Who will be the best player of the 2020s?

[El Dude]

Let's talk tennis (this thread is a corona-free zone!).

I was looking at the ATP number one page on Wikipedia and was struck by the fact that each of the last five decades saw a singular player who dominated the number one ranking, at least in terms of weeks, giving us a relatively clear "Player of the Decade." Here are the #1 players by weeks of the ATP era, by decade:

2020s: Djokovic 6, Nadal 4
2010s: DJOKOVIC 275, Nadal 159, Federer 48, Murray 41
2000s: FEDERER 262, Hewitt 80, Agassi 50, Nadal 46, Kuerten 43, Roddick 13, Sampras 10, Safin 9, Ferrero 8
1990s: SAMPRAS 276, Edberg 70, Courier 58, Agassi 51, Lendl 32, Becker 12, Muster/Rios/Kafelnikov 6, Moya 2, Rafter 1
1980s: LENDL 238, McEnroe 170, Borg 76, Wilander 20, Connors 17
1970s: CONNORS 251, Nastase 40, Borg 33, Newcombe 8 (also Laver, Rosewall, Smith if including pre-ATP era)

Notice the pattern? Five completed decades, one player in each decade with at least 238 weeks.

Now precedents can always be broken. But let's say the precedent holds. If so, who do you think is the active player most likely to be at number for 200+ weeks over the next decade?

As an aside, each of the players was active within the first year of the decade. Even Connors played 4 tournaments in 1970. Meaning, it is likely that the "Player of the Decade" is already with us, in some form or fashion.

Here's another data point. Here are their ages from the first to last day of the decade (e.g. Jan 1, 1970, to Dec 31, 1979)

Connors 17-27
Lendl 19-29
Sampras 18-28
Federer 18-28
Djokovic 22-32

The three most likely candidates, in my mind, are Stefanos Tsitsipas (age 21 on Jan 1), Felix Auger-Aliassime (age 19 on Jan 1), and Jannik Sinner (age 18 on Jan 1) in order of age - but not necessarily likelihood. But obviously it is far too early to have a clear idea.

 

[El Dude]

For gits and shiggles, if the ATP rankings went back, my guesses for the leaders would be, with undeniable choices in capitals:

1960s: LAVER
1950s: GONZALES
1940s: Kramer, Riggs, or Segura
1930s: Tilden or Budge, maybe Vines
1920s: TILDEN
1910s: WILDING
1900s: L DOHERTY, or possibly Ritchie or Wilding
1890s: Unclear - Barlow, Pim, R Doherty, Mahony, Larned are candidates
1880s: Probably Renshaw, maybe Sears

 

[mrzz]

Thiago Wild!

 

[the AntiPusher]

Let's talk tennis (this thread is a corona-free zone!).

I was looking at the ATP number one page on Wikipedia and was struck by the fact that each of the last five decades saw a singular player who dominated the number one ranking, at least in terms of weeks, giving us a relatively clear "Player of the Decade." Here are the #1 players by weeks of the ATP era, by decade:

2020s: Djokovic 6, Nadal 4
2010s: DJOKOVIC 275, Nadal 159, Federer 48, Murray 41
2000s: FEDERER 262, Hewitt 80, Agassi 50, Nadal 46, Kuerten 43, Roddick 13, Sampras 10, Safin 9, Ferrero 8
1990s: SAMPRAS 276, Edberg 70, Courier 58, Agassi 51, Lendl 32, Becker 12, Muster/Rios/Kafelnikov 6, Moya 2, Rafter 1
1980s: LENDL 238, McEnroe 170, Borg 76, Wilander 20, Connors 17
1970s: CONNORS 251, Nastase 40, Borg 33, Newcombe 8 (also Laver, Rosewall, Smith if including pre-ATP era)

Notice the pattern? Five completed decades, one player in each decade with at least 238 weeks.

Now precedents can always be broken. But let's say the precedent holds. If so, who do you think is the active player most likely to be at number for 200+ weeks over the next decade?

As an aside, each of the players was active within the first year of the decade. Even Connors played 4 tournaments in 1970. Meaning, it is likely that the "Player of the Decade" is already with us, in some form or fashion.

Here's another data point. Here are their ages from the first to last day of the decade (e.g. Jan 1, 1970, to Dec 31, 1979)

Connors 17-27
Lendl 19-29
Sampras 18-28
Federer 18-28
Djokovic 22-32

The three most likely candidates, in my mind, are Stefanos Tsitsipas (age 21 on Jan 1), Felix Auger-Aliassime (age 19 on Jan 1), and Jannik Sinner (age 18 on Jan 1) in order of age - but not necessarily likelihood. But obviously it is far too early to have a clear idea.

I like to see what the stats of the player who was number 2 or spent more weeks in the top ten..

 

[El Dude]

I like to see what the stats of the player who was number 2 or spent more weeks in the top ten..

Hey, I'm not implying that Rafa isn't just as great. It was just a noticeable pattern with players with 200+ weeks at #1 in each decade that I found interesting.

But yes, Rafa has the most weeks in the top 2: 547. Roger's next at 528, Novak at 425, Connors at 385, Lendl and Sampras at 376.

Expanding it to top 3 and Roger is way out ahead at 750, with Rafa at 604, Connors at 591, Novak 573, Lendl 499, Sampras 457.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Hey, I'm not implying that Rafa isn't just as great. It was just a noticeable pattern with players with 200+ weeks at #1 in each decade that I found interesting.

But yes, Rafa has the most weeks in the top 2: 547. Roger's next at 528, Novak at 425, Connors at 385, Lendl and Sampras at 376.

Expanding it to top 3 and Roger is way out ahead at 750, with Rafa at 604, Connors at 591, Novak 573, Lendl 499, Sampras 457.

No.. it's perfectly understood that you are not diminshing Rafa's accomplishments. However, Rafa is an unusual case and his weeks at #2 and in the top ten IMO reflects where he stands historically than the stats that you so brilliantly shared with us a few days ago.. thanks

 

[El Dude]

No.. it's perfectly understood that you are not diminshing Rafa's accomplishments. However, Rafa is an unusual case and his weeks at #2 and in the top ten IMO reflects where he stands historically than the stats that you so brilliantly shared with us a few days ago.. thanks

Yes, agreed. Rafa's best years are relatively evenly spread over two decades, while Roger and Novak are centered in one decade. And it is worth pointing out that whereas Roger is the best player of the 00s, he's the third best of the 2010s, and Novak is the best of the 10s, but is not even top 5 in the 2000s. Rafa is the second best in both decades, which is quite impressive. So it would be something like this:

2000s: Roger, Rafa, Hewitt? Agassi?
2010s: Novak, Rafa, Roger, Andy, Wawrinka

 

[the AntiPusher]

Yes, agreed. Rafa's best years are relatively evenly spread over two decades, while Roger and Novak are centered in one decade. And it is worth pointing out that whereas Roger is the best player of the 00s, he's the third best of the 2010s, and Novak is the best of the 10s, but is not even top 5 in the 2000s. Rafa is the second best in both decades, which is quite impressive. So it would be something like this:

2000s: Roger, Rafa, Hewitt? Agassi?
2010s: Novak, Rafa, Roger, Andy, Wawrinka

Thanks good sir

 

[Moxie]

Yes, agreed. Rafa's best years are relatively evenly spread over two decades, while Roger and Novak are centered in one decade. And it is worth pointing out that whereas Roger is the best player of the 00s, he's the third best of the 2010s, and Novak is the best of the 10s, but is not even top 5 in the 2000s. Rafa is the second best in both decades, which is quite impressive. So it would be something like this:

2000s: Roger, Rafa, Hewitt? Agassi?
2010s: Novak, Rafa, Roger, Andy, Wawrinka

That's the thing about selecting one particular thing to model for. I get why weeks at #1 is a pretty good measure, but, like everything you extract solely, it doesn't tell the whole story. Your question, though, is who will be the player of the decade coming up. I will say that my first guess is that it won't be best measured by weeks at #1. When the big 3 give over winning big titles and holding the monopoly of the top 2, I suspect that there will be a lot of exchange back-and-forth at the top. I could be wrong, but I'm not feeling a dominant 1 or 3 players. There is a good crop coming up, but I don't see a clear superstar on the rise. Maybe this is a boring guess, but I think there will be a lot split, between them.

 

[El Dude]

That's the thing about selecting one particular thing to model for. I get why weeks at #1 is a pretty good measure, but, like everything you extract solely, it doesn't tell the whole story. Your question, though, is who will be the player of the decade coming up. I will say that my first guess is that it won't be best measured by weeks at #1. When the big 3 give over winning big titles and holding the monopoly of the top 2, I suspect that there will be a lot of exchange back-and-forth at the top. I could be wrong, but I'm not feeling a dominant 1 or 3 players. There is a good crop coming up, but I don't see a clear superstar on the rise. Maybe this is a boring guess, but I think there will be a lot split, between them.

I agree with you in general, but would gently suggest that you're side-stepping a bit. Perhaps I could rephrase the question thusly: Among the known players, who do you think has the best chance of leading in weeks at #1 during the 2020s?

Note that I emphasized best chance, but also--mainly for Rafa fans--changed "best player" to "leading in weeks at #1." As I said to AP, I am not diminishing Rafa in any way, just pointing out the actual numbers--that each decade saw a clear leader in weeks at #1. I'm not suggesting that you don't get this, but it could be a sticking point for Rafa fans when they see the phrase "best player" or "player of the decade."

 

[Moxie]

I agree with you in general, but would gently suggest that you're side-stepping a bit. Perhaps I could rephrase the question thusly: Among the known players, who do you think has the best chance of leading in weeks at #1 during the 2020s?

Note that I emphasized best chance, but also--mainly for Rafa fans--changed "best player" to "leading in weeks at #1." As I said to AP, I am not diminishing Rafa in any way, just pointing out the actual numbers--that each decade saw a clear leader in weeks at #1. I'm not suggesting that you don't get this, but it could be a sticking point for Rafa fans when they see the phrase "best player" or "player of the decade."

Well, sure it's a bit irritating for Nadal fans when you chose weeks at #1 and you go by decades, which is a pretty artificial start/stop point, right? Given that great players can be born at any point in a decade, your stat of ages when these particular players entered the given decade and age when they left it is reasonably similar. So, please note:

Connor: b. 1952
Lendl: b. 1960
Sampras: b. 1971
Federer: b. 1981
Djokovic: b. 1987

Djokovic's ages in his decade are a bit older, and he's born mid-late in his decade of birth, but he had Roger and Rafa to contend with, plus we see a good aging of elite players, right now. Compare this:

Nadal: b. 1986...pretty much smack in the middle of his decade. And he's had to straddle Federer and Djokovic. Ok, not to get into the Fedalovic wars on this, but, you've basically said the players you're betting on to end the decade with most weeks at number one, and that their chances increase, in part, because of the year of their birth. So what does this really mean? Advantage being born at the beginning or end of a decade?

But as to your real question, let me try again: a) Djokovic has more weeks at #1 coming, and I think Rafa does, too. b) As I said, I'm not convinced we have a stand-out to accumulate the kind of weeks at #1 that you're showing above. Why shouldn't the pattern continue? Well, maybe it will, but I'm guessing there will be more split-time at #1. If that's side-stepping the question, you yourself only made a short list, but didn't name one player. I don't disagree with your list. I think they'll all be in there, and those are my top 3 picks I think, based on affinity to their games and how much I trust their potential. And @mrzz's suggestion of Thiago Wild. Why not? I think Zverev will have some time up there. (Not giving up on him just yet, for when the Big 3 clock out.) To me, it's way too early to pick one single player to be in the last chair when the clock runs out on 2029, that`s all. But we've narrowed the betting down! I'd be curious if someone has anyone else in mind. Oh, wait...Medvedev. He's Front's man. Bad news for him, though...he's born in 1996.

 

[El Dude]

Again, I was just looking at weeks at #1 by decade and was struck by how each decade has a singular player with 200+ weeks. The names attached are secondary. That said, I do think they basically correspond with the "player of the decade," but as I pointed out, being the second of two decades is extremely impressive. But as you point out, and I at least implied, it is really a function of when a player was born and peaked. Rafa's peak straddles two decades, unlike the other two. Meaning, let's not make this (yet another) Nadal Apologism Tour . It distracts to the actual topic at hand.

Back on topic, I'll go out on a limb and suggest who I think will have the best results in the 2020s, in terms of weeks at #1. The exact order is arbitrary, but this is all for gits and shiggles:

1. Felix Auger-Aliassime
2. Stefanos Tsitsipas
3. Novak Djokovic
4. Jannik Sinner
5. Rafael Nadal
6. Alexander Zverev
7. Dominic Thiem
8. Daniil Medvedev

After that it gets dicey. Everyone else seems less likely.

I also agree with you that it will be more of a smorgasbord than we've seen in the past. I've likened the upcoming era to the late 90s/early 00s, when Becker/Edberg had retired, and Sampras/Agassi were starting to decline. The difference now is that Roger/Rafa/Novak are hanging longer than the prior era, although that will inevitably change. It also remains to be seen if one of the younger players will emerge as the best of the lot, like Roger did, or if we'll see more of a group like Kuerten/Safin/Hewitt/Roddick/Ferrero.

Now of course the problem is that weeks at #1 tends to favor those players who are consistent: not just across surfaces, but in terms of health. Until 2008, Rafa's resume was heavily weighted towards clay. From that point on, his streaks at #1 were interrupted by injuries, and then by Novak's rise. The point being, my predictions are based upon good health for all, and that is far from a certainty.

 

[El Dude]

Does this image show up? Its a bit confusing, but it displays that FAA and Sinner are on a good pace relative to the trinity, with Tsitsipas a bit behind but on a good trajectory. I also looked at Zverev, who has stalled out in the top ten for awhile. Not a good sign.

 

[Moxie]

Again, I was just looking at weeks at #1 by decade and was struck by how each decade has a singular player with 200+ weeks. The names attached are secondary. That said, I do think they basically correspond with the "player of the decade," but as I pointed out, being the second of two decades is extremely impressive. But as you point out, and I at least implied, it is really a function of when a player was born and peaked. Rafa's peak straddles two decades, unlike the other two. Meaning, let's not make this (yet another) Nadal Apologism Tour . It distracts to the actual topic at hand.

Topic at hand, you've ignored the fact that decades are kind of arbitrary choices as to when to draw a line. Super-snide of you that this is a "Nadal Apologist Tour." I'm saying something cogent that applies to when a player is born, in your (random) choice of citing decades, and you don't really address it. You note that I said it, and you say that Nadal is certainly no...what...asterisk? But you don't really confront that starting and stopping numbers at the change of decade is a bit arbitrary, or that it actually does favor when a player is born. I know you know well that historic decades don't coincide with convenient 00 years. The fifties didn't end in 1960, and the sixties went into the seventies. And so on. You've given a nod to my point of when a player is born matters to your calculation, but you don't really give it any credence, do you? What if we recalculated it all on the 5-years?

 

[El Dude]

FFS, Moxie. You just can't help yourself, can you? I have zero interest in being your proxy for your endless war defending Rafa. Stick to the people that are actually attacking him.

And yes, the 1950s ended with 1960. That's why they're called the "1950s." Come on. That's just a fact, jack. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the International Association for Word Definitions.

But yes, decades are arbitrary designations. But I'm going off this chart, silly:

 

[Moxie]

FFS, Moxie. You just can't help yourself, can you? I have zero interest in being your proxy for your endless war defending Rafa. Stick to the people that are actually attacking him.

And yes, the 1950s ended with 1960. That's why they're called the "1950s." Come on. That's just a fact, jack. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the International Association for Word Definitions.

But yes, decades are arbitrary designations. But I'm going off this chart, silly:

View attachment 3529

You actually aren't correct that the 50s ended in 1960. Where is your history and subtlety? The Eisenhower Era extended into the early 60s. Didn't you watch "Mad Men?" What we call the '60s didn't really start until certainly after the JFK assassination, the civil rights era, feminist movement, etc. The big years we think of as the "60s" are 1968 and 1969. All of those movements extended into mid-70s. I could go on...that the 70s began when disco and punk took hold...which was mid-late 70s. Decades really aren't such cleanly defined things.

 

[El Dude]

1950s - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1950s

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of 1950s by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

You're confusing eras with actual chronological numbers. The 1950s are from 1950 to 59. That's not debatable. You're really stretching, Moxie.

 

[Moxie]

1950s - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1950s

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of 1950s by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

You're confusing eras with actual chronological numbers. The 1950s are from 1950 to 59. That's not debatable. You're really stretching, Moxie.

I lived it. Don't tell me I'm stretching it. There is no social historian that doesn't say that those boundaries are artificial. We're talking about what are considered cultural eras. I think you get the difference.

 

[El Dude]

Yes, I get the difference. But again, you're conflating eras and chronological decades. I'm always amazed--and a bit baffled--how far you're willing to stretch things to defend Rafa, even when defense isn't necessary.

 

[Moxie]

What if we recalculated it all on the 5-years?

Ok, I didn't do Roger, but I did count Rafa and Novak, weeks at #1, 2005-2015.

Rafa: 125
Novak: 104

It does matter where you move the marker.