The Rankings Thread (ATP)

[MargaretMcAleer]

Race ATP Finals in Turin,
Daniil Medvedev has qualified for the 6th straight year

 

[El Dude]

Daniil may be remembered as the "+1" of the early Big Two era.

 

[El Dude]

Oh, I know we're not disagreeing, just discussing. I can't remember who all was in the Lost Gen I, but it was a weak field.

If we define Lost Gen I as those players born after Cilic/Del Potro in late 1988 and before Domonic Thiem in late 1993, the "Big Three of Lost Gen" (LOL) are: Nishikori, Dimtrov, Raonic. The next group would include (in no particularly order) players like David Goffin, Pablo Carreno Busta, and Jack Sock. This group blends into solid journeymen like Diego Schwartzman, Bernard Tomic (remember him?), Benoit Paire, Martin Klizan, Marco Cecchinato, Nikoloz Basilashvili (has to check the spelling), Martin Fucsovics, John Millman, Joao Sousa, Daniel Evans, the infamous Tennys Sandgren and more.

Carreno Busta is sort of an outlier, because he snuck in a Masters much later, in 2022, when most of the other guys had faded.

When I first started putting together blog posts back in the day (2011ish) I wrote a pieced called "Donald Young Guns" - when it started to become clear that this was a very weak generation. Donald Young, born in July of 1989 and a few months older than Kei Nishikori, sort of was the harbinger of this generation. He reached the year-end top 100 at age 18 in 2007 due to winning a couple matches at the US Open, but then stagnated for a few years and only briefly broken into the top 40. Young, and his fellow American Ryan Harrison, sort of symbolized the weakness of both this generation and American men's tennis at the time.

You love to use Berdych as an example, and he is kind of a good one, in terms of "solid, constant, but not massively talented," and in the era of greater players, but he doesn't line up against everyone. Two quibbles I have with the above is that you wonder if Nishikori was better than Berdych, or if Dimitrov was. Nishikori I think was a much more interesting and talented player than Tomas, but he was unlucky with injuries. I don't think he had ATG in him, but he caused trouble. His window of best years was unfortunately narrow. Because he also had a good head. As to Dimitrov, even you have wondered recently if he had a resurgence in him, when looking at big tournaments. To me, he is the poster boy for the Lost Gen. Lots of talent, so much potential, but so much distraction or who knows what. To me, Zverev and Tsitsipas are the inheritors of his ignominious mantel. So, I see why you compare Kei and Grigor unfavorably to Berdych, in terms of overall results. but I don't think he's a good fit, in terms of playing style or general ceiling/floor. I do think the comparison with Rublev fits, though.

Absolutely - totally agree. I posed it as a question mark, though, because when all is said and done, their results were somewhat similar, if quite different. Berdych was more consistent, but Nishikori was clearly a better player at his best. But when I compare players, and ask "who is better," I'm considering both talent/upside and results, and part of that is injury and mentality. As an aside, Kei is in the running for best player never to win a big title - and he was signficantly better than a lot of big title winners.

Dimitrov is interesting, because he didn't have Kei's injury struggles but also showed flashes of quasi-brilliance that were more profound than Berdych, but he was less consistent. Berdych finished in the top 10 for seven straight years, and the top 20 for twelve straight years; Dimitrov finished in the top 10 only once (albeit #3), with a five-year run in the top 20 (and a few more years outside of that span in the top 20). In a way, Grigor is more similar to someone like Richard Gasquet (or Gael Monfils), if Gasquet had ever put together a really good year like Grigor's 2017.

I agree that Dimitrov is of a similar category of player to Zverev and Tsitsipas in terms of "ignominousness." But Zverev and Tsitsipas have been significantly better - especially Zverev, who I currently rate as the best overall Slamless player of the Open Era.

