Loss Ratio at #1 - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 11:49 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
athake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Neverland
Posts: 403
                     
Loss Ratio at #1

1.Justine Henin= 5/60 = %8.3
2.Serena Williams = 6/57 = %10.5
3.Venus Williams= 2/11= %18.2
4.Martina Hingis = 40/209 = %19.1
5.Kim Clijsters = 4/19 = %21
6.Amelie Mauresmo =10/39 = %25.6
7.Maria Sharapova= 4/14 = %28.6

PS: Losses counted from
http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=293955
credits..

JUSTINE HENIN

When i saw her first at wimby 2001, i said "yeah this big hearted tiny girl's my girl"

-Panta Rhei- -Philistines-

Last edited by athake; Apr 10th, 2007 at 01:05 PM.
athake is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 12:34 PM
RND
Senior Member
 
RND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Posts: 7,515
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

Good stats.

Justine.

Melbourne.


Yung-Jan Chan ∞ Zhang Shuai Jelena Jankovic Jie Zheng Mirjana Lucic-Baroni
Tamarine Tanasugarn Su-Wei Hsieh Alisa Kleybanova Nadia Petrova

RND is offline  
post #3 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 12:36 PM
Senior Member
 
azmad_88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia
Posts: 23,451
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

whenever maria ascends to number one she never really played like one..2 of those losses were due to injury

Serena Williams
Vera Zvonareva
Ana Ivanovic


Petra Kvitova - Svetlana Kuznetsova - Li Na - Sloane Stephens - Madison Keys

Will Always Love Kim Clijsters and Elena Dementieva
azmad_88 is offline  
post #4 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 01:19 PM
Senior Member
 
FrOzon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 3,887
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by athake View Post
1.Justine Henin= 5/60 = %8.3
2.Serena Williams = 6/57 = %10.5
3.Venus Williams= 2/11= %18.2
4.Martina Hingis = 40/209 = %19.1
5.Kim Clijsters = 4/19 = %21
6.Amelie Mauresmo =10/39 = %25.6
7.Maria Sharapova= 4/14 = %28.6

PS: Losses counted from
http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=293955
credits..
Interesting! First, I expected "losses per total matches" and not "losses per week as No.1".
FrOzon is offline  
post #5 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 01:58 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
athake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Neverland
Posts: 403
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrOzon View Post
Interesting! First, I expected "losses per total matches" and not "losses per week as No.1".
yeah, of course, it would be more reliable if it was "losses at #1 per total matches at #1" but its almost impossible to make that database. Also the same problem with inactive #1s' losses

JUSTINE HENIN

When i saw her first at wimby 2001, i said "yeah this big hearted tiny girl's my girl"

-Panta Rhei- -Philistines-
athake is offline  
post #6 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 02:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,202
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

This make no sense You can not get a percentage from these numbers because they are not correlated to each other. Your just making up stuff to make Justine look better then she is, that sad
selesbooz is offline  
post #7 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 02:27 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
athake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Neverland
Posts: 403
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by selesbooz View Post
This make no sense You can not get a percentage from these numbers because they are not correlated to each other. Your just making up stuff to make Justine look better then she is, that sad
maybe "make someone look better" threads made u be biased with this thread.

u r wrong, weeks as number 1's correlated with total matches at number 1...

JUSTINE HENIN

When i saw her first at wimby 2001, i said "yeah this big hearted tiny girl's my girl"

-Panta Rhei- -Philistines-
athake is offline  
post #8 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 02:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,202
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by athake View Post
maybe "make someone look better" threads made u be biased with this thread.

u r wrong, weeks as number 1's correlated with total matches at number 1...
Did you forget what you wrote, up put losses at #1 and weeks at #1. Where's matches at #1 ????
selesbooz is offline  
post #9 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 02:44 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
athake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Neverland
Posts: 403
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

Go and count the losses from other thread, weeks are known. matches at #1 are not know but correlated with weeks.

"total matches at #1" 'll make it more reliable, it doesnt mean "weeks at #1" make no sense...

JUSTINE HENIN

When i saw her first at wimby 2001, i said "yeah this big hearted tiny girl's my girl"

-Panta Rhei- -Philistines-
athake is offline  
post #10 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 02:48 PM
Senior Member
 
TomTennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 7,113
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

in no way are these two stats correlated to make a ratio or percentage out of them.

Losses at number 1 does not fit with weeks at number 1. If you wanted to look at the "Loss ratio at number 1" like your thread title says you have to have losses at number 1:total matches as number 1

If those stats cannot be found then the "Loss at #1" ratio cannot be done, dont just substitue some other stat in there instead.
TomTennis is offline  
post #11 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 03:01 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
athake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Neverland
Posts: 403
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

i am a stock trader, i know what ratio analysis is. it can be done.
one'll be less reliable, the other more, thats it.

if u want to see Serena at top, i can add some fictitious losses to justine to make it more reliable

JUSTINE HENIN

When i saw her first at wimby 2001, i said "yeah this big hearted tiny girl's my girl"

-Panta Rhei- -Philistines-
athake is offline  
post #12 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 03:17 PM
Senior Member
 
TomTennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 7,113
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

Quote:
Originally Posted by athake View Post
i am a stock trader, i know what ratio analysis is. it can be done.
one'll be less reliable, the other more, thats it.

if u want to see Serena at top, i can add some fictitious losses to justine to make it more reliable
Omg, as if you just said that You sound so unbelieveably pety its unreal!

Let me make this clear for you, my previous post was not a dig at you because Henin is above Serena, I dont care, I hoenstly dont.....one last time, I couldnt care less who is at the top of the "Loss at #1 ratio".

My point was about your unreliable results, and they are not just "a little less reliable" like you said, they are VERY VERY VERY unreliable. The ratios are not compatible, well they are but they make no sense, weeks in tennis can vary, VASTLY, as a tennis fan surely you know that.

And as a stock trader, you should definetly know better!
TomTennis is offline  
post #13 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 03:19 PM
Senior Member
 
CORIA01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,806
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

Good Ratio For Martina!

Coria and Hingis, when tennis becomes
CORIA01 is offline  
post #14 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 03:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Dan23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AUS
Posts: 32,784
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

Athake does have a point....it is proportional to matches as #1. The actual number is really meaningless (losses per week at #1) but the ratio is comparable.

There can be problems when the numbers are low such as in Venus & Maria's case where Maria missed playing in quite a few of those weeks and the losses were more frequent than what would be usual. The error is smoothed out a little with the higher numbers tho.
Dan23 is offline  
post #15 of 21 (permalink) Old Apr 10th, 2007, 03:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,115
                     
Re: Loss Ratio at #1

what in the world are people complaining about? It is a completely reasonable and normal mathematical calculation!!! Serena and Justine are the two best. we all know it. both of them have great stats despite constant stops and starts with injuries.
treufreund is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome