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 Head-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 tennis 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 official 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 Magdalena Maleeva 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. Martina Hingis is the WTA #1, but many have argued on behalf of Venus Williams, as the winner of two Slams. (Curiously, no one has argued recently on behalf of Lindsay Davenport, 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.