PDA

View Full Version : Roads to GS titles: Toughness Coefficient (since 2000)

Ksenia.
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:00 PM
Roelc suggested this method in "Average ranking of Champions' opponents..." (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=345976) thread.
So, the method is: say someone beated WTA-2, WTA-5, WTA-12, WTA-34, WTA-89, WTA-54 and WTA-101
say x = 1/2 + 1/5 + 1/12 + 1/34 + 1/89 + 1/54 + 1/101
Therefore, the higher your opponent is ranked, the more points you get. I did calculations :)

Sorted by year
Year.....Event............................. Champion...........................Coefficient
2009....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................0,834
2009....French Open...................Svetlana Kuznetsova.........1,647
2009....Wimbledon......................Serena Williams..................0,779
2009....US Open..........................Kim Clijsters.......................1,106

2008....Australian Open..............Maria Sharapova................1,721
2008....French Open...................Ana Ivanovic.......................0,581
2008....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,432
2008....US Open..........................Serena Williams..................0,843

2007....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................0,937
2007....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,569
2007....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,956
2007....US Open..........................Justine Henin......................]0,516

2006....Australian Open..............Amelie Mauresmo...............0,9
2006....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,807
2006....Wimbledon......................Amelie Mauresmo...............0,752
2006....US Open..........................Maria Sharapova................1,629

2005....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................1,857
2005....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,864
2005....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................1,636
2005....US Open..........................Kim Clijsters.......................0,752

2004....Australian Open..............Justine Henin......................0,772
2004....French Open...................Anastasia Myskina..............0,528
2004....Wimbledon......................Maria Sharapova................0,451
2004....US Open..........................Svetlana Kuznetsova.........0,592

2003....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................0,894
2003....French Open...................Justine Henin......................1,713
2003....Wimbledon......................Serena Williams..................0,852
2003....US Open..........................Justine Henin......................1,292

2002....Australian Open..............Jennifer Capriati..................0,633
2002....French Open...................Serena Williams..................1,57
2002....Wimbledon......................Serena Williams..................1,251
2002....US Open..........................Serena Williams..................0,782

2001....Australian Open..............Jennifer Capriati..................1,816
2001....French Open...................Jennifer Capriati..................1,298
2001....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,636
2001....US Open..........................Venus Williams...................0,914

2000....Australian Open..............Lindsay Davenport..............0,648
2000....French Open...................Mary Pierce.........................1,575
2000....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................1,778
2000....US Open..........................Venus Williams...................1,733

Sorted in decreasing order
Year.....Event............................. Champion...........................Coefficient
2005....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................1,857
2001....Australian Open..............Jennifer Capriati..................1,816
2000....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................1,778
2000....US Open..........................Venus Williams...................1,733
2008....Australian Open..............Maria Sharapova................1,721

2003....French Open...................Justine Henin......................1,713
2009....French Open...................Svetlana Kuznetsova.........1,647
2005....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................1,636
2006....US Open..........................Maria Sharapova................1,629
2000....French Open...................Mary Pierce.........................1,575
2002....French Open...................Serena Williams..................1,57
2001....French Open...................Jennifer Capriati..................1,298
2003....US Open..........................Justine Henin......................1,292
2002....Wimbledon......................Serena Williams..................1,251
2009....US Open..........................Kim Clijsters.......................1,106
2007....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams..................0,956
2007....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................0,937
2001....US Open..........................Venus Williams...................0,914
2006....Australian Open..............Amelie Mauresmo...............0,9
2003....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................0,894
2005....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,864
2003....Wimbledon......................Serena Williams ..................,852
2008....US Open..........................Serena Williams..................0,843
2009....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................0,834
2006....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,807
2002....US Open..........................Serena Williams..................0,782
2002....Wimbledon......................Serena Williams..................0,779
2004....Australian Open..............Justine Henin......................0,772
2006....Wimbledon......................Amelie Mauresmo...............0,752

2005....US Open..........................Kim Clijsters.......................0,752
2000....Australian Open..............Lindsay Davenport..............0,648
2001....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,636
2002....Australian Open..............Jennifer Capriati..................0,633
2004....US Open..........................Svetlana Kuznetsova.........0,592
2008....French Open...................Ana Ivanovic.......................0,581

2007....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,569
2004....French Open...................Anastasia Myskina..............0,528
2007....US Open..........................Justine Henin......................0,516
2004....Wimbledon......................Maria Sharapova................0,451
2008....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,432

RenaSlam.
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:04 PM
Williams :worship:

moby
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:07 PM
Appreciate your effort (it must have taken a lot of time), but I stopped reading here:

Year.....Event............................. Champion...........................Coefficient
2008....Australian Open..............Maria Sharapova................1,721
2008....French Open...................Ana Ivanovic.......................0,581
2008....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,432

2007....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................0,937
2007....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,569
2007....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,956
2007....US Open..........................Justine Henin......................0,516

Shakira4000
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:10 PM
Appreciate your effort (it must have taken a lot of time), but I stopped reading here:

Year.....Event............................. Champion...........................Coefficient
2008....Australian Open..............Maria Sharapova................1,721
2008....French Open...................Ana Ivanovic.......................0,581
2008....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,432

2007....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................0,937
2007....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,569
2007....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,956
2007....US Open..........................Justine Henin......................0,516

Henin beat three players outsite the top 100 in her first three rounds last year. Sure, she beat Serena, Venus, and Svetlana at the end, but you have to look at OVERALL toughness and not second-week toughness.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:10 PM
I failed to understand how defeating #1 alone (1/1 = 1.000) is worth the same as defeating, say, #2, #3 and #6 COMBINED (1/2 + 1/3 + 1/6 = 0.500 + 0.333 + 0.167 = 1.000)

Miss Amor
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:11 PM
sorry but all these formulas are dont work..take for example 2 draws

wimbledon 2008 draw for niya-
qf- [8] chaky
sf- [2] jj
final- [1] ivanovic

or

wimbledon 2008 draw for niya-
qf- davenport
sf- [8]venus
f- [7] serena

acorrding to the forumla the first draw is way harder...but any tennis follower can tell that the second draw is harder

Dawson.
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:12 PM
i dont get it

The Daviator
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:12 PM
Sorry this list is unacceptable since Ana is not at the bottom :wavey:

Ksenia.
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:14 PM
Don't take it that seriously :lol: These are just numbers :shrug:

Ksenia.
Jul 17th, 2008, 05:15 PM
Sorry this list is unacceptable since Ana is not at the bottom :wavey:Don't worry, hEr wIn wAs a FLuKe aNyWAy!!111

j/k :lol: good one :yeah:

Jul 17th, 2008, 06:06 PM
interesting list...but Serena, Venus and Sveta make up for the early 3 rounds at the USO 07

there is a bigger gap in the quality of Serena, Venus and Sveta over Schnyder, Jankovic and Safina, than there is in the quality of Arvidsson, Safarova and Wozniacki over Goerges, Pironkova and Makarova

sammy01
Jul 17th, 2008, 06:13 PM
intresting because i consider 2004 after the oz open as 1 of the worst grand slams wise for a very long time, and the 3 slams mentioned are in the bottom 7!

Matt01
Jul 17th, 2008, 06:20 PM
Sorry this list is unacceptable since Ana is not at the bottom :wavey:

Well, at least Venus is at the bottom, so in that sense, the list is right ;)

Andrew Laeddis
Jul 17th, 2008, 06:33 PM
interesting list...but Serena, Venus and Sveta make up for the early 3 rounds at the USO 07

there is a bigger gap in the quality of Serena, Venus and Sveta over Schnyder, Jankovic and Safina, than there is in the quality of Arvidsson, Safarova and Wozniacki over Goerges, Pironkova and Makarova

Kuznetsova doesnt make up for anything. Kuznetsova is horrible in finals, chokes against Justine and played possibly the worst match of her career in the semi finals where she was fortunate to get an opponent who played even worse. Her ranking was irrelevant, there was no doubt in my mind she would get slaughtered in the USO final.

mashamaniac
Jul 17th, 2008, 09:03 PM
Ana has had one of the easiest ways along with kuzy...fluke!

xan
Jul 17th, 2008, 09:18 PM
Confirms that Maria has had by FAR the most impressive Grand Slam wins in the past three years. :worship:

Year.....Event............................. Champion...........................Coefficient

2008....Australian Open............Maria Sharapova..............1,721
2008....French Open...................Ana Ivanovic.......................0,581
2008....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,434

2007....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................0,937
2007....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,569
2007....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,956
2007....US Open..........................Justine Henin......................0,516

2006....Australian Open..............Amelie Mauresmo...............0,9
2006....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,807
2006....Wimbledon......................Amelie Mauresmo...............0,752
2006....US Open........................Maria Sharapova..............1,629

amirbachar
Jul 17th, 2008, 10:00 PM
I guess you have this in Excel or something.
If you do, please take root of the numbers before you add them so it would be much more reasonable.
And maybe you can use the old quality points of few years ago and make another rankings.
Oh, And I would decrease any player's rankings since RG 2008 in one place, because Henin was taken off the rankings, but that's just me.

mashamaniac
Jul 17th, 2008, 10:01 PM
Confirms that Maria has had by FAR the most impressive Grand Slam wins in the past three years. :worship:

Year.....Event............................. Champion...........................Coefficient

2008....Australian Open............Maria Sharapova..............1,721
2008....French Open...................Ana Ivanovic.......................0,581
2008....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,434

2007....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................0,937
2007....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,569
2007....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,956
2007....US Open..........................Justine Henin......................0,516

2006....Australian Open..............Amelie Mauresmo...............0,9
2006....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,807
2006....Wimbledon......................Amelie Mauresmo...............0,752
2006....US Open........................Maria Sharapova..............1,629

:worship::worship::worship:

Matt01
Jul 17th, 2008, 10:11 PM
Confirms that Maria has had by FAR the most impressive Grand Slam wins in the past three years. :worship:

AO: Semi-retired Justine, overly nervous Ana, injured Jankovic...yes very impressive :o

mashamaniac
Jul 17th, 2008, 10:21 PM
AO: Semi-retired Justine, overly nervous Ana, injured Jankovic...yes very impressive :o

Ivanovic couldn't beat the same semi-retired henin in january!!! not necessary to mention giving her a bagel...

Ksenia.
Jul 18th, 2008, 07:29 AM
If you wanna argue, find some other place. ktnxbye :wavey:

Sharapowerr
Jul 18th, 2008, 07:32 AM
If you wanna argue, find some other place. ktnxbye :wavey:

Why are u bringing threads back alive... then this one was on the 2 nd page...:rolleyes:

Nikkiri
Jul 18th, 2008, 07:33 AM
If you wanna argue, find some other place. ktnxbye :wavey:

Ksenia.
Jul 18th, 2008, 07:42 AM
Why are u bringing threads back alive... then this one was on the 2 nd page...:rolleyes:Because I was sleeping previous 8 hours, then woke up and read new messaged, then responded I guess? :shrug:

Hardiansf
Jul 18th, 2008, 10:51 AM
Ana has had one of the easiest ways along with kuzy...fluke!
Why is everybody always said that? :rolleyes: Ana have to beat the Rome and Berlin Champions back-to-back en route to the title.
Even Venus last Wimbledon is impressive also. She have to beat Tanasugarn (you can LOL at me, but Tammy is 's-Hertogenbosch champion! :fiery:), Dementieva, and then SERENA.

OsloErik
Jul 18th, 2008, 11:02 AM
It's more of a ranking coefficient. Toughness and ranking aren't the same thing, as I'm sure others have pointed out.

mashamaniac
Jul 18th, 2008, 11:15 AM
Why is everybody always said that? :rolleyes: Ana have to beat the Rome and Berlin Champions back-to-back en route to the title.
Even Venus last Wimbledon is impressive also. She have to beat Tanasugarn (you can LOL at me, but Tammy is 's-Hertogenbosch champion! :fiery:), Dementieva, and then SERENA.

Well you know serena and lenaD ain't comparable to the likes of JJ,safina,etc... serena herself is twice better than jj or safina so we can't say ana has had a tough draw @ RG!

Nikkiri
Jul 18th, 2008, 11:24 AM
Well you know serena and lenaD ain't comparable to the likes of JJ,safina,etc... serena herself is twice better than jj or safina so we can't say ana has had a tough draw @ RG!

Serena was in Ana's section its just too bad she lost early. Maybe they aren't comparable to Serena but Safina had a great clay season she even beat Serena in Berlin and Lena in both Berlin and RG. No one is saying it was a tough draw but give it a rest already it's hardly like Jankovic and Safina are scrubs.

Ksenia.
Jul 18th, 2008, 11:32 AM
mashamaniac, the girl won a Grand Slam title... if you can't accept it, you should get over it anyway :wavey:

OsloErik
Jul 18th, 2008, 11:42 AM
I'd argue that this gives far too much weight in beating the #1. We've had numerous #1 ranked players who aren't the best in the world, or aren't the best on that surface. Does anyone really think beating #1 ranked Clijsters somehoe makes Henin's '03 US Open title better than had she beaten Serena in the final? Even had Serena been active, Clijsters would likely have been higher ranked. In none of Henin's first 3 French Open victories was she the top ranked player in the world, but would anyone deny she was the best clay courter in the world? Does beating Clijsters and Sharapova really validate half a point?

Ranking a player's slam titles by toughness can never work objectively. Tennis isn't an objective sport; there's a context behind every win, every slam, every season. Trying to work out who had a weak slam win isn't a valuable way to create formulas, because no formula really tells the whole story.

Ksenia.
Jul 18th, 2008, 11:45 AM
I'd argue that this gives far too much weight in beating the #1. We've had numerous #1 ranked players who aren't the best in the world, or aren't the best on that surface. Does anyone really think beating #1 ranked Clijsters somehoe makes Henin's '03 US Open title better than had she beaten Serena in the final? Even had Serena been active, Clijsters would likely have been higher ranked. In none of Henin's first 3 French Open victories was she the top ranked player in the world, but would anyone deny she was the best clay courter in the world? Does beating Clijsters and Sharapova really validate half a point?

Ranking a player's slam titles by toughness can never work objectively. Tennis isn't an objective sport; there's a context behind every win, every slam, every season. Trying to work out who had a weak slam win isn't a valuable way to create formulas, because no formula really tells the whole story.Wrong thread? :shrug: This is definitely not what I'm doing :wavey:

Sharapowerr
Jul 18th, 2008, 01:28 PM
Wrong thread? :shrug: This is definitely not what I'm doing :wavey:

No , you so innocent:fiery:

Ksenia.
Jul 18th, 2008, 02:08 PM
No , you so innocent:fiery:Are you okay? :wavey:
If making a stat thread is something you would do to bash a player, that doesn't mean I am the same :shrug: Never judge people based on what you would do :)

Doc
Jul 18th, 2008, 03:20 PM
Confirms that Maria has had by FAR the most impressive Grand Slam wins in the past three years. :worship:

Year.....Event............................. Champion...........................Coefficient

2008....Australian Open............Maria Sharapova..............1,721
2008....French Open...................Ana Ivanovic.......................0,581
2008....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,434

2007....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................0,937
2007....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,569
2007....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................0,956
2007....US Open..........................Justine Henin......................0,516

2006....Australian Open..............Amelie Mauresmo...............0,9
2006....French Open...................Justine Henin......................0,807
2006....Wimbledon......................Amelie Mauresmo...............0,752
2006....US Open........................Maria Sharapova..............1,629

Very striking.

