View Full Version : 2001 Wins over Year End Top Ten Players

Dec 20th, 2001, 01:26 AM
I've compiled the number of wins each of these players has against the year end top ten. That doesn't mean the player was top ten when they lost. It's means they are top ten now. Obviously, this does not favor players who get injured a lot. Tough.

Again, the associated number is simply total victories in 2001 over the CURRENT top ten.

16 Davenport<br />15 Williams, V.<br />14 Capriati

09 Williams, S.<br />09 Seles

06 Hingis<br />05 Clijsters<br />04 Mauresmo<br />03 Henin<br />02 Dokic

It looks amazingly reasonable as a ranking system.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Volcana ]</p>

Dec 20th, 2001, 03:41 AM
Very Interesting... they are quite close to the original rankings and quite reasonable although no way should Serena or Monica be ranked higher than Martina. HEr results this year were overall better than theirs.

Venus still isn't No.1 <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

As expected Lindsay's consistent excellence was rewarded with top placing on this list.

Another interesting thread

Dec 20th, 2001, 05:07 AM
Thanks, Volcana for this list! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Williams Rulez
Dec 20th, 2001, 05:16 AM
That's interesting. But we could divide it by the tournaments played and come up with another list.... the average number of top ten players played per tournament. That way, we could see the average strength of the draws faced by the players.

Dec 20th, 2001, 05:41 AM
<font size=3><pre><br />1 Venus 1.250<br />2 Davenport 0.941<br />3 Serena 0.900<br />4 Jennifer 0.778<br />5 Monica 0.600<br />6 Hingis 0.333<br />7 Mauresmo 0.250<br />8 Clijsters 0.227<br />9 Henin 0.143<br />10 Dokic 0.070</pre></font>

That's taking wins divided by events.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Seles ]</p>

Dec 20th, 2001, 06:10 AM

But if you count Hopman Cup, which the ITF does in its head to heads, then Seles has 10 (a victory over Clijsters) and Hingis has 7 (a victory over Seles).

Also how does Capriati have 14? What am I missing?<br />1 over Seles<br />1 over Davenport<br />3 over Hingis<br />3 over Serena<br />0 over Venus<br />1 over Henin<br />1 over Clijsters<br />1 over Dokic<br />1 over Mauresmo

Adds up to 12

Dec 20th, 2001, 07:07 AM
Someone please clue me in. How were Martina's results overall better than Serena's? I'd appreciate any enlightenment, and of course, I'm sure their respective winning percentages will be taken into account.

Dec 20th, 2001, 07:49 AM
lobbum, Capriati has at least 2 wins over Dockic, one in Berlin and another one in the summer (don't remember where). I don't know if there is another one missing.

Dec 20th, 2001, 09:36 AM
Jennifer has beatipt"elena Dokic THREE times this year.

Mateo Mathieu
Dec 20th, 2001, 09:59 AM
Berlin, San Diego and New Haven was Jelena in Top 20 not 10!

Dec 20th, 2001, 11:28 AM
A4, while this point is debatable and in reality both players had very similar years results wise I am willing to say that Martina had a better year overall than Serena. Although in those final 3-4 months as Serena tore quality fields apart and Martina wilted mentally and physically it made the decision more unclear.

The fact is that before August Serena had passed the quarterfinals of a tournament just once all year. Her confidence lifted in Canada but she still appeared past the quarterfinals in only 4 events all year. her statistics look like this:

TOURNAMENTS:10<br />WINS:3 FINAL:1 QF:6<br />While all her wins were in high quality fields and in high tier events, these are hardly the results of a top 5 player. (And before you argue Martina didn't win a Tier 1 event, I seem to recall Jelena Dokic also winning two Tier 1's this season, as Serena did - did she also have a better season than Martina <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> )

Serena fared well in grandslams, never falling before the quarters and then making that brilliant run at the US Open. But still in 4 Grandslams she went past the quarterfinals just once.

Martina had a year that by her standards was VERY mediocre but nonetheless it was a top 5 calibre season in which she contested 18 tournaments and fell before the semifinals just three times. Her results read impressively:


That is a high quality season, and her consistent excellence is demonstrated at the grandslams most of all, where she reached the semifinals in 3 out of 4 events, only Jennifer Capriati reached the semis at all majors.

While Serena held a better record overall in 2001 at the Grandslams (mainly due to Martina's first round wimbledon exit), Martina's appearance in 3 semifinals to serena's 1 (they both made 1 final) is enough for me to say that she performed to a higher quality at the grandslams overall.

And Martina held a 2-1 head to head record against Serena over the year.

Their winning percentages are also quite similar and both exemplary though Serena has a slight edge, Martina - 80% (81% if yout take out her very early retirement to Lindsay) and Serena - 84%. Slight edge to Serena, but she played thirty less matches.

The only other statistic that favours Serena is the higher calibre of her 3 wins over Martina's 3. But I do not believe that reasonably this makes up for all the semifinals and finals she DID NOT play in.

So while this is a tough call(even the computer saw it this wya as they are only 2 spots apart), and you can easily interpret these statistics in which ever way you wish to make an argument for Serena, I believe that Martina's Season while unspectacular by her standards was still the 4th best set of results on tour and that is the ranking slot in which she belongs at present.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: tennisaddict ]</p>

Dec 20th, 2001, 11:44 AM
AlexSydney - It's victories over the year-end top ten, regardless of where they weere ranked when beaten.

"Again, the associated number is simply total victories in 2001 over the CURRENT top ten."

Doesn't matter if they were top ten when they were defeated or not. I had a feeling that wasn't relevant, and I still don't think it's that important. Look how little it changes anything.

Williams_Rulez, Seles - I think all dividing by number of tournaments accomplishes is hiding the fact that Monica and Serena miss a lot of tournaments. That's been a fact of life for both of them since Serena came on tour.

Like I said in the first post, if they can't stay on the court, tough.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Volcana ]</p>

Dec 20th, 2001, 02:48 PM
I think Venus' numbers are very telling as well as Monica's and Serena's just from the stand point of the number of tournaments they've played. I think the award for most outstanding performance at a tournament goes to Venus Williams for her performance at the Pilot Pen, beating Justine Henin, J. Capriati and L. Davenport, back to back to back in a span of 25 hours and then turn around and win the US Open. I don't think she fully got recognized for that feat. Who else on tour could have done that (maybe Serena).

To the poster who said Martina had a better year than Serena, I couldn't DISAGREE MORE after February of this Martina's year was all down hill. Her best tournaments were Sydney and the AO. Her two tournament wins in February were a joke, lets face it, and no disrespect to those she beat, but they were jokes. As far as both their performances at Grand Slams, yea Hingis made it atleast to the semi's before losing, but she lost to people who were ranked lower than she was, at least Serena lost to players who were all ranked ahead of her. Also look at the fact that Serena had 9 wins over year end top 10 players and only played in 10 tournaments and yet Hingis had only 6 and played in 18 tournaments. Now you tell me who's the better player and had the better year.

Dec 20th, 2001, 10:19 PM
Supremeross, martina may have been all down hill after the AO but she still was still making SF and F when Serena was falling in QF. Until Serena played 3 great tournaments at the end of the year this wouldn't have even been a question. And I don't think three tournaments jsutifies ranking her above Martina overall. If those three tournaments had been at the start of the year and she hadn't gone past a quarterfinal since, we wouldn't even conceive of her being ranked ahead of Martina. Due to the fact these Marvellous feets are fresh in your mind, as a martina's apparent "failures" it is easy to be clouded. AND this ISN"T about who is the best player, it IS ABOUT who performed better this year. As for Martina falling to players ranked below her at grandslams, that tends to happen when your number one <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> . And barring Wimbledon the quality of player that each lost to was very high. Martina lost to Jennifer twice, Serena once and Serena lost to Martina, Jennifer twice, and Venus. That isn't really an issue becuase they more or less lost to the same players at majors.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: tennisaddict ]</p>

Dec 20th, 2001, 10:32 PM
Tennisattick, you're probably the only one who thinks Hingis had a descent year, I think Hingis would even tell you she had the crappiest year since what 1997 or 1996. Who did Hingis beat enroute to the semis of the FO or the semis of the USO? Exactly. And when Serena did beat Hingis at the semis of the USO she handed Hingis her worst loss ever at the USO. And I don't know if you actually watch tennis (I doubt it from your feeble argument) but for those who did watch that match at the USO between Serena and Hingis did anyone else notice that when Serena beat both Hingis and Davenport no one was suprised and the announcer never called Serena's victory over them an upset. It's like no matter what Serena's ranking is, it's expected that she'll beat both of those players. That said, again you're the only one who didn't think Hingis year sucked and now she doesn't even have the number one ranking to cling to and milk respect out of from her fellow players and commentators. Hingis is still a good player, but she slipped this year and that you have to admit.

Dec 20th, 2001, 10:57 PM
supremeross, (I am sorry for calling you the wrong name it was an accident, no disrespect ;o)

That said, anmd seeing you've launched a personal attack aginst me, i seriously doubt that you can read.

The fact is Martina had a CRAP year by her standards and it was her WORST year since 1996. She didn't play as well this YEAR as SHE has in the past. Her end of year ranking confirms this. I acknowledged that in my very first post on the subject. But by the standards of the tour the year she had was more than "decent" it was exemplery, how many players can reach the semifinals in all but 3 tournaments they play all year, including three times at majors? The answer is, not many. Certainly not Serena.(and on the subject of quality wins in majors, who exactly did serena beat of any note in her trips to the quarters of AO, RG and Wimbledon?)

Yes Serena smoked Martina at the US Open. But I definitely wouldn't say that she was EXPE|CTED to win every time she stepped out on the court aginst Martina or Lindsay. Was that the only tournamnet you watched all year because I seem to remember Martina dealing out two defeats to Serena earlier in the year. You are obviously from another planet, because everyone knows that mathces between Martina/lindsay/serena/venus/jennifer are always in the balance - no one is expected to win. And of course it isn't a shock when Serena beats Lindsay and Martina, she is one of the best players on tour.

if you want to judge Serena better on the strength of three tournaments in the dying stages of the year, when Martina achieved comprable feats plus more, go ahead, but I will not be convinced otherwise and certainly do not expect to be torpedoed for holding opposing views to you.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: tennisaddict ]</p>

Dec 21st, 2001, 12:18 AM
why is a win over a player who is top ten _now_ any better than a player who was, for example, #8 until october then went to #11 the week before the year end rankings?

surely thats a better win than beating someone in february who was say ranked 20 from jan til oct then got one good result as well as others falling in ranking and scraped in at #10 at the end of the year?

Dec 21st, 2001, 12:27 AM
Martina beat Serena twice earlier on in the year so it's not like their matches have been one sided this year.

I think it would be most accurate to say that Hingis had the better first half of the year and Serena the better second half.

As for the original post of this thread, I find it quite interesting that Justine has had so few wins over the current top ten, but yet arguably a better year in terms of grand slams than most of them.

Also it's quite telling about Amelie's year - dominated the clay court season prior to the French, but without all that many wins over the top ten, you have to wonder what would have happened to her results if Serena, Monica and Lindsay had been fit enough to play in the spring.

Dec 21st, 2001, 01:13 AM
Hedge - It's a matter of mindset. If you view the season from the perspective of a constant rolling 52 weeks, it doesn't make any difference. If you view the season from a champion's race perspective, The rankings at the beginning of the season are just a convenience for seeding purposes. From that perspective, the only rank that matters is the one at the end of the year.

Dec 21st, 2001, 01:31 AM
Kart, I believ some of these results might give a false impression of the quality of players wins through out the year - because quite often there are more wins over players that were top 10 at the time, but weren't by years end. Take Mauresmo for example in reality she had 8 wins over top 10 players (double the amount she is given credit for here) here top 10 wins were:

Monica Seles (Sydney)<br />Anna Kournikova (Paris)<br />Amanda Coetzer (Amelia Island)<br />Amanda Coetzer (berlin)<br />Martina Hingis (berlin)<br />Jennifer Capriati (berlin)<br />Martina Hingis (Rome)<br />Nathalie Tauziat (US Open)

I will try and do this for all of the current top 10 and see what the difference is.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: tennisaddict ]</p>

Dec 21st, 2001, 01:57 AM
Very good point <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> - I hadn't thought about it that way.

Dec 21st, 2001, 03:09 AM
These results are actually quite interesting: <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

1. Lindsay Davenport wins=17<br />Anna Kournikova (Australian open)<br />Annna Kournikova (PPO)<br />Martina Hingis (PPO)<br />Jennifer Capriati (Scottsdale)<br />Kim Clijsters (wimbledon)<br />Monica Seles (standford)<br />nathalie Tauziat (los angeles)<br />monica Seles (los angeles)<br />Amelie Mauresmo (New Haven)<br />Amelie Mauresmo (Fidlerstadt)<br />Martina Hingis (Fidlerstadt)<br />Justine Henin (Fidlerstadt)<br />Jennifer Capriati (zurich)<br />Jelena Dokic (zurich)<br />Jelena Dokic (linz)<br />Jelena Dokic (munich)<br />Kim Clijsters (munich)

2. Jennifer Capriati wins = 10<br />Monica Seles (Australian open)<br />Lindsay davenport (Australian open)<br />Martina Hingis (Australian Open)<br />Serena Williams (Miami)<br />Martina Hingis (Charleston)<br />Conchita Martinez (berlin)<br />Serena williams (french open)<br />Martina Hingis (french open)<br />Serena williams (wimbledon)<br />Amelie Mauresmo (US open)

3. Venus Williams wins = 14<br />Martina Hingis(miami)<br />jennifer capriati (miami)<br />Nathalie Tauziat(wimbledon)<br />Lindsay Davenport (wimbledon)<br />Justine Henin (wimbledon)<br />Nathalie Tauziat (acura)<br />Lindsay Davenport (acura)<br />Monica Seles (acura)<br />Justine Henin (New Haven)<br />Jennifer Capriati (New Haven)<br />Lindsay davenport (New Haven)<br />Kim Clijsters (US open)<br />Jennifer Capriati (US open)<br />Serena Williams (US Open)

<br />4. Martina Hingis WINS = 7 <br />Serena Williams (Sydney)<br />Conchita Martinez (Sydney)<br />Lindsay Davenport (sydney)<br />Serena Williams (Australian open)<br />Venus Williams (Australian Open)<br />Amelie Mauresmo (Charleston)<br />Conchita Martinez (Charelston)

5. Kim Clijsters win=3<br />Martina Hingis (Indian wells)<br />Lindsay Davenport (stanford)<br />Nathalie Tauziat (New Haven)

6. Serena Williams wins=7

Lindsay Davenport (indian wells)<br />Monica Seles (Toronto)<br />Jennifer Capriati (Toronto)<br />Justine Henin (US open)<br />Lindsay Davenport (US open)<br />Martina Hingis (US open)<br />Justine Henin (Munich)

7. Justine Henin wins=3<br />Venus Williams (berlin)<br />Kim Clijsters (netherlands)<br />Jennifer Capriati (wimbledon)

8. Jelena Dokic wins=3

Amanda Coetzer (Miami)<br />Amelie Mauresmo (Rome)<br />Kim Clijsters (Tokyo)

9.Amelie Mauresmo wins=8<br />Monica Seles (Sydney)<br />Anna Kournikova (Paris)<br />Amanda Coetzer (Amelia Island)<br />Amanda Coetzer (berlin)<br />Martina Hingis (berlin)<br />Jennifer Capriati (berlin)<br />Martina Hingis (Rome)<br />Nathalie Tauziat (US Open)

10. Monica Seles wins=6<br />Jennifer Capriati (Oklahoma)<br />Jennifer Capriati (Acura)<br />Martina Hingis (Acura)<br />Serena Williams (Los Angeles)<br />Martina Hingis (Los Angeles)<br />Justine Henin (Toronto)


17 L. Davenport<br />14 V. Williams<br />10 J. Capriati<br />08 A. Mauresmo<br />07 M. Hingis<br />07 S. Williams<br />06 M. Seles<br />03 K Clijsters<br />03 J Henin<br />03 J. Dokic

<br />That is quite a different perspective <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: tennisaddict ]</p>

Dec 21st, 2001, 03:47 AM
The argument of late was who had the better season: Serena or Martina? It seems that Tennisaddict was placing a greater importance on Grand Slams and thats fine. But note this: In th four Grand Slams that Martina played in, she only had 2, count them 2 wins over top 10 players in Grand Slams this year and that was at the AO against Venus and Serena. Hingis did not beat a Top 10 player (whether you look at where they were ranked at the time of the loss or where they ended the year) at the French Open, Wimby or the US Open, (and she wondered why no one was giving her any respect for being number one in the world!!) NOTE: Martina Hingis hasn't beaten a Top 10 player since April, where she beat A. Mauresmo in Charleston, South Carolina. Now ain't that something, playing for 6 months without a win over a top 10 player! What a horrible year she had. Serena by far had a better year.

