The Top 5 point earners at each Slam during the decade

[JennyS]

I calculated all points earned using the current ATP points system:

W: 2000
F: 1200
SF: 720
QF: 360
4R: 180
3R: 90
2R: 45
1R: 10

The top 5 point earners at each Slam for the decade

Men:

Australian Open:
1. Roger Federer: 9,180
2. Andre Agassi: 7,080
3. Marat Safin: 4,770
4. Andy Roddick: 3,375
5. Rafael Nadal: 3,350


French Open:
1. Rafael Nadal: 8,180
2. Roger Federer: 6,970
3. Juan Carlos Ferrero: 5,010
4. Gustavo Kuerten: 4,740
5. Albert Costa: 3,145


Wimbledon:
1. Roger Federer: 13,580
2. Andy Roddick: 4,995
3. Rafael Nadal: 4,535
4. Lleyton Hewitt: 4,360
5. Pete Sampras: 2,225


US Open:
1. Roger Federer: 11,830
2. Lleyton Hewitt: 6,215
3. Andy Roddick: 5,110
4. Pete Sampras: 4,400
5. Andre Agassi: 3,975

Women:
Australian Open:
1. Serena Williams: 8,990
2. Justine Henin: 4,865
3. Lindsay Davenport: 4,865
4. Maria Sharapova: 4,740
5. Jennifer Capriati: 4,730


French Open:
1. Justine Henin: 8,810
2. Svetlana Kuznetsova: 4,650
3. Serena Williams: 4,250
4. Ana Ivanovic: 3,830
5. Mary Pierce: 3,660



Wimbledon:
1. Venus Williams: 13,735
2. Serena Williams: 9,930
3. Amelie Mauresmo: 4,710
4. Justine Henin: 4,580
5. Lindsay Davenport: 4,245


US Open:
Serena Williams: 7,360
Venus Williams: 7,000
Justine Henin: 6,100
Kim Clijsters: 5,785
Svetlana Kuznetsova: 3,840

Overall, the top 5 point earners:

Men:
1. Roger Federer, Wimbledon
2. Roger Federer, US Open
3. Roger Federer, Australian Open
4. Rafael Nadal, French Open
5. Andre Agassi, Australian Open

Women:
1. Venus Williams, Wimbledon
2. Serena Williams, Wimbledon
3. Serena Williams, Australian Open
4. Justine Henin, French Open
5. Serena Williams, US Open

 

[Ripper014]

Interesting but could you recalculate those numbers based on tournaments entered...? In other words... average points per tournament. I wonder how the ratings would change if at all.

 

[kishnabe]

Thanks very interesting, must have took a few hours to complete.

 

[TMF]

To understand how remarkable Federer’s numbers are, we need to compare it with another great player(Sampras) who was the best in his decade. All Sampras’s points at the GS in the 90s are converted to the new system.


Australian Open:
1. Roger Federer: 9,180
2. Pete Sampras: 6,370

French Open:
1. Roger Federer: 6,970
2. Pete Sampras: 2,305

Wimbledon:
1. Roger Federer: 13,580
2. Pete Sampras: 13,135

US Open:
1. Roger Federer: 11,830
2. Pete Sampras: 10,640



Federer owns Sampras in all 4 GS.

Total points in one decade:
Federer = 41, 560
Sampras = 32,450

Federer earned a total of 9,110 points more than Sampras.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

To understand how remarkable Federer’s numbers are, we need to compare it with another great player(Sampras) who was the best in his decade. All Sampras’s points at the GS in the 90s are converted to the new system.


Australian Open:
1. Roger Federer: 9,180
2. Pete Sampras: 6,370

French Open:
1. Roger Federer: 6,970
2. Pete Sampras: 2,305

Wimbledon:
1. Roger Federer: 13,580
2. Pete Sampras: 13,135

US Open:
1. Roger Federer: 11,830
2. Pete Sampras: 10,640



Federer owns Sampras in all 4 GS.

Total points in one decade:
Federer = 41, 560
Sampras = 32,450

Federer earned a total of 9,110 points more than Sampras.

Thank you TMF!
Incredibly interesting stats!
And also to JennyS, very interesting thread like always

 

[MuseFan]

Sampras is totally pwned by Roger.

 

[iamke55]

To understand how remarkable Federer’s numbers are, we need to compare it with another great player(Sampras) who was the best in his decade. All Sampras’s points at the GS in the 90s are converted to the new system.


