PDA

View Full Version : Top Players Retirements Frequency


AnnaK_4ever
Aug 15th, 2007, 09:45 AM
Current/former Top-10 players mentioned; ITF/Quali matches included

after ZURICH

Player ---------- Ret’s -- Losses --- Perc.
N.Vaidisova ------- 0 ------ 51 ----- 0.00%
A.Myskina --------- 2 ----- 191 ----- 1.05%
M.Hingis ---------- 2 ----- 133 ----- 1.50%
P.Schnyder -------- 5 ----- 296 ----- 1.69%
A.Ivanovic -------- 1 ------ 58 ----- 1.72%
A.Sugiyama -------- 7 ----- 370 ----- 1.89%
A.Molik ----------- 4 ----- 206 ----- 1.94%
V.Zvonareva ------- 3 ----- 133 ----- 2.26%
S.Kuznetsova ------ 3 ----- 121 ----- 2.48%
A.Mauresmo -------- 5 ----- 194 ----- 2.58%
D.Hantuchova ------ 5 ----- 190 ----- 2.63%
D.Safina ---------- 3 ----- 112 ----- 2.68%
M.Sharapova ------- 2 ------ 65 ----- 3.08%
E.Dementieva ------ 7 ----- 220 ----- 3.18%
L.Davenport ------- 8 ----- 189 ----- 4.23%
V.Williams -------- 5 ----- 110 ----- 4.55%
M.Pierce --------- 11 ----- 237 ----- 4.64%
J.Henin ----------- 5 ----- 103 ----- 4.85%
A.Chakvetadze ----- 6 ------ 88 ----- 6.82%
N.Petrova -------- 14 ----- 180 ----- 7.78%
M.Bartoli -------- 14 ----- 164 ----- 8.54%
J.Jankovic ------- 16 ----- 149 ---- 10.74%
S.Williams -------- 9 ------ 76 ---- 11.84%


List of matches ended up with retirement


Anastasia MYSKINA
2001 Charleston Q1r ------- Lamade -------- 3/6 3/5
2003 Sopot QF ------------- Mandula ------- 4/6 0/3

Martina HINGIS
1998 Grand Slam Cup SF ---- Schnyder ------ 7/5 5/7 5/5
2001 Filderstadt SF ------- Davenport ----- 1/2

Patty SCHNYDER
2001 Knokke-Heist 1r ------ MJ. Martinez -- 6/1 4/6
2003 Dubai 2r ------------- Krasnor’skaya - 1/6
2004 Antwerp QF ----------- Farina Elia --- 6/7 0/1
2004 Rome 2r -------------- Bovina -------- 6/3 6/7
2005 Bali SF -------------- Schiavone ----- 6/1 4/6

Ana IVANOVIC
2006 Berlin 1r ------------ Li ------------ 6/1

Ai SUGIYAMA
1994 Surabaya F ----------- Wagner -------- 6/2 0/6
1998 US Open 2r ----------- Leon Garcia --- 3/2
2001 Miami 2r ------------- Raymond ------- 1/6 1/4
2001 Shanghai QF ---------- Grande -------- 7/6 5/7 0/1
2003 Japan Open QF -------- Kapros -------- 4/6 2/3
2004 Fed Cup 1r ----------- Suarez -------- 7/6 3/6 6/7
2007 Doha 1r -------------- Molik --------- 6/0 2/6 1/3

Alicia MOLIK
2001 Bali 2r -------------- Widjaja ------- 0/3
2003 Australian Open 1r --- Tulyaganova --- 6/3 4/6
2003 Luxembourg QF -------- Rubin --------- 7/5 4/5
2005 Zurich 1r ------------ Jankovic ------ 3/6 2/4

Vera ZVONAREVA
2005 Zurich 1r ------------ Myskina ------- 2/6 0/3
2006 Eastbourne 2r -------- Clijsters ----- 0/3
2007 Charleston SF -------- Safina -------- 3/6 1/0

Svetlana KUZNETSOVA
2006 Amelia Island SF ----- Schiavone ----- 6/7 2/3
2007 Sydney 2r ------------ Srebotnik ----- 2/6
2007 Zurich QF ------------ Schiavone ----- 3/6 3/3

Amelie MAURESMO
1995 Nurioopta* 2r -------- Inoue --------- 0/3
2000 Indian Wells 2r ------ Clijsters ----- 0/3
2003 Dubai SF ------------- Seles --------- 3/6 2/2
2003 New Haven SF --------- Capriati ------ 3/6 1/3
2004 Filderstadt F -------- Davenport ----- 2/6

Daniela HANTUCHOVA
2004 Birmingham 2r -------- Golovin ------- 0/6 1/3
2005 Toronto 1r ----------- Jidkova ------- 4/6 6/4 4/4
2006 Sydney 2r ------------ Vaidisova ----- 3/6 1/3
2006 Linz 1r -------------- Vesnina ------- 3/4
2007 Los Angeles 3r ------- Dementieva ---- 3/6 1/4

Dinara SAFINA
2003 Sopot QF ------------- Smashnova ----- 7/6 1/6 1/4
2004 Wimbledon 1r --------- Parra S. ------ 0/6 0/2
2006 Sydney 2r ------------ Kuznetsova ---- 3/6

Maria SHARAPOVA
2005 Beijing SF ----------- Kirilenko ----- 4/6 1/2
2007 Tokyo Pan Pacific SF - Ivanovic ------ 1/6 1/0

Elena DEMENTIEVA
2002 Charleston 2r -------- Craybas ------- 4/6 2/3
2003 Berlin 1r ------------ Safina -------- 6/2 2/6 0/1
2004 Amelia Island 2r ----- Kostanic ------ 6/7 0/1
2005 s’Hertogenbosch 2r --- Chladkova ----- 5/5
2007 Antwerp 2r ----------- Likhovtseva --- 2/6 1/1
2007 New Haven SF --------- Kuznetsova ---- 6/4 3/6 0/3
2007 Zurich 1r ------------ Schiavone ----- 6/4 1/6 2/4

Lindsay DAVENPORT
2000 Montreal 3r ---------- Maleeva ------- 3/4
2001 Miami QF ------------- Dementieva ---- 3/6 0/1
2003 Miami 4r ------------- Bartoli ------- 0/6
2003 Roland Garros 4r ----- Martinez ------ 4/6 0/2
2003 New Haven F ---------- Capriati ------ 2/6 0/4
2005 Charleston QF -------- Henin --------- 6/3 3/6 0/1
2005 Stanford 1r ---------- Groenefeld ---- 0/5
2006 New Haven F ---------- Henin --------- 0/6 0/1

Mary PIERCE
1991 US Open 3r ----------- Maleeva-F. ---- 6/4 1/6 1/5
1992 Miami 3r ------------- Schultz ------- 6/7 6/1 0/4
1995 Hamburg 2r ----------- Begerow ------- 6/3 5/7 0/3
1998 Berlin 2r ------------ Paulus -------- 6/4 7/6 1/3
1999 Miami 4r ------------- Coetzer ------- 1/6 2/4
2000 Miami 2r ------------- Dementieva ---- 3/6 1/2
2000 US Open 4r ----------- Huber --------- 4/6
2002 Australian Open 1r --- Craybas ------- 0/4
2003 Berlin 1r ------------ Ruano Pascual - 6/7
2003 Zurich 1r ------------ Srebotnik ----- 0/6 0/2
2006 Linz 2r -------------- Zvonareva ----- 6/4 6/6

Venus WILLIAMS
1996 Amelia Island 1r ----- Martinek ------ 3/5
1998 San Diego QF --------- Pierce -------- 6/2 6/7 0/4
2002 Tour Champ SF -------- Clijsters ----- 0/5
2003 Warsaw F ------------- Mauresmo ------ 7/6 0/6 0/3
2004 Los Angeles SF ------- Davenport ----- 5/7 0/2

Justine HENIN
2000 Filderstadt 2r ------- Hingis -------- 3/6 0/3
2001 Berlin SF ------------ Capriati ------ 2/6 6/4 1/2
2001 Waikoloa F ----------- Testud -------- 3/6 0/2
2003 s’Hertogenbosch F ---- Clijsters ----- 7/6 0/3
2006 Australian Open F ---- Mauresmo ------ 1/6 0/2

Anna CHAKVETADZE
2005 Hasselt 1r ----------- Krajicek ------ 1/6 1/3
2006 Rome 1r -------------- Morigami ------ 6/4 2/6 2/4
2006 Montreal SF ---------- Hingis -------- 3/6 1/3
2006 New Haven 1r --------- Voskoboeva ---- 3/6 5/6
2007 Warsaw QF ------------ Jankovic ------ 6/7 1/3
2007 Toronto 2r ----------- Razzano ------- 6/7 0/2

Nadia PETROVA
2000 Luxembourg 2r -------- Kournikova ---- 6/1 5/7 1/4
2001 Charleston 1r -------- Suarez -------- 6/7
2002 Gold Coast SF -------- V.Williams ---- 6/7 5/6
2003 Sarasota 2r ---------- Myskina ------- 7/5 4/6 0/1
2003 Amelia Island Q2r ---- Morigami ------ 6/4 0/1
2004 Beijing QF ----------- S.Williams ---- 2/6 1/4
2005 Sydney QF ------------ Peng ---------- 3/6 2/4
2005 Toronto QF ----------- Mauresmo ------ 6/4 5/7 0/2
2006 Auckland SF ---------- Bartoli ------- 6/3 4/6 1/2
2007 Sydney 2r ------------ Ivanovic ------ 4/6 2/4
2007 Indian Wells 4r ------ Golovin ------- 2/6 0/1
2007 Rome 3r -------------- Dementieva ---- 3/4
2007 Eastbourne SF -------- Mauresmo ------ 4/6
2007 Stuttgart QF --------- Jankovic ------ 7/6 1/5

Marion BARTOLI
2002 La Canada* SF -------- Granville ----- 1/6 0/1
2003 Los Angeles 1r ------- Snyder -------- 3/6 2/4
2004 Birmingham 1r -------- Pennetta ------ 1/1
2004 Bali 2r -------------- Garbin -------- 0/6 0/2
2005 Canberra QF ---------- Ivanovic ------ 1/6 0/2
2005 Pattaya City 2r ------ Serna --------- 4/6
2005 Dubai 2r ------------- Myskina ------- 2/4
2005 Eastbourne QF -------- Dushevina ----- 0/5
2005 Quebec City SF ------- Arvidsson ----- 4/6 0/1
2006 Charleston 3r -------- Castano ------- 4/5
2006 Rabat 1r ------------- Kloesel ------- 2/6 0/2
2007 Estoril QF ----------- Llagostera V. - 2/6 1/3
2007 Toronto 3r ----------- Yan ----------- 2/6 0/3
2007 Zurich QF ------------ Golovin ------- 5/4

Jelena JANKOVIC
2001 Miami Q1r ------------ MJ. Martinez -- 1/6 0/4
2002 Sea Island* 2r ------- Harkleroad ---- 5/7 1/4
2003 Scottsdale Q1r ------- Lee-Waters ---- 4/6 2/1
2003 Shanghai 1r ---------- Dokic --------- 6/7 4/4
2004 Paris 1r ------------- Safina -------- 4/6 0/2
2004 Rome Q1r ------------- Fedak --------- 4/6 1/3
2004 Beijing QF ----------- Sharapova ----- 2/5
2005 US Open 3r ----------- Pierce -------- 3/6 0/3
2005 Filderstadt 2r ------- Mauresmo ------ 0/6
2006 Amelia Island 1r ----- Craybas ------- 6/4 6/7 0/4
2006 Strasbourg SF -------- Vaidisova ----- 2/6 0/1
2006 s’Hertogenbosch QF --- Krajicek ------ 6/6
2006 Guangzhou SF --------- Chakvetadze --- 5/7 0/2
2006 Quebec City QF ------- Poutchkova ---- 6/2 4/6 1/3
2007 Dubai SF ------------- Mauresmo ------ 2/6
2007 Bangkok 1r ----------- Yan ----------- 6/4 6/7

Serena WILLIAMS
1998 Wimbledon 3r --------- Ruano Pascual - 5/7 1/4
1999 Berlin QF ------------ Sanchez-V. ---- 3/6 2/3
2000 Amelia Island 2r ----- Suarez -------- 3/6 6/4 2/5
2000 Montreal F ----------- Hingis -------- 6/0 3/6 0/3
2002 Sydney SF ------------ Shaughnessy --- 4/5
2005 Dubai SF ------------- Jankovic ------ 0/6 3/4
2005 Amelia Island QF ----- Farina Elia --- 7/5 6/7
2007 Charleston 2r -------- Chan ---------- 3/5
2007 Zurich 1r ------------ Schnyder ------ 0/6 0/3

* ITF events

ilovepaszek
Aug 15th, 2007, 09:55 AM
Good record from Nicole

roelc
Aug 15th, 2007, 10:14 AM
4/5 of henin's retirements were in the final :eek:

MaRKy MaRk
Aug 15th, 2007, 10:14 AM
Why did Hingis retire against Schnyder at 5-5 in the third? Was it cramps?

Hashim.
Aug 15th, 2007, 10:18 AM
JJ and Nadia :rolls:

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 15th, 2007, 10:26 AM
4/5 of henin's retirements were in the final :eek:

3/5 ;)
In Filderstadt 2000 she met Hingis in the 2nd round. My mistake.

Ripley
Aug 15th, 2007, 10:44 AM
Interesting Stats. Thanks.
Shouldn't W/O be considered as retirements since the player basically retired from the tournament?

For example:
2004 Berlin Open Final: Mauresmo def V. Williams W/O
2007 Los Angeles SF: Petrova def Sharapova W/O

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 15th, 2007, 10:52 AM
Interesting Stats. Thanks.
Shouldn't W/O be considered as retirements since the player basically retired from the tournament?


I don't think so. Walk-overs are not losses (or wins) so it would've been impossible to count percentage the way I did it.

Max565
Aug 15th, 2007, 10:54 AM
Woohoo ! :D :bounce:

Great record from Martina :)

Ripley
Aug 15th, 2007, 11:04 AM
I don't think so. Walk-overs are not losses (or wins) so it would've been impossible to count percentage the way I did it.

Hmmmmm... if Walk-overs are not counted as losses (or wins) I wonder why the official Sony Ericson WTA Tour Records counts W/O as L ?

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/PlayerActivity.asp?PlayerID=310137&TournamentID=805

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 15th, 2007, 11:06 AM
Hmmmmm... if Walk-overs are not counted as losses (or wins) I wonder why the official Sony Ericson WTA Tour Records counts W/O as L ?

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/PlayerActivity.asp?PlayerID=310137&TournamentID=805

Cos otherwise (if it's the final match, for example) it would be hard to understand who was the winner ;)

Ripley
Aug 15th, 2007, 11:13 AM
Cos otherwise (if it's the final match, for example) it would be hard to understand who was the winner ;)


aaaaahhhhhhhh, so a W/O is a lost afterall since the other player is the winner, eh? :devil: :wavey:

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 15th, 2007, 11:17 AM
aaaaahhhhhhhh, so a W/O is a lost afterall since the other player is the winner, eh? :devil: :wavey:

I mean tournament's winner :p :lol:

Yes, it's a loss but it's not a loss :lol:

ClaudiaZ-S
Aug 15th, 2007, 11:20 AM
2006 Linz 2r -------------- Zvonareva ----- 6/4 6/6

Mary :sobbing: a nightmare...

lympyisthebest
Aug 15th, 2007, 11:35 AM
Petrova with 4 retirements this year :eek: :eek:

stefi62
Aug 15th, 2007, 11:40 AM
Mary :sobbing: a nightmare...

Same here! :sad:

stefi62
Aug 15th, 2007, 11:41 AM
Are you sure Kuzy did not retire against Mary at USO some year?

Correction: that was Janko in 2005

frenchie
Aug 15th, 2007, 11:43 AM
What about Stevenson??

I'd like to know her record!

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 15th, 2007, 12:11 PM
What about Stevenson??

I'd like to know her record!

