Mens Tennis Forums banner

41 - 59 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #41
Borg:
Grand Slams: 11 slams, 5 finals, 1 semi
max majors on 1 surface: 6
con. slam streaks: 2 (3 times)
career slams 0
career masters 0
weeks at number 1: 109
efficiency: 84-36, (70%)
OG: N/A
W/L: 0.83
W/L in slams: 0.90
W/L in masters: 144/174 (0.83)
Masters: 15 titles, 5 finals
YEC: 2 + (1 WCT title), 2 finals
35 other titles
Thanks, but what should I do with it? It's clearly way below the "big 3". I watched him live and I'm still a big fan - but the first step here is to work on what to include (vars), rules, calcs, weighting, etc etc - on the "big 3" set, and the expand with all the data that actually we already have (slasher provided most / all historic records)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Here's the last, updated version - as per the feedback I've received so far.
(v 1.4).
Big 3 - v 1.4
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks.
I think the H2H diff calculation needs to be adjusted:
1) Let's say Djokovic wasn't in the picture and we're just looking at Nadal/Federer. Because the H2H is 24-16 for Nadal, that's +8 for Nadal. This is bad enough, but then the formula goes a step further to add -8 to Federer, so an initial gap of 8 turns into 16: double-counting the gap
2) Differential also doesn't do a good job of reflecting the player's relative strength. As it stands now, Djokovic has +7 and Federer -12. This the equivalent of applying a weighting to 0 for Federer and to 19 for Djokovic- a hugely exaggerated spread

To get a truer picture of the relative difference between the three and avoid double-counting, then instead of [sum of matches won] - [sum of matches lost], it should be [sum of matches won] / [sum of matches played].
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
262 Posts
Totally unreasonable to ignore all others before the present era.
Born Borg, Pete Sampras,
I agree with just looking at the open era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #44
I think the H2H diff calculation needs to be adjusted:
1) Let's say Djokovic wasn't in the picture and we're just looking at Nadal/Federer. Because the H2H is 24-16 for Nadal, that's +8 for Nadal. This is bad enough, but then the formula goes a step further to add -8 to Federer, so an initial gap of 8 turns into 16: double-counting the gap
2) Differential also doesn't do a good job of reflecting the player's relative strength. As it stands now, Djokovic has +7 and Federer -12. This the equivalent of applying a weighting to 0 for Federer and to 19 for Djokovic- a hugely exaggerated spread

To get a truer picture of the relative difference between the three and avoid double-counting, then instead of [sum of matches won] - [sum of matches lost], it should be [sum of matches won] / [sum of matches played].
Hey, thanks for responding.
I don't like this calc either. Not sure what to do with it exactly - the weighting put in there is a "placeholder" more than anything.
I believe that H2H is an important measure between these 3 though - this is an individual sport and these 3 played about 150 matches between each other, sharing more than a decade of playing careers.
So, in my mind - the H2H HAS TO play a somewhat significant role.
Again, I don't like the calc either - and was looking for some well-argumented suggestion on how to do it.
So, I agree with you, and if you can suggest the way we should deal with it - and provide some reasoning, It'll be really appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,581 Posts
As stated if you're just going to IGNORE decades of all time greats that were around before 1990 to present there is no real objectionable way to have an GOAT debate. Tennis existed before we were born. LOL
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,025 Posts
The one with the most number of grand slams is the GOAT.

Most people, except close followers of the sport (for instance, MTF posters can be regarded as close followers), rarely pay attention or emphasis to events outside grand slams. Grand slams are at a total different level since many notable players retired without winning one.

Look at Serena Williams (23 grand slams), she faltered 4 times in her last 4 finals of grand slams in an attempt to equal and surpass Margaret Court's 24 grand slams and establish herself as an undisputed GOAT. To me, Court is women's GOAT, although people of the current generation consider Serena as women's GOAT.

Even if people do not regard or disagree that the one with the most slams is GOAT, to have won the most slams that player will certainly have the bragging rights than the other players.
Sorry guy, but apart Tennis Specialists, I am not sure Margaret Court is known by 25% people in the whole World, while Evert Graf or Serena should be over 50%
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,025 Posts
Thank you to everyone for voting over the last 6 years (2013-2018). We are closing this poll in lieu of the newly expanded list of players.
Who do you think is the greatest women's tennis player of all-time?

  • 3% Venus Williams

  • 1% Justine Henin

  • 0% Evonne Goolagong

  • 3% Monica Seles

  • 1% Billie Jean King

  • 52% Serena Williams

  • 5% Margaret Court

  • 2% Chris Evert

  • 7% Martina Navratilova

  • 27% Steffi Graf

35,898 people have voted in this poll.


Source : The Top 10 Greatest Women's Tennis Players of All Time

Of course those 36 000 people are not average Mr Smith but sports fans but it is a sign how Margaret Court is famous and how her Slam Record counts in people's mind.

