REVISED: Updated comparison between Nadal and Lendl using current ATP weighting

Sport

G.O.A.T.
This thread is a response to this another one: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/

@timnz suggested that, using current ATP weighting, Ivan Lendl's career achievements rank higher in ATP points than Rafael Nadal's achievements. According to his ranking, Lendl's overall achievemts = 99.48 points and Nadal's overall achievemnts = 98.76 points.

His ranking isn't broad enough and doesn't take into account all factors such as F, SF and QF as mine does. His ranking only includes F and SF, not QF. I created two rankings, one considering only titles, and another one considering both titles and F, SF and QF.

I elaborated an objective comparison of achievements between Rafael Nadal and Ivan Lendl using current ATP weighting. I created two rankings: one considering only titles, and another one considering both titles and finals, semifinals and quarterfinals.

FIRST RANKING, ATP weighting of titles alone:

1. Grand Slams (2000 points)
2. ATP Finals (1500 points)
3. Olympic Gold in singles (0 points)
4. Masters 1000 or equivalent (1000 points)
5. Masters 500 or equivalent (500 points)
6. ATP 250 or equivalent (250 points)

Nadal = (17 x 2000) + (0 x 1500) + (1 x 0) + (32 x 1000) + (20 x 500) + (9 x 250) = 78250 points
Lendl =
(8 x 2000) + (7 x 1500) + (0 x 0) + (22 x 1000) + (42 x 500) + (15 x 250) = 73250 points

Nadal is over Lendl with 5000 ATP points of difference if we only consider titles, the most relevant aspect.


SECOND RANKING, ATP weighting of both titles and finals (F), semifinals (SF) and quarterfinals (QF):

1. Grand Slam F (1200 points)
2. Grand Slam SF (720 points)
3. Grand Slam QF (360 points)
4. ATP Finals F (1000 points)
5. ATP Finals SF (600 points)
7. Masters 1000 or equivalent F (600 points)
8. Masters 1000 or equivalent SF (360 points)
9. Masters 1000 or equivalent QF (180 points)
10. Masters 500 F (300 points)
11. Masters 500 SF (180 points)
12. Masters 500 QF (90 points)

Nadal = (7 x 1200) + (3 x 720) + (7 x 360) + (2 x 1000) + (3 x 600) + (16 x 600) + (18 x 360) + (19 x 180) + (6 x 300) + (3 x 180) + (8 x 90) = 31040 points in F, SF and QF + 78250 points in titles = 109290 points
Lendl =
(11 x 1200) + (9 x 720) + (6 x 360) + (5 x 1000) + (5 x 600) + (11 x 600) + (8 x 360) + (7 x 180) + (17 x 300) + (14 x 180) + (16 x 90) = 49640 points in F, SF and QF + 70250 points in titles = 119890 points

Lendl is over Nadal with 10.000 ATP points of difference if we consider both titles and F, SF and QF.
 
Last edited:

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Please note that these ATP-based rankings are not an objective measure to determine greatness. According to these rankings a player A with 0 Grand Slams but 22 Masters 1000 (25000 ATP points) would be greater than a player B with 10 Grand Slams and 1 Masters 100 (24000 ATP points). According to a ranking using ATP weighting criteria, player A would be greater than Player B. But, as everyone knows, a player with 10 Grand Slams will always be considered better than a player with 0 Grand Slams.

The number of Grand Slams will always be considered the most important All Time Great Criterion. Other aspects such as Career Grand Slam, number of weeks as #1 or Masters 1000 can only be considered as a tie-breaker if two players are tied in Grand Slams.
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
This thread is a response to this another one: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/

@timnz suggested that, using current ATP weighting, Ivan Lendl's career achievements rank higher than Rafael Nadal's achievements.

I will elaborate an objective comparison of achievements between Rafael Nadal and Ivan Lendl using current ATP weighting. I will create two rankings: one considering only titles, and another one considering both titles and finals, semifinals and quarterfinals.

FIRST RANKING, ATP weighting of titles alone:

1. Grand Slams (2000 points)
2. ATP Finals (1500 points)
3. Olympic Gold in singles (0 points)
4. Masters 1000 or equivalent (1000 points)
5. Masters 500 or equivalent (500 points)
6. ATP 250 or equivalent (250 points)

Nadal = (17 x 2000) + (0 x 1500) + (1 x 0) + (32 x 1000) + (20 x 500) + (9 x 250) = 78250 points
Lendl =
(8 x 2000) + (5 x 1500) + (0 x 0) + (22 x 1000) + (42 x 500) + (15 x 250) = 70250 points

Nadal is clearly over Lendl with 8000 points of difference if we only consider titles, the most relevant aspect.


SECOND RANKING, ATP weighting of both titles and finals (F), semifinals (SF) and quarterfinals (QF):

1. Grand Slam F (1200 points)
2. Grand Slam SF (720 points)
3. Grand Slam QF (360 points)
4. ATP Finals F (500 points)
5. ATP Finals SF (400 points)
7. Masters 1000 or equivalent F (600 points)
8. Masters 1000 or equivalent SF (360 points)
9. Masters 1000 or equivalent QF (180 points)

Nadal = (7 x 1200) + (3 x 720) + (7 x 360) + (2 x 500) + (3 x 400) + (16 x 600) + (18 x 360) + (19 x 180) = 34780 points in F, SF and QF + 78250 points in titles = 113030 points
Lendl =
(11 x 1200) + (9 x 720) + (6 x 360) + (4 x 500) + (3 x 400) + (8 x 600) + (7 x 360) + (5 x 180) = 33260 points in F, SF and QF + 70250 points in titles = 103510 points

Nadal is comfortably over Lendl with 9520 points of difference if we consider both titles and F, SF and QF.

P.S.: dear @timnz, while I appreciate most of your posts, please strop trolling with the fairy tale that Lendl's achievements are suppousedly over Nadal's achievements using curring ATP weighting criteria.
Trolling? I was the one who created that thread. That is my system. Please read the first post in it which gives the explanation that it wasn't a 'greatness' system but merely and adding up of points. There is no fairy tale - I simply have done what I set out to do is objectively add up all the achievements at 500 level and above weighted at current ATP weightings. The figures are what the figures are.

Of course Nadal is a greater player than Lendl, but he has, at the moment, less points.

Regarding your point system. It isn't using the current ATP points. How do you get ATP Final at 500 points? It is either 1000 points or 800 (depending if they lost a round robin match)? Semi-finals is either 600 or 400 points.

And if you have Slam quarter finals why are you missing out 500 series?

The issue is that there is a current emphasis on Slam wins. The fact is that Lendl spent a lot of his career achieving a lot in the 500 to 1000 range.

Please be polite in your postings. Saying that someone expressing an opinion is a troll is at the least highly undemocratic at best.
 
Last edited:

ADuck

Legend
Please note that these ATP-based rankings are not an objective measure to determine greatness. According to these rankings, a hypothetical player with 22 Masters 1000 but 0 Grand Slams (22000 points) would rank higher than a player with 10 Grand Slams and only 1 Masters 1000 (21000 points). But, as everyone knows, a player with 10 Grand Slams will always be considered better than a player with 0 Grand Slams.

The number of Grand Slams will always be considered the most important All Time Great Criterion. Other aspects such as Career Grand Slam, number of weeks as #1 or Masters 1000 can only be considered as a tie-breaker if two players are tied in Grand Slams.
We know. But timnz never claimed that ATP-based points were an objective measure of determining greatness. His post merely states the facts. We are free to draw our own conclusions from it.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
We know. But timnz never claimed that ATP-based points were an objective measure of determining greatness. His post merely states the facts. We are free to draw our own conclusions from it.

He doesn't state "facts", he created his own ranking taking into account only what he wants.

According to his ranking, Lendl's overall achievemts = 99.48 points and Nadal's overall achievments = 98.76 points.

His ranking isn't broad enough and doesn't take into account all factors such as F, SF and QF as mine does. His ranking only includes F and SF, not QF. I created two rankings, one considering only titles, and another one considering both titles and F, SF and QF. My ranking system is broader and illustrates how Nadal clearly surpasses Lendl in ATP points using current ATP weighting criteria.
 
Last edited:

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
We know. But timnz never claimed that ATP-based points were an objective measure of determining greatness. His post merely states the facts. We are free to draw our own conclusions from it.

I think they are both right.

timnz definitely said it was not a measure of greatness, but Sport is very clearly right that the way ATP points are allocated can lead to some very weird results. In timnz's thread i was able to make a couple small tweaks and show a scenario where Lendl had more points than Nadal even with a 14-major deficit.
 

yokied

Hall of Fame
I think @Meles needs to weigh in here with a table of serving percentages.

Don't worry OP, on recency bias and slam count alone Nadal is safely second ATG, for now. But his sleeveless tops and capri shorts will never, ever dethrone Lendl's legionnaire's hats and short shorts in the eyes of discerning fans.
 

ADuck

Legend
He doesn't state "facts", he created his own ranking taking into account only what he wants.

According to his ranking, Lendl's overall achievemts = 99.48 and Nadal's overall achievemnts = 98.76

His ranking isn't broad enough and doesn't take into account all factors such as F, SF and QF as mine does. His ranking only includes F and SF, not QF. I created two rankings, one considering only titles, and another one considering both titles and F, SF and QF. My ranking system is broader and illustrates how Nadal clearly surpasses Lendl in ATP points using current ATP weighting criteria.
I'm pretty sure his ranking takes into account all amounts of achievements which are worth above 250 points. You're free to make one that uses any/all amount of points though.
 

ADuck

Legend
I think they are both right.

timnz definitely said it was not a measure of greatness, but Sport is very clearly right that the way ATP points are allocated can lead to some very weird results. In timnz's thread i was able to make a couple small tweaks and show a scenario where Lendl had more points than Nadal even with a 14-major deficit.
What were the tweaks? And what was putting Lendl ahead of Nadal? If anything timnz post was proof to me of what Sport is saying, but it doesn't make timnz wrong.
 

timnz

Legend
He doesn't state "facts", he created his own ranking taking into account only what he wants.

According to his ranking, Lendl's overall achievemts = 99.48 points and Nadal's overall achievments = 98.76 points.

His ranking isn't broad enough and doesn't take into account all factors such as F, SF and QF as mine does. His ranking only includes F and SF, not QF. I created two rankings, one considering only titles, and another one considering both titles and F, SF and QF. My ranking system is broader and illustrates how Nadal clearly surpasses Lendl in ATP points using current ATP weighting criteria.
I have not been selective beyond making 500 points the cut-off. There is no ATP event where you earn 500 points or more that I have left out. It is fine for you to include events below 500 series - but if you don't mind me saying that you have entirely left out 500 series and ranked ATP finals incorrectly.
Each to their own. I personally feel that comparison back to the 70/80s is difficult because it could be that 250s were quite a different proposition for a great player to win then....I may be wrong.
 

timnz

Legend
I think they are both right.

timnz definitely said it was not a measure of greatness, but Sport is very clearly right that the way ATP points are allocated can lead to some very weird results. In timnz's thread i was able to make a couple small tweaks and show a scenario where Lendl had more points than Nadal even with a 14-major deficit.
I was surprised how far up the table Lendl was. But if I was trying to be objective and live with a result that I would not necessarily want to embrace.If it helps, my list of 'great' players is different than my ranking system - but that again, is not what my ranking system is.

