Tennis Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
328 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
have you ever tried rank wta pros by ratio of won/lost matches or % of lost matches comparing to career total number of matches played

yeah I'm bit bored and have some time in hand :)

so ive decided to try and rank wta players (top 10) according to their ratio of number of matches won and lost during thier career

It's interesting that the best result come from players outside of top 10 which are namely Serena Williams, Martina Hingis and Venus Williams. It makes you wonder are we having inconsistent and maybe not so good players on the top or it's just competition overall even from outside of top 10 got stronger? I know it's bit simplified but still... can someone explain me what's going on here :confused:
name

wta ranking

proposed ranking

ratio

% of lost matches to total matches played

matches won

matches lost

prize money, mln

serena williams

104

1

20.65

17.11

310

64

15,907

hingis

15

2

22.13

18.12

506

112

19,130

venus williams

12

3

23.22

18.85

422

98

16,213

clijsters

2

4

24.10

19.42

390

94

13,533

henin

3

5

24.74

19.83

388

96

11,320

sharapova

4

6

24.76

19.85

210

52

5,698

davenport

6

7

26.03

20.65

703

183

21,549

mauresmo

1

8

39.36

28.24

437

172

10,938

kuznetsova

7

9

42.73

29.94

220

94

5,469

pierce

9

10

45.65

31.34

506

231

9,700

petrova

5

11

51.02

33.78

294

150

4,513

dementieva

8

12

53.20

34.73

359

191

6,981

shnyder

10

13

65.00

39.39

400

260

5,234
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
328 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
So the ranking according to the ratio would be:

1. serena williams
2. hingis
3. venus williams

4. clijsters
5. henin
6. sharapova
7. davenport
8. mauresmo
9. kuznetsova
10. pierce
11. petrova
12. dementieva
13. shnyder
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,198 Posts
Some players immediately had great results starting from day 1 they were on tour causing a high ratio. Other players first had some years in which they had to learn how to play, get over their nerves to win close/big matches,... Everyone has another career path :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
328 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
yeah true but you can't say that top 3 played less matches than the rest overall
you could say that new guns like sharapova, kuznetsova and petrova played less matches so it's understandable although sharapova's record is not so bad how abt the rest of them they played a lot and they lost much more than top 3 who bizzarely not even in top 10 :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,755 Posts
The problem with the scheme being that Martina Navratilova might be in the top ten were her career results tabulated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
If you would play only one tournament, and win it
you would have a ratio of 100%, but with this ranking system you wouldn't even have a ranking because you need to play at least 3 to get a ranking
that's sort of what causes the difference, especially in Serena's case: she has only played 374 matches on tour (and lost 64) whereas Kim and Justine both played 484 (lost respectively 94 and 96)
Serena has a better ratio but plays less, so earns less points...
others, like Momo, who played 609 matches, are just slow starters and only become top players later in their career, that explains why she lost 172 matches (compared to Hingis 618 played, 112 lost)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
328 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
yeah true but i took only players who play in singles now...
i don't have that much time to calculate records of all who played once upon a time :D
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
5,857 Posts
Well the main point of your post seems to be that the Williamses and Hingis are not in the Top 10, even though they win the most matches. The reason for that is that they did not play full schedules in the past year. Can we all go back to bed now?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,354 Posts
controlfreak said:
Well the main point of your post seems to be that the Williamses and Hingis are not in the Top 10, even though they win the most matches. The reason for that is that they did not play full schedules in the past year. Can we all go back to bed now?
:bowdown:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
328 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
serena played 310 matches and bothe JHH and Kim played 388 each which is not much different... but still serena managed to loose only 64 comparing 94 for Belgian gals
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
328 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
yeah you can go back to bed now, controlfreak but not me it's 3pm and I'm bored!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
867 Posts
FP said:
serena played 310 matches and bothe JHH and Kim played 388 each which is not much different... but still serena managed to loose only 64 comparing 94 for Belgian gals
sorry, but you read the table wrong...
310 is the amount of matches Serena won, not the total amount played
in total she played 374 (310 + 64), Kim (390 + 94) and Justine (388 + 96) both played 484
which is 110 matches more, that's a lot IMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
FP said:
serena played 310 matches and bothe JHH and Kim played 388 each which is not much different... but still serena managed to loose only 64 comparing 94 for Belgian gals
that 78 matches could include Justine's 3 French Opens and Kim's US Open.

not that much difference huh. =P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
328 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
oh yeah you are right Sven sorry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
328 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
yeah, MM, but don't forget that serena managed to squeez her 7 GS into her 374 matches played...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,919 Posts
This system has a basic flaw: it obliterates consideration of the LEVEL of the matches the player has won. There's a reason that in the rankings, Slam wins count more than Tier 3 wins.

Interestingly, though, the top players in your system, Venus, Serena, and Martina, have played mostly high-level events in their careers, especially the Williams sisters. But some of the other players (probably Sharapova is the most obvious, with her Tier 3 wins over lowly players counting the same as Slam wins over #1s) look artificially good here due to this missing factor.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top