If you read the article carefully, you would see that Players had a bio and were ranked by the journalist, Court in 4th so people were reminded about her achievements before voting (even if some did not read at all probably).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
As stated if you're just going to IGNORE decades of all time greats that were around before 1990 to present there is no real objectionable way to have an GOAT debate. Tennis existed before we were born. LOL
I don't know how many times I need to say this - the intent is to have all... ALL the data included eventually.
The first step - I've chosen to do is to vet/discuss the basic variables/chars/calcs/logic/etc with using these 4, and then expand with everything else. Data is available and that's just manual labor later.
Second, in between step, will be to do the same for the properties that apply only to non-open era, get that sorted out, and then merging everything.
But so far, you've helped very little. Telling me that it's not complete? Any other obvious point you want to make?
I'd appreciate any and all help - but what you're doing so far is not it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
The greatest female player of all time should be Monica Seles. Both Evert and Navratilova have stated that Seles was poised to crash every record. Unfortunately her career was destroyed when she had just turned 19. What a pity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Hey, thanks for responding.
I don't like this calc either. Not sure what to do with it exactly - the weighting put in there is a "placeholder" more than anything.
I believe that H2H is an important measure between these 3 though - this is an individual sport and these 3 played about 150 matches between each other, sharing more than a decade of playing careers.
So, in my mind - the H2H HAS TO play a somewhat significant role.
Again, I don't like the calc either - and was looking for some well-argumented suggestion on how to do it.
So, I agree with you, and if you can suggest the way we should deal with it - and provide some reasoning, It'll be really appreciated.
I thought I did that at the end of my post where I said:
"To get a truer picture of the relative difference between the three and avoid double-counting, then instead of [sum of matches won] - [sum of matches lost], it should be [sum of matches won] / [sum of matches played]."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #53 (Edited)
I thought I did that at the end of my post where I said:
"To get a truer picture of the relative difference between the three and avoid double-counting, then instead of [sum of matches won] - [sum of matches lost], it should be [sum of matches won] / [sum of matches played]."
I understand - what do you suggest as a weighting factor?
But it does come to the similar place ultimately... double instead of triple dipping - there's an argument for that (IMO weak one), but the argument against it is obvious.
That's why I said I don't like it.
How about this - counting ONLY the wins against the other two (where score is positive)?
Or, ratio (as suggested), with a factor of "total matches played" (somehow adjusted/weighted)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
I understand - what do you suggest as a weighting factor?
But it does come to the similar place ultimately... double instead of triple dipping - there's an argument for that (IMO weak one), but the argument against it is obvious.
That's why I said I don't like it.
How about this - counting ONLY the wins against the other two (where score is positive)?
Or, ratio (as suggested), with a factor of "total matches played" (somehow adjusted/weighted)?
I think only counting the wins against the other two where the difference is positive would definitely be an improvement over what exists now. However, I think there is still the problem of scale with that. Djokovic would then have 7, and Federer 0, which suggests a vast difference when in reality given the relatively close H2H after all the matches they've played, the difference isn't so big. But the bigger problem is that Nadal would have a value of 8 which doesn't make sense given Djokovic has better H2H over both.

So I would still recommend using the ratio formula as ATP does: e.g. Federer 23 (46% Wins) vs Djokovic 27 (54% Wins), and give it a weight of 10 to make it double that of "W/L Grand Slam".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Discussion Starter #55
I think only counting the wins against the other two where the difference is positive would definitely be an improvement over what exists now. However, I think there is still the problem of scale with that. Djokovic would then have 7, and Federer 0, which suggests a vast difference when in reality given the relatively close H2H after all the matches they've played, the difference isn't so big. But the bigger problem is that Nadal would have a value of 8 which doesn't make sense given Djokovic has better H2H over both.

So I would still recommend using the ratio formula as ATP does: e.g. Federer 23 (46% Wins) vs Djokovic 27 (54% Wins), and give it a weight of 10 to make it double that of "W/L Grand Slam".
I hear you - we have a couple of ideas there, all good stuff so far.
Question:
Let's say we have all the variables - what kind of importance/weighting would you give H2H vs the rest - in the overall comparison?
e.g. on the scale "H2H means nothing to H2H is all that's important" - how would you value it? 5% of overall value? 10?
something else? (trying here to look at it from a different angle - as to get some math that makes sense).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
I hear you - we have a couple of ideas there, all good stuff so far.
Question:
Let's say we have all the variables - what kind of importance/weighting would you give H2H vs the rest - in the overall comparison?
e.g. on the scale "H2H means nothing to H2H is all that's important" - how would you value it? 5% of overall value? 10?
something else? (trying here to look at it from a different angle - as to get some math that makes sense).
Great questions. The best way I'm aware of to do this systematically would be to leverage the Analytic Hierarchy Process which includes a scale for pairwise comparisons. This way we can more objectively determine the relative importance between any two variables in order to come up with an overall rating. So I would propose that we first agree on the top-level criteria, rank them in order of importance, and then use the pairwise comparison scale to identify the degree to which each is greater than the other (which will determine weighting). This may require several iterations to get it right which will be the fun part (especially once other player's data is added). What do you think?

In the meantime, I took the liberty of using ATP calc for H2H comparison, attempted to group all criteria into logical categories, and totalled all player points by category to see what the current relative category weightings are for the 1.4 spreadsheet:
354479
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
You aren't realistically going to account for the changing priorities/hierarchy throughout history, too many variables.
Can you please give an example of what you mean by changing priorities/hierarchy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,605 Posts
Can you please give an example of what you mean by changing priorities/hierarchy?
The tennis tour wasn't always structured like it is now, Slams>YEC>Masters>500>250 with all tournaments of the same tier being approximately equal, even then the value of the Olympics is not strictly established. The further into the past you move, the more flexible the tour was, until you get into a complex mess that was the early Open era and then the pro tour before it, changing prioritised tournaments/tours based on financing. You can outline the main three-four tournaments quite clearly for the most part, but there's a lot more to it, we aren't just counting slam numbers or something, now are we.
 
41 - 59 of 59 Posts
Top