Greatest Players of All Time - according to Tennis Abstract

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Greatest Players of All Time - according to Tennis Abstract

indiana · Tennis legend

Interesting. But I am in favour of setting up the algorithms as best you can and then if there is a surprise or two even to Jeff so be it. I am less in favour of occasionally adding in special other factors to move players.

GAMEOVER · Pro player

We have N0 87 and it is J.M. Del Potro. Not on my list.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2022/05/10/the-tennis-128-no-87-juan-martin-del-potro/

I hadnt really thought about Delpo but he would probably be on my list on the basis he played and did well against the best ever, possibly, in the Big 3 and Muzza, and his peak was at their level. Injury stopped him from being a multi slam winner and I guess it depends on how all these things are weighted but certainly talent wise he was up there among the very best of his era.

Good to see him there and joining Wawrinka and Kei Nishikori in the current/recent men on the list

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

I had a question in case Jeff pops back and takes a look?

How does this process deal with a question like Alcaraz - he could quite conceivably win the FO, USO between now and end of the season ( I hesitate on Wimbledon!) and is playing at an ELO v high level.

Could he force his way into the list and what if he came in at a number already done or pushed others down by appearing?

Or is it a strict 2021 end date? Or might you do a little asterisk and say "in here would appear player X, if timings had been different?". I guess the same goes for someone like Swiatek if she takes all before her over the rest of the season? Or Dan Evans? Hahahaha

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Jeff captures the essence of Delpo right here: really lovely words, I just wish I had once seen Delpo playing in real life.

"Usually when we talk about injury-riddled careers, we focus on the what-ifs. Its certainly tempting to speculate about what Delpo couldve accomplished with two healthy wrists. But in his case, its beside the point. He is a living legend to fans and an inspiration to his peers. In his limited time on court, del Potro delivered far more than one careers worth of memorable moments, dramatic upsets, and just flat-out eye-popping tennis".

-- Edited by JonH comes home on Tuesday 10th of May 2022 08:45:44 AM

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, Del Potro was great to watch, very competitive with some truly great players, and seems such a nice guy. I remember too how much the 2012 and 2016 Olympics meant to him.

Great if the algorithms still so put him in there despite such a severely interrupted career, and we can speculate where he might have ended up if that had gone so much better for him. Re my earlier post though, I was wondering if any adjustment was made for him.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
Yes, Del Potro was great to watch, very competitive with some truly great players, and seems such a nice guy. I remember too how much the 2012 and 2016 Olympics meant to him.

Great if the algorithms still so put him in there despite such a severely interrupted career, and we can speculate where he might have ended up if that had gone so much better for him. Re my earlier post though, I was wondering if any adjustment was made for him.

I suspect for Delpo, it was largely about having such a high ELO, peak ELO seems to be a key criteria. His peak was 2233. As a comparison, Alcaraz currently leads the way in on 2209 and none of the currently active players outside the big 4 would top 2233. So it sort of pegs him as a clear number 5 out of the current era of players. medvedev, Zverev , Thiem would be nowhere close yet.

fwiw , Andy is miles above Delpo in terms of peak ELO

jsackmann · Social player

>How does this process deal with a question like Alcaraz - he could quite conceivably win the FO, USO between now and end of the season ( I hesitate on Wimbledon!) and is playing at an ELO v high level.

My algorithm equally weights peak Elo, year-end rating for the player's five best years, and year-end ratings (for years where their Elo is 1900+) for their entire career.

If Alcaraz did have an all-time great season -- like the very best of Fed, Djokovic, or Laver -- that would be a peak Elo around 2500. It's extremely unlikely that he or anyone else would do that, but just for argument's sake... he still would be very low in the other two components. I plugged those numbers in, and such a great 2022 season would move him in the top 200. Approximately #170.

Assuming the same sort of peak-Steffi-like season for Iga, she'd do a little bit better, because she had two solid seasons before this one. But she'd still be #150 at best.

Re: other players moving up, from my intro:
>Several active players made it on the list, which I finalized before the 2022 season began. However, if someone has a great year before I unveil their ranking, I will move them up to reflect that. Something to keep in mind when Andy Murray wins the next three majors.

So I have Fed/Rafa/Novak penciled in to specific spots, but by the time they come up, most or all of the 2022 season will be over, so I'll be able to include that for them. Another example: I made the list before Barty won the AO this year, then moved her up after that.

At some point when I've rolled out the entire list, I'll update the whole thing -- for instance, Simona Halep is #93, but a good year from her would gain her at least a few spots. There are maybe a half-dozen active players who didn't miss the cut by much, so I wouldn't be surprised if one or more players forced their way on. It will be sad to see Beverly Baker Fleitz go.

>Great if the algorithms still so put him in there despite such a severely interrupted career, and we can speculate where he might have ended up if that had gone so much better for him. Re my earlier post though, I was wondering if any adjustment was made for him.

I made no adjustments for any active or recent players. No adjustments for injuries. The vast majority of tweaks I made to the list are where the data was lacking -- so, players with extensive pro careers before 1968, and men before WW2. (Women's data is in better shape, a rare example in sports where we can say that.) I didn't adjust many of those players, either, but there are a few cases where the algorithm just didn't have enough data to make an accurate assessment. (An extreme case was Karel Kozeluh, and there's one more instance of extremely insufficient data still to come.)

-- Edited by jsackmann on Tuesday 10th of May 2022 10:37:08 AM

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

jsackmann wrote:
>How does this process deal with a question like Alcaraz - he could quite conceivably win the FO, USO between now and end of the season ( I hesitate on Wimbledon!) and is playing at an ELO v high level.

My algorithm equally weights peak Elo, year-end rating for the player's five best years, and year-end ratings (for years where their Elo is 1900+) for their entire career.

If Alcaraz did have an all-time great season -- like the very best of Fed, Djokovic, or Laver -- that would be a peak Elo around 2500. It's extremely unlikely that he or anyone else would do that, but just for argument's sake... he still would be very low in the other two components. I plugged those numbers in, and such a great 2022 season would move him in the top 200. Approximately #170.

Assuming the same sort of peak-Steffi-like season for Iga, she'd do a little bit better, because she had two solid seasons before this one. But she'd still be #150 at best.

Re: other players moving up, from my intro:
>Several active players made it on the list, which I finalized before the 2022 season began. However, if someone has a great year before I unveil their ranking, I will move them up to reflect that. Something to keep in mind when Andy Murray wins the next three majors.

So I have Fed/Rafa/Novak penciled in to specific spots, but by the time they come up, most or all of the 2022 season will be over, so I'll be able to include that for them. Another example: I made the list before Barty won the AO this year, then moved her up after that.

At some point when I've rolled out the entire list, I'll update the whole thing -- for instance, Simona Halep is #93, but a good year from her would gain her at least a few spots. There are maybe a half-dozen active players who didn't miss the cut by much, so I wouldn't be surprised if one or more players forced their way on. It will be sad to see Beverly Baker Fleitz go.

>Great if the algorithms still so put him in there despite such a severely interrupted career, and we can speculate where he might have ended up if that had gone so much better for him. Re my earlier post though, I was wondering if any adjustment was made for him.

I made no adjustments for any active or recent players. No adjustments for injuries. The vast majority of tweaks I made to the list are where the data was lacking -- so, players with extensive pro careers before 1968, and men before WW2. (Women's data is in better shape, a rare example in sports where we can say that.) I didn't adjust many of those players, either, but there are a few cases where the algorithm just didn't have enough data to make an accurate assessment. (An extreme case was Karel Kozeluh, and there's one more instance of extremely insufficient data still to come.)

-- Edited by jsackmann on Tuesday 10th of May 2022 10:37:08 AM

Thanks Jeff for such in depth answers.

one final question. have you written all the narrative or do you write the story in the day or two between posting the next player? The narrative is my favourite element. Id go so far to say that there is a book in all of this with each player and the narrative. Perhaps a bit niche but nonetheless!

indiana · Tennis legend

Thank you very much, Jeff. Appreciated.

jsackmann · Social player

>have you written all the narrative or do you write the story in the day or two between posting the next player? The narrative is my favourite element. Id go so far to say that there is a book in all of this with each player and the narrative. Perhaps a bit niche but nonetheless!

Not even close! I'm trying to stay a couple of weeks ahead, but I am writing as I go. You may be right about a book -- though it would be a very long one!

GAMEOVER · Pro player

We have no. 86 and it is an American great from the 40's and through to the 60's in Margaret Osborne Dupont. I can remember her winning the mixed doubles at Wimbledon in 1962 when she was 44.

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

GAMEOVER wrote:
We have no. 86 and it is an American great from the 40's and through to the 60's in Margaret Osborne Dupont. I can remember her winning the mixed doubles at Wimbledon in 1962 when she was 44.

And I believe that she was one of the all time greats and could easily have been much higher in this list!!

GAMEOVER · Pro player

JonH comes home wrote:
GAMEOVER wrote:
We have no. 86 and it is an American great from the 40's and through to the 60's in Margaret Osborne Dupont. I can remember her winning the mixed doubles at Wimbledon in 1962 when she was 44.
And I believe that she was one of the all time greats and could easily have been much higher in this list!!

Just to add she was on my list.