Sinner's peak level climbed into the all-time ATP top 10 list!

Rovesciarete

Rovesciarete

Hall of Fame
Maybe some esteemed members of this discussion board have missed the rise and quality of young Jannik. Only eight players are ranked to have been stronger in ATP history. Obviously it now gets harder and harder, Sinner only got 16 points for his run at the AO 2025.

Rank Player Peak Elo
1 Bjorn Borg 2473
2 Novak Djokovic 2470
3 John McEnroe 2442
4 Ivan Lendl 2402
5 Roger Federer 2382
6 Rafael Nadal 2370
7 Jimmy Connors 2364
8 Andy Murray 2347
9 Jannik Sinner 2325
10 Boris Becker 2320

Source is this article on top-spin!
 
He is doing this in much easier time as his nearest competition is Djokovic who is barely facing him now. And alcaraz is more than 200 pts behind.

If he was facing Djokovic in 19-23 I would assume he would take many losses and still his Elo rating would jump higher.
 
Angrybirdstar said:
Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl peak Elos > Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, Connors > Murray... what it tells us?
Click to expand...

That is actually an excellent question which contrasts sharply with the self-inflicted embarrassment of others. Overall, the average level of the tour was lower than decades later, easing the climb to such isolated peaks.

Later on during the reign of the Big 3, their careers were intertwined for longer, and the quality of the regular player had risen, making it harder to achieve the same performance numbers. This was counteracted to some degree by the homogenization of the surfaces and playing styles. Less bad losses, but the fiercest of competitions among legends.

Sampras was held back by his relative weakness on clay, compounded by the larger numbers of specialists dirtballers in his days.
 
Last edited:
Another site data:
Rank Name Peak Elo
1 Novak Djokovic 2629
2 Bjorn Borg 2622
3 John McEnroe 2583
4 Rafael Nadal 2552
5 Roger Federer 2550
6 Jimmy Connors 2521
7 Ivan Lendl 2518
8 Rod Laver 2509
9 Andy Murray 2500
10 Guillermo Vilas 2431
11 Boris Becker 2419
12 Jannik Sinner 2414
13 Pete Sampras 2407
14 Ken Rosewall 2388
15 Stan Smith 2381
16 Andre Agassi 2376
17 Mats Wilander 2371
18 Stefan Edberg 2370
19 Ilie Nastase 2363
20 Tony Roche 2355

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Peak Elo Ratings

Peak Elo Ratings compare peak player strengths across Eras, overall, by surface, by in/out or by set/game/tie-break
www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com
 
Last edited:
Rovesciarete said:
Maybe some esteemed members of this discussion board have missed the rise and quality of young Jannik. Only eight players are ranked to have been stronger in ATP history. Obviously it now gets harder and harder, Sinner only got 16 points for his run at the AO 2025.

Rank Player Peak Elo
1 Bjorn Borg 2473
2 Novak Djokovic 2470
3 John McEnroe 2442
4 Ivan Lendl 2402
5 Roger Federer 2382
6 Rafael Nadal 2370
7 Jimmy Connors 2364
8 Andy Murray 2347
9 Jannik Sinner 2325
10 Boris Becker 2320

Source is this article on top-spin!
Click to expand...
What’s Sinner’s current hardcourt ELO and where does it stand?
 
Angrybirdstar said:
Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl peak Elos > Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, Connors > Murray... what it tells us?
Click to expand...

It tells you: Three of the top 10 players being born within a year defines the toughest era. (Fed was a bit different—at his peak, he was pigeoned by a teenager.)

