A Tennis Frontier All-Time Greatest Players List - Help me!

[britbox]

I'd also like to see weeks at #1 recognised to some degree.

i.e.
Bonus +6 if they ever got to #1
Bonus +6 for any Year End #1
Bonus +0.1 for a week at #1

i.e. Edberg spent 72 weeks at #1, and for me that is more impressive than being a runner-up in one major. So he would get 7.2 bonus points for weeks at 1. +6 bonus points for making #1 +12 bonus points for 2 year end #1.

 

[tented]

OK, just to try it out I ran a few players through it - Federer, Sampras, Nadal, and Lendl, and got the following results:

434 Federer
424 Lendl
328 Nadal
317 Sampras

First of all, it seems odd that Lendl would rank so high but the reason he does so is because he played so many tournaments, especially mid-range (ATP 500 equivalent), of which he was 42-18 in finals! So he gets 102 points just for that level of tournament, compared to a range of 23-30 points for the other three.

A dramatic display of the importance of the longevity factor. It would have been interesting to have thrown Connors into the mix, since he was around so long, and won so many titles. His final number would have to be pretty high, if not make him the GOAT in this system. Yet no one would ever say Connors is the GOAT. (Well, he would, but that's beside the point. )

I also tried to run Rod Laver but the simple fact of the matter is that its impossible to understand his record - he won a whopping 200 tournaments in his career, and I have no idea what is what.

I just looked through his career stats on Wikipedia, and see what you mean. It's a long, scraggly, probably indecipherable jumble.

And that's what's there. What's missing makes it truly impossible to work with these tournaments. Therefore I agree with the following:

I hate to say it, but I think a detailed analysis like this across eras is simply impossible. The game has changed to so much and, more so, the TOUR has changed - the schedules of players - so that even if we had all the necessary data (which we don't), it wouldn't make sense to compare it across eras.

---

The one thing that we CAN compare are Slams. They've always been around in one form or another, even if they've changed, split, and re-joined.

I would suggest that the only way to come up with a system is to do what I did about a year ago - a greatness quotient based solely on Slams ...

After looking through Laver's stats, it does seem as if this is the only remaining option.

 

[shawnbm]

Any list is going to have the same ten guys or so up there. It is fun to look at these numbers, but, in the end, the players who last longest at the top will have the best statistics. Perhaps the one way to separate those out is to look at how dominant or invincible those players who lasted longest were at their peaks. I would submit the list will likely not change much. They were all--at their respective peaks--pretty darn dominant, or else they would not have so many slams, weeks at number one, etc.

 

[El Dude]

I'd also like to see weeks at #1 recognised to some degree.

i.e.
Bonus +6 if they ever got to #1
Bonus +6 for any Year End #1
Bonus +0.1 for a week at #1

i.e. Edberg spent 72 weeks at #1, and for me that is more impressive than being a runner-up in one major. So he would get 7.2 bonus points for weeks at 1. +6 bonus points for making #1 +12 bonus points for 2 year end #1.

My issue with that is that it gives absolutely no value to being #2. Obviously #2 isn't #1, but it isn't all that far apart.

And of course you run into problems like this - compare Vilas and Connors in 1977:

Vilas: 2 Slams Wins, 1 Slam Final, SF Masters Cup, 1 "greater" title, 13 "lesser" titles

Connors: 2 Slam Finals, W at Tennis Masters, W at WCT Finals, 1 "greater" title, 5 "lesser" titles

And who was the year-end #1? Jimmy Connors - he of no Slam titles.

Personally speaking I'd take Vilas's two Slam victories over Connors two masters wins. And I just have a hard time with the idea of someone being the year-end #1 without winning a single Slam, especially when another player won two. It wasn't like Vilas was a slouch for the rest of the year - his tournament record is superior. For whatever reason, the ATP seemed to weight the WCT and Tennis Masters Cup heavier than the Grand Slams, at least as far as I can tell.

I maintain that the best, easiest, and cleanest way to get a good gauge on overall greatness is Slam results. Any other factors and it immediately gets messy - and probably more trouble than its worth. If you have two players with similar Slam records, then you can look at other factors - titles won, highest ranking, etc. But unlike any other tournament, EVERYONE showed up for Slams, everyone put themselves fully into winning them.

Now once you get a read on the Slam record - perhaps through some formula like I used above - and then look at other tournaments and rankings, then you can use your best judgment to weigh and measure players.

So for instance, even though my system has Agassi ahead of Borg, I'd actually rank Borg higher. Borg's peak was much higher than Agassi's, and I think his Slam final record (11-5 vs. Agassi's 8-7) outweighs the difference accrued by Agassi playing more than twice as many Slams.

Or in a similar vein, I have to give McEnroe the edge over Edberg, and probably Federer and Laver the edge over Rosewall. On the other hand, I'd probably give Becker a slight edge over Wilander because while Wilander's peak was higher, Becker was just very, very good for a much longer time.

Back to the point system, I'd like to be able to iron down something that as many of us as possible can agree on with regards to how to weigh Slams - both different results, but also different eras - so that we can at least get a "Slam Greatness Rating" to play with.

I see two main questions:

1. Open Era Slams - What results to count, and what points to give them?
2. Pre-Open Era Slams - How to differentiate amateur and pro touranaments before the AO of 1968, and how many points?

My tentative suggestions are:
*Open Era Slams are worth 10 W, 5 F, 3 SF, 1 QF
*Amateur Slams are worth 4 W, 2 F, 1 SF
*Pro Slams are worth 6 W, 3 F, 1 SF

 

[El Dude]

My previous list was incorrect in that I gave too many points for amateur Slams (and messed up Edberg). Here's an updated version, using the system I just described:

1. 230 Roger Federer
2. 210 Ken Rosewall
3. 176 Pete Sampras
4. 159 Ivan Lendl
5. 157 Rod Laver
6. 157 Jimmy Connors
7. 155 Rafael Nadal
8. 147 Andre Agassi
9. 141 Bjorn Borg
10. 128 Pancho Gonzales
11. 113 John McEnroe
12. 108 Stefan Edberg
13. 108 Novak Djokovic
14. 102 Mats Wilander
15. 101 Boris Becker
16. 99 Roy Emerson
17. 84 John Newcombe

It makes more sense for Rosewall to be behind Federer, but now Laver seems too low.

Here's an alternate system that gives 12 points for Open Era Slam wins (as opposed to 10, thus giving more weight to peak performance), 7 for Pro Slam wins, and 5 for Amateur Slams:

1. 264 Roger Federer
2. 237 Ken Rosewall
3. 204 Pete Sampras
4. 181 Rod Laver
5. 179 Rafael Nadal
6. 175 Ivan Lendl
7. 173 Jimmy Connors
8. 163 Bjorn Borg
9. 163 Andre Agassi
10. 130 Pancho Gonzales
11. 127 John McEnroe
12. 120 Stefan Edberg
13. 120 Novak Djokovic
14. 116 Mats Wilander
15. 113 Boris Becker
16. 102 Roy Emerson
17. 96 John Newcombe

This second list seems more intuitively correct.

First of all, I love the top 5 (although not necessarily in that order) - those seem to be the five greatest players of all time (with the caveat that I'm only including a few players from the pre-Open Era and, when I get a chance, will crunch numbers for other older players).

The next five also seem correct, although again perhaps not in that order. One could argue, for instance, that Borg should be #6. That said, I like the fact that Borg and Agassi have the same total - it makes sense in a way, in that they represent the two poles of careers: Borg's super-high peak but quick retirement, and Agassi's long and winding road.

I also like the third group of five, although obviously Novak continues to rise and will eventually jump into the top 10. Probably.

There are still a couple problems, however. For instance, Ken Rosewall. He was a very dominant player during the 50s and much of the 60s, and remained good into the mid-70s, but he was still generally considered second fiddle to either Pancho Gonzales and Rod Laver, both of whom he had losing records against (75-107 vs. Gonzales, 63-79 vs. Laver).

