Mens Tennis Forums banner

101 - 120 of 155 Posts

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #101
I spotted another possible mistake with Lendl. It is not clear how many points he got in March 14 1983 for the Brussels event. In your current Excel sheet he gained 107 points, yet effectively it is 117 in the next column. Maybe he got 12 bonus points instead of 2. And the same uncertainty arises when these points are deducted in the spring of 1984.
When I last checked your Excel sheet in March, you awarded him 13 bonus points and thus 118 total points for his Brussels performance.
Well, that's a tricky one. There is no mistake there, well, not on my part anyway. This was one of the hardest things to spot in this set for me, it took me a long time to crack down. On that day Lendl received 10 extra points, but not for Brussels, it was for US Open 1982 (it seems the ATP missed 10 bonus points for him or gave him an extra for it - I really can't tell if it's an error or intention). I initially thought the points were for Brussels and I gave it 118, but in 1984 he drops 107. More than that, I spotted he drops 225 for Canada and that one bonus point was assigned in September. I spent ages trying to realize what I was missing, the ATP has done it before to miss bonus points, but this was especially hard because the source was not as obvious. So, I somehow got to September 1983 and noticed 10 extra points dropping. I initially thought I had missed the San Francisco stars but that was affecting multiple players, he was the only one affected. After some deeper crackdowns I pinpointed US Open 1982 dropping with 10 more points than entering, connected the dots to the 11 extra points I was getting at Brussels, and left it all there just like the ATP did it. It seems it was not an error to have the 10 points, but it may be an error that he did not get the 10 points from the start (US Open 1982). I wanted go back and update those rankings as well, and there would be a slight difference at the 1982 year end rankings, but I didn't yet come to the conclusion if it's worth it. Lendl ending with 1390, instead of 1380 gives him 0.833 which is not gonna place him in front. He would only get one extra week at #2 instead of #3 on October 4, 1982. Shouldn't be too hard a task, and it would clear that slight confusion there.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #102
Regarding 1968-69. Progress is good. I added the following to the calendar, a run will be made soon:

Rome 08.05.1967 Amateur 128 CAT-C YES Amateur 1/2 for 1967
MSG Pro 05.06.1967 Pro 16 CAT-C YES Pro 1/2 for 1967
Hamburg 31.07.1967 Amateur 64 CAT-C YES Amateur 2/2 for 1967
Wimbledon Pro 21.08.1967 Pro 8 CAT-B YES Pro 2/2 for 1967

MSG Amateurs 25.03.1968 Amateur 32 CAT-C YES Amateur 2/5.
MSG Pro 13.05.1968 Pro 8 CAT-C YES Pro 1/5.

Also modified this to June 10:
US Pro 10.06.1968 Pro 16 CAT-B YES Prize money $32000. Pro 2/5. Tournament played on June 10, 1968. Final played on September 10, 1968

The minimum tournament count for the average has been lifted to 7 for both 1968 and 1969, and becomes 10 starting with 1970.
Alright, I completed a pass through 1968, the changes are interesting to the one made 3 years ago.

Top 3:
Code:
Before:
Rod Laver	30	AUS	219	11	19.909
Arthur Ashe	25	USA	97	5	19.400
Ken Rosewall	34	AUS	164	9	18.222
After:
Code:
Rod Laver	30	AUS	244	12	20.333
Ken Rosewall	34	AUS	180	10	18.000
Arthur Ashe	25	USA	122	6	17.429
The most interesting part here is that Ashe is third thanks only to the division by 7. If I had kept the previous minimum division by 4, Ashe would have tied Laver for the #1 spot.

Thoughts?

@elegos, @Litotes, @Rob & Stephen, @Julián Santiago

If you guys confirm the calculations here, I will continue with 1969 which should contain these new tournaments dropping.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,673 Posts
Well, that's a tricky one. There is no mistake there, well, not on my part anyway. This was one of the hardest things to spot in this set for me, it took me a long time to crack down. On that day Lendl received 10 extra points, but not for Brussels, it was for US Open 1982 (it seems the ATP missed 10 bonus points for him or gave him an extra for it - I really can't tell if it's an error or intention). I initially thought the points were for Brussels and I gave it 118, but in 1984 he drops 107. More than that, I spotted he drops 225 for Canada and that one bonus point was assigned in September. I spent ages trying to realize what I was missing, the ATP has done it before to miss bonus points, but this was especially hard because the source was not as obvious. So, I somehow got to September 1983 and noticed 10 extra points dropping. I initially thought I had missed the San Francisco stars but that was affecting multiple players, he was the only one affected. After some deeper crackdowns I pinpointed US Open 1982 dropping with 10 more points than entering, connected the dots to the 11 extra points I was getting at Brussels, and left it all there just like the ATP did it. It seems it was not an error to have the 10 points, but it may be an error that he did not get the 10 points from the start (US Open 1982). I wanted go back and update those rankings as well, and there would be a slight difference at the 1982 year end rankings, but I didn't yet come to the conclusion if it's worth it. Lendl ending with 1390, instead of 1380 gives him 0.833 which is not gonna place him in front. He would only get one extra week at #2 instead of #3 on October 4, 1982. Shouldn't be too hard a task, and it would clear that slight confusion there.
Wow! That is one amazing thing you did to try and pinpoint those "floating" 10. Your dedication to all this is amazing. Well done man. :worship: :worship: :worship:

Also, I can't see anything wrong at first glance at the Ashe movement in those 1968-9 rankings.

