[Brian Stewart]

I saw this mentioned in another thread, about wins over top 10 players. Since I'm collating data to run through the various ranking systems of the past 10 years, I now have the totals of top 10 (and other) wins for the current top 10. I thought I'd share them with you for your dining and dancing pleasure. (In ranking order. Sort them yourself. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> )<br />Discuss them at your leisure.<br />----------<br />Wins vs top 10

Davenport- 17<br />Capriati- 11<br />V.Williams- 13<br />Hingis- 7<br />Clijsters- 3<br />S.Williams- 7<br />Henin- 3<br />Dokic- 3<br />Mauresmo- 8<br />Seles- 6<br />-----------

Wins vs Top 5

Davenport- 5<br />Capriati- 6<br />V.Williams- 8<br />Hingis- 3<br />Clijsters- 2<br />S.Williams- 4<br />Henin- 2<br />Dokic- 1<br />Mauresmo- 4<br />Seles- 3<br />-----------------<br />Wins vs Top 16

Davenport- 22<br />Capriati- 15<br />V.Williams- 15<br />Hingis- 13<br />Clijsters- 10<br />S.Williams- 12<br />Henin- 6<br />Dokic- 12<br />Mauresmo- 14 <br />Seles- 9

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Brian Stewart ]</p>

 

[griffin]

Unless it involves you doing more work than you already have (thankyouthankyou <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ), do you know how many opportunities they had?

I swear, every news agency should be required to run their tennis-related stories past you for fact checking (and pay you excessively for it)

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: griffin ]</p>

 

[Brian Stewart]

It would involve a good bit more work. I've just got the players' wins tabulated in the various categories so as to figure quality points under the various ranking systems. This led to some odd columns. (For example, out of all of the ranks from 6-500, 11 has its own column.)

If I had the list of # of matches played vs top... whatever, it would add more to these stats. After all, the more chances you have, the more wins you can get. This list is just a starting point. Still, there's some interesting surprises. Davenport did better than I expected, as did Momo.

I like the idea of getting paid excessively. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

 

[griffin]

This is the kind of surprise I LIKE getting from Momo <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

I'm less surprised by Lindsay's numbers than the gap between her and some of the others. Makes her ranking look a little more solid, doesn't it?

 

[RayRob]

Interesting to see that Lindsay did better against players in the top 16 than anyone else but I anticipated that Venus would have the better record vs. top 5 as she has had multiple wins over Lindsay in the past year and other wins against Capriati and Hingis.

An overall good way at looking at things I think.

Thanks Brian, I'm sure this will attract a good discussion.

-Rachel <img src="graemlins/wavey.gif" border="0" alt="[Wavey]" />

 

[RayRob]

I agree with Griffins comment.

Yes, Mauresmo is always full of good suprises as these stats show. As rightly said your work in producing these types of stats help to show Lindsay's number 1 ranking is through a solid performance.

 

[brickhousesupporter]

Yes it is a good way of looking at it, but the numbers themselves are a bit misleading. You need to evaluate their performance based on how many chances they had etc. Then you can get a better winning percentage. For example, if player x has 6 wins over the top then but has played against a top 10 player 24 times then player x has a 25% winning percentage against the top then players which means plaer x is going to win statistically 1 out of every 4 times.

 

[Brian Stewart]

Lindsay's numbers relect an incredibly solid year. She had a lot of wins over a lot of good players. She and Serena were the only players to reach the quarters of every event they played.

Venus' numbers vs top 5 reflect her good results in big matches. That jibes with the general perception of her being a great big-match player.

Again, though, these stats are only the starting point. If I had matches vs top X, surface breakdown, etc., you'd have an even better picture.

 

[thefreedesigner]

thanx for posting, Brian!

Indeed Lindsay comes out as the solid, tough opponent that we all know she is, same for Venus I guess.

Also (I think) highlights Mauresmo's inconsistency, and mental frailities. She has enough to worry all the elite players, but can't string 'the big ones' together.

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: thefreedesigner ]</p>

 

[QUEENLINDSAY]

This is a pretty good stats. No wonder why Lindsay is number ONE.

 

[Infiniti2001]

If playing more gives a player more opportunities, then I'm more impressed with Venus's stats considering she's played less tournaments than both the #1 and #2 players <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

 

[QUEENLINDSAY]

Well, I'm more impressed with a player who has lots of wins over top 10 players while playing them lots of time as in more tournaments. This just means that no matter how Vulnerable Lindsay is, she was undefeated by other top 10 and still winning. I'm not impressed with a players record ,whos playing in only few tournaments she likes or rather on surfaces she likes.

 

[timmbo]

J Cap's record was pretty impressive as well. I didnt realize she had beatent that many top 10 players.

 

[Infiniti2001]

I'm not impressed with a players record ,whos playing in only few tournaments she likes or rather on surfaces she likes. <hr></blockquote>

I like Lindsay, but this quote applies to her more so, especially since she practically disappeared during the clay season in the last 2 years... On the other hand, Venus played on every surface and won on all except carpet <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Infiniti2001 ]</p>

 

[QUEENLINDSAY]

I like Lindsay, but this quote applies to her more so, especially since she practically disappeared during the clay season in the last 2 years... On the other hand, Venus played on every surface and won on all except carpet

<hr></blockquote>

OH Really!!!!!! If you like Lindsay, just respect the above Statistics and dont ever say impresss bla bla bla.....

Like I said, Lindsay is winning even becoming vulnerable with her games. Why Hide in surfaces you dont like? Lindsay is not hiding on clay, she actually play even if injured last 2000.

 

[QUEENLINDSAY]

By the way, did Venus won on a Rebound Ace surface???? I cant think of any. pls remind me maybe I was wrong. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

 

[Cheops]

I agree that the stats would be more useful if we knew the winning percentage. Who would lead the pack? My guess: VENUS.

 

[Infiniti2001]

By the way, did Venus won on a Rebound Ace surface???? I cant think of any. pls remind me maybe I was wrong. <hr></blockquote>

You're right, she did not win on rebound ace, but contrary to popular belief she did not shy away from any surface this year... She's played at least one tournament on each from '97 to the present <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

 

[disposablehero]

As usual, objective numbers completely shoot down the "Monica can't hang with the new teenagers" crowd.

 

[cheeky]

Originally posted by QUEENLINDSAY:<br />[QB]By the way, did Venus won on a Rebound Ace surface???? I cant think of any. pls remind me maybe I was wrong. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

i'm not sure if this is right but i read somewhere that the olympics were played on a Rebound Ace surface.if that's the case then venus has won on that surface.<br /> <img src="graemlins/bounce.gif" border="0" alt="[Bounce]" />