Comparisons across eras - something to ponder...

[El Dude]

And El Dude absolutely has to reconsider the credit he gives to past greats when the defending champion only had to play in the final IMO. Sorry, not all tournaments are created equal, and formats do matter. That's why I don't put too much credit in Connors winning 200+ tournaments when so many of them literally consisted of winning two matches.

What are you talking about here? I honestly have no idea. Which tournaments did the champion only have to play the final match?

Also, Connors didn't win 200+ tournaments. Are you talking about Laver?

 

[brokenshoelace]

And El Dude absolutely has to reconsider the credit he gives to past greats when the defending champion only had to play in the final IMO. Sorry, not all tournaments are created equal, and formats do matter. That's why I don't put too much credit in Connors winning 200+ tournaments when so many of them literally consisted of winning two matches.

What are you talking about here? I honestly have no idea. Which tournaments did the champion only have to play the final match?

Also, Connors didn't win 200+ tournaments. Are you talking about Laver?

The Connors bit was meant to be 100+ so that was a typo.

The bit before that was just a response to what Federberg said. There was a time where the US Open for example, adopted a system in which the defending champion automatically received a bye to the final. Whether you've touched on that in your many studies/stats I'm not sure, but I assumed you did due to Federberg saying the following:

"you start dismissing tournament formats like that and El Dude might have to reconsider the credit he gives to past greats if the defending champion only had to play the final!"

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

so you can win the wtf by winning 4 matches..yes ..so what ?, only the best get that chance.

have to win around 50 matches every season (give or take) in order to qualify for wtf to be with a chance of winning it via winning only 4 matches.

the wtf is very important, a lot of excellent players are doing well just to qualify for the finals. has a rich history (45 years) of top players winning it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

so you can win the wtf by winning 4 matches..yes ..so what ?, only the best get that chance.

have to win around 50 matches every season (give or take) in order to qualify for wtf to be with a chance of winning it via winning only 4 matches.

the wtf is very important, a lot of excellent players are doing well just to qualify for the finals. has a rich history (45 years) of top players winning it.

None of these points are relevant to this conversation. Nobody's arguing whether the WTF is important or not (it is), the argument is whether it should count as much as the slams.

 

[El Dude]

Broken, I didn't know that about the US Open. What years was that?

As for the WTF, here's a thought to consider: the level of competition. The WTF is less prone to a "one-win wonder" than Slams are, if solely for the fact that only the top 8 players make it - so there aren't any Thomas Johanssons or Gaston Gaudios, neither of whom every finished a year in the top 8. Scanning over the past 45 years of the World Tour Finals (in its various incarnations), the worst players to have won are probably Alex Corretja (1998), David Nalbandian (2005), and Nikolay Davydenko (2009). But for the most part the tournament has been won by multi-Slam winners.

I think another thing going for the WTF is that it is an indoor tournament and thus differentiates itself from the Slams.

All in all, even though it isn't as prestigious as the Slams, I think the WTF should be considered in weighing a player's greatness. With apologies to Rafa, of course. As has already been said it really is the fifth most prestigious event, and at times (the 70s) was probably even more prestigious than the Australian Open.

Speaking of Rafa, here are the greatest players of the Open Era not to win the WTF:

Rafael Nadal
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
John Newcombe
Arthur Ashe
Jim Courier

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^its a bit harsh to include laver/rosewall (although technically correct) they were age 32 and 36 even during the first one in December 1970,

actually laver was within a whisker of winning, it was done on a total games won v lost basis, stan smith edging out laver by a game or so. in fact i just re-checked and stan bt laver 6-4 in the 3rd set of their match, in the end that decided the winner.

 

[Kirijax]

When I think about the criteria for GOAT, this is the order I go by:

Grand Slams
World Tour Finals
Year-End No. 1
Weeks at No. 1
Davis Cup
Total Win-Loss Record
Rivalry with other top players

And from the 90s onward, I might add the color of the Olympic medal if I need more tiebreakers.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^ Leave the Davis Cup out, because it is a team competition, and I am pretty much with you. Also got to swap WTF with Year-End No.1. That is longevity and it matters for me quite a big deal. As opposed to Davis Cup, I would but Masters 1000 events there. Those are tough cookies with only a round of gimmies and the rest serious competition.

 

[Kirijax]

^ Leave the Davis Cup out, because it is a team competition, and I am pretty much with you. Also got to swap WTF with Year-End No.1. That is longevity and it matters for me quite a big deal. As opposed to Davis Cup, I would but Masters 1000 events there. Those are tough cookies with only a round of gimmies and the rest serious competition.

I thought about the WTF and the YE No. 1 and it's pretty close. Ask me tomorrow and I might have a different oipion.

The Davis Cup is one of the premier events and all of the top players have contributed to it. It's important to the players. We can see that by how much Federer sacrificed last year to finally win the darn thing. I can't leave that out, team competition or no.

You're right about the Masters titles. I would probably squeeze that in between weeks at No. 1 and the Davis Cup.

 

[Federberg]

When I think about the criteria for GOAT, this is the order I go by:

Grand Slams
World Tour Finals
Year-End No. 1
Weeks at No. 1
Davis Cup
Total Win-Loss Record
Rivalry with other top players

And from the 90s onward, I might add the color of the Olympic medal if I need more tiebreakers.

I have to disagree somewhat. Here's mine:

Slams - it's what we all talk about
Weeks at No. 1 - one of the clearest expressions of dominance in any sport
Total Tournament wins - this is what it's all about, and one of the easiest ways to compare across eras
Total Win-Loss Record - again one of the best metrics to assess dominance
World Tour Finals - you have to beat your closest competitors, and huge historical weight
Year End No. 1 - I almost didn't even include this. Just because it was important to Sampras it's become a big deal, I'm not convinced, but I'll keep it..

I don't believe Davis Cup has much to do with the singles record of a player. It's dependent on the depth of tennis in your country, I see no reason why a player should be rewarded for that. Similarly the Olympics is not an open field, it's too infrequent and has no historic weight. My views are well known regarding h2h scores. It's an interesting stat, and useful for betting, but you don't dream about h2h when you start playing tennis. You dream about winning titles. It's derivative and largely a construct of the modern fanbase and media.

 

[El Dude]

I really wish I could settle on a list of criteria for rating players, but it is just so hard. I'm toying with creating two system: One, a simpler system that can be used to compare players across eras because it uses minimal data - as much as is available for all eras (which isn't much). Two, a more complex system that can be used for Open Era players, in particular ATP era (1973-present). I'm thinking something like this:

Simple System (All Eras)
Slam wins and finalists - differentiating Open Era, Pro, and Amateur
Year-end #1 and #2
Total titles

I think that's pretty much all the data that is available for most players.

Complex System (Open Era only)
Everything in the simple system, plus:
Slam SFs and QFs
Year-end top 10 rankings
Weeks at #1
World Tour Finals
Masters
Winning Pct

I don't have a particular order in mind, but some kind of point system with weights. I've dabbled with stuff in the past, and this blog used a simple system which I updated in the corresponding thread but didn't update in the blog - might have to do that.

 

[Kirijax]

I really wish I could settle on a list of criteria for rating players, but it is just so hard. I'm toying with creating two system: One, a simpler system that can be used to compare players across eras because it uses minimal data - as much as is available for all eras (which isn't much). Two, a more complex system that can be used for Open Era players, in particular ATP era (1973-present). I'm thinking something like this:

Simple System (All Eras)
Slam wins and finalists - differentiating Open Era, Pro, and Amateur
Year-end #1 and #2
Total titles

I think that's pretty much all the data that is available for most players.

Complex System (Open Era only)
Everything in the simple system, plus:
Slam SFs and QFs
Year-end top 10 rankings
Weeks at #1
World Tour Finals
Masters
Winning Pct

I don't have a particular order in mind, but some kind of point system with weights. I've dabbled with stuff in the past, and this blog used a simple system which I updated in the corresponding thread but didn't update in the blog - might have to do that.

Please do! I thought about the same idea in the past. It would be very interesting to see.

 

[El Dude]

Here's my latest rankings using a simple system. It includes the criteria above, except for total totals. I'm not sure how to weigh those.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3185&pid=165451#pid165451

 

[mrzz]

^You mean "total titles"?

 

[El Dude]

^ Leave the Davis Cup out, because it is a team competition, and I am pretty much with you. Also got to swap WTF with Year-End No.1. That is longevity and it matters for me quite a big deal. As opposed to Davis Cup, I would but Masters 1000 events there. Those are tough cookies with only a round of gimmies and the rest serious competition.

