![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
In men's professional tennis, players aspire to hold the top ranking position. On the way to the top spot, reaching the top 100 can be seen as a significant career milestone. National Federations undertake extensive efforts to assist their players to reach the top 100. However, objective data considering reasonable ranking yardsticks for top 100 success in men's professional tennis are lacking. Therefore, it is difficult for National Federations and those involved in player development to give empirical programming advice to young players. By taking a closer look at the ranking history of professional male tennis players, this article tries to provide those involved in player development a more objective basis for decision-making. The 100 names, countries, birthdates and ranking histories of the top 100 players listed in the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) at 31 December 2009 were recorded from websites in the public domain. Descriptive statistics were reported for the ranking milestones of interest. Results confirmed the merits of the International Tennis Federation's junior tour with 91% of the top 100 professionals earning a junior ranking, the mean peak of which was 94.1, s=148.9. On average, top 100 professionals achieved their best junior rankings and earned their first ATP point at similar ages, suggesting that players compete on both the junior and professional tours during their transition. Once professionally ranked, players took an average 4.5, s=2.1 years to reach the ATP top 100 at the mean age of 21.5, s=2.6 years, which contrasts with the mean current age of the top 100 of 26.8, s=3.2. The best professional rankings of players born in 1982 or earlier were positively related to the ages at which players earned their first ATP point and then entered the top 100, suggesting that the ages associated with these ranking milestones may have some forecasting potential. Future work should focus on the change in top 100 demographics over time as well as the evaluation of the interaction between rankings and tournament play.
Keywords: