Generation Federer

[El Dude]

I've got a blog article or two in the hopper that are focusing on Roger Federer's generation, which I'm defining as players born between 1979 and 1983 (or within two calendar years of Roger's 1981 birth year), ranging from Wesley Moodie to Fernando Verdasco chronologically. Yes, that means that Tommy Haas, Radek Stepanek, Ruben Ramirez Hidalgo and Michael Russell are not included - they were all born in 1978 and are of the prior generation, what could be called "Generation Kuerten" (1974-78).

Anyhow, I devised a little system (surprise, surprise) to rank them in order of career greatness, with the list below. Please take a look and offer up any comments that you might have, but in particular how you feel about the order and if there are any noteworthy players missing. By "noteworthy" it really is anyone born in that range, but they probably should have at least ranked in the top 50 or so and/or won at least an ATP 250 and/or appeared in a Slam QF. As far as I can tell, all of the players listed have at least met those criteria, or if they haven't they're still active and thus earned inclusion (e.g. Estrella Burgos, Chiudinelli, and Robert).

Please note that the system I used weighs career greatness, not peak greatness. Thus, for example, you can see Roddick over Hewitt because his post-peak career was much better than Hewitt's and helped him catch-up (although in my system they are almost exactly even in points). If I were ranking by peak, I would probably have Hewitt and Safin ahead of Roddick, and Nalbandian and probably Coria ahead of Ferrer and Davydenko, but again, this list is focused on career accomplishments.

Anyhow, here's the list - enjoy:

1. Roger Federer
2. Andy Roddick
3. Lleyton Hewitt
4. Marat Safin
5. Juan Carlos Ferrero
6. David Ferrer
7. Nikolay Davydenko
8. David Nalbandian
9. Guillermo Coria
10. Tommy Robredo
11. Fernando Gonzalez
12. Mikhail Youzhny
13. Ivan Ljubicic
14. James Blake
15. Fernando Verdasco
16. Juan Ignacio Chela
17. Mardy Fish
18. Nicolas Massu
19. Jurgen Melzer
20. Feliciano Lopez
21. Ivo Karlovic
22. Philipp Kohlschreiber
23. Jose Acasuso
24. Michael Llodra
25. Albert Montanes
26. Jarkko Niemenin
27. Paradorn Srichaphan
28. Xavier Malisse
29. Taylor Dent
30. Paul Henri Mathieu
31. Florian Mayer
32. Guillermo Garcia Lopez
33. Luis Horna
34. Filippo Volandri
35. Victor Hanescu
36. Nicolas Mahut
37. Carlos Berlocq
38. Wesley Moodie
39. Julien Benneteau
40. Yen Hsun Lu
41. Benjamin Becker
42. Lukasz Kubot
43. Gilles Muller
44. Jan Hernych
45. Potito Starace
46. Michael Berrer
47. Alejandro Falla
48. Paolo Lorenzi
49. Marco Chiudinelli
50. Stephane Robert
51. Victor Estrella Burgos

Please note that in the system I used, there's a long gentle curve starting around Blake or Verdasco, with very little difference among similarly ranked players. There's a sizeable gap between Nalbandian and Coria, and another between Ferrero and Ferrer, and of course a monumental gap between Federer and everyone else.

Also, I tried to include as many of Generation Federer as I could find that fit my general criteria. Some of the above actually don't; for instance, Chiudinelli, Robert, and Estrella Burgos have never ranked in the top 50, made it to a Slam QF or won an ATP 250 or higher, but I thought they warranted inclusion because they're all still active.

 

[tented]

Please note that the system I used weighs career greatness, not peak greatness. Thus, for example, you can see Roddick over Hewitt because his post-peak career was much better than Hewitt's and helped him catch-up (although in my system they are almost exactly even in points). If I were ranking by peak, I would probably have Hewitt and Safin ahead of Roddick ...