Here's a question. Why do you think Nadal is ahead? Is it not because you believe that Slams are worth much more than 2 X a Masters 1000? That in fact that other achievements are only a very slight note in a system that should be dominated by Slam wins? And that is reasonable. But there is no agreed official ranking system outside of the ATP one. So what can we do?

If it helps - Nadal will be certain to be ahead of Lendl by the end of this year. He is already only 720 points behind Lendl. So only 1 Slam semi-final and he is level. So, the whole discussion will be moot in 6 months time.
 

Pheasant

Legend
Trolling? I was the one who created that thread. That is my system. Please read the first post in it which gives the explanation that it wasn't a 'greatness' system but merely and adding up of points. There is no fairy tale - I simply have done what I set out to do is objectively add up all the achievements at 500 level and above weighted at current ATP weightings. The figures are what the figures are.

Of course Nadal is a greater player than Lendl, but he has, at the moment, less points.

Regarding your point system. It isn't using the current ATP points. How do you get ATP Final at 500 points? It is either 1000 points or 800 (depending if they lost a round robin match)? Semi-finals is either 600 or 400 points.

And if you have Slam quarter finals why are you missing out 500 series?

The issue is that there is a current emphasis on Slam wins. The fact is that Lendl spent a lot of his career achieving a lot in the 500 to 1000 range.

Please be polite in your postings. Saying that someone expressing an opinion is a troll is at the least highly undemocratic at best.

I found your thread regarding this system quite refreshing. It was a different approach, not the usual stuff.

When looking at a slam list, all people see about Lendl was that has only 8 slams. However, Lendl was still the very best of his generation. Look at his 270 weeks at #1, his year-end championships against the best in the world, and his 90+ titles. And consider that he was playing in an era that benefitted the S and V players much more with the crappy 80-85 inch rackets and the far more diverse surfaces. And lastly, Lendl spent his entire prime playing two slam events on his worst surface. Lendl finally won two straight AO titles , starting a year after that surface was switched from grass to Hard Courts.

How would Nadal do on those much more diverse and mostly faster surfaces? How about Nadal with an 80 inch racket with garbage strings that would take away his ability to hit 4000 rpm shots? The truth of the matter is that we have no idea.

And lastly, the goals were different back then. Lendl skipped then FO a couple of years to try and win Wimbledon. If the slam count mattered as much as it does today, then he would have played those 2 FO that he skipped in order to distance himself from Mac and Connors. Lendl was far better on clay than grass.

This is no knock on Nadal. I simply have a couple of unpopular opinions, which are:

1. Guys like Nadal, Djokovic, and even Federer would win far fewer slams on those more diverse surfaces with the crappier equipment. Those faster surfaces don’t play well into Djokovic’s and Nadal’s wheelhouse. Even Fed would take a hit. And secondly, I believe that Lendl was unquestionably the greatest player of his generation. That guy constantly improved. He was incredible. I haven no idea how many slams Lendl would win today with the slower surfaces , better training, medical treatment, and nutrition, and better equipment.

Using the slam approach, many will say that Nadal was more than twice a season good as Lendl was, or that Fed was 2 1/2 times better than Lendl was. I don’t buy it.

Anyway, I appreciate your efforts. It is good to see something different. And like you, I am not saying that Lendl>Nadal. But I think it is much closer than most people believe. But we have no way to quantify it, TBH.

Nice work.
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
I was surprised how far up the table Lendl was. But if I was trying to be objective and live with a result that I would not necessarily want to embrace.If it helps, my list of 'great' players is different than my ranking system - but that again, is not what my ranking system is.

Here's a question. Why do you think Nadal is ahead? Is it not because you believe that Slams are worth much more than 2 X a Masters 1000? That in fact that other achievements are only a very slight note in a system that should be dominated by Slam wins? And that is reasonable. But there is no agreed official ranking system outside of the ATP one. So what can we do?

If it helps - Nadal will be certain to be ahead of Lendl by the end of this year. He is already only 720 points behind Lendl. So only 1 Slam semi-final and he is level. So, the whole discussion will be moot in 6 months time.

I'm not surprised that Lendl is as high as he is -- he was a very good and very consistent player for a long time.

I'm actually surprised that Connors is as low as he is, but given that (i) he didn't play RG from 1974-78, and (ii) he only played Australia twice, that's the difference right there. If you project out some average results to those tournaments, I'll bet he's easily #2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes majors are worth much more than 2x a Masters 1000 -- literally no pro would trade a major for 2 Masters.

Having said that, I do think Lendl is underrated by most people because of his Major finals record. I think Nadal is ahead of him, but not by a ton.

What DOES bother me is how easily I could make a couple tweaks that leaves Lendl "ahead" of Nadal with a 16-2 major deficit. I think we can all agree that at the upper echelon of the game that is a nonsensical result, driven primarily by relative values of the Masters and the WTF vs the Majors being too high per the ATP.

As I also said in that thread, according to the ATP winning 8 Masters and getting to a final in the 9th is worth more points - 8600 - than winning the Grand Slam. That's also a nonsensical result.
 

timnz

Legend
I'm not surprised that Lendl is as high as he is -- he was a very good and very consistent player for a long time.

I'm actually surprised that Connors is as low as he is, but given that (i) he didn't play RG from 1974-78, and (ii) he only played Australia twice, that's the difference right there. If you project out some average results to those tournaments, I'll bet he's easily #2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes majors are worth much more than 2x a Masters 1000 -- literally no pro would trade a major for 2 Masters.

Having said that, I do think Lendl is underrated by most people because of his Major finals record. I think Nadal is ahead of him, but not by a ton.

What DOES bother me is how easily I could make a couple tweaks that leaves Lendl "ahead" of Nadal with a 16-2 major deficit. I think we can all agree that at the upper echelon of the game that is a nonsensical result, driven primarily by relative values of the Masters and the WTF vs the Majors being too high per the ATP.

As I also said in that thread, according to the ATP winning 8 Masters and getting to a final in the 9th is worth more points - 8600 - than winning the Grand Slam. That's also a nonsensical result.
I agree that Slams should be worth more than 2 X a Masters 1000. But the fact is the ATP thinks they are just that. I have tried in the past to get consensus on what a Slam should be worth - and it was impossible. Hence, all we have to fall back on is the ATP weightings. What I do find strange though is that not many people have trouble with the 2016 year end rankings of having Murray ahead of Djokovic, even though the Slam count was 1 to 2. People seem to be happy to go along with the ATP weightings if it is one calendar year. But if it gets longer than 1 calendar year they throw that completely out.....
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
This thread is a response to this another one: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/

@timnz suggested that, using current ATP weighting, Ivan Lendl's career achievements rank higher in ATP points than Rafael Nadal's achievements. According to his ranking, Lendl's overall achievemts = 99.48 points and Nadal's overall achievemnts = 98.76 points.

His ranking isn't broad enough and doesn't take into account all factors such as F, SF and QF as mine does. His ranking only includes F and SF, not QF. I created two rankings, one considering only titles, and another one considering both titles and F, SF and QF. My ranking system is broader and illustrates how Nadal clearly surpasses Lendl in ATP points using current ATP weighting criteria.

I elaborated an objective comparison of achievements between Rafael Nadal and Ivan Lendl using current ATP weighting. I created two rankings: one considering only titles, and another one considering both titles and finals, semifinals and quarterfinals.

FIRST RANKING, ATP weighting of titles alone:

1. Grand Slams (2000 points)
2. ATP Finals (1500 points)
3. Olympic Gold in singles (0 points)
4. Masters 1000 or equivalent (1000 points)
5. Masters 500 or equivalent (500 points)
6. ATP 250 or equivalent (250 points)

Nadal = (17 x 2000) + (0 x 1500) + (1 x 0) + (32 x 1000) + (20 x 500) + (9 x 250) = 78250 points
Lendl =
(8 x 2000) + (5 x 1500) + (0 x 0) + (22 x 1000) + (42 x 500) + (15 x 250) = 70250 points

Nadal is clearly over Lendl with 8000 ATP points of difference if we only consider titles, the most relevant aspect.


SECOND RANKING, ATP weighting of both titles and finals (F), semifinals (SF) and quarterfinals (QF):

1. Grand Slam F (1200 points)
2. Grand Slam SF (720 points)
3. Grand Slam QF (360 points)
4. ATP Finals F (500 points)
5. ATP Finals SF (400 points)
7. Masters 1000 or equivalent F (600 points)
8. Masters 1000 or equivalent SF (360 points)
9. Masters 1000 or equivalent QF (180 points)

Nadal = (7 x 1200) + (3 x 720) + (7 x 360) + (2 x 500) + (3 x 400) + (16 x 600) + (18 x 360) + (19 x 180) = 34780 points in F, SF and QF + 78250 points in titles = 113030 points
Lendl =
(11 x 1200) + (9 x 720) + (6 x 360) + (4 x 500) + (3 x 400) + (8 x 600) + (7 x 360) + (5 x 180) = 33260 points in F, SF and QF + 70250 points in titles = 103510 points

Nadal is comfortably over Lendl with 9520 ATP points of difference if we consider both titles and F, SF and QF.

P.S.: dear @timnz, while I appreciate most of your posts, please strop trolling with the fairy tale that Lendl has achieved more ATP points than Nadal using current ATP weighting criteria.
You challenged timnz and I like the challenges. Let me give my comments on your calculations.

First, you are working with 92 titles of Lendl. Obviously you are excluding the non-ATP titles (NOT EXHIBITIONS like many speak) of Lendl. Total Lendl's titles are exactly 150 of which 4 are not representative. The difference of 54 titles (146 - 92) are fully regular titles from regular tournaments but without points given by ATP. For sure you have to know that in 70s and 80s (even to a small extent in 90s) there were a lot of tournaments giving a huge prize money (more than most of the ATP events) but were not sanctioned by ATP. These tournaments were preferred by many of the players simply ... because of the money. They didn't cared about the lack of points. Money was / is the king.

Among those tournaments were Boston (US Pro), Rome (not the Italian open), Masters Brooklyn, Forest Hills, Antwerp, Stuttgart Indoor, Essen, Atlanta, Salamander bay, Beckenham, Inglewood, Suntory cup, Toronto indoor, Head cup, Long Island, Adelaide challenge, Akai challenge, Montreal indoor, Gunze etc. which were big and though tournaments with big fights there. Most of the top players played there.

Despite that these events were not sanctioned by ATP they are a very important part of the players' resume.