Dec 21st, 2001, 04:10 AM
Domingo what you said was fair enough but not consistent, you will also find that Serena didn't beat a top ten player for 5 months either from Lindsay Davenport at Indian Wells to Monica Seles in Canada. And at the Grand Slams, Serena ONLY had 2 top ten victories as well at the US Open over Martina and Lindsay. Am I sensing a double standard here? Its illogical to say that serena had a better year "by far", it just doesn't make sense. Tell me exactly where Serena put this huge gap on Martina because I'm just not seeing it.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: tennisaddict ]</p>

Dec 21st, 2001, 06:06 AM
Hingis had a better year than Serena!

There is no doubt!

Hingis G/Slam results were better, so what if she didn't beat a lot of top players reaching the semis, she still got their and beat players that were in form and had knocked off other top players.

You only need to look at the rankings to see who had the better year. I also think if Martina played just 10 events that she would have more impressive results too. I'd like to see if Serena play 17 events, I don't think she has the stamina or ability too, so until she can I don't think she will ever be a better player than Martina. I think Martina will comeback next year very fresh and will claw her way back up the rankings after an initial slump

Dec 21st, 2001, 03:05 PM
I think what you NEED to look at is the fact that a) you computations are wrong, Serena also beat Clijsters at Indian Well, although she was not top 10 at the time-go back to the first post-and reread it, if you can- It goes back to a saying we have here in the US, figures don't lie, but liars figure. (not calling you a liar) but work on you analysis. If you look at the titles won by Serena v. Hingis, there is no doubt that two tier 1's and the year end Championship, is better than two tier 2's and a tier 3. Atleast that's what the WTA says, why else would they be worth more points and money. Also note this Aussie Boy and Tennisaddict: who made more money last year? Don't bother to look it up b/c I'll tell you from 10 tournaments, count them 10, Serena made 2.1 Million US dollars and Hingis by playing in 18 tournaments only made 1.7 Million dollars. Hingis played in 8 more tournaments than Serena and still made less money. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who had the better year, only a brain, which you two ...

Dec 21st, 2001, 07:56 PM
Neither Martina nor Serena had the year they wanted to have. Neither won a GS.Serena won bigger tournaments, but Martina went deeper into more tournaments. But when it counted, each only got to one GS final. And each lost.

They are starting the year from roughly the same position. Martina ended last year with more points, but Serena was playing better.

Neither of them has won a GS title since 1999.

Dec 21st, 2001, 08:06 PM
I still think you maybe overlooking a serious flaw in looking at player's ranking at the time, as opposed to the end of the year. Take Conchi. She had a bad year. ALL year. She didn't get past the semis at any tournament at any level. She owed her ranking to past victory, not current ability.

The year end ranking is a better measure of a player's perfromance for theyear, than their ranking is for their ability at a given time. Regardless of ranking, any victory over Kim Clijsters in 2001 is more valuable than any victory over Conchi.

Kim and Jelan didn't magically get a lot better halfway through the season. It also takes a while for rankings points to catch up with reality.

Counting players at the rank they HAD winds up giving players creidt for voctories over fading veterans who ranking far out paces their remaining ability.

Dec 21st, 2001, 09:19 PM
Supremeross, my computations are right. I was providing an alternative for the calculations first provided on this thread. The list I compiled was one of who each player defeated who was in the top ten at the time of defeat, but who might not have been by years end - or alternatively as is the case for many defeats of Clijsters, Dokic and Henin - they were not in the top ten at the time so those wins do not count. So Serena's defeat of Kim does not count and either does Martina's defeat of Jelena at the US Open, because those player's were not top ten at the time of defeat.

I don't appreciate being called wrong when I am right, and certainly I expect that before someone criticises me they atleast know what they are talking about.

And on the Martina versus Serena thing, lets just agree to disagree becuase nothing I say is going to convince you and nothing you say is going to convince me. As I said in my very first post on that subject, a case can be made for either and we have certainly done that to death <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Volcana, I never said that these figures were better or more reasonable than the ones first posted. But, it does give another perspective and certainly for some players it definitely gives more credibility to their results. Mauresmo for example who defeated Kournikova and Coetzer en route to three of her four titles, they were definitely playing like top ten players when she beat them, both coming off Oz Open QF, Anna off a semifinal in TOkyo (Pushing Lindsay to three sets) and Amanda off a title in Mexico (and an impeccable claycourt season that followed). Both suffered injuries and their rankings slipped but that doesn't mean they were any poorer quality when she met them.

