs than winners/forced errors than either the Thiem or Murray matches. This is a clear example of how that ratio does not always increase in a longer match, and there are other factors at play as well.

2011 was outlier and cannot be compared to any of these matches since the conditions are not the same.

If the level of play remains consistent the differential is guaranteed to increase.

Say for example there's a three set match, and per set Player A is +6 in terms of winners/induced forced errors to unforced errors. At the end of the match Player A would be +18, if his standard of play was constant and they played a fourth set it would be +24 despite the overall level of play not being higher. The AM's that abmk showed you balance this because they divide by the total number of points.

Of course in practice a match isn't going to be completely consistent but if you're in the +'ve consistently then the differential is only going to get larger as the match goes on. Longer matches aren't certain to have better differentials, no one has said that, however if you have two matches of reasonably similar quality the longer match will have the better differential.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[kOaMaster]

An ELO ranking is fine for me but there are quite a few things to bear in mind while looking at those:
- The calculations & modells behind an ELO rating can differ hugely
- As you can't choose you opponent you playing against and at the same time don't have a fix schedule (similar to a league system), the rankings hugely depend on who you are playing
- Surfaces aren't in considered here (sample size for grass imo is too low to make a ranking with much significance, as hardly any player reaches more than 60-70 matches on grass in his career, seldom more than 5-10 per year)

What the current situation over the last few years shows is, that a concentration of many very good players are at their peak - each one boosting each others rating, as you get way more points from them compared to winning vs lower players.
One might play his absolute best and still gain very few points. Federer, despite being higher rated as Nadal, won more points in 5 matches Shanghai than Nadal in 7 at the US Open. Was Federers performance better? Doubtful and I'm saying this as a Federer fan. Was it worth more points? Certainly not in terms of tennis.

So while I like the ideas of ELO ratings and prefer them over many other systems, they aren't perfect either and have their own flaws (like the ranking often falling behind the performance).

Thanks for the discussion with many good inputs here, I prefer those threads based in facts, models and numbers compared to plain opinions going back and forth.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Man, fans will work over every angle to get metrics that support their player.

 

[swordtennis]

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...

Lol djokovic sucks elo.

 

[Mileta Cekovic]

The graph from the beginning of the thread, but constantly updated with new data, about Elo ratings of all No 1. players you can find here:
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/rankingsChart?players=Rod Laver, Stan Smith, Ken Rosewall, Ilie Nastase, John Newcombe, Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Thomas Muster, Marcelo Rios, Carlos Moya, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Patrick Rafter, Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andy Roddick, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray&rankType=ELO_RATING&timeSpan=CR

There are also Elo ratings by Surface, Indoor/Outdoor, Set, Game, Service Game, Return Game and Tie Break!

You can also select a graph by player age, and compare player's Elo ratings at the same age.

 

[Noleberic123]

The current elo ratings for grass on ultimate tennis has Djokovic higher than Sampras. So obviously there are flaws to this.
@NoleFam @NatF @abmk But I actually quite like it, I think that it can be pretty accurate.

 

[Noleberic123]

On ultimate tennis atm the current peak elo ratings are:

Overall:
1. Djokovic
2. Bjorn Borg
3. John Mcenroe
4. Rafael Nadal
5. Roger Federer

Hard court:
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Sampras
4. Lendl
5. Nadal

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

Grass:
1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Laver
4. Connors
5. Djokovic

 

[Noleberic123]

Service game peak ELO:
1. Isner
2. Karlovic
3. Federer
4. Raonic
5. Roddick

Return game:
1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Murray
4. Edberg
5. Agassi

 

[NoleFam]

The current elo ratings for grass on ultimate tennis has Djokovic higher than Sampras. So obviously there are flaws to this.
@NoleFam @NatF @abmk But I actually quite like it, I think that it can be pretty accurate.

Yea it is flawed and the smaller the sample size, the more the flaws present themselves such as grass where Connors and Djokovic are ranked above Sampras. The least amount of matches are played on grass and even though Djokovic is barely ranked over Sampras (2500 vs 2499), Sampras is the better grass court player.