PDA

View Full Version : Toughest Roads to GS Title this Century:


vadin124
Jul 15th, 2008, 05:31 AM
UPDATED AFTER WIMBLEDON 2009

Points awarded:
Top 100 Player - 0.5
Top 50 Player - 1
Top 30 Player - 2
Top 20 Player - 3
Top 10 Player - 5
Top 5 Player - 8
Top 2 Player - 10
Number 1 Player - 20

Former World No.1 - 10

Grand Slam Champion - 12

If a player wins by retirement in 1 of her 7 matches, the points awarded for defeating that player is halved.

Players to have won a GS
Players to have been ranked No.1 in the world
Players to have won a GS AND been ranked No.1 in the world

Top 10
#1 Jennifer CAPRIATI - Australian Open 2001 - 96.5 pts.
(#37 Nagyova, #67 Oremans, #90 Ruano Pascual, #72 Marrero, #5 Seles, #2 Davenport, #1 Hingis)

#2 Venus WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2000 - 92 pts.
(#41 Hrdlickova, #20 Sugiyama, #24 Dechy, #27 Appelmans, #1 Hingis, #8 S Williams, #2 Davenport)

#3 Serena WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2003 - 83 pts.
(#67 Craybas, #65 Callens, #30 Granville, #16 Dementieva, #7 Capriati, #3 Henin-Hardenne, #4 V Williams)

=#3 Mary PIERCE - French Open 2000 - 83 pts.
(#88 Snyder, #107 Rittner, #351 Razzano, #53 Carlsson, #3 Seles, #1 Hingis, #5 Martinez)

#5 Amelie MAURESMO - Wimbledon 2006 - 78 pts.
(#192 Abramovic, #50 Stosur, #136 Pratt, #22 Ivanovic, #11 Myskina, #4 Sharapova, #3 Henin-Hardenne)

=#5 Serena WILLIAMS - French Open 2002 - 78 pts.
(#39 Sucha, #169 Radriantefy, #41 Husarova, #142 Zvonareva, #132 Pierce, #1 Capriati, #2 V Williams)

#7 Kim CLIJSTERS - US Open 2005 - 76 pts.
(#135 Muller, #58 Zuluaga, #33 Sugiyama, #72 Vento-Kabchi, #10 V Williams, #2 Sharapova, #12 Pierce)

#8 Serena WILLIAMS - Australian Open 2005 - 75.5 pts.
(#106 Pin, #67 Radriantefy, #166 Mirza, #13 Petrova, #2 Mauresmo, #4 Sharapova, #1 Davenport)

#9 Justine HENIN - US Open 2007 - 75 pts.
(#145 Goerges, #130 Pironkova, #156 Makarova, #16 Safina, #9 S Williams, #14 V Williams, #4 Kuznetsova)

#10 Maria SHARAPOVA - Australian Open 2008 - 74 pts.
(#102 Kostanic Tosic, #51 Davenport, #55 Vesnina, #11 Dementieva, #1 Henin, #4 Jankovic, #3 Ivanovic)

the rest:
11 - Venus WILLIAMS - US Open 2000 - 73 pts.

12 - Venus WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2005 - 71.5 pts.

13 - Maria SHARAPOVA - US Open 2006 - 70.5 pts.

14 - Justine HENIN-HARDENNE - French Open 2006 - 68.5 pts.

15 - Serena WILLIAMS - US Open 2002 - 66.5 pts.

16 - Anastasia MYSKINA - French Open 2004 - 64 pts.

17 - Maria SHARAPOVA - Wimbledon 2004 - 62 pts.

18 - Venus WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2007 - 61 pts.

19 - Justine HENIN-HARDENNE - French Open 2005 - 60.5 pts.

20 - Svetlana KUZNETSOVA - French Open 2009 - 57 pts.

21 - Jennifer CAPRIATI - French Open 2001 - 56 pts.

22 - Svetlana KUZNETSOVA - US Open 2004 - 55 pts.

23 - Serena WILLIAMS - US Open 2008 - 54.5 pts.

24 - Justine HENIN-HARDENNE - US Open 2003 - 53.5 pts.

25 - Justine HENIN-HARDENNE - Australian Open 2004 - 52 pts.

=25 - Venus WILLIAMS - US Open 2001 - 52 pts.

27 - Justine HENIN-HARDENNE - French Open 2003 - 51 pts.

28 - Serena WILLIAMS - Australian Open 2007 - 47 pts.

29 - Serena WILLIAMS - Australian Open 2003 - 46 pts.

=29 - Jennifer CAPRIATI - Australian Open 2002 - 46 pts.

31 - Serena WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2009 - 45 pts.

32 - Justine HENIN - French Open 2007 - 44 pts.

=32 Venus WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2001 - 44 pts.

34 - Serena WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2002 - 41 pts.

=34 - Lindsay DAVENPORT - Australian Open 2000 - 41 pts.

36 - Amelie MAURESMO - Australian Open 2006 - 38.5 pts.

37 - Venus WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2008 - 37 pts.

38 - Serena WILLIAMS - Australian Open 2009 - 36.5 pts.

39 - Ana IVANOVIC - French Open 2008 - 17 pts.

let me know what you think of my list...

improvements can be made :D

InsideOut.
Jul 15th, 2008, 05:40 AM
Do you add 10 and 12 respectively or together with each other if a player is also a GS champion and also a former world no.1? If not, I think you miscalculated Venus's Wimbledon 2008 scores because it was a big cakewalk.I calculated it to be 15. Besides you're giving too much for Grand Slam champions. If a player won a GS 10 years ago it doesn't mean they're as strong now. Same goes for former no. 1s.

tennisbear7
Jul 15th, 2008, 05:41 AM
:spit: Ana.

RenaSlam.
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:29 AM
I know it's not this century, but I wonder what Serena's '99 U.S. Open run would have looked like. She defeated Hingis, Davenport, and Seles (Hingis #1, Dav #2, and Seles #4).

I think she also beat Conchita who was a Top 20 player as well (and also a GS Champion).

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:31 AM
sharapova 2008 ao was much tougher than clijster's us open

similarly serena's ao 2005 was tough enough to be in top 5...

AcesHigh
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:34 AM
sharapova 2008 ao was much tougher than clijster's us open

similarly serena's ao 2005 was tough enough to be in top 5...

Clijsters had to face proven slam winners while Sharapova only had newly returning Davenport and Henin(who played poorly btw). In the scope of this thread, it wasnt as tough. In comparison to recent slam draws, it was very tough.

Serena's draw was tough, but there were hardly any slam-worth opponents. Again, we're looking at things from the entire last 8 years.

vadin124
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:46 AM
Do you add 10 and 12 respectively or together with each other if a player is also a GS champion and also a former world no.1? If not, I think you miscalculated Venus's Wimbledon 2008 scores because it was a big cakewalk.I calculated it to be 15. Besides you're giving too much for Grand Slam champions. If a player won a GS 10 years ago it doesn't mean they're as strong now. Same goes for former no. 1s.

Serena's worth at the 2008 Wimbledon totalled to 27 points, as she was ranked 6-10 (5 points), is a former no.1 (10 points) and is a grand slam champion (12 points)

hope that answers your question

also, I awarded so many points for beating a former World no.1 and a GS champ because IMO, players who have achieved this will always be tough opponents (if they weren't then they wouldn't have won a slam or reached No.1)...so I stand by my decision

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:48 AM
.

Serena's draw was tough, but there were hardly any slam-worth opponents. Again, we're looking at things from the entire last 8 years.

so you r saying davenport, sharapova, mauresmo were not slam-worth opponents? davenport had slams under her belt...sharapova was the defending wimbledon champion and mauresmo was red hot and had just got her career high of no.1 3 months ago

AcesHigh
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:50 AM
so you r saying davenport, sharapova, mauresmo were not slam-worth opponents? davenport had slams under her belt...sharapova was the defending wimbledon champion and mauresmo was red hot and had just got her career high of no.1 3 months ago

Sorry, for some reason, I thought you said Serena's 2007 run.

vadin124
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:57 AM
I know it's not this century, but I wonder what Serena's '99 U.S. Open run would have looked like. She defeated Hingis, Davenport, and Seles (Hingis #1, Dav #2, and Seles #4).

I think she also beat Conchita who was a Top 20 player as well (and also a GS Champion).

based on my system, Serena's 99 USO run would have totalled to 110 pts. :worship:

meaning it would be #1 by quite some distance :)

by the way, I miscalculated Serena's 05 Australian Open Run...her actual total was 75.5 points, not 65.5 points...I will edit the leaderboard now

stevos
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:57 AM
Maria 2008 I'd place a LITTLE higher, but other than that, interesting list.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:59 AM
based on my system, Serena's 99 USO run would have totalled to 110 pts. :worship:

meaning it would be #1 by quite some distance :)

but its of a currently active player :)

vadin124
Jul 15th, 2008, 07:38 AM
^^ no it's just the list is compiled of 20th century slam runs :)

MrSerenaWilliams
Jul 15th, 2008, 08:16 AM
Serena :worship: 2 in the top 5 and 4 in the top 15 :eek:

Chunchun
Jul 15th, 2008, 08:37 AM
somebody make the Ana-formula and to boost her away from last place please!!!!!! :wavey:

ivanban
Jul 15th, 2008, 09:13 AM
Ana :lol: pathetic.... and very lucky :worship:

ivanban
Jul 15th, 2008, 09:16 AM
IMO Vee's run to 2000 Wimby title is much harder that J-Caps 2001 AO. She didn't faced anyone outside top50 :eek: :worship: :worship: :yeah:

InsideOut.
Jul 15th, 2008, 09:33 AM
Serena's worth at the 2008 Wimbledon totalled to 27 points, as she was ranked 6-10 (5 points), is a former no.1 (10 points) and is a grand slam champion (12 points)

hope that answers your question

also, I awarded so many points for beating a former World no.1 and a GS champ because IMO, players who have achieved this will always be tough opponents (if they weren't then they wouldn't have won a slam or reached No.1)...so I stand by my decision

Number 1 should have more points than Grand Slam champion IMO...you're adding way too many bonus points. I think, for any player if they have won a Slam PROMOTE THEM BY ONE LEVEL and two if they have been no.1 I mean, there's a reason they're down there. Based on your system, Mauresmo would be worth 10+12+2= 22 points and that is more than someone like Jankovic, 10 points only. I highly doubt that right now Jankovic is such a pushover compared to Mauresmo, ESPECIALLY on clay.

ivanban
Jul 15th, 2008, 09:38 AM
Number 1 should have more points than Grand Slam champion IMO...you're adding way too many bonus points. I think, for any player if they have won a Slam PROMOTE THEM BY ONE LEVEL and two if they have been no.1 I mean, there's a reason they're down there. Based on your system, Mauresmo would be worth 10+12+3= 25 points and that is more than someone like Jankovic, 8 points only. I highly doubt that right now Jankovic is such a pushover compared to Mauresmo, ESPECIALLY on clay.

I agree. Whole bonus system is wrong. How can former #1 have same amount of bonus pts as current #2 :cuckoo: or GS champion to bring more bonus pts than current #2 :cuckoo: :cuckoo:

Shepster
Jul 15th, 2008, 09:40 AM
Problem with this is the rankings don't take the surface they're playing on into account. For example, this year was the first year Elena Dementieva beat a top 20 player at Wimbledon, she's nowhere near the player she is everywhere else on grass. I like that you've tried to beef it up by giving points for former world #1s so injury effecting ranking isn't as much of a factor, but then you're giving Amelie a LOT of points for beating Myskina. The only top 10 player she beat at Wimbledon in 4 attemps was ... Dementieva and Myskina was 9-7 against top 50 players in SW19. Just because she won the French doesn't make beating her on grass *that* impressive.

ClaudiaZ-S
Jul 15th, 2008, 09:40 AM
Mary Pierce 1995 AO
def. #1 & #2 :bounce:

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 15th, 2008, 09:54 AM
Problem with this is the rankings don't take the surface they're playing on into account. For example, this year was the first year Elena Dementieva beat a top 20 player at Wimbledon, she's nowhere near the player she is everywhere else on grass. I like that you've tried to beef it up by giving points for former world #1s so injury effecting ranking isn't as much of a factor, but then you're giving Amelie a LOT of points for beating Myskina. The only top 10 player she beat at Wimbledon in 4 attemps was ... Dementieva and Myskina was 9-7 against top 50 players in SW19. Just because she won the French doesn't make beating her on grass *that* impressive.

Defeating Myskina on grass IS a good win. Grass is her 2nd best surface overall and her best outdoor surface.
Defeating Myskina on grass in 2006 is a VERY good win as she was in-form player at the moment.
Defeating Myskina on grass is definitely much more impressive than defeating her on claycourts -- her absolutely worst surface.

Now, if you had said it was not that impressive win because Myskina was always a Momo's bitch I'd have agreed with you.

amirbachar
Jul 15th, 2008, 09:58 AM
If you can, try to use this system please:

Top 50 Player - 1
Top 30 Player - 2
Top 20 Player - 4
Top 10 Player - 7
Top 5 Player - 11
Top 2 Player - 16
Number 1 Player - 22

Former World No.1 - +6

Grand Slam Champion in the same GS - +10
Other GS Champion - +2
Career GS winner - +10

So the maximum for 1 win is 50 points.

NeeemZ
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:28 AM
If you can, try to use this system please:

Top 50 Player - 1
Top 30 Player - 2
Top 20 Player - 4
Top 10 Player - 7
Top 5 Player - 11
Top 2 Player - 16
Number 1 Player - 22

Former World No.1 - +6

Grand Slam Champion in the same GS - +10
Other GS Champion - +2
Career GS winner - +10

So the maximum for 1 win is 50 points.

So, would beating Serena regardless of ranking give you a minimum of 28 points?

Shepster
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:35 AM
Defeating Myskina on grass IS a good win.
Never said it wasn't, I said it wasn't as impressive as the level he puts winning a slam on dictates. Rewarding that win with more points than the #2 in the world though is ridiculous given her record in that slam.

Grass is her 2nd best surface overall and her best outdoor surface.
Indeed because it's such a limited time frame and not everyone does warm up events for it and you can get to the final of a tournament playing only 1 top 20 player (which Myskina did at both Birmingham and Eastbourne).

Defeating Myskina on grass in 2006 is a VERY good win as she was in-form player at the moment.
No more than Dementieva beating Petrova this year, doesn't erase her record on the top stage. She beat 1 player of note on grass that year, Sveta, who has never beaten a top player at Wimbledon and whose only win of note is over a 16 year old wildcarded Masha.

Defeating Myskina on grass is definitely much more impressive than defeating her on claycourts -- her absolutely worst surface.
And beating Daniela at Indian Wells will always be more impressive than, say, on grass even though her record is pretty much identical on every surface. If you beat someone at the one tournament they come up against the top opposition, which they've barely been able to beat top 50 players at, is that impressive enough to reward that win with the amount of points the OP gives Myskina for winning a tournament years before on a different surface?

Now, if you had said it was not that impressive win because Myskina was always a Momo's bitch I'd have agreed with you.
It's more that it's not that impressive because any time she came up against a good grass court player at Wimbledon (Sugi, Capriati, Amelie) she lost. Outside of Elena her best wins were over a 17 year old Kim and a couple over Jankovic before she was worthwhile. Is that worthy of giving her the same points as somebody else would have to beat 3 non-slam winning top 10 players to get? Of course not.

I love Myskina, she's one of my faves, but put her in a match on grass against someone good and most of the time she'd lose.

StephenUK
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:59 AM
IMO Vee's run to 2000 Wimby title is much harder that J-Caps 2001 AO. She didn't faced anyone outside top50 :eek: :worship: :worship: :yeah:

I agree with you. No seeded player would have such a difficult route these days as there are now 32seeds amd not 16. Remember the days when Steffi Graf had to face world no 17 Lori McNeil in the first round - ouch!!

In The Zone
Jul 15th, 2008, 11:05 AM
I agree with you. No seeded player would have such a difficult route these days as there are now 32seeds amd not 16. Remember the days when Steffi Graf had to face world no 17 Lori McNeil in the first round - ouch!!

All subjective. But I agree that Venus' 2000 Wimbledon was the toughest road. The fact that Serena and Venus didn't bring up their rankings until early 2002 is why Serena ( at # 8, but was clearly playing top 3 tennis during that tournament ) actually hurts Venus with this formula. But during 2000, there were the Big 4: Venus, Serena, Martina, Lindsay. Venus defeated all of them.

Serena's 2005 Australian was incredibly tough, too. Petrova, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Davenport. Venus' 2005 Wimbledon was tough, too, but she played so many low ranked players early on that it hurt her (Craybas in the R16 is the dagger). Pierce, Sharapova, Davenport trifecta on grass is no easy feat.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 15th, 2008, 11:09 AM
Never said it wasn't, I said it wasn't as impressive as the level he puts winning a slam on dictates. Rewarding that win with more points than the #2 in the world though is ridiculous given her record in that slam.

Following your logic, defeating Myskina at Wimbledon 2006 is less impressive than defeating Jankovic at Wimbledon 2008.
Well, if you believe so...


Indeed because it's such a limited time frame and not everyone does warm up events for it and you can get to the final of a tournament playing only 1 top 20 player (which Myskina did at both Birmingham and Eastbourne).

If it wasn't such a limited time frame Myskina's overall record would be much better since she likes play on grass and the surface suits her game.


No more than Dementieva beating Petrova this year, doesn't erase her record on the top stage. She beat 1 player of note on grass that year, Sveta, who has never beaten a top player at Wimbledon and whose only win of note is over a 16 year old wildcarded Masha.
Now if you really see no difference between Myskina's 2006 pre-Wimbledon results and Petrova's 2008 pre-Wimbledon results (Myskina almost defeated Henin at Eastbourne, Petrova lost three-setter to Radwanska) I quit the discussion.

P.S.

And beating Daniela at Indian Wells will always be more impressive than, say, on grass even though her record is pretty much identical on every surface.
Hantuchova's record is identically mediocre on every surface.
Myskina was horrible on clay, mediocre on hard, good on grass and very good on carpet.

P.P.S.
It's more that it's not that impressive because any time she came up against a good grass court player at Wimbledon (Sugi, Capriati, Amelie) she lost. Outside of Elena her best wins were over a 17 year old Kim and a couple over Jankovic before she was worthwhile. Is that worthy of giving her the same points as somebody else would have to beat 3 non-slam winning top 10 players to get? Of course not.

I've never said I agreed with the OP.
But Myskina has had some quality wins on grass courts. Jankovic was a top-20 player in 2005 (and given her form and Myskina's slump many expected Jelena would win that match easily) and she had already turned her season around in 2006 (she defeated Venus in the previous round).

Il Primo!
Jul 15th, 2008, 11:18 AM
Ana! :tape: :rolls:

Noctis
Jul 15th, 2008, 11:28 AM
Ana :spit: Great List Makes Anas Gs win like a total worst then before :haha:

mauresmofan
Jul 15th, 2008, 11:28 AM
I know it's not this century, but I wonder what Serena's '99 U.S. Open run would have looked like. She defeated Hingis, Davenport, and Seles (Hingis #1, Dav #2, and Seles #4).

I think she also beat Conchita who was a Top 20 player as well (and also a GS Champion).
Yeah that was a great run and don't forget Graf from 99 as well when she beat Davenport, Seles and Hingis for the French Open title.

Costanza
Jul 15th, 2008, 11:40 AM
:haha: at Jankovic and Dementieva fans.

The Daviator
Jul 15th, 2008, 11:53 AM
Ana :spit: Great List Makes Anas Gs win like a total worst then before :haha:

Not her fault she was owning on clay while the rest of the top players sucked :shrug:

ivanban
Jul 15th, 2008, 12:08 PM
:haha: at Jankovic and Dementieva fans.

And what exactly is so hilarious that JJ fans said in this thread?!!! :help: :cuckoo:

You're such a troll :tape:

Costanza
Jul 15th, 2008, 12:22 PM
And what exactly is so hilarious that JJ fans said in this thread?!!! :help: :cuckoo:

You're such a troll :tape:

Yeah,Ana road to GS is pathetic,as you say:rolleyes:
Dumbass:help:

ivanban
Jul 15th, 2008, 12:24 PM
Yeah,Ana road to GS is pathetic,as you say:rolleyes:
Dumbass:help:

Everyone else on this thread also think so (hardcore Ana fans not included).... :shrug:

Troll :rolleyes:

Shepster
Jul 15th, 2008, 12:30 PM
Following your logic, defeating Myskina at Wimbledon 2006 is less impressive than defeating Jankovic at Wimbledon 2008.
Well, if you believe so...
This is the same Jankovic who has actually won a tournament on the surface and whose best wins are against former Wimbledon champions Maria Sharapova and Venus Williams ... and Venus actually gave her credit for it afterwards :eek:. Myskina has beaten Sveta and Elena in the top 10 and a 31 year old past it Martinez. I knew writing that you'd probably bring this up, JJ's shown much more quality on a grass court *despite* the end result. Her beating Venus and losing in the 4th round at Wimbledon is more impressive than all of Myskina's finals at Birmingham and Eastbourne put together because she barely beat anyone of note in doing that.

If it wasn't such a limited time frame Myskina's overall record would be much better since she likes play on grass and the surface suits her game.
I have no idea how you would ever think that. Having say, a couple of Tier Is on grass, she'd be playing tougher opposition earlier in the tournaments. 9-7 against the top 50 at Wimbledon, 2-3 against the top 20 - if you had a 64 player Tier I on grass, coldly, and I hate saying this but she'd barely make the last 16.

Now if you really see no difference between Myskina's 2006 pre-Wimbledon results and Petrova's 2008 pre-Wimbledon results (Myskina almost defeated Henin at Eastbourne, Petrova lost three-setter to Radwanska) I quit the discussion.
Then you'll have to quit it then, because a loss is a loss and the only player of note she beat in the run up to that Wimbledon was Sveta and even Wozniacki did that this year. "Almost defeated" is the same as losing and against good players on the surface that's what Myskina routinely did.

Hantuchova's record is identically mediocre on every surface.
Myskina was horrible on clay, mediocre on hard, good on grass and very good on carpet.
Purely going on %age, which is skewed by the Tier II/IIIs Myskina did well in. She has a better win percentage than say Amelie Mauresmo on the surface, but Amelie could actually beat top players on it. That's the difference and what stops it being impressive because Myskina was good, I agree, but *up to a certain level* and that level is not beating the top players in the second week of a grand slam on the surface. Daniela has an inferior record to Myskina at Wimbledon (18-7 for Myskina, prior to this year it was 16-8 for Dani) ... but ... Dani played more top 10 players than Nastya did top 20. Dani was losing to Venus (twice, both by the 3rd round), Serena (twice), Henin, Sharapova and a couple of lesser players - so at the very highest level this "mediocre" player on the surface was only just behind the girl who was "good" because she got horrible draws and *just like Myskina* couldn't beat the top players (Mauresmo and Capriati count for over half of Myskina's exits). They share the same best result and same number of wins over top 10 players at SW19, but one is mediocre and one is good. Mauresmo's record out of Wimbledon is awful, doesn't make her an awful grass court player, ditto because Myskina's is excellent doesn't mean she's an excellent grass court player. You show that by beating top quality opposition on the surface and Nastya was rarely able to do that at *any* level.

