Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
1968 - Rosewall, Gimeno
1969 - Laver, Roche
1970
1971
1972
1973 - Smith
1974 - Okker
1975 - Newcombe, Orantes
1976 - Nastase, Ashe, Ramirez
1977 - Vilas, Gottfried
1978 - Connors, Dibbs
1979 - Gerulaitis, Tanner
1980 - Borg, Solomon
1981 - Mayer, Clerc
1982
1983 - Noah
1984
1985 - McEnroe
1986 - Lendl, Nystrom
1987 - Mecir
1988 - Wilander
1989 - Becker
1990 - Edberg
1991
1992 - Courier, Ivanisevic
1993 - Stich
1994 - Sampras, Bruguera
1995 - Agassi, Muster
1996 - Chang
1997
1998 - Rafter, Rios
1999
2000
2001 - Kuerten
2002 - Hewitt
2003 - Roddick
2004
2005
2006
2007 - Federer
2008
2009 - Del Potro
2010 - Davyedenko
2011 - Soderling
2012 - Tsonga
2013 - Nadal, Ferrer
2014 - Wawrinka, Cilic
2015 - Berdych
2016 - Djokovic, Murray, Nishikori, Raonic
2017 - Zverev

7 players from 1992 to 1995 (1.75 a year)

6 players from 1996 to 2003 (1.33)

1 player from 2004 to 2008 (0.2)

4 players from 2009 to 2012 (1 )

9 players from 2013 to 2016 (2.25)

70s: 13 players
80s: 11
90s: 11
00s: 5
10s: 13

In the top-20

70s: 4
80s: 5
90s: 4
00s: 1
10s: 4

These are the top 57 elo ratings of all time. Those who deny that the 2000s was clearly the weakest era are just wrong, but those who diminish Federer's accomplishments by saying he was playing random dudes off the street are wrong. However, let's be honest and admit that Nole and Rafa and all people winning slams in the 00s had to work harder for them then in the 00s. Federer didn't even have to compete with one of the guys who peaked in the 00s (Guga) and Del Po is mainly thought of as 10s player despite peaking in 09. The question isn't was it harder the question is how much harder.

(Credit goes to Lew from TTW)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,027 Posts
So much wrong with that analysis I don’t even know where to start.

So all I’ll say this is. Elo is a dependent measure of relative skill. This means that it shows how good one player is in comparison to another. You can not judge a weak era or not from it. For example suppose a player plays the highest level of tennis ever reached for a 2 year period. Judging by Elo It will look like he had weak competition because no one can beat him, regardless of the true strength of his opponents. If you have an even field then the Elo’s will be comparable, and it will suggest a strong field by your bizarre theory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,027 Posts
Perhaps a better way of saying it would be this.

I think we can all agree that 2012 was a very strong year. ( Each of the big 4 one 1 slam)

Now let’s imagine a new 2012 season where everyone performed to their exact same skill level as they did in the actual 2012 season except for Nadal. In this new 2012 season Nadal played 50% better than he actually did, and as a result won the CYGS. By your logic 2012 would now be a weak year because no one had comparable talent to Nadal, but in reality 2012 would’ve been even stronger because all we did was keep the level of everyone else constant while increasing the level of one player.

Do you see the flaw in your logic?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,120 Posts
So much wrong with that analysis I don’t even know where to start.

So all I’ll say this is. Elo is a dependent measure of relative skill. This means that it shows how good one player is in comparison to another. You can not judge a weak era or not from it. For example suppose a player plays the highest level of tennis ever reached for a 2 year period. Judging by Elo It will look like he had weak competition because no one can beat him, regardless of the true strength of his opponents. If you have an even field then the Elo’s will be comparable, and it will suggest a strong field by your bizarre theory.
The only "analysis" one needs is taking a look at OP's username and avatar :bigwave:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,075 Posts
I don't understand the list. Berdych had the highest ELO rating of all players in 2015? Really?
I think that for each player, it shows the year that they reached their own personal highest ELO rating. So each player only appears once, next to the year that they reached their peak ELO rating, which for Berdych was in 2015.

As for what we're supposed to get from this, I don't know. As well as the fact that statistics like this can only tell us the relative level of competition, the part that jumps out is the "top 57 ELO ratings of all time". Why is that the cut-off? I guess that if we picked top 40 or something then we could probably bump off Zverev, Raonic, Nishikori, Berdych from the list and then we would lose the impression of there being more good players playing at their best in 2015-17 (which I suppose is what OP is going for).

The only "interesting" thing I get from this is that since more players in that crucial "top 57" cut-off reached their best ELO ratings from 2009 onward, we maybe have more evidence of higher consistency of top players in the last decade, even for second-tier players and not only the super dominant big 3. There may be a case to be made that more consistent players suggesting a stronger tour (since it's much more likely a player getting consistently good results indicates that player is stronger than average rather than that the every other player was weaker than average and that that particular player coincidentally benefitted from it), but the OP certainly doesn't connect any dots to make that case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
509 Posts
This ELO rating thing is absolutely useless, it shows nothing and its completely inaccurate.

There are so many things that affect it that its not even funny.

For example if 1 player wants to conserve energy and not go 100% out against weaker opponents and win the match smoothly, his "elo" rating would be much lower than if he went 110% and DESTROYED him.

The difference would be huge, and thats just 1 factor from many.

I don't know why people even keep bringing this up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,120 Posts
This ELO rating thing is absolutely useless, it shows nothing and its completely inaccurate.

There are so many things that affect it that its not even funny.

For example if 1 player wants to conserve energy and not go 100% out against weaker opponents and win the match smoothly, his "elo" rating would be much lower than if he went 110% and DESTROYED him.

The difference would be huge, and thats just 1 factor from many.

I don't know why people even keep bringing this up.
Lol, if something is crystal clear then it's this. Delusional fanboys desperately trying anything to convince others (and themselves) that Fed isn't the GOAT :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
To be clear I actually think Fed is the GOAT. I just think it's crazy that people act like the quality of competition during Fed's peak versus the early 10s is laughable. Djokovic's and Nadal's slams were harder to win and therefore more valuable but clearly not 6 slams more valuable. Weak era deniers are just blind fan boys. It's not like Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick were always making it deep but only lost to Fed. If that were true than maybe they would have a point. The obvious truth is that players like Wawa, Del Po, Murray, Cilic, and even Nishikori at his best would've been better than most of the top guys in the 00s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
509 Posts
To be clear I actually think Fed is the GOAT. I just think it's crazy that people act like the quality of competition during Fed's peak versus the early 10s is laughable. Djokovic's and Nadal's slams were harder to win and therefore more valuable but clearly not 6 slams more valuable. Weak era deniers are just blind fan boys. It's not like Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick were always making it deep but only lost to Fed. If that were true than maybe they would have a point. The obvious truth is that players like Wawa, Del Po, Murray, Cilic, and even Nishikori at his best would've been better than most of the top guys in the 00s.
The problem is you can't look at things like that, you can't know how hard a slam was won because of many factors.

Maybe some players were extremely bad matchups for the player (example young Nadal vs Fed).
Or some players reached an incredible peak at one tournament even if they did not replicate that ever again (example 2007 AO - Fernando Gonzales was on fire that tournament).
Some players might be good on paper but beating them might not be that hard as it seems (2013 Fed injured back, or 2015 Nadal injured and off form, 2017 Djokovic injured and off form... you would think since who the players are its an extremely tough and incredible victory, but they were far bellow their standard)

So while I get your point, you can't look at things like that and only assume its harder because of how it looks on paper.

Whether some tournament was harder or easier to win is extremely hard to assume, and we will never know for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
So much wrong with that analysis I don’t even know where to start.

So all I’ll say this is. Elo is a dependent measure of relative skill. This means that it shows how good one player is in comparison to another. You can not judge a weak era or not from it. For example suppose a player plays the highest level of tennis ever reached for a 2 year period. Judging by Elo It will look like he had weak competition because no one can beat him, regardless of the true strength of his opponents. If you have an even field then the Elo’s will be comparable, and it will suggest a strong field by your bizarre theory.
Yes, Elo reflects relative skill, how much players are better then the current competition (current compared to time when Elo is measured).
Greater dominance over fellow pears can be for two reasons:
- Either the dominator is too good
- Or the field is too weak
It is up for you to believe one or the other, as there cannot be the proof for either of the two options.
However, when small group dominates the rest of the field, it is more likely the few players belonging to the group are better then usual, then that the whole field numbering hundreds of players is too weak...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,971 Posts
ELO also doesn't take into account the importance of a match, a Slam final carries the same weight as a Doha quarterfinal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
The problem is you can't look at things like that, you can't know how hard a slam was won because of many factors.

Maybe some players were extremely bad matchups for the player (example young Nadal vs Fed).
Or some players reached an incredible peak at one tournament even if they did not replicate that ever again (example 2007 AO - Fernando Gonzales was on fire that tournament).
Some players might be good on paper but beating them might not be that hard as it seems (2013 Fed injured back, or 2015 Nadal injured and off form, 2017 Djokovic injured and off form... you would think since who the players are its an extremely tough and incredible victory, but they were far bellow their standard)

So while I get your point, you can't look at things like that and only assume its harder because of how it looks on paper.

Whether some tournament was harder or easier to win is extremely hard to assume, and we will never know for sure.
I think it's fairly safe to assume that beating Phillipousis, Soderling, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Roddick, and Cilic is easier than what Rafole have faced no matter how well they were playing. The all slams are equal BS is just BS. JC Ferrero's RG is the same as Stan's? Hewitt's Wimbledon is the same as Murray's in 2013? Rafter's USO is the same as Nole's 2011? Fed's in 2006 is that same as all the insane ones in the 2010's (Nole 2011,12,13,16) Stan (2014) Fed(2017)? I'm sorry I just don't think that's accurate at all.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top