PDA

View Full Version : Venus most successful Slam player this millennium


Kworb
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:25 PM
Using this scoring system: 1R - 1, 2R - 2, 3R - 4, 4R - 8, QF - 16, SF - 32, RU - 64, WON - 128

The ranking of this millennium is:

1. Venus Williams - 1075
2. Serena Williams - 1068
3. Justine Henin-Hardenne - 767
4. Jennifer Capriati - 698
5. Lindsay Davenport - 665
6. Kim Clijsters - 428
7. Martina Hingis - 345
8. Amelie Mauresmo - 292
9. Mary Pierce - 285
10. Elena Dementieva - 255
11. Maria Sharapova - 244
12. Anastasia Myskina - 238
13. Svetlana Kuznetsova - 209
14. Conchita Martinez - 168
15. Nadia Petrova - 163

I never thought Venus would overtake her sister again!

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:27 PM
Wow

thelittlestelf
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:32 PM
:) Thanks for doing that

Martian KC
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:34 PM
Those first round loses by Justine really hurt her here.

Foot_Fault
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:36 PM
Using this scoring system: 1R - 1, 2R - 2, 3R - 4, 4R - 8, QF - 16, SF - 32, RU - 64, WON - 128

The ranking of this millennium is:

1. Venus Williams - 1075
2. Serena Williams - 1068
3. Justine Henin-Hardenne - 767
4. Jennifer Capriati - 698
5. Lindsay Davenport - 665
6. Kim Clijsters - 428
7. Martina Hingis - 345
8. Amelie Mauresmo - 292
9. Mary Pierce - 285
10. Elena Dementieva - 255
11. Maria Sharapova - 244
12. Anastasia Myskina - 238
13. Svetlana Kuznetsova - 209
14. Conchita Martinez - 168
15. Nadia Petrova - 163

I never thought Venus would overtake her sister again!
Impressive:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

daffodil
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:37 PM
Who cares. Serena won the SERENA SLAM. WHOOO DOES THAT???

tennisIlove09
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:39 PM
:woohoo: Venus, back on top! :D :D :D

SJW
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:39 PM
word?
even though im sure she would prefer to have more slams than serena, thats really cool :)
i guess they both top it in their respective ways.

faboozadoo15
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:44 PM
**Monica Seles-- 155** with only points through 2003 and was injured during both majors she played in that year.

Libertango
Jul 4th, 2005, 04:47 PM
I would never have picked that actually. So impressive :worship:

mr_burns
Jul 4th, 2005, 05:34 PM
How would the list looked like if you take the points used for the atp race
200
140
90
50
30
15
7
1

rrfnpump
Jul 4th, 2005, 05:41 PM
I think it would be interesting to see the average points a player earned at a Slam after this counting system
Serena should be on Top there....

Thanks for doing this ;)

Pengwin
Jul 4th, 2005, 05:44 PM
That's a cool system :)

TomTennis
Jul 4th, 2005, 05:51 PM
WOW!

Venus is great and always will be!

minboy
Jul 4th, 2005, 06:07 PM
This millenium started on January 1st 2001, not 2000

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 06:15 PM
Serena still has the most slams, that's what counts, but Vee is second with 5 so it's all good.

Jenny.C.Fan
Jul 4th, 2005, 06:20 PM
nice to see Jen up their she has been extremely consistent over the last few years its a shame she missed out on the three slams this year really.

Calimero377
Jul 4th, 2005, 06:46 PM
This millenium started on January 1st 2001, not 2000


Mathematically correct.
But by convention it started on January 1st, 2000. And you won't change that.
;)

:wavey:

Haute
Jul 4th, 2005, 06:57 PM
Conchita at #14...really? :confused:

minboy
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:08 PM
Mathematically correct.
But by convention it started on January 1st, 2000. And you won't change that.
;)

:wavey:

The 3rd millenium started on january 1st 2001. Period.

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:14 PM
The 3rd millenium started on january 1st 2001. Period.

This is the most unnecessary argument ever. We consider the milennium to start at 2000, end of story.

volta
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:14 PM
YAY for Vee :hearts: :banana:

alexusjonesfan
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:16 PM
uhh that's a crap system, Serena's won the most slams this century, that's what counts. 6>5 regardless of how many other finals Venus made

SJW
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:34 PM
This is the most unnecessary argument ever..
you mean like, in the past few hours right? this is wtaworld after all ;)

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:38 PM
The system lacks statistical validity, since it massively favours those who have been playing the longest. Non-slam-winners come above slam-winners. If you took this same system back to 1980 or 1990 you'd find the Williams' way down on the list.

