PDA

View Full Version : The Best Tennis Player of the Open Era



Sebastien447
11-30-2004, 12:56 AM
Those are just the best current players ... not best of the "open era."

I'd go with Borg for best of the Open era.

Sebastien447
11-30-2004, 01:21 AM
that first link doesn't give me much ... a bit of a mess it is!

and the Open era began in 1968 when the majors started to allow professionals to play ... so the greatest of the "Open era" would exclude Laver.

Sebastien447
11-30-2004, 01:30 AM
will try ... might be the crappy school computer that I'm using right now

and I didn't think Laver was considered "open era" because most of his competitive tennis was played before 68 ???

Sebastien447
11-30-2004, 01:49 AM
Yeah, this is a fun topic. Even though I never saw Laver play competitive tennis live ... I always put him #1 because of the two slams, even though they were played on only two surfaces ... grass and clay ... it was GRASS and CLAY! He could play his game and win on a fast surface or a slow surface and anything in between. I don't like playing the "if" game much either ... but it's difficult to keep from wondering how Laver would have done on clay today, with all these dirtballers around nowadays. And, like you say, Sampras was miserable on clay ... drops him down on the list in my book.

Anyway, still can't get the first link to load roads, and I should be grading papers anyway ... back with TAT after school! Ciao for now

Sebastien447
11-30-2004, 08:01 AM
In the text of the article is says that Borg is #2 and Federer is #3 but in the chart Federer is shown as #2, and Borg is shown as #3. Unless I am not understanding something correctly.


I think the article mentioned Borg second behind Mac in "peak rating" ... and the fact that he retired so early dropped him down to three. But then how is Fed #2 so early in his career?

And, much as I loved Mac's tennis ... they cannot be serious for him at #1. He couldn't win consistently on clay and that must be taken into account.

Sebastien447
11-30-2004, 08:13 AM
and how in HELL could anyone believe Sergi Bruguera, Tomas Muster, Petr Korda, Michael Stich, or JC Ferrero to be better than GUILLERMO VILAS?!!! Vilas would have worked every one of those guys 8 times out of ten, and don't try to tell me different! ;)

Sebastien447
11-30-2004, 08:28 AM
I think the article mentioned Borg second behind Mac in "peak rating" ... and the fact that he retired so early dropped him down to three. But then how is Fed #2 so early in his career?

And, much as I loved Mac's tennis ... they cannot be serious for him at #1. He couldn't win consistently on clay and that must be taken into account.

It all seems based on the quality of opponents in their wins and losses as computed in a certain periord of peak time. They do say that in regard to Mac they were looking at his top 6 month peak. It's not clear how their formula works.....do they chop up everyone into 6 month peak periods and compare those?

Maybe the site explains the formula some where.

allright already! this site is a big convoluted mess!! ROADS where are you?!!! (she just loves to stir the pot and dash)

Sebastien447
11-30-2004, 08:32 AM
Federer has been beating top ten players like they are gonig out of style this year. So that must be how he ranks so high.......I tend to agree ;)

LOL ... but seriously, and I hope you're sitting down for this PJ ...

If Roger were to retire tomorrow, he wouldn't be top 20. That site is wacked!

Moose
11-30-2004, 09:42 AM
Federer shows some incredible promise, and had one GREAT year. For him to be placed so high this early, however, is ABSURD!

For my money, the best is Lendl. Then Sampras. Then McEnroe/Borg (a toss up). Then Agassi.

Man I loved to watch Lendl play.

3mlm
11-30-2004, 10:25 AM
Their ranking apparently is based on the top rating obtained by a player at his peak. Not on the whole career, not even on a whole season. Just on the peak.

Based on that, I can see how McEnroe comes out on top. In 1984 he won 13 titles out of 16 tournaments played, 2 out of 3 slams, and had an 82-3 record. Plus, he beat a lot of top players.

That was one of the best seasons ever by a pro.

3mlm
11-30-2004, 02:01 PM
In McEnroe's top season he went 82-3. Federer was 74-6 this year and had some losses to not so good players like Hrbaty and Berdych.

In 1984, McEnroe only lost to Lendl in the final at the French Open, to Armitraj in the first round at Cincinnati and to Sundstrom at the Davis Cup finals in Sweden (he won against Wilander).

He won 13 of 15 tournaments he entered and 2 of 3 slams (reaching the final of the other slam). He didn't go to the Australian Open that year (like many other top pros in that era).

Federer won 12 tournaments in 2004 but he lost 6 times: to Henman in Rotterdam, to Nadal in Miami, to Costa in Rome, to Kuerten at Roland Garros, to Hrbaty in Cincinnati, and to Berdych at the Olympics.

I think that's the difference under their rating system.

Sebastien447
11-30-2004, 10:21 PM
OK, if this is some kind of "peak performance" type ranking, Vilas' 77 should be top ten. He had one of the best years ever.

pepper
12-01-2004, 12:15 AM
The ranking doesn't have much to do with the titles that a player won (although the author added a slight bias for Grand Slam matches); it's based on whether they won their matches and who they beat.

The reason why McEnroe achieved such a high peak-ranking was that not only was he losing very few matches, he was beating his top-level opposition consistently too (no doubt if he'd won the RG final in 1984 no doubt his rating would be even higher). The same with Federer - it's not so much his many tournament wins, it's the fact that he hasn't lost much, and has beaten all of his highest rated rivals. The problem for him is that he's running out of higher-rated opposition ;) to get his rating up further.

It's interesting that Sampras is rated lower in Daniel's system than in the general tennis consensus where he'd be above Lendl and McEnroe. This is most likely because he was only beating lower-rated opposition towards the end of the nineties.

Even so, one thing I was slightly surprised to see was that the expected outcome of the Sampras v Federer Wimbledon 2001 match, based on their ratings at the time, was a win for Roger.

pepper
12-01-2004, 12:26 AM
When Vilas won his 17 titles in 1977, he played 32 tournaments I think. So that means he still probably lost 15 times, and his rating would be reduced at each loss (how much depends on how high the opponent was ranked).

There are some articles on the site which explain how the calculation is made. Daniel has made some slight changes to this, as I mentioned above, to put in a weighting for results Grand Slam matches. He's also experimented with clay and grass weightings.

I think there are a few inconsistencies in the data. It's possible that he didn't yet update everyone's rating in all parts of the site, so maybe some of the pages are not correct. You might also note that DC results are not included, as are some of the Olympic results from Athens!, but it shouldn't make a massive difference to the overall rating.

Quite like this system myself. Especially considering it rates Federer over Sampras already ;)

jimp
12-01-2004, 02:24 AM
I'm a Grand Slam guy so all the stats and debates really don't mean anything to me. So Rod Laver gets my vote. So he won it on only 2 different surfaces,[ but he did it 2 times]. It's even more difficult today. And the French will always be the spoiler for guys like Roger. Actually the French will always be the spoiler.

Sebastien447
12-01-2004, 07:09 AM
Quite like this system myself. Especially considering it rates Federer over Sampras already ;)



Good Grief, we're drowning in Fed love here at TAT!!

Sebastien447
12-01-2004, 07:12 AM
And the French will always be the spoiler for guys like Roger. Actually the French will always be the spoiler.

Yeah, I think there's a FO title or two in Fed ... but will he have won the AO that year? If he does manage to win the AO and French in the same year ... man that will be exciting! ... and the pressure will be RED HOT

Sebastien447
12-01-2004, 09:39 AM
Now just a minute. You were the first one to run off and to grade papers of all things. Talk about nerve.

you know darn well that as soon as I cannot figure somthing out

papers appear for grading ;)