^You mean "total titles"?

Actually, total totals are even more important than total titles in determining greatness.

 

[Great Hands]

When I think about the criteria for GOAT, this is the order I go by:

Grand Slams
World Tour Finals
Year-End No. 1
Weeks at No. 1
Davis Cup
Total Win-Loss Record
Rivalry with other top players

And from the 90s onward, I might add the color of the Olympic medal if I need more tiebreakers.

I have to disagree somewhat. Here's mine:

Slams - it's what we all talk about
Weeks at No. 1 - one of the clearest expressions of dominance in any sport
Total Tournament wins - this is what it's all about, and one of the easiest ways to compare across eras
Total Win-Loss Record - again one of the best metrics to assess dominance
World Tour Finals - you have to beat your closest competitors, and huge historical weight
Year End No. 1 - I almost didn't even include this. Just because it was important to Sampras it's become a big deal, I'm not convinced, but I'll keep it..

I don't believe Davis Cup has much to do with the singles record of a player. It's dependent on the depth of tennis in your country, I see no reason why a player should be rewarded for that. Similarly the Olympics is not an open field, it's too infrequent and has no historic weight. My views are well known regarding h2h scores. It's an interesting stat, and useful for betting, but you don't dream about h2h when you start playing tennis. You dream about winning titles. It's derivative and largely a construct of the modern fanbase and media.

Yeah, i don't understand why year-end no. 1 should be important at all. it is vry arbitrary - why shoul being number one in november be a greater achievment than being number 1 in june, or february? it's just rally random. whenever you're no.1, it means you've been the most sucessful over the past 12 months, which is just as good an achivement if you do it mid-year as if you do it at the end of the year. weeks at no.1 is the important stat, along with slam count. i wouldn't even incude year-end no.1.

i think the combination of slam count and weeks at no.1 gives a good picture, certainly since all the slams became prestigious in the 80s. the disavantage of just considering slams won is that it favours a great performance on a given day over consistency (it would unfairly favour gaston gaudio over berdych, for example), but the disavantage of weeks at no.1 is that it favours consisncy over the ability to win the biggest titles (it would unfairly favour marcelo rios over andy murray, for example). combind thd two, and you've got a very accurate indicator, I think.

 

[Great Hands]

When I think about the criteria for GOAT, this is the order I go by:

Grand Slams
World Tour Finals
Year-End No. 1
Weeks at No. 1
Davis Cup
Total Win-Loss Record
Rivalry with other top players

And from the 90s onward, I might add the color of the Olympic medal if I need more tiebreakers.

I have to disagree somewhat. Here's mine:

Slams - it's what we all talk about
Weeks at No. 1 - one of the clearest expressions of dominance in any sport
Total Tournament wins - this is what it's all about, and one of the easiest ways to compare across eras
Total Win-Loss Record - again one of the best metrics to assess dominance
World Tour Finals - you have to beat your closest competitors, and huge historical weight
Year End No. 1 - I almost didn't even include this. Just because it was important to Sampras it's become a big deal, I'm not convinced, but I'll keep it..

I don't believe Davis Cup has much to do with the singles record of a player. It's dependent on the depth of tennis in your country, I see no reason why a player should be rewarded for that. Similarly the Olympics is not an open field, it's too infrequent and has no historic weight. My views are well known regarding h2h scores. It's an interesting stat, and useful for betting, but you don't dream about h2h when you start playing tennis. You dream about winning titles. It's derivative and largely a construct of the modern fanbase and media.

Yeah, i don't understand why year-end no. 1 should be important at all. it is very arbitrary - why should being number one in november be a greater achievement than being number 1 in june, or february? it's just really random. whenever you're no.1, it means you've been the most sucessful over the past 12 months, which is just as good an achivement if you do it mid-year as if you do it at the end of the year. weeks at no.1 is the important stat, along with slam count. i wouldn't even incude year-end no.1.

i think the combination of slam count and weeks at no.1 gives a good picture, certainly since all the slams became prestigious in the 80s. the disavantage of just considering slams won is that it favours a great performance on a given day over consistency (it would unfairly favour gaston gaudio over berdych, for example), but the disavantage of weeks at no.1 is that it favours consisncy over the ability to win the biggest titles (it would unfairly favour marcelo rios over andy murray, for example). combind thd two, and you've got a very accurate indicator, I think.