The joke of it is, is that Robert Dee probably had very good career earnings after sueing people for saying that he was the worst tennis player ever. From his website, it states that the bbc had t pay him £12,500 in damages, plus costs of £28,000!

indiana wrote:

---

I'm not sure about that, John. I am more interested in how players perform at their best and doing well in bigger tournaments, beating top players, is what would really bring in the ranking points for our hypothetical end of year table.

---

 It's an interesting debate really. Consider this though.

 

Is a player's top level really more relevant than their average level if they were to only produce their best tennis 2 or 3 times a year?

paulisi wrote:

---

I'm sure there maust be a statistical way to rank them. Perhaps the average of the top 5 scalps they have beaten this season?

---

 

john wrote:

---

That doesn't measure consistency though, which surely has to still come into it.

Rather measure the average ranking of all players beaten and all players lost to and gauge some sort of level from that

---

 
If you count ALL players beaten and take the average, you end up penalising people for their draws. For example, when Federer had his apotheosis year in 2006, his average would have suffered heavily because he had his legendary duels with Takao Suzuki and Mohammad Ghareeb. So you need to get rid of at least the bottom 5% of wins, I suppose.

-- Edited by Salmon on Friday 20th of September 2013 02:20:48 AM

Salmon wrote:

---

Andy Murray
James Blake
Daniel Evans
Daniel Cox
Kyle Edmundo

---

 
Updated - 

Blake
Cox
Evans
Aurelius
Ward

Yes, Gary, I believe I read that somewhere.

This thead is not about actual predicted end of year rankings, though I do think Marcus still has a strong case for inclusion.