Rethinking the rankings: Current Top Ten and Greatest of Open Era [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Rethinking the rankings: Current Top Ten and Greatest of Open Era

MisterQ
11-13-2004, 06:03 PM
This is an interesting site! The rankings he comes up with are very different from conventional wisdom, that's for sure, especially when it comes to Greatest of the Open Era.

http://www.setratings.com/

CURRENT TOP TEN:

1 Federer, R. (SUI ) 2440
2 Roddick, A. (USA ) 2220
3 Hewitt, L. (AUS ) 2216
4 Agassi, A. (USA ) 2150
5 Safin, M. (RUS ) 2133
6 Henman, T. (GBR ) 2099
7 Coria, G. (ARG ) 2083
8 Kiefer, N. (GER ) 2081
9 Haas, T. (GER ) 2075
10 Canas, G. (ARG ) 2070


GREATEST OF OPEN ERA:

1 McEnroe, J. (USA ) 2543
2 Borg, B. (SWE ) 2456
3 Federer, R. (SUI ) 2440
4 Lendl, I. (USA ) 2432
5 Agassi, A. (USA ) 2396
6 Sampras, P. (USA ) 2395
7 Connors, J. (USA ) 2382
8 Becker, B. (GER ) 2380
9 Wilander, M. (SWE ) 2365
10 Edberg, S. (SWE ) 2358
11 Courier, J. (USA ) 2349
12 Roddick, A. (USA ) 2334
13 Bruguera, S. (ESP ) 2326
14 Muster, T. (AUT ) 2324
15 Korda, P. (CZE ) 2294
16 Kuerten, G. (BRA ) 2292
17 Hewitt, L. (AUS ) 2292
18 Stich, M. (GER ) 2285
19 Rafter, P. (AUS ) 2285
20 Ferrero, J. (ESP ) 2284
21 Vilas, G. (ARG ) 2281
22 Kafelnikov, Y. (RUS ) 2277
23 Safin, M. (RUS ) 2272
24 Gaudio, G. (ARG ) 2264
25 Chang, M. (USA ) 2260
26 Rios, M. (CHI ) 2249
27 Ivanisevic, G. (CRO ) 2248
28 Mecir, M. (CZE ) 2241
29 Coria, G. (ARG ) 2236
30 Noah, Y. (FRA ) 2230
31 Orantes, M. (ESP ) 2225
32 Cash, P. (AUS ) 2224
33 Ashe, A. (USA ) 2214
34 Clerc, J. (ARG ) 2203
35 Costa, A. (ESP ) 2202
36 Rusedski, G. (GBR ) 2201
37 Gerulaitis, V. (USA ) 2198
38 Krajicek, R. (NED ) 2193
39 Gomez, A. (ECU ) 2192
40 Nalbandian, D. (ARG ) 2192
41 Martin, T. (USA ) 2191
42 Enqvist, T. (SWE ) 2190
43 Moya, C. (ESP ) 2189
44 Bjorkman, J. (SWE ) 2184
45 Gottfried, B. (USA ) 2181
46 Mayer, G. (USA ) 2180
47 Philippoussis, M. (AUS ) 2180
48 Corretja, A. (ESP ) 2179
49 Nystrom, J. (SWE ) 2178
50 Johansson, T. (SWE ) 2178

Rogiman
11-13-2004, 06:06 PM
Rusedski # 36 in history of tennis :lol:

Rogiman
11-13-2004, 06:08 PM
:smash: Glaudio 24

TheBoiledEgg
11-13-2004, 06:18 PM
how the hell is Duckboy #12 :rolleyes:

Kuerten, Hewitt, Rafter, Kafelnikov and many many more have done greater.
Duckboy's only claim to fame is the #1 yr end rank last yr, and his biased programming to give him the US Open :o

Crazy_Fool
11-13-2004, 06:18 PM
Hmmmm...

Crazy_Fool
11-13-2004, 06:19 PM
how the hell is Duckboy #12 :rolleyes:

Kuerten, Hewitt, Rafter, Kafelnikov and many many more have done greater.
Duckboy's only claim to fame is the #1 yr end rank last yr, and his biased programming to give him the US Open :o
True, but why is federer 4th all time?

Rogiman
11-13-2004, 06:21 PM
Even truer!

TheBoiledEgg
11-13-2004, 06:23 PM
and McEnroe #1 :rolleyes: thats even worse :o

TheBoiledEgg
11-13-2004, 06:24 PM
Did Pat McEnroe make this ??????????

on the looks of things he probably did.

Rogiman
11-13-2004, 06:31 PM
If Rusedski makes the list any ATP player can make a legitimate claim... :tape:

TheBoiledEgg
11-13-2004, 06:33 PM
and why is Carlos Moya down at #43 :rolleyes:
he's done a heck of alot more than half of those there.

Crazy_Fool
11-13-2004, 06:34 PM
I took it seriously for 2 minutes then...

Deboogle!.
11-13-2004, 06:39 PM
Interesting, thanks for sharing, Q!

So here's how they determine it... http://www.setratings.com/article.php?art_id=5 unique theory, anyway.

MisterQ
11-13-2004, 06:55 PM
Some of the results made me raise an eyebrow, too. However, they are rigorous in the sense that they are derived from a single system (the author's personal opinion is involved only in the contruction of the system, not in any specific choices of players.) One can certainly argue with the system, though.

Wulfram
11-13-2004, 07:29 PM
Note that the "Greatest of Open Era" ranking is attempting to measure peak ability rather than the more normal achievement over a career. Which makes ranking McEnroe 1st not unreasonable, though some of the others are wierd.

*Ljubica*
11-13-2004, 08:23 PM
Definately weird....but interesting..........thanks for sharing MisterQ.

Sjengster
11-13-2004, 09:07 PM
If Rusedski makes the list any ATP player can make a legitimate claim... :tape:

Here we go again. It's not my intention to be Rusedski's chief apologist, but he has made a Slam final, reached no. 4 in the world, won 14 titles overall including a TMS and the Grand Slam Cup... he undoubtedly deserves to be in the Top 50, although whether he should be above some of the other players in that list is highly doubtful.

The problem with "peak ability" is that it's too subjective, just because Federer has had an extraordinary 2004 you can't seriously rank him above Agassi and Sampras. The whole point about determining a player's standing in the game is to look at their career as a whole and see what their overall level was, not just the moment they shone brightest. I'll bet Andres Gomez played a match some time in his career that was so good he could have beaten anyone else in the history of tennis, but that doesn't make him one of the best of all time.

TennisLurker
11-13-2004, 09:34 PM
exactly wulfram, this ranking considers the player with the highest ammount of points in a one year period as the best ever, and it is hard to top 1984 mcenroe.

TennisLurker
11-13-2004, 09:35 PM
Mister Q, do you lurk in tennis warehouse discussion or worldcrossing?

;)

MisterQ
11-13-2004, 09:48 PM
Mister Q, do you lurk in tennis warehouse discussion or worldcrossing?

;)

I actually don't lurk anywhere but here and WTAW. I came across http://www.tennis-forum.net/tennis/ today though and read through some threads. :)

propi
11-14-2004, 12:23 PM
and why is Carlos Moya down at #43 :rolleyes:
he's done a heck of alot more than half of those there.
At least much better than Todd Martin :smash:
and how can Moya be so low on the clay court classification?? even worse than McEnroe :rolleyes:
Pretty biased system :rolleyes:

FryslanBoppe
11-14-2004, 12:27 PM
Very interesting for sure and something to cause debate and that's a good thing.

How is Corretja #48. He won a TMC, reached 2 RG finals, won 5 TMS events and he only barely made the top 50.

Roddick at 12, hmm and Gaudio #24 now that's a funny joke. I think Gaudio might be about 20 places too high and that could easily the same for Roddick.

RPH
11-14-2004, 01:59 PM
Coria #29 :eek: :mad: :o :( :fiery: :spit: :bs:
Shouldn't be in the top 100 :rolleyes:

Johannson and Gaudio in the list :rolleyes: :tape

McEnroe #1 :worship: :worship: :bowdown:
Rusedski in the list :haha: :haha: :lol: :rolls: :D ;)

Why is Roddick #12 when he has won 1 slam and reached 1 other final like Moya and yet 31 places higher :o

*rigged* ;)

liptea
11-14-2004, 07:07 PM
Coria #29 :eek: :mad: :o :( :fiery: :spit: :bs:
Shouldn't be in the top 100 :rolleyes:

Why is Roddick #12 when he has won 1 slam and reached 1 other final like Moya and yet 31 places higher :o

*rigged* ;)

It seems so strange. And if we look at Masters Series, Moya should have the same amount as Roddick, and has reached a year-end final.

If you look at his predictions for Masters Cup, they're even stranger.

jtipson
11-14-2004, 07:27 PM
These rankings are based on the quality of opposition that a player beats or loses to. There is a slight bias for slam matches. So it is not surprising that if you compare these lists with a players "achievements" in terms of titles won etc, there'll be a big difference.

It's not without faults, but it's an interesting system :)

Pea
11-14-2004, 07:42 PM
rolls@rodduck being at 12.

jtipson
11-14-2004, 07:50 PM
exactly wulfram, this ranking considers the player with the highest ammount of points in a one year period as the best ever, and it is hard to top 1984 mcenroe.

It's the highest number of points at any particular point in time, rather than a particular year.

WyveN
11-15-2004, 02:49 AM
It's the highest number of points at any particular point in time, rather than a particular year.

This might be a good way to determine "best ever" at peak in which case Macenroe could very well be at #1 but its a crazy way to compare whole careers.

Vladimir Poutine
11-15-2004, 02:50 AM
Too many flaws in this system and Roddick at # 12 is puzzling, and Guga who has won 3 Slams a TMC as a few TMS titles is lower.

Mr_Molik
11-15-2004, 08:10 AM
gaudio :tape: the only way he'll make the history books is for the number 1 fluke of all time :tape:

Lalitha
11-15-2004, 08:19 AM
What a joke!

Mr_Molik
11-15-2004, 08:19 AM
roddick at 12 is laughable :haha:

Aphex
11-15-2004, 09:48 AM
I thought the Open era started in 1968. Rod Laver won the Grand Slam in 69. So why isn't he on the list?

Horatio Caine
11-15-2004, 10:13 AM
A very strange system.

chris whiteside
11-15-2004, 10:26 AM
I thought the Open era started in 1968. Rod Laver won the Grand Slam in 69. So why isn't he on the list?

Good point. Maybe they really mean from when computer rankings started because how could he otherwise be left out when winning the four Slams in a year?

jtipson
11-15-2004, 11:46 AM
I think Daniel has been adding data from the 1970s, but it is possible that there is not enough information available from that far back (beginning of the Open Era and several years before) to enable him to rate Laver and his contemporaries.

Aphex
11-15-2004, 12:09 PM
ELO system :confused:
Glicko system :confused:
Too much advanced info :explode:

KarstenBraasch#1
11-15-2004, 06:25 PM
Becker ahead of Edberg = great system :)

Lee
11-15-2004, 06:47 PM
Some of the results made me raise an eyebrow, too. However, they are rigorous in the sense that they are derived from a single system (the author's personal opinion is involved only in the contruction of the system, not in any specific choices of players.) One can certainly argue with the system, though.

The author's personal opinion in the construction of the system definitely affects the outcome. Yes, you can't argue with the system but how the parameters in the formulae the system used are set.

And from the outcome, lots of people see that it's a bit biased towards certain direction.