But all things tolled, I like this second list better - in more heavily weighing Slam wins, it brings more value to peak levels. At the least it allows to see a few clear tiers of players:

Top 5: Federer, Rosewall, Laver, Sampras, Nadal - these are the candidates for GOAT
Next 5: Lendl, Connors, Agassi, Borg, Gonzales - contenders, but all are clearly just shy of GOAT territory (although Borg could have been in the discussion if he played a few more years)
Next 5: The rest of the all-time greats

I'll try to get numbers for the early greats to see if I can flesh this list out a bit, maybe to a top 30 of all time. I imagine Vilas, Courier, Ashe, and Murray would make it of Open Era players, but that the rest of the top 30 would be filled by older players - Tilden, Vines, Hoad, Lacoste, Cochet, Budge, Perry, Sedgman, Trabert, and Kramer all being likely candidates.

OK, time to take a break.

 

[El Dude]

One more attempt at a list. I feel like the last couple formulas are too heavily weighted towards the Open Era - there's just no way that a pre-Open Era could rank as the best ever, unless through a vast quantity of Slams played. So I decided to up the points a bit:

(W/F/SF/QF)
Open Era Slams: 12/5/2/1
Pro Slams: 9/4/2/1
Amateur Slams: 6/3/2/1

I'm not saying this is the "right" formula, but it does give us some interesting results:

1. 294 Ken Rosewall
2. 264 Roger Federer
3. 217 Rod Laver
4. 204 Pete Sampras
5. 197 Pancho Gonzales
6. 179 Rafael Nadal
7. 175 Ivan Lendl
8. 173 Jimmy Connors
9. 163 Bjorn Borg
10. 163 Andre Agassi
11. 154 Bill Tilden
12. 127 Roy Emerson
13. 127 John McEnroe
14. 120 Stefan Edberg
15. 120 Novak Djokovic
16. 116 Mats Wilander
17. 113 Boris Becker
18. 111 Don Budge
19. 99 John Newcombe
20. 95 Fred Perry

As you can see, I sprinkled in a few old-timers - Tilden, Budge, and Perry.

Up next, a different take...

 

[El Dude]

OK, this next approach involves what I'm calling "#1 Shares." I'm going to base it solely on the info here which covers the entire history of tennis. I'll only use 1913-present because at that point, according to the Wikipedia article, "sources are more detailed and better documented."

Note also that for the ATP years, the #1 player in these rankings doesn't always match up - at least in the 70s and early 80s. I'm going with these rankings because they're based upon consensus from a variety of sources: sportswriters, officials, and the players themselves.

Here's the formula I'm going to use:
#1 ranking - 4 pts
#1 ranking, shared - 3 pts each
#1 ranking, shared with two players - 2 pt each
#2 ranking - 2 pt
#2 ranking, shared - 1 pt

I will divide the total by 4 to come up with the player's "#1 Shares" - the idea being that 1 = one year as the #1 player.

Now the reason I like this approach - not necessarily instead of the Slam rating, but alongside it as another lens, is that it works better across eras. We don't have to interpret numbers or try to value one tournament against another; the best player in the world is the best player in the world, no matter what year. Yes, this is based upon subjective rankings - but its intersubjective and based upon consensus.

Here's all players from 1913 to the present with at least one #1 Share:

1. 8.5 Pancho Gonzales
2. 8.3 Bill Tilden
3. 7.0 Ken Rosewall
4t. 6.8 Rod Laver
4t. 6.8 Roger Federer
6t. 6.3 Don Budge
6t. 6.3 Pete Sampras
8. 5.5 Jack Kramer
9. 5.3 Bjorn Borg
10. 5.0 Ivan Lendl
11. 4.8 Fred Perry
12t. 4.5 Ellsworth Vines
12t. 4.5 Rafael Nadal
14. 4.0 John McEnroe
15. 3.8 Jimmy Connors
16t. 3.5 Bill Johnston
16t. 3.5 Henri Cochet
16t. 3.5 Bobby Riggs
19t. 3.0 Rene Lacoste
19t. 3.0 Stefan Edberg
19t. 3.0 Andre Agassi
22. 2.8 Pancho Segura
23t. 2.3 John Newcombe
23t. 2.3 Lleyton Hewitt
25t. 2.0 Mats Wilander
25t. 2.0 Novak Djokovic
27t. 1.8 Stan Smith
27t. 1.8 Jim Courier
29t. 1.5 Lew Hoad
29t. 1.5 Arthur Ashe
29t. 1.5 Stan Smith
29t. 1.5 Ilie Nastase
29t. 1.5 Boris Becker
29t. 1.5 Gustavo Kuerten
35t. 1.3 Frank Sedgman
35t. 1.3 Andy Roddick
37. 1.0 Jack Crawford

Notice the complete absence of Roy Emerson, who was never considered the #1 or #2 player in the world.

Now the biggest problem with this system, as I see it, is that it doesn't include anything beyond the #1-2 rankings, which make later rankings less meaningful - with lots of ties. But I do think it gives us meaningful data for the top 20-25 players.

I also like the fact that it gives more weight to early greats and verifies what I've read, but haven't seen statistical data to back up: that Pancho Gonzales is arguably the GOAT, that Don Budge and Jack Kramer are among the top ten players ever, that Fred Perry and Ellsworth Vines also all-time greats.

Now you could argue that the competition has been stiffer from the Open Era on; that the #1 or 2 ranking is worth more in 2013 than it was in 1933. That's a judgment call, however. Its like saying that Miguel Cabrera is a better hitter than Babe Ruth, which goes down a fruitless rabbit-hole of speculation. All we can look at is contextual greatness and according to this system, Pancho Gonzales is the GOAT, and one Mr. Federer is suitably tied for 4th with Rod Laver behind Bill Tilden and Ken Rosewall.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

nobody gives a damn about wtf. they have been trying to save that event for years by moving it around.

next stop: Madison square garden.

the sport has become too demanding. those who dominate during the early part of the year don't have much fuel left during the latter part of the year.


you just cant dominate all surfaces.

they keep throwing money at this event and they keep trying to move it around. it is what it is.

it is a useless event that is not given any weight by the true tennis historians.

you are not everyone..the world tour finals are a vortex of magnificence.

and the world tour finals are 'moved around' on purpose..didn't you even know that ?.

 

[Tennis Miller]

nobody gives a damn about wtf. they have been trying to save that event for years by moving it around.

next stop: Madison square garden.

the sport has become too demanding. those who dominate during the early part of the year don't have much fuel left during the latter part of the year.


you just cant dominate all surfaces.

they keep throwing money at this event and they keep trying to move it around. it is what it is.

it is a useless event that is not given any weight by the true tennis historians.

you are not everyone..the world tour finals are a vortex of magnificence.

and the world tour finals are 'moved around' on purpose..didn't you even know that ?.

For Nadal fans, the WTF is meaningless, worthless, useless. For Fed fans, Olympic gold in singles means nothing. You think it has something to do with which crown jewel is missing from their boy's crown?

For me, 6 WTFs is more amazing than 1 Olympic gold, but Nadal's career accomplishments are certainly fast on the heels of Fed's. With another USO, and another Wimbledon or AO, Tennis Channels' s top 100 could have a new number 1 -- even without a WTF title.

Cheers
TM

 

[tented]

nobody gives a damn about wtf. they have been trying to save that event for years by moving it around.

next stop: Madison square garden.

the sport has become too demanding. those who dominate during the early part of the year don't have much fuel left during the latter part of the year.


you just cant dominate all surfaces.

they keep throwing money at this event and they keep trying to move it around. it is what it is.

it is a useless event that is not given any weight by the true tennis historians.

you are not everyone..the world tour finals are a vortex of magnificence.

and the world tour finals are 'moved around' on purpose..didn't you even know that ?.

For Nadal fans, the WTF is meaningless, worthless, useless. For Fed fans, Olympic gold in singles means nothing. You think it has something to do with which crown jewel is missing from their boy's crown?

For me, 6 WTFs is more amazing than 1 Olympic gold, but Nadal's career accomplishments are certainly fast on the heels of Fed's. With another USO, and another Wimbledon or AO, Tennis Channels' s top 100 could have a new number 1 -- even without a WTF title.

Cheers
TM

This Nadal fan will go on record as saying it's a glaring omission from his list of accomplishments that Rafa doesn't have even one WTF. It's more surprising than Fed's missing singles Olympic Gold, since Rafa has had many, many chances to win the WTF, yet hasn't.

Satisfied?