sign in sign up
<<
Home , Adriana Serra Zanetti, Ai Sugiyama, Alexandra Stevenson, Amanda Coetzer, Amanda Grahame, Anca Barna

WTA Tour Statistical Abstract 2002

Robert B. Waltz ©2002 by Robert B. Waltz Reproduction and/or distribution for profit prohibited

Contents Introduction...... 4 Idealized Ranking Systems ...... 66 Surface-Modified Divisor (Minimum 16)...... 66 2002 In Review: The Top Players . . . . .5 Idealized Rankings/Proposal 2 — Adjusted Won/Lost..68 The Final Top Thirty...... 5 Adjusted Winning Percentage, No Bonuses...... 70 The Beginning Top Twenty-Five ...... 6 Percentage of Possible Points Earned ...... 71 Summary of Changes, Beginning to End of 2002 ...... 6 to Head ...... 73 Top Players Analysed ...... 7 All the Players in the Top Ten in 2002: The Complete The Top 20 Head to Head ...... 73 Top Ten Based on WTA (Best 17) Statistics ...... 7 Wins Over Top Players ...... 74 The Complete Top Ten under the 1996 Ranking System.7 Matches Played/Won against the (Final) Top Twenty...74 Ranking Fluctuation...... 8 Won/Lost Versus the Top Players Highest Ranking of 2002 ...... 10 (Based on Rankings at the Time of the Match) ...... 75 Top Players Sorted by Median Ranking...... 11 Won/Lost Versus the Top Players Short Summary: The Top Eighty...... 12 (Based on Final Rankings)...... 76 The Top 200, in Numerical Order ...... 14 Statistics/Rankings Based on Head-to-Head . . .77 The Top 200, in Alphabetical Order...... 15 Total Wins over Top Ten Players...... 77 Tournament Results ...... 16 Winning Percentage against Top Ten Players...... 77 How They Earned Their Points . . . . . 77 Summary of Results for Top Players ...... 16 Fraction of Points Earned in Slams ...... 78 Tournament Winners ...... 39 Quality Versus Round Points ...... 79 Tournament Winners by Date (High-Tier Events) ...... 39 Percentage of Points Earned on Each Surface...... 80 Tournament Winners by Type (High-Tier Events)...... 40 Winners at Smaller Tournaments (Tier III, IV, V) ...... 41 Consistency...... 81 Cheap Thrills and Tough Bills: Standard Deviation of Scores by Tournament...... 81 Titles against Weak and Strong Opposition...... 42 Early-Round Losses ...... 82 Winners at $50K and Larger Challengers...... 43 Frequency of Early Losses ...... 83 Number of Tournament Wins for Top 25 Players ...... 44 Worst Losses ...... 84 Fraction of Tournaments Won...... 45 Best and Worst “Worst Losses” ...... 91 Tiers of Tournaments Played and Average Tier...... 46 Points Earned Week by Week ...... 48 Fraction of Points Earned in Biggest Win . . . . .92 Tournament Results (Points Earned), Most to Least ...... 49 Winning and Losing Streaks ...... 93 Alternate Rankings...... 50 Winning and Losing Streaks, Sorted by Player...... 93 List of Longest Winning Streaks...... 96 Total Points Ranking (1997 Ranking System...... 50 Points Per Tournament, Minimum 14 Number of Significant Results...... 97 (1996 Ranking System: “The Divisor”)...... 51 Points Per Quarter ...... 98 Points Per Tournament, Minimum 17 Most Consistent over Four Quarters ...... 100 (“Modernized Divisor”) ...... 52 Best 14 ...... 53 Slam Results...... 101 Slotted Best 18 (ATP Entry Rank) ...... 54 Surface Rankings...... 103 Total Wins...... 55 Winning Percentage...... 56 Hardcourts ...... 104 Divisor Rankings, No Slam Bonus...... 57 Summary of Hardcourt Results ...... 104 The “Majors Ranking”...... 58 Winning Percentage on Hardcourts...... 107 Total Round Points ...... 59 Points Per Tournament on Hardcourts ...... 108 Round Points Per Tournament...... 60 Best and Worst Results on Hardcourts...... 109 Quality Points Per Tournament Clay ...... 110 (“Future Potential Ranking”) ...... 61 Summary of Clay Results...... 110 Quality/Round Points Equalized: 2Q+R/Tournament ....62 Winning Percentage on Clay...... 113 Consistency-Rewarded Rankings ...... 63 Points Per Tournament on Clay...... 114 Logarithmic Points Award...... 63 Best and Worst Results on Clay ...... 115 Worst 14...... 64 Grass...... 116 Middle Half...... 65 Summary of Grass Results ...... 116 Adjusted Points Per Tournament on Grass...... 119

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 2

Contents Indoors ...... 120 Rankings under the 1996 Ranking System Summary of Indoor Results ...... 120 (Divisor, Minimum 14)...... 188 Winning Percentage Indoors...... 122 Doubles Points Per Tournament, No Minimum Divisor189 Points Per Tournament Indoors ...... 123 Majors Ranking ...... 190 Best and Worst Results Indoors...... 124 Combined Singles and Doubles Rankings . . . .192 All-Surface Players ...... 125 WTA Calendar for 2002 Tournament Wins by Surface ...... 126 Events and Results...... 194 Assorted Statistics...... 127 The Almanac 2002 ...... 207 The Busiest Players on the Tour ...... 127 Total Tour Matches Played by Top Players...... 127 WTA Tour History ...... 223 Total Tour Events Played by the Top 150 ...... 128 Who Won What Summary — Singles ...... 223 Who Won What Summary — Doubles...... 224 The Strongest Tournaments ...... 129 Tournament Strength Based on Who Won What — History of Tournaments . .225 Four Top Players Present ...... 130 Who Won What Part 1: 1996Ð2002 ...... 225 The Top Tournaments Based on Who Won What Part 2: 1990Ð1996 ...... 226 Top Players Present — Method 1 ...... 132 Who Won What Part 3: 1986Ð1989 ...... 227 The Top Tournaments Based on Who Won What Part 4: 1983Ð1986 ...... 228 Top Players Present — Method 2 ...... 133 Active Leaders in Titles (Singles/Doubles)...... 229 Strongest Tournaments Won ...... 135 Detailed Analysis — Career Tournaments for Davenport, Hingis, Seles, Williams...... 230 Strongest Tournament Performances...... 136 Career Results for Leading Players ...... 231 Title Defences ...... 136 Slam History...... 238 Seeds and their Success Rates ...... 137 Singles Slam Winners, Open Era ...... 238 Bagels...... 141 Doubles Slam Winners, Open Era...... 239 The Road to Victory...... 145 Doubles Slams and Partners ...... 240 Games Lost in Path to Title ...... 145 Grand Slams and Career Slams ...... 245 Quality Points Earned ...... 146 Total Slam Victories, Open Era ...... 247 “Top Players” 2002 ...... 147 Players and Titles ...... 248 Players with Titles, Year by Year ...... 248 Statistics About the Tour as a Whole...... 149 Most Titles, Year By Year ...... 250 The Year of the Injury ...... 150 Five Or More Titles in a Year ...... 251 Doubles...... 151 Surface Sweeps — Singles (Since 1990) ...... 252 Career Surface Sweeps...... 254 The Final Top 30 in Doubles ...... 151 The Initial Top 30 in Doubles...... 152 Year-End Top Players ...... 255 Doubles Ranking Fluctuation ...... 153 Year-End Top Eight, Alphabetical, The Final Top Fifty in Doubles ...... 154 with Years, Since 1975 ...... 255 Individual Results: Total Years Ended At Each Rank Alphabetical, Since 1975 ...... 257 The Top Thirty Doubles Players/Results . . .155 Strongest Career Rankings Showings ...... 259 Head-to-Heads — Team Losses ...... 171 Total Years in the Top Eight ...... 260 Team and Individual Statistics...... 181 Doubles Wins & Partners...... 261 Individual Doubles Statistical Leaders ...... 181 Winningest Doubles Player, Year By Year, From 1983261 Teams with the Most Events...... 181 Titles With Multiple Partners, Single Year, Open Era.262 Doubles Winning Percentages for the Top Thirty...... 182 Slams With the Most Partners, Open Era...... 262 Doubles Winning Percentages for the Top Teams ...... 183 I Came, I Played ...... 263 Team Doubles Titles, Sorted from Most to Least ...... 184 Comings and Goings: Doubles Tournament Winners by Date On and Off the Rankings ...... 264 (High-Tier Events) ...... 187 Index ...... 273 Alternate Doubles Rankings ...... 188

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 3

Introduction A folktale tells of a group of old, blind scholars called upon to investigate an elephant. One, feeling its leg, said that an elephant is like a tree trunk. One, feeling its ears, compared it to a fan. The one who felt its tusks thought it like a very heavy spear. So it is with any single measure of success: It can’t tell the whole story. A tennis player can earn a good won/lost record by being very good — or by signing up for a lot of very weak events. One may play only on her favorite surfaces, another may play a balanced schedule. To truly assess a player, you need more of a picture than won/lost or points earned. Hence this document. It’s an attempt to look at all these questions: What actually happened in 2002? Who really deserved to be #1? Was the best player on hardcourts also the best player on clay? Grass? Indoors? The first of those questions, this year, is pretty obvious: was the best singles player out there. She tops just about every statistical list. Sister Venus was pretty definitely #2. But below that, things get strange. Last year seemed a year of chaos — until this year came along to top it. At least five players — , , , , and — could lay a reasonable claim to being #3 in 2002. And the two who, under the WTA rankings, stand highest (Capriati and Clijsters) are in many ways the weakest of the five. Then there is doubles. Paola Suarez is #1 — but at least two players (Serena Williams and Martina Hingis) were clearly more effective when they played. So who should be the Top Ten? If we want to list which players were actually best (i.e. list the order in which they should be seeded in 2003), the author’s opinion is that the list in singles should be 1. Serena, 2. Venus, 3. Clijsters, 4. Hingis, 5. Davenport, 6. Capriati, 7. Seles, 8. Mauresmo, 9. Hénin, 10. Rubin. In doubles, the list would be 1. Hingis, 2. Serena, 3. Ruano Pascual, 4. Suarez, 5. Raymond, 6. Stubbs, 7. Kournikova, [8. Sanchez-Vicario — retired], 9. Husarova, 10. Hantuchova. But that’s just my perspective. You need to see the elephant for yourself. Really, the point is not to assert opinions; it’s to show you all the things on which an opinion might be based. The Statistical Abstract can’t give you every twist on the data — but it gives you more than you’ll see anywhere else. As well as let you have some statistical fun as you look up, for instance, which WTA player played the absolute most events this year, or who played the most matches — or even who suffered the most from injuries. A bit of terminology: This document will occasionally refer to “highlight players.” These are the players we’ve paid the most attention to in what follows. Highlight players in singles include every player to spend time in the Top 25, plus a handful of others (Kournikova, Krasnoroutskaya, Likhovtseva, Martinez, Pierce) whose past or anticipated future results make them seem worthy of attention. There are 46 highlight players (though some, especially Krasnoroutskaya, drop out of some of the statistical lists because they just stood too low in the standings), and they include every player to end the year in the Top 30. NOTE: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the data in this document, but it’s a lot of work; neither the author nor Tennis News can assume any responsibility for any errors or their interpretation. The author wishes to thank Daily Tennis (www.tennisnews.com) for making space available for this publication.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 4

2002 In Review: The Top Players The Final Top Thirty These are the players we’ll be talking about most. For purposes of reference, here are the Final 2002 Top 30 as determined by the WTA. Final Player Best 17 Number of Point Gap from Began Net Rank Name Score Tournaments Preceding Year At Change 1Williams, Serena 6080 13 6 +5 2Williams, Venus 5140 16 940 3 +1 3 Capriati, Jennifer 3796 17 1344 2 -1 4 Clijsters, Kim 3557 21 239 5 +1 5 Hénin, Justine 3218 23 339 7 +2 6 Mauresmo, Amélie 3068 17 150 9 +3 7 Seles, Monica 2952 15 116 10 +3 8 Hantuchova, Daniela 2667.75 25 284.25 38 +30 9 Dokic, Jelena 2506 29 161.75 8 -1 10 Hingis, Martina 2348 12 158 4 -6 11 Myskina, Anastasia 1908 29 440 59 +48 12 Davenport, Lindsay 1795 9 113 1 -11 13 Rubin, Chanda 1752 14 43 54 +41 14 Maleeva, Magdalena 1701 25 51 16 +2 15 Schnyder, Patty 1644 25 57 37 +22 16 Smashnova, Anna 1616.5 29 27.5 87 +71 17 Farina Elia, Silvia 1596 29 20.5 14 -3 18 Stevenson, Alexandra 1444 26 152 60 +42 19 Dementieva, Elena 1426 26 18 15 -4 20 Déchy, Nathalie 1295 24 131 44 +24 21 Coetzer, Amanda 1220 22 75 19 -2 22 Daniilidou, Eleni 1192.75 26 27.25 84 +62 23 Panova, Tatiana 1177 31 15.75 40 +17 24 Sugiyama, Ai 1173 27 4 30 +6 25 Kremer, Anne 1151.75 28 21.25 33 +8 26 Bovina, Elena 1137 23 14.75 49 +23 27 Suarez, Paola 1091 23 46 27 0 28 Tanasugarn, Tamarine 1056 26 35 29 1 29 Raymond, Lisa 1048.75 22 7.25 22 -7 30 Shaughnessy, Meghann 1046 27 2.75 12 -18

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 5

The Beginning Top Twenty-Five Rank Name 2002 Final Ranking Net Change 1Davenport, Lindsay 12 -11 2 Capriati, Jennifer 3 -1 3Williams, Venus 2 +1 4 Hingis, Martina 10 -6 5 Clijsters, Kim 4 +1 6Williams, Serena 1 +5 7 Hénin, Justine 5 +2 8 Dokic, Jelena 9 -1 9 Mauresmo, Amélie 6 +3 10 Seles, Monica 7 +3 11 Testud, Sandrine (retired and) 38 -27 12 Shaughnessy, Meghann 30 -18 13 Tauziat, Nathalie retired/unranked — 14 Farina Elia, Silvia 17 -3 15 Dementieva, Elena 19 -4 16 Maleeva, Magdalena 14 +2 17 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 53 36 18 Huber, Anke retired/unranked — 19 Coetzer, Amanda 21 -2 20 Tulyaganova, Iroda 55 -35 21 Schett, Barbara 40 -19 22 Raymond, Lisa 29 -7 23 Montolio, Angeles 133 -110 24 Grande, Rita 46 -22 25 Nagyova, Henrieta 59 -34 Summary of Changes, Beginning to End of 2002 Ranking Gains: From outside the Top 20 into the Top 20: Hantuchova, Myskina, Rubin, Schnyder, Smashnova, Stevenson, Déchy (total of 7) From outside the Top 20 into the Top 10: Hantuchova (total of 1) From the Top 20 into the Top 10: None Ranking Losses: Dropping out of the Top 20: Testud (retired), Shaughnessy, Tauziat (retired), Sanchez-Vicario, Huber (retired), Coetzer, Tulyaganova (total of 7) Dropping out of the Top 10 but remaining in the Top 20: Davenport Dropping from the Top 10 to below the Top 20: None Players who were in the Top 10 at beginning and end of the year: Capriati, , Hingis, Clijsters, Serena Williams, Hénin, Dokic, Mauresmo, Seles (total of 9) Players who were in the Top 20 at the beginning and end of the year: Davenport, Capriati, Venus Williams, Hingis, Clijsters, Serena Williams, Hénin, Dokic, Mauresmo, Seles, Farina Elia, Dementieva, Maleeva (total of 13)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 6

Top Players Analysed All the Players in the Top Ten in 2002: The Complete Top Ten Based on WTA (Best 17) Statistics The lists below show all players who have ranked in the Top 10 in 2002, with the highest rank achieved (total of twelve players; in 2001, seventeen players spent part of the year in the Top Ten; there were sixteen Top Ten players in 2000). We note with interest the increased stability of the rankings in 2002.

Capriati (1) Hantuchova (8) Seles (4) Clijsters (3) Hénin (5) Testud (10) Davenport (1) Hingis (3) S. Williams (1) Dokic (4) Mauresmo (4) V. Williams (1)

The following list shows all the players who have occupied a given position in the Top 10: 1. Capriati, Davenport, S. Williams, V. Williams 2. Capriati, Davenport, S. Williams, V. Williams 3. Capriati, Clijsters, Davenport, Hingis, S. Williams, V. Williams 4. Clijsters, Davenport, Dokic, Hénin, Hingis, Mauresmo, Seles, S. Williams 5. Clijsters, Davenport, Dokic, Hénin, Hingis, Mauresmo, Seles, S. Williams 6. Clijsters, Davenport, Dokic, Hénin, Mauresmo, Seles, S. Williams 7. Clijsters, Davenport, Dokic, Hénin, Hingis, Mauresmo, Seles, S. Williams 8. Clijsters, Davenport, Dokic, Hantuchova, Hénin, Hingis, Mauresmo, S. Williams 9. Clijsters, Davenport, Dokic, Hantuchova, Hénin, Hingis, Mauresmo, Seles, S. Williams 10. Davenport, Hingis, Mauresmo, Seles, Testud The Complete Top Ten under the 1996 Ranking System This list shows all players who would have been in the Top 10 under the 1996 ranking system (total points divided by tournaments, minimum fourteen), with the highest ranking achieved. (For the list of the final Top 10 under this system, see the section on Alternate Rankings.)

Capriati (2) Hénin (7) Seles (4) Clijsters (6) Hingis (4) Testud (10) Davenport (2) Mauresmo (5) S. Williams (1) Dokic (9) Rubin (10) V. Williams (1)

Note that, although there are twelve players on both the WTA and Divisor ranking lists, they aren’t the same twelve. (Hantuchova made the WTA Top Ten but failed under the divisor; Rubin was Top Ten under the Divisor only.) This parallels the situation from 2001; as noted, there were seventeen players who spent time in the Top Ten, and though both the WTA and divisor lists produced seventeen players, they weren’t the same seventeen.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 7

Ranking Fluctuation The table below shows how each of the top players ranked in the course of the year. The tennis season is divided into half-month sections, and players’ rankings listed for the specified days. This is followed by the mean (average), median, and standard deviation (indicating how much a player’s ranking varied in the course of the year. Thus Pierce, with a standard deviation of 90.3, showed the biggest fluctuation in the course of the year, while Venus, with standard deviations of 0.6, showed the least variation). Note: , #13 at the end of 2001, did not play in 2002 but was retained on the WTA rankings because she did play doubles; , #18 at the end of 2001, was removed on February 4. retired after Wimbledon, ranked #11, and is shown in the above list because she did play in 2002.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 8

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Mean Std. 1151151151151151151151151151 15115 (avg) Median Dev. Bedanova 28 26 35 33 26 25 26 27 27 27 27 29 21 17 16 18 24 28 28 35 38 37 27.18 27.0 5.96 Capriati 2111221122133333333333 2.23 2.5 0.87 Clijsters 5555434433455577789564 5.14 5.0 1.61 Coetzer 19 19 19 17 17 17 18 20 20 34 33 35 37 40 38 32 33 27 26 20 21 21 25.59 21.0 8.02 Daniilidou 81 81 67 64 59 61 59 63 57 63 55 54 38 32 31 30 29 34 21 24 23 22 47.64 54.5 19.46 Davenport 1224355576768999109 8101112 6.73 7.0 3.09 Déchy 43 56 45 44 45 35 35 32 32 28 28 27 28 25 27 28 26 25 24 22 20 20 31.59 28.0 9.50 Dementieva 15 17 16 14 14 14 16 14 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 13 16 16 18 19 19 15.14 15.0 1.83 Dokic 8796889999987655445699 7.23 8.0 1.80 Farina Elia 14 14 15 13 13 12 12 13 13 12 11 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 16 17 13.59 14.0 1.33 Grande 24 29 31 28 27 28 31 34 36 35 34 37 39 37 35 31 36 36 38 39 48 46 34.50 35.0 5.80 Hantuchova 38 28 27 23 25 26 15 15 14 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11988 16.14 12.5 7.97 Hénin 7879678888576766666845 6.73 7.0 1.24 Hingis 4443543347899888 81010111010 6.82 8.0 2.77 Kournikova 71 64 99 89 80 67 66 68 68 68 54 55 55 56 47 40 37 38 36 34 36 35 57.41 55.5 18.47 Kremer 33 33 32 30 36 34 28 21 23 25 25 24 22 21 18 20 20 21 25 26 26 25 25.82 25.0 5.17 Likhovtseva 36 37 36 37 37 42 38 37 47 44 43 42 48 35 34 36 38 45 41 38 42 42 39.77 38.0 4.00 Majoli 44 43 48 55 53 54 61 58 33 31 31 26 26 23 23 24 22 23 29 27 33 32 36.32 31.5 13.09 Maleeva 16 16 14 18 18 18 20 19 25 24 17 20 19 16 17 17 17 17 23 15 15 14 17.95 17.0 2.98 Martinez 35 39 38 40 39 40 39 37 46 46 60 61 66 74 70 58 59 57 48 47 35 34 48.55 46.0 12.40 Mauresmo 9 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 12 11 11 10 10 10977456 9.05 10.0 2.06 Montolio 23 23 23 24 22 24 29 31 35 50 75 78 78 96 107 106 107 123 136 136 132 133 72.32 76.5 44.76 Myskina 59 53 51 49 38 39 36 33 29 30 22 22 15 15 15 16 16 15 12 12 12 11 27.27 22.0 15.36 Nagyova 25 24 24 25 29 30 32 42 44 37 37 49 51 53 45 45 46 47 55 55 54 59 41.27 44.5 11.47 Panova 40 35 29 31 32 31 25 23 22 23 21 21 23 22 22 23 23 22 20 21 25 23 25.32 23.0 5.31 Pierce 129 156 210 213 288 291 295 232 192 172 132 74 74 49 50 49 47 48 53 53 53 52 132.36 101.5 90.30 Raymond 22 22 21 22 19 21 21 24 24 26 26 25 35 28 20 22 25 24 22 23 30 29 24.14 23.5 3.76 Rubin 52 66 63 61 60 62 64 67 69 64 45 36 27 20 21 15 15 13 13 13 14 13 39.68 40.5 23.10 Sanchez-Vicario 17 15 17 16 15 15 14 17 18 17 29 31 31 26 25 26 28 33 44 42 44 53 26.05 25.5 11.42 Schett 21 21 22 20 23 22 23 25 26 22 19 33 33 34 33 35 34 37 37 37 40 40 28.95 29.5 7.31 Schiavone 31 36 30 26 24 23 27 28 31 32 36 45 45 45 46 46 43 32 35 40 41 41 35.59 35.5 7.66 Schnyder 37 40 41 42 33 33 34 30 17 20 24 18 18 24 24 25 21 18 17 19 13 15 25.59 24.0 9.10 Seles 10 10 107796665644444554777 6.23 6.0 2.05 Serna 26 27 25 27 28 36 44 41 39 39 38 41 53 55 53 53 51 54 58 56 51 50 42.95 42.5 11.13 Shaughnessy 12 12 11 12 12 13 13 12 12 14 14 15 16 19 25 27 30 29 33 29 29 30 19.05 14.5 8.00 Smashnova 88 55 57 58 56 57 37 36 34 21 23 23 17 18 19 19 18 19 18 16 17 16 32.82 22.0 20.16 Stevenson 60 42 49 35 34 32 24 26 28 29 30 28 29 31 30 34 31 31 30 28 18 18 31.68 30.0 9.16 Suarez 27 31 50 47 61 53 53 47 42 45 47 32 32 33 32 33 32 30 31 31 28 27 38.36 32.5 10.18 Sugiyama 30 34 28 34 30 29 30 29 30 33 32 30 30 29 29 21 19 20 19 25 24 24 27.68 29.0 4.65 Tanasugarn 29 25 26 21 21 20 22 22 21 19 20 19 24 27 28 29 27 26 27 32 31 28 24.73 25.5 4.00 Testud 11 11 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 15 17 22 38 13.14 11.0 6.21 Tulyaganova 20 20 20 19 20 19 19 18 19 18 18 17 20 30 41 41 40 40 40 44 56 55 28.82 20.0 13.08 S. Williams 6668967774322111111111 3.73 2.5 2.86 V. Williams 3332112211211222222222 1.86 2.0 0.64

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 9

Highest Ranking of 2002 For the 39 players who spent at least one week of 2002 in the Top 25, plus our handful of others (shown in italics) the following shows the highest ranking each achieved during the course of the year: Sorted by Name Sorted by Ranking Name Rank Name Rank Bedanova 16 Capriati 1 Capriati 1 Davenport 1 Clijsters 3 S. Williams 1 Coetzer 17 V. Williams 1 Daniilidou 21 Clijsters 3 Davenport 1 Hingis 3 Déchy 20 Dokic 4 Dementieva 13 Hénin 4 Dokic 4 Mauresmo 4 Farina Elia 11 Seles 4 Grande 24 Hantuchova 8 Hantuchova 8 Testud 10 Hénin 4 Farina Elia 11 Hingis 3 Myskina 11 Kournikova 33 Shaughnessy 11 Kremer 18 Dementieva 13 Majoli 22 Rubin 13 Maleeva 14 Schnyder 13 Martinez 34 Maleeva 14 Mauresmo 4 Sanchez-Vicario 14 Montolio 22 Bedanova 16 Myskina 11 Smashnova 16 Nagyova 24 Tulyaganova 16 Panova 20 Coetzer 17 Pierce 47 Kremer 18 Raymond 19 Stevenson 18 Rubin 13 Raymond 19 Sanchez-Vicario 14 Schett 19 Schett 19 Sugiyama 19 Schiavone 23 Tanasugarn 19 Schnyder 13 Déchy 20 Seles 4 Panova 20 Serna 25 Daniilidou 21 Shaughnessy 11 Majoli 22 Smashnova 16 Montolio 22 Stevenson 18 Schiavone 23 Suarez 27 Grande 24 Sugiyama 19 Nagyova 24 Tanasugarn 19 Serna 25 Testud 10 Suarez 27 Tulyaganova 16 Kournikova 33 S. Williams 1 Martinez 34 V. Williams 1 Pierce 47

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 10

Top Players Sorted by Median Ranking This table lists players in order of their median ranking — that is, the ranking they spent as much of the year above as below. This indicates their typical standing in the course of the year. It should be noted that this figure takes 2001 and 2002 results equally into account, since rankings at the beginning of the year were based entirely on 2001 results, while 2002 results were the sole influence by the end of the year.

Median Rank Player 2.0 V. Williams 2.5 Capriati 2.5 S. Williams 5.0 Clijsters 6.0 Seles 7.0 Davenport 7.0 Hénin 8.0 Hingis 8.0 Dokic 10.0 Mauresmo 11.0 Testud 12.5 Hantuchova 14.0 Farina Elia 14.5 Shaughnessy 15.0 Dementieva 17.0 Maleeva 20.0 Tulyaganova 21.0 Coetzer 22.0 Myskina 22.0 Smashnova 23.0 Panova 23.5 Raymond 24.0 Schnyder 25.0 Kremer 25.5 Sanchez-Vicario 25.5 Tanasugarn 27.0 Bedanova 28.0 Déchy 29.0 Sugiyama 29.5 Schett 30.0 Stevenson 31.5 Majoli 32.5 Suarez 35.0 Grande 35.5 Schiavone 38.0 Likhovtseva 40.5 Rubin 42.5 Serna 44.5 Nagyova 46.0 Martinez 54.5 Daniilidou 55.5 Kournikova 76.5 Montolio 101.5 Pierce

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 11

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 12, 2002 rankings), Player is of course the player, Score is her Best 17 point total, # ofTrn is the number of tournaments she played, Best Rank is her highest ranking during the year 2002, Won/Lost is won/lost record (in the notes to this field, Wi=Withdrawal, WO=walkover. So Davenport, for instance, won 62 matches, lost nine, withdrew from one, and received two walkovers). Note that this figure includes only WTA main draws. Many players will have losses in wins and losses in qualifying and/or Challengers; the highest- ranked of these was Hantuchova (for qualifying results) and Stevenson (for Challengers). Titles is the list of titles the player won, if any. We list the names (or abbreviations, for top players), then the number in parentheses. So Clijsters’s line, e.g., reads Ham, Fil, Lux, LAChamp (4). This means Clijsters won four titles — , Filderstadt, Luxembourg, Championships. Players marked * are “highlight” players studied extensively below; those marked † by their number of tournaments have full results with comments on the accuracy of this data. Final # of Best Rank Player Name Score Trn Rank Won/Lost Titles 1 Serena Williams* 6080 13 1 56Ð5 (+1WO) Scotts, , , RG Wim, USO, PrinCup, Leip (8) 2 Venus Williams* 5140 16 1 62Ð9 (+1 WO) GoldC, Paris, Antw, Amel Stanf, SanD, NewHav (7) 3 Jennifer Capriati* 3796 17 1 48Ð16 (1) 4 Kim Clijsters* 3557 21 3 50Ð17 Ham, Fil, Lux, LAChamp (4) 5 Justine Hénin* 3218 23 4 50Ð21 Berlin, Linz (2) 6 Amélie Mauresmo* 3068 17 4 45Ð14 (+1 Wi) Dubai, (2) 7 Monica Seles* 2952 15 4 46Ð13 Doha, (2) 8 Daniela Hantuchova* 2667.75 25 8 48Ð24 Indian Wells (1) 9 * 2506 29 4 53Ð26 (+1 Wi) Sarasota, (2) 10 Martina Hingis* 2348 12 3 34Ð10 , Pan Pacific (2) 11 * 1908 29 11 46Ð27 Bahia (1) 12 Lindsay Davenport* 1795 9 1 24Ð9 13 * 1752 14 13 29Ð11 Eastbourne, Los Angeles (2) 14 * 1701 25 14 35Ð24 (1) 15 * 1644 25 13 34Ð24 Zurich (1) 16 * 1616.5 29 16 43Ð25 Auckl, Canb, Vien, Shang (4) 17 * 1596 29 11 42Ð28 (1) 18 * 1444 26† 18 34Ð25 19 * 1426 26 13 36Ð26 20 Nathalie Déchy* 1295 24 20 33Ð24 21 * 1220 22 17 30Ð22 22 * 1192.75 26 21 32Ð22 ’s-Hertogenbosch (1) 23 * 1177 31 20 34Ð31 24 * 1173 27 19 35Ð26 25 * 1151.75 28 18 29Ð28 26 * 1137 23 26 29Ð19 , Quebec City (2) 27 Paola Suarez* 1091 23 27 29Ð23 (+1 WO) 28 * 1056 26 19 32Ð26 29 * 1048.75 22 19 29Ð21 Memphis (1) 30 * 1046 27 11 29Ð26 (+1 Wi) 31 Clarisa Fernandez 1016.25 17 31 19Ð13 32 * 1007 23 22 23Ð22 Charleston (1) 33 Janette Husarova 978 25 33 28Ð24

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 12

34 Conchita Martinez* 967 24 34 26Ð24 35 * 960 25 33 28Ð24 (+1 Wi) 36 944.5 24 36 28Ð18 Acapulco (1) 37 Daja Bedanova* 939 25 16 24Ð24 (+1 Wi) 38 Sandrine Testud* 901 14 10 17Ð14 39 871.75 21 39 19Ð18 40 * 860 21 19 24Ð20 41 * 847 23 23 20Ð22 42 * 842.75 28 33 24Ð27 43 818 16 43 22Ð9 Helsinki, Bali (2) 44 Marie-Gaianeh Mikaelian 782.75 24 44 21Ð18 Tashkent (1) 45 748.25 15 45 19Ð11 46 * 725.75 27 24 21Ð27 47 716.5 25 46 11Ð10 48 715.75 26 42 23Ð24 49 714.25 22 35 23Ð20 50 Magui Serna* 700.75 28 25 24Ð24 Estoril (1) 51 Maja Matevzic 696.75 27 51 22Ð22 (+1 WO) Bratislava (1) 52 * 679 13 47 14Ð13 53 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario* 668 24 14 21Ð24 54 665.5 9 54 15Ð6 Brussels (1) 55 Iroda Tulyaganova* 641 21 16 19Ð21 56 629.75 27 44 20Ð21 Big Island (1) 57 623.75 30 57 19Ð15 Open (1) 58 Emilie Loit 619.75 29 53 19Ð17 59 Henrieta Nagyova* 602.5 26 24 21Ð25 60 589.75 30 38 15Ð29 61 582.5 27 42 19Ð23 62 575.75 29 60 15Ð21 63 Denisa Chladkova 572.5 18 47 10Ð14 64 Martina Sucha 562.25 26 37 20Ð24 Hobart (1) 65 562 22 53 19Ð21 66 551 19 63 14Ð19 67 521.75 19 61 9Ð10 68 520.25 12 68 12Ð5 Sopot (1) 69 Angelique Widjaja 518 17 59 12Ð11 Pattaya (1) 70 Martina Müller 515.5 25 51 16Ð18 (1) 71 Jelena Kostanic 513 25 63 14Ð17 72 512.5 26 63 18Ð17 73 510.75 25 45 16Ð25 74 505.25 16 62 13Ð12 Bogota (1) 75 500.25 26 73 18Ð22 (+1Wi, 1WO) 76 491.25 21 74 11Ð12 77 480 24 50 12Ð13 Bol (1) 78 472.75 29 27 15Ð28 79 Stephanie Foretz 469.25 27 69 11Ð12 80 Angelika Roesch 466 30 70 5Ð9 Players below #80 with titles are Angeles Montolio (Porto), Mariana Diaz-Oliva (Palermo), (Casablanca)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 13

The Top 200, in Numerical Order 1 Serena Williams 54 Myriam Casanova 104 157 2Venus Williams 55 Iroda Tulyaganova 105 Aniko Kapros 158 Lubomira Bacheva 3 Jennifer Capriati 56 Cara Black 106 159 Marie-Eve Pelletier 4 Kim Clijsters 57 Jill Craybas 107 Ludmila Cervanova 160 Erika De Lone 5 Justine Hénin 58 Emilie Loit 108 161 6 Amélie Mauresmo 59 Henrieta Nagyova 109 Lubomira Kurhajcova 162 Stanislava Hrozenska 7 Monica Seles 60 Adriana Serra Zanetti 110 163 Nathalie Vierin 8 Daniela Hantuchova 61 Emmanuelle Lorenzo 164 Eva Bes 9 Jelena Dokic Gagliardi 111 165 Yulia Beygelzimer 10 Martina Hingis 62 Anca Barna 112 Evgenia 166 Elena Tatarkova 11 Anastasia Myskina 63 Denisa Chladkova Koulikovskaya 167 Sofia Arvidsson 12 Lindsay Davenport 64 Martina Sucha 113 168 Rita Kuti Kis 13 Chanda Rubin 65 Virginia Ruano 114 Tatiana Perebiynis 169 14 Magdalena Maleeva Pascual 115 170 Stephanie Cohen 15 Patty Schnyder 66 Barbara Rittner 116 Anabel Medina Aloro 16 Anna Smashnova 67 Els Callens Garrigues 171 17 Silvia Farina Elia 68 Dinara Safina 117 Anastassia Rodionova 172 18 Alexandra Stevenson 69 Angelique Widjaja 118 173 19 Elena Dementieva 70 Martina Müller 119 Evie Dominikovic 174 Bryanne Stewart 20 Nathalie Déchy 71 Jelena Kostanic 120 Klara Koukalova 175 Lina Krasnoroutskaya 21 Amanda Coetzer 72 Tathiana Garbin 121 Lindsay Lee-Waters 176 22 Eleni Daniilidou 73 Meilen Tu 122 Zsofia Gubacsi 177 Nadejda Ostrovskaya 23 Tatiana Panova 74 Fabiola Zuluaga 123 178 24 Ai Sugiyama 75 Silvija Talaja 124 179 Olga 25 Anne Kremer 76 Virginie Razzano 125 Barabanschikova 26 Elena Bovina 77 Åsa Svensson 126 Barbara Schwartz 180 27 Paola Suarez 78 Cristina Torrens 127 Maria Emilia Salerni 181 28 Tamarine Tanasugarn Valero 128 Zuzana Ondraskova 182 29 Lisa Raymond 79 Stephanie Foretz 129 Gala Leon Garcia 183 Jie Zheng 30 Meghann 80 Angelika Roesch 130 Jana Kandarr 184 Arantxa Parra Shaughnessy 81 Iveta Benesova 131 Renata Voracova 185 31 Clarisa Fernandez 82 Patricia Wartusch 132 186 32 Iva Majoli 83 133 Angeles Montolio 187 Lenka Nemeckova 33 Janette Husarova 84 Yoon Jeong Cho 134 188 Irina Selyutina 34 Conchita Martinez 85 135 189 35 Anna Kournikova 86 136 Sandra Kleinova 190 36 Katarina Srebotnik 87 137 Mi-Ra Jeon 191 Alyona Bondarenko 37 Daja Bedanova 88 Rossana 138 192 38 Sandrine Testud Neffa-de los Rios 139 193 Nuria Llagostera 39 Amy Frazier 89 Mariana Diaz-Oliva 140 Vives 40 Barbara Schett 90 141 Eva Fislova 194 Jelena Jankovic 41 Francesca Schiavone 91 Greta Arn 142 195 42 Elena Likhovtseva 92 Antonella Serra 143 Sandra Kloesel 196 Alexandra Fusai 43 Svetlana Kuznetsova Zanetti 144 Andreea Vanc 197 44 Marie-Gaianeh 93 145 Kveta Hrdlickova 198 Mikaelian 94 Conchita Martinez 146 Celine Beigbeder 199 45 Vera Zvonareva Granados 147 Maria Goloviznina 200 Nina Duebbers 46 Rita Grande 95 148 47 Laura Granville 96 149 Bahia Mouhtassine 48 Tina Pisnik 97 150 49 Nicole Pratt 98 Marlene Weingärtner 151 50 Magui Serna 99 152 51 Maja Matevzic 100 153 Maria Vento-Kabchi 52 Mary Pierce 101 154 Alena Vaskova 53 Arantxa Sanchez- 102 Eva Dyrberg 155 Seda Noorlander Vicario 103 Libuse Prusova 156

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 14

The Top 200, in Alphabetical Order 181 Maret Ani 185 Rika Fujiwara 44 Marie-Gaianeh 126 Barbara Schwartz 91 Greta Arn 196 Alexandra Fusai Mikaelian 7 Monica Seles 167 Sofia Arvidsson 61 Emmanuelle 100 Alicia Molik 188 Irina Selyutina 97 Shinobu Asagoe Gagliardi 133 Angeles Montolio 118 Milagros Sequera 195 Teryn Ashley 72 Tathiana Garbin 134 Akiko Morigami 50 Magui Serna 158 Lubomira Bacheva 147 Maria Goloviznina 149 Bahia Mouhtassine 60 Adriana Serra Zanetti 198 Angelika Bachmann 161 Amanda Grahame 70 Martina Müller 92 Antonella Serra 157 Elena Baltacha 46 Rita Grande 11 Anastasia Myskina Zanetti 176 Sybille Bammer 47 Laura Granville 59 Henrieta Nagyova 138 Selima Sfar 179 Olga 122 Zsofia Gubacsi 88 Rossana Neffa-de los 186 Maria Sharapova Barabanschikova 8 Daniela Hantuchova Rios 30 Meghann 62 Anca Barna 115 Ashley Harkleroad 187 Lenka Nemeckova Shaughnessy 106 Marion Bartoli 5 Justine Hénin 155 Seda Noorlander 16 Anna Smashnova 37 Daja Bedanova 180 Vanessa Henke 108 Saori Obata 171 Tara Snyder 146 Celine Beigbeder 10 Martina Hingis 190 Tzipora Obziler 36 Katarina Srebotnik 81 Iveta Benesova 139 Jennifer Hopkins 128 Zuzana Ondraskova 18 Alexandra Stevenson 164 Eva Bes 145 Kveta Hrdlickova 124 Miriam Oremans 174 Bryanne Stewart 165 Yulia Beygelzimer 162 Stanislava Hrozenska 156 Lilia Osterloh 27 Paola Suarez 56 Cara Black 33 Janette Husarova 177 Nadejda Ostrovskaya 64 Martina Sucha 191 Alyona Bondarenko 85 Marissa Irvin 23 Tatiana Panova 24 Ai Sugiyama 140 Kristie Boogert 194 Jelena Jankovic 184 Arantxa Parra 77 Åsa Svensson 26 Elena Bovina 137 Mi-Ra Jeon 159 Marie-Eve Pelletier 75 Silvija Talaja 189 Kristina Brandi 87 Alina Jidkova 95 Flavia Pennetta 28 Tamarine Tanasugarn 67 Els Callens 130 Jana Kandarr 114 Tatiana Perebiynis 166 Elena Tatarkova 123 Maria Elena Camerin 105 Aniko Kapros 111 Nadia Petrova 83 Sarah Taylor 3 Jennifer Capriati 136 Sandra Kleinova 52 Mary Pierce 38 Sandrine Testud 125 Ansley Cargill 143 Sandra Kloesel 135 Camille Pin 78 Cristina Torrens 54 Myriam Casanova 71 Jelena Kostanic 48 Tina Pisnik Valero 107 Ludmila Cervanova 120 Klara Koukalova 99 Tatiana Poutchek 73 Meilen Tu 63 Denisa Chladkova 112 Evgenia 104 Wynne Prakusya 55 Iroda Tulyaganova 84 Yoon Jeong Cho Koulikovskaya 49 Nicole Pratt 144 Andreea Vanc 4 Kim Clijsters 35 Anna Kournikova 103 Libuse Prusova 154 Alena Vaskova 21 Amanda Coetzer 175 Lina Krasnoroutskaya 197 Julie Pullin 153 Maria Vento-Kabchi 170 Stephanie Cohen 25 Anne Kremer 93 Dally Randriantefy 163 Nathalie Vierin Aloro 109 Lubomira Kurhajcova 29 Lisa Raymond 182 Roberta Vinci 57 Jill Craybas 168 Rita Kuti Kis 76 Virginie Razzano 131 Renata Voracova 178 Melinda Czink 43 Svetlana Kuznetsova 101 Samantha Reeves 82 Patricia Wartusch 22 Eleni Daniilidou 121 Lindsay Lee-Waters 151 Brie Rippner 113 Mashona Washington 12 Lindsay Davenport 129 Gala Leon Garcia 66 Barbara Rittner 142 Cindy Watson 160 Erika De Lone 42 Elena Likhovtseva 117 Anastassia Rodionova 150 Vanessa Webb 20 Nathalie Déchy 193 Nuria Llagostera 80 Angelika Roesch 98 Marlene Weingärtner 19 Elena Dementieva Vives 65 Virginia Ruano 172 Christina Wheeler 89 Mariana Diaz-Oliva 58 Emilie Loit Pascual 69 Angelique Widjaja 9 Jelena Dokic 32 Iva Majoli 13 Chanda Rubin 1 Serena Williams 119 Evie Dominikovic 14 Magdalena Maleeva 199 Miho Saeki 2Venus Williams 96 Maureen Drake 90 Petra Mandula 68 Dinara Safina 183 Jie Zheng 200 Nina Duebbers 148 Katalin Marosi 127 Maria Emilia Salerni 74 Fabiola Zuluaga 152 Gisela Dulko 86 Marta Marrero 110 Maria Sanchez 45 Vera Zvonareva 102 Eva Dyrberg 34 Conchita Martinez Lorenzo 17 Silvia Farina Elia 94 Conchita Martinez 53 Arantxa Sanchez- 169 Evelyn Fauth Granados Vicario 192 Yuliana Fedak 51 Maja Matevzic 173 Mara Santangelo 31 Clarisa Fernandez 6 Amelie Mauresmo 132 Claudine Schaul 141 Eva Fislova 116 Anabel Medina 40 Barbara Schett 79 Stephanie Foretz Garrigues 41 Francesca Schiavone 39 Amy Frazier 15 Patty Schnyder

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 15

Tournament Results Summary of Results for Top Players The list below shows all the tournaments the top players played in 2002. For these purposes, any player who spent even one week of 2002 in the Top 25 is included; a handful of others have been listed because we thought they might be in the Top 25, and why delete them now? To explain the data in the table: 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 Daja Bedanova reads Australian Open (Slam, R16/S. Williams [6], 3) — Dementieva (11). This means that Bedanova’s second tournament was the Australian Open. The “Slam” means that it was a Slam; if a Roman numeral is used, it refers to the tier of the event. R16/S. Williams means that Bedanova reached the Round of Sixteen, where she was beaten by Serena Williams, then ranked #6. The 3 indicates that she won three matches prior to that defeat. Players she defeated included Dementieva (then ranked #11). (Note: only wins over Top 35 players are listed.) If a description is in bold, it means the player won the title. Rank & Name Events Played 37/ Gold Coast (III, SF/Hénin [7], 3) Bedanova Sydney (II, 1R/Mauresmo [9], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Medina Garrigues [49], 1) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Maleeva [14], 0) Paris (II, 1R/Déchy [45], 0) (II, QF/Mauresmo [10], 2) — Hantuchova (23) Scottsdale (II, QF/Hingis [5], 2) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Sanchez-Vicario[15], 1) Miami (I, 2R/Irvin [63], 0) Sarasota (IV, withdrew from 2R, 1) Berlin (I, 2R/Torrens Valero [38], 1) — Coetzer (25) Strasbourg (III, 1R/Kostanic [83], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Kostanic [76], 0) Birmingham (III, R16/Kremer [24], 2) Eastbourne (II, SF/Rubin [37], 3) — Dokic (8), Shaughnessy (15) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Capriati [3], 2) Stanford (II, 2R/Jankovic [262], 1) — Panova (22) San Diego (II, 2R/Srebotnik [44], 0) Los Angeles (II, R16/Rubin [21], 1) — Stevenson (34) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Schiavone [46], 1) New Haven (II, 1R/Granville [62], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/S. Williams [1], 3) — Myskina (16) Leipzig (II, 1R/Hrdlickova [119], 0) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Hantuchova [11], 0) Zurich (I, 1R/Clijsters [5], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 16

26/ Sydney Qualifying (II, lost in 3R of qualifying/Hantuchova [37], 2) Bovina Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Ant. Serra Zanetti [181], 0) Paris (II, 1R/Dementieva [15], 0+3 in qualifying) Antwerp (II, 1R/Tu [50], 0) Scottsdale (II, 1R/Bedanova [26], 0) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Dokic [8], 1) Miami (I, 1R/Irvin [63], 0) Estoril (IV, SF/Serna [48], 3) Budapest (V, 1R/Bacheva [129], 0) Bol (III, 1R/Svensson [87], 0) Warsaw (IV, Win, 5) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Farina Elia [11], 0) Birmingham (III, R16/Raymond [25], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, QF/Hénin [7], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Panova [23], 1) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Davenport [9], 1) Canadian Open Qualifying (I, lost in 2R of qualifying/Ruano Pascual [66], 1) New Haven (II, 2R/Mauresmo [9], 1+3 in qualifying) — Raymond (22) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/Davenport [10], 4) — C. Fernandez (35), Dokic (4) Quebec City (III, Win, 5) Moscow (I, QF/Davenport [8], 2) — Dementieva (16) Zurich (I, lost in 3R of qualifying/Husarova [36]; Lucky Loser; lost in 2R/Schnyder [19], 0+2 in qualifying) Luxembourg (III, QF/Maleeva [15], 2) 3/ Sydney (II, 2R/Stevenson [61], 0) Capriati Australian Open (Slam, Win, 7) — Grande (29), Mauresmo (9), Clijsters (5), Hingis (4) Scottsdale (II, F/S. Williams [9], 3) — Stevenson (34), Schett (23) Miami (I, F/S. Williams [9], 5) — Tulyaganova (19), Panova (32), Seles (6) Charleston (I, SF/Schnyder [30], 3) — Myskina (33) Berlin (I, SF/Hénin [8], 3) — Tulyaganova (19), Testud (11) Rome (I, SF/S. Williams [4], 3) — Mauresmo (11) Roland Garros (Slam, SF/S. Williams [3], 5) — Schnyder (24), Dokic (9) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/Mauresmo [11], 4) — Bedanova (21) San Diego (II, QF/Dokic [5], 2) — Shaughnessy (25) Los Angeles (II, QF/Sugiyama [29], 2) — Tanasugarn (28) Canadian Open (I, F/Mauresmo [10], 4) — Sugiyama (21), Hénin (6), Dokic (5) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/Mauresmo [9], 4) — Shaughnessy (30) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Stevenson [35], 0) Zurich (I, 2R/Martinez [47], 0) Linz (II, QF/Stevenson [22], 1) — Suarez (30) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, SF/S. Williams [1], 2) — Farina Elia (15), Maleeva (17)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 17

4/ Sydney (II, SF/Hingis [4], 2) — Farina Elia (14), Hénin (7) Clijsters Australian Open (Slam, SF/Capriati [1], 5) — Hénin (8) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Déchy [35], 0) Miami (I, QF/Seles [6], 3) Hamburg (II, Win, 4) — Schett (26), Dokic (9), V. Williams (1) Berlin (I, 2R/Smashnova [35], 0) Rome (I, SF/Hénin [8], 3) — Panova (23), Testud (10) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/C. Fernandez [87], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, QF/Pisnik [50], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Likhovtseva [49], 1) Stanford (II, F/V. Williams [2], 3) — Davenport (9) San Diego (II, QF/V. Williams [2], 2) — Daniilidou (31), Maleeva (17) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Srebotnik [43], 0) Canadian Open (I, R16/Schett [35], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 4R/Mauresmo [9], 3) Princess Cup (II, F/S. Williams [1], 3) — Dokic (4) Leipzig (II, SF/Myskina [12], 2) Filderstadt (II, Win, 5) — Myskina (12), Majoli (28), Davenport (7), Mauresmo (4), Hantuchova (11) Zurich (I, QF/Davenport [10], 2) — Bedanova (35), Coetzer (20) Luxembourg (III, Win, 4) — Maleeva (15) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, Win, 4) — Rubin (14), Hénin (4), V. Williams (2), S. Williams (1) 21/ Sydney (II, 2R/Mauresmo [9], 1) Coetzer Australian Open (Slam, R16/Hingis [4], 3) — Schett (21) Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Stevenson [49], 1) — Raymond (21) Memphis (III, 2R/Jidkova [105], 0) Acapulco (III, QF/Suarez [61], 2) Indian Wells (I, QF/Hingis [4], 3) — Stevenson (32) Miami (I, R16/V. Williams [2], 2) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Majoli [61], 0) Charleston (I, QF/Majoli [58], 3) Berlin (I, 1R/Bedanova [28], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Müller [64], 0) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Schiavone [45], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Baltacha [295], 1) San Diego (II, 2R/Rubin [21], 1) Los Angeles (II, R16/Sugiyama [29], 2) — Smashnova (18) Canadian Open (I, R16/Hantuchova [12], 2) — Dementieva (13) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Hingis [8], 2) — Smashnova (18) Bahia (II, QF/Dokic [4], 2) — Déchy (25) Moscow (I, SF/Davenport [8], 3) — Dokic (5) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Dementieva [22], 0) Zurich (I, 2R/Clijsters [5], 1) — Farina Elia (14) Luxembourg (III, 2R/Razzano [93], 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 18

22/ (III, 2R/Schnyder [41], 1) Daniilidou Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Capriati [1], 2) — Panova (35) Paris Qualifying (II, lost in 2R of qualifying/Pin [177], 0+1 in qualifying) Doha (III, 2R/Garbin [83], 1) — Grande (28) Acapulco (III, 1R/Beigbeder [86], 0) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Sugiyama [29], 1) Miami (I, 2R/Capriati [1], 1) Porto (IV, QF/Montolio [29], 2) Estoril (IV, 1R/Bovina [76], 0) Budapest (V, SF/M. Casanova [348], 3) Berlin (I, 1R/Martinez [45], 0) Strasbourg (III, 2R/Schwartz [75], 1) — Tulyaganova (17) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Clijsters [4], 1) Birmingham (III, QF/Dokic [8], 3) — Panova (21), Sugiyama (30) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, Win, 5) — Mauresmo (11), Hénin (7), Dementieva (14) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Capriati [3], 3) San Diego (II, 2R/Clijsters [7], 1) Los Angeles (II, QF/Davenport [9], 3) — Hantuchova (12), Kremer (19) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Schiavone [46], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Nagyova [46], 0) Bahia (II, F/Myskina [15], 4) — Schnyder (18), Seles (5) Leipzig (II, 1R/Rittner [83], 0) Moscow (I, 1R/Déchy [24], 0) Filderstadt (II, lost in 3R of qualifying/Grande [37], 0+2 in qualifying) Zurich (I, lost in 1R of qualifying/Svensson [76], 0) Linz (II, 1R/Rubin [14], 0) 12/ Stanford (II, SF/Clijsters [5], 2) — Kremer (21), Dokic (6) Davenport San Diego (II, SF/V. Williams [2], 3) — Rubin (21), Sugiyama (29) Los Angeles (II, F/Rubin [21], 4) — Panova (22), Daniilidou (31), Sugiyama (29) New Haven (II, F/V. Williams [2], 3) — Mauresmo (9), Myskina (16) U. S. Open (Slam, SF/S. Williams [1], 5) — Farina Elia (14) Moscow (I, F/Maleeva [23], 3) — Bovina (34), Coetzer (26) Filderstadt (II, QF/Clijsters [9], 1) — Smashnova (18) Zurich (I, F/Schnyder [19], 3) — Panova (21), Clijsters (5), Hénin (8) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, 1R/Seles [7], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 19

20/ Canberra (V, QF/Osterloh [53], 2) Déchy Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Medina Garrigues [49], 2) — Testud (11) Paris (II, 2R/Hénin [7], 1) — Bedanova (33) Antwerp (II, 1R/Mikaelian [78], 0) Scottsdale (II, SF/Capriati [2], 3) — Shaughnessy (12), Schiavone (24) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Myskina [39], 2) — Clijsters (3) Miami (I, 2R/Poutchek [84], 0) Sarasota (IV, 1R/Razzano [98], 0) Amelia Island (II, R16/Dementieva [16], 2) — Sanchez-Vicario (14) Charleston (I, R16/S. Williams [7], 2) — Raymond (24) Berlin (I, QF/Hénin [8], 3) — Shaughnessy (13), Sanchez-Vicario (17) Rome (I, 2R/Mauresmo [11], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Suarez [47], 2) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Kremer [27], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Dokic [7], 2) San Diego (II, 2R/Maleeva [17], 1) Los Angeles (II, R16/S. Williams [1], 1) Canadian Open (I, 2R/C. Fernandez [37], 1) — Majoli (24) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/S. Williams [1], 2) Bahia (II, 2R/Coetzer [27], 1) — Shaughnessy (29) Leipzig (II, 1R/Myskina [12], 0) Moscow (I, QF/Maleeva [23], 2) — Daniilidou (21), Shaughnessy (33) Bratislava (V, SF/Benesova [98], 3) Luxembourg (III, 1R/Srebotnik [40], 0) 19/ Sydney (II, 1R/Martinez [39], 0) Dementieva Australian Open (Slam, R16/Hénin [8], 3) — Serna (27) Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Kournikova [99], 1) Paris (II, QF/Dokic [9], 2) Acapulco (III, SF/Suarez [61], 2) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Stevenson [32], 1) Miami (I, QF/V. Williams [2], 3) — Schett (23), Kremer (30) Amelia Island (II, QF/Dokic [8], 3) — Schnyder (32), Déchy (35) Charleston (I, 2R/Craybas [108], 1) Bol (III, QF/Garbin [108], 1) Berlin (I, 1R/Roesch [125], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Sugiyama [33], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/C. Fernandez [87], 3) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, F/Daniilidou [51], 4) — Maleeva (20) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Hénin [6], 3) — Majoli (26) San Diego (II, R16/Smashnova [19], 1) — Suarez (32) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Sugiyama [29], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Coetzer [32], 1) New Haven (II, 1R/Roesch [94], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Schiavone [43], 1) Quebec City (III, 2R/Roesch [82], 0) Moscow (I, 2R/Bovina [34], 1) — Majoli (29) Filderstadt (II, SF/Hantuchova [11], 3) — Coetzer (19), Hingis (10) Zurich (I, 2R/Hantuchova [9], 1) Linz (II, 2R/Smashnova [17], 1) — Sugiyama (24) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, 1R/Hénin [4], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 20

9/ Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Kremer [32], 0) Dokic Paris (II, withdrew from final, 3) — Torrens Valero (30), Dementieva (15), Seles (10) Antwerp (II, 2R/Schnyder [42], 0) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Kremer [34], 1) Miami (I, 3R/Kremer [30], 1) Sarasota (IV, Win, 5) — Schnyder (34), Panova (25) Amelia Island (II, SF/Hénin [9], 3) — Dementieva (16) Charleston (I, 2R/Smashnova [35], 0) Hamburg (II, SF/Clijsters [3], 3) — Myskina (29), Hénin (8) Berlin (I, R16/Hantuchova [14], 1) Rome (I, R16/Myskina [30], 1) — Smashnova (21) Strasbourg (III, F/Farina Elia [11], 3) — Shaughnessy (14) Roland Garros (Slam, QF/Capriati [1], 4) Birmingham (III, Win, 5) — Raymond (25), Myskina (22) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Bedanova [28], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Hantuchova [12], 3) — Déchy (28) Stanford (II, QF/Davenport [9], 2) San Diego (II, F/V. Williams [2], 4) — Myskina (15), Capriati (3) Los Angeles (II, SF/Rubin [21], 3) Canadian Open (I, SF/Capriati [3], 3) — Stevenson (34), Hingis (8) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Bovina [61], 1) — Coetzer (27) Bahia (II, SF/Myskina [15], 2) Princess Cup (II, SF/Clijsters [8], 2) — Tanasugarn (28) Leipzig (II, 2R/Shaughnessy [38], 0) Moscow (I, 2R/Coetzer [26], 0) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Panova [21], 0) Zurich (I, 2R/Stevenson [28], 1) — Majoli (27) Linz (II, QF/Rubin [14], 1) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, QF/S. Williams [1], 1) — Myskina (11)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 21

17/ Gold Coast (III, QF/Petrova [39], 2) Farina Elia Sydney (II, 2R/Clijsters [5], 1) Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Ad. Serra-Zanetti [83], 2) Pan Pacific (I, SF/Hingis [4], 3) — Panova (29), Grande (31), Testud (12) Paris (II, QF/V. Williams [2], 2) — Montolio (23), Kremer (26) Antwerp (II, QF/V. Williams [2], 2) Indian Wells (I, R16/Sanchez-Vicario [15], 2) Miami (I, R16/Seles [6], 2) — Tanasugarn (22) Amelia Island (II, QF/Hénin [9], 2) Charleston (I, 2R/C. Fernandez [128], 0) Berlin (I, R16/Mauresmo [10], 2) Rome (I, R16/Testud [10], 2) — Schett (22) Strasbourg (III, Win, 4) — Raymond (27), Maleeva (25), Dokic (9) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Pierce [132], 3) — Tanasugarn (20) (III, 2R/Wartusch [144], 0) Eastbourne (II, QF/Rubin [37], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Maleeva [19], 2) Sopot (III, 2R/Rittner [78], 0) Helsinki (IV, 2R/Chladkova [102], 1) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Granville [93], 1) New Haven (II, 1R/Majoli [25], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 4R/Davenport [10], 3) Quebec City (III, SF/Mikaelian [63], 2) — Stevenson (32) Leipzig (II, 2R/Rittner [83], 1) — Schiavone (32) Moscow (I, 1R/Safina [83], 0) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Panova [21], 0) Zurich (I, 1R/Coetzer [20], 0) Linz (II, QF/Hénin [6], 2) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, 1R/Capriati [3], 0) 46/ Gold Coast (III, 1R/Anca Barna [116], 0) Grande Hobart (V, QF/Medina Garrigues [64], 2) Australian Open (Slam, R16/Capriati [1], 3) — Tulyaganova (20) Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Farina Elia [15], 1) — Tulyaganova (20) Doha (III, 1R/Daniilidou [64], 0) Dubai (II, 2R/Testud [11], 1) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Smashnova [57], 0) Miami (I, 2R/Suarez [58], 0) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Husarova [44], 0) Charleston (I, 1R/Sanchez-Vicario [17], 0) Berlin (I, 1R/Barna [73], 0) Rome (I, 2R/S. Williams [4], 1) Madrid (III, 2R/Zuluaga [138], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/V. Williams [2], 2) Birmingham (III, 2R/Bovina [80], 1) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Shaughnessy [15], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Mauresmo [11], 1) Stanford (II, 1R/Kremer [21], 0) San Diego (II, 1R/Harkleroad [232], 0) Los Angeles (II, QF/Dokic [5], 3) — Maleeva (16) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Suarez [33], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Safina [91], 0) Leipzig (II, 2R/Hantuchova [11], 1) — Majoli (29) Moscow (I, 1R/Matevzic [65], 0) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Majoli [28], 0+3 in qualifying) — Daniilidou (23) Bratislava (V, SF/Matevzic [60], 3) Luxembourg (III, 1R/Zvonareva [49], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 22 8/ Gold Coast (III, 2R/Hénin [7], 1) Hantuchova Sydney (II,2R/Shaughnessy [13] , 1+3 in qualifying) — Maleeva (16) Australian Open (Slam, 3R/V. Williams [3], 2) Paris (II, 2R/Schiavone [29], 1) — Maleeva (16) Antwerp (II, 2R/Bedanova [33], 1) — Torrens Valero (29) Indian Wells (I, Win, 6) — Schett (22), Hénin (7), Raymond (21), Hingis (4) Miami (I, 2R/Black [75], 0) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Husarova [44], 1) Charleston (I, 2R/Pierce [232], 1) Hamburg (II, QF/Hingis [4], 2) Berlin (I, QF/Smashnova [35], 3) — Dokic (9) Rome (I, 1R/Myskina [30], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Seles [6], 3) — Panova (21) Eastbourne (II, SF/Myskina [19], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/S. Williams [2], 4) — Dokic (7) San Diego (II, 2R/Sugiyama [29], 0) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Daniilidou [31], 0) Canadian Open (I, SF/Mauresmo [10], 3) — Schnyder (25), Coetzer (32), Schett (35) New Haven (II, SF/V. Williams [2], 3) — Majoli (25), Schnyder (24) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/S. Williams [1], 4) — Majoli (22), Hénin (6) Leipzig (II, QF/Hénin [7], 2) Filderstadt (II, F/Clijsters [9], 4) — Bedanova (34), Stevenson (35), Dementieva (22) Zurich (I, QF/Schnyder [19], 2) — Dementieva (18) Linz (II, SF/Stevenson [22], 2) — Smashnova (17) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, 1R/Maleeva [17], 0) 5/ Gold Coast (III, F/V. Williams [3], 3) — Bedanova (28) Hénin Sydney (II, QF/Clijsters [5], 2) — Schett (21) Australian Open (Slam, QF/Clijsters [5], 4) — Dementieva (17) Paris (II, QF/Seles [10], 1) Antwerp (II, F/V. Williams [2], 3) — Maleeva (18) Indian Wells (I, R16/Hantuchova [26], 2) Miami (I, 2R/Smashnova [44], 0) Amelia Island (II, F/V. Williams [2], 4) — Farina Elia (13), Dokic (8) Hamburg (II, QF/Dokic [9], 1) Berlin (I, Win, 5) — Déchy (33), Capriati (2), S. Williams (5) Rome (I, F/S. Williams [4], 4) — Schiavone (32), Kremer (25), Clijsters (3) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Kapros [179], 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, SF/Daniilidou [51], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, SF/V. Williams [1], 5) — Dementieva (14), Seles (4) Stanford (II, 1R/Irvin [61], 0) Canadian Open (I, QF/Capriati [3], 2) New Haven (II, 2R/Myskina [16], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Hantuchova [11], 3) Leipzig (II, SF/S. Williams [1], 2) — Hantuchova (11) Filderstadt (II, 2R/M. Casanova [69], 0) Zurich (I, SF/Davenport [10], 2) — Smashnova (16) Linz (II, Win, 4) — Panova (23), Faria Elia (16), Rubin (14), Stevenson (22) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, QF/Clijsters [6], 1) — Dementieva (19)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 23 10/ Sydney (II, Win, 4) — Raymond (22), Testud (11), Clijsters (5), Shaughnessy (13) Hingis Australian Open (Slam, F/Capriati [1], 6) — Coetzer (19), Seles (10) Pan Pacific (I, Win, 4) — Tanasugarn (26), Farina Elia (15), Seles (10) Scottsdale (II, SF/S. Williams [9], 2) — Bedanova (26) Indian Wells (I, F/Hantuchova [26], 5) — Coetzer (17), Seles (9) Miami (I, QF/S. Williams [9], 3) — Stevenson (27) Hamburg (II, SF/V. Williams [1], 2) — Hantuchova (14) Canadian Open (I, QF/Dokic [5], 2) New Haven (II, QF/Myskina [16], 2) — Smashnova (18), Stevenson (32) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Seles [5], 3) — Coetzer (33) Moscow (I, 1R/Petrova [145], 0) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Dementieva [22], 1) 35/ Auckland (IV, SF/Smashnova [88], 3) Kournikova Sydney (II, 2R/S. Williams [6], 1) — Montolio (23) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Hénin [8], 0) Pan Pacific (I, SF/Seles [10], 3) — Torrens Valero (33), Dementieva (16), Kremer (32) Paris (II, 2R/Mauresmo [8], 1) Antwerp (II, 2R/V. Williams [2], 1) Dubai (II, 2R/V. Williams [2], 1) Acapulco (III, SF/Srebotnik [79], 3) Indian Wells (I, 1R/Osterloh [56], 0) Miami (I, 1R/Daniilidou [61], 0) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Suarez [52], 0) Charleston (I, 1R/Martinez [37], 0) Bol (III, 2R/Pisnik [52], 1) Warsaw (IV, 1R/Kuznetsova [162], 0) Rome (I, R16/Ruano Pascual [78], 2) Strasbourg (III, 1R/Mandula [63], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Wheeler [193], 0) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Grande [38], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Panova [23], 0) Stanford (II, QF/V. Williams [2], 2) — Smashnova (18) San Diego (II, SF/Dokic [5], 4) — Stevenson (30), Smashnova (19) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Ruano Pascual [66], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Widjaja [75], 0) (IV, F/Smashnova [19], 4) — Sugiyama (20) Moscow (I, 2R [withdrew], 1) 175/ Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Martinez [39], 0) Krasnorout- Los Angeles (II, 2R/S. Williams [1], 1) skaya Bronx $50K Qualifying ($50K, lost in 2R of qualifying/Lee-Waters [200], 0+2 in qualifying) Princess Cup (II, 2R/Dokic [4], 1) Bali (III, QF/Kuznetsova [59], 2) Bratislava (V, 1R/Matevzic [60], 0) Linz (II, 1R/Panova [23], 0+3 in qualifying) Pattaya City (V, SF/Cho [101], 3)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 24 25/ Auckland (IV, QF/Panova [40], 2) Kremer Canberra (V, 1R/Reeves [106], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Rittner [71], 1) Pan Pacific (I, QF/Kournikova [99], 2) — Dokic (9) Paris (II, 2R/Farina Elia [13], 1) Antwerp (II, 2R/Dyrberg [118], 1) — Schiavone (26) Indian Wells (I, R16/Raymond [21], 2)— Dokic (8) Miami (I, R16/Dementieva [15], 2) — Dokic (8) Amelia Island (II, SF/V. Williams [2], 4) — Mauresmo (10), Testud (11) Charleston (I, 1R/Sugiyama [29], 0) Bol (III, 2R/Diaz-Oliva [84], 0) Berlin (I, 1R/Torrens Valero [38], 0) Rome (I, 3R/Hénin [8], 2) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Rubin [45], 2) Birmingham (III, QF/Pratt [39], 2) — Bedanova (29) Eastbourne (II, QF/Myskina [19], 2) — Déchy (27), Testud (10) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Matevzic [57], 1) Stanford (II, 2R/Davenport [9], 1+2 in qualifying) San Diego (II, R16/V. Williams [2], 1) Los Angeles (II, R16/Daniilidou [31], 1) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Ruano Pascual [66], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Kuznetsova [88], 0) Big Island (IV, 1R/Leon Garcia [125], 0) Quebec City (III, 1R/Drake [105], 0) Moscow (I, 1R/Panova [20], 0) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Mauresmo [4], 1) — Maleeva (15) Zurich (I, 1R/Panova [21], 0) Luxembourg (III, 2R/Granville [52], 1) 42/ Gold Coast (III, 2R/Pisnik [63], 1) Likhovtseva Canberra (V, 2R/Loit [98], 1) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Gagliardi [65], 0) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Kremer [32], 0) Paris (II, 1R/Arn [118], 0) Scottsdale (II, 1R/Schiavone [24], 0) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Hingis [4], 1) Miami (I, 2R/Farina Elia [12], 1) Sarasota (IV, 1R/Smashnova [37], 0) Amelia Island (II, 3R/Kremer [29], 2) Charleston (I, 2R/Déchy [32], 1) Hamburg (II, 1R/Rittner [67], 0) Berlin (I, R16/Hénin [8], 2) — Panova (21) Rome (I, 2R/Clijsters [3], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Dokic [9], 2) Birmingham (III, 3R/Dokic [8], 2) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Bedanova [28], 0+3 in qualifying) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/V. Williams [1], 4) — Clijsters (5), Maleeva (19) San Diego (II, 1R/Martinez [70], 0) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Stevenson [34], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Schnyder [25], 0) New Haven Qualifying (II, lost in 1R of qualifying/de Lone [144], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Bedanova [24], 1) Big Island (IV, QF/Black [61], 2) Princess Cup (II, QF/Clijsters [8], 2) — Sanchez-Vicario (34) Leipzig (II, 1R/Shaughnessy [38], 0) Bratislava (V, 2R/Fislova [158], 1) Luxembourg (III, 1R/Schaul [148], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 25 32/ Gold Coast (III, 1R/Kruger [46], 0) Majoli Canberra (V, 1R/McQuillan [80], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Husarova [69], 1) — Sanchez-Vicario (15) Indian Wells (I, 1R/Razzano [101], 0) Miami (I, 2R/Maleeva [20], 1) Sarasota (IV, 1R/Leon Garcia [48], 0) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Martinez [40], 1) — Coetzer (18) Charleston (I, Win, 6) — Smashnova (35), Coetzer (20), Testud (11), Schnyder (30) Bol (III, F/Svensson [87], 4) Madrid (III, 1R/Serna [38], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Cervanova [112], 1) Vienna (III, QF/Tulyaganova [17], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Dementieva [14], 2) Helsinki (IV, 1R/Leon Garcia [125], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R, Déchy [28], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/Hantuchova [11], 1) — Farina Elia (14) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Hantuchova [11], 2) Bahia (II, 2R/Nagyova [47], 1) Leipzig (II, 1R/Grande [37], 0) Moscow (I, 1R/Dementieva [16], 0) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Clijsters [9], 1) Zurich (I, 1R/Dokic [6], 0) Linz (II, 1R/Suarez [30], 0) 14/ Sydney (II, 1R/Hantuchova [37], 0) Maleeva Australian Open (Slam R16/V. Willams [3], 3) — Raymond (22) Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Tanasugarn [26], 1) — Bedanova (35) Paris (II, 1R/Hantuchova [27], 0) Antwerp (II, QF/Hénin [9], 2) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Dyrberg [105], 0) Miami (I, 3R/Stevenson [27], 1) Bol (III, 2R/Svensson [87], 1) Berlin (I, R16/S. Williams [5], 2) — Tanasugarn (20) Rome (I, 2R/Sugiyama [33], 1) Strasbourg (III, SF/Farina Elia [11], 3) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Sidot [211], 0) Birmingham (III, QF/Myskina [22], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, QF/Dementieva [14], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Likhovtseva [48], 3) — Farina Elia (13) San Diego (II, R16/Clijsters [7], 1) — Déchy (27) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Grande [36], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Frazier [73], 2) Quebec City (III, QF/Mikaelian [63], 2) Leipzig (II, 1R/Husarova [44], 0) Moscow (I, Win, 5) — Smashnova (18), V. Williams (2), Déchy (24), Mauresmo (7), Davenport (8) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Kremer [26], 0) Zurich (I, 1R/Mikaelian [48], 0) Luxembourg (III, F/Clijsters [5], 3) — Bovina (29) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, QF/Capriati [3], 1) — Hantuchova (8)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 26 34/ Auckland (IV, 1R/Brandi [77], 0) Martinez Sydney (II, 2R/Hénin [7], 1) — Dementieva (15) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Svensson [104], 1) Acapulco (III, 1R/Loit [109], 0) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Osterloh [56], 0) Miami (I, 2R/Seles [6], 1) Sarasota (IV, 1R/Dokic [9], 0) Amelia Island (II, R16/Testud [11], 2) Charleston (I, 2R/Foretz [109], 1) Hamburg (II, 2R/Dokic [9], 1) Berlin (I, 2R/Sanchez-Vicario [17], 1) Rome (I, 2R/Chladkova [105], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Dokic [9], 1) Vienna (III, 2R/Tulyaganova [17], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Raymond [35], 2) — Schnyder (18) Stanford (II, 2R/Dokic [6], 1) San Diego (II, 3R/Kournikova [47], 2) — Likhovtseva (34), Panova (22) New Haven (II, 1R/Myskina [16], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Shaughnessy [30], 1) Big Island (IV, QF/Raymond [24], 2) Princess Cup (II, 1R/Likhovtseva [44], 0) Bali (III, F/Kuznetsova [59], 4) Zurich (I, SF/Schnyder [19], 3) — Capriati (3), Stevenson (28) Linz (II, 1R/Stevenson [22], 0) 6/ Sydney (II, QF/S. Williams [6], 2) — Bedanova (25), Coetzer (19) Mauresmo Australian Open (Slam, QF/Capriati [1], 4) — Tanasugarn (25) Paris (II, SF/V. Williams [2], 2) — Schiavone (29) Antwerp (II, SF/V. Williams [2], 2) — Bedanova (33) Dubai (II, Win, 4) — Seles (6), Testud (11) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Kremer [29], 0) Charleston (I, 2R/Schnyder [30], 0) Berlin (I, withdrew from QF, 2) — Farina Elia (12) Rome (I, QF/Capriati [2], 2) — Déchy (28), Sugiyama (33) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Suarez [47], 3) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, QF/Daniilidou [51], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, SF/S. Williams [2], 5) — Myskina (15), Capriati (3) Canadian Open (I, Win, 5) — Hantuchova (12), Capriati (3) New Haven (II, QF/Davenport [10], 2) — Panova (23) U. S. Open (Slam, SF/V. Williams [2], 5) — Schnyder (21), Clijsters (7), Capriati (3) Moscow (I, SF/Maleeva [23], 2) — Panova (20) Filderstadt (II, SF/Clijsters [9], 3) — Kremer (26), Panova (21)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 27 133/ Auckland (IV, 1R/Jidkova [114], 0) Montolio Sydney (II, 1R/Kournikova [66], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Weingärtner [48], 0) Paris (II, 1R/Farina Elia [13], 0) Doha (III, 1R/Myskina [49], 0) Dubai (II, QF/Seles [6], 2) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Gagliardi [70], 0) Miami (I, 2R/Rittner [72], 0) Porto (IV, Win, 5) Estoril (IV, QF/Barna [103], 2) Bol (III, 1R/Sanchez Lorenzo [202], 0) Berlin (I, 1R/Smashnova [35] ,0) Rome (I, 1R/Ruano Pascual [78], 0) Madrid (III, 1R/Grande [34], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Seles [6], 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/Mauresmo [11], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Poutchek [63], 0) Casablanca (V, 1R/Dulko [154], 0) Sopot (III, 1R/Sucha [42], 0) Helsinki (IV, 1R/Kuznetsova [123], 0) New Haven Qualifying (II, lost in 1R of qualifying/Poutchek [61], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Ant. Serra Zanetti [120], 0) Fano ($50K, QF/Gallovits [236], 2) Girona ($50K+H, 1R/Kurhajcova [134], 0) 11/ Gold Coast (III, 2R/Sugiyama [30], 1) Myskina Sydney (II, 1R/Farina Elia [14], 0+3 in qualifying) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Dementieva [17], 1) Pan Pacific Qualifying (I, lost in 1R of qualifying/Callens [203], 0) Doha (III, QF/Husarova [68], 2) — Montolio (24) Dubai (III, QF/V. Williams [2], 2) — Nagyova (26) Indian Wells (I, R16/Gagliardi [70], 2) — Déchy (35) Miami (I, 3R/Capriati [1], 1) Sarasota (IV, QF/Shaughnessy [13], 2) Amelia Island (II, R16/V. Williams [2], 2) — Stevenson (26) Charleston (I, QF/Capriati [1], 3) — Sanchez-Vicario (17) Hamburg (II, 1R/Dokic [9], 0) Berlin (I, 2R/Testud [11], 1) Rome (I, QF/S. Williams [4], 3) — Hantuchova (13), Dokic (9) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Asagoe [119], 0) Birmingham (III, F/Dokic [8], 4) — Stevenson (28), Maleeva (20) Eastbourne (II, F/Rubin [37], 4) — Schnyder (18), Sugiyama (30), Kremer (23), Hantuchova (13) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Mauresmo [11], 2) San Diego (II, 3R/Dokic [5], 1) Canadian Open (I, 1R/C. Fernandez [37], 0) New Haven (II, SF/Davenport [10], 3) — Hénin (7), Hingis (8) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Bedanova[24], 2) Bahia (II, Win, 4) — Dokic (4), Daniilidou (34) Leipzig (II, F/S. Williams [1], 4) — Déchy (25), Clijsters (8) Moscow (I, 1R/Shaughnessy [33], 0) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Clijsters [9], 0) Zurich (I, 2R/Mikaelian [48], 1) — Raymond (23) Linz (II, 2R/Stevenson [22], 1) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, 1R/Dokic [9], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 28 59/ Auckland (IV, 2R/Poutchek [76], 1) Nagyova Sydney (II, 2R/Testud [11], 1) — Sanchez-Vicario (17) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Frazier [44], 0) Paris (II, 1R/Tu [58], 0) Dubai (II, 1R/Myskina [47], 0) Miami (I, 2R/Diaz-Oliva [81], 0) Sarasota (IV, 2R/Schnyder [34], 1) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Frazier [53], 0) Charleston (I, 1R/C. Fernandez [128], 0) Bol (III, 2R/Garbin [108], 1) Warsaw (IV, F/Bovina [94], 4) Rome (I, 2R/Panova [23], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Razzano [81], 0) Vienna (III, 2R/Mandula [106], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Casanova [180], 0) Palermo (V, SF/Diaz-Oliva [103], 3) Sopot (III, F/Safina [169], 4) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Sugiyama [29], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Hénin [6], 1+2 in qualifying) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Zvonareva [57], 1) — Daniilidou (29) Bahia (II, QF/Seles [5], 2) — Majoli (23) Princess Cup (II, 1R/Panova [22], 0) Filderstadt (II, lost in 1R of qualifying/Serna [50], 0) Bratislava (V, 1R/Déchy [22], 0) Luxembourg (III, 1R/Pisnik [46], 0) Pattaya City (V, 1R/Krasnoroutskaya [222], 0) 23/ Auckland (IV, F/Smashnova [88], 4) — Kremer (33) Panova Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Daniilidou [81], 1) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Farina Elia [15], 0) Doha (III, 1R/Matevzic [76], 0) Dubai (II, 2R/Tanasugarn [20], 1) Scottsdale (II, 2R/Schiavone [24], 1) — Serna (28) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Raymond [21], 1) Miami (I, QF/Capriati [1], 3) — Sanchez-Vicario (14) Sarasota (IV, F/Dokic [9], 4) — Shaughnessy (13) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Pratt [41], 0) Charleston (I, 1R/Tu [61], 0) Hamburg (II, 1R/Serna [39], 0) Berlin (I, 1R/Likhovtseva [47], 0) Rome (I, R16/Clijsters [3], 2) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Hantuchova [13], 2) Birmingham (III, 2R/Daniilidou [54], 0) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Navratilova [—], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Rubin [27], 2) Stanford (II, 1R/Bedanova [17], 0) San Diego (II, 2R/Martinez [70], 0) Los Angeles (II, R16/Davenport [9], 1) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Rubin [15], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Mauresmo [9], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Schiavone [43], 2) Bahia (II, 1R/Matevzic [81], 0) Princess Cup (II, QF/Frazier [53], 2) Moscow (I, 2R/Mauresmo [7], 1) — Kremer (25) Filderstadt (II, QF/Mauresmo [4], 2) — Farina Elia (14), Dokic (8) Zurich (I, 2R/Davenport [10], 1) — Kremer (26) Linz (II, 2R/Hénin [6], 1) Pattaya City (V, SF/Widjaja [91], 3)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 29 52/ Hobart (V, 2R/Medina Garrigues [64], 1) Pierce Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Craybas [111], 0) Sarasota (IV, 2R/Myskina [36], 1) — Sugiyama (30) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Dokic [8], 1) Charleston (I, R16/Schnyder [30], 2) — Hantuchova (15) Berlin (I, 2R/Dokic [9], 1) Rome (I, R16/Capriati [2], 2) — Schnyder (20) Roland Garros (Slam, QF/S. Williams [3], 4) — Torrens Valero (35), Farina Elia (11) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Sugiyama [30], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Granville [134], 2) — Testud (10) San Diego (II, 1R/Arn [84], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Nagyova [45], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Suarez [32], 0) 29/ Sydney (II, 2R/Hingis [4], 1) — Serna (27) Raymond Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Maleeva [16], 2) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Coetzer [19], 0) Memphis (III, Win, 4) — Sugiyama (35) Scottsdale (II, 1R/Sugiyama [30], 0) Indian Wells (I, QF/Hantuchova [26], 3) — Panova (31), Kremer (34) Miami (I, 3R/Sanchez-Vicario [14], 1) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Craybas [109], 0) Charleston (I, 1R/Déchy [32], 0) Strasbourg (III, QF/Farina Elia [11], 2) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Bes [104], 0) Birmingham (III, SF/Dokic [8], 3) — Fernandez (34) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/V. Williams [1], 3) Stanford (II, SF/V. Williams [2], 3) — Sugiyama (29), Seles (4) San Diego (II, 1R/Sugiyama [29], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Sugiyama [21], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Bovina [77], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Rubin [15], 2) Big Island (IV, F/Black [61], 4) Filderstadt (II, 1R/M. Casanova [69], 0+3 in qualifying) Zurich (I, 1R/Myskina [12], 0) Luxembourg (III, 2R/Pisnik [46], 1) 13/ Berlin (I; lost in 2R of qualifying/Sanchez Lorenzo [170]; Lucky Loser; 2R/Hantuchova [14]; 1+1 in Rubin qualifying) Rome Qualifying (I, lost in 1R of qualifying/Vierin [179], 0) Madrid (III, F/Seles [6], 4) — Sanchez-Vicario (18) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/V. Williams [2], 3) — Schett (19), Kremer (25) Eastbourne (II, Win, 5) — Tanasugarn (21), Farina Elia (12), Bedanova (28), Myskina (19) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/S. Williams [2], 3) — Tulyaganova (20), Panova (23) San Diego (II, 3R/Davenport [9], 1) Los Angeles (II, Win, 5) — Bedanova (17), S. Williams (1), Dokic (5), Davenport (9) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Schett [35], 1) — Panova (23) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/V. Williams [2], 3) — Raymond (25) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Schett [44], 0) Zurich (I, 1R/Smashnova [16], 0) Linz (II, SF/Hénin [6], 3) — Daniilidou (25), Dokic (8) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, 1R/Clijsters [6], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 30 53/ Sydney (II, 1R/Nagyova [26], 0) Sanchez- Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Majoli [43], 0) Vicario Doha (III, 1R/Molik [54], 0) Acapulco (III, 2R/Husarova [51], 0) Indian Wells (I, QF/Seles [9], 3) — Bedanova (25), Farina Elia (12) Miami (I, R16/Panova [32], 2) — Raymond (21) Sarasota (IV, 1R/Husarova [47], 0) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Déchy [35], 0) Charleston (I, 2R/Myskina [33], 1) — Grande (34) Hamburg (II, QF/V. Williams [1], 2) Berlin (I, R16/Déchy [33], 2) Madrid (III, 2R/Rubin [65], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Marrero [68], 0) Brussels (IV, F/M. Casanova [119], 4) Sopot (III, QF/Garbin [90], 2) Helsinki (IV, 2R/Mandula [93], 1) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Granville [93], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Tulyaganova [42], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Bartoli [231], 0) Princess Cup (II, 2R/Likhovtseva [44], 1) Bali (III, SF/Kuznetsova [59], 2) (III, 2R/Taylor [87], 1) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Hingis [10], 0) Luxembourg (III, 1R/Granville [52], 0)

Retired 40/ Sydney (II, 2R/Hénin [7], 0) Schett Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Coetzer [19], 2) Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Testud [12], 1) — Serna (25) Paris (II, 1R/Seles [10], 0) Scottsdale (II, QF/Capriati [2], 2) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Hantuchova [26], 1) Miami (I, 3R/Dementieva [15], 1) Hamburg (II, QF/Clijsters [3], 2) Berlin (I, 2R/S. Williams [5], 1) — Schiavone (31) Rome (I, 2R/Farina Elia [12], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Rubin [45], 1) Vienna (III, QF/Mandula [106], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/M. Casanova [180], 1) Brussels (IV, QF/Ruano Pascual [85], 2) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Frazier [59], 0) Canadian Open (I, QF/Hantuchova [12], 3) — Rubin (15), Clijsters (7) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Müller [77], 1) Big Island (IV, 2R/Reeves [74], 1) Moscow (I, lost in 1R of qualifying/Koukalova [126], 0) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Hantuchova [11], 1) — Rubin (13) Linz (II, 2R/Hantuchova [9], 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 31 41/ Canberra (V, 1R/Mandula [60], 0) Schiavone Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Seles [10], 2) Paris (II, QF/Mauresmo [8], 2) — Hantuchova (27) Antwerp (II, 1R/Kremer, 0) Scottsdale (II, QF/Déchy [45], 2) — Panova (32) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Marrero [64], 0) Miami (I, 2R/Pisnik [54], 0) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Garbin [95], 1) Charleston (I, 1R/Mikaelian [64], 0) Hamburg (II, 2R/V. Williams [1], 1) — Tulyaganova (19) Berlin (I, 1R/Schett [22], 0) Rome (I, 2R/Hénin [8], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Zvonareva [142], 2) — Smashnova (23) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Farina Elia [12], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/S. Williams [2], 1) San Diego (II, 2R/Myskina [15], 1) — Tanasugarn (28) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Bovina [83], 0) Canadian Open (I, lost in 2R of qualifying/Taylor [112]; Lucky Loser; R16/Hénin [6], 2 + 1 in qualifying) — Daniilidou (30), Bedanova (18) New Haven Qualifying (II, lost in 2R of qualifying/Torrens Valero [89], 0+1 in qualifying) U. S. Open (Slam, 4R/Bovina [61], 3) — Dementieva (13), Panova (23) Leipzig (II, 1R/Farina Elia [14], 0) Bratislava (V, 2R/Neffa-de los Rios [84], 1) Linz (II, 1R/Farina Elia [16], 0) 15/ Gold Coast (III, 2R/V. Williams [3], 1) Schnyder Canberra (V, QF/Tanasugarn [30], 2) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Seles [10], 0) Paris (II, 1R/Torrens Valero [30], 0) Antwerp (II, SF/Hénin [9], 3) — Dokic (6) Miami (I, 2R/Reeves [98], 0) Sarasota (IV, QF/Dokic [9], 2) — Nagyova (32) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Dementieva [16], 1) Charleston (I, F/Majoli [58], 5) — Mauresmo (10), S. Williams (7), Capriati (1) Hamburg (II, 1R/Barna [80], 0) Rome (I, 2R/Pierce [172], 1) Madrid (III, 1R/Suarez [54], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Capriati [1], 3) — Tulyaganova (18) Vienna (III, QF/Smashnova [23], 2) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Myskina [19], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Martinez [66], 1) Sopot (III, 2R/Safina [169], 0) Helsinki (IV, QF/Kuznetsova [123], 2) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Hantuchova [12], 1) New Haven (II, QF/Hantuchova [11], 2) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Mauresmo [9], 2) Bahia (II, QF/Daniilidou [34], 2) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Smashnova [18], 0) Zurich (I, Win, 5) — Bovina (30), Hantuchova (9), Davenport (10) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, 1R/V.Williams [2], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 32 7/ Australian Open (Slam, SF/Hingis [4], 5) — V. Williams (3) Seles Pan Pacific (I, F/Hingis [4], 3) Paris (II, SF/Dokic [9], 3) — Schett (20), Hénin (7) Doha (III, Win, 4) — Tanasugarn (21) Dubai (II, SF/Mauresmo [10], 2) — Montolio (24) Indian Wells (I, SF/Hingis [4], 4) — Sugiyama (29), Sanchez-Vicario (15) Miami (I, SF/Capriati [1], 4) — Farina Elia (12), Clijsters (5) Charleston (I, R16/Foretz [109], 1) Madrid (III, Win, 4) — Smashnova (24) Roland Garros (Slam, QF/V. Williams [2], 4) — Hantuchova (13) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/Hénin [6], 4) — Sugiyama (30), Tanasugarn (24) Stanford (II, QF/Raymond [28], 1) — Tanasugarn (27) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/V. Williams [2], 4) — Hingis (8) Bahia (II, SF/Daniilidou [34], 2) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, QF/V. Williams [2], 1) — Davenport (12) 50/ Sydney (II, 1R/Raymond [22], 0) Serna Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Dementieva [17], 2) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Schett [22], 0) Paris (II, 1R/Ad. Serra-Zanetti [47], 0 Scottsdale (II, 1R/Panova [32], 0) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Husarova [47], 0) Miami (I, 1R/Webb [184], 0) Porto (IV, F/Montolio [29], 4) Estoril (IV, Win, 5) Hamburg (II, 2R/Hantuchova [14], 1) — Panova (22) Berlin (I, 1R/Rubin [69], 0) Rome (I, 2R/Myskina [30], 1) Madrid (III, QF/Rubin [65], 2) — Majoli (32) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Pratt [40], 0) Birmingham (III, 2R/Pullin [150], 1) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Rubin [37], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Grande [39], 0) Brussels (IV, QF/Sanchez-Vicario [32], 2) Sopot (III, QF/Safina [169], 2) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Husarova [40], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Hingis [8], 0+2 in qualifying) New Haven Qualifying (II, lost in 2R of qualifying/Neffa-de los Rios [74], 0+1 in qualifying) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Cho [106], 0) Leipzig Qualifying (II, lost in third round of qualifying/Benesova [111], 0+2 in qualifying) Moscow (I, 2R/Davenport [8], 1+3 in qualifying) — Suarez (31) Filderstadt Qualifying (II, lost in 2R of qualifying/Matevzic [60], 0+1 in qualifying) Bratislava (V, 1R/Diaz-Oliva [90], 0) Luxembourg (III, 2R/Clijsters [5], 1+3 in qualifying)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 33 30/ Gold Coast (III, 2R/Petrova [39], 1) Shaughnessy Sydney (II, F/Hingis [4], 4) — S. Williams (6) Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Weingärtner [48], 2) Scottsdale (II, 1R/Déchy [45], 0) Indian Wells (I, R16/Smashnova [57], 2) Miami (I, 3R/Irvin [63], 1) Sarasota (IV, SF/Panova [25], 3) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Suarez [52], 0) Charleston (I, 2R/Suarez [47], 0) Berlin (I, 2R/Déchy [33], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Svensson [65], 0) Strasbourg (III, SF/Dokic [9], 3) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Martinez Granados [136], 0) Eastbourne (II, QF/Bedanova [28], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Oremans [129], 1) Stanford (II, 2R/V. Williams [2], 1) San Diego (II, R16/Capriati [3], 1) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Husarova [40], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/V. Williams [2], 1) — Tanasugarn (28) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Capriati [3], 2) Bahia (II, 1R/Déchy [25], 0) Quebec City (III, 2R/Mikaelian [63], 1) Leipzig (II, QF/Myskina [12], 2) — Dokic (5) Moscow (I, 2R/Déchy [24], 1) — Myskina (12) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Stevenson [35], 0) Bratislava (V, 2R [withdrew], 1) Linz (II, 1R/Smashnova [17], 0) 16/ Auckland (V, Win, 5) Smashnova Canberra (V, Win, 5) — Tanasugarn (30) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Srebotnik [108], 0) Acapulco (III, 1R/Leon Garcia [43], 0) Indian Wells (I, QF/Gagliardi [70], 4) — Grande (28), Shaughnessy (13) Miami (I, 3R/Panova [32], 2) — Hénin (7) Sarasota (IV, 2R/Dokic [9], 1+3 in qualifying) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Reeves [90], 0) Charleston (I, R16/Majoli [58], 2) — Dokic (9) Berlin (I, SF/S. Williams [5], 4) — Clijsters (3), Hantuchova (14) Rome (I, 2R/Dokic [9], 1) Madrid (III, QF/Seles [6], 2) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Schiavone [36], 0) Vienna (III, Win, 5) — Schnyder (18), Tulyaganova (17) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Tulyaganova [16], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Widjaja [93], 0) Stanford (II, 1R/Kournikova [54], 0) San Diego (II, QF/Kournikova [47], 2) — Dementieva (13) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Coetzer [35], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Stevenson[34], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Hingis [8], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Coetzer [33], 1) Shanghai (IV, Win, 5) Princess Cup (II, 2R/Frazier [53], 0) Moscow (I, 1R/Maleeva [23], 0) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Davenport [7], 1) — Schnyder (17) Zurich (I, 2R/Hénin [8], 1) — Rubin (13) Linz (II, QF/Hantuchova [9], 2) — Shaughnessy (28), Dementieva (18) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, 1R/S. Williams [1], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 34 18/ Gold Coast (III, 1R/Likhovtseva [36], 0) Stevenson Sydney (II, QF/Shaughnessy [13], 2+3 in qualifying) — Tulyaganova (20), Capriati (2) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Shaughnessy [12], 0) Pan Pacific (I, QF/Seles [10], 2+3 in qualifying) — Coetzer (19) Memphis (III, F/Raymond [21], 4) Scottsdale (II, 2R/Capriati [2], 1) Indian Wells (I, 4R/Coetzer [17], 2) — Dementieva (14) Miami (I, R16/Hingis [3], 2) — Maleeva (20) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Myskina [33], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Dominikovic [109], 0) Surbiton ($25K, SF/Granville [150], 3) Birmingham (III, 3R/Myskina [22], 2) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Frazier [76], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Obata [116], 0) Stanford (II, 1R/Tu [51], 0) San Diego (II, 1R/Kournikova [47], 0) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Bedanova [17], 1) — Likhovtseva (33) Canadian Open (I, R16/Dokic [5], 2) — Smashnova (19), Tanasugarn (29) New Haven (II, 2R/Hingis [8], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Foretz [89], 0) Quebec City (III, QF/Farina Elia [14], 2) Leipzig (II, 2R/Husarova [44], 1) Filderstadt (II, QF/Hantuchova [11], 2+3 in qualifying) — Shaughnessy (29), Capriati (3) Zurich (I, QF/Martinez [47], 2+3 in qualifying) — Sugiyama (25), Dokic (6) Linz (II, F/Hénin [6], 4) — Myskina (12), Capriati (3), Hantuchova (9)

The WTA in its final ranking list showed Stevenson as having 26 events. However, the week before, it showed her with 25 events, and she was not shown as having added points that week; neither did her point total change. It appears “event #26” was being an alternate at the Los Angeles Championships! 27/ Hobart (V, 2R/Jidkova [109], 1) Suarez Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Müller [95], 0) Bogota (III, QF/Zuluaga [285], 2) Acapulco (III, F/Srebotnik [79], 4) — Coetzer (17), Dementieva (14) Indian Wells (I, 1R/Poutchek [81], 0) Miami (I, 3R/Clijsters [5], 2) — Grande (29) Sarasota (IV, QF/Razzano [98], 1+1 walkover) Amelia Island (II, QF/V. Williams [2], 3) — Shaughnessy (12) Charleston (I, R16/Coetzer [20], 2) — Shaughnessy (12) Berlin (I, 1R/Hantuchova [14], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Kremer [25], 0) Madrid (III, SF/Seles [6], 3) — Schnyder (23) Roland Garros (Slam, QF/C. Fernandez [87], 4) — Testud (10), Déchy (28), Mauresmo (12) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Craybas [91], 0) Palermo (V, SF/Zvonareva [84], 3) San Diego (II, 2R/Dementieva [13], 1) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Srebotnik [43], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Sugiyama [21], 1) — Grande (31) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Cho [106], 1) Bahia (II, 1R/Pisnik [46], 0) Leipzig (II, 1R/Benesova [111], 0) Moscow (I, 1R/Serna [58], 0) Linz (II, 2R/Capriati [3], 1) — Majoli (31)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 35 24/ Gold Coast (III, QF/V. Williams [3], 2) Sugiyama Sydney Qualifying (II, lost in 3R of qualifying/Pisnik [50], 0+2 in qualifying) Australian Open (Slam, Husarova [69], 2) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Callens [203], 0) Memphis (III, SF/Raymond [21], 3) Scottsdale (II, 2R/Pratt [42], 1) — Raymond (19) Indian Wells (I, R16/Seles [9], 2) — Tulyaganova (19) Miami (I, 3R/Tulyaganova [19], 1) Sarasota (IV, 1R/Pierce [295], 0) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Molik [50], 0) Charleston (I, 2R/Testud [11], 1) — Kremer (21) Rome (I, 3R/Mauresmo [11], 2) — Dementieva (15), Maleeva (24) Madrid (III, 1R/C. Fernandez [98], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Husarova [41], 1) Birmingham (III, 3R/Daniilidou [54], 2) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Myskina [19], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Seles [4], 2) Stanford (II, 1R/Raymond [28], 0) San Diego (II, QF/Davenport [9], 3) — Raymond (20), Hantuchova (12) Los Angeles (II, SF/Davenport [9], 4) — Dementieva (13), Coetzer (35), Capriati (3) Canadian Open (I, R16/Capriati [3], 2) — Raymond (22), Suarez (33) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Frazier [73], 1) Shanghai (IV, SF/Kournikova [38], 3) Princess Cup (II, 2R/Pratt [46], 1) Japan Open (III, QF/Talaja [95], 1) Zurich (I, 1R/Stevenson [28], 0) Linz (II, 1R/Dementieva [18], 0) 28/ Canberra (V, F/Smashnova [69], 4) Tanasugarn Australian Open (Slam, Mauresmo [9], 2) Pan Pacific (I, QF/Hingis [4], 2) — Maleeva (14) Doha (III, F/Seles [7], 3) Dubai (II, QF/Testud [11], 2) — Panova (32) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Black [84], 1) Miami (I, 3R/Farina Elia [12], 1) Sarasota (IV, 1R/Ruano Pascual [72], 0) Hamburg (II, 1R/Müller [65], 0) Berlin (I, 2R/Maleeva [26], 1) Rome (I, 1R/Chladkova [105], 0) Madrid (III, 1R/Black [44], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Farina Elia [11], 2) Birmingham (III, 2R/Craybas [102], 0) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Rubin [37], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Seles [4], 3) Stanford (II, 2R/Seles [4], 1) San Diego (II, 1R/Schiavone [46], 0) Los Angeles (II, R16/Capriati [3], 1) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Stevenson [24], 1) New Haven (II, 1R/Shaughnessy [31], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Bielik [1102], 1) Princess Cup (II, QF/Dokic [4], 2) — C. Fernandez (35) Bali (III, 2R/Neffa-de los Rios [89], 0) Japan Open (III, SF/Craybas [82], 2) Pattaya (V, QF/Cho [101], 2)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 36 38/ Gold Coast (III, 1R/Pisnik [63], 0) Testud Sydney (II, QF/Hingis [4], 2) — Nagyova (26) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Déchy [56], 0) Pan Pacific (I, QF/Farina Elia [15], 2) — Schett (22) Doha (III, 2R/Husarova [68], 0) Dubai (II, F/Mauresmo [10], 3) — Grande (28), Tanasugarn (20), V. Williams (2) Amelia Island (II, QF/Kremer [29], 2) Charleston (I, SF/Majoli [58], 3) — Sugiyama (29) Berlin (I, QF/Capriati [2], 2) Rome (I, QF/Clijsters [3], 2) — Farina Elia (12) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Suarez [47], 0) Birmingham (III, 3R/Pratt [39], 1) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Kremer [23], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Pierce [74], 1) 55/ Sydney (II, 1R/Stevenson [61], 0) Tulyaganova Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Grande [29], 2) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Grande [31], 0) Dubai (II, 1R/Rittner [78], 0) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Sugiyama [29], 1) Miami (I, R16/Capriati [1], 2) — Sugiyama (28) Hamburg (II, 1R/Schiavone [31], 0) Berlin (I, R16/Capriati [2], 2) Rome (I, 2R/Ruano Pascual [78], 1) Strasbourg (III, 1R/Daniilidou [64], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Schnyder [24], 2) Vienna (III, F/Smashnova [23], 3) — Majoli (26) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Frazier [76], 1) — Smashnova (17) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Rubin [27], 1) San Diego (II, 1R/Mikaelian [51], 0) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Déchy [27], 1) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Zuluaga [109], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/Davenport [10], 1) — Sanchez-Vicario (26) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Déchy [26], 1) Bahia (II, 1R/Loit [56], 0) Bratislava (V, 2R/Kurhajcova [114], 1) 1/ Sydney (II, SF/Shaughnessy [13], 2) — Mauresmo (9) Williams, Scottsdale (II, Win, 4) — Hingis (5), Capriati (2) Serena Miami (I, Win, 6) — Hingis (3), V. Williams (2), Capriati (1) Charleston (I, QF/Schnyder [30], 2) — Déchy (32) Berlin (I, F/Hénin [8], 3+1 walkover) — Schett (22), Maleeva (26), Smashnova (35) Rome (I, Win, 5) — Grande (35), Myskina (30), Capriati (2), Hénin (8) Roland Garros (Slam, Win, 7) — Capriati (1), V. Williams (2) Wimbledon (Slam, Win, 7) — Rubin (27), Hantuchova (12), Maureso (11), V. Williams (1) Los Angeles (II, QF/Rubin [21], 2) — Déchy (27) U. S. Open (Slam, Win, 7) — Déchy (26), Bedanova (24), Hantuchova (11), Davenport (10), V. Williams (2) Princess Cup (II, Win, 4) — Clijsters (8) Leipzig (II, Win, 4) — Hénin (7), Myskina (12) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, F/Clijsters [6], 3) — Smashnova (16), Dokic (9), Capriati (3)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 37 2/ Gold Coast (III, Win, 4) — Sugiyama (30), Hénin (7) Williams, Australian Open (Slam, QF/Seles [10], 4) — Hantuchova (28), Maleeva (16) Venus Paris (II, Win, 3+1 walkover (in final)) — Farina Elia (13), Mauresmo (8) Antwerp (II, Win, 4) — Farina Elia (13), Mauresmo (10), Hénin (9) Dubai (II, SF/Testud [11], 2) Miami (I, SF/S. Williams [9], 4) — Coetzer (18), Dementieva (15) Amelia Island (II, Win, 5) — Myskina (33), Kremer (29), Hénin (9) Hamburg (II, F/Clijsters [3], 3) — Schiavone (31), Sanchez-Vicario (18), Hingis (4) Roland Garros (Slam, F/S. Williams [3], 6) — Grande (34), Seles (6) Wimbledon (Slam, F/S. Williams [2], 6) — Raymond (35), Hénin (6) Stanford (II, Win, 4) — Shaughnessy (19), Raymond (28), Clijsters (5) San Diego (II, Win, 5) — Kremer (18), Clijsters (7), Davenport (9), Dokic (5) New Haven (II, Win, 4) — Shaughnessy (31), Hantuchova (11), Davenport (10) U. S. Open (Slam, F/S. Williams [1], 6) — Rubin (15), Seles (5), Mauresmo (9) Moscow (I, 2R/Maleeva [23], 0) Los Angeles Chmp (Champ, SF/Clijsters [6], 2) — Schnyder (13), Seles (7)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 38 Tournament Winners 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 Hingis Australian Open Slam Capriati (Pan Pacific) I Hingis Paris II V. Williams Antwerp II V. Williams Dubai II Mauresmo Scottsdale II S. Williams Indian Wells I Hantuchova Miami I S. Williams Amelia Island II V. Williams Charleston I Majoli Hamburg II Clijsters Berlin I Hénin Rome I S. Williams Roland Garros Slam S. Williams Eastbourne II Rubin Wimbledon Slam S. Williams Stanford II V. Williams San Diego II V. Williams Los Angeles II Rubin Canadian Open I Mauresmo New Haven II V. Williams U.S. Open Slam S. Williams Bahia II Myskina Tokyo (Princess Cup) II S. Williams Leipzig II S. Williams Moscow I Maleeva Filderstadt II Clijsters Zurich I Schnyder Linz II Hénin Los Angeles Championships Champ Clijsters

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 39 Tournament Winners by Tournament Type (High-Tier Events) The following list shows winners of the top-tier tournaments sorted by tier. Within the tiers, tournaments are sorted by date. SLAMS Event Winner Australian Open Capriati Roland Garros S. Williams Wimbledon S. Williams U.S. Open S. Williams YEAR-END CHAMPIONSHIP Event Winner Los Angeles Championships Clijsters TIER I Event Winner Pan Pacific (Tokyo) Hingis Indian Wells Hantuchova Ericsson (Miami) S. Williams Charleston Majoli German Open (Berlin) Hénin (Rome) S. Williams Canadian Open Mauresmo Moscow Maleeva Zurich Schnyder TIER II Event Winner Sydney Hingis Paris V. Williams Antwerp V. Williams Dubai Mauresmo Scottsdale S. Williams Amelia Island V. Williams Hamburg Clijsters Eastbourne Rubin Stanford V. Williams San Diego V. Williams Los Angeles Rubin New Haven V. Williams Bahia Myskina Princess Cup (Tokyo) S. Williams Leipzig S. Williams Filderstadt Clijsters Linz Hénin

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 40 Winners at Smaller Tournaments (Tier III, IV, V) Tournament Winner Tier Same Week As Gold Coast V. Williams III Auckland (IV) Auckland Smashnova IV Gold Coast (III) Canberra Smashnova V Sydney (II), Hobart (V) Hobart Sucha V Sydney (II), Canberra (V) Doha Seles III Antwerp (II) Memphis Raymond III Dubai (II), Bogota (III) Bogota Zuluaga III Dubai (II), Memphis (III) Acapulco Srebotnik III Scottsdale (II) Sarasota Dokic IV Porto (IV) Porto Montolio IV Sarasota (IV) Estoril Serna IV Amelia Island (II) Budapest Müller V Charleston (I) Bol Svensson II Hamburg (II) Warsaw Bovina V Berlin (I) Madrid Seles III Strasbourg (III) Strasbourg Farina Elia III Madrid (III) Birmingham Dokic III Vienna (III), Tashkent (IV) Vienna Smashnova III Birmingham (III), Taskent (IV) Tashkent Mikaelian IV Birmingham (III), Vienna (III) ’s-Hertogenbosch Daniilidou III Eastbourne (II) Brussels M. Casanova IV Palermo (V), Casablanca (V) Palermo Diaz-Oliva V Brussels (IV), Casablanca (V) Casablanca Wartusch V Brussels (IV), Palermo (V) Sopot Safina III+ Stanford (II) Helsinki Kuznetsova IV Los Angeles (II) Big Island Black IV Bahia (II+), Shanghai (IV) Shanghai Smashnova IV Bahia (II+), Big Island (IV) Quebec City Bovina III Princess Cup (II) Bali Kuznetsova III Leipzig (II) Japan Open Craybas III Moscow (I) Bratislava Matevzic IV Zurich (I) Luxembourg Clijsters III Linz (II) Pattaya City Widjaja V Los Angeles (Champ)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 41 Cheap Thrills and Tough Bills: Titles against Weak and Strong Opposition It’s one thing to win a title. It’s another to win a title against major opposition. The lists below classify tournament wins based on the level of opposition the winner faced (note: for brevity, titles are listed only once. So a player who won without facing a Top Fifteen player also obviously won without facing a Top Ten player, etc.): Won Title Beating at Least Two Top Ten Players: Australian Open: Capriati Antwerp: V. Williams Scottsdale: S. Williams Indian Wells: Hantuchova Miami: S. Williams Hamburg: Clijsters Berlin: Hénin Rome: S. Williams Roland Garros: S. Williams San Diego: V. Williams Los Angeles: Rubin U. S. Open: S. Williams Moscow: Maleeva Filderstadt: Clijsters Zurich: Schnyder Los Angeles Championships: Clijsters Won Title Beating One Top Ten Player: Gold Coast: V. Williams Sydney: Hingis Pan Pacific: Hingis Paris: V. Williams Dubai: Mauresmo Amelia Island: V. Williams Strasbourg: Farina Elia ’s-Hertogenbosch: Daniilidou Wimbledon: S. Williams Stanford: V. Williams Canadian Open: Mauresmo New Haven: V. Williams Bahia: Myskina Princess Cup: S. Williams Leipzig: S. Williams Won Title Without Facing a Top Ten Player: Charleston: Majoli (top opponent: Testud/#11) Eastbourne: Rubin (top opponent: Farina Elia/#12) Luxembourg: Clijsters (top opponent: Maleeva/#15) Linz: Hénin (top opponent: Rubin/#14) Won Title Without Facing a Top Fifteen Player: Vienna: Smashnova (top opponent: Tulyaganova/#17) Won Title Without Facing a Top Twenty Player: Canberra: Smashnova (top opponent: Tanasugarn/#30) Doha: Seles (top opponent: Tanasugarn/#21) Bogota: Zuluaga (top opponent: Torrens Valero/#30) Sarasota: Dokic (top opponent: Panova/#25) Bol: Svensson (top opponent: Maleeva/#25) Madrid: Seles (top opponent: Smashnova/#24) Birmingham: Dokic (top opponent: Myskina/#22) Sopot: Safina (top opponent: Schnyder/#24) Helsinki: Kuznetsova (top opponent: Schnyder/#24) Big Island: Black (top opponent: Raymond/#24) Japan Open: Craybas (top opponent: Tanasugarn/#27) Pattaya City: Widjaja (top opponent: Panova/#25) Won Title Without Facing a Top Thirty Player: Auckland: Smashnova (top opponent: Panova/#40) Hobart: Sucha (top opponent: Pratt/#47) Memphis: Raymond (top opponent: Sugiyama/#35) Acapulco: Srebotnik (top opponent: Torrens Valero/#31) Porto: Montolio (top opponent: Serna/#44) Estoril: Serna (top opponent: Pisnik/#51) Budapest: Müller (top opponent: Sucha/#40) Warsaw: Bovina (top opponent: Nagyova/#41) Tashkent: Mikaelian (top opponent: Poutchek/#73) Brussels: M. Casanova (top opponent: Sanchez-Vicario/#32) Palermo: Diaz-Oliva (top opponent: Nagyova/#53) Casablanca: Wartusch (top opponent: Kuznetsova/#147) Shanghai: Smashnova (top opponent: Kournikova/#38) Quebec City: Bovina (top opponent: Mikaelian/#63) Bali: Kuznetsova (top opponent: Sanchez-Vicario/#43) Bratislava: Matevzic (top opponent: Grande/#39)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 42 Winners at $50K and Larger Challengers Showing date, tier, and final score (since November 11, 2001, when the 2001 Tour year ended)

Nov. 18, 2001: Hattiesburg ($50K) — Irina Selyutina (4) def. Seda Noorlander (3) 6–2 6–1 Dec. 2, 2001: West Columbia ($50K) — Samantha Reeves (4) def. Mashona Washington (6) 6–1 6–0 Jan. 28, 2002: Fullerton ($50K) — Sarah Taylor (5) def. Ansley Cargill 6–4 7–6(8–6) Feb. 4, 2002: Ortisei ($50K+H) — Flavia Pennetta (WC) def. Angelika Bachmann (Q) 7–6(7–3) 3–6 6–3 Feb. 11, 2002: Midland ($75K) — Na Li (Q) def. Mashona Washington 6–1 6–2 Mar. 3, 2002: Bloomington [Minneapolis/St. Paul] ($50K) — Els Callens def. Stanislava Hrozenska (Q) 7Ð5 6Ð3 Apr. 8, 2002: Dubai ($75K+H) — Angelique Widjaja (6) def. Shinobu Asagoe 7–5 6–2 Apr, 15, 2002: Dinan ($50K) — Emilie Loit (1) def. Zuzana Ondraskova 6–2 7–5 Apr. 15, 2002: Naples ($50K) — Vera Zvonareva def. Maureen Drake (4) 6–1 6–3 Apr. 29, 2002: Dothan ($75K): Milagros Sequera def. 7Ð6(9Ð7) 4Ð6 6Ð1 May 5, 2002: ($50K) — Julie Pullin (8) def. Shinobu Asagoe 4–6 6–4 6–3 May 5, 2002: Cagnes-Sur-Mer ($50K) — Emilie Loit (2) def. Alena Vaskova 7–5 3–6 6–4 May 12, 2002: ($50K) — Vanessa Webb (5) d. Mi-Ra Jeon 6–0 6–4 May 19, 2002: Szczecin ($50K+H) — Yulia Beygelzimer (Q) def. Alena Vaskova (5) 2–6 6–3 6–3 Jun. 9, 2002: Caserta ($50K+H) — Klara Koukalova def. Mariana Diaz-Oliva (2) 7–6(7–4) 5–7 7–5 Jun. 16, 2002: ($50K) — Conchita Martinez Granados (6) def. Emilie Loit (1) 6–2 3–6 7–5 July 8, 2002: Orbetello ($50K+H) — Evgenia Koulikovskaya (8) def. Maria Sanchez Lorenzo 6–1 7–5 July 8, 2002: Los Gatos/San Jose ($50K) — Ashley Harkleroad def. Tzipora Obziler 6–2 6–2 July 21, 2002: Modena ($50K+H) — Denisa Chladkova (2) def. Evgenia Koulikovskaya (4) 6–3 6–2 July 21, 2002: Oyster Bay ($50K) — Yoon Jeong Cho (2) def. Irina Selyutina (4) 7–6(7–5) 6–4 July 28, 2002: Louisville ($50K) — Alina Jidkova (1) def. Saori Obata (2) 6–3 6–4 August 4, 2002: Saint-Gaudens ($50K) — Mariana Diaz-Oliva (2) def. Maja Matevzic (1) 6–4 6–1 August 4, 2002: Lexington ($50K) — Virginie Razzano (3) def. Samantha Reeves (1) 7–6(7–5) 7–6(7–5) Aug. 19, 2002: Bronx ($50K) — Ashley Harkleroad def. Lubomira Kurhajcova 6-1 6-3 Sep. 8, 2002: Denain ($50K) — Dally Randriantefy (7) def. Maria Goloviznina 6-2 3-6 6-2 Sep. 8, 2002: Fano ($50K) — Flavia Pennetta (5) def. Mara Santangelo (WC) 3-6 6-4 6-0 Sep. 15, 2002: Bordeaux ($75K+H) — Dally Randriantefy def. Evgenia Koulikovskaya (2) 7–5 6–2 Sep. 22, 2002: Columbus ($75K) — Lindsay Lee-Waters def. Ashley Harkleroad 1–6 6–1 7–6(11–9) Sep. 22, 2002: Biella ($50K+H) — Flavia Pennetta (5) def. Sandra Kleinova 6–3 6–2 Sep. 29, 2002: Albuquerque ($75K) — Laura Granville (1) def. Marie-Eve Pelletier 6–7(2–7) 6–4 6–1 Sep. 29, 2002: Batumi ($75K) — Nadejda Ostrovskaya (6) def. Alyona Bondarenko 1–6 6–3 6–4 Oct. 6, 2002: Girona ($50K+H) — Lubomira Kurhajcova def. Eva Fislova (Q) 6–3 7–5 Oct. 6, 2002: Fresno ($50K) — Amy Frazier (1) def. Marissa Irvin (2) 6–4 6–1 Nov. 3, 2002: Poitiers ($50K+H): Marion Bartoli def. Seda Noorlander 6Ð1 6Ð0 Nov. 10, 2002: Pittsburg ($50K): Maria Elena Camerin def. Maria Sharapova (Q) 7Ð6(7Ð4) 6Ð2

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 43 Number of Tournament Wins for Top 25 Players The following table shows tournament wins by the Top 25. Tournaments are categorized as major (Tier II or higher) or minor (Tier III or lower). The tournaments are listed, with their level, on the next line. Rank Name Major Wins Minor Wins Total Wins Capriati 1 0 1 Australian Open (Slam) Clijsters 3 1 4 Hamburg (II), Filderstadt (II). Luxmbourg (III), Los Angeles Championships (Champ) Daniilidou 0 1 1 ’s-Hertogenbosch (III) Dokic 0 2 2 Sarasota (IV), Birmingham (III) Farina Elia 0 1 1 Strasbourg (III) Hantuchova 1 0 1 Indian Wells (I) Hénin 2 0 2 Berlin (I), Linz (II) Hingis 2 0 2 Sydney (II), Pan Pacific (I) Majoli 1 0 1 Charleston (I) Maleeva 1 0 1 Moscow (I) Mauresmo 2 0 2 Dubai (II), Canadian Open (I) Montolio 0 1 1 Porto (IV) Myskina 1 0 1 Bahia (II) Raymond 0 1 1 Memphis (III) Rubin 2 0 2 Eastbourne (II), Los Angeles (II) Seles 0 2 2 Doha (III), Madrid (III) Serna 0 1 1 Estoril (IV) Schnyder 1 0 1 Zurich (I) Smashnova 0 4 4 Auckland (V), Canberra (V), Vienna (III), Shanghai (IV) S. Williams 8 0 8 Scottsdale (II), Miami (I), Rome (I), Roland Garros (Slam), Wimbledon (Slam), U. S. Open (Slam), Princess Cup (II), Leipzig (II) V. Williams 6 1 7 Gold Coast (III), Paris (II), Antwerp (II), Amelia Island (II), Stanford (II), San Diego (II), New Haven (II) Eight year-end Top 25 players did not win any WTA events in 2002 : Davenport, Stevenson, Dementieva, Déchy, Coetzer, Sugiyama, Panova, Kremer (there were five title-less Top 25 players in 2001).

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 44 Fraction of Tournaments Won Sorted in descending order of percent won. Includes all Top Thirty players, plus Top Eighty players with WTA titles. WTA Rank Player Tournaments Won Tournaments Played Percent Won 1 Serena Williams 13 8 62% 2Venus Williams 16 7 44% 4 Kim Clijsters 21 4 19% 10 Martina Hingis 12 2 17% 13 Chanda Rubin 14 2 14% 16 Anna Smashnova 29 4 14% 7 Monica Seles 15 2 13% 43 Svetlana Kuznetsova 16 2 13% 6 Amélie Mauresmo 17 2 12% 54 Myriam Casanova 9 1 11% 26 Elena Bovina 23 2 9% 5 Justine Hénin 23 2 9% 68 Dinara Safina 12 1 8% 9 Jelena Dokic 29 2 7% 74 Fabiola Zuluaga 16 1 6% 3 Jennifer Capriati 17 1 6% 69 Angelique Widjaja 17 1 6% 29 Lisa Raymond 22 1 5% 32 Iva Majoli 23 1 4% 44 Marie-Gaiane Mikaelian 24 1 4% 36 Katarina Srebotnik 24 1 4% 77 Åsa Svensson 24 1 4% 8 Daniela Hantuchova 25 1 4% 14 Magdalena Maleeva 25 1 4% 70 Martina Müller 25 1 4% 15 Patty Schnyder 25 1 4% 22 Eleni Daniilidou 26 1 4% 64 Martina Sucha 26 1 4% 56 Cara Black 27 1 4% 51 Maja Matevzic 27 1 4% 50 Magui Serna 28 1 4% 17 Silvia Farina Elia 29 1 3% 11 Anastasia Myskina 29 1 3% 57 Jill Craybas 30 1 3% 12 Lindsay Davenport 9 0 0% 21 Amanda Coetzer 22 0 0% 27 Paola Suarez 23 0 0% 20 Nathalie Déchy 24 0 0% 18 Alexandra Stevenson 25 (WTA says 26) 0 0% 19 Elena Dementieva 26 0 0% 28 Tamarine Tanasugarn 26 0 0% 30 Meghann Shaughnessy 27 0 0% 24 Ai Sugiyama 27 0 0% 25 Anne Kremer 28 0 0% 23 Tatiana Panova 31 0 0%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 45 Tiers of Tournaments Played and Average Tier (Note: The Slams and Munich are treated mathematically as “Tier 0,” and Challengers as “Tier 8.” That is, in taking the mean, we assign 0 points for playing a Slam or Munich, 1 point for a Tier I, 2 for a Tier II, etc. The lower the mean and median strength, the tougher one’s schedule.) The mean is, of course, the “average” Tier of tournament played, based on the above formula; the median is the middle tournament — i.e. as many stronger as weaker. In context, the latter statistic doesn’t mean much; effectively all top players have their median tournament somewhere around the Tier I/Tier II divide. Looking at the results on the next page, we see that the Top Five in terms of strongest (highest average tier) schedules were Capriati, Serena Williams (these two really shouldn’t be allowed to play such a top- heavy schedule), Seles, Rubin, and Hingis; the weakest schedules were played by Montolio, Nagyova (who can be forgiven since their results fell off so badly), Sanchez-Vicario, Tanasugarn, and Daniilidou. The change since last year is most dramatic for Seles, who last year had one of the weakest schedules — but this year, she managed to be healthy for the Slams and injured for almost everything else. Apart from Capriati and Serena, there really weren’t many absurd schedules this year (a significant change).

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 46 Slams Champ Tier I Tier II Tier III Tier IV Tier V Chall Total Mean Median Bedanova 4 6 11 3 1 25 1.64 II Bovina 4 56521 231.96 II Capriati 4166 171.06 I Clijsters 41682 211.33 I Coetzer 4 8 7 3 22 1.41 I Daniilidou 4 67621 261.96 II Davenport 1125 91.33 II Déchy 4 79112 241.75 II Dementieva 41984 261.42 I Dokic 3 1 9 13 2 1 29 1.55 II Farina Elia 419951 291.59 II Grande 4 8 8 5 2 27 1.81 II Hantuchova 4 1 7 12 1 25 1.36 II Hénin 4 1 6 10 2 23 1.39 II Hingis 2 5 5 12 1.25 I Kournikova 4 7833 251.76 II Kremer 4 98421 281.79 II Majoli 4 66421 231.87 II Maleeva 41776 251.56 II Martinez 4 6833 241.79 II Mauresmo 4 5 7 1 17 1.29 I Montolio 4 445412242.67 II/III Myskina 4 1 9 10 4 1 29 1.55 II Nagyova 4 48433 262.27 II Panova 4913221 311.74 II Pierce 4 4 3 1 1 13 1.46 I Raymond 4 6741 221.64 II Rubin 31451 141.21 I Sanchez-Vicario 3 5673 242.08 II Schett 4 7712 211.52 I Schiavone 4 6 11 2 23 1.65 II Schnyder 4158421 251.84 II Seles 41442 151.20 I Serna 4 79431 281.93 II Shaughnessy 4 6 12311 271.78 II Smashnova 4189322 291.83 II Stevenson 4 5 11 4 1 25 1.88 II Suarez 4 76312 231.83 II Sugiyama 4 7952 271.78 II Tanasugarn 4 68512 261.96 II Testud 3 4 4 3 14 1.50 I/II Tulyaganova 4 6 8 2 1 21 1.57 II Williams, Serena 3145 131.08 I Williams, Venus 41281 161.31 II

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 47 Points Earned Week by Week The following table shows the week-by-week point totals earned by the Top Twenty Results due to winning events are bold. C C D D D D F H H H M M M R S S S S S. V A L A É E O A A É I A A Y U C E M T W W P I V C M K R N N N L U S B H L A E I I R J E H E I I T I G E R K I N E S V L L I S N Y N C N U N I E E I N Y S H E L L week A T P T A C S V S N D N N I I of T E O I H A M A E O S A A 1/6/02 38 24 114 17 18 129 1 198 1/12/02 1 166 28 1 33 89.75 82 338 1 95 19.75 32 106 165.75 139 1/26/02 1008 410 142 144 92 72 260 624 152 244 40 2 500 2 2 274 2/3/02 42 1 189 378 53 1 209 123 2/10/02 40 61 230 87 60 59 1 107 1 164 281 2/17/02 1 16140172 69 107 61 135 163 320 2/24/02 289 68 119 98 102 3/3/02 185 154 63 105 1 35 334 3/17/02 1 98 38 36 57 481 63 312 1 62 206 136 82 3/31/02 327 101 1 129 38 78 1 1 104 36 32 1 245 79 72 590 212 4/7/02 1 157 29 47 37.5 4/14/02 68 87 135 69 18 221 141 22 1 16 284 4/21/02 151 71 27 1131 1 104 389 46 85 92 5/5/02 361 34 156 67 59 133 20 1 1 230 5/12/02 190 1 137 1 40 56 130 433 69 112 33 35 245 246 5/19/02 169 200 33 1 61 63 1 301 33 99 157 1 33 33 427 5/25/02 134 205 75 128 1 167 42 6/9/02 464 88 64 134 238 172 176 22122 2 190 148 264 2 2 1052 616 6/16/02 186 1 40 137 48 182 41.5 6/23/02 31 1 128 1 59 92 63 40 44 233 301 1 1 1 7/7/02 264 40 80 140 132 84 304 488 182 522 72 198 36 262 2 2 1056 618 7/14/02 7/21/02 7/28/02 189 154 65 1 1 1641 1 291 8/4/02 80 93 145 25 44 267 1 44 39 39 98 1 389 8/11/02 72 1 194 35 1 118 16 1 1 419 34 1 29 65 8/18/02 313 48 46 33 192 27 177 89 87 388 14633 1 76 8/24/02 225 1 1 138 187 76 182 63 1 29 296 9/8/02 230 122 398 92 40 40 110 322 122 144 80 572 72 168 80 268 48 2 1040 732 9/15/02 44 118 295 65 119 121 9/22/02 210 1 104 78 32 1 36 264 9/29/02 94 1 14069127 1 217 33 291 10/6/02 231 107 53 11 1 482 155 1 1 1 10/13/02 1 378 72 162 11200 135113411148159.75 10/20/02 1 107 309 56 46 53 1 102 169 1 61 1 394 73 160 10/27/02 64 200 14857 69 121 311 130 33 158 87 291 11/10/02 276 750 67 67 156 67 67 144 164 67 67 67 156 67 484 296 Note: Stevenson’s score fore the week of June 16 includes two events, Birmingham and the Surbiton Challenger. Also, Stevenson’s points are in error — somewhere. The WTA changed her points after publishing the ranking list — and of course did not publish the change. It totals only about 3 points, so it doesn’t really affect much.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 48 Tournament Results (Points Earned), Sorted from Most to Least The table below sorts the results for the Top Twenty from most points per tournament to least. Thus, the row labelled “1” lists each player’s best result, the row “2” lists the next-best, and so on. The seventeenth tournament (the last to count toward the WTA rankings) is highlighted. T C C D D D D F H H H M M M R S S S S S. V o A L A É E O A A É I A A Y U C E M T W W u P I V C M K R N N N L U S B H L A E I I r R J E H E I I T I G E R K I N E S V L L n I S N Y N C N U N I E E I N Y S H E L L A T P T A C S V S N D N N I I # T E O I H A M A E O S A A 1 1008 750 398 154 162 267 205 481 488 624 482 572 295 419 394 500 245 291 1056 732 2 464 410 309 142 144 238 189 322 433 378 182 522 233 301 389 268 182 165.75 1052 618 3 327 378 231 137 140 230 172 304 311 338 164 388 217 198 148 264 136 160 1040 616 4 313 361 225 107 134 192 110 200 301 312 152 289 182 190 135 262 129 159.75 590 389 5 276 210 194 98 129 186 92 177 260 144 130 244 157 168 80 245 121 123 484 320 6 264 200 154 92 128 157 87 176 221 133 80 155 137 158 67 209 106 98 427 296 7 230 200 145 80 87 156 84 138 172 105 75 134 104 128 65 206 98 82 334 296 8 190 189 72 71 67 156 78 130 169 104 69 122 72 67 63 167 87 76 291 291 9 185 166 67 68 63 135 78 121 144 87 69 112 72 46 48 164 85 72 264 284 10 169 122 64 61 134 69 102 127 87 53 107 68 39 47 163 79 41.5 246 281 11 151 107 56 53 132 69 92 122 35 44 107 67 35 36 156 73 36 139 274 12 80 101 46 48 118 67 89.75 114 1 40 99 62 1 34 119 67 35 92 230 13 72 94 44 46 118 63 72 89 40 95 61 1 33 119 48 33 65 212 14 64 93 40 44 104 61 69 82 36 76 61 1 33 64 48 29 198 15 1 88 35 42 65 59 67 63 33 44 41 32 46 42 29 102 16 148 33 40 61 57 67 63 32 140 22 37.5 16 1 17 1 40 28 38 57 56 60 59 20 1 39 18 33 2 18 31 25 34 53 40 40 59 2 33 222 19 1 13340 38 31 2133 122 20 1 1 27 40 33 24 1 1 32 1 2 2 21 1 1138 27 18 1129 111 22 1136 16 1 1119.75 111 23 111111117 111 24 11111 1 2 111 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 1 11 1 1 27 11 1 1 28 11 1 1 29 11 1 1 Sum 3796 3591 1795 1326 1526 2720 1757 2784 3283 2348 1710 3068 2078 1752 1653 2952 1631 1459 6080 5140 .75 .75 .5

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 49 Alternate Rankings Knowing all the above, we can try calculating revised rankings. There are, of course, many ways of reshaping the ranking data. A typical way would be to use some of the WTA’s earlier ranking systems. Total Points Ranking (1997 Ranking System) This ranking simply adds up the total points from all the tournaments a player played, whether the number of tournaments be 13 (for Serena Williams) or 31 (for Tatiana Panova). It is essentially the system used by the WTA in 1997 (except that there were minor differences in the way points were awarded at events) Total Points Rank Player Total Tournaments WTA Rank 1S.Williams 6080 13 1 2V.Williams 5140 16 2 3 Capriati 3796 17 3 4 Clijsters 3591 21 4 5 Hénin 3283 23 5 6 Mauresmo 3068 17 6 7 Seles 2952 15 7 8 Hantuchova 2784.75 25 8 9 Dokic 2720 29 9 10 Hingis 2348 12 10 11 Myskina 2078.75 29 11 12 Davenport 1795 9 12 13 Farina Elia 1757 29 17 14 Rubin 1752 14 13 15 Maleeva 1710 25 14 16 Schnyder 1653 25 15 17 Smashnova 1631.5 29 16 18 Dementieva 1526 26 19 19 Stevenson 1459 25 18 20 Déchy 1326 24 20 21 Sugiyama 1242.75 27 24 22 Coetzer 1225 22 21 23 Panova 1217 31 23 24 Daniilidou 1202.75 26 22 25 Kremer 1185.75 28 25 26 Bovina 1144 23 26 27 Suarez 1097 23 27 28 Tanasugarn 1065 26 28 29 Shaughnessy 1057 27 30 30 Raymond 1053.75 22 29 31 C. Fernandez 1016.25 17 31 32 Majoli 1013 23 32 Martinez 974 24 34 Kournikova 969 25 35 Bedanova 947 25 37 Best 17 does not differ much from Total Points; we don’t see a change from the WTA rankings until we get to #13 (though the movement there is dramatic: Silvia Farina Elia moves up four places).

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 50 If Best 17 and Total Score rankings are almost identical, the same is not true when these systems are compared with the WTA’s 1996 ranking system, Points per Tournament (minimum 14). Here the rankings are completely different. Scores are rounded to the nearest tenth of a point. Points Per Tournament, Minimum 14 (1996 Ranking System: “The Divisor”) 1996 Ranking Name Total Points Tournaments Score WTA Rank 1 S. Williams 6080 13 434.3 1 2V. Williams 5140 16 321.3 2 3 Capriati 3796 17 223.3 3 4 Seles 2952 15 196.8 7 5 Hingis 2348 12 167.7 10 6 Mauresmo 3068 17 180.5 6 7 Clijsters 3591 21 171.0 4 8 Hénin 3283 23 142.7 5 9Davenport 1795 9 128.2 12 10 Rubin 1752 14 125.1 13 11 Hantuchova 2784.75 25 111.4 8 12 Dokic 2720 29 93.8 9 13 Myskina 2078.75 29 71.7 11 14 Maleeva 1710 25 68.4 14 15 Schnyder 1653 25 66.1 15 16 Testud 901 14 64.4 38 17 Farina Elia 1757 29 60.6 17 18 Dementieva 1526 26 58.7 19 19 Stevenson 1459 25 58.4 18 20 Smashnova 1631.5 29 56.3 16 21 Coetzer 1225 22 55.7 21 22 Déchy 1326 24 55.3 20 23 Pierce 679 13 48.5 52 24 Bovina 1144 23 49.7 26 25 Raymond 1053.75 22 47.9 29 26 Suarez 1097 23 47.7 27 27 Daniilidou 1202.75 26 46.3 22 28 Sugiyama 1242.75 27 46.0 24 29 Majoli 1013 23 44.0 32 30 Kremer 1185.75 28 42.3 25 Schett 864 21 41.1 40 Tanasugarn 1065 26 41.0 28 Martinez 974 24 40.6 34 Panova 1217 31 39.3 23 Shaughnessy 1057 27 39.1 30 Kournikova 969 25 38.8 35 Bedanova 947 25 37.9 37 Schiavone 853 23 37.1 41 Tulyaganova 645 21 30.7 55 Sanchez-Vicario 675 24 28.1 53 We see that this produces major changes; below the top three, who simply out-earned everyone else, effectively every spot changes. The #9 and #10 player isn’t even Top Ten to the WTA!

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 51 But ththe old divisor has a problem: Players are expected to play at least 17 events — meaning they must play more weak events. The blatantly ignore this, but all others try to play at least seventeen events. We should, at minimum, adjust the divisor accordingly. So we produce the “modern divisor”: same as the above, but with a minimum divisor of 17, not 14. Points Per Tournament, Minimum 17 (“Modernized Divisor”) 1996 Ranking Name Total Points Tournaments Score WTA Rank 1 S. Williams 6080 13 357.6 1 2V. Williams 5140 16 302.4 2 3 Capriati 3796 17 223.3 3 4 Mauresmo 3068 17 180.5 6 5 Seles 2952 15 173.6 7 6 Clijsters 3591 21 171.0 4 7 Hénin 3283 23 142.7 5 8 Hingis 2348 12 138.1 10 9 Hantuchova 2784.75 25 111.4 8 10 Davenport 1795 9 105.6 12 11 Rubin 1752 14 103.1 13 12 Dokic 2720 29 93.8 9 13 Myskina 2078.75 29 71.7 11 14 Maleeva 1710 25 68.4 14 15 Schnyder 1653 25 66.1 15 16 Farina Elia 1757 29 60.6 17 17 Dementieva 1526 26 58.7 19 18 Stevenson 1459 25 58.4 18 19 Smashnova 1631.5 29 56.3 16 20 Coetzer 1225 22 55.7 21 21 Déchy 1326 24 55.3 20 22 Testud 901 14 53.0 38 23 Bovina 1144 23 49.7 26 24 Raymond 1053.75 22 47.9 29 25 Suarez 1097 23 47.7 27 26 Daniilidou 1202.75 26 46.3 22 27 Sugiyama 1242.75 27 46.0 24 28 Majoli 1013 23 44.0 32 29 Kremer 1185.75 28 42.3 25 30 Schett 864 21 41.1 40 Tanasugarn 1065 26 41.0 28 Martinez 974 24 40.6 34 Pierce 679 13 39.9 52 Panova 1217 31 39.3 23 Shaughnessy 1057 27 39.1 30 Kournikova 969 25 38.8 35 Bedanova 947 25 37.9 37 Schiavone 853 23 37.1 41 Tulyaganova 645 21 30.7 55 Sanchez-Vicario 675 24 28.1 53 If it weren’t for injuries, this would clearly be more than the preceding. But injuries exist. More on this later. We follow this with the calculations based on the past and present ATP systems

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 52 Best 14 The WTA uses the “Best 17” ranking system — totalling the points earned in the seventeen tournaments where one earned the most points. For most of the Nineties, the ATP uses a related ranking system, “Best 14” — the total points earned in one’s best fourteen events. If this system were applied to the WTA, the results would be as follows: Best 14 Rank Name Best 14 Total WTA Rank 1 S.Williams 6080 1 2V.Williams 5037 2 3 Capriati 3793 3 4 Clijsters 3381 4 5 Henin 3033 5 6 Mauresmo 3022 6 7 Seles 2906 7 8 Hantuchova 2473.75 8 9 Hingis 2348 10 10 Dokic 2323 9 11 Davenport 1795 12 12 Myskina 1788 11 13 Rubin 1752 13 14 Maleeva 1616 14 15 Schnyder 1572 15 16 Smashnova 1504 16 17 Farina Elia 1424 17 18 Stevenson 1405.5 18 19 Dementieva 1306 19 20 Déchy 1199 20 21 Coetzer 1178 21 22 Daniilidou 1148 22 23 Bovina 1105 26 24 Suarez 1086 27 25 Sugiyama 1079 24 26 Panova 1075 23 27 Kremer 1061.75 25 28 Raymond 1045.75 29 29 Majoli 1004 32 30 Shaughnessy 994 30 Tanasugarn 967 28 Kournikova 954 35 Bedanova 935 37 Testud 901 38 Martinez 898 34 Overall, this isn’t very different from Best 17; the first change is at #9, and you have to go all the way down to #23 to see a player move more than one position. This contrasts with last year, where the difference between Best 14 and Best 17 changed the #1 ranking: Capriati overtook Davenport for the #1 ranking. This hardly seems fair — Capriati and Davenport played the same number of events, and Davenport, the more consistent player, earned more points overall. Shouldn’t she be rewarded for that? This is the ultimate problem with best-however-many rankings: If the number of events is high, they reward players who play a lot; if the number is low; they reward a few big results over day-in-and-day-out consistency.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 53 Slotted Best 18 (ATP Entry Rank) This is the men’s “ranking” system. I put “ranking” in quotes because of several complications — first, the fact that it has two parts, much too easily confused. And second, there is the discontinuity — top players are expected to play Masters Series events, while lower-ranked players need not. There is no provision for injuries. All in all, it’s a system in need of work. The slotted system counts a player’s results in Slams, Masters Series (the equivalent of the Tier I tournaments on the WTA tour), and a handful of other events. (Note, what follows is not quite the same as the men’s system, because they only have eight players in their year-end event, and award points differently. Also, the WTA schedules lesser events against some of its Tier I tournaments, and I have not separated these points.) In the table below, “Slam Points, LA Champ Points, Tier I Points” refer to what the players earned at those “Required” events; “Optional Points” are what the players earned in their best other events. Slotted WTA Player Slam LA Champ Tier I Optional Total Rank Rank Name Points Points Points Points Slotted Pts 11S. Williams 3148 484 1355 1093 6080 22V. Williams 2240 296 213 1580 4329 33Capriati 1966 276 1151 402 3795 44Clijsters 660 750 458 1338 3206 55Hénin 872 144 1056 945 3017 66Mauresmo 1460 0 755 732 2947 77Seles 1294 156 706 732 2888 88Hantuchova 874 67 923 640.75 2504.75 910Hingis 768 0 882 698 2348 10 9 Dokic 410 156 423 996 1985 11 12 Davenport 398 67 540 790 1795 12 11 Myskina 186 67 452 1064 1769 13 13 Rubin 556 67 83 1045 1751 14 14 Maleeva 416 164 675 358 1613 15 15 Schnyder 266 67 850 358 1541 16 17 Farina Elia 458 67 473 508 1506 17 16 Smashnova 54 67 653 636 1410 18 19 Dementieva 458 67 370 501 1396 19 18 Stevenson 8 0 513 750.5 1271.5 20 20 Déchy 378 0 549 341 1268 21 21 Coetzer 320 0 658 224 1202 22 24 Sugiyama 224 0 357 513 1094 23 23 Panova 268 0 340 463 1071 24 22 Daniilidou 254 0 94 720 1068 25 26 Bovina 386 0 284.75 381.75 1052.5 26 28 Tanasugarn 318 0 302 378 998 27 25 Kremer 174 0 371 450.75 995.75 28 27 Suarez 408 0 170 417 995 29 32 Majoli 306 0 400 270 976 30 29 Raymond 280 0 155 526 961 The effects of this ranking system vary from year to year. This year, its effects were minimal. Last year, however, seven of the top ten positions would have changes hands, including the #1 ranking.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 54 Total Wins The list below shows how the top players fared in terms of wins (I also show losses for balance). The reason this deviates so far from the rankings is that some of these players (e.g. Dokic) played large numbers of low- tier (Tier III-V) tournaments. Since they faced low-level opposition, their wins, quite properly, do not count as much toward the rankings. Others simply were unwilling or unable to play many tournaments. Though their winning percentage was high (witness Hingis, Serena Williams), their total wins were relatively low. Where two players have the same number of wins, I list the player with fewer losses first. Note: As elsewhere, this list includes only official tour wins; exhibitions (e.g. Fed Cup) are excluded. Also, walkovers are not calculated as wins or losses. It should be noted, too, that this list is not formally comprehensive; it omits player who spent their time primarily in Challengers (e.g. Granville was about 35-16 but two-thirds of her wins were in Challengers or Qualifying). Only highight players have been examined to compile this list. Finally, observe that the numbers here may not match those in the section on the Top Eighty. That section listed only main draw wins; this includes Challenger and Qualifying results as well Rank Name Wins Losses WTA Rank 1Williams, Venus 62 9 2 2Williams, Serena 56 5 1 3 Dokic 53 26 9 4 Hantuchova 51 24 8 5 Clijsters 50 17 4 5 Hénin 50 21 5 7 Myskina 49 28 11 8 Capriati 48 16 3 9 Seles 46 13 7 9 Smashnova 46 25 16 9 Stevenson 46 25 18 12 Mauresmo 45 14 6 13 Farina Elia 42 28 17 14 Bovina 40 22 26 15 Sugiyama 37 27 24 16 Dementieva 36 26 19 16 Serna 36 27 50 18 Maleeva 35 24 14 18 Daniilidou 35 25 22 20 Hingis 34 10 10 20 Schnyder 34 24 15 20 Panova 34 31 23 23 Déchy 33 24 20 24 Raymond 32 21 29 24 Tanasugarn 32 26 28 26 Kremer 31 28 25 27 Rubin 30 13 13 27 Coetzer 30 22 21 29 Suarez 29 23 27 29 Shaughnessy 29 26 30 31 Kournikova 28 24 35 32 Martinez 26 24 34 33 Davenport 24 9 12 33 Schett 24 21 40 33 Bedanova 24 24 37 33 Grande 24 27 46

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 55 Winning Percentage Based on the data on wins, we find the following order for win percentage (where there is a tie, the player with the higher number of wins is listed first, with such ties not marked; it is my opinion that having the same winning percentage while playing more matches is a greater accomplishment than winning fewer): Rank Name Wins Losses Win% WTA Rank 1Williams, Serena 56 5 91.8% 1 2Williams, Venus 62 9 87.3% 2 3 Seles 46 13 78.0% 7 4 Hingis 34 10 77.3% 10 5 Mauresmo 45 14 76.3% 6 6 Capriati 48 16 75.0% 3 7 Clijsters 50 17 74.6% 4 8Davenport 24 9 72.7% 12 9 Hénin 50 21 70.4% 5 10 Rubin 30 13 69.8% 13 11 Hantuchova 51 24 68.0% 8 12 Dokic 53 26 67.1% 9 13 Smashnova 46 25 64.8% 16 13 Stevenson 46 25 64.8% 18 15 Bovina 40 22 64.5% 26 16 Myskina 49 28 63.6% 11 17 Raymond 32 21 60.4% 29 18 Farina Elia 42 28 60.0% 17 19 Maleeva 35 24 59.3% 14 20 Schnyder 34 24 58.6% 15 21 Daniilidou 35 25 58.3% 22 22 Dementieva 36 26 58.1% 19 23 Déchy 33 24 57.9% 20 24 Sugiyama 37 27 57.8% 24 25 Coetzer 30 22 57.7% 21 Serna 36 27 57.1% 50 Suarez 29 23 55.8% 27 Tanasugarn 32 26 55.2% 28 Kournikova 28 24 53.8% 35 Schett 24 21 53.3% 40 Shaughnessy 29 26 52.7% 30 Kremer 31 28 52.5% 25 Panova 34 31 52.3% 23 Martinez 26 24 52.0% 34 Bedanova 24 24 50.0% 37 This is frankly extraordinary. Not just that Monica Seles is #3 and Martina Hingis #4. That shouldn’t be much surprise. The surprise lies in the numbers themselves: That only two players managed to win more than 80% of their matches. Last year, six players had at least an 80% ratio, and we thought things were wide open. This year is almost incomprehensible. Apart from the Williams Sisters, anything could, and did, happen.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 56 Divisor Rankings, No Slam Bonus In terms of strength of field, the Slams are no stronger than Miami or the Los Angeles Championships — or even San Diego. But the Slams award double points — at Miami, you earn 325 points for winning the tournament, and 100 points for beating the #1 player, while at a Slam, it’s 650 and 200 points, respectively. The following table calculates divisor rankings if this Slam Bonus (or Slam Bias, as some call it) is eliminated. We maintain that this is proper: Does winning Roland Garros really tell you three as much about who is going to win Zurich as does winning Filderstadt? Rank Player Points Tournaments Score WTA Rank 1 S.Williams 4506 13 321.9 1 2V.Williams 4020 16 251.3 2 3 Capriati 2813 17 165.5 3 4 Clijsters 3261 21 155.3 4 5 Seles 2305 15 153.7 7 6 Hingis 1964 12 140.3 10 7 Mauresmo 2338 17 137.5 6 8 Henin 2847 23 123.8 5 9Davenport 1596 9 114.0 12 10 Rubin 1474 14 105.3 13 11 Hantuchova 2347.75 25 93.9 8 12 Dokic 2515 29 86.7 9 13 Myskina 1985.75 29 68.5 11 14 Testud 875 14 62.5 38 15 Schnyder 1520 25 60.8 15 16 Maleeva 1502 25 60.1 14 17 Stevenson 1455 25 58.2 18 18 Smashnova 1604.5 29 55.3 16 19 Farina Elia 1528 29 52.7 17 20 Dementieva 1297 26 49.9 19 21 Coetzer 1065 22 48.4 21 22 Déchy 1137 24 47.4 20 23 Sugiyama 1130.75 27 41.9 24 24 Raymond 913.75 22 41.5 29 25 Daniilidou 1075.75 26 41.4 22 26 Bovina 951 23 41.3 26 27 Kremer 1098.75 28 39.2 25 28 Suarez 893 23 38.8 27 29 Kournikova 965 25 38.6 35 30 Majoli 860 23 37.4 32 Schett 756 21 36.0 40 Martinez 855 24 35.6 34 Shaughnessy 958 27 35.5 30 Panova 1083 31 34.9 23 Tanasugarn 906 26 34.8 28

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 57 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 half a dozen other events which are quite competitive in terms of field strength. And many of them aren’t even Tier I events; the Tier II tournaments at Sydney, San Diego, and Filderstadt have traditionally been stronger than the average Tier I. Which gives us the basis for another ranking, the “Majors Ranking.” We take the ten best events, and count results only in those events. In 2002, our list is Sydney, Australian Open, Ericsson, Rome, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, San Diego, U. S. Open, Filderstadt, and Munich. (The list does vary from year to year; Rome this year replaces Indian Wells 2001, which replaced Philadelphia 2000) Since all these events are strong, we don’t need quality points. And we don’t care about early losses. We’ll count only semifinals and better: 1 point for a semifinal, 3 for a final, 5 for a win. On the whole WTA Tour, only fifteen players earned any Majors points at all. It will be evident that the “Majors Ranking” is not useful as an overall ranking system — but it is a good measure of the accomplishments we might count toward Player of the Year. The list of players with at least one Majors point is as follows (we also show the Majors points earned at each event): Major WTA Major Syd- AO Eric Rome RG Wim SD USO Fild LA Rank Rank Player Points ney Cham 11S. Williams 29 1 5555 5 3 22V. Williams 16 1 3353 1 34Clijsters 13 1 1 1 5 5 43Capriati 11 5311 1 510Hingis 8 5 3 65Hénin 4 3 1 79Dokic 3 3 78Hantuchova 3 3 76Mauresmo 3 1 1 1 730Shaughness 3 3 11 12 Davenport 2 1 1 11 7 Seles 2 1 1 13 19 Dementieva 1 1 13 31 Fernandez 1 1 13 35 Kournikova 1 1 This is a total of fifteen players; which is about typical — though in 2001, when Indian Wells replaced Rome, we had only thirteen, despite which the leaders had lower totals: Venus Williams (22), Capriati (15), Davenport (14), Hingis (14), Serena (13), Clijsters, Hénin, Seles, Testud, Dementieva, Martinez, and Mauresmo. 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. The rankings were: Hingis (24), Davenport (22), Venus (15), Seles (7), Martinez, Mauresmo, Pierce, Serena, Kournikova, Dementieva, Sanchez-Vicario, Capriati, Dokic, Frazier, Tauziat, Testud. In 1999, Filderstadt substitutes for the Canadian Open, and we again had sixteen players: Hingis (31), Davenport (23), Venus (11), Graf (10), Serena (8), Mauresmo, Pierce, Seles, Tauziat, Coetzer, Huber, Lucic, Sanchez-Vicario, Schett, Stevenson, Testud.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 58 Total Round Points Consists of the total round points which a player has earned in tournaments in the last year. Note: All a player’s tournaments are included here, not just her Best 17. In general, a player who does better in this ranking than in the WTA rankings is one who is failing to beat top players, and is attaining ranking by proceeding through easy matches. A player who stands lower in this ranking than the WTA ranking is one who perhaps has bad losses but who also probably has beaten a number of higher-ranked players. We include this because the ATP, in its folly, has ceased to reckon points for quality. Rank Name Total Rnd Pts WTA Rank 1 S. Williams 3874 1 2V. Williams 3435 2 3 Capriati 2570 3 4 Clijsters 2340 4 5 Henin 2221 5 6 Seles 1986 7 7 Mauresmo 1962 6 8 Dokic 1846 9 9 Hantuchova 1766.75 8 10 Hingis 1645 10 11 Myskina 1365.75 11 12 Davenport 1255 12 13 Maleeva 1110 14 14 Schnyder 1088 15 15 Dementieva 1058 19 16 Farina Elia 1030 17 17 Smashnova 1012.5 16 18 Rubin 978 13 19 Stevenson 819 18 20 Panova 804 23 21 Coetzer 787 21 22 Tanasugarn 778 28 23 Sugiyama 750.75 24 24 Déchy 743 20 25 Raymond 736.75 29 Shaughnessy 720 30 Bovina 713 26 Kremer 703.75 25 Daniilidou 700.75 22 Majoli 686 32

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 59 Round Points Per Tournament This ranking measures, in effect, how far a player typically advanced in a tournament, regardless of opposition. Rank Name Rnd Pts per Trn WTA Rank 1 S.Williams 298.0 1 2V.Williams 214.7 2 3 Capriati 151.2 3 4Davenport 139.4 12 5 Hingis 137.1 10 6 Seles 132.4 7 7 Mauresmo 115.4 6 8 Clijsters 111.4 4 9 Hénin 96.6 5 10 Hantuchova 70.7 8 11 Rubin 69.9 13 12 Dokic 63.7 9 13 Myskina 47.1 11 14 Maleeva 44.4 14 15 Testud 44.4 38 16 Schnyder 43.5 15 17 Dementieva 40.7 19 18 Coetzer 35.8 21 19 Farina Elia 35.5 17 20 Smashnova 34.9 16 21 Raymond 33.5 29 22 Stevenson 32.8 18 23 Bovina 31.0 26 24 Déchy 31.0 20 25 Tanasugarn 29.9 28 26 Majoli 29.8 32 If, here as elsewhere, we require a minimum of 14 events, we get significant changes in the Top Ten: Rank Name Rnd Pts per Trn WTA Rank 1 S.Williams 276.7 1 2V.Williams 214.7 2 3 Capriati 151.2 3 4 Seles 132.4 7 5 Hingis 117.5 10 6 Mauresmo 115.4 6 7 Clijsters 111.4 4 8 Hénin 96.6 5 9Davenport 89.6 12 10 Hantuchova 70.7 8

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 60 Quality Points Per Tournament (“Future Potential Ranking”) The reverse of the above, this calculates the difficulty of the opposition a player has overcome. For players outside the Top Six, it is a good measure of how they stack up against other players, and how likely they are to produce upsets. For the Top Six, it is rather less meaningful, because the different levels of quality point awards for the top players (that is, the fact that a win over #1 is worth much more than a win over #4) obscures their actual results. In 2002, this “predicted” Daniela Hantuchova; in 2003, watch out for Myriam Casanova!. Rank Name Quality Pts Tournaments Quality per Trn WTA Rank 1 S.Williams 2206 13 169.7 1 2V.Williams 1705 16 106.6 2 3 Capriati 1226 17 72.1 3 4 Mauresmo 1106 17 65.1 6 5 Seles 966 15 64.4 7 6Davenport 540 9 60.0 12 7 Clijsters 1251 21 59.6 4 8 Hingis 703 12 58.6 10 9 Rubin 774 14 55.3 13 10 Hénin 1062 23 46.2 5 11 Hantuchova 1018 25 40.7 8 12 Dokic 874 29 30.1 9 13 M. Casanova 253 9 28.1 54 14 Stevenson 640 25 25.6 18 15 Myskina 713 29 24.6 11 16 Pierce 319 13 24.5 52 17 C. Fernandez 417 17 24.5 31 18 Déchy 583 24 24.3 20 19 Maleeva 600 25 24.0 14 20 Schnyder 565 25 22.6 15 21 Smashnova 619 29 21.3 16 22 Suarez 474 23 20.6 27 23 Testud 280 14 20.0 38 24 Coetzer 438 22 19.9 21 25 Farina Elia 566 29 19.5 17 26 Daniilidou 502 26 19.3 22 27 Bovina 431 23 18.7 26 28 Sugiyama 492 27 18.2 24 29 Frazier 380 21 18.1 39 30 Dementieva 468 26 18.0 19 31 Kremer 482 28 17.2 25 32 Husarova 423 25 16.9 33 33 Zvonareva 237 15 15.8 45 34 Schiavone 358 23 15.6 41 35 Kuznetsova 249 16 15.6 43 36 Safina 178 12 14.8 68 37 Bedanova 364 25 14.6 37 38 Raymond 317 22 14.4 29 39 Majoli 327 23 14.2 32 40 Martinez 334 24 13.9 34 41 Schett 285 21 13.6 40 42 Panova 413 31 13.3 23

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 61 Quality/Round Points Equalized: 2Q+R Per Tournament Calculated by doubling total quality points, adding round points, and dividing the sum by tournaments. The effect of this is to make, very roughly, half of the typical player’s points come from quality and half from round points. This is, in the author’s opinion, about the best way to assess players’ actual performances based solely on WTA ranking data with no manipulation based on winning percentage or surface balance.. Rank Name 2Q+R per Trn WTA Rank 1 S. Williams 637.4 1 2V. Williams 427.8 2 3 Capriati 295.4 3 4 Seles 261.2 7 5Davenport 259.4 12 6 Hingis 254.3 10 7 Mauresmo 245.5 6 8 Clijsters 230.6 4 9 Hénin 188.9 5 10 Rubin 180.4 13 11 Hantuchova 152.1 8 12 Dokic 123.9 9 13 M. Casanova 102.1 54 14 Myskina 96.3 11 15 Maleeva 92.4 14 16 Schnyder 88.7 15 17 Testud 84.4 38 18 C. Fernandez 84.3 31 19 Stevenson 84 18 20 Déchy 79.5 20 21 Smashnova 77.6 16 22 Pierce 76.8 52 23 Dementieva 76.7 19 24 Coetzer 75.6 21 25 Farina Elia 74.6 17 26 Bovina 68.5 26 27 Suarez 68.3 27 28 Kuznetsova 66.7 43 29 Daniilidou 65.6 22 30 Sugiyama 64.3 24 31 Raymond 62.3 29 32 Kremer 59.6 25 33 Majoli 58.3 32 34 Schett 54.7 40 35 Martinez 54.5 34 Once again, observe Casanova!

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 62 Consistency-Rewarded Rankings Logarithmic Points Award The WTA’s Best 18 ranking cares nothing for consistency — your best results count, and nothing else. The old WTA divisor ranking took consistency more into account — but big results (e.g. from Slams) still biased the result. The Consistency-Rewarded Rankings give the greatest reward to consistent players. Under this system, it’s better to make two semifinals than to win one event and lose first round in another (the reverse is true under the WTA rankings, even though reaching two semifinals requires at least as many wins). If good results help, bad results hurt. The method is as follows: One takes the natural log — in mathematical terms, ln() — of each weekly score, takes the arithmetic mean (i.e. divide by the number of events), then take the antilog, ex or exp(x). Under this system, a player who is absolutely consistent, producing the same score at every event, will get the same score as under the divisor. A less-consistent player will get a lower score — the less consistent, the lower the score. A consistency-punishing ranking is, of course, also possible — but is functionally equivalent to just ranking players according to their single highest score. Ranking Player Consistency Score WTA Rank 1 S.Williams 337.6 1 2V.Williams 213.8 2 3Davenport 172.3 12 4 Seles 169.9 7 5 Hingis 102.7 10 6 Mauresmo 86.4 6 7 Capriati 80.8 3 8 Clijsters 70.6 4 9 Hénin 50.8 5 10 Hantuchova 46.1 8 11 Rubin 42.7 13 12 Dokic 33.6 9 13 Myskina 28.4 11 14 Dementieva 24.7 19 15 Farina Elia 24.3 17 16 Déchy 22.4 20 17 Schett 21.5 40 18 Coetzer 20.9 21 19 Testud 18.5 38 20 Maleeva 18.5 14 21 Sugiyama 18.2 24 22 Schnyder 16.9 15 23 Stevenson 16.4 18 24 Bovina 15.4 26 25 Martinez 14.8 34 Interestintingly, if we require 14 tournaments, Serena’s score falls to 222.7; if we used a minimum of 15, Venus would come out #1! If we apply this rule to Hingis and Davenport also (less fair, since they were injured), Hingis falls to #7 and Davenport all the way to #13.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 63 Worst 14 A simpler, though less accurate, way of measuring consistency is to simply take a player’s worst fourteen results. Instead of paying off on good results at the top, this pays off on a lack of bad results. To keep the playing field level, players who play fewer than fourteen events lose events out of their fourteen until the total is correct. So, for instance, Serena Williams played thirteen events. That’s one less than fourteen. She therefore loses her best event for underplaying. (We don’t apply this to Hingis or Davenport as a sort of “injury ranking.” If we did apply the rule, Hingis would fall to #10 and Davenport drop to #13.) This is a very complex ranking to calculate, and we looked only at the Highlight Players. For this reason, will only list the top 25 under this system, which we offer mostly for demonstration purposes. (Though we would ask the real question, why is Best 14/Best 17 any better than Worst 14/17? Neither one counts all results!) Worst 14 Rank Player Score WTA Rank 1 S.Williams 3972 1 2V.Williams 3790 2 3 Seles 2452 7 4 Hingis 2348 10 5 Capriati 1997 3 6Davenport 1795 12 7 Rubin 1752 13 8 Mauresmo 1586 6 9 Clijsters 1082 4 10 Testud 901 38 11 Hénin 784 5 12 Hantuchova 541.75 8 13 Schett 345 40 14 Dokic 332 9 15 Coetzer 326 21 16 Déchy 313 20 17 Dementieva 310 19 18 Farina Elia 274 17 19 Myskina 249.75 11 20 Pierce 247 52 21 Maleeva 210 14 22 Martinez 201 34 23 Sugiyama 199.75 24 24 Tulyaganova 185 55 25 Schnyder 181 15 For comparison, Alexandra Stevenson had 161 points, Meghann Shaughnessy had 90 points, Anna Smashnova 85.5, and Tatiana Panova only 40 points!

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 64 Middle Half Another variation on the theme of consistency is to count half your results — but not the best half, the middle half. So if you play twelve events, we count the middle six, omitting the best three and the worst three. If your number of events is not divisible by four, we adjust appropriately. So, e.g., if you have seventeen events, half of that is 8.5. We take the seven middle events (i. e. #6-#12), and 75% of the two around that (i.e. #5 and #13). Applying this formula, we get the following Top 20: Middle Half Rank Player Score WTA Rank 1 S.Williams 2427 1 2V.Williams 2272 2 3 Capriati 1530 3 4 Seles 1405.25 7 5 Clijsters 1346 4 6 Henin 1274 5 7 Dokic 1239 9 8 Mauresmo 1090.25 6 9 Hantuchova 1036.5 8 10 Hingis 885 10 11 Davenport 855 12 12 Farina Elia 787.5 17 13 Rubin 720.5 13 14 Myskina 706.8125 11 15 Dementieva 626 19 16 Déchy 590 20 17 Smashnova 585.5 16 18 Coetzer 518 21 19 Sugiyama 513.75 24 20 Maleeva 495 14 21 Panova 457 23 22 Stevenson 453.5 18 23 Tanasugarn 446.5 28 24 Kremer 445.75 25 25 Schnyder 417.5 15 26 Schett 413.25 40 27 Shaughnessy 366 30 28 Raymond 349.25 29 29 Testud 348 38 30 Martinez 347 34

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 65 Idealized Ranking Systems Idealized Rankings/Proposal 1: Surface-Modified Divisor (Minimum 16) In examining the various ranking systems used (and not used) by the Tours, one noticed that each has strengths and weaknesses. The current ATP Tour system has the advantage of enforcing surface balance, but it generally ignores smaller tournaments and has no reward for beating top players. The WTA Tour system has the advantage of encouraging players to play regularly (any good result is likely to increase a player’s ranking total) but encourages overplaying, has no surface balance, and renders losses meaningless. Based on consideration, it seems to me that the following are the key features of an ideal ranking system: 1. Both wins and losses should count. 2. There should be strong rewards for quality; winning a tournament with a weak field should have relatively little value 3. There should be a minimum required number of tournaments, and incentives for playing more than the minimum should be reduced (to prevent injury) but not entirely eliminated 4. Surfaces should be balanced — players should not be allowed to “clean up” by playing more than half their events on a particular surface. 5. The Slam Bias should be reduced relative to the stronger tournaments such as Miami.

I’ll outline two proposals. The first is closer to the current WTA system: ¥ The system is point-and-divisor based: You earn a certain number of points, and divide them by a number of tournaments. This is probably not the best mathematical model, but it is (relatively) simple. ¥ The minimum divisor should be 16 (in doubles, perhaps 12). This is larger than the divisor of 14 the WTA used in 1996, but smaller than the Best 18 used from 1998 to 2000 or the Best 17 used since 2001. ¥ The Slam Bonus should be reduced from 2 to 1.5 ¥ Quality points should be multiplied by 1.5 (Note that this, combined with the preceding point, means that quality points at Slams will be multiplied by 2.5.) ¥ The current WTA Round Point table may be retained ¥ Players should play at least a certain percentage of their events on all four surfaces: 31% on hardcourts, 16% indoors, 18% on clay, 6% on grass. (This is based on a simple calculation: I took the Top 30, found the percent they played on each surface, sorted the list for each surface, and took the percentage for player #27, rounding to the nearest percent.) This is a total of 71% of one’s schedule accounted for; the other 29% may be played on any surface. If, however, you fail to play the minimum on any given surface, your divisor will be adjusted accordingly. Example: A player plays sixteen events, but only two on clay, or 12.5%. She was supposed to play 18% on clay, meaning she should have played three clay events. The difference, one, is added to her divisor; she is treated as if she had played seventeen events. ¥ If one plays beyond the minimum of sixteen, your divisor is reduced by one third of a tournament for each additional tournament played. So, e.g., if you play seventeen tournaments, your divisor is 16.67; if you play 19, it is 18, etc. ¥ Injured players who miss at least four months are exempt from balance and minimum requirements; their ranking is based simply on their points and number of tournaments. The following table shows the result of this calculation for the WTA Top 30. The first column, “Rank,” is the player’s rank under this system. “Player” is the player involved. “# of Tourn” is the number of events the player actually played this year. “Qual Pts, Round Pts, and Slam Pts” are actual quality points, round points, and points earned in Slams. “Penalty Tourns” is the number of extra tournaments assessed for surface imbalance. “Adjust. points” is the calculated points total — equal to round points plus half of quality points minus one fourth of Slam Points. “Adjust. # Tourn” is the adjusted tournaments played — either 16 (if you played only sixteen events) or the number of tournaments plus penalty tournaments minus bonus tournaments. Score is what you get when you divide Adjusted Points by Adjusted # of Tournaments — the whole point of the exercise. WTA Rnk is the player’s WTA rank. And so, without further ado,

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 66 Surface-Modified Divisor (Minimum 16) Ranking Table Rank Player # of Qual Round Slam Surface Penalty Adjust. Adjust. Score WTA Tourn Pts Pts Pts H/I/C/G Tourns Points # Tourn Rnk 1S .Williams 13 2206 3874 3148 6/2/4/1 1 6396.0 17.0 376.2 1 2V. Williams 16 1705 3435 2240 8/4/3/1 0 5432.5 16.0 339.5 2 3 Capriati 17 1226 2570 1966 8/4/4/1 1 3917.5 17.7 221.7 3 4Davenport 9 540 1255 398 5/4/0/0 0 1965.5 16.0 218.4 12 5 Clijsters 21 1251 2340 660 10/5/4/2 0 4051.5 19.3 209.6 4 6 Hingis 12 703 1645 768 8/3/1/0 0 2507.5 16.0 209.0 10 7 Mauresmo 17 1106 1962 1460 6/4/5/2 0 3256.0 16.7 195.4 6 8 Seles 15 966 1986 1294 8/3/3/1 0 3111.5 16.0 194.5 7 9 Hénin 23 1062 2221 872 9/7/5/2 0 3596.0 20.7 174.0 5 10 Rubin 14 774 978 556 4/4/4/2 0 2000.0 16.0 142.9 13 11 Hantuchova 25 1018 1766.75 874 10/7/6/2 0 3075.3 22.0 139.8 8 12 Dokic 29 874 1846 410 9/9/8/3 0 3054.5 24.7 123.8 9 13 Myskina 29 713 1365.75 186 12/7/7/3 0 2388.8 24.7 96.8 11 14 Schnyder 25 565 1088 266 8/5/10/2 0 1869.0 22.0 85.0 15 15 M. Casanova 9 253 412.5 142 ?2/2/4/1 0 756.5 16.0 84.1 54 16 Maleeva 25 600 1110 416 7/10/5/3 1 1906.0 23.0 82.9 14 17 Smashnova 29 619 1012.5 54 13/5/9/2 0 1927.5 24.7 78.1 16 18 Dementieva 26 468 1058 458 9/8/7/2 0 1645.5 22.7 72.6 19 19 Déchy 24 583 743 378 10/6/6/2 0 1523.0 21.3 71.4 20 20 Stevenson 25 640 819 8 12/7/2/4 3 1777.0 25.0 71.1 18 21 Farina Elia 29 566 1030 458 8/10/9/2 1 1764.5 25.7 68.7 17 22 Coetzer 22 438 787 320 9/6/5/2 0 1364.0 20.0 68.2 21 23 Daniilidou 26 502 700.75 254 10/6/7/3 0 1390.3 22.7 61.3 22 24 Bovina 23 431 713 386 9/6/5/3 0 1263.0 20.7 61.1 26 25 Sugiyama 27 492 750.75 224 14/4/6/3 1 1432.8 24.3 58.9 24 26 Kremer 28 482 703.75 174 11/8/6/3 0 1383.3 24.0 57.6 25 27 Testud 14 280 621 52 5/1/5/3 2 1028.0 18.0 57.1 38 28 Raymond 22 317 736.75 280 11/5/4/2 0 1142.3 20.0 57.1 29 29 C. Fernandez 17 417 599.25 620 9/0/6/2 3 1069.8 19.7 54.4 31 30 Suarez 23 474 623 408 9/3/10/1 2 1232.0 22.7 54.4 27 Panova 31 413 804 268 16/5/7/3 0 1356.5 26.0 52.2 23 Kournikova 25 302 667 8 11/4/8/2 0 1118.0 22.0 50.8 35 Majoli 23 327 686 306 9/5/8/1 1 1100.0 21.7 50.8 32 Shaughnessy 27 337 720 198 12/6/7/2 0 1176.0 23.3 50.4 30 Husarova 25 423 564 272 13/4/7/1 2 1130.5 24.0 47.1 33 Schett 21 285 579 216 9/5/6/1 1 952.5 20.3 46.8 40 Bedanova 25 364 583 310 12/6/4/3 1 1051.5 23.0 45.7 37 Schiavone 23 358 495 436 10/5/6/2 0 923.0 20.7 44.7 41 Martinez 24 334 640 238 12/2/9/1 3 1081.5 24.3 44.4 34 Tanasugarn 26 287 778 318 16/1/6/3 4 1129.0 26.7 42.3 28 Pierce 13 319 360 436 5/0/6/2 3 729.5 19.0 38.4 52 Grande 27 266 469.75 266 12/6/6/3 0 802.3 23.3 34.4 46 Serna 28 178 535.75 74 9/7/9/3 0 784.3 24.0 32.7 50 Tulyaganova 21 168 477 226 11/2/6/2 2 672.5 21.3 31.5 55 Sanchez-Vicario 24 200 475 6 11/2/11/0 4 773.5 25.3 30.5 53 Nagyova 26 165 446.5 68 10/5/10/1 1 677.0 23.7 28.6 59

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 67 Idealized Rankings/Proposal 2 — Adjusted Won/Lost The previous ranking system was based on the current WTA point table. Many of our other proposals have also been based on this. But there is nothing magic about the points system. We could also use a won/lost system. Except — a player who plays weak events may earn a much higher winning percentage than a better player who plays stronger events. Henrieta Nagyova has eight career titles because she plays a lot of Tier IV tournaments. Anna Kournikova has none, in part, because she plays mostly Tier II and up. Kournikova is the better player, but she doesn’t have the titles, or the winning percentage, to prove it. So if we are to base our system on winning percentage, we must somehow adjust for tournament strength. And we also need to account for wins over top players. And we need to encourage players to play more, within reason. We can do all that. To accomplish the first, we simply diddle with the values of wins: If we define a win at a Tier I or Tier II as being “one standard win,” then a win at a Slam might be 1.1 SWs (for this purpose, we’ll count the year-end championship as a Slam), and a win at a Tier III only .8, and a win at a Tier IV or V a mere .6. To account for wins over top players, we assign bonus wins. In our system, a top four player gets you an extra .6 wins. Beating a player ranked #5-#10 is worth .4. Beating #11-#20 gets you .2. And a win over #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: We will count withdrawals as losses in this system, but walkovers do not count as wins. We only calculate the Top Thirty, because this ranking is work and would require significant reprogramming by the WTA staff to use as “the” ranking system. In assessing the results, we ask that you remember: This system isn’t designed to look anything like the WTA rankings; it’s a completely different way of looking at the data. You should not look at the results but rather the method. If you approve of the method, then be open to the results. If you don’t accept the method — well, we were as surprised by the results as you were. The columns in the table are as follows: Rnk: Player’s rank under this system. Player Name: Just what it says. #Trn: The number of tournaments the player played. Slam W, L: Wins and losses in Slams. Tier I/II W, L: Wins and losses in Tier I and Tier II tournaments. Tier III W, L: Wins and losses in Tier III events. Tier IV+ W, L: Wins and losses in Tier IV, V, and Challenger events. Adj. Wins: Adjusted winning total based on the formula abova (i.e. a Slam win counts as 1.1, etc.) Bon Wins: Bonus wins as a result of victories over top players. Pen Loss: Penalty losses assessed for not playing the full 16 events. Tot Wins: Total wins as calculated, i.e. Adjusted wins plus Bonus Wins. Adj Los: Adjusted losses as calculated, i.e. total actual losses plus penalty losses raised to the .8 power. Adj Wi%: Adjusted winning percentage: Tot Wins divided by the quantity total wins plus adj. losses, expressed as a percent. The maximum is of course 100% (possible only if you play at least sixteen events and never lose a match), the minimum 0% And so, without further ado, the actual numbers:

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 68

Rnk Player # Slam TierI/II Tier III TierIV+ Bonus Wins Adj Bon Pen Tot Adj Adj WTA Name Trn WL WL WL WL ≤4 ≤10 ≤20 ≤35 Wins Wins Loss Wins Loss Wi% Rank 1 S. Williams 13 24 1 32 4 10 7 5 10 58.4 10.8 3 69.2 5.3 92.9 1 2V. Williams 16 24 5 34440 11512963.6 9.9 0 73.5 5.8 92.7 2 3 Mauresmo 17 17 4 26921 3 2 61046.3 4.8 0 51.1 8.3 86.1 6 4 Hingis 12 9 2 25 8 047634.9 3.6 0 38.5 6.3 85.9 10 5 Clijsters 21 15 4 30 12 5 1 667550.5 7.9 0 58.4 9.6 85.8 4 6 Capriati 17 22 4 26 12 1 6 6 12 50.2 5.4 0 55.6 9.2 85.8 3 7 Seles 15 18 5 20880 135746.2 3.5 1 49.7 8.3 85.8 7 8 Hénin 23 13 5 32 14 5 2 329750.3 5.1 0 55.4 11.4 82.9 5 9Davenport 9 5 2 19 7 043924.5 3.1 0 27.6 5.8 82.6 12 10 Hantuchova 25 13 5 37 18 1 1 1 4 4 13 52.1 4.3 0 56.4 12.7 81.6 8 11 Rubin 14 9 4 17841 136730.1 3.7 0 33.8 7.8 81.3 13 12 Dokic 29 9 4 31 2181501351250.3 4 0 54.3 13.6 80.0 9 13 Stevenson 25 0 4 35 168431326443.2 4.2 0 47.4 13.1 78.3 18 14 Myskina 29 5 5 35 1973211451047.3 4.2 0 51.5 14.4 78.2 11 15 Smashnova 29 1 5 19 17 7 2 19 1128337.1 3.3 0 40.4 13.1 75.5 16 16 Bovina 23 5 4 16 12 11482111135.1 1.3 0 36.4 11.9 75.4 26 17 Farina Elia 29 10 5 23 18841101210411.8042.8 14.4 74.9 17 18 Maleeva 25 9 5 13 13 13 6 133533.3 2.9 0 36.2 12.7 74.0 14 19 Dementieva 26 10 5 19 17 7 4 012935.6 1.7 0 37.3 13.6 73.4 19 20 Schnyder 25 6 5 19 123463151231.6 3 0 34.6 12.7 73.1 15 21 Déchy 24 8 4 20 160153105731.8 2.3 0 34.1 12.7 72.9 20 22 Sugiyama 27 6 4 20 168532106534.8 2.3 0 37.1 14 72.7 24 23 Coetzer 22 6 4 21 15 3 3 0143301.5031.5 11.9 72.7 21 24 Raymond 22 7 4 11 13 10341100529.1 1.1 0 30.2 11.4 72.6 29 25 Daniilidou 26 6 4 13 13 10464026431.2 2.4 0 33.6 13.1 71.9 22 Kremer 28 4 4 22 1734230523302.7032.7 14.4 69.5 25 Suarez 23 5 4 10 139353015525.7 1.9 0 27.6 12.3 69.2 27 Tanasugarn 26 8 4 12 146563001229.2 0.4 0 29.6 13.6 68.6 28 Shaughnessy 27 5 4 15 185341021126.9 1.1 0 28 13.6 674 30 Martinez 24 5 4 14 145323102324.7 1.3 0 26 12.7 67.2 34 Panova 317416 220211 3013430.3 1.4 0 31.7 15.6 67.0 23 Kournikova 25 0 4 17 144373004424.4 1.2 0 25.6 12.7 66.8 35

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 69 Adjusted Winning Percentage, No Bonuses Some may object to the application of bonus wins, or to the reduction of losses. We can still calculate this ranking without that factor — strict wins and losses, adjusted for tournament strength. This produces a noticeably different list, kinder to players who didn’t play a lot (because it eliminates the benefit of playing more, and also eliminates the effect of bonus wins — which a player who plays a lot has more chance to earn): Rank Player # Slam TierI/II Tier III TierIV+ Adj Pen Tot Adj WTA Name Trn WL WL WL WL Wins Loss Loss Wi% Rank 1 S. Williams 13 24 1 32 4 58.4 3 8 88.0 1 2V. Williams 16 24 5 34440 63.6 0 9 87.6 2 3 Hingis 12 9 2 25 8 34.9 0 10 77.7 10 4 Mauresmo 17 17 4 26921 46.3 0 14 76.8 6 5 Seles 15 18 5 20880 46.2 1 14 76.7 7 6 Capriati 17 22 4 26 12 50.2 0 16 75.8 3 7 Clijsters 21 15 4 30 12 5 1 50.5 0 17 74.8 4 8Davenport 9 5 2 19 7 24.5 0 9 73.1 12 9 Hénin 23 13 5 32 14 5 2 50.3 0 21 70.5 5 10 Rubin 14 9 4 17841 30.1 0 13 69.8 13 11 Hantuchova 25 13 5 37 18 1 1 52.1 0 24 68.5 8 12 Dokic 29 9 4 31 21815050.3 0 26 65.9 9 13 Stevenson 26 0 4 35 16843143.2 0 25 63.3 18 14 Myskina 29 5 5 35 19732147.3 0 28 62.8 11 15 Bovina 23 5 4 16 12 1148235.1 0 22 61.5 26 16 Smashnova 29 1 5 19 17 7 2 19 1 37.1 0 25 59.7 16 17 Farina Elia 29 10 5 23 188411 4102859.4 17 18 Maleeva 25 9 5 13 13 13 6 33.3 0 24 58.1 14 19 Raymond 22 7 4 11 13 1034129.1 0 21 58.1 29 20 Dementieva 26 10 5 19 17 7 4 35.6 0 26 57.8 19 21 Coetzer 22 6 4 21 15 3 3 30 0 22 57.7 21 22 Déchy 24 8 4 20 16015331.8 0 24 57.0 20 23 Schnyder 25 6 5 19 12346331.6 0 24 56.8 15 24 Sugiyama 27 6 4 20 16853234.8 0 27 56.3 24 25 Daniilidou 26 6 4 13 13 1046431.2 0 25 55.5 22 Tanasugarn 26 8 4 12 14656329.2 0 26 52.9 28 Suarez 23 5 4 10 13935325.7 0 23 52.8 27 Kremer 28 4 4 22 173423 3002851.7 25 Shaughnessy 27 5 4 15 18534126.9 0 26 50.9 30 Martinez 24 5 4 14 14532324.7 0 24 50.7 34 Kournikova 25 0 4 17 14437324.4 0 24 50.4 35 Panova 31 7 4 16 22 0 2 11 3 30.3 0 31 49.4 23

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 70 Percentage of Possible Points Earned Tournaments differ in their “richness.” A win at a Slam, for instance, is worth twice as much as a win in an equivalent round of a Tier I. A player who plays mostly “rich” tournaments, such as Slams and Tier I events, will therefore earn more points than a player who has the same number of wins in lesser tournaments. We can control for this by comparing a player’s actual score with the expected results if one wins each level of tournament. For these purposes, we must define values for each of the various tournament types. For this exercise, I have used the following values: ¥ Slam: 1000 (650 round points + 350 quality points = 7 rounds * 25 pts/round *2 slam bonus) ¥ Los Angeles Championship: 685 (485 round points + 200 qual points = 4 rounds * 50 pts/round) ¥ 96 draw [Tier I] — Miami, Indian Wells: 505 (325 round points + 180 qual points = 6 rounds * 30 pts/round) ¥ 56-Draw Tier I (=Charleston, Berlin, Rome, Canadian Open): 425 (275 round points + 150 qual points = 5 rounds * 30 pts/round) ¥ 28-Draw Tier I (=Pan Pacific, Zurich, Moscow): 403 (275 round points + 128 qual points = 4 rounds * 32 pts/round) ¥ Tier II: 320 (195 round points + 125 qual points = 4 rounds * 30 pts/round) ¥ Tier III: 208 (120 round points + 88 qual points = 4 rounds * 22 pts/round) ¥ Tier IV: 155 (95 round points for Tier IV + 60 qual points = 5 rounds * 12 pts/round) ¥ Tier V: 130 (80 round points for Tier V + 50 qual points = 5 rounds * 10 pts/round) ¥ Challenger: 70 points (very approximate, but it hardly matters) Note that other point assignments may be used, to favour those who play more higher- or lower-tier tournaments. The above is an approximation, based on the examination of several tournament fields: This is what one could typically expect to earn at such an event. Not all tournament winners would earn this precise amount. It is, of course, possible to calculate the maximum number of points a player could earn for any given tournament — but this is actually an unfair gauge, because chances are that a particular player will not play all her highest-round opponents. And this is not under the player’s own control.

Based on these numbers, we can calculate an approximate figure for the number of points a player could have earned based on her schedule. This is the “Possible Points” field. The “Actual Points” is what the player actually earned in these events (note that this does not match a player’s WTA ranking total, because all events count). The column after that, “Percent,” shows the percent of her possible points a player earned. The final column, “average richness,” is simply the possible points divided by the number of tournaments. This shows how strong a player’s schedule is. Venus Williams, for instance, played only twelve tournaments — but they included four Slams, which are obviously “rich.” Serena Williams played few, but very high-tier, events. This gave her the opportunity to earn a lot of points in a relatively small number of tournaments. The key figure, therefore, is “percent” — this is the calculation which shows how well a player lived up to expectations. In this category, Serena is the leader, with over 85% earned. Which is simply astonishing. She’s followed by the usual suspects: Venus, Davenport, Capriati, Hingis. For comparison, last year there were also two players (Venus, Davenport) over 60%; Capriati mafe it three in the 50% club; Serena Williams, Hingis, and Seles were over 40%; and Clijsters, Dokic, Hénin, and Mauresmo were over 25%. Thus the 25% club had ten members last year, to nine this year — and the only change from 2001 to 2002 was that Dokic dropped out! The final column, Avg Richn(ess), measures the average available points at the events each player played. We note that Serena, Venus, and Capriati are all over 500 — implying that they are playing schedules rather unfairly rich. Serena, at least, should play more. But we knew that. For additional alternate ranking schemes, see Statistics/Rankings Based on Head-to-Head Numbers.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 71 Player Slam LA Tr I Tr I 56 Tr I 28 Tier Tier Tier Tier Chall Possibl Actual Percent Avg Chm 96 dr draw draw II III IV V Points Points Richn S. Williams 3 1 1 3 5 7065 6080 86.1% 543 V. Williams 4 1 1 1 8 1 8361 5140 61.5% 523 Davenport 1 1 2 5 4091 1795 43.9% 455 Capriati 4 11416 9213 3796 41.2% 542 Hingis 2 2125 5841 2348 40.2% 487 Seles 4 121142 8219 2952 35.9% 548 Mauresmo 4 4 1 7 1 8551 3068 35.9% 503 Clijsters 4 123182 10349 3591 34.7% 493 Hénin 4 1231102 10989 3283 29.9% 478 Rubin 3 1 3 1 5 1 7171 1752 24.4% 512 Hantuchova 4 1241121 11846 2784.75 23.5% 474 Dokic 3 12431321 12335 2720 22.1% 425 M. Casanova 2 1 2 1 1 2 3468 665.5 19.2% 385 Myskina 4 12431041 12791 2078.75 16.3% 441 Schnyder 4 11318421 10700 1653 15.4% 428 Maleeva 4 122376 11242 1710 15.2% 450 Farina Elia 4 1243951 12679 1757 13.9% 437 Testud 3 3 1 4 3 6582 901 13.7% 470 Stevenson 4 2 1 2 11 4 1 10663 1459 13.7% 427 Smashnova 4 12429322 12275 1631.5 13.3% 423 C. Fernandez 4 1 3 3 3 3 7829 1016.25 13% 461 Dementieva 4 124384 11996 1526 12.7% 461 Déchy 4 2419112 10616 1326 12.5% 442 Bovina 4 2126521 9641 1144 11.9% 419 Coetzer 4 23373 10358 1225 11.8% 471 Daniilidou 4 2227621 10594 1202.75 11.4% 407 Sugiyama 4 232952 11321 1242.75 11% 419 Suarez 4 2416312 10072 1097 10.9% 438 Raymond 4 222741 9893 1053.75 10.7% 450 Majoli 4 2226421 9858 1013 10.3% 429 Kremer 4 2438421 11751 1182.75 10.1% 420 Tanasugarn 4 2318512 10703 1065 10% 412 Pierce 4 4 3 1 1 6945 679 9.8% 534 Martinez 4 231833 10337 974 9.4% 431 Panova 4 24313221 12935 1217 9.4% 417 Shaughnessy 4 2 3 1 12311 11437 1057 9.2% 424 Kournikova 4 232833 10740 969 9% 430 Schett 4 232712 9849 853 8.7% 469 Bedanova 4 2 2 2 11 3 1 10965 947 8.6% 439 Schiavone 4 2 4 11 2 10490 864 8.2% 456 Sanchez-Vica 3 2 3 6 7 3 9126 675 7.4% 380 Tulyaganova 4 23182 1 9794 645 6.6% 466 Grande 4 24285 2 11376 735.75 6.5% 421 Serna 4 2329431 11398 713.75 6.3% 407 Nagyova 4 1 3 8433 10027 611.5 6.1% 386 Montolio 4 2 2 454129070 252.5 2.8% 378

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 72 Head to Head/Results against Top Players The Top 20 Head to Head The table below shows how the Top 20 fared against each other in 2002. For completeness, the Top 27 are shown on the vertical axis, although only the Top 20 can be listed across the top for space reasons. Reading the Table: For space reasons, the names of the Top 20 players have been abbreviated in the column headings. Scores are meant to be read across the rows. So, e.g., if you look down the column headed DOKIC and the row labelled Capriati, you will see the notation “2-1.” This means that Dokic and Capriati played three times (1+2=3), with Capriati winning two and Dokic one. C C D D D D F H H H M M M R S S S S S. V A L A É E O A A É I A A Y U C E M T W W P I V C M K R N N N L U S B H L A E I I R J E H E I I T I G E R K I N E S V L L I S N Y N C N U N I E E I N Y S H E L L A T P T A C S V S N D N N I I T E O I H A M A E O S A A Bovina 0-0 0-0 0-3 0-0 1-1 1-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 Capriati 1-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 2-1 1-0 0-0 1-1 1-0 1-0 2-3 2-0 0-0 1-1 1-0 0-0 1-3 0-5 0-0 Clijsters 0-1 2-1 0-1 0-0 2-0 1-0 1-0 3-1 0-1 2-0 1-1 1-1 1-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 1-1 2-2 Coetzer 0-0 0-1 1-0 1-0 1-1 1-1 1-0 0-1 0-0 0-3 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 2-0 1-1 0-0 0-1 Daniilidou 0-3 0-2 0-1 0-1 1-0 0-1 0-0 1-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-1 0-1 1-1 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 Davenport 0-0 1-2 0-0 0-0 1-0 1-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-1 1-0 1-0 1-1 0-1 0-1 1-0 0-0 0-1 0-2 Déchy 0-1 1-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-2 0-0 0-2 0-1 0-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-3 0-0 Dementieva 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-2 0-0 0-2 0-3 1-0 1-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-2 0-1 0-0 0-1 Dokic 1-2 0-2 0-1 1-0 2-0 0-1 0-2 1-1 1-0 0-0 0-0 4-2 0-2 1-1 1-0 2-1 1-1 0-1 0-1 Farina Elia 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-2 0-1 1-1 0-1 1-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-2 Hantuchova 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 2-0 2-0 0-0 2-2 1-1 2-1 0-1 0-2 1-0 2-1 0-1 1-1 1-1 0-2 0-2 Hénin 1-1 1-3 0-1 2-0 3-0 1-1 2-0 2-2 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-1 1-0 1-0 1-1 1-1 1-0 1-2 0-4 Hingis 0-1 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 1-0 1-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 3-1 1-0 2-0 0-2 0-1 Kremer 0-0 0-0 0-1 1-0 0-1 3-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-0 1-0 1-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-2 Maleeva 0-1 0-2 1-0 2-0 0-1 0-0 1-1 1-2 0-1 0-0 1-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-1 0-1 1-1 Mauresmo 3-2 1-1 0-1 1-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 1-0 0-0 1-1 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-2 0-3 Myskina 0-2 1-1 0-1 2-0 0-1 2-4 0-1 2-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 0-1 0-1 1-0 0-0 0-0 2-1 0-2 0-2 Panova 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-0 0-0 1-1 1-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-3 0-0 0-2 0-0 0-0 1-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 Rubin 0-0 0-1 1-1 0-0 0-0 2-0 1-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 1-1 0-2 Schnyder 1-1 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-1 1-1 0-0 1-2 0-1 0-0 0-0 1-1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-2 0-0 1-0 0-2 Seles 0-1 1-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 1-0 1-0 1-1 1-3 0-0 0-1 0-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 0-0 1-3 Smashnova 0-0 1-0 0-1 0-0 2-0 1-2 0-0 1-1 1-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 1-0 2-0 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-0 Stevenson 3-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 1-1 0-1 1-1 0-1 0-2 1-0 0-0 1-2 0-0 0-0 0-1 1-0 0-0 0-0 Suarez 0-1 0-1 0-0 1-0 1-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 Sugiyama 1-1 0-0 0-2 0-0 2-1 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-1 1-1 0-0 0-0 0-2 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 S. Williams 5-0 1-1 1-0 3-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 2-0 2-1 2-0 1-0 2-0 2-0 1-1 0-1 0-0 2-0 0-0 4-0 V. Williams 0-0 2-2 2-0 0-0 1-0 1-0 2-0 2-0 4-0 1-0 1-1 3-0 2-0 2-0 2-0 3-1 0-0 0-0 0-4

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 73 Wins Over Top Players Matches Played/Won against the (Final) Top Twenty This table summarizes how players did against the players who would consistitute the final Top Twenty. (Note that, for the players ranked in the Top Twenty, the total number of opponents they could face is 19.) The final column,% of wins against Top 20, calculates the fraction of a player’s wins earned against the Top Twenty — a measure of the difficulty one faced to earn those wins. Top 20 Top 20 Top 20 Total Total Total % of wins Player WTA Opponents Players Players Top 20 Top 20 Wins, all against Name Rank Played Beaten Lost To Victories Losses opponents Top 20 Bovina 26 929211405% Capriati 3 13 12 6 15 14 48 31% Clijsters 4 16 11 11 17 12 50 34% Coetzer 21 13798113027% Daniilidou 22 13686113517% Davenport 12 1387892433% Déchy 20 918113333% Dementieva 19 11565113614% Dokic 9 17 10 13 15 18 53 28% Farina Elia 17 13 4 10 4 12 42 10% Hantuchova 8 15 9 12 14 16 51 27% Hénin 5 17 14 10 19 17 50 38% Hingis 10 1268993426% Kremer 25 1148693119% Maleeva 14 14 7 10 8 12 35 23% Mauresmo 6 12 8 7 10 11 45 22% Myskina 11 17 9 11 13 17 49 27% Panova 23 10 3 10 3 13 34 9% Rubin 13 1158693020% Schnyder 15 12 6 10 6 13 34 18% Seles 7 14 11 6 11 10 46 24% Smashnova 16 13799114620% Stevenson 18 11789104620% Suarez 27 946462914% Sugiyama 24 10586103716% S. Williams 1 15 14 4 29 4 56 52% V. Williams 2 15 14 4 28 8 62 45%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 74 Won/Lost Versus the Top Players (Based on Rankings at the Time of the Match) The following table shows each player’s won/lost record against the Top 10, against the Second 10 (#11- #20), and against the Top 20 as a whole, based on the rankings at the time. (The next previous table gives statistics based on the final Top 20.) The player with the best record in each category is shown in bold. WTA Player Overall Against Top 10 Against #11-#20 Against Top 20 Non-Top20 Rank Name WLWL%WL% WL % WL % 37 Bedanova 24 24 1 7 13% 2 3 40% 3 10 23% 21 14 60% 26 Bovina 40 22 1 6 14% 1 4 20% 2 10 17% 38 12 76% 3 Capriati 48 16 7 9 44% 6 1 86% 13 10 57% 35 6 85% 4 Clijsters 50 17 12 9 57% 7 1 88% 19 10 66% 31 7 82% 21 Coetzer 30 22 1 8 11% 4 1 80% 5 9 36% 25 13 66% 22 Daniilidou 35 25 2 7 22% 6 2 75% 8 9 47% 27 16 63% 12 Davenport 24 9 4 6 40% 3 1 75% 7 7 50% 17 2 89% 20 Déchy 33 24 1 7 13% 5 4 56% 6 11 35% 27 13 68% 19 Dementieva 36 26 1 7 13% 2 3 40% 3 10 23% 33 16 67% 9 Dokic 53 26 4 8 33% 5 5 50% 9 13 41% 44 13 77% 17 Farina Elia 42 28 1 11 8% 2 3 40% 3 14 18% 39 14 74% 8 Hantuchova 51 24 5 10 33% 4 4 50% 9 14 39% 42 10 81% 5 Hénin 50 21 5 13 28% 9 2 82% 14 15 48% 36 6 86% 10 Hingis 34 10 4 6 40% 7 1 88% 11 7 61% 23 3 88% 35 Kournikova 28 24 0 8 0% 4 1 80% 4 9 31% 24 15 62% 25 Kremer 31 28 5 5 50% 2 4 33% 7 9 44% 24 19 56% 32 Majoli 23 22 0 2 0% 4 5 44% 4 7 36% 19 15 56% 14 Maleeva 35 24 4 6 40% 3 2 60% 7 8 47% 28 16 64% 34 Martinez 26 24 1 6 14% 1 5 17% 2 11 15% 24 13 65% 6 Mauresmo 45 14 5 9 36% 5 0 100% 10 9 53% 35 5 88% 11 Myskina 49 28 5 12 29% 5 5 50% 10 17 37% 39 11 78% 23 Panova 34 31 1 9 10% 3 5 38% 4 14 22% 30 17 64% 52 Pierce 14 13 1 4 20% 2 0 100% 3 4 43% 11 9 55% 29 Raymond 32 21 1 4 20% 0 6 0% 1 10 9% 31 11 74% 13 Rubin 30 13 4 7 36% 6 2 75% 10 9 53% 20 4 83% 53 Sanchez-Vic 21 24 0 3 0% 1 0 100% 1 3 25% 20 21 49% 15 Schnyder 34 24 6 7 46% 1 5 17% 7 12 37% 27 12 69% 7 Seles 46 13 4 10 29% 5 0 100% 9 10 47% 37 3 93% 30 Shaughnessy 29 26 2 6 25% 1 2 33% 3 8 27% 26 18 59% 16 Smashnova 46 25 3 9 25% 8 1 89% 11 10 52% 35 15 70% 18 Stevenson 46 25 5 6 45% 6 6 50% 11 12 48% 35 13 73% 27 Suarez 29 23 1 4 20% 5 3 63% 6 7 46% 23 16 59% 24 Sugiyama 37 27 1 6 14% 6 5 55% 7 11 39% 30 16 65% 28 Tanasugarn 32 26 0 7 0% 1 3 25% 1 10 9% 31 16 66% 38 Testud 18 14 1 4 20% 2 1 67% 3 5 38% 15 9 63% 1 S. Williams 56 5 17 2 89% 5 1 83% 22 3 88% 34 2 94% 2V. Williams 62 9 15 7 68% 11 1 92% 26 8 76% 36 1 97%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 75 Won/Lost Versus the Top Players (Based on Final Rankings) The following table shows each player’s won/lost record against the Top 10, against the Second 10 (#11- #20), and against the Top 20 as a whole, based on final rankings. Note: This is not the same as the players’ wins over Top 10/Top 20 players, given in the previous table. What is shown here is the player’s record against the women who ended the year in the Top 10/Top 20. At the time of the matches, some of these women will not have been at their final ranks. On the other hand, it could be argued that this is a better measure of success against top players — a player who ends 2000 at #7 (e.g. Hénin) had a better 2000 than a player who began the year at #7 but ended it outside the Top Twenty (Pierce), and a win against the player with the higher final rank should therefore mean more. The player with the best record in each category is shown in bold. WTA Player Overall W/L Against Top 10 Against #11-#20 Against Top 20 Non-Top20 Rank Name WLWL%WL% WL % WL % 37 Bedanova 24 24 2 8 20% 2 4 33% 4 12 25% 20 12 63% 26 Bovina 40 22 1 4 20% 1 7 13% 2 11 15% 38 11 78% 3 Capriati 48 16 8 10 44% 7 4 64% 15 14 52% 33 2 94% 4 Clijsters 50 17 10 8 56% 7 4 64% 17 12 59% 33 5 87% 21 Coetzer 30 22 1 8 11% 7 3 70% 8 11 42% 22 11 67% 22 Daniilidou 35 25 4 6 40% 2 5 29% 6 11 35% 29 14 67% 12 Davenport 24 9 4 6 40% 4 3 57% 8 9 47% 16 0 100% 20 Déchy 33 24 1 8 11% 0 5 0% 1 13 7% 32 11 74% 19 Dementieva 36 26 1 8 11% 4 3 57% 5 11 31% 31 15 67% 9 Dokic 53 26 4 9 31% 11 9 55% 15 18 45% 38 8 83% 17 Farina Elia 42 28 1 9 10% 3 3 50% 4 12 25% 38 16 70% 8 Hantuchova 51 24 5 10 33% 9 6 60% 14 16 47% 37 8 82% 5 Hénin 50 21 7 14 33% 12 3 80% 19 17 53% 31 4 89% 10 Hingis 34 10 5 7 42% 4 2 67% 9 9 50% 25 1 96% 35 Kournikova 28 24 0 8 0% 4 2 67% 4 10 29% 24 14 63% 25 Kremer 31 28 4 4 50% 2 5 29% 6 9 40% 25 19 57% 14 Maleeva 35 24 3 8 27% 5 4 56% 8 12 40% 27 12 69% 34 Martinez 26 24 1 6 14% 3 3 50% 4 9 31% 22 15 59% 6 Mauresmo 45 14 6 8 43% 4 3 57% 10 11 48% 35 3 92% 11 Myskina 49 28 7 12 37% 6 5 55% 13 17 43% 36 11 77% 23 Panova 34 31 1 8 11% 2 6 25% 3 14 18% 31 17 65% 29 Raymond 32 21 1 5 17% 1 5 17% 2 10 17% 30 11 73% 13 Rubin 30 13 3 7 30% 3 2 60% 6 9 40% 24 4 86% 15 Schnyder 34 24 5 9 36% 1 4 20% 6 13 32% 28 11 72% 7 Seles 46 13 5 10 33% 6 0 100% 11 10 52% 35 3 92% 30 Shaughnessy 29 26 3 6 33% 4 8 33% 7 14 33% 22 12 65% 16 Smashnova 46 25 4 8 33% 5 3 63% 9 11 45% 37 14 73% 18 Stevenson 46 25 5 7 42% 4 3 57% 9 10 47% 37 15 71% 27 Suarez 29 23 1 5 17% 3 1 75% 4 6 40% 25 17 60% 24 Sugiyama 37 27 2 5 29% 4 5 44% 6 10 38% 31 17 65% 28 Tanasugarn 32 26 0 7 0% 2 6 25% 2 13 13% 30 13 70% 1 S. Williams 56 5 19 2 90% 10 2 83% 29 4 88% 27 1 96% 2V. Williams 62 9 16 7 70% 12 1 92% 28 8 78% 34 1 97%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 76 Statistics/Rankings Based on Head-to-Head Numbers Based on these numbers, we can offer a number of statistics/rankings. For instance: Total Wins over Top Ten Players

Based on the Top Ten at the Time: Based on the Final Top Ten: 1. S. Williams (17) 1. S. Williams (19) 2. V. Williams (15) 2. V. Williams (16) 3. Clijsters (12) 3. Clijsters (10) 4. Capriati (7) 4. Capriati (8) 5. Schnyder (6) 5. Hénin, Myskina (7) 6. Hantuchova, Hénin, Kremer, Mauresmo, 7. Mauresmo (6) Myskina, Stevenson (5) 8. Hantuchova, Hingis, Schnyder, Seles, 12. Davenport, Dokic, Hingis, Maleeva, Stevenson (5) Rubin, Seles (4)

Winning Percentage against Top Ten Players (Minimum Ten Matches)

Based on the Top Ten at the Time: Based on the Final Top Ten: 1. S. Williams (89%) 1. S. Williams (90%) 2. V. Williams (68%) 2. V. Williams (70%) 3. Clijsters (57%) 3. Clijsters (56%) [4.Kremer (50% — but in only 8 matches) ] [4.Kremer (50%) — but in only 8 matches) ] 5. Schnyder (46%) 5. Capriati (44%) 6. Stevenson (45%) 6. Mauresmo (43%) 7. Capriati (44%) 7. Hingis, Stevenson (42%) 8. Davenport, Hingis, Maleeva (40%) 9. Daniilidou, Davenport (40%) 11. Rubin (36%) 11. Myskina (37%) 12. Mauresmo (36%) 12. Schnyder (36%)

For additional information about winning percentages, see Winning Percentage against Non-Top-20 Players.

How They Earned Their Points The following tables evaluate the manner in which players earn points, breaking them up, e.g., by points earned on each surface, points earned from quality versus round points, points earned in Slams....

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 77 Fraction of Points Earned in Slams WTA Player Total Points Earned % of Points Points Earned % Not Earned Rank Name Points in Slams in Slams outside Slams in Slams 1 S.Williams 6080 3148 52% 2932 48% 2V.Williams 5140 2240 44% 2900 56% 3 Capriati 3796 1966 52% 1830 48% 4 Clijsters 3591 660 18% 2931 82% 5 Henin 3283 872 27% 2411 73% 6 Mauresmo 3068 1460 48% 1608 52% 7 Seles 2952 1294 44% 1658 56% 8 Hantuchova 2784.75 874 31% 1910.75 69% 9 Dokic 2720 410 15% 2310 85% 10 Hingis 2348 768 33% 1580 67% 11 Myskina 2078.75 186 9% 1892.75 91% 12 Davenport 1795 398 22% 1397 78% 13 Rubin 1752 556 32% 1196 68% 14 Maleeva 1710 416 24% 1294 76% 15 Schnyder 1653 266 16% 1387 84% 16 Smashnova 1631.5 54 3% 1577.5 97% 17 Farina Elia 1757 458 26% 1299 74% 18 Stevenson 1459 8 1% 1451 99% 19 Dementieva 1526 458 30% 1068 70% 20 Déchy 1326 378 29% 948 71% 21 Coetzer 1225 320 26% 905 74% 22 Daniilidou 1202.75 254 21% 948.75 79% 23 Panova 1217 268 22% 949 78% 24 Sugiyama 1242.75 224 18% 1018.75 82% 25 Kremer 1185.75 174 15% 1011.75 85% 26 Bovina 1144 386 34% 758 66% 27 Suarez 1097 408 37% 689 63% 28 Tanasugarn 1065 318 30% 747 70% 29 Raymond 1053.75 280 27% 773.75 73% 30 Shaughnessy 1057 198 19% 859 81% 32 Majoli 1013 306 30% 707 70% 34 Martinez 974 238 24% 736 76% 35 Kournikova 969 8 1% 961 99% 37 Bedanova 947 310 33% 637 67% 38 Testud 901 52 6% 849 94% 40 Schett 864 216 25% 648 75% 41 Schiavone 853 436 51% 417 49% 46 Grande 735.75 266 36% 469.75 64% 50 Serna 713.75 74 10% 639.75 90% 52 Pierce 679 436 64% 243 36% 53 Sanchez-Vicario 675 6 1% 669 99% The Top 25 collectively earned 58524.25 points in 2002, slightly up from 57459 points in 2001. Given the point inflation on the WTA, this actually means that they decreased their fraction of total points earned. Of those points, 18,110, or 30.9%, were earned at Slams in 2002. This compares to 16402 of these, or 28.6%, in 2001 — showing the effect of the Slam inflation. The mean of the fraction of points earned in the Slams is 26.3% (that is, this is the average of the players’ fractions). The median is Farina Elia’s 26.1%. The extremes are Stevenson’s 0.5% and Capriati’s and Serena Williams’s 51.8%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 78 Quality Versus Round Points WTA Player Total Round Quality % of Points % of Points from Rank Name Points Points Points from Quality Round Pts 1 S.Williams 6080 3874 2206 36.3% 63.7% 2V.Williams 5140 3435 1705 33.2% 66.8% 3 Capriati 3796 2570 1226 32.3% 67.7% 4 Clijsters 3591 2340 1251 34.8% 65.2% 5 Henin 3283 2221 1062 32.3% 67.7% 6 Mauresmo 3068 1962 1106 36.0% 64.0% 7 Seles 2952 1986 966 32.7% 67.3% 8 Hantuchova 2784.75 1766.75 1018 36.6% 63.4% 9 Dokic 2720 1846 874 32.1% 67.9% 10 Hingis 2348 1645 703 29.9% 70.1% 11 Myskina 2078.75 1365.75 713 34.3% 65.7% 12 Davenport 1795 1255 540 30.1% 69.9% 13 Rubin 1752 978 774 44.2% 55.8% 14 Maleeva 1710 1110 600 35.1% 64.9% 15 Schnyder 1653 1088 565 34.2% 65.8% 16 Smashnova 1631.5 1012.5 619 37.9% 62.1% 17 Farina Elia 1596 1030 566 35.5% 64.5% 18 Stevenson 1459 819 640 43.9% 56.1% 19 Dementieva 1526 1058 468 30.7% 69.3% 20 Déchy 1326 743 583 44.0% 56.0% 21 Coetzer 1225 787 438 35.8% 64.2% 22 Daniilidou 1202.75 700.75 502 41.7% 58.3% 23 Panova 1217 804 413 33.9% 66.1% 24 Sugiyama 1242.75 750.75 492 39.6% 60.4% 25 Kremer 1185.75 703.75 482 40.6% 59.4% 26 Bovina 1144 713 431 37.7% 62.3% 27 Suarez 1097 623 474 43.2% 56.8% 28 Tanasugarn 1065 778 287 26.9% 73.1% 29 Raymond 1053.75 736.75 317 30.1% 69.9% 30 Shaughnessy 1057 720 337 31.9% 68.1% 32 Majoli 1013 686 327 32.3% 67.7% 34 Martinez 974 640 334 34.3% 65.7% 35 Kournikova 969 667 302 31.2% 68.8% 37 Bedanova 947 583 364 38.4% 61.6% 38 Testud 901 621 280 31.1% 68.9% 40 Schett 864 579 285 33.0% 67.0% 41 Schiavone 853 495 358 42.0% 58.0% 50 Serna 713.75 535.75 178 24.9% 75.1% 52 Pierce 679 360 319 47.0% 53.0% 53 Sanchez-Vicario 675 475 200 29.6% 70.4% Generally speaking, the higher the fraction of points one earns from quality, the better one is at pulling off “upsets.” This is especially true of lower-ranked players — top-ranked players have fewer opportunities to earn quality points. For Comparison: The Top 25 earned an actual total of 58363.25 points (the total of their Best 17 scores is slightly lower). 20,512 of these, or 35.1%, came from quality (down slightly from 35.4% last year, probably due to point inflation). The median quality percentage for the Top 25 is also 35.1% (earned by Maleeva); the arithmetic mean (average) is 35.9%. Rubin’s 44.2% of points is the leader; the lowest players are Hingis and Davenport (due probably to their messed-up schedules).

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 79 Percentage of Points Earned on Each Surface The first four numbers in this table should be fairly self-explanatory. The last column, RMS, is perhaps less clear. This is an attempt to assess a player’s balance. RMS, for Root Mean Square, measures the player’s distance from the mean. The smaller the RMS value, the more “typical” a player is. Thus, Conchita Martinez, improbably enough, is the most balanced with a score of .02, followed by Venus Williams, who is the most balanced player in the Top 25; Mary Pierce, not surprisingly given her schedule, is least balanced, with Alexandra Stevenson the least balanced player in the Top 25. For Reference: For the Top 25 as a whole, 44.2% of all points were earned on hardcourts, 21.4% on clay, 11.6% on grass, and 22.9% indoors. WTA Rank Player % Hard % Clay % Grass % Indr RMS 37 Bedanova 56% 7% 28% 9% 0.29 26 Bovina 42% 15% 11% 31% 0.10 3 Capriati 58% 26% 7% 9% 0.21 4 Clijsters 37% 18% 2% 43% 0.23 21 Coetzer 58% 11% 3% 28% 0.20 22 Daniilidou 48% 13% 36% 3% 0.33 12 Davenport 62% 0% 0% 38% 0.34 20 Déchy 50% 28% 6% 16% 0.13 19 Dementieva 28% 23% 18% 31% 0.19 9 Dokic 36% 34% 12% 18% 0.16 17 Farina Elia 25% 33% 8% 34% 0.25 8 Hantuchova 47% 15% 14% 24% 0.07 5 Hénin 22% 31% 17% 30% 0.25 10 Hingis 77% 6% 0% 18% 0.38 35 Kournikova 52% 16% 0% 31% 0.17 25 Kremer 33% 27% 17% 23% 0.13 32 Majoli 29% 59% 8% 4% 0.45 14 Maleeva 18% 12% 15% 55% 0.42 34 Martinez 44% 23% 11% 22% 0.02 6 Mauresmo 54% 11% 18% 16% 0.17 11 Myskina 43% 18% 21% 18% 0.11 59 Nagyova 44% 55% 0% 1% 0.42 23 Panova 50% 21% 7% 22% 0.08 52 Pierce 4% 73% 23% 0% 0.71 29 Raymond 56% 4% 20% 19% 0.23 13 Rubin 38% 20% 28% 13% 0.20 53 Sanchez-Vicario 52% 47% 0% 0% 0.37 40 Schett 48% 29% 6% 18% 0.12 15 Schnyder 18% 44% 2% 36% 0.38 7 Seles 57% 16% 9% 18% 0.15 50 Serna 18% 57% 6% 19% 0.45 30 Shaughnessy 55% 15% 9% 20% 0.13 16 Smashnova 44% 39% 0% 17% 0.21 18 Stevenson 34% 1% 3% 62% 0.46 27 Suarez 16% 80% 0% 4% 0.69 24 Sugiyama 70% 15% 10% 6% 0.31 28 Tanasugarn 69% 10% 11% 10% 0.30 38 Testud 36% 46% 7% 10% 0.29 55 Tulyaganova 44% 40% 14% 2% 0.28 1Williams, Serena 40% 30% 17% 13% 0.15 2Williams, Venus 49% 22% 12% 17% 0.07

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 80 Consistency We often speak of a player’s “consistency,” but the term does not really have a clear definition. We can offer some models, however. Standard Deviation of Scores by Tournament One measure of a player’s consistency is the standard deviation of a player’s results over the tournaments she plays. The following list expresses a player’s consistency by dividing the standard deviation of her score by the mean score. In mathematical parlance, if the player’s scores are s1, s2, … sn, then the number given here is given by the formula (shown here in two forms):

STDDEV(s1, s2, … sn) σ(s1, s2, … sn) ------MEAN(s1, s2, … sn) µ(s1, s2, … sn)

Thus (for the mathematicians out there), this is not actually the standard deviation; it has been normalized by dividing by the mean. Note: This is not a ranking system; it is a measure of consistency. A player who loses in the second round of every tournament is more consistent (consistently bad) than a player who wins half of her tournaments and loses early in the other half — but the player who wins the tournaments will have, and probably deserve, a higher ranking. In the list below, the lower the score, the more consistent the player is. I have not “ranked” the players, lest this be confused with a ranking scheme, but they are listed in order from most to least consistent by the “standard deviation” measure. Davenport 0.5 Myskina 1.1 Seles 0.6 Testud 1.1 V. Williams 0.6 Smashnova 1.1 S. Williams 0.8 Raymond 1.1 Schett 0.8 Martinez 1.2 Déchy 0.9 Shaughnessy 1.2 Dokic 0.9 Serna 1.2 Dementieva 0.9 Stevenson 1.2 Farina Elia 0.9 Kournikova 1.3 Hingis 0.9 Grande 1.3 Mauresmo 0.9 Schiavone 1.4 Tanasugarn 0.9 Bedanova 1.4 Coetzer 0.9 Sanchez-Vicario 1.4 Henin 1 Nagyova 1.4 Rubin 1 Bovina 1.5 Tulyaganova 1 Daniilidou 1.5 Sugiyama 1 Maleeva 1.5 Panova 1 Pierce 1.5 Hantuchova 1 Schnyder 1.6 Clijsters 1 Suarez 1.6 Kremer 1.1 Majoli 1.8 Capriati 1.1 Montolio 2.6

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 81 Early-Round Losses Another way of measuring consistency is how rarely one suffers early-round losses. The following table shows how many first- round (or, correctly, opening-round) losses each of the top players had, followed by other early-round losses (defined, arbitrarily, as cases where the player earned 50 or fewer points in the tournament or a first round loss at Los Angeles). For my convenience, this list is alphabetical. Note: First round losses at the Los Angeles Championships are not included as first-round losses; being worth 67 points,, they have been listed as early losses. Players who lost in the first round at Los Angeles are marked with an asterisk (so you may transfer the results if you like).” Name WTA Rank Tournaments 1R Losses Other Early Losses Bedanova 37 25 11 8 Bovina 26 23 7 8 Capriati 3 17 3 0 Clijsters 4 21 3 3 Coetzer 21 22 6 6 Daniilidou 22 26 11 9 Davenport 12 9 0* 1 Déchy 20 24 6 7 Dementieva 19 26 6* 10 Dokic 9 29 7 4 Farina Elia 17 29 7* 6 Hantuchova 8 25 4* 5 Hénin 5 23 5 0 Hingis 10 12 1 1 Kournikova 35 25 11 7 Kremer 25 28 8 10 Majoli 32 23 11 6 Maleeva 14 25 7 8 Martinez 34 24 7 11 Mauresmo 6 17 2 1 Myskina 11 29 6* 10 Panova 23 31 13 7 Pierce 52 13 5 4 Raymond 29 22 9 5 Rubin 13 14 3* 4 Sanchez-Vicario 53 24 13 5 Schett 40 21 4 11 Schiavone 41 23 9 8 Schnyder 15 25 8* 10 Seles 7 15 0 1 Serna 50 28 12 11 Shaughnessy 30 27 10 8 Smashnova 16 29 12* 6 Stevenson 18 25 8 8 Suarez 27 23 9 8 Sugiyama 24 27 7 11 Tanasugarn 28 26 9 8 Testud 38 14 5 2 Tulyaganova 55 21 8 8 S.Williams 1 13 0 0 V.Williams 2 16 1 0

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 82 So we can compile a list based on rates of first-round and early-round losses. Note that a lower number is better in this case: Frequency of Early Losses First-Round Loss Rate Early-Round Loss Rate Player Name First Round Loss Rate Player Name Early Round Loss Rate Davenport 0% S. Williams 0% Seles 0% V. Williams 6% S. Williams 0% Seles 7% V. Williams 6% Davenport 11% Hingis 8% Hingis 17% Mauresmo 12% Capriati 18% Clijsters 14% Mauresmo 18% Hantuchova 16% Hénin 22% Capriati 18% Clijsters 29% Schett 19% Hantuchova 36% Myskina 21% Dokic 38% Rubin 21% Farina Elia 45% Hénin 22% Rubin 50% Dementieva 23% Testud 50% Dokic 24% Déchy 54% Farina Elia 24% Coetzer 55% Déchy 25% Myskina 55% Sugiyama 26% Maleeva 60% Coetzer 27% Dementieva 62% Maleeva 28% Smashnova 62% Kremer 29% Raymond 64% Martinez 29% Stevenson 64% Bovina 30% Kremer 64% Schnyder 32% Panova 65% Stevenson 32% Bovina 65% Tanasugarn 35% Tanasugarn 65% Testud 36% Shaughnessy 67% Shaughnessy 37% Sugiyama 67% Tulyaganova 38% Pierce 69% Pierce 38% Schett 71% Schiavone 39% Kournikova 72% Suarez 39% Schnyder 72% Raymond 41% Majoli 74% Smashnova 41% Schiavone 74% Panova 42% Suarez 74% Daniilidou 42% Martinez 75% Serna 43% Sanchez-Vicario 75% Bedanova 44% Bedanova 76% Kournikova 44% Tulyaganova 76% Majoli 48% Daniilidou 77% Sanchez-Vicario 54% Serna 82%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 83 Worst Losses The tables below list the “worst” losses suffered by a player, based on the player’s rank at the time of the loss. Losses are listed in decreasing order of severity. Player WTA Rank Losses to players outside Top 50 Losses to players outside Top 20 Bedanova Jankovic (262) — Stanford Medina Garrigues (49) — Australian Open Hrdlickova (110) — Leipzig Schiavone (46) — Canadian Open Kostanic (83) — Strasbourg Déchy (45) — Paris Kostanic (76) — Roland Garros Srebotnik (44) — San Diego Irvin (63) — Miami Torrens Valero (38) — Berlin Granville (62) — New Haven Rubin (37) — Eastbourne Kremer (24) — Birmingham Rubin (21) — Los Angeles Bovina Ant. Serra Zanetti (181) — Australian Open Tu (50) — Antwerp Bacheva (129) — Budapest Serna (48) — Estoril Svensson (87) — Bol Hantuchova (37) — Sydney Qualifying Ruano Pascual (66) — New Haven Qualify’g Husarova (36) — Zurich Qualifying Irvin (63) — Miami Bedanova (26) — Scottsdale Raymond (25) — Birmingham Panova (23) — Wimbledon Capriati Stevenson (61) — Sydney Martinez (47) — Zurich Stevenson (35) — Filderstadt Schnyder (30) — Charleston Sugiyama (29) — Los Angeles Stevenson (22) — Linz Clijsters C. Fernandez (87) — Roland Garros Pisnik (50) — ’s-Hertogenbosch Likhovtseva (48) — Wimbledon Srebotnik (43) — Los Angeles Déchy (35) — Indian Wells Smashnova (35) — Berlin Schett (35) — Canadian Open Coetzer Baltacha (295) — Wimbledon Stevenson (49) — Pan Pacific Jidkova (105) — Memphis Schiavone (45) — Eastbourne Razzano (93) — Luxembourg Sugiyama (29) — Los Angeles Muller (64) — Roland Garros Bedanova (28) — Berlin Suarez (61) — Acapulco Dementieva (22) — Filderstadt Majoli (61) — Amelia Island Rubin (21) — San Diego Majoli (58) — Charleston Daniilidou M. Casanova (348) — Budapest Schiavone (46) — Canadian Open Pin (177) — Paris Qualifying Nagyova (46) — U. S. Open Beigbeder (86) — Acapulco Martinez (45) — Berlin Garbin (83) — Doha Schnyder (41) — Canberra Rittner (83) — Leipzig Grande (37) — Filderstadt Qualifying Bovina (76) — Porto Sugiyama (29) — Indian Wells Svensson (76) — Zurich Qualifying Montolio (29) — Porto Schwartz (75) — Strasbourg Déchy (24) — Moscow Davenport Maleeva (23) — Moscow Rubin (21) — Los Angeles

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 84 Déchy Benesova (98) — Bratislava Osterloh (53) — Canberra Poutchek (84) — Miami Medina Garrigues (49) — Australian Open Mikaelian (78) — Antwerp Suarez (47) — Roland Garros Srebotnik (40) — Luxembourg Myskina (39) — Indian Wells C. Fernandez (37) — Canadian Open Coetzer (27) — Bahia Kremer (23) — Eastbourne Maleeva (23) — Moscow Dementieva Roesch (125) — Berlin Schiavone (43) — U. S. Open Craybas (108) — Charleston Martinez (39) — Sydney Garbin (108) — Bol Bovina (34) — Moscow Kournikova (99) — Pan Pacific Sugiyama (33) — Rome Roesch (94) — New Haven Stevenson (32) — Indian Wells C. Fernandez (87) — Roland Garros Coetzer (32) — Canadian Open Roesch (82) — Quebec City Sugiyama (29) — Los Angeles Suarez (61) — Acapulco Daniilidou (51) — ’s-Hertogenbosch Dokic Bovina (61) — U. S. Open Schnyder (42) — Antwerp Smashnova (35) — Charleston Kremer (32) — Pan Pacific Kremer (30) — Miami Myskina (30) — Rome Bedanova (28) — Eastbourne Shaughnessy (28) — Leipzig Stevenson (28) — Zurich Kremer (26) — Indian Wells Coetzer (26) — Moscow Rubin (21) — Los Angeles Panova (21) — Filderstadt Farina Elia Wartusch (144) — Vienna Petrova (39) — Gold Coast Pierce (132) — Roland Garros Rubin (37) — Eastbourne C. Fernandez (128) — Charleston Majoli (25) — New Haven Chladkova (102) — Helsinki Panova (21) — Filderstadt Granville (93) — Canadian Open Ad. Serra-Zanetti (83) — Australian Open Rittner (83) — Leipzig Safina (83) — Moscow Rittner (78) — Sopot Mikaelian (63) — Quebec City Grande Harkleroad (232) — San Diego Zvonareva (49) — Luxembourg Zuluaga (138) — Madrid Husarova (44) — Amelia Island Anca Barna (116) — Gold Coast Suarez (33) — Canadian Open Safina (91) — U. S. Open Majoli (28) — Filderstadt Bovina (80) — Birmingham Kremer (21) — Stanford Anca Barna (73) — Berlin Medina Garrigues (64) — Hobart Matevzic (60) — Bratislava Suarez (58) — Miami Smashnova (57) — Indian Wells

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 85 Hantuchova Pierce (232) — Charleston Husarova (44) — Amelia Island Black (75) — Miami Smashnova (35) — Berlin Bedanova (33) — Antwerp Daniilidou (31) — Los Angeles Myskina (30) — Rome Schiavone (29) — Paris Sugiyama (29) — San Diego Stevenson (22) — Linz Hénin Kapros (179) — Roland Garros Smashnova (44) — Miami Casanova (69) — Filderstadt Hantuchova (26) — Indian Wells Irvin (61) — Stanford Daniilidou (51) — ’s-Hertogenbosch Hingis Petrova (145) — Moscow Hantuchova (26) — Indian Wells Dementieva (22) — Filderstadt Kournikova Wheeler (193) — Roland Garros Grande (38) — Eastbourne Kuznetsova (162) — Warsaw Martinez (37) — Charleston Smashnova (88) — Auckland Panova (23) — Wimbledon Srebotnik (79) — Acapulco Ruano Pascual (78) — Rome Widjaja (75) — U. S. Open Ruano Pascual (66) — Canadian Open Mandula (63) — Strasbourg Daniilidou (61) — Miami Osterloh (56) — Indian Wells Suarez (52) — Amelia Island Pisnik (52) — Bol Krasnoroutsk Lee-Waters (200) — Bronx $50K Qualifying Martinez (39) — Australian Open Cho (101) — Pattaya Panova (23) — Linz Kuznetsova (59) — Bali Kremer Leon Garcia (125) — Big Island Rubin (45) — Roland Garros Dyrberg (118) — Antwerp Panova (40) — Auckland Reeves (106) — Canberra Pratt (39) — Birmingham Drake (105) — Big Island Torrens Valero (38) — Berlin Kournikova (99) — Pan Pacific Daniilidou (31) — Los Angeles Kuznetsova (88) — U. S. Open Sugiyama (29) — Charleston Diaz-Oliva (84) — Bol Raymond (21) — Indian Wells Rittner (71) — Australian Open Panova (21) — Zurich Ruano Pascual (66) — Canadian Open Matevzic (57) — Wimbledon Granville (52) — Luxembourg Likhovtseva Fislova (158) — Bratislava Shaughnessy (38) — Leipzig Schaul (148) — Luxembourg Smashnova (37) — Sarasota de Lone (144) — New Haven Qualifying Kremer (32) — Pan Pacific Arn (118) — Paris Stevenson (34) — Los Angeles Loit (98) — Canberra Déchy (32) — Charleston Martinez (70) — San Diego Kremer (29) — Amelia Island Rittner (67) — Hamburg Bedanova (28) — Eastbourne Gagliardi (65) — Australian Open Schnyder (25) — Canadian Open Pisnik (63) — Gold Coast Schiavone (24) — Scottsdale Black (61) — Big Island Bedanova (24) — U. S. Open

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 86 Majoli Leon Garcia (125) — Helsinki Leon Garcia (48) — Sarasota Cervanova (112) — Roland Garros Nagyova (47) — Bahia Razzano (101) — Indian Wells Kruger (46) — Gold Coast Svensson (87) — Bol Martinez (40) — Amelia Island McQuillan (80) — Canberra Serna (38) — Madrid Husarova (69) — Australian Open Grande (37) — Leipzig Suarez (30) — Linz Déchy (28) — Canadian Open Maleeva Sidot (211) — Roland Garros Likhovtseva (48) — Wimbledon Dyrberg (105) — Indian Wells Mikaelian (48) — Zurich Svensson (87) — Bol Husarova (44) — Leipzig Frazier (73) — U. S. Open Hantuchova (37) — Sydney Mikaelian (63) — Quebec City Grande (36) — Los Angeles Sugiyama (33) — Rome Hantuchova (27) — Paris Stevenson (27) — Miami Tanasugarn (26) — Pan Pacific Kremer (26) — Filderstadt Myskina (22) — Birmingham Martinez Loit (109) — Acapulco Kournikova (47) — San Diego Foretz (109) — Charleston Likhovtseva (44) — Princess Cup Chladkova (105) — Rome Raymond (35) — Wimbledon Svensson (104) — Australian Open Shaughnessy (30) — U. S. Open Brandi (77) — Auckland Raymond (24) — Big Island Kuznetsova (59) — Bali Stevenson (22) — Linz Osterloh (56) — Indian Wells Mauresmo Daniilidou (51) — ’s-Hertogenbosch Suarez (47) — Roland Garros Schnyder (30) — Charleston Kremer (29) — Amelia Island Maleeva (23) — Moscow Montolio Gallovits (236) — Fano $50K Myskina (49) — Doha Sanchez Lorenzo (202) — Bol Sucha (42) — Sopot Dulko (154) — Casablanca Smashnova (35) — Berlin Kurhajcova (134) — Girona $50K+H Grande (34) — Madrid Kuznetsova (123) — Helsinki Weingärtner (28) — Australian Open Ant. Serra Zanetti (120) — U. S. Open Jidkova (114) — Auckland Barna (103) — Estoril Ruano Pascual (78) — Rome Rittner (72) — Miami Gagliardi (70) — Indian Wells Kournikova (66) — Sydney Poutchek (63) — Wimbledon Poutchek (61) — New Haven Qualifying Myskina Callens (203) — Pan Pacific Qualifying Mikaelian (48) — Zurich Asagoe (119) — Roland Garros Sugiyama (30) — Gold Coast Gagliardi (70) — Indian Wells Rubin (37) — Eastbourne Husarova (68) — Doha C. Fernandez (37) — Canadian Open Shaughnessy (33) — Moscow Bedanova (24) — U. S. Open Stevenson (22) — Linz

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 87 Nagyova Krasnooutskaya (222) — Pattaya Serna (50) — Filderstadt Qualifying M. Casanova (180) — Wimbledon Myskina (47) — Dubai Safina (169) — Sopot Pisnik (46) — Luxembourg C. Fernandez (128) — Charleston Frazier (44) — Australian Open Garbin (108) — Bol Schnyder (34) — Sarasota Mandula (106) — Vienna Sugiyama (29) — Los Angeles Diaz-Oliva (103) — Palermo Panova (23) — Rome Bovina (94) — Warsaw Panova (22) — Princess Cup Diaz-Oliva (81) — Miami Déchy (22) — Bratislava Razzamo (81) — Roland Garros Poutchek (76) — Auckland Tu (58) — Paris Zvonareva (57) — U. S. Open Frazier (53) — Amelia Island Panova Navratilova (—) — Eastbourne Likhovtseva (46) — Berlin Widjaja (91) — Pattaya Schiavone (43) — U. S. Open Smashnova (88) — Auckland Pratt (41) — Amelia Island Daniilidou (81) — Australian Open Serna (39) — Hamburg Matevzic (81) — Bahia Rubin (27) — Wimbledon Matevzic (76) — Doha Schiavone (24) — Scottsdale Martinez (70) — San Diego Raymond (21) — Indian Wells Tu (61) — Charleston Daniilidou (54) — Birmingham Frazier (53) — Princess Cup Pierce Granville (134) — Wimbledon Nagyova (45)— Canadian Open Craybas (111) — Australian Open Myskina (36) — Sarasota Arn (84) — San Diego Suarez (33) — U. S. Open Medina Garrigues (64) — Hobart Sugiyama (30) — Eastbourne Raymond Craybas (109) — Amelia Island Pisnik (46) — Luxembourg Bes (104) — Roland Garros Déchy (32) — Charleston M. Casanova (69) — Filderstadt Sugiyama (30) — Scottsdale Bovina (77) — New Haven Sugiyama (29) — San Diego Black (61) — Big Island Hantuchova (26) — Indian Wells Sugiyama (21) — Canadian Open Rubin Vierin (179) — Rome Qualifying Schett (44) — Filderstadt Sanchez Lorenzo (170) — Berlin Qualifying Schett (35) — Canadian Open Sanchez- Bartoli (231) — U. S. Open Husarova (47) — Sarasota Vicario M. Casanova (119) — Brussels Likhovtseva (44) — Princess Cup Mandula (93) — Helsinki Majoli (43) — Australian Open Granville (93) — Canadian Open Tulyaganova (42) — New Haven Garbin (90) — Sopot Déchy (35) — Amelia Island Taylor (87) — Japan Open Myskina (33) — Charleston Marrero (68) — Roland Garros Déchy (33) — Berlin Rubin (65) — Madrid Nagyova (26) — Sydney Kuznetsova (59) — Bali Molik (54) — Doha Granville (52) — Luxembourg Husarova (51) — Acapulco Schett M. Casanova (180) — Wimbledon Rubin (45) — Roland Garros Koukalova (126) — Moscow Qualifying Hantuchova (26) — Indian Wells Mandula (106) — Vienna Ruano Pascual (85) — Brussels Müller (77) — U. S. Open Reeves (74) — Big Island Frazier (59) — Los Angeles

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 88 Schiavone Zvonareva (142) — Roland Garros Déchy (45) — Scottsdale Garbin (95) — Amelia Island Kremer (30) — Antwerp Torrens Valero (89) — New Haven Qualify. Schett (22) — Berlin Neffa-de los Rios — Bratislava Bovina (83) — Los Angeles Marrero (64) — Indian Wells Mikaelian (64) — Charleston Bovina (61) — U. S. Open Mandula (60) — Canberra Pisnik (54) — Miami Schnyder Pierce (172) — Rome Daniilidou (34) — Bahia Safina (169) — Sopot Tanasugarn (30) — Canberra Kuznetsova (123) — Helsinki Torrens Valero (30) — Paris Reeves (98) — Miami Smashnova (23) — Vienna Barna (80) — Hamburg C. Martinez (66) — Wimbledon Majoli (58) — Charleston Suarez (54) — Madrid Seles Foretz (97) — Charleston Daniilidou (34) — Bahia Raymond (28) — Stanford Serna Webb (184) — Miami Ad. Serra-Zanetti (47) — Paris Safina (169) — Sopot Husarova (47) — Indian Wells Pullin (150) — Birmingham Pratt (40) — Roland Garros Benesova (111) — Leipzig Qualifying Husarova (40) — Los Angeles Cho (106) — U. S. Open Grande (39) — Wimbledon Diaz-Oliva (90) — Bratislava Rubin (37) — Eastbourne Neffa-de los Rios (74) — New Haven Qual. Panova (32) — Scottsdale Rubin (69) — Berlin Sanchez-Vicario (31) — Brussels Rubin (65) — Madrid Myskina (30) — Rome Matevzic (60) — Filderstadt Qualifying Montolio (29) — Porto Raymond (22) — Sydney Schett (22) — Pan Pacific Shaughnessy Martinez Granados (136) — Roland Garros Weingärtner (48) — Australian Open Oremans (129) — Wimbledon Suarez (47) — Charleston Svensson (65) — Rome Déchy (45) — Scottsdale Irvin (63) — Miami Husarova (40) — Los Angeles Mikaelian (63) — Quebec City Petrova (39) — Gold Coast Smashnova (57) — Indian Wells Stevenson (35) — Filderstadt Suarez (52) — Amelia Island Déchy (33) — Berlin Bedanova (28) — Eastbourne Panova (25) — Sarasota Déchy (24) — Moscow Smashnova Srebotnik (108) — Australian Open Kournikova (47) — San Diego Widjaja (93) — Wimbledon Leon Garcia (43) — Acapulco Reeves (90) — Amelia Island Schiavone (36) — Roland Garros Gagliardi (70) — Indian Wells Coetzer (35) — Los Angeles Majoli (58) — Charleston Stevenson (34) — Canadian Open Kournikova (54) — Stanford Coetzer (33) — U. S. Open Frazier (53) — Princess Cup Panova (32) — Miami Maleeva (23) — Moscow

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 89 Stevenson Granville (150) — Surbiton $25K Kournikova (47) — San Diego Obata (116) — Wimbledon Martinez (47) — Zurich Dominikovic (109) — Roland Garros Husarova (44) — Leipzig Foretz (89) — U. S. Open Likhovtseva (36) — Gold Coast Frazier (76) — Eastbourne Myskina (33) — Amelia Island Tu (51) — Stanford Myskina (22) — Birmingham Raymond (21) — Memphis Suarez Zuluaga (285) — Bogota Pisnik (46) — Bahia Benesova (111) — Leipzig Srebotnik (43) — Los Angeles Jidkova (109) — Hobart Kremer (25) — Rome Cho (106) — U. S. Open Sugiyama (21) — Canadian Open Razzano (98) — Sarasota Müller (95) — Australian Open Craybas (91) — Wimbledon C. Fernandez (87) — Roland Garros Zvonareva (84) — Palermo Poutchek (81) — Indian Wells Srebotnik (79) — Acapulco Serna (58) — Moscow Sugiyama Pierce (295) — Sarasota Pisnik (50) — Sydney Qualifying Callens (203) — Pan Pacific Molik (50) — Amelia Island C. Fernandez (98) — Madrid Pratt (46) — Princess Cup Talaja (95) — Japan Open Pratt (42) — Scottsdale Frazier (73) — U. S. Open Husarova (41) — Roland Garros Husarova (69) — Australian Open Kournikova (28) — Shanghai Daniilidou (54) — Birmingham Raymond (28) — Stanford Stevenson (28) — Zurich Raymond (21) — Memphis Tanasugarn Bielik (1102) — U. S. Open Schiavone (46) — San Diego Chladkova (105) — Rome Black (44) — Madrid Craybas (102) — Birmingham Rubin (37) — Eastbourne Neffa-de los Rios (89) — Bali Stevenson (34) — Canadian Open Cho (101) — Pattaya Shaughnessy (31) — New Haven Black (84) — Indian Wells Maleeva (26) — Berlin Craybas (82) — Japan Open Ruano Pascual (72) — Sarasota Smashnova (69) — Canberra Müller (65) — Hamburg Testud Pierce (74) — Wimbledon Suarez (47) — Roland Garros Husarova (68) — Doha Pratt (39) — Australian Open Pisnik (63) — Gold Coast Kremer (29) — Amelia Island Majoli (58) — Charleston Kremer (23) — Eastbourne Déchy (56) — Australian Open Tulyaganova Kurhajcova (114) — Bratislava Grande (31) — Pan Pacific Zuluaga (109) — Canadian Open Schiavone (31) — Hamburg Rittner (78) — Dubai Grande (29) — Australian Open Ruano Pascual (78) — Rome Sugiyama (29) — Indian Wells Frazier (76) — Eastbourne Rubin (27) — Wimbledon Daniilidou (64) — Strasbourg Déchy (27) — Los Angeles Stevenson (61) — Sydney Déchy (26) — U. S. Open Loit (56) — Bahia Schnyder (24) — Roland Garros Tulyaganova (51) — San Diego Smashnova (23) — Birmingham Williams, S. Schnyder (30) — Charleston Rubin (21) — Los Angeles Williams, V. Maleeva (23) — Moscow

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 90 Best and Worst “Worst Losses” The list below shows the ten worst losses for Top 25 players (i.e. the ten players who lost to the players with the very worst rankings), and also the ten with the least severe “worst losses.” This is followed by the name and ranking (both ranking at the time and ranking as of the end of 2002) of the player to whom she lost. Worst “Worst Loss” Best “Worst Loss” 1. Panova: Navratilova (never ranked in 2002)1 1. Davenport: Maleeva (then #23/ended #14) 2. Daniilidou: M. Casanova (then #348/ended #54) 1. V. Williams: Maleeva (then #23/ended #14) 3. Coetzer: Baltacha (then #295/ended #157) 3. S. Williams: Schnyder (then #30/ended #15) 3. Sugiyama: Pierce (then #295/ended #52) 4. Mauresmo: Daniilidou (then #51/ended #22) 5. Hantuchova: Pierce (then #232/ended #52) 5. Clijsters: Bovina (then #61/ended #26) 6. Maleeva: Sidot (then #211/ended #242) 6. Capriati: Stevenson (then #61/ended #18) 7. Myskina: Callens (then #203/ended #67) 7. Clijsters: C. Fernandez (then #87/ended #31) 8. Hénin: Kapros (then #179/ended #105) 8. Seles: Foretz (then #97/ended #79) 8. Rubin: Vierin (then #179/ended #163) 9. Déchy: Benesova (then #98/ended #81) 10. Schnyder: Pierce (then #172/ended #52) 10. Smashnova: Srebotnik (then #108/ended #41) 11. Stevenson: Granville (then #150/ended #47) 1. Panova’s next-worst loss was to Widjaja,#91; if the loss to Navratilova is omitted, she is not in the Top Ten Worst Losses, and Stevenson gets the #10 worst loss.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 91 Fraction of Points Earned in Biggest Win In general, the lower this number, the more consistent a player has been, as she did not use one freak result to significantly change her result. The table shows the point value of the player’s biggest win, what percentage of her (total) points this represents, what her score would have been without this win, where she would have stood in the rankings without that win, and what the win was. Players who would have retained their rankings even without their biggest wins are marked in italics. Note: A “big win” does not constitute the result that took a player deepest into a tournament, but the result that was worth the most points. In the column labelled “Big Win,” it is assumed that the player won the tournament listed unless this is followed by the round in which the player lost (e.g. “F”=final, “SF”= semifinal, “QF”=Quarterfinal). WTA Player Best 17 Big Win Big Win Score W/O Resulting Big Win Rank Name Amount Percent Big Win Ranking 37 Bedanova 939 196 21% 744 46 U. S. Open R16 26 Bovina 1137 330 29% 809 44 U. S. Open QF 3 Capriati 3796 1008 27% 2788 8 Australian Open 4 Clijsters 3557 750 21% 2838 8 Los Angeles Championsh 21 Coetzer 1220 180 15% 1041 31 Moscow SF 22 Daniilidou 1192.75 251 21% 943.75 37 ’s-Hertogenbosch 12 Davenport 1795 398 22% 1397 20 U. S. Open SF 20 Déchy 1295 154 12% 1166 25 Scottsdale SF 19 Dementieva 1426 162 11% 1298 20 Filderstadt SF 9 Dokic 2506 267 10% 2292 11 San Diego F 17 Farina Elia 1596 205 12% 1431 19 Strasbourg 8 Hantuchova 2667.75 481 17% 2226.75 11 Indian Wells 5 Hénin 3218 488 15% 2789 8 Wimbledon SF 10 Hingis 2348 624 27% 1724 14 Australian Open F 35 Kournikova 960 189 20% 773 45 Pan Pacific SF 25 Kremer 1151.75 184 16% 990.75 33 Amelia Island SF 32 Majoli 1007 379 37% 629 57 Charleston 14 Maleeva 1701 482 28% 1221 21 Moscow 34 Martinez 967 213 22% 755 45 Zurich SF 6 Mauresmo 3068 572 19% 2496 10 U. S. Open SF 11 Myskina 1908 295 14% 1646 15 Bahia 23 Panova 1177 134 11% 1070 28 Miami QF 52 Pierce 679 274 40% 405 91 Roland Garros QF 29 Raymond 1048.75 166 16% 883.75 39 Stanford SF 13 Rubin 1752 419 24% 1333 20 Los Angeles 53 Sanchez-Vicario 668 147 22% 522 67 Indian Wells SF 40 Schett 860 155 18% 706 50 Canadian Open QF 41 Schiavone 847 210 25% 638 56 U. S. Open R16 15 Schnyder 1644 394 24% 1252 21 Zurich 7 Seles 2952 500 17% 2452 10 Australian Open SF 30 Shaughnessy 1046 208 20% 840 43 Sydney F 16 Smashnova 1616.5 245 15% 1373.5 20 Berlin SF 18 Stevenson 1444 291 20% 1158 25 Linz F 27 Suarez 1091 352 32% 740 46 Roland Garros QF 24 Sugiyama 1173 214 17% 988 33 Los Angeles SF 28 Tanasugarn 1056 118 11% 939 37 Wimbledon R16 38 Testud 901 250 28% 651 55 Dubai F 1 S. Williams 6080 1056 17% 5024 2 Wimbledon 2V. Williams 5140 732 14% 4408 2 U. S. Open F

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 92 Winning and Losing Streaks Winning and Losing Streaks, Sorted by Player The following table records a player’s longest winning and losing streaks, as well as tabulating all winning streaks of ten or more matches and all losing streaks of three or more matches. Players with 10-match win streaks are shown in bold; those with 3+ match losing streaks in italics. Longest Longest Streaks Streaks Events in Longest Win Events in Longest Loss Streak Player Win Loss of 10+ of 3+ Streak Name Rank Streak Streak Wins Losses Bedanova 37 3 4 0 3 Gold Coast SF or U. S. Open R16, Leipzig 1R, Filderstadt Eastbourne SF or U. S. 1R, Zurich 1R Open R16 Bovina 26 7 3 0 2 Quebec City W, Moscow QF Paris 1R (as qualifier), Antwerp 1R, Scottsdale 1R or Estoril SF, Budapest 1R, Bol 1R Capriati 3103 11Australian Open W, U. S. Open QF, Filderstadt 2R, Zurich 2R Scottsdale F Clijsters 4 8 2 0 0 Luxembourg W, Los Australian Open SF, Indian Wells 2R or Angeles Champ W San Diego QF, Los Angeles 2R Coetzer 21 3 4 0 1 Australian Open R16 or Charleston QF, Berlin 1R, Roland Garros Indian Wells QF or 1R, Eastbourne 1R Charleston QF or Moscow SF Daniilidou 22 8 3 0 3 ’s-Hertogenbosch W, Los Angeles QF, Canadian Open 1R, U. Wimbledon R16 S. Open 1R or Bahia F, Leipzig 1R, Moscow 1R or Filderstadt 3RQ, Zurich 1RQ, Linz 1R Davenport 12 5 2 0 0 U. S. Open SF Zurich F, Los Angeles Champ 1R Déchy 20 3 3 0 1 Scottsdale SF or Berlin QF Indian Wells 3R, Miami 2R, Sarasota 1R or Bralislava SF Dementieva 19 4 3 0 1 ’s-Hertogenbosch F Bol QF, Berlin 1R, Rome 1R Dokic 9 8401Sarasota W, Amelia Island Princess Cup SF, Leipzig 2R, Moscow SF 2R, Filderstadt R Farina Elia 17 7 4 0 1 Strasbourg W, Roland Leipzig 2R, Moscow 1R, Filderstadt 1R, Garros R16 Zurich 1R Grande 46 3 6 0 3 Australian Open R16 or Los Dubai 2R, Indian Wells 2R, Miami 2R, Angeles QF or Filderstadt Amelia Island 1R, Charleston 1R, Berlin Qualifying 1R Hantuchova 8 6301Indian Wells W Wimbledon QF, San Diego 2R, Los Angeles 2R Hénin 5 9 2 0 0 Berlin W, Rome F (5 streaks of 2 losses) Hingis 10 10 2 1 0 Sydney W, Australian Open U. S. Open R16, Moscow 1R F Kournikova 35 4 5 0 2 San Diego SF or Shanghai F Acapulco SF, Indian Wells 1R, Miami 1R, Amelia Island 1R, Charleston 1R or Rumos R16, Strasbourg 1R, Roland Garros 1R, Eastbourne 1R, Wimbledon 1R Kremer 25 4 6 0 2 Amelia Island SF Los Angeles R16, Canadian Open 1R, U. S. Open 1R, Big Island 1R, Quebec City 1R, Moscow 1R

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 93 Longest Longest Streaks Streaks Events in Longest Win Events in Longest Loss Streak Player Win Loss of 10+ of 3+ Streak Name Rank Streak Streak Wins Losses Majoli 32 10 3 1 3 Charleston W, Bol F Wimbledon 3R, Helsinki 1R, Canadian Open 1R or Bahia 2R, Leipzig 1R, Moscow 1R or Filderstadt 2R, Zurich 1R, Linz 1R (also streak from 2001) Maleeva 14 5 2 0 0 Moscow W (6 streaks of 2 losses) Martinez 34 4 3 0 1 Bali F Australian Open 2R, Acapulco 1R, Indian Wells 1R Mauresmo 6 7 2 0 0 Canadian Open W, New Amelia Island 2R, Charleston 2R Haven QF Montolio 133 7 13 0 3 Porto W, Estoril QF Estoril QF-U. S. Open 1R Myskina 11 8 3 0 1 Bahia W, Leipzig F Leipzig F, Moscow 1R, Filderstadt 1R Nagyova 59 4 6 0 3 Warsaw F or Sopot F Bahia QF, Princess Cup 1R, Filderstadt 1RQ, Bratislava 1R, Luxembourg 1R, Pattaya 1R Panova 23 4 5 0 5 Auckland F or Sarasota F Sarasota F, Amelia Island 1R, Charleston 1R, Hamburg 1R, Berlin 1R Pierce 52 4 4 0 1 Roland Garros QF Wimbledon 3R, San Diego 1R, Canadian Open 1R, U. S. Open 1R Raymond 29 4 4 0 2 Memphis W or Big Island F Stanford SF, San Diego 1R, Canadian Open 1R, New Haven 1R Rubin 13 8 3 0 1 Eastbourne W, Wimbledon U. S. Open R16, Fiderstadt 1R, Zurich R16 1R Sanchez- 53 4 4 0 5 Brussels F (losses in 2001 plus) Sydney 1R, Vicario Australian Open 1R, Doha 1R, Acapulco 2R; also Helsiniki 2R, Canadian Open 1R, New Haven 1R; U. S. Open 1R Schett 40 3 2 0 0 Canadian Open QF Pan Pacific 2R, Paris 1R or Brussels QF, Los Angeles 1R or Big Island 2R, Moscow 1RQ Schiavone 41 3 3 0 1 U. S. Open R16 Scottsdale QF, Indian Wells 2R, Miami 2R Schnyder 15 5 3 0 1 Charleston F or Zurich W Canberra QF, Australian Open 1R, Paris 1R Seles 7 8 1 0 0 Madrid W, Roland Garros — QF Serna 50 6 6 0 1 Estoril W, Hamburg 2R Australian Open 3R, Pan Pacific 1R, Paris 1R, Scottsdale 1R, Indian Wells 1R, Miami 1R Shaughnessy 30 4 5 0 1 Sydney F Sarasota SF, Amelia Island 2R, Charleston 2R, Berlin 2R, Rome 1R Smashnova 16 10 4 1 3 Acukland W, Canberra W San Diego QF, Los Angeles 2R, Canadian Open 1R, New Haven 1R Stevenson 18 5 5 0 1 Sydney QF+Qualifying or Birmingham 3R, Eastbourne 1R, Pan Pacific QF+Qualifying Wimbledon 1R, Stanford 1R, San Diego or Filderstadt 1R QF+Qualifying or Zurich QF+Qualifying Suarez 27 4 4 0 2 Acapulco F or Roland U. S. Open 2R, Bahia 1R, Leipzig 1R, Garros QF Moscow 1R

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 94 Longest Longest Streaks Streaks Events in Longest Win Events in Longest Loss Streak Player Win Loss of 10+ of 3+ Streak Name Rank Streak Streak Wins Losses Sugiyama 24 4 3 0 2 Los Angeles SF Miami 3R, Sarasota 1R, Amelia Island 1R or Japan Open QF, Zurich 1R, Linz 1R Tanasugarn 28 4 3 0 3 Canberra F Miami 3R, Sarasota 1R, Hamburg 1R or Berlin 2R, Rome 1R, Madrid 1R or Roland Garros 3R, Birmingham 2R, Eastbourne 1R Testud 38 3 2 0 0 Dubai F or Charleston SF (4 streaks of 2 losses plus a carryover from 2001) Tulyaganova 55 3 1 0 3 Vienna F Australian Open 3R, Pan Pacific 1R, Dubai 1R S.Williams 1211 30Rome W, Roland Garros W, — Wimbledon W, Los Angeles QF V. Williams 2192 10Stanford W, San Diego W, U. S. Open F, Moscow 2R New Haven W, U. S. Open F (also a 24-match streak with the first 16 wins in 2001)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 95 List of Longest Winning Streaks The following list shows all winning streaks of ten or more matches, in descending order, including the tournaments involved and the surfaces on which they were achieved. Number Player Tournaments and Results Surfaces of Wins (24) V. Williams [San Diego 2001 (5)], [New Haven 2001 (4)], [U. S. Hard Open 2001 (7)], Gold Coast 2002 (4), Australian Open QF (4) 21 S. Williams Rome (5), Roland Garros (7), Wimbledon (7), Los Clay, Grass, Hard Angeles QF (2) 19 V. Williams Stanford (4), San Diego (5), New Haven (4), U. S. Hard Open F (6) 18 S. Williams U. S. Open (7), Princess Cup (4), Leipzig (4), Los Hard, Indoor Angeles Championships F (3) 12 S. Williams Scottsdale W (4), Miami W (6), Charleston QF (2) Hard, Clay 10 Smashnova Auckland (5), Canberra (5) Hard 10 Hingis Sydney (4), Australian Open F (6) Hard 10 Capriati Australian Open W (7), Scottsdale F (3) Hard 10 Majoli Charleston W (6), Bol F (4) Clay

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 96 Number of Significant Results For our purposes, define a “significant result” as one which earns a player at least 100 points. The following table shows the number of significant results earned top players. (The figure in the “100+ Points” column is the number of the player’s tournaments in which she earned 100+ points; similarly in the “200+ Points” column.). We note with some surprise that Venus outperformed Serena in this regard, and even Seles topped Serena in fraction of events with 100+ points (though Serena beats Seles in the 200+ category), and that Hingis is fourth. Player Name WTA Events Events w/ Events w/ Events w/ % with % with Rank Played 100+ Pts 200+ Pts 400+ Pts 100+ points 200+ points Bedanova 37 25 2008%0% Bovina 26 23 41017%4% Capriati 3 17 11 7 2 65% 41% Clijsters 4 21 12 7 2 57% 33% Coetzer 21 22 40018%0% Daniilidou 22 26 42015%8% Davenport 12 974078%44% Déchy 20 24 40017%0% Dementieva 19 26 60023%0% Dokic 9 29 14 3 0 48% 10% Farina Elia 17 29 41014%3% Hantuchova 8 25 10 4 1 40% 16% Hénin 5 23 12 6 2 52% 26% Hingis 10 12 84167%33% Kournikova 35 25 2008%0% Kremer 25 28 30011%0% Majoli 32 23 2109%4% Maleeva 14 25 51120%4% Martinez 34 24 31013%4% Mauresmo 6 17 11 5 2 65% 29% Montolio 133 23 1004%0% Myskina 11 29 73024%10% Panova 23 31 3 0 0 10% 0% Pierce 52 13 21015%8% Raymond 29 22 40018%0% Rubin 13 14 72150%14% Sanchez-Vicario 53 24 1004%0% Schett 40 21 1005%0% Schiavone 41 23 2109%4% Schnyder 15 25 42016%8% Seles 7 15 13 7 1 87% 47% Shaughnessy 30 27 2107%4% Smashnova 16 29 61021%3% Stevenson 18 24 51021%4% Suarez 27 23 2109%4% Sugiyama 24 27 2107%4% Tanasugarn 28 26 30012%0% Testud 38 14 31021%7% Tulyaganova 55 21 1005%0% S.Williams 1 13 11 10 6 85% 77% V.Williams 2 16 15 13 3 94% 81%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 97 Points Per Quarter For those who want trends, we can also determine how well players did in each part of the year. In the lists which follow, quarters are reckoned based on when a tournament ends. So, e.g., Wimbledon began in June but ended in July; its points are counted toward the July total. Players are ranked in order of points per tournament. A player in italics is one with too few tournaments in the quarter for the result to be considered meaningful. In a few places I have listed players outside the Top 10 for the quarter who had a high per- tournament score. Note that in a handful of instances these lists include players not in the Top 20. First Quarter (Constituting the period from the beginning of the year to Miami) Rank Player Points Tournaments Per Tournament 1 Capriati 1521 4 380 2 S. Williams 1063 3 354 3 Hingis 1861 6 310 4V. Williams 1387 6 231 5 Seles 1606 7 229 6 Clijsters 678 4 149 7 Mauresmo 842 5 168 8 Hantuchova 768 7 109 9 Hénin 751 7 107 10 Farina Elia 635 8 79 11 Smashnova 453 6 76 12 Tanasugarn 525 7 75 13 Stevenson 579 8 72 14 Testud 420 6 70 Second Quarter (Constituting the period from the Sarasota/Porto to Eastbourne) Rank Player Points Tournaments Per Tournament 1 S. Williams 1817 4 454 2V. Williams 1130 3 377 3 Capriati 974 4 244 4 Hénin 1079 6 179 5 Seles 477 3 159 6 Clijsters 681 5 136 7 Hingis 133 1 133 8 Rubin 655 5 131 9 Dokic 1109 10 111 10 C. Fernandez 768.25 7 110 11 Suarez 647 7 92 12 Majoli 596 7 85.1 13 Myskina 737 9 82 14 Farina Elia 626 8 78

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 98 Third Quarter (Constituting the period from Wimbledon to Leipzig and Bali) Rank Player Points Tournaments Per Tournament 1 S. Williams 2716 5 543 2V. Williams 2326 5 465 3 Mauresmo 1558 4 390 4Davenport 1116 5 223 5 Capriati 959 5 192 6 Seles 713 4 178 7 Rubin 870 5 174 8 Hantuchova 1012 7 145 9 Hénin 828 6 138 10 Dokic 1037 9 115 11 Myskina 879 8 110 12 Bovina 643 6 107 13 Hingis 318 3 106 14 Clijsters 797 8 100 Fourth Quarter (Constituting the period from Moscow to the Los Angeles Championships and Pattaya City.) Rank Player Points Tournaments Per Tournament 1 S.Williams 484 1 484 2 Clijsters 1435 4 359 3 Stevenson 610.75 3 204 4Davenport 679 4 170 5 Seles 156 1 156 6 Maleeva 778 5 156 7 Henin 625 4 156 8 Schnyder 462 3 154 9V.Williams 297 2 149 10 Mauresmo 289 2 145 11 Hantuchova 490 4 123 12 Martinez 214 2 107 13 Capriati 342 4 86 14 Dementieva 376 5 75

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 99 Most Consistent over Four Quarters The data in the previous section allows us to calculate another consistency ranking, based on who had the best results from quarter to quarter. All told, 24 different players ended in the Top Twelve in at least one quarter, though only Hénin, Seles, Serena Williams, and Venus Williams made it in all four quarters (Capriati missed in the last quarter, Clijsters in the third quarter, Hantuchova in the second, Mauresmo, the second, and Hingis in the third and fourth). In the list below, I have added up the player’s per-quarter score for each of the four quarters. Lowest is best, i.e. most consistent. Players not in the Top 14 in any given quarter are assigned an arbitrary value of 15 (meaning, obviously, that the maximum possible score is 60), but a player must make the Top 12 at least once to be listed. Injuries being what they are, this is a long way from perfect (e.g. Hingis didn’t really play in quarter 4, and Davenport didn’t play at all in quarters 1 and 2), but it may provide an indication. Unfortunately, there is no good way to control for underplaying players. I’ve tried; it didn’t work. Consistency Rank Name WTA Rank Consistency Score 1 S. Williams 1 5 2V. Williams 2 17 3 Seles 7 21 4 Capriati 3 22 5 Clijsters 4 28 6 Hénin 5 29 7 Mauresmo 6 35 8Davenport 12 38 8 Hingis 10 38 10 Hantuchova 8 42 11 Rubin 13 45 12 Stevenson 18 46 13 Dokic 9 49 14 Maleeva 14 51 15 Schnyder 15 53 16 Farina Elia 17 54 16 Myskina 11 54 18 C. Fernandez 31 55 19 Suarez 27 56 19 Smashnova 16 56 21 Bovina 26 57 21 Majoli 32 57 21 Martinez 34 57 21 Tanasugarn 28 57

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 100 Slam Results From the standpoint of difficulty, the Slams are overrated. Slam results, e.g., are worth twice as much as the results of Tier I events, even though Tier I events are played in a shorter time against a tougher field (to win the Canadian Open, a player must win five or six matches in seven days, with every opponent probably in the Top Fifty; to win the U. S. Open requires seven matches in no less than twelve days, with probably at least two opponents outside the Top Fifty). Still, they are the events people remember, and so deserve some separate consideration. The following summarizes the top players’ slam results. The column, “Total Opponent Rank” adds up the rankings of one’s opponents. The next column divides this by the number of matches played. The lower this number, the tougher the average opponent was (note: Players ranked outside the Top 100 have been calculated as “100”). It is not properly a scheme for ranking; it simply calculated how tough, overall, the players’ draw was. Player WTA Won-Lost Winning Pts Slams Points/ Versus Total Per Rnk in Slams Percentage Earned Slam Top 10 Opp. Rnk Opponent Bedanova 37 6-4 60% 310 4 77.5 0-2 517 51.7 Bovina 26 5-4 56% 386 4 96.5 1-1 359 39.9 Capriati 3 20-3 87% 1966 4 491.5 4-2 983 42.7 Clijsters 4 10-4 71% 660 4 165.0 1-2 960 68.6 Coetzer 21 6-4 60% 320 4 80.0 0-2 525 52.5 Daniilidou 22 6-4 60% 254 4 63.5 0-2 533 53.3 Davenport 12 5-1 83% 398 1 398.0 0-1 348 58.0 Déchy 20 8-4 67% 378 4 94.5 0-3 604 50.3 Dementieva 19 10-4 71% 458 4 114.5 0-2 821 58.6 Dokic 9 8-3 73% 410 3 136.7 0-1 577 52.5 Farina Elia 17 10-4 71% 458 4 114.5 0-1 886 63.3 Fernandez 31 6-41 60% 548 4 137.0 1-1 524 52.4 Grande 46 6-4 60% 266 4 66.5 0-3 552 55.2 Hantuchova 8 13-4 76% 874 4 218.5 1-4 608 35.8 Hénin 5 12-4 75% 872 4 218.0 0-2 851 53.2 Hingis 10 9-2 82% 768 2 384.0 1-2 563 51.2 Kournikova 35 0-4 0% 8 4 2.0 0-1 206 51.5 Kremer 25 4-4 50% 174 4 43.5 0-0 559 69.9 Majoli 32 6-4 60% 306 4 76.5 0-0 577 57.7 Maleeva 14 8-4 67% 416 4 104 0-1 722 60.2 Martinez 35 5-4 56% 238 4 59.5 0-1 523 58.1 Mauresmo 6 17-4 81% 1460 4 365 3-3 1042 49.6 Montolio 133 0-4 0% 8 4 2.0 0-1 217 54.3 Myskina 11 5-4 56% 186 4 46.5 0-0 594 66.0 Nagyova 59 1-4 20% 68 4 17.0 0-0 311 62.2 Panova 23 7-4 64% 268 4 67.0 0-0 738 67.1 Pierce 52 6-4 60% 436 4 109.0 1-1 564 56.4 Raymond 29 7-4 64% 280 4 70.0 0-1 721 65.5 Rubin 13 9-3 75% 556 3 185.3 0-3 409 34.1 Sanchez-Vicario 53 0-3 0% 6 3 2.0 0-0 211 70.3 Schett 40 5-4 56% 216 4 54.0 0-0 615 68.3 Schiavone 41 8-4 67% 436 4 109.0 0-2 671 55.9 Schnyder 15 6-4 60% 266 4 66.5 0-3 532 53.2 Seles 7 17-4 81% 1294 4 323.5 2-4 1002 47.7 Serna 50 2-4 33% 74 4 18.5 0-0 396 66.0 Shaughnessy 30 5-4 56% 198 4 49.5 0-1 648 72.0

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 101 Smashnova 16 1-4 20% 54 4 13.5 0-0 320 64.0 Stevenson 18 0-4 0% 8 4 2.0 0-0 301 75.3 Suarez 27 5-4 56% 408 4 102.0 1-0 570 63.3 Sugiyama 24 6-4 60% 224 4 56.0 0-1 724 72.4 Tanasugarn 28 8-4 67% 318 4 79.5 0-2 787 65.6 Testud 38 1-3 25% 52 3 17.3 0-0 247 82.3 Tulyaganova 55 6-4 60% 226 4 56.5 0-0 615 61.5 Williams, Serena 1 21-0 100% 3148 3 1049.3 5-0 945 45.0 Williams, Venus 2 22-4 85% 2240 4 560.0 4-4 1230 47.3 1. Fernandez also had three wins in Australian Open qualifying. These results, and these points, are not included in the above totals.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 102 Surface Rankings Most ratings to this point have been “overall” ratings, regardless of surface. However, players do most definitely have preferred surfaces. We may therefore compute “surface rankings.” The following tables show how the Top 25 did on each surface. Some other players have been added when their results warrant it. Results are listed in order of points per tournament on each surface. It is effectively certain that some players outside the Top 25 have exceeded some of the lower Top 25 players on certain surfaces (especially grass). I have noted these where I have been aware of them, but have not checked this for all players.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 103 Hardcourts Summary of Hardcourt Results The following lists the top players, the tournaments they played on hardcourts, the points earned on the surface, their record and winning percentage. The list is in alphabetical order. Player Won/Lost Vs. Tournaments Played Total Pts/ Name (Percent) Top 10 # of Tourn Bedanova 13Ð12 (52%) 0Ð4 Gold Coast (75), Sydney (1), Australian Open (48), Scottsdale (61), 535÷12= Indian Wells (32), Miami (1), Stanford (48), San Diego (1), Los 44.6 Angeles (40), Canadian Open (31), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (196) Bovina 13Ð9 (59%) 1Ð4 Sydney Qualifying (14.75), Australian Open (2), Scottsdale (1), Indian 485.75÷9 Wells (20), Miami (1), Los Angeles (24), Canadian Open qualifying =54 (15.25), New Haven (77.75), U. S. Open (330) Capriati 27Ð7 (79%) 6Ð5 Sydney (1), Australian Open (1008), Scottsdale (185), Miami (327), 2216÷8= San Diego (80), Los Angeles (72), Canadian Open (313), U. S. Open 277 (230) Clijsters 22Ð10 (69%) 4Ð7 Sydney (166), Australian Open (410), Indian Wells (1), Miami (101), 1341÷10= Stanford (189), San Diego (93), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (48), 134.1 U. S. Open (122), Princess Cup (210) Coetzer 18Ð9 (67%) 0-6 Sydney (26), Australian Open (160), Indian Wells (108), Miami (63), 713÷9= San Diego (19), Los Angeles (50), Canadian Open (81), U. S. Open 79.2 (118), Bahia (88) Daniilidou 14Ð10 (58%) 1Ð4 Canberra (18), Australian Open (94), Doha (31), Indian Wells (20), 573÷10= Miami (24), San Diego (23), Los Angeles (117), Canadian Open (1), U. 57.3 S. Open (2), Bahia (243) Davenport 17Ð5 (77%) 1Ð4 Stanford (154), San Diego (145), Los Angeles (194), New Haven (225), 1116÷5= U. S. Open (398) 223.2 Déchy 15Ð10 (60%) 1Ð3 Canberra (28), Australian Open (142), Scottsdale (154), Indian Wells 665÷10= (98), Miami (1), San Diego (25), Los Angeles (35), Canadian Open 66.5 (46), U. S. Open (92), Bahia (44) Dementieva 10Ð9 (53%) 0Ð2 Sydney (1), Australian Open (144), Indian Wells (38), Miami (129), 431÷9= San Diego (44), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (33), New Haven (1), 47.9 U. S. Open (40) Dokic 19Ð9 (68%) 2Ð4 Indian Wells (36), Miami (38), Stanford (65), San Diego (267), Los 978÷9= Angeles (118), Canadian Open (192), U. S. Open (40), Bahia (118), 108.7 Princess Cup (104) Farina Elia 13Ð8 (62%) 0Ð3 Gold Coast (38), Sydney (33), Australian Open (92), Indian Wells (57), 436÷8= Miami (78), Canadian Open (27), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (110) 54.5 Grande 9Ð12 (43%) 0Ð2 Gold Coast (1), Hobart (28), Australian Open (144), Doha (1), Dubai 312÷12= (29), Indian Wells (1), Miami (1), Stanford (1), San Diego (1), Los 26 Angeles (102), Canadian Open (1), U. S. Open (2) Hantuchova 23Ð9 (72%) 3Ð5 Gold Coast (24), Sydney (89.75), Australian Open (72), Indian Wells 1306.75÷ (481), Miami (1), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open 10= 130.7 (177), New Haven (138), U. S. Open (322) Hénin 16Ð9 (64%) 0Ð4 Gold Coast (114), Sydney (82), Australian Open (260), Indian Wells 733÷9= (63), Miami (1), Stanford (1), Canadian Open (89), New Haven (1), U. 81.4 S. Open (122) Hingis 27Ð7 (79%) 3Ð5 Sydney (338), Australian Open (624), Scottsdale (105), Indian Wells 1801÷8= (312), Miami (104), Canadian Open (87), New Haven (87), U. S. Open 225.1 (144)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 104 Kournikova 16Ð11 (59%) 0Ð5 Auckland (69), Sydney (48), Australian Open (2), Dubai (29), Indian 506÷11= Wells (1), Miami (1), Stanford (76), San Diego (153), Canadian Open 46 (27), U. S. Open (2), Shanghai (98) Krasnorout 9Ð6 (60%) 0-2 Australian Open (2), Los Angeles (22), Bronx $50K Qualifying (4), 155÷6= Princess Cup (29), Bali (49), Pattaya (49) 25.8 Kremer 12Ð11 (52%) 2Ð2 Auckland (30), Canberra (1), Australian Open (52), Indian Wells (98), 391.75÷ Miami (90), Stanford (50.75), San Diego (33), Los Angeles (33), 11=35.6 Canadian Open (1), U. S. Open (2), Big Island (1) Likhovtsev 9Ð13 (41%) 0-2 Gold Coast (24), Canberra (14), Australian Open (2), Scottsdale (1), 234÷13= Indian Wells (36), Miami (20), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (1), 18 Canadian Open (1), New Haven qualifying (1), U. S. Open (34), Big Island (27), Princess Cup (72) Majoli 6Ð9 (40%) 0-0 Gold Coast (1), Canberra (1), Australian Open (102), Indian Wells (1), 293÷9= Miami (17), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (60), U. S. Open (80), 32.6 Bahia (30) Maleeva 7Ð7 (50%) 0Ð2 Sydney (1), Australian Open (152), Indian Wells (1), Miami (36), San 315÷7= Diego (44), Los Angeles (1), U. S. Open (80) 45 Martinez 13Ð12 (50%) 0Ð3 Auckland (1), Sydney (60), Australian Open (52), Indian Wells (1), 427÷12= Miami (24), Stanford (29), San Diego (67), New Haven (1), U. S. Open 35.6 (40), Big Island (32), Princess Cup (1), Bali (119) Mauresmo 22Ð4 (85%) 3Ð4 Sydney (95), Australian Open (244), Dubai (289), Canadian Open 1664÷6= (388), New Haven (76), U. S. Open (572) 277.3 Montolio 2Ð9 (18%) 0Ð1 Auckland (1), Sydney (1), Australian Open (2), Doha (1), Dubai (59), 69÷9= 7.7 Indian Wells (1), Miami (1), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (2) Myskina 22Ð11 (67%) 3Ð4 Gold Coast (17), Sydney (19.75), Australian Open (40), Doha (61), 888.75÷ Dubai (68), Indian Wells (62), Miami (32), San Diego (39), Canadian 12=74.1 Open (1), New Haven (182), U. S. Open (72), Bahia (295) Nagyova 8Ð11 (42%) 0Ð2 Auckland (16), Sydney (48), Australian Open (2), Dubai (1), Miami 266.5÷11 (1), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (47.5), U. S. Open (62), Bahia =24.2 (86), Princess Cup (1), Pattaya (1) Panova 19Ð16 (54%) 0-3 Auckland (98), Australian Open (48), Doha (1), Dubai (35), Scottsdale 612÷16= (40), Indian Wells (32), Miami (134), Stanford (1), San Diego (1), Los 38.3 Angeles (35), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (72), Bahia (1), Princess Cup (63), Pattaya (49) Pierce 1Ð5 (16%) 0Ð0 Hobart (18), Australian Open (2), San Diego (1), Canadian Open (1), 24÷5=4.8 U. S. Open (2) Raymond 16Ð11 (59%) 1Ð2 Sydney (40), Australian Open (72), Scottsdale (1), Indian Wells (119), 594÷11= Miami (32), Stanford (166), San Diego (1), Canadian Open (1), New 54 Haven (1), U. S. Open (72), Big Island (89) Rubin 10Ð3 (77%) 3Ð2 San Diego (39), Los Angeles (419), Canadian Open (46), U. S. Open 672÷4= (168) 168 Sanchez-Vi 9Ð11 (45%) 0Ð1 Sydney (1), Australian Open (2) Doha (1), Indian Wells (147), Miami 354÷11= (72), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (2), Princess Cup 32.2 (33), Bali (78), Japan Open (16) Schett 11Ð9 (55%) 1Ð2 Sydney (1), Australian Open (72), Scottsdale (60), Indian Wells (36), 417÷9= Miami (30), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (155), U. S. Open (48), 46.3 Big Island (14) Schiavone 12Ð11 (52%) 0Ð2 Canberra (1), Australian Open (68), Scottsdale (74), Indian Wells (1), 472÷10= Miami (1), San Diego (30), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (78), New 47.2 Haven qualifying (8), U. S. Open (210) Schnyder 9Ð8 (53%) 0Ð2 Gold Coast (18), Canberra (32), Australian Open (2), Miami (1), 294÷8= Canadian Open (33), New Haven (63), U. S. Open (80), Bahia (65) 36.8

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 105 Seles 26Ð7 (79%) 3Ð5 Australian Open (500), Doha (163), Dubai (119), Indian Wells (206), 1684÷8= Miami (245), Stanford (64), U. S. Open (268), Bahia (119) 210.5 Serna 6Ð9 (40%) 0Ð1 Sydney (1), Australian Open (68), Scottsdale (1), Indian Wells (1), 125.5÷9= Miami (1), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (38.5), New Haven 13.9 qualifying (12), U. S. Open (2) Shaughness 15Ð12 (56%) 1Ð5 Gold Coast (20), Sydney (208), Australian Open (80), Scottsdale (1), 586÷12= Indian Wells (59), Miami (30), Stanford (27), San Diego (39), Los 48.8 Angeles (1), New Haven (40), U. S. Open (80), Bahia (1) Smashnova 24Ð10 (71%) 0Ð1 Auckland (129), Canberra (106), Australian Open (2), Indian Wells 724÷13= (136), Miami (79), Stanford (1), San Diego (98), Los Angeles (1), 55.7 Canadian Open (1), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (48), Shanghai (121), Princess Cup (1) Stevenson 14Ð12 (54%) 1Ð4 Gold Coast (1), Sydney (165.75), Australian Open (2), Scottsdale (35), 495.75÷ Indian Wells (82), Miami (72), Stanford (1), San Diego (1), Los 12=41.3 Angeles (29), Canadian Open (76), New Haven (29), U. S. Open (2) Suarez 6Ð9 (40%) 0Ð1 Hobart (12), Australian Open (2), Indian Wells (1), Miami (47), San 173÷9= Diego (19), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (38), U. S. Open (52), 19.2 Bahia (1) Sugiyama 25Ð14 (64%) 1Ð5 Gold Coast (48), Sydney (11.75), Australian Open (84), Scottsdale 864.75÷ (48), Indian Wells (76), Miami (29), Stanford (1), San Diego (123), Los 14=61.8 Angeles (214), Canadian Open (76), U. S. Open (36), Shanghai (57), Princess Cup (29), Japan Open (32) Tanasugarn 24Ð16 (60%) 0Ð5 Canberra (86), Australian Open (80), Doha (109), Dubai (74), Indian 730÷16= Wells (32), Miami (36), Stanford (35), San Diego (1), Los Angeles 45.6 (33), Canadian Open (33), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (48), Princess Cup (74), Bali (1), Japan Open (61), Pattaya (26) Testud 5Ð5 (50%) 1Ð2 Gold Coast (1), Sydney (74), Australian Open (2), Doha (1), Dubai 328÷5= (250) 65.6 Tulyaganov 8Ð11 (42%) 9Ð2 Sydney (1), Australian Open (66), Dubai (1), Indian Wells (32), Miami 283÷11= (64), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (24), Canadian Open (1), New Haven 25.7 (40), U. S. Open (52), Bahia (1) S. Williams 25Ð2 (93%) 9Ð0 Sydney (139), Scottsdale (334), Miami (590), Los Angeles (65), U. S. 2432÷6= Open (1040), Princess Cup (264) 405.3 V. Williams 33Ð4 (89%) 8Ð3 Gold Coast (198), Australian Open (274), Dubai (102), Miami (212), 2494÷8= Stanford (291), San Diego (389), New Haven (296), U. S. Open (732) 311.8

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 106 Winning Percentage on Hardcourts Where two players have equal winning percentages, the player with the higher number of hardcourt wins is listed first. Where this fails, the player with the higher WTA rank is first, but this does not break ties Rank Player Won Lost Winning% WTA Rank 1 S. Williams 25 2 93% 1 2V. Williams 33 4 89% 2 3 Mauresmo 22 4 85% 6 4 Capriati 27 7 79% 3 4 Hingis 27 7 79% 10 6 Seles 26 7 79% 7 7Davenport 17 5 77% 12 8 Rubin 10 3 77% 13 9 Hantuchova 23 9 72% 8 10 Smashnova 24 10 71% 16 11 Clijsters 22 10 69% 4 12 Dokic 19 9 68% 9 13 Myskina 22 11 67% 11 14 Coetzer 18 9 67% 21 15 Sugiyama 25 14 64% 24 16 Hénin 16 9 64% 5 17 Farina Elia 13 8 62% 17 18 Tanasugarn 24 16 60% 28 19 Déchy 15 10 60% 20 [20] Krasnoroutskaya 9 6 60% 175 20 Raymond 16 11 59% 29 20 Kournikova 16 11 59% 35 22 Bovina 13 9 59% 26 23 Daniilidou 14 10 58% 22 24 Shaughnessy 15 12 56% 30 25 Schett 11 9 55% 40 Panova 19 16 54% 23 Stevenson 14 12 54% 18 Schnyder 9 8 53% 15 Dementieva 10 9 53% 19 Schiavone 12 11 52% 41 Kremer 12 11 52% 25 Martinez 13 12 52% 34 Bedanova 13 12 52% 37 Maleeva 7 7 50% 14 Testud 5 5 50% 38 Sanchez-Vicario 9 11 45% 53 Grande 9 12 43% 46 Tulyaganova 8 11 42% 55 Nagyova 8 11 42% 59 Likhovtseva 9 13 41% 42 Suarez 6 9 40% 27 Majoli 6 9 40% 32 Serna 6 9 40% 50

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 107 Points Per Tournament on Hardcourts Hard Rank Player Name Hard Points Tourn on Hard Points/Tourn WTA Rank 1 S. Williams 2432 6 405.3 1 2V. Williams 2494 8 311.8 2 3 Mauresmo 1664 6 277.3 6 4 Capriati 2216 8 277 3 5 Hingis 1801 8 225.1 10 6Davenport 1116 5 223.2 12 7 Seles 1684 8 210.5 7 8 Rubin 672 4 168 13 9 Clijsters 1341 10 134.1 4 10 Hantuchova 1306.75 10 130.7 8 11 Dokic 978 9 108.7 9 12 Hénin 733 9 81.4 5 13 Coetzer 713 9 79.2 21 14 Myskina 888.75 12 74.1 11 15 Déchy 665 10 66.5 20 16 Testud 328 5 65.6 38 17 Sugiyama 864.75 14 61.8 24 18 Daniilidou 573 10 57.3 22 19 Smashnova 724 13 55.7 16 20 Farina Elia 436 8 54.5 17 21 Raymond 594 11 54 29 22 Bovina 485.75 9 54 26 23 Shaughnessy 586 12 48.8 30 24 Dementieva 431 9 47.9 19 25 Schiavone 472 10 47.2 41 26 Schett 417 9 46.3 40 27 Kournikova 506 11 46 35 28 Tanasugarn 730 16 45.6 28 29 Maleeva 315 7 45 14 30 Bedanova 535 12 44.6 37 Stevenson 495.75 12 41.3 18 Panova 612 16 38.3 23 Schnyder 294 8 36.8 15 Kremer 391.75 11 35.6 25 Martinez 427 12 35.6 34 Majoli 293 9 32.6 32 Sanchez-Vicario 354 11 32.2 53 Grande 312 12 26 46 Krasnoroutskaya 155 6 25.8 175 Tulyaganova 283 11 25.7 55 Nagyova 266.5 11 24.2 59 Suarez 173 9 19.2 27 Likhovtseva 234 13 18 42 Serna 125.5 9 13.9 50 Montolio 69 9 7.7 133 Pierce 24 5 4.8 52

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 108 Best and Worst Results on Hardcourts The following tables list a player’s best and worst results on this surface. Of these, the worst result may be the better measure of ability — a player who avoids bad losses is at least more consistent than one with a mixture of good and bad results. Best Result Worst Result 1 S. Williams 1040 1Davenport 145 2 Capriati 1008 2V. Williams 102 3V. Williams 732 3 Hingis 87 4 Hingis 624 4 Mauresmo 76 5 Mauresmo 572 5 S. Williams 65 6 Seles 500 6 Seles 64 7 Hantuchova 481 7 Rubin 39 8 Rubin 419 8 Dokic 36 9 Clijsters 410 9 Coetzer 19 10 Davenport 398 11 Bovina 330 All other Top 30 players, including 12 Myskina 295 Capriati, Clijsters, Hénin, Hantuchova, 13 Dokic 267 Myskina, Maleeva, Schnyder, Smashnova, 14 Hénin 260 Farina Elia, Stevenson, Dementieva, Déchy, 15 Testud 250 Daniilidou, Panova, Sugiyama, Kremer, 16 Daniilidou 243 Bovina, Suarez, Tanasugarn, Raymond, and 17 Sugiyama 214 Shaughnessy, had at least one first-round 18 Schiavone 210 loss on hardcourts. 19 Shaughnessy 208 20 Bedanova 196 21 Raymond 166 22 Stevenson 165.75 23 Coetzer 160 24 Schett 155 25 Déchy 154 Kournikova 153 Maleeva 152 Sanchez-Vicario 147 Grande 144 Dementieva 144 Smashnova 136 Panova 134 Martinez 119 Farina Elia 110 Tanasugarn 109 Majoli 102 Kremer 98 Nagyova 86 Schnyder 80 Likhovtseva 72 Serna 68 Tulyaganova 66 Montolio 59 Suarez 52 Krasnoroutskaya 49 Pierce 18

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 109 Clay Summary of Clay Results The following lists the top players, the tournaments they played on clay, the points earned on the surface, their record and winning percentage. The list is in alphabetical order. Player Won/Lost Vs. Tournaments Played Total Pts/ Name (Percent) Top 10 # of Tourn Bedanova 2Ð3 (40%) 0Ð0 Sarasota (14), Berlin (46), Strasbourg (1), Roland Garros (2) 63÷4=15.8 Bovina 8Ð4 (67%) 0Ð0 Estoril (57), Budapest (1), Bol (1), Warsaw (116), Roland Garros (2) 177÷5= 35.4 Capriati 14Ð4 (78%) 1Ð3 Charleston (151), Berlin (190), Rome (169), Roland Garros (464) 974÷4= 243.5 Clijsters 9Ð3 (75%) 3Ð1 Hamburg (361), Berlin (1), Rome (200), Roland Garros (88) 650÷4= 162.5 Coetzer 5Ð5 (50%) 0Ð0 Acapulco (39), Amelia Island (1), Charleston (91), Berlin (1), Roland 134÷5= Garros (2) 26.8 Daniilidou 7Ð7 (50%) 0Ð1 Acapulco (1), Porto (32), Estoril (1), Budapest (46), Berlin (1), 160÷7= Strasbourg (39), Roland Garros (40) 22.9 Davenport — — — Déchy 10Ð6 (63%) 0Ð2 Sarasota (1), Amelia Island (68), Charleston (71), Berlin (137), Rome 374÷6= (33), Roland Garros (64) 62.3 Dementieva 10Ð7 (59%) 0Ð1 Acapulco (63), Amelia Island (87), Charleston (27), Bol (34), Berlin 347÷7= (1), Rome (1), Roland Garros (134) 49.6 Dokic 20Ð7 (74%) 1Ð3 Sarasota (157), Amelia Island (135), Charleston (1), Hamburg (156), 922÷8= Berlin (40), Rome (61), Strasbourg (134), Roland Garros (238) 115.3 Farina Elia 14Ð8 (64%) 1Ð3 Amelia Island (69), Charleston (1), Berlin (56), Rome (63), 584÷9= Strasbourg (205), Roland Garros (172), Vienna (1), Sopot (1), 64.9 Helsinki (16) Fernandez 19Ð5 (79%) 1Ð2 Sarasota Qualifying (6), Amelia Island (30.75), Charleston (100.75), 722.25÷6= Rome (13.5), Madrid (67.25), Roland Garros (504) 120.4 Grande 4Ð6 (40%) 0Ð2 Amelia Island (1), Charleston (1), Berlin (1), Rome (25), Madrid (26), 126÷6= 21 Roland Garros (72) Hantuchova 10Ð6 (63%) 1Ð2 Amelia Island (18), Charleston (31), Hamburg (67), Berlin (130), 423÷6= Rome (1), Roland Garros (176) 70.5 Hénin 14Ð4 (78%) 4Ð3 Amelia Island (221), Hamburg (59), Berlin (433), Rome (301), 1016÷5= Roland Garros (2) 203.2 Hingis 2Ð1 (67%) 0Ð1 Hamburg (133) 133÷1=133 Kournikova 6Ð8 (43%) 0Ð0 Acapulco (79), Amelia Island (1), Charleston (1), Bol (20), Warsaw 159÷8= (1), Rome (54), Strasbourg (1), Roland Garros (2) 19.9 Krasnorouts — — — Kremer 8Ð6 (57%) 1Ð2 Amelia Island (184), Charleston (1), Bol (1), Berlin (1), Rome (56), 315÷6= Roland Garros (72) 52.5 Leon Garcia 7Ð14 (33%) 0Ð0 Bogota (1), Acapulco (24), Sarasota (20), Amelia Island (1), 129.75÷14 Charleston (1), Hamburg qualifying (10.75), Berlin (1), Rome (1), = 9.3 Madrid (1), Roland Garros (2), Vienna (1), Brussels (16), Sopot (1), Helsinki (49) Likhovtseva 8Ð7 (53%) 0Ð3 Sarasota (1), Amelia Island (37), Charleston (25), Hamburg (1), 242÷7= Berlin (65), Rome (33), Roland Garros (80) 34.6

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 110 Majoli 14Ð7 (67%) 0Ð0 Sarasota (1), Amelia Island (37), Charleston (379), Bol (96), Madrid 597÷8= (1), Roland Garros (40), Vienna (42), Helsinki (1) 74.6 Maleeva 7Ð5 (58%) 0Ð1 Bol (20), Berlin (69), Rome (33), Strasbourg (75), Roland Garros (2) 199÷5= 39.8 Martinez 8Ð9 (47%) 0Ð3 Acapulco (1), Sarasota (1), Amelia Island (43), Charleston (31), 223÷9= Hamburg (33), Berlin (31), Rome (31), Roland Garros (36), Vienna 24.8 (16) Mauresmo 7Ð4 (64%) 0Ð1 Amelia Island (1), Charleston (1), Berlin (112), Rome (99), Roland 335÷5= 67 Garros (122) Montolio 9Ð11 (45%) 0Ð1 Porto (127), Estoril (32), Bol (1), Berlin (1), Rome (1), Madrid (1), 179.5÷12= Roland Garros (2), Casablanca (1), Sopot (1), Helsinki (1), Fano 15 $50K (10.5), Girona $50K+H (1) Myskina 11Ð7 (61%) 1Ð4 Sarasota (29), Amelia Island (41), Charleston (104), Hamburg (1), 367÷7= Berlin (33), Rome (157), Roland Garros (2) 52.4 Nagyova 15Ð10 (60%) 0Ð0 Sarasota (16), Amelia Island (1), Charleston (1), Bol (24), Warsaw 339÷10= (79), Rome (27), Roland Garros (2), Vienna (24), Palermo (42), Sopot 33.9 (123) Panova 8Ð7 (53%) 0Ð2 Sarasota (126), Amelia Island (1), Charleston (1), Hamburg (1), 254÷7= Berlin (1), Rome (56), Roland Garros (68) 36.3 Pierce 11Ð6 (65%) 0Ð4 Sarasota (27), Amelia Island (16), Charleston (83), Berlin (27), Rome 496÷6= (69), Roland Garros (274) 82.7 Raymond 2Ð4 (33%) 0Ð0 Amelia Island (1), Charleston (1), Strasbourg (42), Roland Garros (2) 46÷4= 11.5 Rubin 9Ð5 (64%) 0Ð2 Berlin (35), Rome Qualifying (1), Madrid (128), Roland Garros (190) 354÷4= 88.5 Sanchez-V 12Ð11 (52%) 0Ð1 Acapulco (1), Sarasota (1), Amelia Island (1), Charleston (38), 319÷11= Hamburg (67), Berlin (56), Madrid (1), Roland Garros (2), Brussels 29 (95), Sopot (43), Helsinki (14) Schett 9Ð6 (60%) 0Ð2 Hamburg (63), Berlin (38), Rome (31), Roland Garros (48), Vienna 247÷6= (40), Brussels (27) 41.2 Schiavone 5Ð6 (45%) 0Ð2 Amelia Island (18), Charleston (1), Hamburg (48), Berlin (1), Rome 211÷6= (25), Roland Garros (118) 35.2 Schnyder 16Ð10 (62%) 3Ð2 Sarasota (47), Amelia Island (22), Charleston (389), Hamburg (1), 724÷10= Rome (33), Madrid (1), Roland Garros (148), Vienna (48), Sopot (1), 72.4 Helsinki (34) Seles 9Ð2 (82%) 0Ð1 Charleston (46), Madrid (167), Roland Garros (264) 477÷3= 159 Serna 17Ð8 (68%) 0Ð0 Porto (81), Estoril (119), Hamburg (48), Berlin (1), Rome (25), 408÷9= Madrid (55), Roland Garros (2), Brussels (30), Sopot (47) 45.3 Shaughness 6Ð7 (46%) 0Ð1 Sarasota (71), Amelia Island (1), Charleston (1), Berlin (1), Rome (1), 158÷7= Strasbourg (81), Roland Garros (2) 22.6 Smashnova 18Ð8 (69%) 2Ð4 Acapulco (1), Sarasota (37.5), Amelia Island (1), Charleston (85), 628.5÷9= Berlin (245), Rome (33), Madrid (42), Roland Garros (2), Vienna 69.8 (182) Srebotnik 14Ð7 (67%) 0Ð1 Bogota (97), Acapulco (165), Estoril (16), Bol (18), Berlin (1), Rome 417÷8= Qualifying (1), Roland Garros (118), Vienna (1) 52.1 Stevenson 1Ð2 (33%) 0Ð0 Amelia Island (16), Roland Garros (2) 18÷2= 9 Suarez 22Ð10 (69%) 1Ð2 Bogota (36), Acapulco (155), Sarasota (32), Amelia Island (96), 880÷10= Charleston (81), Berlin (1), Rome (1), Madrid (84), Roland Garros 88 (352), Palermo (42) Sugiyama 4Ð6 (40%) 0Ð0 Sarasota (1), Amelia Island (1), Charleston (46), Rome (96), Madrid 181÷6= (1), Roland Garros (36) 30.2

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 111 Tanasugarn 3Ð6 (33%) 0Ð0 Sarasota (1), Hamburg (1), Berlin (31), Rome (1), Madrid (1), Roland 107÷6= Garros (72) 17.8 Testud 9Ð5 (64%) 0Ð2 Amelia Island (67), Charleston (147), Berlin (92), Rome (106), 414÷5= Roland Garros (2) 82.8 Torrens 10Ð13 (43%) 0Ð1 Bogota (67), Acapulco (38), Porto (1), Estoril (1), Hamburg (27) , 295÷13= Valero Berlin (76), Rome (1), Madrid (1), Roland Garros (32), Vienna (48), 22.7 Brussels (1), Sopot (1), Helsinki (1) Tulyaganov 8Ð6 (57%) 0Ð1 Hamburg (1), Berlin (50), Rome (27), Strasbourg (1), Roland Garros 259÷6= (68), Vienna (112) 43.2 S. Williams 17Ð2 (89%) 4Ð1 Charleston (92), Berlin (246), Rome (427), Roland Garros (1052) 1817÷4= 454.3 V. Williams 14Ð2 (88%) 3Ð2 Amelia Island (284), Hamburg (230), Roland Garros (616) 1130÷3= 376.7 Zuluaga 8Ð5 (62%) 0Ð0 Bogota (155), Sarasota (1), Amelia Island (1), Rome (1), Madrid (76), 236÷6= Roland Garros (2) 39.3 Zvonareva 21Ð5 (81%) 0Ð1 Bol (52.25?), Warsaw (55), Roland Garros (180), Palermo (79), Sopot 419.25÷5= (80) 83.9

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 112 Winning Percentage on Clay Rank Player Wins Losses Winning% WTA Rank 1 S. Williams 17 2 89% 1 2V. Williams 14 2 88% 2 3 Seles 9 2 82% 7 4Zvonareva 21 5 81% 45 5 C. Fernandez 19 5 79% 31 6 Hénin 14 4 78% 5 7 Capriati 14 4 78% 3 8 Clijsters 9 3 75% 4 9 Dokic 20 7 74% 9 10 Smashnova 18 8 69% 16 11 Suarez 22 10 69% 27 12 Serna 17 8 68% 50 13 Srebotnik 14 7 67% 36 14 Majoli 14 7 67% 32 15 Hingis 2 1 67% 10 16 Bovina 8 4 67% 26 17 Pierce 11 6 65% 52 18 Testud 9 5 64% 38 19 Rubin 9 5 64% 13 20 Mauresmo 7 4 64% 6 Farina Elia 14 8 64% 17 Hantuchova 10 6 63% 8 Déchy 10 6 63% 20 Zuluaga 8 5 62% 74 Schnyder 16 10 62% 15 Myskina 11 7 61% 11 Schett 9 6 60% 40 Nagyova 15 10 60% 59 Dementieva 10 7 59% 19 Maleeva 7 5 58% 14 Tulyaganova 8 6 57% 55 Kremer 8 6 57% 25 Panova 8 7 53% 23 Likhovtseva 8 7 53% 42 Sanchez-Vicario 12 11 52% 53 Daniilidou 7 7 50% 22 Coetzer 5 5 50% 21 Martinez 8 9 47% 34 Shaughnessy 6 7 46% 30 Schiavone 5 6 45% 41 Kournikova 6 8 43% 35 Sugiyama 4 6 40% 24 Bedanova 2 3 40% 37 Tanasugarn 3 6 33% 28 Stevenson 1 2 33% 18 Raymond 2 4 33% 29

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 113 Points Per Tournament on Clay Clay Rank Player Name Clay Points Tourn on Clay Points/Tourn WTA Rank 1 S. Williams 1817 4 454.3 1 2V. Williams 1130 3 376.7 2 3 Capriati 974 4 243.5 3 4 Hénin 1016 5 203.2 5 5 Clijsters 650 4 162.5 4 6 Seles 477 3 159 7 7 Hingis 133 1 133 10 8 C. Fernandez 722.25 6 120.4 31 9 Dokic 922 8 115.3 9 10 Rubin 354 4 88.5 13 11 Suarez 880 10 88 27 12 Zvonareva 419.25 5 83.9 45 13 Testud 414 5 82.8 38 14 Pierce 496 6 82.7 52 15 Majoli 597 8 74.6 32 16 Schnyder 724 10 72.4 15 17 Hantuchova 423 6 70.5 8 18 Smashnova 628.5 9 69.8 16 19 Mauresmo 335 5 67 6 20 Farina Elia 584 9 64.9 17 Déchy 374 6 62.3 20 Kremer 315 6 52.5 25 Myskina 367 7 52.4 11 Srebotnik 417 8 52.1 36 Dementieva 347 7 49.6 19 Serna 408 9 45.3 50 Tulyaganova 259 6 43.2 55 Schett 247 6 41.2 40 Maleeva 199 5 39.8 14 Zuluaga 236 6 39.3 74 Panova 254 7 36.3 23 Bovina 177 5 35.4 26 Schiavone 211 6 35.2 41 Likhovtseva 242 7 34.6 42 Nagyova 339 10 33.9 59 Sugiyama 181 6 30.2 24 Sanchez-Vicario 319 11 29 53 Coetzer 134 5 26.8 21 Martinez 223 9 24.8 34 Daniilidou 160 7 22.9 22 Torrens Valero 295 13 22.7 78 Shaughnessy 158 7 22.6 30 Kournikova 159 8 19.9 35 Tanasugarn 107 6 17.8 28 Bedanova 63 4 15.8 37 Raymond 46 4 11.5 29 Stevenson 18 2 9 18

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 114 Best and Worst Results on Clay The following tables list a player’s best and worst results on this surface. Of these, the worst result may be the better measure of ability — a player who avoids bad losses is at least more consistent than one with a mixture of good and bad results. Best Result Worst Result 1 S. Williams 1052 1V. Williams 230 2V. Williams 616 2 Capriati 151 3 C. Fernandez 504 3 Hingis 133 4 Capriati 464 5 Hénin 433 4 S. Williams 92 6 Schnyder 389 5Zvonareva 52.25 7 Majoli 379 6 Seles 46 8 Clijsters 361 7 Schett 27 9 Suarez 352 8 Pierce 16 10 Pierce 274 9 C. Fernandez 6 11 Seles 264 12 Smashnova 245 Davenport did not play clay. All other 13 Dokic 238 Top 30 players had at least one first- 14 Rubin 190 15 Kremer 184 round loss, though for Hénin, Maleeva, 16 Zvonareva 180 and Stevenson (who played only two 17 Hantuchova 176 clay events), that sole loss came at 18 Srebotnik 165 Roland Garros and was worth 2 points. 19 Zuluaga 155 Top 30 players with first round losses 20 Testud 147 not at Roland Garros were Clijsters, 21 Déchy 137 Mauresmo, Hantuchova, Dokic, 22 Dementieva 134 Myskina, Rubin, Schnyder, Smashnova, 23 Hingis 133 24 Montolio 127 Farina Elia, Dementieva, Déchy, 25 Panova 126 Coetzer, Daniilidou, Panova, Sugiyama, Nagyova 123 Kremer, Bovina, Suarez, Tanasugarn, Mauresmo 122 Raymond, and Shaughnessy. Serna 119 Schiavone 118 Bovina 116 Tulyaganova 112 Farina Elia 105 Myskina 104 Sugiyama 96 Sanchez-Vicario 95 Coetzer 91 Shaughnessy 81 Likhovtseva 80 Kournikova 79 Tanasugarn 72 Grande 72 Maleeva 69 Schett 63 Daniilidou 46 Bedanova 46 Martinez 43 Raymond 42 Stevenson 16

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 115 Grass Summary of Grass Results The following lists the top players, the tournaments they played on grass, the points earned on the surface, their record and winning percentage. In addition, some players who have played “grass-intensive” schedules (Asagoe, Baltacha, Jeon, Pullin) are listed even if they haven’t won all that much. (I have required them to play at least one WTA main draw match; this eliminates, e.g. Fukuoka winner Vanessa Webb, who was 7Ð4 on grass but had all her wins in Challengers, or Kelly Liggan, 8Ð3 in grass Challengers.) The list is in alphabetical order. Player Won/Lost Vs. Tournaments Played Tot Pts/ Name (Percent) Top 10 # of Tourn Asagoe 11Ð4 (73%) 0Ð0 Gifu $50K (39.5), Fukuoka $50K (10.5), Birmingham 97.75÷4=24.4 (18.75), Wimbledon Qualifying (29) Baltacha 8Ð4 (66%) 0Ð0 Surbiton $25K (1), Birmingham (1), Eastbourne Qualifying 125÷5=25 (12), Wimbledon (80), Felixstowe $25K (31)1 Bedanova 7Ð3 (70%) 1Ð1 Birmingham (24), Eastbourne (176), Wimbledon (64) 264÷3=88 Bovina 5Ð3 (63%) 0Ð1 Birmingham (28), ’s-Hertogenbosch (48), Wimbledon (52) 128÷3=42.7 Capriati 4Ð1 (80%) 0Ð0 Wimbledon (264) 264÷1=264 Clijsters 2Ð2 (50%) 0Ð0 ’s-Hertogenbosch (31), Wimbledon (40) 71÷2=35.5 Coetzer 1Ð2 (33%) 0Ð0 Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (40) 41÷2=20.5 Daniilidou 11Ð2 (85%) 1Ð2 Birmingham (70), ’s-Hertogenbosch (251), Wimbledon 439÷3=146.3 (118) Davenport — — — — Déchy 2Ð2 (50%) 0Ð1 Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (80) 81÷2=40.5 Dementieva 7Ð2 (78%) 0Ð1 ’s-Hertogenbosch (128), Wimbledon (140) 268÷2=134 Dokic 8Ð2 (80%) 0Ð0 Birmingham (186), Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (132) 319÷3=106.3 Farina Elia 3Ð2 (60%) 0Ð0 Eastbourne (59), Wimbledon (84) 143÷2=71.5 Grande 3Ð3 (50%) 0Ð0 Birmingham (13), Eastbourne (33), Wimbledon (48) 94÷3=31.3 Granville 11Ð3 (79%) 0Ð0 Surbiton $25K (38)2, Birmingham Qualifying (3.25), 180.25÷3=60. Wimbledon (139) 1 Hantuchova 6Ð2 (75%) 1Ð1 Eastbourne (92), Wimbledon (304) 396÷2=198 Hénin 7Ð2 (78%) 1Ð1 ’s-Hertogenbosch (63), Wimbledon (488) 551÷2=275.5 Hingis — — — — Jeon 13Ð5 (72%) 0Ð0 Gifu $50K (21.5), Fukuoka $50K (32.5), Surbiton $25K 96.25÷5=19.3 (5.5), Birmingham (7.75), Wimbledon Qualifying (29)3 Kournikova 0Ð2 (0%) 0Ð0 Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (2) 3÷2=1.5 Krasnoroutsk — — — — Kremer 5Ð3 (63%) 1Ð0 Birmingham (49), Eastbourne (107), Wimbledon (48) 204÷3=68 Lee 6Ð3 (67%) 0Ð0 Surbiton $25K (35)4, Birmingham (1), Eastbourne 44÷4=11 Qualifying (6), Wimbledon (2) Likhovtseva 9Ð3 (75%) 1Ð2 Birmingham (26), Eastbourne (20.75), Wimbledon (314) 360.75÷3=120 .3 Majoli 2Ð1 (67%) 0Ð0 Wimbledon (84) 84÷1=84 Maleeva 7Ð3 (70%) 0Ð0 Birmingham (40), ’s-Hertogenbosch (40), Wimbledon (182) 262÷3=87.3 Martinez 2Ð1 (67%) 0Ð0 Wimbledon (110) 110÷1=110 Mauresmo 7Ð2 (78%) 1Ð1 ’s-Hertogenbosch (44), Wimbledon (522) 566÷2=283 Montolio 0Ð2 (0%) 0Ð0 ’s-Hertogenbosch (1), Wimbledon (2) 3÷2=1.5

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 116 Myskina 10Ð3 (77%) 0Ð1 Birmingham (137), Eastbourne (233), Wimbledon (72) 442÷3=147.3 Nagyova 0Ð1 (0%) 0Ð0 Wimbledon (2) 2÷1=2 Oremans 4Ð3 (57%) 0Ð0 Birmingham (17), ’s-Hertogenbosch (20), Wimbledon (130) 167÷3=55.7 Panova 2Ð3 (40%) 0Ð0 Birmingham (1), Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (80) 82÷3=27.3 Pierce 2Ð2 (50%) 1Ð0 Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (158) 159÷2=79.5 Pullin 13Ð5 (72%) 0Ð0 Gifu $50K (48),5 Fukuoka $50K (19.5), Surbiton $25K (9), 116.5÷6=19.4 Birmingham (30), Eastbourne Qualifying (8), Wimbledon (2) Raymond 6Ð2 (75%) 0Ð2 Birmingham (76), Wimbledon (134) 210÷2=105 Rubin 8Ð1 (91%) 0Ð1 Eastbourne (301), Wimbledon (198) 499÷2=249.5 Sanchez-Vic — — — — Schett 1Ð1 (50%) 0Ð0 Wimbledon (48) 48÷1=48 Schiavone 2Ð2 (50%) 0Ð1 Eastbourne (35), Wimbledon (40) 75÷2=37.5 Schnyder 1Ð2 (33%) 0Ð0 Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (36) 37÷2=18.5 Seles 4Ð1 (80%) 0Ð1 Wimbledon (262) 262÷1=262 Serna 2Ð3 (40%) 0Ð0 Birmingham (11), Eastbourne (29), Wimbledon (2) 42÷3=14 Shaughnessy 3Ð2 (60%) 0Ð0 Eastbourne (61), Wimbledon (36) 97÷2=48.5 Smashnova 0Ð2 (0%) 0Ð0 Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (2) 3÷2=1.5 Stevenson 5Ð4 (56%) 0Ð0 Surbiton $25K (17.5)6, Birmingham (24), Eastbourne (1), 44.5÷4=11.1 Wimbledon (2) Suarez 0Ð1 (0%) 0Ð0 Wimbledon (2) 2÷1=2 Sugiyama 5Ð3 (63%) 0Ð1 Birmingham (22), Eastbourne (33), Wimbledon (68) 123÷3=41 Tanasugarn 3Ð3 (50%) 0Ð1 Birmingham (1), Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (118) 120÷3=40 Testud 2Ð3 (40%) 0Ð0 Birmingham (18), Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (48) 67÷3=22.3 Tulyaganova 2Ð2 (50%) 0Ð0 Eastbourne (48), Wimbledon (40) 88÷2=44 S. Williams 7Ð0 (100%) 1Ð0 Wimbledon (1056) 1056÷1=1056 V. Williams 6Ð1 (86%) 1Ð1 Wimbledon (618) 618÷1=618 1. Baltacha’s score at Felixstowe may be off by a point or two; she was ranked so low that her score did not appear in my records. 2. Some matches at Surbiton, including the final which Granville lost to Lee, were played indoors. These are nonetheless counted as grass matches. 3. Point figures for Mi-Ra Jeon are approximate; she was ranked so low at the time of these results that her scores do not appear in my records; I had to reconstruct. 4. Some matches at Surbiton, including the final which Lee won, were played indoors. These are nonetheless counted as grass matches. 5. Pullin’s score at Gifu may be off by a point or two; she was ranked so low that her score did not appear in my records. 6. Some matches at Surbiton, including the semifinal which Stevenson lost to Granville, were played indoors because of wet weather. These are nonetheless counted as grass matches.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 117 Note: Because only four WTA events are played on grass, and no top player can play more than three grass events, it is not productive to attempt a full statistical analysis. We therefore list only the points-per- tournament rankings. Points Per Tournament on Grass Grass Rank Player Name Grass Points Tourn on Grass Points/ Tourn WTA Rank 1 S. Williams 1056 1 1056 1 2V. Williams 618 1 618 2 3 Hénin 651 2 325.5 5 4 Mauresmo 566 2 283 6 5 Capriati 264 1 264 3 6 Seles 262 1 262 7 7 Rubin 499 2 249.5 13 8 Hantuchova 396 2 198 8 9 Myskina 442 3 147.3 11 10 Daniilidou 439 3 146.3 22 11 Dementieva 268 2 134 19 12 Likhovtseva 360.75 3 120.3 42 13 Martinez 110 1 110 34 14 Dokic 319 3 106.3 9 15 Raymond 210 2 105 29 Bedanova 264 3 88 37 Maleeva 262 3 87.3 14 Majoli 84 1 84 32 Pierce 159 2 79.5 52 Farina Elia 143 2 71.5 17 Kremer 204 3 68 25 Granville 180.25 3 60.1 47 Oremans 167 3 55.7 124 Shaughnessy 97 2 48.5 30 Schett 48 1 48 40 Tulyaganova 88 2 44 55 Bovina 128 3 42.7 26 Sugiyama 123 3 41 24 Déchy 81 2 40.5 20 Tanasugarn 120 3 40 28 Schiavone 75 2 37.5 41 Clijsters 71 2 35.5 4 Grande 94 3 31.3 46 Panova 82 3 27.3 23 Testud 67 3 22.3 38 Coetzer 41 2 20.5 21 Schnyder 37 2 18.5 15 Serna 42 3 14 50 Stevenson 44.5 4 11.1 18 Nagyova 2 1 2 59 Suarez 2 1 2 27 Kournikova 3 2 1.5 35 Montolio 3 2 1.5 133 Smashnova 3 2 1.5 16

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 118 Adjusted Points Per Tournament on Grass A blatant difficulty with grass is that so many players play only Wimbledon. This seriously biases their results, because Slams are so point-heavy. A player who wins Eastbourne and reaches the Wimbledon semifinal will probably wind up with a lower divisor score than a player who plays only Wimbledon and reaches the semifinal (this happened in 2001: Davenport won Eastbourne and reached the Wimbledon semifinal, while Capriati reached the Wimbledon semifinal without playing any other grass events. Capriati had the better per-event score. Indeed, Capriati outscored Justine Hénin, who reached the Wimbledon final and won ’s-Hertogenbosch!). Yet surely the first player has at least as much right to be considered a top grass player! To attempt to compensate for this, we produce an adjusted grass ranking, setting a minimum divisor of 1.7. This reduces the bias for those who play only Wimbledon, while still making it more important than other grass results. Using this adjusted ranking gives us the following: Grass Player Surface Adj. Tourn Adjusted WTA Rank Name Points on Surface Points/Tourn Rank 1 S. Williams 1056 1.7 621.2 1 2V. Williams 618 1.7 363.5 2 3 Hénin 651 2 325.5 5 4 Mauresmo 566 2 283 6 5 Rubin 499 2 249.5 13 6 Hantuchova 396 2 198 8 7 Capriati 264 1.7 155.3 3 8 Seles 262 1.7 154.1 7 9 Myskina 442 3 147.3 11 10 Daniilidou 439 3 146.3 22 11 Dementieva 268 2 134 19 12 Likhovtseva 360.75 3 120.3 42 13 Dokic 319 3 106.3 9 14 Raymond 210 2 105 29 15 Bedanova 264 3 88 37 16 Maleeva 262 3 87.3 14 17 Pierce 159 2 79.5 52 18 Farina Elia 143 2 71.5 17 19 Kremer 204 3 68 25 20 Martinez 110 1.7 64.7 34 Granville 180.25 3 60.1 47 Oremans 167 3 55.7 124 Majoli 84 1.7 49.4 32 Shaughnessy 97 2 48.5 30 Bovina 128 3 42.7 26 Sugiyama 123 3 41 24 Déchy 81 2 40.5 20 Tanasugarn 120 3 40 28 Schiavone 75 2 37.5 41 Clijsters 71 2 35.5 4 Grande 94 3 31.3 46 Schett 48 1.7 28.2 40 Panova 82 3 27.3 23 Baltacha 125 5 25 157 Tulyaganova 50 2 25 55

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 119 Indoors Summary of Indoor Results The following lists the top players, the tournaments they played indoors, the points earned on the surface, their record and winning percentage. The list is in alphabetical order. Player Won/Lost Vs. Tournaments Played Total Pts/ Name (Percentage) Top 10 # of Tourn Bedanova 2Ð6 (25%) 0Ð2 Pan Pacific (1), Paris (1), Antwerp (80), Leipzig (1), Filderstadt 85÷6= 14.2 (1), Zurich (1) Bovina 14Ð6 (70%) 0Ð1 Paris (21.75), Antwerp (1), Quebec City (144), Moscow (112), 353.25÷6= Zurich (19.5), Luxembourg (55) 58.9 Capriati 3Ð4 (43%) 0Ð1 Filderstadt (1), Zurich (1), Linz (64), LA Championships (276) 342÷4= 85.5 Clijsters 17Ð2 (89%) 5Ð1 Leipzig (94), Filderstadt (378), Zurich (107), Luxembourg (200), 1529÷5= LA Championships (750) 305.8 Coetzer 6Ð6 (50%) 1Ð2 Memphis (1), Pan Pacific (61), Moscow (180), Filderstadt (1), 337÷6= Zurich (73), Luxembourg (21) 56.2 Daniilidou 3Ð6 (33%) 0Ð0 Paris Qualifying (12), Leipzig (1), Moscow (1), Filderstadt 30.75÷6= Qualifying(14.75), Zurich Qualifying (1), Linz (1) 5.1 Davenport 7Ð4 (64%) 2Ð2 Moscow (231), Filderstadt (72), Zurich (309), LA Championships 679÷4= (67) 169.8 Déchy 6Ð6 (50%) 0Ð1 Paris (40), Antwerp (1), Leipzig (1), Moscow (107), Bratislava 206÷6= (56), Luxembourg (1) 34.3 Dementieva 9Ð8 (53%) 1Ð3 Pan Pacific (42), Paris (61), Quebec City (1), Moscow (53), 480÷8= 60 Filderstadt (162), Zurich (46), Linz (48), LA Championships (67) Dokic 6Ð8 (43%) 1Ð1 Pan Pacific (1), Paris (230), Antwerp (1), Leipzig (1), Moscow (1), 501÷9= Filderstadt (1), Zurich (53), Linz (57), LA Championships (156) 55.7 Farina Elia 12Ð10 (55%) 0Ð5 Pan Pacific (189), Paris (87), Antwerp (61), Quebec City (78), 594÷10= Leipzig (40), Moscow (1), Filderstadt (1), Zurich (1), Linz (69), 59.4 LA Championships (67) Grande 8Ð6 (57%) 0Ð0 Pan Pacific (61), Leipzig (40), Moscow (1), Filderstadt (46.75), 203.75÷6= Bratislava (54), Luxembourg (1) 34 Hantuchova 12Ð7 (63%) 0Ð2 Paris (60), Antwerp (40), Leipzig (69), Filderstadt (200), Zurich 659÷7= (102), Linz (121), LA Championships (67) 94.1 Hénin 13Ð6 (68%) 0Ð5 Paris (59), Antwerp (172), Leipzig (127), Filderstadt (1), Zurich 983÷7= (169), Linz (311), LA Championships (144) 140.4 Hingis 5Ð2 (71%) 1Ð0 Pan Pacific (378), Moscow (1), Filderstadt (35) 414÷3= 138 Kournikova 6Ð3 (67%) 0Ð3 Pan Pacific (189), Paris (29), Antwerp (35), Moscow (48) 301÷4= 75.3 Krasnorouts 3Ð2 (60%) 0Ð0 Bratislava (1), Linz (20.75) 21.75÷2= 10.9 Kremer 6Ð8 (43%) 1Ð1 Pan Pacific (122), Paris (27), Antwerp (40), Quebec City (1), 275÷8= Moscow (1), Filderstadt (60), Zurich (1), Luxembourg (23) 34.4 Likhovtseva 1Ð5 (17%) 0Ð0 Pan Pacific (1), Paris (1), Leipzig (1), Bratislava (12), 16÷5= 3.2 Luxembourg (1) Majoli 1Ð5 (17%) 0Ð1 Leipzig (1), Moscow (1), Filderstadt (35), Zurich (1), Linz (1) 39÷5= 7.8

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 120 Maleeva 14Ð9 (61%) 4Ð3 Pan Pacific (53), Paris (1), Antwerp (69), Quebec City (32), 934÷10= Leipzig (1), Moscow (482), Filderstadt (1), Zurich (1), 93.4 Luxembourg (130), LA Championships (164) Martinez 3Ð2 (60%) 1Ð0 Zurich (213), Linz (1) 214÷2= 107 Mauresmo 9Ð4 (69%) 0Ð3 Paris (107), Antwerp (107), Moscow (155), Filderstadt (134) 503÷4= 125.8 Montolio 0Ð1 (9%) 0Ð0 Paris (1) 1÷1= 1 Myskina 6Ð7 (46%) 1Ð3 Pan Pacific Qualifying (1), Leipzig (217), Moscow (1), Filderstadt 381÷7= (1), Zurich (61), Linz (33), LA Championships (67) 54.4 Nagyova 0Ð4 (0%) 0Ð0 Paris (1), Filderstadt Qualifying (1), Bratislava (1), Luxembourg 4÷4= 1 (1) Panova 5Ð5 (50%) 1Ð4 Pan Pacific (1), Moscow (61), Filderstadt (127), Zurich (53), Linz 269÷5= (27) 53.8 Pierce — — — — Raymond 8Ð4 (67%) 0Ð0 Pan Pacific (1), Memphis (153), Filderstadt (27.75), Zurich (1), 203.75÷5= Luxembourg (21) 40.8 Rubin 3Ð4 (43%) 1Ð2 Filderstadt (1), Zurich (1), Linz (158), LA Championships (67) 227÷4= 56.8 Sanchez-V 0Ð2 (0%) 0Ð1 Filderstadt (1), Luxembourg (1) 2÷2= 1 Schett 3Ð5 (38%) 0Ð1 Pan Pacific (61), Paris (1), Moscow qualifying (1), Filderstadt 152÷5= (60), Linz (29) 30.4 Schiavone 3Ð5 (38%) 0Ð1 Paris (74), Antwerp (1), Leipzig (1), Bratislava (18), Linz (1) 95÷5= 19 Schnyder 8Ð4 (67%) 3Ð2 Paris (1), Antwerp (135), Filderstadt (1), Zurich (394), LA 598÷5= Championships (67) 119.6 Seles 7Ð3 (70%) 2Ð3 Pan Pacific (209), Paris (164), LA Championships (156) 529÷3= 176.3 Serna 11Ð7 (61%) 0Ð2 Pan Pacific (1), Paris (1), Leipzig Qualifying (9.75), Moscow (78), 138.25÷7= Filderstadt Qualifying (12), Bratislava (1), Luxembourg (35.5) 19.8 Shaughness 5Ð5 (50%) 1Ð0 Quebec City (20), Leipzig (109), Moscow (73), Filderstadt (1), 216÷6= 36 Bratislava (12), Linz (1) Smashnova 4Ð5 (44%) 0Ð4 Moscow (1), Filderstadt (48), Zurich (73), Linz (87), LA 276÷5= Championships (67) 55.2 Stevenson 26Ð7 (79%) 4Ð2 Pan Pacific (123), Memphis (98), Quebec City (36), Leipzig (33), 900.75÷7= Filderstadt (159.75), Zurich (160), Linz (291) 128.7 Suarez 1Ð3 (25%) 0Ð1 Leipzig (1), Moscow (1), Linz (40) 42÷3= 14 Sugiyama 3Ð4 (43%) 0Ð0 Pan Pacific (1), Memphis (71), Zurich (1), Linz (1) 74÷4= 18.5 Tanasugarn 2Ð1 (67%) 0Ð1 Pan Pacific (108) 108÷1= 108 Testud 2Ð1 (67%) 0Ð0 Pan Pacific (92) 92÷1= 92 Tulyaganov 1Ð2 (33%) 0Ð0 Pan Pacific (1), Bratislava (14) 15÷2= 7.5 S. Williams 7Ð1 (88%) 3Ð1 Leipzig (291), LA Championships (484) 775÷2= 387.5 V. Williams 9Ð2 (82%) 4Ð1 Paris (281), Antwerp (320), Moscow (1), LA Championships 898÷4= (296) 224.5

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 121 Winning Percentage Indoors Where two players have equal winning percentages, the player with the higher number of wins indoors is listed first. Where this fails, the player with the higher WTA rank is listed first. Rank Player Wins Losses Win% WTA Rank 1 Clijsters 17 2 89% 4 2 S. Williams 7 1 88% 1 3V. Williams 9 2 82% 2 4 Stevenson 26 7 79% 18 5 Hingis 5 2 71% 10 6Bovina 14 6 70% 26 7 Seles 7 3 70% 7 8 Mauresmo 9 4 69% 6 9 Hénin 13 6 68% 5 10 Schnyder 8 4 67% 15 10 Raymond 8 4 67% 29 12 Kournikova 6 3 67% 35 13 Testud 2 1 67% 38 13 Tanasugarn 2 1 67% 28 15 Davenport 7 4 64% 12 16 Hantuchova 12 7 63% 8 17 Serna 11 7 61% 50 18 Maleeva 14 9 61% 14 19 Martinez 3 2 60% 34 19 Krasnoroutskaya 3 2 60% 175 21 Grande 8 6 57% 46 22 Farina Elia 12 10 55% 17 23 Dementieva 9 8 53% 19 24 Déchy 6 6 50% 20 24 Coetzer 6 6 50% 21 Shaughnessy 5 5 50% 30 Panova 5 5 50% 23 Myskina 6 7 46% 11 Smashnova 4 5 44% 16 Kremer 6 8 43% 25 Dokic 6 8 43% 9 Sugiyama 3 4 43% 24 Rubin 3 4 43% 13 Capriati 3 4 43% 3 Schiavone 3 5 38% 41 Schett 3 5 38% 40 Daniilidou 3 6 33% 22 Tulyaganova 1 2 33% 55 Bedanova 2 6 25% 37 Suarez 1 3 25% 27 Majoli 1 5 17% 32 Likhovtseva 1 5 17% 42 Sanchez-Vicario 0 2 0% 53 Nagyova 0 4 0% 59 Montolio 0 1 0% 133

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 122 Points Per Tournament Indoors Indoor Rank Player Name Surface Pts Tourn indoor Points/Tourn WTA Rank 1 S. Williams 775 2 387.5 1 2 Clijsters 1529 5 305.8 4 3V. Williams 898 4 224.5 2 4 Seles 529 3 176.3 7 5Davenport 679 4 169.8 12 6 Hénin 983 7 140.4 5 7 Hingis 414 3 138 10 8 Stevenson 900.75 7 128.7 18 9 Mauresmo 503 4 125.8 6 10 Schnyder 598 5 119.6 15 11 Tanasugarn 108 1 108 28 12 Martinez 214 2 107 34 13 Hantuchova 659 7 94.1 8 14 Maleeva 934 10 93.4 14 15 Testud 92 1 92 38 16 Capriati 342 4 85.5 3 17 Kournikova 301 4 75.3 35 18 Dementieva 480 8 60 19 19 Farina Elia 594 10 59.4 17 20 Bovina 353.25 6 58.9 26 21 Rubin 227 4 56.8 13 22 Coetzer 337 6 56.2 21 23 Dokic 501 9 55.7 9 24 Smashnova 276 5 55.2 16 25 Myskina 381 7 54.4 11 Panova 269 5 53.8 23 Raymond 203.75 5 40.8 29 Shaughnessy 216 6 36 30 Kremer 275 8 34.4 25 Déchy 206 6 34.3 20 Grande 203.75 6 34 46 Schett 152 5 30.4 40 Serna 138.25 7 19.8 50 Schiavone 95 5 19 41 Sugiyama 74 4 18.5 24 Bedanova 85 6 14.2 37 Suarez 42 3 14 27 Krasnoroutskaya 21.75 2 10.9 175 Majoli 39 5 7.8 32 Tulyaganova 15 2 7.5 55 Daniilidou 30.75 6 5.1 22 Likhovtseva 16 5 3.2 42 Sanchez-Vicario 22153 Nagyova 44159 Montolio 111133

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 123 Best and Worst Results Indoors The following tables list a player’s best and worst results on this surface. Of these, the worst result may be the better measure of ability — a player who avoids bad losses is at least more consistent than one with a mixture of good and bad results. Best Result Worst Result 1 Clijsters 750 1 S. Williams 291 2 S. Williams 484 2 Seles 156 3 Maleeva 482 3Tanasugarn 108 4 Schnyder 394 4 Mauresmo 107 5 Hingis 378 5 Clijsters 94 6V. Williams 320 6Testud 92 7 Hénin 311 7Davenport 67* 8Davenport 309 9 Stevenson 291 8 Hantuchova 40* 10 Capriati 276 9 Stevenson 33 11 Dokic 230 10 Kournikova 29 12 Myskina 217 13 Martinez 213 Note on the above: Observe that 14 Seles 209 Davenport’s 67 point score is actually a 15 Hantuchova 200 first round loss at the Los Angeles 16 Farina Elia 189 Championships. Hantuchova also had a 16 Kournikova 189 first-round loss at the Championships. 17 Coetzer 180 18 Dementieva 162 All other Top 30 players, including 19 Rubin 158 Venus Williams, Capriati, Hénin, Dokic, 20 Mauresmo 155 Hingis, Myskina, Rubin, Maleeva, 21 Raymond 153 22 Bovina 144 Schnyder, Smashnova, Farina Elia, 23 Panova 127 Dementieva, Déchy, Coetzer, 24 Kremer 122 Daniilidou, Panova, Sugiyama, Kremer, Shaughnessy 109 Bovina, Suarez, Raymond, and Tanasugarn 108 Shaughnessy, had at least one opening- Déchy 107 round loss indoors (at an event where Testud 92 such a result was worth only a single Smashnova 87 point). Bedanova 80 Serna 78 We should also note that Tanasugarn Schiavone 74 and Testud played only one indoor event Sugiyama 71 each. Schett 61 Grande 61 Suarez 40 Majoli 35 Krasnoroutskaya 20.75 Daniilidou 14.75 Tulyaganova 14 Likhovtseva 12 Sanchez-Vicario 1 Nagyova 1 Montolio 1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 124 All-Surface Players The above us to produce a sort of a pseudo-ranking for “best all-surface player.” For this we add up a player’s ranking on all four surfaces based on points per tournament. (Note: Because of the shortness of the grass season, grass scores have been divided in half, rounding up, and a maximum value of 9 has been used. For all other surfaces, a maximum of 16 has been used. Also, the adjusted grass scores have been used) Note that this is not a measure of who is better on all surfaces; it measures who has been an all-surface player this year. (We should note that, while this statistic has had meaning in the past, in 2000Ð2002 it has been rendered relatively useless by injuries) Players with the maximum score, of 57 have not been listed. It should be noted that any score in excess of about 50 is likely to indicate a surface specialist (examples: Fernandez, Stevenson, Maleeva, Suarez); even a score in the 30Ð40 range may indicate a specialist if the player is a two-surface specialist and very good on those surfaces (example: Davenport). Rank Player Surface Score WTA Rank 1 S. Williams 4 1 2V. Williams 9 2 3 Seles 22 7 4 Hénin 24 5 5 Clijsters 25 4 6 Capriati 27 3 7 Hingis 28 10 8 Mauresmo 31 6 9Davenport 36 12 10 Rubin 37 13 11 Hantuchova 43 8 11 Dokic 43 9 13 Stevenson 49 18 13 C. Fernandez 49 31 15 Myskina 51 11 15 Schnyder 51 15 Suarez 52 27 Tanasugarn 52 28 Martinez 53 34 Testud 53 38 Zvonareva 53 45 Dementieva 54 19 Coetzer 54 21 Daniilidou 54 22 Maleeva 55 14 Likhovtseva 55 42 Pierce 55 52 Déchy 56 20 Raymond 56 29 Majoli 56 32 Bedanova 56 37

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 125 Tournament Wins by Surface Here are the number of tournaments each player won on the various surfaces. As elsewhere, tournaments are divided into Major (Tier II and up; note that this does not mean “Slam,” which is how some use the term) and Minor (Tier III and below). The final column lists the number of surfaces on which a player won tournaments. WTA Player Hard Clay Grass Indoor Won Rank Name Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor On Bovina 1 1 2 Capriati 1 1 Clijsters 1 2 1 2 Daniilidou 1 1 Dokic 1 1 2 Farina Elia 1 1 Hantuchova 1 1 Hénin 1 1 2 Hingis 1 1 2 Majoli 1 1 Maleeva 1 1 Mauresmo 2 1 Montolio 1 1 Myskina 1 1 Raymond 1 1 Rubin 1 1 2 Schnyder 1 1 Seles 1 1 2 Serna 1 1 Smashnova 3 1 2 S. Williams 42114 V. Williams 3 1 1 2 3 Highlight players with no titles: Bedanova, Coetzer, Davenport, Déchy, Dementieva, Grande, Kournikova, Kremer, Likhovtseva, Martinez, Nagyova, Panova, Pierce, Sanchez-Vicario, Schett, Schiavone, Shaughnessy, Stevenson, Suarez, Sugiyama, Tanasugarn, Testud, Tulyaganova Other players with titles: Black (Hard), M. Casanova (Clay), Craybas (Hard), Diaz-Oliva (Clay), Kuznetsova (Clay, Hard), Matevzic (Indoor), Mikaelian (Hard), Müller (Clay), Safina (Clay), Srebotnik (Clay), Sucha (Hard), Svensson (Clay), Wartusch (Clay), Widjaja (Hard), Zuluaga (Clay) The overall situation for 2002 is fairly clear: Serena Williams won major titles on all four surfaces. Venus Williams won on three, missing out on grass. Only four other players managed significant titles on two surfaces: Clijsters (clay and indoors), Hénin (clay and indoors), Hingis (hardcourt and indoors), and Rubin (grass and hardcourt). All other players either won on only one surface or won only small events on multiple surfaces.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 126 Assorted Statistics The Busiest Players on the Tour Total Tour Matches Played by Top Players The following table shows how the Top 25, and certain other busy players, ranked in total matches played. Note that this does not correlate closely with ranking or with tournaments played; Dokic and Myskina are tops because they play a lot and win occasionally, Venus is #4 because she plays rather rarely but win a lot, and Panova #10 because she doesn’t win much but plays a ton. The final columns show how a player did against her schedule. “Possible matches” is the number of matches the player scheduled (that is, the number she would have played had she won every match leading up to the final. So a Slam would represent seven possible matches, a Tier I between four and seven, depending on the event and whether one is seeded or not, a Tier V would represent five possible matches, etc.) The “% of possible” shows what fraction of these matches the player actually played. As a rule of thumb, a player who played 70% of her matches or more (Venus, Capriati, Serena, Seles, Hingis, Davenport) is Top Five material; 60% (Hénin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Rubin) says Top Ten; 50% (Dokic, Hantuchova) should assure a Top 15 spot over a full schedule. Ordinal Player WTA Rank Matches Played Possible Matches % of possible 1 Dokic 9 79 143 55% 2 Myskina 11 77 166 46% 3 Hantuchova 8 75 140 54% 4V. Williams 2 71 80 89% 4 Hénin 5 71 112 63% 4 Smashnova 16 71 162 44% 4 Stevenson 18 71 151 47% 8Farina Elia 17 70 154 45% 9 Clijsters 4 67 103 65% 10 Panova 23 65 168 39% 11 Capriati 3 64 88 73% 11 Sugiyama 24 64 153 42% 13 Dementieva 19 62 141 44% 13 Bovina 26 62 143 43% 15 S. Williams 1 61 66 92% 16 Daniilidou 22 60 153 39% 17 Mauresmo 6 59 89 66% 17 Seles 7 59 78 76% 17 Maleeva 14 59 135 44% 17 Kremer 25 59 155 38% Schnyder 15 58 135 43% Déchy 20 57 137 42% Likhovtseva 42 55 165 33% Raymond 29 53 123 43% Coetzer 21 52 124 42% Kournikova 35 52 140 37% Sanchez-Vicario 53 45 130 35% Hingis 10 44 62 71% Rubin 13 43 62 69% Davenport 12 33 42 79%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 127 Total Tour Events Played by the Top 150 The following table sorts the Top 150 (as of November 11, 2002) based on events played in the past year. All players who have played that many events are listed, along with their rankings (in parentheses). Top 25 players are shown in bold. The second column shows how many players played each number of events. Events # to Play Players 34 2 Cargill (125), Kurhajcova (109) 33 0 32 3 Jidkova (87), Schaul (132), Webb (150) 31 3 Panova (23), Poutchek (99), Reeves (101) 30 6 Craybas (57), Hopkins (139), Neffa-de los Rios (88), Roesch (80), Ad. Serra Zanetti (60), Taylor (83) 29 10 Barna (62), Dokic (9), Farina Elia (17), Loit (58), Marosi (148), Myskina (11), Sfar (138), Smashnova (16), Torrens Valero (78), Washington (113) 28 9 Beigbeder (146), Camerin (123), Kandarr (130), Koukalova (120), Kremer (25), Lee-Waters (121), Likhovtseva (42), Pin (135), Serna (50) 27 15 Black (56), Cervanova (107), Foretz (79), Gagliardi (61), Grande (46), Gubacsi (122), Koulikovskaya (112), Marrero (86), Matevzic (51), Mouhtassine (149), Obata (108), Perebiynis (114), Rodionova (117), Shaughnessy (30), Sugiyama (24) 26 13 Daniilidou (22), Dementieva (19), Drake (96), Garbin (72), Kleinova (136), Morigami (134), Nagyova (59), Pisnik (48), Sucha (64), Talaja (75), Tanasugarn (28), Voracova (131), Weingärtner (98) 25 18 Ant. Serra Zanetti (92), Bedanova (37), Diaz-Oliva (89), Dominikovic (119), Granville (47), Han- tuchova (8), Husarova (33), Kostanic (71), Kournikova (35), Leon Garcia (129), Maleeva (14), Müller (70), Schnyder (15), Stevenson (18), Tu (73), Vanc (144), Wartusch (82), Watson (142) 24 13 Arn (91), Benesova (81), C. Martinez (34), Déchy (20), Fislova (141), Irvin (85), Mikaelian (44), Molik (100), Montolio (133), Prusova (103), Sanchez-Vicario (53), Srebotnik (36), Svensson (77) 23 11 Bovina (26), Cho (84), Hénin (5), Majoli (32), Pennetta (95), Randriantefy (93), Salerni (127), Sanchez Lorenzo (110), Schiavone (41), Sequera (118), Suarez (27) 22 8 Boogert (140), Coetzer (21), Kloesel (143), Martinez Granados (94), Prakusya (104), Pratt (49), Raymond (29), Ruano Pascual (65) 21 6 Clijsters (4), Frazier (39), Jeon (137), Razzano (76), Schett (40), Tulyaganova (55) 20 1 Asagoe (97) 19 5 Callens (67), Goloviznina (147), Kapros (105), Mandula (90), Rittner (66) 18 3 Bartoli (106), Chladkova (63), Ondraskova (128) 17 4 C. Fernandez (31), Capriati (3), Mauresmo (6), Widjaja (69) 16 6 Dyrberg (102), Harkleroad (115), Kuznetsova (43), Oremans (124), V. Williams (2), Zuluaga (74) 15 3 Hrdlickova (145), Seles (7), Zvonareva (45) 14 3 Rubin (13), Schwartz (126), Testud (38) 13 2 Pierce (52), S. Williams (1) 12 2 Hingis (10), Safina (68) 11 0 10 0 92 Davenport (12), M. Casanova (54) 62 Medina Garrigues (116), Petrova (111) All told, the Top 150 played 3540 events in 2002, up from 3434 events in 2001. The maximum remains the same: Last year, Alina Jidkova led the Top 150 with 34 events, followed by Marissa Irvin with 33. The busiest Top 50 player in 2001 was — yes, Tatiana Panova, with 31 events.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 128 The Strongest Tournaments Theoretically, all tournaments of the same tier are of equal difficulty. In reality, it’s not even close. Tournaments like Filderstadt and San Diego are so strong that, in some years, Top Ten players can go unseeded, while Eastbourne 2002 didn’t feature a single Top Five player. In general, we can assume that all Slams and the Chase Championships are at maximum strength; with minor exceptions, everyone who can play will play. This is not true of Tier I and Tier II tournaments (other than Miami). Experience shows that, overall, certain tournaments are guaranteed to be strong: the Slams, the Championships, Miami, Sydney, San Diego, Filderstadt. Those are the “big eight” of the WTA Tour, consistently strong from year to year. It’s much harder to decide which tournaments are next. There is no simple way of “rating” tournaments; it is not the sort of statistic the WTA calculates. The sections below offer three proposals, each with strengths and weaknesses (weaknesses derived both from the systems themselves and from the fact that they are based on WTA rankings).

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 129 Tournament Strength Based on the Four Top Players Present Proposal #1: This is a two-part ranking, strength and depth. For the strenth, take the total rankings of the top four players present. Add to this the scores of the top two present. (That is, count the top two twice and the #3 and #4 players once.) This gives an indication of just how tough things are when “the going gets tough”: it shows what you can expect to be up against in the semifinal and final rounds. (So, for example, the top four players at Sydney in 2001 were Hingis, ranked #1; Davenport, ranked #2; Seles, ranked #4; and Martinez, ranked #5. So the total “value” of this tournament is 1+1+2+2+4+5=15.) The lower this number (the minimum possible value is 13), the stronger the tournament To calculate the depth, we look at the top three seeds and the bottom three seeds (or, correctly, the top three players and the players whose rankings would entitle them to the last three seeds based on the current rankings). Sum the values for the bottom three, then subtract the sum of the value for the top three, and divide by three (if the tournament has eight seeds) or by six (if it has sixteen seeds). The smaller this number (the minimum is five), the deeper the tournament, as the difference between top and bottom seeds is smallest. Again taking Sydney 2001, the top seeds were ranked 1, 2, and 4; the bottom three seeds were ranked #8, #12, and #14. So the depth of Sydney is defined by [(8+12+14)-(1+2+4)]/3 = (34-7)/3 = 27/3 = 9. Note: For purposes of calculations, only the top sixteen seeds at 32-seed events are counted. Based on the following, we rate the tournaments on the Tour as follows (sorted by strength). Note: Tournaments below Tier II shown in italics.Where two tournaments are of equal difficulty, the one with the greater depth is listed first (but they are ranked equal). The general coherence of the WTA’s Tier system is shown by the fact that only two Tier III events (Gold Coast and ’s-Hertogenbosch) are ranked above the lowest Tier II, and only three events above Tier III (Pan Pacific, Eastbourne, Bahia) are ranked below the top Tier III. Tournament Tier Tournament Strength Depth Winner Rank Score Score 1 Cham Los Angeles Champ 13 6.0 Clijsters 1 Slam U. S. Open 13 7.0 S. Williams 1 Slam Wimbledon 13 7.5 S. Williams 1 Slam Roland Garros 13 8.0 S. Williams 5 I Miami 14 8.5 S. Williams 6 Slam Australian Open 17 8.0 Capriati 7 II Los Angeles 19 12.0 Rubin 8 II Hamburg 20 13.7 Clijsters 9 I Rome 22 9.0 S. Williams 9 II+ San Diego 22 9.7 V. Williams 11 II Sydney 23 7.0 Hingis 11 I Berlin 23 9.0 Hénin 11 II Stanford 23 11.0 V. Williams 14 II Filderstadt 26 6.0 Clijsters 14 I Zurich 26 6.3 Schnyder 16 II Leipzig 27 10.0 S. Williams 17 I Canadian Open 29 7.7 Mauresmo 17 I Indian Wells 29 8.7 Hantuchova 17 I Moscow 29 9.3 Maleeva 20 I Charleston 30 10.2 Majoli 21 II Antwerp 33 17.3 V. Williams

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 130 22 II New Haven 35 7.0 V. Williams 22 II Paris 35 9.0 V. Williams 22 II Scottsdale 35 19.0 S. Williams 22 II Linz 35 35.0 Hénin 26 II Dubai 37 17.3 Mauresmo 26 II Princess Cup 37 23.7 S. Williams 28 II Amelia Island 39 10.3 V. Williams 29 III Gold Coast 43 20.3 V. Williams 30 IPan Pacific 48 9.0 Hingis 31 III ’s-Hertogenbosch 49 34.3 Daniilidou 32 II+ Bahia 51 16.7 Myskina 33 II Eastbourne 61 8.0 Rubin 34 III Strasbourg 71 21.0 Farina Elia 35 III Doha 73 23.3 Seles 36 III Birmingham 75 13.3 Dokic 37 III Luxembourg 80 18.0 Clijsters 37 IV Sarasota 80 19.0 Dokic 39 III Madrid 91 17.0 Seles 40 III Quebec City 98 26.7 Bovina 41 III Vienna 101 20.0 Smashnova 42 III Acapulco 106 33.3 Srebotnik 43 IV Helsinki 123 20.0 Kuznetsova 44 III Bol 134 28.7 Svensson 45 III+ Sopot 144 32.0 Safina 46 III Memphis 147 48.3 Raymond 47 IV Shanghai 151 50.0 Smashnova 48 IV Auckland 164 22.3 Smashnova 49 IV Big Island 172 31.3 Black 50 V Hobart 178 21.3 Sucha 51 VBratislava 179 20.7 Matevzic 52 III Japan Open 184 36.0 Craybas 53 V Canberra 190 10.7 Smashnova 54 IV Estoril 203 24.3 Serna 55 III Bali 205 20.0 Kuznetsova 56 IV Porto 209 28.3 Montolio 57 IV Brussels 214 22.7 M. Casanova 58 VPattaya 224 32.0 Widjaja 59 III Bogota 249 33.0 Zuluaga 60 VPalermo 303 56.3 Diaz-Oliva 61 V Budapest 314 27.0 Müller 62 IV Warsaw 360 24.7 Bovina 63 IV Tashkent 419 46.7 Mikaelian 64 V Casablanca 509 26.0 Wartusch

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 131 The Top Tournaments Based on Top Players Present — Method 1 Proposal #2: The following table assesses tournaments based on the top players who play. It starts with tournaments played by the #1 player, and lists the number of other Top Ten players present. Then it lists tournaments headlined by #2, etc. Only tournaments from Tier II up are listed. The difficulty with this system is that a tournament with (say) four Top Ten players headed by the #5 player might be considered stronger than a tournament with only one Top Ten player, but that one player being #2. Frankly, it’s a lousy way of rating tournaments (Filderstadt #26?!) but it makes it easy to look up who was at the top of the field. Trn Tournament Top Player # of Top Player Ranks of Missing Top 10 Winner Rank Present Top 10 Missing Players 1 U. S. Open #1/SWilliams 10 #12/Testud — S. Williams 2 Wimbledon #1/VWilliams 8 #8/Davenport #8, #9 S. Williams 3 Roland Garros #1/Capriati 8 #7/Davenport #7, #8 S. Williams 4 Los Angeles Ch #1/SWilliams 8 #5/Mauresmo #5, #10; next missing #181 Clijsters 5 Miami #1/Capriati 8 #4/Davenport #4, #10 S. Williams 6 Australian Opn #1/Capriati 7 #2/Davenport #2, #6, #7 Capriati 7 Hamburg #1/VWilliams 5 #2/Capriati #2, #5, #6, #7, #10 Clijsters 8 Los Angeles #1/SWilliams 5 #2/VWilliams #2, #4, #7, #8, #10 Rubin 9 Princess Cup #1/SWilliams 3 #2/VWilliams #2, #3, #5, #6, #7, #9, #10 S. Williams 10 Charleston #1/Capriati 5 #2/VWilliams #2, #3, #4, $5, #8 Majoli 11 Leipzig #1/SWilliams 4 #2/VWilliams #2, #3, #4, #6, #9, #10 S. Williams 12 Rome #2/Capriati 6 #1/VWilliams #1, #5, #6, #7 S. Williams 13 San Diego #2/VWilliams 5 #1/SWilliams #1, #4, #6, #8, #10 V. Williams 14 Berlin #2/Capriati 6 #1/VWilliams #1, #4, #6, #7 Hénin 15 Sydney #2/Capriati 6 #1/Davenport #1, #3, #8, #10 Hingis 15 Stanford #2/VWilliams 6 #1/SWilliams #1, #3, #8, #10 V. Williams 17 Moscow #2/VWilliams 5 #1/SWilliams #1, #3, #4, #6, #9 Maleeva 18 Dubai #2/VWilliams 3 #1/Capriati #1, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #9 Mauresmo 19 Scottsdale #2/Capriati 3 #1/VWilliams #1, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #10 S. Williams 20 Antwerp #2/VWilliams 4 #1/Capriati #1, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8 V. Williams 21 Amelia Island #2/VWilliams 4 #/Capriati #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 V. Williams 22 Paris #2/VWilliams 5 #1/Capriati #1, #3, #4, #5, #6 V. Williams 22 New Haven #2/VWilliams 5 #1/SWilliams #1, #3, #4, #5, #6 V. Williams 24 Zurich #3/Capriati 7 #1/SWilliams #1, #2, #7 Schnyder 26 Filderstadt #3/Capriati 7 #1/SWilliams #1, #2, #6 Clijsters 27 Indian Wells #3/Clijsters 5 #1/VWilliams #1, #2, #5, #6, #10 Hantuchova 28 Canadian Open #3/Capriati 6 #2/SWilliams #1, #2, #4, #9 Mauresmo 29 Linz #3/Capriati 4 #1/SWilliams #1, #2, #4, #5, #7, #10 Hénin 30 Bahia #4/Dokic 2 #1/SWilliams #1, #2, #3, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 Myskina 31 Pan Pacific #4/Hingis 3 #1/Capriati #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #7, #8 Hingis 32 Eastbourne #8/Dokic 2 #1/VWilliams #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #9 Rubin 1. Alexandra Stevenson ended the year ranked #18, and Elena Dementieva #19, but the two earned equal points in the year, and some of Stevenson’s were earned in Challengers, so Dementieva, not Stevenson, qualified for Los Angeles.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 132 The Top Tournaments Based on Top Players Present — Method 2 Proposal #3: This method combines the above with the “Tournament Strength Index” proposed by Geert Calliauw. The 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 Ten 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. Thus the percentage listed below is the total quality points divided by the sum of the values for the Top Eight, 475. As with the “Strength and Depth” measure, tournaments below Tier II are shown in italics. Although details differ slightly, this shows almost the same Tier stratification we saw in the other ranking: only thre Tier III events (Gold Coast, ’s-Hertogenbosch, Birmingham) are ranked above the lowest Tier II, and only two Tier II events (Bahia, Eastbourne) below the strongest Tier III. Tourn Rank Tournament Top 8 Qual Pts Percentage Score Winner 1 Roland Garros 475 100% S. Williams 1 U. S. Open 475 100% S. Williams 1 Wimbledon 475 100% S. Williams 4 Los Angeles Cham 468 98.5% Clijsters 5 Miami 463 97.5% S. Williams 6 Australian Open 400 84.2% Capriati 7 Filderstadt 343 72.2% Clijsters 7 Zurich 343 72.2% Schnyder 9 Rome 325 68.5% S. Williams 10 Berlin 320 67.4% Hénin 11 Stanford 309 65.1% V. Williams 11 Sydney 309 65.1% Hingis 13 Hamburg 307 64.6% Clijsters 14 Los Angeles 302 63.6% Rubin 15 Canadian Open 288 60.6% Mauresmo 16 San Diego 277 58.3% V. Williams 17 Charleston 272 57.3% Majoli 18 Moscow 254 53.5% Maleeva 19 Indian Wells 250 52.6% Hantuchova 20 New Haven 247 52.0% V. Williams 21 Paris 247 52.0% V. Williams 22 Leipzig 236 49.7% S. Williams 23 Amelia Island 204 42.9% V. Williams 23 Antwerp 204 42.9% V. Williams 25 Princess Cup 198 41.7% S. Williams 26 Linz 195 41.1% Hénin 27 Scottsdale 168 35.4% S. Williams 28 Dubai 161 33.9% Mauresmo 29 Pan Pacific 141 29.7% Hingis 30 Gold Coast 109 22.9% V. Williams 31 Bahia 105 22.1% Myskina 32 ’s-Hertogenbosch 93 19.6% Daniilidou

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 133 33 Birmingham 86 18.1% Dokic 33 Eastbourne 86 18.1% Rubin 35 Luxembourg 50 10.5% Clijsters 36 Doha 43 9.1% Seles 36 Madrid 43 9.1% Seles 36 Sarasota 43 9.1% Dokic 36 Strasbourg 43 9.1% Farina Elia 40 Acapulco 0 0% Srebotnik 40 Auckland 0 0% Smashnova 40 Bali 0 0% Kuznetsova 40 Big Island 0 0% Black 40 Bogota 0 0% Zuluaga 40 Bol 0 0% Svensson 40 Bratislava 0 0% Matevzic 40 Brussels 0 0% M. Casanova 40 Budapest 0 0% Müller 40 Canberra 0 0% Smashnova 40 Casablanca 0 0% Wartusch 40 Estoril 0 0% Serna 40 Helsinki 0 0% Kuznetsova 40 Hobart 0 0% Sucha 40 Japan Open 0 0% Craybas 40 Memphis 0 0% Raymond 40 Palermo 0 0% Diaz-Oliva 40 Pattaya City 0 0% Widjaja 40 Porto 0 0% Montolio 40 Quebec City 0 0% Bovina 40 Shanghai 0 0% Smashnova 40 Sopot 0 0% Safina 40 Tashkent 0 0% Mikaelian 40 Vienna 0 0% Smashnova 40 Warsaw 0 0% Bovina

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 134 Strongest Tournaments Won Based on the data in the previous table, we can also list the players in terms of strength of strongest tournament won: Ranking Player Tournament Score Tournament 1 S. Williams 100 Roland Garros, Wimbledon, U. S. Open 2 Clijsters 98.5 Los Angeles Championships 3 Capriati 84.2 Australian Open 4 Schnyder 72.2 Zurich 5 Hénin 67.4 Berlin 6 Hingis 65.1 Sydney 6 V. Williams 65.1 Stanford 8 Rubin 63.6 Los Angeles 9 Mauresmo 60.6 Canadian Open 10 Majoli 57.3 Charleston 11 Maleeva 53.5 Moscow 12 Hantuchova 52.6 Indian Wells 13 Myskina 22.1 Bahia 14 Daniilidou 19.6 ’s-Hertogenbosch 15 Dokic 18.1 Birmingham 16 Seles 9.1 Doha, Madrid 16 Farina Elia 9.1 Strasbourg Smashnova 0 Auckland, Canberra, Vienna, Shanghai Hobart 0 Sucha Raymond 0 Memphis Zuluaga 0 Bogota Srebotnik 0 Acapulco Montolio 0 Porto Serna 0 Estoril Müller 0 Budapest Svensson 0 Bol Bovina 0 Warsaw, Quebec City Mikaelian 0 Tashkent M. Casanova 0 Brussels Diaz-Oliva 0 Palermo Wartusch 0 Casablanca \ Safina 0 Sopot Kuznetsova 0 Helsinki, Bali Black 0 Big Island Craybas 0 Japan Open Matevzic 0 Bratislava Widjaja 0 Pattaya

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 135 Strongest Tournament Performances The list below shows the biggest performances (highest number of points earned) in 2002. Every result of more than 350 points is listed. Ordinal Score Player Event 1 1056 S. Williams Wimbledon W 2 1052 S. Williams Roland Garros W 3 1040 S. Williams U. S. Open W 4 1008 Capriati Australian Open W 5 750 Clijsters Los Angeles Championships W 6 732 V. Williams U. S. Open F 7 624 Hingis Australian Open F 8 618 V. Williams Wimbledon F 9 616 V. Williams Roland Garros F 10 590 S. Williams Miami W 11 572 Mauresmo U. S. Open SF 12 522 Mauresmo Wimbledon SF 13 504 C. Fernandez Roland Garros SF 14 500 Seles Australian Open SF 15 488 Hénin Wimbledon SF 16 484 S. Williams Los Angeles Championships F 17 482 Maleeva Moscow W 18 481 Hantuchova Indian Wells W 19 464 Capriati Roland Garros SF 20 433 Hénin Berlin W 21 427 S. Williams Rome W 22 419 Rubin Los Angeles W 23 410 Clijsters Australian Open SF 24 398 Davenport U. S. Open SF 25 394 Schnyder Zurich W 26 389 Schnyder Charleston F 27 389 V. Williams San Diego W 28 388 Mauresmo Canadian Open W 29 379 Majoli Charleston W 30 378 Hingis Pan Pacific W 31 378 Clijsters Filderstadt W 32 361 Clijsters Hamburg W 33 352 Suarez Roland Garros QF

Title Defences The following list shows all instances of a defending a title in 2002 (total of six; seven in 2001) Title Defended By Sydney Hingis Australian Open Capriati Strasbourg Farina Elia San Diego V. Williams New Haven V. Williams Luxembourg Clijsters

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 136 Seeds and their Success Rates The following tables summarize how successful seeded players are at holding their seeds. (It will be observed that seeding is much more accurate at the stronger tournaments.) In the tables which follow, the heading “reached seeded round” refers to the number of seeds who made it to the round in which seeds are expected to face seeds (e.g. the Round of 32 at the Slams, or the quarterfinals at a 28-draw tournament which has only eight seeds). The column “held seed” refers to players who not only reach the seeded round but reach the level expected for their seeding — so, e.g., seeds #5-#8 are expected to reach the quarterfinal; seeds #3 and #4 should reach the semifinal; #2 should reach the final, and #1 should win. If a player goes beyond her seeding, of course, she is regarded as having held her seed. Slams (+ Munich) Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Australian Open 32 21 17 66% 53%1 Roland Garros 32 17 13 53% 41%2 Wimbledon 32 19 13 59% 41%3 U. S. Open 32 21 16 66% 50%4 Los Angeles Champ 8 7 4 88% 50% Total 136 85 63 63% 46% 1. If we take only the top sixteen seeds, there were actually only fifteen (#5 seed Serena Williams withdrew and was replaced by #33 Krasnoroutskaya); of these 15, ten, or 67%, reached the seeded round; nine, or 60%, held seed. 2. If we take only the top sixteen seeds, nine, or 56%, reached the Round of Sixteen; seven, or 44%, held seed. 3. If we take only the top sixteen seeds, 10, or 63%, reached the Round of Sixteen; six, or 38%, held seed. We should note the complication that Lisa Raymond was promoted to the #16 seed; she held seed, and Patty Schnyder, the player she bumped, was in the same sixteenth and lost in the second round. 4. If we take only the top sixteen seeds, 12, or 75%, reached the seeded round; 9, or 56%, held seed Tier I Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Pan Pacific 8 4 3 50% 38% Indian Wells 32 24 16 75% 50%1 Miami 32 22 16 69% 50%2 Charleston 153 5233% 13% Berlin 16 10 8 63% 50% Rome 154 9760% 47% Canadian Open 155 7647% 40% Moscow 8 2 2 25% 25% Zurich 76 4457% 57% Total 148 87 64 59% 43% 1. If we take only the top sixteen seeds at Indian Wells, nine, or 56%, reached the Round of Sixteen; five, or 31%, held seed. 2. If we take only the top sixteen seeds at Miami, eleven, or 69%, reached the Round of Sixteen; eight, or 50%, held seed. 3. #16 seed Alexandra Stevenson withdrew after play began and was replaced by a Lucky Loser 4. #1 seed Venus Williams withdrew after play began and was replaced by a Lucky Loser 5. #1 seed Serena Williams withdrew after play began and was replaced by a Lucky Loser. 6. #3 seed Amélie Mauresmo withdrew after play began and was replaced by a Lucky Loser.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 137 Tier II Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Sydney 8 7 7 88% 88% Paris 8 7 6 88% 75% Antwerp 8 5 5 63% 63% Dubai 8 6 4 75% 50% Scottsdale 8 6 4 75% 50% Amelia Island 151 6640% 40% Hamburg 8 7 5 88% 63% Eastbourne 8 3 2 38% 25% Stanford 8 5 3 63% 38% San Diego 152 12 10 80% 67% Los Angeles 16 10 8 63% 50% New Haven 73 5571% 71% Bahia 8 5 2 63% 25% Princess Cup 8 5 4 63% 50% Leipzig 8 5 5 63% 63% Filderstadt 8 4 3 50% 37% Linz 8 6 5 75% 63% Total 157 104 84 66% 54% 1. #15 Daja Bedanova withdrew after play started and was replaced by a Lucky Loser 2. #4 Monica Seles withdrew after play started and was replaced by a Lucky Loser 3. #3 seed Jelena Dokic withdrew after play began and was replaced by a Lucky Loser

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 138 Tier III Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Gold Coast 8 5 5 63% 63% Doha 8 3 3 38% 38% Memphis 8 4 4 50% 50% Bogota 8 3 1 38% 13% Acapulco 8 4 1 50% 13% Bol 8 3 2 38% 25% Madrid 8 2 2 25% 25% Strasbourg 8 6 5 75% 63% Birmingham 16 11 9 69% 56% Vienna 8 6 5 75% 63% ’s-Hertogenbosch 8 5 2 63% 25% Sopot 8 3 2 38% 25% Quebec City 8 4 2 50% 25% Bali 8 2 1 25% 13% Japan Open 8 3 1 38% 13% Luxembourg 8 4 4 50% 50% Total 136 68 49 50% 36%

Tier IV Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Auckland 8 2 1 25% 13% Sarasota 8 3 2 38% 25% Porto 8 4 4 50% 50% Estoril 8 3 2 38% 25% Warsaw 8 2 1 25% 13% Tashkent 8 3 3 38% 38% Brussel 8 6 4 75% 50% Helsinki 8 3 2 38% 25% Big Island 8 3 2 38% 25% Shanghai 8 6 4 75% 50% Total 80 35 25 44% 31%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 139 Tier V Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Canberra 8 3 2 38% 25% Hobart 8 4 2 50% 25% Budapest 8 4 2 50% 25% Palermo 8 5 3 63% 38% Casablanca 8 4 2 50% 25% Bratislava 8 2 1 25% 13% Pattaya City 8 4 2 50% 25% Total 56 26 14 46% 25%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 140 Bagels The following chart lists the Bagels (6-0 sets) experienced or inflicted by top 20 players. The “” set is shown in bold. Double bagels are shown in bold for the entire line. Player Bagels inflicted Bagels experienced Bedanova Scottsdale: lost to Hingis 4Ð6 6Ð0 3Ð6 Birmingham: lost to Kremer 0Ð6 7Ð6 4Ð6 Bovina Paris: def. Oremans 6Ð0 7Ð5 U. S. Open: lost to Davenport 6Ð3 0Ð6 2Ð6 Birmingham: def. Grande 4Ð6 6Ð4 6Ð0 Canadian Open Qual: def. Gagliardi: 6Ð0 2Ð6 6Ð0 Quebec City: def. Roesch 6Ð2 6Ð0 Quebec City: def. Rodionova 6Ð1 6Ð0 Capriati Miami: def. Daniilidou 6Ð0 6Ð3 Zurich: lost to Martinez 0Ð6 3Ð6 Miami: def. Panova 6Ð2 6Ð0 Charleston: def. Myskina 6Ð0 7Ð5 Berlin: def. Tulyaganova 6Ð2 6Ð0 Rome: def. Pierce 6Ð0 6Ð0 San Diego: def. Harkleroad 6Ð0 6Ð3 U. S. Open: def. Mattek 6Ð0 6Ð0 Clijsters Australian Open: def. Husarova 6Ð0 6Ð2 Roland Garros: lost to C. Fernandez 4Ð6 0Ð6 U. S. Open: def. Martinez Granados 6Ð1 6Ð0 Princess Cup: def. Kuznetsova 6Ð4 0Ð6 7Ð5 Leipzig: def. Rittner 6-1 6-0 Luxembourg: def. Granville 6Ð0 6Ð4 Luxembourg: def. Razzano 6Ð3 6Ð0 Coetzer Sydney: def. Hewitt 6Ð0 6Ð1 Pan Pacific: lost to Stevenson 6-4 0Ð6 6Ð7 Acapulco: def. Valdes 6Ð0 6Ð1 Miami: lost to V. Williams 2-6 0Ð6 Indian Wells: def. Marrrero 4Ð6 7Ð5 6Ð0 Filderstadt: lost to Dementieva 3Ð6 0Ð6 Los Angeles: def. Smashnova 6Ð0 6-2 Luxembourg: lost to Razzano 3Ð6 0Ð6 Daniilidou Australian Open: def. Panova 6Ð2 4Ð6 6Ð0 Miami: lost to Capriati 0Ð6 3Ð6 ’s-Hertogenbosch: def. Poutchek 7Ð6 6Ð0 Los Angeles: def. Kremer 6Ð0 7Ð5 Bahia: lost to Myskina 3Ð6 6Ð0 2Ð6 Filderstadt Qualifying: def. Svensson 4Ð6 6Ð0 6Ð2 Davenport Stanford: def. Kremer 6Ð3 6Ð0 New Haven: Lost to V. Williams 5-7 0Ð6 San Diego: def. Mikaelian 6Ð3 6Ð0 U. S. Open: def. Bovina 3Ð6 6Ð0 6Ð2 Déchy Scottsdale: def. Hopkins 6Ð2 4Ð6 6Ð0 Canberra: def. Craybas 0Ð6 7Ð6 7Ð5 Indian Wells: def. Beigbeder 6Ð1 6Ð0 Miami: lost to Poutchek 3Ð6 6Ð0 0Ð6 Miami: lost to Poutchek 6Ð3 0Ð6 6Ð0 Belin: lost to Hénin 0Ð6 4Ð6 Amelia Island: lost to Dokic 6Ð0 6Ð7 1Ð6 Bahia: def. Shaughnessy 6Ð4 0Ð6 6Ð4 Roland Garros: def. Llagostera Vives 6Ð1 3Ð6 6Ð0 San Diego: def. Pisnik 5Ð7 6Ð2 6Ð0 Dementieva Indian Wells: lost to Stevenson 4Ð6 6Ð0 4Ð6 Australian Open: lost to Hénin 0Ð6 3Ð6 Miami: def. Gagliardi 6Ð0 6Ð4 ’s-Hertogenbosch: def. Maleeva 6Ð2 0Ð6 6Ð1 Amelia Island: lost to Dokic 6Ð0 6Ð7 1Ð6 Roland Garros: def. Neffa-de los Rios 6Ð3 6Ð0 Filderstadt: def. Coetzer 6Ð3 6Ð0 Dokic Sarasota — def. Smashnova 6Ð0 6Ð1 Indian Wells: lost to Kremer 3Ð6 0Ð6 Wimbledon — def. Hrdlickova 6Ð0 4Ð6 8Ð6 Amelia Island: def. Dementieva 0Ð6 7Ð6 6Ð1 Stanford: def. Martinez 1Ð6 6Ð0 6Ð1 Hamburg: def. Myskina 6Ð3 0Ð6 6Ð2 San Diego: def. Kournikova 6Ð7 7Ð6 6Ð0 Los Angeles: lost to Rubin 0Ð6 2Ð6 Los Angeles Champ: lost to S. Williams 7Ð6 6Ð0

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 141 Farina Elia Australian Open: def. Hopkins 6Ð2 6Ð0 Charleston: lost to C. Fernandez 6Ð7 0Ð6 Rome: def. Callens 6Ð0 6Ð4 Eastbourne: lost to Rubin 1Ð6 0Ð6 Strasbourg: def. Raymond 6Ð4 6Ð0 Roland Garros: def. Tanasugarn 6Ð0 7Ð6 Moscow: lost to Safina 6-0 6-7 4-6 Grande Roland Garros: def. Jidkova 6Ð0 7Ð5 Dubai: def. Gersi 0Ð6 6Ð4 7Ð5 Los Angeles: def. Maleeva 4Ð6 6Ð0 6Ð3 Rome: lost to S. Williams 0Ð6 3Ð6 Bratislava: lost to Matevzic 6Ð0 2Ð6 0Ð6 Birmingham: lost to Bovina 6Ð4 4Ð6 0Ð6 Canadian Open: lost to Suarez 0Ð6 4Ð6 Bratislava: lost to Matevzic 6Ð0 2Ð6 0Ð6 Hantuchova Australian Open: def. Garbin 6Ð0 6Ð2 Gold Coast: lost to Hénin 6–1 0Ð6 3Ð6 Australian Open: lost to V. Williams 6Ð3 0Ð6 4Ð6 Hénin Gold Coast: def. Hantuchova 1Ð6 6Ð0 6Ð3 Roland Garros: lost to Kapros 6Ð4 1Ð6 0Ð6 Sydney: def. Martinez 6Ð0 6Ð3 Australian Open: def. Pratt 6Ð4 6Ð0 Australian Open: def. Dementieva 6Ð0 6Ð3 Indian Wells: def. Ad. Serra Zanetti 6Ð3 6Ð0 Berlin: def. Déchy 6Ð0 6Ð4 Canadian Open: def. Nagyova 5-7 6Ð0 4-1, retired Hingis Australian Open: def. Rittner 6Ð1 6Ð0 Scottsdale: def. Bedanova 6Ð4 0Ð6 6Ð3 Australian Open: def. Coetzer 6Ð1 6Ð0 Miami: lost to S. Williams 4Ð6 0Ð6 Pan Pacific: def. Farina Elia 6Ð0 6Ð4 New Haven: lost to Myskina 7-6 4-6 0Ð6 Indian Wells: def. Talaja 6Ð0 6Ð1 Indian Wells: def. Black 6Ð0 6Ð3 Miami: def. Lee 6Ð1 6Ð0 Miami: def. Poutchek 6Ð0 6Ð1 Miami: def. Stevenson 6Ð2 6Ð0 Hamburg: def. Torrens Valero 6Ð1 6Ð0 Kournikova Pan Pacific: def. Torrens Valero 6Ð3 6Ð0 Antwerp: lost to V. Williams 5Ð7 0Ð6 San Diego: def. Stevenson 6Ð0 6Ð1 San Diego: lost to Dokic 7-6 6Ð7 0Ð6 U. S. Open: lost to Widjaja 3Ð6 0Ð6 Krasnoroutsk Linz Qualifying: def. Prakusya 6Ð3 6Ð0 Kremer Indian Wells: def. Dokic 6Ð3 6Ð0 Amelia Island: lost to V. Williams 5Ð7 0Ð6 Rome: def. Svensson 6Ð1 6Ð0 Roland Garros: lost to Rubin 1Ð6 0Ð6 Birmingham: def. Bedanova 6Ð0 5Ð7 6Ð4 Stanford: lost to Davenport 3Ð6 0Ð6 San Diego: def. Arn 5-7 6-3 6Ð0 Los Angeles: lost to Daniilidou 0Ð6 5Ð7 Canadian Open: lost to Ruano Pascual 1Ð6 0Ð6 Likhovtseva Indian Wells: def. Hopkins 7Ð5 6Ð0 Wimbledon: lost to V. Williams 2Ð6 0Ð6 Amelia Island: def. Zuluaga 7Ð6 6Ð0 Big Island: lost to Black 6Ð4 6Ð0 Amelia Island: def. Pratt 6Ð4 6Ð0 Majoli Bol: def. Zvonareva 6Ð2 6Ð0 Miami: lost to Maleeva 1Ð6 7Ð5 0Ð6 Roland Garros: lost to Cervanova 6Ð4 3Ð6 0Ð6 Maleeva Miami: def. Majoli 6Ð1 5Ð7 6Ð0 Los Angeles: lost to Grande 6-4 0Ð6 3Ð6 Berlin: def. Tanasugarn 6Ð4 6Ð0 Rome: def. Sucha 6Ð0 7Ð6 Birmingham: def. Pullin 7Ð6 6Ð0 ’s-Hertogenbosch: lost to Dementieva 2Ð6 6Ð0 1Ð6 Wimbledon: def. Viollet 6Ð1 6Ð0 Martinez Wimbledon: def. Beigbeder 6Ð1 6Ð0 Sydney: lost to Hénin 0Ð6 3Ð6 Bali: def. Taylor 6-0 6-3 Rome: def. Leon Garcia 0Ð6 6Ð1 7Ð6 Zurich: def. Capriati 6Ð0 6Ð3 Stanford: lost to Dokic 6Ð1 0Ð6 1Ð6 Zurich: lost to Schnyder 0Ð6 3Ð6

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 142 Mauresmo Australian Open: def. Lee 6Ð0 6Ð1 Antwerp: lost to V. Williams 6Ð7 0Ð6 Australian Open: def. Weingärtner 6Ð0 4Ð6 7Ð5 Berlin: def. Black 6Ð4 6Ð0 Rome: def. Sugiyama 6Ð0 6Ð2 Canadian Open: def. Zuluaga 6Ð0 6Ð2 Filderstadt: def. Rittner6Ð4 6Ð0 Montolio Estoril: def. Selyutina 6Ð3 6Ð0 Dubai: lost to Seles 0Ð6 2Ð6 Roland Garros: lost to Seles 7Ð6 3Ð6 0Ð6 Myskina Gold Coast: def. Stosur 6Ð2 6Ð0 Dubai: lost to V. Williams 0Ð6 6Ð3 4Ð6 Doha: def. Mandula 6Ð3 6Ð0 Charleston: lost to Capriati 0Ð6 5Ð7 Amelia Island: def. Stevenson 2Ð6 6Ð0 6Ð2 Bahia: def. Daniilidou 6Ð3 0Ð6 6Ð2 Hamburg: lost to Dokic 3Ð6 6Ð0 2Ð6 New Haven: def. Hingis 6Ð7 6Ð4 6Ð0 U. S. Open: def. Marrero 4-6 6-4 6-0 Zurich: lost to Mikaelian 6Ð0 3Ð6 5Ð7 Nagyova Rome: def. Ant. Serra Zanetti 1Ð6 6Ð4 6Ð0 Charleston: lost to C. Fernandez 6Ð4 4Ð6 0Ð6 Rome: lost to Panova 0Ð6 2Ð5, retired Canadian Open: lost to Hénin 7-5 0Ð6 1Ð4, retired U. S. Open: lost to Zvonareva 6Ð1 6Ð0 Bahia: lost to Seles 0Ð6 4Ð6 Panova Dubai: def. Molik 6Ð0 5Ð7 6Ð4 Australian Open: lost to Daniilidou 2Ð6 6Ð4 0Ð6 Rome: def. Hopkins 4Ð6 6Ð4 6Ð0 Miami: lost to Capriati 2Ð6 0Ð6 Rome: def. Nagyova 6Ð0 5Ð2, retired Bahia: lost to Matevzic 4Ð6 6Ð1 0Ð6 Pattaya City: def. Kirilenko 6Ð1 6Ð0 Pierce Roland Garros: def. Kapros 6Ð3 6Ð0 Rome: lost to Capriati 0Ð6 0Ð6 Raymond Australian Open: def. Noorlander 6Ð0 6Ð1 Strasbourg: lost to Farina Elia 4Ð6 0Ð6 Strasbourg: def. Mandula 2Ð6 6Ð0 6Ð2 Stanford: lost to V. Williams 3Ð6 0Ð6 San Diego: lost to Sugiyama 5Ð7 0Ð6 Rubin Roland Garros: def. Cho 6Ð3 6Ð0 Roland Garros: def. Kremer 6Ð1 6Ð0 Eastbourne: def. Farina Elia 6Ð1 6Ð0 Sanchez- Brussels: def. Chladkova 6Ð3 3Ð6 6Ð0 Roland Garros: lost to Marero 0Ð6 1Ð6 Vicario Princess Cup: def. Matevzic 6Ð2 6Ð0 Bali: def. Obata 6-3 4-6 6-0 Schyder Sarasota: def. Osterloh 6Ð0 6Ð1 Gold Coast: lost to V. Williams 0Ð6 4Ð6 Amelia Island: def. Ruano Pascual 6Ð1 6Ð0 Miami: lost to Reeves 4Ð6 0Ð6 Zurich: def. Martinez 6Ð0 6Ð3 Vienna: lost to Smashnova 6Ð2 2Ð6 0Ð6 Schett Roland Garros: def. Weingärtner 6–2 2–6 6Ð0 Brussels: def. Prusova 6Ð4 6Ð0 Linz: def. Wartusch 6Ð0 6Ð3 Seles Dubai: def. Montolio 6Ð0 6Ð2 Indian Wells: def. Sharapova 6Ð0 6Ð2 Indian Wells: def. Sucha 6Ð0 6Ð3 Indian Wells: def. Sugiyama 6Ð0 6Ð1 Charleston: def. Frazier 4Ð6 6Ð3 6Ð0 Roland Garros: def. Montolio 6Ð6 6Ð3 6Ð0 Wimbledon: def. Bes 6Ð0 6Ð0 Wimbledon: def. Neffa-de los Riose 6Ð4 6Ð0 Bahia: def. Nagyova 6Ð0 6Ð4 Serna Estoril: def. Pisnik 6Ð2 6Ð0 Sopot: def. Talaja 6Ð0 2Ð6 6Ð2 Shaughnessy Australian Open: def. Stewart 6Ð2 6Ð0 Amelia Island: lost to Suarez 1Ð6 6Ð1 0Ð6 Strasbourg: def. Hopkins 7Ð5 6Ð0 Bahia: lost to Déchy 4Ð6 6Ð0 4Ð6

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 143 Smashnova Canberra: def. Stewart 7-6 6Ð0 Sarasota: lost to Dokic 1Ð6 0Ð6 Canberra: def. Loit 6Ð3 6Ð0 Los Angeles: lost to Coetzer 0Ð6 2Ð6 Sarasota Qualifying: def. Pelletier 7Ð6 6Ð0 Charleston: def. Arn 6Ð2 6Ð0 Berlin: def. Torrens Valero 7Ð6 6Ð0 Vienna: def. Schnyder 2Ð6 6Ð2 6Ð0 Shanghai: def. Sun 1Ð6 6Ð0 6Ð1 Shanghai: def. Cho 6Ð0 6Ð3 Stevenson Pan Pacific: def. Coetzer 4–6 6Ð0 7Ð6 Indian Wells: def. Dementieva 6Ð4 0Ð6 6Ð4 Filderstadt Qualifying: def. Matevzic 2Ð6 6Ð0 6Ð3 Miami: lost to Hingis 2Ð6 0Ð6 Amelia Island: lost to Myskina 6Ð2 0Ð6 2Ð6 San Diego: lost to Kournikova 0Ð6 1Ð6 Suarez Acapulco: def. Beigbeder 6Ð3 6Ð0 Sarasota: def. Irvin 6Ð2 6Ð0 Amelia Island: def. Shaughnessy 6Ð1 1Ð6 6Ð0 Amelia Island: def. Craybas 6Ð0 6Ð0 San Diego: def. Prakusya 7Ð6 6Ð0 Canadian Open: def. Grande 6Ð0 6Ð4 Sugiyama Gold Coast: def. Weingärtner 6Ð0 4Ð6 6Ð2 Indian Wells: lost to Seles 0Ð6 1Ð6 Australian Open: def. Pisnik 7Ð6 6Ð0 Rome: lost to Mauresmo 0Ð6 2Ð6 Memphis: def. Ad. Serra Zanetti 6Ð0 6Ð4 San Diego: def. Raymond 7Ð5 6Ð0 Tanasugarn Doha: def Husarova 6Ð0 7Ð6 Dubai: lost to Testud 2Ð6 0Ð6 Dubai: def. Sucha 3Ð6 6Ð0 6Ð3 Hamburg: lost to Müller 6–3 0Ð6 0Ð6 Berlin: def. Hopkins 6Ð0 4Ð6 6Ð4 Berlin: lost to Maleeva 4Ð6 0Ð6 Wimbledon: def. Tu 6-2 3-6 6-0 Rome: lost to Chladkova 0Ð6 2Ð6 Canadian Open: def. Pisnik 6Ð0 6Ð1 Roland Garros: lost to Farina Elia 0Ð6 6Ð7 Testud Sydney: def. Pisnik 6Ð0 6Ð2 Dubai: def. Tanasugarn 6Ð2 6Ð0 Tulyaganova Vienna: def. Mandula 6Ð0 6Ð3 Hamburg: lost to Schiavone 0Ð6 1Ð6 U. S. Open: def. Ad. Serra Zanetti 6Ð0 6Ð0 Berlin: lost to Capriati 2Ð6 0Ð6 Bratislava: lost to Kurhajcova 6Ð1 0Ð6 2Ð6 Williams, S. Miami: def. Srebotnik 6Ð1 6Ð0 Miami: def. Hingis 6Ð4 6Ð0 Charleston: def. Hopkins 6Ð0 6Ð2 Rome: def. Grande 6Ð0 6Ð3 Roland Garros: def. Sucha 6Ð3 6Ð0 Roland Garros: def. Zvonareva 4Ð6 6Ð0 6Ð1 U. S. Open: def. Safina 6Ð0 6Ð1 Princess Cup: def. Wartusch 6Ð0 6Ð2 Princess Cup: def. Pratt 6Ð1 6Ð0 Los Angeles Championships: def. Dokic 7Ð6 6Ð0 Williams, V. Gold Coast: def. Schnyder 6Ð0 6Ð4 Australian Open: def. Hantuchova 3Ð6 6Ð0 6Ð4 Australian Open: def. Maleeva 6Ð0 6Ð3 Antwerp: def. Kournikova 7Ð5 6Ð0 Antwerp: def. Mauresmo 7Ð6 6Ð0 Dubai: def. Myskina 6Ð0 3Ð6 6Ð4 Miami: def. Coetzer 6Ð2 6Ð0 Amelia Island: def. Kremer 7Ð5 6Ð0 Roland Garros: def. Prakusya 6Ð0 6Ð1 Wimbledon: def. Likhovtseva 6Ð2 6Ð0 Stanford: def. Raymond 6Ð3 6Ð0 New Haven: def. Davenport 7Ð5 6Ð0 U. S. Open: def. Lucic 6Ð0 6Ð0

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 144 The Road to Victory Sometimes earning a title is easy; sometimes it’s a long struggle. The following statistics offer perspectives on what a player had to do to earn a title (Tier II or higher). Games Lost in Path to Title The following table assesses the winner’s path to victory by calculating the number of games lost on the way to the title. Since, however, some tournaments have more rounds than others, this is divided by the number of matches played to get games per match. (Note: for these purposes, a tiebreak counts as a game). The lower the number of games per match, the better the player performed. Event Tier Winner Games Lost Matches Played Games/Match Sydney II Hingis 26 4 6.5 Australian Open Slam Capriati 57 7 8.1 Pan Pacific I Hingis 27 4 6.8 Paris II V. Williams 24 3 8.0 Antwerp II V. Williams 27 4 6.8 Dubai II Mauresmo 25 4 6.3 Scottsdale II S. Williams 36 4 9.0 Indian Wells I Hantuchova 44 6 7.3 Miami I S. Williams 31 6 5.2 Amelia Island II V. Williams 42 5 8.4 Charleston I Majoli 47 6 7.8 Hamburg II Clijsters 31 41 7.8 Berlin I Hénin 54 5 10.8 Rome I S. Williams 36 5 7.2 Roland Garros Slam S. Williams 43 7 6.1 Eastbourne II Rubin 22 5 4.4 Wimbledon Slam S. Williams 43 7 6.1 Stanford II V. Williams 21 4 5.3 San Diego II V. Williams 31 5 6.2 Los Angeles II Rubin 43 5 8.6 Canadian Open I Mauresmo 30 5 6.0 New Haven II V. Williams 20 4 5.0 U. S. Open Slam S. Williams 29 7 4.1 Bahia II Myskina 27 4 6.8 Princess Cup II S. Williams 24 4 6.0 Leipzig II S. Williams 25 4 6.3 Moscow II Maleeva 47 5 9.4 Filderstadt I Clijsters 49 5 9.8 Zurich I Schnyder 53 5 10.6 Linz II Hénin 24 4 6.0 Los Angeles Champ Clijsters 14 42 3.5 1. Well, sort of. Two of Clijsters’ four opponents retired, but both had reached the second set. 2. Really more like three matches. In the semifinal, Clijsters played an injured Venus Williams. Venus retired trailing 5Ð0.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 145 Quality Points Earned The following table assesses the winner’s path to victory by calculating the strength of her opponents, as measured by quality points. Since some tournaments have more rounds than others, this is divided by the number of matches played. (Note: It should be kept in mind that there are more quality points available to lower-ranked players than to higher-ranked players. This means that Serena Williams, e.g., was abnormally low-ranked at Miami and earned a high rate of points as a result.) Quality Matches Points Event Tier Winner Points Played per Match Sydney II Hingis 143 4 35.8 Australian Open Slam Capriati 358 7 51.11 Pan Pacific I Hingis 103 4 25.8 Paris II V. Williams 86 3 28.7 Antwerp II V. Williams 125 4 31.3 Dubai II Mauresmo 94 4 23.5 Scottsdale II S. Williams 139 4 34.8 Indian Wells I Hantuchova 156 6 26.0 Miami I S. Williams 265 6 44.2 Amelia Island II V. Williams 89 5 17.8 Charleston I Majoli 104 6 17.3 Hamburg II Clijsters 166 4 41.5 Berlin I Hénin 158 5 31.6 Rome I S. Williams 152 5 30.4 Roland Garros Slam S. Williams 402 7 57.41 Eastbourne II Rubin 106 5 21.2 Wimbledon Slam S. Williams 406 7 581 Stanford II V. Williams 96 4 24 San Diego II V. Williams 169 5 33.8 Los Angeles II Rubin 224 5 44.8 Canadian Open I Mauresmo 113 5 22.6 New Haven II V. Williams 101 4 25.3 U. S. Open Slam S. Williams 390 7 55.71 Bahia II Myskina 75 4 18.8 Princess Cup II S. Williams 69 4 17.3 Leipzig II S. Williams 96 4 24.0 Moscow I Maleeva 207 5 41.4 Filderstadt I Clijsters 183 5 36.6 Zurich I Schnyder 119 5 23.8 Linz II Hénin 116 4 29.0 Los Angeles Champ Clijsters 265 4 66.3 1 Note that Slam quality points are doubled, giving artificially high values

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 146 “Top Players” 2002 Early in 2000, the challenge was issued to define what constitutes a “Top Player.” After some discussion, those involved decided that a “Top Player” was one who met two of the following three criteria: 1. Has reached at least one semifinal in the last three years. 2. Has, during one of the last three years, defeated at least five Top Ten players during a single year. 3. Has, during the last three years, won at least one tournament of Tier II or higher. The following table shows how well current players have done against these goals. The column labelled “Total Ach[ieved]” lists the total number of accomplishments met — i.e. it totals Slam semifinals, Tier II or higher titles, and increments of five Top Ten players defeated (i.e. if you beat five Top Ten players in a year, it adds one to your total; beat ten and you add two, etc. Remainders do not carry; if you beat eight in one year and seven in another, that counts as two, not three.) Note: Players below the Top 20 in 2001 were skipped, as none have accomplishments. Others years have been marked “X.” Player 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2000Ð Slam Top 10 Tier II+ Slam Top 10 Tier II+ Slam Top 10 Tier II+ Total 2002 SF Wins Titles SF Wins Titles SF Wins Titles Ach. Ach. Bovina 00000001000 Capriati 1104103271414 Clijsters 0611321123611 Coetzer 03000001000 Daniilidou 00000002000 Davenport 3 10 4 2 17 7140122 Déchy 03000001000 Dementieva 15002001002 Dokic 11003304004 Farina Elia 00002001000 C.Fernandez 00000011011 Hantuchova 01001005122 Hénin 00023015246 Hingis 3 15 8372142323 Kournikova 05000000001 Majoli 00000001111 Maleeva 02002004111 Martinez 22100001003 Mauresmo 051084262512 Myskina 00000005122 Pierce 16200000004 Rubin 01000004222 Sanchez-Vi 13001000001 Schnyder 02001006122 Seles 04205114015 Smashnova 00000003000 Stevenson 01000005011 Sugiyama 02001001000 Tauziat 02101000001

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 147 Testud 01004001000 S. Williams 15317341781525 V. Williams 2 10 5 3 14 6 3 16 6 12 32 From the above table, we can list players in order of “accomplishments.” Remember that this list is compiled over three years. Venus Williams, e.g., was not the most accomplished player of 2002 (obviously that honor goes to Serena), but over the three year span, she has been the most accomplished. Top Players: Player Accomplishments V. Williams 32 S. Williams 25 Hingis 23 Davenport 22 Capriati 14 Mauresmo 12 Clijsters 11 Hénin 6 Seles 5 Dokic 4 Pierce 4 C. Martinez 3 Dementieva 2 Hantuchova 2 Rubin 2 Schnyder 2 C. Fernandez 1 Kournikova 1 Majoli 1 Sanchez-Vicario 1 Maleeva 1 Myskina 2 Stevenson 1 Tauziat 1* * Retired or inactive player who nonetheless has residual accomplishments.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 148 Statistics About the Tour as a Whole Total number of ranked players on the Tour, as of November 11, 2002: 1253 (1214 in 2001) Most singles events played by a Top 100 player: 32/Jidkova (33/Irvin in 2001) Fewest events played by a Top 100 player: 9/Davenport, M. Casanova (10/S. Williams, Kournikova in 2001) Median number of events played by a Top 100 player: 24.5 (23 in 2001) Number of Top 100 players playing 25 or more events: 50 (41 in 2001) Number of Top 100 players playing 30 or more events: 8 (6 in 2001) Most events played by any player: 39/Keiko Tameishi (34/Jidkova in 2001). Runner-up: 35/ Geznenge. Median number of events played by all players: 11 (11 in 2001) Number of players playing 25 or more events: 153 (117 in 2001) Number of players playing 30 or more events: 26 (14 in 2001) Most points earned in any event: 1056/S. Williams at Wimbledon (1040 in 2001)1 Most titles for any player: 8/S. Williams (7/Davenport in 2001) Most Tour victories: 62/V. Williams (62/Davenport in 2001) Total Tournaments played in 2002: 64 (63 in 2001) Total players with Tour singles titles in 2002: 37 (30 in 2001) Total players with multiple singles titles in 2002: 12 (14 in 2001) Total players with Tier II or higher titles in 2002: 13 (8 in 2001) Most singles matches played: 79/Dokic (80/Testud in 2001) Most doubles matches played: 84/Suarez (72/Black, Likhovtseva in 2001) Most combined singles & doubles matches played: 136/Suarez (128/Dokic in 2001) Total Main Draw Matches Played (omits walkovers, withdrawals, byes): 2554 Total players with at least 2000 points: 10 (11 in 2001)2 Total players with at least 1000 points: 32 (24 in 2001) Total players with at least 500 points: 75 (72 in 2001) Total players with at least 200 points: 158 (153 in 2001) Total players with at least 100 points: 253 (241 in 2001) Total players with at least 50 points: 351 (340 in 2001) Total players with at least 20 points: 567 (552 in 2001) Total players with at least 10 points: 769 (753 in 2001) Total ranked players with 1.0 or fewer points: 11 (8 in 2001) Total players with .75 points: 5 (3 in 2001) Highest (year-end) score in a 17th Tournament : 59/Hénin. Record to this point: 215 (Martina Hingis, week of February 26, 2001) Total points “in the system” (sum of the Best 17 scores of all ranked players): 152702.63. The Top 25 have 57424.75 of these, or 37.6%.

1. Note that this is really a decline — Slams are worth 130 more points for the winner this year than last, meaning that Serena’s score is actually less than 1040 points when compared against historical records 2. Unlike the preceding, the increases in these numbers are not simply point inflation; much is due to more events being player. 3. How can there be a .6? The WTA made a mistake, that’s how. Alexandra Srndovic, #498, is shown with 25.1 points.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 149 The Year of the Injury When the WTA went to the additive (“Best N”) ranking system, it did so against the wishes of the top players. They didn’t want to have to play the extra tournaments needed to succeed under Best N. The players appear to have been right. It took a while, but injuries to top players have become routine. 2000 was the first “year of the injury.” The WTA responded by lowering the minimum from Best 18 to Best 17. This, predictably, didn’t help — it didn’t reduce the incentive to overplay, just the reward. The following list attempts to tabulate top players’ injuries in 2002, with their effects. It lists the player, and her assorted injuries, plus the events she missed in consequence (this list necessarily somewhat uncertain, as it is based in part on past schedules and initial sign-ups) and the effect on her ranking Player Injury Weeks Events Missed Entirely Events in which player with- Start/End Missed drew or played with injury Rank Bedanova wrist 2 Amelia Island, Charleston Sarasota 26/27 Clijsters arm 4 Antwerp Australian Open, Indian Wells, 5/8 Roland Garros, Wimbledon Davenport knee 26+ Sydney, Australian Open, Pan Pacific, (Munich 2001) 1/9 Scottsdale, Indian Wells, Miami, Berlin, Madrid, Roland Garros, Eastbourne, Wimbledon Davenport ankle 1 Linz Zurich 10/12 Dokic thigh ? Dubai? Paris, Antwerp, Indian Wells, — Miami Dokic leg 1 New Haven Canadian Open — Hénin left adductor 1 Charleston 8/8 Hénin finger 1 San Diego Stanford — Hingis wrist 0 Indian Wells — Hingis ankle lig. 15+ Berlin, Rome, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, Miami, Hamburg, Canadian 4/10 San Diego, Los Angeles, Zurich, Linz, Los Open, New Haven, U. S. Open, Angeles Championships Moscow, Filderstadt Kournikova ankle lig. 4 Filderstadt, Zurich, Linz, (Los Angeles Moscow 33/35 Championships — might have played doubles) Mauresmo back 2 Linz, Los Angeles Championships 4/6 Rubin knee 16 Canberra, Australian Open, Indian Wells, 66/69 Miami Seles foot 3 San Diego, Los Angeles, Canadian Open Stanford 4/5 Stevenson wrist 1 Charleston 26/28 Testud ? 4 Indian Wells, Miami — S. Williams ankle 5 Australian Open, Antwerp Sydney 6/6 S. Williams tendonitis 1 Canadian Open — V. Williams wrist 1 Rome 1/1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 150 Doubles Analysing doubles is much more complex than singles, because of the complications of different teams — and also because some players play doubles much more often than others. Serena Williams, for instance, played thirteen singles tournaments but only three doubles tournaments.; similarly, Martina Hingis played twelve singles and five doubles events. Janette Husarova, by contrast, played 25 singles tournaments — and 29 doubles events. The following section, therefore, only sketches the state of doubles. The Final Top 30 in Doubles Doubles Ranking Player 2001 Year-End 2002 Year-End Doubles Ranking Singles Ranking 1 Suarez, Paola 6 27 2 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 8 65 3 Raymond, Lisa 1 29 4 Stubbs, Rennae 2 — 5 Husarova, Janette 28 33 6 Dementieva, Elena 98 19 7 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 11 53 8 Hantuchova, Daniela 56 8 9 Black, Cara 3 56 10 Likhovtseva, Elena 4 42 11 Kournikova, Anna 26 35 12 Sugiyama, Ai 9 24 13 Fujiwara, Rika 135 185 14 Dokic, Jelena 12 9 15 Hingis, Martina 30 10 16 Martinez, Conchita 19 34 17 Shaughnessy, Meghann 14 30 18 Huber, Liezel 21 220 19 Arendt, Nicole 10 — 20 Po-Messerli, Kimberly 7 — 21 Petrova, Nadia 41 111 22 Lee, Janet 34 205 23 Pratt, Nicole 27 49 24 Clijsters, Kim 15 4 25 Williams, Serena 54 1 26 Schett, Barbara 18 40 27 Bovina, Elena 87 26 28 Prakusya, Wynne 35 104 29 Asagoe, Shinobu 108 97 30 Krizan, Tina 23 — 30 Srebotnik, Katarina 20 36

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 151 The Initial Top 30 in Doubles Doubles Rank Player Singles Rank 1 Raymond, Lisa 22 2 Stubbs, Rennae — 3 Black, Cara 58 4 Likhovtseva, Elena 36 5Tauziat, Nathalie 13 6 Suarez, Paola 27 7 Po-Messerli, Kimberly — 8 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 56 9 Sugiyama, Ai 30 10 Arendt, Nicole — 11 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 17 12 Dokic, Jelena 8 13 Testud, Sandrine 11 14 Shaughnessy, Meghann 12 15 Clijsters, Kim 5 16 Callens, Els 160 17 Coetzer, Amanda 19 18 Schett, Barbara 21 19 Martinez, Conchita 35 20 Srebotnik, Katarina 98 21 Huber, Liezel (Horn) 180 22 Vinci, Roberta 172 23 Krizan, Tina 727 24 Rittner, Barbara 68 25 Davenport, Lindsay 1 26 Kournikova, Anna 74 27 Pratt, Nicole 52 28 Husarova, Janette 75 29 McNeil, Lori — 30 Hingis, Martina 4

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 152 Doubles Ranking Fluctuation The table below is similar to the Ranking Fluctuation Table for Singles, except that rankings are recorded monthly rather than twice monthly. All players who were in the Top 25 on at least one of the specified days are listed, along with a handful of other players (e.g. Zvereva, Morariu) who had had solid past results. Player Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Nov Mean Median Std.Dev 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 Arendt 10 15 18 19 23 27 18 22 23 25 21 19 20 20 4.6 Black 3333 3 565810995.65 2.7 Bovina 85 94 71 60 49 41 35 36 35 36 27 27 49.7 38.5 22.7 Callens 16 20 16 16 15 23 20 19 20 24 31 34 21.2 20 6 Clijsters 15 17 19 25 24 24 34 70 48 41 23 24 30.3 24 15.8 Coetzer 19 22 28 29 29 34 30 32 28 51 58 71 35.9 29.5 15.7 Davenport 21 61 62 — — —————————— Dementieva 94 87 61 39 38 19 19 17 13966 341931 Dokic 12 13 10 11 10 12 25 27 21 20 13 14 15.7 13 6 Fujiwara 134 80 80 76 65 58 33 26 18 15 15 13 51.1 45.5 37.6 Hantuchova 56 19 20 14 11 10 10 10578814.8 10 13.7 Hingis 26 12 12 10 12 9 8 9 11 12 14 15 12.5 12 4.7 L. Huber 24 25 24 22 19 20 15 15 15 14 19 18 19.2 19 3.9 Husarova 32 46 39 27 25 17 17 16 1055520.3 17 13.7 Kournikova 22 10 15 13 13 13 13796101111.8 12 4.2 Krizan 25 24 22 20 21 25 23 20 25 31 34 30 25 24.5 4.5 Lee 33 40 43 31 26 28 26 33 31 29 28 22 30.8 30 5.9 Likhovtseva 4444 4 65671111106.35.52.8 Martinez, C. 17 14 13 12 14 15 39 24 27 18 16 16 18.8 16 7.8 McNeil 29 26 29 30 39 49 43 43 38 67 77 89 46.6 41 20.5 Morariu 57 158 161 — — — — — 164 81 80 78——— Petrova 35 32 33 35 34 39 57 65 101 58 20 21 44.2 35 22.8 Po-Messerli 87977891117191820 11.7 9 5.2 Prakusya 37 41 44 37 30 30 28 35 33 34 32 28 34.1 33.5 5 Pratt 28 37 38 36 36 31 27 25 45 26 22 23 31.2 29.5 7.1 Raymond 1111 1 1111333 1.51 0.9 Rittner 27 30 25 26 27 32 31 34 34 66 64 62 38.2 31.5 15.9 Ruano Pascual 7876 6 4444222 4.74 2.1 Rubin 69 62 63 62 62 59 64 28 22 23 30 32 48 60.5 18.9 Sanchez-Vicario 11988 8 7786877 7.88 1.3 Schett 20 44 37 40 40 21 22 23 24 22 26 26 28.8 25 8.8 Shaughnessy 14 18 21 23 20 37 37 31 29 16 17 17 23.3 20.5 8.2 Srebotnik 23 23 23 21 22 26 24 21 25 31 34 30 25.3 23.5 4.2 Stubbs 2222 2 2222444 2.52 0.9 Suarez 5655 5 3333111 3.43 1.8 Sugiyama 9 11 11 17 18 18 11 18 12 13 12 12 13.5 12 3.3 Tarabini 30 28 27 24 31 22 21 29 30 33 33 35 28.6 29.5 4.4 Tauziat 6569 911121319567510527.2 11.5 33 Testud 13 16 14 18 17 16 16 14 16 21 38 48 20.6 16 10.9 Vinci 18 21 17 15 16 14 14 12 14 17 25 33 18 16.5 5.9 S. Williams 54——— — ————272425——— V. Williams 54——— — —————————— Zvereva ———— —13213411471534846———

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 153 The Final Top Fifty in Doubles As of November 12, 2002 Final Best 11 # of Best Rank Player Name Score Trn Rank Titles 1 Suarez, Paola 3863 26 1 Bogo, Acap, Rome, RolaG, CanO, USOpn, Bahi (7) 2 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 3822 21 2 Bogo, Acap, Rome, RolaG, CanO, USOpn, Bahi, Bali (8) 3 Raymond, Lisa 3360 19 1 Sydn, PanP, Scotts, IndW, Miam, Char, East, Stan, Fild (9) 4 Stubbs, Rennae 3304 18 2 Sydn, PanP, Scotts, IndW, Miam, Char, East, Stan (8) 5 Husarova, Janette 3107 29 5 Doha, Berlin, SanD, Moscow, Lux, LAChamp (6) 6 Dementieva, Elena 2765 21 6 Berl, SanD, Moscow, LAChamp (4) 7 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 2256 23 6 Doha, Amelia Island, Sopot, Helsi, New Haven, PrinC (6) 8 Hantuchova, Daniela 2226 20 5 Amelia Island, New Haven (2) 9 Black, Cara 2085 24 3 Porto, Bali (2) 10 Likhovtseva, Elena 2043 27 4 Sarasota (1) 11 Kournikova, Anna 1992 10 6 Australian Open, Shanghai (2) 12 Sugiyama, Ai 1912 26 9 Memphis (1) 13 Fujiwara, Rika 1725 14 13 14 Dokic, Jelena 1615 17 10 Sarasota, Los Angeles, Linz (3) 15 Hingis, Martina 1504 5 8 Australian Open, Hamburg (2) 16 Martinez, Conchita 1372 21 12 17 Shaughnessy, Meghann 1371 19 14 Gold Coast (1) 18 Huber, Liezel 1302 21 14 Auckland (1) 19 Arendt, Nicole 1232 18 10 Auckland (1) 20 Po-Messerli, Kimberly 1153 18 7 21 Petrova, Nadia 1151 8 20 Linz (1) 22 Lee, Janet 1103 26 22 Shanghai (1) 23 Pratt, Nicole 1097 21 22 24 Clijsters, Kim 1094 11 15 Los Angeles, Luxembourg (2) 25 Williams, Serena 1091 3 24 Wimbledon, Leipzig (2) 26 Schett, Barbara 1067 20 20 Hamburg (1) 27 Bovina, Elena 1067 20 20 Estoril, Zurich (2) 28 Prakusya, Wynne 1048 24 25 29 Asagoe, Shinobu 1010 15 28 (Bloomington $50K, Fukuoka $50K), Birm, Japan Opn (2) 30 Krizan, Tina 1004 26 19 30 Srebotnik, Katarina 1004 26 20 32 Rubin, Chanda 1000 11 22 33 Vinci, Roberta 993.5 14 12 34 Callens, Els 985 18 14 (Bloomington $50K), Birmingham (1) 35 Tarabini, Patricia 984 26 20 36 Déchy, Nathalie 951 23 33 Paris (1) 37 Wartusch, Patricia 938.5 18 36 Vienna, Casablanca (2) 38 Serna, Magui 920 26 29 39 Tu, Meilen 910 23 35 Paris, Big Island (2) 40 Mandula, Petra 906 15 40 Vienna, Casablanca (2) 41 Farina Elia, Silvia 899 19 28 42 Garbin, Tathiana 895 23 36 Hobart, Bol (2) 43 Hénin, Justine 893 11 23 Gold Coast, Zurich (2) 44 Tulyaganova, Iroda 887.75 18 28 45 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 886 13 43 Sopot, Helsinki, Princess Cup (3) 46 Zvereva, Natasha 881 18 46 Madrid (1) 47 Svensson, Åsa 881 23 30 48 Testud, Sandrine 852 10 13 49 Oremans, Miriam 812 16 35 50 Grande, Rita 770 26 38 Hobart (1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 154 Individual Results: The Top Thirty Doubles Players/Results This table is generally equivalent to the table of results in the section on singles, save that the format is somewhat simplified. The list shows each tournament the player played and the partner with whom she played. This is followed, in parenthesis, by the tier of the tournament, a notation showing how far the player advanced, and the number of wins her team had to reach that point. Rank # of Player Results Events 19 18 Arendt Auckland w/L. Huber (IV, Win, 4) Australian Open w/L. Huber (Slam, R16, 2) Pan Pacific w/L. Huber (I, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/L. Huber (I, QF, 2) Miami w/L. Huber (I, SF, 2+1 walkover) Sarasota w/L. Huber (IV, QF, 1) Amelia Island w/L. Huber (II, 1R, 0) Charleston w/L. Huber (I, 1R, 0) Rome w/L. Huber (I, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/L. Huber (Slam, SF, 4) Birmingham w/L. Huber (III, SF, 2) Wimbledon w/L. Huber (Slam, 2R, 1) Canadian Open w/L. Huber (I, SF, 3) U. S. Open w/L. Huber (Slam, 2R, 1) Moscow w/L. Huber (I, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/L. Huber (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/L. Huber (I, 1R, 0) Los Angeles Championships w/L. Huber (Champ, QF, 0) 29 15 Asagoe Australian Open w/Fujiwara (Slam, QF, 3) Pan Pacific Qualifying w/Fujiwara (I, 2R, 0+1 in qualifying) Memphis w/Krivencheva (III, 1R, 0) Bloomington $50K w/Callens ($50K, Win, 4) Gifu $50K w/Fujiwara ($50K, F, 3) Fukuoka $50K w/Cho ($50K, Win, 4) Roland Garros w/Musgrave (Slam, QF, 3) Birmingham w/Callens (III, Win, 4) Wimbledon w/Miyagi (Slam, 2R, 1) Bronx $50K w/Miyagi ($50K, F, 3) U. S. Open w/Miyagi (Slam, 2R, 1) Shanghai w/Widjaja (IV, QF, 1) Princess Cup w/Widjaja (II, 1R, 0) Japan Open w/Miyagi (III, Win, 4) Pattaya w/Musgrave (V, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 155 924Black Hobart w/Pratt (V, QF [withdrew], 1) Australian Open w/Likhovtseva (Slam, 1R, 0) Pan Pacific w/Likhovtseva (I, 1R, 0) Scottsdale w/Likhovtseva (II, F, 3) Indian Wells w/Likhovtseva (I, 2R, 1) Miami w/Likhovtseva (I, 2R, 1) Porto w/Selyutina (IV, Win, 4) Estoril w/Selyutina (IV, QF, 1) Hamburg w/Likhovtseva (II, SF, 2) Berlin w/Likhovtseva (I, SF, 2) Rome w/Likhovseva (I, SF, 2) Madrid w/Pratt (III, QF [Black withdrew], 1) Roland Garros w/Likhovtseva (Slam, 3R, 2) Eastbourne w/Likhovtseva (II, F, 3) Wimbledon w/Likhovtseva (Slam, SF, 4) San Diego w/Likhovtseva (II, SF, 2) Los Angeles w/Likhovtseva (II, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Likhovtseva (I, 2R, 0) New Haven w/Likhovtseva (II, SF [Likhovtseva withdrew], 2) U. S. Open w/Likhovtseva (Slam, SF, 4) Princess Cup w/Likhovtseva (II, SF, 2) Bali w/Ruano Pascual (III, Win, 4) Bratislava w/Likhovtseva (V, SF, 2) Los Angeles Championships w/Likhovtseva (Champ, F, 2) 27 20 Bovina Gold Coast w/Hantuchova (III, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Stevenson (Slam, 1R,0) Paris w/Bedanova (II, 1R, 0) Antwerp w/Bedanova (II, SF, 2) Scottsdale w/Bedanova (II, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Bedanova (I, QF, 2) Miami w/Bedanova (I, 2R, 1) Estoril w/Gubacsi (IV, Win, 4) Budapest w/Gubacsi (V, F, 3) Bol w/Nagyova (III, F, 3) Roland Garros w/Bedanova (Slam, R16, 2) Birmingham w/Bedanova (III, 1R, 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Dementieva (III, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Bedanova (Slam, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Bedanova (I, 1R, 0) New Haven w/Bedanova (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Bedanova (Slam, 1R, 0) Leipzig w/Hénin (II, 1R, 0) Moscow w/Déchy (I, SF, 2) Zurich w/Hénin (I, Win, 4)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 156 34 18 Callens Gold Coast w/Pratt (III, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Pratt (Slam, R16, 2) Pan Pacific w/Vinci (I, F, 3) Antwerp w/Oremans (II, SF, 1+1 walkover) Bloomington $50K w/Asagoe ($50K, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/Tulyaganova (I, 2R, 1) Miami w/Tulyaganova (I, 1R, 0) Sarasota w/C. Martinez (IV, F, 3) Budapest w/Oremans (V, 1R, 0) Berlin w/Rubin (I, QF, 2) Roland Garros w/Rubin (Slam, 1R, 0) Birmingham w/Asagoe (III, Win, 4) Wimbledon w/Shaughnessy (Slam, R16, 2) Brussels w/Schett (IV, SF, 2) Canadian Open w/Vinci (I, 2R, 1) New Haven w/Petrova (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Vinci (Slam, 1R, 0) Big Island w/Schett (IV, SF, 2) 24 11 Clijsters Sydney w/Sugiyama (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Sugiyama (Slam, R16 [withdrew], 2) San Diego w/Dokic (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Dokic (II, Win, 4) Canadian Open w/Dokic (I, QF, 2) U. S. Open w/Shaughnessy (Slam, QF, 3) Princess Cup w/Dokic (II, 1R, 0) Leipzig w/Dokic (II, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Rubin (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Hantuchova (I, SF, 2) Luxembourg w/Husarova (III, Win, 4) 71 16 Coetzer Sydney w/McNeil (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/McNeil (Slam, QF, 2+1 walkover) Pan Pacific w/McNeil (I, 1R, 0) Oklahoma City w/Steck (III, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/McNeil (I, 1R, 0) Miami w/McNeil (I, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/Steck (II, SF, 2) Charleston w/Steck (I, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/McNeil (Slam, 2R, 1) Eastbourne w/McNeil (II, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/McNeil (Slam, 2R, 1) San Diego w/McNeil (II, QF, 1) Los Angeles w/McNeil (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/McNeil (I, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/McNeil (Slam, 1R, 0) Moscow w/Farina Elia (I, 1R, 0) —1Date Princess Cup w/Saeki (II, 1R, 0) —2Davenport Filderstadt w/Raymond (II, Win, 4) Zurich w/Rubin (I, QF, 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 157 621Dementieva Sydney w/Krasnoroutskaya (II, QF, 1) Pan Pacific w/Maleeva (I, 1R, 0+2 in qualifying) Paris w/Husarova (II, F [Dementieva withdrew], 3) Acapulco w/Husarova (III, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Husarova (I, F, 4) Miami w/Husarova (I, 2R, 1) Sarasota w/Husarova (IV, QF, 1) Amelia Island w/Husarova (II, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Husarova (I, 2R [withdrew], 1) Berlin w/Husarova (I, Win, 5) Rome w/Husarova (I, 2R, 1) Roland Garros w/Husarova (Slam, 2R [withdrew], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Bovina (III, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Husarova (Slam, 1R, 0) San Diego w/Husarova (II, Win, 4) Los Angeles w/Husarova (II, QF [Husarova withdrew], 1) Canadian Open w/Husarova (I, SF, 2 + 1 walkover) U. S. Open w/ Husarova (Slam, F, 5) Moscow w/Husarova (I, Win, 4) Zurich w/Husarova (I, 1R, 0) Los Angeles Championships w/Husarova (Champ, Win, 3) 14 17 Dokic Pan Pacific w/Tulyaganova (I, SF, 2) Paris w/Maleeva (II, SF, 2) Miami w/C. Martinez (I, 2R, 1) Sarasota w/Likhovtseva (IV, Win, 4) Hamburg w/Martinez (II, QF [Dokic withdrew], 1) Strasbourg w/Shaughnessy (III, QF, 1) Stanford w/Tanasugarn (II, QF, 1) San Diego w/Clijsters (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Clijsters (II, Win, 4) Canadian Open w/Clijsters (I, QF, 2) Bahia w/Daniilidou (II, SF [withdrew], 2) Princess Cup w/Clijsters (II, 1R, 0) Leipzig w/Clijsters (II, 1R, 0) Moscow w/Petrova (I, F, 3) Filderstadt w/Petrova (II, QF, 1) Zurich w/Petrova (I, F, 3) Linz w/Petrova (II, Win, 4) 13 14 Fujiwara Australian Open w/Asagoe (Slam, QF, 3) Pan Pacific Qualifying w/Asagoe (I, 2R, 0+1 in qualifying) Bogota w/Llagostera Vives (III, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Panova (I, QF, 2) Dothan $75K w/Palaversic Coopersmith ($75K, Win, 4) Gifu $50K w/Asagoe ($50K, F, 3) Rome w/Sugiyama (I, QF, 1+1 walkover) Roland Garros w/Sugiyama (Slam, SF, 4) Birmingham w/Sugiyama (III, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Sugiyama (Slam, 3R, 2) Canadian Open w/Sugiyama (I, F, 4) Shanghai w/Sugiyama (IV, F, 3) Linz w/Sugiyama (II, F, 2+1 walkover) Los Angeles Championships w/Sugiyama (Champ, SF, 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 158 50 26 Grande Gold Coast w/Garbin (III, 1R, 0) Hobart w/Garbin (V, Win, 4) Australian Open w/Garbin (Slam, 2R [withdrew], 1) Pan Pacific w/Garbin (I, 1R, 0) Doha w/Garbin (III, 1R, 0) Dubai w/Garbin (II, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/M. J. Martinez (I, 1R, 0) Miami w/Gagliardi (I, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/Hrdlickova (II, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Schnyder (I, 2R, 1) Berlin w/Farina Elia (I, 1R, 0) Rome w/Schnyder (I, 2R, 1) Madrid w/C. Fernandez (III, SF, 1+1 walkover) Roland Garros w/Schnyder (Slam, QF, 3) Birmingham w/Tu (III, 1R, 0) [Eastbourne w/Tulyaganova — Did not play, but the WTA gave her 1 point] Wimbledon w/C. Fernandez (Slam, 1R, 0) Stanford w/Tarabini (II, QF, 1) San Diego w/Tarabini (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Tarabini (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Schnyder (I, 1R, 0) New Haven w/Tarabini (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Schnyder (Slam, 2R, 1) Leipzig w/Shaughnessy (II, 1R, 0) Moscow w/Serna (I, QF, 1) Luxembourg w/Maleeva (III, QF, 1) 820Hantuchova Gold Coast w/Bovina (III, 1R, 0) Sydney w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Sanchez-Vicario (Slam, F, 4+1 walkover) Paris w/Likhovtseva (II, 2R, 1) Indian Wells w/Sanchez-Vicario (I, SF, 3) Miami w/Sanchez-Vicario (I, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, Win, 4) Charleston w/Sanchez-Vicario (I, SF, 1+1 walkover) Hamburg w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, F, 3) Berlin w/Sanchez-Vicario (I, F, 3) Roland Garros w/Sanchez-Vicario (Slam, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/Shaughnessy (II, SF, 2) Wimbledon w/Capriati (Slam, 2R, 1) San Diego w/Sugiyama (II, F, 3) Los Angeles w/Sugiyama (II, F, 3) Canadian Open w/Sanchez-Vicario (I, QF, 1) New Haven w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, Win, 4) U. S. Open w/Sanchez-Vicario (Slam, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Clijsters (I, SF, 2) 43 11 Hénin Gold Coast w/Shaughnessy (III, Win, 4) Sydney w/Shaughnessy (II, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Shaughnessy (I, 1R, 0) Miami w/Shaughnessy (I, QF, 2) Amelia Island w/Shaughnessy (II, 1R, 0) Rome w/Shaughnessy (I, 2R [Henin withdrew], 1) Canadian Open w/Pierce (I, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Martinez Granados (Slam, 2R, 0) Leipzig w/Bovina (II, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Mauresmo (II, SF, 2) Zurich w/ Bovina (I, Win, 4)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 159 15 5 Hingis Sydney w/Kournikova (II, F [Hingis withdrew], 3) Australian Open w/Kournikova (Slam, Win, 6) Miami w/Kournikova (I, QF [Hingis withdrew], 2) Hamburg w/Schett (II, Win, 3+1 walkover) U. S. Open w/Kournikova (Slam, QF, 3) 18 21 Huber, Liezel Auckland w/Arendt (IV, Win, 4) Australian Open w/Arendt (Slam, R16, 2) Pan Pacific w/Arendt (I, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Arendt (I, QF, 2) Miami w/Arendt (I, SF, 2+1 walkover) Sarasota w/Arendt (IV, QF, 1) Amelia Island w/Arendt (II, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Arendt (I, 1R, 0) Dothan $75K w/ ($75K, SF, 2) Berlin w/C. Martinez (I, 2R, 0) Rome w/Arendt (I, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/Arendt (Slam, SF, 4) Birmingham w/Arendt (III, SF, 2) Wimbledon w/Arendt (Slam, 2R, 1) Los Angeles w/Navratilova (II, SF, 1+1 walkover) Canadian Open w/Arendt (I, SF, 3) U. S. Open w/Arendt (Slam, 2R, 1) Moscow w/Arendt (I, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Arendt (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Arendt (I, 1R, 0) Los Angeles Championships w/Arendt (Champ, QF, 0) 529Husarova Auckland w/Matevzic (IV, QF, 1) Hobart w/Frazier (V, SF, 1+1 walkover) Australian Open w/Barna (Slam, 1R, 0) Paris w/Dementieva (II, F [Dementieva withdrew], 3) Doha w/Sanchez-Vicario (III, Win, 4) Dubai w/ Svensson (II, QF, 1) Acapulco w/Dementieva (III, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Dementieva (I, F, 4) Miami w/Dementieva (I, 2R, 1) Sarasota w/Dementieva (IV, 2R, 1) Amelia Island w/Dementieva (II, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Dementieva (I, 2R/withdrew, 1) Berlin w/Dementieva (I, Win, 5) Rome w/Dementieva (I, 2R, 1) Roland Garros w/Dementieva (Slam, 2R/withdrew, 1) Eastbourne w/Garbin (II, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Dementieva (Slam, 1R, 0) Stanford w/Martinez (II, F, 3) San Diego w/Dementieva (II, Win, 4) Los Angeles w/Dementieva (II, QF [Husarova withdrew], 1) Canadian Open w/Dementieva (I, SF, 2 + 1 walkover) New Haven w/Garbin (II, F, 2+1 walkover) U. S. Open w/ Dementieva (Slam, F, 5) Bahia w/Déchy (II, 1R, 0) Leipzig w/Suarez (II, F, 3) Moscow w/Dementieva (I, Win, 4) Zurich w/Dementieva (I, 1R, 0) Luxembourg w/Clijsters (III, Win, 4) Los Angeles Championships w/Dementieva (Champ, Win, 3)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 160 11 10 Kournikova Sydney w/Hingis (II, F [Hingis withdrew], 3) Australian Open w/Hingis (Slam, Win, 6) Miami w/Hingis (I, QF [Hingis withdrew], 2) Eastbourne w/Rubin (II, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Rubin (Slam, SF, 4) Stanford w/Shaughnessy (II, SF [Kournikova withdrew], 2) Canadian Open w/Schett (I, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Hingis (Slam, QF, 3) Shanghai w/Lee (IV, Win, 4) Moscow w/Shaughnessy (I, QF, 1) 30 26 Krizan Sydney w/Srebotnik (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Srebotnik (Slam, QF, 3) Pan Pacific w/Srebotnik (I, 1R, 0) Bogota w/Srebotnik (III, F, 3) Acapulco w/Srebotnik (III, F, 3) Indian Wells w/Srebotnik (I, 2R, 1) Miami w/Srebotnik (I, 1R, 0) Estoril w/Srebotnik (IV, SF, 2) Bol w/Srebotnik (III, QF, 1) Berlin w/Srebotnik (I, 1R, 0) Rome w/Srebotnik (I, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/Srebotnik (Slam, 1R, 0) Vienna w/Srebotnik (III, 2R, 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Srebotnik (III, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Srebotnik (Slam, QF, 2+1 walkover) San Diego w/Srebotnik (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Srebotnik (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Srebotnik (I, 1R, 0) New Haven w/Srebotnik (II, QF, 1) U. S. Open w/Srebotnik (Slam, 1R, 0) Bahia w/Srebotnik (II, QF, 1) Leipzig w/Srebotnik (II, QF, 1) Moscow w/Srebotnik (I, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Srebotnik (I, 1R, 0) Luxembourg w/Srebotnik (III, SF, 2) Los Angeles Championships w/Srebotnik (Champ, QF, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 161 22 26 Lee Hattiesburg $50K 2001 w/Tatarkova ($50K, SF, 2) Sydney w/Prakusya (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Prakusya (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Prakusya (I, QF, 1) Memphis w/Prakusya (III, SF, 2) Midland $75K w/Tatarkova ($75K, Win, 4) Scottsdale w/Prakusya (II, QF, 1) Miami w/Prakusya (I, SF, 4) Sarasota w/Prakusya (IV, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/Prakusya (II, QF, 1) Charleston w/Prakusya (I, QF, 2) Strasbourg w/Gagliardi (III, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/Prakusya (Slam, 1R, 0) Birmingham w/Prakusya (III, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/Prakusya (II, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Prakusya (Slam, R16, 2) Stanford w/Prakusya (II, 1R, 0) San Diego w/Prakusya (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Prakusya (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Prakusya (I, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Prakusya (Slam, 2R, 1) Shanghai w/Kournikova (IV, Win, 4) Princess Cup w/Prakusya (II, SF, 2) Zurich w/Prakusya (I, SF, 2) Linz w/Prakusya (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles Championships w/Prakusya (Champ, QF, 0) 10 27 Likhovtseva Gold Coast w/Sugiyama (III, SF, 2) Canberra w/Loit (V, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Black (Slam, 1R, 0) Pan Pacific w/Black (I, 1R, 0) Paris w/Hantuchova (II, 2R, 1) Scottsdale w/Black (II, F, 3) Indian Wells w/Black (I, 2R, 1) Miami w/Black (I, 2R, 1) Sarasota w/Dokic (IV, Win, 4) Amelia Island w/Pratt (II, QF, 1) Charleston w/Navratilova (I, 1R, 0) Hamburg w/Black (II, SF, 2) Berlin w/Black (I, SF, 2) Rome w/Black (I, SF, 2) Roland Garros w/Black (Slam, 3R, 2) Eastbourne w/Black (II, F, 3) Wimbledon w/Black (Slam, SF, 4) San Diego w/Black (II, SF, 2) Los Angeles w/Black (II, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Black (I, 2R, 0) New Haven w/Black (II, SF [Likhovtseva withdrew], 2) U. S. Open w/Black (Slam, SF, 4) Princess Cup w/Black (II, SF, 2) Leipzig w/Zvereva (II, SF, 2) Moscow w/Zvereva (I, 1R, 0) Bratislava w/Black (V, SF, 2) Los Angeles Championships w/Black (Champ, F, 2)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 162 16 21 Martinez, C. Auckland w/Schwartz (IV, 1R, 0) Sydney w/Vis (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Serna (Slam, SF, 4) Acapulco w/Tarabini (III, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Serna (I, 1R, 0) Miami w/Dokic (I, 2R, 1) Sarasota w/Callens (IV, F, 3) Charleston w/Tarabini (I, SF, 2) Hamburg w/Dokic (II, QF [Dokic withdrew], 1) Berlin w/L. Huber (I, 2R, 0) Rome w/Tarabini (I, F, 4) Roland Garros w/Tarabini (Slam, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Pierce (Slam, 3R, 2) Stanford w/Husarova (II, F, 3) San Diego w/Pierce (II, 1R, 0) New Haven w/Serna (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Majoli (Slam, 3R, 2) Princess Cup w/Pratt (II, 1R, 0) Bali w/Tarabini (III, SF [Martinez withdrew], 2) Zurich w/Sugiyama (I, 1R, 0) Linz w/Majoli (II, QF [Majoli withdrew], 1) 89 12 McNeil Sydney w/Coetzer (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Coetzer (Slam, QF, 2+1 walkover) Pan Pacific w/Coetzer (I, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Coetzer (I, 1R,0) Miami w/Coetzer (I, 1R,0) Roland Garros w/Coetzer (Slam, 2R, 1) Eastbourne w/Coetzer (II, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Coetzer (Slam, 2R, 1) San Diego w/Coetzer (II, QF, 1) Los Angeles w/Coetzer (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Coetzer (I, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Coetzer (Slam, 1R, 0) 78 7 Morariu San Diego w/Po-Messerli (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Po-Messerli (II, SF, 2) Canadian Open w/Po-Messerli (I, QF, 2) U. S. Open w/Po-Messerli (Slam, QF, 3) Big Island w/Po-Messerli (IV, QF, 1) Princess Cup w/Po-Messerli (I, QF, 1) Bali w/Pratt (III, QF, 1) 72 14 Navratilova Indian Wells w/Zvereva (I, 1R, 0) Miami w/Zvereva (I, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Likhovtseva (I, 1R, 0) Berlin w/Zvereva (I, 2R , 0+1 walkover) Rome w/Zvereva (I, QF, 2) Madrid w/Zvereva (III, Win, 4) Roland Garros w/Zvereva (Slam, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/Zvereva (II, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Zvereva (Slam, 2R, 1) Los Angeles w/L. Huber (II, SF, 1 + 1 walkover) Canadian Open w/Capriati (I, 2R, 1) New Haven w/Tulyaganova (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/ Tulyaganova (Slam, QF, 3) Princess Cup w/S. Williams (II, QF, 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 163 21 8 Petrova Gold Coast w/Farina Elia (III, SF [Petrova withdrew], 2) New Haven w/Callens (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Pratt (Slam, SF, 4) Leipzig w/Serna (II, QF, 1) Moscow w/Dokic (I, F, 3) Filderstadt w/Dokic (II, QF, 1) Zurich w/Dokic (I, F, 3) Linz w/Dokic (II, Win, 4) 20 18 Po-Messerli Pan Pacific w/Pratt (I, QF, 1) Scottsdale w/Pratt (II, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Pratt (I, QF, 2) Miami w/Pratt (I, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Pratt (I, R16, 1) Roland Garros w/Tauziat (Slam, 2R, 1) Birmingham w/Tauziat (III, F, 3) Eastbourne w/Tauziat (II, QF, 0 + 1 walkover) Wimbledon w/Tauziat (Slam, QF, 3) Stanford w/Sugiyama (II, 1R, 0) San Diego w/Morariu (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Morariu (II, SF, 2) Canadian Open w/Morariu (I, QF, 2) U. S. Open w/Morariu (Slam, QF, 3) Big Island w/Morariu (IV, QF, 1) Princess Cup w/Morariu (II, QF, 1) Filderstadt w/Zvereva (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Zvereva (I, QF, 1) 28 24 Prakusya Sydney w/Lee (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Lee (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Lee (I, QF, 1) Memphis w/Lee (III, SF, 2) Scottsdale w/Lee (II, QF, 1) Miami w/Lee (I, SF, 4) Sarasota w/Lee (IV, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/Lee (II, QF, 1) Charleston w/Lee (I, QF, 2) Roland Garros w/Lee (Slam, 1R, 0) Birmingham w/Lee (III, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/Lee (II, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Lee (Slam, R16, 2) Stanford w/Lee (II, 1R, 0) San Diego w/Lee (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Lee (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Lee (I, 1R, 0) New Haven w/Widjaja (II, 1R, 0+2 in qualifying) U. S. Open w/Lee (Slam, 2R, 1) Princess Cup w/Lee (II, SF, 2) Bali w/Widjaja (III, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Lee (I, SF, 2) Linz w/Lee (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles Championships w/Lee (Champ, QF, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 164 23 21 Pratt Gold Coast w/Callens (III, QF, 1) Hobart w/Black (V, QF [withdrew], 1) Australian Open w/Callens (Slam, R16, 2) Pan Pacific w/Po-Messerli (I, QF, 1) Doha w/Gagliardi (III, QF, 1) Dubai w/Boogert (II, 1R, 0) Scottsdale w/Po-Messerli (II, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Po-Messerli (I, QF, 2) Miami w/Po-Messerli (I, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/Likhovtseva (II, QF, 1) Charleston w/Po-Messerli (I, R16, 1) Hamburg w/Serna (II, 1R, 0) Madrid w/Black (III, QF [Black withdrew], 1) Roland Garros w/Majoli (Slam, 3R, 2) Birmingham w/Daniilidou (III, QF, 1) Eastbourne w/Sugiyama (II, SF, 2) Canadian Open w/Molik (I, 2R [withdrew], 1) New Haven w/Svensson (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Petrova (Slam, SF, 4) Princess Cup w/C. Martinez (II, 1R, 0) Bali w/Morariu (III, QF, 1) 319Raymond Sydney w/Stubbs (II, Win, 3+1 walkover) Australian Open w/Stubbs (Slam, SF, 4) Pan Pacific w/Stubbs (I, Win, 4) Scottsdale w/ Stubbs (II, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/Stubbs (I, Win, 5) Miami w/Stubbs (I, Win, 5) Amelia Island w/Stubbs (II, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Stubbs (I, Win, 4) Strasbourg w/Stubbs (III, withdrew from QF, 1) Roland Garros w/Stubbs (Slam, F, 5) Eastbourne w/Stubbs (II, Win, 4) Wimbledon w/Stubbs (Slam, QF, 3) Stanford w/Stubbs (II, Win, 3+1 walkover) San Diego w/Stubbs (II, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Stubbs (I, 2R, 0) New Haven w/Stubbs (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Stubbs (Slam, R16, 2) Filderstadt w/Davenport (II, Win, 4) Los Angeles Championships w/Stubbs (Champ, SF, 1) 62 14 Rittner Australian Open w/Müller (Slam, 2R, 1) Dubai w/Vento-Kabchi (II, Win, 4) Miami w/Vento-Kabchi (I, 1R, 0) Estoril w/Vento-Kabchi (IV, F, 3) Hamburg w/Zvereva (II, QF [Rittner withdrew], 1) Roland Garros w/Vento-Kabchi (Slam, 2R, 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Oremans (III, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Vento-Kabchi (Slam, 1R, 0) Brussels w/Müller (IV, QF, 1) U. S. Open w/Serna (Slam, 1R, 0) Leipzigw/Déchy (II, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Vis (II, 1R, 0) Bratislava w/Hrdlickova (V, QF, 1) Luxembourg w/Hrdlickova (III, F, 3)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 165 221Ruano Pascual Hobart w/Suarez (V, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Suarez (Slam, R16, 2) Bogota w/Suarez (III, Win, 4) Acapulco w/Suarez (III, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/Suarez (I, SF, 3) Miami w/Suarez (I, F, 4) Sarasota w/Suarez (IV, SF [withdrew], 2) Amelia Island w/Suarez (II, SF, 2) Charleston w/Suarez (I, 2R, 0) Rome w/Suarez (I, Win , 3+1 walkover) Roland Garros w/Suarez (Slam, Win, 6) Wimbledon w/Suarez (Slam, F, 5) Brussels w/Serna (IV, SF, 2) Canadian Open w/Suarez (I, Win, 4) New Haven w/Suarez (II, SF, 1+1 walkover) U. S. Open w/Suarez (Slam, Win, 6) Bahia w/Suarez (II, Win, 3+1 walkover) Bali w/Black (III, Win, 4) Zurich w/Suarez (I, 1R, 0) Linz w/Suarez (II, QF, 1) Los Angeles Championships w/Suarez (Champ, QF, 0) 32 11 Rubin Berlin w/Callens (I, QF, 2) Roland Garros w/Callens (Slam, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/Kournikova (II, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Kournikova (Slam, SF, 4) San Diego w/Shaughnessy (II, QF, 1) Los Angeles w/Zvereva (II, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Zvereva (I, QF, 2) U. S. Open w/Zvereva (Slam, R16, 2) Filderstadt w/Clijsters (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Davenport (I, QF, 1) Linz w/Schett (II, 1R, 0) 723Sanchez-Vicario Sydney w/Hantuchova (II, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Hantuchova (Slam, F, 4+1 walkover) Doha w/Husarova (III, Win, 4) Acapulco w/Torres (III, QF, 1) Indian Wells w/Hantuchova (I, SF, 3) Miami w/Hantuchova (I, 1R, 0) Sarasota w/Neffa-de los Rios (IV, SF, 2) Amelia Island w/Hantuchova (II, Win, 4) Charleston w/Hantuchova (I, SF, 1+1 walkover) Hamburg w/Hantuchova (II, F, 3) Berlin w/Hantuchova (I, F, 3) Madrid w/Neffa-de los Rios (III, F, 3) Roland Garros w/Hantuchova (Slam, 1R, 0) Brussels w/Garbin (IV, F, 3) Sopot w/Kuznetsova (III, Win, 4) Helsinki w/Kuznetsova (IV, Win, 4) Canadian Open w/Hantuchova (I, QF, 1) New Haven w/Hantuchova (II, Win, 4) U. S. Open w/Hantuchova (Slam, 1R, 0) Princess Cup w/Kuznetsova (II, Win, 4) Bali w/Kuznetsova (III, F, 2+1 walkover) Japan Open w/Kuznetsova (III, F, 3) Filderstadt w/Hantuchova (II, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 166 26 20 Schett Sydney w/Farina Elia (II, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Farina Elia (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Farina Elia (I, SF, 2) Paris w/Serna (II, 1R, 0) Scottsdale w/Serna (II, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Farina Elia (I, 1R, 0) Miami w/Farina Elia (I, 2R, 1) Hamburg w/Hingis (II, Win, 3+1 walkover) Berlin w/Capriati (I, QF, 2) Rome w/Farina Elia (I, QF, 2) Roland Garros w/Farina Elia (Slam, 3R, 2) Wimbledon w/Farina Elia (Slam, 3R, 2) Brussels w/Callens (IV, SF, 2) Los Angeles w/Tatarkova (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Kournikova (I, 1R, 0) New Haven w/Farina Elia (II, QF, 1) U. S. Open w/Farina Elia (Slam, 1R, 0) Big Island w/Callens (IV, SF, 2) Filderstadt w/Majoli (II, 1R, 0) Linz w/Rubin (II, 1R, 0) 17 19 Shaughnessy Gold Coast w/Hénin (III, Win, 4) Sydney w/Hénin (II, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Hénin (I, 1R, 0) Miami w/Hénin (I, QF, 2) Amelia Island w/Hénin (II, 1R, 0) Berlin w/Maleeva (I, 2R, 1) Rome w/Hénin (I, 2R [Henin withdrew], 1) Strasbourg w/Dokic (III, QF, 1) Eastbourne w/Hantuchova (II, SF, 2) Wimbledon w/Callens (Slam, R16, 2) Stanford w/Kournikova (II, SF [Kournikova withdrew], 2) San Diego w/Rubin (II, QF, 1) Los Angeles w/Serna (II, QF, 1) U. S. Open w/Clijsters (Slam, QF, 3) Bahia w/Tulyaganova (II, SF, 2) Leipzig w/Grande (II, 1R, 0) Moscow w/Kournikova (I, QF, 1) Filderstadt w/Suarez (II, F, 3) Bratislava w/Tulyaganova (V, QF [Shaughnessy withdrew], 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 167 30 26 Srebotnik Sydney w/Krizan (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Krizan (Slam, QF, 3) Pan Pacific w/Krizan (I, 1R, 0) Bogota w/Krizan (III, F, 3) Acapulco w/Krizan (III, F, 3) Indian Wells w/Krizan (I, 2R, 1) Miami w/Krizan (I, 1R, 0) Estoril w/Krizan (IV, SF, 2) Bol w/Krizan (III, QF, 1) Berlin w/Krizan (I, 1R, 0) Rome w/Krizan (I, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/Krizan (Slam, 1R, 0) Vienna w/Krizan (III, 2R, 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Krizan (III, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Krizan (Slam, QF, 2+1 walkover) San Diego w/Krizan (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Krizan (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Krizan (I, 1R, 0) New Haven w/Krizan (II, QF, 1) U. S. Open w/Krizan (Slam, 1R, 0) Bahia w/Krizan (II, QF, 1) Leipzig w/Krizan (II, QF, 1) Moscow w/Krizan (I, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Krizan (I, 1R, 0) Luxembourg w/Krizan (III, SF, 2) Los Angeles Championships w/Krizan (Champ, QF, 0) 218Stubbs Sydney w/Raymond (II, Win, 3+1 walkover) Australian Open w/Raymond (Slam, SF, 4) Pan Pacific w/Raymond (I, Win, 4) Scottsdale w/Raymond (II, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/Raymond (I, Win, 5) Miami w/Raymond (I, Win, 5) Amelia Island w/Raymond (II, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Raymond (I, Win, 4) Strasbourg w/Raymond (III, withdrew from QF, 1) Roland Garros w/Raymond (Slam, F, 5) Eastbourne w/Raymond (II, Win, 4) Wimbledon w/Raymond (Slam, QF, 3) Stanford w/Raymond (II, Win, 3+1 walkover) San Diego w/Raymond (II, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Raymond (I, 2R, 0) New Haven w/Raymond (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Raymond (Slam, R15, 2) Los Angeles Championships w/Raymond (Champ, SF, 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 168 126Suarez Hobart w/Ruano Pascual (V, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, R16, 2) Bogota w/Ruano Pascual (III, Win, 4) Acapulco w/Ruano Pascual (III, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/Ruano Pascual (I, SF, 3) Miami w/Ruano Pascual (I, F, 4) Sarasota w/Ruano Pascual (IV, SF [withdrew], 2) Amelia Island w/Ruano Pascual (II, SF, 2) Charleston w/Ruano Pascual (I, 2R, 0) Berlin w/Tarabini (I, SF, 2) Rome w/Ruano Pascual (I, Win, 3+1 walkover) Roland Garros w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, Win, 6) Wimbledon w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, F, 5) Palermo w/Montalvo (V, SF, 2) San Diego w/Tulyaganova (II, SF, 2) Los Angeles w/Tulyaganova (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Ruano Pascual (I, Win, 4) New Haven w/Ruano Pascual (II, SF, 1+1 walkover) U. S. Open w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, Win, 6) Bahia w/Ruano Pascual (II, Win, 3+1 walkover) Leipzig w/Husarova (II, F, 3) Moscow w/Montalvo (I, SF, 2) Filderstadt w/Shaughnessy (II, F, 3) Zurich w/Ruano Pascual (I, 1R, 0) Linz w/Ruano Pascual (II, QF, 1) Los Angeles Championships w/Ruano Pascual (Champ, QF, 0) 12 26 Sugiyama Gold Coast w/Likhovtseva (III, SF, 2) Sydney w/Clijsters (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Clijsters (Slam, R16 [withdrew], 2) Pan Pacific w/Bedanova (I, 1R, 0) Memphis w/Tatarkova (III, Win, 4) Scottsdale w/Oremans (II, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Tatarkova (I, 2R, 1) Miami w/Tatarkova (I, 1R, 0) Sarasota w/Tatarkova (IV, QF, 1) Amelia Island w/Tatarkova (II, QF, 1) Charleston w/Tatarkova (I, 1R, 0) Rome w/Fujiwara (I, QF, 1+1 walkover) Roland Garros w/Fujiwara (Slam, SF, 4) Birmingham w/Fujiwara (III, QF, 1) Eastbourne w/Pratt (II, SF, 2) Wimbledon w/Fujiwara (Slam, 3R, 2) Stanford w/Po-Messerli (II, 1R, 0) San Diego w/Hantuchova (II, F, 3) Los Angeles w/Hantuchova (II, F, 3) Canadian Open w/Fujiwara (I, F, 4) U. S. Open w/Saeki (Slam, 1R, 0) Shanghai w/Fujiwara (IV, F, 3) Princess Cup w/Zvereva (II, QF, 1) Zurich w/Martinez (I, 1R, 0) Linz w/Fujiwara (II, F, 2+1 walkover) Los Angeles Championships w/Fujiwara (Champ, SF, 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 169 35 26 Tarabini Auckland w/Salerni (V, QF, 1) Sydney w/Salerni (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Salerni (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Salerni (I, QF, 1) Acapulco w/C. Martinez (III, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Selyutina (I, 1R, 0) Miami w/Schlukebir (I, 2R, 1) Sarasota w/Svensson (IV, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/Montalvo (II, 1R, 0) Charleston w/C. Martinez (I, SF, 2) Hamburg w/Leon Garcia (II, 1R, 0+1 Pro set in qualifying) Berlin w/Suarez (I, SF, 2) Rome w/C. Martinez (I, F, 4) Roland Garros w/C. Martinez (Slam, 1R, 0) Vienna w/Tulyaganova (III, 2R, 1) Wimbledon w/Majoli (Slam, 1R, 0) Stanford w/Grande (II, QF, 1) San Diego w/Grande (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Grande (II, 1R, 0) New Haven w/Grande (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/C. Fernandez (Slam, 2R, 1) Big Island w/Bielik (IV, 1R, 0) Princess Cup w/Fernandez (II, 1R, 0) Bali w/Martinez (III, SF [Martinez withdrew], 2) Zurich w/Vis (I, 1R, 0) Linz w/Schiavone (II, 1R, 0) 105 5 Tauziat Strasbourg w/Foretz (III, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/Po-Messerli (Slam, 2R, 1) Birmingham w/Po-Messerli (III, F, 3) Eastbourne w/Po-Messerli (II, QF, 0 + 1 walkover) Wimbledon w/Po-Messerli (Slam, QF, 3) 48 10 Testud Gold Coast w/Vinci (III, QF, 1) Sydney w/Oremans (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Vinci (Slam, R16, 2) Pan Pacific w/Seles (I, QF, 1) Doha w/Vinci (III, 1R, 0) Dubai w/Vinci (II, F, 3) Amelia Island w/Déchy (II, QF, 1) Rome w/Vinci (I, SF, 2) Roland Garros w/Vinci (Slam, QF, 3) Wimbledon w/Vinci (Slam, 3R [Testud withdrew], 2) 33 14 Vinci Gold Coast w/Testud (III, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Testud (Slam, R16, 2) Pan Pacific w/Callens (I, F, 3) Doha w/Testud (III, 1R, 0) Dubai w/Testud (II, F, 3) Denin $50K w/Pennetta ($50K, QF, 1) Warsaw w/Loit (IV, QF [Vinci withdrew], 1) Rome w/Testud (I, SF, 2) Roland Garros w/Testud (Slam, QF, 3) Tashkent w/Camerin (IV, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Testud (Slam, 3R [Testud withdrew], 2) Canadian Open w/Callens (I, 2R, 1) U. S. Open w/Callens (Slam, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Farina Elia (I, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 170 24 3 Williams, S. Wimbledon w/Williams (Slam, Win, 6) Princess Cup w/Navratilova (II, QF, 1) Leipzig w/Stevenson (II, Win, 4) —1Williams, V. Wimbledon w/Williams (Slam, Win, 6) 46 18 Zvereva Indian Wells w/Navratilova (I, 1R, 0) Miami w/Navratilova (I, 1R, 0) Hamburg w/Rittner (II, QF [Rittner withdrew], 1) Berlin w/Navratilova (I, 2R, 0+1 walkover) Rome w/Navratilova (I, QF, 2) Madrid w/Navratilova (III, Win, 4) Roland Garros w/Navratilova (Slam, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/Navratilova (II, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Navratilova (Slam, 2R, 1) Los Angeles w/Rubin (II, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Rubin (I, QF, 2) New Haven w/De Villiers (II, QF, 1) U. S. Open w/Rubin (Slam, R16, 2) Princess Cup w/Sugiyama (II, QF, 1) Leipzig w/Likhovtseva (II, SF, 2) Moscow w/Likhovtseva (I, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Po-Messerli (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Po-Messerli (I, QF, 1)

Head-to-Heads — Team Losses Head-to-head records in doubles don’t mean much. It’s a much bigger achievement to beat Barbara Schett when she plays with Martina Hingis than when she plays with Magui Serna. As a result, no attempt is made to compile head-to-heads for doubles. Rather, the following lists show the opponents to whom the top doubles teams have lost this year. The first line of each section shows, in bold, the names the doubles team. This is followed by a summary of their results: Events played together, titles won, won/lost record, perhaps comments about withdrawals or Challenger results. The opponents who beat them, and the event at which this occurred, follow. Arendt/L. Huber Asagoe/Callens [18 events, 1 title, 22Ð17 record] [2 events, 1 WTA+1 Ch title, 8Ð0 record inc. 4 ch. wins] Krizan/Srebotnik (Australian Open) Salerni/Tarabini (Pan Pacific) Asagoe/Fujiwara Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Indian Wells) [3 events, 0 titles, 7Ð3 record inc. 3 chall. wins, 1 qual Raymond/Stubbs (Miami) win] Neffa-de los Rios/Sanchez-Vicario (Sarasota) Hingis/Kournikova (Australian Open) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Amelia Island) Dementieva/Maleeva (Pan Pacific Qualifying) Palaversic-Coopersmith/Seles (Charleston) Cho/Dominikovic (Gifu $50K) Déchy/Tu (Rome) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Roland Garros) Asagoe/Krivencheva Po-Messerli/Tauziat (Birmingham) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Kournikova/Rubin (Wimbledon) Hopmans/Perebiyns (Memphis) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Canadian Open) Morariu/Po-Messerli (U. S. Open) Asagoe/Miyagi Bovina/Déchy (Moscow) [4 events, 1 title, 9Ð3 record inc. 3 wins in a Challenger] M. Casanova/Myskina (Filderstadt) Rodionova/Weingärtner (Wimbledon) Clijsters/Hantuchova (Zurich) Ani/Pennetta (Bronx $50K) Black/Likhovtseva (Los Angeles Championships) Majoli/C. Martinez (U. S. Open)

Asagoe/Cho [1 event, 1 title, 4-0 record in a Challenger]

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 171 Asagoe/Musgrave Black/Pratt [2 events, 0 titles, 3Ð2 record] [2 events, 0 titles, 2Ð0 record, 2 withdrawals] Raymond/Stubbs (Roland Garros) Krasnoroutskaya/Panova (Pattaya) Black/Ruano Pascual [1 event, 1 title, 4Ð0 record] Asagoe/Widjaja [2 events, 0 titles, 1Ð2 record] Black/Selyutina T. Li/T-T Sun (Shanghai) [2 events, 1 title, 5Ð1 record] Morariu/Po-Messerli (Princess Cup) Bes/Dominguez Lino (Estoril)

Barna/Husarova Boogert/Pratt [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Boogert/Oremans (Australian Open) Fusai/Vis (Dubai)

Bedanova/Bovina Bovina/Déchy [11 events, 0 titles, 7Ð11 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] Hantuchova/Likhovtseva (Paris) Dokic/Petrova (Moscow) Déchy/Tu (Antwerp) Raymond/Stubbs (Scottsdale) Bovina/Dementieva Dementieva/Husarova (Indian Wells) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Raymond/Stubbs (Miami) Glass/Hrdlickova (’s-Hertogenbosch) Raymond/Stubbs (Roland Garros) Arendt/L. Huber (Birmingham) Bovina/Gubacsi de Villiers/Selyutina (Wimbledon) [2 events, 1 title, 7Ð1 record] Rubin/Zvereva (Canadian Open) Barclay/Loit (Budapest) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (New Haven) Majoli/C. Martinez (U. S. Open) Bovina/Hantuchova [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Bedanova/Sugiyama Hénin/Shaughnessy (Gold Coast) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Po-Messerli/Pratt (Pan Pacific) Bovina/Hénin [2 events, 1 title, 4Ð1 record] Bielik/Tarabini Stevenson/S. Williams (Leipzig) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Jidkova/Stewart (Big Island) Bovina/Nagyova [1 event, 0 titles, 3Ð1 record] Black/Likhovtseva Garbin/Widjaja (Bol) [19 events, 0 titles, 35Ð18 record, 1 withdrawal] Grant/Spears (Australian Open) Bovina/Stevenson Seles/Testud (Pan Pacific) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Raymond/Stubbs (Scottsdale) Grandin/Van Exel (Australian Open) Bedanova/Bovina (Indian Wells) Lee/Prakusya (Miami) Callens/C. Martinez Hingis/Schett (Hamburg) [1 event, 0 titles, 3Ð1 record] Dementieva/Husarova (Berlin) Dokic/Likhovtseva (Sarasota) C. Martinez/Tarabini (Rome) Fujiwara/Sugiyama (Roland Garros) Callens/Oremans Raymond/Stubbs (Eastbourne) [2 events, 0 titles, 1Ð2 record] Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Wimbledon) Maleeva/Schnyder (Antwerp) Dementieva/Husarova (San Diego) Kapros/Nagy (Budapest) Clijsters/Dokic (Los Angeles) Rubin/Zvereva (Canadian Open) Callens/Petrova Dementieva/Husarova (U. S. Open) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario (Princess Cup) De Villiers/Zvereva (New Haven) Déchy/Tu (Bratislava) Dementieva/Husarova (Los Angeles Championships)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 172 Callens/Pratt Clijsters/Husarova [2 events, 0 titles, 3Ð2 record] [1 event, 1 title, 4Ð0 record] Svensson/Oremans (Gold Coast) Bedanova/Hrdlickova (Australian Open) Clijsters/Rubin [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Callens/Rubin Hénin/Mauresmo (Filderstadt) [2 events, 0 titles, 2Ð2 record] Black/Likhovtsva (Berlin) Clijsters/Shaughnessy Arendt/L. Huber (Roland Garros) [1 event, 0 titles, 3Ð1 record] Dementieva/Husarova (U. S. Open) Callens/Schett [2 events, 0 titles, 4Ð2 record] Clijsters/Sugiyama Garbin/Sanchez-Vicario (Brussels) [2 events, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record, 1 withdrawal] de Villiers/Selyutina (Big Island) Henin/Shaughnessy (Sydney)

Callens/Shaughnessy Coetzer/Farina Elia [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Wimbledon) Kournikova/Shaughnessy (Moscow)

Callens/Tulyaganova Coetzer/McNeil [2 events, 0 titles, 1Ð2 record] [12 events, 0 titles, 6Ð12 record] Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Indian Wells) Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (Sydney) Hiraki/Miyagi (Miami) C. Martinez/Serna (Australian Open) Raymond/Stubbs (Pan Pacific) Callens/Vinci de Beer/de Villiers (Indian Wells) [3 events, 0 titles, 4Ð3 record] Schlukebir/Tarabini (Miami) Raymond/Stubbs (Pan Pacific) Grande/Schnyder (Roland Garros) Morariu/Po-Messerli (Canadian Open) Pratt/Sugiyama (Eastbourne) Dhenin/Matevzic (U. S. Open) Montalvo/Tatarkova (Wimbledon) Black/Likhovtseva (San Diego) Camerin/Vinci Serna/Shaughnessy (Los Angeles) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Barclay/Loit (Canadian Open) Buric/Fokina (Tashkent) Augustus/Embry (U. S. Open)

Capriati/Hantuchova Coetzer/Steck [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] [3 events, 0 titles, 2Ð3 record] Martinez/Pierce (Wimbledon) Serra Zanetti/Serra Zanetti (Memphis) Salerni/Svensson (Amelia Island) Capriati/Navratilova Lee/Prakusya (Charleston) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (Canadian Open) Daniilidou/Dokic [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð0 record, 1 withdrawal] Capriati/Schett [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] Daniilidou/Pratt Dementieva/Husarova (Berlin) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Asagoe/Callens (Birmingham) Clijsters/Dokic [5 events, 1 title, 6Ð4 record] Date/Saeki Dementieva/Husarova (San Diego) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Dementieva/Husarova (Canadian Open) Black/Likhovtseva (Princess Cup) Mandula/Wartusch (Princess Cup) Glass/Hrdlickova (Leipzig) Davenport/Raymond [1 event, 1 title, 4Ð0 record] Clijsters/Hantuchova [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] Davenport/Rubin Hénin/Bovina (Zurich) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Bovina/Hénin (Zurich)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 173 Déchy/Husarova Dokic/Shaughnessy [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Panova/Poutchek (Bahia) Hopkins/Kostanic

Déchy/Rittner Dokic/Tanasugarn [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Daniilidou/Vis (Leipzig) Husarova/C. Martinez (Stanford)

Déchy/Testud Farina Elia/Grande [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Amelia Island) Glass/Schmidle (Berlin)

Dementieva/Husarova Farina Elia/Petrova [18 events, 4 titles, 38Ð10 record, 4 withdrawals] [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð0 record, 1 withdrawal] Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Acapulco) Raymond/Stubbs (Indian Wells) Farina Elia/Schett Arendt/L. Huber (Miami) [10 events, 0 titles, 13Ð10 record] Callens/C. Martinez (Sarasota) Raymond/Stubbs (Sydney) Lee/Prakusya (Amelia Island) Bedanova/Hrdlickova (Australian Open) C. Martinez/Tarabini (Rome) Callens/Vinci (Pan Pacific) Asagoe/Miyagi (Wimbledon) Gagliardi/Ad. Serra Zanetti (Indian Wells) Fujiwara/Sugiyama (Canadian Open) Hingis/Kournikova (Miami) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (U. S. Open) Black/Likhovtseva (Rome) Po-Messerli/Zvereva (Zurich) Testud/Vinci (Roland Garros) Rodionova/Weingärtner (Wimbledon) Dementieva/Krasnoroutskaya Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (New Haven) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Petrova/Pratt (U. S. Open) Hénin/Shaughnessy (Sydney) Farina Elia/Vinci Dementieva/Maleeva [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record inc. 2 qualifying wins] Dokic/Petrova (Zurich) Lee/Prakusya (Pan Pacific) C. Fernandez/Grande De Villiers/Zvereva [2 events, 0 titles, 1Ð2 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Navratilova/Zvereva (Madrid) Garbin/Husarova (New Haven) Hrdlickova/Rittner (Wimbledon)

Dokic/Maleeva C. Fernandez/Tarabini [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] [2 events, 0 titles, 1Ð2 record] Déchy/Tu (Paris) Clijsters/Shaughnessy (U. S. Open) De Villiers/Musgrave (Princess Cup) Dokic/Likhovtseva [1 event, 1 title, 4Ð0 record] Foretz/Tauziat [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Dokic/Martinez Freye/Hiraki (Strasbourg) [2 events, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record, 1 withdrawal] Hénin/Shaughnessy (Miami) Frazier/Husarova [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Dokic/Petrova Garbin/Grande (Hobart) [4 events, 1 title, 11Ð3 record] Dementieva/Husarova (Moscow) Fujiwara/Llagostera Vives Shaughnessy/Suarez (Filderstadt) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Hénin/Bovina (Zurich) Krizan/Srebotnik (Bogota)

Dokic/Tulyaganova Fujiwara/Panova [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] Raymond/Stubbs (Pan Pacific) C. Martinez/Tarabini (Charleston)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 174 Fujiwara/Palaversic Coopersmith Grande/Schnyder [1 event, 1 title, 4Ð0 record in a Challenger] [5 events, 0 titles, 6Ð5 record] Martinez/Tarabini (Charleston) Fujiwara/Sugiyama Testud/Vinci (Rome) [8 events, 0 titles, 18Ð8 record] Arendt/L. Huber (Roland Garros) C. Martinez/Tarabini (Rome) Morariu/Po-Messerli (Canadian Open) Raymond/Stubbs (Roland Garros) Dementieva/Husarova (U. S. Open) Po-Messerli/Tauziat (Birmingham) Po-Messerli/Tauziat (Wimbledon) Grande/Serna Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Canadian Open) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Kournikova/J. Lee (Shanghai) Bovina/Déchy (Moscow) Dokic/Petrova (Linz) Dementieva/Husarova (Los Angeles Championships) Grande/Shaughnessy [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Gagliardi/Grande Likhovtseva/Zvereva (Leipzig) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Bedanova/Bovina (Miami) Grande/Tarabini [4 events, 0 titles, 1Ð4 record] Gagliardi/Lee Raymond/Stubbs (Stanford) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Panova/Vento-Kabchi (San Diego) Dhenin/Matevzic (Strasbourg) Clijsters/Dokic (Los Angeles) Krizan/Srebotnik (New Haven) Gagliardi/Pratt [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Grande/Tu Husarova/Sanchez-Vicario (Doha) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Fujiwara/Sugiyama (Birmingham) Garbin/Grande [6 events, 1 title, 7Ð4 record, 1 withdrawal] Hantuchova/Likhovtseva Svensson/Oremans (Gold Coast) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Callens/Vinci (Pan Pacific) Dementieva/Husarova (Paris) Sfar/Mouhtassine (Doha) Testud/Vinci (Dubai) Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario [13 events, 2 titles, 24Ð11 record] Garbin/Husarova Raymond/Stubbs (Sydney) [2 events, 0 titles, 2Ð2 record] Hingis/Kournikova (Australian Open) Dominikovic/Farina Elia (Eastbourne) Raymond/Stubbs (Indian Wells) Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (New Haven) Dementieva/Husarova (Miami) Raymond/Stubbs (Charleston) Garbin/Sanchez-Vicario Hingis/Schett (Hamburg) [1 event, 0 titles, 3Ð1 record] Dementieva/Husarova (Berlin) Schwartz/Woehr (Brussels) Rittner/Vento-Kabchi (Roland Garros) Fujiwara/Sugiyama (Canadian Open) Grande/Hrdlickova De Lone/Jeyaseelan (U. S. Open) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Davenport/Raymond (Filderstadt) Salerni/Svensson (Indian Wells) Hantuchova/Shaughnessy Grande/Maleeva [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Raymond/Stubbs (Eastbourne) Clijsters/Husarova (Luxembourg) Hantuchova/Sugiyama Grande/M. J. Martinez [2 events, 0 titles, 6Ð2 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Dementieva/Husarova (San Diego) Sugiyama/Tatarkova (Indian Wells) Clijsters/Dokic (Los Angeles)

Hénin/Mauresmo [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] Davenport/Raymond (Filderstadt)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 175 Hénin/Martinez Granados Kournikova/Lee [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] [1 event, 1 title, 4Ð0 record] Dhenin/Matevzic (U. S. Open) Kournikova/Rubin Hénin/Pierce [2 event, 0 titles, 4Ð2 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Lee/Prakusya (Eastbourne) Déchy/Tu (Canadian Open) Williams/Williams (Wimbledon)

Hénin/Shaughnessy Kournikova/Schett [6 events, 1 title, 9Ð4 record, 1 withdrawal] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Hingis/Kournikova (Sydney) Fujiwara/Sugiyama (Canadian Open) Po-Messerli/Pratt (Indian Wells) Raymond/Stubbs (Miami) Kournikova/Shaughnessy Sugiyama/Tatarkova (Amelia Island) [2 events, 0 titles, 3Ð1 record, 1 withdrawal] Dokic/Petrova (Moscow) Hingis/Kournikova [4 events, 1 title, 14Ð1 record, 1 withdrawal, 1 Slam] Krizan/Srebotnik Ruano Pascual/Suarez (U. S. Open) [26 events, 0 titles, 22Ð26 record] Raymond/Stubbs (Sydney) Hingis/Schett Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (Australian Open) [1 event, 1 title, 3Ð0 record] Farina Elia/Schett (Pan Pacific) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Bogota) Hrdlickova/Rittner Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Acapulco) [2 events, 0 titles, 4Ð2 record] Boogert/Oremans (Indian Wells) Matevzic/Nagyova (Bratislava) Montalvo/Salerni (Miami) Dokic/Petrova (Luxembourg) Bovnia/Gubacsi (Estoril) Garbin/Widjaja (Bol) L. Huber/Martinez Svensson/Tulyaganova (Berlin) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Oremans/Serna (Rome) Capriati/Schett (Berlin) Asagoe/Musgrave (Roland Garros) Yan/Zheng (Vienna) L. Huber/Navratilova De Villiers/Grandin (’s-Hertogenbosch) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Williams/Williams (Wimbledon) Hantuchova/Sugiyama (Los Angeles) Raymond/Stubbs (San Diego) Morariu/Po-Messerli (Los Angeles) L. Huber/Schlukebir Capriati/Navratilova (Canadian Open) [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record in a Challenger] Black/Likhovtseva (New Haven) Fujiwara/Palaversic Coopersmith (Dothan $75K) Boogert/Oremans (U. S. Open) Loit/Neffa-de los Rios (Bahia) Husarova/Matevzic Stevenson/S. Williams (Leipzig) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Myskina/Safina (Moscow) Arendt/L. Huber (Auckland) Koulikovskaya/Perebiynis (Zurich) Clijsters/Husarova (Luxembourg) Husarova/Martinez Dementieva/Husarova (Los Angeles Championships) [1 event, 0 titles, 3Ð1 record] Raymond/Stubbs (Stanford) Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario [5 events, 3 titles, 17Ð2 record] Husarova/Sanchez-Vicario Black/Ruano Pascual (Bali) [1 event, 1 title, 4Ð0 record] Asagoe/Miyagi (Japan Open)

Husarova/Suarez [1 event, 0 titles, 3Ð1 record] Stevenson/S. Williams (Leipzig)

Husarova/Svensson [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Hsieh/Widjaja (Dubai)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 176 Lee/Prakusya Majoli/Martinez [22 events, 0 titles, 20Ð22 record] [2 event, 0 titles, 3Ð1 record, 1 withdrawal] Hingis/Kournikova (Sydney) Gagliardi/Nagyova (U. S. Open) Asagoe/Fujiwara (Australian Open) Raymond/Stubbs (Pan Pacific) Majoli/Pratt Middleton/Rippner (Memphis) [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] Raymond/Stubbs (Scottsdale) Asagoe/Musgrave (Roland Garros) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Miami) Montalvo/Salerni (Sarasota) Majoli/Schett Coetzer/Steck (Amelia Island) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Fusai/Vis (Charleston) Garbin/Nagyova (Filderstadt) Augustus/Embry (Roland Garros) Daniilidou/Pratt (Birmingham) Majoli/Tarabini Raymond/Stubbs (Eastbourne) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Kournikova/Rubin (Wimbledon) Montalvo/Tatarkova (Wimbledon) Dokic/Tanasugarn (Stanford) Coetzer/McNeil (San Diego) Maleeva/Shaughnessy Black/Likhovtseva (Los Angeles) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Clijsters/Dokic (Canadian Open) Suarez/Tarabini (Berlin) Navratilova/Tulyaganova (U. S. Open) Mandula/Wartusch (Princess Cup) C. Martinez/Pierce Dokic/Petrova (Zurich) [2 events, 0 titles, 2Ð2 record] Majoli/C. Martinez (Linz) Raymond/Stubbs (Wimbledon) Raymond/Stubbs (Los Angeles Championships) Black/Likhovtseva (San Diego)

Lee/Tatarkova C. Martinez/Pratt [2 events, 1 title, 6Ð1 record, all in Challengers] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Hiraki/Miyagi (Hattiesburg $50K 2001) Navratilova/S. Williams (Princess Cup)

Leon Garcia/Tarabini C. Martinez/Schwartz [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record in qualifying] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Bes/Marrero (Hamburg) Hrdlickova/Nagyova (Auckland)

Likhovtseva/Loit C. Martinez/Serna [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] [3 events, 0 titles, 4Ð3 record] De Villiers/Selyutina (Canberra) Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (Australian Open) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Indian Wells) Likhovtseva/Navratilova Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (New Haven) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Farina Elia/Svensson C. Martinez/Sugiyama [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Likhovtseva/Pratt Casanova/Gagliardi (Zurich) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Salerni/Svensson (Amelia Island) C. Martinez/Tarabini [5 events, 0 titles, 8Ð4 record, 1 withdrawal] Likhovtseva/Sugiyama Sanchez-Vicario/Torres (Acapulco) [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] Fusai/Vis (Charleston) Hénin/Shaughnessy (Gold Coast) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Rome) Mandula/Wartusch (Roland Garros) Likhovtseva/Zvereva [2 events, 0 titles, 2Ð2 record] C. Martinez/Vis Husarova/Suarez (Leipzig) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Montalvo/Suarez (Moscow) Farina Elia/Schett (Sydney)

Loit/Vinci Molik/Pratt [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð0 record, 1 withdrawal] [1 event, 0 titles, 1-0 record, 1 withdrawal]

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 177 Montalvo/Suarez Oremans/Sugiyama [2 events, 0 titles, 4Ð2 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] Koulikovskaya/Syseova (Palermo) Black/Likhovtseva (Scottsdale) Dementieva/Husarova (Moscow) Pennetta/Vinci Montalvo/Tarabini [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record in a Challenger] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Mouhtassine/Vanc (Dinan $50K) Likhovtseva/Pratt (Amelia Island) Petrova/Pratt Morariu/Po-Messerli [1 event, 0 titles, 4Ð1 record] [6 events, 0 titles, 9Ð6 record] Ruano Pascual/Suarez (U. S. Open) Rubin/Shaughnessy (San Diego) Clijsters/Dokic (Los Angeles) Petrova/Serna Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Canadian Open) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Black/Likhovtseva (U. S. Open) Husarova/Suarez (Leipzig) Callens/Schett (Big Island) Lee/Prakusya (Princess Cup) Po-Messerli/Pratt [5 events, 0 titles, 6Ð5 record] Morariu/Pratt Callens/Vinci (Pan Pacific) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Raymond/Stubbs (Scottsdale) Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario (Bali) Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (Indian Wells) Dominikovic/McQuillan (Miami) Müller/Rittner Fujiwara/Panova (Charleston) [2 events, 0 titles, 2Ð2 record] Hantuchova/Shaughnessy (Eastbourne) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Australian Open) Callens/Schett (Brussels) Po-Messerli/Sugiyama [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Navratilova/Tulyaganova Augustus/Rippner (Stanford) [2 events, 0 titles, 3Ð2 record] Mauresmo/Schnyder (New Haven) Po-Messerli/Tauziat Dementieva/Husarova (U. S. Open) [4 events, 0 titles, 7Ð4 record] Majoli/Pratt (Roland Garros) Navratilova/Zvereva Asagoe/Callens (Birmingham) [8 event, 1 title, 7Ð7 record] Hantuchova/Shaughnessy (Eastbourne) Middleton/Rippner (Indian Wells) Black/Likhovtseva (Wimbledon) Raymond/Stubbs (Miami) Bedanova/Schiavone (Berlin) Po-Messerli/Zvereva Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Rome) [2 events, 0 titles, 1Ð2 record] Raymond/Stubbs (Roland Garros) Dokic/Petrova (Filderstadt) Coetzer/McNeil (Eastbourne) Dokic/Petrova (Zurich) Po-Messerli/Tauziat (Wimbledon) Prakusya/Widjaja Navratilova/S. Williams [2 events, 0 titles, 2Ð2 record inc. 2 qualifying wins] [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Farina Elia/Schett (New Haven) Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario (Princess Cup) Cargill/Liggan (Bali)

Neffa-de los Rios/Sanchez-Vicario Pratt/Serna [2 events, 0 titles, 5Ð2 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Dokic/Likhovtseva (Sarasota) Black/Likhovtseva (Hamburg) Navratilova/Zvereva (Madrid) Pratt/Sugiyama Oremans/Rittner [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Black/Likhovtseva (Eastbourne) Lamade/Maleeva (’s-Hertogenbosch) Pratt/Svensson [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Black/Likhovtseva (New Haven)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 178 Raymond/Stubbs Rubin/Zvereva [18 events, 8 titles, 49Ð9 record, 1 withdrawal] [3 events, 0 titles, 5Ð3 record] Hingis/Kournikova (Australian Open) Morariu/Po-Messerli (Los Angeles) Coetzer/Steck (Amelia Island) Arendt/L. Huber (Canadian Open) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Roland Garros) Hingis/Kournikova (U. S. Open) Kournikova/Rubin (Wimbledon) Suarez/Tulyaganova (San Diego) Saeki/Sugiyama Clijsters/Dokic (Canadian Open) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Garbin/Husarova (New Haven) Rubin/Zvereva (U. S. Open) Clijsters/Shaughnessy (U. S. Open) Black/Likhovtseva (Los Angeles Championships) Salerni/Tarabini [4 events, 0 titles, 3Ð4 record] Rittner/Serna Panova/Poutchek (Auckland) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Nagyova/Tulyaganova (Sydney) Cargill/Harkleroad (U. S. Open) Callens/Pratt (Australian Open) Dokic/Tulyaganova (Pan Pacific) Rittner/Vento-Kabchi [5 events, 1 title, 8Ð4 record] Sanchez-Vicario/Torres Hénin/Shaughnessy (Miami) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Bovina/Gubacsi (Estoril) Dominguez Lino/Martinez Granados (Acapulco) Matevzic/Zaric (Roland Garros) Boogert/Oremans (Wimbledon) Schett/Serna [2 events, 0 titles, 0Ð2 record] Rittner/Vis Dhenin/Poutchek (Paris) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Marrero/M. J. Martinez (Scottsdale) Shaughnessy/Suarez (Filderstadt) Schett/Tatarkova Rittner/Zvereva [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð0 record, 1 withdrawal] Rubin/Zvereva (Los Angeles)

Ruano Pascual/Serna Schiavone/Tarabini [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Schwartz/Woehr (Brussels) Mandula/Wartusch (Linz)

Ruano Pascual/Suarez Schlukebir/Tarabini [19 events, 7 titles, 52Ð11 record, 1 withdrawal, 2 Slams] [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Barclay/Wheeler (Hobart) Lee/Prakusya (Miami) Asagoe/Fujiwara (Australian Open) Dementieva/Husarova (Indian Wells) Seles/Testud Raymond/Stubbs (Miami) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (Amelia Island) Farina Elia/Schett (Pan Pacific) Lee/Prakusya (Charleston) Williams/Williams (Wimbledon) Selyutina/Tarabini Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (New Haven) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Davenport/Rubin (Zurich) Raymond/Stubbs (Indian Wells) Mandula/Wartusch (Linz) Fujiwara/Sugiyama (Los Angeles Championships) Serna/Shaughnessy [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Rubin/Schett Hantuchova/Sugiyama (Los Angeles) [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Linz) Shaughnessy/Suarez [1 event, 0 titles, 3Ð1 record] Rubin/Shaughnessy Davenport/Raymond (Filderstadt) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Hantuchova/Sugiyama (San Diego)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 179 Shaughnessy/Tulyaganova Svensson/Tarabini [2 events, 0 titles, 3Ð1 record, 1 withdrawal] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Loit/Neffa-de los Rios (Bahia) Dementieva/Husarova (Sarasota)

Suarez/Tarabini Tarabini/Tulyaganova [1 event, 0 titles, 2Ð1 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (Berlin) Gubacsi/Marosi (Vienna)

Suarez/Tulyaganova Tarabini/Vis [2 events, 0 titles, 2Ð2 record] [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] Hantuchova/Sugiyama (San Diego) Bovina/Hénin (Zurich) L. Huber/Navratilova (Los Angeles) Testud/Oremans Sugiyama/Tatarkova [1 event, 0 titles, 0Ð1 record] [6 events, 1 title, 7Ð5 record] Serna/Svensson (Sydney) Dementieva/Husarova (Indian Wells) Arendt/L. Huber (Miami) Testud/Vinci Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Sarasota) [7 events, 0 titles, 13Ð6 record, 1 withdrawal] Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (Amelia Island) Farina Elia/Petrova (Gold Coast) Hiraki/Miyagi (Charleston) Coetzer/McNeil (Australian Open) Mandula/Wartusch (Doha) Sugiyama/Zvereva Rittner/Vento-Kabchi (Dubai) [1 event, 0 titles, 1Ð1 record] Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Rome) Black/Likhovtseva (Princess Cup) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Roland Garros)

Stevenson/S. Williams Williams/Williams [1 event, 1 title, 4Ð0 record] [1 event, 1 title, 6Ð0 record, 1 Slam]

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 180 Team and Individual Statistics Individual Doubles Statistical Leaders Top Five, Most Wins: 1. Suarez (66), 2. Ruano Pascual (58), 3. Husarova (57), 4. Sanchez-Vicario (54), 5. Raymond (53)

Top 5, Winning %: [1. V. Williams (100% but in only 1 event)], 1. Hingis (94%), 2. S. Williams (92%), 3. Raymond (86%), 4. Stubbs (85%), 5. Kournikova (83%), [5. Davenport (83% but in only 2 events)]

Top 5, Tournament Winning %: [1. V. Williams (100% but in only 1 event)], [1. S. Williams (67% but in only 3 events)], [1. Davenport (50% but in only 2 events)], 1. Raymond (47%), 2. Stubbs (44%), 3. Hingis (40%), 4. Ruano Pascual (38%), 5. Suarez (27%)

Top 5, Most Matches Played: 1. Suarez (84), 2. Husarova (76), 3T. Likhovtseva, Sanchez-Vicario (71), 5. Ruano Pasucal (70)

Top 5, Most Partners (of the final Top 30): 1. Pratt (15), 2T. Martinez, Shaughnessy, Sugiyama (12), 5. Husarova (11)

Teams with the Most Events The following list shows all teams with a final Top Thirty player to play at least four events together. Team Tournaments Krizan/Srebotnik 26 Lee/Prakusya 22 Black/Likhovtseva 19 Ruano Pascual/Suarez 19 Arendt/L. Huber 18 Dementieva/Husarova 18 Raymond/Stubbs 18 Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario 13 Bedanova/Bovina 11 Farina Elia/Schett 10 Fujiwara/Sugiyama 8 Testud/Vinci 7 Hénin/Shaughnessy 6 Morariu/Po-Messerli 6 Sugiyama/Tatarkova 6 C. Martinez/Tarabini 5 Clijsters/Dokic 5 Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario 5 Po-Messerli/Pratt 5 Asagoe/Miyagi 4 Dokic/Petrova 4 Hingis/Kournikova 4 Po-Messerli/Tauziat 4

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 181 Doubles Winning Percentages for the Top Thirty Player WTA # of Won/Lost Winning Tournaments Tournaments Tournament Rank Partners Percentage Played Won Win% Arendt 19 1 22/17 56% 18 1 6% Asagoe 29 7 32/11 74% 15 4 27% Black 9 4 46/19 71% 24 2 8% Bovina 27 8 23/18 56% 20 2 10% Callens 34 10 28/16 64% 18 2 11% Clijsters 24 6 17/8 68% 11 2 18% Coetzer 71 3 8/16 33% 16 0 0% Davenport — 2 5/1 83% 2 1 50% Dementieva 6 4 41/13 76% 21 4 19% Dokic 14 9 31/12 72% 17 3 18% Fujiwara 13 5 31/13 70% 14 1 7% Grande 50 12 17/23 43% 25 1 4% Hantuchova 8 7 36/18 67% 20 2 10% Hénin 43 5 15/8 65% 11 2 18% Hingis 15 2 17/1 94% 5 2 40% Huber, Liezel 18 4 25/20 56% 21 1 5% Husarova 5 11 57/19 75% 29 6 21% Kournikova 11 5 25/5 83% 10 2 20% Krizan 30 1 22/26 46% 26 0 0% Lee 22 4 30/24 56% 26 2 8% Likhovtseva 10 8 46/25 65% 27 1 4% MartinezC 16 12 25/18 58% 21 0 0% Morariu 78 2 10/7 59% 7 0 0% Navratilova 72 6 13/13 50% 14 1 7% Petrova 21 5 18/6 75% 8 1 13% Po-Messerli 20 5 23/18 56% 18 0 0% Prakusya 28 2 22/24 48% 24 0 0% Pratt 23 15 24/18 57% 21 0 0% Raymond 3 2 53/9 85% 19 9 47% Rittner 62 8 15/12 56% 14 1 7% Ruano Pascual 2 3 58/12 83% 21 8 38% Rubin 32 7 13/11 54% 11 0 0% Sanchez-Vicario 7 6 54/17 76% 23 6 26% Schett 26 9 22/19 54% 20 1 5% Shaughnessy 17 12 29/15 66% 19 1 5% Srebotnik 30 1 22/26 46% 26 0 0% Stubbs 2 1 49/9 84% 18 8 44% Suarez 1 6 66/18 79% 26 7 27% Sugiyama 12 12 40/24 63% 26 1 4% Tarabini 35 15 18/25 42% 26 0 0% Tauziat 105 2 7/5 58% 5 0 0% Testud 48 4 15/9 63% 10 0 0% Vinci 33 6 20/12 63% 14 0 0% Williams, Serena 24 3 11/1 92% 3 2 67% Williams, Venus — 1 6/0 100% 1 1 100% Zvereva 46 7 18/16 53% 18 1 6%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 182 Doubles Winning Percentages for the Top Teams (All teams include at least one Top Thirty player. Minimum three tournaments, except for teams in italics, which have two and are included to show their strong results; sorted in descending order by winning percentage) Note: The team of Casoni/Vinci, with a record of 5-2, is not shown because the wins were mostly in Challengers. Tourn Tourn Tourn Team Won/Lost Win % Played Won Win % Hingis/Kournikova 14/1 93% 4 1 25% Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario 17/2 89% 5 3 60% Raymond/Stubbs 49/9 84% 18 8 44% Ruano Pascual/Suarez 52/11 83% 19 7 37% Dementieva/Husarova 38/10 79% 18 4 22% Dokic/Petrova 11/3 79% 4 1 25% Asagoe/Miyagi 9/3 75% 4 1 25% Asagoe/Fujiwara 7/3 70% 3 0 0% Fujiwara/Sugiyama 18/8 69% 8 0 0% Hénin/Shaughnessy 9/4 69% 6 1 17% Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario 24/11 69% 13 2 15% Testud/Vinci 13/6 68% 7 0 0% C. Martinez/Tarabini 8/4 67% 5 0 0% Rittner/Vento-Kabchi 8/4 67% 5 1 20% Black/Likhovtseva 35/18 66% 19 0 0% Po-Messerli/Tauziat 7/4 64% 4 0 0% Rubin/Zvereva 5/3 63% 3 0 0% Morariu/Po-Messerli 9/6 60% 6 0 0% Clijsters/Dokic 6/4 60% 5 1 20% Sugiyama/Tatarkova 7/5 58% 6 1 17% C. Martinez/Serna 4/3 57% 3 0 0% Callens/Vinci 4/3 57% 3 0 0% Farina Elia/Schett 13/10 57% 10 0 0% Arendt/L. Huber 22/17 56% 18 1 6% Po-Messerli/Pratt 6/5 55% 5 0 0% Navratilova/Zvereva 7/7 50% 8 1 13% Lee/Prakusya 20/22 48% 22 0 0% Krizan/Srebotnik 22/26 46% 26 0 0% Bedanova/Bovina 7/11 39% 11 0 0%

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 183 Team Doubles Titles, Sorted from Most to Least Team Titles Won (Tier) # of Titles Raymond/Stubbs Sydney (II), Pan Pacific (I), Scottsdale (II), Indian Wells (I), Miami (I), 8 Charleston (I), Eastbourne (II), Stanford (II) Ruano Pascual/Suarez Bogota (III), Acapulco (III), Rome (I), Roland Garros (Slam), Canadian Open 7 (I), U. S. Open (Slam), Bahia (II) Dementieva/Husarova Berlin (I), San Diego (II), Moscow (I), Los Angeles Champ (Champ) 4 Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario Sopot (III), Helsinki (IV), Princess Cup (II) 3 Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario Amelia Island (II), New Haven (II) 2 Mandula/Wartusch Vienna (III), Casablanca (V) 2 Asagoe/Callens Birmingham (III) (also the Bloomington $50K) 1(+) Hingis/Kournikova Australian Open (Slam) 1 Williams/Williams Wimbledon (Slam) 1 Bovina/Hénin Zurich (I) 1 Déchy/Tu Paris (II) 1 Maleeva/Schnyder Antwerp (II) 1 Rittner/Vento-Kabchi Dubai (II) 1 Hingis/Schett Hamburg (II) 1 Clijsters/Dokic Los Angeles (II) 1 Stevenson/S. Williams Leipzig (II) 1 Davenport/Raymond Filderstadt (II) 1 Dokic/Petrova Linz (II) 1 Hénin/Shaughnessy Gold Coast (III) 1 Husarova/Sanchez-Vicario Doha (III) 1 Sugiyama/Tatarkova Memphis (III) 1 Garbin/Widjaja Bol (III) 1 Navratilova/Zvereva Madrid (III) 1 Hopkins/Kostanic Strasbourg (III) 1 Barclay/Müller ’s-Hertogenbosch (III) 1 Reeves/Steck Quebec City (III) 1 Black/Ruano Pascual Bali (III) 1 Asagoe/Miyagi Japan Open (III) 1 Clijsters/Husarova Luxembourg (III) 1 Arendt/L. Huber Auckland (IV) 1 Black/Selyutina Porto (IV) 1 Dokic/Likhovtseva Sarasota (IV) 1 Bovina/Gubacsi Estoril (IV) 1 Kostanic/Nagyova Warsaw (IV) 1 Perebiynis/Poutchek Tashkent (IV) 1 Schwartz/Woehr Brussels (IV) 1 Tu/Vento-Kabchi Big Island (IV) 1 Kournikova/Lee Shanghai (IV) 1 De Villiers/Selyutina Canberra (V) 1 Garbin/Grande Hobart (V) 1 Barclay/Loit Budapest (V) 1 Koulikovskaya/Syseova Palermo (V) 1 Matevzic/Nagyova Bratislava (V) 1 Liggan/Voracova Pattaya (V) 1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 184 Individual Doubles Titles, Sorted from Most to Least Player Titles Won (Tier) # of Titles Raymond Sydney (II), Pan Pacific (I), Scottsdale (II), Indian Wells (I), Miami (I), 9 Charleston (I), Eastbourne (II), Stanford (II), Filderstadt (II) Ruano Pascual Bogota (III), Acapulco (III), Rome (I), Roland Garros (Slam), 8 Canadian Open (I), U. S. Open (Slam), Bahia (II), Bali (III) Stubbs Sydney (II), Pan Pacific (I), Scottsdale (II), Indian Wells (I), Miami (I), 8 Charleston (I), Eastbourne (II), Stanford (II) Suarez Bogota (III), Acapulco (III), Rome (I), Roland Garros (Slam), 7 Canadian Open (I), U. S. Open (Slam), Bahia (II) Husarova Doha (III), Berlin (I), San Diego (II), Moscow (I), Luxembourg (III), 6 Los Angeles Champ (Champ) Sanchez-Vicario Doha (III), Amelia Island (II), Sopot (III), Helsinki (IV), New Haven (II), 6 Princess Cup (II) Dementieva Berlin (I), San Diego (II), Moscow (I), Los Angeles Champ (Champ) 4 Dokic Sarasota (IV), Los Angeles (II), Linz (II) 3 Kuznetsova Sopot (III), Helsinki (IV), Princess Cup (II) 3 Hingis Australian Open (Slam), Hamburg (II) 2 Williams, S Wimbledon (Slam), Leipzig (II) 2 Kournikova Australian Open (Slam), Shanghai (IV) 2 Bovina Estoril (IV), Zurich (I) 2 Hénin Gold Coast (III), Zurich (I) 2 Clijsters Los Angeles (II), Luxembourg (III) 2 Hantuchova Amelia Island (II), New Haven (II) 2 Asagoe Birmingham (III), Japan Open (III) 2 Barclay Budapest (III), ’s-Hertogenbosch (III) 2 Black Porto (IV), Bali (III) 2 Garbin Hobart (V), Bol (III) 2 Kostanic Warsaw (IV), Strasbourg (III) 2 Mandula Vienna (III), Casablanca (V) 2 Nagyova Warsaw (IV), Bratislava (V) 2 Selyutina Canberra (V), Porto (IV) 2 Tu Paris (II), Big Island (IV) 2 Vento-Kabchi Dubai (II), Big Island (IV) 2 Wartusch Vienna (III), Casablanca (V) 2 Williams, V Wimbledon (Slam) 1 Arendt Auckland (IV) 1 Callens Birmingham (III) 1 Davenport Filderstadt (II) 1 De Villiers Canberra (V) 1 Déchy Paris (II) 1 Grande Hobart (V) 1 Gubacsi Estoril (IV) 1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 185 Hopkins Strasbourg (III) 1 Huber, L Auckland (IV) 1 Koulikovskaya Palermo (V) 1 Lee Shanghai (IV) 1 Liggan Pattaya (V) 1 Likhovtseva Sarasota (IV) 1 Loit Budapest (V) 1 Maleeva Antwerp (II) 1 Matevzic Bratislava (V) 1 Miyagi Japan Open (III) 1 Müller ’s-Hertogenbosch (III) 1 Navratilova Madrid (III) 1 Perebiynis Tashkent (IV) 1 Petrova Linz (II) 1 Poutchek Tashkent (IV) 1 Reeves Quebec City (III) 1 Rittner Dubai (II) 1 Schett Hamburg (II) 1 Schnyder Antwerp (II) 1 Schwartz Brussels (IV) 1 Shaughnessy Gold Coast (III) 1 Steck Quebec City (III) 1 Stevenson Leipzig (II) 1 Sugiyama Memphis (III) 1 Syseova Palermo (V) 1 Tatarkova Memphis (III) 1 Voracova Pattaya (V) 1 Widjaja Bol (III) 1 Woehr Brussels (IV) 1 Zvereva Madrid (III) 1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 186 Doubles Tournament Winners by Date (High-Tier Events) Players shown in bold also won the singles at these tournaments. Only Tier II and higher events are shown. Tournament Tier Winner Sydney II Raymond/Stubbs Australian Open Slam Hingis/Kournikova Tokyo (Pan Pacific) I Raymond/Stubbs Paris II Déchy/Tu Antwerp II Maleeva/Schnyder Dubai II Rittner/Vento-Kabchi Scottsdale II Raymond/Stubbs Indian Wells I Raymond/Stubbs Ericsson (Miami) I Raymond/Stubbs Amelia Island II Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario Charleston I Raymond/Stubbs Hamburg II Hingis/Schett Berlin I Dementieva/Husarova Rome I Ruano Pascual/Suarez Roland Garros Slam Ruano Pascual/Suarez Eastbourne II Raymond/Stubbs Wimbledon Slam Williams/Williams Stanford II Raymond/Stubbs San Diego II Dementieva/Husarova Los Angeles II Clijsters/Dokic Canadian Open I Ruano Pascual/Suarez New Haven II Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario U.S. Open Slam Ruano Pascual/Suarez Bahia II Ruano Pascual/Suarez Tokyo (Princess Cup) II Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario Leipzig II Stevenson/S. Williams Moscow I Dementieva/Husarova Filderstadt II Davenport/Raymond Zurich I Bovina/Hénin Linz II Dokic/Petrova Los Angeles Champ Dementieva/Husarova

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 187 Alternate Doubles Rankings For explanations of these rankings, see the equivalent section in singles. Because quality points are far less important in doubles (constituting roughly 20% of a player’s total, rather than nearly 40% as in singles), we calculate only the 1996 rankings and points per tournament. Rankings under the 1996 Ranking System (Divisor, Minimum 14) 1996 Rank Player Points Tournaments Score WTA Rank 1 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 4440 21 211.4 2 2 Raymond, Lisa 3941 19 207.4 3 3 Stubbs, Rennae 3672 18 204.0 4 4 Suarez, Paola 5010 26 192.7 1 5 Dementieva, Elena 2998 21 142.8 6 6Kournikova, Anna 1992 10 142.3 11 7 Husarova, Janette 3838 29 132.3 5 8 Fujiwara, Rika 1752.5 14 125.2 13 9 Hantuchova, Daniela 2478 20 123.9 8 10 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 2842 23 123.6 7 11 Black, Cara 2649 24 110.4 9 12 Hingis, Martina 1504 5 107.4 15 13 Dokic, Jelena 1749 17 102.9 14 14 Likhovtseva, Elena 2714 27 100.5 10 15 Sugiyama, Ai 2339 26 90.0 12 16 Shaughnessy, Meghann 1564 19 82.3 17 17 Petrova, Nadia 1151 8 82.2 21 18 Clijsters, Kim 1094 11 78.1 24 19 Williams, Serena 1091 3 77.9 25 20 Rubin, Chanda 1000 11 71.4 32 21 Arendt, Nicole 1239 18 68.8 19 22 Asagoe, Shinobu 1025.5 15 68.4 29 23 Po-Messerli, Kimberly 1222 18 67.9 20 24 Martinez, Conchita 1383 21 65.9 16 25 Huber, Liezel 1363.5 21 64.9 18 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 908 13 64.9 45 Hénin, Justine 893 11 63.8 43 Testud, Sandrine 852 10 60.9 48 Pratt, Nicole 1258 21 59.9 23 Schett, Barbara 1121 20 56.1 26 Bovina, Elena 1077 20 53.9 27 Lee, Janet 1333 26 51.3 22 Prakusya, Wynne 1164 24 48.5 28 Krizan, Tina 1110 26 42.7 30 Srebotnik, Katarina 1110 26 42.7 30

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 188 The problem with a divisor in doubles is that the very best doubles players — Hingis, Davenport, Kournikova, the Williams Sisters — didn’t play full schedules. In the first three cases, injury played a part; in the latter two, well, doubles isn’t the first thing on their minds. We can’t do much about Venus and Davenport, who are unranked in doubles, but we can look at Hingis and Serena and Kournikova in light of their actual per-tournament results. It shouldn’t come as too great a surprise that we see the cream rising to the top. (It’s not really clear whether Hingis or Serena is the best; Serena played a richer schedule. But there isn’t much doubt that they are the Big Two.) Doubles Points Per Tournament, No Minimum Divisor Divisor Rank Player Points Tournaments Score WTA Rank 1Williams, Serena 1091 3 363.7 25 2 Hingis, Martina 1504 5 300.8 15 3 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 4440 21 211.4 2 4 Raymond, Lisa 3941 19 207.4 3 5 Stubbs, Rennae 3672 18 204.0 4 6Kournikova, Anna 1992 10 199.2 11 7 Suarez, Paola 5010 26 192.7 1 8 Petrova, Nadia 1151 8 143.9 21 9 Dementieva, Elena 2998 21 142.8 6 10 Husarova, Janette 3838 29 132.3 5 11 Fujiwara, Rika 1752.5 14 125.2 13 12 Hantuchova, Daniela 2478 20 123.9 8 13 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 2842 23 123.6 7 14 Black, Cara 2649 24 110.4 9 15 Dokic, Jelena 1749 17 102.9 14 16 Likhovtseva, Elena 2714 27 100.5 10 17 Clijsters, Kim 1094 11 99.5 24 18 Rubin, Chanda 1000 11 90.9 32 19 Sugiyama, Ai 2339 26 90.0 12 20 Testud, Sandrine 852 10 85.2 48 21 Shaughnessy, Meghann 1564 19 82.3 17 22 Hénin, Justine 893 11 81.2 43 23 Kuznetsova, Svetlana 908 13 69.8 45 24 Arendt, Nicole 1239 18 68.8 19 25 Asagoe, Shinobu 1025.5 15 68.4 29 Po-Messerli, Kimberly 1222 18 67.9 20 Martinez, Conchita 1383 21 65.9 16 Huber, Liezel 1363.5 21 64.9 18 Pratt, Nicole 1258 21 59.9 23 Schett, Barbara 1121 20 56.1 26 Bovina, Elena 1077 20 53.9 27 Lee, Janet 1333 26 51.3 22 Prakusya, Wynne 1164 24 48.5 28 Srebotnik, Katarina 1110 26 42.7 30 Krizan, Tina 1110 26 42.7 30

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 189 Majors Ranking In the singles section, we defined the ten WTA “Majors” (tournaments effectively all the top players play): Sydney, Australian Open, Ericsson, Rome, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, San Diego, U. S. Open, Filderstadt, and Munich. We can apply the same “majors ranking” in doubles: Five points for a title at these events, three for a final, one for a semifinal. If we do this, we can rank both teams and individuals. We start with the team rankings:

Doubles Team Majors Rankings 23 teams managed at least one Major showing. The following table shows both the team ranking and the results in the various events. Tournament Rank Team Total Syd AO Eric Ro RG Wim SD USO Fild Mun 1 Ruano Pascual/Suarez* 21 3553 5 2 Raymond/Stubbs* 15 5 1 5 3 1 3 Dementieva/Husarova* 13 5 3 5 4 Hingis/Kournikova(*) 8 3 5 5 Black/Likhovtseva* 7 1 1 1 1 3 6Davenport/Raymond 5 5 6Williams/Williams 5 5 8 C. Martinez/Tarabini 3 3 8 Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vic(*) 3 3 8 Hantuchova/Sugiyama 3 3 8 Shaughnessy/Suarez 3 3 12 Arendt/L. Huber* 2 1 1 12 Fujiwara/Sugiyama* 2 1 1 14 C. Martinez/Serna 1 1 14 Farina Elia/Schett 1 1 14 Hénin/Mauresmo 1 1 14 Hénin/Shaughnessy 1 1 14 Kournikova/Rubin 1 1 14 Lee/Prakusya* 1 1 14 Mandula/Wartusch 1 1 14 Petrova/Pratt 1 1 14 Suarez/Tulyaganova 1 1 14 Testud/Vinci 1 1 * Team which qualified for Los Angeles. (Hingis/Kournikova and Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario qualified for Los Angeles but were unable to play, allowing Lee/Prakusya and Krizan/Srebotnik to play. Krizan/ Srebotnik was the only team to go to Los Angeles without a major score; in 2001, there were three such teams)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 190 Individual Majors Rankings 33 individual players managed at least one Major showing. The following table shows both the player’s ranking and her results in the various events. Tournament Rank Player Total Syd AO Eric Ro RG Wim SD USO Fild Mun 1 Suarez 25 3553153 2 Ruano Pascual 21 3553 5 3 Raymond 20 5 1 5 3 5 1 4 Stubbs 15 5 1 5 3 1 5 Dementieva 13 5 3 5 5 Husarova 13 5 3 5 7Kournikova 9 3 5 1 8 Hingis 8 3 5 9 Black 7 1 1 1 1 3 9 Likhovtseva 7 1 1 1 1 3 11 Hantuchova 6 3 3 12 Davenport 5 5 12 Sugiyama 5 1 3 1 12 Williams, Serena 5 5 12 Williams, Venus 5 5 16 Martinez, Conchita 4 1 3 16 Shaughnessy 4 1 3 18 Sanchez-Vicario 3 3 18 Tarabini 3 3 20 Arendt 2 1 1 20 Fujiwara 2 1 1 20 Huber, L. 2 1 1 23 Farina Elia 1 1 23 Hénin 1 1 1 23 Lee 1 1 23 Mandula 1 1 23 Mauresmo 1 1 23 Petrova 1 1 23 Prakusya 1 1 23 Pratt 1 1 23 Rubin 1 1 23 Schett 1 1 23 Serna 1 1 23 Testud 1 1 23 Tulyaganova 1 1 23 Vinci 1 1 23 Wartusch 1 1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 191 Combined Singles and Doubles Rankings A total of 55 players are in the Top 100 in both singles and doubles (a dramatic decline from 67 such players in 2001). The following list rankings them according to their combined singles and doubles rankings. Combined Player Singles Doubles Combined ordinal Rank Rank Total 1 Hantuchova, Daniela 8 8 16 2 Dokic, Jelena 9 14 23 3T Dementieva, Elena 19 6 25 3T Hingis, Martina 10 15 25 5Williams, Serena 1 25 26 6T Clijsters, Kim 4 24 28 6T Suarez, Paola 27 1 28 8 Raymond, Lisa 29 3 32 9 Sugiyama, Ai 24 12 36 10 Husarova, Janette 33 5 38 11 Rubin, Chanda 13 32 45 12 Kournikova, Anna 35 11 46 13 Shaughnessy, Meghann 30 17 47 14 Henin, Justine 5 43 48 15 Martinez, Conchita 34 16 50 16 Likhovtseva, Elena 42 10 52 17 Bovina, Elena 26 27 53 18 Dechy, Nathalie 20 36 56 19 Farina Elia, Silvia 17 41 58 20 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 53 7 60 21 Black, Cara 56 9 65 22T Schett, Barbara 40 26 66 22T Srebotnik, Katarina 36 30 66 24 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 65 2 67 25 Maleeva, Magdalena 14 54 68 26 Schnyder, Patty 15 56 71 27 Pratt, Nicole 49 23 72 28 Testud, Sandrine 38 48 86 29T Kuznetsova, Svetlana 43 45 88 29T Serna, Magui 50 38 88 31 Coetzer, Amanda 21 71 92 32 Bedanova, Daja 37 57 94 33 Grande, Rita 46 50 96 34 Tulyaganova, Iroda 55 44 99 35 Callens, Els 67 34 101 36 Panova, Tatiana 23 81 104 37 Nagyova, Henrieta 59 52 111

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 192 38 Tu, Meilen 73 39 112 39 Garbin, Tathiana 72 42 114 40 Daniilidou, Eleni 22 95 117 41 Stevenson, Alexandra 18 100 118 42 Wartusch, Patricia 82 37 119 43T Matevzic, Maja 51 73 124 43T Svensson, Asa 77 47 124 45 Loit, Emilie 58 67 125 46 Asagoe, Shinobu 97 29 126 47 Rittner, Barbara 66 62 128 48 Mandula, Petra 90 40 130 49 Gagliardi, Emmanuelle 61 83 144 50 Neffa-de Los Rios, Ross 88 58 146 51 Serra Zanetti, Adriana 60 90 150 52 Widjaja, Angelique 69 93 162 53T Kostanic, Jelena 71 97 168 53T Muller, Martina 70 98 168 55 Poutchek, Tatiana 99 76 175

The following Top 30 singles players are not in the Top 100 in doubles: Venus Williams (unranked in doubles), Jennifer Capriati ( #166), Amélie Mauresmo (#182), Monica Seles (unranked), Anastasia Myskina (#185), Lindsay Davenport (unranked), Anna Smashnova (unranked), Anne Kremer (#217), Tamarine Tanasugarn (#124). That’s a total of nine Top 30 singles players below #30 in doubles — up from only three last year.

The following Top 30 doubles players are not in the Top 100 in singles: (unranked), Rika Fujiwara (#185), Liezel Huber (#220), (unranked), Kimberli Po-Messerli (unranked), Nadia Petrova (#111, and was hovering around #30 prior to hurting herself), (#205), Wynne Prakusya (#104), Tina Krizan (unranked). That total of nine is up from last year, but only by one name.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 193 WTA Calendar for 2002 ¥ Events and Results The list below summarized the results of all Tour events in 2001. Tournaments are arranged by dates. The first item for each tournament lists the location, the surface, and the Tier. The next line gives the score of the singles final. This the names of the two semifinalists follow, then a list of seeds, with rankings and results. For tournaments below Tiers II, only the top two seeds are mentioned. For tournaments of Tier II and higher, four seeds are listed if the event has a 28-draw; otherwise, the top eight seeds are mentioned. This is followed by a list of noteworthy upsets, and then by significant historical facts about the event. December 31, 2001ÐJanuary 6 Gold Coast ¥ Hard ¥ Tier III Auckland, New Zealand ¥ Hard ¥ Tier V Venus Williams (1) d. Justine Hénin (2) 7–5 6–2 Anna Smashnova d. Tatiana Panova (5) 6Ð2 6Ð2 Semifinalists: Nadia Petrova, Daja Bedanova Semifinalists: Anna Kournikova, Silvija Talaja #1 seed: Venus Williams (#3; won) #1 seed: Angeles Montolio (#24; lost 1R) #2 seed: Justine Hénin (#7; lost F) #2 seed: Henrieta Nagyova (#25; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Hénin/Shaughnessy Doubles champions: Arendt/L. Huber Major Upsets: Pisnik (#63) def. Testud (#11); Anca Major Upsets: Jidkova (#114) def. Montolio (#24); Sfar Barna (#116) def. Grande (#24); Petrova (#39) def. (#82) def. Tu (#45); Brandi (#77) def. Martinez (#35); Shaughnessy (#12); Pisnik def. Likhovtseva (#36); Poutchek (#76) def. Nagyova (#25); Kournikova (#71) Petrova (#39) def. Farina Elia (#14) def. Frazier (#48), Smashnova (#88) def. Panova (#40) Historical Significance: Hénin’s first doubles title Historical Significance: Panova fails in her second career final Jan. 6Ð12 Sydney, ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Canberra, Aust. ¥ Hard ¥ Tier V Hobart, Aust. ¥ Hard ¥ Tier V Martina Hingis (2) d. Meghann Anna Smashnova d. Tamarine Martina Sucha d. Anabel Medina Shaughnessy (8) 6Ð2 6Ð3 Tanasugarn (1) 7Ð5 7Ð6(7Ð2) Garrigues 7Ð6(9Ð7) 6Ð1 Semifinalists: Serena Williams, Kim Semifinalists: Lilia Osterloh, Amanda Semifinalists: Amy Frazier, Clijsters Grahame Nicole Pratt #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#2; lost 2R) #1 seed: Tamarine Tanasugarn (#30) #1 seed: Rita Grande (#24; lost #2 seed: Martina Hingis (#4; won) #2 seed: Francesca Schiavone (#36; QF) #3 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; lost SF) lost 1R) #2 seed: Paola Suarez (#32; lost #4 seed: Serena Williams (#6; lost SF) Doubles champions: De Villiers/ 2R) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Selyutina Doubles champions: Grande/ Major Upsets: Stevenson (#61) def. Major Upsets: Stewart (#180) def. Garbin Tulyaganova (#20); Hantuchova (#37) Torrens Valero (#31); Reeves Major Upsets: Jidkova (#109) def. def. Maleeva (#16); Kournikova (#66) (#106) def. Kremer (#33); Mandula Suarez (#32); Medina Garrigues def. Montolio (#23); Martinez (#39) (#60) def. Schiavone (#36); def. Grande (#24) def. Dementieva (#15); Nagyova (#26) McQuillan (#80) def. Majoli (#43); Historical Significance: First win def. Sanchez-Vicario (#17); Stevenson Loit (#98) def. Likhovtseva (#35) for Sucha (#61) def. Capriati (#2); Shaughnessy Historical Significance: Two in a row (#12) def. S. Williams for Smashnova Historical Significance: Hingis finally wins a tournament #39 — but she grants Raymond/Stubbs a walkover in doubles. It won’t be the last time she bails.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 194 Jan. 14-27 Australian Open ¥ Hard ¥ Slam Jennifer Capriati (1) d. Martina Hingis (4) 4Ð6 7Ð6(9Ð7) 6Ð2 Semifinalists: Kim Clijsters, Monica Seles #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#1; Won) #5 seed: Serena Williams (#6; withdrew) #2 seed: Venus Williams (#3; lost QF) #6 seed: Justine Hénin (#8; lost QF) #3 seed: Martina Hingis (#4; lost F) #7 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#9; lost QF) #4 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; lost SF) #8 seed: Monica Seles (#10; lost SF) Doubles champions: Hingis/Kournikova Major Upsets: Déchy (#56) def. Testud (#11); Weingärtner (#48) def. Montolio (#23); Gagliardi (#65) def. Likhovtseva (#37); Majoli (#43) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#15); Müller (#95) def. Suarez (#31); Svensson (#104) def. Martinez (#39); Medina Garrigues (#49) def. Bedanova (#26); Ad. Serra Zanetti (#83) def. Farina Elia (#14); Weingärtner (#48) def. Shaughnessy (#12); Husarova (#69) def. Sugiyama (#34); Seles (#10) def. V. Williams (#3); Hingis/Kournikova def. Raymond/Stubbs Historical Significance: Slam #3 for Capriati keeps her at #1; Doubles Slam #9 for Hingis Jan. 28-Feb. 3 Pan Pacific Open, Tokyo ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier I Martina Hingis (1) d. Monica Seles (3) 7Ð6(8Ð6) 4Ð6 6Ð3 Semifinalists: Silvia Farina Elia, Anna Kournikova #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#4; won) #3 seed: Monica Seles (#10; lost F) #2 seed: Jelena Dokic (#9; lost 2R) #4 seed: Sandrine Testud (#12; lost QF) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Seles/Testud def. Black/Likhovtseva; Salerni/Tarabini def. Arendt/L. Huber; Kournikova (#99) def. Torrens Valero (#33); Grande (#31) def. Tulyaganova (#20); Callens (#203) def. Sugiyama (#28); Kremer (#32) def. Dokic (#9); Tanasugarn (#26) def. Maleeva (#14); Kournikova (#99) def. Dementieva (#16); Stevenson (#49) def. Coetzer (#19); Farina Elia (#15) def. Testud (#12); Kournikova (#99) def. Kremer (#32) Historical Significance: Hingis wins tournament #40, and Pan Pacific #4. Feb. 5-11 Paris, ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier II V. Williams (1) d. Jelena Dokic (4) walkover Semifinalists: Monica Seles, Amélie Mauresmo #1 seed: Venus Williams (#2; won) #3 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#8; lost SF) #2 seed: Justine Hénin (#7; lost QF) #4 seed: Jelena Dokic (#9) Doubles champions: Déchy/Tu Major Upsets:Hantuchova (#27) def. Maleeva (#16); Dhenin/Poutchek def. Schett/Serna; Ad. Serra-Zanetti (#47) def. Serna (#25); Déchy (#45) def. Bedanova (#33); Dementieva/Husarova def. Hantuchova/Likhovtseva Historical Significance: A complete washout — both singles and doubles won by walkover. What a way for Venus to get in position to take the #1 ranking Feb. 11-17 Antwerp, Belgium ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier II Doha, Qatar ¥ Hard ¥ Tier III Venus Williams (1) d. Justine Hénin (2) 6–3 5–7 6–3 Monica Seles (1) d. Tamarine Tanasugarn (4) 7Ð6(8Ð6) 6Ð3 Semifinalists: Amélie Mauresmo, Patty Schnyder Semifinalists: Alicia Molik, Janette Husarova #1 seed: V. Williams (#2; won) #1 seed: Monica Seles (#7) #2 seed: Justine Hénin (#9; lost F) #2 seed: Sandrine Testud (#11; lost 2R) #3 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#10; lost SF) Doubles champions: Husarova/Sanchez-Vicario #4 seed: Jelena Dokic (#6; lost 2R) Major Upsets: Matevzic (#76) def. Panova (#31); Myskina Doubles champions: Maleeva/Schnyder (#49) def. Montolio (#24); Molik (#54) def. Sanchez- Major Upsets: Dyrberg (#118) def. Kremer (#30); Vicario (#16); Daniilidou (#64) def. Grande (#28); Schnyder (#42) def. Dokic (#6) Husarova (#68) def. Testud (#11) Historical Significance: Venus wins two in a row Historical Significance: Title #52 for Seles

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 195 Feb. 18-24 Dubai, UAR ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Memphis, USA ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier III Bogota, Columbia ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Amélie Mauresmo (3) d. Lisa Raymond (2) d. Alexandra Fabiola Zuluaga (WC) d. Katarina Sandrine Testud (4) 6Ð4 7Ð6(7Ð3) Stevenson (4) 4Ð6 6Ð3 7Ð6(11Ð9) Srebotnik 6Ð1 6Ð4 Semifinalists: Venus Williams, Semifinalists: Alina Jidkova, Ai Semifinalists: Paola Suarez, Catalina Monica Seles Sugiyama Castano #1 seed: Venus Williams (#2; lost SF) #1 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#17; lost #1 seed: Cristina Torrens Valero #2 seed: Monica Seles (#6; lost SF) 2R) (#30; lost SF) #3 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#10) #2 seed: Lisa Raymond (#21) #2 seed: Gala Leon Garcia (#42; lost #4 seed: Sandrine Testud (#11) Doubles champions: Sugiyama/ 2R) Doubles champions: Rittner/Vento- Tatarkova Doubles champions: Ruano Pascual/ Kabchi Major Upsets: Jidkova (#105) def. Suarez Major Upsets: Myskina (#47) def. Coetzer (#17) Major Upsets: Castano (#145) def. Nagyova (#26); Rittner (#78) def. Historical Significance: Raymond’s Leon Garcia (#42); Zuluaga (#285) Tulyaganova (#19); Testud (#11) third career title; Stevenson’s first def. Suarez (#49); Zuluaga (#285) def. V. Willams (#2); Mauresmo career final def. Torrens Valero (#30) (#10) def. Seles (#6) Historical Significance: Zuluaga Historical Significance: Mauresmo makes a triumphant return to the breaks her nine month titleless streak Tour. Feb. 25-Mar. 3 Scottsdale, Arizona ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Acapulco, Mexico ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Serena Williams (3) d. Jennifer Capriati (1) 6Ð2 4Ð6 6Ð4 Katarina Srebotnik d. Paola Suarez (7) Semifinalists: Nathalie Déchy, Martina Hingis 6Ð7(1Ð7) 6Ð4 6Ð2 #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#2; lost F) Semifinalists: Elena Dementieva, Anna Kournikova #2 seed: Martina Hingis (#5; lost SF) #1 seed: Elena Dementieva (#14; lost SF) #3 seed: Serena Williams (#9; won) #2 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#15; lost 2R) #4 seed: Meghann Shaughnessy (#12; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Ruano Pascual/Suarez Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Loit (#109) def. C. Martinez (#39); Major Upsets: Sugiyama (#30) def. Raymond (#19); Pratt Kournikova (#80) def. Diaz-Oliva (#66); Husarova (#42) def. Sugiyama (#30); Déchy (#45) def. (#50) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#15); Srebotnik (#79) def. Shaughnessy (#12); Déchy (#45) def. Schiavone (#24) Leon Garcia (#43); Suarez (#61) def. Coetzer (#17) Historical Significance: Serena’s first title of 2002 Historical Significance: Srebotnik’s second career title Mar. 10-18 Indian Wells, California, USA ¥ Hard ¥ Tier I Daniela Hantuchova (18) d. Martina Hingis (2) 6Ð3 6Ð4 Semifinalists: Emmanuelle Gagliardi, Monica Seles #1 seed: Kim Clijsters (#3; lost 2R) #5 seed: Jelena Dokic (#8; lost 3R) #2 seed: Martina Hingis (#4; lost F) #6 seed: Meghann Shaughnessy (#13; lost 4R) #3 seed: Justine Hénin (#7; lost 4R) #7 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#12; lost 4R) #4 seed: Monica Seles (#9; lost SF) #8 seed: Elena Dementieva (#14; lost 3R) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Déchy (#35) def. Clijsters (#3); Osterloh (#56) def. C. Martinez (#40); Dulko/Sharapova (WC) def. Maleeva/Svensson; Dyrberg (#105) def. Maleeva (#18); Gagliardi (#70) def. Montolio (#24); Marrero (#64) def. Schiavone (#23); Smashnova (#57) def. Grande (#28); Bedanova/Bovina def. Black/Likhovtseva; Dementieva/ Husarova def. Sugiyama/Tatarkova; Kremer (#34) def. Dokic (#8); Stevenson (#32) def. Dementieva (#14); Sugiyama (#29) def. Tulyaganova (#19); Black (#84) def. Tanasugarn (#20); Gagliardi (#70) def. Myskina (#39); Smashnova (#57) def. Shaughnessy (#13); Hantuchova (#26) def. Hénin (#7); Hantuchova (#25) def. Hingis (#4) Historical Significance: Hantuchova’s first singles title is a big one indeed.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 196 Mar. 20Ð31 Miami ¥ Hard ¥ Tier I Serena Williams (8) d. Jennifer Capriati (1) 7Ð5 7Ð6(7Ð4) Semifinalists: Venus Williams, Monica Seles #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#1; lost F) #5 seed: Monica Seles (#6; lost SF) #2 seed: Venus Williams (#2; lost SF) #6 seed: Justine Hénin (#7; lost 2R) #3 seed: Martina Hingis (#3; lost QF) #7 seed: Jelena Dokic (#8; lost 3R)) #4 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; lost QF) #8 seed: Serena Williams (#9; Won) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Webb (#184) def. Serna (#38); Dyrberg (#90) def. Pratt (#37); Irvin (#63) def. Bedanova (#24); Poutchek (#84) def. Déchy (#35); Smashnova (#44) def. Hénin (#7); Black (#75) def. Hantuchova (#17); Suarez (#58) def. Grande (#29); Pisnik (#54) def. Schiavone (#26); Reeves (#98) def. Schnyder (#34); Rittner (#72) def. Montolio; Diaz-Oliva (#81) def. Nagyova (#31); Irvin (#63) def. Shaughnessy (#13); Kremer (#30) def. Dokic (#8); Stevenson (#27) def. Maleeva (#20); Panova (#32) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#14); Lee/Prakusya def. Black/ Likhovtseva; S. Williams (#9) def. Hingis (#3); Dementieva/Husarova def. Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario; S. Williams (#9) def. V. Williams (#2); Arendt/Huber walked over Hingis/Kournikova; S. Williams (#9) def. Capriati (#1) Historical Significance: Capriati has another disappointing loss — and remains third in points this year. April 1Ð7 Sarasota, USA ¥ Clay ¥ Tier IV Porto, Portugal ¥ Clay ¥ Tier IV Jelena Dokic (1) d. Tatiana Panova (10) 6Ð2 6Ð2 Angeles Montolio (1) d. Magui Serna (3) 6Ð1 2Ð6 7Ð5 Semifinalists: Virginie Razzano, Meghann Shaughnessy Semifinalists: Maja Matevzic, Zsofia Gubacsi #1 seed: Jelena Dokic (#9; Won) #1 seed: Angeles Montolio (#29; Won) #2 seed: Meghann Shaughnessy (#13; lost SF) #2 seed: Cristina Torrens Valero (#33; lost 1R) Doubles champions: Dokic/Likhovtseva Doubles champions: Black/Selyutina Major Upsets: Ruano Pascual (#72) def. Tanasugarn Major Upsets: Dominguez Lino (#263) def. Torrens (#22); Razzano (#98) def. Déchy (#35); Husarova (#47) Valero (#33); Gubacsi (#90) def. Pisnik (#51); Kostanic def. Sanchez-Vicario (#14); Pierce (#295) def. (#87) def. Sucha (#41) Sugiyama (#30); Razzano (#98) def. Suarez (#53); Historical Significance: Serna still hasn’t won a singles Panova (#25) def. Shaughnessy (#13) title Historical Significance: Dokic’s first title of 2002

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 197 Apr. 8Ð14 Amelia Island, USA ¥ (Green) Clay ¥ Tier II Estoril, Portugal ¥ Clay ¥ Tier IV Venus Williams (1) d. Justine Hénin (2) 2–6 7–5 7–6(7–5) Magui Serna (3) d. Anca Barna (Q) 6Ð4 6Ð2 Semifinalists: Jelena Dokic, Anne Kremer Semifinalists: Dinara Safina, Elena Bovina #1 seed: Venus Williams (#2; Won) #1 seed: Angeles Montolio (#24; lost QF) #2 seed: Justine Hénin (#9; lost F) #2 seed: Cristina Torrens Valero (#34; lost #3 seed: Jelena Dokic (#8); lost SF 1R) #4 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#10; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Bovina/Gubacsi #5 seed: Sandrine Testud (#11; lost QF) Major Upsets: Safina (#404) def. Sucha #6 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#13; lost QF) (#39); Dominguez Lino (#217) def. #7 seed: Meghann Shaughnessy (#12; lost 2R) Torrens Valero (#34); Bes/Dominguez #8 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#14; lost 2R) Lino def. Black/Selyutina; Safina (#404) Doubles champions: Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario def. Matevzic (#66); Barna (#103) def. Major Upsets: Frazier (#53) def. Nagyova (#37); Reeves (#90) def. Montolio (#24); Bovina/Gubacsi def. Smashnova (#26); Majoli (#61) def. Coetzer (#18); Molik (#50) def. Krizan/Srebotnik Sugiyama (#30); Craybas (#109) def. Raymond (#21); Pratt (#41) Historical Significance: Serna’s first career def. Panova (#23); Kremer (#29) def. Mauresmo (#10); Husarova title (#44) def. Hantuchova (#15); Garbin (#95) def. Schiavone (#28); Suarez (#52) def. Shaughnessy (#12); Déchy (#35) def. Sanchez- Vicario (#14); Coetzer/Steck def. Raymond/Stubbs; Kremer (#29) def. Testud (#11) Historical Significance: An epic choke by Hénin (who led 6–2 4–0 40– 15) gives Venus her first green clay title Apr. 15Ð21 Charleston, USA ¥ (Green) Clay ¥ Tier I Budapest, Hungary ¥ Clay ¥ Tier V Iva Majoli d. Patty Schnyder 7Ð6(7Ð5 6Ð4 Martina Müller d. Myriam Casanova Semifinalists: Jennifer Capriati, Sandrine Testud (Q) 6Ð2 3Ð6 6Ð4 #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#1; lost SF) Semifinalists: Tatiana Poutchek, Eleni #2 seed: Monica Seles (#6; lost 3R) Daniilidou #3 seed: Serena Williams (#7; lost QF) #1 seed: Martina Sucha (#40; lost QF) #4 seed: Jelena Dokic (#9; lost 2R) #2 seed: Petra Mandula (#56; lost 2R) #6 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#10; lost 2R)* Doubles champions: #7 seed: Sandrine Testud (#11; lost SF) Major Upsets: Kurhajcova (LL/#175) #8 seed: Meghann Shaughnessy (#12; lost 2R) def. Mandula (#56); Müller (#77) def. #9 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#13; lost 2R) Sucha (#40); M. Casanova (#348) def. Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Daniilidou (#63) Major Upsets: Déchy (#32) def. Raymond (#24); Tu (#60) def. Panova Historical Significance: Müller’s first (#23); Mikaelian (#64) def. Schiavone (#28); C. Fernandez (#128) def. career title Nagyova (#42); Palaversic Coopersmith/Seles def. Arendt/L. Huber; C. Fernandez (#128) def. Farina Elia (#13); Smashnova (#35) def. Dokic (#9); Schnyder (#30) def. Mauresmo (#10); Suarez (#47) def. Shaughnessy (#12); Myskina (#33) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#17); Pierce (#232) def. Hantuchova (#15); Craybas (#108) def. Dementieva (#14); Foretz (#109) def. C. Martinez (#37); Lee/Prakusya def. Ruano Pascual/ Suarez; Foretz (#109) def. Seles (#6); Fujiwara/Panova def. Po-Messerli/ Pratt; Schnyder (#30) def. S. Williams (#7); Majoli (#58) def. Coetzer (#20); Schnyder (#30) def. Capriati; Majoli (#58) def. Testud (#11); Majoli (#58) def. Schnyder (#30) Historical Significance: Majoli’s first title in five years — but it’s Schnyder who earned the most points! First Tier I with two unseeded finalists * #5 seed Justine Hénin withdrew and seeds were promoted

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 198 April 29-May 5 Hamburg, Germany ¥ Clay ¥ Tier II Bol, ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Kim Clijsters (2) d. Venus Williams (1) 1Ð6 6Ð3 6Ð4 Åsa Svensson d. Iva Majoli (4) 6–3 4–6 6–1 Semifinalists: Martina Hingis, Jelena Dokic Semifinalists: Tathiana Garbin, Libuse Prusova #1 seed: Venus Williams (#1; lost F) #1 seed: Elena Dementieva (#15; lost QF) #2 seed: Kim Clijsters (#3; Won tournament) #2 seed: Anne Kremer (#23; lost 2R) #3 seed: Martina Hingis (#4; lost SF) Doubles champions: Garbin/Widjaja #4 seed: Justine Hénin (#8; lost QF) Major Upsets: Garhin (#108) def. Nagyova (#44); Doubles champions: Hingis/Schett Zvonareva (#217) def. Srebotnik (#53); Sanchez Major Upsets: Schiavone (#31) def. Tulyaganova (#19); Lorenzo (#202) def. Montolio (#35); Svensson (#87) Serna (#39) def. Panova (#22); Barna (#80) def. def. Maleeva (#25); Diaz-Oliva (#84) def. Kremer (#23); Schnyder (#17); Müller (#65) def. Tanasugarn (#21) Garbin (#108) def. Dementieva (#15); Svensson (#87) Historical Significance: Clijsters wins her first clay title, def. Pisnik (#52); Svensson (#87) def. Majoli (#33) and someone finally stops Venus in a final Historical Significance: Svensson’s second career title May 6Ð12 Berlin, Germany ¥ Clay ¥ Tier I Warsaw, Poland ¥ Clay ¥ Tier IV Justine Hénin (5) d. Serena Williams (4) 6–2 1–6 7–6(7–5) Elena Bovina d. Henrieta Nagyova (1) 6Ð3 Semifinalists: Jennifer Capriati, Anna Smashnova 6Ð1 #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#2; lost SF) Semifinalists: Vena Zvonareva, Silvija #2 seed: Kim Clijsters (#3; lost 2R) Talaja #4 seed: Serena Williams (#5; lost F)* #1 seed: Henrieta Nagyova (#41) #5 seed: Justine Hénin (#8; Won tournament) #2 seed: Tatiana Poutchek (#66; lost 1R) #6 seed: Jelena Dokic (#9; lost E16) Doubles champions: Kostanic/Nagyova #7 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#10; withdrew from QF) Major Upsets: Talaja (#96) def. Poutchek #8 seed: Sandrine Testud (#11; lost QF) (#66); Kuznetsova (#162) def. #9 seed: Meghann Shaughnessy (#13; lost 2R) Kournikova (#68); Bovina (#94) def. Doubles champions: Dementieva/Husarova Nagyova (#41) Major Upsets: Roesch (#125) def. Dementieva (#15): Likhovtseva Historical Significance: Bovina’s first (#47) def. Panova (#21); Barna (#73) def. Grande (#34); Torrens career title Valero (#38) def. Kremer (#23); Rubin (#69) def. Serna (#36); Déchy (#33) def. Shaughnessy (#13); Smashnova (#35) def. Clijsters (#3); Hantuchova (#14) def. Dokic (#9); Déchy (#33) def. Sanchez- Vicario (#17); Smashnova (#35) def. Hantuchova (#14); Hénin (#8) def. Capriati (#2) Historical Significance: Hénin’s first title above the Tier III level * #3 seed Martina Hingis withdrew and seeds were promoted May 13Ð19 Rome, ¥ Clay ¥ Tier I Serena Williams (4) d. Justine Hénin (5) 7–6(8–6) 6–4 Semifinalists: Kim Clijsters, Jennifer Capriati #1 seed: Venus Williams (#1; WITHDREW) #5 seed: Justine Hénin (#8; lost F) #2 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#2; lost SF) #6 seed: Jelena Dokic (#9; lost 3R) #3 seed: Kim Clijsters (#3; lost SF) #7 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#11; lost QF) #4 seed: Serena Williams (#4; Won) #8 seed: Sandrine Testud (#10; lost QF) Doubles champions: Ruano Pascual/Suarez Major Upsets Svensson (#65) def. Shaughnessy (#14); Myskina (#30) def. Hantuchova (#13); Sugiyama (#33) def. Dementieva (#15); Chladkova (#105) def. Tanasugarn (#19); Ruano Pascual (#78) def. Tulyaganova (#18); Chladkova (#105) def. C. Martinez (#46); Pierce (#172) def. Schnyder (#20); Myskina (#30) def. Dokic (#9); S. Williams (#4) def. Capriati (#2); Hénin (#8) def. Clijsters (#3) Historical Significance: Serena’s first career title on clay

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 199 May 21-26 Madrid, Spain ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Strasbourg, France ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Monica Seles (1) d. Chanda Rubin 6Ð4 6Ð2 Silvia Farina Elia (2) d. Jelena Dokic (1) Semifinalists: Paola Suarez, Fabiola Zuluaga 6Ð4 3Ð6 6Ð4 #1 seed: Monica Seles (#6; Won) Semifinalists: Meghann Shaughnessy, #2 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#18; lost 2R) Magdalena Maleeva Doubles champions: Navratilova/Zvereva #1 seed: Jelena Dokic (#9; lost F) Major Upsets: Suarez (#54) def. Schnyder (#23); C. Fernandez #2 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#11; Won) (#98) def. Sugiyama (#29); Black (#44) def. Tanasugarn (#20); Doubles champions: Hopkins/Kostanic Rubin (#65) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#18); Zuluaga (#138) def. Major Upsets: Kostanic (#83) def. Bedanova Grande (#34); Rubin (#65) def. Serna (#38) (#28); Daniilidou (#64) def. Tulyaganova Historical Significance: Seles wins her fifth tournament in nine (#17) months — and only one is a Tier II or higher. Navratilova makes Historical Significance: Farina Elia has only it 28 years between first and last doubles titles two titles — but they’re both here. May 27-June 9 /Roland Garros ¥ Clay ¥ Slam S. Williams (3) d. V. Williams (2) 7Ð5 6Ð3 Semifinalists: Jennifer Capriati, Clarisa Fernandez #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#1; lost SF) #5 seed: Justine Hénin (#5; lost 1R) #2 seed: Venus Williams (#2; lost F) #6 seed: Monica Seles (#6; lost QF) #3 seed: Serena Williams (#3; Won) #7 seed: Jelena Dokic (#9; lost QF) #4 seed: Kim Clijsters (#4; lost 3R) #8 seed: Sandrine Testud (#10; lost 1R) Doubles champions: Ruano Pascual/Suarez Major Upsets: Suarez (#47) def. Testud (#10); Kapros (#179) def. Hénin (#5); Asagoe (#119) def. Myskina (#22); Sidot (#211) def. Maleeva (#17); Bes (#104) def. Raymond (#26); Kostanic (#76) def. Bedanova (#27); Müller (#64) def. Coetzer (#33); Razzano (#81) def. Nagyova (#37); Martinez Granados (#136) def. Shaughnessy (#14); Marrero (#68) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#29); Schiavone (#36) def. Smashnova (#23); Dominikovic (#109) def. Stevenson (#30); Wheeler (#193) def. Kournikova (#54); Cervanova (#112) def. Majoli (#31); Rubin (#45) def. Schett (#19); Pierce (#132) def. Torrens Valero (#35); Rittner/Vento-Kabchi def. Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario; C. Fernandez (#87) def. Clijsters (#4); Mandula/Wartusch def. Martinez/Tarabini; Majoli/Pratt def. Po-Messerli/ Tauziat; Suarez def. Mauresmo (#12); C. Fernandez (#87) def. Dementieva (#15); Pierce def. Farina Elia (#11); Fujiwara/Sugiyama def. Black/Likhovtseva, S. Williams (#3) def. Capriati (#1) Historical Significance: Serena’s second Slam comes at the tournament observers thought her least likely to win June 10-16 Birmingham, ¥ Grass ¥ Tier III Vienna, Austria ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Tashkent, Uzbekistan ¥ Hard Jelena Dokic (1) d. Anastasia Myskina (6) Anna Smashnova (4) d. Iroda ¥ Tier IV 6Ð2 6Ð3 Tulyaganova (2) Marie-Gaianeh Mikaelian (1) Semifinalists: Lisa Raymond, Nicole Pratt Semifinalists: Petra Mandula, Patricia d. Tatiana Poutchek (2) #1 seed: Jelena Dokic (#8; Won) Wartusch Semifinalists: Tathiana Garbin, #2 seed: Sandrine Testud (#10; lost 3R) #1 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#13; lost 2R) Roberta Vinci Doubles champions: Asagoe/Callens #2 seed: Iroda Tulyaganova (#17) #1 seed: Marie-Gaianeh Major Upsets: Craybas (#102) def. Doubles champions: Mandula/Wartusch Mikaelian (#50; Won) Tanasugarn (#19); Daniilidou (#54) def. Major Upsets: Mandula (#106) def. #2 seed: Tatiana Poutchek Panova (#21); Bovina (#80) def. Grande Nagyova (#49); Wartusch (#144) def. (#73; lost F) (#37); Pullin (#150) def. Serna (#41); Farina Elia (#13); Wartusch (#144) Doubles champions: Pratt (#39) def. Testud (#10); Daniilidou def. Torrens Valero (#38); Mandula Perebiynis/Poutchek (#54) def. Sugiyama (#30); Pratt (#39) (#106) def. Schett (#33) Major Upsets: def. Kremer (#24) Historical Significance: Smashnova Historical Significance: Historical Significance: Dokic’s first breaks into the Top 20 Mikaelian’s first career title career grass title

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 200 June 17-23 Eastbourne, England ¥ Grass ¥ Tier II ’s-Hertogenbosch, ¥ Chanda Rubin d. Anastasia Myskina 6Ð1 6Ð3 Grass ¥ Tier III Semifinalists: Daja Bedanova, Daniela Hantuchova Eleni Daniilidou d. Elena Dementieva (4) 3Ð6 #1 seed: Jelena Dokic (#8; lost 2R) 6Ð2 6Ð3 #2 seed: Sandrine Testud (#10; lost 2R) Semifinalists: Justine Hénin, Tina Pisnik #3 seed: Daniela Hantuchova (#13; lost SF) #1 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; lost QF) #4 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#12; lost QF) #2 seed: Justine Hénin (#7; lost SF) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Doubles champions: Barclay/Müller Major Upsets: Rubin (#37) def. Tanasugarn (#21); Frazier (#76) Major Upsets: Daniilidou (#51) def. Torrens def. Stevenson (#29); Navratilova (—) def. Panova (#22); Valero (#39); Bovina (#78) def. Sucha (#43); Bedanova (#28) def. Dokic (#8); Kremer (#23) def. Testud (#10); Daniilidou (#51) def. Mauresmo (#11); Frazier (#76) def. Tulyaganova (#16); Bedanova (#28) def. Pisnik (#50) def. Clijsters (#5); Daniilidou Shaughnessy (#15); Rubin (#37) def. Farina Elia (#12) (#51) def. Dementieva (#14) Historical Significance: Rubin wins her best career title; Myskina Historical Significance: Daniilidou wins her hits the Top Fifteen; Raymond and Stubbs sweep the surfaces for first career title the second straight year June 25-July 8 Wimbledon ¥ Grass ¥ Slam Serena Williams (2) d. Venus Williams (1) 7Ð6(7Ð4) 6Ð3 Semifinalists: Justine Hénin, Amélie Mauresmo #1 seed: Venus Williams (#1; lost F) #5 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; lost 2R) #2 seed: Serena Williams (#2); Won #6 seed: Justine Hénin (#6; lost SF) #3 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#3; lost QF) #7 seed: Jelena Dokic (#7; lost 4R) #4 seed: Monica Seles (#4; lost QF) #8 seed: Sandrine Testud (#10; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Williams/Williams Major Upsets: Granville (#134) def. Pratt (#36); Obata (#116) def. Stevenson; Craybas (#91) def. Suarez (#32); Widjaja (#93) def. Smashnova (#17); M. Casanova (#180) def. Nagyova (#51); Pierce (#74) def. Testud (#10); Oremans (#129) def. Shaughnessy (#16); Matevzic (#57) def. Tulyaganova (#20); C. Martinez (#66) def. Schnyder (#18); Baltacha (#295) def. Coetzer (#37); Likhovtseva (#48) def. Clijsters (#5); M. Casanova (#180) def. Schett (#33); Granville (#134) def. Pierce (#74); Hantuchova (#12) def. Dokic (#7); Likhovtseva (#48) def. Maleeva (#19); Hénin (#6) def. Seles (#4); Mauresmo (#11) def. Capriati (#3); Kournikova/Rubin def. Raymond/Stubbs Historical Significance: Serena’s third Slam on her third difference surface makes her #1. July 8Ð14 Brussels, Belgium ¥ Clay ¥ Tier V Palermo, Italy ¥ Clay ¥ Tier V Casablanca, Morocco ¥ Clay ¥ Tier Myriam Casanova (WC) d. Arantxa Mariana Diaz-Oliva (6) d. Vera V Sanchez-Vicario (1) 4Ð6 6Ð2 6Ð1 Zvonareva (5) 6Ð7(6Ð8) 6Ð1 6Ð3 Patricia Wartusch (6) d. Klara Semifinalists: Emilie Loit, Virginia Semifinalists: Paola Suarez, Henrieta Koukalova 5Ð7 6Ð3 6Ð3 Ruano Pascual Nagyova Semifinalists: #1 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario #1 seed: Paola Suarez (#30; lost SF) #1 seed: Marlene Weingärtner (#68; (#32; lost F) #2 seed: Henrieta Nagyova (#53; lost lost 1R) #2 seed: Barbara Schett (#33; lost QF) SF) #2 seed: Angeles Montolio (#90; lost Doubles champions: Schwartz/Woehr Doubles champions: Koulikovskaya/ 1R) Major Upsets: M. Casanova (#119) Syseova Doubles champions: Mandula/ def. Torrens Valero (#41); Ruano Major Upsets: Zvonareva (#84) def. Wartusch Pascual (#85) def. Schett (#33); M. Suarez (#30); Diaz-Oliva (#103) Major Upsets: Rodionova (#171) def. Casanova (#119) def. Sanchez- def. Nagyova Weingärtner (#68); Dulko (#154) Vicario (#32) Historical Significance: Diaz-Oliva’s def. Montolio (#90) Historical Significance: Casanova’s first title; Zvonareva’s first final Historical Significance: Two wins for first career title Wartusch restart a stalled career

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 201 July 22Ð28 Stanford, California ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Sopot, Poland ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Venus Williams (1) d. Kim Clijsters (4) 6Ð3 6Ð3 Dinara Safina (Q) d. Henrieta Nagyova (6) 6Ð3 4Ð Semifinalists: Lindsay Davenport, Lisa Raymond 0, retired #1 seed: Venus Williams (#2; Won) Semifinalists: Tathiana Garbin, Vera Zvonareva #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#9 [Spec: 3]; lost SF) #1 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#14; lost 2R) #3 seed: Monica Seles (#4; lost QF) #2 seed: Patty Schnyder (#24; lost 2R) #4 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; lost F) Doubles champions: Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Sakowicz (#396) def. Torrens Major Upsets: Tu (#51) def. Stevenson (#30); Augustus/ Valero (#46); Rittner (#78) def. Farina Elia Rippner def. Po-Messerli/Sugiyama; Prakusya (#92) def. (#14); Safina (#169) def. Schnyder (#24); Garbin Mikaelian (#50); Kournikova (#54) def. Smashnova (#18); (#90) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#26); Safina (#169) Irvin (#61) def. Hénin (#7); Jankovic (#262) def. Bedanova def. Serna (#57); Safina (#169) def. Zvonareva (#17); Raymond (#28) def. Seles (#4) (#65); Safina (#169) def. Nagyova (#47) Historical Significance: Perhaps most important, Davenport is Historical Significance: Safina’s first career title back. For Venus, it’s title #5 of the year — but all weak. puts her in the Top 100 July 29-Aug. 4 San Diego, California ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II+ Venus Williams (1) d. Jelena Dokic (6) 6Ð2 6Ð2 Semifinalists: Lindsay Davenport, Anna Kournikova #1 seed: V. Williams (#2; Won) #5 seed: Kim Clijsters (#7; lost QF) #2 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#3; lost QF) #6 seed: Jelena Dokic (#5; lost F) #3 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#9 [Spec: 3]; lost SF) #7 seed: Daniela Hantuchova (#12; lost 2R) #4 seed: Monica Seles (#4 — WITHDREW) #8 seed: Elena Dementieva (#13; lost 3R) Doubles champions: Dementieva/Husarova Major Upsets: Arn (#84) def. Pierce (#50); Schiavone (#46) def. Tanasugarn (#28); Harkleroad (#232) def. Grande (#35); Kournikova (#47) def. Stevenson (#30); Martinez (#70) def. Likhovtseva (#34); Srebotnik (#44) def. Bedanova (#16); Sugiyama (#29) def. Hantuchova (#12); Smashnova (#19) def. Dementieva (#13); Martinez (#70) def. Panova (#22); Suarez/Tulyaganova def. Raymond/Stubbs; Kournikova (#47) def. Smashnova (#19); Dokic (#5) def. Capriati (#3) Historical Significance: Venus finally wins a good tournament; it’s #6 of the year.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 202 August 5Ð11 Los Angeles ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Helsinki, Finland ¥ Clay ¥ Tier IV Chanda Rubin (12) d. Lindsay Davenport (3) 5Ð7 7Ð6(7Ð5) 6Ð3 Svetlana Kuznetsova (Q) d. Denisa Semifinalists: Jelena Dokic, Ai Sugiyama Chladkova 0Ð6 6Ð3 7Ð6(7Ð2) #1 seed: Serena Williams (#1; lost QF) Semifinalists: Martina Sucha, Patricia #2 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#3; lost QF) Wartusch #3 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#9/Spec: 3) #1 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#14; lost 2R) #4 seed: Jelena Dokic (#5; lost SF) #2 seed: Iva Majoli (#23; lost 2R) #5 seed: Kim Clijsters (#6; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Kuznetsova/Sanchez- #6 seed: Daniela Hantuchova (#12; lost 2R) Vicario #7 seed: Elena Dementieva (#13; lost 2R) Major Upsets: Leon Garcia (#125) def. #8 seed: Daja Bedanova (#17; lost 3R) Majoli (#23); Chladkova (#102) def. Doubles champions: Clijsters/Dokic Farina Elia (#14); Mandula (#93) def. Major Upsets: Grande (#36) def. Maleeva (#16); Srebotnik (#43) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#25); Kuznetsova Clijsters (#6); Daniilidou (#31) def. Hantuchova (#12); Sugiyama (#123) def. Schnyder (#24); Kuznetsova (#29) def. Dementieva (#13); Coetzer (#35) def. Smashnova (#18); (#123) def. Sucha (#44) Husarova (#40) def. Shaughnessy (#26); Daniilidou (#31) def. Historical Significance: Kuznetsova’s first Kremer (#19); Rubin (#21) def. S. Williams (#1); Sugiyama (#29) def. career title Capriati (#3); Clijsters/Dokic def. Black/Likhovtseva; Rubin (#21) def. Dokic (#5) Historical Significance: Rubin wins her second Tier II of the year (first time she’s ever won two titles in a year) and hits the Top 15 August 12Ð18 Canadian Open/ ¥ Hard ¥ Tier I Amélie Mauresmo (7) d. Jennifer Capriati (2) 6–4 6–1 Semifinalists: Jelena Dokic, Daniela Hantuchova #1 seed: Serena Williams (#1; WITHDREW) #5 seed: Justine Hénin (#6; lost QF) #2 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#3; lost F) #6 seed: Martina Hingis (#8; lost QF) #3 seed: Jelena Dokic (#5; lost SF) #7 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#10; WON) #4 seed: Kim Clijsters (#7; lost R16) #8 seed: Daniela Hantuchova (#12; lost SF) Doubles champions: Ruano Pascual/Suarez Major Upsets: C. Fernandez (#37) def. Myskina (#16); Stevenson (#34) def. Smashnova (#19); Ruano Pascual (#66) def. Kremer (#20); Zuluaga (#109) def. Tulyaganova (#41); Granville (#93) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#26); Schiavone (#46) def. Daniilidou (#30); Zuluaga (#109) def. Tu (#47); Coetzer (#32) def. Dementieva (#13); Granville (#93) def. Farina Elia (#14); Schiavone (#46) def. Bedanova (#18); Schett (#35) def. Rubin (#15); Clijsters/Dokic def. Raymond/Stubbs; Schett (#35) def. Clijsters (#7); Fujiwara/Sugiyama def. Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario; Mauresmo (#10) def. Capriati (#3) Historical Significance: Mauresmo wins her first hardcourt Tier I; Capriati — again — wins nothing August 18Ð24 New Haven, Connecticut ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Venus Williams (1) d. Lindsay Davenport (2) 7Ð5 6Ð0 Semifinalists: Daniela Hantuchova, Anastasia Myskina #1 seed: Venus Williams (#2; WON) #3 seed: Jelena Dokic (#4; WITHDREW) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#10/Spec: 3; lost F) #4 seed: Justine Hénin (#7; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario Major Upsets: Majoli (#25) def. Farina Elia (#14); Tulyaganova (#42) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#26); Roesch (#94) def. Dementieva (#13); Bovina (#77) def. Raymond (#22); Granville (#62) def. Bedanova (#21); Garbin/Husarova def. Raymond/Stubbs; Myskina (#16) def. Hénin (#7); Myskina (#16) def. Hingis (#8) Historical Significance: That’s four straight titles at New Haven for Venus

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 203 August 27- September 9 U. S. Open ¥ Hard ¥ Slam Serena Williams (1) d. Venus Williams (2) 6Ð4 6Ð3 Semifinalists: Lindsay Davenport, Amélie Mauresmo #1 seed: Serena Williams (#1; WON) #5 seed: Jelena Dokic (#4; lost 2R) #2 seed: Venus Williams (#2; lost F) #6 seed: Monica Seles (#5; lost QF) #3 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#3; lost QF) #7 seed: Kim Clijsters (#7; lost 4R) #4 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#10/Spec: 3; lost SF) #8 seed: Justine Hénin (#6; lost 4R) Doubles champions: Ruano Pascual/Suarez Major Upsets: Safina (#91) def. Grande (#26); Bartoli (#231) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#28); Kuznetsova (#88) def. Kremer (#20); Foretz (#89) def. Stevenson (#31); Widjaja (#75) def. Kournikova (#37); Nagyova (#46) def. Daniilidou (#29); Bielik (#1102) def. Tanasugarn (#27); Schiavone (#43) def. Dementieva (#13); Bovina (#61) def. Dokic (#4); Coetzer (#33) def. Smashnova (#18); Frazier (#73) def. Sugiyama (#19); Müller (#77) def. Schett (#34); Cho (#106) def. Suarez (#32); Bedanova (#24) def. Myskina (#16); Schiavone (#43) def. Panova (#23); Frazier (#73) def. Maleeva (#17); De Lone/Jeyaseelan def. Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario; Mauresmo (#9) def. Capriati (#3); Clijsters/Shaughnessy def. Raymond/Stubbs; Dementieva/Husarova def. Black/Likhovtseva Historical Significance: Three straight Slams for Serena. Though it was at least as ugly as you think. Slam #3 for the team of Ruano Pascual/Suarez. September 9Ð15 Bahia, Brazil ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Big Island, Hawaii, USA ¥ Hard ¥ Shanghai, China ¥ Hard ¥ Anastasia Myskina (3) d. Eleni Daniilidou (8) 6Ð Tier IV Tier IV 3 0Ð6 6Ð2 Cara Black d. Lisa Raymond (2) Anna Smashnova (1) d. Anna Semifinalists: Jelena Dokic, Monica Seles 7Ð6(7Ð2) 6Ð4 Kournikova (4) 6Ð2 6Ð3 #1 seed: Jelena Dokic (#4; lost SF) Semifinalists: Els Callens, Gala Semifinalists: Ai Sugiyama, #2 seed: Monica Seles (#5; lost SF) Leon Garcia Angelique Widjaja #3 seed: Anastasia Myskina (#15; WON) #1 seed: Anne Kremer (#21; lost 1R) #1 seed: Anna Smashnova #4 seed: Patty Schnyder (#18; lost QF) #2 seed: Lisa Raymond (#24; lost F) (#19) Doubles champions: Ruano Pascual/Suarez Doubles champions: Tu/Vento- #2 seed: Ai Sugiyama (#20; Major Upsets: Matevzic (#81) def. Panova Kabchi lost SF) (#22); Pisnik (#46) def. Suarez (#30); Major Upsets: Leon Garcia (#125) Doubles champions: Nagyova (#47) def. Majoli (23); Daniilidou def. Kremer (#21); Reeves (#74) Kournikova/Lee (#34) def. Schnyder (#18); Myskina (#15) def. def. Schett (#37); Black (#61) def. Major Upsets: Kournikova Dokic (#4); Daniilidou (#34) def. Seles (#5) Raymond (#24) (#38) def. Sugiyama (#20) Historical Significance: Myskina wins her Historical Significance: Black’s first Historical Significance: Title second career title, and first big one career title #4 of 2002 for Smashnova September 16Ð22 Princess Cup/Tokyo ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Quebec City, Canada ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier III Serena Williams (1) d. Kim Clijsters (3) 2Ð6 6Ð3 6Ð3 Elena Bovina (7) d. Marie-Gaianeh Mikaelian 6Ð3 6Ð4 Semifinalists: Jelena Dokic, Amy Frazier Semifinalists: Silvia Farina Elia, Anastassia Rodionova #1 seed: Serena Williams (#1; Won) #1 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#14; lost SF) #2 seed: Jelena Dokic (#4; lost SF) #2 seed: Elena Dementieva (#16; lost 2R) #3 seed: Kim Clijsters (#8; lost F) Doubles champions: Reeves/Steck #4 seed: Anna Smashnova (#19; lost 2R) Major Upsets: Drake (#105) def. Kremer (#21); Roesch Doubles champions: Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario (#82) def. Dementieva (#16); Mikaelian (#63) def. Major Upsets: Mandula/Wartusch def. Clijsters/Dokic; Shaughnessy (#30); Rodionova (#163) def. Tu (#57); Pratt (#46) def. Sugiyama (#20); Frazier (#53) def. Mikaelian (#63) def. Maleeva (#17); Mikaelian (#63) Smashnova (#19); Frazier (#53) def. Panova (#22); def. Farina Elia (#14) Clijsters (#8) def. Dokic (#4) Historical Significance: Title #2 for Bovina; Reeves Historical Significance: Title #7 of the year for Serena; defends her doubles title first Tier II win for Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 204 September 23Ð29 Leipzig, Germany ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier II Bali, Indonesia ¥ Hard ¥ Tier III Serena Williams (1) d. Anastasia Myskina (6) 6Ð3 6Ð2 Svetlana Kuznetsova d. Conchita Martinez (8) Semifinalists: Kim Clijsters, Justine Hénin 3Ð6 7Ð6(7Ð4) 7Ð5 #1 seed: Serena Williams (#1; Won) Semifinalists: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Sarah #2 seed: Jelena Dokic (#5; lost 2R) Taylor #3 seed: Justine Hénin (#7; lost SF) #1 seed: Tamarine Tanasugarn (#27; lost 2R) #4 seed: Kim Clijsters (#8; lost SF) #2 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#43; lost SF) Doubles champions: Stevenson/S. Williams Doubles champions: Black/Ruano Pascual Major Upsets: Husarova (#44) def. Maleeva (#17); Hrdlickova Major Upsets: Razzano (#104) def. C. (#119) def. Bedanova (#28); Benesova (#111) def. Suarez (#30); Fernandez (#33); Neffa-de los Rios (#89) def. Rittner (#83) def. Daniilidou (#23); Shaughnessy (#38) def. Tanasugarn (#27); Marrero (#94) def. Pratt Dokic (#5); Glass/Hrdlickova def. Clijsters/Dokic; Rittner (#83) (#42); Kuznetsova (#59) def. Sanchez-Vicario def. Farina Elia (#14); Myskina (#12) def. Clijsters (#8); (#43) Stevenson/S. Williams def. Husarova/Suarez Historical Significance: Kuznetsova’s second Historical Significance: Serena’s eighth title of 2002 gives her the career title, and Martinez’s first final in two Surface Sweep; she also wins her first doubles title without years. Venus. September 30ÐOctober 1Ð6 Moscow, ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier I Japan Open/Tokyo ¥ Hard ¥ Tier III Magdalena Maleeva d. Lindsay Davenport (3) 5Ð7 6Ð3 7Ð6(7Ð4) Jill Craybas d. Silvija Talaja 2Ð6 6Ð4 6Ð4 Semifinalists: Amanda Coetzer, Amélie Mauresmo Semifinalists: Sarah Taylor, Tamarine #1 seed: Venus Williams (#2; lost 2R) Tanasugarn #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#8/Spec: 3; lost F) #1 seed: Ai Sugiyama (#19; lost QF) #3 seed: Jelena Dokic (#5; lost 2R) #2 seed: Tamarine Tanasugarn (#27; lost #4 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#7; lost SF) SF) Doubles champions: Dementieva/Husarova Doubles champions: Asagoe/Miyagi Major Upsets: Petrova (#145) def. Hingis (#10); Bovina/Déchy def. Major Upsets: Yoshida (#269) def. Black Arendt/L. Huber; Safina (#83) def. Farina Elia (#14); Maja Matevzic (#57); Taylor (#87) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#65) def. Rita Grande (#83); Shaughnessy (#33) def. Myskina (#44); Talaja (#95) def. Sugiyama (#19); (#12); Serna (#58) def. Suarez (#31); Coetzer (#26) def. Dokic (#5); Craybas (#82) def. Tanasugarn (#27); Myskina/Safina def. Krizan/Srebotnik; Maleeva (#23) def. V. Asagoe/Miyagi def. Kuznetsova/Sanchez- Williams; Bovina (#34) def. Dementieva (#16); Maleeva (#23) def. Vicario Mauresmo (#7); Maleeva (#23) def. Davenport (#8) Historical Significance: First career title for Historical Significance: Maleeva beats three Top Ten players to win Craybas perhaps the best title of her career, and her first of 2002 October 7Ð13 Filderstadt, Germany ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier II Kim Clijsters (6) def. Daniela Hantuchova (8) 4Ð6 6Ð3 6Ð4 Semifinalists: Elena Dementieva, Amélie Mauresmo #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#3; lost 2R) #3 seed: Jelena Dokic (#8; lost 2R) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#7/Spec: 3; lost QF) #4 seed: Justine Hénin (#5; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Davenport/Raymond Major Upsets: Grande (#37) def. Daniilidou (#23); Panova (#21) def. Farina Elia (#14); Hénin/Mauresmo def. Clijsters/Rubin; Schett (#44) def. Rubin (#13); M. Casanova/Myskina def. Arendt/L. Huber; Stevenson (#35) def. Capriati (#3); M. Casanova (#69) def. Raymond (#25); Kremer (#26) def. Maleeva (#15); Panova (#21) def. Dokic (#8); M. Casanova (#69) def. Hénin (#5); Dementieva (#22) def. Hingis (#10); Clijsters (#9) def. Davenport (#7); Clijsters (#9) def. Mauresmo (#4) Historical Significance: Title #2 of the year for Clijsters gets her back to the Top Five; Hantuchova hits the Top Ten; Davenport finally earns some sort of title this year.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 205 October 14Ð20 Zurich, Switzerland ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier I Bratislava, Slovakia ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier IV Patty Schnyder def. Lindsay Davenport (2) 6Ð7(5Ð7) 7Ð6(10Ð8) 6Ð3 Maja Matevzic def. Iveta Benesova (Q) 6Ð0 6Ð1 Semifinalists: Justine Hénin, Conchita Martinez Semifinalists: Nathalie Déchy, Rita Grande #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#3; lost 2R) #1 seed: Nathalie Déchy (#22; lost SF) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#10/Spec: 3) #2 seed: Meghann Shaughnessy (#29; withdrew #3 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#4; withdrew) from 2R) #4 seed: Justine Hénin (#8; lost SF) Doubles champions: Matevzic/Nagyova Doubles champions: Bovina/Hénin Major Upsets: Diaz-Oliva (#90) def. Serna Major Upsets: Svensson (#76) def. Daniilidou (#34); Mikaelian (#56); Fislova (#158) def. Likhovtseva (#48); (#48) def. Maleeva (#15); Po-Messerli/Zvereva def. Dementieva/ Neffa-de los Rios (#84) def. Schiavone (#40); Husarova; Koulikovskaya/Perebiynis def. Krizan/Srebotnik; Kurhajcova (#114) def. Tulyaganova (#44); Davenport/Raymond def. Ruano Pascual/Suarez; Martinez (#47) Benesova (#98) def. Granville (#52); def. Capriati (#3); Mikaelian (#48) def. Myskina (#12); Stevenson Benesova (#98) def. Déchy (#22); Matevzic (#28) def. Dokic (#6); Bovina/Hénin def. Davenport/Rubin; (#60) def. Grande (#39) Davenport (#10) def. Clijsters (#5); Schnyder (#19) def. Historical Significance: Matevzic’s first title in Hantuchova (#9); Martinez (#47) def. Stevenson (#28) singles and doubles; Benesova’s first final Historical Significance: Schnyder’s first Tier I title; still no titles for Davenport in 2002 October 21Ð27 Linz, Austria ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier II Luxembourg ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier III Justine Hénin (4) d. Alexandra Stevenson 6–3 6–0 Kim Clijsters (1) d. Magdalena Maleeva (2) 6Ð1 6Ð2 Semifinalists: Daniela Hantuchova, Chanda Rubin Semifinalists: Virginie Razzano, Katarina Srebotnik #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#3; lost QF) #1 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; WON) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#10/Spec: 3 — WITHDREW) #2 seed: Magdalena Maleeva (#15; lost F) #3 seed: Jelena Dokic (#8; lost QF) Doubles champions: Clijsters/Husarova #4 seed: Justine Hénin (#6; WON) Major Upsets: Schaul (#148) def. Likhovtseva (#38); #5 seed: Daniela Hantuchova (#9; lost SF) Pisnik (#46) def. Raymond (#26); Srebotnik (#40) Doubles champions: Dokic/Petrova def. Déchy (#21); Razzano (#93) def. Coetzer Major Upsets: Stevenson (#22) def. Myskina (#12); Mandula/ (#19); Granville (#52) def. Kremer (#27); Razzano Wartusch def. Ruano Pascual/Suarez; Stevenson (#22) def. (#93) def. Husarova (#37) Capriati (#3); Rubin (#14) def. Dokic (#8); Stevenson (#22) Historical Significance: Clijsters posts her third def. Hantuchova (#9) Luxembourg title, as well as her first instance of Historical Significance: Hénin’s first indoor title gives her the winning singles and doubles at the same event. Surface Sweep November 4Ð11 Los Angeles Championships ¥ Indoor ¥ Championship Pattaya City, Thailand ¥ Hard ¥ Tier V Kim Clijsters (5) d. Serena Williams (1) 7Ð5 6Ð3 Angelique Widjaja d. Yoon Jeong Cho 6Ð2 6Ð4 Semifinalists: Jennifer Capriati, Venus Williams Semifinalists: Tatiana Panova, Lina #1 seed: Serena Williams (#1; lost F) Krasnoroutskaya #2 seed: Venus Williams (#2; lost SF) #1 seed: Tatiana Panova (#25; lost SF) #3 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#3; lost SF) #2 seed: Tamarine Tanasugarn (#30; lost QF) #4 seed; Justine Hénin (#4; lost QF) Doubles champions: Liggan/Voracova Doubles champions: Dementieva/Husarova Major Upsets: Krasnoroutskaya (#222) def. Major Upsets: Maleeva (#17) def. Hantuchova (#8); Clijsters Nagyova (#53); Cho (#101) def. Tanasugarn (#6) def. V. Williams (#2); Clijsters (#6) def. S. Williams (1) (#30); Widjaja (#91) def. Panova (#25) Historical Significance: Biggest title of Clijsters’ career (as well Historical Significance: Widjaja’s second career as of the doubles champions’); Serena end the year 58–5 title

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 206 The Tennis Almanac 2002 A day-by-day account of what are, in the editor’s opinion, the most significant match(es) of each day of the year. December 30, 2001 — Gold Coast 1R: Tina Pisnik def. Sandrine Testud (3) Pisnik ended 2001 by reaching the Luxembourg semifinal. Can she do it again? December 31, 2001 — Gold Coast 1R: Anca Barna (Q) def. Rita Grande (6) 6–3 1–6 6–2 Grande’s odds of repeating her Top 25 showing of 2001 look dimmer as she loses to #116 Barna. January 1, 2002 — Gold Coast 2R: Nadia Petrova def. Meghann Shaughnessy (4) 6–4 4–6 6–3 Shaughnessy’s late 2001 slump continues with a loss that will cost her at least one ranking spot Auckland 1R: Selima Sfar def. Meilen Tu (6) 6Ð3 6Ð2 The defending champion crashed out of the Top Fifty Auckland 1R: Kristina Brandi def. Conchita Martinez (4) 7Ð6(7Ð5) 6Ð3 Not exactly how Martinez wanted to return to the Tour. January 2 — Auckland 2R: Tatiana Poutchek def. Henrieta Nagyova (2) 7–5 6–3 Auckland 2R: Anna Kournikova def. Amy Frazier (7) 6Ð4 6Ð1 Poutchek thinks about a career high as Kournikova knocks out the last seed in the top half. January 3 — Gold Coast QF: Daja Bedanova (7) def. Tina Pisnik 6–1 3–0 retired Bedanova breaks into the Top 25 and earns herself a Top 24 seed at the Australian Open. January 4 — Auckland SF: Anna Smashnova def. Anna Kournikova 6–1 6–4 A tired Kournikova finds another way to lose. January 5 — Gold Coast F DOUBLES: Hénin/Shaughnessy def. Svensson/Oremans 6Ð1 7Ð6(8Ð6) Hénin lost the singles final but wins her first-ever doubles title January 6 — Sydney 1R: Amélie Mauresmo (6) def. Daja Bedanova 6–3 7–6(8–6) Mauresmo wins the third meeting in four months between these two. January 7 — Sydney 1R: Conchita Martinez def. Elena Dementieva 6–4 3–6 6–1 Daniela Hantuchova (Q) def. Magdalena Maleeva 6Ð6 6Ð4 6Ð4 Alexandra Stevenson (Q) def. Iroda Tulyaganova 6Ð1 6Ð7(0Ð7) 7Ð5 Anna Kournikova (WC) def. Angeles Montolio 6Ð4 6Ð2 What a tournament! The #15, #16, #20, and #23 players in the world are all unseeded — and all get upset in a single day. January 8 — Sydney 1R: Henrieta Nagyova def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 6–1 2–6 6–3 Nagyova breaks back into the Top 25 with a surprise win over a former champion. January 9 — Sydney 2R: Alexandra Stevenson (Q) def. Jennifer Capriati (1) 7–6(7–5) 3–6 6–4 Three of the four players who posted first round upsets on January 7 lost in the next round. Stevenson breaks the trend and posts the biggest upset of her career. January 10 — Hobart QF: def. Rita Grande (1) 6–2 6–2 Grande won’t fall out of the Top Thirty this week, but this loss makes it likely she will next week. January 11 — Sydney SF: Martina Hingis (2) def. Kim Clijsters (3) 7–5 4–6 6–2 Meghann Shaughnessy (8) def. Serena Williams (4) 5Ð4, retired Can Hingis finally win another title? Can Shaughnessy post her best career result? (She has, after all, beaten both Williamses in one year, a feat last accomplished by — Hingis.) Can Serena play Melbourne? Stay tuned. January 12 — Sydney F: Martina Hingis (1) def. Meghann Shaughnessy (8) 6–2 6–3 Where have you been so long? January 14 — Australian Open 1R: Nathalie Déchy def. Sandrine Testud (9) 7–5 4–6 6–3 Can Déchy finally spring back from her terrible 2001?

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 207 January 15 — Australian Open 1R: Iva Majoli def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (14) 6–4 7–5 Is Majoli back, or is Sanchez-Vicario truly running out of steam? The Spaniard is 3Ð4 in her last four Slams. January 16 — Australian Open 2R: Åsa Svensson def. Conchita Martinez 6–4 6–1 Martinez forced out Serena Williams, beat the seed who replaced her in the draw — and now loses to a player ranked #104 January 17 — Australian Open 1R DOUBLES: Grant/Spears def. (2) Black/Likhovtseva 6–4 3–6 6–2 The world’s #2 team goes out to a pair with a combined ranking of #234. January 18 — Australian Open 3R: Adriana Serra Zanetti def. Silvia Farina Elia 6–2 4–6 6–4 An all-Italian contest produces one of the biggest surprises yet in the singles draw. January 19 — Australian Open 3R: Marlene Weingärtner def. Meghann Shaughnessy (10) 6Ð2 3Ð6 6Ð3 A bad back costs Shaughnessy a big opportunity. January 20 — Australian Open 3R DOUBLES: Asagoe/Fujiwara def. Ruano Pascual/Suarez (3) 6Ð0 6Ð4 3R DOUBLES: Krizan/Srebotnik (9) def. Arendt/L. Huber (5) 6Ð3 7Ð6 (8Ð6) 3R DOUBLES: Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (12) def. Clijsters/Sugiyama (4) walkover The bottom half of the doubles draw, already weakened by the loss of #2 Black/Likhovtseva, is now a complete joke — and the top half is stronger only in that it still has Hingis/Kournikova and Raymond/ Stubbs. January 21 — Australian Open 4R: Amélie Mauresmo (7) def. Marlene Weingärtner 6–0 4–6 7–5 For a one-time finalist, Mauresmo looks strangely shaky. January 22 — Australian Open QF: Monica Seles (8) def. Venus Williams (2) 6–7(4–7) 6–2 6–3 An injured Venus still can’t win the big ones on Rebound . For the moment, she is out of the race for #1; it will be Capriati or Davenport. January 23 — Australian Open QF: Jennifer Capriati (1) def. Amélie Mauresmo (7) 6–2 6–2 The big match turns out to be a big fizzle. January 24 — Australian Open SF: Jennifer Capriati (1) def. Kim Clijsters 7–5 3–6 6–1 Australian Open SF: Martina Hingis (3) def. Monica Seles (8) 4Ð6 6Ð1 6Ð4 Australian Open SF DOUBLES: Hingis/Kournikova (8) def. Raymond/Stubbs (1) 6Ð7(5Ð7) 6Ð1 6Ð0 Australian Open F DOUBLES: Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (13) def. C. Martinez/Serna (15) 7Ð5 6Ð2 Capriati guarantees herself the #1 ranking, Hingis makes it six straight Australian Open finals, Hingis and Kournikova finally have their showdown with Raymond/Stubbs, and Sanchez-Vicario makes a Slam doubles final for the first time since 1996. Who says women’s tennis is boring? January 25 — Australian Open F DOUBLES: Hingis/Kournikova (8) def. Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (13) 6Ð2 6Ð7(4Ð7) 6Ð1 Hingis spent too much time in the heat, but the have team Slam #2 and Hingis has doubles Slam #9. January 26 — Australian Open F: Jennifer Capriati (1) def. Martina Hingis (3) 4–6 7–6(9–7) 6–2 Hingis blows a 4Ð0 lead in the second set to give Capriati her third Slam and first title in half a year. January 29 — Pan Pacific 1R DOUBLES: Seles/Testud (WC) def. Black/Likhovtseva (2) 6–1 6–3 What has happened to Black and Likhovtseva? They’ve turned into corpses. (And Likhovtseva will lose in singles the next day, meaning she’s on a three-match losing streak. Plus the doubles losses.) January 30 — Pan Pacific 2R: Martina Hingis (1) def. Marlene Weingärtner 6–1 6–2 Hingis springs back better than she did after Roland Garros 1999. Is that good or bad? January 31 — Pan Pacific 2R: Tamarine Tanasugarn def. Magdalena Maleeva (6) 6–3 2–6 6–2 On a day when four of eight seeds lost, this was the most painful; Maleeva had big points to defend.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 208 February 1 — Pan Pacific QF: Silvia Farina Elia (5) def. Sandrine Testud (4) 6–4 6–3 Farina Elia hits a career high of #13 by beating Testud on Testud’s best surface. February 2 — Pan Pacific SF: Martina Hingis (1) def. Silvia Farina Elia (5) Hingis reaches her third final in three tries in 2002, and earns the #3 ranking as a result. February 3 — Pan Pacific F: Martina Hingis (1) def. Monica Seles (3) 7–6(8–6) 4–6 6–3 Has Hingis put the Australian Open behind her? February 5 — Paris 1R: Daniela Hantuchova def. Magdalena Maleeva (7) 7–5 6–4 A tough start for Maleeva threatens her Top 20 ranking, as Hantuchova makes the Top 25 for the first time. February 6 — Paris 1R: Nathalie Déchy def. Daja Bedanova 6–3 3–6 6–4 Bedanova just can’t get it on track this year; that’s three straight losses. February 7 — Paris 2R: Francesca Schiavone def. Daniela Hantuchova 6–2 7–5 Paris 2R DOUBLES: Dementieva/Husarova def. Hantuchova/Likohovtseva 6Ð0 7Ð5 Is this just Likhovtseva’s continued slump, or has Hantuchova caught the Losing Bug? February 8 — Paris QF: Monica Seles (5) def. Justine Hénin (2) 6–4 6–3 An upset, of sorts, but no big surprise. This assures that Seles will overtake Hénin in the rankings. February 9 — Paris SF: Jelena Dokic (4) def. Monica Seles (5) 6–3 3–6 6–4 Dokic reaches a career-high #6 with a surprise upset over Seles, who was widely picked for the final. February 10 — Paris F: Venus Williams (1) def. Jelena Dokic (4) walkover Paris F DOUBLES: Déchy/Tu def. Dementieva/Husarova walkover (Dementieva/bronchitis) What a wonderful way to end a tournament.... February 11 — Doha 1R: Anastasia Myskina def. Angeles Montolio (5) 6–2 4–6 6–1 Montolio continues to search for her first win of 2002 February 12 — Doha 1R: Alicia Molik def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (3) 6–4 6–3 Sanchez-Vicario, like Montolio, has yet to win this year February 13 — Antwerp 2R: Daja Bedanova def. Daniela Hantuchova (8) 3–6 7–7(7–6) 6–4 The latest “Battle of the Kids” goes to Bedanova, whose win puts her back in the Top Thirty while holding Hantuchova out of the Top Twenty. February 14 — Doha 2R: Janette Husarova def. Sandrine Testud (2) 7–6(7–5) 0–6 6–2 An rusty and perhaps injured Testud loses, threatening her #11 ranking. February 15 — Doha QF: Tamarine Tanasugarn (4) def. Maja Matevzic 6–4 3–6 6–2 This win, combined with a loss by Daja Bedanova, absolutely clinches Tanasugarn’s Top 20 spot. February 16 — Antwerp SF: Justine Hénin (2) def. Patty Schnyder 1–6 6–3 6–4 So who does this say worse things about, Schnyder for coming apart in the second, or Hénin for having so much trouble with Schnyder? February 17 — Antwerp F: Venus Williams (1) def. Justine Hénin (2) 6–3 5–7 6–3 By winning, Venus assures herself the #1 spot — though she’ll have to wait a week to get it. February 18 — Dubai 1R: Barbara Rittner def. Iroda Tulyaganova (5) 6–2 6–2 Tulyaganova still can’t seem to solve hardcourts. February 19 — Dubai 1R: Angeles Montolio (7) def. Camille Pin (Q) 6–3 2–6 6–2 Memphis 2R: Alina Jidkova def. Amanda Coetzer (1) 6Ð3 7Ð7(7Ð5) Montolio breaks a nine-match losing streak and hits a career high, while Coetzer’s loss puts Jidkova — who now has beaten two #1 seeds and a #2 this year — back in the Top 100. February 20 — Bogota 2R: Fabiola Zuluaga (WC) def. Rita Kuti Kis (8) 6–3 6–2 Zuluaga, coming back after a long struggle with injuries, deals Kuti Kis’s Top 100 ranking a fatal blow. February 21 — Bogota 2R: Catalina Castano def. Gala Leon Garcia (2) 6–3 2–6 6–2 For the second straight day, a Columbian upsets a seed. And this time, it isn’t a Columbian with an artificially low ranking.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 209 February 22 — Dubai SF: Sandrine Testud (4) def. Venus Williams (1) 1–6 7–6(7–5) 6–4 Venus will make #1 next week, but she won’t win the tournament — and will almost certainly lose the ranking after no more than three weeks. Testud sets a new and curious record: The last three times a new, never-before-#1 player has ascended to the top of the rankings, Testud has beaten that player in the very tournament where she took the top spot: She beat Lindsay Davenport at Filderstadt 1998, Jennifer Capriati at Filderstadt 2001, and now Venus February 23 — Dubai F: Amélie Mauresmo (3) def. Sandrine Testud (4) 6–4 7–6(7–3) After a long dry spell, Mauresmo looks like a player again February 24 — Bogota F: Fabiola Zuluaga (WC) def. Katarina Srebotnik 6–1 6–4 Another player makes a comeback. Zuluaga hadn’t played a WTA event since late 2000. February 25 — Scottsdale 1R: Francesca Schiavone (7) def. Elena Likhovtseva 6–4 6–3 The slump just won’t end for Likhovtseva February 26 — Scottsdale 1R DOUBLES: Black/Likhovtseva (2) def. Grant/McQuillan 6–2 7–5 About time the world #3 and #4 won a match.... February 27 — Acapulco 2R: Janette Husarova def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (2) 3–6 6–2 6–3 What is with the Spaniards? Conchita Martinez lost to Emilie Loit on Monday, and now Sanchez- Vicario drops to a record of 0-4 this year. February 28 — Scottsdale 2R: Nathalie Déchy def. Meghann Shaughnessy (4) 7–5 6–2 Acapulco QF: Paola Suarez (7) def. Amanda Coetzer (3) 6Ð3 6Ð4 The Scottsdale defending finalist and the Acapulco defending champ fall on the same day. Coetzer’s ranking isn’t affected (yet), but Shaughnessy will fall to no better than #13. March 1 — Acapulco SF: Paola Suarez (7) def. Elena Dementieva (1) 7–5 6–3 Acapulco SF: Katarina Srebotnik def. Anna Kournikova 5Ð7 6Ð3 6Ð1 Scottsdale QF: Nathalie Déchy def. Francesca Schiavone (7) 7–6(7–5) 6–4 The Russians still can’t win (at least Kournikova has the excuse of injury). Meanwhile, Déchy starts a drive back to #35. March 2 — Acapulco F: Katarina Srebotnik def. Paola Suarez (7) 6–7(1–7) 6–4 6–2 Srebotnik finally wins that second title, nearly three years after winning the title in her first WTA event. March 3 — Scottsdale F: Serena Williams (3) def. Jennifer Capriati (1) 6–2 4–6 6–4 Serena keeps sister Venus #1 for another two weeks. March 4 — Indian Wells Qualifying 1R: Evgenia Koulikovskaya def. Alina Jidkova (1) 4–6 6–2 6–1 Jidkova can beat Amanda Coetzer at Memphis, but she can’t beat a non-top-100 player in the desert. March 6 — Indian Wells 1R: Lilia Osterloh def. Anna Kournikova 6–1 6–4 Kournikova posts her first pure clunk (first round loss to a non-Top Ten player) of the year. March 7 — Indian Wells 1R DOUBLES: de Beer/de Villiers def. Coetzer/McNeil 7–5 6–4 Hingis/Kournikova withdrew before play began (replaced as seeds by Po-Messerli-Pratt) The big news was the match that didn’t happen, but the loss by Coetzer/McNeil, even though they were unseeded, was also a shock. March 8 — Indian Wells 2R: Nathalie Déchy def. Kim Clijsters (1) 6–2 7–5 Indian Wells 1R DOUBLES: Middleton/Rippner def. Navratilova/Zvereva (WC) 6Ð4 7Ð5 Indian Wells 1R DOUBLES: Dulko/Sharapova (WC) def. Maleeva/Svensson 6Ð3 3Ð6 6Ð4 These days, the usual way to obtain a top ranking is to wait for someone not to defend. So it proves here: Jennifer Capriati takes the #1 spot because Venus Williams is not playing, and now the loss by Kim Clijsters means that Martina Hingis will move up to #3 and Lindsay Davenport to #4. Meanwhile, returns to doubles, but without success, while Maria Sharapova, who two days earlier made her singles debut with a win (though she lost the next day to Seles) also earns a win in her doubles debut — though both wins involved very weak opponents. March 9 — Indian Wells 2R: Eva Dyrberg (Q) def. Magdalena Maleeva (11) 6–2 6–3 Maleeva isn’t a hardcourt player, but losing to a 22-year-old qualifier ranked #105?

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 210 March 10 — Indian Wells 3R: Anne Kremer (26) def. Jelena Dokic (5) 6–3 6–0 Dokic has lost to Kremer twice this year; has she hit the wall or has Kremer found her secret? March 11 — Indian Wells 4R: Daniela Hantuchova (18) def. Justine Hénin (3) 6–3 6–3 On a day of upsets (four of eight matches were won by the lower-ranked player, including Smashnova def. Shaughnessy, Sanchez-Vicario def. Farina Elia), this was clearly the biggest March 12 — Indian Wells QF: Daniela Hantuchova (18) def. Lisa Raymond (12) 6–4 6–2 Hantuchova makes her way into the Top Twenty — bumping none other than Raymond. March 13 — Indian Wells QF: Monica Seles (4) def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (9) 6–3 3–6 6–3 Who says Sanchez-Vicario is all washed up? March 14 — Indian Wells SF: Daniela Hantuchova def. Emmanuelle Gagliardi 4-6 6-0 6-4 Indian Wells SF: Martina Hingis (2) def. Monica Seles (4) 6Ð3 6Ð2 Hingis establishes a big lead in this year’s Race with her first easy win over Seles in quite a while, while Hantuchova reaches her first-ever WTA final at one of the biggest events on the circuit. March 15 — Indian Wells F DOUBLES: Raymond/Stubbs (1) def. Dementieva/Husarova 7–5 6–0 Dementieva still can’t win anything, and Raymond/Stubbs still have only one loss this year — to Hingis/ Kournikova at the Australian Open. March 16 — Indian Wells F: Daniela Hantuchova (18) def. Martina Hingis (2) 6–3 6–4 Hantuchova already had three breakthroughs in this event (best ever win, first final, first time in the Top Twenty). Make it four as she earns her first career title. March 20 — Ericsson 1R: Vanessa Webb (Q) def. Magui Serna 6–3 6–2 Serna’s up-and-down results hit a new low for a “down” as she loses to a qualifier ranked #184. Serna has lost six straight. March 21 — Ericsson 1R: Greta Arn (Q) def. Amy Frazier 6–4 6–2 Ericsson 1R: Eleni Daniilidou def. Anna Kournikova 7Ð5 6Ð3 How much longer can Frazier keep up this string of weak stuff? And what’s wrong with Kournikova this time? Or has Daniilidou taken the next step? March 22 — Ericsson 2R: Tatiana Poutchek def. Nathalie Déchy (31) 6–3 0–6 6–0 Ericsson 2R: Marissa Irvin def. Daja Bedanova (20) 7Ð6(7Ð5) 6Ð2 Looks like Bedanova is in another of her slumps. As for Déchy — how could we resist that score? March 23 — Ericsson 2R: Anna Smashnova def. Justine Hénin (6) 6–7(6–8) 6–3 6–4 Ericsson 2R: Cara Black def. Daniela Hantuchova 4Ð6 6Ð4 6Ð2 Hantuchova’s celebration comes to a quick end, and Henin still has trouble on hardcourt. March 24 — Ericsson 3R: Anne Kremer (26) def. Jelena Dokic (7) 6–3 6–1 Marissa Irvin def. Meghann Shaughnessy (10) 4Ð6 6Ð3 6Ð4 A tired and injured Dokic suffers her third loss this year to Kremer, and who knows what’s with Shaughnessy? March 25 — Ericsson 4R: Tatiana Panova (28) def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (11) 6–1 7–6(10–8) Panova hits the Top 25 for the first time. March 26 — Ericsson 2R DOUBLES: Lee/Prakusya def. (2) Black/Likhovtseva 6–7(5–7) 6–4 7–5 On a day when rain cancelled every singles match except a ragged win by Venus Williams over Elena Dementieva (5Ð7 6Ð3 6Ð2), the #2 doubles seeds once again fall to a team they should be able to handle. March 27 — Ericsson QF: Serena Williams (8) def. Martina Hingis (3) 6–4 6–0 For the first time, both Hingis and her lead in the Race start to look truly shaky. And she will bail out of the doubles (for the fourth time in five events initially entered) the next day March 28 — Ericsson SF: Serena Williams (8) def. Venus Williams (2) 6–2 6–2 Serena posts her first-ever real win over big sister — grabbing the #7 ranking with it. March 29 — Ericsson SF DOUBLES: Raymond/Stubbs (1) def. Arendt/L. Huber 6–7(4–7) 7–5 6–2 Surprise, surprise: With Hingis/Kournikova out of the doubles, Raymond/Stubbs make another final.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 211 March 30 — Ericsson F: Serena Williams (8) def. Jennifer Capriati (1) 7–5 7–6(7–4) Having beaten Venus, Serena wasn’t about to lose the title. A Williams has won four of the last five Miami tournaments. March 31 — Ericsson F DOUBLES: Raymond/Stubbs (1) def. Ruano Pascual/Suarez 7-6(7Ð4) 6Ð7(4Ð7) 6Ð4 Will Raymond and Stubbs ever lose again? (Probably depends on whether they continue to be the only top doubles players active.) April 1 — Sarasota 1R: Jelena Dokic (1) def. Conchita Martinez 6–2 7–5 Martinez can’t even beat an injured Dokic on clay. What does that say for the future? April 2 — Sarasota 1R: Mary Pierce def. Ai Sugiyama (7) 6–3 6–3 Janette Husarova def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (3) 6Ð4 6Ð1 Pierce, it would appear, is back. As for Sanchez-Vicario, all we can say is, “Huh?” April 3 — Sarasota 2R: Patty Schnyder def. Henrieta Nagyova (9) 6–2 3–6 6–2 Nagyova continues to slide as Schnyder looks much fitter than in times past. April 4 — Sarasota 2R: Anastasia Myskina def. Mary Pierce (WC) 6–4 3–6 7–6(7–4) Has Myskina improved, or is Pierce not come all the way back? Reports are that Pierce was fine, so Myskina must be moving forward. April 5 — Sarasota QF: Virginie Razzano (LL) def. Paola Suarez 6–2 4–6 6–4 Razzano couldn’t even get through qualifying, and now she’s beaten Déchy, Ruano Pascual, and Suarez on clay? April 6 — Sarasota SF: Tatiana Panova (10) def. Meghann Shaughnessy (2) 7–6(11–9) 6–4 Panova reaches the best final of her career as Shaughnessy continues her weak year. April 7 — Sarasota F: Jelena Dokic (1) def. Tatiana Panova (10) 6–2 6–2 Panova could have made the Top Twenty, but doesn’t even make it competitive. April 8 — Amelia Island 1R: Iva Majoli def. Amanda Coetzer (11) 6–2 6–1 It was a day so strange that Anne Kremer beat Jennifer Hopkins on a court with the service lines drawn wrong, but this has to be the biggest surprise. April 9 — Amelia Island 2R: Anne Kremer def. Amélie Mauresmo (4) 3–6 6–2 6–3 Splat! goes the defending champion. Whatever Mauresmo had last year seems to have gone missing. April 10 — Amelia Island 2R: Nathalie Déchy def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (8) 6–2 6–2 Her second straight opening lost costs Sanchez-Vicario her spot in the Top Fifteen. April 11 — Amelia Island 2R: Jelena Dokic (3) def. Mary Pierce (WC) 6–2 6–0 Dokic, with her match delayed more than a day by rain, wastes no time in showing who is the bigger big babe on clay. April 12 — Amelia Island 1R DOUBLES: Coetzer/Steck def. Raymond/Stubbs (1) 6–3 0–6 7–6(7–5) This may be the Upset of the Year. And nobody even noticed. (Of course, two days of rain delays meant that a lot was still going on.) April 13 — Amelia Island QF: Anne Kremer def. Sandrine Testud (5) 7–5 6–1 Taking advantage of fitness and rain delays, Kremer puts herself all the way up to #21 April 14 — Amelia Island F: Venus Williams (1) def. Justine Hénin 2–6 7–5 7–6(7–5) Henin’s epic choke (she served for the match in both the second and third sets) gives Venus her fourth title of the year. April 15 — Charleston 1R: Meilen Tu def. Tatiana Panova (15) 6–3 6–4 All three seeds in action this day lost, but this was the most improbable lost — and the most lopsided. April 16 — Charleston 1R: Ai Sugiyama def. Anne Kremer 3–6 6–4 6–3 Charleston 2R: Clarissa Fernandez (Q) def. Silvia Farina Elia (9) 7Ð6(7Ð4) 6Ð0 For Kremer, it’s easy come, easy go; one week after hitting #21, she falls to #22. For Farina Elia, could this be reality setting in?

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 212 April 17 — Charleston 2R: Stephanie Foretz (Q) def. Conchita Martinez 6–1 6–2 Six seeds fell on this day (meaning that nine of fifteen failed to reach the Round of Sixteen), but it was Martinez, a semifinalist last year, who had the most on the line. She will end barely in the Top Fifty. April 18 — Charleston 3R: Stephanie Foretz (Q) def. Monica Seles (2) 6–4 7–6(8–6) Seles was sick, and that explains a lot — but still.... April 19 — Charleston QF: Patty Schnyder def. Serena Williams (3) 2–6 6–4 7–5 Sundry conclusions: 1. Schnyder is back. 2. Serena still can’t play clay. 3. Hingis somehow manages to stay Top 4. Lindsay Davenport, though, is down to #7., April 20 — Charleston SF: Patty Schnyder def. Jennifer Capriati (1) 6–4 6–3 With three Top Ten wins and a Tier I final, Schnyder loudly announces her return. She also boots Capriati out of the #1 ranking. April 21 — Charleston F: Iva Majoli def. Patty Schnyder 7–6(7–5) 6–4 Schnyder’s amazing run puts her in the Top Twenty, but Majoli is the one with her first title in five years. April 27 — Fed Cup R16: Evelyn Fauth def. Jennifer Capriati, Walkover No one quite knows what happened, but and Capriati aren’t on the best terms right now.... April 28 — Fed Cup R16: Barbara Schwartz def. Meghann Shaughnessy 4–6 7–6(9–7) 9–7 And so the U. S. loses behind two heroic wins by Schwartz (who also beat Monica Seles) and a fair bit of team insanity. April 30 — Bol 1R: Henrieta Nagyova (6) def. Maja Matevzic 7–6(7–5) 6–2 Bol 1R: Anna Kournikova def. 6Ð7(3Ð7) 6Ð2 6Ð2 Two players in dreadful slumps both take the first step toward breaking out. May 1 — Bol 1R: Maria Sanchez Lorenzo (Q) def. Angeles Montolio (5) 6–2 6–2 The defending champion falls easily — and hard; she’ll drop more than ten places in the rankings. May 2 — Bol 2R: Åsa Svensson def. Magdalena Maleeva (3) 7–5 6–3 A weak year and her standard bad clay results boot Maleeva from the Top 25. May 3 — Bol QF: Tathiana Garbin def. Elena Dementieva (1) 5–7 7–5 7–5 Dementieva boots another one. May 4 — Hamburg SF: Venus Williams (1) def. Martina Hingis (3) 7–5 6–3 Even on Venus’s worst surface, Hingis can’t make a dent. May 5 — Hamburg F: Kim Clijsters (2) def. Venus Williams (1) 1–6 6–3 6–4 It’s a bit strong to say that Venus looks vulnerable this year — but she has lost half the tournaments she’s entered! May 6 — Berlin 1R: Angelika Roesch (Q) def. Elena Dementieva (12) 6–4 1–6 7–5 No, we don’t know what Dementieva’s problem is. May 7 — Berlin 1R: Daja Bedanova def. Amanda Coetzer (15) 6–3 1–0, retired A bad end to a bad clay season kicks Coetzer out of the Top 30. May 8 — Berlin 2R: Anna Smashnova def. Kim Clijsters (2) 5–7 6–4 7–5 Exhaustion, or shades of 2001? May 9 — Berlin 3R: Daniela Hantuchova (11) def. Jelena Dokic (6) 6–2 6–3 Either Hantuchova continues to improve, or Dokic is really out of gas. May 10 — Berlin QF: Serena Williams (4) def. Amélie Mauresmo (7), walkover Berlin QF: Anna Smashnova def. Daniela Hantuchova (11) 1Ð6 6Ð2 6Ð3 Mauresmo falls out of the Top Ten without a struggle, while Smashnova has cut her ranking by 40%. May 11 — Berlin SF: Justine Hénin (5) def. Jennifer Capriati (1) 5–7 6–2 6–1 A rain delay in the second set gives Hénin another shot at a big title, and costs Capriati her chance to regain the #1 ranking.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 213 May 12 — Berlin F: Justine Hénin (5) def. Serena Williams (4) 6–2 1–6 7–6(7–4) Hénin breaks her major title jinx and continues Serena’s clay jinx. May 13 — Rome 1R: Åsa Svensson def. Meghann Shaughnessy (10) 6–3 6–3 The disaster continues for Shaughnessy, who now has lost five straight. May 14 — Rome 2R: Anna Kournikova def. Lilia Osterloh (LL) 6–1 4–6 6–1 What matters is not the score, nor that it’s a win for Kournikova. What matters is who she didn’t play: Venus Williams. Williams pulled out, opening the possibility that Jennifer Capriati will regain #1. May 15 — Rome 2R: Denisa Chladkova (Q) def. Conchita Martinez 6–4 4–6 7–5 And so Martinez leaves the Top 50.... May 16 — Rome 3R: Anastasia Myskina def. Jelena Dokic (6) 5–7 6–4 6–3 Myskina finally hits the Top Thirty, while Dokic fails in her first attempt at a title defence May 17 — Rome QF: Jennifer Capriati (2) def. Amélie Mauresmo (7) 6–2 3–6 6–4 Capriati regains the #1 ranking, and takes the #1 spot in the WTA Race. May 18 — Rome SF: Serena Williams (4) def. Jennifer Capriati (2) 6–2 3–6 7–5 Rome SF: Justine Hénin (5) def. Kim Clijsters (3) 7–5 6–2 Hénin cures her Clijsters problem, and gets a rematch against Serena, who reaches a career high of #3. May 19 — Rome F: Serena Williams (4) def. Justine Hénin (5) 7–6(8–6) 6–4 Serena finally gets her first clay title May 20 — Strasbourg 1R DOUBLES: Freye/Hiraki def. Foretz/Tauziat 6–4 6–2 Look who’s back (even if it didn’t turn out too well)! May 21 — Strasbourg 1R: Eleni Daniilidou def. Iroda Tulyaganova (4) 6–7(3–7) 7–5 7–5 Tulyaganova just can’t seem to win this year. May 22 — Madrid 2R: Chanda Rubin def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (2) 6–3 7–6(8–6) And so Sanchez-Vicario falls out of the Top 25. May 23 — Madrid QF: Chanda Rubin def. Magui Serna 6–3 6–3 With her third straight win against players ranked above her, Rubin moves back into the Top 50. May 24 — Madrid SF DOUBLES — Navratilova/Zvereva def. C. Fernandez/Grande 7–6(7–4) It’s been a tournament of coming from nowhere. Not only did Chanda Rubin make the final, but Navratilova and Zvereva, after disappointing results in their first few events together, do the same. May 25 — Madrid F DOUBLES — Navratilova/Zvereva def. Neffa-de los Rios/Sanchez-Vicario 6Ð2 6Ð3 Who would have believed this? A team with a combined age of 76 winning a doubles title.... May 27 — Roland Garros 1R: Paola Suarez def. Sandrine Testud (8) 2–6 7–5 6–1 Not really a huge surprise, given the surface — but still the biggest upset of a rain-interrupted day. May 28 — Roland Garros 1R: Aniko Kapros (Q) def. Justine Hénin (5) 4–6 6–1 6–0 A sick Hénin loses the match, her semifinalist points, and her Top 5 ranking. Mau 29 — Roland Garros 1R: Marta Marrero def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (15) 6–0 6–1 “Thy glory, O , is slain upon thy high places! How are the mighty fallen! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon....” May 30 — Roland Garros 1R DOUBLES: Rittner/Vento-Kabchi def. Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario (4) 6Ð3 6Ð4 This pretty well clinches it: Sanchez-Vicario will never complete the career doubles Slam. May 31 — Roland Garros 3R: Clarisa Fernandez def. Kim Clijsters (4) 6–4 6–0 What is there to say except that Clijsters will be falling to #5? June 1 — Roland Garros 3R: Vera Zvonareva (Q) def. Francesca Schiavone 6–2 6–7(4–7) 7–5 One of the strangest matches of the event — Zvonareva had match points in the second, fell behind in the third, and still won. Is she a potential great, or a potential candidate for the funny farm? June 2 — Roland Garros 4R: Paola Suarez def. Amélie Mauresmo (10) 6–2 2–6 6–4 How many more strange ways will Mauresmo find to lose this year?

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 214 June 3 — Roland Garros 2R DOUBLES: Fujiwara/Sugiyama (15) def. Black/Likhovtseva (3) 7-6(7-3) 6-3 Has Sugiyama finally found a decent doubles partner? June 4 — Roland Garros QF: Clarisa Fernandez def. Paola Suarez 2–6 7–6(7–5) 6–1 The Kid from Nowhere is now #34 in the world.... June 6 — Roland Garros SF: Serena Williams (3) def. Jennifer Capriati (1) 3–6 7–6(7–2) 6–2 And so Capriati goes from #1 to #3, while Serena reaches a career-high #2. June 7 — Roland Garros SF DOUBLES: Raymond/Stubbs (1) def. Fujiwara/Sugiyama (15) 6Ð1 6Ð7(5Ð7) 6Ð2 One match away from the Career Slam.... June 8 — Roland Garros F: Serena Williams (3) d. Venus Williams (2) 7–5 6–3 Not only does Serena win her second Slam, but she’s threatening to take the #1 ranking June 9 — Roland Garros F DOUBLES: Ruano Pascual/Suarez (2) def. Raymond/Stubbs (1) 6Ð4 6Ð2 No career Slam for Raymond and Stubbs, and Ruano Pascual and Suarez become the first players to defend a Slam since Hingis at the 1999 Australian Open; they’re the first team since Fernandez/ Zvereva at the 1996 U. S. Open. June 12 — Birmingham 2R: Jill Craybas def. Tamarine Tanasugarn (4) 2–6 6–4 6–2 Anne Kremer (7) def. Miriam Oremans 6Ð4 7Ð5 Could several days of rain have turned the grass to clay? This loss kills Tanasugarn’s hopes of a Top 16 seed at Roland Garros, and will drop last year’s finalist Oremans out of the Top 100. June 13 — Vienna 2R: Patricia Wartusch (Q) def. Silvia Farina Elia (1) 7–5 6–4 Nowthat is home-court advantage with a vengeance (Wartusch is Austrian) June 14 — Birmingham QF: Nicole Pratt (14) def. Anne Kremer (7) 3–6 6–2 6–3 Pratt reaches only her third career semifinal, and with it earns a Wimbledon seed. June 15 — Birmingham SF: (6) Anastasia Myskina def. (14) Nicole Pratt 6–3 7–5 No mistake this time: Myskina is definitely Top Twenty. June 16 — Vienna F: (4) Anna Smashnova def. (2) Iroda Tulyaganova 6–4 6–1 Smashnova finally hits the Top Twenty. June 17 — Eastbourne 1R: Ai Sugiyama def. Mary Pierce 6–4 6–4 Not an upset, based on current rankings — but Sugiyama maintains her strange hex on Pierce. June 18 — Eastbourne 1R: (WC) def. Tatiana Panova 6–1 4–6 6–2 It means nothing, and it won’t happen again — but who would have believed it? June 19 — Eastbourne 2R: Chanda Rubin def. Magui Serna 6–2 6–2 Rubin wins her third match of the year against Serna, and drops the defending finalist out of the Top Fifty. June 20 — ’s-Hertogenbosch QF: Tina Pisnik def. Kim Clijsters (1) 7–6(7–5) 6–2 We knew Pisnik was having a good year, but this is ridiculous. June 21 — ’s-Hertogenbosch SF: Eleni Daniilidou def. Justine Hénin (2) 4–6 7–6(11–9) 6–3 Could we have a new star on our hands? June 22 — Eastbourne F: Chanda Rubin def. Anastasia Myskina 6–1 6–3 In only her fifth event of the year, due to long injury, Rubin wins her best career title and breaks back into the Top Thirty. June 24 — Wimbledon 1R: Mary Pierce def. Alicia Molik 6–4 4–6 8–6 Good grass-courter in a slump against a much better player who is on the rise but who hates grass. Pierce came in #74, Molik, #73. No wonder it was close. June 25 — Wimbledon 1R: Angelique Widjaja def. Anna Smashnova (15) 6–3 6–2 Junior Wimbledon champ vs. grass-hater. For once, Junior results meant something.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 215 June 26 — Wimbledon 2R: Miriam Oremans def. Meghann Shaughnessy (16) 7–5 6–3 This pretty well tears it: Shaughnessy is on her way out of the Top Twenty June 27 — Wimbledon 2R: Elena Likhovtseva def. Kim Clijsters (5) 7–6(7–5) 6–2 Too crazy. This opens a real chance that Clijsters will lose the #5 ranking to Jelena Dokic. June 28 — Wimbledon 3R: Laura Granville (Q) def. Mary Pierce 3–6 6–4 6–1 OK, Pierce hates grass, but this? Granville came in ranked #134. She’ll end around #91. June 29 — Wimbledon 2R Doubles: Kournikova/Rubin def. Arendt/L. Huber (7) 6–4 7–5 Martinez/Pierce def. Capriati/Hantuchova (16) 6Ð4 6Ð4 Ladies and gentlemen, we present the Wimbledon seeding committee, which took the #16 seed from Kournikova/Rubin, with a combined three Slams and 25, to give it to a team featuring Jennifer Capriati of the zero doubles Slams and one career doubles title. July 1 — Wimbledon 3R Doubles: Po-Messerli/Tauziat (5) def. Fujiwara/Sugiyama 3-6 6-4 6-3 And so Sugiyama falls out of the Top Fifteen — and maybe out of the Top Twenty July 2 — Wimbledon QF: Justine Hénin (6) def. Monica Seles (4) 7–5 7–6(7–4) And so Seles again fails at Wimbledon July 3 — Wimbledon QF: Amélie Mauresmo (9) def. Jennifer Capriati (3) 6–3 6–2 Mauresmo breaks back into the Top Ten as Capriati’s cranky streak continues. July 4 — Wimbledon SF: Serena Williams (2) def. Amélie Mauresmo (9) 6–2 6–1 Helped by a truly feeble match from Mauresmo, Serena clinches the #1 ranking. July 5 — Wimbledon QF DOUBLES: Williams/Williams (3) def. Krizan/Srebotnik 6–2 6–0 And so, the Sisters will play semifinal doubles right after playing the singles final July 6 — Wimbledon F: Serena Williams (2) d. Venus Williams (1) 7–6(7–4) 6–3 And so Serena wins her third Slam and looks like a good bet for year-end #1. July 7 — Wimbledon F DOUBLES: Williams/Williams (3) def. Ruano Pascual/Suarez (2) 6–2 7–5 And so, another final between teams who don’t know what grass doubles means goes to the team with the power and the speed. July 8 — Brussels 1R: Myriam Casanova (WC) def. Cristina Torrens Valero (3) 7–6(7–5) 6–2 This Casanova kid sure looks like one to watch. July 9 — Brussels 1R: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (1) def. Denisa Chladkova 6–3 3–6 6–0 Could Sanchez-Vicario actually be getting it together? July 10 — Palermo 2R: Vera Zvonareva (5) def. 7–6(7–2) 6–0 No matter what you think of her antics, the kid keeps climbing. July 11 — Brussels 2R: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (1) def. Gala Leon Garcia 6–2 6–3 An insignificant result on an insignificant day — but it puts Sanchez-Vicario back in the Top Thirty. July 12 — Brussels QF: Virginia Ruano Pascual (6) def. Barbara Schett (2) 6–4 3–6 6–1 Is it just me, or is Schett going to pieces? She’s had three losses to players ranked below #80 — and all since Roland Garros. July 13 — Brussels SF: Myriam Casanova (WC) def. Virginia Ruano Pascual (6) 6–2 3–6 6–2 After three WTA events, Casanova has two finals and a Wimbledon third round loss to Hénin. Sound like this kid is going places? July 14 — Brussels F: Myriam Casanova (WC) def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (1) 4–6 6–2 6–1 A triumph for Casanova, who wins her first title, or a disaster for Sanchez-Vicario? July 20 — Fed Cup Relegation: Lindsay Davenport def. Anna Smashnova 6–3 6–3 One big name back. July 22 — Sopot 1R: Joanna Sakowicz (WC) def. Cristina Torrens Valero (5) 6–2 7–6(10–8) The defending champion’s loss is likely to drop her below #60. July 23 — Stanford 1R: Marissa Irvin (Q) def. Justine Hénin (6) 6–2 4–6 6–1 Anna Kournikova def. Anna Smashnova (8) 6Ð3 6Ð2 Looks like Kournikova has found something. And Henin, perhaps, has lost it....

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 216 July 24 — Stanford 2R: Lindsay Davenport (2) def. Anne Kremer (Q) 6–3 6–0 And so Davenport is truly and officially back. We might note also that Kremer hits the Top 20 for the first time. July 25 — Stanford 2R: Venus Williams (1) def. Meghann Shaughnessy 6–4 6–1 And so Shaughnessy’s year-long slump finally drops her out of the Top Twenty. July 26 — Stanford QF: Lisa Raymond def. Monica Seles (3) 6–4 6–2 Is Seles getting tired after a full year without major injury? It’s her second-world loss of the year and puts Raymond in the Top 25. July 27 — Stanford SF: Kim Clijsters (4) def. Lindsay Davenport (2) 4–6 6–4 6–2 Not properly an upset, since Clijsters is ranked higher (Davenport was seeded based on a special ranking), but perhaps evidence of improved planning and preparation by Clijsters July 28 — Stanford F: Venus Williams (1) def. Kim Clijsters (4) 6–3 6–3 And so Venus gets title #5 of 2002, bumping Clijsters to #7 — her worst ranking of the year. July 29 — San Diego 1R DOUBLES — Rubin/Shaughnessy def. Morariu/Po-Messerli (WC) 6Ð2 3Ð6 7Ð5 Yes, it’s a loss, but who cares? Morariu is back. July 30 — San Diego 1R: Ai Sugiyama def. Lisa Raymond 7–5 6–0 Turnabout is fair play: Last week, Raymond beat Sugiyama. They also split matches at Memphis and Scottsdale. That’s what happens with two players with such similar careers meet four times in a year. July 31 — San Diego 2R: Ai Sugiyama def. Daniela Hantuchova (7) 6–4 1–6 7–5 In one of the all-time strangest outcomes, Sugiyama beats Hantuchova when Hantuchova, who is serving, is called for a time penalty on match point. August 1 — San Diego QF DOUBLES: Suarez/Tulyaganova def. Raymond/Stubbs (1) 6–4 6–4 Raymond/Stubbs suffer their first non-Slam non-clay loss of the year! August 2 — San Diego QF: Jelena Dokic (6) def. Jennifer Capriati (2) 2–6 6–2 6–4 The best win of Dokic’s career serves also to confirm Capriati’s miseries. August 3 — San Diego SF: Venus Williams (1) def. Lindsay Davenport (3) 5–2 6–1 Let’s hope this is a token of Davenport’s rust and not how the Williams Sisters tower above the rest of the Tour. August 4 — San Diego F: Venus Williams (1) def. Jelena Dokic (6) 6–2 6–2 It was at least as ugly as you think, but it gets Venus title #6 of the year. Los Angeles 1R: Marie-Gaianeh Mikaelian def. (WC) 3Ð6 6Ð3 7Ð5 Morariu makes her return in singles, and if it isn’t a win, it’s a pretty good result after a year in which she almost died. August 5 — Los Angeles 1R DOUBLES: Morariu/Po-Messerli def. (4) Krizan/Srebotnik 6–2 6–1 And so, after a misfire in singles and one in doubles, Morariu wins her first match. August 6 — Los Angeles 2R: Katarina Srebotnik def. Kim Clijsters (6) 6–4 2–6 6–4 Clijsters seems to make a habit of one lousy loss on California hardcourts each year. This one drops her to #7. August 7 — Los Angeles 2R: Eleni Daniilidou def. Daniela Hantuchova (6) 6–4 6–2 More evidence of Daniilidou’s rise, or of Hantuchova’s fragility? (Answer from a day later: Well, Daniilidou beat Anne Kremer in the next round....) August 8 — Los Angeles 3R: Ai Sugiyama def. Amanda Coetzer 6–2 6–1 Sugiyama should have been a California Girl; a day after beating Dementieva, she knocks off Coetzer August 9 — Los Angeles QF: Chanda Rubin (12) def. Serena Williams (1) 6–2 4–6 7–5 Los Angeles QF: Ai Sugiyama def. Jennifer Capriati (3) 6Ð3 6Ð3 Capriati’s loss is not that surprising; she just keeps sinking. But what happened to Serena? August 10 — Los Angeles SF: Chanda Rubin (12) def. Jelena Dokic (4) 6–0 6–2 Rubin is rollin’....

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 217 August 11 — Los Angeles F: Chanda Rubin (12) def. Lindsay Davenport (3) 5–7 7–6(7–5) 6–3 Clearly Rubin has taken her game to a new level. August 12 — Canadian Open 1R: Henrieta Nagyova (Q) def. Mary Pierce (WC) 7Ð6(9Ð7) 6Ð7(4Ð7) 7Ð5 Not technically an upset (Nagyova came in #45, Pierce #49) — but it’s three straight losses for Pierce. August 13 — Canadian Open 2R: Martina Hingis (6) def. Magui Serna (Q) 6–4 6–3 Another big name returns to the game. August 14 — Canadian Open 2R DOUBLES: Clijsters/Dokic def. Raymond/Stubbs (1) 4–6 6–2 6–3 That’s six wins in a row for the baseline bashers — but what happened to Raymond/Stubbs? August 15 — Canadian Open 3R: Barbara Schett def. Kim Clijsters (4) 6–4 6–4 Finally, Schett seems to be coming back to life. August 16 — Canadian Open QF: Jelena Dokic (3) def. Martina Hingis (6) 6–4 6–3 Not the comeback Hingis would have liked, but we’ve seen worse returns to the Tour. August 17 — Canadian Open SF: Jennifer Capriati (2) def. Jelena Dokic (3) 7–6 (7–5) 4–0 With Dokic finally paying the much deserved price for idiotic overscheduling, Capriati makes her first final since the spring. August 18 — Canadian Open F: Amélie Mauresmo (7) d. Jennifer Capriati (2) 6–4 6–1 Capriati flubs yet another one. August 19 — New Haven 1R: Angelika Roesch (Q) def. Elena Dementieva (8) 6-3 1-6 6-3 Makes you wonder how Dementieva manages to stay Top Fifteen, doesn’t it? August 20 — New Haven 1R DOUBLES: Garbin/Husarova def. Raymond/Stubbs (1) 6–4 7–6(7–2) What is going on here? That’s three straight losses for Raymond/Stubbs August 21 — New Haven 2R: Anastasia Myskina def. Justine Hénin (4) 7–5 6–2 Hardcourt just isn’t Hénin’s surface. August 22 — New Haven QF: Anastasia Myskina def. Martina Hingis (5) 6–7(2–7) 6–4 6–0 How to give your fans heart attacks: Hingis lost the last eleven games straight. August 23 — New Haven SF: Lindsay Davenport (2) def. Anastasia Myskina 6–2 6–2 The only surprise is how routine it was. August 24 — New Haven F: Venus Williams (1) def. Lindsay Davenport (2) 7–5 6–0 Davenport had a chance, but she stopped trying. For Venus, it’s four straight titles at New Haven. August 26 — U. S. Open 1R: Marion Bartoli (Q) def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (25) 6–3 6–1 This is the worst yet for Sanchez-Vicario; Bartoli came in ranked #231! August 27 — U. S. Open 1R: Paola Suarez (32) def. Mary Pierce 7–6(7–3) 6–3 On a day when only one women’s seed (#28 Daniilidou) was upset, this was as close as the women came to news. And it wasn’t really a big surprise; Suarez in in much better form than Pierce. August 28 — U. S. Open 2R: Elena Bovina def. Jelena Dokic (5) 6–3 6–2 It couldn’t happen to a nicer Serb ultra-nationalist right-wing dimwit. August 29 — U. S. Open 2R: Martina Hingis (9) def. (Q) 6–4 6–1 You can’t see it in the score, but you could see it in her game: Hingis has to clean up the errors. August 30 — U. S. Open 3R: Francesca Schiavone def. Tatiana Panova (22) 3–6 6–4 6–3 Schiavone defeats her second straight Russian seed (she also beat Elena Dementieva) to get her year back on track. She’s almost ready to return to the Top Thirty. August 31 — U. S. Open 3R: Amy Frazier def. Magdalena Maleeva (16) 3–6 6–2 6–2 Behold the power of surfaces! On a day when all else was routine, hardcourt specialist Frazier beat indoor specialist Maleeva despite a difference of 56 ranking positions. September 1 — U. S. Open R16: Serena Williams (1) def. Daja Bedanova (20) 6–1 6–1 On a day when it rained for all but about an hour, naturally the only match completed was a blowout. September 2 — U. S. Open R16: Daniela Hantuchova (11) def. Justine Hénin (8) 6–1 3–6 7–6(7–4) Once again, the power of Big Babedom is shown on hardcourts.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 218 September 3 — U. S. Open R16: Monica Seles (6) def. Martina Hingis (9) 6–4 6–2 Hingis will fall to #10, her lowest ranking in about six years. September 4 — U. S. Open QF: Amelie Mauresmo (10) def. Jennifer Capriati (3) 4–6 7–6(7–5) 6–3 Capriati finds another way to lose — in this case, being broken while serving for the match in the second set, then flubbing the tiebreak. It’s Slam semifinal #2 of the year for Mauresmo. September 5 — U. S. Open SF DOUBLES: Ruano Pascual/Suarez (2) def. Petrova/Pratt 6–1 6–3 One day after beating Hingis/Kournikova, the best team in the draw, the Roland Garros champions make it three straight Slam finals. Can they really win a Slam on hardcourts? September 6 — U. S. Open SF DOUBLES: Dementieva/Husarova (6) def. Black/Likhovtseva (3) 7Ð5 6Ð1 With both Williams sisters in another boring final, this was clearly the most interesting match of the day as it puts Dementieva and Husarova at career highs. September 7 — U. S. Open F: Serena Williams (1) def. Venus Williams (2) 6–4 6–3 Will one of these two ever retire so we can get a halfway decent Slam final? September 8 — U. S. Open F DOUBLES: Ruano Pascual/Suarez (2) def. Dementieva/Husarova 6Ð2 6Ð1 For a team that, until this year, had never won a significant title away from clay, Ruano Pascual and Suarez — who win their second Slam of the year — sure are having a great season. September 9 — Bahia 1R: Maja Matevzic def. Tatiana Panova (6) 6–4 1–6 6–0 Matevzic comes back strong from her early loss at the U. S. Open September 10 — Bahia 1R: Amanda Coetzer def. Janette Husarova 6–1 6–1 Husarova pays for her U. S. Open doubles success with quick losses in singles and doubles. We suspect she’ll take it. September 11 — Bahia 2R: Henrieta Nagyova def. Iva Majoli (5) 6–2 6–3 Nagyova, who has semifinalist points to defend, just might stay in the Top Fifty. September 12 — Bahia QF: Eleni Daniilidou (8) def. Patty Schnyder (4) 2–6 6–2 6–4 Daniilidou returns to the Top Thirty. September 13 — Bahia SF: Anastasia Myskina (3) def. Jelena Dokic (1) 6–2 6–4 Bahia SF: Eleni Daniilidou (8) def. Monica Seles (2) 6Ð1 7Ð5 Daniilidou hits the Top 25, and Myskina reaches a career high, and Dokic gets a lesson in what happens when two absurdly overworked baseliners with no variety face each other. September 14 — Bahia F: Anastasia Myskina (3) def. Eleni Daniilidou (8) 6–3 0–6 6–2 Myskina wins her first major title — though it’s the weakest Tier II this year. September 15 — Shanghai F: Anna Smashnova (1) def. Anna Kournikova (4) 6–2 6–3 Kournikova finally gets to a final where she has a beatable opponent — but she can’t overcome herself. September 16 — Princess Cup 1R: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (8) def. Maja Matevzic 6–2 6–0 Sanchez-Vicario’s last desperate attempt to stay in the Top 40 starts well. September 17 — Princess Cup 1R DOUBLES: Navratilova/S. Williams def. (3) Martinez/Pratt 6Ð1 4Ð6 6Ð2 Believe it. It’s Serena’s first doubles WTA match not with Venus. September 18 — Princess Cup 2R: Elena Likhovtseva def. (8) Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 6Ð2 6Ð7(1Ð7) 6Ð4 We hate to rub it in, but Sanchez-Vicario is now out of the Top Forty. September 19 — Princess Cup 2R: Black/Likhovtseva (1) def. Date/Saeki (WC) 6-3, retired It’s tough to come back after a six year layoff.... September 20 — Princess Cup QF DOUBLES: Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario def. Navratilova/S. Williams 7Ð5 6Ð4 But believe this, too: Serena doesn’t know how to play “standard” doubles.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 219 September 21 — Princess Cup SF: Kim Clijsters (3) def. Jelena Dokic (2) 5–7 6–2 6–3 And so Dokic finally loses her unnaturally high #4 ranking. September 22 — Quebec City F: Elena Bovina (7) def. Marie-Gaianeh Mikaelian 6–3 6–4 On a day when Serena Williams won another routine title, Elena Bovina won the second of her career. She isn’t Top 30 yet, but it looks like we have another significant Big Babe on our hands.... September 23 — Leipzig 1R: Rita Grande def. Iva Majoli 7–6(7–4) 6–1 If you’re looking for consistency, don’t look to Majoli! September 24 — Leipzig 1R: Janette Husarova def. (8) Magdalena Maleeva 3–6 6–2 6–3 Maleeva bids the Top Twenty goodbye. September 25 — Bali 1R: Marta Marrero def. Angelique Widjaja 6–4 6–3 Marrero can hardly win a match these days, but she knocks out the defending champion. September 26 — Leipzig 2R: Barbara Rittner def. Silvia Farina Elia (7) 4–6 6–4 6–3 Upset artist Rittner pulls off another one. September 27 — Leipzig QF: Justine Hénin (3) def. Daniela Hantuchova (5) 6–3 7–5 Hantuchova blows her chance to make the Top Ten despite playing an opponent who dislikes indoors. September 28 — Bali F DOUBLES: (1) Black/Ruano Pascual def. (3) Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario 6-2 6-3 Before this match, Kuznetsova had beaten Sanchez-Vicario in singles (7Ð5 6Ð4), a match which made the Russian very uncomfortable. It may have affected her doubles; after fourteen straight wins, Kuznetsova and Sanchez-Vicario sustained their first-ever loss. September 29 — Leipzig F: (1) Serena Williams def. (6) Anastasia Myskina 6–3 6–2 Not only is it Serena’s eighth title this year, but it earns her the Surface Sweep. September 30 — Moscow 1R: Nadia Petrova def. Martina Hingis (5) 6–2 6–2 Is Hingis really back or not? October 1 — Moscow 1R: Nathalie Déchy def. Eleni Daniilidou 3–6 6–3 6–4 Déchy foils Daniilidou’s latest attempt to hit the Top Twenty — and gives herself a shot at the Top Twenty instead. October 2 — Moscow 2R: Amanda Coetzer def. Jelena Dokic (4) 7–6(7–1) 3–6 6–3 Coetzer may at last get back into the Top Twenty as she at last puts Dokic’s ranking back to something reasonable: #7 or #8. October 3 — Moscow 2R: Magdalena Maleeva def. Venus Williams (1) 2–6 6–1 7–6(7–3) On any normal day, the Match of the Day would have been Elena Bovina’s 6–1 4–6 6–1 win over Elena Dementieva, which makes Bovina a Top 30 player and puts Dementieva outside the Top Twenty. But this match effective knocks Venus out of the race for year-end #1 — and puts Maleeva in the Top Twenty. October 4 — Japan Open QF: Silvija Talaja def. (1) Ai Sugiyama 3–6 7–6(7–5) 6–3 So much for home field advantage — and for Sugiyama’s Top Twenty ranking. October 5 — Moscow SF: Magdalena Maleeva def. (4) Amélie Mauresmo 7–5 6–4 At this rate, Maleeva — #23 coming in — might make the year-end championship! October 6 — Moscow F: Magdalena Maleeva def. Lindsay Davenport (3) 5–7 6–3 7–6(7–4) Maleeva denies Davenport her first title of the year while earning her own. October 7 — Filderstadt Qualifying Final: Rita Grande (6) def. Eleni Daniilidou (1) 6–2 6–3 Daniilidou still can’t solve indoors — and it again costs her a spot in the Top 20. October 8 — Filderstadt 1R DOUBLES: Davenport/Raymond def. (1) Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario 6Ð1 6Ð0 It’s been almost a year since Davenport played doubles, but apparently she remembers how.... October 9 — Filderstadt 2R: Alexandra Stevenson (Q) def. Jennifer Capriati (1) 7–6(7–4) 4–6 6–4 Stevenson beats Capriati for the second time this year (the first was at Sydney), and by almost the same score....

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 220 October 10 — Filderstadt 2R: Elena Dementieva def. Martina Hingis (7) 6–3 6–1 It was a truly wild day — Tatiana Panova bounced Jelena Dokic in three sets, and Myriam Casanova took out Justine Hénin, also in three. But this is the historic loss: For the first time in six years, Hingis will fall out of the Top Ten, her place being taken by Daniela Hantuchova. October 11 — Filderstadt QF: (6) Kim Clijsters def. (2) Lindsay Davenport 4–6 6–3 6–4 And so all four top seeds are out of the singles — and Davenport’s chances of a year-end Top Ten spot are a lot dimmer. She still doesn’t have a title this year. October 12 — Filderstadt SF: (6) Kim Clijsters def. (5) Amelie Mauresmo 3–6 6–3 7–5 Mauresmo came very close to another final (which would have really helped her chances for a year- end #3), but instead Clijsters returns to #5. October 13 — Filderstadt F: Kim Clijsters (6) def. Daniela Hantuchova (8) 4–6 6–3 6–4 Hantuchova is in the Top Ten for the first time, but it’s Clijsters who gets title #2 of 2002 October 14 — Zurich 1R DOUBLES: Po-Messerli/Zvereva def. (2) Dementieva/Husarova 4Ð6 6Ð3 6Ð4 After a frustrating year, Zvereva finally wins a big match at a big tournament. October 15 — Zurich 1R DOUBLES: Davenport/Rubin def. Ruano Pascual/Suarez (1) 6–4 6–4 Lee/Prakusya def. Schnyder/Svensson 6Ð4 4Ð6 6Ð4 Davenport hasn’t lost in doubles in over a year; playing her first match since spring 2001 with someone other than Lisa Raymond, she causes the world’s top pair to suffer only their second opening-round loss of the year. Meanwhile, Lee and Prakusya book themselves a trip to the year-end championship. October 16 — Zurich 2R: Conchita Martinez def. Jennifer Capriati (1) 6–0 6–3 All right, Capriati dislikes indoors. But so does Martinez! The chances of Capriati ending the year at #4 just got a lot stronger. October 17 — Zurich 2R: Alexandra Stevenson (Q) def. Jelena Dokic (5) 7–6(8–6) 4–6 7–5 Stevenson cements herself in the Top 25 as Dokic again fails to defend points and falls to #8. October 18 — Zurich QF: Patty Schnyder def. Daniela Hantuchova (7) 6–7(5–7) 6–3 7–6(7–5) Schnyder not only wins a tiebreak against Hantuchova (which happens about once a year), but she is getting close to a return to the Top Fifteen. October 19 — Bratislava SF: Iveta Benesova (Q) def. Nathalie Déchy (1) 7–5 4–6 6–1 Bratislava SF: Maja Matevzic def. Rita Grande (3) 0Ð6 6Ð2 6Ð0 The defending champion and the top seed both crash as two young players who rely more on spin than power both reach their first finals. October 20 — Zurich F: Patty Schnyder def. (2) Lindsay Davenport 6–7(5–7) 7–6(10–8) 6–3 Davenport’s injury — which will cause her to drop out of the Top Ten next week — causes her to lose yet another final and gives Schnyder her first Tier I title. October 21 — Linz 1R: Elena Dementieva def. Ai Sugiyama 6–1 6–4 Dementieva ends Sugiyama’s Los Angeles chances and improves her own. October 22 — Luxembourg 1R: Laura Granville def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 6–3 6–1 We hate to rub it in — but unless Sanchez-Vicario plays Pattaya, she’s going to end the year ranked below #50 for the first time since 1986. October 23 — Linz 2R: Anna Smashnova (9) def. Elena Dementieva 6–3 3–6 7–5 Amélie Mauresmo withdrew from Los Angeles this day, meaning that both players will likely be in the Championships — but with this, Smashnova clinches, and Dementieva’s tough year just gets tougher. October 24 — Linz 2R: Alexandra Stevenson def. (6) Anastasia Myskina 6–3 7–6(7–5) Stevenson keeps a faint hope alive for Los Angeles, and effectively ends Myskina’s hopes to be Top Ten this year. October 25 — Linz QF: Alexandra Stevenson def. Jennifer Capriati (1) 6–1 6–1 It was a truly crummy match, but it puts Stevenson in the Top Twenty.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 221 October 26 — Linz SF: Alexandra Stevenson def. (5) Daniela Hantuchova 6–4 7–6(8–6) Stevenson makes the Top 20 as Hantuchova pays the price for all the matches she’s let run too long. October 27 — Linz F: Justine Hénin (4) def. Alexandra Stevenson 6–3 6–0 Hénin wins her first indoor title, completes the career surface sweep, wins her first Tier II, and makes it to a career-high #4. Pretty good for less than an hour’s work. November 4 — Pattaya 1R: Tamarine Tanasugarn (2) def. Rossana Neffa-de los Rios 7–5 6–1 Tanasugarn can’t make the Top 25 here, but she at least wins a match at home. November 5 — Pattaya 1R: Tatiana Panova (1) def. (Q) 6–1 6–0 No real significance to this — except that it’s event #31 (!) for Panova this year. Plus Fed Cup. November 6 — Los Angeles Champ 1R: Monica Seles (6) def. Lindsay Davenport 2–6 7–6(8–6) 6–3 Davenport blew seven match points on her way to a first round exit — assuring that she would end 2002 outside the Top Ten for the first time since 1995. It’s also the first year of her pro career that she didn’t win a title. November 7 — Los Angeles Champ 1R: Jelena Dokic (8) def. Anastasia Myskina 6–3 6–4 And so the year-end Top Ten are set: It’s Hingis, not Davenport or Myskina, at #10. November 8 — Los Angeles QF: Kim Clijsters (5) def. Justine Hénin (4) 6-2 6-1 An incredibly crummy match by Hénin at least gives her some extra time to prepare for her wedding. And yes, she’s getting married at age twenty. November 9 —Pattaya SF: Angelique Widjaja def. Tatiana Panova (1) 2–6 6–1 6–3 Los Angeles Champ 1R DOUBLES: Fujiwara/Sugiyama def. Ruano Pascual/Suarez (1) 6Ð4 6Ð3 Panova isn’t supposed to wear down like that — but then, she had to find some way to lose. As for Ruano Pascual/Suarez — well, it’s indoors. They’re still #1 in the world November 10 — Los Angeles Champ SF: Kim Clijsters (5) def. Venus Williams (2) 5–0, retired It was the worst match of the day in terms of play; Venus couldn’t move. But with it, the year’s final rankings are set — and Clijsters is the year-end #4, her best ever final ranking. November 11 — Los Angeles Champ F: Kim Clijsters (5) def. Serena Williams (1) 7–5 6–3 Clijsters wins the biggest title of her career and ends the year with an eight-match winning streak.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 222 WTA Tour History Who Won What Summary — Singles The following list 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 Hingis, we see 3/97 — Hingis has won the Australian Open three times, starting in 1997). 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) Tournament Capria Clijste Daven Dokic Hénin Hingis Marti Maure Pierce Rubin Sanch Seles SWill VWill Sydney 1/93 1/99 3/97 1/00 1/98 1/96 Australian Open 2/01 1/00 3/97 1/95 4/91 Pan Pacific 2/98 4/97 Paris 1/97 1/01 1/98 1/99 1/02 Antwerp 1/02 Dubai 1/01 1/02 Scottsdale 1/01 1/02 Indian Wells 2/97 1/98 1/92 2/99 Miami 2/97 2/92 2/90 1/02 3/98 Amelia Island 1/97 1/95 1/01 1/98 2/93 2/99 1/02 Charleston 1/01 2/97 2/94 1/00 1/96 Hamburg 1/02 2/98 1/95 3/93 2/99 Berlin 1/02 1/99 2/98 1/01 1/95 1/90 Rome 1/01 1/98 4/93 1/97 2/90 1/02 1/99 Roland Garros 1/01 1/00 3/89 3/90 1/02 Eastbourne 1/01 1/02 1/96 Wimbledon 1/99 1/97 1/94 1/02 2/00 Stanford 1/01 2/98 2/96 1/94 2/90 2/00 San Diego 2/91 1/98 2/97 1/95 3/00 Los Angeles 3/96 1/95 1/02 3/90 2/99 Canadian Open 1/91 2/99 1/02 2/92 4/95 1/01 New Haven 1/97 4/99 U.S. Open 1/98 1/97 1/94 2/91 2/99 2/00 Bahia 1/01 Princess Cup 1/99 1/01 1/95 1/94 5/91 2/00 Leipzig 2/00 1/02 Moscow 1/01 1/00 1/98 Filderstadt 1/02 1/01 4/96 1/93 Zurich 3/97 1/00 1/99 Linz 2/00 1/02 1/99 Championships 1/02 1/99 2/98 3/90 1/01 Total of these 31 651832208510211161312 events won Total times won 8626323713510218371717 any event Wins at important expired tournaments: Davenport — Philadelpha (2/99), Chicago (1/97); Hingis — Philadelphia (1/97); Mauresmo — Nice 2001; Martinez — Stratton Mountain (2/93), Houston (1/93), Philadelphia (1/93), Barcelona (1/91), Tampa (1/89); Sanchez-Vicario — Washington (1/91), Barcelona (2/93), Newport (1/90); Seles — Houston (3/89), San Antonio (1/90), Tampa (1/90), Milan (1/91), Philadelphia (1/91), Essen (1/92), Barcelona (1/92), Chicago (1/93); S. Williams — Hannover (1/ 00). N.B.: Rubin won Linz in 1997, but it was not yet a Tier II.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 223 Who Won What Summary — Doubles The equivalent of the preceding, but for doubles. This is a much harder list of players to compile, as there are more doubles winners out there. I finally chose to list the Top Five (Ruano Pascual, Suarez, Raymond, Stubbs, Husarova), all Top Twelve players with 15 or more career titles (Likhovtseva, Sugiyama), the remaining Top Thirty players with the best doubles records (Sanchez-Vicario, Hingis, Davenport, Kournikova), plus Zvereva as the active (?) doubles player with the best results and the Williams Sisters since they have the career Slam. Expired events are omitted. Tournament Daven Hingis Husar Kourn Likho Raym Ruano Sanch Stubb Suare Sugiy SWill VWill Zvere Sydney 2/95 1/98 1/01 1/99 1/02 3/91 1/02 2/99 1/01 1/01 Australian Open 4/97 2/99 1/00 3/92 1/00 3/93 Pan Pacific 2/97 2/98 2/01 1/92 2/01 4/95 Paris 1/98 Antwerp Dubai Scottsdale 2/01 2/01 Indian Wells 5/94 1/99 1/99 3/94 2/93 1/01 2/97 Miami 2/98 1/02 5/92 1/02 1/00 2/94 Amelia Island 1/97 6/90 2/89 Charleston 1/97 1/99 2/01 1/00 4/90 2/01 1/00 3/91 Hamburg 2/95 1/00 1/01 3/94 2/92 1/00 Berlin 2/97 1/02 1/00 4/91 Rome 1/99 1/99 1/01 1/00 2/98 2/93 1/00 2/98 2/94 Roland Garros 1/96 2/98 2/01 2/01 1/99 1/99 6/89 Eastbourne 1/99 1/99 2/01 2/95 2/01 1/00 4/90 Wimbledon 1/99 2/96 1/01 1/95 1/01 2/00 2/00 5/91 Stanford 5/94 1/97 1/02 1/94 1/02 2/92 San Diego 2/98 1/97 1/02 1/01 1/00 2/94 1/00 2/95 Los Angeles 1/96 1/98 2/92 4/91 Canadian Open 2/98 1/02 2/94 1/92 1/02 1/91 New Haven 1/01 1/99 1/02 1/99 1/00 U.S. Open 1/97 1/98 1/01 1/02 2/93 1/01 1/02 1/00 1/99 1/99 4/91 Bahia 1/02 1/02 Princess Cup 1/95 1/98 1/93 2/94 2/97 Leipzig 1/97 2/98 1/00 1/98 1/02 1/93 Moscow 2/00 1/02 1/01 1/99 1/97 1/99 1/00 3/89 Filderstadt 3/98 2/97 1/00 2/01 2/92 4/93 Zurich 1/01 3/96 1/00 2/99 1/97 1/99 1/98 1/98 1/92 Linz Championships 3/96 2/990 1/02 2/99 1/01 2/92 1/01 3/93 Total of these 31 15 2261171962319 696522 events won Total times won 31 36 6 13827850258117663 any event Career doubles 32 37 15 16 15 36 18 67 39 25 20 10 9 80 titles

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 224 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. Linz before 1998) were not Tier II events for this entire period; these winners are shown in italics Who Won What Part 1: 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 Zurich 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 in 1997 3. The WTA lists as a Tier II in 1996. The field does not back this up

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 225 Who Won What Part 2: 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 Martinez 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 Dallas 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 Zurich 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 ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 226 Who Won What Part 3: 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 Brisbane 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 Zurich 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 ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 227 Who Won What Part 4: 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 French Open 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 Zurich 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 ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 228 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. 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

Active Leaders in Titles (Singles/Doubles) Minimum ten titles required to be listed. Players in bold won at least one title in 2002 Singles Doubles Player Titles Player Titles Seles* ...... 53 Navratilova* ...... 166 Hingis* ...... 40 Zvereva* ...... 80 Davenport* ...... 36† Sanchez-Vicario*¤ ...... 67 Martinez*...... 32 Stubbs* ...... 39 Sanchez-Vicario*¤...... 29 Hingis*...... 37 V. Williams* ...... 26† Raymond* ...... 36 S. Williams* ...... 18† Davenport* ...... 32 Pierce*...... 15 Suarez* ...... 25 Capriati* ...... 12† Sugiyama*...... 20 Clijsters...... 10 Ruano Pascual* ...... 18 Kournikova* ...... 16 Arendt ...... 16 Tarabini...... 15 Likhovtseva ...... 15 Husarova ...... 15 Fusai ...... 12 Morariu*...... 11 Rubin* ...... 10 S. Williams*...... 10 Black ...... 10 * Titles include at least one Slam † Excludes Olympics, ¤ Retiring after 2002 season

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 229 Detailed Analysis — Career Tournaments for Davenport, Hingis, Seles, Williams It’s one thing to win tournaments. It’s another to win a “spectrum” of tournaments — on all surfaces, in all countries. The following list shows all the major events currently played on the tour, and lists the years in which the top players won each (years abbreviated in some cases). Tournament Tier Won by Davenport Won by Hingis Won by Seles By S. Williams By V. Williams Sydney II 1999 1997, 2001, 2002 1996 Australian Opn Slam 2000 1997, 1998, 1999 1991Ð93, 1996 Pan Pacific I 1998, 2001 1997, ’99, ’00, ’02 Paris II 1997 1999 2002 Antwerp 2002 Dubai II 2001 Scottsdale II 2001 2002 Indian Wells I 1997, 2000 1998 1992 1999, 2001 Miami I 1997, 2000 1990, 1991 2002 1998, 1999, 2001 Amelia Island II 1997 1999, 2000 2002 Hilton Head I 1997, 1999 Hamburg II 1998, 2000 1999, 2001 Berlin I 1999 1990 Rome I 1998 1990 2002 1999 Roland Garros Slam 1990Ð92 2002 Eastbourne II 2001 1996 Wimbledon Slam 1999 1997 2002 2000, 2001 Stanford II 1998, 1999 1996, 1997 1990, 1992 2000, 2002 San Diego II 1998 1997, 1999 2000, 2001, 2002 Los Angeles II 1996, 1998, 2001 1990, 1991, 1997 1999, 2000 Canadian Open I 1999, 2000 1995Ð1998 2001 New Haven II 1997 1990 1999, ’00, ’01, ’02 U.S. Open Slam 1998 1997 1991, 1992 1999, 2002 2000, 2001 Bahia II 2001 Princess Cup II 1999 1991Ð92, 1996Ð98 2000, 2002 Filderstadt II 2001 1996–97, ’99, ’00 Zurich I 1997, 1998, 2001 2000 1999 Linz II 2000, 2001 Moscow I 2000 Leipzig II 2002 Philadelphia II 1999, 2000 1997 1991 Yr-end Champ Chmp 1999 1998, 2000 1990Ð92 2001 Total distinct events 19 21 18 13 9 Events won 2+ times 7111046 Notes: Events which are no longer played are not included in this list. In some cases, none of the above players ever won the event (e.g. none has won Hannover, which was last played in 2000). Davenport also won Chicago (II) in 1997; this was the last year that event was played. The Atlanta event was won by Davenport in 1997; it moved to New Haven in 1998. Davenport has also won several Tier III events: Lucerne 1993, Brisbane 1994, Lucerne 1994, Strasbourg 1995, Oklahoma City 1997, Madrid 1999. Hingis has two Tier III titles (’s-Hertogenbosch 2000; Doha 2001). Venus Williams wonTier III events at Oklahoma City in 1998, 1999 and Gold Coast in 2002. Monica Seles won Chicago (discontinued) in 1993; Essen (discontinued), Houston (discontinued), and Barcelona (discontinued) in 1992; Houston (discontinued), Milan (discontinued), and Tampa (discontinued) in 1991; and Houston (discontinued) in 1989. Seles won the U. S. Hardcourts (later Atlanta, later New Haven) in 1990 when it was in San Antonio. Seles has won many small events in recent years: In 2001, Oklahoma City (III), Japan Open (III), and Shanghai (IV); in 2002, Doha (III) and Madrid (III). Serena Williams won Hannover 2000 (discontinued). Philadelphia has been suspended but is to be resumed and so remains in the list.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 230 Career Results for Leading Players The following tables summarize the performances of certain top 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 moneygap 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. Note: Here as elsewhere, events which do not follow WTA admission rules (Olympics, Fed Cup, , Grand Slam Cup) are not listed. Since some (not all) WTA lists include the Olympics, their totals for Capriati, Davenport, Graf, and Venus Williams may be one tournament higher. Jennifer Capriati Career Titles: Hardcourt: 7; Clay: 3; Grass: 0; Indoor: 2. Total: 12 By Tier: Slams: 3; Championships: 0; Tier I: 1; Tier II: 4; Tier III: 4; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1990 Puerto Rico (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) Kim Clijsters Career Titles: Hardcourt: 2; Clay: 1; Grass: 0; Indoor: 7. Total: 10 By Tier: Slams: 0; Championships: 1; Tier I: 0; Tier II: 5; Tier III: 3; 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)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 231 Lindsay Davenport Career Titles: Hardcourt: 15; Clay: 6; Grass: 2; Indoor: 13. Total: 36 By Tier: Slams: 3; Championships: 1; Tier I: 7; Tier II: 18; Tier III: 7; 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), Zurich (I), Chicago (II) 1998 Stanford (II), San Diego (II), Pan Pacific (I), Zurich (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), Zurich (I), Linz (II) 2002 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)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 232 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 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1986 Mahwah (II) Hilton Head (I), Amelia Pan Pacific (I), Brighton (I), Island (I), Indianapolis (I), Zurich (II) Berlin (II) 1987 Boca Raton (I), Lipton (I), Los Hilton Head (I), Amelia Zurich (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), Zurich (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) Zurich (II), Brighton (II), (II) NewEngland (II) 1991 San Antonio (II) Hamburg (II), Berlin (I) Wimbledon Leipzig (II), Zurich (II), (Slam) Brighton (II) 1992 Boca Raton (I) Hamburg (II), Berlin (I) Wimbledon Leipzig (II), Zurich (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) New York (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) Justine Hénin Career Titles: Hardcourt: 2; Clay: 2; Grass: 1; Indoor: 1. Total: 6 By Tier: Slams: 0; Championships: 0; Tier I: 1; Tier II: 1; 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)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 233 Martina Hingis Career Titles: Hardcourt: 17; Clay: 6; Grass: 2; Indoor: 15. Total: 40 By Tier: Slams: 5; Championships: 2; Tier I: 15; Tier II: 16; Tier III: 2; 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), Zurich (I), Moscow (I), Chase (Champ) 2001 Sydney (II), Doha (III), Dubai (II) 2002 Sydney (II) Pan Pacific (I) Conchita Martinez Career Titles: Hardcourt: 8; Clay: 20; Grass: 1; Indoor: 3. Total: 32 By Tier: Slams: 1; Championships: 0; Tier I: 9; Tier II: 9; Tier III: 12; 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 Amélie Mauresmo Career Titles: Hardcourt: 3; Clay: 2; Grass: 0; Indoor: 3. Total: 8 By Tier: Slams: 0; Championships: 0; Tier I: 2; Tier II: 5; 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)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 234 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 Adelaide (III) 1989 Strasbourg (III) 1990 Albuquerque (III) 1991 Sydney (II) Oklahoma City (III) 1992 1993 Osaka (III), Brighton (II) 1994 Leipzig (II), Brighton (II), Essen (II) 1995 Linz (III) 1996 Madrid (III) Zurich (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) Mary Pierce Career Titles: Hardcourt: 2; Clay: 7; Grass: 0; Indoor: 6. Total: 15 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 0; Tier I: 3; Tier II: 5; Tier III: 2; 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

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 235 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) 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

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 236 Monica Seles 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) Serena Williams Career Titles: Hardcourt: 11; Clay: 2; Grass: 1; Indoor: 4. Total: 18 By Tier: Slams: 4; Championships: 1; Tier I: 5; Tier II: 8; 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) Venus Williams Career Titles: Hardcourt: 15; Clay: 4; Grass: 2; Indoor: 5. Total: 26 By Tier: Slams: 4; Championships: 0; Tier I: 5; Tier II: 14; Tier III: 3; 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), Zurich (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)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 237 Slam History Singles Slam Winners, Open Era 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 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)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 238 Doubles Slam Winners, 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/Suarez Raymond/Stubbs Raymond/Stubbs 2002 Hingis/Kournikova Ruano Pascual/Suarez Williams/Williams Ruano Pascual/Suarez

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

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 239 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 ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 240 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 ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 241 Billie Jean King 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

Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario Australian French Wimbledon USO 1992 Sukova 1993 Sukova 1994 Novotna 1995 Novotna Novotna 1996 Rubin

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 242 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 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

Wendy Turnbull 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

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 243 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 ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 244 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 Navratilova — 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

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

Grand Slams, Doubles, Open Era, individual4 Martina Navratilova, 1984 (with Pam Shriver) Pam Shriver, 1984 (with Martina Navratilova)5 Martina Hingis, 1998 (with Mirjana Lucic, Australian Open, and Jana Novotna, other 3 Slams)6

Career Slams, Doubles, Open Era, team7 Martina Navratilova/Pam Shriver (20 Slams as a team) Gigi Fernandez/Natasha Zvereva (14 Slams as a team) /Anne Smith (4 Slams as a team) Venus Williams/Serena Williams (4 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. also won a Grand Slam in doubles before the Open Era 5. Navratilova and Shriver are the only team to win a Grand Slam together in the Open Era 6. 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. 7. 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 ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 245 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) 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) 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 ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 246 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 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 9 Monica Seles 12 Jana Novotna Judy Chaloner* 8 Billie Jean King 10 Margaret Court * 7 Billie Jean King 5 Martina Hingis 9 Martina Hingis Steffi Graf* 4 Hana Mandlikova Helena Sukova Julie Halard-Decugis* Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 7 Rosie Casals Venus Williams 6 Francoise Durr Serena Williams Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 3 Jennifer Capriati Betty Stove Mima Jausovic* Lindsay Davenport 5 Judy Tegart Dalton Anne Kiyomura* Evonne Goolagong Cawley * 2 Kathy Jordan Mirjana Lucic Mary Pierce Anne Smith Hana Mandlikova 1 Serena Williams Regina Mariskova* Mima Jausovec Venus Williams Corina Morariu Anne Jones 4 Cawley Mary Pierce Iva Majoli Virginia Wade Reid Conchita Martinez 3 Lindsay Davenport Jana Novotna Chris Evert Chanda Rubin Chris O’Neil Gail Chanfreau Lovera JoAnne Russell * Kerry Melville Reid Lisa Raymond Gabriela Sabatini* Virginia Ruzici Virginia Ruano Pascual Kazuko Sawamatsu* Gabriella Sabatini Rennae Stubbs Paola Suarez Ai Sugiyama* 2 Rosalyn Fairbank * Mary Joe Fernandez Andrea Temesvari Ann Haydon Jones Renata Tomanova Claudia Kohde-Kilsch Anna Kournikova * Part of a “One Slam Wonder” Larisa Savchenko Neiland team, i.e. one where each won only one doubles Slam

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 247 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.) 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), Suarez (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) 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), Suarez (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)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 248 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) 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)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 249 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)

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 2002 S. Williams (8) V. Williams (7) Clijsters (4), Smashnova (4)1 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)2 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), Mandlickova (4) 1983 Navratilova (13) Evert (5) Mandlikova (3), Shriver (3), Temesvari (3) 1. 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. 2. Like Smashnova 2002, Schnyder had mostly small titles: four of her five were Tier III or lower.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 250 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 6Evonne Goolagong Cawley 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1978 6 Billie Jean King 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1977 4 Lindsay Davenport 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 4 Martina Hingis 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 4 Monica Seles 1990, 1991, 1992, 1996 4Virginia Wade 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975 4Venus Williams 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 3Tracy Austin 1979, 1980, 1981 3 Margaret Court 1971, 1972, 1973 2 Hana Mandlikova 1980, 1984 2 Conchita Martinez 1993, 1995 2 Gabriela Sabatini 1991, 1992 1 Francoise Durr 1971 1 -Fragniere 1984 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 ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 251 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 (Zurich) 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)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 252 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/Scultz-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 ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 253 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: X (Miami), Indoor: X (Pan Pacific)

Career Surface Sweeps The list below shows all active players 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 Davenport 1999 Amelia Island 1997 Wim 1999 USO 1998, AO 2000 WTA Champ. 1999 Dokic 2002 Rome 2001 Birmingham 2002 Princess Cup 2001 Moscow 2001 Hénin 2002 Berlin 2002 ’s-Hertogenbosch Gold Coast 2001 Linz 2002 2001 Hingis 1997 Hilton Head 1997, Wim 1997 AO 1997, etc. USO WTA Champ 1998, etc.; Rome 1998; 1997 etc. Berlin 1999 Martinez 1994 Rome 1993, etc.; Wim 1994 San Diego 1995 Philadelphia 1993 Hilton Head 1994, etc.; Berlin 1998, etc. Sanchez-V 1994 RG 1989, etc. Newport 1990 USO 1994 Oakland 1994 Seles 1996 RG 1990, etc. Eastbourne 1996 AO 1991, etc.; USO WTA Champ 1990, 1991, etc. etc. S. Williams 2002 RG 2002 Wim 2002 USO 1999, etc. WTA Champ. 2001 V. Williams 2000 Rome 1999 Wim 2000, etc. USO 2000, etc. Zurich 1999

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 254 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; #7-1992; #8-1990 Casals #6 -1977 Clijsters 2002 #5-2001 Coetzer 1997 Court #6-1975 Date 1995 #8-1996 Davenport 1998, 2001 1999, 2000 1997 #6-1994 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 #5-2002; #7-2001 Hingis 1997, 1999, 2000 1998 1996, 2001 Huber #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 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 Martinez 1995 1994 1993 #5-1996, 2000; #7-1989; #8-1992, 1998 Mauresmo #6-2002 Morozova #7-1975

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 255 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 Pierce #5-1994, 1995, 1999; #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 Seles 1991, 1992 1990, [1996] 2000 #5-1997; #6-1989, 1998, 1999; #7-2002; #8-1993 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 1999 #6-2000, 2001 Williams, V. 2002 1999, 2000, 2001 #5-1998 Zvereva #7-1988

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 256 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 1115 Casals 1 1 Clijsters 1 1 2 Coetzer 1 1 Court 1 1 Date 1 1 2 Davenport 2 2 1 1 6 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 1 1 2 Hingis 3 1 2 6 Huber 1 1 Jaeger 2 1 1 4 Jausovec 11 King 2 2 1 5 Kohde-Kilsch 1 1 1 3 Kournikova 11 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 1 Morozova 11 Navratilova 73531 120 Novotna 1 2 1 1 1 6 Pierce 3 3 6 Potter 11 Reid 11 Richey Gunter 11 Sabatini 31212 9 Sanchez-Vicari 3122 1 9 Schett 11 Seles 2 1(2) 1131110

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 257 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 2 4 Williams, V. 1 3 1 5 Zvereva 11

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 258 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. 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 28T Hanika 7 2Evert 180 28T Kohde-Kilsch 7 3 Graf 163 31T Balestrat 6 4 Seles 78 31T Coetzer 6 5 Hingis 70 31T Date 6 6Davenport 67 31T Hénin 6 7 Sanchez-Vicario 62 35 Stove 5 8 Sabatini 45 36 Majoli 4 9 Austin 41 37T Casals 3 10 Williams, V. 40 37T Court 3 11T Goolagong 38 37T Durie 3 11T Mandlikova 38 37T Maleeva, K 3 13T Martinez, C. 37 37T Maleeva, Magdalena 3 13T Novotna 37 37T Mauresmo 3 15 Shriver 36 43T Bunge 2 16 King 35 43T Huber 2 17 Williams, S 28 43T Morozova 2 18 Capriati 26 43T Tauziat 2 19 Wade 25 43T Zvereva 2 20 Jaeger 24 48T Dokic 1 21 Pierce 18 48T Hantuchova 1 22 Turnbull 15 48T Jausovec 1 23 Fernandez, M 13 48T Kournikova 1 24T Clijsters 10 48T Potter 1 24T Maleeva[-Fragniere] 10 48T Reid 1 24T Sukova 10 48T Richey Gunter 1 27 Barker 8 48T Schett 1 28T Garrison[-Jackson] 7 48T Spirlea 1

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 259 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 Sabatini 9 Sanchez-Vicario 9 Martinez, Conchita 8 Shriver 8 Mandlikova 7 Turnbull 7 Davenport 6 Hingis 6 Novotna 6 Pierce 6 Austin 5 Capriati 5 Fernandez, Mary Joe 5 Goolagong 5 King 5 Maleeva[-Fragniere], Manuela 5 Sukova 5 Wade 5 Williams, Venus 5

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 260 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 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), Sanchez-Vicario Spirlea (1) 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)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 261 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) 5 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) 5 Martina 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 9 Martina Navratilova Shriver (20), King (3), Evert (2), A. Smith (1), G. Fernandez (1) Mandlikova (1), Nagelson (1), Stove (1), Temesvari (1) 6 Martina 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) 4 Margaret 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 ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 262 I Came, I Played.... The following is a complete list of every player to play a WTA Main Draw match in 2002. All told, 301 players had at least one match of main draw experience. The list shows the players and the number of WTA main draws they played (note that most of these players played additional Challengers or qualifying events). (1), Adriana Barna (1), Lucie Ahl (2), (1), (1), Laurence Andretto (1), Maret Ani (2), Greta Arn (13), Arvidsson (1), Shinobu Asagoe (9), Cory Ann Avants (1), Lubomira Bacheva (7), Angelika Bachmann (1), Elena Baltacha (2), Olga Barababschikova (2), Anca Barna (21), Marion Bartoli (3), Silvana Bauer (1), Daja Bedanova (25), Celine Beigbeder (13), Iveta Benesova (9), Eva Bes (10), Yulia Beygelzimer (2), Bea Bielik (2), Cara Black (22), Kristie Boogert (4), Elena Bovina (21), (1), Kristina Brandi (9), Sandra Cacic (1), Els Callens (10), Maria Elena Camerin (8), Jennifer Capriati (17), Ansley Cargill (4), Catalino Castano (2), Ludmilla Cervanova (15), Clarisa Fernandez (13), Kyung-Mi Chang (1), Denisa Chladkova (14), Yoon Jeong Cho (8), Kim Clijsters (21), Amanda Coetzer (22), Stephanie Cohen Aloro (3), Hannah Collin (1), Mariana Correa (1), Jill Craybas (16), Tiffany Dabek (1), Eleni Daniilidou (23), Lindsay Davenport (9), Erica De Lone (3), Rossana Neffa-de los Rios (23), Nathalie Déchy (24), Elena Dementieva (26), Mariana Diaz- Oliva (16), Mireille Dittmann (1), Lenka Dlhopolcova (1), Jelena Dokic (29), (1), Lourdes Dominguez Lino (3), Evie Dominikovic (12), Vera Douchevina (1), Maureen Drake (6), Nina Duebbers (1), Gisella Dulko (3), Eva Dyrberg (11), Elke Clijsters (3), Annabel Ellwood (1), Feriel Esseghir (1), Romy Farah (1), Silvia Farina Elia (29), Gulnara Fattakhetdinova (1), Evelyn Fauth (2), Yuliana Fedak (2), Eva Fislova (2), Galina Fokina (3), Stephanie Foretz (12), Amy Frazier (18), Rika Fujiwara (5), Alexandra Fusai (4), Emmanuelle Gagliardi (23), Mariona Gallifa Puigdesens (1), Edina Gallovits (1), Tathiana Garbin (17), Adriana Gersi (10), Maria Geznenge (1), Andrea Glass (4), Maria Goloviznina (3), Ainhoa Goni (1), Amanda Grahame (4), Rita Grande (27), Laura Granville (10), Magdalena Grzybowska (5), Zsofia Gubacsi (14), Meryem Haddad (1), Daniela Hantuchova (25), Jie Hao (1), Ashley Harkleroad (5), Zuzana Hejdova (1), Justine Hénin (23), Vanessa Henke (3), Jaslyn Hewitt (1), Martina Hingis (12), Jana Hlavackova (1), Jennifer Hopkins (21), Kveta Hrdlickova (9), Stanislava Hrozenska (1), Su-Wei Hsieh (1), Janette Husarova (24), Marissa Irvin (18), Ivanna Isroilova (1), Jelena Jankovic (4), Mi-Ra Jeon (3), Alina Jidkova (15), Jin-Hee Kim (1), Janet Lee (6), Olga Kalyuzhnaya (2), Jana Kandarr (15), (3), Aniko Kapros (6), (1), Maria Kirilenko (3), Daniela Kix (2), Sabine Klaschka (1), Sandra Kleinova (5), (1), Jelena Kostanic (17), Klara Koukalova (5), Evgenia Koukikovskaya (4), Anna Kournikova (25), Lina Krasnoroutskaya (7), Anne Kremer (28), Svetlana Krivencheva (1), (4), Lubomira Kurhajcova (4), Rita Kuti Kis (9), Svetlana Kuznetsova (11), (1), Bianka Lamade (13), Gala Leon Garcia (23), Kelly Liggan (4), Elena Likhovtseva (27), Nan Nan Liu (1), (8), Emilie Loit (17), Mirjana Lucic (6), Iva Majoli (23), Magdalena Maleeva (25), Petra Mandula (18), Melanie Marois (1), Katalin Marosi (3), Marta Marrero (23), Eva Martincova (1), Conchita Martinez (24), Conchita Martinez Granados (4), Maja Matevzic (23), Bethanie Mattek (1), Amélie Mauresmo (17), Myriam Casanova (7), Rachel McQuillan (7), Anabel Medina Garrigues (3), Melissa Middleton (1), Marie-Gaianeh Mikaelian (19), Marie-Jose Lopez (1), Maria Jose Martinez (4), Alicia Molik (19), Angeles Montolio (21), Corina Morariu (4), Akiko Morigami (5), Bahia Mouhtassine (3), Martina Müller (19), Trudi Musgrave (1), Anastasia Myskina (28), Henrieta Nagyova (25), Martina Navratilova (1), Jana Nejedly (11), Lenka Nemeckova (3), Virag Nemeth (1), Ana Nogueira (1), Pavlina (Stoyanova) Nola (2), Seda Noorlander (11), Jane O’Donoghue (1), Saori Obata (14), Tzipora Obziler (1), (1), Zuzana Ondraskova (5), Miriam Oremans (10), Lilia Osterloh (18), Nadejda Ostrovskaya (3), Maja Palaversic Coopersmith (2), Tatiana Panova (31), Marie-Eve Pelletier (6), Shuai Peng (1), Flavia Pennetta (3), Tatiana Perebiynis (7), Nadia Petrova (5), Frederica Piedade (1), Mary Pierce (13), Camille Pin (2), Tina Pisnik (24), Nicole Pitts (1), (2), ?? Podkolzina (1), Tatiana Poutchek (22), Wynne Prakusya (13), Nicole Pratt (20), Libuse Prusova (6), Julie Pullin (3), Mariam Ramon Climent (1), Dally Randriantefy (2), (1), Lisa Raymond (22), Virginie Razzano (12), Samantha Reeves (14), Brie Rippner (5), Barbara Rittner (19), Anastassia Rodionova (3), Angelika Roesch (9), Virginia Ruano Pascual (21), Chanda Rubin (13), Miho Saeki (4), Dinara Safina (6), Joanna Sakowicz (2), Maria Emelia Salerni (8), Maria Sanchez Lorenzo (5), Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (24), Raluca Sandu (1), (2), Claudine Schaul (2), Barbara Schett (20), Francesca Schiavone (22), Patty Schnyder (25), Barbara Schwartz (11), Monica Seles (15), Irina Selyutina (12), Milagros Sequera (4), Magui Serna (25), Adriana Serra Zanetti (29), Antonella Serra Zanetti (11), Selima Sfar (13), Maria Sharapova (2), Meghann Shaughnessy (27), Anne-Gaëlle Sidot (2), Neuza Silva (1), (1), Anna Smashnova (29), Tara Snyder (2), (1), Karolina Sprem (1), Katarina Srebotnik (19), (1), Shelley Stephens (1), Alexandra Stevenson (25), Bryanne Stewart (2), (2), Paola Suarez (23), Martina Sucha (25), Ai Sugiyama (26), Tian Tian Sun (1), Åsa (Carlsson) Svensson (14), Ekaterina Sysoeva (1), Ayami Takase (1), Silvija Talaja (23), Elise Tamaela (1), Tamarine Tanasugarn (26), Elena Tatarkova (4), Sarah Taylor (11), Sandrine Testud (14), (1), Cristina Torrens Valero (28), Meilen Tu (25), Iroda Tulyaganova (21), Julia Vakulenko (5), Erika Valdes (1), Daphne van de Zande (1), Anousjka Van Exel (3), Andreea Vanc (2), Alena Vaskova (3), Maria Vento-Kabchi (4), Nathalie Vierin (1), Roberta Vinci (5), Rachel Viollet (1), Suchanan Viratprasert (1), Renata Voracova (5), Patricia Wartusch (8), Mashona Washington (5), Cindy Watson (2), Vanessa Webb (5), Marlene Weingärtner (20), Christina Wheeler (5), Angelique Widjaja (12), Serena Williams (13), Venus Williams (16), Maria Wolfbrandt (2), Yan-Ze Xie (1), Zi Yan (1), Yuka Yoshida (1), Ying Yu (1), Jie Zheng (1), Fabiola Zuluaga (13), Natasha Zvereva (1), Vera Zvonareva (11)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 263 Comings and Goings: On and Off the Rankings The following lists compare the ranking tables for 2001 and 2002, noting how many players have been added and subtracted. Note that this is not the same as the number of players who have turned pro or retired. Some players may go off the rankings because of injuries, others may reappear because they have recovered from injuries. And some have changed their names, and so will disappear from one list to reappear on the other (I have corrected some of these, e.g. Åsa Carlsson became Svensson. But there are bound to be some low-ranked players I’ve missed). In other cases, the WTA simply changes players’s names, presumably because they were misspelled when first entered in the database. I detected 17 such changes in 2002, but my “similarity checker” is not perfect and the WTA does not issue lists of these changes. So chances are that at least some players slipped past me. But this gives a general overview of how the numbers of ranked players has changed. Overall, the number of players is increasing, but the increase is not constant — there were 1079 ranked players at the end of the season in 1999; in 2000 there were 1242, an increase of 15%. But in 2001 the number fell again, to 1214. In 2002, the total rose again, to 1253. Note that the old WTA rankings lists clipped players’ names at 22 letters, and I have had to maintain this convention (for the most part) to allow comparison of old and new lists. Clipping, if it occurs, takes place in the first names, not the surnames. The first list, of players ranked only in 2001, shows the players in alphabetical order with their 2001 year- end rankings shown in parenthesis. The second list, of players ranked only in 2002, is similar: An alphabetical list, with 2002 final rankings in parenthesis. The final list, of players ranked in both years, is more complicated, as it allows ranking comparison. The list shows each player’s name, her 2002 final ranking, the net change in her ranking from 2001 to 2002, and the percent change. As an example of what we mean, take the first player on the list to end 2000 in the Top 100. That’s Greta Arn, and her entry reads

Greta Arn (91, +27, +23%) This means that Arn’s year-end 2002 ranking was #91. What’s more, she improved her ranking 27 spots (“+27”) from the end of 2001 to the end of 2002 (she had ended 2001 ranked #118). A positive number means the player moved up the rankings; a negative number means she moved down. The third number in the parentheses is her percentage movement — the real indicator of how the player did in the course of the year. Arn cut her ranking by 23%. If the number is negative, that means the player’s ranking increased (worsened) by the percentage shown.

If it matters, the biggest percentage improvements in ranking in 2002 were: Libuse Prusova, 89%; Vera Zvonareva, 88%; Myriam Casanova, Sybille Bammer, 84%; Svetlana Kuznetsova, Serena Williams, Dinara Safina, 83%; Anna Smashnova, 82%; Anastasia Myskina, 81%; no others better than 80%. The biggest percentage hits were suffered by Lindsay Davenport (ranking increased 1100%!), Joannette Kruger (876%), and Miroslava Vavrinec (719%) — all induced largely by injury.

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 264 Players ranked in 2001 but not in 2002, with their 2001 final rankings (total of 293): Charlotte Aagaard (1189), Duygu Aksit (1113), Irini Alevizopoulou (867), Anna Alexeeva (765), Patricia Almudever (1108), Carla Andrade (858), Catalina Angeleri (1050), Yasmin Angeli (469), Montika Anuchan (993), Yuki Arai (541), Tamara Aranda (866), Simona Arghire (833), Julia Arguello (1053), Claudia Argumedo (1173), Cristina Arribas (908), Merve Asimgil (1151), Eun-Young Ban (1090), Audrey Banada (692), Luisa Barcaui (1173), Lauren Barnikow (982), Katerina Basternakova (316), Carla Bastos (1164), Suzi Becvinovska (1207), Annika Bengtsson (1212), Bibi Berecz (1151), Marisol Berengeno (862), Helena Besovic (908), Katja Blocker (769), Kristy Blumberg (508), Nischela Boda Reddy (961), Branka Bojovic (930), Carine Bornu (391), Roberta Borrelli (1078), Megan Bradley (509), Brandis Braverman (699), Ann-Laure Brochard (1173), Helen Broome (1122), Kellie Browne (814), Erin Burdette (901), Asha Burns (1187), Adriana Burz (702), Ramona But (946), Dawn Buth (168), Cristina Cabello (1164), Beatri Cabrera Rosendo (476), Daniela Caljkusic (973), Donna Calvert (1208), Kristin Cargill (971), Jackie Carleton (1113), Chloe Carlotti (491), Debbie Carr (1202), Bianca Catay (1189), Lenka Cenkova (717), Nandita Chandrashekar (1084), Marina Chaves-Moledo (1189), Li Ling Chen (645), Yan Chen (639), Yu-An Chen (1151), Bo-Ra Choi (1008), Raluca Ciochina (456), Agata Cioroch (849), Amelie Cocheteux (1022), Lauren Colalillo (1164), Paloma Collantes (492), Sabrina Corazza (1008), Victoria Courmes (1025), Laurence Courtois (170), Catalina Cristea (340), Deenarose Cruz (1151), Anita Csendes (708), Dubravka Cupac (1041), Sabrina Damario (706), Victoria Davies (615), Julie Dawson (878), Julie De Roo (864), Stephanie De Ville (877), (544), Sonia Delgado (441), Marutha Devi (1084), Delpine Dewinne (514), Germana Di Natale (350), Giovanna Dilauro (1151), Ding Ding (792), Sarah Dinkelmann (1108), Rachel Dive (958), Csilla Dobo (1075), Ilie (129), Anat Elazari (914), Marina Escobar (888), Lamia Essaadi (625), Karen Fodera (1043), Pamela Fogel (1050), Ofra Fridman (1078), Helen Fritche (971), Candice Fuchs (927), Noelia Furno (1124), Natasha Galouza (611), Garcia, Ma. Alejandra (908), Iva Gersic (885), Diana Gherghi (666), Pamela Gonzalez Medina (919), Cynthia Goulet (1126), Sarah Gregg (991), Akiko Gunji (805), Kerry-Anne Guse (429), Karina Habsudova (126), Dinka Hadzic (749), Briana Harris (630), Tumeka Harris (725), Adrienn Hegedus (195), (793), Emily Hewson (538), Barbara Hoeflinger (1208), Denise Hofer (534), Nikolina Hrankova (1067), Camilla Hsu (1163), Anke Huber (18), Sonia Iacovacci (1186), Reiko Ino (1090), (676), Naoko Ishikawa (1113), (602), Karolina Jagieniak (246), Nadia Johnston (360), Mareze Joubert (857), Desanka Jovanovic (1144), Ivana Jovanovic (1164), Olga Kalioujnaia (623), Riei Kawamata (835), Ivana Kekez (967), Dina Khalil (1029), Kwon-Hee Kim (1113), Na-Eun Kim (1212), Su-Jin Kim (914), Natalie Ko (1026), Marketa Kochta (851), Raquel Kops-Jones (905), Tatiana Kovalchuk (235), Hana Kraftova (1151), Maria Kravchenko (1060), Tina Krizan (727), Petra Kucova (398), Satoko Kurioka (944), Agata Kurowska (794), Isha Lakhani (883), Landa, Ma. Fernanda (970), Pichaya Laosirichon (1008), Debbie Larocque (1113), Louise Latimer (317), Fang Li (723), Sae-Mi Lim (1067), Vanessa (1189), Ya-Ming Lin (1084), Yang Liu (1133), Anya Loncaric (1006), Lourdes Lopez (628), Marie-Fra Lord-Andrade (987), Marylene Losey (886), Kate Lutgert (982), Tetiana Luzanska (774), Nadzeja Lysak (1050), Mariana Macia (1189), Christa Magister (1212), Jennifer Magley (808), Diana Majkic (751), Karla Mancinas (1208), Radhika Mandke (852), Anja Margetic (1164), Mia Marovic (907), Ana Martin Ramirez (878), (185), Luciana Masante (381), Ana Maslesa (930), Andreea Matei (1189), Lucia Migliarni (463), Flavia Mignola (1084), Vanja Mikovic (1006), Mojca Mileta (1012), (388), Katalin Miskolczi (783), Britta Mohlmann (895), Amiella Mojzis (993), Mihaela Moldovan (845), Patty Murren (627), (832), Barbara Navarro (880), Caroline Neves (1144), Katrina Nimmers (555), Ayoko Noda (867), Ana Paula Novaes (798), Alison Ojeda (948), Jean Okada (450), Sabine Oristil (991), Barbara Orlay (665), Priscila Ortega (751), Alicia Ortuno (540), Daria Panova (721), Hannah Parker (1202), Sara Pasquinoni (1124), Karishma Patel (908), Nicola Payne (794), Radka Pelikanova (735), Cecilia Perez Audero (867), Nandini Perumal (1064), Melinda Petkes (1187), Marina Petrovic (571), Angela Piedrahita (1113), Rebecca Pike (841), Aline Pinheiro (1189), Elena Pioppo (861), Sarah Pitkowski- Malcor (161), Petra Plackova (1189), Marie-Pier Pouliot (1133), Inga Prodinger (1144), Petra Puheloinen (716), Caroline Raba (811), Zerene Reyes (987), Claire Ricketts (1208), Sarah Riske (802), Julieta Robin (892), Barbara Rosenberger (471), Evagelia Roussi (689), Paloma Ruiz-Blanco (1126), Nadejda Samoilo (1097), Amanda Sanches (1133), Laetitia Sanchez (1173), Rossella Sartore (1164), Martina Schiavo (1144), Lui Li Shen (688), Xia Sheng (800), Laila Shetty (1029), Julie Shiflet (895), Anouk Sinnige (1173), Ana Maria Sismondini (828), Neus Sole (1189), Tassia Sono (914), Jovana Stanisljevic (855), Lucie Steflova (768), Mandy Stegman (1202), Antonie Steinmetz (734), Dea Sumantri (557), Ayako Suzuki (695), Madoka Suzuki (1173), Krisel Sverko (1097), Giselle Swart (888), Tereza Szafnerova (973), Ayano Takeuchi (914), Lucia Tallo (908), Yan Tang (1078), Rita Tarjan (1103), Nathalie Tauziat (13), Romana Tedjakusuma (286), Christian Thompson (1151), Yamini Thukkaiandi (1053), Niki Tippins (1002), Virginia Tomatis (812), Nicola Trinder (680), Kristina Triska (707), Natalia Tsitouras (1133), Olena Tsutskova (1108), Motoe Uchida (984), Remi Uda (657), Nirupama Vaidyanathan (202), Zuzana Valekova (472), Sabrina Valenti (1064), Natasha Van Der Merwe (643), Lara Van Rooyen (477), Ludmilla Varmuza (559), Jyotsna Vasisht (651), Carine Vermeulen (930), Monique Viele (1084), Elisa Villa (631), Visnja Visnjic (1189), Natalia Volcova (874), Aleksandra Vucenovic (570), Elena Wagner (418), Sara Walker (789), Marion Walter (967), Eva Wang (918), Shi-Ting Wang (813), Jo Ward (604), Jolene Watanabe (319), Jenifer Widjaja (684), Douglas Wink (1202), Orawan Wongkamalasai (867), Nicola Woodhouse (701), Jie Xu (1173), Etsuko Yamada (1034), Bucke Yavuz (1078), Jing- Qian Yi (176), Yumi Yokoi (784), Nina Zlender (1024), Katarina Zoricic (1108)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 265 Players ranked in 2002 but not in 2001, with their 2002 final rankings (total of 331): Susanne Aigner (736), Christine Alford (961), Akgul Amanmuradova (816), Liza Andriyani (541), (647), Maria Jose Argeri (556), Marcela Arroyo (995), Magy Aziz (1161), Zsuzsana Babos (704), Emilie Bacquet (973), Alesa Bagola (1203), Petra Bajerovska (1020), Katharine Baker (1236), Katrina Bandere (856), Michaela Bartlova (944), Silvana Bauer (776), Anastassia Belova (1161), Olivia Beltrame (1027), Daniela Bercek (696), Serena Bergomi (1105), Audrey Bergot (1105), Bea Bielik (244), Katerina Bohmova (789), Valentina Bonacorsi (761), (744), Alice Botto (1092), Olga Brozda (844), Ajda Brumen (857), Yakaterina Burduli (969), (808), Cristina Celani (1065), Zuzana Cerna (589), Daria Chemarda (940), Yan-Chong Chen (1023), Lauren Cheung (566), Brenda Coassolo (759), Daniella Cohen (1138), Bruna Colosio (425), Juliana Cordero (1034), Avel Romaly Coronado (969), Liz Cruz (1070), Mirian Cruz (1033), Monika Dancevic (989), Rebecca Dandeniya (1042), Kristy Dascoli (664), Surina De Beer (942), Candice De La Torre (496), Delphine De Winne (862), Whitney Deason (873), (458), Servane Delobelle (1135), Larissa Deschamps (1161), Emilia Desiderio (682), Giovanna Di Lauro (1062), Sabrina Diniz (930), Marta Domachowska (356), Sylwia Domanska (1236), Vera Douchevina (494), Gianna Doz (779), Rui Du (849), Camille Dubois (1203), Stephanie Dubois (625), Alena Dvornikova (1105), Anastasia Dvornikova (721), (1005), (742), Neyssa Etienne (447), Megan Falcon (1105), Eva Fernandez-Brugues (706), Debbrich Feys (888), Francesca Flavell (1188), Zsuzsanna Fodor (831), Paula Fondevila Castro (699), Rebecca Fong (1178), Stacia Fonseca (1178), Lolita Frangulyan (733), Francesca Frappi (667), Rita Freitas (1188), Mariko Fritz-Krockow (1223), Ryoko Fuda (633), Haruka Fujishiro (984), Giulia Gabba (1001), Sevvy Gallios (1155), Chen-Chen Gao (949), Giulia Gatto Monticone (1099), Anna Gil Mares (1188), Lara Giltinan (1155), (375), Stephanie Greau (1038), Michelle Grobby (1203), Anna-Lena Groenefeld (561), (718), Meryem Haddad (1023), Naisumi Hamamura (1070), Samantha Hammond (1080), (851), Stephanie Hazlett (843), Chun-Yan He (868), Dee Dee Herring (896), Alex Hirsch (1223), Eva Hoch (872), Kika Hogendoorn (966), Christin Horiatopoulos (346), Lei Huang (1243), Laura-Ramona Husaru (797), Iris Ichim (1080), Tiziana Iezza (1124), Habiba Ifrakh (1138), Nelly Iglesias Vazquez (1220), Mari Inoue (948), Ivanna Isroilova (1161), Kazusa Ito (949), Darya Ivanov (735), Ekaterina Ivanova (694), Claire Jalade (1042), Ema Janaskova (448), Kristina Jarkenstedt (1016), Chun-Mei Ji (1070), Lucia Jimenez (981), Thamara Jonkman (1045), Diana Julianto (894), Wioletta Kaczmarek (1128), Olga Kalyuzhnaya (245), Tinatin Kavlashvili (889), Natasha Kersten (1243), Alexandra Kichoutkin (1161), Kim Kilsdonk (795), Ji-Young Kim (1042), So-Jung Kim (995), Nikoleta Kipritidou (1105), Maria Kirilenko (417), (1105), Etsuko Kitasaki (984), Elizabeth Kobak (1054), Andrea Koch (960), Daniela Kochetkova (1243), Arpi Kojian (755), Irina Kotkina (753), Breda Kovac (1118), Daniela Krejsova (1105), Lucie Kriegsmannova (723), Lucija Krzelj (624), Barbara Krzesinska (1223), Renata Kucerkova (910), Jeannine Kuratli (1197), Katherine Laidler (1013), Emma Laine (842), Po- Kuen Lam (1089), Gabriela Lastra (300), (274), Nicole Leimbach (1099), (606), Pascale Leroy (928), Dan Li (1065), Ivana Lisjak (439), Veronika Litvinskaya (1080), Dan-Feng Liu (1183), Wei-Juan Liu (571), Nicole Ludwig (1178), Barbora Machovska (1008), Alice Mackenzie (1016), Dorottya Magas (1008), Vittoria Maglio (729), Suzana Maksovic (1249), Zora Mark (1135), Joanne Mayne (1188), Jennifer Mcgaffigan (973), Alex Mcgoodwin (858), Holly Mckee (1203), Kirsty Mcrae (1196), Sabina Mediano (594), Michaela Michalkova (905), Ana Migliarini De Leon (393), (873), Juanas Miras Navarro (1128), Aurelija Miseviciute (555), Noha Mohsen (1099), Kara Molony-Hussey (712), Sylvia Montero (1011), Micaela Moran (629), Marinet Morgan (1243), Irina Mourachkintseva (1080), Danijela Murselovic (1203), Kamini Murugaboopathy (1034), Chie Nagano (1045), Mhari Neish (1183), Virag Nemeth (462), Yana Nemirowski (1065), Kim Anh Nguyen (919), Gabriela Niculescu (954), (875), Karolina Nowak (1178), Katie O'brien (693), Elsa O'riain (397), Alejandra Obregon (1203), Femi Odeyemi Musa (1054), Dragana Ognenovska (1159), Gemma Olle (758), Carolina Olmo (1128), (804), Ana Gloria Osorio (1105), Maika Ozaki (518), Nika Ozegovic (775), Pemra Ozgen (1099), Natalia Papadopolou (1203), Lour Pascual Rodriguez (937), Martina Pavelec (1223), Nada Pavic (576), Shahar Peer (832), Maria Penkova (620), Anne Linn Perez (978), Stefania Pesce (1065), Klara Petersson (1155), Carmen Pinto (1243), Tzvetana Pironkova (553), Ioana Plesu (826), Barbara Pocza (1027), Anna Pogosova (1203), Elena Poliakova (1080), Alexandra Popa (972), Olga Poutchkova (748), Eleonora Punzo (1197), Federica Quercia (993), Sarah Raab (968), Ana Milena Ramirez (1005), Nicoleta Ratiu (995), Karolina Rejniak (1223), Azra Resic (1223), Jodie Richardson (1249), Laura Ritchey-Thomas (1054), Laura Rocchi (848), Mabel Rodriguez (1128), Jacquelyn Rosen (530), (725), Julie Rotondi (1034), Eveline Rusdianto (1203), Katia Sabate (991), Nuria Sanchez Garcia (940), Ina Sartz (949), Tina Schmassmann (849), Pascale Schnitzer (1203), Darina Sedenkova (864), Marija Serdarusic (1236), Chrissie Seredni (962), Delia Sescioreanu (443), Eva Sestakova (845), Meta Sevsek (1142), Nicole Shabaz (1142), Maria Sharapova (186), Sakiko Shimizu (1203), Ekaterina Shulaeva (1161), Tadeja Sibila-Mojzer (1197), (1235), Natasa Sijakovic (954), Malgorzata Silka (1092), Fernanda Silva (1177), Neuza Silva (710), Marta Simic (899), Katarzyna Siwosz (806), Brooke Skeen (878), Irina Smirnova (936), Linda Smolenakova (599), Sarka Snorova (1161), Ivana Sokac (1119), Adriana Solarova (740), Shan-Shan Song (1142), (931), Lina Stanciute (818), Claudia Strauss (1142), Barbora Strycova (222), Valentina Sulpizio (782), Sheng-Nan Sun (1031), Eun Hee Sung (1203), Lan Lan Tai (1161), Tomoyo Takagishi (1001), Kokoro Takehara (1001), Elise Tamaela (1031), Shiho Tanaka (886), Natalie Tanevska (1203), Montinee Tangphong (876), Gaelle Taton (521), Anne Tchakvetadze (756), Katerina Teplizki (1070),

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 266 Ma. Alessandra Termini (1249), Sanja Todorovic (1092), Keiko Tokuda (922), Marta Torres Torres (1223), Cindy Tow (862), Vladimira Uhlirova (717), Julia Ustyuzhanina (1142), Tatsian Uvarova (455), Dominique Van Boekel (1080), Daphne Van De Zande (639), Krist Van Den Tillaart (1052), Cora Vasilescu (1161), Verdiana Verardi (944), Nadege Vergos (1183), Catalina Villegas (1142), Alexia Virgili (823), Thassha Vitayaviroj (892), Mirela Vladulescu (722), Sandra Volk (713), Ana Vrljic (492), Astrid Waernes (622), Julie Ann Welford (1223), Vanessa Wellauer (1092), Jessica Weyreuter (938), Anna White (1065), Sarah Witten (935), Jasmin Woehr (307), Pauline Wong (954), (569), Georgette Wright (971), Wen-Hao Wu (984), Ling Yan (1070), Shu-Jing Yang (868), Kanako Yano (1070), (828), Jia Bao Yin (1203), Viviana Yrureta (1161), Dan Yu (868), Meng Yuan (984), Qing Yue (1124), Carla Zabaleta (1161), Riza Zalameda (909), Anna Zaporozhanova (792), Yao Zhang (918), Efrat Zlotikman (1142), Agnese Zucchini (1188), Ana Maria Zuleta (1034), Emma Zuleta (1054), Hilda Zuleta (1099)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 267 Players ranked in both 2001 and 2002 (total of 935): Evghenia Ablovatchi (592, -9, -2%), Ivana Abramovic (352, +403, +53%), Monica Acosta (1012, -174, -21%), (854, -523, -158%), Gaelle Adda (1045, +0, +0%), Katia Afinogenova (564, +147, +21%), Lucie Ahl (203, -3, -2%), Linda Akkerman (1203, -570, -90%), Joanne Akl (861, +63, +7%), Inga Albers (1052, -741, -238%), Tracy Almeda-singian (687, -455, -196%), Katia Altilia (590, +363, +38%), Daniela Alvarez (794, +30, +4%), Maria Fernanda Alves (294, +18, +6%), Michal Amir (938, +213, +19%), Anca Anastasiu (1197, -533, -80%), Mari Andersson (1020, +83, +8%), Rosa Maria Andres (411, -117, -40%), Laurence Andretto (207, -51, -33%), Jody Anglin (881, +2, +0%), Maret Ani (181, +43, +19%), Marina Aniutin (949, +37, +4%), Olena Antypina (384, +99, +20%), Kaori Aoyama (341, +61, +15%), Saras Arasu (962, -175, -22%), Czarina Mae Arevalo (1236, -202, -20%), Melisa Arevalo (328, -1, +0%), Greta Arn (91, +27, +23%), Severine Arpajou (895, -353, -65%), Sofia Arvidsson (167, +320, +66%), Shinobu Asagoe (97, +11, +10%), Teryn Ashley (195, +140, +42%), Miyako Ataka (1061, -289, -37%), (536, -144, -37%), Cory Ann Avants (360, -26, -8%), Livia Azzi (777, -159, -26%), Martina Babakova (489, +118, +19%), Julia Babilon (1142, -341, -43%), Lubomira Bacheva (158, -44, -39%), Angelika Bachmann (198, -4, -2%), Elisabeth Bahn (578, +248, +30%), Ally Baker (313, +117, +27%), Gabrielle Baker (654, +289, +31%), (367, +28, +7%), Marilyn Baker (784, -193, -33%), Liana Balaci (483, +200, +29%), Giulia Baldoni (731, +98, +12%), Elisa Balsamo (559, +145, +21%), Elena Baltacha (157, +85, +35%), Sybille Bammer (176, +914, +84%), Laura Bao (534, -124, -30%), Olga Barabanschikova (179, +602, +77%), Heli Bargil (703, +61, +8%), Adriana Barna (276, -70, -34%), Anca Barna (62, +48, +44%), Alice Barnes (1105, -409, -59%), Cassandra Barr (902, +95, +10%), Jorgelina Barrera (677, -42, - 7%), Marion Bartoli (106, +239, +69%), Adriana Basaric (497, -118, -31%), Yvette Basting (1119, -929, -489%), Anna Bastrikova (314, +105, +25%), Caroline Ann Basu (464, +172, +27%), Daja Bedanova (37, -9, -32%), Celine Beigbeder (146, -45, -45%), Jenny Belobrajdic (306, +93, +23%), Severine Beltrame (238, +101, +30%), Sana Ben Salah (1161, -90, - 8%), Iveta Benesova (81, +111, +58%), Whitney Benik (543, +469, +46%), Susi Bensch (932, -351, -60%), Segolene Berger (649, -352, -119%), Marina Bernshtein (883, +119, +12%), Melissa Berry (714, -141, -25%), Eva Bes (164, -65, -66%), Yulia Beygelzimer (165, +187, +53%), Ankita Bhambri (769, +191, +20%), Raffaella Bindi (549, +125, +19%), Fernanda Bini (1105, -212, -24%), Eva Birnerova (215, +157, +42%), Cara Black (56, +2, +3%), Olga Blahotova (232, -20, -9%), Kathleen Blaszak (877, +274, +24%), Annabel Blow (933, -507, -119%), Maria Boboedova (1045, -535, -105%), Natalia Bogdanova (739, -154, -26%), Alyona Bondarenko (191, +187, +49%), Katerina Bondarenko (813, +14, +2%), Valeria Bondarenko (657, +176, +21%), Kristie Boogert (140, +6, +4%), Olga Borisova (1119, -329, -42%), Sandrine Bouilleau (851, -211, -33%), Irina Boulykina (437, +585, +57%), Elena Bovina (26, +23, +47%), Svetla Bozicnik (899, +97, +10%), Ivana Bracun (607, +366, +38%), Allison Bradshaw (259, -115, -80%), Kristina Brandi (189, -108, -133%), (451, +367, +45%), Lauren Breadmore (433, +533, +55%), (386, -103, -36%), Maria Eugenia Brito (669, -94, -16%), Diana Brunel (705, -258, -58%), Giorgia Buchanan (1128, -50, -5%), Mia Buric (407, -151, -59%), (392, -43, -12%), Sandra Cacic (325, -225, -225%), Marina Caiazzo (385, +641, +62%), Bree Calderwood (907, +70, +7%), Els Callens (67, +93, +58%), Maria Elena Camerin (123, -10, -9%), (692, -240, -53%), Jennifer Capriati (3, -1, -50%), Fernanda Caputi (841, +272, +24%), Angela Cardoso (954, -209, -28%), Marina Cardoso (809, +119, +13%), Ansley Cargill (125, +108, +46%), Deborak Carmassi (1221, -77, -7%), Larissa Carvalho (529, +35, +6%), (650, -123, -23%), Myriam Casanova (54, +288, +84%), Giulia Casoni (342, -58, -20%), Catalina Castano (201, -79, -65%), Leslie Cavanaugh (1105, -126, -13%), Ludmila Cervanova (107, -16, -18%), Petra Cetkovska (253, +410, +62%), Ana Cetnik (1119, -66, -6%), Kyung Yee Chae (780, -411, -111%), Margalit Chakhnashvili (249, +253, +50%), Rushmi Chakravarti (390, +64, +14%), Chin-Wei Chan (805, +58, +7%), Kyung-Mi Chang (316, +432, +58%), Hsiao-han Chao (834, -50, -6%), Courtenay Chapman (524, -30, -6%), (544, +206, +27%), (254, -91, -56%), Eugenia Chialvo (1203, -845, -236%), Stefania Chieppa (701, +32, +4%), Denisa Chladkova (63, -13, -26%), Yoon Jeong Cho (84, +35, +29%), Jin-young Choi (558, -107, -24%), Young-ja Choi (389, -140, -56%), Wilawan Choptang (778, -38, -5%), Chia-jung Chuang (469, +274, +37%), Yang-jin Chung (773, -217, -39%), Erika Clarke (637, -71, -13%), Nicole Clerico (902, -132, -17%), Elke Clijsters (675, +86, +11%), Kim Clijsters (4, +1, +20%), Tanner Cochran (266, +413, +61%), Amanda Coetzer (21, -2, -11%), Stephanie Cohen Aloro (170, +112, +40%), Alyssa Cohen (350, +18, +5%), Julie Coin (732, -72, -11%), Hannah Collin (324, -46, -17%), Caitlin Collins (1045, -27, -3%), Isabel Collischonn (542, +54, +9%), Mariana Conde (1188, -378, -47%), Celeste Contin (387, +261, +40%), Chantal Coombs (621, +441, +42%), Annica Cooper (1030, -552, -115%), Mariana Correa (678, -9, -1%), (453, -228, -101%), Diana Costa (727, +95, +12%), Kim Coventry (1159, -98, -9%), Luisa Cowper (772, +361, +32%), Jorgelina Cravero (263, +151, +36%), Jill Craybas (57, +36, +39%), Bianca Cremer (617, -85, -16%), (353, +3, +1%), Olivia Crouchent (690, -305, - 79%), Veronika Ctvrtnickova (623, +91, +13%), (1142, -89, -8%), Melinda Czink (178, +144, +45%), Tiffany Dabek (212, +124, +37%), Eleni Daniilidou (22, +62, +74%), Katarina Daskovic (251, +15, +6%), Michelle Dasso (535, +499, +48%), Lindsay Davenport (12, -11, -1100%), Dewonder Davis (1135, -92, -9%), Inge De Geest (959, -141, -17%), Erika De Lone (160, +21, +12%), (20, +24, +55%), Rita Degliesposti (355, +87, +20%), Liga Dekmeijere (288, +171, +37%), Lara Del Saz (1142, +22, +2%), Irina Delitz (548, +181, +25%), Laura Dell'angelo (305, +36, +11%), Elena Dementieva (19, -4, -27%), Kun Deng (1005, -64, -7%), Aurore Desert (724, -181, -33%), Vanessa Devesa (1039, - 617, -146%), Salome Devidze (399, +566, +59%), Jana Deylova (912, +232, +20%), Shruti Dhawan (902, -264, -41%), (445, -137, -44%), Mariana Diaz-oliva (89, -36, -68%), Dominika Dieskova (1070, +63, +6%),

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 268 Amy Dillingham (867, +137, +14%), Silvia Disderi (398, -25, -7%), Mireille Dittmann (246, -36, -17%), (421, +229, +35%), Petra Dizdar (612, -6, -1%), Lenka Dlhopolcova (416, -242, -139%), Jelena Dokic (9, -1, -13%), Lourdes Dominguez Lino (420, -43, -11%), Evie Dominikovic (119, -46, -63%), Yanhua Dong (765, -43, -6%), Tomoko Doukei (791, +49, +6%), Melissa Dowse (321, -36, -13%), Yvonne Doyle (340, +68, +17%), Maureen Drake (96, +83, +46%), Nina Duebbers (200, -11, -6%), Bianca-mihael Dulgheru (1203, -331, -38%), Gisela Dulko (152, +36, +19%), Amandine Dulon (231, +174, +43%), Eva Dyrberg (102, +35, +26%), Ekaterina Dzehalevich (742, +329, +31%), Natallia Dziamidzenka (515, +301, +37%), Emmanuelle Edon (426, +166, +28%), Nina Egger (781, -295, -61%), (1223, -826, - 208%), Sabrina Eisenberg (463, -1, +0%), Helena Ejeson (490, +122, +20%), Annabel Ellwood (1027, -858, -508%), Jennifer Embry (472, -119, -34%), Megan Emmett (993, +101, +9%), Adria Engel (585, -80, -16%), Eva Erbova (613, +84, +12%), Anna Erikson (823, +174, +17%), Sophie Erre (322, -48, -18%), Pilar Escandell (725, +80, +10%), Mariana Esperon (1020, -101, -11%), Feriel Esseghir (442, -39, -10%), Franziska Etzel (688, +263, +28%), Marcela Evangelista (554, -3, - 1%), Romy Farah (538, +248, +32%), Yomna Farid (768, +266, +26%), Silvia Farina Elia (17, -3, -21%), Goulna Fattakhetdinova (312, +13, +4%), Michelle Faucher (507, -150, -42%), Evelyn Fauth (169, -17, -11%), Yuliana Fedak (192, +253, +57%), Clarisa Fernandez (31, +93, +75%), Jessica Fernandez (357, -93, -35%), Jennifer Fiers (829, -213, -35%), Laura Figuerola (577, +317, +35%), Susanne Filipp (799, -60, -8%), Eva Fislova (141, +77, +35%), Christina Fitz (344, +224, +39%), (560, +566, +50%), (382, -18, -5%), Galina Fokina (210, +9, +4%), Anna Foldenyi (752, +120, +14%), Anna Font (628, -54, -9%), Stephanie Foretz (79, +48, +38%), Yamile Fors (892, -10, -1%), (378, +208, +35%), Celine Francois (891, +242, +21%), Amy Frazier (39, +9, +19%), Brandi Freudenberg (962, -433, -82%), Kirstin Freye (537, -71, -15%), Lisa Fritz (659, -210, -47%), Jacqueline Froehlich (582, +35, +6%), Rika Fujiwara (185, -57, -45%), Alexandra Fusai (196, -55, -39%), Emmanuelle Gagliardi (61, +8, +12%), Mar Gallifa Puigdesens (410, +79, +16%), Gemma Gallo Gomez (618, +43, +7%), Edina Gallovits (204, +87, +30%), Elena Gancheva (1092, -146, -15%), Julia Gandia (661, +292, +31%), Tathiana Garbin (72, +18, +20%), Vanina Garcia Sokol (470, +149, +24%), Paula Garcia (261, +85, +25%), Martha Garzon-elkins (1088, -379, -53%), Ioana Gaspar (978, -669, -217%), Stephanie Gehrlein (291, +98, +25%), Sophie Georges (557, -309, -125%), Michelle Gerards (461, +393, +46%), Melanie Gerbasi (1154, -41, -4%), Iveta Gerlova (477, +557, +54%), Ilke Gers (479, -95, -25%), Adriana Gersi (351, -274, -356%), Maria Geznenge (221, +36, +14%), Lea Ghirardi (413, -197, -91%), Michelle Giang (1010, -193, -24%), Andrea Glass (241, -136, -130%), Yael Glitzenshtein (642, +117, +15%), Mireia Gol Alamo (1054, -13, -1%), Oana-elen Golimbioschi (371, - 69, -23%), Maria Goloviznina (147, +81, +36%), Ainhoa Goni (252, -109, -76%), Adriana Gonzalez Penas (531, +503, +49%), Raissa Gourevitch (527, -83, -19%), Sheethal Goutham (674, -33, -5%), Amanda Grahame (161, +126, +44%), Rita Grande (46, -22, -92%), (272, -33, -14%), (690, -81, -13%), Laura Granville (47, +180, +79%), Cristelle Grier (707, -327, -86%), Magdalena Grzybowska (394, +501, +56%), Zsofia Gubacsi (122, -19, -18%), Sheila Guerberg (1124, -285, -34%), Paula Guerrero (1197, -575, -92%), Natalia Gussoni (219, +216, +50%), Ji-sun Ha (1070, +33, +3%), Debby Haak (1243, -483, -64%), Stefanie Haidner (337, +22, +6%), Daniela Hantuchova (8, +30, +79%), Jie Hao (686, +213, +24%), Ashley Harkleroad (115, +150, +57%), (683, +346, +34%), Laura Heckler (1138, - 159, -16%), Silvia Hegedis (689, -228, -49%), Ines Heise (1089, -604, -125%), Anne-laure Heitz (271, -54, -25%), Zuzana Hejdova (239, +193, +45%), Frances Hendry (1016, -53, -6%), Justine Hénin (5, +2, +29%), Vanessa Henke (180, +49, +21%), Tina Hergold (308, +250, +45%), Andrea Hermansen (847, -24, -3%), Audrey Hernandez (685, +441, +39%), Stefanie Hershfield (898, +58, +6%), Jaslyn Hewitt (370, +78, +17%), Martina Hingis (10, -6, -150%), (574, - 230, -67%), Tanja Hirschauer (651, +287, +31%), (335, -80, -31%), Klara Hladka (1223, -97, -9%), Jana Hlavackova (293, -59, -25%), Carly Homewood (671, +452, +40%), Da-jung Hong (661, +269, +29%), Marielle Hoogland (284, -34, -14%), Jennifer Hopkins (139, -82, -144%), (281, -117, -71%), Christiane Hoppmann (565, +88, +13%), Naoko Horikawa (719, +229, +24%), Kveta Hrdlickova (145, -59, -69%), Stanislava Hrozenska (162, +109, +40%), Su-wei Hsieh (262, -97, -59%), Liezel Huber (220, -40, -22%), Janette Husarova (33, +42, +56%), Kelley Hyndman (711, +219, +24%), (513, +12, +2%), Dragana Ilic (1040, -190, -22%), Elisa Innocenti (1013, -8, -1%), Haruka Inoue (406, -152, -60%), (597, -115, -24%), Karine Ionesco (730, +66, +8%), Marissa Irvin (85, -21, - 33%), Chisayo Ito (380, +95, +20%), Claudia Ivone (432, +64, +13%), Karina Jacobsgaard (580, -63, -12%), Amanda Janes (810, -222, -38%), Jelena Jankovic (194, +167, +46%), Klaudia Jans (698, +281, +29%), Jayalakshmy, J. Sai(484, +92, +16%), Mi-ra Jeon (137, +132, +49%), Adriana Jerabek (501, -111, -28%), (512, -179, -54%), Alina Jidkova (87, +20, +19%), Mathilde Johansson (514, +134, +21%), Dragica Joksimovic (695, -90, -15%), Sabrina Jolk (408, +200, +33%), La Shawnn Jones (1023, -56, -6%), Ana Jovanovic (418, +456, +52%), Mervana Jugic-salkic (438, +55, +11%), Sanja Jukic (962, -204, -27%), Yoo-mi Jung (800, -54, -7%), Mariana Junqueira (864, +239, +22%), (403, +251, +38%), Katarina Kachlikova (591, +409, +41%), (434, +84, +16%), Kim Kambic (563, +169, +23%), Bianca Kamper (619, -97, -19%), Tara Kanbargimath (1236, -249, -25%), Jana Kandarr (130, -59, -83%), Kaia Kanepi (283, -80, -39%), Asimina Kaplani (981, -43, -5%), Aniko Kapros (105, +6, +5%), Claudia Kardys (436, +504, +54%), Karina Karner (836, -242, -41%), Oxana Karyshkova (216, +98, +31%), Shizu Katsumi (567, +215, +27%), Anne Keothavong (233, +35, +13%), Amani Khalifa (912, +277, +23%), Chin Bee Khoo (614, +110, +15%), Eun-ha Kim (336, - 138, -70%), Eun-kyung Kim (1128, -286, -34%), Eun-sook Kim (757, +57, +7%), Jin-hee Kim (298, +118, +28%), Mi-ok Kim (771, +77, +9%), Akiko Kinebuchi (441, +80, +15%), Satomi Kinjo (377, +129, +25%),

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 269 Yumiko Kitamura (480, 73, 18%), Daniela Kix (468, +122, +21%), Sabine Klaschka (240, -29, -14%), Sandra Kleinova (136, -15, -12%), Daniela Klemenschits (481, -88, -22%), (476, -152, -47%), Sandra Kloesel (143, +285, +67%), Beier Ko (485, +208, +30%), Annette Kolb (811, -307, -61%), Renata Kolbovic (285, -5, -2%), Hiroko Komori (1092, -39, -4%), Maria Kondratieva (280, +20, +7%), Milica Koprivica (500, +84, +14%), Irina Kornienko (1188, - 681, -134%), Alexandra Korotkevich (746, +405, +35%), Caroline Korsawe (615, +558, +48%), (465, +193, +29%), Jelena Kostanic (71, +62, +47%), Alexandra Kostikova (817, +109, +12%), Klara Koukalova (120, +18, +13%), Evgenia Koulikovskaya (112, +24, +18%), Anna Kournikova (35, +39, +53%), Marijana Kovacevic (547, -36, -7%), Ekaterina Kozhokina (391, -98, -33%), Hanna Krampe (478, +593, +55%), Lina Krasnoroutskaya (175, -141, -415%), Dimana Krastevitch (466, +83, +15%), Kristina Kraszewski (790, +8, +1%), (427, -76, -22%), Vanesa Krauth (678, -440, -185%), Monika Krauze (1161, -64, -6%), Alexandra Kravets (255, +284, +53%), Eva Krejcova (289, -85, - 42%), Anne Kremer (25, +8, +24%), Camilla Kremer (412, -42, -11%), Kavitha Krishnamurthy (1080, +109, +9%), Svetlana Krivencheva (217, +3, +1%), (568, +46, +7%), Joannette Kruger (449, -403, -876%), Gabrielle Kucerova (943, -567, -151%), Magdalena Kucerova (645, -346, -116%), Renata Kucerova (668, -243, -57%), Zuzana Kucova (218, +52, +19%), Jenny Kuehn (924, +76, +8%), Claudia Kuleszka (459, +213, +32%), Blanka Kumbarova (681, - 153, -29%), Maria Kunova (594, +209, +26%), Lubomira Kurhajcova (109, +105, +49%), Iryna Kuryanovich (765, +269, +26%), Daria Kustava (388, +325, +46%), Rita Kuti Kis (168, -88, -110%), Svetlana Kuznetsova (43, +216, +83%), Bianka Lamade (223, -156, -233%), Magalie Lamarre (927, -382, -70%), Charlotta Larsson (890, +1, +0%), Anais Laurendon (419, +557, +57%), Olga Lazarchuk (460, +137, +23%), Marina Lazarovska (978, -399, -69%), Elodie Lebescond (330, -42, - 15%), An-na Lee (934, -81, -9%), Eun-jeong Lee (741, -96, -15%), Janet Lee (205, -90, -78%), Joo-hee Lee (1070, -212, - 25%), Lindsay Lee-waters (121, +412, +77%), Sophie Lefevre (319, +139, +30%), Gala Leon Garcia (129, -88, -215%), Zuzana Lesenarova (926, -613, -196%), Na Li (277, +26, +9%), Ting Li (807, -270, -50%), Edita Liachoviciute (671, +10, +1%), Kelly Liggan (213, +39, +15%), Elena Likhovtseva (42, -6, -17%), Alexandria Liles (803, -15, -2%), Jenny Lindstrom (562, +282, +33%), Eugenia Linetskaya (737, -46, -7%), Amber Liu (415, +285, +41%), Jing-jing Liu (605, -36, -6%), Nannan Liu (297, -22, -8%), Nuria Llagostera Vives (193, -97, -101%), Salome Llaguno (883, -189, -27%), Rebecca Llewellyn (976, +91, +9%), Nancy Loeffler-caro (975, -255, -35%), Susi Lohrmann (1087, -500, -85%), Emilie Loit (58, +36, +38%), Jennie Loow (860, +243, +22%), Marian Lopez Terribile (1188, -117, -11%), Marie-jose Lopez (1045, -19, - 2%), (211, +10, +5%), Mirjana Lucic (202, -11, -6%), Dominika Luzarova (279, +83, +23%), Heesun Lyoo-suh (915, +249, +21%), Stephanie Mabry (1138, -468, -70%), Jana Macurova (516, -77, -18%), (250, +93, +27%), Marnie Mahler (669, +135, +17%), Iva Majoli (32, +10, +24%), Borka Majstorovic (446, +359, +45%), Magdalena Maleeva (14, +2, +13%), (365, -28, -8%), Sanda Mamic (550, -27, -5%), Petra Mandula (90, -28, -45%), Geeta Manohar (820, +110, +12%), Ruxandra Marin (596, +130, +18%), Sharon Marin (839, +258, +24%), Emily Marker (734, +295, +29%), Melanie Marois (329, +338, +51%), Katalin Marosi (148, +6, +4%), Marta Marrero (86, -25, -41%), Magdalena Marszalek (812, +44, +5%), Eva Martincova (260, -19, -8%), Conc Martinez Granados (94, +64, +41%), Conchita Martinez (34, +1, +3%), Maria Jose Martinez (278, -186, -202%), Sandra Martinovic (854, -179, -27%), Andrea Masarykova (635, -35, -6%), Monica Mastan (593, -43, -8%), Simona Matei (684, +489, +42%), Maja Matevzic (51, +28, +35%), Diane Matias (793, -40, -5%), Antonia Matic (506, +251, +33%), Bethanie Mattek (270, +68, +20%), Amelie Mauresmo (6, +3, +33%), Kelly Mc Cain (338, +79, +19%), Donna Mc Intyre (1221, -458, -60%), Katie Mcglennen (1119, -55, -5%), Rachel McQuillan (208, -138, -197%), Lisa McShea (327, -96, -42%), Anabe Medina Garrigues (116, -51, -78%), Nicole Melch (551, -188, -52%), (428, -46, -12%), Jolanda Mens (301, +246, +45%), Giulia Meruzzi (440, +63, +13%), Yvonne Meusburger (347, +315, +48%), Jennifer Miccoli (995, -186, -23%), Melissa Middleton (510, - 200, -65%), (362, -95, -36%), Neda Mihneva (813, +95, +10%), Marie-gaianeh Mikaelian (44, +34, +44%), Dina Milosevic (762, +16, +2%), Meritxell Mimo (583, +49, +8%), Marta Mir Portell (651, +272, +29%), (837, +150, +15%), Isabella Mitterlehner (749, -196, -35%), Nana Miyagi (267, -37, -16%), Alicia Molik (100, -53, - 113%), Eszter Molnar (303, -30, -11%), Giorgia Mondani (491, +195, +28%), Angeles Montolio (133, -110, -478%), Joanne Moore (450, -83, -23%), Milangela Morales (475, +88, +16%), Corina Morariu (400, -229, -134%), Elsa Morel (287, +9, +3%), Akiko Morigami (134, +63, +32%), Giorgia Mortello (396, +230, +37%), Svetlana Mossiakova (796, -81, -11%), Bahia Mouhtassine (149, +26, +15%), Karla Mraz (504, +183, +27%), Muller V. Leonn Moppes (774, -43, -6%), Martina Müller (70, +34, +33%), Daniela Munoz (702, +431, +38%), Trudi Musgrave (282, +50, +15%), Anastasia Myskina (11, +48, +81%), Wei Na (1161, -225, -24%), Sandra Nacuk (522, -317, -155%), Kyra Nagy (229, -62, -37%), Henrieta Nagyova (59, -34, -136%), Chiaki Nakajima (767, +162, +17%), (310, +481, +61%), Ljiljana Nanusevic (762, -214, -39%), Alison Nash (911, -414, -83%), Andrea Nathan (822, -386, -89%), Gabriela Navratilova (304, +134, +31%), Anna Eugenia Nefedova (819, -107, -15%), Ross Neffa-de Los Rios (88, -37, -73%), Jana Nejedly (236, -141, -148%), Milena Nekvapilova (728, -374, -106%), Lenka Nemeckova (187, -55, -42%), Natalie Neri (785, +311, +28%), Lioudmila Nikoian (1054, -97, -10%), Nina Nittinger (738, -118, -19%), Dominika Nociarova (383, +635, +62%), Ana Nogueira (640, -127, - 25%), Pavlina Nola (320, -186, -139%), (505, +548, +52%), Seda Noorlander (155, -49, -46%), Helena Norfeldt (675, +451, +40%), Irena Nossenko (604, +226, +27%), Candela Novoa (949, -184, -24%), Lenka Novotna (467, - 58, -14%), Petra Novotnikova (1105, -330, -43%), Karen Nugent (1128, -298, -36%), Edith Nunes (833, -354, -74%), Yanet Nunez (760, +76, +9%), Tracey O'connor (545, -102, -23%), Jane O'donoghue (295, +179, +38%),

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 270 Saori Obata (108, +8, +7%), Tzipora Obziler (190, +439, +70%), Eun-mi Oh (1142, -369, -48%), Seiko Okamoto (309, +222, +42%), Hiromi Okazaki (866, +142, +14%), Daniela Olivera (414, -167, -68%), Zuzana Ondraskova (128, +68, +35%), Miriam Oremans (124, -39, -46%), Diana Ospina (457, -127, -38%), Ekaterina Ostapenko (800, +158, +16%), Lilia Osterloh (156, -101, -184%), Nadejda Ostrovskaya (177, +9, +5%), Maja Palaversic Coopersmith (248, -123, -98%), Karin Palme (546, +192, +26%), Antoaneta Pandjerova (290, -47, -19%), Jelena Pandzic (401, +32, +7%), Tatiana Panova (23, +17, +43%), Holly Parkinson (634, -451, -246%), Arantxa Parra (184, +122, +40%), Michaela Pastikova (230, -75, -48%), (708, -71, -11%), Alena Paulenkova (887, -448, -102%), Maria Pavlidou (631, -79, -14%), Biljana Pavlova (575, -29, -5%), Marie-eve Pelletier (159, -14, -10%), Ingrid Peltier (1092, -108, -11%), Flavia Pennetta (95, +194, +67%), Tatiana Perebiynis (114, +34, +23%), Liza Pereira (1001, -155, -18%), (268, +342, +56%), Jewel Peterson (897, -141, -19%), Nadia Petrova (111, -72, -185%), Elena Petrucciano (1062, +111, +9%), Sonal Phadke (627, +51, +8%), Virginia Pichet (258, +432, +63%), Frederica Piedade (368, +221, +38%), Mary Pierce (52, +78, +60%), Camille Pin (135, +43, +24%), Tina Pisnik (48, +15, +24%), Nicole Pitts (976, -375, -62%), Gloria Pizzichini (256, -34, -15%), (376, -194, -107%), Tihana Pochobradsky (508, +335, +40%), Barbara Polidoro (1070, +63, +6%), Ilona Poljakova (788, -318, -68%), Lana Popadic (334, +87, +21%), Lenka Potocarova (1236, -142, -13%), Tatiana Poutchek (99, -23, - 30%), Monica Poveda (1249, -402, -47%), Wynne Prakusya (104, -16, -18%), Nicole Pratt (49, +3, +6%), Ariela Primo (880, +204, +19%), Libuse Prusova (103, +860, +89%), Julie Pullin (197, -35, -22%), Cecilia Quarracino (846, -66, -8%), Veronika Raimrova (834, -410, -97%), Mariam Ramon Climent (343, -51, -17%), (430, -107, -33%), Dally Randriantefy (93, +46, +33%), Natacha Randriantefy (345, +29, +8%), Rebecca Rankin (946, +83, +8%), Preeti Rao (1054, +72, +6%), Sunitha Rao (234, +212, +48%), Prariyawan Ratanakrong (523, +274, +34%), Lisa Raymond (29, -7, -32%), Virginie Razzano (76, -4, -6%), Samantha Reeves (101, +16, +14%), Celine Regnier (1023, -82, -9%), Lyndsay Reilly (666, +19, +3%), Nicole Remis (495, +281, +36%), (317, -16, -5%), (585, -332, -131%), Brie Rippner (151, +139, +48%), Barbara Rittner (66, +2, +3%), Alejandra Rivero (641, -111, -21%), Florencia Rivolta (853, - 176, -26%), Veronica Rizhik (632, +2, +0%), Stephanie Rizzi (257, +170, +40%), Deanna Roberts (423, +720, +63%), Shadisha Robinson (608, +139, +19%), Anastassia Rodionova (117, +76, +39%), Carolina Rodriguez (947, -435, -85%), Angelika Roesch (80, +67, +46%), Nuria Roig (966, +110, +10%), (821, +83, +9%), Rochelle Rosenfield (520, -165, -46%), Desiree Roset Torres (1223, -72, -6%), Capucine Rousseau (349, +62, +15%), Virginia Ruano Pascual (65, -9, -16%), Chanda Rubin (13, +41, +76%), Petra Russegger (275, +46, +14%), Nancy Rustignoli (1099, -54, -5%), Margit Ruutel (663, -162, -32%), Miho Saeki (199, -26, -15%), Dinara Safina (68, +326, +83%), Misae Sakai (1045, +0, +0%), Joanna Sakowicz (264, +296, +53%), Ana Salas (636, -202, -47%), Salerni, Ma. Emilia(127, -4, -3%), Carolina Salge (1142, +47, +4%), Claudia Salgues (1183, -442, -60%), Mariela Salinas (658, +360, +35%), Daniela Salomon (532, +35, +6%), Florencia Salvadores (750, -31, -4%), Sanchez Alayeto, Ma. Jo(373, +298, +44%), Sanchez Alayeto, Ma. Pi(798, +121, +13%), Maria Sanchez Lorenzo (110, +105, +49%), Olivia Sanchez (366, +21, +5%), Arantx Sanchez-vicario (53, -36, - 212%), Raluca Sandu (363, -59, -19%), Mara Santangelo (173, +132, +43%), Carlota Santos (1161, +12, +1%), Valentina Sassi (247, -90, -57%), Yevgenia Savransky (332, +152, +31%), Wukirasih Sawondari (678, +189, +22%), Monica Scartoni (603, -150, -33%), Stephanie Schaer (581, -84, -17%), Claudine Schaul (132, +129, +49%), (226, +264, +54%), Barbara Schett (40, -19, -90%), Francesca Schiavone (41, -10, -32%), Tina Schiechtl (374, +162, +30%), Nadine Schlotterer (745, -251, -51%), Katie Schlukebir (552, +384, +41%), Kristen Schlukebir (323, +192, +37%), Syna Schmidle (358, -32, -10%), (454, -23, -5%), Jennifer Schmidt (488, +133, +21%), (598, -21, - 4%), Monika Schneider (519, +184, +26%), Miriam Schnitzer (697, -557, -398%), Patty Schnyder (15, +22, +59%), (237, +91, +28%), Tanja Schugt (709, +194, +21%), Barbara Schwartz (126, -37, -42%), Lotty Seelen (573, -118, - 26%), Nicole Seitenbecher (579, -164, -40%), Samrita Sekar (995, -100, -11%), Beti Sekulovski (296, +69, +19%), Monica Seles (7, +3, +30%), Irina Selyutina (188, -91, -94%), Ipek Senoglu (570, +74, +11%), Milagros Sequera (118, +35, +23%), Magui Serna (50, -24, -92%), Adriana Serra Zanetti (60, +23, +28%), Antonell Serra Zanetti (92, +92, +50%), (404, +195, +33%), Selima Sfar (138, -56, -68%), Medini Sharma (984, +34, +3%), Meghann Shaughnessy (30, -18, - 150%), Mi-ran Shin (990, -42, -4%), (359, +157, +30%), Anne-Gaëlle Sidot (242, -122, -102%), Kelly Simkin (1197, -515, -76%), Amandine Singla (716, +61, +8%), Rosa Maria Sitja (424, +76, +15%), Lioudmila Skavronskaia (269, +198, +42%), Pavlina Slitrova (925, -529, -134%), Anna Smashnova (16, +71, +82%), Julia Smith (825, -227, -38%), Lenka Snajdrova (487, -83, -21%), Tara Snyder (171, +30, +15%), Leticia Sobral (452, +83, +16%), Aneta Soukup (609, +4, +1%), Abigail Spears (311, -49, -19%), Veronica Spiegel (883, -58, -7%), Anna Spivakovsky (981, +64, +6%), Karolina Sprem (273, +444, +62%), Katarina Srebotnik (36, +62, +63%), Diana Srebrovic (528, -68, -15%), Aleksandra Srndovic (498, +126, +20%), Hana Sromova (348, -69, -25%), Patricia Starzyk (1062, -101, -11%), Jessica Steck (361, -116, -47%), Lydia Steinbach (354, -59, -20%), Danielle Steinberg (899, +245, +21%), Emily Stellato (456, +621, +58%), Shelley Stephens (326, -45, -16%), Anouk Sterk (509, -109, -27%), Alexandra Stevenson (18, +42, +70%), Bryanne Stewart (174, +13, +7%), (643, +222, +26%), Samantha Stosur (265, +11, +4%), Katarzyna Straczy (517, -210, -68%), Martina Strussova (1016, -279, -38%), Paola Suarez (27, +0, +0%), Evgenia Subbotina (653, -267, -69%), Martina Sucha (64, +2, +3%), Madita Suer (486, +401, +45%), Tomoko Sugano (1105, -93, -9%), Ai Sugiyama (24, +6, +20%), Michelle Summerside (638, -291, -84%), Tian Tian Sun (228, +147, +39%), Nina Suvak (1155, -58, -5%), Utako Suzuki (815, +298, +27%), Åsa Svensson (Carlsson)(77, +25, +25%), Ekaterina Sysoeva (206, +194, +49%), Adriana Szili (474, +270, +36%),

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 271 Keiko Taguchi (656, +49, +7%), Tomoko Taira (720, -78, -12%), Ayami Takase (292, +26, +8%), Ryoko Takemura (511, - 74, -17%), Silvija Talaja (75, +34, +31%), Keiko Tameishi (626, -44, -8%), Tamarine Tanasugarn (28, +1, +3%), Elena Tatarkova (166, +47, +22%), Sarah Taylor (83, +59, +42%), Regina Temez (526, +374, +42%), Sandrine Testud (38, -27, - 245%), (372, +127, +25%), Chattida Thimjapo (660, +245, +27%), Caroline Tidemand (915, +163, +15%), Carla Tiene (318, -3, -1%), Ana Timotic (364, -113, -45%), Lisa Tognetti (715, -68, -11%), Magdalena Tokarska (908, +189, +17%), Cristina Tonelli (921, -159, -21%), Ka-po Tong (369, -97, -36%), Napaporn Tongsalec (502, +277, +36%), Dessislava Topalova (227, -28, -14%), Radoslava Topalova (954, -257, -37%), Margot Torre (601, +289, +32%), Cristin Torrens Valero (78, -46, -144%), Melissa Torres (315, +173, +35%), Jacqueline Trail (286, -26, -10%), Ana Cecilia Trevino (839, +173, +17%), Alienor Tricerri (611, -18, -3%), Virginia Trifonova (751, -21, -3%), Susanne Trik (503, +92, +15%), Emilie Trouche (830, +125, +13%), Meilen Tu (73, -28, -62%), Radhika Tulpule (665, -146, -28%), Iroda Tulyaganova (55, -35, -175%), Catherine Turinsky (1040, -62, -6%), Lenka Tvaroskova (435, +137, +24%), (787, +364, +32%), (754, +170, +18%), Sachie Umehara (584, -30, -5%), Nami Urabe (826, +55, +6%), Nana Urotadze (802, +331, +29%), Megha Vakharia (769, +105, +12%), Julia Vakulenko (209, -74, -55%), Erika Valdes (881, -468, -113%), Patty Van Acker (331, -2, -1%), Tessy Van De Ven (482, +173, +26%), Andrea Van Den Hurk (493, +71, +13%), Kristen Van Elden (302, -4, -1%), Anousjka Van Exel (214, +23, +10%), Suza Van Hartingsveldt (587, +357, +38%), Evelyne Van Hyfte (879, +174, +17%), Andreea Vanc (144, +79, +35%), Alena Vaskova (154, -23, -18%), Nadejda Vassileva (928, -27, -3%), Miroslava Vavrinec (917, -805, -719%), Aurelie Vedy (444, +80, +15%), Gabriel Velasco Andreu (786, +50, +6%), Archana Venkataraman (995, -259, -35%), Arthi Venkataraman (1236, -224, -22%), Maria Vento-kabchi (153, +24, +14%), Masa Vesenjak (1124, -546, -94%), Urska Vesenjak (572, -52, -10%), Elena Vianello (647, +350, +35%), Ilona Vichnevskaya (539, -173, -47%), Helga Vieira (858, -435, -103%), Nathalie Vierin (163, +3, +2%), Roberta Vinci (182, -10, -6%), Rachel Viollet (379, -171, -82%), Suchanan Viratprasert (473, +0, +0%), Ivana Visic (540, +231, +30%), Antonela Voina (395, +85, +18%), Gabriela Volekova (431, -222, -106%), Renata Voracova (131, +109, +45%), Julia Vorobieva (1089, +19, +2%), (402, +62, +13%), Visnja Vuletic (992, -171, -21%), Nana Wada (644, +15, +2%), Charlotte Wallace (1178, -5, +0%), I-ting Wang (610, +41, +6%), Patricia Wartusch (82, +69, +46%), Mashona Washington (113, +37, +25%), Cindy Watson (142, +94, +40%), Vanessa Webb (150, +57, +28%), Emily Webley-smith (673, +37, +5%), Svenja Weidemann (700, -32, -5%), Marlene Weingärtner (98, -55, -128%), Stefanie Weis (339, +67, +17%), Tiffany Welford (600, +154, +20%), Tzu-ting Weng (588, -27, -5%), Nina Wennerstrom (1249, -576, -86%), Scarlett Werner (409, -61, -18%), Christina Wheeler (172, -13, -8%), Angelique Widjaja (69, +80, +54%), Susanne Wild (646, -43, -7%), Serena Williams (1, +5, +83%), Venus Williams (2, +1, +33%), Kathrin Woerle (333, +87, +21%), Maria Wolfbrandt (224, +188, +46%), Kati Wolner (783, -16, -2%), (405, -85, -27%), Yan-ze Xie (381, +538, +59%), Natalia Yakimovich (1161, -168, -17%), Zi Yan (299, +169, +36%), Lan Yao (912, -92, -11%), Alena Yaryshka (499, -18, -4%), (868, -8, - 1%), (429, +151, +26%), Yuka Yoshida (225, +1, +0%), Annabel Youthed (747, +316, +30%), Ying Yu (471, +271, +37%), Marianna Yuferova (616, +451, +42%), Paula Zabala (838, +335, +29%), Christina Zachariadou (533, +195, +27%), Sandra Zahlavova (922, +123, +12%), Dragana Zaric (243, +1, +0%), Anna Zarska (422, -39, -10%), Maria Letizia Zavagli (1223, -21, -2%), Maria Paola Zavagli (602, -339, -129%), Tory Zawacki (655, -129, -25%), Magdalena Zdenovcova (235, +23, +9%), Zuzana Zemenova (525, +37, +7%), Anzela Zguna (764, -299, -64%), Yan Zhang (1183, -93, -9%), Jie Zheng (183, +274, +60%), Jenny Zika (905, -249, -38%), Gabriela Ziliotto (920, +92, +9%), Alexandra Zotta (1013, +151, +13%), Fabiola Zuluaga (74, +203, +73%), Ivana Zupa (630, +322, +34%), Vera Zvonareva (45, +326, +88%)

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 272 WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Page 273 Index A Batumi $75K 43 Bovina/Hénin 156, 159, 172, 184, Acapulco 41, 131, 139, 166, 169, 196, Bedanova, Daja 9, 13, 16, 47, 55, 84, 187, 206 210 101, 104, 110, 116, 120, 126, 150, Bovina/Nagyova 156, 172 Adams, Katrina 261 194, 195, 197, 200, 201, 202, 203, Bovina/Stevenson 156, 172 Albuquerque $75K 43 204, 205, 207, 209, 211, 213, 218 Brandi, Kristina 194, 207 Amelia Island 38, 39, 40, 131, 138, Bedanova/Bovina 156, 172, 183, 196 Bratislava 41, 131, 140, 206, 221 159, 166, 187, 198, 212, 223, 224, Bedanova/Sugiyama 169, 172 Brighton 226, 227, 228 225, 226, 227, 228, 230 Benesova, Iveta 205, 206, 221 Brisbane 227, 228 Antwerp 38, 39, 40, 130, 138, 187, Berlin 23, 39, 40, 130, 137, 158, 160, Bronx $50K 43 195, 209, 223, 224, 225, 230 187, 199, 213, 223, 224, 225, 226, Brussels 41, 131, 139, 201, 216 Appelmans, Sabine 225 227, 228, 230 Budapest 41, 131, 140, 198 Arendt, Nicole 151, 152, 153, 154, Bes, Eva 200 Bueno/Court 239 155, 182, 185, 191 Bes/Dominguez Lino 198 Bunge, Bettina 255, 257 Arendt/Huber 155, 160, 171, 183, Beygelzimer, Yulia 43 C 184, 190, 194, 195, 197, 198, 205, Bielik, Bea 204 Bielik/Tarabini 170, 172 Cagnes-Sur-Mer $50K 43 208, 211, 216 Callens, Els 13, 43, 152, 153, 154, Arn, Greta 202, 211 Biella $50K+H 43 Big Island 41, 131, 139, 204 157, 182, 185, 195, 204 Asagoe, Shinobu 43, 116, 151, 154, See also Asagoe/Callens 155, 182, 185, 200 Birmingham 21, 41, 131, 139, 155, 157, 200, 215 Callens/C. Martinez 172 Asagoe/Callens 155, 157, 171, 184, Callens/Martinez 157, 163 200 Black, Cara 13, 41, 126, 131, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 182, 185, Callens/Oremans 157, 172 Asagoe/Cho 155, 171 Callens/Petrova 157, 164, 172 Asagoe/Fujiwara 155, 158, 171, 183, 191, 196, 197, 200, 204, 205, 211 Black/Likhovtseva 156, 162, 172, Callens/Pratt 157, 165, 173 208 Callens/Rubin 157, 166, 173 Asagoe/Krivencheva 155, 171 181, 183, 190, 195, 196, 200, 203, 204, 208, 210, 211, 215, 219 Callens/Schett 157, 167, 173 Asagoe/Miyagi 155, 171, 183, 184, Callens/Shaughnessy 157, 167, 173 205 Black/Pratt 156, 165, 172 Black/Ruano Pascual 156, 166, 172, Callens/Tulyaganova 157, 173 Asagoe/Musgrave 155, 172 Callens/Vinci 157, 170, 173, 183 Asagoe/Widjaja 155, 172 184, 205, 220 Black/Selyutina 156, 172, 184, 197, Camerin, Maria Elena 43 Atlanta 228 Camerin/Vinci 170, 173 Auckland 34, 41, 131, 139, 155, 160, 198 Bloomington $50K 43, 155, 157 Canadian Open 27, 39, 40, 130, 137, 194, 207 166, 169, 187, 203, 218, 223, 224, Augustus/Rippner 202 Boca Raton 227 Boca Raton — see also Delray Beach 225, 226, 227, 228, 230 Austin, Tracy 238, 251, 255, 257, 260 Canberra 34, 41, 131, 140, 194 Australian Open 17, 39, 40, 130, 137, Bogota 41, 131, 139, 166, 169, 196, 209 Capriati, Jennifer 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 160, 161, 187, 195, 207, 223, 224, 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230 Bol 41, 131, 139, 199, 213 Bonaventure — See Fort Lauderdale 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, B Bondarenko, Alyona 43 67, 71, 72, 73, 74, 78, 84, 93, 98, Bachmann, Angelika 43 Bonicelli/Chanfreau Lovera 239 100, 101, 104, 110, 116, 120, 126, Bahia 28, 39, 40, 131, 138, 166, 169, Boogert/Pratt 165, 172 130, 135, 136, 147, 194, 195, 196, 187, 204, 219, 223, 224, 225, 230 Bordeaux $75K+H 43 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, Balestrat, Dianne 255, 257 Boshoff/Kloss 239 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 212, Balestrat/Gourlay 239 Boston 228 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, Bali 41, 131, 139, 156, 166, 205, 220 Bovina, Elena 5, 12, 17, 41, 47, 55, 73, 220, 221, 223, 225, 226, 231, 238, Baltacha, Elena 116, 201 74, 84, 101, 104, 110, 116, 120, 126, 247, 255, 257, 260 Bammer, Sybille 264 131, 147, 151, 153, 154, 156, 182, Capriati/Hantuchova 159, 173, 216 Barcelona 226 185, 198, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, Capriati/Navratilova 163, 173 Barclay, Catherine 185 218, 220 Capriati/Schett 167, 173 Barclay/Loit 184 see also Bedanova/Bovina Cargill, Ansley 43, 128 Barclay/Müller 184, 201 Bovina/Déchy 156, 172, 205 Carlsson, Åsa — See Åsa Svensson Barker, Sue 238, 255, 257 Bovina/Dementieva 156, 158, 172 Casablanca 41, 131, 140, 201 Barna, Anca 13, 194, 198, 199, 207 Bovina/Gubacsi 156, 172, 184, 198 Casals, Rosie 240, 247, 255, 257 Barna/Husarova 160, 172 Bovina/Hantuchova 156, 159, 172 Casals/King 239 Bartoli, Marion 43, 204, 218 Casals/Tegart Dalton 239

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Index Casals/Turnbull 239 Court/Wade 239 Dementieva/Husarova 158, 160, 174, Casanova, Myriam 13, 41, 61, 126, Craybas, Jill 13, 41, 126, 131, 198, 183, 184, 187, 190, 195, 196, 197, 131, 149, 198, 201, 205, 216, 221, 200, 201, 205, 215 199, 202, 204, 205, 206, 209, 211, 264 219, 221 Casanova, Myriam/Myskina 205 D Dementieva/Krasnoroutskaya 158, Caserta $50K+H 43 Dallas 226, 227, 228 174 Castano, Catalina 196, 209 Daniilidou, Eleni 5, 9, 12, 19, 41, 44, Dementieva/Maleeva 158, 174 Cervanova, Ludmila 200 47, 55, 73, 74, 84, 91, 101, 104, 110, Denain $50K 43 Chaloner/Evers 239 116, 120, 126, 131, 147, 195, 198, Detroit 228 Chanfreau Lovera, Gail (Sheriff) 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 211, Dhenin/Poutchek 195 See also Bonicelli/Chanfreau 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 220 Diaz-Oliva, Mariana 13, 41, 43, 126, Lovera Daniilidou/Dokic 158, 173 131, 196, 197, 199, 201, 206 Chanfreau/Durr 239 Daniilidou/Pratt 165, 173 Dinan $50K 43 Charleston 26, 39, 40, 130, 137, 165, Date, Kimiko 157, 225, 226, 255, 257 Doha 33, 41, 131, 139, 160, 166, 195, 168, 187, 198, 212, 223, 224, 225 Date/Saeki 157, 173, 219 209 Chase Championships 223, 224, 225, Davenport, Lindsay 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, Dokic, Jelena 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 21, 41, 44, 226, 230 47, 48, 49, 55, 58, 62, 63, 67, 71, 72, 47, 48, 49, 55, 58, 73, 74, 85, 101, Chicago 225, 226, 227, 228 73, 74, 81, 83, 84, 91, 101, 104, 110, 104, 110, 116, 120, 126, 127, 131, Chladkova, Denisa 13, 43, 199, 203, 116, 120, 126, 147, 149, 150, 152, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 214, 216 153, 157, 181, 182, 185, 191, 202, 158, 182, 185, 192, 195, 196, 197, Cho, Yoon Jeong 43, 204 203, 204, 205, 206, 210, 216, 217, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, See also Asagoe/Cho 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 205, 206, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, Cincinnati 227 226, 230, 232, 238, 247, 250, 251, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, Clijsters, Kim 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18, 39, 40, 252, 254, 255, 257, 260, 264 225, 232, 254, 255, 257 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 55, 57, 58, 67, Davenport/ MJ Fernandez 239 See also Clijsters/Dokic 69, 73, 74, 77, 84, 99, 100, 101, 104, Davenport/Morariu 239 See also Daniilidou/Dokic 110, 116, 120, 125, 126, 130, 135, Davenport/Novotna 239 Dokic/Likhovtseva 158, 162, 174, 136, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, Davenport/Raymond 157, 165, 173, 184, 197 157, 182, 185, 194, 195, 196, 197, 184, 187, 190, 205, 206, 220 Dokic/Maleeva 158, 174 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, Davenport/Rubin 157, 166, 173, 206, Dokic/Martinez 158, 163, 174 206, 207, 208, 210, 213, 214, 215, 221 Dokic/Petrova 158, 164, 174, 183, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, de Beer/de Villiers 210 184, 187, 206 225, 231, 255, 257 De Lone/Jeyaseelan 204 Dokic/Shaughnessy 167, 174 Clijsters/Dokic 157, 158, 173, 183, De Villiers, Nannie 185 Dokic/Tanasugarn 158, 174 184, 187, 203, 204, 205, 218 De Villiers/Selyutina 184, 194 Dokic/Tulyaganova 158, 174 Clijsters/Hantuchova 157, 159, 173 De Villiers/Zvereva 171, 174 Dominguez Lino, Lourdes 197, 198 Clijsters/Husarova 157, 160, 173, 184, Déchy, Nathalie 5, 9, 12, 20, 47, 48, see also Bes/Dominguez Lino 206 49, 55, 73, 74, 85, 101, 104, 110, Dominikovic, Evie 200 Clijsters/Rubin 157, 166, 173, 205 116, 120, 126, 147, 154, 185, 195, Dothan $75K 43, 158 Clijsters/Shaughnessy 157, 167, 173, 196, 197, 198, 199, 206, 207, 209, Drake, Maureen 43, 204 204 210, 211, 212, 220, 221 Dubai 27, 39, 40, 131, 138, 165, 187, Clijsters/Sugiyama 157, 169, 173, 208 See also Bovina/Déchy 196, 209, 223, 224, 225, 230 Coetzer, Amanda 5, 6, 9, 12, 18, 47, Déchy/Husarova 160, 174 Dubai $75K+H 43 55, 73, 74, 84, 91, 101, 104, 110, Déchy/Rittner 165, 174 Dulko, Gisela 201 116, 120, 126, 147, 152, 153, 157, Déchy/Testud 170, 174 Dulko/Sharapova 196, 210 182, 195, 196, 198, 200, 201, 203, Déchy/Tu 184, 187, 195, 209 Durie, Jo 228, 255, 257 204, 205, 206, 209, 210, 212, 213, Delray Beach 226 Durr, François 217, 219, 220, 225, 226, 255, 257 Dementieva, Elena 5, 6, 9, 12, 20, 47, See also Chanfreau/Durr 239 Coetzer/Farina Elia 157, 173 48, 49, 55, 58, 73, 74, 85, 101, 104, Durr, Francoise 240, 251, 262 Coetzer/McNeil 157, 163, 173, 210 110, 116, 120, 126, 147, 151, 153, Durr/A Jones 239 Coetzer/Steck 157, 173, 198, 212 154, 158, 182, 185, 188, 189, 191, Durr/Hard 239 Columbus $75K 43 192, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, Durr/Stove 239 Court, Margaret 238, 240, 245, 246, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 210, Dyrberg, Eva 195, 196, 197, 210 247, 251, 255, 257, 262 211, 213, 217, 218, 220, 221 See also Bueno/Court See also Bovina/Dementieva E Court/Goolagong Cawley 239 Eastbourne 30, 39, 40, 131, 138, 165, Court/Tegart Dalton 239 168, 187, 201, 215, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Index Ericsson 40, 187, 211, 226, 227 Fujiwara, Rika 151, 153, 154, 158, Grande, Rita 6, 9, 13, 22, 47, 55, 85, Ericsson — See also Miami 182, 188, 191 101, 104, 110, 116, 120, 126, 154, Essen 225, 226 see also Asagoe/Fujiwara 159, 182, 185, 194, 195, 196, 197, Estoril 33, 41, 131, 139, 156, 198 Fujiwara/Llagostera Vives 158, 174 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, Evers, Dianne Fujiwara/Palaversic Coopersmith 207, 220, 221 See also Chaloner/Evers 158, 175 See also Farina Elia/Grande Evert, Chris 227, 228, 238, 245, 247, Fujiwara/Panova 158, 174, 198 See also Fernandez/Grande 251, 255, 257, 259, 260 Fujiwara/Sugiyama 158, 169, 175, see also Gagliardi/Grande Evert/Morozova 239 183, 190, 200, 203, 215, 216, 222 See also Garbin/Grande Evert/Navratilova 239 Fukuoka $50K 43, 155 Grande/Garbin 194 Fullerton $50K 43 Grande/Hrdlickova 159, 175 F Grande/M. J. Martinez 159, 175 Fairbank/Harford 239 G Grande/Maleeva 159, 175 Fairbank/Reynolds 239 Gadusek, Bonnie 228 Grande/Schnyder 175 Fano $50K 43 Gagliardi, Emmanuelle 13, 195, 196, Grande/Serna 159, 175 Farina Elia, Silvia 5, 6, 9, 12, 22, 41, 211 Grande/Shaughnessy 159, 167, 175 44, 47, 48, 49, 55, 73, 74, 85, 101, Gagliardi/Grande 159, 175 Grande/Tarabini 159, 170, 175 104, 110, 116, 120, 126, 131, 136, Gagliardi/Lee 162, 175 Grande/Tu 159, 175 147, 154, 194, 195, 196, 198, 200, Gagliardi/Pratt 165, 175 Grande/Tulyaganova 159 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 209, Garbin, Tathiana 13, 154, 185, 198, Grant/McQuillan 210 211, 212, 215, 220 199, 200, 202, 213 Grant/Spears 208 See also Coetzer/Farina Elia 157 Garbin/Grande 159, 175, 184 Granville, Laura 13, 43, 116, 201, Farina Elia/Grande 159, 174 Garbin/Husarova 160, 175, 203, 218 203, 206, 216, 221 Farina Elia/Petrova 164, 174 Garbin/Sanchez-Vicario 166, 175 Gubacsi, Zsofia 185, 197 Farina Elia/Schett 167, 174, 183, 190 Garbin/Widjaja 184, 199 See also Bovina/Gubacsi Farina Elia/Vinci 170, 174 Garhin, Tathiana 199 Fauth, Evelyn 213 Garrison(-Jackson), Zina 227, 228, H Fed Cup 213, 216 255, 257 Hack, Sabine 226 Fendick/MJ Fernandez 239 Geznenge, Maria 149 Halard-Decugis, Julie 225, 226, 261 Fernandez, Clarisa 12, 58, 101, 110, Gifu $50K 43 Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama 239 147, 198, 200, 203, 205, 212, 214, Girona $50K+H 43 Hamburg 18, 39, 40, 130, 138, 160, 215 Glass/Hrdlickova 205 167, 187, 199, 213, 223, 224, 225, Fernandez, Clarisa/Grande 159, 174, Gold Coast 38, 41, 131, 139, 159, 167, 226, 227, 230 214 194, 207 Hanika, Sylvia 228, 255, 257 Fernandez, Clarisa/Tarabini 170, 174 Goloviznina, Maria 43 Hannover 225 Fernandez, Gigi 241, 245, 246, 247, Goolagong (Cawley), Evonne 238, Hantuchova, Daniela 5, 7, 9, 12, 23, 253, 261, 262 241, 247, 251, 255, 257, 260 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 55, 58, 73, 74, Fernandez, Gigi/Navratilova 239 See also Court/Goolagong Cawley 86, 101, 104, 110, 116, 120, 126, Fernandez, Gigi/White 239 Goolagong Cawley/Gourlay 239 127, 130, 147, 151, 153, 154, 159, Fernandez, Gigi/Zvereva 239, 245, Gourlay (Cawley), Helen 182, 185, 188, 191, 192, 194, 195, 253 See also Balestrat/Gourlay 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, Fernandez, Mary Joe 225, 226, 227, Gourlay Cawley, Helen 262 206, 207, 209, 211, 213, 217, 218, 255, 257, 260 Gourlay Cawley/Russell 239 220, 221, 222, 225, 255, 257 See also Davenport/MJ Fernandez Gourlay, Helen See also Bovina/Hantuchova See also Fendick/MJ Fernandez See also Goolagong Cawley/ See also Capriati/Hantuchova Filderstadt 18, 39, 40, 130, 138, 157, Gourlay See also Clijsters/Hantuchova 165, 187, 204, 205, 220, 223, 224, Gourlay/Harris 239 Hantuchova/Likhovtseva 159, 162, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230 Graf, Steffi 225, 226, 227, 228, 233, 175, 195, 209 Fislova, Eva 43, 206 238, 245, 247, 250, 251, 252, 255, Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario 159, Foretz, Stephanie 13, 198, 204, 213 257, 259, 260 166, 175, 183, 184, 187, 190, 197, Foretz/Tauziat 170, 174, 214 Graf/Sabatini 239 198, 200, 203, 204, 208, 214, 220 Fort Lauderdale 228 Grahame, Amanda 194 Hantuchova/Shaughnessy 159, 167, Frazier, Amy 13, 43, 194, 198, 201, 175 204, 207, 211, 218, 226 Hantuchova/Sugiyama 159, 169, 175, Frazier/Husarova 160, 174 190 French Open — See Roland Garros Harford, Tanya Fresno $50K 43 See also Fairbank/Harford Freye/Hiraki 214 Harkleroad, Ashley 43, 202

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Index Harris, Kerry Huber/Schlukebir 160, 176 Kloss, Ilana See also Gourlay/Harris Husarova, Janette 12, 151, 152, 153, See also Boshoff/Kloss Hartford 228 154, 160, 181, 182, 185, 188, 189, Kohde-Kilsch, Claudia 228, 255, 257 Hattiesburg $50K 43 191, 195, 196, 197, 198, 203, 205, Kohde-Kilsch/Sukova 239 Helsinki 41, 131, 139, 166, 203 206, 209, 210, 212, 219, 220, 224 Kostanic, Jelena 13, 185, 197, 200 Hénin, Justine 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 23, 39, 40, See also Barna/Husarova Kostanic/Nagyova 184, 199 44, 47, 48, 49, 55, 58, 67, 73, 74, 86, See also Clijsters/Husarova Koukalova, Klara 43, 201 101, 104, 110, 116, 120, 125, 126, See also Déchy/Husarova Koulikovskaya, Evgenia 43, 186, 210 127, 130, 135, 147, 149, 150, 154, See also Dementieva/Husarova Koulikovskaya/Perebiynis 206 159, 182, 185, 194, 195, 196, 197, See also Frazier/Husarova Koulikovskaya/Syseova 184, 201 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, See also Garbin/Husarova Kournikova, Anna 9, 13, 24, 47, 55, 205, 206, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, Husarova/Martinez 160, 163, 176 58, 86, 101, 105, 110, 116, 120, 126, 215, 216, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223, Husarova/Matevzic 160, 176 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 225, 233, 254, 255, 257 Husarova/Sanchez-Vicario 160, 166, 161, 181, 182, 185, 188, 189, 191, See also Bovina/Hénin 176, 184, 195 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 202, 204, Hénin/Martinez Granados 159, 176 Husarova/Suarez 160, 169, 176, 205 207, 210, 211, 213, 214, 216, 219, Hénin/Mauresmo 159, 175, 190, 205 Husarova/Svensson 160, 176 224, 253, 255, 257 Hénin/Pierce 159, 176 See also Hingis/Kournikova Hénin/Shaughnessy 159, 167, 176, I Kournikova/Lee 161, 162, 176, 184, 183, 184, 190, 194, 207 Indian Wells 23, 39, 40, 130, 137, 165, 204 Hilton Head 226, 227, 228, 230 168, 187, 196, 210, 223, 224, 225, Kournikova/Rubin 161, 166, 176, Hingis, Martina 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 24, 39, 226, 227, 230 190, 201, 216 40, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 58, 63, Indianapolis 227, 228 Kournikova/Schett 161, 167, 176 64, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 83, 86, Irvin, Marissa 43, 149, 197, 202, 211, Kournikova/Shaughnessy 161, 167, 93, 96, 97, 98, 101, 104, 110, 116, 216 176 120, 126, 130, 135, 136, 147, 149, Italian Open — see Rome Krasnoroutskaya, Lina 24, 86, 105, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 160, 181, J 110, 116, 120, 206 182, 185, 189, 191, 192, 194, 195, See also Dementieva/ Jaeger, Andrea 255, 257 196, 197, 199, 203, 205, 207, 208, Krasnoroutskaya Jankovic, Jelena 202 209, 211, 213, 218, 219, 220, 221, Kremer, Anne 5, 9, 12, 25, 47, 55, 73, Japan Open 41, 131, 139, 155, 205, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 230, 234, 74, 86, 101, 105, 110, 116, 120, 126, 220 238, 241, 245, 246, 247, 250, 251, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, Jausovec, Mima 238, 255, 257 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 259, 260, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 211, 212, Jausovec/Ruzici 239 261, 262 215, 217 Jeon, Mi-Ra 43, 116 Hingis/Kournikova 160, 161, 176, Krivencheva, Svetlana Jidkova, Alina 43, 128, 149, 194, 196, 183, 184, 187, 190, 195, 197, 208, See also Asagoe/Krivencheva 209, 210 210, 211, 239, 253 Krizan, Tina 151, 152, 153, 154, 161, Johannesburg 228 Hingis/Lucic 239, 245 182 Jones, Ann 238 Hingis/Novotna 239, 245 Krizan/Shaughnessy 168 See also Durr/A. Jones Hingis/Pierce 239 Krizan/Srebotnik 161, 176, 181, 183, Jordan, Barbara 238 Hingis/Schett 160, 167, 176, 184, 187, 198, 205, 206, 208, 216, 217 Jordan, Kathy 241, 245, 246 199 Kurhajcova, Lubomira 43, 128, 198, Jordan, Kathy/Anne Smith 239, 245 Hingis/Sukova 239 206 Jordan/Smylie 239 Hingis/Zvereva 239 Kuti Kis, Rita 209 Hobart 41, 131, 140, 159, 194, 207 K Kuznetsova, Svetlana 13, 41, 126, Hopkins, Jennifer 186, 212 Kapros, Aniko 200, 214 131, 154, 185, 199, 203, 204, 205, Hopkins/Kostanic 184, 200 Key Biscayne 228 220, 264 Houston 226, 227, 228 King, Billie Jean 238, 242, 247, 251, Kuznetsova/Sanchez-Vicario 166, Hrdlickova, Kveta 205 255, 257, 260 176, 183, 184, 187, 202, 203, 204, Hrdlickova/Rittner 165, 176 See also Casals/King 205, 219, 220 Hrozenska, Stanislava 43 King/Navratilova 239 L Huber, Anke 6, 225, 226, 255, 257 King/Stove 239 Lamade, Bianka 216 Huber, Liezel (Horn) 43, 151, 152, Kirilenko 222 Lee, Janet 116, 151, 153, 154, 162, 153, 154, 160, 182, 186, 191 Kiyomura/Sawamatsu 239 182, 186 See also Arendt/Huber Klagenfurt 200 See also Gagliardi/Lee Huber/Martinez 160, 163, 176 Kleinova, Sandra 43 Huber/Navratilova 160, 163, 176 See also Kournikova/Lee

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Index Lee/Prakusya 162, 164, 177, 181, 183, Majoli, Iva 9, 12, 26, 39, 40, 44, 47, Martinez/Tarabini 163, 170, 177, 183, 190, 198, 211, 221 87, 94, 96, 101, 105, 111, 116, 120, 190, 200 Lee/Tatarkova 162, 177 126, 130, 135, 147, 194, 195, 198, Martinez/Vis 163, 177 Lee-Waters, Lindsay 43 200, 203, 204, 208, 212, 213, 219, Martinez Granados, Conchita 43, 200 Leipzig 37, 39, 40, 130, 138, 171, 187, 220, 225, 226, 238, 255, 257 See also Hénin/Martinez Granados 205, 220, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, Majoli/Martinez 177 Matevzic, Maja 13, 41, 43, 126, 131, 230 Majoli/Pratt 165, 177, 200 186, 195, 197, 198, 201, 204, 205, Leon Garcia, Gala 110, 196, 203, 204, Majoli/Schett 167, 177 206, 209, 213, 219, 221 209 Majoli/Tarabini 177 See also Husarova/Matevzic Leon Garcia/Tarabini 170, 177 Maleeva, Katerina 226, 227, 255, 257 Matevzic/Nagyova 184, 206 Leon Garcian Gala 216 Maleeva, Magdalena 5, 6, 9, 12, 26, Mauresmo, Amélie 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 27, Lexington $50K 43 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 55, 73, 74, 87, 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 58, 61, Li, Na 43 101, 105, 111, 116, 121, 126, 130, 67, 69, 70, 73, 74, 87, 99, 101, 105, Liggan, Kelly 186 147, 186, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 111, 116, 121, 126, 130, 135, 147, Liggan/Voracova 184, 206 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 150, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, Likhovtseva, Elena 9, 13, 25, 86, 105, 208, 209, 210, 213, 218, 220, 225, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 110, 116, 120, 126, 149, 151, 152, 226, 255, 257 212, 213, 214, 216, 218, 219, 220, 153, 154, 162, 181, 182, 186, 191, See also Dementieva/Maleeva 221, 223, 225, 234, 255, 257 194, 195, 199, 201, 202, 206, 210, See also Dokic/Maleeva See also Hénin/Mauresmo 216, 219, 224, 254 See also Grande/Maleeva McGrath, Meredith 226 See also Black/Likhovtseva Maleeva/Schnyder 184, 187, 195 McNeil, Lori 152, 153, 163, 226, 227 See also Dokic/Likhovtseva Maleeva/Shaughnessy 167, 177 See also Coetzer/McNeil See also Hantuchova/Likhovtseva Maleeva/Svensson 196, 210 McQuillan, Rachel 194 Likhovtseva/Loit 162, 177 Maleeva-Fragniere, Manuela 226, Medina Garrigues, Anabel 194, 195, Likhovtseva/Navratilova 162, 163, 227, 228, 251, 255, 257, 260 207 177 Mandlikova, Hana 227, 228, 238, 247, Medvedeva, Natalia 226 Likhovtseva/Pratt 162, 165, 177 251, 255, 257, 260 Memphis 30, 41, 131, 139, 169, 196, Likhovtseva/Sugiyama 162, 169, 177 Mandlikova/Navratilova 239 209 Likhovtseva/Zvereva 162, 171, 177 Mandula, Petra 154, 185, 194, 198, Miami 37, 39, 130, 137, 165, 168, Linz 23, 39, 40, 131, 138, 158, 164, 200, 203 197, 223, 224, 225, 230 187, 206, 221, 223, 224, 225, 230 Mandula/Wartusch 184, 190, 200, Michel, Margaret Lions Cup (Tokyo) 228 201, 204, 206 See also Goolagong Cawley/Michel Lipton 228 Mariskova/Teeguarden 239 Middleton/Rippner 210 Lipton — See also Miami Marrero, Marta 196, 200, 205, 214, Midland $75K 43, 162 Livingston — See Princeton 220 Mikaelian, Marie-Gaianeh 13, 41, Llagostera Vives, Nuria Marseilles $50K 43 126, 131, 198, 200, 202, 204, 206, See also Fujiwara/Llagostera Vives Martinez, Conchita 9, 13, 27, 47, 55, 217, 220 Loit, Emilie 13, 43, 186, 194, 196, 80, 87, 101, 105, 111, 116, 121, 126, Milan 226 201, 210 147, 151, 152, 153, 154, 163, 181, Miyagi, Nana 186 See also Likhovtseva/Loit 182, 191, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, See also Asagoe/Miyagi Loit/Vinci 170, 177 201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, Modena $50K+H 43 Los Angeles 30, 39, 40, 130, 138, 157, 212, 213, 214, 221, 223, 225, 226, Molik, Alicia 195, 198, 209, 215 158, 187, 203, 217, 223, 224, 225, 227, 234, 238, 251, 254, 255, 257, Molik/Pratt 165, 177 226, 227, 228, 230 260 Montalvo/Suarez 169, 178 Los Angeles Championships 18, 39, See also Callens/Martinez Montalvo/Tarabini 170, 178 40, 130, 158, 160, 187, 206, 222 See also Dokic/Martinez Montolio, Angeles 6, 9, 13, 28, 41, 44, Los Gatos/San Jose $50K 43 See also Huber/Martinez 47, 87, 101, 105, 111, 116, 121, 126, Louisville $50K 43 See also Husarova/Martinez 131, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, Lucic, Mirjana See also Majoli/Martinez 201, 207, 209, 213 See also Hingis/Lucic Martinez/Majoli 163 Morariu, Corina 153, 163, 182, 217, Luxembourg 18, 41, 131, 139, 157, Martinez/Pierce 163, 177, 216 261 160, 206, 221 Martinez/Pratt 163, 165, 177, 219 Morariu/Po-Messerli 163, 164, 178, Martinez/Schwartz 163, 177 183, 217 M Martinez/Serna 163, 177, 183, 190, Morariu/Pratt 163, 165, 178 Madrid 33, 41, 131, 139, 163, 171, 208 Morozova, Olga 255, 257 200, 214 Martinez/Sugiyama 163, 169, 177 See also Evert/Morozova Mahwah 227, 228

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Index Moscow 26, 39, 40, 130, 137, 158, New Haven 38, 39, 40, 131, 138, 159, Pennetta/Vinci 170, 178 160, 187, 205, 220, 223, 224, 225, 166, 187, 203, 218, 223, 224, 225, Perebiynis, Tatiana 186 230 230 Perebiynis/Poutchek 184, 200 Müller, Martina 13, 41, 126, 131, 186, New Orleans 227, 228 Petrova, Nadia 151, 153, 154, 164, 195, 198, 199, 200, 204 Newport 226, 227, 228 182, 186, 189, 194, 205, 207, 220 Müller/Rittner 165, 178 Nice 225 See also Callens/Petrova Munich 223, 224, 225 Noorlander, Seda 43 See also Dokic/Petrova Myskina, Anastasia 5, 9, 12, 28, 39, Novotna, Jana 225, 226, 242, 246, See also Farina Elia/Petrova 40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 55, 73, 74, 87, 247, 253, 256, 257, 260, 262 Petrova/Pratt 164, 165, 178, 190, 219 101, 105, 111, 117, 121, 126, 127, See also Davenport/Novotna Petrova/Serna 164, 178 131, 147, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, See also Hingis/Novotna Philadelphia 225, 226, 230 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 212, 214, Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario 239 Pierce, Mary 9, 13, 30, 47, 80, 88, 101, 215, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 225, Novotna/Sukova 239 105, 111, 117, 121, 126, 147, 197, 264 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 212, 215, Myskina/Safina 205 O 216, 218, 223, 225, 226, 235, 238, O’Neil, Chris 238 256, 257, 260 N Oakland 228 See also Hénin/Pierce Nagelsen, Betsy Oakland — see Stanford See also Hingis/Pierce See also Navratilova/Nagelson Obata, Saori 43, 201 See also Martinez/Pierce Nagelsen/Tomanova 239 Obziler, Tzipora 43 Pin, Camille 209 Nagyova, Henrieta 6, 9, 13, 29, 47, 88, Ondraskova, Zuzana 43 Pisnik, Tina 13, 194, 197, 199, 201, 101, 105, 111, 117, 121, 126, 185, Orbetello $50K+H 43 204, 206, 207, 215 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, Oremans, Miriam 117, 154, 201, 215, Pittsburg $50K 43 202, 204, 206, 207, 212, 213, 218, 216 Poitiers $50K+H 43 219 See also Callens/Oremans Po-Messerli, Kimberly 151, 152, 153, Nagyova, Henrieta Oremans/Rittner 165, 178 154, 164, 182 See also Bovina/Nagyova Oremans/Sugiyama 169, 178 See also Morariu/Po-Messerli Naples $50K 43 Oremans/Testud 170 Po-Messerli/Pratt 164, 165, 178, 183, Navratilova, Martina 163, 182, 186, Orlando 228 198 201, 215, 226, 227, 228, 238, 242, Ortisei $50K+H 43 Po-Messerli/Sugiyama 164, 169, 178, 245, 246, 247, 250, 251, 252, 256, Osterloh, Lilia 194, 196, 210, 214 202 257, 259, 260, 261, 262 Ostrovskaya, Nadejda 43 Po-Messerli/Tauziat 164, 170, 178, See also Capriati/Navratilova Oyster Bay $50K 43 183, 200, 216 See also Evert/Navratilova P Po-Messerli/Zvereva 164, 171, 178, See also Fernandez/Navratilova 206, 221 Palaversic Coopersmith, Maja See also Huber/Navratilova Porto 28, 41, 131, 139, 156, 197 See also Fujiwara/Palaversic See also King/Navratilova Portschach — see Vienna Coopersmith See also Likhovtseva/Navratilova Potter, Barbara 227, 256, 257 Palaversic Coopersmith/Seles 198 See also Mandlikova/Navratilova Poutchek, Tatiana 186, 194, 197, 198, Palermo 41, 131, 140, 201, 216 Navratilova/Nagelsen 239 199, 200, 207, 211 Palm Beach Gardens 228 Navratilova/Shriver 239, 245 Prakusya, Wynne 151, 153, 154, 164, Palm Springs 227 Navratilova/Smith 239 182, 202 Palm Springs — See Indian Wells Navratilova/Stove 239 See also Lee/Prakusya Pan Pacific 24, 39, 40, 131, 137, 165, Navratilova/Temesvari 239 Prakusya/Widjaja 164, 178 Navratilova/Tulyaganova 163, 178 168, 187, 195, 208, 223, 224, 225, Navratilova/S. Williams 163, 171, 226, 227, 228, 230 178, 219 Panova, Tatiana 5, 9, 12, 29, 47, 55, Navratilova/Zvereva 163, 171, 178, 73, 74, 88, 91, 101, 105, 111, 117, 183, 184, 200, 210, 214 121, 126, 128, 194, 195, 197, 198, Neffa-de los Rios, Rossana 205, 206, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 206, 222 211, 212, 215, 218, 219, 221, 222 Neffa-de los Rios/Sanchez-Vicario See also Fujiwara/Panova 166, 178, 214 Paris 38, 39, 40, 131, 138, 187, 195, Neiland, Larisa 253, 261, 262 209, 223, 224, 225, 226, 230 See also under Savchenko Pattaya City 41, 131, 140, 206, 222 Neiland/Novotna 253 Paz, Mercedes 262 Neiland/Zvereva 239 Pelletier, Marie-Eve 43 New England 226, 227, 228 Pennetta, Flavia 43

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Index Pratt, Nicole 13, 151, 152, 153, 154, Rittner, Barbara 13, 152, 153, 165, Saeki, Miho 165, 181, 182, 196, 197, 198, 200, 182, 186, 196, 197, 202, 205, 209, See also Date/Saeki 201, 204, 205, 215 220 Saeki/Sugiyama 169, 179 see also Black/Pratt See also Déchy/Rittner Safina, Dinara 13, 41, 126, 131, 198, See also Boogert/Pratt See also Hrdlickova/Rittner 202, 204, 205, 264 See also Callens/Pratt See also Müller/Rittner Saint-Gaudens $50K 43 See also Daniilidou/Pratt See also Oremans/RIttner Sakowicz, Joanna 202, 216 See also Gagliardi/Pratt Rittner/Serna 165, 179 Salerni/Tarabini 170, 179, 195 See also Likhovtseva/Pratt Rittner/Vento-Kabchi 165, 179, 183, San Antonio 226, 227 See also Majoli/Pratt 184, 187, 196, 200, 214 San Diego 38, 39, 40, 130, 138, 158, See also Martinez/Pratt Rittner/Vis 165, 179 160, 187, 202, 217, 223, 224, 225, See also Molik/Pratt Rittner/Zvereva 165, 171, 179 226, 227, 230 See also Morariu/Pratt Rodionova, Anastassia 201, 204 Sanchez Lorenzo, Maria 43, 199, 213 See also Petrova/Pratt Roesch, Angelika 13, 199, 203, 204, Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 6, 9, 13, 31, See also Po-Messerli/Pratt 213, 218 47, 88, 101, 105, 111, 117, 121, 126, Pratt/Serna 165, 178 Roland Garros 37, 39, 40, 130, 137, 147, 151, 152, 153, 154, 166, 181, Pratt/Sugiyama 165, 169, 178 166, 169, 187, 200, 214, 223, 224, 182, 185, 188, 191, 194, 195, 196, Pratt/Svensson 178 225, 226, 227, 228, 230 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, Princess Cup 37, 39, 40, 131, 138, Rome 37, 39, 40, 130, 137, 166, 169, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 166, 187, 219, 223, 224, 225, 226, 187, 199, 214, 223, 224, 225, 226, 212, 214, 216, 218, 219, 220, 221, 227, 230 227, 228, 230 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 236, 238, Princeton 228 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 13, 151, 152, 242, 247, 250, 253, 254, 256, 257, Prusova, Libuse 199, 264 153, 154, 166, 181, 182, 185, 188, 260, 261, 262 Pullin, Julie 43, 117, 200 189, 191, 197, 199, 201, 203, 212, See also Garbin/Sanchez-Vicario 216, 224 See also Hantuchova/Sanchez- Q See also Black/Ruano Pascual Vicario Quebec City 17, 41, 131, 139, 204, Ruano Pascual/Serna 166, 179 See also Husarova/Sanchez-Vicario 220 Ruano Pascual/Suarez 166, 169, 179, See also Kuznetsova/Sanchez- Queens Grand Prix (Tokyo) 228 181, 183, 184, 187, 190, 196, 198, Vicario R 199, 200, 203, 204, 206, 208, 212, See also Neffa-de los Rios/Sanchez- 216, 219, 221, 222, 239 Vicario Randriantefy, Dally 43 Rubin, Chanda 5, 9, 12, 30, 39, 40, 44, See also Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario Raymond, Lisa 5, 6, 9, 12, 30, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 55, 67, 73, 74, 79, 88, See also Rubin/Sanchez-Vicario 47, 55, 88, 101, 105, 111, 117, 121, 101, 105, 111, 117, 121, 126, 130, Sanchez-Vicario/Sukova 239 126, 131, 151, 152, 153, 154, 165, 135, 147, 150, 153, 154, 166, 182, Sanchez-Vicario/Torres 166, 179 181, 182, 185, 188, 189, 191, 196, 199, 200, 201, 203, 205, 206, 214, Santangelo, Mara 43 198, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 215, 217, 218, 223, 225 Sarasota 21, 41, 131, 139, 158, 162, 211, 217, 224, 261 See also Callens/Rubin 197, 212 See also Davenport/Raymond See also Clijsters/Rubin Savchenko, Larisa Raymond/Stubbs 165, 168, 179, 183, See also Davenport/Rubin See also Neiland, Larisa 239 184, 187, 190, 194, 195, 196, 197, See also Kournikova/Rubin Savchenko/Zvereva 239 198, 201, 202, 203, 204, 208, 211, Rubin/Sanchez-Vicario 239 Sawamatsu, Kazuko 212, 215, 217, 218, 239, 254 Rubin/Schett 166, 167, 179 See also Kiyomura/Sawamatsu Razzano, Virginie 13, 43, 197, 200, Rubin/Shaughnessy 166, 167, 179, Schaul, Claudine 128, 206 205, 206, 212 217 Schett, Barbara 6, 9, 13, 31, 47, 55, 88, Reeves, Samantha 43, 186, 194, 197, Rubin/Zvereva 166, 171, 179, 183 101, 105, 111, 117, 121, 126, 151, 198, 204 Russell, JoAnne 152, 153, 154, 167, 182, 186, 200, Reeves/Steck 184, 204 See also Gourlay Cawley/Russell 201, 203, 204, 205, 216, 218, 256, Reggi, Raffaella 227, 228 Ruzici, Virginia 228, 238 257 Rehe, Stephanie 227, 228 See also Jausovec/Ruzici See also Callens/Schett Reid, Kerry Melville 238, 256, 257 See also Capriati/Schett Reid/Turnbull 239 S See also Farina Elia/Schett Reynolds, Candy — See also ’s-Hertogenbosch 19, 41, 131, 139, See also Hingis/Schett Fairbank/Reynolds 201, 215 See also Kournikova/Schett Richey, Nancy 238, 251, 256, 257 Sabatini, Gabriela 226, 227, 236, 238, See also Majoli/Schett Richmond 228 251, 256, 257, 260 See also Rubin/Schett Rinaldi, Kathy 228 See also Graf/Sabatini Schett/Serna 167, 179, 195

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Index Schett/Tatarkova 167, 179 Shaughnessy, Meghann 5, 6, 9, 12, 34, Stove, Betty 256, 258, 262 Schiavone, Francesca 9, 13, 32, 47, 47, 55, 58, 89, 101, 106, 111, 117, See also Durr/Stove 89, 101, 105, 111, 117, 121, 126, 121, 126, 151, 152, 153, 154, 167, See also King/Stove 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 181, 182, 186, 191, 194, 195, 196, See also Navratilova/Stove 203, 204, 206, 209, 210, 214, 218 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, Stove/Turnbull 239 Schiavone/Tarabini 170, 179 205, 207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, Strasbourg 22, 41, 131, 139, 200, 214 Schlukebir/Tarabini 170, 179 214, 216, 217 Stratton Mtn 226 Schnyder, Patty 5, 9, 12, 32, 39, 40, See also Callens/Shaughnessy Stubbs, Rennae 151, 152, 153, 154, 44, 47, 48, 49, 55, 73, 74, 89, 101, See also Clijsters/Shaughnessy 168, 181, 182, 185, 188, 189, 191, 105, 111, 117, 121, 126, 130, 135, See also Dokic/Shaughnessy 158 224, 253 147, 186, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, See also Grande/Shaughnessy See also Raymond/Stubbs 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 209, 212, See also Hantuchova/Shaughnessy Suarez, Paola 5, 9, 12, 35, 47, 55, 73, 213, 219, 221, 225, 251 See also Hénin/Shaughnessy 74, 90, 102, 106, 111, 117, 121, 126, See also Grande/Schnyder See also Kournikova/Shaughnessy 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 169, 181, Schnyder/Svensson 221 See also Maleeva/Shaughnessy 182, 185, 188, 189, 191, 194, 195, Schultz-McCarthy, Brenda 253 See also Rubin/Shaughnessy 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 204, 205, Schwartz, Barbara 186, 213 See also Serna/Shaughnessy 210, 212, 214, 215, 218, 224 See also Martinez/Schwartz Shaughnessy/Suarez 167, 169, 179, See also Husarova/Suarez Schwartz/Woehr 184, 201 190 See also Montalvo/Suarez 169 Scottsdale 37, 39, 40, 131, 138, 165, Shaughnessy/Tulyaganova 167, 180 See also Ruano Pascual/Suarez 168, 187, 196, 210, 223, 224, 225, Shriver, Pam 227, 228, 243, 245, 246, See also Shaughnessy/Suarez 230 247, 256, 258, 260, 261, 262 Suarez/Tarabini 169, 170, 180 Seles, Monica 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 33, 41, 44, See also Navratilova/Shriver Suarez/Tulyaganova 169, 180, 190, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, Shriver/Zvereva 239 202, 217 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 81, 83, 89, 97, Sidot, Anne-Gaëlle 200 Sucha, Martina 13, 41, 126, 131, 194, 100, 101, 106, 111, 117, 121, 125, Smashnova, Anna 5, 9, 12, 34, 41, 44, 197, 198, 201, 203 126, 131, 147, 150, 195, 196, 197, 47, 48, 49, 55, 73, 74, 89, 94, 96, Sugiyama, Ai 5, 9, 12, 36, 47, 55, 73, 198, 200, 201, 202, 204, 208, 209, 102, 106, 111, 117, 121, 126, 131, 74, 90, 102, 106, 111, 117, 121, 126, 211, 213, 216, 217, 219, 222, 223, 147, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 147, 151, 152, 153, 154, 169, 181, 225, 226, 227, 230, 237, 238, 247, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 211, 213, 182, 186, 191, 195, 196, 197, 198, 250, 251, 254, 256, 257, 259, 260 215, 216, 219, 221, 264 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 212, See also Palaversic Coopersmith/ Smith, Anne 243, 245, 246 215, 217, 220, 221, 224 Seles See also Kathy Jordan/Anne Smith see also Bedanova/Sugiyama Seles/Testud 170, 179, 195, 208 See also Navratilova/Smith See also Clijsters/Sugiyama Selyutina, Irina 43, 185 Smylie, Elizabeth See also Fujiwara/Sugiyama See also Black/Selyutina See also Jordan/Smylie See also Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Selyutina/Tarabini 170, 179 Sopot 41, 131, 139, 166, 202, 216 See also Hantuchova/Sugiyama Sequera, Milagros 43 Spirlea, Irina 225, 256, 258 See also Likhovtseva/Sugiyama Serna, Magui 9, 13, 33, 41, 44, 47, 55, Srebotnik, Katarina 13, 41, 111, 126, See also Martinez/Sugiyama 89, 101, 106, 111, 117, 121, 126, 131, 151, 152, 153, 154, 168, 182, See also Oremans/Sugiyama 131, 154, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 196, 199, 202, 203, 206, 210, 217 See also Po-Messerli/Sugiyama 202, 205, 206, 211, 214, 215, 218 Srndovic, Aleksandra 149 See also Pratt/Sugiyama Serna, Magui Stanford 38, 39, 40, 130, 138, 165, See also Saeki/Sugiyama See also Grande/Serna 168, 187, 202, 216, 223, 224, 225, Sugiyama/Tatarkova 169, 180, 183, See also Martinez/Serna 226, 227, 230 184, 196 See also Petrova/Serna Steck, Jessica 186 Sugiyama/Zvereva 169, 171, 180 See also Pratt/Serna See also Coetzer/Steck Sukova, Helena 227, 228, 243, 246, See also Rittner/Serna Stevenson, Alexandra 5, 9, 12, 35, 47, 247, 253, 256, 258, 260, 261, 262 See also Ruano Pascual/Serna 48, 49, 55, 73, 74, 78, 80, 90, 99, See also Hingis/Sukova See also Schett/Serna 102, 106, 111, 117, 121, 126, 147, See also Kohde-Kilsch/Sukova Serna/Shaughnessy 167, 179 150, 186, 194, 195, 196, 197, 200, See also Novotna/Sukova Serra Zanetti, Adriana 13, 195, 208 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, See also Sanchez-Vicario/Sukova Serra Zanetti, Antonella 218 220, 221, 222 Surabaya 225 Sfar, Selima 194 see also Bovina/Stevenson Svensson, Åsa 13, 41, 126, 131, 154, Shanghai 34, 41, 131, 139, 161, 162, Stevenson/S. Williams 171, 180, 184, 195, 199, 206, 208, 213, 214 204, 219 187, 205 See also Husarova/Svensson Sharapova, Maria 43 Stewart, Bryanne 194 See also Pratt/Svensson

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Index Svensson/Oremans 207 Testud, Sandrine 6, 7, 9, 13, 37, 47, Vis, Caroline Svensson/Pratt 165 90, 102, 106, 112, 117, 121, 126, See also Martinez/Vis Svensson/Tarabini 170, 180 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 170, See also Rittner/Vis Sydney 24, 39, 40, 130, 138, 165, 168, 182, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, See also Tarabini/Vis 187, 194, 207, 223, 224, 225, 226, 201, 207, 209, 210, 212, 214, 225 Voracova, Renata 186 227, 228, 230 See also Déchy/Testud Sydney Indoors 228 See also Oremans/Testud W Syseova, Ekaterina 186 See also Seles/Testud Wade, Virginia 238, 247, 251, 256, Szczecin $50K+H 43 Testud/Oremans 180 258, 260 Testud/Vinci 170, 180, 183, 190 See also Court/Wade T Tomanova, Renata Wang, Shi-Ting 225, 226 Talaja, Silvija 13, 194, 199, 205, 220 See also Nagelson/Tomanova Warsaw 17, 41, 131, 139, 199 Tameishi, Keiko 149 Torrens Valero, Cristina 13, 112, 194, Wartusch, Patricia 13, 41, 126, 131, Tampa 226, 227, 228 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 154, 185, 200, 201, 203, 215 Tanasugarn, Tamarine 5, 9, 12, 36, 47, 202, 216 Washington 226, 227, 228 55, 90, 102, 106, 112, 117, 121, 126, Tu, Meilen 13, 154, 185, 194, 198, Washington, Mashona 43 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 212 Webb, Vanessa 43, 116, 128, 197, 211 202, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 215, Tu/Vento-Kabchi 184, 204 Weingärtner, Marlene 195, 201, 208 222 Tucson $50K 43 West Columbia $50K 43 See also Dokic/Tanasugarn Tulyaganova, Iroda 6, 9, 13, 37, 47, Wheeler, Christina 200 Tarabini, Patricia 153, 154, 170, 182, 90, 102, 106, 112, 117, 121, 126, White, Robin 191 154, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 201, See also Fernandez/White See also Bielik/Tarabini 203, 206, 207, 209, 214, 215 Widjaja, Angelique 13, 41, 43, 126, See also Fernandez/Tarabini See also Callens/Tulyaganova 131, 186, 201, 204, 206, 215, 220, See also Grande/Tarabini See also Dokic/Tulyaganova 222 See also Leon Garcia/Tarabini See also Grande/Tulyaganova See also Asagoe/Widjaja See also Majoli/Tarabini See also Navratilova/Tulyaganova See also Prakusya/Widjaja See also Martinez/Tarabini See also Shaughnessy/Tulyaganova Williams, Serena 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 37, See also Montalvo/Tarabini See also Suarez/Tulyaganova 39, 40, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, See also Salerni/Tarabini See also Tarabini/Tulyaganova 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, See also Schiavone/Tarabini Turnbull, Wendy 243, 256, 258, 260 63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, See also Schlukebir/Tarabini See also Casals/Turnbull 77, 78, 83, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, See also Selyutina/Tarabini See also Reid/Turnbull 100, 102, 106, 112, 117, 121, 125, See also Suarez/Tarabini See also Stove/Turnbull 126, 130, 135, 136, 148, 149, 150, See also Svensson/Tarabini 151, 153, 154, 171, 181, 182, 185, Tarabini/Tulyaganova 170, 180 U 189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, Tarabini/Vis 170, 180 U. S. Open 37, 39, 40, 130, 137, 166, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, Tashkent 41, 131, 139, 200 169, 187, 204, 218, 223, 224, 225, 206, 207, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, Tatarkova, Elena 186 226, 227, 228, 230 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, See also Lee/Tatarkova 223, 224, 225, 230, 237, 238, 243, See also Schett/Tatarkova V 245, 246, 247, 250, 251, 252, 254, See also Sugiyama/Tatarkova Vakulenko, Julia 213 256, 258, 264 Tauziat, Nathalie 6, 147, 152, 153, Vaskova, Alena 43 See also Navratilova/S. Williams 170, 182, 225, 226, 256, 258 Vento-Kabchi, Maria 185 See also Stevenson/S. Williams Tauziat, Nathalie See also Rittner/Vento-Kabchi See also Foretz/Tauziat Vienna 34, 41, 131, 139, 200, 215 See also Po-Messerli/Tauziat Vinci, Roberta 152, 153, 154, 170, Taylor, Sarah 43, 205 182, 200 Teeguarden, Pam See also Callens/Vinci See also Mariskova/Teeguarden See also Camerin/Vinci 170 Tegart Dalton, Judy 240 See also Farina Elia/Vinci See also Casals/Tegart Dalton See also Loit/Vinci 170 See also Court/Tegart Dalton See also Pennetta/Vinci 170 Temesvari, Andrea 228 See also Testud/Vinci See also Navratilova/Temesvari Virginia Slims Championships 227, 228

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Index Williams, Venus 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 38, Wimbledon 37, 39, 40, 130, 137, 171, Zvereva, Natasha 153, 154, 171, 182, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 187, 201, 215, 223, 224, 225, 226, 186, 224, 225, 226, 227, 244, 245, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 227, 228, 230 246, 247, 253, 256, 258, 261, 262 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, Woehr, Jasmin 186 See also De Villiers/Zvereva 74, 77, 80, 81, 83, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, WTA Championships (Los Angeles) See also Fernandez/Zvereva 98, 99, 100, 102, 106, 112, 117, 121, 137 See also Hingis/Zvereva 125, 126, 127, 130, 135, 136, 148, See also Likhovtseva/Zvereva 149, 150, 153, 171, 181, 182, 185, Y See also Navratilova/Zvereva 191, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, Yoshida, Yuka 205 See also Neiland/Zvereva 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, Z See also Po-Messerli/Zvereva 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, See also Rittner/Zvereva Zuluaga, Fabiola 13, 41, 112, 126, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, See also Rubin/Zvereva 131, 196, 200, 203, 209, 210 223, 224, 225, 230, 237, 238, 243, See also Savchenko/Zvereva Zurich 32, 39, 40, 130, 137, 156, 159, 245, 246, 247, 250, 251, 254, 256, See also Shriver/Zvereva 187, 206, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 258, 260 See also Sugiyama/Zvereva 227, 228, 230 Williams/Williams 171, 180, 184, Zvonareva, Vera 13, 43, 112, 199, 201, 187, 190, 216, 239, 245 202, 214, 216, 264

WTA Statistical Abstract ©2002 Robert Waltz Index