I won't repeat my above, but I see the point that Lost Gen II has more depth, even if they can't get over the hump. I think that some of those guys, like Khachanov, make the list because they snuck out a big title when the Big 3 were caring less about them, late season, esp. Berrettini having so many injury/illness issues is a bummer, but he'd still be running more or less where these guys are.

Berrettini is...a shame. I think in terms of talent, he's at least as good as Rublev - or at least comparable - and thus his results are far below his talent level. In a way he's like an even more disappointing Thiem, in that just when he started to look like he might become at least a perennial top 10 guy and even Wimbledon contender, he suffered with repeated injuries. He's sort of bouncing back a bit this year...sort of. But yeah, I hear you about Khachanov. Hurkacz is kind of similar, but a bit better, imo.

Fair points, and yes, I know that Fiero is a hysteric. He mostly sits on his porch tells everyone to get off of his lawn. Everyone sucks, including Nadal. So we take that with a salt mine full of salt.

But we love him! And he's the master of the random historical anecdotes and hot takes, some of which are just golden.

 

[El Dude]

Oh, and to bring this back to rankings and the thread subject, here are the players born 1980 or later to have been #1 (year-end in bold):

Carlos Alcaraz (2003)
Jannik Sinner (2001)
Daniil Medvedev (1996)
Novak Djokovic (1987)
Andy Murray (1987)
Rafael Nadal (1986)
Andy Roddick (1982)
Roger Federer (1981)
Lleyton Hewitt (1981)
Juan Carlos Ferrero (1980)
Marat Safin (1980)

As you can see, there's a huge gap between Novak and Medvedev, and then a sizeable gap between Medvedev and Sinner - totally skipping over Lost Gen (no one ranked higher than #3, which Grigor and Milos did; Kei ranked no higher than #4). At least Daniil made it, and Zverev and Ruud reached #2, Thiem and Tsitsipas #3.

Going all the way back to Rosewall-Laver (b. 1934-38), Lost Gen is the only five-year cohort to not have a single #1 player, and Lost Gen 2 is the second in a row not to have a single year-end #1.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Career Highs on ATP Top 100, Monday 28th October,

14. Draper
31. Mpetshi Perricard
48. Mensik

 

[Moxie]

Oh, and to bring this back to rankings and the thread subject, here are the players born 1980 or later to have been #1 (year-end in bold):

Carlos Alcaraz (2003)
Jannik Sinner (2001)
Daniil Medvedev (1996)
Novak Djokovic (1987)
Andy Murray (1987)
Rafael Nadal (1986)
Andy Roddick (1982)
Roger Federer (1981)
Lleyton Hewitt (1981)
Juan Carlos Ferrero (1980)
Marat Safin (1980)

As you can see, there's a huge gap between Novak and Medvedev, and then a sizeable gap between Medvedev and Sinner - totally skipping over Lost Gen (no one ranked higher than #3, which Grigor and Milos did; Kei ranked no higher than #4). At least Daniil made it, and Zverev and Ruud reached #2, Thiem and Tsitsipas #3.

Going all the way back to Rosewall-Laver (b. 1934-38), Lost Gen is the only five-year cohort to not have a single #1 player, and Lost Gen 2 is the second in a row not to have a single year-end #1.

Sorry for the late reply, but I really love this informative post in the context of the rankings thread. I had a thought, which may or may not be of interest, but you mentioned Zverev and Ruud who reached #2, but (so far) no higher.

@Front242 started positing that Medvedev might be the next number 1, after the 2019 final v. Rafa in 2019. To his credit, he was eventually right...the first #1 after the big 4 was Medvedev. But, at the time, I suggested that he might just hope for him to get to #2, because there hadn't even been a #2 outside of the big 4 since Rafa got there in the summer of 2005. Medvedev got to #2 in March of 2021, (and #1 in June of 2022.) But that's nearly 16 years without a #2 that wasn't Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray, never-minding #1, which was longer, obviously. (I did look it up...Zverev first got to #2 in July 2022, so it was Medvedev who broke that streak, too.)

