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 Guest

    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 Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    32,221
    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:
    6,704
    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:
    6,704
    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 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    21,310
    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 Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    32,221
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    Nadal fans were Djokovic fans as well?! :eek:
     
  7. Sabratha

    Sabratha Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    21,310
    They liked Djokovic more than Federer. :rolleyes:
     
  8. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,704
    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
  9. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    32,221
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    In 2013? Ooh I don't know about that Saby.
     
  10. Bartelby

    Bartelby Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Alphaville
    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:
    23,787
    What 46 points difference is misleading?
    All the calculations are correct unless you spotted an error.
     
  12. Bartelby

    Bartelby Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Alphaville
    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 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    21,310
    Especially in 2013.
     
  14. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,704
    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 Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    32,221
    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 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    21,310
    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 Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    32,221
    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 Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    21,310
    At least you understand name =/= form.
     
  19. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    32,221
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    I do. I just wish other people on here understood it as well. ;)
     
    Sabratha likes this.
  20. Bartelby

    Bartelby Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Alphaville
    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 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,685
    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:
    6,704
    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.
     
  23. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,704
    Both Federer and Nadal have movement upwards

    For ease I have reduced the weighting points down by a factor of 1000 eg Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000.

    Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

    Federer = (18 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (10 x 1.2) + (26 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (13 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 115.86

    Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 2 - 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) + (11 x 0.60) + (2 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + ((5 -2) x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 99.48

    Djokovic = (12 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (30 x 1) + (13 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 93.9

    Connors = (8 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (9 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (16 x 0.72) + (4 x 0.60) + (49 x 0.50) = 90.52

    Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (28 x 1) + (15 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (3 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 86.66

    See post 1 in this thread for full details
     
  24. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    23,787
    Had not for the WTF, Nadal and Nole would be pretty much even at this point. The YEC results is the prime reason Nole is 7 points ahead of Nadal.
     
  25. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    9,048
    Location:
    USA
    Yeah but WTF is a very important and unique event. It's up to Nadal to win it at least once. Honestly 2010/2013 were his best shots and he ran into GOAT-ing Roger & Novak. I guess no shame in that. Just like no shame in losing to Rafa @RG all those years.
     
  26. Jackuar

    Jackuar Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,693
    Location:
    India
    I believe Nadal has overtaken Connors by now?
     
  27. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,704
    Indeed he has. I keep post 1 in this thread updated with the current rankings (I have copied and pasted some of it below):-

    For ease I have reduced the weighting points down by a factor of 1000 eg Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000.

    Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

    Federer = (18 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (10 x 1.2) + (26 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (13 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (18 x 0.50) = 116.36

    Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 2 - 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) + (11 x 0.60) + (2 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + ((5 -2) x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 99.48

    Djokovic = (12 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (30 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 94.5

    Nadal = (15 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (30 x 1) + (15 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (3 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (18 x 0.50) = 91.16

    Connors = (8 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (9 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (16 x 0.72) + (4 x 0.60) + (49 x 0.50) = 90.52

    McEnroe = (7 x 2) + ((3 + (5 - 1)) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + ((1 + 3) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (23 x 0.50) = 73.76

    Sampras = (14 x 2) + (0 + (2 - 1) x 1.5) + (5 x 1.3) + ((2 - 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) + (8 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (5 x 0.72) + ((4 - 1) x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 69.0

    Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + (2 -1)) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + (3 - 1)) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) + (4 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (1 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 63.32

    Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + ((3 - 1) x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (5 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (6 x 0.50) = 61.02

    Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) + (8 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50)= 57.36

    Murray = (3 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (14 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (2 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (10 x 0.50) = 47.38

    Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + ((2 - 1) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50) = 45.86

    Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50****) = 37.96

    **** I found it difficult to determine that Wilander's 500 level equivalents are. Depending upon approaches, I ended up with anything from 5 to 10. I have settled (for now) on 8.
     
    kandamrgam likes this.
  28. Djokovic2011

    Djokovic2011 Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    32,221
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    Hilarious that despite his sh1tfest of a season, Djokovic is still more than three points ahead of Nadal.
     
  29. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,704
    This year Nadal has improved by about 6 points. He has been doing very well. Djokovic's sole entry this year (so far) was the 0.6 that he earned making the Rome final. It will be interesting, once their careers have finished, where they both end up.
     
  30. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    44,469
    Location:
    Epiclando FL™
    I can hear the venom dripping as you type :p
     
    Backspin1183 and Incognito like this.
  31. BGod

    BGod Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    On Novak v. Nadal:

    AO: Novak>Nadal
    FO: Nadal>Novak
    WMB: Novak>Nadal
    USO: Novak>Nadal
    WTF: Novak>Nadal
    #1: Novak>Nadal

    I really can't ignore how Nadal's collective career is clearly behind Federer-Sampras-Djokovic
     
    Tarkovsky likes this.
  32. Incognito

    Incognito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,569

    Roddick played amazingly well against Fed in those finals. He lost, just like Djokovic lost to Nadal.
     
  33. Incognito

    Incognito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,569
    Nadal has won all the majors. He has more majors than Pete and djokovic. How the hell is that an inferior career?
     
    Backspin1183 likes this.
  34. Incognito

    Incognito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,569
    I find it hilarious that Nadal is once again 3 majors ahead of djokovic.
     
  35. coupergear

    coupergear Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    590
    This is cool. Thanks. Both Lendl and Connors though seem to pad with 500S tournaments. No one else even near their numbers. Any historical analysis on this difference? Are these events less popular with today's players?

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
     
  36. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    23,787
    Nadal has the momentum right now and could inch closer or tie Nole by the end of the season if Nole doesn't win anything. The question is who will reach 100 points first to surpass Lendl who has 99.48 points.
     
  37. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,704
    Have a look at the first post in this thread for a discussion of 500s and Masters 1000 equivalents. Basically it is near impossible to compare modern masters 1000's with pre-1990 tournaments. So to make sure that pre-1990 masters 1000 possible tournament equivalents got recognised, I included tournaments at 500 level so the older players achievements get somewhat recognised
     
    pc1 likes this.
  38. crazyups

    crazyups Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    880
    That's using atp weightings which don't include Olympics.
     
    Backspin1183 likes this.
  39. crazyups

    crazyups Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    880
    I think the olympics used to be 700 or 750 atp points for gold.
     
  40. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,704
    It was 750 points, so 0.75 on this scale. Hence isn't enough to put Nadal above Djokovic, at this stage - even if it was counted.

    I believe it should have points but I am strictly following the ATP weightings here, where it has no points.
     
  41. crazyups

    crazyups Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    880
    But wasn't gold medal worth 750 ATP points at the time Rafa won it? If so then you should add them.
     
  42. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,704
    The rankings are based on current ATP weightings. It would be an incredibly mammouth task to work out all of the events weightings at the time the player won it. For instance some time in history the WTF didn't get any points. Currently you can get 3/4s of a slam. Before the mid 1990s the slams had differencing points than each other. Which ones do I choose? No, unless you go through enormous complication - all I can do is choose the current ATP weightings. And, unfortunately, the Olympics is rated at zero points currently.
     
  43. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,704
    Federer moving on up

    This ranking systems approach is to compare Open era players tournament achievements at a 500 series title equivalent and higher (point wise). 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.

    The reason I broke it off at 500 point level (formerly I had the break off at 1000 points and higher) is that Masters 1000 Equivalent were very difficult to compare older players victories at that level compared to recent players.

    So what were Masters 1000 equivalents years ago, vs now? There is no clear agreement. Masters 1000 pre-1990 are difficult to agree on. There is no agreed 'Masters 1000' equivalent list. The only list that I have seen some agreement on, in these forums, is:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

    Because Masters 1000's weren't compulsory prior to 2000, Players opted to play at other events, sometimes with similar points to 'Official' Masters 1000 equivalent events. I have decided that we should therefore include all players 500 level event victories. Most of the 'defacto' Masters 1000's have been rated at the 500 level. Therefore in a ranking system, they don't give as many points, but at least they get represented somewhat.

    For ease I have reduced the weighting points down by a factor of 1000 eg Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000.

    Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

    Federer = (19 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (10 x 1.2) + (26 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (13 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (18 x 0.50) = 118.36

    Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 2 - 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) + (11 x 0.60) + (2 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + ((5 -2) x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 99.48

    Djokovic = (12 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (30 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 94.5

    Nadal = (15 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (30 x 1) + (15 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (3 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (18 x 0.50) = 91.16

    Connors = (8 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (9 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (16 x 0.72) + (4 x 0.60) + (49 x 0.50) = 90.52

    McEnroe = (7 x 2) + ((3 + (5 - 1)) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + ((1 + 3) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (23 x 0.50) = 73.76

    Sampras = (14 x 2) + (0 + (2 - 1) x 1.5) + (5 x 1.3) + ((2 - 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) + (8 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (5 x 0.72) + ((4 - 1) x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 69.0

    Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + (2 -1)) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + (3 - 1)) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) + (4 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (1 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (17 x 0.50) = 63.32

    Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + ((3 - 1) x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) + (5 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (11 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (6 x 0.50) = 61.02

    Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) + (8 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (9 x 0.50)= 57.36

    Murray = (3 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (14 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (2 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (10 x 0.50) = 47.38

    Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + ((2 - 1) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (12 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (8 x 0.72) + ((2 - 1) x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50) = 45.86

    Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (3 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (8 x 0.50****) = 37.96

    **** I found it difficult to determine that Wilander's 500 level equivalents are. Depending upon approaches, I ended up with anything from 5 to 10. I have settled (for now) on 8.

    •Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
    •Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP points
    •Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 720 ATP points
    •Season end final victories with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
    •Season end final victories with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
    •Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUNL) 1000 ATP points
    •Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
    •Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
    •Masters 1000 equivalent victories (we will call (Top 9)) ATP 1000 points
    •Masters 1000 equivalent runner-ups (TOP9RU) ATP 600 points
    •Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 0 points **
    •500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points
     
  44. timnz

    timnz Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,704
    So here's the interesting thing. I think there is a good chance that Nadal could leap frog Djokovic shortly. And perhaps by early next year be in second place?

    Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

    Federer = (19 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (3 x 1) + (10 x 1.2) + (26 x 1) + (18 x 0.60) + (1 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (13 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (18 x 0.50) = 118.36

    Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 2 - 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) + (11 x 0.60) + (2 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + ((5 -2) x 0.60) + (42 x 0.50) = 99.48

    Djokovic = (12 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (2 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (30 x 1) + (14 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (10 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (12 x 0.50) = 94.5

    Nadal = (15 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (30 x 1) + (15 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (1 x 0) + (3 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (18 x 0.50) = 91.16


    •Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
    •Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP points
    •Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 720 ATP points
    •Season end final victories with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
    •Season end final victories with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
    •Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUNL) 1000 ATP points
    •Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
    •Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
    •Masters 1000 equivalent victories (we will call (Top 9)) ATP 1000 points
    •Masters 1000 equivalent runner-ups (TOP9RU) ATP 600 points
    •Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 0 points **
    •500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points
     
  45. Jackuar

    Jackuar Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,693
    Location:
    India
    Second is like reaching 100. I don't think 9 more points are that easy to fetch within a year. It'll be equivalent to winning both USO and AO and 5 more masters; are you expecting that from Nadal across the HC stretch? Impossible.

    If you mean overtaking Novak for third? That's possible yeah. 4 more masters, and other fairly decent results here and there should do it.
     
  46. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    23,787
    Nole gain only 0.60 point this year for reaching Rome final. Murray gain 1.22 points for reaching the FO semifinal and a win in Dubai.

    That's well below sub-standard performance when they represent the #1 and #2 player on the tour.
     
    Phoenix1983 likes this.
  47. xFedal

    xFedal Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Messages:
    4,754
    Murray has burnout issue and injury.... Nole mental and injury for 1 1/2 year.
     
  48. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    5,573
    Agreed, but they're not going to be the #1 and #2 for much longer...
     
  49. MichaelChang

    MichaelChang Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,367
    Someone some day will publish these kind of stuff as his PhD research paper.
     
  50. JMR

    JMR Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,041

Share This Page