Open era rankings based on current ATP point weighting
Djokovic keeps marching on and on!
Like to see us talk about Slams + Season end finals + masters 1000* rather than just Slams, when it comes to evaluating players Open era careers. The season end finals is now a tournament with a rich and strong tradition with great depth of players (over 40 years and top 8 respectively) and the masters 1000's or equivalents * pre-1990 had very deep fields. Also there is the WCT finals to consider.
I have only included tournaments of Masters 1000 equivalency and greater to take away the discussion about the depth of field, in particularly the smaller events, that the older players had to deal with vs today. The thinking is that if we only consider these tournaments of top value then that goes someway to levelling the playing field. The only entries marked down are where the player would have earned at least 1000 points (in today's ranking parlance). This is a significant achievement and hence needs to be 'in the mix' when considering the achievements of the Open era greats.
* With regard to Masters 1000's I have decided instead to use the term 'Top 9' titles. Currently the Masters 1000 series represents the top 9 titles outside of Slams and Season end finals. Historically (certainly pre-2000) there wasn't an exact match to today's Masters 1000's but I thought that it would be entirely useful, and reasonable, to talk about the top 9 titles, in any one particular year, outside of the Slams and the Season end finals (WTF (ATP), WCT Finals (WCT), Grand Slam Cup (ITF)). Even though I don't believe there was such a thing as the 'Championship series' from 1970 - the following link I believe is a credible list of the 'Top 9' events outside of the Slams and Season end finals, from year to year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics
So how to go somewhere to creating a level playing field between current players who tend to play 4 slams a year vs older players of the 70's and early 80's who tended to play only 3 slams a year? Players pre-mid 1985 tended to only play 3 Slams a year versus players today playing 4. There is also the other issue of the WCT finals which was a very important event and the need to include it. Winning it was a great achievement and that fact shouldn't be lost in Open era history. (I have included the Grand Slam cup in the same reasoning - because having seen a lot of them , I know how hard the players fought to win it and the high level of the competition). Having said that, players shouldn't get 6 events (Slams + WTF + (WCT Finals or Grand Slam Cup)) + Top 9 title events, where they can gain points in this methodology, because that would be unfair to modern players who only get 5 events (Slams + WTF) + Masters 1000's where they can gain points. The solution proposed is to ONLY include Dallas or Munich if a player who won the WCT finals or Grand Slam Cup didn't play all the slams in that year. That way the modern players are not disadvantaged. So for example, Lendl's 1982 WCT finals win gets included because he didn't play all the slams that year but his 1985 win doesn't get included because he played all the slams that year. In McEnroe's case only 4 out of 5 of his WCT finals get included as he played all the slams in 1983 when he won the 1983 Dallas event. Becker in 1988 didn't play in all the slams but he did win the WCT finals (over Edberg), as was the case with Connors in 1977 and 1980 and Borg in 1976. I have applied the same rules to the Grand Slam Cup. The only two players who gets ranking benefit for that event is Sampras in 1990 as he didn't play the French Open that year (his win in 1997 isn't included because he played all the Slams that year) and Becker in 1996 (since he missed the French and US Opens). Note: There is no overlap between the WCT finals (1970's/1980's) and the Grand Slam Cup (1990's) so this consideration is robust.
There is another way for a player today to earn 1000 or more points other than Masters 1000 win, Grand Slam runner-up, WTF win or Slam win. That is to be runner-up at the season end finals without losing a round robin match. For that a player receives 1000 points. Hence, I have only included WTF runner-up's when they didn't lose any matches prior to the final.
Weightings & Including events in the rankings
----------------------------------------------------------
Slams + WTF's & WCT finals/Grand Slam Cups (only if the player didn't play all the Slams that year) + WTF's runner-up's (only if the player didn't lose before the final) & WCT finals/Grand Slam Cups runner-ups' (only if the player didn't play all the Slams that year) + Losing Finals in Slams + Top 9 event wins, with a weighting factor depending on the importance of the event ie 2 x for slams, 1.5 or 1.3 for Season end finals **, Season end final runner-ups with no losses prior x 1 ****, 1.2 for Losing slam finals, 1 x for Top 9 Events
** I weight the Season end finals at 1.5 ie 1500 points if there was no loss by the winner of the tournament. And 1.3 ie 1300 points, if there was 1 round robin loss by the tournament winner. The reason for this is that not all of the Masters Cup winners won the tournament in an unbeaten fashion. For instance 1 of Federer's 6 wins he lost a match in the round robin. In 2001 Hewitt was an unbeaten winner but as the 2002 winner he lost one round robin match. Note: No one, in the entire history of the WTF, has lost more than 1 match and gone on to win the tournament. For those WCT Finals and Grand Slam Cup winners - weight at 1.5. (As mentioned above, these latter two events are only included if the winner didn't play all the slams in the year they won the event)
NOTE: You may disagree with the weightings. But remember these are not my weightings. They are the present ATP weightings for tournaments. Every time I post these rankings using these weightings people disagree with them, which of course they have a right to do. The problem is, how can we come to an agreement about them with so many opinions? We can't of course. The best I can do is just use the current ATP weightings.
Calculations (reduced by a factor of 1000) - Slams wins + Season end final wins (with no round robin losses)+ Season end final wins (with 1 round robin loss) + Season end final runner-ups (only if no round robin losses) + Slam runner-ups + Top 9:
Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (23 x 1) = 78.6
Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) = 64.2
Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) = 62.2
Djokovic = (9 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) = 57.4
Sampras = (14 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 52.8
McEnroe = (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + ((1 + 3) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 52.3
Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + 2) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) = 50.3
Connors = (8 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 46.7
Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 44.7
Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 41.7
Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 28.3
Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 26.8
**** Of the player on the list, the times they made the WCT Finals final match and then lost the final, but didn't compete in all of the slams that year (have this criteria to be fair to modern players who have less top events to score points from - see above notes) were:
McEnroe - WCT Finals - 1980, 1982, 1987
Borg - WCT Finals - 1975, 1979
Connors - WCT Finals - 1984
Becker - WCT Finals -1986 (the Australian Open wasn't held that year)
Regarding the Grand Slam Cup - Only two of the players under consideration, in this list, show up as Runner-ups - Sampras in 1994 and Agassi in 1998. However, in those years both of them competed in all of the Slams - so we won't include.
Djokovic keeps marching on and on!
Like to see us talk about Slams + Season end finals + masters 1000* rather than just Slams, when it comes to evaluating players Open era careers. The season end finals is now a tournament with a rich and strong tradition with great depth of players (over 40 years and top 8 respectively) and the masters 1000's or equivalents * pre-1990 had very deep fields. Also there is the WCT finals to consider.
I have only included tournaments of Masters 1000 equivalency and greater to take away the discussion about the depth of field, in particularly the smaller events, that the older players had to deal with vs today. The thinking is that if we only consider these tournaments of top value then that goes someway to levelling the playing field. The only entries marked down are where the player would have earned at least 1000 points (in today's ranking parlance). This is a significant achievement and hence needs to be 'in the mix' when considering the achievements of the Open era greats.
* With regard to Masters 1000's I have decided instead to use the term 'Top 9' titles. Currently the Masters 1000 series represents the top 9 titles outside of Slams and Season end finals. Historically (certainly pre-2000) there wasn't an exact match to today's Masters 1000's but I thought that it would be entirely useful, and reasonable, to talk about the top 9 titles, in any one particular year, outside of the Slams and the Season end finals (WTF (ATP), WCT Finals (WCT), Grand Slam Cup (ITF)). Even though I don't believe there was such a thing as the 'Championship series' from 1970 - the following link I believe is a credible list of the 'Top 9' events outside of the Slams and Season end finals, from year to year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics
So how to go somewhere to creating a level playing field between current players who tend to play 4 slams a year vs older players of the 70's and early 80's who tended to play only 3 slams a year? Players pre-mid 1985 tended to only play 3 Slams a year versus players today playing 4. There is also the other issue of the WCT finals which was a very important event and the need to include it. Winning it was a great achievement and that fact shouldn't be lost in Open era history. (I have included the Grand Slam cup in the same reasoning - because having seen a lot of them , I know how hard the players fought to win it and the high level of the competition). Having said that, players shouldn't get 6 events (Slams + WTF + (WCT Finals or Grand Slam Cup)) + Top 9 title events, where they can gain points in this methodology, because that would be unfair to modern players who only get 5 events (Slams + WTF) + Masters 1000's where they can gain points. The solution proposed is to ONLY include Dallas or Munich if a player who won the WCT finals or Grand Slam Cup didn't play all the slams in that year. That way the modern players are not disadvantaged. So for example, Lendl's 1982 WCT finals win gets included because he didn't play all the slams that year but his 1985 win doesn't get included because he played all the slams that year. In McEnroe's case only 4 out of 5 of his WCT finals get included as he played all the slams in 1983 when he won the 1983 Dallas event. Becker in 1988 didn't play in all the slams but he did win the WCT finals (over Edberg), as was the case with Connors in 1977 and 1980 and Borg in 1976. I have applied the same rules to the Grand Slam Cup. The only two players who gets ranking benefit for that event is Sampras in 1990 as he didn't play the French Open that year (his win in 1997 isn't included because he played all the Slams that year) and Becker in 1996 (since he missed the French and US Opens). Note: There is no overlap between the WCT finals (1970's/1980's) and the Grand Slam Cup (1990's) so this consideration is robust.
There is another way for a player today to earn 1000 or more points other than Masters 1000 win, Grand Slam runner-up, WTF win or Slam win. That is to be runner-up at the season end finals without losing a round robin match. For that a player receives 1000 points. Hence, I have only included WTF runner-up's when they didn't lose any matches prior to the final.
Weightings & Including events in the rankings
----------------------------------------------------------
Slams + WTF's & WCT finals/Grand Slam Cups (only if the player didn't play all the Slams that year) + WTF's runner-up's (only if the player didn't lose before the final) & WCT finals/Grand Slam Cups runner-ups' (only if the player didn't play all the Slams that year) + Losing Finals in Slams + Top 9 event wins, with a weighting factor depending on the importance of the event ie 2 x for slams, 1.5 or 1.3 for Season end finals **, Season end final runner-ups with no losses prior x 1 ****, 1.2 for Losing slam finals, 1 x for Top 9 Events
** I weight the Season end finals at 1.5 ie 1500 points if there was no loss by the winner of the tournament. And 1.3 ie 1300 points, if there was 1 round robin loss by the tournament winner. The reason for this is that not all of the Masters Cup winners won the tournament in an unbeaten fashion. For instance 1 of Federer's 6 wins he lost a match in the round robin. In 2001 Hewitt was an unbeaten winner but as the 2002 winner he lost one round robin match. Note: No one, in the entire history of the WTF, has lost more than 1 match and gone on to win the tournament. For those WCT Finals and Grand Slam Cup winners - weight at 1.5. (As mentioned above, these latter two events are only included if the winner didn't play all the slams in the year they won the event)
NOTE: You may disagree with the weightings. But remember these are not my weightings. They are the present ATP weightings for tournaments. Every time I post these rankings using these weightings people disagree with them, which of course they have a right to do. The problem is, how can we come to an agreement about them with so many opinions? We can't of course. The best I can do is just use the current ATP weightings.
Calculations (reduced by a factor of 1000) - Slams wins + Season end final wins (with no round robin losses)+ Season end final wins (with 1 round robin loss) + Season end final runner-ups (only if no round robin losses) + Slam runner-ups + Top 9:
Federer = (17 x 2) + (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (23 x 1) = 78.6
Nadal = (14 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (6 x 1.2) + (27 x 1) = 64.2
Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) = 62.2
Djokovic = (9 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) = 57.4
Sampras = (14 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 52.8
McEnroe = (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.5)) + (0 x 1.3) + ((1 + 3) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 52.3
Borg = (11 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (1 x 1.3) + ((1 + 2) x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) = 50.3
Connors = (8 x 2) + (2 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 46.7
Agassi = (8 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (2 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 44.7
Becker = (6 x 2) + ((1 + 1) x 1.5)) + (3 x 1.3) + ((4 + 1) x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 41.7
Edberg = (6 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (1 x 1) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 28.3
Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 26.8
**** Of the player on the list, the times they made the WCT Finals final match and then lost the final, but didn't compete in all of the slams that year (have this criteria to be fair to modern players who have less top events to score points from - see above notes) were:
McEnroe - WCT Finals - 1980, 1982, 1987
Borg - WCT Finals - 1975, 1979
Connors - WCT Finals - 1984
Becker - WCT Finals -1986 (the Australian Open wasn't held that year)
Regarding the Grand Slam Cup - Only two of the players under consideration, in this list, show up as Runner-ups - Sampras in 1994 and Agassi in 1998. However, in those years both of them competed in all of the Slams - so we won't include.
Last edited:
