Greatest Players of All Time - according to Tennis Abstract

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

RE: Greatest Players of All Time - according to Tennis Abstract

GAMEOVER · Pro player

We have no.93 and it is an active player in Simona Halep. I've always liked Simona and remember how happy she was when she won Wimbledon.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Thanks Gameover, indeed

www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2022/04/26/the-tennis-128-no-93-simona-halep/

Of the current crop of recent players she has the 6th best Peak ELO rating (ie when she was at her actual best). List below doesnt include Serena or Venus as they havent played enough recent matches, but it shows where Simona rates against current players. Azarenka is way up there on Peak ELO, quite amazing (Peak ELO is the final number on each row) as 110 points above the next highest represents a massive shift/advantage for that player

10 Victoria Azarenka 32.6 2009.8 1917.6 1678.1 1563.2 1963.7 1844.0 1786.5 2013 Indian Wells R16 23.6 2325.4
2 Ashleigh Barty 25.7 2180.5 2071.4 1891.4 1773.2 2126.0 2035.9 1976.8 2021 Us Open R64 25.3 2219.7
1 Iga Swiatek 20.9 2205.7 2110.9 1984.3 1583.7 2158.3 2095.0 1894.7 2022 Stuttgart F 20.9 2205.7
6 Naomi Osaka 24.4 2034.9 1977.9 1570.2 1500.0 2006.4 1802.6 1767.5 2021 Miami R16 23.4 2199.4
61 Vera Zvonareva 37.5 1792.5 1682.7 1607.9 1592.3 1737.6 1700.2 1692.4 2009 Miami R64 24.5 2187.0
8 Simona Halep 30.4 2024.9 1919.8 1868.5 1702.7 1972.4 1946.7 1863.8 2015 Stuttgart QF 23.6 2177.6

jsackmann · Social player

>PS one piece of analysis I really liked that you did a while ago was to assess court speed using aces served versus expected aces as a proxy for court speed.
>I think the last time you did it was quite old, any chance you will be refreshing it anytime soon?!

Ah, I should do that. There are a handful of things I ought to just update every December. Or maybe I can turn this into a weekly-updating report on the site. I'll add it to my list (which, apologies in advance, is long, and shouldn't be taken as a guarantee of quick action...)

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

jsackmann wrote:
>PS one piece of analysis I really liked that you did a while ago was to assess court speed using aces served versus expected aces as a proxy for court speed.
>I think the last time you did it was quite old, any chance you will be refreshing it anytime soon?!

Ah, I should do that. There are a handful of things I ought to just update every December. Or maybe I can turn this into a weekly-updating report on the site. I'll add it to my list (which, apologies in advance, is long, and shouldn't be taken as a guarantee of quick action...)

Well, whenever is great and Im sure all the other projects will be fascinating also!

GAMEOVER · Pro player

No. 92 is the German Gottfried von Cramm who played mostly in the 1920 's and 1930's. He reappeared at Wimbledon in 1951 when Germans were allowed to play there again.

-- Edited by GAMEOVER on Thursday 28th of April 2022 09:00:44 AM

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

GAMEOVER wrote:
No. 92 is the German Gottfried von Cramm who played mostly in the 1920 's and 1930's. He reappeared at Wimbledon in 1951 when Germans were allowed to play there again.

-- Edited by GAMEOVER on Thursday 28th of April 2022 09:00:44 AM

A gentleman player for sure, and he might have achieved so much more if not for the war and for being imprisoned on morals charges that these days would never happen

https://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2022/04/28/the-tennis-128-no-92-gottfried-von-cramm/

It makes you wonder how many slams he might have won, but we will never know. And of course, the Aussies Champs didnt carry the same currency in those days.

Same with many players, of course, where war or the amateur/pro battle got in the way of racking up more major titles. We will never know but it shows how our modern currency of "how many slams" is probably deeply flawed as being the key method of most people determining their view on the GOAT.

GAMEOVER · Pro player

JonH comes home wrote:
GAMEOVER wrote:
No. 92 is the German Gottfried von Cramm who played mostly in the 1920 's and 1930's. He reappeared at Wimbledon in 1951 when Germans were allowed to play there again.

-- Edited by GAMEOVER on Thursday 28th of April 2022 09:00:44 AM
A gentleman player for sure, and he might have achieved so much more if not for the war and for being imprisoned on morals charges that these days would never happen
https://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2022/04/28/the-tennis-128-no-92-gottfried-von-cramm/
It makes you wonder how many slams he might have won, but we will never know. And of course, the Aussies Champs didnt carry the same currency in those days.
Same with many players, of course, where war or the amateur/pro battle got in the way of racking up more major titles. We will never know but it shows how our modern currency of "how many slams" is probably deeply flawed as being the key method of most people determining their view on the GOAT.

He was runner up in 3 successive Wimbledon singles from 1935 to 1937, losing to Fred Perry twice and Don Budge. Re racking up major titles we don't know how many more Rod Laver would have won if he had not turned pro in 1962.

christ · Futures qualifying

On the subject of number of slams: I wonder how many could/ would Messrs Federer, Djokovic and Nadal (... and even Murray) have won if they weren't contemporaries of the others?

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

christ wrote:
On the subject of number of slams: I wonder how many could/ would Messrs Federer, Djokovic and Nadal (... and even Murray) have won if they weren't contemporaries of the others?

I am sure I saw someone have a go at working this out - in essence by taking how many semis they had each reached and where they were beaten by one of the others. I seem to recall Andy might have come out with 7 or 8, the other guys were in the higher 20's.

If Jeff Sackmann pops by again at any time, he may well have an idea on this and could well have been Jeff who calculated it!

indiana · Tennis legend

JonH comes home wrote:
christ wrote:
On the subject of number of slams: I wonder how many could/ would Messrs Federer, Djokovic and Nadal (... and even Murray) have won if they weren't contemporaries of the others?
I am sure I saw someone have a go at working this out - in essence by taking how many semis they had each reached and where they were beaten by one of the others. I seem to recall Andy might have come out with 7 or 8, the other guys were in the higher 20's.

If Jeff Sackmann pops by again at any time, he may well have an idea on this and could well have been Jeff who calculated it!

It's clearly "could" rather than "would" given they wouldn't necessarily have beaten other players they might otherwise have played late on though there clearly would be a good chance in most cases given all their Slam records against other players.

But given Andy has won 3 Slams, all his 8 Slam final defeats have been to Djokovic or Federer, plus pre final defeats to 'big 4' players, "7 or 8" seems very conservative for Andy.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:
christ wrote:
On the subject of number of slams: I wonder how many could/ would Messrs Federer, Djokovic and Nadal (... and even Murray) have won if they weren't contemporaries of the others?
I am sure I saw someone have a go at working this out - in essence by taking how many semis they had each reached and where they were beaten by one of the others. I seem to recall Andy might have come out with 7 or 8, the other guys were in the higher 20's.

If Jeff Sackmann pops by again at any time, he may well have an idea on this and could well have been Jeff who calculated it!

It's clearly "could" rather than "would" given they wouldn't necessarily have beaten other players they might otherwise have played late on though there clearly would be a good chance in most cases given all their Slam records against other players.
But given Andy has won 3 Slams, all his 8 Slam final defeats have been to Djokovic or Federer, plus pre final defeats to 'big 4' players, "7 or 8" seems very conservative for Andy.

that is true - and I wonder how Jeff's algorithm factors this in - I am sure ELO will - as without the Big 3, Andy could well (using your logic) have challenged Sampras for most slams and possibly be up there as one of the best ever. Not 65th or somesuch on this list but much higher.

I understand Jeff's assessment tries to work out how good someone was at their best (measured by peak performance, 5 year performance and career as a whole) not necessarily how much they won, so Andy may well be much higher than we expect anyway...

jsackmann · Social player

> I am sure I saw someone have a go at working this out - in essence by taking how many semis they had each reached and where they were beaten by one of the others. I seem to recall Andy might have come out with 7 or 8, the other guys were in the higher 20's.

I don't think I've ever done a variation of this. Not sure if this one (by Carl Bialik at 538, back in 2014) is what you're thinking of, but it's along the same lines:
fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-rafael-nadal-never-won-a-grand-slam-title/

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

jsackmann wrote:
> I am sure I saw someone have a go at working this out - in essence by taking how many semis they had each reached and where they were beaten by one of the others. I seem to recall Andy might have come out with 7 or 8, the other guys were in the higher 20's.

I don't think I've ever done a variation of this. Not sure if this one (by Carl Bialik at 538, back in 2014) is what you're thinking of, but it's along the same lines:
fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-rafael-nadal-never-won-a-grand-slam-title/

It wasnt but it is very interesting - thanks Jeff

christ · Futures qualifying

jsackmann wrote:
> I am sure I saw someone have a go at working this out - in essence by taking how many semis they had each reached and where they were beaten by one of the others. I seem to recall Andy might have come out with 7 or 8, the other guys were in the higher 20's.

I don't think I've ever done a variation of this. Not sure if this one (by Carl Bialik at 538, back in 2014) is what you're thinking of, but it's along the same lines:
fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-rafael-nadal-never-won-a-grand-slam-title/

Interesting. .... and things have got "worse" in all departments in the eight years since: I can't imagine that when those stats were compiled the author thought that there would be so few grand slams won by not-FND by 2022.