Why are there so few "in-between" players (between greatness and goodness)?

[El Dude]

Let me explain. Through various statistical analyses, I have found that there are several tiers of players. Looking at Open Era records only, we have:

GOAT Tier: Djokovic, Federer, Nadal
ATG Tier A ("inner circle"): Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Sampras, Laver
ATG Tier B ("outer circle"): Agassi, Becker, Murray, Edberg, Wilander
Near Greats: Nastase, Vilas, Rosewall, Ashe, Newcombe, Hewitt, Courier, Roddick, Smith
Very Goods: Chang, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Ferrer, Muster, Okker, Gerulaitis, etc....

The above is with the caveat that if we included pre-Open Era records, Laver would move to GOAT tier, Rosewall up two to the "inner circle," Newcombe up one to the "outer circle." We also don't know who might join the first four tiers among current players. Medvedev and Zverev both have good chances of it, and of course there's Alcaraz, Rune, etc.

(And in case you're wondering about tiers and ordering, that's how they fell using a formula that averaged career GOAT Points, best five years GP, best single year GP, and then I multiplied it by one-hundredth of their best Elo...an attempt to balance career and peak level...the obvious caveat applies: it is not meant to be a definitive system, just another angle on things).

There's a huge gap between the first and second tier, another between second and third, and another between third and fourth. The gap between the fourth ("Near Greats") and everyone else is rather small...meaning, after the first three tiers, everyone else is, well, just that...everyone else. The "near greats" are the top of the class, but it is a smooth curve from Nastase on down.

So while I understand why the three first tiers are of different levels - though it is interesting to me that they are separated by large gaps - what I find more interesting, and am wondering about, is why there's that big gap between Wilander and Nastase...there are no in-between players.

We can find other angles on this question, but for me the metric I used highlights it especially well. We're always going to come back to a gap between the top 14 and everyone else (and in most deeper analyses, Andy Murray belongs in the top 14, not with everyone else). Here's a rough chart depicting it (I took the above formula, then counted Novak as "100" and everyone else as a percentage of that):

(And please don't use this as an opportunity to argue the rankings here...they're not meant to depict anything other than how players compare using a specific metric...this isn't a definitive ranking of greatness, and more importantly: this thread isn't about who is better or worse, but why these tiers exist - and why there are the huge gaps, and no "in-betweeners.")

Again, to me the most interesting thing is that gap between Wilander and Nastase (and with him, everyone else)...but also the gaps between Nadal and Lendl, and Laver and Agassi.

So what do you think? Why does the historical tennis cookie crumble this way?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Here's a rough chart depicting it (I took the above formula, then counted Novak as "100" and everyone else as a percentage of that):

 

[britbox]

Let me explain. Through various statistical analyses, I have found that there are several tiers of players. Looking at Open Era records only, we have:

GOAT Tier: Djokovic, Federer, Nadal
ATG Tier A ("inner circle"): Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Sampras, Laver
ATG Tier B ("outer circle"): Agassi, Becker, Murray, Edberg, Wilander
Near Greats: Nastase, Vilas, Rosewall, Ashe, Newcombe, Hewitt, Courier, Roddick, Smith
Very Goods: Chang, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic, Ferrer, Muster, Okker, Gerulaitis, etc....

The above is with the caveat that if we included pre-Open Era records, Laver would move to GOAT tier, Rosewall up two to the "inner circle," Newcombe up one to the "outer circle." We also don't know who might join the first four tiers among current players. Medvedev and Zverev both have good chances of it, and of course there's Alcaraz, Rune, etc.

(And in case you're wondering about tiers and ordering, that's how they fell using a formula that averaged career GOAT Points, best five years GP, best single year GP, and then I multiplied it by one-hundredth of their best Elo...an attempt to balance career and peak level...the obvious caveat applies: it is not meant to be a definitive system, just another angle on things).

There's a huge gap between the first and second tier, another between second and third, and another between third and fourth. The gap between the fourth ("Near Greats") and everyone else is rather small...meaning, after the first three tiers, everyone else is, well, just that...everyone else. The "near greats" are the top of the class, but it is a smooth curve from Nastase on down.

So while I understand why the three first tiers are of different levels - though it is interesting to me that they are separated by large gaps - what I find more interesting, and am wondering about, is why there's that big gap between Wilander and Nastase...there are no in-between players.

We can find other angles on this question, but for me the metric I used highlights it especially well. We're always going to come back to a gap between the top 14 and everyone else (and in most deeper analyses, Andy Murray belongs in the top 14, not with everyone else). Here's a rough chart depicting it (I took the above formula, then counted Novak as "100" and everyone else as a percentage of that):

View attachment 7375
(And please don't use this as an opportunity to argue the rankings here...they're not meant to depict anything other than how players compare using a specific metric...this isn't a definitive ranking of greatness, and more importantly: this thread isn't about who is better or worse, but why these tiers exist - and why there are the huge gaps, and no "in-betweeners.")

Again, to me the most interesting thing is that gap between Wilander and Nastase (and with him, everyone else)...but also the gaps between Nadal and Lendl, and Laver and Agassi.

So what do you think? Why does the historical tennis cookie crumble this way?

The elephant in the room is probably the term "Open Era". It reminds me a little of the way they present "Premier League" in English football, as if everything can either be discarded or downgraded prior to the date of introduction.

I think you make decent side-commentary for the likes of Rosewall... who would be classed in your Tier A or B, but the biggest omission could be somebody like Pancho Gonzalez.

We often look at these old players wondering if they could cut it in the modern era, but I'd love to reverse it and consider if modern players could cut it in the era of bald grass, gut strings and wooden racquets.

Ferrer is also a bit of a stretch to be on that list.

 

[El Dude]

The elephant in the room is probably the term "Open Era". It reminds me a little of the way they present "Premier League" in English football, as if everything can either be discarded or downgraded prior to the date of introduction.

I think you make decent side-commentary for the likes of Rosewall... who would be classed in your Tier A or B, but the biggest omission could be somebody like Pancho Gonzalez.

We often look at these old players wondering if they could cut it in the modern era, but I'd love to reverse it and consider if modern players could cut it in the era of bald grass, gut strings and wooden racquets.

Don't forget long pants.

I definitely don't forget Pancho - I was just talking about guys with at least some prime years during the Open Era. Pancho was still pretty good for a few years (with his famous beat-down of a 19-year old Connors while 43 years old), but his prime was in the 1950s...dude was born in 1928, and is the oldest chronologically to win a title during the Open Era. I think next up are guys born in the 30s.

Ferrer is also a bit of a stretch to be on that list.

I've been doing some research into Elo, and a deeper dive puts Ferrer as a better player than most guys in that class, Slams be damned. He's almost certainly the best Slamless player of the Open Era, with Okker and Gottfried also in the running (Mecir, Rios and Nalbandian are up there talent-wise, and I'd add Del Potro and maybe Stich, but had short careers and/or peaks).

This is where I would differentiate two factors: How good a player was, and what they accomplished. They aren't the same thing. The latter is represented by titles and Slam results, the former is best represented by metrics like Elo. All sports have those factors...the best team on paper doesn't always win the Super Bowl or World Series - it is the team that is hottest and/or able to play best under pressure -- or simply has a window of opportunity. The same is true of tennis. Ferrer is a "bad-luck" player in that his entire peak occurred at the same time as three gods of tennis (and one demigod). Insert Agassi into the same time frame and he doesn't win more than Murray, and Sampras halves his Slam count (I think Rafa's and Novak's defense would have eventually made him lose his cool, and Roger would have the edge on fast courts...though I think Pete would still find a way to win a bunch of Slams, just not nearly as much).

And of course clay champions like Muster, Moya, Bruguera, Costa, Gaudio, Ferrero, and even Kuerten would never have beaten Rafa at Roland Garros - not once. I think there's a valid argument that Ferrer was better than all of those guys.

In my opinion, of course.

I was going to share some of the research, but I'm entering another wind-down phase of "why bother, all people respond to is Fedalkovic Wars and GOAT squabbles?" . But it is interesting what Elo reveals, such as the changing talent levels in different eras, which players got the most and least out of their talent, as well as some guys that end up looking over-rated and some who look under-rated, if you only look at Slams - which is what most people do. Elo fills a lot of gaps in terms of defining a player's talent level, and comparing it across eras.

Anyhow, to circle back to your point, I think we'd find some "in-betweeners" in the pro/amateur era, if we're focusing on the "Wilander-Nastase gap" (which isn't that wide, taking Elo into account), or pretty much just making that chart more smooth and gradual. Newcombe's full career, Sedgman, Trabert, Crawford, Ashley Cooper, Manolo Santana, Segura, etc. Lew Hoad would be somewhere in there. But yeah, taking their whole careers into account, in addition to what I said above about Laver, Rosewall and Newcombe, I'd put Tilden and Pancho at least in the ATG tier A group, maybe in the GOAT tier; guys like Budge and Kramer would be up there too, and then players like Riggs, Vines, Perry, etc.