A bit of nerdy detail, for what it's worth.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Taylor Fritz has qualified for the ATP Finals in Turin, he joins Sinner, Alcaraz, Zverev, and Medvedev.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

New Career Highs on ATP Top 100, Monday 4th November,

25. Thompson
30. Mpetshi Perricard
61. Bergs
67.Cazaux

 

[El Dude]

We're in a weird situation where Zverev is currently ranked higher than Alcaraz, despite having zero Slam titles to Alcaraz's two. Looking at the breakdown of the Race ranking points, we get:

Slams: Alcaraz 4450, Zverev 2700 (Alcaraz +1750)
Masters: Zverev 3500, Alcaraz 1710 (Zverev +1790)
ATP 500: Zverev 630, Alcaraz 550 (Zverev +80)
ATP 250: Zverev 150, Alcaraz 100 (Zverev +50)
United Cup: Zverev 335 (Zverev +335)

Overall: Zverev 7315, Alcaraz 6810 (Zverev +505)

So interestingly enough, most of that difference is due to the United Cup, which offers about ATP 500 points. Zverev got 335 presumably because he lost one of the RR matches - not sure why he didn't get the full 500, though, as I can't find anything for the specific breakdown beyond that it is equivalent to an ATP 500.

He'd still be a bit ahead, and only +40 by big titles. Meaning, he's up mostly due to lesser tournaments and the United Cup. Oh, and Alcaraz gets no points for his silver medal at the Olympics (I personally think it should offer ATP 1000 points - especially if the UC offers points - or at least you should be able to swap your Olympics points for your worst Masters, but I don't make the rules).

Anyhow, we still have the Tour finals, so it is possible that this will be a moot point. But Zverev tends to be better on indoor hards, so it might just be one of those things.

 

[Moxie]

^ Alcaraz has 4 Slam titles.

 

[El Dude]

Alcaraz has 4 Slam titles.

Not this year!

 

[Moxie]

Rankings points are what they are. Everyone complains when a Slam winner drops below a non-slam winner.

 

[shawnbm]

Rankings points are what they are. Everyone complains when a Slam winner drops below a non-slam winner.

I always have

 

[shawnbm]

If you win two majors in a year that is pretty incredible stuff. Does not happen often except for top tier ATGs.

 

[El Dude]

Rankings points are what they are. Everyone complains when a Slam winner drops below a non-slam winner.

I'm not complaining, just pointing it out - and that it is rather unusual, especially for a guy with two Slams vs. zero.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

ATP Top Ten, Monday 4th November,
1. Sinner 11,330
2. Zverev 7, 715 (+1)
3. Alcaraz 7,2010 (-1)
4. Medvedev 5, 230 (+1)
5. Djokovic 5,210 (-1)
6. Frtiz 4,300
7. Ruud 3,855 (+1)
8. Alex de Minaur 3,745 (+2)
9. Rublev 3,720 (-2)
10. Dimitrov 3,340 (-1)

 

[Moxie]

I'm not complaining, just pointing it out - and that it is rather unusual, especially for a guy with two Slams vs. zero.

Oh, I know you weren't complaining...just pointing out how he got there. Mine was a stray remark, for general purposes.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Casper Ruud, Alex de Minaur, Andrey Rublev have claimed and qualified the final 3 singles spots ATP Finals, Turin., they will join Sinner, Zverev, Alcaraz, Medvedev and Fritz
Novak Djokovic unable to compete due to injury.

 

[Moxie]

Casper Ruud, Alex de Minaur, Andrey Rublev have claimed and qualified the final 3 singles spots ATP Finals, Turin., they will join Sinner, Zverev, Alcaraz, Medvedev and Fritz
Novak Djokovic unable to compete due to injury.

What injury? I thought he just didn't really want to bother.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

What injury? I thought he just didn't really want to bother.

I believe it is his knee ?, he stated ongoing injury. When he withdrew from Paris, I didnt think he would compete in the finals