Thanks timnz.
Updated Open era tournament achievement rankings at current ATP weightings
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
Thanks timnz.
Djokovic made some amazing progress this year
Now on 50.2
Djokovic moving up!
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_...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) + (8 x 1.2) + (23 x 1) = 77.4
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
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
Djokovic = (8 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (20 x 1) = 50.2
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
Now on 50.2
Djokovic moving up!
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_...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) + (8 x 1.2) + (23 x 1) = 77.4
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
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
Djokovic = (8 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (20 x 1) = 50.2
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
Last edited:
My bad....I just woke up.
Supertegwyn
Hall of Fame
I'm going to be bold and say that Federer ends on 80 and Djokovic on 69. Get back to me when Djokovic retires.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
But you haven't included his IW win yet timnz! :|
I did (what did you want to bring attention to?
)Djokovic = (8 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 51.2
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I did (what did you want to bring attention to?
Djokovic = (8 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 51.2
Yep, my mistake. I was looking at the table on this page rather than the first one.
Apologies!
Yep, my mistake. I was looking at the table on this page rather than the first one.
Apologies!
No Problem - thanks for looking!
I thought the latest movement might create some controversy given that he has moved ahead of Borg.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
What's also interesting is that the gap between Nole and Nadal is slightly smaller than the one between Nadal and Federer.
You can bet your bottom dollar than certain Rafans won't be best pleased about that! :grin:
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
Borg being below McEnroe and Lendl makes this metric invalid. I'm not even sure that he is below Sampras.
Bud
Bionic Poster
The algorithm should account for years played from first to last significant title. That would push Borg up a bit. What he achieved was incredible for the length of time he played.
It's pretty fair as far as achievements.
I am curious as to your reasons ie why do you put Borg about McEnroe and Lendl? Because of slam titles perhaps? - all of them are already listed in the formula. So slams counts have already been recognized. Or is it by some of criteria?
Remember this isn't a list rating 'Greatness' (a subjective concept), rather it is an attempt to simply list Players top level achievements (equivalent to today's Masters 1000 wins and greater) weighted at current ATP weightings. So it is objective in that sense. It is what it is. The players have achieved what I have listed.
Last edited:
I don't think length of time to impact the rankings much - see below.
Significant achievement in this scheme goes from Masters 10000/Season end final runner-up through to slam winner. I will list the first and last years below:
Federer 2003 Wimbledon through to 2014 WTF runnerup 11.5 years
Nadal 2005 French Open through to 2014 French Open 9 years
Lendl 1980 WTF runner-up - 1991 Australian Open 11 years
Sampras 1990 US Open - 2002 US Open 12 years
McEnroe 1978 Masters through to 1989 WCT Finals 10.33 years
Djokovic 2007 US Open - 2014 Australian Open 6.4 years
Borg 1974 WCT Finals runner-up - 1981 French Open 7 years
Connors 1974 Australian Open - 1984 Wimbledon runner-up 10.5 years
Agassi - 1990 French Open runner-up to 2005 US Open runner-up 15.25 years
Becker - 1985 Wimbledon to 1996 Grand Slam Cup 11.5 years
Edberg - 1985 Australian Open to 1993 Australian Open runner-up 8 years
Wilander - 1982 French Open to 1988 US Open 6.25 years
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
I see, my apologies for not being aware of the main purpose of this list.
Regarding the formula, it ignores the fact that the importance/popularity of the tournaments has changed throughout the tennis history. It's a known fact that the Australian Open wasn't as popular as the other Majors (compared to today when all the Majors have the same weight), so players simply hadn't considered it as their top priority tournament - at least until 1983. This affects Borg's, Connors' and, to some extent, McEnroe's rankings on the list.
Furthermore, although it was before my time, I believe that the exhibitions were very popular back then, so some players simply chose to play an exhibition and take fair amount of money instead of playing in some of the biggest tournaments (i.e. Borg chose to play World Team Tennis, making himself ineligible for the FO in 1977). Maybe you should consider to include these results in your algorithm.
Also, were the Top 9 mandatory tournaments like today and did they have the same weight as today's Masters?
The main problem I have with comparing across the eras is that the popularity of the tournaments is completely ignored. What is the main goal for today's players (all for Majors, for example) wasn't or might not be the goal for the guys who played 30 years ago.
powerangle
Legend
I appreciate your lists timnz.
But didn't you state that you're including anything from M1000 (wins) and up? So for your Djokovic example, shouldn't you include the time range starting from his Miami 2007 win? Instead of starting from USO 2007 runner-up...
I'm sure this could be applied to other players as well...
Yes, you are right! - apologies.
Having said that - the way the ranking is designed - it is just to look at high level tournament achievements. I don't factor in longevity - there are people who take differing views on the value of it. Some see winning 5 of Slams in a row as being a superior result than winning 5 slams over a 10 year period. You could argue either way as to what was superior. I am just trying to give an objective list of top level tournament achievements weighted at current ATP weightings.
It doesn't ignore that fact at all. Please see posting 1 in this thread where I detail how that very fact of the AO being not as valued in the past is handled in this ranking system (basically I add in WCT Finals/Grand Slam Cup wins and runner-ups IF a player didn't play 4 slams in a year).
re. Top 9 tournaments. Yes, they are different since 2000 when they were made compulsory. In 1990 they identified a list of tournaments and called them the super 9 but didn't make them compulsory and also didn't make them the only tournaments with that level of prize money or points. It is only since 1996 where they have been the top level tournaments in prize money and points (outside of the slams and the various season end finals). Lendl only competed in 2 out of the 9 Masters 1000's in 1990 (because he competed in other tournaments with equal points and prize money because they weren't compulsory). So hardly a level playing field. So any comparison between pre-2000 and post-2000 is tricky. But what can you do? It is what it is. To ignore Top 9 wins though excludes an important part of their career. I am working on including a defacto Top 9 list (non-Masters 1000 wins at tournaments of the same level) - but it is somewhat problematic. FYI Sampras gets 4 more wins so goes from 11 to 15, Agassi gets 2 more so goes from 17 to 19. But as I say, there are other problems with that. The main issue is that they weren't compulsory attendance so the depth of the field is less than today.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 512391
Guest
Thank you, timnz. I missed the first post and was referring to the one in which there was no explanation. Now it all makes sense.
Honestly, I completely ignored the valid assumption that the depth of the field is much bigger in the mandatory tournaments. This gave me an idea, maybe you should introduce another parameter (weight of the tournament competition) which would take into consideration the quality of the players (based on the players rankings at the time) combined with the values you already have for every tournament.
Also, for those older generations, maybe you should include the exhibition tournaments.
Anti-Fedal
Professional
Djokovic has surpassed Sampras.
Djokovic is powering ahead
Djokovic only 2 years ago was in the Becker/Edberg/Wilander pack. Now he is encroaching on the Lendl territory.
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 = (8 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) = 54.2
Djokovic only 2 years ago was in the Becker/Edberg/Wilander pack. Now he is encroaching on the Lendl territory.
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 = (8 x 2) + (3 x 1.5) + (1 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (7 x 1.2) + (24 x 1) = 54.2
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
Tim - great work on this thread. Huge fan. Could I please request that you run the numbers for Djokovic in the hypothetical scenario I lay out in this thread.
Would be good to compare that to Nadal's career! I'll put this in the OP.
Thanks so much.
Would be good to compare that to Nadal's career! I'll put this in the OP.
Thanks so much.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Very, very interesting and probably the single best way to compare across time I've seen. Nothing is perfect but I like this approach.
The only comment I'd make is that this approach rewards consistency over intensity. A player that over many years wins tier 1 events will rank very highly in this approach even if he is never number 1. Maybe that's the best way to look at tennis achievements?
The only comment I'd make is that this approach rewards consistency over intensity. A player that over many years wins tier 1 events will rank very highly in this approach even if he is never number 1. Maybe that's the best way to look at tennis achievements?
Thanks for your comments. You are absolutely right. This system is to measure Open era players career achievement. It doesn't speak to peak form at all (if peak form is what you mean by 'intensity'). If you don't mind me giving my opinion - peak form is hard to measure. Is the period of time to measure higher peak - over 3 years; over 1 year; over 1 match? (I'd rate Lew Hoad as the highest peak over 1 match).
There are still some refinements coming to the system, particularly in the arena of the 'Top 9' events. They are the hardest part - because the area has changed so much over time - non-compulsory over all Open era except 2000 onwards. Even when the 'Masters 1000' were identified in 1990, there were many other events of equal prize money and points that players could select instead of the Masters 1000. For example Lendl only played 2 out of the 9 Masters 1000's in 1990.
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
It will be pretty crazy when he does and Fed, Nadal, Djoker are top 3 despite all continuously taking achievements away from each other.
Supertegwyn
Hall of Fame
Update?
This thread has been replaced by the 'Revised Updated Open era rankings thread.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...ng-system-using-current-atp-weighting.539099/
Last edited:
Supertegwyn
Hall of Fame
Similar threads