hankqq
Jul 18th, 2008, 03:29 PM
C'mon guys-Niya has said she's not trying to prove anything. All she did was work out a calculation based on an idea someone had. I think it's interesting to look at. Of course, numbers alone don't always tell the whole story, such as how players match up in head-to-heads, or if we feel that certain players are better/worse than their ranking. All this is is an interesting numeric way to look at recent slam wins. Nothing really to argue about. Thanks Niya for posting!! :)

OsloErik
Jul 18th, 2008, 04:04 PM
Wrong thread? :shrug: This is definitely not what I'm doing :wavey:

Well, it's what everyone else seems to be doing, based on the numbers YOU generated.

And, incidentally, since you titled your calculation the "toughness coefficient", indicating that the higher number equates a higher degree of toughness, what would you call the opposite (i.e. what does a lower number equate)? Because tough and weak are pretty effective opposites, in my opinion ;)

-Sonic-
Jul 18th, 2008, 04:14 PM
2005....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................1,857
2001....Australian Open..............Jennifer Capriati..................1,816
2000....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................1,778
2000....US Open..........................Venus Williams...................1,733
2008....Australian Open..............Maria Sharapova................1,721

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't at least 3 of these slams where the winner was ranked "low" or "lower than they should have been" ?

Venus @ 00 Wimbledon - Had half of 2000 off... and still not had a full year at 00 USO
Cap @ 01 AO - first slam, so ranked lot lower beforehand
Serena @ 05 AO - big comeback

Does that show that a good seeding most definately means an easier road to a title?

Ksenia.
Jul 18th, 2008, 04:41 PM
Well, it's what everyone else seems to be doing, based on the numbers YOU generatedWell, since you didn't talk to anyone in particular I thought you are talking to me as to threadstarter.
If somebody's talking bullshit based on numbers I calculated that's all about him/her, not about me I think :shrug:

And, incidentally, since you titled your calculation the "toughness coefficient", indicating that the higher number equates a higher degree of toughness, what would you call the opposite?I wouldn't call it anyhow. There's no opposite. All the first post says, is: "according to this formula, in year 200x at tournament X player X's toughness coefficient is: x,xxx". It's up to people who read it to take it as I do, or to worship players, or to say players' wins are flukes... I never do this, and I advice other people not to.
A Grand Slam title is a Grand Slam title anyway.

DemWilliamsGulls
Jul 18th, 2008, 05:19 PM
Williams :worship:

EXACTLY! Man whoever said that the Williams sister didnt dominate this generation of tennis is CRAZY...look at the name Williams all on the board. They won a grand slame every year except 04 and 06...thats straight up RAW! LEGENDS....they will go down in the history books baby....!!!! :worship:

mashamaniac
Jul 18th, 2008, 06:42 PM
mashamaniac, the girl won a Grand Slam title... if you can't accept it, you should get over it anyway :wavey:

Well i never said i can't accept it but people act as if she's won a GS by having a tough draw! comparing ana's and maria's roads to respectively RG and AO titles you'll see that maria has beaten tougher players from her 2nd round(linzi) while ivanovic never played a tense and tough one until semis!

mashamaniac
Jul 18th, 2008, 06:48 PM
Serena was in Ana's section its just too bad she lost early. Maybe they aren't comparable to Serena but Safina had a great clay season she even beat Serena in Berlin and Lena in both Berlin and RG. No one is saying it was a tough draw but give it a rest already it's hardly like Jankovic and Safina are scrubs.

I tell you that safina's three-week run in berlin and RG was a fluke...anyways i guess we've had enough of these arguements!

amirbachar
Jul 18th, 2008, 09:15 PM
2005....Australian Open..............Serena Williams..................1,857
2001....Australian Open..............Jennifer Capriati..................1,816
2000....Wimbledon......................Venus Williams...................1,778
2000....US Open..........................Venus Williams...................1,733
2008....Australian Open..............Maria Sharapova................1,721

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't at least 3 of these slams where the winner was ranked "low" or "lower than they should have been" ?

Venus @ 00 Wimbledon - Had half of 2000 off... and still not had a full year at 00 USO
Cap @ 01 AO - first slam, so ranked lot lower beforehand
Serena @ 05 AO - big comeback

Does that show that a good seeding most definately means an easier road to a title?

You right - the formula should be based on the rankings of the opponent excluding the player herself.

spencercarlos
Jul 18th, 2008, 09:21 PM
I tell you that safina's three-week run in berlin and RG was a fluke...anyways i guess we've had enough of these arguements!
Not more than Maria's run last year to Roland Garros semis :wavey:

mashamaniac
Jul 18th, 2008, 09:27 PM
Not more than Maria's run last year to Roland Garros semis :wavey:

Yeah i agree.last year's run to RG semis was an absolute fluke... now can you tell me what was the point of this post??:devil::rolleyes:

spencercarlos
Jul 18th, 2008, 09:40 PM
Yeah i agree.last year's run to RG semis was an absolute fluke... now can you tell me what was the point of this post??:devil::rolleyes:
You were bashing Safina's run on clay this year with abosolutely no reason.
Safina proved at Roland Garros that Berlin 2008 and even Rome 2006 were not fluke, the girl finds her form on clay.

mashamaniac
Jul 18th, 2008, 09:43 PM
I bashed safina's run but never claimed that maria's run last year wasn't a fluke!! so that's it...

spencercarlos
Jul 18th, 2008, 09:49 PM
I bashed safina's run but never claimed that maria's run last year wasn't a fluke!! so that's it...
k bye :wavey:

Ksenia.
Jul 19th, 2008, 06:15 AM
If you wanna argue, find some other place. ktnxbye :wavey::wavey:

Ksenia.
Sep 11th, 2008, 11:15 AM
Updated - Serena's coefficient is 0,843 :)

Ksenia.
Feb 3rd, 2009, 07:33 PM
updated ;)

LCS
Feb 3rd, 2009, 08:26 PM
Not taking this kind of statistic...misleading all the way :wavey:

OsloErik
Feb 3rd, 2009, 09:16 PM
Oh god, not this rubbish again. This is a more misleading pseudo-"stat" than 99% of Cp6uja's threads.

frenchie
Feb 3rd, 2009, 09:28 PM
Oh yes great way to rank GS by toughness of opponents:o

Nastya at 0,528 beating Molik, Kuznetsova, Venus Williams, Capriati and Dementieva at RG 2004:worship::worship:

Filippo-Nastya
Feb 3rd, 2009, 09:34 PM
Oh yes great way to rank GS by toughness of opponents:o

Nastya at 0,528 beating Molik, Kuznetsova, Venus Williams, Capriati and Dementieva at RG 2004:worship::worship:

I agree with you. ;)
When I saw that Nastya's coefficient was only 0,528 I was like WTF??? :help:

Andrew Laeddis
Feb 3rd, 2009, 09:44 PM
Oh yes great way to rank GS by toughness of opponents:o

Nastya at 0,528 beating Molik, Kuznetsova, Venus Williams, Capriati and Dementieva at RG 2004:worship::worship:

With the way her opponents played, it should be lower.

2Black
Feb 3rd, 2009, 09:46 PM
This is very misleading ... take the 2003 US Open where Justine got a relatively high score. What it fails to mention is that the 2 best players in the world at that time witthdrew. She couldn't beat Venus or Serena in 2003 ... not at a US Open - NO WAY!!!

Matt01
Feb 3rd, 2009, 09:50 PM
This is very misleading ... take the 2003 US Open where Justine got a relatively high score. What it fails to mention is that the 2 best players in the world at that time witthdrew. She couldn't beat Venus or Serena in 2003 ... not at a US Open - NO WAY!!!