Let's concentrate now on the 92 titles of Lendl you are using. Your calculations of the winning points are correct but the calculations of the other are slightly wrong and I will mark the corrections in bold. I will show the figures separately by type for more clarity.

Nadal
Slams = (7 x 1200) + (3 x 720) + (7 x 360) = 13,080
YE finals = (0 x 1,500) + (2 x 1000) + (3 x 400) = 3,200
Masters 1000 = (16 x 600) + (18 x 360) + (19 x 180) = 19,500
ATP 500 = (6 x 300) + (3 x 180) + (8 x 90) = 3,060
Titles points = 78,250 points
Total points = 117,090 points

Lendl
Slams = (11 x 1200) + (9 x 720) + (6 x 360) = 21,840
YE finals = (2 x 800) + (2 x 600) + (2 x 600) + 400 = 4,400
Masters 1000 = (11 x 600) + (10 x 360) + (7 x 180) = 11,460
ATP 500 = (17 x 300) + (14 x 180) + (16 x 90) = 9,060
Titles points = 70,250
Total points = 117,010 points

So, currently if calculating ONLY 92 titles of Lendl (which is wrong) Nadal is equal to Lendl.

If we include all tournaments of Lendl incl. ATP 250 and non-ATP tournaments Lendl has 136,295 points (titles, finals, semis, quarters).
If we include all tournaments of Nadal incl. ATP 250 and non-ATP tournaments (incl. Olympics with 750 points) Nadal has 122,770 points (titles, finals, semis, quarters).
Of course Nadal has the real chance to surpass Lendl by points in a very short time.
 
He doesn't state "facts", he created his own ranking taking into account only what he wants.

According to his ranking, Lendl's overall achievemts = 99.48 points and Nadal's overall achievments = 98.76 points.

His ranking isn't broad enough and doesn't take into account all factors such as F, SF and QF as mine does. His ranking only includes F and SF, not QF. I created two rankings, one considering only titles, and another one considering both titles and F, SF and QF. My ranking system is broader and illustrates how Nadal clearly surpasses Lendl in ATP points using current ATP weighting criteria.

Just do your own ranking, without questioning his own system with trollish logic.

That is what is trolling here: you present your system as somehow more objective than his, when you are doing exactly the same as him (picking your points), while saying that his points are less relevant.

On top of that you make mistakes/omissions even with your own rules.

:cool:
 

Jackuar

Hall of Fame
I'm still waiting for someone to do revised rankings considering 4th round, 3rd round and so on. May be adding the challengers and futures will help in the process.

How about college and regional level tourneys? And if needed, that game from the backyard too?
 

timnz

Legend
yeah, agreed: lendl >>> the nadal.
(with or without gatorade)
No one thinks this. Why do you say it? I wrote a system and have Lendl only a fraction ahead of Nadal (on 500 and above points) but even I think Nadal > Lendl. Again, this is a merely adding up the current atp points 500 and above. At the moment, using that measure Lendl is only very slightly ahead of Nadal, but in terms of my subjective statement on greatness Nadal is clearly a greater player.
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
No one thinks this. Why do you say it? I wrote this system and even I think Nadal > Lendl. Again, this is a merely adding up the current atp points 500 and above. At the moment, using that measure Lendl is only very slightly ahead of Nadal, but in terms ofmy subjective statement on greatness Nadal is clearly a greater player.
your model is great but is lacking the cheating factor... :oops:
 
your model is great but is lacking the cheating factor... :oops:
Didn't Lendl also take more time than allowed between points?
Edit: He was one of the cheats
bialik-tennis-time-table1.png
 
Last edited:

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
Lol, I edited the same picture in my post. :D
But still two peas in a pod :(
the formula is pretty straightforward:
you just need to mutiplicate the total of points obtained with @timnz's system* by (1-Cf) (Cf being the cheating factor)
with Cf = { 1 if (player == "the nadal"); 0 for any other player, animal, plant or inanimate object }

*also works with ATP points
 
Last edited:

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Nadal
Slams = (7 x 1200) + (3 x 720) + (7 x 360) = 13,080
YE finals = (0 x 1,500) + (2 x 1000) + (3 x 400) = 3,200
Masters 1000 = (16 x 600) + (18 x 360) + (19 x 180) = 19,500
ATP 500 = (6 x 300) + (3 x 180) + (8 x 90) = 3,060
Titles points = 78,250 points
Total points = 117,090 points

Lendl
Slams = (11 x 1200) + (9 x 720) + (6 x 360) = 21,840
YE finals = (2 x 800) + (2 x 600) + (2 x 600) + 400 = 4,400
Masters 1000 = (11 x 600) + (10 x 360) + (7 x 180) = 11,460
ATP 500 = (17 x 300) + (14 x 180) + (16 x 90) = 9,060
Titles points = 70,250
Total points = 117,010 points

117,090 points >>> 117, 010 points, so even in your list Nadal is already ahead of Lendl.

By the way, your list has a mistake which benefits Lendl: you give to Lendl 10 SF and 7 QF in Masters 1000 equivalents, but Lendl only has 7 SF and 5 QF in Masters 1000 equivalents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Lendl_career_statistics
 

aman92

Legend
Trolling? I was the one who created that thread. That is my system. Please read the first post in it which gives the explanation that it wasn't a 'greatness' system but merely and adding up of points. There is no fairy tale - I simply have done what I set out to do is objectively add up all the achievements at 500 level and above weighted at current ATP weightings. The figures are what the figures are.

Of course Nadal is a greater player than Lendl, but he has, at the moment, less points.

Regarding your point system. It isn't using the current ATP points. How do you get ATP Final at 500 points? It is either 1000 points or 800 (depending if they lost a round robin match)? Semi-finals is either 600 or 400 points.

And if you have Slam quarter finals why are you missing out 500 series?

The issue is that there is a current emphasis on Slam wins. The fact is that Lendl spent a lot of his career achieving a lot in the 500 to 1000 range.

Please be polite in your postings. Saying that someone expressing an opinion is a troll is at the least highly undemocratic at best.
I think what he is simply trying to state is that any measure which ranks Lendl above Nadal at this stage of their careers is frankly a load of bull and not worthy of any discussion
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I'm not surprised that Lendl is as high as he is -- he was a very good and very consistent player for a long time.

I'm actually surprised that Connors is as low as he is, but given that (i) he didn't play RG from 1974-78, and (ii) he only played Australia twice, that's the difference right there. If you project out some average results to those tournaments, I'll bet he's easily #2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes majors are worth much more than 2x a Masters 1000 -- literally no pro would trade a major for 2 Masters.

Having said that, I do think Lendl is underrated by most people because of his Major finals record. I think Nadal is ahead of him, but not by a ton.

What DOES bother me is how easily I could make a couple tweaks that leaves Lendl "ahead" of Nadal with a 16-2 major deficit. I think we can all agree that at the upper echelon of the game that is a nonsensical result, driven primarily by relative values of the Masters and the WTF vs the Majors being too high per the ATP.

As I also said in that thread, according to the ATP winning 8 Masters and getting to a final in the 9th is worth more points - 8600 - than winning the Grand Slam. That's also a nonsensical result.
I agree that Slams should be worth more than 2 X a Masters 1000. But the fact is the ATP thinks they are just that. I have tried in the past to get consensus on what a Slam should be worth - and it was impossible. Hence, all we have to fall back on is the ATP weightings. What I do find strange though is that not many people have trouble with the 2016 year end rankings of having Murray ahead of Djokovic, even though the Slam count was 1 to 2. People seem to be happy to go along with the ATP weightings if it is one calendar year. But if it gets longer than 1 calendar year they throw that completely out.....
I am really interested to read your hard motifs that a slam should be worth more than 2 Masters. I will show mine.
Plus for the slam is the format 3 of 5. Minus is that the top players play the first 4 rounds vs players of top 50, 70, 90+. Also in the quarters they could play vs top 30.
Plus for the Masters compared to slams is that the top players play vs more highly ranked players.

Another important fact from the history - 1 slam = 1,25 - 1,5 Masters for more than 20 years. Then in 1996 it was changed to 1:2 exactly with the reason of giving more weight to the slams. Years later ATP realized that these weightings damage in fact the tiers 500 and 250 but it hadn't the courage to change it. Also the top players didn't want to be changed back.

ATP made a lot of mistakes through the years. It would be their another huge mistake if they raise the points and change the proportions of the different levels. Such an act would destroy the lower levels. And this would be crucial for the tennis as a whole. The tiers 500 and 250 in the past were far more interesting and competitive than today. Currently the same tiers run without all or the most of the top 10 players. At the same time these tiers are forced to raise the prize money every year.

I believe definitely that tennis would be put in a death grip if the "only slams matters" vision prevails. As a big tennis fan I want to watch more tough tournaments than the usual ones.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I'm still waiting for someone to do revised rankings considering 4th round, 3rd round and so on. May be adding the challengers and futures will help in the process.

How about college and regional level tourneys? And if needed, that game from the backyard too?
Oh, you don't need to wait more. I have it with all rounds and all tournaments without the challengers and futures.

I can see your irony but such a ranking is reaaaaaaaaally interesting. Believe me.;)
 

ADuck

Legend
I am really interested to read your hard motifs that a slam should be worth more than 2 Masters. I will show mine.
Plus for the slam is the format 3 of 5. Minus is that the top players play the first 4 rounds vs players of top 50, 70, 90+. Also in the quarters they could play vs top 30.
Plus for the Masters compared to slams is that the top players play vs more highly ranked players.

Another important fact from the history - 1 slam = 1,25 - 1,5 Masters for more than 20 years. Then in 1996 it was changed to 1:2 exactly with the reason of giving more weight to the slams. Years later ATP realized that these weightings damage in fact the tiers 500 and 250 but it hadn't the courage to change it. Also the top players didn't want to be changed back.

ATP made a lot of mistakes through the years. It would be their another huge mistake if they raise the points and change the proportions of the different levels. Such an act would destroy the lower levels. And this would be crucial for the tennis as a whole. The tiers 500 and 250 in the past were far more interesting and competitive than today. Currently the same tiers run without all or the most of the top 10 players. At the same time these tiers are forced to raise the prize money every year.

I believe definitely that tennis would be put in a death grip if the "only slams matters" vision prevails. As a big tennis fan I want to watch more tough tournaments than the usual ones.
Why doesnt anyone's weighting take this into account then? For example, Rafa should get 750 points for his Olympic win because that's what it was worth at the time.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
117,090 points >>> 117, 010 points, so even in your list Nadal is already ahead of Lendl.
Nope. This was NOT my list. These were my calculations on your criteria.

