Tennis Abstract's top 128 Players

[El Dude]

Heavy Topspin, the blog of Jeff Sackmann of Tennis Abstract, is posting an ongoing series of his top 128 players. He admits that such a ranking is silly, and I find the usage of Elo Ratings a bit questionable, and his order borders on bonkers in some cases, but the meat of the series are the articles themselves - they're really good, and do a great job providing a snapshot and characterization of each player, both as a tennis player and human being. Recommended.

Here's the intro, which includes a link to the list:

The Tennis 128

 

[Moxie]

I just read the Agassi one, as a place to start, and I agree, the article is informative and well-written, and even includes the iconic Image is Everything Canon ad. Very fun. Thanks for sharing.

 

[tented]

I started at the bottom of the list — No. 128 — then began glancing upwards, and stopped as soon as I got to No. 120: Kei Nishikori. I thought, How can he be in the top 128 tennis players of all time? I clicked on his name, and found this:

“No majors, no Masters titles, no semi-finals at three of the four slams, and a mere nine weeks in the top four the ATP rankings. What on earth is Kei Nishikori doing on this list?”

So apparently the person who put him on the list agrees with me.

He continues:

”Nishikori’s entire career has overlapped with the reign of the Big Four. He never made much progress against them in head-to-heads, going 2-18 against Novak Djokovic, 2-12 versus Rafael Nadal, 2-9 against Andy Murray, and 3-8 facing Roger Federer. My Elo ratings and the official ATP rankings agree that Kei only broke the quartet’s stranglehold on the top four spots when Roger or Rafa was injured, except for a brief spell when Elo had him in a dead heat with Murray.

You could be an extremely good player in the mid-2010s and never sniff the #3 ranking. You could be a very good player for an entire decade and never win a big title. The generations of men born between about 1985 and 1995 weren’t bad, they just had unfortunate timing. So Kei and a handful of other all-time greats are stuck with distinctly mediocre-looking records.”

Again, he’s arguing against himself: blaming others (the Big Three/Four) for not allowing Kei to have had a better career, therefore ending up with a ”distinctly mediocre-looking record.” Yet is one of the 128 greatest players ever.

Really think about that: there have been hundreds and hundreds of people who have won majors over the last century, or have at least made more than one major final, but aren’t on this list.

Hmmm … makes me curious to continue exploring the next names.

 

[El Dude]

I started at the bottom of the list — No. 128 — then began glancing upwards, and stopped as soon as I got to No. 120: Kei Nishikori. I thought, How can he be in the top 128 tennis players of all time? I clicked on his name, and found this:

“No majors, no Masters titles, no semi-finals at three of the four slams, and a mere nine weeks in the top four the ATP rankings. What on earth is Kei Nishikori doing on this list?”

So apparently the person who put him on the list agrees with me.

He continues:

”Nishikori’s entire career has overlapped with the reign of the Big Four. He never made much progress against them in head-to-heads, going 2-18 against Novak Djokovic, 2-12 versus Rafael Nadal, 2-9 against Andy Murray, and 3-8 facing Roger Federer. My Elo ratings and the official ATP rankings agree that Kei only broke the quartet’s stranglehold on the top four spots when Roger or Rafa was injured, except for a brief spell when Elo had him in a dead heat with Murray.

You could be an extremely good player in the mid-2010s and never sniff the #3 ranking. You could be a very good player for an entire decade and never win a big title. The generations of men born between about 1985 and 1995 weren’t bad, they just had unfortunate timing. So Kei and a handful of other all-time greats are stuck with distinctly mediocre-looking records.”

Again, he’s arguing against himself: blaming others (the Big Three/Four) for not allowing Kei to have had a better career, therefore ending up with a ”distinctly mediocre-looking record.” Yet is one of the 128 greatest players ever.

Really think about that: there have been hundreds and hundreds of people who have won majors over the last century, or have at least made more than one major final, but aren’t on this list.

Hmmm … makes me curious to continue exploring the next names.

Yeah, I kind of warned about this in the OP: the rankings are wonky. They're based on Elo, which I find a bit dubious - at least as a singular, or primary, way of determining greatness. He also has David Ferrer ahead of Hewitt, Wawrinka, Roddick, etc.

But the articles are very good, and even if one fundamentally disagrees with his methodology (of Elo), he still makes good points that highlight players in a different light than their mere raw titles. I mean, the same logic can be applies to Andy Murray, who was a greater player than his 3 Slam titles imply--and hasn't been ranked yet, which means Sackman ranks him higher than Agassi, Edberg, Newcombe, etc.

As for Nishikori, I have brought up the idea that he may be the best player never to win a big title. He has the most GOAT Points (ultimatetennisstatistics.com) of any such player, and more GP than some players with multiple Masters and even a Slam.

So rather than look at his rankings as somehow definitive, or a statement of "you either agree or are wrong," the series is best approached as a bunch of articles about 128 players, highlighting some of the things about them that aren't adequately understood by simply looking at title counts.

 

[El Dude]

In other words, I'd read the rankings as simply: "128 greatest players according to my personal Elo rating formula."

 

[El Dude]

One more thing. I really dislike including women and men on the same list. Just imagine when someone inevitably does the same for the NBA and WNBA.

 

[tented]

In other words, I'd read the rankings as simply: "128 greatest players according to my personal Elo rating formula."

That seems the perfect way to approach it.

 

[tented]

No. 79: David Ferrer. (One number higher than Roddick.)

Several years ago, I distinctly remember Federer saying Ferrer had the best ROS on the tour. It was striking at the time, and has stayed with me. And yet, in his blog, Sackmann points out:

“From 2004 to 2016, he won at least 41% of his return points every single year. Even Nadal didn’t quite manage that, dropping below the 41% mark (albeit barely) twice in that span.

Here’s the list of players who have won at least 41% of their return points in six or more seasons, since the ATP started keeping complete(ish) stats in 1991:

Seasons Player
14 Rafael Nadal
13 Novak Djokovic
13 David Ferrer
11 Andy Murray
10 Andre Agassi
8 Michael Chang
7 Lleyton Hewitt
7 Magnus Gustafsson
7 Thomas Muster
6 Alberto Berasategui

Ferrer’s best serving season puts him even more elite company. Only ten men have posted even a single season in which they won at least 41% of their return points and 67% or more of their serve points: Agassi, Jim Courier, Djokovic, Stefan Edberg, Roger Federer, Daniil Medvedev, Murray, Nadal, Marcelo Rios, and David Ferrer.”

So Federer was right, it would seem.

 

[Moxie]

I think you did use the word "bonkers" in the OP, plus, anyone who's going to make a list is asking to be shot at, so all is fair, but that Nishikori one, as Tented points out, is sort of parallel universe kind stuff. Like he would have been #120, if other players had allowed him to have a better career. That deserves a yellow card.

 

[El Dude]

I think you did use the word "bonkers" in the OP, plus, anyone who's going to make a list is asking to be shot at, so all is fair, but that Nishikori one, as Tented points out, is sort of parallel universe kind stuff. Like he would have been #120, if other players had allowed him to have a better career. That deserves a yellow card.

Yeah, I hear you, but only if we're looking for this list to be definitive. If we look at it more as a "This is the top 128 using my Elo formula," then it becomes an interesting exercise in seeing tennis players from a new angle. "Interesting to see Kei rank so highly based on Elo."

BTW, my prediction is that he ranks Novak #1, Rafa #2, Roger #3, and Laver #4. Just a guess, though. My impression based upon past articles is that Sachmann is a bit of a Rafa fan, though I think Novak's highest all time Elo will push him over the edge for him.

And dear Nadalfan2013 will jump in and cry rivers of outraged tears.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I hear you, but only if we're looking for this list to be definitive. If we look at it more as a "This is the top 128 using my Elo formula," then it becomes an interesting exercise in seeing tennis players from a new angle. "Interesting to see Kei rank so highly based on Elo."

I don't think any of us would look for any kind of list like this to be definitive. Now that I've read his whole first page explanation of what he's going for, it is, as much as anything, an excuse to dig into some long-forgotten or under-appreciated players. And a reason to write about them, which he does well.

But don't get me wrong...I like it! Though I do agree that mixing men and women is ridiculous. Smacks of laziness...he should have done two different blogs, IMHO. (Which I say with a laugh and a wink.) But, hey, it's his blog, and he can do it anyway he wants to. He explains his methodology very well, and even the subjectivity involved. He wanted to arrive at some formula, and see how it netted out. This is where it did.

BTW, my prediction is that he ranks Novak #1, Rafa #2, Roger #3, and Laver #4. Just a guess, though. My impression based upon past articles is that Sachmann is a bit of a Rafa fan, though I think Novak's highest all time Elo will push him over the edge for him.

And dear Nadalfan2013 will jump in and cry rivers of outraged tears.

No, Nadalfan2013 will just spout fannish nonsense, and the term "GOATdal" will be multiply invoked. (One of my least favorite fan coinages on the forums, by the way.)

But when he gets to the higher numbers, I do suspect more people with jump in on this thread. For now, I will nip more into what he has when I have time.

 

[Moxie]

No. 79: David Ferrer. (One number higher than Roddick.)

Several years ago, I distinctly remember Federer saying Ferrer had the best ROS on the tour. It was striking at the time, and has stayed with me. And yet, in his blog, Sackmann points out:

“From 2004 to 2016, he won at least 41% of his return points every single year. Even Nadal didn’t quite manage that, dropping below the 41% mark (albeit barely) twice in that span.

Here’s the list of players who have won at least 41% of their return points in six or more seasons, since the ATP started keeping complete(ish) stats in 1991:

Seasons Player
14 Rafael Nadal
13 Novak Djokovic
13 David Ferrer
11 Andy Murray
10 Andre Agassi
8 Michael Chang
7 Lleyton Hewitt
7 Magnus Gustafsson
7 Thomas Muster
6 Alberto Berasategui

Ferrer’s best serving season puts him even more elite company. Only ten men have posted even a single season in which they won at least 41% of their return points and 67% or more of their serve points: Agassi, Jim Courier, Djokovic, Stefan Edberg, Roger Federer, Daniil Medvedev, Murray, Nadal, Marcelo Rios, and David Ferrer.”

So Federer was right, it would seem.

This is very interesting. Not just because of the fantastic ROS, which, as you say, Fed called out. Nor just because he is ranked one over Roddick, who actually won a Major, made a few finals, while Ferrer only ever made the one Major final, (RG 2013.) I re-read the explanation of ELO rankings every time they come up. And, I have to admit, my eyes tend to glaze over before I get to the end. But, if I'm understanding it right, one reason that Ferrer does well is due to the competition he faced, and how he fared, overall.

I like this shout-out for a couple of reasons. Ferrer was, in his time, maligned by a lot of people as a grinder with no weapons. That was wrong: he had a great cross-court FH, an often effective spot serve, even beyond his above-cited ROS. And he did have the heart of a lion. (With eyes to match. Strange gold color.) But he had to be fit and competitive, being 5'9", so, relatively small, in these times. Schwartman reminds me a bit of him, though he's much shorter. But we all, I think, put Ferrer on the (short) list of guys who would have won a Major in another era.

 

[El Dude]

I don't think any of us would look for any kind of list like this to be definitive. Now that I've read his whole first page explanation of what he's going for, it is, as much as anything, an excuse to dig into some long-forgotten or under-appreciated players. And a reason to write about them, which he does well.

But don't get me wrong...I like it! Though I do agree that mixing men and women is ridiculous. Smacks of laziness...he should have done two different blogs, IMHO. (Which I say with a laugh and a wink.) But, hey, it's his blog, and he can do it anyway he wants to. He explains his methodology very well, and even the subjectivity involved. He wanted to arrive at some formula, and see how it netted out. This is where it did.

Well I think it is probably due to contemporary egalitarian sensibilities. My view is that it actually does more disservice to the female players, as ranking them together makes it tempting to compare across gender lines.

I just see no point in ranking, say, Serena and Roger on the same list. No matter how you do it, someone will be offended - and it does a disservice to both of them, imo.

As a side and unrelated note, one female player that stands out as truly unique--with no comparable male player--is Monica Seles. I suppose there is a slight similarity to Borg in that both have an almost mythical "What if" attached to their names, but Seles was even more dominant than Borg was, if only for a very short time. And of course she came back, though at a much lower level.

No, Nadalfan2013 will just spout fannish nonsense, and the term "GOATdal" will be multiply invoked. (One of my least favorite fan coinages on the forums, by the way.)

LOL. A rare breed, that one.

But when he gets to the higher numbers, I do suspect more people with jump in on this thread. For now, I will nip more into what he has when I have time.

Yep. I'll keep checking in too. I'm only reading a few of them, but have enjoyed what I've read so far.

 

[El Dude]

Regarding Ferrer, there's a similarity with Nishikori in another statistical system - Ultimate Tennis Statistics' "GOAT Points." Where Nishikori has the most GP among all players without a big title in the Open Era, Ferrer has the most among Slamless players. Before him, Tom Okker was sometimes considered to be the greatest Slamless player, at least as far as overall record, if not peak form. Regardless of what one thinks of GP, I do think it illustrates that both were better than their record shows, and both victims of playing in the Big Three era.

On the other hand, both somewhat fit the mold of players who were consistently good to very good, but didn't have that peak level to break through or dominate. We can contrast them with Stan Wawrinka, who at his best was far more dangerous, which led to his three Slam titles right in the heart of the Big Four era. In that sense, it is crazy that both are ranked higher than Stan, which goes against his supposed emphasis on peak level. The reason Stan won three Slams is that--at least for those three Slams--he was able to outplay the very best. Consider who he beat en route to his Slam wins:

2014 AO: Djokovic, Berdych, Nadal
2015 RG: Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic
2016 USO: Del Potro, Nishikori, Djokovic

I mean, he beat Novak in all three tournaments! And added in a win over Rafa and Roger, and some other very good players.

It was impressive at the time, but in a way more impressive in hindsight - especially when compared to other players who were able to play at a very high level, but lacked consistently. Good old Nalbandian, for instance, who won three big titles--having to beat Roger all three times, and with that amazing 2007 Madrid Masters in which he beat Berdych, del Potro, Rafa, Novak, and Rafa all in a row. I'm not 100% certain, but I'm guessing that's the only time anyone has beaten the Big Three in a single tournament (with the caveat that Novak was still a bit green, but still...). It is a shame that Nalbandian didn't have the mental focus to do that at a Slam.

 

[Moxie]

Regarding Ferrer, there's a similarity with Nishikori in another statistical system - Ultimate Tennis Statistics' "GOAT Points." Where Nishikori has the most GP among all players without a big title in the Open Era, Ferrer has the most among Slamless players. Before him, Tom Okker was sometimes considered to be the greatest Slamless player, at least as far as overall record, if not peak form. Regardless of what one thinks of GP, I do think it illustrates that both were better than their record shows, and both victims of playing in the Big Three era.

On the other hand, both somewhat fit the mold of players who were consistently good to very good, but didn't have that peak level to break through or dominate. We can contrast them with Stan Wawrinka, who at his best was far more dangerous, which led to his three Slam titles right in the heart of the Big Four era. In that sense, it is crazy that both are ranked higher than Stan, which goes against his supposed emphasis on peak level. The reason Stan won three Slams is that--at least for those three Slams--he was able to outplay the very best. Consider who he beat en route to his Slam wins:

2014 AO: Djokovic, Berdych, Nadal
2015 RG: Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic
2016 USO: Del Potro, Nishikori, Djokovic

I mean, he beat Novak in all three tournaments! And added in a win over Rafa and Roger, and some other very good players.

It was impressive at the time, but in a way more impressive in hindsight - especially when compared to other players who were able to play at a very high level, but lacked consistently. Good old Nalbandian, for instance, who won three big titles--having to beat Roger all three times, and with that amazing 2007 Madrid Masters in which he beat Berdych, del Potro, Rafa, Novak, and Rafa all in a row. I'm not 100% certain, but I'm guessing that's the only time anyone has beaten the Big Three in a single tournament (with the caveat that Novak was still a bit green, but still...). It is a shame that Nalbandian didn't have the mental focus to do that at a Slam.

That is very interesting. And I think it must hint at a chink in the formula. Totally agree that Stan had a higher upside than either Kei or Ferrru. (Kei is a bit of a what-if, being so hampered by injury, as there was a lot of talent in there. Sorry to speak of him in the past, but...well.) I know there's something about "peak years" and playing years in there, and Stan has a pretty narrow "peak" window, and it came late. Do you think that's what drives his ELO down? I mean, 3 Majors in the Big 3/4 era, and only Murray matches it, below the obvious. Would anyone say that Nishikori or Ferrer was a greater tennis player than Wawrinka? I think no. But if you pick a formula, and you commit to sticking to it, you're going to get some egg on your face. Because math only gets you so far, no matter how you slice it. Again, I do appreciate the effort, and the fun we can have with it.

 

[tented]

BTW, my prediction is that he ranks Novak #1, Rafa #2, Roger #3, and Laver #4. Just a guess, though. My impression based upon past articles is that Sachmann is a bit of a Rafa fan, though I think Novak's highest all time Elo will push him over the edge for him.

No, he’s not going to put 4 men in the top 4 positions, after going to great effort to include both. My guess is that Serena and/or Martina are in the top 4-5.

 

[Moxie]

No, he’s not going to put 4 men in the top 4 positions, after going to great effort to include both. My guess is that Serena and/or Martina are in the top 4-5.

That's a good point, but technically, he isn't really "putting" anyone anywhere, he's just (mostly) letting the numbers do the work and leaving them where they land?

 

[El Dude]

No, he’s not going to put 4 men in the top 4 positions, after going to great effort to include both. My guess is that Serena and/or Martina are in the top 4-5.

Of course. I was just talking about the men. Wouldn't be surprised if he puts Serena first.

 

[El Dude]

That is very interesting. And I think it must hint at a chink in the formula. Totally agree that Stan had a higher upside than either Kei or Ferrru. (Kei is a bit of a what-if, being so hampered by injury, as there was a lot of talent in there. Sorry to speak of him in the past, but...well.) I know there's something about "peak years" and playing years in there, and Stan has a pretty narrow "peak" window, and it came late. Do you think that's what drives his ELO down? I mean, 3 Majors in the Big 3/4 era, and only Murray matches it, below the obvious. Would anyone say that Nishikori or Ferrer was a greater tennis player than Wawrinka? I think no. But if you pick a formula, and you commit to sticking to it, you're going to get some egg on your face. Because math only gets you so far, no matter how you slice it. Again, I do appreciate the effort, and the fun we can have with it.

As someone who has dabbled with trying to create a ranking system, one of the biggest problems is how to balance peak vs. career. Almost every system ends up making players who are good to very good for a very long time look better than players who had a higher peak but shorter prime. So in Sackmann's system we have Ferrer and Roddick ranked higher than Courier and Wawrinka, even though the latter had much higher peak levels.

I don't know Sackmann's formula, so don't know why his rankings are the way they are. But it seems clear that he balances more towards career than peak. So presumably he has some method of "accumulative Elo."

 

[Moxie]

Of course. I was just talking about the men. Wouldn't be surprised if he puts Serena first.

But, again, is he "putting" them, or is he living with the results of his own formula? You keep saying he's going to "place" them, and his thesis statement says that he's, within a few points, relying on his numbers.