1. Roger Federer
2. Andy Roddick
3. Lleyton Hewitt
4. Marat Safin

Roddick spent the majority of 2003 through early 2011 ranked in the single digits. I guess that's how he topped Hewitt and Safin? Or at least that was a significant contributing factor?

 

[Kieran]

Roddick was always highly rated but Hewitt was 82 weeks at #1, more or less. The only thing it lacks is a distinguished rival for federer, but thanks for making the list, El Dude, you're on a roll recently with interesting topics!

 

[El Dude]

Roddick spent the majority of 2003 through early 2011 ranked in the single digits. I guess that's how he topped Hewitt and Safin? Or at least that was a significant contributing factor?

Well the system was relatively simple and not meant to be too defining, just give a general sense of how players rated relative to each other. But the rankings are secondary to an examination of the generation as a whole, where they're at now and who the best players were.

Anyhow, the system was weighted more towards career accomplishments and going deep in Slams. I have points for second week (QF and later) Slam results as well as all titles, ATP 250 and up. I only used top ranking as a tiebreaker. Hewitt and Safin have the two Slams, but Roddick has a much better record in non-win Slam results and titles. Actually, Safin's slam record was surprisingly underwhelming: in only nine Slams did he make it to the QF or later, which is tied with Ferrero; compare that to Hewitt (15) and Roddick (19). To get a sense of the relative point value, here's how the top few players rank:


581 Federer
110 Roddick
109 Hewitt
87 Safin
68 Ferrero
55 Ferrer
49 Davydenko
40 Nalbandian
26 Coria
23 Robredo
23 Gonzalez
20 Youzhny
18 Ljubicic
14 Blake
12 Verdasco
10 Chela
etc.

 

[El Dude]

Again, emphasizing that the point system is secondary, for comparison's sake here's how some of the later generations match up:

Generation Nadalkovic (b. 1984-88)
468 Nadal
329 Djokovic
148 Murray
44 Del Potro
37 Cilic
36 Wawrinka
36 Tsonga
34 Berdych
29 Soderling
-----
Generation Nishiraotrov (b. 1989-93)
17 Nishikori
10 Raonic
8 Dimitrov

 

[Federberg]

Roddick spent the majority of 2003 through early 2011 ranked in the single digits. I guess that's how he topped Hewitt and Safin? Or at least that was a significant contributing factor?

Well the system was relatively simple and not meant to be too defining, just give a general sense of how players rated relative to each other. But the rankings are secondary to an examination of the generation as a whole, where they're at now and who the best players were.

Anyhow, the system was weighted more towards career accomplishments and going deep in Slams. I have points for second week (QF and later) Slam results as well as all titles, ATP 250 and up. I only used top ranking as a tiebreaker. Hewitt and Safin have the two Slams, but Roddick has a much better record in non-win Slam results and titles. Actually, Safin's slam record was surprisingly underwhelming: in only nine Slams did he make it to the QF or later, which is tied with Ferrero; compare that to Hewitt (15) and Roddick (19). To get a sense of the relative point value, here's how the top few players rank:


581 Federer
110 Roddick
109 Hewitt
87 Safin
68 Ferrero
55 Ferrer
49 Davydenko
40 Nalbandian
26 Coria
23 Robredo
23 Gonzalez
20 Youzhny
18 Ljubicic
14 Blake
12 Verdasco
10 Chela
etc.

Hewitt and Roddick so close, I'm tempted to give Hewitt the edge if only because of his slam titles. But it's very interesting none-the-less. I suspect that Hewitt edges Roddick in the head to head, but success over the field matters more to me.. Good thread

 

[tented]

Generation Nishiraotrov (b. 1989-93)

At a quick glance, this looks like General Nishiraotrov -- a lesser known Tolstoy character.

 

[tented]

Hewitt and Roddick so close, I'm tempted to give Hewitt the edge if only because of his slam titles. But it's very interesting none-the-less. I suspect that Hewitt edges Roddick in the head to head, but success over the field matters more to me.. Good thread

I know! Only one point apart. Of course I didn't know that when I wrote my post, and was wondering how Roddick could have ended up ranked higher than Hewitt. Now I feel like I fell for a trick question.

 

[Federberg]

Hewitt and Roddick so close, I'm tempted to give Hewitt the edge if only because of his slam titles. But it's very interesting none-the-less. I suspect that Hewitt edges Roddick in the head to head, but success over the field matters more to me.. Good thread

I know! Only one point apart. Of course I didn't know that when I wrote my post, and was wondering how Roddick could have ended up ranked higher than Hewitt. Now I feel like I fell for a trick question.

Yup Wouldn't have been obvious to me either!

 

[El Dude]

Here's the point system I used, in case anyone is wondering:

Slam Results
W 10, F 5, SF 2, QF 1

Titles
Slam 10, WTF 5, Masters 4, Olympics 3, ATP 500 2, ATP 250 1

In case of ties, I used career high ranking as the breaker. The system isn't as arbitrary as it might sound considering that the ratios are based roughly on the ATP points. Also, you may note that Slam wins are counted twice - that's intentional.

And again: This isn't meant to be a definitive, detailed, or exhaustive system of ranking greatness. Just a relatively quick and easy system to organize players.

I think a good way to look at the list is as a "what if you took every player in Federer's generation and translated their entire careers into something akin to a year-end ranking, but instead a 'career-end generational ranking.'" Thus it accurately balances talent/peak with consistency/career. A player like Marat Safin, who may be the second most talented player on the list, is ranked lower than the more consistent Hewitt and Roddick. Or a player like David Ferrer - who wasn't the player that Nalbandian or Davydenko or Coria were - is ranked higher because, in a "career year," he would have played more tournaments and probably more consistently.

 

[shawnbm]

I would be interested in seeing the same thing for Rafa and Nole, who I believe are one year apart and, therefore, part of the same generation along with Murray. I should think those three would be at the top and then there would be a huge drop off.

 

[DarthFed]

Not that surprised to see Roddick ahead of Hewitt in a ranking like that. Hewitt had the extra slam and more weeks at #1 but Roddick had a lot longer stay near the top, ie he was relevant way longer than Lleyton but Hewitt had the higher highs. It is a close call when you rank the careers of Roddick, Hewitt and Safin IMO.

Edit: I see that Dude is just taking Slams into consideration and it is still very close in that regard. I think the same would be true for overall career when talking all 3 of them.

 

[El Dude]

I would be interested in seeing the same thing for Rafa and Nole, who I believe are one year apart and, therefore, part of the same generation along with Murray. I should think those three would be at the top and then there would be a huge drop off.

See up thread - I did a few from their generation. Maybe at some point I'll do more.

Edit: I see that Dude is just taking Slams into consideration and it is still very close in that regard. I think the same would be true for overall career when talking all 3 of them.

Slams and titles, but not weeks at #1. I was tempted but felt it would just distance the top players even further. Plus it is somewhat "double-dipping" - both the rankings and titles/Slam results are the outcome of performance, so its probably best to separate them as two separate lenses.

 

[shawnbm]

Thanks, El Dude. Roddick, Hewitt and Safin finish ahead of Delpo, Cilic, Tsonga and Soderling of the Nadalovic era in terms of points. I should think those three should end up like the other three when all is said and done--if Robin returns.

 

[Kieran]

I don't think Soderling is coming back, unfortunately, Shawn. I think he's tried and it hasn't worked for him. I hope I'm wrong, however...

 

[El Dude]

shawnbm, here's the list combined.

I wouldn't hold out any hope that Soderling will ever come back, by the way.