 

[tented]

This is where I would differentiate two factors: How good a player was, and what they accomplished. They aren't the same thing. The latter is represented by titles and Slam results, the former is best represented by metrics like Elo. All sports have those factors...the best team on paper doesn't always win the Super Bowl or World Series - it is the team that is hottest and/or able to play best under pressure -- or simply has a window of opportunity. The same is true of tennis.

Well put, and worth reminding us. The prime example of this recently was Raducanu winning the USO. Or a lot of the guys who won the Paris/Bercy Masters this century, taking advantage of end-of-year drop off.

 

[El Dude]

Well put, and worth reminding us. The prime example of this recently was Raducanu winning the USO. Or a lot of the guys who won the Paris/Bercy Masters this century, taking advantage of end-of-year drop off.

Yep. Talent isn't static. Some years have more, some less. Lleyton Hewitt was a really good player, but was number one because there was a bit of a talent dip: the Sampras/Agassi generation was largely gone, the Kuerten gen was on the weak side, and Roger and Rafa didn't rise yet. You can see this illustrated by how his Elo was basically the same in 2006 as it was in 2001-02, but he was #4.

The Elo leaders in the 1998-2003 era were all in the 2247 to 2261 range...that's about the average Elo for a #3-5 player, in most years during the Open Era.

On the other hand, that era had a ton of parity...lots of different Slam and Masters winners, Elo ratings of the top 10 pretty tightly packed. And before that era, Sampras didn't utterly dominate like the top players before and since: His best Elo is 2407, which is actually closer to Becker (2419), Agassi (2376), Wilander (2371) and Edberg (2370) than it is to the the recent Big Four and the earlier Big Four (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl), plus Laver...all of whom reached 2500+ during their peaks. Of course that's largely because of Pete's weakness on clay:

Pete Elo
Best overall: 2407 (#15)
Best hard: 2524 (#3)
Best grass: 2501 (#7)
Best clay: 2226 (#73)

There are other ATGs with similar weakness: Edberg, Becker and Agassi were all similar on clay, and Wilander was weak on carpet. But what separates Sampras from the other guys -- as far as Elo is concerned - is his weakness on clay. Those nine were all relatively balanced across the different surfaces...some minor weaknesses (Borg ranked #33 on hards), but not as bad as Pete's on clay.

As a side note, a lot is made of the "weak era" of the early 2000s, but according to Elo, it really began at the very end of the 80s. From the mid-70s to mid-80s, tennis saw a very high level of peak play from Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl. The heirs - Wilander, Becker, and Edberg, plus Agassi and Sampras - were all great, but a step down (as far as Elo is concerned). The first four had a total of 6 seasons ending with an Elo of 2500 or better from 1978-87: three by Borg and one each by Connors, McEnroe and Lendl. After Lendl's 1987, there wasn't a 2500 Elo season until Federer in 2006. Since then, Roger, Rafa and Andy have had one each, and Novak four (more weight to Novak's GOAT status).

In fact,1990-2003 saw no 2400 Elo season...from Becker/Lendl in 1989 to Roger in 2004.The top players of that era, from Edberg and Becker early on, to Sampras and Agassi, hovered closer to the pack then the premier players of the 70s-80s and the Big Four era.

All of the above being an example of the type of things that Elo is good for - and what it brings forth that you won't see just by looking at "raw data" like titles and rankings.

 

[britbox]

Don't forget long pants.

I definitely don't forget Pancho - I was just talking about guys with at least some prime years during the Open Era. Pancho was still pretty good for a few years (with his famous beat-down of a 19-year old Connors while 43 years old), but his prime was in the 1950s...dude was born in 1928, and is the oldest chronologically to win a title during the Open Era. I think next up are guys born in the 30s.

I've been doing some research into Elo, and a deeper dive puts Ferrer as a better player than most guys in that class, Slams be damned. He's almost certainly the best Slamless player of the Open Era, with Okker and Gottfried also in the running (Mecir, Rios and Nalbandian are up there talent-wise, and I'd add Del Potro and maybe Stich, but had short careers and/or peaks).

This is where I would differentiate two factors: How good a player was, and what they accomplished. They aren't the same thing. The latter is represented by titles and Slam results, the former is best represented by metrics like Elo. All sports have those factors...the best team on paper doesn't always win the Super Bowl or World Series - it is the team that is hottest and/or able to play best under pressure -- or simply has a window of opportunity. The same is true of tennis. Ferrer is a "bad-luck" player in that his entire peak occurred at the same time as three gods of tennis (and one demigod). Insert Agassi into the same time frame and he doesn't win more than Murray, and Sampras halves his Slam count (I think Rafa's and Novak's defense would have eventually made him lose his cool, and Roger would have the edge on fast courts...though I think Pete would still find a way to win a bunch of Slams, just not nearly as much).

And of course clay champions like Muster, Moya, Bruguera, Costa, Gaudio, Ferrero, and even Kuerten would never have beaten Rafa at Roland Garros - not once. I think there's a valid argument that Ferrer was better than all of those guys.

In my opinion, of course.

I was going to share some of the research, but I'm entering another wind-down phase of "why bother, all people respond to is Fedalkovic Wars and GOAT squabbles?" . But it is interesting what Elo reveals, such as the changing talent levels in different eras, which players got the most and least out of their talent, as well as some guys that end up looking over-rated and some who look under-rated, if you only look at Slams - which is what most people do. Elo fills a lot of gaps in terms of defining a player's talent level, and comparing it across eras.

Anyhow, to circle back to your point, I think we'd find some "in-betweeners" in the pro/amateur era, if we're focusing on the "Wilander-Nastase gap" (which isn't that wide, taking Elo into account), or pretty much just making that chart more smooth and gradual. Newcombe's full career, Sedgman, Trabert, Crawford, Ashley Cooper, Manolo Santana, Segura, etc. Lew Hoad would be somewhere in there. But yeah, taking their whole careers into account, in addition to what I said above about Laver, Rosewall and Newcombe, I'd put Tilden and Pancho at least in the ATG tier A group, maybe in the GOAT tier; guys like Budge and Kramer would be up there too, and then players like Riggs, Vines, Perry, etc.

I hear what you're saying and the focus on the Open Era (re: Pancho, Rosewall etc).

I'm not sure I agree on Ferrer. The other guys you're comparing him with, still achieved something he never managed. I don't see Marat Safin's name here, so out of interest how would you compare somebody like Safin with Ferrer?

Stats aside, there was always that unknown quantity with players like Safin, where "on their day" you feel they could pull something off. It's a largely an intangible that I never associated with Ferrer, namely potential upside on their best day.

 

[El Dude]

I hear what you're saying and the focus on the Open Era (re: Pancho, Rosewall etc).

I'm not sure I agree on Ferrer. The other guys you're comparing him with, still achieved something he never managed. I don't see Marat Safin's name here, so out of interest how would you compare somebody like Safin with Ferrer?

Stats aside, there was always that unknown quantity with players like Safin, where "on their day" you feel they could pull something off. It's a largely an intangible that I never associated with Ferrer, namely potential upside on their best day.

Well, I'm a bit enamored by Elo right now, as it provides answers to a lot of questions I had, and also highlights some things I didn't realize. I especially find it interesting when it goes against conventional wisdom. Whether or not it is right is debatable, but at least it provides a different angle than either A) just looking at raw stats, or B) consulting conventional wisdom and collective memory.

Elo basically tells us how good a player was at playing tennis. It doesn't necessarily tell us how good they were in clutch moments, or how good they were capable of playing in a stray moment. Therefore, it isn't as kind to players like Safin, Nalbandian and Wawrinka - three guys who we've seen play at levels as high as anyone (just about), but only for brief moments. But it does illuminate some things, and helps clear up the clouds of "received wisdom" and/or personal bias.

Safin's peak Elo was 2218, which historically is close to the average of a #5 player in the year-end Elo rankings. Ferrer's peak Elo was 2348, which is exactly--to the single digit point--the average of a #2 player in the Open Era. Ferrer's is higher because he was more consistent. Elo does require some degree of sustained play: If you're the #100 player with an 1800 Elo and you beat Novak, your Elo will go up, but not hugely so (No idea how much exactly, but probably a few dozen points). To go up substantially, you have to have a sustained level of play at a certain level - something guys like the three I mentioned struggled with.

To illustrate this, we can look at Rafa in 2005, which is perhaps the most striking breakthrough in Open Era tennis history. He ended 2004 at 1954 Elo, and then went nuts in clay season in 2005, jumping all the way up to 2259 after the French Open, climbing a bit further to finish the year at 2291. Meaning, Rafa's 2005 clay season saw his Elo rise about 300 points...and to do that, he had to win match after match over several months. Safin actually had a similar rise, from April of 2000 (1899) to Sept of the same year (2199), he fell back down to a lower level (basically the 2050-2150 range) and never surged again like that until 2005, whereas Rafa consolidated his new level in 2005 and even reached greater heights.

To put Ferrer's peak Elo in context, that's higher than any player born between Sampras and Federer. Meaning, higher than Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Rios, etc, and even Hewitt and Safin. It is the 21st highest peak Elo of the Open Era, while Safin's is the 73rd highest. Or to put that another way, Ferrer's peak Elo is between Arthur Ashe (2354) and Vitas Gerulaitis (2335), and just ahead of guys like Del Potro and Courier, while Safin's is between Petr Korda (2222) and Pat Cash (2217).

So while I agree with you that Safin "on his day" was capable of a higher level of tennis than Ferrer, how many days did he have like that? Or we could imagine modern players being forced to go on tour together, like the pros in the 40s and 50s. Imagine Ferrer and Safin touring, playing 80 or 100 matches over a few months. My guess is that Ferrer would come out on top - he'd play at a more consistent level, while Safin would be all over the place (and hungover/exhausted from last night's orgy on many days - or just bored/unable to maintain focus). Safin would wow us on certain days, but then not show up and just sleepwalk through a few days, while Ferrer would grind, day after day, and win most of those matches. Just a speculation, of course.

Anyhow, I listened to this marathon podcast between Jeff Sackmann and Carl Bialik, as well as one with Sackmann and Jeff McFarland, which had a lot of interesting stuff on the various issues that get argued over on this website. I can't remember who said it, but one of them talked about how tennis fandom was rather resistant to statistical analysis, perhaps because it was more recent. There have been baseball "statnerds" for decades upon decades--especially so since the late 70s when Bill James began releasing his Baseball Abstracts, while only recently have people been trying to analyze tennis with deeper statistical analysis.

The main problem, they said - and which I tend to agree with, and have even pointed out here time and time again - is a general misunderstanding of the use of stats, that they aren't a "be all, end all" to conversation, nor are they meant to be absolutely definitively, but they do provide a different angle on things and, most importantly, challenge our pre-conceived notions and conventional wisdom and memory. Meaning, stats like Elo shouldn't be approaches as either absolutely true and definitive or utter bunk (because they disagree with What I Know To Be True), but rather as tools that provide different angles on questions and challenge our pre-conceived notions.

 

[britbox]

Which career would you pick, given the choice? Safin or Ferrer?

 

[El Dude]

Which career would you pick, given the choice? Safin or Ferrer?

Well Safin, if only because of the Slam titles. But that question is not the same as asking, "Who was the better player?" The two shouldn't be confused, but too often are. When they are, we run into contradictions: for instance, knowing that Brian Gottfried was better than Mark Edmondson, but the latter having a Slam trophy. Or more recently, Gaston Gaudio vs. players like David Nalbandian and Nikolay Davydenko, who were clearly better players, but never won Slams.

Elo, and deeper statistical analysis, is not about looking purely at results. It is a tool that allows us to peel back the layers, beyond simply trophies and titles. Yet at the same time, most fans still default back to trophies and, in particular, Slams. That is fine if we just want to focus on bragging rights and trophy cases, but not if we want to ask questions like, "Who was the better player at their peak, A or B?" "Who had more elite years?" Etc.

Elo is, as far as I can tell, the best available tool we have to compare across eras, or even within eras. It tells us, for instance, that Juan Martin Del Potro was really an almost-great player; along with the Big Four and Ferrer, he's the only guy to surpass 2300 Elo since the Sampras/Agassi...at least until Medvedev and Zverev in 2021. And then there's that: Elo tells us that Medvedev and Zverev reached heights in 2021 that only 28 other players have done in the Open Era (the 2300 level), which implies that if they can re-find that form, there's more big titles to come.

 

[Moxie]

Well Safin, if only because of the Slam titles. But that question is not the same as asking, "Who was the better player?" The two shouldn't be confused, but too often are. When they are, we run into contradictions: for instance, knowing that Brian Gottfried was better than Mark Edmondson, but the latter having a Slam trophy. Or more recently, Gaston Gaudio vs. players like David Nalbandian and Nikolay Davydenko, who were clearly better players, but never won Slams.

