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.