Who's the best tennis player of all time? New ranking system produces some surprises

March 1, 2011 By Erin White, Northwestern University

Jimmy Connors.
(PhysOrg.com) -- Fans may think of Jimmy Connors as an "old school" tennis player, but according to a new ranking system developed by a Northwestern University researcher, Connors is best player in the history of the game. The rankings are published in PLoS ONE, a journal published by the Public Library of Science.

Male players who played in at least one Association of Tennis Professionals match between 1968 and 2010 were evaluated through network analysis, said Filippo Radicchi, author of the study.

Ranking tennis players is a novel way to show how complex network analysis can reveal interesting facts hidden in statistical data, said Radicchi, a physicist and postdoctoral fellow in the chemical and biological engineering department of Northwestern’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science.

Radicchi ran an algorithm, similar to the one used by Google to rank Web pages, on digital data from hundreds of thousands of matches. The data was pulled from the Association of Tennis Professionals website. He quantified the importance of players and ranked them by a “tennis prestige” score. This score is determined by a player’s competitiveness, the quality of his performance and number of victories.

“In this particular ranking system, it’s more important to win a single match against a very good player than many matches against not-so-good players,” said Radicchi, who conducted the research in the lab of Luís Amaral, professor of chemical and biological engineering at the McCormick School.

Here’s how the top 30 rank:

1. Jimmy Connors 11. Boris Becker
21. Mats Wilander
2. Ivan Lendl 12. Arthur Ashe
22. Goran Ivanišević
3. John McEnroe 13. Brian Gottfried
23. Vitas Gerulaitis
4. Guillermo Vilas 14. Stan Smith
24. Rafael Nadal 
5. Andre Agassi 15. Manuel Orantes
25. Raul Ramirez
6. Stefan Edberg 16. Michael Chang
26. John Newcombe
7. Roger Federer 17. Roscoe Tanner
27. Ken Rosewall
8. Pete Sampras 18. Eddie Dibbs
28. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
9. Ilie Năstase 19. Harold Solomon
29. Andy Roddick
10. Björn Borg 20. Tom Okker

30. Thomas Muster

“One of the reasons Jimmy Connors ranks on top is because he played for more than 20 years and had the opportunity to win a lot of matches against other very good players,” Radicchi said.

He expects current greats Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal to eventually move up in the rankings if they face tough competition and continue to win matches. Radicchi, a lifelong tennis fan, plans to run this study again in 10 years to see how the rankings change.

“The rankings are a snapshot of who is at the top at this time,” Radicchi said. “Players who have yet to retire are penalized with respect to those who have ended their careers. Prestige scores strongly correlate with the number of victories, and active players haven’t played all the matches of their careers yet.”

Researching and ranking sports stars gives a glimpse at the power of complex network analysis.

“The same application could be used to rank countries involved in the global trade of certain commodities,” Radicchi said. “In general, this type of analysis can help scientists better explain and understand complicated global relationships.”

Explore further: Using science to identify true soccer stars

More information: www.plosone.org/article/info%3 … journal.pone.0017249

Related Stories

Using science to identify true soccer stars

June 16, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- As a young boy growing up in Portugal, Luis Amaral loved playing, watching and talking soccer. Amaral and his friends passionately debated about which players were "the best." But, it was just a matter of ...

Economic game theory studied by Haas professor

January 6, 2011

You are running a political campaign with limited resources. How should you spend your money to beat your rival? You are a military commander trying to win a battle. How should you deploy your soldiers to gain an edge? You ...

Relationships get help from social networking games

February 23, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Think social network games are just for kids? A recent Michigan State University study found that many adults are playing games such as Facebook’s “Farmville” to help initiate, develop and ...

Recommended for you

Excavators find tombs buried in Bolivia 500 years ago

November 17, 2018

Archaeologists say they found tombs at a Bolivian quarry containing remains from more than 500 years ago that give an insight into the interaction of various peoples with the expanding Inca empire.

Preventing chemical weapons as sciences converge

November 15, 2018

Alarming examples of the dangers from chemical weapons have been seen recently in the use of industrial chemicals and the nerve agent sarin against civilians in Syria, and in the targeted assassination operations using VX ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2011
Researching and ranking sports stars gives a glimpse at the power of complex network analysis.

It also demonstrates the weakness of network analysis: you can basically arrive at any result by tweaking the weight parameters.

E.g. Google recently tweaked their parameters and now the search results are radically different sometimes.

For tennis players this means: "who is the best" is highly dependent on what you think 'best' means. Do you judge...
- percentage of matches won
- most consistent winning percentages over long periods of time (which would deprecate the effect of injuries)
- most upsets against supposedly stronger players
- most tournaments won
- longest time in the top 10
... as the most important aspect of being 'best'?
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2011
Can't take any tennis GOAT ranking seriously that puts those top 3 players above Federer or Nadal. Surely whom you have to compete against must bear more weight than one's win tally. Tennis is ever evolving, and technique has really improved.
Well, such scores mean how they'd rank had they had today's training and equipment, against today's players.
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2011

Fillipo Radicchi has his head too far up his fundamental oriface to be able to see anything.
His article is absolute rubbish
2 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2011
This is a wonderful article, just poorly titled. Determining who is the best player of all time is of course impossible. We can't magically assemble all these great players at the peak of the powers and have them play a metaphysical grand slam. And of course we can argue endlessly about who would beat whom without ever settling the matter. But the reality is that ranking is an integral part of the game and a somewhat arbitrary procedure. Why assign 2,000 points to a major instead of 1,500 or 3,000? That is a subjective judgment call by the people who run professional tennis. But rankings matter big time, because they determine seeding at tournaments. Radicchi offers an alternative, arguably less subjective (though not completely objective), ranking procedure that has been used in a variety of other ranking contexts (such as web page searches). Sadly, Radicchi's procedure can't replace the current ranking system since it is not simple enough for most tennis fan to understand.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.