View Full Version : Maxim Gorky analyzes tennis

Feb 11th, 2003, 12:39 PM
Divided TOTAL tournament by points because I feel it's a better measure of productivity. I toosed in a few jhigh ranked players so it was easier to see how well the lowere ranked players with few tournaments were doing. Remember, under this system, a five point difference is like a hundred points in the rankings. And outside the top fifty, 100 points can be ten, even twenty ranking spots.

rk ppt

09 168.86 Monica Seles 2364 14

Okay, so no one ranked below her
(but Chanda) is any threat at all.
She's just there as a marker.

10 81.14 Jelena Dokic 2353 29

Yeah she plays too much. But
look at the gap between her
and Raymond. She's certainly
on of the fifteen best players
in the world, even though she's
not playing like top ten right now.

21 57.64 Lisa Raymond 1268 22

She's making a run for a spot
on the Olympic team. (IMHO)

52 54.15 Myriam Casanova 704 13

Here's the surprise to me.
Not even top fifty, but
producing points like she
should be SOLIDLY seeded
in the Slams. Like #25, #26.

98 52.57 Ashley Harkleroad 367 17 7

The highest ranked American
under age 21. Is the USTA
even capable of developing

Tennisconer had a typo. Harlkeroad
has SEVEN tournaments, not
seventeen. I two-facedly worship
her feet. :) Seriously, I know will
have to do a real write-up, since I nuked
her using lame data as a source.
Ah penance. Actually, it's the USTA I owe
the apology to, but I'm not sure about them.

47 49.73 Mary Pierce 746 15

Concievably could be seeded at RG.
If she had 17 tournaments and
continued to earn points at this
rate she's have about 845.
Right now, that's #39.
#38 if you assume the absence
of Hingis.

20 48.42 Silvia Farina Elia 1356 28

"... Catch me now I'm falling...."

40 46.22 Vera Zvonareva 832 18

She's already 18. The arc
of her career just isn't saying
'elite player'.

33 40.58 Iva Majoli 974 24

This is with Charleston holding
up her ranking. Over a third of
her points.

69 39.76 Dinara Safina 517 13

She's earning points like she
should be seeded at the Slams.
Almost. For a 16 years old,
doing quite well.
NOt Hingis-esque, but ....

44 37.29 Barbara Schett 783 21

Same age as Capriati, Davenport
Rubin etc. Top ten a couple
years ago. Has she just stopped
caring? Why is it that
every blonde who becomes
loses all form?

96 35.18 Lina Krasnoroutskaya 387 11

See Zvonareva

53 33.19 Iroda Tulyaganova 697 21
54 30.72 Anna Kournikova 676 22

See many, many, many other

73 16.41 Klara Koukalova 476 29

Hope she has 'top hundred'
bonuses in her endorement
contracts. At 16.41 points
per tournament, this may
be a career high ranking.

Feb 11th, 2003, 12:49 PM
Lina K. missed a year with injuries, so she had to start from scratch. I think she has a chance to be an elite player, more than Vera Z.
But re: Vera, Ashley, some people develop later. I doubt they'll be grand slam winners, but see Danilidou, she was on no one's radar at 18, didn't make her first grand slam main draw till she was 19 I believe, now she's closing in on top 10.

Interesting numbers. Thanks.

Feb 11th, 2003, 01:25 PM
Great thread! (Lina :sad: ) BTW, no disrespect to MGM, but this confirms why the SUI Fed. "placed their bets" on Myriam a few years ago. I didn't want to admit Vera Z. being a disappointment, but "the Vera" will likely be Douchevina. See, V, this is EXACTLY why the "best 17" ranking method totally sux. It's a tool of the event owners who REALLY run the WTA (and ATP) to get the "names" playing everywhere (to have 17 events "cherry picked"). And it's NOT just Jeca with (31?) last year, the TYPICAL non-injured player had mid 20's in singles events. (Plus you get an outrage like "coach" Krizan getting Srebotnik doing dubs with her everywhere as well as singles :rolleyes: )! Ever wonder why all these "wear and tear" injuries are so common?

Feb 11th, 2003, 01:50 PM
The top ten with this method is :


Only Dokic is out, replaced by Chanda Rubin.
Obviously you can't be atop player without "productivity". But the method doesn't take into account an important issue which is CONSISTENCY.
A ranking that would interest me is an "elo"-type ranking based only on head to heads without distinction of the tournament. It would probably give something similar with the quality points ranking, indeed.

Feb 11th, 2003, 02:05 PM
mishar - you're correct about slow development of course. I always try to remember Martina Navratilova didn't win her first GS til she was 23. But for MOST players, their peak years are either late teens to early twenties, or late twenties. But even the real good players peaking in their late twenties are usually peaking aroudn #15 - #5. And I can't recall a GS winner doing that. (Novotna is just weird.) But Testud and Halard-Decugis, for example, but became top ten players rather late in their careers.

Lin K's injury have been unfortunate in more ways than one. Besides retarding her development, Serena and Kim both REALLY racheted up their games. They are a lot less likely to be eliminated from a tournament before LK would meet them, and now it's a sure loss for her. In 2001, both of them were good for a poor result or two, and a much lower ranked player, like Lina K, would reap the points. Or not have to play them since they lost early. Ain't hap'n now. Points are dear.

Feb 11th, 2003, 06:16 PM
Oh c'mon guys! I know it's an obscure literary reference but someone must have caught it. Brian Stewart, take your time. Let someone else answer.

Feb 11th, 2003, 07:03 PM
great analysis

thats definately the real top 10

as for Zvonareva, give her a year or two before you draw conclusions as in the BIG matches, she is able to come up with the goods

Feb 11th, 2003, 07:57 PM
Nicolás - Not the book I was referring to, but you've pegged the author.

Feb 11th, 2003, 10:17 PM
Perhaps, you meant the book "At the bottom", which AFAIK, was published in West under very strange name "The Lower Depths". That would be my best guess..

Feb 11th, 2003, 11:24 PM
I agree about Jelena. If she somehow manages not to lose interest in her matches all the time, I think she definetly belongs in top ten.

Well, Maxim Gorky is one of my fave authors (His autobiography "My childhood", IMO, is amongst the top ten best books of I have ever read), but I am at a loss how/in what way this thread is related to him. :confused:

Feb 11th, 2003, 11:50 PM
Nicely done ys! "The Lower Depths", it is! We talk about the top five all the time. It can get old.

Feb 12th, 2003, 12:33 AM
I love his "Conversations with Tolstoy"

I'm not sure why you think you're mistaken Volcana. Ashley has played 17 tournaments, I believe.
And I'm not proposing that she is any great shakes, but she is the 4th youngest girl in the top 100. (Only Kusnetsova, Casanova and Safina are younger.)
And while I agree that if a player is going to have a major impact on the game, they're usually in the top 10 before they turn 18, there are plenty of good top 20-30 players who are not in the top 60 before they turn 18.

Such as:

In other words, not most of the "superstars" but some pretty good players. So it's a little early to dismiss Harckleroad altogether.

Feb 12th, 2003, 02:21 AM
Oh the hell with it. I predict Ashley Harleroad wins the US Open this year! I don't know what the hell is going on!

Feb 12th, 2003, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by Volcana
Oh the hell with it. I predict Ashley Harleroad wins the US Open this year! I don't know what the hell is going on! "Spice Girls II" final - Britney vs. Sharky! :p

Feb 12th, 2003, 03:27 AM
:) Well, I wouldn't go that far!;)

She's no grand slam champion, but I'm not sure her performance is a reason for despair. Though it is too bad she's the best under-20 player the US seems to have right now.