Using the dataset found in the previous article “The Greatest Tennis Players On Clay In The Open Era: An Analysis“, UbiTennis now presents an analysis of the performances of each country, using a “drill down” or “downward spiral drill” methodology, where being at the bottom means actually being at the forefront of this special ranking. For this purpose, a new dataset was created in order to build aggregate scores and verify the performances of every nation for each year.
The analyses were focused on the so-called “big titles”, Slams and Masters 1000 or whatever their name was since the Grand Prix was created in 1970, considering that, over the years, these tournaments have been grouped under some collective names such as: Grand Prix Super Series (until 1989, also including a few WCT events), then Championship Series, Super 9 and Masters Series, before being referenced, from 2009 onwards, with the label we’re familiar with – the Barcelona Olympic tournament from 1992 was also added to the list. Therefore, the tournaments considered were:
- The French Open starting from 1968.
- The US Open from 1975 to 1977.
- The 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games, which was rewarded with the same points as a Major.
- The tournaments of Rome and Montecarlo, starting from 1970.
- The Hamburg tournament from 1978 to 2009, when it was replaced by the Madrid Masters.
- The Canadian Open from 1972 to 1975 and again in the 1978 season.
- The Indianapolis and Boston tournaments from 1974 to 1977.
- The Washington tournament from 1975 to 1977.
- The Forest Hills tournament from 1982 to 1985.
In order to study the performance of every country in the aforementioned tournaments, four main aspects were evaluated:
- The total aggregate points obtained, using a very simple scoring system: for the Majors, 2 points for a Grand Slam victory, 1 for a final, 0.5 for a semi, 0.25 for a quarter final; on the other hand, a point for a win in a 1000 or Masters Series or Super 9, 0.5 points for a final, 0.25 for a semifinal run.
- The number of players who contributed to a nation’s total score.
- The trend of the aggregate score, including a peak analysis.
- The number of zeros scored by the leading nations.
Before proceeding with the analysis, it is necessary to proceed with some clarifications over the methodology used. Aggregate scores for each country were obtained considering currently existing nations, even if they didn’t exist at some point throughout the historical period included in the study. As an example, the points coming from tennis players from the former Soviet Union were included to the total sum of Russian points.
With regard to the dismembered countries, the main observation criterium was the player’s actual residence, or the role he held at the time within their own tennis federation. Using this judgement criteria, the scores of Jovanovic, Franulovic and Pilic were counted for Croatia, while Mecir scored his points for Slovakia. Finally, the so-called “naturalisations” of tennis players have been completely excluded, considering only the nation in which a player grew up – as such, Lendl’s points were attributed entirely to Czech Republic, Kriek and Pattison’s to South Africa, Mulligan and Bob Hewitt’s to Australia.
We also note that in the 1981 season 10.5 points were awarded, due to the fact that the final of the tournament in Monte Carlo could not be finished due to repeated rains, thus not awarding the title to either of the two finalists. To date, it is the only case of a draw in the history of open era tennis.
For those interested in further analyses, the link to the dataset can be found below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yPJRwVG5LyOEBvCNtK1mK5- 0Hihf36gZ / view? usp = sharing
Caveats are over, let’s now analyse the results.
GEOGRAPHICAL SCORE DISTRIBUTION
From a first look at the geographical distribution of the points, it emerges that 41 nations scored at least 0.25 points, with a total of 255 players included in this clay-oriented tennis ranking. The northern hemisphere dominates, with Spain, the United States, Sweden and the Czech Republic scoring between 30 and 140 points. We will see in the detail these scores, but we can anticipate that Argentina places fourth, not far from Sweden. In gray we can see all of the countries that have not obtained any point, as far as this surface is concerned.
The most important facet is to understand how many players have expressed the different tennis traditions that were capable of reaching at least a semi-final of an ATP1000 or a quarter-final of a slam on clay, be it red or green.
Total scores by number of players
If we consider the nations that have obtained a score higher than 5.75, the analysis is reduced to 19 nations whose scores are as follows:
| Country | Aggregated Score | Number of Players |
| Spain | 139 | 28 |
| USA | 71.25 | 29 |
| Sweden | 55.25 | 16 |
| Argentina | 48.5 | 19 |
| Czechia | 33.75 | 11 |
| Switzerland | 29.75 | 5 |
| France | 27.75 | 21 |
| Serbia | 25.5 | 3 |
| Australia | 15.5 | 14 |
| Austria | 16.25 | 4 |
| Germany | 15.5 | 11 |
| Romania | 14.5 | 5 |
| Russia | 14.75 | 11 |
| Brazil | 13 | 5 |
| Italy | 11.75 | 11 |
| Croatia | 11 | 8 |
| Chile | 9.75 | 5 |
| UK | 8.75 | 5 |
| Netherlands | 6 | 3 |
In the graph below we can appreciate the aggregate total scores for each country, associated with the number of players who have expressed them:
Apart from the off-the-charts scores by Spain and the US, the French performance needs to be highlighted, since the Exagon has produced 21 players, for a total of 27.75 points, and is the second nation for number of scoreless years, with just 17 zeros during the 53 seasons observed, trailing only Spain with 5.
Argentine clay tennis also stands out with its 19 players, 48.5 points, and 21 scoreless seasons.
Russia, Germany, Italy and the Czech Republic all have produced 11 players but with significantly different scores, with Czechia pacing the rivals. Finally, among the tennis traditions that have expressed between 3 and 5 players, it is clear how Serbia and Switzerland stand out from the rest of the group, due to the results provided by Djokovic and Federer, respectively.
On page 2, how each country fared historically