I told you clearly. Lendl has 146 regular titles and I work with them. Based on this currently Lendl has ~ 13,500 points more.
By the way, your list has a mistake which benefits Lendl: you give to Lendl 10 SF and 7 QF in Masters 1000 equivalents, but Lendl only has 7 SF and 5 QF in Masters 1000 equivalents.
Nope. No mistake. 10 SF and 7 QF. Forget wiki. Many mistakes there. All kinds of people write there.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Why doesnt anyone's weighting take this into account then?
Simply because it requires a looooooooooooooooot of time. :D I have spent more than 2 years in order to build my system and collect the info from the beginning - 1877. Most of the people prefer the easy way not digging in the deep.:(
Rafa should get 750 points for his Olympic win because that's what it was worth at the time.
Perfect. Maybe I am the only one calculating 750 points for all the Olympics not only Rafa's. And not only for the winner but for a final, semis, QF etc.
 

ADuck

Legend
Simply because it requires a looooooooooooooooot of time. :D I have spent more than 2 years in order to build my system and collect the info from the beginning - 1877. Most of the people prefer the easy way not digging in the deep.:(

Perfect. Maybe I am the only one calculating 750 points for all the Olympics not only Rafa's. And not only for the winner but for a final, semis, QF etc.
Yeah it's just an example, but logic being if majors were worth less than masters back then, then that should be taken into account. You can't change what something was worth in the past. Do you have a list like that? I'd be interested in taking a peek. :)
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Yeah it's just an example, but logic being if majors were worth less than masters back then, then that should be taken into account. You can't change what something was worth in the past. Do you have a list like that? I'd be interested in taking a peek. :)
Wait, wait. I haven't said that majors were worth less than Masters. I said that a slam should not be worth more than 2 Masters.

I am not changing anything. ATP did it. Wrongly IMO. I prefer the more narrow proportions between the levels. So the whole tour would be much tougher. In the past you can be No 1, 2, 3 with more than 30-40 tournaments played. Currently you can be No 1, 2, 3 with 15-18 tournaments.

What list do you mean? My database includes all the tournaments year by year, the dates, draw number, prize money (for the pre OE where possible), the surface, the category (based on methodology), the points (based on methodology), the champion, the finalist, semis, QF, R16, R32, R64, R128, R256 (in some years). Then many kinds of analyses are possible.
 

ADuck

Legend
Wait, wait. I haven't said that majors were worth less than Masters. I said that a slam should not be worth more than 2 Masters.

I am not changing anything. ATP did it. Wrongly IMO. I prefer the more narrow proportions between the levels. So the whole tour would be much tougher. In the past you can be No 1, 2, 3 with more than 30-40 tournaments played. Currently you can be No 1, 2, 3 with 15-18 tournaments.

What list do you mean? My database includes all the tournaments year by year, the dates, draw number, prize money (for the pre OE where possible), the surface, the category (based on methodology), the points (based on methodology), the champion, the finalist, semis, QF, R16, R32, R64, R128, R256 (in some years). Then many kinds of analyses are possible.
Sorry, yeah. Majors were worth 1.25-1.5 masters instead of 2. I was interested in what a list like timnz' would look like if it took into account what the ATP valued them during the period they were played instead of using the future (today's) values.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Sorry, yeah. Majors were worth 1.25-1.5 masters instead of 2. I was interested in what a list like timnz' would look like if it took into account what the ATP valued them during the period they were played instead of using the future (today's) values.
Whatever value you would get would be incomparable. Who would be the "smart" guy saying that for instance Becker's slams should be valued now with 400-500 points (as it was) and Murray's with 2,000 ???

Equal metrics should be used always when making rankings, comparisons or evaluation of players. The current ATP pointing system (timnz' metrics) is not the perfect one (I disagree with the levels' proportions) but it is the most logical and structured from all ATP pointing systems in the past. That's why I use the same.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
I think what he is simply trying to state is that any measure which ranks Lendl above Nadal at this stage of their careers is frankly a load of bull and not worthy of any discussion
Exactly, he doesn't want to correct the mistakes of his ranking. He doesn't include QF in his ranking, nor does he considers titles alone as a separate measure. As a consequence, my ranking system is more complete. I made two rankings using current ATP weighting criteria: one considering only titles and another one considering titles plus F, SF and QF, and Nadal is clearly over Lendl in both rankings:

FIRST RANKING, ATP weighting of titles alone:

1. Grand Slams (2000 points)
2. ATP Finals (1500 points)
3. Olympic Gold in singles (0 points)
4. Masters 1000 or equivalent (1000 points)
5. Masters 500 or equivalent (500 points)
6. ATP 250 or equivalent (250 points)

Nadal = (17 x 2000) + (0 x 1500) + (1 x 0) + (32 x 1000) + (20 x 500) + (9 x 250) = 78250 points
Lendl =
(8 x 2000) + (5 x 1500) + (0 x 0) + (22 x 1000) + (42 x 500) + (15 x 250) = 70250 points

Nadal is clearly over Lendl with 8000 ATP points of difference if we only consider titles, the most relevant aspect.


SECOND RANKING, ATP weighting of both titles and finals (F), semifinals (SF) and quarterfinals (QF):

1. Grand Slam F (1200 points)
2. Grand Slam SF (720 points)
3. Grand Slam QF (360 points)
4. ATP Finals F (1000 points)
5. ATP Finals SF (600 points)
7. Masters 1000 or equivalent F (600 points)
8. Masters 1000 or equivalent SF (360 points)
9. Masters 1000 or equivalent QF (180 points)

Nadal = (7 x 1200) + (3 x 720) + (7 x 360) + (2 x 1000) + (3 x 600) + (16 x 600) + (18 x 360) + (19 x 180) = 36380 points in F, SF and QF + 78250 points in titles = 114630 points
Lendl =
(11 x 1200) + (9 x 720) + (6 x 360) + (4 x 1000) + (3 x 600) + (8 x 600) + (7 x 360) + (5 x 180) = 35860 points in F, SF and QF + 70250 points in titles = 106110 points

Nadal is comfortably over Lendl with 8520 ATP points of difference if we consider both titles and F, SF and QF.
 

timnz

Legend
I am really interested to read your hard motifs that a slam should be worth more than 2 Masters. I will show mine.
Plus for the slam is the format 3 of 5. Minus is that the top players play the first 4 rounds vs players of top 50, 70, 90+. Also in the quarters they could play vs top 30.
Plus for the Masters compared to slams is that the top players play vs more highly ranked players.

Another important fact from the history - 1 slam = 1,25 - 1,5 Masters for more than 20 years. Then in 1996 it was changed to 1:2 exactly with the reason of giving more weight to the slams. Years later ATP realized that these weightings damage in fact the tiers 500 and 250 but it hadn't the courage to change it. Also the top players didn't want to be changed back.

ATP made a lot of mistakes through the years. It would be their another huge mistake if they raise the points and change the proportions of the different levels. Such an act would destroy the lower levels. And this would be crucial for the tennis as a whole. The tiers 500 and 250 in the past were far more interesting and competitive than today. Currently the same tiers run without all or the most of the top 10 players. At the same time these tiers are forced to raise the prize money every year.

I believe definitely that tennis would be put in a death grip if the "only slams matters" vision prevails. As a big tennis fan I want to watch more tough tournaments than the usual ones.
Your comments are interesting. I have taken a lot of flack from the 'Only Slam matter' crowd with this ranking system.
 

timnz

Legend
Whatever value you would get would be incomparable. Who would be the "smart" guy saying that for instance Becker's slams should be valued now with 400-500 points (as it was) and Murray's with 2,000 ???

Equal metrics should be used always when making rankings, comparisons or evaluation of players. The current ATP pointing system (timnz' metrics) is not the perfect one (I disagree with the levels' proportions) but it is the most logical and structured from all ATP pointing systems in the past. That's why I use the same.
Sometimes the ATP finals were given zero points, in the past. The trick would be to make adjustments from year to year. It would end up becoming a horrendously complex system. Hence, I chose to rate everything at current ratings.
 

ADuck

Legend
Whatever value you would get would be incomparable. Who would be the "smart" guy saying that for instance Becker's slams should be valued now with 400-500 points (as it was) and Murray's with 2,000 ???

Equal metrics should be used always when making rankings, comparisons or evaluation of players. The current ATP pointing system (timnz' metrics) is not the perfect one (I disagree with the levels' proportions) but it is the most logical and structured from all ATP pointing systems in the past. That's why I use the same.
Points were doubled at one point in the 2000's so obviously you have to account for that too. I think you're missing the point though. If majors/masters were worth different relatively back then than now, shouldn't that be reflected in the points?
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Your comments are interesting. I have taken a lot of flack from the 'Only Slam matter' crowd with this ranking system.
Because it is true.

Compare these 2 hypothetical players:

Player A: 0 Grand Slams, 22 Masters 1000 (22000 ATP points).

Player B: 10 Grand Slams, 1 Masters 1000 (21000 ATP points).

According to a ranking using ATP weighting criteria, player A would be greater than Player B. But, as everyone knows, a player with 10 Grand Slams will always be considered better than a player with 0 Grand Slams.
 
Last edited:

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Exactly, he doesn't want to correct the mistakes of his ranking. He doesn't include QF in his ranking, nor does he considers titles alone as a separate measure. As a consequence, my ranking system is more complete. I made two rankings using current ATP weighting criteria: one considering only titles and another one considering titles plus F, SF and QF, and Nadal is clearly over Lendl in both rankings:

FIRST RANKING, ATP weighting of titles alone:

1. Grand Slams (2000 points)
2. ATP Finals (1500 points)
3. Olympic Gold in singles (0 points)
4. Masters 1000 or equivalent (1000 points)
5. Masters 500 or equivalent (500 points)
6. ATP 250 or equivalent (250 points)

Nadal = (17 x 2000) + (0 x 1500) + (1 x 0) + (32 x 1000) + (20 x 500) + (9 x 250) = 78250 points
Lendl =
(8 x 2000) + (5 x 1500) + (0 x 0) + (22 x 1000) + (42 x 500) + (15 x 250) = 70250 points

Nadal is clearly over Lendl with 8000 ATP points of difference if we only consider titles, the most relevant aspect.


SECOND RANKING, ATP weighting of both titles and finals (F), semifinals (SF) and quarterfinals (QF):

1. Grand Slam F (1200 points)
2. Grand Slam SF (720 points)
3. Grand Slam QF (360 points)
4. ATP Finals F (1000 points)
5. ATP Finals SF (600 points)
7. Masters 1000 or equivalent F (600 points)
8. Masters 1000 or equivalent SF (360 points)
9. Masters 1000 or equivalent QF (180 points)

Nadal = (7 x 1200) + (3 x 720) + (7 x 360) + (2 x 1000) + (3 x 600) + (16 x 600) + (18 x 360) + (19 x 180) = 36380 points in F, SF and QF + 78250 points in titles = 114630 points
Lendl =
(11 x 1200) + (9 x 720) + (6 x 360) + (4 x 1000) + (3 x 600) + (8 x 600) + (7 x 360) + (5 x 180) = 35860 points in F, SF and QF + 70250 points in titles = 106110 points

Nadal is comfortably over Lendl with 8520 ATP points of difference if we consider both titles and F, SF and QF.
Wrong data again! You can't reach something substantial and serious using wiki.
 
Top