I understand the point that you're trying to make, esp. in your penultimate above, but the question, "Who is the better player?" is still too open to interpretation, is it not? It seems like the ELO rating is trying to tell us who had the more "consistent" career over time. I get why Ferrer has such a high number, and, as you know, I'm a fan, as well as having been a huge fan of Safin. And even you pick Safin. I don't think anyone would say that Ferrer was more "gifted" or "had more weapons" than Safin. But, as you rightly pointed out, Safin was WILDLY inconsistent, for various reasons, and only most of them were above the neck. This is where I remind everyone that, after Safin won the 2005 AO, he never won another tournament. And, unlike Sampras, it's not because he retired.

Your example of Gaudio/Nalbandian/Davydenko is interesting, and flawed, I think. I do get your point, which is that fans tend to prize Majors, but I don't think anyone would rank them differently than their ELO ratings, which is, in same order: 2137/2196/2291. Everyone knows that Gaudio was a bit "right place, right time" in winning that RG 2004. Nalbandian was an excellent player, but a bit like Safin, without the Majors, and Davydenko did have his talents, even though he also tended to beef up his resume with small tournaments.

Elo, and deeper statistical analysis, is not about looking purely at results. It is a tool that allows us to peel back the layers, beyond simply trophies and titles. Yet at the same time, most fans still default back to trophies and, in particular, Slams. That is fine if we just want to focus on bragging rights and trophy cases, but not if we want to ask questions like, "Who was the better player at their peak, A or B?" "Who had more elite years?" Etc.

I don't see how, in sports, ignoring the pure results of trophies is necessarily a good thing. Winning the hardware IS the goal, and it says something about the player. And I'm still not clear how ELO tells us 'who is the better player at their peak, A or B?" Because Safin is the better player, at his peak, over Ferrer, to use the current example. I suppose we could argue Davydenko v. Nalbandian, but I bet Nalbandian would win, around here.

Elo is, as far as I can tell, the best available tool we have to compare across eras, or even within eras. It tells us, for instance, that Juan Martin Del Potro was really an almost-great player; along with the Big Four and Ferrer, he's the only guy to surpass 2300 Elo since the Sampras/Agassi...at least until Medvedev and Zverev in 2021. And then there's that: Elo tells us that Medvedev and Zverev reached heights in 2021 that only 28 other players have done in the Open Era (the 2300 level), which implies that if they can re-find that form, there's more big titles to come.

I can see why it's useful across eras. I can also see why you like it, as a stats guy, but I still think it's an "averaging" tool, and sports is about actually winning. I may not have been paying the best attention, but I have been trying to ride along with this. Sorry, just jumping back in after the holidays.

 

[El Dude]

I understand the point that you're trying to make, esp. in your penultimate above, but the question, "Who is the better player?" is still too open to interpretation, is it not? It seems like the ELO rating is trying to tell us who had the more "consistent" career over time. I get why Ferrer has such a high number, and, as you know, I'm a fan, as well as having been a huge fan of Safin. And even you pick Safin. I don't think anyone would say that Ferrer was more "gifted" or "had more weapons" than Safin. But, as you rightly pointed out, Safin was WILDLY inconsistent, for various reasons, and only most of them were above the neck. This is where I remind everyone that, after Safin won the 2005 AO, he never won another tournament. And, unlike Sampras, it's not because he retired.

Nice reply. I think a lot of your points of divergence go along with what I was saying in my previous post - that complaints about stats tend to be somewhat orthogonal to what fancy stats are actually for, or what they seek to answer. But I do think you are correct, that Elo doesn't tell us how good a player can be in a given match--as I said in my last post re: Safin--but it does tell us the relative level of dominance, over time. And yes, consistency has something to do with it. Thus Ferrer reached a higher Elo than Safin, even though we all know Safin was capable of greater heights (I'm not disputing that), or Sampras's Elo are closer to Becker than they are even Lendl and McEnroe, because his weakness on clay brought it down every year, probably by about 100 points (meaning, take clay out of Sampras' seasons and you can add 100 or more Elo to his year-end numbers).

Elo pretty much gives us a number that represents how good a player is playing s at any given moment, based upon their recent history. It doesn't tell us how good they'll play in a specific match, or even necessarily what direction they're trending (except through comparing it to their past Elo...and therein lies one of its uses). A player could have a very high Elo but completely tank - like Andy Murray did starting in mid-2017.

In fact, let's look at Andy in 2017 and beyond. He started that year with a 2500 Elo - the peak of his career, and at a level equalled by only eight other players in ATP history (Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, and the Big Three...not even Pete got to 2500, due to his weakness on clay). He performed well at first, going 12-2 in his first 14 matches, though losing to Novak in the Doha final and Mischa Zverev in the 4R of the AO, but also winning Dubai (over Verdasco). But come March, the cracks started to show. He entered Indian Wells with his Elo dipped a bit to 2476, but after going 4-5 in his next nine matches, by Roland Garros his Elo was down to 2391...still really high, but a rather steep drop.

