Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This is an update of last year's rankings, which you can find here:
Greatest Tennis Players of the Open Era - by Surface (Year-End 2019) | Mens Tennis Forums

Methodology follows the first table.
GOAT list - all surfaces (active players are highlighted in green):


358993





Top movers in 2020
The biggest movers of the year were Djokovic (1 slam + 2 masters + extra weeks at number 1), Dominic Thiem (moved from 48th place to 34th!), Medvedev (from 84th place to 59th!), and Nadal (1 slam):

358989


Methodology:
The focus was to try and be as objective as humanly possible.

1. Screening: only players who have won at least 1 grand slam, or 1 Masters 10000, an ATP finals title, or an Olympic Gold Medal are screened in.
2. Criteria were decided such that they were 1) generally recognized as important records, and 2) unambiguously positive/good (example: number of weeks in 2nd place doesn't count as unambiguously good, because 2nd place isn't as good as first), 3) not too nichey (number of slams won without losing a set is somewhat nichey), 4) not based on timing at all (e.g. no number of consecutive titles, or CYGS) and 5) in the Open Era.
3. Two lists are compiled with all the criteria, and each player's score.
4. There are 5 GOAT lists (a total one, and one for each surface:
GOAT lists: The first list, which I am calling the "GOAT" list, measures players' greatness mostly based on their achievements, putting a lot of weight on Grand Slams and other big titles. This is done by surface - so there are 5 of these lists. There is one overall list, and one for each surface (hard courts, clay, grass, and carpet)

Criteria for GOAT list:
Number of Grand Slams: 50 points
Number of World Tour Finals: 25 points
Number of Olympic Gold Medals: 25 points
Number of Masters 1000: 10 points
Number of ATP 500 tournaments: 4 points
Number of ATP 250 tournaments: 2 points
Peak Elo rating: 50 points per every standard deviation above the minimum (approximately 50 GOAT points per 135 Elo ranking points above the minimum of 1910)
Winning percentage in Grand Slams: 50 points per standard deviation above the minimum
Winning percentage against Top 5 players: 50 points per standard deviation above the minimum
Total weeks at Number 1: 1 point per week
Number 1 bonus: 50 bonus points to any player who has ever been Number 1

PS: note that for the lists by surface, there are a couple of methodological differences compared with the overall GOAT list. First, there are no ATP rankings by surface, so to compute the weeks at number 1 by surface, I use the Elo rankings provided by Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Rankings Table. The second difference is that instead of using the winning percentage in Grand Slams, I use the winning percentage in Big Titles - that's mainly because the Carpet surface never had a Grand Slam, so I wanted to keep things consistent.

Here are the tables by surface:

HARD COURT GOAT:
358990


CLAY COURT GOAT:
358991


GRASS COURT GOAT:
358992


CARPET COURT GOAT:





If you spot a mistake, please let me know.

All data are taken from Ultimate Tennis Statistics, so thank you to them!
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
338 Posts
10 points for a Masters does sound a bit low. 15 points would be more reasonable.

I don't think WTF is necessarily too high considering the competition consists of the best 8 players in the world that year. To an extent, it's harder to win the WTF than a slam.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
70,519 Posts
djokovic over nadal? lol. let me laugh sorry, there must be something wrong there
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
10 points for a Masters does sound a bit low. 15 points would be more reasonable.

To an extent, it's harder to win the WTF than a slam.
Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, and Davydenko, among others, say

 
  • Like
Reactions: Gambler_3

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,119 Posts
Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, and Davydenko, among others, say

Wawrinka, Cilic, Delpo, Thiem have won one masters title so far, Kafelnikov (two slams) zero masters.

Two masters titles:

Bruguera two slams
Hewitt two slams
Rafter two slams
Stich one slam
Ivanisevic one slam
Krajicek one slam
etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,269 Posts
Thanks for your hard work on this!

To respond to the other posters, I'm happy with the weighting for two reasons: firstly, in terms of assessing "greatness", grand slams are much more memorable than MS events (certainly more than "twice" as memorable) and there are fewer so a 5x importance seems about right; secondly, the list passes the eyeball test - in order words it "feels" about right. Maybe you could argue about one or two places here or there but for the most part everyone is in a reasonable place on the all-time ranking list.

Happy to see other people's attempts at this if they feel strongly otherwise!

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
Wawrinka, Cilic, Delpo, Thiem have won one masters title so far, Kafelnikov (two slams) zero masters.

Two masters titles:

Bruguera two slams
Hewitt two slams
Rafter two slams
Stich one slam
Ivanisevic one slam
Krajicek one slam
etc.
That's simply because every aspiring tennis player dreams of winning a slam. No one wakes up every day dreaming of an AtP finals championship. That is why you see guys like Wawrinka peaking at slams now and then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,348 Posts
Wawrinka, Cilic, Delpo, Thiem have won one masters title so far, Kafelnikov (two slams) zero masters.
During the top 50 by ES for the 50th edition of the Masters.

There have been some interesting recalls.

Stan after his 1/2 cry baby 2014 vs Fed.

One knows his chances in the final are in jeopardy - he will forfeit - while the other ruminates on the missed opportunities of what remains, to this day, the greatest regret of his career.

"This loss could have haunted me if it hadn't been for the Davis Cup final behind it. Thanks to it, I didn't have time to dwell on it," Wawrinka said recently.


But we also have the JCF case, after he lost final to Hewitt in 2002.
7–5, 7–5, 2–6, 2–6, 6–4

It was last May, during the spring confinement. Questioned by the ATP, Juan Carlos Ferrero had returned to his career. His biggest disappointment? The 2002 Masters final. "This defeat hurt me, it's one of the tournaments for which I cried," admitted the Spaniard.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
104 Posts
Ranking points should prevail over ranking position for the obvious reason. Position X in week A sometimes takes better performance than Position X-1 in week B. I would recommend you to rule out weeks at 1 criteria and use ranking points per Grand Slam/Masters/WTF/ATP500/etc and in total.

The idea is plain and simple: a good player who competed with a very good rival should not stay below than an average player who competed with a bad rival.

UPD: The tournament performance criteria need improvements as well. Getting nothing from a Grand Slam final while getting points from ATP 250 title looks weird.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
70,519 Posts
That's simply because every aspiring tennis player dreams of winning a slam. No one wakes up every day dreaming of an AtP finals championship. That is why you see guys like Wawrinka peaking at slams now and then.
this
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
70,519 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
70,519 Posts
Wawrinka, Cilic, Delpo, Thiem have won one masters title so far, Kafelnikov (two slams) zero masters.

Two masters titles:

Bruguera two slams
Hewitt two slams
Rafter two slams
Stich one slam
Ivanisevic one slam
Krajicek one slam
etc.
if that´s the case, then olympics gold medal should count as 100(25x4) since it is only held every 4 years lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #20 (Edited)
10 points for a Masters does sound a bit low. 15 points would be more reasonable.

I don't think WTF is necessarily too high considering the competition consists of the best 8 players in the world that year. To an extent, it's harder to win the WTF than a slam.
I can see your point. I admit that when I started thinking about the weights, I had placed more weight on the masters than this. But when I looked at the results, it struck me how much more weight tennis fans really put on slams. For example, Sampras falls behind Lendl, and it's just not consistent with majority opinion, which is what I'm trying to reflect. Overall,I don't think most would implicitly think that 3 masters compensate for a slam. There was also a time where the masters were not quite as prestigious as they are now, which is another reason to discount them a bit.
 
1 - 20 of 72 Posts
Top