The ATP and all other tennis authorities should really be looking at this sort of thing themselves, but they never do. Keep up the great work. Thanks again. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Alright, I completed a pass through 1968, the changes are interesting to the one made 3 years ago.


The most interesting part here is that Ashe is third thanks only to the division by 7. If I had kept the previous minimum division by 4, Ashe would have tied Laver for the #1 spot.

Thoughts?

@elegos, @Litotes, @Rob & Stephen, @Julián Santiago

If you guys confirm the calculations here, I will continue with 1969 which should contain these new tournaments dropping.
Hi Marian,

I think the new divisor of 7 is way better, the Top players are more in line with the opinion of contemporary tennis journalists.

Actually, I would include three additional, traditional ameteur events in the last category, to increase the number of events.
These three would be the US Indoors in February, the US Clay in July and the Pacific Coast Champs in September. One could also take a look at additional open events in 1969, and add their 1968 (maybe even 1967) editions to the calendar.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #106
Actually, I would include three additional, traditional ameteur events in the last category, to increase the number of events.
These three would be the US Indoors in February, the US Clay in July and the Pacific Coast Champs in September. One could also take a look at additional open events in 1969, and add their 1968 (maybe even 1967) editions to the calendar.
Thanks for the input, including these 3 events for 1969 (is that what you meant?) would also need 3 Pro events to balance things out. Do you have some in mind?

Maybe MSG Pro, Wembley Pro (both in May), and the Barcelona Pro in November (was it more important than the rest of the tournaments)?

I've identified the 3 amateur events as Salisbury in February, and Berkeley in October, but I can't identify the clay one in July. Indianapolis was open and is included, so you're talking about Washington Star won by Koch vs Ashe?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Thanks for the input, including these 3 events for 1969 (is that what you meant?) would also need 3 Pro events to balance things out. Do you have some in mind?
Hi Marian,

No, I meant these three amateur events for 1968.
US Indoors, Salisbury in February (won by Richey), the US Clay in July in Milwaukee (won by Graebner) and the Pacific Coast Champs in September in Berkeley (won by Smith).
Their draws can probably be found at the tennisarchives site. I would give 6 points to the winners.

It is difficult to counterbalance them by three professional events, as the NTL and WCT pros played different circuits. I would choose the following three events, the last two placed in the lowest category (6 points), just as the amateur ones:

NTL Wembley Invitation May 3-6 (this is the only event I would place into a higher category because of the best-of-five final, giving 12 points for the winner):
1 Gimeno d Emerson 7-5 6-2
Rosewall d Stolle 6-4 6-4
S Laver d Gimeno 9-7 8-6 11-9
Rosewall d Gonzales 7-5 6-3 6-3
F Laver d Rosewall 6-0 6-1 6-0

WCT Cannes Pro Champs Aug. 1-3
1 Newcombe d Pilic 13-11 6-3
Taylor d Drysdale 3-6 6-2 10-8
Riessen d Roche W/O
Anderson d Barthes 11-9 10-8
S Newcombe d Taylor 6-4 6-3
Riessen d Anderson 6-3 5-7 8-6
F Newcombe d Riessen 7-5 6-2

NTL Colonial Pro Champs Fort Worth Aug. 15-18
1 Rosewall d Bartzen 6-1 6-1
Stolle d Gonzales 6-3 6-1
Anderson d Laver 2-6 9-7 6-3
Gimeno d Emerson 6-3 4-6 8-6
S Rosewall d Stolle 3-6 6-4 8-6
Gimeno d Anderson 6-4 6-4
F Rosewall d Gimeno 6-4 6-3


I have another suggestion, if it is not too much effort on your part. In order to better compare the points before 1974 and after that, I would also include rankings points for the years 1968 to 1973 using the 1974 system. Something similar was already done by the ATP, when in Dec 31 1973 they updated their 1973 points by the new 1974 point system.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #108
Hi Marian,

No, I meant these three amateur events for 1968.
US Indoors, Salisbury in February (won by Richey), the US Clay in July in Milwaukee (won by Graebner) and the Pacific Coast Champs in September in Berkeley (won by Smith).
Their draws can probably be found at the tennisarchives site. I would give 6 points to the winners.

It is difficult to counterbalance them by three professional events, as the NTL and WCT pros played different circuits. I would choose the following three events, the last two placed in the lowest category (6 points), just as the amateur ones:

NTL Wembley Invitation May 3-6 (this is the only event I would place into a higher category because of the best-of-five final, giving 12 points for the winner):
1 Gimeno d Emerson 7-5 6-2
Rosewall d Stolle 6-4 6-4
S Laver d Gimeno 9-7 8-6 11-9
Rosewall d Gonzales 7-5 6-3 6-3
F Laver d Rosewall 6-0 6-1 6-0

WCT Cannes Pro Champs Aug. 1-3
1 Newcombe d Pilic 13-11 6-3
Taylor d Drysdale 3-6 6-2 10-8
Riessen d Roche W/O
Anderson d Barthes 11-9 10-8
S Newcombe d Taylor 6-4 6-3
Riessen d Anderson 6-3 5-7 8-6
F Newcombe d Riessen 7-5 6-2

NTL Colonial Pro Champs Fort Worth Aug. 15-18
1 Rosewall d Bartzen 6-1 6-1
Stolle d Gonzales 6-3 6-1
Anderson d Laver 2-6 9-7 6-3
Gimeno d Emerson 6-3 4-6 8-6
S Rosewall d Stolle 3-6 6-4 8-6
Gimeno d Anderson 6-4 6-4
F Rosewall d Gimeno 6-4 6-3


I have another suggestion, if it is not too much effort on your part. In order to better compare the points before 1974 and after that, I would also include rankings points for the years 1968 to 1973 using the 1974 system. Something similar was already done by the ATP, when in Dec 31 1973 they updated their 1973 points by the new 1974 point system.
Alright, I'll get to work and include those 6 events. Regarding the latter suggestion though, that is notoriously difficult to do at this point, unless you only want to do the conversion for the year end rankings (1968-1972), in which case I can apply the ATP conversion already done for the 1973 rankings. To do it for all weeks for these years would take a considerably long time, I'm afraid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Alright, I'll get to work and include those 6 events. Regarding the latter suggestion though, that is notoriously difficult to do at this point, unless you only want to do the conversion for the year end rankings (1968-1972), in which case I can apply the ATP conversion already done for the 1973 rankings. To do it for all weeks for these years would take a considerably long time, I'm afraid.
The conversion for the year end rankings (1968-1972) would be interesting to see, if it is not too much of an effort.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #110
Alright, I completed a pass through 1968, the changes are interesting to the one made 3 years ago.

Top 3:
Code:
Before:
Rod Laver	30	AUS	219	11	19.909
Arthur Ashe	25	USA	97	5	19.400
Ken Rosewall	34	AUS	164	9	18.222
After:
Code:
Rod Laver	30	AUS	244	12	20.333
Ken Rosewall	34	AUS	180	10	18.000
Arthur Ashe	25	USA	122	6	17.429
The most interesting part here is that Ashe is third thanks only to the division by 7. If I had kept the previous minimum division by 4, Ashe would have tied Laver for the #1 spot.
And with this new pass completed adding 3 extra amateur and 3 extra Pro events, the Top 3 becomes:

Code:
Rod Laver	30	AUS	256	14	18.286
Ken Rosewall	34	AUS	194	12	16.167
Arthur Ashe	25	USA	123.5	9	13.722
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
And with this new pass completed adding 3 extra amateur and 3 extra Pro events, the Top 3 becomes:
Thanks for the new rankings.
I noticed you gave Roche 0 points on Aug 5, when he withdrew from the Cannes WCT event, wihout playing a match.

Did players get 0 points in 1973 when they withdrew from tournaments without playing a match?

Otherwise, Roche would be ranked 4th at the end of the year, ahead of Newcombe.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #113
Thanks for the new rankings.
I noticed you gave Roche 0 points on Aug 5, when he withdrew from the Cannes WCT event, wihout playing a match.

Did players get 0 points in 1973 when they withdrew from tournaments without playing a match?

Otherwise, Roche would be ranked 4th at the end of the year, ahead of Newcombe.
Yeah, I didn't change the rules. Only with the 1974 system did the ATP consider a W/O at the very start to be a non-participation. When they converted though at the end of 1973, they did not eliminate 0 pointers from withdrawals.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #114

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #116
Hi Marian

I see you introduced the new divisor 10 for 1970.
But why did not you use it already in January?
I used a gradual increase rather than a sudden one (this one was my idea) so that there is a smoother transition. The rule was to increase by 1 for every important tournament in the calendar:
1 for Australian Open - Grand Slam
1 for Philadelphia CAT B
1 for Salisbury CAT B

This was before though, I did not change anything now. It's been there for 3 years. :smile2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
It is interesting how close Pancho Gonzales was to being No 1 at the age of 42 in September 1970.
In fact, had he advanced to R16 of the US Open (with winning just one additional match), he would have replaced Laver in September 14 as the No 1.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,604 Posts
Discussion Starter #118
It is interesting how close Pancho Gonzales was to being No 1 at the age of 42 in September 1970.
In fact, had he advanced to R16 of the US Open (with winning just one additional match), he would have replaced Laver in September 14 as the No 1.
Do you want a special conversion to 1974 system for that date?
 
101 - 120 of 155 Posts
Top