Evert won 18 Slams.
Austin won 2 USO's - zero Slams for Jaeger.
Chris O'Neil #77 - won an Australian Open with a field that would struggle to make Tier III status today. She probably never even finished a year in the top 50.
Renata Tomanova is #54. She was r/u in two very pitiful Slam fields. Meanwhile, #55 Virginia Ruzici was in the top 12 or 15 in the world and made several Slam QF's or better. There is no comparison.
Belinda Cordwell and Camille Benjamin who had freak runs to Slam SF's are on the list. No way.
Winnie Shaw and Helen Gourlay were never top ten players. How are they higher than Maleeva, Dementieva, Fromholtz, Hanika, Tauziat?
Sorry, there are too many weak arguments in your rankings.
You're the one person I was hoping would reply as I have read your other posts and have enjoyed them very much.
You've certainly made a lot of points. I'll try to take each one in turn.
'Evert won 18 Slams'. Yes that's right. 12 in the period before Navratilova hit her stride and 6 afterwards. As DOT adjusts for Opposition it was while she was scoring the 6 that she played her best quality of tennis.
'Austin won 2 USO's - zero Slams for Jaeger'. Yes, but DOT looks at more than just the the total number of majors won in producing it's Peak Rating. E.g. both only made 2 major finals and Jaeger made it to 7 Semi Finals compared with Tracy's 5. The thing that most influences DOT though, which remember is deriving the PEAK playing standard is that Jaegar made the Semi Finals of 4 majors on the trot ending with Wimbledon of 1983. When Tracey was at her peak she was more prone to lose in the quarter finals compare 8 losses to Jaegar's 3. DOT always looks at the losses as well as the wins as to do otherwise presents a lopsided picture.
'Chris O'Neil #77 - won an Australian Open with a field that would struggle to make Tier III status today. She probably never even finished a year in the top 50'. Yes that's absolutely correct. DOT uses an algorithm that adjusts the weighting of Tournaments based upon it's calculation of the strength of players present and the consistency of the tournament in recent years as an indicator of the world scene. In the year you select DOT calculated a weighting for the AO based on strength of only 1/3rd that of the other majors. Just to put things into perspective though. Yes Chris O'Neil won a weak major but rated above her are 42 players who never won any majors, but performed better at events with a greater automated weighting, inc Andrea Jaegar.
'Renata Tomanova is #54. She was r/u in two very pitiful Slam fields. Meanwhile, #55 Virginia Ruzici was in the top 12 or 15 in the world and made several Slam QF's or better. There is no comparison.'.
Yes agreed again, but first of all see above for Chris O'Neil. Who managed to win a against a 'pitiful' major field. All DOT is saying is taking into account that she finished runner up in two consecutive major's albeit with reduced strength and allowing for the fact she also had to face Evonne Goolagong in one of those finals, the evidence for her having a higher playing strength than Chris O'Neil is probably better. Remember that 54th best peak in the open era is not that high for someone who appeared in two consecutive major finals. This is because DOT has devalued those results. Also remember that DOT is rating 8 players above Renata who only made it to 1 major final. In comparing Tomanova with Virginia Ruzici you are absolutely correct in sayin that Virginia Ruzici total achievements were greater, after all she won one major and made 1 major final, both being the French open but two years apart and also lost out in a further major Semi Final and no fwere that 8 Quarter Finals. This of course compares with Tomanova having lost in 1 major semif final and 3 major quarter finals other than her two final appearances. To be honest what DOT is saying is that there is almost nothing to pick between these two players but looking at the fact that Tomanova's best results were in weaker tournaments than Ruzici's but were more concentrated in time the Peak standard is probably very similar.
If DOT did not take this approach of looking for Peak playing standard rather than total achievement some players careers would be underrated because of a very short career, e.g. Monica Seles.
'Belinda Cordwell and Camille Benjamin who had freak runs to Slam SF's are on the list. No way'. Laugh! Yes, well DOT cannot differentiate between freak runs and any other kind of runs for that matter. They really aren't very high on the list you know. As we are only looking at the open era, only 114 players have made major semi finals. We have to leave some room for those who 'freaked' it against weaker fields. Seriously though ranking them where they are isn't really saying that much. Sorry Belinda / Camille.
Winnie Shaw and Helen Gourlay were never top ten players. How are they higher than Maleeva, Dementieva, Fromholtz, Hanika, Tauziat? At last a point that I can answer quickly. These ratings are based on open era only but these two players' peaks were before the rankings began in 1975. No surprise then that they weren't top 10 players.
'Sorry, there are too many weak arguments in your rankings'. You've made some great points, PreacherFan. I have previously discussed this methodology within other forums and it took me months to pursuade people I was genuine and explain the intracicies and vagaries of the DOT system. To be honest your points are far better than many I have encountered, many are just plain abusive because the rankings don't say what they want them to say. To be honest they don't say what I want them to say either! (I'm a Monica Seles fan. However, they are statistically independent and free from human opinion or interference. i.e. all weightings for tournaments and strength of opposition are calculated by DOT itself usinga double itterative process and the methodologies adopted are statistically sound. As long as you remember we are talking peak ratings and not total achievement and that every rating is adjusted for strength of opposition and status of tournament, you can't go to far wrong in their interpretation. Just remember DOT stands for (D)omination x (O)pposition strength x (T)ournament status.
I know I'm blowing my own trumpet here a bit but the system has taken a long time to design and develop and has been very much a labour of love for me, coupling my two great loves of Statistics and Tennis
I've always had a love of Statistics and have over 20 years experience within the Government Statistical Service. I can see this same love of data within your posts and I hope we will be able to exchange many posts in the future, both exchanging points of view and helping each other where we can with statistical difficulties and problems.
Take care and keep in touch