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:42 PM
The system lacks statistical validity, since it massively favours those who have been playing the longest. Non-slam-winners come above slam-winners. If you took this same system back to 1980 or 1990 you'd find the Williams' way down on the list.

He said this milennium. Will it be unfair to the Williams' in the next milennium?? Eventually anyone playing in this milennium will catch up cause everyone can't play forever. Why are you singling out the Williams sisters anyway??

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:47 PM
The system lacks statistical validity, since it massively favours those who have been playing the longest. Non-slam-winners come above slam-winners. If you took this same system back to 1980 or 1990 you'd find the Williams' way down on the list.

They wouldn't even be on the list as they were 9 and 10 during this time.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:47 PM
He said this milennium. Will it be unfair to the Williams' in the next milennium?? Eventually anyone playing in this milennium will catch up cause everyone can't play forever. Why are you singling out the Williams sisters anyway??

Because he is so insecure about his favorite player, and the Williams' are the most obvious rival.

mboyle
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:48 PM
Are you doing the proper new millenium (starting with Oz open 2001)? The Millenium started Jan. 1, 2001 (because there was never a year 0.)

Kworb
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:51 PM
For the entire Open Era, these are the totals:

1. Chris Evert - 3944
2. Martina Navratilova - 3785
3. Steffi Graf - 3721
4. Monica Seles - 1817
5. Evonne Goolagong - 1810
6. Billie Jean King - 1755
7. Margaret Court - 1732
8. Arantxa Sanchez - 1643
9. Martina Hingis - 1381
10. Venus Williams - 1294
11. Lindsay Davenport - 1259
12. Serena Williams - 1222
13. Hana Mandlikova - 1197
14. Gabriela Sabatini - 973
15. Jennifer Capriati - 946
16. Conchita Martinez - 882
17. Virginia Wade - 867
18. Jana Novotna - 807
19. Justine Henin-Hardenne - 770
20. Mary Pierce - 752

And the ten players with the highest average per Slam:

1. Margaret Court - 78.7 (played 22, won 11)
2. Chris Evert - 70.4 (played 56, won 18)
3. Steffi Graf - 68.9 (played 54, won 22)
4. Ann Jones - 58.7 (played just 6)
5. Martina Navratilova - 56.5
6. Evonne Goolagong - 54.8
7. Billie-Jean King - 53.2
8. Serena Williams - 48.9
9. Martina Hingis - 46
10. Monica Seles - 45.4

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:55 PM
He said this milennium. Will it be unfair to the Williams' in the next milennium?? Eventually anyone playing in this milennium will catch up cause everyone can't play forever. Why are you singling out the Williams sisters anyway??

The thread is titled: "Venus most successful slam player this millennium".
I'm not the one singling the Williams out.

My point is that the system being used just isn't statistically valid since it adds all points up without any divisor. So a poor player who has played a lot of slams will come above a better player who has only played a few. In other words, the system rewards the older player rather than the best player.

Venus may be the most successful slam player, but the system used here is a nonsense. You'd be as well just aadding up slam titles.

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:56 PM
Are you doing the proper new millenium (starting with Oz open 2001)? The Millenium started Jan. 1, 2001 (because there was never a year 0.)

<---------------DEAD

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:57 PM
For the entire Open Era, these are the totals:

1. Chris Evert - 3944
2. Martina Navratilova - 3785
3. Steffi Graf - 3721
4. Monica Seles - 1817
5. Evonne Goolagong - 1810
6. Billie Jean King - 1755
7. Margaret Court - 1732
8. Arantxa Sanchez - 1643
9. Martina Hingis - 1381
10. Venus Williams - 1294
11. Lindsay Davenport - 1259
12. Serena Williams - 1222
13. Hana Mandlikova - 1197
14. Gabriela Sabatini - 973
15. Jennifer Capriati - 946
16. Conchita Martinez - 882
17. Virginia Wade - 867
18. Jana Novotna - 807
19. Justine Henin-Hardenne - 770
20. Mary Pierce - 752

And the ten players with the highest average per Slam:

1. Margaret Court - 78.7 (played 22, won 11)
2. Chris Evert - 70.4 (played 56, won 18)
3. Steffi Graf - 68.9 (played 54, won 22)
4. Ann Jones - 58.7 (played just 6)
5. Martina Navratilova - 56.5
6. Evonne Goolagong - 54.8
7. Billie-Jean King - 53.2
8. Serena Williams - 48.9
9. Martina Hingis - 46
10. Monica Seles - 45.4

Thank you kworb. You made my point. :wavey:

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 07:59 PM
Because he is so insecure about his favorite player, and the Williams' are the most obvious rival.

