The Rankings Thread (ATP)

[britbox]

I knew that would get certain folks upset. Look, as I said, I still see Wilander as the greater player, but it is much closer than the numbers "7" and "3" indicate. In fact, that difference in Slam titles is all Wilander has on Murray. In almost every other way, Andy's record is superior. Consider:

*Slam finals: 7-4 Wilander, 3-8 Murray. Wilander obviously has a big edge, but it is worth noting that they both reached 11 Slam titles. Consider the players Murray lost to in those 8 finals: Federer x3, Djokovic x5. In other words, he lost all of his finals to two of the four or five best players of the Open Era.
*Total titles: 45 Murray, 33 Wilander. Big edge for Andy.
*Big titles: 17 Murray, 8 Wilander. Big edge for Andy.
*Rankings: Both have one year-end #1. Wilander four years in top 5; seven in top 10. Murray eight years in top 5, nine in top 10. Solid edge for Andy here.

No if we want to go into non-statistical things, it becomes much more subjective. Most long-time fans would agree that Wilander was more brilliant at his best, but Andy at least partially--if not completely--balances this out with longevity and consistency. Mats was done as an elite player at age 24, while Andy just become the oldest year-end #1 in Open Era history at age 29 (although Rafa will beat that record in a month or so).

So yeah, not quite as clearcut as "7 vs 3" would indicate.

I don't think Murray is really in the same conversation as Wilander either, but would agree that it is closer than solely relying on the major count.

 

[mrzz]

I knew that would get certain folks upset. Look, as I said, I still see Wilander as the greater player, but it is much closer than the numbers "7" and "3" indicate. In fact, that difference in Slam titles is all Wilander has on Murray. In almost every other way, Andy's record is superior. Consider:

*Slam finals: 7-4 Wilander, 3-8 Murray. Wilander obviously has a big edge, but it is worth noting that they both reached 11 Slam titles. Consider the players Murray lost to in those 8 finals: Federer x3, Djokovic x5. In other words, he lost all of his finals to two of the four or five best players of the Open Era.
*Total titles: 45 Murray, 33 Wilander. Big edge for Andy.
*Big titles: 17 Murray, 8 Wilander. Big edge for Andy.
*Rankings: Both have one year-end #1. Wilander four years in top 5; seven in top 10. Murray eight years in top 5, nine in top 10. Solid edge for Andy here.

No if we want to go into non-statistical things, it becomes much more subjective. Most long-time fans would agree that Wilander was more brilliant at his best, but Andy at least partially--if not completely--balances this out with longevity and consistency. Mats was done as an elite player at age 24, while Andy just become the oldest year-end #1 in Open Era history at age 29 (although Rafa will beat that record in a month or so).

So yeah, not quite as clearcut as "7 vs 3" would indicate.

I see your point, Dude, but... when this kind of discussion comes up (with the word "greatness" in it), it is completely results oriented. So the number of finals argument could in fact be even reversed...

The opposition argument is obviously a good one, but you know that is tricky in itself. I was checking and Wilander beat a fair list of all time greats in his semis and finals... Maybe if Wilander lost three or four finals to the same guy (for example Lendl) he would elevate that same guy still higher up the historical order. We would say, "oh, but he lost all those finals to Lendl". [who has an 10-11 slam count in this alternate world].

The fact is that he won. To transform technique and talent into results, and titles, is ultimately the name of the game. I see your point that everything else tells a different story than 7x3. But that´s the headline, there is no way around it. You could have an argument if it was 7x6, but 7x3 is simply too much. And, by the way, Wilander three slams year is a feat in itself.

But if you point is solely that the difference is smaller than 7x3 indicates, as you actually clarified in the last post, than you have a point. After all, that's just another way of saying that peak Wilander > peak Murray ().

 

[El Dude]

But if you point is solely that the difference is smaller than 7x3 indicates, as you actually clarified in the last post, than you have a point. After all, that's just another way of saying that peak Wilander > peak Murray ().

Yes, this pretty much. My point isn't solely that, but it is mainly that. Invariably people seem to put about 90%+ emphasis on Slam titles, which I think is a bit much. Some even only look at Slam count, which is just silly. Obviously Slam titles are the largest factor in determining greatness--or at least that's the general consensus--but they aren't 90%+.

My larger point is this: Outside of Slam wins, Murray has had a better career. That has to be taken into account and narrows the gap substantially. How much it narrows it is debatable. And yes, some statistical systems rank Andy higher (e.g. Tennis Base and Ultimate Tennis).

Slam titles don't always accurately depict how great a player was. Compare Ilie Nastase to Johan Kriek, both of whom won 2 Slams. Even if we ignore the fact that Kriek's two titles were at the Australian Open when it was essentially an ATP 500 event, Nastase was a far greater player with many more accomplishments.

 

[britbox]

Yes, this pretty much. My point isn't solely that, but it is mainly that. Invariably people seem to put about 90%+ emphasis on Slam titles, which I think is a bit much. Some even only look at Slam count, which is just silly. Obviously Slam titles are the largest factor in determining greatness--or at least that's the general consensus--but they aren't 90%+.

My larger point is this: Outside of Slam wins, Murray has had a better career. That has to be taken into account and narrows the gap substantially. How much it narrows it is debatable. And yes, some statistical systems rank Andy higher (e.g. Tennis Base and Ultimate Tennis).

Slam titles don't always accurately depict how great a player was. Compare Ilie Nastase to Johan Kriek, both of whom won 2 Slams. Even if we ignore the fact that Kriek's two titles were at the Australian Open when it was essentially an ATP 500 event, Nastase was a far greater player with many more accomplishments.

The latter is true for sure, although Kriek was not chopped liver, he was a decent player but I think people do make some allowances on the AO during the 70s to the early 80s when factoring in slam counts. You could say Wilander was playing a weakish field at the AO in 83, although at least Lendl and Mac were there. Wilander and the march of the Swedes down under really helped bring the AO back to relevance because once they started going (i.e. Mats, Nystrom, Jarryd, Edberg) the other stars began going too.

So yeah, it shouldn't just be on slam counts, particularly cross-era... Murray is closer to Mats than some other people give him credit for... but did anyone ever really think Murray was the best tennis player out there at any stage of his career? I think that's something Mats holds over him, even if it was fleeting.

 

[Haelfix]

It’s definitely not insane to compare Wilander and Murray. Wilander never played with 3 players that would literally put a stranglehold on all majors. He played with one person who did. Lendl.

Imagine if Murray only played in an era with just one of the big three. Yea it’s not a stretch to say that his slam count would be higher.

Murray’s best surfaces, fast hards and fast grass has also been steadily decreasing in availability and had he played in Wilanders era he would have had far more surface advantages.

Wilander is one of my favorite players of all time, but objectively he was always someone who sorta overachieved In his career. At no point was he ever really a pure favorite to win anywhere, even on clay there were always several players in his era that were considered as equally dangerous.

I’d put him about equal with Murray career wise, and it will likely fall in Andy’s direction if he can reproduce one more 2016.

 

[herios]

Career high on October 16:
4. Marin Cilic 29y
6. Dominic Them 24y
14. Sam Querrey 30y
77. Flip Krajinovic 25y
94. Tennys Sandgren 26y
100. Maximilian Marterer 22y


The new member in the top 100 is german Marterer. He is ranked #8 among German players.

 

[El Dude]

Thanks for that, @Haelfix - I agree for the most part (obviously, as I am the one saying that Andy is closer to Mats than people who only look at Slam wins think), but....I would put out there that Wilander peaked in an era that was dense in talent. I've remarked a couple times that Ivan Lendl's career overlapped with greats at or near their peaks than any player in the Open Era: Connors/Borg/McEnroe/Vilas in the late 70s-early 80s, Wilander/Edberg/Becker in the mid to late 80s, Agassi/Sampras/Courier in the late 80s to 90s. Wilander's peak was shorter, but he overlapped with most of those players.

Consider the top 5 in 1988, Mats' career year, with Slam titles in parentheses:

1. Wilander (7)
2. Lendl (8)
3. Agassi (8)
4. Becker (6)
5. Edberg (6)

After that it drops quickly with Carlsson, a 36 year old Connors, Hlasek, Leconte, and Mayotte rounding out the top 10.

Compare Andy's best year, 2016:
1. Murray (3)
2. Djokovic (12)
3. Raonic (0)
4. Wawrinka (3)
5. Nishikori (0)

After that we have Cilic, Monfils, Thiem, a part-time Nadal, and Berdych.

And of course that's just their best years. But I think it is similar through their peeks. My point is not that it was easier for either of them, but that whereas Andy had to deal with arguably the three greatest players of the Open Era, Wilander had to deal with a half dozen or more (adding in Connors and McEnroe in the early 80s, and Sampras in the late 80s/90s) great players, even if most of them were lesser greats.

I suppose in the end I'd rather face half a dozen lesser greats than three GOAT candidates, but just wanted to point out that Mats didn't play in an easy era.

 

[Haelfix]

Sort off. 1988 was a strange year.
Agassi was ridiculously young, and still extremely raw and far from what he would be.

It was Lendl's equivalent of 2008 for Federer, as he had a serious down year and his prime was beginning to pass. He won more slams but he was never quite the same. When Mats beat him at the USO, I remember being happy b/c I thought it was the end of his stranglehold (like almost everyone at the time we hated Lendl) b/c he simply was not playing anywhere near the cyborg tennis that he was known for.

So that left Edberg and Becker as his primary competition, and their best surfaces were carpet and grass which left all the slow hard and clay wide open for the taking (unless you count such minor talents as Le Comte and Noah as rivals).

Still a great year, but I wouldn't call it a super strong period either. Rather it was sort of an interim transitionary period (the Lendl --> Edberg/Becker transition which preceded the Agassi/Sampras takeover)

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, maybe 1988 was transitional and a bit weaker than before and after, but I think it was within a strong era in which a lot of great players were in or near their prime years: mid-80s to early 90s.

I find that one of the most interesting eras, with three cohorts of greats overlapping. On one bookend: 1984 was McEnroe's best year, and he was still really good in 1985 but starting to slip, and Jimmy was still quite good. On the other bookend, even though he didn't really become a powerhouse until 1993, Sampras won his first Slam in 1990, and of course Agassi and Courier. And between those you have Lendl, Edberg, Becker, and Wilander all having their best years.

Recent years are so different in that the last truly great player to play before the current Big 3/4 was Agassi - and he retired 11 years ago. So we've really only had 3-4 great players around...On the other hand, Alex Zverev could be changing that, and hopefully one or two others. But that's a long stretch - a full decade - with only a few all-time greats playing at a high level. The late 90s to early 00s was even worse, with only Sampras and Agassi in their primes among all-time greats. But that even further supports the idea that you have to go back to the early 90s to find more than maybe four all-time greats in their primes at the same time.

 

[herios]

New career high Oct.23:

31. Damir Dzumhur 25y
49. Denis Shapovalov 18y
50. Jared Donaldson 21y
75. Filip Krajinovic 25y
92. Tennys Sandgren 26y
95. Stefanos Tsitsipas 19y

The week Rublev turned 20, Tsitsipas makes the top 100, so the number of teenagers in the top 100 stays constant.
The way Dzumhur plays, the top 20 could happen in the not distant future.

 

[Ricardo]

Yes, this pretty much. My point isn't solely that, but it is mainly that. Invariably people seem to put about 90%+ emphasis on Slam titles, which I think is a bit much. Some even only look at Slam count, which is just silly. Obviously Slam titles are the largest factor in determining greatness--or at least that's the general consensus--but they aren't 90%+.

My larger point is this: Outside of Slam wins, Murray has had a better career. That has to be taken into account and narrows the gap substantially. How much it narrows it is debatable. And yes, some statistical systems rank Andy higher (e.g. Tennis Base and Ultimate Tennis).

Slam titles don't always accurately depict how great a player was. Compare Ilie Nastase to Johan Kriek, both of whom won 2 Slams. Even if we ignore the fact that Kriek's two titles were at the Australian Open when it was essentially an ATP 500 event, Nastase was a far greater player with many more accomplishments.

you have simply no idea what you are talking about, despite all these bla bla bla.

btw, Pioline the great underachiever remember?

 

[Ricardo]

Sort off. 1988 was a strange year.
Agassi was ridiculously young, and still extremely raw and far from what he would be.

It was Lendl's equivalent of 2008 for Federer, as he had a serious down year and his prime was beginning to pass. He won more slams but he was never quite the same. When Mats beat him at the USO, I remember being happy b/c I thought it was the end of his stranglehold (like almost everyone at the time we hated Lendl) b/c he simply was not playing anywhere near the cyborg tennis that he was known for.

So that left Edberg and Becker as his primary competition, and their best surfaces were carpet and grass which left all the slow hard and clay wide open for the taking (unless you count such minor talents as Le Comte and Noah as rivals).

Still a great year, but I wouldn't call it a super strong period either. Rather it was sort of an interim transitionary period (the Lendl --> Edberg/Becker transition which preceded the Agassi/Sampras takeover)

I would not write off Lendl in 1988, as if he was really past his prime. The way he played then, was the favourite to win the USO you can't just be a revisionist and say he wasn't the same just because Wilander squeezed out the win in the final. Or you might as say Edberg and Becker were not prime either as 1988 wasn't their best year either......with that logic nobody is prime then...

 

[Ricardo]

Comparing Wilander and Murray, i would say both are of the same mould. Essentially both are great consistent counter punchers, but Wilander had the champion's qualities that Murray didn't have....as Wilander would adapt to his opponent better while Murray would tighten up against the best (Fedal) on the biggest stages. Wilander would find that extra to get over the line, vs Lendl who was the overall superior player while Murray would retrieve to his defensive self and be content to get hit off the court (by Federer demonstrably). In the most crucial moments Wilander would rise above himself and play just that extra bit better while Murray would play a bit worse and passive. After so many matches it's safe to say Murray probably would still be searching for his first major if Lendl didn't instill some balls into him.

 

[shawnbm]

Wilander was crafty and would adapt his game to the opponent and surface, as Ricardo added above. He was not physically overpowering, but he could be an all-court player as needed, even though he preferred to rally from the baseline. He was also very Borg-like in the big moments; he did not rattle easily, which Andy has suffered more of in big matches against Fedal, in particular.

 

[Ricardo]

Wilander was crafty and would adapt his game to the opponent and surface, as Ricardo added above. He was not physically overpowering, but he could be an all-court player as needed, even though he preferred to rally from the baseline. He was also very Borg-like in the big moments; he did not rattle easily, which Andy has suffered more of in big matches against Fedal, in particular.

you put it together better than i did. Wilander was mentally there in the biggest moments, like Borg while Murray would keep whinging without coming up with a solution.

 

[britbox]

"Andre Agassi's forehand is not the biggest weapon in tennis today. Mats Wilander's brain is".

Jay Berger, Quote of the Year, 1988

 

[herios]

New career high on October 30:

13. Sam Querrey. 30y
25. Diego Schwartzman. 25y
62. Peter Gojowczyk. 28y
84. Marton Fucsovics 25y
89. Stefanos Tsitsipas 19y

 

[Ricardo]

Yes, this pretty much. My point isn't solely that, but it is mainly that. Invariably people seem to put about 90%+ emphasis on Slam titles, which I think is a bit much. Some even only look at Slam count, which is just silly. Obviously Slam titles are the largest factor in determining greatness--or at least that's the general consensus--but they aren't 90%+.

My larger point is this: Outside of Slam wins, Murray has had a better career. That has to be taken into account and narrows the gap substantially. How much it narrows it is debatable. And yes, some statistical systems rank Andy higher (e.g. Tennis Base and Ultimate Tennis).

Slam titles don't always accurately depict how great a player was. Compare Ilie Nastase to Johan Kriek, both of whom won 2 Slams. Even if we ignore the fact that Kriek's two titles were at the Australian Open when it was essentially an ATP 500 event, Nastase was a far greater player with many more accomplishments.

then you don't really have a point. GS results being 7-3 lopsided would put automatically put one above another no matter how they do outside GS. Besides that, Mats actually had a dominant year in which he won 3 slams and made QF at the other.......so he was closer to a true GS than Murray has ever been. I think you are just trying to make a point out of nothing, since i pointed out how stupid you were by saying there is an argument that 'Murray is better'.......because there is no such argument unless they are idiots. So you just did all this 'pointless' point in order to save face and divert the embarrassment.

oh i still remember how you said Pioline was some kind of great underachiever.....get a clue dude

 

[isabelle]

Sock is now 9, Benneteau 52 and Delpo 15

 

[britbox]

Top 100 - Nov 6th

1 (1) Rafa Nadal(Spain) 10645
2 (2) Roger Federer(Switzerland) 9005
3 (4) Alexander Zverev(Germany) 4410
4 (6) Dominic Thiem(Austria) 3815
5 (5) Marin Cilic(Croatia) 3805
6 (8) Grigor Dimitrov(Bulgaria) 3650
7 (9) Stan Wawrinka(Switzerland) 3150
8 (10) David Goffin(Belgium) 2975
9 (22) Jack Sock(U.S.) 2765
10 (11) Pablo Carreno(Spain) 2615
11 (17) Juan Martin del Potro(Argentina) 2595
12 (7) Novak Djokovic(Serbia) 2585
13 (13) Sam Querrey(U.S.) 2535
14 (16) Kevin Anderson(South Africa) 2480
15 (15) Jo-Wilfried Tsonga(France) 2320
16 (3) Andy Murray(Britain) 2290
17 (14) John Isner(U.S.) 2265
18 (18) Lucas Pouille(France) 2235
19 (19) Tomas Berdych(Czech Republic) 2095
20 (23) Roberto Bautista(Spain) 2015
21 (21) Nick Kyrgios(Australia) 2010
22 (20) Kei Nishikori(Japan) 1885
23 (24) Albert Ramos(Spain) 1845
24 (12) Milos Raonic(Canada) 1795
25 (26) Gilles Muller(Luxembourg) 1695
26 (25) Diego Schwartzman(Argentina) 1675
27 (27) Fabio Fognini(Italy) 1670
28 (28) Adrian Mannarino(France) 1635
29 (29) Philipp Kohlschreiber(Germany) 1440
30 (31) Damir Dzumhur(Bosnia and Herzegovina) 1391
31 (30) Richard Gasquet(France) 1375
32 (32) Mischa Zverev(Germany) 1302
33 (77) Filip Krajinovic(Serbia) 1298
34 (39) Fernando Verdasco(Spain) 1295
35 (33) Feliciano Lopez(Spain) 1295
36 (34) David Ferrer(Spain) 1290
37 (35) Andrey Rublev(Russia) 1288
38 (36) Pablo Cuevas(Uruguay) 1280
39 (37) Alexandr Dolgopolov(Ukraine) 1231
40 (38) Yuichi Sugita(Japan) 1219
41 (40) Benoit Paire(France) 1155
42 (43) Robin Haase(Netherlands) 1130
43 (41) Paolo Lorenzi(Italy) 1095
44 (42) Steve Johnson(U.S.) 1055
45 (44) Karen Khachanov(Russia) 1030
46 (46) Gael Monfils(France) 1015
47 (45) Ryan Harrison(U.S.) 1010
48 (51) Borna Coric(Croatia) 1001
49 (47) Aljaz Bedene(Britain) 993
50 (50) Kyle Edmund(Britain) 992
51 (49) Denis Shapovalov(Canada) 981
52 (83) Julien Benneteau(France) 959
53 (52) Leonardo Mayer(Argentina) 917
54 (55) Chung Hyeon(South Korea) 914
55 (54) Jared Donaldson(U.S.) 908
56 (48) Jan-Lennard Struff(Germany) 898
57 (53) Viktor Troicki(Serbia) 880
58 (56) Denis Istomin(Uzbekistan) 873
59 (58) Joao Sousa(Portugal) 850
60 (62) Peter Gojowczyk(Germany) 839
61 (57) Nikoloz Basilashvili(Georgia) 826
62 (59) Donald Young(U.S.) 816
63 (60) Jiri Vesely(Czech Republic) 815
64 (61) Horacio Zeballos(Argentina) 808
65 (63) Daniil Medvedev(Russia) 772
66 (64) Guido Pella(Argentina) 757
67 (65) Dudi Sela(Israel) 755
68 (66) Federico Delbonis(Argentina) 755
69 (68) Florian Mayer(Germany) 718
70 (72) Guillermo Garcia-Lopez(Spain) 714
71 (76) Evgeny Donskoy(Russia) 706
72 (71) Lu Yen-Hsun(Taiwan) 704
73 (73) Thomas Fabbiano(Italy) 701
74 (69) Dusan Lajovic(Serbia) 687
75 (67) Steve Darcis(Belgium) 667
76 (88) Jeremy Chardy(France) 665
77 (78) Frances Tiafoe(U.S.) 663
78 (70) Ivo Karlovic(Croatia) 660
79 (79) Mikhail Kukushkin(Kazakhstan) 659
80 (81) Victor Estrella(Dominican Republic) 656
81 (80) Cedrik-Marcel Stebe(Germany) 655
82 (75) Pierre-Hugues Herbert(France) 652
83 (87) Mikhail Youzhny(Russia) 633
84 (84) Marton Fucsovics(Hungary) 629
85 (96) Tennys Sandgren(U.S.) 623
86 (103) Radu Albot(Moldova) 616
87 (89) Stefanos Tsitsipas(Greece) 615
88 (90) Laslo Djere(Serbia) 612
89 (74) Gilles Simon(France) 610
90 (106) Maximilian Marterer(Germany) 608
91 (92) Marius Copil(Romania) 601
92 (91) Jordan Thompson(Australia) 593
93 (95) Rogerio Dutra Silva(Brazil) 592
94 (85) Andreas Seppi(Italy) 591
95 (94) Malek Jaziri(Tunisia) 580
96 (108) Taro Daniel(Japan) 579
97 (82) Nicolas Kicker(Argentina) 574
98 (99) Blaz Kavcic(Slovenia) 573
99 (119) Gerald Melzer(Austria) 572
100 (117) Matthew Ebden(Australia) 569