[AcesHigh]

Look at matches played not tournaments entered. That should be obvious.

[Beat]

Originally Posted by ivanban

There are 52 weeks in a year. So, if one plays 33 tournaments (and probably don't go further than QF) it means such players have almost 20 weeks for resting. Plus, they chosen to be professional athletes so it's their job to play and earn for a living that way.
Can You think of another job with at least 20 weeks off during a year?!?!

ever heard about travelling and training?

[.Ivan.]

Originally Posted by pesto

According to the WTA stats, Steffi turned pro in October 82, retired in August 99, with a win-loss ratio of 900-115. That's 1015 matches in 17 years, or about 60 matches a year. Plus 173-72 in doubles.

How many of today's players will play over a thousand matches in their career?

I think that Petrova, Pennetta and Hantuchova have played over 800 matches. I can't think of anyone approaching the 1000 mark.

The physical nature of the game won't allow for another career like Steffi's and especially not with the same success as Graf. Playing that many matches over a career would require very strategic scheduling and likely wouldn't produce a win ratio anything close to hers.

[ivanban]

Originally Posted by Beat

ever heard about travelling and training?

Ever seen my other posts in this tread?

[Viktymise]

$$$

And for journeywomen, it's a chance to visit difference cities every other week, with a free hotel room being thrown into the deal half of the time.

[Please Give]

They should half the amount of tournaments, around 43% just aren't needed

[Anabelcroft]

Originally Posted by pesto

According to the WTA stats, Steffi turned pro in October 82, retired in August 99, with a win-loss ratio of 900-115. That's 1015 matches in 17 years, or about 60 matches a year. Plus 173-72 in doubles.

According to WTA list of career win/loss %,Steffi Graf is at 902-115:

http://www.wtatennis.com/news/article/2693866

take a look.

[pov]

Originally Posted by Sam L

Ok, I have to admit it has been a long time since I've looked at the Top 100 ranked players on the WTA. I only looked because Serena's No. 1.

I was shocked to find that so many players are playing so many tournaments. I went back to a WTA top 100 list back in 1992 and found one player playing 22 tournaments. That was the most by anyone in the top 100.

Now there are over 60 players playing more than 22 tournaments. The most is someone playing 33 tournaments? What? Is this normal? How long has it been like this?

Back in 1992, Seles and Graf used to play like 14 tournaments. They'd be considered part-time players by today's standards?

I think you're skewing things. While there may have only been one player playing 22 tournaments there were many playing 19 and more. And if you look at 1991 you'll see that many players played more than 22. That a number of players are playing 3 - 5 more tournaments than before is IMO no big deal. What I see as a significant comparison is that there are almost as many players playing more than 25 tournaments as those playing more than 20 in the 90S. It's been like that for at least 10 years.

[StoneRose]

Why do i turn up for work most days? Most players don't go that deep into tournaments so it's not like they're overplaying and they have to eat too.

[rjd1111]

Originally Posted by Sam L

Ok, I have to admit it has been a long time since I've looked at the Top 100 ranked players on the WTA. I only looked because Serena's No. 1.

I was shocked to find that so many players are playing so many tournaments. I went back to a WTA top 100 list back in 1992 and found one player playing 22 tournaments. That was the most by anyone in the top 100.

Now there are over 60 players playing more than 22 tournaments. The most is someone playing 33 tournaments? What? Is this normal? How long has it been like this?

Back in 1992, Seles and Graf used to play like 14 tournaments. They'd be considered part-time players by today's standards?

Go and look at the prize money in '92 vs today.

[faboozadoo15]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but there are hundreds of girls playing tennis with "top 100" talent. When you can get your ranking high enough, you enter any WTA tournament. It's a no brainer-- guaranteed income. If you think of it as gambling, you have to play as many tournaments as possible before they start to break your way. A draw could open up, and you have to be very opportunistic. Practicing at home gets you nowhere when some LL makes the final of an event you passed up on. There are more tournaments now and more competition. Travel is easier, and there's no divisor system.
Most of the girls we're talking (most every girl on tour, actually) about are losing 1st or 2nd round every week with some exception. The girls are also fitter-- they train harder.

[dencod16]

As Boiled Egg mentioned it is about average rankings. That really shake things up, you need to be more intelligent with your tournaments making sure you are healthy and can go far with averaging. If you check 1996 and 1997 where the average ranking was abolished the players were playing a lot more events. Just as an example on how average rankings effect, Wozniacki would have not been no. 1 at the end of 2010 and 2011.

Wozniacki - 8035/22 = 365.23
Zvonareva - 6785/19 = 357.11
Clijsters - 6635/14 = 473.93
Serena - 5355/13 = 411.92

which means Clijsters would have been 1 and Serena would have been 2.

In 2011
WOZNIACKI - 7485/22 = 340.23
KVITOVA - 7370/19 = 387.90
AZARENKA - 6520/21 = 310.48
SHARAPOVA - 6510/15 = 434
LI - 5720/18 = 317.77

In this case Sharapova would have been no. 1. If Wozniacki didn't play Bastad, Sydney, and Toronto where she scored low.
7485/19 = 393.95 would have placed her in second rather than third.

[stromatolite]

Originally Posted by dencod16

As Boiled Egg mentioned it is about average rankings. That really shake things up, you need to be more intelligent with your tournaments making sure you are healthy and can go far with averaging. If you check 1996 and 1997 where the average ranking was abolished the players were playing a lot more events. Just as an example on how average rankings effect, Wozniacki would have not been no. 1 at the end of 2010 and 2011.

Wozniacki - 8035/22 = 365.23
Zvonareva - 6785/19 = 357.11
Clijsters - 6635/14 = 473.93
Serena - 5355/13 = 411.92

which means Clijsters would have been 1 and Serena would have been 2.

In 2011
WOZNIACKI - 7485/22 = 340.23
KVITOVA - 7370/19 = 387.90
AZARENKA - 6520/21 = 310.48
SHARAPOVA - 6510/15 = 434
LI - 5720/18 = 317.77

In this case Sharapova would have been no. 1. If Wozniacki didn't play Bastad, Sydney, and Toronto where she scored low.
7485/19 = 393.95 would have placed her in second rather than third.

Any time a player is #1 based on average points over 13-14 tournaments would be a complete travesty for the tour.

It's as much whoring to pick and choose your tournaments to save your energy for a few outstanding performances as playing 30 tournaments and throwing away redundant results. They'd be just high class society whores as opposed to cheap street hookers, but whores all the same.

Btw: I have no real objection to players playing less than a full calendar under the current system, it's their choice, and if they can get enough points in 12-13 tournaments to top the rankings or get close to it, all power to them. But it's their choice to economize on their energy like that, and if other players whose average level is a bit lower but can maintain that for a full calendar, they deserve the extra points that gets them. Only up to a point of course, which is why they can only count 16 tournaments to their ranking.

[dencod16]

Originally Posted by stromatolite

Any time a player is #1 based on average points over 13-14 tournaments would be a complete travesty for the tour.

It's as much whoring to pick and choose your tournaments to save your energy for a few outstanding performances as playing 30 tournaments and throwing away redundant results. They'd be just high class society whores as opposed to cheap street hookers, but whores all the same.

Are you ranting at me? I am just explaining why players played less then than they are today.

[stromatolite]

Originally Posted by dencod16

Are you ranting at me? I am just explaining why players played less then than they are today.

Sorry, no, it wasn't directed specifically at you. I have no problems with your post, which was very informative, so belated thanks for that

But there are a lot of people on this board who do believe that a player who plays half the year and win most of the tournaments she plays should be the rightful #1.