The Significance of Number of Tournaments Played
What we have in the top ten.
17 Davenport<br />17 Capriati<br />12 V. Williams<br />18 Hingis<br />26 Clijsters<br />10 S.Williams<br />24 Henin<br />26 Dokic<br />20 Mauresmo<br />14 Seles
4 players who play a very average number of tournaments.<br />3 players who played a lot more than average. (The three youngest. Qu'el surprise.)<br />3 players who played a lot less than average.
This would indicate that how often you play is of little relevance to final ranking.<br />That's also a bit counter-intuitive.
Take the two lowest ranked top 'tenors'.
2981 Dokic 26 Tournaments 111.19/tr (111 points from worst tournaments results not counted in ranked.)<br />2306 Seles 14 Tournaments 161.74/tr
Monica's per tournament average blow<br />s away Jelena.<br />But is that an indicator of relative skill?<br />Is it a predictor of future results?
Jelena is the player with the higher ranking, and she's been playing well.<br />Her ranking isn't a residual effect of wins 10 months ago.
But 111.19/tr vs. 161.74/tr.
That really isn't close.
Of course, I could apply the same logic to a rather more popular player, Henin.
3009 Henin 22 Tournaments 136.77/tr (29 points from worst 4 tournaments not counted in ranking)
But 136.77/tr vs. 161.74/tr.
But Justine made a GS final, and Monica didn't.
That's an indication that that '17 best/17 Tournaments' system is better than 'Total Points/Total Tournaments.'<br />Because it indicates that Justine should have better success in a given tournament, surface aside.
Is it an advantage to play more tournaments or fewer?<br />The numbers don't seem to care.
And the top two both played exactly the minimum.
[THe next few posts refer to calculation problems I have since tried to fix. Boild Egg amd Sam L were quite correct.]
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Volcana ]</p>
What we have in the top ten.
17 Davenport<br />17 Capriati<br />12 V. Williams<br />18 Hingis<br />26 Clijsters<br />10 S.Williams<br />24 Henin<br />26 Dokic<br />20 Mauresmo<br />14 Seles
4 players who play a very average number of tournaments.<br />3 players who played a lot more than average. (The three youngest. Qu'el surprise.)<br />3 players who played a lot less than average.
This would indicate that how often you play is of little relevance to final ranking.<br />That's also a bit counter-intuitive.
Take the two lowest ranked top 'tenors'.
2981 Dokic 26 Tournaments 111.19/tr (111 points from worst tournaments results not counted in ranked.)<br />2306 Seles 14 Tournaments 161.74/tr
Monica's per tournament average blow<br />s away Jelena.<br />But is that an indicator of relative skill?<br />Is it a predictor of future results?
Jelena is the player with the higher ranking, and she's been playing well.<br />Her ranking isn't a residual effect of wins 10 months ago.
But 111.19/tr vs. 161.74/tr.
That really isn't close.
Of course, I could apply the same logic to a rather more popular player, Henin.
3009 Henin 22 Tournaments 136.77/tr (29 points from worst 4 tournaments not counted in ranking)
But 136.77/tr vs. 161.74/tr.
But Justine made a GS final, and Monica didn't.
That's an indication that that '17 best/17 Tournaments' system is better than 'Total Points/Total Tournaments.'<br />Because it indicates that Justine should have better success in a given tournament, surface aside.
Is it an advantage to play more tournaments or fewer?<br />The numbers don't seem to care.
And the top two both played exactly the minimum.
[THe next few posts refer to calculation problems I have since tried to fix. Boild Egg amd Sam L were quite correct.]
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Volcana ]</p>