Team Control Number

2021457
Problem Chosen
Who is the Greatest? Maradona or Pelé? Biles or
Khorkina?
2021
InaM2C
Summary Sheet

Application of Multiple-Criteria Ranking Model for Measuring Greatness

In a world where everyone seems to be competing for a chance to be number one,

there is always a race for one to be the greatest among the rest in any particular skill or
ability, which in today’s culture is commonly known as the Greatest Of All Time
(G.O.A.T). This is present in sports culture as well, the disagreements and debates commonly
in regards to the greatness of certain players and which player is the greatest. Unfortunately,
measuring the “greatness” of a sports player is not possible purely via statistics and data, as
playing and judging a sport also takes into account skills and variables that cannot be
displayed in numbers. To solve this ongoing debate, this paper aims to find the sports players
who can truly be labelled the Greatest Of All Time in their own respective categories, as well
as possibly use a similar method to determine greatness in other players.
To achieve this, we used a Multi-Criteria Ranking Model (M.C.R.M). The model
takes into account multiple factors and criteria that could possibly affect a player’s greatness,
compares all of them with each and every of the other factors, and finds the best candidate to
be labelled as the G.O.A.T. In simple terms, the model will take each player’s quantitative
criteria in the form of statistical data and by deciding its weight of significance, it will yield a
final ranking outcome, with the greatest value of data considered to be the best and optimal
option.
To evaluate our model, our first task was to determine the best female player in the
2018 Grand Slam tennis tournaments. The factors that were involved in the model for this
case are the following: number of Grand Slam competitions joined in 2018, tennis serve
speed, average aces per match, double faults per match, win rate in 2018 Grand Slam,
average number of points per set of match, number of matches per competition, and
score comparison.
Furthermore, our next task was to choose a sport category to determine the G.O.A.T
by using our model identical to the one used in our previous task. After thorough research
and consideration, our decision was to select the Badminton World Federation in men’s
singles. The factors that were chosen for this subsequent task were total years ranked in top
10, win rate, average tournaments per year, matches played, average number of points
per set of match, career all-time high, years taken to top 10, body mass index, and prize
money per year. All those factors are collected in the form of quantitative statistical data to
be interpreted in the model.
Lastly, an explanation was provided of the potential changes to our model when it is
implemented into sports involving team plays since our model was primarily made for
individual sports.
Team 2021457 Page 2/23

Table of Contents
LETTER 3
1. Introduction 4
2. Problem Restatement 5
3. Multi-Criteria Ranking Model 5
3.1 Model Overview 5
3.2 Frequency Distribution Table 6
3.3 Weighing Process 6
3.3.1 Summation Index 7
3.3.2 Normalization Index 8
3.3.3 Weight Index 8
3.4 Ranking Matrix 8
3.5 Determining the G.O.A.T 9
4. Determining The Greatest Player in Grand Slam 2018 9
4.1 Background 9
4.2 Factors and Variables 10
4.3 Assumptions and Justification 11
4.4 Model Implementation 11
4.4.1 Data and Statistics Table 11
4.4.2 Frequency Distribution Tables 12
4.4.3 Converted Values Tables 13
4.4.4 Weighing Process 13
4.4.5 Final Ranking Tables 14
5. Determining The Greatest Of All Time 15
5.1 Background 15
5.2 Factors and Variables 15
5.3 Assumptions and Justifications 16
5.4 Model Implementation 17
5.4.1 Data and Statistics Table 18
5.4.2 Frequency Distribution 18
5.4.3 Converted Values Tables 18
5.4.4 Weighing Process 19
5.4.5 Final Ranking Tables 20
5.5 Altering our G.O.A.T. model 21
6. Potential Changes to Team Sports 21
7. Evaluation 21
7.1 Strengths 21
7.2 Weaknesses 22
8. Conclusion 22
REFERENCES 23
APPENDICES 24
Team 2021457 Page 3/23

LETTER
17th March 2021
Team #2021457
Mr. Janto Indonesia
Director of Top Sport
Indonesia

Dear Mr. Janto,

In regards to your interest in our mathematical model and findings, I am writing this
letter to explain how our model can be beneficial as well as effective in assisting your
company in evaluating a sport player’s greatness and, most importantly, deciding on who
deserves to be titled as the Greatest Of All Time. In this letter you will find the reasons for all
of our chosen factors as well as procedure and key findings to our model that could hopefully
provide your company with an understanding of how this model could be implemented.

After careful consideration and thorough research, we found that the most optimal
way to obtain the solution would be using a Multi-Criteria Ranking Model (M.C.R.M) that
focuses on using large numbers of factors associated with a common goal, which in this case
is finding the greatest player of all time. These factors are typically quantitative, which are
factors that are displayed in statistics or numbers.

For our badminton model, we decided to choose the top 10 players from the years
2009-2021 to compare as possible candidates and use 9 factors to be taken into consideration
when choosing a player worthy to be called the Greatest Of All Time, each with a reason for
its implementation. Those 9 factors are: total years ranked in top 10, win rate, average
tournaments per year, matches played, average number of points per set of matches,
career all-time high, years taken to top 10, body mass index, and prize money per year.

We chose the total years ranked in top 10 as one of the key variables as it shows the
consistency of a player and capability in maintaining their ranking as the years go by. The
win rate, years taken to reach top 10, prize money earned per year, and average points per set
display a player’s skill and performance while the average tournaments they had participated
in per year, matches played, and career all-time high display their dedication to the sport.

In regards to your request, we appreciate the opportunity to be able to share our

knowledge and findings about our model. We hope that our information may become useful
to you and your company. We look forward to working together again in the future.
Sincerely,

Team #2021457
Participant of InaM2C 2021
Team 2021457 Page 4/23

1. Introduction
In almost any community, whether it be competitive or not, there is always the
question of “Who is the greatest?” at a particular skill that is upheld within that community.
“Who is the greatest artist?”, “Who is the greatest chess player?”, “Who is the greatest
chef?”, we’ve all heard of it. The sports community proves to be no different, with a question
regarding the greatest player in any given sport always looming in the back of people’s
minds. Although there are particularly outstanding players who are capable of standing out
from even the best of the best, this question still sparks a lot of arguments amongst sports
enthusiasts on who they consider the greatest tennis player, basketball team, and the list goes
on. When several great players emerge in one era with each being great competitors for the
title, such as the case with our current generation’s best tennis players, the question proves
even harder to answer.

With how broad the word “greatness” is, the wide range of variables different people
use to determine greatness, as well as the wide range of outside factors that may influence
others’ opinion on a said topic such as personal biases, it can seem almost impossible to
determine who is truly the greatest sports player of all time. This is why our paper focuses on
creating a mathematical model to be able to determine the players who are the Greatest of all
Time (G.O.A.T) in the sport they participate in and compete in.

2. Problem Restatement
● To discuss the factors and variables affecting the model for the greatest woman
tennis player in the Grand Slam 2018 tournament.
● To create and develop a mathematical model to determine the greatest player in the
women’s singles 2018 Grand Slam tournament.
● To determine who is the greatest woman tennis player and to analyze the data used to
be able to achieve the result.
● To develop a mathematical model/mathematical models from any factors and data
accessible on the internet we find important to determine the G.O.A.T. for any
individual sport.
● To analyze our result of the G.O.A.T. for the individual sport we chose.
● To find differences and changes that should be made to our model to make it
applicable to any sport.
● Explaining how our G.O.A.T model(s) would differ from the previous model(s) to
determine the G.O.A.T in a team sport condition.
Team 2021457 Page 5/23

3. Multi-Criteria Ranking Model

3.1 Model Overview

Figure 1. Full Procedure Diagram of Multi-Criteria Ranking Model

The model designed to determine the Greatest Of All Time (G.O.A.T) through
comparing the participants is known as the Multi-Criteria Ranking Model. This model takes
multiple criterias into account, which in this case is obtained from data in each factor chosen.
This model requires factors that affect how well they perform in sport competitions such as
performance analytics and career statistics, therefore, research is necessary to gather all the
data for each participant.
The first step after gathering all the data required for each criteria is to obtain the
minimum and maximum value from every data in each criterion. With the minimum and
maximum values, it will be possible to determine the range of values to be distributed into
several classes through the frequency distribution table

3.2 Frequency Distribution Table

Table 1. Format for Frequency Distribution Table

The frequency distribution table will be formatted as the

table shown above. In order to get the range, the minimum
value must be subtracted from the maximum value. Then, to
obtain the number of distributed classes, the following
formula can be used:
𝑛 𝑐
= 1 + 3. 3 * 𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑁)

Where, 𝑛𝑐 = Number of Class

Team 2021457 Page 6/23

N = Number of Participants

After the number of classes is obtained, the interval for each class or ‘class width’ can
be obtained by distributing the range equally to the number of classes. Thus, to decide the
width of the classes with the assumption that the class interval are equal for each class, the
formula below can be used:
𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒
𝐼𝑐 = 𝑛 𝑐
Where,
𝐼𝑐 = Class Width/Interval
𝑛 𝑐
= Number of Classes

Once all of the variables are obtained, the value can be grouped into classes, where in
each of the classes they will have their own value points depending on how great the criteria
value is. The original value will then be converted into their points based on their classes.

3.3 Weighing Process

Table 2. Weight Values

The weighing process takes place after the frequency distribution process. In this
stage, each criterion is given a significant value depending on how important it is. The more
significant a criterion is, the more value it gets. After all the criteria have been signified, it
will be compared to one another in a pairwise table where the weight values will be compared
directly to each and every one of the criteria.
Team 2021457 Page 7/23

Table 3. Pairwise Comparison Table Format

Figure 2. Matrix Representation

3.3.1 Summation Index

In the process of calculating the value from the pairwise comparison table, the values
in each column of the table were added together to find the total sum. To equate this
summation, the values in the table will be represented in a matrix (see Figure X.). Thus the
following formula will be used:

𝑛
𝐶 𝑗
= ∑ 𝐶 𝑖𝑗
𝑖=1
Where,
i = Rows in Matrix
j= Columns in matrix
C 𝑗= Total Significant Value in a Column
C𝑖𝑗 = Significant Value
n = Number of Criteria

3.3.2 Normalization Index

After the sum is obtained, each of the elements present in the matrix will be divided
by the total of the column to generate a normalized matrix. This method is termed as the
normalization process, which normalizes the score in such a way that the column of the score
will be a total of 1. This process can be calculated using the following formula:

𝐶 𝑖𝑗
𝑋 𝑖𝑗
= 𝑛
∑ 𝐶 𝑖𝑗
𝑖=1

Where,
𝑋𝑖𝑗= Normalized Value
Team 2021457 Page 8/23

3.3.3 Weight Index

The weights of the matrix are then obtained as the quotient of the sum of the
normalized column of matrix by the number of criteria available to generate a weighted
matrix. This can be obtained by using the formula shown below:
𝑛
∑𝑋 𝑖𝑗
𝑗=1
𝑊 𝑗
= 𝑛

Where,
𝑊𝑗= Criteria Weight

3.4 Ranking Matrix

Figure 3. Value Points Matrix

After the weight for each criteria is obtained, it will be multiplied by the value point
acquired in the frequency distribution table in order to get the weighted values for every
criteria in each participant. Therefore the equation to obtaining the weighted values would be:

𝑍𝑖𝑗 = 𝑃𝑖𝑗 × 𝑊𝑗
Where,
𝑍𝑖𝑗= Weighted Value
𝑃𝑖𝑗= Value Points

Figure 4. Final Ranking Matrix

All the weighted values in a row are then summed together to achieve the final
ranking points. This would give us the formula:
𝑛
𝐺𝑖 = ∑ 𝑍𝑖𝑗
𝑗=1
Where,
𝐺𝑖= Final Ranking Points
Team 2021457 Page 9/23

3.5 Determining the G.O.A.T

Finally, to determine the Greatest Of All Time, the final ranking points will be
compared with each other. The participant with the highest final ranking points yielded will
be labelled as the G.O.A.T in each of their respective sports category or competition. With
the rank function in Excel, our model would also be capable of seeding the participants from
𝑡ℎ 𝑠𝑡
the 𝑁 to the1 position.

4. Determining The Greatest Player in Grand Slam 2018

4.1 Background
The Grand Slam held in 2018 consists of four major tournaments in the tennis
category. These tournaments are the most well-known tennis majors due to it offering the
most ranked points, prize money, public and media attention, and size of field. The four
major tournaments are the Australian Open, the French Open (also known as Roland Garros),
Wimbledon, and the US Open. Due to its high prize and widely known nature, top-ranked
tennis players are more likely to participate in this tournament. The models that were made
were designed with the aim to be able to determine each tennis player’s ‘greatness’ and to
find the greatest player on the basis of the 2018 Grand Slam tournament results. Factors such
as round positions, double-faults, serve speed, aces, win-rate, score comparison, and the
number of competitions participated.

Figure 5. Grand Slam Tournament

The diagram above shows the order of the four major tournaments in the 2018 Grand
Slam. Each tournament is held over a two-week period starting from the Australian Open on
mid to end of January, followed by the French Open on 27 May until 10 June, continued by
Wimbledon Championships on start to mid July, and lastly the US Open on 27 August to 9
September, ending the annual Grand Slam tournament.

4.2 Factors and Variables

Table 4. Description of Factors Affecting Greatness in the Grand Slam Tournament 2018

No. Factors Description

Team 2021457 Page 10/23

1. Average This factor shows the amount points gained by a player in every set they
points played in that was then divided by said number of sets to find its average.
per set This gives a roughly consistent view on the player’s skills.

2. Double-faults Double-faults in tennis means to serve twice and make a fault as the ball
was not able to land on the opponent’s service area both times. Players
with a higher double-fault number are considered to have a weaker
performance because of their lacking capability to be able to serve
accurately compared to other competitors.

3. Serve speed The serve speed of a player in hitting the tennis ball is considered to be an
important factor in determining how great that player’s performance in
tennis is. Players with a greater average serve speed are considered to
have a stronger performance in tennis matches.

4. Aces An ace is a term in tennis used to describe a serve made in the service box
that is not touched by the opponent, winning the point. They are often
seen as the biggest and strongest serving weapon, starting a turn with
immense firepower and getting a “free” point to start with an ace.

5. Win rate The win rate refers to the number of times a participant competed with
another player and won over the number of matches a player can
participate in throughout the entire Grand Slam tournament, which in this
case is 16. The higher one’s win rate is, the better they are, as they were
able to defeat their opponents to progress in the competition.

6. Score This factor refers to the effort needed to be able to defeat another
comparison opponent out of the three sets in a single match. The quicker and the
bigger the difference between the scores of two participants per set will
also mean the bigger gap between the skills of both players.

7. Competitions This factor takes into account the number of competitions a participant
joined in the joined out of the four 2018 Grand Slam Tournaments. It is believed that
Grand Slam the higher number of competitions a player joins, the more willing and
tournament dedicated they are in that sport (excluding injuries and pregnancy leaves).

8. The number This factor takes into account the number of matches a participant plays
of matches in on average during one competition. This measures how far a player
per usually progresses through tournaments which can show how good they
competition are at the sport.

4.3 Assumptions and Justification

● Assumption: If a participant was not present in any of the four competitions, either
they are not willing or dedicated enough to join tournaments as important as the
Grand Slam Tournament or there are circumstances preventing them to do so and will
therefore receive a score of 0 in that particular column.
Team 2021457 Page 11/23

Justification: This is because it would also be unfair to give a player any score in a
tournament they did not participate in that may impact their ranking both positively or
negatively.

● Assumption: The weight and height of each player used to calculate their Body Mass
Index (BMI) do not differ after 3 years from 2018 to 2021.

Justification: After conducting some research, only the most recent information from
2021 was found, and it can be assumed that as most professional tennis players are in
fact adults or have long passed the stage at which they are still growing, their heights
will remain the same, this along with their weight which can be assumed does not
vary much from time to time because of the strict health and exercise plan
professional tennis players follow to ensure they are always fit and ready for matches.

● Assumption: During the Grand Slam 2018 tournament, a player will perform with a
similar performance in terms of double-faults and aces as the data found in 2018.

Justification: Players who compete professionally are usually consistent with their
performance and therefore their double-faults and aces will not typically vary much
during matches.

4.4 Model Implementation

4.4.1 Data and Statistics Table
Our first course of action was to input all the aforementioned factors into a table. The
names of each participant as well as their average points per set they played could be found in
the given document. The total of Grand Slam Tournaments joined in 2018 were compiled
from all 4 tournaments that the players could have possibly participated in. The majority of
the performance factors were found on the World Tennis Association's official website where
the statistics for each player’s aces, double faults, and matches were recorded. The win rate
and score comparison were found by observing each player in each tournament as well as the
player they play against in each round.

Table 5. Score Comparison Data Collection

Team 2021457 Page 12/23

Table 6. Scoring System for “Score Comparison”

With all the factors gathered, they were compiled into a table:

Table 7. Participant Raw Data

*The data found from the table above was obtained from http://www.tennisabstract.com/ and
https://www.wtatennis.com/players/

4.4.2 Frequency Distribution Tables

Table 8. ‘Score Comparison’ Frequency Distribution Table

After the information of each of the 40 players were

found, the minimum and maximum numbers of each of
the factors were then obtained to be able to create the
frequency distribution tables such as the one below.
Using the “Score Comparison” table as an example, by
using the minimum and maximum scores found which
are 1, usually representing a player who only joined one
of the four Grand Slam tournaments and lost in the
fourth round, and 13.50, which was earned by Simona
Halep as she won two of the four Grand Slam
tournaments, defeating all of her opponents, the range
and interval for each factor was determined. It can be seen that, as the score increases, so
does the value, with Simona Halep taking the highest value possible of 6
Team 2021457 Page 13/23

4.4.3 Converted Values Tables

With each number now being converted into the values found in the frequency table,
the final table looks like this:

Table 9. Converted values

Afterwards, each factor/criterion was rated from 1 to 9 in terms of importance to input

in the weighing process. The weighing process is a technique used in a Multi-Criteria
Decision-Making Model that is designed to assess complex multi-criteria issues by adding
weights depending on their significance.

A rating of 1 indicates that said factor is the least important when determining a
player’s greatness while a rating of 9 indicates that said factor is the most important to be
taken into account.

4.4.4 Weighing Process

Table 10. Weighing Values

Table 11. Weighing table

When comparing two criteria with one another, such as aces/match and
double-faults/match which holds a weight of 4 and 2 respectively, to be able to find the value
of Aces/match to the double-faults/match, 2 is subtracted from 4, then 1 is added to the
Team 2021457 Page 14/23

difference between any of the two criterions being compared to make sure that a difference of
1 will have a different value to when a criterion is equivalent to another.

Table 12. Normalization Table

Using the data from Table. 11 Weighing Table, by dividing the value with the total,
and then taking the average of the rows of each criteria or factor, the global weight for each
factor is found.

4.4.5 Final Ranking Tables

Table 13. Ranking Tables for Grand Slam 2018 Top Participants

Table 14. Top 10 of the Final Scoring

From Table 14. Top 10 of the Final Scoring, we can conclude that the greatest player
in the Grand Slam 2018 was candidate no. 38, Simona Halep, who scored 5.38 with Serena
Williams tailing behind with a score of 5.25. Simona scored especially high in the
categories/factors, Win rate in Grand Slam 2018, Average Number of Points/Set, Number of
Matches/Competition, and Score Comparison as she earned the highest score possible of 6
marks. This along with the fact that the factors she scored especially high in such as Average
Team 2021457 Page 15/23

Number of Points/Set and Score Comparison were coincidentally weighed two of the heaviest
took her to the first place position, beating all 39 other candidates.

5. Determining The Greatest Of All Time - Badminton World Federation

5.1 Background
The individual sport chosen to determine the Greatest Of All Time (G.O.A.T) was the
men’s single in the sport badminton. The data used in this paper was collected from the
official Badminton World Federation (BWF) website and the BWF World Championships
tournaments from 2009 until 2021. The BWF tournaments were chosen due to it providing
the most ranking points and being the most prestigious badminton tournament in the world.

The winners of the BWF World Championship tournament are labeled as "World
Champions" and are rewarded with gold medals. The tournament also gives out one silver
medal and two bronze medals to three of the remaining candidates that they believe excelled
in their performance. Its prestigious reputation attracts top badminton players to participate in
the tournament. Not only that, but the BWF world ranking system is something many
consider to be fair and just to be able to decide the top players each week based on wins,
tournaments joined, prize money and many more. Therefore, it is believed that the statistics
and data found in the BWF website are able to be used to compare potential title-holders and
candidates of the Greatest Of All Time (G.O.A.T) title. The mathematical model considers
factors such as statistics, performance, and experience to determine the G.O.A.T in
badminton men’s singles.

5.2 Factors and Variables

Table 15. Description of Factors Affecting Greatness in the Badminton World

Federation Championship Men’s Singles 2009-2021

No. Factors Description

1. Years in Years in rank refers to the years that a player has kept their ranking,
rank typically within the top 10. This shows not only their skills in being able
to reach the position, but also the players’ capability of maintaining it in
the years to come.

2. Win rate The win rate refers to the rate at which a player is likely to win a match in
badminton. The higher the win rate a player has, it is assumed the more
skilled at the sport they are. The win rate is measured by dividing the
number of wins a player has by the number of matches they have
competed in.
Team 2021457 Page 16/23

3. Matches The number of matches a player has participated in can show both the
played amount of experience the participant has as well as how willing and
committed they are in their field of sport. It will also show their
consistency in trying to maintain their current Badminton World
Federation (BWF) rankings.

4. Average The average number of tournaments that a badminton player joins per
tournaments year, shows how dedicated the players are. Those who join more
joined per competitions are likely to have more chances of achieving and upholding a
year ranking as well as possibly earning the title of G.O.A.T. in their badminton
category.

5. Prize money This factor takes into account how much a player earns from competing in
earned/year tournaments every year. Though not a direct display of skill, it shows
one’s dedication, experience, and how far they are able to progress in
certain tournaments to earn what they earn.

6. Career A career all-time high shows the highest rank placement a player has ever
all-time high held in the BWF Championship tournaments from the years 2009 to 2021.

7. Years taken This factor refers to the years taken for a player to reach their top 10
to reach top ranking for the first time from the beginning of the career. This shows
10 their dedication and progression in the sport and how committed they are
in the professional world of badminton.

8. Average This factor shows the amount points gained by a player in every set they
points had played in that was then divided by said number of sets to find its
per set average. This number adds to the other variables showing the player’s skill
and overall performance in tournaments.

9. Body Mass The Body Mass Index (BMI) is a measurement of body fat that uses one’s
Index height and weight. The purpose of this factor is to identify how fit and
balanced a player’s body mass is.

5.3 Assumptions and Justifications

● Assumption: Only the top 10 ranked participants of each tournament in the
Badminton World Federation (BWF) are chosen to be qualified in determining the
Greatest Of All Time (G.O.A.T).

Justification: To be able to determine the Greatest Of All Time, it would only require
the top ranked players to be compared with one another by taking account of their
statistics, performance, and experience to see which one outperforms the rest. Lower
ranked players are usually incompetent with the top-ranked players and therefore are
unable to be the G.O.A.T.
Team 2021457 Page 17/23

● Assumption: When calculating the number of tournaments a player joins in a year on

average, tournaments that have been cancelled and tournaments in which a player
ended up not joining because of a sudden matter will not be included in the
calculation.

Justification: This is because although there are different reasons for a player’s
absence in a tournament, considering the player did not end up participating in that
tournament and was not part of any of the rounds and matches held, it will be
interpreted and seen as a competition they never joined in the first place.

● Assumption: To replace the performance of badminton players, we chose to include

the Body Mass Index (BMI) of each candidate.

Justification: This is because through our research and investigation, the Body Mass
Index (BMI) of a player has some correlation to the player’s smash or serve speed.

● Assumption: If a certain data or statistic of a player was not able to be found, it is

assumed that the player is not well-known enough for their data to be easily located
on the internet. Therefore, we are then obligated to give the participant a score of 0.

Justification: In most cases, a player’s popularity directly correlates to how good a

player is. This especially shows in a competitive field like sports where most sport
fans root for who they think plays impressively or who they think is the greatest of
them all. Therefore, it can be concluded that if the public or media was not interested
enough in finding out a player’s data, they lack skill compared to the other candidates.

5.4 Model Implementation

Using the same technique as the previous model with added changes to some of the
factors and values, 32 of the top ranking players from 2009-2021 were chosen and put against
each other. Several changes to the factors were made in this model. For example, the score
comparison is no longer available as the people chosen to be compared were only those who
held the top 10 placements in the 2009-2021 tournaments instead of all the players competing
in a specific round. One important thing to note is that for the factor “Average Tournaments
joined per year”, tournaments joined in the year 2021, as well as the year 2021 entirely will
be excluded from the calculation as we believe it will bring down the average tournaments by
a noticeable amount.

The results were found as shown:

5.4.1 Data and Statistics Table

Table 16. Participant Raw Data

Team 2021457 Page 18/23

The data found from the table above was obtained from
https://bwfbadminton.com/rankings/2/bwf-world-rankings/6/men-s-singles/2019/2 and
https://mn2s.com/booking-agency/talent-roster/anthony-sinisuka-ginting/

5.4.2 Frequency Distribution

Table 17. Frequency Distribution for “Years Taken to Reach the Top 10”

For the criteria, “Years Taken to Reach Top 10”, it was separated into 6 classes all with a 1.3
interval starting from the minimum to the maximum value. It was found that there were 14
values ranked in the first class. The same procedure was done with every factor, all with 6
classes.
After every criteria has been converted, the values in the table are replaced with their
corresponding class values

5.4.3 Converted Values Tables

Table 18. Converted Values of each Factor

The table above shows the process of how we calculated the unweighted points each
participant has. If we use “Years to reach top 10” for Aders Antonsen as an example, he got a
score of 2. This number can be acquired as Anthony Antonsen took 6 years to reach the top
ten which matches with the value in class 5. Thus, obtaining 2 points.

5.4.4 Weighing Process

Table 19. Weighing Values

Team 2021457 Page 19/23

Table 20. Weighing Table

Once all of the values from the previous data table have been converted and replaced
with the frequency distribution’s values. Each of the factors were weighed depending on how
important or vital they are believed to be in determining who is the Greatest Of All Time. For
example, logically, a player’s win rate would be significantly more important than a measure
of their BMI for several reasons, as someone’s BMI will not affect how strategically or how
good they play most of the time.

Table 21. Normalization Table

The Normalisation table above calculates the values of each factor when being
compared to one specific criterion. To be able to achieve the values inside the table, the
values from the previous table, Table 20. Weighing Table, of the same position were divided
with the total value located at the bottom. Once all of the scores have been filled, the average
of each factor was taken and can be seen located on the right side of the table above.
Team 2021457 Page 20/23

5.4.5 Final Ranking Tables

Table 22. Weighed Data Table

Then, by multiplying the scores of each player for a specific factor with the factor’s
global weight, the weighted values of each factor were created. To be able to determine who
is the greatest, these values were then added together to make the scores on the column “Final
Scoring”
Table 23. Top 10 of the Final Scoring

By ranking the player’s according to their scores, with the highest being first, it is
concluded that the Greatest Of All Time (G.O.A.T.) of the men’s singles badminton is Lin
Dan with a final score of 5.19. From the table above, we can also find the candidates that
were ranked 2nd to 10th with their respective scores.

When looking at Table 30. Data and Statistics in the appendices, it can be seen that
Lin Dan earned the full marks for several categories such as career all-time high, years taken
to reach the top 10, and the number of matches played. Within those factors that Lin Dan
scored full points for, 3 of the factors weighed the most when compared to the rest. Not only
that, but the lowest score Lin Dan received from all of his factors stays at a score of 3, a value
that can be considered relatively high when comparing it to the other players.

5.5 Altering our G.O.A.T. model

To be able to use the multi-criteria ranking model for any individual sport, a few
changes have to be made to the factors that will affect the final decision and outcome. In the
mathematical model that was used to be able to determine the greatest player of all time in
men’s singles badminton, number of points/set was included as one. This factor can only
apply to sports that include or have sets in their games, this could be changed to the number
of points per match or competition instead, as it is more general and is applicable to any
sport.
Team 2021457 Page 21/23

Another change that should be made to one of the factors in the model is the Body
Mass Index factor. Oftentimes, different sports will have different BMI requirements for their
players, similarly to how different sports will require a different set of skills to play well. An
example would be that in running, they recommend a smaller BMI compared to other sports
to make sure that your fat or muscles don’t weigh you down, especially for long-distance
runs.

6. Potential Changes to Team Sports

The primary difference between an individual and team sport is that more than one
person is involved on each opposing team. This means that winning a game in a team sport
does not only rely on one player’s ability and performance, but also the ability of their
teammate(s) as well as their ability to cooperate and work together. Each member has a
specific role or a skill they specialize that plays into how well they work as a team. An
example would be in volleyball, where each member of the team has a designated role or
position within the team that they specialize in. Russell Aaron, a well-known wing spiker on
the U.S. team will be better at spiking than Christenson Micah, another member of the U.S.
team who specializes in setting.

There are also a handful of differences in the rules that play in certain sports that have
both team and individual games. For example, in badminton, there are designated servers and
receivers in a doubles game that is not necessary in a singles game. Court dimensions, server
boundaries, and receiver boundaries also vary from singles and doubles in badminton.

One change that would be needed to determine the G.O.A.T for team sports is adding
the “assist” factor. This factor refers to the amount of times a player assists or aids their
teammates, doing something that benefited the team but not scoring a point. For example, if a
libero in volleyball received the ball right before it hits the ground, he/she gets a point in the
assist factor. One of the most common components in a team sports tournament would be
determining who is the Most Valuable Player (MVP) of his/her team in each match they
played, as the MVP is labelled as the player which contributed the most to the team in that
specific match. By having many MVP titles, it shows that the player is capable of carrying
their team to victory. The number of points scored for their team would also need to be taken
into account. Alongside that, the team winning percentage when said participant is
participating in the match versus when they aren’t participating would need to be added as
well. This is because it shows how important and contributing they are to their team and what
impact it causes when he or she isn’t present.

7. Evaluation

7.1 Strengths
One of the biggest strengths in this mathematical model is that it does not only
provide who is considered the greatest player out of those that are being taken into
Team 2021457 Page 22/23

consideration, but it ranks the remaining players as well. This means that this model can not
only be used for finding the best players, but it can be used to find who are the 2nd best, 4th
best, and even 60th best players out of those available. With how versatile this model is, it is
easy to input any number of players into the model and rank every single one of them.

Alongside that, the large variety of factors taken into consideration gives all the
information and data about each player and what lead them to becoming what the model
considers the Greatest Of All Time. As stated previously, measuring a player’s greatness is
not limited to statistics and data, and this model is capable of clearly displaying what exactly
is taken into account to determine it. Alongside that, with how customizable the model is, it
would also be easy to swap, add, or remove a factor for another, possibly to determine which
player would be the G.O.A.T in a specific category or skill in the sport.

7.2 Weaknesses
A weakness which can be identified in the mathematical model is that skill can only
to some extent be translated and converted into a quantitative form. This is because things
like instinct, strategy and sense cannot be fully measured even during an occuring badminton
match. There is no specific way to tell how developed a person’s instinct is during games and
there is no specific way to tell how strategic a person was playing during their match against
an opponent.

8. Conclusion
In conclusion, by using the multi-criteria ranking model that has been created which
consisted of the data and statistics collection process, the frequency distribution, the weighing
procedure to be able to reach the end result. The greatest player for the women’s singles
tennis Grand Slam 2018, which was later determined to be Simona Halep who scored 5.38
and ranked first amongst the 40 players in the Grand Slam 2018, and the Greatest of All Time
in the men’s singles for badminton, which we concluded was Lin Dan with a score of 5.19.
Through the model that was constructed, a person is able to find out the G.O.A.T. for an
individual sport using all of the factors that have been taken into account for Question 2, and
for a team sport, by using most of the same factors with the addition of a few variables such
as, a player’s individual scoring in a match and the number of assists they perform in one
match, they are able to as well determine the greatest player in that field or category of sports.
Overall, the model was able to complete its required task in what is believed to be a short
amount of time and is able to put out what can be proved through solid evidence and data to
be an accurate answer to the question of who is the greatest.
Team 2021457 Page 23/23

REFERENCES
● (2021) System.bwfbadminton.com. Available at:
https://system.bwfbadminton.com/documents/folder_1_81/Statutes/CHAPTER-5---T
ECHNICAL-REGULATIONS/Section%205.3.3.1%20World%20Ranking%20System
.pdf (Accessed: 16 March 2021).
● Anthony Sinisuka Ginting | Booking Agent | Talent Roster | MN2S (2021). Available
at: https://mn2s.com/booking-agency/talent-roster/anthony-sinisuka-ginting/
(Accessed: 16 March 2021).
● Badminton World Federation (n.d.). Rankings | 2019 TOURNAMENTS -. [online]
bwfbadminton.com. Available at:
https://bwfbadminton.com/rankings/2/bwf-world-rankings/6/men-s-singles/2019/2
[Accessed 16 Mar. 2021].
● BadmintonBites (2020). What’s the Difference Between Singles and Doubles in
Badminton? [online] BadmintonBites. Available at:
https://badmintonbites.com/whats-the-difference-between-singles-and-doubles-in-bad
minton/#:~:text=In%20singles%2C%20there%20are%20no [Accessed 16 Mar. 2021].
● Hill, S. (2021) NBA's Greatest of All Time Series: The Correct Formula To Use (Part
1 of 4), Bleacher Report. Available at:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/760700-nbas-greatest-of-all-time-series-the-correct
-formula-to-use-part-1-of-4 (Accessed: 16 March 2021).
● HS Prannoy Biography, Achievements, Records, Career info & Stats - Sportskeeda
(2021). Available at: https://www.sportskeeda.com/player/hs-pranoy (Accessed: 16
March 2021).
● O’Shannessy, C. (2018). The Importance Of Striking An Ace | ATP Tour | Tennis.
[online] ATP Tour. Available at:
https://www.atptour.com/en/news/isner-infosys-beyond-the-numbers-august-2018
[Accessed 16 Mar. 2021].
Team 2021457 Page 24/23

● Player Statistics - FIVB Volleyball World League 2016 (2021). Available at:
http://worldleague.2016.fivb.com/en/group1/statistics_finalround/bestspikers
(Accessed: 16 March 2021).
● Scaletta, K. (2021) Determining the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History, Bleacher
Report. Available at:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/607728-kobe-bryant-and-the-br-consensus-50-grea
test-players-in-the-history-of-the-nba (Accessed: 16 March 2021).
● Runningshoesguru.com. 2021. How BMI Impacts Sports and How Much You Should
Depend on It. [online] Available at:
<https://www.runningshoesguru.com/content/how-bmi-impacts-sports-and-how-much
-you-should-depend-on-it/> [Accessed 16 March 2021].
● Tennisabstract.com. (2021). Tennis Abstract: ATP and WTA Match Results, Splits, and
Analysis. [online] Available at: http://www.tennisabstract.com/ [Accessed 16 Mar.
2021].
● VG (2014). How do we determine the greatest tennis player of the current
generation? [online] www.sportskeeda.com. Available at:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/tennis/detailed-analysis-greatest-tennis-player
[Accessed 16 Mar. 2021].
● Walden, M. (2019). Badminton Serve. [online] TeachPE.com. Available at:
https://www.teachpe.com/sports-coaching/badminton/badminton-serve [Accessed 16
Mar. 2021].
● What Is Double Fault In Tennis? (2021). Available at:
https://www.rookieroad.com/tennis/what-is-double-fault/ (Accessed: 16 March 2021).
● Women's Tennis Association (n.d.). Women’s Tennis Association - Official Website.
[online] Women’s Tennis Association. Available at:
https://www.wtatennis.com/players/ [Accessed 16 Mar. 2021].

APPENDICES
Appendices for Question 1
Table 24. Data and Statistics Table
Factors Performance Win Average Number
Grand
rate in number of Score
Slam 2018 Serve Double-f Grand
No. Country Participa Aces/m of matches/ comparis
Competitio speed aults/
nts atch Slam points/s competit on
ns Joined (km/h) match 2018 et ion
1 Australia A Barty 1 153 4.87 2.93 0.00% 4 0.25 1.00
A
3.18
2 Estonia Kontaveit 2 151 3.73 0.00% 3.6 1.00 1.50
Team 2021457 Page 25/23

A
4.16
3 Belarus Sabalenka 1 160 4.67 0.00% 4.33 1.00 2.00
A
146 2.93
4 Belarus Sasnovich 1 4.98 0.00% 3 1.00 1.00
A
3.00
5 Latvia Sevastova 1 177 2.19 12.50% 4 3.00 7.00
A Van
157 4.22
6 Belgium Uytvanck 1 2.63 0.00% 4 1.00 2.00
7 Germany A Kerber 3 139 1.57 3.16 43.75% 5.67 3.33 10.33
Switzerla
144 2.81
8 nd B Bencic 1 4.33 0.00% 4.5 1.00 1.00
Czech B
2.09
9 Republic Strýcová 2 150 3.02 0.00% 3.8 1.00 1.50
10 France C Garcia 2 156 4.05 2.23 0.00% 2.5 1.00 1.00
11 Italy C Giorgi 1 161 3.47 5.09 6.25% 5 2.00 6.00
C Suárez
1.35
12 Spain Navarro 2 142 1.65 12.50% 4.75 1.00 5.00
C
Denmark 148 3.00
13 Wozniacki 2 2.47 31.25% 5.67 2.50 7.50
Czech D
1.80
14 Republic Allertová 1 156 3.90 0.00% 1.5 1.00 1.00
Slovak D
1.11
15 Republic Cibulková 2 144 3.81 6.25% 4.17 1.50 3.00
D
141 1.41
16 Russia Kasatkina 2 4.86 12.50% 4.78 1.00 4.50
17 Croatia D Vekić 1 158 3.07 4.64 0.00% 2.5 1.00 1.00
E
2.47
18 Russia Makarova 1 145 4.03 0.00% 3.5 1.00 1.00
19 Belgium E Mertens 3 149 3.43 3.94 12.50% 4.4 1.67 3.67
20 Russia E Rodina 1 140 1.25 4.40 0.00% 2 1.00 1.00
E
3.47
21 Ukraine Svitolina 2 143 2.07 6.25% 3.57 1.50 3.50
G
2.94
22 Spain Muguruza 1 153 2.26 12.50% 3.8 3.00 5.00
23 Germany J Görges 1 152 7.24 3.76 12.50% 4.86 3.00 8.00
J
3.20
24 Latvia Ostapenko 1 142 5.95 12.50% 5.3 3.00 9.00
Netherlan
153 4.71
25 ds K Bertens 1 4.16 6.25% 5 2.00 6.00
26 Estonia K Kanepi 1 151 2.75 4.50 0.00% 3 1.00 2.00
Team 2021457 Page 26/23

Czech Ka
156 5.61
27 Republic Plišková 3 3.51 12.50% 4.63 1.67 3.33
L
1.66
28 Ukraine Tsurenko 2 144 4.48 6.25% 4.2 1.50 2.50
M
Buzărnesc 0.07
29 Romania u 1 141 0.45 0.00% 2.5 1.00 1.00
United
5.31
30 States M Keys 3 154 1.64 31.25% 4.88 2.67 7.67
M
Slovak Rybárikov 3.26
31 Republic á 1 150 2.34 0.00% 1.5 1.00 1.00
M
4.55
32 Russia Sharapova 2 157 6.32 0.00% 2.5 1.50 1.50
M
Czech Vondroušo 1.70
33 Republic vá 1 143 6.50 0.00% 4.6 1.00 2.00
34 Japan N Osaka 2 151 4.88 2.13 25.00% 5 2.50 8.00
35 Croatia P Martić 1 153 3.19 2.23 0.00% 3.6 1.00 1.00
36 Taiwan S-w Hsieh 2 136 0.82 2.96 0.00% 3.6 1.00 1.50
United S
160 7.08
37 States Williams 3 3.38 37.50% 5.06 3.00 12.00
38 Romania S Halep 2 144 1.96 2.58 43.75% 5.8 4.00 13.50
United
S Stephens 150 0.89
39 States 2 1.61 25.00% 4.92 3.00 9.50
Kazakhst Y
1.00
40 an Putintseva 1 139 2.35 6.25% 5.5 2.00 5.00
MIN 136 0.07 0.45 0.00 1.5 0.25 1.00
MAX 177 7.24 6.50 0.44 5.8 4.00 13.50

Table 25. Frequency Distribution Tables for Tennis

Team 2021457 Page 27/23

Table 26. Converted Values Table

Factors Grand Performance Win rate Average Number

Slam
in number of Score
No. Country
2018 Serve Double-f Grand of matches/ compari
Participan Competit Aces/ma
speed aults/ Slam points/se competit son
ts ions tch
(km/h) match 2018 t ion
Joined

1 Australia A Barty 1 3 5 4 0 4 1 1
A
3
2 Estonia Kontaveit 2 3 3 0 3 2 1
A
4
3 Belarus Sabalenka 1 4 2 0 4 2 1
A
2 3
4 Belarus Sasnovich 1 2 0 3 2 1
A
3
5 Latvia Sevastova 1 6 5 2 4 5 3
A Van
4 4
6 Belgium Uytvanck 1 4 0 4 2 1
7 Germany A Kerber 3 1 2 4 6 6 3 5
8 Switzerland B Bencic 1 2 3 3 0 5 2 1
Czech
2
9 Republic B Strýcová 2 3 4 0 4 2 1
10 France C Garcia 2 3 4 5 0 2 2 1
11 Italy C Giorgi 1 4 3 2 1 5 3 3
C Suárez
2
12 Spain Navarro 2 1 5 2 5 2 2
Team 2021457 Page 28/23

C
Denmark 2 3
13 Wozniacki 2 5 5 6 4 4
Czech D
2
14 Republic Allertová 1 3 3 0 1 2 1
Slovak D
1
15 Republic Cibulková 2 2 3 1 4 2 1
D
1 2
16 Russia Kasatkina 2 2 2 5 2 2
17 Croatia D Vekić 1 4 3 2 0 2 2 1
E
3
18 Russia Makarova 1 2 3 0 3 2 1
19 Belgium E Mertens 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2
20 Russia E Rodina 1 1 1 3 0 1 2 1

21 Ukraine E Svitolina 2 2 3 5 1 3 2 2
G
3
22 Spain Muguruza 1 3 5 2 4 5 2
23 Germany J Görges 1 3 6 3 2 5 5 4
J
3
24 Latvia Ostapenko 1 1 1 2 6 5 4
25 Netherlands K Bertens 1 3 4 3 1 5 3 3
26 Estonia K Kanepi 1 3 3 3 0 3 2 1
Czech Ka
3 5
27 Republic Plišková 3 3 2 5 3 2
28 Ukraine L Tsurenko 2 2 2 3 1 4 2 1
M
Buzărnesc 1
29 Romania u 1 1 6 0 2 2 1
United
5
30 States M Keys 3 3 5 5 5 4 4
Slovak M
3
31 Republic Rybáriková 1 3 5 0 1 2 1
M
4
32 Russia Sharapova 2 4 1 0 2 2 1
M
Czech Vondroušo 2
33 Republic vá 1 2 1 0 5 2 1
34 Japan N Osaka 2 3 5 5 4 5 4 4
35 Croatia P Martić 1 3 3 5 0 3 2 1
36 Taiwan S-w Hsieh 2 1 1 4 0 3 2 1
United
S Williams 4 6
37 States 3 4 6 5 5 6
Team 2021457 Page 29/23

38 Romania S Halep 2 2 2 4 6 6 6 6
United
S Stephens 3 1
39 States 2 5 4 5 5 4
Y
1
40 Kazakhstan Putintseva 1 1 5 1 6 3 2

Table 27. US Open Score Comparison Table

Table 28. French Open Score Comparison Table

Table 29. Australia Open Score Comparison Table

Appendices for Question 2

Team 2021457 Page 30/23

Table 30. Data and Statistics Table

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Denma Indone Thailan Hongk Denma Indone
Country China China China Taiwan China
rk sia d ong rk sia
Anthon
Boonsa Jonatha
Anders y Bao Chou Jan o
Factor Partici k Chen Chen Du n
Antons Sinisuk Chunla Tien Hu Yun Jorgens
s pants Ponsan Jin Long Pengyu Christi
en a i Chen en
a e
Ginting
Years in Rank 2 3 1 2 3 11 7 3 1 5 2
Win Rate 0.76 0.64 0.76 0.60 0.77 0.79 0.65 0.67 0.53 0.65 0.66
Average
Tournaments
Joined/Year 11 12 10 17 12 12 15 9 16 14 11
Matches Played 283 302 382 621 378 555 584 210 409 654 324
Average
Number of
Points/Set 18.3 19.3 18.8 18.4 19.8 17.4 19.3 18.6 18.5 19.4 20.3
Career
All-Time High 3 3 6 4 2 1 2 3 4 2 4
Years Taken to
Reach Top 10 6 5 0.08 0 0 0.33 4 1 3 0.08 6
Body Mass
Index (BMI) 23.9 22.8 21.4 21.5 20.2 21.4 24.1 22.8 21.9 21.6 23.4
Prize Money 52,460. 54,293. 12,594. 23,958. 104,35 17,005. 35,174. 32,792.
Earned/Year 38 13 - 33 86 4.46 - - 73 00 00

No. 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Malays Malays Hongk Denma
Country Japan Japan Japan Japan India China India
ia ia ong rk
Kidam
Kanta Kenta Kento Lee Ng Ka Peter
Factor Partici Kenich bi Lee Zii Lin Pranno
Tsuney Nishim Momot Chong Long Hoeg
s pants i Tago Srikant Jia Dan y H.S.
ama oto a Wei Angus Gade
h
Years in Rank 1 2 1 4 5 9 1 5 2 2 1
Win Rate 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.81 0.65 0.84 0.68 0.83 0.63 0.77 0.60
Average
Tournaments
Joined/Year 12 12 10 10 13 13 8 12 12 15 12
Matches Played 215 323 272 417 372 848 238 798 411 672 331
Average
Number of 20.5 17.4 19.6 21.0 17.6 19.8 17 20.46 19.8 20.3 18.1
Team 2021457 Page 31/23

Points/Set
Career
All-Time High 10 3 9 1 2 1 10 1 8 2 8
Years Taken to
Reach Top 10 5 0 5 3 3 0 8 0 6 0 7
Body Mass
Index (BMI) 20.0 22.9 21.9 22.2 23.6 20.3 22.5 22.1 21.4 21.8 23.0
Prize Money 18,664. 125,03 39,014. 103,10 25,071. 55,294. 25,164. 27,321. 12,733.
Earned/Year - 60 - 3.90 08 8.78 45 37 25 94 95

No. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Indon South Indon Indon Vietna Indon Denm
Country China Japan China China
esia Korea esia esia m esia ark
MIN MAX
Par Sony Tien Tomm
Simon Son Taufik Tian Viktor Wang
tici Shi Sho Dwi Minh y
Factors Santos Wan Hiday Houw Axels Zhengm
pan Yuqi Sasaki Kunco Nguye Sugiar
o Ho at ei en ing
ts ro n to
Years in
5 2 2 3 1 2 2 4 1 7 3 1
Rank 11
Win Rate 0.74 0.60 0.69 0.64 0.67 0.75 0.63 0.71 0.63 0.74 0.64 0.53 0.79
Average
Tournaments 9
Joined/Year 9 16 11 14 12 13 9 13 14 13 12 17
Matches
210
Played 282 545 393 527 525 551 219 641 549 519 252 654
Average
Number of 17.4
Points/Set 19.2 19.3 18.8 19.6 19.3 19 19.1 18 20.5 19.5 19.9 20.25
Career
All-Time 1
High 2 6 3 1 4 2 6 5 3 1 6 6
Years Taken
to Reach Top
10 3 2 0.08 5 0 0 4 0 4 4 4 0 8
Body Mass
Index (BMI) 22.2 21.6 21.2 20.7 20.8 20.9 21.8 20.7 22.9 23.4 - 20.2 24.1
Prize Money 72,72 18,73 41,44 29,35 10,89 20,13 81,54 21,234. 12,59 104,3
Earned/Year 9.64 - 2.93 8.69 - - 9.38 1.16 7.56 3.71 44 4.33 54.46
Team 2021457 Page 32/23

Table 31. Frequency Distribution Tables for Badminton

Team 2021457 Page 33/23

Table 32. Converted Values Table

Team 2021457 Page 34/23

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Denma Indone Thailan Hongk Denma Indone
Country China China China Taiwan China
rk sia d ong rk sia
Anthon
Boonsa Jonatha
Anders y Bao Chou Jan o
Factor Partici k Chen Chen Du n
Antons Sinisuk Chunla Tien Hu Yun Jorgens
s pants Ponsan Jin Long Pengyu Christi
en a i Chen en
a e
Ginting
Total Years
Ranked in 1 2 1 1 2 6 4 2 1 3 1
World Top 10
Win rate 5 2 5 2 5 5 3 3 1 3 3
Average
Tournaments
Joined/Year 2 3 2 6 3 3 5 1 6 4 2
Matches Played 1 1 2 4 2 4 4 1 2 5 2
Average
number of
points/set 3 4 4 3 5 1 4 3 3 5 6
Career
All-Time High 5 5 3 5 6 6 6 5 5 6 5
Years Taken to
Reach Top 10 2 3 6 6 6 6 4 6 4 6 2
Body Mass
Index (BMI) 6 5 2 2 1 2 4 5 3 3 6
Prize money
earned/year 3 3 0 1 1 5 0 0 1 2 2

No. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Malays Malays Hongk Denma
Country Japan Japan Japan Japan India China India
ia ia ong rk
Kidam
Kanta Kenta Kento Lee Ng Ka Peter
Factor Partici Kenich bi Lee Zii Lin Pranno
Tsuney Nishim Momot Chong Long Hoeg
s pants i Tago Srikant Jia Dan y H.S.
ama oto a Wei Angus Gade
h
Total Years
Ranked in 1 1 1 2 3 5 1 3 1 1 1
World Top 10
Win rate 2 2 2 6 3 6 3 6 2 5 2
Average
Tournaments
Joined/Year 3 3 2 2 4 4 1 3 3 5 3
Matches Played 1 2 1 2 2 6 1 6 2 5 2
Team 2021457 Page 35/23

Average
number of
points/set 6 1 5 6 2 5 1 6 5 6 3
Career
All-Time High 1 5 1 6 6 6 1 6 2 6 2
Years Taken to
Reach Top 10 3 6 3 4 4 6 1 6 2 6 1
Body Mass
Index (BMI) 1 5 3 3 6 1 5 3 2 3 5
Prize money
earned/year 0 1 0 6 2 5 1 3 1 1 1

No. 1 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
South
Indon Indon Indon Vietna Indon Denm
Country China Japan Korea China China
esia esia esia m esia ark
n
MIN MAX
Sony Tien Tomm
Simon Son Taufik Tian Viktor Wang
Facto Partic Shi Sho Dwi Minh y
Santos Wan Hiday Houw Axels Zheng
rs ipants Yuqi Sasaki Kunco Nguye Sugiar
o Ho at ei en ming
ro n to
Total Years
Ranked in
3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 1
World Top
10 6
Win rate 4 2 3 2 3 5 2 4 2 4 2 1 6
Average
Tournaments 1
Joined/Year 1 6 2 4 3 4 1 4 4 4 3 6
Matches
1
Played 1 4 2 3 3 4 1 5 4 3 1 6
Average
number of 1
points/set 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 2 6 5 5 6
Career
All-Time 1
High 6 3 5 6 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 6
Years Taken
to Reach Top
10 4 5 6 3 6 6 4 6 4 4 4 0 8
Body Mass
Index (BMI) 3 3 2 1 2 2 3 1 5 6 0 0 6
Prize money
earned/year 4 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 0 6