Australian Open:
1. Roger Federer: 9,180
2. Pete Sampras: 6,370

French Open:
1. Roger Federer: 6,970
2. Pete Sampras: 2,305

Wimbledon:
1. Roger Federer: 13,580
2. Pete Sampras: 13,135

US Open:
1. Roger Federer: 11,830
2. Pete Sampras: 10,640



Federer owns Sampras in all 4 GS.

Total points in one decade:
Federer = 41, 560
Sampras = 32,450

Federer earned a total of 9,110 points more than Sampras.

Vegeta, what does the scouter say about the point difference?
It's over 9000!

 

[Rhino]

To understand how remarkable Federer’s numbers are, we need to compare it with another great player(Sampras) who was the best in his decade. All Sampras’s points at the GS in the 90s are converted to the new system.


Australian Open:
1. Roger Federer: 9,180
2. Pete Sampras: 6,370

French Open:
1. Roger Federer: 6,970
2. Pete Sampras: 2,305

Wimbledon:
1. Roger Federer: 13,580
2. Pete Sampras: 13,135

US Open:
1. Roger Federer: 11,830
2. Pete Sampras: 10,640



Federer owns Sampras in all 4 GS.

Total points in one decade:
Federer = 41, 560
Sampras = 32,450

Federer earned a total of 9,110 points more than Sampras.

Nice work. Roger got lucky that Petes last Wimbledon win was in 2000 and his last US Open win was in 2002. Having said that Roger will no doubt go on to win more slams in the coming decade.

 

[JennyS]

To understand how remarkable Federer’s numbers are, we need to compare it with another great player(Sampras) who was the best in his decade. All Sampras’s points at the GS in the 90s are converted to the new system.


Australian Open:
1. Roger Federer: 9,180
2. Pete Sampras: 6,370

French Open:
1. Roger Federer: 6,970
2. Pete Sampras: 2,305

Wimbledon:
1. Roger Federer: 13,580
2. Pete Sampras: 13,135

US Open:
1. Roger Federer: 11,830
2. Pete Sampras: 10,640



Federer owns Sampras in all 4 GS.

Total points in one decade:
Federer = 41, 560
Sampras = 32,450

Federer earned a total of 9,110 points more than Sampras.

Wow, that's really interesting. Thanks for posting that!

 

[MuseFan]

Esp considering Roger & Pete are the same age at the same points in their respective decades, 9110 more points is another piece of solid evidence that Roger > Pete.

 

[JennyS]

Thank you TMF!
Incredibly interesting stats!
And also to JennyS, very interesting thread like always

Thanks!

There were a few surprises for me. I fully expected Jennifer Capriati to be ranked higher than Mary Pierce and Ana Ivanovic at the French Open, but her first round loss in 2000 cost her. Even with a title and two semis, it wasn't enough.

Also, Sampras making the top 5 of the US Open AND Wimbledon despite only playing 3 years during the decade is impressive!

 

[TMF]

Thank you TMF!
Incredibly interesting stats!
And also to JennyS, very interesting thread like always

You are welcome TheMagicianOfPrecision. And thank you to JennyS for creating this thread.

If I had time, I would of compare their atp points on all the Master Series results. Which I think Roger’s number is way ahead of Sampras, maybe the gap is even wider than the GS comparison.

 

[MuseFan]

It'll be interesting to see how well Roger does in the next decade. A top 5 would be impressive.

 

[veroniquem]

Who cares about points? It doesn't mean player X is better than Y.
For example at Wimbledon, it puts Roddick ahead of Nadal. Don't you think Roddick would gladly exchange his bunch of points for 3 consecutive finals and 1 Wimbledon title? I bet he would!
Same thing between Fed and Sampras. Don't you think Sampras'd rather have one extra title than a few extra points to match Fed?
I don't understand how anyone could derive any conclusions about a player's superiority from those points. Obviously a player winning a certain slam once will always be seen as superior to the guy making 10 semi-finals in a row, regardless of how many points that would earn him! :-?

 

[MuseFan]

Veroniquem - points are just another way of looking at the total picture. Not saying that they alone decide greatness.

 

[IvanAndreevich]

Who cares about points? It doesn't mean player X is better than Y.
For example at Wimbledon, it puts Roddick ahead of Nadal. Don't you think Roddick would gladly exchange his bunch of points for 3 consecutive finals and 1 Wimbledon title? I bet he would!
Same thing between Fed and Sampras. Don't you think Sampras'd rather have one extra title than a few extra points to match Fed?