RIP To Anyone Peaking In This Era

2008 – 16 vs Top5 T5 Weight vs Top10 T10 Weight vs T11+ T11+ Weight vs All Big Titles Points/Yr Nole 126 (80-46) 63.49% 17.17% 235 (170-65) 72.34% 32.02% 499 (460-39) 92.18% 67.98% 734 (630-104) 85.83% 45 11461 Rafa 94 (54-40) 57.45% 14.33% 170 (110-60) 64.71% 25.91%...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com tt.tennis-warehouse.com
 
Neptune said:
Another site data:
Rank Name Peak Elo
1 Novak Djokovic 2629
2 Bjorn Borg 2622
3 John McEnroe 2583
4 Rafael Nadal 2552
5 Roger Federer 2550
6 Jimmy Connors 2521
7 Ivan Lendl 2518
8 Rod Laver 2509
9 Andy Murray 2500
10 Guillermo Vilas 2431
11 Boris Becker 2419
12 Jannik Sinner 2414
13 Pete Sampras 2407
14 Ken Rosewall 2388
15 Stan Smith 2381
16 Andre Agassi 2376
17 Mats Wilander 2371
18 Stefan Edberg 2370
19 Ilie Nastase 2363
20 Tony Roche 2355

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Peak Elo Ratings

Peak Elo Ratings compare peak player strengths across Eras, overall, by surface, by in/out or by set/game/tie-break
www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com
Click to expand...
I like tennis abstract numbers better.
 
Rovesciarete said:
Maybe some esteemed members of this discussion board have missed the rise and quality of young Jannik. Only eight players are ranked to have been stronger in ATP history. Obviously it now gets harder and harder, Sinner only got 16 points for his run at the AO 2025.

Rank Player Peak Elo
1 Bjorn Borg 2473
2 Novak Djokovic 2470
3 John McEnroe 2442
4 Ivan Lendl 2402
5 Roger Federer 2382
6 Rafael Nadal 2370
7 Jimmy Connors 2364
8 Andy Murray 2347
9 Jannik Sinner 2325
10 Boris Becker 2320

Source is this article on top-spin!
Click to expand...
This is a pretty solid list. I’m not sure about the order. But I like the names on this list. And Sinner in the top-10 makes sense. His real ability to gain points is in the natural surface season. And if he’s healthy, he should gain points there.
 
IMG_7288.jpg


Omg guys peak ELO!!!!
 
The comparison between the big 4 of the 70s and 80s, and the big 3 of the new era, is indeed interesting. I have written that before, that the big stats difference is in the slam numbers, not in overall numbers of tournaments won, nor match win stats, nor ranking numbers. Lendl, Mac, Connors and Borg have won more overall tournaments, especially if we include not ATP sanctioned, but regular tournaments, have roughly similar win-loss-percentages, had also great peak level or 5 years consistency level, regarding wins over top ten ot top twenty and so on.

They do trail heavily in slam numbers, which has a lot to do with the the situation of the AO and the overall loose, still chaotic structure of the tour then. The second big difference is the longevity factor, Borg, Mac, and even Lendl had relatively short careers, even Lendls body broke up, when he turned 30. Only Jimbo had the long career till mid 30s. Maybe the players now can more focus on really big events, while the older players had to play a much tougher schedule because they needed the money more. Maybe also.the medical and physical treatments are much better now. I do believe, that Nadal, whose stressing physical style and career arc was simlilar to Borg, never had lasted for so long, in the earlier eras.
 
Last edited:
urban said:
The comparison between the big 4 of the 70s and 80s, and the big 3 of the new era, is indeed interesting. I have written that before, that the big stats difference is in the slam numbers, not in overall numbers of tournaments won, nor match win stats, nor ranking numbers. Lendl, Mac, Connors and Borg have won more overall tournaments, especially if we include not ATP sanctioned, but regular tournaments, have roughly similar win-loss-percentages, had also great peak level or 5 years consistency level, regarding wins over top ten ot top twenty and so on.
Click to expand...