Overall I think the original figures are more reasonable (especially since Kim, Jelena and Justine) were playing very good tennis at the start of the year, but this was just an exercise to witness the difference between both methods of calculation (the latter, which the WTA uses to administer quality points)

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: tennisaddict ]</p>

Dec 21st, 2001, 10:02 PM
[quote]Originally posted by tennisaddict:<br />[QB]And at the Grand Slams, Serena ONLY had 2 top ten victories as well at the US Open over Martina and Lindsay.QB]<hr></blockquote>

Tennisaddict, didn't Serena also beat Justine Henin at the US Open who was ranked #6 at the time?

Also I think if you look at them both in terms of ranking then Serena had the better year. Even if at the end of the year they were equal Serena would have still had the better year because she is ranked lower. They both won the same amount of tournaments. Only Serena won two tierI and the Sanex Champs. Martina won two tierII and a tierIII. Then you can say well Martina made it to two semi-finals and one final, and Serena only made it to 3 quarterfinals and one final, but Serena didn't not fall out of a GS tournament before the quarters either, and Martina did. Then you say well Martina played 18 tournaments to Serena's 10. Well then it would seem like Martina would have more titles and more wins over top 10 players but in fact they are even. It would also seem like she would have earned more money but she didn't. All in all Serena being ranked in the lower top ten all year ended up with more money, better quality titles, and a higher ranking. Martina ended up with less money, lower quality titles, and a lower ranking. For a player ranked #1 for most of the year she should have done better. So IMO Serena had a better year than Martina.

Dec 21st, 2001, 10:20 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by QueenV:<br />[QB]Martina ended up with less money, lower quality titles, and a lower ranking.[QB]

I seem to recall Martina being ranked #4 and Serena being Ranked #6. Doesn't that mean Martina was ranked higher <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

I was wrong on one thing though - serena did beat justine at US Open, a genuine top ten victory which ever way you look at it. But using quality wins at Grandslams as a measure of serena's dominance over martina is silly as before the US Open Serena hadn't defeated a top ten player in a major. Both really only had one good GENUINELY good run at a major; martina at the AO and Serena at the USO.

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: tennisaddict ]

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: tennisaddict ]</p>

Dec 21st, 2001, 11:15 PM
[quote]Originally posted by tennisaddict:<br />[QB][QUOTE]Originally posted by QueenV:<br />[QB]Martina ended up with less money, lower quality titles, and a lower ranking.[QB]

I seem to recall Martina being ranked #4 and Serena being Ranked #6. Doesn't that mean Martina was ranked higher <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> QB]<hr></blockquote>

Tennisaddict I was talking about where they started at the beginning of the year, Martina #1 and Serena #9 I think, and where they ended up at the end of the year. Martina ended up with a lower ranking Serena with a higher ranking. I know full well that Martina is ranked 2 places higher than Serena, but that wasn't my point.

Also I wasn't trying to use their GS results as a measuring stick. I was trying to negate the issue because really they both only made it to one final like you said, and they were almost even in top 10 wins at the GS. What I was trying to do was base it on what titles they won, the quality of them, and where they started and ended the year at. In that respect I think Serena had a better year. That's all. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Dec 21st, 2001, 11:22 PM
sorry QueenV if i was a little rude before <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> . You are entitled of course to your opinion that serena had a better year than martina, as am I. I misunderstood you. anyway Serena started the year at 6 and ended at 6 so she stayed the same, and Martina definitely did drop <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> .

Dec 21st, 2001, 11:42 PM
Hmm.. I think it is right that you chose to only count wins over top ten players @ THE END OF THE YEAR. Because that shows how the player played in general the who year. Now, for instance, would you say, for this year, that Martina belongs at #1, like she was for most of the year, or at #4, which she was for about a month or so. I'd say #4.

Players can be ranked high throughout the year, but have a falldown at the end of the season, maybe because the previous year, they had their best results in the fall, but the following year, the weren't able to defend the points.

So, to count a win over Hingis this whole year should be counted as a win over the #4 player, rather than the #1 player.

I hope that made sense. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">