That 2391 in a vacuum doesn't adequately represent how Andy was playing as RG started...that's higher than Wilander's and Edberg's peak, and Andy obviously wasn't playing like those two at their best. So one thing Elo doesn't give us, at least taken as a static number, is trending direction...but we can see that his Elo dropped over 100 points in a few months.

Andy reached the SF of Roland Garros, which boosted him back over 2400. And he also reached the QF of Wimbledon, but then got hurt and finished the year at 2353, which was the fifth highest of his career and almost exactly the average Elo for the year-end #2 in the Elo rankings. He had gone 25-10 for the year, a 71 W% that is below his current career rate of 76%, and only won a single ATP 500. Meaning, it wasn't his fifth best season - so in that regard, Elo doesn't tell us how well a player performed over a distinct span of time like a year. What it does tell us is how well he matches up against the rest of the tour, at least based upon recent history.

Andy's Elo continued to drop rather steadily from that point on. He ended 2018 at 2255, 2019 at 2186, 2020 at 2141, 2020 at 2054, and 2061 at 2005. As I and others have mentioned, his last five years or so are somewhat reminiscent of the later years of players like Hewitt and Wilander...and stand out because most all-time greats (and near greats) retire much before they fall that far, let alone hang out in journeyman status for years on end.

Similarly, Roger ended 2021 at 2257 after going 9-4 that year and 5-1 the year before. 2257 is the typical Elo for a top 3-5 player...and he wasn't even that by 2020-21, or at least didn't play enough to earn that claim.

I used Andy as an example of how you're actually right, that Elo doesn't tell us everything, and really emphasizes the past more than the present - or at least certainly not the future. Andy wasn't a 2353 Elo player at the end of 2017, nor was Roger really a 2257 player by the end of his career - at least based on his performance over the last two seasons (14-5, no titles). But what Elo does tell us is where a player is at in any given moment, based upon recent history. And where he is at vs. where he was a year ago, and where other players are at. It is also supposed to cross eras, so we can say that Novak in 2015 was roughly the equal to Borg in 1980, and no one else has reached that level of consistent dominance.

Your example of Gaudio/Nalbandian/Davydenko is interesting, and flawed, I think. I do get your point, which is that fans tend to prize Majors, but I don't think anyone would rank them differently than their ELO ratings, which is, in same order: 2137/2196/2291. Everyone knows that Gaudio was a bit "right place, right time" in winning that RG 2004. Nalbandian was an excellent player, but a bit like Safin, without the Majors, and Davydenko did have his talents, even though he also tended to beef up his resume with small tournaments.

But that's my point: Elo gives us a more accurate picture of their talent level than their Slam counts, and in that case, people do realize it and consensus opinion is more aligned with Elo. Again, in this particular instance. I chose those players because consensus opinion matches up with Elo more than it does Slam counts.

Ferrer and, say, Wawrinka are a bit different. Stan is in a similar category as Safin: some amazing tournaments and years as a good player, but his lack of consistency led to a rather pedestrian peak Elo of 2291 - the same as Davydenko, and very similar to Hewitt and Nishikori, and below players like Zverev, Medvedev, Del Potro and Ferrer (OK, 2291 isn't pedestrian..but certainly lower than one might expect based on the "Legend of Stanimal").

This comes back to your point: consistency is a factor. While we tend to like to look at Stan as a guy who, at his best, was able to beat the arguable GOAT during his peak years at Slams, we can switch that slightly and say that Stan truly only had three great tournaments: the three Slams he won. He won only one other big title, and just 16 titles overall. So a pretty good career, but rather weak compared to those three tournaments. Take those three Slams away, and he is a run of the mill top 20 guy. Those 16 titles is the same number as far lesser players like Vijay Armitraj and John Isner, and less than guys like Zverev and Tsonga, and far less than Ferrer's 27.

People will say that Ferrer padded his title total with weak titles, and certainly all but one of his 27 were ATP 250s and 500s. But again, he was consistent, week after week, and Elo recognizes a player's "floor" just as much as their "ceiling." In that regard, it does a good job of taking both into account: it recognizes when a player beats a better (higher Elo) player, but also when they lose to a worse (lower Elo) player. What you're left with is a number that places you relative to other players. A moving scale, if you will.