I think the point of this comparison is to show a very high level of both achievement and consistency at the biggest tournaments. It was obvious that Federer was going to win before even doing the calculation, though.

 

[veroniquem]

Don't get me wrong. Any stats are interesting. It's great that someone calculated those. I just wanted to point out how careful one has to be in the drawing of conclusions business.

 

[MuseFan]

French Open:
1. Rafael Nadal: 8,180
2. Roger Federer: 6,970
3. Juan Carlos Ferrero: 5,010

Interesting that Roger has a bigger lead at #2 then Rafa has at #1. Mostly a reflection of Roger losing to Rafa in all those clay finals.

 

[lawrence]

Don't get me wrong. Any stats are interesting. It's great that someone calculated those. I just wanted to point out how careful one has to be in the drawing of conclusions business.

It's just one of many calculations that point toward Federer edging out Sampras in terms of achievements and their domination over their respective fields.

Although pretty much EVERYTHING goes out the window as soon as someone cries "weak era". Which is pretty stupid TBH.

 

[_maxi]

Who cares about points? It doesn't mean player X is better than Y.
For example at Wimbledon, it puts Roddick ahead of Nadal. Don't you think Roddick would gladly exchange his bunch of points for 3 consecutive finals and 1 Wimbledon title? I bet he would!
Same thing between Fed and Sampras. Don't you think Sampras'd rather have one extra title than a few extra points to match Fed?
I don't understand how anyone could derive any conclusions about a player's superiority from those points. Obviously a player winning a certain slam once will always be seen as superior to the guy making 10 semi-finals in a row, regardless of how many points that would earn him! :-?

Sampras points are only from the 90s on that stats. So Points of Wimbledon 2000,2001,2002, are not included. With thouse points, sampras would be ahead of federer.
Anyway, it would not be fair since federer at the same age had more points, thats why the decade is taken in account, and not the entire career of pete.

 

[TMF]

Sampras points are only from the 90s on that stats. So Points of Wimbledon 2000,2001,2002, are not included. With thouse points, sampras would be ahead of federer.
Anyway, it would not be fair since federer at the same age had more points, thats why the decade is taken in account, and not the entire career of pete.

It doesn't make any sense to include Sampras 2000-02 GS points since Roger is still active and we don't know how much more points Roger will accumulate by the end of 2012.

Even if you include all of Sampras GS points from 2000-02, his overall career points still fall short of Federer. He earned a total of 7,770 points from 2000-02, so taken 32,450 from the 90s and add 7770, the total is 40,220 points.

Taking Roger's 41,560 and minus 40,220, the difference is +1,340.

Even if Roger retire today, he would still be ahead by 1,340 points.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

To understand how remarkable Federer’s numbers are, we need to compare it with another great player(Sampras) who was the best in his decade. All Sampras’s points at the GS in the 90s are converted to the new system.


Australian Open:
1. Roger Federer: 9,180
2. Pete Sampras: 6,370

French Open:
1. Roger Federer: 6,970
2. Pete Sampras: 2,305

Wimbledon:
1. Roger Federer: 13,580
2. Pete Sampras: 13,135

US Open:
1. Roger Federer: 11,830
2. Pete Sampras: 10,640



Federer owns Sampras in all 4 GS.

Total points in one decade:
Federer = 41, 560
Sampras = 32,450

Federer earned a total of 9,110 points more than Sampras.

I couldn't give a crap about those numbers, Sampras is the king of Wimbledon and always will be.

 

[TMF]

I couldn't give a crap about those numbers, Sampras is the king of Wimbledon and always will be.

I know, you are good at ignoring FACTS(and ex-players opinions).

 

[Cyan]

Sampras is the king of Wimbledon and always will be.

Well, he never lost a Wimby final and won his Wimbies all on real grass. So yeah.

 

[TMF]

Well, he never lost a Wimby final and won his Wimbies all on real grass. So yeah.

Hmm.....I didn't know they use fake grass in this era.

 

[tudwell]

Well, he never lost a Wimby final and won his Wimbies all on real grass. So yeah.

He never lost a Wimby final because he lost in the quarters to one-slam wonder Krajicek. Yeah, that's really impressive. :roll:

 

[_maxi]

Well, he never lost a Wimby final and won his Wimbies all on real grass. So yeah.

Well, federer wasn't allowed to play in real grass in his peak, no?

And he showed that he had the guns to win in real grass anyway (2001)