But Myskina has had some quality wins on grass courts. Jankovic was a top-20 player in 2005 (and given her form and Myskina's slump many expected Jelena would win that match easily) and she had already turned her season around in 2006 (she defeated Venus in the previous round).
You can't argue it both ways, you began this thread saying how beating Jelena NOW (much better than she was in 05) is "less impressive". Myskina's only ever beaten a/ other people who don't beat good grass court players at the top event (Sveta and Elena) and b/ people well past (Martinez) or before (Kim, Masha and JJ) their peak. JJ's win was a preview of forthcoming attractions and had the inevitable let down after such a huge win. That beating an over the hill Conchita is a highlight of Myskina's Wimbledon career speaks volumes.

Freakan
Jul 15th, 2008, 12:32 PM
This century has started in 2001:p

ivanban
Jul 15th, 2008, 12:34 PM
This century has started in 2001:p

Well, technically yes :)

OsloErik
Jul 15th, 2008, 12:35 PM
similarly serena's ao 2005 was tough enough to be in top 5...

Well...Mauresmo wasn't a slam champion yet, Sharapova wasn't a #1 yet, Davenport hadn't won a slam since 2000...I mean, it's not an easy slam by any means, but it wasn't quite up there with the Venus Williams "Only Top 40ish Players, Please" Wimbledon title, the Capriati AO '01 Death March, either of Serena Williams' "WHAT???" Draws (French '02, facing the past two champions and Venus, and Wimbledon '03, facing her three toughest career opponents back-to-back-to-back, including the two previous #1's and the next Year End #1, and ONLY top 70 competition), or Mary Pierce's 2000 French Open. Tough draw, but not top 5! Those 5 are just frightening to look at.

OsloErik
Jul 15th, 2008, 12:39 PM
sharapova 2008 ao was much tougher than clijster's us open

similarly serena's ao 2005 was tough enough to be in top 5...

OH, also, notice that #10 and #5 are separated by only 4 points. So it's close all across the board. The only two that REALLY distance themselves are the top 4. Those draws were just downright intense.

Calypso
Jul 15th, 2008, 12:51 PM
Interesting!
Is this an attempt to belittle Ana's achievemnent in Paris? ;)
Also, Venus' '08 Wimbledon lol. A fair list, good work!

vadin124
Jul 15th, 2008, 12:58 PM
Interesting!
Is this an attempt to belittle Ana's achievemnent in Paris? ;)
Also, Venus' '08 Wimbledon lol. A fair list, good work!

lol look at my sig.

I am an Ana fan, I just tried to be as fair as possible...

I tried to make the list as simple as possible, so I didn't take into account surfaces or form etc., it's supposed to be generalised...I mean this list took me long enough as it is, without me having to complicate it even further

As it goes, I think the list is pretty accurate...the top 2 players from the early part of the century were mostly all former number 1s anyway, and therefore had a points boost there...these days, Jankovic is a top 2 player, but let's be honest the level she plays at is NOT top 3...so just because she doesn't get bonus points and someone like Mauresmo, who on any given day can play like a World No.1, does, I think is pretty fair

The Daviator
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:06 PM
Everyone else on this thread also think so (hardcore Ana fans not included).... :shrug:

Troll :rolleyes:

At least she has a Slam :shrug:

DragonFlame
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:09 PM
There is one not fair calculation:

Top 2 Player - 10
Former World No.1 - 10
Grand Slam Champion - 12
=32


Number 1 Player - 20
Grand Slam Champion - 12
=32

see, the no.1 ranked player needs to be something like 22 points(to make it a total of 34) to make it fair. Otherwise the no.2 ranked player could have just as much weight as the no.1

Chance
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:24 PM
Interesting thread :)
Any chance you can calculate Lindsay's grandslam wins??

Costanza
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:28 PM
At least she has a Slam :shrug:

Can you imagine threads if Jankovic was a winer of FO:help:
"The best road to GS title in history" or "Wounded queen beat Ivanovic and Safina":tape:

InsideOut.
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:30 PM
Can you imagine threads if Jankovic was a winer of FO:help:
"The best road to GS title in history" or "Wounded queen beat Ivanovic and Safina":tape:

You left out "New No.1 sets new medical timeout record" :eek:

Vamos.
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:34 PM
Ana Ivanovic - 17 points.

Suckage. :rolls:

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:35 PM
I knew writing that you'd probably bring this up, JJ's shown much more quality on a grass court *despite* the end result. Her beating Venus and losing in the 4th round at Wimbledon is more impressive than all of Myskina's finals at Birmingham and Eastbourne put together because she barely beat anyone of note in doing that.

I got you.
Bartoli (because of her wins over Top-5 Jankovic and Henin) is a better grass courter than, say, Pierce and Myskina put together :yeah:


I have no idea how you would ever think that. Having say, a couple of Tier Is on grass, she'd be playing tougher opposition earlier in the tournaments. 9-7 against the top 50 at Wimbledon, 2-3 against the top 20 - if you had a 64 player Tier I on grass, coldly, and I hate saying this but she'd barely make the last 16.

Myskina is 36-15 on grass but 34-8 (.810 win-loss ratio) against players outside Top-11 (Mauresmo was #11 in 2002 when she defeated Myskina at Wimbledon).
I don't know why you think she would barely make last 16 at Tier I/II grasscourt events.

Purely going on %age, which is skewed by the Tier II/IIIs Myskina did well in.
Myskina's W-L record at Wimbledon (18-7) is better than her W-L record at other grass tournaments (18-8).
Mauresmo has nothing to do with comparison between Myskina and Hantuchova because Amelie (unlike Nastya, Daniela and JJ) has actually won Wimbledon.

Daniela has an inferior record to Myskina at Wimbledon (18-7 for Myskina, prior to this year it was 16-8 for Dani) ... but ... Dani played more top 10 players than Nastya did top 20. Dani was losing to Venus (twice, both by the 3rd round), Serena (twice), Henin, Sharapova and a couple of lesser players - so at the very highest level this "mediocre" player on the surface was only just behind the girl who was "good" because she got horrible draws and *just like Myskina* couldn't beat the top players (Mauresmo and Capriati count for over half of Myskina's exits). They share the same best result and same number of wins over top 10 players at SW19, but one is mediocre and one is good.
Yes, Myskina is better on grass than Hantuchova.
2 Wimbledon QFs > 1
3 grass court finals > 1
18-7 (.720) at Wimbledon > 16-8 (.667)
36-15 (.706) > 33-18 (.647)
2002 Eastbourne semifinal: Myskina def. Hantuchova 62 61

That beating an over the hill Conchita is a highlight of Myskina's Wimbledon career speaks volumes.
About right.
At least she did defeat a former champion (who suddenly showed a glimpse of her old form by reaching Eastbourne final a week before) there unlike someone who didn't manage to beat heavily injured Serena.

ivanban
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:37 PM
Can you imagine threads if Jankovic was a winer of FO:help:
"The best road to GS title in history" or "Wounded queen beat Ivanovic and Safina":tape:

It's so sad to see someone who is more obsessed with the hated player than with loved one :sad:

ivanban
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:38 PM
At least she has a Slam :shrug:

No one can deny that, and well done to her for winning it

Costanza
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:47 PM
It's so sad to see someone who is more obsessed with the hated player than with loved one :sad:

Well,excuse me for not liking your drama queen:rolleyes:

ivanban
Jul 15th, 2008, 01:58 PM
Well,excuse me for not liking your drama queen:rolleyes:

Of course you have every right not to like her....my point is that of your 176 posts at least 170 mention JJ in negative context :cuckoo:

kwilliams
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:06 PM
Serena :worship:

Dave.
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:09 PM
It's so sad to see someone who is more obsessed with the hated player than with loved one :sad:

You're the one who said Ana's road to the title was pathetic and lucky. Costanza's comment isn't even that bad, he/she didn't say anything about Jankovic being pathetic or lucky.

Nikkiri
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:11 PM
At least Ana has a slam she beat who ever made it through, she was the best player while all your faves lost early or couldn't cope. :wavey:

Always the same on this board. :rolleyes:

Dave.
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:12 PM
I got you.
Bartoli (because of her wins over Top-5 Jankovic and Henin) is a better grass courter than, say, Pierce and Myskina put together :yeah:






I don't know if you're being sarcastic but yes that's true.

ivanban
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:16 PM
You're the one who said Ana's road to the title was pathetic and lucky. Costanza's comment isn't even that bad, he/she didn't say anything about Jankovic being pathetic or lucky.

Pathetic and lucky in terms of this list which thread starter made :rolleyes:

I didn't said her game was pathetic!

supergrunt
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:17 PM
Not her fault she was owning on clay while the rest of the top players sucked :shrug:

I agree.

InsideOut.
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:20 PM
Pathetic and lucky in terms of this list which thread starter made :rolleyes:

I didn't said her game was pathetic!

You still said she was pathetic and lucky. :rolleyes:

SOA_MC
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:25 PM
Ana :lol: pathetic.... and very lucky :worship:

Yes she played and beat Jankovic:rolleyes:

Dave.
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:28 PM
Interesting thread :)
Any chance you can calculate Lindsay's grandslam wins??



US Open 1998 = 50 points (Cristea, McNeil, Ruano-Pascual, Tauziat, Coetzer, Venus, Hingis)

Wimbledon 1999 = 52 points (Fusai, Habsudova, Golarsa, Schett, Novotna, Stevenson, Graf)

ivanban
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:29 PM
Yes she played and beat Jankovic:rolleyes:

And more power to her for doing it :yeah:

If she didn't beat Jelena, according to this list she wouldn't even have 10 points :lol:

SOA_MC
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:34 PM
And more power to her for doing it :yeah:

If she didn't beat Jelena, according to this list she wouldn't even have 10 points :lol:

Whatever, playing the role of Schorsch;) Where is Schorsch BTW?

Dave.
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:38 PM
And more power to her for doing it :yeah:

If she didn't beat Jelena, according to this list she wouldn't even have 10 points :lol:

Had Jankovic won, she'd only have got 18 points which is just as "pathetic and lucky". And 10 of those points would have come from beating Ana. However, typically it was Ana who dealt with the pressure and came through like the champion she is.

InsideOut.
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:42 PM
Had Jankovic won, she'd only have got 18 points which is just as "pathetic and lucky". And 10 of those points would have come from beating Ana. However, typically it was Ana who dealt with the pressure and came through like the champion she is.

:worship:

DA FOREHAND
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:44 PM
I agree. Whole bonus system is wrong. How can former #1 have same amount of bonus pts as current #2 :cuckoo: or GS champion to bring more bonus pts than current #2 :cuckoo: :cuckoo:

ugggh maybe because current #2 has never been number 1, and never made it passed a grand slam semi.:sad::wavey::help:

Shepster
Jul 15th, 2008, 03:23 PM
I got you.
Bartoli (because of her wins over Top-5 Jankovic and Henin) is a better grass courter than, say, Pierce and Myskina put together :yeah:
a/ Mary and Myskina combine for 4-9 against top 20 players at Wimbledon at the end of their careers. Marion is 4-2 halfway through hers. b/ When did beating JJ and Henin become in anywhere NEAR as impressive as beating Venus and Maria? Wimbledon champions on their favourite surface ... or non-Wimbledon champions on their least successful surface? Is that really a comparison you want to make?

You got me indeed. None of those three are great grass courters, Mary (another fave of mine) and Nastya had a couple of quarters each in their careers and 3 of those 4 combined didn't have a single top 20 player to face in achieving that (Nastya's 05 being the only one). I'm willing to wait and see how her career pans out, but if Marion loses against the next 8 top 20 players she faces at Wimbledon and doesn't make it out of the 4th round you may have a point.

Myskina is 36-15 on grass but 34-8 (.810 win-loss ratio) against players outside Top-11 (Mauresmo was #11 in 2002 when she defeated Myskina at Wimbledon).
I don't know why you think she would barely make last 16 at Tier I/II grasscourt events.
Why say Tier I/II? I was talking about a couple of Tier Is. Given her dodgy record against quality opposition when the pressure is on at the big event last 16 was being generous. She even has an 8-4 record against people ranked 11-50 at Wimbledon. So last 16, yes. :)

Myskina's W-L record at Wimbledon (18-7) is better than her W-L record at other grass tournaments (18-8).
Mauresmo has nothing to do with comparison between Myskina and Hantuchova because Amelie (unlike Nastya, Daniela and JJ) has actually won Wimbledon.
It has everything to do with it because it shows how a person's numbers outside of the slam in sub-Tier Is don't give an accurate account of how good that person is at the top end on a given surface. Nastya was a consistent performer on grass, when she got to a good player, generally, she lost. That she played a lot of crap people early in sparsely attended Tier IIs and IIIs and during the first couple of rounds at Wimbledon to pad her numbers don't = an impressive grass court player.

Yes, Myskina is better on grass than Hantuchova.
2 Wimbledon QFs > 1
3 grass court finals > 1
18-7 (.720) at Wimbledon > 16-8 (.667)
36-15 (.706) > 33-18 (.647)
2002 Eastbourne semifinal: Myskina def. Hantuchova 62 61
I know she's had better results than Hantuchova, I'm the one who pointed that out. The numbers though do not indicate who they played, which is why Dani is comparable to Myskina because her numbers are *similar* despite heavier opposition. Give Nastya Venus in the third round a couple of times and her numbers at Wimbledon would do very well to even match Hantuchova's. Why? Because they both went at a 2 wins, 1 loss ratio against 11-50 ranked players there and only ever beat 1 top ten player when called upon to play them. They have incredibly similar records, even outside of Wimbledon. Those 3 finals were the ONLY times Myskina got past the quarters on grass, it must be said, not so with Dani's 1 final - she was just as, if not more regular in going deep in grass tournaments.

About right.
At least she did defeat a former champion (who suddenly showed a glimpse of her old form by reaching Eastbourne final a week before)
Again with the Eastbourne :lol: - The only top players she faced was Coetzer who was even older than her (and who beat ... Myskina in the first round :lol:) and Dani (who as you've said is an average grass courter ;)) who was in the middle of the worst form of her life. :worship:

Tennisstar86
Jul 15th, 2008, 03:29 PM
There is one not fair calculation:

Top 2 Player - 10
Former World No.1 - 10
Grand Slam Champion - 12
=32


Number 1 Player - 20
Grand Slam Champion - 12
=32

see, the no.1 ranked player needs to be something like 22 points(to make it a total of 34) to make it fair. Otherwise the no.2 ranked player could have just as much weight as the no.1

no1 does not need to be that high..... cause some players got to #1 without being GS champions....

youngbuck
Jul 15th, 2008, 03:30 PM
Had Jankovic won, she'd only have got 18 points which is just as "pathetic and lucky". And 10 of those points would have come from beating Ana. However, typically it was Ana who dealt with the pressure and came through like the champion she is.

I'm sorry to say this but I recognize a champ when I see one and Ivanovic with all due respect ain't no champ! I knew she was lucky to win it and this list proves I was right.

Tennisstar86
Jul 15th, 2008, 03:34 PM
Had Jankovic won, she'd only have got 18 points which is just as "pathetic and lucky". And 10 of those points would have come from beating Ana. However, typically it was Ana who dealt with the pressure and came through like the champion she is.

so you're defending Ana's pathetic place on this list by comparing her to someone who hasnt even won a slam and isnt on the list.... interesting......

vadin124
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:08 PM
just for the poster who requested Davenport's other slam title runs...

Wimbledon 1999 - 51 pts.
US Open 1998 - 49.5 pts.

gaviotabr
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:12 PM
I find it quite funny when people say that this or that player is not a champion or this or that only won because got lucky.

Ana's Roland Garros campain might not be the most difficult road to a Grand Slam Championship, but she won it fair and square. And beat the two in form players of the moment, who had won the tune up events: Jankovic and Safina. There's no indication that she wouldn't have beat Serena, Kuznetsova or Mauresmo if they were on her path to the title.

She could've got 20+ points for beating Sharapova, and in my opinion it would not be more difficult than beating Jankovic, considering it's clay.

Having said that, I'm really impressed by Venus road to the Wimbledon 2000 title and Capriati's 2001 AO. Let's see how the US Open 2008 will unfold.

DragonFlame
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:13 PM
no1 does not need to be that high..... cause some players got to #1 without being GS champions....

You don't get it, the highest a no.1 player can go is 32 points while a no.2 ranked player who has been no1. and won a grandslam before is also 32. That makes the system inlogical and not valid. Obviously there should be 1 combination of points that should be the highest.

vadin124
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:22 PM
You don't get it, the highest a no.1 player can go is 32 points while a no.2 ranked player who has been no1. and won a grandslam before is also 32. That makes the system inlogical and not valid. Obviously there should be 1 combination of points that should be the highest.

not at all...why should there be a combination that should be the highest?? there is no logical reason for this to be the case...if 2 particular achievements I feel are equal will get the same amount of points, and in this case the 2 achievements are equal making for opponents who will be just as tough as each other

Cp6uja
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:23 PM
So if Ana beat this year at RG together GS champions and former #1 Lindsay Davenport and Amelie Mauresmo which at their best never played so well at FO (together played 25RG's and reach just one SF) by this "genious" point system Ana will reach about 50pts (with all bonuses) just for this two wins... but for beating at RG semifinal and final winners of red clay tier-I Rome and Berlin tournaments from same season - she will reach for both wins just 11 pts :tape::tape::tape::tape: Jelena Jankovic is best Red Clay player in 2007 after Henin and Ivanovic, and best in 2008 after Ivanovic and Safina, and Safina (2008, red clay edition) before RG final have perfect red clay season (including wins vs Henin, Serena, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Dementieva twice)... so beating solid clay player Schnyder in R16, and especialy Jankovic in SF and Safina/08 in final is RG title worth road for sure.

At this US Open for beating #18 Cornet which won just 6 TOP100 matches in whole career out of clay player will reach just 2pts less than beating #6 and former USO finalist Dementieva. Or for beating ex slam winner Pierce (she will comeback at Olympics) player will reach just 1pts less than beating together Dementieva and Jankovic :tape::tape:

Very smart, no doubt...

Costanza
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:25 PM
I'm sorry to say this but I recognize a champ when I see one and Ivanovic with all due respect ain't no champ! I knew she was lucky to win it and this list proves I was right.

:spit::help:

BTW,enlighten us,please,who are the future champions?

vadin124
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:32 PM
So if Ana beat this year at RG together GS champions and former #1 Lindsay Davenport and Amelie Mauresmo which at their best never played so well at FO (together played 25RG's and reach just one SF) by this "genious" point system Ana will reach about 50pts (with all bonuses) just for this two wins... but for beating at RG semifinal and final winners of red clay tier-I Rome and Berlin tournaments from same season - she will reach for both wins just 11 pts :tape::tape::tape::tape: Jelena Jankovic is best Red Clay player in 2007 after Henin and Ivanovic, and best in 2008 after Ivanovic and Safina, and Safina (2008, red clay edition) before RG final have perfect red clay season (including wins vs Henin, Serena, Sharapova, Kuznetsova, Dementieva twice)... so beating solid clay player Schnyder in R16, and especialy Jankovic in SF and Safina/08 in final is RG title worth road for sure.

At this US Open for beating #18 Cornet which won just 6 TOP100 matches in whole career out of clay player will reach just 2pts less than beating #6 and former USO finalist Dementieva. Or for beating ex slam winner Pierce (she will comeback at Olympics) player will reach just 1pts less than beating together Dementieva and Jankovic :tape::tape:

Very smart, no doubt...

the system is far more generalized than you expect...

points are awarded for rankings, and significant achievements...significant achievements to me are Slam wins and getting the Number 1 ranking...since Jankovic hasn't achieved these yet, she is worthy of no more than 10 points...and since Safina also has not achieved this yet, neither is she! players who have achieved this have potential to play farr beyond the standard of these 2 players, and therefore deserve the bonus points

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:39 PM
a/ Mary and Myskina combine for 4-9 against top 20 players at Wimbledon at the end of their careers. Marion is 4-2 halfway through hers. b/ When did beating JJ and Henin become in anywhere NEAR as impressive as beating Venus and Maria? Wimbledon champions on their favourite surface ... or non-Wimbledon champions on their least successful surface? Is that really a comparison you want to make?

You got me indeed. None of those three are great grass courters, Mary (another fave of mine) and Nastya had a couple of quarters each in their careers and 3 of those 4 combined didn't have a single top 20 player to face in achieving that (Nastya's 05 being the only one). I'm willing to wait and see how her career pans out, but if Marion loses against the next 8 top 20 players she faces at Wimbledon and doesn't make it out of the 4th round you may have a point.


Why say Tier I/II? I was talking about a couple of Tier Is. Given her dodgy record against quality opposition when the pressure is on at the big event last 16 was being generous. She even has an 8-4 record against people ranked 11-50 at Wimbledon. So last 16, yes. :)

It has everything to do with it because it shows how a person's numbers outside of the slam in sub-Tier Is don't give an accurate account of how good that person is at the top end on a given surface. Nastya was a consistent performer on grass, when she got to a good player, generally, she lost. That she played a lot of crap people early in sparsely attended Tier IIs and IIIs and during the first couple of rounds at Wimbledon to pad her numbers don't = an impressive grass court player.


I know she's had better results than Hantuchova, I'm the one who pointed that out. The numbers though do not indicate who they played, which is why Dani is comparable to Myskina because her numbers are *similar* despite heavier opposition. Give Nastya Venus in the third round a couple of times and her numbers at Wimbledon would do very well to even match Hantuchova's. Why? Because they both went at a 2 wins, 1 loss ratio against 11-50 ranked players there and only ever beat 1 top ten player when called upon to play them. They have incredibly similar records, even outside of Wimbledon. Those 3 finals were the ONLY times Myskina got past the quarters on grass, it must be said, not so with Dani's 1 final - she was just as, if not more regular in going deep in grass tournaments.


First of all, Myskina even being in a slump never sucked enough to fall out of Top-16, hence she couldn't meet a top-tenner before 4R at a Slam and before QF at other events (Kuznetsova at Rome 2006 being the only exception) - and she can't be blamed for that.

Since her breakthrough season (2002) Myskina posted a 28-10 (.737) win-loss record on grass, having played one Tier III:
5 Wimbledons - QF + QF + 4R + 3R + 3R - 15-5 (.750) (losses to Mauresmo x3, Capriati, Frazier, wins over Jankovic x2, Dementieva, Martinez)
5 other GC events - RU + RU + RU + QF + 1R - 13-5 (.722) (losses to Henin, Rubin, Dokic, Vinci and Coetzer :help:, wins over Kuznetsova, Hantuchova, Sugiyama, Maleeva)

Hantuchova since her breakthrough season (2002 as well) posted a 27-15 (.643) win-loss record (not uncluding this year's Wimbledon), having played four Tier IIIs:
6 Wimbledons - QF + 4R + 4R + 3R + 2R - 14-6 (.700) (losses to Serena x2, Venus, Sharapova, Henin, Asagoe, win over Dokic)
9 other GC events - RU + SF + SF + QF + QF + 2R + 1R + 1R + 1R - 13-9 (.591) losses to Myskina, Martinez, Kuznetsova, Vento, Likhovtseva, Golovin, Parra, Bartoli, Chakvetadze, wins over Ivanovic, Sugiyama, Mauresmo)

Yes, both Myskina and Hantuchova sucked against top-tenners on grass but...
SINCE 2002:
Myskina's record vs Top-20 - 3-4 at Wimbledon, 7-7 at all grasscourt events.
Hantuchova's record vs Top-20 - 1-5 at Wimbledon, 4-10 at all grasscourt events.
Please notice: despite playing one Wimbledon less than Hantuchova Myskina faced one more Top-20 player at SW19 and had 2 more wins. Despite playing 5 less grasscourt events than Hantuchova Myskina faced the same number of Top-20 players and had 3 more wins.

So, yes, given her good record on grass against lower-ranked players [26-4 against non Top-11 since 2002] Myskina is more consistent performer on the surface and would benefit from longer grasscourt season.

moon
Jul 15th, 2008, 05:08 PM
Venus in 2000 :worship: and this was her first GS!

Serena :lol:
She has had some tough draws.

nice list. :)

shap_half
Jul 15th, 2008, 05:20 PM
Lists like this are all so arbitrary. There's no way to make a list like this because you really need to take form into consideration.

For example, had Serena won the 2003 RG over Justine, she would receive fewer points than the amount Justine accumulated for beating Serena, because at that point Justine was not 1, was never number 1 and had yet to win a slam. But at that point, considering the season Justine was having on clay and Justine's overall clay dominance, I would award someone more points for beating Justine on clay than I would if someone had defeated Serena. I know this was during Serena's overall dominance, but atleast the point distribution wouldn't be soo super different.

If I'm understanding this corrrect: if you beat Justine in 2003 RG, you would receive 8 pts. If you beat Serena you would get 42 points?

Tennisstar86
Jul 15th, 2008, 05:22 PM
the system is far more generalized than you expect...

points are awarded for rankings, and significant achievements...significant achievements to me are Slam wins and getting the Number 1 ranking...since Jankovic hasn't achieved these yet, she is worthy of no more than 10 points...and since Safina also has not achieved this yet, neither is she! players who have achieved this have potential to play farr beyond the standard of these 2 players, and therefore deserve the bonus points

:secret: Cp6uja only sees stats that have Serbia/ Ana at the top of real....

vadin124
Jul 15th, 2008, 05:25 PM
Lists like this are all so arbitrary. There's no way to make a list like this because you really need to take form into consideration.

For example, had Serena won the 2003 RG over Justine, she would receive fewer points than the amount Justine accumulated for beating Serena, because at that point Justine was not 1, was never number 1 and had yet to win a slam. But at that point, considering the season Justine was having on clay and Justine's overall clay dominance, I would award someone more points for beating Justine on clay than I would if someone had defeated Serena. I know this was during Serena's overall dominance, but atleast the point distribution wouldn't be soo super different.

If I'm understanding this corrrect: if you beat Justine in 2003 RG, you would receive 8 pts. If you beat Serena you would get 42 points?

Serena would be worth 32 points...the Number 1 player in the world does not get points for being a former No.1

but you are correct about Justine

youngbuck
Jul 15th, 2008, 05:28 PM
Ana's Roland Garros campain might not be the most difficult road to a Grand Slam Championship

Not the most difficult? It was BY FAR the easiest road this century. And people say Sharapova is lucky...

Tennisstar86
Jul 15th, 2008, 05:28 PM
Lists like this are all so arbitrary. There's no way to make a list like this because you really need to take form into consideration.

For example, had Serena won the 2003 RG over Justine, she would receive fewer points than the amount Justine accumulated for beating Serena, because at that point Justine was not 1, was never number 1 and had yet to win a slam. But at that point, considering the season Justine was having on clay and Justine's overall clay dominance, I would award someone more points for beating Justine on clay than I would if someone had defeated Serena. I know this was during Serena's overall dominance, but atleast the point distribution wouldn't be soo super different.

If I'm understanding this corrrect: if you beat Justine in 2003 RG, you would receive 8 pts. If you beat Serena you would get 42 points?

You reallt think beating Justine, currently holding 0 GS in 2003 should have been worth more points than beating Serena who had won the previous 4 Grand slams....and was defending champion.....

Shepster
Jul 15th, 2008, 05:42 PM
Since her breakthrough season (2002) Myskina posted a 28-10 (.737) win-loss record on grass, having played one Tier III:
5 Wimbledons - QF + QF + 4R + 3R + 3R - 15-5 (.750) (losses to Mauresmo x3, Capriati, Frazier, wins over Jankovic x2, Dementieva, Martinez)
5 other GC events - RU + RU + RU + QF + 1R - 13-5 (.722) (losses to Henin, Rubin, Dokic, Vinci and Coetzer :help:, wins over Kuznetsova, Hantuchova, Sugiyama, Maleeva)

Hantuchova since her breakthrough season (2002 as well) posted a 27-15 (.643) win-loss record (not uncluding this year's Wimbledon), having played four Tier IIIs:
6 Wimbledons - QF + 4R + 4R + 3R + 2R - 14-6 (.700) (losses to Serena x2, Venus, Sharapova, Henin, Asagoe, win over Dokic)
9 other GC events - RU + SF + SF + QF + QF + 2R + 1R + 1R + 1R - 13-9 (.591) losses to Myskina, Martinez, Kuznetsova, Vento, Likhovtseva, Golovin, Parra, Bartoli, Chakvetadze, wins over Ivanovic, Sugiyama, Mauresmo)
:lol: at you "happening" to pick 2002 as the starting point, knowing prior to that Myskina never got past the last 16 of a grass event and Dani semifinaled the previous year. The intellectual dishonesty has not gone unnoticed.

Yes, both Myskina and Hantuchova sucked against top-tenners on grass but...
SINCE 2002:
Myskina's record vs Top-20 - 3-4 at Wimbledon, 7-7 at all grasscourt events.
Hantuchova's record vs Top-20 - 1-5 at Wimbledon, 4-10 at all grasscourt events.
Please notice: despite playing one Wimbledon less than Hantuchova Myskina faced one more Top-20 player at SW19 and had 2 more wins. Despite playing 5 less grasscourt events than Hantuchova Myskina faced the same number of Top-20 players and had 3 more wins.
Intellectual dishonesty again, the question is, who were they? Dani lost to a #2 ranked reigning champion Venus on the way to the title (another loss from before your period, but one definitely worth noting), a #2 ranked Serena on the way to the title, a 15th ranked Sharapova on the way to the title, a 16th ranked former champion Venus ... on the way to the title, a #3 ranked Henin on the way to the final and a #8 ranked former champion Serena who lost in the next round.

Myskina beat JJ, Elena and a past it Martinez and then lost to worse players on grass than Hantuchova faced. Dani, after all, has beaten Momo on grass, give her 3 cracks at her at Wimbledon and give Nastya the eventual winner half the time and that 2 quarterfinals > 1 would be very different.

So, yes, given her good record on grass against lower-ranked players [26-4 against non Top-11 since 2002] Myskina is more consistent performer on the surface and would benefit from longer grasscourt season.
Facts do not back you up on the latter contention.

In her Wimbledon career Myskina faced in the first 2 rounds :

1 player outside the top 200
2 players inside the top 200 but outside the top 100
6 players inside the top 100 but outside the top 50

In her Wimbledon career Hantuchova faced in the first two rounds :

1 player outside the top 300
8 players inside the top 100 but outside the top 50

Myskina's stats are proportionally bumped by playing so many people who wouldn't even get into tier Is. Dani vs 21-64 ranked players at Wimbledon = 12-1, and that 1 was this year in her 2nd match back from injury. Nastya versus 21-64 ranked players at Wimbledon = 6-3. She got a LOT of help from playing such poor opposition in the first couple of rounds to boost her stats. In a tier I where that doesn't happen she'd get found out a LOT quicker, hence having a longer grass court season where you play better players earlier on would be to the detriment of Myskina.

Vamos.
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:21 PM
Sorry, I know I already posted this. But I am still in some kind of shock.

Ana Ivanovic - 17 points.

:rolls:

Vamos.
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:23 PM
Why are people comparing Dani to Nastya? Even on grass?

Nastya= some talent and ability to be an elite player. She also had enough metal to win a Slam. :yeah:

Dani= shit.

What is the problem here?

slamchamp
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:24 PM
Masha:worship:

Russianboy
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:33 PM
omg ana :lol:

20 points difference to the second worst win LMAO

amirbachar
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:36 PM
Top 50 Player - 1
Top 30 Player - 2
Top 20 Player - 4
Top 10 Player - 7
Top 5 Player - 11
Top 2 Player - 16
Number 1 Player - 22

Former World No.1 - +6

Grand Slam Champion in the same GS - +10
Other GS Champion - +4
Career GS winner - +8

top3 (I only checked top10 form the first post):

#1(1) Jennifer CAPRIATI - Australian Open 2001 - 109 pts.
(#37 Nagyova, #67 Oremans, #90 Ruano Pascual, #72 Marrero, #5 Seles, #2 Davenport, #1 Hingis)

#2(2) Venus WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2000 - 107 pts.
(#41 Hrdlickova, #20 Sugiyama, #24 Dechy, #27 Appelmans, #1 Hingis, #8 S Williams, #2 Davenport)

#3(10) Maria SHARAPOVA - Australian Open 2008 - 88 pts.
(#102 Kostanic Tosic, #51 Davenport, #55 Vesnina, #11 Dementieva, #1 Henin, #4 Jankovic, #3 Ivanovic)
.
.
.
#35 - Ana IVANOVIC - French Open 2008 - 21 pts.

slamchamp
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:38 PM
omg ana :lol:

20 points difference to the second worst win LMAO
:lol::tape:

amirbachar
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:39 PM
Another idea: Adding the points for best round for the same GS for all opponents (excluding the same year) - I think that this will be very interesting to see.

The Daviator
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:52 PM
LMAO at people treating this list like some serious report :lol: It's a list a fan made up, anyone could do it, and anyone could create their own criteria.

The system is seriously flawed, Safina was in amazing form on the clay, beating a bunch of GS winners/top-10ers, yet beating her only gets you 3 points.

Whereas beating Mauresmo or Davenport gets you 24 points :weirdo: Like beating Linds instead of Safina would have made the win much better.

mure
Jul 15th, 2008, 06:55 PM
yeah.. since the thread doesn't have the approval of proven stat king cpu6la it's an epic fail..next.

Nicolás89
Jul 15th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Great list. :D

What about giving some extra points by defeating the defending champion?

Costanza
Jul 15th, 2008, 07:18 PM
LMAO at people treating this list like some serious report :lol: It's a list a fan made up, anyone could do it, and anyone could create their own criteria.

The system is seriously flawed, Safina was in amazing form on the clay, beating a bunch of GS winners/top-10ers, yet beating her only gets you 3 points.

Whereas beating Mauresmo or Davenport gets you 24 points :weirdo: Like beating Linds instead of Safina would have made the win much better.

List is official Tennisforum GM document.Who gives a shit about WTA and their lists.
Don't you know that Ana is luckiest tennis player in history.Her whole life is just one lucky streak:)

The Daviator
Jul 15th, 2008, 07:51 PM
List is official Tennisforum GM document.Who gives a shit about WTA and their lists.
Don't you know that Ana is luckiest tennis player in history.Her whole life is just one lucky streak:)

:lol: :lol:

shap_half
Jul 15th, 2008, 08:20 PM
You reallt think beating Justine, currently holding 0 GS in 2003 should have been worth more points than beating Serena who had won the previous 4 Grand slams....and was defending champion.....

That's why I added, the points distribution shouldn't be super different.

To beat Justine on clay in the same season she won 2 Tier Is on the surface (beating Kim and Serena in the finals, both of whom were ranked ahead of her) should be worth more than 8 points.

I recognize that to beat Serena in a GS during that period is extremely difficult, but a whopping 32 points for doing it when someone else who is technically superior on the surface and was heading into it with a near perfect clay record that year is only worth 8 -- the point discrepancy at least makes this formula a bit questionable.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 15th, 2008, 08:24 PM
:lol: at you "happening" to pick 2002 as the starting point, knowing prior to that Myskina never got past the last 16 of a grass event and Dani semifinaled the previous year. The intellectual dishonesty has not gone unnoticed.

Intellectual disorder has not gone unnoticed either.
I though it was quite obvious why I chose 2002. I though it was obvious that both Myskina and Hantuchova became top-players that year. In 2001 they were nobodies and Myskina was coming from career-threatening injury.

Once again, the fact Myskina was able to be ranked high enough to avoid playing big guns before QF/4R speaks in her favor.

