Now I am no statistician but I do have some statistical knowledge and training. I contemplated this system to try and incorporate dominance and versatility of a player. (number of tournaments won) x (winning percentage) = Z The importance of this first step is that it cancels out longitivity in a career as winning percentage will ultimately drop. It also does not penalise players such as Federer who play a limited schedule and therefore don't win as many tournaments. However those who do play more tournaments do not have their additional tournament victories ignored, merely moderated by their winning percentage. I have called the value obtained Z. For Muster Z = 3065 (to 4 significant figures) For Edberg Z = 3146 (to 4 significant figures) Muster and Edberg receive relatively similar Z values here. Although Muster has won more tournaments, this is cancelled out and more by Edberg’s higher winning percentage. ((1 + number of tournaments won on grass) x (1 + number of tournaments won on clay) x (1 + number of tournaments won on hard courts and carpet))/(number of tournaments won) = Y This second independent step attempts to account for versatility across the surfaces. A player who wins predominantly on one surface will be penalised. The value is one plus the number of tournaments won to prevent a player from receiving zero for winning no tournaments on a surface. The number of tournaments won is not relevant as it is cancelled out by dividing by the number of tournaments won at the end. I have called this value Y. For Muster Y = 9.318 (to 4 significant figures) For Edberg Y = 20.00 (to 4 significant figures) Here Muster’s Y value is considerably lower than Edberg’s. This reflects Muster’s lack of versatility across the surfaces. How to combine these two values is where my problem arises. Ranking dominance against versatility is very difficult if not impossible to achieve objectively. Note I am well aware of the relativly simplistic nature of this analysis and that this ranking system would have flaws, as does any analysis, when it is completed. One of the most obvious flaws is actually also one of the analysises strengths. Obviously the importance of induvidual tournaments in not incopertated. However this does stop one having to rank the importance of tournaments year by year which is a laborious proccess before 1988 and very difficult before 1968. Does anyone have any idea of a valid progression of this analysis, or should it be disposed of all together? Nickognito, Moose Malloy, krosero, SgtJohn, Urban, chaognosis, Wuornos and anyone else interested it would be great to hear you views.