Points won by top 2-10, 11-20 from 2009-2015

#1
We've heard it over and over again how 2015 had the most points won by the top 10, but this is because it is skewed by Djokovic winning 16585 points that year, probably the most points won by anyone in ATP history. I decided to take no. 1 out of the total points won to see how the rest of the top 10 fare without the dominant no. 1.

Points won by no. 2-10
2009: 50255
2010: 44240
2011: 46045
2012: 49615
2013: 47585
2014: 48915
2015: 47950

2009>2012>2014>2015>2013>2011>2010
We see 2015 had a middle-of-the-pack top 10, nowhere near the powerhouse that people here make it to be. This reflects the depth of the 2009 top 10 as its the only year to hit 50000 points and the weakness in 2010 where most top players struggled.

Points won by no. 11-20:
2009: 22055
2010: 21601
2011: 19515
2012: 21270
2013: 21010
2014: 22755
2015: 20168

2014>2009>2010>2012>2013>2015>2011
Credit to Djokovic for ending 2014 as no. 1, as its in the top 3 for both lists. His two most dominant years don't fare too well, however, with 2015 and 2011 being dead last in this list.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#2
They all look quite close.

Two requests:

- split no.2-5, no.6-10, no.11-15 and no.15-20

- write how many times the no.1 beat no.2-5/6-10/11-15/15-20 and in what matches.
 
Last edited:
#3
They all look quite close.

Two requests:

- split no.2-4, no.5-10, no.11-15 and no.15-20

- write how many times the no.1 beat no.2-4/5-10/11-15/15-20 and in what matches.
no. 2-4
2009: 24545
2010: 21145
2011: 25145
2012: 24955
2013: 23850
2014: 21980
2015: 24075

2011>2012>2009>2015>2013>2014>2010

no. 5-10
2009: 25710
2010: 23095
2011: 20900
2012: 24660
2013: 23735
2014: 26935
2015: 23875

2014>2009>2012>2015>2013>2010>2011

no. 11-15
2009: 12810
2010: 12150
2011: 10465
2012: 11750
2013: 11880
2014: 13080
2015: 11690

2014>2009>2010>2013>2012>2015>2011

no. 16-20
2009: 9245
2010: 9451
2011: 9050
2012: 9520
2013: 9130
2014: 9675
2015: 8478

2014>2012>2010>2009>2013>2011>2015

I'm too lazy to check how many times no. 1 beat the rest, but for what it's worth, I'm aware Djokovic beat the top 5, 10, top 20 a bajillion times in 2015. He holds the record for most top 10 wins in a single season if I'm not mistaken.
 

ReeceSachs

Professional
#4
yeah, only insanely biased or clueless guys think 2015 was a powerhouse as far as competition goes. its just something to laugh at.

depth was lacking and top level of top guys apart from djokovic (&Stan RG 15) wasn't that great.
Relatively weak year , similar to 2006 and 2015 in terms of competition level.

2011, depth wasn't great as well, but it was top heavy.
It is not biased to say 2015 was a strong year with the players in form but to trash Fed the way Lew 2 is doing is.
 

Eren

Semi-Pro
#5
no. 2-4
2009: 24545
2010: 21145
2011: 25145
2012: 24955
2013: 23850
2014: 21980
2015: 24075

2011>2012>2009>2015>2013>2014>2010

no. 5-10
2009: 25710
2010: 23095
2011: 20900
2012: 24660
2013: 23735
2014: 26935
2015: 23875

2014>2009>2012>2015>2013>2010>2011

no. 11-15
2009: 12810
2010: 12150
2011: 10465
2012: 11750
2013: 11880
2014: 13080
2015: 11690

2014>2009>2010>2013>2012>2015>2011

no. 16-20
2009: 9245
2010: 9451
2011: 9050
2012: 9520
2013: 9130
2014: 9675
2015: 8478

2014>2012>2010>2009>2013>2011>2015

I'm too lazy to check how many times no. 1 beat the rest, but for what it's worth, I'm aware Djokovic beat the top 5, 10, top 20 a bajillion times in 2015. He holds the record for most top 10 wins in a single season if I'm not mistaken.
2015 mug year incoming lulz
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#6
It is not biased to say 2015 was a strong year with the players in form but to trash Fed the way Lew 2 is doing is.
quite a few of my recent "trolling" posts have been only in response to Lew.

This one wasn't.

Yeah, it is pretty much bias to say 2015 was a strong year.

All of 2006, 2010, 2015 were relatively weak years IMO.
(I meant to write : Relatively weak year , similar to 2006 and 2010* in terms of competition level. ).
I'm freely throwing in 2006 there,which was Federer's best year.

Just stating it as !
Note the use of the word relatively again.

and the depth in 2011 wasn't great. Its true.
One of the strongest top 3 for sure, with Murray being a good #4.

but level of players got cut down as you moved into ranking 8,9, 10 or so...
hence lacking depth.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#7
What strikes me is how badly 2011 fares, which is generally considered a strong year. The top 4 were great but the rest of the top 20 compare horribly to every other year.

On the other hand, 2014, generally considered a weaker year, looks to have great depth from rankings 5-20, although nos. 2-4 are lacking.
tbf, top 4 being that good cuts down points for the others to an extent.
But yeah, 2011 did not have good depth.
Was top heavy.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#8
@Sputnik Bulgorov

Excluding no.1 the score of other players in 2004-06 would be totally horrible, have you thought about it?

But we have to consider that Fed beat them many times (still mediocre years though).
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#11
@Sputnik Bulgorov

Excluding no.1 the score of other players in 2004-06 would be totally horrible, have you thought about it?

But we have to consider that Fed beat them many times (still mediocre years though).
Not without Federer.

Hewitt and Roddick certainly would have earned over 10,000 points by today's system if they didn't have to encounter Federer.
 
#12
@Sputnik Bulgorov

Excluding no.1 the score of other players in 2004-06 would be totally horrible, have you thought about it?

But we have to consider that Fed beat them many times (still mediocre years though).
Can you show me? If it is, then so be it. That wasn't the point of this thread anyway.

Even then, the top players can get points before reaching the no 1 player and in tournaments where the no. 1 player is absent. Federer and Murray in 2015 are great examples, amassing 7340 pts and 8460 pts respectively. Despite this, 2015 no. 2-10 total points are still middle of the pack.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#13
Not without Federer.

Hewitt and Roddick certainly would have earned over 10,000 points by today's system if they didn't have to encounter Federer.
You didn't understand.

Sputnik is looking at results of no.2-10 or no.11-20 alone, and if he applied it to 2004-06 their score would be horrible.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#14
Can you show me? If it is, then so be it. That wasn't the point of this thread anyway.

Even then, the top players can get points before reaching the no 1 player and in tournaments where the no. 1 player is absent. Federer and Murray in 2015 are great examples, amassing 7340 pts and 8460 pts respectively. Despite this, 2015 no. 2-10 total points are still middle of the pack.
Later I'll show you the other years.

Score of the no.1 against no.2/3:

2009: 3-4
2011: 10-1
2015: 11-4

2011's and 2015's no.1 made it a lot harder than 2009' no.1 for other players to gain points.

An analysis of points that wants to show the competition for the no.1 without considering this is totally invalid.
 
Last edited:
#15
Later I'll show you the other years.

2009's no.1 vs 2009's no.2 and no.3: 3 wins and 4 losses
2011's no.1 vs 2009's no.2 ans no.3: 11 wins and 4 losses
2015's no.1 vs 2015's no.2 and no.3: 10 wins and 1 loss


An analysis of points that wants to show the competition for the no.1 without considering this is totally invalid.
This is irrelevant. Firstly both 2011 and 2015 are both very weak and vultured years.

Secondly the fact that . Djokovics best years 2008, 2011, 2015 are spread out so much says it all about Djokovic

I dont understand the obsession with comparing 2011 with say 2004-2007 - there is little point comparing Fed and Djokovic. Fed is a tier 1 ATG while Djokovic is weak tier 3/solid tier 4 player. You are better off comparing Wawrinka or Murray with Djokovic, that is more appropriate
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#16
These guys want to depict 2009 Federer as one of the highest peaks ever with him having 10.000 points and a 3-4 score against no.2/3 :-D:-D
 
#19
Later I'll show you the other years.

Score of the no.1 against no.2/3:

2009: 3-4
2011: 11-4
2015: 10-1

2011's and 2015's no.1 made it a lot harder than 2009' no.1 for other players to gain points.

An analysis of points that wants to show the competition for the no.1 without considering this is totally invalid.
against no.2-4

2009 Federer 5-6
2011 Djokovic 12-2
2015 Djokovic 14-5

@Sputnik Bulgorov

How can you not consider this? :rolleyes:
That's because in 2009, no. 2-4 were actually capable of challenging no. 1, and it shows in their points tallies. Nadal beating Federer at AO, Djokovic beating him at Miami, Rome, Basel, Murray beating him in Doha, IW will all reflect in the points total of 2-10. Even 5-10 had their moments with Del Potro beating Fed at USO, Soderling's FO final run, Roddick's Wimbledon Final run, Davydenko's WTF title run.

I will concede that 2011 had worthy challengers at the top in prime Federer and peak Nadal, although there was no depth outside of the top 4. But in 2015, the dominant record of Djokovic shows weakness, not strength. This was a one man season where nobody was capable of challenging Djokovic even if he played no better than 2011. The stats without no. 1 reflect this.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#21
Nadal beating Federer at AO, Djokovic beating him at Miami, Rome, Basel, Murray beating him in Doha, IW will all reflect in the points total of 2-10.
2011's and 2015's no.2 and no.3 had the same points as 2009's no.2 and no.3 despite having it a lot harder with no.1. That means they were much better against the field than 2009's no.2 and no.3.
 
#23
You didn't understand.

Sputnik is looking at results of no.2-10 or no.11-20 alone, and if he applied it to 2004-06 their score would be horrible.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way to directly compare this with 2004-2006 because the ranking system was different back then. But If you simply multiply the 04-06 rankings by 2 to make an approximation, 2004-2006 do just fine in comparison to the years I listed. 2007 actually comes up extremely competitive.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#24
Unfortunately, there is no easy way to directly compare this with 2004-2006 because the ranking system was different back then. But If you simply multiply the 04-06 rankings by 2 to make an approximation, 2004-2006 do just fine in comparison to the years I listed. 2007 actually comes up extremely competitive.
Wrong. It's not x2. More like x1.7-1.8


Look at the comparison between 2004-06 and 2007-08 (same points system):

No.2-4:

2004: 10,305
2005: 10,340
2006: 9,825
2007: 13,030
2008: 14,320
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#25
Could be. But the stats as well as personally watching a lot of the matches tell me otherwise.
The stats don't tell it, I explained you. No.2-5/10/15/20's points without looking at their score against no.1 is useless to determine the level of no.1's competition.

Watching matches doesn't make you right.
 
#26
2011's and 2015's no.2 and no.3 had the same points as 2009's no.2 and no.3 despite having it a lot harder with no.1. That means they were much better against the field than 2009's no.2 and no.3.
I won't argue against the top 4 of 2011.

In 2015, they were better against the field, but worse against no. 1, and ended up with the same no. of points. Hell, Nadal skipped Wimbledon in 2009 and still ended up with more points than Federer and Murray in 2015. Pre-peak 2009 Djokovic won more points than 2015 Federer. Slam underperforming 2009 Murray won more points than 2015 beast Wawrinka. There's also a gaping chasm between 2009's no. 5 Delpo and 2015's no. 5 Nadal in one of his worst years ever.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#27
I won't argue against the top 4 of 2011.

In 2015, they were better against the field, but worse against no. 1, and ended up with the same no. of points. Hell, Nadal skipped Wimbledon in 2009 and still ended up with more points than Federer and Murray in 2015. Pre-peak 2009 Djokovic won more points than 2015 Federer. Slam underperforming 2009 Murray won more points than 2015 beast Wawrinka. There's also a gaping chasm between 2009's no. 5 Delpo and 2015's no. 5 Nadal in one of his worst years ever.
You don't understand.

Goodbye.
 
#30
Um, I made 10000 air miles yesterday but it was only 100 today and nothing the day before ... what is wrong with my game? Shoot.
I ain't sure if it's my BH or serve ... or something's wrong with my credit card
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#31
against no.2-6 of the year:

2009 Federer 9-10
2011 Djokovic 15-3
2015 Djokovic 22-5

LOL 2009 Federer greatest season ever.
 
#32
against no.2-6 of the year:

2009 Federer 9-10
2011 Djokovic 15-3
2015 Djokovic 22-5

LOL 2009 Federer greatest season ever.
You're losing your objectivity, Lew. Nowhere did I say that Fed's 2009 was the greatest season ever. I never even said 2011 was weak. My main point was that 2015 was relatively weaker, allowing Djokovic to dominate, and the stats reflect it. Djokovic's 22-5 record in 2015 reveals the weakness of the field. His main competition was 33-34 year old Federer, who couldn't even win more points than pre-peak 2009 Novak while playing a full schedule, and Murray, who couldn't even win more points than 2009 Nadal who gave up 2000 points at Wimbledon.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#33
You're losing your objectivity, Lew. Nowhere did I say that Fed's 2009 was the greatest season ever. I never even said 2011 was weak. My main point was that 2015 was relatively weaker, allowing Djokovic to dominate, and the stats reflect it. Djokovic's 22-5 record in 2015 reveals the weakness of the field. His main competition was 33-34 year old Federer, who couldn't even win more points than pre-peak 2009 Novak while playing a full schedule, and Murray, who couldn't even win more points than 2009 Nadal who gave up 2000 points at Wimbledon.
This is an opinion, therefore I'm not much interested in it.

At least in the OP you tried with stats, although it was a failure.
 
#34
This is an opinion, therefore I'm not much interested in it.

At least in the OP you tried with stats, although it was a failure.
Nope. no. 2 of 2009 has more points than no. 2 of 2015 despite skipping a slam is a fact. No. 3 of 2009 has more points than no. 3 of 2015 despite being pre-peak is a fact. No. 4 of 2009 has more points than no. 4 of 2015 despite underperforming at slams is a fact. Actually, the entire no.2-7and 9-10 of 2009 outperformed their 2015 counterparts points wise.

These facts support the hypothesis that the 2015 no. 2-4 wasn't that strong, so Djokovic's 22-5 record isn't that impressive. Don't call my post a failure just because you've been blown away by my analysis supported by facts, stats and real world viewing. You're better than this.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#35
Nope. no. 2 of 2009 has more points than no. 2 of 2015 despite skipping a slam is a fact. No. 3 of 2009 has more points than no. 3 of 2015 despite being pre-peak is a fact. No. 4 of 2009 has more points than no. 4 of 2015 despite underperforming at slams is a fact. Actually, the entire no.2-7and 9-10 of 2009 outperformed their 2015 counterparts points wise.

These facts support the hypothesis that the 2015 no. 2-4 wasn't that strong, so Djokovic's 22-5 record isn't that impressive. Don't call my post a failure just because you've been blown away by my analysis supported by facts, stats and real world viewing. You're better than this.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/top-5-10-15-20-points-by-year.632590/

Here's how it should be done.

EDIT: wrong link, now it's correct
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#37
Nope. When assessing the competition of the world no. 1, his own points are irrelevant because they are representative of his own achievements and he cannot face himself.
Is his score against top-5/10/15/20, and therefore the number of points taken away from them, relevant?

No.1's points are relevant because they suggest his score against other top players.
 
#38
Only if you assume the no. 1 is the only player responsible for preventing other players from gaining more points. Even then, there is the possibility that no. 2-4 always make their seeds and eventually fall to no. 1 because the weaker overall field allows them to.
 
#39
These facts support the hypothesis that
WTF? "These facts support the hypothesis that" Do you think that this is a scientific article? Relax my friend, you don't need to employ the typical scientific jargon when discussing tennis. It looks odd. What about using the common day langauge for expressing your ideas? You won't be more right for using words like "hypothesis".
 
Last edited:
#40
WTF? "These facts support the hypothesis that" Do you think that this is a scientific article? Relax my friend, you don't need to employ the typical scientific jargon when discussing tennis. It looks odd. What about using the common day langauge for expressing your ideas? You won't be more right for using words like "hypothesis".
Follow your own advice, my friend.
Unfalsifiable speculation is not valid in serious tennis debates. "Unfalsifiable" claims are assertions which can't be proved false.
Untestable speculation. Only testable claims should be accepted. And only results are testable, not hypothetical scenarios of not having to face the Nadal.
This kind of threads deal with unfalsifiable assumptions, thus extremelly unfair claims can be made. Unfalsifiable = can't be proved false. Thus, literally every single answer will be equally valid.
 
#41
against no.2-4

2009 Federer 5-6
2011 Djokovic 12-2
2015 Djokovic 14-5

@Sputnik Bulgorov

How can you not consider this? :rolleyes:
Firstly it is clear as day statisically that 2011 and 2015 are some of the weakest years on tour. Secondly I don't understand why you keep lumping Djokovic with Federer and Nadal. Djokovic is a tier 4 ATG and more akin to Wawrinka and Murray calibre players so should be compared to those guys. Yes he has played Fedal alot, with Fed more a product of being 5 years younger and federer being so good while old. When Djokovic was truly peaking circa 2006-2007 he was getting destroyed left right and centre by fedal, safin, roddick you name it. Even as a mature peak djokovic he is getting thrashed by wawrinka, Zverev, Kachanov, Istomin etc.

Look at his stats, he isn't on Fedals page he is akin to muray and so on

Slam conversion at first 13 slams:
Federer: 85%
Nadal: 77%
Novak: 46% (LOL)
Murray: N/A - Insufficient number of slams (LOL)

Murray is included although he is not an ATG as he represents Novak’s main rival and to show how he is on par with novak
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#42
That's because in 2009, no. 2-4 were actually capable of challenging no. 1, and it shows in their points tallies. Nadal beating Federer at AO, Djokovic beating him at Miami, Rome, Basel, Murray beating him in Doha, IW will all reflect in the points total of 2-10. Even 5-10 had their moments with Del Potro beating Fed at USO, Soderling's FO final run, Roddick's Wimbledon Final run, Davydenko's WTF title run.

I will concede that 2011 had worthy challengers at the top in prime Federer and peak Nadal, although there was no depth outside of the top 4. But in 2015, the dominant record of Djokovic shows weakness, not strength. This was a one man season where nobody was capable of challenging Djokovic even if he played no better than 2011. The stats without no. 1 reflect this.
I wouldn't go that far.
 
Top