PDA

View Full Version : Loss Ratio at #1


athake
Apr 10th, 2007, 11:49 AM
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..

RND
Apr 10th, 2007, 12:34 PM
Good stats. :)

Justine. :yeah:

azmad_88
Apr 10th, 2007, 12:36 PM
whenever maria ascends to number one she never really played like one..2 of those losses were due to injury

FrOzon
Apr 10th, 2007, 01:19 PM
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".

athake
Apr 10th, 2007, 01:58 PM
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

selesbooz
Apr 10th, 2007, 02:12 PM
This make no sense:confused: 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:lol:

athake
Apr 10th, 2007, 02:27 PM
This make no sense:confused: 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:lol:

:) 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...

selesbooz
Apr 10th, 2007, 02:32 PM
:) 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. :confused: Where's matches at #1 ????

athake
Apr 10th, 2007, 02:44 PM
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...

TomTennis
Apr 10th, 2007, 02:48 PM
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.

athake
Apr 10th, 2007, 03:01 PM
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;)

TomTennis
Apr 10th, 2007, 03:17 PM
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 :lol: You sound so unbelieveably pety its unreal! :lol:

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!

CORIA01
Apr 10th, 2007, 03:19 PM
Good Ratio For Martina!

Dan23
Apr 10th, 2007, 03:26 PM
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.

treufreund
Apr 10th, 2007, 03:52 PM
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.

lecciones
Apr 10th, 2007, 05:27 PM
This make no sense:confused: 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:lol:

Everything looks fine to me.

Top 4 (Hingis) has 209 weeks with 19.1% loss ratio.
The top 3 together (Justine, Serena, Venus) make 10% loss ratio with 128 weeks.
The top 5-7 (Kim,Amelie,Sharapova) make 25% loss ratio with 72 weeks.
Top 1,2,3,5,6,7 (All except Hingis) has 15.1% loss ratio with 200 weeks!

well those are really nothing you can't compare what would their loss ratios be if they reached 209 weeks like Hingis, you can only compare it once they reach 209 weeks which is like a little more than 4 years.

Direwolf
Apr 10th, 2007, 06:03 PM
lol... what ratio??
isnt loss:win at number 1
or loss:total matches??

lecciones
Apr 10th, 2007, 06:33 PM
Ratio of matches lost when they were no.1 to weeks at no.1

dreamgoddess099
Apr 10th, 2007, 07:13 PM
*Correction*

Serena only had 5 loses while she was ranked #1. I know this because Serena was #1 from July 8, 2002 to August 11, 2003 and during that time she only had 5 loses. I question the validity of all the other results as well because no dates were given for when they ranked #1 for us to double check against. It gave the amount of weeks they were ranked #1, but without dates how do you determine what loses occurred while that player was actually ranked #1? The source used is not an accurate source because it only counts certain player's wins against #1, it doesn't count the wins of every player who's beaten a #1 ranked player so some results are missing.

Mightymirza
Apr 10th, 2007, 08:11 PM
true both serena and juju had only 5 losses when number 1..

DavidEllul
Apr 10th, 2007, 08:35 PM
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..


ju :worship: :worship: :worship:

TomTennis
Apr 10th, 2007, 08:59 PM
Refer to this thread.... :wavey:

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=294079