Are you starting again with your trash. If you can't discuss like an adult, get off the forum.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:00 PM
Are you starting again with your trash. If you can't discuss like an adult, get off the forum.

You're the one who's been whining like a starving 5 year old since Maria lost. Get over it loser.

Kworb
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:00 PM
And averages for this millennium (which for me started in 2000 just like the 90s started in 1990)

1. Serena Williams - 59.3
2. Venus Williams - 51.2
3. Justine Henin-Hardenne - 38.4
4. Jennifer Capriati - 36.7
5. Lindsay Davenport - 35
6. Martina Hingis - 34.5
7. Kim Clijsters - 22.5
8. Maria Sharapova - 22.2
9. Svetlana Kuznetsova - 16.1
10. Mary Pierce - 15

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:01 PM
The thread is titled: "Venus most successful slam player this millennium".
I'm not the one singling the Williams out.

My point is that the system being used just isn't statistically valid since it adds all points up without any divisor. So a poor player who has played a lot of slams will come above a better player who has only played a few. In other words, the system rewards the older player rather than the best player.

Venus may be the most successful slam player, but the system used here is a nonsense. You'd be as well just aadding up slam titles.

Like I said before, no one can play forever, so 10 years down the road this list will change. For right now it is what it is. And you say it favours non slam winners who have played more over slam winners who haven't?? Just remember you said that if Maria becomes #1 this year without claiming a slam title cause the current ranking system does the same thing.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:05 PM
You're the one who's been whining like a starving 5 year old since Maria lost. Get over it loser.

No. I've been calling out classless haters like you, who have the ability to engage in no form of discussion other than abuse.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:07 PM
No. I've been calling out classless haters like you, who have the ability to engage in no form of discussion other than abuse.

You have nerve, you do nothing BUT hate on both William sisters. You don't see me hating on any player and you know it. And as far as abuse, I only reciprocate.

StarDuvallGrant
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:08 PM
Yay for Venus :bigclap:

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:11 PM
Like I said before, no one can play forever, so 10 years down the road this list will change. For right now it is what it is. And you say it favours non slam winners who have played more over slam winners who haven't?? Just remember you said that if Maria becomes #1 this year without claiming a slam title cause the current ranking system does the same thing.

What I'm saying is that the list is statistically invalid if it is trying to compare the effectiveness of players in slams, since it contains no divisor.

The ranking system contains a divisor, since everyone is limited to 17 results, which are then compared. Therefore we have a standard basis for comparison.

OUT!
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:13 PM
Go Venus! :D :woohoo:

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:14 PM
What I'm saying is that the list is statistically invalid if it is trying to compare the effectiveness of players in slams, since it contains no divisor.

Why don't you take his numbers and divide them then??

The ranking system contains a divisor, since everyone is limited to 17 results, which are then compared. Therefore we have a standard basis for comparison.

The ranking system has no such divisor. It has a cutoff along with a reserve system.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:15 PM
You have nerve, you do nothing BUT hate on both William sisters. You don't see me hating on any player and you know it. And as far as abuse, I only reciprocate.
I don't think so. This thread is the evidence.

1jackson2001
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:17 PM
The thread is titled: "Venus most successful slam player this millennium".
I'm not the one singling the Williams out.

My point is that the system being used just isn't statistically valid since it adds all points up without any divisor. So a poor player who has played a lot of slams will come above a better player who has only played a few. In other words, the system rewards the older player rather than the best player.

Venus may be the most successful slam player, but the system used here is a nonsense. You'd be as well just aadding up slam titles.

Um, it can have statistical validity. Why not?

Yes it rewards the older player and this thread is discussing who has been more successful as of now...not who will END UP being the most successful. Using Maria (since you are obviously a big fan of hers), she may very well end up the greatest player of all time. But are you saying it is "not fair" to say that Graf is greater than Sharapova at this point? Are you going to argue that "Graf has had more years to achieve those slam wins" therefore her 22 slams to Maria's 1 slam would "lack statistical validity"?? Are you going to say that Graf can't be considered more successful at slams in the Open Era because she's had many more years to play in the majors (in the Open Era)?

If there is another thread discussing who has been most consistent (and therefore will use a divisor) then your statement would hold water.

This thread isn't about that. This thread is discussing point blank who has achieved the most (by going deep) in slams this millennium.


p.s. I am looking forward to your retort against this. If I don't see the reply...well then, I will know why. ;)

StarDuvallGrant
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:19 PM
Why don't you take his numbers and divide them then??

You're asking too much Knizzle. Yesterday he stated something like 80% of Williams fans were bashing Maria. Where he got that number I do not know but that sort of tells you how math isn't a strong point.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:19 PM
I don't think so. This thread is the evidence.

Evidence of what? Back up your junk.

Martian KC
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:19 PM
Graf third?!?!?!?! No way!! Cali won't have that!!!!!:haha:

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:20 PM
You're asking too much Knizzle. Yesterday he stated something like 80% of Williams fans were bashing Maria. Where he got that number I do not know but that sort of tells you how math isn't a strong point.

Yup, and then he backpedalled and said something like "I didn't mean it like that" But it was like whatever, because numbers don't lie..and he gave a PERCENT.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:21 PM
Graf third?!?!?!?! No way!! Cali won't have that!!!!!:haha:

Cali can stuff 100 peas us his nose for all I'm concerned.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:21 PM
Why don't you take his numbers and divide them then??[/qoute]
If you looked, Kworb has already done this...


And averages for this millennium (which for me started in 2000 just like the 90s started in 1990)

1. Serena Williams - 59.3
2. Venus Williams - 51.2
3. Justine Henin-Hardenne - 38.4
4. Jennifer Capriati - 36.7
5. Lindsay Davenport - 35
6. Martina Hingis - 34.5
7. Kim Clijsters - 22.5
8. Maria Sharapova - 22.2
9. Svetlana Kuznetsova - 16.1
10. Mary Pierce - 15

[quote]
The ranking system has no such divisor. It has a cutoff along with a reserve system.
Which performs the function of a divisor by standardising the results over a set number of events.

xan
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:27 PM
You're asking too much Knizzle. Yesterday he stated something like 80% of Williams fans were bashing Maria. Where he got that number I do not know but that sort of tells you how math isn't a strong point.

Another one who doesn't bother to check his facts before he posts. :rolleyes:

READ and you will see Kworb already posted those stats.

And LEARN COMPREHENSION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. I said that 80% of Maria-bashers on this board were Williams and Lindsay fans, NOT that 80% of Williams fans were bashing Maria.

minboy
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:29 PM
This is the most unnecessary argument ever. We consider the milennium to start at 2000, end of story.

Consider the millenium to start at 2000 if you want. Fact is this millenium started on January 1st 2001. Bring a new calendar format if you don't agree.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:32 PM
Another one who doesn't bother to check his facts before he posts. :rolleyes:

READ and you will see Kworb already posted those stats.

And LEARN COMPREHENSION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. I said that 80% of Maria-bashers on this board were Williams and Lindsay fans, NOT that 80% of Williams fans were bashing Maria.

Most Williams fans are Davenport fans, so you were basically saying just that.

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:33 PM
[QUOTE=Knizzle]Why don't you take his numbers and divide them then??[/qoute]
If you looked, Kworb has already done this...


And averages for this millennium (which for me started in 2000 just like the 90s started in 1990)

1. Serena Williams - 59.3
2. Venus Williams - 51.2
3. Justine Henin-Hardenne - 38.4
4. Jennifer Capriati - 36.7
5. Lindsay Davenport - 35
6. Martina Hingis - 34.5
7. Kim Clijsters - 22.5
8. Maria Sharapova - 22.2
9. Svetlana Kuznetsova - 16.1
10. Mary Pierce - 15

OK since Kworb did this and the sisters are still at the top, what's your argument now??


Which performs the function of a divisor by standardising the results over a set number of events.

Divisors DIVIDE things. Nothing is being divided.

StarDuvallGrant
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:35 PM
Another one who doesn't bother to check his facts before he posts. :rolleyes:

READ and you will see Kworb already posted those stats.

And LEARN COMPREHENSION OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. I said that 80% of Maria-bashers on this board were Williams and Lindsay fans, NOT that 80% of Williams fans were bashing Maria.

I'll take your words "I've been calling out classless haters like you, who have the ability to engage in no form of discussion other than abuse." and send them right back to you because you fit them to the last letter :D

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:36 PM
I'll take your words "I've been calling out classless haters like you, who have the ability to engage in no form of discussion other than abuse." and send them right back to you because you fit them to the last letter :D

:worship: :worship: I love my Williams' peeps. I think the haters hate us so much because we're the closest group of fans. And we support or faves 'til the end.

Knizzle
Jul 4th, 2005, 08:51 PM
Xan if the rankings were being divided by up to 17 tournies they would look like this:

(rounded to nearest hundreth)

1.Justine 383.63
2. Lindsay 330.18
3. Maria 261.88
4. Amelie 247.53
5. Serena 241.92
6. Kim 230.44
7. Svetlana 191.06
8. Elena D 188.88
9. Venus 175.38
10. Nadia 157.18