Gini Coefficient for Tennis [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Gini Coefficient for Tennis

NoFroz
03-28-2011, 09:35 PM
Gini Coefficient is the most widely used indicator of economic inequality (and a quite basic one). To see how it works enter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient. The coefficient goes from 0 to 1, with 0 meaning perfect equality and 1 perfect inequality.

I've compiled a Gini for top 10 ranks of last 15 years. Looks like this:

2010 0,261
2009 0,231
2008 0,27
2007 0,279
2006 0,243
2005 0,214
2004 0,204
2003 0,196
2002 0,13
2001 0,139
2000 0,131
1999 0,14
1998 0,086
1997 0,11
1996 0,142
1995 0,173



As you can see the "inequality" is on the rise since 1998 (only significant decline was in 2009 when we had, arguably, a solid top 5).

Just toying with tennis, stats and econ, I guess. Mixing career interest with hobbies.

GlennMirnyi
03-29-2011, 07:26 AM
Gini Coefficient is the most widely used indicator of economic inequality (and a quite basic one). To see how it works enter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient. The coefficient goes from 0 to 1, with 0 meaning perfect equality and 1 perfect inequality.

I've compiled a Gini for top 10 ranks of last 15 years. Looks like this:

2010 0,261
2009 0,231
2008 0,27
2007 0,279
2006 0,243
2005 0,214
2004 0,204
2003 0,196
2002 0,13
2001 0,139
2000 0,131
1999 0,14
1998 0,086
1997 0,11
1996 0,142
1995 0,173



As you can see the "inequality" is on the rise since 1998 (only significant decline was in 2009 when we had, arguably, a solid top 5).

Just toying with tennis, stats and econ, I guess. Mixing career interest with hobbies.

Considering you can't use income, what did you use? Ranking points?

Great way of showing how weak this era is.

pienet
03-29-2011, 11:48 AM
Do you have similar figures for the top100? I'm a bit curious to see the impact of the ranking points repartition decided at the end of 2008.

Otherwise this reflects the fact that since 2005 we've always had 2-3 dominant players way above the rest of the top10. Not necessarily the sign of a weak era, just that Federer, Nadal (and now Djokovic) have been much better than the rest of the field. Already in 2004 Federer had almost double as much points as Roddick.

GlennMirnyi
03-29-2011, 05:06 PM
Do you have similar figures for the top100? I'm a bit curious to see the impact of the ranking points repartition decided at the end of 2008.

Otherwise this reflects the fact that since 2005 we've always had 2-3 dominant players way above the rest of the top10. Not necessarily the sign of a weak era, just that Federer, Nadal (and now Djokovic) have been much better than the rest of the field. Already in 2004 Federer had almost double as much points as Roddick.

Very weak era.

They're nothing special as players.