sign in sign up
<<
Home , 2006 Estoril Open, 2006 Hopman Cup, 2006 US Open (tennis), 2006 WTA Tour, Abigail Spears, Ahsha Rolle

WTA Tour Statistical Abstract 2006

Robert B. Waltz ©2006 by Robert B. Waltz Reproduction and/or distribution for profit prohibited

Contents Introduction...... 4 Surface Balance ...... 90 Percentage of Wins on Each Surface...... 90 2006 In Review: The Top Players . . . . .5 Percentage of Points on Each Surface...... 92 The Final Top Thirty ...... 5 The Beginning Top Twenty-Five ...... 6 Player Results Characterized ...... 95 Summary of Changes, Beginning to End of 2006...... 6 Fraction of Points Earned at Slams...... 95 Ratio of Round to Quality Points ...... 96 Top Players Analysed ...... 7 Strength of Schedule (based on tournament tier)...... 98 All the Players in the Top Ten in 2006: Strength of Schedule (based on tournament strength) 99 The Complete Top Ten Based on WTA Statistic ...... 7 Average Round Reached ...... 101 Short Summary: The Top Eighty...... 8 Quality of Wins...... 102 Rankings Month By Month ...... 10 Quality of Losses...... 105 Success During the First and Second Half ...... 108 Tournament Results ...... 11 Surface Preferences ...... 112 Tournament Winners by Date (High-Tier Events) ...... 11 Player Surface Biases ...... 113 Tournament Winners by Tournament Type (High-Tier Events) ...... 12 Alternate Rankings ...... 115 Winners at Smaller Tournaments (Tier III, IV, V) ...... 13 Basic Alternate Ranking Data...... 115 Full Summary of Tournament Results...... 14 2005 Rankings: Best 17 Rankings with Quality Points 117 Title Defences ...... 34 1996 Ranking System: The Divisor...... 118 Tournament Strengths ...... 35 1996 System Updated: The Declining Divisor...... 119 2006 Rankings with Double Quality Points...... 121 Tournament Strength Based on Top Four Players...... 36 1996-Style Divisor with Double Quality Points...... 122 Tournament Strength Based on Modified TSI ...... 37 Declining Divisor with Double Quality Points...... 123 Tournament Strength versus Tournament Points...... 38 Quality Points per Tournament...... 124 Tough Bills and Cheap Thrills ...... 40 Tournament Strength-Based Rankings...... 125 Player Results ...... 41 Adjusted Strength per Tournament Ranking...... 127 Idealized Won/Lost...... 129 Upsets...... 66 The “Majors Ranking” ...... 131 The 100 Biggest Upsets of 2006 ...... 66 Doubles ...... 134 Worst Losses ...... 68 Worst Losses (based on rankings at the time)...... 69 2006 In Review: The Top Doubles Players . . .134 Worst Losses (based on year-end 2006 rankings)...... 70 The Final Top Twenty-Five Doubles Players ...... 134 The Beginning Doubles Top Twenty-Five...... 135 Winning and Losing Streaks ...... 71 Summary of Doubles Changes ...... 135 The Ten Longest Winning Streaks by Top Players...... 73 Top Doubles Players Analysed ...... 136 The Ten Longest Losing Streaks by Top Players ...... 73 All the Players in the Doubles Top Ten in 2006 ...... 136 Surface Results ...... 74 Short Summary: The Doubles Top Fifty . . . . .137 Clay ...... 74 Doubles Rankings Month By Month ...... 139 Total Wins on Clay ...... 76 Team Doubles Titles, Most to Least ...... 140 Winning Percent on Clay ...... 77 Individual Doubles Titles, Most to Least. . . . .141 Grass ...... 78 Doubles Tournament Strengths ...... 143 Total Wins on Grass ...... 80 Winning Percent on Grass ...... 81 Doubles Results ...... 145 (Outdoor)...... 82 Doubles Upsets...... 162 Total Wins on Hard ...... 84 The 50 Biggest Doubles Upsets of 2006 ...... 162 Winning Percent on Hard...... 85 Doubles Team Winning Percentage...... 164 Indoors ...... 86 Total Wins Indoors ...... 88 Winning Percent Indoors...... 89

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 2

Contents Alternate Doubles Rankings ...... 165 Career Results for Leading Players ...... 212 Doubles 2005 Rankings: Slam History...... 238 Best 11 Rankings with Quality Points...... 165 Singles Slam Winners...... 238 Doubles 1996 Ranking System: The Divisor...... 166 Doubles Slam Winners...... 241 Doubles Declining Divisor...... 167 Men’s Singles Slam Winners...... 244 Doubles 2006 Rankings with Triple Quality Points..168 Men’s Doubles Slam Winners...... 247 Doubles Divisor with Triple Quality Points...... 169 Singles and Doubles at the Same Slam (Open Era)..251 Doubles Declining Divisor with Triple Quality Points 170 Doubles Slams and Partners...... 252 Doubles Quality Points per Tournament...... 171 Grand Slams and Career Slams...... 257 Doubles Tournament Strength-Based Rankings...... 173 Total Slam Victories, Open Era ...... 259 Doubles Adjusted Strength per Tournament Ranking 174 Doubles “Majors Ranking” — Team...... 175 Players and Titles ...... 260 Doubles “Majors Ranking” — Individual ...... 176 Players with Titles, Year by Year...... 260 Most Titles, Year By Year ...... 263 Miscellaneous Statistics ...... 177 Five Or More Titles in a Year...... 264 Statistics About Tournaments:...... 177 Surface Sweeps — Singles (Since 1990) ...... 265 Total Ranked Players, 1999Ð2006 ...... 178 Career Surface Sweeps/Singles...... 267 The Busiest Players on the Tour ...... 179 Career Grand Surface Sweep ...... 268 Total Matches Played by Top Players...... 179 Year-End Top Players 269 Number of Events Played by the Top 100 ...... 181 Year-End Top Eight, Alphabetical, Since 1975 ...... 269 Total Matches by the Top 30 Doubles Players...... 184 Total Years Ended At Each Rank, Since 1975 ...... 271 Number of Events Played Strongest Career Rankings Showings...... 273 By the Top 100 Doubles Players...... 185 Total Years in the Top Eight ...... 274 Injuries ...... 187 Doubles Wins & Partners...... 275 Winningest Doubles Player, From 1983...... 275 WTA Tour History ...... 189 Titles With Multiple Partners, Single Year ...... 277 Who Won What Summary — Singles...... 189 Slams With the Most Partners, Open Era...... 277 Who Won What Summary — Doubles...... 190 Index ...... 278 Who Won What — History of Tournaments. .192 Recent Singles Winners, Finalists, Semifinalists ...... 199

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 3

Introduction Last year, when I finished the 2005 Statistical Abstract, I was sure there would not be another. There were several reasons for that, the single most important being the fact that the WTA was abolishing the “quality points” it awarded players for wins over strong opponents, showing yet again that the WTA neither cared about the integrity of their rankings nor had the understanding to be allowed to fiddle with them; it remains my opinion that marketing people who try to mess with mathematics should be permanently barred from management jobs — or at least made to repeat fourth grade math until they learn how to do it. The irony is, despite what they did to the ranking system in 2006, it hardly mattered; they came up with just about the same Top Ten they would have had under a system capable of actually ranking players. Sometimes it’s better to be lucky than smart. But the result of their ranking bastardization is that this year I did not keep some of the statistics I kept in 2005, such as and injury numbers. But I started keeping a rather more thorough database of WTA results. At the end of the year, I decided to go ahead and use that database to produce a Statistical Abstract. If you’ve seen past Statistical Abstracts, you will probably find this one very different, since much of it was recreated from scratch. I’ve tried to make the result clearer — there are rather more graphs than in past editions. There is a new section, “Player Results Characterized” on page 95. I find this a very interesting part, because I’ve tried to bring together a large proportion of the statistics that best describe a player. I sometimes am asked what I think the rankings “should” be. Of course, that’s what the Alternate Rankings are for. I think the best of these are ¥ “Declining Divisor with Double Quality Points” on page 123 ¥ “Adjusted Strength per Tournament Ranking” on page 127 ¥ “Idealized Won/Lost” on page 129 On this basis, I would say that the “proper” Top Ten would look something like this: Singles Doubles 1. Hénin-Hardenne 1T. Raymond 2. Sharapova 1T. Stosur 3. Mauresmo 3. Zheng 4. Clijsters 4. Srebotnik 5. Kuznetsova 5. Yan 6. Hingis 6. Black 7. Petrova 7. Stubbs 8. Dementieva 8. Safina 9. Vaidisova 9. Ruano Pascual 10. Safina 10. Peschke Observe that is the only player to be Top Ten in both these lists — though that’s mostly because she still plays both. Odds are that Hingis and Petrova and Kuznetsova, at the very least, could be Top Ten in both if they played the right schedules. One curiosity this year is that the “Quality Points per Tournament” on page 124 don’t give much in the way of bold predictions. The most promising youngster is surely Agnieszka Radwanska, but you probably knew that. Paola Suárez may still have a comeback in her, too. On the other hand, ’s chances of staying Top Ten don’t look great — she always has a quality ratio below her ranking, but this year is ridiculous. She is the top player who probably has benefited most from the lack of quality points. I should add that most of the work on this Statistical Abstract was done before retired, and I haven’t gone over it to check if there are references rendered irrelevant by her retirement. Finally, I would bring to your attention the section “The Busiest Players on the Tour” on page 179. Looking at the leaders and #2 players in WTA matches over the last four years, it turns out that six of the last nine have had disastrous years (by their standards) the next year. Kuznetsova, Bartoli, and maybe Hingis need to watch out. Indeed, if the statistics about “Success During the First and Second Half of the Year” on page 108 are indicative, Hingis may already have started her big letdown.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 4

2006 In Review: The Top Players The Final Top Thirty Because we can’t cover every pro, we have to devote our attention to relatively few. For obvious reasons, the WTA’s Top 30 are the most important of those few. The list below summarizes those players. In addition to listing the players, this table shows a few things about them. “Best 17 score” and “Number of Tournaments” are from the WTA, used to calculate their rankings. “ gap from the preceding” shows how many points a player would need to earn to overtake the player above her. So Safina, a mere one points behind #10 Vaidisova, is a very strong #11, but Jankovic, 179 points behind, is a weaker #12. “Began year at” is the player’s ranking twelve months earlier — under the old ranking system, note, so that some of the difference in rankings may be due to the change in the system. The final column shows how much each player’s ranking has changed in the interim. Note that a negative number in that column indicates an upward move; smaller numbers are better. So (if we exclude Hingis), , e.g., had the biggest upward move of any player in the Top 30: 36 places! Final Player Best 17 Number of Point Gap from Began Net Rank Name Score Tournaments Preceding Year At Change 1 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 3998 13 6 -5 2 Sharapova, Maria 3532 15 466 4 -2 3Mauresmo, Amelie 3391 17 141 3 0 4Kuznetsova, Svetlana 2523 22 868 18 -14 5 Clijsters, Kim 2215 15 308 2 3 6 Petrova, Nadia 2189 24 26 9 -3 7 Hingis, Martina 2018 20 171 — ∞ 8 Dementieva, Elena 1875 21 143 8 0 9 Schnyder, Patty 1578 25 297 7 2 10 Vaidisova, Nicole 1391 19 187 15 -5 11 Safina, Dinara 1390 21 1 20 -9 12 Jankovic, Jelena 1211 28 179 22 -10 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 1144 22 67 33 -20 14 Ivanovic, Ana 1053 19 91 16 -2 15 Schiavone, Francesca 1032 23 21 13 2 16 Myskina, Anastasia 1000 18 32 14 2 17 Bartoli, Marion 988 33 12 40 -23 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 986 25 2 19 -1 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 922 28 64 21 -2 20 Peer, Shahar 894 23 28 45 -25 21 Li Na 875.75 22 18.25 57 -36 22 Golovin, Tatiana 857 18 18.75 24 -2 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 819 24 38 28 -5 24 Zvonareva, Vera 781 24 38 42 -18 25 Davenport, Lindsay 745 11 36 1 24 26 Sugiyama, Ai 716 25 29 30 -4 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 698 26 18 34 -7 28 Pennetta, Flavia 692 20 6 23 5 29 Stosur, Samantha 685 25 7 46 -17 30 Kirilenko, Maria 637 25 48 25 5

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 5

The Beginning Top Twenty-Five Rank Name 2006 Final Ranking Net Change 1Davenport, Lindsay 25 24 2 Clijsters, Kim 6 4 3Mauresmo, Amélie 3 0 4 Sharapova, Maria 2 -2 5 Pierce, Mary 79 74 6 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 1 -5 7 Schnyder, Patty 9 2 8 Dementieva, Elena 8 0 9 Petrova, Nadia 6 -3 10 Williams, Venus 48 38 11 Williams, Serena 95 84 12 Déchy, Nathalie 51 39 13 Schiavone, Francesca 15 2 14 Myskina, Anastasia 16 2 15 Vaidisova, Nicole 10 -5 16 Ivanovic, Ana 14 -2 17 Likhovtseva, Elena 42 25 18 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 4 -14 19 Hantuchova, Daniela 18 -1 20 Safina, Dinara 11 -9 21 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 19 -2 22 Jankovic, Jelena 12 -10 23 Pennetta, Flavia 28 5 24 Golovin, Tatiana 22 -2 25 Kirilenko, Maria 30 5 Summary of Changes, Beginning to End of 2006 Ranking Gains: From outside the Top 20 into the Top 20: Bartoli, Chakvetadze, Grönefeld, Peer, Hingis, Jankovic (total of 6) From outside the Top 20 into the Top 10: Hingis (total of 1) From the Top 20 into the Top 10: Kuznetsova, Vaidisova (total of 2) Ranking Losses: Dropping out of the Top 20: Davenport, Déchy, Likhovtseva, Pierce, , (total of 6) Dropping out of the Top 10 but remaining Top 20: None Dropping from the Top 10 to below the Top 20: Davenport, Pierce, Venus Williams (total of 3) Players who were in the Top 10 at beginning and end of the year: Clijsters, Dementieva, Hénin- Hardenne, Mauresmo, Petrova, Schnyder, Sharapova (total of 7) Players who were in the Top 20 at the beginning and end of the year: Clijsters, Dementieva, Hantuchova, Hénin-Hardenne, Ivanovic, Kuznetsova, Mauresmo, Myskina, Petrova, Safina, Schiavone, Schnyder, Sharapova, Vaidisova (total of 14)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 6

Top Players Analysed All the Players in the Top Ten in 2006: The Complete Top Ten Based on WTA (Best 17) Statistics The lists below show all players who have ranked in the Top 10 in 2006, with the highest rank achieved. A total of fourteen players spent time in the Top Ten in 2006 — an unusually low number; there were sixteen players spent time in the Top Ten in 2005 and 2004, and fifteen in 2003. The recent low was twelve in 2002, but we have fully in 2001; and sixteen in 2000. We will have to see how this develops, but it seems likely that the Great Rankings Change of 2006 may have a role in this: The change eliminated quality points, and quality points historically have heralded the rise of new players. Eliminating them will likely make the rankings slower to respond to changes in players’ results.

Clijsters (1) Kuznetsova (4) Schnyder (7) Davenport (1) Mauresmo (1) Sharapova (2) Dementieva (5) Petrova (3) Vaidisova (9) Hénin-Hardenne (1) Pierce (5) V. Williams (10) Hingis (7) Safina (10)

The following list shows all the players who have occupied a given position in the Top 10: 1. Clijsters, Davenport, Hénin-Hardenne, Mauresmo 2. Clijsters, Hénin-Hardenne, Mauresmo, Sharapova 3. Clijsters, Davenport, Hénin-Hardenne, Mauresmo, Petrova, Sharapova 4. Clijsters, Davenport, Hénin-Hardenne, Kuznetsova, Petrova, Sharapova 5. Clijsters, Davenport, Dementieva, Hénin-Hardenne, Kuznetsova, Petrova, Pierce, Sharapova 6. Clijsters, Davenport, Dementieva, Hénin-Hardenne, Kuznetsova, Petrova, Pierce 7. Davenport, Dementieva, Hénin-Hardenne, Hingis, Kuznetsova, Petrova, Schnyder 8. Dementieva, Hénin-Hardenne, Hingis, Petrova, Schnyder 9. Dementieva, Hingis, Pierce, Schnyder, Vaidisova 10. Davenport, Kuznetsova, Safina, Schnyder, Vaidisova, V. Williams

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 7

Short Summary: The Top Eighty The following table shows the entire WTA Top Eighty, with brief summary of results. In the table, Final Rank is a player’s year-end ranking (based on the November 13, 2006 rankings), Player is of course the player, Score is her Best 17 point total, # of Trn is the number of tournaments she is listed as playing (including Challengers), Best Rank is her highest ranking during the year 2006, Won/Lost is won/lost record (in the notes to this field, Wi=Withdrawal, WO=walkover. So Clijsters, for instance, won 40 matches, lost eleven, received one walkover, and withdrew once). Note that this figure includes only WTA main draws. Many players will have losses in wins and losses in qualifying and/or Challengers. Titles is the list of titles the player won, if any. We list the names (sometimes abbreviated), then the number of titles in parentheses. So #4 ’s line, e.g., reads Miami, , (3). This means Kuznetsova won three titles — the three listed. Titles at $50K and higher Challengers are also shown (in green to distinguish them from regular titles). Final # of Best Rank Player Name Score Trn Rank Won/Lost Titles 1Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 3998 13 1 56Ð8 (88%)[+1WO] , , Roland Garros Eastbourne, New Haven, Championships (6) 2 Sharapova, Maria 3532 15 2 59Ð9 (87%)[+1Wi] Indian Wells, , U.S. Open, Zürich, (5) 3Mauresmo, Amelie 3391 17 1 50Ð13 (79%)[+1Wi] , , , Wimbledon (4) 4Kuznetsova, Svetlana 2523 22 4 60Ð20 (75%)[+1WO] Miami, Bali, Beijing (3) 5Clijsters, Kim 2215 15 1 40Ð11 (78%)[+1WO,1Wi] , Stanford, (3) 6 Petrova, Nadia 2189 24 3 48Ð18 (73%)[+1Wi] , Amelia Island, Charleston, , (5) 7Hingis, Martina 2018 20 7 53Ð19 (74%) , (2) 8Dementieva, Elena 1875 21 5 44Ð20 (69%)[+1WO,1Wi] Pan Pacific, (2) 9 Schnyder, Patty 1578 25 7 45Ð24 (65%)[+2WO,1Wi] 10 Vaidisova, Nicole 1391 19 9 35Ð16 (69%)[+1Wi] Strasbourg (1) 11 Safina, Dinara 1390 21 10 44Ð21 (68%) 12 Jankovic, Jelena 1211 28 12 45Ð27 (63%)[+1Wi] 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 1144 22 13 36Ð20 (64%)[+1WO] , (2) 14 Ivanovic, Ana 1053 19 13 35Ð18 (66%)[+1WO] (1) 15 Schiavone, Francesca 1032 23 11 34Ð23 (60%)[+1WO] 16 Myskina, Anastasia 1000 18 11 31Ð18 (63%) 17 Bartoli, Marion 988 33 17 45Ð28 (62%) , , Quebec City (3) 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 986 25 14 34Ð25 (58%)[+1WO] 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 922 28 14 30Ð27 (53%) Acapulco (1) 20 Peer, Shahar 894 23 20 38Ð20 (66%) Pattaya, , (3) 21 Li Na 875.75 22 20 36Ð21 (63%)[+1Wi] 22 Golovin, Tatiana 857 18 21 25Ð18 (58%) 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 819 24 20 30Ð24 (56%) 24 Zvonareva, Vera 781 24 24 37Ð22 (63%) , Cincinnati (2) 25 Davenport, Lindsay 745 11 1 21Ð8 (72%) 26 Sugiyama, Ai 716 25 19 28Ð25 (53%) 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 698 26 23 34Ð24 (59%) , (2) 28 Pennetta, Flavia 692 20 16 29Ð18 (62%) 29 Stosur, Samantha 685 25 29 29Ð24 (55%) 30 Kirilenko, Maria 637 25 20 23Ð25 (48%) 31 Santangelo, Mara 611.5 28 31 28Ð25 (53%)[+1WO] (1) 32 Bondarenko, Alona 585.75 31 32 24Ð22 (52%) Luxembourg (1) [Orange $50K] 33 560.75 19 27 25Ð16 (61%) Estoril, (2)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 8

Final # of Best Rank Player Name Score Trn Rank Won/Lost Titles 34 Müller, Martina 550.75 34 34 14Ð15 (48%) [Cagnes-sur-Mer $75K, Baden-Baden $50K+H] 35 Krajicek, Michaella 542 20 34 26Ð16 (62%) , ’s-Hertogenbosch (2) 36 Daniilidou, Eleni 538.75 26 36 27Ð24 (53%) (1) 37 Shaughnessy, Meghann 531 24 37 27Ð20 (57%) , Forest Hills (2) 38 Poutchkova, Olga 525.25 28 38 16Ð8 (67%) [Bronx $50K] 39 Brémond, Severine 521 25 38 17Ð14 (55%) 40 Garbin, Tathiana 520.25 21 37 15Ð15 (50%) [ $75K+H] 41 Safarova, Lucie 498.5 26 26 21Ð21 (50%) Gold Coast (1) 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 462 20 16 16Ð20 (44%) 43 Perry, Shenay 461.25 20 40 16Ð15 (52%) [Las Vegas $75K] 44 Vesnina, Elena 459.25 28 44 20Ð24 (45%) 45 Jackson, Jamea 455 21 45 19Ð19 (50%) 46 Oprandi, Romina 452.5 27 46 7Ð6 (54%)[+`Wi] [Denain $75K] 47 Kostanic, Jelena 450.75 23 38 19Ð18 (51%) 48 Williams, Venus 447 8 10 13Ð6 (68%) 49 Rezai, Aravane 441.5 28 49 12Ð6 (67%) 50 King, Vania 436.25 21 50 16Ð13 (55%) (1) 51 Déchy, Nathalie 435 25 11 16Ð25 (39%) 52 Domínguez Lino, Lourdes 431 23 40 21Ð19 (53%) Bogota (1) 53 Bammer, Sybille 430.25 28 42 19Ð26 (42%) 54 Camerin, Maria Elena 421.25 26 45 22Ð23 (49%) 55 Castaño, Catalina 420.75 27 35 22Ð25 (47%) 56 419 17 38 18Ð16 (53%)[+1Wi] 57 Radwanska, Agnieszka 414.75 16 53 11Ð8 (58%) 58 Loit, Emilie 411 19 45 20Ð16 (56%) 59 Nakamura, Aiko 405 22 54 19Ð18 (51%) 60 Benesova, Iveta 402.25 25 36 17Ð21 (45%) 61 Dulko, Gisela 401.75 25 28 16Ð23 (41%) 62 Pironkova, Tsvetana 401.5 22 62 15Ð16 (48%) 63 Arvidsson, 395.75 24 29 16Ð19 (46%) Memphis (1) 64 Kanepi, Kaia 395 28 62 14Ð16 (47%) 65 Smashnova, Anna 392 18 37 16Ð16 (50%) (1) [Prostejov $75K] 66 Mirza, Sania 382 24 32 20Ð24 (45%) 67 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 379.25 15 62 15Ð13 (54%) 68 Fedak, Yuliana 377.5 29 63 7Ð13 (35%) [Dothan $75K, Lafayette $50K] 69 Yakimova, Anastasiya 374.25 24 49 8Ð12 (40%) 70 Granville, Laura 372.5 26 42 12Ð16 (43%) [Charlottesville $50K] 71 Gajdosova, Jarmila 366.75 28 64 8Ð12 (40%) [Vittel $50K+H] 72 Bychkova, Ekaterina 365.5 30 66 8Ð21 (28%)[+1WO] [Marseille $50K+H] 73 Craybas, Jill 365.5 27 39 18Ð25 (42%)[+1WO] 74 Bardina, Vasilisa 358 25 74 3Ð6 (33%) 75 Tanasugarn, Tamarine 357.75 29 67 9Ð7 (56%) [Shanghai $50K] 76 Pin, Camille 349 26 76 7Ð10 (41%) [Lexington $50K] 77 Laine, Emma 346.75 29 50 13Ð22 (37%) 78 Pratt, Nicole 344.75 22 70 7Ð12 (37%)[+1WO] 79 Pierce, Mary 340 11 5 9Ð8 (53%) 80 Birnerova, Eva 335.25 27 77 6Ð9 (40%) [Ortisei $75K]

This year, two players who ended the year below #80 won titles: #181 won Portoroz ad #81 won .

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 9

Rankings Month By Month The list below shows who held each spot in the Top Thirty at the beginning of each month of the year. Names have necessarily been abbreviated. Rank January February March April May June July August Septembr October November 1 Davenport Clijsters Clijsters Mauresmo Mauresmo Mauresmo Mauresmo Mauresmo Mauresmo Mauresmo Mauresmo 2 Clijsters Mauresmo Mauresmo Clijsters Clijsters Clijsters Clijsters Clijsters Hénin-H Hénin-H Sharapova 3 Mauresmo Davenport Davenport Hénin-H Sharapova Petrova Hénin-H Hénin-H Clijsters Sharapova Hénin-H 4 Sharapova Sharapova Hénin-H Sharapova Petrova Sharapova Sharapova Sharapova Sharapova Kuznetsov Kuznetsov 5 Pierce Hénin-H Sharapova Davenport Hénin-H Hénin-H Petrova Petrova Dementiev Clijsters Petrova 6 Hénin-H Pierce Pierce Pierce Pierce Pierce Kuznetsov Dementiev Petrova Dementiev Clijsters 7 Schnyder Petrova Dementiev Petrova Davenport Davenport Davenport Kuznetsov Kuznetsov Petrova Dementiev 8 Dementiev Schnyder Petrova Dementiev Schnyder Dementiev Dementiev Schnyder Schnyder Hingis Hingis 9 Petrova Dementiev Schnyder Schnyder Dementiev Schnyder Pierce Pierce Hingis Schnyder Schnyder 10 V. William V. William V. William V. William Kuznetsov Kuznetsov Schnyder Davenport Vaidisova Safina Vaidisova 11 S. William Schiavone Schiavone Schiavone Schiavone Myskina Myskina Myskina Davenport Davenport Safina 12 Déchy Kuznetsov Myskina Myskina Myskina Schiavone V. Willia Vaidisova Myskina Vaidisova Jankovic 13 Schiavone Myskina Vaidisova Vaidisova V. William V. William Vaidisova Hingis Safina Schiavone Chakvetad 14 Myskina Vaidisova Kuznetsov Kuznetsov Grönefeld Grönefeld Schiavone Schiavone Pierce Myskina Ivanovic 15 Vaidisova Hantuchov Hantuchov Hantuchov Vaidisova Hingis Hingis Safina Schiavone Ivanovic Schiavone 16 Ivanovic Pennetta Likhovtse Ivanovic Hantuchov Vaidisova Grönefeld Grönefeld Grönefeld Jankovic Myskina 17 Likhovtse Safina Ivanovic Likhovtse Likhovtse Safina Safina Hantuchov Ivanovic Pierce Hantuchov 18 Kuznetsov Likhovtse Déchy Grönefeld Safina Hantuchov Hantuchov Pennetta Hantuchov Grönefeld Davenport 19 Hantuchov Grönefeld Safina Pennetta Pennetta Pennetta Pennetta Sugiyama Pennetta Hantuchov Bartoli 20 Safina Ivanovic Pennetta Safina Ivanovic Likhovtse Kirilenko Ivanovic Jankovic Li Na Grönefeld 21 Grönefeld Déchy Jankovic Déchy Déchy Ivanovic Sugiyama Kirilenko Peer Pennetta Peer 22 Jankovic Jankovic Grönefeld Kirilenko Sugiyama Kirilenko Ivanovic Srebotnik Li Na Bartoli Li Na 23 Pennetta Kirilenko Kirilenko Sugiyama Kirilenko Déchy Déchy Li Na Srebotnik Chakvetad Golovin 24 Golovin Golovin Golovin Golovin Medina G Sugiyama Peer Medina G Kirilenko Peer Srebotnik 25 Kirilenko Medina G Medina G Medina G Hingis Golovin Srebotnik Peer Bartoli Golovin Zvonareva 26 Dulko Sugiyama Sugiyama Hingis Golovin Peer Likhovtse Golovin Golovin Srebotnik Sugiyama 27 Srebotnik Bartoli Srebotnik Jankovic Bartoli Medina G Medina G Bartoli Sugiyama Sugiyama Pierce 28 Molik Martinez Koukalova Dulko Jankovic Srebotnik Bartoli Likhovtse Medina G Medina G Medina G 29 Sugiyama Srebotnik Dulko Koukalova Arvidsson Bartoli Jankovic Jankovic Chakvetad Zvonareva Pennetta 30 Peschke Zvonareva Safarova Srebotnik Srebotnik Chakvetad Li Na Déchy Stosur Stosur Stosur

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 10

Tournament Results Tournament Winners by Date (High-Tier Events) The following list shows the winner of all important (Tier II or higher) tournaments, in the order the events occurred: Tournament Tier Winner Sydney II Hénin-Hardenne Australian Open Slam Mauresmo (Pan Pacific) I Dementieva Paris II Mauresmo Antwerp II Mauresmo Dubai II Hénin-Hardenne Doha II Petrova Indian Wells I Sharapova Miami I Kuznetsova Amelia Island II Petrova Charleston I Petrova Warsaw II Clijsters Berlin I Petrova Rome I Hingis Roland Garros Slam Hénin-Hardenne Eastbourne II Hénin-Hardenne Wimbledon Slam Mauresmo Stanford II Clijsters San Diego I Sharapova Los Angeles II Dementieva Canadian Open (Toronto) I Ivanovic New Haven II Hénin-Hardenne U.S. Open Slam Sharapova Beijing II Kuznetsova Luxembourg II A. Bondarenko Stuttgart II Petrova Moscow I Chakvetadze Zürich I Sharapova Linz II Sharapova Los Angeles Championships Champ Hénin-Hardenne

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 11

Tournament Winners by Tournament Type (High-Tier Events) The following list shows winners of the top-tier events by tier. Within the tiers, events are sorted by date. SLAMS Event Australian Open Mauresmo Roland Garros Hénin-Hardenne Wimbledon Mauresmo U.S. Open Sharapova YEAR-END CHAMPIONSHIP Event Los Angeles Championships Hénin-Hardenne TIER I Event Pan Pacific (Tokyo) Dementieva Indian Wells Sharapova Miami Kuznetsova Charleston Petrova German Open (Berlin) Petrova (Rome) Hingis San Diego Sharapova Canadian Open Ivanovic Moscow Chakvetadze Zürich Sharapova TIER II Event Sydney Hénin-Hardenne Paris Mauresmo Antwerp Mauresmo Dubai Hénin-Hardenne Doha Petrova Amelia Island Petrova Warsaw Clijsters Eastbourne Hénin-Hardenne Stanford Clijsters Los Angeles Dementieva New Haven Hénin-Hardenne Beijing Kuznetsova Luxembourg A. Bondarenko Stuttgart Petrova Linz Sharapova

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 12

Winners at Smaller Tournaments (Tier III, IV, V) Tournament Winner Tier Same Week As Gold Coast Safarova III Auckland (IV) Auckland Bartoli IV Gold Coast (III) Canberra Medina Garrigues V Sydney (II), Hobart (V) Hobart Krajicek V Sydney (II), Canberra (V) Pattaya City Peer III Paris (II) Bangalore Santangelo IV Antwerp (II) Memphis Arvidsson III Dubai (II+), Bogota (III) Bogota Dominguez Lino III Dubai (II+), Memphis (III) Acapulco Grönefeld III Doha (II) Estoril Zheng IV Warsaw (II) Prague Peer IV Berlin (I) Rabat Shaughnessy IV Rome (I) Strasbourg Vaidisova III Istanbul (III) Istanbul Peer III Strasbourg (III) Birmingham Zvonareva III ’s-Hertogenbosch Krajicek III Eastbourne (II) Cincinnati Zvonareva III Palermo (IV) Palermo Medina Garrigues IV Cincinnati (III) Budapest Smashnova IV Stanford (II) Stockholm Zheng IV Los Angeles (II) Forest Hills Shaughnessy IV New Haven (II) Bali Kuznetsova III+ Kolkata Hingis III Beijing (II), Portoroz (IV) Portoroz Paszek IV Beijing (II), Kolkata (III) GuangZhou Chakvetadze III Luxembourg (II), Seoul (IV) Seoul Daniilidou IV Luxembourg (II), GuangZhou (III) Japan Open Bartoli III Stuttgart (II), Tashkent (IV) Tashkent Sun IV Stuttgart (II), Japan Open (III) Bangkok King III Moscow (I) Hasselt Clijsters III Quebec City (III) Quebec City Bartoli III Hasselt (III)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 13

Full Summary of Tournament Results The following list shows all tournaments since the end of the 2005 Tour year (November 15, 2005). This includes not only Tour events but also $50K and higher challengers. The tournament summary includes several statistics about the Tournament. First is the date and the name. Also on the first line of the entry are the tournament’s strength (Slam, Championships, Tier I, Tier II, $75K Challenger, etc., and the surface on which it is played. The second line, “Modified TSI” and “Top Four Strength,” give statistics about the strength of the event. The Modified TSI is my modification of Geert Calliauw’s Tournament Strength Index, (for details of this, see the section “Tournament Strength Based on Modified TSI” on page 37); in this statistic, the higher the number, the stronger the event; the maximum is 475. The next statistic, Top Four Strength, is also a strength measure(explained in the section“Tournament Strength Based on Top Four Players” on page 36); it is based on the rankings of the top four players in the field. For this statistic, lower is better; a tournament with a strength of 13 is at maximum strength under this measure. The third line of any entry, “Top players,” lists the four top players in the field, with their ranking and the round in which they lost. Note that this is not the top four seeds; it the four highest-ranked players whatever their seeding. The fourth and fifth lines list the winner, finalist, and semifinalists, with their rankings. The final line lists the doubles winner and finalists. November 20, 2005: Tucson $75K 2005 ($75K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 458 Top Players: Frazier (#55; lost QF), Bammer (#79; lost 1R), Czink (#92; lost 2R), Sromova (#98; lost 1R) Winner: (#137). Finalist: (#202) Semifinalists: Bethanie Mattek (#171), (#168) Doubles Winners: Azarenka/Poutchek, Finalists: Alves/Czink November 20, 2005: Deauville $50K 2005 ($50K/Clay (Indoor)) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 518 Top Players: A. Bondarenko (#73; lost 2R), Pironkova (#88; lost F), Ani (#95; lost SF), Yakimova (#101; lost 2R) Winner: (#110). Finalist: Tszvetana Pironkova (#88) Semifinalists: (#95), Stéphanie Cohen-Aloro (#105) Doubles Winners: Cohen-Aloro/Sfar, Finalists: A. Bondarenko/K. Bondarenko November 27, 2005: $75K 2005 ($75K/Indoor) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 325 Top Players: Bartoli (#40; lost 2R), Safarova (#50; lost SF), Bychkova (#69; lost 1R), A. Bondarenko (#76; lost 1R) Winner: Viktoriya Kutuzova (#95). Finalist: Maret Ani (#90) Semifinalists: Lucie Safarova (#50), (#112) Doubles Winners: Ani/Jugic-Salkic, Finalists: Amanmuradova/Bratchikova December 4, 2005: Palm Beach Gardens $50K 2005 ($50K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 655 Top Players: Czink (#93; lost F), Obata (#110; lost 1R), Martinez Granados (#115; lost QF), Lepchenko (#134; lost 1R) Winner: Bethanie Mattek (#149). Finalist: (#93) Semifinalists: Su-Wei Hsieh (#156), (#175) Doubles Winners: Chan/Hsieh, Finalists: Blahotova/Bohmova

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 14

December 18, 2005: Dubai $75K+H 2005 ($75K+H/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 383 Top Players: Bartoli (#40; Won Event), Dominguez Lino (#74; lost QF), Kutuzova (#76; lost 1R), ABondarenko (#79; lost 2R) Winner: (#40). Finalist: (#117) Semifinalists: Jelena Kostanic (#100), Henrieta Nagyova (#170) Doubles Winners: G. Navratilova/Sromova, Finalists: Makarova/O. Panova December 18, 2005: Bergamo $50K 2005 ($50K/Indoor) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 496 Top Players: Bychkova (#69; Won Event), Ani (#82; lost 1R), Gagliardi (#96; lost 2R), Camerin (#98; lost 1R) Winner: (#69). Finalist: Mervana Jugic-Salkic (#178) Semifinalists: Yulia Beygelzimer (#163), (#699) Doubles Winners: Bychkova/Shamayko, Finalists: Lubiani/Sassi January 8, 2006: Gold Coast 2006 (III/Hard) Modified TSI: 88 ¥ Top Four Strength: 84 Top Players: Schnyder (#6; lost QF), Schiavone (#15; lost R16), Safina (#20; lost SF), Pennetta (#22; lost F) Winner: Lucie Safarova (#42). Finalist: (#22) Semifinalists: (#999), Dinara Safina (#20) Doubles Winners: Safina/Shaughnessy, Finalists: Black/Stubbs January 8, 2006: Auckland 2006 (IV/Hard) Modified TSI: 88 ¥ Top Four Strength: 95 Top Players: Petrova (#7; lost SF), Hantuchova (#17; lost SF), Likhovtseva (#18; lost R16), Kirilenko (#25; lost QF) Winner: Marion Bartoli (#33). Finalist: (#36) Semifinalists: Daniela Hantuchova (#17), (#7) Doubles Winners: Likhovtseva/Zvonareva, Finalists: Loit/Strycova January 14, 2006: Sydney 2006 (II/Hard) Modified TSI: 315 ¥ Top Four Strength: 23 Top Players: Clijsters (#2; lost QF), Mauresmo (#3; lost 2R), Petrova (#6; lost QF), Schnyder (#7; lost R16) Winner: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#8). Finalist: (#15) Semifinalists: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#14), Nicole Vaidisova (#16) Doubles Winners: Morariu/Stubbs, Finalists: Ruano Pascual/Suárez January 14, 2006: Canberra 2006 (IV/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 251 Top Players: Medina Garrigues (#29; Won Event), Peer (#46; lost SF), Vinci (#48; lost 2R), Castaño (#53; lost SF) Winner: (#29). Finalist: Yoon Jeong Cho (#73) Semifinalists: Catalina Castaño (#53), Shahar Peer (#46) Doubles Winners: Domachowska/Vinci, Finalists: Curran/Dekmeijere

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 15 January 14, 2006: Hobart 2006 (IV/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 136 Top Players: Koukalova (#30; lost 1R), Smashnova (#40; lost 1R), Benesova (#47; lost F), Llagostera Vives (#49; lost 2R) Winner: Michaella Krajicek (#60). Finalist: Iveta Benesova (#47) Semifinalists: Jelena Kostanic (#84), (#86) Doubles Winners: Loit/Pratt, Finalists: Craybas/Kostanic January 30, 2006: Australian Open 2006 (Slam/Hard) Modified TSI: 475 ¥ Top Four Strength: 13 Top Players: Davenport (#1; lost QF), Clijsters (#2; lost SF), Mauresmo (#3; Won Event), Sharapova (#4; lost SF) Winner: Amélie Mauresmo (#3). Finalist: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#6) Semifinalists: (#2), (#4) Doubles Winners: Yan/Zheng, Finalists: Raymond/Stosur January 30, 2006: Waikoloa $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 796 Top Players: Gallovits (#126; lost SF), Pelletier (#134; lost SF), Osterloh (#136; Won Event), C. Fernandez (#140; lost 2R) Winner: (#136). Finalist: (#190) Semifinalists: Edina Gallovits (#126), Marie-Eve Pelletier (#134) Doubles Winners: C. Chan/Pelletier, Finalists: Ditty/Osterloh February 5, 2006: Pan Pacific 2006 (I/Indoor) Modified TSI: 173 ¥ Top Four Strength: 53 Top Players: Sharapova (#4; lost SF), Dementieva (#9; Won Event), Myskina (#13; lost SF), Vaidisova (#14; lost QF) Winner: (#9). Finalist: Martina Hingis (#117) Semifinalists: (#13), Maria Sharapova (#4) Doubles Winners: Raymond/Stosur, Finalists: Black/Stubbs February 5, 2006: Ortisei $75K 2006 ($75K/Indoor) Modified TSI: 10 ¥ Top Four Strength: 303 Top Players: Grönefeld (#19; lost 1R), Domachowska (#63; lost F), Loit (#69; lost 2R), Bychkova (#70; lost 1R) Winner: Eva Birnerova (#112). Finalist: (#63) Semifinalists: Olga Blahotova (#177), Anastasia Yakimova (#111) Doubles Winners: Hradecka/Uhlirova, Finalists: Poutchek/Yakimova February 13, 2006: Paris 2006 (II/Indoor) Modified TSI: 282 ¥ Top Four Strength: 31 Top Players: Mauresmo (#2; Won Event), Pierce (#6; lost F), Petrova (#7; lost QF), Dementieva (#8; lost QF) Winner: Amélie Mauresmo (#2). Finalist: (#6) Semifinalists: (#24), Patty Schnyder (#9) Doubles Winners: Loit/Peschke, Finalists: Black/Stubbs

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 16 February 13, 2006: Pattaya City 2006 (IV/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 234 Top Players: Zvonareva (#33; lost 1R), Castano (#38; lost QF), Peer (#45; Won Event), Llagostera Vives (#47; lost SF) Winner: Shahar Peer (#45). Finalist: Jelena Kostanic (#69) Semifinalists: (#65), (#47) Doubles Winners: T. Li/Sun, Finalists: Yan/Zheng February 13, 2006: Midland $75K 2006 ($75K/Indoor) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 417 Top Players: Granville (#42; lost QF), Shaughnessy (#60; lost 1R), Jackson (#85; lost SF), Lepchenko (#128; lost 1R) Winner: Maria Emelia Salerni (#140). Finalist: (#191) Semifinalists: (#85), Olga Poutchkova (#193) Doubles Winners: Sequera/Tu, Finalists: Argeri/Sobral February 19, 2006: Antwerp 2006 (II/Indoor) Modified TSI: 344 ¥ Top Four Strength: 21 Top Players: Clijsters (#1; lost F), Mauresmo (#2; Won Event), Petrova (#7; lost SF), Dementieva (#8; lost SF) Winner: Amélie Mauresmo (#2). Finalist: Kim Clijsters (#1) Semifinalists: Elena Dementieva (#8), Nadia Petrova (#7) Doubles Winners: Safina/Srebotnik, Finalists: Foretz/Krajicek February 19, 2006: Bangalore 2006 (III/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 257 Top Players: Peer (#36; lost 1R), Mirza (#38; lost R16), Kostanic (#50; lost F), Santangelo (#59; Won Event) Winner: Mara Santangelo (#59). Finalist: Jelena Kostanic (#50) Semifinalists: Melinda Czink (#113), Vania King (#140) Doubles Winners: Huber/Mirza, Finalists: Rodionova/Vesnina February 26, 2006: Dubai 2006 (II+/Hard) Modified TSI: 334 ¥ Top Four Strength: 19 Top Players: Mauresmo (#2; lost QF), Davenport (#3; lost SF), Sharapova (#4; lost F), Hénin-Hardenne (#5; Won Event) Winner: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#5). Finalist: Maria Sharapova (#4) Semifinalists: Lindsay Davenport (#3), Svetlana Kuznetsova (#15) Doubles Winners: Peschke/Schiavone, Finalists: Kuznetsova/Petrova February 26, 2006: Bogota 2006 (III/Clay) Modified TSI: 10 ¥ Top Four Strength: 194 Top Players: Pennetta (#18; lost F), Dulko (#30; lost QF), Castaño (#39; lost QF), Loit (#59; lost QF) Winner: Lourdes Domínguez Lino (#89). Finalist: Flavia Pennetta (#18) Semifinalists: Ludmilla Cervanova (#123), Maria Antonia Sanchez Lorenzo (#74) Doubles Winners: Dulko/Pennetta, Finalists: Szavay/Woehr

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 17 February 26, 2006: Memphis 2006 (III/Indoor) Modified TSI: 25 ¥ Top Four Strength: 166 Top Players: Vaidisova (#13; lost 1R), Groenefeld (#22; lost R16), Arvidsson (#47; Won Event), Granville (#49; lost QF) Winner: (#47). Finalist: Marta Domachowska (#51) Semifinalists: (#58), (#56) Doubles Winners: Raymond/Stosur, Finalists: Azarenka/Wozniacki February 26, 2006: Saint Paul $50K 2006 ($50K/Indoor) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 928 Top Players: Sequera (#147; Won Event), A. Rolle (#153; lost QF), Pastikova (#158; lost QF), Poutchkova (#170; lost QF) Winner: (#147). Finalist: (#212) Semifinalists: (#306), (#198) Doubles Winners: Ditty/Sequera, Finalists: Hrdinova/Pastikova March 5, 2006: Doha 2006 (II/Hard) Modified TSI: 203 ¥ Top Four Strength: 43 Top Players: Mauresmo (#2; lost F), Petrova (#8; Won Event), Schiavone (#11; lost R16), Myskina (#12; lost R16) Winner: Nadia Petrova (#8). Finalist: Amélie Mauresmo (#2) Semifinalists: Martina Hingis (#44), (#26) Doubles Winners: Hantuchova/Sugiyama, Finalists: T. Li/Sun March 5, 2006: Acapulco 2006 (III/Clay) Modified TSI: 20 ¥ Top Four Strength: 141 Top Players: Pennetta (#20; lost F), Grönefeld (#22; Won Event), Koukalova (#28; lost R16), Dulko (#29; lost 1R) Winner: Anna-Lena Grönefeld (#22). Finalist: Flavia Pennetta (#20) Semifinalists: Maret Ani (#95), Emilie Loit (#59) Doubles Winners: Grönefeld/Shaughnessy, Finalists: Asagoe/Loit March 5, 2006: Las Vegas $75K 2006 ($75K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 361 Top Players: Craybas (#52; lost 1R), Granville (#53; lost QF), Laine (#74; lost F), Harkleroad (#77; lost 1R) Winner: (#120). Finalist: (#74) Semifinalists: (#177), Tatiana Perebiynis (#255) Doubles Winners: (Final not played), Finalists: Alves/Perebiynis, Dell’acqua/Pratt March 19, 2006: Indian Wells 2006 (I+/Hard) Modified TSI: 259 ¥ Top Four Strength: 27 Top Players: Hénin-Hardenne (#3; lost SF), Davenport (#4; lost R16), Sharapova (#5; Won Event), Dementieva (#8; lost F) Winner: Maria Sharapova (#5). Finalist: Elena Dementieva (#8) Semifinalists: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#3), Martina Hingis (#32) Doubles Winners: Raymond/Stosur, Finalists: Ruano Pascual/Shaughnessy

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 18 March 19, 2006: Orange $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 506 Top Players: Schruff (#59; lost 2R), Czink (#93; lost 1R), Muller (#100; lost 1R), A. Bondarenko (#102; Won Event) Winner: (#102). Finalist: Yvonne Meusburger (#121) Semifinalists: (#144), Anastasia Yakimova (#104) Doubles Winners: A. Bondarenko/K. Bondarenko, Finalists: Dubois/Osterloh April 2, 2006: Miami 2006 (I [required]/Hard) Modified TSI: 440 ¥ Top Four Strength: 13 Top Players: Mauresmo (#1; lost SF), Clijsters (#2; lost 2R), Hénin-Hardenne (#3; lost 2R), Sharapova (#4; lost F) Winner: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#14). Finalist: Maria Sharapova (#4) Semifinalists: Tatiana Golovin (#24), Amélie Mauresmo (#1) Doubles Winners: Raymond/Stosur, Finalists: L. Huber/Navratilova April 9, 2006: Amelia Island 2006 (II/Clay) Modified TSI: 189 ¥ Top Four Strength: 55 Top Players: Petrova (#7; Won Event), Schnyder (#9; lost QF), Kuznetsova (#10; lost SF), Schiavone (#13; lost F) Winner: Nadia Petrova (#7). Finalist: Francesca Schiavone (#13) Semifinalists: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#10), Lucie Safarova (#34) Doubles Winners: Asagoe/Srebotnik, Finalists: L. Huber/Mirza April 9, 2006: Dinan $75K 2006 ($75K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 694 Top Players: Pin (#109; lost SF), Vierin (#118; lost QF), Meusburger (#119; lost SF), Nagyova (#121; lost QF) Winner: (#341). Finalist: (#196) Semifinalists: Yvonne Meusburger (#119), (#109) Doubles Winners: Jans/Rosolska, Finalists: Gojnea/Radwanska April 16, 2006: Charleston 2006 (I/Clay) Modified TSI: 245 ¥ Top Four Strength: 39 Top Players: Hénin-Hardenne (#3; lost SF), Petrova (#7; Won Event), Schnyder (#9; lost F), Kuznetsova (#10; lost QF) Winner: Nadia Petrova (#7). Finalist: Patty Schnyder (#9) Semifinalists: Anna-Lena Grönefeld (#15), Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#3) Doubles Winners: Raymond/Stosur, Finalists: Ruano Pascual/Shaughnessy April 23, 2006: Dothan $75K 2006 ($75K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 637 Top Players: Harkleroad (#79; lost 1R), Sromova (#109; lost 1R), Fedak (#111; Won Event), Lepchenko (#130; lost F) Winner: Yuliana Fedak (#111). Finalist: (#130) Semifinalists: Edina Gallovits (#152), Lilia Osterloh (#131) Doubles Winners: Adamczak/Esperon, Finalists: Gallovits/Lepchenko

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 19 April 30, 2006: Cagnes-sur-Mer $75K 2006 ($75K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 384 Top Players: Loit (#50; lost 1R), Bychkova (#68; lost 1R), Diaz-Oliva (#72; lost 1R), Garbin (#76; lost SF) Winner: Martina Müller (#104). Finalist: (#86) Semifinalists: (#76), Laura Pous Tio (#84) Doubles Winners: Lefevre/Vedy, Finalists: Klemenschits/Klemenschits April 30, 2006: Lafayette $50K 2006 ($50K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 584 Top Players: Morigami (#79; lost 2R), Fedak (#89; Won Event), Sromova (#109; lost 2R), Poutchkova (#139; lost 1R) Winner: Yuliana Fedak (#89). Finalist: Milagros Sequera (#145) Semifinalists: (#188), (#158) Doubles Winners: Sequera/Sromova, Finalists: Fedak/Hrdinova May 7, 2006: Warsaw 2006 (II/Clay) Modified TSI: 264 ¥ Top Four Strength: 39 Top Players: Clijsters (#2; Won Event), Schnyder (#8; lost 2R), Dementieva (#9; lost SF), Kuznetsova (#10; lost F) Winner: Kim Clijsters (#2). Finalist: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#10) Semifinalists: (#34), Elena Dementieva (#9) Doubles Winners: Likhovtseva/Myskina, Finalists: Medina Garrigues/Srebotnik May 7, 2006: Estoril 2006 (IV/Clay) Modified TSI: 10 ¥ Top Four Strength: 195 Top Players: Pennetta (#19; lost SF), Dulko (#33; lost QF), Domínguez Lino (#44; lost QF), Douchevina (#47; lost 1R) Winner: Jie Zheng (#49). Finalist: Li Na(#70) Semifinalists: Emilie Loit (#50), Flavia Pennetta (#19) Doubles Winners: T. Li/Sun, Finalists: Dulko/Sanchez Lorenzo May 7, 2006: Charlottsville $50K 2006 ($50K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 510 Top Players: Granville (#51; Won Event), Morigami (#77; lost SF), Osterloh (#119; lost QF), Sequera (#135; lost 1R) Winner: (#51). Finalist: Dominika Cibulkova (#396) Semifinalists: (#176), (#77) Doubles Winners: Pelletier/Rao, Finalists: Alves/Osterloh May 7, 2006: Gifu $50K 2006 ($50K/Indoor) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 735 Top Players: Nakamura (#61; lost F), Hsieh (#131; lost SF), Y. Chan (#172; lost 1R), Dellacqua (#179; lost SF) Winner: Erika Takao (#279). Finalist: (#61) Semifinalists: Casey Dell’acqua (#179), Su-Wei Hsieh (#131) Doubles Winners: C. Chan/Hsieh, Finalists: Y. Chan/Chuang

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 20 May 14, 2006: Berlin 2006 (I/Clay) Modified TSI: 357 ¥ Top Four Strength: 25 Top Players: Mauresmo (#1; lost SF), Petrova (#4; Won Event), Hénin-Hardenne (#7; lost F), Dementieva (#8; lost R16) Winner: Nadia Petrova (#4). Finalist: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#7) Semifinalists: Amélie Mauresmo (#1), Li Na (#61) Doubles Winners: Yan/Zheng, Finalists: Dementieva/Pennetta May 14, 2006: Prague 2006 (IV/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 204 Top Players: Bartoli (#28; lost 1R), Safarova (#31; lost 1R), Peer (#35; Won Event), Loit (#51; lost QF) Winner: Shahar Peer (#35). Finalist: (#55) Semifinalists: Kaia Kanepi (#84), Shuai Peng (#75) Doubles Winners: Bartoli/Peer, Finalists: Harkleroad/Mattek May 14, 2006: Jounieh $75K 2006 ($75K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 431 Top Players: Dominguez Lino (#41; lost 2R), Yakimova (#70; lost F), Martinez Granados (#100; lost SF), Vento-Kabchi (#109; lost 1R) Winner: (#228). Finalist: Anastasiya Yakimova (#70) Semifinalists: Zsofia Gubacsi (#236), Conchita Martinez Granados (#100) Doubles Winners: Poutchek/Yakimova, Finalists: Argeri/Sobral May 14, 2006: Fukuoka $50K 2006 ($50K/Indoor) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 977 Top Players: Hsieh (#121; lost QF), Y. Chan (#181; Won Event), Okamoto (#186; lost 2R), Viratprasert (#187; lost 1R) Winner: Chan Yung-Jan (#181). Finalist: (#274) Semifinalists: Chin-Wei Chan (#240), Katie O'Brien (#259) Doubles Winners: Chan/Chuang, Finalists: Baker/Horiatopoulos May 14, 2006: Indian Harbor Beach $50K 2006 ($50K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 763 Top Players: Osterloh (#111; lost 1R), Lepchenko (#134; lost 1R), Poutchkova (#136; lost 1R), Pratt (#137; lost SF) Winner: Edina Gallovits (#194). Finalist: Rossana de los Rios (#452) Semifinalists: Vilmarie Castellvi (#160), (#137) Doubles Winners: Gallovits/Kirkland, Finalists: Alves/Pelletier May 22, 2006: Rome 2006 (I/Clay) Modified TSI: 264 ¥ Top Four Strength: 39 Top Players: Clijsters (#2; lost R16), Dementieva (#8; lost QF), Schnyder (#9; lost R16), Kuznetsova (#10; lost SF) Winner: Martina Hingis (#21). Finalist: Dinara Safina (#19) Semifinalists: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#10), Venus Williams (#12) Doubles Winners: Hantuchova/Sugiyama, Finalists: Peschke/Schiavone

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 21 May 22, 2006: Rabat 2006 (IV/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 241 Top Players: Bartoli (#28; lost 1R), Zheng (#36; lost 2R), Loit (#48; lost QF), A. Bondarenko (#65; lost SF) Winner: (#87). Finalist: Martina Sucha (#76) Semifinalists: Alona Bondarenko (#65), Zi Yan (#79) Doubles Winners: Yan/Zheng, Finalists: Harkleroad/Mattek May 22, 2006: Saint Gaudens $50K 2006 ($50K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 813 Top Players: Fedak (#77; lost 2R), Beltrame (#125; lost 1R), Poutchek (#135; lost 2R), Cohen-Aloro (#139; lost 2R) Winner: Timea Bacsinszky (#269). Finalist: Ivana Abramovic (#194) Semifinalists: (#176), Aravane Rezai Bidakhavidi (#156) Doubles Winners: Abramovic/Kudravtseva, Finalists: Argeri/Sobral May 28, 2006: Istanbul 2006 (III/Clay) Modified TSI: 30 ¥ Top Four Strength: 116 Top Players: Myskina (#12; lost F), Grönefeld (#15; lost SF), Chakvetadze (#29; lost 1R), Peer (#33; Won Event) Winner: Shahar Peer (#33). Finalist: Anastasia Myskina (#12) Semifinalists: Anna-Lena Grönefeld (#15), Michaella Krajicek (#54) Doubles Winners: A. Bondarenko/Yakimova, Finalists: Mirza/Molik May 28, 2006: Strasbourg 2006 (III/Clay) Modified TSI: 63 ¥ Top Four Strength: 104 Top Players: Schnyder (#9; lost 2R), Vaidisova (#18; Won Event), Déchy (#23; lost 2R), Bartoli (#27; lost 2R) Winner: Nicole Vaidisova (#18). Finalist: Peng Shuai (#70) Semifinalists: Jelena Jankovic (#35), Anabel Medina Garrigues (#28) Doubles Winners: Huber/M. Navratilova, Finalists: Müller/Vanc May 28, 2006: Beijing $50K I 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 1128 Top Players: Tanasugarn (#146; lost QF), Viratprasert (#192; lost 2R), Takao (#213; lost 1R), Bratchikova (#239; lost 1R) Winner: Aniko Kapros (#264). Finalist: Xie Yan-Ze (#374) Semifinalists: Chen Yan-Chong (#510), Napaporn Tongsalee (#273) Doubles Winners: Chuang/Tanasugarn, Finalists: Bratchikova/Dekmeijere June 10, 2006: Roland Garros 2006 (Slam/Clay) Modified TSI: 475 ¥ Top Four Strength: 13 Top Players: Mauresmo (#1; lost R16), Clijsters (#2; lost SF), Petrova (#3; lost 1R), Sharapova (#4; lost R16) Winner: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#5). Finalist: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#10) Semifinalists: Kim Clijsters (#2), Nicole Vaidisova (#16) Doubles Winners: Raymond/Stosur, Finalists: Hantuchova/Sugiyama

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 22 June 10, 2006: Prostejov $75K 2006 ($75K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 274 Top Players: Safarova (#31; lost 1R), Smashnova (#50; Won Event), Benesova (#53; lost 1R), Morigami (#69; lost SF) Winner: (#50). Finalist: (#96) Semifinalists: Katerina Bohmova (#122), Akiko Morigami (#69) Doubles Winners: Gajdosova/Morigami, Finalists: Dekmeijere/Rosolska June 19, 2006: Birmingham 2006 (III/Grass) Modified TSI: 80 ¥ Top Four Strength: 85 Top Players: Sharapova (#4; lost SF), Schiavone (#14; lost QF), Sugiyama (#22; lost R16), Bartoli (#27; lost QF) Winner: Vera Zvonareva (#78). Finalist: Jamea Jackson (#81) Semifinalists: Maria Sharapova (#4), (#135) Doubles Winners: Jankovic/Li Na, Finalists: Craybas/L. Huber June 19, 2006: Marseille $50K+H 2006 ($50K+H/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 558 Top Players: Bychkova (#88; Won Event), Diaz-Oliva (#92; lost QF), Pin (#98; lost 2R), Martinez Granados (#100; lost SF) Winner: Ekaterina Bychkova (#88). Finalist: Severine (Beltrame) Brémond (#142) Semifinalists: Iryna Kuryanovich (#874), Conchita Martinez Granados (#100) Doubles Winners: Martinez Granados/Martinez Sanchez, Finalists: Brémond/Cohen-Aloro June 19, 2006: $50K+H 2006 ($50K+H/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 451 Top Players: Kostanic (#58; lost QF), Garbin (#75; lost F), Sromova (#90; lost QF), Lisjak (#95; lost 1R) Winner: Kyra Nagy (#149). Finalist: Tathiana Garbin (#75) Semifinalists: Simona Matei (#338), Zuzana Ondraskova (#116) Doubles Winners: Pastikova/Sromova, Finalists: Blahotova/Hradecka June 25, 2006: Eastbourne 2006 (II/Grass) Modified TSI: 339 ¥ Top Four Strength: 16 Top Players: Mauresmo (#1; lost 2R), Clijsters (#2; lost SF), Hénin-Hardenne (#3; Won Event), Kuznetsova (#7; lost SF) Winner: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#3). Finalist: Anastasia Myskina (#11) Semifinalists: Kim Clijsters (#2), Svetlana Kuznetsova (#7) Doubles Winners: Kuznetsova/Mauresmo, Finalists: L. Huber/Navratilova June 25, 2006: ’s-Hertogenbosch 2006 (III/Grass) Modified TSI: 83 ¥ Top Four Strength: 89 Top Players: Dementieva (#8; lost SF), Safina (#17; lost F), Pennetta (#19; lost 1R), Kirilenko (#20; lost 1R) Winner: Michaella Krajicek (#55). Finalist: Dinara Safina (#17) Semifinalists: (#67), Elena Dementieva (#8) Doubles Winners: Yan/Zheng, Finalists: Ivanovic/Kirilenko

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 23 July 9, 2006: Wimbledon 2006 (Slam/Grass) Modified TSI: 440 ¥ Top Four Strength: 13 Top Players: Mauresmo (#1; Won Event), Clijsters (#2; lost SF), Hénin-Hardenne (#3; lost F), Sharapova (#4; lost SF) Winner: Amélie Mauresmo (#1). Finalist: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#3) Semifinalists: Kim Clijsters (#2), Maria Sharapova (#4) Doubles Winners: Yan/Zheng, Finalists: Ruano Pascual/Suárez July 9, 2006: College Park $75K 2006 ($75K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 683 Top Players: Pin (#97; lost F), Osterloh (#109; lost 1R), Vento (#133; lost 2R), Perianu (#138; lost SF) Winner: Varvara Lepchenko (#158). Finalist: Camille Pin (#97) Semifinalists: (#163), Anda Perianu (#138) Doubles Winners: Nelson/Yelsey, Finalists: Chan/Grandin July 9, 2006: Cuneo $50K+H 2006 ($50K+H/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 509 Top Players: Ani (#72; lost 1R), Oprandi (#82; lost 1R), Pous Tio (#94; lost SF), Bohmova (#107; lost 2R) Winner: (#123). Finalist: (#274) Semifinalists: Laura Pous Tio (#94), Aravane Rezai Bidakhavidi (#114) Doubles Winners: Errani/Knapp, Finalists: Gatta Monticone/Kustava July 23, 2006: Cincinnati 2006 (III/Hard) Modified TSI: 58 ¥ Top Four Strength: 91 Top Players: Schnyder (#8; lost SF), Myskina (#11; lost 1R), Srebotnik (#26; lost F), Jankovic (#27; lost QF) Winner: Vera Zvonareva (#50). Finalist: (#26) Semifinalists: Patty Schnyder (#8), Serena Williams (#139) Doubles Winners: Camerin/Dulko, Finalists: Domachowska/Mirza July 23, 2006: Palermo 2006 (IV/Clay) Modified TSI: 20 ¥ Top Four Strength: 161 Top Players: Pennetta (#18; lost 1R), Medina Garrigues (#24; Won Event), Krajicek (#36; lost 2R), Safarova (#41; lost SF) Winner: Anabel Medina Garrigues (#24). Finalist: Tathiana Garbin (#75) Semifinalists: Lucie Safarova (#41), (#87) Doubles Winners: Husarova/Krajicek, Finalists: Canepa/Gabba July 23, 2006: Hammond $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 961 Top Players: Poutchek (#134; lost QF), Castellvi (#149; lost 1R), Perebiynis (#193; lost F), Rao (#202; lost QF) Winner: Ansley Cargill (#262). Finalist: Tatiana Perebiynis (#193) Semifinalists: Mary Gambale (#355), Napaporn Tongsalee (#254) Doubles Winners: Fusano/Kops-Jones, Finalists: Fuda/Rao

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 24 July 23, 2006: Vittel $50K 2006 ($50K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 679 Top Players: Gajdosova (#96; Won Event), Bohmova (#119; lost 2R), Beygelzimer (#120; lost SF), Barrois (#129; lost 2R) Winner: Jarmila Gajdosova (#96). Finalist: (#379) Semifinalists: Yulia Beygelzimer (#120), Madalina Gojnea (#198) Doubles Winners: Beygelzimer/Szavay, Finalists: Gojnea/Makarova July 30, 2006: Stanford 2006 (II/Hard) Modified TSI: 178 ¥ Top Four Strength: 48 Top Players: Clijsters (#2; Won Event), Schnyder (#8; lost F), Vaidisova (#12; lost SF), Grönefeld (#16; lost QF) Winner: Kim Clijsters (#2). Finalist: Patty Schnyder (#8) Semifinalists: Tatiana Golovin (#32), Nicole Vaidisova (#12) Doubles Winners: Grönefeld/Peer, Finalists: Camerin/Dulko July 30, 2006: Budapest 2006 (IV/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 231 Top Players: Castaño (#35; lost QF), Krajicek (#36; lost SF), Benesova (#44; lost 2R), Domínguez Lino (#45; lost F) Winner: Anna Smashnova (#63). Finalist: Lourdes Domínguez Lino (#45) Semifinalists: Michaella Krajicek (#36), Martina Müller (#74) Doubles Winners: Husarova/Krajicek, Finalists: Hradecka/Voracova July 30, 2006: Petange $50K+H 2006 ($50K+H/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 519 Top Players: Yakimova (#54; lost SF), Ondraskova (#99; lost QF), Poutchkova (#100; lost QF), Beygelzimer (#113; Won Event) Winner: Yulia Beygelzimer (#113). Finalist: (#124) Semifinalists: Stéphanie Cohen-Aloro (#148), Anastasia Yakimova (#54) Doubles Winners: Krauth/Piedade, Finalists: Schaul/Stanciute July 30, 2006: Lexington $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 643 Top Players: Poutchek (#100; lost QF), Pin (#104; Won Event), Lepchenko (#114; lost 1R), Tanasugarn (#121; lost 1R) Winner: Camille Pin (#104). Finalist: (#260) Semifinalists: Stephanie Dubois (#147), (#179) Doubles Winners: Chan/Spears, Finalists: Amanmuradova/Lepchenko August 6, 2006: San Diego 2006 (I/Hard) Modified TSI: 339 ¥ Top Four Strength: 23 Top Players: Clijsters (#2; lost F), Sharapova (#4; Won Event), Petrova (#5; lost 2R), Dementieva (#6; lost QF) Winner: Maria Sharapova (#4). Finalist: Kim Clijsters (#2) Semifinalists: Patty Schnyder (#8), Nicole Vaidisova (#12) Doubles Winners: Black/Stubbs, Finalists: Grönefeld/Shaughnessy

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 25 August 6, 2006: Washington $75K 2006 ($75K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 548 Top Players: Brémond (#73; lost 1R), Pin (#92; lost F), Kutuzova (#103; lost 2R), Lepchenko (#115; lost QF) Winner: (#183). Finalist: Camille Pin (#92) Semifinalists: Nicole Pratt (#116), (#147) Doubles Winners: Chan/Luzhanska, Finalists: Amanmuradova/Lepchenko August 6, 2006: Baden-Baden $50K+H 2006 ($50K+H/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 453 Top Players: Müller (#60; Won Event), Bychkova (#74; lost 1R), Gajdosova (#85; lost 1R), Ondraskova (#100; lost 2R) Winner: Martina Müller (#60). Finalist: Katerina Bohmova (#119) Semifinalists: Eva Birnerova (#114), Joanna Sakowicz (#164) Doubles Winners: Gajdosova/Piedade, Finalists: Prusova/Strycova August 6, 2006: Martina Franca $50K 2006 ($50K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 873 Top Players: Vierin (#120; lost 2R), Gallovits (#137; lost QF), Errani (#177; lost SF), I. Abramovic (#182; lost 1R) Winner: (#227). Finalist: (#202) Semifinalists: (#177), Nika Ozegovic (#297) Doubles Winners: Abramovic/Vedy, Finalists: Gallovits/Jugic-Salkic August 13, 2006: Los Angeles 2006 (II/Hard) Modified TSI: 241 ¥ Top Four Strength: 34 Top Players: Sharapova (#4; lost SF), Petrova (#5; lost R32), Dementieva (#6; Won Event), Davenport (#10; lost R32) Winner: Elena Dementieva (#6). Finalist: Jelena Jankovic (#28) Semifinalists: Maria Sharapova (#4), Serena Williams (#110) Doubles Winners: Ruano Pascual/Suárez, Finalists: Hantuchova/Sugiyama August 13, 2006: Stockholm 2006 (IV/Hard) Modified TSI: 25 ¥ Top Four Strength: 140 Top Players: Myskina (#11; lost F), Li Na (#22; lost QF), Zheng (#35; Won Event), Arvidsson (#39; lost SF) Winner: Zheng Jie (#35). Finalist: Anastasia Myskina (#11) Semifinalists: Sofia Arvidsson (#39), Tszvetana Pironkova (#89) Doubles Winners: Birnerova/Gajdosova, Finalists: Yan/Zheng

August 20, 2006: Canadian Open/ 2006 (I/Hard) Modified TSI: 264 ¥ Top Four Strength: 32 Top Players: Clijsters (#2; lost 2R), Petrova (#6; lost 2R), Kuznetsova (#7; lost QF), Vaidisova (#9; lost R16) Winner: (#19). Finalist: Martina Hingis (#12) Semifinalists: Anna Chakvetadze (#31), Dinara Safina (#14) Doubles Winners: Navratilova/Petrova, Finalists: Black/Grönefeld

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 26 August 20, 2006: Bronx $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 636 Top Players: Czink (#83; lost 1R), Poutchkova (#116; Won Event), Tanasugarn (#118; lost 2R), Gagliardi (#120; lost 1R) Winner: Olga Poutchkova (#116). Finalist: Tatiana Poutchek (#131) Semifinalists: Racquel Kops-Jones (#369), Claudine Schaul (#178) Doubles Winners: Ditty/Grandin, Finalists: Hradecka/Pastikova August 20, 2006: $50K 2006 ($50K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 574 Top Players: Müller (#47; lost 2R), Ondraskova (#98; lost QF), Bohmova (#112; lost 2R), Zahlavova (#172; lost 1R) Winner: Sanja Ancic (#261). Finalist: Dominika Cibulkova (#290) Semifinalists: Mihaela Buzarnescu (#329), (#218) Doubles Winners: Jugic-Salkic/G. Navratilova, Finalists: Dzehalevich/Ivanova August 26, 2006: New Haven 2006 (II/Hard) Modified TSI: 375 ¥ Top Four Strength: 19 Top Players: Mauresmo (#1; lost QF), Hénin-Hardenne (#3; Won Event), Dementieva (#5; lost QF), Petrova (#6; lost 2R) Winner: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#3). Finalist: Lindsay Davenport (#11) Semifinalists: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#7), Samantha Stosur (#36) Doubles Winners: Yan/Zheng, Finalists: Raymond/Stosur August 26, 2006: Forest Hills 2006 (IV/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 241 Top Players: Safarova (#38; lost 1R), Arvidsson (#39; lost 1R), Dominguez Lino (#43; lost SF), Mirza (#44; lost QF) Winner: Meghann Shaughnessy (#64). Finalist: Anna Smashnova (#62) Semifinalists: (#54), Lourdes Domínguez Lino (#43) Doubles Winners: — NO DOUBLES — September 3, 2006: GuangZhou $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 1181 Top Players: Tanasugarn (#115; lost 1R), Tongsalee (#228; lost 1R), Chuang (#240; lost QF), Breadmore (#255; lost SF) Winner: Sun Shengnan (#398). Finalist: (#289) Semifinalists: Lauren Breadmore (#255), Vojislava Lukic (#408) Doubles Winners: Chen/Ren, Finalists: Takase/Tangphong September 10, 2006: U. S. Open 2006 (Slam/Hard) Modified TSI: 452 ¥ Top Four Strength: 15 Top Players: Mauresmo (#1; lost SF), Hénin-Hardenne (#2; lost F), Sharapova (#4; Won Event), Dementieva (#5; lost QF) Winner: Maria Sharapova (#4). Finalist: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#2) Semifinalists: Jelena Jankovic (#20), Amélie Mauresmo (#1) Doubles Winners: Déchy/Zvonareva, Finalists: Safina/Srebotnik

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 27 September 10, 2006: Denain $75K 2006 ($75K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 556 Top Players: Oprandi (#62; Won Event), Foretz (#101; lost F), Bohmova (#110; lost 1R), Gagliardi (#120; lost SF) Winner: Romina Oprandi (#62). Finalist: Stephanie Foretz (#101) Semifinalists: (#120), Olivia Sanchez (#311) Doubles Winners: Oprandi/Woehr, Finalists: Jans/Rosolska September 10, 2006: Mestre $50K 2006 ($50K/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 775 Top Players: Gallovits (#122; lost 1R), Nagy (#126; lost 1R), Kloesel (#130; lost F), Parra (#149; lost 1R) Winner: Sanja Ancic (#202). Finalist: Sandra Kloesel (#130) Semifinalists: Karin Knapp (#158), Tatjana Malek (#194) Doubles Winners: M. Niculescu/Voracova, Finalists: Chakhnashvili/Malek September 17, 2006: Bali 2006 (III+/Hard) Modified TSI: 133 ¥ Top Four Strength: 52 Top Players: Kuznetsova (#5; Won Event), Schnyder (#8; lost SF), Davenport (#12; lost SF), Ivanovic (#15; lost 1R) Winner: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#5). Finalist: Marion Bartoli (#26) Semifinalists: Lindsay Davenport (#12), Patty Schnyder (#8) Doubles Winners: Davenport/Morariu, Finalists: Grandin/Musgrave September 17, 2006: Bordeaux $75K+H 2006 ($75K+H/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 372 Top Players: Müller (#46; Won Event), Loit (#57; lost QF), Schruff (#75; lost 1R), Razzano (#91; lost 1R) Winner: Martina Müller (#46). Finalist: Sandra Kloesel (#123) Semifinalists: Margalita Chakhnashvili (#190), Laura Pous Tio (#117) Doubles Winners: Foretz/Schruff, Finalists: Nagy/Woehr September 24, 2006: Beijing 2006 (II/Hard) Modified TSI: 281 ¥ Top Four Strength: 29 Top Players: Mauresmo (#1; lost F), Kuznetsova (#5; Won Event), Petrova (#7; lost QF), Vaidisova (#10; lost 2R) Winner: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#5). Finalist: Amélie Mauresmo (#1) Semifinalists: Jelena Jankovic (#17), Shuai Peng (#60) Doubles Winners: Ruano Pascual/Suárez, Finalists: Chakvetadze/Vesnina September 24, 2006: Kolkata 2006 (III/Hard) Modified TSI: 43 ¥ Top Four Strength: 247 Top Players: Hingis (#9; Won Event), Sprem (#50; lost 1R), Fedak (#63; lost 1R), Rezai (#66; lost QF) Winner: Martina Hingis (#9). Finalist: Olga Poutchkova (#85) Semifinalists: (#70), Iroda Tulyaganova (#342) Doubles Winners: L. Huber/Mirza, Finalists: Beygelzimer/Fedak

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 28 September 24, 2006: Portoroz 2006 (IV/Hard) Modified TSI: 10 ¥ Top Four Strength: 219 Top Players: Srebotnik (#24; lost 1R), Müller (#38; lost QF), Bammer (#46; lost 1R), Oprandi (#49; lost 2R) Winner: Tamira Paszek (#259). Finalist: Maria Elena Camerin (#64) Semifinalists: Tathiana Garbin (#62), Emilie Loit (#55) Doubles Winners: Hradecka/Voracova, Finalists: Birnerova/Loit September 24, 2006: Albuquerque $75K 2006 ($75K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 608 Top Players: Granville (#76; lost SF), Kutuzova (#103; lost 1R), Dubois (#124; lost QF), Wozniak (#126; lost 2R) Winner: Ahsha Rolle (#154). Finalist: (#137) Semifinalists: Laura Granville (#76), Milagros Sequera (#128) Doubles Winners: Ditty/Sequera, Finalists: Fusano/Tsoubanos October 1, 2006: Luxembourg 2006 (II/Indoor) Modified TSI: 194 ¥ Top Four Strength: 46 Top Players: Dementieva (#6; lost QF), Petrova (#7; lost 2R), Schnyder (#9; lost QF), Safina (#11; lost QF) Winner: Alona Bondarenko (#62). Finalist: Francesca Schiavone (#14) Semifinalists: Kveta Peschke (#73), Agnieszka Radwanska (#95) Doubles Winners: Peschke/Schiavone, Finalists: Groenefeld/L. Huber October 1, 2006: GuangZhou 2006 (III/Hard) Modified TSI: 25 ¥ Top Four Strength: 129 Top Players: Jankovic (#16; lost SF), Li Na (#20; lost QF), Chakvetadze (#26; Won Event), Medina Garrigues (#31; lost F) Winner: Anna Chakvetadze (#26). Finalist: Anabel Medina Garrigues (#31) Semifinalists: Jelena Jankovic (#16), Tzipora Obziler (#130) Doubles Winners: T. Li/Sun, Finalists: King/Kostanic October 1, 2006: Seoul 2006 (IV/Hard) Modified TSI: 53 ¥ Top Four Strength: 119 Top Players: Hingis (#8; lost 2R), Bartoli (#24; lost SF), Sugiyama (#27; lost F), Zvonareva (#28; lost QF) Winner: Eleni Daniilidou (#58). Finalist: Ai Sugiyama (#27) Semifinalists: Marion Bartoli (#24), (#72) Doubles Winners: Ruano Pascual/Suárez, Finalists: Chuang/Diaz-Oliva October 1, 2006: Tokyo $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 931 Top Players: Chan (#138; lost F), Takao (#141; lost QF), Fuda (#181; lost QF), Spears (#192; lost QF) Winner: Ayumi Morita (#210). Finalist: Chan Yung-Jan (#138) Semifinalists: (#208), (#209) Doubles Winners: Dekmeijere/Takase, Finalists: Y. Sema/Tanaka

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 29 October 2, 2006: Biella $50K+H 2006 ($50K+H/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 367 Top Players: Oprandi (#46; lost QF), Garbin (#48; lost F), Razzano (#85; lost 1R), Ani (#94; lost 1R) Winner: Stephanie Foretz (#133). Finalist: Tathiana Garbin (#48) Semifinalists: Edina Gallovits (#135), Zuzana Ondraskova (#108) Doubles Winners: Strycova/Voracova, Finalists: Hradecka/Pastikova October 2, 2006: Ashland $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 583 Top Players: Granville (#76; lost QF), Lepchenko (#89; lost 2R), Kutuzova (#102; lost 1R), Harkleroad (#106; lost 2R) Winner: Aleksandra Wozniak (#127). Finalist: Agnes Szavay (#308) Semifinalists: Greta Arn (#235), Ahsha Rolle (#131) Doubles Winners: Ditty/Sequera, Finalists: Harkleroad/Szavay October 8, 2006: Stuttgart 2006 (II+/Indoor) Modified TSI: 267 ¥ Top Four Strength: 36 Top Players: Kuznetsova (#4; lost SF), Dementieva (#6; lost QF), Petrova (#7; Won Event), Schnyder (#9; lost SF) Winner: Nadia Petrova (#7). Finalist: Tatiana Golovin (#25) Semifinalists: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#4), Patty Schnyder (#9) Doubles Winners: Raymond/Stosur, Finalists: Black/Stubbs October 8, 2006: Japan Open 2006 (III/Hard) Modified TSI: 10 ¥ Top Four Strength: 157 Top Players: Bartoli (#22; Won Event), Sugiyama (#27; lost QF), Medina Garrigues (#28; lost 2R), Kirilenko (#31; lost 1R) Winner: Marion Bartoli (#22). Finalist: Aiko Nakamura (#89) Semifinalists: Chan Yung-Jan (#132), Camille Pin (#90) Doubles Winners: King/Kostanic, Finalists: Chan/Chuang October 8, 2006: Tashkent 2006 (IV/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 319 Top Players: Camerin (#51; lost QF), Vesnina (#52; lost 2R), Mirza (#55; lost QF), Poutchkova (#58; lost SF) Winner: Sun Tiantian (#128). Finalist: Iroda Tulyaganova (#221) Semifinalists: (#130), Olga Poutchkova (#58) Doubles Winners: Azarenka/Poutchek, Finalists: Camerin/Gagliardi October 8, 2006: Barcelona $75K+H 2006 ($75K+H/Clay) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 353 Top Players: Domínguez Lino (#45; lost QF), Garbin (#46; Won Event), Birnerova (#78; lost 1R), Ani (#93; lost 1R) Winner: Tathiana Garbin (#46). Finalist: Ekaterina Ivanova (#261) Semifinalists: Laura Pous Tio (#120), Carla Suárez Navarro (#354) Doubles Winners: Jans/Rosolska, Finalists: Gallovits/Henke

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 30 October 8, 2006: Troy $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 666 Top Players: Wozniak (#103; lost QF), Harkleroad (#106; lost SF), Sequera (#117; Won Event), Rolle (#131; lost F) Winner: Milagros Sequera (#117). Finalist: Ahsha Rolle (#131) Semifinalists: Clarisa Fernandez (#133), (#106) Doubles Winners: Baker/Kriz, Finalists: Scheepers/N. Uberoi October 15, 2006: Moscow 2006 (I/Indoor) Modified TSI: 415 ¥ Top Four Strength: 17 Top Players: Mauresmo (#1; lost QF), Sharapova (#3; lost QF), Kuznetsova (#4; lost R16), Petrova (#5; lost F) Winner: Anna Chakvetadze (#24). Finalist: Nadia Petrova (#5) Semifinalists: Elena Dementieva (#7), Nicole Vaidisova (#11) Doubles Winners: Peschke/Schiavone, Finalists: Benesova/Voskoboeva October 15, 2006: Bangkok 2006 (III/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 217 Top Players: Medina Garrigues (#28; lost 1R), Safarova (#39; lost 2R), Daniilidou (#41; lost QF), Déchy (#42; lost 2R) Winner: Vania King (#80). Finalist: (#97) Semifinalists: Severine Brémond (#54), Meghann Shaughnessy (#43) Doubles Winners: King/Kostanic, Finalists: Diaz-Oliva/Grandin October 15, 2006: San Francisco $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 596 Top Players: Granville (#74; lost SF), Sequera (#96; lost 2R), Harkleroad (#100; Won Event), Osterloh (#107; lost 2R) Winner: Ashley Harkleroad (#100). Finalist: Clarisa Fernandez (#129) Semifinalists: Laura Granville (#74), Aleksandra Wozniak (#119) Doubles Winners: Granville/Gullickson, Finalists: Fusano/Tsoubanos October 15, 2006: Touraine $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 492 Top Players: Gajdosova (#73; lost 1R), Pin (#78; lost 2R), Razzano (#91; lost F), Flipkens (#99; lost 1R) Winner: Roberta Vinci (#106). Finalist: (#91) Semifinalists: Yaroslava Shvedova (#122), Barbora Strycova (#171) Doubles Winners: Cohen-Aloro/Martinez Sanchez, Finalists: Strycova/Voracova October 21, 2006: Zürich 2006 (I/Indoor) Modified TSI: 380 ¥ Top Four Strength: 19 Top Players: Mauresmo (#1; lost QF), Sharapova (#3; Won Event), Kuznetsova (#4; lost SF), Dementieva (#7; lost R16) Winner: Maria Sharapova (#3). Finalist: Daniela Hantuchova (#22) Semifinalists: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#4), Katarina Srebotnik (#24) Doubles Winners: Black/Stubbs, Finalists: L. Huber/Srebotnik

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 31 October 21, 2006: Saint Raphael $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 502 Top Players: Pin (#79; lost 2R), Sucha (#81; lost QF), Razzano (#90; lost 1R), Vinci (#92; lost 1R) Winner: Stephanie Foretz (#129). Finalist: Youlia Fedossova (#148) Semifinalists: (#121), Kaia Kanepi (#98) Doubles Winners: Koryttseva/Voskoboeva, Finalists: Cornet/Fedossova October 22, 2006: Houston $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 563 Top Players: Granville (#76; lost 1R), Harkleroad (#91; lost QF), Sromova (#114; lost 1R), Mattek (#115; lost F) Winner: Agnes Szavay (#242). Finalist: Bethanie Mattek (#115) Semifinalists: Angela Haynes (#176), Tzipora Obziler (#117) Doubles Winners: Ditty/Luzhanska, Finalists: Granville/Gullickson October 29, 2006: Linz 2006 (II/Indoor) Modified TSI: 234 ¥ Top Four Strength: 36 Top Players: Sharapova (#3; Won Event), Petrova (#5; lost F), Schnyder (#9; lost SF), Vaidisova (#11; lost SF) Winner: Maria Sharapova (#3). Finalist: Nadia Petrova (#5) Semifinalists: Patty Schnyder (#9), Nicole Vaidisova (#11) Doubles Winners: Raymond/Stosur, Finalists: Morariu/Srebotnik October 29, 2006: $75K+H 2006 ($75K+H/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 300 Top Players: Safarova (#39; lost 1R), Oprandi (#50; lost QF), Benesova (#58; lost 2R), Pironkova (#64; lost QF) Winner: Dominika Cibulkova (#227). Finalist: (#144) Semifinalists: Emmanuelle Gagliardi (#127), Meilen Tu (#92) Doubles Winners: Jans/Rosolska, Finalists: Hradecka/Pastikova October 29, 2006: Beijing $50K II 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 640 Top Players: Bardina (#84; lost SF), Y. Chan (#101; lost SF), Yuan (#129; lost 2R), Kudryavtseva (#141; lost F) Winner: Marina Erakovic (#219). Finalist: Alla Kudryavtseva (#141) Semifinalists: Vasilisa Bardina (#84), Chan Yung-Jan (#101) Doubles Winners: Ji/Sun, Finalists: Erakovic/Kops-Jones November 5, 2006: Hasselt 2006 (III/Indoor) Modified TSI: 93 ¥ Top Four Strength: 75 Top Players: Clijsters (#6; Won Event), Ivanovic (#14; lost QF), Schiavone (#15; lost QF), Grönefeld (#20; lost 1R) Winner: Kim Clijsters (#6). Finalist: Kaia Kanepi (#91) Semifinalists: Michaella Krajicek (#41), Vera Zvonareva (#25) Doubles Winners: Raymond/Stosur, Finalists: Daniilidou/Woehr

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 32 November 5, 2006: Quebec City 2006 (III/Indoor) Modified TSI: 25 ¥ Top Four Strength: 147 Top Players: Jankovic (#12; lost QF), Bartoli (#19; Won Event), Beltrame (#42; lost SF), Arvidsson (#43; lost 1R) Winner: Marion Bartoli (#19). Finalist: Olga Poutchkova (#49) Semifinalists: Severine (Beltrame) Bremond (#42), Lilia Osterloh (#121) Doubles Winners: Granville/Gullickson, Finalists: Craybas/Jidkova November 5, 2006: Shanghai $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 420 Top Players: Nakamura (#64; lost QF), Tanasugarn (#74; Won Event), Bardina (#80; lost SF), Sun (#84; lost 2R) Winner: Tamarine Tanasugarn (#74). Finalist: (#258) Semifinalists: Vasilisa Bardina (#80), Iroda Tulyaganova (#151) Doubles Winners: Ji/Sun, Finalists: Amanmuradova/Tulyaganova November 12, 2006: Madrid Championships 2006 (Champ/Indoor) Modified TSI: 475 ¥ Top Four Strength: 13 Top Players: Mauresmo (#1; lost F), Sharapova (#2; lost SF), Hénin-Hardenne (#3; Won Event), Kuznetsova (#4; lost RR [3rd place]) Winner: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#3). Finalist: Amélie Mauresmo (#1) Semifinalists: Kim Clijsters (#6), Maria Sharapova (#2) Doubles Winners: Raymond/Stosur, Finalists: Black/Stubbs November 12, 2006: Pittsburg $75K 2006 ($75K/Indoor) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 387 Top Players: Poutchkova (#40; lost QF), Perry (#44; lost 1R), Bammer (#55; lost 1R), Arvidsson (#64; lost 1R) Winner: Aleksandra Wozniak (#115). Finalist: Victoria Azarenka (#106) Semifinalists: Laura Granville (#75), Abigail Spears (#164) Doubles Winners: Dubois/Kleybanova, Finalists: Harkleroad/Voskoboeva November 12, 2006: $50K 2006 ($50K/Hard) Modified TSI: 0 ¥ Top Four Strength: 507 Top Players: Tanasugarn (#67; lost 1R), Bardina (#77; lost SF), Chan (#96; lost 1R), Yuan (#123; Won Event) Winner: (#123). Finalist: Iroda Tulyaganova (#140) Semifinalists: Vasilisa Bardina (#77), Sun Tiantian (#273) Doubles Winners: Hsieh/Kudryavtseva, Finalists: Amanmuradova/Tulyaganova

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 33 Title Defences Title defences seem to have been declining in recent years. In 2003, we had no fewer than twelve title defences. There were nine in 2004, and six in 2005 (two by Mauresmo, and one each by Davenport, Medina Garrigues, Medina Garrigues, and Zvonareva). This year, the statistics are identical: Six defences, with five different players producing a title defence. The one player to defend multiple events was, somewhat improbably given her small number of titles, Kim Clijsters. Tournament Defender Antwerp Mauresmo Roland Garros Hénin-Hardenne Palermo Medina Garrigues Stanford Clijsters Budapest Smashnova Hasselt Clijsters

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 34 Tournament Strengths There is, unfortunately for statisticians and players alike, no accepted and universal measure for determining tournament strength. It’s unfortunate for players because they don’t get rewarded based on their actual accomplishments. It’s unfortunate for statisticians because it makes it hard to correlate tournament strength with anything else. We will take a couple of stabs at it, though. We have two methods, both of which are used in the table of tournament results above. The first is the “Top Four Strength,” or, to be more explicit, the “Tournament Strength Based on Top Four Players.” This is quite simple: We simply take the (WTA) rankings of the top four players (that’s based on actual rankings, not seeding, we note). We then add them up, counting the top two players twice. So the Australian Open, which featured the world’s #1, #2, #3, and #4 players, had a strength of 1+1+2+2+3+4, or 13. Sydney, which featured the #2, #3, #6, and #7, had a strength of 2+2+3+3+6+7, or 23. The strongest possible tournament, in this ranking, is one with a strength of 13. There is no absolute upper bound, since theoretically a $10K event could have no ranked players at all, but in practice the maximum for a Tour event is around 300 and the maximum for a $50K or higher Challenger really ought to be in the 1000 range; a stronger Challenger will be above 500. The second method, the Modified TSI, is better for ranking the top events, but is not intended to measure low-tier events. The original TSI (Tournament Strength Index) was proposed by Geert Calliauw. His Tournament Strength Index calculates the total quality points available for the top eight seeds, and calculates this as a fraction of the possible quality points if all of the Top Eight played. My modified version uses the same calculation, but counts only Top 25 players. (This is a change from 2002, when only Top Ten players counted; the purpose is to allow us to assess the sorts of events with only a handful of top players.) Recall that the #1 player is worth 100 quality points, #2 is worth 75, #3 66, #4 55, #5 50, and players #6- #10 are worth 43. Players below #10 are counted at a discounted rate: 15 points for those ranked #11-#16, 10 for those ranked #17Ð#25. The strongest possible tournament has a modified TSI of 475, so we can express this as a percentage: A tournament with a Modified TSI of 475 will be at 100% of full strength, one with a modified TSI of 427 would be at 90% strength, etc. The tables on the next two pages list the tournaments in order based on their strength. The first list, “Tournament strength based on Top Four Players,” includes all WTA events plus as many Challengers as fit (Note: I have calculated Top Four rankings for all $50K and higher events, but not all $25K events; it is unlikely, though, that any of the $25K events are stronger than the events listed here; Surbiton’s $25K event is always strong, but few other $25K events will have more than one Top 100 player at best). The second table, “Tournament Strength based on Modified TSI, includes primarily WTA events, since only one of the Challengers this year had a Top 25 player (Grönefeld played the Ortisei $75K event). It’s probably not surprising to note that the only tournaments to have the maximum strength of 13 are required events: Australian Open, Miami, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the Madrid Championships, with the U. S. Open right behind. It is fascinating to note that Eastbourne, which for many years had been one of the weaker Tier II events, suddenly finds itself the strongest optional event. The greater ability of the Modified TSI ranking to distinguish strong events is shown at the top of its list: Once again the top six events are the six required events (the Slams, Miami, and Madrid), but Modified TSI drops Wimbledon a bit. We also see some small moves in the events below the required events — e.g. instead of Eastbourne being #7, Moscow takes that spot (Eastbourne falls to #12). But generally the same events show up near the top in both lists. We note that, under Modified TSI, the weakest Tier I/II event (Pan Pacific) is still stronger than the strongest Tier III/IV (Bali), which is as it should be. That’s not quite true under the Top Four system, but it’s close.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 35 Tournament Strength Based on Top Four Players Rank Event Score Winner Rank Event Score Winner 1T Australian Open 13 Mauresmo 48 Memphis 166 Arvidsson 1T Miami 13 Kuznetsova 49 Bogota 194 Dominguez Lino 1T Roland Garros 13 Hénin-Hardenne 50 Estoril 195 Zheng 1T Wimbledon 13 Mauresmo 51 Prague 204 Peer 1T Madrid Championship 13 Hénin-Hardenne 52 Bangkok 217 King 6 U. S. Open 15 Sharapova 53 Portoroz 219 Paszek 7 Eastbourne 16 Hénin-Hardenne 54 Budapest 231 Smashnova 8Moscow 17 Chakvetadze 55 Pattaya City 234 Peer 9T Dubai 19 Hénin-Hardenne 56T Rabat 241 Shaughnessy 9T New Haven 19 Hénin-Hardenne 56T Forest Hills 241 Shaughnessy 9T Zürich 19 Sharapova 58 Kolkata 247 Hingis 12 Antwerp 21 Mauresmo 59 Canberra 251 Medina Garrigues 13T Sydney 23 Hénin-Hardenne 60 Bangalore 257 Santangelo 13T San Diego 23 Sharapova 61 Prostejov $75K 274 Smashnova 15 Berlin 25 Petrova 62 Bratislava $75K+H 300 Cibulkova 16 Indian Wells 27 Sharapova 63 Ortisei $75K 303 Birnerova 17 Beijing 29 Kuznetsova 64 Tashkent 319 Sun 18 Paris 31 Mauresmo 65 Barcelona $75K+H 353 Garbin 19 Canadian Open 32 Ivanovic 66 Las Vegas $75K 361 Perry 20 Los Angeles 34 Dementieva 67 Biella $50K+H 367 Foretz 21T Stuttgart 36 Petrova 68 Bordeaux $75K+H 372 Müller 21T Linz 36 Sharapova 69 Cagnes-sur-Mer $75K 384 Müller 23T Charleston 39 Petrova 70 Pittsburg $75K 387 Wozniak 23T Warsaw 39 Clijsters 71 Midland $75K 417 Salerni 23T Rome 39 Hingis 72 Shanghai $50K 420 Tanasugarn 26 Doha 43 Petrova 73 Jounieh $75K 431 Sfar 27 Luxembourg 46 A. Bondarenko 74 Zagreb $50K+H 451 Nagy 28 Stanford 48 Clijsters 75 Baden-Baden $50K+H 453 Müller 29 Bali 52 Kuznetsova 76 Touraine $50K 492 Vinci 30 Pan Pacific 53 Dementieva 77 Saint Raphael $50K 502 Foretz 31 Amelia Island 55 Petrova 78 Orange $50K 506 A. Bondarenko 32 Hasselt 75 Clijsters 79 Shenzhen $50K 507 Yuan 33 Gold Coast 84 Safarova 80 Cuneo $50K+H 509 Voskoboeva 34 Birmingham 85 Zvonareva 81 Charlottesville $50K 510 Granville 35 ’s-Hertogenbosch 89 Krajicek 82 Petange $50K+H 519 Beygelzimer 36 Cincinnati 91 Zvonareva 83 Washington $75K 548 Obziler 37 Auckland 95 Bartoli 84 Surbiton $25K 553 Brandi 38 Strasbourg 104 Vaidisova 85 Denain $75K 556 Oprandi 39 Istanbul 116 Peer 86 Marseille $50K+H 558 Bychkova 40 Seoul 119 Daniilidou 87 Houston $50K 563 Szavay 41 GuangZhou 129 Chakvetadze 88 Rimini $50K 574 Ancic 42 Hobart 136 Krajicek 89 Ashland $50K 583 Wozniak 43 Stockholm 140 Zheng 90 Lafayette $50K 584 Fedak 44 Acapulco 141 Grönefeld 91 San Francisco $50K 596 Harkleroad 45 Quebec City 147 Bartoli 92 Albuquerque $75K 608 Rolle 46 Japan Open 157 Bartoli 93 Bronx $50K 636 Poutchkova 47 Palermo 161 Medina Garrigues 94 Dothan $75K 637 Fedak

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 36 Tournament Strength Based on Modified TSI Rank Event Score Winner Rank Event Score Winner 1T Australian Open 100% Mauresmo 32 Hasselt 19.6% Clijsters 1T Roland Garros 100% Hénin-Hardenne 33T Gold Coast 18.5% Safarova 1T Madrid Championship 100% Hénin-Hardenne 33T Auckland 18.5% Bartoli 4 U. S. Open 95.2% Sharapova 35 ’s-Hertogenbosch 17.5% Krajicek 5T Miami 92.6% Kuznetsova 36 Birmingham 16.8% Zvonareva 5T Wimbledon 92.6% Mauresmo 37 Strasbourg 13.3% Vaidisova 7Moscow 87.4% Chakvetadze 38 Cincinnati 12.2% Zvonareva 8 Zürich 80.0% Sharapova 39 Seoul 11.2% Daniilidou 9New Haven 78.9% Hénin-Hardenne 40 Kolkata 9.1% Hingis 10 Berlin 75.2% Petrova 41 Istanbul 6.3% Peer 11 Antwerp 72.4% Mauresmo 42T GuangZhou 5.3% Chakvetadze 12T Eastbourne 71.4% Hénin-Hardenne 42T Stockholm 5.3% Zheng 12T San Diego 71.4% Sharapova 42T Quebec City 5.3% Bartoli 14 Dubai 70.3% Hénin-Hardenne 42T Memphis 5.3% Arvidsson 15 Sydney 66.3% Hénin-Hardenne 46T Acapulco 4.2% Grönefeld 16 Paris 59.4% Mauresmo 46T Palermo 4.2% Medina Garrigues 17 Beijing 59.2% Kuznetsova 48T Japan Open 2.1% Bartoli 18 Stuttgart 56.2% Petrova 48T Bogota 2.1% Dominguez Lino 19T Canadian Open 55.6% Ivanovic 48T Estoril 2.1% Zheng 19T Warsaw 55.6% Clijsters 48T Portoroz 2.1% Paszek 19T Rome 55.6% Hingis 48T Ortisei $75K 2.1% Birnerova 22 Indian Wells 54.5% Sharapova 53T Hobart 0% Krajicek 23 Charleston 51.6% Petrova 53T Prague 0% Peer 24 Los Angeles 50.7% Dementieva 53T Bangkok 0% King 25 Linz 49.3% Sharapova 53T Budapest 0% Smashnova 26 Doha 42.7% Petrova 53T Pattaya City 0% Peer 27 Luxembourg 40.8% A. Bondarenko 53T Rabat 0% Shaughnessy 28 Amelia Island 39.8% Petrova 53T Forest Hills 0% Shaughnessy 29 Stanford 37.5% Clijsters 53T Canberra 0% Medina Garrigues 30 Pan Pacific 36.4% Dementieva 53T Bangalore 0% Santangelo 31 Bali 28.0% Kuznetsova 53T Tashkent 0% Sun

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 37 Tournament Strength versus Tournament Points The above data tell us which tournament are strongest; they do not tell us much about the relationship between tournament strength and points awarded. But we can easily examine this. The following graph compares points awarded with the Modified TSI value of the various tournaments:

Points versus Tournament Strength (TSI)

100

90

80

70

60

50

40 Modified TSI

30

20

10

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Points

It will be evident that this is anything but a linear relationship. On this graph, it’s almost a sideways parabola. If we take a correlation coefficient between points awarded and tournament strength1, it turns out to be almost exactly .8. The next page shows a similar graph, but this time we’ll correlate points awarded against the Top Four Players statistic, incorporating many more tournaments (including a lot of Challengers which, for space reasons, I did not show in the chart of strongest tournaments).

1. The correlation coefficient is a mathematical measure of how related two data sets are. If they correlate exactly, the correlation coefficient is 1.0 (or, possibly, -1.0, if the data set is in the wrong order). If the data are unrelated, the correlation coefficient is 0. My standard way of trying to explain what values mean is as follows: In physics lab, we thumb-fingered physics students still obtained correlations of at least .97 for our experimental data; a real physicist working with proper equipment could expect to get a correlation of .999 or so. In medical experiments, say involving genetics, ratios in the range of .3 to .5 are considered meaningful. My feeling is that the WTA could make the correla- tion between tournament strength and points awarded be at least .9 — if they wanted to.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 38 Points versus Tournament Strength (Top Four)

1600

1400

1200

1000

800 Top Four Score

600

400

200

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Points

I reversed the axes this time, but it is clear that we again have a generally parabolic shape. It’s pretty clear that the WTA would get a more accurate rankings system by spreading out the points awarded. (And in fact we have an Alternate Rankings for this, “Tournament Strength-Based Rankings” on page 125.) But accurate rankings are not their primary concern. If we take a correlation coefficient for this data, we find, astonishingly, a mere .62 correlation between tournament strength under this measure and tournament points. And if we correlate just the same 62 events we correlated under Modified TSI, that falls to .59. That’s almost frighteningly bad.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 39 Tough Bills and Cheap Thrills It’s one thing to win a title. It’s altogether another to win one against strong opposition. The lists below categorizes the 61 events of 2006 based on what the winner had to do to win the title. (Note: for brevity, titles are listed only once. So a player who won a title without beating a Top Twenty player clearly also won without beating a Top Ten player.) Won Title Beating At Least Two Top Ten Players (Total of 11): Australian Open: Mauresmo Antwerp: Mauresmo Miami: Kuznetsova Warsaw: Clijsters Roland Garros: Hénin-Hardenne Wimbledon: Mauresmo San Diego: Sharapova U.S. Open: Sharapova Moscow: Chakvetadze Linz: Sharapova Madrid Championships: Hénin-Hardenne Won Title Beating One Top Ten Player (Total of 15): Gold Coast: Safarova (Top Opponent: Schnyder/#6) Auckland: Bartoli (Top Opponent: Petrova/#7) Paris: Mauresmo (Top Opponent: Pierce/#6) Dubai: Hénin-Hardenne (Top Opponent: Sharapova/#4) Doha: Petrova (Top Opponent: Mauresmo/#2) Indian Wells: Sharapova (Top Opponent: Dementieva/#8) Charleston: Petrova (Top Opponent: Schnyder/#9) Berlin: Petrova (Top Opponent: Hénin-Hardenne/#7) Eastbourne: Hénin-Hardenne (Top Opponent: Clijsters/#2) ’s-Hertogenbosch: Krajicek (Top Opponent: Dementieva/#8) Stanford: Clijsters (Top Opponent: Schnyder/#8) Los Angeles: Dementieva (Top Opponent: Sharapova/#4) New Haven: Hénin-Hardenne (Top Opponent: Kuznetsova/#7) Beijing: Kuznetsova (Top Opponent: Mauresmo/#1) Stuttgart: Petrova (Top Opponent: Kuznetsova/#4) Won Title Without Facing a Top Ten Player (Total of 10): Sydney: Hénin-Hardenne (Top Opponent: Kuznetsova/#14) Pan Pacific: Dementieva (Top Opponent: Myskina/#13) Amelia Island: Petrova (Top Opponent: Schiavone/#13) Rome: Hingis (Top Opponent: Schiavone/#11) Istanbul: Peer (Top Opponent: Myskina/#12) Birmingham: Zvonareva (Top Opponent: Schiavone/#14) Stockholm: Zheng (Top Opponent: Myskina/#11) Canadian Open: Ivanovic (Top Opponent: Hingis/#12) Bali: Kuznetsova (Top Opponent: Davenport/#12) Luxembourg: Alona Bondarenko (Top Opponent: Schiavone/#14) Won Title Without Facing a Top Fifteen Player (Total of 3): Bogota: Domínguez Lino (Top Opponent: Pennetta/#18) Acapulco: Grönefeld (Top Opponent: Pennetta/#20) Estoril: Zheng (Top Opponent: Pennetta/#19) Won Title Without Facing a Top Twenty Player (Total of 5): Cincinnati: Zvonareva (Top Opponent: Srebotnik/#26) GuangZhou: Chakvetadze (Top Opponent: Jankovic/#16) Seoul: Daniilidou (Top Opponent: Bartoli/#24) Zürich: Sharapova (Top Opponent: Hantuchova/#22) Hasselt: Clijsters (Top Opponent: Zvonareva/#25) Won Title Without Facing a Top Thirty Player (Total of 9): Canberra: Medina Garrigues (Top Opponent: Peer/#46) Hobart: Krajicek (Top Opponent: Benesova/#47) Bangalore: Santangelo (Top Opponent: Kostanic/#50) Strasbourg: Vaidisova (Top Opponent: Jankovic/#35) Palermo: Medina Garrigues (Top Opponent: Safarova/#41) Budapest: Smashnova (Top Opponent: Castaño/#35) Forest Hills: Shaughnessy (Top Opponent: Domínguez Lino/#43) Bangkok: King (Top Opponent: Safarova/#39) Quebec City: Bartoli (Top Opponent: Perry/#46) Won Title Without Facing a Top Fifty Player (Total of 8): Pattaya City: Peer (Top Opponent: Bammer/#65) Memphis: Arvidsson (Top Opponent: Domachowska/#51) Prague: Peer (Top Opponent: Stosur/#55) Rabat: Shaughnessy (Top Opponent: Sucha/#76) Kolkata: Hingis (Top Opponent: Mirza/#70) Portoroz: Paszek (Top Opponent: Loit/#55) Japan Open: Bartoli (Top Opponent: Craybas/#60) Tashkent: Sun (Top Opponent: Rodionova/#88)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 40 Player Results The list below shows all the tournaments played by the most significant players of 2006 Any player who concluded 2005 in the Top Thirty (under the old ranking system), ended it in the Top Forty, or played an event while in the Top Thirty, is listed. To explain the data in the table: Each cell in the table begins by identifying the player by name. It then lists her final ranking (i.e. where she was ranked on the November 12, 2006 rankings), followed by the highest ranking she had during the 2006 season. (Note that, in one or two cases, this is a 2005 ranking, from before the elimination of quality points.) Then comes the player’s actual results, with one line for eacy tournament she played. The numbers in parentheses list, first, the Tier of the tournament, second, how far the player went, and third, the number of wins achieved. This is followed by a list of top players beaten en route, with the player’s rank at the time. For example, the second item in the entry for Sofia Arvidsson reads Australian Open (Slam, R32/Myskina [14], 2) — Safina (19) This means that Arvidsson’s second tournament of 2006 was the Australian Open. The designation “Slam” means that it was a ; if a Roman numeral is used, it refers to the tier of the event (Tier I, II, III, IV, sometimes with a suffix such as “+” or “req” — referring to events bigger than the “standard” Tier I/II/ III/IV); the other possibilities are “Slam” for the Grand Slams, “Champ” for the year-end Championships, and a dollar amount, e.g. $50K, for a Challenger. R32/Myskina means that Arvidsson reached the Round of 32 (third round), where she was beaten by Anastasia Myskina, then ranked #12. The 2 indicates that she won two matches prior to that defeat. Players she defeated included Dinara Safina, then ranked #19. (Note: only wins over Top 35 players are listed.) If a tournament is shown in bold, it means the player won the title. Sofia Arvidsson ¥ Final Rank: 63 ¥ Best Rank: 29 Canberra (IV, 1R/Cho [73], 0). Australian Open (Slam, R32/Myskina [14], 2) — Safina (19) Paris (II, 1R/Dementieva [8], 0+ 3 in qualifying) Antwerp Qualifying (II, Q1R/Daniilidou [105], 0) Memphis (III, Win, 5) Miami (Ireq, R16/Sugiyama [23], 2) Amelia Island (II, R32/Kuznetsova [10], 1) Charleston (I, 1R/Brandi [104], 0) Berlin (I, 1R/Vierin [124], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Vinci [52], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Vakulenko [135], 1) Birmingham (III, R32/Morita [264], 1) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Craybas [45], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Birnerova [122], 0) Stockholm (IV, SF/Myskina [11], 3) Forest Hills (IV, 1R/Bremond [73], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Schnyder [8], 1) Beijing (II, 1R/Daniilidou [53], 0) Seoul (IV, 1R/Morigami [96], 0) Japan Open (III, 1R/Domachowska [91], 0) Zürich Qualifying (I, Q1R/Pironkova [71], 0) Linz Qualifying (II, Q2R/Razzano [90], 0+ 1 in qualifying) Quebec City (III, 1R/Harkleroad [89], 0) Pittsburg $75K ($75K, 1R/N.Uberoi [205], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 41 Marion Bartoli ¥ Final Rank: 17 ¥ Best Rank: 17 Poitiers $75K 2005 ($75K, 2R/Vesnina [112], 1) Dubai $75K+H 2005 ($75K+H, Win, 5) Auckland (IV, Win, 5) — Petrova (7) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Vinci [49], 1) Pan Pacific (I, R16/Likhovtseva [18], 1) — Golovin (24) Paris (II, 1R/Déchy [20], 0) Dubai (II+, 1R/Dushevina [48], 0) Doha (II, R16/Mauresmo [2], 1) Indian Wells (I+, 3R/Ani [77], 1) Miami (Ireq, 3R/Mauresmo [1], 1) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Shaughnessy [84], 0) Charleston (I, R16/Castano [48], 2) Prague (IV, 1R/Kanepi [84], 0) Rabat (IV, 1R/Kloesel [112], 0) Strasbourg (III, 2R/Vesnina [69], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Jankovic [32], 1) Birmingham (III, QF/Tu [135], 2) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Grönefeld [16], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Sprem [69], 1) Cincinnati (III, QF/Srebotnik [26], 2) Stanford (II, 1R/Bammer [46], 0) San Diego (I, 1R/Srebotnik [22], 0) Los Angeles (II, R16/Sharapova [4], 2) Canadian Open (I, R16/Peer [25], 2) — Pennetta (17) New Haven (II, QF/Stosur [36], 2) — Petrova (6) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Schnyder [8], 2) Bali (III+, F/Kuznetsova [5], 4) — Schnyder (8) Beijing (II, 2R/Jankovic [17], 1) — Medina Garrigues (31) Seoul (IV, SF/Daniilidou [58], 3) Japan Open (III, Win, 5) Zürich (I, 1R/Sugiyama [26], 0) Linz (II, 1R/Peer [22], 0) Quebec City (III, Win, 5)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 42 Alona Bondarenko ¥ Final Rank: 32 ¥ Best Rank: 32 Deauville $50K 2005 ($50K, 2R/Bacsinszky [392], 1) Poitiers $75K 2005 ($75K, 1R/Kutuzova [95], 0) Dubai $75K+H 2005 ($75K+H, 2R/K. Bondarenko [126], 1) Hobart (IV, QF/Krajicek [60], 2) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Sprem [66], 0) Pattaya City (IV, 1R/Dominguez Lino [66], 0) Bangalore (III, QF/Czink [113], 2) Dubai Qualifying (II+, Q2R/Sun [122], 0+1 in qualifying) Doha (II, R16/Schruff [68], 1) Orange $50K ($50K, Win, 5) Indian Wells (I+, 1R/Garbin [88], 0) Miami (Ireq, 3R/Ivanovic [16], 2+ 2 in qualifying) — Medina Garrigues (25) Amelia Island (II, Q2R/Sequera [122]; made main draw as LL; R32/Dushevina [51], 1+ 1 in qualifying) — Dulko (30) Charleston (I, 2R/Petrova [7], 1+ 2 in qualifying) Prague (IV, QF/Peer [35], 2) Rabat (IV, SF/Sucha [76], 3) Istanbul (III, 1R/Castano [36], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Schiavone [12], 0) Birmingham (III, 1R/Mirza [41], 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 2R/Jankovic [29], 1+ 2 in qualifying) — Li Na (30) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Shaughnessy [73], 0) Stanford (II, 1R/Golovin [32], 0) San Diego (I, 2R/Jankovic [29], 1) Los Angeles (II, R16/Mattek [130], 2) — Chakvetadze (29) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Jankovic [21], 0) New Haven Qualifying (II, Q1R/Craybas [51], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Chakvetadze [29], 1) Luxembourg (II, Win, 5) — Pierce (18), Srebonik (25), Schiavone (14) Moscow Qualifying (I, Q2R/Rodionova [85], 0+ 1 in qualifying) Zürich Qualifying (I, Q2R/Tu [97], 0+ 1 in qualifying) Linz (II, 1R/Santangelo [30], 0+ 3 in qualifying)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 43 Severine Brémond • Final Rank: 39 • Best Rank: 38 Auckland Qualifying (IV, Q1R/Kremer [167], 0) Hobart (IV, R16/Craybas [56], 1) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Stosur [98], 0) Ortisei $75K ($75K, 2R/Domachowska [63], 1) Paris Qualifying (II, Q3R/Arvidsson [43]; made main draw as LL; 1R/Smashnova [44], 0+ 2 in qualifying) Antwerp Qualifying (II, Q2R/Ani [98], 0+1 in qualifying) Indian Wells (I+, 2R/Ivanovic [19], 1) Miami Qualifying (Ireq, Q1R/Rodionova [109], 0+0 in qualifying) Cagnes-sur-Mer $75K ($75K, 2R/Kanepi [94], 1) Berlin Qualifying (I, Q1R/Garbin [67], 0+0 in qualifying) Saint Gaudens $50K ($50K, 1R/Amanmuradova [172], 0) Strasbourg Qualifying (III, Q3R/Gaijdosova [100], 0+2 in qualifying) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Kirilenko [22], 0) Marseille $50K+H ($50K+H, F/Bychkova [88], 4) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 4+ 3 in qualifying) — Schnyder (10), Dulko (31), Sugiyama (21) Washington $75K ($75K, 1R/Obziler [183], 0) Los Angeles (II, 1R/King [76], 0+ 2 in qualifying) Canadian Open Qualifying (I, Q1R/Obziler [140], 0) Forest Hills (IV, QF/Camerin [54], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Kirilenko [24], 1) Bali (III+, QF/Kuznetsova [5], 2) Seoul (IV, 2R/Bartoli [24], 1) Japan Open (III, 1R/King [80], 0) Bangkok (III, SF/Tanasugarn [97], 3) Quebec City (III, SF/Poutchkova [49], 3) Anna Chakvetadze ¥ Final Rank: 13 ¥ Best Rank: 13 Sydney (II, 1R/Yan [101], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Vaidisova [16], 1) Paris (II, 1R/Safina [17], 0) Indian Wells (I+, R16/Ivanovic [19], 2) — Kirilenko (22) Miami (Ireq, R16/Myskina [12], 3) — Peer (33) Warsaw (II, SF/Kuznetsova [10], 3) — Jankovic (28), Hantuchova (16), Ivanovic (20) Berlin (I, R16/Mauresmo [1], 2) — Medina Garrigues (25) Rome (I, 1R/Morigami [70], 0) Istanbul (III, 1R/Shaughnessy [59], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/N. Li [38], 1) Birmingham (III, R16/Zvonareva [78], 1) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Zvonareva [47], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 2) San Diego (I, QF/Vaidisova [12], 3) — Petrova (5), Ivanovic (20) Los Angeles (II, R32/ABondarenko [65], 1) — Medina Garrigues (23) Canadian Open (I, SF/Hingis [12], 4) — Petrova (6), Déchy (35),Bartoli (28) New Haven (II, 1R/Voskoboeva [93], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Golovin [26], 3) Beijing (II, 1R/Davenport [12], 0) GuangZhou (III, Win, 5) — Jankovic (16), Medina Garrigues (31) Moscow (I, Win, 4+ 1 walkover) — Safina (10), Schiavone (15), Dementieva (7), Petrova (5) Linz (II, 2R/Stosur [30], 1) — Srebotnik (24)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 44 Kim Clijsters ¥ Final Rank: 5 ¥ Best Rank: 1 Sydney (II, QF/withdrew, 1) Australian Open (Slam, SF/Mauresmo [3], 5) — Schiavone (12) Antwerp (II, F/Mauresmo [2], 3) — Golovin (24), Safina (20), Dementieva (8) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Craybas [54], 0) Warsaw (II, Win, 4) — Schiavone (11), Dementieva (9), Kuznetsova (10) Rome (I, R16/Safina [19], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, SF/Hénin-Hardenne [5], 5) — Medina Garrigues (27), Hantuchova (18), Hingis (15) Eastbourne (II, SF/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 2) — Schiavone (14) Wimbledon (Slam, SF/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 4+ 1 walkover) — Li Na (30) Stanford (II, Win, 4) — Jankovic (27), Vaidisova (12), Schnyder (8) San Diego (I, F/Sharapova [4], 4) — Jankovic (29), Hingis (13), Vaidisova (12) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Dubois [151], 0) Hasselt (III, Win, 5) — Müller (35), Zvonareva (25) Madrid Championships (Champ, 2Ð2 record, lost SF; RR/Sharapova [2], SF/Mauresmo [1]) — Kuznetsova (4), Dementieva (8) Eleni Daniilidou ¥ Final Rank: 36 ¥ Best Rank: 36 Auckland (IV, 1R/Srebotnik [28], 0) Canberra (IV, R16/Peer [46], 1) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Schnyder [8], 0) Paris Qualifying (II, Q2R/Arvidsson [43], 0+ 1 in qualifying) Antwerp (II, Q2R/Cohen Aloro [139]; made main draw as LL; QF/Dementieva [8], 1+ 2 in qualifying) — Koukalova (28) Doha (II, R16/Petrova [8], 1+ 2 in qualifying) — Medina Garrigues (25) Indian Wells (I+, 3R/Peer [35], 2) — Medina Garrigues (24) Miami (Ireq, R16/Petrova [7], 3+ 2 in qualifying) — Safina (20), Hantuchova (15) Estoril (IV, QF/Pennetta [19], 2) Berlin (I, 1R/Koukalova [32], 0) Istanbul (III, 1R/Gagliardi [104], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Sugiyama [24], 0) Birmingham (III, R32/N. Li [32], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, SF/Safina [17], 3) — Dulko (34) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Peng [46], 0) Palermo (IV, 2R/Safarova [41], 1) Budapest (IV, 1R/Smashnova [63], 0) Stockholm (IV, 2R/Wozniacki [362], 1) New Haven (II, 1R/Medina Garrigues [26], 0+ 3 in qualifying) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/N. Li [22], 1) Beijing (II, 2R/Petrova [7], 1+ 3 in qualifying) — Arvidsson (35) Seoul (IV, Win, 5) — Zvonareva (28), Bartoli (24), Sugiyama (27) Japan Open (III, 1R/Pin [90], 0) Bangkok (III, QF/Bremond [54], 2) Linz (II, 2R/Sharapova [3], 1+ 3 in qualifying) Hasselt (III, 2R/Kanepi [91], 1) — Sugiyama (26) Lindsay Davenport ¥ Final Rank: 25 ¥ Best Rank: 1 Australian Open (Slam, QF/Hénin-Hardenne [6], 4) — Kirilenko (25), Kuznetsova (11) Dubai (II+, SF/Sharapova [4], 2) — Likhovtseva (16), Kirilenko (23) Indian Wells (I+, R16/Hingis [32], 2) Los Angeles (II, R32/Stosur [37], 0) New Haven (II, F/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 4) — Srebotnik (23), Schiavone (15), Mauresmo (1) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/Hénin-Hardenne [2], 4) — Srebotnik (23), Schnyder (8) Bali (III+, SF/Kuznetsova [5], 3) Beijing (II, QF/Mauresmo [1], 2) — Chakvetadze (27), Zheng (33)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 45 Nathalie Déchy ¥ Final Rank: 51 ¥ Best Rank: 11 Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Yan [88], 0) Pan Pacific (I, R16/Hingis [117], 0) Paris (II, R16/Dementieva [8], 1) — Bartoli (26) Indian Wells (I+, 2R/Ani [77], 0) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Zheng [65], 0) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Ruano Pascual [100], 0) Charleston (I, QF/Schnyder [9], 2) — Srebotnik (29) Berlin (I, 1R/Zheng [44], 0) Rome (I, 2R/Zvonareva [67], 0) Strasbourg (III, 2R/N. Li [39], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Hantuchova [18], 2) Eastbourne (II, QF/Myskina [11], 2) — Peer (25), Mauresmo (1) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Bammer [47], 0) Stanford (II, 2R/Zvonareva [37], 1) San Diego (I, 1R/Stosur [39], 0) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Shaughnessy [77], 0) Canadian Open (I, R16/Chakvetadze [31], 2) — Kirilenko (22) New Haven (II, 1R/Stosur [36], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Bammer [48], 0) Luxembourg (II, QF/ABondarenko [62], 2) — Petrova (7) Stuttgart (II+, 1R/Srebotnik [26], 0) Bangkok (III, 2R/Bammer [53], 1) Zürich (I, 2R/Hingis [9], 1) Linz (II, 2R/Schnyder [9], 1) Hasselt (III, 1R/Kanepi [91], 0) Elena Dementieva ¥ Final Rank: 8 ¥ Best Rank: 5 Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Schruff [80], 0) Pan Pacific (I, Win, 4) — Srebotnik (29), Vaidisova (14), Myskina (13) Paris (II, QF/Schnyder [9], 2) — Déchy (20) Antwerp (II, SF/Clijsters [1], 3) Indian Wells (I+, F/Sharapova [5], 5) — Ivanovic (19), Hénin-Hardenne (3) Miami (Ireq, R16/Golovin [24], 2) Warsaw (II, SF/Clijsters [2], 2) Berlin (I, R16/Hingis [23], 1) Rome (I, QF/Safina [19], 1+ 1 walkover) — Grönefeld (14) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Peer [26], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, SF/Krajicek [55], 2) — Ivanovic (22) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/Sharapova [4], 4) — Likhovtseva (26) San Diego (I, QF/Schnyder [8], 2) Los Angeles (II, Win, 5) — Peer (25), Sharapova (4), Jankovic (28) New Haven (II, QF/Kuznetsova [7], 1) — Hantuchova (18) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/Jankovic [20], 4) — Zvonareva (34) Luxembourg (II, QF/RadwanskaA [95], 1) — Stosur (30) Stuttgart (II+, QF/withdrew, 1) — Srebotnik (26) Moscow (I, SF/Chakvetadze [24], 2) — Peer (23), Schnyder (9) Zürich (I, 2R/Srebotnik [24], 0) Madrid Championships (Champ, 0Ð3 record; RR/Sharapova [2], RR/Kuznetsova [4], RR/Clijsters [6])

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 46 ¥ Final Rank: 61 ¥ Best Rank: 28 Sydney (II, 1R/Kirilenko [25], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Nakamura [59], 1) Bogota (III, QF/Cervanova [123], 2) Acapulco (III, 1R/Loit [59], 0) Indian Wells (I+, QF/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 3) — Golovin (23) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Jackson [94], 0) Amelia Island (II, 1R/ABondarenko [81], 0) Estoril (IV, QF/N. Li [79], 2) Berlin (I, 1R/Zvonareva [40], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Castano [37], 0) Strasbourg (III, 1R/Peng [70], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Grönefeld [14], 3) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 2R/Daniilidou [67], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Bremond [129], 2) Cincinnati (III, 2R/Frazier [56], 1) Stanford (II, 1R/Morigami [75], 0) San Diego (I, 2R/Schnyder [8], 1) — Peer (25) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Hantuchova [18], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Bartoli [27], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Jankovic [20], 0) Beijing (II, 1R/Kirilenko [25], 0) Seoul (IV, 1R/Suárez [226], 0) Japan Open (III, 1R/Jackson [61], 0) Zürich Qualifying (I, Q2R/Gajdosova [75], 0+ 1 in qualifying) Linz Qualifying (II, Q1R/Craybas [79], 0) Tatiana Golovin ¥ Final Rank: 22 ¥ Best Rank: 21 Gold Coast (III, QF/Pennetta [22], 2) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Santangelo [73], 0) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Bartoli [27], 0) Paris (II, SF/Mauresmo [2], 3) — Mirza (32), Petrova (9) Antwerp (II, R16/Clijsters [1], 1) Indian Wells (I+, 3R/Dulko [29], 1) Miami (Ireq, SF/Sharapova [4], 4) — Dementieva (8) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Zheng [39], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Pratt [136], 1) Cincinnati (III, 1R/Zvonareva [50], 0) Stanford (II, SF/Schnyder [8], 3) — Sugiyama (19), Grönefeld (16) San Diego (I, 1R/Frazier [55], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Ivanovic [19], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/Kuznetsova [7], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/Sharapova [4], 4) — Petrova (6), Chakvetadze (29) Luxembourg (II, 1R/Hantuchova [22], 0) Stuttgart (II+, F/Petrova [7], 4) — Krajicek (34), Schnyder (9) Zürich (I, 2R/Kirilenko [33], 1) — Vaidisova (11)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 47 Anna-Lena Grönefeld • Final Rank: 19 • Best Rank: 14 Sydney (II, 1R/Safina [19], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Sanchez Lorenzo [93], 1) Ortisei $75K ($75K, 1R/Rezai [187], 0) Paris (II, 1R/Foretz [91], 0) Memphis (III, R16/Perry [134], 1) Acapulco (III, Win, 5) — Pennetta (20) Indian Wells (I+, QF/Sharapova [5], 3) Miami (Ireq, 3R/Zheng [65], 1) Amelia Island (II, QF/Schiavone [13], 2) — Safina (20) Charleston (I, SF/Petrova [7], 3) — Medina Garrigues (26), Kuznetsova (10) Berlin (I, 2R/Castano [36], 0) Rome (I, R16/Dementieva [8], 2) Istanbul (III, SF/Peer [33], 2) Roland Garros (Slam, QF/Hénin-Hardenne [5], 4) — Kirilenko (22), Dulko (35) Eastbourne (II, QF/Kuznetsova [7], 2) — Bartoli (27) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Pironkova [83], 0) Stanford (II, QF/Golovin [32], 1) San Diego (I, 1R/Vesnina [51], 0) Los Angeles (II, R16/Ivanovic [19], 1) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Perry [45], 1) New Haven (II, 1R/Hantuchova [18], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Rezai [96], 0) Luxembourg (II, 1R/Knapp [134], 0) Stuttgart (II+, 2R/Petrova [7], 1) Moscow (I, 1R/Petrova [5], 0) Zürich (I, 1R/Hingis [9], 0) Linz (II, 1R/A. Radwanska [66], 0) Hasselt (III, 1R/Rezai [60], 0) Daniela Hantuchova ¥ Final Rank: 18 ¥ Best Rank: 14 Auckland (IV, SF/Zvonareva [36], 3) Sydney (II, QF/Vaidisova [16], 2) — Mirza (34), Schnyder (7) Australian Open (Slam, R16/Sharapova [4], 3) — S. Williams (15) Pan Pacific (I, R16/Stosur [72], 1) — Jankovic (22) Antwerp (II, R16/Savchuk [115], 1) Dubai (II+, R16/Kuznetsova [15], 1) Doha (II, R16/N. Li [71], 1) — Peschke (33) Miami (Ireq, 3R/Daniilidou [69], 1) Warsaw (II, 2R/Chakvetadze [34], 1) Berlin (I, R16/Safina [19], 1) — Srebotnik (30) Rome (I, 1R/Stosur [50], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Clijsters [2], 3) — Déchy (23) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Likhovtseva [28], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 3) — Srebotnik (25) Stanford (II, 1R/Perry [49], 0) San Diego (I, R16/Vaidisova [12], 2) Los Angeles (II, R16/S. Williams [110], 1) Canadian Open (I, R16/Hingis [12], 2) — Dulko (32) New Haven (II, 2R/Dementieva [5], 1) — Grönefeld (16) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/S. Williams [91], 1) Bali (III+, 1R/Czink [84], 0) Luxembourg (II, 2R/Safina [11], 1) — Golovin (22) Stuttgart (II+, QF/Petrova [7], 2) — Safina (10) Zürich (I, F/Sharapova [3], 3+ 1 walkover) — Schnyder (8), Sugiyama (26), Kuznetsova (4) Linz (II, 1R/Vesnina [48], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 48 Justine Hénin-Hardenne • Final Rank: 1 • Best Rank: 1 Sydney (II, Win, 4+ 1 walkover) — Kuznetsova (14), Schiavone (15) Australian Open (Slam, F/Mauresmo [3], 6) — Davenport (1), Sharapova (4) Dubai (II+, Win, 4) — Schiavone (11), Kuznetsova (15), Sharapova (4) Indian Wells (I+, SF/Dementieva [8], 4) — Sugiyama (25), Dulko (29) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Shaughnessy [87], 0) Charleston (I, SF/Schnyder [9], 3) — Safina (20) Berlin (I, F/Petrova [4], 4) — Kirilenko (24), Kuznetsova (10), Mauresmo (1) Roland Garros (Slam, Win, 7) — Myskina (11), Grönefeld (14), Clijsters (2), Kuznetsova (10) Eastbourne (II, Win, 4) — Likhovtseva (28), Clijsters (2), Myskina (11) Wimbledon (Slam, F/Mauresmo [1], 6) — Chakvetadze (34), Hantuchova (18), Clijsters (2) New Haven (II, Win, 4) — Medina Garrigues (26), Kuznetsova (7), Davenport (11) U. S. Open (Slam, F/Sharapova [4], 6) — Sugiyama (27), Peer (21), Davenport (11), Jankovic (20) Madrid Championships (Champ, 4Ð1 record; Win; RR/Mauresmo [1]) — Hingis (7), Petrova (5), Sharapova (2), Mauresmo (1) Martina Hingis ¥ Final Rank: 7 ¥ Best Rank: 7 Gold Coast (III, SF/Pennetta [22], 3) — Koukalova (29) Sydney (II, 1R/Hénin-Hardenne [8], 0) Australian Open (Slam, QF/Clijsters [2], 4) — Zvonareva (29) Pan Pacific (I, F/Dementieva [9], 4) — Déchy (21), Kirilenko (23), Sharapova (4) Dubai (II+, QF/Sharapova [4], 2) — Myskina (12) Doha (II, SF/Mauresmo [2], 3) — Schiavone (11), Kuznetsova (14) Indian Wells (I+, SF/Sharapova [5], 4) — Davenport (4), Safina (21) Miami (Ireq, 3R/Kuznetsova [14], 1) Warsaw (II, 2R/V. Williams [13], 1) — Kirilenko (23) Berlin (I, QF/Mauresmo [1], 3) — Pennetta (18), Dementieva (8) Rome (I, Win, 6) — Vaidisova (15), Schiavone (11), Pennetta (18), V. Williams (12), Safina (19) Roland Garros (Slam, QF/Clijsters [2], 4) — Peer (26) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Sugiyama [21], 2) San Diego (I, QF/Clijsters [2], 2) — Pennetta (18) Canadian Open (I, F/Ivanovic [19], 4) — Hantuchova (18), Kuznetsova (7), Chakvetadze (31) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Razzano [112], 1) Kolkata (III, Win, 5) Seoul (IV, 2R/Mirza [59], 1) Zürich (I, QF/Kuznetsova [4], 2) — Grönefeld (19) Madrid Championships (Champ, 1–2 record; RR/Hénin-Hardenne [3], RR/Mauresmo [1]) — Petrova (5) Ana Ivanovic ¥ Final Rank: 14 ¥ Best Rank: 13 Sydney (II, QF/Kuznetsova [14], 2) — Mauresmo (3) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Stosur [98], 1) Pan Pacific (I, R16/Kirilenko [23], 1) — Sugiyama (26) Antwerp (II, R16/Petrova [7], 1) Indian Wells (I+, QF/Dementieva [8], 3) Miami (Ireq, R16/Mauresmo [1], 2) Warsaw (II, QF/Chakvetadze [34], 2) — Schnyder (8) Berlin (I, 1R/N. Li [61], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Myskina [11], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, QF/Dementieva [8], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Mauresmo [1], 3) — Safina (17) San Diego (I, R16/Chakvetadze [31], 2) Los Angeles (II, QF/Jankovic [28], 3) — Grönefeld (19) Canadian Open (I, Win, 5+ 1 walkover) — Golovin (26), Zheng (27), Srebotnik (24), Safina (14), Hingis (12) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/S. Williams [91], 2) Bali (III+, 1R/Poutchkova [97], 0) Luxembourg (II, 1R/V. Williams [54], 0) Linz (II, QF/Sharapova [3], 2) — Krajicek (35) Hasselt (III, QF/Krajicek [41], 2)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 49 Jelena Jankovic ¥ Final Rank: 12 ¥ Best Rank: 12 Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Savchuk [188], 1) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Hantuchova [15], 0) Dubai (II+, 1R/Likhovtseva [16], 0) Doha (II, 1R/Schruff [68], 0) Indian Wells (I+, 2R/Bammer [62], 0) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Azarenka [128], 0) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Craybas [49], 0) Charleston (I, 1R/Vakulenko [93], 0) Warsaw (II, 1R/Chakvetadze [34], 0) Berlin (I, 1R/Srebotnik [30], 0) Rome (I, QF/V. Williams [12], 3) — Likhovtseva (17), Srebotnik (29) Strasbourg (III, SF/Vaidisova [18], 3) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Mauresmo [1], 2) — Bartoli (29) Birmingham (III, R16/Jackson [81], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, QF/Krajicek [55], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Myskina [11], 3) — V. Williams (12) Cincinnati (III, QF/Zvonareva [50], 2) Stanford (II, 2R/Clijsters [2], 1) San Diego (I, R16/Clijsters [2], 2) — Kirilenko (21) Los Angeles (II, F/Dementieva [6], 5) — Ivanovic (19) Canadian Open (I, R16/withdrew, 2) — Schiavone (15) U. S. Open (Slam, SF/Hénin-Hardenne [2], 5) — Vaidisova (10), Kuznetsova (7), Dementieva (5) Beijing (II, SF/Mauresmo [1], 3) — Bartoli (26), Petrova (7) GuangZhou (III, SF/Chakvetadze [26], 3) Stuttgart (II+, QF/Kuznetsova [4], 2) — Pierce (17) Zürich (I, 2R/Kuznetsova [4], 1) Linz (II, QF/Vaidisova [11], 2) Quebec City (III, QF/Poutchkova [49], 2) ¥ Final Rank: 30 ¥ Best Rank: 20 Auckland (IV, QF/Zvonareva [36], 2) Sydney (II, R16/Petrova [6], 1) — Dulko (32) Australian Open (Slam, R32/Davenport [1], 2) Pan Pacific (I, QF/Hingis [117], 2) — Ivanovic (20) Dubai (II+, QF/Davenport [3], 2) — Petrova (8), Safarova (31) Doha (II, R16/Kuznetsova [14], 1) Indian Wells (I+, 3R/Chakvetadze [36], 1) Miami (Ireq, R16/Sharapova [4], 2) Warsaw (II, 1R/Hingis [25], 0) Berlin (I, R16/Hénin-Hardenne [7], 2) — Koukalova (32) Rome (I, 1R/Santangelo [40], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Grönefeld [14], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/Suárez [516], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Asagoe [110], 0) San Diego (I, 1R/Jankovic [29], 0) Los Angeles (II, 1R/S. Williams [110], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Déchy [35], 1) New Haven (II, 1R/N. Li [25], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Rezai [96], 2) Beijing (II, 2R/Peng [60], 1) Seoul (IV, 1R/Dushevina [82], 0) Japan Open (III, 1R/Morigami [83], 0) Moscow (I, 1R/Schiavone [12], 0) Zürich (I, QF/Srebotnik [24], 2) — Golovin (21) Linz (II, 1R/Stosur [30], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 50 Michaella Krajicek ¥ Final Rank: 35 ¥ Best Rank: 34 Hobart (IV, Win, 5) Australian Open (Slam, R32/Mauresmo [3], 2) — Mirza (32) Antwerp (II, 1R/Schnyder [9], 0) Miami (Ireq, 3R/Dementieva [8], 2) — Safarova (31) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Safarova [34], 0) Warsaw Qualifying (II, Q2R/Voskoboeva [134], 0+ 1 in qualifying) Berlin (I, 1R/Bammer [63], 0) Istanbul (III, SF/Myskina [12], 3) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Schnyder [9], 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, Win, 5) — Pennetta (19), Jankovic (29), Dementieva(8), Safina (17) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Stosur [50], 0) Palermo (IV, 2R/Rezai [102], 1) Budapest (IV, SF/Dominguez Lino [45], 3) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Srebotnik [24], 0) New Haven Qualifying (II, Q1R/Rodionova [99], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Sharapova [3], 0) Luxembourg (II, 1R/Schiavone [14], 0) Stuttgart (II+, QF/Golovin [25], 2) — Stosur (30) Linz (II, 1R/Ivanovic [15], 0) Hasselt (III, SF/Kanepi [91], 3) — Santangelo (32), Ivanovic (14) Svetlana Kuznetsova ¥ Final Rank: 4 ¥ Best Rank: 4 Sydney (II, SF/Hénin-Hardenne [8], 3) — Safina (19), Ivanovic (21) Australian Open (Slam, R16/Davenport [1], 3) Dubai (II+, SF/Hénin-Hardenne [4], 3) — Hantuchova (14), Mauresmo (2) Doha (II, QF/Hingis [44], 2) — Kirilenko (23) Miami (Ireq, Win, 5+ 1 walkover) — Hingis (26), Sugiyama (23), Mauresmo (1), Sharapova (4) Amelia Island (II, SF/Schiavone [13], 3) — Arvidsson (32), Medina Garrigues (26), Schnyder (9) Charleston (I, QF/Grönefeld [15], 2) Warsaw (II, F/Clijsters [2], 3) — VWilliams (13), Chakvetadze (34) Berlin (I, QF/Hénin-Hardenne [7], 2) Rome (I, SF/Safina [19], 3) — Myskina (13) Roland Garros (Slam, F/Hénin-Hardenne [5], 6) — Schiavone (12), Safina (17), Vaidisova (16) Eastbourne (II, SF/Myskina [11], 2) — Sugiyama (21), Grönefeld (16) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/N. Li [30], 2) Canadian Open (I, QF/Hingis [12], 2) — Sugiyama (29) New Haven (II, SF/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 3) — Golovin (28), Dementieva (5) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Jankovic [20], 3) Bali (III+, Win, 4) — Davenport (12), Bartoli (26) Beijing (II, Win, 4) — Li Na (23), Mauresmo (1) Stuttgart (II+, SF/Petrova [7], 2) — Jankovic (16) Moscow (I, 2R/Zvonareva [29], 0) Zürich (I, SF/Hantuchova [22], 2) — Jankovic (14), Hingis (9) Madrid Championships (Champ, 1Ð2 record; RR/Clijsters [6], RR/Sharapova [2]) — Dementieva (8)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 51 Li Na ¥ Final Rank: 21 ¥ Best Rank: 20 Gold Coast (III, R16/Pennetta [22], 1) Sydney (II, R16/Clijsters [2], 1+ 3 in qualifying) — Pennetta (20) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/S. Williams [15], 0) Pattaya City (IV, 1R/Wozniak [143], 0) Dubai (II+, 1R/Hantuchova [14], 0) Doha (II, QF/Petrova [9], 2) — Hantuchova (15) Indian Wells (I+, R16/Dementieva [8], 3) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Sharapova [4], 1) Estoril (IV, F/Zheng [49], 4) — Dulko (33) Berlin (I, SF/Petrova [4], 4) — Ivanovic (20), Schnyder (9) Strasbourg (III, QF/Jankovic [35], 2) — Déchy (23) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Kuznetsova [10], 2) — Chakvetadze (30) Birmingham (III, R16/Sharapova [4], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/ABondarenko [57], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/Clijsters [2], 4) — Kuznetsova (6), Vaidisova (13) Stockholm (IV, QF/Pironkova [89], 2) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Pelletier [337], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/withdrew, 1) — Kirilenko (21) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Sharapova [4], 3) — Pierce (14) Beijing (II, QF/Kuznetsova [5], 2) GuangZhou (III, QF/Obziler [130], 2) Moscow (I, 1R/Vesnina [56], 0) ¥ Final Rank: 42 ¥ Best Rank: 16 Auckland (IV, R16/Schruff [95], 1) Sydney (II, 1R/Fedak [118], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Ruano Pascual [104], 1) Pan Pacific (I, QF/Myskina [23], 2) — Bartoli (27) Dubai (II+, R16/Davenport [3], 1) — Jankovic (21) Doha (II, 1R/Vinci [47], 0) Miami (Ireq, 3R/Sugiyama [23], 1) Amelia Island (II, R32/Schruff [64], 0) Warsaw (II, 2R/Schiavone [11], 1) — Medina Garrigues (24) Berlin (I, 1R/Pous Tio [88], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Jankovic [38], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Sprem [74], 0) Birmingham (III, QF/Jackson [81], 2) Eastbourne (II, QF/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 2) — Hantuchova (18) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Dementieva [8], 2) San Diego (I, 1R/Ruano Pascual [82], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Schiavone [15], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Sharapova [4], 2) Stuttgart (II+, 1R/Golovin [25], 0) Moscow (I, 2R/Petrova [5], 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 52 Amélie Mauresmo ¥ Final Rank: 3 ¥ Best Rank: 1 Sydney (II, 2R/Ivanovic [21], 0) Australian Open (Slam, Win, 7) — Vaidisova (16), Schnyder (8), Clijsters (2), Hénin-Hardenne (6) Paris (II, Win, 4) — Safina (17), Golovin (24), Pierce (6) Antwerp (II, Win, 4) — Schnyder (9), Petrova (7), Clijsters (1) Dubai (II+, QF/Kuznetsova [15], 1) Doha (II, F/Petrova [8], 3) — Bartoli (31) Miami (Ireq, SF/Kuznetsova [14], 4) — Bartoli (32), Ivanovic (16), Petrova (7) Berlin (I, SF/Hénin-Hardenne [7], 3) — Chakvetadze (27), Hingis (23) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Vaidisova [16], 3) — Jankovic (32) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Déchy [25], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, Win, 7) — Ivanovic (22), Myskina (11), Sharapova (4), Hénin-Hardenne (3) New Haven (II, QF/Davenport [11], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, SF/Sharapova [4], 5) — Safina (13) Beijing (II, F/Kuznetsova [5], 3) — Davenport (12), Jankovic (17) Moscow (I, QF/Vaidisova [11], 1) Zürich (I, QF/withdrew, 1) — Stosur (30) Madrid Championships (Champ, 3Ð2 record; RR/Petrova [6], F/Hénin-Hardenne [3]) — Hingis (7), Hénin-Hardenne (3), Clijsters (6) Anabel Medina Garrigues ¥ Final Rank: 27 ¥ Best Rank: 23 Gold Coast (III, QF/Safina [20], 2) Canberra (IV, Win, 5) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Ondraskova [79], 0) Paris (II, R16/Pierce [6], 1) Antwerp (II, 1R/Domachowska [53], 0) Doha (II, 1R/Daniilidou [85], 0) Indian Wells (I+, 2R/Daniilidou [73], 0) Miami (Ireq, 2R/A.Bondarenko [95], 0) Amelia Island (II, R16/Kuznetsova [10], 2) Charleston (I, R16/Grönefeld [15], 2) Warsaw (II, 1R/Likhovtseva [17], 0) Berlin (I, 2R/Chakvetadze [27], 1) Rome (I, R16/Pennetta [18], 2) — Sugiyama (24) Strasbourg (III, SF/Peng [70], 3) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Clijsters [2], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/Domachowska [66], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Myskina [11], 2) Palermo (IV, Win, 5) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Chakvetadze [29], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Sugiyama [29], 1) New Haven (II, 2R/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Fedossova [264], 0) Beijing (II, 1R/Bartoli [26], 0) GuangZhou (III, F/Chakvetadze [26], 4) Japan Open (III, 2R/Jackson [61], 1) Bangkok (III, 1R/Diaz-Oliva [219], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 53 ¥ Final Rank: 163 ¥ Best Rank: 28 Gifu $50K ($50K, 1R/Dell’acqua [179], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Srebotnik [29], 0) Istanbul (III, 1R/Paszek [318], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Sharapova [4], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/Ivanovic [22], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Srebotnik [25], 1) Stockholm (IV, 1R/Myskina [11], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Domachowska [70], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Golovin [28], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/King [70], 0) Beijing (II, 1R/Sugiyama [28], 0+ 3 in qualifying) GuangZhou (III, QF/Jankovic [16], 2) Japan Open (III, 2R/Jackson [61], 1) Bangkok (III, 1R/King [80], 0) Zürich (I, 1R/Peer [23], 0) Linz Qualifying (II, Q1R/Shvedova [128], 0) Martina Müller • Final Rank: 34 • Best Rank: 34 Deauville $50K 2005 ($50K, 2R/Birnerova [116], 1) Poitiers $75K 2005 ($75K, 1R/Yakimova [101], 0) Hobart Qualifying (IV, Q2R/Keothavong [213], 0+1 in qualifying) Auckland Qualifying (IV, Q1R/Jugic-Salkic [156], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Petrova [7], 1) Ortisei $75K ($75K, 1R/Ondraskova [80], 0) Pattaya City Qualifying (IV, Q1R/T. Li [199], 0) Bangalore (III, 1R/Mirza [38], 0) Dubai (II+, 1R/Kuznetsova [25], 0+ 3 in qualifying) Indian Wells Qualifying (I+, Q1R/Strycova [175], 0) Orange $50K ($50K, 1R/Meusburger [121], 0) Miami Qualifying (Ireq, Q1R/Azarenka [128], 0) $25K ($25K, F/Vedy [340], 4) Civitavecchia $25K ($25K, Win, 5) Cagnes-sur-Mer $75K ($75K, Win, 5) Berlin (I, 2R/Kuznetsova [10], 1) Strasbourg (III, QF/Peng [70], 2) — Schnyder (9) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Schiavone [12], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch Qualifying (III, Q2R/Diaz-Oliva [94], 0+ 1 in qualifying) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Myskina [11], 1) Palermo (IV, 1R/Martinez Sanchez [132], 0) Budapest (IV, SF/Smashnova [63], 3) Baden-Baden $50K+H ($50K+H, Win, 5) Stockholm (IV, 1R/Beygelzimer [97], 0) Rimini $50K ($50K, 2R/Ancic [261], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Peer [21], 1) Bordeaux $75K+H ($75K+H, Win, 5) Portoroz (IV, QF/Garbin [62], 2) Luxembourg (II, 1R/Rubin [—], 0) Stuttgart (II+, 2R/Kuznetsova [4], 1) Zürich Qualifying (I, Q2R/Woerle [158], 0+ 1 in qualifying) Linz Qualifying (II, Q1R/Dushevina [89], 0) Hasselt (III, 2R/Clijsters [6], 1)

(N.B. Müller also played the $25K Toronto Challenger in November 2005. This was before the end of the 2005 Tour season, but because it was a $25K event, it did not go on the rankings until the November 20 rankings. Thus Müller was shown with 34 events at the end of 2006. But she in fact had played “only” 33 in that time.)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 54 Anastasia Myskina ¥ Final Rank: 16 ¥ Best Rank: 11 Australian Open (Slam, R16/Schnyder [8], 3) Pan Pacific (I, SF/Dementieva [9], 2) — Koukalova (32), Likhovtseva (28) Dubai (II+, R16/Hingis [12], 1) Doha (II, R16/Sugiyama [26], 0) Indian Wells (I+, R16/Safina [21], 2) Miami (Ireq, QF/Sharapova [4], 3) Warsaw (II, 1R/RadwanskaA [309], 0) Rome (I, R16/Kuznetsova [10], 2) Istanbul (III, F/Peer [33], 3) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Hénin-Hardenne [5], 3) — Ivanovic (21) Eastbourne (II, F/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 4) — Déchy (25), Kuznetsova (7) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/Mauresmo [1], 4) — Medina Garrigues (27), Jankovic (29) Cincinnati (III, 1R/S. Williams [139], 0) Stockholm (IV, F/Zheng [35], 4) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Peer [25], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Santangelo [40], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Azarenka [124], 0) Zürich (I, 1R/Bacsinszky [174], 0) Shahar Peer ¥ Final Rank: 20 ¥ Best Rank: 20 Auckland (IV, 1R/Cho [75], 0) Canberra (IV, SF/Medina Garrigues [29], 3) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Asagoe [39], 0) Pattaya City (IV, Win, 5) Bangalore (III, 1R/Camerin [92], 0) Indian Wells (I+, R16/Sharapova [5], 2) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Chakvetadze [36], 0) Amelia Island (II, R32/Safina [20], 1) Prague (IV, Win, 5) Rome (I, 1R/Zvonareva [67], 0) Istanbul (III, Win, 5) — Grönefeld (15), Myskina (12) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Hingis [15], 3) — Dementieva (8) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Déchy [25], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Peng [46], 1) Stanford (II, 2R/Stosur [43], 1) San Diego (I, 1R/Dulko [33], 0) Los Angeles (II, R16/Dementieva [6], 2) Canadian Open (I, QF/Chakvetadze [31], 3) — Myskina (11), Bartoli (28) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Hénin-Hardenne [2], 3) — Schiavone (15) Stuttgart (II+, 2R/Schnyder [9], 1) Moscow (I, 2R/Dementieva [7], 1) Zürich (I, 2R/Sharapova [3], 1) Linz (II, 2R/Petrova [5], 1) — Bartoli (19)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 55 Flavia Pennetta ¥ Final Rank: 28 ¥ Best Rank: 16 Gold Coast (III, F/Safarova [42], 4) — Golovin (24) Sydney (II, 1R/N. Li [54], 0) Australian Open (Slam, R32/Vaidisova [16], 2) Paris (II, 1R/Mirza [32], 0) Bogota (III, F/Dominguez Lino [89], 4) Acapulco (III, F/Grönefeld [22], 4) Indian Wells (I+, 3R/Laine [67], 1) Amelia Island (II, R32/Vesnina [67], 0) Estoril (IV, SF/Zheng [49], 3) Berlin (I, 1R/Hingis [23], 0) Rome (I, QF/Hingis [21], 3) — Medina Garrigues (25) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Schiavone [12], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/Krajicek [55], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Sharapova [4], 3) Palermo (IV, 1R/Schruff [60], 0) San Diego (I, R16/Hingis [13], 2) Los Angeles (II, R32/Mattek [130], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Bartoli [28], 1) Kveta Peschke ¥ Final Rank: 133 ¥ Best Rank: 30 Pittsburg $75K 2005 ($50K, 1R/Dubois [146], 0) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Obata [107], 0) Paris (II, 1R/Razzano [40], 0) Antwerp (II, R16/withdrew, 1) Dubai (II+, 1R/KBondarenko [142], 0) Doha (II, 1R/Hantuchova [15], 0) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Camerin [79], 0) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Savchuk [103], 0) Charleston (I, 1R/Jackson [83], 0) Berlin (I, 2R/Safina [19], 1) Rome (I, 1R/Safarova [31], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Kanepi [75], 0) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 1) — Santangelo (35) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Kuznetsova [6], 1) Stanford (II, 1R/Sugiyama [19], 0) San Diego (I, 1R/Hantuchova [17], 0) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Mattek [130], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Perry [45], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Zheng [33], 0) Luxembourg (II, SF/ABondarenko [62], 3) — Safina (11) Stuttgart (II+, 1R/Müller [38], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 56 Nadia Petrova ¥ Final Rank: 6 ¥ Best Rank: 3 Auckland (IV, SF/Bartoli [33], 3) Sydney (II, QF/withdrew, 1) — Kirilenko (25) Australian Open (Slam, QF/Sharapova [4], 4) Paris (II, QF/Golovin [24], 1) Antwerp (II, SF/Mauresmo [2], 2) — Ivanovic (18) Dubai (II+, 1R/Kirilenko [23], 0) Doha (II, Win, 4) — Sugiyama (26), Mauresmo (2) Miami (Ireq, QF/Mauresmo [1], 3) Amelia Island (II, Win, 5) — Safarova (34), Schiavone (13) Charleston (I, Win, 5) — Safarova (27), Grönefeld (15), Schnyder (9) Berlin (I, Win, 5) — Safina (19), Hénin-Hardenne (7) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Morigami [69], 0) San Diego (I, 2R/Chakvetadze [31], 0) Los Angeles (II, R32/Ruano Pascual [73], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Chakvetadze [31], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/Bartoli [27], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Golovin [26], 2) Beijing (II, QF/Jankovic [17], 1) Luxembourg (II, 2R/Déchy [36], 0) Stuttgart (II+, Win, 4) — Grönefeld (18), Hantuchova (19), Kuznetsova (4),Golovin (25) Moscow (I, F/Chakvetadze [24], 4) — Grönefeld (18), Zvonareva (29), Vaidisova (11) Linz (II, F/Sharapova [3], 3) — Peer (22), Stosur (30), Vaidisova (11) Madrid Championships (Champ, 1–2 record; RR/Hingis [7], Hénin-Hardenne [3]) — Mauresmo (1) Mary Pierce ¥ Final Rank: 79 ¥ Best Rank: 5 Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Benesova [42], 1) Paris (II, F/Mauresmo [2], 3) — Medina Garrigues (25), Schnyder (9) San Diego (I, QF/Sharapova [4], 2) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/N. Li [24], 2) Luxembourg (II, 1R/ABondarenko [62], 0) Stuttgart (II+, 1R/Jankovic [16], 0) Zürich (I, 1R/Srebotnik [24], 0) Linz (II, 2R/Zvonareva [25], 1) — Sugiyama (25)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 57 Olga Poutchkova ¥ Final Rank: 38 ¥ Best Rank: 38 Tucson $75K Qualifying 2005 ($75K, Q2R/Tedjakusuma [355], 0+1 in qualifying) Palm Beach Gardens $50K 2005 ($50K, 2R/Hsieh [156], 1) Hobart (IV, 1R/Santangelo [86], 0+ 3 in qualifying) Australian Open Qualifying (Slam, Q1R/Yakimova [110], 0) Midland $75K ($75K, SF/Salerni [140], 3) Saint Paul $50K ($50K, QF/Cargill [306], 2) Clearwater $25K ($25K, 2R/Tedjakusuma [278], 1) Hammond $25K ($25K, Win, 5) Dothan $75K ($75K, QF/Fedak [111], 2) Lafayette $50K ($50K, 1R/Gallovits [163], 0) Charlottsville $50K ($50K, 2R/Rao [192], 1) Indian Harbor Beach $50K ($50K, 1R/Haynes [190], 0) Roland Garros Qualifying (Slam, Q2R/Hradecka [155], 0+1 in qualifying) Surbiton $25K ($25K, QF/Brandi [101], 2) Birmingham (III, R32/Likhovtseva [29], 1+ 2 in qualifying) Wimbledon Qualifying (Slam, Q3R/Flipkens [130], 0+ 2 in qualifying) Cuneo $50K+H ($50K+H, QF/Canepa [274], 2) Felixstowe $25K ($25K, Win, 5) Petange $50K+H ($50K+H, QF/Cohen Aloro [148], 2) Los Angeles Qualifying (II, Q1R/de los Rios [258], 0) Bronx $50K ($50K, Win, 5) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Bartoli [25], 0+ 3 in qualifying) Bali (III+, QF/Bartoli [26], 2) — Ivanovic (15) Kolkata (III, F/Hingis [9], 4) GuangZhou (III, QF/Chakvetadze [26], 2) Tashkent (IV, SF/Tulyaganova [221], 3) Quebec City (III, F/Bartoli [19], 4) — Jankovic (12) Pittsburg $75K ($75K, QF/Wozniak [115], 2) Lucie Safarova ¥ Final Rank: 41 ¥ Best Rank: 26 Poitiers $75K 2005 ($75K, SF/Ani [90], 3) Gold Coast (III, Win, 5) — Sugiyama (26), Schnyder (6), Safina (20), Pennetta (22) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Sanchez Lorenzo [93], 0) Paris (II, 1R/Pironkova [89], 0) Antwerp (II, 1R/Koukalova [28], 0) Dubai (II+, R16/Kirilenko [23], 1) — Sugiyama (26) Indian Wells (I+, 3R/Sugiyama [25], 1) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Krajicek [57], 0) Amelia Island (II, SF/Petrova [7], 4) — Vaidisova (14) Charleston (I, R16/Petrova [7], 2) Prague (IV, 1R/Rybarikova [285], 0) Rome (I, 2R/V. Williams [12], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Perianu [177], 0) Prostejov $75K ($75K, 1R/Gajdosova [100], 0) Palermo (IV, SF/Medina Garrigues [24], 3) San Diego (I, 1R/Bammer [46], 0) Los Angeles (II, R32/Jankovic [28], 1) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Vaidisova [9], 1) Forest Hills (IV, 1R/Vesnina [45], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Rezai [96], 1) — Stosur (30) Seoul (IV, 1R/Ruano Pascual [72], 0) Japan Open (III, 1R/Suárez [196], 0) Bangkok (III, 2R/King [80], 1) Bratislava $75K+H ($75K+H, 1R/Barrois [144], 0) Hasselt (III, 1R/Sprem [94], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 58 Dinara Safina • Final Rank: 11 • Best Rank: 10 Gold Coast (III, SF/Safarova [42], 3) — Medina Garrigues (32) Sydney (II, R16/Kuznetsova [14], 1) — Grönefeld (22) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Arvidsson [58], 1) Paris (II, QF/Mauresmo [2], 2) — Chakvetadze (34) Antwerp (II, QF/Clijsters [1], 2) — Srebotnik (27) Indian Wells (I+, QF/Hingis [32], 3) — Myskina (11) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Daniilidou [69], 0) Amelia Island (II, R16/Grönefeld [16], 2) Charleston (I, QF/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 2) Berlin (I, QF/Petrova [4], 3) — Hantuchova (16) Rome (I, F/Hingis [21], 5) — Clijsters (2), Dementieva (8), Kuznetsova (10) Roland Garros (Slam, QF/Kuznetsova [10], 4) — Srebotnik (28), Sharapova (4) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, F/Krajicek [55], 3) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Ivanovic [21], 2) San Diego (I, 1R/Suárez [341], 0) Los Angeles (II, QF/Sharapova [4], 2) Canadian Open (I, SF/Ivanovic [19], 3) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/Mauresmo [1], 4) Luxembourg (II, QF/Peschke [73], 1) — Hantuchova (19) Stuttgart (II+, 2R/Hantuchova [19], 1) — Santangelo (32) Moscow (I, 1R/Chakvetadze [24], 0) Mara Santangelo ¥ Final Rank: 31 ¥ Best Rank: 31 Hobart (IV, SF/Benesova [47], 3) Australian Open (Slam, R32/Kuznetsova [11], 2) — Golovin (24), Srebotnik (35) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Kirilenko [23], 0+ 3 in qualifying) Pattaya City (IV, R16/Laine [78], 1) Bangalore (III, Win, 5) Indian Wells (I+, 2R/Nakamura [66], 0) Miami (Ireq, 1R/Shaughnessy [87], 0) Amelia Island (II, R32/Safarova [34], 1) Charleston (I, R16/Schnyder [9], 2) Berlin (I, 2R/Hénin-Hardenne [7], 1) Rome (I, 2R/Schiavone [11], 1) — Kirilenko (23) Istanbul (III, QF/Peer [33], 2) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Kuznetsova [10], 1) Birmingham (III, QF/Sharapova [4], 3) — Sugiyama (22) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Peschke [44], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Frazier [80], 0) San Diego (I, 1R/Peng [38], 0) Los Angeles (II, R32/Ivanovic [19], 1) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Hingis [12], 1) New Haven (II, Q3R/Sun [94]; made main draw as LL; QF/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 1+ 1 walkover+ 2 in qualifying) — Myskina (11) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Mauresmo [1], 2) Luxembourg (II, 1R/RadwanskaA [95], 0) Stuttgart (II+, 1R/Safina [10], 0) Moscow (I, 1R/Benesova [70], 0) Zürich Qualifying (I, Q2R/Ondraskova [107], 0+ 1 in qualifying) Linz (II, 2R/Vaidisova [11], 1) — A. Bondarenko (32) Hasselt (III, 1R/Krajicek [41], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 59 Francesca Schiavone ¥ Final Rank: 15 ¥ Best Rank: 11 Gold Coast (III, R16/Llagostera Vives [53], 1) Sydney (II, F/Hénin-Hardenne [8], 3+ 1 walkover) — Sugiyama (26), Vaidisova (16) Australian Open (Slam, R16/Clijsters [2], 3) Antwerp (II, 1R/Srebotnik [27], 0) Dubai (II+, QF/Hénin-Hardenne [5], 2) Doha (II, R16/Hingis [44], 0) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Vesnina [73], 0) Amelia Island (II, F/Petrova [7], 4) — Grönefeld (16), Kuznetsova (10) Warsaw (II, QF/Clijsters [2], 2) — Likhovtseva (17) Rome (I, R16/Hingis [21], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Kuznetsova [10], 3) — Pennetta (19) Birmingham (III, QF/Zvonareva [78], 2) Eastbourne (II, QF/Clijsters [2], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/South [305], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Jankovic [21], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/Davenport [11], 1) — Likhovtseva (33) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Peer [21], 2) Luxembourg (II, F/ABondarenko [62], 4) — Krajicek (34), Schnyder (9) Stuttgart (II+, 1R/Benesova [71], 0) Moscow (I, 2R/Chakvetadze [24], 1) — Kirilenko (33) Zürich (I, 2R/Bacsinszky [174], 1) Linz (II, 1R/Zvonareva [26], 0) Hasselt (III, QF/Kanepi [91], 2) Patty Schnyder ¥ Final Rank: 9 ¥ Best Rank: 7 Gold Coast (III, QF/Safarova [42], 2) Sydney (II, R16/Hantuchova [17], 0) Australian Open (Slam, QF/Mauresmo [3], 4) — Myskina (14) Paris (II, SF/Pierce [6], 2) — Dementieva (9) Antwerp (II, QF/Mauresmo [2], 1+ 1 walkover) Miami (Ireq, R16/withdrew, 2) — Srebotnik (30) Amelia Island (II, QF/Kuznetsova [10], 2) Charleston (I, F/Petrova [7], 4) — Déchy (24), Hénin-Hardenne (3) Warsaw (II, 2R/Ivanovic [20], 0) Berlin (I, QF/N. Li [61], 2) Rome (I, R16/V. Williams [12], 1) Strasbourg (III, 2R/Müller [83], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/V. Williams [13], 3) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Bremond [129], 1) Cincinnati (III, SF/Srebotnik [26], 3) Stanford (II, F/Clijsters [2], 3) — Golovin (32) San Diego (I, SF/Sharapova [4], 3) — Dulko (33), Dementieva (6) New Haven (II, 1R/Sun [94], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Davenport [11], 3) — Bartoli (25) Bali (III+, SF/Bartoli [26], 2) Luxembourg (II, QF/Schiavone [14], 1) Stuttgart (II+, SF/Golovin [25], 2+ 1 walkover) — Peer (24) Moscow (I, QF/Dementieva [7], 2) Zürich (I, 1R/Hantuchova [22], 0) Linz (II, SF/Sharapova [3], 2) — Zvonareva (26)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 60 Maria Sharapova ¥ Final Rank: 2 ¥ Best Rank: 2 Australian Open (Slam, SF/Hénin-Hardenne [6], 5) — Hantuchova (17), Petrova (7) Pan Pacific (I, SF/Hingis [117], 2) Dubai (II+, F/Hénin-Hardenne [5], 3) — Davenport (3) Indian Wells (I+, Win, 6) — Peer (35), Grönefeld (18), Hingis (32), Dementieva (8) Miami (Ireq, F/Kuznetsova [14], 5) — Kirilenko (22), Myskina (12), Golovin (24) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Safina [17], 3) Birmingham (III, SF/Jackson [81], 3) — Li Na (32) Wimbledon (Slam, SF/Mauresmo [1], 5) — Pennetta (19), Dementieva (8) San Diego (I, Win, 5) — Pierce (10), Schnyder (8), Clijsters (2) Los Angeles (II, SF/Dementieva [6], 3) — Bartoli (26), Safina (15) U. S. Open (Slam, Win, 7) — Likhovtseva (35), Li Na (22), Golovin (26), Mauresmo (1), Hénin-Hardenne (2) Moscow (I, QF/withdrew, 1) Zürich (I, Win, 4) — Peer (23), Srebotnik (24), Hantuchova (22) Linz (II, Win, 4) — Ivanovic (15), Schnyder (9), Petrova (5) Madrid Championships (Champ, 3-1 record; SF/Hénin-Hardenne [3]) — Dementieva (8), Clijsters (6), Kuznetsova (4) Meghann Shaughnessy ¥ Final Rank: 37 ¥ Best Rank: 37 Gold Coast (III, 1R/Koukalova [29], 0) Canberra (IV, 1R/Daniilidou [96], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Vinci [49], 0) Midland $75K ($75K, 1R/Bardina [191], 0) Memphis (III, 1R/Granville [49], 0) Acapulco (III, QF/Grönefeld [22], 2) Indian Wells (I+, 2R/Domachowska [42], 1) Miami (Ireq, 3R/Arvidsson [34], 2) — Hénin-Hardenne (3) Amelia Island (II, R16/Petrova [7], 2) — Bartoli (31) Charleston (I, 2R/Kuznetsova [10], 1) Prague (IV, 2R/Camerin [57], 1) Rabat (IV, Win, 5) Istanbul (III, 2R/Yakimova [65], 1) — Chakvetadze (29) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Mauresmo [1], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Dementieva [8], 1) San Diego (I, 1R/Mirza [44], 0) Los Angeles (II, QF/S. Williams [110], 3) — Déchy (34) Forest Hills (IV, Win, 4) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Mauresmo [1], 1) GuangZhou (III, 1R/Kostanic [50], 0) Japan Open (III, 1R/Osterloh [116], 0) Bangkok (III, SF/King [80], 3) Zürich Qualifying (I, Q1R/Bacsinszky [174], 0) Hasselt (III, 1R/Schiavone [15], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 61 Katarina Srebotnik ¥ Final Rank: 23 ¥ Best Rank: 20 Auckland (IV, R16/Obziler [131], 1) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Santangelo [73], 1) Pan Pacific (I, R16/Dementieva [9], 1) Antwerp (II, R16/Safina [20], 1) — Schiavone (12) Miami (Ireq, 3R/Schnyder [9], 1) Amelia Island (II, R32/Camerin [66], 1) Charleston (I, R16/Déchy [24], 2) Warsaw (II, 1R/Pironkova [79], 0) Berlin (I, 2R/Hantuchova [16], 1) — Jankovic (34) Rome (I, R16/Jankovic [38], 2) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Safina [17], 2) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Sugiyama [21], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Hantuchova [18], 2) Cincinnati (III, F/Zvonareva [50], 4) — Bartoli (29), Schnyder (8) Stanford (II, 1R/Zvonareva [37], 0) San Diego (I, 2R/Mirza [44], 1) — Bartoli (27) Canadian Open (I, QF/Ivanovic [19], 3) New Haven (II, 1R/Davenport [11], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Davenport [11], 2) Portoroz (IV, 1R/Sucha [78], 0) Luxembourg (II, 2R/ABondarenko [62], 1) Stuttgart (II+, 2R/Dementieva [6], 1) Zürich (I, SF/Sharapova [3], 3) — Pierce (29), Dementieva (7), Kirilenko (33) Linz (II, 1R/Chakvetadze [13], 0) Samantha Stosur ¥ Final Rank: 29 ¥ Best Rank: 29 Sydney (II, 1R/Vaidisova [16], 0) Australian Open (Slam, R16/Hingis [349], 3) — Ivanovic (22) Pan Pacific (I, QF/Sharapova [4], 2) — Hantuchova (15) Memphis (III, 1R/Harkleroad [81], 0) Indian Wells (I+, 2R/Safina [21], 1) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Mauresmo [1], 1) Amelia Island (II, R32/Shaughnessy [84], 1) Charleston (I, 1R/Safarova [27], 0) Prague (IV, F/Peer [35], 4) Rome (I, 2R/Oprandi [133], 1) — Hantuchova (16) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Ivanovic [21], 0) Birmingham (III, R32/Raymond [82], 1) Eastbourne Qualifying (II, Q3R/Gajdosova [86], 0+ 2 in qualifying) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Mauresmo [1], 1) Stanford (II, QF/Vaidisova [12], 2) — Peer(26) San Diego (I, 2R/Clijsters [2], 1) — Déchy (30) Los Angeles (II, R16/Jankovic [28], 2) — Davenport (10) New Haven (II, Q3R/Voskoboeva [93]; made main draw as LL; SF/Davenport [11], 3+2 in qualifying) — Déchy (32), Bartoli (27) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Safarova [43], 0) Luxembourg (II, 2R/Dementieva [6], 1) Stuttgart (II+, 1R/Krajicek [34], 0) Moscow (I, 2R/Vaidisova [11], 1) Zürich (I, 2R/Mauresmo [1], 1) Linz (II, QF/Petrova [5], 2) — Kirilenko (31), Chakvetadze (13) Hasselt (III, 2R/Kloesel [119], 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 62 Ai Sugiyama ¥ Final Rank: 26 ¥ Best Rank: 19 Gold Coast (III, 1R/Safarova [42], 0) Sydney (II, 1R/Schiavone [15], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Martinez Granados [106], 0) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Ivanovic [20], 0) Dubai (II+, 1R/Safarova [31], 0) Doha (II, SF/Petrova [8], 3) — Myskina (12) Indian Wells (I+, R16/Hénin-Hardenne [3], 2) — Safarova (30) Miami (Ireq, QF/Kuznetsova [14], 3) — Likhovtseva (17), Arvidsson (34) Berlin (I, 1R/Razzano [64], 0) Rome (I, 2R/Medina Garrigues [25], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Rezai [142], 1) Birmingham (III, R16/Santangelo [39], 1) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Kuznetsova [7], 1) — Srebotnik (24) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Bremond [129], 3) — Hingis (15) Stanford (II, 2R/Golovin [32], 1) San Diego (I, 1R/Zvonareva [36], 0) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Granville [56], 0) Canadian Open (I, R16/Kuznetsova [7], 2) — Medina Garrigues (23) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Hénin-Hardenne [2], 2) Beijing (II, QF/Peng [60], 2) — Vaidisova (10) Seoul (IV, F/Daniilidou [58], 4) Japan Open (III, QF/Chan [132], 2) Zürich (I, 2R/Hantuchova [22], 1) — Bartoli (18) Linz (II, 1R/Pierce [29], 0) Hasselt (III, 1R/Daniilidou [36], 0) Nicole Vaidisova ¥ Final Rank: 10 ¥ Best Rank: 9 Sydney (II, SF/Schiavone [15], 3) — Hantuchova (17) Australian Open (Slam, R16/Mauresmo [3], 3) — Pennetta (20) Pan Pacific (I, QF/Dementieva [9], 2) Memphis (III, 1R/Azarenka [138], 0) Amelia Island (II, R16/Safarova [34], 1) Charleston (I, 2R/Castano [48], 0) Rome (I, 2R/Hingis [21], 1) Strasbourg (III, Win, 4) — Jankovic (35) Roland Garros (Slam, SF/Kuznetsova [10], 5) — Mauresmo (1), V. Williams (13) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/N. Li [30], 3) Stanford (II, SF/Clijsters [2], 2) San Diego (I, SF/Clijsters [2], 3) — Hantuchova (17), Chakvetadze (31) Canadian Open (I, R16/withdrew, 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Jankovic [20], 2) Beijing (II, 2R/Sugiyama [28], 0) Moscow (I, SF/Petrova [5], 3) — Stosur (30), Mauresmo (1) Zürich (I, 1R/Golovin [21], 0) Linz (II, SF/Petrova [5], 2) — Santangelo (32), Jankovic (12) Serena Williams ¥ Final Rank: 95 ¥ Best Rank: 11 Australian Open (Slam, R32/Hantuchova [17], 2) Cincinnati (III, SF/Zvonareva [50], 3) — Myskina (11) Los Angeles (II, SF/Jankovic [28], 4) — Kirilenko (21), Hantuchova (17) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Mauresmo [1], 3) — Hantuchova (18), Ivanovic (17)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 63 Venus Williams ¥ Final Rank: 48 ¥ Best Rank: 10 Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Pironkova [94], 0) Warsaw (II, QF/Kuznetsova [10], 2) — Hingis (23) Rome (I, SF/Hingis [21], 4) — Safarova (31), Schnyder (9) Roland Garros (Slam, QF/Vaidisova [16], 4) — Schnyder (9) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Jankovic [29], 2) Luxembourg (II, 2R/RadwanskaA [95], 1) — Ivanovic (15) Klara (Koukalova) Zakopalova ¥ Final Rank: 125 ¥ Best Rank: 27 Gold Coast (III, R16/Hingis [999], 1) Hobart (IV, 1R/Kremer [164], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Bychkova [74], 0) Pan Pacific (I, R16/Myskina [13], 1) Antwerp (II, R16/Daniilidou [105], 1) — Safarova (31) Acapulco (III, R16/Pous Tio [88], 1) Indian Wells (I+, 2R/King [108], 0) Miami (Ireq, 3R/Craybas [54], 1) Warsaw (II, 2R/RadwanskaA [309], 1) Berlin (I, 2R/Kirilenko [24], 1) Rome (I, 1R/Dushevina [41], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Garbin [72], 0) Birmingham (III, 1R/Jackson [81], 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 2R/Krajicek [55], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Vaidisova [13], 0) Palermo (IV, 2R/Vinci [87], 1) Budapest (IV, 1R/Birnerova [126], 0) Stockholm (IV, 1R/Sucha [68], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Davenport [11], 0) Portoroz (IV, 1R/Garbin [62], 0) Luxembourg Qualifying (II, Q1R/Gagliardi [116], 0) Japan Open (III, 1R/Medina Garrigues [28], 0) Bangkok (III, 2R/Bremond [54], 1) Bratislava $75K+H ($75K+H, 1R/Chakhnashvili [147], 0) Zheng Jie ¥ Final Rank: 33 ¥ Best Rank: 27 Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Chakvetadze [36], 0) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Koukalova [32], 0) Pattaya City (IV, 1R/Czink [119], 0) Dubai (II+, 1R/Myskina [12], 0) Doha (II, 1R/Kuznetsova [14], 0) Indian Wells (I+, 1R/Bammer [62], 0) Miami (Ireq, QF/Golovin [24], 4) — Déchy (21), Grönefeld (18) Estoril (IV, Win, 5) — Pennetta (19) Berlin (I, R16/Petrova [4], 2) — Déchy (21) Rabat (IV, 2R/Kremer [131], 1) Strasbourg (III, QF/Vaidisova [18], 2) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Lisjak [111], 1) — Golovin (25) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/Daniilidou [67], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Clijsters [2], 2) Stockholm (IV, Win, 5) — Myskina (11) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Ivanovic [19], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Rodionova [98], 1) Beijing (II, 2R/Davenport [12], 1) Zürich Qualifying (I, Q2R/Sakowicz [139], 0+ 1 in qualifying)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 64 Vera Zvonareva ¥ Final Rank: 24 ¥ Best Rank: 24 Auckland (IV, F/Bartoli [33], 4) — Kirilenko (25), Hantuchova (17) Sydney (II, 1R/Dushevina [43], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Hingis [349], 0) Pattaya City (IV, 1R/Suárez [319], 0) Dubai (II+, 1R/Sfar [254], 0) Doha (II, 1R/N. Li [71], 0) Miami (Ireq, 2R/Kuznetsova [14], 1) Amelia Island (II, R32/Grönefeld [16], 1) Charleston (I, 2R/Safina [20], 1) Berlin (I, 2R/Petrova [4], 1) — Dulko (33) Rome (I, R16/Oprandi [133], 2) — Peer (32), Déchy (22) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Safina [17], 0) Birmingham (III, Win, 6) — Chakvetadze (31), Schiavone (14) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Clijsters [2], 1) — Chakvetadze (33) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Clijsters [2], 0) Cincinnati (III, Win, 5) — Golovin (32), Jankovic (27), Srebotnik (26) Stanford (II, QF/Clijsters [2], 2) — Srebotnik (21), Déchy (29) San Diego (I, R16/Sharapova [4], 2) — Sugiyama (19) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Dementieva [5], 2) Beijing (II, 1R/Sun [111], 0) Seoul (IV, QF/Daniilidou [58], 2) Moscow (I, QF/Petrova [5], 2) — Kuznetsova (4) Linz (II, QF/Schnyder [9], 2) — Schiavone (14), Pierce (29) Hasselt (III, SF/Clijsters [6], 3)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 65 Upsets The 100 Biggest Upsets of 2006 Want to know who pulled off the biggest upset of 2006? Easy: Stephanie Dubois, who (helped by an injury) beat Kim Clijsters at the Canadian Open. How did I decide that that was the biggest upset? By direct mathematical means: I took rankings ratios. Dubois was #151 at the time, Clijsters #2. So Dubois’s ranking was 151:2, or 75.5 times that of Clijsters. To compile this list, I took every match played by a Top 100 player this year, and took the ratio of her ranking to the player she lost to. This list shows them, in descending order based on that ratio. Note: Where a player is unranked, I have treated her ranking as #999. Observe that that affects, e.g., our #2 upset — even though it’s hardly an upset when Martina Hingis beat Klara Koukalova. But Hingis was unranked at the time. 1. Canadian Open 2R: Stephanie Dubois (#151) def. Kim Clijsters (#2). Ratio=75.5 2. Gold Coast 2R: Martina Hingis (unranked) def. Klara Koukalova (#29). Ratio=34.4 3. Pan Pacific SF: Martina Hingis (#117) def. Maria Sharapova (#4). Ratio=29.3 4. Miami 2R: Meghann Shaughnessy (#87) def. Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#3). Ratio=29.0 5. Miami 1R: (#1144) def. Sania Mirza (#41). Ratio=27.9 6T. Miami 2R: Jill Craybas (#54) def. Kim Clijsters (#2). Ratio=27.0 6T. Luxembourg 1R: (unranked) def. Martina Müller (#37). Ratio=27.0 8. ’s-Hertogenbosch 1R: Paola Suárez (#516) def. Maria Kirilenko (#20). Ratio=25.8 9. Warsaw 1R: Agnieszka Radwanska (#309) def. Anastasia Myskina (#12). Ratio=25.8 10. Eastbourne 2R: Nathalie Déchy (#25) def. Amélie Mauresmo (#1). Ratio=25.0 11. Roland Garros 1R: Akiko Morigami (#69) def. Nadia Petrova (#3). Ratio=23.0 12. San Diego 1R: Paola Suárez (#341) def. Dinara Safina (#15). Ratio=22.7 13. Wimbledon 1R: (#305) def. Francesca Schiavone (#14). Ratio=21.8 14. Birmingham SF: Jamea Jackson (#81) def. Maria Sharapova (#4). Ratio=20.3 15. Las Vegas $75K 1R: Elena Gancheva (unranked) def. Jill Craybas (#52). Ratio=19.2 16. Gold Coast QF: Martina Hingis (unranked) def. Nuria Llagostera Vives (#53). Ratio=18.8 17. Canadian Open 1R: Marie-Eve Pelletier (#337) def. Li Na (#20). Ratio=16.9 18. Roland Garros R16: Nicole Vaidisova (#16) def. Amélie Mauresmo (#1). Ratio=16.0 19. Luxembourg QF: Agnieszka Radwanska (#95) def. Elena Dementieva (#6). Ratio=15.8 20. Los Angeles R32: Virginia Ruano Pascual (#73) def. Nadia Petrova (#5). Ratio=14.6 21. Gold Coast 1R: Martina Hingis (unranked) def. Maria Vento-Kabchi (#70). Ratio=14.3 22. Miami SF: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#14) def. Amélie Mauresmo (#1). Ratio=14.0 23. Wimbledon 2R: Severine (Beltrame) Brémond (#129) def. Patty Schnyder (#10). Ratio=12.9 24. Cincinnati 1R: Serena Williams (#139) def. Anastasia Myskina (#11). Ratio=12.6 25. U. S. Open 2R: Virginie Razzano (#112) def. Martina Hingis (#9). Ratio=12.4 26. Memphis R16: (unranked) def. Ashley Harkleroad (#81). Ratio=12.3 27. Memphis 1R: Caroline Wozniacki (unranked) def. Kristina Brandi (#83). Ratio=12.0 28. Australian Open 1R: Martina Hingis (#349) def. Vera Zvonareva (#29). Ratio=12.0 29. New Haven 1R: Sun Tiantian (#94) def. Patty Schnyder (#8). Ratio=11.8 30. Zürich 1R: Timea Bacsinszky (#174) def. Anastasia Myskina (#15). Ratio=11.6 31. Paris Q1R: Capucine Rousseau (unranked) def. Laura Pous Tio (#88). Ratio=11.4 32T. New Haven QF: Lindsay Davenport (#11) def. Amélie Mauresmo (#1). Ratio=11.0 32T. Moscow QF: Nicole Vaidisova (#11) def. Amélie Mauresmo (#1). Ratio=11.0 34. ’s-Hertogenbosch 1R: Brenda Schultz-McCarthy (#573) def. Laura Granville (#53). Ratio=10.8 35. Memphis 1R: Victoria Azarenka (#138) def. Nicole Vaidisova (#13). Ratio=10.6 36. U. S. Open 1R: Victoria Azarenka (#124) def. Anastasia Myskina (#12). Ratio=10.3 37. Zürich R16: Timea Bacsinszky (#174) def. Francesca Schiavone (#17). Ratio=10.2

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 66 38. ’s-Hertogenbosch 2R: Paola Suárez (#516) def. Jelena Kostanic (#52). Ratio=9.9 39. Ortisei $75K 1R: Aravane Rezai (#187) def. Anna-Lena Grönefeld (#19). Ratio=9.8 40. Pattaya City 1R: Paola Suárez (#319) def. Vera Zvonareva (#33). Ratio=9.7 41. Warsaw 2R: Agnieszka Radwanska (#309) def. Klara (Koukalova) Zakopalova (#32). Ratio=9.7 42. Rome R16: Dinara Safina (#19) def. Kim Clijsters (#2). Ratio=9.5 43. U. S. Open 1R: Youlia Fedossova (#264) def. Anabel Medina Garrigues (#28). Ratio=9.4 44. Australian Open 1R: Tszvetana Pironkova (#94) def. Venus Williams (#10). Ratio=9.4 45. Strasbourg 2R: Martina Müller (#83) def. Patty Schnyder (#9). Ratio=9.2 46. Prague 1R: Magdalena Rybarikova (#285) def. Lucie Safarova (#31). Ratio=9.2 47. Australian Open 1R: (#80) def. Elena Dementieva (#9). Ratio=8.9 48. ’s-Hertogenbosch 2R: Brenda Schultz-McCarthy (#573) def. Marta Domachowska (#66). Ratio=8.7 49. Istanbul 1R: Urszula Radwanska (#458) def. Maria Elena Camerin (#53). Ratio=8.6 50. New Haven Q1R: (#792) def. (#92). Ratio=8.6 51. Stanford Q1R: Lindsay Nelson (#815) def. Yuan Meng (#95). Ratio=8.6 52. Acapulco R16: Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez (#334) def. Iveta Benesova (#39). Ratio=8.6 53. Australian Open 2R: Iveta Benesova (#42) def. Mary Pierce (#5). Ratio=8.4 54. Australian Open R32: Martina Hingis (#349) def. Iveta Benesova (#42). Ratio=8.3 55. Antwerp R16: Olga Savchuk (#115) def. Daniela Hantuchova (#14). Ratio=8.2 56. Australian Open 2R: Olga Savchuk (#188) def. Jelena Jankovic (#23). Ratio=8.2 57. Indian Wells R16: Martina Hingis (#32) def. Lindsay Davenport (#4). Ratio=8.0 58. Luxembourg 1R: Karin Knapp (#134) def. Anna-Lena Grönefeld (#17). Ratio=7.9 59. Barcelona $75K+H QF: Carla Suárez Navarro (#354) def. Lourdes Domínguez Lino (#45). Ratio=7.9 60. Bangkok 1R: Mariana Diaz-Oliva (#219) def. Anabel Medina Garrigues (#28). Ratio=7.8 61. Birmingham R32: Ayumi Morita (#264) def. Sofia Arvidsson (#34). Ratio=7.8 62. Dubai QF: Svetlana Kuznetsova (#15) def. Amélie Mauresmo (#2). Ratio=7.5 63. Seoul 2R: Sania Mirza (#59) def. Martina Hingis (#8). Ratio=7.4 64. Moscow R16: Vera Zvonareva (#29) def. Svetlana Kuznetsova (#4). Ratio=7.3 65. Los Angeles R32: Bethanie Mattek (#130) def. Flavia Pennetta (#18). Ratio=7.2 66. Charleston 1R: Anna Tatishvili (#570) def. Laura Pous Tio (#81). Ratio=7.0 67T. Berlin SF: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#7) def. Amélie Mauresmo (#1). Ratio=7.0 67T. Sydney 2R: Ana Ivanovic (#21) def. Amélie Mauresmo (#3). Ratio=7.0 67T. Gold Coast QF: Lucie Safarova (#42) def. Patty Schnyder (#6). Ratio=7.0 70. U. S. Open 1R: (#650) def. Olga Savchuk (#93). Ratio=7.0 71. ’s-Hertogenbosch SF: Michaella Krajicek (#55) def. Elena Dementieva (#8). Ratio=6.9 72. Berlin QF: Na Li (#61) def. Patty Schnyder (#9). Ratio=6.8 73. Australian Open 1R: Zi Yan (#88) def. Nathalie Déchy (#13). Ratio=6.8 74T. Miami 2R: Elena Vesnina (#73) def. Francesca Schiavone (#11). Ratio=6.6 74T. Luxembourg QF: Kveta Peschke (#73) def. Dinara Safina (#11). Ratio=6.6 76. Sydney 1R: Yuliana Fedak (#118) def. Elena Likhovtseva (#18). Ratio=6.6 77. GuangZhou QF: Tzipora Obziler (#130) def. Na Li (#20). Ratio=6.5 78. Los Angeles R16: Serena Williams (#110) def. Daniela Hantuchova (#17). Ratio=6.5 79. Bali 1R: Olga Poutchkova (#97) def. Ana Ivanovic (#15). Ratio=6.5 80. ’s-Hertogenbosch Q2R: Paola Suárez (#516) def. Zi Yan (#80). Ratio=6.5 81. Prostejov $75K 2R: Tanja Ostertag (#482) def. Kaia Kanepi (#75). Ratio=6.4 82. San Diego 2R: Anna Chakvetadze (#31) def. Nadia Petrova (#5). Ratio=6.2 83. Wimbledon R16: Severine (Beltrame) Bremond (#129) def. Ai Sugiyama (#21). Ratio=6.1 84. Memphis R16: Shenay Perry (#134) def. Anna-Lena Grönefeld (#22). Ratio=6.1 85. Hasselt QF: Kaia Kanepi (#91) def. Francesca Schiavone (#15). Ratio=6.1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 67 86. Stockholm 1R: Caroline Wozniacki (#362) def. Iveta Benesova (#60). Ratio=6.0 87T. Australian Open QF: Justine Hénin-Hardenne (#6) def. Lindsay Davenport (#1). Ratio=6.0 87T. U. S. Open 1R: Aravane Rezai (#96) def. Anna-Lena Grönefeld (#16). Ratio=6.0 89. Roland Garros 2R: Aravane Rezai (#142) def. Ai Sugiyama (#24). Ratio=5.9 90. Roland Garros 1R: Alicia Molik (#489) def. (#83). Ratio=5.9 91. Seoul 1R: Paola Suárez (#226) def. Gisela Dulko (#39). Ratio=5.8 92. Australian Open 2R: Virginia Ruano Pascual (#104) def. Elena Likhovtseva (#18). Ratio=5.8 93. Jounieh $75K 2R: Zsofia Gubacsi (#236) def. Lourdes Domínguez Lino (#41). Ratio=5.8 94. Roland Garros 1R: Anda Perianu (#177) def. Lucie Safarova (#31). Ratio=5.7 95. Dubai 1R: Selima Sfar (#254) def. Vera Zvonareva (#45). Ratio=5.6 96T. Birmingham QF: Vera Zvonareva (#78) def. Francesca Schiavone (#14). Ratio=5.6 96T. Pan Pacific R16: Martina Hingis (#117) def. Nathalie Déchy (#21). Ratio=5.6 98. Rimini $50K 2R: Sanja Ancic (#261) def. Martina Müller (#47). Ratio=5.6 99T. Zürich SF: Daniela Hantuchova (#22) def. Svetlana Kuznetsova (#4). Ratio=5.5 99T. Wimbledon 1R: (#110) def. Maria Kirilenko (#20). Ratio=5.5

Worst Losses The above list of upsets is based on ranking ratios. This is a variation on a theme: The lowest-ranked player lost to. I took all players who ended 2006 in the Top 35, or who ended 2005 in the Top 30, and determined their two worst losses based on the opponent’s rank. The list of such losses is found on the next page.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 68 Worst Losses (based on rankings at the time of the match) Rank Player Worst Loss #2 Loss 17 Bartoli Birmingham QF: lost to Tu (#135) Poitiers $75K 2005 2R: lost to Vesnina (#112) 32 A. Bondarenko Deauville $50K’ 05 2R: lost to Bacsinszky (#392) Los Angeles R16: lost to Mattek (#130) 13 Chakvetadze Sydney 1R: lost to Yan (#101) New Haven 1R: lost to Voskoboeva (#93) 5 Clijsters Canadian Open 2R: lost to Dubois (#151) Miami 2R: lost to Craybas (#54) 25 Davenport Los Angeles R32: lost to Stosur (#37) Indian Wells R16: lost to Hingis (#32) 51 Déchy Pan Pacific R16: lost to Hingis (#117) Amelia Island 1R: lost to Ruano Pascual (#100) 8 Dementieva Luxembourg QF: lost to A. Radwanska (#95) Australian Open 1R: lost to Schruff (#80) 61 Dulko Seoul 1R: lost to Suárez (#226) Wimbledon 3R: lost to Brémond (#129) 22 Golovin Wimbledon 2R: lost to Pratt (#136) Australian Open 1R: lost to Santangelo (#73) 19 Grönefeld Ortisei $75K 1R: lost to Rezai (#187) Memphis R16: lost to Perry (#134) 18 Hantuchova Antwerp R16: lost to Savchuk (#115) Los Angeles R16: lost to S. Williams (#110) 1 Hénin-Hardenne Miami 2R: lost to Shaughnessy (#87) Charleston SF: lost to Schnyder (#9) 7 Hingis U. S. Open 2R: lost to Razzano (#112) Seoul 2R: lost to Mirza (#59) 14 Ivanovic Australian Open 2R: lost to Stosur (#98) Bali 1R: lost to Poutchkova (#97) 12 Jankovic Australian Open 2R: lost to Savchuk (#188) Miami 2R: lost to Azarenka (#128) 30 Kirilenko ’s-Hertogenbosch 1R: lost to Suárez (#516) Pan Pacific QF: lost to Hingis (#117) 35 Krajicek Warsaw Q2R: lost to Voskoboeva (#134) Palermo 2R: lost to Rezai (#102) 4Kuznetsova Doha QF: lost to Hingis (#44) Wimbledon 3R: lost to Li Na (#30) 21 Li Na Canadian Open 1R: lost to Pelletier (#337) Pattaya City 1R: lost to Wozniak (#143) 42 Likhovtseva Sydney 1R: lost to Fedak (#118) Australian Open 2R: lost to Ruano Pascual (#104) 3Mauresmo Eastbourne 2R: lost to Déchy (#25) Sydney 2R: lost to Ivanovic (#21) 27 Medina Garrigu. U. S. Open 1R: lost to Fedossova (#264) Bangkok 1R: lost to Diaz-Oliva (#219) 163 Molik Istanbul 1R: lost to Paszek (#318) Gifu $50K 1R: lost to Dellacqua (#179) 34 Müller Luxembourg 1R: lost to Rubin (unranked) Athens $25K F: lost to Vedy (#340) 16 Myskina Warsaw 1R: lost to A. Radwanska (#309) Zürich 1R: lost to Bacsinszky (#174) 20 Peer Bangalore 1R: lost to Camerin (#92) Auckland 1R: lost to Cho (#75) 28 Pennetta Los Angeles R32: lost to Mattek (#130) Bogota F: lost to Dominguez Lino (#89) 133 Peschke Dubai 1R: lost to K. Bondarenko (#142) Los Angeles 1R: lost to Mattek (#130) 6 Petrova Los Angeles R32: lost to Ruano Pascual (#73) Roland Garros 1R: lost to Morigami (#69) 79 Pierce Luxembourg 1R: lost to A. Bondarenko (#62) Australian Open 2R: lost to Benesova (#42) 11 Safina San Diego 1R: lost to Suárez (#341) Luxembourg QF: lost to Peschke (#73) 31 Santangelo Zürich Q2R: lost to Ondraskova (#107) Poitiers $75K 2005 1R: lost to Laine (#103) 15 Schiavone Wimbledon 1R: lost to South (#305) Zürich R16: lost to Bacsinszky (#174) 9 Schnyder Wimbledon 2R: lost to Beltrame (#129) New Haven 1R: lost to Sun (#94) 2 Sharapova Pan Pacific SF: lost to Hingis (#117) Birmingham SF: lost to Jackson (#81) 23 Srebotnik Auckland R16: lost to Obziler (#131) Warsaw 1R: lost to Pironkova (#79) 29 Stosur Australian Open R16: lost to Hingis (#349) Rome 2R: lost to Oprandi (#133) 26 Sugiyama Roland Garros 2R: lost to Rezai (#142) Japan Open QF: lost to Chan (#132) 10 Vaidisova Memphis 1R: lost to Azarenka (#138) Charleston 2R: lost to Castaño (#48) 95 S. Williams Cincinnati SF: lost to Zvonareva (#50) Los Angeles SF: lost to Jankovic (#28) 48 V. Williams Luxembourg 2R: lost to A. Radwanska (#95) Australian Open 1R: lost to Pironkova (#94) 33 Zheng Zürich Q2R: lost to Sakowicz (#139) Rabat 2R: lost to Kremer (#131) 24 Zvonareva Australian Open 1R: lost to Hingis (#349) Pattaya City 1R: lost to Suárez (#319)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 69 Worst Losses (based on year-end 2006 rankings) Rank Player Worst Loss #2 Loss 17 Bartoli Indian Wells 3R: lost to Ani (#127) Australian Open 2R: lost to Vinci (#102) 32 A. Bondarenko Deauville $50K ’05 2R: lost to Bacsinszky (#121) Dubai $75K+H ’05 2R: l. to K.Bondarenko(#118) 13 Chakvetadze Sydney 1R: lost to Yan (#166) New Haven 1R: lost to Voskoboeva (#103) 5 Clijsters Canadian Open 2R: lost to Dubois (#134) Miami 2R: lost to Craybas (#73) 25 Davenport Los Angeles R32: lost to Stosur (#29) Indian Wells R16: lost to Hingis (#7) 51 Déchy Australian Open 1R: lost to Yan (#166) Indian Wells 2R: lost to Ani (#127) 8 Dementieva Australian Open 1R: lost to Schruff (#83) Luxembourg QF: lost to A. Radwanska (#57) 61 Dulko Bogota QF: lost to Cervanova (#319) Seoul 1R: lost to Suárez (#179) 22 Golovin San Diego 1R: lost to Frazier (#126) Wimbledon 2R: lost to Pratt (#78) 19 Grönefeld Australian Open 2R: l. to Sanchez Lorenzo (#137) Luxembourg 1R: lost to Knapp (#123) 18 Hantuchova Antwerp R16: lost to Savchuk (#99) Los Angeles R16: lost to S. Williams (#95) 1 Hénin-Hardenne Miami 2R: lost to Shaughnessy (#37) Charleston SF: lost to Schnyder (#9) 7 Hingis U. S. Open 2R: lost to Razzano (#87) Seoul 2R: lost to Mirza (#66) 14 Ivanovic U. S. Open 3R: lost to S. Williams (#95) Luxembourg 1R: lost to V. Williams (#48) 12 Jankovic Charleston 1R: lost to Vakulenko (#120) Australian Open 2R: lost to Savchuk (#99) 30 Kirilenko Wimbledon 1R: lost to Asagoe (#220) ’s-Hertogenbosch 1R: lost to Suárez (#179) 35 Krajicek Warsaw Q2R: lost to Voskoboeva (#103) New Haven Q1R: lost to Rodionova (#82) 4Kuznetsova Australian Open R16: lost to Davenport (#25) Moscow R16: lost to Zvonareva (#24) 21 Li Na Canadian Open 1R: lost to Pelletier (#256) GuangZhou QF: lost to Obziler (#110) 42 Likhovtseva Doha 1R: lost to Vinci (#102) Berlin 1R: lost to Pous Tio (#98) 3Mauresmo Eastbourne 2R: lost to Dechy (#51) New Haven QF: lost to Davenport (#25) 27 Medina Garrigu Bangkok 1R: lost to Diaz-Oliva (#187) U. S. Open 1R: lost to Fedossova (#151) 163 Molik Istanbul 1R: lost to Paszek (#181) Gifu $50K 1R: lost to Dellacqua (#172) 34 Müller Luxembourg 1R: lost to Rubin (#481) Athens $25K F: lost to Vedy (#320) 16 Myskina Zürich 1R: lost to Bacsinszky (#121) Cincinnati 1R: lost to S. Williams (#95) 20 Peer Auckland 1R: lost to Cho (#260) Australian Open 1R: lost to Asagoe (#220) 28 Pennetta Los Angeles R32: lost to Mattek (#104) Palermo 1R: lost to Schruff (#83) 133 Peschke Pan Pacific 1R: lost to Obata (#282) Dubai 1R: lost to K. Bondarenko (#118) 6 Petrova Roland Garros 1R: lost to Morigami (#85) Los Angeles R32: lost to Ruano Pascual (#67) 79 Pierce Australian Open 2R: lost to Benesova (#60) Luxembourg 1R: lost to A. Bondarenko (#32) 11 Safina San Diego 1R: lost to Suárez (#179) Luxembourg QF: lost to Peschke (#133) 31 Santangelo Eastbourne 1R: lost to Peschke (#133) Wimbledon 1R: lost to Frazier (#126) 15 Schiavone Gold Coast R16: lost to Llagostera Vives (#273) Wimbledon 1R: lost to South (#176) 9 Schnyder New Haven 1R: lost to Sun (#81) Paris SF: lost to Pierce (#79) 2 Sharapova Birmingham SF: lost to Jackson (#45) Roland Garros R16: lost to Safina (#11) 23 Srebotnik Auckland R16: lost to Obziler (#110) Portoroz 1R: lost to Sucha (#84) 29 Stosur Birmingham R32: lost to Raymond (#128) Hasselt 2R: lost to Kloesel (#100) 26 Sugiyama Australian Open 1R:l.to Martinez Granados(#139) Japan Open QF: lost to Chan (#96) 10 Vaidisova Memphis 1R: lost to Azarenka (#92) Charleston 2R: lost to Castaño (#55) 95 S. Williams Cincinnati SF: lost to Zvonareva (#24) Australian Open R32: lost to Hantuchova (#18) 48 V. Williams Australian Open 1R: lost to Pironkova (#62) Luxembourg 2R: lost to A. Radwanska (#57) 33 Zheng Zürich Q2R: lost to Sakowicz (#147) Roland Garros 2R: lost to Lisjak (#144) 24 Zvonareva Dubai 1R: lost to Sfar (#192) Pattaya City 1R: lost to Suárez (#179)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 70 Winning and Losing Streaks The table below looks at most of the top players, listing their longest winning and losing streaks. Players with winning streaks of ten matches or more are shown in bold. Player Win Events in Loss Events in Comment Streak Win Streak Streak Loss Streak Arvidsson 7 Memphis W, Miami R16 5 U. S. Open 2R, Beijing 1R, Seoul 1R, Japan Open 1R, Zürich Q1R Bartoli 11 Dubai $75K W, Auckland W, 3 (3 times) streak includes Challengers; Australian Open 2R WTA win streak 6 matches Alona 6 Luxembourg W, Moscow Q2R 4 Rabat SF, Istanbul 1R, Roland Bondarenko Garros 1R, Birmingham 1R Chakvetadze 10 GuangZhou W, Moscow W, 3 Berlin R16, Rome 1R, Linz 2R Istanbul 1R Clijsters 8 Stanford W, San Diego F 2 (2 times) Davenport 4 (3 times) 2 Indian Wells R16, Los Angeles 2R Déchy 2 (5 times) 4 Paris R16, Indian Wells 2R, Miami 2R, Amelia Island 1R Dementieva 6 (2 times) 5 Moscow SF, Zürich 2R, Madrid 0Ð3 Dulko 3 (2 times) 7 San Diego 2R, Canadian Open 1R, New Haven 1R, U. S. Open 1R, Beijing 1R, Seoul 1R, Japan Open 1R Golovin 4 (2times) 3 Gold Coast QF, Australian Open 1R, Pan Pacific 1R Grönefeld 8 Acapulco W, Indian Wells QF 5 Stuttgart 2R, Moscow 1R, losing streak still active Zürich 1R, Linz 1R, Hasselt 1R Hantuchova 3 (5 times) 2 (5 times) Hénin- 17 Roland Garros W, Eastbourne 2 Indian Wells SF, Miami 2R also won 10 straight: New Hardenne W, Wimbledon F Haven W, U. S. Open F Hingis 10 Rome W, Roland Garros QF 2 Gold Coast SF, Sydney 1R Ivanovic 7 Canadian Open W, U. S. Open 3 U. S. Open 3R, Bali 1R, 3R Luxembourg 1R Jankovic 5 (2 times) 10 Australian Open 2R, Pan Pacific 1R, Dubai 1R, Doha 1R, Indian Wells 2R, Miami 2R, Amelia Island 1R, Charleston 1R, Warsaw 1R, Berlin 1R Kirilenko 2 (9 times) 5 Roland Garros 3R, ’s-Hertogenbosch 1R, Wimbledon 1R, San Diego 1R, Los Angeles 1R Krajicek 7 Hobart W, Australian Open 3R 5 Budapest SF. Canadian Open 1R, New Haven Q1R, U.S. Open 1R, Luxembourg 1R Kuznetsova 10 Bali W, Beijing W, Stuttgart 2 Stuttgart SF, Moscow 2R SF Li Na 4 (3 times + once including 4 Sydney 2R, Australian Open qualifying matches) 1R, Pattaya City 1R, Dubai 1R Likhovtseva 2 (5 times) 3 (2 times)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 71 Mauresmo 16 Australian Open W, Paris W, 2 Roland Garros R16, Antwerp W, Dubai 1R Eastbourne 2R Medina 5 (2 times) 5 Paris 2R, Antwerp 1R, Doha (both winning streaks were Garrigues 1R, Indian Wells 2R, Miami 2R titles, at Canberra and Palermo, followed by first round losses) Müller 11 Civitavecchia $25K W, 4 (2 times) 10 of 11 wins in longest Cagnes-sur-Mer $75K W, streak were challenger Berlin 2R wins; longest WTA streak was 3 (Budapest SF) Myskina 4 (3 times) 5 Stockholm F, Canadian Open losing streak still active 2R, New Haven 1R, U. S. Open 1R, Zürich 1R Peer 8 Istanbul W, Roland Garros R16 2 (4 times) Pennetta 4 (3 times) 2 (7 times) Petrova 15 Amelia Island W, Charleston 5 Roland Garros 1R, San Diego W, Berlin W 2R, Los Angeles 2R, Canadian Open 2R, New Haven 2R Pierce 3 Paris F 4 U. S. Open 3R, Luxembourg 1R, Stuttgart 1R, Zürich 1R Safarova 5 Gold Coast W 3 (4 times) Safina 5 Rome F 2 (3 times) Santangelo 5 Bangalore W 4 (2 times) Schiavone 4 (2 times) 3 (2 times) Schnyder 4 (2 times) 2 (5 times) Sharapova 11 (2 times) — (no first round loses!) 11 match W streaks were Indian Wells W, Miami F and Zürich W, Linz W, Madrid SF Srebotnik 4 Cincinnati F 2 (6 times) Stosur 4 Prague F 2 (5 times plus a carryover from 2005) Sugiyama 4 Seoul F 5 Gold Coast 1R, Sydney 1R, Sugiyama also lost her last Australian Open 1R, Pan Pacific match of 2005, giving her six 1R, Dubai 1R straight losses before she made the Doha SF to end her streak Vaidisova 9 Strasbourg W, Roland Garros 2 (4 times) SF Serena 4 Los Angeles SF — (no first round losses) Williams Venus 4 (2 times) (1) (Australian Open 1R) The Australian Open was Williams Venus’s first event of 2006, and her only first round loss, she had withdrawn from the Beijing quarterfinal in her last event of 2005 Zheng 7 Estoril W, Berlin R16 6 Australian Open 1R, Pan Pacific (also had lost last match of 1R, Pattaya City 1R, Dubai 1R, 2005 in GuangZhou SF) Doha 1R, Indian Wells 1R Zvonareva 7 (2 times) 6 Auckland F, Sydney 1R, After ending losing streak at Australian Open 1R, Pattaya Miami, had only 2 opening City 1R, Dubai 1R, Doha 1R round losses and won 2 titles

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 72 The Ten Longest Winning Streaks by Top Players Streaks involving Challenger wins shown in italic. Since four players had ten-match streaks, we actually list 11 streaks. If you wish to omit the Challenger streaks, the #10 streak would be Nicole Vaidisova’s nine straight wins at Strasbourg and Roland Garros. Player Win Streak Events in Win Streak Hénin-Hardenne 17 Roland Garros W, Eastbourne W, Wimbledon F Mauresmo 16 Australian Open W, Paris W, Antwerp W, Dubai 1R Petrova 15 Amelia Island W, Charleston W, Berlin W Bartoli 11 Dubai $75K W, Auckland W, Australian Open 2R Müller 11 Civitavecchia $25K W, Cagnes-sur-Mer $75K W, Berlin 2R Sharapova 11 Indian Wells W, Miami F Sharapova 11 Zürich W, Linz W, Madrid SF Chakvetadze 10 GuangZhou W, Moscow W, Linz 2R Hénin-Hardenne 10 New Haven W, U. S. Open F Hingis 10 Rome W, Roland Garros QF Kuznetsova 10 Bali W, Beijing W, Stuttgart SF The Ten Longest Losing Streaks by Top Players This list actually contains 13 players, because nine top players had five-match losing streaks. Player Loss Streak Events in Loss Streak Jankovic 10 Australian Open 2R, Pan Pacific 1R, Dubai 1R, Doha 1R, Indian Wells 2R, Miami 2R, Amelia Island 1R, Charleston 1R, Warsaw 1R, Berlin 1R Dulko 7 San Diego 2R, Canadian Open 1R, New Haven 1R, U. S. Open 1R, Beijing 1R, Seoul 1R, Japan Open 1R Zheng 6 Australian Open 1R, Pan Pacific 1R, Pattaya City 1R, Dubai 1R, Doha 1R, Indian Wells 1R Zvonareva 6 Auckland F, Sydney 1R, Australian Open 1R, Pattaya City 1R, Dubai 1R, Doha 1R Arvidsson 5 U. S. Open 2R, Beijing 1R, Seoul 1R, Japan Open 1R, Zürich Q1R Dementieva 5 Moscow SF, Zürich 2R, Madrid 0–3 Grönefeld 5 Stuttgart 2R, Moscow 1R, Zürich 1R, Linz 1R, Hasselt 1R Kirilenko 5 Roland Garros 3R, ’s-Hertogenbosch 1R, Wimbledon 1R, San Diego 1R, Los Angeles 1R Krajicek 5 Budapest SF. Canadian Open 1R, New Haven Q1R, U.S. Open 1R, Luxembourg 1R Medina 5 Paris 2R, Antwerp 1R, Doha 1R, Indian Wells 2R, Miami 2R Garrigues Myskina 5 Stockholm F, Canadian Open 2R, New Haven 1R, U. S. Open 1R, Zürich 1R Petrova 5 Roland Garros 1R, San Diego 2R, Los Angeles 2R, Canadian Open 2R, New Haven 2R Sugiyama 5 Gold Coast 1R, Sydney 1R, Australian Open 1R, Pan Pacific 1R, Dubai 1R

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 73 Surface Results This section examines results on different surfaces. We’ll look at the players who ended 2005 or 2006 in the Top Thirty (excluding poor Alicia Molik and Kveta Peschke, who simply weren’t able to play successfully in 2006), and examine their results on the four surfaces (clay, grass, , indoors). Clay Round Points on Clay Round Points per Tournament on Clay Round WTA Points/ WTA Rank Player Pts Rank Rank Player Trn Rank 1Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 1045 1 1 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 348 1 2Kuznetsova, Svetlana 1002 4 2 Petrova, Nadia 199 6 3 Petrova, Nadia 797 6 3 Clijsters, Kim 184 5 4Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 576 19 4 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 167 4 5Hingis, Martina 574 7 5 Hingis, Martina 144 7 6 Safina, Dinara 559 11 6 Williams, Venus 119 48 7 Clijsters, Kim 551 5 7 Mauresmo, Amelie 116 3 8Vaidisova, Nicole 485 10 8 Safina, Dinara 112 11 9 Schnyder, Patty 474 9 9 Vaidisova, Nicole 97 10 10 Williams, Venus 358 48 10 Sharapova, Maria 96 2 11 Pennetta, Flavia 353 28 11 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 82 19 12 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 347 27 12 Schiavone, Francesca 81 15 13 Peer, Shahar 326 20 13 Li Na 74 21 14 Schiavone, Francesca 324 15 14 Schnyder, Patty 68 9 15 Li Na 294 21 15 Dementieva, Elena 67 8 16 Dementieva, Elena 267 8 16 Peer, Shahar 65 20 17 Mauresmo, Amelie 231 3 17 Myskina, Anastasia 56 16 18 Myskina, Anastasia 224 16 18 Pennetta, Flavia 44 28 19 Jankovic, Jelena 196 12 19 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 43 27 20 Srebotnik, Katarina 186 23 20 Hantuchova, Daniela 41 18 Chakvetadze, Anna 170 13 Ivanovic, Ana 37 14 Hantuchova, Daniela 164 18 Chakvetadze, Anna 34 13 Déchy, Nathalie 156 51 Srebotnik, Katarina 31 23 Dulko, Gisela 155 61 Jankovic, Jelena 28 12 Ivanovic, Ana 112 14 Kirilenko, Maria 27 30 Stosur, Samantha 109 29 Déchy, Nathalie 26 51 Zvonareva, Vera 108 24 Stosur, Samantha 22 29 Kirilenko, Maria 106 30 Zvonareva, Vera 22 24 Bartoli, Marion 99 17 Dulko, Gisela 19 61 Sharapova, Maria 96 2 Bartoli, Marion 17 17 Sugiyama, Ai 40 26 Sugiyama, Ai 13 26 Likhovtseva, Elena 30 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 6 42 Golovin, Tatiana 2 22 Golovin, Tatiana 2 22 Davenport, Lindsay 0 25 Davenport, Lindsay — 25 Pierce, Mary 0 79 Pierce, Mary — 79 Williams, Serena 0 95 Williams, Serena — 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 74 Quality Points on Clay Quality Points/Tournament on Clay Quality WTA QPoints/ WTA Rank Player Pts Rank Rank Player Trn Rank 1Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 635 1 1 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 212 1 2Kuznetsova, Svetlana 446 4 2 Clijsters, Kim 100 5 3 Safina, Dinara 420 11 3 Safina, Dinara 84 11 4Vaidisova, Nicole 345 10 4 Williams, Venus 78 48 5Hingis, Martina 304 7 5 Hingis, Martina 76 7 6 Clijsters, Kim 301 5 6 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 74 4 7 Petrova, Nadia 261 6 7 Vaidisova, Nicole 69 10 8Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 255 19 8 Petrova, Nadia 65 6 9Williams, Venus 233 48 9 Mauresmo, Amelie 57 3 10 Peer, Shahar 215 20 10 Schiavone, Francesca 50 15 11 Schiavone, Francesca 201 15 11 Li Na 45 21 12 Li Na 180 21 12 Peer, Shahar 43 20 13 Schnyder, Patty 177 9 13 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 36 19 14 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 136 27 14 Ivanovic, Ana 31 14 15 Mauresmo, Amelie 114 3 15 Myskina, Anastasia 27 16 16 Jankovic, Jelena 114 12 16 Sharapova, Maria 26 2 17 Chakvetadze, Anna 114 13 17 Schnyder, Patty 25 9 18 Myskina, Anastasia 108 16 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 25 18 19 Pennetta, Flavia 100 28 19 Chakvetadze, Anna 23 13 20 Hantuchova, Daniela 99 18 20 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 17 27 Ivanovic, Ana 93 14 Jankovic, Jelena 16 12 Srebotnik, Katarina 70 23 Dementieva, Elena 16 8 Stosur, Samantha 69 29 Stosur, Samantha 14 29 Zvonareva, Vera 69 24 Zvonareva, Vera 14 24 Dementieva, Elena 64 8 Pennetta, Flavia 13 28 Déchy, Nathalie 51 51 Srebotnik, Katarina 12 23 Kirilenko, Maria 33 30 Déchy, Nathalie 9 51 Dulko, Gisela 28 61 Kirilenko, Maria 8 30 Sharapova, Maria 26 2 Sugiyama, Ai 6 26 Likhovtseva, Elena 23 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 5 42 Sugiyama, Ai 18 26 Dulko, Gisela 4 61 Bartoli, Marion 16 17 Bartoli, Marion 3 17 Golovin, Tatiana 0 22 Golovin, Tatiana 0 22 Davenport, Lindsay 0 25 Davenport, Lindsay — 25 Pierce, Mary 0 79 Pierce, Mary — 79 Williams, Serena 0 95 Williams, Serena — 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 75 Total Wins on Clay Rank Player Wins Losses Winning % WTA Rank 1Kuznetsova, Svetlana 19 6 76% 4 2 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 18 6 75% 19 3Medina Garrigues, Anabel 17 7 71% 27 4 Safina, Dinara 16 5 76% 11 4 Pennetta, Flavia 16 8 67% 28 6 Petrova, Nadia 15 1 94% 6 7 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 14 2 88% 1 7 Hingis, Martina 14 3 82% 7 7 Peer, Shahar 14 3 82% 20 10 Li Na 12 4 75% 21 10 Schnyder, Patty 12 7 63% 9 12 Vaidisova, Nicole 11 4 73% 10 13 Clijsters, Kim 10 2 83% 5 13 Williams, Venus 10 3 77% 48 13 Schiavone, Francesca 10 4 71% 15 16 Myskina, Anastasia 8 4 67% 16 16 Jankovic, Jelena 8 7 53% 12 16 Srebotnik, Katarina 8 6 57% 23 19 Dulko, Gisela 7 8 47% 61 20 Mauresmo, Amelie 6 2 75% 3 20 Chakvetadze, Anna 6 5 55% 13 20 Dementieva, Elena 6 4 60% 8 20 Stosur, Samantha 6 5 55% 29 Hantuchova, Daniela 5 4 56% 18 Zvonareva, Vera 5 5 50% 24 Déchy, Nathalie 5 6 45% 51 Ivanovic, Ana 4 3 57% 14 Kirilenko, Maria 4 4 50% 30 Bartoli, Marion 4 6 40% 17 Sharapova, Maria 3 1 75% 2 Sugiyama, Ai 1 3 25% 26 Likhovtseva, Elena 1 5 17% 42 Golovin, Tatiana 0 1 0% 22 Davenport, Lindsay 0 0 25 Pierce, Mary 0 0 79 Williams, Serena 0 0 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 76 Winning Percent on Clay Rank Player Wins Losses Winning % WTA Rank 1 Petrova, Nadia 15 1 94% 6 2 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 14 2 88% 1 3 Clijsters, Kim 10 2 83% 5 4 Hingis, Martina 14 3 82% 7 5 Peer, Shahar 14 3 82% 20 6Williams, Venus 10 3 77% 48 7 Safina, Dinara 16 5 76% 11 8Kuznetsova, Svetlana 19 6 76% 4 9 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 18 6 75% 19 10 Li Na 12 4 75% 21 11 Mauresmo, Amelie 6 2 75% 3 12 Sharapova, Maria 3 1 75% 2 13 Vaidisova, Nicole 11 4 73% 10 14 Schiavone, Francesca 10 4 71% 15 15 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 17 7 71% 27 16 Pennetta, Flavia 16 8 67% 28 17 Myskina, Anastasia 8 4 67% 16 18 Schnyder, Patty 12 7 63% 9 19 Dementieva, Elena 6 4 60% 8 20 Srebotnik, Katarina 8 6 57% 23 Ivanovic, Ana 4 3 57% 14 Hantuchova, Daniela 5 4 56% 18 Chakvetadze, Anna 6 5 55% 13 Stosur, Samantha 6 5 55% 29 Jankovic, Jelena 8 7 53% 12 Zvonareva, Vera 5 5 50% 24 Kirilenko, Maria 4 4 50% 30 Dulko, Gisela 7 8 47% 61 Déchy, Nathalie 5 6 45% 51 Bartoli, Marion 4 6 40% 17 Sugiyama, Ai 1 3 25% 26 Likhovtseva, Elena 1 5 17% 42 Golovin, Tatiana 0 1 0% 22 Davenport, Lindsay 0 0 25 Pierce, Mary 0 0 79 Williams, Serena 0 0 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 77 Grass Round Points on Grass Round Points/Tournament on Grass Round WTA Points/ WTA Rank Player Pts Rank Rank Player Trn Rank 1Mauresmo, Amelie 701 3 1 Mauresmo, Amelie 351 3 2Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 687 1 2 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 344 1 3 Clijsters, Kim 402 5 3 Clijsters, Kim 201 5 4 Sharapova, Maria 369 2 4 Sharapova, Maria 185 2 5Myskina, Anastasia 311 16 5 Myskina, Anastasia 156 16 6Dementieva, Elena 229 8 6 Dementieva, Elena 115 8 7 Li Na 191 21 7 Vaidisova, Nicole 96 10 8Kuznetsova, Svetlana 150 4 8 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 75 4 9 Safina, Dinara 147 11 9 Safina, Dinara 74 11 10 Zvonareva, Vera 147 24 10 Li Na 64 21 11 Jankovic, Jelena 142 12 11 Ivanovic, Ana 63 14 12 Likhovtseva, Elena 141 42 12 Hingis, Martina 62 7 13 Sugiyama, Ai 137 26 13 Williams, Venus 62 48 14 Ivanovic, Ana 126 14 14 Zvonareva, Vera 49 24 15 Hantuchova, Daniela 97 18 15 Hantuchova, Daniela 49 18 16 Pennetta, Flavia 97 28 16 Pennetta, Flavia 49 28 17 Vaidisova, Nicole 96 10 17 Jankovic, Jelena 47 12 18 Schiavone, Francesca 81 15 18 Likhovtseva, Elena 47 42 19 Chakvetadze, Anna 79 13 19 Sugiyama, Ai 46 26 20 Dulko, Gisela 78 61 20 Dulko, Gisela 39 61 Bartoli, Marion 69 17 Golovin, Tatiana 38 22 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 63 27 Schnyder, Patty 38 9 Srebotnik, Katarina 63 23 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 32 27 Hingis, Martina 62 7 Srebotnik, Katarina 32 23 Williams, Venus 62 48 Schiavone, Francesca 27 15 Stosur, Samantha 53.75 29 Chakvetadze, Anna 26 13 Déchy, Nathalie 51 51 Déchy, Nathalie 26 51 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 51 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 26 19 Peer, Shahar 39 20 Bartoli, Marion 23 17 Golovin, Tatiana 38 22 Peer, Shahar 20 20 Schnyder, Patty 38 9 Stosur, Samantha 18 29 Kirilenko, Maria 3 30 Kirilenko, Maria 2 30 Davenport, Lindsay 0 25 Davenport, Lindsay — 25 Petrova, Nadia 0 6 Petrova, Nadia — 6 Pierce, Mary 0 79 Pierce, Mary — 79 Williams, Serena 0 95 Williams, Serena — 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 78 Quality Points on Grass Quality Points/Tournament on Grass Quality WTA QPoints/ WTA Rank Player Pts Rank Rank Player Trn Rank 1Mauresmo, Amelie 386 3 1 Mauresmo, Amelie 193 3 2Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 381 1 2 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 191 1 3 Sharapova, Maria 195 2 3 Sharapova, Maria 98 2 4 Li Na 184 21 4 Myskina, Anastasia 80 16 5Myskina, Anastasia 160 16 5 Dementieva, Elena 72 8 6Dementieva, Elena 143 8 6 Déchy, Nathalie 62 51 7Déchy, Nathalie 123 51 7 Li Na 61 21 8 Clijsters, Kim 119 5 8 Clijsters, Kim 60 5 9 Jankovic, Jelena 116 12 9 Vaidisova, Nicole 44 10 10 Sugiyama, Ai 113 26 10 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 43 4 11 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 86 4 11 Hantuchova, Daniela 39 18 12 Zvonareva, Vera 83 24 12 Jankovic, Jelena 39 12 13 Hantuchova, Daniela 78 18 13 Sugiyama, Ai 38 26 14 Ivanovic, Ana 69 14 14 Ivanovic, Ana 35 14 15 Likhovtseva, Elena 53 42 15 Zvonareva, Vera 28 24 16 Safina, Dinara 44 11 16 Hingis, Martina 24 7 16 Vaidisova, Nicole 44 10 17 Safina, Dinara 22 11 18 Pennetta, Flavia 40 28 18 Pennetta, Flavia 20 28 19 Chakvetadze, Anna 28 13 19 Likhovtseva, Elena 18 42 19 Dulko, Gisela 28 61 20 Williams, Venus 16 48 Hingis, Martina 24 7 Dulko, Gisela 14 61 Stosur, Samantha 24 29 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 12 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 23 19 Chakvetadze, Anna 9 13 Schiavone, Francesca 18 15 Srebotnik, Katarina 9 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 18 23 Golovin, Tatiana 8 22 Williams, Venus 16 48 Schnyder, Patty 8 9 Bartoli, Marion 13 17 Stosur, Samantha 8 29 Golovin, Tatiana 8 22 Schiavone, Francesca 6 15 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 8 27 Bartoli, Marion 4 17 Peer, Shahar 8 20 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 4 27 Schnyder, Patty 8 9 Peer, Shahar 4 20 Davenport, Lindsay 0 25 Kirilenko, Maria 0 30 Kirilenko, Maria 0 30 Davenport, Lindsay — 25 Petrova, Nadia 0 6 Petrova, Nadia — 6 Pierce, Mary 0 79 Pierce, Mary — 79 Williams, Serena 0 95 Williams, Serena — 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 79 Total Wins on Grass Rank Player Wins Losses Winning % WTA Rank 1 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 10 1 91% 1 2Myskina, Anastasia 8 2 80% 16 2 Sharapova, Maria 8 2 80% 2 4Mauresmo, Amelie 7 1 88% 3 4Zvonareva, Vera 7 2 78% 24 6 Clijsters, Kim 6 2 75% 5 6 Dementieva, Elena 6 2 75% 8 6 Jankovic, Jelena 6 3 67% 12 6 Li Na 6 3 67% 21 6 Likhovtseva, Elena 6 3 67% 42 11 Ivanovic, Ana 5 2 71% 14 11 Safina, Dinara 5 2 71% 11 11 Sugiyama, Ai 5 3 63% 26 14 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 4 2 67% 4 14 Schiavone, Francesca 4 3 57% 15 14 Stosur, Samantha 4 3 57% 29 17 Bartoli, Marion 3 3 50% 17 17 Chakvetadze, Anna 3 3 50% 13 17 Dulko, Gisela 3 2 60% 61 17 Hantuchova, Daniela 3 2 60% 18 17 Pennetta, Flavia 3 2 60% 28 17 Vaidisova, Nicole 3 1 75% 10 Déchy, Nathalie 2 2 50% 51 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 2 2 50% 19 Hingis, Martina 2 1 67% 7 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 2 2 50% 27 Srebotnik, Katarina 2 2 50% 23 Williams, Venus 2 1 67% 48 Golovin, Tatiana 1 1 50% 22 Peer, Shahar 1 2 33% 20 Schnyder, Patty 1 1 50% 9 Kirilenko, Maria 0 2 0% 30 Davenport, Lindsay 0 0 — 25 Petrova, Nadia 0 0 — 6 Pierce, Mary 0 0 — 79 Williams, Serena 0 0 — 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 80 Winning Percent on Grass Rank Player Wins Losses Winning % WTA Rank 1 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 10 1 91% 1 2Mauresmo, Amelie 7 1 88% 3 3Myskina, Anastasia 8 2 80% 16 3 Sharapova, Maria 8 2 80% 2 5Zvonareva, Vera 7 2 78% 24 6 Clijsters, Kim 6 2 75% 5 6 Dementieva, Elena 6 2 75% 8 6Vaidisova, Nicole 3 1 75% 10 9Ivanovic, Ana 5 2 71% 14 9 Safina, Dinara 5 2 71% 11 11 Jankovic, Jelena 6 3 67% 12 11 Li Na 6 3 67% 21 11 Likhovtseva, Elena 6 3 67% 42 11 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 4 2 67% 4 11 Hingis, Martina 2 1 67% 7 11 Williams, Venus 2 1 67% 48 17 Sugiyama, Ai 5 3 63% 26 18 Dulko, Gisela 3 2 60% 61 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 3 2 60% 18 18 Pennetta, Flavia 3 2 60% 28 Schiavone, Francesca 4 3 57% 15 Stosur, Samantha 4 3 57% 29 Bartoli, Marion 3 3 50% 17 Chakvetadze, Anna 3 3 50% 13 Déchy, Nathalie 2 2 50% 51 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 2 2 50% 19 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 2 2 50% 27 Srebotnik, Katarina 2 2 50% 23 Golovin, Tatiana 1 1 50% 22 Schnyder, Patty 1 1 50% 9 Peer, Shahar 1 2 33% 20 Kirilenko, Maria 0 2 0% 30 Davenport, Lindsay 0 0 — 25 Petrova, Nadia 0 0 — 6 Pierce, Mary 0 0 — 79 Williams, Serena 0 0 — 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 81 Hardcourts (Outdoor) Round Points on Hard Round Points/Tournament on Hard Round WTA Points/ WTA Rank Player Pts Rank Rank Player Trn Rank 1 Sharapova, Maria 2127 2 1 Sharapova, Maria 304 2 2Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 1741 1 2 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 249 1 3Mauresmo, Amelie 1550 3 3 Mauresmo, Amelie 194 3 4Kuznetsova, Svetlana 1281 4 4 Clijsters, Kim 128 5 5Hingis, Martina 1005 7 5 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 128 4 6 Bartoli, Marion 784 17 6 Dementieva, Elena 110 8 7 Jankovic, Jelena 775 12 7 Davenport, Lindsay 93 25 8Dementieva, Elena 771 8 8 Hingis, Martina 84 7 9 Clijsters, Kim 770 5 9 Williams, Serena 75 95 10 Davenport, Lindsay 745 25 10 Ivanovic, Ana 74 14 11 Schnyder, Patty 743 9 11 Schnyder, Patty 74 9 12 Ivanovic, Ana 670 14 12 Vaidisova, Nicole 73 10 13 Petrova, Nadia 664 6 13 Safina, Dinara 62 11 14 Chakvetadze, Anna 574 13 14 Jankovic, Jelena 60 12 15 Safina, Dinara 559 11 15 Pierce, Mary 58 79 16 Vaidisova, Nicole 512 10 16 Petrova, Nadia 55 6 17 Golovin, Tatiana 507 22 17 Chakvetadze, Anna 52 13 18 Sugiyama, Ai 502 26 18 Golovin, Tatiana 51 22 19 Hantuchova, Daniela 447 18 19 Schiavone, Francesca 44 15 20 Peer, Shahar 410 20 20 Bartoli, Marion 44 17 Li Na 395 21 Stosur, Samantha 36 29 Schiavone, Francesca 394 15 Pennetta, Flavia 35 28 Zvonareva, Vera 390 24 Hantuchova, Daniela 34 18 Kirilenko, Maria 384 30 Peer, Shahar 34 20 Srebotnik, Katarina 331 23 Sugiyama, Ai 33 26 Myskina, Anastasia 330 16 Srebotnik, Katarina 33 23 Stosur, Samantha 321 29 Myskina, Anastasia 33 16 Williams, Serena 301 95 Zvonareva, Vera 30 24 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 286 27 Li Na 28 21 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 254 19 Kirilenko, Maria 26 30 Pennetta, Flavia 244 28 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 25 19 Likhovtseva, Elena 176 42 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 20 27 Pierce, Mary 175 79 Likhovtseva, Elena 20 42 Dulko, Gisela 170 61 Dulko, Gisela 13 61 Déchy, Nathalie 92 51 Déchy, Nathalie 9 51 Williams, Venus 2 48 Williams, Venus 2 48

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 82 Quality Points on Hard Quality Points/Tournament on Hard Quality WTA QPoints/ WTA Rank Player Pts Rank Rank Player Trn Rank 1 Sharapova, Maria 1160 2 1 Sharapova, Maria 166 2 2Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 946 1 2 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 135 1 3Mauresmo, Amelie 754 3 3 Mauresmo, Amelie 94 3 4Kuznetsova, Svetlana 733 4 4 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 73 4 5Davenport, Lindsay 578 25 5 Davenport, Lindsay 72 25 6 Jankovic, Jelena 543 12 6 Williams, Serena 58 95 7Hingis, Martina 457 7 7 Clijsters, Kim 53 5 8 Chakvetadze, Anna 359 13 8 Dementieva, Elena 47 8 9 Schnyder, Patty 340 9 9 Jankovic, Jelena 42 12 10 Bartoli, Marion 338 17 10 Hingis, Martina 38 7 11 Dementieva, Elena 329 8 11 Ivanovic, Ana 34 14 12 Clijsters, Kim 318 5 12 Schnyder, Patty 34 9 13 Ivanovic, Ana 308 14 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 33 13 14 Golovin, Tatiana 283 22 14 Vaidisova, Nicole 30 10 15 Hantuchova, Daniela 261 18 15 Golovin, Tatiana 28 22 16 Li Na 243 21 16 Stosur, Samantha 21 29 17 Sugiyama, Ai 239 26 17 Hantuchova, Daniela 20 18 18 Williams, Serena 233 95 18 Safina, Dinara 20 11 19 Zvonareva, Vera 229 24 19 Bartoli, Marion 19 17 20 Peer, Shahar 224 20 20 Peer, Shahar 19 20 Petrova, Nadia 223 6 Petrova, Nadia 19 6 Vaidisova, Nicole 210 10 Pierce, Mary 18 79 Stosur, Samantha 186 29 Zvonareva, Vera 18 24 Safina, Dinara 178 11 Schiavone, Francesca 18 15 Kirilenko, Maria 169 30 Li Na 17 21 Schiavone, Francesca 158 15 Sugiyama, Ai 16 26 Srebotnik, Katarina 124 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 12 23 Myskina, Anastasia 95 16 Kirilenko, Maria 11 30 Likhovtseva, Elena 73 42 Myskina, Anastasia 10 16 Dulko, Gisela 72 61 Pennetta, Flavia 9 28 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 66 27 Likhovtseva, Elena 8 42 Pennetta, Flavia 65 28 Dulko, Gisela 6 61 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 54 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 5 19 Pierce, Mary 54 79 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 5 27 Déchy, Nathalie 35 51 Déchy, Nathalie 4 51 Williams, Venus 0 48 Williams, Venus 0 48

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 83 Total Wins on Hard Rank Player Wins Losses Winning % WTA Rank 1 Bartoli, Marion 37 15 71% 17 2 Sharapova, Maria 34 4 89% 2 3Kuznetsova, Svetlana 32 7 82% 4 4 Hingis, Martina 30 11 73% 7 5 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 28 4 88% 1 6 Jankovic, Jelena 24 12 67% 12 6Mauresmo, Amelie 24 7 77% 3 8 Chakvetadze, Anna 22 10 69% 13 8 Schnyder, Patty 22 9 71% 9 10 Davenport, Lindsay 21 8 72% 25 10 Li Na 21 13 62% 21 10 Sugiyama, Ai 21 15 58% 26 13 Ivanovic, Ana 20 8 71% 14 14 Dementieva, Elena 19 6 76% 8 14 Peer, Shahar 19 11 63% 20 16 Hantuchova, Daniela 18 13 58% 18 16 Petrova, Nadia 18 10 64% 6 16 Zvonareva, Vera 18 12 60% 24 19 Safina, Dinara 17 9 65% 11 20 Golovin, Tatiana 15 10 60% 22 20 Kirilenko, Maria 15 15 50% 30 20 Stosur, Samantha 15 10 60% 29 Clijsters, Kim 14 4 78% 5 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 14 13 52% 27 Vaidisova, Nicole 14 6 70% 10 Myskina, Anastasia 13 10 57% 16 Srebotnik, Katarina 13 10 57% 23 Schiavone, Francesca 12 9 57% 15 Williams, Serena 12 4 75% 95 Pennetta, Flavia 10 7 59% 28 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 8 10 44% 19 Dulko, Gisela 6 13 32% 61 Likhovtseva, Elena 6 9 40% 42 Pierce, Mary 5 3 63% 79 Déchy, Nathalie 4 10 29% 51 Williams, Venus 0 1 0% 48

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 84 Winning Percent on Hard Rank Player Wins Losses Winning % WTA Rank 1 Sharapova, Maria 34 4 89% 2 2 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 28 4 88% 1 3Kuznetsova, Svetlana 32 7 82% 4 4 Clijsters, Kim 14 4 78% 5 5Mauresmo, Amelie 24 7 77% 3 6 Dementieva, Elena 19 6 76% 8 7Williams, Serena 12 4 75% 95 8 Hingis, Martina 30 11 73% 7 9Davenport, Lindsay 21 8 72% 25 10 Ivanovic, Ana 20 8 71% 14 11 Bartoli, Marion 37 15 71% 17 12 Schnyder, Patty 22 9 71% 9 13 Vaidisova, Nicole 14 6 70% 10 14 Chakvetadze, Anna 22 10 69% 13 15 Jankovic, Jelena 24 12 67% 12 16 Safina, Dinara 17 9 65% 11 17 Petrova, Nadia 18 10 64% 6 18 Peer, Shahar 19 11 63% 20 19 Pierce, Mary 5 3 63% 79 20 Li Na 21 13 62% 21 Golovin, Tatiana 15 10 60% 22 Stosur, Samantha 15 10 60% 29 Zvonareva, Vera 18 12 60% 24 Pennetta, Flavia 10 7 59% 28 Sugiyama, Ai 21 15 58% 26 Hantuchova, Daniela 18 13 58% 18 Schiavone, Francesca 12 9 57% 15 Myskina, Anastasia 13 10 57% 16 Srebotnik, Katarina 13 10 57% 23 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 14 13 52% 27 Kirilenko, Maria 15 15 50% 30 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 8 10 44% 19 Likhovtseva, Elena 6 9 40% 42 Dulko, Gisela 6 13 32% 61 Déchy, Nathalie 4 10 29% 51 Williams, Venus 0 1 0% 48

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 85 Indoors Round Points Indoors Round Points/Tournament Indoors Round WTA Points/ WTA Rank Player Pts Rank Rank Player Trn Rank 1 Sharapova, Maria 940 2 1 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 525 1 2Mauresmo, Amelie 909 3 2 Sharapova, Maria 188 2 3 Petrova, Nadia 777 6 3 Mauresmo, Amelie 182 3 4Dementieva, Elena 749 8 4 Clijsters, Kim 164 5 5Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 525 1 5 Hingis, Martina 138 7 6 Clijsters, Kim 492 5 6 Petrova, Nadia 111 6 7 Schnyder, Patty 449 9 7 Chakvetadze, Anna 109 13 8Hingis, Martina 415 7 8 Dementieva, Elena 94 8 9Kuznetsova, Svetlana 365 4 9 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 91 4 10 Hantuchova, Daniela 358 18 10 Myskina, Anastasia 68 16 11 Chakvetadze, Anna 326 13 11 Schnyder, Patty 64 9 12 Golovin, Tatiana 311 22 12 Vaidisova, Nicole 60 10 13 Vaidisova, Nicole 300 10 13 Hantuchova, Daniela 60 18 14 Srebotnik, Katarina 257 23 14 Zvonareva, Vera 60 24 15 Schiavone, Francesca 254 15 15 Golovin, Tatiana 52 22 16 Stosur, Samantha 251 29 16 Srebotnik, Katarina 43 23 17 Zvonareva, Vera 179 24 17 Likhovtseva, Elena 39 42 18 Jankovic, Jelena 177 12 18 Kirilenko, Maria 38 30 18 Safina, Dinara 177 11 19 Schiavone, Francesca 36 15 20 Bartoli, Marion 172 17 20 Jankovic, Jelena 35 12 Pierce, Mary 165 79 20 Safina, Dinara 35 11 Kirilenko, Maria 152 30 Peer, Shahar 35 20 Ivanovic, Ana 147 14 Pierce, Mary 33 79 Déchy, Nathalie 144 51 Stosur, Samantha 31 29 Peer, Shahar 138 20 Ivanovic, Ana 29 14 Myskina, Anastasia 136 16 Bartoli, Marion 29 17 Likhovtseva, Elena 118 42 Williams, Venus 25 48 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 52 19 Déchy, Nathalie 21 51 Sugiyama, Ai 45 26 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 13 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 26 27 Sugiyama, Ai 11 26 Williams, Venus 25 48 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 6 19 Dulko, Gisela 7 61 Dulko, Gisela 3 61 Li Na 1 21 Li Na 1 21 Pennetta, Flavia 1 28 Pennetta, Flavia 1 28 Davenport, Lindsay 0 25 Davenport, Lindsay — 25 Williams, Serena 0 95 Williams, Serena — 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 86 Quality Points Indoors Quality Points/Tournament Indoors Quality WTA QPoints/ WTA Rank Player Pts Rank Rank Player Trn Rank 1Mauresmo, Amelie 470 3 1 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 273 1 2 Petrova, Nadia 417 6 2 Mauresmo, Amelie 94 3 3 Sharapova, Maria 361 2 3 Clijsters, Kim 77 5 4Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 273 1 4 Sharapova, Maria 72 2 5Dementieva, Elena 234 8 5 Hingis, Martina 66 7 6 Clijsters, Kim 230 5 6 Chakvetadze, Anna 65 13 7Hantuchova, Daniela 214 18 7 Petrova, Nadia 60 6 8Hingis, Martina 197 7 8 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 42 4 9 Chakvetadze, Anna 194 13 9 Zvonareva, Vera 38 24 10 Golovin, Tatiana 179 22 10 Hantuchova, Daniela 36 18 11 Vaidisova, Nicole 173 10 11 Williams, Venus 35 48 12 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 166 4 12 Vaidisova, Nicole 35 10 13 Srebotnik, Katarina 136 23 13 Golovin, Tatiana 30 22 14 Stosur, Samantha 116 29 14 Dementieva, Elena 29 8 15 Zvonareva, Vera 113 24 15 Srebotnik, Katarina 23 23 16 Schnyder, Patty 112 9 16 Pierce, Mary 19 79 17 Schiavone, Francesca 103 15 17 Myskina, Anastasia 19 16 18 Pierce, Mary 97 79 18 Safina, Dinara 18 11 19 Safina, Dinara 88 11 19 Schnyder, Patty 16 9 20 Déchy, Nathalie 72 51 20 Schiavone, Francesca 15 15 Jankovic, Jelena 71 12 Stosur, Samantha 15 29 Bartoli, Marion 57 17 Jankovic, Jelena 14 12 Kirilenko, Maria 56 30 Kirilenko, Maria 14 30 Ivanovic, Ana 52 14 Likhovtseva, Elena 11 42 Myskina, Anastasia 38 16 Ivanovic, Ana 10 14 Williams, Venus 35 48 Déchy, Nathalie 10 51 Likhovtseva, Elena 33 42 Bartoli, Marion 10 17 Peer, Shahar 29 20 Peer, Shahar 7 20 Sugiyama, Ai 23 26 Sugiyama, Ai 6 26 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 6 19 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 2 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 4 27 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 1 19 Dulko, Gisela 0 61 Dulko, Gisela 0 61 Li Na 0 21 Li Na 0 21 Pennetta, Flavia 0 28 Pennetta, Flavia 0 28 Davenport, Lindsay 0 25 Davenport, Lindsay — 25 Williams, Serena 0 95 Williams, Serena — 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 87 Total Wins Indoors Rank Player Wins Losses Winning % WTA Rank 1 Petrova, Nadia 15 7 68% 6 2 Sharapova, Maria 14 2 88% 2 3 Dementieva, Elena 13 8 62% 8 3Mauresmo, Amelie 13 3 81% 3 5 Clijsters, Kim 10 3 77% 5 5 Schnyder, Patty 10 7 59% 9 7 Golovin, Tatiana 9 6 60% 22 8 Hantuchova, Daniela 8 6 57% 18 8 Schiavone, Francesca 8 7 53% 15 8 Stosur, Samantha 8 8 50% 29 11 Bartoli, Marion 7 5 58% 17 11 Hingis, Martina 7 4 64% 7 11 Jankovic, Jelena 7 5 58% 12 11 Srebotnik, Katarina 7 6 54% 23 11 Vaidisova, Nicole 7 5 58% 10 11 Zvonareva, Vera 7 3 70% 24 17 Ivanovic, Ana 6 5 55% 14 17 Safina, Dinara 6 5 55% 11 19 Chakvetadze, Anna 5 2 71% 13 19 Déchy, Nathalie 5 7 42% 51 19 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 5 5 50% 4 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 4 1 80% 1 Kirilenko, Maria 4 4 50% 30 Peer, Shahar 4 4 50% 20 Pierce, Mary 4 5 44% 79 Likhovtseva, Elena 3 3 50% 42 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 2 9 18% 19 Myskina, Anastasia 2 2 50% 16 Dulko, Gisela 1 2 33% 61 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 1 2 33% 27 Sugiyama, Ai 1 4 20% 26 Williams, Venus 1 1 50% 48 Li Na 0 1 0% 21 Pennetta, Flavia 0 1 0% 28 Davenport, Lindsay 0 0 — 25 Williams, Serena 0 0 — 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 88 Winning Percent Indoors Rank Player Wins Losses Winning % WTA Rank 1 Sharapova, Maria 14 2 88% 2 2Mauresmo, Amelie 13 3 81% 3 3 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 4 1 80% 1 4 Clijsters, Kim 10 3 77% 5 5 Chakvetadze, Anna 5 2 71% 13 6Zvonareva, Vera 7 3 70% 24 7 Petrova, Nadia 15 7 68% 6 8 Hingis, Martina 7 4 64% 7 9 Dementieva, Elena 13 8 62% 8 10 Golovin, Tatiana 9 6 60% 22 11 Schnyder, Patty 10 7 59% 9 12 Bartoli, Marion 7 5 58% 17 12 Jankovic, Jelena 7 5 58% 12 12 Vaidisova, Nicole 7 5 58% 10 15 Hantuchova, Daniela 8 6 57% 18 16 Ivanovic, Ana 6 5 55% 14 16 Safina, Dinara 6 5 55% 11 18 Srebotnik, Katarina 7 6 54% 23 19 Schiavone, Francesca 8 7 53% 15 Stosur, Samantha 8 8 50% 29 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 5 5 50% 4 Kirilenko, Maria 4 4 50% 30 Peer, Shahar 4 4 50% 20 Likhovtseva, Elena 3 3 50% 42 Myskina, Anastasia 2 2 50% 16 Williams, Venus 1 1 50% 48 Pierce, Mary 4 5 44% 79 Déchy, Nathalie 5 7 42% 51 Dulko, Gisela 1 2 33% 61 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 1 2 33% 27 Sugiyama, Ai 1 4 20% 26 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 2 9 18% 19 Li Na 0 1 0% 21 Pennetta, Flavia 0 1 0% 28 Davenport, Lindsay 0 0 — 25 Williams, Serena 0 0 — 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 89 Surface Balance Percentage of Wins on Each Surface This section attempts to show how “balanced” players were between surfaces — that is, how close they came to having a “typical” ratio of clay to grass to hardcourt to indoor wins. The table below shows how many wins each player had on each surface, and the percentage of her wins on that surface. For example, Marion Bartoli had 51 total wins, and four on clay, so she had 7.8% of her wins on clay. She had three of her 51 wins on grass, so 5.9% of her wins were grass win. The final column is the “surface deviation.” The year-end Top Thirty as a whole earned 23.3% of their wins on clay, 10.0% on grass, 50.4% on outdoor hardcourts, and 16.3% indoors. “Deviation” is each player’s root mean square deviation from this “standard” schedule of wins. A player who had an exactly typical schedule would have a deviation of 0; the higher the deviation, the stranger the player’s schedule. Roughly speaking, a deviation under 0.1 indicates a very balanced schedule — but the only players with such schedules were Jankovic and Hingis. A deviation under .15 could be considered balanced; 12 players (including of course Jankovic and Hingis) had such schedules. A schedule with a deviation of .15 to .3 is mildly unbalanced; 13 players had such a schedule. A deviation from .3 to .4 is unbalanced; seven players had such schedules. Four players had extremely unbalanced schedules (deviation greater than .4), but three of these — the and Lindsay Davenport — were injured for most of the year. The only player with an extremely unbalanced schedule who played the whole year was Anna-Lena Grönefeld. If we look at deviations by particular surfaces, we note that four players (Davenport, Golovin, Pierce, and Serena Williams) had no clay wins; of them, only Golovin played a clay match, and she shouldn’t have played it. Among those who were reasonably healthy, Sugiyama, Sharapova, and Likhovtseva had the smallest clay percentages. Venus Williams had the highest fraction of her wins on clay, but that again is health; Flavia Pennetta, who was third in the “heaviest clay schedule” also missed a big chunk of the year. Of healthy players, Grönefeld had the highest percent of her wins on clay, followed by Medina Garrigues. (No surprises yet.) On grass, Davenport, Petrova, Pierce, and Serena Williams had no matches; of those who played, Maria Kirilenko had the most extreme value (no grass wins), followed by Patty Schnyder and Shahar Peer. The players with the heaviest biases toward grass, oddly, were all : Elena Likhovtseva, followed by Anastasia Myskina and Vera Zvonareva. Turning to hardcourts, we at last have a surface that everyone played on, at least a little. Though Venus Williams had no hardcourt wins and has the strongest anti-hardcourt bias (and who would ever have believed that?). Among players who played full scheduled, Nathalie Déchy had the strongest anti-hard bias, followed by Grönefeld and Pennetta. Davenport and Serena Williams had all their matches on hardcourt, and so are most biased toward hard; of those who were mostly healthy, Ai Sugiyama had the strongest pro-hard bias, followed by Bartoli and Kirilenko. Indoors, Davenport and Serena had no events; Pennetta and Li Na each played and lost one indoor match. Among healthy players, the strongest bias against indoor events was shown by Medina Garrigues (still no surprises), followed by Sugiyama (now that is surprising), then Dulko. Pierce, whose schedule was affected by injury, had the strongest bias toward indoor events, then Golovin (who also had suffered somewhat from injury), then Petrova (same), then Déchy, then Elena Dementieva. The full surface win data is shown in the table on the next page.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 90 Player WTA Total Clay Grass Hard Indoor Surface Name Rank Wins Wins % Wins Wins % Wins Wins % Wins Wins % Wins Deviation Bartoli 17 51 4 7.8% 3 5.9% 37 72.5% 7 13.7% 0.275 Chakvetadze 13 36 6 16.7% 3 8.3% 22 61.1% 5 13.9% 0.130 Clijsters 5 40 10 25.0% 6 15.0% 14 35.0% 10 25.0% 0.184 Davenport 25 21 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 21 100.0% 0 0.0% 0.581 Déchy 51 16 5 31.3% 2 12.5% 4 25.0% 5 31.3% 0.306 Dementieva 8 44 6 13.6% 6 13.6% 19 43.2% 13 29.5% 0.183 Dulko 61 17 7 41.2% 3 17.6% 6 35.3% 1 5.9% 0.267 Golovin 22 25 0 0.0% 1 4.0% 15 60.0% 9 36.0% 0.326 Grönefeld 19 30 18 60.0% 2 6.7% 8 26.7% 2 6.7% 0.449 Hantuchova 18 34 5 14.7% 3 8.8% 18 52.9% 8 23.5% 0.116 Hénin-Hardenne 1 56 14 25.0% 10 17.9% 28 50.0% 4 7.1% 0.122 Hingis 7 53 14 26.4% 2 3.8% 30 56.6% 7 13.2% 0.098 Ivanovic 14 35 4 11.4% 5 14.3% 20 57.1% 6 17.1% 0.143 Jankovic 12 45 8 17.8% 6 13.3% 24 53.3% 7 15.6% 0.071 Kirilenko 30 23 4 17.4% 0 0.0% 15 65.2% 4 17.4% 0.189 Kuznetsova 4 60 19 31.7% 4 6.7% 32 53.3% 5 8.3% 0.124 Li Na 21 39 12 30.8% 6 15.4% 21 53.8% 0 0.0% 0.190 Likhovtseva 42 16 1 6.3% 6 37.5% 6 37.5% 3 18.8% 0.349 Mauresmo 3 50 6 12.0% 7 14.0% 24 48.0% 13 26.0% 0.156 Medina Garrigues 27 34 17 50.0% 2 5.9% 14 41.2% 1 2.9% 0.315 Myskina 16 31 8 25.8% 8 25.8% 13 41.9% 2 6.5% 0.206 Peer 20 38 14 36.8% 1 2.6% 19 50.0% 4 10.5% 0.165 Pennetta 28 29 16 55.2% 3 10.3% 10 34.5% 0 0.0% 0.392 Petrova 6 48 15 31.3% 0 0.0% 18 37.5% 15 31.3% 0.235 Pierce 79 9 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 55.6% 4 44.4% 0.383 Safina 11 44 16 36.4% 5 11.4% 17 38.6% 6 13.6% 0.178 Schiavone 15 34 10 29.4% 4 11.8% 12 35.3% 8 23.5% 0.179 Schnyder 9 45 12 26.7% 1 2.2% 22 48.9% 10 22.2% 0.105 Sharapova 2 59 3 5.1% 8 13.6% 34 57.6% 14 23.7% 0.213 Srebotnik 23 30 8 26.7% 2 6.7% 13 43.3% 7 23.3% 0.110 Stosur 29 33 6 18.2% 4 12.1% 15 45.5% 8 24.2% 0.109 Sugiyama 26 28 1 3.6% 5 17.9% 21 75.0% 1 3.6% 0.349 Vaidisova 10 35 11 31.4% 3 8.6% 14 40.0% 7 20.0% 0.138 Williams, S 95 12 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 12 100.0% 0 0.0% 0.581 Williams, V 48 13 10 76.9% 2 15.4% 0 0.0% 1 7.7% 0.743 Zvonareva 24 37 5 13.5% 7 18.9% 18 48.6% 7 18.9% 0.136

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 91 Percentage of Points on Each Surface Pretty much the same as the preceding, except that we total players’ points instead of their wins. As it turns out, the Top Thirty earned 22.3% of their points on clay, 10.6% on grass, 46.5% on hardcourt, 20.6% indoors. If we look at deviations in points, following our same criteria, the only player with a very balanced schedule (deviation less than .1) was Martina Hingis. Eight players had balanced schedules (deviation under .15). 19 players had mildly unbalanced schedules (deviation of .15 to .3). Six players had unbalanced schedules (deviation of .3 to .4). Just as with wins, we had four players with extremely unbalanced schedules — and it’s the same four: Anna-Lena Grönefeld, plus the injured Williams Sisters and Lindsay Davenport. Looking at clay, Davenport, Pierce, and Serena Williams did not play, and Golovin had just the one loss; Sharapova, the mostly-healthy player with the lowest fraction of clay points, also missed some clay. That leaves Ai Sugiyama as the player with the lowest fraction of her points on clay, followed by Elena Likhovtseva and Amélie Mauresmo. Most clay-dependent was Venus Williams, who of course missed most of the year; of the mostly-healthy players, Grönefeld biased most toward clay, followed by Flavia Pennetta and Anabel Medina Garrigues (again, this is hardly a surprise). On grass, Davenport, Petrova, Pierce, and Serena Williams had no matches. Next-least in terms of grass points was Maria Kirilenko, who was winless on grass. Then comes Patty Schnyder and Martina Hingis. The players with the highest grass percentages were Anastasia Myskina and Elena Likhovtseva (who managed the astonishing feat of earning over 30% of their points on grass), with Li Na a distant third. Venus Williams, with just the one hardcourt match, of course had the lowest fraction of her points on hardcourt, followed by Nathalie Déchy, Grönefeld, and Nadia Petrova. Apart from Davenport and Serena Williams, who played only hardcourts, the players most hardcourt-dependent were Marion Bartoli, Ai Sugiyama, and Ana Ivanovic. Davenport and Serena Williams had no indoor matches. Li Na, Flavia Pennetta, Gisela Dulko, and Anabel Medina Garrigues were next in the I-hate-indoors stakes (in Li’s case, because of injury; Pennetta was hurt too, and Dulko was just plain bad. But Medina Garrigues is another instance of the rule that clay- loving women hate indoors even more than they hate grass). Most indoor-dependent was Mary Pierce, but that again was injury. Of healthy players, Elena Dementieva had the highest fraction of her points indoors, followed by Tatiana Golovin, Nadia Petrova, and Samantha Stosur. The overall data for this is shown in the table on the next page.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 92 Player WTA Total Clay Grass Hard Indoor Surface Name Rank Points Points % Points Points % Points Points % Points Points % Points Deviation Bartoli 17 1124 99 8.8% 69 6.1% 784 69.8% 172 15.3% 0.278 Chakvetadze 13 1149 170 14.8% 79 6.9% 574 50.0% 326 28.4% 0.119 Clijsters 5 2215 551 24.9% 402 18.1% 770 34.8% 492 22.2% 0.143 Davenport 25 745 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 745 100.0% 0 0.0% 0.624 Déchy 51 443 156 35.2% 51 11.5% 92 20.8% 144 32.5% 0.311 Dementieva 8 2016 267 13.2% 229 11.4% 771 38.2% 749 37.2% 0.206 Dulko 61 409.75 155 37.8% 78 19.0% 170 41.5% 6.75 1.6% 0.264 Golovin 22 858 2 0.2% 38 4.4% 507 59.1% 311 36.2% 0.305 Grönefeld 19 933 576 61.7% 51 5.5% 254 27.2% 52 5.6% 0.467 Hantuchova 18 1066 164 15.4% 97 9.1% 447 41.9% 358 33.6% 0.154 Hénin-Hardenne 1 3998 1045 26.1% 687 17.2% 1741 43.5% 525 13.1% 0.111 Hingis 7 2056 574 27.9% 62 3.0% 1005 48.9% 415 20.2% 0.098 Ivanovic 14 1055 112 10.6% 126 11.9% 670 63.5% 147 13.9% 0.217 Jankovic 12 1290 196 15.2% 142 11.0% 775 60.1% 177 13.7% 0.168 Kirilenko 30 645 106 16.4% 3 0.5% 384 59.5% 152 23.6% 0.178 Kuznetsova 4 2798 1002 35.8% 150 5.4% 1281 45.8% 365 13.0% 0.164 Li Na 21 880.75 294 33.4% 191 21.7% 394.75 44.8% 1 0.1% 0.259 Likhovtseva 42 465 30 6.5% 141 30.3% 176 37.8% 118 25.4% 0.271 Mauresmo 3 3391 231 6.8% 701 20.7% 1550 45.7% 909 26.8% 0.195 Medina Garrigues 27 722 347 48.1% 63 8.7% 286 39.6% 26 3.6% 0.317 Myskina 16 1001 224 22.4% 311 31.1% 330 33.0% 136 13.6% 0.255 Peer 20 913 326 35.7% 39 4.3% 410 44.9% 138 15.1% 0.159 Pennetta 28 695 353 50.8% 97 14.0% 244 35.1% 1 0.1% 0.370 Petrova 6 2238 797 35.6% 0 0.0% 664 29.7% 777 34.7% 0.278 Pierce 79 340 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 175 51.5% 165 48.5% 0.376 Safina 11 1442 559 38.8% 147 10.2% 559 38.8% 177 12.3% 0.200 Schiavone 15 1053 324 30.8% 81 7.7% 394 37.4% 254 24.1% 0.132 Schnyder 9 1704 474 27.8% 38 2.2% 743 43.6% 449 26.3% 0.119 Sharapova 2 3532 96 2.7% 369 10.4% 2127 60.2% 940 26.6% 0.247 Srebotnik 23 837 186 22.2% 63 7.5% 331 39.5% 257 30.7% 0.126 Stosur 29 734.75 109 14.8% 53.75 7.3% 321 43.7% 251 34.2% 0.160 Sugiyama 26 724 40 5.5% 137 18.9% 502 69.3% 45 6.2% 0.329 Vaidisova 10 1393 485 34.8% 96 6.9% 512 36.8% 300 21.5% 0.163 Williams, S 95 301 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 301 100.0% 0 0.0% 0.624 Williams, V 48 447 358 80.1% 62 13.9% 2 0.4% 25 5.6% 0.755 Zvonareva 24 824 108 13.1% 147 17.8% 390 47.3% 179 21.7% 0.118

The above may be clearer if we graph it. The graph on the next page shows the fraction of her points the players earned on each of the four surfaces. For an overall analysis of surface results, see the item “Surface Preferences” on page 112.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 93 Percent of Points on Each Surface

Bartoli 9% 6% 70% 15% Chakvetadze 15% 7% 50% 28% Clijsters 25% 18% 35% 22% Davenport 0% 100% 0 Déchy 35% 12% 21% 33% Dementieva 13% 11% 38% 37% Dulko 38% 19% 41% 2% Golovin 0%4% 59% 36% Grönefeld 62% 5% 27% 6% Hantuchova 15% 9% 42% 34% Hénin-Hardenne 26% 17% 44% 13% Hingis 28% 3% 49% 20% Ivanovic 11% 12% 64% 14% Jankovic 15% 11% 60% 14% Kirilenko 16% 0% 60% 24% Kuznetsova 36% 5% 46% 13% Li Na 33% 22% 45% 0 Likhovtseva 6% 30% 38% 25% Mauresmo 7% 21% 46% 27% Medina Garrigues 48% 9% 40% 4% Myskina 22% 31% 33% 14% Peer 36% 4% 45% 15% Pennetta 51% 14% 35% 0 Petrova 36% 0% 30% 35% Pierce 0% 51% 49% Safina 39% 10% 39% 12% Schiavone 31% 8% 37% 24% Schnyder 28% 2% 44% 26% Sharapova 3%10% 60% 27% Srebotnik 22% 8% 40% 31% Stosur 15% 7% 44% 34% Sugiyama 6% 19% 69% 6% Vaidisova 35% 7% 37% 22% Williams, S. 0% 100% 0 Williams, v. 80% 14% 0%6% Zvonareva 13% 18% 47% 22% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Clay Grass Hard Indoor

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 94 Player Results Characterized The next few items attempt to describe just how players accomplished what they accomplished. Did a particular player earn most of her points at Slams? Did she earn most of her points by beating up on weak players? Did she play a particularly strong schedule? The statistics below attempt to answer at least some of those questions. Fraction of Points Earned at Slams This statistic takes a player’s Best 17 points, and her Slam points, and expresses the former as a percentage of the latter. The higher the percentage of Slam points, obviously, the more dependent on the Slams the player was. For these players overall, almost exactly a third of the points (33.2%) were earned at Slams. Standing Player Best 17 Points Slam Points Slam Pt % 1 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 3998 2176 54.4% 2Mauresmo, Amelie 3391 1810 53.4% 3Williams, Venus 447 238 53.2% 4Williams, Serena 301 158 52.5% 5 Dulko, Gisela 401.75 198 49.3% 6Davenport, Lindsay 745 348 46.7% 7 Clijsters, Kim 2215 942 42.5% 8 Jankovic, Jelena 1211 510 42.1% 9Vaidisova, Nicole 1391 568 40.8% 10 Sharapova, Maria 3532 1424 40.3% 11 Li Na 875.75 334 38.1% 12 Myskina, Anastasia 1000 368 36.8% 13 Likhovtseva, Elena 462 164 35.5% 14 Hantuchova, Daniela 986 326 33.1% 15 Safina, Dinara 1390 448 32.2% 16 Pennetta, Flavia 692 220 31.8% 17 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 2523 746 29.6% 18 Kirilenko, Maria 637 188 29.5% 19 Pierce, Mary 340 100 29.4% 20 Sugiyama, Ai 716 198 27.7% 21 Srebotnik, Katarina 819 224 27.4% 22 Peer, Shahar 894 232 26.0% 23 Schnyder, Patty 1578 404 25.6% 24 Golovin, Tatiana 857 216 25.2% 25 Zheng Jie 560.75 140 25.0% 26 Schiavone, Francesca 1032 256 24.8% 27 Ivanovic, Ana 1053 258 24.5% 28 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 922 216 23.4% 29 Hingis, Martina 2018 448 22.2% 30 Dementieva, Elena 1875 412 22.0% 31 Chakvetadze, Anna 1144 234 20.5% 32 Stosur, Samantha 685 138 20.1% 33 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 698 128 18.3% 34 Bartoli, Marion 988 176 17.8% 35 Déchy, Nathalie 435 68 15.6% 36 Krajicek, Michaella 542 68 12.5% 37 Petrova, Nadia 2189 238 10.9% 38 Zvonareva, Vera 781 68 8.7%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 95 Ratio of Round to Quality Points This table takes our highlight players, and calculates the ratio of their round points (at all events, not just their best 17) to quality points. The more quality points (i.e. the lower the ratio), the more the players are earning their points “the hard way” (by beating top players). The higher the ratio, the higher the odds that they’re taking advantage of relatively easy draws. So Davenport and Serena Williams, e.g., were facing tough going to earn their points, while Pennetta and Medina Garrigues were, well, not. For our players as a group, the Round to Quality Ratio was 2.02:1. Standing Player Round Points Qual Pts Ratio 1Davenport, Lindsay 745 578 1.29:1 2Williams, Serena 301 233 1.29:1 3 Li Na 880.75 607 1.45:1 4 Jankovic, Jelena 1290 844 1.53:1 5Williams, Venus 447 284 1.57:1 6Déchy, Nathalie 443 281 1.58:1 7Hantuchova, Daniela 1066 652 1.63:1 8Chakvetadze, Anna 1149 695 1.65:1 9 Zvonareva, Vera 824 494 1.67:1 10 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 3998 2235 1.79:1 11 Krajicek, Michaella 545 303 1.80:1 12 Vaidisova, Nicole 1393 772 1.80:1 13 Golovin, Tatiana 858 470 1.83:1 14 Sugiyama, Ai 724 393 1.84:1 15 Stosur, Samantha 734.75 395 1.86:1 16 Peer, Shahar 913 476 1.92:1 17 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 2798 1431 1.96:1 18 Zheng Jie 562.75 287 1.96:1 19 Mauresmo, Amelie 3391 1724 1.97:1 20 Safina, Dinara 1442 730 1.98:1 21 Ivanovic, Ana 1055 522 2.02:1 22 Sharapova, Maria 3532 1742 2.03:1 23 Hingis, Martina 2056 982 2.09:1 24 Schiavone, Francesca 1053 480 2.19:1 25 Pierce, Mary 340 151 2.25:1 26 Clijsters, Kim 2215 968 2.29:1 27 Srebotnik, Katarina 837 348 2.41:1 28 Petrova, Nadia 2238 901 2.48:1 29 Myskina, Anastasia 1001 401 2.50:1 30 Kirilenko, Maria 645 258 2.50:1 31 Likhovtseva, Elena 465 182 2.55:1 32 Dementieva, Elena 2016 770 2.62:1 33 Bartoli, Marion 1124 424 2.65:1 34 Schnyder, Patty 1704 637 2.68:1 35 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 933 338 2.76:1 36 Dulko, Gisela 409.75 128 3.20:1 37 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 722 214 3.37:1 38 Pennetta, Flavia 695 205 3.39:1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 96 The above is another item we can graph. The graph below shows what percentage of a player’s points would be round points, and what percentage from quality, if the WTA still awarded quality points. Players are in alphabetical order, with their rankings following their names. The median percentage is 66% round points, 34% quality points. Anyone with more than about 70% round points it probably playing too many weak events; anyone with more than 40% quality is probably suffering from a bad schedule and will likely do better next yer.

Round (%) Quality (%)

Bartoli (17) 73% 27% Chakvetadze (13) 62% 38% Clijsters (5) 70% 30% Davenport (25) 56% 44% Déchy (51) 61% 39% Dementieva (8) 72% 28% Dulko (61) 76% 24% Golovin (22) 65% 35% Grönefeld (19) 73% 27% Hantuchova (18) 62% 38% Hénin-Hardenne (1) 64% 36% Hingis (7) 68% 32% Ivanovic (14) 67% 33% Jankovic (12) 60% 40% Kirilenko (30) 71% 29% Krajicek (35) 64% 36% Kuznetsova (4) 66% 34% Li Na (21) 59% 41% Likhovtseva (42) 72% 28% Mauresmo (3) 66% 34% Medina Garrigues (27) 77% 23% Myskina (16) 71% 29% Peer (20) 66% 34% Pennetta (28) 77% 23% Petrova (6) 71% 29% Pierce (79) 69% 31% Safina (11) 66% 34% Schiavone (15) 69% 31% Schnyder (9) 73% 27% Sharapova (2) 67% 33% Srebotnik (23) 71% 29% Stosur (29) 65% 35% Sugiyama (26) 65% 35% Vaidisova (10) 64% 36% Williams, Serena (95) 56% 44% Williams, Venus (48) 61% 39% Zheng Jie (33) 66% 34% Zvonareva (24) 63% 37% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 97 Strength of Schedule (based on nominal tournament tier) The table below determines how strong a player’s schedule was based on the tier of the event. For purposes of the calculation, a Slam or the year-end Championships is treated as a 0, a Tier I is 1, a Tier II is 2, etc.; a Challenger I have treated as “Tier 8.”A top player should probably play a schedule somewhere between 1.25 and 1.6; a player with a value of 1.0 or less is simply playing too high on the schedule, and one below about 1.7 is much too weak for a top player. In that context, Bartoli, Li Na, Grönefeld, and Peer need to toughen their schedules; Venus Williams, Hénin-Hardenne, Sharapova, and possibly Mauresmo need to lighten up. Player Rank Slam Champ Tier I Tier II Tier III Tier IV Challenger Average Williams, V. 48301200 00.83 Hénin-Hardenne 1414400 00.92 Sharapova 2416310 01.00 Mauresmo 3414800 01.18 Dementieva 8418710 01.19 Clijsters 5314510 01.21 Pierce 79202400 01.25 Williams, S. 95200110 01.25 Kuznetsova 4417910 01.27 Vaidisova 10407520 01.28 Hingis 7418421 01.30 Golovin 22406620 01.33 Safina 11408720 01.33 Ivanovic 14406630 01.42 Déchy 51409930 01.44 Myskina 16406521 01.44 Likhovtseva 42406811 01.45 Chakvetadze 13407830 01.45 Petrova 6316120101.48 Davenport 25201410 01.50 Hantuchova 18407121101.52 Srebotnik 23408912 01.54 Kirilenko 30409822 01.56 Schnyder 9407104001.56 Stosur 29408931 01.56 Schiavone 15405113001.57 Sugiyama 26408841 01.60 Jankovic 12409960 01.61 Grönefeld 19409104011.75 Peer 20407624 01.78 Zheng 33406324 01.79 Zvonareva 24406833 01.79 Dulko 61407662 01.80 Pennetta 28305442 01.83 Medina Garrigues 27406862 01.85 Santangelo 31 4 0 10742 11.86 Krajicek 35403733 01.90 Li Na 21405553 01.91 Bartoli 17407106422.33 Bondarenko, A. 32407744 52.87 Müller 34403446124.33

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 98 Strength of Schedule (based on actual tournament strength) The table below determines a player’s strength of schedule by taking the Modified TSI (for which see “Tournament Strength Based on Modified TSI” on page 37) of each of her events, adding them up, an then dividing by the number of events. The higher the average, the tougher the player’s schedule. Standing Player Total Strength Events Strength Avg. WTA Rank 1Hénin-Hardenne 1049 13 80.7 1 2Mauresmo 1344 17 79.0 3 3V. Williams 445 6 74.1 48 4 Sharapova 1097 15 73.2 2 5Clijsters 991 14 70.8 5 6Kuznetsova 1554 22 70.6 4 7Dementieva 1472 21 70.1 8 8 Pierce 552 8 69.0 79 9Davenport 537 8 67.1 25 10 Petrova 1533 23 66.7 6 11 Likhovtseva 1323 20 66.1 42 12 S. Williams 258 4 64.5 95 13 Safina 1353 21 64.4 11 14 Hingis 1284 20 64.2 7 15 Golovin 1154 18 64.1 22 16 Chakvetadze 1408 22 64.0 13 17 Hantuchova 1593 25 63.7 18 18 Schiavone 1458 23 63.4 15 19 Myskina 1114 18 61.9 16 20 Ivanovic 1174 19 61.8 14 21 Schnyder 1530 25 61.2 9 22 Vaidisova 1101 18 61.2 10 23 Kirilenko 1527 25 61.1 30 24 Srebotnik 1449 24 60.4 23 25 Déchy 1487 25 59.5 51 26 Stosur 1465 25 58.6 29 27 Grönefeld 1621 28 57.9 19 28 Sugiyama 1433 25 57.3 26 29 Zvonareva 1346 24 56.1 24 30 Peer 1258 23 54.7 20 31 Santangelo 1522 28 54.3 31 32 Krajicek 1081 20 54.1 35 33 Zheng 1025 19 54.0 33 34 Jankovic 1502 28 53.6 12 35 Li Na 1177 22 53.5 21 36 Dulko 1298 25 51.9 61 37 Medina Garrigues 1331 26 51.2 27 38 Pennetta 897 18 49.8 28 39 Bartoli 1549 33 46.9 17 40 A. Bondarenko 1365 31 44.0 32 41 Müller 1063 33 32.2 34

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 99 Note that the numbers above do not measure how a player did against her schedule; they just measure what a player signed up for. We note that the total strength divided by total events for all our players combined is 58.8. On that basis, players from Hénin-Hardenne down to about Chakvetadze have schedules significantly tougher than average; players from Jankovic on down were playing relatively soft schedules for a top player. The figure for Martina Müller is almost unbelievably weak — but then, Müller spent a large fraction of the year in Challengers, and in fact it remains to be seen if she can continue to win now that she’ll be playing at the WTA level. It should be noted that a high-ranked player will inherently play a somewhat tougher schedule than a low- ranked, because she herself raises the strength score of the event. It’s worth asking just how strong this effect is. The graph below charts strength of schedule against ranking for the final Top 35. The result is striking. It turns out that, once you fall below the Top 35, there is effectively no correlation between schedule strength and ranking. But for the Top 35, the correlation coefficient is .76,

Strength of Schedule versus Ranking

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

Strenght of Schedule 30

20

10

0 051015 20 25 30 35 Player Year-End Ranking

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 100 Average Round Reached The table below shows the typical level of success for each player, as shown by how far she went in hte tournament. The table lists the number of titles, finals, semifinals, quarterfinals, earlier losses, and opening- round losses for each player. To take the average, we assign a “0” for an opening round loss, “1” for an early loss (in any round before the quarterfinal), “2” for a quarterfinal, “3” for a semifinal, “4” for a final, and “5” for a title. From that, we calculate the average round reached. This is in the next-to-last column. The final column gives an approximation, in words, of what the number means. 1R Early QF SF F Titles Avg Rnd Typical Player Rank Events Losses Losses Reached Reached Reached Won Reached result Hénin-Hardenne 1 131002464.00 Final Sharapova 2 150116253.60 not quite F Mauresmo 3 172143342.94 not quite SF Clijsters 5 142115232.93 not quite SF Kuznetsova 4 221448232.68 not quite SF Hingis 7 201663222.25 better than QF Petrova 6 237252252.22 better than QF Dementieva 8 213384122.14 better than QF Davenport 25 81132102.13 better than QF S. Williams 95 40202002.00 Quarterfinal Schnyder 9 255576201.80 not quite QF Safina 11 213592201.76 not quite QF Vaidisova 10 184616011.72 not quite QF V. Williams 48 61221001.50 about R16 Bartoli 17 33 10 1431141.42 about R16 Ivanovic 14 193870011.42 about R16 Zvonareva 24 248841121.38 about R16 Peer 20 23 7 1111031.35 about R16 Myskina 16 187521301.33 about R16 Schiavone 15 237850301.30 about R16 Jankovic 12 289864101.29 about R16 Pennetta 28 187611301.28 about R16 Chakvetadze 13 22 7 1012021.27 about R16 Krajicek 35 20 10413021.25 mostly early L Li Na 21 226861101.23 mostly early L Golovin 22 187523101.22 mostly early L Zheng 33 197820021.16 mostly early L Pierce 79 83310101.13 mostly early L Medina Garrigues 27 26 11 1011121.12 mostly early L Hantuchova 18 25 5 1621101.08 mostly early L Stosur 29 25 6 1431101.08 mostly early L Grönefeld 19 28 13752011.00 mostly early L Srebotnik 23 24 6 1511101.00 mostly early L Santangelo 31 28 11 1231010.93 very early L Sugiyama 26 25 11931100.88 very early L Kirilenko 30 25 11 1040000.72 very early L Likhovtseva 42 209830000.70 very early L Déchy 51 25 14830000.56 very early L Dulko 61 25 15730000.52 very early L

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 101 Quality of Wins The table below looks at the types of wins for our highlight players. Justine Hénin-Hardenne, for instance, had 56 total wins. Ten of these were over players who were Top Five at the time. Four others were over players who were Top Ten but not Top Five. Twelve were over players ranked #11-#20, seven were over players ranked #21-#30, six were over players ranked #31-#50, and 17 were over players ranked below the Top Fifty. The percent of her wins that fall in each category are also shown in this box. The last two columns require some additional explanation; they attempt to measure the quality of each player’s wins. The “average win” column calculates the average ranking of the opponents she beat; the lower, of course, the better. The “Median” Category is a calculation of the approximate “middle” opponent the player faced. Again, the lower, the better — it means the player is beating top opponents. Player Rank Wins Top 5 Top 10 Top 20 Top 30 Top 50 Other Average Median Wins Wins Wins Wins Wins Wins Win Category Hénin-Hardenne 1 56 10 (18%) 4 (7%) 12 (21%) 7 (13%) 6 (11%) 17 (30%) 34 28 Sharapova 2 59 6 (10%) 8 (14%) 6 (10%) 8 (14%) 11 (19%) 20 (34%) 39 34 Mauresmo 3 50 5 (10%) 8 (16%) 7 (14%) 5 (10%) 13 (26%) 12 (24%) 34 30 Kuznetsova 4 60 5 (8%) 3 (5%) 11 (18%) 10 (17%) 11 (18%) 20 (33%) 40 36 Clijsters 5 40 1 (3%) 5 (13%) 9 (23%) 6 (15%) 7 (18%) 12 (30%) 38 35 Petrova 6 48 3 (6%) 2 (4%) 9 (19%) 7 (15%) 7 (15%) 20 (42%) 44 40 Hingis 7 53 3 (6%) 2 (4%) 12 (23%) 7 (13%) 5 (9%) 24 (45%) 45 41 Dementieva 8 44 2 (5%) 1 (2%) 6 (14%) 8 (18%) 5 (11%) 22 (50%) 49 46 Schnyder 9 45 1 (2%) 2 (4%) 1 (2%) 5 (11%) 11 (24%) 25 (56%) 55 54 Vaidisova 10 35 2 (6%) 0 (0%) 5 (14%) 1 (3%) 9 (26%) 18 (51%) 52 49 Safina 11 44 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 3 (7%) 3 (7%) 11 (25%) 23 (52%) 52 50 Jankovic 12 45 0 (0%) 4 (9%) 5 (11%) 4 (9%) 13 (29%) 19 (42%) 48 47 Chakvetadze 13 36 0 (0%) 5 (14%) 5 (14%) 6 (17%) 5 (14%) 15 (42%) 44 41 Ivanovic 14 35 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 4 (11%) 4 (11%) 10 (29%) 15 (43%) 48 48 Schiavone 15 34 0 (0%) 2 (6%) 4 (12%) 1 (3%) 7 (21%) 20 (59%) 55 54 Myskina 16 31 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 4 (13%) 7 (23%) 18 (58%) 57 57 Bartoli 17 51 0 (0%) 3 (6%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 6 (12%) 40 (78%) 65 64 Hantuchova 18 34 1 (3%) 3 (9%) 2 (6%) 6 (18%) 5 (15%) 17 (50%) 49 46 Grönefeld 19 30 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 2 (7%) 3 (10%) 3 (10%) 21 (70%) 60 59 Peer 20 38 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 5 (13%) 1 (3%) 2 (5%) 29 (76%) 62 60 Li Na 21 39 0 (0%) 2 (5%) 5 (13%) 3 (8%) 5 (13%) 24 (62%) 55 53 Golovin 22 25 0 (0%) 4 (16%) 3 (12%) 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 14 (56%) 51 46 Srebotnik 23 30 0 (0%) 2 (7%) 1 (3%) 3 (10%) 7 (23%) 17 (57%) 55 55 Zvonareva 24 37 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 4 (11%) 7 (19%) 7 (19%) 18 (49%) 50 49 Davenport 25 21 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 3 (14%) 5 (24%) 2 (10%) 9 (43%) 45 41 Sugiyama 26 28 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 4 (14%) 3 (11%) 1 (4%) 19 (68%) 57 54 Medina Garrigues 27 34 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 4 (12%) 29 (85%) 69 71 Pennetta 28 29 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (7%) 2 (7%) 25 (86%) 69 70 Stosur 29 33 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 3 (9%) 4 (12%) 3 (9%) 22 (67%) 58 57 Kirilenko 30 23 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 1 (4%) 5 (22%) 15 (65%) 60 60 Santangelo 31 34 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 3 (9%) 7 (21%) 23 (68%) 62 63 Zheng 33 26 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (12%) 3 (12%) 2 (8%) 18 (69%) 60 59 Krajicek 35 27 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 3 (11%) 2 (7%) 6 (22%) 15 (56%) 54 54 Likhovtseva 42 16 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6%) 3 (19%) 2 (13%) 10 (63%) 58 58 Williams, V 48 13 0 (0%) 2 (15%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 3 (23%) 6 (46%) 48 45 Déchy 51 16 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 0 (0%) 4 (25%) 1 (6%) 9 (56%) 52 48 Pierce 79 9 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 0 (0%) 2 (22%) 2 (22%) 4 (44%) 49 48 Williams, S 95 12 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (33%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 6 (50%) 48 45

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 102 If we want to take the above data and rank players based on the toughness of their opponents, the lists are shown below. As usual, Medina Garrigues is Tail End Clay Freak, and the players at the top of the list are mostly the usual suspects — but note where Chakvetadze ends up. Based on increasingly difficult Average Win Based on increasing Median Category Player Rank Average Win Player Rank Median Categor Mauresmo 3 34 Hénin-Hardenne 1 28 Hénin-Hardenne 1 34 Mauresmo 3 30 Clijsters 5 38 Sharapova 2 34 Sharapova 2 39 Clijsters 5 35 Kuznetsova 4 40 Kuznetsova 4 36 Petrova 6 44 Petrova 6 40 Chakvetadze 13 44 Hingis 7 41 Davenport 25 45 Chakvetadze 13 41 Hingis 7 45 Davenport 25 41 Jankovic 12 48 Williams, S 95 45 Williams, S 95 48 Williams, V 48 45 Williams, V 48 48 Dementieva 8 46 Ivanovic 14 48 Golovin 22 46 Pierce 79 49 Hantuchova 18 46 Dementieva 8 49 Jankovic 12 47 Hantuchova 18 49 Déchy 51 48 Zvonareva 24 50 Ivanovic 14 48 Golovin 22 51 Pierce 79 48 Déchy 51 52 Vaidisova 10 49 Vaidisova 10 52 Zvonareva 24 49 Safina 11 52 Safina 11 50 Krajicek 35 54 Li Na 21 53 Schnyder 9 55 Schiavone 15 54 Schiavone 15 55 Krajicek 35 54 Srebotnik 23 55 Schnyder 9 54 Li Na 21 55 Sugiyama 26 54 Myskina 16 57 Srebotnik 23 55 Sugiyama 26 57 Stosur 29 57 Likhovtseva 42 58 Myskina 16 57 Stosur 29 58 Likhovtseva 42 58 Zheng 33 60 Zheng 33 59 Kirilenko 30 60 Grönefeld 19 59 Grönefeld 19 60 Kirilenko 30 60 Santangelo 31 62 Peer 20 60 Peer 20 62 Santangelo 31 63 Bartoli 17 65 Bartoli 17 64 Pennetta 28 69 Pennetta 28 70 Medina Garrigues 27 69 Medina Garrigues 27 71

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 103 Finally, we can of course graph these wins, to give an idea of just how each player performed.

Types of Wins

Hénin- Sharapova Mauresmo Kuznetsova Clijsters Petrova Hingis Dementieva Schnyder Vaidisova Safina Jankovic Chakvetadz Ivanovic Schiavone Myskina Bartoli Hantuchova Grönefeld Peer

Player Li Na Golovin Srebotnik Zvonareva Davenport Sugiyama Medina Pennetta Stosur Kirilenko Santangelo Zheng Krajicek Likhovtseva Williams, V Déchy Pierce Williams, S 0102030405060 Number of Wins

Top 5 Wins Top 10 Wins Top 20 Wins Top 30 Wins Top 50 Wins Other Wins

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 104 Quality of Losses The equivalent of the preceding set of statistics, but for losses rather than wins. I break losses into those to Top Five players, other Top Ten players, other Top Twenty players, other Top Thirty players, other Top Fifty players, other Top 100 players, and non-Top 100 players. Again, the higher the average and median wins, the better. Player Rank Losses Top 5 Top 10 Top 20 Top 30 Top 50 Top 100 Other Average Median Losses Losses Losses Losses Losses Losses Losses Loss Category Hénin-Hardenne 1 8 5 (63%) 2 (25%) — (0%) — (0%) — (0%) 1 (13%) — (0%) 13 9 Sharapova 2 9 2 (22%) 3 (33%) 2 (22%) — (0%) — (0%) 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 29 20 Mauresmo 3 13 3 (23%) 3 (23%) 5 (38%) 2 (15%) — (0%) — (0%) — (0%) 12 15 Kuznetsova 4 20 6 (30%) 4 (20%) 6 (30%) 3 (15%) 1 (5%) — (0%) — (0%) 13 15 Clijsters 5 11 8 (73%) — (0%) 1 (9%) — (0%) — (0%) 1 (9%) 1 (9%) 22 12 Petrova 6 18 5 (28%) 1 (6%) 1 (6%) 5 (28%) 4 (22%) 2 (11%) — (0%) 26 24 Hingis 7 19 10 (53%) 2 (11%) 3 (16%) 2 (11%) — (0%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 18 13 Dementieva 8 20 6 (30%) 4 (20%) 2 (10%) 5 (25%) — (0%) 3 (15%) — (0%) 21 19 Schnyder 9 24 5 (21%) 4 (17%) 6 (25%) 4 (17%) 1 (4%) 3 (13%) 1 (4%) 26 22 Vaidisova 10 16 5 (31%) 2 (13%) 2 (13%) 4 (25%) 2 (13%) — (0%) 1 (6%) 23 20 Safina 11 21 6 (29%) 1 (5%) 4 (19%) 3 (14%) 2 (10%) 4 (19%) 1 (5%) 32 25 Jankovic 12 27 7 (26%) 1 (4%) 6 (22%) 2 (7%) 4 (15%) 5 (19%) 2 (7%) 36 27 Chakvetadze 13 20 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 7 (35%) 2 (10%) 2 (10%) 5 (25%) 1 (5%) 38 30 Ivanovic 14 18 3 (17%) 3 (17%) 2 (11%) 2 (11%) 3 (17%) 5 (28%) — (0%) 34 28 Schiavone 15 23 4 (17%) 3 (13%) 1 (4%) 6 (26%) 1 (4%) 6 (26%) 2 (9%) 41 30 Myskina 16 18 4 (22%) 3 (17%) 1 (6%) 3 (17%) 3 (17%) — (0%) 4 (22%) 43 28 Bartoli 17 29 4 (14%) 1 (3%) 4 (14%) 5 (17%) 6 (21%) 6 (21%) 3 (10%) 45 36 Hantuchova 18 25 5 (20%) 1 (4%) 6 (24%) 1 (4%) 5 (20%) 5 (20%) 2 (8%) 39 29 Grönefeld 19 27 3 (11%) 5 (19%) 4 (15%) — (0%) 4 (15%) 8 (30%) 3 (11%) 47 34 Peer 20 20 4 (20%) 3 (15%) 2 (10%) 2 (10%) 6 (30%) 3 (15%) — (0%) 29 26 Li Na 21 21 7 (33%) 3 (14%) 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 3 (14%) 3 (14%) 38 24 Golovin 22 18 4 (22%) 3 (17%) 1 (6%) 4 (22%) 3 (17%) 2 (11%) 1 (6%) 31 25 Srebotnik 23 24 1 (4%) 3 (13%) 8 (33%) 2 (8%) 4 (17%) 5 (21%) 1 (4%) 36 30 Zvonareva 24 22 7 (32%) 2 (9%) 4 (18%) — (0%) 2 (9%) 2 (9%) 5 (23%) 45 26 Davenport 25 8 5 (63%) 1 (13%) — (0%) — (0%) 2 (25%) — (0%) — (0%) 13 11 Sugiyama 26 25 2 (8%) 3 (12%) 3 (12%) 3 (12%) 6 (24%) 4 (16%) 4 (16%) 49 39 Medina Garrigu 27 24 2 (8%) 2 (8%) 5 (21%) 5 (21%) — (0%) 8 (33%) 2 (8%) 45 36 Pennetta 28 18 1 (6%) — (0%) 3 (17%) 4 (22%) 3 (17%) 6 (33%) 1 (6%) 47 43 Stosur 29 26 6 (23%) 1 (4%) 4 (15%) 4 (15%) 3 (12%) 5 (19%) 3 (12%) 42 29 Kirilenko 30 25 3 (12%) 2 (8%) 3 (12%) 5 (20%) 4 (16%) 4 (16%) 4 (16%) 47 36 Santangelo 31 28 3 (11%) 4 (14%) 5 (18%) 1 (4%) 6 (21%) 7 (25%) 2 (7%) 42 33 Zheng 33 17 2 (12%) — (0%) 5 (29%) 1 (6%) 2 (12%) 3 (18%) 4 (24%) 55 41 Krajicek 35 18 2 (11%) 3 (17%) 3 (17%) 2 (11%) 3 (17%) 3 (17%) 2 (11%) 41 30 Likhovtseva 42 20 4 (20%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 3 (15%) 2 (10%) 6 (30%) 2 (10%) 46 34 Williams, V 48 6 — (0%) 1 (17%) 1 (17%) 2 (33%) — (0%) 2 (33%) — (0%) 37 33 Déchy 51 25 — (0%) 4 (16%) 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 8 (32%) 9 (36%) 1 (4%) 48 45 Pierce 79 8 2 (25%) — (0%) 1 (13%) 3 (38%) 1 (13%) 1 (13%) — (0%) 26 25 Williams, S 95 4 1 (25%) — (0%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) 1 (25%) — (0%) — (0%) 21 23

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 105 As we did with wins, we can sort these by quality of average losses. Here, the most interesting results may be the high “toughness” faced by Hingis and Davenport and the surprisingly easy losses for Sharapova. Based on increasingly difficult Average L Based on increasing Median Category Player Rank Average Win Player Rank Median Categor Mauresmo 3 12 Hénin-Hardenne 1 9 Kuznetsova 4 13 Davenport 25 11 Davenport 25 13 Clijsters 5 12 Hénin-Hardenne 1 13 Hingis 7 13 Hingis 7 18 Kuznetsova 4 15 Williams, S 95 21 Mauresmo 3 15 Dementieva 8 21 Dementieva 8 19 Clijsters 5 22 Sharapova 2 20 Vaidisova 10 23 Vaidisova 10 20 Petrova 6 26 Schnyder 9 22 Schnyder 9 26 Williams, S 95 23 Pierce 79 26 Li Na 21 24 Peer 20 29 Petrova 6 24 Sharapova 2 29 Safina 11 25 Golovin 22 31 Golovin 22 25 Safina 11 32 Pierce 79 25 Ivanovic 14 34 Peer 20 26 Jankovic 12 36 Zvonareva 24 26 Srebotnik 23 36 Jankovic 12 27 Williams, V 48 37 Ivanovic 14 28 Chakvetadze 13 38 Myskina 16 28 Li Na 21 38 Hantuchova 18 29 Hantuchova 18 39 Stosur 29 29 Krajicek 35 41 Chakvetadze 13 30 Schiavone 15 41 Schiavone 15 30 Stosur 29 42 Srebotnik 23 30 Santangelo 31 42 Krajicek 35 30 Myskina 16 43 Santangelo 31 33 Bartoli 17 45 Williams, V 48 33 Zvonareva 24 45 Likhovtseva 42 34 Medina Garrigues 27 45 Grönefeld 19 34 Likhovtseva 42 46 Medina Garrigues 27 36 Grönefeld 19 47 Bartoli 17 36 Pennetta 28 47 Kirilenko 30 36 Kirilenko 30 47 Sugiyama 26 39 Déchy 51 48 Zheng 33 41 Sugiyama 26 49 Pennetta 28 43 Zheng 33 55 Déchy 51 45

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 106 Let’s graph the losses. Types of Losses

Hénin-Hardenne Sharapova Mauresmo Kuznetsova Clijsters Petrova Hingis Dementieva Schnyder Vaidisova Safina Jankovic Chakvetadze Ivanovic Schiavone Myskina Bartoli Hantuchova Grönefeld Peer Player Li Na Golovin Srebotnik Zvonareva Davenport Sugiyama Medina Garrigues Pennetta Stosur Kirilenko Santangelo Zheng Krajicek Likhovtseva Williams, V Déchy Pierce Williams, S

051015 20 25 30 Number of Losses Top 5 L Top 10 L Top 20 L Top 30 L Top 50 L Top 100 L Non-Top 100

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 107 Success During the First and Second Half of the Year This is mostly a measure of “trends” — of players who did significantly better, or worse, in the first or the second half of the year. There can be a lot of reasons for this, of course — Nadia Petrova probably did better in the first half than in the second because she got hurt; Jelena Jankovic did better in the second half because she finally got her strength back; Anabel Medina Garrigues did better in the first half because there is more clay in the spring; Anna-Lena Grönefeld also prefers clay and she lost her confidence; Martina Hingis ran out of gas (and perhaps suffered from anaemia) in the second half. It is left to the reader to try to figure out the reasons; we’ll just offer the data. The first half of the year is defined as running from January 1 to the end of Roland Garros on June 12 (note that, in the case of Marion Bartoli, this means we leave off some points from the Challengers she played in late 2005). The second half of the year runs from Birmingham to Madrid. It turns out that this is, indeed, almost exactly half the year in terms of points: The players who ended the year in the Top Thirty earned 21965.75 points in the first half, 21994.75 in the second — a difference of 29 points out of more than 43,000 they collectively earned. That’s less than one part in a thousand! So a player whose ratio of first half to second half points differs significantly from 1:1 is unbalanced for some reason. The table on the next page attempts to make that clear: It lists the player’s WTA ranking, her name, her first half points, her second half points, and the ratio, first half to second half. So, for example, #1 Justine Hénin-Hardenne earned 2099 points in the first half of the year, 1899 in the second half. Since she earned more points in the first half (due probably to a limited second-half schedule; she doesn’t lie indoor surfaces much), her ratio is 1.11:1 — i.e. she earned 1.11 times as many points in the first half as the second. Note that we count every point earned in the first or second half, whether they count toward a player’s Best 17 or not. And, of course, the “expected’ ratio of first to second half points is 1:1. All ratios are expressed with respect to 1 — that is, 1.11:1, 0.95:1, etc. If the number to the left is larger than 1, then the player had a better first half; if it is less than one, then the player had a better second half. The amount of variation is extreme; as a rough rule of thumb, a player whose ratio falls between 0.6:1 and 1.5:1 can be considered fairly normal. Anything beyond those extremes is clearly unbalanced. If you prefer to think in terms of percentages instead of ratios, the graph that follows the table expresses its figures in percents rather than as a ratio.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 108 Rank Player First Half Pts Second Half Pts Ratio 1 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 2099 1899 1.11:1 2 Sharapova, Maria 1270 2262 0.56:1 3Mauresmo, Amelie 1671 1720 0.97:1 4Kuznetsova, Svetlana 1684 1114 1.51:1 5 Clijsters, Kim 1052 1163 0.90:1 6 Petrova, Nadia 1483 755 1.96:1 7 Hingis, Martina 1334 722 1.85:1 8 Dementieva, Elena 982 1034 0.95:1 9 Schnyder, Patty 864 840 1.03:1 10 Vaidisova, Nicole 745 648 1.15:1 11 Safina, Dinara 857 585 1.46:1 12 Jankovic, Jelena 239 1051 0.23:1 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 303 846 0.36:1 14 Ivanovic, Ana 395 660 0.60:1 15 Schiavone, Francesca 631 422 1.50:1 16 Myskina, Anastasia 617 384 1.61:1 17 Bartoli, Marion 360 692 0.52:1 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 504 562 0.90:1 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 745 188 3.96:1 20 Peer, Shahar 514 399 1.29:1 21 Li Na 463.75 417 1.11:1 22 Golovin, Tatiana 333 525 0.63:1 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 334 503 0.66:1 24 Zvonareva, Vera 200 624 0.32:1 25 Davenport, Lindsay 318 427 0.74:1 26 Sugiyama, Ai 266 458 0.58:1 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 408 314 1.30:1 28 Pennetta, Flavia 529 166 3.19:1 29 Stosur, Samantha 317 417.75 0.76:1 30 Kirilenko, Maria 448 197 2.27:1 33 Zheng Jie 311 251.75 1.24:1 35 Krajicek, Michaella 252 293 0.86:1 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 217 248 0.88:1 48 Williams, Venus 360 87 4.14:1 51 Déchy, Nathalie 186 257 0.72:1 61 Dulko, Gisela 276 133.75 2.06:1 79 Pierce, Mary 175 165 1.06:1 95 Williams, Serena 62 239 0.26:1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 109 And here is the graph of the above:

First Half versus Second Half Points

Hénin-Hardenne (#1) 52.5% 47.5% Sharapova (#2) 36.0% 64.0% Mauresmo (#3) 49.3% 50.7% Kuznetsova (#4) 60.2% 39.8% Clijsters (#5) 47.5% 52.5% Petrova (#6) 66.3% 33.7% Hingis (#7) 64.9% 35.1% Dementieva (#8) 48.7% 51.3% Schnyder (#9) 50.7% 49.3% Vaidisova (#10) 53.5% 46.5% Safina (#11) 59.4% 40.6% Jankovic (#12) 18.5% 81.5% Chakvetadze (#13) 26.4% 73.6% Ivanovic (#14) 37.4% 62.6% Schiavone (#15) 59.9% 40.1% Myskina (#16) 61.6% 38.4% Bartoli (#17) 34.2% 65.8% Hantuchova (#18) 47.3% 52.7% Grönefeld (#19) 79.8% 20.2% Peer (#20) 56.3% 43.7% Player Li Na (#21) 52.7% 47.3% Golovin (#22) 38.8% 61.2% Srebotnik (#23) 39.9% 60.1% Zvonareva (#24) 24.3% 75.7% Davenport (#25) 42.7% 57.3% Sugiyama (#26) 36.7% 63.3% Medina Garrigues (#27) 56.5% 43.5% Pennetta (#28) 76.1% 23.9% Stosur (#29) 43.1% 56.9% Kirilenko (#30) 69.5% 30.5% Zheng Jie (#33) 55.3% 44.7% Krajicek (#35) 46.2% 53.8% Likhovtseva (#42) 46.7% 53.3% V. Williams (#48) 80.5% 19.5% Déchy (#51) 42.0% 58.0% Dulko (#61) 67.4% 32.6% Pierce (#79) 51.5% 48.5% S. Williams (#95) 20.6% 79.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Points

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 110 We can, incidentally, sort this data to see who has the most extreme “half preference.” That table is shown below, with the players at the top having the most extreme first half preference; those at the bottom did better in the second half. Rank Player First Half Pts Second Half Pts Ratio 48 Williams, Venus 360 87 4.14:1 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 745 188 3.96:1 28 Pennetta, Flavia 529 166 3.19:1 30 Kirilenko, Maria 448 197 2.27:1 61 Dulko, Gisela 276 133.75 2.06:1 6 Petrova, Nadia 1483 755 1.96:1 7 Hingis, Martina 1334 722 1.85:1 16 Myskina, Anastasia 617 384 1.61:1 4Kuznetsova, Svetlana 1684 1114 1.51:1 15 Schiavone, Francesca 631 422 1.50:1 11 Safina, Dinara 857 585 1.46:1 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 408 314 1.30:1 20 Peer, Shahar 514 399 1.29:1 33 Zheng Jie 311 251.75 1.24:1 10 Vaidisova, Nicole 745 648 1.15:1 21 Li Na 463.75 417 1.11:1 1 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 2099 1899 1.11:1 79 Pierce, Mary 175 165 1.06:1 9 Schnyder, Patty 864 840 1.03:1 3Mauresmo, Amelie 1671 1720 0.97:1 8 Dementieva, Elena 982 1034 0.95:1 5 Clijsters, Kim 1052 1163 0.90:1 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 504 562 0.90:1 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 217 248 0.88:1 35 Krajicek, Michaella 252 293 0.86:1 29 Stosur, Samantha 317 417.75 0.76:1 25 Davenport, Lindsay 318 427 0.74:1 51 Déchy, Nathalie 186 257 0.72:1 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 334 503 0.66:1 22 Golovin, Tatiana 333 525 0.63:1 14 Ivanovic, Ana 395 660 0.60:1 26 Sugiyama, Ai 266 458 0.58:1 2 Sharapova, Maria 1270 2262 0.56:1 17 Bartoli, Marion 360 692 0.52:1 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 303 846 0.36:1 24 Zvonareva, Vera 200 624 0.32:1 95 Williams, Serena 62 239 0.26:1 12 Jankovic, Jelena 239 1051 0.23:1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 111 Surface Preferences The section on surfaces (page 74) gave us much detail on players’ surface preferences. It did not, however, give us one grand overview. Let’s offer a few statistics on that subject. The data here is based on the points on each surface; for this, see the section “Percentage of Points on Each Surface” on page 92. The table below sorts the players based on their degree of balance, as shown in the table following page 92. Player Name WTA % of pts % on % on % Deviation Degree of Balance Rank on clay grass hard indoor Hingis, Martina 7 27.9% 3.0% 48.9% 20.2% 0.098 VERY BALANCED Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 1 26.1% 17.2% 43.5% 13.1% 0.111 Balanced Zvonareva, Vera 24 13.1% 17.8% 47.3% 21.7% 0.118 Balanced Schnyder, Patty 9 27.8% 2.2% 43.6% 26.3% 0.119 Balanced Chakvetadze, Anna 13 14.8% 6.9% 50.0% 28.4% 0.119 Balanced Srebotnik, Katarina 23 22.2% 7.5% 39.5% 30.7% 0.126 Balanced Schiavone, Francesca 15 30.8% 7.7% 37.4% 24.1% 0.132 Balanced Clijsters, Kim 5 24.9% 18.1% 34.8% 22.2% 0.143 Balanced Hantuchova, Daniela 18 15.4% 9.1% 41.9% 33.6% 0.154 Mildly Unbalanced Peer, Shahar 20 35.7% 4.3% 44.9% 15.1% 0.159 Mildly Unbalanced Stosur, Samantha 29 14.8% 7.3% 43.7% 34.2% 0.160 Mildly Unbalanced Vaidisova, Nicole 10 34.8% 6.9% 36.8% 21.5% 0.163 Mildly Unbalanced Kuznetsova, Svetlana 4 35.8% 5.4% 45.8% 13.0% 0.164 Mildly Unbalanced Jankovic, Jelena 12 15.2% 11.0% 60.1% 13.7% 0.168 Mildly Unbalanced Kirilenko, Maria 30 16.4% 0.5% 59.5% 23.6% 0.178 Mildly Unbalanced Mauresmo, Amelie 3 6.8% 20.7% 45.7% 26.8% 0.195 Mildly Unbalanced Safina, Dinara 11 38.8% 10.2% 38.8% 12.3% 0.200 Mildly Unbalanced Dementieva, Elena 8 13.2% 11.4% 38.2% 37.2% 0.206 Mildly Unbalanced Ivanovic, Ana 14 10.6% 11.9% 63.5% 13.9% 0.217 Mildly Unbalanced Sharapova, Maria 2 2.7% 10.4% 60.2% 26.6% 0.247 Mildly Unbalanced Myskina, Anastasia 16 22.4% 31.1% 33.0% 13.6% 0.255 Mildly Unbalanced Li Na 21 33.4% 21.7% 44.8% 0.1% 0.259 Mildly Unbalanced Dulko, Gisela 61 37.8% 19.0% 41.5% 1.6% 0.264 Mildly Unbalanced Likhovtseva, Elena 42 6.5% 30.3% 37.8% 25.4% 0.271 Mildly Unbalanced Petrova, Nadia 6 35.6% 0.0% 29.7% 34.7% 0.278 Mildly Unbalanced Bartoli, Marion 17 8.8% 6.1% 69.8% 15.3% 0.278 Mildly Unbalanced Golovin, Tatiana 22 0.2% 4.4% 59.1% 36.2% 0.305 UNBALANCED Déchy, Nathalie 51 35.2% 11.5% 20.8% 32.5% 0.311 UNBALANCED Medina Garrigues, Anabel 27 48.1% 8.7% 39.6% 3.6% 0.317 UNBALANCED Sugiyama, Ai 26 5.5% 18.9% 69.3% 6.2% 0.329 UNBALANCED Pennetta, Flavia 28 50.8% 14.0% 35.1% 0.1% 0.370 UNBALANCED Pierce, Mary 79 0.0% 0.0% 51.5% 48.5% 0.376 UNBALANCED Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 19 61.7% 5.5% 27.2% 5.6% 0.467 VERY UNBALANCED Davenport, Lindsay 25 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.624 VERY UNBALANCED Williams, Serena 95 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.624 VERY UNBALANCED Williams, Venus 48 80.1% 13.9% 0.4% 5.6% 0.755 VERY UNBALANCED

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 112 Player Surface Biases Knowing whether a player is balanced or unbalanced is interesting, but it doesn’t tell us her actual surface preferences. The table below does that, showing the surfaces where a player earned an unusually high or low fraction of her points. In the table below, a player is biased toward a surface if her fraction of points on that surface is at least half again the average for the top players. She is biased heavily toward a surface if her points on that surface are twice the top player average. A player is biased against a surface if her points on that surface are less than two-thirds the top player average, and is heavily biased against it if her points are less than half the top player average. Note that a player can have some biases and still be balanced overall. The “bias” shown below takes one surface at a time, whereas deviation measured above is based on all four surfaces simultaneously (meaning that a player who is significantly off-balance on all four surfaces, without a bias on a particular surface, may show more deviation than a player who has one relatively good or bad surface but who is otherwise fairly balanced). As it turns out, only two players — Schiavone and Srebotnik — have no biases at all. To try to make it clearer the level of bias for each player, I’ve put one bias on each line. So the shorter the entry below, the more nearly balanced the player. Players with only one bias are shown in BOLD. Except for the handful of much-injured players, there are few real surprises here — e.g. Grönefeld likes clay. Hingis dislikes grass, and Schnyder likes it even less. Sharapova hates clay. Petrova likes clay and indoors. It’s odd to see Hénin-Hardenne without a bias toward clay, but that’s because she’s fairly balanced. Myskina’s dislike of indoors is the result of her year-end collapse. Player WTA Clay Grass Hard Indoor Bias Toward Bias Against Rank % % % % Bartoli 17 8.8% 6.1% 69.8% 15.3% HARD heavy against CLAY GRASS Chakvetadze 13 14.8% 6.9% 50.0% 28.4% CLAY GRASS Clijsters 5 24.9% 18.1% 34.8% 22.2% GRASS Davenport 25 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% heavy toward HARD heavy against CLAY heavy against GRASS heavy against INDR Déchy 51 35.2% 11.5% 20.8% 32.5% CLAY INDR heavy against HARD Dementieva 8 13.2% 11.4% 38.2% 37.2% INDR CLAY Dulko 61 37.8% 19.0% 41.5% 1.6% CLAY GRASS heavy against INDR Golovin 22 0.2% 4.4% 59.1% 36.2% INDR heavy against CLAY heavy against GRASS Grönefeld 19 61.7% 5.5% 27.2% 5.6% heavy toward CLAY GRASS HARD heavy against INDR Hantuchova 18 15.4% 9.1% 41.9% 33.6% INDR Hénin-Hardenne 1 26.1% 17.2% 43.5% 13.1% GRASS INDR Hingis 7 27.9% 3.0% 48.9% 20.2% heavy against GRASS Ivanovic 14 10.6% 11.9% 63.5% 13.9% heavy against CLAY

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 113 Jankovic 12 15.2% 11.0% 60.1% 13.7% INDR Kirilenko 30 16.4% 0.5% 59.5% 23.6% heavy against GRASS Kuznetsova 4 35.8% 5.4% 45.8% 13.0% CLAY GRASS INDR Li Na 21 33.4% 21.7% 44.8% 0.1% heavy toward GRASS heavy against INDR Likhovtseva 42 6.5% 30.3% 37.8% 25.4% heavy toward GRASS heavy against CLAY Mauresmo 3 6.8% 20.7% 45.7% 26.8% GRASS heavy against CLAY Medina Garrigues 27 48.1% 8.7% 39.6% 3.6% heavy toward CLAY heavy against INDR Myskina 16 22.4% 31.1% 33.0% 13.6% heavy toward GRASS INDR Peer 20 35.7% 4.3% 44.9% 15.1% CLAY heavy against GRASS Pennetta 28 50.8% 14.0% 35.1% 0.1% heavy toward CLAY heavy against INDR Petrova 6 35.6% 0.0% 29.7% 34.7% CLAY INDR heavy against GRASS HARD Pierce 79 0.0% 0.0% 51.5% 48.5% heavy toward INDR heavy against CLAY heavy against GRASS Safina 11 38.8% 10.2% 38.8% 12.3% CLAY INDR Schiavone 15 30.8% 7.7% 37.4% 24.1% Schnyder 9 27.8% 2.2% 43.6% 26.3% heavy against GRASS Sharapova 2 2.7% 10.4% 60.2% 26.6% heavy against CLAY Srebotnik 23 22.2% 7.5% 39.5% 30.7% Stosur 29 14.8% 7.3% 43.7% 34.2% INDR CLAY Sugiyama 26 5.5% 18.9% 69.3% 6.2% GRASS heavy against CLAY heavy against INDR Vaidisova 10 34.8% 6.9% 36.8% 21.5% CLAY GRASS S. Williams 95 0.0% 0.0% 100% 0.0% heavy toward HARD heavy against CLAY heavy against GRASS heavy against INDR V. Williams 48 80.1% 13.9% 0.4% 5.6% heavy toward CLAY heavy against HARD heavy against INDR Zvonareva 24 13.1% 17.8% 47.3% 21.7% GRASS CLAY

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 114 Alternate Rankings To justify this section, we should perhaps start at the very beginning, and ask, “What is a ranking system?” It’s pretty easy to rank two and only two players. Surely we can agree that, if player A beats player B in most of their meetings, and they never play others, then player A is better, right? Well, that gives us a way of ranking a whole bunch of players: The ideal ranking system is the one in which the rankings of all players most accurately reflects the -to-head results of each individual pair of players. Or, to put it another way, for all pairs of players A and B, the ranking system is the ordering of players for which, if A>B (that is, if A wins the largest share of her matches against B), then A is ranked ahead of B for the highest number of pairs of players. An obvious concept, but a very difficult one to calculate. For one thing, these relationships are not transitive. If A>B, and B>C, it does not necessarily follow that A>C (think , , and to see what this means: Nadal, at least in the past, usually beat Federer, but Blake beat Nadal, and Federer beat Blake). For another, there is no method, except brute force, to test for the best ranking system under these circumstances — and the task is too large for any computer today. But we can approximate. The WTA ranking system is, in theory, an attempt to calculate this ranking list. Unfortunately, the WTA is run by marketing people, who of course should denied by law the right to have anything to do with mathematics or science, but of course, being marketing people (and not very good ones at that), they refuse to admit this. So they’ve created a ranking system that has no relationship whatsoever to the ideal ranking system. There is nothing magic about the current system. The WTA has revised its ranking system many times over the years; it will revise it again in 2007. But two of these changes stand out as the most utterly stupid: The 1997 change from divisor rankings (under which losses counted) to additive rankings (in which losses didn’t count), and the 2006 change which eliminated the “quality points” players earned for wins over top players (meaning that you earned just as many points for a walkover as you did for beating the world’s top player). We won’t burden you with the reasons why these changes made the WTA rankings less like the real rankings — though there are good theoretical reasons why this is so. We’ll just note that what the WTA can miscalculate, we can recalculate. Remember that I can no more calculate the ideal rankings than the WTA can. But I’m going to make a few attempts at ranking systems which are more accurate, or which, in some cases, reveal a particular point without necessarily being a proper ranking system in themselves. The first few systems all rely on the same basic data: Points and number of events. The WTA calculates its rankings based on “round points” — points earned based on going a certain distance in a tournament. We’ll use those, but we’ll also calculate the quality points that the players would have earned if the WTA still had quality points. Then — well, then we’ll fiddle. The basic numbers we’ll be using are on the next page. We’re looking at only the higher-ranked players — those the WTA had in the Top Thirty at year-end, plus eight others with high potential or who were ranked much higher last year. Basic Alternate Ranking Data WTA Name WTA Points Events Round Quality Slam Points Rank Points Points 17 Bartoli, Marion 988 33 1124 424 176 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 1144 22 1149 695 234 5 Clijsters, Kim 2215 14 2215 968 942 25 Davenport, Lindsay 745 8 745 578 348 51 Déchy, Nathalie 435 25 443 281 68 8 Dementieva, Elena 1875 21 2016 770 412

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 115 61 Dulko, Gisela 401.75 25 409.75 128 198 22 Golovin, Tatiana 857 18 858 470 216 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 922 28 933 338 216 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 986 25 1066 652 326 1 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 3998 13 3998 2235 2176 7 Hingis, Martina 2018 20 2056 982 448 14 Ivanovic, Ana 1053 19 1055 522 258 12 Jankovic, Jelena 1211 28 1290 844 510 30 Kirilenko, Maria 637 25 645 258 188 35 Krajicek, Michaella 542 20 545 303 68 4Kuznetsova, Svetlana 2523 22 2798 1431 746 21 Li Na 875.75 22 880.75 607 334 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 462 20 465 182 164 3Mauresmo, Amelie 3391 17 3391 1724 1810 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 698 26 722 214 128 16 Myskina, Anastasia 1000 18 1001 401 368 20 Peer, Shahar 894 23 913 476 232 28 Pennetta, Flavia 692 18 695 205 220 6 Petrova, Nadia 2189 23 2238 901 238 79 Pierce, Mary 340 8 340 151 100 11 Safina, Dinara 1390 21 1442 730 448 15 Schiavone, Francesca 1032 23 1053 480 256 9 Schnyder, Patty 1578 25 1704 637 404 2 Sharapova, Maria 3532 15 3532 1742 1424 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 819 24 837 348 224 29 Stosur, Samantha 685 25 734.75 395 138 26 Sugiyama, Ai 716 25 724 393 198 10 Vaidisova, Nicole 1391 18 1393 772 568 95 Williams, Serena 301 4 301 233 158 48 Williams, Venus 447 6 447 284 238 33 Zheng Jie 560.75 19 562.75 287 140 24 Zvonareva, Vera 781 24 824 494 68

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 116 2005 Rankings: Best 17 Rankings with Quality Points For our first measure, let’s see what the rankings would have been had the WTA not shifted ranking systems. The table below takes the player’s points as calculated by the WTA, subtracts a fourteenth of their Slam points (since the Slams were boosted in value as part of the system change), then adds the quality points. The Top Ten are unchanged by this, amazingly, but notice the upward moves by Daniela Hantuchova and Li Na and the fall of Anna-Lena Grönefeld. There would be other dramatic changes lower down — e.g. Virginia Ruano Pascual had a lot of quality points and was penalized by the rankings shift — but our main concern is with the Top Thirty. 2005 Rank 2006 Rank Player Name 2005 Points Rank Difference 11Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 6078 — 22Sharapova, Maria 5172 — 33Mauresmo, Amelie 4986 — 44Kuznetsova, Svetlana 3901 — 55Clijsters, Kim 3116 — 66Petrova, Nadia 3073 — 77Hingis, Martina 2968 — 88Dementieva, Elena 2616 — 99Schnyder, Patty 2186 — 10 10 Vaidisova, Nicole 2122 — 11 11 Safina, Dinara 2088 — 12 12 Jankovic, Jelena 2019 — 13 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 1822 — 14 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 1615 -4 15 14 Ivanovic, Ana 1557 1 16 15 Schiavone, Francesca 1494 1 17 21 Li Na 1458.75 -4 18 17 Bartoli, Marion 1399 1 19 16 Myskina, Anastasia 1375 3 20 20 Peer, Shahar 1353 — 21 22 Golovin, Tatiana 1312 -1 22 25 Davenport, Lindsay 1298 -3 23 24 Zvonareva, Vera 1270 -1 24 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 1245 5 25 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 1151 2 26 Sugiyama, Ai 1095 29 Stosur, Samantha 1070 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 903 30 Kirilenko, Maria 882 28 Pennetta, Flavia 881 35 Krajicek, Michaella 840 33 Zheng Jie 837.75 48 Williams, Venus 714 51 Déchy, Nathalie 711 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 632 95 Williams, Serena 523 61 Dulko, Gisela 515.75 79 Pierce, Mary 484

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 117 1996 Ranking System: The Divisor The ranking system above had results similar to the WTA’s. Not so the 1996 ranking system! The divisor takes a player’s total points in all events (including quality points), then divides by the number of events — or by 14, whichever is larger. (Players were expected to play at least 14 events.) This was a better reflection of a player’s actual abilities — and, yes, it changes the rankings significantly. Note the Kim Clijsters moves past Svetlana Kuznetsova to take the #4 ranking, Martina Hingis takes the #6 spot from Nadia Petrova, and Dinara Safina takes Patty Schnyder’s Top Ten spot. Lindsay Davenport and Venus Williams all move up, too — but look at Marion Bartoli’s fall! 1996 Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 11Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 434.1 0 22Sharapova, Maria 344.8 0 33Mauresmo, Amelie 293.3 0 45Clijsters, Kim 222.6 -1 54Kuznetsova, Svetlana 189.8 1 67Hingis, Martina 150.3 -1 76Petrova, Nadia 135.7 1 88Dementieva, Elena 131.3 0 910Vaidisova, Nicole 118.0 -1 10 11 Safina, Dinara 101.9 -1 11 25 Davenport, Lindsay 92.7 -14 12 9 Schnyder, Patty 92.5 3 13 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 83.1 0 14 14 Ivanovic, Ana 82.0 0 15 16 Myskina, Anastasia 76.4 -1 16 12 Jankovic, Jelena 74.9 4 17 22 Golovin, Tatiana 72.9 -5 18 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 67.8 0 19 21 Li Na 66.5 -2 20 15 Schiavone, Francesca 65.9 5 21 20 Peer, Shahar 59.7 1 22 24 Zvonareva, Vera 54.7 -2 23 48 Williams, Venus 51.0 -25 24 28 Pennetta, Flavia 49.1 -4 25 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 48.7 2 17 Bartoli, Marion 46.5 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 44.8 29 Stosur, Samantha 44.8 33 Zheng Jie 44.2 26 Sugiyama, Ai 44.1 35 Krajicek, Michaella 42.2 95 Williams, Serena 37.3 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 35.6 30 Kirilenko, Maria 35.6 79 Pierce, Mary 34.6 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 31.8 51 Déchy, Nathalie 28.8 61 Dulko, Gisela 20.9

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 118 1996 Ranking System Updated: The Declining Divisor As a ranking system, the divisor had much to commend it. We know on theoretical grounds (which I won’t bore you with) that it was a fairly good reflection of the ideal ranking system. Unfortunately, it doesn’t really reflect current WTA reality. The fact that the WTA ranking system just adds points means that losses don’t count. Players are rewarded for playing to, or even slightly past, their limits. And, because the number of high-tier events is fixed, they inevitably pay more weak events as they add tournaments. The solution: The declining divisor. We still take total points, but instead of dividing by total events (or by 14), we use a modified divisor. Since players are now expected to play at least 16 events, we divide by a minimum of 16 — but subtract a third of an event for each tournament above 16. So if player played 17 events, her total points are divided by 162⁄3. If she plays 18 events, her divisor is 171⁄3. And so forth. Not too surprisingly, the results of this are intermediate between the current ranking system and the 1996 system. In the Top Ten, we still see Hingis overtake Petrova, and Safina boots Schnyder — but Clijsters does not overtake Kuznetsova. Nor do Davenport and Venus Williams gain as much, nor Bartoli fall as much. The results of this ranking are on the next page.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 119 Dec Div Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 11Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 379.8 0 22Sharapova, Maria 323.3 0 33Mauresmo, Amelie 299.1 0 44Kuznetsova, Svetlana 208.8 0 55Clijsters, Kim 194.7 0 67Hingis, Martina 161.0 -1 76Petrova, Nadia 151.1 1 88Dementieva, Elena 142.6 0 910Vaidisova, Nicole 122.6 -1 10 11 Safina, Dinara 110.7 -1 11 9 Schnyder, Patty 105.1 2 12 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 91.4 -1 13 12 Jankovic, Jelena 87.4 1 14 14 Ivanovic, Ana 86.6 0 15 25 Davenport, Lindsay 81.1 -10 16 16 Myskina, Anastasia 79.4 0 17 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 77.0 -1 18 22 Golovin, Tatiana 75.7 -4 19 15 Schiavone, Francesca 73.3 4 20 21 Li Na 73.2 -1 21 20 Peer, Shahar 66.4 1 22 24 Zvonareva, Vera 61.6 -2 23 17 Bartoli, Marion 56.2 6 24 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 54.8 1 25 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 52.3 6 28 Pennetta, Flavia 51.0 -2 29 Stosur, Samantha 50.9 -2 26 Sugiyama, Ai 50.1 2 33 Zheng Jie 46.7 -4 35 Krajicek, Michaella 45.2 -5 48 Williams, Venus 44.6 -17 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 40.9 5 30 Kirilenko, Maria 40.4 3 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 34.0 -8 51 Déchy, Nathalie 32.7 -16 95 Williams, Serena 32.7 -59 79 Pierce, Mary 30.2 -42 61 Dulko, Gisela 23.8 -23

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 120 2006 Rankings with Double Quality Points Most of the rankings so far have looked at so far have, in some way or other, added back the quality points the WTA eliminated in 2006. But quality points were never more than about a third of a player’s points, and that fraction shrank over the years as the WTA inflated round points. We will see below that quality points are the forward-looking part of the rankings — the best predictor of future results. So the next few rankings try to be more balanced by increasing the quality points. In this case, we’ll take the actual WTA round points and add in double quality points. The results are about typical: Schnyder out of the Top Ten, Davenport and Li Na move up a lot, Grönefeld plummets. DoubleQ Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 11Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 8468 0 22Sharapova, Maria 7016 0 33Mauresmo, Amelie 6839 0 44Kuznetsova, Svetlana 5385 0 55Clijsters, Kim 4151 0 66Petrova, Nadia 3991 0 77Hingis, Martina 3982 0 88Dementieva, Elena 3415 0 910Vaidisova, Nicole 2935 -1 10 12 Jankovic, Jelena 2899 -2 11 9 Schnyder, Patty 2852 2 12 11 Safina, Dinara 2850 1 13 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 2534 0 14 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 2290 -4 15 14 Ivanovic, Ana 2097 1 16 21 Li Na 2089.75 -5 17 15 Schiavone, Francesca 1992 2 18 25 Davenport, Lindsay 1901 -7 19 20 Peer, Shahar 1846 -1 20 17 Bartoli, Marion 1836 3 21 16 Myskina, Anastasia 1802 5 22 22 Golovin, Tatiana 1797 0 23 24 Zvonareva, Vera 1769 -1 24 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 1598 5 25 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 1515 2 26 Sugiyama, Ai 1502 29 Stosur, Samantha 1475 30 Kirilenko, Maria 1153 35 Krajicek, Michaella 1148 33 Zheng Jie 1134.75 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 1126 28 Pennetta, Flavia 1102 48 Williams, Venus 1015 51 Déchy, Nathalie 997 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 826 95 Williams, Serena 767 61 Dulko, Gisela 657.75 79 Pierce, Mary 642

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 121 1996-Style Divisor Rankings with Double Quality Points As you can probably guess, this is calculated the same way as the “regular” 1996 rankings: total points plus quality points (doubled) divided by number of events or 14, whichever is larger. The results are not that much different from the other Divisor ranking: Clijsters overtakes Kuznetsova, Hingis overtakes Petrova, Schnyder out of the Top Ten, Davenport up to #11, Li Na Top Twenty, Venus Williams Top 25, Marion Bartoli just barely Top Thirty. 2QDiv Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 11Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 593.8 0 22Sharapova, Maria 461.0 0 33Mauresmo, Amelie 394.7 0 45Clijsters, Kim 291.7 -1 54Kuznetsova, Svetlana 254.9 1 67Hingis, Martina 199.4 -1 76Petrova, Nadia 174.9 1 88Dementieva, Elena 167.9 0 910Vaidisova, Nicole 160.9 -1 10 11 Safina, Dinara 136.7 -1 11 25 Davenport, Lindsay 134.0 -14 12 9 Schnyder, Patty 118.0 3 13 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 114.6 0 14 14 Ivanovic, Ana 109.5 0 15 12 Jankovic, Jelena 105.1 3 16 22 Golovin, Tatiana 99.0 -6 17 16 Myskina, Anastasia 98.7 1 18 21 Li Na 94.1 -3 19 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 93.9 1 20 15 Schiavone, Francesca 86.7 5 21 20 Peer, Shahar 80.4 1 22 24 Zvonareva, Vera 75.3 -2 23 48 Williams, Venus 71.3 -25 24 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 63.2 1 25 29 Stosur, Samantha 60.6 -4 28 Pennetta, Flavia 60.5 26 Sugiyama, Ai 59.8 17 Bartoli, Marion 59.4 33 Zheng Jie 59.3 35 Krajicek, Michaella 57.3 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 56.9 95 Williams, Serena 54.0 30 Kirilenko, Maria 45.9 79 Pierce, Mary 45.3 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 43.9 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 40.9 51 Déchy, Nathalie 40.0 61 Dulko, Gisela 26.1 This would probably be just about the ideal points-and-divisor ranking if the WTA didn’t use additive rankings, but as it is, it ignores the players who overplay. So, under current circumstances, we should perhaps use the following:

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 122 Declining Divisor with Double Quality Points If you’re read the preceding several introductions, you’ll probably understand this: Total round points, double quality points, minimum divisor 16, with each event past #16 discounted by a third. The results of that are given below. Again we see our first change at #6, where Hingis overtakes Petrova; again Schnyder is out of the Top Ten, replaced by Safina It is interesting to see how consistent the rankings are this year: We almost always get the same changes. That is not at all typical. \ 2QDecD Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 11Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 519.5 0 22Sharapova, Maria 432.1 0 33Mauresmo, Amelie 402.6 0 44Kuznetsova, Svetlana 280.3 0 55Clijsters, Kim 255.2 0 67Hingis, Martina 213.6 -1 76Petrova, Nadia 194.7 1 88Dementieva, Elena 182.4 0 910Vaidisova, Nicole 167.1 -1 10 11 Safina, Dinara 148.4 -1 11 9 Schnyder, Patty 134.1 2 12 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 126.1 -1 13 12 Jankovic, Jelena 122.6 1 14 25 Davenport, Lindsay 117.3 -11 15 14 Ivanovic, Ana 115.6 1 16 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 106.7 -2 17 21 Li Na 103.5 -4 18 22 Golovin, Tatiana 102.8 -4 19 16 Myskina, Anastasia 102.5 3 20 15 Schiavone, Francesca 96.5 5 21 20 Peer, Shahar 89.4 1 22 24 Zvonareva, Vera 84.7 -2 23 17 Bartoli, Marion 71.7 6 24 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 71.1 1 25 29 Stosur, Samantha 68.9 -4 26 Sugiyama, Ai 68.0 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 66.4 28 Pennetta, Flavia 62.8 33 Zheng Jie 62.6 48 Williams, Venus 62.4 35 Krajicek, Michaella 61.4 30 Kirilenko, Maria 52.2 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 50.3 95 Williams, Serena 47.2 51 Déchy, Nathalie 45.5 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 43.8 79 Pierce, Mary 39.7 61 Dulko, Gisela 29.6

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 123 Quality Points per Tournament One last variation on the WTA Points-based ranking. Since we’ve said that quality points are the best predictors of future results, why not raw quality points per tournament? This is our “future potential ranking”: It is among the best at forecasting which players are likely to make big moves in future. Because this ranking is very different from most of the other rankings here, I have listed the entire Top Fifty under this ranking (at least, the Top Fifty among the players I checked, which includes all players with significant WTA- level results). Fascinatingly, the Top Five are unchanged under this ranking — something I would never have guessed. Though we note that Hénin-Hardenne’s lead, which is quite small in the WTA rankings, is huge in this department. We also notice Lindsay Davenport all the way up at #6, Venus Williams at #11, Serena Williams at #13 — and Patty Schnyder, whom the WTA alleges to be a Top Ten player, at #20! Virginia Ruano Pascual’s high ranking doesn’t mean much; she has a history as an upset artist. The evidence does seem to indicate that Paola Suárez still has the potential for a comeback, though, and and (especially) Agnieszka Radwanska can still climb. Victoria Azarenka, who doesn’t get nearly as much attention, also looks like a good prospect. But Lucie Safarova looks like she’ll be falling, and Elena Vesnina probably isn’t as good as her WTA ranking indicates. How good is this ranking at predicting things? Pretty good. For 2002, e.g., it “predicted” Daniela Hantuchova,. For 2003 it forecast Maria Sharapova. Then, in 2004, it predicted that Sharapova would not improve as much in 2005; it also forecast falls for Anastasia Myskina, Svetlana Kuznetsova, and Ai Sugiyama. Plus it also forecast big moves by Sesil Karatancheva (who was last year’s #127, but #35 in quality points per tournament — which just happened to be her 2005 year-end ranking before she was suspended!), Anna Chakvetadze, Nicole Vaidisova, and Ana Ivanovic. Of these, only Vaidisova was really obvious at the end of 2004 — except in the quality standings. For 2006, it forecast the return of Justine Hénin-Hardenne, the fall of Nathalie Déchy, and the continued progress of Michaella Krajicek. And, in March of this year, it said that Martina Hingis would end 2006 at #8. She was of course #7, but by a very small margin. It’s not perfect — for 2003, it forecast as the Next Big Thing — but it’s the best predictor of future success I have found to date. On the evidence, if the Williams Sisters can come back, they will still be threats. So too for Davenport, except that she is retiring. And watch out for Pironkova and Radwanska. Q/T Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 11Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 171.9 0 22Sharapova, Maria 116.1 0 33Mauresmo, Amelie 101.4 0 44Kuznetsova, Svetlana 65.0 0 55Clijsters, Kim 64.5 0 625Davenport, Lindsay 52.5 -19 77Hingis, Martina 49.1 0 810Vaidisova, Nicole 40.6 -2 96Petrova, Nadia 37.5 3 10 8 Dementieva, Elena 36.7 2 11 48 Williams, Venus 35.5 -37 12 11 Safina, Dinara 34.8 1 13 95 Williams, Serena 33.3 -82 14 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 31.6 1 15 12 Jankovic, Jelena 30.1 3 16 21 Li Na 27.6 -5 17 14 Ivanovic, Ana 27.5 3 18 22 Golovin, Tatiana 26.1 -4 19 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 26.1 1 20 9 Schnyder, Patty 25.5 11 21 16 Myskina, Anastasia 22.3 5

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 124 22 15 Schiavone, Francesca 20.9 7 23 20 Peer, Shahar 20.7 3 24 24 Zvonareva, Vera 20.6 0 25 67 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 15.9 -42 26 29 Stosur, Samantha 15.8 -3 27 26 Sugiyama, Ai 15.7 1 28 35 Krajicek, Michaella 15.2 -7 29 33 Zheng, Jie 15.1 -4 30 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 14.5 7 31 79 Pierce, Mary 13.7 -48 32 36 Daniilidou, Eleni 12.9 -4 33 17 Bartoli, Marion 12.8 16 34 62 Pironkova, Tsvetana 12.3 -28 35 179 Suárez, Paola 12.3 -144 36 56 Peng, Shuai 12.3 -20 37 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 12.1 18 38 37 Shaughnessy, Meghann 11.5 1 39 51 Déchy, Nathalie 11.2 -12 40 31 Santangelo, Mara 10.7 9 41 57 Radwanska, Agnieszka 10.4 -16 42 30 Kirilenko, Maria 10.3 12 43 28 Pennetta, Flavia 10.3 15 44 85 Morigami, Akiko 10.1 -41 45 92 Azarenka, Victoria 10.1 -47 46 45 Jackson, Jamea 10.0 1 47 41 Safarova, Lucie 9.7 6 48 43 Perry, Shenay 9.6 5 49 44 Vesnina, Elena 9.4 5 50 39 Brémond, Severine 9.2 11

Tournament Strength-Based Rankings To this point, everything we’ve done has been based on WTA methods — not necessarily their current methods, but methods they’ve used at one time or another. Given their track record on rankings, there is no particular reason why we shouldn’t break away from this. One real defect in the WTA rankings (one of the aspects formerly covered up by quality points) is that the points the WTA awards for an event don’t correspond very closely to the actual strength of an event. The Slams are always stronger than the Tier III events, and even the weakest Tier I is stronger than the strongest Tier IV, but a weak Tier I like the Pan Pacific is hardly comparable to a strong Tier I like Moscow or Zürich, and is in fact weaker than some strong Tier II events. (Though, interestingly, the four events that used to be the strongest Tier IIs have all changed: Filderstadt and Philadelphia are off the calendar, San Diego has moved up to Tier I status, and Sydney isn’t as strong as it used to be.) We can, of course, control for this if we have some measure of tournament strength. We find this measure in the Modified Tournament Strength Index, as discussed on page 37. On this basis, we can award points based on tournament strengths. The WTA awards full points for winning an event, 70% of that total for a final, 45% for a semifinal, etc. We can use those numbers, but plug in our tournament strength values. We then add up a player’s total for all of her events. That gives us this list — with, amazingly, still the same Top Four as in the WTA rankings:

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 125 AdjStr Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 11Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 3746.3 0 22Sharapova, Maria 3218.8 0 33Mauresmo, Amelie 3211.5 0 44Kuznetsova, Svetlana 3020.7 0 56Petrova, Nadia 2460.3 -1 65Clijsters, Kim 2117.8 1 78Dementieva, Elena 1887.3 -1 87Hingis, Martina 1702.3 1 99Schnyder, Patty 1635.5 0 10 11 Safina, Dinara 1271.8 -1 11 10 Vaidisova, Nicole 1220.8 1 12 15 Schiavone, Francesca 1122.8 -3 13 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 1107.0 0 14 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 1089.0 -4 15 12 Jankovic, Jelena 1054.5 3 16 14 Ivanovic, Ana 958.8 2 17 22 Golovin, Tatiana 911.5 -5 18 16 Myskina, Anastasia 814.0 2 19 25 Davenport, Lindsay 808.0 -6 20 17 Bartoli, Marion 748.3 3 21 21 Li Na 727.8 0 22 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 719.3 -1 23 29 Stosur, Samantha 709.3 -6 24 24 Zvonareva, Vera 704.5 0 25 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 700.3 6 26 Sugiyama, Ai 627.5 30 Kirilenko, Maria 604.0 20 Peer, Shahar 589.3 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 438.8 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 420.3 51 Déchy, Nathalie 417.8 28 Pennetta, Flavia 404.8 33 Zheng Jie 378.8 79 Pierce, Mary 372.0 48 Williams, Venus 363.5 35 Krajicek, Michaella 329.0 61 Dulko, Gisela 246.5 95 Williams, Serena 231.0

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 126 Adjusted Strength per Tournament Ranking Of course, the above ranking suffers from the same problem as the WTA rankings: It’s all additive. If we take points per tournament under this system, things change significantly. We still have the same Top Three, but the rest — well, just look: Adj/Trn Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 11Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 288.2 0 22Sharapova, Maria 214.6 0 33Mauresmo, Amelie 188.9 0 45Clijsters, Kim 151.3 -1 54Kuznetsova, Svetlana 137.3 1 66Petrova, Nadia 107.0 0 725Davenport, Lindsay 101.0 -18 88Dementieva, Elena 89.9 0 97Hingis, Martina 85.1 2 10 10 Vaidisova, Nicole 67.8 0 11 9 Schnyder, Patty 65.4 2 12 48 Williams, Venus 60.6 -36 13 11 Safina, Dinara 60.6 2 14 95 Williams, Serena 57.8 -81 15 22 Golovin, Tatiana 50.6 -7 16 14 Ivanovic, Ana 50.5 2 17 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 50.3 4 18 15 Schiavone, Francesca 48.8 3 19 79 Pierce, Mary 46.5 -60 20 16 Myskina, Anastasia 45.2 4 21 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 43.6 3 22 12 Jankovic, Jelena 37.7 10 23 21 Li Na 33.1 2 24 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 30.0 1 25 24 Zvonareva, Vera 29.4 1 29 Stosur, Samantha 28.4 20 Peer, Shahar 25.6 26 Sugiyama, Ai 25.1 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 25.0 30 Kirilenko, Maria 24.2 17 Bartoli, Marion 22.7 28 Pennetta, Flavia 22.5 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 21.0 33 Zheng Jie 19.9 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 16.9 51 Déchy, Nathalie 16.7 35 Krajicek, Michaella 16.5 61 Dulko, Gisela 9.9

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 127 Adjusted Strength per Tournament Ranking, With Quality Points One more variation on the Adjusted Tournament Strength: Let’s add quality points to the adjusted strength round points, then divide by the total number of events. And, yes, the seemingly-immutable laws of the universe still give us the same Top Three: Ad+Q/Tn Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 11Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 460.1 0 22Sharapova, Maria 330.7 0 33Mauresmo, Amelie 290.3 0 45Clijsters, Kim 220.4 -1 54Kuznetsova, Svetlana 202.4 1 625Davenport, Lindsay 173.3 -19 76Petrova, Nadia 146.1 1 87Hingis, Martina 134.2 1 98Dementieva, Elena 126.5 1 10 95 Williams, Serena 116.0 -85 11 10 Vaidisova, Nicole 110.7 1 12 48 Williams, Venus 107.9 -36 13 11 Safina, Dinara 95.3 2 14 9 Schnyder, Patty 90.9 5 15 13 Chakvetadze, Anna 81.9 2 16 14 Ivanovic, Ana 77.9 2 17 22 Golovin, Tatiana 76.8 -5 18 15 Schiavone, Francesca 69.7 3 19 18 Hantuchova, Daniela 69.6 1 20 12 Jankovic, Jelena 67.8 8 21 16 Myskina, Anastasia 67.5 5 22 79 Pierce, Mary 65.4 -57 23 21 Li Na 60.7 2 24 24 Zvonareva, Vera 49.9 0 25 20 Peer, Shahar 46.3 5 23 Srebotnik, Katarina 44.5 29 Stosur, Samantha 44.2 26 Sugiyama, Ai 40.8 19 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 37.1 17 Bartoli, Marion 35.5 33 Zheng Jie 35.0 30 Kirilenko, Maria 34.5 28 Pennetta, Flavia 33.9 35 Krajicek, Michaella 31.6 42 Likhovtseva, Elena 30.1 51 Déchy, Nathalie 28.0 27 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 25.1 61 Dulko, Gisela 15.0

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 128 Idealized Won/Lost And now, for something completely different. So different, in fact, that it will actually knock Hénin- Hardenne off the #1 spot, if only by a fraction of a percent. In concept, this is simple: It’s a ranking based on won/loss percent. In practice it’s going to take a lot of explaining. Start with this: Theoretically, winning percentage ought to be a good measure of who is ranked highest. Except — a player who plays weak events may well produce a much higher winning percentage than a better player who plays stronger events. An obvious and infamous victim of this was . She played almost entirely Tier II and higher events, and never won any. As an obvious contrast, Henrieta Nagyova won nine career titles, mostly because she played a lot of Tier IV events. Kournikova was by far the better player (even at the very end of her career in 2003, when Kournikova was in her final spiral out of the game, she won her last meeting with Nagyova 6Ð1 6Ð2). But the Russian never put up the titles that would, on their face, prove it. So a ranking system based on won/lost must somehow take tournament strength into account. And we need to track wins over top players. An we need to encourage players to play as much as possible, within reason. We can do all of those things. To deal with the first, we simply diddle with the value of wins. Let’s arbitrarily say that a win at a Tier I counts as one standard win. Then we will assign a value of 1.1 wins for a Slam win (this is our Slam Bias, since in fact the early rounds at Slams are generally easier than at Tier I events). A Tier I win is, of course 1.0 wins. A Tier II win is .95 wins. A Tier III win is .8 wins. A Tier IV win is .6 wins. And a Challenger win is .4 wins. (I repeat that numbers are arbitrary, and different values will get you different results, but they feel about right to me). We will not count qualifying wins, though qualifying losses we will count. To take wins over top players into account, we’ll assign bonus wins: If you beat a Top Four player, it’s worth an extra .6 wins. A player ranked #5 to #10 gets you .4 bonus wins. Beating #11-#20 gets you .2, and beating #21-#35 is worth .1. To encourage players to play more, we do two things: First, we require you to play sixteen events, and add losses until you do (except for injured players). And second — and this is the key part — we reduce losses exponentially. Instead of calculating raw wins and losses, we take losses to the .8 power. What this means is that if two players have the same winning percentage, but one has played more, the one who has played more will have a slightly higher adjusted winning percentage. Not much — losses still count! But enough to make it worth playing more if it doesn’t drag your results down. Note: Withdrawals and walkovers do not count as wins or losses. The columns in the table on the next page are as follows: Rank: The player’s ranking under this system. Player: The player’s name. Events: How many tournaments she played. Wins: Actual WTA wins. Losses: Actual WTA losses. Top 4 Wins: How many wins she had over players ranked #1-#4. Top 10 Wins: Number of wins over players ranked #5-#10 (note that this is not actually the number of wins she has over Top Ten players; that is in fact the sum of “Top 4 wins” and “Top 10 Wins”). Top 20 Wins: Wins over players ranked #11-#20. Top 35 wins: Wins over players ranked #21-#35. Adjusted wins: The player’s adjusted win count. If this is higher than her number of actual wins, as is true e.g. of Sharapova and Hénin- Hardenne, it means the player is playing a lot of high-tier events; if it is dramatically lower than her number of wins, as e.g. for Peer or Bartoli, it means she is playing far down the tier scale. Bonus Wins: The value, in wins, of the victories over the top players. Adj Losses: Losses calculated according to the formula above. Adj W %: Winning percent under this formula: (Adjusted wins+Bonus Wins)/(Adjusted wins+Bonus Wins+Adj. Losses) WTA: The player’s WTA ranking As mentioned above, this is the first ranking under which Hénin-Hardenne is not #1, though she is a strong #2. The rest of the Top Five is unchanged; in the Top Ten, Hingis moves past Petrova to #6; Safina takes Schnyder’s Top Ten place.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 129 Incidentally, an advantage of divisor rankings is the they generally lessen the penalty for being hurt. In this ranking system, we could handle that by eliminating the “penalty losses” players suffer for being hurt. If we did that for Davenport, Pierce, and the Williams Sisters, we would find Davenport at #8, Serena at #10, Venus at #16, and Pierce probably somewhere around #35. That’s generally better injury protection than they get from the WTA, and it’s also entirely automatic. Don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen, though — not with the WTA increasing fines for late withdrawals and otherwise penalizing injured players. Top 4 Top 10 Top 20 Top 35 Adj. Bonus Adj Adj WTA Rank Player Events Wins Losses Wins Wins Wins Wins Wins Wins Losses W % 1 Sharapova 15 5995961260.20 9.0 6.3 91.6% 2 2 Hénin-Hardenne 13 5689512858.10 10.6 6.8 91.0% 1 3Mauresmo 17 50 13587851.70 8.4 7.8 88.5% 3 4Kuznetsova 22 60 20 5 3 11 12 59.45 7.6 11.0 85.9% 4 5 Clijsters 14 40 11159739.90 5.1 7.8 85.3% 5 6 Hingis 20 53 19 2 3 12 8 51.90 5.6 10.5 84.5% 7 7 Petrova 23 48 18329846.45 5.2 10.1 83.6% 6 8 Dementieva 21 44 20216943.85 3.7 11.0 81.2% 8 9Vaidisova 18 35 16205435.10 2.6 9.2 80.4% 10 10 Safina 21 44 21223643.35 3.2 11.4 80.3% 11 11 Schnyder 25 45 24121744.05 2.3 12.7 78.5% 9 12 Ivanovic 19 35 18114534.50 2.3 10.1 78.5% 14 13 Chakvetadze 22 36 20055935.25 3.9 11.0 78.1% 13 14 Jankovic 28 45 27045442.85 3.0 14.0 76.7% 12 15 Li Na 22 36 21025532.80 2.3 11.4 75.4% 21 16 Peer 23 38 20015132.20 1.5 11.0 75.4% 20 17 Myskina 18 31 18011529.55 1.1 10.1 75.2% 16 18 Zvonareva 24 37 221041231.70 2.6 11.9 74.3% 24 19 Bartoli 33 51 29031240.60 1.6 14.8 74.1% 17 20 Schiavone 23 34 23024432.90 2.0 12.3 74.0% 15 21 Hantuchova 25 34 25132933.25 3.1 13.1 73.5% 18 22 Golovin 18 25 18043324.50 2.5 10.1 72.8% 22 23 Pennetta 18 29 18000226.10 0.2 10.1 72.3% 28 24 Davenport 8 218113620.80 2.2 9.2 71.5% 25 25 Srebotnik 24 30 24021529.30 1.5 12.7 70.8% 23 Medina Garrigues 26 34 24000128.20 0.1 12.7 69.0% 27 Grönefeld 28 30 27012428.55 1.2 14.0 68.1% 19 Sugiyama 25 28 25014426.05 1.6 13.1 67.8% 26 Stosur 25 29 26013626.85 1.6 13.6 67.7% 29 Kirilenko 25 23 25011422.55 1.0 13.1 64.2% 30 Williams, Venus 6 136021213.45 1.2 9.2 61.5% 48 Likhovtseva 20 16 20001315.50 0.5 11.0 59.3% 42 Williams, Serena 4 124004111.70 0.9 9.2 57.8% 95 Déchy 25 16 25110415.45 1.4 13.1 56.2% 51 Dulko 25 16 25000215.00 0.2 13.1 53.6% 61 Pierce 8980102 9.10 0.6 9.2 51.4% 79

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 130 The “Majors Ranking” It is an unfortunate fact that tennis uses the word “major” as a synonym for “Slam.” It’s unfortunate because it leaves us with no good word for “the best events.” The Slams are, of course, among the strongest events on the tour — but there are usually at least half a dozen other events which are competitive in terms of field strength. And many of them aren’t even Tier I events; the Tier II tournaments at Sydney and Filderstadt have traditionally been stronger than the average Tier I; the Tier I events at Moscow and Tokyo, by contrast, have a history of being too weak for the points they award. Quality points make up for some of that — or they did in the days when the WTA had the brains to award them — but not all. Which gives us the basis for another ranking, the “Majors Ranking.” We take the ten best events (based partly on history and partly on their strength this year, as reflected in the section on tournaments), and count results only in those events. In 2006, our list is Sydney, Australian Open, Miami, Rome, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, San Diego, U. S. Open, Zürich, and the Los Angeles Championships. (The list does vary from year to year, as described below.) Since all these events are strong, we don’t need quality points for this ranking. And early losses are worthless. We’ll count only semifinals and better: 1 point for a semifinal, 3 for a final, 5 for a win. Note that this gives a title more relative value than the WTA ranking table. The WTA awards Win/Final/ Semifinal points in the ratio 20:14:9; this system awards 20:12:4, because winning is much more memorable than being a finalist, and hardly anyone remembers a player who doesn’t even make the semifinal. By definition, no more than forty players can earn majors points in a year, and in practice fifteen is about normal — that being, in fact, the number we had this year. Also by definition, only 100 points are awarded in a year. It will be evident that the “Majors Ranking” is not useful as an overall ranking system — it isn’t intended to be — but it is a good measure of the accomplishments we might count toward Player of the Year. We observe with interest that we the Majors Ranking this year gives us the same Top Five as the WTA rankings; that is extremely unusual. Hénin-Hardenne’s 24 points is about typical for a #1 in this ranking, though in recent years the totals have been much lower. To give some perspective on these numbers: Last year, when I counted Filderstadt instead of Zürich, we had a very high total of 21 players with Majors points, though the 15 points scored by leader Amélie Mauresmo was rather low. (That’s inevitable, with only 100 points to award: If a lot of players have points, then nobody can have many.) More surprising is the fact that, with such a low total for the leader, we have only four players with ten or more points: Mary Pierce had 14, Lindsay Davenport 12, Kim Clijsters 10. In 2004, we had 17 players with Majors points, though with even lower totals for the leader: Lindsay Davenport and Mauresmo led with 13 points, Serena Williams had 12, and four others had 10 points. 2003 was more typical though much more top-heavy: 14 players, led by Kim Clijsters (32 points), Justine Hénin-Hardenne (22), Serena Williams (15), and no one else with more than 8. In 2002, we had fifteen players: Serena Williams of course led with 29 points, then Venus Williams (16), Clijsters (13), Capriati (11), and all others below 10. In 2001, when Indian Wells replaced Rome, we had only thirteen Majors point-scorers, despite which the leaders had lower totals: Venus Williams (22), Capriati (15), Davenport (14), Hingis (14), Serena (13), and the rest lower. In 2000, we must add Philadelphia (substituting for Filderstadt, which in 2000 had its field depleted by the Olympics) and the Canadian Open for Indian Wells. We had sixteen players that year; The rankings were: Hingis (24), Davenport (22), Venus (15), and the rest below ten. In 1999, Filderstadt substitutes for the Canadian Open, and we again had sixteen players: Hingis (31), Davenport (23), Venus (11), Graf (10), and the rest below 10. Since I started compiling this statistic, the highest score has been the 32 points by Clijsters in 2003 (yes, the year she didn’t win any Slams — but won everything else). Prior to that, the biggest score I can guarantee is Martina Hingis’s 43 points in 1997. No doubt players like Graf in 1988 and 1989 scored higher, but I don’t have the tournament strength data to determine which events belong on the Majors list. The list of players with at least one Majors point in 2006 is as follows (I also show the Majors points earned at each event):

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 131 Major WTA Major Syd- AO Miam Rome RG Wim SD USO Zürich Madr Rank Rank Player Points ney Cham 11Hénin-Harde 24 53 53 3 5 22Sharapova 21 13 15551 33Mauresmo 15 51 513 44Kuznetsova 11 1 513 1 55Clijsters 7 1 113 1 67Hingis 5 5 7T 18 Hantuchova 3 3 7T 11 Safina 3 3 7T 15 Schiavone 3 3 7T 10 Vaidisova 3 111 11T 22 Golovin 1 1 11T 12 Jankovic 1 1 11T 9 Schnyder 1 1 11T 23 Srebotnik 1 1 11T 48 V. Williams 1 1

The chart on the next page may give some perspective on this: It shows the points earned by the top eight players in the Majors Rankings over the years 2000Ð2006 (plus that 1997 Hingis data point for comparison) The actual data involved is as follows:

1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 #1 has 43 24 22 29 32 13 15 24 #2 has 22 15 16 22 13 14 21 #3 has 15 14 13 15 12 12 15 #4 has 7 14 11 8 10 10 11 #5 has 6 13 8 6 10 8 7 #6 has 57451065 #7 has 57351053 #8 has 4331653

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 132 The Majors Ranking 2000Ð2006: Points Versus Standings (Graph)

45 1997 40 2000 2001 35 2002 2003 30 2004 2005 25 2006

20

15

10

5

0 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 133 Doubles 2006 In Review: The Top Doubles Players The Final Top Twenty-Five Doubles Players For discussion of what this means, see the equivalent section for singles: “The Final Top Thirty” on page 5! Final Player Best 11 Number of Point Gap from Began Net Rank Name Score Tournaments Preceding Year At Change 1 Raymond, Lisa 3858 23 3 -2 1 Stosur, Samantha 3858 23 3 -2 3 Zheng Jie 2996 20 862 30 -27 4Yan Zi 2996 25 0 31 -27 5 Black, Cara 2516 21 480 1 4 6 Stubbs, Rennae 2501 23 15 5 1 7 Srebotnik, Katarina 2242 20 259 25 -18 8 Peschke, Kveta 2193 24 49 16 -8 9 Schiavone, Francesca 2094 21 99 34 -25 10 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 2076 19 18 4 6 11 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 1799 25 277 11 0 12 Sugiyama, Ai 1772 21 27 14 -2 13 Hantuchova, Daniela 1766 18 6 13 0 14 Suárez, Paola 1742 16 24 17 -3 15 Shaughnessy, Meghann 1663 16 79 19 -4 16 Safina, Dinara 1632 17 31 28 -12 17 Huber, Liezel 1593 26 39 6 11 18 Zvonareva, Vera 1524 17 69 10 8 19 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 1315 18 209 20 -1 20 Déchy, Nathalie 1277 16 38 103 -83 21 Navratilova, Martina 1240 12 37 21 0 22 Daniilidou, Eleni 1198 24 42 50 -28 23 Petrova, Nadia 1111 9 87 33 -10 24 Mirza, Sania 1070 18 41 111 -87 25 Asagoe, Shinobu 1054 12 16 23 2

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 134 The Beginning Doubles Top Twenty-Five Rank Name 2006 Final Ranking Net Change 1 Black, Cara 5 4 2 Stosur, Samantha 1 -1 3 Raymond, Lisa 1 -2 4 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 10 6 5 Stubbs, Rennae 6 1 6 Huber, Liezel 17 11 7 Likhovtseva, Elena 28 21 8Kuznetsova, Svetlana 37 29 9Martinez, Conchita — (retired) 10 Zvonareva, Vera 18 8 11 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 11 0 12 Molik, Alicia 173 161 13 Hantuchova, Daniela 13 0 14 Sugiyama, Ai 12 -2 15 Morariu, Corina 34 19 16 Peschke, Kveta 8 -8 17 Suárez, Paola 14 -3 18 Dementieva, Elena 40 22 19 Shaughnessy, Meghann 15 -4 20 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 19 -1 21 Navratilova, Martina 21 0 22 Pennetta, Flavia 32 10 23 Asagoe, Shinobu 25 2 24 Stewart, Bryanne 75 51 25 Srebotnik, Katarina 7 -18 Summary of Doubles Changes, Beginning to End of 2006 Ranking Gains: From outside the Top 20 into the Top 20: Déchy, Safina, Schiavone, Srebotnik, Yan, Zheng (total of 6) From outside the Top 20 into the Top 10: Schiavone, Srebotnik, Yan, Zheng (total of 4) From the Top 20 into the Top 10: Peschke (total of 1) Ranking Losses: Dropping out of the Top 20: Dementieva, Kuznetsova, Likhovtseva, Martinez, Molik, Morariu (total of 6) Dropping out of the Top 10 but remaining Top 20: Huber, Zvonareva (total of 2) Dropping from the Top 10 to below the Top 20: Kuznetsova, Likhovtseva, Martinez (total of 3) Players who were in the Top 10 at beginning and end of the year: Black, Raymond, Ruano Pascual, Stosur, Stubbs (total of 5) Players who were in the Top 20 at the beginning and end of the year: Black, Grönefeld, Hantuchova, Huber, Medina Garrigues, Peschke, Raymond, Ruano Pascual, Shaughnessy, Stosur, Stubbs, Suárez, Sugiyama, Zvonareva (total of 14)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 135 Top Doubles Players Analysed All the Players in the Doubles Top Ten in 2006: The Complete Top Ten Based on WTA (Best 11) Statistics The lists below show all players who have ranked in the Top 10 in 2006, with the highest rank achieved. A total of nineteen players spent time in the Top Ten in 2006 — a rather high number, but some of that is the result of the rankings change; Zvonareva, e.g., was Top Ten in 2005 but not under the 2006 system.

Black (1) Peschke (8) Stosur (1) Grönefeld (7) Raymond (1) Stubbs (4) Hantuchova (5) Ruano Pascual (2) Sugiyama (8) Huber (5) Schiavone (9) Zheng (3) Kuznetsova (7) Shaughnessy (8) Yan (4) Likhovtseva (7) Srebotnik (7) Zvonareva (10) Martinez (7)

The following list shows all the players who have occupied a given position in the Top 10: 1. Black, Raymond. Stosur 2. Raymond, Ruano Pascual, Stosur 3. Black, Raymond, Ruano Pascual, Stosur, Zheng 4. Raymond, Ruano Pascual, Stosur, Stubbs, Yan 5. Black, Hantuchova, Huber, Ruano Pascual, Stubbs 6. Black, Huber, Ruano Pascual, Stubbs, Zheng 7. Black, Grönefeld, Kuznetsova, Likhovtseva, Martinez, Ruano Pascual, Srebotnik, Yan, Zheng 8. Grönefeld, Hantuchova, Kuznetsova, Martinez, Peschke, Ruano Pascual, Shaughnessy, Srebotnik, Sugiyama 9. Hantuchova, Likhovtseva, Martinez, Peschke, Schiavone, Shaughnessy, Srebotnik, Sugiyama, Yan, Zheng 10. Grönefeld, Hantuchova, Likhovtseva, Martinez, Peschke, Ruano Pascual, Schiavone, Shaughnessy, Sugiyama, Yan, Zheng, Zvonareva

It’s rather interesting to compare this with the doubles Top Ten at the end of, say, 1999. The Top Ten that year was 1. Kournikova, 2. Hingis, 3. Neiland, 4. Davenport, 5. Raymond, 6.Morariu, 7. Stubbs, 8. Likhovtseva, 9. Sanchez-Vicario, 10. Serena Williams, 10. Venus Williams. That list of 11 players includes the entire singles Top Four (Hingis, Davenport, Venus, Serena), and Kournikova, Likhovtseva, and Sanchez-Vicario were also Top Twenty players. The 2006 list has one player who is in the singles Top Ten (Kuznetsova), and she cut back on doubles this year and is now ranked far lower; at the end of the year, there was not one player in both the singles and doubles Top Ten. And we see increased numbers of doubles specialists — Huber and Stubbs don’t play singles at all, and Black and Raymond are effectively done as singles players also; Ruano Pascual keeps playing, but she’s making her living at doubles; so is Yan. Peschke all but vanished from singles this year. Likhovtseva’s singles results also fell far more dramatically than her doubles results. There can be little doubt: Doubles and singles are becoming separate though related sports.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 136 Short Summary: The Doubles Top Fifty The following table is equivalent to the table for singles on page 8.

Final Player Best 11 # of Rank Name Score Trn Won/Lost Titles 1Raymond, Lisa 3858 23 60Ð13 (82%)[+4WO] Pan Pacific, Memphis, Indian Wells, Miami, Charleston, Roland Garros, Stuttgart, Linz, Hasselt, Madrid Championships (10) 1 Stosur, Samantha 3858 23 60Ð13 (82%)[+4WO] Pan Pacific, Memphis, Indian Wells, Miami, Charleston, Roland Garros, Stuttgart, Linz, Hasselt, Madrid Championships (10) 3 Zheng Jie 2996 20 47Ð14 (77%)[+1WO] Australian Open, Berlin, Rabat, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Wimbledon, New Haven (6) 4Yan Zi 2996 25 51Ð18 (74%)[+1WO,1Wi] Australian Open, Berlin, Rabat, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Wimbledon, New Haven (6) 5Black, Cara 2516 21 43Ð19 (69%)[+4WO] San Diego, Zürich (2) 6 Stubbs, Rennae 2501 23 43Ð20 (68%)[+4WO] Sydney, San Diego, Zürich (3) 7 Srebotnik, Katarina 2242 20 44Ð18 (71%)[+2WO] Antwerp, Amelia Island (2) 8 Peschke, Kveta 2193 24 43Ð16(73%)[+1WO,4Wi] Paris, Dubai, Luxembourg, Moscow (4) 9 Schiavone, Francesca 2094 21 38Ð14(73%)[+1WO,4Wi] Dubai, Luxembourg, Moscow (3) 10 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 2076 19 42Ð15(74%)[+1WO,2Wi] Los Angeles, Beijing, Seoul (3) 11 Grönefeld, Anna-Lena 1799 25 39Ð20(66%)[+1WO,3Wi] Acapulco, Stanford (2) 12 Sugiyama, Ai 1772 21 35Ð18 (66%)[+1Wi] Doha, Rome (2) 13 Hantuchova, Daniela 1766 18 30Ð15 (67%)[+1Wi] Doha, Rome (2) 14 Suárez, Paola 1742 16 33Ð12(73%)[+1WO,1Wi] Los Angeles, Beijing, Seoul (3) 15 Shaughnessy, Meghann 1663 16 30Ð13(70%)[+1WO,2Wi] Gold Coast, Acapulco (2) 16 Safina, Dinara 1632 17 33Ð15 (69%) Gold Coast, Antwerp (2) 17 Huber, Liezel 1593 26 45Ð23 (66%)[+1WO] Bangalore, Strasbourg, Kolkata 18 Zvonareva, Vera 1524 17 24Ð13(65%)[+1WO,3Wi] Auckland, U. S. Open (2) 19 Medina Garrigues, Anab. 1315 18 28Ð18 (61%)[+1WO] 20 Déchy, Nathalie 1277 16 18Ð14 (56%)[+2Wi] U. S. Open (1) 21 Navratilova, Martina 1240 12 23Ð10 (70%)[+1WO] Strasbourg, Canadian Open (2) 22 Daniilidou, Eleni 1198 24 28Ð23(55%)[+3WO,2Wi] 23 Petrova, Nadia 1111 9 19Ð7 (73%)[+1WO,1Wi] Canadian Open (1) 24 Mirza, Sania 1070 18 31Ð16(66%)[+1WO,1Wi] Bangalore, Kolkata (2) 25 Asagoe, Shinobu 1054 12 22Ð11 (67%) Amelia Island (1) 26 Kirilenko, Maria 1050 20 22Ð20 (52%)[+1WO] 27 Peer, Shahar 1027 21 28Ð19 (60%) Prague, Stanford (2) 28 Likhovtseva, Elena 1026 18 21Ð16 (57%)[+1WO] Auckland, Warsaw (2) 29 Dulko, Gisela 1023 23 30Ð19(61%)[+1WO,2Wi] Bogota, Cincinnati (2) 30 Sun Tiantian 920 23 24Ð19 (56%)[+2WO] Pattaya City, Estoril, GuangZhou (3) 31 Li Ting 920 19 24Ð16 (60%)[+2WO] Pattaya City, Estoril, GuangZhou (3) 32 Pennetta, Flavia 906 13 22Ð20 (52%)[+2Wi] Bogota (2) 33 Bartoli, Marion 893 16 24Ð14 (63%)[+1Wi] Prague (1) 34 Morariu, Corina 888 15 17Ð13 (57%)[+2WO] Sydney, Bali (2) 35 Benesova, Iveta 845 18 17Ð17 (50%) 36 Krajicek, Michaella 824 19 23Ð17 (58%) Palermo, Budapest (2) 37 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 790 9 15Ð6 (71%)[+2Wi] Eastbourne (1) 38 Husarova, Janette 783 15 21Ð13 (62%)[+1Wi] Palermo, Budapest (2) 39 Camerin, Maria Elena 759 19 22Ð16(58%)[+1WO,2Wi] Cincinnati (1) 40 Dementieva, Elena 752 12 16Ð11 (59%)[+1Wi] 41 Santangelo, Mara 750 19 17Ð18 (49%)[+2Wi]

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 137 42 Pratt, Nicole 750 21 24Ð17(59%)[+1WO,1Wi] Hobart (1) 43 Jankovic, Jelena 740 22 20Ð18(53%)[+1WO,3Wi] Birmingham (1) 44 Fedak, Yuliana 737 21 14Ð16(47%)[+1WO,1Wi] 45 Tu, Meilen 725 23 21Ð22 (49%) [Midland $75K] 46 Vesnina, Elena 724.75 21 14Ð19(42%)[+2WO,1Wi] 47 Mattek, Bethanie 713 18 19Ð15 (56%)[+1Wi] 48 Voskoboeva, Galina 707.5 27 16Ð18 (47%)[+2Wi] [Saint Raphael $50K] 49 Loit, Emilie 704 12 21Ð9 (70%)[+1Wi] Hobart, Paris (2) 50 Vanc, Andreea 683.75 25 19Ð25 (43%)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 138 Doubles Rankings Month By Month As with the singles month-by-month rankings on page 10, names have necessarily been abbreviated. In the final months of the year, note and Samantha Stosur co-ranked #1, leaving no #2 player. Rank January February March April May June July August Septembr October November 1 Black Black Stosur Stosur Stosur Stosur Stosur Raym/Sto Raym/Sto Raym/Sto Raym/Sto 2 Stosur Raymond Raymond Raymond Raymond Raymond Raymond 3 Raymond Stosur Black Black Black Black Black Zheng Zheng Zheng Zheng 4 Ruano Pa Ruano Pa Ruano Pa Ruano Pa Ruano Pa Ruano Pa Stubbs Yan Yan Yan Yan 5 Stubbs Stubbs Stubbs Stubbs Huber Stubbs Hantucho Ruano Pa Black Black Black 6 Huber Huber Huber Huber Stubbs Huber Zheng Stubbs Stubbs Stubbs Stubbs 7 Likhovts Likhovts Martinez Grönefel Grönefel Grönefel Yan Black Ruano Pa Ruano Pa Srebotni 8 Kuznetso Grönefel Grönefel Martinez Shaughne Shaughne Ruano Pa Hantucho Grönefel Srebotni Ruano Pa 9 Martinez Martinez Likhovts Shaughne Likhovts Zheng Sugiyama Sugiyama Hantucho Peschke Peschke 10 Zvonarev Shaughne Shaughne Likhovts Zvonarev Yan Grönefel Grönefel Sugiyama Hantucho Schiavon 11 Grönefel Zvonarev Zvonarev Zvonarev Srebotni Hantucho Huber Srebotni Srebotni Zvonarev Grönefel 12 Molik Suárez Suárez Hantucho Martinez Srebotni Srebotni Peschke Shaughne Sugiyama Sugiyama 13 Hantucho Zheng Zheng Zheng Hantucho Sugiyama Shaughne Shaughne Peschke Grönefel Hantucho 14 Sugiyama Yan Hantucho Yan Asagoe Asagoe Likhovts Pennetta Pennetta Schiavon Zvonarev 15 Morariu Hantucho Yan Sugiyama Zheng Martinez Peschke Asagoe Medina G Suárez Suárez 16 Peschke Sugiyama Peschke Peschke Yan Likhovts Asagoe Dementie Schiavon Safina Shaughne 17 Suárez Peschke Kuznetso Srebotni Sugiyama Pennetta Pennetta Likhovts Likhovts Shaughne Safina 18 Dementie Asagoe Srebotni Asagoe Pennetta Zvonarev Martinez Martinez Asagoe Huber Huber 19 Shaughne Kuznetso Sugiyama Pennetta Peschke Peschke Zvonarev Medina G Navratil Asagoe Medina G 20 Medina G Srebotni Pennetta Kuznetso Dulko Dementie Navratil Schiavon Huber Likhovts Likhovts 21 Navratil Morariu Asagoe Dulko Loit Navratil Dementie Dulko Dementie Medina G Dechy 22 Pennetta Dementie Kirilenk Dementie Navratil Loit Medina G Navratil Dulko Dulko Navratil 23 Asagoe Pennetta Dulko Loit Kuznetso Dulko Kuznetso Huber Safina Dechy Daniilid 24 Stewart Medina G Dementie Medina G Dementie Safina Schiavon Zvonarev Suárez Navratil Petrova 25 Srebotni Kirilenk Loit Kirilenk Medina G Kuznetso Dulko Daniilid Zvonarev Daniilid Mirza 26 Dulko Dulko Petrova Morariu Morariu Schiavon Safina Safina Daniilid Mirza Asagoe 27 Kirilenk Loit Morariu Suárez Safina Medina G Loit Kirilenk Kirilenk Petrova Kirilenk 28 Safina Safina Medina G Safina Kirilenk Morariu Kirilenk Loit Mirza Kirilenk Peer 29 Loit Navratil Safina Navratil Petrova Petrova Mauresmo Li Ting Petrova Pennetta Dulko 30 Zheng Petrova Navratil Li Ting Li Ting Li Ting Daniilid Sun Li Ting Peer Morariu

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 139 Team Doubles Titles, Sorted from Most to Least Although the only teams listed are those with WTA titles, their titles at $50K and larger Challengers are also shown. A total of 35 teams won WTA titles this year. Team Titles Won (Tier) # of Titles Raymond/Stosur Pan Pacific (I), Memphis (III), Indian Wells (I), Miami (I), 10 Charleston (I), Roland Garros (Slam), Stuttgart (II), Linz (II), Hasselt (III), Madrid Championships (Champ) Yan/Zheng Australian Open (Slam), Berlin (I), Rabat (IV), 6 ’s-Hertogenbosch (III), Wimbledon (Slam), New Haven (II) Peschke/Schiavone Dubai (II+), Luxembourg (II), Moscow (I) 3 Ruano Pascual/Suárez Los Angeles (II), Beijing (II), Seoul (IV) 3 Li/Sun Pattaya City (III), Estoril (IV), GuangZhou (III) 3 Black/Stubbs San Diego (I), Zürich (I) 2 Hantuchova/Sugiyama Doha (II), Rome (I) 2 Huber/Mirza Bangalore (III), Kolkata (III) 2 King/Kostanic Japan Open (III), Bangkok (III) 2 Husarova/Krajicek Palermo (IV), Budapest (IV) 2 Déchy/Zvonareva U. S. Open (Slam) 1 Navratilova/Petrova Canadian Open (I) 1 Asagoe/Srebotnik Amelia Island (II) 1 Grönefeld/Peer Stanford (II) 1 Kuznetsova/Mauresmo Eastbourne (II) 1 Likhovtseva/Myskina Warsaw (II) 1 Loit/Peschke Paris (II) 1 Morariu/Stubbs Sydney (II) 1 Safina/Srebotnik Antwerp (II) 1 A. Bondarenko/Yakimova Istanbul (III) 1 Camerin/Dulko Cincinnati (III) 1 Davenport/Morariu Bali (III) 1 Dulko/Pennetta Bogota (III) 1 Granville/Gullickson Quebec City (III) 1 Grönefeld/Shaughnessy Acapulco (III) 1 Huber/M. Navratilova Strasbourg (III) 1 Jankovic/N. Li Birmingham (III) 1 Safina/Shaughnessy Gold Coast (III) 1 Azarenka/Poutchek Tashkent (IV); [Tucson $75K 2005]1 Bartoli/Peer Prague (IV) 1 Birnerova/Gajdosova Stockholm (IV) 1 Domachowska/Vinci Canberra (IV) 1 Hradecka/Voracova Portoroz (IV) 1 Likhovtseva/Zvonareva Auckland (IV) 1 Loit/Pratt Hobart (IV) 1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 140 Individual Doubles Titles, Sorted from Most to Least Note: Only players with WTA doubles titles are listed, but their titles at $50K and larger Challengers are included in the list. A total of 57 players won at least one doubles title this year. Player Titles Won (Tier) # of Titles Raymond Pan Pacific (I), Memphis (III), Indian Wells (I), Miami (I), Charleston 10 (I), Roland Garros (Slam), Stuttgart (II), Linz (II), Hasselt (III), Madrid Championships (Champ) Stosur Pan Pacific (I), Memphis (III), Indian Wells (I), Miami (I), Charleston 10 (I), Roland Garros (Slam), Stuttgart (II), Linz (II), Hasselt (III), Madrid Championships (Champ) Yan Australian Open (Slam), Berlin (I), Rabat (IV), ’s-Hertogenbosch (III), 6 Wimbledon (Slam), New Haven (II) Zheng Australian Open (Slam), Berlin (I), Rabat (IV), ’s-Hertogenbosch (III), 6 Wimbledon (Slam), New Haven (II) Peschke Paris (II), Dubai (II+), Luxembourg (II), Moscow (I) 4 Huber Bangalore (III), Strasbourg (III), Kolkata (III) 3 Li Ting Pattaya City (III), Estoril (IV), GuangZhou (III) 3 Ruano Pascual Los Angeles (II), Beijing (II), Seoul (IV) 3 Schiavone Dubai (II+), Luxembourg (II), Moscow (I) 3 Stubbs Sydney (II), San Diego (I), Zürich (I) 3 Suárez Los Angeles (II), Beijing (II), Seoul (IV) 3 Sun Pattaya City (III), Estoril (IV), GuangZhou (III) 3 Black San Diego (I), Zürich (I) 2 Dulko Bogota (III), Cincinnati (III) 2 Grönefeld Acapulco (II), Stanford (II) 2 Hantuchova Doha (II), Rome (I) 2 Husarova Palermo (IV), Budapest (IV) 2 King Japan Open (III), Bangkok (III) 2 Kostanic Japan Open (III), Bangkok (III) 2 Krajicek Palermo (IV), Budapest (IV) 2 Likhovtseva Auckland (IV), Warsaw (II) 2 Loit Hobart (IV), Paris (II) 2 Mirza Bangalore (III), Kolkata (III) 2 Morariu Sydney (II), Bali (III) 2 Navratilova Strasbourg (III), Canadian Open (I) 2 Peer Prague (IV), Stanford (II) 2 Safina Gold Coast (III), Antwerp (II) 2 Shaughnessy Gold Coast (III), Acapulco (III) 2 Srebotnik Antwerp (II), Amelia Island (II) 2 Sugiyama Doha (II), Rome (I) 2 Zvonareva Auckland (IV), U. S. Open (Slam) 2 A. Bondarenko Istanbul (III) 1 Asagoe Amelia Island (II) 1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 141 Azarenka Tashkent (IV); [Tucson $75K 2005]1 Bartoli Prague (IV) 1 Birnerova Stockholm (IV) 1 Camerin Cincinnati (III) 1 Davenport Bali (III) 1 Déchy U. S. Open (Slam) 1 Domachowska Canberra (IV) 1 Gajdosova Stockholm (IV); [Baden-Baden $50K+H]1 Granville Quebec City (III) 1 Gullickson Quebec City (III); [San Francisco $50K]1 Hradecka Portoroz (IV); [Ortisei $75K]1 Jankovic Birmingham (III) 1 Kuznetsova Eastbourne (II) 1 Li Na Birmingham (III) 1 Mauresmo Eastbourne (II) 1 Myskina Warsaw (II) 1 Pennetta Bogota (III) 1 Petrova Canadian Open (I) 1 Poutchek Tashkent (IV); [Tucson $75K 2005; Jounieh $75K]1 Pratt Hobart (IV) 1 Vinci Canberra (IV) 1 Voracova Portoroz (IV); [Mestre $50K, Biella $50K+H]1 Yakimova Istanbul (III); [Jounieh $75K]1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 142 Doubles Tournament Strengths Above, we calculated the strengths of the various WTA events based on two systems: Top Four Players (page 36) and Modified TSI (page 37). Modified TSI is not easy to apply to doubles events, but we can calculate Top Four Players — or, rather, Top Four Teams. We follow a rule similar to that we used for the singles: Take the combined rankings of the rankings of the team with the best combined ranking, and double it. Add double the ranking of the #2 team, then the ranking of the #3 and #4 teams. In singles, the minimum score is 13. In doubles, this is more complicated, since there can be multiple players with the same ranking, and of course the #1 player can choose to play with #100. The minimum if we have teams of #1+#2, #3+#4, #5+#6, and #7+#8 is 44. In fact we had no tournament that strong this year — but some came very close; four events (Wimbledon, U. S. Open, Madrid, and — oddity of oddities — Zürich) had combined rankings less than fifty. On the other hand, we have a couple with combined rankings greater than 1000; these, obviously, were more like Challengers than Tour events (indeed, the gap between Tour events and Challengers is often less in doubles, because very good doubles players maybe forced into Challengers because their singles rankings are so low). The table below lists the sixty WTA events with a doubles draw (recall that Forest Hills has no doubles draw), sorted in order based on how strong they are. This table has one other twist: It also lists the tournament’s standings in the singles Top Four rankings (with all the Challengers and such eliminated from the list, so that the singles events are also ranked from 1 to 60). We use this to let us compare whether the events were stronger in singles or doubles. I won’t explain how I did this in details (if you care, the “magic ratios” were 0.6, 0.83, 1.2, 1.65), but it’s interesting to note how dramatically different an event’s strength could be in singles and doubles. Doubles Event Doubles Singles Which is Rank Score Rank stronger? 1 Wimbledon 47 1 About Equal 2T Madrid Championships 48 1 About Equal 2T U. S. Open 48 6 About Equal 2T Zürich 48 9 Doubles Much Stronger 5 Roland Garros 56 1 About Equal 6 New Haven 58 9 Doubles Stronger 7 Miami 59 1 Singles Much Stronger 8T Indian Wells 62 16 Doubles Much Stronger 8T Los Angeles 62 20 Doubles Much Stronger 10 Australian Open 63 1 Singles Much Stronger 11 San Diego 70 13 About Equal 12 Stuttgart 73 21 Doubles Much Stronger 13 Rome 78 23 Doubles Much Stronger 14 Moscow 82 8 Singles Much Stronger 15 Charleston 83 23 Doubles Stronger 16T Eastbourne 86 7 Singles Much Stronger 16T Sydney 86 13 Singles Stronger 18 Pan Pacific 91 30 Doubles Stronger 19 Amelia Island 96 31 Doubles Stronger 20 Linz 101 21 About Equal 21 Luxembourg 104 27 Doubles Stronger 22 Canadian Open 106 19 About Equal

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 143 23 Berlin 159 15 Singles Stronger 24 Dubai 162 9 Singles Much Stronger 25T Beijing 165 17 Singles Stronger 25T Doha 165 26 About Equal 27 Stanford 174 28 About Equal 28 Gold Coast 215 33 About Equal 29 Paris 226 18 Singles Stronger 30 ’s-Hertogenbosch 229 35 About Equal 31 Auckland 243 37 About Equal 32 Birmingham 249 34 About Equal 33 Antwerp 251 12 Singles Much Stronger 34 Acapulco 257 44 Doubles Stronger 35 Warsaw 294 23 Singles Stronger 36 Estoril 354 50 Doubles Stronger 37T Memphis 404 48 Doubles Stronger 37T Seoul 404 40 About Equal 39 Hasselt 417 32 Singles Stronger 40 Pattaya City 422 55 Doubles Stronger 41 GuangZhou 440 41 About Equal 42 Istanbul 465 39 About Equal 43 Stockholm 486 43 About Equal 44 Japan Open 538 46 About Equal 45 Prague 614 51 About Equal 46 Strasbourg 628 38 Singles Stronger 47 Kolkata 637 57 Doubles Stronger 48 Bangkok 649 52 About Equal 49T Budapest 673 54 About Equal 49T Canberra 673 58 About Equal 51 Hobart 690 42 Singles Stronger 52 Rabat 694 56 About Equal 53 Palermo 724 47 About Equal 54 Bangalore 730 59 About Equal 55 Bogota 768 49 About Equal 56 Portoroz 797 53 About Equal 57 Quebec City 812 45 Singles Stronger 58 Cincinnati 825 36 Singles Stronger 59 Tashkent 1002 60 About Equal 60 Bali 1363 29 Singles Much Stronger

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 144 Doubles Results What follows is similar to the tables for singles player results (page 41), with a handful of exceptions. For starters, obviously, the list shows which partner a player played each event with. Also, the list of teams beaten is a little different. Instead of listing rankings, it lists seed numbers, in curly brackets {}. In some cases, where a particularly significant team has gone unseeded, I’ve listed them anyway. So, for example, the second line in the entry for Shinobu Asagoe reads Australian Open w/Srebotnik (Slam, SF [Yan {34}/Zheng {33}], 4) — Huber/Schiavone {8}, Black/Stubbs {2} That means Asagoe played the Australian Open with Katarina Srebotnik. They made the semifinal before losing to #34 and #33 Zheng Jie, winning four matches to do so. Along the way, they beat #8 seeds Huber/Schiavone and #2 Black/Stubbs. A note about withdrawals: Doubles withdrawals have become so common that events often don’t have Lucky Losers available to fill draw slots when a team pulls out of the first round. For purposes of record- keeping, these withdrawals are listed in the player results below (see, e.g. Daniilidou at Birmingham). The WTA does not count either withdrawal as an event, so players with this sort of withdrawal will show more events than the WTA lists. When teams withdraw and another team replaces them, I have not listed these. Shinobu Asagoe: Initial Rank: 23 ¥ Final Rank: 25 ¥ Events: 12 Auckland w/Srebotnik (IV, SF [Likhovtseva {7}/Zvonareva {10}], 2) Australian Open w/Srebotnik (Slam, SF [Yan {34}/Zheng {33}], 4) — Huber/Schiavone {8}, Black/Stubbs {2} Pan Pacific w/Srebotnik (I, 1R [Gullickson {86}/Mattek {115}], 0) Pattaya City w/Nakamura (IV, QF [T. Li {37}/Sun {38}], 1) Acapulco w/Loit (III, F [Grönefeld {8}/Shaughnessy {10}], 3) Indian Wells w/McShea (I+, 1R [Yan {14}/Zheng {13}], 0) Miami w/Srebotnik (Ireq, SF [L. Huber {6}/Navratilova {29}], 3) — Clijsters/Maes Amelia Island w/Srebotnik (II, Win, 4) — Kuznetsova/Likhovtseva {3}, Grönefeld/Petrova, Peschke/Schiavone, Huber/ Mirza Charleston w/Srebotnik (I, SF [Ruano Pascual {4}/Shaughnessy {9}], 3) Roland Garros w/Srebotnik (Slam, 1R [Gagliardi {59}/Santangelo {53}], 0) Wimbledon w/Srebotnik (Slam, 1R [Gagliardi {55}/Santangelo {51}], 0) U. S. Open w/Morigami (Slam, R16 [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 2) — Bartoli/Peer {14} retired : Initial Rank: 1 ¥ Final Rank: 5 ¥ Events: 21 Gold Coast w/Stubbs (III, F [Safina {28}/Shaughnessy {19}], 2+ 1 walkover) Australian Open w/Stubbs (Slam, QF [Asagoe {24}/Srebotnik {25}], 3) Pan Pacific w/Stubbs (I, F [Raymond {2}/Stosur {3}], 3) Paris w/Stubbs (II, F [Loit {26}/Peschke {17}], 3) — Dementieva/Pennetta {4} Antwerp w/Stubbs (II, SF [Foretz {129}/Krajicek {88}], 2) Indian Wells w/Stubbs (I+, R16 [Mirza {64}/Sugiyama {15}], 1) Miami w/Stubbs (Ireq, 1R [Loit {23}/Pratt {34}], 0) Berlin w/Dechy (I, R16 [Grönefeld {7}/Petrova {33}], 1) Rome w/Stubbs (I, SF [Hantuchova {12}/Sugiyama {17}], 2) Roland Garros w/Stubbs (Slam, QF [Hantuchova {11}/Sugiyama {13}], 3) — Likhovtseva/Myskina {13} Birmingham w/Stubbs (III, QF [Mattek {52}/Washington {94}], 1) Wimbledon w/Stubbs (Slam, SF [Yan {7}/Zheng {6}], 3+ 1 walkover) — Peschke/Schievone {9} San Diego w/Stubbs (I, Win, 3+ 1 walkover) — Ruano Pascual/Suárez {6}, Safina/Srebotnik {7}, Grönefeld/Shaughnessy {4} Los Angeles w/Stubbs (II, QF [Husarova {64}/Peschke {13}], 1) Canadian Open w/Groenefeld (I, F [Navratilova {20}/Petrova {49}], 3) — Safina/Srebotnik {4} New Haven w/Stubbs (II, SF [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 2) U. S. Open w/Stubbs (Slam, QF [Safina {23}/Srebotnik {11}], 3) — Husarova/Likhovtseva {15} Stuttgart w/Stubbs (II+, F [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 3) — Husarova/Likhovatseva, Safina/Srebotnik {3} Moscow w/Stubbs (I, 1R [Husarova {43}/Likhovtseva {19}], 0) Zürich w/Stubbs (I, Win, 3+ 1 walkover) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama, Huber/Srebotnik Madrid Championships w/Stubbs (Champ, F [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 1) — Yan/Zheng {2}

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 145 Kim Clijsters: Initial Rank: — • Final Rank: — • Events: 1 Miami w/Maes (Ireq, R16[Asagoe {18}/Srebotnik {17}], 1) Eleni Daniilidou: Initial Rank: 50 ¥ Final Rank: 22 ¥ Events: 24 Auckland w/Woehr (IV, 1R [Beygelzimer {63}/Jugic-Salkic {88}], 0) Canberra w/Medina Garrigues (IV, QF [Razzano {180}/Ant. Serra Zanetti {65}], 1) Australian Open w/Medina Garrigues (Slam, 1R [Krajicek {113}/Szavay {96}], 0) Paris w/Medina Garrigues (II, 1R [Dementieva {25}/Pennetta {22}], 0) Antwerp w/Medina Garrigues (II, SF [Safina {29}/Srebotnik {20}], 2) Doha w/Medina Garrigues (II, QF [T. Li {33}/Sun {34}], 1) — Huber/Navratilova {4} Indian Wells w/Medina Garrigues (I+, SF [Ruano Pascual {4}/Shaughnessy {9}], 2+ 1 walkover) Miami w/Medina Garrigues (Ireq, QF [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 2) — Yan/Zheng {6} Estoril w/Woehr (IV, QF [N.Uberoi {135}/S. Uberoi {159}], 1) Berlin w/Medina Garrigues (I, QF [Yan {14}/Zheng {15}], 2) Istanbul w/Woehr (III, QF [ABondarenko {92}/Yakimova {91}], 1) Roland Garros w/Medina Garrigues (Slam, SF [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 4) Birmingham w/Santangelo (III, 1R [withdrew without playing], 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Medina Garrigues (III, 1R [Ivanovic {92}/Kirilenko {29}], 0) Wimbledon w/Medina Garrigues (Slam, QF [Ruano Pascual {8}/Suárez {93}], 3) Palermo w/Woehr (IV, 1R [Cabeza Candela {347}/Pous Tio {308}], 0) Budapest w/Woehr (IV, SF [Hradecka {68}/Voracova {126}], 2) Stockholm w/Woehr (IV, SF [Birnerova {84}/ {96}], 2) New Haven w/Medina Garrigues (II, QF [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 1) Beijing w/Medina Garrigues (II, 1R [Laine {85}/M. J. Martinez {66}], 0) Seoul w/Brémond (IV, 1R [Castano {179}/Craybas {78}], 0) Bangkok w/Molik (III, QF [withdrew], 1) Zürich w/Woehr (I, 1R [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 0) Linz w/Woehr (II, SF [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 1+ 1 walkover) Hasselt w/Woehr (III, F [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 2+ 1 walkover) — K. Bondarenko/Fedak {4} Lindsay Davenport: Initial Rank: 49 • Final Rank: — • Events: 1 Bali w/Morariu (III+, Win, 4) — Bremond/Voskoboeva {4}, Vento-Kabchi/Widjaja {1}, Grandin/Musgrave {2} Nathalie Déchy: Initial Rank: 103 ¥ Final Rank: 20 ¥ Events: 16 Australian Open w/Golovin (Slam, R32 [Krajicek {113}/Szavay {96}], 1) Pan Pacific w/Vaidisova (I, 1R [Raymond {2}/Stosur {3}], 0) Indian Wells w/Golovin (I+, 1R [Peer {72}/Stewart {36}], 0) Miami w/Golovin (Ireq, 1R [Kuznetsova {20}/Mauresmo {42}], 0) Amelia Island w/Bartoli (II, QF [Peschke {17}/Schiavone {32}], 1) — Raymond/Stosur {1} Berlin w/Black (I, R16 [Grönefeld {7}/Petrova {33}], 1) Rome w/Grönefeld (I, R16 [Medina Garrigues {28}/Srebotnik {11}], 1) — Likhovtseva/Myskina Roland Garros w/Zvonareva (Slam, QF [Daniilidou {38}/Medina Garrigues {27}], 3) Eastbourne w/Stubbs (II, 1R [L. Huber {11}/Navratilova {20}], 0) Wimbledon w/Dulko (Slam, 1R [Ani {99}/Tu {44}], 0) Stanford w/Zvonareva (II, 1R [Camerin {34}/Dulko {24}], 0) San Diego w/Zvonareva (I, R16 [withdrew], 1) Canadian Open w/Sugiyama (I, QF [Safina {24}/Srebotnik {12}], 2) U. S. Open w/Zvonareva (Slam, Win, 6) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama {4}, Ruano Pascual/Suárez {7}, Peschke/Schiavone {6}, Safina/Srebotnik {8} Luxembourg w/Golovin (II, SF [Peschke {10}/Schiavone {15}], 2) — Raymond/Stosur {1} Zürich w/Pierce (I, 1R [Hantuchova {12}/Sugiyama {11}], 0) Linz w/Zvonareva (II, 1R [withdrew without playing], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 146 Elena Dementieva: Initial Rank: 18 ¥ Final Rank: 40 ¥ Events: 12 Australian Open w/Pennetta (Slam, R16 [Yan {34}/Zheng {33}], 2) Pan Pacific w/Morariu (I, 1R [Ivanovic {146}/Kirilenko {26}], 0) Paris w/Pennetta (II, SF [Black {3}/Stubbs {5}], 2) Indian Wells w/Pennetta (I+, R16 [withdrew], 1) Warsaw w/Voskoboeva (II, 1R [Tu {59}/Vanc {42}], 0) Berlin w/Pennetta (I, F [Yan {15}/Zheng {14}], 4) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama {2}, Grönefeld/Petrova {4} Roland Garros w/Pennetta (Slam, R32 [Ani {119}/Tu {52}], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Pennetta (III, SF [Ivanovic {92}/Kirilenko {29}], 2) Wimbledon w/Pennetta (Slam, R16 [Peschke {15}/Schiavone {24}], 2) San Diego w/Pennetta (I, 1R [Jankovic {69}/Mattek {40}], 0) Los Angeles w/Pennetta (II, QF [Ruano Pascual {7}/Suárez {31}], 1) Luxembourg w/Krajicek (II, QF [Grönefeld {13}/L. Huber {18}], 1) Gisela Dulko: Initial Rank: 26 ¥ Final Rank: 29 ¥ Events: 23 Australian Open w/Kirilenko (Slam, QF [Raymond {3}/Stosur {4}], 3) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama {6} Bogota w/Pennetta (III, Win, 4) — Dominguez Lino/Sanchez Lorenzo {4}, Szavay/Woehr {2} Acapulco w/Pennetta (III, QF [withdrew], 1) Indian Wells w/Kirilenko (I+, 1R [Benesova {42}/Strycova {39}], 0) Miami w/Kirilenko (Ireq, 1R [A. Bondarenko {106}/K. Bondarenko {78}], 0) Amelia Island w/Pennetta (II, 1R [Safina {28}/Vesnina {92}], 0) Estoril w/Sanchez Lorenzo (IV, F [T. Li {30}/Sun {31}], 2+ 1 walkover) — Yan/Zheng {1} Berlin w/Kirilenko (I, R16 [Benesova {42}/Krajicek {68}], 1) Rome w/Kirilenko (I, QF [Medina Garrigues {28}/Srebotnik {11}], 2) — Raymond/Stosur {1} Roland Garros w/Kirilenko (Slam, R16 [Chakvetadze {275}/Vesnina {82}], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Camerin (III, SF [Yan {7}/Zheng {9}], 2) Wimbledon w/Déchy (Slam, 1R [Ani {99}/Tu {44}], 0) Cincinnati w/Camerin (III, Win, 4) — Laine/Sromova {5}, Domachowska/Mirza {3} Stanford w/Camerin (II, F [Grönefeld {10}/Peer {44}], 3) San Diego w/Morariu (I, 1R [Safina {26}/Srebotnik {11}], 0) Canadian Open w/Morariu (I, R16 [Navratilova {20}/Petrova {49}], 1) New Haven w/Dushevina (II, QF [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 1) U. S. Open w/Camerin (Slam, 1R [Laine {94}/Sfar {79}], 0) Beijing w/Bartoli (II, SF [Chakvetadze {98}/Vesnina {50}], 2) Seoul w/Laine (IV, QF [Chuang {99}/Diaz-Oliva {296}], 1) — Kim/Sugiyama Japan Open w/Yan (III, QF [withdrew], 1) Zürich w/Camerin (I, 1R [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 0) Linz w/Krajicek (II, 1R [Daniilidou {25}/Woehr {102}], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 147 Anna-Lena Grönefeld: Initial Rank: 11 • Final Rank: 11 • Events: 25 Sydney w/L. Huber (II, SF [Ruano Pascual {2}/Suárez {19}], 2) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama Australian Open w/Shaughnessy (Slam, SF [Raymond {3}/Stosur {4}], 4) — Loit/Pratt {11}, Likhovtseva/Zvonareva {3} Ortisei $75K w/N. Uberoi ($75K, 1R [Dzehalevich {194}/Jurak {134}], 0) Memphis w/Shaughnessy (III, QF [withdrew], 1) Acapulco w/Shaughnessy (III, Win, 4) — Asagoe/Loit {2} Indian Wells w/Bartoli (I+, QF [Benesova {42}/Strycova {39}], 2) — Yan/Zheng {4} Miami w/Shaughnessy (Ireq, 1R [Krajicek {69}/Morariu {26}], 0) Amelia Island w/Petrova (II, QF [Asagoe {18}/Grönefeld {15}], 1) Charleston w/Petrova (I, SF [withdrew], 2+ 1 walkover) — L. Huber/Peschke {3} Berlin w/Petrova (I, SF [Dementieva {25}/Pennetta {18}], 2) — Black/Déchy Rome w/Déchy (I, R16 [Medina Garrigues {28}/Srebotnik {11}], 1) — Likhovtseva/Myskina Istanbul w/Shaughnessy (III, 1R [withdrew without playing], 0) Roland Garros w/Shaughnessy (Slam, R32 [Husarova {110}/Mirza {37}], 1) Eastbourne w/Shaughnessy (II, 1R [Mattek {50}/Washington {84}], 0) Wimbledon w/Shaughnessy (Slam, QF [Fedak {114}/Perebiynis {153}], 3) Stanford w/Peer (II, Win, 4) — Camerin/Dulko {4} San Diego w/Shaughnessy (I, F [Black {7}/Stubbs {6}], 3) — Huber/Mirza {8}, Raymond/Stosur {1} Los Angeles w/Shaughnessy (II, 1R [Ruano Pascual {7}/Suárez {31}], 0) Canadian Open w/Black (I, F [Navratilova {20}/Petrova {49}], 3) — Safina/Srebotnik {4} New Haven w/Uhlirova (II, 1R [Dulko {18}/Dushevina {48}], 0) U. S. Open w/Shaughnessy (Slam, R32 [Ivanovic {59}/Kirilenko {27}], 1) Luxembourg w/L. Huber (II, F [Peschke {10}/Schiavone {15}], 3) — Safina/Srebotnik {2} Stuttgart w/L. Huber (II+, 1R [Peschke {9}/Schiavone {14}], 0) Moscow w/L. Huber (I, QF [Benesova {54}/Voskoboeva {57}], 1) Zürich w/Shaughnessy (I, QF [L. Huber {18}/Srebotnik {8}], 1) — Bartoli/Peer Linz w/Molik (II, 1R [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 0) Daniela Hantuchova: Initial Rank: 13 ¥ Final Rank: 13 ¥ Events: 18 Sydney w/Sugiyama (II, 1R [Grönefeld {11}/L. Huber {6}], 0) Australian Open w/Sugiyama (Slam, R16 [Dulko {27}/Kirilenko {28}], 2) Pan Pacific w/Sugiyama (I, QF [Pratt {35}/Santangelo {92}], 1) Dubai w/Sugiyama (II+, SF [Kuznetsova {20}/Petrova {30}], 2) Doha w/Sugiyama (II, Win, 4) — Yan/Zheng {2} Miami w/Sugiyama (Ireq, QF [Kuznetsova {20}/Mauresmo {42}], 2) — Myskina/Safina Berlin w/Sugiyama (I, QF [Dementieva {25}/Pennetta {18}], 1) Rome w/Sugiyama (I, Win, 4) — Li/Sun, Black/Stubbs {2}, Peschke/Schiavone {8} Roland Garros w/Sugiyama (Slam, F [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 5) — Black/Stubbs {2}, Yan/Zheng {4} Eastbourne w/Sugiyama (II, QF [Bartoli {44}/Peer {38}], 1) Wimbledon w/Sugiyama (Slam, 1R [Gajdosova {131}/Harkleroad {66}], 0) Stanford w/Sugiyama (II, 1R [Jankovic {78}/S. Uberoi {144}], 0) San Diego w/Sugiyama (I, QF [Safina {26}/Srebotnik {11}], 1) Los Angeles w/Sugiyama (II, F [Ruano Pascual {7}/Suárez {31}], 3) — Morariu/Petrova U. S. Open w/Sugiyama (Slam, R32 [Déchy {72}/Zvonareva {25}], 1) Stuttgart w/Peer (II+, 1R [Safina {16}/Srebotnik {8}], 0) Zürich w/Sugiyama (I, SF [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 2) — Déchy/Pierce, Yan/Zheng {2} Linz w/Sugiyama (II, QF [withdrew], 1) Martina Hingis: Initial Rank: — • Final Rank: — • Events: 1 Gold Coast w/Golovin (III, SF[withdrew], 2) — T. Li/Sun {4}, Gagliardi/Vinci

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 148 : Initial Rank: 6 ¥ Final Rank: 17 ¥ Events: 26 Sydney w/Grönefeld (II, SF [Ruano Pascual {2}/Suárez {19}], 2) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama Australian Open w/Schiavone (Slam, R16 [Asagoe {24}/Srebotnik {25}], 2) Paris w/Mirza (II, QF [Garbin {41}/Washington {103}], 1) Bangalore w/Mirza (III, Win, 4) — Koryttseva/Peer {3}, Rodionova/Vesnina {4} Dubai w/Navratilova (II+, 1R [Jankovic {190}/N. Li {116}], 0) Doha w/Navratilova (II, 1R [Daniilidou {51}/Medina Garrigues {28}], 0) Miami w/Navratilova (Ireq, F [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 4) — Petrova/Schnyder, T. Li/Sun, Asagoe/Srebotnik {8} Amelia Island w/Mirza (II, F [Asagoe {18}/Srebotnik {15}], 3) — Pratt/Stewart, Ruano Pascual/Shaughnessy {2} Charleston w/Peschke (I, QF [Grönefeld {7}/Petrova {34}], 1) Warsaw w/Navratilova (II, 1R [Ivanovic {98}/Kirilenko {28}], 0) Berlin w/Likhovtseva (I, R16 [Safina {28}/Vinci {40}], 0) Rome w/Navratilova (I, R16 [Safina {24}/Vinci {53}], 0) Strasbourg w/Navratilova (III, Win, 3+ 1 walkover) — Müller/Vanc {3} Roland Garros w/Navratilova (Slam, R32 [ABondarenko {70}/Fedak {123}], 1) Birmingham w/Craybas (III, F [Jankovic {145}/N. Li {93}], 3) — Li/Sun {2} Eastbourne w/Navratilova (II, F [Kuznetsova {27}/Mauresmo {32}], 3) — Déchy/Stubbs, Raymond/Stosur {1} Wimbledon w/Navratilova (Slam, QF [Yan {7}/Zheng {6}], 3) — Likhovtseva/Myskina {11} San Diego w/Mirza (I, QF [Grönefeld {10}/Shaughnessy {13}], 2) Los Angeles w/Mirza (II, 1R [Ivanovic {82}/Kirilenko {27}], 0) New Haven w/Kirilenko (II, 1R [Krajicek {39}/Morariu {36}], 0) U. S. Open w/Mirza (Slam, R16 [Peschke {13}/Schiavone {16}], 2) Kolkata w/Mirza (III, Win, 4) — Sromova/Widjaja {4}, Beygelzimer/Fedak {3} Luxembourg w/Grönefeld (II, F [Peschke {10}/Schiavone {15}], 3) — Safina/Srebotnik {2} Stuttgart w/Grönefeld (II+, 1R [Peschke {9}/Schiavone {14}], 0) Moscow w/Grönefeld (I, QF [Benesova {54}/Voskoboeva {57}], 1) Zürich w/Srebotnik (I, F [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 3) — Ruano Pascual/Suárez {4}, Grönefeld/Shaughnessy, Raymond/Stosur {1} Maria Kirilenko: Initial Rank: 27 ¥ Final Rank: 26 ¥ Events: 20 Auckland w/Suárez (IV, 1R [Schruff {135}/Szavay {97}], 0) Australian Open w/Dulko (Slam, QF [Raymond {3}/Stosur {4}], 3) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama {6} Pan Pacific w/Ivanovic (I, SF [Raymond {2}/Stosur {3}], 2) — Dementieva/Morariu {4}, Widjaja/Zheng Dubai w/Myskina (II+, 1R [Mirza {73}/Vento-Kabchi {38}], 0) Doha w/Myskina (II, 1R [Yan {15}/Zheng {13}], 0) Indian Wells w/Dulko (I+, 1R [Benesova {42}/Strycova {39}], 0) Miami w/Dulko (Ireq, 1R [ABondarenko {106}/KBondarenko {78}], 0) Warsaw w/Ivanovic (II, SF [Likhovtseva {9}/Myskina {65}], 2) — Huber/Navratilova {1} Berlin w/Dulko (I, R16 [Benesova {42}/Krajicek {68}], 1) Rome w/Dulko (I, QF [Medina Garrigues {28}/Srebotnik {11}], 2) — Raymond/Stosur {1} Roland Garros w/Dulko (Slam, R16 [Chakvetadze {275}/Vesnina {82}], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Ivanovic (III, F [Yan {7}/Zheng {9}], 3) — Daniilidou/Medina Garrigues {3}, Dementieva/Pennetta {2} Wimbledon w/Ivanovic (Slam, 1R [Jankovic {101}/Krizan {83}], 0) San Diego w/Ivanovic (I, R16 [Hantuchova {8}/Sugiyama {9}], 1) Los Angeles w/Ivanovic (II, QF [Hantuchova {8}/Sugiyama {9}], 1) — Huber/Mirza Canadian Open w/Ivanovic (I, QF [Black {6}/Grönefeld {8}], 1+ 1 walkover) — Li/Sun {6} New Haven w/L. Huber (II, 1R [Krajicek {39}/Morariu {36}], 0) U. S. Open w/Ivanovic (Slam, R16 [Navratilova {19}/Petrova {29}], 2) — Grönefeld/Shaughnessy {5} Beijing w/Domachowska (II, 1R [Molik {191}/Sugiyama {12}], 0) Moscow w/Dushevina (I, SF [Peschke {9}/Schiavone {16}], 2) — Kuznetsova/Petrova

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 149 Svetlana Kuznetsova: Initial Rank: 8 ¥ Final Rank: 37 ¥ Events: 9 Sydney w/Mauresmo (II, QF [Raymond {4}/Stosur {2}], 1) Australian Open w/Mauresmo (Slam, R16 [withdrew], 2) — Mirza/Morariu Dubai w/Petrova (II+, F [Peschke {18}/Schiavone {32}], 3) — Li/Sun, Yan/Zheng {2}, Hantuchova/Sugiyama {3} Miami w/Mauresmo (Ireq, SF [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 3) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama {5} Amelia Island w/Likhovtseva (II, 1R [Asagoe {18}/Srebotnik {15}], 0) Eastbourne w/Mauresmo (II, Win, 4) — Likhovtseva/Myskina, Huber/Navratilova {4} Wimbledon w/Mauresmo (Slam, R32 [withdrew], 1) Moscow w/Petrova (I, QF [Dushevina {52}/Kirilenko {28}], 1) — Raymond/Stosur {1} Zürich w/Molik (I, 1R [Yan {4}/Zheng {3}], 0) Elena Likhovtseva: Initial Rank: 7 ¥ Final Rank: 28 ¥ Events: 18 Auckland w/Zvonareva (IV, Win, 4) — Asagoe/Srebotnik {1}, Loit/Strycova {4} Australian Open w/Zvonareva (Slam, QF [Grönefeld {12}/Shaughnessy {15}], 3) Pan Pacific w/Myskina (I, 1R [Widjaja {999}/Zheng {13}], 0) Dubai w/Zvonareva (II+, QF [A. Bondarenko {158}/K. Bondarenko {109}], 1) Doha w/Zvonareva (II, SF [T. Li {33}/Sun {34}], 1+ 1 walkover) Miami w/Zvonareva (Ireq, 1R [Peschke {16}/Schiavone {33}], 0) Amelia Island w/Kuznetsova (II, 1R [Asagoe {18}/Srebotnik {15}], 0) Warsaw w/Myskina (II, Win, 4) — Medina Garrigues/Srebotnik {2} Berlin w/L. Huber (I, R16 [Safina {28}/Vinci {40}], 0) Rome w/Myskina (I, 1R [Déchy {105}/Grönefeld {7}], 0) Roland Garros w/Myskina (Slam, R16 [Black {3}/Stubbs {5}], 2) Eastbourne w/Myskina (II, 1R [Kuznetsova {27}/Mauresmo {32}], 0) Wimbledon w/Myskina (Slam, R16 [L. Huber {11}/Navratilova {20}], 2) San Diego w/Husarova (I, 1R [Ruano Pascual {5}/Suárez {32}], 0) New Haven w/Husarova (II, 1R [Yan {4}/Zheng {3}], 0) U. S. Open w/Husarova (Slam, R16 [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 2) Stuttgart w/Husarova (II+, QF [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 1) Moscow w/Husarova (I, QF [Peer {30}/Santangelo {51}], 1) — Black/Stubbs {2} Amélie Mauresmo: Initial Rank: 64 ¥ Final Rank: 57 ¥ Events: 6 Sydney w/Kuznetsova (II, QF [Raymond {4}/Stosur {2}], 1) Australian Open w/Kuznetsova (Slam, R16 [withdrew], 2) — Mirza/Morariu Miami w/Kuznetsova (Ireq, SF [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 3) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama {5} Eastbourne w/Kuznetsova (II, Win, 4) — Likhovtseva/Myskina, Huber/Navratilova {4} Wimbledon w/Kuznetsova (Slam, R32 [withdrew], 1) Beijing w/Brémond (II, QF [Ruano Pascual {8}/Suárez {18}], 1) Anabel Medina Garrigues: Initial Rank: 20 ¥ Final Rank: 19 ¥ Events: 18 Gold Coast w/Pennetta (III, SF [Safina {28}/Shaughnessy {19}], 2) Canberra w/Daniilidou (IV, QF [Razzano {180}/Ant. Serra-Zanetti {65}], 1) Australian Open w/Daniilidou (Slam, 1R [Krajicek {113}/Szavay {96}], 0) Paris w/Daniilidou (II, 1R [Dementieva {25}/Pennetta {22}], 0) Antwerp w/Daniilidou (II, SF [Safina {29}/Srebotnik {20}], 2) Doha w/Daniilidou (II, QF [T. Li {33}/Sun {34}], 1) — Huber/Navratilova {4} Indian Wells w/Daniilidou (I+, SF [Ruano Pascual {4}/Shaughnessy {9}], 2+ 1 walkover) Miami w/Daniilidou (Ireq, QF [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 2) — Yan/Zheng {6} Amelia Island w/Dominguez Lino (II, 1R [L. Huber {5}/Mirza {45}], 0) Warsaw w/Srebotnik (II, F [Likhovtseva {9}/Myskina {65}], 3) Berlin w/Daniilidou (I, QF [Yan {14}/Zheng {15}], 2) Rome w/Srebotnik (I, SF [Peschke {20}/Schiavone {31}], 3) — Dulko/Kirilenko Roland Garros w/Daniilidou (Slam, SF [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 4) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Daniilidou (III, 1R [Ivanovic {92}/Kirilenko {29}], 0) Wimbledon w/Daniilidou (Slam, QF [Ruano Pascual {8}/Suárez {93}], 3) New Haven w/Daniilidou (II, QF [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 1) Beijing w/Daniilidou (II, 1R [Laine {85}/Martinez Sanchez {66}], 0) GuangZhou w/Yan (III, SF [King {127}/Kostanic {101}], 2)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 150 Sania Mirza: Initial Rank: 111 ¥ Final Rank: 24 ¥ Events: 18 Australian Open w/Morariu (Slam, 1R [Kuznetsova {7}/Mauresmo {58}], 0) Paris w/L. Huber (II, QF [Garbin {41}/Washington {103}], 1) Bangalore w/L. Huber (III, Win, 4) — Koryttseva/Peer {3}, Rodionova/Vesnina {4} Dubai w/Vento-Kabchi (II+, QF [Hantuchova {14}/Sugiyama {17}], 1) — Kirilenko/Myskina Indian Wells w/Sugiyama (I+, QF [Daniilidou {49}/Medina Garrigues {28}], 2) — Black/Stubbs {2} Miami w/Ivanovic (Ireq, QF [Asagoe {18}/Srebotnik {17}], 2) — Peschke/Schiavone Amelia Island w/L. Huber (II, F [Asagoe {18}/Srebotnik {15}], 3) — Pratt/Stewart, Ruano Pascual/Shaughnessy {2} Istanbul w/Molik (III, F [ABondarenko {92}/Yakimova {91}], 2+ 1 walkover) Roland Garros w/Husarova (Slam, R16 [Daniilidou {38}/Medina Garrigues {27}], 2) — Grönefeld/Shaughnessy {3} Birmingham w/Schiavone (III, 1R [Vesnina {53}/Yan {9}], 0) Wimbledon w/Krajicek (Slam, R32 [Dementieva {21}/Pennetta {17}], 1) Cincinnati w/Domachowska (III, F [Camerin {39}/Dulko {24}], 3) Stanford w/Mattek (II, SF [Camerin {34}/Dulko {24}], 2) San Diego w/L. Huber (I, QF [Grönefeld {10}/Shaughnessy {13}], 2) Los Angeles w/L. Huber (II, 1R [Ivanovic {82}/Kirilenko {27}], 0) Canadian Open w/Domachowska (I, 1R [Garbin {46}/Tu {43}], 0) U. S. Open w/L. Huber (Slam, R16 [Peschke {13}/Schiavone {16}], 2) Kolkata w/L. Huber (III, Win, 4) — Sromova/Widjaja {4}, Beygelzimer/Fedak {3} Bangkok w/Tanasugarn (III, 1R [withdrew without playing], 0) Alicia Molik: Initial Rank: 12 ¥ Final Rank: 173 ¥ Events: 12 Gifu $50K w/Nakamura ($50K, QF [Chan {122}/Hsieh {102}], 1) Istanbul w/Mirza (III, F [ABondarenko {92}/Yakimova {91}], 2+ 1 walkover) Roland Garros w/Diaz-Oliva (Slam, 1R [Arvidsson {483}/Müller {86}], 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Stewart (III, 1R [Ruano Pascual {6}/Suárez {98}], 0) Stockholm w/NLi (IV, 1R [Birnerova {84}/Gajdosova {96}], 0) Canadian Open w/Voskoboeva (I, 1R [T. Li {30}/Sun {31}], 0) New Haven w/Garbin (II, 1R [Ruano Pascual {7}/Suárez {25}], 0) Beijing w/Sugiyama (II, QF [Laine {85}/M. J. Martinez {66}], 1) GuangZhou w/Shaughnessy (III, 1R [Jankovic {54}/N. Li {82}], 0) Bangkok w/Daniilidou (III, QF [withdrew], 1) Zürich w/Kuznetsova (I, 1R [Yan {4}/Zheng {3}], 0) Linz w/Grönefeld (II, 1R [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 0) : Initial Rank: 15 ¥ Final Rank: 34 ¥ Events: 15 Sydney w/Stubbs (II, Win, 4) — Raymond/Stosur {1}, Ruano Pascual/Suárez {4} Australian Open w/Mirza (Slam, 1R [Kuznetsova {7}/Mauresmo {58}], 0) Pan Pacific w/Dementieva (I, 1R [Ivanovic {146}/Kirilenko {26}], 0) Indian Wells w/Loit (I+, R16 [Fujiwara {98}/Gagliardi {54}], 1) Miami w/Krajicek (Ireq, R16 [Kuznetsova {20}/Mauresmo {42}], 1) — Grönefeld/Shaughnessy {3} Amelia Island w/Stubbs (II, 1R [Pratt {33}/Stewart {35}], 0) Charleston w/Stubbs (I, R16 [Harkleroad {102}/Voskoboeva {72}], 0) San Diego w/Dulko (I, 1R [Safina {26}/Srebotnik {11}], 0) Los Angeles w/Petrova (II, SF [Hantuchova {8}/Sugiyama {9}], 2) — Raymond/Stosur {1} Canadian Open w/Dulko (I, R16 [Navratilova {20}/Petrova {49}], 1) New Haven w/Krajicek (II, QF [Yan {4}/Zheng {3}], 1) — Huber/Kirilenko U. S. Open w/Krajicek (Slam, R32 [Navratilova {29}/Petrova {29}], 1) Bali w/Davenport (III+, Win, 4) — Bremond/Voskoboeva {4}, Vento-Kabchi/Widjaja {1}, Grandin/Musgrave {2} Zürich w/Jankovic (I, QF [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 1) Linz w/Srebotnik (II, F [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 1+ 2 walkover)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 151 : Initial Rank: 21 ¥ Final Rank: 21 ¥ Events: 12 Dubai w/L. Huber (II+, 1R [Jankovic {190}/N. Li {116}], 0) Doha w/L. Huber (II, 1R [Daniilidou {51}/Medina Garrigues {28}], 0) Miami w/L. Huber (Ireq, F [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 4) — Petrova/Schnyder, T. Li/Sun, Asagoe/Srebotnik {8} Warsaw w/L. Huber (II, 1R [Ivanovic {98}/Kirilenko {28}], 0) Prague w/Strycova (IV, QF [Harkleroad {89}/Mattek {71}], 1) Rome w/L. Huber (I, R16 [Safina {24}/Vinci {53}], 0) Strasbourg w/L. Huber (III, Win, 3+ 1 walkover) — Müller/Vanc {3} Roland Garros w/L. Huber (Slam, R32 [A. Bondarenko {70}/Fedak {123}], 1) Eastbourne w/L. Huber (II, F [Kuznetsova {27}/Mauresmo {32}], 3) — Déchy/Stubbs, Raymond/Stosur {1} Wimbledon w/L. Huber (Slam, QF [Yan {7}/Zheng {6}], 3) — Likhovtseva/Myskina {11} Canadian Open w/Petrova (I, Win, 5) — Dulko/Morariu {7}, Yan/Zheng {1}, Black/Grönefeld {2} U. S. Open w/Petrova (Slam, QF [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 3) — Krajicek/Morariu Shahar Peer: Initial Rank: 86 ¥ Final Rank: 27 ¥ Events: 21 Auckland w/Dushevina (IV, 1R [Kostanic {59}/Müller {119}], 0) Australian Open w/Dushevina (Slam, 1R [Ruano Pascual {2}/Suárez {16}], 0) Pattaya City w/Pratt (IV, QF [Hsieh {113}/Tanasugarn {116}], 1) Bangalore w/Koryttseva (III, SF [L. Huber {6}/Mirza {99}], 2) Indian Wells w/Stewart (I+, R16 [Ruano Pascual {4}/Shaughnessy {9}], 1) Miami w/Dushevina (Ireq, 1R [Benesova {39}/Strycova {36}], 0) Prague w/Bartoli (IV, Win, 4) Rome w/Husarova (I, R16 [Pratt {34}/Stewart {39}], 1) Istanbul w/Husarova (III, SF [ABondarenko {92}/Yakimova {91}], 2) Roland Garros w/Bartoli (Slam, R16 [Hantuchova {11}/Sugiyama {13}], 2) — Loit/Pratt {12} Eastbourne w/Bartoli (II, SF [Kuznetsova {27}/Mauresmo {32}], 2) — Peschke/Schiavone, Hantuchova/Sugiyama {2} Wimbledon w/Bartoli (Slam, R32 [Ruano Pascual {8}/Suárez {93}], 1) Stanford w/Grönefeld (II, Win, 4) — Camerin/Dulko {4} San Diego w/Bartoli (I, R16 [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 1) Los Angeles w/Bartoli (II, 1R [Hantuchova {8}/Sugiyama {9}], 0) Canadian Open w/Bartoli (I, SF [Navratilova {20}/Petrova {49}], 3) — Peschke/Schiavone {3} U. S. Open w/Bartoli (Slam, R32 [Asagoe {18}/Morigami {222}], 1) Stuttgart w/Hantuchova (II+, 1R [Safina {16}/Srebotnik {8}], 0) Moscow w/Santangelo (I, SF [Benesova {54}/Voskoboeva {57}], 2) — Husarova/Likhovtseva Zürich w/Bartoli (I, 1R [Grönefeld {14}/Shaughnessy {17}], 0) Linz w/Bartoli (II, QF [Peschke {9}/Schiavone {10}], 1) Flavia Pennetta: Initial Rank: 22 ¥ Final Rank: 32 ¥ Events: 13 Gold Coast w/Medina Garrigues (III, SF [Safina {28}/Shaughnessy {19}], 2) Australian Open w/Dementieva (Slam, R16 [Yan {34}/Zheng {33}], 2) Paris w/Dementieva (II, SF [Black {3}/Stubbs {5}], 2) Bogota w/Dulko (III, Win, 4) — Dominguez Lino/Sanchez Lorenzo {4}, Szavay/Woehr {2} Acapulco w/Dulko (III, QF [withdrew], 1) Indian Wells w/Dementieva (I+, R16 [withdrew], 1) Amelia Island w/Dulko (II, 1R [Safina {28}/Vesnina {92}], 0) Berlin w/Dementieva (I, F [Yan {15}/Zheng {14}], 4) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama {2}, Grönefeld/Petrova {4} Roland Garros w/Dementieva (Slam, R32 [Ani {119}/Tu {52}], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Dementieva (III, SF [Ivanovic {92}/Kirilenko {29}], 2) Wimbledon w/Dementieva (Slam, R16 [Peschke {15}/Schiavone {24}], 2) San Diego w/Dementieva (I, 1R [Jankovic {69}/Mattek {40}], 0) Los Angeles w/Dementieva (II, QF [Ruano Pascual {7}/Suárez {31}], 1) Canadian Open w/Husarova (I, 1R [withdrew without playing], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 152 Kveta Peschke: Initial Rank: 16 ¥ Final Rank: 8 ¥ Events: 24 Pan Pacific w/Craybas (I, 1R [Benesova {37}/Tu {97}], 0) Paris w/Loit (II, Win, 4) — Black/Stubbs {1} Antwerp w/Schiavone (II, QF [Foretz {129}/Krajicek {88}], 1) Dubai w/Schiavone (II+, Win, 4) Doha w/Schiavone (II, QF [withdrew], 1) Miami w/Schiavone (Ireq, R16 [Ivanovic {95}/Mirza {52}], 1) — Likhovtseva/Zvonareva {4} Amelia Island w/Schiavone (II, SF [Asagoe {18}/Srebotnik {15}], 2) Charleston w/L. Huber (I, QF [Grönefeld {7}/Petrova {34}], 1) Rome w/Schiavone (I, F [Hantuchova {12}/Sugiyama {17}], 4) — Medina Garrigues/Srebotnik {5} Roland Garros w/Schiavone (Slam, QF [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 2+ 1 walkover) Eastbourne w/Schiavone (II, 1R [Bartoli {44}/Peer {38}], 0) Wimbledon w/Schiavone (Slam, QF [Black {3}/Stubbs {4}], 3) — Dementieva/Pennetta {8} Stanford w/Srebotnik (II, 1R [Bartoli {38}/Domachowska {123}], 0) San Diego w/Santangelo (I, R16 [Jankovic {69}/Mattek {40}], 1) Los Angeles w/Husarova (II, SF [Ruano Pascual {7}/Suárez {31}], 2) — Black/Stubbs {2} Canadian Open w/Schiavone (I, QF [Bartoli {40}/Peer {35}], 1) New Haven w/Schiavone (II, 1R [Rodionova {46}/Vanc {43}], 0) U. S. Open w/Schiavone (Slam, SF [Déchy {72}/Zvonareva {25}], 4) — L. Huber/Mirza {11}, Yan/Zheng {2} Luxembourg w/Schiavone (II, Win, 4) — Grönefeld/L. Huber {4} Stuttgart w/Schiavone (II+, QF [withdrew], 1) — Grönefeld/L. Huber Moscow w/Schiavone (I, Win, 4) Zürich w/Schiavone (I, QF [withdrew], 1) Linz w/Schiavone (II, SF [withdrew], 2) — Bartoli/Peer Madrid Championships w/Schiavone (Champ, SF [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 0) Nadia Petrova: Initial Rank: 33 ¥ Final Rank: 23 ¥ Events: 9 Dubai w/Kuznetsova (II+, F [Peschke {18}/Schiavone {32}], 3) — Li/Sun, Yan/Zheng {2}, Hantuchova/Sugiyama {3} Miami w/Schnyder (Ireq, 1R [L. Huber {6}/Navratilova {35}], 0) Amelia Island w/Grönefeld (II, QF [Asagoe {18}/Grönefeld {15}], 1) Charleston w/Grönefeld (I, SF [withdrew], 2+ 1 walkover) — L. Huber/Peschke {3} Berlin w/Grönefeld (I, SF [Dementieva {25}/Pennetta {18}], 2) — Black/Déchy Los Angeles w/Morariu (II, SF [Hantuchova {8}/Sugiyama {9}], 2) — Raymond/Stosur {1} Canadian Open w/Navratilova (I, Win, 5) — Dulko/Morariu {7}, Yan/Zheng {1}, Black/Grönefeld {2} U. S. Open w/Navratilova (Slam, QF [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 3) — Krajicek/Morariu Moscow w/Kuznetsova (I, QF [Dushevina {52}/Kirilenko {28}], 1) — Raymond/Stosur {1}

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 153 Lisa Raymond: Initial Rank: 3 ¥ Final Rank: 1 ¥ Events: 23 Sydney w/Stosur (II, SF [Morariu {14}/Stubbs {5}], 2) — Kuznetsova/Mauresmo Australian Open w/Stosur (Slam, F [Yan {34}/Zheng {33}], 5) — Li/Sun {16}, Dulko/Kirilenko {10}, Grönefeld/Shaughnessy {5} Pan Pacific w/Stosur (I, Win, 4) — Black/Stubbs {1} Memphis w/Stosur (III, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/Stosur (I+, Win, 5) — Li/Sun {8}, Ruano Pascual/Shaughnessy {3} Miami w/Stosur (Ireq, Win, 5) — Bartoli/Ruano Pascual, Kuznetsova/Mauresmo, Huber/Navratilova {7} Amelia Island w/Stosur (II, 1R [Bartoli {63}/Déchy {100}], 0) Charleston w/Stosur (I, Win, 2+ 2 walkover) — Dominguez Lino/Vento-Kabchi {8}, Ruano Pascual/Shaughnessy {2} Rome w/Stosur (I, R16 [Dulko {25}/Kirilenko {33}], 0) Roland Garros w/Stosur (Slam, Win, 6) — Safina/Vinci {16}, Peschke/Schiavone {10}, Daniilidou/Medina Garrigues {15}, Hantuchova/Sugiyama {5} Eastbourne w/Stosur (II, SF [L. Huber {11}/Navratilova {20}], 2) Wimbledon w/Stosur (Slam, R16 [Ruano Pascual {8}/Suárez {93}], 2) San Diego w/Stosur (I, SF [Grönefeld {10}/Shaughnessy {23}], 2) Los Angeles w/Stosur (II, 1R [Morariu {41}/Pennetta {57}], 0) New Haven w/Stosur (II, F [Yan {4}/Zheng {3}], 3) — Black/Stubbs {3} U. S. Open w/Stosur (Slam, SF [Safina {23}/Srebotnik {11}], 4) — Asagoe/Morigami, Navratilova/Petrova {10} Luxembourg w/Stosur (II, 1R [Déchy {24}/Golovin {174}], 0) Stuttgart w/Stosur (II+, Win, 3+ 1 walkover) — Black/Stubbs {2} Moscow w/Stosur (I, 1R [Kuznetsova {42}/Petrova {27}], 0) Zürich w/Stosur (I, SF [L. Huber {18}/Srebotnik {8}], 2) Linz w/Stosur (II, Win, 3+ 1 walkover) — Grönefeld/Molik, Morariu/Srebotnik Hasselt w/Stosur (III, Win, 4) — Strycova/Vanc {3} Madrid Championships w/Stosur (Champ, Win, 2) — Peschke/Schiavone, Black/Stubbs Virginia Ruano Pascual: Initial Rank: 4 ¥ Final Rank: 10 ¥ Events: 19 Sydney w/Suárez (II, F [Morariu {14}/Stubbs {5}], 3) — Grönefeld/Huber {2} Australian Open w/Suárez (Slam, QF [Yan {34}/Zheng {33}], 2+ 1 walkover) Indian Wells w/Shaughnessy (I+, F [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 4) Miami w/Bartoli (Ireq, R16 [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 1) Amelia Island w/Shaughnessy (II, SF [L. Huber {5}/Mirza {45}], 2) Charleston w/Shaughnessy (I, F [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 2+ 1 walkover) — Asagoe/Srebotnik {5} Rome w/Suárez (I, 1R [T. Li {29}/Sun {30}], 0) Roland Garros w/Suárez (Slam, R32 [Chakvetadze {275}/Vesnina {82}], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Suárez (III, QF [Yan {7}/Zheng {9}], 1) — Molik/Stewart Wimbledon w/Suárez (Slam, F [Yan {6}/Zheng {7}], 5) — Bartoli/Peer {17}, Raymond/Stosur {1}, Daniilidou/Medina Garrigues {10} San Diego w/Suárez (I, QF [Black {7}/Stubbs {6}], 2) — Husarova/Likhovtseva Los Angeles w/Suárez (II, Win, 4) — Grönefeld/Shaughnessy {4}, Dementieva/Pennetta, Husarova/Peschke, Hantuchova/Sugiyama {3} Canadian Open w/Suárez (I, 1R [A. Bondarenko {55}/K. Bondarenko {85}], 0) New Haven w/Suárez (II, SF [Yan {4}/Zheng {3}], 2) U. S. Open w/Suárez (Slam, QF [Déchy {72}/Zvonareva {25}], 3) Beijing w/Suárez (II, Win, 4) — Li/Sun Seoul w/Suárez (IV, Win, 4) Japan Open w/Suárez (III, SF [withdrew], 2) Zürich w/Suárez (I, 1R [L. Huber {18}/Srebotnik {8}], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 154 Dinara Safina: Initial Rank: 28 • Final Rank: 16 • Events: 17 Gold Coast w/Shaughnessy (III, Win, 4) — Medina Garrigues/Penneta {3}, Black/Stubbs {1} Australian Open w/Myskina (Slam, R32 [Foretz {150}/Ant. Serra-Zanetti {64}], 1) Paris w/Douchevina (II, QF [Loit {26}/Peschke {17}], 1) Antwerp w/Srebotnik (II, Win, 4) — Daniilidou/Medina Garrigues {4} Indian Wells w/Myskina (I+, 1R [Camerin {48}/Garbin {44}], 0) Miami w/Myskina (Ireq, 1R [Hantuchova {12}/Sugiyama {15}], 0) Amelia Island w/Vesnina (II, QF [Ruano Pascual {4}/Shaughnessy {9}], 1+ 2 in qualifying) Charleston w/Vesnina (I, 1R [Camerin {47}/Parra Santonja {140}], 0) Berlin w/Vinci (I, SF [Yan {14}/Zheng {15}], 3) — L. Huber/Likhovtseva {1} Rome w/Vinci (I, QF [Peschke {20}/Schiavone {31}], 2) — Huber/Navratilova {3} Roland Garros w/Vinci (Slam, R16 [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Krajicek (III, QF [Camerin {47}/Dulko {24}], 1) San Diego w/Srebotnik (I, SF [Black {7}/Stubbs {6}], 3) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama {3} Canadian Open w/Srebotnik (I, SF [Black {6}/Grönefeld {8}], 2) — Déchy/Sugiyama {8} U. S. Open w/Srebotnik (Slam, F [Déchy {72}/Zvonareva {25}], 5) — Black/Stubbs {3}, Raymond/Stosur {1} Luxembourg w/Srebotnik (II, SF [Grönefeld {13}/L. Huber {18}], 2) Stuttgart w/Srebotnik (II+, SF [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 2) — Hantuchova/Peer Francesca Schiavone: Initial Rank: 34 ¥ Final Rank: 9 ¥ Events: 21 Gold Coast w/Benesova (III, QF [Medina Garrigues {20}/Pennetta {22}], 1) Australian Open w/L. Huber (Slam, R16 [Asagoe {24}/Srebotnik {25}], 2) Antwerp w/Peschke (II, QF [Foretz {129}/Krajicek {88}], 1) Dubai w/Peschke (II+, Win, 4) Doha w/Peschke (II, QF [withdrew], 1) Miami w/Peschke (Ireq, R16 [Ivanovic {95}/Mirza {52}], 1) — Likhovtseva/Zvonareva {4} Amelia Island w/Peschke (II, SF [Asagoe {18}/Srebotnik {15}], 2) Rome w/Peschke (I, F [Hantuchova {12}/Sugiyama {17}], 4) — Medina Garrigues/Srebotnik {5} Roland Garros w/Peschke (Slam, QF [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 2+ 1 walkover) Birmingham w/Mirza (III, 1R [Vesnina {53}/Yan {9}], 0) Eastbourne w/Peschke (II, 1R [Bartoli {44}/Peer {38}], 0) Wimbledon w/Peschke (Slam, QF [Black {3}/Stubbs {4}], 3) — Dementieva/Pennetta {8} Canadian Open w/Peschke (I, QF [Bartoli {40}/Peer {35}], 1) New Haven w/Peschke (II, 1R [Rodionova {46}/Vanc {43}], 0) U. S. Open w/Peschke (Slam, SF [Déchy {72}/Zvonareva {25}], 4) — L. Huber/Mirza {11}, Yan/Zheng {2} Luxembourg w/Peschke (II, Win, 4) — Grönefeld/L. Huber {4} Stuttgart w/Peschke (II+, QF [withdrew], 1) — Grönefeld/L. Huber Moscow w/Peschke (I, Win, 4) Zürich w/Peschke (I, QF [withdrew], 1) Linz w/Peschke (II, SF [withdrew], 2) — Bartoli/Peer Madrid Championships w/Peschke (Champ, SF [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 155 Meghann Shaughnessy: Initial Rank: 19 ¥ Final Rank: 15 ¥ Events: 16 Gold Coast w/Safina (III, Win, 4) — Medina Garrigues/Penneta {3}, Black/Stubbs {1} Australian Open w/Grönefeld (Slam, SF [Raymond {3}/Stosur {4}], 4) — Loit/Pratt {11}, Likhovtseva/Zvonareva {3} Memphis w/Grönefeld (III, QF [withdrew], 1) Acapulco w/Grönefeld (III, Win, 4) — Asagoe/Loit {2} Indian Wells w/Ruano Pascual (I+, F [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 4) Miami w/Grönefeld (Ireq, 1R [Krajicek {69}/Morariu {26}], 0) Amelia Island w/Ruano Pascual (II, SF [L. Huber {5}/Mirza {45}], 2) Charleston w/Ruano Pascual (I, F [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 2+ 1 walkover) — Asagoe/Srebotnik {5} Istanbul w/Grönefeld (III, 1R [withdrew without playing], 0) Roland Garros w/Grönefeld (Slam, R32 [Husarova {110}/Mirza {37}], 1) Eastbourne w/Grönefeld (II, 1R [Mattek {50}/Washington {84}], 0) Wimbledon w/Grönefeld (Slam, QF [Fedak {114}/Perebiynis {153}], 3) San Diego w/Grönefeld (I, F [Black {7}/Stubbs {6}], 3) — L. Huber/Mirza {8}, Raymond/Stosur {1} Los Angeles w/Grönefeld (II, 1R [Ruano Pascual {7}/Suárez {31}], 0) U. S. Open w/Grönefeld (Slam, R32 [Ivanovic {59}/Kirilenko {27}], 1) GuangZhou w/Molik (III, 1R [Jankovic {54}/N. Li {82}], 0) Zürich w/Grönefeld (I, QF [L. Huber {18}/Srebotnik {8}], 1) — Bartoli/Peer Katarina Srebotnik: Initial Rank: 25 ¥ Final Rank: 7 ¥ Events: 20 Auckland w/Asagoe (IV, SF [Likhovtseva {7}/Zvonareva {10}], 2) Australian Open w/Asagoe (Slam, SF [Yan {34}/Zheng {33}], 4) — Huber/Schiavone {8}, Black/Stubbs {2} Pan Pacific w/Asagoe (I, 1R [Gullickson {86}/Mattek {115}], 0) Antwerp w/Safina (II, Win, 4) — Daniilidou/Medina Garrigues {4} Miami w/Asagoe (Ireq, SF [L. Huber {6}/Navratilova {29}], 3) — Clijsters/Maes Amelia Island w/Asagoe (II, Win, 4) — Kuznetsova/Likhovtseva {3}, Grönefeld/Petrova, Peschke/Schiavone, Huber/ Mirza Charleston w/Asagoe (I, SF [Ruano Pascual {4}/Shaughnessy {9}], 3) Warsaw w/Medina Garrigues (II, F [Likhovtseva {9}/Myskina {65}], 3) Berlin w/Woehr (I, 1R [Benesova {42}/Krajicek {68}], 0) Rome w/Medina Garrigues (I, SF [Peschke {20}/Schiavone {31}], 3) — Dulko/Kirilenko Roland Garros w/Asagoe (Slam, 1R [Gagliardi {59}/Santangelo {53}], 0) Wimbledon w/Asagoe (Slam, 1R [Gagliardi {55}/Santangelo {51}], 0) Stanford w/Peschke (II, 1R [Bartoli {38}/Domachowska {123}], 0) San Diego w/Safina (I, SF [Black {}/Stubbs {}], 3) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama {3} Canadian Open w/Safina (I, SF [Black {6}/Grönefeld {8}], 2) — Déchy/Sugiyama {8} U. S. Open w/Safina (Slam, F [Déchy {72}/Zvonareva {25}], 5) — Black/Stubbs {3}, Raymond/Stosur {1} Luxembourg w/Safina (II, SF [Grönefeld {13}/L. Huber {18}], 2) Stuttgart w/Safina (II+, SF [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 2) — Hantuchova/Peer Zürich w/L.Huber (I, F [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 3) — Ruano Pascual/Suárez {4}, Grönefeld/Shaughnessy, Raymond/Stosur {1} Linz w/Morariu (II, F [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 1+ 2 walkover)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 156 Bryanne Stewart: Initial Rank: 24 ¥ Final Rank: 75 ¥ Events: 26 Gold Coast w/McShea (III, 1R [Ani {138}/Pratt {40}], 0) Sydney w/McShea (II, 1R [Krizan {47}/Russell {45}], 0) Australian Open w/McShea (Slam, 1R [Adamczak {251}/Horiatopoulos {311}], 0) Sydney $25K w/Dell’acqua ($25K, 1R [Morita {518}/Namigata {278}], 0) Indian Wells w/Peer (I+, R16 [Ruano Pascual {4}/Shaughnessy {9}], 1) Miami w/Gullickson (Ireq, R16 [Hantuchova {12}/Sugiyama {15}], 1) Amelia Island w/Pratt (II, QF [L. Huber {5}/Mirza {45}], 1) — Morariu/Stubbs {4} Charleston w/Salerni (I, 1R [Jankovic {150}/Peng {73}], 0) Dothan $75K w/Wheeler ($75K, SF [Gallovits {519}/Lepchenko {298}], 2) Estoril w/Mattek (IV, 1R [Martinez Granados {127}/Vento-Kabchi {36}], 0) Berlin w/Salerni (I, R16 [Dementieva {25}/Pennetta {18}], 1) Rome w/Pratt (I, QF [Black {3}/Stubbs {5}], 2) Strasbourg w/Gajdosova (III, SF [L. Huber {6}/Navratilova {21}], 2) — Craybas/Vinci {4} Roland Garros w/Gullickson (Slam, 1R [Yan {10}/Zheng {9}], 0) Birmingham w/Pratt (III, QF [Jankovic {145}/N. Li {93}], 0+ 1 walkover) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Molik (III, 1R [Ruano Pascual {6}/Suárez {98}], 0) Wimbledon w/Gullickson (Slam, R32 [Likhovtseva {14}/Myskina {39}], 1) Canadian Open w/Pratt (I, 1R [Rodionova {50}/Vanc {42}], 0) U. S. Open w/Gajdosova (Slam, 1R [Safina {23}/Srebotnik {11}], 0) Portoroz w/Gajdosova (IV, SF [Birnerova {64}/Loit {37}], 2) Luxembourg w/Gajdosova (II, 1R [Birnerova {68}/Vanc {44}], 0) Stuttgart w/Gajdosova (II+, 1R [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 0) Touraine $50K w/Gajosova ($50K, SF [Cohen-Aloro {98}/Martinez Sanchez {60}], 1) Zürich w/Gajdosova (I, 1R [Peschke {9}/Schiavone {10}], 0+ 2 in qualifying) Linz w/Gajdosova (II, 1R [Bartoli {33}/Peer {29}], 0+ 2 in qualifying) Pittsburg $75K w/Pratt ($75K, QF [Dubois {181}/Kleybanova {209}], 1) Samantha Stosur: Initial Rank: 3 ¥ Final Rank: 1 ¥ Events: 23 Sydney w/Raymond (II, SF [Morariu {14}/Stubbs {5}], 2) — Kuznetsova/Mauresmo Australian Open w/Raymond (Slam, F [Yan {34}/Zheng {33}], 5) — Li/Sun {16}, Dulko/Kirilenko {10}, Grönefeld/ Shaughnessy {5} Pan Pacific w/Raymond (I, Win, 4) — Black/Stubbs {1} Memphis w/Raymond (III, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/Raymond (I+, Win, 5) — Li/Sun {8}, Ruano Pascual/Shaughnessy {3} Miami w/Raymond (Ireq, Win, 5) — Bartoli/Ruano Pascual, Kuznetsova/Mauresmo, Huber/Navratilova {7} Amelia Island w/Raymond (II, 1R [Bartoli {63}/Déchy {100}], 0) Charleston w/Raymond (I, Win, 2+ 2 walkover) — Dominguez Lino/Vento-Kabchi {8}, Ruano Pascual/Shaughnessy {2} Rome w/Raymond (I, R16 [Dulko {25}/Kirilenko {33}], 0) Roland Garros w/Raymond (Slam, Win, 6) — Safina/Vinci {16}, Peschke/Schiavone {10}, Daniilidou/Medina Garrigues {15}, Hantuchova/Sugiyama {5} Eastbourne w/Raymond (II, SF [L. Huber {11}/Navratilova {20}], 2) Wimbledon w/Raymond (Slam, R16 [Ruano Pascual {8}/Suárez {93}], 2) San Diego w/Raymond (I, SF [Grönefeld {10}/Shaughnessy {23}], 2) Los Angeles w/Raymond (II, 1R [Morariu {41}/Pennetta {57}], 0) New Haven w/Raymond (II, F [Yan {4}/Zheng {3}], 3) — Black/Stubbs {3} U. S. Open w/Raymond (Slam, SF [Safina {23}/Srebotnik {11}], 4) — Asagoe/Morigami, Navratilova/Petrova {10} Luxembourg w/Raymond (II, 1R [Déchy {24}/Golovin {174}], 0) Stuttgart w/Raymond (II+, Win, 3+ 1 walkover) — Black/Stubbs {2} Moscow w/Raymond (I, 1R [Kuznetsova {42}/Petrova {27}], 0) Zürich w/Raymond (I, SF [L. Huber {18}/Srebotnik {8}], 2) Linz w/Raymond (II, Win, 3+ 1 walkover) — Grönefeld/Molik, Morariu/Srebotnik Hasselt w/Raymond (III, Win, 4) — Strycova/Vanc {3} Madrid Championships w/Raymond (Champ, Win, 2) — Peschke/Schiavone, Black/Stubbs

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 157 : Initial Rank: 5 ¥ Final Rank: 6 ¥ Events: 23 Gold Coast w/Black (III, F [Safina {28}/Shaughnessy {19}], 2+ 1 walkover) Sydney w/Morariu (II, Win, 4) — Raymond/Stosur {1}, Ruano Pascual/Suárez {4} Australian Open w/Black (Slam, QF [Asagoe {24}/Srebotnik {25}], 3) Pan Pacific w/Black (I, F [Raymond {2}/Stosur {3}], 3) Paris w/Black (II, F [Loit {26}/Peschke {17}], 3) — Dementieva/Pennetta {4} Antwerp w/Black (II, SF [Foretz {129}/Krajicek {88}], 2) Indian Wells w/Black (I+, R16 [Mirza {64}/Sugiyama {15}], 1) Miami w/Black (Ireq, 1R [Loit {23}/Pratt {34}], 0) Amelia Island w/Morariu (II, 1R [Pratt {33}/Stewart {35}], 0) Charleston w/Morariu (I, R16 [Harkleroad {102}/Voskoboeva {72}], 0) Rome w/Black (I, SF [Hantuchova {12}/Sugiyama {17}], 2) Roland Garros w/Black (Slam, QF [Hantuchova {11}/Sugiyama {13}], 3) — Likhovtseva/Myskina {13} Birmingham w/Black (III, QF [Mattek {52}/Washington {94}], 1) Eastbourne w/Déchy (II, 1R [L. Huber {11}/Navratilova {20}], 0) Wimbledon w/Black (Slam, SF [Yan {7}/Zheng {6}], 3+ 1 walkover) — Peschke/Schievone {9} San Diego w/Black (I, Win, 3+ 1 walkover) — Ruano Pascual/Suárez {6}, Safina/Srebotnik {7}, Grönefeld/Shaughnessy {4} Los Angeles w/Black (II, QF [Husarova {64}/Peschke {13}], 1) New Haven w/Black (II, SF [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 2) U. S. Open w/Black (Slam, QF [Safina {23}/Srebotnik {11}], 3) — Husarova/Likhovtseva {15} Stuttgart w/Black (II+, F [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 3) — Husarova/Likhovtseva, Safina/Srebotnik {3} Moscow w/Black (I, 1R [Husarova {43}/Likhovtseva {19}], 0) Zürich w/Black (I, Win, 3+ 1 walkover) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama, L. Huber/Srebotnik Madrid Championships w/Black (Champ, F [Raymond {1}/Stosur {1}], 1) — Yan/Zheng {2} Paola Suárez: Initial Rank: 17 ¥ Final Rank: 14 ¥ Events: 16 Auckland w/Kirilenko (IV, 1R [Schruff {135}/Szavay {97}], 0) Sydney w/Ruano Pascual (II, F [Morariu {14}/Stubbs {5}], 3) — Grönefeld/L. Huber {2} Australian Open w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, QF [Yan {34}/Zheng {33}], 2+ 1 walkover) Rome w/Ruano Pascual (I, 1R [T. Li {29}/Sun {30}], 0) Roland Garros w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, R32 [Chakvetadze {275}/Vesnina {82}], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Ruano Pascual (III, QF [Yan {7}/Zheng {9}], 1) — Molik/Stewart Wimbledon w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, F [Yan {6}/Zheng {7}], 5) — Bartoli/Peer {17}, Raymond/Stosur {1}, Daniilidou/ Medina Garrigues {10} San Diego w/Ruano Pascual (I, QF [Black {7}/Stubbs {6}], 2) — Husarova/Likhovtseva Los Angeles w/Ruano Pascual (II, Win, 4) — Grönefeld/Shaughnessy {4}, Dementieva/Pennetta, Husarova/Peschke, Hantuchova/Sugiyama {3} Canadian Open w/Ruano Pascual (I, 1R [A. Bondarenko {55}/K. Bondarenko {85}], 0) New Haven w/Ruano Pascual (II, SF [Yan {4}/Zheng {3}], 2) U. S. Open w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, QF [Déchy {72}/Zvonareva {25}], 3) Beijing w/Ruano Pascual (II, Win, 4) — Li/Sun Seoul w/Ruano Pascual (IV, Win, 4) Japan Open w/Ruano Pascual (III, SF [withdrew], 2) Zürich w/Ruano Pascual (I, 1R [L. Huber {18}/Srebotnik {8}], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 158 Ai Sugiyama: Initial Rank: 14 ¥ Final Rank: 12 ¥ Events: 21 Sydney w/Hantuchova (II, 1R [Grönefeld {11}/L. Huber {6}], 0) Australian Open w/Hantuchova (Slam, R16 [Dulko {27}/Kirilenko {28}], 2) Pan Pacific w/Hantuchova (I, QF [Pratt {35}/Santangelo {92}], 1) Dubai w/Hantuchova (II+, SF [Kuznetsova {20}/Petrova {30}], 2) Doha w/Hantuchova (II, Win, 4) — Yan/Zheng {2} Indian Wells w/Mirza (I+, QF [Daniilidou {49}/Medina Garrigues {28}], 2) — Black/Stubbs {2} Miami w/Hantuchova (Ireq, QF [Kuznetsova {20}/Mauresmo {42}], 2) — Myskina/Safina Berlin w/Hantuchova (I, QF [Dementieva {25}/Pennetta {18}], 1) Rome w/Hantuchova (I, Win, 4) — Li/Sun, Black/Stubbs {2}, Peschke/Schiavone {8} Roland Garros w/Hantuchova (Slam, F [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 5) — Black/Stubbs {2}, Yan/Zheng {4} Eastbourne w/Hantuchova (II, QF [Bartoli {44}/Peer {38}], 1) Wimbledon w/Hantuchova (Slam, 1R [Gajdosova {131}/Harkleroad {66}], 0) Stanford w/Hantuchova (II, 1R [Jankovic {78}/S. Uberoi {144}], 0) San Diego w/Hantuchova (I, QF [Safina {26}/Srebotnik {11}], 1) Los Angeles w/Hantuchova (II, F [Ruano Pascual {7}/Suárez {31}], 3) — Morariu/Petrova Canadian Open w/Déchy (I, QF [Safina {24}/Srebotnik {12}], 2) U. S. Open w/Hantuchova (Slam, R32 [Déchy {72}/Zvonareva {25}], 1) Beijing w/Molik (II, QF [Laine {85}/M. J. Martinez {66}], 1) Seoul w/S. Kim (IV, 1R [Dulko {22}/Laine {66}], 0) Zürich w/Hantuchova (I, SF [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 2) — Déchy/Pierce, Yan/Zheng {2} Linz w/Hantuchova (II, QF [withdrew], 1) Sun Tiantian: Initial Rank: 36 ¥ Final Rank: 30 ¥ Events: 23 Gold Coast w/Li Ting (III, 1R [Golovin {287}/Hingis {999}], 0) Sydney w/Peng (II, 1R [Ruano Pascual {3}/Suárez {19}], 0) Australian Open w/Li Ting (Slam, R16 [Raymond {3}/Stosur {4}], 2) Pattaya City w/Li Ting (IV, Win, 4) — Yan/Zheng {1} Dubai w/Li Ting (II+, 1R [Kuznetsova {20}/Petrova {30}], 0) Doha w/Li Ting (II, F [Hantuchova {14}/Sugiyama {19}], 3) — Likhvotseva/Zvonareva {1} Indian Wells w/Li Ting (I+, QF [Raymond {2}/Stosur {1}], 2) Miami w/Li Ting (Ireq, QF [L. Huber {6}/Navratilova {29}], 2) — Loit/Pratt Estoril w/Li Ting (IV, Win, 4) Berlin w/Li Ting (I, 1R [Dushevina {39}/Voskoboeva {70}], 0) Rome w/Li Ting (I, QF [Hantuchova {12}/Sugiyama {17}], 2) — Ruano Pascual/Suárez {6} Strasbourg w/Nakamura (III, 1R [Domachowska {101}/Rosolska {128}], 0) Roland Garros w/Li Ting (Slam, R32 [Benesova {41}/Strycova {67}], 1) Birmingham w/Li Ting (III, QF [Craybas {99}/L. Huber {11}], 1) Wimbledon w/Li Ting (Slam, 1R [Mattek {49}/Washington {74}], 0) Los Angeles w/Li Ting (II, 1R [Dushevina {48}/Santangelo {51}], 0) Canadian Open w/Li Ting (I, R16 [Ivanovic {72}/Kirilenko {27}], 1) New Haven w/Tu (II, 1R [Daniilidou {26}/Medina Garrigues {15}], 0) U. S. Open w/Li Ting (Slam, 1R [Harkleroad {58}/Voskoboeva {70}], 0) Beijing w/Li Ting (II, 1R [Ruano Pascual {8}/Suárez {18}], 0) GuangZhou w/Li Ting (III, Win, 2+ 2 walkover) Bangkok w/Li Ting (III, 1R [Chuang {95}/Jackson {450}], 0) Shanghai $50K w/Jia ($50K, 1R [Ji {137}/S. Sun {141}], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 159 Yan Zi: Initial Rank: 31 ¥ Final Rank: 4 ¥ Events: 25 Gold Coast w/Li Na (III, 1R [Benesova {38}/Schiavone {34}], 0) Sydney w/Dushevina (II, QF [Morariu {14}/Stubbs {5}], 1) Australian Open w/Zheng (Slam, Win, 6) — Dementieva/Pennetta {7}, Ruano Pascual/Suárez {4}, Asagoe/Srebotnik {9}, Raymond/Stosur {1} Pattaya City w/Zheng (IV, F [T. Li {37}/Sun {38}], 3) Dubai w/Zheng (II+, QF [Kuznetsova {20}/Petrova {30}], 1) Doha w/Zheng (II, SF [Hantuchova {14}/Sugiyama {19}], 2) — Kirilenko/Myskina Indian Wells w/Zheng (I+, R16 [Bartoli {73}/Grönefeld {7}], 1) Miami w/Zheng (Ireq, 1R [Daniilidou {41}/Medina Garrigues {24}], 0) Estoril w/Zheng (IV, QF [Dulko {20}/Sanchez Lorenzo {108}], 1) Berlin w/Zheng (I, Win, 4) — Daniilidou/Medina Garrigues {8}, Dementieva/Pennetta {5} Rabat w/Zheng (IV, Win, 3) — Drake/Sequera {4}, Harkleroad/Mattek {2} Roland Garros w/Zheng (Slam, SF [Hantuchova {11}/Sugiyama {13}], 4) Birmingham w/Vesnina (III, QF [Peng {78}/Tu {46}], 1) — Mirza/Schiavone {3} ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Zheng (III, Win, 4) — Ruano Pascual/Suárez, Camerin/Dulko {4} Wimbledon w/Zheng (Slam, Win, 6) — Husarova/Zvonareva, L. Huber/Navratilova {7}, Black/Stubbs {2}, Ruano Pascual/Suárez Stockholm w/Zheng (IV, F [Birnerova {84}/Gajdosova {96}], 3) Canadian Open w/Zheng (I, QF [Navratilova {20}/Petrova {49}], 0+ 1 walkover) New Haven w/Zheng (II, Win, 4) — Husarova/Likhovtseva, Ruano Pascual/Suárez, Raymond/Stosur {1} U. S. Open w/Zheng (Slam, QF [Peschke {13}/Schiavone {16}], 3) Beijing w/Zheng (II, 1R [Peng {95}/Zvonareva {11}], 0) GuangZhou w/Medina Garrigues (III, SF [King {127}/Kostanic {101}], 2) Japan Open w/Dulko (III, QF [withdrew], 1) Bangkok w/Hsieh (III, 1R [Bremond {113}/Sfar {94}], 0) Zürich w/Zheng (I, QF [Hantuchova {12}/Sugiyama {11}], 1) — Kuznetsova/Molik Madrid Championships w/Zheng (Champ, SF [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 0) Zheng Jie: Initial Rank: 30 ¥ Final Rank: 3 ¥ Events: 20 Australian Open w/Yan (Slam, Win, 6) — Dementieva/Pennetta {7}, Ruano Pascual/Suárez {4}, Asagoe/Srebotnik {9}, Raymond/Stosur {1} Pan Pacific w/Widjaja (I, QF [Ivanovic {146}/Kirilenko {25}], 1) — Likhovtseva/Myskina Pattaya City w/Yan (IV, F [T. Li {37}/Sun {38}], 3) Dubai w/Yan (II+, QF [Kuznetsova {20}/Petrova {30}], 1) Doha w/Yan (II, SF [Hantuchova {14}/Sugiyama {19}], 2) — Kirilenko/Myskina Indian Wells w/Yan (I+, R16 [Bartoli {73}/Grönefeld {7}], 1) Miami w/Yan (Ireq, 1R [Daniilidou {41}/Medina Garrigues {24}], 0) Estoril w/Yan (IV, QF [Dulko {20}/Sanchez Lorenzo {108}], 1) Berlin w/Yan (I, Win, 4) — Daniilidou/Medina Garrigues {8}, Dementieva/Pennetta {5} Rabat w/Yan (IV, Win, 3) — Drake/Sequera {4}, Harkleroad/Mattek {2} Roland Garros w/Yan (Slam, SF [Hantuchova {11}/Sugiyama {13}], 4) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Yan (III, Win, 4) — Ruano Pascual/Suárez, Camerin/Dulko {4} Wimbledon w/Yan (Slam, Win, 6) — Husarova/Zvonareva, Huber/Navratilova {7}, Black/Stubbs {2}, Ruano Pascual/ Suárez Stockholm w/Yan (IV, F [Birnerova {84}/Gajdosova {96}], 3) Canadian Open w/Yan (I, QF [Navratilova {20}/Petrova {49}], 0+ 1 walkover) New Haven w/Yan (II, Win, 4) — Husarova/Likhovtseva, Ruano Pascual/Suárez, Raymond/Stosur {1} U. S. Open w/Yan (Slam, QF [Peschke {13}/Schiavone {16}], 3) Beijing w/Yan (II, 1R [Peng {95}/Zvonareva {11}], 0) Zürich w/Yan (I, QF [Hantuchova {12}/Sugiyama {11}], 1) — Kuznetsova/Molik Madrid Championships w/Yan (Champ, SF [Black {5}/Stubbs {6}], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 160 Vera Zvonareva: Initial Rank: 10 ¥ Final Rank: 18 ¥ Events: 17 Auckland w/Likhovtseva (IV, Win, 4) — Asagoe/Srebotnik {1}, Loit/Strycova {4} Australian Open w/Likhovtseva (Slam, QF [Grönefeld {12}/Shaughnessy {15}], 3) Dubai w/Likhovtseva (II+, QF [A. Bondarenko {158}/K. Bondarenko {109}], 1) Doha w/Likhovtseva (II, SF [T. Li {33}/Sun {34}], 1+ 1 walkover) Miami w/Likhovtseva (Ireq, 1R [Peschke {16}/Schiavone {33}], 0) Amelia Island w/Tu (II, 1R [Grönefeld {7}/Petrova {38}], 0) Charleston w/Tu (I, R16 [Santangelo {64}/Washington {86}], 1) Berlin w/Tu (I, 1R [Daniilidou {36}/Medina Garrigues {21}], 0) Rome w/Tu (I, 1R [Peschke {20}/Schiavone {31}], 0) Roland Garros w/Déchy (Slam, QF [Daniilidou {38}/Medina Garrigues {27}], 3) Wimbledon w/Husarova (Slam, R32 [Yan {7}/Zheng {6}], 1) Stanford w/Déchy (II, 1R [Camerin {34}/Dulko {24}], 0) San Diego w/Déchy (I, R16 [withdrew], 1) U. S. Open w/Déchy (Slam, Win, 6) — Hantuchova/Sugiyama {4}, Ruano Pascual/Suárez {7}, Peschke/Schiavone {6}, Safina/Srebotnik {8} Beijing w/Peng (II, QF [withdrew], 1) — Yan/Zheng {1} Seoul w/Douchevina (IV, SF [Chuang {99}/Diaz-Oliva {296}], 2) Moscow w/Tu (I, 1R [Benesova {54}/Voskoboeva {57}], 0) Linz w/Déchy (II, 1R [withdrew without playing], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 161 Doubles Upsets The 50 Biggest Doubles Upsets of 2006 On page 66, we saw the 100 biggest singles upsets of 2006, based on the ratio of player rankings. The list below is equivalent for doubles. We take the combined ranking of the winning team (with unranked players being treated as “999”), and divide it by the ranking of the losing team. The higher that ratio, the higher the team stands on this list. Note that we only look at losing teams with a combined ranking of 100 or less. It tells you something about the effect of combined rankings that the top five upsets were all against the world’s top team of Raymond/Stosur. This is hardly surprising; since they were the top pair for almost the whole year (with a combined ranking of #3 for the first half of the year, then #2 after Wimbledon), no other team could have a combined ranking higher than #7, making any other team much less of an “upset target.” 1. Luxembourg 1R: Déchy(#24)/Golovin (#174) def. Raymond/Stosur, combined #2. Ratio=99.0 2. Amelia Island 1R: Bartoli(#63)/Déchy (#100) def. Raymond/Stosur, combined #3. Ratio=54.3 3. Los Angeles 1R: Morariu(#41)/Pennetta (#57) def. Raymond/Stosur, combined #2. Ratio=49.0 4. Moscow 1R: Kuznetsova(#42)/Petrova (#27) def. Raymond/Stosur, combined #2. Ratio=34.5 5. Wimbledon R16: Ruano Pascual(#8)/Suárez (#93) def. Raymond/Stosur, combined #3. Ratio=33.7 6. Stanford 1R: Jankovic(#78)/S. Uberoi (#144) def. Hantuchova/Sugiyama, combined #8. Ratio=27.8 7. Antwerp SF: Foretz(#129)/Krajicek (#88) def. Black/Stubbs, combined #8. Ratio=27.1 8. Stockholm F: Birnerova(#84)/Gajdosova (#96) def. Yan/Zheng, combined #7. Ratio=25.7 9. Birmingham QF: Mattek(#52)/Washington (#94) def. Black/Stubbs, combined #7. Ratio=20.9 10. Rome R16: Dulko(#25)/Kirilenko (#33) def. Raymond/Stosur, combined #3. Ratio=19.3 11. Gold Coast 1R: Golovin(#287)/Hingis (—) def. Li/Sun, combined #72. Ratio=17.9 12. U. S. Open SF: Safina(#23)/Srebotnik (#11) def. Raymond/Stosur, combined #2. Ratio=17.0 13. San Diego SF: Grönefeld(#10)/Shaughnessy (#23) def. Raymond/Stosur, combined #2. Ratio=16.5 14. Pan Pacific 1R: Widjaja(—)/Zheng (#13) def. Likhovtseva/Myskina, combined #65. Ratio=15.6 15. Beijing 1R: Peng(#95)/Zvonareva (#11) def. Yan/Zheng, combined #7. Ratio=15.1 16. Wimbledon 1R: Gajdosova(#131)/Harkleroad (#66) def. Hantuchova/Sugiyama, combined #14. Ratio=14.1 17. Dubai QF: A. Bondarenko(#158)/K. Bondarenko (#109) def. Likhovtseva/Zvonareva, combined #20. Ratio=13.4 18. Zürich SF: L. Huber(#18)/Srebotnik (#8) def. Raymond/Stosur, combined #2. Ratio=13.0 19. Wimbledon QF: Fedak(#114)/Perebiynis (#153) def. Grönefeld/Shaughnessy, combined #23. Ratio=11.6 20. Eastbourne SF: L. Huber(#11)/Navratilova (#20) def. Raymond/Stosur, combined #3. Ratio=10.3 21. Roland Garros R32: Chakvetadze(#275)/Vesnina (#82) def. Ruano Pascual/Suárez, combined #36. Ratio=9.9 22. GuangZhou SF: King(#127)/Kostanic (#101) def. Medina Garrigues/Yan, combined #23. Ratio=9.9 23. Indian Wells R16: Mirza(#64)/Sugiyama (#15) def. Black/Stubbs, combined #8. Ratio=9.9 24. Canadian Open QF: Navratilova(#20)/Petrova (#49) def. Yan/Zheng, combined #7. Ratio=9.9 25. Roland Garros R32: Husarova(#110)/Mirza (#37) def. Grönefeld/Shaughnessy, combined #15. Ratio=9.8 26. Australian Open F: Yan(#34)/Zheng (#33) def. Raymond/Stosur, combined #7. Ratio=9.6 27. Dubai 1R: Jankovic(#190)/Li Na (#116) def. L. Huber/Navratilova, combined #35. Ratio=8.7 28. Bangkok 1R: Chuang(#95)/Jackson (#450) def. Li/Sun, combined #63. Ratio=8.7 29. Australian Open QF: Asagoe(#24)/Srebotnik (#25) def. Black/Stubbs, combined #6. Ratio=8.2 30. Gold Coast F: Safina(#28)/Shaughnessy (#19) def. Black/Stubbs, combined #6. Ratio=7.8 31. Roland Garros R32: A. Bondarenko(#70)/Fedak (#123) def. L. Huber/Navratilova, combined #27. Ratio=7.1 32. Miami 1R: Loit(#23)/Pratt (#34) def. Black/Stubbs, combined #8. Ratio=7.1 33T. Los Angeles QF: Husarova(#64)/Schiavone (#13) def. Black/Stubbs, combined #11. Ratio=7.0 33T. Stanford 1R: Bartoli(#38)/Domachowska (#123) def. Schiavone/Srebotnik, combined #23. Ratio=7.0 35. Palermo 1R: Cabeza Candela(#347)/Pous Tio (#308) def. Daniilidou/Woehr, combined #99. Ratio=6.6 36. Roland Garros R16: Chakvetadze(#275)/Vesnina (#82) def. Dulko/Kirilenko, combined #56. Ratio=6.4 37. Eastbourne QF: Bartoli(#44)/Peer (#38) def. Hantuchova/Sugiyama, combined #13. Ratio=6.3 38. Seoul SF: Chuang(#99)/Diaz-Oliva (#296) def. Dushevina/Zvonareva, combined #64. Ratio=6.2 39. Miami 1R: Krajicek(#69)/Morariu (#26) def. Grönefeld/Shaughnessy, combined #16. Ratio=5.9 40. Eastbourne 1R: Mattek(#50)/Washington (#84) def. Grönefeld/Shaughnessy, combined #23. Ratio=5.8

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 162 41. Moscow 1R: Husarova(#43)/Likhovtseva (#19) def. Black/Stubbs, combined #11. Ratio=5.6 42. Charleston R16: Harkleroad(#102)/Voskoboeva (#72) def. Morariu/Stubbs, combined #31. Ratio=5.6 43. Bangalore 1R: Czink(#202)/King (#311) def. Pratt/Santangelo, combined #94. Ratio=5.5 44. Paris F: Loit(#26)/Schiavone (#17) def. Black/Stubbs, combined #8. Ratio=5.4 45. Pan Pacific 1R: Gullickson(#86)/Mattek (#115) def. Asagoe/Srebotnik, combined #38. Ratio=5.3 46. Auckland 1R: Schruff(#135)/Szavay (#97) def. Kirilenko/Suárez, combined #44. Ratio=5.3 47. U. S. Open R32: Déchy(#72)/Zvonareva (#25) def. Hantuchova/Sugiyama, combined #19. Ratio=5.1 48. Canadian Open F: Navratilova(#20)/Petrova (#49) def. Black/Grönefeld, combined #14. Ratio=4.9 49. Estoril 1R: Kloesel(#284)/Rodionova (#54) def. Dominguez Lino/Loit, combined #70. Ratio=4.8 50. Warsaw 1R: Ivanovic(#98)/Kirilenko (#28) def. L. Huber/Navratilova, combined #27. Ratio=4.7

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 163 Doubles Team Winning Percentage The list below shows the doubles teams with the best match winning percentage (minimum three events; team with five or fewer events in italics). The list also shows the number of events played and the number of events won. Note withdrawals do not count as losses. Qualifying wins and losses are included in the total. Team Rank Team Wins Losses Win % Titles Events 1King/Kostanic 12 2 85.7% 2 4 2Kuznetsova/Mauresmo 11 2 84.6% 1 5 3T Déchy/Zvonareva 10 2 83.3% 1 5 3T Dulko/Pennetta 5 1 83.3% 1 3 5Raymond/Stosur 60 13 82.2% 10 23 6 Safina/Srebotnik 18 5 78.3% 1 6 7Yan/Zheng 46 13 78.0% 6 19 8 Jankovic/Li Na 7 2 77.8% 1 5 9 L. Huber/Mirza 16 5 76.2% 2 7 10 Peschke/Schiavone 35 11 76.1% 3 18 11T Ditty/Sequera 6 2 75.0% 1 3 11T Ruano Pascual/Suárez 33 11 75.0% 3 15 13 Ruano Pascual/Shaughnessy 8 3 72.7% 0 3 14 Grönefeld/Petrova 5 2 71.4% 0 3 15 Safina/Vinci 7 3 70.0% 0 3 16 Black/Stubbs 39 17 69.6% 2 19 17 Asagoe/Srebotnik 16 7 69.6% 1 8 18T Camerin/Dulko 9 4 69.2% 1 5 18T Likhovtseva/Zvonareva 9 4 69.2% 1 5 20 Hantuchova/Sugiyama 30 14 68.2% 2 17 21T Domachowska/Vinci 4 2 66.7% 1 4 21T Grönefeld/Shaughnessy 18 9 66.7% 1 12 21T Harkleroad/Voskoboeva 6 3 66.7% 0 3 21T Morariu/Stubbs 4 2 66.7% 1 3 25 Dementieva/Pennetta 15 8 65.2% 0 9 26 L. Huber/Navratilova 14 8 63.6% 1 9 27T Ani/Tu 5 3 62.5% 0 3 27T Bartoli/Peer 15 9 62.5% 1 10 27T Hradecka/Uhlirova 5 3 62.5% 1 4 30 Likhovtseva/Myskina 8 5 61.5% 1 6 31T Czink/King 6 4 60.0% 0 3 31T Grönefeld/L. Huber 6 4 60.0% 0 4 31T Harkleroad/Mattek 6 4 60.0% 0 5 31T Ivanovic/Kirilenko 12 8 60.0% 0 8 31T Li Na/Peng 3 2 60.0% 0 4 31T Li Ting/Sun 24 16 60.0% 3 19 37 Loit/Pratt 7 5 58.3% 1 6 38 Daniilidou/Medina Garrigues 18 13 58.1% 0 13 39T Camerin/Gagliardi 4 3 57.1% 0 4 39T Dulko/Kirilenko 8 6 57.1% 0 6 39T Mattek/Washington 4 3 57.1% 0 3

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 164 Alternate Doubles Rankings Doubles 2005 Rankings: Best 11 Rankings with Quality Points For explanation of this system, see page 117. 2005 Rank 2006 Rank Player Name 2005 Points Rank Difference 1T 1 Lisa Raymond 4449 0 1T 1 Samantha Stosur 4449 0 34Yan Zi 3561 -1 43Zheng Jie 3559 1 57Katarina Srebotnik 2867 -2 66Rennae Stubbs 2863 0 75Cara Black 2823 2 88Kveta Peschke 2570 0 910Virginia Ruano Pascual 2426 -1 10 9 Francesca Schiavone 2393 1 11 12 Ai Sugiyama 2145 -1 12 11 Anna-Lena Grönefeld 2133 1 13 13 Daniela Hantuchova 2088 0 14 16 Dinara Safina 2084 -2 15 14 Paola Suárez 2051 1 16 17 Liezel Huber 1996 -1 17 15 Meghann Shaughnessy 1944 2 18 18 Vera Zvonareva 1764 0 19 20 Nathalie Déchy 1590 -1 20 21 Martina Navratilova 1503 -1 21 23 Nadia Petrova 1463 -2 22 19 Anabel Medina Garrigues 1430 3 23 22 Eleni Daniilidou 1306 1 24 24 Sania Mirza 1296 0 25 26 Maria Kirilenko 1285 -1 The re-addition of quality points makes a surprising amount of difference, given that the way the doubles rankings worked never gave them much weight in the past — whereas quality points were about a third of points in the singles ranking, in doubles they were usually less than 20%. But we see three of the top five change hands this year. Of course, two of those are the swap by Yan Zi and Zheng Jie, and this is probably an artifact simply of the way I calculate quality points; Yan had more events this year, and that helped her a little. But the move by Srebotnik is real and interesting. Also noteworthy is the slide by Cara Black. That looks potentially ominous for her.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 165 Doubles 1996 Ranking System: The Divisor For background, see the discussion of the singles divisor ranking on page 118. Note particularly Srebotnik, Safina, Suárez, Navratilova, and Petrova. Interestingly, the only player falling out of the Top 25 in this system is Eleni Daniilidou. 1996 Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 1T 1 Lisa Raymond 227.7 0 1T 1 Samantha Stosur 227.7 0 33Zheng Jie 194.8 0 47Katarina Srebotnik 162.0 -3 55Cara Black 161.3 0 64Yan Zi 159.5 2 76Rennae Stubbs 147.3 1 810Virginia Ruano Pascual 142.1 -2 99Francesca Schiavone 132.2 0 10 16 Dinara Safina 131.0 -6 11 8 Kveta Peschke 130.4 3 12 14 Paola Suárez 130.3 -2 13 13 Daniela Hantuchova 125.2 0 14 15 Meghann Shaughnessy 123.6 -1 15 12 Ai Sugiyama 119.5 3 16 21 Martina Navratilova 107.4 -5 17 23 Nadia Petrova 104.5 -6 18 18 Vera Zvonareva 104.1 0 19 11 Anna-Lena Grönefeld 101.4 8 20 20 Nathalie Déchy 99.7 0 21 17 Liezel Huber 96.7 4 22 25 Shinobu Asagoe 89.8 -3 23 19 Anabel Medina Garrigues 83.8 4 24 24 Sania Mirza 81.5 0 25 34 Corina Morariu 73.7 -9

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 166 Doubles 1996 Ranking System Updated: The Declining Divisor For explanation of this system, see the singles Declining Divisor, page 119. This, we observe, gives us results much more like the WTA doubles rankings, though Safina still moves up quite a bit and Daniilidou is again out of the Top 25. Dec Div Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 1T 1 Lisa Raymond 253.4 0 1T 1 Samantha Stosur 253.4 0 33Zheng Jie 208.7 0 44Yan Zi 181.3 0 55Cara Black 175.2 0 67Katarina Srebotnik 173.5 -1 76Rennae Stubbs 163.9 1 810Virginia Ruano Pascual 149.9 -2 98Kveta Peschke 146.7 1 10 9 Francesca Schiavone 143.6 1 11 16 Dinara Safina 133.6 -5 12 14 Paola Suárez 130.3 -2 13 13 Daniela Hantuchova 130.0 0 14 12 Ai Sugiyama 129.8 2 15 15 Meghann Shaughnessy 123.6 0 16 11 Anna-Lena Grönefeld 115.2 5 17 17 Liezel Huber 110.9 0 18 18 Vera Zvonareva 106.2 0 19 20 Nathalie Déchy 99.7 -1 20 21 Martina Navratilova 94.0 -1 21 23 Nadia Petrova 91.4 -2 22 19 Anabel Medina Garrigues 87.1 3 23 24 Sania Mirza 84.6 -1 24 25 Shinobu Asagoe 78.6 -1 25 26 Maria Kirilenko 71.6 -1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 167 Doubles 2006 Rankings with Triple Quality Points In concept, this is equivalent to the ““2006 Rankings with Double Quality Points” on page 121. But, for this purpose, I’ve tripled the quality points. This is because doubles awards proportionately fewer quality points (more on this later). Tripling the quality points is an attempt to offset this. Interestingly, the results are much like the results when we added quality points only once (above, page 165). DoubleQ Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 1T 1 Lisa Raymond 5631 0 1T 1 Samantha Stosur 5631 0 34Yan Zi 4691 -1 43Zheng Jie 4685 1 57Katarina Srebotnik 4117 -2 66Rennae Stubbs 3587 0 75Cara Black 3437 2 88Kveta Peschke 3324 0 910Virginia Ruano Pascual 3126 -1 10 9 Francesca Schiavone 2991 1 11 16 Dinara Safina 2988 -5 12 12 Ai Sugiyama 2891 0 13 17 Liezel Huber 2802 -4 14 11 Anna-Lena Grönefeld 2801 3 15 13 Daniela Hantuchova 2732 2 16 14 Paola Suárez 2669 2 17 15 Meghann Shaughnessy 2506 2 18 18 Vera Zvonareva 2244 0 19 20 Nathalie Déchy 2216 -1 20 23 Nadia Petrova 2167 -3 21 21 Martina Navratilova 2029 0 22 26 Maria Kirilenko 1755 -4 23 24 Sania Mirza 1748 -1 24T 25 Shinobu Asagoe 1660 -1 24T 19 Anabel Medina Garrigues 1660 5

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 168 Doubles 1996-Style Divisor Rankings with Triple Quality Points This is the approximate equivalent of the “1996-Style Divisor Rankings with Double Quality Points” on page 122. 3QDiv Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 1T 1 Lisa Raymond 279.0 0 1T 1 Samantha Stosur 279.0 0 33Zheng Jie 251.1 0 47Katarina Srebotnik 224.5 -3 54Yan Zi 204.7 1 65Cara Black 190.5 1 716Dinara Safina 184.2 -9 810Virginia Ruano Pascual 178.9 -2 96Rennae Stubbs 178.8 3 10 14 Paola Suárez 168.9 -4 11 8 Kveta Peschke 161.8 3 12 13 Daniela Hantuchova 160.9 -1 13 9 Francesca Schiavone 160.7 4 14 15 Meghann Shaughnessy 158.8 -1 15 12 Ai Sugiyama 155.0 3 16 23 Nadia Petrova 154.8 -7 17 21 Martina Navratilova 145.0 -4 18 20 Nathalie Déchy 138.8 -2 19 18 Vera Zvonareva 132.4 1 20 11 Anna-Lena Grönefeld 128.1 9 21 17 Liezel Huber 127.7 4 22 25 Shinobu Asagoe 118.6 -3 23 24 Sania Mirza 106.6 -1 24 34 Corina Morariu 102.3 -10 25 19 Anabel Medina Garrigues 96.6 6 This again gives Srebotnik a big boost; notice also Safina and Suárez making it into the Top Ten (replacing Peschke and Schiavone), and the drop by Rennae Stubbs.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 169 Doubles Declining Divisor with Triple Quality Points This of course combined the previous two ranking tricks. 3QDecD Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 1T 1 Lisa Raymond 310.5 0 1T 1 Samantha Stosur 310.5 0 33Zheng Jie 269.0 0 47Katarina Srebotnik 240.5 -3 54Yan Zi 232.6 1 65Cara Black 206.9 1 76Rennae Stubbs 199.0 1 810Virginia Ruano Pascual 188.8 -2 916Dinara Safina 187.8 -7 10 8 Kveta Peschke 182.1 2 11 9 Francesca Schiavone 174.6 2 12 14 Paola Suárez 168.9 -2 13 12 Ai Sugiyama 168.4 1 14 13 Daniela Hantuchova 167.1 1 15 15 Meghann Shaughnessy 158.8 0 16 17 Liezel Huber 146.4 -1 17 11 Anna-Lena Grönefeld 145.6 6 18 20 Nathalie Déchy 138.8 -2 19 23 Nadia Petrova 135.4 -4 20 18 Vera Zvonareva 135.0 2 21 21 Martina Navratilova 126.9 0 22 24 Sania Mirza 110.7 -2 23 25 Shinobu Asagoe 103.8 -2 24 19 Anabel Medina Garrigues 100.3 5 25 26 Maria Kirilenko 96.7 -1\

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 170 Doubles Quality Points per Tournament Above, on page 124, I explained the advantage of quality points as a measure of a player’s future potential. Unfortunately, quality points never meant as much in doubles. The reason was the way the WTA awarded them. They were awarded based on the combined team ranking. So even a team consisting of the world’s #1 and #2 doubles players had a combined ranking of 3, and was worth only 66 quality points, whereas a win over the #1 singles player was worth 100. A team consisting of the #3 and #4 players in the world, even though it would probably be the #2 team, had a combined ranking of 7, and was worth 43 quality points, compared to 75 for the #2 singles player. This could easily have been rectified by a small change in the points table — but the WTA brass thinks accurate rankings beneath their dignity, so they instead concealed the problem by abolishing quality points. It remains to be established if quality points per tournament are a good indicator of anything in doubles (in at least one case, we know it isn’t: Déchy isn’t as good as her Q/T ranking — or, indeed, as good as her WTA ranking. She had one good tournament. It just happened to be the U. S. Open, where her opponents collapsed in the final, and where, under the old rules, they gve doubles quality points). But, since they might be indicative for non-Déchys, I’ve calculated the Q/T rankings for doubles, and we’ll see what comes of it next year. (Note: The list is not complete below #50). If this is a reliable indicator, it should probably be no real surprise that Nadia Petrova is #1, given that she was arguably the world’s best doubles player in 2004; her WTA ranking this year was artificially low because she played only nine events (and those not on a balanced schedule). Srebotnik is something of a surprise at #2, but she and #4 Dinara Safina both benefited from the addition of quality points in the earlier ranking. It’s interesting to see Martina Navratilova retire at #8 in this ranking — it doesn’t really look as if she needed to retire. Neither, it appears, did #16 Shinobu Asagoe. And while Martina Hingis’s one doubles event didn’t prove much, there seems little doubt she could still be a top doubles player. On the other hand, the fact that Rennae Stubbs falls to #17, and Cara Black to #20, is rather scary for that pair. Anna-Lena Grönefeld also drops from #11 to #26, and Kveta Peschke and Francesca Schiavone look rather over-ranked. Q/T Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 123Petrova 39.1 -22 27Srebotnik 31.3 -5 33Zheng 28.2 0 416Safina 26.6 -12 5T 1 Raymond 25.7 4 5T 1 Stosur 25.7 4 74Yan Zi 22.6 3 821Navratilova 21.9 -13 937Kuznetsova 20.2 -28 10 20 Déchy 19.6 -10 11 14 Suárez 19.3 -3 12 10 Ruano Pascual 18.4 2 13 13 Hantuchova 17.9 0 14 12 Sugiyama 17.8 2 15 15 Shaughnessy 17.6 0 16 25 Asagoe 16.8 -9 17 6 Stubbs 15.7 11 18 8 Peschke 15.7 10 19 17 Huber, L. 15.5 2 20 5 Black 14.6 15 21 52 Ivanovic 14.6 -31 22 34 Morariu 14.3 -12

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 171 23 9 Schiavone 14.2 14 24 18 Zvonareva 14.1 6 25 33 Bartoli 13.4 -8 26 11 Grönefeld 13.4 15 27 124 Golovin 13.3 -97 28 24 Mirza 12.6 4 29 57 Mauresmo 12.2 -28 30 26 Kirilenko 11.8 4 31 38 Husarova 10.7 -7 32 49 Loit 10.5 -17 33 — Hingis 10 — 34 55 Harkleroad 9.4 -21 35 89 Washington 8.7 -54 36 36 Krajicek 8.2 0 37 — Sprem 8 — 38 47 Mattek 7.7 -9 39 72 Vinci 7.4 -33 40 29 Dulko 7.1 11 41 — Davenport 7 — 42 69 Gajdosova 6.8 -27 43 32 Pennetta 6.8 11 44 41 Santangelo 6.4 3 45 19 Medina Garrigues 6.4 26 46 40 Dementieva 6.3 6 47 27 Peer 6.2 20 48 105 Peng 6.1 -57 49 43 Jankovic 5.7 6 50 28 Likhovtseva 5.4 22 31 Li Ting 5.3 35 Benesova 5.2 42 Pratt 4.8 30 Sun 4.4 22 Daniilidou 4.3

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 172 Doubles Tournament Strength-Based Rankings This is similar to the concept we used above for singles; see““Tournament Strength-Based Rankings” on page 125. In this case, I have used the tournament strength numbers from the section “Doubles Tournament Strengths” on page 143. The points for a doubles tournament are set by dividing 9600 by the doubles tournament strength (meaning that the maximum possible strength is about 200 points); I have set a floor of 20 points. Otherwise, all is as explained in the singles section. AdjStr Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 1T 1 Raymond 1797.3 0 1T 1 Stosur 1797.3 0 36Stubbs 1274.5 -3 45Black 1218.0 -1 54Yan 1087.5 1 63Zheng 1061.5 3 78Peschke 1032.2 -1 87Srebotnik 977.8 1 910Ruano Pascual 946.7 -1 10 9 Schiavone 904.5 1 11 17 Huber 852.1 -6 12 12 Sugiyama 809.2 0 13 11 Grönefeld 762.7 2 14 13 Hantuchova 733.3 1 15 14 Suárez 688.0 1 16 15 Shaughnessy 617.6 1 17 16 Safina 568.0 1 18 34 Morariu 453.8 -16 19 18 Zvonareva 441.0 1 20 21 Navratilova 440.8 -1 21 19 Medina Garrigues 439.9 2 22 22 Daniilidou 425.6 0 23 20 Déchy 392.3 3 24 27 Peer 386.9 -3 25 23 Petrova 385.2 2 26 24 Mirza 374.4 2 27 25 Asagoe 373.5 2 28 33 Bartoli 369.9 -5 29 26 Kirilenko 359.8 3 30 43 Jankovic 325.2 -13 31 37 Kuznetsova 322.7 -6 32 29 Dulko 321.5 3 33 28 Likhovtseva 308.8 5 34 35 Benesova 293.2 -1 35T 30 Sun 282.4 5 35T 31 Li Ting 282.4 4

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 173 Doubles Adjusted Strength per Tournament Ranking As with the “Adjusted Strength per Tournament Ranking” on page 127, we calculate this ranking by dividing the results of the preceding by the number of events. Adj/Trn Rank 2006 Rank Player Name Score Rank Difference 1T 1 Raymond 78.1 0 1T 1 Stosur 78.1 0 35Black 58.0 -2 46Stubbs 55.4 -2 53Zheng 53.1 2 610Ruano Pascual 49.8 -4 77Srebotnik 48.9 0 837Kuznetsova 46.6 -29 957Mauresmo 44.4 -48 10 4 Yan 43.5 6 11 9 Schiavone 43.1 2 12 8 Peschke 43.0 4 13 14 Suárez 43.0 -1 14 23 Petrova 42.8 -9 15 13 Hantuchova 40.7 2 16 15 Shaughnessy 38.6 1 17 12 Sugiyama 38.5 5 18 21 Navratilova 36.7 -3 19 37 Kuznetsova 35.9 -18 20 16 Safina 33.4 4 21 17 Huber 32.8 4 22 25 Asagoe 31.1 -3 23 11 Grönefeld 30.5 12 24 34 Morariu 30.3 -10 25 52 Ivanovic 27.1 -27 26 18 Zvonareva 25.9 8 27 20 Déchy 24.5 7 28 19 Medina Garrigues 24.4 9 29 33 Bartoli 23.1 -4 30 24 Mirza 20.8 6 31 32 Pennetta 19.9 -1 32 40 Dementieva 19.4 -8 33 38 Husarova 18.4 -5 34 27 Peer 18.4 7 35 72 Vinci 18.3 -37 36 26 Kirilenko 18.0 10 37 22 Daniilidou 17.7 15 38 28 Likhovtseva 17.2 10 39 49 Loit 16.7 -10 40 35 Benesova 16.3 5

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 174 Doubles “Majors Ranking” — Team This is, obviously, the same as the singles “Majors Ranking” on page 131. I have, however, significantly changed the list of events involved — omitting even the Madrid Championships. This is not because it’s a weak event, but because it involves only three matches. You get to the semifinal without even playing! So, based in part on the list of strongest events, I decided to rate results base on the Australian Open, Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, San Diego, the U.S. Open, Moscow, and Zürich. To give these numbers some sort of perspective, last year’s #1 Cara Black had 17 majors points, followed by Samantha Stosur with 16. But that was an unusually weak year. Even this year is a bit on the low end of things: In 2004, Black/Stubbs and Ruano Pascual/Suárez had 23 points; in 2003, Clijsters/Sugiyama had 23 points together. In 2002, Paola Suárez had 25 points (21 of them with Ruano Pascual). Lisa Raymond led the Tour in 2001, with 28 points. The best year in recent memory was Martina Hingis in 1998; her Grand Slam plus other results gave her 36 points. Martina Navratilova surely did better somewhere in the past, but we don’t have the tournament strengths to tell you just what her total would have been. Probably somewhere around 42-45. A total of 21 teams earned majors points this year. Note, however, that only Raymond/Stosur earned points at as many as half of the Majors (they earned points at seven of the ten); Black/Stubbs managed to score at four events, and no other team had more than three Major results. Major Major AO IW Miam Rome RG Wim SD USO Mosc Zür Rank Team Points 1 Raymond/Stosur 21 3 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 Black/Stubbs 12 1 1 5 5 3Yan/Zheng 11 5 1 5 4T Hantuchova/Sugiyama 9 5 3 1 4T Peschke/Schiavone 9 3 1 5 6 Déchy/Zvonareva 5 5 7T Grönefeld/Shaughnessy 4 1 3 7T Safina/Srebotnik 4 1 3 9T Benesova/Voskoboeva 3 3 9T Huber/Navratilova 3 3 9T Huber/Srebotnik 3 3 9T Ruano Pascual/Shaughnessy 3 3 9T Ruano Pascual/Suárez 3 3 14T Asagoe/Srebotnik 2 1 1 14T Daniilidou/Medina Garrigues 2 1 1 16T Benesova/Strycova 1 1 16T Dushevina/Kirilenko 1 1 16T Fedak/Perebiynis 1 1 16T Kuznetsova/Mauresmo 1 1 16T Medina Garrigues/Srebotnik 1 1 16T Peer/Santangelo 1 1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 175 Doubles “Majors Ranking” — Individual Same as above, but based on individuals rather than teams. All told, 34 players earned at least one Majors point. Raymond and Stosur, not too surprisingly, earned points at the most Majors events — seven. But third place, interesting, did not go to Black or Stubbs or Yan or Zheng, but to Srebotnik. The highest-ranked doubles player not to earn any major points at all was Nadia Petrova — who suffered from limited opportunities due to her injuries. Major WTA Major AO IW Miam Rome RG Wim SD USO Mosc Zürich Rank Rank Player Points 1T 1 Raymond 21 3 5 5 5 1 1 1 1T 1 Stosur 21355 5 111 3T 5 Black 12 1 1 5 5 3T 6 Stubbs 12 1 1 5 5 5T 4 Yan 11 5 1 5 5T 3 Zheng 11 5 1 5 77Srebotnik 10 1 1 1 1 3 3 8T 13 Hantuchova 9 5 3 1 8T 8 Peschke 9 3 1 5 8T 9 Schiavone 9 3 1 5 8T 12 Sugiyama 9 5 3 1 12 15 Shaughnessy 7 1 3 3 13T 17 Huber 6 3 3 13T 10 Ruano Pasc 6 3 3 15T 20 Déchy 5 5 15T 18 Zvonareva 5 5 17T 35 Benesova 4 1 3 17T 11 Grönefeld 4 1 3 17T 16 Safina 4 1 3 20T 19 Medina Garr 3 1 1 1 20T 21 Navratilova 3 3 20T 14 Suárez 3 3 20T 48 Voskoboeva 3 3 24T 25 Asagoe 2 1 1 24T 22 Daniilidou 2 1 1 26T 58 Dushevina 1 1 26T 44 Fedak 1 1 26T 26 Kirilenko 1 1 26T 37 Kuznetsova 1 1 26T 57 Mauresmo 1 1 26T 27 Peer 1 1 26T 71 Perebiynis 1 1 26T 41 Santangelo 1 1 26T 54 Strycova 1 1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 176 Miscellaneous Statistics Statistics About Tournaments: Total WTA and Slam Events: 61 Slam and WTA Championships events: 5 Tier I events: 10 Tier II events: 15 Tier III events: 17 Tier IV events: 14 Total events in recent history: 2005: 63 ¥ 2004: 60 ¥ 2003: 59 ¥ 2002: 64 ¥ 2001: 63

The following graph shows the fluctuation in number of tournaments of each type since 2001:

Tournament Tiers, Year by Year

70

60

50 Tier V Tier IV 40 Tier III Tier II 30 Olympics Tier I

Number of Events 20 Slam/Champ

10

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 177 Total Ranked Players, 1999Ð2006 The table and graph show you the total number of players on the singles and doubles rankings over the last few years. 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Singles 1084 1245 1214 1253 1113 1256 1378 1500 Doubles 820 908 967 1007

Ranked Players, Year By Year

1600

1400

1200

1000 Singles 800 Doubles 600 Ranked Players 400

200

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 178 The Busiest Players on the Tour Total Matches Played by Top Players The table on the next page shows the number of matches played by every player in the Top Fifty, plus a couple of dozen players below that. It also shows their WTA rankings. We note with interest that the top three in the list all played a high fraction of their matches at the Challenger level; Svetlana Kuznetsova, tied for fourth in this list in total matches played, is the leader in matches at the WTA level (Marion Bartoli is tied with Kuznetsova in matches, but she did have a few below the Tour level). Her total is, in fact, quite impressive though not entirely without precedent. Last year, Patty Schnyder played fully 83 matches to lead the Tour; Nadia Petrova was second with 79. In 2004, Iveta Benesova led the tour with 84 matches, followed by and Vera Zvonareva with 79. In 2003, the leaders were Kim Clijsters with an astonishing 98 matches, then Justine Hénin-Hardenne, with 83. The leader in 2002 was , with 79, followed by Anastasia Myskina, with 77. It will be noted that nearly every one of those players took a dive the year after her busy year (the only exceptions are Myskina in 2002 and Schnyder and Petrova last year — and even Petrova suffered a bad injury); one can only hope the streak will end this year. It is interesting to ask if there is any correlation at all between ranking and number of matches played. Obviously there isn’t much for the Tour as a whole, or Poutchkova would be #1. But let’s look at the Top Thirty, since they, for the most part, were playing at the WTA level all year. If we graph their rankings against their matches played, we see this:

Ranking versus Matches

90

80

70

60

50

40 Matches

30

20

10

0 051015 20 25 30 Ranking

There is perhaps a slight correlation there — but it appears to be slight. If we take the correlation coefficient between ranking and matches for these players, it turns out to be -.52. (Correlation coefficients can range from 1, meaning perfect correlation, to 0, meaning no correlation, to -1, indicating inverse correlation.) What that -.52 number means is that, generally, the higher your ranking, the more matches you have played — but the correlation isn’t very high. (In standard physics-lab-type experiments, you routinely get correlation coefficients of at least .95.) Still, it’s much closer correlation than last year — in 2005, there was a correlation of only .13. Which, for a data set this size, is no correlation at all.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 179 Rank Player Matches WTA Rnk Rank Player Matches WTA Rnk 1 Poutchkova 86 38 35T Bychkova 55 72 2Müller 85 34 37T Srebotnik 54 23 3Rezai 81 49 37T Perry 54 43 4T Kuznetsova 80 4 37T Laine 54 77 4T Bartoli 80 17 40T Ivanovic 53 14 6Oprandi 77 46 40T Sugiyama 53 26 7Bondarenko, A 74 32 40T Castaño 53 55 8T Hingis 72 7 Clijsters 51 5 8T Jankovic 72 12 Vaidisova 51 10 10T Schnyder 69 9 Kostanic 51 47 10T Daniilidou 69 36 Benesova 51 60 12T Sharapova 68 2 Dominguez Lino 50 52 12T Fedak 68 68 Bammer 50 53 14 Petrova 66 6 Myskina 49 16 15T Safina 65 11 Shaughnessy 49 37 15T Garbin 65 40 Kirilenko 48 30 17T Hénin-Hardenne 64 1 Safarova 48 41 17T Dementieva 64 8 Pennetta 47 28 19 Mauresmo 63 3 King 47 50 20T Santangelo 62 31 Nakamura 47 59 20T Yakimova 62 69 Krajicek 45 35 22T Li Na 60 21 Jackson 45 45 22T Pironkova 60 62 Mirza 44 66 24T Hantuchova 59 18 Golovin 43 22 24T Zvonareva 59 24 Zheng 43 33 24T Stosur 59 29 Loit 42 58 24T Brémond 59 39 Dulko 42 61 24T Kanepi 59 64 Déchy 41 51 29T Peer 58 20 Likhovtseva 36 42 29T Medina Garrigues 58 27 Smashnova 36 65 31T Schiavone 57 15 Peng 34 56 31T Grönefeld 57 19 Davenport 29 25 31T Vesnina 57 44 Williams, V 19 48 34 Chakvetadze 56 13 Pierce 17 79 35T Camerin 55 54 Williams, S 16 95

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 180 Number of Events Played by the Top 100 This is a statistic the WTA has made needlessly difficult to compute, because the “events played” column in their rankings no longer refers to events played but to nominal events played — required events which they skip are still counted. The extreme example of this was Conchita Martinez: She played her last matches toward the end of 2005. But her ranking was high enough that she was supposed to play the Australian Open, Miami, and Roland Garros. So there she was, on the next-to-last ranking list of the year, with zero points and three events. She in fact had zero points and zero events. I used to calculate this statistic for the Top 150. I finally decided to cut back to the Top 100. As it is, the November 12, 2006 WTA ranking list showed excess events for the following Top 100 players: Clijsters, Davenport, Granville, Pennetta, Petrova, Pierce, Safarova, Vaidisova, S. Williams, V. Williams. In addition, Martina Müller had a $25K event played in tour year 2005 but counted toward her tour year 2006 ranking. And it’s just possible that I missed one or two like that. There won’t be many. The statistics below are based on actual events played, not nominal. In terms of actual events played, the Top 100 totalled 2308 events this year. That compares with 2226 in 2005, 2265 in 2004, and 2330 in 2003. It will be seen that the total fluctuates somewhat, but not much in recent years. It is interesting to note that the maximum events played by a Top 100 player has gone up this year: Marion Bartoli, Martina Müller, and Julia Schruff all had 33 events. Last year, the most for a Top 100 player was 30 (by Craybas, Foretz, and Sromova). In 2004, Benesova and Jidkova led the Top 100 with 32 events each. 2003 was the last time a Top 100 player had more than 33 events: Vakulenko last year had fully 34. But three players with 33 events appears to be without precedent. Bartoli is also, of course, the busiest player in the Top Fifty, and in the Top Twenty. The busiest player in the Top Fifteen was Jelena Jankovic, with 28 events; the busiest player in the Top Ten was Schnyder, with 25 tournaments. The median number of events this year is 24. The mode is 25 events (that is, more players played 25 events than any other number); no fewer than 15 players played a 25-tournament schedule. The second most popular number of events, amazingly, was 28, played by 13 different Top 100 players. Fully 33 of the Top 100 played 26 events or more; 56 played 24 events or more. A mere 26 players had 20 events or fewer, but that 26 includes six of the Top Ten! Only 11 Top 100 players played 16 or fewer events — but that list is even more distinguished, including as it does Clijsters, Davenport, Hénin- Hardenne, Piece, Sharapova, and Venus and Serena Williams. The table on the next page shows the list of Top 100 players with each number of events The number in parenthesis after the player’s name is her ranking. Top 25 players are shown in bold.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 181 # of # to Players Events play 33 3 Bartoli (17), Müller (34), Schruff (83) 31 1 A. Bondarenko (32) 30 2 Bychkova (72), Kloesel (100) 29 4 Fedak (68), Laine (77), Rodionova (82), Tanasugarn (75) 28 13 Bammer (53), Czink (94), Gajdosova (71), Grönefeld (19), Jankovic (12), Kanepi (64), Lepchenko (93), Poutchkova (38), Rezai (49), Santangelo (31), Savchuk (99), Sucha (84), Vesnina (44) 27 4 Birnerova (80), Castaño (55), Craybas (73), Oprandi (46) 26 6 Camerin (54), Daniilidou (36), Domachowska (90), Medina Garrigues (27), Pin (76), Wozniak (91) 25 15 Bardina (74), Benesova (60), Brémond (39), Déchy (51), Dulko (61), Granville (70), Hantuchova (18), Kirilenko (30), Razzano (87), Safarova (41), Schnyder (9), Stosur (29), Sugiyama (26), Sun (81), Tu (89) 24 8 Arvidsson (63), Dushevina (97), Harkleroad (86), Mirza (66), Shaughnessy (37), Srebotnik (23), Yakimova (69), Zvonareva (24) 23 6 Dominguez Lino (52), Kostanic (47), Peer (20), Petrova (6), Pous Tio (98), Schiavone (15) 22 7 Chakvetadze (13), Kuznetsova (4), Li Na (21), Morigami (85), Nakamura (59), Pironkova (62), Pratt (78) 21 5 Dementieva (8), Garbin (40), Jackson (45), King (50), Safina (11) 20 4 Hingis (7), Krajicek (35), Likhovtseva (42), Perry (43) 19 4 Ivanovic (14), Loit (58), Sprem (88), Zheng (33) 18 5 Golovin (22), Myskina (16), Pennetta (28), Smashnova (65), Vaidisova (10) 17 2 Mauresmo (3), Peng (56) 16 2 A. Radwanska (57), Azarenka (92) 15 3 Chan (96), Ruano Pascual (67), Sharapova (2) 14 1 Clijsters (5) 13 1 Hénin-Hardenne (1) 82Davenport (25), Pierce (79) 61V. Williams (48) 41S. Williams (95) The above data can be graphed. The graph on the next page shows how popular each schedule is — that is, the number of players playing that number of events.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 182 Tournaments per Year

16

14

12

10

8

6

Top 100 Players Playing 4

2

0 13579111315 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 Number of Tournaments It’s also interesting to compare rankings against number of events played. Do these correlate? The graph below shows the comparison. If there is any correlation, it is not obvious. In fact, the correlation coefficient between rankings and events played is only .17. Playing a heavy schedule is not the way to get ahead.

Ranking versus Number of Events

35

30

25

20

15 Events Played 10

5

0 0102030405060708090100 Player Ranking

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 183 Total Matches Played by the Top 30 Doubles Players This is the doubles equivalent of the item “Total Matches Played by Top Players” on page 179, except that I only checked the Top Thirty. There are probably lower-ranked players with more doubles matches. The goal is simply to compare the matches played by the top players. Rank Player Matches WTA Rnk Rank Player Matches WTA Rnk 1T Raymond 73 1 16 Safina 48 16 1T Stosur 73 1 17T Mirza 47 24 3Yan 69 4 17T Peer 47 27 4 Huber 68 17 19 Medina Garrigues 46 19 5 Stubbs 63 6 20T Hantuchova 45 13 6T Black 62 5 20T Suárez 45 14 6T Srebotnik 62 7 22 Sun 44 30 8 Zheng 61 3 23 Shaughnessy 43 15 9 Grönefeld 60 11 24 Kirilenko 42 26 10 Peschke 59 8 25T Zvonareva 37 18 11 Ruano Pascual 57 10 25T Likhovtseva 37 28 12 Sugiyama 53 12 27T Navratilova 33 21 13 Schiavone 52 9 27T Asagoe 33 25 14 Daniilidou 51 22 29 Déchy 32 20 15 Dulko 49 29 30 Petrova 26 23 The graph is interesting: There does appear to be more of a correlation between matches played and ranking than we had in singles. And the correlation coefficient agrees: We have a coefficient of .76.

Doubles Ranking versus Matches

80

70

60

50

40

30 Doubles Matches

20

10

0 051015 20 25 30 Doubles Ranking

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 184 Number of Events Played By the Top 100 Doubles Players This is the equivalent to the singles“Number of Events Played by the Top 100” on page 181.Interestingly, though the extremes are not too different in singles and doubles (the doubles player with the most matches had 33 events, the same as on the singles side), the doubles Top 100 had many fewer events: 1939, compared to 2308 events for the top singles players. A little of this may be smaller draw sizes; it may also be significant that doubles is Best 11 rather than Best 17. The median number of events is much lower: 19, compared to 24 on the singles side. The mode is 21 events, played by 11 players. It is a more balanced distribution than the singles Top 100. The table below shows the list of Top 100 players with each number of events The number in parenthesis after the player’s name is her ranking. Top 25 players are shown in bold. # of # to Players Events play 33 1 Dekmeijere (95) 32 1 Uhlirova (81) 31 1 G. Navratilova (70) 30 2 Rodionova (56), Woehr (66) 29 1 Voracova (90) 28 2 Beygelzimer (96), Müller (80) 27 1 Voskoboeva (48) 26 3 Chuang (87), Huber (17), Stewart (75) 25 4 Grönefeld (11), Rosolska (91), Vanc (50), Yan (4) 24 4 Daniilidou (22), Hradecka (53), Peschke (8), Sromova (76) 23 7 Dulko (29), Poutchek (99), Raymond (1), Stosur (1), Stubbs (6), Sun (30), Tu (45) 22 4 Chan (97), Jankovic (43), Jans (85), Martinez Sanchez (62) 21 11 Birnerova (88), Black (5), Craybas (67), Dushevina (58), Fedak (44), Jugic-Salkic (83), Peer (27), Pratt (42), Schiavone (9), Sugiyama (12), Vesnina (46) 20 7 Domachowska (82), Gajdosova (69), Grandin (77), Kirilenko (26), Srebotnik (7), Strycova (54), Zheng (3) 19 8 A. Bondarenko (51), Camerin (39), Foretz (74), Krajicek (36), Laine (65), Li Ting (31), Ruano Pascual (10), Santangelo (41) 18 9 Benesova (35), K. Bondarenko (64), Garbin (63), Gullickson (61), Hantuchova (13), Likhovtseva (28), Mattek (47), Medina Garrigues (19), Mirza (24) 17 4 Cohen-Aloro (86), Kostanic (60), Safina (16), Zvonareva (18) 16 9 Ani (84), Bartoli (33), Déchy (20), Dominguez Lino (93), Gagliardi (79), Sequera (94), Sfar (100), Shaughnessy (15), Suárez (14) 15 3 Chakvetadze (68), Husarova (38), Morariu (34) 14 3 Harkleroad (55), King (59), Vento-Kabchi (92) 13 3 Li Na (73), Pennetta (32), Perebiynis (71) 12 6 Asagoe (25), Dementieva (40), Loit (49), Myskina (78), M. Navratilova (21), Washington (89) 11 1 Vinci (72) 94Ivanovic (52), Kuznetsova (37), Petrova (23), Sanchez Lorenzo (98) 61Mauresmo (57)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 185 We can again graph this data:

Doubles Tournaments per Year

12

10

8

6

4 Top 100 Players Playing

2

0 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233 Number of Tournaments

I’m not even going to bother graphing rankings versus events played. The correlation coefficient between the two, in doubles, is even less than in singles: a mere .06. With only a hundred data points, that’s mere random noise. As in singles, playing more is not, by itself, the path to success.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 186 Injuries For years, I tried to keep track of injuries to top players, listing the type and the events they missed. I’ve given up. There are too many. We can hardly let a year pass without some investigation of injuries, though. We can at least list the rates of matches ending in withdrawals and retirements, or of last-minute bail-outs resulting in the introduction of a into a main draw. In singles, the numbers are as follows for 2006: Withdrawals — 16 Retirements — 90 Lucky losers in WTA draws — 64 Total: 170 In 2005, I show 61 retirements, 14 withdrawals, and 74 Lucky Losers — a total of 149 instances of players not completing a match. I didn’t track retirements in 2004, so I can’t compare before that. I do note that the number of withdrawals was higher in 2004; it appears that increased pressure on players is causing them to try harder to either start their matches or to withdraw before play began. The numbers in doubles are also pretty impressive. Recall that the number of doubles matches is slightly less than half the number of singles matches — but in 2006 we had 24 retirements in doubles, 25 instances of Lucky Losers — and 46 withdrawals! That’s 90 non-completions, meaning the rate of doubles matches not completed is even higher than the rate of singles matches that didn’t go forward. If we want to rate the top players on withdrawals, we get this table for the year-end Top Thirty (I’ve shown their doubles as well as their singles withdrawals/retirements):

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 187 Player Singles Doubles Singles Doubles Doubles Grand Total Withdrawals Retirements Total Withd. Retire. Bartoli 1 1 1 2 Chakvetadze 3 3 3 Clijsters 1 2 3 3 Davenport 1 1 1 Dementieva 1 1 2 3 Golovin 2 2215 Grönefeld 0 3 3 Hantuchova 2 2 1 3 Hénin-Hardenne 1 1 1 Hingis 0 1 1 Ivanovic 1 1 1 Jankovic 1 4 5 3 8 Kirilenko 1 1 1 Kuznetsova 1 1214 Li Na 1 2 3 4 7 Mauresmo 1 1 2 3 Medina Garrigues 1 1 1 2 Myskina 0 0 Peer 0 0 Pennetta 2 2 3 5 Petrova 1 1 2114 Safina 1 1 1 Schiavone 2 2439 Schnyder 1 1 1 Sharapova 1 1 1 Srebotnik 1 1 1 Stosur 0 0 Sugiyama 0 1 1 Vaidisova 1 1 1 Zvonareva 1 1315 Total: 9 30 33 8 Thus we note that, of the final singles Top Thirty, only six — Grönefeld, Hingis, Myskina, Peer, Stosur, and Sugiyama — finished every singles match they started, and Myskina took the end of the year off, while Grönefeld had three doubles withdrawals, and Hingis and Sugiyama also had doubles withdrawals; only Myskina, Peer, and Stosur completed every match they started in both disciplines. The most “incompletes” go to Schiavone, who tried to play through injury at the end of the year, with Jankovic second and Li Na third; they are the only players with more than five “incompletes.” We have a total of 39 singles “incompletes” for the Top Thirty, and they pulled out of 41 doubles matches. So that’s two and two thirds matches not completed by the average Top Thirty player, and that’s apart from any withdrawals before the tournament began!

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 188 WTA Tour History Who Won What Summary — Singles The following table shows all active Tier II or higher titles and lists which of the top players have won them. The figures in the boxes show how many times the player has won each event and the year of her earliest win (e.g. by the Australian Open, in the column for Capriati, we see 2/01 — Capriati has won the Australian Open two times, starting in 2001). Looking at this list can give a measure both of a player’s success (Davenport, e.g., has a lot of titles) and her weaknesses (but Davenport has big holes in the clay season) The players listed are the Top Ten (except for Vaidisova, who has never won a Tier II), plus the major players of recent years. Several of these players have also won Tier II events that are no longer played. The list: Clijsters — Hamburg (1/02), Leipzig (2/00), Filderstadt (2/02); Davenport — Atlanta (1/97), (1/97), Filderstadt (3/01), Princess Cup (1/99), Scottsdale (1/01); Dementieva — Shanghai (1/03); Hingis — Filderstadt (4/96), Hamburg (2/98); Martinez — Barcelona (1/91), Hamburg (1/95), Houston (1/93), Stratton Mountain (2/93), Tampa (1/89); Mauresmo — (1/01); Pierce — Filderstadt (1/93), Princess Cup (1/95); Schnyder — Hannover (1/98); Seles — Bahia (1/01), Barcelona (1/92), Chicago (1/93), Essen (1/92), Houston (3/89), (1/91), Princess Cup (5/91), San Antonio (1/90), Tampa (1/90); S. Williams — Hannover (1/00), Princess Cup (2/00), Scottsdale (1/02), Leipzig (1/02); V. Williams — Hamburg (2/99). In addition, some of our players won some of these events before they reached Tier II status: Clijsters won Luxembourg 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003; Martinez won Paris 1990.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 189 Event Capri Clijst Daven Deme Hénin Hingi Kuzne Marti Maure Petrov Pierce Schny Seles Shara SWill VWill Sydney 1/93 1/03 1/99 2/04 3/97 1/00 1/96 Australian 2/01 1/00 1/04 3/97 1/06 1/95 4/91 2/03 Pan Pacific 4/98 1/06 4/97 1/05 Paris 1/04 1/97 2/01 1/98 2/99 1/02 Antwerp 1/04 2/05 2/02 Dubai 1/05 3/03 1/01 1/02 1/02 Doha 1/06 1/05 Indian Wel 2/03 2/97 1/04 1/98 1/92 1/06 2/99 Miami 1/05 2/97 1/06 2/90 3/02 3/98 Amelia Isl 3/97 1/03 1/95 1/01 1/06 1/98 2/99 1/02 Charleston 1/01 2/03 2/97 2/94 1/06 1/00 1/04 Warsaw 1/06 1/05 1/03 1/04 Berlin 3/02 1/99 2/98 2/01 1/90 Rome 1/03 2/98 4/93 2/04 1/06 1/97 2/90 1/02 1/99 Roland G 1/01 3/03 1/00 3/90 1/02 Eastbourne 1/05 1/01 1/06 1/04 1/96 Wimbledon 1/99 1/97 1/94 1/06 1/04 2/02 3/00 Stanford 4/01 3/98 2/96 2/90 2/00 San Diego 2/91 2/98 1/03 2/97 1/95 1/05 1/06 3/00 Los Angeles 2/03 4/96 1/06 1/95 3/90 2/99 Canadian O 1/91 1/05 1/03 2/99 2/02 4/95 1/01 New Haven 1/03 1/05 1/06 4/99 U.S. Open 1/05 1/98 1/03 1/97 1/04 2/91 1/06 2/99 2/00 Beijing 1/06 1/04 Luxembourg 1/05 Stuttgart 1/06 Moscow 1/00 2/98 Zürich 4/97 1/03 1/00 1/02 1/06 1/99 Linz 2/00 1/02 1/04 1/05 1/99 1/06 Philadelphia 2/99 1/97 1/93 3/03 1/91 Champions 2/02 1/99 1/06 2/98 1/05 3/90 1/04 1/01 Different 7141731619491469 11591213 events won Total Tier 9/9 20/25 34/41 3/4 24/24 33/39 4/4 14/20 21/22 6/6 10/12 1/2 32/47 9/9 20/24 25/27 II+ wins (active/total) Who Won What Summary — Doubles The equivalent of the preceding, but for doubles. It’s harder to pick these players, as there are more doubles winners out there. I finally chose to list the Top Ten, meaning Black, Peschke, Raymond, Ruano Pascual, Schiavone, Srebotnik, Stosur, Stubbs, Yan, Zheng — plus Hingis and Serena Williams as the other active player with the Career Slam (Venus’s record is the same as Serena’s except that she didn’t win Leipzig 2002), Likhovtseva, Suárez, and Sugiyama as the other top active players, plus Sanchez-Vicario as the other most successful players of recent years. The final lines of the table differ slightly from the singles table. The line “Events won” lists the distinct active Tier II titles each player has won. Serena, for instance, has won seven titles at these 30 events — but she has two Wimbledons and two Australian Opens, so she has only five distinct titles. The next line, “To 2000,” lists each player’s titles at all Tier II+ events in the years leading up to 2000 (inclusive). We then show her total for the 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and the grand total.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 190 Note that the total may be higher than the total titles listed, since some players will have titles at no-longer- extant tournaments (e.g. Hingis has 36 total doubles titles, but only 31 show up in the list; she also won Hamburg 1995, 2002, Filderstadt 1997, 2000, Leipzig 1997, Philadelphia 2000 which are no longer played). Event Black Hingi Likho Pesch Raym Ruano Sanch Schia Srebo Stosur Stubb Suáre Sugiy SWill Yan Zheng Sydney 1/04 1/98 1/99 1/02 3/91 1/05 3/02 3/99 AustraliaO 4/97 1/00 1/04 3/92 1/00 1/04 2/01 1/06 1/06 Pan Pacific 1/04 2/98 1/05 3/01 1/92 1/06 4/01 Paris 1/98 2/05 Antwerp 2/04 1/06 1/03 Dubai 1/06 1/05 1/06 1/05 Doha 1/04 1/05 1/06 Indian Well 1/99 5/94 2/04 1/06 2/93 2/04 1/01 Miami 2/98 2/02 5/92 1/06 1/02 1/00 Amelia Isla 1/01 1/03 6/90 1/06 1/05 Charleston 1/97 1/99 3/01 4/00 4/90 1/06 2/01 3/00 Warsaw 1/06 1/04 Berlin 1/05 1/03 1/00 1/03 1/06 1/06 Rome 2/01 1/99 1/01 1/00 2/98 2/93 1/00 2/98 1/06 Roland Gar 2/98 1/06 4/01 1/06 4/01 1/03 1/99 Eastbourne 1/99 4/01 2/95 3/01 1/00 Wimbledon 2/04 2/96 1/01 1/95 2/01 1/03 2/00 1/06 1/06 Stanford 2/03 1/97 2/02 1/94 2/02 San Diego 3/01 1/97 1/01 1/00 1/05 2/94 3/00 1/03 Los Angele 1/98 1/06 2/92 1/03 1/06 CanadianO 2/98 1/02 2/94 1/92 1/02 1/04 New Haven 1/01 1/01 2/99 1/03 1/02 1/05 1/99 1/03 1/00 1/06 1/06 U.S. Open 1/98 2/01 3/02 2/93 1/05 1/01 3/02 1/00 1/99 Beijing 1/06 1/06 Luxembour 1/06 1/05 1/06 1/05 Stuttgart 1/06 1/06 Moscow 1/01 1/06 2/99 1/97 1/06 1/05 1/99 1/00 Zürich 3/04 3/96 2/99 1/97 4/99 1/03 1/98 Linz 1/04 1/05 1/06 1/06 1/03 Champions 2/990 3/01 1/03 2/92 2/05 1/01 1/03 Event won 9 19 11 5 21 14 19 5 2 14 18 13 16 5 4 4 To 2000 0 33 4 16 2 56 0 15 2 11 5 0 0 2001 5 1 5 9 1 1 0711100 2002 0 2 0 9 5 3 0850200 2003 1 — 0 6 5 — 0358100 2004 7 — 2 1 5 — 1 0651000 2005 6 — 2 2 6 5 — 1 7430000 2006 201482—328322044 Totals 21 36 14 6 55 25 60 5 2 15 46 23 23 9 4 4 We note that Lisa Raymond has the widest range of titles — though it’s largely a matter of winning fast events with Stubbs and slow with Stosur. Serena Williams has the distinction of being the only player in recent times to win all four Slams in both singles and doubles; Navratilova of course did it to, and others before her, but that was pre-Rebound Ace.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 191 Who Won What — History of Tournaments The following tables list players who won the equivalent of Tier II and higher events. Some tournaments (e.g. Warsaw and Shanghai before 2003, Doha before 2004, Luxembourg before 2005) were not Tier II events for this entire period; these winners are shown in italics Who Won What Part 1: 2001Ð2005 Tournament 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Sydney Hénin-Hardenne Molik Hénin-Hardenne Clijsters Hingis Hingis Australian Open Mauresmo S. Williams Hénin-Hardenne S. Williams Capriati Capriati Pan Pacific Dementieva Sharapova Davenport Davenport Hingis Davenport Paris Mauresmo Safina Clijsters S. Williams V. Williams Mauresmo Antwerp Mauresmo Mauresmo Clijsters V. Williams V. Williams Nice Mauresmo Dubai Hénin-Hardenne Davenport Hénin-Hardenne Hénin-Hardenne Mauresmo Hingis Doha Petrova Sharapova Myskina Myskina Seles Hingis Scottsdale Sugiyama S. Williams Davenport Indian Wells Sharapova Clijsters Hénin-Hardenne Clijsters Hantuchova S. Williams Miami Kuznetsova Clijsters S. Williams S. Williams S. Williams V. Williams Amelia Island Petrova Davenport Davenport Dementieva V. Williams Mauresmo Charleston Petrova Hénin-Hardenne V. Williams Hénin-Hardenne Majoli Capriati Warsaw Clijsters Hénin-Hardenne V. Williams Mauresmo Bovina Hamburg Clijsters V. Williams Berlin Petrova Hénin-Hardenne Mauresmo Hénin-Hardenne Hénin Mauresmo Rome Hingis Mauresmo Mauresmo Clijsters S. Williams Dokic Roland Garros Hénin-Hardenne Hénin-Hardenne Myskina Hénin-Hardenne S. Williams Capriati Eastbourne Hénin-Hardenne Clijsters Kuznetsova Rubin Rubin Davenport Wimbledon Mauresmo V. Williams Sharapova S. Williams S. Williams V. Williams Stanford Clijsters Clijsters Davenport Clijsters V. Williams Clijsters San Diego Sharapova Pierce Davenport Hénin-Hardenne V. Williams V. Williams Los Angeles Dementieva Clijsters Davenport Clijsters Rubin Davenport Canadian Open Ivanovic Clijsters Mauresmo Hénin-Hardenne Mauresmo S. Williams Olympics1 Hénin-Hardenne New Haven Hénin-Hardenne Davenport Bovina Capriati V. Williams V. Williams U.S. Open Sharapova Clijsters Kuznetsova Hénin-Hardenne S. Williams V. Williams Bahia Myskina Seles Beijing2 Kuznetsova Kirilenko S. Williams Dementieva Smashnova Seles Princess Cup S. Williams Dokic Leipzig Myskina S. Williams Clijsters Luxembourg A. Bondarenko Clijsters Molik Clijsters Clijsters Clijsters Stuttgart Petrova Filderstadt Davenport Davenport Clijsters Clijsters Davenport Moscow Chakvetadze Pierce Myskina Myskina Maleeva Dokic Zürich Sharapova Davenport Molik Hénin-Hardenne Schnyder Davenport Linz Sharapova Petrova Mauresmo Sugiyama Hénin Davenport Philadelphia Mauresmo Mauresmo Mauresmo Championships Hénin-Hardenne Mauresmo Sharapova Clijsters Clijsters S. Williams 1. Olympic tennis events were held in past years, but 2004 was the first year they bore points and became a non-exhibition 2. Shanghai until 2004

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 192 Who Won What Part 2: 1996Ð2002 Tournament 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 Sydney Hingis Hingis Mauresmo Davenport Sanchez-V Hingis Seles Australian Open Capriati Capriati Davenport Hingis Hingis Hingis Seles Pan Pacific Hingis Davenport Hingis Hingis Davenport Hingis Majoli Paris V. Williams Mauresmo Tauziat S. Williams Pierce Hingis Halard-D Antwerp V. Williams Nice Mauresmo Hannover (Essen) S. Williams Novotna Schnyder Majoli Majoli Dubai Mauresmo Hingis Scottsdale S. Williams Davenport rained out Indian Wells Hantuchova S. Williams Davenport S. Williams Hingis Davenport Graf Miami/Key Biscay S. Williams V. Williams Hingis V. Williams V. Williams Hingis Graf Amelia Island V. Williams Mauresmo Seles Seles Pierce Davenport Spirlea Charleston1 Majoli Capriati Pierce Hingis Coetzer Hingis Sanchez-V Hamburg Clijsters V. Williams Hingis V. Williams Hingis Majoli Sanchez-V Berlin Hénin Mauresmo Martinez Hingis Martinez M. Fernandez Graf Rome S. Williams Dokic Seles V. Williams Hingis Pierce Martinez Roland Garros S. Williams Capriati Pierce Graf Sanchez-V Majoli Graf Eastbourne Rubin Davenport Halard-D Zvereva Novotna rained out Seles Wimbledon S. Williams V. Williams V. Williams Davenport Novotna Hingis Graf Stanford V. Williams Clijsters V. Williams Davenport Davenport Hingis Hingis San Diego V. Williams V. Williams V. Williams Hingis Davenport Hingis Date Los Angeles Rubin Davenport S. Williams S. Williams Davenport Seles Davenport Canadian Open Mauresmo S. Williams Hingis Hingis Seles Seles Seles New Haven2 V. Williams V. Williams V. Williams V. Williams Graf Davenport U.S. Open S. Williams V. Williams V. Williams S. Williams Davenport Hingis Graf Bahia Myskina Seles Princess Cup S. Williams Dokic S. Williams Davenport Seles Seles Seles Surabaya3 Wang Leipzig S. Williams Clijsters Clijsters Tauziat Graf Novotna Huber Moscow Maleeva Dokic Hingis Tauziat Pierce Novotna Martinez Filderstadt Clijsters Davenport Hingis Hingis Testud Hingis Hingis Zürich Schnyder Davenport Hingis V. Williams Davenport Davenport Novotna Linz Hénin Davenport Davenport Pierce Novotna Rubin Appelmans Chicago Davenport Novotna Philadelphia Davenport Davenport Graf Hingis Novotna Championships Clijsters S. Williams Hingis Davenport Hingis Novotna Graf 1. Hilton Head until 2001 2. Tournament held in Atlanta in 1997 3. The WTA lists Surabaya as a Tier II in 1996. The field does not back this up

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 193 Who Won What Part 3: 1990Ð1996 Order of events is (approximately) as in 1995. Tournament Winner In 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 Sydney Seles Sabatini Date Capriati Sabatini Novotna Zvereva Australian Open Seles Pierce Graf Seles Seles Seles Graf Pan Pacific Majoli Date Graf Navratilova Sabatini Sabatini Graf Paris1 Halard-D Graf Navratilova Navratilova Essen Majoli Novotna Medvedeva Seles Indian Wells2 Graf M. Fernandez Graf M. Fernandez Seles Navratilova Navratilova Delray Beach3 Graf Graf Graf Graf Sabatini Sabatini Lipton Graf Graf Graf Sanchez-V Sanchez-V Seles Seles San Antonio Navratilova Graf Seles Houston Graf Hack Martinez Seles Seles KMaleeva Hilton Head Sanchez-V Martinez Martinez Graf Sabatini Sabatini Navratilova Amelia Island Spirlea Martinez Sanchez-V Sanchez-V Sabatini Sabatini Graf Tampa Seles Barcelona Sanchez-V Sanchez-V Sanchez-V Seles Martinez Sanchez-V Hamburg Sanchez-V Martinez Sanchez-V Sanchez-V Graf Graf Graf Rome Martinez Martinez Martinez Martinez Sabatini Sabatini Seles Berlin Graf Sanchez-V Graf Graf Graf Graf Seles Roland Garros Graf Graf Sanchez-V Graf Seles Seles Seles Eastbourne Seles Tauziat McGrath Navratilova McNeil Navratilova Navratilova Wimbledon Graf Graf Martinez Graf Graf Graf Navratilova Stratton Mtn Martinez Martinez Newport Sanchez-V Canadian Open Seles Seles Sanchez-V Graf Sanchez-V Capriati Graf Los Angeles4 Davenport Martinez Frazier Navratilova Navratilova Seles Seles San Diego Date Martinez Graf Graf Capriati Capriati Graf Washington, DC Sanchez-V Navratilova U.S. Open Graf Graf Sanchez-V Graf Seles Seles Sabatini Princess/Nicherei Seles Pierce Sanchez-V Coetzer Seles Seles MFernandez Leipzig Huber Huber Novotna Graf Graf Graf Graf Milan Seles Filderstadt Hingis Majoli Huber Pierce Navratilova Huber MFernandez Surabaya5 Wang Zürich Novotna Majoli Maleeva ManMaleeva Graf Graf Graf Brighton M. Fernandez Novotna Novotna Graf Graf Graf Chicago Novotna Maleeva Zvereva Seles Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Oakland Hingis Maleeva Sanchez-V Navratilova Seles Navratilova Seles New England Graf Philadelphia Novotna Graf Huber Martinez Graf Seles Championships Graf Graf Sabatini Graf Seles Seles Seles 1. There was a tournament in Paris prior to 1993, but it was smaller and at a different time; winners are not recorded here 2. Indian Wells: Palm Springs until 1991 3. Delray Beach: Boca Raton until 1992 4. Sometimes designated “Manhattan Beach” 5. The WTA lists Surabaya as a Tier II in 1996. The field does not back this up

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 194 Who Won What Part 4: 1986Ð1989 Order of events is (approximately) as in 1990. A major change in Tier schedule occurred between 1987 and 1988, with very many $150,000 events upgrading in the interim. In 1987, $150,000 was the equivalent of Tier II; in 1988, it was not. I have listed as Tier II events only those $150,000 events which upgraded in 1988 — but marked them in italics for 1987 (not previously). TThe Tour shifted to a Calendar Year system in 1986. Note that this resulted in many events not being played in 1986. Tournament 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 Zvereva Sukova Shriver Mandlikova Sydney Zvereva Navratilova Shriver Garrison Australian Open Graf Graf Graf Mandlikova Pan Pacific Graf Navratilova Shriver Sabatini Graf1 Chicago Navratilova Garrison-Jackson Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Washington, DC Navratilova Graf Navratilova Mandlikova Indian Wells2 Navratilova Maleeva-Fragniere Boca Raton Sabatini Graf Sabatini Graf Lipton Seles Sabatini Graf Graf Houston KMaleeva Seles Evert Evert Evert San Antonio Seles Graf Graf Hilton Head Navratilova Graf Navratilova Graf Graf Amelia Island Graf Sabatini Navratilova Graf Graf Tampa Seles Martinez Evert Evert Hamburg Graf Graf Graf Graf Rome Seles Sabatini Sabatini Graf Berlin Seles Graf Graf Graf Graf Roland Garros Seles Sanchez-Vicario Graf Graf Evert Eastbourne Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Sukova Navratilova Wimbledon Navratilova Graf Graf Navratilova Navratilova Newport Sanchez-Vicario Garrison McNeil Shriver Shriver Canadian Open Graf Navratilova Sabatini Shriver Sukova San Diego Graf Graf Rehe Reggi Cincinnati Potter Los Angeles3 Seles Navratilova Evert Graf Navratilova Mahwah Graf Graf Man. Maleeva Graf U.S. Open Sabatini Graf Graf Navratilova Navratilova Dallas Navratilova Navratilova Evert Leipzig Graf Princess/Nicherei M. Fernandez New Orleans Evert Evert Navratilova Zürich Graf Graf Shriver Graf Filderstadt M. Fernandez Sabatini Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Brighton Graf Graf Graf Sabatini Graf Oakland4 Seles Garrison Navratilova Garrison New England Graf Navratilova Navratilova Shriver Navratilova Indianapolis Martinez Graf Championships Seles Graf Sabatini Graf Navratilova 1. Listed by the WTA as a Tier I event but with $50,000 in prize money. Presumably the former is correct 2. Palm Springs in 1989 3. Sometimes designated Manhattan Beach 4. Sometimes designated San Francisco, e.g. in 1987

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 195 Who Won What Part 5: 1983Ð1986 Order of events is (approximately) as in 1985. See footnotes (on the following page), as the tour order was complex at this time; many events moved and the schedule was repeatedly adjusted. Tournament 19861 1985(-1986)2 1984(-1985)3 1983(Ð1984) Palm Beach Gard4 Horvath Evert Boston Mandlikova Hilton Head Graf Evert Evert Navratilova Amelia Island Graf Garrison Navratilova Evert Orlando5 Evert Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Houston Evert Navratilova Mandlikova Atlanta Shriver Italian Open6 Reggi ManMaleeva Temesvari Johannesburg Evert Sydney Indoors Shriver Berlin Graf Evert Kohde-Kilsch Evert Evert Evert Navratilova Evert Eastbourne Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Wimbledon Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Newport Shriver Evert Navratilova Moulton Indianapolis7 Graf Temesvari ManMaleeva Temesvari Los Angeles Navratilova Kohde-Kilsch Evert Navratilova Canadian Open Sukova Evert Evert Navratilova Mahwah Graf Rinaldi Navratilova Durie U.S. Open Navratilova Mandlikova Navratilova Navratilova Queens Grand Prix8 Bonder Richmond Fairbank Hartford Schaefer Detroit Ruzici Chicago Navratilova Gadusek Shriver New Orleans Navratilova Evert Navratilova Fort Lauderdale9 Navratilova Navratilova Evert Filderstadt10 Navratilova Shriver Lindqvist Navratilova Brighton Graf Evert Hanika Evert Zürich Garrison Garrison Tampa Rehe Torres Navratilova Lions Cup11 Evert ManMaleeva Navratilova Brisbane Navratilova Sukova Shriver Sydney Navratilova Navratilova Durie Australian Open Navratilova Evert Navratilova Pan Pacific Graf12 ManMaleeva Washington, DC Navratilova Navratilova Mandlikova New England Navratilova Navratilova Key Biscayne13 Evert Evert Lipton Evert Navratilova Oakland Evert Mandlikova Mandlikova Princeton14 Navratilova Mandlikova Navratilova Dallas Navratilova Mandlik/Navrat15 Championships Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 196 1. Partial year; see note on 1985Ð1986. 2. Until 1986, the Tour used a “tournament year” stretching from roughly March to March. In 1986, it switched to a calen- dar year form, explaining why many events are omitted (but not shown as unplayed) in 1986 3. The 1984/1985 season was 13 months long, including March 1985 and March 1986. One tournament — Dallas — was therefore played twice in that year, and not at all in the 1983/1984 season. 4. Reduced to a $50,000 tournament in 1985, coupled with a “4-woman special” won by Evert 5. Marco Island in 1986, with reduced prize money and an earlier date 6. The Italian Open was “in exile” 1980-1985, held in (with a $50,000 prize) in 1985, and in Perugia in 1984 and before (with a more normal $150,000 prize). It was not held in 1986 (not unusual given the realignment) 7. In some years (e.g. 1985), there were two Indianapolis events, perhaps on different surfaces. This is the larger 8. Held in Tokyo. Singles only; no doubles. Featured a third and fourth place playoff as well as winner and runner-up 9. Bonaventure in 1984; Deer Creek in 1983, with reduced prize money 10. Stuttgart until 1985 11. Held in Tokyo. Singles only; no doubles. Featured a third and fourth place playoff as well as winner and runner-up 12. Listed by the WTA as a Tier I event but with $50,000 in prize money. Presumably the former is correct 13. Key Biscayne: Later Boca Raton 14. Held in Livingston in the 1983/1984 season 15. Dallas 1984/1985: Won by Mandlikova in March 1984 and by Navratilova in March 1985

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 197 Active Leaders in Titles (Singles/Doubles) Minimum ten titles required to be listed, except for this year’s Slam winners, shown in [square brackets]. Players in bold won at least one title in 2006 Singles Doubles Player Titles Player Titles Seles* ...... 53 Navratilova*‡ ...... 176 Davenport* ...... 50† § Raymond* ...... 60 Hingis*¤ ...... 42 Stubbs* ...... 55 V. Williams* ...... 31† Suárez* ...... 42 Clijsters* ...... 33 Ruano Pascual* ...... 37 Hénin-Hardenne* ...... 29 Davenport* ...... 36 S. Williams* ...... 25† Hingis*¤ ...... 36 Mauresmo* ...... 23 Sugiyama*...... 33 Pierce*...... 18 Black* ...... 27 Sharapova* ...... 15 Likhovtseva ...... 26 Capriati* ...... 13† Husarova ...... 21 Smashnova ...... 12 Stosur*...... 17 Myskina*...... 10 Loit...... 16 Schnyder ...... 10 Huber*...... 15 Shaughnessy ...... 14 Kuznetsova* ...... 13 Morariu* ...... 13 Srebotnik ...... 13 Petrova...... 12 Clijsters*...... 11 Pierce* ...... 10 Rubin* ...... 10 S. Williams* ...... 10 [Yan* ...... 8] [Zheng* ...... 8] [Zvonareva* ...... 4] [Déchy* ...... 2] * Titles include at least one Slam † Excludes Olympics before 2004, Grand Slam Cup ¤ Has announced plans to retire or retired this year

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 198 Recent Singles Winners, Finalists, Semifinalists The following list shows every player to have reached a WTA semifinal, with listed result, since the beginning of 1999. Titles shown in Highlight. As a good general rule, the longer a player’s entry, the better she is; the higher the fraction of her entry in Highlight, the better she handles pressure (not even close to the same thing). Amanmuradova, Akgul — Tashkent 2005 F Ani, Maret — Acapulco 2006 SF Appelmans, Sabine — Luxembourg 1999 SF Arvidsson, Sofia — Quebec City 2005 F, Memphis 2006 W, Stockholm 2006 SF Asagoe, Shinobu — Oklahoma City 2001 SF, Acapulco 2003 SF, Birmingham 2003 F, Hobart 2004 F, Auckland 2005 F, Pan Pacific 2005 SF Azarenka, Victoria — GuangZhou 2005 SF, Tashkent 2006 SF Bacheva, Lubomira — Estoril 1999 SF Bachmann, Angelika — Tashkent 1999 SF Bammer, Sybille — Pattaya City 2006 SF Barna, Anca — Estoril 2002 F, 2003 SF, Pattaya City 2003 SF, Tashkent 2004 SF Bartoli, Marion — Canberra 2003 SF, Auckland 2004 SF, 2004 SF, Cincinnati 2004 SF, Auckland 2005 SF, Quebec City 2005 SF, Auckland 2006 W, Bali 2006 F, Seoul 2006 SF, Japan Open 2006 W, Quebec City 2006 W Bedanova, Daja — Princess Cup 2000 SF, Bratislava 2000 W, Gold Coast 2002 SF, Eastbourne 2002 SF Beigbeder, Celine — Strasbourg 2001 SF Benesova, Iveta — Bratislava 2002 F, Hobart 2003 SF, Acapulco 2004 W, Estoril 2004 F, Budapest 2004 SF, Forest Hills 2004 F, Hobart 2005 SF, Forest Hills 2005 SF, Hobart 2006 F Bes, Eva — Antwerp 2001 SF Black, Cara — Birmingham 1999 SF, Auckland 2000 F, Birmingham 2000 SF, Hobart 2001 SF, Big Island 2002 W Bondarenko, Alona — Hyderabad 2005 F, Rabat 2006 SF, Luxembourg 2006 W Boogert, Kristie — Antwerp 1999 SF, Budapest 2000 F Bovina, Elena — Estoril 2001 F, Estoril 2002 SF, Warsaw 2002 W, Quebec City 2002 W, Gold Coast 2003 SF, Filderstadt 2003 SF, New Haven 2004 W, Hasselt 2004 F, Moscow 2004 SF, Linz 2004 F Brandi, Kristina — ’s-Hertogenbosch 1999 W, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2000 SF, Hobart 2004 SF Brémond, Severine (Beltrame) — Bangkok 2006 SF, Quebec City 2006 SF Bychkova, Ekaterina — Tashkent 2005 SF Callens, Els — Antwerp 1999 SF, Big Island 2002 SF Camerin, Maria Elena — Casablanca 2001 F, Bali 2004 SF, Hasselt 2004 SF, Tashkent 2005 SF, Forest Hills 2006 SF, Portoroz 2006 F

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 199 Capriati, Jennifer — Strasbourg 1999 W, Quebec City 1999 W, Australian Open 2000 SF, ’s- Hertogenbosch 2000 SF, Luxembourg 2000 W, Zürich 2000 SF, Quebec City 2000 F, Australian Open 2001 W, Oklahoma City 2001 F, Scottsdale 2001 SF, Ericsson 2001 F, Charleston 2001 W, Berlin 2001 W, Roland Garros 2001 W, Wimbledon 2001 SF, Canadian Open 2001 F, New Haven 2001 SF, U. S. Open 2001 SF, Zürich 2001 SF, Australian Open 2002 W, Scottsdale 2002 F, Miami 2002 F, Charleston 2002 SF, Berlin 2002 SF, Rome 2002 SF, Roland Garros 2002 SF, Canadian Open 2002 F, Los Angeles Championships 2002 SF, Dubai 2003 SF, Indian Wells 2003 SF, Miami 2003 F, Amelia Island 2003 SF, Berlin 2003 SF, Eastbourne 2003 SF, Stanford 2003 F, New Haven 2003 W, U. S. Open 2003 SF, WTA Championships 2003 SF, Doha 2004 SF, Berlin 2004 SF, Rome 2004 F, Roland Garros 2004 SF, U. S. Open 2004 SF Casanova, Myriam — Budapest 2002 F, Brussels 2002 W, Antwerp 2004 SF Castaño, Catalina — Bogota 2002 SF, Budapest 2005 F, Seoul 2005 SF, Canberra 2006 SF Cervanova, Ludmila — Bratislava 2001 SF, Casablanca 2003 SF, Budapest 2003 SF, Palermo 2003 SF, Casablanca 2004 F, Acapulco 2005 F, Bogota 2006 SF Chan Yung-Jan — Japan Open 2006 SF Chladkova, Denisa — Budapest 1999 SF, Strasbourg 1999 SF, Knokke-Heist 1999 F, Pattaya City 1999 SF, Hannover 2000 F, Bratislava 2000 SF, 2002 F, Warsaw 2003 SF, Palermo 2004 SF Chakvetadze, Anna — New Haven 2005 SF, Warsaw 2006 SF, Canadian Open 2006 SF, GuangZhou 2006 W, Moscow 2006 W Chi, Jane — Japan Open 1999 SF Cho, Yoon Jeong — Pattaya City 2002 F, Auckland 2003 F, Memphis 2003 SF, Canberra 2006 F Clijsters, Kim — Luxembourg 1999 W, Bratislava 1999 F, Hobart 2000 W, Filderstadt 2000 F, Leipzig 2000 W, Indian Wells 2001 F, Bol 2001 SF, Roland Garros 2001 F, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2001 F, Knokke- Heist 2001 SF, Stanford 2001 W, New Haven 2001 SF, Princess Cup 2001 SF, Leipzig 2001 W, Luxembourg 2001 W, Munich Championships 2001 SF, Sydney 2002 SF, Australian Open 2002 SF, Hamburg 2002 W, Rome 2002 SF, Stanford 2002 F, Princess Cup 2002 F, Leipzig 2002 SF, Filderstadt 2002 W, Luxembourg 2002 W, Los Angeles Championships 2002 W, Sydney 2003 W, Australian Open 2003 SF, Antwerp 2003 F, Scottsdale 2003 F, Indian Wells 2003 W, Miami 2003 SF, Berlin 2003 F, Rome 2003 W, Roland Garros 2003 F, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2003 W, Wimbledon 2003 SF, Stanford 2003 W, San Diego 2003 F, Los Angeles 2003 W, U. S. Open 2003 F, Leipzig 2003 SF, Filderstadt 2003 W, Zürich 2003 SF, Luxembourg 2003 W, WTA Championships 2003 W, Australian Open 2004 F, Paris 2004 W, Antwerp 2004 W, Hasselt 2004 SF, Indian Wells 2005 W, Miami 2005 W, Warsaw 2005 SF, Eastbourne 2005 W, Stanford 2005 W, Los Angeles 2005 W, Canadian Open 2005 W, U. S. Open 2005 W, Luxembourg 2005 W, Hasselt 2005 W, Australian Open 2006 SF, Antwerp 2006 F, Warsaw 2006 W, Roland Garros 2006 SF, Eastbourne 2006 SF, Wimbledon 2006 SF, Stanford 2006 W, San Diego 2006 F, Hasselt 2006 W, Madrid Championships 2006 SF Coetzer, Amanda — Oklahoma City 1999 F, Pan Pacific 1999 F, Eastbourne 1999 SF, Stanford 1999 SF, San Diego 1999 SF, Oklahoma City 2000 SF, Hamburg 2000 SF, Berlin 2000 F, Antwerp 2000 W, New Haven 2000 SF, Acapulco 2001 W, Amelia Island 2001 F, Hamburg 2001 SF, Luxembourg 2001 SF, Moscow 2002 SF, Memphis 2003 F, Acapulco 2003 W Cohen-Aloro, Stephanie — Estoril 2004 SF Courtois, Laurence — Tashkent 1999 F, Antwerp 2000 SF Craybas, Jill — Japan Open 2002 W, Memphis 2006 SF Czink, Melinda — Canberra 2005 F, Bangalore 2006 SF

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 200 Daniilidou, Eleni — Budapest 2002 SF, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2002 W, Bahia 2002 F, Auckland 2003 W, Paris 2003 SF, Birmingham 2003 F, Auckland 2004 W, Miami 2004 F, Portoroz 2005 SF, ’s- Hertogenbosch 2006 SF, Seoul 2006 W Davenport, Lindsay — Sydney 1999 W, Australian Open 1999 SF, Wimbledon 1999 W, Stanford 1999 W, San Diego 1999 SF, Los Angeles 1999 SF, New Haven 1999 F, U. S. Open 1999 SF, Princess Cup 1999 W, Philadelphia 1999 W, Chase Championships 1999 W, Sydney 2000 F, Madrid 1999 W, Australian Open 2000 W, Scottsdale 2000 F (rainout) Indian Wells 2000 W, Ericsson 2000 F, Wimbledon 2000 F, Stanford 2000 F, Los Angeles 2000 F, U. S. Open 2000 F, Zürich 2000 F, Linz 2000 W, Philadelphia 2000 W, Sydney 2001 F, Australian Open 2001 SF, Pan Pacific 2001 W, Scottsdale 2001 W, Eastbourne 2001 W, Wimbledon 2001 SF, Stanford 2001 F, San Diego 2001 SF, Los Angeles 2001 W, New Haven 2001 F, Filderstadt 2001 W, Zürich 2001 W, Linz 2001 W, Munich Championships 2001 F, Stanford 2002 SF, San Diego 2002 SF, Los Angeles 2002 F, New Haven 2002 F, U. S. Open 2002 SF, Moscow 2002 F, Zürich 2002 F, Sydney 2003 F, Pan Pacific 2003 W, Indian Wells 2003 F, Charleston 2003 SF, Amelia Island 2003 F, San Diego 2003 SF, Los Angeles 2003 F, New Haven 2003 F, U. S. Open 2003 SF, Sydney 2004 SF, Pan Pacific 2004 W, Indian Wells 2004 F, Amelia Island 2004 W, Strasbourg 2004 F, Wimbledon 2004 SF, Stanford 2004 W, Los Angeles 2004 W, San Diego 2004 W, Cincinnati 2004 W, U. S. Open 2004 SF, Filderstadt 2004 W, Moscow 2004 SF, Australian Open 2005 F, Pan Pacific 2005 F, Dubai 2005 W, Indian Wells 2005 F, Amelia Island 2005 W, Wimbledon 2005 F, New Haven 2005 W, Bali 2005 W, Filderstadt 2005 W, Zürich 2005 W, Los Angeles Championships 2005 SF, Dubai 2006 SF, New Haven 2006 F, Bali 2006 SF Dechaume-Balleret, Alexia — Prostejov 1999 SF Déchy, Nathalie — Paris 1999 SF, Bratislava 1999 SF, Gold Coast 2000 SF, Oklahoma City 2000 F, Estoril 2000 F, Strasbourg 2000 SF, Canberra 2001 SF, Scottsdale 2002 SF, Bratislava 2002 SF, Gold Coast 2003 W, Sarasota 2003 SF, Gold Coast 2004 SF, Indian Wells 2004 SF, New Haven 2004 F, Australian Open 2005 SF, Strasbourg 2005 SF, Luxembourg 2005 SF, Quebec City 2005 SF de Lone, Erica — Kuala Lumpur 1999 F de los Rios, Rossana — Bahia 2001 SF, Pattaya City 2001 SF Dementieva, Elena — Palermo 1999 SF, Indian Wells 2000 SF, Los Angeles 2000 SF, U. S. Open 2000 SF, [Olympics 2000 Silver], Chase Championships 2000 SF, Acapulco 2001 F, Ericsson 2001 SF, Leipzig 2001 SF, Moscow 2001 F, Acapulco 2002 SF, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2002 F, Filderstadt 2002 SF, Antwerp 2003 SF, Amelia Island 2003 W, Canadian Open 2003 SF, New Haven 2003 SF, Bali 2003 W, Shanghai 2003 W, Moscow 2003 SF, Miami 2004 F, Roland Garros 2004 F, Los Angeles 2004 SF, San Diego 2004 SF, New Haven 2004 SF, U. S. Open 2004 F, Hasselt 2004 W, Moscow 2004 F, Zürich 2004 SF, Sydney 2005 SF, Indian Wells 2005 SF, Charleston 2005 F, Los Angeles 2005 SF, U. S. Open 2005 SF, Filderstadt 2005 SF, Moscow 2005 SF, Philadelphia 2005 F, Pan Pacific 2006 W, Antwerp 2006 SF, Indian Wells 2006 F, Warsaw 2006 SF, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2006 SF, Los Angeles 2006 W, Moscow 2006 SF Diaz-Oliva, Mariana — Estoril 1999 SF, Bogota 2001 SF, Bol 2001 F, Palermo 2002 W, Acapulco 2003 F Dokic, Jelena — Wimbledon 2000 SF, [Olympics 2000 SF], Hamburg 2001 SF, Rome 2001 W, ’s- Hertogenbosch 2001 SF, Sopot 2001 SF, Bahia 2001 F, Princess Cup 2001 W, Moscow 2001 W, Zürich 2001 F, Linz 2001 F, Paris 2002 F, Sarasota 2002 W, Amelia Island 2002 SF, Hamburg 2002 SF, Strasbourg 2002 F, Birmingham 2002 W, San Diego 2002 F, Los Angeles 2002 SF, Canadian Open 2002 SF, Bahia 2002 SF, Princess Cup 2002 SF, Warsaw 2003 SF, Zürich 2003 F, Pan Pacific 2004 SF Domachowska, Marta — Sopot 2004 SF, Seoul 2004 F, Strasbourg 2005 F, Beijing 2005 SF, Memphis 2006 F Dominguez Lino, Lourdes — Bogota 2005 F, Bogota 2006 W, Budapest 2006 F, Forest Hills 2006 SF

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 201 Dragomir Ilie, Ruxandra — Amelia Island 1999 F, Berlin 1999 SF, New Haven 1999 SF, ’s- Hertogenbosch 2000 F, Hobart 2001 SF Drake, Maureen — Cairo 1999 SF Dulko, Gisela — Casablanca 2002 SF, Hobart 2005 F, Estoril 2005 SF, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2005 SF, Bangkok 2005 SF Dushevina, Vera — Helsinki 2003 SF, Eastbourne 2005 F, Stockholm 2005 SF Farina Elia, Silvia — Auckland 1999 SF, Prostejov 1999 F, Estoril 2000 SF, Palermo 2000 SF, Gold Coast 2001 F, Porto 2001 SF, Strasbourg 2001 W, Sopot 2001 SF, Moscow 2001 SF, Pan Pacific 2002 SF, Strasbourg 2002 W, Quebec City 2002 SF, Strasbourg 2003 W, Eastbourne 2003 SF, Canberra 2004 F, Antwerp 2004 F, Strasbourg 2004 SF, Stockholm 2004 SF, Luxembourg 2004 SF, Gold Coast 2005 SF, Amelia Island 2005 F Fedak, Yuliana — Canberra 2005 SF Fernandez, Clarisa — Roland Garros 2002 SF, Bogota 2005 SF Fernandez, Mary Joe — Strasbourg 1999 SF Flipkens, Kirsten — Forest Hills 2004 SF Frazier, Amy — Hobart 1999 SF, Japan Open 1999 W, Madrid 1999 W, Stanford 1999 SF, Princess Cup 1999 SF, Quebec City 1999 SF, Hobart 2000 SF, San Diego 2000 SF, Japan Open 2000 F, Quebec City 2000 SF, Hobart 2002 SF, Princess Cup 2002 SF, Hobart 2003 F, Hobart 2004 W, Vienna 2004 SF, Stanford 2004 SF, Cincinnati 2004 SF, Auckland 2005 SF, Quebec City 2005 W, Memphis 2006 SF Gagliardi, Emmanuelle — Cairo 1999 SF, São Paulo 2000 SF, Indian Wells 2002 SF, Auckland 2003 SF, Estoril 2003 SF, Tashkent 2003 SF Garbin, Tathiana — Bogota 2000 F, Estoril 2000 SF, Budapest 2000 W, Bol 2002 SF, Tashkent 2002 SF, Sopot 2002 SF, 2005 F, Palermo 2006 F, Portoroz 2006 SF Gersi, Adriana — Portschach 1999 SF, Portschach 2000 SF, Doha 2001 SF, Basel 2001 W Glatch, Alexa — Forest Hills 2005 SF Golovin, Tatiana — Paris 2004 SF, Birmingham 2004 F, Gold Coast 2005 SF, Paris 2005 SF, Charleston 2005 SF, Birmingham 2005 SF, Seoul 2005 SF, Japan Open 2005 F, Paris 2006 SF, Miami 2006 SF, Stanford 2006 SF, Stuttgart 2006 F Gorrochategui, Ines — Warsaw 1999 F Graf, Steffi — Sydney 1999 SF, Hannover 1999 SF, Indian Wells 1999 F, Lipton 1999 SF, Roland Garros 1999 W, Wimbledon 1999 F Grahame, Amanda — Canberra 2002 SF Grande, Rita — Hobart 1999 F, Kuala Lumpur 1999 SF, Oklahoma City 2000 SF, Hobart 2001 W, Shanghai 2001 SF, Bratislava 2001 W, Bratislava 2002 SF, Casablanca 2003 W, Casablanca 2004 SF Granville, Laura — Memphis 2003 SF, Quebec City 2003 SF, Memphis 2004 SF, Vancouver 2004 F, Birmingham 2005 SF Grönefeld, Anna-Lena — Pattaya City 2005 F, Hyderabad 2005 SF, Stanford 2005 SF, Beijing 2005 F, Luxembourg 2005 F, Acapulco 2006 W, Charleston 2006 SF, Istanbul 2006 SF Gubacsi, Zsofia — Casablanca 2001 W, Porto 2002 SF Habsudova, Karina — Portschach 1999 W, Sopot 1999 F, Bratislava 2000 SF

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 202 Halard-Decugis, Julie — Auckland 1999 W, Hobart 1999 SF, Bol 1999 F, Berlin 1999 F, Birmingham 1999 W, Los Angeles 1999 F, Paris 2000 SF, Eastbourne 2000 W, Princess Cup 2000 F, Japan Open 2000 W Hantuchova, Daniela — Oklahoma City 2001 SF, Birmingham 2001 SF, Indian Wells 2002 W, Eastbourne 2002 SF, Canadian Open 2002 SF, New Haven 2002 SF, Filderstadt 2002 F, Linz 2002 SF, Antwerp 2003 SF, Eastbourne 2004 F, Doha 2005 SF, Cincinnati 2005 SF, Los Angeles 2005 F, Filderstadt 2005 SF, Auckland 2006 SF, Zürich 2006 F Harkleroad, Ashley — Charleston 2003 SF, Strasbourg 2003 SF, Auckland 2004 F Hénin-Hardenne, Justine — Antwerp 1999 W, Gold Coast 2001 W, Canberra 2001 W, Estoril 2001 SF, Berlin 2001 SF, Roland Garros 2001 SF, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2001 W, Wimbledon 2001 F, Big Island 2001 F, Filderstadt 2001 F, Gold Coast 2002 F, Antwerp 2002 SF, Amelia Island 2002 F, Berlin 2002 W, Rome 2002 F, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2002 SF, Wimbledon 2002 SF, Leipzig 2002 SF, Zürich 2002 SF, Linz 2002 W, Sydney 2003 SF, Australian Open 2003 SF, Antwerp 2003 SF, Dubai 2003 W, Charleston 2003 W, Amelia Island 2003 SF, Berlin 2003 W, Roland Garros 2003 W, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2003 F, Wimbledon 2003 SF, San Diego 2003 W, Canadian Open 2003 W, U. S. Open 2003 W, Leipzig 2003 F, Filderstadt 2003 F, Zürich 2003 W, WTA Championships 2003 SF, Sydney 2004 W, Australian Open 2004 W, Dubai 2004 W, Doha 2004 SF, Indian Wells 2004 W, Amelia Island 2004 SF, Olympics 2004 W, Charleston 2005 W, Warsaw 2005 W, Berlin 2005 W, Roland Garros 2005 W, Canadian Open 2005 F, Sydney 2006 W, Australian Open 2006 F, Dubai 2006 W, Indian Wells 2006 SF, Charleston 2006 SF, Berlin 2006 F, Roland Garros 2006 W, Eastbourne 2006 W, Wimbledon 2006 F, New Haven 2006 W, U. S. Open 2006 F, Madrid Championships 2006 W Henke, Vanessa — Portoroz 2005 SF Hingis, Martina — Sydney 1999 F, Australian Open 1999 W, Pan Pacific 1999 W, Lipton 1999 SF, Hilton Head 1999 W, Rome 1999 SF, Berlin 1999 W, Roland Garros 1999 F, San Diego 1999 W, Los Angeles 1999 SF, Canadian Open 1999 W, U. S. Open 1999 F, Filderstadt 1999 W, Zürich 1999 F, Philadelphia 1999 F, Chase Championships 1999 F, Sydney 2000 SF, Australian Open 2000 F, Pan Pacific 2000 W, Scottsdale 2000 F (rainout), Indian Wells 2000 F, Ericsson 2000 W, Hamburg 2000 W, Berlin 2000 SF, Roland Garros 2000 SF, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2000 W, Los Angeles 2000 SF, Canadian Open 2000 W, U. S. Open 2000 SF, Filderstadt 2000 W, Zürich 2000 W, Moscow 2000 W, Philadelphia 2000 F, Chase Championships 2000 W, Sydney 2001 W, Australian Open 2001 F, Pan Pacific 2001 F, Doha 2001 W, Dubai 2001 W, Indian Wells 2001 SF, Ericsson 2001 SF, Charleston 2001 F, Berlin 2001 SF, Rome 2001 SF, Roland Garros 2001 SF, San Diego 2001 SF, Los Angeles 2001 SF, U. S. Open 2001 SF, Filderstadt 2001 SF, Sydney 2002 W, Australian Open 2002 F, Pan Pacific 2002 W, Scottsdale 2002 SF, Indian Wells 2002 F, Hamburg 2002 SF, Gold Coast 2006 SF, Pan Pacific 2006 F, Doha 2006 SF, Indian Wells 2006 SF, Rome 2006 W, Canadian Open 2006 F, Kolkata 2006 W Hopkins, Jennifer — Warsaw 2000 SF, Hobart 2001 F Hopmans, Amanda — Prostejov 1999 SF, Auckland 2000 SF, Warsaw 2000 F Hrdlickova, Kveta: See Kveta (Hrdlickova) Peschke Hsieh, Su-Wei — Bali 2001 SF Huber, Anke — Filderstadt 1999 SF, Leipzig 1999 SF, Estoril 2000 W, Hamburg 2000 SF, Sopot 2000 W, Paris 2001 F, Nice 2001 SF, Strasbourg 2001 SF, Canadian Open 2001 SF Husarova, Janette — Doha 2002 SF Irvin, Marissa — Big Island 2001 SF Ivanovic, Ana — Canberra 2005 W, Warsaw 2005 SF, Zürich 2005 SF, Linz 2005 SF, Canadian Open 2006 W

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 203 Jackson, Jamea — Birmingham 2006 F Jankovic, Jelena — Budapest 2004 W, Linz 2004 SF, Dubai 2005 F, Berlin 2005 SF, Birmingham 2005 F, Seoul 2005 F, Strasbourg 2006 SF, Los Angeles 2006 F, U. S. Open 2006 SF, Beijing 2006 SF, GuangZhou 2006 SF Jidkova, Alina — Memphis 2002 SF, Vancouver 2004 SF, Quebec City 2004 SF Kandarr, Jana — Estoril 2001 SF Kanepi, Kaia — Kolkata 2005 SF, Prague 2006 SF, Hasselt 2006 F Kapros, Aniko — Budapest 2001 SF, Casablanca 2001 SF, Japan Open 2003 F King, Vania — Bangalore 2006 SF, Bangkok 2006 W Kirilenko, Maria — Hyderabad 2004 F, Hyderabad 2005 SF, Beijing 2005 W, Japan Open 2005 SF Kleinova, Sandra — Stockholm 2004 SF Kostanic, Jelena — Antwerp 2000 SF, Vienna 2001 SF, Helsinki 2003 F, Charleston 2004 SF, Vienna 2004 SF, Budapest 2005 SF, Hobart 2006 SF, Pattaya City 2006 F, Bangalore 2006 F Koukalova, Klara — Antwerp 2001 F, Casablanca 2002 F, Sopot 2003 F, Casablanca 2004 SF, ’s- Hertogenbosch 2004 F, Sopot 2004 F, Japan Open 2004 SF, Prague 2005 SF, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2005 W, Palermo 2005 F, Portoroz 2005 W Kournikova, Anna — Oklahoma City 1999 SF, Hilton Head 1999 F, Amelia Island 1999 SF, Eastbourne 1999 SF, Sydney 2000 SF, Paris 2000 SF, Scottsdale 2000 SF, Stanford 2000 SF, San Diego 2000 SF, Luxembourg 2000 SF, Moscow 2000 F, Leipzig 2000 SF, Chase Championships 2000 SF, Pan Pacific 2001 SF, Auckland 2002 SF, Pan Pacific 2002 SF, Acapulco 2002 SF, San Diego 2002 SF, Shanghai 2002 F Krajicek, Michaella — Tashkent 2005 W, Hasselt 2005 SF, Hobart 2006 W, Istanbul 2006 SF, ’s- Hertogenbosch 2006 W, Budapest 2006 SF, Hasselt 2006 SF Krasnoroutskaya, Lina — Luxembourg 1999 SF, Pattaya City 2002 SF, Doha 2003 SF, Canadian Open 2003 F, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2004 SF Kremer, Anne — Pattaya City 1999 F, Auckland 2000 W, Eastbourne 2000 SF, Pattaya 2000 W, Budapest 2001 F, Quebec City 2001 SF, Amelia Island 2002 SF, Seoul 2004 SF Kruger, Joanette — Kuala Lumpur 1999 SF, São Paulo 2000 SF, Berlin 2000 SF, Japan Open 2000 SF, Bali 2001 F, Japan Open 2001 SF Kurhajcova, Lubomira — Pattaya City 2003 F, Bogota 2004 SF Kuti Kis, Rita — Estoril 1999 F, Budapest 1999 SF, Bogota 2000 SF, São Paulo 2000 W, Strasbourg 2000 F, Bogota 2001 F Kuznetsova, Svetlana — Casablanca 2002 SF, Helsinki 2002 W, Bali 2002 W, San Diego 2003 SF, Dubai 2004 F, Doha 2004 F, Warsaw 2004 F, Eastbourne 2004 W, U. S. Open 2004 W, Bali 2004 W, Beijing 2004 F, Filderstadt 2004 SF, Pan Pacific 2005 SF, Warsaw 2005 F, Eastbourne 2005 SF, Sydney 2006 SF, Dubai 2006 SF, Miami 2006 W, Amelia Island 2006 SF, Warsaw 2006 F, Rome 2006 SF, Roland Garros 2006 F, Eastbourne 2006 SF, New Haven 2006 SF, Bali 2006 W, Beijing 2006 W, Stuttgart 2006 SF, Zürich 2006 SF Lamade, Bianka — Tashkent 2001 W Lee-Waters, Lindsay — Canberra 2005 SF Leon Garcia, Gala — São Paulo 1999 SF, Bol 2000 SF, Madrid 2000 W, Sopot 2000 F, Palermo 2001 SF, Knokke-Heist 2001 F, Sopot 2001 F, Princess Cup 2001 SF, Big Island 2002 SF

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 204 Li Na — GuangZhou 2004 W, Hobart 2005 SF, Estoril 2005 F, Rabat 2005 SF, Bali 2005 SF, Estoril 2006 F, Berlin 2006 SF Li Ting — GuangZhou 2004 SF Likhovtseva, Elena — Hannover 1999 SF, Strasbourg 1999 F, Amelia Island 2000 SF, Leipzig 2000 F, Eastbourne 2001 SF, Hobart 2003 SF, Doha 2003 F, Canadian Open 2004 F, Forest Hills 2004 W, Roland Garros 2005 SF, Kolkata 2005 SF Linetskaya, Evgenia — Pattaya City 2005 SF, Memphis 2005 SF Llagostera Vives, Nuria — Acapulco 2001 SF, Rabat 2005 W, GuangZhou 2005 F, Pattaya City 2006 SF Loit, Emilie — Casablanca 2001 SF, Brussels 2002 SF, Canberra 2003 SF, Acapulco 2003 SF, Bogota 2004 SF, Casablanca 2004 W, Estoril 2004 W, Strasbourg 2004 SF, Birmingham 2004 SF, Rabat 2005 SF, Stockholm 2005 SF, Acapulco 2006 SF, Estoril 2006 SF, Portoroz 2006 SF Lucic, Mirjana — Wimbledon 1999 SF Majoli, Iva — Madrid 2000 SF, Kuala Lumpur 2000 F, Quebec City 2001 F, Charleston 2002 W, Bol 2002 F, Sarasota 2003 SF Maleeva, Magdalena — ’s-Hertogenbosch 1999 SF, Pattaya City 1999 W, Luxembourg 2000 F, Pan Pacific 2001 SF, Paris 2001 SF, Nice 2001 F, Budapest 2001 W, Leipzig 2001 F, Linz 2001 SF, Strasbourg 2002 SF, Moscow 2002 W, Luxembourg 2002 F, Birmingham 2003 W, Pan Pacific 2004 F Mandula, Petra — Vienna 2002 SF, Sopot 2003 SF Marrero, Marta — Knokke-Heist 2000 SF, Knokke-Heist 2001 SF, Casablanca 2003 SF, Acapulco 2004 SF, Estoril 2004 SF Martinez, Conchita — Amelia Island 1999 SF, Sopot 1999 W, Gold Coast 2000 F, Australian Open 2000 SF, Amelia Island 2000 F, Hilton Head 2000 SF, Berlin 2000 W, Roland Garros 2000 F, Canadian Open 2000 SF, Philadelphia 2000 SF, Sydney 2001 SF, Charleston 2001 SF, Rome 2001 SF, Bali 2002 F, Zürich 2002 SF, Indian Wells 2003 SF, Eastbourne 2003 F, Charleston 2004 F, Pattaya City 2005 W Martinez Sanchez, Maria Jose — Madrid 2001 SF Martinez Granados, Conchita — Bol 1999 SF, Bol 2003 F Matevzic, Maja — Porto 2002 SF, Bratislava 2002 W Mattek, Bethanie — Cincinnati 2005 SF Mauresmo, Amélie — Australian Open 1999 F, Paris 1999 F, Rome 1999 SF, Bratislava 1999 W, Linz 1999 SF, Sydney 2000 W, Hannover 2000 SF, Bol 2000 F, Rome 2000 F, Moscow 2000 SF, Sydney 2001 SF, Paris 2001 W, Nice 2001 W, Amelia Island 2001 W, Berlin 2001 W, Rome 2001 F, Paris 2002 SF, Antwerp 2002 SF, Dubai 2002 W, Wimbledon 2002 SF, Canadian Open 2002 W, U. S. Open 2002 SF, Moscow 2002 SF, Filderstadt 2002 SF, Antwerp 2003 F, Dubai 2003 SF, Warsaw 2003 W, Berlin 2003 SF, Rome 2003 F, New Haven 2003 SF, Moscow 2003 F, Philadelphia 2003 W, WTA Championships 2003 F, Sydney 2004 F, Amelia Island 2004 F, Berlin 2004 W, Rome 2004 W, Eastbourne 2004 SF, Wimbledon 2004 SF, Canadian Open 2004 W, Olympics 2004 F, Filderstadt 2004 F, Linz 2004 W, Philadelphia 2004 W, Los Angeles Champ 2004 SF, Paris 2005 F, Antwerp 2005 W, Doha 2005 SF, Miami 2005 SF, Rome 2005 W, Wimbledon 2005 SF, Canadian Open 2005 SF, New Haven 2005 F, Filderstadt 2005 F, Philadelphia 2005 W, Los Angeles Championships 2005 W, Australian Open 2006 W, Paris 2006 W, Antwerp 2006 W, Doha 2006 F, Miami 2006 SF, Berlin 2006 SF, Wimbledon 2006 W, U. S. Open 2006 SF, Beijing 2006 F, Madrid Championships 2006 F McQuillan, Rachel — Dubai 2001 SF

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 205 Medina Garrigues, Anabel — Antwerp 2001 SF, Madrid 2001 SF, Palermo 2001 W, Hobart 2002 F, Bogota 2003 F, Palermo 2003 SF, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2004 SF, Palermo 2004 W, Forest Hills 2004 SF, Luxembourg 2004 SF, Strasbourg 2005 W, Palermo 2005 W, New Haven 2005 SF, Canberra 2006 W, Strasbourg 2006 SF, Palermo 2006 W, GuangZhou 2006 F Mikaelian, Marie-Gayanay — Tashkent 2001 SF, Basel 2001 F, Tashkent 2002 W, Quebec City 2002 F, Gold Coast 2003 F Mirza, Sania — Hyderabad 2005 W, Forest Hills 2005 F, Japan Open 2005 SF, Kolkata 2006 SF Molik, Alicia — Shanghai 2001 SF, Doha 2002 SF, Hobart 2003 W, Sarasota 2003 F, Budapest 2003 F, Vienna 2004 F, Stockholm 2004 W, Olympics 2004 Bronze, Zürich 2004 W, Luxembourg 2004 W, Sydney 2005 W, Antwerp 2005 SF, Doha 2005 F Montolio, Angeles — Palermo 1999 F, Budapest 2000 SF, Portschach 2000 SF, Estoril 2001 W, Bol 2001 W, Madrid 2001 F, Porto 2002 W Morariu, Corina — Japan Open 1999 SF, Bol 1999 W, Rome 2000 SF Morigami, Akiko — Hyderabad 2003 SF, Shanghai 2003 SF, Cincinnati 2005 F, San Diego 2005 SF Müller, Martina — Budapest 2002 W, Budapest 2006 SF Myskina, Anastasia — Palermo 1999 W, Sopot 2000 SF, Moscow 2001 SF, Birmingham 2002 F, Eastbourne 2002 F, New Haven 2002 SF, Bahia 2002 W, Leipzig 2002 F, Doha 2003 W, Sarasota 2003 W, Leipzig 2003 W, Moscow 2003 W, Philadelphia 2003 F, Doha 2004 W, Indian Wells 2004 SF, Roland Garros 2004 W, San Diego 2004 F, Canadian Open 2004 SF, Sopot 2004 SF, Olympics 2004 SF, Filderstadt 2004 SF, Moscow 2004 W, Los Angeles Champ 2004 SF, Antwerp 2005 SF, Stockholm 2005 F, Canadian Open 2005 SF, Kolkata 2005 W, Zürich 2005 SF, Pan Pacific 2006 SF, Istanbul 2006 F, Eastbourne 2006 F, Stockholm 2006 F Nagyova, Henrieta — Prostejov 1999 W, Portschach 1999 SF, Warsaw 2000 W, Palermo 2000 W, Kuala Lumpur 2000 W, Pattaya 2000 SF, Bahia 2001 SF, Pattaya City 2001 F, Warsaw 2002 F, Palermo 2002 SF, Sopot 2002 F, Pattaya City 2003 W Nakamura, Aiko — Japan Open 2006 F Nola, Pavlina (Stoyanova) — Palermo 2000 F, Shanghai 2000 SF Noorlander, Seda — Tashkent 2001 F Novotna, Jana — Pan Pacific 1999 SF, Hannover 1999 W, Hilton Head 1999 SF Obata, Saori — Bali 2003 SF, Tashkent 2003 F Obziler, Tzipora — GuangZhou 2006 SF Ondraskova, Zuzana — Pattaya 2000 SF, Prague 2005 F Oremans, Miriam — ’s-Hertogenbosch 1999 SF, Warsaw 2000 SF, Bratislava 2000 F, Birmingham 2001 F Osterloh, Lilia — Oklahoma City 1999 SF, Canberra 2002 SF, Quebec City 2006 SF Panova, Tatiana — Kuala Lumpur 2000 SF, Pattaya 2000 F, Auckland 2002 F, Sarasota 2002 F, Pattaya City 2002 SF, Sydney 2003 SF Papadaki, Christina — Bogota 1999 F Parra Santonja, Arantxa — Japan Open 2003 SF, Tashkent 2003 SF Paszek, Tamira — Portoroz 2006 W Peer, Shahar — Canberra 2006 SF, Pattaya City 2006 W, Prague 2006 W, Istanbul 2006 W Peng Shuai — Sydney 2005 SF, San Diego 2005 SF, Prague 2006 SF, Strasbourg 2006 F, Beijing 2006 SF

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 206 Pennetta, Flavia — Hyderabad 2003 SF, Acapulco 2004 F, Budapest 2004 SF, Palermo 2004 F, Sopot 2004 W, Bogota 2005 W, Acapulco 2005 W, Modena 2005 SF, Palermo 2005 SF, Gold Coast 2006 F, Bogota 2006 F, Acapulco 2006 F, Estoril 2006 SF Perebiynis, Tatiana — Stockholm 2004 F Peschke, Kveta Hrdlickova — Bratislava 1999 SF, Leipzig 1999 F, Linz 2000 SF, Linz 2005 SF, Luxembourg 2006 SF Petrova, Nadia — Amelia Island 2001 SF, Gold Coast 2002 SF, Roland Garros 2003 SF, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2003 SF, Zürich 2003 SF, Linz 2003 F, Philadelphia 2003 SF, Gold Coast 2004 F, Miami 2004 SF, Amelia Island 2004 SF, Bali 2004 SF, Linz 2004 SF, Philadelphia 2004 SF, Paris 2005 SF, Amelia Island 2005 SF, Berlin 2005 F, Roland Garros 2005 SF, Bangkok 2005 F, Linz 2005 W, Philadelphia 2005 SF, Auckland 2006 SF, Antwerp 2006 SF, Doha 2006 W, Amelia Island 2006 W, Charleston 2006 W, Berlin 2006 W, Stuttgart 2006 W, Moscow 2006 F, Linz 2006 F Pierce, Mary — Gold Coast 1999 F, Hamburg 1999 F, Rome 1999 F, Canadian Open 1999 SF, Filderstadt 1999 F, Zürich 1999 SF, Linz 1999 W, Leipzig 1999 SF, Scottsdale 2000 SF, Indian Wells 2000 SF, Hilton Head 2000 W, Roland Garros 2000 W, Canberra 2001 SF, Filderstadt 2003 SF, Quebec City 2003 SF, Paris 2004 F, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2004 W, Roland Garros 2005 F, San Diego 2005 W, U. S. Open 2005 F, Moscow 2005 W, Los Angeles Championships 2005 F, Paris 2006 F Pin, Camille — Vancouver 2004 SF, Japan Open 2006 SF Pironkova, Tsvetana — Istanbul 2005 SF, Palermo 2005 SF, Stockholm 2006 SF Pisnik, Tina — Warsaw 1999 SF, Tashkent 1999 SF, Bol 2000 W, Luxembourg 2001 SF, ’s- Hertogenbosch 2002 SF, Rome 2003 SF Pitkowski, Sarah — Budapest 1999 W, Bol 1999 SF, Antwerp 1999 F, Linz 1999 SF, Budapest 2000 SF, Tashkent 2000 SF Plischke, Sylvia — Bogota 2000 SF Pous Tio, Laura — Prague 2005 SF, Budapest 2005 SF Poutchek, Tatiana — Pattaya City 2001 SF, Budapest 2002 SF, Tashkent 2002 F Poutchkova, Olga — Kolkata 2006 F, Tashkent 2006 SF, Quebec City 2006 F Pratt, Nicole — Shanghai 2001 F, Hobart 2002 SF, Birmingham 2002 SF, Hyderabad 2004 W Prusova, Libuse — Bol 2002 SF Radwanska, Agnieszka — Luxembourg 2006 SF Randriantefy, Dally — Acapulco 2005 SF, Strasbourg 2005 SF Raymond, Lisa — Moscow 1999 SF, Birmingham 2000 W, Birmingham 2001 SF, Big Island 2001 SF, Luxembourg 2001 F, Memphis 2002 W, Birmingham 2002 SF, Stanford 2002 SF, Big Island 2002 F, Pan Pacific 2003 SF, Memphis 2003 W, Memphis 2004 F, New Haven 2004 SF Razzano, Virginie — Sarasota 2002 SF, Luxembourg 2002 SF, Estoril 2003 SF, Tashkent 2004 F, Amelia Island 2005 SF Reeves, Samantha — Bol 2003 SF Rittner, Barbara — Knokke-Heist 1999 SF, Luxembourg 2000 SF, Antwerp 2001 W, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2003 SF Rodionova, Anastassia — Quebec City 2002 SF Ruano Pascual, Virginia — Madrid 2000 SF, Brussels 2002 SF, Tashkent 2003 W, Pattaya City 2005 SF, Seoul 2006 SF

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 207 Rubin, Chanda — Hobart 1999 W, Indian Wells 1999 SF, Madrid 1999 SF, Quebec City 1999 SF, Hobart 2000 F, Pan Pacific 2000 SF, Eastbourne 2000 SF, Linz 2000 SF, Quebec City 2000 W, Eastbourne 2001 SF, Madrid 2002 F, Eastbourne 2002 W, Los Angeles 2002 W, Linz 2002 SF, Pan Pacific 2003 SF, Miami 2003 SF, Madrid 2003 W, Eastbourne 2003 W, Bali 2003 F, Shanghai 2003 F, Luxembourg 2003 F, Pan Pacific 2004 SF Safarova, Lucie — Estoril 2005 W, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2005 F, Forest Hills 2005 W, Gold Coast 2006 W, Amelia Island 2006 SF, Palermo 2006 SF Safina, Dinara — Estoril 2002 SF, Sopot 2002 W, Palermo 2003 W, Paris 2004 SF, Luxembourg 2004 F, Paris 2005 W, Estoril 2005 SF, Prague 2005 W, Luxembourg 2005 SF, Moscow 2005 SF, Hasselt 2005 SF, Gold Coast 2006 SF, Rome 2006 F, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2006 F, Canadian Open 2006 SF Salerni, Maria Emilia — Hobart 2004 SF, Quebec City 2004 SF Sanchez Lorenzo, Maria — Knokke-Heist 1999 W, Bol 2000 SF, Budapest 2003 SF, Bol 2003 SF, Madrid 2003 F, Bogota 2004 F, Acapulco 2004 SF, Bogota 2006 SF Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa — Cairo 1999 W, Hamburg 1999 SF, Berlin 1999 SF, Roland Garros 1999 SF, Gold Coast 2000 SF, Hilton Head 2000 F, Hamburg 2000 F, Roland Garros 2000 SF, Canadian Open 2000 SF, Filderstadt 2000 SF, Porto 2001 W, Amelia Island 2001 SF, Madrid 2001 W, Princess Cup 2001 F, Bali 2001 SF, Brussels 2002 F, Bali 2002 SF Santangelo, Mara — Hobart 2006 SF, Bangalore 2006 W Schaul, Claudine — Strasbourg 2004 W Schett, Barbara — Sydney 1999 SF, Auckland 1999 SF, Hamburg 1999 SF, Moscow 1999 F, Portschach 2000 W, Zürich 2000 SF, Doha 2001 SF, Madrid 2003 SF Schiavone, Francesca — Tashkent 2000 F, Auckland 2001 SF, Canberra 2003 F, Stanford 2003 SF, Los Angeles 2003 SF, Sydney 2004 SF, Warsaw 2004 SF, Los Angeles 2005 SF, Bali 2005 F, Moscow 2005 F, Hasselt 2005 F, Sydney 2006 F, Amelia Island 2006 F, Luxembourg 2006 F Schnyder, Patty — Gold Coast 1999 W, Hilton Head 1999 SF, Portschach 2000 F, Gold Coast 2001 SF, Vienna 2001 F, Pattaya City 2001 W, Antwerp 2002 SF, Charleston 2002 F, Zürich 2002 W, Gold Cost 2003 SF, Sopot 2003 SF, Linz 2003 SF, Australian Open 2004 SF, Charleston 2004 SF, Birmingham 2004 SF, Zürich 2004 SF, Gold Coast 2005 W, Dubai 2005 SF, Charleston 2005 SF, Berlin 2005 SF, Rome 2005 F, Cincinnati 2005 W, Stanford 2005 SF, Bali 2005 SF, Zürich 2005 F, Linz 2005 F, Paris 2006 SF, Charleston 2006 F, Cincinnati 2006 SF, Stanford 2006 F, San Diego 2006 SF, Bali 2006 SF, Stuttgart 2006 SF, Linz 2006 SF Schruff, Julia — Estoril 2003 F Seles, Monica — Australian Open 1999 SF, Pan Pacific 1999 SF, Amelia Island 1999 W, Roland Garros 1999 SF, Canadian Open 1999 F, New Haven 1999 SF, Princess Cup 1999 F, Oklahoma City 2000 W, Ericsson 2000 SF, Amelia Island 2000 W, Hilton Head 2000 SF, Rome 2000 W, Stanford 2000 SF, San Diego 2000 F, New Haven 2000 F, [Olympics 2000 Bronze], Princess Cup 2000 SF, Chase Championships 2000 F, Oklahoma City 2001 W, Scottsdale 2001 SF, Stanford 2001 SF, San Diego 2001 F, Los Angeles 2001 F, Canadian Open 2001 SF, Bahia 2001 W, Japan Open 2001 W, Shanghai 2001 W, Australian Open 2002 SF, Pan Pacific 2002 F, Paris 2002 SF, Doha 2002 W, Dubai 2002 SF, Indian Wells 2002 SF, Miami 2002 SF, Madrid 2002 W, Bahia 2002 SF, Pan Pacific 2003 F, Dubai 2003 F Serra Zanetti, Adriana — Bratislava 2001 SF Serra Zanetti, Antonella — Casablanca 2003 F, Acapulco 2005 SF, Bangkok 2005 SF Sequera, Milagros — Quebec City 2003 F

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 208 Serna, Magui — Birmingham 1999 SF, Knokke-Heist 2000 SF, Porto 2001 F, Eastbourne 2001 F, Porto 2002 F, Estoril 2002 W, Estoril 2003 W, Budapest 2003 W Sharapova, Maria — Birmingham 2003 SF, Japan Open 2003 W, Luxembourg 2003 SF, Quebec City 2003 W, Memphis 2004 SF, Birmingham 2004 W, Wimbledon 2004 W, Beijing 2004 SF, Seoul 2004 W, Japan Open 2004 W, Zürich 2004 F, Philadelphia 2004 SF, Los Angeles Champ 2004 W, Australian Open 2005 SF, Pan Pacific 2005 W, Doha 2005 W, Indian Wells 2005 SF, Miami 2005 F, Rome 2005 SF, Birmingham 2005 W, Wimbledon 2005 SF, U. S. Open 2005 SF, Beijing 2005 SF, Los Angeles Championships 2005 SF, Australian Open 2006 SF, Pan Pacific 2006 SF, Dubai 2006 F, Indian Wells 2006 W, Miami 2006 F, Birmingham 2006 SF, Wimbledon 2006 SF, San Diego 2006 W, Los Angeles 2006 SF, U. S. Open 2006 W, Zürich 2006 W, Linz 2006 W, Madrid Championships 2006 SF Shaughnessy, Meghann — Bogota 1999 SF, Auckland 2000 SF, Shanghai 2000 W, Gold Coast 2001 SF, Scottsdale 2001 F, Hamburg 2001 F, Stanford 2001 SF, Quebec City 2001 W, Sydney 2002 F, Sarasota 2002 SF, Strasbourg 2002 SF, Canberra 2003 W, Scottsdale 2003 SF, Dubai 2004 SF, Tashkent 2004 SF, Memphis 2005 F, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2005 SF, Rabat 2006 W, Forest Hills 2006 W, Bangkok 2006 SF Sidot, Anne-Gaëlle — Canadian Open 1999 SF, Hannover 2000 SF Smashnova, Anna — Tashkent 1999 W, Strasbourg 2000 SF, Palermo 2000 SF, Knokke-Heist 2000 W, Basel 2001 SF, Auckland 2002 W, Canberra 2002 W, Berlin 2002 SF, Vienna 2002 W, Shanghai 2002 W, Auckland 2003 SF, Sopot 2003 W, Helsinki 2003 W, Moscow 2003 SF, Vienna 2004 W, Istanbul 2005 SF, Modena 2005 W, Budapest 2005 W, Budapest 2006 W, Forest Hills 2006 F Snyder, Tara — Quebec City 1999 SF Spears, Abigail — Seoul 2004 SF, Quebec City 2004 F Spirlea, Irina — Gold Coast 1999 SF, Cairo 1999 F Sprem, Karolina — Strasbourg 2003 F, Vienna 2003 F, Helsinki 2003 SF, Canberra 2004 SF, Antwerp 2004 SF, Berlin 2004 SF, Kolkata 2005 F Srebotnik, Katarina — Estoril 1999 W, Palermo 1999 SF, Pan Pacific 2000 SF, Bogota 2002 F, Acapulco 2002 W, Luxembourg 2002 SF, Bogota 2003 SF, Palermo 2003 F, Palermo 2004 SF, Auckland 2005 W, Stockholm 2005 W, Portoroz 2005 F, Cincinnati 2006 F, Zürich 2006 SF Stevenson, Alexandra — Wimbledon 1999 SF, Memphis 2002 F, Linz 2002 F, Scottsdale 2003 SF Stosur, Samantha — Gold Coast 2004 SF, Gold Coast 2005 F, Sydney 2005 F, Prague 2006 F, New Haven 2006 SF Strycova, Barbora — GuangZhou 2004 SF Suárez, Paola — Bogota 1999 SF, Madrid 1999 F, São Paulo 2000 F, Amelia Island 2000 SF, Sopot 2000 SF, Auckland 2001 F, Bogota 2001 W, Acapulco 2001 SF, Vienna 2001 SF, Acapulco 2002 F, Madrid 2002 SF, Palermo 2002 SF, Bogota 2003 SF, Vienna 2003 W, Canadian Open 2003 SF, Auckland 2004 SF, Canberra 2004 W, Roland Garros 2004 SF Sucha, Martina — Quebec City 2001 SF, Bratislava 2002 F, Hobart 2002 W, Helsinki 2002 SF, Budapest 2004 F, GuangZhou 2004 F, Quebec City 2004 W, Rabat 2006 F Sugiyama, Ai — Gold Coast 1999 SF, Japan Open 1999 F, Princess Cup 1999 SF, Japan Open 2001 SF, Memphis 2002 SF, Los Angeles 2002 SF, Shanghai 2002 SF, Scottsdale 2003 W, Los Angeles 2003 SF, Shanghai 2003 SF, Linz 2003 W, Philadelphia 2003 SF, Gold Coast 2004 W, Dubai 2004 SF, San Diego 2005 F, Doha 2006 SF, Seoul 2006 F Sun Tiantian — Tashkent 2006 W Svensson, Åsa (Carlsson) — Kuala Lumpur 1999 W, Palermo 2001 SF, Bol 2002 W

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 209 Szavay, Agnes — Modena 2005 SF Talaja, Silvija — Warsaw 1999 SF, ’s-Hertogenbosch 1999 F, Portschach 1999 F, Sopot 1999 SF, Knokke-Heist 1999 SF, Pattaya City 1999 SF, Gold Coast 2000 W, Strasbourg 2000 W, Porto 2001 SF, Auckland 2002 SF, Warsaw 2002 SF, Japan Open 2002 F Tanasugarn, Tamarine — Birmingham 2000 F, Japan Open 2000 SF, Shanghai 2000 SF, Kuala Lumpur 2000 SF, Dubai 2001 SF, Japan Open 2001 F, Canberra 2002 F, Doha 2002 F, Japan Open 2002 SF, Hyderabad 2003 W, Pattaya City 2003 SF, Hyderabad 2004 SF, Japan Open 2004 SF, Bangkok 2006 F Tauziat, Nathalie — Birmingham 1999 F, Eastbourne 1999 F, Zürich 1999 SF, Moscow 1999 W, Leipzig 1999 W, Philadelphia 1999 SF, Chase Championships 1999 SF, Paris 2000 W, Birmingham 2000 SF, New Haven 2000 SF, Filderstadt 2000 SF, Moscow 2000 SF, Leipzig 2000 SF, Philadelphia 2000 SF, Paris 2001 SF, Dubai 2001 F, Strasbourg 2001 SF, Birmingham 2001 W, Los Angeles 2001 SF, Leipzig 2001 SF, Zürich 2001 SF Taylor, Sarah — Bali 2002 SF, Japan Open 2002 SF Testud, Sandrine — Indian Wells 1999 SF, Sopot 1999 SF, Filderstadt 1999 SF, Linz 1999 SF, Pan Pacific 2000 F, Ericsson 2000 SF, Canberra 2001 F, Doha 2001 F, Bol 2001 SF, Big Island 2001 W, Filderstadt 2001 SF, Munich Championships 2001 SF, Dubai 2002 F, Charleston 2002 SF Torrens Valero, Cristina — Budapest 1999 F, Warsaw 1999 W, São Paulo 1999 SF, Antwerp 2000 F, Bogota 2001 SF, Budapest 2001 SF, Tashkent 2001 SF, Palermo 2001 F, Sopot 2001 W, Basel 2001 SF, Bogota 2002 SF Tu, Meilen — Quebec City 2000 SF, Auckland 2001 W, Birmingham 2006 SF Tulyaganova, Iroda — Tashkent 2000 W, Shanghai 2000 F, ’s-Hertogenbosch 2001 SF, Vienna 2001 W, Knokke-Heist 2001 W, Linz 2001 SF, Vienna 2002 F, Hyderabad 2003 F, Madrid 2003 SF, Kolkata 2006 SF, Tashkent 2006 F Vaidisova, Nicole — Vancouver 2004 W, Tashkent 2004 W, Memphis 2005 SF, Istanbul 2005 F, Seoul 2005 W, Japan Open 2005 W, Bangkok 2005 W, Philadelphia 2005 SF, Sydney 2006 SF, Strasbourg 2006 W, Roland Garros 2006 SF, Stanford 2006 SF, San Diego 2006 SF, Moscow 2006 SF, Linz 2006 SF Vakulenko, Julia — Canberra 2004 SF Van Roost, Dominique (Monami) — Auckland 1999 F, Paris 1999 SF, Luxembourg 1999 F, Moscow 1999 SF, Eastbourne 2000 F, Knokke-Heist 2000 F Vento-Kabchi, Maria — Hobart 2000 SF, Stanford 2003 SF, Bali 2003 SF, Leipzig 2003 SF, Stanford 2004 SF Vinci, Roberta — Tashkent 2002 SF, Eastbourne 2005 SF, Palermo 2006 SF Wartusch, Patricia — São Paulo 1999 F, Bogota 2000 W, Vienna 2002 SF, Casablanca 2002 W, Helsinki 2002 SF, Doha 2003 SF Washington, Mashona — Japan Open 2004 F Weingärtner, Marlene — Auckland 2001 SF, Charleston 2001 SF, Luxembourg 2003 SF, Bali 2004 F Widjaja, Angelique — Bali 2001 W, Shanghai 2002 SF, Pattaya City 2002 W

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 210 Williams, Serena — Paris 1999 W, Indian Wells 1999 W, Lipton 1999 F, Los Angeles 1999 W, U. S. Open 1999 W, Paris 2000 F, Hannover 2000 W, Wimbledon 2000 SF, Los Angeles 2000 W, Canadian Open 2000 F, Princess Cup 2000 W, Indian Wells 2001 W, Canadian Open 2001 W, U. S. Open 2001 F, Munich Championships 2001 W, Sydney 2002 SF, Scottsdale 2002 W, Miami 2002 W, Berlin 2002 F, Rome 2002 W, Roland Garros 2002 W, Wimbledon 2002 W, U. S. Open 2002 W, Princess Cup 2002 W, Leipzig 2002 W, Los Angeles Championships 2002 F, Australian Open 2003 W, Paris 2003 W, Miami 2003 W, Charleston 2003 F, Rome 2003 SF, Roland Garros 2003 SF, Wimbledon 2003 W, Miami 2004 W, Rome 2004 SF, Wimbledon 2004 F, Los Angeles 2004 F, Beijing 2004 W, Los Angeles Champ 2004 F, Australian Open 2005 W, Dubai 2005 SF, Cincinnati 2006 SF, Los Angeles 2006 SF Williams, Venus — Hannover 1999 F, Oklahoma City 1999 W, Lipton 1999 W, Hamburg 1999 W, Rome 1999 W, Stanford 1999 F, San Diego 1999 F, New Haven 1999 W, U. S. Open 1999 SF, Zürich 1999 W, Philadelphia 1999 SF, Chase Championships 1999 SF, Wimbledon 2000 W, Stanford 2000 W, San Diego 2000 W, New Haven 2000 W, U. S. Open 2000 W, [Olympics 2000 Gold], Linz 2000 F, Australian Open 2001 SF, Nice 2001 SF, Indian Wells 2001 SF, Ericsson 2001 W, Hamburg 2001 W, Wimbledon 2001 W, San Diego 2001 W, New Haven 2001 W, U. S. Open 2001 W, Gold Coast 2002 W, Paris 2002 W, Antwerp 2002 W, Dubai 2002 SF, Miami 2002 SF, Amelia Island 2002 W, Hamburg 2002 F, Roland Garros 2002 F, Wimbledon 2002 F, Stanford 2002 W, San Diego 2002 W, New Haven 2002 W, U. S. Open 2002 F, Los Angeles Championships 2002 SF, Australian Open 2003 F, Antwerp 2003 W, Warsaw 2003 F, Wimbledon 2003 F, Charleston 2004 W, Warsaw 2004 W, Berlin 2004 F, Stanford 2004 F, Los Angeles 2004 SF, Antwerp 2005 F, Miami 2005 SF, Istanbul 2005 W, Wimbledon 2005 W, Stanford 2005 F, Rome 2006 SF Yan Zi — GuangZhou 2005 W, Rabat 2006 SF Yi Jing-Qian — Tashkent 2000 SF Zheng Jie — Japan Open 2003 SF, Hobart 2005 W, Rabat 2005 F, GuangZhou 2005 SF, Estoril 2006 W, Stockholm 2006 W Zuluaga, Fabiola — Bogota 1999 W, São Paulo 1999 W, Rome 2000 SF, Madrid 2000 F, Bogota 2002 W, Madrid 2002 SF, Bogota 2003 W, Australian Open 2004 SF, Bogota 2004 W, Bogota 2005 SF Zvereva, Natasha — Eastbourne 1999 W Zvonareva, Vera — Warsaw 2002 SF, Palermo 2002 F, Sopot 2002 SF, Bol 2003 W, Strasbourg 2003 SF, Vienna 2003 SF, Linz 2003 SF, Memphis 2004 W, Warsaw 2004 SF, Rome 2004 SF, Eastbourne 2004 SF, San Diego 2004 SF, Canadian Open 2004 SF, Cincinnati 2004 F, Beijing 2004 SF, Philadelphia 2004 F, Memphis 2005 W, Rome 2005 SF, Auckland 2006 F, Birmingham 2006 W, Cincinnati 2006 W, Hasselt 2006 SF

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 211 Career Results for Leading Players Career Results — Singles The following tables summarize the performances of certain top singles players, both current and recently retired. The criterion used is that a player must have retired since 1996, and must have, or be projected to have, at least 20 career singles titles. The table then attempts (probably with some inaccuracy) to break out a player’s titles by year, surface, and tier. Tiers have been translated, to the extent possible, to the current Slam-Champ-I-II-III-IV-V system, even though the system has changed dramatically over the years (e.g. events now titled Tier II might have had prizes of $225,000 or $350,000 in the early Nineties; similarly, in the late Eighties the money gap between Tier I and Tier II was only 3:2, compared to the 2:1 ratio of today. The list below does not represent the nomenclature at the time but what appears to me to be the best approximation to the nomenclature of today). Tournaments of Tier II or higher are shown in bold; lesser results in plain text. Slams are in bold coloured type. The year-end championships is also in bold colour as the closest thing to an indoor Slam. Note: Here as elsewhere, events which do not follow WTA admission rules (Olympics prior to 2004, Fed Cup, , Grand Slam Cup) are not listed. Since some WTA lists include the Olympics, their totals for Capriati, Davenport, Graf, Venus Williams, etc. may be one or more tournaments higher. Career Titles: Hardcourt: 8; Clay: 3; Grass: 0; Indoor: 2. Total: 13 By Tier: Slams: 3; Championships: 0; Tier I: 1; Tier II: 5; Tier III: 4; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1990 (III) 1991 San Diego (II), Canadian Open (II) 1992 San Diego (II) 1993 Sydney (II) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Strasbourg (III) Quebec City (III) 2000 Luxembourg (III) (Slam) Charleston (I), Roland Garros (Slam) 2002 Australian Open (Slam) 2003 New Haven (II) 2004 2005 2006

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 212 Kim Clijsters Career Titles: Hardcourt: 14; Clay: 3; Grass: 2; Indoor: 14. Total: 33 By Tier: Slams: 1; Championships: 2; Tier I: 5; Tier II: 17; Tier III: 7; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1999 Luxembourg (III) 2000 Hobart (V) Leipzig (II) 2001 Stanford (II) Leipzig (II), Luxembourg (III) 2002 Hamburg (II) Filderstadt (II), Luxembourg (III), Los Angeles (Champ) 2003 Sydney (II), Indian Wells (I), Stanford Rome (I) ’s-Hertogenbosch Filderstadt (II), Luxembourg (III), (II), Los Angeles (II) (III) Los Angeles (Champ) 2004 Paris (II), Antwerp (II) 2005 Indian Wells (I), Miami (I). Stanford (II), Eastbourne (II) Hasselt (III) Los Angeles (II), Canadian Open (I), U. S. Open (Slam), Luxembourg (II) 2006 Stanford (II) Warsaw (II) Hasselt (III) Lindsay Davenport Career Titles: Hardcourt: 23; Clay: 8; Grass: 2; Indoor: 17. Total: 50 By Tier: Slams: 3; Championships: 1; Tier I: 11; Tier II: 26; Tier III: 9; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1993 Lucerne (III) 1994 Brisbane (III) Lucerne (III) 1995 Strasbourg (III) 1996 Los Angeles (II) Strasbourg (III) 1997 Indian Wells (I), Atlanta (II) Amelia Island (II) Oklahoma City (III), Zürich (I), Chicago (II) 1998 Stanford (II), San Diego (II), Pan Pacific (I), Zürich (I) Los Angeles (II), US Open (Slam) 1999 Sydney (II), Stanford (II), Madrid (III) Wimbledon (Slam) Philadelphia (II), Chase Princess Cup (II) (Champ) 2000 Australian Open (Slam), Indian Linz (II), Philadelphia (II) Wells (I) 2001 Scottsdale (II), Los Angeles (II) Eastbourne (II) Pan Pacific (I), Filderstadt (II), Zürich (I), Linz (II) 2002 2003 Pan Pacific (I) 2004 Stanford (II), Los Angeles (II), Amelia Island (II) Pan Pacific (I), Filderstadt (II) San Diego (I), Cincinnati (III) 2005 Dubai 2005 (II), New Haven Amelia Island (II) Filderstadt (II), Zürich (I) 2004 (II), Bali (III)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 213 Jelena Dokic Career Titles: Hardcourt: 1; Clay: 2; Grass: 1; Indoor: 1. Total: 5 By Tier: Slams: 0; Championships: 0; Tier I: 2; Tier II: 1; Tier III: 1; Tier IV: 1; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 2001 Princess Cup (II) Rome (I) Moscow (I) 2002 Sarasota (IV) Birmingham (III) 2003 2004 2005 2006 Steffi Graf Career Titles: Hardcourt: 36; Clay: 32; Grass: 7; Indoor: 31. Total: 106 By Tier: Slams: 22; Championships: 5; Tier I: 30; Tier II: 48; Tier III: 1 GRAND SLAM 1988 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1986 Mahwah (II) Hilton Head (I), Amelia Pan Pacific (I), Brighton (I), Island (I), Indianapolis (I), Zürich (II) Berlin (II) 1987 Boca Raton (I), Lipton (I), Los Hilton Head (I), Amelia Zürich (II), Virginia Slims Angeles (I) Island (I), Rome (II), Berlin (Champ) (II), Roland Garros (Slam), Hamburg (II) 1988 Australian Open (Slam), San Berlin (I), Roland Garros Wimbledon Brighton (II) Antonio (II), Lipton (I), Mahwah (Slam), Hamburg (II) (Slam) (II), US Open (Slam) 1989 Australian Open (Slam), San Hilton Head (I), Hamburg Wimbledon Washington (I), Zürich (II), Antonio (II), Boca Raton (I), San (II), Berlin (I) (Slam) Brighton (II), Virginia Slims Diego (II), Mahwah (II), U. S. (Champ) Open (Slam) 1990 Australian Open (Slam), Amelia Island (II), Pan Pacific (II), Leipzig (II), Canadian Open (I), San Diego Hamburg (II) Zürich (II), Brighton (II), New (II) England (II) 1991 San Antonio (II) Hamburg (II), Berlin (I) Wimbledon Leipzig (II), Zürich (II), (Slam) Brighton (II) 1992 Boca Raton (I) Hamburg (II), Berlin (I) Wimbledon Leipzig (II), Zürich (II), (Slam) Brighton (II), Philadelphia (II) 1993 Delray Beach (II), San Diego (II), Hilton Head (I), Berlin (I), Wimbledon Leipzig (II), Virginia Slims Canadian Open (I), US Open Roland Garros (Slam) (Slam) (Champ) (Slam) 1994 Australian Open (Slam), Indian Berlin (I) Pan Pacific (I) Wells (II), Delray Beach (II), Lipton (I), San Diego (II) 1995 Delray Beach (II), Lipton (I), US Houston (II), Roland Wimbledon Paris (II), Philadelphia (I), Open (Slam) Garros (Slam) (Slam) (Champ) 1996 Indian Wells (II), Lipton (I), US Berlin (I), Roland Garros Wimbledon Chase (Champ) Open (Slam) (Slam) (Slam) 1997 Strasbourg (III) 1998 New Haven (II) Leipzig (II), Philadelphia (II) 1999 Roland Garros (Slam)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 214 Justine Hénin-Hardenne Career Titles: Hardcourt: 14; Clay: 10; Grass: 2; Indoor: 3. Total: 29 By Tier: Slams: 5; Championships: 1; Tier I: 8; Tier II: 11; Tier III: 3; Tier IV: 1; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1999 Antwerp (IV) 2000 2001 Gold Coast (III), Canberra (III) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III) 2002 Berlin (I) Linz (II) 2003 Dubai (II), San Diego (II), Canadian Open Charleston (I), Berlin (I), Zürich (I) (I), U. S. Open (Slam) Roland Garros (Slam) 2004 Sydney (II), Australian Open (Slam), Dubai (II), Indian Wells (I), Olympics (II) 2005 Charleston (I), Warsaw (II), Berlin (I), Roland Garros (Slam) 2006 Sydney (II), Dubai (II+), New Haven (II) Roland Garros (Slam) Eastbourne (II) Madrid (Champ) Martina Hingis Career Titles: Hardcourt: 18; Clay: 7; Grass: 2; Indoor: 15. Total: 42 By Tier: Slams: 5; Championships: 2; Tier I: 16; Tier II: 16; Tier III: 3; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1996 Filderstadt (II), Oakland (II) 1997 Sydney (II), Australian Open Hilton Head (I) Wimbledon (Slam) Pan Pacific (I), Paris (II), (Slam), Lipton (I), Stanford (II), Filderstadt (II), Philadelphia San Diego (II), US Open (Slam) (II) 1998 Australian Open (Slam), Indian Hamburg (II), Rome Chase (Champ) Wells (I) (I) 1999 Australian Open (Slam), San Hilton Head (I), Pan Pacific (I), Filderstadt Diego (II), Canadian Open (I) Berlin (I) (II) 2000 Ericsson (I), Canadian Open (I) Hamburg (II) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III) Pan Pacific (I), Filderstadt (II), Zürich (I), Moscow (I), Chase (Champ) 2001 Sydney (II), Doha (III), Dubai (II) 2002 Sydney (II) Pan Pacific (I) 2003 RETIRED 2004 RETIRED 2005 2006 Kolkata (III) Rome (I) Svetlana Kuznetsova Career Titles: Hardcourt: 6; Clay: 1; Grass: 1; Indoor: 0. Total: 8 By Tier: Slams: 1; Championships: 0; Tier I: 0; Tier II: 3; Tier III: 3; Tier IV: 1; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 2002 Bali (III) Helsinki (IV) 2003 2004 U. S. Open (Slam), Bali (III) Eastbourne (II) 2005 2006 Miami (I), Bali (III), Beijing (II)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 215 Conchita Martinez Career Titles: Hardcourt: 9; Clay: 20; Grass: 1; Indoor: 3. Total: 33 By Tier: Slams: 1; Championships: 0; Tier I: 9; Tier II: 9; Tier III: 13; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1988 Sofia (III) 1989 Wellington (V), Phoenix (III) Tampa (II) 1990 Scottsdale (III) Paris (III) Indianapolis (III) 1991 Barcelona (II), Kitzbühel (III), Paris (III) 1992 Kitzbühel (III) 1993 Brisbane (III), Stratton Houston (II), Rome (I) Philadelphia (I) Mountain (II) 1994 Stratton Mountain (II) Hilton Head (I), Rome (I) Wimbledon (Slam) 1995 San Diego (II), Los Angeles Hilton Head (I), Amelia Island (II) (II), Hamburg (II), Rome (I) 1996 Rome (I) Moscow (III) 1997 1998 Berlin (I), Warsaw (III) 1999 Sopot (III) 2000 Berlin (I) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Pattaya City (III)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 216 Amélie Mauresmo Career Titles: Hardcourt: 6; Clay: 6; Grass: 1; Indoor: 10. Total: 23 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 1; Tier I: 6; Tier II: 13; Tier III: 0; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1999 Bratislava (V) 2000 Sydney (II) 2001 Amelia Island (II), Berlin (I) Paris (II), Nice (II) 2002 Dubai (II), Canadian Open (I) 2003 Warsaw (II) Philadelphia (II) 2004 Canadian Open (I) Berlin (I), Rome (I) Linz (II), Philadelphia (II) 2005 Rome (I) Antwerp (II). Philadelphia (II), Los Angeles (Champ) 2006 Australian Open (Slam) Wimbledon (Slam) Paris (II), Antwerp (II) Anastasia Myskina Career Titles: Hardcourt: 4; Clay: 3; Grass: 0; Indoor: 3. Total:10 By Tier: Slams: 1; Championships: 0; Tier I: 2; Tier II: 3; Tier III: 2; Tier IV: 1; Tier V: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1999 Palermo (V) 2000 2001 2002 Bahia (II) 2003 Doha (III) Sarasota (IV) Leipzig (II), Moscow (I) 2004 Doha (II) Roland Garros (Slam) Moscow (I) 2005 Kolkata (III) 2006 Jana Novotna Career Titles: Hardcourt: 3; Clay: 4; Grass: 2; Indoor: 15. Total: 24 By Tier: Slams: 1; Championships: 1; Tier I: 2; Tier II: 11; Tier III: 9; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1988 (III) 1989 Strasbourg (III) 1990 Albuquerque (III) 1991 Sydney (II) Oklahoma City (III) 1992 1993 (III), Brighton (II) 1994 Leipzig (II), Brighton (II), Essen (II) 1995 Linz (III) 1996 Madrid (III) Zürich (I), Chicago (II), Philadelphia (II) 1997 Madrid (III) Leipzig (II), Moscow (I), Chase (Champ) 1998 Prague (III) Eastbourne (II), Linz (II) Wimbledon (Slam) 1999 Hannover (II)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 217 Mary Pierce Career Titles: Hardcourt: 3; Clay: 7; Grass: 1; Indoor: 7. Total: 18 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 0; Tier I: 5; Tier II: 5; Tier III: 3; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 3 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1991 Palermo (V) 1992 Cesena (V), Palermo (V) Puerto Rico (III) 1993 Filderstadt (II) 1994 1995 Australian Open (Slam), Tokyo/Nicherei (II) 1996 1997 Rome (I) 1998 Amelia Island (II) Paris (II), Moscow (I), Luxembourg (III) 1999 Linz (II) 2000 Hilton Head (I), Roland Garros (Slam) 2001 2002 2003 2004 ’s-Hertogenbosch (III) 2005 San Diego (I) Moscow (I) 2006 Career Titles: Hardcourt: 9; Clay: 11; Grass: 0; Indoor: 7. Total: 27 By Tier: Slams: 1; Championships: 2; Tier I: 11; Tier II: 10; Tier III: 0; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 3 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1985 Japan Open (V) 1986 1987 Pan Pacific (I) (V) Brighton (II) 1988 Boca Raton (I), Canadian Open (I) Buenos Aires (V), Rome (II) Virginia Slims (Champ) 1989 Lipton (I) Amelia Island (II), Rome (I) Filderstadt (II) 1990 Boca Raton (II), US Open (Slam) 1991 Boca Raton (I) Hilton Head (I), Amelia Island (II), Pan Pacific (II) Rome (I) 1992 Sydney (II) Hilton Head (I), Amelia Island (I), Pan Pacific (II) Rome (I) 1993 1994 Virginia Slims (Champ) 1995 Sydney (II)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 218 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario Career Titles: Hardcourt: 8; Clay: 19; Grass: 1; Indoor: 1. Total: 29 By Tier: Slams: 4; Championships: 0; Tier I: 6; Tier II: 13; Tier III: 3; Tier IV: 3; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1988 Brussels (IV) 1989 Barcelona (IV), Roland Garros (Slam) 1990 Barcelona (III) Newport (II) 1991 Washington, DC (II) 1992 Lipton (I), Canadian Open (I) 1993 Lipton (I) Amelia Island (II), Barcelona (II), Hamburg (II) 1994 Canadian Open (I), US Open Amelia Island (II), Barcelona (II), Oakland (II) (Slam), Tokyo/Nicherei (II) Hamburg (II), Roland Garros (Slam) 1995 Barcelona (II), Berlin (I) 1996 Hilton Head (I), Hamburg (II) 1997 1998 Sydney (II) Roland Garros (Slam) 1999 Cairo (III) 2000 2001 Porto (IV), Madrid (III) 2002 Career Titles: Hardcourt: 27; Clay: 14; Grass: 1; Indoor: 11. Total: 53 By Tier: Slams: 9; Championships: 3; Tier I: 9; Tier II: 26; Tier III: 5; Tier IV: 1; Tier V: 0’ Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1989 Houston (II) 1990 Lipton (I), San Antonio (II), Los Angeles Tampa (II), Rome (I), Berlin Oakland (II), Virginia (II) (I), Roland Garros (Slam) Slims (Champ) 1991 Australian Open (Slam), Lipton (I), Los Houston (II), Roland Garros Milan (II), Philadelphia Angeles (II), US Open (Slam), Tokyo/ (Slam) (II), Virginia Slims Nicherei (II) (Champ) 1992 Australian Open (Slam), Indian Wells Houston (II), Barcelona (II), Essen (II), Oakland (II), (II), US Open (Slam), Tokyo/Nicherei (II) Roland Garros (Slam) Virginia Slims (Champ) 1993 Australian Open (Slam) Chicago (II) 1994 1995 Canadian Open (I) 1996 Sydney (II), Australian Open (Slam), Eastbourne Canadian Open (I), Tokyo/Nicherei (II) (II) 1997 Los Angeles (II), Canadian Open (I), Princess Cup (II) 1998 Canadian Open (I), Princess Cup (II) 1999 Amelia Island (II) 2000 Amelia Island (II), Rome (I) Oklahoma City (III) 2001 Bahia (II), Japan Open (III), Shanghai (IV) Oklahoma City (III) 2002 Doha (III) Madrid (III) 2003

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 219 Maria Sharapova Career Titles: Hardcourt: 7; Clay: 0; Grass: 3; Indoor: 5. Total: 15 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 1; Tier I: 4; Tier II: 2; Tier III: 5; Tier IV: 1; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 2003 Japan Open (III) Quebec City (III) 2004 Seoul (IV), Japan Open (III) Birrmingham (III), Los Angeles (Champ) Wimbledon (Slam) 2005 Doha (II) Birmingham (III) Pan Pacific (I) 2006 Indian Wells (I), San Diego (I), U. S. Open Zürich (I), Linz (II) (Slam) Serena Williams Career Titles: Hardcourt: 16; Clay: 2; Grass: 2; Indoor: 5. Total: 25 By Tier: Slams: 7; Championships: 1; Tier I: 7; Tier II: 10; Tier III: 0; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1999 Indian Wells (I), Los Angeles (II), US Paris (II) Open (Slam) 2000 Los Angeles (II), Princess Cup (II) Hannover (II) 2001 Indian Wells (I), Canadian Open (I) Munich (Champ) 2002 Scottsdale (II). Miami (I). U. S. Open Rome (I), Roland Wimbledon (Slam) Leipzig (II) (Slam), Princess Cup (II) Garros (Slam) (Slam), Miami (I) Wimbledon (Slam) Paris (II) 2004 Miami (I), Beijing (II) 2005 Australian Open (Slam) 2006 Venus Williams Career Titles: Hardcourt: 16; Clay: 7; Grass: 2; Indoor: 6. Total: 31 By Tier: Slams: 5; Championships: 0; Tier I: 6; Tier II: 16; Tier III: 4; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1998 Lipton (I) Oklahoma City (III) 1999 Lipton (I), New Haven (II) Hamburg (II), Rome (I) Oklahoma City (III), Zürich (I) 2000 Stanford (II), San Diego (II), New Wimbledon (Slam) Haven (II), US Open (Slam) 2001 Ericsson (I), San Diego (II), New Hamburg (II) Wimbledon (Slam) Haven (II), U. S. Open (Slam) 2002 Gold Coast (III), Stanford (II), Amelia Island (II) Paris (II), Antwerp (II) San Diego (II), New Haven (II) 2003 Antwerp (II) 2004 Charleston (I), Warsaw (II) 2005 Istanbul (III) Wimbledon (Slam) 2006

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 220 Career Results — Doubles For inclusion in this list, players must have at least two Slams, and must have, or project to have, at least 25 doubles titles. Other criteria are similar to those for singles. For brevity, partners are listed only by initial in the following tables — e.g. the first item for Serena Williams is Oklahoma City (III/VW). This means Serena won Oklahoma City 1998, a Tier III, with VW=Venus Williams. The list of partners follows the list of results for each player. Players with whom the player won a Slam shown in bold. Note: Martina Navratilova is excluded because I just don’t trust the early WTA data. The surface data for some of the older players may also be inaccurate. Cara Black Career Titles: Hardcourt: 12; Clay: 4; Grass: 3; Indoor: 8. Total: 27 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 0; Tier I: 8; Tier II: 11; Tier III: 2; Tier IV: 1; Tier V: 3 Partners with whom has won titles: 8 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 2 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 2000 Auckland (V/AF) 2001 Hobart (V/EL), San Diego (II/EL), New Hamburg (II/ Birmingham (III/EL) Haven (II/EL), Princess Cup (II/LH) EL), Rome (I/EL) 2002 Bali (III/VRP) Porto (IV/IS) 2003 Hobart (V/EL), Stanford (II/LR) 2004 Sydney (II/RS), San Diego (I/RS) Wimbledon (Slam/RS) Antwerp (II/EC), Pan Pacific (I/RS), Filderstadt (II/RS), Zürich (I/RS) 2005 Stanford (II/RS) Rome (I/LH) Wimbledon (Slam/LH) Antwerp (II/EC), Zürich (I/ RS), Philadelphia (II/RS) 2006 San Diego (I/RS) Zürich (I/RS) Partners: AF=Alexandra Fusai, EC=, EL=Elena Likhovtseva, IS=Irina Selyutina, LH=Liezel Huber, LR=Lisa Raymond, RS=Rennae Stubbs, VRP=Virginia Ruano Pascual Kim Clijsters Career Titles: Hardcourt: 4; Clay: 2; Grass: 1; Indoor: 4. Total: 11 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 0; Tier I: 1; Tier II: 5; Tier III: 1; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 2 Partners with whom has won titles: 5 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1999 Bratislava (V/LC) 2000 Antwerp (V/SA) 2001 2002 Los Angeles (II/JD) Luxembourg (III/JH) 2003 Sydney (II/AS), Scottsdale (II/AS). Roland G (Slam/AS) Wimbledon (Slam/AS) Antwerp (II/AS), San Diego (II/AS) Zürich (I/AS) 2004 2005 2006 Partners: AS=Ai Sugiyama, JD=Jelena Dokic, JH=Janette Husarova, LC= Laurence Courtois, SA=

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 221 Lindsay Davenport Career Titles: Hardcourt: 17; Clay: 6; Grass: 2; Indoor: 11. Total: 36 By Tier: Slams: 3; Championships: 3; Tier I: 9; Tier II: 19; Tier III: 2; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles: 7 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 3 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1994 Indian Wells (II/LR) Oakland (II/ASV) 1995 Sydney (II/JN), Indian Wells (II/LR), Strasbourg (III/ Nicherei (II/MJF) MJF) 1996 Sydney (II/MJF), Los Angeles (II/NZ) Roland Garros Oakland (II/MJF), Chase (Slam/MJF) (Champ/MJF) 1997 Indian Wells (I/NZ), Stanford (II/MH), Amelia Island (II/ Pan Pacific (I/NZ) Chase U. S. Open (Slam/JN) JN), Berlin (I/JN) (Champ/JN) 1998 Indian Wells (I/NZ), Stanford (II/NZ), Berlin (I/NZ) Filderstadt (II/NZ), Chase San Diego (II/NZ) (Champ/NZ) 1999 Stanford (II/CM), San Diego (II/CM) Wimbledon (Slam/ Pan Pacific (I/NZ) CM) 2000 Indian Wells (I/CM) 2001 Filderstadt (II/LR), Zürich (I/LR) 2002 Filderstadt (II/LR) 2003 Indian Wells (I/LR) Amelia Island (II/ Eastbourne (II/ LR) LR) 2004 2005 2006 Bali (III/CM) Partners: ASV=Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, CM=Corina Morariu, JN=Jana Novotna, LR=Lisa Raymond, MH=Martina Hingis, MJF=Mary Joe Fernandez, NZ=

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 222 Gigi Fernandez Career Titles: Hardcourt: 25; Clay: 14; Grass: 8; Indoor: 21. Total: 68 By Tier: Slams: 17; Championships: 2; Tier I: 13; Tier II: 26; Tier III: 7; Tier IV: 2; Tier V: 1 Partners with whom has won titles: 11 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 4 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1985 Delray Beach (V/MN), Canadian Washington (III/MN) Open (II/MN), Fort Lauderdale (III/ RW) 1986 1987 Mahwah (III/LM) Newport (III/LM) Piscataway (III/LM) 1988 U. S. Open (Slam/RW) Suntory/Tokyo (IV/RW) 1989 Canadian Open (I/RW), VS Newport (II/LM) Filderstadt (II/RW) Doubles (I/RW), Puerto Rico (IV/ RW) 1990 Los Angeles (II/JN), U. S. Open Hamburg (II/MN) Pan Pacific (II/ES), (Slam/MN) Worcester (II/HS) 1991 Brisbane (III/JN), Light ’n Lively (I/ Roland G (Slam/JN) Chicago (II/JN), Oakland (II/ HS) PF), Indianapolis (III/PF) 1992 U. S. Open (Slam/NZ) Houston (II/PF), Wimbledon (Slam/ Oakland (II/NZ), Roland G (Slam/NZ) NZ) Philadelphia (II/NZ) 1993 Australian Open (Slam/NZ), Hilton Head (I/NZ), Eastbourne (II/ Leipzig (II/NZ), Filderstadt Delray Beach (II/NZ), Light ’n Berlin (I/NZ), Roland NZ), Wimbledon (II/NZ), VSlims (Champ/NZ) Lively (I/NZ), San Diego (II/HS) G (Slam/NZ) (Slam/NZ) 1994 Australian Open (Slam/NZ), Rome (I/NZ), Berlin Eastbourne (II/ Chicago (II/NZ), Filderstadt Miami (I/NZ) (I/NZ), Roland G NZ), Wimbledon (II/NZ), Philadelphia (I/NZ), (Slam/NZ) (Slam/NZ) VSlims (Champ/NZ) 1995 San Diego (II/NZ), Los Angeles (II/ Hamburg (II/MH), Pan Pacific (I/NZ), NZ), U. S. Open (Slam/NZ) Rome (I/NZ), Roland Filderstadt (II/NZ) G (Slam/NZ) 1996 San Diego (II/CM), U. S. Open Pan Pacific (I/NZ) (Slam/NZ) 1997 Sydney (II/ASV) Roland G (Slam/NZ) Wimbledon (Slam/ NZ) Partners: ASV=Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, CM=Conchita Martinez, ES=, HS=Helena Sukova, JN=Jana Novotna, LM=Lori McNeil, MH=Martina Hingis, MN=Martina Navratilova, NZ=Natasha Zvereva, PF=, RW=

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 223 Martina Hingis Career Titles: Hardcourt: 14; Clay: 6; Grass: 3; Indoor: 13. Total: 36 By Tier: Slams: 9; Championships: 2; Tier I: 13; Tier II: 12; Tier III: 0; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles: 12 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 6 GRAND SLAM 1998 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1995 Hamburg (II/GF) 1996 Wimbledon (Slam/ Zürich (I/HS) HS) 1997 Australian Open (Slam/NZ), Hilton Head (I/ Paris (II/JN), Leipzig (II/JN), Stanford (II/LD), San Diego (II/ MJF) Filderstadt (II/ASV), Zürich (I/ ASV) ASV) 1998 Sydney (II/HS), Australian Open Roland G (Slam/ Wimbledon (Slam/ Pan Pacific (I/ML) (Slam/ML), Miami (I/JN), Los JN) JN) Angeles (II/NZ), Canadian Open (I/ JN), U. S. Open (Slam/JN) 1999 Australian Open (Slam/AK), Rome (I/AK) Eastbourne (II/ Chase (Champ/AK) Indian Wells (I/AK), Miami (I/JN) AK) 2000 Canadian Open (I/NT) Roland G (Slam/ Pan Pacific (I/MP), Filderstadt MP) (II/AK), Zürich (I/AK), Philadelphia (II/AK), Chase (Champ/AK) 2001 Moscow (I/AK) 2002 Australian Open (Slam/AK) Hamburg (II/BS) 2003 RETIRED 2004 RETIRED 2005 RETIRED 2006 Partners: AK=Anna Kournikova, ASV=Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, BS=, GF=Gigi Fernandez, HS=Helena Sukova, MP=Mary Pierce, JN=Jana Novotna, LD=Lindsay Davenport, MJF=Mary Joe Fernandez, ML=Mirjana Lucic, NT=, NZ=Natasha Zvereva

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 224 Anna Kournikova Career Titles: Hardcourt: 7; Clay: 2; Grass: 1; Indoor: 6. Total: 16 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 2; Tier I: 4; Tier II: 6; Tier III: 1; Tier IV: 1; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles: 6 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1998 Princess Cup (II/MS) 1999 Australian Open (Slam/ Rome (I/MH) Eastbourne (II/ Chase (Champ/MH) MH), Indian Wells (I/MH) MH) 2000 Gold Coast (III/JHD) Hamburg (II/NZ) Filderstadt (II/MH), Zürich (I/MH), Philadelphia (II/MH), Chase (Champ/MH) 2001 Sydney (II/BS) Moscow (I/MH) 2002 Australian Open (Slam/ MH), Shanghai (IV/JL) 2003 Partners: BS=Barbara Schett, JHD=Julie Halard-Decugis, JL=, MH=Martina Hingis, MS=Monica Seles, NZ=Natasha Zvereva Svetlana Kuznetsova Career Titles: Hardcourt: 8; Clay: 3; Grass: 1; Indoor: 1. Total: 13 By Tier: Slams: 1; Championships: 0; Tier I: 3; Tier II: 4; Tier III: 4; Tier IV: 1; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles: 5 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 2002 Japan Open (III/ASV) Sopot (III/ASV), Helsinki (IV/ASV) 2003 Gold Coast (III/MN), Dubai (II/ Rome (I/MN) Leipzig (II/MN) MN), Canadian Open (I/MN) 2004 Gold Coast (III/EL), Doha (II/EL) 2005 Australian Open (Slam/AMo), Miami (I/AMo) 2006 Eastbourne (II/AMa) Partners: AMa=Amélie Mauresmo, AMo=Alicia Molik, ASV=Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, EL=Elena Likhovtseva, MN=Martina Navratilova

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 225 Larisa (Savchenko) Neiland Career Titles: Hardcourt: 21; Clay: 12; Grass: 12; Indoor: 21. Total: 66 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 0; Tier I: 10; Tier II: 28; Tier III: 19; Tier IV: 7; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles:16 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 16 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1985 Salt Lake City (IV/SP) Seabrook (IV/SP) 1986 New Orleans (III/SP) Little Rock (IV/SP) 1987 Boca Raton (II/SP) Eastbourne (II/SP) Wichita (IV/SP), Oklahoma City (IV/SP) 1988 Birmingham (III/NZ) Indianapolis (IV/NZ) 1989 Amelia Island (II/NZ), Birmingham (III/NZ) Moscow (III/NZ), Roland G (Slam/NZ) Chicago (II/NZ) 1990 Light n Lively (II/NZ) Birmingham (III/NZ), Nashville (III/KJ) Eastbourne (II/NZ) 1991 Auckland (IV/PF), Boca Raton (I/ Hamburg (II/JN), Eastbourne (II/NZ), Philadelphia (II/JN) NZ), Canadian Open (I/NZ), Los Berlin (I/NZ) Wimbledon (Slam/ Angeles (II/NZ), Washington (II/JN) NZ) 1992 Brisbane (III/JN), Boca Raron (I/ Berlin (I/JN) Eastbourne (II/JN) Leipzig (II/JN), NZ), Miami (I/ASV), Light n’ Lively Brighton (II/JN) (II/JN), San Diego (II/JN) 1993 Brisbane (III/CMa), Miami (I/JN), Osaka (III/JN) Canadian Open (I/JN) 1994 Schenectady (III/MM) Amelia Island (II/ASV), Birmingham (III/ZG) Osaka (III/RS), Brighton Barcelona (II/ASV) (II/MB) 1995 Barcelona (II/ASV), Paris (II/MM), Moscow (II/M) (III/MM), Leipzig (II/ MM), Brighton (II/MM) 1996 Canadian Open (I/ASV) Berlin (I/MM) Rosmalen (III/BSM) Essen (II/MM), Moscow (III/NM) 1997 Birmingham (III/KA) Luxembourg (III/HS) 1998 1999 Gold Coast (III/CMo), Los Angeles Hamburg (II/ASV) Birmingham (III/ Leipzig (II/MP) (II/ASV) CMo) Partners: ASV=Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, BSM=Brenda Schultz-McCarthy, CMa=Conchita Martinez, CMo=Corina Morariu, JN=Jana Novotna, KA=, KJ=, MB=, MM=Meredith McGrath, MP=Mary Pierce, NM=Natalia Medvedeva, NZ=Natasha Zvereva, PF=Patty Fendick, RS=Rennae Stubbs, SP=, ZG= Jackson

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 226 Jana Novotna Career Titles: Hardcourt: 35; Clay: 17; Grass: 8; Indoor: 16. Total: 76 By Tier: Slams: 12; Championships: 2; Tier I: 16; Tier II: 36; Tier III: 10; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles: 17 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 5 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1987 San Diego (III/CS) Strasbourg (III/CS), Hamburg (II/CKK) 1988 Canadian Open (I/HS), Mahwah (II/ Rome (II/CS), Oklahoma City (III/CS) HS) Hamburg (II/TSL) 1989 Brisbane (III/HS), Boca Raton (II/HS), Barcelona (III/TSL) Wimbledon (Slam/ Zürich (II/HS) Miami (I/HS) HS) 1990 Brisbane (III/HS), Sydney (II/HS), Roland G (Slam/HS) Wimbledon (Slam/ Australian Open (Slam/HS), Indian HS) Wells (II/HS), Miami (I/HS), Boca Raton (II/HS), Los Angeles (II/GF) 1991 Brisbane (III/GF), Washington (II/LN) Hamburg (II/LN), Chicago (II/GF), Zürich Roland G (Slam/GF) (II/AS), Filderstadt (II/ MN), Philadelphia (II/LN) 1992 Brisbane (III/LN), Light n Lively (II/ Berlin (I/LN) Eastbourne (II/ Leipzig (II/LN), Brighton LN), San Diego (II/LN) LN) (II/LN) 1993 Miami (I/LN), Canadian Open (I/LN) Rome (I/ASV) Osaka (III/LN), Paris (II/ AS) 1994 Delray Beach (II/ASV), Light & Lively Hamburg (II/ASV) (II/ASV), U. S. Open (Slam/ASV), San Diego (II/ASV) 1995 Sydney (II/LD), Australian Open Eastbourne (II/ WTA (Champ/ASV) (Slam/ASV), Miami (I/ASV), Delray ASV), Wimbledon Beach (II/MJF) (Slam/ASV) 1996 Miami (I/ASV) Hilton Head (I/ASV), Eastbourne (II/ Paris (II/KB), Filderstadt Madrid (III/ASV) ASV) (II/NA) 1997 U. S, Open (Slam/LD) Amelia Island (II/ Paris (II/MH), Leipzig (II/ LD), Berlin (I/LD) MH), Chase (Champ/LD) 1998 Miami (I/MH), Canadian Open (I/ Roland G (Slam/MH) Eastbourne (II/ MH), U. S. Open (Slam/MH) MdS), Wimbledon (Slam/MH) 1999 Miami (I/MH), Canadian Open (I/MP) Hilton Head (I/EL) Partners: AS=Andrea Strnadova, ASV=Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, CKK=Claudia Kohde-Kilsch, CS=, EL=Elena Likhovtseva, GF=Gigi Fernandez, HS=Helena Sukova, KB=, LD=Lindsay Davenport, LN=Larisa Neiland, MdS=, MH=Martina Hingis, MJF=Mary Joe Fernandez, MN=Martina Navratilova, MP=Mary Pierce, NA=, TSL=Tine Scheuer-Larsen

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 227 Lisa Raymond Career Titles: Hardcourt: 20; Clay: 8; Grass: 5; Indoor: 27. Total: 60 By Tier: Slams: 5; Championships: 3; Tier I: 16; Tier II: 29; Tier III: 7; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles: 6 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 2 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1993 Nicherei (II/CR) 1994 Indian Wells (II/LD) 1995 Indian Wells (II/LD) 1996 Chicago (II/RS), Philadelphis (II/RS) 1997 Quebec City (III/RS), Philadelphia (II/RS) 1998 Boston (III/RS) Hannover (II/RS) 1999 New Haven (II/RS) Oklahoma City (III/RS), Zürich (I/RS), Moscow (I/RS), Philadelphia (II/RS) 2000 Australian Open (Slam/RS), San Rome (I/RS), Madrid Diego (II/RS) (III/RS) 2001 Scottsdale (II/RS), U. S. Open Charleston (I/RS) Eastbourne (II/RS), Pan Pacific (I/RS), Filderstadt (Slam/RS) Wimbledon (Slam/ (II/LD), Zürich (I/LD), Munich RS) (Champ/RS) 2002 Sydney (II/RS), Scottsdale (II/ Charleston (I/RS) Eastbourne (II/RS) Pan Pacific (I/RS), Filderstadt RS), Indian Wells (I/RS), Miami (II/LD) (I/RS), Stanford (II/RS) 2003 Indian Wells (I/LD), Stanford Amelia Island (II/LD) Eastbourne (II/LD) Filderstadt (II/RS), (II/CB) Philadelphia (II/MN) 2004 Vienna (III/MN) Philadelphia (II/AM) 2005 New Haven (II/SS), U. S. Open Eastbourne (II/RS) Luxembourg (II/SS), Moscow (Slam/SS) (I/SS), Los Angeles (Champ/SS) 2006 Indian Wells (I/SS), Miami (I/ Charleston (I/SS), Pan Pacific (I/SS), Memphis (III/ SS) Roland Garros (Slam/ SS), Stuttgart (II/SS), Linz (II/ SS) SS), Hasselt (III/SS), Los Angeles (Champ/SS Partners: AM=Alicia Molik, CB=Cara Black, CR=Chanda Rubin, LD=Lindsay Davenport, MN=Martina Navratilova, RS=Rennae Stubbbs, SS=Samantha Stosur

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 228 Virginia Ruano Pascual Career Titles: Hardcourt: 16; Clay: 19; Grass: 0; Indoor: 2. Total: 37 By Tier: Slams: 8; Championships: 1; Tier 3: 11; Tier II: 5; Tier III: 8; Tier IV: 1; Tier V: 3 Partners with whom has won titles: 5 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1998 Hobart (V/PS) Budapest (V/PS), Rome (I/PS) 1999 Madrid (III/PS) 2000 Hilton Head (I/PS), Sopot (III/PS) 2001 Antwerp (V/EC), Madrid (III/PS), Roland Garros (Slam/PS), Knokke-Heist (IV/MS) 2002 Canadian Open (I/PS), U. S. Open Bogota (III/PS), Acapulco (III/PS), Rome (I/ (Slam/PS), Bahia (II/PS), Bali (III/CB) PS), Roland Garros (Slam/PS) 2003 New Haven (II/PS), U. S. Open (Slam/ Charleston (I/PS), Berlin (I/PS) Los Angeles PS) (Champ/PS) 2004 Australian Open (Slam/PS), Indian Charleston (I/PS), Roland Garros (Slam/PS) Luxembourg Wells (I/PS), U. S. Open (Slam/PS) (III/PS) 2005 Dubai (II/PS), Indian Wells (I/PS), Charleston (I/CM), Roland Garros (Slam/PS) San Diego (I/CM) 2006 Los Angeles (II/PS), Beijing (II/PS), Seoul (IV/PS) Partners: CB=Cara Black, CM=Conchita Martinez, EC=Els Callens, MS=Magui Serna, PS=Paola Suárez

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 229 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario Career Titles: Hardcourt: 25; Clay: 31; Grass: 3; Indoor: 10. Total: 69 (WTA says 68 but lists 69 events) By Tier: Slams: 6; Championships: 2; Tier I: 16; Tier II: 35; Tier III: 6; Tier IV: 2; Tier V: 2 Partners with whom has won titles: 24 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 3 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1986 Athens (IV/IC) 1987 1988 1989 1990 Hilton Head (I/MN), Amelia Island (II/MP), Tampa (II/MP), Barcelona (III/MP) 1991 Sydney (II/HS) Amelia Island (II/HS), Barcelona (II/MN) 1992 Sydney (II/HS), Australian Open Hilton Head (I/NZ), Amelia Pan Pacific (II/HS), (Slam/HS), Miami (I/LN), Los Island (II/NZ), Barcelona (II/ Filderstadt (II/HS) Angeles (II/HS) CM) VSlims (Champ/HS) 1993 U. S. Open (Slam/HS) Barcelona (II/CM), Rome (I/JN) Essen (II/HS) 1994 Delray Beach (II/JN), Light n Hilton Head (I/LM), Amelia Oakland (II/LD) Lively (II/JN), San Diego (II/JN), Island (II/LN), Barcelona (II/ Canadian Open (I/MM), U. S. Open LN), Hamburg (II/JN) (Slam/JN), Nicherei (II/JHD) 1995 Australian Open (Slam/JN), Miami Barcelona (II/LN) Eastbourne (II/ WTA (Champ/JN) (I/JN) JN), Wimbledon (Slam/JN) 1996 Australian Open (Slam/CR), Miami Hilton Head (I/JN), Amelia Eastbourne (II/ (I/JN), Canadian Open (I/LN) Island (II/CR), Hamburg (II/BS), JN) Rome (I/IS), Madrid (III/JN) 1997 Sydney (II/GF), Miami (I/NZ), San Madrid (III/MJF) Filderstadt (II/MH), Diego (II/MH) Zürich (I/MH), Moscow (I/NZ) 1998 1999 Los Angeles (II/LN) Cairo (III/LC), Hamburg (II/LN) 2000 Berlin (I/CM) Leipzig (II/AGS) 2001 Miami (I/NT) 2002 Doha (III/JH), New Haven (II/DH), Amelia Island (II/DH), Sopot (III/ Princess Cup (II/SK) SK), Helsinki (IV/SK) 2003 RETIRED 2004 Palermo (V/AMG) 2005 Partners: AGS=Anne-Gaëlle Sidot, AMG=Anabel Medina Garrigues, BS=Brenda Schultz, CM=Conchita Martinez, CR=Chanda Rubin, DH=Daniela Hantuchova, GF=Gigi Fernandez, HS=Helena Sukova, IC=, IS=Irina Spirlea, JH=Janette Husarova, JHD=Julie Halard (later Julie Halard-Decugis), JN=Jana Novotna, LC=Laurence Courtois, LM=Lori McNeil, MH=Martina Hingis, MJF=Mary Joe Fernandez, MM=Meredith McGrath, MN=Martina Navratilova, MP=, LN=Larisa Nieland, NT=Nathalie Tauziat, NZ=Natasha Zvereva, SK=Svetlana Kuznetsova

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 230 Samantha Stosur Career Titles: Hardcourt: 5; Clay: 3; Grass: 0; Indoor: 9. Total:17 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 2; Tier I: 4; Tier II: 7; Tier III: 2; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles: 2 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 2005 Sydney (II/BS), New Haven (II/ Amelia Island (II/BS) Luxembourg (II/LR), Moscow (ILR), LR), U. S. Open (Slam/LR) Los Angeles (Champ/LR) 2006 Indian Wells (I/LR), Miami (I/ Charleston (I/LR), Pan Pacific (I/LR), Memphis (III/LR), LR) Roland Garros (Slam/ Stuttgart (II/LR), Linz (II/LR), LR) Hasselt (III/LR), Los Angeles (Champ/ LR) Partners: BS=Bryanne Stewart, LR=Lisa Raymond Rennae Stubbs Career Titles: Hardcourt: 19; Clay: 7; Grass: 7; Indoor: 22. Total: 55 By Tier: Slams: 4; Championships: 1; Tier I: 17; Tier II: 24; Tier III: 9; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles: 10 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 2 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1992 Canadian Open (I/LM) Hamburg (II/SG) Birmingham (III/LM) Osaka (III/HS) 1993 Indian Wells (II/HS) Hamburg (II/SG) 1994 Strasbourg (III/LM) Osaka (III/LN) 1995 Birmingham (III/MB) 1996 Chicago (II/LR), Philadelphis (II/LR) 1997 Quebec City (III/LR), Philadelphia (II/LR) 1998 Boston (III/LR) Hannover (II/LR) 1999 New Haven (II/LR) Oklahoma City (III/LR), Zürich (I/LR), Moscow (I/LR), Philadelphia (II/LR) 2000 Australian Open (Slam/LR), Rome (I/LR), San Diego (II/LR) Madrid (III/LR) 2001 Scottsdale (II/LR), U. S. Open Charleston (I/LR) Eastbourne (II/LR), Pan Pacific (I/LR), Munich (Slam/LR) Wimbledon (Slam/LR) (Champ/LR) 2002 Sydney (II/LR), Scottsdale (II/ Charleston (I/LR) Eastbourne (II/LR) Pan Pacific (I/LR) LR), Indian Wells (I/LR), Miami (I/LR), Stanford (II/LR) 2003 Los Angeles (II/MP) Pan Pacific (I/EB), Filderstadt (II/LR) 2004 Sydney (II/CB), San Diego (I/ Wimbledon (Slam/CB) Pan Pacific (I/CB), Filderstadt CB) (II/CB), Zürich (I/CB) 2005 Stanford (II/CB) Eastbourne (II/LR) Zürich (I/CB), Philadelphia (II/ CB) 2006 Sydney (II/CM), San Diego (I/ Zürich (I/CB) CB) Partners: CB=Cara Black, CM=Corina Morariu, EB=, HS=Helena Sukova, LM=Lori McNeil, LN=Larisa Neiland, LR=Lisa Raymond, MB=Manon Bollegraf, MP=Mary Pierce, SG=Steffi Graf

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 231 Paola Suárez Career Titles: Hardcourt: 14; Clay: 26; Grass: 0; Indoor: 2. Total: 42 By Tier: Slams: 8; Championships: 1; Tier I: 9; Tier II: 5; Tier III: 11; Tier IV: 2; Tier V: 6 Partners with whom has won titles: 4 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1996 Bol (V/LM) 1997 1998 Hobart (V/VRP) Bogota (V/JH), Budapest (V/VRP), Bol (V/ LM), Rome (I/VRP), Maria Lankowitz (V/LM) 1999 Madrid (III/VRP), Sopot (III/LM), Sao Paulo (III/LM) 2000 Bogota (IV/LM), Sao Paulo (IV/LM), Hilton Head (I/VRP), Klagenfurt (III/LM), Sopot (III/ VRP) 2001 Madrid (III/VRP), Roland Garros (Slam/ VRP), Vienna (III/PT) 2002 Canadian Open (I/VRP), U. S. Open Bogota (III/VRP), Acapulco (III/VRP), Rome (Slam/VRP), Bahia (II/VRP) (I/VRP), Roland Garros (Slam/VRP) 2003 New Haven (II/VRP), U. S. Open Charleston (I/VRP), Berlin (I/VRP) Los Angeles (Slam/VRP) (Champ/VRP) 2004 Australian Open (Slam/VRP), Indian Charleston (I/VRP), Roland Garros (Slam/ Luxembourg Wells (I/VRP), U. S. Open (Slam/VRP) VRP) (III/VRP) 2005 Dubai (II/VRP), Indian Wells (I/VRP) Roland Garros (Slam/VRP) 2006 Los Angeles (II/VRP), Beijing (II/ VRP), Seoul (IV/VRP) Partners: JH=Janette Husarova, LM=, PT=, VRP=Virginia Ruano Pascual

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 232 Ai Sugiyama Career Titles: Hardcourt: 19; Clay: 3; Grass: 3; Indoor: 8. Total: 33 By Tier: Slams: 3; Championships: 0; Tier I: 6; Tier II: 14; Tier III: 9; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 1 Partners with whom has won titles: 14 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 2 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1994 Japan Open (III/MD) 1995 Hobart (V/KN) 1996 Japan Open (III/KD) 1997 Princess Cup (II/MS) 1998 Gold Coast (III/EL) Luxembourg (III/EL), Leipzig (II/EL), Philadelphia (II/EL) 1999 Sydney (II/EL) Strasbourg (III/EL) 2000 Sydney (II/JHD), Miami (I/JHD), New Eastbourne (II/NT) Moscow (I/JHD) Haven (II/JHD), U. S. Open (Slam/ JHD), Princess Cup (II/JHD) 2001 Canberra (III/NA), Indian Wells (I/NA) 2002 Memphis (III/ET) 2003 Sydney (II/KC), Scottsdale (II/KC), Roland G (Slam/ Wimbledon (Slam/ Antwerp (II/KC), Zürich San Diego (II/KC) KC) KC) (I/KC), Linz (II/LH) 2004 Canadian Open (I/SA), Bali (III/AM) 2005 Birmingham (III/DH) 2006 Doha (II/DH) Rome (I/DH) Partners: AM=Anastasia Myskina, DH=Daniela Hantuchova, EL= Elena Likhovtseva, ET=Elena Tatarkova, JHD=Julie Halard-Decugis, KC=Kim Clijsters, KD=, KN=Kyoko Nagatsuka, LH=Liezel Huber, MD = Mami Donoshiro, MS=Monica Seles, NA=Nicole Arendt, NT=Nathalie Tauziat, SA=Shinobu Asagoe

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 233 Helena Sukova Career Titles: Hardcourt: 26; Clay: 12; Grass: 5; Indoor: 25. Total: 68 By Tier: Slams: 9; Championships: 1; Tier I: 12; Tier II: 36; Tier III: 10; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles: 21 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 4 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1984 Perugia (II/IB) Sydney (II/CKK) Marco Island (III/HM), Stuttgart (II/CKK) 1985 Los Angeles (I/CKK), U. S. Berlin (II/CKK), Pan Pacific (I/CKK) Open (Slam/CKK) Lugano (III/BG) 1986 Miami (I/PS) Amelia Island (I/CKK), Chicago (II/CKK), Dallas Berlin (II/SG) (II/CKK), Brighton (II/ SG), Hilversum (III/KJ) 1987 Berlin (II/CKK) Wimbledon (Slam/ Bridgestone (I/CKK), CKK) Chicago (II/CKK), Brighton (II/KJ) 1988 San Antonio (II/LM), Pan Pacific (II/PS) Canadian Open (I/JN), Mahwah (II/JN) 1989 Brisbane (III/JN), Boca Raton Wimbledon (Slam/JN) Zürich (II/Novotna) (II/JN), Miami (I/JN) 1990 Brisbane (III/JN), Sydney (II/ Roland G (Slam/JN) Wimbledon (Slam/JN) Brighton (II/NT), JN), Australian Open (Slam/ Worcester (II/GF) JN), Indian Wells (II/JN), Boca Raton (II/JN), Miami (I/JN) 1991 Sydney (II/ASV), Light & Amelia Island (II/ASV) Lively (I/GF) 1992 Sydney (II/ASV), Australian Rome (I/MS) Pan Pacific (II/ASV), Osaka Open (Slam/ASV), Los Angeles (III/RS), Zürich (II/ASV), (II/ASV) Filderstadt (II/ASV), VirginiaS (Champ/ASV) 1993 Indian Wells (II/RS), Stratton Lucerne (III/MJF) Pan Pacific (I/MN), Essen Mountain (II/ES), San Diego (II/ASV) (II/GF), Los Angeles (II/ASV), U. S. Open (Slam/ASV) 1994 1995 Oakland (II/LM), Philadelphia (II/LM) 1996 Karlovy Vary (III/KH) Wimbledon (Slam/MH) Zürich (I/MH) 1997 Strasbourg (III/NZ) Luxembourg (III/LN) 1998 Sydney (II/MH) Partners: ASV=Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, BG=, CKK=Claudia Kohde-Kilsch, ES=Elizabeth Smylie, GF=Gigi Fernandez, HM=Hana Mandlikova, IB=Iva Budarova, JN=Jana Novotna, KH=Karina Habsudova, KJ=Kathy Jordan, LM=Lori McNeil, LN=Larisa Neiland, MH=Martina Hingis, MJF=Mary Joe Fernandez, MN=Martina Navratilova, MS=Monica Seles, NT=Nathalie Tauziat, NZ=Natasha Zvereva, PS=, RS=Rennae Stubbs, SG=Steffi Graf

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 234 Serena Williams Career Titles: Hardcourt: 3; Clay: 1; Grass: 2; Indoor: 4. Total: 10 By Tier: Slams: 6; Championships: 0; Tier I: 1; Tier II: 2; Tier III: 1; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles: 2 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1998 Oklahoma City (III/VW), Zürich (I/VW) 1999 U. S. Open (Slam/VW) Roland G (Slam/VW) Hannover (II/VW) 2000 Wimbledon (Slam/VW) 2001 Australian Open (Slam/VW) 2002 Wimbledon (Slam/VW) Leipzig (II/AS) 2003 Australian Open (Slam/VW) 2004 2005 2006 Partners: AS=, VW=Venus Williams Venus Williams Career Titles: Hardcourt: 3; Clay: 1; Grass: 2; Indoor: 3. Total: 9 By Tier: Slams: 6; Championships: 0; Tier I: 1; Tier II: 1; Tier III: 1; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles: 1 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1998 Oklahoma City (III/SW), Zürich (I/SW) 1999 U. S. Open (Slam/SW) Roland G (Slam/SW) Hannover (II/SW) 2000 Wimbledon (Slam/SW) 2001 Australian Open (Slam/SW) 2002 Wimbledon (Slam/SW) 2003 Australian Open (Slam/SW) 2004 2005 2006 Partners: SW=Serena Williams

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 235 Yan Zi Career Titles: Hardcourt: 4; Clay: 2; Grass: 2; Indoor: 0. Total: 8 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 0; Tier I: 1; Tier II: 1; Tier III: 1; Tier IV: 2; Tier V: 1 Partners with whom has won titles: 1 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 2005 Hobart (V/JZ), Hyderabad (IV/JZ) 2006 Australian Open (Slam/JZ), Berlin (I/JZ), Rabat(IV/JZ) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III/JZ), New Haven (II/JZ) Wimbledon (Slam/JZ) Partners: JZ=Zheng Jie Zheng Jie Career Titles: Hardcourt: 4; Clay: 2; Grass: 2; Indoor: 0. Total: 8 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 0; Tier I: 1; Tier II: 1; Tier III: 1; Tier IV: 2; Tier V: 1 Partners with whom has won titles: 1 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 2005 Hobart (V/ZY), Hyderabad (IV/ ZY) 2006 Australian Open (Slam/ZY), Berlin (I/JZ), Rabat(IV/ ’s-Hertogenbosch (III/ New Haven (II/ZY) ZY) ZY), Wimbledon (Slam/ ZY) Partners: ZY=Yan Zi

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 236 Natasha Zvereva Career Titles: Hardcourt: 24; Clay: 20; Grass: 12; Indoor: 24. Total: 80 By Tier: Slams: 18; Championships: 3; Tier I: 23; Tier II: 29; Tier III: 5; Tier IV: 2; Tier V: 0 Partners with whom has won titles: 12 ¥ Partners with whom has won Slams: 4 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1988 Birmingham (III/LS) Indianapolis (IV/LS) 1989 Amelia Island (II/LN), Birmingham (III/LN) Chicago (II/LN), Roland Garros (Slam/ Moscow (IV/LN) LN) 1990 Light & Lively (II/LN) Birmingham (III/LN), Eastbourne (II/LN) 1991 Boca Raton (I/LN), Canadian Open Hilton Head (I/CKK), Eastbourne (II/LN), Brighton (II/PS) (I/LN), Los Angeles (II/LN), U. S. Berlin (I/LN) Wimbledon (Slam/LN) Open (Slam/PS) 1992 Boca Raton (I/LN), U. S. Open Hilton Head (I/ASV), Wimbledon (Slam/GF) Zürich (II/HS), (Slam/GF) Amelia Island (II/ Oakland (II/GF), ASV), Roland G Philadelphia (II/GF) (Slam/GF) 1993 Australian Open (Slam/GF), Delray Hilton Head (I/GF), Eastboune (II/GF), Leipzig (II/GF), Beach (II/GF), Light ’n Lively (II/ Berlin (I/GF), Roland Wimbledon (Slam/GF) Filderstadt (II/GF), GF) G (Slam/GF) VSlims (Champ/GF) 1994 Australian Open (Slam/GF), Miami Rome (I/GF), Berlin Eastbourne (II/GF), Chicago (II/GF), (I/GF) (I/GF), Roland G Wimbledon (Slam/GF) Filderstadt (II/GF), (Slam/GF) Philadelphia (I/GF), VSlims (Champ/GF) 1995 San Diego (II/GF), Los Angeles (II/ Rome (I/GF) Pan Pacific (I/GF), GF), U. S. Open (Slam/GF) Roland G (Slam/GF) Filderstadt (II/GF) 1996 Los Angeles (II/LD), U. S. Open Pan Pacific (I/GF) (Slam/GF) 1997 Australian Open (Slam/MH), Indian Strasbourg (III/HS), Wimbledon (Slam/GF) Pan Pacific (I/LD), Wells (I/LD), Miami (I/ASV) Roland G (Slam/GF) Moscow (I/ASV) 1998 Indian Wells (I/LD), Stanford (II/ Berlin (I/LD) Filderstadt (II/LD), LD), San Diego (II/LD), Los Angeles Moscow (I/MP), Chase (II/MH) (Champ/LD) 1999 Pan Pacific (I/LD) 2000 Hamburg (II/AK) Hannover (II/ÅC) 2001 2002 Madrid (III/MN) Partners: ÅC=Åsa Carlsson (now Svensson), AK=Anna Kournikova, ASV=Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, CKK=Claudia Kohde- Kilsch, GF=Gigi Fernandez, HS=Helena Sukova, LD=Lindsay Davenport, LN=LS=Larisa (Savchenko) Neiland, MH=Martina Hingis, MN=Martina Navratilova, MP=Mary Pierce, PS=Pam Shriver

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 237 Slam History Singles Slam Winners The following list shows, year by year, who won which Slams, and also shows the Open Era Slam Count for each player. (Note that some players, e.g. Court and King, have earlier Slams; these do not appear in the totals. Also, the Australian Open is always counted as the first Slam of the year even when it was actually the last, i.e. 1978-1985.) Multiple Slam winners shown in Bold Pre-Open Era Australian Open Roland Garros Wimbledon U. S. Open 1884 — — Watson — 1885 — — Watson** — 1886 — — Hillyard(Bingley)* — 1887 — — Dod* Jansell 1888 — — Dod** Townsend* 1889 — — Hillyard* Townsend** 1890 — — Rice* Roosevelt* 1891 — — Dod* Cahill* 1892 — — Dod** Cahill** 1893 — — Dod** Terry* 1894 — — Hillyard* Hellwig* 1895 — — Cooper* J.Atkinson* 1896 — — Cooper** Moore* 1897 — — Hillyard* J.Atkinson* 1898 — — Cooper* J.Atkinson** 1899 — — Hillyard* M.Jones* 1900 — — Hillyard** McAteer* 1901 — — Cooper Sterry* Moore* 1902 — — Robb* M.Jones* 1903 — — Chambers(Douglass)* Moore* 1904 — — Chambers(Douglass)** Sutton* 1905 — — Sutton* Moore* 1906 — — Chambers(Douglass)* Homans* 1907 — — Sutton* Sears* 1908 — — Cooper Sterry* Wallach* 1909 — — Boothby* Hotchkiss* 1910 — — Chambers* Hotchkiss** 1911 — — Chambers** Hotchkiss** 1912 — — Larcombe* Browne* 1913 — — Chambers* Browne** 1914 — — Chambers** Browne** 1915 — — — Mallory(Bjurstedt)* 1916 — — — Mallory(Bjurstedt)** 1917 — — — Mallory(Bjurstedt)** 1918 — — — Mallory(Bjurstedt)** 1919 — — Lenglen* Wightman* 1920 — — Lenglen** Mallory 1921 — — Lenglen** Mallory 1922 Molesworth — Lenglen Mallory 1923 Molesworth — Lenglen Wills 1924 Lance — McKane Wills 1925 Akhurst Lenglen Lenglen Wills 1926 Akhurst Lenglen McKane Godfree Mallory 1927 Boyd Bouman Wills Wills 1928 Akhurst Wills Wills Wills 1929 Akhurst Wills Wills Wills Moody 1930 Akhurst Wills Moody Wills Moody Nuthall

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 238 Australian Open Roland Garros Wimbledon U. S. Open 1931 Buttsworth Aussern Aussern Wills Moody 1932 Buttsworth Wills Moody Wills Moody Jacobs 1933 Hartigan Scriven Wills Moody Jacobs 1934 Hartigan Scriven Round Jacobs 1935 Round Sperling Wills Moody Jacobs 1936 Hartigan Sperling Jacobs Marble 1937 Bolton(Wynne) Sperling Round Lizana 1938 Bundy Mathieu Wills Moody Marble 1939 Westacott Mathieu Marble Marble 1940 Bolton(Wynne) — — Marble 1941 — — — Cooke 1942 — — — Betz 1943 — — — Betz 1944 — — — Betz 1945 — — — Cooke 1946 Bolton duPont(Osborne) Betz Betz 1947 Bolton Todd duPont(Osborne) Brough 1948 Bolton Landry Brough duPont 1949 Hart duPont Brough duPont 1950 Brough Hart Brough duPont 1951 Bolton Fry Hart Connolly 1952 Coyne Long Hart Connolly Connolly 1953 Connolly Connolly Connolly Connolly 1954 Coyne Long Connolly Connolly Hart 1955 Penrose Mortimer Brough Hart 1956 Carter Gibson Fry Fry 1957 Fry Bloomer Gibson Gibson 1958 Mortimer Kormoczi Gibson Gibson 1959 CarterReitano Truman Bueno Bueno 1960 Court(Smith) Hard Bueno Hard 1961 Court(Smith) A.Jones(Haydon) Mortimer Hard 1962 Court(Smith) Court(Smith) Susman Court(Smith) 1963 Court(Smith) Turner Court(Smith) Bueno 1964 Court(Smith) Court(Smith) Bueno Bueno 1965 Court(Smith) Turner Court(Smith) Court(Smith) 1966 Court(Smith) A.Jones King(Moffitt) Bueno 1967 Richey Durr King(Moffitt) King(Moffitt) 1968 King(Moffitt)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 239 Open Era Australian Open Roland Garros Wimbledon U. S. Open 1968 Richey King (1) Wade (1) 1969 Court (1) Court (2) A. Jones Court (3) 1970 Court (4) Court (5) Court (6) Court (7) 1971 Court (8) Goolagong (1) Goolagong (2) King (2) 1972 Wade (2) King (3) King (4) King (5) 1973 Court (9) Court (10) King (6) Court (11) 1974 Goolagong (3) Evert (1) Evert (2) King (7) 1975 Goolagong (4) Evert (3) King (8) Evert (4) 1976 Goolagong Cawley (5) Barker Evert (5) Evert (6) 1977 Reid Jausovec Wade (3) Evert (7) Goolagong Cawley (6) 1978 O’Neil Ruzici Navratilova (1) Evert (8) 1979 B. Jordan Evert Lloyd (9) Navratilova (2) Austin (1) 1980 Mandlikova (1) Evert Lloyd (10) Goolagong Cawley (7) Evert Lloyd (11) 1981 Navratilova (3) Mandlikova (2) Evert Lloyd (12) Austin (2) 1982 Evert Lloyd (13) Navratilova (4) Navratilova (5) Evert Lloyd (14) 1983 Navratilova (6) Evert Lloyd (15) Navratilova (7) Navratilova (8) 1984 Evert Lloyd (16) Navratilova (9) Navratilova (10) Navratilova (11) 1985 Navratilova (12) Evert Lloyd (17) Navratilova (13) Mandlikova (3) 1986 Evert Lloyd (18) Navratilova (14) Navratilova (15) 1987 Mandlikova (4) Graf (1) Navratilova (16) Navratilova (17) 1988 Graf (2) Graf (3) Graf (4) Graf (5) 1989 Graf (6) Sanchez-Vicario (1) Graf (7) Graf (8) 1990 Graf (9) Seles (1) Navratilova (18) Sabatini 1991 Seles (2) Seles (3) Graf (10) Seles (4) 1992 Seles (5) Seles (6) Graf (11) Seles (7) 1993 Seles (8) Graf (12) Graf (13) Graf (14) 1994 Graf (15) Sanchez-Vicario (2) Martinez Sanchez-Vicario (3) 1995 Pierce (1) Graf (16) Graf (17) Graf (18) 1996 Seles (9) Graf (19) Graf (20) Graf (21) 1997 Hingis (1) Majoli Hingis (2) Hingis (3) 1998 Hingis (4) Sanchez-Vicario (4) Novotna Davenport (1) 1999 Hingis (5) Graf (22) Davenport (2) S. Williams (1) 2000 Davenport (3) Pierce (2) V. Williams (1) V. Williams (2) 2001 Capriati (1) Capriati (2) V. Williams (3) V. Williams (4) 2002 Capriati (3) S. Williams (2) S. Williams (3) S. Williams (4) 2003 S. Williams (5) Hénin-Hardenne (1) S. Williams (6) Hénin-Hardenne (2) 2004 Hénin-Hardenne (3) Myskina Sharapova (1) Kuznetsova 2005 S. Williams (7) Hénin-Hardenne (4) V. Williams (5) Clijsters 2006 Mauresmo (1) Hénin-Hardenne (5) Mauresmo (2) Sharapova (2)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 240 Doubles Slam Winners Pre-Open Era Australian Open Roland Garros Wimbledon US Open 1889 — — — Ballard/Townsend 1890 — — — E.Roosevelt/G.Roosevelt 1891 — — — Cahill/Morgan 1892 — — — Cahill/McKinlay 1893 — — — Terry/Butler 1894 — — — Hellwig/J.Atkinson 1895 — — — Hellwig/J.Atkinson 1896 — — — Moore/J.Atkinson 1897 — — — J.Atkinson/K.Atkinson 1898 — — — J.Atkinson/K.Atkinson 1899 — — — Craven/McAteer 1900 — — — Parker/Champlin 1901 — — — J.Atkinson/McAteer 1902 — — — J.Atkinson/M.Jones 1903 — — — Moore/Neely 1904 — — — Sutton/Hall 1905 — — — Homans/Neely 1906 — — — Coe/Platt 1907 — — — Wimer/Neely 1908 — — — Ev.Sears/Curtis 1909 — — — Hotchkiss/Rotch 1910 — — — Hotchkiss/Rotch 1911 — — — Hotchkiss/El.Sears 1912 — — — Browne/Green 1913 — — McNair/Boothby Browne/L.Williams 1914 — — Morton/Ryan Browne/L.Williams 1915 — — — Hotchkiss/El.Sears 1916 — — — Mallory(Bjur.)/El.Sears 1917 — — — Mallory(Bjur.)/El.Sears 1918 — — — Zinderstein/Goss 1919 — — Lenglen/Ryan Zinderstein/Goss 1920 — — Lenglen/Ryan Zinderstein/Goss 1921 — — Lenglen/Ryan Browne/L.Williams 1922 Boyd/Mountain — Lenglen/Ryan Zinderstein Jessup/Wills 1923 Boyd/Harper(Lance) — Lenglen/Ryan McKane/Covell 1924 Akhurst/Harper(Lance) — Wightman/Wills Wightman/Wills 1925 Akhurst/Harper Lenglen/Vlasto Lenglen/Ryan Browne/Wills 1926 Boyd/M.Wood Lenglen/Vlasto Browne/Ryan Ryan/Goss 1927 Bickerton/M.Wood Heine/Peacock Wills/Ryan Godfree/Harvey 1928 Akhurst/Boyd Bennett/Watson Saunders/Watson Wightman/Wills 1929 Akhurst/Bickerton Bouman/de Alvarez Saunders Mitchell/Watson Watson/Saunders Mitchell 1930 Molesworth/Hood Wills Moody/Ryan Wills Moody/Ryan Nuthall/Palfrey 1931 Akhurst Cozens/Bickerton Whittingstall/Nuthall Barron/Mudford Nuthall/Whittingstall 1932 Buttsworth/Cox Wills Moody/Ryan Metaxa/Sigart Jacobs/Palfrey 1933 Molesworth/Hood Mathieu/Ryan Mathieu/Ryan Nuthall/James 1934 Akhurst Cozens/Bickerton Mathieu/Ryan Mathieu/Ryan Jacobs/Palfrey 1935 Dearman/Lyle Scriven/Stammers James/Stammers Jacobs/Palfrey 1936 Coyne/Bolton(Wynne) Mathieu/Yorke James/Stammers Van Ryn/Babcock 1937 Coyne/Bolton(Wynne) Mathieu/Yorke Mathieu/Yorke Palfrey Fabyan/Marble 1938 Coyne/Bolton(Wynne) Mathieu/Yorke Palfrey Fabyan/Marble Palfrey Fabyan/Marble 1939 Coyne/Bolton(Wynne) Mathieu/Jedrzejowska Palfrey Fabyan/Marble Palfrey Fabyan/Marble 1940 Coyne/Bolton(Wynne) — — Palfrey Fabyan/Marble 1941 — — — Palfrey Fab/duPont(Osbo) 1942 — — — Brough/duPont(Osborne)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 241 1943 — — — Brough/duPont(Osborne) 1944 — — — Brough/duPont(Osborne) 1945 — — — Brough/duPont(Osborne) 1946 Fitch/Bevis Brough/duPont(Osborne) Brough/duPont(Osborne) Brough/duPont(Osborne) 1947 Coyne Long/Bolton(Wynne) Brough/duPont(Osborne) Hart/Todd Brough/duPont(Osborne) 1948 Coyne Long/Bolton(Wynne) Hart/Todd Brough/duPont Brough/duPont 1949 Coyne Long/Bolton(Wynne) Brough/duPont Brough/duPont Brough/duPont 1950 Brough/Hart Fry/Hart Brough/duPont Brough/duPont 1951 Coyne Long/Bolton(Wynne) Fry/Hart Fry/Hart Fry/Hart 1952 Coyne Long/Bolton(Wynne) Fry/Hart Fry/Hart Fry/Hart 1953 Connolly/Sampson Fry/Hart Fry/Hart Fry/Hart 1954 Hawton/Penrose Connolly/Hopman Brough/duPont Fry/Hart 1955 Hawton/Penrose Fleitz/Hard Mortimer/Shilock Brough/duPont 1956 Hawton/Coyne Long Buxton/Gibson Buxton/Gibson Brough/duPont 1957 Gibson/Fry Bloomer/Hard Gibson/Hard Brough/duPont 1958 Hawton/Coyne Long Reyes/Ramirez Bueno/Gibson Arth/Hard 1959 Schuurman/S.Reynolds S.Reynolds/Schuurman Arth/Hard Arth/Hard 1960 Bueno/Truman Bueno/Hard Bueno/Hard Bueno/Hard 1961 Reitano/Court(Smith) S.Reynolds/Schuurman Hantze/King(Moffitt) Hard/Turner 1962 Court(Smith)/Ebbern S.ReynoldsPri/Schuurman King(Moff)/Hantze Susman Bueno/Hard 1963 Court(Smith)/Ebbern A.Jones/Schuurman Bueno/Hard Ebbern/Court(Smith) 1964 Tegart Dalton/Turner Court(Smith)/Turner Court(Smith)/Turner King(Mof)/Hantze Susm 1965 Court(Smith)/Turner Court(Smith)/Turner Bueno/King(Moffitt) Graebner/Richey 1966 Graebner/Richey Court(Smith)/Tegart Bueno/Richey Bueno/Richey 1967 Turner/Tegart Dalton Durr/Sheriff Casals/King(Moffitt) Casals/King(Moffitt) 1968 Krantzcke/Reid(Melville)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 242 Open Era Australian Open Roland Garros Wimbledon US Open 1968 Durr/A Jones Casals/King Bueno/Court 1969 Court/Tegart Dalton Durr/A Jones Court/Tegart Dalton Durr/Hard 1970 Court/Tegart Dalton Chanfreau/Durr Casals/King Court/Tegart Dalton 1971 Court/Goolagong Cawley Chanfreau/Durr Casals/King Casals/Tegart Dalton 1972 Gourlay/Harris King/Stove King/Stove Durr/Stove 1973 Court/Wade Court/Wade Casals/King Court/Wade 1974 Goolagong Cawley/Michel Evert/Morozova Goolagong/Michel Casals/King 1975 Goolagong Cawley/Michel Evert/Navratilova Kiyomura/Sawamatsu Court/Wade 1976 Goolagong Cawley/Gourlay Bonicelli/Chanfreau Lovera Evert/Navratilova Boshoff/Kloss 1977 Balestrat/Gourlay* Mariskova/Teeguarden Gourlay Cawley/Russell Navratilova/Stove 1978 Nagelsen/Tomanova Jausovec/Ruzici Reid/Turnbull King/Navratilova 1979 Chaloner/Evers Stove/Turnbull King/Navratilova Stove/Turnbull 1980 Navratilova/Nagelsen K Jordan/A Smith K Jordan/A Smith King/Navratilova 1981 K Jordan/A Smith Fairbank/Harford Navratilova/Shriver K Jordan/A Smith 1982 Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/A Smith Navratilova/Shriver Casals/Turnbull 1983 Navratilova/Shriver Fairbank/Reynolds Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver 1984 Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver 1985 Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver K. Jordan/Smylie Kohde-Kilsch/Sukova 1986 Navratilova/Temesvari Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver 1987 Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver Kohde-Kilsch/Sukova Navratilova/Shriver 1988 Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver Graf/Sabatini G Fernandez/White 1989 Navratilova/Shriver Savchenko/Zvereva Novotna/Sukova Mandlikova/Navratilova 1990 Novotna/Sukova Novotna/Sukova Novotna/Sukova G Fernandez/Navratilova 1991 Fendick/MJ Fernandez G Fernandez/Novotna Savchenko Neiland/Zvereva Shriver/Zvereva 1992 Sanchez-Vicario/Sukova G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva 1993 G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva Sanchez-Vicario/Sukova 1994 G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario 1995 Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario G Fernandez/Zvereva Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario G Fernandez/Zvereva 1996 Rubin/Sanchez-Vicario Davenport/ MJ Fernandez Hingis/Sukova G Fernandez/Zvereva 1997 Hingis/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva Davenport/Novotna 1998 Hingis/Lucic Hingis/Novotna Hingis/Novotna Hingis/Novotna 1999 Hingis/Kournikova Williams/Williams Davenport/Morariu Williams/Williams 2000 Raymond/Stubbs Hingis/Pierce Williams/Williams Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama 2001 Williams/Williams Ruano Pascual/Suárez Raymond/Stubbs Raymond/Stubbs 2002 Hingis/Kournikova Ruano Pascual/Suárez Williams/Williams Ruano Pascual/Suárez 2003 Williams/Williams Clijsters/Sugiyama Clijsters/Sugiyama Ruano Pascual/Suárez 2004 Ruano Pascual/Suárez Ruano Pascual/Suárez Black/Stubbs Ruano Pascual/Suárez 2005 Kuznetsova/Molik Ruano Pascual/Suárez Black/Huber Raymond/Stosur 2006 Yan/Zheng Raymond/Stosur Yan/Zheng Déchy/Zvonareva

* This is the January winner; the “other” Australian Open, in December, had the doubles final rained out

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 243 Men’s Singles Slam Winners Note: * indicates a Slam played in the Challenge Round Era.** indicates a defending champion who won the Challenge Round. Australian Open Roland Garros Wimbledon US Open 1877 — — Gore — 1878 — — Hadow* — 1879 — — Hartley* — 1880 — — Hartley** — 1881 — — W.Renshaw* Sears 1882 — — W.Renshaw** Sears 1883 — — W.Renshaw** Sears 1884 — — W.Renshaw** Sears** 1885 — — W.Renshaw** Sears** 1886 — — W.Renshaw** Sears** 1887 — — Lawford* Sears** 1888 — — E.Renshaw* Slocum* 1889 — — W.Renshaw* Slocum** 1890 — — Hamilton* Campbell* 1891 — — Baddeley* Campbell** 1892 — — Baddeley** Campbell** 1893 — — Pim* Wrenn* 1894 — — Pim** Wrenn** 1895 — — Baddeley* Hovey* 1896 — — Mahony* Wrenn* 1897 — — R.Doherty* Wrenn** 1898 — — R.Doherty** Whitman* 1899 — — R.Doherty** Whitman** 1900 — — R.Doherty** Whitman** 1901 — — Gore* Larned* 1902 — — L.Doherty* Larned** 1903 — — L.Doherty** L.Doherty* 1904 — — L.Doherty** Ward* 1905 Heath — L.Doherty** Wright* 1906 Wilding — L.Doherty** Clothier* 1907 Rice — Brookes* Larned* 1908 Alexander — Gore* Larned** 1909 Wilding — Gore** Larned** 1910 Heath — Wilding* Larned** 1911 Brookes — Wilding** Larned 1912 Parke — Wilding** McLoughlin 1913 Parker — Wilding** McLoughlin 1914 A.Wood — Brookes* Williams 1915 Lowe — — Johnston 1916 — — — Williams 1917 — — — Murray 1918 — — — Murray 1919 Kingscote — Patterson* Johnston 1920 P.Wood — Tilden* Tilden 1921 Gemmel — Tilden** Tilden 1922 Anderson — Patterson Tilden 1923 P.Wood — Johnston Tilden 1924 Anderson — Borotra Tilden 1925 Anderson Lacoste Tilden 1926 Hawkes Cochet Borotra Lacoste 1927 Patterson Lacoste Cochet Lacoste 1928 Borotra Cochet Lacoste Cochet

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 244 1929 Gregory Lacoste Cochet Tilden 1930 Moon Cochet Tilden Doeg 1931 Crawford Borotra S.Wood Vines 1932 Crawford Cochet Vines Vines 1933 Crawford Crawford Crawford Perry 1934 Perry von Cramm Perry Perry 1935 Crawford Perry Perry Allison 1936 Quist von Cramm Perry Perry 1937 McGrath Henkel Budge Budge 1938 Budge Budge Budge Budge 1939 Bromwich McNeill Riggs Riggs 1940 Quist — — McNeill 1941 — — — Riggs 1942 — — — Schroeder 1943 — — — Hunt 1944 — — — Parker 1945 — — — Parker 1946 Bromwich Bernard Petra Kramer 1947 Pails Asboth Kramer Kramer 1948 Quist Parker Falkenburg Gonzalez 1949 Sedgman Parker Schroeder Gonzalez 1950 Sedgman Patty Patty Larsen 1951 Savitt Drobny Savitt Sedgman 1952 McGregor Drobny Sedgman Sedgman 1953 Rosewall Rosewall Seixas Trabert 1954 Rose Trabert Drobny Seixas 1955 Rosewall Trabert Trabert Trabert 1956 Hoad Hoad Hoad Rosewall 1957 Cooper Davidson Hoad Anderson 1958 Cooper Rose Cooper Cooper 1959 Olmedo Pietrangeli Olmedo Fraser 1960 Laver Pietrangeli Fraser Fraser 1961 Emerson Santana Laver Emerson 1962 Laver Laver Laver Laver 1963 Emerson Emerson McKinley Osuna 1964 Emerson Santana Emerson Emerson 1965 Emerson Stolle Emerson Santana 1966 Emerson Roche Santana Stolle 1967 Emerson Emerson Newcombe Newcombe 1968 Bowrey ***** ***** ***** 1968 ***** Rosewall (1) Laver (1) Ashe (1)+(Amateur:Ashe) 1969 Laver (2) Laver (3) Laver (4) Laver (5)+(Amateur:S.Smith) 1970 Ashe (2) Kodes (1) Newcombe (1) Rosewall (2) 1971 Rosewall (3) Kodes (2) Newcombe (2) S.Smith (1) 1972 Rosewall (4) Gimeno S.Smith (2) Nastase (1) 1973 Newcombe (3) Nastase (2) Kodes (3) Newcombe (4) 1974 Connors (1) Borg (1) Connors (2) Connors (3) 1975 Newcombe (5) Borg (2) Ashe (3) Orantes 1976 Edmondson Panatta Borg (3) Connors (4) 1977 Tanner+Gerulaitis Vilas (1) Borg (4) Vilas (2) 1978 Vilas (3) Borg (5) Borg (6) Connors (5) 1979 Vilas (4) Borg (7) Borg (8) McEnroe (1) 1980 Teacher Borg (9) Borg (10) McEnroe (2) 1981 Kriek Borg (11) McEnroe (3) McEnroe (4) 1982 Kriek Wilander (1) Connors (6) Connors (7) 1983 Wilander (2) Noah McEnroe (5) Connors (8) 1984 Wilander (3) Lendl (1) McEnroe (6) McEnroe (7)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 245 1985 Edberg (1) Wilander (4) Becker (1) Lendl (2) 1986 Lendl (3) Becker (2) Lendl (4) 1987 Edberg (2) Lendl (5) Cash Lendl (6) 1988 Wilander (5) Wilander (6) Edberg (3) Wilander (7) 1989 Lendl (7) Chang Becker (3) Becker (4) 1990 Lendl (8) Gomez Edberg (4) Sampras (1) 1991 Becker (5) Courier (1) Stich Edberg (5) 1992 Courier (2) Courier (3) Agassi (1) Edberg (6) 1993 Courier (4) Bruguera (1) Sampras (2) Sampras (3) 1994 Sampras (4) Bruguera (2) Sampras (5) Agassi (2) 1995 Agassi (3) Muster Sampras (6) Sampras (7) 1996 Becker (6) Kafelnikov (1) Krajicek Sampras (8) 1997 Sampras (9) Kuerten (1) Sampras (10) Rafter (1) 1998 Korda Moya Sampras (11) Rafter (2) 1999 Kafelnikov (2) Agassi (4) Sampras (12) Agassi (5) 2000 Agassi (6) Kuerten (2) Sampras (13) Safin 2001 Agassi (7) Kuerten (3) Ivanisevic Hewitt (1) 2002 Johansson Costa Hewitt (2) Sampras (14) 2003 Agassi (8) Ferrero Federer (1) Roddick 2004 Federer (2) Gaudio Federer (3) Federer (4) 2005 Safin (2) Nadal (1) Federer (5) Federer (6) 2006 Federer (7) Nadal (2) Federer (8) Federer (9)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 246 Men’s Doubles Slam Winners Australian Open Roland Garros Wimbledon US Open 1881 — — — Clark/Taylor 1882 — — — R.Sears/Dwight 1883 — — — R.Sears/Dwight 1884 — — E.Renshaw/W.Renshaw R.Sears/Dwight 1885 — — E.Renshaw/W.Renshaw** R.Sears/Dwight 1886 — — E.Renshaw/W.Renshaw** R.Sears/Dwight 1887 — — Lyon/Wilberforce* R.Sears/Dwight 1888 — — E.Renshaw/W.Renshaw* Campbell/Hall 1889 — — E.Renshaw/W.Renshaw** Slocum/Taylor 1890 — — Pim/Stoker* Hall/Hobart 1891 — — H.Baddeley/W.Baddeley* Campbell/Huntington 1892 — — Barlow/Lewis* Campbell/Huntington 1893 — — Pim/Stoker* Hobart/Hovey 1894 — — H.Baddeley/W.Baddeley* Hobart/Hovey 1895 — — H.Baddeley/W.Baddeley** Chace/Wrenn 1896 — — H.Baddeley/W.Baddeley** C.Neel/S.Neel 1897 — — L.Doherty/R.Doherty* Ware/Sheldon 1898 — — L.Doherty/R.Doherty** Ware/Sheldon 1899 — — L.Doherty/R.Doherty** Ward/Davis 1900 — — L.Doherty/R.Doherty** Davis/Ward 1901 — — L.Doherty/R.Doherty** Davis/Ward 1902 — — Si.Smith/Riseley* L.Doherty/R.Doherty 1903 — — L.Doherty/R.Doherty* L.Doherty/R.Doherty 1904 — — L.Doherty/R.Doherty** Ward/Wright 1905 Lycett/Tachell — L.Doherty/R.Doherty** Ward/Wright 1906 Heath/Wilding — Si.Smith/Riseley* Ward/Wright 1907 Gregg/Parker — Brookes/Wilding* F.Alexander/Hackett 1908 F.Alexander/Dunlop — Ritchie/Wilding* F.Alexander/Hackett 1909 Keane/Parker — Gore/Barrett* F.Alexander/Hackett 1910 Campbell/Rice — Ritchie/Wilding* F.Alexander/Hackett 1911 Heath/Lycett — Gobert/Decugis* Little/Touchard 1912 Parke/Dixon — Barrett/Dixon* McLoughlin/Bundy 1913 Hedermann/Parker — Barrett/Dixon** McLoughlin/Bundy 1914 Campbell/Patterson — Brookes/Wilding* McLoughlin/Bundy 1915 Rice/Todd — — Johnston/Griffin 1916 — — — Johnston/Griffin 1917 — — — F.Alexander/Throckmortn 1918 — — — Richards/Tilden 1919 P.Wood/Thomas — Thomas/P.Wood* Brookes/Patterson 1920 P.Wood/Thomas — Williams/Garland* Johnston/Griffin 1921 Eaton/Gemmell — Lycett/Woosnam* Richards/Tilden 1922 Hawkes/Patterson — J.Anderson/Lycett Richards/Tilden 1923 P/Wood/St.John — Godfree/Lycett Norton/Tilden 1924 J.Anderson/Brooks — Hunter/Richards H.Kinsey/R.Kinsey 1925 P.Wood/Patterson Borotra/Lacoste Borotra/Lacoste Richards/Williams 1926 Hawkes/Patterson Richards/Kinsey Brugnon/Cochet Richards/Williams 1927 Hawks/Patterson Cochet/Brugnon Hunter/Tilden Hunter/Tilden 1928 Borotra/Brugnon Borotra/Brugnon Brugnon/Cochet Hennessy/Lott 1929 Crawford/Hopman Lacoste/Borotra Allison/Van Ryn Doeg/Lott 1930 Crawford/Hopman Cochet/Brugnon Allison/Van Ryn Doeg/Lott 1931 Donohoe/Dunlop Lott/Van Ryn Lott/Van Ryn Allison/Van Ryn 1932 Crawford/Moon Cochet/Brugnon Borotra/Brugnon Gledhill/Vines 1933 Gledhill/Vines Hughes/Perry Borotra/Brugnon Lott/Stoefen 1934 Perry/Hughes Borotra/Brugnon Lott/Stoefan Lott/Stoefen 1935 Crawford/McGrath Crawford/Quist Crawford/Quist Allison/Van Ryn

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 247 1936 Quist/Turnbull Borotra/Bernard Hughes/Tuckey Budge/Mako 1937 Quist/Turnbull von Cramm/Henkel Budge/Mako von Cramm/Henkel 1938 Bromwich/Quist Destremau/Petra Budge/Mako Budge/Mako 1939 Bromwich/Quist McNeill/Harris Cooke/Riggs Bromwich/Quist 1940 Bromwich/Quist — — Kramer/Schroeder 1941 — — — Kramer/Schroeder 1942 — — — Mulloy/Talbert 1943 — — — Kramer/Parker 1944 — — — McNeill/Falkenburg 1945 — — — Mulloy/Talbert 1946 Bromwich/Quist Bernard/Petra Brown/Kramer Mulloy/Talbert 1947 Bromwich/Quist Fannin/Sturgess Falkenburg/Kramer Kramer/Schroeder 1948 Bromwich/Quist Bergelin/Drobny Bromwich/Sedgman Mulloy/Talbert 1949 Bromwich/Quist Gonzalez/Parker Gonzalez/Parker Bromwich/Sidwell 1950 Bromwich/Quist Talbert/Trabert Bromwich/Quist Bromwich/Sedgman 1951 McGregor/Sedgman McGregor/Sedgman McGregor/Sedgman McGregor/Sedgman 1952 McGregor/Sedgman McGregor/Sedgman McGregor/Sedgman Rose/Seixas 1953 Hoad/Rosewall Hoad/Rosewall Hoad/Rosewall Hartwig/Rose 1954 Hartwig/Rose Seixas/Trabert Hartwig/Rose Seixas/Trabert 1955 Seixas/Trabert Seixas/Trabert Hartwig/Hoad Kamo/Miyagi 1956 Hoad/Rosewall Candy/Perry Hoad/Rosewall Hoad/Rosewall 1957 Fraser/Hoad M.Anderson/Cooper Patty/Mulloy Cooper/Fraser 1958 Cooper/Fraser Cooper/Fraser Davidson/Schmidt Olmedo/Richardson 1959 Laver/Mark Sirola/Pietrangeli Emerson/Fraser Emerson/Fraser 1960 LaverMark Emerson/Fraser Osuna/Ralston Emerson/Fraser 1961 Laver/Mark Emerson/Laver Emerson/Fraser McKinley/Ralston 1962 Emerson/Fraser Emerson/Fraser B.Hewitt/F.Stolle Osuna/Palafox 1963 B.Hewitt/F.Stolle Emerson/Santana Osuna/Palafox McKinley/Ralston 1964 B.Hewitt/F.Stolle Emerson/Fletcher B.Hewitt/F.Stolle McKinley/Ralston 1965 Newcombe/Roche Emerson/F.Stolle Newcombe/Roche Emerson/F.Stolle 1966 Emerson/F.Stolle Graebner/Ralston Fletcher/Newcombe Emerson/F.Stolle 1967 Newcombe/Roche Newcombe/Roche B.Hewitt/McMillan Newcombe/Roche 1968 Crealy/Stone ***** ***** ***** 1968 ***** Rosewall/F.Stolle Newcombe/Roche Lutz/S.Smith 1969 Emerson/Laver Newcombe/Roche Newcombe/Roche Rosewall/F.Stolle 1970 Lutz/S.Smith Nastase/Tiriac Newcombe/Roche Barthes/Pilic 1971 Newcombe/Roche Ashe/Riessen Emerson/Laver Newcombe/Taylor 1972 Davidson/Rosewall B.Hewitt/McMillan B.Hewitt/McMillan Drysdale/Taylor 1973 M.Anderson/Newcombe Newcombe/Okker Connors/Nastase Davidson/Newcombe 1974 Case/Masters Crealy/Parun Newcombe/Roche Lutz/S.Smith 1975 J.Alexander/Dent Gottfried/Ramirez Gerulaitis/A.Mayer Connors/Nastase 1976 Newcombe/Roche McNair/Stewart Gottfried/Ramirez Okker/Riessen 1977 Ashe/Roche + Ruffels/Stone Gottfried/Ramirez Case/Masters B.Hewitt/McMillan 1978 Fibak/Warwick G.Mayer/Pfister B.Hewitt/McMillan Lutz/S.Smith 1979 McNamara/McNamee A.Mayer/G.Mayer Fleming/J.McEnroe Fleming/J.McEnroe 1980 Edmondson/Warwick Amaya/Pfister McNamara/McNamee Lutz/S.Smith 1981 Edmondson/Warwick Gunthardt/Taroczy Fleming/J.McEnroe Fleming/J.McEnroe 1982 J.Alexander/Fitzgerald Stewart/Taygan McNamara/McNamee Curren/Denton 1983 Edmondson/McNamee Jarryd/Simonsson Fleming/J.McEnroe Fleming/J.McEnroe 1984 Edmondson/Stewart Leconte/Noah Fleming/J.McEnroe Fitzgerald/Smid 1985 Annacone/Van Rensburg Edmondson/Warwick Gunthardt/Taroczy Flach/Seguso 1986 Fitzgerald/Smid Nystrom/Wilander Gomez/Zivojinovic 1987 Edberg/Jarryd Jarryd/Seguso Flach/Seguso Edberg/Jarryd 1988 Leach/Pugh Gomez/E.Sanchez Flach/Seguso Casal/E.Sanchez 1989 Leach/Pugh Grabb/P.McEnroe Fitzgerald/Jarryd J.McEnroe/Woodforde 1990 Aldrich/Visser Casal/E.Sanchez Leach/Pugh Aldrich/Visser 1991 Davis/Pate Fitzgerald/Jarryd Fitzgerald/Jarryd Fitzgerald/Jarryd

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 248 1992 Woodbridge/Woodforde Hlasek/Rosset J.McEnroe/Stich Grabb/Reneberg 1993 Visser/Warder L.Jensen/M.Jensen Woodbridge/Woodforde Flach/Leach 1994 Eltingh/Haarhuis B. Black/Stark Woodbridge/Woodforde Eltingh/Haarhuis 1995 Palmer/Reneberg Eltingh/Haarhuis Woodbridge/Woodforde Woodbridge/Woodforde 1996 Edberg/Korda Kafelnikov/Vacek Woodbridge/Woodforde Woodbridge/Woodforde 1997 Woodbridge/Woodforde Kafelnikov/Vacek Woodbridge/Woodforde Kafelnikov/Vacek 1998 Björkman/Eltingh Eltingh/Haarhuis Eltingh/Haarhuis S.Stolle/Suk 1999 Björkman/Rafter Bhupathi/Paes Bhupathi/Paes Lareau/O’Brien 2000 E.Ferreira/Leach Woodbridge/Woodforde Woodbridge/Woodforde L.Hewitt/Mirnyi 2001 Björkman/Woodbridge Bhupathi/Paes Johnson/Palmer W. Black/Ullyett 2002 Knowles/Nestor Haarhuis/Kafelnikov Björkman/Woodbridge Bhupathi/Mirnyi 2003 Llodra/Santoro Bryan/Bryan Björkman/Woodbridge Björkman/Woodbridge 2004 Llodra/Santoro Malisse/O. Rochus Björkman/Woodbridge Knowles/Nestor 2005 W. Black/Ullyett Björkman/Mirnyi Huss/Moodie Bryan/Bryan 2006 Bryan/Bryan Björkman/Mirnyi Bryan/Bryan Damm/Paes

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 249 Mixed Doubles Slam Winners (Since 1982) Australian Open1 Roland Garros Wimbledon US Open 1982 — Turnbull/Lloyd A. Smith/Curren A. Smith/Curren 1983 — B. Jordan/Teltscher Turnbull/Lloyd Smylie/Fitzgerald 1984 — A. Smith/Stockton Turnbull/Lloyd Man. Maleeva/TomGullickson 1985 — Navratilova/Gunthardt Navratilova/McNamee Navratilova/Gunthardt 1986 — K.Jordan/Flach K. Jordan/Flach Reggi/Casal 1987 Garrison/Stewart Shriver/E. Sanchez Durie/Bates Navratilova/E. Sanchez 1988 Novotna/Pugh McNeil/Lozano Garrison/Stewart Novotna/Pugh 1989 Novotna/Pugh Bollegraf/Nijssen Novotna/Pugh White/Cannon 1990 Zvereva/Pugh Sanchez-Vicario/Lozano Garrison/Leach Smylie/Woodbridge 1991 Durie/Bates Sukova/Suk Smylie/Fitzgerald Bollegraf/Nijssen 1992 Provis/Woodforde Sanchez-Vicario/WoodbridgeNeiland/Suk Provis/Woodforde 1993 Sanchez-Vicario/Woodbridge Manutokova/Olhovskiy Navratilova/Woodforde Sukova/Woodbridge 1994 Neiland/Olhovskiy Boogert/Oosting Sukova/Woodbridge Reinach/Galbraith 1995 Zvereva/Leach Neiland/Woodforde Navratilova/Stark McGrath/Lucena 1996 Neiland/Woodforde Tarabini/Frana Sukova/Suk Raymond/Galbraith 1997 Bollegraf/Leach Hiraki/Bhupathi Sukova/Suk Bollegraf/Leach 1998 V. Williams/Gimelstob V. Williams/Gimelstob S. Williams/Mirnyi S. Williams/Mirnyi 1999 de Swardt/Adams Srebotnik/Norval Raymond/Paes Sugiyama/Bhupathi 2000 Stubbs/Palmer de Swardt/Adams Po/Johnson Sanchez-Vicario/Palmer 2001 Morariu/E. Ferreira Ruano Pascual/Carbonell Hantuchova/Friedl Stubbs/Woodbridge 2002 Hantuchova/Ullyett C. Black/W. Black Likhovtseva/Bhupathi Raymond/M. Bryan 2003 Navratilova/Paes Raymond/M. Bryan Navratilova/Paes Srebotnik/B. Bryan 2004 Bovina/Zimonjic Golovin/Gasquet C. Black/W. Black Zvonareva/B. Bryan 2005 Stosur/Hanley Hantuchova/Santoro Pierce/Bhupathi Hantuchova/Bhupathi 2006 Hingis/Bhupathi Srebotnik/Zimonjic Ram/Zvonareva Navratilova/B. Bryan

1. There was no mixed doubles at the Australian Open from 1969Ð1986

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 250 Singles and Doubles at the Same Slam (Open Era) It’s tough enough to win one part of a Slam. Winning singles and doubles is that much harder. The following list shows, year by year, the players who have won both. The first name in each column is, of course, the player who won both; the second name is her doubles partner. Australian Open Roland Garros Wimbledon US Open 1968 King w/Casals 1969 Court w/Tegart Dalton 1970 Court w/Tegart Dalton Court w/Tegart Dalton 1971 Court w/Goolagong 1972 King w/Stove King w/Stove 1973 Court w/Wade Court w/Wade King w/Casals Court w/Wade 1974 Goolagong w/Michel Evert w/Morozova King w/Casals 1975 Goolagong w/Michel Evert w/Navratilova 1976 Goolagong w/Gourlay Evert w/Navratilova 1977 1978 Ruzici w/Jausovec 1979 Navratilova w/King 1980 1981 1982 Navratilova w/A. Smith Navratilova w/Shriver 1983 Navratilova w/Shriver Navratilova w/Shriver Navratilova w/Shriver 1984 Navratilova w/Shriver Navratilova w/Shriver Navratilova w/Shriver 1985 Navratilova w/Shriver 1986 Navratilova w/Shriver Navratilova w/Shriver 1987 Navratilova w/Shriver 1988 Graf w/Sabatini 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Sanchez-Vicario w/Novot 1995 1996 1997 Hingis w/Zvereva 1998 Hingis w/Lucic Novotna w/Hingis 1999 Hingis w/Kournikova Davenport w/Morariu S. Williams w/Williams 2000 Pierce w/Hingis V. Williams w/Williams 2001 2002 S. Williams w/Williams 2003 S. Williams w/Williams 2004 2005 2006

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 251 Doubles Slams and Partners The following tables show, for most of the major doubles players of the Open Era, the Slams they won and the partners with whom they won them. The emphasis has been placed on “career Slammers” — players who won all four Slams in their doubles careers. Grand Slams are shown in Bold Rosie Casals Australian French Wimbledon USO 1968 King 1969 1970 King 1971 King Tegart Dalton 1972 1973 King 1974 King 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Turnbull

Margaret Court Australian French Wimbledon USO 1968 Bueno 1969 Tegart Dalton Tegart Dalton 1970 Tegart Dalton Tegart Dalton 1971 Goolagong Cawley 1972 1973 Wade Wade Wade 1974 1975 Wade

Judy Tegart Dalton Australian French Wimbledon USO 1969 Court Court 1970 Court Court 1971 Casals

Francoise Durr Australian French Wimbledon USO 1968 AJones 1969 AJones Hard 1970 Chanfreau 1971 Chanfreau 1972 Stove

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 252 Gigi Fernandez Australian French Wimbledon USO 1988 White 1989 1990 Navratilova 1991 Novotna 1992 Zvereva Zvereva Zvereva 1993 Zvereva Zvereva Zvereva 1994 Zvereva Zvereva Zvereva 1995 Zvereva Zvereva 1996 Zvereva 1997 Zvereva Zvereva

Evonne Goolagong (Cawley) Australian French Wimbledon USO 1971 Court 1972 1973 1974 Michel Michel 1975 Michel 1976 Gourlay

Martina Hingis Australian French Wimbledon USO 1996 Sukova 1997 Zvereva 1998 Lucic Novotna Novotna Novotna 1999 Kournikova 2000 Pierce 2001 2002 Kournikova

Kathy Jordan Australian French Wimbledon USO 1980 A. Smith A. Smith 1981 A. Smith A. Smith 1982 1983 1984 1985 Smylie

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 253 Australian French Wimbledon USO 1968 Casals 1969 1970 Casals 1971 Casals 1972 Stove Stove 1972 1973 Casals 1974 Casals 1975 1976 1977 1978 Navratilova 1979 Navratilova 1980 Navratilova

Martina Navratilova Australian French Wimbledon USO 1975 Evert 1976 Evert 1977 Stove 1978 King 1979 King 1980 Nagelson King 1981 Shriver 1982 Shriver ASmith Shriver 1983 Shriver Shriver Shriver 1984 Shriver Shriver Shriver Shriver 1985 Shriver Shriver 1986 Temesvari Shriver Shriver 1987 Shriver Shriver Shriver 1988 Shriver Shriver 1989 Shriver Mandlikova 1990 GFernandez

Jana Novotna Australian French Wimbledon USO 1989 Sukova 1990 Sukova Sukova Sukova 1991 1992 GFernandez 1993 1994 Sanchez-Vicario 1995 Sanchez-Vicario Sanchez-Vicario 1996 1997 Davenport 1998 Hingis Hingis Hingis

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 254 Lisa Raymond Australian French Wimbledon USO 2000 Stubbs 2001 Stubbs Stubbs 2002 2003 2004 2005 Stosur 2006 Stosur

Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario Australian French Wimbledon USO 1992 Sukova 1993 Sukova 1994 Novotna 1995 Novotna Novotna 1996 Rubin Pam Shriver Australian French Wimbledon USO 1981 Navratilova 1982 Navratilova Navratilova 1983 Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova 1984 Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova 1985 Navratilova Navratilova 1986 Navratilova Navratilova 1987 Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova 1988 Navratilova Navratilova 1989 Navratilova 1990 1991 Zvereva

Anne Smith Australian French Wimbledon USO 1980 Jordan Jordan 1981 Jordan Jordan 1982 Navratilova

Helena Sukova Australian French Wimbledon USO 1985 Kohde-Kilsch 1986 1987 Kohde-Kilsch 1988 1989 Novotna 1990 Novotna Novotna Novotna 1991 1992 ASV 1993 ASV 1994 1995 1996 Hingis

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 255 Australian French Wimbledon USO 1978 Reid 1979 Stove Stove 1980 1981 1982 Casals

Venus or Serena Williams Australian French Wimbledon USO 1999 Williams Williams 2000 Williams 2001 Williams 2002 Williams 2003 Williams

Natasha Zvereva Australian French Wimbledon USO 1989 Savchenko 1990 1991 Savchenko Neiland Shriver 1992 GFernandez GFernandez GFernandez 1993 GFernandez GFernandez GFernandez 1994 GFernandez GFernandez GFernandez 1995 GFernandez GFernandez 1996 GFernandez 1997 Hingis GFernandez GFernandez

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 256 Grand Slams and Career Slams A “Grand Slam” consists of winning all four Slams in a single year — a rare accomplishment indeed. A “Career Slam” consists of winning all four Slams at some time in one’s career, though not all in one year. The following lists summarize the Career Slams for Women in the Open Era. Grand Slams, Singles, Open Era1 , 1970 , 19882

Career Slams, Singles, Open Era3 Margaret Court (Grand Slam, 1970) Steffi Graf (Grand Slam, 1988) — Australian Open 1982, 1984 Roland Garros 1974, 1975, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1986 Wimbledon 1974, 1976, 1981 U. S. Open 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982 Martina Navratilova4 — Australian Open 1981, 1983, 1985 Roland Garros 1982, 1984 Wimbledon 1978, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990 U. S. Open 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987 Serena Williams5 — Australian Open 2003, 2005 Roland Garros 2002 Wimbledon 2002, 2003 U. S. Open 1999, 2002

Grand Slams, Doubles, Open Era, team Martina Navratilova/Pam Shriver, 1984

Grand Slams, Doubles, Open Era, individual6 Martina Navratilova, 1984 (with Pam Shriver) Pam Shriver, 1984 (with Martina Navratilova)7 Martina Hingis, 1998 (with Mirjana Lucic, Australian Open, and Jana Novotna, other 3 Slams)8

Career Slams, Doubles, Open Era, team9 Martina Navratilova/Pam Shriver (20 Slams as a team) Gigi Fernandez/Natasha Zvereva (14 Slams as a team) Kathy Jordan/ (4 Slams as a team) Venus Williams/Serena Williams (6 Slams as a team)

1. also won a Grand Slam before the Open Era 2. Steffi Graf is the only player, man or woman, to win the singles Grand Slam in the four-surfaces era 3. Maureen Connolly, , and had Career Slams before the Open Era. Billie Jean King won a Career Slam partly in the Open Era, but her only Australian Open title was pre-Open Era. 4. Martina Navratilova has a non-calendar Grand Slam in 1983Ð1984: Wim 83, USO 83, AO 83, RG 84, Wim 84, USO 84 5. Serena Williams had a non-calendar Grand Slam in 2002Ð2003: RG 02, Wi 02, USO 02, AO 03 6. also won a Grand Slam in doubles before the Open Era 7. Navratilova and Shriver are the only team to win a Grand Slam together in the Open Era 8. Hingis is the only player to win a multi-partner Grand Slam in the Open Era (Bueno did it before the Open Era) Hingis also has the only doubles Grand Slam in the four-surface era. 9. Margaret Court and Judy Tegart Dalton won a Career Slam as a team, but their only Roland Garros title was before the Open Era

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 257 Career Slams, Doubles, Open Era, with partners, individual1 Martina Navratilova (Grand Slam, 1984) Pam Shriver (Grand Slam, 1984) Martina Hingis (Grand Slam, 1998) Margaret Court — Australian Open 1969, 1970 (Tegart Dalton), 1971 (Goolagong Cawley), 1973 (Wade) Roland Garros 1973 (Wade) Wimbledon 1969 (Tegart Dalton) U.S. Open 1970 (Tegart Dalton) Gigi Fernandez — Australian Open 1993, 1994 (Zvereva) Roland Garros 1991 (Novotna), 1992-1995, 1997 (Zvereva) Wimbledon 1992-1994, 1997 (Zvereva) U.S. Open 1988 (White), 1990 (Navratilova), 1992, 1995, 1996 (Zvereva) Kathy Jordan — Australian Open 1981 (A. Smith) Roland Garros 1980 (A. Smith) Wimbledon 1980 (A. Smith), 1985 (Smylie) U. S. Open 1981 (A. Smith) Jana Novotna — Australian Open 1990 (Sukova), 1995 (Sanchez-Vicario) Roland Garros 1990 (Sukova), 1991 (G. Fernandez), 1998 (Hingis) Wimbledon 1989, 1990 (Sukova), 1995 (Sanchez-Vicario), 1998 (Hingis) U. S. Open 1994 (Sanchez-Vicario), 1997 (Davenport), 1998 (Hingis) Anne Smith — Australian Open 1981 (Jordan) Roland Garros 1980 (Jordan), 1982 (Navratilova) Wimbledon 1980 (Jordan) U. S. Open 1981 (Jordan) Lisa Raymond — Australian Open 2000 (Stubbs) Roland Garros 2006 (Stosur) Wimbledon 2001 (Stubbs) U. S. Open 2001 (Stubbs), 2005 (Stosur) Helena Sukova — Australian Open 1990 (Novotna), 1992 (Sanchez-Vicario) Roland Garros 1990 (Novotna) Wimbledon 1987 (Kohde-Kilsch), 1989, 1990 (Novotna), 1996 (Hingis) U. S. Open 1985 (Kohde-Kilsch), 1993 (Sanchez-Vicario) Venus/Serena Williams —Australian Open 2001 (Williams), 2003 (Williams) Roland Garros 1999 (Williams) Wimbledon 2000 (Williams), 2002 (Williams) U. S. Open 1999 (Williams) Natasha Zvereva — Australian Open 1993, 1994 (G. Fernandez), 1997 (Hingis) Roland Garros 1989 (Savchenko), 1992-1995, 1997 (G. Fernandez) Wimbledon 1991 (Savchenko Nieland), 1992-1994, 1997 (G. Fernandez) U.S. Open 1991 (Shriver), 1992, 1995, 1996 (G. Fernandez)

1. , Maria Bueno, Shirley Fry, Doris Hart, and Lesley Turner Bowrey also had Career Slams before the Open Era. Judy Tegart Dalton won a career Slam partly in the Open Era, but her only Roland Garros title was before the Open Era

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 258 Total Slam Victories, Open Era Note that many of these players (e.g. Court, King) also won Slams before the Open Era. These Slams are not counted (e.g. Court had 24 total singles Slams, but 13 were before the Open Era, so she is listed as having 11 Open Era Slam titles) Singles Doubles — Multiple Winners Doubles — One-Time Winners 22 Steffi Graf 31 Martina Navratilova 1 Dianne Balestrat 18 Chris Evert 21 Pam Shriver Fiorella Bonicelli Martina Navratilova 18 Natasha Zvereva Delina Boshoff* 11 Margaret Court 17 Gigi Fernandez Maria Bueno 9Monica Seles 12 Jana Novotna Judy Chaloner* 8 Billie Jean King 10 Margaret Court Nathalie Déchy* 7 Billie Jean King * Serena Williams 9Martina Hingis Patty Fendick 5 Justine Hénin-Hardenne Helena Sukova Steffi Graf* Martina Hingis 8 Virginia Ruano Pascual Julie Halard-Decugis Venus Williams Paola Suárez 4 Hana Mandlikova 7 Rosie Casals Liezel Huber Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 6 Francoise Durr 3 Jennifer Capriati Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario Lindsay Davenport Betty Stove Mima Jausovic* Serena Williams Anne Kiyomura* 2 Venus Williams * Amélie Mauresmo 5 Judy Tegart Dalton Svetlana Kuznetsova* Mary Pierce Evonne Goolagong Cawley Mirjana Lucic Maria Sharapova Kathy Jordan Hana Mandlikova 1 Lisa Raymond Regina Mariskova* Kim Clijsters Anne Smith Alicia Molik* Mima Jausovec 4 Cawley Corina Morariu Anne Jones Rennae Stubbs Wendy Turnbull Mary Pierce Svetlana Kuznetsova Virginia Wade Reid 3 Lindsay Davenport Conchita Martinez Chris Evert Chanda Rubin Anastasia Myskina Gail Chanfreau Lovera JoAnne Russell Jana Novotna * Chris O’Neil Ai Sugiyama Gabriela Sabatini* 2 Cara Black Kazuko Sawamatsu* Kerry Melville Reid Kim Clijsters Elizabeth Smylie Virginia Ruzici Rosalyn Fairbank * Gabriela Sabatini Mary Joe Fernandez Andrea Temesvari Ann Haydon Jones Renata Tomanova Claudia Kohde-Kilsch Robin White Anna Kournikova Vera Zvonareva* Betsy Nagelson Larisa Savchenko Neiland * Part of a “One Slam Wonder” Samantha Stosur team, i.e. one where each won Yan Zi only one doubles Slam Zheng Jie

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 259 Players and Titles Players with Titles, Year by Year The following list shows, year by year, all the players with titles in a given year, and the number of titles for each player. (Note: Prior to 1993, the season was considered to start before the beginning of the calendar year, and prior to 1986, multiple years are listed, e.g. 1985/1986. The following lists are based on “Tour Years,” not calendar years, with 1985/1986 listed as “1985,” etc.) 2006 (total of 29 winners, 61 events) — Hénin-Hardenne (6), Petrova (5), Sharapova (5), Mauresmo (4), Bartoli (3), Clijsters (3), Kuznetsova (3), Peer (3), Chakvetadze (2), Dementieva (2), Hingis (2), Krajicek (2), Medina Garrigues (2), Shaughnessy (2), Zheng (2), Zvonareva (2), Arvidsson (1), A. Bondarenko (1), Daniilidou (1), Dominguez Lino (1), Grönefeld (1), Ivanovic (1), King (1), Paszek (1), Safarova (1), Santangelo (1), Smashnova (1), Sun (1), Vaidisova (1) 2005 (total of 30 winners, 63 events) — Clijsters (9), Davenport (6), Hénin-Hardenne (4), Mauresmo (4), Sharapova (3), Vaidisova (3), Koukalova (2), Medina Garrigues (2), Pennetta (2), Pierce (2), Safarova (2), Safina (2), Schnyder (2), Smashnova (2), Srebotnik (2), V. Williams (2), Frazier (1), Ivanovic (1), Kirilenko (1), Krajicek (1), Llagostera Vives (1), Martinez (1), Mirza (1), Molik (1), Myskina (1), Petrova (1), S. Williams (1), Yan (1), Zheng (1), Zvonareva (1) 2004 (total of 31 winners, 60 events) — Davenport (7), Hénin-Hardenne (5), Mauresmo (5), Sharapova (5), Kuznetsova (3), Molik (3), Myskina (3), Clijsters (2), Loit (2), Vaidisova (2), S. Williams (2), V. Williams (2), Benesova (1), Bovina (1), Daniilidou (1), Dementieva (1), Frazier (1), Jankovic (1), Li Na (1), Likhovtseva (1), Medina Garrigues (1), Pennetta (1), Pierce (1), Pratt (1), Schaul (1), Smashnova (1), Suárez (1), Sucha (1), Sugiyama (1), Zuluaga (1), Zvonareva (1) 2003 (total of 30 winners, 59 events) — Clijsters (9), Hénin-Hardenne (8), Myskina (4), Serena Williams (4), Dementieva (3), Mauresmo (2), Pistolesi (2), Rubin (2), Serna (2), Sharapova (2), Sugiyama (2), Capriati (1), Coetzer (1), Daniilidou (1), Davenport (1), Déchy (1), Farina Elia (1), Grande (1), Maleeva (1), Molik (1), Nagyova (1), Raymond (1), Ruano Pascual (1), Safina (1), Shaughnessy (1), Suárez (1), Tanasugarn (1), Venus Williams (1), Zuluaga (1), Zvonareva (1) 2002 (total of 37 winners, 64 events) — S. Williams (8), V. Williams (7), Clijsters (4), Smashnova (4), Bovina (2), Dokic (2), Hénin (2), Hingis (2), Kuznetsova (2), Mauresmo (2), Rubin (2), Seles (2), Black (1), Capriati (1), M. Casanova (1), Craybas (1), Daniilidou (1), Diaz-Oliva (1), Farina Elia (1), Hantuchova (1), Majoli (1), Maleeva (1), Matevzic (1), Mikaelian (1), Montolio (1), Müller (1), Myskina (1), Raymond (1), Safina (1), Schnyder (1), Serna (1), Srebotnik (1), Sucha (1), Svensson (1), Wartusch (1), Widjaja (1), Zuluaga (1) 2001 (total of 30 winners, 63 events) — Davenport (7), V. Williams (6), Mauresmo (4), Seles (4), Capriati (3), Clijsters (3), Dokic (3), Hénin (3), Hingis (3), S. Williams (3), Grande (2), Montolio (2), Sanchez- Vicario (2), Tulyaganova (2), Coetzer (1), Farina Elia (1), Gersi (1), Gubacsi (1), Lamade (1), Maleeva (1), Medina Garrigues (1), Rittner (1), Schnyder (1), Shaughnessy (1), Suárez (1), Tauziat (1), Testud (1), Torrens Valero (1), Tu (1), Widjaja (1) 2000 (total of 29 winners, 56 events excluding rain-out at Scottsdale) — Hingis (9), V. Williams (5), Davenport (4), Nagyova (3), Seles (3), S. Williams (3), Clijsters (2), Halard-Decugis (2), Huber (2), Kremer (2), Pierce (2), Talaja (2), Bedanova (1), Capriati (1), Coetzer (1), Garbin (1), Kuti Kis (1), Leon Garcia (1), Martinez (1), Mauresmo (1), Pisnik (1), Raymond (1), Rubin (1), Schett (1), Shaughnessy (1), Smashnova (1), Tauziat (1), Tulyaganova (1), Wartusch (1) 1999 (total of 33 winners, 57 events) — Davenport (7), Hingis (7), V. Williams (6), S. Williams (4), Capriati (2), Halard-Decugis (2), Tauziat (2), Zuluaga (2), Brandi (1), Carlsson (1), Clijsters (1), Frazier (1), Graf (1), Habsudova (1), Hénin (1), Mag. Maleeva (1), Martinez (1), Mauresmo (1), Morariu (1), Myskina (1), Nagyova (1), Novotna (1), Pierce (1), Pitkowski (1), Rubin (1), Sanchez Lorenzo (1), Sanchez-Vicario (1), Schnyder (1), Seles (1), Smashnova (1), Srebotnik (1), Torrens Valero (1), Zvereva (1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 260 1998 (total of 23 winners, 51 events excluding rain-out at Birmingham) — Davenport (6), Hingis (5), Schnyder (5), Novotna (4), Pierce (4), Graf (3), Halard-Decugis (2), Martinez (2), Nagyova (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Seles (2), Sugiyama (2), V. Williams (2), Coetzer (1), de Swardt (1), Hrdlickova (1), Lucic (1), Ruano-Pascual (1), Snyder (1), Spirlea (1), Suárez (1), Testud (1), Van Roost (1) 1997 (total of 25 winners, 50 events excluding rain-out at Eastbourne) — Hingis (12), Davenport (6), Novotna (4), Majoli (3), Seles (3), Coetzer (2), van Roost (2), Dragomir (1), Graf (1), Kruger (1), Likhovtseva (1), Lucic (1), Maruska (1), M. J. Fernandez (1), Nagyova (1), Paulus (1), Pierce (1), Ruano-Pascual (1), Rubin (1), Sawamatsu (1), Schett (1), Schultz-McCarthy (1), Sugiyama (1), Tauziat (1), Testud (1) 1996 (total of 25 winners, 50 events) — Graf (7), Seles (5), Novotna (4), Dragomir (3), Huber (3), Date (2), Davenport (2), Halard-Decugis (2), Hingis (2), Majoli (2), Martinez (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Wang (2), Appelmans (1), Cacic (1), McGrath (1), Nagyova (1), Paulus (1), Pizzichini (1), Raymond (1), Schett (1), Schultz-M (1), Spirlea (1), Van Roost (1), Wild (1) 1995 (total of 27 winners, 49 events) — Graf (9), Martinez (6), Mag. Maleeva (3), Majoli (2), M. J. Fernandez (2), Paulus (2), Pierce (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Schultz (2), Wild (2), Bradtke (1), Date (1), Frazier (1), Garrison Jackson (1), Hack (1), Halard (1), Huber (1), Kruger (1), Meshki (1), Novotna (1), Richterova (1), Sabatini (1), Seles (1), Spirlea (1), Tauziat (1), Wang (1), Wiesner (1) 1994 (total of 29 winners, 55 events) — Sanchez-Vicario (8), Graf (7), Martinez (4), Huber (3), Novotna (3), Appelmans (2), Basuki (2), Date (2), Davenport (2), Mag. Maleeva (2), McGrath (2), Coetzer (1), Endo (1), M. J. Fernandez (1), Frazier (1), Hack (1), Halard (1), Helgeson (1), Kat. Maleeva (1), Maleeva-Fragniere (1), McNeil (1), Navratilova (1), Sabatini (1), Sawamatsu (1), Spirlea (1), Wagner (1), Wang (1), Wiesner (1), Zvereva (1) 1993 (total of 30 winners, 60 events) — Graf (10), Martinez (5), Navratilova (5), Sanchez-Vicario (4), Basuki (2), Bobkova (2), Coetzer (2), Garrison Jackson (2), Maleeva-Fragniere (2), Medvedeva (2), Novotna (2), Seles (2), Wang (2), Wild (2), Capriati (1), Date (1), Davenport (1), M. J. Fernandez (1), Grossi (1), Hack (1), Huber (1), Likhovtseva (1), McNeil (1), Neiland (1), Pierce (1), Provis (1), Reinach (1), Sawamatsu (1), Schultz (1), Tauziat (1) 1992 (total of 30 winners, 57 events) — Seles (10), Graf (8), Sabatini (5), Navratilova (4), Pierce (3), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Sukova (2), Appelmans (1), Basuki (1), Capriati (1), Cecchini (1), Date (1), Frazier (1), Garrison-Jackson (1), Hack (1), Halard (1), Mag. Maleeva (1), Maleeva-Fragniere (1), Martinez (1), McNeil (1), Medvedeva (1), Probst (1), Provis (1), Rittner (1), Schultz (1), Stafford (1), van Lottum (1), White (1), Wiesner (1), Zrubakova (1) 1991 (total of 29 winners, 60 events) — Seles (10), Graf (7), Navratilova (5), Sabatini (5), Maleeva- Fragniere (3), Martinez (3), Appelmans (2), Capriati (2), McNeil (2), Novotna (2), Basuki (1), Cecchini (1), Demongeot (1), G. Fernandez (1), Halard (1), Huber (1), Lindqvist (1), Kat. Maleeva (1), Martinek (1), Meshki (1), Neiland (1), Piccolini (1), Pierce (1), Sanchez-Vicario (1), Schultz (1), Sukova (1), Sviglerova (1), Zardo (1), Zrubakova (1) 1990 (total of 30 winners, 59 events) — Graf (10), Seles (9), Navratilova (6), Martinez (3), M. J. Fernandez (2), Meshki (2), Sabatini (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Zvereva (2), Bonsignori (1), Capriati (1), Cecchini (1), Cueto (1), Dahlman (1), Frazier (1), Garrison-Jackson (1), Haumuller (1), Huber (1), Kohde-Kilsch (1), Lindquist (1), K. Maleeva (1), Medvedeva (1), Novotna (1), Paulus (1), Paz (1), Probst (1), Reggi (1), Sawamatsu (1), Tauziat (1), Van Rensburg (1) 1989 (total of 27 winners, 61 events) — Graf (14), Navratilova (8), Sabatini (4), Garrison[-Jackson] (3), Kat. Maleeva (3), Martinez (3), Cueto (1 listed as “Cuerto”) (2), Gildemeister (2), Maleeva-Fragniere (2), Novotna (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Bollegraf (1), Cecchini (1), Cordwell (1), Dahlman (1), Fendick (1), Frazier (1), Magers (1), McNeil (1), Meshki (1), Minter (1), Okamoto (1), Quentrec (1), Seles (1), Sukova (1), Wiesner (1), Zrubakova (1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 261 1988 (total of 28 winners, 62 events) — Graf (10), Navratilova (9), Sabatini (5), Evert (4), Shriver (4), Cecchini (2), Cueto (2), Dias (2), Fendick (2), Maleeva-Fragniere (2), McNeil (2), Rehe (2), Gomer (1), Hetherington (1), Javer (1), Kelesi (1), Kohde-Kilsch (1), Langrova (1), Magers (1), Kat. Maleeva (1), Martinez (1), Minter (1), Paulus (1), Paz (1), Potter (1), Sanchez-Vicario (1), Sloane (1), Wiesner (1) 1987 (total of 24 winners, 54 events) — Graf (11), Evert (5), Navratilova (4), Shriver (4), Mandlilova (3), Sabatini (3), Cecchini (2), Garrison (2), Kat. Maleeva (2), Man. Maleeva[-Fragniere] (2), Minter (2), Sukova (2), Bassett Seguso (1), Cioffi (1), Goles (1), Hakami (1), Horvath (1), Magers (1), Nelson- Dunbar (1), Potter (1), Reggi (1), Rehe (1), Smylie (1), White (1) 1986 (total of 19 winners, 40 events) — Navratilova (9), Graf (7), Evert (3), Gurney (2), McNeil (2), Reggi (2), Shriver (2), Sukova (2), Burgin (1), Cacchini (1), G. Fernandez (1), Garrison (1), Hanika (1), Herr (1), Herreman (1), Huber (1), Hy (1), Kelesi (1), Rinaldi (1) 1985 (total of 23 winners, 53 events) — Navratilova (13), Evert (11), Shriver (4), Gadusek (3), Garrison (2), Kat. Maleeva (2), Rehe (2), Cecchini (1), Croft (1), Hobbs (1), Horvath (1), Kohde-Kilsch (1), Man. Maleeva (1), Mandlikova (1), Mesker (1), Potter (1), Reggi (1), Rinaldi (1), Ruzici (1), Sabatini (1), Temesvari (1), Thompson (1), White (1) 1984 (total of 22 winners, 51 events) — Navratilova (15), Evert (7), Man. Maleeva (4), Mandlikova (4), Cecchini (2), Lindqvist (2), Louie Harper (2), Drescher (1), Gadusek (1), Garrison (1), Gildemeister (1), Hamika (1), Horvath (1), Inoue (1), Kohde-Kilsch (1), Paz (1), Russell (1), Shriver (1), Sukova (1), Torres (1), Vermaak (1), White (1) 1983 (total of 25 winners, 49 events excluding rain-out at Lugano) — Navratilova (13), Evert (5), Mandlikova (3), Shriver (3), Temesvari (3), Bonder (2), Durie (2), Daniels (1), Fairbank (1), Gadusek (1), Horvath (1), Inoue (1), King (1), Klitch (1), Leand (1), Lindqvist (1), Moulton (1), Mundel- Reinbold (1), Paradis (1), Russell (1), Ruzici (1), Shaefer (1), Smylie (1), Tanvier (1), Vermaak (1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 262 Most Titles, Year By Year The following list shows the three players with the most titles, year by year, and the number of titles. Year Player with Most Titles #2 in titles #3 in titles 2006 Hénin-Hardenne (6) Petrova (5), Sharapova (5) Mauresmo (4) 2005 Clijsters (9) Davenport (6) Hénin-Hardenne (4), Mauresmo (4) 2004 Davenport (7) Hénin-Hardenne (5), Kuznetsova (3), Molik (3), Mauresmo (5), Sharapova (5)1 Myskina (3) 2003 Clijsters (9) Hénin-Hardenne (8) Myskina (4),2 Serena Williams (4) 2002 S. Williams (8) V. Williams (7) Clijsters (4), Smashnova (4)3 2001 Davenport (7) V. Williams (6) Mauresmo (4), Seles (4) 2000 Hingis (9) V. Williams (5) Davenport (4) 1999 Davenport (7), Hingis (7) V. Williams (6) S. Williams (4) 1998 Davenport (6) Hingis (5), Schnyder (5)4 Novotna (4), Pierce (4) 1997 Hingis (12) Davenport (6) Novotna (4) 1996 Graf (7) Seles (5) Novotna (4) 1995 Graf (9) Martinez (6) Mag. Maleeva (3) 1994 Sanchez-Vicario (8) Graf (7) Martinez (4) 1993 Graf (10) Martinez (5), Navratilova (5) Sanchez-Vicario (4) 1992 Seles (10) Graf (8) Sabatini (5) 1991 Seles (10) Graf (7) Navratilova (5), Sabatini (5) 1990 Graf (10) Seles (9) Navratilova (6) 1989 Graf (14) Navratilova (8) Sabatini (4) 1988 Graf (10) Navratilova (9) Sabatini (5) 1987 Graf (11) Evert (5) Navratilova (4), Shriver (4) 1986 Navratilova (14) Graf (7) Evert (3) 1985 Navratilova (13) Evert (11) Shriver (4) 1984 Navratilova (15) Evert (7) Man. Maleeva (4), Mandlikova (4) 1983 Navratilova (13) Evert (5) Mandlikova (3), Shriver (3), Temesvari (3) 1. Of Sharapova’s five titles, three were below the Tier II level; the other two were above the Tier I level. Sharapova, through the end of 2004, had never won a Tier I or Tier II title — which is even stranger than all the footnotes below, though she changed that in 2005 2. Of Myskina’s four titles, two were below the Tier II level — a rather unusual outcome for someone near the top of the titles list; most top players win most of their titles at large events — e.g. Clijsters won seven of her nine titles at Tier II or better events; Hénin-Hardenne won all eight of hers titles at Tier II or better events 3. As noted above, most players on this list, particularly in recent years, won the majority of their titles at Tier II or higher events. Smashnova 2002 is an exception; all four of her titles were small events. 4. Like Smashnova 2002, Schnyder had mostly small titles: four of her five were Tier III or lower.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 263 Five Or More Titles in a Year The following table shows all players who have earned five or more WTA Tour titles in a year (from the founding of the Tour in 1971), with the total years with five or more titles Total Years Player Years with 5+ titles with 5+ titles 15 Chris Evert 1973, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 15 Martina Navratilova 1977, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93 11 Steffi Graf 1986, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 7 Billie Jean King 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1977 6Evonne Goolagong Cawley 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1978 6 Lindsay Davenport 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2004, 2005 4Martina Hingis 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 4Monica Seles 1990, 1991, 1992, 1996 4Virginia Wade 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975 4Venus Williams 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 3Tracy Austin 1979, 1980, 1981 3Margaret Court 1971, 1972, 1973 3 Justine Hénin-Hardenne 2003, 2004, 2006 2 Kim Clijsters 2003, 2005 2 Hana Mandlikova 1980, 1984 2 Conchita Martinez 1993, 1995 2 Gabriela Sabatini 1991, 1992 2Maria Sharapova 2004, 2006 1 Francoise Durr 1971 1Manuela Maleeva-Fragniere 1984 1 Amélie Mauresmo 2004 1 Nadia Petrova 2006 1 Nancy Richey 1972 1Patty Schnyder 1998 1 Serena Williams1 2002 1. The WTA lists Serena as having five titles in 1999, but one of these was the Grand Slam Cup, which is an exhibition.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 264 Surface Sweeps — Singles (Since 1990) A “surface sweep” consists of winning titles on all four major surfaces (clay, grass, hard, indoor) in a single year. The following list shows all recent instances, with the total titles on each surface and the name of the best title on each surface. Year Player Titles and Surfaces 1990 Martina Navratilova Clay: 1 (Hilton Head), Grass: 2 (Wimbledon), Hard: 2 (Palm Springs), Indoor: 1 (Chicago) 1991 Steffi Graf Clay: 2 (Berlin), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon), Hard: 1 (San Antonio), Indoor: 1 (Zürich) 1992 Steffi Graf Clay: 2 (Berlin), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon), Hard: 1 (Boca Raton), Indoor: 4 (Philadelphia) 1993 Steffi Graf Clay: 3 (Roland Garros), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon), Hard: 4 (U. S. Open), Indoor: 2 (Tour Championships) 1995 Steffi Graf Clay: 2 (Roland Garros), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon), Hard: 3 (U. S. Open), Indoor: 3 (Chase Championships) 1996 Steffi Graf Clay: 2 (Roland Garros), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon), Hard: 3 (U. S. Open), Indoor: 1 (Chase Championships) 1997 Martina Hingis Clay: 1 (Hilton Head), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon), Hard: 6 (Australian Open, U. S. Open), Indoor: 4 (Pan Pacific) 1999 Lindsay Davenport Clay: 1 (Madrid), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon), Hard: 2 (Sydney), Indoor: 3 (Chase Championships) 2000 Martina Hingis Clay: 1 (Hamburg), Grass: 1 (’s-Hertogenbosch), Hard: 2 (Miami), Indoor: 5 (Chase Championships) 2002 Serena Williams Clay: 2 (Roland Garros), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon), Hard: 4 (U. S. Open), Indoor: 1 (Leipzig) 2003 Kim Clijsters Clay: 1 (Rome), Grass: 1 (’s-Hertogenbosch), Hard: 2 (Indian Wells), Indoor: 3 (Los Angeles Championships) 2006 Justine Hénin-HardenneClay: 1 (Roland Garros), Grass: 1 (Eastbourne), Hard: 3 (Dubai), Indoor: 1 (Madrid Championships)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 265 Surface Sweeps — Doubles (Since 1990) Note: Where teams are shown with a surface sweep, titles are listed only for the team — e.g. Raymond in 2001 had seven titles with Stubbs, as shown in the entry, and two more with Davenport, not shown. Year Player/Team Titles and Surfaces 1990 Helena Sukova Clay: 1 (Roland Garros w/Novotna), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon w/Novotna), Hard: 6 (Australian Open w/Novotna), Indoor: 2 (Brighton w/Tauziat) 1991 Larisa Neiland Clay: 2 (Berlin w/Zvereva), Grass: 2 (Wimbledon w/Zvereva), Hard: 5 (Canadian Open w/Zvereva), Indoor: 1 (Philadelphia w/Novotna) 1991 Natasha Zvereva Clay: 2 (Hilton Head w/Kohde-Kilsch), Grass: 2 (Wimbledon w/ Neiland), Hard: 4 (U. S. Open w/Shriver), Indoor: 1 (Brighton w/ Shriver) 1992 G. Fernandez/Zvereva Clay: 2 (Roland Garros), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon), Hard: 1 (U. S. Open), Indoor: 2 (Philadelphia) 1992 Neiland/Novotna Clay: 1 (Berlin), Grass: 1 (Eastbourne), Hard: 3 (San Diego), Indoor: 2 (Brighton) 1992 Rennae Stubbs Clay: 1 (Hamburg w/Graf), Grass: 1 (Birmingham w/McNeil), Hard: 1 (Canadian Open w/McNeil), Indoor: 1 (Osaka w/Sukova) 1993 G. Fernandez/Zvereva Clay: 3 (Roland Garros), Grass: 2 (Wimbledon), Hard: 3 (Australian Open), Indoor: 3 (Tour Championships) 1994 Larisa Neiland Clay: 2 (Amelia Island w/Sanchez-Vicario), Grass: 1 (Birmingham w/ Garrison Jackson), Hard: 1 (Schenectady w/McGrath), Indoor: 2 (Brighton w/Bollegraf) 1994 G. Fernandez/Zvereva Clay: 3 (Roland Garros), Grass: 2 (Wimbledon), Hard: 2 (Australian Open), Indoor: 4 (Tour Championships) 1995 A. Sanchez-Vicario Clay: 1 (Barcelona w/Neiland), Grass: 2 (Wimbledon w/Novotna), Hard: 2 (Australian Open w/Novotna), Indoor: 1 (Chase Championships w/Novotna) 1996 Larisa Neiland Clay: 1 (Berlin w/McGrath), Grass: 1 (Rosmalen w/Schultz- McCarthy), Hard: 1 (Canadian Open w/Sanchez-Vicario), Indoor: 2 (Essen w/McGrath) 1996 Jana Novotna Clay: 2 (Hilton Head w/Sanchez-Vicario), Grass: 1 (Eastbourne w/ Sanchez-Vicario), Hard: 1 (Lipton w/Sanchez-Vicario), Indoor: 2 (Filderstadt w/Arendt) 1996 B. Schultz-McCarthy Clay: 1 (Hamburg w/Sanchez-Vicario), Grass: 1 (Rosmalen w/ Neiland), Hard: 1 (Indian Wells w/Rubin), Indoor: 2 (Oklahoma City w/ Rubin) 1997 Natasha Zvereva Clay: 2 (Roland Garros w/G. Fernandez), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon w/G. Fernandez), Hard: 3 (Australian Open w/Hingis), Indoor: 2 (Pan Pacific w/Davenport) 1998 Martina Hingis Clay: 1 (Roland Garros w/Novotna), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon w/Novotna), Hard: 6 (Australian Open w/Lucic, U.S Open w/Novotna), Indoor: 1 (Pan Pacific w/Lucic) 1999 Hingis/Kournikova Clay: 1 (Rome), Grass: 1 (Eastbourne), Hard: 2 (Australian Open), Indoor: 1 (Chase Championships) 1999 Larisa Neiland Clay: 1 (Hamburg w/Sanchez-V), Grass: 1 (Birmingham w/Morariu), Hard: 2 (Los Angeles/w/ Sanchez-V), Indoor: 1 (Leipzig/ w/Pierce) 2001 Raymond/Stubbs Clay: 1 (Charleston), Grass: 2 (Wimbledon), Hardcourt: 2 (U. S. Open), Indoor: 2 (Munich)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 266 2001 Elena Likhovtseva Clay: 2 (Rome w/Black), Grass: 1 (Birmingham w/Black), Hard: 3 (San Diego w/Black), Indoor: 1 (Leipzig w/Tauziat) 2002 Raymond/Stubbs Clay: 1 (Charleston), Grass: 1 (Eastbourne), Hard: 5 (Miami), Indoor: 1 (Pan Pacific) 2003 Clijsters/Sugiyama Clay: 1 (Roland Garros), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon), Hard: 3 (San Diego), Indoor: 2 (Zürich) 2003 Lisa Raymond Clay: 1 (Amelia Island w/Davenport), Grass: 1 (Eastbourne w/ Davenport), Hard: 2 (Indian Wells w/Davenport), Indoor: 2 (Filderstadt w/Stubbs, Philadelphia w/Navratilova) 2005 Cara Black Clay: 1 (Rome w/Huber), Grass: 1 (Wimbledon w/Huber), Hard: 1 (Stanford w/Stubbs), Indoor: 3 (Zürich w/Stubbs)

Career Surface Sweeps/Singles The list below shows all players active in 2002 or after to have won titles on all four surfaces, showing the strongest title on each surface and the year in which she achieved the sweep (i.e. earned her first title on her “last” surface) If a title is marked “etc.” (e.g. Seles is marked “Roland Garros 1990, etc.), this means that she won it several times starting with that year.) The “best” tournament is based on tournament tier. Slam titles are abbreviated. Player Year Best Clay Best Grass Best Hard Best Indoors Clijsters 2003 Rome 2003 Eastbourne 2005 U. S. Open 2005 WTA Champ 2002, etc. Davenport 1999 Amelia Island 1997, Wimbledon 1999 USO 1998, AO 2000 WTA Champ. 1999 etc. Dokic 2002 Rome 2001 Birmingham 2002 Princess Cup 2001 Moscow 2001 Hénin- 2002 Roland Garros 2003 Eastsbourne 2006 U. S. Open 2003 Madrid Hardenne Championships 2006 Hingis 1997 Hilton Head 1997, Wimbledon 1997 AO 1997, etc. USO WTA Champ 1998, etc.; Rome 1998; 1997 etc. Berlin 1999 Maleeva 2003 Budapest 2001 Birmingham 2003 Pattaya 1999 Zürich 1994, Moscow 2002 Martinez 1994 Rome 1993, etc.; Wimbledon 1994 San Diego 1995 Philadelphia 1993 Hilton Head 1994, etc.; Berlin 1998, etc. Mauresmo 2006 Rome 2004, etc.; Wimbledon 2006 Australian Open WTA Champ. 2005 Berlin 2001, etc. 2006 Pierce 2004 Roland Garros 2000 ’s-Hertogenbosch Australian Open Moscow 1998 2004 1995 Rubin 2003 Madrid 2003 Eastbourne 2002 Los Angeles 2002 Linz 1997, etc. Seles 1996 RG 1990, etc. Eastbourne 1996 AO 1991, etc.; USO WTA Champ 1990, 1991, etc. etc. S. Williams 2002 RG 2002 Wim 2002, etc. USO 1999, etc. WTA Champ. 2001 V. Williams 2000 Rome 1999 Wim 2000, etc. USO 2000, etc. Zürich 1999 Zvonareva 2006 Bol 2003 Birmingham 2006 Cincinnati 2006 Memphis 2004, 2005

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 267 Career Grand Surface Sweep The Grand Surface Sweep is a higher-order version of the Surface Sweep: It entails a title, Tier I or higher, on all seven major WTA surfaces: Rebound Ace, DecoTurf, Red Clay, Green Clay, Grass, Carpet (including Greenset and Supreme) and Indoor Hardcourts. The WTA established the Tier I event in 1990 (though there were approximate equivalents for about a decade before that). In that period, the events of each type, by surface, were as follows: Rebound Ace: Australian Open DecoTurf: U. S. Open, Miami, Canadian Open, Boca Raton 1991Ð1992, Indian Wells 1997-present, San Diego 2004-present Red Clay: Roland Garros, Rome, Berlin Green Clay: Hilton Head/Charleston Grass: Wimbledon Carpet: WTA Championships 1990-2000, Chicago 1990, Pan Pacific 1993-present, Philadelphia 1993- 1995, Moscow 1997-present Indoor Hard: WTA Championships 2001-present, Zürich 1993-present

From this data, we can compile the (very short) list of Grand Surface Sweepers (this is all-time, since the Australian Open shifted to Rebound Ace; note that the list includes some events from the Slams and “Super Series” before 1990, though those “excess events” include only events which are still active):

1. Steffi Graf Rebound Ace: Australian Open [1988], [1989], 1990, 1994 DecoTurf: U. S. Open [1988], [1989], 1993, 1995, 1996; Miami [1987], [1988], 1994, 1995, 1996; Canadian Open 1990, 1993; Boca Raton 1992 Red Clay: Roland Garros [1987], [1988], 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999; Rome, Berlin [1988], [1989], 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996 Green Clay: Hilton Head [1986], [1987], [1989], 1993; [Amelia Island 1986, 1987] Grass: Wimbledon [1988], [1989], 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1996 Carpet: WTA Championships [1987], [1989], 1993, 1995, 1996; Pan Pacific [1986], 1994; Philadelphia 1995; Moscow 1997- present Indoor Hard: [Washington 1989]

2. Martina Hingis Rebound Ace: Australian Open 1997, 1998, 1999 DecoTurf: U. S. Open 1997; Miami 1997, 2000; Canadian Open 1999, 2000; Indian Wells 1998 Red Clay: Rome 1998, Berlin 1999 Green Clay: Hilton Head 1997, 1999 Grass: Wimbledon 1997 Carpet: WTA Championships 1998, 2000; Pan Pacific 1997, 1999, 2000, 2002; Moscow 2000 Indoor Hard: Zürich 2000

Lacking Rebound Ace and, apparently, Indoor Hard was Martina Navratilova. (This is largely lack of opportunity.)

Of the top active players, Serena Williams lacks green clay and carpet; Venus Williams lacks Rebound Ace and carpet; Lindsay Davenport lacks green and red clay; Monica Seles lacks grass and indoor hardcourt, Justine Hénin-Hardenne lacks grass and carpet; Kim Clijsters lacks Rebound Ace, green clay, grass, and carpet; Anastasia Myskina lacks Rebound Ace, DecoTurf, green clay, grass, and indoor hardcourt; and Amélie Mauresmo lacks Rebound Ace, green clay, grass, indoor hardcourt, and carpet.

Note that Graf was the only player ever to complete the calendar year Grand Surface Sweep (1989).

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 268 Year-End Top Players Year-End Top Eight, Alphabetical, with Years, Since 1975 The following tables list every player to end a Tour year in the Top Eight since computer rankings began in 1975. The first table, in alphabetical order, lists each year in which the player ended at #1, #2, #3, etc. Player Years was #1 Yrs was #2 Years was #3 Years was #4 Years #5-#8 Austin 1980, 1981 1979 1982 #6-1978 Balestrat #6-1979; #7-1976; #8-1978 Barker #5-1976, 1977 Bunge #7-1983 Capriati 2001 2002 #6-1991, 2003; #7-1992; #8-1990 Casals #6 -1977 Clijsters 2003, 2005 2002 #5-2001, 2006 Coetzer 1997 Court #6-1975 Date 1995 #8-1996 Davenport 1998, 2001, 2004, 1999, 2000 1997 #5-2003; #6-1994 2005 Dementieva #6-2004, #8-2003, 2005, 2006 Dokic #8-2001 Durie #6-1983 Evert 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1988 1980, 1981 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 Fernandez, M 1990 #6-1992; #7-1993; #8-1991, 1995 Garrison[-J] 1989 #8-1985 Goolagong 1976 1975, 1978 1979 #5-1980 Graf 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992 1986 #6-1985 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 Hanika #5-1983; #6-1981 Hantuchova #8-2002 Hénin- 2003, 2006 #5-2002; #6-2005, #7-2001, #8- Hardenne 2004 Hingis 1997, 1999, 2000 1998 1996, 2001 #7-2006 Huber, Anke #6-1996 Jaeger 1982, 1983 1981 #7-1980 Jausovec #8-1976 King 1975, 1977 #5-1978, 1979; #6-1980 Kohde-Kilsch #5-1985; #7-1986; #8-1984 Kournikova #8-2000 Kuznetsova 2006 #5-2004 Majoli #6-1997; #7-1996 Maleeva, K #6-1990 Maleeva, Mag #6-1995 Maleeva, Man #6-1984, 1988; #7-1985; #8-1986, 1987 Mandlikova 1984, 1985 1980, 1986 #5-1981, 1987; #7-1982

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 269 Martinez 1995 1994 1993 #5-1996, 2000; #7-1989; #8-1992, 1998 Mauresmo 2004 2005, 2006 2003 #6-2002 Morozova #7-1975 Myskina 2004 #7-2003 Navratilova 1978, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1988, 1989 1977, 1980, 1981, 1975, 1976, 1991 #5-1992; #8-1994 1983, 1984, 1985, 1990, 1993 1986 Novotna 1997 1996, 1998 1994 #6-1993; #7-1991 Petrova #6-2006 Pierce #5-1994, 1995, 1999, 2005; #7- 1997, 1998, 2000 Potter #8-1982 Reid #8-1978 Richey Gunter #8-1975 Sabatini 1989, 1991, 1992 1988 #5-1990, 1993; #6-1987; #7-1994, 1995 Sanchez-Vicari 1993, 1994, 1996 1995 1992, 1998 #5-1989, 1991; #7-1990 Schett #8-1999 Schnyder #7-2005 Seles 1991, 1992 1990, [1996] 2000 #5-1997; #6-1989, 1998, 1999; #7-2002; #8-1993 Sharapova 2006 2004, 2005 Shriver 1983, 1984, 1985, #5-1988; #6-1982, 1986; #7-1981 1987 Spirlea #8-1997 Stove #6-1976; #7-1977 Sukova #5-1986; #7-1984, 1987; #8-1988, 1989 Tauziat #7-1999 Turnbull #5-1982, 1984; #7-1978, 1979; #8-1980, 1981, 1983 Wade 1976 1977, 1978 #5-1975; #8-1979 Williams, S 2002 2003 1999 #6-2000, 2001, #7-2004 Williams, V. 2002 1999, 2000, 2001 #5-1998 Zvereva #7-1988

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 270 Total Years Ended At Each Rank, Alphabetical, Since 1975 Player Years #1 Years #2 Years #3 Years #4 Years #5 Years #6 Years #7 Years #8 Total Austin 2 1 1 1 5 Balestrat 1113 Barker 2 2 Bunge 11 Capriati 1 1 2117 Casals 1 1 Clijsters 2 1 1 4 Coetzer 1 1 Court 1 1 Date 1 1 2 Davenport 4 2 1 1 1 9 Dementieva 1 3 4 Dokic 11 Durie 1 1 Evert 5 7 2 14 Fernandez, M 1 1125 Garrison[-J] 1 1 2 Goolagong 1211 5 Graf 8 2 1 1 12 Hanika 1 1 2 Hantuchova 11 Hénin-Hardenne 2 11116 Hingis 3 1 2 1 7 Huber, Anke 1 1 Jaeger 2 1 1 4 Jausovec 11 King 2 2 1 5 Kohde-Kilsch 1 1 1 3 Kournikova 11 Kuznetsova 1 1 2 Majoli 1 1 2 Maleeva, K 1 1 Maleeva, Mag 1 1 Maleeva, Man 2125 Mandlikova 2 2 2 1 7 Martinez 1112 128 Mauresmo 1 2 1 1 5 Morozova 11 Myskina 1 1 2 Navratilova 73531 120 Novotna 1 2 1 1 1 6 Petrova 1 1 Pierce 4 3 7 Potter 11 Reid 11 Richey Gunter 11

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 271 Sabatini 31212 9 Sanchez-Vicari 3122 1 9 Schett 11 Schnyder 11 Seles 2 1(2) 1131110(11) Sharapova 1 2 3 Shriver 4121 8 Spirlea 11 Stove 1 1 2 Sukova 1 2 2 5 Tauziat 11 Turnbull 2 2 3 7 Wade 1 2 1 15 Williams, S 1 1 1 2 1 6 Williams, V. 1 3 1 5 Zvereva 11

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 272 Strongest Career Rankings Showings Based on the above statistics, we can produce a career “ranking of rankings.” In the system below, one point is awarded for a year in which a player ends at #8. Two are awarded for #7, 3 for #6, 4 for #5, 6 for #4, 8 for #3, 12 for #2, and 16 for #1. It is interesting to note that 2006 made relatively little difference in the rankings — the top eight are unchanged. The only change in the Top Ten is that -Hardenne joins the list, at #9; she was #20 last year. Kim Clijsters rose from #18 to #12; Amelie Mauresmo broke into the Top Twenty, displacing Jennfer Capriati. Joining the Top Thirty is Svetlana Kuznetsova. The only new player added to the list is Nadia Petrova. Falling out of the Top Ten is Venus Williams (from #10 to #11).

Note: for purposes of reckoning, Monica Seles is omitted from the rankings for 1995, but is treated as #2 for 1996, with all players below her demoted one position. Ranking Player Score Ranking Player Score 1Navratilova 211 31T Myskina 8 2Evert 180 33T Garrison[-Jackson] 7 3 Graf 163 33T Hanika 7 4Davenport 95 33T Kohde-Kilsch 7 5 Seles 78 36T Balestrat 6 6 Hingis 72 36T Coetzer 6 7 Sanchez-Vicario 62 36T Date 6 8 Sabatini 45 36T Dementieva 6 9 Hénin-Hardenne 42 40 Stove 5 10 Austin 41 41 Majoli 4 11 Williams, V. 40 42T Casals 3 12 Clijsters 38 42T Court 3 13T Goolagong 38 42T Durie 3 13T Mandlikova 38 42T Maleeva, K 3 13T Williams, S 38 42T Maleeva, Magdalena 3 16T Martinez, C. 37 42T Petrova 3 16T Novotna 37 48T Bunge 2 18 Shriver 36 48T Huber, A 2 19 King 35 48T Morozova 2 20 Mauresmo 32 48T Schnyder 2 21 Capriati 29 48T Tauziat 2 22 Wade 25 48T Zvereva 2 23 Jaeger 24 54T Dokic 1 24 Pierce 22 54T Hantuchova 1 25 Sharapova 19 54T Jausovec 1 26 Turnbull 15 54T Kournikova 1 27 Fernandez, M 13 54T Potter 1 28T Kuznetsova 10 54T Reid 1 28T Maleeva[-Fragniere] 10 54T Richey Gunter 1 28T Sukova 10 54T Schett 1 31T Barker 8 54T Spirlea 1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 273 Total Years in the Top Eight The following table shows the all-time leaders in most years spent in the Top Eight. Player Years Spent in Top Eight Navratilova 20 Evert 14 Graf 12 Seles 11 Davenport 9 Sabatini 9 Sanchez-Vicario 9 Martinez, Conchita 8 Shriver 8 Capriati 7 Hingis 7 Mandlikova 7 Pierce 7 Turnbull 7 Hénin-Hardenne 6 Novotna 6 Williams, Serena 6 Austin 5 Fernandez, Mary Joe 5 Goolagong 5 King 5 Maleeva[-Fragniere], Manuela 5 Mauresmo 5 Sukova 5 Wade 5 Williams, Venus 5

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 274 Doubles Wins & Partners Winningest Doubles Player, Year By Year, From 1983 The following list shows the player with the most doubles titles each year, and lists the partners with whom she played and the number of tournaments they won together. Year Player # of titles Partners 1983 Martina Navratilova 11 Shriver (9), Reynolds (2) Pam Shriver 11 Navratilova (9), Evert (1), Potter (1) 1984 Martina Navratilova 13 Shriver (10), G. Fernandez (1), Smylie (1) 1985 Pam Shriver 12 Navratilova (7), Smylie (2), Fairbank (1), Mandlikova (1), Sukova (1) 1986 Martina Navratilova 9 Shriver (7), Temesvari (2) 1987 Martina Navratilova 9 Shriver (7), K. Jordan (1), Sabatini (1) 1988 Martina Navratilova 8 Shriver (5), Casals (1), Kucyzynska (1), McNeil (1) Pam Shriver 8 Navratilova (5), K. Adams (1), Nagelson (1), Sukova (1) 1989 Katrina Adams 8 Garrison (4), McNeil (3), Shriver (1) Pam Shriver 8 Navratilova (4), K. Adams (1), Graf (1), Mandlikova (1), Nagelson (1) 1990 Helena Sukova 10 Novotna (8), G. Fernandez (1), Tauziat (1) 1991 Larisa Neiland 10 Zvereva (6), Novotna (3), Fendick (1) 1992 Arantxa 10 Sukova (6), Zvereva (2), Martinez (1), Neiland (1) Sanchez-Vicario 1993 Gigi Fernandez 12 Zvereva (11), Sukova (1) 1994 Gigi Fernandez 11 Zvereva (11) Arantxa 11 Novotna (5), Neiland (2), Davenport (1), Halard (1), Sanchez-Vicario McGrath (1), McNeil (1), Natasha Zvereva 11 G. Fernandez (11) 1995 Gigi Fernandez 8 Zvereva (7), Hingis (1) 1996 Arantxa 9Novotna (4), Rubin (2), Neiland (1), Schultz-McCarthy (1), Spirlea (1) Sanchez-Vicario 1997 Martina Hingis 8 Sanchez-Vicario (3), Novotna (2), Davenport (1), M. J. Fernandez (1), Zvereva (1) Natasha Zvereva 8 Davenport (2), G. Fernandez (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Hingis (1), Sukova (1) 1998 Martina Hingis 9 Novotna (5), Lucic (2), Sukova (1), Zvereva (1) 1999 Martina Hingis 6 Kournikova (5), Novotna (1) Corina Morariu 6 Davenport (3), Neiland (2), Po (1) 2000 Julie 10 Sugiyama (6), Morariu (2), Kournikova (1), Testud (1) Halard-Decugis 2001 Lisa Raymond 9 Stubbs (7), Davenport (2) 2002 Lisa Raymond 9 Stubbs (8), Davenport (1) 2003 Ai Sugiyama 8 Clijsters (7), Liezel Huber (1) 2004 Cara Black 7 Callens (1), Stubbs (6) Nadia Petrova 7 Shaughnessy (7) Meghann Shaughnessy 7 Petrova (7) 2005 Samantha Stosur 7 Raymond (5), Stewart (2) 2006 Lisa Raymond 10 Stosur (10) 2006 Samantha Stosur 10 Raymond (10)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 275 The data above can be graphed, showing how the number of titles won by the winningest player has tended to decline over the years, especially on the singles side (it appears the general decline in doubles, and emergence of a number of female doubles specialists, has allowed the doubles number to stay relatively high: There are only a few player left who know how to in in doubles). The graph below shows the number of titles won by both the winningest singles player and the winningest doubles player since 1983.

Titles, Year by Year

16

14

12

10

8 Total Titles 6

4

2

0 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Year

Singles Doubles

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 276 Titles With Multiple Partners, Single Year, Open Era According to the WTA, only 7 players have won doubles titles with five or more partners in a year in the WTA Era.* The following lists these players, their partners, and the number of titles with each partner.* # of Player Year Partners & Title Count Partners 6 Helena Sukova 1993 Sanchez-Vicario (3), G. Fernandez (1), M. J. Fernandez (1), Navratilova (1), Stubbs (1), Smylie (1) 6 A. Sanchez-Vicario 1994 Novotna (5), Neiland (2), Davenport (1), Halard (1), McGrath (1), McNeil (1), 5Pam Shriver 1989 Navratilova (4), K. Adams (1), Graf (1), Mandlikova (1), Nagelson (1) 5Mercedes Paz 1989 Bollegraf (1), Goles (1), Scheuer-Larsen (1), Tarabini (1), Wiesner (1) 5 Larisa Neiland 1994 Bollegraf (1), Garrison-Jackson (1), McGrath (1), Sanchez-Vicario (1), Stubbs (1) 5 A. Sanchez-Vicario 1996 Novotna (4), Rubin (2), Neiland (1), Schultz-McCarthy (1), Spirlea (1) 5Martina Hingis 1997 Sanchez-Vicario (3), Novotna (2), Davenport (1), M. J. Fernandez (1), Zvereva (1) 5 Natasha Zvereva 1997 Davenport (2), G. Fernandez (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Hingis (1), Sukova (1) * The WTA list for this statistic is extremely inaccurate — it omits Neiland, gets Sanchez-Vicario’s record wrong, and shows Paz with only four titles in 1989; I discovered her result with Tarabini by accident. This is a corrected list, but may be incomplete. Slams With the Most Partners, Open Era The following list shows all women who have won Slams with four or more partners in the Open Era, listing the partners and the number of Slams with each*. Total Partners Player Partners & Slams 9Martina Navratilova Shriver (20), King (3), Evert (2), A. Smith (1), G. Fernandez (1) Mandlikova (1), Nagelson (1), Stove (1), Temesvari (1) 6Martina Hingis Novotna (3), Kournikova (2), Lucic (1), Pierce (1), Sukova (1), Zvereva (1) 5 Jana Novotna Sukova (4), Hingis (3), Sanchez-Vicario (3), Davenport (1), G. Fernandez (1) 4 Natasha Zvereva G. Fernandez (14), Savchenko Neiland (2), Hingis (1), Shriver (1) 4 Gigi Fernandez Zvereva (14), Navratilova (1), Novotna (1), White (1) 4Margaret Court Tegart Dalton (4), Wade (4), Bueno (1), Goolagong (1) 4 Helena Sukova Novotna (4), Kohde-Kilsch (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Hingis (1) 4 Francoise Durr Chanfreau (2), A. Jones (2), Hard (1), Stove (1) 4 Betty Stove King (2), Turnbull (2), Durr (1), Navratilova (1) 4 H. Gourlay Cawley Balestrat (1), Goolagong (1), Harris (1), Russell (1) * Note: Billie Jean King won titles with 5 players, but only three in the Open Era: Casals (5), Navratilova (4), Stove (1). Counting wins before the Open Era, Court won with 7 players: The above plus Ebbern, Reitano, and Turner.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Page 277 Index A Bartoli/Peer 21, 140 Camerin, Maria Elena 9, 29, 137, 142, Bedanova, Daja 199 199 Abramovic, Ivana 22 Beigbeder, Celine 199 Camerin/Dulko 24, 140 Abramovic/Kudravtseva 22 Beijing 11, 12, 28, 154, 158, 190, 191, Canadian Open 11, 12, 26, 152, 153, Abramovic/Vedy 26 192 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 Acapulco 13, 18, 148, 156 Beijing $50K I 22 Canberra 13, 15 Adamczak/Esperon 19 Beijing $50K II 32 Canepa, Alice 24 Adams, Katrina 275 Benesova, Iveta 9, 16, 137, 199 Capriati, Jennifer 190, 192, 193, 194, Albuquerque $75K 29 Berlin 11, 12, 21, 37, 160, 190, 191, 198, 200, 212, 240, 259, 269, 271, Amanmuradova, Akgul 33, 199 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 274 Amelia Island 11, 12, 19, 145, 156, Bes, Eva 199 Cargill, Ansley 24 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 Beygelzimer, Yulia 25 Casals, Rosie 252, 259, 269, 271 Ancic, Sanja 27, 28 Beygelzimer/Szavay 25 Casals/King 243 Ani, Maret 14, 199 Biella $50K+H 30 Casals/Tegart Dalton 243 Ani/Jugic-Salkic 14 Birmingham 13, 23 Casals/Turnbull 243 Antwerp 11, 12, 17, 34, 155, 156, 190, Birnerova, Eva 9, 16, 142 Casanova, Myriam 200 191, 192, 193 Birnerova/Gajdosova 26, 140, 162 Castaño, Catalina 9, 200 Appelmans, Sabine 193, 199 Black, Cara 4, 134, 135, 136, 137, Cervanova, Ludmila 200 Arvidsson, Sofia 9, 13, 18, 41, 199 139, 141, 145, 166, 167, 173, 176, Chakhnashvili, Margalita 26 Asagoe, Shinobu 134, 135, 137, 139, 191, 198, 199, 267, 275 Chakvetadze,Anna 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 141, 145, 199 Black/Huber 243 13, 20, 29, 31, 44, 73, 89, 103, 111, Asagoe/Srebotnik 19, 140 Black/Stubbs 25, 31, 140, 175, 243 192, 200 Ashland $50K 30 Black/W. Black 250 Chaloner/Evers 243 Atlanta 196 Boca Raton 195 Chan Yung-Jan 21, 29, 200 Auckland 13, 15, 150, 161 Boca Raton — see also Delray Beach Chan/Chuang 21 Austin, Tracy 240, 259, 264, 269, 271, Bogota 13, 17, 147, 152 Chan/Hsieh 14, 20 273, 274 Bohmova, Katerina 26 Chan/Luzhanska 26 Australian Open 11, 12, 16, 36, 37, Bollegraf/Leach 250 Chan/Pelletier 16 143, 160, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, Bonaventure — See Fort Lauderdale Chan/Spears 25 195, 196 Bondarenko, Alona 8, 11, 12, 19, 29, Chanfreau Lovera, Gail (Sheriff) Azarenka, Victoria 33, 142, 199 43, 98, 99, 141, 180, 192, 199 see Bonicelli/Chanfreau Lovera Azarenka/Poutchek 14, 30, 140 Bondarenko/Bondarenko 19 Chanfreau/Durr 243 B Bondarenko/Yakimova 22, 140 Charleston 11, 12, 19, 190, 191, 192, Bonicelli/Chanfreau Lovera 243 193 Bacheva, Lubomira 199 Boogert, Kristie 199 Charlottsville $50K 20 Bachmann, Angelika 199 Bordeaux $75K+H 28 Chase Championships 190, 191, 192, Bacsinszky, Timea 19, 22 Boshoff/Kloss 243 193, 194 Baden-Baden $50K+H 26 Boston 196 Chen/Ren 27 Bahia 192, 193 Bovina, Elena 192, 199 Chi, Jane 200 Baker/Kriz 31 Bovina/Zimonjic 250 Chicago 193, 194, 195, 196 Balestrat, Dianne 269, 271 Brandi, Kristina 29, 199 Chladkova, Denisa 200 Balestrat/Gourlay 243 Bratislava $75K+H 32 Cho, Yoon Jeong 15, 200 Bali 13, 28, 146, 151 Brémond, Severine (Beltrame) 9, 23, Chuang/Tanasugarn 22 Bammer, Sybille 9, 199 44, 199 Cibulkova, Dominika 20, 27, 32 Bangalore 13, 17, 149, 151 Brighton 194, 195, 196 Cincinnati 13, 24, 147, 195 Bangkok 13, 31 Brisbane 195, 196 Clijsters, Kim 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, Barcelona 194 Bronx $50K 27 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 32, 33, Barcelona $75K+H 30 Budapest 13, 25, 34 34, 45, 66, 74, 75, 77, 78, 82, 85, 86, Bardina, Vasilisa 9, 17 Bueno/Court 243 87, 88, 89, 99, 101, 103, 106, 117, Barker, Sue 240, 269, 271 Bunge, Bettina 269, 271 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 130, Barna, Anca 199 Bychkova, Ekaterina 9, 15, 23, 199 131, 132, 146, 190, 192, 193, 198, Barrois, Kristina 32 Bychkova/Shamayko 15 200, 213, 221, 240, 263, 264, 265, 5, 8, 13, 15, 28, 30, Bartoli, Marion 267, 269, 271 33, 42, 73, 84, 90, 92, 98, 99, 111, C Clijsters/Sugiyama 243, 267 118, 137, 142, 180, 199 Cagnes-sur-Mer $75K 20 Coetzer, Amanda 193, 194, 200, 269, Bartoli/Déchy 162 Callens, Els 199 271

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Index Cohen-Aloro, Stephanie 200 Domachowska/Vinci 15, 140 Filderstadt 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 Cohen-Aloro/Martinez Sanchez 31 Dominguez Lino, Lourdes 9, 13, 17, Flipkens, Kirsten 25, 202 Cohen-Aloro/Sfar 14 25, 201 Forest Hills 13, 27 College Park $75K 24 Dothan $75K 19 Foretz, Stephanie 28, 30, 32 Court, Margaret 240, 252, 257, 258, Dragomir Ilie, Ruxandra 202 Foretz/Krajicek 162 259, 264, 269, 271, 277 Drake, Maureen 202 Foretz/Schruff 28 see also Bueno/Court Dubai 11, 12, 17, 36, 153, 155, 190, Fort Lauderdale 196 Court/Goolagong Cawley 243 191, 192, 193 Frazier, Amy 194, 202 Court/Tegart Dalton 243 Dubai $75K+H 2005 15 French Open Court/Wade 243 Dubois, Stephanie 66 see Roland Garros Courtois, Laurence 200 Dubois/Kleybanova 33 Fukuoka $50K 21 Craybas, Jill 9, 66, 200 Dulko 9, 47, 73, 95, 96, 111, 137, 141, Fusano/Kops-Jones 24 Cuneo $50K+H 24 147, 202 Czink, Melinda 14, 200 Dulko/Kirilenko 162 G Dulko/Pennetta 17, 140, 164 Gadusek, Bonnie 196 D Durie, Jo 196, 269, 271 Gagliardi, Emmanuelle 202 Dallas 195, 196 Durr, Françoise 252, 259, 264, 277 Gajdosova, Jarmila 9, 25, 142 Daniilidou, Eleni 9, 13, 29, 45, 134, see also Chanfreau/Durr 243 Gajdosova/Morigami 23 137, 146, 180, 201 Durr/A Jones 243 Gajdosova/Piedade 26 Date, Kimiko 193, 194, 269, 271 Durr/Hard 243 Gallovits, Edina 21 Davenport, Lindsay 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17, Durr/Stove 243 Gallovits/Kirkland 21 27, 45, 83, 96, 103, 106, 112, 118, Dushevina, Vera 202 Gancheva, Elena 66 131, 142, 146, 190, 192, 193, 194, Garbin, Tathiana 9, 23, 24, 30, 202 198, 201, 213, 222, 240, 259, 263, E Garrison(-Jackson), Zina 195, 196, 264, 265, 267, 269, 271, 273, 274 Eastbourne 11, 12, 23, 36, 150, 190, 269, 271 Davenport/M. J. Fernandez 243 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 Gersi, Adriana 202 Davenport/Morariu 28, 140, 243 Erakovic, Marina 32 Gifu $50K 20 Davenport/Novotna 243 Ericsson 194, 195 Glatch, Alexa 202 de Lone, Erica 201 see also Miami Gold Coast 13, 15, 155, 156 de los Rios, Rossana 21, 201 Errani/Knapp 24 Golovin, Tatiana 5, 6, 8, 16, 19, 25, de Swardt/Adams 250 Essen 193, 194 30, 47, 92, 132, 202 Deauville $50K 2005 14 Estoril 13, 20, 159 Golovin/Gasquet 250 Dechaume-Balleret, Alexia 201 Evers, Dianne Goolagong (Cawley), Evonne 240, Déchy, Nathalie 6, 9, 10, 46, 66, 90, see also Chaloner/Evers 253, 259, 264, 269, 271, 274 92, 134, 137, 142, 146, 171, 198, Evert, Chris 195, 196, 240, 257, 259, see also Court/Goolagong Cawley 201 264, 269, 271, 273, 274 Goolagong Cawley/Gourlay 243 Déchy/Golovin 162 Evert/Morozova 243 Gorrochategui, Ines 202 Déchy/Zvonareva 27, 140, 164, 243 Evert/Navratilova 243 Gourlay Cawley, Helen 277 Dekmeijere/Takase 29 see also Balestrat/Gourlay Delray Beach 194 F see also Goolagong Cawley/ Dementieva, Elena 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, Fairbank/Harford 243 Gourlay 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 26, 31, 46, 79, 86, Fairbank/Reynolds 243 Gourlay Cawley/Russell 243 87, 88, 90, 92, 98, 135, 137, 147, Farina Elia, Silvia 202 Gourlay/Harris 243 190, 192, 201, 269, 271 Fedak, Yuliana 9, 14, 19, 20, 138, 202 Graf, Steffi 131, 193, 194, 195, 196, Denain $75K 2006 28 Fedossova, Youlia 32 202, 214, 240, 257, 259, 263, 264, Detroit 196 Fendick/MJ Fernandez 243 265, 269, 271, 273, 274 Diaz-Oliva, Mariana 201 Fernandez, Clarisa 31, 202 Graf/Sabatini 243 Dinan $75K 19 Fernandez, Gigi 223, 253, 257, 258, Grahame, Amanda 202 Ditty/Grandin 27 259, 266, 275, 277 Grande, Rita 202 Ditty/Luzhanska 32 Fernandez, Gigi/Navratilova 243 Granville, Laura 9, 20, 142, 202 Ditty/Sequera 18, 29, 30 Fernandez, Gigi/White 243 Granville/Gullickson 31, 33, 140 Doha 11, 12, 18, 148, 159, 190, 191, Fernandez, Gigi/Zvereva 243, 257, Grönefeld 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 18, 48, 74, 192 266 76, 90, 92, 111, 112, 117, 134, 135, Dokic, Jelena 192, 193, 201, 214, 267, Fernandez, Mary Joe 193, 194, 195, 136, 137, 139, 141, 148, 188, 202 269, 271 202, 269, 271, 274 Grönefeld/Peer 25, 140 Domachowska, Marta 16, 18, 142, see also Davenport/MJ Fernandez Grönefeld/Shaughnessy 18, 140 201 see also Fendick/MJ Fernandez GuangZhou 13, 29, 159

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Index GuangZhou $50K 27 Hiraki/Bhupathi 250 K Gubacsi, Zsofia 202 Hobart 13, 16 Kandarr, Jana 204 Gullickson, Carly 142 Hopkins, Jennifer 203 Kanepi, Kaia 9, 15, 32, 204 Hopmans, Amanda 203 Kapros, Aniko 22, 204 H Houston 194, 195, 196 Katarina Srebotnik 165 Habsudova, Karina 202 Houston $50K 32 Key Biscayne 196 Hack, Sabine 194 Hradecka, Lucie 142 see also Lipton, Ericsson, Miami Halard-Decugis, Julie 193, 194, 203, Hradecka/Uhlirova 16 King, Billie Jean 240, 254, 259, 264, 275 Hradecka/Voracova 29, 140 269, 271, 274 Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama 243 Hrdlickova, Kveta see also Casals/King Hamburg 192, 193, 194, 195 See Kveta (Hrdlickova) Peschke King, Vania 9, 13, 14, 31, 141, 204 Hammond $50K 24 Hsieh, Su-Wei 203 King/Kostanic 30, 31, 140, 164 Hanika, Sylvia 196, 269, 271 Hsieh/Kudryavtseva 33 King/Navratilova 243 Hannover 193 Huber, Anke 193, 194, 203, 269, 271 King/Stove 243 Hantuchova, Daniela 5, 6, 8, 10, 31, Huber, Liezel (Horn) 134, 135, 136, Kirilenko 5, 6, 8, 50, 66, 90, 92, 111, 48, 117, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 137, 139, 141, 149, 184, 198 137, 149, 192, 204 139, 141, 148, 171, 176, 192, 193, Huber/Mirza 17, 28, 140, 164 Kirkland, Jessica 16 203, 269, 271 Huber/Navratilova 22, 140 Kiyomura/Sawamatsu 243 Hantuchova/Bhupathi 250 Husarova, Janette 137, 141, 198, 203 Kleinova, Sandra 204 Hantuchova/Friedl 250 Husarova/Krajicek 24, 25, 140 Kloesel, Sandra 28 Hantuchova/Santoro 250 Kloss, Ilana Hantuchova/Sugiyama 18, 21, 22, I see Boshoff/Kloss 140, 175 Indian Harbor Beach $50K 21 Knapp, Karin 26 Hantuchova/Ullyett 250 Indian Wells 11, 12, 18, 143, 190, 191, Kohde-Kilsch, Claudia 196, 269, 271 Harford, Tanya 192, 193, 194, 195 Kohde-Kilsch/Sukova 243 see also Fairbank/Harford Indianapolis 195, 196 Kolkata 13, 28, 149, 151 31, 203 203 Harkleroad, Ashley Irvin, Marissa Koryttseva/Voskoboeva 32 Harris, Kerry Istanbul 13, 22 Kostanic, Jelena 9, 17, 141, 204 see also Gourlay/Harris Italian Open — see Rome Koukalova, Klara 204 Hartford 196 Ivanova, Ekaterina 30 Kournikova, Anna 204, 225, 266, 269, 13, 32, 34 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 26, Hasselt Ivanovic, Ana 271 Hénin-Hardenne, Justine 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 49, 92, 192, 203 see also Hingis/Kournikova 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, Krajicek, Michaella 9, 13, 16, 23, 51, 24, 27, 33, 34, 49, 66, 73, 74, 75, 77, J 95, 137, 141, 204 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, Jackson, Jamea 9, 23, 66, 204 Krasnoroutskaya, Lina 204 89, 95, 98, 99, 101, 103, 106, 117, Jaeger, Andrea 269, 271 Krauth/Piedade 25 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 130, Jankovic, Jelena 5, 6, 8, 26, 27, 50, 73, Kremer, Anne 204 131, 132, 190, 192, 193, 198, 203, 90, 96, 111, 132, 138, 142, 180, 204 Kruger, Joanette 204 215, 240, 259, 263, 264, 265, 267, Jankovic/Li 23, 140, 164 Kudryavtseva, Alla 32 269, 271, 273, 274 Jankovic/Uberoi 162 Kurhajcova, Lubomira 204 Henke, Vanessa 203 Jans/Rosolska 19, 30, 32 Kuti Kis, Rita 204 Hilton Head 194, 195, 196 Japan Open 13, 30 Kutuzova, Viktoriya 14 Hingis, Martina 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, Jausovec, Mima 240, 269, 271 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18, 21, 26, 28, 49, 66, 73, 74, Jausovec/Ruzici 243 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 75, 77, 82, 84, 86, 87, 90, 92, 103, Ji/Sun 32, 33 27, 28, 30, 31, 51, 73, 74, 75, 76, 82, 106, 112, 118, 131, 132, 148, 180, Jidkova, Alina 204 83, 84, 85, 101, 103, 106, 117, 118, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 198, Johannesburg 196 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 130, 132, 203, 215, 224, 240, 253, 257, 258, Jones, Ann 240 135, 136, 137, 139, 142, 150, 171, 259, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 269, see also Durr/A. Jones 180, 190, 192, 198, 204, 225, 240, 271, 273, 274, 275, 277 Jordan, Barbara 240 263, 269, 271 Hingis/Bhupathi 250 Jordan, Kathy 253, 257, 258, 259 Kuznetsova/Mauresmo 23, 140, 164 Hingis/Kournikova 243, 266 Jordan, Kathy/Anne Smith 243, 257 Kuznetsova/Molik 243 Hingis/Lucic 243, 257 Jordan/Smylie 243 Kuznetsova/Petrova 162 Hingis/Novotna 243, 257 Jounieh $75K 21 Hingis/Pierce 243 Jugic-Salkic, Mervana 15 L Hingis/Sukova 243 Jugic-Salkic/Navratilova 27 Lafayette $50K 20 Hingis/Zvereva 243 Laine, Emma 9, 18

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Index Lamade, Bianka 204 Martinez, Conchita 135, 136, 139, Myskina, Anastasia 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 22, Las Vegas $75K 18 190, 193, 194, 195, 198, 205, 216, 23, 26, 55, 66, 78, 79, 80, 81, 90, 92, Lee-Waters, Lindsay 204 240, 264, 267, 270, 271, 274 142, 188, 192, 193, 198, 217, 240, Lefevre/Vedy 20 Martinez Granados, Conchita 205 263, 270, 271 Leipzig 192, 193, 194, 195 Martinez Granados/Martinez Sanchez see also Likhovtseva/Myskina Leon Garcia, Gala 204 23 Lepchenko, Varvara 19, 24 Martinez Sanchez, Maria Jose 205 N Lexington $50K 25 Matevzic, Maja 205 Nagelsen, Betsy Li Na 5, 8, 20, 21, 52, 79, 92, 96, 117, Mattek, Bethanie 14, 32, 138, 205 see also Navratilova/Nagelson 142, 205 Mattek/Washington 162 Nagelsen/Tomanova 243 Li Ting 137, 141, 205 Mauresmo, Amélie 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, Nagy, Kyra 23 Li/Sun 17, 20, 29, 140 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 27, 28, Nagyova, Henrieta 206 Likhovtseva, Elena 6, 9, 52, 90, 92, 33, 34, 53, 66, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, Nakamura, Aiko 9, 20, 30, 206 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, 150, 191, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 95, 98, 99, Navratilova,Martina 134, 135, 137, 198, 205, 267 101, 103, 106, 117, 118, 120, 121, 141, 152, 171, 194, 195, 196, 198, Likhovtseva/Bhupathi 250 122, 123, 124, 130, 131, 132, 142, 240, 254, 257, 258, 259, 263, 264, Likhovtseva/Myskina 20, 140 150, 190, 192, 193, 198, 205, 217, 265, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 277 Likhovtseva/Zvonareva 15, 140 240, 259, 263, 264, 267, 270, 271, see also Evert/Navratilova Linetskaya, Evgenia 205 274 see also Fernandez/Navratilova Linz 11, 12, 32, 190, 191, 192, 193 McGrath, Meredith 194 see also Huber/Navratilova Lions Cup (Tokyo) 196 McNeil, Lori 194, 195 see also King/Navratilova Lipton 196 McQuillan, Rachel 205 see also Mandlikova/Navratilova See also Miami Medina Garrigues, Anabel 5, 8, 13, Navratilova/B. Bryan 250 Livingston — See Princeton 15, 24, 29, 34, 53, 76, 90, 92, 96, Navratilova/Nagelsen 243 Llagostera Vives, Nuria 205 134, 135, 137, 139, 150, 206 Navratilova/Paes 250 Loit, Emilie 9, 138, 141, 198, 205 Medvedeva, Natalia 194 Navratilova/Petrova 26, 140 Loit/Peschke 16, 140 Memphis 13, 18 Navratilova/Shriver 243, 257 Loit/Pratt 16, 140 Mestre $50K 28 Navratilova/Smith 243 Los Angeles 11, 12, 26, 143, 154, 158, Meusburger, Yvonne 19 Navratilova/Sromova 15 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 Miami 11, 12, 19, 36, 37, 143, 190, Navratilova/Stove 243 Los Angeles Championships 11, 12 191, 192, 193 Navratilova/Temesvari 243 Lucic, Mirjana 205 Michel, Margaret Neffa-de los Rios, Rossana see also Hingis/Lucic see also Goolagong Cawley/Michel see Rossana de los Rios Luxembourg 11, 12, 29, 153, 155, Midland $75K 17 Neiland, Larisa 226, 266, 275, 277 190, 191, 192 Mikaelian, Marie-Gayanay 206 see also under Savchenko Milan 194 Neiland/Novotna 266 M Mirza, Sania 9, 66, 134, 137, 141, Neiland/Woodforde 250 Madrid Championships 33, 36, 37, 151, 206 Neiland/Zvereva 243 143 Molik, Alicia 54, 135, 139, 151, 192, Nelson/Yelsey 24 Mahwah 195, 196 206, 263 New England 194, 195, 196 Majoli, Iva 192, 193, 194, 205, 240, Montolio, Angeles 206 New Haven 11, 12, 27, 36, 37, 143, 269, 271 Montreal 160, 190, 191, 192, 193 Maleeva, Katerina 194, 195, 269, 271 See Canadian Open New Orleans 195, 196 Maleeva, Magdalena 192, 193, 194, Morariu, Corina 135, 137, 139, 141, Newport 194, 195, 196 198, 205, 267, 269, 271 151, 198, 206, 275 Nice 192, 193 Maleeva-Fragniere, Manuela 194, Morariu/E. Ferreira 250 Niculescu/Voracova 28 195, 196, 264, 269, 271, 274 Morariu/Pennetta 162 Nola, Pavlina (Stoyanova) 206 Mandlikova, Hana 195, 196, 240, 259, Morariu/Stubbs 15, 140 Noorlander, Seda 206 264, 269, 271, 274 Morigami, Akiko 66, 206 Novotna, Jana 193, 194, 206, 227, Mandlikova/Navratilova 243 Morita, Ayumi 21, 29 240, 254, 258, 259, 266, 270, 271, Mandula, Petra 205 Morozova, Olga 270, 271 274, 277 Mariskova/Teeguarden 243 see also Evert/Morozova see also Davenport/Novotna Marrero, Marta 205 Moscow 11, 12, 31, 36, 37, 153, 155, see also Hingis/Novotna Marseille $50K+H 23 190, 191, 192, 193 Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario 243 Martina Franca $50K 26 Müller, Martina 9, 20, 26, 28, 54, 66, Novotna/Sukova 243 73, 98, 99, 180, 206 Munich 190, 191, 192, 193

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Index O Pierce, Mary 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 57, 190, Rimini $50K 27 192, 193, 194, 198, 207, 218, 240, Rinaldi, Kathy 196 O’Neil, Chris 240 259, 267, 270, 271, 274 Rittner, Barbara 207 Oakland 196 see also Hingis/Pierce Rodionova, Anastassia 207 see also Stanford Pierce/Bhupathi 250 Roland Garros 11, 12, 22, 34, 36, 37, Obata, Saori 206 Pin, Camille 9, 24, 25, 26, 207 143, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, Obziler, Tzipora 26, 206 Pironkova, Tsvetana 9, 14, 207 196 Olympics 192 Pisnik, Tina 207 Rolle, Ahsha 29, 31 Ondraskova, Zuzana 206 Pitkowski, Sarah 207 Rome 11, 12, 21, 148, 159, 190, 191, Oprandi, Romina 9, 23, 28, 180 Pittsburg $75K 33 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 Oprandi/Woeh 28 Plischke, Sylvia 207 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 4, 9, 134, Orange $50K 19 Po/Johnson 250 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, 154, 171, Oremans, Miriam 206 Poitiers $75K 2005 14 191, 198, 207, 229, 259 Orlando 196 Portoroz 13, 29 Ruano Pascual/Carbonell 250 Ortisei $75K 16 Potter, Barbara 195, 270, 271 Ruano Pascual/Suarez 24, 26, 28, 29, Osterloh, Lilia 16, 206 Pous Tio, Laura 207 140, 243 P Poutchek, Tatiana 27, 142, 207 Ruano Pascual/Suárez 162, 243 Poutchek/Yakimova 21 Rubin, Chanda 66, 192, 193, 198, 208, Palermo 13, 24, 34 Poutchkova, Olga 9, 27, 28, 33, 58, 267 196 Palm Beach Gardens 180, 207 Rubin/Sanchez-Vicario 243 Palm Beach Gardens $50K 2005 14 Prague 13, 21, 152 Russell, JoAnne Palm Springs 195 Pratt, Nicole 9, 138, 142, 207 see Gourlay Cawley/Russell see also Indian Wells Princess Cup 192, 193, 194, 195 Ruzici, Virginia 196, 240 Pan Pacific 11, 12, 16, 190, 191, 192, Princeton 196 see also Jausovec/Ruzici 193, 194, 195, 196 Prostejov $75K 23 Panova, Tatiana 206 Prusova, Libuse 207 S Papadaki, Christina 206 Sabatini, Gabriela 194, 195, 218, 240, Paris 11, 12, 16, 153, 190, 191, 192, Q 264, 270, 272, 273, 274 193, 194 Quebec City 13, 33 see also Graf/Sabatini Parra Santonja, Arantxa 206 Queens Grand Prix (Tokyo) 196 Safarova, Lucie 9, 13, 15, 19, 58, 208 Pastikova/Sromova 23 Safina, Dinara 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 21, 23, Paszek, Tamira 9, 13, 29, 206 R 59, 66, 75, 76, 118, 132, 134, 137, Pattaya City 13, 159 Rabat 13, 22, 160 141, 155, 171, 192, 208 Paz, Mercedes 277 Radwanska, Agnieszka 9, 66, 207 Safina/Shaughnessy 15, 140 Peer, Shahar 5, 8, 13, 17, 21, 22, 55, 250 Safina/Srebotnik 17, 27, 140, 164 77, 90, 137, 141, 152, 188, 206 Ram/Zvonareva Randriantefy, Dally 207 Saint Gaudens $50K 22 see also Bartoli.Peer Raymond, Lisa 4, 134, 135, 136, 137, Saint Paul $50K 18 Pelletier/Rao 20 139, 141, 154, 165, 166, 167, 168, Saint Raphael $50K 32 Peng Shuai 9, 22, 206 169, 170, 171, 173, 176, 184, 191, Salerni, Maria Emilia 17, 208 Pennetta, Flavia 5, 6, 8, 15, 17, 18, 56, 198, 207, 228, 255, 258, 275 San Antonio 194, 195 76, 92, 96, 111, 135, 137, 139, 142, 250 San Diego 11, 12, 25, 145, 158, 190, 152, 207 Raymond/Galbraith Raymond/M. Bryan 250 191, 192, 193, 194, 195 Perebiynis, Tatiana 24, 207 Raymond/Paes 250 San Francisco $50K 31 Perry, Shenay 9, 18 Raymond/Stosur 16, 18, 19, 22, 30, Sanchez Lorenzo, Maria 208 Peschke, Kveta (Hrdlickova) 4, 56, 32, 33, 140, 164, 175, 243 Sanchez, Olivia 25 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, 153, 243, 267 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 191, 193, 191, 207 Raymond/Stubbs Razzano, Virginie 31, 207 194, 195, 198, 208, 219, 230, 240, Peschke/Schiavone 17, 29, 31, 140, 207 255, 259, 263, 266, 270, 272, 273, 164, 175 Reeves, Samantha Reggi, Raffaella 195, 196 274, 275, 277 Petange $50K+H 25 Rehe, Stephanie 195, 196 see also Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario Petrova, Nadia 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 240, 270, 271 see also Rubin/Sanchez-Vicario 17, 18, 19, 21, 30, 31, 32, 57, 66, 73, Reid, Kerry Melville 243 Sanchez-Vicario/Palmer 250 74, 77, 86, 87, 88, 92, 95, 103, 118, Reid/Turnbull Sanchez-Vicario/Sukova 243 134, 137, 142, 153, 171, 190, 192, Reynolds, Candy Santangelo, Mara 8, 13, 17, 59, 137, 198, 207, 263, 264, 270, 271, 275 see also Fairbank/Reynolds Rezai, Aravane 9, 180 208 Philadelphia 190, 192, 193, 194 Richey, Nancy 240, 264, 270, 271 Savchenko, Larisa Richmond 196 see also Neiland, Larisa

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Index Savchenko/Zvereva 243 Spears, Abigail 25, 209 Sukova, Helena 195, 196, 234, 255, Sawamatsu, Kazuko Spirlea, Irina 193, 194, 209, 270, 272 258, 259, 266, 270, 272, 274, 275, see Kiyomura/Sawamatsu Sprem, Karolina 209 277 Schaul, Claudine 18, 208 Srebotnik, Katarina 4, 5, 8, 24, 31, 62, see also Hingis/Sukova Schett, Barbara 208, 270, 272 114, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, see also Kohde-Kilsch/Sukova Schiavone, Francesca 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, 141, 156, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, see also Novotna/Sukova 19, 29, 60, 66, 114, 132, 134, 136, 176, 191, 198, 209 see also Sanchez-Vicario/Sukova 137, 139, 141, 155, 176, 191, 208 see also Asagoe/Srebotnik Sukova/Suk 250 see also Peschke/Schiavone see also Safina/Srebotnik Sun Shengnan 27 Schnyder, Patty 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 19, Srebotnik/B. Bryan 250 Sun Tiantian 9, 13, 30, 137, 141, 159, 25, 30, 60, 88, 90, 92, 118, 132, 180, Srebotnik/Norval 250 209 190, 192, 193, 198, 208, 264, 270, Srebotnik/Zimonjic 250 see also Li/Sun 272 Stanford 11, 12, 34, 148, 152, 190, Surabaya 193 Schruff, Julia 208 191, 192, 193, 194, 195 Svensson, Åsa (Carlsson) 209 Schultz-McCarthy, Brenda 266 Stevenson, Alexandra 209 Sydney 11, 12, 15, 151, 190, 191, 192, Scottsdale 192, 193 Stewart, Bryanne 135, 157 193, 194, 195, 196 Seles, Monica 190, 192, 193, 194, Stockholm 13, 26 Sydney Indoors 196 195, 198, 208, 219, 240, 259, 263, Stosur, Samantha 4, 5, 8, 21, 27, 62, Szavay, Agnes 30, 32, 210 264, 267, 270, 272, 273, 274 92, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, Sema, Yurika 27 157, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, T Seoul 13, 29, 154, 158 171, 173, 176, 184, 188, 191, 198, Takao, Erika 20 Sequera, Milagros 18, 20, 31, 208 209, 231, 275 Talaja, Silvija 210 Sequera/Sromova 20 see also Raymond/Stosur Tampa 194, 195, 196 Sequera/Tu 17 Stosur/Hanley 250 Tanasugarn 9, 31, 33, 210 Serna, Magui 209 Stove, Betty 259, 270, 272, 277 Tarabini/Frana 250 Serra Zanetti, Adriana 208 see also Durr/Stove Tashkent 13, 30 Serra Zanetti, Antonella 208 see also King/Stove Tatishvili, Anna 66 Sfar, Selima 21 see also Navratilova/Stove Tauziat, Nathalie 193, 194, 198, 210, Shanghai $50K 33 Stove/Turnbull 243 270, 272 Sharapova, Maria 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, Strasbourg 13, 22, 149, 152 Taylor, Sarah 210 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, Stratton Mountain 194 Teeguarden, Pam 32, 33, 61, 66, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, Strycova, Barbora 209 see also Mariskova/Teeguarden 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 98, 99, Strycova/Voracova 30 Tegart Dalton, Judy 252, 259 101, 103, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, Stubbs, Rennae 4, 134, 135, 136, 137, see also Casals/Tegart Dalton 123, 124, 130, 132, 190, 192, 198, 139, 141, 158, 173, 176, 184, 191, see also Court/Tegart Dalton 209, 220, 240, 259, 263, 264, 270, 198, 231, 266 Temesvari, Andrea 196 272 see also Black/Stubbs see also Navratilova/Temesvari Shaughnessy, Meghann 9, 13, 22, 27, Stubbs/Palmer 250 Testud, Sandrine 193, 210 61, 66, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, Stubbs/Woodbridge 250 Tokyo $50K 29 156, 171, 198, 209, 275 Stuttgart 11, 12, 30, 190, 191, 192 Tomanova, Renata Shenzhen $50K 33 Suárez, Paola 66, 134, 135, 137, 139, see also Nagelson/Tomanova ’s-Hertogenbosch 13, 23, 160 141, 158, 171, 191, 198, 209, 232, Torrens Valero, Cristina 210 Shriver, Pam 195, 196, 255, 257, 258, 259 Touraine $50K 31 259, 270, 272, 274, 275, 277 see also Ruano Pascual/Suárez Troy $50K 31 see also Navratilova/Shriver Sucha, Martina 22, 209 Tu, Meilen 138, 210 Shriver/Zvereva 243 Sugiyama, Ai 5, 8, 18, 29, 63, 90, 92, Tucson $75K 2005 14 Shvedova, Yaroslava 19 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 141, 159, Tulyaganova, Iroda 30, 33, 210 Sidot, Anne-Gaëlle 209 171, 176, 188, 191, 192, 198, 209, Turnbull, Wendy 256, 270, 272, 274 Smashnova, Anna 9, 13, 23, 25, 27, 233, 275 see also Casals/Turnbull 34, 192, 198, 209 see also Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama see also Reid/Turnbull Smith, Anne 255, 257, 258, 259 see also Hantuchova/Sugiyama see also Stove/Turnbull see also Kathy Jordan/Anne Smith Sugiyama/Bhupathi 250 see also Navratilova/Smith U Smylie, Elizabeth U. S. Open 11, 12, 27, 36, 37, 143, see also Jordan/Smylie 146, 161, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, Snyder, Tara 209 195, 196 South, Melanie 66

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Index V Williams, Serena 6, 10, 26, 63, 95, 96, Z 111, 112, 131, 190, 191, 192, 193, Vaidisova, Nicole 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, Zagreb $50K+H 23 198, 211, 220, 235, 240, 256, 257, 15, 22, 25, 31, 63, 75, 132, 210 Zakopalova, Klara (Koukalova) 64, 258, 259, 263, 264, 265, 267, 270, Vakulenko, Julia 210 66 272, 274 Van Roost, Dominique (Monami) 210 Zheng Jie 4, 8, 13, 20, 26, 64, 73, 134, Williams, Serena/Mirnyi 250 Vanc, Andreea 138 136, 137, 139, 141, 160, 165, 166, Williams, Venus 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 64, Vento-Kabchi, Maria 210 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 176, 191, 75, 95, 96, 98, 99, 111, 112, 118, Vesnina, Elena 9, 138 198, 211, 236 132, 190, 192, 193, 198, 211, 220, Vinci, Roberta 31, 142, 210 see also Yan/Zheng 235, 240, 256, 257, 258, 259, 263, Virginia Slims Championships 195, Zuluaga, Fabiola 211 264, 267, 270, 272, 274 196 Zürich 11, 12, 31, 36, 37, 143, 145, Williams, Venus/Gimelstob 250 Vittel $50K 25 158, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, Williams/Williams 243, 257 Voracova, Renata 142 196 Wimbledon 11, 12, 24, 36, 37, 143, Voskoboeva, Galina 24, 138 Zvereva, Natasha 193, 194, 195, 211, 160, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 237, 256, 257, 258, 259, 266, 270, 196 W 272, 275, 277 Wozniak, Aleksandra 30, 33 Wade, Virginia 240, 259, 264, 270, see also Fernandez/Zvereva 272, 274 X see also Hingis/Zvereva see also Court/Wade see also Neiland/Zvereva Xie Yan-Ze 22 Waikoloa $50K 16 see also Savchenko/Zvereva Wang, Shi-Ting 193, 194 Y see also Shriver/Zvereva Warsaw 11, 12, 20, 150, 190, 191, 192 Zvonareva, Vera 5, 8, 13, 15, 23, 24, Yakimova, Anastasiya 9, 20, 21, 142 Wartusch, Patricia 210 65, 73, 80, 81, 90, 95, 111, 134, 135, Yan Zi 4, 134, 136, 137, 139, 141, Washington 194, 195, 196 136, 137, 139, 141, 161, 198, 211, 160, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, Washington $75K 26 267 173, 176, 184, 191, 198, 211, 236 Washington, Mashona 210 see also Déchy/Zvonareva 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 140, Weingärtner, Marlene 210 Yan/Zheng Zvonareva/B. Bryan 250 164, 175, 243 White, Robin Yi Jing-Qian 211 see also Fernandez/White Yuan Meng 33 Widjaja, Angelique 210

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2006 Robert Waltz Index