581 Federer
468 Nadal
329 Djokovic
148 Murray
110 Roddick
109 Hewitt
87 Safin
68 Ferrero
55 Ferrer
49 Davydenko
44 Del Potro
40 Nalbandian
37 Cilic
36 Wawrinka
36 Tsonga
34 Berdych
29 Soderling
26 Coria
23 Robredo
23 Gonzalez
20 Youzhny
18 Ljubicic
17 Nishikori
14 Blake
12 Verdasco
10 Chela
10 Raonic

 

[shawnbm]

In looking at this, Roger dominated his era whilst Rafa has beaten Novak in their era, with more space between them and the second tier (occupied by Andy). The second tier of Roger's generation was closer to him than the second tier of the Rafa-Novak generation is to them, according to these numbers. The second tier guys from Roger's time won more slams, Masters events and tournaments generally than the next second tier fellows. Now, surely Delpo, Wawrenka, Cilic, Robredo and Youzney will move up some, but I question how much they will be able to make. Davydenko might be passed by and even Ferrer (who may be running out of steam). But Ferrero and Safin seem far off.

 

[El Dude]

In looking at this, Roger dominated his era whilst Rafa has beaten Novak in their era, with more space between them and the second tier (occupied by Andy). The second tier of Roger's generation was closer to him than the second tier of the Rafa-Novak generation is to them, according to these numbers. The second tier guys from Roger's time won more slams, Masters events and tournaments generally than the next second tier fellows. Now, surely Delpo, Wawrenka, Cilic, Robredo and Youzney will move up some, but I question how much they will be able to make. Davydenko might be passed by and even Ferrer (who may be running out of steam). But Ferrero and Safin seem far off.

Yeah, I don't see the current second tier guys getting to Ferrero and Safin, not unless they win a Slam - and they're certainly not in the same class as Roddick and Hewitt. Wawrinka, Tsonga, and Berdych all turn 30 in 2015 so chances are we've seen as good as they'll get.

Cilic and Del Potro are a few years younger, turning 27 late next year, so have time to catch up. I personally have a hard time seeing Cilic as maintaining his current level which is, when you think of it, largely due to one tournament. Yes, it was a Slam, but he has nothing else above his 12 ATP 250 titles, so right now he's looking more like a fluke third tier player who won a Slam than a bonafide true second tier player.

Finally, I think Novak will close the gap a bit with Rafa, that although he's only one year younger he's probably got a second, even a third, extra year in leg time.

Anyhow, I see a few categories of players here:
- All-time greats: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
- Elite players (#1s and/or multi-Slam winners): Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Murray, maybe Ferrero
- Second tier players (perennial top 10 players): Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer, Coria, Soderling, Berdych, Tsonga, Wawrinka, etc
- Third tier players (perennial top 20 players): Youzhny, Robredo, Gonzalez, Ljubicic, Gasquet, Simon, Isner, Verdasco, etc
- Fourth tier players: (perennial top 50 players): Karlovic, Malisse, Benneteau, Mahut, Mayer, etc
- Fifth tier players: (lower half top 100 players): Becker, Lu, Berlocq, Falla, etc

I suppose I should bump the terms down, so that the all-time greats are first, the elite are second, etc, but I kind of like the all-time greats and elites being "1A" and "1B" among first tier players.

 

[shawnbm]

And some of those elite players will be/are Hall of Famers (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and likely Murray), whilst the rest down below will not.

 

[Federberg]

In looking at this, Roger dominated his era whilst Rafa has beaten Novak in their era, with more space between them and the second tier (occupied by Andy). The second tier of Roger's generation was closer to him than the second tier of the Rafa-Novak generation is to them, according to these numbers. The second tier guys from Roger's time won more slams, Masters events and tournaments generally than the next second tier fellows. Now, surely Delpo, Wawrenka, Cilic, Robredo and Youzney will move up some, but I question how much they will be able to make. Davydenko might be passed by and even Ferrer (who may be running out of steam). But Ferrero and Safin seem far off.

It does put to question the sometimes mooted view that there was no competition in Roger's era. For my part I've always maintained the dirth of achievement amongst the other constituents in that era, was simply because Roger really was that good. Just as Novak, Rafa and Roger in current times have also been... that good