REVISED: Updated Open era achievment ranking system using current ATP weighting

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by timnz, Jul 19, 2015.

  1. 6-3 6-0

    6-3 6-0 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,000
    Location:
    Fedal era
    Only a fool thinks Djokovic is done until he himself comes out announcing his retirement.

    On a side note, don't forget the harrassment Federer had to take back in 2013 with all weak era talks and Fed was 2 years older than Novak is now.
     
  2. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    29,091
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    I'm not quite sure what that last part has to do with my post 6-3 6-0.
     
  3. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,224
    Be interested in your feedback. If you think I missed a tournament achievement - then please let me know. The main reason that Sampras is so far behind is that below his Slams and Season end final achievements he is far below most of the top players in every other metric. (11 Masters 1000's vs 25 for Federer - that's a lot. Slam runner-ups Federer has got 10 vs Sampras 4, 500 series Federer 17 vs Sampras 12)
     
  4. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,224
    Why don't you agree? In my opening paragraph (in the 1st post in this thread): "This is NOT a 'greatness' index of Open era players. 'Greatness' is a subjective term (doesn't mean it isn't valuable), whereas the intention of this ranking system is merely to layout tournament achievements (500 points and higher) of the great open era players weighted at current ATP weightings."
     
  5. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    19,675
    Back in 2013 Nadal fans used to say Federer could only win 250s in a strong era.

    Little did they know one of their faves (Novak) would soon feast on one of the weakest eras of all time.
     
  6. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    29,091
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    Nadal fans were Djokovic fans as well?! :eek:
     
  7. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    19,675
    They liked Djokovic more than Federer. :rolleyes:
     
  8. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,224
    I think he will. 4 or 5 years ago or so - I predicted he would end up with between 12 and 14 majors. I still hold to that. Hence, if he wins another 2 majors - that is (2 x 2) and say another 4 Masters 1000 and throw in 5 500 series - that is another 10 points - bringing him to 104 or so. I think that is very doable for him.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017 at 5:14 PM
  9. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    29,091
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    In 2013? Ooh I don't know about that Saby.
     
  10. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    17,648
    If you gave points for the Olympics, then you'd surely also have to work out a way of giving points for a Davis Cup win in the final?

    Looked at this way, there is really no problem leaving out the Olympics because both it and the Davis Cup, however great, are radically different competitions.

    And not just because they are run through the ITF. Their fields, most notably, don't follow an ATP or ATP-style system.

     
  11. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    22,811
    What 46 points difference is misleading?
    All the calculations are correct unless you spotted an error.
     
  12. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    17,648
    The other important point about the Olympics is that it is continually subject to political pressures to ban countries for political or pseudo-political reasons.

    We could easily have a situation where the best tennis players in the world are forbidden from competing, whereas this can't happen in the ATP.

    Or, at least, it can't happen directly, but we should remember that the Meldonium ban was a product of the IOC and government-controlled WADA.
     
  13. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    19,675
    Especially in 2013.
     
  14. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,224
    I think the Olympics are worth something. I think that since 2008 they are probably good for around 1250 points ie less than WTF but more than Masters 1000. However, because there is no universal agreed weighting system beyond the ATP - I am stuck with using it - and unfortunately that is currently 0 points. The Davis Cup is in a different category for me - it is a team competition - I am measuring singles achievements.
     
  15. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    29,091
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    The impression I had at the time was that the vast majority loathed him with a passion 'cos they knew without him Nadal would be winning everything in sight and also memories of 2011 were still very raw.
     
  16. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    19,675
    But even with him around Nadal was winning pretty much everything -- and they could use him to prop up Nadal because, as you know, Federer crapped all over Roddick and not Djokovic.
     
  17. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    29,091
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    You're right, I do recall many of them saying things like that at the time which wasn't really fair 'cos Djokovic's overall performance in the '13 USO final was certainly no better than Roddick played in some of the slam finals he lost to Roger back in the day.
     
    Sabratha likes this.
  18. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    19,675
    At least you understand name =/= form.
     
  19. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    29,091
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    I do. I just wish other people on here understood it as well. ;)
     
    Sabratha likes this.
  20. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    17,648
    Yet another problem with the Olympics is that Chefs de Mission love to throw their weight around in the name of team spirit!

    Krygios was basically forced out of the Australian team because of his behaviour and yet the ATP tolerates him, minor punishments aside.

    This is yet another illustration of the fact that the Olympics and the Davis Cup are not sufficiently open to the entire field.

    Although to win them is a considerable achievement, they are quite unique competitions. Their peculiarities do set them apart.

     
  21. NEW_BORN

    NEW_BORN Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    OZ
    Yeah i get the fact that Sampras has won a lot less of the lower tier tournaments than some of the other greats but surely the difference in score between Federer and Sampras which i highlighted to be roughly the equivalent of 23 slams is not an accurate representation of Federer's greatness over Sampras.

    By several important metrics, Sampras is only marginally lower than Federer's -
    Slam wins 18-14 Federer
    WTF wins 6-5 Federer (Sampras does have 2 Grand Slam Cups though)
    Weeks at No.1 302-286 Federer

    I think for starters week's at No.1 has to be reflected in your rankings somehow.
    But i do appreciate your effort in compiling these date.
     
  22. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,224
    You mention the top level metrics - but as I said this ranking system brings in everything from 500 points and above. The fact is that Sampras' achievements drop away after season end finals.

    Weeks at number 1 - yes, people have asked for this over the years - but I have resisted this for two primary reasons:

    1/ It is a kind of double counting ie people got the ranking due to their achievements - which I have already counted

    2/ The inaccuracy of the weeks at number 1 system especially prior to the mid-1980s (McEnroe was ranked as YE#1 for 1982 even though he had a third of the titles of number 3 placed Lendl (and not superior titles either). The fact is before the mid-1980s they didn't count everything. YE Number 1's is a more accurate measure - but even that is disputed.

    Here's another point:

    Last year Murray finished number 1 over Djokovic. Now Murray won less slams than Djokovic. His ranking was totally based on ATP weighted points. People didn't dispute Murray's YE status. Why should it change when we up the number of years we are assessing players over? If we were okay on a ranking based on ATP weightings over 1 year - why not use that weighting over multiple years? Otherwise are we saying that in a few years we will re-access whether Murray was 2016 YE#1?

    This ranking system is designed to be objective. Yes, it creates some jarring results. But when you think about it - why is is jarring? I think it is primarily because we tend to rate players in a slam only way - and not over their entire portfolio of achievements. It contradicts our 'slams only' intuitions. But our intuitions sometimes aren't fully accurate.

    Thanks for your encouragement.
     

Share This Page