OMG the bitterness of the WS trolls is really reaching new heights :weirdo: :help:

By 2003 US Open, the WS already weren't the 2 best players in the world anymore :wavey::wavey::wavey:

OsloErik
Feb 3rd, 2009, 09:59 PM
OMG the bitterness of the WS trolls is really reaching new heights :weirdo: :help:

By 2003 US Open, the WS already weren't the 2 best players in the world anymore :wavey::wavey::wavey:

Really? On hard courts? Neither Clijsters nor Henin had made a hard court slam final yet. Venus and Serena had taken 8 of the last 10 spots in hard court slam finals. Capriati and Henin were the other two, and did so while Serena didn't play (Australia '02).

I think he argued his point poorly and illogically, but the actual complaint is pretty accurate. As we've pointed out so many times, ranking isn't 100% indicative of being the best player in the world. Especially on a given surface. For example, Henin wasn't the #1 player in the world at three of her French Open titles, but she was clearly the gold standard for clay tennis on the tour (at least in her 3 final French titles). Venus has only been #1 at Wimbledon once (2002), yet she's demonstrably the best grass player on the tour. Serena hasn't been #1 at the Australian since 2003, yet had Safina beaten her she wouldn't have received as much credit for that win as she would have for beating Jankovic. There's a disconnect between toughness and ranking that the OP simply hasn't addressed because he hasn't a way to do so.

Matt01
Feb 3rd, 2009, 10:15 PM
Really? On hard courts? Neither Clijsters nor Henin had made a hard court slam final yet. Venus and Serena had taken 8 of the last 10 spots in hard court slam finals. Capriati and Henin were the other two, and did so while Serena didn't play (Australia '02).

Well, I've seen Justine's matches at 2003 Us Open and there's no doubt in m ymind that she was the best player in the world at that time, given her ridiculous high level of play at that tournament and given that she had already won San Diego and Canadian Open the weeks before. And besides this all irelvant anyway since the WS weren't fit and didn't play that tourney.

Oh, and no offence but IMO you have to be blind not to see that Justine was clearly ill at RG 2002 when she lost to Kapros :nerner:
(and this is not meant as an excuse, Kapros won that match fair and square)

espntennis
Feb 3rd, 2009, 10:19 PM
This is very misleading ... take the 2003 US Open where Justine got a relatively high score. What it fails to mention is that the 2 best players in the world at that time witthdrew. She couldn't beat Venus or Serena in 2003 ... not at a US Open - NO WAY!!!

LOL. Reality is you can only beat the peope who are in the draw. The tournament wasn't going to be cancelled because they weren't there.. lol

Cp6uja
Feb 3rd, 2009, 10:31 PM
updated ;)Don't listen bitter people... this is very good idea... but results shows that used method must be corrected. Beating #1 or #2 WTA player in road to title is simple overrated here. For example Serena at AO/09 won all 7 matches beating 2 TOP4 players (#1-#4 seeds from draw) and one another opponent from #5-#8 seeds group and reach just 0.834 coefficient - on other hand Bartoli before been trashed in Quarterfinal won just one seeded opponent (but #1) and for 4 wins (#102, #44, #60, #1) which she has at AO/09 she reach 1.049 coefficient :confused: Or for example Serena's last USO title where other French Women, Julie Coin won #1 Ivanovic and another non-seeded player before lose 3rd round match - enough to reach "bigger" coefficient than Serena winner!?

Easiest way to correct this obvious Bug is to use some kind of "protecting constant" (I reccomend You to use 2).

That means if Serena beat #3, #4, #8, #14, #41, #45, #123 - her Toughness Coefficient will be counted by formula:
1/(pc+3)+1/(pc+4)+1/(pc+8)+1/(pc+14)+1/(pc+41)+1/(pc+45)+1(pc+123) where "pc" is choosen "protected constant".
Using pc=2 by this constant Serenas AO/09 title will have 0.582 Toughness Coefficient and 0.533 for last seasons US Open wins - and Bartoli will have for AO/09 QF 0.381 and Coin 0.357 for last US Open.

So i suggest you to recalculate all 2000+ WTA GS titles and present all that new Toughness Coefficient results and order :wavey:

Slutiana
Feb 3rd, 2009, 11:29 PM
:tape: