Draw Size Matrix for Selected players

The first table contains the draw sizes, titles (column under 'Draw:') and corresponding matches played for such titles.

Vilas won a couple of slams with 64-player draws at AO.

	Draw: 128		Draw: 96		Draw: 64		Draw: 56		Draw: 48		Draw: 32		Draw: 28		Draw: 24		Draw: 16		Draw: 12		Draw: 10		Draw: 9		Draw: 8		Draw: 4
Agassi	8	56	6	36	6	35	11	55	5	25	24	115													1	5
Becker	6	42			4	24	8	40	7	35	19	95					1	4					2	8	2	10
Borg	11	77			11	65					28	140					6	22							5	24	3	6
Connors	7	49			31	177	2	10	2	10	51	250			1	4	10	38							4	16	1	1
Edberg	4	28	2	12	1	6	12	60	5	25	16	80	1	4											1	5
Federer	17	119	6	36	6	36	6	30	3	15	30	150	1	4			1	5							5	25
Lendl	10	70			15	89	11	55	9	45	37	185					4	15	1	3					7	27
McEnroe	7	49			14	80	4	20	3	15	38	190					3	11	2	6					5	19	1	2
Nadal	11	77	2	12	6	36	21	105	2	10	8	30
Sampras	14	98	3	18	1	6	13	65	6	30	20	100					2	8			1	5	1	5	3	15
Vilas	2	14			17	100			1	5	36	180					5	20							1	5
	97	679	19	114	112	654	88	440	43	215	307	1515	2	8	1	4	32	123	3	9	1	5	3	13	34	151	5

This table is a consolidation of the previous table with aggregate information. McEnroe and Connors played an average of 5.09 matches per title, compared to 5.6 matches that Federer played per title.

Player	Titles	Matches	Average
Agassi	61	327	5.36
Becker	49	258	5.27
Borg	64	334	5.22
Connors	109	555	5.09
Edberg	42	220	5.24
Federer	75	420	5.60
Lendl	94	489	5.20
McEnroe	77	392	5.09
Nadal	50	270	5.40
Sampras	64	350	5.47
Vilas	62	324	5.23
	747	3939

Will add some more comments shortly.

Data from ATP website and ITF website.

E&OE

LF you now confusing me whats these stats for? Haven't you posted something similar like this before?

This is the culmination of those stats, showing how many matches these greats had to play to win a title.

Federer played 5.6/title, Connors 5.09 at the extremes.

Now laverfan will compute the average ranking of each opponent in all the matches for those titles.....

Good article once again Laver
btw you have to move Ed.3 to the TWSA folder

So Fed played 1/2 match more per title? That's actually significant.
Likewise Sampras and Nadal played more for theirs.

Connors and McEnroe had the "easiest" rides.

Great work LF. As BB says the true metric is the composite average ranking of players they had to beat for those titles...wow, thats some computation!

invisiblecoolers wrote:LF you now confusing me whats these stats for? Haven't you posted something similar like this before?

I had done individual players (Connors, Lendl, Borg) to provide as a starting point. I can post the individual remaining players, if someone wants to see the individual statistics.

bogbrush wrote:Now laverfan will compute the average ranking of each opponent in all the matches for those titles.....

Working on that now...

Lydian wrote:As BB says the true metric is the composite average ranking of players they had to beat for those titles...wow, thats some computation!

Since I used the playing activity for all years to build this, it is a bit of work, but not too bad.

I will try and finish it next week. Should I do a separate article for each individual player, or just provide a composite table? All suggestions are welcome.

OMG,

this is quite amazing.

You should submit it to the ATP so they can add it to the Fedex reliability zone.



emancipator

I can try Emanci. . I am glad that you like it.

It's not really the draw size that's important it is the quality of the opposition.

Nore Staat wrote:It's not really the draw size that's important it is the quality of the opposition.

Which is what BB is alluding to, in terms of average rankings of the opposition.

Here is an example...

Wimbledon, Great Britain; 25.06.2012; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128
Round Opponent Ranking Score
R128 Albert Ramos (ESP) 43 W 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 Stats
R64 Fabio Fognini (ITA) 68 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-2 Stats
R32 Julien Benneteau (FRA) 32 W 4-6, 6-7(3), 6-2, 7-6(6), 6-1 Stats
R16 Xavier Malisse (BEL) 75 W 7-6(1), 6-1, 4-6, 6-3 Stats
Q Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) 33 W 6-1, 6-2, 6-2 Stats
S Novak Djokovic (SRB) 1 W 6-3, 3-6, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
W Andy Murray (GBR) 4 W 4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4 Stats

Adding the ranking of the players that Federer beat (43+68+32+75+33+1+4) = 256 and played 7 matches I get 36.5714.

If on the other hand, if it is the average rank of the Ramos over 2012 (which may or may not be 43) that I need to consider, then it is looking at Ramos's rank over each of the 52 weeks to find an average ranking, then it is a lot more work and I do not have that data readily available.

If the former calculation is acceptable, I can do it quicker, the latter calculation will require more time.

NS, BB, Lydian, et al, what do you think?

I think it's more relevant to look at the ranking for each of the players beaten at the time, that way is much quicker and easier too!

Tony Trabert winner of 5 grand slams
AO SF (1955)
French Open W (1954, 1955)
Wimbledon W (1955)
US Open W (1953, 1955)

In 1955 his record was: 106 wins to 7 losses.

He turned professional at the end of 1955.

He then played Pancho Gonzalez 101 times:
In 1956, Gonzales beat the athletic Tony Trabert by 74-27

Laverfan I think the long series H2H the early professionals played is more indicative of the relative merits and strengths of each player. I am not sure calculating average ranking per tournament is going to tell us much. Basically the averages are going to correlate with draw size: the greater the draw size the higher the rank average.

It may provide a measure of degree of difficulty, but WTF may be an aberration in such a calculation.

You may want to consider Vilas's 1977.

Guillermo Vilas 1977 W/L - Monsterous season.

Singles - 130 - 16 (Dibbs, Borg - NY Masters, Nastase - Aix En Provence, Billy Martin - W, Ross Case - Queens, Tim Gullikson - Nottingham, Franulovic - Rome, Mottram - Hamburg, Borg - MC, Nice, Johannesburg, Mark Cox - Memphis, Gottfried - Palm Springs, Baltimore, Bob Lutz - Ocean City, Tanner - AO)

Doubles - 38 (40 - 2 byes) - 16 (Partners - Tiriac, Ricardo Cano, Lito Alvarez, Borg)

Hand-counted these. 199 matches (Singles and Doubles 130 + 15 + 38 + 16).

I have yet to see a documented season like this one from Vilas.

Let's have a premier league system:
a) Federer v Nadal. 50 matche series
b) Murray v Djokovic. 50 match series

c) Nadal v Djokovic. 50 match series.
d) Feder v Murray. 50 match series.

e) Federer v Djokovic. 50 match series.
f) Murray v Nadal. 50 match series.

Were the professional match up series of the past best of three or five?

Nore Staat wrote:Were the professional match up series of the past best of three or five?

It was a mix of Bo3 and Bo5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Pro_Tennis_Championships

lydian wrote:I think it's more relevant to look at the ranking for each of the players beaten at the time, that way is much quicker and easier too!

There are quite a few gaps which ITF does not have either. I will just put together what I can find.