In 2006 alone Myskina achieved on grass as much as Hantuchova did in her whole career -- made it to Wimbledon QF and Eastbourne final.

Go delude yourself further trying to pretend had Hantuchova not sucked that much she would have reached multiple SF/QFs at Wimbledon.

Shepster
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:10 PM
In 2006 alone Myskina achieved on grass as much as Hantuchova did in her whole career -- made it to Wimbledon QF and Eastbourne final.
And she did that by beating 1 top 20 player over the two tournaments. Dani did the same last year getting to the 4th round of Wimbledon and making the Rosmalen semis :tape:. This is the intellectual dishonesty, you're claiming going one round further in both of those is somehow something to brag about? Dani was seeded *the same* and played top 10 players earlier in Rosmalen in 07 than Nastya did in Eastbourne in 06 :o. The average ranking Nastya faced in the first four rounds at Wimbledon in 06 was 88, with Dani that year it was 35 - even without Henin in the fourth round it was 46 :o:o:o. But yes, brag away, that *is* very impressive, she won 1 more match per tournament, don't look at who she was beating when, that would be far too sensible to expect.

Go delude yourself further trying to pretend had Hantuchova not sucked that much she would have reached multiple SF/QFs at Wimbledon.
Where do I say that? Daniela, when faced with a top quality grass court operator will lose most of the time and she did. No delusion about it. The only delusion here is that you seem to think Nastya ever did anything different. I am very aware of both their records and capabilities on a grass court. I'm also aware of the circumstances that have contributed to those records which you are willing to blindly ignore for both. If that's comfortable for you then fine, I'll take a more complete, detached, intellectually honest approach as these are two of my favourite players after all. :)

vadin124
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:16 PM
this list isn't supposed to mean anything...it isn't supposed to be a dig at specific player, neither is it supposed to big up certain players...it's just an observation of how players have won their slam titles, and the calibre of competition they had to face in doing so

some people are taking it wayyyy too seriously...

and also last time I checked whether Hantuchova is better than Myskina on grass has nothing to do with the objective of this thread :rolleyes:

Shepster
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:26 PM
and also last time I checked whether Hantuchova is better than Myskina on grass has nothing to do with the objective of this thread :rolleyes:
This is the thing, I never said she was :lol:. Don't worry, I've said my piece with that last reply, I won't clog up your thread any more even if there's another response, sorry it degenerated so much. :hatoff:

slamchamp
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:27 PM
Ana:worship:

Viktymise
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:34 PM
Hard to say what's been the toughest route to a GS win this century. You could make arguments for about a third of them.

Obviously, the formula used here is flawed, but there isin't any definitive method. Whatever way you look at it though, Ivanovic's RG 08 run was the easiest, without doubt. We all knew that anyway really. ;)

Dave.
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:34 PM
Whereas beating Mauresmo or Davenport gets you 24 points :weirdo: Like beating Linds instead of Safina would have made the win much better.

Never understimate Linds on the dirt :armed: Ana's just lucky she skipped the French this year :p

LeRoy.
Jul 15th, 2008, 10:37 PM
OMG Ana :tape: :o :help:

vadin124
Jul 15th, 2008, 11:07 PM
ok I admit I might have been a little generous with the points awarded for GS winners and former No.1's...but i'm not going to change it all now so you'll just have to live with the stats as they are ;)

Tennisstar86
Jul 16th, 2008, 03:52 AM
LMAO at people treating this list like some serious report :lol: It's a list a fan made up, anyone could do it, and anyone could create their own criteria.

The system is seriously flawed, Safina was in amazing form on the clay, beating a bunch of GS winners/top-10ers, yet beating her only gets you 3 points.

Whereas beating Mauresmo or Davenport gets you 24 points :weirdo: Like beating Linds instead of Safina would have made the win much better.

Well...Ana sure couldnt beat Davenport earlier this year....:tape:

Lol at the bitter Ivanovic fans pissed Ana's only slam win is lightyears behind everyone else....

Nikkiri
Jul 16th, 2008, 04:04 AM
Well...Ana sure couldnt beat Davenport earlier this year....:tape:

Lol at the bitter Ivanovic fans pissed Ana's only slam win is lightyears behind everyone else....

No ones bitter or pissed off about that. Everyone already knew her run to the slam was easy so whatever but she has a slam which is better then a lot of other players and she beat whoever she had too to win it the end. And shes 20 years old time is on her side to win more hopefully with a draw up to your standards ;)

InsideOut.
Jul 16th, 2008, 04:06 AM
Ana, please win another Slam beating Mauresmo, Davenport, Serena, Venus and Masha. Loads of points. :lol:

Tennisstar86
Jul 16th, 2008, 04:13 AM
No ones bitter or pissed off about that. Everyone already knew her run to the slam was easy so whatever but she has a slam which is better then a lot of other players and she beat whoever she had too to win it the end. And shes 20 years old time is on her side to win more hopefully with a draw up to your standards ;)

really? so... posting after every post of "omg Ana" saying its not a big deal isnt bitter? I guess you're right...

I guess its more Ana's fans trying to convince themselves that Ana's GS title isnt a joke......

Nikkiri
Jul 16th, 2008, 04:19 AM
really? so... posting after every post of "omg Ana" saying its not a big deal isnt bitter? I guess you're right...

I guess its more Ana's fans trying to convince themselves that Ana's GS title isnt a joke......

Actually I don't think thats being bitter. It's some fan based point system that told us what we already knew Ana ended up with a lucky draw to win her first GS.

The players not being able to win matches leaving Ana in the position to win is more of a joke then her GS to me. She did what she had too and that was beat the players who played well enough to make it through.

hwanmig
Jul 16th, 2008, 04:38 AM
really? so... posting after every post of "omg Ana" saying its not a big deal isnt bitter? I guess you're right...

I guess its more Ana's fans trying to convince themselves that Ana's GS title isnt a joke......

Was Ana's win really a joke? Because I didn't hear anyone of you haters laughing when she won. You were all gloating when she lifted the trophy. I suppose diminishing Ana's win is all you can do now to make her win less gratifying for her fans.

Tennisstar86
Jul 16th, 2008, 04:39 AM
No Grand Slam title is a joke dumb comment:o

omg ana :lol:

20 points difference to the second worst win LMAO

:lol::tape:

Ana:worship:

Not the most difficult? It was BY FAR the easiest road this century. And people say Sharapova is lucky...

Sorry, I know I already posted this. But I am still in some kind of shock.

Ana Ivanovic - 17 points.

:rolls:

Ana Ivanovic - 17 points.

Suckage. :rolls:


Seems like a bit of a joke to me.....:shrug:

SOA_MC
Jul 16th, 2008, 04:44 AM
Seems like a bit of a joke to me.....:shrug:

A joke based on a formula by the op and by Ana haters in this thread o.k.:rolleyes:

What about the fact she beat the Rome and Berlin winners back to back to win the title

Nikkiri
Jul 16th, 2008, 04:50 AM
Seems like a bit of a joke to me.....:shrug:

Oh to posters here well then yeah it must be a joke can't argue with that.

It was an easy GS title no one will ever deny that but is it really her fault the so called tougher players sucked? Dinara had a great clay season and so did Jankovic but because they haven't been #1 or won a GS they don't get enough points in this fan made statistic so Ana is a big fat joke.

tennnisfannn
Jul 16th, 2008, 05:48 AM
A joke based on a formula by the op and by Ana haters in this thread o.k.:rolleyes:

What about the fact she beat the Rome and Berlin winners back to back to win the title
Good point, she beat the best players on dirt of 08 for the title, that is very impressive.

ivanban
Jul 16th, 2008, 08:55 AM
ugggh maybe because current #2 has never been number 1, and never made it passed a grand slam semi.:sad::wavey::help:

so dumb :rolleyes:

as if JJ held #2 spot from the beginning of this century :rolleyes:

kinseh
Jul 16th, 2008, 11:47 AM
Kim is 7th, didn't expect her to be that high. :) :yeah:

Ana. :lol: Doesn't matter for me though, a slam is a slam!

Great stat, good job!

The Daviator
Jul 16th, 2008, 11:59 AM
really? so... posting after every post of "omg Ana" saying its not a big deal isnt bitter? I guess you're right...

I guess its more Ana's fans trying to convince themselves that Ana's GS title isnt a joke......

And her bitter haters can only put her win down in threads like this cos it's too much to handle that she's a GS winner.

And if you think Lindsay beating Ana on American hardcourts means she's gonna win on Parisian clay, well then you're a real :weirdo: And I love Linds.

She beat the Berlin winner and the Rome winner, the two most in-form players, but had she beaten Mauresmo or Chakvetadze, she would have received more points, the system is flawed, but if you want to console yourself with some fun table that a fan made up, then go right ahead.

slamchamp
Jul 16th, 2008, 02:52 PM
Oh to posters here well then yeah it must be a joke can't argue with that.

It was an easy GS title no one will ever deny that but is it really her fault the so called tougher players sucked? Dinara had a great clay season and so did Jankovic but because they haven't been #1 or won a GS they don't get enough points in this fan made statistic so Ana is a big fat joke.lol jankovic was injured(as always), and dinara was really tired with all the "cameback" matches she played, anyway as people ..a slam is a slam:shrug:

Nikkiri
Jul 16th, 2008, 02:52 PM
lol jankovic was injured(as always), and dinara was really tired with all the "cameback" matches she played

:rolleyes:

Dave.
Jul 16th, 2008, 04:14 PM
lol jankovic was injured(as always), and dinara was really tired with all the "cameback" matches she played, anyway as people ..a slam is a slam:shrug:

Jankovic was fit enough to get to the semis so these "injuries" weren't affecting her tennis. Safina was in peak condition and actually had a very easy semi-final match. Ana was the best player in the draw and in beating Jankovic and Safina, she beat two in-form, fit, athletes in their prime. She did not have to rely on beating underconfident, unmotivated, unfit opponents like others have in the past.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 16th, 2008, 04:15 PM
gs title is a gs title...ana won it...good for her.at the end of the day people are going to remember the grandslam title and not the draw

Slutiana
Jul 16th, 2008, 04:35 PM
Ana. :haha:

Viktymise
Jul 16th, 2008, 04:45 PM
Jankovic was fit enough to get to the semis so these "injuries" weren't affecting her tennis. Safina was in peak condition and actually had a very easy semi-final match. Ana was the best player in the draw and in beating Jankovic and Safina, she beat two in-form, fit, athletes in their prime. She did not have to rely on beating underconfident, unmotivated, unfit opponents like others have in the past.

Not beating a slam champion on your way to the title, speaks volumes.

She beat Jankovic, who she owns, in the SF, followed by a debut finalist, Safina, who she matches up to extremely well, and was clearly somewhat fatigued. It was almost as much of a guarantee as Venus beating Bartoli in the Wimbledon F last year.

Dave.
Jul 16th, 2008, 05:01 PM
Not beating a slam champion on your way to the title, speaks volumes.

She beat Jankovic, who she owns, in the SF, followed by a debut finalist, Safina, who she matches up to extremely well, and was clearly somewhat fatigued. It was almost as much of a guarantee as Venus beating Bartoli in the Wimbledon F last year.

The ranking of the opponent (especially if their in the top5!) is more important than if they're a slam champion or not. Conchita Martinez won Wimbledon in 1994 and yet Justine gets extra points for beating her at the French 11 years later! Anyway, the former slam champions in the draw could not make it far enough to meet Ana, yet Jankovic and Safina could. They were clearly playing better tennis and were more dangerous opponents at that tournament.

About the match-up point, well Safina had won their only previous meeting on clay 6-1 6-4. Ana can't help who the opponents in front of her are, she just has to make sure she gets through them. Whether it's a good match-up or not, the opponent is still dangerous. Lindsay Davenport matches up terribly to Venus Williams on grass, yet I'm not going to take away from the 3 titles Venus won by beating Lindsay. She still had to go out there and perform and do the things that make her match up well against her opponent.

ilovethewilliams
Jul 16th, 2008, 05:35 PM
Points awarded:
Top 100 Player - 0.5
Top 50 Player - 1
Top 30 Player - 2
Top 20 Player - 3
Top 10 Player - 5
Top 5 Player - 8
Top 2 Player - 10
Number 1 Player - 20

Former World No.1 - 10

Grand Slam Champion - 12

If a player wins by retirement in 1 of her 7 matches, the points awarded for defeating that player is halved.

Players to have won a GS
Players to have been ranked No.1 in the world
Players to have won a GS AND been ranked No.1 in the world

Top 10
#1 Jennifer CAPRIATI - Australian Open 2001 - 96.5 pts.
(#37 Nagyova, #67 Oremans, #90 Ruano Pascual, #72 Marrero, #5 Seles, #2 Davenport, #1 Hingis)

#2 Venus WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2000 - 92 pts.
(#41 Hrdlickova, #20 Sugiyama, #24 Dechy, #27 Appelmans, #1 Hingis, #8 S Williams, #2 Davenport)

#3 Serena WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2003 - 83 pts.
(#67 Craybas, #65 Callens, #30 Granville, #16 Dementieva, #7 Capriati, #3 Henin-Hardenne, #4 V Williams)

=#3 Mary PIERCE - French Open 2000 - 83 pts.
(#88 Snyder, #107 Rittner, #351 Razzano, #53 Carlsson, #3 Seles, #1 Hingis, #5 Martinez)

#5 Amelie MAURESMO - Wimbledon 2006 - 78 pts.
(#192 Abramovic, #50 Stosur, #136 Pratt, #22 Ivanovic, #11 Myskina, #4 Sharapova, #3 Henin-Hardenne)

=#5 Serena WILLIAMS - French Open 2002 - 78 pts.
(#39 Sucha, #169 Radriantefy, #41 Husarova, #142 Zvonareva, #132 Pierce, #1 Capriati, #2 V Williams)

#7 Kim CLIJSTERS - US Open 2005 - 76 pts.
(#135 Muller, #58 Zuluaga, #33 Sugiyama, #72 Vento-Kabchi, #10 V Williams, #2 Sharapova, #12 Pierce)

#8 Serena WILLIAMS - Australian Open 2005 - 75.5 pts.
(#106 Pin, #67 Radriantefy, #166 Mirza, #13 Petrova, #2 Mauresmo, #4 Sharapova, #1 Davenport)

#9 Justine HENIN - US Open 2007 - 75 pts.
(#145 Goerges, #130 Pironkova, #156 Makarova, #16 Safina, #9 S Williams, #14 V Williams, #4 Kuznetsova)

#10 Maria SHARAPOVA - Australian Open 2008 - 74 pts.
(#102 Kostanic Tosic, #51 Davenport, #55 Vesnina, #11 Dementieva, #1 Henin, #4 Jankovic, #3 Ivanovic)

the rest:
11 - Venus WILLIAMS - US Open 2000 - 73 pts.

12 - Venus WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2005 - 71.5 pts.

13 - Maria SHARAPOVA - US Open 2006 - 70.5 pts.

14 - Justine HENIN-HARDENNE - French Open 2006 - 68.5 pts.

15 - Serena WILLIAMS - US Open 2002 - 66.5 pts.

16 - Anastasia MYSKINA - French Open 2004 - 64 pts.

17 - Maria SHARAPOVA - Wimbledon 2004 - 62 pts.

18 - Venus WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2007 - 61 pts.

19 - Justine HENIN-HARDENNE - French Open 2005 - 60.5 pts.

20 - Jennifer CAPRIATI - French Open 2001 - 56 pts.

21 - Svetlana KUZNETSOVA - US Open 2004 - 55 pts.

22 - Justine HENIN-HARDENNE - US Open 2003 - 53.5 pts.

23 - Justine HENIN-HARDENNE - Australian Open 2004 - 52 pts.

=23 - Venus WILLIAMS - US Open 2001 - 52 pts.

25 - Justine HENIN-HARDENNE - French Open 2003 - 51 pts.

26 - Serena WILLIAMS - Australian Open 2007 - 47 pts.

27 - Serena WILLIAMS - Australian Open 2003 - 46 pts.

=27 - Jennifer CAPRIATI - Australian Open 2002 - 46 pts.

29 - Justine HENIN - French Open 2007 - 44 pts.

=29 Venus WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2001 - 44 pts.

31 - Serena WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2002 - 41 pts.

=31 - Lindsay DAVENPORT - Australian Open 2000 - 41 pts.

33 - Amelie MAURESMO - Australian Open 2006 - 38.5 pts.

34 - Venus WILLIAMS - Wimbledon 2008 - 37 pts.

35 - Ana IVANOVIC - French Open 2008 - 17 pts.

let me know what you think of my list...

improvements can be made :D

have a lot of time on your hands I see

Viktymise
Jul 16th, 2008, 05:58 PM
The ranking of the opponent (especially if their in the top5!) is more important than if they're a slam champion or not.

It's not really. Jankovic is a prime example of why this statement is not true. She's No.2 in the world, yet she's never been in a GS F. And again, Ivanovic owns Jankovic.

About the match-up point, well Safina had won their only previous meeting on clay 6-1 6-4.

In 2005, three years ago. Almost irrelevant. Ivanovic had won their last match pretty handily anyway.

Ana can't help who the opponents in front of her are, she just has to make sure she gets through them.

Of course she can't, but that doesn't mean it can't be pointed out that, for a GS, it was an soft draw.

Lindsay Davenport matches up terribly to Venus Williams on grass, yet I'm not going to take away from the 3 titles Venus won by beating Lindsay. She still had to go out there and perform and do the things that make her match up well against her opponent.

It would be a fair comparison if Davenport was the only slam champion Venus beat over the run of her three titles and each time she had a cushy draw. This however is not the case.

The fact that she's beaten pactically everyone signifigant at Wimbledon, and has won Wimbledon TWO other times, without beating Davenport or a bunch of her other bitches makes this statement meaningless.

tennnisfannn
Jul 16th, 2008, 06:22 PM
while you are at it would you like to see where wimby for themen 08 fit in? The only seeded player Federer played enroute to the final was was hewitt and we all know he is not the same player who won wimby a while ago.

In The Zone
Jul 16th, 2008, 06:28 PM
Lol.

I love the comment from Dave. "Davenport is a terrible matchup for Venus Williams on grass."

Who the hell IS a good matchup for Venus Williams? She'd be the favorite over anyone. How pathetic.

If you want to hate on the Wiliams Sisters, or Venus, do not bring Wimbledon into it. It's just so desperate and futile. Get over it.

Nicolás89
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:00 PM
You are all fighting as usual. :p

I think these stats are fun to read, but not really telling of a tough road to a slam title. ;)

As for Ivanovic, I think she had a tougher road to win RG this year than Serena winning the US Open 2002. :shrug:

Viktymise
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:07 PM
You are all fighting as usual. :p

I think these stats are fun to read, but not really telling of a tough road to a slam title. ;)

As for Ivanovic, I think she had a tougher road to win RG this year than Serena winning the US Open 2002. :shrug:

Uhm, how?

vadin124
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:08 PM
have a lot of time on your hands I see

when you're up at 1 in the morning and cannot sleep, as I was, I thought have nothing better to do so why not

:)

Seyz
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:14 PM
Even if this ranking system has flaws, it still highlights the fact that Ana's recent French Open win really was one of the easiest paths to a grandslam title in probably history.

supergrunt
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:17 PM
You are all fighting as usual. :p

I think these stats are fun to read, but not really telling of a tough road to a slam title. ;)

As for Ivanovic, I think she had a tougher road to win RG this year than Serena winning the US Open 2002. :shrug:

Ummm...how?

supergrunt
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:18 PM
It does not matter though, a slam is a slam.

Nicolás89
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:18 PM
Uhm, how?

Easy, the closest match Serena had in the US Open 02 was against Davenport in the semis, where Serena beat her 63 75 and didn't Jankovic served for the match in this years RG semis multiple times or something like that.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:21 PM
You are all fighting as usual. :p

I think these stats are fun to read, but not really telling of a tough road to a slam title. ;)

As for Ivanovic, I think she had a tougher road to win RG this year than Serena winning the US Open 2002. :shrug:

lol ....serena had to defeat 2 past us open champions back to back...and especially..both were very much in-form
beating davenport at us-open is hard ..especially when she is playing so well...remember what happened to ana at miami and davenport wasnt even in-form like she was in 2002
and venus was the defending champion and in superb shape

vadin124
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:21 PM
Serena defeated 2 of the legends of the games in 2002 at the USO...she beat 2 top 10 players, who not only were top 10 players but who were also grand slam champions AND players who had been ranked no.1...not only this but she beat them in straight sets...these were Davenport and Serena

she beat Hantuchova who had won Indian Wells that year in the quarters, herself ranked No.11

Ivanovic beat only 1 top 10 player, who has never made a slam final...she beat a dwindling Patty Schnyder and an inexperienced Dinara Safina in the final


what a joke of a comment to say that Ivanovic's was tougher

supergrunt
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:23 PM
Easy, the closest match Serena had in the US Open 02 was against Davenport in the semis, where Serena beat her 63 75 and didn't Jankovic served for the match in this years RG semis multiple times or something like that.

By easy people do not mean "easy matches". Rather, they are refering to the quality of opponents that a player faces. Ivanovic faced Schynder,Jankovic, and Safina while Serena beat Hantuchova, Davenport, and Venus. I think this qualifies Serena's win as more difficult (not to take ANYTHING from Ivanovic) but that is just me.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:24 PM
Easy, the closest match Serena had in the US Open 02 was against Davenport in the semis, where Serena beat her 63 75 and didn't Jankovic served for the match in this years RG semis multiple times or something like that.

that just shows serena's dominance over that period..,,it doesnt show that she had an easy draw

supergrunt
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:25 PM
So you keep repeating ad nauseum....

H2H 1-6 is painful reading for Jankovic fans, coulda woulda shoulda been 3-4 (Los Angeles & Roland Garros).

Jelena's 4 semi-final defeats have all come against the eventual champion.

Let's hope when JJ reaches her first GS final she puts in a better performance than your dearest Lena in 04.

... and Ivanovic was a well-deserving RG 07 Champion ..... no arguments.
US Open 2006 she did not loose to the eventual champion.

amirbachar
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:26 PM
Another idea: Adding the points for best round for the same GS for all opponents (excluding the same year) - I think that this will be very interesting to see.

I hope someone will find the time to do that.

Nicolás89
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:28 PM
Legends or not, Serena did not even get wet by beating Davenport or Venus.

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:30 PM
Legends or not, Serena did not even get wet by beating Davenport or Venus.

thats how good 100% serena is :D

vadin124
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:30 PM
Legends or not, Serena did not even get wet by beating Davenport or Venus.

well you never know, all that excitement of winning a Grand Slam ;)

supergrunt
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:31 PM
Well spoted Mr Grunt. 06 was a loooong time ago! :tape:

:D. She was still two games away though.

OsloErik
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:32 PM
As for Ivanovic, I think she had a tougher road to win RG this year than Serena winning the US Open 2002. :shrug:

Serena's US Open win required her to beat the past 3 US Open title holders (Venus, Venus, and Davenport). Davenport may have only been ranked #10, but she basically won that years US Open series (I know that didn't exist, but she earned more points than anyone else that summer, except maybe Venus). In addition, she beat Hantuchova (Indian Wells winner that year), Daja Bedanova (for those who don't remember, basically the Agnes Szavay of 2001, only she didn't stick around), and a young Frenchwoman named Nathalie Dechy who was inching towards the top 20.

I know Safina was on a win streak going into the final, but are you seriously comparing Safina's win streak on clay having never reached a slam semifinal before 2008 to Venus' win streak on hardcourts being the two-time defending US Open champion and world #2?

If you go round by round, I'd say the only time Serena faced an easier opponent would be round one (Arvidsson vs. unranked Morariu in her first US Open) and possibly round two (Safarova vs. 15 year old Safina).

Nicolás89
Jul 16th, 2008, 07:36 PM
I'm just saying how a tough road is to me, it has little to do with the draw and more about how the actual match ended.

OsloErik
Jul 16th, 2008, 08:14 PM
So you mean the French Open draw was tougher for Ivanovic than the US Open draw was for Serena, basically? Because Serena was killing her competition and Ivanovic had a rougher go? That's a little odd, but whatever. It just indicates to me that Serena was better. Which no one is denying, so no complaint here.

Tennisstar86
Jul 17th, 2008, 04:21 AM
Lol.

I love the comment from Dave. "Davenport is a terrible matchup for Venus Williams on grass."

Who the hell IS a good matchup for Venus Williams? She'd be the favorite over anyone. How pathetic.

If you want to hate on the Wiliams Sisters, or Venus, do not bring Wimbledon into it. It's just so desperate and futile. Get over it.

lol Davenport such a bad match up that she had match points in their last meeting on it...

Renalicious
Jul 17th, 2008, 07:25 AM
It's an interesting list, thanks for the post.

vadin124
Mar 21st, 2009, 06:12 PM
upated to include last 2 slams! :worship:

The Dawntreader
Mar 21st, 2009, 06:14 PM
Jen:worship:

Venus:bounce: That's always been my fav Wimbledon run, behind Wimby '05 of course;)

slamchamp
Mar 21st, 2009, 06:16 PM
where maria's usopen?? didn't she beat the number1 and number 2 in the world?:confused:

The Dawntreader
Mar 21st, 2009, 06:18 PM
where maria's usopen?? didn't she beat the number1 and number 2 in the world?:confused:

Henin was 3 in the world, i think.

starin
Mar 21st, 2009, 06:20 PM
Mauresmo's 2006 AO run should be at the bottom. 3 Retirements out of 7 matches and 2 of those retirements came in the SF and F :help: It's not Mauresmo's fault but at least in Ana's run she had to beat 7 players and win her SF and F.

thegreendestiny
Mar 21st, 2009, 06:28 PM
Ana defining a cakewalk :haha:

Lucemferre
Mar 21st, 2009, 06:46 PM
Mauresmo's 2006 AO run should be at the bottom. 3 Retirements out of 7 matches and 2 of those retirements came in the SF and F :help: It's not Mauresmo's fault but at least in Ana's run she had to beat 7 players and win her SF and F.

That major was a big joke. It really was :spit:

Olórin
Mar 21st, 2009, 06:49 PM
Legends or not, Serena did not even get wet by beating Davenport or Venus.

Matias,
She did not get her feet wet because she displayed unbeatable tennis. She made disposing of two multiple grand slams seem as easy feat. Hold that against her if you will.

crazillo
Mar 21st, 2009, 07:15 PM
Shows us why 16 seeds at a GS tournament were much more interesting times.

Direwolf
Mar 22nd, 2009, 12:34 AM
Can we you add...some points if they won the title
while being ranked high, for example:
Henin couldnt beat the number 1 player cuz shes the number 1 ranked...

Top 20 Player - 3----3
Top 10 Player - 5----4
Top 5 Player - 8-----5
Top 2 Player - 10----7
Number 1 Player - 20-9

lol..
just for fun, or u choose the points

Direwolf
Mar 22nd, 2009, 12:42 AM
and...
defeating the
DEFENDING CHAMPION + 15
defeating a
former CHAMPION + 10

KBdoubleu
Mar 22nd, 2009, 01:52 AM
I think you did a good job in coming up with a formula that somewhat reflects the toughness of each draw the grand slam winner had to face. Obviously though, discrepancies can arise when you use a formula like this. There are certain slams that I thought were really tough that should have made the top 10, and some that were not all that difficult that made the top 10. I think Venus' Wimbledon run in 2000 should definitely be ranked first. Just one player she faced in the 7 matches she won was ranked outside of the top 30 (!), with the lowest opponent being ranked #41. She also beat a very in form Serena (Serena often refers to her QF match she played against Raymond was the best she has ever played), who had lost something like 13 games on her way to the semis. She also beat the #1 and #2 in Davenport and Hingis who were playing very solid tennis themselves. Overall, it was a very impressive run (especially for her first slam). Venus' US Open run to the title was also very similar. Every opponent she beat was ranked in the top 50, and she once again beat 1&2 Hingis/Davenport, and exchanging the 8th ranked Serena for the 8th ranked Tauziat. Her '05 Wimbledon run was very strong also. Pierce, Davenport and Sharapova all played great matches against her, but Venus still came through.

moon
Mar 22nd, 2009, 04:29 PM
and...
defeating the
DEFENDING CHAMPION + 15
defeating a
former CHAMPION + 10

and while we're at it, venus and serena should get extra points, every time they had to defeat each other. No other player has ever had to defeat their own sister to win a slam (and in the final, no less).

Tennisstar86
Mar 22nd, 2009, 04:39 PM
Can we you add...some points if they won the title
while being ranked high, for example:
Henin couldnt beat the number 1 player cuz shes the number 1 ranked...

Top 20 Player - 3----3
Top 10 Player - 5----4
Top 5 Player - 8-----5
Top 2 Player - 10----7
Number 1 Player - 20-9

lol..
just for fun, or u choose the points

why would you do that. did you read the thread. its TOUGHEST road to grand slam title... the point of seedings is that the higher the seed, the easier the road...... so why would someone get bonus points for being a high seed. In theory the #1 seed is SUPPOSE to win....

bandabou
Mar 22nd, 2009, 06:40 PM
:lol: So now beating nothing but qualifiers in three sets to win a major is actually more difficult than beating defending champ, former champ, top 10 players..just because you beat them in straights?! Hmmm...people are so funny.

vadin124
Jun 6th, 2009, 07:43 PM
updated.

Maria Croft
Jun 6th, 2009, 07:51 PM
Interesting thread :yeah:

xan
Jun 6th, 2009, 08:58 PM
The system is fatally flawed. People who have beat a load of players outside the top 50 and top 100 are ranked higher than people who beat slews of better-ranked players.

Also some of the point awards are arbitrary. The 12 points for beating a Grand Slam winner are only added if the person won the slam BEFORE the person who beat her won the relevant match. In Maria's AO win Ivanovic is not counted as a GS winner, even though she won her slam 3 months later. There is no rationale for this. Adding the 12 points for Ivanovic would move Maria's AO win up from No 10 to no 3 in this list.

vadin124
Jun 6th, 2009, 09:04 PM
The system is fatally flawed. People who have beat a load of players outside the top 50 and top 100 are ranked higher than people who beat slews of better-ranked players.

Also some of the point awards are arbitrary. The 12 points for beating a Grand Slam winner are only added if the person won the slam BEFORE the person who beat her won the relevant match. In Maria's AO win Ivanovic is not counted as a GS winner, even though she won her slam 3 months later. There is no rationale for this. Adding the 12 points for Ivanovic would move Maria's AO win up from No 10 to no 3 in this list.

in hindsight, i probably have given too many points for a grand slam champion, perhaps 6 or 8 would have been better...however, i am not going back to change it, so if you would like you can do it!

thanks for the feedback though :)

Uranium
Jun 6th, 2009, 09:09 PM
The system is fatally flawed. People who have beat a load of players outside the top 50 and top 100 are ranked higher than people who beat slews of better-ranked players.

Also some of the point awards are arbitrary. The 12 points for beating a Grand Slam winner are only added if the person won the slam BEFORE the person who beat her won the relevant match. In Maria's AO win Ivanovic is not counted as a GS winner, even though she won her slam 3 months later. There is no rationale for this. Adding the 12 points for Ivanovic would move Maria's AO win up from No 10 to no 3 in this list.

Yes there is:lol: When Maria beat her in the AO final, Ana was not a slam champion, so of course Maria would not get points for beating a slam champion when she didn't in that event.

xan
Jun 6th, 2009, 09:42 PM
Yes there is:lol: When Maria beat her in the AO final, Ana was not a slam champion, so of course Maria would not get points for beating a slam champion when she didn't in that event.
The thread is called "Toughest Roads to a GS Title". In other words, it should effectively rank the quality of the players beaten. Ivanovic was far closer to her Grand Slam winning standard when Maria beat her in Australia, than most players for which the relevant points were added.

Actually I agree that the problem of the table is probably more to do with giving too many additional points for GS winners and former world No 1s- so that issues like the one I quoted make too big a diference.

Uranium
Jun 6th, 2009, 09:59 PM
The thread is called "Toughest Roads to a GS Title". In other words, it should effectively rank the quality of the players beaten. Ivanovic was far closer to her Grand Slam winning standard when Maria beat her in Australia, than most players for which the relevant points were added..

I know the title of the thread, thanks. Ana had not gotten over the hump of winning a slam yet, so why should you give her the credit of being a slam winner then when she wasn't. Anyways, we aren't going to agree, so whatever:lol:

Tennisstar86
Jun 6th, 2009, 11:33 PM
The thread is called "Toughest Roads to a GS Title". In other words, it should effectively rank the quality of the players beaten. Ivanovic was far closer to her Grand Slam winning standard when Maria beat her in Australia, than most players for which the relevant points were added.

Actually I agree that the problem of the table is probably more to do with giving too many additional points for GS winners and former world No 1s- so that issues like the one I quoted make too big a diference.

no i dont think so.... .cause the fact of the matter is beating a grand slam champion may not be that big aka you beat Amelie these days; however, unless you want to make a special I beat Serena williams category. 12 points is very Valid IMO.....

Maria should be higher.... really, get over it... Maria's win was good, but there have been more impressive performances....Frankly, I think Venus' 2005 Wimbledon should be lightyears ahead of anyones, but A)Im biased B) I think the system is very fair....

OsloErik
Jun 7th, 2009, 07:52 AM
Hasn't this thread already been pretty much discredited as a 100% arbitrary valuation of opposition? Or did I miss the part where we decided it was fair game?

Svetlana)))
Jun 7th, 2009, 08:53 AM
I thought Svetlana's path to this years FO was tough. She had to come back to defeat Serena (18 match GS winning streak) in the exact same position as the AO. She had to overcome her nemesis Radwanska and finally world no 1 and heavy favourite Safina who was on a 18-match winning streak.

vadin124
Jul 11th, 2009, 02:25 PM
:)

hkyen
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:11 AM
icicic

Noctis
Jul 12th, 2009, 02:39 AM
Serena - Vinci hantuchova Azarenka Dementieva Venus
Expected more

Ryan
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:32 AM
Hasn't this thread already been pretty much discredited as a 100% arbitrary valuation of opposition? Or did I miss the part where we decided it was fair game?



No, you didn't. The points are completely random and seem to have no logical basis. It's funny to watch people argue though.

Donny
Jul 12th, 2009, 02:51 PM
I don't know if you're being sarcastic but yes that's true.

Lol.

Knizzle
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:25 PM
I'm sure this was said before, but that Wimbledon 2000 for Venus was tougher than that OZ for Cappy. Come on now. Very flawed system.

Volcana
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:35 PM
let me know what you think of my list...:DIt's great! I was just thinking the other day about easy vs hard GS roads, and how elite players must have both. Nice to see evidence!

Miss Atomic Bomb
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Serena's 1999 USO run tops all the GS mentioned in the first post :worship:

bandabou
Jul 12th, 2009, 04:02 PM
So no easy majors for Serena..always won it the hard way. Only at the Oz opens and last year's u.s. open she didn't beat the defending champ en route to her title and only at this year's Wimby she didn't beat the no.1 as well.

For the rest she always beat the defending champ AND/ or the no.1 player.

Freakan
Jul 12th, 2009, 08:37 PM
Getting 22 additional points for beating Mauresmo at French Open (plus points for her ranking) :lol: According to that Ivanovic's road to the title was easier than beating Momo at RG :lol: Just proves how crappy this formula is.