Look at the thread title, aftewards look at Stevenson's career. 9-21 win-loss record at Grand Slams is hardly a reflection of player's TOP status.

frenchie
Aug 15th, 2007, 12:23 PM
Look at the thread title, aftewards look at Stevenson's career. 9-21 win-loss record at Grand Slams is hardly a reflection of player's TOP status.

I just said it could be interesting:rolleyes:

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 15th, 2007, 12:26 PM
I just sais it could be interesting:rolleyes:

in that case count it yourself, what's the problem? :shrug:

selyoink
Aug 15th, 2007, 12:46 PM
Great record for Myskina.

I hope Vaidisova can keep up her perfect record.

Sammm
Aug 15th, 2007, 12:48 PM
Why did Hingis retire against Schnyder at 5-5 in the third? Was it cramps?

I don't think it was cramps... it was the Grand slam cup where there are no ranking points and I think Martina was trying to stay number one in the ranking and wanted to be fresh for another tournament.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 15th, 2007, 01:16 PM
you mean Venus and Serena are two diff. players? I've been confusing them all this time, everytime Serena retired in a match i'd come to the message boards and talk about how often Williams retires from matches.

Interesting new development.

jonny84
Aug 15th, 2007, 05:06 PM
Good for Nicole.

serenaforever
Aug 15th, 2007, 05:09 PM
:eek:

Petrova with 4 retirements this year :eek: :eek:

hingisGOAT
Aug 15th, 2007, 05:13 PM
Hingis is among the most sportsmanlike players on tour. Really, the match against Davenport she damn near broke her ankle in an AWFUL looking fall. Only in one match in her entire, long... career, then, did she ever 'retire' under suspect circumstances.

OTOH, Serena... :tape: Pretty damning proof that she is among the most sour losers on tour.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 15th, 2007, 05:45 PM
Hingis is among the most sportsmanlike players on tour. Really, the match against Davenport she damn near broke her ankle in an AWFUL looking fall. Only in one match in her entire, long... career, then, did she ever 'retire' under suspect circumstances.

OTOH, Serena... :tape: Pretty damning proof that she is among the most sour losers on tour.

Retiring from a match means you're a sour/sore loser?

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 24th, 2007, 06:59 PM
updated after New Haven SF.

Dementieva's 6th career retirement.

Declan
Aug 24th, 2007, 07:13 PM
Venus Williams retired against Mary Pierce in the San Diego QFs, 1998. Mary was leading 2-6 7-6 4-0.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 25th, 2007, 09:17 AM
Venus Williams retired against Mary Pierce in the San Diego QFs, 1998. Mary was leading 2-6 7-6 4-0.

Thank you!
Added.

tommystar
Aug 25th, 2007, 02:52 PM
Why did Hingis retire against Schnyder at 5-5 in the third? Was it cramps?

I don't think it was cramps... it was the Grand slam cup where there are no ranking points and I think Martina was trying to stay number one in the ranking and wanted to be fresh for another tournament.

Hingis was 5-1 up in thar final set, then Schnyder became very aggressive, and levelled like a streak to 5-5 - Hingis just went to shake hands. :lol:

Derek.
Aug 25th, 2007, 02:56 PM
Nicole. :yeah:

lecciones
Aug 25th, 2007, 03:34 PM
Martina has a great record... I hate the last retirement start of all her problems!

Ntour
Aug 25th, 2007, 03:38 PM
i'm surprised by serenas record

what happened at 2-5 in the third against suarez, what she couldn't just stay out there for four more points

Marcus1979
Oct 17th, 2007, 12:35 AM
i'm surprised by serenas record

what happened at 2-5 in the third against suarez, what she couldn't just stay out there for four more points

I assume it was a decent injury as she never played again till Wimbledon that year. so that was like some 2.5 months later.

After some google searches apparently it was a "meniscus tear in her left foot"

Ryan
Oct 17th, 2007, 12:50 AM
All this records shows me is how absolutely pathetic every player can be when in a losing situation. The amount of 0-3, 0-4, 1-4, second and third set retirements when all that was required was to play two more games so your opponent wouldnt feel cheated is astonishing. Obviously the reasons for the retirements are important - if there is a reason you CANNOT play, then obviously you should retire. However, I know there are many occasions from looking at that list where a player just threw in the towel because they couldn't win, not because they were too injured to continue. The same is true on the men's tour - Del Potro anyone? :tape:

Cp6uja
Oct 17th, 2007, 01:18 AM
Current/former Top-10 players mentioned; ITF/Quali matches included


Player ---------- Ret’s -- Losses --- Perc.
N.Vaidisova ------- 0 ------ 49 ----- 0.00%
...
A.Ivanovic -------- 1 ------ 57 ----- 1.75%
...


List of matches ended up with retirement


Ana IVANOVIC
2006 Berlin 1r ------------ Li ------------ 1/6
CORRECT IS: 6/1!!!

Ana Ivanovic actualy won that 1st set against Na Li 6-1, but because big pain she retire that match in tears before start of 2nd set. That means that two youngest WTA upcoming stars Vaidisova and Ivanovic so far NEVER retire when in losing situation even when they realy have problems with injury!

hurricanejeanne
Oct 17th, 2007, 01:37 AM
Nicole :worship:

Jelena and Nadia :unsure:

LeonHart
Oct 17th, 2007, 02:09 AM
:lol: @ players who are 1 game from losing the match and retiring.

moby
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:26 AM
Justine had a decent shot at winning in 2 of her 5 retirements.

fufuqifuqishahah
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:18 AM
do people almost never retire while they are winning a set? :shrug:

Valanga
Oct 17th, 2007, 05:10 AM
Martina :)

Jelena :eek: :help:

homogenius
Oct 17th, 2007, 06:05 AM
All this records shows me is how absolutely pathetic every player can be when in a losing situation. The amount of 0-3, 0-4, 1-4, second and third set retirements when all that was required was to play two more games so your opponent wouldnt feel cheated is astonishing. Obviously the reasons for the retirements are important - if there is a reason you CANNOT play, then obviously you should retire. However, I know there are many occasions from looking at that list where a player just threw in the towel because they couldn't win, not because they were too injured to continue. The same is true on the men's tour - Del Potro anyone? :tape:

True

ZeroSOFInfinity
Oct 17th, 2007, 06:35 AM
You can add Serena's retirement against Patty in the Zurich 2nd round now...

By the way AnnaK_4Ever, why Justine's retirement in the Fed Cup 2006 final not included? Unless you decide to exclude it?

Marcus1979
Oct 17th, 2007, 06:53 AM
I think he only included matches that were started not walkovers?

fOxYLiCiOuS
Oct 17th, 2007, 07:05 AM
Petrova & Jankovic :eek: :o

AnnaK_4ever
Oct 17th, 2007, 02:23 PM
You can add Serena's retirement against Patty in the Zurich 2nd round now...

By the way AnnaK_4Ever, why Justine's retirement in the Fed Cup 2006 final not included? Unless you decide to exclude it?

Hello, it was in doubles! :confused:
All my stats are about singles only.

Renalicious
Oct 17th, 2007, 02:29 PM
Serena improves her retiring record :lol:

Shepster
Oct 17th, 2007, 02:30 PM
All this records shows me is how absolutely pathetic every player can be when in a losing situation. The amount of 0-3, 0-4, 1-4, second and third set retirements when all that was required was to play two more games so your opponent wouldnt feel cheated is astonishing. Obviously the reasons for the retirements are important - if there is a reason you CANNOT play, then obviously you should retire. However, I know there are many occasions from looking at that list where a player just threw in the towel because they couldn't win, not because they were too injured to continue. The same is true on the men's tour - Del Potro anyone? :tape:
I considered bad-repping this but instead I'll just debate it. The point isn't "all that was required was to play two more games", the question the player has to ask is "do I have the physical ability to come back in this set, win it, then win the final set?" - you're rationale is that of a loser, someone looking from the outside expecting a player to lose, the mentality a player in that situation has is completely the opposite. It's not "can I play two more games?" it's "can I win the match and be okay physically?" - two very distinct things.

Ryan
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:09 PM
I considered bad-repping this but instead I'll just debate it. The point isn't "all that was required was to play two more games", the question the player has to ask is "do I have the physical ability to come back in this set, win it, then win the final set?" - you're rationale is that of a loser, someone looking from the outside expecting a player to lose, the mentality a player in that situation has is completely the opposite. It's not "can I play two more games?" it's "can I win the match and be okay physically?" - two very distinct things.

I disagree. The player should consider whether it will hurt them physically to finish out the match if they do not think they can win. If you dont think you can beat your opponent considering the situation, you don't retire. You should end the match if you cannot continue without hurting yourself more. I know I'm looking from an outside perspective, but players should NOT think only about themselves - its stupidity to assume that they would play up to 0-4 and then retire just because they think they cant win - they often do it because they dont want to lose and dont want to give their opponent satisfaction of a clean win.

Marcus1979
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:17 PM
sometimes the player can't continue

i.e Serena at Sydney 2002

Shepster
Oct 17th, 2007, 03:51 PM
I disagree. The player should consider whether it will hurt them physically to finish out the match if they do not think they can win. If you dont think you can beat your opponent considering the situation, you don't retire. You should end the match if you cannot continue without hurting yourself more.
Exactly and when you're in physical pain/distress anyway and THEN you go a break down you know you don't have it physically to pull it out. Dani against Elena in LA had a virus (as did many players over the summer, Anna C, Marion, Eleni, etc.) but was getting exhausted 3 shots into a rally, it serves no purpose to continue if you are going to be unable to physically compete. Serena yesterday was obviously moving badly and should have retired after the first set when it became clear it was a physical mismatch. Like I said, it's when you ask yourself if you are physically capable of doing it, not just "if you don't think you can beat your opponent".

I know I'm looking from an outside perspective, but players should NOT think only about themselves -
its stupidity to assume that they would play up to 0-4 and then retire just because they think they cant win - they often do it because they dont want to lose and dont want to give their opponent satisfaction of a clean win.
Look at Jankovic the other day, she was winning in the first set then tried to finish the match in two, when she lost the tiebreak she retired - she knew once she got started that her physical capability in that match was only going to be enough for two sets, when that doesn't happen you don't continue because you're only making yourself worse. Serena yesterday probably could have stood out there and tanked the next 12 points, that's a given. Could she physically have won the 2nd and 3rd sets? No chance, she should have retired after the first set when it became abundantly clear she was physically unable to compete but that realisation only dawned on her (because she is proud, in a good way) halfway through the 2nd set.

Every single time a lot of people see those magic three letters "ret." they assume that if the player wasn't winning at the time then the injury that prompted the retirement was somehow not genuine. It's complete :bs: that you can only be "really" injured if you were winning - every player who retired whilst losing this summer has been jumped on in GM - all the girls with the bug in North America got slated, Szavay didn't in New Haven because she took the first set. When you're ill/injured and you get to that point when it dawns that physically you can't compete and you aren't going to be able to complete the match (which means you coming back and winning it, not tanking a couple of games) I have no problem whatsoever with people retiring because staying out there would serve no purpose whatsoever. It doesn't deny "their opponent satisfaction of a clean win" because people still talk about players being injured anyway (See Ferrer over Nadal at the US Open, Henin over Serena at Wimbledon) and either way it was clear who was the better player on the day.

rrfnpump
Oct 17th, 2007, 04:33 PM
What about Bartoli? :p

Ryan
Oct 17th, 2007, 06:16 PM
Im not going to quote you because it seems pointless and a waste of space (just because you wrote so much) - I did NOT say that in every case you should continue. If you are losing 3-6 6-2 0-4, I think you should finish the match barring a sort of horrible ankle sprain or you faint on court. If you dont think you can win - too goddamn bad, you wont kill yourself serving 4 df's and letting your opponent hit 4 aces to complete the match. Players that give up in THAT type of situation dont deserve any sort of respect from fans. Jankovic's case is different - I dont expect her to play a whole set exhausted from the heat and ill. If she was down 2-5 in the third, I would expect her to have enough respect for the fans and her opponent, and her SPORT, to gut it out.

Marco Fernandes
Oct 17th, 2007, 06:24 PM
yeah... vaidisova hummmm...

Shepster
Oct 17th, 2007, 06:39 PM
Im not going to quote you because it seems pointless and a waste of space (just because you wrote so much) - I did NOT say that in every case you should continue. If you are losing 3-6 6-2 0-4, I think you should finish the match barring a sort of horrible ankle sprain or you faint on court. If you dont think you can win - too goddamn bad, you wont kill yourself serving 4 df's and letting your opponent hit 4 aces to complete the match. Players that give up in THAT type of situation dont deserve any sort of respect from fans. Jankovic's case is different - I dont expect her to play a whole set exhausted from the heat and ill. If she was down 2-5 in the third, I would expect her to have enough respect for the fans and her opponent, and her SPORT, to gut it out.
That you advocate deliberately tanking a match a/ just shows how completely at odds your rationale is with the mentality a professional athlete requires in a situation like that and b/ is even more disrespectful to the fans, her opponent and her SPORT. Players who tank deserve even less respect from fans. Again, you're missing the point, it's not about "if you don't think you can win", it's if you don't think you can physically compete, they're very different things. I've bad-repped you because I cannot imagine anyone ever advocating tanking a match, much less saying it's better to do that than retire when injured.

vejh
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:41 PM
Great posts shepster....and that is the straight to the point.

I understand why many posters get upset when a player retires (esp a top player) b/c they (the posters) are denied the pleasure of saying so and so BEAT this top player. Instead they are reduced to saying the player retired.

I can never for the life of me understand what is the joy/accomplishment in 'defeating' a player who isn't physically capable of competing. It's like me beating my 97 y/o grandmother and thinking that is a major accomplishment.lol

Denise4925
Oct 17th, 2007, 09:59 PM
Wow, Jelena and Petrova :eek:

I hope this settles all this talk about Serena being the queen of retirement. :rolleyes:

tennisbuddy12
Oct 17th, 2007, 10:03 PM
Alexandra has a 11.90% retirement rank if you include both reitrements in Lawrenceville this week....

25/210

.ivy.
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:22 PM
Bump. Elena retired today.

homogenius
Oct 17th, 2007, 11:48 PM
Serena is leading :o

Marcus1979
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:45 AM
Serena is leading :o

Serena just has the highest percentage since she doesn't play as much as everyone else.

Jankovic and Petrova have 14-15 ret each
Serena has only 8

Shepster
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:51 AM
I dont think you should tank a match. I think if you have almost lost, get injured, but can still "play", you should finish the match out instead of retiring.
Liar, you said this :
you wont kill yourself serving 4 df's and letting your opponent hit 4 aces to complete the match
Which is tanking in anyone's language. Also, think about how you *had* to go to insults because you can't debate it. Truly pathetic, welcome to my ignore list.

Ryan
Oct 18th, 2007, 01:07 AM
Liar, you said this :

Which is tanking in anyone's language. Also, think about how you *had* to go to insults because you can't debate it. Truly pathetic, welcome to my ignore list.

I resorted to swearing because nothing else seemed to sink in to your thick head. Tanking? Are you serious? Taken extremely literally, yes then. However, I would MUCH rather see a player finish a match out with four shitty serves then quit with one game to play.

Denise4925
Oct 18th, 2007, 03:49 AM
Serena is leading :o

:weirdo: Somebody doesn't know their numbers.

heytennis
Oct 18th, 2007, 04:40 AM
:weirdo: Somebody doesn't know their numbers.

:weirdo: you?

Marcus1979
Oct 18th, 2007, 04:43 AM
denise was more pointing out that a poster said Serena is leading but she doesn't have the most retirements Petrova and Jankovic do.

Serena just has the highest retirement - losses percentage ratio.

Denise4925
Oct 18th, 2007, 04:43 AM
:weirdo: you?

Well, the topic of the forum is not the percentage based on retirement/loss ratio, but on amount of retirements, and Jelena and Petrova have it hands down, asshole. :rolleyes:

Denise4925
Oct 18th, 2007, 04:44 AM
denise was more pointing out that a poster said Serena is leading but she doesn't have the most retirements Petrova and Jankovic do.

Serena just has the highest retirement - losses percentage ratio.

He's obviously too stupid to see that.

heytennis
Oct 18th, 2007, 04:44 AM
Well, the topic of the forum is not the percentage based on how many matches played, but on amount of retirements, and Jelena and Petrova have it hands down, asshole. :rolleyes:

"Frequency" implies the ratio. :weirdo:

Denise4925
Oct 18th, 2007, 04:50 AM
"Frequency" implies the ratio. :weirdo:

"Frequency is the measurement of the number of occurrences of a repeated event per unit of time." There is no time interval given, only losses. How can the frequency be measured, unless we are talking about the amount of retirements, which is all we are given to measure it.

:weirdo:

Marcus1979
Oct 18th, 2007, 04:54 AM
N.Petrova -------- 14 ----- 180 ----- 7.78%
J.Jankovic ------- 15 ----- 147 ---- 10.20%
S.Williams -------- 8 ------ 74 ---- 10.81%

its obvious that Jankovic and Petrova will have lower percentages I mean they have double the career losses than Serena does. So even tho they have more retirements because of the weight of losses they have it does not effect the percentage as much.

Denise4925
Oct 18th, 2007, 04:58 AM
N.Petrova -------- 14 ----- 180 ----- 7.78%
J.Jankovic ------- 15 ----- 147 ---- 10.20%
S.Williams -------- 8 ------ 74 ---- 10.81%

its obvious that Jankovic and Petrova will have lower percentages I mean they have double the career losses than Serena does. So even tho they have more retirements because of the weight of losses they have it does not effect the percentage as much.

But how can you measure frequency of retirements by losses? Wouldn't you measure it by amount of matches played over a period of time?

Marcus1979
Oct 18th, 2007, 05:04 AM
I was just analysing the data from the first post :shrug:

and explaining why Serena has the highest percentage

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 18th, 2007, 05:11 AM
Frequency can mean many things, it's clear in the context it was referring to the ratio.

Obviously the ratio is more relevant than the total number of retirements. Graf or Navratilova retired more in their career than all those players, but it doesn't mean anything, because they played hundreds of matches.

Denise4925
Oct 18th, 2007, 05:17 AM
Frequency can mean many things, it's clear in the context it was referring to the ratio.

Obviously the ratio is more relevant than the total number of retirements. Graf or Navratilova retired more in their career than all those players, but it doesn't mean anything, because they played hundreds of matches.

But, mathmatically it doesn't make sense to measure the frequency by the number of losses/retirement. Is it more relevant to measure the retirements by the losses? Shouldn't it be measured by the number of matches played?

homogenius
Oct 18th, 2007, 07:00 AM
N.Petrova -------- 14 ----- 180 ----- 7.78%
J.Jankovic ------- 15 ----- 147 ---- 10.20%
S.Williams -------- 8 ------ 74 ---- 10.81%

its obvious that Jankovic and Petrova will have lower percentages I mean they have double the career losses than Serena does. So even tho they have more retirements because of the weight of losses they have it does not effect the percentage as much.

Serena is now at 12% with 9 retirement in 75 matches lost.

So Disrespectful
Oct 18th, 2007, 07:00 AM
Is Stevenson around 70% now?

homogenius
Oct 18th, 2007, 07:01 AM
Frequency can mean many things, it's clear in the context it was referring to the ratio.

Obviously the ratio is more relevant than the total number of retirements. Graf or Navratilova retired more in their career than all those players, but it doesn't mean anything, because they played hundreds of matches.

Basically

homogenius
Oct 18th, 2007, 07:03 AM
:weirdo: Somebody doesn't know their numbers.

If you say so...

hwanmig
Oct 18th, 2007, 11:03 AM
I'm not the least surprise to see Serena leading:lol:. Too bad she can't act coz these retirements would have been more believable.

Marcus1979
Oct 18th, 2007, 11:06 AM
I'm not the least surprise to see Serena leading:lol:. Too bad she can't act coz these retirements would have been more believable.

you doubt Sydney 2002?

she rolled her ankle

she missed the AUstralian Open that year

didn't play again till Scottsdale at end of February or early March

Donny
Oct 18th, 2007, 11:51 AM
If you say so...

Denise is basically saying that to base it on the number of retirements to the number of losses is ridiculous- which it is. You're basically penalizing Serena for not losing a lot. Logically speaking, a player who doesn't lose a lot under normal circumstances is much more likely to lose when they are injured or sick- in other words, the prime motivations of a retirement.

To take it to the extreme: If there was a player who was simply unbeatable when fit, then their ONLY losses would be retirements. Retirements would make up 100% of their losses. Is that fair to them?

Let's look at how Serena would look if you used total matches instead of losses:

355 matches played since turning pro in Sept. 95. 8 losses by retirement. That's 2.25 percent of her matches. An average of less than one retirement a year.

Now let's look at Jankovic:

265 matches played since turning pro in 2000. 15 losses by retirement. 5.66 percent of her matches. An average of more than two retirements a year.

I usually like AnnaK's stats, but I really think this specific thread could've been handled better.

lecciones
Oct 18th, 2007, 12:38 PM
But, mathmatically it doesn't make sense to measure the frequency by the number of losses/retirement. Is it more relevant to measure the retirements by the losses? Shouldn't it be measured by the number of matches played?

Basically, this can be related to an article previously published, that gave allusions to retirements based on losing, thus this statistic, so it is rightly so how this statistic was made.

homogenius
Oct 18th, 2007, 01:38 PM
Denise is basically saying that to base it on the number of retirements to the number of losses is ridiculous- which it is. You're basically penalizing Serena for not losing a lot. Logically speaking, a player who doesn't lose a lot under normal circumstances is much more likely to lose when they are injured or sick- in other words, the prime motivations of a retirement.

To take it to the extreme: If there was a player who was simply unbeatable when fit, then their ONLY losses would be retirements. Retirements would make up 100% of their losses. Is that fair to them?

Let's look at how Serena would look if you used total matches instead of losses:

355 matches played since turning pro in Sept. 95. 8 losses by retirement. That's 2.25 percent of her matches. An average of less than one retirement a year.

Now let's look at Jankovic:

265 matches played since turning pro in 2000. 15 losses by retirement. 5.66 percent of her matches. An average of more than two retirements a year.

I usually like AnnaK's stats, but I really think this specific thread could've been handled better.

The thread wasn't about w/l ratio (and Serena's one is very good, we all know that) and it wasn't about number of retirements per year on tour.If Denise wants to start a thread on amount of retirements for each player or another statistical feat she can do it.This thread just shows who are the top players more prone to retire when they lost a match and Serena is clearly the leader in this category.:shrug:

Donny
Oct 18th, 2007, 01:53 PM
The thread wasn't about w/l ratio (and Serena's one is very good, we all know that) and it wasn't about number of retirements per year on tour.If Denise wants to start a thread on amount of retirements for each player or another statistical feat she can do it.This thread just shows who are the top players more prone to retire when they lost a match and Serena is clearly the leader in this category.:shrug:

I know what the thread was discussing. I just think it's a rather pointless statistic to take note of.

Also, the thread leads readers to an iffy assumption, namely:

"This thread just shows who are the top players more prone to retire when they lost a match"

Which isn't what the chart shows. You're implying correlation between losing and retiring, where none might exist.

Using the same data, I could make this statement:

"This thread just shows who are the top players more prone to lose matches because of retirement."

Which is, of course, the complete inverse of what you just said.

homogenius
Oct 18th, 2007, 02:03 PM
I know what the thread was discussing. I just think it's a rather pointless statistic to take note of.

Also, the thread leads readers to an iffy assumption, namely:

"This thread just shows who are the top players more prone to retire when they lost a match"

Which isn't what the chart shows. You're implying correlation between losing and retiring, where none might exist.

Using the same data, I could make this statement:

"This thread just shows who are the top players more prone to lose matches because of retirement."

Which is, of course, the complete inverse of what you just said.

Maybe my formulation wasn't good.I didn't mean to imply that Serena (just for the example) retires as often as she does because she is in a situation of losing the match.I just constated that she retired in more than 1/10 losses.She is the player whith the most frequent retirements in matches lost.

Denise4925
Oct 23rd, 2007, 06:51 PM
Maybe my formulation wasn't good.I didn't mean to imply that Serena (just for the example) retires as often as she does because she is in a situation of losing the match.I just constated that she retired in more than 1/10 losses.She is the player whith the most frequent retirements in matches lost.

This is point I've been trying to make. It's not an accurate measurement and the implication is exactly that which you say you didn't intend.

DannerCal
Nov 8th, 2007, 02:28 PM
Serena lengthens her lead.

She now has 10 retirements to 76 losses for 13.2%

what a fighter!!!!

DannerCal
Nov 8th, 2007, 02:30 PM
This is point I've been trying to make. It's not an accurate measurement and the implication is exactly that which you say you didn't intend.

Player's aren't going to retire when they're winning. It makes more sense to compare retirements to losses, not total matches.

Oh, I forgot, the statistics are RACIST!

Andy T
Nov 8th, 2007, 03:49 PM
It should be retirements vs matches played, to see if any players are more prone to injury during a match/more likely to risk playing when injured.

shibster
Nov 8th, 2007, 04:19 PM
i think the numbers should measure:
1) total number of retirements against total matches played
2) stage of retirement (first round? later stages?)

it's futile to measure number of retirements against matches lost since a retirement is a subset of a loss (when you retire, you 100% concede defeat). so what you are trying to see is what % of losses a player had this year is due to retirement, but what you are not trying to see is how often, and at what stage (critical) of the tournament is this retirement taking place.

I also think it will be helpful to measure the number of matches a player has played b4 a retirement (or the frequency of playing), or the number of hours spent on court, etc. i think it may give a better picture of why this player has retired.

TLP
Nov 8th, 2007, 06:39 PM
Player's aren't going to retire when they're winning. It makes more sense to compare retirements to losses, not total matches.

Oh, I forgot, the statistics are RACIST!

Of course player's have retired when they are in a winning position or when the match is dead even or close to being even. Go back and look at the opening post. It's hard to imagine an injury occurring at an opportune time. Measuring the percent of loses due to retirement agaist the total number of loses a player has is supposed to tell us what? Does it tell us she has a fragile body? Does it tell us she quits when the going gets tough? I don't think it says much of anything. It might give Nikki V. fans some false sense that she fights through injuries on the court but I think what her wonderful 0 retirements mean is that she has been fortunate and not much more than that.

Denise4925
Nov 8th, 2007, 07:29 PM
Player's aren't going to retire when they're winning. It makes more sense to compare retirements to losses, not total matches.

Oh, I forgot, the statistics are RACIST!

But if they are hurt or sick, they are not winning. The majority of the time retirements are due to injury or poor health, not because they are losing. They are losing because they are injured or sick, thus they retire. So, it should be based on total matches for a more accurate portrayal and to be mathmatically correct.

Oh, I forgot, you're an IDIOT!!