sign in sign up
<<
Home , 100 Greatest of All Time, 1994 WTA Tour, 2000 Ericsson Open, Abigail Spears, Adriana Serra Zanetti, Ai Sugiyama

WTA Tour Statistical Abstract 2000

Robert B. Waltz ©2000 by Robert B. Waltz Reproduction and/or distribution for profit prohibited

Contents 2000 In Review: Top Players 5 Wins Over Top Players 57 Tournament Wins by Surface 98 The Final Top Twenty-Five 5 Matches Played/Won against the (Final) Assorted Statistics 99 The Beginning Top Twenty-Five 6 Top Twenty 57 Summary of Changes 2000 6 Won/Lost Versus the Top Players (Based on The Busiest Players on the Tour 99 Rankings at the Time of the Match) 58 Total Matches Played by Top Players 99 All the Players in the Top Ten in 2000 7 Total Events Played by the Top 150 100 The Complete Top Ten Based on WTA Won/Lost Versus the Top Players (Based on (Best 18) Statistics 7 Final Rankings) 59 The Biggest Tournaments 101 The Complete Top Ten under the 1996 Statistics/Rankings Based on -to- Tournament Strength Based on the Four Top Ranking System 7 Head Numbers 60 Players Present 102 Ranking Fluctuation 8 Total Wins over Top Ten Players 60 The Top Tournaments Based on Top Players Top Players Sorted by Median Ranking 9 Winning Percentage against Top Ten Present — Method 1 103 Players 60 The Top Tournaments Based on Top Players Tournament Results 10 Present — Method 2 104 Tournaments Played/Summary of Results How They Earned Their Points 61 Strongest Tournaments Won 105 for Top Players 10 Fraction of Points Earned in Slams 61 Strongest Tournament Performances The Rankings (Top 192 — As of November Quality Versus Round Points 62 106 20, 2000. Ranking, Name, Points) 27 Percentage of Points on Each Surface 63 Title Defences 106 Tournament Winners by Date (High-Tier Consistency 64 Events) 28 Standard Deviation of Scores by Seeds and their Success Rates 107 Tournament Winners by Tournament Type Tournament 64 Bagels 110 (High-Tier Events) 29 Winners at Smaller Tournaments (Tier III, Early-Round Losses 65 The Dominance of the Big Three/Four IVA, IVB) 30 Frequency of Early Losses 66 113 Number of Tournament Wins for Top 25 Worst Losses 67 The Road to Victory 114 Players 31 Best and Worst “Worst Losses” 70 Games Lost in Path to Title 114 Alphabetical List of All Tournament Fraction of Points Earned in Biggest Quality Points Earned 115 Winners, with Number of Titles 32 Win 71 Career Tournament Winners 116 Fraction of Tournaments Won 32 “Top Players” 2000 117 Summary: Tiers of Tournaments Played and Winning and Losing Streaks 72 Statistics About the Tour as a Whole Average Tier 33 Winning and Losing Streaks, Sorted by Points earned week-by-week 34 Player 72 119 Tournament Results (Points Earned), Sorted List of Longest Winning Streaks 74 The Year of the Injury 120 from Most to Least 35 Number of Significant Results 75 Best How Many? 121 Alternate Rankings 36 Points Per Quarter 76 Doubles 122 First Quarter 76 Total Points Ranking (1997 Ranking The Final Top 30 in Doubles 122 Second Quarter 76 System) 36 The Initial Top 25 in Doubles 123 Third Quarter 77 Points Per Tournament, Minimum 14 (1996 Doubles Ranking Fluctuation 124 Fourth Quarter 77 Ranking System: “The Divisor”) 37 Team Doubles Titles, Most to Least 125 Most Consistent over Four Quarters 78 Best 14 38 The Top Twenty-Five Doubles Players/ Best 18 with Slotted Point Awards (ATP Slam Results 79 Results 126 Year 2000 Award) 39 Surface Rankings 80 Doubles Tournament Winners by Date Total Wins 40 (High-Tier Events) 136 Winning Percentage 41 Hardcourts 80 Doubles Winning Percentages for the Top Consistency-Rewarded Rankings 42 Summary of Hardcourt Results 80 Sixteen 137 Divisor Rankings, No Slam Bonus 43 Winning Percentage on Hardcourts 82 Doubles Winning Percentages for the Top Other Alternate Rankings 44 Points Per Tournament on Hardcourts 83 Teams 137 Best and Worst Results on Hardcourts 84 Total Round Points 44 Head-to-Heads 138 Total Quality Points 45 Clay 85 Team Losses 138 Summary of Clay Results 85 Round Points Per Tournament 46 Alternate Doubles Rankings 140 Quality Points Per Tournament 47 Winning Percentage on Clay 87 Rankings under the 1996 Ranking System Quality/Round Points Equalized: 2Q+R Per Points Per Tournament on Clay 88 (Divisor, Minimum 14) 140 Tournament 48 Best and Worst Results on Clay 89 The Ideal System (Maybe): Surface- Grass 90 Combined Singles and Doubles Modified Divisor (Minimum 16) 49 Summary of Grass Results 90 Rankings 141 Winning Percentage Adjusting for Adjusted Points Per Tourn.t on Grass 92 WTA Calendar for 2000 • Events Tournament Strength 51 Indoors 93 and Results 143 Wins Per Tournament 53 Summary of Indoor Results 93 Percentage of Possible Points Earned 54 Who Won What 154 Winning Percentage Indoors 94 Head to Head — Results against Points Per Tournament Indoors 95 Comings and Goings: On and Off Top Players 56 Best and Worst Results Indoors 96 the Rankings 155 The Top 20 Head to Head 56 All-Surface Players 97 Index 161

Introduction When you see the report that so-and-so is the #1 female player, what do you think? What does it mean when a player earns the “#1 ranking?” What is a ranking? There are many answers, ranging from simple to complex. A simple answer is, “A ranking is a way for assessing players’ performances and seeding them in tournaments.” This is the purpose of the rankings. A technical answer, for female tennis players, is, “A number, the sum of the points earned in a player’s best eighteen tournaments, where points are awarded according to a system based on the prize money the tournament offers and the quality of the opposition one faces.” This is the method behind the rankings. But the usual answer is, “It’s a way to determine who is the best player.” But “best” can mean a lot of things. The player who is best overall may not be the best on clay. Or may have moved to the top based partly on health (ability to play a full schedule). Some players are more consistent, others streaky. The best player may not have the best winning percentage (in 2000, the player with the best winning percentage wound up #3; in 1998 and 1999, she wound up #2), or the most wins, or the most titles. In fact, the #1 ranking guarantees only one thing: That the player has done what it takes to be #1. Thus the tennis rankings, while they have great importance to the players (since they determine seeds and tournament admission) are actually just numbers. They do not automatically say who is the best player (whatever “best” means); they simply say who has the highest point total under the WTA rules. To fully understand a player’s game, we need to know much more than her ranking. We need to know she did on each surface. We need to know she fared against other top players. We need to know how many tournaments she won, and how often she suffered a first round defeat. A complete statistical picture of a player will involve a vast array of statistics, and involve many types of data. What follows is an attempt to examine some of these subjects, at least for the top players. It is a statistical exercise, based mostly on the results for the WTA Top Twenty-five, designed to provide more perspective than the WTA’s simple point-counting game. It also offers some miscellaneous statistics of interest. Depending on the statistic, data may be offered based only on the Top Ten, the Top Twenty, or the Top Twenty-Five (usually one of the latter two). It is assumed that the Top 5 in all categories will be on this list, and usually the Top 10. We should add a at least two footnotes: First, this document is based solely on actual Tour events; exhibitions (Fed Cup, Olympics) are not included. This is deliberate and necessary; the WTA should not include these events in their statistics! This is because these events fill their draws by means not based on the WTA rankings. This, in turn, means that they are not valid for statistical comparison. Second, for reasons of time, calculations in this document are based on the results as of the end of the Tour year (November 20, 2000). Challengers are played after this event — notably Cergy Pontoise, which played in 1999 and Nathalie Déchy may play in 2000. This will affect the year-end 2000 rankings, but cannot be accounted for here. The data in this document has been checked several times against multiple sources. But available records (especially for doubles) are often far from complete. No responsibility is assumed by the author or by the web site for any errors contained in this document, or for the nature or meaning of any statistics presented. The purpose of this document is not to assert opinions. Of course, it is impossible to entirely avoid opinions, since (ahem!) I have some. These opinions perhaps influence which statistics I include. Nonetheless, this abstract exists primarily for the sake of the numbers. If there is commentary, it is intended to explain what the numbers mean or to bring out some especially salient point.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 3

The only subjective matter I will address in this preface is my feelings about the #1 player. is the WTA #1, but many have argued on behalf of , as the winner of two Slams. (Curiously, no one has argued recently on behalf of , even though it was Davenport, not Williams, who spent most of 2000 nipping at Hingis’s heels in the rankings, and was #1 for a few weeks.) There is no question that Venus Williams was more effective when she played. But that is the key phrase: When she played. The WTA expects players to play 18 events a year; hence the Best 18 ranking system. Williams played half that number of events (nine). Part of this was injury, but she could certainly have played the 14 events required by the old divisor rankings had she chosen to do so. She didn’t. It is an unanswerable question whether she could have continued to be as effective playing a full schedule. As it is, we note that she won four titles on hardcourts and one on grass — but none on clay and none indoors. Hingis won nine titles, and at least one on every surface. Hingis’s winning percentage is almost as high as Venus’s, and over a full year. Hingis won titles in all four quarters of the calendar year. Every title Venus earned was earned between July and September. Venus won two Slams, but Hingis won the Chase and the Ericsson. Hingis did better on Venus’s surfaces (hardcourts and indoors) than Venus did on Hingis’s (clay). I’d offer an analogy to American presidential politics (yes, one of those). Venus did the equivalent of campaigning only in California, and won big there. Hingis campaigned across the entire country, and won the country as a whole. To say that Williams is #1 based on her schedule is to say that only California counts toward the Presidency. To win, you must win the country, not California. Venus, of course, still has the opportunity to become #1 in 2001. As the statistics in this document will show, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that she could do so if she can play a full schedule with her present effectiveness. But until she manages that feat, I do not see any way in which she can claim to deserve the #1 ranking. We may summarize the data as follows, showing who is #1 under various measures. (All of this data is found elsewhere in the Abstract, but here we list only the data for Hingis, Davenport, and Williams): Statistic #1 is: #2 is: #3 is: WTA “Best 18” Ranking Hingis (6180) Davenport (5022) Williams (3694) Total titles: Hingis (9) Williams (5) Davenport (4) Significant (Tier II or higher) titles Hingis (8) Williams (5) Davenport (4) Slam titles Williams (2) Davenport (1) Pierce 1, Hingis 0 Slam match victories Hingis (20) Davenport (19) Williams (18) Total points earned (1997 rank) Hingis (6394) Davenport (5022) Williams (3694) Divisor ranking (1996-style) Hingis (320) Davenport (279) Williams (264) Slotted Points (ATP system) Hingis (5858) Davenport (4700) Williams (3694) Total Tour Wins Hingis (77) Davenport (56) Williams (35 = #11) Winning Percentage Williams (89.7%) Hingis (88.5%) Davenport (82.4%) Surface-Modified Divisor Ranking Hingis (377) Davenport (289) Williams (247) % of Possible Points Earned Williams (80%) Hingis (68%) Davenport (58%) Wins over Top 10 Players Hingis (15) Davenport (12) Williams (10) Winning % against Top 10 Williams (83%) Davenport (63%) Hingis (63%) % of events with over 100 points Hingis (95%) Seles (93%) Williams (78%) Hardcourt winning % Williams (100%) Hingis (85%) Davenport (84%) Clay winning % Hingis 86% (#2) Williams 67% (#15) Davenport 50% (>#20) Grass winning % Williams (100%) Hingis (88%) Davenport (78%) Indoor winning % Hingis 86% Davenport 85% (#4) Williams 75% (#6) Surfaces on which won titles Hingis (4) Davenport, Williams (2)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 4

2000 In Review: The Top Players The Final Top Twenty-Five For purposes of reference, here are the Final 2000 Top 25 as determined by the WTA: Final Player Best 18 Number of Gap from Began Rank Name Score Tournaments Preceding Year At 1 Hingis, Martina 6180 20 1 2 Davenport, Lindsay 5022 18 1158 2 3 Williams, Venus 3694 9 1328 3 4 Seles, Monica 3255 15 439 6 5 Martinez, Conchita 2795 20 460 15 6 Williams, Serena 2306 11 489 4 7 Pierce, Mary 2162 13 144 5 8 Kournikova, Anna 2158 26 4 12 9 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 2132 18 26 17 10 Tauziat, Nathalie 1963 26 169 7 11 Coetzer, Amanda 1798 23 165 11 12 Dementieva, Elena 1774 22 24 62 13 Rubin, Chanda 1760 23 14 22 14 Capriati, Jennifer 1664 20 96 23 15 Halard-Decugis, Julie 1436 24 228 9 16 Mauresmo, Amélie 1426 13 10 10 17 Testud, Sandrine 1414 20 12 13 18 Clijsters, Kim 1398 17 16 46 19 Huber, Anke 1370 18 28 16 20 Frazier, Amy 1255 22 115 19 21 Likhovtseva, Elena 1216 27 39 18 22 Maleeva, Magdalena 1108* 26* 108 76 23 Schett, Barbara 1065 23 43 8 24 Van Roost, Dominique 1056 19 9 14 25 Schnyder, Patty 1056 25 0 21 * Includes points from the Cergy Pontoise Challenger played after the Chase Championships in 1999. Maleeva played 25 events in 2000 through the Chase Championships.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 5

The Beginning Top Twenty-Five Rank Name 2000 Final Ranking Net Change 1 Martina Hingis 1 — 2 Lindsay Davenport 2 — 3 Venus Williams 3 — 4 6 -2 5 7 -2 6 4 +2 7 10 -3 8 23 -15 9 Julie Halard-Decugis 15 -6 10 Amélie Mauresmo 16 -6 11 11 — 12 8 +4 13 17 -4 14 Dominique Van Roost (retired mid-year) 24 -10 15 Conchita Martinez 5 +10 16 19 -3 17 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 9 +8 18 21 -3 19 20 -1 20 45 -25 21 25 -4 22 13 +9 23 14 +9 24 33 -9 25 Nathalie Déchy 27 -2 Summary of Changes, beginning to end of 2000 Ranking Gains: From outside the Top 20 into the Top 20: , Chanda Rubin, Jennifer Capriati, From outside the Top 20 into the Top 10: none From the Top 20 into the Top 10: Conchita Martinez, Anna Kournikova, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario Ranking Losses: Dropping out of the Top 20: Barbara Schett, Dominique Van Roost (retired), Elena Likhovtseva Dropping out of the Top 10 but remaining in the Top 20: Julie Halard-Decugis, Amélie Mauresmo Dropping from the Top 10 to below the Top 20: Barbara Schett Players who were in the Top 10 at beginning and end of the year: 7 — Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Mary Pierce, Monica Seles, Nathalie Tauziat Players who were in the Top 20 at the beginning and end of the year: 16 — Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Mary Pierce, Monica Seles, Nathalie Tauziat, Julie Halard-Decugis, Amélie Mauresmo, Amanda Coetzer, Anna Kournikova, Sandrine Testud, Conchita Martinez, Anke Huber, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Amy Frazier

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 6

All the Players in the Top Ten in 2000 The Complete Top Ten Based on WTA (Best 18) Statistics The lists below show all players who have ranked in the Top 10 in 2000, with the highest rank achieved (total of 17 players; in 1999, 17 players spent part of the year in the Top Ten).

Coetzer (10) Martinez (3) Seles (3) Davenport (1) Mauresmo (6) Tauziat (3) Halard-Decugis (7) Pierce (3) Testud (9) Hingis (1) Sanchez-Vicario (10) S. Williams (4) Huber (9) Schett (8) V. Williams (3) Kournikova (8)

The following list shows all the players who have occupied a given position in the Top 10: 1. Davenport, Hingis 2. Davenport, Hingis 3. Martinez, Pierce, Seles, Tauziat, V. Williams 4. Martinez, Pierce, Seles, S. Williams, V. Williams 5. Martinez, Pierce, Seles, Tauziat, S. Williams, V. Williams 6. Martinez, Mauresmo, Pierce, Seles, Tauziat, S. Williams 7. Halard-Decugis, Martinez, Pierce, Seles, Tauziat, S. Williams 8. Halard-Decugis, Kournikova, Martinez, Sanchez-Vicario, Schett, Seles, Tauziat, S. Williams 9. Halard-Decugis, Huber, Kournikova, Mauresmo, Sanchez-Vicario, Schett, Seles, Tauziat, Testud 10. Coetzer, Halard-Decugis, Huber, Kournikova, Mauresmo, Sanchez-Vicario, Schett, Tauziat, 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 (7) Mauresmo (6) Seles (3) Davenport (1) Pierce (5) Tauziat (7) Hingis (1) Sanchez-Vicario (7) S. Williams (4) Kournikova (9) Schett (8) V. Williams (1) Martinez (7)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©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 Zvereva, with a standard deviation of 19.9 showed the biggest fluctuation in the course of the year, while Hingis and Davenport, with standard deviations of 0.3, showed the least variation). Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Mean Std. 11511511511511511511511511511511520 (avg) Median Dev. Appelmans 30 31 29 29 28 27 27 24 25 25 24 25 27 26 22 26 28 30 33 50 44 51 50 30.9 28 8.8 Capriati 23 22 17 16 14 14 14 12 12 13 16 19 16 15 17 16 16 18 18 16 12 13 14 15.8 16 2.9 Clijsters 46 43 32 36 35 33 30 27 29 28 29 30 31 33 34 33 30 29 47 26 31 19 18 31.7 31 6.9 Coetzer 11 10 12 17 16 17 20 20 18 11 10 10 12 12 13 13 12 12 12 12 11 12 11 13.2 12 3.1 Davenport 22222221112222222222222 1.9 2 0.3 Déchy 25 24 26 26 26 23 23 22 20 21 20 22 24 24 21 21 21 21 20 23 26 27 27 23.2 23 2.4 Dementieva 62 63 60 61 62 59 39 34 31 26 26 26 29 29 32 27 25 17 16 19 17 15 12 34.2 29 17.6 Dragomir 20 20 21 22 21 22 22 26 24 32 32 33 26 28 28 30 39 44 41 41 48 44 45 30.8 28 9.3 Farina Elia 26 30 30 31 33 36 36 39 42 45 51 56 56 61 55 54 54 57 59 63 74 69 63 48.7 54 13.9 Frazier 19 19 22 23 19 19 21 17 21 19 23 24 25 22 26 20 19 19 23 20 19 22 20 20.9 20 2.3 Halard-Decu 911878109791413171414141918201918181715 13.4 14 4.3 Hénin 69 70 58 53 57 54 64 64 63 79 81 99 90 87 80 72 58 47 48 39 43 49 48 64.0 63 16.2 Hingis 11111112221111111111111 1.1 1 0.3 Huber 16 17 19 18 17 16 16 16 14 12 12 12 11 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 14 14 19 13.6 14 3.3 Kournikova 12 13 11 9 10 9 10 14 13 15 15 14 19 18 18 14 14 13 13 13 10 10 8 12.8 13 3.0 Likhovtseva 18 18 16 15 18 18 17 21 16 17 19 23 23 25 23 22 24 27 26 29 25 21 21 21.0 21 3.9 Maleeva 76 68 68 62 66 65 61 58 60 62 64 53 63 57 54 53 37 35 38 27 21 20 22 51.7 58 17.0 Martinez 1512787778835445667666555 6.6 6 2.6 Mauresmo 10 9 14 14 15 15 15 15 17 18 14 13 13 13 12 12 13 15 14 15 16 16 16 14.1 14 2.1 Pierce 55566644457334444444677 4.8 4 1.2 Raymond 28 29 27 27 27 26 28 28 27 27 27 28 21 23 24 25 26 22 21 21 27 31 31 26.1 27 2.9 Rubin 22 21 25 21 23 29 26 25 26 24 25 20 18 17 19 17 17 16 15 14 13 11 13 19.9 20 5.0 Sanchez-Vica 1715131212121111111099991099999989 10.5 9 2.2 Schett 8 8 10 11 13 11 12 13 15 16 17 15 17 19 16 18 20 23 22 25 22 23 23 16.4 16 5.1 Schnyder 21 26 24 25 24 24 25 30 28 30 36 37 35 32 30 31 22 25 25 24 24 25 25 27.3 25 4.5 Seles 669139889773666555555444 6.3 6 2.2 Sidot 34 34 33 32 31 31 31 31 32 31 28 27 28 27 25 24 31 33 32 28 30 34 36 30.6 31 3.0 Sugiyama 24 24 20 20 22 20 19 19 22 20 21 18 20 20 20 23 27 26 30 32 35 33 33 23.8 22 5.3 Talaja 29 23 23 24 25 25 24 23 23 23 18 21 22 21 27 28 23 24 24 22 23 28 30 24.0 23 2.8 Tauziat 776555555667788887778910 6.8 7 1.4 Testud 13 14 15 10 11 13 13 10 10 9 11 11 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 15 18 17 12.0 11 2.3 Van Roost 14 16 18 19 20 21 18 18 19 22 22 16 15 16 15 15 15 14 17 17 20 24 24 18.0 18 3.1 S. Williams 44444466688887776888766 6.3 6 1.6 V. Williams 33333333344553333333333 3.3 3 0.6 Zvereva 27 27 28 30 30 30 33 36 33 35 40 34 60 59 57 65 65 72 71 74 78 78 79 49.6 40 19.9

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 8

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 1999 and 2000 results equally into account, since rankings at the beginning of the year were based entirely on 1999 results, while 2000 results were the sole influence by the end of the year.

Median Rank Player 1 Hingis 2 Davenport 3 V. Williams 4 Pierce 6 Martinez 6 S. Williams 6 Seles 7 Tauziat 9 Sanchez-Vicario 11 Testud 12 Coetzer 13 Kournikova 14 Halard-Decugis 14 Huber 14 Mauresmo 16 Capriati 16 Schett 18 Van Roost 20 Frazier 20 Rubin 21 Likhovtseva 22 Sugiyama 23 Déchy 23 Talaja 25 Schnyder 27 Raymond 28 Appelmans 28 Dragomir 29 Dementieva 31 Clijsters 31 Sidot 58 Maleeva

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 9

Tournament Results Tournaments Played/Summary of Results for Top Players The list below shows all the tournaments the top players played in 1999. For these purposes, any player who spent even one week of 2000 in the Top 25 is included, as are four other players: Farina Elia (#26 at the start of the year), Dokic (#26 at the end), Zvereva (#27 at the start), and Hénin (based on per-tournament results). 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 first item in the entry for Martina Hingis reads (II, SF/Mauresmo [9], 2) — Van Roost (16). This means that Hingis’s first tournament was Sydney. The II means that it was a Tier II. SF/Mauremso means that Hingis reached the semifinal, where she was beaten by Mauresmo, then ranked #9. The 2 indicates that she won two matches prior to that defeat. Players she defeated included Van Roost (then ranked #16). (Note: only wins over Top 35 players are listed.) Name & Rank Events Played 50/ Gold Coast (III, QF/Martinez [15], 2) Appelmans Sydney (II, 1R/Kournikova [13], 0) (Slam, 3R/S. Williams [4], 2) — Rubin (22) (II, 1R/Schnyder, 0) Hannover (II, 1R/S. Williams [4], 1) Indian Wells (I, R16/Seles [8], 2) Ericsson (I, R16/Petrova [75], 2) — Sanchez-Vicario (11) (II, 2R/Huber [14], 1) (I, 2R/Lamade [534], 1) Antwerp (IVA, 2R/Torrens Valero [80], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Hingis [1], 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/Black [49], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/V. Williams [5], 3) — Dragomir (26) Knokke-Heist (IVB, QF/Marrero [63], 0) (I, 2R/Kournikova [14], 1) New Haven (II, 1R/Hénin [66], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Vento [103], 0) Olympics (X, R16/Coetzer, 2) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Maleeva [27], 0) Zurich (I, 1R/Davenport [2], 1) — Sugiyama (32) (II, 2R/Rubin [15], 1) (I, 1R/Sugiyama [36], 0) (II, 1R/Majoli [125], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 10

14/ Sydney (II, 2R/Kournikova [13], 1) — Testud (14) Capriati Australian Open (Slam, SF/Davenport [2], 5) — Van Roost (16), Schnyder (29), Sugiyama (24) Scottsdale (II, 2R/Davenport [2], 1) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Black [51], 0) Ericsson (I, QF/Testud [13], 3) — Rubin (26), S. Williams (6) (I, 1R/Sidot [31], 0) (III, 2R/Kuti Kis [72], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Zuluaga [34], 0) (III, QF/Raymond [28], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, SF/Hingis [1], 3) — Schnyder (34) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Davenport [2], 3) — Van Roost (15) San Diego (II, 1R/Likhovtseva [23], 0) Canadian Open (I, R16/Sanchez-Vicario [9], 2) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Seles [5], 3) Luxembourg (III, Win, 5) — Sidot (32) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Rubin [16], 0) Zurich (I, SF/Hingis [1], 3) — Sidot (28), Kournikova (13) Quebec City (III, F/Rubin [13], 3) — Frazier (19) Philadelphia (II, 2R/Halard-Decugis [18], 1) Chase (Champ, 1R/Kournikova [10], 0) 18/ Hobart (IVB, Win, 5) — Dragomir (20), Rubin (21) Clijsters Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Van Roost [16], 0) Hannover (II, 2R/Sidot [32], 1) — Huber (18) Indian Wells (I, R16/S. Williams [4], 2) — Mauresmo (15) Ericsson (I, R16/Hingis [1], 2) Antwerp (IVA, 2R/Bacheva [84], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Sugiyama [21], 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 2R/Schnyder [34], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Myskina [43], 1) — Tauziat (7) Stanford (II, 1R/Shaughnessy [54], 0) San Diego (II, 1R/Martinez [6], 0) New Haven (II, QF/Tauziat [8], 2) — Schett (20) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Davenport [2], 1) Luxembourg (III, QF/Kournikova [13], 2) Filderstadt (II, F/Hingis [1], 4) — Kournikova (12), Martinez (6), Tauziat (7) Leipzig (II, Win, 5) — Sugiyama (35), Sanchez-Vicario (9), Dokic (28), Kournikova (10), Likhovtseva (25) Chase (Champ, QF/Dementieva [15], 1) — Sanchez-Vicario (8)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 11

11/ Sydney (II, 2R/Van Roost [16], 1) — Raymond (29) Coetzer Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Brandi [54], 1) Pan Pacific (I, QF/Rubin [25], 1) — Zvereva (28) Oklahoma City (III, SF/Seles [14], 3) — Raymond (29) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Van Roost [21], 0) Ericsson (I, QF/Hingis [1], 2+1 walkover) — Martinez (7) Amelia Island (II, R16/Sanchez-Vicario [11], 2) Hilton Head (I, QF/Sanchez-Vicario [10], 2) — Dementieva (33) Hamburg (II, SF/Sanchez-Vicario [11], 3) — Dragomir (24), Sidot (32), V. Williams (3) Berlin (I, F/Martinez [8], 5) — Kremer (34), Halard-Decugis (10), Huber (12) Antwerp (IVA, Win, 5) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/De Los Rios [151], 2) — Leon Garcia (31) Eastbourne (II, QF/Kremer [41], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Osterloh [77], 1) Stanford (II, 2R/Black [44], 1) San Diego (II, 2R/V. Williams [3], 1) — Raymond (24) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Maleeva [53], 1) New Haven (II, SF/V. Williams [3], 3) — Huber (10) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Serna [33], 2) Olympics (X, Dokic, 3) Filderstadt (II, QF/Sanchez-Vicario [9], 2) — Talaja (24), Schnyder (25) Zurich (I, 2R/Schett [25], 1) — Serna (33) Philadelphia (II, QF/Davenport [2], 2) Chase (Champ, QF/Seles [4], 1) — Rubin (11) 2/ Sydney (II, F/Mauresmo [9], 3) — Likhovtseva (18), Sanchez-Vicario (15), Kournikova (13) Davenport Australian Open (Slam, Win, 7) — Kournikova (12), Halard-Decugis (11), Capriati (21), Hingis (1) Scottsdale (II, F [no winner/final rained out], 3) — Capriati (14), Seles (9), Kournikova (10) Indian Wells (I, Win, 6) — Zvereva (30), Halard-Decugis (10), Martinez (7), Hingis (1) Ericsson (I, F/Hingis [1], 5) — Kremer (35), Talaja (24), Likhovtseva (17), Testud (13) Rome (I, R16 (withdrew), 1) — Dementieva (26) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Van Roost [22], 0) Eastbourne (II, QF/Van Roost [16], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, F/V. Williams [5], 6) — Morariu (32), Likhovtseva (23), Capriati (16), Seles (6), Dokic (30) Stanford (II, F/V. Williams [3], 3) — Rubin (18), Seles (5) San Diego (II, 2R/Kournikova [18], 0) Los Angeles (II, F/S. Williams [7], 3) — Sidot (25), Testud (11), Dementieva (32) Canadian Open (I, R16/Maleeva [53], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, F/V. Williams [3], 6) — Leon Garcia (29), Clijsters (30). S. Williams (6), Dementieva (25) Olympics (X, withdrew in 2R, 1) Zurich (I, F/Hingis [1], 3) — Rubin (14), Schett (25) Linz (II, Win, 4) — Schett (21), V. Williams (3) Philadelphia (II, Win, 4) — Raymond (28), Coetzer (12), Martinez (5), Hingis (1) Chase (Champ, 1R/Dementieva [15], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 12

27/ Gold Coast (III, SF/Martinez [15], 3) Déchy Hobart (IVB, 1R/Cristea [126], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Zuluaga [51], 0) Paris (II, QF/Halard-Decugis [8], 2) — Farina (29) Oklahoma City (III, F/Seles [14], 4) — Frazier (22) Scottsdale (II, QF/Pierce [6], 2) — Martinez (7) Indian Wells (I, R16/Dementieva [59], 2) — Kournikova (9) Ericsson (I, R16/Frazier [21], 2) — Tauziat (5) Estoril (IVA, F/Huber [16], 4) Rome (I, 1R/Dokic [37], 0) Strasbourg (III, SF/Talaja [22], 2+1 walkover) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Dementieva [26], 0) Birmingham (III, 2R/Krasnoroutskaya [110], 0) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Halard-Decugis [14], 1) — Morariu (31) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/V. Williams [5], 2) — Rubin (18) San Diego (II, 2R/Frazier [26], 1) — Sidot (25) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Dementieva [32], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Talaja [28], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Gersi [67], 1) Olympics (X, R16/Seles, 2) 12/ Sydney (II, lost in 1R of qualifying/Petrova [93], 0) Dementieva Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Halard-Decugis [11], 2) Paris (II, lost in 3R of qualifying/Andretto [201], 2 in qualifying) Hannover (II, lost in 1R of qualifying/Oremans [89], 0) Indian Wells (I, SF/Davenport [2], 5) — Huber (16), Déchy (23), Rubin (29) Ericsson (I, R16/Testud [13], 3) — Pierce (4), Pitkowski (34) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Martinez [8], 1) Hilton Head (I, R16/Coetzer [19], 2) Berlin (I, QF/Kruger [90], 3) — Sanchez-Vicario (9) Rome (I, 2R/Davenport [1], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R (withdrew), 1) — Déchy (20) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Petrova [57], 0) San Diego (II, 1R/Tu [107], 0) Los Angeles (II, SF/Davenport [2], 3) — Déchy (22), Brandi (34), Raymond (24) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Frazier [20], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/Schnyder [28], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, SF/Davenport [2], 5) — Martinez (7), Huber (10) Olympics (X, F/V. Williams, 5) Zurich (I, 2R/Myskina [55], 1) Linz (II, 1R/Black [40], 0) Moscow (I, QF/Hingis [1], 2) Leipzig (II, QF/Likhovtseva [25], 1) Chase (Champ, SF/Seles [4], 2) — Davenport (2), Clijsters (19)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 13

26/ Sydney (II, 2R/Sanchez-Vicario [15], 1) Dokic Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Kuti Kis [86], 0) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Martinez [7], 1) — Talaja (25) Ericsson (I, 2R/Martinez [7], 1) Amelia Island (II, R16/Martinez [8], 2) Hilton Head (I, QF/Pierce [4], 3) — Frazier (22) Rome (I, QF/Seles [7], 3) — Déchy (21), V. Williams (4) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Hrdlickova [43], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 2R/Brandi [48], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, SF/Davenport [2], 5) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Appelmans [26], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Dementieva [25], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/S. Williams [6], 3) Olympics (X, SF/Dementieva — lost Bronze to Seles, 4) Princess Cup (II, QF/S. Williams [8], 2) Zurich (I, 2R/Hingis [1], 1) Shanghai (IVA, QF/Tulyaganova [112], 2) Moscow (I, 1R/Mauresmo [16], 0) Leipzig (II, QF/Clijsters [31], 2) Kuala Lumpur (III, 2R/Majoli [109], 0) 45/ Hobart (IVB, 1R/Clijsters [43], 0) Dragomir Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Brandi [54], 2) Paris (II, 1R/Mauresmo [14], 0) Hannover (II, 2R/Smashnova [47], 1) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Halard-Decugis [9], 1) Ericsson (I, 3R/Likhovtseva [17], 1) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Carlsson [53], 0) Hilton Head (I, QF/Seles [7], 3) — Kournikova (14) Hamburg (II, 1R/Coetzer [18], 0) Berlin (I, 2R/Chladkova [41], 1) Rome (I, 2R/Halard-Decugis [14], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Hingis [1], 3) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, F/Hingis [1], 4) — Testud (10) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Appelmans [27], 0) (IVA, 2R/Pizzichini [147], 1) Los Angeles (II, 1R/S. Williams [7], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Testud [11], 1) New Haven (II, 1R/Shaughnessy [51], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Raymond [26], 1) Olympics (X, 1R/Pratt, 0) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Schnyder [25], 0) Zurich (I, 1R/Dementieva [19], 0) Linz (II, 1R/Nagyova [71], 0) Moscow (I, 1R/Dementieva [18], 0) Leipzig (II, 1R/Panova [42], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 14

63/ Paris (II, 2R/Déchy [26], 1) — Likhovtseva (15) Farina Elia Hannover (II, 1R/Pisnik [87], 0) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Seles [8], 0) Ericsson (I, 2R/Appelmans [27], 1) Estoril (IVA, SF/Déchy [22], 3) Bol (III, 1R/Sanchez Lorenzo [76], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Raymond [27], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Martinez [5], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Osterloh [77], 0) Palermo (IVA, SF/Nagyova [76], 3) Sopot (III, 2R/Schnyder [29], 1) Liege ($50K, SF/Rittner [122], 3) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Schett [20], 0) Olympics (X, R16/Van Roost, 2) Filderstadt Qualifying (II, lost in 3R of qualifying/Carlsson [51], 0+2 in qualifying) Zurich Qualifying (I, lost in 3R of qualifying/Panova [43], 0+2 in qualifying) Linz Qualifying (II, lost in 3R of qualifying/Chladkova [53]; went into main draw as a Lucky Loser and lost to Hrdlickova [36], 0+2 in qualifying) Moscow (I, 2R/Dementieva [18], 1) — Talaja (21) Leipzig (II, 2R/Kournikova [10], 1) Kuala Lumpur (III, 1R/Majoli [109], 0) Pattaya City (IVA, QF/Nagyova [45], 2) — Talaja (28) 20/ Hobart (IVB, SF/Rubin [21], 3) Frazier Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Callens [89], 0) Oklahoma City (III, QF/Déchy [26], 2) Scottsdale (II, 2R/Testud [11], 1) — Huber (17) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Hingis [1], 0) Ericsson (I, QF/Seles [8], 3) — Huber (16), Déchy (23) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Grande [70], 0) Hilton Head (I, R16/Dokic [40], 1) (III, 2R/Ruano Pascual [123], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Carlsson [53], 0) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Myskina [50], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Barabanschikova [92], 2) Stanford (II, QF/V. Williams [3], 2) — Brandi (35) San Diego (II, SF/V. Williams [3], 3) — Huber (9), Déchy (21), Hingis (1) Los Angeles (II, QF/Hingis [1], 2) — Sanchez-Vicario (10) Canadian Open (I, QF/S. Williams [7], 3) — Dementieva (27), Leon Garcia (32), Huber (10) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Martinez [7], 0) Princess Cup (II, QF/Bedanova [87], 2) Open (III, F/Halard-Decugis [18], 3) Quebec City (III, SF/Capriati [12], 3) Philadelphia (II, 1R/Rubin [11], 0) Chase (Champ, 1R/Tauziat [9], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 15

15/ Gold Coast (III, 2R/Maleeva [76], 0) Halard- Sydney (II, 1R/Sanchez-Vicario [15], 0) Decugis Australian Open (Slam, QF/Davenport [2], 4) Paris (II, SF/S. Williams [4], 2) — Déchy (26) Scottsdale (II, 2R/Sugiyama [22], 0) Indian Wells (I, R16/Davenport [2], 2) — Dragomir (22) Ericsson (I, 2R/Petrova [75], 0) Bol (III, 2R/Leon Garcia [57], 0) Berlin (I, R16/Coetzer [16], 1) Rome (I, R16/Zuluaga [69], 1) — Dragomir (32) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Shaughnessy [65], 0) Birmingham (III, QF/Tanasugarn [59], 2) Eastbourne (II, Win, 5) — Déchy (25), Tauziat (7), Rubin (20), Van Roost (16) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Boogert [85], 0) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Rubin [19], 0) Canadian Open (I, R16 (withdrew), 2) — Sidot (24) New Haven (II, 1R/Schnyder [28], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Oremans [93], 0) Olympics (X, R16/Schett, 2) Princess Cup (II, F/S. Williams [8], 3) — Brandi (30), Seles (5) (III, Win, 4) — Frazier (20) Moscow (I, 1R/Panova [50], 0) Quebec City (III, 2R/Tu [82], 1) Philadelphia (II, QF/Tauziat [9], 2) — Capriati (13) Chase (Champ, 1R/Hingis [1], 0) 48/ Hobart (IVB, QF/Rubin [21], 2+3 in qualifying) — Plischke (33) Hénin Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Hingis [1], 1) Paris (II, 2R/Tauziat [6], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 2R/Testud [10], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Sanchez-Vicario [9], 0) Palermo (IVA, QF/Nagyova [76], 2) Knokke-Heist (IVB, 2R/Serna [30], 1) Liege ($50K,Win, 5) Canadian Open (I,2R/Davenport [2], 1+2 in qualifying) New Haven (II, 2R/Coetzer [14], 1+3 in qualifying) — Appelmans (22) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Davenport [2], 3) — Kournikova (14) Luxembourg (III, 2R/Rittner [130], 1) Filderstadt (II,2R/Hingis [1], 1+3 in qualifying) — Leon Garcia (28) Bratislava (IVB, QF/Bedanova, 2)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 16

1/ Sydney (II, SF/Mauresmo [9], 2) — Van Roost (16) Hingis Australian Open (Slam, F/Davenport [2], 6) — Testud (14), Sanchez-Vicario (15), Martinez (13) Pan Pacific (I, Win, 4) — Raymond (27), Kournikova (11), Rubin (25), Testud (15) Scottsdale (II, F [no winner/final rained out], 3) — Rubin (21), Testud (11), Pierce (6) Indian Wells (I, F/Davenport [2], 5) — Frazier (19), Sugiyama (20), Schett (11), Seles (8), Pierce (6) Ericsson (I, Win, 6) — Sidot (29), Clijsters (28), Coetzer (20), Seles (8), Davenport (2) Hamburg (II, Win, 4) — Plischke (30), Kournikova (13), Huber (14), Sanchez-Vicario (11) Berlin (I, SF/Martinez [8], 3) — Talaja (23), Testud (11) Roland Garros (Slam, SF/Pierce [7], 5) — Appelmans (24), Dragomir (32), Rubin (25) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, Win, 3+1 walkover) — Capriati (18), Dragomir (33) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/V. Williams [5], 4) — Talaja (22), Huber (11) San Diego (II, QF/Frazier [26], 1) — Van Roost (15) Los Angeles (II, SF/S. Williams [7], 2) — Rubin (19), Frazier (20) Canadian Open (I, Win, 5) — Testud (11), Martinez (6), S. Williams (7) U. S. Open (Slam, SF/V. Williams [3], 5) — Brandi (32), Testud (11), Seles (5) Filderstadt (II, Win, 4) — Van Roost (18), Sanchez-Vicario (9) Zurich (I, Win, 4) — Dokic (31), Capriati (16), Davenport (2) Moscow (I, Win, 4) — Hrdlickova (34), Dementieva (18), Mauresmo (16), Kournikova (11) Philadelphia (II, F/Davenport [2], 3) — Kournikova (10), Tauziat (9) Chase (Champ, Win, 4) — Halard-Decugis (17), Tauziat (9), Kournikova (10), Seles (4) 19/ Sydney (II, 1R/Barabanschikova [89], 0) Huber Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Boogert [100], 0) Paris (II, 2R/Sidot [35], 1) — Testud (9) Hannover (II, 1R/Clijsters [36], 0) Scottsdale (II, 1R/Frazier [19], 0) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Dementieva [59], 0) Ericsson (I, 3R/Frazier [21], 1) Estoril (IVA, Win, 5) — Déchy (22) Hamburg (II, SF/Hingis [1], 3) — Appelmans (25), Martinez (8) Berlin (I, QF/Coetzer [16], 2) Rome (I, 2R/Grzybowska [143], 1) — Zvereva (35) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/V. Williams [4], 3) — Morariu (33) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Hingis [1], 3) Sopot (III, Win, 4) San Diego (II, 1R/Frazier [26], 0) Canadian Open (I, R16/Frazier [20], 1) New Haven (II, QF/Coetzer [14], 1) — Sugiyama (27) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/Dementieva [25], 4) — Likhovtseva (24), Pierce (4)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 17 8/ Gold Coast (III, QF/Talaja [29], 1) Kournikova Sydney (II, SF/Davenport [2], 3) — Appelmans (31), Capriati (22) Australian Open (Slam, R16/Davenport [2], 3) — Zvereva (26) Pan Pacific (I, QF/Hingis [1], 2) — Sidot (33) Paris (II, SF/Tauziat [6], 2) — Kremer (30) Scottsdale (II, SF/Davenport [2], 3) — Plischke (32), Sugiyama (22) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Déchy [23], 1) Ericsson (I, R16/Seles [8], 2) — Zvereva (33) Amelia Island (II, QF/Suarez [62], 2) — Kremer (35) Hilton Head (I, R16/Dragomir [26], 1) Hamburg (II, QF/Hingis [2], 2) Berlin (I, 2R/Leon Garcia [48], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Plischke [35], 1) Eastbourne (II, QF/Rubin [20], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Sidot [28], 1) — Testud (10) Stanford (II, SF/V. Williams [3], 3) — Testud (11) San Diego (II, SF/Seles [5], 3) — Davenport (2), Tauziat (8) Canadian Open (I, R16/S. Williams [7], 2) — Appelmans (26) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Hénin [58], 2) Luxembourg (III, SF/Maleeva [38], 2) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Clijsters [45], 0) Zurich (I, QF/Capriati [16], 1) Moscow (I, F/Hingis [1], 3) — Tauziat (8) Leipzig (II, SF/Clijsters [31], 2) — Maleeva (21) Philadelphia (II, QF/Hingis [1], 2) Chase (Champ, SF/Hingis [1], 2) — Capriati (13), Martinez (5) 21/ (IVB, QF/Black [50], 2) Likhovtseva Sydney (II, 2R/Davenport [2], 1) Australian Open (Slam, QF/Martinez [13], 4) — S. Williams (4) Paris (II, 1R/Farina [29], 0) Hannover (II, 1R/Chladkova [56], 0) Scottsdale (II, 1R/Plischke [32], 0) Indian Wells (I, R16/Pierce [6], 2) — Plischke (28) Ericsson (I, R16/Davenport [2], 2) — Dragomir (22) Amelia Island (II, SF/Martinez [8], 4) — Schnyder (30), Pierce (4) Hilton Head (I, R16/Seles [7], 2) (IVB, 1R/Torrens Valero [88], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Brandi [39], 0) Strasbourg (III, 1R/Osterloh [94], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Grzybowska [118], 0) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Van Roost [16], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Davenport [2], 1) San Diego (II, 2R/Tauziat [8], 1) — Capriati (17) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Testud [11], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Schnyder [31], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/V. Williams [3], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Huber [10], 2) Olympics (X, 1R/Kandarr, 0) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Rittner [104], 0) Zurich (I, 1R/Schett [25], 0) Linz (II, QF/V. Williams [3], 2) Moscow (I, 1R/Schett [24], 0) Leipzig (II, F/Clijsters [31], 4) — Raymond (27), Dementieva (17), Tauziat (8) Chase (Champ, 1R/Martinez [5], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 18 22/ Gold Coast (III, QF/Déchy [25], 2) — Halard-Decugis (9) Maleeva Hobart (IVB, 1R/Drake [59], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Sugiyama [24], 0) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Black [40], 0+3 in qualifying) Paris (II, 1R/Hénin [59], 0+3 in qualifying) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Martinez [7], 1) Ericsson (I, 2R/S. Williams [6], 1) Amelia Island (II, 1R/Jeyaseelan [96], 0) Hilton Head (I, 1R/Labat [87], 0) Bol (III, 1R/Kostanic [98], 0) Berlin (I, 1R/Hrdlickova [50], 0) Rome (I, 2R/Seles [7], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Dragomir [32], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/Capriati [18], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Oremans [111], 1) Klagenfurt (III, QF/Montolio [50], 2) Sopot (III, 2R/Martinez [6], 1) Canadian Open (I,QF/Sanchez-Vicario [9], 3+2 in qualifying) — Coetzer (13), Davenport (2) New Haven (II, 1R/Van Roost [15], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Pierce [4], 1) Luxembourg (III, F/Capriati [18], 4) — Schnyder (25), Kournikova (13) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Martinez [6], 1) — Appelmans (34) Zurich (I, 2R/Tauziat [7], 1) — Van Roost (17) Moscow (I, QF/Mauresmo [16], 2) — Sanchez-Vicario (9) Leipzig (II, QF/Kournikova [10], 2) — Hrdlickova (33) 5/ Gold Coast (III, F/Talaja [29], 4) — Plischke (35), Appelmans (30), Déchy (25) Martinez Sydney (II, 2R/Pierce [5], 1) — Kremer (28) Australian Open (Slam, SF/Hingis [1], 5) — Likhovtseva (18) Scottsdale (II, 1R/Déchy 26], 0) Indian Wells (I, QF/Davenport [2], 3) — Van Roost (21) Ericsson (I, R16/Coetzer [20], 2) — Schnyder (25) Amelia Island (II, F/Seles [9], 4) — Dementieva (34), Schett (13), Likhovtseva (21) Hilton Head (I, SF/Sanchez-Vicario [10], 3) Hamburg (II, QF/Huber [14], 1) Berlin (I, Win, 5) — Plischke (32), Suarez (35), Hingis (1), Coetzer (16) Roland Garros (Slam, F/Pierce [7], 6) — Sugiyama (21), Sanchez-Vicario (9) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Jeyaseelan [79], 1) — Kremer (34) Sopot (III, QF/Leon Garcia [36], 1) San Diego (II, QF/V. Williams [3], 2) — Clijsters (34) Los Angeles (II, QF/S. Williams [7], 1) Canadian Open (I, SF/Hingis [1], 2+1 walkover) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Dementieva [25], 2) — Frazier (19) Olympics (X, 2R/Habsudova, 1) Filderstadt (II, QF/Clijsters [45], 1) — Maleeva (27) Philadelphia (II, SF/Davenport [2], 2) Chase (Champ, QF/Kournikova [9], 1) — Likhovtseva (21)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 19 16/ Sydney (II, Win, 4+1 walkover) — Sugiyama (25), Pierce (5), Hingis (1), Davenport (2) Mauresmo Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Schnyder [29], 1) Paris (II, 2R/Pitkowski [39], 1) — Dragomir (21) Hannover (II, SF/S. Williams [4], 1+1 walkover) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Clijsters [33], 0) Bol (III, F/Pisnik [81], 4) Berlin (I, 2R/Suarez [35], 1) Rome (I, F/Seles [7], 5) — Pierce (5), Sanchez-Vicario (10) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Seles [3], 3) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Leon Garcia [47], 0) Olympics (X, 1R/Zuluaga, 0) Princess Cup (II, 2R/Bedanova [87], 0) Linz (II, 2R/Hrdlickova [36], 1) Moscow (I, SF/Hingis [1], 3) — Dokic (27), Raymond (29), Maleeva (22) 7/ Sydney (II, QF/Mauresmo [9], 1) — Martinez (12) Pierce Australian Open (Slam, R16/Sugiyama [24], 3) Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Osterloh [87], 0) Scottsdale (II, SF/Hingis [1], 2) — Déchy (26) Indian Wells (I, SF/Hingis [1], 4) — Morariu (35), Likhovtseva (18), S. Williams (4) Ericsson (I, 2R/Dementieva [39], 0) Amelia Island (II, QF/Likhovtseva [21], 2) — Talaja (23) Hilton Head (I, Win, 5) — Seles (7), Sanchez-Vicario (10) Rome (I, R16/Mauresmo [18], 1) Madrid (III, 2R/Di Natale [258], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, Win, 7) — Seles (3), Hingis (1), Martinez (5) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Serna [49], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Huber [10], 3) — Raymond (26) 31/ Sydney (II, 1R/Coetzer [10], 0) Raymond Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Sanchez-Vicario [15], 1) Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Hingis [1], 1) Oklahoma City (III, QF/Coetzer [16], 2) Scottsdale (II, 1R/Sugiyama [22], 0) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Zvereva [30], 0) Ericsson (I, 3R/Seles [8], 1) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Jeyaseelan [96], 1) Hilton Head (I, R16/Nejedly [85], 2) Rome (I, 2R/Sidot [31], 1) Madrid (III, 1R/Montolio [51], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Garbin [50], 1) Birmingham (III, Win, 5) — Capriati (19), Tauziat (7) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Zvereva [65], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/S. Williams [8], 4) San Diego (II, 1R/Coetzer [13], 0) Los Angeles (II, QF/Dementieva [32], 2) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Pierce [4], 2) Moscow (I, 2R/Mauresmo [16], 1) Leipzig (II, 2R/Likhovtseva [25], 1) — Leon Garcia (34) Philadelphia (II, 2R/Davenport [2], 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 20 13/ Hobart (IVB, F/Clijsters [63], 4) — Frazier (19) Rubin Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Appelmans [31], 1) Pan Pacific (I, SF/Hingis [1], 3) — Stevenson (35), Coetzer (12) Scottsdale (II, 2R/Hingis [1], 1) Indian Wells (I, QF/Dementieva [59], 3) — Testud (13) Ericsson (I, 3R/Capriati [14], 1) Amelia Island (II, R16/Schett [13], 2) Berlin (I, R16/Leon Garcia [48], 2) Rome (I, 2R/V. Williams [4], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, QF/Hingis [1], 4) — Tauziat (6) Eastbourne (II, SF/Halard-Decugis [14], 3) — Kournikova (17) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Déchy [24], 0) Stanford (II, QF/Davenport [2], 2) — Zuluaga (33) San Diego (II, 1R/Testud [11], 0) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Hingis [1], 1) — Halard-Decugis (14) Canadian Open (I, R16/Testud [11], 2) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Seles [5], 2) — Schett (20) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Sidot [31], 1) — Capriati (14) Zurich (I, QF/Davenport [2], 2) — Talaja (22) Linz (II, SF/V. Williams [3], 2) Quebec City (III, Win, 4) — Capriati (12) Philadelphia (II, 2R/withdrew, 1) — Frazier (19) Chase (Champ, 1R/Coetzer [12], 0) 9/ Gold Coast (III, SF/Talaja [29], 3) — Schnyder (21) Sanchez- Sydney (II, QF/Davenport [2], 2) — Halard-Decugis (11) Vicario Australian Open (Slam, QF/Hingis [1], 4) — Raymond (28), Schett (9) Ericsson (I, 3R/Appelmans [27], 1) Amelia Island (II, QF/Seles [9], 2) — Coetzer (20) Hilton Head (I, F/Pierce [4], 4) — Schnyder (27), Coetzer (19), Martinez (8) Hamburg (II, F/Hingis [2], 3) — Coetzer (18) Berlin (I, 2R/Dementieva [31], 0) Rome (I, QF/Mauresmo [18], 2) Roland Garros (Slam, SF/Martinez [5], 5) — Schett (17), V. Williams (4) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Seles [6], 3) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Frazier [20], 1) — Schett (18) Canadian Open (I, SF/S. Williams]7], 3) — Capriati (16) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Tauziat [8], 3) Olympics (X, QF/V. Williams, 3) Filderstadt (II, SF/Hingis [1], 2) — Coetzer (13) Moscow (I, 2R/Maleeva [22], 0) Leipzig (II, 2R/Clijsters [31], 0) Chase (Champ, 1R/Clijsters [19], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 21 23/ Sydney (II, 2R/Stevenson [44], 0) Schett Australian Open (Slam, R16/Sanchez-Vicario [15], 3) Scottsdale (II, 2R/Seles [9], 1) Indian Wells (I, R16/Hingis [1], 2) Ericsson (I, 2R/Gersi [73], 0) Amelia Island (II, QF/Martinez [8], 2) — Rubin (25) Hilton Head (I, 2R/Nejedly [85], 0) Hamburg (II, 1R/Panova [44], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Sanchez-Vicario [9], 3) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/Pratt [56], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Barabanschikova [92], 0) Klagenfurt (III, Win, 4) — Schnyder (32) Sopot (III, QF/Myskina [54], 2) San Diego (II, 1R/Panova [49], 0) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Sanchez-Vicario [10], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Talaja [28], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Clijsters [33], 0) U. S. Open (Slam. 2R/Rubin [17], 1) Olympics (X, QF/Dementieva, 3) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Black [37], 0) Zurich (I, SF/Davenport [2], 3) — Likhovtseva (29), Coetzer (12), Tauziat (7) Linz (II, QF/Davenport [2], 2) Moscow (I, QF/Tauziat [8], 2) — Likhovtseva (25), Schnyder (23) Leipzig (II, QF/Tauziat [8], 2) 25/ Gold Coast (III, QF/Sanchez-Vicario [17], 2) Schnyder Hobart (IVB, 2R/Vento [113], 1) Australian Open (Slam, R16/Capriati [21], 3) — Mauresmo (6) Paris (II, 2R/S. Williams [4], 1) — Appelmans (28) Hannover (II, QF/S. Williams [4], 2) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Seles [8], 1) Ericsson (I, 3R/Martinez [7], 1) Amelia Island (II, R16/Likhovtseva [21], 2) — Testud (10) Hilton Head (I, R16/Sanchez-Vicario [10], 2) Hamburg (II, 1R/Serna [48], 0) Berlin (I, 1R/Kuti Kis [74], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Chladkova [36], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Gagliardi [72], 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, QF/Capriati [18], 2) — Clijsters (30) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Suarez [52], 1) Klagenfurt (III, F/Schett [19], 3) Sopot (III, QF/Suarez [43], 2) Canadian Open (I, 2R/S. Williams [7], 1) — Likhovtseva (22) New Haven (II, QF/V. Williams [3], 2) — Halard-Decugis (17), Dementieva (25) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Asagoe [94], 1) Luxembourg (III, QF/Maleeva [38], 2) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Coetzer [13], 1) Zurich (I, 1R/Myskina [55], 0) Linz (II, 1R/Suarez [43], 0) Moscow (I, 2R/Schett [24], 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 22 4/ Oklahoma City (III, Win, 4) — Pitkowski (35), Coetzer (16), Déchy (26) Seles Scottsdale (II, QF/Davenport [1], 2) — Talaja (25), Schett (13) Indian Wells (I, QF/Hingis [1], 3) — Schnyder (24), Appelmans (27) Ericsson (I, SF/Hingis [1], 4) — Raymond (28), Kournikova (10), Frazier (19) Amelia Island (II, Win, 5) — Morariu (33), Sanchez-Vicario (11), Martinez (8) Hilton Head (I, SF/Pierce [4], 3) — Likhovtseva (17), Dragomir (26) Rome (I, Win, 5) — Sidot (31), Mauresmo (18) Roland Garros (Slam, QF/Pierce [7], 4) — Talaja (18), Mauresmo (14) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/Davenport [2], 4) — Sanchez-Vicario (9) Stanford (II, SF/Davenport [2], 2) San Diego (II, F/V. Williams [3], 3) — Testud (11), Kournikova (18) New Haven (II, F/V. Williams [3], 3) — Brandi (34), Van Roost (15), Tauziat (8) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/Hingis [1], 4) — Kremer (35), Rubin (17), Capriati (16) Olympics (X, SF/V. Williams — won bronze over Dokic, 4+1 for bronze) Princess Cup (II, SF/Halard-Decugis [19], 2) Chase (Champ, F/Hingis [1], 3) — Testud (18), Coetzer (12), Dementieva (15) 36/ Sydney (II, 1R/Stevenson [44], 0) Sidot Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Petrova [85], 0) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Kournikova [11], 0) Paris (II, QF/Tauziat [6], 2) — Huber (19) Hannover (II, SF/Chladkova [56], 3) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Tauziat [5], 0) Ericsson (I, 3R/Hingis [1], 1) Estoril (IVA, 2R/Garbin [77], 1) Hamburg (II, 2R/Coetzer [18], 1) Berlin (I, 1R/Talaja [23], 0) Rome (I, R16/Seles [7], 2) — Capriati (13), Raymond (27) Strasbourg (III, 2R/Morariu [34], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Marrero [108], 2) Birmingham (III, QF/Tauziat [7], 2) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Kandarr [112], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Tanasugarn [40], 2) — Kournikova (19) San Diego (II, 1R/Déchy [21], 0) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Davenport [2], 1) — Sugiyama (21) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Halard-Decugis [19], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Talaja [26], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/V. Williams [3], 0) Luxembourg (III, QF/Capriati [18], 2) Filderstadt (II, QF/Tauziat [7], 2) — Rubin (16) Zurich (I, 2R/Capriati [16], 1) Linz (II, 1R/Habsudova [108], 0) Bratislava (IVB, QF/Oremans [73], 2) Leipzig (II, 1R/Hrdlickova [34], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 23 33/ Sydney (II, 1R/Mauresmo [9], 0) Sugiyama Australian Open (Slam, QF/Capriati [21], 4) — Pierce (5) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Srebotnik [65], 0) Scottsdale (II, QF/Kournikova [10], 2) — Raymond (27), Halard-Decugis (8) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Hingis [1], 1) Ericsson (I, 3R/S. Williams [6], 1) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Pratt [51], 1) Berlin (I, 1R/Cristea [121], 0) Rome (I, 2R/Chladkova [36], 1) Madrid (III, 2R/Zuluaga [41], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Martinez [5], 3) — Clijsters (29), Plischke (35) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Talaja [22], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/V. Williams [5], 1) San Diego (II, 1R/Van Roost [15], 0) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Sidot [25], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Leon Garcia [32], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/Huber [10], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Boogert [79], 1) Olympics (X,1R/Dokic, 0) Princess Cup (II, 2R/Asagoe [85], 1) Zurich (I, 1R/Appelmans [50], 0) Linz (II, 2R/V. Williams [3], 1) Moscow (I, 2R/Tauziat [8], 1) Leipzig (II, 1R/Clijsters [31], 0) Philadelphia II, 1R/Pratt [56], 0) 30/ Gold Coast (III, Win, 5) — Kournikova (12), Sanchez-Vicario (12), Martinez (15) Talaja Sydney (II, 2R (withdrew), 1) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Molik [116], 0) Paris (II, 1R/Shashnova [52], 0) Hannover (II, 1R/Kremer [28], 0) Scottsdale (II, 1R/Seles [9], 0) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Dokic [45], 0) Ericsson (I, 3R/Davenport [2], 1) Amelia Island (II, R16/Pierce [4], 2) Hilton Head (I, 1R/Brandi [45], 0) Bol (III, 2R/Pisnik [81], 1) Berlin (I, R16/Hingis [1], 2) — Sidot (30) Rome (I, 1R/Zuluaga [69], 0) Strasbourg (III, Win, 5) — Tauziat (7), Déchy (21) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Seles [3], 0) Birmingham (III, R16/Black [61], 1) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Kremer [41], 1) — Sugiyama (19) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Hingis [1], 2) Palermo (IVA, 1R/Diaz-Oliva [164], 0) Los Angeles (II, Stevenson [87], 0) Canadian Open (I, Kremer [50], 2) — Schett (18), Déchy (21) New Haven (II, 2R/Van Roost [15], 1) — Sidot (32) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Schiavone [108], 0) Olympics (X,2R/Farina Elia, 1) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Coetzer [13], 0) Zurich (I, 1R/Rubin [14], 0) Linz (II, 1R/Chladkova [53], 0) Moscow (I, 1R/Farina Elia [86], 0) Kuala Lumpur (III, 2R/Morariu [58], 0) Pattaya City (IVB, 1R/Farina Elia [69], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 24 10/ Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Jeyaseelan [145], 1) — Nagyova (32) Tauziat Pan Pacific (I, QF/Testud [15], 1) Paris (II, Win, 4) — Sidot (35), Kournikova (11), S. Williams (4) Hannover (II, 2R/Boogert [88], 0) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Habsudova [67], 1) — Sidot (31) Ericsson (I, 3R/Déchy [23], 1) Berlin (I, 2R/Kruger [90], 0) Rome (I, QF/Zuluaga [69], 2) Strasbourg (III, QF/Talaja [22], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Rubin [25], 2) Birmingham (III, SF/Raymond [28], 3) — Sidot (27) Eastbourne (II, QF/Halard-Decugis [14], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Clijsters [31], 0) San Diego (II, QF/Kournikova [18], 2) — Likhovtseva (23) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Bedanova [113], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Kremer [50], 0) New Haven (II, SF/Seles [6], 2) — Clijsters (33) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/V. Williams [3], 4) — Sanchez-Vicario (9) Luxembourg (III, 2R/Hantuchova [135], 0) Filderstadt (II, SF/Clijsters [45], 2) — Sidot (31) Zurich (I, QF/Schett [25], 1) — Maleeva (27) Linz (II, QF/Hrdlickova [36], 1) Moscow (I, SF/Kournikova [11], 2) — Schett (24) Leipzig (II, SF/Likhovtseva [25], 2) — Schett (22) Philadelphia (II, SF/Hingis [1], 2) — Halard-Decugis (18) Chase (Champ, QF/Hingis [1], 1) — Frazier (22) 17/ Sydney (II, 1R/Capriati [22], 0) Testud Australian Open (Slam, R16/Hingis [1], 3) Pan Pacific (I, F/Hingis [1], 4) — Tauziat (6) Paris (II, 1R/Huber [19], 0) Scottsdale (II, QF/Hingis [1], 2) — Van Roost (20), Frazier (19) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Rubin [29], 1) — Pitkowski (34) Ericsson (I, SF/Davenport [2], 4) — Plischke (29), Capriati (14) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Schnyder [30], 0) Bol (III, QF/Sanchez-Lorenzo [76], 1) Berlin (I, QF/Hingis [1], 2) Rome (I, 2R/Morariu [43], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Carlsson [53], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, QF/Dragomir [33], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Kournikova [19], 0) Stanford (II, QF/Kournikova [19], 1) San Diego (II, QF/Seles [5], 2) — Rubin (19) Los Angeles (II, QF/Davenport [2], 2) — Likhovtseva (23), Van Roost (16) Canadian Open (I, QF/Hingis [1], 2) — Dragomir (30), Rubin (17) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Hingis [1], 3) Chase (Champ, 1R/Seles [4], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 25 24/ Sydney (II, QF/Hingis [1], 2) — Coetzer (10) Van Roost Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Capriati [21], 1) — Clijsters (34) Paris (II, 1R/Spirlea [40], 0) Scottsdale (II, 1R/Testud [11], 0) Indian Wells (I, R16/Martinez [7], 2) — Coetzer (17) Ericsson (I, 3R (withdrew), 1) Rome (I, 2R/Casoni [128], 1) Strasbourg (III, 1R/Smashnova [56], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Marerro [108], 1) — Davenport (2) Eastbourne (II, F/Halard-Decugis [14], 4) — Likhovtseva (23), Davenport (2) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Capriati [16], 0) Knokke-Heist (IVB, F/Smashnova [49], 4) — Serna (30) San Diego (II, 2R/Hingis [1], 1) — Sugiyama (20) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Testud [11], 1) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Hrdlickova [41], 0) New Haven (II, QF/Seles [6], 2) — Talaja (26) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Osterloh [57], 1) Olympics (X, QF/Seles, 3) Filderstadt (II, QF/Hingis [1], 2) — Kremer (35) Zurich (I, 1R/Maleeva [27], 0) Retired 6/ Australian Open (Slam, R16/Likhovtseva [18], 3) — Appelmans (31) Williams, Paris (II, F/Tauziat [6], 3) — Schnyder (25), Halard-Decugis (8) Serena Hannover (II, Win, 4) — Schnyder (25), Mauresmo (14) Indian Wells (I, QF/Pierce [6], 3) — Clijsters (33) Ericsson (I, R16/Capriati [14], 2) — Sugiyama (19) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Suarez [62], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, SF/V. Williams [5], 5) — Raymond (21) Los Angeles (II, Win, 5) — Dragomir (28), Martinez (6), Hingis (1), Davenport (2) Canadian Open (I, F/Hingis [1], 4) — Schnyder (30), Kournikova (14), Frazier (20), Sanchez-Vicario (9) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/Davenport [2], 4) Princess Cup (II, Win, 4) — Dokic (33), Halard-Decugis (19) 3/ Hamburg (II, QF/Coetzer [18], 1) Williams, Rome (I, R16/Dokic [37], 1) — Rubin (24) Venus Roland Garros (Slam, QF/Sanchez-Vicario [9], 4) — Huber (12) Wimbledon (Slam, Win, 7) — Déchy (24), Appelmans (27), Hingis (1), S. Williams (8), Davenport (2) Stanford (II, Win, 4) — Frazier (21), Kournikova (19), Davenport (2) San Diego (II, Win, 4) — Coetzer (12), Martinez (6), Frazier (26), Seles (5) New Haven (II, Win, 4) — Likhovtseva (23), Schnyder (28), Coetzer (14), Seles (6) U. S. Open (Slam, Win, 7) — Sidot (31), Serna (33), Tauziat (8), Hingis (1), Davenport (2) Olympics (X, Win, 6) Linz (II, F/Davenport [2], 3) — Sugiyama (32), Likhovtseva (30), Rubin (15) 79/ Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Kournikova [12], 1) Zvereva Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Coetzer, 1) Hannover (II, 1R/Boogert [88], 0) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Davenport [2], 1) — Raymond (26) Ericsson (I, 3R/Kournikova [10], 1) Hamburg (II, 1R/Spirlea [53], 0) Berlin (I, 1R/Kruger [90], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Huber [12], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Rubin [25], 3) — Zuluaga (34) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Kournikova [17], 1) — Raymond (21) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Tanasugarn [40], 1) Klagenfurt (III, QF/Gersi [75], 2) Olympics (X, 1R/Salerni, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 26 The Rankings (Top 192 — As of November 20, 2000. Ranking, Name, Points) 1 Hingis, Martina 6180 65 Pitkowski, Sarah 495 129 Snyder, Tara 241 2 Davenport, Lindsay 5022 66 Boogert, Kristie 483 130 Courtois, Laurence 239 3 Williams, Venus 3694 67 Tu, Meilen 478 131 Glass, Andrea 238.5 4 Seles, Monica 3255 68 Gersi, Adriana 476 132 Llagostera, Nuria 237.5 5 Martinez, Conchita 2795 69 Nejedly, Jana 474 133 Krasnoroutskaya, Lina 234.5 6 Williams, Serena 2306 70 Marrero, Marta 451 134 Li, Na 234.5 7 Pierce, Mary 2162 71 Rippner, Brie 445.5 135 Bovina, Elena 233.5 8 Kournikova, Anna 2158 72 Asagoe, Shinobu 444 136 Pizzichini, Gloria 232.5 9 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 2132 73 Majoli, Iva 441.5 137 Bradshaw, Allison 226.25 10 Tauziat, Nathalie 1963 74 Barabanschikova, Olga 436 138 Pullin, Julie 224.5 11 Coetzer, Amanda 1798 75 Tulyaganova, Iroda 434 139 Sequera, Milagros 223.5 12 Dementieva, Elena 1774 76 Pisnik, Tina 433 140 Cacic, Sandra 220 13 Rubin, Chanda 1760 77 de los Rios, Rossana 427 141 Dominguez Lino, Lourdes 217 14 Capriati, Jennifer 1664 78 Grande, Rita 410 142 Washington, Mashona 216 15 Halard-Decugis, Julie 1436 79 Zvereva, Natasha 407 143 Castano, Catalina 216 16 Mauresmo, Amélie 1426 80 Schiavone, Francesca 402 144 Barna, Anca 213.5 17 Testud, Sandrine 1414 81 Hopkins, Jennifer 397 145 Dominikovic, Evie 207.5 18 Clijsters, Kim 1398 82 Nola, Pavlina 392 146 Fusai, Alexandra 206.5 19 Huber, Anke 1370 83 Grzybowska, Magdalena 390 147 Arn, Greta 202 20 Frazier, Amy 1255 84 Jidkova, Alina 383 148 Drake, Maureen 198 21 Likhovtseva, Elena 1216 85 Parkinson, Holly 382.5 149 Bachmann, Angelika 196 22 Maleeva, Magdalena 1108 86 Habsudova, Karina 381 150 Craybas, Jill 193.5 23 Schett, Barbara 1065 87 Poutchek, Tatiana 378 151 Husarova, Janette 188 24 Van Roost, Dominique 1056 88 Vavrinec, Miroslava 374 152 Vaskova, Alena 185 25 Schnyder, Patty 1056 89 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 370 153 Martinez, Maria Jose 184 26 Dokic, Jelena 1054 90 Wartusch, Patricia 364 154 Lubiani, Francesca 179 27 Déchy, Nathalie 1020 91 Casoni, Giulia 363 155 Mcshea, Lisa 176 28 Brandi, Kristina 956 92 Irvin, Marissa 359 156 Foretz, Stephanie 170.5 29 Tanasugarn, Tamarine 954 93 Stevenson, Alexandra 353 157 Nemeckova, Lenka 170 30 Talaja, Silvija 935 94 Torrens Valero, Cristina 353 158 Mandula, Petra 170 31 Raymond, Lisa 931 95 Weingartner, Marlene 347 159 Hergold, Tina 169.5 32 Leon Garcia, Gala 879 96 Yi, Jing-Qian 346 160 Nagy, Kyra 169 33 Sugiyama, Ai 876 97 Gagliardi, Emmanuelle 344 161 Schnitzer, Miriam 166 34 Panova, Tatiana 860 98 Bacheva, Lubomira 344 162 Kolbovic, Renata 164 35 Kremer, Anne 854 99 Sanchez Lorenzo, Maria An. 344 163 Randriantefy, Dally 162.5 36 Sidot, Anne-Gaelle 842 100 Nacuk, Sandra 343 164 Bes, Eva 161 37 Suarez, Paola 840 101 Rittner, Barbara 342 165 Dyrberg, Eva 161 38 Serna, Magui 826 102 Loit, Emilie 339.5 166 Noorlander, Seda 160 39 Shaughnessy, Meghann 825 103 Ostrovskaya, Nadejda 337 167 Spirlea, Irina 155 40 Garbin, Tathiana 789 104 Hopmans, Amanda 328 168 Stewart, Bryanne 154 41 Nagyova, Henrieta 756 105 Vento, Maria 318.5 169 Obata, Saori 152.5 42 Zuluaga, Fabiola 755 106 Labat, Florencia 317.5 170 Rampre, Petra 152 43 Black, Cara 748 107 Callens, Els 316 171 Schnell, Melanie 151.5 44 Osterloh, Lilia 710 108 Hantuchova, Daniela 309.5 172 Cho, Yoon Jeong 151.5 45 Dragomir, Ruxandra 706 109 Sucha, Martina 302 173 Reeves, Samantha 151 46 Smashnova, Anna 700 110 Mcquillan, Rachel 299 174 Pastikova, Michaela 149.5 47 Hrdlickova, Kveta 690 111 Latimer, Louise 296 175 Vaidyanathan, Nirupama 143.5 48 Hénin, Justine 661.5 112 Webb, Vanessa 295.5 176 Pandjerova, Antoaneta 142 49 Jeyaseelan, Sonya 649 113 Kostanic, Jelena 286.5 177 Zaric, Dragana 141.5 50 Appelmans, Sabine 649 114 Medina Garrigues, Ana I. 285.25 178 Riera, Gisela 141 51 Chladkova, Denisa 633 115 Molik, Alicia 285 179 Cocheteux, Amelie 138 52 Morariu, Corina 630 116 Lee, Janet 279 180 Ramon, Mariam 137 53 Plischke, Sylvia 612 117 Cristea, Catalina 276.5 181 Andretto, Laurence 136.5 54 Bedanova, Daja 610 118 Diaz-Oliva, Mariana 276 182 Sfar, Selima 134.75 55 Pratt, Nicole 609 119 Srebotnik, Katarina 273.5 183 Koukalova, Klara 134.5 56 Kuti Kis, Rita 596 120 De Lone, Erika 273 184 Serra-Zanetti, Antonella 134.5 57 Carlsson, Asa 573 121 Cervanova, Ludmila 272 185 Ahl, Lucie 134.5 58 Myskina, Anastasia 573 122 Kleinova, Sandra 268 186 Gubacsi, Zsofia 134 59 Kruger, Joannette 570 123 Basting, Yvette 260.5 187 Palaversic, Maja 133.75 60 Montolio, Angeles 561 124 Buth, Dawn 256 188 Perebiynis, Tatiana 132.25 61 Kandarr, Jana 528 125 Prakusya, Wynne 253.5 189 Maruska, Marion 132 62 Petrova, Nadejda 526 126 Yoshida, Yuka 250 190 Fauth, Evelyn 132 63 Farina Elia, Silvia 500 127 Lamade, Bianka 249.5 191 Selyutina, Irina 132 64 Oremans, Miriam 497 128 Marosi-Aracama, Katalin 243.5 192 Prusova, Libuse 131.5

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 27 Tournament Winners by Date (High-Tier Events) The following list shows the winner of all important (Tier II or higher) tournaments, ordered first by date then by type: Tournament Tier Winner Sydney II Mauresmo Australian Open Slam Davenport (Pan Pacific) I Hingis Paris II Tauziat Hannover II S. Williams Scottsdale II (No winner — Hingis/Davenport final rained out) Indian Wells I Davenport Ericsson (Miami) I Hingis Amelia Island II Seles Hilton Head I Pierce Hamburg II Hingis Berlin I Martinez Rome I Seles Roland Garros Slam Pierce Eastbourne II Halard-Decugis Wimbledon Slam V. Williams Stanford II V. Williams San Diego II V. Williams Los Angeles II S. Williams Canadian Open I Hingis New Haven II V. Williams U.S. Open Slam V. Williams Tokyo (Princess Cup) II S. Williams Filderstadt II Hingis Zurich I Hingis Linz II Davenport Moscow I Hingis Leipzig II Clijsters Philadelphia II Davenport Chase Championships Champ Hingis It is perhaps worth noting that, among the Tier I events, Moscow was by far the weakest. (See the section on strength of tournaments.) Among Tier II events, Sydney, San Diego, and Philadelphia were the strongest this year (and have been for several years past); all three featured fields stronger than most of the Tier I events with the exception of the Ericsson.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 28 Tournament Winners by Tournament Type (High-Tier Events) SLAMS Event Winner Australian Open Davenport Roland Garros Pierce Wimbledon V. Williams U.S. Open V. Williams YEAR-END CHAMPIONSHIP Event Winner Chase Championships Hingis TIER I Event Winner Pan Pacific (Tokyo) Hingis Indian Wells Davenport Ericsson (Miami) Hingis Hilton Head Pierce German Open (Berlin) Martinez (Rome) Seles Canadian Open Hingis Zurich Hingis Moscow Hingis TIER II Event Winner Sydney Mauresmo Paris Tauziat Hannover S. Williams Scottsdale (No winner — Hingis/Davenport final rained out) Amelia Island Seles Hamburg Hingis Eastbourne Halard-Decugis Stanford V. Williams San Diego V. Williams Los Angeles S. Williams New Haven V. Williams Princess Cup (Tokyo) S. Williams Filderstadt Hingis Linz Davenport Leipzig Clijsters Philadelphia Davenport

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 29 Winners at Smaller Tournaments (Tier III, IVA, IVB) Tournament Winner Tier Same Week As Gold Coast Talaja III Auckland (IVB) Auckland Kremer IVB Gold Coast (III) Hobart Clijsters IVB Sydney (II) Bogota Wartusch IVA Paris (II) São Paulo Kuti Kis IVA Hannover (II) Oklahoma City Seles III Estoril Huber IVA Amelia Island (II) Garbin IVB Hilton Head (I) Bol Pisnik III Hamburg (II) Warsaw Nagyova IVB Berlin (I) Antwerp Coetzer IVA Rome (I) Madrid Leon Garcia III Strasbourg (III) Strasbourg Talaja III Madrid (III) Birmingham Raymond III Tashkent (IVA) Tashkent Tulyaganova IVA Birmingham ’s-Hertogenbosch Hingis III Eastbourne (II) Klagenfurt Schett III Palermo (IVA) Palermo Nagyova IVA Klagenfurt (III) Sopot Huber III Knokke-Heist (IVB) Knokke-Heist Smashnova IVB Sopot (III) Luxembourg Capriati III (Olympics Week 2) Japan Open Halard-Decugis III Zurich (I) Shanghai Shaughnessy IVA Linz (II) Bratislava Bedanova IVB Moscow (I) Quebec City Rubin III Leipzig (II) Kuala Lumpur Nagyova III Philadelphia (II) Pattaya City Kremer IVB Chase Championships

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 30 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 14 Capriati 1 1 Luxembourg (III) 18 Clijsters 1 1 2 Hobart (IVB), Leipzig (II) 11 Coetzer 1 1 Antwerp (IVA) 2 Davenport 4 4 Australian Open (Slam), [also in rained-out final at Scottsdale (II)], Indian Wells (I), Linz (II), Philadelphia (II) 15 Halard-Decugis 1 1 Eastbourne (II) 1 Hingis 8 1 9 Pan Pacific (I), [also in rained-out final at Scottsdale (II)], Ericsson (I), Hamburg (II), ’s-Hertogenbosch (III), Canadian Open (I), Filderstadt (II), Zurich (I), Moscow (I), Chase (Champ) 19 Huber 2 2 Estoril (IVA), Sopot (III) 16 Mauresmo 1 1 Sydney (II) 5 Martinez 1 1 Berlin (I) 7 Pierce 2 2 Hilton Head (I), Roland Garros (Slam) 13 Rubin 1 1 Quebec City (III) 23 Schett 1 1 Klagenfurt (III) 4 Seles 2 1 3 Oklahoma City (III), Amelia Island (II), Rome (I) 10 Tauziat 1 1 Paris (II) 6 S. Williams 3 3 Hannover (II), Los Angeles (II), Princess Cup (II) 3 V. Williams 5 5 Wimbledon (Slam), Stanford (II), San Diego (II), New Haven (II), V. Williams (Slam); also Olympics The following Top 25 players did not win any tournaments in 2000: Kournikova, Sanchez-Vicario, Dementieva, Testud, Frazier, Likhovtseva, Maleeva, Van Roost, Schnyder

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 31 Alphabetical List of All Tournament Winners, with Number of Titles Players in bold have multiple wins: Bedanova (1), Capriati (1), Clijsters (2), Coetzer (1), Davenport (4), Garbin, Halard-Decugis (2), Hingis (9), Huber (2), Kremer (2), Kuti Kis (1), Leon Garcia (1), Martinez (1), Mauresmo (1), Nagyova (3), Pierce (2), Pisnik (1), Raymond (1), Rubin (1), Schett (1), Seles (3), Shaughnessy (1), Smashnova (1), Talaja (2), Tauziat (1), Tulyaganova (1), Wartusch (1), S. Williams (3), V. Williams (5) Fraction of Tournaments Won Sorted in descending order of fraction won. List includes only the WTA Top 31. WTA Tournaments Tournaments Percent Rank Player Won Played Won 3 V. Williams 9 5 56% 1 Hingis* 20 9 47% 6 S. Williams 11 3 27% 2 Davenport* 18 4 24% 4 Seles 15 3 20% 7 Pierce 13 2 15% 18 Clijsters 17 2 12% 19 Huber 18 2 11% 16 Mauresmo 13 1 8% 30 Talaja 29 2 7% 5 Martinez 20 1 5% 14 Capriati 20 1 5% 31 Raymond 21 1 5% 10 Tauziat 26 1 4% 11 Coetzer 23 1 4% 13 Rubin 23 1 4% 15 Halard-Decugis 24 1 4% 23 Schett 23 1 4% 8 Kournikova 26 0 0% 9 Sanchez-Vicario 18 0 0% 12 Dementieva 22 0 0% 17 Testud 20 0 0% 20 Frazier 22 0 0% 21 Likhovtseva 27 0 0% 22 Maleeva 26 0 0% 24 Van Roost 19 0 0% 25 Schnyder 25 0 0% 26 Dokic 19 0 0% 27 Déchy 19 0 0% 28 Brandi 29 0 0% 29 Tanasugarn 25 0 0% * Hingis and Davenport were in the Scottsdale final, which was rained out. This event is ignored in the “Percent Won” category (i.e. Hingis’s 47% won represents 9 of 19, not 9 of 20; Davenport’s 18% represents 4 of 17, not 4 of 18).

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 32 Summary: Tiers of Tournaments Played and Average Tier (Note: The Slams and the Chase are treated mathematically as “Tier 0.” The lower the mean and median strength, the tougher one’s schedule.) Slams Chase Tier I Tier II Tier III Tier IV Total Mean Median Played Played Played Played Played Played Played Strength Strength Capriati 41555 201.5I/II Clijsters 412622171.6II Coetzer 417911231.4I Davenport 4158 181.2I Déchy 4 4542191.8II Dementieva 4189 221.2I Dokic 4 7521191.4I Frazier 414841221.6II Halard-Decugis 41685 241.5II Hingis 41771 201.2I Huber 4 5711181.4I/II Kournikova 4 1 8 11 2 26 1.4 I/II Likhovtseva 4 1 7 12 1 2 27 1.6 II Maleeva 4 9561251.6I Martinez 41582 201.4I/II Mauresmo 3 4 5 1 13 1.3 I Pierce 4 5 3 1 13 1.1 I Rubin 417911231.4I Sanchez-Vicario 41661 181.2I Schett 4 6 10 3 23 1.5 II Schnyder 4 8751251.6II Seles 31461 151.3I Tauziat 4 1 8 10 3 26 1.4 I/II Testud 41672 201.3I Van Roost 4 5811191.5I/II S. Williams 3 3 5 11 1.2 I V. Williams 3 1 5 9 1.2 I/II

Thus the strongest (highest average tier) schedules on the tour was played by Pierce (who managed to play an amazing number of Slams considering that she was injured for half the year), followed by Davenport, Dementieva (!), Hingis, Sanchez-Vicario, and Serena Williams. Venus Williams played a very strange schedule, as shown by her high mean strength and lower median strength — her results were top-heavy with Slams but bottom-heavy with Tier II events. The weakest schedule was played (for the second year running) by Nathalie Déchy, followed by Kim Clijsters, Amy Frazier, Elena Likhovtseva, Magdalena Maleeva, and Patty Schnyder.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 33 Points earned week-by-week The following table shows the week-by-week point totals earned by the Top Twenty. Note: Weeks in which no Tour events were played are not shown, but weeks in which events were played but none of these players was active are shown. Results due to winning events are italicised. C C C D D F H H H K M M P R S S T T V S V A L O A E R A I U O A A I U A E A E A W W P I E V M A L N B U R U E B N L U S N I I R J T E E Z A G E R T R R I C E Z T L L I S Z N N I R I R N I E C N H S I U R L L week A T E P T E D S I N S E E A D O I I of T E R O I R K E M Z T O A A 1/9 1 37 159 102 1/16 61 144 41 233 1 50 1 129 1 138 41 448 85 105 95 1 101 1/30 404 2 46 934 76 2 170 618 2 130 336 42 100 46 256 56 98 56 120 2/7 80 368 88 1 177 75 251 2/14 11 107 69 115 49 313 1 1 216 2/21 49 1 1 100 1 281 2/28 94 45 207 3/5 36 261 49 1 241 1 132 1 109 36 108 96 1 3/19 1 81 1 479 208 1 67 349 1 32 106 1 214 112 113 37 37 67 98 4/3 125 52 110 286 108 131 1 435 24 53 69 1 26 30 202 26 185 26 67 4/17 46 18 1 155 73 223 75 38 77 311 11 4/24 84 41 38 40 135 374 273 163 5/7 194 1 320 166 70 54 128 175 39 58 5/14 283 128 38 183 85 1 435 26 42 1 1 85 5/21 1 16 134 51 26 51 37 303 40 32 79 326 75 1 30 59 5/28 1 1 1 45 1 6/11 2 2 82 2 72 2 2 380 126 34 544 120 986 252 426 278 68 68 176 228 6/18 46 43 90 6/25 94 22 58 54 1 328 186 58 133 60 39 256 7/9 158 112 30 642 2 50 2 274 98 112 56 2 46 2 104 260 2 2 2 340 1098 7/16 7/23 178 43 75 7/30 1 28 223 73 133 67 108 60 331 8/6/ 1 1 49 1 1 256 85 1 212 75 1 202 83 83 49 343 8/13 213 151 97 1 136 54 61 49 1 108 36 443 8/20 50 32 44 1 138 63 399 46 61 127 56 168 1 103 1 298 8/26 83 145 36 1 65 233 113 75 316 9/10 112 42 56 592 446 2 2 462 314 60 98 130 110 106 280 232 104 30 190 1056 10/1 175 43 83 1 10/8 1 269 96 68 213 286 1 65 1 61 135 98 109 73 252 10/15 171 51 250 46 124 185 393 75 96 80 1 10/22 303 1 36 108 54 205 10/29 79 1 368 235 170 1 150 11/5 137 339 52 75 22 121 193 1 123 11/12 36 58 400 1 87 228 60 96 49 117 11/19 54 140 132 54 273 54 54 554 260 120 54 54 366 120 54

Total 1666 1398 1930 5022 1778 1259 1442 6394 1370 2414 2837 1426 2162 1857 2132 3255 2033 1416 1057 2306 3694 # Trn20172318222224201826201313231815262019119

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 34 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 eighteenth tournament (the last to count toward the WTA rankings) is highlighted. T C C C D D F H H H K M M P R S S T T V S V o A L O A E R A I U O A A I U A E A E A W W u P I E V M A L N B U R U E B N L U S N I I r R J T E E Z A G E R T R R I C E Z T L L n I S Z N N I R I R N I E C N H S I U R L L A T E P T E D S I N S E E A D O I I # T E R O I R K E M Z T O A A I R R E D O Z O S M M S T V E V V T S S 1 404 339 283 934 446 256 328 618 314 260 544 448 986 252 426 366 313 251 256 443 1098 2 175 269 194 642 273 138 213 554 178 235 435 303 374 193 273 326 232 185 176 340 1056 3 171 144 145 592 208 131 185 462 166 212 336 170 214 177 256 311 150 108 101 298 343 4 158 140 134 479 151 124 170 435 155 138 223 128 130 133 175 280 123 104 75 281 331 5 137 112 132 400 128 97 107 399 126 133 159 120 109 112 168 278 120 103 75 252 316 6 125 83 110 303 108 75 87 393 98 132 135 100 100 110 135 260 117 98 73 216 228 7 112 81 96 286 79 73 67 380 85 130 127 49 85 108 106 233 113 96 67 190 205 8 94 52 94 261 76 68 63 368 69 121 120 42 75 105 104 207 109 85 56 120 59 9 61 49 84 250 72 54 54 368 65 115 106 36 46 96 102 202 90 83 49 98 58 10 54 43 82 233 52 50 51 349 46 112 98 26 40 67 95 202 83 68 36 67 11 50 42 80 223 46 50 43 320 37 88 96 2 1 61 79 163 80 60 30 1 12 46 22 58 213 41 49 38 286 24 83 75 1 1 61 77 113 75 54 30 13 36 16 58 54 36 45 22 274 2 75 69 1 1 56 54 108 75 39 26 14 362 56542638224117365 544910868392 15 2 2 51 51 18 2 2 228 1 70 56 49 30 98 60 37 1 16 1 1 49441122 18616154 461 562 1 17 1146222118316054 421 5411 18 1 46 1 1 1 1 136 1 60 43 38 1 45 1 1 19 1 41 1 1 1 129 58 41 36 37 1 1 20 1 32 1 1 1 85 53 1 32 26 1 21 30 1 1 1 40 26 2 22 28 1 1 1 37 2 1 23 113411 24 132 1 25 1 1 26 11

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 35 Alternate Rankings There are, of course, many ways of reshaping the above 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 that number of tournaments be 10 (for Graf) or 29 (for Likhovtseva). 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 1 Hingis 6394 20 1 2 Davenport 5022 18 2 3 V. Williams 3694 9 3 4 Seles 3255 15 4 5 Martinez 2837 20 5 6 Kournikova 2414 26 8 7 S. Williams 2306 11 6 8 Pierce 2162 13 7 9 Sanchez-Vicario 2132 18 9 10 Tauziat 2033 26 10 11 Coetzer 1930 23 11 12 Rubin 1857 23 13 13 Dementieva 1778 22 12 14 Capriati 1666 20 14 15 Halard-Decugis 1442 24 15 16 Mauresmo 1426 13 16 17 Testud 1416 20 17 18 Clijsters 1398 17 18 19 Huber 1370 18 19 20 Frazier 1259 22 20 21 Likhovtseva 1225 27 21 22 Schnyder 1081 25 25 23 Schett 1070 23 23 24 Van Roost 1057 19 24 25 Dokic 1055 19 26 26 Maleeva 1036 25 22 27 Déchy 1021 19 27 28 Tanasugarn 964 22 29 29 Brandi 956 28 28 30 Talaja 946 29 30 Best 18 does not differ much from Total Points. (This is because almost no one earns very much in tournaments 19 through whatever.) We observer only two changes in the Top 15 between this list and the Best 18 list: Kournikova would move up to #6 (from #8) and Rubin up to #12 (from #11). But if Best 18 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.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 36 Points Per Tournament, Minimum 14 (1996 Ranking System: “The Divisor”) 1996 Ranking WTA Rank Name Score 1 1 Hingis, Martina 319.7 2 2 Davenport, Lindsay 279.0 3 3 Williams, Venus 263.9 4 4 Seles, Monica 217.0 5 6 Williams, Serena 164.7 6 7 Pierce, Mary 154.4 7 5 Martinez, Conchita 141.9 8 9 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 118.4 9 16 Mauresmo, Amelie 101.9 10 8 Kournikova, Anna 92.8 11 11 Coetzer, Amanda 83.9 12 14 Capriati, Jennifer 83.2 13 18 Clijsters, Kim 82.2 14 12 Dementieva, Elena 80.8 15 13 Rubin, Chanda 80.7 16 10 Tauziat, Nathalie 78.2 17 19 Huber, Anke 76.1 18 17 Testud, Sandrine 70.8 19 15 Halard-Decugis, Julie 60.1 20 20 Frazier, Amy 57.2 21 24 Van Roost, Dominique 55.6 22 26 Dokic, Jelena 55.5 23 27 Déchy, Nathalie 53.7 24 48 Henin, Justine 47.3 25 23 Schett, Barbara 46.5 26 21 Likhovtseva, Elena 45.4 27 31 Raymond, Lisa 44.5 28 29 Tanasugarn, Tamarine 43.8 29 25 Schnyder, Patty 43.2 30 32 Leon Garcia, Gala 42.0 31 22 Maleeva, Magdalena 41.4 32 47 Hrdlickova, Kveta 40.6 33 54 Bedanova, Daja 38.1 34 42 Zuluaga, Fabiola 37.9 35 33 Sugiyama, Ai 36.8 We follow this with the calculations based on the past and present ATP systems

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 37 Best 14 The WTA uses the “Best 18” ranking system — totalling the points earned in the eighteen 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 WTA Rank Name Best 14 Total 1 1 Hingis 5447 2 2 Davenport 4924 3 3 V. Williams 3694 4 4 Seles 3157 5 5 Martinez 2588 6 6 S. Williams 2306 7 7 Pierce 2162 8 9 Sanchez-Vicario 2099 9 8 Kournikova 1907 10 10 Tauziat 1748 11 12 Dementieva 1742 12 14 Capriati 1659 13 11 Coetzer 1606 14 13 Rubin 1585 15 15 Halard-Decugis 1430 16 16 Mauresmo 1426 17 18 Clijsters 1394 18 17 Testud 1373 19 19 Huber 1366 20 20 Frazier 1248 21 21 Likhovtseva 1184 22 23 Schett 1065 23 24 Van Roost 1052 24 26 Dokic 1049 25 27 Déchy 1015 22 Maleeva 991 25 Schnyder 934

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 38 Best 18 with Slotted Point Awards (ATP Year 2000 Award) This is the new 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, this is not quite the same as the men’s system, because they treat their year-end event differently. But the year-end event must be treated differently, because the qualification systems are not parallel.) In the table below, “Required Points” refers to points earned in the Required Events (Slams, Tier I) “Optional Points” is what the players earned in their best other events. Slotted Rank WTA Rank Player Name Required Pts Optional Pts Total Slotted Pts 1 1 Hingis 4229 1629 5858 2 2 Davenport 3280 1420 4700 3 3 V. Williams 2441 1253 3694 4 4 Seles 1622 1319 2941 5 5 Martinez 1906 673 2579 6 6 S. Williams 1113 1193 2306 7 7 Pierce 1892 270 2162 8 9 Sanchez-Vicario 1444 584 2028 9 8 Kournikova 921 875 1796 10 12 Dementieva 1233 530 1763 11 10 Tauziat 803 786 1589 12 13 Rubin 951 606 1557 13 11 Coetzer 855 701 1556 14 14 Capriati 1024 521 1545 15 16 Mauresmo 664 761 1425 16 19 Huber 733 633 1366 17 17 Testud 934 401 1335 18 15 Halard-Decugis 397 920 1317 19 18 Clijsters 291 975 1266 20 21 Likhovtseva 532 560 1092 21 23 Schett 600 433 1033 22 26 Dokic 807 223 1030 23 22 Maleeva 589 403 992 24 20 Frazier 364 625 989 25 24 Van Roost 389 580 969 26 31 Raymond 505 406 911 27 30 Talaja 256 599 855 27 Déchy 364 491 855 29 33 Sugiyama 622 230 852 30 25 Schnyder 444 405 849 It will be evident that, in 2000, this system produced results similar to the WTA rankings. This is not always so; in 1999, it caused #3 and #4 to exchange places!

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 39 Total Wins The list below shows how the top 25 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 played large numbers of low-tier (Tier III and Tier IV) tournaments. Since they faced low-level opposition, their wins, quite properly, do not count as much toward the rankings. Others simply were unable to play many tournaments. Though their winning percentage was high (witness Seles and 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 (including Cup and Fed Cup) are excluded. Also, walkovers are not calculated as wins or losses. Rank Name Wins Losses WTA Rank 1 Hingis 77 10 1 2 Davenport 56 12 2 3 Seles 51 12 4 4 Martinez 47 19 5 Kournikova 47 26 8 6 Coetzer 43 22 11 7 Rubin 42 21 13 8 Sanchez-Vicario 38 18 9 9 S. Williams 37 8 6 10 Tauziat 36 25 10 11 V. Williams 35 4 3 Capriati 35 19 14 13 Dementieva 33* 21 12 14 Schnyder 31 25 25 15 Testud 30 20 17 Frazier 30 22 20 17 Pierce 29 11 7 Huber 29 16 19 Halard-Decugis 29 22 15 Likhovtseva 29 27 21 21 Clijsters 28 15 18 Dokic 28 19 26 23 Déchy 27 19 27 Schett 27 22 23 25 Maleeva 25* 25 22 26 Mauresmo 24 12 16 27 Van Roost 23 18 24 *Excludes wins in qualifying: 2 for Dementieva, 8 for Maleeva

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 40 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): Rank Name Wins Losses Win% WTA Rank 1 V. Williams 35 4 89.7% 3 2 Hingis 77 10 88.5% 1 3 Davenport 56 12 82.4% 2 4 S. Williams 37 8 82.2% 6 5 Seles 51 12 81.0% 4 6 Pierce 29 11 72.5% 7 7 Martinez 47 19 71.2% 5 8 Sanchez-Vicario 38 18 67.9% 9 9 Rubin 42 21 66.7% 13 9 Mauresmo 24 12 66.7% 16 11 Coetzer 43 22 66.2% 11 12 Clijsters 28 15 65.1% 18 13 Capriati 35 19 64.8% 14 14 Kournikova 47 26 64.4% 8 14 Huber 29 16 64.4% 19 16 Dementieva 33 21 61.1% 12 17 Testud 30 20 60.0% 17 18 Dokic 28 19 59.6% 26 19 Tauziat 36 25 59.0% 10 20 Déchy 27 19 58.7% 27 21 Frazier 30 22 57.7% 20 22 Halard-Decugis 29 22 56.9% 15 23 Van Roost 23 18 56.1% 24 24 Schnyder 31 25 55.4% 25 25 Schett 27 22 55.1% 23 26 Likhovtseva 29 27 51.8% 21 27 Maleeva 25 25 50.0% 22 The numbers for the Top Five all require some comment. Venus Williams tops the list, but on an unbalanced schedule; her wins came mostly in a winning steak entirely on fast surfaces and mostly on American hardcourts (much the favourite surface of the Williams family). Hingis, who is close behind her, does not have the advantage of an unbalanced schedule, but she did play a Tier III. Turning to the next group — Davenport, Serena Williams, and Seles — we note that Davenport withdrew from several events where she might otherwise have taken a loss. Serena played only one event on clay, historically by far her worst surface. Seles played a balanced schedule, though one which included a Tier III — but she had a much lower rate of wins over top players; her titles were at events where she earned few quality points. On balance, it might be best to say simply that, in terms of winning percentage, there was a Top Two (Venus and Hingis) and a Next Three (Davenport, Serena, and Seles), and not try to classify beyond that.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 41 Consistency-Rewarded Rankings 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. 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; as with the divisor, we set a minimum of fourteen), 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 Hingis 286.2 1 2 Seles 199.3 4 3 Davenport 125.0 2 4 Martinez 86.6 5 5 Kournikova 60.3 8 6 Coetzer 60.2 11 7 Rubin 51.6 13 8 Sanchez-Vicario 51.3 9 9 S. Williams 44.0 (82.7 if we divide by 12 rather than 14) 6 10 V. Williams 36.2 (65.9 if we divide by 12 rather than 14) 3 11 Hénin 32.8 48 12 Pierce 32.2 7 13 Tauziat 31.4 10 14 Clijsters 29.4 18 15 Testud 28.0 17 16 Mauresmo 27.4 16 17 Capriati 24.6 14 18 Dementieva 22.9 12 19 Huber 20.8 19 20 Déchy 19.9 27 Schnyder 19.7 25 Dokic 19.6 26 Van Roost 17.8 24 Frazier 17.4 20 Raymond 15.8 31 Maleeva 12.2 22 Halard-Decugis 11.9 15 Likhovtseva 10.0 21 Schett 9.8 23 Sugiyama 9.1 33 Sidot 9.1 36 Talaja 5.7 30

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 42 Divisor Rankings, No Slam Bonus In terms of strength of field, the Slams are no strong than the Ericsson or Indian Wells — or even San Diego. But the Slams award double points — at the Ericsson, you earn 260 points for winning the tournament, and 100 points for beating the #1 player, while at a Slam, it’s 520 and 200 points, respectively. The following table calculates divisor rankings if this Slam Bonus (or Slam Bias, as some call it) is eliminated. Rank Player Score WTA Rank 1 Hingis 276.4 1 2 Davenport 218.7 2 3 Seles 189.7 4 4 V. Williams 178.8* 3 5 S. Williams 141.5† 6 6 Martinez 116.0 5 7 Pierce 109.4§ 7 8 Mauresmo 96.0‡ 16 9 Sanchez-Vicario 93.7 9 10 Kournikova 86.4 8 11 Coetzer 79.3 11 12 Clijsters 77.6 12 13 Rubin 71.8 13 14 Tauziat 71.3 10 15 Dementieva 67.3 12 16 Capriati 66.4 14 17 Testud 64.0 17 18 Huber 61.1 19 19 Halard-Decugis 56.4 15 20 Frazier 56.0 20 21 Déchy 49.5 27 22 Van Roost 48.7 24 23 Dokic 43.6 26 24 Schett 41.6 23 25 Hénin 40.2 48 Likhovtseva 38.8 21 Schnyder 38.2 25 Maleeva 38.2 22 Raymond 37.1 31 Talaja 31.2 30 Sidot 28.4 36 Sugiyama 26.7 33 * Rises to 278.1 if no minimum divisor. † Rises to 180.1 if no minimum divisor § Rises to 117.8 if no minimum divisor ‡ Rises to 103.4 if no minimum divisor

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 43 Other Alternate Rankings The next five ranking systems are all based on WTA point awards, although they have never been used for any ranking purpose. They reveal different aspects of player success. 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 their Best 18, although this has only the slightest effect on the rankings (e.g. it causes Martinez and Sanchez-Vicario to change places). 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. Rank Name Total Rnd Pts WTA Rank 1 Hingis 4001 1 2 Davenport 3011 2 3 Seles 2072 4 4 V. Williams 1996 3 5 Martinez 1949 5 6 Kournikova 1625 8 7 Tauziat 1468 10 8 S. Williams 1460 6 9 Sanchez-Vicario 1370 9 10 Pierce 1296 7 11 Coetzer 1280 11 12 Rubin 1176 13 13 Capriati 1071 14 14 Dementieva 1048 12 15 Halard-Decugis 1015 15 16 Testud 969 17 17 Mauresmo 863 16 18 Huber 842 19 19 Clijsters 790 18 20 Likhovtseva 779 21 21 Frazier 773 20 22 Schett 751 23 23 Dokic 735 26 24 Schnyder 695 25 25 Tanasugarn 672 29 Déchy 624 27 Talaja 578 30 Maleeva 576 22 Brandi 569 28 Van Roost 563 24

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 44 Total Quality Points The inverse of the proceeding: Total quality points from all tournaments. It roughly measures the number of high-level opponents one has defeated. In the event of a tie, the higher-ranked player is listed first. Rank Name Total Qual Pts WTA Rank 1 Hingis 2393 1 2 Davenport 2011 2 3 V. Williams 1698 3 4 Seles 1183 4 5 Martinez 887 5 6 Pierce 866 7 7 S. Williams 846 6 8 Kournikova 789 8 9 Sanchez-Vicario 762 9 10 Dementieva 730 12 11 Rubin 681 13 12 Coetzer 650 11 13 Clijsters 608 18 14 Capriati 595 14 15 Tauziat 565 10 16 Mauresmo 563 16 17 Huber 528 19 18 Van Roost 494 24 19 Frazier 486 20 20 Maleeva 460 22 Testud 447 17 Likhovtseva 446 21 Halard-Decugis 427 15 Déchy 396 27

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 45 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 V. Williams 221.8* 3 2 Hingis 200.1 1 3 Davenport 167.3 2 4 Seles 138.1 4 5 S. Williams† 132.7 6 6 Pierce§ 99.7 7 7 Martinez 97.5 5 8 Sanchez-Vicario 76.1 9 9 Mauresmo 66.4‡ 16 10 Kournikova 62.5 8 11 Tauziat 56.5 10 12 Coetzer 55.7 11 13 Capriati 53.6 14 14 Rubin 51.1 13 15 Testud 48.5 17 16 Dementieva 47.6 12 17 Huber 46.8 19 18 Clijsters 46.5 18 19 Halard-Decugis 42.3 15 20 Dokic 38.7 26 Frazier 35.1 20 Déchy 32.8 27 Schett 32.7 23 Raymond 32.1 31 Van Roost 29.6 24 Likhovtseva 28.9 21 * Falls to 142.6 and #3 if a minimum divisor of 14 is required. † Falls to 104.3 if a minimum divisor of 14 is required. § Falls to 92.6 and #7 if a minimum divisor of 14 is required. ‡ Falls to 61.6 and #10 if a minimum divisor of 14 is required.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 46 Quality Points Per Tournament 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. It will be noted that this list contains several players who are far outside the Top Thirty in the WTA lists (Hénin, Bedanova, Jeyaseelan). Rank Name Quality per Trn WTA Rank 1 V. Williams 188.7* 3 2 Hingis 119.7 1 3 Davenport 111.7 2 4 Seles 78.9 4 5 S. Williams 76.9† 6 6 Pierce 66.6§ 7 7 Martinez 44.4 5 8 Mauresmo 43.3‡ 16 9 Sanchez-Vicario 42.3 9 10 Clijsters 35.8 18 11 Dementieva 33.2 12 12 Kournikova 30.3 8 13 Capriati 29.8 14 14 Rubin 29.6 13 15 Huber 29.3 19 16 Coetzer 28.3 11 17 Van Roost 26.0 24 18 Testud 22.4 17 19 Frazier 22.1 20 20 Tauziat 21.7 10 21 Déchy 20.8 27 22 Hénin 20.8 48 23 Maleeva 18.4 22 24 Halard-Decugis 17.8 15 25 Dokic 16.8 26 26 Likhovtseva 16.5 21 27 Leon Garcia 16.5 32 28 Jeyaseelan 15.8 49 29 Bedanova 15.8 54 30 Schnyder 15.4 25

36 Schett 13.9 23 * Falls to 121.3 if a minimum divisor of 14 is required † Falls to 60.4 and #6 if a minimum divisor of 14 is required § Falls to 61.9 (but rises to #5 in the rankings) if a minimum divisor of 14 is required ‡ Falls to 40.2 and #9 if a minimum divisor of 14 is required.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 47 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. Rank Name 2Q+R per Trn WTA Rank 1 V. Williams 599.1* 3 2 Hingis 439.4 1 3 Davenport 390.7 2 4 Seles 295.9 4 5 S. Williams 286.5† 6 6 Pierce 232.9§ 7 7 Martinez 186.2 5 8 Sanchez-Vicario 160.8 9 9 Mauresmo 153.0‡ 16 10 Kournikova 123.2 8 11 Clijsters 118.0 18 12 Dementieva 114.0 12 13 Capriati 113.1 14 14 Coetzer 112.2 11 15 Rubin 110.3 13 16 Huber 105.4 19 17 Tauziat 99.9 10 18 Testud 93.2 17 19 Van Roost 81.6 24 20 Frazier 79.3 20 21 Halard-Decugis 77.9 15 22 Déchy 74.5 27 23 Dokic 72.3 26 24 Hénin 68.0 24 25 Likhovtseva 61.9 21 26 Schett 60.4 23 27 Maleeva 59.8 22 28 Schnyder 58.7 25 29 Leon Garcia 58.5 29 30 Raymond 56.8 31 * Falls to 385.1 and #3 if a minimum divisor of 14 is required. † Falls to 225.1 if a minimum divisor of 14 is required. § Falls to 216.3 if a minimum divisor of 14 is required. ‡ Falls to 142.2 if a minimum divisor of 14 is required.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 48 The Ideal System (Maybe): 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 also 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, but incentives for playing more than the minimum should be minimized (to prevent injury) without being 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 the Ericsson.

My proposal to do this is as follows (and believe me, I had no idea how this would turn out when I started the calculation): • The system should be point-and-divisor based: You earn a certain number of points, and divide them by a number of tournament. 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 on. • 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 • There should be a minimum number of events on each surface: Six on hardcourts, four indoors, three on clay, one on grass. Additional events 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. She was supposed to play three on clay. The difference, one, is added to her divisor; she is treated as if she had played seventeen events. (Note: If a player plays fewer than sixteen events, and also plays fewer than the minimum on one or more surfaces, the divisor should remain at sixteen.) • If one plays beyond the minimum of sixteen, one tournament will be subtracted for each three additional tournaments one plays. Thus, if one plays 19 tournaments, one’s worst tournament will be subtracted from both total points and divisor. If one plays 22, a second tournament goes off. And so forth, with a third tournament coming off at 25, a fourth at 28, and a fifth at 31. The following table shows the result of this calculation for the WTA Top 30. The first column, “rnk,” 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. “Bonus Tourns” is the tournaments remitted for playing more than the minimum of 16. “Adjusted 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 (to make this obvious, the numbers are shown in bold). WTA Rnk is the player’s WTA rank. And so, without further ado,

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 49 Surface-Modified Divisor (Minimum 16) Ranking Table Rnk Player # of Qual Round Slam Penalty Bonus Adjusted Adjust. Score WTA Tourn Pts Pts Pts Tourns Tourns Points # Tourn Rnk 1 Hingis 20 2393 4001 1734 1 7157.0 19 376.7 1 2 Davenport 18 2011 3011 2170 1 5485.0 19 288.7 2 3 V. Williams 9 1698 1996 2382 5 3947.5 16 246.7 3 4 Seles 15 1183 2072 818 2 3642.0 16 227.6 4 5 S. Williams 11 846 1460 650 4 2566.5 16 160.4 6 6 Martinez 20 887 1949 1034 1 1 3021.0 20 151.1 5 7 Pierce 13 866 1296 1262 4 2279.5 16 142.5 7 8 Sanchez-Vic 18 762 1370 892 2290.0 18 127.2 9 9 Kournikova 26 789 1625 336 3 2724.5 23 118.5 8 10 Coetzer 23 650 1280 214 2 2201.5 21 104.8 11 11 Mauresmo 13 563 863 164 2 1666.5 16 104.2 16 12 Rubin 23 681 1176 410 2 2095.0 21 99.8 13 13 Dementieva 22 730 1048 596 2 1994.0 20 99.7 12 14 Tauziat 26 565 1468 358 3 2226.0 23 96.8 10 15 Capriati 20 595 1071 676 1 1794.5 19 94.4 14 16 Clijsters 17 608 790 158 1 1662.5 18 92.4 18 17 Testud 20 447 969 272 1 1 1571.5 20 78.6 17 18 Huber 18 528 842 540 2 1499.0 20 75.0 19 19 Frazier 22 486 773 56 2 1488.0 20 74.4 20 20 Halard-Dec 24 427 1015 176 2 1611.5 22 73.3 15 21 Van Roost 19 494 563 264 1 1 1238.0 19 65.2 24 22 Dokic 19 319 735 454 1 1100.0 18 61.1 26 23 Déchy 19 396 624 160 2 1 1178.0 20 58.9 27 24 Likhovtseva 27 446 779 356 3 1359.0 24 56.6 21 25 Schett 23 319 751 228 2 1172.5 21 55.8 23 26 Maleeva 25 460 576 162 3 1225.5 22 55.7 22 27 Schnyder 25 386 695 252 3 1211.0 22 55.0 25 28 Tanasugarn 25 292 672 292 3 1037.0 22 47.1 29 29 Talaja 29 368 578 82 4 1109.5 25 44.4 30 30 Brandi 29 387 569 408 4 1047.5 25 41.9 28

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 50 Winning Percentage Adjusting for Tournament Strength The table below breaks down wins and losses according to the tier of the tournament played. The assumption is that a win at a high-tier event has more significance than a win at a low-tier event, while a loss at a low-tier event is more “shameful” than a loss at a high-tier event. The final two columns allow us to adjust these numbers. The column labelled “+W” stands for “awards for wins.” This means that players are rewarded for wins in major events — Slams, Chase, Tier I, Tier II. The number of wins in these events is multiplied by 1.33 (arbitrary multiplier; the difference in tournament strength between a Tier II and a Tier III is often much greater than this). The next column, “+W-L” stands for “awards for wins, penalties for losses.” Here again, wins at bigger events are multiplied by 1.33 — but losses at lesser events (Tier III and Tier IV) are penalized by being multiplied by 1.5. The result is then roughly normalized (made to approximate actual winning percentages) by multiplying by.8. Note that the result of these calculations is not a percentage, but is intended to range from 0 to 100. The higher the number, the better the player’s results. Note that, for players who did not play, or did not lose in, a Tier III or below, the figures in the final two columns are identical. Player WTA Slams Chase Tier I Tier II Tier III Tier IV Overall + +W Name Rnk WL %WL %WL %WL %WL %WL %WL % W -L Capriati 14 11 4 73 0 1 0 8 5 62 3 5 38 13 4 76 35 19 64.8 63 60 Clijsters 18 2 4 33 1 1 50 4 2 67 12 5 71 3 2 60 6 1 28 15 65.1 64 62 Coetzer 11 6 4 60 1 1 50 12 7 63 16 9 64 3 1 75 5 0 43 22 66.2 67 67 Davenport 2 19 3 86 0 1 0 16 3 84 21 5 81 56 12 82.4 88 88 Déchy 27 3 4 43 6 4 60 7 5 58 9 4 69 4 2 67 29 19 60.4 57 54 Dementieva 12 8 3 73 2 1 67 17 8 68 6 9 40 33 21 61.1 65 65 Dokic 26 9 4 69 9 7 56 7 5 58 1 2 33 2 1 28 19 59.6 62 60 Frazier 20 2 4 33 0 1 0 7 4 64 10 8 56 8 4 67 3 1 75 30 22 57.7 56 53 Halard-Decug 15 4 4 50 0 1 0 6 5 55 12 7 63 7 5 58 29 22 56.9 57 54 Hingis 1 20 4 83 4 0 100 31 2 94 19 4 83 3 0 100 77 10 88.5 93 93 Huber 19 10 4 71 5 5 50 5 7 42 4 0 100 5 0 29 16 64.4 63 63 Kournikova 8 7 4 64 2 1 67 12 8 60 23 11 68 3 2 60 47 26 64.4 67 67 Likhovtseva 21 7 4 64 0 1 0 6 7 46 14 12 54 0 1 0 2 2 29 27 51.8 54 53 Maleeva 22 4 4 50 11 9 55 4 5 44 9 6 60 0 1 0 28 25 52.8 52 49 Martinez 5 14 4 78 1 1 50 15 4 79 12 8 60 5 2 71 47 19 71.2 74 73 Mauresmo 16 4 3 57 9 4 69 7 4 64 4 1 80 24 12 66.7 68 67 Pierce 7 14 3 82 10 4 71 5 3 63 0 1 0 29 11 72.5 77 76 Rubin 13 7 4 64 0 1 0 14 7 67 13 8 62 4 0 100 4 1 42 21 66.7 68 67 Sanchez-Vicar 9 15 4 79 0 1 0 10 6 63 10 6 63 3 1 75 38 18 67.9 71 70 Schett 23 7 4 64 7 6 54 7 10 41 6 2 75 27 22 55.1 55 54 Schnyder 25 5 4 56 6 8 43 8 7 53 11 5 69 1 1 50 31 25 55.4 53 51 Seles 4 12 3 80 3 1 75 15 3 83 17 5 77 4 0 100 51 12 81.0 84 84 Tauziat 10 7 4 64 1 1 50 8 8 50 16 9 64 4 3 57 36 25 59.0 61 60 Testud 17 8 4 67 0 1 0 13 6 68 7 7 50 2 2 50 30 20 60.0 63 62 Van Roost 24 3 4 43 4 4 50 12 8 60 0 1 0 4 1 23 18 56.1 57 56 S. Williams 6 12 3 80 9 3 75 16 2 89 37 8 82.2 87 87 V. Williams 3 18 1 95 1 1 50 16 2 89 35 4 89.7 95 95 * Dementieva was actually 6-6 in the main draws of Tier II events, but compiled a record of 2-3 in Tier II qualifying. The best way to calculate this, since she never qualified, seemed to be to count the losses but ignore the wins. † Maleeva actually compiled 9 Tier I Main Draw wins and 3 Tier II Main Draw wins. But she qualified for two of those Tier I main draws (winning five qualifying matches) and one of the Tier IIs (winning three qualifying matches). The best way to account for this seemed to be to treat all matches resulting in qualification as a single win. Your mileage may vary. Mine did above, in the section on total wins.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 51 From this, we can calculate a Top Twenty under each of the three accounting systems: Rank Strict Win Percentage Awards for Wins (+W) Awards+Penalties (+W-L) Player Score Player Score Player Score 1 V. Williams 89.7 V. Williams 95.5 V. Williams 95.5 2 Hingis 88.5 Hingis 93.3 Hingis 93.3 3 Davenport 82.4 Davenport 87.6 Davenport 87.6 4 S. Williams 82.2 S. Williams 87.5 S. Williams 87.5 5 Seles 81.0 Seles 84.5 Seles 84.5 6 Pierce 72.5 Pierce 77.1 Pierce 76.2 7 Martinez 71.2 Martinez 73.8 Martinez 72.7 8 Sanchez-Vicario 67.9 Sanchez-Vicario 70.8 Sanchez-Vicario 70.2 9 Rubin 66.7 Mauresmo 68.0 Mauresmo 67.1 10 Mauresmo 66.7 Rubin 67.6 Rubin 67.0 11 Coetzer 66.2 Kournikova 67.4 Coetzer 66.6 12 Clijsters 65.1 Coetzer 67.1 Kournikova 66.5 13 Capriati 64.8 Dementieva 65.0 Dementieva 65.0 14 Huber 64.4 Clijsters 63.8 Huber 63.3 15 Kournikova 64.4 Huber 63.3 Clijsters 61.6 16 Dementieva 61.1 Testud 62.8 Testud 61.6 17 Déchy 60.4 Capriati 62.6 Capriati 60.4 18 Testud 60.0 Dokic 61.7 Dokic 59.8 19 Dokic 59.6 Tauziat 61.1 Tauziat 59.6 20 Tauziat 59.0 Déchy 57.1 Van Roost 55.8 Frazier 57.7 Van Roost 57.1 Schett 54.3 Halard-Decugis 56.9 Halard-Decugis 56.9 Halard-Decugis 54.2 Van Roost 56.1 Frazier 55.8 Déchy 53.8 Schnyder 55.4 Schett 55.4 Frazier 53.2 Schett 55.1 Likhovtseva 54.2 Likhovtseva 52.7 Maleeva 52.8 Schnyder 53.2 Schnyder 50.5 Likhovtseva 51.8 Maleeva 51.7 Maleeva 48.5

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 52 Wins Per Tournament Calculates the number of wins each player averaged per tournament. Note: The list includes only the Top players; it is nearly certain that some players outside the Top 25 will have achieved higher numbers than, say, Likhovtseva or Maleeva by playing lower-tier tournaments or a limited schedule (e.g. Hénin had 17 tour wins, plus many qualifying and challenger wins, but played only thirteen events, putting her between Frazier and Schnyder on the list). Wins in qualifying are not shown (affecting the figures for Dementieva and Maleeva), though a loss in qualifying is considered to be a tournament. Rank Player Wins Tournaments Wins/Tourn WTA Rank 1 V. Williams 35 9 3.89 3 2 Hingis 77 20 3.85 1 3 Seles 51 15 3.40 4 4 S. Williams 37 11 3.36 6 5 Davenport 56 18 3.11 2 6 Martinez 47 20 2.35 5 7 Pierce 29 13 2.23 7 8 Sanchez-Vicario 38 18 2.11 9 9 Coetzer 43 23 1.87 11 10 Mauresmo 24 13 1.85 16 11 Rubin 42 23 1.83 13 12 Kournikova 47 26 1.81 8 13 Capriati 35 20 1.75 14 14 Clijsters 28 17 1.65 18 15 Huber 29 18 1.61 19 16 Dementieva 33 22 1.50 12 17 Testud 30 20 1.50 17 18 Dokic 28 19 1.47 26 19 Déchy 27 19 1.42 27 20 Tauziat 36 26 1.38 10 Frazier 30 22 1.36 20 Schnyder 31 25 1.24 25 Halard-Decugis 29 24 1.21 15 Van Roost 23 19 1.21 24 Schett 27 23 1.17 23 Likhovtseva 29 27 1.07 21 Maleeva 25 25 1.00 22

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 53 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: 870 (520 round points + 350 quality points = 7 rounds * 25 pts/round *2 slam bonus) • Chase Championship: 590 (390 round points + 200 qual points = 4 rounds * 50 pts/round) • 64+ draw [Tier I] — Ericsson, Indian Wells: 440 (260 round points + 180 qual points = 6 rounds * 30 pts/round) • 56-Draw Tier I (=Hilton Head, Berlin, Rome, Canadian Open): 410 (260 round points + 150 qual points = 5 rounds * 30 pts/round) • 28-Draw Tier I (=Pan Pacific, Zurich, Moscow): 388 (260 round points + 128 qual points = 4 rounds * 32 pts/round) • Tier II: 320 (200 round points + 120 qual points = 4 rounds * 30 pts/round) • Tier III: 228 (140 round points + 88 qual points = 4 rounds * 22 pts/round) • Tier IV: 174 (110 round points for Tier IVA + 64 qual points = 4 rounds * 16 pts/round) 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 (Pierce and Venus Williams, for instance, earned much more for their Slam wins, because they were able to beat many top players, while Seles’s three tournament wins earned her less than the above figures because the events were weak. 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. Hingis, for instance, earned over 200 points in her nineteenth and twentieth tournaments; these count in her total). 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 ten tournaments — but they included three Slams, which are obviously “rich.” Similarly, Seles and Serena Williams played few, but very high-tier, events. This gave them 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 Venus is the clear leader, with an astonishing 80.0% of possible points earned — though this result is slightly tainted by her limited sample. Could Venus have kept it up for a whole year on a full schedule? We can’t say. Venus is followed by the usual suspects: Hingis (whose better- than-60% figure is impressive itself), Davenport, Seles, Serena Williams, and Pierce, in that order. Note that only Hingis, Davenport, and Venus earned over 50% of their possible points — a much lower figure than last year, when five players (these three plus Serena and Graf) did it. The Big Six plus Martinez are the only players to earn over 25% of their possible points.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 54

Player Slams Chase Tr I Tr I 56 Tr I 28 Tier Tier Tier Possible Actual Percent Avg 64+ draw draw II III IV Points Points Richness Capriati 4122155 8898 1666 18.7% 445 Clijsters 4 1 2 6 2 2 7674 1398 18.2% 451 Coetzer 4123291110238 1930 18.9% 445 Davenport 412218 8718 5022 57.6% 484 Déchy 4 2 2 5 4 2 8040 1021 12.7% 423 Dementieva 412429 10246 1778 17.4% 466 Dokic 4 2 3 25218596 1055 12.3% 452 Frazier 4122 8419416 1259 13.4% 428 Halard-Decugis 4123185 10268 1442 14.0% 428 Hingis 4122371 9402 6394 68.0% 470 Huber 4 2 3 7 1 1 8232 1370 16.6% 457 Kournikova 41233112 11320 2414 21.3% 435 Likhovtseva 41232121211372 1255 11.0% 421 Maleeva 4 2 4 356110306 1036 10.1% 412 Martinez 4123 82 9196 2837 30.9% 460 Mauresmo 3 1 2 1 5 1 6086 1426 23.4% 468 Pierce 4 2 2 1 3 1 6756 2162 32.0% 520 Rubin 4123291110238 1857 18.1% 445 Sanchez-Vicario 4114161 8686 2132 24.5% 483 Schett 4 2 2 2 10 3 9840 1070 10.9% 428 Schnyder 4 2 4 275110330 1081 10.5% 413 Seles 3122 61 7048 3255 46.2% 470 Tauziat 41233103 11228 2033 18.1% 432 Testud 4123172 9264 1416 15.3% 463 Van Roost 4 2 2 18118530 1057 12.4% 449 S. Williams 3 2 1 5 5500 2306 41.9% 500 V. Williams 3 1 5 4620 3694 80.0% 513 For additional alternate ranking schemes, see Statistics/Rankings Based on Head-to-Head Numbers.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 55 Head to Head — Results against Top Players The Top 20 Head to Head The table below shows how the Top 20 (plus Van Roost) fared against each other in 2000. For completeness, the Top 27 are shown on the vertical axis, although only the Top 20 are listed across the top. 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. That is, the first number in the record is that of the person at the beginning of the row, not the top of the column. So, e.g., if you look down the column headed DAVENPO (i.e. Davenport) and the row labelled Hingis, you will see the notation “2-3” This means that Davenport and Hingis played five times (2+3=5), with Hingis winning two and Davenport three. C C C D D F H H H K M M P R S S T T V S V A L O A E R A I U O A A I U A E A E A W W P I E V M A L N B U R U E B N L U S N I I R J T E E Z A G E R T R R I C E Z T L L I S Z N N I R I R N I E C N H S I U R L L A T E P T E D S I N S E E A D O I I T E R O I R K E M Z T O A A Capriati 0-0 0-0 0-3 0-0 1-0 0-1 0-2 0-0 1-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-2 0-1 0-1 0-0 1-1 2-0 1-0 0-0 Clijsters 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-2 1-0 2-1 1-1 1-0 0-0 1-0 2-0 0-0 2-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 Coetzer 0-0 0-0 0-1 1-0 0-0 1-0 0-1 2-0 0-0 1-1 0-0 0-0 1-1 0-4 0-2 0-0 0-0 0-2 0-0 1-2 Davenport 3-0 1-0 1-0 4-1 0-0 2-0 3-2 0-0 3-1 2-0 0-1 0-0 2-0 1-0 3-0 0-0 2-0 0-2 1-1 1-3 Déchy 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-3 1-2 0-2 0-0 0-1 1-0 1-1 0-0 0-1 1-1 0-0 0-1 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 Dementieva 0-0 1-0 0-1 1-4 0-1 0-1 0-1 2-0 0-0 1-1 0-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 Dokic 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 1-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-3 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-2 1-0 Frazier 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-1 1-2 4-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-2 1-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-2 Halard-Dec 1-0 0-0 0-1 0-2 1-0 1-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-1 0-1 1-0 1-1 0-0 1-0 0-2 0-0 Hingis 2-0 2-0 1-0 2-3 1-0 2-1 1-0 2-0 5-0 2-1 1-1 2-1 4-0 3-0 4-0 2-0 6-0 3-0 1-1 0-2 Huber 0-0 0-1 0-2 0-0 0-2 0-4 0-0 0-2 0-0 1-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 Kournikova 2-1 1-2 0-0 1-3 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-5 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-2 2-1 2-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 Likhovtseva 1-0 0-1 0-0 0-3 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-3 0-0 1-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 1-1 0-1 0-1 1-0 0-2 Maleeva 0-2 0-0 1-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 1-1 0-3 0-1 0-1 0-0 1-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 1-1 0-1 0-0 Martinez 0-0 1-1 1-1 0-2 1-1 1-0 0-0 1-2 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-2 0-0 1-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-1 0-1 Mauresmo 0-0 0-1 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 2-0 0-0 1-0 0-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 Pierce 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 1-2 0-1 0-0 2-0 0-2 0-0 1-0 2-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 Rubin 2-1 0-1 1-1 0-2 0-1 2-0 1-1 0-4 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 1-0 1-2 0-0 0-0 0-2 Sanchez-Vic 1-0 0-2 4-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 1-0 0-3 0-0 0-0 1-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-2 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 1-0 Schett 0-0 0-1 1-0 0-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 1-1 0-3 0-1 1-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 Schnyder 0-2 1-0 0-1 0-0 1-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-3 0-1 Seles 1-0 0-0 2-0 0-3 1-0 1-0 0-1 0-4 0-0 2-0 1-0 2-0 0-2 1-0 2-0 1-0 2-0 1-0 0-0 0-2 Tauziat 0-0 1-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 1-1 0-2 0-0 1-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 1-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 1-0 0-1 Testud 1-1 0-0 0-0 0-2 1-0 1-0 0-0 0-6 0-1 0-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 2-1 0-0 0-2 1-0 2-0 0-0 0-0 Van Roost 0-2 1-0 2-0 2-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-3 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-2 0-0 0-0 S. Williams 0-1 1-0 0-0 1-1 0-0 1-0 2-0 1-1 0-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 0-1 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 V. Williams 0-0 0-0 2-1 3-1 0-0 2-0 0-0 2-0 1-0 1-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 2-0 0-1 2-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 1-0

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 56 Wins Over Top Players Matches Played/Won against the (Final) Top Twenty Here as elsewhere, the “Top Twenty” also includes Van Roost. Thus a player can have a maximum of 20 Top 20 opponents if she herself is in the Top Twenty, or 21 Top Twenty opponents if she is outside the Top Twenty. (Thus Hingis, despite beating 19 players, did not defeat one top player, Venus Williams.) 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 Capriati 14 11687133520.0% Clijsters 18 12 7 8 10 9 28 35.7% Coetzer 11 11687144316.3% Davenport 2 16 14 7 29 11 56 51.8% Déchy 27 11595132321.7% Dementieva 12 137881133*24.2% Dokic 26 12 2 10 2 13 28 7.1% Frazier 20 13 4 10 7 13 30 23.3% Halard-Decugis 15 1277792924.1% Hingis 1 20 19 7 46 10 77 59.7% Huber 19 9363122910.3% Kournikova 8 11699174719.1% Likhovtseva 21 13 5 10 5 15 29 17.2% Maleeva 22 13 6 10 6 13 25* 24.0% Martinez 5 14 7 12 7 15 47 14.9% Mauresmo 16 744552420.8% Pierce 7 854762924.1% Rubin 13 13 7 10 9 16 42 21.4% Sanchez-Vicario 9 15 5 11 8 15 38 21.1% Schett 23 9383122711.1% Schnyder 25 12575103116.1% Seles 4 17 12 5 17 12 51 33.3% Tauziat 10 11686113616.7% Testud 17 11678153026.7% Van Roost 24 9365102321.7% S. Williams 6 13 9 6 10 6 37 27.0% V. Williams 3 12 11 3 18 3 35 51.4% * Excludes wins in qualifying. In this measure, Hingis was clearly the top player on the Tour. She managed the astonishing feat of playing all 20 of the final Top 20 players at least once. What is more, she had at least one win against every one of them except Venus Williams. She also had clearly the highest fraction of her wins against the Top Twenty (meaning that she wasn’t earning points against low-ranked opponents). Her number of wins against Top Twenty players is more than a 50% greater than Davenport’s total, and more than twice anyone else’s.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 57 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 W/L Against Top 10 Against #11-#20 Against Top 20 Non-Top20 Rank Name WLWL%WL% WL%WL% 14 Capriati 35 19 1 8 11.1% 5550.0% 61331.6% 29 6 82.9% 18 Clijsters 28 15 5 6 45.5% 4357.1% 9950.0% 19 6 76.0% 11 Coetzer 43 22 3 8 27.3% 2433.3% 51229.4% 38 10 79.2% 2 Davenport 56 12 12 7 63.2% 12 3 80.0% 24 10 70.6% 32 2 94.1% 27 Déchy 23 19 3 3 50.0% 1420.0% 4736.4% 19 12 61.3% 12 Dementieva 33* 21 5 7 41.7% 3442.9% 81142.1% 25 10 71.4% 26 Dokic 28 19 1 9 10.0% 02 0% 1118.3% 27 8 77.1% 20 Frazier 30 22 3 8 27.3% 2433.3% 51229.4% 25 10 71.4% 15 Halard-Decugis 29 22 2 6 25.0% 4357.1% 6940.0% 23 13 63.9% 1 Hingis 77 10 15 9 62.5% 28 0 100% 43 9 82.7% 34 1 97.1% 19 Huber 29 16 3 3 50.0% 04 0% 3730.0% 26 9 74.3% 8 Kournikova 47 26 5 13 27.8% 2250.0% 71531.8% 40 11 78.4% 21 Likhovtseva 29 27 3 11 21.4% 2340.0% 51426.3% 24 13 64.9% 22 Maleeva 25* 25 3 9 25.0% 2433.3% 51327.8% 20 12 62.5% 5 Martinez 47 19 2 11 15.4% 4266.7% 61331.6% 41 6 87.2% 16 Mauresmo 24 12 5 4 55.6% 00—% 5455.6% 19 8 70.4% 7 Pierce 29 11 6 4 60.0% 2166.7% 8561.5% 21 6 77.8% 13 Rubin 42 21 1 9 10.0% 9660.0% 10 15 40.0% 32 6 84.2% 9 Sanchez-Vicario 38 18 3 10 23.1% 7370.0% 10 13 43.5% 28 5 84.8% 23 Schett 27 22 1 9 10.0% 1233.3% 21115.4% 25 11 69.4% 25 Schnyder 31 25 2 7 22.2% 1420.0% 31121.4% 28 14 66.7% 4 Seles 51 12 4 11 26.7% 16 1 94.1% 20 12 62.5% 31 0 100% 10 Tauziat 36 25 2 4 33.3% 2433.3% 4833.3% 32 17 65.3% 17 Testud 30 20 1 10 9.1% 6366.7% 71335.0% 23 7 76.7% 24 Van Roost 23 18 3 5 37.5% 1420.0% 4930.8% 19 9 67.9% 6 S. Williams 37 8 5 5 50.0% 5271.4% 10 7 58.8% 27 1 96.4% 3 V. Williams 35 4 10 2 83.3% 5183.3% 15 3 83.3% 20 1 95.2% * Excludes wins in qualifying.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 58 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. 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 #5 (i.e. Martinez) had a better 2000 than a player who began the year at #8 but ended it outside the Top Twenty (Schett), and a win against the player with the higher final rank should therefore mean more. Special Note: For purposes of this calculation, Van Roost is counted as Top 20 (#18 when retired). 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 W L WL % WL % WL % WL % 14 Capriati 35 19 2 9 18.2% 5455.6% 71335.0% 28 6 82.4% 18 Clijsters 28 15 7 7 50.0% 3260.0% 10 9 52.6% 18 6 75.0% 11 Coetzer 43 22 2 11 15.4% 5362.5% 71433.3% 36 8 81.8% 2 Davenport 56 12 14 7 66.7% 15 4 78.9% 29 11 72.5% 27 1 96.4% 27 Déchy 23 19 3 4 42.9% 2918.2% 51327.8% 18 6 75.0% 12 Dementieva 33* 21 4 7 36.4% 4450.0% 81142.1% 25 10 71.4% 26 Dokic 28 19 1 10 9.1% 1325.0% 21313.3% 26 6 81.3% 20 Frazier 30 22 2 8 20.0% 5550.0% 71335.0% 23 9 71.9% 15 Halard-Decugis 29 22 2 7 22.2% 5271.4% 7943.8% 22 13 62.9% 1 Hingis 77 10 21 8 72.4% 25 2 92.6% 46 10 82.1% 31 0 100% 19 Huber 29 16 2 3 40.0% 1910.0% 31220.0% 26 4 86.7% 8 Kournikova 47 26 4 13 23.5% 5455.6% 91734.6% 38 9 80.9% 21 Likhovtseva 29 27 3 11 21.4% 2433.3% 51525.0% 24 12 66.7% 22 Maleeva 25* 25 3 9 25.0% 3442.9% 61331.6% 19 12 61.3% 5 Martinez 47 19 2 11 15.4% 5455.6% 71531.8% 40 4 90.9% 16 Mauresmo 24 12 5 4 55.6% 010.0% 5550.0% 19 7 73.1% 7 Pierce 29 11 7 2 77.8% 040.0% 7653.8% 22 5 81.5% 13 Rubin 42 21 2 9 18.2% 7750.0% 91636.0% 33 5 86.8% 9 Sanchez-Vicario 38 18 2 10 16.7% 6554.5% 81534.8% 30 3 90.9% 23 Schett 27 22 1 10 9.1% 2250.0% 31220.0% 24 10 70.6% 25 Schnyder 31 25 0 7 0.0% 5362.5% 51033.3% 26 15 63.4% 4 Seles 51 12 6 11 35.3% 11 1 91.7% 17 12 58.6% 34 0 100% 10 Tauziat 36 25 3 6 33.3% 3537.5% 61135.3% 30 14 68.2% 17 Testud 30 20 1 12 7.7% 7370.0% 81534.8% 22 5 81.5% 24 Van Roost 23 18 2 5 28.6% 3537.5% 51033.3% 18 8 69.2% 6 S. Williams 37 8 5 5 50.0% 5183.3% 10 6 62.5% 27 2 93.1% 3 V. Williams 35 4 11 2 84.6% 7187.5% 18 3 85.7% 17 1 94.4% * Excludes wins in qualifying.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 59 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. Hingis (15) 1. Hingis (21) 2. Davenport (12) 2. Davenport (14) 3. V. Williams (10) 3. V. Williams (11) 4. Pierce (6) 4. Clijsters (7) 5. Clijsters (5) Pierce (7) Dementieva (5) 6. Seles (6) Kournikova (5) 7. Mauresmo (5) Mauresmo (5) S. Williams (5) S. Williams (5) 9. Dementieva (4) 10. Seles (4) Kournikova (4)

Winning Percentage against Top Ten Players

Based on the Top Ten at the Time: Based on the Final Top Ten: 1. V. Williams (83.3%) 1. V. Williams (84.6%) 2. Davenport (63.2%) 2. Pierce (77.8%) 3. Hingis (62.5%) 3. Hingis (72.4%) 4. Pierce (60%) 4. Davenport (66.7%) 5. Mauresmo (55.6%) 5. Mauresmo (55.6%) 6. Déchy (50%) 6. Clijsters (50%) Huber (50%) S. Williams (50%) S. Williams (50%) 8. Déchy (42.9%) 9. Clijsters (45.5%) 9. Huber (40.0%) 10. Dementieva (41.7%) 10. Dementieva (36.4%)

The above list does not, of course, include the handful of players (e.g. Di Natale, who beat Mary Pierce at Madrid) who beat a Top Ten player in their only encounter. For additional information about winning percentages, see Winning Percentage against Non-Top-20 Players.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 60 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.... Fraction of Points Earned in Slams % of Points % of Points WTA Player Total Points Earned Earned in Points Earned Not Earned in Rank Name Points in Slams Slams outside Slams Slams 1 Hingis 6394 1734 27.1% 4660 72.9% 2 Davenport 5022 2170 43.2% 2852 56.8% 3 V. Williams 3694 2382 64.5% 1312 35.5% 4 Seles 3255 818 25.1% 2437 74.9% 5 Martinez 2837 1034 36.5% 1802 63.5% 6 S. Williams 2306 650 28.2% 1656 71.8% 7 Pierce 2162 1262 58.4% 900 41.6% 8 Kournikova 2414 336 13.9% 2078 86.1% 9 Sanchez-Vic 2132 892 41.8% 1240 58.2% 10 Tauziat 2033 358 17.6% 1675 82.4% 11 Coetzer 1930 214 11.1% 1716 88.9% 12 Dementieva 1778 596 33.5% 1182 66.5% 13 Rubin 1857 410 22.1% 1447 77.9% 14 Capriati 1666 676 40.6% 990 59.4% 15 Halard-Dec 1442 176 12.2% 1266 87.8% 16 Mauresmo 1426 164 11.5% 1262 88.5% 17 Testud 1416 272 19.2% 1144 80.8% 18 Clijsters 1398 158 11.3% 1240 88.7% 19 Huber 1370 540 39.4% 830 60.6% 20 Frazier 1259 56 4.4% 1203 95.6% 21 Likhovtseva 1225 356 29.1% 869 70.9% 22 Maleeva 1036 162 15.6% 874 84.4% 23 Schett 1070 228 21.3% 842 78.7% 24 Van Roost 1057 264 25.0% 793 75.0% 25 Schnyder 1081 252 23.3% 829 76.7% 26 Dokic 1054 454 43.1% 600 56.9% 27 Déchy 1020 160 15.7% 860 84.3% The Top 25 collectively earned 53259 points in 2000. 16,160 of these, or 30.3%, were earned at Slams. The mean of the fraction of points earned in the Slams is 27.0% (that is, this is the average of the players’ fractions). The median is Van Roost’s 25.0%. Thus any player who earned more than about 30% of her points at the Slams was “strong” at the Slams (Venus’s 65% is, of course, astonishing and unbalanced); a player who earned less than 20% of her points at Slams had great difficulty at these events.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 61 Quality Versus Round Points WTA Player Total Round Quality % of Points % of Points Rank Name Points Points Points from Quality from Round Pts 1 Hingis 6394 4001 2393 37.4% 62.6% 2 Davenport 5022 3011 2011 40.0% 60.0% 3 V. Williams 3694 1996 1698 46.0% 54.0% 4 Seles 3255 2072 1183 36.3% 63.7% 5 Martinez 2837 1949 887 31.3% 68.7% 6 S. Williams 2306 1460 846 36.7% 63.3% 7 Pierce 2162 1296 866 40.1% 59.9% 8 Kournikova 2414 1625 789 32.7% 67.3% 9 Sanchez-Vicario 2132 1370 762 35.7% 64.3% 10 Tauziat 2033 1468 565 27.8% 72.2% 11 Coetzer 1930 1280 650 33.7% 66.3% 12 Dementieva 1778 1048 730 41.1% 58.9% 13 Rubin 1857 1176 681 36.7% 63.3% 14 Capriati 1666 1071 595 35.7% 64.3% 15 Halard-Decugis 1442 1015 427 29.6% 70.4% 16 Mauresmo 1426 863 563 39.5% 60.5% 17 Testud 1416 969 447 31.6% 68.4% 18 Clijsters 1398 790 608 43.5% 56.5% 19 Huber 1370 842 528 38.5% 61.5% 20 Frazier 1259 773 486 38.6% 61.4% 21 Likhovtseva 1225 779 446 36.4% 63.6% 22 Maleeva 1036 576 460 44.4% 55.6% 23 Schett 1070 751 319 29.8% 70.2% 24 Van Roost 1057 563 494 46.7% 53.3% 25 Schnyder 1081 695 386 35.7% 64.3% 26 Dokic 1054 735 319 30.3% 69.7% 27 Déchy 1020 624 396 38.8% 61.2% 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; a player like Hingis, who was #1 for most of the year, has somewhat fewer quality points available, as she could not defeat a #1 player at any of the slams, could only play #2 in a final, could only play #3 or #4 in a semifinal or final (by which time either player could have lost), etc. For Comparison: The Top 25 earned an actual total of 56,815 points (the total of their Best 18 scores is slightly lower). 19,820 of these, or 34.9%, came from quality. The median quality percentage for the Top 25 is 36.7% (earned by Rubin); the arithmetic mean (average) is 37.0%. Dominique Van Roost’s 46.7% of points from quality is the clear winner — but nearly 50% of these points come from two wins over Lindsay Davenport. Magdalena Maleeva’s score is also biased by a win over an injured Davenport. The real “big threats” appear to be Venus Williams and the two up-and-comes: Kim Clijsters and Elena Dementieva. Nathalie Tauziat’s very low 27.8% figure also shows her strengths and weaknesses: Although in the Top Ten, she is a threat to top players only on grass and indoors.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 62 Percentage of Points Earned on Each Surface The first four numbers in this table should be fairly self-explanatory. The last three columns, Std Dev, Max- Min, and RMS, are perhaps less clear. These measures are included as an attempt to assess a player’s balance. Std Dev is the standard deviation of the player’s four surface percentages. The smaller it is, the less deviation there is from the mean, and presumably the more balanced the player is. Max-Min is the player’s highest percentage minus the player’s lowest percentage, that is, the gap between the player’s least and most important surfaces. RMS, for Root Mean Square, measures the player’s distance from the mean. The smaller the RMS value, the more “typical” a player is. Note: “Balance” is not the same as consistency. Take Halard-Decugis: She earned 26% of her points on grass, despite playing only three of her 25 tournaments on grass. Thus she was much better on grass than other surfaces. She was not typical, but she was balanced. For Reference: For the Top 25 as a whole, 45.0% of all points were earned on hardcourts, 21.0% on clay, 9.5% on grass, and 24.4% indoors. Note: Due to round-off, some percentages may not add up to 100, and MAX-MIN may differ by ±1 from what appears to be the largest value minus the smallest value. WTA Rank Player % Hard % Clay % Grass % Indr Std Dev Max-Min RMS 1 Hingis 44.6% 13.8% 7.2% 34.4% 0.17 37.4 0.13 2 Davenport 65.0% 1.1% 13.9% 20.1% 0.28 64.0 0.29 3 V. Williams 55.4% 9.3% 29.7% 5.5% 0.23 49.8 0.32 4 Seles 41.3% 33.1% 8.0% 17.6% 0.15 33.3 0.14 5 Martinez 37.6% 50.5% 2.0% 9.9% 0.23 48.6 0.35 6 S. Williams 63.7% 0.0% 14.7% 21.6% 0.27 63.6 0.29 7 Pierce 29.6% 68.3% 2.1% 0.0% 0.32 68.2 0.56 8 Kournikova 40.9% 9.0% 7.0% 43.0% 0.20 36.0 0.23 9 Sanchez-Vicario 37.8% 48.4% 4.9% 9.0% 0.21 43.5 0.33 10 Tauziat 27.0% 9.3% 7.5% 56.2% 0.23 48.7 0.38 11 Coetzer 26.3% 42.6% 4.6% 26.5% 0.16 38.1 0.29 12 Dementieva 57.8% 16.0% 0.1% 26.0% 0.24 57.7 0.17 13 Rubin 33.4% 19.6% 7.3% 39.7% 0.15 32.5 0.19 14 Capriati 47.4% 0.2% 17.9% 34.5% 0.20 47.2 0.25 15 Halard-Decugis 49.0% 6.4% 25.9% 18.8% 0.18 42.6 0.23 16 Mauresmo 34.5% 40.5% 0.1% 24.9% 0.18 40.3 0.24 17 Testud 61.8% 13.7% 2.9% 21.6% 0.26 58.9 0.20 18 Clijsters 29.0% 1.3% 9.6% 60.1% 0.26 58.8 0.44 19 Huber 33.2% 54.5% 7.2% 5.1% 0.23 49.4 0.41 20 Frazier 78.7% 3.3% 4.1% 13.9% 0.36 75.4 0.40 21 Likhovtseva 48.8% 18.0% 5.1% 28.1% 0.18 43.8 0.08 22 Maleeva 35.4% 14.9% 3.4% 46.3% 0.19 43.0 0.25 23 Schett 20.4% 37.3% 0.3% 42.1% 0.19 41.8 0.36 24 Van Roost 41.8% 26.7% 24.4% 7.1% 0.14 34.7 0.24 25 Schnyder 43.1% 26.7% 9.6% 20.5% 0.14 33.5 0.07 It’s hard to give an award for “most lopsided” (though Amy Frazier, with 78.8% of points on hardcourts, is a good candidate, as is Mary Pierce with 68.3% on clay. In Pierce’s case, though, this is largely due to injuries). The most balanced is probably Van Roost; the most consistent (closest to the norms) is Patty Schnyder, with the usual suspects (Hingis and Seles) second and third.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 63 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):

σ STDDEV(s1, s2, … sn) (s1, s2, … sn) ------µ MEAN(s1, s2, … sn) (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 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 least to most consistent by the “standard deviation” measure. Seles 0.40 Frazier 1.10 Hingis 0.44 Huber 1.12 S. Williams 0.62 Capriati 1.16 Kournikova 0.71 Clijsters 1.17 Coetzer 0.75 Van Roost 1.19 Rubin 0.77 Mauresmo 1.21 Déchy 0.83 Maleeva 1.26 Davenport 0.91 Schett 1.27 Testud 0.91 Dokic 1.30 Sanchez-Vicario 0.93 Dementieva 1.35 Schnyder 0.93 Halard-Decugis 1.41 Tauziat 0.94 Likhovtseva 1.50 V. Williams 0.96 Pierce 1.60 Martinez 0.99 Talaja 1.88

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 64 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 55 or fewer points in the tournament; this is based on the 54 points awarded for a first-round loss in the year-end championships). For my convenience, this list is alphabetical. Note: First round losses at the Chase Championships are not included as first-round losses; being worth 54 points (and being suffered at a very high-level event), they have been listed as early losses. Players who lost in the first round at the Chase are marked with an asterisk (so you may transfer the results if you like); those who did not play at the Chase are marked “(x)” Name WTA Rank Tournaments 1R Losses Other Early Losses Capriati* 14 20 6 5 Clijsters 18 17 4 6 Coetzer 11 23 1 8 Davenport* 2 18 2 4 Déchy 27 19 6 4 Dementieva 12 22 6 7 Dokic 26 19 5 8 Frazier* 20 22 8 6 Halard-Decugis* 15 24 11 5 Hingis 1 20 none none Huber 19 18 6 3 Kournikova 8 26 2 5 Likhovtseva* 21 27 12 8 Maleeva 22 25 8 9 Martinez 5 20 1 4 Mauresmo 16 13 3 4 Pierce 7 13 3 2 Rubin* 13 23 2 8 Sanchez-Vicario* 9 18 3 3 Schett 23 23 11 4 Schnyder 25 25 6 13 Seles 4 15 none none Tauziat 10 26 6 4 Testud* 17 20 5 4 Van Roost 24 19 6 5 S. Williams 6 11 1 none V. Williams 3 9 none none 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:

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 65 Frequency of Early Losses First-Round Loss Rate Early-Round Loss Rate Player First Round Player Early Round Name Loss Rate Name Loss Rate Hingis 0% Hingis 0% Seles 0% Seles 0% V. Williams 0% V. Williams 0% Coetzer 4% S. Williams 9% Martinez 5% Martinez 25% Kournikova 8% Kournikova 27% S. Williams 9% Davenport 33% Rubin 9% Sanchez-Vicario 33% Davenport 11% Pierce 38% Sanchez-Vicario 17% Tauziat 38% Pierce 23% Coetzer 39% Tauziat 23% Rubin 43% Mauresmo 23% Testud 45% Clijsters 24% Huber 50% Schnyder 24% Déchy 53% Testud 25% Mauresmo 54% Dokic 26% Capriati 55% Dementieva 27% Van Roost 58% Capriati 30% Clijsters 59% Déchy 32% Dementieva 59% Van Roost 32% Frazier 64% Maleeva 32% Schett 65% Huber 33% Halard-Decugis 67% Frazier 36% Maleeva 68% Likhovtseva 44% Dokic 68% Halard-Decugis 46% Likhovtseva 74% Schett 48% Schnyder 76%

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 66 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 Appelmans 50 Lamade (534) — Berlin Black (48) — ’s-Hertogenbosch Majoli (125) — Leipzig Sugiyama (36) — Moscow Vento (103) — U.S. Open Maleeva (27) — Filderstadt Torrens Valero (80) — Antwerp Schnyder (25) — Paris Petrova (75) — Ericsson Hénin (66) — New Haven Marrero (64) — Knokke-Heist Capriati 14 Kuti Kis (72) — Strasbourg Zuluaga (34) — Roland Garros Black (51) — Indian Wells Sidot (31) — Rome Raymond (28) — Birmingham Likhovtseva (23) — San Diego Clijsters 18 Bacheva (84) — Antwerp Myskina (43) — Wimbledon Shaughnessy (54) — Stanford Schnyder (34) — ’s-Hertogenbosch Sidot (32) — Hannover Sugiyama (21) — Roland Garros Coetzer 11 De Los Rios (151) — Roland Garros Black (44) — Stanford Osterloh (77) — Wimbledon Kremer (41) — Eastbourne Brandi (54) — Australian Open Serna (33) — U.S. Open Maleeva (53) — Canadian Open Rubin (25) — Pan Pacific Schett (25) — Zurich Van Roost (21) — Indian Wells Davenport 2 Maleeva (53) — Canadian Open Van Roost (22) — Roland Garros Déchy 27 Cristea (126) — Hobart Dokic (37) — Rome Krasnoroutskaya (110) — Birmingham Dementieva (32) — Los Angeles Gersi (67) — U. S. Open Talaja (28) — Canadian Open Dementieva (59) — Indian Wells Dementieva (26) — Roland Garros Zuluaga (51) — Australian Open Frazier (26) — San Diego Talaja (22) — Strasbourg Frazier (21) — Ericsson Dementieva 12 Andretto (201) — Paris Qualifying Black (40) — Linz Tu (107) — San Diego Schnyder (28) — New Haven Petrova (93) — Sydney Qualifying Likhovtseva (25) — Leipzig Kruger (90) — Berlin Oremans (89) — Hannover Qualifying Petrova (57) — Wimbledon Myskina (55) — Zurich Dragomir 45 Pizzichini (147) — Palermo Smashnova (47) — Hannover Nagyova (71) — Linz Panova (42) — Leipzig Brandi (54) — Australian Open Chladkova (41) — Berlin Carlsson (53) — Amelia Island Clijsters (43) — Hobart Shaughnessy (51) — New Haven Appelmans (27) — Wimbledon Raymond (26) — U. S. Open Schnyder (25) — Filderstadt Frazier 20 Ruano Pascual (123) — Madrid Myskina (50) — Eastbourne Barabanschikova (92) — Wimbledon Dokic (40) — Hilton Head Callens (89) — Australian Open Rubin (21) — Hobart Bedanova (87) — Princess Cup Grande (70) — Amelia Island Carlsson (53) — Roland Garros

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 67 Halard- 15 Oremans (93) — U.S. Open Panova (50) — Moscow Decugis Boogert (85) — Wimbledon Schnyder (28) — New Haven Tu (82) — Quebec City Sugiyama (22) — Scottsdale Maleeva (76) — Gold Coast Petrova (75) — Ericsson Zuluaga (69) — Rome Shaughnessy (65) — Roland Garros Tanasugarn (59) — Birmingham Leon Garcia (57) — Bol Hénin 48 Rittner (130) — Luxembourg Serna (30) — Knokke-Heist Nagyova (76) — Palermo Rubin (21) — Hobart Bedanova (61) — Bratislava Hingis 1 Frazier (26) — San Diego Huber 19 Grzybowska (143) — Rome Clijsters (36) — Hannover Boogert (100) — Australian Open Sidot (35) — Paris Barabanschikova (89) — Sydney Frazier (26) — San Diego Dementieva (59) — Indian Wells Dementieva (25) — U. S. Open Frazier (21) — Ericsson Kournikova 8 Suarez (62) — Amelia Island Leon Garcia (48) — Berlin Hénin (58) — U. S. Open Clijsters (45) — Filderstadt Maleeva (38) — Luxembourg Plischke (35) — Roland Garros Clijsters (31) — Leipzig Talaja (29) — Gold Coast Sidot (28) — Wimbledon Dragomir (26) — Hilton Head Déchy (23) — Indian Wells Likhovtseva 21 Grzybowska (118) — Roland Garros Black (50) — Auckland Rittner (104) — Filderstadt Brandi (39) — Rome Osterloh (94) — Strasbourg Plischke (32) — Scottsdale Torrens Valero (88) — Warsaw Schnyder (31) — Canadian Open Chladkova (56) — Hannover Clijsters (31) — Leipzig Farina (29) — Paris Schett (25) — Zurich Schett (24) — Moscow Maleeva 22 Oremans (111) — Wimbledon Hrdlickova (50) — Berlin Kostanic (98) — Bol Montolio (50) — Klagenfurt Jeyaseelan (96) — Amelia Island Black (40) — Pan Pacific Labat (87) — Hilton Head Dragomir (32) — Roland Garros Drake (59) — Hobart Déchy (25) — Gold Coast Hénin (59) — Paris Sugiyama (24) — Australian Open Martinez 5 Jeyaseelan (79) — Wimbledon Clijsters (45) — Filderstadt Leon Garcia (36) — Sopot Talaja (29) — Gold Coast Déchy (26) — Scottsdale Dementieva (25) — U. S. Open Mauresmo 16 Bedanova (87) — Princess Cup Leon Garcia (47) — Wimbledon Pisnik (81) — Bol Pitkoswki (39) — Paris Hrdlickova (36) — Linz Suarez (35) — Berlin Clijsters (33) — Indian Wells Schnyder (29) — Australian Open

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 68 Pierce 7 Di Natale (258) — Madrid Serna (49) — Wimbledon Osterloh (87) — Pan Pacific Dementieva (39) — Ericsson Sugiyama (24) — Australian Open Likhovtseva (21) — Amelia Island Raymond 31 Jeyaseelan (96) — Amelia Island Garbin (50) — Roland Garros J. Nejedly (85) — Hilton Head Dementieva (32) — Los Angeles Zvereva (65) — Eastbourne Sidot (31) — Rome Montolio (51) — Madrid Zvereva (30) — Indian Wells Likhovtseva (25) — Leipzig Sugiyama (22) — Scottsdale Rubin 13 Dementieva (59) — Indian Wells Leon Garcia (48) — Berlin Clijsters (43) — Hobart Appelmans (31) — Australian Open Sidot (31) — Filderstadt Déchy (24) — Wimbledon Sanchez- 9 Dementieva (31) — Berlin Vicario Clijsters (31) — Leipzig Talaja (29) — Gold Coast Appelmans (27) — Ericsson Maleeva (22) — Moscow Schett 23 Barabanschikova (92) — Wimbledon Panova (49) — San Diego Nejedly (85) — Hilton Head Stevenson (45) — Sydney Gersi (73) — Ericsson Panova (44) — Hamburg Pratt (56) — ’s-Hertogenbosch Black (37) — Filderstadt Myskina (54) — Sopot Clijsters (33) — New Haven Talaja (28) — Canadian Open Schnyder 25 Vento (113) — Hobart Serna (48) — Hamburg Asagoe (94) — U. S. Open Suarez (43) — Sopot Kuti Kis (74) — Berlin Suarez (43) — Linz Gagliardi (72) — Roland Garros Maleeva (38) — Luxembourg Myskina (55) — Zurich Chladkova (36) — Rome Suarez (52) — Wimbledon Schett (24) — Moscow Capriati (21) — Australian Open Seles 4 none Sidot 36 Habsudova (108) — Linz Stevenson (44) — Sydney Kandarr (112) — Eastbourne Tanasugarn [40] — Wimbledon Marrero (108) — Roland Garros Morariu (34) — Strasbourg Petrova (85) — Australian Open Hrdlickova (33) — Leipzig Garbin (77) — Estoril Talaja (26) — New Haven Oremans (73) — Bratislava Talaja (23) — Berlin Chladkova (56) — Hannover Déchy (21) — San Diego Sugiyama 33 Cristea (121) — Berlin Appelmans (50) — Zurich Boogert (79) — U. S. Open Zuluaga (44) — Madrid Srebotnik (65) — Pan Pacific Chladkova (36) — Rome Pratt (56) — Philadelphia Leon Garcia (32) — Canadian Open Pratt (51) — Amelia Island Clijsters (31) — Leipzig Sidot (25) — Los Angeles Talaja (22) — Eastbourne Capriati (21) — Australian Open

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 69 Talaja 30 Diaz-Oliva (164) — Palermo Kremer (50) — Canadian Open Molik (116) — Australian Open Dokic (45) — Indian Wells Schiavone (108) — U. S. Open Brandi (45) — Hilton Head Stevenson (87) — Los Angeles Kremer (41) — Eastbourne Farina Elia (86) — Moscow Kremer (28) — Hannover Pisnik (81) — Bol Zuluaga (69) — Rome Farina Elia (69) — Pattaya City Black (61) — Birmingham Morariu (58) — Kuala Lumpur Chladkova (53) — Linz Smashnova (52) — Paris Tauziat 10 Jeyaseelan (145) — Australian Open Kremer (50) — Canadian Open Hantuchova (135) — Luxembourg Clijsters (45) — Filderstadt Bedanova (113) — Los Angeles Hrdlickova (36) — Linz Kruger (90) — Berlin Clijsters (31) — Wimbledon Boogert (88) — Hannover Raymond (28) — Birmingham Zuluaga (69) — Rome Rubin (25) — Roland Garros Habsudova (67) — Indian Wells Schett (25) — Zurich Likhovtseva (25) — Leipzig Déchy (23) — Ericsson Talaja (22) — Strasbourg Testud 17 Sanchez Lorenzo (76) — Bol Dragomir (33) — ’s-Hertogenbosch Carlsson (53) — Roland Garros Morariu (43) — Rome Schnyder (30) — Amelia Island Rubin (29) — Indian Wells Capriati (22) — Sydney Van Roost 24 Casoni (128) — Rome Smashnova (49) — Knokke-Heist Marerro (108) — Roland Garros Hrdlickova (41) — Canadian Open Smashnova (56) — Strasbourg Spirlea (40) — Paris Osterloh (57) — U. S. Open Maleeva (27) — Zurich Capriati (21) — Australian Open Williams, S. 6 Suarez (62) — Amelia Island Williams, V. 3 Dokic (37) — Rome 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 2000) of the player to whom she lost. Worst “Worst Loss” Best “Worst Loss” 1. Pierce (Di Natale, then #258, ended at #197) 1. Seles (Halard-Decugis, then #19, ended #15) 2. Dementieva (Andretto, then #201, ended #181) 2. Hingis (Frazier, then #26, ended #20) 3. Coetzer (De Los Rios, then #151, ended #77) 3. Sanchez-Vicario (Dementieva, then #31, ended #12) 4. Tauziat (Jeyaseelan, then #145, ended #49) 4. Davenport (Maleeva, then #53, ended #22) 5. Huber (Grzybowska, then #143, ended #83) 5. Rubin (Dementieva, then #59, ended #12) 6. Van Roost (Casoni, then #128, ended #91) 6. Kournikova (Suarez, then #62, ended #37) 7. Frazier (Ruano Pascual, then #123, ended #89) S. Williams (Suarez, then #62, ended #37) 8. Likhovtseva (Grzybowska, then #118, ended #83) 8. Capriati (Kuti Kis, then #72, ended #56) 9. Schnyder (Vento, then #113, ended #105) 9. Testud (Sanchez Lorenzo, then #76, ended #99) 10. Maleeva (Oremans, then #111, ended #64) 10. Martinez (Jeyaseelan, then #79, ended #49)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 70 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 approximate point value of the player’s biggest win, what percentage of her points this represents, what her score would have been without this win, approximately 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. For simplicity, I have not added in a player’s nineteenth tournament, if any, after subtracting the “Big Win” (No result would be affected by more than one position by inclusion of the nineteenth tournament points.) 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 18 Big Win Big Win Score W/O Resulting Big Win Rank Name Amount Percent Big Win Ranking 1 Hingis 6180 618 10.0% 5562 1 Australian Open F 2 Davenport 5022 934 18.6% 4088 2 Australian Open 3 V. Williams 3694 1098 29.7% 2596 5 Wimbledon 4 Seles 3255 366 11.2% 2889 4 Chase F 5 Martinez 2795 544 19.5% 2251 6 Roland Garros F 6 S. Williams 2306 443 19.2% 1863 10 Los Angeles 7 Pierce 2162 986 45.6% 1176 21 Roland Garros 8 Kournikova 2158 260 12.0% 1898 10 Chase SF 9 Sanchez-Vicario 2132 426 20.0% 1706 13 Roland Garros SF 10 Tauziat 1963 313 15.9% 1650 14 Paris 11 Coetzer 1798 283 15.7% 1515 14 Berlin F 12 Dementieva 1774 446 25.1% 1328 19 U. S. Open SF 13 Rubin 1760 252 14.3% 1508 14 Roland Garros QF 14 Capriati 1664 404 24.3% 1260 19 Australian Open SF 15 Halard-Decugis 1436 328 22.8% 1108 22 Eastbourne 16 Mauresmo 1426 448 31.4% 978 28 Sydney 17 Testud 1414 251 17.8% 1163 21 Pan Pacific F 18 Clijsters 1398 339 24.2% 1059 23 Leipzig 19 Huber 1370 314 22.9% 1056 25 U. S. Open QF 20 Frazier 1255 256 20.4% 999 27 San Diego SF 21 Likhovtseva 1216 264 21.7% 952 29 Australian Open QF 22 Maleeva 1108 197 17.8% 911 31 Canadian Open QF 23 Schett 1065 210 19.7% 855 34 Zurich SF 24 Van Roost 1056 256 24.2% 800 39 Eastbourne F 25 Schnyder 1056 174 16.5% 882 31 Australian Open R16 26 Dokic 1054 302 28.7% 752 42 Wimbledon SF 27 Déchy 1020 141 13.8% 879 31 Oklahoma City F

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 71 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. (Note: the Olympics are not counted in these streaks, but are considered to break a streak unless noted.) Longest Longest Streaks Streaks Events in Longest Win Events in Longest Loss Streak Player Win Loss of 10+ of 3+ Streak (# of wins in Name Rank Streak Streak Wins Losses parenthesis) Capriati 14 5 4 1 Australian Open SF (5) or Ericsson QF; Rome 1R; Strasbourg 2R, Luxembourg W (5) Roland Garros 1R Clijsters 18 6 3 1 Leipzig W (5), Chase QF (1) Wimbledon 2R; Stanford 1R; San Diego 1R Coetzer 11 7 2 Antwerp W (5); Roland Oklahoma City SF; Indian Wells 2R Garros 3R (2) Davenport 2 21 2 2*,† Australian Open (7); Stanford F; San Diego 2R Scottsdale F (3 — No winner, so streak unbroken); Indian Wells (6), Ericsson F (5) Déchy 27 4 3 2 Oklahoma City F (4) or Gold Coast SF, Hobart 1R, Australian Estoril F (4) Open 1R or Strasbourg SF; Roland Garros 1R; Birmingham 2R Dementieva 12 5 2§§ U. S. Open SF (5) [also Paris Qualifying F; Hannover Qualifying Olympic F (5) 1R or Wimbledon 1R; San Diego 1R§§ or Los Angeles SF; Canadian Open 1R or Zurich 2R; Linz 1R Frazier 20 3 4 2 Hobart SF (3) or Ericsson Hilton Head R16; Madrid 2R; Roland QF (3) or San Diego SF (3) Garros 1R; Eastbourne 1R or Canadian Open QF (3) or Japan Open F (3) or Quebec City SF (3) Halard- 15 5 4 2* Eastbourne W Philadelphia 1999 QF; Chase 1999 1R; Decugis Gold Coast 2R; Sydney 1R Hingis 115 4 Filderstadt (4), Zurich (4), Moscow (4), Philadelphia F (3) Huber 19 8 4 2* Estoril Win (5); Hamburg Paris 2R; Hannover 1R; Scottsdale 1R; SF (3) Indian Wells 2R Kournikova 83 2 Sydney SF (3) or Australian Hamburg QF; Berlin 2R or R16 (3) or Scottsdale SF; Filderstadt 1R SF (3) or Stanford SF (3) or San Diego SF (3) or Moscow F (3) Likhovtseva 21 4 5 4 Australian Open QF (4) or Hilton Head R16; Warsaw 1R; Rome 1R; Leipzig F (4) Strasbourg 1R; Roland Garros 1R Maleeva 22 (15)* 5 1§ 2 Pattaya 1999 (5 main draw+ Ericsson 1R; Amelia Island 1R; Hilton 3 qualifying), Cergy Head 1R; Bol 1R; Berlin 1R Pontoise Challenger 1999 (5), Gold Coast QF (2) Martinez 511 2 1 Berlin (5), Roland Garros F Australian Open SF; Scottsdale 1R (6)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 72 Mauresmo 16 5 3†† 1 Sydney Win (4), Australian Roland Garros R16, Wimbledon 1R; Open 2R (1) or Rome F (5) [Olympics 1R]; Princess Cup 2R Pierce 78 2 Roland Garros W (7), Australian Open R16; Pan Pacific 1R or Wimbledon 2R (1) Indian Wells SF; Ericsson 2R or Rome R16; Madrid 1R Raymond 31 5 3 1 Birmingham W (5) Oklahoma City QF; Scottsdale 1R; Indian Wells 2R Rubin 13 5 2 Quebec City W (4), Eastbourne SF; Wimbledon 1R or Philadelphia 2R (1) Stanford QF; San Diego 1R Sanchez- 95 4 Roland Garros SF (5) Filderstadt SF; Moscow 2R; Leipzig 2R; Vicario Chase 1R Schett 23 6 5 3 Klagenfurt W (4), Sopot QF Sopot QF; San Diego 1R; Los Angeles (2) 1R; Canadian Open 1R; New Haven 1R Schnyder 25 3 5 2 Australian Open R16 (3) or Hilton Head R16; Hamburg 1R; Berlin Klagenfurt F (3) 1R; Rome 1R; Roland Garros 1R Seles 49 Rome W (5), Roland Garros QF (4) Sidot 36 3 4(*) 2 Hannover SF (3) Leipzig 1999 QF; Sydney 2000 1R; Australian Open 1R; Pan Pacific 1R or Los Angeles 2R; Canadian Open 1R; New Haven 1R; U.S. Open 1R Sugiyama 33 4 4 2 Australian Open QF (4) Wimbledon 2R; San Diego 1R; Los Angeles 1R; Canadian Open 1R Talaja 30 6 6‡ 3 Gold Coast W (5); Sydney Filderstadt 1R; Zurich 1R; Linz 1R; 2R (1) Moscow 1R; Kuala Lumpur 1R; Pattaya City 1R‡ Tauziat 10 4 3 1 Paris W (4) or U.S. Open San Diego QF; Los Angeles 1R; QF (4) Canadian Open 2R Testud 17 4 3* Pan Pacific F or Ericsson SF Philadelphia 1999 QF; Chase 1999 1R; Sydney 2000 1R Van Roost 24 4 3 1 Eastbourne F (4) or Knokke- Australian Open 2R; Paris 1R; Scottsdale Heist F (4) 1R Williams, S. 69 2 Los Angeles W (5), Ericsson R16; Amelia Island 2R Canadian Open F (4) Williams, V. 329 Wimbledon (7); Stanford (4); San Diego (4); New Haven (4); U. S. Open (7)**; Linz F (3) * Includes wins/losses sustained in 1999. † Davenport’s first streak of 10+ matches occurred primarily in 1999: Philadelphia 1999 W (4), Chase 1999 W (4), Sydney 2000 F (3) § Maleeva posted a winning streak of fifteen matches from November 1999 to January 2000. We should note, however, that this included three wins in qualifying, five at a Tier IV, five at a Challenger, and two at a Tier III tournament. In the course of the streak, she faced only two players in the Top Thirty, beating one (Halard-Decugis) and losing to the other (Martinez). She followed this with three straight losses, and then a fourth in her next match in an actual tourna- ment (though she won three qualifying matches first) ‡ Talaja actually accumulated eight straight Tour matches which she failed to win, from New Haven to Pattaya City. But after the second of these, she won a match at the Olympics, giving her a string of “only” seven matches, and only six official. ** Also won six exhibition matches at the Olympics †† Excludes opening-round exhibition loss at the Olympics (between Wimbledon and the Princess Cup) §§ Dementieva’s longest string without a win was actually three matches — withdrew at Roland Garros, followed by losses at Wimbledon and San Diego. But this streak contains only two losses.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 73 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. (Note: This list, unlike the preceding, includes only streaks sustained entirely in 2000.)

Number Player Tournaments and Results Surfaces of Wins 29 V. Williams Wimbledon (7), Stanford (4), San Diego (4), New Grass+Hard+ Haven (4); U. S. Open (7)*, Linz (3) Indoors 21 Davenport Australian Open W (7), Scottsdale F (3), Indian Hardcourt Wells W (6), Ericsson F (5) 15 Hingis Filderstadt W (4), Zurich W (4), Moscow W (4), Indoor Philadelphia F (3) 13 Hingis Ericsson W (6), Hamburg W (4), Berlin SF (3) Hard+Clay 12 Hingis Pan Pacific W (4), Scottsdale F (3), Indian Wells Hard+Indoors F (5) 11 Martinez Berlin W (5), Roland Garros F (6) Clay 10 Hingis Canadian Open W (5), U.S. Open SF (5) Hardcourt * Total excludes six exhibition victories at the Olympics.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 74 Number of Significant Results For our purposes, a “significant result” is one which earns a player at least 100 points. The following table shows the number of significant results earned by the Top 25. (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.) The final column shows what percentage of a player’s events earned a significant score (greater than 100 points) Player Name WTA Tournaments Events Earning Events Earning Events Earning % Significant Rank Played 100+ Points 200+ Points 400+ Points Events Capriati 14 2071135.0% Clijsters 18 1752029.4% Coetzer 11 2361026.1% Davenport 2 18 12 12 5 66.7% Déchy 27 1930015.8% Dementieva 12 2263127.3% Dokic 26 1931015.8% Frazier 20 2241018.2% Halard-Decugis 15 2452020.8% Hingis 1 20 19 15 4 95.0% Huber 19 1851027.8% Kournikova 8 26 10 3 0 38.5% Likhovtseva 21 2732011.1% Maleeva 22 2530012.0% Martinez 5 2094245.0% Mauresmo 16 1362146.2% Pierce 7 1363146.2% Rubin 13 2381034.8% Sanchez-Vicario 9 1893150.0% Schett 23 2331013.0% Schnyder 25 252008.0% Seles 4 15 14 10 0 93.3% Tauziat 10 2682030.8% Testud 17 2051025.0% Van Roost 24 1931015.8% S. Williams 6 1186172.7% V. Williams 3 977277.8% For other measures of consistency, see the sections on Points Per Quarter and All-Surface Players.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 75 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. I have listed players in terms of total points earned, but also calculate the points per tournament, and list the note in brackets the top players in these categories. 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 Indian Wells) Rank Player Points Tournaments Per Tournament 1 Davenport 1907 4 476.8 2 Hingis 1705 5 341.0 3 S. Williams 715 4 178.8 4 Sanchez-Vicario 453 3 151.0 5 Seles 428 3 142.7 6 Martinez 643 5 128.6 7 Mauresmo 640 5 128.0 8 Capriati 502 4 125.5 9 Pierce 509 5 101.8 10 Tauziat 482 5 96.4 11 Kournikova 672 7 96.0 12 Rubin 476 5 95.2 13 Sugiyama 410 5 82.0 Second Quarter (Constituting the period from Miami to Eastbourne) Rank Player Points Tournaments Per Tournament 1 Hingis 1504 5 300.8 2 Seles 1280 5 256.0 3 Pierce 1477 6 246.2 4 Martinez 1460 6 243.3 5 Sanchez-Vicario 1061 7 151.6 6 Mauresmo 577 4 144.2 7 Coetzer 991 8 123.9 8 V. Williams 345 5 115.0 9 Huber 593 6 98.8 10 Davenport 393 4 98.2 11 Van Roost 489 5 97.8 12 Rubin 523 6 87.2

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 76 Third Quarter (Constituting the period from Wimbledon to the U. S. Open) Rank Player Points Tournaments Per Tournament 1 V. Williams 3144 5 628.8 2 S. Williams 1271 4 317.8 3 Davenport 1715 6 285.8 4 Hingis 1356 5 271.2 5 Seles 1083 5 216.6 6 Huber 702 6 117.0 7 Kournikova 578 5 115.6 8 Sanchez-Vicario 427 4 106.8 9 Dementieva 637 6 106.2 10 Frazier 616 6 102.7 11 Pierce 176 2 88.0 12 Capriati 321 4 80.2 Fourth Quarter (Constituting the period from Luxembourg to the Chase Championships and Pattaya City.) Rank Player Points Tournaments Per Tournament 1 Hingis 1829 5 365.8 2 S. Williams 252 1 252.0 3 Davenport 1007 4 251.8 4 Seles 464 2 232.0 5 V. Williams 205 1 205.0 6 Clijsters 791 4 197.8 7 Kournikova 835 7 119.3 8 Capriati 574 6 95.7 9 Tauziat 754 8 94.2 10 Halard-Decugis 562 6 93.7 10 Martinez 281 3 93.7 12 Rubin 561 6 93.5 13 Dementieva 451 5 90.2 14 Schett 450 5 90.0 15 Maleeva 445 5 89.0

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 77 Most Consistent over Four Quarters This allows us to calculate another consistency ranking, based on who had the best results from quarter to quarter. 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 10 in any given quarter are assigned an arbitrary value of 14. (This means, obviously, that the maximum possible score is 56. Players with scores of 56 have not been listed.) Rank Name WTA Rank Consistency Score 1 Hingis 1 8 2 Seles 4 16 3 Davenport 2 17 4 S. Williams 6 21 5 V. Williams 3 28 6 Sanchez-Vicario 9 31 7 Martinez 5 34 8 Pierce 7 37 9 Kournikova 8 39 10 Mauresmo 16 41 11 Capriati 14 42 12 Huber 19 43 13 Tauziat 10 47 14 Clijsters 18 48 15 Coetzer 11 49 16 Dementieva 12 50 17 Rubin 13 50 18 Frazier 20 52 19 Halard-Decugis 15 52 20 Van Roost 24 53 21 Sugiyama 33 55

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 78 Slam Results From the standpoint of difficulty, the Slams are overrated. Slam results 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 Italian Open, a player must win five or six matches in no more than seven days, with every opponent probably in the Top Fifty; to win Roland Garros 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, and thus the greater one’s achievement (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 Capriati 14 11-4 73.3% 676 4 169 0-3 642 42.8 Clijsters 18 2-4 33.3% 158 4 39.5 1-1 153 25.5 Coetzer 11 6-4 60% 214 4 53.5 0-0 709 70.9 Davenport 2 19-3 86.4% 2170 4 542.5 3-2 662 30.1 Déchy 27 3-4 42.9% 160 4 40.0 0-1 248 35.4 Dementieva 12 8-31 72.7% 596 4 149.0 2-1 442 40.2 Dokic 26 9-4 69.2% 454 4 113.5 0-2 781 60.1 Frazier 20 2-4 33.3% 56 4 19.0 0-1 441 73.5 Halard-Decugis 15 4-4 50% 176 4 44.0 0-1 558 69.8 Hingis 1 20-4 83.3% 1734 4 433.5 1-4 838 34.9 Huber 19 10-4 71.4% 540 4 135.0 1-2 763 54.5 Kournikova 8 7-4 63.6% 336 4 84.0 1-1 581 52.8 Likhovtseva 21 7-4 63.6% 356 4 89.0 1-2 676 61.4 Maleeva 22 4-4 50% 162 4 40.5 0-1 401 50.1 Martinez 5 14-4 77.8% 1034 4 258.5 1-2 907 50.4 Mauresmo 16 4-3 57.1% 164 3 54.7 0-1 298 42.6 Pierce 7 14-3 82.4% 1262 4 315.5 3-1 885 52.1 Raymond 31 8-4 66.7% 310 4 77.5 0-2 725 60.4 Rubin 13 7-4 63.6% 410 4 102.5 1-2 408 37.1 Sanchez-Vicario 9 15-4 78.9% 892 4 223.0 2-4 985 51.8 Schett 23 7-4 63.6% 228 4 57.0 0-1 729 66.3 Schnyder 25 5-4 55.6% 252 4 63.0 1-0 560 62.2 Seles 4 12-3 75% 818 3 272.7 1-3 546 36.4 Talaja 30 2-4 33.3% 82 4 20.5 0-2 331 55.2 Tauziat 10 7-4 63.6% 358 4 89.5 1-1 649 59 Testud 17 8-4 66.7% 272 4 68.0 0-2 738 61.5 Van Roost 24 3-4 42.9% 264 4 66.0 1-0 330 47.1 Williams, S. 6 12-3 80% 650 3 216.7 0-2 744 49.6 Williams, V. 3 18-1 94.7% 2382 3 794 6-1 563 29.6

1 Dementieva withdrew from Roland Garros with an injured rib. This is not formally listed as a loss.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 79 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.

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 Capriati 15-8 (65.2%) 1-4 Sydney (61), Australian Open (404), Scottsdale (36), Indian Wells (1), 790/8 Ericsson (125), San Diego (1), Canadian Open (50), U. S. Open (112) Clijsters 12-7 (63.2%) 0-5 Hobart (144), Australian Open (2), Indian Wells (81), Ericsson (52), 406/8 Stanford (1), San Diego (1), New Haven (83), U. S. Open (42) Coetzer 12-9 (57.1%) 2-3 Sydney (41), Australian Open (46), Indian Wells (1), Ericsson (110), 508/9 Stanford (28), San Diego (49), Canadian Open (32), New Haven (145), U. S. Open (56) Davenport 37-7 (84.1%) 6-5 Sydney (233), Australian Open (934), Scottsdale (261), Indian Wells 3266/10 (479), Ericsson (286), Stanford (223), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (213), Canadian Open (44), U. S. Open (592) Déchy 13-9 (59.1%) 2-1 Gold Coast (77), Hobart (1), Australian Open (2), Scottsdale (97), 476/10 Indian Wells (83), Ericsson (94), San Diego (49), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (26), U. S. Open (46) Dementieva 19-9 (67.9%) 3-3 Sydney Qualifying (1), Australian Open (76), Indian Wells (208), 1028/9 Ericsson (108), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (151), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (36), U. S. Open (446) Dokic 8-10 (44.4%) 0-4 Sydney (28), Australian Open (2), Indian Wells (45), Ericsson (15), 302/10 Canadian Open (1), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (108), Princess Cup (62), Shanghai (39) Kuala Lumpur (1) Frazier 22-12 3-7 Hobart (50), Australian Open (2), Scottsdale (49), Indian Wells (1), 991/12 (64.7%) Ericsson (131), Stanford (73), San Diego (256), Los Angeles (97), Canadian Open (138), U. S. Open (2), Princess Cup (68), Japan Open (124) Halard- 15-10 1-3 Gold Coast (1), Sydney (1), Australian Open (170), Scottsdale (1), 706/12 Decugis (60.0%) Indian Wells (67), Ericsson (1), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (63), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (2), Princess Cup (213), Japan Open (185) Hénin 16-5 (inc. 8 0-3 Hobart (59.5), Australian Open (30), Canadian Open (50), New 396.5/5 qual. wins) Haven (91), U. S. Open (166) Hingis 35-6 (85.3%) 8-5 Sydney (129), Australian Open (618), Scottsdale (241), Indian Wells 2854/9 (349), Ericsson (435), San Diego (85), Los Angeles (136), Canadian Open (399), U. S. Open (462) Huber 7-9 (43.8%) 1-0 Sydney (1), Australian Open (2), Scottsdale (1), Indian Wells (1), 455/9 Ericsson (24), San Diego (1), Canadian Open (46), New Haven (65), U. S. Open (314)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 80 Kournikova 23-10 2-7 Gold Coast (37), Sydney (138), Australian Open (130), Scottsdale 988/10 (69.7%) (132), Indian Wells (32), Ericsson (53), Stanford (133), San Diego (212), Canadian Open (61), U. S. Open (60) Likhovt- 15-11 1-6 Auckland (32), Sydney (30), Australian Open (264), Scottsdale (1), 598/11 seva (57.7%) Indian Wells (61), Ericsson (67), San Diego (49), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (36), U. S. Open (56) Maleeva 10-8 (inc. 2 1-4 Gold Coast (82), Hobart (1), Australian Open (2), Indian Wells (21), 367/8 qual. wins) Ericsson (21), Canadian Open (197), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (42) Martinez 22-10 0-6 Gold Coast (159), Sydney (41), Australian Open (336), Scottsdale (1), 1066/10 (68.8%) Indian Wells (106), Ericsson (69), San Diego (75), Los Angeles (54), Canadian Open (127), U. S. Open (98) Mauresmo 5-3 (62.5%) 3-0 Sydney (448), Australian Open (42), Indian Wells (1), Princess Cup 492/4 (1) Pierce 13-6 (68.4%) 1-4 Sydney (85), Australian Open (100), Scottsdale (109), Indian Wells 639/6 (214), Ericsson (1), U. S. Open (130) Raymond 6-8 (42.9%) 0-3 Sydney (1), Australian Open (30), Scottsdale (1), Indian Wells (1), 202/8 Ericsson (32), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (56), U. S. Open (80) Rubin 17-10 0-4 Hobart (105), Australian Open (46), Scottsdale (36), Indian Wells 620/10 (63.0%) (112), Ericsson (26), Stanford (67), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (61), Canadian Open (56), U. S. Open (110) Sanchez- 17-7 (70.8%) 1-4 Gold Coast (102), Sydney (95), Australian Open (256), Ericsson (30), 806/7 Vicario Los Angeles (49), Canadian Open (168), U. S. Open (106) Schett 7-10 (41.2%) 0-3 Sydney (1), Australian Open (92), Scottsdale (30), Indian Wells (48), 218/10 Ericsson (1), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (42) Schnyder 12-8 (60.0%) 1-4 Gold Coast (47), Hobart (18), Australian Open (174), Indian Wells 466/8 (26), Ericsson (30), Canadian Open (45), New Haven (96), U. S. Open (30) Seles 23-8 (74.2%) 1-7 Scottsdale (108), Indian Wells (113), Ericsson (202), Stanford (108), 1344/8 San Diego (202), New Haven (233), U. S. Open (280), Princess Cup (98) Sugiyama 11-11 2-5 Sydney (1), Australian Open (270), Scottsdale (108), Indian Wells 536/11 (50.0%) (30), Ericsson (30), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (30), U. S. Open (34), Princess Cup (30) Talaja 10-10 0-2 Gold Coast (245), Sydney (30), Australian Open (2), Scottsdale (1), 433/12 (50.0%) Indian Wells (1), Ericsson (26), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (82), New Haven (41), U. S. Open (2), Kuala Lumpur (1), Pattaya City (1) Tauziat 11-8 (57.9%) 1-2 Australian Open (56), Indian Wells (37), Ericsson (26), San Diego 549/8 (83), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (113), U. S. Open (232) Testud 20-10 0-7 Sydney (1), Australian Open (98), Scottsdale (96), Indian Wells (37), 875/10 (66.7%) Ericsson (185), Stanford (60), San Diego (83), Los Angeles (108), Canadian Open (103), U. S. Open (104) Van Roost 11-9 (55.0%) 1-4 Sydney (101), Australian Open (56), Scottsdale (1), Indian Wells (67), 442/10 Ericsson (26), San Diego (49), Los Angeles (36), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (75), U. S. Open (30) S. Williams 25-5 (83.3%) 4-3 Australian Open (120), Indian Wells (98), Ericsson (67), Los Angeles 1468/7 (443), Canadian Open (298), U. S. Open (190), Princess Cup (252) V. Williams 19-0 (100%) 7-0 Stanford (331), San Diego (343), New Haven (316), U. S. Open 2046/4 (1056)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 81 Winning Percentage on Hardcourts Where two players have equal winning percentages, the player with the higher number of wins on hardcourts is listed first. Where this fails, the player with the higher WTA rank is listed first Rank Player Won Lost Winning% WTA Rank 1 V. Williams 19 0 100% 3 2 Hingis 35 6 85.4% 1 3 Davenport 37 7 84.1% 2 4 S. Williams 25 5 83.3% 6 5 Hénin 16 5 76.2% 48 6 Seles 23 8 74.2% 4 7 Sanchez-Vicario 17 7 70.8% 9 8 Kournikova 23 10 69.7% 8 9 Martinez 22 10 68.8% 5 10 Pierce 13 6 68.4% 7 11 Dementieva 19 9 67.9% 12 12 Testud 20 10 66.7% 17 13 Capriati 15 8 65.2% 14 14 Frazier 22 12 64.7% 20 15 Clijsters 12 7 63.2% 18 16 Rubin 17 10 63.0% 13 17 Mauresmo 5 3 62.5% 16 18 Halard-Decugis 15 10 60.0% 15 Schnyder 12 8 60.0% 25 20 Déchy 13 9 59.1% 27 Tauziat 11 8 57.9% 10 Likhovtseva 15 11 57.7% 21 Coetzer 12 9 57.1% 11 Maleeva 10 8 55.6% 22 Van Roost 11 9 55.0% 24 Sugiyama 11 11 50.0% 33 Talaja 10 10 50.0% 30 Dokic 8 10 44.4% 26 Huber 7 9 43.8% 19 Raymond 6 8 42.9% 31 Schett 7 10 41.2% 23

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 82 Points Per Tournament on Hardcourts Hard Player Surface Tourn on Points/ WTA Rank Rank Name Points Surface Tourn 1 V. Williams 2046 4 511.5 3 2 Davenport 3266 10 326.6 2 3 Hingis 2854 9 317.1 1 4 S. Williams 1468 7 209.7 6 5 Seles 1344 8 168.0 4 6 Mauresmo 492 4 123.0 16 7 Sanchez-Vicario 806 7 115.1 9 8 Dementieva 1028 9 114.2 12 9 Martinez 1066 10 106.6 5 10 Pierce 639 6 106.5 7 11 Kournikova 988 10 98.8 8 12 Capriati 790 8 98.8 14 13 Testud 875 10 87.5 17 14 Frazier 991 12 82.6 20 15 Hénin 396.5 5 79.3 48 16 Tauziat 549 8 68.6 10 17 Rubin 620 10 62.0 13 18 Halard-Decugis 706 12 58.8 15 19 Schnyder 466 8 58.3 25 20 Coetzer 508 9 56.4 11 Likhovtseva 598 11 54.4 21 Clijsters 406 8 50.8 18 Huber 455 9 50.6 19 Sugiyama 536 11 48.7 33 Déchy 476 10 47.6 27 Maleeva 367 8 45.9 22 Van Roost 442 10 44.2 24 Talaja 433 12 36.1 30 Dokic 302 10 30.2 26 Raymond 202 8 25.3 31 Schett 218 10 21.8 23

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 83 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 V. Williams 1056 1 V. Williams 316 2 Davenport 934 2 Seles 98 3 Hingis 618 3 Hingis 85 4 Mauresmo 448 4 S. Williams 67 5 Dementieva 446 5 Kournikova 32 6 S. Williams 443 6 Hénin 30 7 Capriati 404 Sanchez-Vicario 30 8 Martinez 336 8 Schnyder 18 9 Huber 314 10 Seles 280 All of the following players had at least 11 Likhovtseva 264 one opening-round loss on hardcourts: 12 Frazier 256 Capriati, Clijsters, Coetzer, Davenport, 13 Sanchez-Vicario 256 Déchy, Dementieva, Frazier, Halard- 14 Talaja 245 Decugis, Huber, Likhovtseva, Maleeva, 15 Tauziat 232 Martinez, Mauresmo, Pierce, Rubin, 16 Pierce 214 Schett, Talaja, Tauziat, Testud, Van 17 Halard-Decugis 213 Roost 18 Kournikova 212 19 Maleeva 197 20 Testud 185 Schnyder 174 Hénin 166 Coetzer 145 Clijsters 144 Rubin 112 Van Roost 101 Déchy 97 Schett 92

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 84 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 Capriati 0-3 (0%) 0-0 Rome (1), Strasbourg (1), Roland Garros (2) 4/3 Clijsters 1-2 (33.3%) 0-0 Antwerp (16), Roland Garros (2) 18/2 Coetzer 19-5 (79.2%) 1-2 Amelia Island (46), Hilton Head (84), Hamburg (194), Berlin (283), 823/6 Antwerp (134), Roland Garros (82) Davenport 1-1 (50%)1 0-0 Rome (51), Roland Garros (2) 53/2 Déchy 6-4 (60.0%)2 0-0 Estoril (101), Rome (1), Strasbourg (75), Roland Garros (2) 179/4 Dementieva 8-4 (66.7%)3 1-2 Amelia Island (18), Hilton Head (41), Berlin (128), Rome (26), 285/5 Roland Garros (72) Dragomir 9-7 (56.3%) 0-2 Amelia Island (1), Hilton Head (116), Hamburg (1), Berlin (32), Rome 318/7 (30), Roland Garros (120), Palermo (18) Frazier 1-4 (20.0%) 0-0 Amelia Island (1), Hilton Head (38), Madrid (1), Roland Garros (2) 42/4 Garbin 19-9 (67.9%) 0-4 Bogota (99), São Paulo (1), Estoril (77), Budapest (119), Warsaw (26), 475/10 Rome (32), Strasbourg (20), Roland Garros (74), Palermo (1), Sopot (26) (NOTE: List does not include Challenger of 4/10/2000) Halard-Dec 2-4 (33.3%) 0-0 Bol (1), Berlin (38), Rome (51), Roland Garros (2) 92/4 Hingis 12-2 (85.7%) 0-2 Hamburg (320), Berlin (183), Roland Garros (380) 883/3 Huber 18-4 (81.8%) 1-2 Estoril (155), Hamburg (166), Berlin (85), Rome (37), Roland Garros 747/6 (126), Sopot (178) Kournikova 6-5 (54.5%) 0-1 Amelia Island (73), Hilton Head (40), Hamburg (70), Berlin (1), 218/5 Roland Garros (34) Kuti Kis 17-8 (68%) 0-1 Bogota (60), São Paulo (134), Estoril (39), Budapest (1), Bol (1), 484/9 Berlin (37), Strasbourg (145), Roland Garros (56), Knokke-Heist (1) Leon Garcia 20-8 (71.4%) 2-3 Amelia Island (18), Hilton Head (24), Bol (118), Berlin (131), Rome 704/9 (1), Madrid (176), Roland Garros (34), Klagenfurt (41), Sopot (161) Likhovtseva 6-6 (50.0%) 0-2 Amelia Island (172), Hilton Head (44), Warsaw (1), Rome (1), 221/6 Strasbourg (1), Roland Garros (2) Maleeva 6-8 (42.9%) 0-2 Amelia Island (1), Hilton Head (1), Bol (1), Berlin (1), Rome (1), 154/8 Roland Garros (84), Klagenfurt (45), Sopot (20) Martinez 20-5 (80.0%) 2-3 Amelia Island (223), Hilton Head (135), Hamburg (54), Berlin (435), 1434/6 Roland Garros (544), Sopot (43) Mauresmo 13-4 (76.5%) 1-2 Bol (128), Berlin (26), Rome (303), Roland Garros (120) 577/4 Nagyova 11-5 (68.8%) 0-0 Amelia Island (18), Hilton Head (1), Warsaw (108), Antwerp (1), 239/7 Roland Garros (2), Palermo (108), Sopot (1) Pierce 15-3 (83.3%) 5-0 Amelia Island (75), Hilton Head (374), Rome (40), Madrid (1), Roland 1476/5 Garros (986) Raymond 5-5 (50%) 0-0 Amelia Island (18), Hilton Head (46), Rome (32), Madrid (1), Roland 127/5 Garros (30) Rubin 9-4 (69.2%) 1-2 Amelia Island (38), Berlin (42), Rome (32), Roland Garros (252) 364/4 Sanchez-V 16-6 (72.7%) 2-4 Amelia Island (77), Hilton Head (273), Hamburg (175), Berlin (1), 1031/6 Rome (79), Roland Garros (426) Schett 11-5 (68.8%) 0-2 Amelia Island (81), Hilton Head (1), Hamburg (1), Roland Garros 399/6 (92), Klagenfurt (177), Sopot (47)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 85 Schnyder 9-8 (52.9%) 0-1 Amelia Island (77), Hilton Head (42), Hamburg (1), Berlin (1), Rome 289/8 (1), Roland Garros (2), Klagenfurt (118), Sopot (47) Seles 17-2 (89.5%) 1-2 Amelia Island (311), Hilton Head (163), Rome (326), Roland Garros 1078/4 (278) Sidot 7-6 (53.8%) 0-1 Estoril (16), Hamburg (30), Berlin (1), Rome (86), Strasbourg (26), 227/6 Roland Garros (68) Smashnova 14-7 (66.7%) 0-2 Amelia Island (15), Hilton Head (53), Hamburg (1), Berlin (1), 353/8 Strasbourg (98), Roland Garros (2), Palermo (42), Knokke-Heist (141) Suarez 20-10 1-3 Bogota (32), São Paulo (100), Amelia Island (174), Hilton Head (30), 584/10 (66.7%) Bol (41), Berlin (61), Madrid (26), Roland Garros (2), Klagenfurt (22), Sopot (96) Sugiyama 6-5 (54.5%) 0-1 Amelia Island (24), Berlin (1), Rome (30), Madrid (26), Roland 229/5 Garros (148) Talaja 10-7 (58.8%) 1-3 Amelia Island (38), Hilton Head (1), Bol (26), Berlin (61), Rome (1), 356/8 Strasbourg (226), Roland Garros (2), Palermo (1) Tauziat 5-4 (55.6%) 0-0 Berlin (1), Rome (75), Strasbourg (45), Roland Garros (68) 189/4 Testud 5-5 (50.0%) 0-1 Amelia Island (1), Bol (39), Berlin (85), Rome (1), Roland Garros (68) 194/5 Van Roost 6-4 (60%) 1-0 Rome (30), Strasbourg (1), Roland Garros (176), Knokke-Heist (75) 282/4 Wartusch 9-9 (50%) 0-0 Bogota (142), São Paulo (39), Estoril (1), Budapest (1), Bol (1), 226/10 Warsaw (14), Madrid (1), Roland Garros (2), Klagenfurt (1), Knokke- Heist (24) (NOTE: List does not include Challenger of 7/17/2000) S. Williams 0-1 (0%) 0-0 Amelia Island (1) 1/1 V. Williams 6-3 (66.7%) 0-1 Hamburg (58), Rome (59), Roland Garros (228) 345/3 Zuluaga 12-8 (60.0%) 1-0 Bogota (18), São Paulo (18), Amelia Island (1), Hilton Head (1), 530/8 Berlin (1), Rome (229), Madrid (140), Roland Garros (122) Zvereva 6-6 (50%) 0-0 Hamburg (1), Berlin (1), Rome (1), Roland Garros (130), Klagenfurt 180/5 (47) 1 Davenport withdrew from her third round match at Rome. If this is counted as a loss, her record falls to 1-2 and her winning percentage to 33.3%. 2 Not including a walkover at Strasbourg 3 Dementieva withdrew from her second round match at Roland Garros. If this is counted as a loss, her record falls to 8-5 and her winning percentage to 61.5%

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 86 Winning Percentage on Clay Rank Player Winning% WTA Rank 1 Seles 89.5% 4 2 Hingis 85.7% 1 3 Pierce 83.3% 7 4 Huber1 81.8%1 19 5 Martinez 80.0% 5 6 Coetzer 79.2% 11 7 Mauresmo 76.5% 16 8 Sanchez-Vicario 72.7% 9 9 Leon Garcia2 71.4%2 32 10 Rubin 69.2% 13 11 Schett3 68.8%3 23 Nagyova2 68.8%2 41 13 Kuti Kis2 68.0%2 56 14 Garbin2 67.9%2 40 15 V. Williams 66.7% 3 Dementieva 66.7% 12 Suarez2 66.7%2 37 Smashnova2 66.7%2 46 19 Van Roost 60.0% 24 Déchy 60.0% 27 Zuluaga2 60.0%2 42 22 Talaja4 58.8%4 30 23 Dragomir 56.3% 45 24 Tauziat 55.6% 10 25 Kournikova 54.6% 8 Schnyder 52.9% 25 Likhovtseva 50% 21 Testud 50% 17 Davenport5 50%5 2 Maleeva 42.9% 22 Halard-Decugis 33.3% 15 Clijsters 33.3% 18 Frazier 20% 20 S. Williams5 0%5 6 Capriati5 0%5 14 1 Huber played two tournaments of Tier III or lower, and earned half her wins at those two events. Since these events have much weaker fields, this renders her percentage artificially high. Subtracting those two, her percentage is 69.2% 2 Non-Top-25 player; played primarily at low-Tier events. 3 Like Huber, Schett played two events of Tier III or lower. Schett had more than half her clay wins at these events. Subtracting those gives her a clay percentage of 55.6% 4 Talaja played three clay events of Tier III or lower. Without these, her clay percentage falls to 44.4% 5 Played three or fewer matches on clay.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 87 Points Per Tournament on Clay Clay Player WTA Surface Tourn on Points/ Rank Name Rank Points Surface Tourn 1 Pierce 7 1476 5 295.2 2 Hingis 1 883 3 294.3 3 Seles 4 1078 4 269.5 4 Martinez 5 1434 6 239.0 5 Sanchez-Vicario 9 1031 6 171.8 6 Mauresmo 16 577 4 144.3 7 Coetzer 11 823 6 137.2 8 Huber 19 747 6 124.5 9 V. Williams 3 345 3 115.0 10 Rubin 13 364 4 91.0 11 Leon Garcia 32 704 9 78.2 12 Van Roost 24 282 4 70.5 13 Schett 23 399 6 66.5 14 Zuluaga 42 530 8 66.3 15 Suarez 37 584 10 58.4 Dementieva 12 285 5 57.0 Garbin 40 475 10 47.5 Tauziat 10 189 4 47.3 Sugiyama 33 229 5 45.8 Dragomir 45 318 7 45.4 Déchy 27 179 4 44.8 Talaja 30 356 8 44.5 Smashnova 46 353 8 44.1 Kournikova 8 218 5 43.6 Testud 17 194 5 38.8 Sidot 36 227 6 37.8 Likhovtseva 21 221 6 36.8 Schnyder 25 289 8 36.1 Davenport 2 53 2 26.5 Raymond 31 127 5 25.4 Halard-Decugis 15 92 4 23.0 Maleeva 22 154 8 19.3 Frazier 20 42 4 10.5 Clijsters 18 18 2 9.0 Capriati 14 4 3 1.3 S. Williams 6 1 1 1.0

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 88 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 Pierce 986 1 Hingis 183 2 Martinez 544 2 Seles 163 3 Sanchez-Vicario 426 3 V. Williams 58 4 Hingis 380 4 Coetzer 46 5 Seles 326 5 Martinez 43 6 Mauresmo 303 6 Huber 37 7 Coetzer 283 7 Rubin 32 8 Rubin 252 8 Mauresmo 26 9 V. Williams 228 9 Dementieva 18 10 Talaja 226 11 Huber 178 All other Top 25 players, including 12 Schett 177 Capriati, Davenport, Déchy, Dragomir, 13 Van Roost 176 Frazier, Halard-Decugis, Kournikova, 14 Likhovtseva 172 Likhovtseva, Pierce, Raymond, 15 Sugiyama 148 Sanchez-Vicario, Schett, Schnyder, Zvereva 130 Sidot, Sugiyama, Talaja, Tauziat, Testud, Dementieva 128 Van Roost, and S. Williams, had at least Dragomir 120 one opening-round loss on hardcourts. Schnyder 118 Déchy 101 Testud 85 Tauziat 75 Kournikova 73 Davenport 51 Halard-Decugis 51 Raymond 46 Frazier 38 Clijsters 16 Capriati 2 S. Williams 1

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 89 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. The list is in alphabetical order. Player Won/Lost Vs. Tournaments Played Total Pts/ Name (Percentage) Top 10 # of Tourn Appelmans 3-2 (60.0%) 0-1 ’s-Hertogenbosch (1), Wimbledon (126) 127/2 Capriati 8-3 (72.7%) 0-2 Birmingham (46), ’s-Hertogenbosch (94), Wimbledon (158) 298/3 Clijsters 2-2 (50.0%) 1-0 ’s-Hertogenbosch (22), Wimbledon (112) 134/2 Coetzer 2-2 (50.0%) 0-0 Eastbourne (58), Wimbledon (30) 88/2 Davenport 7-2 (77.8%) 1-1 Eastbourne (54), Wimbledon (642) 696/2 Déchy 3-3 (50.0%) 0-1 Birmingham (1), Eastbourne (41), Wimbledon (110) 152/3 Dementieva 0-1 (0%) 0-0 Wimbledon (2) 2/1 Dokic 6-2 (75%) 0-1 ’s-Hertogenbosch (22), Wimbledon (302) 324/2 Dragomir 4-2 (66.7%) 1-1 ’s-Hertogenbosch (167), Wimbledon (2) 169/2 Frazier 2-2 (50.0%) 0-0 Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (50) 51/2 Halard-Decugis 7-2 (77.7%) 1-0 Birmingham (43), Eastbourne (328), Wimbledon (2) 373/3 Hénin 1-2 (33.3%) 0-2 ’s-Hertogenbosch (26), Wimbledon (2) 28/2 Hingis 7-11 (87.5%) 0-1 ’s-Hertogenbosch (186), Wimbledon (274) 460/2 Huber 3-1 (75.0%) 0-1 Wimbledon (98) 98/1 Kournikova 2-2 (50.0%) 1-0 Eastbourne (58), Wimbledon (112) 170/2 Likhovtseva 2-2 (50.0%) 0-1 Eastbourne (28), Wimbledon (34) 62/2 Maleeva 1-2 (33.3%) 0-0 ’s-Hertogenbosch (1), Wimbledon (34) 35/2 Martinez 1-1 (50.0%) 0-0 Wimbledon (56) 56/1 Mauresmo 0-1 (0%) 0-0 Wimbledon (2) 2/1 Pierce 1-1 (50.0%) 0-1 Wimbledon (46) 46/1 Raymond 9-2 (81.8%) 1-1 Birmingham (226), Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (170) 397/3 Rubin 3-2 (60.0%) 0-0 Eastbourne (133), Wimbledon (2) 135/2 Sanchez-Vicario 3-1 (75.0%) 0-1 Wimbledon (104) 104/1 Schett 0-2 (0%) 0-0 ’s-Hertogenbosch (1), Wimbledon (2) 3/2 Schnyder 3-2 (60.0%) 0-0 ’s-Hertogenbosch (58), Wimbledon (46) 104/2 Seles 4-1 (80.0%) 1-1 Wimbledon (260) 260/1 Sidot 4-3 (57.1%) 0-1 Birmingham (43), Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (94) 138/3 Sugiyama 1-2 (33.3%) 0-1 Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (30) 31/2 Talaja 4-3 (57.1%) 0-1 Birmingham (26), Eastbourne (49), Wimbledon (76) 151/3 Tauziat 4-3 (57.1%) 0-0 Birmingham (90), Eastbourne (60), Wimbledon (2) 152/3 Testud 1-2 (33.3%) 0-0 ’s-Hertogenbosch (39), Wimbledon (2) 41/2 Van Roost 4-2 (66.7%) 1-0 Eastbourne (256), Wimbledon (2) 258/2 S. Williams 5-1 (83.3%) 0-1 Wimbledon (340) 340/1 V. Williams 7-0 (100%) 3-0 Wimbledon (1098) 1098/1 Zvereva 2-2 (50.0%) 0-0 Eastbourne (49), Wimbledon (30) 79/2 1 Excludes a walkover at ’s-Hertogenbosch

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 90 Note: Because only four tournaments are played on grass, and no 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 Player WTA Surface Tourn on Points/ Rank Name Rank Points Surface Tourn 1 V. Williams 3 1098 1 1098.0 2 Davenport 2 696 2 348.0 3 S. Williams 6 340 1 340.0 4 Seles 5 260 1 260.0 5 Hingis 1 460 2 230.0 6 Dokic 26 324 2 162.0 7 Raymond 31 397 3 132.3 8 Van Roost 24 258 2 129.0 9 Halard-Decugis 15 373 3 124.3 10 Sanchez-Vicario 9 104 1 104.0 11 Capriati 14 298 3 99.3 12 Huber 19 98 1 98.0 13 Kournikova 8 170 2 85.0 14 Dragomir 45 169 2 84.5 15 Rubin 13 135 2 67.5 Clijsters 18 134 2 67.0 Appelmans 50 127 2 63.5 Martinez 5 56 1 56.0 Schnyder 25 104 2 52.0 Déchy 27 152 3 50.7 Tauziat 10 152 3 50.7 Talaja 30 151 3 50.3 Sidot 36 138 3 46.0 Pierce 7 46 1 46.0 Coetzer 11 88 2 44.0 Likhovtseva 21 62 2 31.0 Frazier 20 51 2 25.5 Testud 17 41 2 20.5 Maleeva 22 35 2 17.5 The following players did not win any matches on grass, and so are “off scale” in this ranking: Dementieva, Mauresmo, Schett

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 91 Adjusted Points Per Tournament on Grass A 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 score than a player who plays only Wimbledon and reaches the semifinal. 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 WTA Surface Tourn on Adjusted Rank Name Rank Points Surface Points/Tourn 1 V. Williams 3 1098 1 645.9 2 Davenport 2 696 2 348.0 3 Hingis 1 460 2 230.0 4 S. Williams 6 340 1 200.0 5 Dokic 26 324 2 162.0 6 Seles 4 260 1 152.9 7 Raymond 31 397 3 132.3 8 Van Roost 24 258 2 129.0 9 Halard-Decugis 15 373 3 124.3 10 Capriati 14 298 3 99.3 11 Kournikova 8 170 2 85.0 12 Dragomir 45 169 2 84.5 13 Rubin 13 135 2 67.5 14 Clijsters 18 134 2 67.0 15 Appelmans 50 127 2 63.5 16 Sanchez-Vicario 9 104 1 61.2 17 Huber 19 98 1 57.6 18 Schnyder 25 104 2 52.0 19 (tie) Déchy 27 152 3 50.7 19 (tie) Tauziat 10 152 3 50.7 Talaja 30 151 3 50.3 Sidot 36 138 3 46.0 Coetzer 11 88 2 44.0 Martinez 5 56 1 32.9 Likhovtseva 21 62 2 31.0 Pierce 7 46 1 27.1 Frazier 20 51 2 25.5 Testud 17 41 2 20.5 Maleeva 22 35 2 17.5

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 92 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 Capriati 12-5 (70.6%) 0-2 Luxembourg (175), Filderstadt (1), Zurich (171), Quebec City 574/6 (137), Philadelphia (36), Chase (54) Clijsters 13-4 (76.5%) 5-1 Hannover (49), Luxembourg (43), Filderstadt (269), Leipzig 840/5 (339), Chase (140) Coetzer 10-6 (62.5%) 0-4 Pan Pacific (80), Oklahoma City (94), Filderstadt (96), Zurich 511/6 (51), Philadelphia (58), Chase (132) Davenport 11-2 (84.6%) 3-1 Zurich (250), Linz (303), Philadelphia (400), Chase (54) 1007/4 Déchy 6-2 (75.0%) 0-1 Paris (73), Oklahoma City (141) 214/2 Dementieva 8-7 (inc. 2 1-2 Paris Qualifying (11), Hannover Qualifying (1), Zurich (46), Linz 463/7 qual. wins) (1), Moscow (79), Leipzig (52), Chase (273) Dokic 3-3 (50.0%) 0-1 Zurich (40), Moscow (1), Leipzig (56) 97/3 Frazier 5-4 (55.6%) 0-1 Oklahoma City (45), Quebec City (75), Philadelphia (1), Chase 175/4 (54) Halard- 5-5 (50.0%) 0-3 Paris (107), Moscow (1), Quebec City (22), Philadelphia (87), 271/5 Decugis Chase (54) Hingis 23-1 (95.8%) 7-1 Pan Pacific (368), Filderstadt (286), Zurich (393), Moscow (368), 2197/6 Philadelphia (228), Chase (554) Huber 1-2 (33.3%) 1-0 Paris (69), Hannover (1) 70/2 Kournikova 16-9 (64.0%) 2-5 Pan Pacific (88), Paris (115), Luxembourg (83), Filderstadt (1), 1038/9 Zurich (75), Moscow (235), Leipzig (121), Philadelphia (60), Chase (260) Likhovtseva 6-8 (42.9%) 1-2 Paris (1), Hannover (1), Filderstadt (1), Zurich (1), Linz (62), 344/8 Moscow (1), Leipzig (223), Chase (54) Maleeva 16-7 (inc. 6 1-3 Pan Pacific (16), Paris (19), Luxembourg (162), Filderstadt (41), 480/7 qual. wins) Zurich (59), Moscow (110), Leipzig (73) Martinez 4-3 (57.1%) 0-2 Filderstadt (65), Philadelphia (96), Chase (120) 281/3 Mauresmo 6-4 (60.0%) 0-2 Paris (49), Hannover (100), Linz (36), Moscow (170) 355/4 Pierce 0-1 (0%) 0-0 Pan Pacific (1) 1/1 Raymond 6-5 (54.5%) 0-2 Pan Pacific (44), Oklahoma City (55), Moscow (40), Leipzig (41), 208/5 Philadelphia (28) Rubin 13-5 (72.2%) 0-3 Pan Pacific (177), Filderstadt (61), Zurich (96), Linz (108), 738/7 Quebec City (193), Philadelphia (49), Chase (54) Sanchez-V 2-4 (33.3%) 0-1 Filderstadt (135), Moscow (1), Leipzig (1), Chase (54) 191/4 Schett 9-5 (64.3%) 1-4 Filderstadt (1), Zurich (210), Linz (66), Moscow (111), Leipzig 450/5 (62) Schnyder 7-7 (50.0%) 0-2 Paris (41), Hannover (56), Luxembourg (41), Filderstadt (36), 222/7 Zurich (1), Linz (1), Moscow (46) Seles 7-1 (87.5%) 0-1 Oklahoma City (207), Chase (366) 573/2 Sidot 12-9 (57.1%) 0-2 Pan Pacific (1), Paris (81), Hannover (112), Luxembourg (41), 396/9 Filderstadt (93), Zurich (38), Linz (1), Bratislava (28), Leipzig (1) Talaja 0-6 (0%) 0-0 Paris (1), Hannover (1), Filderstadt (1), Zurich (1), Linz (1), 6/6 Moscow (1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 93 Tauziat 16-10 (61.5%) 1-2 Pan Pacific (75), Paris (313), Hannover (1), Luxembourg (1), 1143/11 Filderstadt (109), Zurich (80), Linz (54), Moscow (150), Leipzig (123), Philadelphia (117), Chase (120) Testud 4-3 (57.1%) 1-3 Pan Pacific (251), Paris (1), Chase (54) 306/3 Van Roost 2-3 (40.0%) 0-1 Paris (1), Filderstadt (73), Zurich (1) 75/3 S. Williams 7-1 (87.5%) 1-1 Paris (216), Hannover (281) 497/2 V. Williams 3-1 (75.0%) 0-1 Linz (205) 205/1 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 Hingis 23 1 95.8% 1 2 Seles 7 1 87.5% 4 S. Williams 7 1 87.5% 6 4 Davenport 11 2 84.6% 2 5 Clijsters 13 4 76.5% 18 6 Déchy 6 2 75.0% 27 V. Williams 3 1 75.0% 3 8 Rubin 13 5 72.2% 13 9 Capriati 12 5 70.6% 14 10 Maleeva 16 7 69.6% 22 11 Schett 9 5 64.3% 23 12 Kournikova 16 9 64.0% 8 13 Coetzer 10 6 62.5% 11 14 Tauziat 16 10 61.5% 10 15 Mauresmo 6 4 60.0% 16 16 Sidot 12 9 57.1% 36 Martinez 4 3 57.1% 5 Testud 4 3 57.1% 17 19 Frazier 5 4 55.6% 20 20 Raymond 6 5 54.5% 31 Dementieva 8 7 53.3% 12 Schnyder 7 7 50.0% 25 Halard-Decugis 5 5 50.0% 15 Dokic 3 3 50.0% 26 Likhovtseva 6 8 42.9% 21 Van Roost 2 3 40.0% 24 Sanchez-Vicario 2 4 33.3% 9 Huber 1 2 33.3% 19 Pierce 0 1 0% 7 Talaja 0 6 0% 30

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 94 Points Per Tournament Indoors Indoor Player Surface Tourn on Points/ WTA Rank Name Points Surface Tourn Rank 1 Hingis 2197 6 366.2 1 2 Seles 573 2 286.5 4 3 Davenport 1007 4 251.8 2 4 S. Williams 497 2 248.5 6 5 V. Williams 205 1 205.0 3 6 Clijsters 840 5 168.0 18 7 Kournikova 1038 9 115.3 8 8 Déchy 214 2 107.0 27 9 Rubin 738 7 105.4 13 10 Tauziat 1143 11 103.9 10 11 Testud 306 3 102.0 17 12 Capriati 574 6 95.7 14 13 Martinez 281 3 93.7 5 14 Schett 450 5 90.0 23 15 Mauresmo 355 4 88.8 16 16 Coetzer 511 6 85.2 11 17 Maleeva 480 7 68.6 22 18 Dementieva 463 7 66.1 12 19 Halard-Decugis 271 5 54.2 15 20 Sanchez-Vicario 191 4 47.8 9 Sidot 396 9 44.0 36 Frazier 175 4 43.8 20 Likhovtseva 344 8 43.0 21 Raymond 208 5 41.6 31 Huber 70 2 35.0 19 Dokic 97 3 32.3 26 Schnyder 222 7 31.7 25 Van Roost 75 3 25.0 24 Talaja 6 6 1.0 30 Pierce 1 1 1.0 7

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 95 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 Hingis 554 1 Hingis 228 2 Davenport 400 2 S. Williams 216 3 Seles 366 3 Seles 207 4 Clijsters 339 4 V. Williams 205 5 Tauziat 313 5 Déchy 73 6 S. Williams 281 6 Martinez 65 7 Dementieva 273 7 Davenport 54* 8 Kournikova 260 8 Coetzer 51 9 Testud 251 9 Rubin 49 10 Likhovtseva 223 10 Clijsters 43 11 Schett 210 11 Mauresmo 36 12 V. Williams 205 12 Raymond 28 13 Rubin 193 13 Maleeva 16 14 Capriati 175 15 Mauresmo 170 * Lost first round at Chase 16 Maleeva 162 17 Déchy 141 All other Top 25 players, including 18 Sanchez-Vicario 135 Capriati, (Davenport), Dementieva, 19 Coetzer 132 Dokic, Frazier, Halard-Decugis, Huber, 20 Martinez 120 Kournikova, Likhovtseva, Pierce, Sidot 112 Sanchez-Vicario, Schett, Schnyder, Halard-Decugis 107 Talaja, Tauziat, Testud, and Van Roost, Frazier 75 had at least one opening-round loss Van Roost 73 indoors. Huber 69 Dokic 56 Schnyder 56 Raymond 55 Pierce 1 Talaja 1

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 96 All-Surface Players This allows 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 really a measure of who is better on all surfaces; it simply measures who has been an all- surface player this year. (We should note that, while this statistic has had meaning in past years, in 2000 it is rather biased by injuries to players such as Pierce and the limited schedules pursued by players such as the .) The maximum score, of course, is 57, and players with that score have not been listed. Rank Player Surface Score WTA Rank 1 Hingis 8 1 2 Seles 13 4 3 V. Williams 16 3 4 Davenport 22 2 5 S. Williams 26 6 6 Martinez 35 5 7 Sanchez-Vicario 36 9 Pierce 36 7 Mauresmo 36 16 10 Kournikova 40 8 11 Rubin 42 13 12 Clijsters 45 18 Capriati 45 14 14 Coetzer 47 11 15 Van Roost 48 24 Huber 48 19 17 Testud 49 17 Déchy 49 27 Dementieva 49 12 20 Tauziat 51 10 Dokic 51 26 22 Schett 52 23 Raymond 52 31 24 Halard-Decugis 53 15 25 Dragomir 54 45 26 Frazier 55 20

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 97 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). Note: In the lists below, “0” and “-” have different meanings. “0” means did not win any of the tournaments of this level she played on this surface. “-” means “Did not play any tournaments of this level on this surface.” 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 14 Capriati 1 1 18 Clijsters 1 2 2 11 Coetzer 1 1 2 Davenport 2 2 2 27 Déchy 0 12 Dementieva 0 26 Dokic 0 20 Frazier 0 15 Halard-Decugis 1 1 2 1 Hingis 2 1 1 5 4 19 Huber 2 1 8 Kournikova 0 21 Likhovtseva 0 22 Maleeva 0 5 Martinez 1 1 16 Mauresmo 1 1 7 Pierce 2 1 13 Rubin 1 1 9 Sanchez-Vicario 0 23 Schett 1 1 25 Schnyder 0 4 Seles 2 1 2 10 Tauziat 1 1 17 Testud 0 24 Van Roost 0 6 S. Williams 2 1 2 3 V. Williams 4 1 2 This information is easily summarized: Martina Hingis won on all four surfaces, with significant titles on three. No other player won on as many as three surfaces. Kim Clijsters, Lindsay Davenport, Julie Halard- Decugis, Monica Seles, Venus Williams, and Serena Williams won on two surfaces; Davenport, and the Williams Sisters were the only players other than Hingis to win significant events on two surfaces. For additional information on results by surface, see the section on Percentage of Points Earned on Each Surface.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 98 Assorted Statistics The Busiest Players on the Tour Total Tour Matches Played by Top Players The following table shows how the Top 25 ranked in total matches played. Note that this does not correlate closely with ranking or with tournaments played; while Hingis leads because of her high win percentage, Kournikova is second because of a combination of winning fairly often and playing fairly often, while Likhovtseva manages to be tied for tenth because, even though she doesn’t win all that often, she plays more than any other Top 25 player. The final two columns show how well a player did against her schedule. “Possible matches” is the total 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, the Chase four, a Tier I between four and seven, depending on the event and whether one is seeded or not, a Tier IV would represent five possible matches, etc.) The “% of possible” shows what fraction of these possible matches the player actually played — another measure of consistency. Ordinal Player WTA Rank Matches Played Possible Matches % of possible 1 Hingis 1 87 97 89.7% 2 Kournikova 8 73 132 55.3% 3 Davenport 2 68 89 76.4% 4 Martinez 5 66 102 64.7% 5 Coetzer 11 65 125 52.0% 6 Seles 4 63 77 81.8% Rubin 13 63 125 50.4% 8 Tauziat 10 61 127 48.0% 9 Maleeva 22 58 150 38.7% 10 Sanchez-Vicario 9 56 95 58.9% Dementieva 12 56 134 41.8% Schnyder 25 56 139 40.3% Likhovtseva 21 56 147 38.1% 14 Capriati 14 54 108 50.0% 15 Frazier 20 52 119 43.7% 16 Halard-Decugis 15 51 125 40.8% 17 Testud 17 50 106 47.2% 18 Schett 23 49 124 39.5% 19 Dokic 26 47 108 43.5% 20 Déchy 27 46 107 43.0% 21 S. Williams 6 45 60 75.0% Huber 19 45 99 45.5% 23 Clijsters 18 43 94 45.7% 24 Van Roost 24 41 107 38.3% 25 Pierce 7 40 70 57.1% 26 V. Williams 3 39 43 90.7% 27 Mauresmo 16 36 75 48.0%

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 99 Total Tour Events Played by the Top 150 The following table sorts the Top 150 (as of November 22, 1999) 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. # of # to Players Events Play 33 2 Barna, Hopkins 32 1 Latimer 31 2 De Lone, Jidkova 30 4 Diaz-Oliva, Dominikovic, Panova, Parkinson 29 6 Brandi, Kleinova, Marosi-Aracama, J. Nejedly, Pullin, Talaja 28 2 Osterloh, Shaughnessy 27 9 Buth, Kremer, Likhovtseva, Llagostera, Loit, Plischke, Poutchek, Sidot, Smashnova 26 16 Arn, Bacheva, Bachmann, Castano, Garbin, Kournikova, Lee, (Maleeva*), Nola, Ostrovskaya, Pratt, Stevenson, Tauziat, Torrens Valero, Tu, Vavrinec 25 14 Basting, Cervanova, Craybas, Gagliardi, Pisnik, Rippner, Schnyder, Serna, Srebotnik, Tanasugarn, Wartusch, Webb, Weingartner, Yoshida 24 9 Casoni, Dragomir, Grande, Halard-Decugis, Kostanic, Prakusya, Sequera, Snyder, Sugiyama 23 14 Asagoe, Black, Coetzer, Courtois, Habsudova, N. Li, Montolio, Nacuk, Rubin, Schett, Suarez, Sucha, Vento, Washington 22 12 Appelmans, Chladkova, Cristea, Dementieva, Frazier, Hersi, Jeyaseelan, Kandarr, Nagyova, Sanchez Lorenzo, Schiavone, Yi 21 11 Carlsson, Dominguez Lino, Farina Elia, Fusai, Hopmans, Leon Garcia, McQuillan, Myskina, Pitkowski, Raymond, Tulyaganova 20 10 Boogert, Cacic, Callens, Capriati, Glass, Hingis, Martinez, Molik, Testud, Zuluaga 19 6 Déchy, Dokic, Kruger, Kuti Kis, Morariu, Van Roost 18 10 Davenport, de los Rios, Drake, Huber, Lamade, Oremans, Petrova, Pizzichini, Ruano Pascual, Sanchez-Vicario 17 5 Barabanschikova, Bovina, Clijsters, Hrdlickova, Rittner 16 4 Bedanova, Grzybowska, Irvin, Labat 15 4 Hantuchova, Marrero, Medina Garrigues, Seles 14 4 Bradshaw, Hénin, Krasnoroutskaya, Majoli 13 2 Mauresmo, Pierce 12 1 Zvereva 11 1 S. Williams 10 0 — 91V. Williams * Maleeva played one of these 26 events in 1999, but this list is for the year ending November 20, 2000. Maleeva’s result cannot be taken off, as there are others in the list who played Challengers in the same period.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 100 The Biggest Tournaments Theoretically, all tournaments of the same tier are of equal difficulty. In reality, it’s not even close. Tournaments like Filderstadt and Philadelphia and San Diego are so strong that, in some years, Top Ten players can go unseeded, while Leipzig 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 the Ericsson). Unfortunately, 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 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 101 Tournament Strength Based on the Four Top Players Present Proposal #1: 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 2000 were Hingis, ranked #1; Davenport, ranked #2; Pierce, ranked #5; and Schett, ranked #8. So the total “value” of this tournament is 1+1+2+2+5+8=19.) Based on the following, we rate the 24 Tier I and Tier II tournaments on the Tour as follows (note that a lower difficulty score is better). Where two tournaments are of equal difficulty, the list is in calendar order: Tournament Rank Tier Tournament Difficulty Score Winner 1 Slam Roland Garros 13 Pierce I U.S. Open 13 V. Williams I Wimbledon 13 V. Williams 4 II San Diego 14 V. Williams 5 Slam Australian Open 15 Davenport Chmp Chase 15 Hingis I Ericsson 15 Hingis I Indian Wells 15 Davenport 9 I Canadian Open 19 Hingis II Los Angeles 19 S. Williams II Scottsdale 19 (No winner/final rained out) II Sydney 19 Mauresmo 13 II Philadelphia 20 Davenport 14 — Olympics 21 V. Williams I Rome 21 Seles 16 I Berlin 25 Martinez 17 II Stanford 26 V. Williams I Zurich 26 Hingis 19 II Hamburg 29 Hingis I Pan Pacific 29 Hingis 21 II Filderstadt 30 Hingis 22 II Linz 32 Davenport 23 II New Haven 36 V. Williams 24 II Amelia Island 37 Seles II Paris 37 Tauziat 26 I Moscow 38 Hingis 27 I Hilton Head 40 Pierce 28 II Eastbourne 44 Halard-Decugis 29 II Hannover 47 S. Williams 30 II Princess Cup 60 S. Williams 31 II Leipzig 61 Clijsters

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 102 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. Trn Tournament Top Player # of Top Player Ranks of Missing Top 10 Winner Rank Present Top 10 Missing Players 1 Wimbledon #1/Hingis 10 #33/Zuluaga — V. Williams 2 U. S. Open #1/Hingis 10 #13/Mauresmo next missing #34 V. Williams 3 Roland Garros #1/Hingis 9 #8/S. Williams #8; next missing #80, #81 Pierce 4 San Diego #1/Hingis 7 #4/Pierce #4, #7, #9 V. Williams 5 Ericsson #1/Hingis 9 #3/V. Williams #3; next missing #15, #45 Hingis 6 Indian Wells #1/Hingis 9 #3/V. Williams #3; next missing #11, #45 Davenport 7 Australian Opn #1/Hingis 8 #3/V. Williams #3, #7; next missing #30 Davenport 8 Canadian Open #1/Hingis 7 #3/V. Williams #3, #4, #5; next missing #12, Hingis #25 9 Scottsdale #1/Hingis 7 #3/V. Williams #3, #4, #5; next missing #12, No winner #15 10 Sydney #1/Hingis 6 #3/V. Williams #3, #4, #6, #7 Mauresmo 11 Philadelphia #1/Hingis 5 #3/V. Williams #3, #4, #6, #7, #8 Davenport 12 Los Angeles #1/Hingis 6 #3/V. Williams #3, #4, #5, #9 S. Williams 13 Zurich #1/Hingis 3 #3/V. Williams #3, #4, #,5, #6, #8, #9, #10 Hingis 14 Chase #1/Hingis 7 #3/V. Williams #3, #6, #7 Hingis 15 Berlin #1/Hingis 5 #2/Davenport #2, #4, #5, #6, #7 Martinez 16 Pan Pacific #1/Hingis 3 #2/Davenport #2, #3, #4, #7, #8, #9, #10 Hingis 17 Filderstadt #1/Hingis 4 #2/Davenport #2, #3, #4, #5, #8, #10 Hingis 18 Moscow #1/Hingis 3 #2/Davenport #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #10 Hingis 19 Rome #1/Davenport 7 #2/Hingis #2, #3, #8 Seles 20 (Olympics) #2/Davenport 5 #1/Hingis #1, #4, #7, #8, #10 V. Williams 21 Stanford #2/Davenport 3 #1/Hingis #1, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 V. Williams 22 Linz #2/Davenport 3 #1/Hingis #1, #4, #5, #6, #8, #9, #10 Davenport 23 Hamburg #2/Hingis 3 #1/Davenport #1, #4, #5, #6, #7, #9, #10 Hingis 24 Eastbourne #2/Davenport 2 #1/Hingis #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #9, #10 Halard- Decugis 25 New Haven #3/VWilliams 4 #1/Hingis #1, #2, #4, #5, #7, #9 V. Williams 26 Amelia Island #4/Pierce 5 #1/Davenport #1, #2, #3, #5, #7 Seles 27 Hilton Head #4/Pierce 4 #1/Davenport #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #9 Pierce 28 Paris #4/SWilliams 4 #1/Hingis #1, #2, #3, #5, #7, #10 Tauziat 29 Hannover #4/SWilliams 2 #1/Hingis #1, #2, #3, #5, #7, #8, #9, #10 S. Williams 30 Princess Cup #5/Seles 2 #1/Hingis #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #9, #10 S. Williams 31 Leipzig #8/Tauziat 3 #1/Hingis #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 Clijsters

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 103 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. Tourn Rank Tournament Top 8 Qual Pts Percentage Score Winner 1 Roland Garros 475 100.0% Pierce Wimbledon 475 100.0% V. Williams U. S. Open 475 100.0% V. Williams 4 Australian Opn 452 95.2% Davenport Indian Wells 452 95.2% Davenport Ericsson 452 95.2% Hingis 7 San Diego 420 88.4% V. Williams 8 Chase 409 86.1% Hingis 9 Scottsdale 390 82.1% No winner Canadian Open 390 82.1% Hingis 11 Sydney 354 74.5% Mauresmo 12 Los Angeles 347 73.1% S. Williams 13 (Olympics) 320 67.4% V. Williams 14 Philadelphia 311 65.5% Davenport 15 Berlin 295 62.1% Martinez 16 Rome 277 58.3% Seles 17 Filderstadt 229 48.2% Hingis 18 Amelia Island 227 47.8% Seles Hamburg 227 47.8% Hingis 20 Zurich 218 45.9% Hingis 21 New Haven 195 41.1% V. Williams 22 Pan Pacific 193 40.6% Hingis 23 Stanford 191 40.2% V. Williams 24 Moscow 186 39.2% Hingis 25 Paris 184 38.7% Tauziat Hilton Head 184 38.7% Pierce Linz 184 38.7% Davenport 28 Leipzig 129 27.2% Clijsters 29 Eastbourne 118 24.8% Halard-Decugis 30 Hannover 98 20.6% S. Williams 31 Princess Cup 93 19.6% S. Williams

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 104 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 V. Williams 100 Wimbledon, U. S. Open 1 Pierce 100 Roland Garros 3 Davenport 95.2 Indian Wells 3 Hingis 95.2 Ericsson 5 Mauresmo 74.5 Sydney 6 S. Williams 73.1 Los Angeles 7 Martinez 62.1 Berlin 8 Seles 58.3 Rome 9 Tauziat 38.7 Paris 10 Clijsters 27.2 Leipzig 11 Halard-Decugis 24.8 Eastbourne

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 105 Strongest Tournament Performances The list below shows the biggest performances (highest number of points earned) in 2000. Every result of more than 350 points is listed.

Ordinal Score Player Event 1 1098 V. Williams Wimbledon Win 2 1056 V. Williams U. S. Open Win 3 986 Pierce Roland Garros Win 4 934 Davenport Australian Open Win 5 642 Davenport Wimbledon F 6 618 Hingis Australian Open F 7 592 Davenport U. S. Open F 8 554 Hingis Chase Championships W 9 544 Martinez Roland Garros F 10 479 Davenport Indian Wells Win 11 462 Hingis U. S. Open SF 12 448 Mauresmo Sydney Win 13 446 Dementieva U. S. Open SF 14 443 S. Williams Los Angeles Win 15 435 Hingis Ericsson Win 435 Martinez Berlin Win 17 426 Sanchez-Vicario Roland Garros SF 18 404 Capriati Australian Open SF 19 400 Davenport Philadelphia 20 399 Hingis Canadian Open Win 21 393 Hingis Zurich Win 22 380 Hingis Roland Garros SF 23 374 Pierce Hilton Head 24 368 Hingis Pan Pacific Win 368 Hingis Moscow Win 26 366 Seles Chase Championships F (349) Hingis Indian Wells F

Title Defences The following list shows all instances of a defending a title in 2000 (total of seven) Title Defended By Pan Pacific (I) Hingis Amelia Island (II) Seles Los Angeles (II) S. Williams Canadian Open (I) Hingis New Haven (II) V. Williams Filderstadt (II) Hingis Philadelphia (II) Davenport

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 106 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 16 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 (+ Chase) Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Australian Open 16 11 7 69% 44% Roland Garros 16 9 6 56% 38% Wimbledon 16 7 6 44% 38% U. S. Open 16 11 9 69% 56% Chase Championship 8 5 4 63% 50% Total 72 43 32 60% 44%

Tier I Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Pan Pacific 8 6 4 75% 50% Indian Wells 16 9 7 56% 44% Ericsson 32* 28* 22* 88% 69% Hilton Head 16 12 9 75% 56% Berlin 16 8 6 50% 38% Rome 16 8 3 50% 19% Canadian Open 16 12 10 75% 63% Zurich 8 6 4 75% 50% Moscow 8 6 5 75% 63% Total 120 76 55 63% 46% * Of the top 16 seeds, 9, or 56%, reached the Round of 16; 7, or 44%, held their seeds. Because the Ericsson is the only tournament with 32 seeds, the totals for the top sixteen seeds are used in the overall totals.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 107 Tier II Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Sydney 8 5 3 63% 38% Paris 8 4 3 50% 38% Hannover 8 3 3 38% 38% Scottsdale 8 5 5* 63% 63% Amelia Island 16 10 9 63% 56% Hamburg 8 7 5 88% 63% Eastbourne 8 7 3 88% 38% Stanford 8 7 5 88% 63% San Diego 8 6 6 75% 63% Los Angeles 7† 5 4 71% 57% New Haven 8 6 5 75% 63% Princess Cup 8 6 5 75% 63% Filderstadt 8 6 5 75% 63% Linz 8 4 3 50% 38% Leipzig 8 7 5 88% 63% Philadelphia 8 6 5 75% 63% Total 135 96 74 71% 53% * The final at Scottsdale was rained out with the #1 and #2 seeds in the final. For accounting purposes, both are reckoned to have held seed. † #4 seed Monica Seles withdrew from Los Angeles after play began and was replaced by a Lucky Loser, leaving only seven seeds.

Tier III Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Gold Coast 8 7 6 88% 75% Oklahoma City 7* 6 5 86% 71% Bol 8 4 3 50% 38% Madrid 8 1 1 13% 13% Strasbourg 8 3 2 38% 25% Birmingham 16 12 8 75% 50% ’s-Hertogenbosch 8 4 3 50% 38% Klagenfurt 8 4 4 50% 50% Sopot 8 6 3 75% 38% Luxembourg 8 6 4 75% 50% Japan Open 8 3 3 38% 38% Quebec City 8 4 3 50% 38% Kuala Lumpur 8 2 2 25% 25% Total 111 54 47 49% 42% * Top seed Julie Halard-Decugis withdrew from Oklahoma City after play began and was replaced by a Lucky Loser, leaving only seven seeds.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 108 Tier IV Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Auckland 8 4 3 50% 38% Hobart 8 3 2 38% 25% Bogota 8 3 2 38% 25% São Paulo 8 5 3 64% 38% Estoril 8 6 6 75% 75% Budapest 8 3 2 38% 25% Warsaw 8 4 1 50% 13% Antwerp 8 3 2 38% 25% Tashkent 8 2 1 25% 13% Palermo 8 2 2 25% 25% Knokke-Heist 8 6 3 75% 38% Shanghai 8 5 3 63% 38% Bratislava 8 3 5 63% 38% Pattaya City 8 4 3 50% 38% Total 112 53 38 47% 34%

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 109 Bagels The following chart lists the Bagels (6-0 sets) experienced or inflicted by top 20 players and higher tournaments. The “bagel” set is shown in bold. Double bagels are shown in bold for the entire line. If the bagel was inflicted at a low-tier (Tier III or Tier IV event), or in qualifying, it is shown in italics. Player Bagels inflicted Bagels experienced Appelmans Roland Garros: lost to Hingis 0-6 4-6 Capriati Australian Open: def. Sugiyama 6-0 6-2 Stanford: lost to Likhovtseva 4-6 0-6 Scottsdale: def. Stevenson 6-3 6-0 Filderstadt: lost to Rubin 0-6 7-6 2-6 Wimbledon: def. Basuki 7-6 6-0 U. S. Open: def. Gagliardi 6-4 6-0 Quebec City: def. Jeyaseelan 7-5 6-0 Clijsters U. S. Open: def. Marrerro 6-0 6-0 Ericsson: lost to Hingis 0-6 4-6 Leipzig: def. Sugiyama 6-0 6-2 Filderstadt: lost to Hingis 0-6 3-6 Coetzer Sydney: def. Raymond 7-6 6-0 Eastbourne: lost to Kremer 6-3 0-6 3-6 Sydney: lost to Van Roost 6-0 5-7 4-6 San Diego: lost to V. Williams 0-6 4-6 Amelia Island: def. Panova 6-0 6-4 Hamburg: def. Dragomir 6-0 6-4 Berlin: def. Poutchek 6-1 6-0 Antwerp: def. Courtois 6-0 6-3 Roland Garros: def. Drake 6-0 6-4 Eastbourne: def. Smashnova 6-2 6-0 Filderstadt: def. Talaja 6-4 6-0 Philadelphia: def. Hopkins 6-3 6-0 Davenport Australian Open: def. Jidkova 6-0 6-1 Indian Wells: def. Spirlea 6-0 6-1 Indian Wells: def. Hingis 4-6 6-4 6-0 Wimbledon: def. Seles 6-7 6-4 6-0 U. S. Open: def. Leon Garcia 6-0 6-1 U. S. Open: def. Hénin 6-0 6-4 Philadelphia: def. Martinez 6-0 6-1 Déchy Gold Coast: def. Pratt 6-0 6-2 Wimbledon: Lost to V. Williams 0-6 6-7 Paris: def. Farina 6-0 6-3 Oklahoma City: def. Molik 7-5 6-0 Dementieva Australian Open: def. Suarez 6-0 3-6 8-6 Leipzig: Lost to Likhovtseva 3-6 0-6 Indian Wells: def. Srebotnik 6-0 6-3 Dragomir Australian Open: def. De Lone 6-4 5-7 6-0 Hamburg: lost to Coetzer 0-6 4-6 ’s-Hertogenbosch: def. Nagyova 6-4 6-0 Rome: lost to Halard-Decugis 4-6 0-6 Roland Garros: lost to Hingis 3-6 6-0 1-6 Los Angeles: lost to S. Williams 0-6 1-6 Frazier Hobart: def. Parkinson 3-6 6-0 6-4 Scottsdale: lost to Testud 5-7 0-6 Stanford: def. Brandi 7-6 6-0 Ericsson: lost to Seles 0-6 3-6 San Diego: def. Huber 6-0 7-6 Canadian Open: lost to S. Williams 0-6 1-6 Princess Cup: def. Montolio 6-0 6-1 Halard- Rome: def. Dragomir 6-4 6-0 Gold Coast: lost to Maleeva 0-6 1-6 Decugis Wimbledon: lost to Boogert 6-7 6-0 1-6 Japan Open: def. Vavrinec 3-6 6-2 6-0 Japan Open: def. Tanasugarn 7-6 6-0 Quebec City: def. Parkinson 6-0 6-2 Hénin Hobart Qualifying: def. Nemeckova 6-0 6-2 U. S. Open: lost to Davenport 0-6 4-6 Hobart: lost to Rubin 6-7 6-0 2-6 Palermo: def. Lubiana 6-2 6-0 Liege Challenger: def. Rittner 6-0 3-1 ret. Filderstadt Qualifying: def. Arn 6-0 6-3

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 110 Hingis Sydney: def. Barabanschikova 6-0 6-2 Indian Wells: lost to Davenport 6-4 4-6 0-6 Pan Pacific: def. Kournikova 6-0 6-2 Roland Garros: def. Dragomir 6-3 0-6 6-1 Ericsson: def. Sidot 6-0 6-3 Canadian Open: def. S. Williams 0-6 6-3 3-0 ret. Ericsson: def Clijsters 6-0 6-4 Ericsson: def. Seles 6-0 6-0 Roland Garros: def. Appelmans 6-0 6-4 Roland Garros: def. Garbin 6-1 6-0 ’s-Hertogenbosch: def. J. Nejedly 6-0 6-2 U. S. Open: def. Garbin 6-1 6-0 U. S. Open: def. Seles 6-0 7-5 Filderstadt: def. Sanchez-Vicario 6-1 6-0 Filderstadt: def. Clijsters 6-0 6-3 Zurich: def. Myskina 6-0 6-4 Moscow: def. Hrdlickova 6-0 6-1 Moscow: def. Dementieva 6-0 6-7 7-5 Philadelphia: def. Kournikova 6-4 6-0 Huber Hamburg: def. Chladkova 6-3 4-6 6-0 San Diego: lost to Frazier 0-6 6-7 Kournikova Australian Open: def. Wartusch 6-0 6-0 Pan Pacific: lost to Hingis 0-6 2-6 Amelia Island: def. Pratt 6-0 7-5 Ericsson: lost to Seles 1-6 6-3 0-6 Hamburg: def. Pitkowski 6-3 6-0 Philadelphia: lost to Hingis 4-6 0-6 Eastbourne: lost to Rubin 5-7 6-0 3-6 Stanford: def. Nejedly 6-1 6-0 Philadelphia: def. Washington 6-2 6-0 Philadelphia: def. Pratt 6-0 6-2 Chase: def. Martinez 6-4 6-0 Likhovtseva Auckland: def. Srebotnik 3-6 6-0 6-4 Zurich: lost to Schett 0-6 1-6 Hilton Head: def. Parkinson 6-0 6-0 Stanford: def. Capriati 6-4 6-0 Linz: def. Suarez 6-4 6-0 Leipzig: def. Husarova 4-6 6-3 6-0 Leipzig: def. Dementieva 6-3 6-0 Maleeva Gold Coast: def. Molik 6-0 6-1 Zurich: lost to Tauziat 4-6 0-6 Gold Coast: def. Halard-Decugis 6-0 6-1 Paris Qualifying: def. Zarska 6-0 6-4 Canadian Open Qualifying: def. Drake 6-0 6-4 Canadian Open: def. Jeyaseelan 6-1 6-0 Martinez Indian Wells: def. Van Roost 6-0 3-0 ret. Gold Coast: lost to Talaja 0-6 6-0 4-6 Hilton Head: def. Labat 6-0 6-0 San Diego: lost to V. Williams 3-6 0-6 Berlin: def. Plischke 6-0 ret. Philadelphia: lost to Davenport 0-6 1-6 Roland Garros: def. Farina 6-1 6-0 Chase: lost to Kournikova 4-6 0-6 San Diego: def. Pratt 4-6 6-0 6-3 Canadian Open: def. A. Miller 6-0 6-1 Philadelphia: def. Parkinson 6-2 6-0 Mauresmo Sydney: def. Sugiyama 6-7 6-0 7-6 Paris: lost to Pitkoswki 0-6 7-6 6-2 Rome: def. Hrdlickova 6-0 6-2 Roland Garros: def. Hrdlickova 6-1 6-0 Pierce Scottsdale: def. Nacuk 6-0 6-1 Hilton Head: def. Sanchez-Vicario 6-1 6-0 Roland Garros: def. Razzano 6-4 6-0 Raymond Birmingham: def. Cross 6-0 6-3 Sydney: lost to Coetzer 6-7 0-6 U. S. Open: def. Grzybowska 6-1 6-0 Oklahoma City: def. Morariu 2-6 6-0 6-3 Amelia Island: def. Hopkins 6-4 0-6 6-1 Madrid: lost to Montolio 7-5 3-6 0-6 Wimbledon: lost to S. Williams 2-6 0-6

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 111 Rubin Pan Pacific: def. Panova 6-0, ret. Hobart: def. Hénin 7-5 0-6 6-2 Indian Wells: def. Habsudova 6-0 6-1 Amelia Island: def. Myskina 6-1 0-6 6-4 Rome: def. Serna 6-0 6-2 Amelia Island: lost to Schett 0-6 2-6 Filderstadt: def. Capriati 6-0 6-7 6-2 Eastbourne: def. Kournikova 7-5 0-6 6-3 Linz: lost to V. Williams 4-6 0-6 Sanchez- Australian Open: def. Schett 1-6 6-0 7-5 Gold Coast: lost to Talaja 6-1 3-6 6-0 Vicario Roland Garros: def. V. Williams 6-0 1-6 6-2 Amelia Island: def. Snyder 6-4 0-6 6-4 U. S. Open: def. Bradshaw 7-6 6-0 Hilton Head: lost to Pierce 1-6 0-6 Roland Garros: def. Schett 0-6 6-4 6-2 Filderstadt: lost to Hingis 1-6 0-6 Schett Amelia Island: def. Rubin 6-0 6-2 Australian Open: lost to Sanchez-Vicario 6-1 0-6 5-7 Roland Garros: lost to Sanchez-Vicario 6-0 4-6 2-6 Leipzig: lost to Tauziat 6-4 0-6 6-7 Sopot: def. Habsudova 6-0 6-4 Zurich: def. Likhovtseva 6-0 6-1 Schnyder Hilton Head: def. Tu 6-4 6-0 Indian Wells: lost to Seles 0-6 3-6 ’s-Hertogenbosch: def. Habsudova 6-0 6-4 Portschach: def. Gersi 6-0 6-4 Seles Oklahoma City: def. Pitkowski 6-0 6-0 Ericsson: lost to Hingis 0-6 0-6 Indian Wells: def. Schnyder 6-0 6-3 Wimbledon: lost to Davenport 7-6 4-6 0-6 Ericsson: def. Kournikova 6-1 3-6 6-0 San Diego: lost to V. Williams 0-6 7-6 3-6 Ericsson: def. Frazier 6-0 6-3 U. S. Open: lost to Hingis 0-6 5-7 Amelia Island: def. Smashnova 7-6 6-0 Hilton Head: def. de Lone 6-0 6-0 Roland Garros: def. Gagliardi 6-0 6-1 Wimbledon: def. Pitkowski 6-0 6-3 U. S. Open: def. Almeda-Singian 6-0 6-2 Talaja Gold Coast: def. Sanchez-Vicario 6-1 3-6 6-0 Gold Coast: def. Martinez 6-0 0-6 6-4 Gold Coast: def. Martinez 6-0 0-6 6-4 Palermo: lost to Diaz Oliva 1-6 0-6 Bol: def. Torrens-Valero 6-3 6-0 Filderstadt: lost to Coetzer 4-6 0-6 Tauziat Leipzig: def. Schett 4-6 6-0 7-6 Pan Pacific: lost to Testud 6-7 0-6 Zurich: def. Maleeva 6-4 6-0 Berlin: lost to Kruger 2-6 0-6 Rome: lost to Zuluaga 6-3 0-6 6-4 Testud Pan Pacific: def. Tauziat 7-6 6-0 Scottsdale: def. Frazier 7-5 6-0 Ericsson: def. Plischke 6-0 6-0 U. S. Open: def. Boogert 6-0 6-1 Van Roost Indian Wells: def. Gagliardi 4-6 6-3 6-0 Sydney: def. Coetzer 0-6 7-5 6-4 Ericsson: def. Parkinson 6-7 6-1 6-0 Indian Wells: lost to Martinez 0-6 0-3 ret. Roland Garros: lost to Marrero 6-0 5-7 5-7 Rome: lost to Casoni 6-7 0-6 Knokke-Heist: def. Serna 6-3 6-0 Strasbourg: lost to Smashnova 0-6 4-6 Williams, S. Ericsson: def. Sugiyama 6-3 6-0 Wimbledon: def. Basting 6-1 6-0 Wimbledon: def. Raymond 6-2 6-0 Los Angeles: def. Dragomir 6-0 6-1 Canadian Open: def. Frazier 6-0 6-1 Canadian Open: lost to Hingis 6-0 3-6 0-3 ret. U. S. Open: def. Dokic 7-6 6-0 Williams, V. Roland Garros: def. Kandarr 6-0 6-3 Roland Garros: Lost to Sanchez-Vicario 0-6 6-1 2-6 Wimbledon: def. Déchy 6-0 7-6 San Diego: def. Coetzer 6-0 6-4 San Diego: def. Martinez 6-3 6-0 San Diego: def. Seles 6-0 6-7 6-3 Linz: def. Rubin 6-4 6-0

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 112 The Dominance of the Big Three/Four In 1999, the “Big Four” — Lindsay Davenport, Martina Hingis, Serena Williams, and Venus Williams — almost completely dominated the sport of women’s tennis. In 2000, this became almost a Big Three of Hingis, Davenport, and Venus Williams. The following table shows how complete their dominance was in the events they played. Note that Los Angeles is the last event at which a Big Three player played not won by that player. Event Tier Big Four present Winner Sydney II Davenport, Hingis Mauresmo Australian Open Slam Davenport, Hingis, S. Williams Davenport Pan Pacific I Hingis Hingis Paris II S. Williams Tauziat Hannover II S. Williams S. Williams Scottsdale II Davenport, Hingis (No winner, but Davenport & Hingis in final) Indian Wells I Davenport, Hingis, S. Williams Davenport Ericsson I Davenport, Hingis, S. Williams Hingis Amelia Island II S. Williams Seles Hamburg II Hingis, V. Williams Hingis Berlin I Hingis Martinez Rome I Davenport, V. Williams Seles Roland Garros Slam Davenport, Hingis, V. Williams Pierce Eastbourne II Davenport Halard-Decugis Wimbledon Slam Hingis, Davenport, S. Williams, V. Williams V. Williams Stanford II Davenport, V. Williams V. Williams San Diego II Davenport, Hingis, V. Williams V. Williams Los Angeles II Davenport, Hingis, S. Williams S. Williams Canadian Open I Davenport, Hingis, S. Williams Hingis New Haven II V. Williams V. Williams U. S. Open Slam Davenport, Hingis, S. Williams, V. Williams V. Williams Filderstadt II Hingis Hingis Princess Cup II S. Williams S. Williams Zurich I Davenport, Hingis Hingis Linz II Davenport, V. Williams Davenport Moscow I Hingis Hingis Philadelphia II Davenport, Hingis Davenport Chase Champ Davenport, Hingis Hingis

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 113 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). Note: The lower the number of games per match, the better the player performed. Event Tier Winner Games Lost Matches Played Games/Match Sydney II Mauresmo 36 4 9.0 Australian Open Slam Davenport 38 7 5.4 Pan Pacific I Hingis 28 4 7.0 Paris II Tauziat 40 4 10.0 Hannover II S. Williams 26 4 6.5 Scottsdale* II (Hingis)* 19 3 6.3 Scottsdale* II (Davenport)* 23 3 7.7 Indian Wells I Davenport 26 6 4.3 Ericsson I Hingis 21 6 3.5 Amelia Island II Seles 24 5 4.8 Hilton Head I Pierce 12 5 2.4 Hamburg II Hingis 28 4 7.0 Berlin I Martinez 25† 5† 5.0† Rome I Seles 36 5 7.2 Roland Garros Slam Pierce 48 7 6.9 Eastbourne II Halard-Decugis 40 5 8.0 Wimbledon Slam V. Williams 53 7 7.6 Stanford II V. Williams 34 4 8.5 San Diego II V. Williams 22 4 5.5 Los Angeles II S. Williams 42 5 8.4 Canadian Open I Hingis 39 5 7.8 New Haven II V. Williams 27 4 6.8 U. S. Open Slam V. Williams 54 7 7.7 Filderstadt II Hingis 10 4 2.5 Princess Cup II S. Williams 23 4 5.8 Zurich I Hingis 28 4 7.0 Linz II Davenport 19 4 4.8 Moscow I Hingis 25 4 6.3 Leipzig II Clijsters 43 5 8.6 Philadelphia II Davenport 24 4 6.0 Chase Champ Hingis 38 4 9.5 * There was no winner at Scottsdale; results are calculated for the two finalists † Includes one match in which her opponent was injured and retired after losing a 6-0 set. If we examine the other matches, Martinez lost 25 games in 4 matches, or 6.25 games per match.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 114 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. Martinez, e.g., averaged 35 quality points per match at Berlin, while Hingis managed only 30 the week before at Hamburg. But Martinez’s result is biased by the 100 points she earned with a win over an injured Hingis — she earned over half her quality points in that one match! Hingis had no such opportunity at Hamburg; she was the top seed.) Quality Matches Points Event Tier Winner Points Played per Match Sydney II Mauresmo 248 4 62 Australian Open Slam Davenport 414 7 591 Pan Pacific I Hingis 108 4 27 Paris II Tauziat 103 4 26 Hannover II S. Williams 81 4 20 Scottsdale* II (Hingis)2 101 3 34 Scottsdale* II (Davenport)2 121 3 40 Indian Wells I Davenport 218 6 36 Ericsson I Hingis 175 6 29 Amelia Island II Seles 111 5 22 Hilton Head I Pierce 114 5 23 Hamburg II Hingis 120 4 30 Berlin I Martinez 175 5 35 Rome I Seles 66 5 13 Roland Garros Slam Pierce 466 7 671 Eastbourne II Halard-Decugis 128 5 26 Wimbledon Slam V. Williams 578 7 831 Stanford II V. Williams 131 4 33 San Diego II V. Williams 143 4 36 Los Angeles II S. Williams 243 5 49 Canadian Open I Hingis 139 5 28 New Haven II V. Williams 116 4 29 U. S. Open Slam V. Williams 536 7 771 Filderstadt II Hingis 86 4 22 Princess Cup II S. Williams 52 4 13 Zurich I Hingis 133 4 33 Linz II Davenport 103 4 26 Moscow II Hingis 108 4 29 Leipzig II Clijsters 139 5 28 Philadelphia II Davenport 200 4 50 Chase Champ Hingis 164 4 41 1 Note that Slam quality points are doubled, giving artificially high values 2 There was no winner at Scottsdale; results are calculated for the two finalists

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 115 Career Tournament Winners 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. Tournament Tier Won by Davenport Won by Hingis Won by V. Williams Won by Seles Sydney II 1999 1997 1996 Australian Opn Slam 2000 1997, 1998, 1999 1991–93, 1996 Pan Pacific I 1998 1997, 1999, 2000 Paris II 1997 Hannover II Scottsdale II (no winner to date) (no winner to date) (no winner to date) (no winner to date) Indian Wells I 1997, 2000 1998 1992 Ericsson/Lipton I 1997, 2000 1998, 1999 1990, 1991 Amelia Island II 1997 Hilton Head I 1997, 1999 Hamburg II 1998, 2000 1999 Berlin I 1999 1990 Rome I 1998 1999 1990 Roland Garros Slam 1990–92 Eastbourne II 1996 Wimbledon Slam 1999 1997 2000 Stanford II 1998, 1999 1996, 1997 2000 1990, 1992 San Diego II 1998 1997, 1999 2000 Los Angeles II 1996, 1998 1990, 1991, 1997 Canadian Open I 1999, 2000 1995–1998 New Haven II 1997 1999, 2000 1990 U.S. Open Slam 1998 1997 2000 1991, 1992 Princess Cup II 1999 1991–92, 1996–98 Filderstadt II 1996–97, 1999, 2000 Zurich I 1997, 1998 2000 1999 Linz II 2000 Moscow I 2000 Leipzig II Philadelphia II 1999, 2000 1997 1991 Yr-end Champ Chmp 1999 1998, 2000 1990–92 Total distinct events 16 20 9 16 Events won 2+ times 51029 Notes: Davenport also won (II) in 1997; this was the last year that event was played. The event was won by Davenport in 1997; it moved to New Haven in 1998. Davenport has also won several Tier III events: 1993, Brisbane 1994, Lucerne 1994, Strasbourg 1995, Oklahoma City 1997, Madrid 1999. Hingis has won only one Tier III (’s-Hertogenbosch 2000); until she played there, she had not contested a Tier III since 1996. Venus Williams won Oklahoma City in 1998, 1999. Monica Seles won Chicago (discontinued) in 1993; (discontinued), (discontinued), and (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.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 116 “Top Players” 2000 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 Grand Slam semifinal in the last three years. 2. Has, during one of the last three years, defeated at least five Top Ten players during the 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 Achieved” 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: Only the years in which a player ended in the Top Thirty (Top 25 for 1998) have been examined. Others years have been marked “X.” Player 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 Total Slam Top 10 Tier II+ Slam Top 10 Tier II+ Slam Top 10 Tier II+ Achieved SF Wins Titles SF Wins Titles SF Wins Titles Capriati X X X 020110 1 Clijsters XXXXXX0 6 1 2 Coetzer 031030030 1 Davenport 3 16 6 3 15 6 3 10 3 32 Dementieva XXXXXX1 5 0 2 Dokic X X X 020110 1 Frazier X X X 030040 0 Graf 083261XXX 8 Halard-Decu 010040021 1 Hingis 4 13 5 3 20 7 3 15 8 39 Huber 110040020 1 Kournikova 060020050 2 Likhovtseva X X X 020030 0 Maleeva XXXXXX0 2 0 0 Martinez 121020221 5 Mauresmo X X X 140051 3 Novotna 263011XXX 8 Pierce 0 10 3011162 10 Rubin X X X 020010 0 Sanchez-Vi 162100130 6 Schett 000040010 0 Schnyder 041010020 1 Seles 152221042 9 Tauziat 110022021 4 Testud 041040010 1 Van Roost 040020030 0 S. Williams 0501124152 12 V. Williams 16111652105 21 Zvereva150021000 3

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 117 From the above table, we can list players in order of “accomplishments.” Those who meet the qualifications for a “top player” are listed first, then those with two or more “accomplishments” who nonetheless do not qualify as top players: Top Players: Player Accomplishments Hingis 39 Davenport 32 V. Williams 21 S. Williams 12 Pierce 10 Seles 9 Novotna 8 Graf 8 Sanchez-Vicario 6 Martinez 5 Tauziat 4 Zvereva 3 Mauresmo 3 Clijsters 2 Dementieva 2 (Kournikova 2)* Capriati 1 Coetzer 1 Dokic 1 Halard-Decugis 1 Huber 1 Schnyder 1 Testud 1 Frazier 0 Likhovtseva 0 Maleeva 0 Rubin 0 Schett 0 Van Roost 0

* Kournikova has two “accomplishments,” but both involve wins over top players. She thus does not qualify as a Top Player. To gain that status in the coming years, she must either win an event or reach a Slam SF. Kournikova is unique in having so many Top Ten wins without a title or a recent Slam semifinal.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 118 Statistics About the Tour as a Whole Total number of ranked players on the Tour, as of November 20, 2000: 1242 (1079 on Nov. 20, 1999)

Most singles events played by a Top 100 player: 33 () Fewest events played by a Top 100 player: 9 (Venus Williams) Median number of events played by a Top 100 player: 22 Number of Top 100 players playing 25 or more events: 34 Number of Top 100 players playing 30 or more events: 4

Most events played by any player: 33 (, Jennifer Hopkins) Median number of events played by all players: 10 Number of players playing 25 or more events: 123 Number of players playing 30 or more events: 16

Most points earned in any event: 1098 (Venus Williams, Wimbledon) Most titles for any player: 9 (Martina Hingis); 5 (Venus Williams); 4 (Lindsay Davenport) Most Tour victories: 77 (Martina Hingis); 56 (Lindsay Davenport); 51 (Monica Seles)

Total Tournaments played in 2000: 57 (56 completed; Scottsdale rained out) Total players with Tour singles titles in 2000: 29 Total players with multiple singles titles in 2000: 12 Total players with Tier II or higher titles in 2000: 11

Most singles matches played: 87 (Martina Hingis); 73 (Anna Kournikova); 68 (Lindsay Davenport) Most doubles matches played: 76 (Ai Sugiyama); 75 (Julie Halard-Decugis); 61 (Kournikova) Most combined singles & doubles matches played: 144 (Hingis); 134 (Kournikova); 126 (Halard- Decugis); 121 (Nathalie Tauziat)

Total players with at least 2000 points: 9 Total players with at least 1000 points: 27 Total players with at least 500 points: 63 Total players with at least 200 points: 147 Total players with at least 100 points: 229 Total players with at least 50 points: 342 Total players with at least 20 points: 525 Total players with at least 10 points: 738 Total ranked players with 1.0 or fewer points: 10 Total players with .75 points: 4

Highest score in a 19th Tournament (all-time record; will not be broken as the tour is changing ranking systems): 129 (Martina Hingis). Runners-up: Hingis, 85; Lindsay Davenport, 63; Anna Kournikova, 58.

Total points “in the system” (sum of the Best 18 scores of all ranked players): 137,860.05 (Note: The .05 is due to an error in the score of Jasmin Woehr, #313, listed as having “57.05” points.) The Top 25 have 52,363 of these, or 40.0%. (In fact the total points “in the system” are slightly higher than this nominal figure, because of scores in nineteenth and higher tournaments.)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 119 The Year of the Injury 2000 could be called “The Year of the Injury.” Injuries to the top players were ubiquitous, and were perhaps the single most important factor in the rankings race. The following table shows lists the top players (those who spent significant parts of the year in the Top Ten) and the tournaments they missed (based on past schedules or preliminary commitments). The number of weeks they were absent is also shown. The final column shows the number of additional tournaments where the player withdrew in the course of the event, or where injury is thought to have played a role in her result (the latter are marked *) Player Events Missed Entirely Weeks Events played in which player withdrew Missed or was injured Davenport† Pan Pacific, Amelia Island, Hilton Head, 9 Rome, Roland Garros*, Eastbourne*, Madrid, Princess Cup Wimbledon*, Canadian Open, U.S. Open*, [Olympics] Hingis Rome 1 Berlin* Huber [Olympics], Filderstadt, Zurich, Linz, 10 U. S. Open Moscow, Leipzig, Philadelphia, Chase Kournikova Rome 1 Martinez Rome 1 Mauresmo San Diego, New Haven, U. S. Open, 9 Philadelphia, Chase Pierce Stanford, San Diego, Los Angeles, 14 U. S. Open Canadian Open, Filderstadt, Zurich, Linz, Moscow, Leipzig, Philadelphia, Chase Sanchez- 0 Vicario Seles Australian Open, Pan Pacific, Linz (plus 12 Princess Cup* many events in late 1999), Philadelphia Tauziat 0 Testud (Olympics), Filderstadt, Zurich, Linz, 8 Moscow, Leipzig, Philadelphia S. Williams Hilton Head, Berlin, Rome, Roland 9 Paris*, Hilton Head*, Amelia Island, Garros, Chase Canadian Open, (also U.S. Open dou- bles) V. Williams§ Australian Open, Oklahoma City, 15 Scottsdale, Ericsson, Chase † Davenport also withdrew from Moscow, citing fatigue. This is not an actual injury, although her injured foot reportedly contributed. In addition, following the season, Davenport played Fed Cup while suffering from an injury. § Venus Williams also withdrew from Zurich, citing fatigue. This is not, however, an actual injury — though it may be related to the anemia she cited in withdrawing from the Chase Championships.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 120 Best How Many? The current WTA ranking system is “Best 18” — that is, a player’s ranking is calculated by taking the scores from her best eighteen tournaments. As we have seen, this is hardly the only ranking system! But even if we accept “Best N” system as the correct way to rank, what value should we use for N? In 1998–2000, the WTA used N=18, but in 2001, it will shift to N=17. In 1997, the WTA had no maximum N (in effect, N=40 or more). The ATP, until 2000, used N=14. A press report said that Richard Williams favoured N=12. Does the value of N make a difference? It certainly does! In 2000, three different players — Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport, or Venus Williams — could be #1 with the appropriate choice of N. The following table shows the various values of N, and which player becomes #1 under each system. N= #1 is (points) #2 is (points) #3 is (Points) 20 (or higher) Hingis (6394) Davenport (5022) V. Williams (3694) 19 Hingis (6309) Davenport (5022) V. Williams (3694) 18 Hingis (6180) Davenport (5022) V. Williams (3694) 17 Hingis (6044) Davenport (5021) V. Williams (3694) 16 Hingis (5861) Davenport (5019) V. Williams (3694) 15 Hingis (5675) Davenport (4975) V. Williams (3694) 14 Hingis (5447) Davenport (4924) V. Williams (3694) 13 Hingis (5206) Davenport (4870) V. Williams (3694) 12 Hingis (4932) Davenport (4816) V. Williams (3694) 11 Hingis (4646) Davenport (4603) V. Williams (3694) 10 Davenport (4380) Hingis (4326) V. Williams (3694) 9 Davenport (4147) Hingis (3977) V. Williams (3694) 8 Davenport (3897) V. Williams (3636) Hingis (3609) 7 Davenport (3636) V. Williams (3577) Hingis (3241) 6 V. Williams (3372) Davenport (3350) Hingis (2861) 5 V. Williams (3144) Davenport (3047) Hingis (2468) 4 V. Williams (2828) Davenport (2647) Hingis (2069) 3 V. Williams (2497) Davenport (2168) Hingis (1634) 2 V. Williams (2154) Davenport (1576) Pierce (1360) 1 V. Williams (1098) Pierce (986) Davenport (934) Analysis: Of our three players, Hingis is the most consistent. She wants a high N, so that all her results (every one of which exceeds 84 points) counts. Look, for example, at N=15. Hingis is still putting up results in the hundreds of points, while Davenport is putting up very small numbers, and Venus is entirely out of the running. The problem with this system is that it makes the ability to stay healthy as important as the ability to win. Davenport has many solid results but also some clunks, and wants an intermediate value. In essence, she wants all her good results to count but wants to take away Hingis’s many more good results. Davenport’s best results are better, but her average results are worse than Hingis’s, and she wants to cover that defect. The same applies, even more, to Venus Williams, who did very well in a handful of events but played only nine events. Because Venus has nothing to back up those five titles (including two Slams) of hers, she wants N to be very small indeed. In essence, Venus wants a system in which only your very best result counts. For Venus to be #1 under her current schedule, the Tour must subscribe to the “only Slams count” theory. The problem with this system is that it makes it functionally impossible for the Tour to support players who can’t win Slams. Players have to be able to earn points at other events.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 121 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. Martina Hingis, for instance, played 20 singles tournaments but only 15 doubles tournaments. Elena Likhovtseva, by contrast, played 27 singles tournaments — and 26 doubles events. The following section, therefore, only sketches the state of doubles. The Final Top 30 in Doubles Doubles Ranking Player 1999 Year-End 2000 Year-End Doubles Ranking Singles Ranking 1 Julie Halard-Decugis 38 15 2 Ai Sugiyama 16 33 3 Martina Hingis 2 1 4 Anna Kournikova 1 8 5 5 31 6 7 686 7 Paola Suarez 40 37 8 Nathalie Tauziat 14 10 9 Mary Pierce 20 7 10 44 89 11 32 — 12 Barbara Schett 34 23 13 30 43 14 6 52 15 74 107 16 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 9 9 17 33 — 18 Elena Likhovtseva 8 21 19 Alexandra Fusai 13 146 20 25 524 21 Dominique Van Roost 42 24 (retired) 22 Chanda Rubin 22 13 23 Sandrine Testud 23 17 24 Anne-Gaelle Sidot 31 36 25 12 79 26 Lindsay Davenport 4 2 27 Amanda Coetzer 29 11 28 47 — 29 Conchita Martinez 24 5 30 Åsa Carlsson 56 57

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 122 The Initial Top 25 in Doubles Doubles Rank Player Singles Rank 1 Anna Kournikova 12 2 Martina Hingis 1 3 Larisa Neiland* 210 4 Lindsay Davenport 2 5 Lisa Raymond 28 6 Corina Morariu 37 7 Rennae Stubbs 251 8 Elena Likhovtseva 18 9 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 17 10 Venus Williams 3 10 Serena Williams 4 12 Natasha Zvereva 27 13 Alexandra Fusai 177 14 Nathalie Tauziat 7 15 — 16 Ai Sugiyama 24 17 Irina Spirlea 33 18 — 19 Elena Tatarkova 116 20 Mary Pierce 5 21 75 22 Chanda Rubin 22 23 Sandrine Testud 13 24 Conchita Martinez 15 25 Kimberly Po 128 * Retired following the Chase Championships 1999, but remaining on the rankings list as of December 29, 1999

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 123 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.

Player Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Mean Median Std. 31 31 29 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 20 (avg) Dev. Arendt 32 40 38 33 31 23 16 24 19 21 21 11 25.8 23.5 9.0 Black 30 30 30 30 33 31 31 29 24 15 12 13 25.7 30 7.7 Bollegraf 33 45 54 53 47 34 29 34 27 33 28 17 36.2 33.5 11.3 Callens 74 62 75 62 62 59 48 49 33 23 22 15 48.7 54 20.7 Davenport 426114515151719269.65.58.4 De Swardt 21 26 33 35 37 43 42 80 110 108 116 115 63.8 42.5 38.6 Fusai 13 10 10 10 12 17 24 23 23 20 17 19 16.5 17 5.4 Halard-Decu 38 24 22 19 15 11843111 12.3 9.5 11.7 Hingis 211326665533 3.63 1.9 Kournikova 132787121277446.27 3.5 Likhovtseva 8 12 12 13 16 16 20 27 26 16 15 18 16.6 16 5.6 Martinez 24 23 25 25 27 15 17 19 20 25 25 29 22.8 24.5 4.2 Morariu 67523138101010146.66.54.0 Neiland 3678891011212958— 15.5 9 15.9 Pierce 2098645436679 7.36 4.5 Po 25 25 23 22 23 24 21 22 18 24 20 20 22.3 22.5 2.2 Raymond 543452111355 3.33.51.7 Ruano Pascu 44 34 43 38 29 32 18 16 14 11 11 10 25.0 23.5 13.0 Rubin 22 22 24 23 21 21 19 17 13 19 16 22 19.9 21 3.2 Sanchez-Vica 9899987712131416 10.1 9 2.9 Schett 34 28 28 29 30 29 26 18 17 18 13 12 23.5 27 7.4 Sidot 31 32 32 31 38 39 37 41 32 31 27 24 32.9 32 5.0 Stubbs 754563221366 4.24.51.9 Suarez 40 31 29 27 17 20 1198887 17.9 14 11.3 Sugiyama 16 16 15 15 11 12954222 9.1105.8 Tarabini 18 19 18 18 20 22 23 25 25 32 31 34 23.8 22.5 5.8 Tatarkova 19 20 21 24 24 27 27 56 83 80 87 77 45.4 27 28.6 Tauziat 14 11 11 11 10 14 15 14 11998 11.4 11 2.3 Testud 23 21 14 14 14 13 14 10 9 12 18 23 15.4 14 4.8 Van Roost 42 41 52 42 44 42 39 38 31 22 24 21 36.5 40 9.8 Vis 15 17 19 17 22 28 28 28 34 41 67 56 31.0 28 16.3 S. Williams 10 13 16 20 18 18 — 20———— 16.4 18 3.7 V. Williams 10 13 16 20 18 18 — 20———— 16.4 18 3.7 Zvereva 12 15 13 12 13 10 13 13 16 14 23 25 14.9 13 4.5

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 124 Team Doubles Titles, Sorted from Most to Least Team Combined Rank Titles Won (Tier) # of Titles Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama 3 Sydney (II), Ericsson (I), New Haven (II), U. S. 6 Open (Slam), Princess Cup (II), Moscow (I) Hingis/Kournikova 7 Filderstadt (II), Zurich (I), Philadelphia (II), 4 Chase (Championship) Raymond/Stubbs 11 Australian Open (Slam), Rome (I), Madrid (III), 4 San Diego (II) Montalvo/Suarez 35 Bogota (IVA), São Paulo (IVA), Klagenfurt (III) 3 Hingis/Pierce 12 Pan Pacific (I), Roland Garros (Slam) 2 Ruano Pascual/Suarez 17 Hilton Head (I), Sopot (III) 2 Halard-Decugis/Morariu 15 Bol (III), Japan Open (III) 2 Williams/Williams — Wimbledon (Slam) 1 Davenport/Morariu 40 Indian Wells (I) 1 Martinez/Sanchez-Vicario 45 Berlin (I) 1 Hingis/Tauziat 11 Canadian Open (I) 1 Callens/Van Roost 36 Los Angeles (II) 1 Carlsson/Zvereva 55 Hannover (II) 1 Halard-Decugis/Tauziat 9 Paris (II) 1 Kournikova/Zvereva 29 Hamburg (II) 1 Mauresmo/Rubin 75 Linz (II) 1 Rubin/Testud 45 Stanford (II) 1 Sanchez-Vicario/Sidot 40 Leipzig (II) 1 Sugiyama/Tauziat 10 Eastbourne (II) 1 De Lone/Pratt 83 ’s-Hertogenbosch (III) 1 Fusai/Tauziat 27 Luxembourg (III) 1 Halard-Decugis/Kournikova 6 Gold Coast (III) 1 Jeyaseelan/Labat 136 Strasbourg (III) 1 McQuillan/McShea 136 Birmingham (III) 1 Morariu/Po 34 Oklahoma City (III) 1 Nagyova/Plischke 216 Kuala Lumpur (III) 1 Pratt/Shaughnessy 73 Quebec City (III) 1 Appelmans/Clijsters 126 Antwerp (IVA) 1 Bacheva/Torrens-Valero 144 Budapest (IVB) 1 Black/Fusai 32 Auckland (IVB) 1 Basuki/Vis 195 Pattaya City (IVA) 1 Casoni/Tulyaganova 175 Knokke-Heist (IVA) 1 Farina/Grande 100 Palermo (IVA) 1 Garbin/Husarova 107 Warsaw (IVB) 1 Grande/Loit 92 Hobart (IVB) 1 Habsudova/Husarova 97 Bratislava (IVB) 1 Krizan/Srebotnik 65 Estoril (IVA) 1 Li/Li 177 Tashkent (IVA) 1 Osterloh/Tanasugarn 178 Shanghai (IVA) 1

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 125 The Top Twenty-Five 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. Note: For reasons I do not understand, the WTA appears to count opening-round withdrawals in players’ totals for doubles tournaments but not for singles tournaments. Such withdrawals are not listed below. Rank Player Results 1 Halard-Decugis Gold Coast w/Kournikova (III, Win, 4) Sydney w/Sugiyama (II, Win, 4) Australian Open w/Sugiyama (Slam, QF, 3) Paris w/Testud (II, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/Sugiyama (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Sugiyama (I, Win, 5) Bol w/Morariu (III, Win, 4) Berlin w/Sugiyama (I, QF, 2) Rome w/Sugiyama (I, QF, 1) Roland Garros w/Sugiyama (Slam, SF, 4) Wimbledon w/Sugiyama (Slam, F, 5) Los Angeles w/Sugiyama (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Sugiyama (I, F, 4) New Haven w/Sugiyama (II, Win, 4) U. S. Open w/Sugiyama (Slam, Win, 6) Olympics w/Mauresmo (X, QF, 1) Princess Cup w/Sugiyama (II, Win, 4) Japan Open w/Morariu (III, Win, 4) Moscow w/Sugiyama (I, Win, 4) Philadelphia w/Sugiyama (II, SF, 2) Chase w/Sugiyama (Champ, 1R, 0) 2 Sugiyama Sydney w/Halard-Decugis (II, Win, 4) Australian Open w/Halard-Decugis (Slam, QF, 3) Pan Pacific w/Kournikova (I, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Halard-Decugis (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Halard-Decugis (I, Win, 5) Scottsdale w/Coetzer (II, SF (semifinal and final rained out), 3) Berlin w/Halard-Decugis (I, QF, 2) Rome w/Halard-Decugis (I, QF, 1) Madrid w/Srebotnik (III, SF, 2) Roland Garros w/Halard-Decugis (Slam, SF, 4) Eastbourne w/Tauziat (II, Win, 4) Wimbledon w/Halard-Decugis (Slam, F, 5) San Diego w/Clijsters (II, 2R, 1) Los Angeles w/Halard-Decugis (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Halard-Decugis (I, F, 4) New Haven w/Halard-Decugis (II, Win, 4) U. S. Open w/Halard-Decugis (Slam, Win, 6) Olympics w/Miyagi (X, QF, 2) Princess Cup w/Halard-Decugis (II, Win, 4) Zurich w/Tauziat (I, 1R, 0) Moscow w/Halard-Decugis (I, Win, 4) Linz w/Tauziat (II, SF, 2+1 walkover) Philadelphia w/Halard-Decugis (II, SF, 2) Chase w/Halard-Decugis (Champ, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 126 3 Hingis Sydney w/Pierce (II, F, 3) Australian Open w/Pierce (Slam, F, 5) Pan Pacific w/Pierce (I, Win, 4) Scottsdale w/Pierce (II, SF (semifinal and final rained out), 2) Indian Wells w/Pierce (I, SF, 4) Roland Garros w/Pierce (Slam, Win, 6) Wimbledon w/Pierce (Slam, 2R, 1) Los Angeles w/Tauziat (II, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Tauziat (I, Win, 4) U. S. Open w/Pierce (Slam, R16 [Pierce withdrew], 2) Filderstadt w/Kournikova (II, Win, 4) Zurich w/Kournikova (I, Win, 4) Moscow w/Kournikova (I, F, 3) Philadelphia w/Kournikova (I, Win, 4) Chase w/Kournikova (Champ, Win, 3) 4 Kournikova Gold Coast w/Halard-Decugis (III, Win, 4) Sydney w/Schett (II, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Schett (Slam, SF, 4) Pan Pacific w/Sugiyama (I, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Zvereva (I, F, 4) Ericsson w/Zvereva (I, 2R, 0) Hilton Head w/Sanchez-Vicario (I, QF, 1) Hamburg w/Zvereva (II, Win, 4) Roland Garros w/Zvereva (Slam, 3R, 2) Eastbourne w/Zvereva (II, 2R, 1) Wimbledon w/Zvereva (Slam, SF, 4) San Diego w/Davenport (II, F, 3) Canadian Open w/Davenport (I, QF [Davenport withdrew], 2) U. S. Open w/Capriati (Slam, 2R, 1) Filderstadt w/Hingis (II, Win, 4) Zurich w/Hingis (I, Win, 4) Moscow w/Hingis (I, F, 3) Philadelphia w/Hingis (I, Win, 4) Chase w/Hingis (Champ, Win, 3) 5 Raymond Sydney w/Stubbs (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Stubbs (Slam, Win, 6) Pan Pacific w/Stubbs (I, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Stubbs (I, 1R, 0) Ericsson w/Pierce (I, QF, 2) Amelia Island w/Stubbs (II, QF, 1) Hilton Head w/Stubbs (I, QF, 1) Rome w/Stubbs (I, Win, 4) Madrid w/Stubbs (III, Win, 4) Roland Garros w/Stubbs (Slam, QF, 2) Eastbourne w/Stubbs (II, F, 3) Wimbledon w/Stubbs (Slam, SF, 4) San Diego w/Stubbs (II, Win, 4) Los Angeles w/Stubbs (II, QF, 1) New Haven w/Stubbs (II, SF, 2) U. S. Open w/Stubbs (Slam, QF, 3) Moscow w/Stubbs (I, SF, 2) Philadelphia w/Stubbs (II, F, 3) Chase w/Stubbs (Champ, SF, 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 127 6 Stubbs Sydney w/Raymond (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Raymond (Slam, Win, 6) Pan Pacific w/Raymond (I, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Raymond (I, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/Raymond (II, QF, 1) Hilton Head w/Raymond (I, QF, 1) Rome w/Raymond (I, Win, 4) Madrid w/Raymond (III, Win, 4) Roland Garros w/Raymond (Slam, QF, 2) Eastbourne w/Raymond (II, F, 3) Wimbledon w/Raymond (Slam, SF, 4) San Diego w/Raymond (II, Win, 4) Los Angeles w/Raymond (II, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Dokic (I, 1R, 0) New Haven w/Raymond (II, SF, 2) U. S. Open w/Raymond (Slam, QF, 3) Olympics w/Dokic (X, 2R, 1) Moscow w/Raymond (I, SF, 2) Philadelphia w/Raymond (II, F, 3) Chase w/Raymond (Champ, SF, 1) 7 Suarez Auckland w/Ruano Pascual (4B, SF, 2) Sydney w/Ruano Pascual (II, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, 2R, 1) Bogota w/Montalvo (IVA, Win, 4) São Paulo w/Montalvo (IVA, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/Ruano Pascual (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Ruano Pascual (I, 3R, 1) Amelia Island w/Ruano Pascual (II, SF [semifinal and final rained out], 3) Hilton Head w/Ruano Pascual (I, Win, 5) Berlin w/Montalvo (I, QF [withdrew], 2) Roland Garros w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, F, 5) Wimbledon w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, QF, 3) Portschach w/Montalvo (III, Win, 4) Sopot w/Ruano Pascual (III, Win, 4) Canadian Open w/Ruano Pascual (I, 2R, 0) New Haven w/Ruano Pascual (II, F, 3) U. S. Open w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, 1R, 0) Olympics w/Montalvo (X, 2R, 1) Princess Cup w/Miyagi (II, F, 3) Japan Open w/Miyagi (III, SF, 2) Chase w/Ruano Pascual (Champ, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 128 8 Tauziat Australian Open w/Fusai (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Fusai (I, F, 2+1 walkover) Hannover w/Likhovtseva (II, QF, 1) Indian Wells w/Likhovtseva (I, QF, 2) Ericsson w/Fusai (I, QF, 2) Berlin w/Fusai (I, QF, 1) Rome w/Fusai (I, 2R, 0) Strasbourg w/Fusai (III, 2R, 1) Roland Garros w/Fusai (Slam, SF, 4) Birmingham w/Fusai (III, QF, 1) Eastbourne w/Sugiyama (II, Win, 4) Wimbledon w/Fusai (Slam, 2R, 1) San Diego w/Dechy (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Hingis (II, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Hingis (I, Win, 4) U.S. Open w/Fusai (Slam, 3R, 2) Luxembourg w/Fusai (III, Win, 4) Filderstadt w/Fusai (II, SF, 2) Zurich w/Sugiyama (I, 1R, 0) Linz w/Sugiyama (II, SF, 2+1 walkover) Moscow w/Fusai (I, SF, 2) Leipzig w/Fusai (II, 1R, 0) Philadelphia w/Fusai (II, SF, 2) Chase w/Fusai (Champ, 1R, 0) 9 Pierce Sydney w/Hingis (II, F, 3) Australian Open w/Hingis (Slam, F, 5) Pan Pacific w/Hingis (I, Win, 4) Scottsdale w/Hingis (II, SF (semifinal and final rained out), 2) Indian Wells w/Hingis (I, SF, 4) Ericsson w/Raymond (I, QF, 2) Amelia Island w/Morariu (II, 2R, 0) Roland Garros w/Hingis (Slam, Win, 6) Wimbledon w/Hingis (Slam, 2R, 1) U. S. Open w/Hingis (Slam, R16 [Pierce withdrew], 2) 10 Ruano Pascual Auckland w/Suarez (4B, SF, 2) Sydney w/Suarez (II, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Suarez (Slam, 2R, 1) Indian Wells w/Suarez (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Suarez (I, 3R, 1) Amelia Island w/Suarez (II, SF [semifinal and final rained out], 3) Hilton Head w/Suarez (I, Win, 5) Roland Garros w/Suarez (Slam, F, 5) Wimbledon w/Suarez (Slam, QF, 3) Palermo w/Dragomir (IVA, F, 3) Sopot w/Suarez (III, Win, 4) Canadian Open w/Suarez (I, 2R, 0) New Haven w/Suarez (II, F, 3) U. S. Open w/Suarez (Slam, 1R, 0) Chase w/Suarez (Champ, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 129 11 Arendt Gold Coast w/Molik (III, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Po (Slam, 1R, 0) Pan Pacific w/Po (I, 2R [withdrew], 1) Indian Wells w/Loit (I, QF, 2) Ericsson w/Bollegraf (I, F, 5) Amelia Island w/Tarabini (II, QF, 2) Hilton Head w/Vis (I, 2R, 0) Hamburg w/Bollegraf (II, F, 3) Berlin w/Bollegraf (I, SF, 3) Rome w/Bollegraf (I, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/Bollegraf (Slam, 3R, 2) Eastbourne w/Bollegraf (II, SF, 2) Wimbledon w/Bollegraf (Slam, 2R, 1) San Diego w/Bollegraf (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Bollegraf (II, SF, 2) Canadian Open w/Bollegraf (I, 1R, 0) U.S. Open w/Bollegraf (Slam, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Bollegraf (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Bollegraf (I, 1R, 0) Linz w/Bollegraf (II, SF, 2) Moscow w/Bollegraf (I, 1R, 0) Leipzig w/Bollegraf (II, SF, 2) Chase w/Bollegraf (Champ, F, 2) 12 Schett Sydney w/Kournikova (II, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Kournikova (Slam, SF, 4) Indian Wells w/Huber (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Huber (I, SF, 4) Amelia Island w/Schnyder (II, SF [semifinal and final rained out], 3) Roland Garros w/Huber (Slam, QF, 3) Wimbledon w/Huber (Slam, 3R, 2) Portschach w/Schnyder (III, F, 3) San Diego w/Krizan (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, 2R, 1) Canadian Open w/Huber (I, QF, 2) U. S. Open w/Huber (Slam, QF, 3) Olympics w/Wartusch (X, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, F, 3) Zurich w/Rubin (I, 2R, 1) Linz w/Vis (II, SF [withdrew], 1+1 walkover)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 130 13 Black Auckland w/Fusai (IVB, Win, 4) Hobart w/Graham (IVB, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Selyutina (Slam, 1R, 0) Pan Pacific w/Selyutina (I, 2R, 1) Oklahoma City w/Selyutina (III, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Selyutina (I, 1R, 0) Ericsson w/Selyutina (I, 2R, 0) Bol w/Selyutina (III, 1R, 0) Berlin w/Selyutina (I, 2R, 1) Rome w/Selyutina (I, 2R, 1) Roland Garros w/Selyutina (Slam, 2R, 1) Birmingham w/Selyutina (III, F, 4) Wimbledon w/Selyutina (Slam, 1R, 0) Stanford w/Frazier (II, F, 3) San Diego w/Likhovtseva (II, SF, 2) Los Angeles w/Likhovtseva (II, 2R, 1) Canadian Open w/Likhovtseva (I, QF, 2) New Haven w/Likhovtseva (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Likhovtseva (Slam, F, 4+1 walkover) Filderstadt w/Likhovtseva (II, SF, 2) Zurich w/Likhovtseva (I, QF, 1) Chase w/Likhovtseva (Champ, 1R, 0) 14 Morariu Sydney w/Davenport (II, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Davenport (Slam, SF, 4) Oklahoma City w/Po (III, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/Davenport (I, Win, 5) Ericsson w/Likhovtseva (I, QF, 2) Amelia Island w/Pierce (II, 2R, 0) Hilton Head w/Neiland (II, QF, 1) Bol w/Halard-Decugis (III, Win, 4) Berlin w/Coetzer (I, F, 2+1 walkover) Rome w/Davenport (I, QF [Davenport withdrew], 1) Strasbourg w/Likhovtseva (III, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/Davenport (II, 1R, 0) Princess Cup w/Dokic (II, SF, 2) Japan Open w/Halard-Decugis (III, Win, 4) Kuala Lumpur w/Carlsson (III, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 131 15 Callens Hobart w/Srebotnik (IVB, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Van Roost (Slam, QF, 3) Pan Pacific w/Wild (I, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Van Roost (I, 1R, 0) Ericsson w/Jeyaseelan (I, 2R, 1) Antwerp w/Habsudova (IVA, QF, 1) Strasbourg w/Van Roost (III, QF, 1) Roland Garros w/Van Roost (Slam, 2R, 1) Birmingham w/Molik (III, SF, 3) Eastbourne w/Van Roost (II, SF, 2) Wimbledon w/Van Roost (Slam, 3R, 2) Los Angeles w/Van Roost (II, Win, 4) New Haven w/Van Roost (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Van Roost (Slam, SF, 4) Olympics w/Van Roost (X, SF, 3 — won Bronze) Filderstadt w/Van Roost (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Van Roost (I, 1R, 0) Quebec City w/Po (III, F, 3) Philadelphia w/Jeyaseelan (II, 1R, 0) Chase w/Van Roost (Champ, SF, 1) 16 Sanchez-Vicario Gold Coast w/Serna (III, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Serna (Slam, 1R, 0) Sydney w/Dokic (II, QF, 1) Ericsson w/Courtois (I, QF, 2) Amelia Island w/Martinez (II, QF [remaining matches washed out], 1) Hilton Head w/Kournikova (I, QF, 1) Hamburg w/Courtois (II, SF, 2) Berlin w/Martinez (I, Win, 5) Rome w/Serna (I, F, 3+1 walkover) Roland Garros w/Courtois (Slam, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Mauresmo (Slam, 3R, 2) Los Angeles w/Schett (II, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Martinez (I, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Navratilova (Slam, 3R, 2) Olympics w/Martinez (X, 2R, 1) Filderstadt w/Schett (II, F, 3) Moscow w/Mauresmo (I, 1R, 0) Leipzig w/Sidot (II, Win, 4) 17 Bollegraf Ericsson w/Arendt (I, F, 5) Hamburg w/Arendt (II, F, 3) Berlin w/Arendt (I, SF, 3) Rome w/Arendt (I, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/Arendt (Slam, 3R, 2) Eastbourne w/Arendt (II, SF, 2) Wimbledon w/Arendt (Slam, 2R, 1) San Diego w/Arendt (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Arendt (II, SF, 2) Canadian Open w/Arendt (I, 1R, 0) U.S. Open w/Arendt (Slam, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Arendt (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Arendt (I, 1R, 0) Linz w/Arendt (II, SF, 2) Moscow w/Arendt (I, 1R, 0) Leipzig w/Arendt (II, SF, 2) Chase w/Arendt (Champ, F, 2)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 132 18 Likhovtseva Auckland w/Labat (IVB, QF, 1) Sydney w/Coetzer (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Coetzer (Slam, 3R, 2) Paris w/Habsudova (II, 1R, 0) Hannover w/Tauziat (II, QF, 1) Indian Wells w/Tauziat (I, QF, 2) Ericsson w/Morariu (I, QF, 2) Amelia Island w/Grande (II, 2R, 1) Warsaw w/Tatarkova (III, SF, 2) Rome w/Vis (I, 1R, 0) Strasbourg w/Morariu (III, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/Tulyaganova (Slam, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/Courtois (II, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Courtois (Slam, 1R, 0) San Diego w/Black (II, SF, 2) Los Angeles w/Black (II, 2R, 1) Canadian Open w/Black (I, QF, 2) New Haven w/Black (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Black (Slam, F, 4+1 walkover) Olympics w/Myskina (X, 2R, 1) Filderstadt w/Black (II, SF, 2) Zurich w/Black (I, QF, 1) Moscow w/Dokic (I, 1R, 0) Leipzig w/Cristea (II, 1R, 0) Chase w/Black (Champ, 1R, 0) 19 Fusai Auckland w/Black (IVB, Win, 4) Australian Open w/Tauziat (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Tauziat (I, F, 2+1 walkover) Ericsson w/Tauziat (I, QF, 2) Budapest w/Habsudova (IVB, QF [withdrew], 1) Berlin w/Tauziat (I, QF, 1) Rome w/Tauziat (I, 2R, 0) Strasbourg w/Tauziat (III, 2R, 1) Roland Garros w/Tauziat (Slam, SF, 4) Birmingham w/Tauziat (III, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Tauziat (Slam, 2R, 1) U.S. Open w/Tauziat (Slam, 3R, 2) Luxembourg w/Tauziat (III, Win, 4) Filderstadt w/Tauziat (II, SF, 2) Moscow w/Tauziat (I, SF, 2) Leipzig w/Tauziat (II, 1R, 0) Philadelphia w/Tauziat (II, SF, 2) Chase w/Tauziat (Champ, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 133 20 Po Sydney w/Testud (II, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Arendt (Slam, 1R, 0) Pan Pacific w/Arendt (I, 2R [withdrew], 1) Oklahoma City w/Morariu (III, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/de Swardt (I, 1R, 0) Ericsson w/Sidot (I, 3R, 1) Hilton Head w/Horn (I, 2R, 1) Rome w/Sidot (I, 2R, 1) Madrid w/Carlsson (III, SF, 2) Roland Garros w/Sidot (Slam, 3R, 2) Birmingham w/Sidot (III, QF, 1) Eastbourne w/Sidot (II, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Sidot (Slam, 2R, 1) Stanford w/Graham (II, SF, 2) San Diego w/Sidot (II, QF, 1) Los Angeles w/Sidot (II, F, 3) Canadian Open w/Sidot (I, SF, 3) U. S. Open w/Sidot (Slam, 3R, 2) Luxembourg w/Sidot (III, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Sidot (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Sidot (I, F, 3) Linz w/Sidot (II, 1R, 0) Quebec City w/Callens (III, F, 2+1 walkover) Philadelphia w/Davenport (II, QF, 1) 21 Van Roost Sydney w/Carlsson (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Callens (Slam, QF, 3) Indian Wells w/Callens (I, 1R, 0) Strasbourg w/Callens (III, QF, 1) Roland Garros w/Callens (Slam, 2R, 1) Eastbourne w/Callens (II, SF, 2) Wimbledon w/Callens (Slam, 3R, 2) Los Angeles w/Callens (II, Win, 4) Canadian Open w/Capriati (I, 2R, 1) New Haven w/Callens (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Callens (Slam, SF, 4) Olympics w/Callens (X, SF, 3 — won Bronze) Filderstadt w/Callens (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Callens (I, 1R, 0) Chase w/Callens (Champ, SF, 1) 22 Rubin Australian Open w/Testud (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Testud (I, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Testud (I, SF, 3) Amelia Island w/Testud (II, 2R, 1) Berlin w/Testud (I, 1R, 0) Rome w/Testud (I, 2R, 1) Roland Garros w/Testud (Slam, 3R, 2) Wimbledon w/Testud (Slam, 3R, 2) Stanford w/Testud (II, Win, 4) San Diego w/Testud (II, SF, 2) Canadian Open w/Testud (I, SF, 2) U. S. Open w/Testud (Slam, QF, 3) Filderstadt w/Serna (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Schett (I, QF, 1) Linz w/Mauresmo (II, Win, 4) Quebec City w/Hopkins (III, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 134 23 Testud Sydney w/Po (II, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Rubin (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Rubin (I, 1R, 0) Paris w/Halard-Decugis (II, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/Rubin (I, SF, 3) Amelia Island w/Rubin (II, 2R, 1) Berlin w/Rubin (I, 1R, 0) Rome w/Rubin (I, 2R, 1) Roland Garros w/Rubin (Slam, 3R, 2) Wimbledon w/Rubin (Slam, 3R, 2) Stanford w/Rubin (II, Win, 4) San Diego w/Rubin (II, SF, 2) Canadian Open w/Rubin (I, SF, 2) U. S. Open w/Rubin (Slam, QF, 3) 24 Sidot Sydney w/ Pisnik (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Habsudova (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Krizan (I, QF, 1) Hannover w/Barclay (II, QF, 1) Indian Wells w/Barclay (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Po (I, 3R, 1) Estoril w/ Boogert (IVA, SF, 2) Berlin w/Appelmans (I, 1R, 0) Rome w/Po (I, 2R, 1) Roland Garros w/Po (Slam, 3R, 2) Birmingham w/Po (III, QF, 1) Eastbourne w/Po (II, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Po (Slam, 2R, 1) San Diego w/Po (II, QF, 1) Los Angeles w/Po (II, F, 3) Canadian Open w/Po (I, SF, 3) U. S. Open w/Po (Slam, 3R, 2) Luxembourg w/Po (III, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Po (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Po (I, F, 3) Linz w/Po (II, 1R, 0) Leipzig w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, Win, 4) 25 Zvereva Australian Open w/Lucic (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Srebotnik (I, QF, 1) Hannover w/Carlsson (II, Win, 4) Indian Wells w/Kournikova (I, F, 4) Ericsson w/Kournikova (I, 2R, 0) Hamburg w/Kournikova (II, Win, 4) Rome w/Mauresmo (I, SF, 3) Roland Garros w/Kournikova (Slam, 3R, 2) Eastbourne w/Kournikova (II, 2R, 1) Wimbledon w/Kournikova (Slam, SF, 4) Olympics w/Barabanschikova (X, SF, 3) 26 Davenport Sydney w/Morariu (II, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Morariu (Slam, SF, 4) Indian Wells w/Morariu (I, Win, 5) Rome w/Morariu (I, QF [Davenport withdrew], 1) Eastbourne w/Morariu (II, 1R, 0) San Diego w/Kournikova (II, F, 3) Canadian Open w/Kournikova (I, QF [Davenport withdrew], 2) Philadelphia w/Po (II, QF, 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 135 — Williams (S or Wimbledon w/each other (Slam, Win, 6) V) U. S. Open w/each other (Slam, SF [Serena withdrew], 4) Olympics (X, Win, 5)

