Tennis Espresso Journal
Rookie
This index brings us the best performers on ATP rankings in the XXI Century - or precisely since the great standardisation of the year 2000.
Following basic economic axioms (the ones allowing currencies to be exchanged and GDP to be measured) and internationally accepted principles of laws (governing international and domestic legal systems), it is perfectly possible to accurately determine a few relevant factual aspects of Tennis:
- The best players in the Century
- The best/worst #1
- The best/worst #2
- The best/worst #3
- The best/worst #10
- The most Competitive Seasons (narrowest points margin from a #1)
- The most Dominant Seasons (wisest points margin from a #1)
- The most successful season (highest punctuation)
- The least successful season (lowest punctuation)
- Toughest Top10 Palyer (average points)
- Most successful Top10 Players (all points gathered)
- Most consistent Top10 Players (years as Top10)
Of course, Ōta Index is an exclusively rankings oriented method, so all aspects of the game are resumed to their rankings performance, regardless of titles or rivalries related achievements. It is entirely based on ATP data, thus no space for opinions or subjective intakes.
Ranking points are converted to % in order to translate 2009 reform into a standard value. The only fully standardised tournaments since 1990 are the Big Titles (4 Slams, 1 Cup 9 Masters), which have been constant since (unlike the 1973 - 1989 period).
In order to maintain the Ranking order (Top10 placements) all points were proportionately parameterised according to Big Titles (BTs) - and not subjectively adjusted from tournament to tournament, which falls into a methodological mistake (could eventually alter YE#1s - YE#10s on critical path) despite commonly used by enthusiasts. Therefore the 100% would be equivalent to winning all BTs in a Season, which flanks the possibility of a 101% punctuation (all 14 BTs won + another tournament or + top-seed bonus points) - highly unlikely.
The rational behind it is that: ATP ranking system is comprehensive, which means it is completely self-sufficient, equally measurable, independent and official. Besides, its results are highly correlated to any plausible GOAT list ever made in this Century, which empirically gives us assurance about its accuracy on lower levels, like ATGs or simply professional players. Moreover, the best player on a season is conceded according to ATP rulebook determinants, that to say, ATP rankings do tell you who is/are the beast in the world, regardless of any expert or personal opinion.
Enjoy!
Following basic economic axioms (the ones allowing currencies to be exchanged and GDP to be measured) and internationally accepted principles of laws (governing international and domestic legal systems), it is perfectly possible to accurately determine a few relevant factual aspects of Tennis:
- The best players in the Century
- The best/worst #1
- The best/worst #2
- The best/worst #3
- The best/worst #10
- The most Competitive Seasons (narrowest points margin from a #1)
- The most Dominant Seasons (wisest points margin from a #1)
- The most successful season (highest punctuation)
- The least successful season (lowest punctuation)
- Toughest Top10 Palyer (average points)
- Most successful Top10 Players (all points gathered)
- Most consistent Top10 Players (years as Top10)
Of course, Ōta Index is an exclusively rankings oriented method, so all aspects of the game are resumed to their rankings performance, regardless of titles or rivalries related achievements. It is entirely based on ATP data, thus no space for opinions or subjective intakes.
Ranking points are converted to % in order to translate 2009 reform into a standard value. The only fully standardised tournaments since 1990 are the Big Titles (4 Slams, 1 Cup 9 Masters), which have been constant since (unlike the 1973 - 1989 period).
In order to maintain the Ranking order (Top10 placements) all points were proportionately parameterised according to Big Titles (BTs) - and not subjectively adjusted from tournament to tournament, which falls into a methodological mistake (could eventually alter YE#1s - YE#10s on critical path) despite commonly used by enthusiasts. Therefore the 100% would be equivalent to winning all BTs in a Season, which flanks the possibility of a 101% punctuation (all 14 BTs won + another tournament or + top-seed bonus points) - highly unlikely.
The rational behind it is that: ATP ranking system is comprehensive, which means it is completely self-sufficient, equally measurable, independent and official. Besides, its results are highly correlated to any plausible GOAT list ever made in this Century, which empirically gives us assurance about its accuracy on lower levels, like ATGs or simply professional players. Moreover, the best player on a season is conceded according to ATP rulebook determinants, that to say, ATP rankings do tell you who is/are the beast in the world, regardless of any expert or personal opinion.
Enjoy!
Last edited:
