The Rankings Thread (ATP)

[El Dude]

One thing Sinner and Auger-Aliassime have in common is that they both are far ahead of their peers by birth year in terms of rankings.

After Sinner at #68, the next highest ranked 2001 baby is Brandon Nakashima at #294.

After Auger-Aliassime at #23, the next highest ranked 2000 baby is Rudolf Molleker at #185.

The other years have a more gradual range: in 1999, Shapo leads at #15, but De Minaur is close behind at #24 and Kecmanovic isn't far off at #50, with four guys in the #77-101 range (Moutet, Fokina, Popyrin, Ruusovuori). Similarly with 1998, 1997, etc.

While this huge gap for Sinner and FAA isn't definitive in and of itself, it certainly implies that both will reach significant heights.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Who the fuck likes Murray?! A handful of people. His comment was laughable at the time and still is. A few funny comments by him on social media can't make up for his behaviour on court. He makes Rosol look like Mother Teresa.

Who likes Murray? I do.

 

[Ricardo]

Who likes Murray? I do.

good on you, something to write home about. This I can believe, just don't sell us the 'Bill Gates queued up for my speech' crap.

 

[britbox]

One thing Sinner and Auger-Aliassime have in common is that they both are far ahead of their peers by birth year in terms of rankings.

After Sinner at #68, the next highest ranked 2001 baby is Brandon Nakashima at #294.

After Auger-Aliassime at #23, the next highest ranked 2000 baby is Rudolf Molleker at #185.

The other years have a more gradual range: in 1999, Shapo leads at #15, but De Minaur is close behind at #24 and Kecmanovic isn't far off at #50, with four guys in the #77-101 range (Moutet, Fokina, Popyrin, Ruusovuori). Similarly with 1998, 1997, etc.

While this huge gap for Sinner and FAA isn't definitive in and of itself, it certainly implies that both will reach significant heights.

I think figuring out the success next bunch is a bit of a total crap-shoot right now. Once one of the newer gen guys wins a major, let alone two, there will be a popularity stampede toward them. It doesn't mean they will be the dominant force going ahead, but we live in a knee-jerk reaction world.

 

[Moxie]

I think figuring out the success next bunch is a bit of a total crap-shoot right now. Once one of the newer gen guys wins a major, let alone two, there will be a popularity stampede toward them. It doesn't mean they will be the dominant force going ahead, but we live in a knee-jerk reaction world.

Yes, but as El Dude is attempting to point out, top 20 is one thing, then 10 another, then 5, etc. A major is another. You've leapt straight to us bandwagoning the next presumptive multiple Major winner. We live in a time when 3 guys have 17+ Majors. There is a more than very serious chance we won't see that again for a long time...even in one person. It's hard enough to predict if someone will even have a solid Berdych-like career, let alone be a, say, Wawrinka, with 3 Majors.

 

[El Dude]

I think figuring out the success next bunch is a bit of a total crap-shoot right now. Once one of the newer gen guys wins a major, let alone two, there will be a popularity stampede toward them. It doesn't mean they will be the dominant force going ahead, but we live in a knee-jerk reaction world.

Yes, but as El Dude is attempting to point out, top 20 is one thing, then 10 another, then 5, etc. A major is another. You've leapt straight to us bandwagoning the next presumptive multiple Major winner. We live in a time when 3 guys have 17+ Majors. There is a more than very serious chance we won't see that again for a long time...even in one person. It's hard enough to predict if someone will even have a solid Berdych-like career, let alone be a, say, Wawrinka, with 3 Majors.

Yes, exactly. And of course each player has their own different story, trajectory and potential. Someone like Zverev is interesting because he's already won as many big titles as Berdych, Tsonga, and Ferrer combined (4) but is only just starting to become relevant at Slams.

We also tend to have recency bias and forget that each era has its own configuration. I think we're seeing a bit of the late 90s, when the only truly great players on tour were kind of fading, and the new generation didn't have a singular standout.

But I think what we all keep wondering is who will win the first Slam (of younger gens), and also who among the younger players will dominate the Slams and rankings. We just don't know, and as Britbox pointed out, it might not be the guy who first makes his mark - not unlike the fact that it wasn't Safin or Hewitt or Roddick or Ferrero that dominated the 00s, it was Federer.

 

[Jelenafan]

Yes, exactly. And of course each player has their own different story, trajectory and potential. Someone like Zverev is interesting because he's already won as many big titles as Berdych, Tsonga, and Ferrer combined (4) but is only just starting to become relevant at Slams.

We also tend to have recency bias and forget that each era has its own configuration. I think we're seeing a bit of the late 90s, when the only truly great players on tour were kind of fading, and the new generation didn't have a singular standout.

But I think what we all keep wondering is who will win the first Slam (of younger gens), and also who among the younger players will dominate the Slams and rankings. We just don't know, and as Britbox pointed out, it might not be the guy who first makes his mark - not unlike the fact that it wasn't Safin or Hewitt or Roddick or Ferrero that dominated the 00s, it was Federer.

Tennis is kind of an outlier among major sports because open tennis was born relatively recently , 1968. That’s only 50+ plus years to compare eras , domination, etc.

People forget that prior to the Sampras era, most top players did not play all 4 majors regularly year in and year out. Of course most players best years were “over” by 28/29 and look how that’s been tossed aside by Fedalovic.

It’s anybody’s guess if there will next be an era similar to today’s WTA, where there’s a large field competitive for any slam, or if out of the blue somebody is going to step in and slam the door shut.

 

[Fiero425]

Tennis is kind of an outlier among major sports because open tennis was born relatively recently , 1968. That’s only 50+ plus years to compare eras , domination, etc.

People forget that prior to the Sampras era, most top players did not play all 4 majors regularly year in and year out. Of course most players best years were “over” by 28/29 and look how that’s been tossed aside by Fedalovic.

It’s anybody’s guess if there will next be an era similar to today’s WTA, where there’s a large field competitive for any slam, or if out of the blue somebody is going to step in and slam the door shut.

It is because Fedalovic played most every major over the last decade or so, records are exclusively owned by them now! Their names are all over ever statistical record from the major's lead to weeks @ #! and beyond! At the moment, the only competition the "BIG 3" have is each other now and how they finish their careers! Fed's pushing it further than either Nadovic will be able to do more than likely due to their grueling styles! But they aren't finished so Fed can hang on for another 5 years and it'll do him little to no good; his records are all going to go by the wayside and be overtaken by his closest rivals!

 

[El Dude]

Tennis is kind of an outlier among major sports because open tennis was born relatively recently , 1968. That’s only 50+ plus years to compare eras , domination, etc.

People forget that prior to the Sampras era, most top players did not play all 4 majors regularly year in and year out. Of course most players best years were “over” by 28/29 and look how that’s been tossed aside by Fedalovic.

It’s anybody’s guess if there will next be an era similar to today’s WTA, where there’s a large field competitive for any slam, or if out of the blue somebody is going to step in and slam the door shut.

Yes, good points. I find it interesting that we've actually come full circle in terms of aging. That early decline really only became prevalent in the 80s-00s; in the 70s and before, players were remaining relevant deep into their 30s, sometimes 40s. In even earlier eras you had some guys playing into their 50s. I don't expect a return to that--and I think the changed aging curve today is for different reasons than before--but the point being is that if we look at the longer history of tennis going back almost 150 years, it is the 80s-00s which is the outlier, not now.

 

[Jelenafan]

Yes, good points. I find it interesting that we've actually come full circle in terms of aging. That early decline really only became prevalent in the 80s-00s; in the 70s and before, players were remaining relevant deep into their 30s, sometimes 40s. In even earlier eras you had some guys playing into their 50s. I don't expect a return to that--and I think the changed aging curve today is for different reasons than before--but the point being is that if we look at the longer history of tennis going back almost 150 years, it is the 80s-00s which is the outlier, not now.

Have always wondered if the double whammy of most pro tourneys switching to HC and away from wood rackets skewed that 80’s-00’s era.

 

[Fiero425]

Yes, good points. I find it interesting that we've actually come full circle in terms of aging. That early decline really only became prevalent in the 80s-00s; in the 70s and before, players were remaining relevant deep into their 30s, sometimes 40s. In even earlier eras you had some guys playing into their 50s. I don't expect a return to that--and I think the changed aging curve today is for different reasons than before--but the point being is that if we look at the longer history of tennis going back almost 150 years, it is the 80s-00s which is the outlier, not now.

Way back when, the speed of the game was nowhere near what it is now! We had older guys with beer bellies still hanging around in the top 10! Tennis was more a game of skill than muscle, athleticism, and endurance! These fabulous points with "great gets" that go on for 20+ strokes today was more an anomoly or phenomenon that happened maybe 3 or 4 times in an entire match! Now it can happen in the 1st game lasting more than 10 min.! I started watching when the seasoned vets were coming to the end of their careers; Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Okker, Smith, & Nastase! They were all I really knew about tennis outside of Connors' early domination when the NG started making a name for themselves; Borg, Vilas, Gerulaitis, Solomon, Dibbs, & Orantes! With sports-medicine the way it is, today's players have a distinct advantage of staying on top even with how grueling matches can be; technology helping in their rackets, strings, and of course the homogenized courts! I used to look forward to different parts of the season where we could actually muse about "court specialist" and potential upsets! It didn't even happen at the AO earlier this year with the NG allowing an "injured and feeble" Federer make it all the way to the Semi's! I'm disgusted by the lack of effort to close a match when "also rans" have the ability to beat the top players, but can't finish! What we've seen with Fed over the years against Nole losing matches with MP is nothing compared to how players "rollover" for Fedalovic at times! That just wouldn't have happened in the old days! Back then anyone could beat anyone and you had to be on guard even if you're Borg on homecourt grass! No one was more vulnerable than him, but he managed 6 straight finals, winning 5 in a row! That's why he's been immortalized by virtue of 8 great seasons! I didn't think that kind of run would be possible before Federer came along, now Rafa and Nole have there own runs! There's no reason for any of them to actually walk away; even old man Fed! He'll drop and barely hold onto a top 10 ranking due to his absence until Wimbledon, but more than likely he'll do well and really get somewhere, which should be shameful to the rest of the tour!

 

[El Dude]

At the risk of offending @herios for not being exact enough, congratulations to Dominic Thiem on reaching #3 next week. He's #3 in the live rankings now and will be #3 on Monday.

 

[herios]

Late delivery for the new career high as of Feb. 24, 2020:

18. Cristian Garin 23y
47. Alexander Bublik 27y
48. Yoshihito Nishioka 24y
65. Egor Gherasimov 27y
66. Tommy Paul 22y
76. Soonwoo Kwon 22y
77. Gianluca Mager 27y
79. Attila Balázs 31y

 

[Moxie]

Late delivery for the new career high as of Feb. 24, 2020:

18. Cristian Garin 23y
47. Alexander Bublik 27y
48. Yoshihito Nishioka 24y
65. Egor Gherasimov 27y
66. Tommy Paul 22y
76. Soonwoo Kwon 22y
77. Gianluca Mager 27y
79. Attila Balázs 31y

Kind of a funny mix of young and old/old-ish. But we have seen some of these names popping up of late. Good for Garin! 18 is great. I also like Nishioka. Mager, to me, came out of nowhere.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Good to see Nishioka reaching greater heights.

 

[herios]

Kind of a funny mix of young and old/old-ish. But we have seen some of these names popping up of late. Good for Garin! 18 is great. I also like Nishioka. Mager, to me, came out of nowhere.

Garin has an outstanding season, with 2 titles thus far on clay down in South America and he is in the running to capture another one this week.
And I have not heard about Mager before either.

 

[herios]

New career high on March 2, 2020:

3. Dominic Thiem 26y
24. Taylor Fritz 22y
28. Dan Evans 29y
42. Ugo Humbert 21y
57. Tommy Paul 22y
67. Mikael Ymer 21y
69. Soonwoo Kwon 23y
,76. Attila Balázs 31y
85. Denis Novak 26y

 

[Fiero425]

New career high on March 2, 2020:

3. Dominic Thiem 26y
24. Taylor Fritz 22y
28. Dan Evans 29y
42. Ugo Humbert 21y
57. Tommy Paul 22y
67. Mikael Ymer 21y
69. Soonwoo Kwon 23y
,76. Attila Balázs 31y
85. Denis Novak 26y

Taylor's entourage and family should be quite proud of him! I can't see him doing much better though without a real weapon! Playing good, solid tennis only gets you so far! It was a joke he had to play Rafa (who s/b embarrassed) in Acapulco final going up against so many players barely in the top 100! Novak had to play several top 10 opps in his victory, but still only earned 500 pts, just like Rafa! Pathetic!

 

[Moxie]

Taylor's entourage and family should be quite proud of him! I can't see him doing much better though without a real weapon! Playing good, solid tennis only gets you so far! It was a joke he had to play Rafa (who s/b embarrassed) in Acapulco final going up against so many players barely in the top 100! Novak had to play several top 10 opps in his victory, but still only earned 500 pts, just like Rafa! Pathetic!

Mastoor built an entire thread just for this specific whine. Why don't you take it over there, as I'm not sure what it has to do with rankings.

 

[Mile]

Who likes Murray? I do.

I miss Murray too. He made it more interesting, with petty mouth.