Doubles Tournament Winners by Date (High-Tier Events) Players shown in bold also won the singles at these tournaments Tournament Tier Winner Sydney II Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Australian Open Slam Raymond/Stubbs Tokyo (Pan Pacific) I Hingis/Pierce Paris II Halard-Decugis/Tauziat Hannover II Carlsson/Zvereva Scottsdale II No winner (rained out) Indian Wells I Davenport/Morariu Ericsson (Miami) I Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Amelia Island II No winner (rained out) Hilton Head I Ruano Pascual/Suarez Hamburg II Halard-Decugis/Morariu Berlin I Martinez/Sanchez-Vicario Rome I Raymond/Stubbs Roland Garros Slam Hingis/Pierce Eastbourne II Tauziat/Sugiyama Wimbledon Slam S. Williams/V. Williams Stanford II Rubin/Testud San Diego II Raymond/Stubbs Los Angeles II Callens/Van Roost Canadian Open I Hingis/Tauziat New Haven II Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama U.S. Open Slam Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Tokyo (Princess Cup) II Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Filderstadt II Hingis/Kournikova Zurich I Hingis/Kournikova Linz II Mauresmo/Rubin Moscow I Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Leipzig II Sanchez-Vicario/Sidot Philadelphia II Hingis/Kournikova Chase Championships Champ Hingis/Kournikova

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 136 Doubles Winning Percentages for the Top Sixteen Player WTA # of Won/Lost Winning Tournaments Tournaments Tournament Rank Partners Percentage Played Won Win% Halard-Decugis 1 4 65-10 86.7% 20 10 50% Sugiyama 2 6 61-15 80.3% 23* 7 31.8% Hingis 3 3 50-7 87.7% 15* 7 50% Kournikova 4 8 49-12 80.3% 19† 6 33.3% Raymond 5 2 45-15 75.0% 19 4 21.1% Stubbs 6 2 43-15 74.1% 19 4 21.1% Suarez 7 3 49-13 79.0% 20*† 5 26.3% Tauziat 8 5 39-21 65.0% 24 3 12.5% Pierce 9 3 29-6 82.9% 10*† 2 22.2% Ruano Pascual 10 2 33-12 73.3% 15* 2 14.3% Arendt 11 6 31-22 58.5% 23† 0 0.0% Schett 12 7 31-14 68.9% 15* 0 0.0% Black 13 5 29-21 58.0% 22 1 4.5% Morariu 14 9 30-10 75.0% 15† 4 28.6% Callens 15 7 28-18 60.9% 19 1 5.3% Sanchez-Vicario 16 9 27-14 65.8% 17* 2 12.5% * Was still active in a tournament (Scottsdale or Amelia Island) which was rained out. These events are not included in calculations of tournament winning percentage. † Withdrew from one or more tournaments. These events are included in calculations of winning percentage if the player in question is the one who withdrew. Doubles Winning Percentages for the Top Teams (Minimum three tournaments, eight matches; sorted in descending order by tourn. winning percentage) Team Won/Lost Winning% Events Played Events Won Tourn Win% Hingis/Kournikova 18-1 94.7% 5 4 80.0% Montalvo/Suarez 14-0 100.0% 4 3 75.0% Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama 49-10 83.1% 16 6 37.5% Hingis/Pierce 27-4 87.1% 8* 2 28.6% Raymond/Stubbs 43-14 75.4% 18 4 22.2% Davenport/Morariu 12-3 80.0% 5 1 20.0% Kournikova/Zvereva 15-5 75.0% 6 1 16.7% Ruano Pascual/Suarez 30-11 73.2% 14* 2 15.4% Rubin/Testud 21-11 65.6% 12 1 8.3% Callens/Van Roost 18-11 62.1% 12 1 8.3% Fusai/Tauziat 25-15 62.5% 16 1 6.3% Huber/Schett 15-6 71.4% 6 0 0.0% Black/Likhovtseva 12-8 60.0% 8 0 0.0% Arendt/Bollegraf 24-17 58.5% 17 0 0.0% Po/Sidot 18-14 56.3% 14 0 0.0% * Was still active in a tournament (Scottsdale or Amelia Island) which was rained out. These events are not included in calculations of tournament winning percentage.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 137 Head-to-Heads Team Losses Head-to-head records in doubles don’t mean much. It’s a much bigger achievement to beat Rennae Stubbs when she plays with Raymond than when she plays with Dokic. 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. The number of events played together is in square brackets []. The opponents who beat them, and the event at which this occurred, follows. Note that teams often did not win an event even though they are not shown as having a loss. Williams/Williams, for instance, won only one of their two events — they withdrew from the other. Arendt/Bollegraf [17] Davenport/Kournikova [2] Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (Ericsson) Raymond/Stubbs (San Diego) Kournikova/Zvereva (Hamburg) Davenport/Po [1] Coetzer/Morariu (Berlin) Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (Philadelphia) Huber/Seles (Rome) Cocheteux/Dechy (Roland Garros) Dokic/Stubbs [1] Sugiyama/Tauziat (Eastbourne) Coetzer/McNeil (Canadian Open) Callens/Van Roost (Wimbledon) Fusai/Tauziat [16] Coetzer/McNeil (San Diego) Callens/Van Roost (Australian Open) Callens/Van Roost (Los Angeles) Hingis/Pierce (Pan Pacific) Davenport/Kournikova (Canadian Open) Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (Ericsson) Garbin/Husarova (U. S. Open) Arendt/Bollegraf (Berlin) Hingis/Kournikova (Filderstadt) Penetta/Vinci (Rome) Black/Likhovtseva (Zurich) Cocheteaux/Dechy (Strasbourg) Mauresmo/Rubin (Linz) Hingis/Pierce (Roland Garros) Montalvo/Serna (Moscow) Black/Selyutina (Birmingham) Sanchez-Vicario/Sidot (Leipzig) Frazier/Schlukebir (Wimbledon) Hingis/Kournikova (Chase) Callens/Van Roost (U. S. Open) Black/Likhovtseva [8] Sanchez-Vicario/Schett (Filderstadt) Davenport/Kournikova (San Diego) Hingis/Kournikova (Moscow) Krizan/Selyutina (Los Angeles) Nacuk/Pisnik (Leipzig) Rubin/Testud (Canadian Open) Hingis/Kournikova (Philadelphia) Navratilova/Srebotnik (New Haven) Callens/Van Roost (Chase) Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (U. S. Open) Halard-Decugis/Kournikova [1] Hingis/Kournikova (Filderstadt) None Glass/Lamade (Zurich) Halard-Decugis/Morariu [2] Hingis/Kournikova (Chase) None Callens/Van Roost [12] Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama [16] Kournikova/Schett (Australian Open) Davenport/Morariu (Australian Open) Kournikova/Zvereva (Indian Wells) Arendt/Loit (Indian Wells) Jeyaseelan/Labat (Strasbourg) Martinez/Sanchez-Vicario (Berlin) Huber/Schett (Roland Garros) Cristea/Dragomir (Rome) Raymond/Stubbs (Eastbourne) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Roland Garros) Raymond/Stubbs (Wimbledon) Williams/Williams (Wimbledon) Raymond/Stubbs (New Haven) Krizan/Selyutina (Los Angeles) Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (U. S. Open) Hingis/Tauziat (Canadian Open) Carlsson/Jeyaseelan (Filderstadt) Raymond/Stubbs (Philadelphia) Rubin/Schett (Zurich) Callens/Van Roost (Chase) Arendt/Bollegraf (Chase) Halard-Decugis/Testud [1] Davenport/Morariu [5] None Hingis/Pierce (Sydney) Hingis/Pierce (Australian Open) Arendt/Bollegraf (Eastbourne)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 138 Hingis/Pierce [7] Raymond/Stubbs [17] Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (Sydney) Po/Testud (Sydney) Raymond/Stubbs (Australian Open) Hingis/Pierce (Pan Pacific) Davenport/Morariu (Indian Wells) Capriati/Seles (Indian Wells) Cocheteux/Dechy (Wimbledon) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Amelia Island) Hingis/Tauziat [2] Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Hilton Head) Callens/Van Roost (Los Angeles) Huber/Schett (Roland Garros) Sugiyama/Tauziat (Eastbourne) Hingis/Kournikova [5] Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (Wimbledon) Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (Moscow) Arendt/Bollegraf (Los Angeles) Huber/Schett [6] Ruano Pascual/Suarez (New Haven) Hingis/Pierce (Indian Wells) Black/Likhovtseva (U. S. Open) Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (Ericsson) Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (Moscow) Fusai/Tauziat (Roland Garros) Hingis/Kournikova (Philadelphia) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Wimbledon) Hingis/Kournikova (Chase) Hingis/Tauziat (Canadian Open) Ruano Pascual/Suarez [14] Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (U. S. Open) Schwartz/Wartusch (Auckland) Kournikova/Schett [2] Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (Sydney) Hingis/Pierce (Sydney) Jeyaseelan/Schnyder (Australian Open) Raymond/Stubbs (Australian Open) Kournikova/Zvereva (Indian Wells) Pierce/Raymond (Ericsson) Kournikova/Sanchez-Vicario [1] Hingis/Pierce (Roland Garros) Martinez/Tarabini (Hilton Head) Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (Wimbledon) Kournikova/Sugiyama [1] Po/Sidot (Canadian Open) Black/Selyutina (Pan Pacific) Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (New Haven) Kournikova/Zvereva [6] Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (U. S. Open) Davenport/Morariu (Indian Wells) Osterloh/Stevenson (U. S. Open) Dokic/Schnyder (Ericsson) Arendt/Bollegraf (Chase) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Roland Garros) Rubin/Testud [12] Callens/Van Roost (Eastbourne) Labat/Tanasugarn (Australian Open) Williams/Williams (Wimbledon) Fusai/Tauziat (Pan Pacific) Likhovtseva/Morariu [2] Kournikova/Zvereva (Indian Wells) Arendt/Bollegraf (Ericsson) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Amelia Island) Martincova/Nacuk (Strasbourg) Arendt/Bollegraf (Berlin) Mauresmo/Zvereva (Rome) Montalvo/Suarez [4] Horn/Montalvo (Roland Garros) None Boogert/Oremans (Wimbledon) Pierce/Raymond [1] Raymond/Stubbs (San Diego) Huber/Schett (Ericsson) Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (Canadian Open) Po/Sidot [14] Williams/Williams (U. S. Open) Courtois/Sanchez-Vicario (Ericsson) Williams/Williams [2] Sanchez-Vicario/Serna (Rome) None Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama (Roland Garros) Callens/Molik (Birmingham) Raymond/Stubbs (Eastbourne) de Swardt/Navratilova (Wimbledon) Raymond/Stubbs (San Diego) Callens/Van Roost (Los Angeles) Hingis/Tauziat (Canadian Open) Raymond/Stubbs (U. S. Open) Carlsson/Maleeva (Luxembourg) Black/Likhovtseva (Filderstadt) Hingis/Kournikova (Zurich) Mauresmo/Rubin (Linz)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 139 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. Some of these results are slightly approximate. Rankings under the 1996 Ranking System (Divisor, Minimum 14) 1996 Rank Player Score WTA Rank 1 Hingis, Martina 250 3 2 Halard-Decugis, Julie 196 1 3 Sugiyama, Ai 173 2 4 Kournikova, Anna 155 4 5 Raymond, Lisa 146 5 6 Pierce, Mary 145 9 7 Stubbs, Rennae 144 6 8 Suarez, Paola 120 7 9 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 119 10 10 Morariu, Corina 111 14 11 Schett, Barbara 106 12 12 Tauziat, Nathalie 95 8 13 Zvereva, Natasha 90 25 14 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 89 16 15 Van Roost, Dominique 88 21 16 Testud, Sandrine 87 23 17 Bollegraf, Manon 86 17 18 Davenport, Lindsay 84 26 19 Black, Cara 80 13 20 Martinez, Conchita 80 29 21 Rubin, Chanda 78 22 22 Callens, Els 78 15 23 Arendt, Nicole 76 11 24 Fusai, Alexandra 71 19 25 Po, Kimberly 62 20 26 Sidot, Anne-Gaelle 62 24 27 Coetzer, Amanda 61 27 28 Likhovtseva, Elena 60 18 29 Huber, Anke 59 40 30 Montalvo, Laura 54 28 31 Clijsters, Kim 52 48 32 Carlsson, Åsa 51 30 33 Tarabini, Patricia 51 34 34 Horn, Liezel 47 43 35 Mauresmo, Amelie 46 53 36 Srebotnik, Katarina 46 33 37 Selyutina, Irina 46 31 38 Capriati, Jennifer 45 58 39 McNeil, Lori 44 59 40 Déchy, Nathalie 43 61

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 140 Combined Singles and Doubles Rankings A total of 54 players are in the Top 100 in both singles and doubles. The following list rankings them according to their combined singles and doubles rankings. Combined Player Singles Doubles Combined ordinal Rank Rank Total 1 Hingis, Martina 1 3 4 2 Kournikova, Anna 8 4 12 3 Halard-Decugis, Julie 15 1 16 Pierce, Mary 7 9 16 5 Tauziat, Nathalie 10 8 18 6 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantx 9 16 25 7 Davenport, Lindsay 2 26 28 8 Martinez, Conchita 5 29 34 9 Rubin, Chanda 13 22 35 Schett, Barbara 23 12 35 Sugiyama, Ai 33 2 35 12 Raymond, Lisa 31 5 36 13 Coetzer, Amanda 11 27 38 14 Likhovtseva, Elena 21 18 39 15 Testud, Sandrine 17 23 40 16 Suarez, Paola 37 7 44 17 Van Roost, Dominique 24 21 45 18 Black, Cara 43 13 56 19 Huber, Anke 19 40 59 20 Sidot, Anne-Gaelle 36 24 60 21 Clijsters, Kim 18 48 66 Morariu, Corina 52 14 66 23 Mauresmo, Amélie 16 53 69 24 Capriati, Jennifer 14 58 72 Schnyder, Patty 25 47 72 26 Shaughnessy, Meghann 39 36 75 27 Dokic, Jelena 26 51 77 28 Frazier, Amy 20 60 80 29 Dragomir, Ruxandra 45 41 86 30 Carlsson, Asa 57 30 87 31 Déchy, Nathalie 27 61 88 32 Garbin, Tathiana 40 52 92 Pratt, Nicole 55 37 92 34 Jeyaseelan, Sonya 49 49 98 35 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 89 10 99 Tanasugarn, Tamarine 29 70 99 37 Serna, Magui 38 63 101

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 141 38 Zvereva, Natasha 79 25 104 39 Boogert, Kristie 66 39 105 40 Oremans, Miriam 64 45 109 41 Grande, Rita 78 35 113 42 Appelmans, Sabine 50 78 128 43 Farina Elia, Silvia 63 65 128 Habsudova, Karina 86 42 128 45 Poutchek, Tatiana 87 72 159 46 Jidkova, Alina 84 76 160 47 Torrens Valero, Cristin 94 71 165 48 Pisnik, Tina 76 91 167 49 Casoni, Giulia 91 79 170 50 Bacheva, Lubomira 98 73 171 Tulyaganova, Iroda 75 96 171 52 Nacuk, Sandra 100 75 175 53 Stevenson, Alexandra 93 83 176 Wartusch, Patricia 90 86 176

The following Top 30 singlies players are not in the Top 100 in doubles: Brandi, Dementieva, Maleeva, Seles, Talaja, Serena Williams, Venus Williams. The following Top 30 doubles players are not in the Top 100 in singles: Arendt, Bollegraf, Callens, Fusai, Montalvo, Po, Stubbs.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 142 WTA Calendar for 2000 • Events and Results The list below summarized the results of all Tour events in 2000. 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 ankings and results. For tournaments of Tiers III and IV, 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 (if any; in general, if no Top 30 players are upset, or if the top players in the event lose to other top players, no upsets will be listed), and then by significant historical facts about the event. Jan. 3-9 Gold Coast • Hard • Tier III Auckland, • Hard • Tier IVB d. Conchita Martinez 6-0 0-6 6-4 d. Cara Black 6-4 6-4 Semifinalists: Nathalie Déchy (6), Arantxa Sanchez- Semifinalists: , Vicario (4) #1 seed: Elena Likhovtseva (#18; lost QF) #1 seed: Julie Halard-Decugis (#9; lost 2R) #2 seed: Anne Kremer (#31; won tournament) #2 seed: Anna Kournikova (#12; lost QF) Doubles champions: Black/Fusai Doubles champions: Halard-Decugis/Kournikova Major Upsets: — Major Upsets: Talaja defeats Kournikova, Martinez, Historical Significance: Kremer’s first career title Sanchez-Vicario Historical Significance: Talaja’s first career title Jan. 10-16 Sydney, • Hard • Tier II Hobart, Australia • Hard • Tier IVB Amelie Mauresmo d. Lindsay Davenport 7-6 (7-2) 6-4 Kim Clijsters d. Chanda Rubin 2-6 6-2 6-2 Semifinalists: Martina Hingis (1), Anna Kournikova (8) Semifinalists: Amy Frazier (1), Ma. Alej. Vento (Q) #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1, lost SF) #1 seed: Amy Frazier (#19; lost SF) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost F) #2 seed: Ruxandra Dragomir (#20; lost 1R) #3 seed: Mary Pierce (#5; lost QF) Doubles champions: Grande/Loit #4 seed: Barbara Schett (#8; lost 2R) Major Upsets: Clijsters upsets Dragomir, Pitkowski, Doubles champions: Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Rubin Major Upsets: Mauresmo defeats Hingis, Davenport Historical Significance: Second title for Clijsters Historical Significance: Mauresmo’s first Tier II title Jan. 17-30 Australian Open • Hard • Slam Lindsay Davenport d. Martina Hingis 6-1 7-5 Semifinalists: Conchita Martinez (10), Jennifer Capriati #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost F) #5 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#8; lost 2R) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; won) #6 seed: Barbara Schett (#9; lost R16) #3 seed: Serena Williams (#4; lost R16) #7 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#6; lost 2R) #4 seed: Mary Pierce (#5; lost R16) #8 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#10; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Likhovtseva defeats Serena Williams; Sugiyama defeats Pierce; Schnyder defeats Mauresmo. Jeyaseelan defeats Tauziat. Historical Significance: Davenport’s first Australian Open breaks 21-match string at for Hingis

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 143 Jan. 31-Feb. 6 Pan Pacific Open, Tokyo • Indoor • Tier I Martina Hingis d. Sandrine Testud 6-3 7-5 Semifinalists: Chanda Rubin (7), #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; won) #3 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#6; lost QF) #2 seed: Mary Pierce (#5; lost 2R) #4 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#12; lost QF) Doubles champions: Hingis/Pierce Major Upsets: defeats Mary Pierce Historical Significance: Hingis’s first title of 2000, first Tier I, and first title defense in 2000. Testud’s first Tier I final. Feb. 7-13 Paris, • Indoor • Tier II Bogota, Colombia • Clay • Tier IVA Nathalie Tauziat d. Serena Williams 7-5 6-2 d. 4-6 6-1 6-4 Semifinalists: Julie Halard-Decugis (3), Anna Semifinalists: Sylvia Plischke (1), Rita Kuti Kis Kournikova (4) #1 seed: Sylvia Plischke (#37; lost SF) #1 seed: Serena Williams (#4; lost F) #2 seed: (#43; lost 2R) #2 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#6; won) Doubles champions: Montalvo/Suarez #3 seed: Julie Halard-Decugis (#8; lost SF) Major Upsets: — #4 seed: Anna Kournikova (#11; lost SF) Historical Significance: Wartusch’s first career title Doubles champions: Halard-Decugis/Testud Major Upsets: Tauziat defeats Serena Williams Historical Significance: Tauziat’s best title in France Feb. 14-20 Hannover, • Indoor • Tier II São Paulo, • Clay • Tier IVA Serena Williams d. Denisa Chladkova 6-1 6-1 Rita Kuti Kis d. Paola Suarez 4-6 6-4 7-5 Semifinalists: Amélie Mauresmo (3), Anne-Gaelle Sidot Semifinalists: Joanette Kruger, Emanuelle Gagliardi #1 seed: Serena Williams (#4; won) #1 seed: Sylvia Plischke (#33; lost QF) #2 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#5; lost 2R) #2 seed: Fabiola Zuluaga (#43; lost 2R) #3 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#14; lost SF) Doubles champions: Montalvo/Suarez #4 seed: Elena Likhovtseva (#15; lost 2R) Major Upsets: — Doubles champions: Farina/Habsudova Historical Significance: Kuti Kis’s first career title Major Upsets: Boogert defeats Nathalie Tauziat Historical Significance: Serena’s first title of 2000 Feb. 21-27 Oklahoma City, USA • Indoor • Tier III Monica Seles d. Nathalie Déchy 6-1 7-6 (7-3) Semifinalists: , Amanda Coetzer (3) #1 seed: Julie Halard-Decugis (#7; withdrew before opening match and replaced by Lucky Loser Tu) #2 seed: Monica Seles (#14; won) Doubles champions: Tanasugarn/Tatarkova Major Upsets: Nathalie Déchy defeats Amy Frazier and reaches final Historical Significance: Monica Seles, out of the Top Ten due to injury, wins her first title of 2000 and moves up to #9.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 144 Feb. 28-Mar. 5 Scottsdale, Arizona • Hard • Tier II Martina Hingis vs. Lindsay Davenport — Rained Out Semifinalists: Mary Pierce (3), Anna Kournikova (6) #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; in rained-out final) #3 seed: Mary Pierce (#6; lost SF) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; in rained-out final) #4 seed: Julie Halard-Decugis (#8; lost 2R) Doubles champions: doubles SF and F rained out Major Upsets: Nathalie Déchy defeats Conchita Martinez Historical Significance: First rained out event since Birmingham 1998 leaves Davenport and Hingis both with active winning streaks and prevents their second meeting of 2000. Mar. 10-18 Indian Wells, California, USA • Hard • Tier I Lindsay Davenport d. Martina Hingis 4-6 6-4 6-0 Semifinalists: Mary Pierce (5), Elena Dementieva #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost F) #5 seed: Mary Pierce (#6; lost SF) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; won) #6 seed: Conchita Martinez (#7; lost QF) #3 seed: Serena Williams (#4; lost QF) #7 seed: Monica Seles (#8; lost QF) #4 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#5; lost 3R) #8 seed: Anna Kournikova (#9; lost 3R) Doubles champions: Davenport/Morariu Major Upsets: Elena Dementieva defeats Anke Huber, Nathalie Déchy, Chanda Rubin. Mary Pierce defeats Serena Williams. Historical Significance: Dementieva has first major Tour result. Davenport defeats Hingis again to run win streak to 16. Mar. 23-Apr. 2 Ericsson Open • Hard • Tier I Martina Hingis d. Lindsay Davenport 6-3 6-2 Semifinalists: Monica Seles (8), Sandrine Testud (13) #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; won) #5 seed: Serena Williams (#6; lost R16) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost F) #6 seed: Conchita Martinez (#7; lost R16) #3 seed: Mary Pierce (#4; lost 2R/retired) #7 seed: Monica Seles (#8; lost SF) #4 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#5; lost 3R) #8 seed: Julie Halard-Decugis (#9; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Major Upsets: Jennifer Capriati defeats Serena Williams. Dementieva beats Pierce when Pierce withdraws. Historical Significance: Hingis beats Davenport for her first Tour victory over Davenport since 1998. Davenport’s win streak ends at 21. Hingis’s second Tier I victory of 2000. Despite losing, Davenport becomes #1.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 145 Apr. 10-16 Amelia Island, USA • (Green) Clay • Tier II Estoril, Portugal • Clay • Tier IVA Monica Seles d. Conchita Martinez 6-3 6-2 Anke Huber d. Nathalie Déchy 6-2 1-6 7-5 Semifinalists: Elena Likhovtseva (12), Paola Suarez Semifinalists: Tathiana Garbin, Sylvia Farina #1 seed: Mary Pierce (#4; lost QF) #1 seed: Anke Huber (#16; won) #2 seed: Serena Williams (#6; lost 2R/retired) #2 seed: Nathalie Déchy (#22; lost F) #3 seed: Monica Seles (#9; won) Doubles champions: Hopmans/Torrens Valero #4 seed: Conchita Martinez (#8; lost F) Major Upsets: Tathiana Garbin defeats Anne-Gaelle #5 seed: Sandrine Testud (#10; lost 2R) Sidot (3), Rita Kuti Kis (7) #6 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#11; lost QF) Historical Significance: Huber’s first title since 1996. #7 seed: Anna Kournikova (#14; lost QF) #8 seed: Barbara Schett (#13; lost QF) Doubles champions: SF and F rained out Major Upsets: Likhovtseva defeats Pierce. Suarez defeats Kournikova and Serena Williams. Historical Significance: Seles wins second title of 2000. Seles is second player to defend a title. Apr. 17-23 Hilton Head, USA • (Green) Clay • Tier I Budapest, Hungary • Clay • Tier IVB Mary Pierce d. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 6-1 6-0 Tathiana Garbin d. 6-2 7-6 (7-4) Semifinalists: Monica Seles (3), Conchita Martinez (8) Semifinalists: Angeles Montolio (4), Sarah Pitkowski (2) #1 seed: Mary Pierce (#4; won) #1 seed: Sylvia Plischke (#30; lost 2R) #2 seed: Conchita Martinez (#8; lost SF) #2 seed: Sarah Pitkowski (#32; lost SF) #3 seed: Monica Seles (#7; lost SF) Doubles champions: Bacheva/Torrens Valero #4 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#10; lost F) Major Upsets: Garbin defeats seeds Torrens Valero (#5), #5 seed: Barbara Schett (#12; lost 2R) Pitkowski (#2), Montolio (#4) #6 seed: Anna Kournikova (#14; lost 3R) Historical Significance: Garbin’s first career title. #7 seed: Amy Frazier (#22; lost 3R) #8 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#19; lost QF) Doubles champions: Ruano Pascual/Suarez Major Upsets: Pierce defeats Seles Historical Significance: Pierce’s first Tier I title since 1998. May 1-7 Hamburg, Germany • Clay • Tier II Bol, Croatia • Clay • Tier III Martina Hingis d. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 6-3 6-3 d. Amélie Mauresmo 7-6 (7-4) 7-6 (7-2) Semifinalists: Anke Huber (7), Amanda Coetzer (8) Semifinalists: Gala Leon Garcia, Ma. Ant. Sanchez #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#2; won) Lorenzo #2 seed: Venus Williams (#3; lost QF) #1 seed: Julie Halard-Decugis (#9; lost 2R) #3 seed: Conchita Martinez (#8; lost QF) #2 seed: Sandrine Testud (#10; lost QF) #4 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#11; lost F) Doubles champions: Halard-Decugis/Morariu Doubles champions: Kournikova/Zvereva Major Upsets: Pisnik defeats Mauresmo; Leon Garcie Major Upsets: Amanda Coetzer def. Venus Williams defeats #1 seed Julie Halard-Decugis and #7 Paola Historical Significance: Hingis’s third title of 2000 Suarez allows her to regain #1 ranking Historical Significance: Pisnik’s first career title

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 146 May 8-14 Berlin, Germany • Clay • Tier I Warsaw, Poland • Clay • Tier IVB Conchita Martinez d. Amanda Coetzer 6-1 6-2 Henrieta Nagyova d. Amanda Hopmans 2-6 6-4 7-5 Semifinalists: Martina Hingis (1), Joanette Kruger Semifinalists: Jennifer Hopkins, #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) #1 seed: Elena Likhovtseva (#17; lost 1R) #2 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#3; lost 2R) #2 seed: (#37; lost 1R) #3 seed: Conchita Martinez (#8; won) Doubles champions: Garbin/Husarova #4 seed: Julie Halard-Decugis (#10; lost R16) Major Upsets: Torrens Valero defeats Likhovtseva #5 seed: Sandrine Testud (#11; lost QF) Historical Significance: First of three titles in 2000 for #6 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#9; lost 2R) Nagyova #7 seed: Anna Kournikova (#14; lost 2R) #8 seed: Anke Huber (#12; lost QF) Doubles champions: Martinez/Sanchez-Vicario Major Upsets: Martinez def. Hingis. Historical Significance: Martinez’s first Tier I win since the same event in 1998. May 15-21 Rome, • Clay • Tier I Antwerp, • Clay • Tier IVA Monica Seles d. Amelie Mauresmo 6-2 7-6 (7-4) Amanda Coetzer d. Cristina Torrens-Valero 4-6 6-2 6-3 Semifinalists: Corina Morariu, Fabiola Zuluaga (Q) Semifinalists: Laurence Courtois, Jelena Kostanic #1 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#1; withdrew in R16) #1 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#11; won) #2 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#6; lost QF) #2 seed: (#25; lost 2R) #3 seed: Venus Williams (#4; lost R16) Doubles champions: Appelmans/Clijsters #4 seed: Mary Pierce (#5; lost R16) Major Upsets: Bacheva defeats Clijsters #5 seed: Monica Seles (#7; won) Historical Significance: Coetzer’s first title since 1998. #6 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#10; lost QF) #7 seed: Julie Halard-Decugis (#14; lost R16) #8 seed: Sandrine Testud (#9; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Dokic defeats Venus Williams. Zuluaga defeats Talaja, Halard-Decugis, Tauziat. Mauresmo defeats Pierce, Sanchez-Vicario Historical Significance: Mauresmo’s first Tier I final. Seles’s third and last title of 2000 May 22-27 Strasbourg, France • Clay • Tier III Madrid, • Clay • Tier III Silvija Talaja d. Rita Kuti Kis 7-5 4-6 6-3 Gala Leon Garcia d. Fabiola Zuluaga 4-6 6-2 6-2 Semifinalists: Nathalie Déchy (4), Semifinalists: (WC), Virginia Ruano Pascual #1 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#7; lost QF) (WC) #2 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#16; lost 2R) #1 seed: Mary Pierce (#6; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Jeyaseelan/Labat #2 seed: Amy Frazier (#23; lost 2R) Major Upsets: Garbin defeats Tauziat, Smashnova Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs defeats Van Roost, Kuti Kis defeats Capriati Major Upsets: Di Natale defeats Pierce (biggest upset of Historical Significance: Talaja’s second title of 2000. 2000). Ruano Pascual defeats Frazier Historical Significance: Leon Garcia’s first career title

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 147 May 29-June 11 /Roland Garros • Clay • Slam Mary Pierce d. Conchita Martinez 6-2 7-5 Semifinalists: Martina Hingis (1), Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (8) #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) #5 seed: Conchita Martinez (#5; lost F) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost 1R) #6 seed: Mary Pierce (#7; won) #3 seed: Monica Seles (#3; lost QF) #7 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#6; lost 3R) #4 seed: Venus Williams (#4; lost QF) #8 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#9; lost SF) Doubles champions: Hingis/Pierce Major Upsets: Pierce defeats Seles, Hingis. Van Roost defeats Davenport. Rubin defeats Tauziat. Historical Significance: Pierce’s second career Slam. Hingis fails for the third time to complete her Career Slam, but by winning the doubles with Pierce, earns a Slam doubles title for the fifth consecutive year. June 12-18 Birmingham, England • Grass • Tier III Tashkent, Uzbekistan • Hard • Tier IVA Lisa Raymond d. 6-2 6-7 (7-9) 6-4 Iroda Tulyaganova d. 6-3 2-6 6-3 Semifinalists: Nathalie Tauziat (1), Cara Black Semifinalists: Jing-Qian Yi (4), Sarah Pitkowski (2) #1 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#7; lost SF) #1 seed: Anna Smashnova (#63; lost 1R) #2 seed: Julie Halard-Decugis (#17; lost QF) #2 seed: Sarah Pitkowski (#48; withdrew from SF) Doubles champions: McQuillan/McShea Doubles champions: Tulyaganova/Zaporozhanova Major Upsets: Raymond defeats Tauziat, Tanasugarn Major Upsets: — defeats Halard-Decugis Historical Significance: Tournament has no Top 40 Historical Significance: Raymond’s second career title players. Tulyaganova’s first career title earns her 7 quality points. June 19-25 Eastbourne, England • Grass • Tier II ’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands • Grass • Tier III Julie Halard-Decugis d. Dominique Van Roost, 7-6 (7-4) Martina Hingis d. Ruxandra Dragomir 6-2 3-0, retired 6-4 Semifinalists: Jennifer Capriati (4), Kristina Brandi Semifinalists: Anne Kremer, Chanda Rubin (8) #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; won) #1 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost 2R) #2 seed: Sandrine Testud (#10; lost QF) #2 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#7; lost QF) Doubles champions: De Lone/Pratt #3 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#12; lost QF) Major Upsets: Dragomir defeats Testud. #4 seed: Anna Kournikova (#17; lost QF) Historical Significance: Hingis’s fourth title of 2000 Doubles champions: Sugiyama/Tauziat gives her the “surface sweep” — titles on all four Major Upsets: Van Roost defeats Davenport. Halard- surfaces. Hingis will be the only player to do this in Decugis defeats Tauziat. 2000. Historical Significance: Halard-Decugis’s last Tier II title. Davenport’s second consecutive bad loss.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 148 June 26-July 9 Wimbledon • Grass • Slam Venus Williams d. Lindsay Davenport 6-3 7-6 (7-3) Semifinalists: Serena Williams (8), #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost QF) #5 seed: Venus Williams (#5; won) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost F) #6 seed: Monica Seles (#6; lost QF) #3 seed: Mary Pierce (#3; lost 2R) #7 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#7; lost 1R) #4 seed: Conchita Martinez (#4; lost 2R) #8 seed: Serena Williams (#8; lost SF) Doubles champions: Williams/Williams Major Upsets: Kristie Boogert defeats Julie Halard-Decugis. Kim Clijsters defeats Nathalie Tauziat. defeats Conshita Martinez. Magui Serna defeats Mary Pierce. Gala Leon Garcia defeats Amélie Mauresmo. Olga Barabanschikova defeats Barbara Schett. Liliah Osterloh defeats Amanda Coetzer. Historical Significance: First Slam for Venus Williams, and first event of 29-match win streak. Only Hingis’s second lost before the semifinal in sixteen straight Slams. Last tour event for Irina Spirlea. July 10-16 Klagenfurt, • Clay • Tier III Palermo, Italy • Clay • Tier IVB Barbara Schett d. Patty Schnyder 5-7 6-4 6-4 Henrieta Nagyova d. Pavlina Nola 6-3 7-5 Semifinalists: Angeles Montolio (6), Adriana Gersi Semifinalists: Silvia Farina (5), Anna Smashnova (6) #1 seed: Barbara Schett (#19; won) #1 seed: Silvija Talaja (#21; lost 1R) #2 seed: Patty Schnyder (#32; lost F) #2 seed: Ruxandra Dragomir (#28; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Montalvo/Suarez Doubles champions: Farina/Grande Major Upsets: — Major Upsets: Diaz-Oliva defeats Talaja Historical Significance: Schett’s third career title is her Historical Significance: Nagyova’s second title of 2000 second in Austria and her first above Tier IV. All three have taken place on clay in the weeks after Wimbledon July 17-23 Sopot, Poland • Clay • Tier III Knokke-Heist, Belgium • Clay • Tier IVB Anke Huber d. Gala Leon Garcia 7-6 (7-4) 6-3 Anna Smashnova d. Dominique Van Roost 6-2 7-5 Semifinalists: Paola Suarez, (8) Semifinalists: Magui Serna (3), (8) #1 seed: Conchita Martinez (#5; lost QF) #1 seed: Dominique Van Roost (#16) #2 seed: Anke Huber (#10; won) #2 seed: Sabine Appelmans (#26; lost QF) Doubles champions: Ruano Pascual/Suarez Doubles champions: Casoni/Tulyaganova Major Upsets: Leon Garcia defeats Martinez; Myskina Major Upsets: Marrero defeats Appelmans. Smashnova defeats Schett; Suarez defeats Schnyder defeats Van Roost. Historical Significance: Huber’s second clay title of Historical Significance: Smashnova’s second career 2000. First time she has won two clay events in a year, title.Van Roost’s last career final. though both titles are small. July 24-30 Stanford, California • Hard • Tier II Venus Williams d. Lindsay Davenport 6-1 6-4 Semifinalists: Monica Seles (4), Anna Kournikova (9) #1 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost F) #3 seed: (Pierce withdrew. Kournikova #9 seed.) #2 seed: Venus Williams (#3; won) #4 seed: Monica Seles (#5; lost SF) Doubles champions: Rubin/Testud Major Upsets: Black defeats Coetzer; Kournikova defeats Testud. Historical Significance: Venus Williams defeats Davenport for the second straight time, extending her winning streak to 11.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 149 July 31-Aug. 6 San Diego, California • Hard • Tier II Venus Williams d. Monica Seles 6-0 6-7 (3-7) 6-3 Semifinalists: Amy Frazier, Anna Kournikova #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost QF) #3 seed: V. Williams (#3; won) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost 2R) #4 seed: Monica Seles (#5; lost F) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Frazier defeats Hingis (Hingis’s only loss of 2000 to a non-Top Ten player). Kournikova defeats Davenport. Historical Significance: Venus’s third straight title extends her winning streak to fifteen. August 7-13 Los Angeles • Hard • Tier II Serena Williams d. Lindsay Davenport 4-6 6-4 7-6 (7-1) Semifinalists: Martina Hingis (1), Elena Dementieva #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) #3 seed: (Seles withdrew. Brandi Lucky Loser) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost F) #4 seed: Conchita Martinez (#6; lost QF) Doubles champions: Callens/Van Roost Major Upsets: Serena Williams defeats Martinez, Hingis, and Davenport. Historical Significance: Serena Williams wins her second title and becomes the third player to defend a title in 2000. August 14-20 Canadian Open/ • Hard • Tier I Martina Hingis d. Serena Williams 0-6 6-3 3-0, retired Semifinalists: Conchita Martinez (3), Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (7) #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; won) #5 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#8; lost 2R) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost R16/retired) #6 seed: Anke Huber (#10; lost R16) #3 seed: Conchita Martinez (#6; lost SF) #7 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#9; lost SF) #4 seed: Serena Williams (#7; lost F/retired) #8 seed: Sandrine Testud (#11; lost QF) Doubles champions: Hingis/Tauziat Major Upsets: Maleeva defeats Davenport (Davenport injured). Historical Significance: Hingis wins her fifth title of 2000, and becomes the first player to defend two titles in 2000. It is her third Tier I title of 2000. August 21-27 New Haven, Connecticut • Hard • Tier II Venus Williams d. Monica Seles 6-2 6-4 Semifinalists: Amanda Coetzer (5), Nathalie Tauziat (8) #1 seed: Venus Williams (#3; won) #3 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#8; lost SF) #2 seed: Monica Seles (#6; lost F) #4 seed: Anke Huber (#10; lost QF) Doubles champions: Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Major Upsets: — Historical Significance: Venus wins her fourth consecutive title, extending her winning streak to nineteen.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 150 August 28- September 10 U. S. Open • Hard • Slam Venus Williams d. Lindsay Davenport 6-4 7-5 Semifinalists: Martina Hingis (1), Elena Dementieva #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) #5 seed: Serena Williams (#6; lost QF) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost F) #6 seed: Monica Seles (#5; lost QF) #3 seed: Venus Williams (#3; won) #7 seed: Conchita Martinez (#7; lost QF) #4 seed: Mary Pierce (#4; lost R16/retired) #8 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#8; lost QF) Doubles champions: Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Major Upsets: Dementieva Does It Again: defeats Martinez and Huber to reach semifinal. In an upset on this surface, Tauziat defeats Sanchez-Vicario to reach the quarterfinal, her best-ever showing at a hardcourt Slam. Historical Significance: Venus’s second Slam extends her winning streak to 26. September 25-October 1 Luxembourg • Indoor • Tier III Jennifer Capriati d. Magdalena Maleeva 4-6 6-1 6-4 Semifinalists: , Anna Kournikova (2) #1 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#7; lost 2R) #2 seed: Anna Kournikova (#13; lost SF) Doubles champions: Fusai/Tauziat Major Upsets: Hantuchova defeats Tauziat. Maleeva defeats Kournikova. Historical Significance: Capriati’s first title of 2000. October 2-8 Filderstadt, Germany • Indoor • Tier II Princess Cup/Tokyo • Hard • Tier II Martina Hingis d. Kim Clijsters 6-0 6-3 Serena Williams d. Julie Halard-Decugis 7-5 6-1 Semifinalists: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (4), Nathalie Semifinalists: Monica Seles (5), Daja Bedanova (Q) Tauziat (3) #1 seed: Monica Seles (#5; lost SF/retired) #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; won) #2 seed: Serena Williams (#8; won) #2 seed: Conchita Martinez (#6; lost QF) #3 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#15; lost 2R) #3 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#7; lost SF) #4 seed: Julie Halard-Decugis (#19; lost F) #4 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#9; lost SF) Doubles champions: Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Doubles champions: Hingis/Kournikova Major Upsets: Halard-Decugis defeats an injured Seles Major Upsets: Clijsters defeats Kournikova, Martinez, for Seles’s only non-Top-Ten loss of the year. Tauziat Bedanova defeats Mauresmo and Frazier. Historical Significance: Hingis’s sixth title of 2000, and Historical Significance: Serena’s third title of 2000. her third title defence. It is her fourth Filderstadt title in five years. The doubles team of Hingis/Kournikova comes back together and wins their first title of 2000.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 151 October 8-15 Zurich, • Indoor • Tier I Japan Open/Tokyo • Hard • Tier III Martina Hingis d. Lindsay Davenport 6-4 4-6 7-5 Julie Halard-Decugis d. Amy Frazier 5-7 7-5 6-4 Semifinalists: Jennifer Capriati (6), Barbara Schett Semifinalists: Tamarine Tanasugarn (5), Joanette Kruger #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; won) #1 seed: Julie Halard-Decugis (#18; won) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost F) #2 seed: Amy Frazier (#20; lost final) #3 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#7; lost QF) Doubles champions: Halard-Decugis/Morariu #4 seed: Anna Kournikova (#13; lost QF) Major Upsets: — Doubles champions: Hingis/Kournikova Historical Significance: Halard-Decugis wins the final Major Upsets: Schett defeats Coetzer, Tauziat title of her career. Historical Significance: Hingis beats Davenport for the second time in 2000 to win her home tournament for the first time. It is her seventh title of 2000. Davenport has now gone eleven straight events without a title. October 16-22 Linz, Austria • Indoor • Tier II Shanghai, China • Hard • Tier IVA Lindsay Davenport d. Venus Williams 6-4 3-6 6-2 Meghann Shaughnessy d. Semifinalists: Kveta Hrdlickova, Chanda Rubin (5) Iroda Tulyaganova 7-6 (7-2) 7-5 #1 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; won) Semifinalists: Pavlina Nola, Tamarine Tanasugarn (3) #2 seed: Venus Williams (#3; lost F) #1 seed: Kristina Brandi (#31; lost QF) #3 seed: (Pierce (?) withdrew. Rubin took place as #5 #2 seed: Jelena Dokic (#29; lost QF) seed. Schnyder #9 seed) Doubles champions: Osterloh/Tanasugarn #4 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#15; lost SF) Major Upsets: Tulyaganova defeats Dokic Doubles champions: Mauresmo/Rubin Historical Significance: Shaughnessy’s first career title. Major Upsets: Hrdlickova defeats Mauresmo, Tauziat Historical Significance: Davenport breaks her title drought and ends the winning streak of Venus Williams at 29. October 23-29 Moscow, • Indoor • Tier I Bratislava, Slovakia • Indoor • Tier IVB Martina Hingis d. Anna Kournikova 6-3 6-1 Daja Bedanova d. Miriam Oremans 6-1 5-7 6-3 Semifinalists: Amélie Mauresmo (5), Nathalie Tauziat Semifinalists: Denisa Chladkova (4), Karina Habsudova (2) (WC) #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; won) #1 seed: Anne-Gaelle Sidot (#30; lost QF) #2 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#8; lost SF) #2 seed: Anne Kremer (#27; lost 2R) #3 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#9; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Habsudova/Hantuchova #4 seed: Anna Kournikova (#11; lost F) Major Upsets: Bedanova defeats Hénin. From there on, Doubles champions: Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama it’s easy. Major Upsets: Maleeva defeats Sanchez-Vicario. Historical Significance: Bedanova’s first career title. Kournikova defeats Tauziat for her third career final. Historical Significance: Hingis wins her eighth title of 2000, the most by any player since she herself won twelve in 1997. It is her fifth Tier I title of the year, and makes her the only active player to win all nine Tier I events in her career. Hingis/Kournikova lose the doubles final for their only loss of the year.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 152 Oct. 30-Nov. 5 Leipzig, Germany • Indoor • Tier II Quebec City, Canada • Indoor • Tier III Kim Clijsters d. Elena Likhovtseva 7-6 (8-6) 4-6 6-4 Chanda Rubin d. Jennifer Capriati 6-4 6-2 Semifinalists: Nathalie Tauziat (1), Anna Kournikova (3) Semifinalists: Amy Frazier (4), Meilan Tu #1 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#8; lost SF) #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#12; lost F) #2 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#9; lost 2R) #2 seed: Chanda Rubin (#12; won) #3 seed: Anna Kournikova (#10; lost SF) Doubles champions: Pratt/Shaughnessy #4 seed: Elena Dementieva (#17; lost QF) Major Upsets: Tu defeats Halard-Decugis. Doubles champions: Sanchez-Vicario/Sidot Historical Significance: Rubin’s third career title Major Upsets: Clijsters defeats Sanchez-Vicario, Dokic, Kournikova. Likhovtseva defeats Dementieva, Tauziat. Historical Significance: First Tier II win for Clijsters. First Tier II final for Likhovtseva. Nov. 6-12 Philadelphia • Indoor • Tier II Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia • Hard • Tier III Lindsay Davenport d. Martina Hingis 7-6 (9-7) 6-4 Henrieta Nagyova d. Iva Majoli 6-4 6-2 Semifinalists: Nathalie Tauziat (4), Conchita Martinez Semifinalists: Tamarine Tanasugarn (3), (3) (5) #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost F) #1 seed: Silvija Talaja (#29; lost 2R) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; won) #2 seed: Jelena Dokic (#26; lost 2R) #3 seed: Conchita Martinez (#5; lost SF) Doubles champions: Nagyova/Plischke #4 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#9; lost SF) Major Upsets: Majoli defeats Dokic, Panova Doubles champions: Hingis/Kournikova Historical Significance: Nagyova’s third title of 2000. Major Upsets: Halard-Decugis defeats Capriati for her last Tour win. Historical Significance: Davenport wins her fourth title, and becomes the fifth player to defend a title in 2000. Hingis suffers her only indoor loss of 2000. Hingis/ Kournikova qualify for the Chase after only four tournaments together. Nov. 13-19 Chase Championships • Indoor • Championship Pattaya City, Thailand • Hard • Tier IVB Martina Hingis d. Monica Seles 6-7 (5-7) 6-4 6-4 Anne Kremer d. Tatiana Panova 6-1 6-4 Semifinalists: Anna Kournikova (7), Elena Dementieva Semifinalists: Henrieta Nagyova, Nadeja Ostrovskaya #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; won) #1 seed: Silvija Talaja (#28; lost 1R) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost 1R) #2 seed: Tamarine Tanasugarn (#30; lost QF) #3 seed: Monica Seles (#4; lost F) Doubles champions: Basuki/Vis #4 seed: Conchita Martinez (#5; lost QF) Major Upsets: Farina Elia defeats Talaja for Talaja’s #5 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#8; lost 1R) seventh straight loss (most for a Top 30 player in 2000). #6 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#9; lost QF) Historical Significance: Kremer’s second title of 2000 #7 seed: Anna Kournikova (#10; lost SF) and of her career. #8 seed: Chanda Rubin (#11; lost 1R) Doubles champions: Hingis/Kournikova Major Upsets: Dementieva defeats Davenport, Clijsters; Clijsters defeats Sanchez-Vicario; Kournikova defeats Capriati, Martinez. Historical Significance: Hingis’s ninth title of 2000. Seles’s biggest final since Roland Garros 1998. Kournikova ends 2000 with eight semifinals but only one final.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 153 Who Won What The following table summarizes the players who won the Tier II and higher events over the past seven years. Events are listed based on their current position in the calendar, with older events placed where they were at the time they ceased to exist. Note that some tournaments (e.g. Linz before 1998, Moscow before 1997) were not Tier II events for this entire period; these winners are shown in italics to the best of my ability. Tournament Winner In 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Sydney Mauresmo Davenport Sanchez-V Hingis Seles Sabatini Date Australian Open Davenport Hingis Hingis Hingis Seles Pierce Graf Pan Pacific Hingis Hingis Davenport Hingis Majoli Date Graf Paris Tauziat S. Williams Pierce Hingis Halard-D Graf Navratilova Hannover (Essen) S. Williams Novotna Schnyder Majoli Majoli Novotna Scottsdale rained out Indian Wells Davenport S. Williams Hingis Davenport Graf M. Fernandez Graf Delray Beach Graf Graf Ericsson/Lipton Hingis V. Williams V. Williams Hingis Graf Graf Graf Amelia Island Seles Seles Pierce Davenport Spirlea Martinez Sanchez-V Hilton Head Pierce Hingis Coetzer Hingis Sanchez-V Martinez Martinez Houston Graf Hack Barcelona Sanchez-V Sanchez-V Hamburg Hingis V. Williams Hingis Majoli Sanchez-V Martinez Sanchez-V Berlin Martinez Hingis Martinez M. Fernandez Graf Sanchez-V Graf Rome Seles V. Williams Hingis Pierce Martinez Martinez Martinez Roland Garros Pierce Graf Sanchez-V Majoli Graf Graf Sanchez-V Eastbourne Halard-D Zvereva Novotna rained out Seles Tauziat McGrath Wimbledon V. Williams Davenport Novotna Hingis Graf Graf Martinez Stanford V. Williams Davenport Davenport Hingis Hingis Maleeva Sanchez-Vi San Diego V. Williams Hingis Davenport Hingis Date Martinez Graf Los Angeles S. Williams S. Williams Davenport Seles Davenport Martinez Frazier Canadian Open Hingis Hingis Seles Seles Seles Seles Sanchez-V New Haven* V. Williams V. Williams Graf Davenport Martinez U.S. Open V. Williams S. Williams Davenport Hingis Graf Graf Sanchez-V Princess Cup S. Williams Davenport Seles Seles Seles Pierce Sanchez-V Surabaya† Wang Filderstadt Hingis Hingis Testud Hingis Hingis Majoli Huber Zurich Hingis V. Williams Davenport Davenport Novotna Majoli Maleeva Linz Davenport Pierce Novotna Rubin Appelmans Novotna Appelmans Moscow Hingis Tauziat Pierce Novotna Martinez Maleeva Maleeva Leipzig Clijsters Tauziat Graf Novotna Huber Huber Novotna Brighton M. Fernandez Novotna Chicago Davenport Novotna Maleeva Zvereva Philadelphia Davenport Davenport Graf Hingis Novotna Graf Huber Championships Hingis Davenport Hingis Novotna Graf Graf Sabatini * Tournament held in Atlanta in 1997. The title “U.S. Hardcourts,”used by Atlanta in 1997, was used at Stratton Moun- tain, Vermont, in 1994 † The WTA lists Surabaya as a Tier II in 1996. The field does not back this up.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 154 Comings and Goings: On and Off the Rankings The following lists compare the ranking tables for 1999 and 2000, 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 three of these: Silvia Farina became . Pavlina Stoyanova became Pavlina Nola. And Tracy Singian became Tracy Almeda-Singian. But no doubt there are other instances among the very low-ranked players). But this gives a general overview of how the numbers of ranked players has changed. Overall, the number of players has increased — there were 1079 ranked players at the end of the season in 1999; in 2000 there are 1242. That’s an increase of 15%! Note: The totals for the years don’t quite add up. I assume it has something to do with my algorithm for identifying who is or isn’t the same player. But it’s close.

Players ranked in 1999 but not in 2000 (total of 254): Hanna-Katri Aalto, Sarah Abaza, Agnieszka Abram, Hillary Adams, Julia Adlbrecht, Maria Adelaida Agudelo, Kasumi Aiko, Katherina Alberti, Elpis Alexandrou, Clelia Anfuso, Nicole Arendt, Diane Asensio, Hye-young Bae, Sanja Bajin, Jennifer Baker, Alessia Baracchini, Lorena Barbero Chichon, Vicky Barker, Florencia Basile, Laura Bernal, Gail Biggs, Anne-Laurence Bilenne, Ivana Bracun, Renata Brito, Brechtje Bruls, Esther Brunn, Anita Buggins, Virginie Buisson, Inga Burger, Paula Cabezas, Vanessa Caddick, Doriane Caporusso, Claire Carter, Vanina Casanova, Vanessa Castellano, Delila Causevic, Hye-Jeong Chang, Patricia Chang, Caecilia Charbonnier, Stephanie Chi, Ju-Yeon Choi, Jasmine Choudhury, Laurence Combes, Cristina Correia, Cristina Cortes, Oana Mihaela Creanga, Anita Csendes, Emmanuelle Curutchet, Natascha De Kramer, Pia De Robertis, Rachael Dean, Alex Dechaume-balleret, Cecile Dewinne, Rachel Dive, Tu Dong, Sandra Dopfer, Anca Dumitrescu, Marwa Elwany, Deniz Emre, Frida Engblom, Rocio Fantilli, Mary Joe Fernandez, Pamela Fernandez, Zuzana Filipova, Paula Fondevila Castro, Meike Froehlich, Yuki Fujii, Keiko Fujiwara, Maria Jose Gaidano, Natasha Galouza, Amie Garcia, Yessica Garcia, Ioana Gaspar, Petra Gaspar, Camille Gely, Melinda Glenister, Olga Glouschenko, , Virginia Gollut, Zsofia Golopencza, Ines Gorrochategui, , Katie Granson, , Lori Grey, Kristina Gueorguieva, Natalia Gussoni, Jasmin Halbauer, Lucia Halty Barrutieta, Kris Hamilton- heinberg, Karen Harboe, Louise Herbert, Renska Hiemstra, Christin Horiatopoulos, Bettina Horvath, Hsueh-li Hsu, Susan Huang, Victoria Hunt, Candice Jairala, Paulina Janus, Nina Janzekovic, Elizabeth Jelfs, Nathalia Jung, Elena Juricich, Ivana Kekez, Vanessa Kendall, Kim Kilsdonk, Sandra Kloesel, Marie-Ange Koami, Annette Kolb, Emilia Kopczyniska, Anna Koumantou, Ekater Kouznetchenkova, Danica Kovacova, Dora Krstulovic, Elena Krutko, Juli Kryoukova, Whitney Laiho, Kirsi Lampinen, Anne-Laure Le Guennec, Monique Le Sueur, Rosa Maria Llaneras, Lidia Lopez, Nino Louarsabishvili, Soledad Lucero, Olga Lugina, Eugenia Maia, , Eleftheri Makromaridou, Sandra Mantler, Kerstin Marent, Heather Matthews, Carolina Mayorga, Lori McNeil, Michiyo Meguro, Adriana Mingireanu, Misumi Miyauchi, Hiroko Mochizuki, Anna Mogilnicka, Laura Montalvo, Yoannis Montesino, Valentina Mortello, Kylie Moulds, Mudarwati Mudarwati, Vida Mulec, Barbara Mulej, Maja Muric, Larisa Neiland, Natelie Nikitina, Lauren Nikolaus, Gina Niland, Niki Ninaus, Jasmin Notdurfer, Karen Nugent, Kathy O'Daly, Eri Ohmi, Claudia Oliveira, Aleksandra Olsza, Riei Otakeyama, Joulia Oussanova, Paola Palencia, Ekaterina Paniouchkina, Christina Papadaki, Natasha Papadopoulou, Nelly Pardo, , Catalina Paz, Danira Penic, Maria Penkova, Patr Perez De Vinaspre, Lydia Perkins, Perrine Pernin, Jewel Peterson, Katia Piccolini, Kate Pinchbeck, Elena Pioppo, Betina Pirker, Kristina Pojatina, Jennifer Poulos, Valerie Poulos, Mariana Quintanilla, Aleksand Radosavljevic, Mira Lorelei Radu, Minna Rautajoki, Bettina Resch, Azra Resic, Marta Ribalta, Katia Rodrigues, Ma Eugenia Rojas, Nataly Rojas, Silvina Ronsisvalli, Rochelle Rosenfield, Eleni Rossides, Adriana Ruiz, , Marina Samoilenko, Yoshiko Sasano, Julia Scaringe, Joelle Schad, Sylvia Schenck, Giulia Schivo, Samantha Schoeffel, Nina Schwarz, Claire Seal, Kathryn Sell, Juleya Semenets, Lisa Sendelbach, Noelia Serra, Kai Siewrattan, Fruzsina Siklosi, Christine Silaghi, Carol Silverstone, Saskia Simon, Annette Singer, Prim Siripipat, Charlotte Smith, Denisa Sobotkova, Hyun-Hee Sohn, Silvia Sosnarova, Susie Starrett, Marina Stets, , Katarina Studenikova, Anne Stueckle, Liina Suurvarik, Lan Lan Tai, Kazue Takuma, Alina Tecsor, Olga Teplinskaya, Fabienne Thill, Heike Thoms, Jennifer Tinnacher, Suzanne Tolu, Daniela Torres, Pauline Trinchant, Delphine Troch, Elena Tudor, Noelle Van Lottum, Graciela Velez, Sonja Vidas, Antonela Voina, Petia Vousheva, Marie Vrba, Michael Vulpe-Drissler, Sara Walker, Kate Warne-Holland, Kyung-Joo Won, Kylene Wong Simunyola, Yoriko Yamagishi, Mao Yamanaka, Kiyoko Yazawa, Nina Zlender, Radka Zrubakova, Annette Zweck

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 155 Players ranked in 2000 but not in 1999 (total of 414): Eughenia Ablovatchi, Erica Adams, Linda Akkerman, Joanne Akl, Maria Lore Alcetegaray, Daniela Alvarez, Anca Anastasiu, Carla Andrade, Jenny Andrade, Anna Anikanova, Olena Antypina, Maria Jose Argeri, Sunthree Arphanukul, Marcela Arroyo, Sofia Arvidsson, Merve Asimgil, Cory Ann Avants, Livia Azzi, Martina Babakova, Meike Babel, Julia Babilon, Liana Balaci, Anne Banffy, Jorgelina Barrera, , Dina Basil, Carla Bastos, Anna Bastrikova, Caroline Ann Basu, , Kristy Bayer, Beatriz Becker, Kaur Harsimran Bedi, Iveta Benesova, Petra Bercik, Marina Bernshtein, Helena Besovic, Yulia Beygelzimer, Nikita Bhardwaj, Julia Biffar, Raffaella Bindi, Eva Birnerova, Katja Blocker, Annabel Blow, Kristy Blumberg, Radka Bobkova, Irina Bobrysheva, Olga Borisova, Roberta Borreli, Megan Bradley, , Leigh Bradwell, Nina Brattchikova, Becky Brown, Mhairi Brown, Diana Brunel, Giorgia Buchanan, Suci Bungaran, Erin Burdette, , Marina Cardoso, Jackie Carleton, Daniela Casanova, , Sophie Anne Cerbon, Nandita Chandrashekar, Li Chen, Li Ling Chen, Yan Chen, Juan-juan Cheng, Mimma Chernovita, Vishika Chhetri, Jeong-a Cho, Bo-Ra Choi, Wilawan Choptang, Stephanie Chu, Nicole Clerico, Kim Clijsters, Stephanie Cohen Aloro, Alyssa Cohen, , Lauren Colalillo, Paloma Collantes, Mariana Conde, Chantal Coombs, Natalia Coronel, Mariana Correa, Olivia Crouchent, , Estefania Daubioul, Lindsay Dawaf, Candice De La Torre, Elena De Mendoza, Julie De Roo, Begona De Toro, Lara Del Saz, Emilia Desiderio, Marutha Devi, Shruti Dhawan, Renata Dias, Georgina Dinham, Sarah Dinkelmann, Petra Dizdar, Lenka Dlhopolcova, Yanhua Dong, Megan Dorny, Gisella Dulko, Angeline Dumontier, Emmanuelle Edon, Nina Egger, Helena Ejeson, Jennifer Embry, Laura Figuerola, Karen Fodera, Laura Fodorean, , Lolita Frangulyan, Brandi Freudenberg, Ana Friganovic, Noelia Furno, Carmen Gajo, Mar Gallifa Puigdesens, Edina Gallovits, Natasha Galouza, Natalia Garbellotto, Ma. Alejandra Garcia, Laurenc Garcia-clement, Vanina Garcia Sokol, Ilke Gers, Iva Gersic, Maria Geznenge, Lucinda Gibbs, Francoise Gillis, Kylie Gottsche, Cynthia Goulet, Raissa Gourevich, Sheethal Goutham, Cristelle Grier, Michelle Grobby, Daniela Groseanu, Sheila Guerberg, Paola Guerrero, Silv Gutierrez Quiroga, Dinka Hadzic, , Briana Harris, Tumeka Harris, , Chun-Yan He, Catherine Henuzet, Audrey Hernandez, Stefanie Hershfield, Emily Hewson, Rattiya Hiranrat, Alex Hirsch, Tanja Hirschauer, Danielle Hock, Anne-marie Hogan, Da-Jung Hong, Marielle Hoogland, Naoko Horikawa, Li Huang, Lella Husic, Kelley Hyndman, Karina Jacobsgaard, Claire Jalade, Kristina Jarkenstedt, Amy Jensen, Dan Dan Jiang, Sabrina Jolk, Thamara Jonkman, Tara Kanbargimath, Aniko Kapros, Riei Kawamata, Belinda Kelly, Ceyda Keyman, Dina Khalil, Chin Bee Khoo, Kwon-hee Kim, Mi-ok Kim, Daniela Kix, Natalie Ko, Hiroko Komori, Milica Koprivica, Ilona Kordonskaya, Elena Kovalchuk, Ekaterina Kozhokina, Monika Krauze, Maria Kravchenko, , Iryna Kuryanovich, Daria Kustava, , Isha Lakhani, , Orawan Lamangthong, Jennifer Langer, Pichaya Laosirichon, Debbie Larocque, Charlotta Larsson, Olga Lazarchuk, An-Na Lee, Chen Li, Edita Liachoviciute, Amber Liu, Jing-jing Liu, Nan Nan Liu, Wei-na Liu, Zhi-rong Liu, Salome Llaguno, Rebeca Llorente, Nancy Loeffler-Caro, Anya Loncaric, Dominika Luzarova, En Yue Ma, Jamie Macias, Lisa Mackey, Cristina Madrid Guzman, Marnie Mahler, Sanda Mamic, Geeta Manohar, Anja Margetic, Emily Marker, Mia Marovic, Chris Martinez, Ana Maslesa, Andreea Matei, Diane Matias, Antonia Matic, Katie McGlennen, Yvonne Meusburger, Jennifer Miccoli, Lucia Migliarni, Vanja Mikovic, Mojca Mileta, Annie Miller, Marta Mir Portell, Jennifer Mitchell, Elsa Morel, Wei Na, , Alison Nash, Ayoko Noda, Ecaterina Nossik, Candela Novoa, Lenka Novotna, Tracey O'Connor, Jane O'Donoghue, Elsa O'Riain, Serra Olgac, Alexandra Orasanu, Priscila Ortega, Virginie Oulevay, Maja Palaversic, Tzveta Panajotova, Hannah Parker, Sara Pasquinoni, Karishma Patel, Karen Paterson, Maria Pavlidou, Liza Pereira, , Nandini Perumal, Sonal Phadke, Ilara Pibiri, Audrey Pierrich, Andrea Plackova, Barbara Polidoro, Alexandra Popa, Lana Popadic, Karla Porter, Daria Potapova, Lenka Potocarova, Wei Qie, Diana Quevedo, Lisa Quiller, Sai Swapn Ranakrishnan, Jasleen Randhawa, Natacha Randriantefy, Simmi Rani, Preeti Rao, , Celine Regnier, , Zerene Reyes, Flavia Rezende, Andrea Riedlmajerova, Sarah Riske, Alejandra Rivero, Florencia Rivolta, Deanna Roberts, Julieta Robin, Shadisha Robinson, Jessie Rochefort, Adriana Rodriguez, Nuria Roig, Vivian Rojas, Capucine Rousseau, Petra Russegger, Margit Ruutel, Anna Rynarzewska, Daniela Salomon, Florencia Salvadores, Marina Samoilenko, Ma. Jo Sanchez Alayeto, Ma. Pi Sanchez Alayeto, Carlota Santos, Deborah Saxer, Martina Schiavo, Tina Schiechtl, Kristen Schlukebir, Jennifer Schmidt, Monika Schneider, Ma. Teresa Scott, Samrita Sekar, Beti Sekulovski, Marija Serdarusic, Eva Sestakova, Jordanna Seymour, Lui Li Shen, Xia Sheng, Kelly Simkin, Aparna Singh, Amandine Singla, Dewi Monica Siregar, Katerina Siskova, Lioudmila Skavronskaia, Lenk Snajdrova, Ivana Sokac, Neus Sole, Tassia Sono, Petra Spaar, , Veronica Spiegel, Karolina Sprem, Diana Srebrovic, Jessica Stein, Constanze Steiner, Emily Stellato, , Martina Strussova, Veronika Subertova, Tomoko Sugano, Eny Sulistyowati, Tian Tian Sun, Ayako Suzuki, Ursula Svetlik, Giselle Swart, Tomoko Taira, Ayano Takeuchi, Sarah Tami, Yan Tang, Kelly Taylor, Shalini Thakur, Sricharany Thiagarajan, Yamini Thukkaiandi, Pavlina Ticha, Caroline Tidemand, Lisa Tognetti, Keiko Tokuda, Li Tong, Napaporn Tongsalec, Melissa Torres, Emilie Trouche, Michou Tulfer, Radhika Tulpule, Qi Tuo, Catherine Turinsky, , Motoe Uchida, Remi Uda, Megha Vakharia, Pamela Van Boekel, Natasha Van Der Merwe, Anousjka Van Exel, Lorenza Vaschetto, Jvotsa Vasisht, Nadejda Vassileva, Gabriel Velasco Andreu, Alissa Velts, Elena Vianello, Monique Viele, Elisa Villa, Rachel Viollet, Suchanan Viratprasert, Ivana Visic, Visnja Visnjic, Antonela Voina, Renata Voracova, Olga Votavova, Nana Wada, Nona Wagh, Janet Walker, Katarzyna Walukiewicz, Eva Wang, Zeng Wang, Svenja Weidemann, Angelique Widjaja, Susanne Wild, Douglas Wink, Kathrin Woerle, Ming Hui Wu, Jie Xu, Zi Yan, Lan Yao, Tomoko Yonemura, Ying Yu, Marianna Yuferova, Alexandra Zerkalova, Jie Zheng, Alexandra Zotta, Dong-ling Zou, Ivana Zupa,

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 156 Players ranked in both 1999 and 2000 (total of 831): Charlotte Aagaard, Julia Abe, Ivana Abramovic, Monica Acosta, , Lucie Ahl, Geraldine Aizenberg, Duygu Aksit, Inga Albers, Estef Aldana Estremera, Denitsa Alexandrova, Tracy Almeda-Singian, Katia Altilia, Ma. Fernanda Alves, Rosa M. Andres, Laurence Andretto, Liza Andriyani, Yasmin Angeli, , Kaori Aoyama, Sabine Appelmans, Yuki Arai, Tamara Aranda, Melisa Arevalo, Carla Arguelles, Greta Arn, Cristina Arribas, , Miyako Ataka, Bettina Auer, , Patricia Aznar, Lubomira Bacheva, , , Marilyn Baker, , , Eun-young Ban, Patrycja Bandurowska, Laura Bao, Olga Barabanschikova, , Heli Bargil, Adriana Barna, Anca Barna, Alice Barnes, Lauren Barnikow, Fiona Barrett, Adriana Basaric, Katerina Basternakova, Yvette Basting, Suzi Becvinovska, Daja Bedanova, Petra Begerow, Celine Beigbeder, Eva Belbl, Nathalia Bellizia, Jenny Belobrajdic, Severine Beltrame, Annika Bengtsson, Susi Bensch, Ma. Cristi Bentivoglio, Kinga Berecz, Marisol Berengeno, Segolene Berger, Eva Bes, Cara Black, Olga Blahotova, Barbora Blahutiakova, Maria Boboedova, Natalia Bogdanova, Branka Bojovic, Alyona Bondarenko, Valeria Bondarenko, Kristie Boogert, Carine Bornu, Sandrine Bouilleau, , Svetla Bozicnik, Kristina Brandi, Brandis Braverman, , Ma. Eugenia Brito, Mia Buric, Adriana Burz, Ramona But, Dawn Buth, Beatri Cabrera Rosendo, Sandra Cacic, Nataly Cahana, Marina Caiazzo, Bree Calderwood, Nathalie Callen, Els Callens, , , Jennifer Capriati, Angela Cardoso, , Chloe Carlotti, Åsa Carlsson, Giulia Casoni, Catalina Castano, Bianca Catay, Leslie Cavanaugh, Lenka Cenkova, Ludmila Cervanova, Kyung Yee Chae, Margalit Chakhnashvili, Rushmi Chakravarti, Kyung-Mi Chang, Courtenay Chapman, Yu-an Chen, , , Eugenia Chialvo, , Denisa Chladkova, Yoon Jeong Cho, Jin-Young Choi, Young-Ja Choi, Yang-Jin Chung, Raluca Ciochina, Agata Cioroch, , Melanie Clayton, Elke Clijsters, Brenda Coassolo, Amelie Cocheteux, Daniela Cocos, Amanda Coetzer, Hannah Collin, Celeste Contin, Annica Cooper, Sabrina Corazza, , Diana Costa, Victoria Courmes, Laurence Courtois, Susan Cowan, Jorgelina Cravero, , Bianca Cremer, Catalina Cristea, , Karen Cross, Virag Csurgo, Veronika Ctvrtnickova, Nives Culum, Miriam D'agostini, Sabina Da Ponte, Tiffany Dabek, Sabrina Damario, , Katarina Daskovic, Michelle Dasso, Lindsay Davenport, Victoria Davies, Dewonder Davis, Julie Dawson, Surina De Beer, Erika De Lone, Rossana de los Rios, Mariaan De Swardt, Stephanie De Ville, , Kim De Weille, Nathalie Déchy, Liga Dekmeijere, Sonia Delgado, Laura Dell'angelo, Elena Dementieva, Kun Deng, Vanessa Devesa, , Germana Di Natale, Mariana Diaz-Oliva, Amy Dillingham, Biljana Dimovska, Ding Ding, Silvia Disderi, Mireille Dittmann, Natalie Dittmann, , Csilla Dobo, Jelena Dokic, Anna Dolinska, Lourdes Dominguez Lino, Evie Dominikovic, Melissa Dowse, Yvonne Doyle, Ruxandra Dragomir, , Nina Dubbers, Amandine Dulon, Amanda Dundas, Eva Dyrberg, , Sabrina Eisenberg, Dalia El Sheikh, Anat Elazari, Kate Elliott, Annabel Ellwood, Adria Engel, Eva Erbova, Sophie Erre, Marina Escobar, Lamia Essaadi, Feriel Esseghir, Marcela Evangelista, Melody Falco, Yomna Farid, Silvia Farina Elia, Heidi Farr, Goulna Fattakhetdinova, , Clarisa Fernandez, Jessica Fernandez, Maricris Fernandez, Susanne Filipp, Eva Fislova, Christina Fitz, Wendy Fix, , Galina Fokina, Anna Foldenyi, Anna Font, Stephanie Foretz, Amy Frazier, Kirstin Freye, Lisa Fritz, Candice Fuchs, , Alexandra Fusai, Filipa Gabrovska, , Gemma Gallo Gomez, Tathiana Garbin, Paula Garcia, Martha Garzon-elkins, Ioana Gaspar, Angelica Gavaldon, Stefanie Gehrlein, Sophie Georges, Michelle Gerards, Caroline Germar, Adriana Gersi, Diana Gherghi, Lea Ghirardi, Frederika Girsang, Andrea Glass, Yael Glitsenstein, Oana-Elen Golimbioschi, Maria Goloviznina, Ainhoa Goni, Rocio Gonzalez, Emma Gott, , Rita Grande, Nathalie Grandin, , Sarah Gregg, Magdalena Grzybowska, Francesca Guardigli, Zsofia Gubacsi, Cecilia Guillenea, Gulberk Gultekin, Akiko Gunji, Kerry-Anne Guse, Natalia Gussoni, Giana Gutierrez, Eun-Young Ha, Debby Haak, Karina Habsudova, Bettina Hafner, Stefanie Haidner, Julie Halard-Decugis, Jennifer Hall, Daniela Hantuchova, Nicole Havlicek, Silvia Hegedis, Adrienn Hegedus, Ines Heise, Anne-laure Heitz, Zuzana Hejdova, Barbara Hellwig, Justine Hénin, , Tina Hergold, Paula Hermida, Jaslyn Hewitt, Martina Hingis, , Marcelle Hirt, , Jana Hlavackova, Denise Hofer, Carly Homewood, Jennifer Hopkins, Amanda Hopmans, Christiana Hoppmann, Liezel Horn, Tomoe Hotta, Kveta Hrdlickova, Stanislava Hrozenska, Anke Huber, Nikola Hubnerova, Rewa Hudson, Kylie Hunt, Janette Husarova, , Dragana Ilic, Reiko Ino, Haruka Inoue, Maiko Inoue, Ella Ionescu, , Keiko Ishida, Irawati Iskandar, Chisayo Ito, Claudia Ivone, Karolina Jagieniak, Monique Javer, J. Sai Jayalakshmy, , Mi-Ra Jeon, Adriana Jerabek, Sonya Jeyaseelan, , Amanda Johnson, Nadia Johnston, Dragica Joksimovic, La Shawnn Jones, Mareze Joubert, Desanka Jovanovic, Vlatka Jovanovic, Mervana Jugic-Salkic, Olga Kalioujnaia, , Bianca Kamper, Carina Kampfer, Jana Kandarr, Acsimino Kaplani, Karina Karner, Berengere Karpenschif, Shizu Katsumi, , Eun-Ha Kim, Eun-Kyung Kim, Eun-Sook Kim, Jin-Hee Kim, Akiko Kinebuchi, Satomi Kinjo, Yumiko Kitamura, Sabine Klaschka, Sandra Kleinova, Daniella Klemenschitz, Sandra Klemenschitz, Marketa Kochta, Renata Kolbovic, Maria Kondratieva, Irina Kornienko, Jelena Kostanic, Klara Koukalova, Evgenia Koulikovskaya, Anna Kournikova, Maaike Koutstaal, Katja Kovac, Marijana Kovacevic, Tatiana Kovalchuk, Nora Koves, Lesley Kramer, Hanna Krampe, Lina Krasnoroutskaya, Dimana Krastevitch, Kristina Kraszewski, , Vanesa Krauth, Alexandra Kravets, Eva Krejcova, Anne Kremer, Camilla Kremer, Kavitha Krishnamurthy, Svetlana Kriventcheva, Tina Krizan, , , Gabrielle Kucerova, Magdalena Kucerova, Renata Kucerova, Petra Kucova, Zuzana Kucova, Madoka Kuki, Blanka Kumbarova, Lubomira Kurhajcova, Satoko Kurioka, Agata Kurowska, Rita Kuti Kis, Sandra Kvelstein, , Kristin Lam, Magalie Lamarre, Ma. Fernanda Landa, Evy Last, Gabriela Lastra, Louise Latimer, Marina Lazarovska, Elodie Lebescond, Eun-Jeong Lee, , Lindsay Lee-Waters, Sophie Lefevre, Gala Leon Garcia, Zuzana Lesenarova, Fang Li, Na Li, Ting Li, Kelly Liggan, Elena

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 157 Likhovtseva, Sae-mi Lim, Ya-ming Lin, Zuzanna Liskovcova, Nuria Llagostera, Susi Lohrmann, Emilie Loit, Marylene Losey, Jana Lubasova, , Mirjana Lucic, Kate Lutgert, Julia Lutrova, Tetiana Luzanska, Stephanie Mabry, Jana Macurova, , Jennifer Magley, Diana Majkic, Iva Majoli, Magdalena Maleeva, , Melinda Malouli, Karla Mancinas, , Angie Marik, Melanie Marois, -Aracama, Carmen Marquez Salas, Marta Marrero, Magdalena Marszalek, Ana Martin Ramirez, Eva Martincova, Veronika Martinek, Conchita Martinez, Conchita Martinez Granados, Ma. Jose Martinez, Sandra Martinovic, , Luciana Masante, Andrea Masarykova, Monica Massarella, Monica Mastan, Maja Matevzic, Amelie Mauresmo, Melissa Mazzotta, Kelly Mc Cain, Donna Mc Intyre, Rachel McQuillan, Lisa McShea, Ana I Medina Garrigues, Marlene Mejia, Nicole Melch, , Jolanda Mens, Giulia Meruzzi, Mariana Mesa, Melissa Middleton, , Neda Mihneva, Lana Miholcek, Marie-gaiane Mikaelian, , Dina Milosevic, Meritxell Mimo, Betsy Miringoff, Galina Misiuriova, Katalin Miskolczi, Isabella Mitterlehner, Nana Miyagi, Maja Mlakar, Amiella Mojzis, Mihaela Moldovan, , Eszter Molnar, Angeles Montolio, Joanne Moore, Milangela Morales, Corina Morariu, , Giorgia Mortello, Svetlana Mossiakova, Bahia Mouhtassine, Karla Mraz, Leonn Muller V. Moppes, Martina Muller, Daniela Munoz, Patty Murren, Daniela Muscolino, Trudi Musgrave, Anastasia Myskina, Sandra Nacuk, Chie Nagano, Keiko Nagatomi, Kyra Nagy, Henrieta Nagyova, Chiaki Nakajima, Ljiljana Nanusevic, Aurandrea Narvaez, Andrea Nathan, Barbara Navarro, Gabriela Navratilova, Anna Eugenia Nefedova, Jana Nejedly, Martina Nejedly, Milena Nekvapilova, Lenka Nemeckova, Lioudmila Nikoian, Katrina Nimmers, Yasuko Nishimata, Nina Nittinger, Ana Nogueira, Pavlina Nola, Seda Noorlander, Irena Nossenko, Ana Paula Novaes, Petra Novotnikova, Edith Nunes, , , Eun-Mi Oh, Jean Okada, , Daniela Olivera, Zuzana Ondraskova, Miriam Oremans, Alicia Ortuno, Jheni Osman, Diana Ospina, Lilia Osterloh, Nadejda Ostrovskaya, Romina Ottoboni, Seden Ozlu, Karin Palme, Antoaneta Pandjerova, Jelena Pandzic, Daria Panova, Tatiana Panova, Ridhina Parekh, Sung-hee Park, Holly Parkinson, Arancha Parra, Michaela Pastikova, Alena Paulenkova, Biljana Pavlova, Nicola Payne, Radka Pelikanova, Marie-Eve Pelletier, Ingrid Peltier, Laura Pena, , Tatiana Perebiynis, , Melinda Petkes, Nadejda Petrova, Marina Petrovic, Virginia Pichet, Frederica Piedade, Mary Pierce, Rebecca Pike, Alicia Pillay, , Severine Pinaud, Erika Pineider, Tina Pisnik, Sarah Pitkowski, , Petra Plackova, Anne Plessinger, Sylvia Plischke, Tina Plivelitsch, Kimberly Po, Ilona Poljakova, , , , Libuse Prusova, Petra Puheloinen, , Hanna Puustinen, Caroline Raba, Paula Racedo, Veronika Raimrova, Mariam Ramon, , , Lisa Raymond, , , Lyndsay Reilly, Nicole Remis, Ludmila Richterova, , , Barbara Rittner, Veronica Rizhik, Stephanie Rizzi, Anastassia Rodionova, Carolina Rodriguez, Angelika Roesch, Ariana Rojas, , Jacquelyn Rosen, Barbara Rosenberger, Caroline Rossel, Evagelia Roussi, Virginia Ruano Pascual, Chanda Rubin, Paloma Ruiz-Blanco, Sylvia Rynarzewska, Karolina Sadaj, Virginia Sadi, Misae Sakai, Joanna Sakowicz, Ana Salas, Ma. Emilia Salerni, Claudia Salgues, Sylvie Sallaberry, Ma. Antonia Sanchez Lorenzo, Laetitia Sanchez, Olivia Sanchez, Arantx Sanchez- Vicario, Raluca Sandu, Benjamas Sangaram, , Veronica Sartini, , Wukirasih Sawondari, Evelina Scalise, Monica Scartoni, Stephanie Schaer, Larissa Schaerer, , Barbara Schett, Francesca Schiavone, Nadine Schlotterer, , Syna Schmidle, , , Melanie Schnell, Miriam Schnitzer, Patty Schnyder, Jitka Schonfeldova, , Cindy Schuurmans, Barbara Schwartz, Julie Scott, Andrea Sebova, Lotty Seelen, Nicole Seitenbecher, Monica Seles, Irina Selyutina, Ipek Senoglu, , Magui Serna, Adriana Serra-zanetti, Antonell Serra-zanetti, , , Meghann Shaughnessy, Julie Shiflet, Anne-Gaelle Sidot, Ana Maria Simanca, Ana Maria Sismondini, Rosa Maria Sitja, Ana Skafar, Pavlina Slitrova, Anna Smashnova, Julia Smith, , , Leticia Sobral, Aneta Soukup, Irina Spirlea, Katarina Srebotnik, Alexsandra Srndovic, Hana Sromova, Jovana Stanisljevic, , Lucie Steflova, Lydia Steinbach, Shelley Stephens, Anouk Sterk, , Bryanne Stewart, , Katarzyna Straczy, Rennae Stubbs, Paola Suarez, Evgenia Subbotina, Martina Sucha, Ai Sugiyama, Dea Sumantri, Michelle Summerside, Ekaterina Syssoeva, Keiko Taguchi, Linda Tajnai, Ayami Takase, Ryoko Takemura, Silvija Talaja, Lucia Tallo, Keiko Tameishi, Tamarine Tanasugarn, Rita Tarjan, Marina Tasheva, Elena Tatarkova, Nathalie Tauziat, Claire Taylor, , Regina Temez, Stephanie Testard, Sandrine Testud, , , Ana Timotic, Niki Tippins, Ka-Po Tong, Dessislava Topalova, Radoslava Topalova, Abigail Tordoff, Cristin Torrens Valero, Jorgelina Torti, Jacqueline Trail, Alienor Tricerri, Virginia Trifonova, Susanne Trik, Nicola Trinder, Kristina Triska, , Iroda Tulyaganova, Lenka Tvaroskova, , Sachie Umehara, Nami Urabe, Silvia Urickova, Nirupama Vaidyanathan, , Erika Valdes, Zuzana Valekova, Romana Valenta, Sabrina Valenti, Patty Van Acker, Daphne Van De Zande, Andrea Van Den Hurk, Kristel Van Der Perre, Kristen Van Elden, Dominique Van Roost, Lara Van Rooyen, Andreea Vanc, Ludmilla Varmuza, Alena Vaskova, Miroslava Vavrinec, Aurelie Vedy, Archana Venkataraman, Arthi Venkataraman, Maria Vento, Val Verrier-diaconescu, Masa Vesenjak, Urska Vesenjak, Fabie Vieille-Grosjean, Helga Vieira, Nathalie Vierin, Helena Vildova, , Gabriela Volekova, Elena Voropaeva, Aleksandra Vucenovic, Visnja Vuletic, Kathy Vymetal, Elena Wagner, Marion Walter, I-Ting Wang, Shi-Ting Wang, Jo Ward, Novianti Warsono, Patricia Wartusch, , Jolene Watanabe, , , Marlene Weingartner, Stefanie Weis, Tzu-Ting Weng, Scarlett Werner, , , Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Jasmin Woehr, Maria Wolfbrandt, Kati Wolner, Orawan Wongkamalasai, Lucy Wood, Nicola Woodhouse, , Etsuko Yamada, Alena Yaryshka, Bucke Yavuz, Jing-Qian Yi, Yumi Yokoi, Yuka Yoshida, Anna Zaporozhanova, Dragana Zaric, Anna Zarska, Maria Letizia Zavagli, Maria Paola Zavagli, Magdalena Zdenovcova, Katja Zenklusen, Gyorgyi Zsiros, Fabiola Zuluaga, Natasha Zvereva

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 158 Index

A Coetzer, Amanda 12, 30, 31, 80, 85, Gold Coast 24, 30, 108, 126, 127, 143 Amelia Island 23, 28, 29, 102, 103, 90, 93, 122, 144, 146, 147, 149, 150, Graf, Steffi 118, 154 104, 108, 116, 136, 146, 154 152, 154 Grande, Rita 144 Antwerp 12, 30, 109, 147 Courtois, Laurence 147 Appelmans, Sabine 10, 90, 149, 154 H Arendt, Nicole 122, 130, 137 D Habsudova, Karina 152 Arendt/Bollegraf 137, 138 Date, Kimiko 154 Hack, Sabine 154 Auckland 30, 109, 131, 133, 143 Davenport, Lindsay 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 27, Halard-Decugis, Julie 16, 28, 29, 30, Australian Open 12, 28, 29, 102, 103, 28, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 31, 80, 85, 90, 93, 105, 119, 122, 104, 107, 116, 127, 128, 136, 143, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 55, 126, 136, 137, 140, 141, 144, 146, 154 60, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154 85, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, Halard-Decugis/Kournikova 138, 143 B 105, 106, 113, 118, 119, 120, 121, Halard-Decugis/Morariu 125, 138, Bacheva, Lubomira 147 122, 123, 135, 136, 143, 145, 148, 146, 152 Barabanschikova, Olga 149 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama 125, 137, Barcelona 154 Davenport/Kournikova 138 138, 143, 145, 150, 151, 152 Bedanova, Daja 30, 151, 152 Davenport/Morariu 125, 137, 138, Halard-Decugis/Tauziat 125 Berlin 19, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 107, 145 Halard-Decugis/Testud 138, 144 116, 132, 136, 147, 154 Davenport/Po 138 Hamburg 17, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, Birmingham 20, 30, 108, 148 De Swardt, Mariaan 123 108, 116, 127, 135, 136, 146, 154 Black, Cara 122, 131, 137, 143, 148, Déchy, Nathalie 13, 80, 85, 90, 93, Hannover 26, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 149 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 108, 116, 135, 136, 144, 154 Black/Fusai 143 Delray Beach 154 Hantuchova, Daniela 151 Black/Likhovtseva 137, 138 Dementieva, Elena 13, 33, 70, 80, 85, Hénin, Justine 16, 80, 90 Bogota 30, 109, 128, 144 90, 93, 106, 118, 145, 151, 153 Hilton Head 20, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, Bol 30, 108, 126, 131, 146 Di Natale, Germana 147 107, 116, 128, 129, 136, 146, 154 Bollegraf, Manon 122, 132 Dokic, Jelena 14, 80, 90, 93, 147, 149, Hingis, Martina 4, 6, 7, 9, 17, 27, 28, see under Arendt/Bollegraf 152, 153 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, Boogert, Kristie 144, 146, 149 Dokic/Stubbs 138 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, Brandi, Kristina 148 Dragomir, Ruxandra 14, 85, 90, 148 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70, Bratislava 30, 109, 152 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, Brighton 154 E 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, Budapest 30, 109, 146 Eastbourne 16, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 97, 98, 99, 105, 106, 113, 118, 119, 108, 116, 126, 129, 136, 148, 154 120, 121, 122, 123, 127, 136, 137, C Ericsson 17, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, Callens, Els 122, 132, 137 107, 116, 126, 136, 145, 154 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 Callens/Van Roost 125, 137, 138, 150 Essen 154 Hingis/Kournikova 137, 139, 151, Canadian Open 17, 28, 29, 102, 103, Estoril 17, 30, 109, 146 152, 153 104, 107, 116, 127, 129, 136, 150, Hingis/Pierce 125, 137, 139, 144, 148 154 F Hingis/Tauziat 125, 139, 150 Capriati, Jennifer 11, 30, 31, 80, 85, Farina Elia, Silvia 15, 146, 149 Hobart 11, 30, 109, 143 90, 93, 106, 143, 145, 147, 148, 151, Fernandez, Mary Joe 154 Hopkins, Jennifer 119, 147 152, 153 Filderstadt 17, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, Hopmans, Amanda 143, 147 Carlsson, Åsa 122 108, 116, 127, 136, 151, 154 Houston 154 Carlsson/Zvereva 125 Frazier, Amy 15, 63, 80, 85, 90, 93, Hrdlickova, Kveta 152 Chase Championships 17, 28, 29, 102, 143, 144, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153, Huber, Anke 17, 30, 31, 80, 85, 90, 93, 103, 104, 107, 116, 127, 136, 153, 154 120, 145, 146, 149, 151, 154 154 Fusai, Alexandra 122, 123, 133 Huber/Schett 137, 139 Chicago 154 Fusai/Tauziat 137, 138, 151 Chladkova, Denisa 144, 152 I Clijsters, Kim 11, 28, 29, 30, 31, 80, G Indian Wells 12, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 85, 90, 93, 105, 118, 143, 147, 149, Gagliardi, Emmanuelle 144 107, 116, 131, 135, 136, 145, 154 151, 153, 154 Garbin, Tathiana 30, 85, 144, 146, 147 Gersi, Adriana 149

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 159 J McGrath, Meredith 154 Q Japan Open 16, 30, 108, 126, 131, 152 Montalvo, Laura 122 Quebec City 21, 30, 108, 153 Jeyaseelan, Sonya 149 Montalvo/Suarez 125, 137, 139, 144, 149 R K Montolio, Angeles 146, 149 Raymond, Lisa 20, 30, 81, 85, 90, 93, Klagenfurt 22, 30, 108, 149 Morariu, Corina 122, 123, 131, 137, 122, 123, 127, 137, 148 Knokke-Heist 30, 109, 149 147 Raymond/Stubbs 125, 137, 139, 143, Kostanic, Jelena 147 see also Halard-Decugis/Morariu, 147, 150 Kournikova, Anna 18, 81, 85, 90, 93, Davenport/Morariu Rittner, Barbara 151 99, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 127, Moscow 17, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, Roland Garros 20, 28, 29, 102, 103, 137, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 149, 107, 116, 126, 136, 152, 154 104, 107, 116, 127, 129, 136, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153 Myskina, Anastasia 149 154 See also Hingis/Kournikova, Rome 23, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 107, Davenport/Kournikova, Halard- N 116, 127, 128, 136, 147, 154 Decugis/Kournikova Nagyova, Henrieta 30, 85, 147, 149, Ruano Pascual, Virginia 122, 129, Kournikova/Sanchez-Vicario 139 153 137, 147 Kournikova/Schett 139 Navratilova, Martina 154 Ruano Pascual/Suarez 125, 137, 139, Kournikova/Sugiyama 139 Neiland, Larisa 123 146, 149 Kournikova/Zvereva 125, 137, 139, New Haven 26, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, Rubin, Chanda 21, 30, 31, 81, 85, 90, 146 108, 116, 126, 136, 150, 154 93, 122, 123, 134, 143, 144, 145, Kremer, Anne 30, 143, 148, 153 Nola, Pavlina (Stoyanova) 149, 152 148, 152, 153, 154 Kruger, Joanette 144, 147, 152 Novotna, Jana 118, 154 Rubin/Testud 125, 137, 139, 149 Kuala Lumpur 30, 108, 153 Kuti Kis, Rita 30, 85, 144, 146, 147 O S Oklahoma City 23, 30, 108, 131, 134, Sabatini, Gabriella 154 L 144 San Diego 26, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, Leipzig 11, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 108, Olympics 102, 103, 104 108, 116, 127, 128, 136, 150, 154 116, 132, 135, 136, 153, 154 Oremans, Miriam 147, 152 Sanchez Lorenzo, Maria Ant. 146 Leon Garcia, Gala 30, 85, 146, 147, Osterloh, Lilia 149 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 21, 70, 81, 149 Ostrovskaya, Nadejda 153 85, 89, 90, 93, 106, 118, 120, 122, Liege Challenger 16 123, 125, 132, 137, 143, 146, 147, Likhovtseva, Elena 18, 81, 85, 90, 93, P 148, 150, 151, 153, 154 122, 123, 133, 146, 147, 153 Palermo 30, 109, 149 Sanchez-Vicario/Sidot 125, 153 see also Black/Likhovtseva Pan Pacific 17, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, São Paulo 30, 109, 128, 144 Likhovtseva/Morariu 139 107, 116, 127, 129, 136, 144, 154 Schett, Barbara 22, 30, 31, 81, 85, 90, Linz 12, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 108, Panova, Tatiana 153 93, 122, 130, 137, 149, 152 116, 134, 136, 152, 154 Paris 25, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 108, see also Huber/Schett Los Angeles 26, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 116, 126, 135, 136, 144, 154 Schiavone, Francesca 148 108, 116, 132, 134, 136, 150, 154 Pattaya City 30, 109, 153 Schnyder, Patty 22, 63, 81, 86, 90, 93, Luxembourg 11, 30, 108, 129, 133, Philadelphia 12, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 143, 149, 154 151 108, 116, 127, 136, 153, 154 Scottsdale 12, 17, 28, 29, 102, 103, Pierce, Mary 20, 28, 29, 31, 33, 60, 63, 104, 108, 116, 136, 145, 154 M 70, 76, 81, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, Seles, Monica 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 40, Madrid 30, 108, 127, 128, 147 105, 106, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 42, 43, 44, 53, 58, 59, 63, 64, 65, 66, Majoli, Iva 147, 153, 154 129, 137, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 70, 75, 76, 78, 81, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, Maleeva, Magdalena 19, 81, 85, 90, 149, 154 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 105, 106, 118, 93, 151, 152, 154 see also Hingis/Pierce 119, 120, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, Marrero, Marta 149 Pierce/Raymond 139 149, 150, 151, 153, 154 Martinez, Conchita 19, 28, 29, 31, 74, Pisnik, Tina 30, 146 Serna, Magui 149 81, 85, 89, 90, 93, 105, 106, 118, Pitkowski, Sarah 146, 148 Shanghai 30, 109, 152 120, 122, 123, 136, 143, 145, 146, Plischke, Sylvia 144 Shaughnessy, Meghann 30, 143, 152 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154 Po, Kimberly 122, 123, 134 s-Hertogenbosch 17, 30, 108, 148 Martinez/Sanchez-Vicario 125, 147 Po/Sidot 137, 139 Sidot, Anne-Gaelle 23, 86, 90, 93, Mauresmo, Amélie 20, 28, 29, 31, 81, Portschach 128 122, 135, 144, 146 85, 90, 93, 105, 106, 118, 120, 143, see Klagenfurt see also Po/Sidot 144, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 154 Princess Cup 26, 28, 29, 102, 103, Smashnova, Anna 30, 86, 147, 149 Mauresmo/Rubin 125, 152 104, 108, 116, 126, 136, 151, 154 Sopot 17, 30, 108, 128, 129, 149

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 160 Spirlea, Irina 123, 149, 154 Tauziat, Nathalie 25, 28, 29, 31, 70, Wartusch, Patricia 30, 86, 144 Srebotnik, Katarina 144 81, 86, 90, 94, 105, 118, 119, 120, Williams, Serena 26, 28, 31, 32, 64, Stanford 26, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 122, 123, 129, 136, 137, 144, 147, 76, 77, 81, 86, 90, 91, 94, 96, 98, 108, 116, 134, 135, 136, 149, 154 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 105, 106, 113, 118, 120, 123, 143, Strasbourg 24, 30, 108, 147 see also Fusai/Tauziat, Hingis/ 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, 154 Stubbs, Rennae 122, 123, 128, 137 Tauziat Williams, Venus 4, 6, 7, 9, 26, 27, 29, see also Raymond/Stubbs Testud, Sandrine 25, 81, 86, 90, 94, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 45, 46, 47, Suarez, Paola 86, 122, 128, 137, 144, 120, 122, 123, 135, 144, 145, 148, 48, 50, 52, 53, 55, 58, 59, 60, 65, 66, 146, 149 149, 154 73, 74, 75, 77, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 89, see also Montalvo/Suarez, Ruano See also Rubin/Testud 90, 91, 92, 94, 97, 98, 105, 106, 113, Pascual/Suarez Torrens Valero, Cristina 146, 147 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 136, 146, Sugiyama, Ai 24, 81, 86, 90, 119, 122, Tu, Meilan 153 147, 149, 150, 151, 152 123, 126, 137, 140, 143 Tulyaganova, Iroda 30, 148, 152 Williams/Williams 125, 136, 139, 149 see also Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Wimbledon 26, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, Sugiyama/Tauziat 125, 148 U 107, 116, 136, 149, 154 Surabaya 154 U. S. Open 26, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, Woehr, Jasmin 119 Sydney 20, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 108, 107, 116, 126, 136, 151, 154 116, 126, 136, 143, 154 Y V Yi, Jing-Qian 148 T Van Roost, Dominique 26, 63, 81, 86, Talaja, Silvija 24, 30, 73, 81, 86, 90, 90, 94, 122, 134, 147, 148, 149 Z 93, 143, 147, 149 see also Callens/Van Roost Zuluaga, Fabiola 86, 147 Tanasugarn, Tamarine 148, 152, 153 Vento, Maria Alej. 143 Zurich 17, 28, 29, 102, 103, 104, 107, Tarabini, Patricia 123 Vis, Caroline 123 116, 127, 136, 152, 154 Tashkent 30, 109, 148 Zvereva, Natasha 26, 86, 90, 118, 122, Tatarkova, Elena 123 W 123, 135, 154 Wang, Shi-Ting 154 see also Carlsson/Zvereva, Warsaw 30, 109, 147 Kournikova/Zvereva

WTA Statistical Abstract 2000 ©Robert Waltz Page 161