Thoughtful comment and I agree. It is fairly easy to envisage the shorter careers/narrower peaks of the classic big 4 on a timescale. Lots of tournaments, making most money out of their competitive span. Very intensive but not overlapping as much with other ATG.

urban said:
They do trail heavily in slam numbers, which has a lot to do with the the situation of the AO and the overall loose, still chaotic structure of the tour then. The second big difference is the longevity factor, Borg, Mac, and even Lendl had relatively short careers, even Lendls body broke up, when he turned 30. Only Jimbo had the long career till mid 30s. Maybe the players now can more focus on really big events, while the older players had to play a much tougher schedule because they needed the money more. Maybe also.the medical and physical treatments are much better now. I do believe, that Nadal, whose stressing physical style and career arc was simlilar to Borg, never had lasted for so long, in the earlier eras.
Click to expand...

The felt need to make hay by playing a lot in their prime might indeed have shortened careers lacking modern medicine further. The Big 3 seem to have started a virtuos cycle. Far higher earnings and slam/master dominance enabled them to thin out their schedule while profiting from the progress of supportive science. Spreading tournaments and careers, they stretched their respective careers, overlapping them to a large degree.


This must have helped their performance relative to the ATP player field, dominating it even if the overall level increased.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, if the overall level of the tour was so much better, than in the 80s. I think, especially Lendl had tough competition in the mid and late 80s, very tough and divers on different surfaces. People like Becker, Mac, Edberg, Cash on grass and carpet, Wilander, Noah, Leconte, Mecir, Gomez, and some other Swedes on clay, and many good players on hard court.,
 
urban said:
I don't know, if the overall level of the tour was so much better, than in the 80s. I think, especially Lendl had tough competition in the mid and late 80s, very tough and divers on different surfaces. People like Becker, Mac, Edberg, Cash on grass and carpet, Wilander, Noah, Leconte, Mecir, Gomez, and some other Swedes on clay, and many good players on hard court.,
Click to expand...

Maybe the 80s had a more fractured and porous surface, which lots of players rising to the top and sinking down while during the last decades we had the layers of the big 3 plus Murray and Wawrinka sealing it almost completely.

Shorter more intense careers, bigger specialization with a greater surface delta makes it harder to blanket the top spots.
 
I get ELO values win streaks(esp vs other great players) but Becker being higher than Agassi and Sampras is a real head scratcher, he had no long win streaks or seasons with great win %'s compared to the other 2. Really, he was such an up and down player its hard to see how he would be higher than say Agassi in '95 under any metric. But he did beat Lendl 3 times in '86 when Lendl had his peak ELO, I guess? I can even understand why Murray is so high since he beat the big 3 many times when they had high ELOs, but Becker? Guess its another feather in his cap in that eternal debate between him, Edberg, Wilander.
 
Moose Malloy said:
I get ELO values win streaks(esp vs other great players) but Becker being higher than Agassi and Sampras is a real head scratcher, he had no long win streaks or seasons with great win %'s compared to the other 2. Really, he was such an up and down player its hard to see how he would be higher than say Agassi in '95 under any metric. But he did beat Lendl 3 times in '86 when Lendl had his peak ELO, I guess? I can even understand why Murray is so high since he beat the big 3 many times when they had high ELOs, but Becker? Guess its another feather in his cap in that eternal debate between him, Edberg, Wilander.
Click to expand...

Truth be told this is imho the right spirit. Data doesn't stop debates but should spur them on!
 
Moose Malloy said:
I get ELO values win streaks(esp vs other great players) but Becker being higher than Agassi and Sampras is a real head scratcher, he had no long win streaks or seasons with great win %'s compared to the other 2. Really, he was such an up and down player its hard to see how he would be higher than say Agassi in '95 under any metric. But he did beat Lendl 3 times in '86 when Lendl had his peak ELO, I guess? I can even understand why Murray is so high since he beat the big 3 many times when they had high ELOs, but Becker? Guess its another feather in his cap in that eternal debate between him, Edberg, Wilander.
Click to expand...
if it helps:

1. Becker was rated at his peak as 2320 (vs Sampras' 2319 and Agassi's 2282)
2. Becker's peak Elo was in '89, but the way Elo works i believe his post-RG '88 results set him up very well, whereas Sampras' post-Wimbly '93 results derailed his momentum a bit so his run until USO '94 couldn't take him higher
3. similarly, i think Agassi's '95 losses between AO and summer hard courts undercut the momentum that he'd been building from USO '94 onwards, because his peak is in '95 (rather than in '96 as we'd expect from Elo buildup allowing for a lag between a real and measured performance drop)
4. Wilander's peak Elo is 2309, whereas Edberg and Newcombe are in the low 2200s, so i think their relative rankings in the 128 speak to Becker's underrated consistency at his peak and his underrated longevity relative to his ATG peers (i remember comparing his Wimbly record with McEnroe and being surprised at how little of a debate it was if you take longevity rather than just primes into account)
 
A bit of question from left field to @urban , @Moose Malloy , @Angrybirdstar and @Pheasant in particular:

How much of an advantage was being left-handed for McEnroe? Must have made for example the approach shots considerably safer as basically all his rivals were righties.*

Apart from Lendl his only negative H2H is against fellow lefty Vilas, naturally losing often on clay. Seems like being lefty helped him to be harder to figure out for his big competitor...
 
Being lefty certainly helped Mac in his serve. Especially the wide out serve into the ad court was unplayable in his prime. Ted Tinling wanted to change the serving order for lefties. Otherwise, Mac had an extraordinary footwork too, his anticipation and movement near or inside the baseline were first class. When his footwork declined after 1985, his forehand became a bit vulnerable, because he had a loose wrist and laid back with his body in the moment of impact. All his shots were hit, as if they were virtual drop shots.
 
NatF said:
Murray and Sinner in the top 10 but no Sampras, says it all about Elo.
Click to expand...
Sampras' peak elo was apparently at freaking Rome, too. Take away clay and is PETE even a Top 20 player? ROFLMAO. (Yes I know it's cumulative and without clay his peak overall ELO would be higher).
 
Last edited:
TearTheRoofOff said:
Sampras' peak elo was apparently at freaking Rome, too. Take away clay and is PETE even a Top 20 player? ROFLMAO. (Yes I know it's cumulative and without clay his peak overall ELO would be higher).
Click to expand...
I remember Murray 2009 having a higher Elo than any Sampras some time back, plus other oddities like Federer having a higher Elo in 2013 than 2004. It's an interesting metric but it's certainly flawed.
 
Neptune said:
It tells you: Three of the top 10 players being born within a year defines the toughest era. (Fed was a bit different—at his peak, he was pigeoned by a teenager.)

RIP To Anyone Peaking In This Era

2008 – 16 vs Top5 T5 Weight vs Top10 T10 Weight vs T11+ T11+ Weight vs All Big Titles Points/Yr Nole 126 (80-46) 63.49% 17.17% 235 (170-65) 72.34% 32.02% 499 (460-39) 92.18% 67.98% 734 (630-104) 85.83% 45 11461 Rafa 94 (54-40) 57.45% 14.33% 170 (110-60) 64.71% 25.91%...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Click to expand...
Nice blue clay avi there, closet Fed fan.
 
Sharp-eyed viewers will have noticed that Sinner's Elo has been lowered on Tennis Abstract. Jeff explains the logic in his Aprile round-up:

Elo agrees that Sinner remains the best player on tour, even though my algorithm applies a 100-point penalty to players who miss so much time.

Another way of seeing Sinner’s dominance is to compare the current men’s and women’s lists. No, the lists aren’t meant to be compared, but after decades in which the top women built higher Elo ratings than men–mostly because the level of competition wasn’t as deep–they’ve begun to look similar. For instance, #4 to #10 on the men’s and women’s lists have nearly identical ratings.

Well, even after the 100-point penalty, Sinner is still 50 points ahead of any other man, and 40 points ahead of Aryna Sabalenka.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Winner Sinner
Ranking of the earliest players to enter the top 10 for the first time
Replies
0
Views
313
Winner Sinner
Winner Sinner
Back
Top