So for me the missing link, or what Elo doesn't satisfy for me, is telling us how good a player was capable of playing at their very best...which probably is best represented by looking at the so-called "big titles" (I almost wrote titties...haha).

I don't see how, in sports, ignoring the pure results of trophies is necessarily a good thing. Winning the hardware IS the goal, and it says something about the player. And I'm still not clear how ELO tells us 'who is the better player at their peak, A or B?" Because Safin is the better player, at his peak, over Ferrer, to use the current example. I suppose we could argue Davydenko v. Nalbandian, but I bet Nalbandian would win, around here.

I can see why it's useful across eras. I can also see why you like it, as a stats guy, but I still think it's an "averaging" tool, and sports is about actually winning. I may not have been paying the best attention, but I have been trying to ride along with this. Sorry, just jumping back in after the holidays.

I'm not saying that we should ignore trophies, which is also why I like but don't love Sackmann's methodology. I think a good GOAT ranking has to include actual trophies (which is why I'm playing with something that essentially averages Elo and what I call "Title Shares"). I'm merely pointing out that Elo gives us a different line of data, that is divorced from the trophies and titties, I mean titles - that gives us a sense of a player's level of play over a period of time.

As for your statement about Safin being the better player than Ferrer at his peak, I think you are using "peak" in a specific way that is different than what Elo characterizes, or from how I use the term. You are, I think, equating "peak" with how good a player can play at their very best in a specific match, but not "peak" as in the apex period of a player's career, meaning a solid span of time (more than just a tournament here and there). Meaning, "absolute peak" vs. "career peak."

Or maybe this is a good way to differentiate "peak" and "prime" - or what you mean by prime is what I mean by peak, at least as far as Elo is concerned: or career peak. But if we use your usage, a player's "peak" is the absolute best they're capable of playing - so in that sense, we can say that a lot of players have similar absolute peaks, that sublime tennis is sublime tennis. Remember Marin Cilic at the 2014 US Open? He looked--and was--unbeatable. He was Stanimal for a tournament, and Stanimal, at his best, was equal to the Big Four. Was Cilic's absolute peak less than Roger's or Rafa's? He was as unbeatable at the 2014 US Open as they were in their Slam wins, and beat some very good players to earn the trophy, including a straight-set SF win over Roger, and a straight-set win over Nishikori in the Final, who had just beaten prime Novak and was also playing at his absolute best. Meaning, Cilic could have beaten anyone in that tournament; the only player(s) who might have beaten him in the final are guys like the Big Four playing at their very best (absolute peak level), and then it likely would have been a crapshoot. But even so, we're left with Cilic as the winner: he played at the highest level during that tournament.

In a way, such a usage of the term becomes meaningless, because many tennis players have reached sublime heights - have similar "absolute peaks." We've all seen random guys play lights-out tennis and beat the best of the best, and it isn't simply or only a matter of the match being on the better player's racket, and they blew it. Remember Dustin Brown? Or what about the various guys who have upset Federer, or Novak? Nalbandian in late 2007? I mean, even Novak said that once you get to the top players--I can't remember if he said top 10 or 20 or even 100--the talent level is similar. It becomes mostly mental (I think he meant 10 or 20, but even so...).

Elo is better at characterizing a player's prime, or their "career peak" - not their absolute peak. But I don't think we need a metric for that, except to ask, "Have they been unbeatable at the biggest tournament level?" Or in other words, "Have they won a Slam, and in so doing, beaten the best of the best to get there?" If you've won a Slam, and not a window-of-opportunity Slam like Gaudio's, then you have reached that same "absolute peak." I'm not sure there's any way to differentiate degrees of "absolute peakness."

Elo is good for comparing career peaks, or how good players were over a significant period of time at the best phase of their career. In that sense, I think it isn't wrong to say that Ferrer's prime (or career peak) was higher than Safin's, even if we all know and agree that Safin was capable of a higher absolute peak. Otherwise Ferrer would have found a way to burst through the wall that was the Big Four and win a Slam. But he didn't. Alas! Safin did, or at least he did in 2005 against Roger - and that was Roger at his best.

So in short, career peak and absolute peak are not the same thing. Elo is good at measuring career peak, but not absolute peak - but nor does it need to, or is there really any way to do so except by looking at whether a player has been the best player at a big tournament, against the top players. If they have--as all of the ATGs have, and a bunch of other players besides--then they're capable of reaching a similar "absolute peak."

(Sorry for the novel, or at least short story!)