The top 25 players of the TMS era (1990-present) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The top 25 players of the TMS era (1990-present)

Purple Rainbow
10-30-2006, 11:12 AM
1) Pete Sampras, USA
2) Andre Agassi, USA
3) Roger Federer, SUI
4) Jim Courier, USA
5) Boris Becker, GER
6) Yevgeny Kafelnikov, RUS
7) Stefan Edberg, SWE
8) Lleyton Hewitt, AUS
9) Michael Chang, USA
10) Goran Ivanisevic, CRO

11) Tomas Muster, AUT
12) Andy Roddick, USA
13) Gustavo Kuerten, BRA
14) Marat Safin, RUS
15) Richard Krajicek, NET
16) Carlos Moya, ESP
17) Michael Stich, GER
18) Patrick Rafter, AUS
19) Juan Carlos Ferrero, ESP
20) Tim Henman, GBR

21) Wayne Ferreira, RSA
22) Marcelo Rios, CHI
23) Sergi Bruguera, ESP
24) Alex Corretja, ESP
25) Todd Martin, USA

Check my thread in the statistcs section for a full list and for the methodology of compiling this list.
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=89043

What do you guys think. Does this give a good refelction of the state of tennis since 1990?

AnnaK_4ever
10-30-2006, 11:44 AM
IMO
It's strange to see Kafelnikov who never won Masters titles ahead of Hewitt, Kuerten and Safin who all have much more significant wins and have been ranked at No. 1 for longer than him.
Kafelnikov - 2 GS, 0 Masters Cup, 0 Masters, No 1 for 6 weeks
Hewitt - 2 GS, 2 Masters Cup, 2 Masters, No. 1 for 80 weeks
Kuerten - 3 GS, 1 Masters Cup, 5 Masters, No. 1 for 43 weeks
Safin - 2 GS, 0 Masters Cup, 5 Masters, No. 1 for 9 weeks

And how come slamless in the 90-s Chang is ranked above 3-time Slams champion Kuerten, 2-time champions Safin, Rafter and Bruguera, and Roddick, Ferrero and other guys who have won GS?

gusman890
10-30-2006, 11:47 AM
because Chang won more TMS events then they did apperently in order to get his ranking up, or had good showing in all the big events.

I looked at this forumla, and it wasnt for overall Winnings, it was for how well they did since 1990 and chang seemed to do well in those GS and TMS events meaning this *ranking* would be high.

AnnaK_4ever
10-30-2006, 11:55 AM
Any ranking system putting Chang above Kuerten, Roddick, Safin and Rafter is laughable for me.
IMO, again.

uglyamerican
10-30-2006, 12:22 PM
You might consider factoring in career winning %. Kafelnikov has a worse winning % than Rafter, Stich, Muster, Roddick, etc. Kafelnikov played every possible tournament so ranks higher than he should when you only give credit for wins and don't penalize for losses.

Purple Rainbow
10-30-2006, 02:06 PM
Any ranking system putting Chang above Kuerten, Roddick, Safin and Rafter is laughable for me.
IMO, again.

Bear in mind that Chang has retired, and that Roddick, Safin and, theoretically, Kuerten can add to their total.
Patrick Rafter's career was rather short and consisted of a few high profile wins at the US Open, but not that much else. His third and fourth best results at the US Open are a 4th round and a 3rd round loss for example. Rafter achieved next to nothing on clay and won only 11 titles.
Michael Chang earned the majority of his points by being very strong on American hardcourts, proving that he was more than a claycourter, whilst winning no less than 31 titles in the nineties.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 02:07 PM
Any ranking system putting Chang above Kuerten, Roddick, Safin and Rafter is laughable for me.
IMO, again.

Not sure what's wrong with that IMO(I see your point but it's debatable). Chang was pretty good. Courier over Becker, though, that boggles belief.

Purple Rainbow
10-30-2006, 02:16 PM
Not sure what's wrong with that IMO(I see your point but it's debatable). Chang was pretty good. Courier over Becker, though, that boggles belief.

Note that I only checked results in the nineties. Obviously, Becker has better career achievements and would have ranked higher had I taken 1985 as a starting point.
I chose to take 1990 as a starting point, though, as that was the year the TMS series (or Super 9 tournaments as they were called then) were introduced. The atp calendar has remained pretty much unaltered since.

And as for Jim Courier, he has had solid results on all surfaces, winning RG and the Australian open (both twice) and reaching the finals of Wimbledon and the US Open. He also won Indian Wells, Key Biscane and Rome (on clay of course).
Being able to play on all surfaces gets rewarded in the ranking system I used. Which is also why 3 time slam winner Gustavo Kuerten isn't ranked higher on the list.

Katastrophe
10-30-2006, 02:22 PM
Courier over Becker, though, that boggles belief.

I completely agree with this one. I'm biased when it comes to Becker, and not at all a fan of Courier, but to put him ahead on the list doesn't make sense to me.

Purple Rainbow
10-30-2006, 02:46 PM
Courier over Becker, though, that boggles belief.

I completely agree with this one. I'm biased when it comes to Becker, and not at all a fan of Courier, but to put him ahead on the list doesn't make sense to me.

You do realise that I didn't just make this list up, I hope?
Check the link in the first post if you want to see how I came up with this list.

Katastrophe
10-30-2006, 02:52 PM
Oh of course PR, I saw where it came from. Based on stats alone, you have to go with what was printed. I'm a huge Becker fan. I'd put him at the top of any list...if I could.;)

Purple Rainbow
10-30-2006, 02:54 PM
Oh of course PR, I saw where it came from. Based on stats alone, you have to go with what was printed. I'm a huge Becker fan. I'd put him at the top of any list...if I could.;)

If it makes you feel better, the difference between the 2 is very small (1898 to 1868)..

Ernham
10-30-2006, 02:55 PM
Well, I think the point is that the list might not be all that useful. All it really does is highly advantage players that started playing as pros as close to 1990 as possible.

Katastrophe
10-30-2006, 02:58 PM
Thanks PR, you rock! Morning coffee, sunshine outside my window, and some solid proof that Baron von Slam is a rockstar in the annals of tennis history. You made my day.:D

Purple Rainbow
10-30-2006, 03:00 PM
Well, I think the point is that the list might not be all that useful. All it really does is highly advantage players that started playing as pros as close to 1990 as possible.

Still, there are quite a lot of players who started after 1990 and have retired, and that number will only grow.
I am intending to keep the thread updated, so it will get more useful over time, imo.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 03:10 PM
You should have done something to correct for masters events played. That would make the list a lot more realistic.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-30-2006, 03:15 PM
a lot of errors,
Ferreira shouldn't be in the list.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 03:21 PM
Current score you have listed(personally, I wouldn't give anyone any points for getting into the round of 32 or 16 even but thats your call) subtract the number of masters playeed multiplied by average possible score one could gain(50 according to your point allocation), and there you have a much more realistic version of things. Yes, people will go into the negatives, but it's all relative.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 05:11 PM
And as for Jim Courier, he has had solid results on all surfaces, winning RG and the Australian open (both twice) and reaching the finals of Wimbledon and the US Open. He also won Indian Wells, Key Biscane and Rome (on clay of course).
Being able to play on all surfaces gets rewarded in the ranking system I used..

It's not rewarded in your ranking system. In fact, it's punished by your "6 best results" sillyness.

DrJules
10-30-2006, 07:17 PM
Courier over Becker, though, that boggles belief.

I completely agree with this one. I'm biased when it comes to Becker, and not at all a fan of Courier, but to put him ahead on the list doesn't make sense to me.

In the period 1990 onwards it seems reasonable. However, Becker won a lost before 1990.

It would be interesting to see how Lendl would compare to Sampras. I would expect Lendl using similar criteria to be ahead.

guga2120
10-30-2006, 07:20 PM
Any ranking system putting Chang above Kuerten, Roddick, Safin and Rafter is laughable for me.
IMO, again.

agreed esp Kuerten who won 3 slams, and finished year end 1.

I would have Agassi #1 i know everybody would put Pete, but the fact he won all the slams, 17 Master series, is why he is All around the best, until Federer passes him in the not to distant future.

Purple Rainbow
10-30-2006, 08:09 PM
It's not rewarded in your ranking system. In fact, it's punished by your "6 best results" sillyness.

This response doesn't make sense. It is of course 6 best results per event. Thus players who have good results on clay, grass and hardcourts tend to score higher than surface specialists.

Purple Rainbow
10-30-2006, 08:15 PM
In the period 1990 onwards it seems reasonable. However, Becker won a lost before 1990.

It would be interesting to see how Lendl would compare to Sampras. I would expect Lendl using similar criteria to be ahead.

Any underaking over a longer period of time that I heard of has put Lendl as a world number 1.

It's funny how, when people disapprove of the list I came up with, tend to only look at the number of slams won. This player should be ranked higher, because he won 3 slams, compared to only 1 for him..
Though slams are the biggest events, there are 9 other mandatory events in a season and I thought it would be interesting to see who would come out on top if the TMS events were taken into account too.
Feel free to attack the criteria and the method, but not the final list. I came up with the criteria, the players ranked themselves through their achievements.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 08:21 PM
I read it wrong. I thought you only included 6 best finishes per year. I don't quite see why you did that, though, as you yourself even say few players are actually hurt by it. Like i said, you should correct for how many events played. That will serve to punish one-dimensional players enough and it makes perfect sense. So what if you won 3 grand slams in 15(60 possible attempts) years when someone else won 3 in 2 years(8 possible attempts)? According to you, those people are equal!

Purple Rainbow
10-30-2006, 08:34 PM
I read it wrong. I thought you only included 6 best finishes per year. I don't quite see why you did that, though, as you yourself even say few players are actually hurt by it. Like i said, you should correct for how many events played. That will serve to punish one-dimensional players enough and it makes perfect sense. So what if you won 3 grand slams in 15(60 possible attempts) years when someone else won 3 in 2 years(8 possible attempts)? According to you, those people are equal!

Reading well always helps in an argument and it seems like we are starting to understand each other now.
As for the example you give, the ranking system i use is not unlike the atp's ranking system. The atp uses 5 optional events, and some players play lots of tournaments to end up with 4 wins (Davydenko), whilst others play 5 optionals to win 4 (Federer). They do end up with roughly the same amount of points for their optionals.
To me 3 slam wins is 3 slam wins, regardless of the time it takes you to win them. I wouldn't say that winning 3 slams 8 years apart is less of an achievement than winning 3 in a row.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 08:38 PM
Reading well always helps in an argument and it seems like we are starting to understand each other now.
As for the example you give, the ranking system i use is not unlike the atp's ranking system. The atp uses 5 optional events, and some players play lots of tournaments to end up with 4 wins (Davydenko), whilst others play 5 optionals to win 4 (Federer). They do end up with roughly the same amount of points for their optionals.
To me 3 slam wins is 3 slam wins, regardless of the time it takes you to win them. I wouldn't say that winning 3 slams 8 years apart is less of an achievement than winning 3 in a row.

Why bother counting anything but GSs and masters?

Purple Rainbow
10-30-2006, 08:40 PM
Why bother counting anything but GSs and masters?

You mean other titles won?

Ernham
10-30-2006, 08:42 PM
You mean other titles won?

"Optionals" always introduce more randomness into the draw, so it's counterproductive to use them. TMS and GS provide a valid enough sample of performance over a year.

Purple Rainbow
10-30-2006, 08:44 PM
"Optionals" always introduce more randomness into the draw, so it's counterproductive to use them. TMS and GS provide a valid enough sample of performance over a year.

I just added all the other titles that a player won and awarded them with 10 points each. I deliberately made it not that big a number (it's worth less than a TMS quarterfinal), but it still adds up nicely if a player wins 10 or more atp events.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 08:45 PM
To me 3 slam wins is 3 slam wins, regardless of the time it takes you to win them. I wouldn't say that winning 3 slams 8 years apart is less of an achievement than winning 3 in a row.

With all the lucky GS winners through the ages you can actually say this with a straight face??? Ridiculous. After comments like this, I think it's pretty obvious your list is a contrived joke.

Purple Rainbow
10-30-2006, 09:37 PM
With all the lucky GS winners through the ages you can actually say this with a straight face??? Ridiculous. After comments like this, I think it's pretty obvious your list is a contrived joke.

You're beginning to get annoying. We are talking about 3 time slam winners and you bring up lucky slam winners? For what reason?
I'm getting the feeling that you haven't got a clue how I came up with this list anyway.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 09:44 PM
You're beginning to get annoying. We are talking about 3 time slam winners and you bring up lucky slam winners? For what reason?
I'm getting the feeling that you haven't got a clue how I came up with this list anyway.

Yes, I read more closely now. It's all garbage.

Ingore finishes lower than quarterfinals(decreases the effect of lucky draws).
Ignore non-masters events (removes the effect of randomness/luck in the draws in those other events)
Control for amount of events taken part in. This is done to reduce "accumalatory" stats and luck.

After doing that you have a decent list of the top players in the "TMS era". Currently you have contrived, illogical trash.

stebs
10-30-2006, 09:45 PM
With all the lucky GS winners through the ages you can actually say this with a straight face??? Ridiculous. After comments like this, I think it's pretty obvious your list is a contrived joke.

There was a good formula made by PR to come up with this list. I am not saying that if I were to rank the players myself I would come up with this as well but try to understand that he hasn't done this to put forward a favourite player as a fanboy or anything. It probably took a lot of time and effort to find all the stats he did to make this list and it is a useful tool to find out some things. No system is perfect but if you want to degrade this then okay but maybe you should try to think of something better or at the very least think of a constructive argument.

stebs
10-30-2006, 09:49 PM
Yes, I read more closely now. It's all garbage.

Ingore finishes lower than quarterfinals(decreases the effect of lucky draws).
Ignore non-masters events (removes the effect of randomness/luck in the draws in those other events)
Control for amount of events taken part in. This is done to reduce "accumalatory" stats and luck.

After doing that you have a decent list of the top players in the "TMS era". Currently you have contrived, illogical trash.

There is a clear logic to the thread. If you did what you are suggesting I think you would find that your list would be ridiculous. Maybe you should stop thinking, come up with a better way to rank these guys and come back with that. Ignore non-masters events? Why? That's also illogical. Ignoring lower finishes and non-masters events would be ridiculous, imagine if they did that with the ATP rankings. Then you would see guys like Blake and Gasquet plummet into oblivion because of bad draws in big events, I thought you wanted to stop the bad draws thing being an issue?

See, turns out you didn't think what you wrote through either. It is tough to come up with a formula that works.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 09:50 PM
There was a good formula made by PR to come up with this list. I am not saying that if I were to rank the players myself I would come up with this as well but try to understand that he hasn't done this to put forward a favourite player as a fanboy or anything. It probably took a lot of time and effort to find all the stats he did to make this list and it is a useful tool to find out some things. No system is perfect but if you want to degrade this then okay but maybe you should try to think of something better or at the very least think of a constructive argument.

Oh, I'll make a better one. Or at least top 10-5, 25 is a little much.

PR, do you have all the data compiled in a word type format? I'd do it already if I didn't have to stare at decades of tournament brackets to get the results.

stebs
10-30-2006, 09:53 PM
Oh, I'll make a better one. Or at least top 10-5, 25 is a little much.

PR, do you have all the data compiled in a word type format? I'd do it already if I didn't have to stare at decades of tournament brackets to get the results.

Okay :)

I look forward to seeing it. It is easy to come up with a list based on acheivements but with no rules and no formula and which seems to make sense. When you look at the big picture it becomes much harder.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 10:02 PM
I only need the data on GS/TMS back to the quarterfinalists. The rest is mostly useless for what is trying to be done here.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 10:10 PM
Okay :)

I look forward to seeing it. It is easy to come up with a list based on acheivements but with no rules and no formula and which seems to make sense. When you look at the big picture it becomes much harder.

The way that was done, it looks like it was done specifically to get Agassi as high as possible. IMO. how can you not scratch your head at someone that says that winning 3 grand slams consecutively is no different than winning them over 8 years???? WHAT?

Purple Rainbow
10-31-2006, 06:58 AM
Oh, I'll make a better one. Or at least top 10-5, 25 is a little much.

PR, do you have all the data compiled in a word type format? I'd do it already if I didn't have to stare at decades of tournament brackets to get the results.

You can find all tournament results going back to 1978 at http://stevegtennis.com/atpres.htm
They are at the atp website as well.
I am curious to see what you will come up with.