PDA

View Full Version : Ranking the 'elite' against each other: 2003


Volcana
Mar 30th, 2003, 05:09 PM
Enough of the year has gone by that I think we can measure the players based on just this year. The 'Race to the Chase' approach. However, this is a different sort of ranking system. It only really measures out current top twelve players. It's designed to ameliorate, to an extent,
the differneces caused by players playing different numbers of tournaments. My interest is in trying to figure out who's being held up inthe rankings by beating up on lesser lights, or by playing a lot, as opposed to those who are actually beating top players. Also, the effects of an easy draw don't show up so much with this method. You only get credit for beating the top 12, and failure to beat players ranked lower than #12 is punished heavily.

The points work this way

+1 Win over 'elite' player
-1 Loss to 'elite' player
-2 Loss to no-elite player

Walkovers don't count
Retirements do

Here are the records for the current top 12, this year, acording to this method



Serena - (+6)

03 Jan 2003 Hopman Cup R1 W CLIJSTERS 7-5 6-3
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open SF W CLIJSTERS 4-6 6-3 7-5
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open FR W V.WILLIAMS 7-6 3-6 6-4
03 Feb 2003 Paris FR W MAURESMO 6-3 6-2
19 Mar 2003 Miami SF W CLIJSTERS 6-4 6-2
19 Mar 2003 Miami SF W CAPRIATI 4-6 6-4 6-1

Kim - (+2)

03 Jan 2003 Hopman Cup R1 L S.WILLIAMS 5-7 3-6
06 Jan 2003 Sydney QF W RUBIN 6-1 6-2
06 Jan 2003 Sydney SF W HENIN-HARDENNE 6-2 6-3
06 Jan 2003 Sydney FR W DAVENPORT 6-4 6-3
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open QF W MYSKINA 6-2 6-4
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open SF L S.WILLIAMS 6-4 3-6 5-7
10 Feb 2003 Antwerp SF W HENIN-HARDENNE 6-2 7-6
10 Feb 2003 Antwerp FR L V.WILLIAMS 2-6 4-6
24 Feb 2003 Scottsdale FR L SUGIYAMA 6-3 5-7 4-6
05 Mar 2003 Indian Wells QF W RUBIN 6-2 6-3
05 Mar 2003 Indian Wells FR W DAVENPORT 6-4 7-5
19 Mar 2003 Miami QF W DOKIC 6-2 6-0
19 Mar 2003 Miami SF L S.WILLIAMS 4-6 2-6

Venus - (+1)

13 Jan 2003 Australian Open QF W HANTUCHOVA 6-4 6-3
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open SF W HENIN-HARDENNE 6-3 6-3
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open FR L S.WILLIAMS 6-7 6-3 4-6
10 Feb 2003 Antwerp SF W HANTUCHOVA 6-1 6-4
10 Feb 2003 Antwerp FR W CLIJSTERS 6-2 6-4
19 Mar 2003 Miami 16 L SHAUGHNESSY 6-7 1-6

Justine - (0)

06 Jan 2003 Sydney SF L CLIJSTERS 2-6 3-6
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open 16 W DAVENPORT 7-5 5-7 9-7
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open SF L V.WILLIAMS 3-6 3-6
10 Feb 2003 Antwerp SF L CLIJSTERS 2-6 6-7
17 Feb 2003 Dubai QF W MYSKINA 6-1 6-4
17 Feb 2003 Dubai SF W CAPRIATI 7-5 4-6 6-4
17 Feb 2003 Dubai FR W SELES 4-6 7-6 7-5
19 Mar 2003 Miami QF L RUBIN 3-6 2-6

Amelie (-3)

03 Feb 2003 Paris FR L WILLIAMS 3-6 2-6
17 Feb 2003 Dubai SF L SELES 3-6 2-2 Ret
19 Mar 2003 Miami 16 L RUBIN 0-6 2-6

Lindsay (-4)

06 Jan 2003 Sydney QF W HANTUCHOVA 6-4 3-6 7-6
06 Jan 2003 Sydney FR L CLIJSTERS 4-6 3-6
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open 16 L HENIN-HARDENNE 5-7 7-5 7-9
27 Jan 2003 Tokyo FR W SELES 6-7 6-1 6-2
24 Feb 2003 Scottsdale 16 L SUGIYAMA 6-7 6-4 3-6
05 Mar 2003 Indian Wells SF W CAPRIATI 6-4 4-6 6-4
05 Mar 2003 Indian Wells FR L CLIJSTERS 4-6 5-7
19 Mar 2003 Miami 16 L BARTOLI 0-6 Ret

Seles (-4)

13 Jan 2003 Australian Open 64 L KOUKALOVA 7-6 5-7 3-6
27 Jan 2003 Tokyo SF W RUBIN 4-6 6-4 6-2
27 Jan 2003 Tokyo FR L DAVENPORT 7-6 1-6 2-6
10 Feb 2003 Doha 16 L KRASNOROUTSKAYA 5-7 5-7
17 Feb 2003 Dubai SF W MAURESMO 6-3 2-2 Ret
17 Feb 2003 Dubai FR L HENIN-HARDENNE 6-4 6-7 5-7

Chanda (-5)

06 Jan 2003 Sydney QF L CLIJSTERS 1-6 2-6
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open 16 L MYSKINA 6-4 4-6 1-6
27 Jan 2003 Tokyo SF L SELES 6-4 4-6 2-6
24 Feb 2003 Scottsdale 16 L GRANVILLE 6-4 2-6 1-6
05 Mar 2003 Indian Wells QF L CLIJSTERS 2-6 3-6
19 Mar 2003 Miami 16 W MAURESMO 6-0 6-2
19 Mar 2003 Miami QF W HENIN-HARDENNE 6-3 6-2
19 Mar 2003 Miami SF L CAPRIATI

Jenn (-6)

06 Jan 2003 Sydney 16 L PANOVA 6-4 4-6 5-7
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open 128 L WEINGARTNER 6-2 6-7 4-6
17 Feb 2003 Dubai SF L HENIN-HARDENNE 5-7 6-4 4-6
05 Mar 2003 Indian Wells SF L DAVENPORT 4-6 6-4 4-6
19 Mar 2003 Miami SF W RUBIN

Anastasia (-8)

06 Jan 2003 Sydney 32 L BOVINA 3-6 5-7
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open 16 W RUBIN 4-6 6-4 6-1
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open QF L CLIJSTERS 2-6 4-6
17 Feb 2003 Dubai QF L HENIN-HARDENNE 1-6 4-6
05 Mar 2003 Indian Wells 64 L KUZNETSOVA 4-6 7-6 3-6
19 Mar 2003 Miami 64 L TAYLOR 5-7 4-6

Daniela (-9)

06 Jan 2003 Sydney QF L DAVENPORT 4-6 6-3 6-7
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open QF L WILLIAMS 4-6 3-6
03 Feb 2003 Paris QF L DEMENTIEVA 5-7 3-6
10 Feb 2003 Antwerp SF L WILLIAMS 1-6 4-6
05 Mar 2003 Indian Wells 16 L COETZER 4-6 4-6
19 Mar 2003 Miami 64 L MOLIK 6-2 5-7 0-6

Jelena (-11)

27 Jan 2003 Tokyo QF L RAYMOND 4-6 2-6
03 Feb 2003 Paris QF L DANIILIDOU 1-6 3-6
10 Feb 2003 Antwerp 32 L SUGIYAMA 5-7 7-5 3-6
24 Feb 2003 Scottsdale 16 L SHAUGHNESSY 4-6 2-6
05 Mar 2003 Indian Wells 64 L RITTNER 1-6 7-5 3-6
19 Mar 2003 Miami QF L CLIJSTERS 2-6 0-6


NOTE: I don't personally like this system, because it ranks Kim ahead of Venus. But I didn't know it would come out that way when I started. I'm still strictly 'Venus #1', but the numbers are what they are.

Volcana
Mar 30th, 2003, 05:10 PM
So the rankings this way would be (tie-breaker is who's ranked higher now) ....


01 (+6) Serena

02 (+2) Kim
03 (+1) Venus

04 (00) Justine

05 (-3) Amelie
06 (-4) Lindsay
07 (-4) Seles
08 (-5) Chanda
09 (-6) Jenn

10 (-8) Anastasia
11 (-9) Daniela

12 (-11) Jelena


Remember, this is just 2003

vs1
Mar 30th, 2003, 05:18 PM
Volcana. Interesting.
One thing though...Jenn beat Chanda in Miami. So she should be -6, not -7.

ys
Mar 30th, 2003, 05:20 PM
Try divisor rankings in that sense, i.e. divide your points by the number of "event"-counting points. Like Seles earned her -6 in 6 events, while Davenpot in 8, which, in a sense, makes Davenport "less" negative..

Also, equating loss to Serena and loss to Hantuchova is somewhat irrational.. It's like comparing someone succeeding at predicting something as rare as full solar eclipse with predicting a rain.

disposablehero
Mar 30th, 2003, 05:23 PM
Also, equating loss to Serena and loss to Hantuchova is somewhat irrational.. It's like comparing someone succeeding at predicting something as rare as full solar eclipse with predicting a rain.

Maybe a loss to Serena should be counted as -0. Or a 3 set loss to Serena could be counted as -0. There's not much shame in it.

Volcana
Mar 30th, 2003, 05:34 PM
The point about losses to Serena is reasonable. Hell, losing to Serena probably shouldn't be as bad as losing to Venus or Kim. I'll have to think about that.

vs1
Mar 30th, 2003, 05:39 PM
Volcana, sorry to be picky, but I think you're still miscalculated Jenn.
________________________
Jenn (-5)

06 Jan 2003 Sydney 16 L PANOVA 6-4 4-6 5-7
13 Jan 2003 Australian Open 128 L WEINGARTNER 6-2 6-7 4-6
17 Feb 2003 Dubai SF L HENIN-HARDENNE 5-7 6-4 4-6
05 Mar 2003 Indian Wells SF L DAVENPORT 4-6 6-4 4-6
19 Mar 2003 Miami SF W RUBIN
________________________

Shouldn't that be -6 for her?

L Panova (-2)
L Weingartner (-2)
L Henin-Hardenne (-1)
L Davenport (-1)
W Rubin (+1)
L S. Williams (-1)

Volcana
Mar 30th, 2003, 06:03 PM
vs1 - No problem at all. Corrections are gratefully accepted. It might even be fair to say I've always beena bad judge of Jenn's ability, so it's no surprise I can't add where she's concerned.

CJ07
Mar 30th, 2003, 06:18 PM
interesting analysis

brickhousesupporter
Mar 30th, 2003, 06:22 PM
A loss is a loss, however I do think a win over Serena should garner more points. However since she has yet to lose, that point is moot.

fammmmedspin
Mar 30th, 2003, 09:01 PM
Interesting. Though as the top 12 keep on changing it could be terribly complicated working who was ranked what when?

If you want to measure quality wins you could just rely on the quality points alone to give some idea as these are heavily biased to top ranked players - though I don't know how to just pull out the 2003 total. The yearly totals duplicate most of your ranking apart from Daniela and Lindsay's recent performance not showing. Both systems fail to allow for injury effects but they both fail in the same way.

1 Serena Williams 2503
2 Venus Williams 1668
3 Kim Clijsters 1564
4 Justine Henin-Hardenne 1191
5 Amelie Mauresmo 939
6 Chanda Rubin 925
7 Daniela Hantuchova 893
8 Jennifer Capriati 892
9 Lindsay Davenport 868
10 Anastasia Myskina 786
11 Jelena Dokic 746
12 Monica Seles 653

Volcana
Mar 30th, 2003, 10:18 PM
Actually, 'twelve' is a result. I was looking for the big break inthe points. Monica's on the wrong side of the break, but as our most accomplished active player, I bowed to reality (and the fact that she defends less than 100 points in the big clay events).

What I find intersting is that this really isolates the middle group that beats up on each other. Amelie, Lindsay, Monica, Chanda and Jenn.

The top four distinctly better than that group, and the last three are definitely less consistent.

CJ07
Mar 30th, 2003, 11:49 PM
thats why I really feel an average system is needed
take the number of tournaments played (17 max) and average the points.

that way if you get injured, your rank wont fall so low. also it will be quality over quantity