sign in sign up
<<
Home , 1994 WTA Tour, 2001 Ericsson Open, 2001 Kremlin Cup, Adriana Serra Zanetti, Ai Sugiyama, Alexandra Stevenson

WTA Tour Statistical Abstract 2001

Robert . Waltz ©2001 by Robert B. Waltz and News Reproduction and/or distribution for profit prohibited

Contents Introduction...... 4 to Head ...... 64 2001 In Review: The Top Players . . . . .5 The Top 20 Head to Head ...... 64 The Final Top Thirty...... 5 Wins Over Top Players ...... 65 The Beginning Top Twenty-Five ...... 6 Matches Played/Won Summary of Changes, Beginning to End of 2001 ...... 6 against the (Final) Top Twenty...... 65 Top Players Analysed ...... 7 Won/Lost Versus the Top Players All the Players in the Top Ten in 2001...... 7 (Based on Rankings at the Time of the Match) ...... 66 Complete Top Ten under the 1996 Ranking System...... 7 Won/Lost Versus the Top Players Ranking Fluctuation...... 8 (Based on Final Rankings)...... 67 Highest Ranking of 2001 ...... 9 Statistics Based on Head-to-Heads ...... 68 Top Players Sorted by Median Ranking...... 10 Total Wins over Top Ten Players ...... 68 Short Summary: The Top Eighty...... 11 Winning Percentage against Top Ten Players...... 68 The Top 200, in Numerical Order ...... 13 How They Earned Their Points . . . . . 69 The Top 200, in Alphabetical Order...... 14 Fraction of Points Earned in Slams ...... 69 Tournament Results ...... 15 Quality Versus Round Points ...... 70 Percentage of Points Earned on Each Surface...... 71 Summary of Results for Top Players ...... 15 Consistency...... 72 Tournament Winners ...... 32 Standard Deviation of Scores by Tournament...... 72 Tournament Winners by Date (High-Tier Events) ...... 32 Tournament Winners by Type (High-Tier Events)...... 33 Early-Round Losses ...... 73 Winners at Smaller Tournaments (Tier III, IV, ) ...... 34 Frequency of Early Losses ...... 74 Winners at $50K and Larger Challengers...... 35 Worst Losses ...... 75 Number of Tournament Wins for Top 25 Players ...... 36 Best and Worst “Worst Losses” ...... 79 Fraction of Tournaments Won...... 37 Fraction of Points Earned in Biggest Win . . . . .80 Tiers of Tournaments Played and Average Tier...... 38 Points Earned Week by Week ...... 39 Winning and Losing Streaks ...... 81 Tournament Results, from Most to Least ...... 40 Winning and Losing Streaks, Sorted by Player...... 81 List of Longest Winning Streaks...... 83 Alternate Rankings...... 41 Number of Significant Results...... 84 Total Points Ranking (1997 Ranking System) ...... 41 Points Per Tournament, Minimum 14 (The Divisor)...... 42 Points Per Quarter ...... 85 Points Per Tournament, Minimum 17 First Quarter ...... 85 (“Modernized Divisor”) ...... 43 Second Quarter ...... 85 Best 14 ...... 44 Third Quarter...... 86 Slotted Best 18 (ATP Entry Rank) ...... 45 Fourth Quarter ...... 86 Total Wins...... 46 Most Consistent over Four Quarters ...... 87 Winning Percentage...... 47 Slam Results...... 88 Divisor Rankings, No Slam Bonus...... 48 The “Majors Ranking”...... 49 Surface Rankings...... 89 Total Round Points ...... 50 Hardcourts ...... 89 Round Points Per Tournament...... 51 Summary of Hardcourt Results ...... 89 Quality Points Per Tournament Winning Percentage on Hardcourts...... 92 (“Future Potential Ranking”) ...... 52 Points Per Tournament on Hardcourts ...... 93 Quality/Round Points Equalized: 2Q+/ ...... 53 Best and Worst Results on Hardcourts...... 94 Consistency-Rewarded Rankings ...... 54 Clay ...... 95 Logarithmic Points Award...... 54 Summary of Clay Results...... 95 Worst 14...... 55 Winning Percentage on Clay...... 97 Middle Half...... 56 Points Per Tournament on Clay...... 98 Idealized Ranking Systems ...... 57 Best and Worst Results on Clay ...... 99 Proposal 1: Surface-Modified Divisor (Min. 16)...... 57 Grass...... 100 Proposal 2 — Adjusted Won/Lost...... 59 Summary of Grass Results ...... 100 Adjusted Winning Percentage, No Bonuse...... 61 Adjusted Points Per Tournament on Grass...... 103 Percentage of Possible Points Earned...... 62

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 2

Contents Indoors ...... 104 Alternate Doubles Rankings ...... 163 Summary of Indoor Results ...... 104 Rankings under the 1996 Ranking System Winning Percentage Indoors...... 106 (Divisor, Minimum 14)...... 163 Points Per Tournament Indoors ...... 107 Majors Ranking ...... 164 Best and Worst Results Indoors...... 108 Combined Singles and Doubles Rankings . . . .166 All-Surface Players ...... 109 WTA Calendar for 2001 Tournament Wins by Surface ...... 110 Events and Results...... 168 Assorted Statistics...... 111 The Tennis Almanac 2001 ...... 181 The Busiest Players on the Tour ...... 111 Total Tour Matches Played by Top Players...... 111 WTA Tour History ...... 197 Total Tour Events Played by the Top 150 ...... 112 Who Won What Summary — Singles ...... 197 The Strongest Tournaments ...... 113 Who Won What Summary — Doubles...... 198 Tournament Strength Based on Who Won What — the Four Top Players Present ...... 114 History of Tournaments ...... 199 The Top Tournaments Based on Top Players Present — Who Won What Part 1: 1995Ð2001 ...... 199 Method 1 ...... 116 Who Won What Part 2: 1989Ð1995 ...... 200 The Top Tournaments Based on Top Players Present — Who Won What Part 3: 1986Ð1989 ...... 201 Method 2 ...... 117 Who Won What Part 4: 1983Ð1986 ...... 202 Strongest Tournaments Won ...... 118 Active Leaders in Titles (Singles/Doubles)...... 204 Strongest Tournament Performances...... 119 Detailed Analysis — Career Tournaments for Davenport, Title Defences ...... 119 Hingis, Seles, V. Williams...... 205 Seeds and their Success Rates ...... 120 Career Results for Leading Players ...... 206 Bagels...... 124 Slam History...... 213 The Road to Victory...... 128 Singles Slam Winners, Open Era ...... 213 Games Lost in Path to Title ...... 128 Doubles Slam Winners, Open Era...... 214 Quality Points Earned ...... 129 Doubles Slams and Partners ...... 215 “Top Players” 2001 ...... 130 Grand Slams and Career Slams ...... 219 Total Slam Victories, Open Era ...... 221 Statistics About the Tour as a Whole...... 132 Players and Titles ...... 222 The Year of the Injury ...... 133 Players with Titles, Year by Year ...... 222 Doubles...... 134 Most Titles, Year By Year ...... 224 The Final Top 30 in Doubles ...... 134 Five Or More Titles in a Year ...... 225 The Initial Top 25 in Doubles...... 135 Year-End Top Players ...... 226 Doubles Ranking Fluctuation ...... 136 Year-End Top Eight, Alphabetical, with Years, The Final Top Fifty in Doubles ...... 138 Since 1975...... 226 Individual Results: Total Years Ended At Each Rank, Top Thirty Doubles Players/Results ...... 139 Alphabetical, Since 1975 ...... 228 Strongest Career Rankings Showings ...... 229 Head-to-Heads — Team Losses ...... 152 Total Years in the Top Eight ...... 230 Team and Individual Statistics...... 158 Doubles Wins & Partners...... 231 Teams with the Most Events...... 158 Winningest Doubles Player, Year By Year, Doubles Winning Percentages for the Top Thirty...... 159 From 1983...... 231 Doubles Winning Percentages for the Top Teams ...... 160 Titles With Multiple Partners, Team Doubles Titles, Single Year, Open Era ...... 232 Sorted from Most to Least ...... 161 Slams With the Most Partners, Open Era...... 232 Doubles Tournament Winners by Date Comings and Goings: (High-Tier Events) ...... 162 On and Off the Rankings ...... 233 Index ...... 237

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 3

Introduction In , they remembered their kings by nickname: Charles the Bald, Louis the Spider. In Britain, it was parliaments with the nicknames: The Addled Parliament, the Parliament of Bats. If the WTA ever adopts the habit of nicknaming its seasons, 2001 will probably be the Year of Chaos. Three different #1 players — and the player that most people felt was the best player of the year was not one of them. A Slam winner who could win only one non-Slam title. Six different Slam finalists. Lesser titles scattered to the winds. What actually happened in 2001? Who really deserved to be #1? Was the best player on hardcourts also the best player on clay? Grass? Indoors? That’ a large part of what this document attempts to analyse. It’s an investigation of the top players (generally the top thirty) and their results. This includes doubles, and there is also an extensive section on WTA history. As for who was #1? — That turned out to be very complicated. People in 2000 complained that was #1 without winning a Slam title — but Hingis earned it by having the best overall year of any player on the Tour. She wasn’t the best Slam player — but she was so overwhelmingly superior in non- Slams that she properly earned the ranking. There was no such clear result this year, though we again had a #1 player who didn’t win a Slam. Who didn’t even reach a Slam final. Who didn’t even play a match on clay. And yet, was the #1 player by at least some measures other than the WTA’s. In the course of this document, you’ see about twenty different rankings. They simply don’t agree. , Davenport, and all lead in certain categories and stumble in others — so much that even Hingis and , though is not #1 in any given ranking, passes each of them in one or another measure. If we take what I regard as the three “best” rankings — adjusted winning percentage, surface-balanced divisor, and majors ranking — we still see a three-way split: Davenport was best in the first, Capriati in the second, Venus took top honours in the third. We might put it this way: All three had failings. Davenport didn’t have the Slams or the clay. Capriati didn’t have the titles (only three all told). Venus didn’t have the events (she only played twelve, to seventeen for Capriati and Davenport). So you’ll have to make up your own minds. But this document will give you much of the information you need. And more, because there is more to the WTA Tour than the #1 ranking. Did you know that there were three different players undefeated indoors this year? That every player in the Top Ten won at least three tournaments? That only five players were in the Top Ten at the beginning and end of the year, and only two had the same ranking. It’s all here. I hope you enjoy reading it far more than I enjoyed compiling it....

NOTE: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the data in this document, but it’s a lot of work; neither the author nor Tennis News can assume any responsibility for any errors or their interpretation. The author wishes to thank Daily Tennis (www.tennisnews.com) for making space available for this publication.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 4

2001 In Review: The Top Players The Final Top Thirty These are the players we’ll be talking about most. For purposes of reference, here are the Final 2001 Top 30 as determined by the WTA. We note that, with the exception of Sugiyama, all of these women were in the Top 25 for at least part of the year. Final Player Best 17 Number of Gap from Began Net Rank Name Score Tournaments Preceding Year At Change 1Davenport, Lindsay 4902 17 2 1 2 Capriati, Jennifer 4892 17 10 14 12 3Williams, Venus 4128 12 764 3 0 4 Hingis, Martina 3944 18 184 1 -3 5 Clijsters, Kim 3265 22 679 18 13 6Williams, Serena 3004 10 261 6 0 7 Hénin, Justine 2989* 22* 15 45 38 8 Dokic, Jelena 2780 26 209 24 16 9 Mauresmo, Amélie 2765 16 15 16 7 10 Seles, Monica 2306 14 459 4 -6 11 Testud, Sandrine 2056 28 250 19 8 12 Shaughnessy, Meghann 1833 26 223 38 26 13 Tauziat, Nathalie 1754 22 79 10 -3 14 Farina Elia, Silvia 1738 28 16 63 49 15 Dementieva, Elena 1576 22 162 11 -4 16 Maleeva, Magdalena 1571 25 5 23 7 17 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 1548 24 23 8 -9 18 Huber, Anke 1495 20 53 19 1 19 Coetzer, Amanda 1474 22 21 12 -7 20 Tulyaganova, Iroda 1166 26 308 75 55 21 Schett, Barbara 1151 25 15 22 1 22 Raymond, Lisa 1101 21 50 30 8 23 Montolio, Angeles 1058* 26* 43 55 32 24 Grande, Rita 1020 29 38 77 53 25 Nagyova, Henrieta 993 23 27 40 15 26 Serna, Magui 973 29 29 38 12 27 Suarez, Paola 968 16 5 37 10 28 Bedanova, Daja 935 20 33 54 26 29 Tanasugarn, Tamarine 916 22 19 29 0 30 Sugiyama, Ai 910 25 6 33 3 * Includes points from Challengers after the end of the tournament year in 2000. These do not affect the rankings.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 5

The Beginning Top Twenty-Five Rank Name 2001 Final Ranking Net Change 1 Hingis, Martina 4 -3 2Davenport, Lindsay 1 +1 3Williams, Venus 3 0 4 Seles, Monica 10 -6 5 Martinez, Conchita 35 -30 6Williams, Serena 6 0 7 Pierce, Mary 130 -123 8 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 17 -9 9Kournikova, Anna 74 -65 10 Tauziat, Nathalie 13 -3 11 Dementieva, Elena 15 -4 12 Coetzer, Amanda 19 -7 13 Rubin, Chanda 54 -41 14 Capriati, Jennifer 2 +13 15 Halard-Decugis, Julie retired/not ranked — 16 Mauresmo, Amélie 9 +7 17 Testud, Sandrine 11 +6 18 Clijsters, Kim 5 +13 19 Huber, Anke 18 +1 20 Frazier, Amy 48 -28 21 Likhovtseva, Elena 36 -15 22 Schett, Barbara 21 +1 23 Maleeva, Magdalena 16 +7 [24] Van Roost, Dominique retired/not ranked — 24 Dokic, Jelena 8 +16 25 Schnyder, Patty 38 -13 Summary of Changes, Beginning to End of 2001 Ranking Gains: From outside the Top 20 into the Top 20: , , Justine Hénin, , , Iroda Tulyaganova From outside the Top 20 into the Top 10: Jelena Dokic, Justine Hénin From the Top 20 into the Top 10: Jennifer Capriati, , Amélie Mauresmo Ranking Losses: Dropping out of the Top 20: , (Julie Halard-Decugis/Retired), (injured), Conchita Martinez(injured), (injured), (injured) Dropping out of the Top 10 but remaining in the Top 20: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Dropping from the Top 10 to below the Top 20: Anna Kournikova, Conchita Martinez, Mary Pierce Players who were in the Top 10 at beginning and end of the year: Lindsay Davenport, Martina Hingis, , Serena Williams, Venus Williams Players who were in the Top 20 at the beginning and end of the year: Jennifer Capriati, Kim Clijsters, , Lindsay Davenport, , Martina Hingis, , Amélie Mauresmo, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Monica Seles, Nathalie Tauziat, , Serena Williams, Venus Williams

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 6

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

Capriati (1) Hénin (5) Sanchez-Vicario (8) Clijsters (5) Hingis (1) Seles (4) Coetzer (7) Kournikova (8) Tauziat (9) Davenport (1) Martinez (5) S. Williams (6) Dementieva (9) Mauresmo (5) V. Williams (2) Dokic (8) Pierce (7)

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

Capriati (2) Hingis (1) Sanchez-Vicario (8) Clijsters (7) Huber (9) Seles (4) Coetzer (10) Kournikova (8) Tauziat (10) Davenport (2) Martinez (7) S. Williams (5) Dokic (10) Mauresmo (4) V. Williams (1) Hénin (8) Pierce (5)

Note that there are seventeen Top Ten players under both systems, but not the same players: Dementieva qualified only under WTA rules, Huber only under the divisor. The other sixteen players appear on both lists.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 7

Ranking Fluctuation The table below shows how each of the top players ranked in the course of the year. The tennis season is divided into half-month sections, and players’ rankings listed for the specified days. This is followed by the mean (average), median, and standard deviation (indicating how much a player’s ranking varied in the course of the year. Thus Pierce, with a standard deviation of 52.2, showed the biggest fluctuation in the course of the year, while Davenport, with standard deviations of 0.7, showed the least variation). Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Mean Std. 1151151151151151151151151151 15115 (avg) Median Dev. Bedanova 53 51 36 36 42 43 43 44 41 42 42 39 39 39 46 45 37 27 28 29 33 28 39.2 40.0 7.1 Capriati 14 1476555544444323222112 4.5 4.03.5 Clijsters 18 17 16 17 19 19 16 16 15 13 1477655555555 10.9 10.0 5.8 Coetzer 12 12 10 10 11 8 8 10 8 10 13 13 13 12 12 12 14 13 14 17 16 19 12.1 12.0 2.8 Davenport 2222222333333442333321 2.6 3.00.7 Déchy 26 23 23 24 29 36 36 38 48 39 43 38 38 44 47 56 54 55 50 48 48 44 40.3 41.0 10.4 Dementieva 11 11 12 11 10 11 11 9 10 9 10 11 12 11 11 11 11 15 13 13 12 15 11.4 11.0 1.6 Dokic 24 25 24 25 25 27 28 27 28 23 19 16 16 23 20 15 13 12 11 10 8 8 19.4 21.5 6.8 Farina Elia 63 50 44 49 38 38 33 32 29 29 23 18 17 18 16 16 16 16 17 15 15 14 27.5 20.5 14.2 Frazier 20 18 18 19 20 20 21 24 21 22 24 22 22 22 22 29 32 31 32 41 43 48 26.0 22.0 8.5 Grande 77 62 50 46 51 53 54 53 53 52 54 49 44 49 50 43 42 45 46 38 28 24 48.3 49.5 10.7 Hénin 45 22 20 21 22 21 20 20 19 16 1699566688767 14.5 12.5 9.5 Hingis 1111111111111111111234 1.3 1.00.8 Huber 19 16 17 16 15 15 15 14 16 18 17 20 21 20 21 21 17 21 20 19 19 18 18.0 18.0 2.3 Kournikova 9899899811891011131519202022243574 16.4 10.5 14.7 Likhovtseva 21 20 28 28 28 28 29 33 34 34 32 33 29 26 25 27 27 24 23 22 24 36 27.8 28.0 4.5 Maleeva 23 27 25 20 16 16 17 17 14 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 15 14 16 16 17 16 16.7 16.0 3.8 Martinez 55656667914122120161720222324262535 15.0 15.0 8.8 Mauresmo 16 20 19 14 13 13 13 1576566777766679 9.8 7.04.7 Montolio 55 54 54 54 53 49 51 51 36 31 30 30 30 28 31 30 29 28 26 27 26 23 37.5 30.5 12.0 Nagyova 40 37 37 37 32 32 32 31 31 33 33 27 26 24 27 25 23 22 21 21 22 25 29.0 29.0 5.8 Pierce 7788771012171718757690879090135 134 133 132 130 58.6 46.5 52.2 Raymond 30 26 26 26 26 25 25 25 24 25 27 25 27 31 32 33 31 32 30 30 23 22 27.3 26.0 3.2 Rubin 13 13 14 15 17 17 19 18 18 19 22 28 28 27 26 28 30 29 31 36 36 54 24.5 24.0 9.8 Sanchez-Vicario 8 9 13 13 14 14 14 11 13 12 8 15 15 19 18 17 21 19 18 18 18 17 14.7 14.5 3.7 Schett 22 21 21 22 21 22 22 21 23 24 25 23 23 21 23 22 19 18 19 20 21 21 21.5 21.5 1.7 Schnyder 25 24 29 31 34 33 35 37 46 32 34 32 33 33 34 35 40 40 47 47 49 37 35.8 34.0 6.7 Seles 44444444556881010889989106.6 7.02.4 Serna 37 35 33 33 30 29 27 23 22 26 26 26 24 29 29 24 25 33 33 31 29 26 28.6 29.0 4.1 Shaughnessy 38 31 30 27 27 24 24 26 25 20 20 19 18 15 14 14 12 11 12 12 13 12 20.2 19.5 7.6 Suarez 36 33 22 23 23 23 23 22 26 27 28 24 25 25 28 26 26 26 27 28 31 27 26.3 26.0 3.5 Sugiyama 32 29 49 39 37 44 42 43 47 40 36 51 50 47 48 39 39 38 38 33 39 30 10.4 39 6.4 Tanasugarn 28 30 27 29 24 26 26 28 27 28 29 29 31 30 30 31 28 30 29 25 27 29 28.2 28.5 1.9 Tauziat 10 10 11 12 12 12 12 13 12 11 11 12 10999 91010111113 10.9 11.0 1.3 Testud 17 15 15 18 18 18 18 19 20 21 21 17 19 17 19 18 18 17 15 14 14 11 17.2 18.0 2.4 Tulyaganova 75 78 75 75 63 65 70 59 67 67 60 57 55 48 24 23 24 25 25 23 20 20 49.9 58.0 22.0 S. Williams 66579107667755881010779106 7.3 7.01.7 V. Williams 3333333222222234444443 3.0 3.00.8 Note: Julie Halard-Decugis, #15 at the end of 2000, was removed from the rankings as of the January 15, 2001 ranking list, moving up all players below what would have been #17.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 8

Highest Ranking of 2001 For the 36 players who spent at least one week of 2001 in the Top 25, the following shows the highest ranking each achieved during the course of the year: Sorted by Name Sorted by Ranking Name Rank Name Rank Capriati 1 Capriati 1 Clijsters 5 Davenport 1 Coetzer 7 Hingis 1 Davenport 1 V. Williams 2 Déchy 23 Seles 4 Dementieva 9 Clijsters 5 Dokic 8 Hénin 5 Farina Elia 14 Martinez 5 Frazier 18 Mauresmo 5 Grande 24 S. Williams 5 Hénin 5 Coetzer 7 Hingis 1 Pierce 7 Huber 13 Dokic 8 Kournikova 8 Kournikova 8 Likhovtseva 19 Sanchez-Vicario 8 Maleeva 13 Dementieva 9 Martinez 5 Tauziat 9 Mauresmo 5 Shaughnessy 11 Montolio 23 Testud 11 Nagyova 21 Huber 13 Pierce 7 Maleeva 13 Raymond 22 Rubin 13 Rubin 13 Farina Elia 14 Sanchez-Vicario 8 Frazier 18 Schett 18 Schett 18 Schnyder 23 Likhovtseva 19 Seles 4 Tulyaganova 20 Serna 21 Nagyova 21 Shaughnessy 11 Serna 21 Suarez 22 Raymond 22 Tanasugarn 24 Suarez 22 Tauziat 9 Déchy 23 Testud 11 Montolio 23 Tulyaganova 20 Schnyder 23 S. Williams 5 Grande 24 V. Williams 2 Tanasugarn 24

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 9

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 2000 and 2001 results equally into account, since rankings at the beginning of the year were based entirely on 2000 results, while 2001 results were the sole influence by the end of the year.

Median Rank Player 1 Hingis 3 Davenport 3 V. Williams 4 Capriati 7 Mauresmo 7 Seles 7 S. Williams 10 Clijsters 10.5 Kournikova 11 Dementieva 11 Tauziat 12 Coetzer 12.5 Hénin 14.5 Sanchez-Vicario 15 Martinez 16 Maleeva 18 Huber 18 Testud 19.5 Shaughnessy 20.5 Farina Elia 21.5 Dokic 21.5 Schett 22 Frazier 24 Rubin 26 Raymond 26 Suarez 28 Likhovtseva 28.5 Tanasugarn 29 Nagyova 29 Serna 30.5 Montolio 34 Schnyder 39 Sugiyama 41 Déchy 46.5 Pierce 49.5 Grande 58 Tulyaganova

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 10

Short Summary: The Top Eighty The following table shows the entire WTA Top Eighty, with brief summary of results. In the table, Final Rank is a player’s year-end ranking (based on the November 12, 2001 rankings), Player is of course the player, Score is her Best 17 point total, # ofTrn is the number of tournaments she played, Best Rank is her highest ranking during the year 2001, Won/Lost is won/lost record (in the notes to this field, Wi=Withdrawal, WO=walkover. So Davenport, for instance, won 62 matches, lost nine, withdrew from one, and received two walkovers). Note that this figure includes only WTA main draws. Many players will have losses in wins and losses in qualifying and/or Challengers; the highest-ranked of these appears to be Farina Elia. Titles is the list of titles the player won, if any. We list the names (or abbreviations, for top players), then the number in parentheses. So Capriati’s line, .., reads AO, Charl, RG (3). This means Capriati won three titles — , Charleston, Roland Garros. Final # of Best Rank Player Name Score Trn Rank Won/Lost Titles 1 Lindsay Davenport 4902 17 1 62-9 (+1Wi, 2WO) PP, Soc, Eas, LA, Fil, Zu, Li (7) 2 Jennifer Capriati 4892 17 1 56-14 AO, Charl, RG (3) 3 Venus Williams 4128 12 2 46-5 (+1 Wi) Eri, Ham, Wi, SD, , USO (6) 4 Martina Hingis 3944 18 1 60-15 , , Dubai (3) 5 Kim Clijsters 3265 22 5 54-18 (+1 Wi) Stanford, , Lux (3) 6 Serena Williams 3004 10 5 38-7 (+2 WO) Indian , Canad, Muni (3) 7 Justine Hénin 2989 22* 5 56-18 GoldC, Canber, ’s-Hert (3) 8 Jelena Dokic 2780 26 8 53-23 , PrincCup, Mosc (3) 9 Amélie Mauresmo 2765 16 5 42-11 (+1Wi, 1WO) , Nice, AmelI, Berl (4) 10 Monica Seles 2306 14 4 40-10 OklaC, Bahia, JapO, Sha (4) 11 Sandrine Testud 2056 28 11 53-27 Big Island (1) 12 Meghann Shaughnessy 1833 26 11 45-24 (+1Wi) (1) 13 Nathalie Tauziat 1754 22 9 34-21 (1) 14 Silvia Farina Elia 1738 28 14 44-26 (1) 15 Elena Dementieva 1576 22 9 33-21 (+1Wi, 1WO) 16 Magdalena Maleeva 1571 25 13 35-24 (1) 17 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 1548 24 8 34-22 Porto, (2) 18 Anke Huber 1495 20 13 35-20 19 Amanda Coetzer 1474 22 7 32-21 Acupulco (1) 20 Iroda Tulyaganova 1166 26 20 30-23 Vienna, Knokke (2) 21 1151 25 18 29-25 22 1101 21 22 33-21 23 Angeles Montolio 1058 26* 23 36-22 Estoril, Bol (2) 24 1020 29 24 35-27 Hobart, Bratislava (2) 25 Henrieta Nagyova 993 23 21 24-21 (+1 Wi) 26 Magui Serna 973 29 21 28-29 (+1WO) 27 Paola Suarez 968 16 22 27-15 Bogota (1) 28 Daja Bedanova 935 20 27 20-20 29 916 22 24 24-21 30 910 25 29 28-25 31 900 24 30 26-22 32 900 27 31 30-25 (1) 33 891 28 28 32-28 34 Lina Krasnoroutskaya 868 17 34 20-17 35 Conchita Martinez 853 13 5 19-13

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 11

36 837 25 19 25-24 37 816 25 23 24-24 Pattaya (1) 38 Daniela Hantuchova 810 19 37 19-16 39 792 22 36 20-21 40 787 31 32 22-30 41 Gala Leon Garcia 762 23 29 24-22 42 761 25 32 20-22 43 Marlene Weingärtner 747 29 38 21-26 44 Nathalie Déchy 715 26 23 21-25 45 688 26 36 25-23 (1) 46 680 24 40 21-23 47 663 26 47 14-16 (+1Wi) 48 Amy Frazier 654 19 18 19-19 49 649 20 49 16-19 50 Denisa Chladkova 639 22 39 16-20 (+1WO) 51 Rossana Neffa-de los Rios 639 29 51 19-24 52 636 25 50 22-23 53 Mariana Diaz-Oliva 628 28 42 18-22 54 Chanda Rubin 627 16 13 16-16 55 625 29 41 23-25 56 604 19 48 13-18 57 604 31 52 20-24 58 601 27 34 19-25 59 590 19 48 11-12 (+1 Wi) 60 589 24 57 15-15 61 589 27 53 20-22 62 585.5 19 59 10-9 63 575 23 56 16-17 64 558.5 33 64 8-14 65 536 27 57 16-20 (1) 66 Martina Sucha 536 26 57 13-10 67 521 24 59 14-12 Tashkent (1) 68 520 23 46 16-18 (1) 69 519 24 69 10-17 70 Rachel McQuillan 517 24 57 12-16 (+1Wi) 71 Jana Kandarr 516 28 43 12-21 72 514.5 20 66 10-12 73 Evie Dominikovic 493 28 64 11-20 74 Anna Kournikova 484 10 8 10-10 75 Janette Husarova 483 22 67 10-15 76 482 27 68 12-21 77 Adriana Gersi 482 22 57 13-16 Basel (1) 78 Marie-Gaiane Mikaelian 477.5 14 75 9-5 79 Maja Matevzic 477 23 77 2-4 80 Rita Kuti Kis 468 19 49 16-19 Players not in the Top 80 with titles are: Zsofia Gubacsi (Casablanca), Angelique Widjaja (Bali) * Hénin’s and Montolio’s totals includes a Challenger in late 2000. Other players, particularly those near the end of the list (e.g. Matevzic, who played her first career main draw matches this year) will also have Challengers, which means that their total events will not add up to their losses plus titles.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 12

The Top 200, in Numerical Order 1 Lindsay Davenport 53 Mariana Diaz-Oliva 104 Martina Müller 156 Laurence Andretto 2 Jennifer Capriati 54 Chanda Rubin 105 Andrea Glass 157 3 Venus Williams 55 Lilia Osterloh 106 Seda Noorlander 158 Conchita Martinez 4 Martina Hingis 56 Virginia Ruano 107 Granados 5 Kim Clijsters Pascual 108 159 6 Serena Williams 57 Jennifer Hopkins 109 160 7 Justine Hénin 58 Cara Black 110 161 Sarah Pitkowski- 8 Jelena Dokic 59 Anastasia Myskina 111 Aniko Kapros Malcor 9 Amélie Mauresmo 60 Alexandra Stevenson 112 Miroslava Vavrinec 162 10 Monica Seles 61 Marta Marrero 113 163 11 Sandrine Testud 62 Petra Mandula 114 Lubomira Bacheva 164 12 Meghann 63 Tina Pisnik 115 165 Su-Wei Hsieh Shaughnessy 64 Marissa Irvin 116 166 Nathalie Vierin 13 Nathalie Tauziat 65 Anabel Medina 117 167 Kyra Nagy 14 Silvia Farina Elia Garrigues 118 Greta Arn 168 Dawn Buth 15 Elena Dementieva 66 Martina Sucha 119 Yoon Jeong Cho 169 Annabel Ellwood 16 Magdalena Maleeva 67 Bianka Lamade 120 Anne-Gaëlle Sidot 170 Laurence Courtois 17 Arantxa Sanchez- 68 Barbara Rittner 121 Sandra Kleinova 171 Vicario 69 Emmanuelle 122 Catalina Castano 172 18 Anke Huber Gagliardi 123 Maria Emilia Salerni 173 19 Amanda Coetzer 70 Rachel McQuillan 124 Clarisa Fernandez 174 Lenka Dlhopolcova 20 Iroda Tulyaganova 71 Jana Kandarr 125 Maja Palaversic 175 Bahia Mouhtassine 21 Barbara Schett 72 Virginie Razzano Coopersmith 176 Jing-Qian Yi 22 Lisa Raymond 73 Evie Dominikovic 126 Karina Habsudova 177 Maria Vento-Kabchi 23 Angeles Montolio 74 Anna Kournikova 127 Stephanie Foretz 178 24 Rita Grande 75 Janette Husarova 128 179 25 Henrieta Nagyova 76 Tatiana Poutchek 129 180 26 Magui Serna 77 Adriana Gersi Ilie 181 Erika De Lone 27 Paola Suarez 78 Marie-Gaiane 130 Mary Pierce 182 Sylvia Plischke 28 Daja Bedanova Mikaelian 131 Alena Vaskova 183 Holly Parkinson 29 Tamarine Tanasugarn 79 Maja Matevzic 132 Lenka Nemeckova 184 Antonella Serra 30 Ai Sugiyama 80 Rita Kuti Kis 133 Jelena Kostanic Zanetti 31 Francesca Schiavone 81 134 Pavlina Nola 185 32 Cristina Torrens 82 135 186 Nadejda Ostrovskaya Valero 83 136 Evgenia 187 Bryanne Stewart 33 Anne Kremer 84 Koulikovskaya 188 Gisella Dulko 34 Lina Krasnoroutskaya 85 137 Eva Dyrberg 189 Nina Dubbers 35 Conchita Martinez 86 Kveta Hrdlickova 138 Klara Koukalova 190 Yvette Basting 36 Elena Likhovtseva 87 139 191 Mirjana Lucic 37 Patty Schnyder 88 140 Miriam Schnitzer 192 Iveta Benesova 38 Daniela Hantuchova 89 Barbara Schwartz 141 Alexandra Fusai 193 Anastassia Rodionova 39 Nadia Petrova 90 142 194 40 Tatiana Panova 91 Ludmila Cervanova 143 Ainhoa Goni 195 Adrienne Hegedus 41 Gala Leon Garcia 92 Maria Jose Martinez 144 196 Zuzana Ondraskova 42 Iva Majoli 93 145 Marie-Eve Pelletier 197 43 Marlene Weingärtner 94 Emilie Loit 146 198 Eun-Ha Kim 44 Nathalie Déchy 95 147 Angelika Roesch 199 Dessislava Topalova 45 Meilen Tu 96 Nuria Llagostera 148 Tatiana Perebiynis 200 Lucie Ahl 46 Joannette Kruger Vives 149 Angelique Widjaja 47 Alicia Molik 97 Irina Selyutina 150 48 Amy Frazier 98 151 49 Elena Bovina 99 Eva Bes 152 50 Denisa Chladkova 100 Sandra Cacic 153 51 Rossana Neffa-de los 101 Celine Beigbeder 154 - Rios 102 Åsa Carlsson Aracama 52 Nicole Pratt 103 Zsofia Gubacsi 155 Michaela Pastikova

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 13

The Top 200, in Alphabetical Order 200 Lucie Ahl 69 Emmanuelle 70 Rachel McQuillan 17 Arantxa Sanchez- 156 Laurence Andretto Gagliardi 65 Anabel Medina Vicario 118 Greta Arn 90 Tathiana Garbin Garrigues 157 Valentina Sassi 108 Shinobu Asagoe 77 Adriana Gersi 78 Marie-Gaiane 21 Barbara Schett 114 Lubomira Bacheva 105 Andrea Glass Mikaelian 31 Francesca Schiavone 194 Angelika Bachmann 143 Ainhoa Goni 47 Alicia Molik 140 Miriam Schnitzer 110 Anca Barna 24 Rita Grande 23 Angeles Montolio 37 Patty Schnyder 190 Yvette Basting 103 Zsofia Gubacsi 171 Corina Morariu 89 Barbara Schwartz 28 Daja Bedanova 126 Karina Habsudova 197 Akiko Morigami 10 Monica Seles 101 Celine Beigbeder 38 Daniela Hantuchova 175 Bahia Mouhtassine 97 Irina Selyutina 192 Iveta Benesova 195 Adrienne Hegedus 104 Martina Müller 153 Milagros Sequera 99 Eva Bes 7 Justine Hénin 59 Anastasia Myskina 26 Magui Serna 58 Cara Black 4 Martina Hingis 167 Kyra Nagy 83 Adriana Serra Zanetti 146 Kristie Boogert 57 Jennifer Hopkins 25 Henrieta Nagyova 184 Antonella Serra 49 Elena Bovina 164 Amanda Hopmans 51 Rossana Neffa-de los Zanetti 144 Allison Bradshaw 86 Kveta Hrdlickova Rios 82 Selima Sfar 81 Kristina Brandi 165 Su-Wei Hsieh 95 Jana Nejedly 12 Meghann 168 Dawn Buth 18 Anke Huber 132 Lenka Nemeckova Shaughnessy 100 Sandra Cacic 180 Liezel Huber 134 Pavlina Nola 120 Anne-Gaëlle Sidot 160 Els Callens 75 Janette Husarova 106 Seda Noorlander 87 Anna Smashnova 113 Maria Elena Camerin 64 Marissa Irvin 116 Saori Obata 98 Katarina Srebotnik 2 Jennifer Capriati 107 Alina Jidkova 196 Zuzana Ondraskova 60 Alexandra Stevenson 102 Åsa Carlsson 71 Jana Kandarr 85 Miriam Oremans 187 Bryanne Stewart 122 Catalina Castano 111 Aniko Kapros 55 Lilia Osterloh 27 Paola Suarez 91 Ludmila Cervanova 198 Eun-Ha Kim 186 Nadejda Ostrovskaya 66 Martina Sucha 163 Jane Chi 121 Sandra Kleinova 125 Maja Palaversic 30 Ai Sugiyama 50 Denisa Chladkova 133 Jelena Kostanic Coopersmith 109 Silvija Talaja 119 Yoon Jeong Cho 138 Klara Koukalova 40 Tatiana Panova 29 Tamarine Tanasugarn 5 Kim Clijsters 136 Evgenia 183 Holly Parkinson 13 Nathalie Tauziat 19 Amanda Coetzer Koulikovskaya 155 Michaela Pastikova 142 Sarah Taylor 170 Laurence Courtois 74 Anna Kournikova 145 Marie-Eve Pelletier 11 Sandrine Testud 93 Jill Craybas 34 Lina Krasnoroutskaya 148 Tatiana Perebiynis 199 Dessislava Topalova 84 Eleni Daniilidou 33 Anne Kremer 39 Nadia Petrova 32 Cristina Torrens 1 Lindsay Davenport 46 Joannette Kruger 130 Mary Pierce Valero 181 Erika De Lone 80 Rita Kuti Kis 178 Camille Pin 45 Meilen Tu 44 Nathalie Déchy 67 Bianka Lamade 63 Tina Pisnik 20 Iroda Tulyaganova 15 Elena Dementieva 115 Janet Lee 161 Sarah Pitkowski- 135 Julia Vakulenko 53 Mariana Diaz-Oliva 41 Gala Leon Garcia Malcor 131 Alena Vaskova 174 Lenka Dlhopolcova 36 Elena Likhovtseva 182 Sylvia Plischke 112 Miroslava Vavrinec 8 Jelena Dokic 96 Nuria Llagostera 76 Tatiana Poutchek 177 Maria Vento-Kabchi 73 Evie Dominikovic Vives 88 Wynne Prakusya 166 Nathalie Vierin 129 Ruxandra Dragomir 94 Emilie Loit 52 Nicole Pratt 172 Roberta Vinci Ilie 191 Mirjana Lucic 162 Julie Pullin 151 Patricia Wartusch 179 Maureen Drake 42 Iva Majoli 139 Dally Randriantefy 150 Mashona Washington 189 Nina Dubbers 16 Magdalena Maleeva 22 Lisa Raymond 43 Marlene Weingärtner 188 Gisella Dulko 62 Petra Mandula 72 Virginie Razzano 159 Christina Wheeler 137 Eva Dyrberg 154 Katalin Marosi- 117 Samantha Reeves 149 Angelique Widjaja 169 Annabel Ellwood Aracama 68 Barbara Rittner 6 Serena Williams 14 Silvia Farina Elia 61 Marta Marrero 193 Anastassia Rodionova 3 Venus Williams 152 Evelyn Fauth 35 Conchita Martinez 147 Angelika Roesch 176 Jing-Qian Yi 124 Clarisa Fernandez 158 Conchita Martinez 56 Virginia Ruano 127 Stephanie Foretz Granados Pascual 48 Amy Frazier 92 Maria Jose Martinez 54 Chanda Rubin 128 Rika Fujiwara 185 Marion Maruska 173 Miho Saeki 141 Alexandra Fusai 79 Maja Matevzic 123 Maria Emilia Salerni 9 Amélie Mauresmo

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 14

Tournament Results Summary of Results for Top Players The list below shows all the tournaments the top players played in 2001. For these purposes, any player who spent even one week of 2001 in the Top 25 is included; a handful of others have been listed because we thought they might be in the Top 25, and why delete them now? To explain the data in the table: The numbers in parentheses list, first, the Tier of the tournament, second, how far the player went, and third, the number of wins achieved. This is followed by a list of top players beaten en route, with the player’s rank at the time. For example, the second item in the entry for Daja Bedanova reads Australian Open (Slam, R16/S. Williams [6], 3) — Dementieva (11). This means that Bedanova’s second tournament was Open. The “Slam” means that it was a Slam; if a Roman numeral is used, it refers to the tier of the event. R16/S. Williams means that Bedanova reached the Round of Sixteen, where she was beaten by Serena Williams, then ranked #6. The 3 indicates that she won three matches prior to that defeat. Players she defeated included Dementieva (then ranked #11). (Note: only wins over Top 35 players are listed.) If a description is in bold, it means the player won the title. Rank & Name Events Played 28/ Canberra (III, 2R/Déchy [26], 1) Bedanova Australian Open (Slam, R16/S. Williams [6], 3) — Dementieva (11) Pan Pacific (I, 1R/Black [40], 0) Indian Wells (I, 1R/Kandarr [79], 0) Ericsson (I, 2R/Davenport [2], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Farina Elia [23], 2) Birmingham (III, 1R/Oremans [89], 0) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Sidot [54], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Martinez [20], 0) Stanford (II, 1R/Shaughnessy [15], 0) San Diego (II, R16/V. Williams [3], 2) — Sanchez-Vicario (18) (II, R16/Davenport [3], 2) — Schett (22) (I, R16/Shaughnessy [14], 2) — Maleeva (13) New Haven (II, 1R/Hrdlickova [69], 0+3 in qualifying) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/Hingis [1], 4) — Shaughnessy (12), Seles (8) Leipzig (II, 1R/Kremer [37], 0) (I, QF/Farina Elia [17], 2) — Torrens Valero (35), Mauresmo (6) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Mauresmo [6], 0) Bratislava (IV, 1R/Osterloh [64], 0) (II, 2R/Davenport [3], 1) 2/ Sydney (II, 2R/Raymond [29], 1) Capriati Australian Open (Slam, Win, 7) — Seles (4), Davenport (2), Hingis (1) Oklahoma City (III, /Seles [4], 3) — Raymond (25) Scottsdale (II, SF/Davenport [2], 2) Ericsson (I, F/V. Williams [3], 5) — Tanasugarn (26), S. Williams (7), Dementieva (11) Charleston (I, Win, 5) — Nagyova (31), Hingis (1) (I, F/Mauresmo [9], 4) — Dokic (23), Testud (20), Martinez (7), Hénin (18) Rome (I, 2R/Kuti Kis [59], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, Won, 7) — Shaughnessy (20), S. Williams (7), Hingis (1), Clijsters (14) Wimbledon (Slam, SF/Hénin [9], 5) — Schiavone (35), Panova (34), Testud (19), S. Williams (5) San Diego (II, QF/Seles [10], 2) — Dokic (20) Canadian Open (I, F/S. Williams [10], 4) — Shaughnessy (14), Huber (21) New Haven (II, SF/V. Williams [4], 2) — Huber (17), Dokic (14) U. S. Open (Slam, SF/V. Williams [4], 5) — Schett (19), Mauresmo (7) Filderstadt (II, QF/Testud [15], 1) Zurich (I, SF/Davenport [3], 2) Munich (Champ, QF/Testud [14], 1) — Maleeva (17)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 15

5/ Sydney (II, 2R/Hingis [1], 1) Clijsters Australian Open (Slam, R16/Davenport [2], 3) Scottsdale (II, QF/Shaughnessy [27], 1) Indian Wells (I, F/S. Williams [10], 5) — Hénin (21), Hingis (1) Ericsson (I, R16/S. Williams [7], 2) — Leon Garcia (30) Bol (III, SF/Diaz-Oliva [65], 2) Berlin (I, 1R/Kremer [30], 0) Rome (I, 2R/Gagliardi [112], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, F/Capriati [4], 6) — Nagyova (33), Hénin (16) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, F/Hénin [9], 3) — Dokic (16) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/Davenport [3], 4) — Montolio (30), Shaughnessy (18) Knokke-Heist (IV, SF/Tulyaganova [34], 3) — Serna (27) Stanford (II, Win, 4) — Rubin (26), Shaughnessy (15), Davenport (4) San Diego (II, 2R/Sugiyama [48], 0) Los Angeles (II, QF/Tauziat [9], 2) New Haven (II, withdrew from SF, 2) — Sanchez-Vicario (21), Tauziat (9) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/V. Williams [4], 4) — Nagyova (23), Dementieva (11) Princess Cup (II, SF/Dokic [11], 2) — Tanasugarn (32) Leipzig (II, Win, 4) — Farina Elia (15), Dementieva (17), Maleeva (16) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Huber [20], 0) Luxembourg (III, Win, 4) — Grande (28), Kournikova (22), Coetzer (17), Raymond (31) Munich (Cbamp, SF/Davenport [2], 2) — Dementieva (12), Sanchez-Vicario (18) 19/ Sydney (II, 2R/Mauresmo [16], 1) Coetzer Australian Open (Slam, QF/V. Williams [3], 4) — Suarez (33) Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Asagoe [77], 0) Oklahoma City (III, 2R/Hantuchova [108], 1) Acupulco (III, Win, 4) — Suarez (23), Dementieva (10) Ericsson (I, R16/Dokic [28], 2) Amelia Island (II, F/Mauresmo [15], 4) — Dokic (27), Shaughnessy (26) Charleston (I, QF/Weingärtner [63], 2) — Panova (33), Leon Garcia (30) (II, SF/Shaughnessy [25], 2) — Hénin (19) Berlin (I, QF/Mauresmo [9], 2) — Leon Garcia (33), Shaughnessy (21) Strasbourg (III, 2R/Sugiyama [40], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Schiavone [51], 2) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Raymond [30], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Shaughnessy [18], 2) Canadian Open (I, R16/Hopkins [76], 1) New Haven (II, 1R/Myskina [118], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Schwartz [155], 0) Bahia (II, QF/Nagyova [22], 1) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Panova [41], 0) Zurich (I, 2R/Davenport [3], 1) — Kournikova (24) Luxembourg (III, SF/Clijsters [5], 3) Munich (Cbamp, 1R/Davenport [2], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 16

1/ Sydney (II, F/Hingis [1], 2+1 walkover) — Schett (22), Raymond (29) Davenport Australian Open (Slam, SF/Capriati [14], 5) — Dokic (25), Clijsters (17), Kournikova (8) Pan Pacific (I, Win, 4) — Shaughnessy (30), Kournikova (9), Hingis (1) Scottsdale (II, Win, 4) — Leon Garcia (33), Raymond (26), Capriati (5), Shaughnessy (27) Indian Wells (I, QF/S. Williams [10], 3) — Sidot (34), Raymond (25) Ericsson (I, QF/Dementieva [11], 3) — Testud (18) Eastbourne (II, Win, 4) — Farina Elia (18), Rubin (27), Serna (25) Wimbledon (Slam, SF/V. Williams [2], 5) — Schnyder (33), Dokic (16), Clijsters (7) Stanford (II, F/Clijsters [6], 3) — Seles (10) San Diego (II, SF/V. Williams [3], 3) — Schett (23), Testud (19) Los Angeles (II, Win, 5) — Dementieva (11), Tauziat (9), Seles (10) New Haven (II, F/V. Williams [4], 2+1 walkover) — Mauresmo (8) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/S. Williams [10], 4) — Montolio (29), Likhovtseva (21) Filderstadt (II, Win, 4) — Kremer (32), Mauresmo (6), Hingis (1), Hénin (7) Zurich (I, Win, 4) — Coetzer (17), Capriati (1), Dokic (10) Linz (II, Win, 4) — Bedanova (29), Testud (14), Maleeva (16), Dokic (9) Munich (Cbamp, withdrew from F, 3) — Coetzer (16), Dokic (8), Clijsters (5) 44/ Auckland (V, 1R/Weingärtner [87], 0) Déchy Canberra (III, SF/Hénin [31], 3) — Dementieva (11) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Suarez [33], 0) Paris (II, 2R/Tauziat [11], 1) Nice (II, 2R/Huber [16], 1) Indian Wells (I, R16/Bovina [141], 2) — Sanchez-Vicario (14) Ericsson (I, 2R/Osterloh [52], 0) Boynton Beach ($75K, SF/Nagyova [31], 3) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Dementieva [9], 1) Charleston (I, 1R/Glass [83], 0) Bol (III, 2R/Nola [75], 1) Berlin (I, R16/Hingis [1], 2) — Serna (26) Rome (I, 1R/Kremer [30], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Nagyova [33], 2) Birmingham (III, 1R/Hantuchova [68], 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 2R/Hénin [9], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Schett [23], 1) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Hopkins [76], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Schett [20], 0+3 in qualifying) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Nagyova [23], 1) Bahia (II, 2R/Farina Elia [16], 1) Quebec City (III, 2R/Reeves [144], 1) Open (III, 2R/Nola [120], 1) Shanghai (IV, 2R/Foretz [149], 1) Bratislava (IV, 2R/Lamade [74], 1) Luxembourg (III, 1R/Huber [19], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 17

15/ Canberra (III, QF/Déchy [26], 1) Dementieva Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Bedanova [51], 2) Paris (II, 2R/Maleeva [21], 0) Nice (II, QF/Maleeva [20], 1) Acupulco (III, F/Coetzer [11], 3) Indian Wells (I, QF/V. Williams [3], 3) — Kremer (31) Ericsson (I, SF/Capriati [5], 4) — Sanchez-Vicario (14), Davenport (2) Amelia Island (II, QF [withdrew], 2) — Likhovtseva (33) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Nagyova [33], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/Tulyaganova [68], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Huber [21], 2) Vienna (III, 2R/Tulyaganova [48], 0) San Diego (II, R16/Testud [19], 1) Los Angeles (II, QF/Davenport [3], 1 +1 walkover) Canadian Open (I, R16/Testud [18], 1) New Haven (II, 1R/Dokic [14], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Clijsters [5], 3) — Huber (17) Leipzig (II, SF/Clijsters [5], 3) — Likhovtseva (24) Moscow (I, F/Dokic [11], 4) — Hingis (1) Zurich (I, 1R/Mikaelian [105], 0) Linz (II, 2R/Panova [36], 1) Munich (Cbamp, 1R/Clijsters [5], 0) 8/ Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Davenport [2], 0) Dokic Ericsson (I, QF/V. Williams [3], 3) — Coetzer (8) Amelia Island (II, R16/Coetzer [10], 1) Charleston (I, 1R/Majoli [41], 0) Hamburg (II, SF/V. Williams [2], 3) — Maleeva (14), Sanchez-Vicario (13) Berlin (I, 2R/Capriati [4], 1) Rome (I, Win, 6) — Schnyder (32), Martinez (14), Mauresmo (6) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Mandula [131], 2) Birmingham (III, 2R/Molik [92], 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, SF/Clijsters [7], 3) — Nagyova (26) Wimbledon (Slam, 4R/Davenport [3], 3) — Schett (23) Vienna (III, 2R/Kostanic [169], 0) Knokke-Heist (IV, 1R/Chladkova [43], 0) Sopot (III, SF/Leon Garcia [66], 3) San Diego (II, R16/Capriati [2], 1) Los Angeles (II, R16/Tauziat [9], 1) Canadian Open (I, R16/Seles [8], 2) — Serna (24) New Haven (II, QF/Capriati [2], 2) — Dementieva (11), Raymond (32) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Hingis [1], 3) — Sanchez-Vicario (21) Bahia (II, F/Seles [9], 3) Princess Cup (II, Win, 4) — Krasnoroutskaya (35), Clijsters (5), Sanchez-Vicario (19) Leipzig (II, 2R/Hantuchova [57], 0) Moscow (I, Win, 5) — Farina Elia (17), Dementieva (13) Zurich (I, F/Davenport [3], 3) — Farina Elia (15), Tauziat (11) Linz (II, F/Davenport [3], 3) — Majoli (34), Tulyaganova (26) Munich (Cbamp, QF/Davenport [2], 1) — Shaughnessy (13)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 18

14/ Gold Coast (III, F/Hénin [45], 4) — Talaja (29), Schnyder (25) Farina Elia Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Davenport [2], 2) Paris (II, lost in 2R of Qualifying/Kleinova [126], 0+1 in qualifying) Nice (II, QF/Huber [16], 2) — Martinez (5) Acupulco (III, 1R/Ruano Pascual [81], 0) Indian Wells (I, QF/Hingis [1], 3) — Huber (15) Porto (IV, SF/Sanchez-Vicario [15], 3) Amelia Island (II, QF/Petrova [90], 3) — Martinez (7) Charleston (I, 2R/Pratt [71], 1) Hamburg (II, QF/V. Williams [2], 2) Berlin (I, 2R/Chladkova [54], 1) Rome (I, 2R/Leon Garcia [38], 1) — Testud (21) Strasbourg (III, Win, 5) — Tauziat (11), Huber (21) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Krasnoroutskaya [62], 3) — Maleeva (15), Panova (35) Eastbourne (II, QF/Davenport [3], 1+1 walkover) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Petrova [42], 2) Knokke-Heist (IV, 2R/de los Rios [85], 1) Sopot (III, SF/Torrens Valero [52], 2) Basel (IV, 1R/Mikaelian [167], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Nagyova [27], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Matevzic [105], 0) Bahia (II, QF/de los Rios [75], 1) Quebec City (III, 2R/Sucha [100], 0) Leipzig (II, QF/Clijsters [5], 2) Moscow (I, SF/Dokic [11], 3) — Tulyaganova (25), Bedanova (28) Zurich (I, QF/Dokic [10], 2) — Huber (19), Raymond (30) Luxembourg (III, 2R/Pisnik [86], 0) Munich (Champ, 1R/S. Williams [10], 0) 48/ Hobart (V, QF/Grande [84], 2) Frazier Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Grande [62], 1) Paris (II, QF/Tauziat [11], 2) — Sidot (28) Nice (II, 1R/Tu [51], 0) Oklahoma City (III, 1R/Cacic [129], 0) Indian Wells (I, 2R/McQuillan [71], 0) Ericsson (I, 3R/Serna [27], 1) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Craybas [112], 0) Charleston (I, QF/Martinez [8], 3) — Pierce (14) Madrid (III, 1R/Brandi [47], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Petrova [58], 2) — Sanchez-Vicario (8) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Serna [25], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Maleeva [14], 2) Stanford (II, 2R/Kandarr [53], 1) San Diego (II, 2R/Stevenson [111], 0) Los Angeles (II, QF/Hingis [1], 2) Canadian Open (I, 3R/Hénin [6], 2) — Kremer (32), Rubin (28) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Rittner [53], 0) Big Island (IV, 2R/Jidkova [114], 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 19

24/ Auckland (V, 1R/Schiavone [80], 0) Grande Hobart (V, Win, 5) — Frazier (20) Australian Open (Slam, R16/Hingis [1], 3) — Leon Garcia (34), Frazier (18) Doha (III, 1R/Krasnoroutskaya [120], 0) Dubai (II, 2R/Tauziat [13], 1) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Black [37], 1) Ericsson (I, 2R/Hingis [1], 1) Porto (IV, 1R/Kuti Kis [57], 0) Estoril (IV, QF/Montolio [51], 2) Budapest (V, 1R/Torrens-Valero [75], 0) Berlin (I, 1R/Sugiyama [43], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Shaughnessy [20], 0) Madrid (III, 2R/. . Martinez [90], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Mandula [131], 3) Birmingham (III, 2R/Raymond [25], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/Dragomir Ilie [71], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Anca Barna [119], 0) Stanford (II, 2R/Davenport [4], 1) San Diego (II, 2R/Testud [19], 1) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Prakusya [130], 1) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Coetzer [12], 1) — Raymond (33) New Haven (II, lost in 2R of qualifying/Ad. Serra-Zanetti [104], 0+1 in qualifying) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Shaughnessy [12], 0) Princess Cup (II, 1R/Tanasugarn [32], 0) Bali (III, QF/Sanchez-Vicario [18], 2) (III, QF/Seles [9], 2) Shanghai (IV, SF/Pratt [65], 3) Bratislava (IV, Win, 5) Luxembourg (III, 2R/Clijsters [5], 1) 7/ Cergy Pontoise ($75K, SF/Razzano [217], 3) Hénin Gold Coast (III, Win, 5) Canberra (III, Win, 5) — Maleeva (25), Rubin (13), Déchy (26), Testud (17) Australian Open (Slam, R16/Seles [4], 3) — Testud (15) Nice (II, 2R/Maleeva [20], 1) Scottsdale (II, 1R/Serna [30], 0) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Clijsters [19], 1) Ericsson (I, 3R/Garbin [50], 1) Estoril (IV, SF/Montolio [51], 3) Hamburg (II, QF/Coetzer [8], 2) — Sidot (35), Likhovtseva (34) Berlin (I, SF/Capriati [4], 4) — V. Williams (2) Roland Garros (Slam, SF/Clijsters [14], 5) — Suarez (28), Schett (25) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, Win, 4) — Clijsters (7) Wimbledon (Slam, F/V. Williams [2], 6) — Raymond (27), Huber (21), Martinez (20), Capriati (4) Canadian Open (I, QF/Seles [8], 2) — Frazier (29) New Haven (II, QF/V. Williams [4], 2) — Schett (20) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/S. Williams [10], 3) Big Island (IV, F/Testud [17], 4) — Raymond (32) Moscow (I, 2R/Schett [19], 0) Filderstadt (II, F/Davenport [3], 4) — Rubin (33), Huber (20), Testud (15) Linz (II, 2R/Tulyaganova [26], 0) Munich (Cbamp, QF/S. Williams [10], 1) — Huber (19)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 20 4/ Sydney (II, Win, 4) — Clijsters (18), S. Williams (6), Martinez (5), Davenport (2) Hingis Australian Open (Slam, F/Capriati [14], 6) — S. Williams (6), V. Williams (3) Pan Pacific (I, F/Davenport [2], 3) — Maleeva (25) Doha (III, Win, 4) — Schett (22), Testud (18) Dubai (II, Win, 4) — Testud (18), Tanasugarn (28), Tauziat (13) Indian Wells (I, SF/Clijsters [19], 4) — Schett (22) Ericsson (I, SF/V. Williams [3], 4) — Serna (27), Huber (15) Amelia Island (II, QF/Sanchez-Vicario [11], 2) — Nagyova (31) Charleston (I, F/Capriati [5], 4) — Mauresmo (9), Martinez (8) Berlin (I, SF/Mauresmo [9], 3) — Sanchez-Vicario (14) Rome (I, SF/Mauresmo [6], 3) — Panova (35), Likhovtseva (34), Sanchez-Vicario (12) Roland Garros (Slam, SF/Capriati [4], 5) — Testud (21) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Ruano Pascual [83], 0) San Diego (II, SF/Seles [10], 3) Los Angeles (II, SF/Seles [10], 3) — Likhovtseva (30), Frazier (28) U. S. Open (Slam, SF/S. Williams [10], 5) — Krasnoroutskaya (35), Dokic (13) Moscow (I, QF/Dementieva [13], 1) Filderstadt (II, SF/Davenport [3], 2) — Maleeva (16) 18/ Paris (II, F/Mauresmo [19], 4) — Kremer (35), Maleeva (21) Huber Nice (II, SF/Mauresmo [14], 3) — Déchy (24) Indian Wells (I, R16/Farina Elia [38], 2) — Tanasugarn (26) Ericsson (I, QF/Hingis [1], 3) — Kremer (31), Tauziat (12) Estoril (IV, 1R/Chladkova [65], 0) Rome (I, 1R/Krasnoroutskaya [70], 0) Strasbourg (III, F/Farina Elia [28], 4) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Razzano [113], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Hénin [9], 3) — Dementieva (12) Vienna (III, QF/Schnyder [33], 2) Sopot (III, QF/Leon Garcia [66], 1) Canadian Open (I, SF/Capriati [3], 4) — Mauresmo (7) New Haven (II, 2R/Capriati [2], 1) — Serna (25) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Dementieva [11], 2) Leipzig (II, 2R/Kremer [37], 1) — Schett (19) Moscow (I, 1R/Maleeva [16], 0) Filderstadt (II, QF/Hénin [7], 2) — Likhovtseva (25), Clijsters (5) Zurich (I, 1R/Farina Elia [15], 0) Luxembourg (III, QF/Raymond [31], 2) Munich (Cbamp, 1R/Hénin [6], 0) 74/ Sydney (II, 2R/Morariu [50], 1) Kournikova Australian Open (Slam, QF/Davenport [2], 4) — Schett (21) Pan Pacific (I, SF/Davenport [2], 2) — Sidot (31) Paris (II, QF/Mauresmo [19], 1) San Diego (II, 2R/Pratt [74], 0) Leipzig (II, 2R/Myskina [85], 0) Moscow (I, 1R/Fokina [258], 0) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Kremer [32], 0) Zurich (I, 1R/Coetzer [17], 0) Luxembourg (III, QF/Clijsters [5], 2)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 21 36/ Hobart (V, QF/Black [45], 2) Likhovtseva Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Schett [21], 0) Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Sidot [31], 1) Paris (II, 1R/Maleeva [21], 0) Scottsdale (II, 2R/Pisnik [73], 1) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Krasnoroutskaya [72], 0) Ericsson (I, 2R/Garbin [50], 0) Boynton Beach ($75K, 1R/Mattek [unranked], 0) Amelia Island (II, R16/Dementieva [9], 1) Charleston (I, QF/Capriati [5], 3) — Sanchez-Vicario (10), Suarez (28) Hamburg (II, 2R/Hénin [19], 1) Berlin (I, 1R/Shaughnessy [21], 0) Rome (I, R16/Hingis [1], 2) — Schett (24) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/de los Rios [59], 0) Birmingham (III, QF/Raymond [25], 2) Eastbourne (II, SF/Serna [25], 3) — Kremer (28), Tanasugarn (33) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/V. Williams [2], 2) San Diego (II, 1R/Bovina [56], 0) Los Angeles (II, R16/Hingis [1], 1) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Mauresmo [7], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Davenport [3], 3) Leipzig (II, 2R/Dementieva [17], 1) Moscow (I, 1R/Schett [19], 0) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Huber [20], 0) Linz (II, 2R/Testud [14], 1) 16/ Canberra (III, 2R/Hénin [31], 1) — Suarez (32) Maleeva Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Tanasugarn [30], 0) Pan Pacific (I, SF/Hingis [1], 3) — Panova (34) Paris (II, SF/Huber [16], 3) — Likhovtseva (27), Dementieva (12), Shaughnessy (30) Nice (II, F/Mauresmo [14], 4) — Schnyder (31), Hénin (21), Dementieva (11), V. Williams (3) Indian Wells (I, R16/S. Williams [10], 2) — Serna (29) Ericsson (I, 2R/Marrero [55], 0) Estoril (IV, Kandarr [73], 1) Budapest (V, Win, 5) — Kremer (32) Hamburg (II, 2R/Dokic [28], 1) Berlin (I, 2R/Suarez [28], 1) Rome (I, 2R/Schiavone [72], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Farina Elia [23], 0) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Serna [25], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/S. Williams [5], 3) — Frazier (22) San Diego (II, R16/Tauziat [9], 1) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Bedanova [45], 0) New Haven (II, 1R/Mauresmo [8], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Molik [68], 1) Leipzig (II, F/Clijsters [5], 4) — Tauziat (10) Moscow (I, 2R/Myskina [68], 1) — Huber (20) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Hingis [1], 1) — Sanchez-Vicario (19) Zurich (I, 1R/Tauziat [11], 0) Linz (II, SF/Davenport [3], 3) — Suarez (30) Munich (Champ, 1R/Capriati [1], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 22 35/ Gold Coast (III, QF/Shaughnessy [38], 1) Martinez Sydney (II, SF/Hingis [1], 2) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Gagliardi [93], 1) Nice (II, 2R/Farina Elia [49], 0) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Bovina [141], 0) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Farina Elia [32], 0) Charleston (I, SF/Hingis [1], 3) — Frazier (24) Hamburg (II, 2R/Schnyder [46], 0) Berlin (I, QF/Capriati [4], 2) — Suarez (28) Rome (I, SF/Dokic [23], 3) Roland Garros (Slam, 3R/Black [37], 2) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Rubin [27], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/Hénin [9], 4) 9/ Sydney (II, withdrew from SF, 3) — Coetzer (12), Seles (4) Mauresmo Australian Open (Slam, R16/V. Williams [3], 3) — Sugiyama (29) Paris (II, Win, 5) — Panova (32), Serna (34), Kournikova (8), Tauziat (11), Huber (16) Nice (II, Win, 5) — Kremer (32), Huber (16), Maleeva (20) Amelia Island (II, Win, 4+1 walkover) — Raymond (25), Sanchez-Vicario (11), Coetzer (10) Charleston (I, QF/Hingis [1], 2) — Raymond (25) Berlin (I, Win, 5) — Schnyder (35), Coetzer (8), Hingis (1), Capriati (4) Rome (I, F/Dokic [23], 4) — Montolio (31), Suarez (27), Hingis (1) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Kandarr [56], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Tanasugarn [31], 2) Canadian Open (I, 3R/Huber [21], 1) — Likhovtseva (27) New Haven (II, QF/Davenport [3], 2) — Maleeva (15), Nagyova (27) U. S. Open (Slam, QF/Capriati [2], 4) — Rubin (28), Tauziat (9) Moscow (I, 2R/Bedanova [28], 0) Filderstadt (II, QF/Davenport [3], 2) — Bedanova (29) Munich (Champ, 1R/Testud [14], 0) 23/ Cergy Pontoise ($75K, SF/Majoli [72], 3) Montolio Gold Coast (III, 2R/Talaja [29], 1) Canberra (III, 2R/Testud [17], 1) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Parkinson [105], 0) Bogota (III, 2R/M. J. Martinez [145], 1) Acupulco (III, QF/Suarez [23], 2) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Testud [18], 1) Ericsson (I, 2R/Frazier [21], 1) Porto (IV, 2R/Cervanova [115], 1) Estoril (IV, Win, 5) — Kremer (30), Hénin (20) Budapest (V, QF/Torrens Valero [75], 2) Bol (III, Win, 5) — Testud (20) Berlin (I, 2R/Testud [20], 1) Rome (I, 2R/Mauresmo [6], 1) Madrid (III, F/Sanchez-Vicario [13], 4) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Schiavone [51], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Clijsters [7], 2) Vienna (III, 2R/Marrero [73], 1) Knokke-Heist (IV, QF/Tulyaganova [34], 2) Sopot (III, 2R/Leon Garcia [66], 1) New Haven (II, lost in 1R of qualifying/Sidot [75], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Davenport [3], 2) Leipzig (II, 2R/Tauziat [10], 1) — Torrens Valero (34) Moscow (I, 1R/Kleinova [135], 0) Zurich (I, 1R/Rubin [36], 0) Linz (II, 1R/Testud [14], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 23 25/ Gold Coast (III, 1R/Kandarr [61], 0) Nagyova Canberra (III, Rubin [13], 1) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Capriati [14], 0) Doha (III, QF/Testud [18], 2+ 2 in qualifying) Dubai (II, 2R/McQuillan [111], 1) Ericsson (I, 3R/Tauziat [12], 1) Boynton Beach ($75K, Win, 5) Amelia Island (II, R16/Hingis [1], 1) Charleston (I, R16/Capriati [5], 2) Hamburg (II, 1R/Chladkova [56], 0) Rome (I, 2R/Hantuchova [81], 1) — Serna (26) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Clijsters [14], 3) — Dementieva (10) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, QF/Dokic [16], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Ad. Serra-Zanetti [137], 0) Vienna (III, 1R/Smashnova [92], 0) Sopot (III, QF/Torrens Valero [52], 2) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Irvin [94], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/Mauresmo [8], 1) — Farina Elia (16) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Clijsters [5], 2) Bahia (II, SF/Seles[9], 2+1 walkover) — Coetzer (13) Leipzig (II, 1R/Hantuchova [57], 0) Linz (II, 1R/Rubin [41], 0) Pattaya (V, F/Schnyder [44], 4) 130/ Canberra (III, SF/Testud [17], 2) Pierce Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Suarez [33], 2) Paris (II, 1R/Kremer [35], 0) Doha (III, 1R/Gersi [77], 0) Dubai (II, QF/McQuillan [111], 1) Charleston (I, R16/Frazier [24], 1) Rome (I, 1R/Petrova [60], 0) Strasbourg (III, 1R/Tulyaganova [67], 0) 22/ Sydney (II, QF/Davenport [2], 2) — Capriati (14) Raymond Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Weingärtner [77], 0) Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Majoli [56], 1) Oklahoma City (III, QF/Capriati [6], 2) Scottsdale (II, QF/Davenport [2], 2) Indian Wells (I, R16/Davenport [2], 2) — Testud (18) Ericsson (I, 3R/Testud [18], 1) Amelia Island (II, R16/Mauresmo [15], 1) Charleston (I, R16/Mauresmo [9], 2) Madrid (III, QF/Sanchez-Vicario [13], 2) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Glass [79], 0) Birmingham (III, SF/Tauziat [12], 3) — Likhovtseva (33) Eastbourne (II, QF/Rubin [27], 2) — Black (35), Coetzer (13) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Hénin [9], 2) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Grande [43], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/Dokic [14], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/V. Williams [4], 2) Big Island (IV, SF/Hénin [8], 3) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Tauziat [11], 0) Zurich (I, 2R/Farina Elia [15], 1) Luxembourg (III, F/Clijsters [5], 4) — Huber (19)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 24 54/ Canberra (III, QF/Hénin [31], 2) Rubin Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Husarova [151], 0) Porto (IV, 2R/Bacheva [98], 1) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Petrova [90], 0) Charleston (I, 2R/Dragomir Ilie [46], 0) Berlin (I, 1R/Chladkova [54], 0) Eastbourne (II, SF/Davenport [3], 3) — Martinez (21), Raymond (30) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Schwartz [—], 0) Stanford (II, QF/Clijsters [6], 2) San Diego (II, 2R/Schett [23], 1) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Molik [73], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Frazier [29], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Mauresmo [7], 2) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Hénin [7], 1) — Schett (18) Zurich (I, 2R/Dokic [10], 1) — Montolio (27) Linz (II, QF/Maleeva [16], 2) — Nagyova (21), Tauziat (11) 17/ Dubai (II, 2R/Krasnoroutskaya [94], 0) Sanchez- Indian Wells (I, 3R/Déchy [36], 1) Vicario Ericsson (I, R16/Dementieva [11], 2) Porto (IV, Win, 5) — Farina Elia (33), Serna (28) Amelia Island (II, SF/Mauresmo [15], 3) — Suarez (22), Hingis (1) Charleston (I, 2R/Likhovtseva [39], 0) Hamburg (II, QF/Dokic [28], 1) Berlin (I, QF/Hingis [1], 2) Rome (I, SF/Hingis [1], 2) Madrid (III, Win, 4) — Raymond (27), Montolio (31) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Frazier [24], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 2R/Osterloh [51], 1) San Diego (II, 2R/Bedanova [46], 0) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Razzano [83], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Weingärtner [42], 0) New Haven (II, 2R/Clijsters [5], 1) — Suarez (26) U. S. Open (Slam, 3R/Dokic [13], 2) Big Island (IV, 2R/Irvin [93], 1) Princess Cup (II, F/Dokic [11], 4) — Testud (14) Bali (III, SF/Kruger [56], 2) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Maleeva [16], 0) Zurich (I, 1R/Majoli [40], 0) Linz (II, 2R/Stevenson [76], 1) — Serna (32) Munich (Champ, QF/Clijsters [5], 1) — Tauziat (11)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 25 21/ Auckland (V, 2R/Bradshaw [134], 1) Schett Sydney (II, 2R/Davenport [2], 1) — Leon Garcia (33) Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Kournikova [8], 2) — Likhovtseva (19) Doha (III, SF/Hingis [1], 3) Dubai (II, 2R/Sfar [136], 1) Indian Wells (I, R16/Hingis [1], 2) — Suarez (23) Ericsson (I, 2R/Hrdlickova [48], 0) Estoril (IV, 2R/Pisnik [66], 1) Hamburg (II, 1R/Schnyder [46], 0) Berlin (I, 2R/Schnyder [35], 1) Rome (I, 1R/Likhovtseva [34], 0) Madrid (III, 1R/M. J. Martinez [90], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Hénin [16], 3) — V. Williams (2) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Dokic [16], 2) Vienna (III, QF/Suarez [25], 2) San Diego (II, R16/Davenport [4], 1) — Rubin (26) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Bedanova [42], 0) Canadian Open (I, R16/S. Williams [10], 2) — Tanasugarn (31) New Haven (II, 2R/Hénin [6], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Capriati [2], 3) Leipzig (II, 1R/Huber [22], 0) Moscow (I, QF/Myskina [68], 2) — Likhovtseva (23), Hénin (8) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Rubin [33], 0) Zurich (I, 2R/Hantuchova [53], 1) — Serna (31) Linz (II, 1R/Sugiyama [38], 0) 37/ Gold Coast (III, SF/Farina Elia [63], 2) Schnyder Canberra (III, 2R/Sugiyama [34], 1) Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Dominikovic [129], 0) Paris (II, 1R/Sidot [28], 0) Nice (II, 1R/Maleeva [20], 0) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Schiavone [84], 0) Ericsson (I, 2R/Cacic [108], 0) Amelia Island (II, 2R/Dokic [27], 1) Charleston (I, 1R/Leon Garcia [30], 0) Hamburg (II, QF/Shaughnessy [25], 2) — Schett (23), Martinez (9) Berlin (I, R16/Mauresmo [9], 2) — Schett (24) Rome (I, 2R/Dokic [23], 1) Strasbourg (III, 1R/Lamade [101], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Black [37], 1) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, 1R/Bovina [65], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Davenport [3], 2) Vienna (III, F/Tulyaganova [48], 4) — Huber (20) Knokke-Heist (IV, 1R/M. J. Martinez [74], 0) Basel (IV, 1R/Carlsson [101], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Hénin [6], 1) Bahia (II, 1R/Kruger [61], 0) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Mauresmo [6], 1) Zurich (I, 1R/Petrova [46], 0) Luxembourg (III, 2R/Coetzer [17], 1) Pattaya (V, Win, 5) — Kremer (33), Nagyova (28)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 26 10/ Sydney (II, QF/Mauresmo [16], 1) Seles Australian Open (Slam, QF/Capriati [14], 4) — Hénin (22) Oklahoma City (III, Win, 4) — Capriati (6) Scottsdale (II, SF/Shaughnessy [27], 2) — Serna (30) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Garbin [54], 0) Madrid (III, 2R/de los Rios [72], 0) Stanford (II SF/Davenport [3], 2) San Diego (II, F/V. Williams [3], 4) — Shaughnessy (14), Capriati (2), Hingis (1) Los Angeles (II, F/Davenport [3], 4) — Testud (17), S. Williams (8), Hingis (1) Canadian Open (I, SF/S. Williams [10], 3) — Dokic (15), Hénin (6) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Bedanova [37], 3) Bahia (II, Win, 4) — Nagyova (22), Dokic (12) Japan Open (III, Win, 4) — Tanasugarn (29) Shanghai (IV, Win, 5) 26/ Gold Coast (III, 2R/Farina Elia [63], 1) Serna Canberra (III, 1R/Kruger [59], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/Loit [101], 1) Paris (II, 2R/Mauresmo [19], 1) Nice (II, 2R/Tu [51], 1) Scottsdale (II, QF/Seles [4], 2) — Hénin (22) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Maleeva [16], 1) Ericsson (I, R16/Hingis [1], 2) — Frazier (21) Porto (IV, F/Sanchez-Vicario [15], 4) Estoril (IV, 2R/Bovina [95], 1) Hamburg (II, 1R/Glass [79], 0) Berlin (I, 2R/Déchy [48], 1) Rome (I, 1R/Nagyova [33], 0) Madrid (III, QF/Medina Garrigues [81], 2) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Petrova [58], 1) Birmingham (III, 2R/Pratt [63], 0) Eastbourne (II, F/Davenport [3], 4) — Frazier (22), Maleeva (14), Shaughnessy (19), Likhovtseva (31) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Petrova [42], 0) Palermo (V, QF/Torrens Valero [68], 2) Knokke-Heist (IV, QF/Clijsters [6], 1+1 walkover) Basel (IV, 2R/Arn [132], 1) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Dokic [15], 1) New Haven (II, 1R/Huber [17], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Bes [109], 0) Leipzig (II, 1R/Hrdlickova [66], 0) Moscow (I, 1R/Myskina [68], 0) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Testud [15], 1) — Shaughnessy (12) Zurich (I, 1R/Schett [20], 0) Linz (II, 1R/Sanchez-Vicario [18], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 27 12/ Gold Coast (III, SF/Hénin [45], 3) — Martinez (5) Shaughnessy Sydney (II, 1R/Molik [116], 0) Australian Open (Slam, 2R/V. Williams [3], 1) Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Davenport [2], 1) Paris (II, QF/Maleeva [21], 2) — Testud (17) Scottsdale (II, F/Davenport [2], 4) — Clijsters (19), Seles (4) Indian Wells (I, 3R/McQuillan [71], 1) Ericsson (I, 2R/Pratt [65], 0) Amelia Island (II, QF/Coetzer [10], 2) Charleston (I, 2R/Weingärtner [63], 1) Hamburg (II, F/V. Williams [2], 4) — Coetzer (8) Berlin (I, R16/Coetzer [8], 2) — Likhovtseva (34) Rome (I, withdrew from 2R, 1) Strasbourg (III, QF/Tauziat [11], 2) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Capriati [4], 3) Eastbourne (II, QF/Serna [25], 2) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Clijsters [7], 3) — Coetzer (13) Stanford (II, SF/Clijsters [6], 3) — V. Williams (2) San Diego (II, R16/Seles [10], 1) — Kremer (33) Canadian Open (I, QF/Capriati [3], 3) New Haven (II, 1R/Tauziat [9], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Bedanova [37], 2) Quebec City (III, Win, 4) Filderstadt (II, 1R/Serna [31], 0) Zurich (I, 1R/Hantuchova [53], 0) Munich (Cbamp, 1R/Dokic [8], 0) 27/ Auckland (V, F/Tu [67], 4) Suarez Canberra (III, 1R/Maleeva [25], 0) Australian Open (Slam, R16/Coetzer [12], 3) — Déchy (23), Pierce (7) Bogota (III, Win, 4) Acupulco (III, SF/Coetzer [11], 3) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Schett [22], 1) Amelia Island (II, R16/Sanchez-Vicario [11], 1) Charleston (I, R16/Likhovtseva [39], 2) Berlin (I, R16/Martinez [7], 2) — Maleeva (15) Rome (I, QF/Mauresmo [6], 3) — Kremer (30) Roland Garros (Slam, 2R/Hénin [16], 1) Wimbledon (Slam, 1R/Myskina [90], 0) Vienna (III, SF/Tulyaganova [48], 3) — Schett (21) New Haven (II, 1R/Sanchez-Vicario [21], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/Talaja [150], 0) Linz (II, 1R/Maleeva [16], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 28 30/ Canberra (III, QF/Testud [17], 2) — Schnyder (23) Sugiyama Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Mauresmo [20], 0) Pan Pacific (I, QF/Hingis [1], 2) — Testud (15) Oklahoma City (III, 1R/Kandarr [80], 0) Scottsdale (II, 2R/Raymond [26], 1) Indian Wells (I, R16/Clijsters [19], 2) Ericsson (I, 2R/Raymond [25], 1) Charleston (I, 1R/Dragomir Ilie [46], 0) Bol (III, 2R/Pisnik [59], 1) Berlin (I, 2R/Sanchez-Vicario [14], 1) Rome (I, 1R/Schiavone [72], 0) Strasbourg (III, QF/Beigbeder [373], 2) — Coetzer (12) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Mandula [131], 0) Birmingham (III, 2R/Razzano [105], 0) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Rubin [27], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Testud [19], 2) San Diego (II, QF/Hingis [1], 3) — Tanasugarn (30), Clijsters (5) Los Angeles (II, 1R/Black [53], 0) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Hénin [6], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Sanchez-Vicario [21], 1) Princess Cup (II, QF/Leon Garcia [49], 2) — Torrens Valero (34) Japan Open (III, SF/Seles [9], 3) Shanghai (IV, QF/Grande [42], 2) Linz (II, 2R/Maleeva [16], 1) — Schett (20) Pattaya (V, 2R/. Huber [215], 1) 29/ Sydney (II, 1R/Rippner [73], 0) Tanasugarn Australian Open (Slam, 3R/S. Williams [6], 2) — Maleeva (27) Doha (III, 2R/Boogert [79], 1) Dubai (II, SF/Hingis [1], 3) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Huber [15], 1) Ericsson (I, R16/Capriati [5], 2) Antwerp (V, 1R/Perebiynis [177], 0) Strasbourg (III, 1R/Beigbeder [373], 0) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Gubacsi [165], 0) Birmingham (III, 3R/Brandi [44], 1) Eastbourne (II, QF/Likhovtseva [31], 2) — Tauziat (10) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Tauziat [10], 3) — Mauresmo (6) San Diego (II, 1R/Sugiyama [48], 0) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Tauziat [9], 1) Canadian Open (I, 2R/Schett [22], 1) New Haven (II, lost in 2R of Qualifying/Carlsson [97], 0+1 in qualifying) U. S. Open (Slam, 1R/McQuillan [64], 0) Princess Cup (II, QF/Clijsters [5], 2) Bali (III, QF/Widjaja [579], 1) Japan Open (III, F/Seles [9], 3) Shanghai (IV, 2R/Molik [59], 1) Pattaya (V, 1R/Poutchek [86], 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 29 13/ Paris (II, SF/Mauresmo [19], 2) — Déchy (24), Frazier (18) Tauziat Nice (II, 2R/Kremer [32], 0) Dubai (II, F/Hingis [1], 3) Indian Wells (I, 2R/Dominikovic [99], 0) Ericsson (I, R16/Huber [15], 2) — Nagyova (32) Berlin (I, 2R/Schnitzer [182], 0) Rome (I, 2R/Kruger [79], 0) Strasbourg (III, SF/Farina Elia [28], 2) — Shaughnessy (19) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Krasnoroutskaya [62], 0) Birmingham (III, Win, 5) — Kremer (31), Raymond (25) Eastbourne (II, 2R/Tanasugarn [33], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/V. Williams [2], 4) — Tanasugarn (31) San Diego (II, QF/V. Williams [3], 2) — Maleeva (13) Los Angeles (II, SF/Davenport [3], 3) — Tanasugarn (29), Dokic (16), Clijsters (5) New Haven (II, QF/Clijsters [5], 2) — Shaughnessy (12) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/Mauresmo [7], 3) Leipzig (II, SF/Maleeva [16], 2) — Montolio (28) Moscow (I, 1R/Schiavone [40], 0) Filderstadt (II, 2R/Panova [41], 1) — Raymond (30) Zurich (I, SF/Dokic [10], 3) — Maleeva (16), Tulyaganova (23), Testud (14) Linz (II, 2R/Rubin [41], 0) Munich (Champ, 1R/Sanchez-Vicario [18], 0) 11/ Auckland (V, 1R/Craybas [145], 0) Testud Canberra (III, F/Hénin [31], 4) — Sugiyama (34), Pierce (7) Australian Open (Slam, 3R/Hénin [22], 2) Pan Pacific (I, 2R/Sugiyama [49], 1) Paris (II, 1R/Shaughnessy [30], 0) Doha (III, F/Hingis [1], 4) Dubai (II, QF/Hingis [1], 2) Acupulco (III, 2R/Diaz-Oliva [87], 1) Indian Wells (I, 3R/Raymond [25], 1) Ericsson (I, R16/Davenport [2], 2) — Raymond (25) Bol (III, SF/Montolio [36], 2) Berlin (I, R16/Capriati [4], 2) — Montolio (32) Rome (I, 1R/Farina Elia [29], 0) Madrid (III, QF/M. J. Martinez [90], 2) — Leon Garcia (35) Roland Garros (Slam, R16/Hingis [1], 3) Eastbourne (II, 1R/Kremer [28], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, R16/Capriati [4], 3) San Diego (II, QF/Davenport [4], 2) — Dementieva (11) Los Angeles (II, R16/Seles [10], 1) — Kremer (33) Canadian Open (I, QF/S. Williams [10], 3) — Dementieva (11) New Haven (II, 2R/V. Williams [4], 1) U. S. Open (Slam, R16/V. Williams [4], 3) Big Island (IV, Win, 5) — Hénin (8) Princess Cup (II, QF/Sanchez-Vicario [19], 1) Filderstadt (II, SF/Hénin [7], 3) — Serna (31), Capriati (2) Zurich (I, QF/Tauziat [11], 1) Linz (II, QF/Davenport [3], 2) — Montolio (25), Likhovtseva (23) Munich (Champ, SF/S. Williams [10], 2) — Mauresmo (7), Capriati (1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 30 20/ Hobart (V, 1R/Brandi [27], 0) Tulyaganova Australian Open (Slam, 1R/Kremer [38], 0) Pan Pacific (I, lost in 2R of Qualifying/Ospina [>150], 1) Doha (III, 2R/Schett [22], 1) Dubai (II, 2R/Pierce [7], 1) Indian Wells (I, 1R/Bovina [141], 0) Ericsson (I, 3R/S. Williams [7], 2) — Sidot (34) Porto (IV, 2R/Serna [28], 1) Antwerp (V, 1R/Vavrinec [90], 0) Strasbourg (III, QF/Farina Elia [28], 2) — Pierce (17) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Serna [26], 0) Tashkent (IV, QF/Torrens Valero [77], 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III, SF/Hénin [9], 3) — Dementieva (12), Panova (34) Wimbledon (Slam, 3R/Tauziat [10], 2) Vienna (III, Win, 5) — Dementieva (11), Suarez (25), Schnyder (33) Knokke-Heist (IV, Win, 5) — Montolio (30), Clijsters (6) San Diego (II, 1R/Weingärtner [42], 0) Los Angeles (II, 2R/Pratt [77], 0) Canadian Open (I, 1R/Tu [49], 0) U. S. Open (Slam, 2R/Nejedly [130], 1) Princess Cup (II, 1R/L. Huber [294], 0) Leipzig (II, 1R/Schiavone [46], 0) Moscow (I, 2R/Farina Elia [17], 1) Zurich (I, 2R/Tauziat [11], 1) Linz (II, SF/Dokic [9], 3) — Hénin (6) Pattaya (V, 1R/Vakulenko [146], 0) 6/ Sydney (II, QF/Hingis [1], 2) Williams, Australian Open (Slam, QF/Hingis [1], 4) — Tanasugarn (30) Serena Indian Wells (I, Win, 5+1 walkover) — Leon Garcia (20), Maleeva (16), Davenport (2), Clijsters (19) Ericsson (I, QF/Capriati [5], 3) — Clijsters (16) Roland Garros (Slam, QF/Capriati [4], 4) Wimbledon (Slam, QF/Capriati [4], 4) — Maleeva (14) Los Angeles (II, QF/Seles [10], 2) Canadian Open (I, Win, 5) — Schett (22), Testud (18), Seles (8), Capriati (3) U. S. Open (Slam, F/V. Williams [4], 6) — Hénin (6), Davenport (3), Hingis (1) Munich (Champ, Win, 3+1 walkover) — Farina Elia (15), Hénin (6), Testud (14) 3/ Australian Open (Slam, SF/Hingis [1], 5) — Shaughnessy (31), Mauresmo (20), Coetzer (12) Williams, Nice (II, SF/Maleeva [20], 2) — Sidot (30) Venus Indian Wells (I, retired from SF, 4) — Dementieva (11) Ericsson (I, Win, 6) — Dokic (28), Hingis (1), Capriati (5) Hamburg (II, Win, 4) — Leon Garcia (32), Farina Elia (29), Dokic (28), Shaughnessy (25) Berlin (I, R16/Hénin [18], 1) Roland Garros (Slam, 1R/Schett [25], 0) Wimbledon (Slam, Win, 7) — Likhovtseva (29), Tauziat (10), Davenport (3), Henin (9) Stanford (II, QF/Shaughnessy [15], 1) San Diego (II, Win, 5) — Tauziat (9), Davenport (4), Seles (10) New Haven (II, Win, 4) — Testud (18), Hénin (6), Capriati (2), Davenport (3) U. S. Open (Slam, Win, 7) — Raymond (30), Testud (18), Clijsters (5), Capriati (2), S. Williams (10)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 31 Tournament Winners Tournament Winners by Date (High-Tier Events) The following list shows the winner of all important (Tier II or higher) tournaments, in the order the events occurred: Tournament Tier Winner Sydney II Hingis Australian Open Slam Capriati (Pan Pacific) I Davenport Paris II Mauresmo Nice II Mauresmo Dubai II Hingis Scottsdale II Davenport Indian Wells I S. Williams Ericsson () I V. Williams Amelia Island II Mauresmo Charleston I Capriati Hamburg II V. Williams Berlin I Mauresmo Rome I Dokic Roland Garros Slam Capriati Eastbourne II Davenport Wimbledon Slam V. Williams Stanford II Clijsters San Diego II V. Williams Los Angeles II Davenport Canadian Open I S. Williams New Haven II V. Williams U.S. Open Slam V. Williams Bahia II Seles Tokyo (Princess Cup) II Dokic Leipzig II Clijsters Moscow I Dokic Filderstadt II Davenport Zurich I Daveport Linz II Davenport Munich Championships Champ S. Williams

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 32 Tournament Winners by Tournament Type (High-Tier Events) The following list shows winners of the top-tier tournaments sorted by tier. Within the tiers, tournaments are sorted by date. SLAMS Event Winner Australian Open Capriati Roland Garros Capriati Wimbledon V. Williams U.S. Open V. Williams YEAR-END CHAMPIONSHIP Event Winner Munich Championships S. Williams TIER I Event Winner Pan Pacific (Tokyo) Davenport Indian Wells S. Williams Ericsson (Miami) V. Williams Charleston Capriati German Open (Berlin) Mauresmo (Rome) Dokic Canadian Open S. Williams Moscow Dokic Zurich Davenport TIER II Event Winner Sydney Hingis Paris Mauresmo Nice Mauresmo Dubai Hingis Scottsdale Davenport Amelia Island Mauresmo Hamburg V. Williams Eastbourne Davenport Stanford Clijsters San Diego V. Williams Los Angeles Davenport New Haven V. Williams Bahia Seles Princess Cup (Tokyo) Dokic Leipzig Clijsters Filderstadt Davenport Linz Davenport

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 33 Winners at Smaller Tournaments (Tier III, IV, V) Tournament Winner Tier Same Week As Gold Coast Hénin III Auckland (V), Auckland Tu V Gold Coast (III), Hopman Cup Canberra Hénin III Sydney (II), Hobart (V) Hobart Grande V Syney (II), Canberra (III) Doha Hingis III Nice (II) Oklahoma City Seles III Dubai (II), Bogota (III) Bogota Suarez III Dubai (II), Oklahoma City (III) Acupulco Coetzer III Scottsdale (II) Porto Sanchez-Vicario IV Estoril Montolio IV Amelia Island (II) Budapest Maleeva V Charleston (I) Bol Montolio II Hamburg (II) Antwerp Rittner V Rome (I) Madrid Sanchez-Vicario III Strasbourg (III) Strasbourg Farina Elia III Madrid (III) Birmingham Tauziat III Tashkent (IV) Tashkent Lamade IV Birmingham (III) ’s-Hertogenbosch Hénin III Eastbourne (II) Vienna Tulyaganova III Palermo (V) Palermo Medina Garrigues V Vienna (III) Knokke-Heist Tulyaganova IV Fed Cup Sopot Torrens Valero Stanford (II), Casablanca (V) Casablanca Gubacsi V Stanford (II), Sopot (III) Basel Gersi IV San Diego (II) Big Island Testud IV Bahia (II) Quebec City Shaughnessy III Princess Cup (II) Bali Widjaja III Leipzig (II) Japan Open Seles III Moscow (I) Shanghai Seles IV Filderstadt (II) Bratislava Grande IV Zurich (I) Luxembourg Clijsters III Linz (II) Pattaya City Schnyder V

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 34 Winners at $50K and Larger Challengers (since November 20, 2000, when the 2000 Tour year ended)

Tucson ($50K) — Katalin Marosi-Aracama (7) def. Alina Jidkova (1) 6-7 (7-3) 6-4 6-3 Cergy Pontoise ($75K) — Virginie Razzano () def. Iva Majoli (WC) (4) 3-6 6-4 6-3 Cali ($50K)* — Catalina Castano (3) def. (1) 4-1 ret. Midland ($75K) — Yoon Jeong Cho def. 6-3 6-1 Bloomington (Minneapolis) ($50K) — Dawn Buth (7) def. Yvette Basting (2) 4–6 7–5 6–4 Boynton Beach (West Palm Beach) ($75K) — Henrieta Nagyova (2) def. Åsa Carlsson 3-6 6-3 6-1 Dubai ($75K+) — Eleni Daniilidou (Q) . Aniko Kapros 6–4 6-4 Bradenton/Sarasota ($75K) — Virginia Ruano Pascual (3) def. Maria Elena Camerin 6–0 6–3 Caserta ($50K+H) — Tathiana Garbin (1) def. M. J. Martinez 3–6 7–6 6–2 Seoul ($50K) — Eun-Ha Kim (8) def. Jing-Qian Yi (1) 6–4 6–2 Gifu ($50K) — Alicia Molik (2) def. Bryanne Stewart 6–2 6–3 Fukuoka ($50K) — Alicia Molik (2) def. Saori Obata (4) 7–5 6–3 ($50K) — Klara Koukalova def. Karina Habsudova (4) 6–4 4–6 7–6(7–3) Los Gatos ($50K) — Marissa Irvin (1) def. 6-3 4-6 7-5 Orbetello ($50K+H) — Clarisa Fernandez def. Martina Sucha 6–4 2–6 7–5 Mahwah ($50K) — Janet Lee (1) def. Svetlana Krivencheva 6–4 7–6(7–5) Modena ($50K+H) — Maja Matevzic def. 7–5 7–6(7–5) Ettenheim ($50K+H) — Maja Matevzic def. Kaia Kanepi 6–2 6–3 Saint-Gaudens ($50K) — Celine Beigbeder (4) def. Julia Vakulenko 6–4 6–1 Lexington ($50K) — Katarina Srebotnik (4) def. Sabine Klaschka 6–4 7–5 Bronx ($50K) — Barbara Schwartz def. Martina Müller 5-7 6-3 7-6(3) Denain ($50K) — Celine Beigbeder (3) def. Lubomira Bacheva (2) 6–4 6–0 Fano ($50K) — Zuzana Ondraskova def. Anna Smashnova (1) 3-6 6-1 7-5 Bordeaux ($75K) — Lubomira Bacheva (7) def. Anna Smashnova (5) 4–6 6–1 6–0 Seoul ($50K) — Miho Saeki (3) def. Yoon Jeong Cho (1) 6–3 6–0 Albuquerque ($75K) — Mashona Washington def. Marissa Irvin (2) 7–5 6–3 ($75K) — Tatiana Poutchek (1) def. Nadejda Ostrovskaya (4) 7–5 4–6 6–3 Fresno ($50K) — Marissa Irvin (2) def. Jennifer Hopkins (1) 6–2 6–1 Girona ($50K+H) — Anabel Medina Garrigues (1) def. Angelika Roesch 6–4 6–4 Poitiers ($75K+H) — Petra Mandula (1) def. Emilie Loit (5) 7–5 2–6 6–1 Largo ($50K) — Emmanuelle Gagliardi (3) def. Marissa Irvin (1) 7–6(7–2) 7–5 ($50K) — Irina Selyutina (4) def. Eva Dyrberg 2–6 6–4 6–3 Dallas ($50K) — Milagros Sequera def. Irina Selyutina 5–7 6–2 6–0 Pittsburg ($50K) — Alina Jidkova (8) def. Marie-Eve Pelletier 6–4 6–1 Hattiesburg ($50K) — Irina Selyutina (4) def. Seda Noorlander (3) 6–2 6–1 West Columbia ($50K) — Samantha Reeves (4) def. Mashona Washington (6) * The WTA, on the December 18 rankings, listed Cali as a $75K Challenger. The points awarded and the timing of the award, however, as well as the ranking list during the week it expired, demonstrate that it was actually a $50K Chal- lenger.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 35 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 2 Capriati 3 3 Australian Open (Slam), Charleston (I), Roland Garros (Slam) 5 Clijsters 2 1 3 Stanford (II), Leipzig (II), Luxembourg (III) 19 Coetzer 1 1 Acupulco (III) 1 Davenport 7 7 Pan Pacific (I), Scottsdale (II), Eastbourne (II), Los Angeles (II), Filderstadt (II), Zurich (I), Linz (I) 8 Dokic 3 3 Rome (I), Princess Cup (II), Moscow (I) 14 Farina Elia 1 1 Strasbourg (III) 24 Grande Hobart (V), Bratislava (IV) 7 Hénin 3 3 Gold Coast (III), Canberra (III), ’s-Hertogenbosch (III) 4 Hingis 2 1 3 Sydney (II), Doha (III), Dubai (II) 16 Maleeva 1 1 Budapest (V) 9 Mauresmo 4 4 Paris (II), Nice (II), Amelia Island (II), Berlin (I) 23 Montolio 2 2 Estoril (IV), Bol (III) 17 Sanchez-Vicario 2 2 Porto (IV), Madrid (III) 10 Seles 1 3 4 Oklahoma City (III), Bahia (II), Japan Open (III), Shanghai (IV) 12 Shaughnessy 1 1 Quebec City (III) 13 Tauziat 1 1 Birmingham (III) 11 Testud 1 1 Big Island (IV) 20 Tulyaganova 2 2 Vienna (III), Knokke-Heist (IV) 6 S. Williams 3 3 Indian Wells (I), Canadian Open (II), Munich (Champ) 3 V. Williams 6 6 Ericsson (I), Hamburg (II), Wimbledon (Slam), San Diego (II), New Haven (II), U. S. Open (Slam) Five Top 25 players did not win any WTA events in 2001: Dementieva, Huber, Schett, Raymond, Nagyova

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 36 Fraction of Tournaments Won Sorted in descending order of fraction won. List includes all Top Thirty players, and all Top Eighty players with WTA titles, though some players (such as Nagyova) who have Challenger titles but no WTA titles are not listed. WTA Tournaments Tournaments Percent Rank Player Won Played Won 3Venus Williams 6 12 50.0% 1 Lindsay Davenport 7 17 41.2% 6 Serena Williams 3 10 30.0% 10 Monica Seles 4 14 28.6% 9 Amélie Mauresmo 4 16 25.0% 2 Jennifer Capriati 3 17 17.6% 4 Martina Hingis 3 18 16.7% 5 Kim Clijsters 3 22 13.6% 7 Justine Hénin 3 22 13.6% 8 Jelena Dokic 3 26 11.5% 17 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 2 24 8.3% 20 Iroda Tulyaganova 2 26 7.7% 23 Angeles Montolio 2 26 7.7% 24 Rita Grande 2 29 6.9% 27 Paola Suarez 1 16 6.3% 13 Nathalie Tauziat 1 22 4.5% 19 Amanda Coetzer 1 22 4.5% 77 Adriana Gersi 1 22 4.5% 68 Barbara Rittner 1 23 4.3% 67 Bianka Lamade 1 24 4.2% 16 Magdalena Maleeva 1 25 4.0% 37 Patty Schnyder 1 25 4.0% 12 Meghann Shaughnessy 1 26 3.8% 45 Meilen Tu 1 26 3.8% 32 Cristina Torrens Valero 1 27 3.7% 65 Anabel Medina Garrigues 1 27 3.7% 11 Sandrine Testud 1 28 3.6% 14 Silvia Farina Elia 1 28 3.6% 15 Elena Dementieva 22 18 Anke Huber 20 21 Barbara Schett 25 22 Lisa Raymond 21 25 Henrieta Nagyova (won a Challenger) 23 26 Magui Serna 29 28 Daja Bedanova 20 29 Tamarine Tanasugarn 22 30 Ai Sugiyama 25

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 37 Tiers of Tournaments Played and Average Tier (Note: The Slams and Munich are treated mathematically as “Tier 0,” and Challengers as “Tier 8.” That is, in taking the mean, we assign 0 points for playing a Slam or Munich, 1 point for a Tier I, 2 for a Tier II, etc. The lower the mean and median strength, the tougher one’s schedule.) Slams Munic Tier I Tier II Tier III Tier IV Tier V Chall Total Mean Median Played Played Played Played Played Played Played Played Played Str. Str. Davenport 3149 171.3II Capriati 41651 171.1I V. Williams 4 3 5 12 1.1 I Hingis 4 7 6 1 18 1.2 I Clijsters 414931 221.6II S. Williams 4132 100.7Champ/I Hénin 415632 1221.9II Dokic 417941 261.6II Mauresmo 4156 161.1II Seles 2 2631 141.9II Testud 4179511 281.8II Shaughnessy 4 1 8 10 3 26 1.4 I/II Tauziat 3 1 6 10 2 22 1.5 II Farina Elia 416863 281.9II Dementieva 41584 221.5II Maleeva 4189111 251.5I Sanchez-Vicario 317922 241.6I Huber 316541 201.6I/II Coetzer 41674 221.5II Tulyaganova 4 66433 262.2II Schett 4 79311 251.7II Raymond 4 6641 211.6II Montolio 4 638311262.3II/III Grande 4 56743 292.4II Nagyova 4 4 7 6 1 1 23 2.1 II Thus the strongest (highest average tier) schedules on the tour was played Serena Williams (who really shouldn’t be allowed to play such a top-heavy schedule), followed by Mauresmo, Venus, and Capriati. This is fairly typical; they were also among the leaders in past years. The lower-ranked players naturally tended to have weaker schedules, though we note with some astonishment how low are the figures for Hénin and Seles. In Hénin’s case, it’s partly because she was so low-ranked at the start of the year; in Seles’s, it’s because she played so many small events at the end of the year.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 38 Points Earned Week by Week The following table shows the week-by-week point totals earned by the Top Twenty Results due to winning events are italicised. C C D D D F H H H M M S S S T T T S V a l a e o a é i u a a a e h a e i W W p i e v m r n b l u n l a u s l i i r j t e e i i i g e e r c e u t l l week i s z n n c n n i r e e h s g i u a l l of a t e p t a s v s e h a d g i i r e r o i a m z n t a a a 12/10/00 39 1/8/01 160 193 131 1 1/15/01 36 34 34 178 41 261 391 35 190 58 1 184 168 1/28/01 1040 88 208 436 72 254166 614 2 134 208 34 60 2 200 400 2/4/01 1 426 225 138 46 46 7 2/11/01 1 8 196 155 343 83 136 1 2/18/01 52 104 30 215 133 279 289 1 134 24 113 2/25/01 141 28 283 1 216 156 62 34 3/5/21 102 58 233 295 124 11 115 228 22 3/19/01 321 111 98 104 30 164 55 55 30 1 26 1 32 1 416 174 3/31/01 291 55 48 106 241 120 26 185 123 1 52 1536138 112 443 4/8/01 79 180 20 4/15/01 184 75 36 103 79 73 1 22 311 217 64 4/22/01 401 95 132 282 115 90 1 32 5/6/01 83 117 168 62 80 36 58 213 89 268 5/13/01 294 1 103 32 26 210 170 32 483 79 59 1 61 40 5/20/01 1 1 373 45 18211316 77 30111 5/26/01 1 237 127 197 1 51 104 56 72 6/10/01 950 512 60 30 60 192 350 340 34 2 230 108 2 104 2 162 2 6/17/01 1 203 39 6/23/01 163 1 269 1 104 60 224 1 5811129 7/8/01 448 214 56 444 68 142 60 608 2 178 138 64 34 170 200 116 52 240 906 7/15/01 1 1 43 244 7/22/01 92 118 218 7/29/01 315 199 97 83 41 108 179 60 8/5/01 81 1 140 36 36 1 112 30 1 358 41 95 95 1 359 8/12/01 66 341 54 36 130 1 310 190 41 162 8/19/01 252 46 44 69 90 180 1 51 1 199 93 118 1 423 8/25/01 148 156 1 187 1 100 1 77 49 1 100 41 19327 407 9/9/01 402 262 2 206 130 146 2 108 376 52 42 262 80 100 72 100 100 42 818 956 9/16/01 54 160 58 133 20 276 199 9/23/01 113 298 1 195 183 52 1 9/30/01 303 125 166 49 207 85 115 1 10/7/01 302 339 159 1 67 1 59 1 192 1 46 10/14/01 54 1 1 401 221 135 123 49 75 1 164 141184 10/21/01 131 59 434 1 262 103 11 1 1 210 75 46 10/28/01 231 93 328 30 17411 57 125 41 196151 11/4/01 120 233 54 401 54 132 54 120 54 54 54 132 54 54 318 503 11/11/01 1

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 39 Tournament Results (Points Earned), Sorted from Most to Least The table below sorts the results for the Top Twenty from most points per tournament to least. Thus, the row labelled “1” lists each player’s best result, the row “2” lists the next-best, and so on. The seventeenth tournament (the last to count toward the WTA rankings) is highlighted. T C C C D D D F H H H M M S S S T T T S V o a l o a e o a é i u a a a e h a e i W W u p i e v m k r n n b l u n l a u s l i i r r j t e e i i i g e e r c e u z t y l l n i s z n n c n n i r e e h s g i u a l l a t e p t a s v s e h a d g i i # r e r o i a m z n t a a a 1 1040 512 233 444 302 373 237 608 614 196 279 483 217 358 228 210 318 244 818 956 2 950 321 208 436 241 339 192 350 391 180 207 343 197 310 213 203 199 218 503 906 3 448 315 184 434 130 298 160 261 376 178 155 316 195 276 183 200 184 151 423 443 4 402 303 117 426 125 262 159 224 340 133 138 311 180 216 179 190 184 129 416 407 5 401 262 103 401 124 174 104 221 283 127 138 289 132 208 170 156 134 72 240 400 6 294 233 95 401 98 168 104 210 282 123 125 262 85 199 131 136 118 52 200 359 7 291 231 93 341 75 160 103 193 225 123 115 190 80 192 108 115 116 46 162 268 8 252 214 60 328 72 146 103 166 215 57 59 134 79 164 93 104 104 46 112 174 9 148 163 59 295 68 142 83 133 185 55 55 100 77 115 83 100 100 42 68 113 10 141 156 56 269 54 132 79 120 182 54 54 90 58 108 72 95 96 39 62 60 11 131 113 54 206 54 120 66 108 170 52 49 75 52 100 64 93 95 38 40 12 120 92 54 199 52 104 62 90 164 49 42 64 41 58 59 54 89 34 2 13 102 88 48 187 44 100 60 80 135 49 36 54 41 1 58 53 75 24 14 81 83 46 178 41 97 60 79 130 43 35 51 34 1 54 41 62 20 15 54 66 34 140 36 69 58 77 112 41 32 2 30 51 2 61 7 16 36 58 28 111 30 60 54 39 73 34 30 130 46 1 61 2 17 1 55 2 106 30 36 54 30 67 1 22 20 41 1 60 2 18 34 1136 45 30 212 1 34 1 56 1 19 1 1136 32 26 12 1 32 1 52 1 20 1 1 1 32 26 1 1 1 1 30 1 46 1 21 1 112181 1 1 26 1 41 1 22 1 11181 1 1 11321 23 12 1 1 1271 24 11 1 1 1221 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 11 111 27 1 1 28 1 1 Total 4892 3303 1479 4902 1581 2891 1874 3048 3946 1498 1581 2765 1555 2306 1960 1759 2336 1175 3004 4128

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 40 Alternate Rankings Knowing all the above, we can try calculating revised rankings. There are, of course, many ways of reshaping the ranking data. A typical way would be to use some of the WTA’s earlier ranking systems. Total Points Ranking (1997 Ranking System) This ranking simply adds up the total points from all the tournaments a player played, whether the number of tournaments be 10 (for Serena Williams) or 31 (for Tatiana Panova). It is essentially the system used by the WTA in 1997 (except that there were minor differences in the way points were awarded at events) Total Points Rank Player Total Tournaments WTA Rank 1Davenport 4902 17 1 2 Capriati 4892 17 2 3V. Williams 4128 12 3 4 Hingis 3946 18 4 5 Clijsters 3303 22 5 6 Hénin 3048 22 7 7 S. Williams 3004 10 6 8 Dokic 2891 26 8 9 Mauresmo 2765 16 9 10 Testud 2336 28 11 11 Seles 2306 14 10 12 Shaughnessy 1960 26 12 13 Farina Elia 1874 28 14 14 Tauziat 1759 22 13 15 Maleeva 1581 25 16 16 Dementieva 1581 22 15 17 Sanchez-Vicario 1555 24 17 18 Huber 1498 20 18 19 Coetzer 1479 22 19 20 Tulyaganova 1175 26 20 21 Schett 1159 25 21 22 Montolio 1140 26 23 23 Raymond 1107 21 22 24 Grande 1051 29 24 25 Serna 1008 29 26 26 Nagyova 999 23 25 27 Kremer 969 28 33 28 Suarez 968 16 27 29 Bedanova 938 20 28 30 Tanasugarn 921 22 29 31 Sugiyama 920 25 30 32 Torrens Valero 910 27 32 33 Schiavone 909 24 31 34 Krasnoroutskaya 868 17 34 Best 17 does not differ much from Total Points; the Top Five are the same, and we don’t see anyone move by as more than one position until we get to Anne Kremer, who gains six places because she had 28 events.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 41 If Best 17 and Total Score rankings are almost identical, the same is not true when these systems are compared with the WTA’s 1996 ranking system, Points per Tournament (minimum 14). Here the rankings are completely different. Scores are rounded to the nearest tenth of a point. Points Per Tournament, Minimum 14 (1996 Ranking System: “The Divisor”) 1996 Ranking Name Total Points Tournaments Score WTA Rank 1V. Williams 4128 12 294.9 3 2Davenport 4902 17 288.4 1 3 Capriati 4892 17 287.8 2 4 Hingis 3946 18 219.2 4 5 S. Williams 3004 10 214.6 6 6 Mauresmo 2765 16 172.8 9 7 Seles 2306 14 164.7 10 8 Clijsters 3303 22 150.1 5 9 Hénin 3048 22 138.5 7 10 Dokic 2891 26 111.2 8 11 Testud 2336 28 83.4 11 12 Tauziat 1759 22 80.0 13 13 Shaughnessy 1960 26 75.4 12 14 Huber 1498 20 74.9 18 15 Dementieva 1581 22 71.9 15 16 Coetzer 1479 22 67.2 19 17 Farina Elia 1874 28 66.9 14 18 Sanchez-Vicario 1555 24 64.8 17 19 Maleeva 1581 25 63.2 16 20 Martinez 853 13 60.9 35 21 Suarez 968 16 60.5 27 22 Raymond 1107 21 52.7 22 23 Krasnoroutskaya 868 17 51.1 34 24 Bedanova 938 20 46.9 28 25 Schett 1159 25 46.4 21 26 Tulyaganova 1175 26 45.2 20 27 Montolio 1140 26 43.8 23 28 Nagyova 999 23 43.4 25 29 Hantuchova 812 19 42.7 38 30 Tanasugarn 921 22 41.9 29 31 Rubin 627 16 39.2 54 32 Schiavone 909 24 37.9 31 33 Sugiyama 920 25 36.8 30 34 Grande 1051 29 36.2 24 35 Petrova 797 22 36.2 39 We see that this produces major changes; only one Top Ten player (Hingis) retains her WTA ranking. But this system has a problem: Players are expected to play at least 17 events — meaning they must play more weak events. The blatantly ignore this, but all others try to play at least seventeen events. We should, at minimum, adjust the divisor accordingly. So we produce the “modern divisor”: same as the above, but with a minimum divisor of 17, not 14.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 42 Points Per Tournament, Minimum 17 (“Modernized Divisor”) 1996 Ranking Name Total Points Tournaments Score WTA Rank 1 Davenport 4902 17 288.4 1 2 Capriati 4892 17 287.8 2 3 V. Williams 4128 12 242.8 3 4 Hingis 3946 18 219.2 4 5 S. Williams 3004 10 176.7 6 6 Mauresmo 2765 16 162.6 9 7 Clijsters 3303 22 150.1 5 8 Hénin 3048 22 138.5 7 9 Seles 2306 14 135.6 10 10 Dokic 2891 26 111.2 8 11 Testud 2336 28 83.4 11 12 Tauziat 1759 22 80.0 13 13 Shaughnessy 1960 26 75.4 12 14 Huber 1498 20 74.9 18 15 Dementieva 1581 22 71.9 15 16 Coetzer 1479 22 67.2 19 17 Farina Elia 1874 28 66.9 14 18 Sanchez-Vicario 1555 24 64.8 17 19 Maleeva 1581 25 63.2 16 20 Suarez 968 16 56.9 27 21 Raymond 1107 21 52.7 22 22 Krasnoroutskaya 868 17 51.1 34 23 Martinez 853 13 50.2 35 24 Bedanova 938 20 46.9 28 25 Schett 1159 25 46.4 21 26 Tulyaganova 1175 26 45.2 20 27 Montolio 1140 26 43.8 23 28 Nagyova 999 23 43.4 25 29 Hantuchova 812 19 42.7 38 30 Tanasugarn 921 22 41.9 29 31 Schiavone 909 24 37.9 31 32 Rubin 627 16 36.9 54 33 Sugiyama 920 25 36.8 30 34 Grande 1051 29 36.2 24 35 Petrova 797 22 36.2 39 This is probably more fair than the preceding: It keeps the top four in the same order, but makes significant changes below that. It does not, however penalize injured players (e.g. Martinez, Rubin; also Anna Kournikova) nearly as severely as Best 17.

We follow this with the calculations based on the past and present ATP systems

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 43 Best 14 The WTA uses the “Best 17” ranking system — totalling the points earned in the seventeen tournaments where one earned the most points. For most of the Nineties, the ATP uses a related ranking system, “Best 14” — the total points earned in one’s best fourteen events. If this system were applied to the WTA, the results would be as follows: Best 14 Rank Name Best 14 Total WTA Rank 1 Capriati 4801 2 2Davenport 4545 1 3V. Williams 4128 3 4 Hingis 3692 4 5 Clijsters 3086 5 6 S. Williams 3004 6 7 Hénin 2843 7 8 Mauresmo 2762 9 9 Dokic 2615 8 10 Seles 2306 10 11 Testud 1874 11 12 Tauziat 1750 13 13 Shaughnessy 1695 12 14 Farina Elia 1572 14 15 Maleeva 1487 16 16 Dementieva 1480 15 17 Sanchez-Vicario 1468 17 18 Huber 1419 18 19 Coetzer 1410 19 20 Tulyaganova 1155 20 21 Schett 1094 21 22 Raymond 1005 22 23 Montolio 992 23 24 Suarez 966 27 25 Nagyova 965 25 26 Grande 960 24 27 Bedanova 932 28 28 Tanasugarn 904 29 29 Serna 897 26 30 Torrens Valero 896 32 Overall, this isn’t very different from Best 17; you have to go all the way down to #24 to see a player move more than one position. But the biggest change is at the very top: Capriati overtakes Davenport for the #1 ranking. This hardly seems fair — Capriati and Davenport played the same number of events, and Davenport, the more consistent player, earned more points overall. Shouldn’t she be rewarded for that? This is the ultimate problem with best-however-many rankings: If the number of events is high, they reward players who play a lot; if the number is low; they reward a few big results over day-in-and-day-out consistency.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 44 Slotted Best 18 (ATP Entry Rank) 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 only have eight players in their year-end event, and award points differently .) In the table below, “Required Points” refers to points earned in the Required Events (Slams, Tier I) “Optional Points” are what the players earned in their best other events. Slotted WTA Player Slam Tier I Munich Optional Total Rank Rank Name Points Points Points Points Slotted Pts 12Capriati 2840 1370 120 526 4856 21Davenport 1086 1077 401 1634 4198 33V. Williams 2264 657 0 1207 4128 44Hingis 1332 1275 0 1154 3761 56S. Williams 1420 951 503 130 3004 65Clijsters 1076 378 233 1168 2855 77Hénin 1232 357 120 1032 2741 89Mauresmo 462 941 54 1233 2690 98Dokic 350 1196 132 904 2582 10 11 Testud 380 394 318 797 1889 11 10 Seles 308 200 0 1324 1832 12 12 Shaughnessy 384 288 54 934 1660 13 14 Farina Elia 308 469 54 687 1518 14 15 Dementieva 300 686 54 430 1470 15 13 Tauziat 302 267 54 800 1423 16 19 Coetzer 326 352 54 681 1413 17 17 Sanchez-Vicario 144 241 132 874 1391 18 16 Maleeva 184 288 54 815 1341 19 18 Huber 264 361 54 636 1315 20 21 Schett 512 336 0 248 1096 21 20 Tulyaganova 98 139 0 814 1051 22 27 Suarez 258 241 0 466 965 23 28 Bedanova 518 225 0 189 932 24 23 Montolio 160 96 0 632 888 25 22 Raymond 120 233 0 527 880 The significance of the ranking system is shown by how many changes this system makes. In 2000, the changes were not as dramatic as this; 1999 would have been intermediate, with #3 and #4 changing places.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 45 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 unwilling or 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 Fed Cup) are excluded. Also, walkovers are not calculated as wins or losses. It should be noted, too, that this list is not formally comprehensive — e.g. it omits Su-Wei Hsieh, who had a 2001 record on the order of 35-2 but played mostly satellite events. Only the Top 40 have been examined to compile this list. Finally, observe that the numbers here do not in all cases match those in the section on the Top Eighty. That section listed only main draw wins; this includes Challenger and Qualifying wins and losses as well Rank Name Wins Losses WTA Rank 1Davenport 62 9 1 2 Hingis 60 15 4 3 Hénin 59 19 71 4 Capriati 56 14 2 5 Clijsters 54 18 5 6T Dokic 53 23 8 6T Testud 53 27 11 8V. Williams 46 5 3 9T Shaughnessy 45 24 12 9T Farina Elia 45 27 14 11 Mauresmo 42 11 9 12 Seles 40 10 10 13 Montolio 39 24 232 14 S. Williams 38 7 6 15T Krasnoroutskaya 36 17 34 15T Grande 36 27 24 17T Huber 35 20 18 17T Maleeva 35 24 16 17T Panova 35 32 40 20T Hantuchova 34 17 38 20T Tauziat 34 21 13 20T Sanchez-Vicario 34 22 17 20T Kremer 34 29 33 24T Raymond 33 21 22 24T Dementieva 33 21 15 1. Includes 3 wins, 1 loss at Cergy Pontoise Challenger in 2000. 2. Includes 3 wins, 1 loss at Cergy Pontoise Challenger in 2000.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 46 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, and unlike the above, we do not list ties; it is my opinion that having the same winning percentage while playing more matches is a greater accomplishment than winning fewer): Rank Name Wins Losses Win% WTA Rank 1V. Williams 46 5 90.2% 3 2Davenport 62 9 87.3% 1 3 S. Williams 38 7 84.4% 6 4 Hingis 60 15 80.0% 4 5 Capriati 56 14 80.0% 2 6 Seles 40 10 80.0% 10 7 Mauresmo 42 11 79.2% 9 8 Hénin 59 19 75.6% 7 9 Clijsters 54 18 75.0% 5 9 Dokic 53 23 69.7% 8 11 Krasnoroutskaya 36 17 67.9% 34 12 Hantuchova 34 17 66.7% 38 13 Testud 53 27 66.3% 11 14 Shaughnessy 45 24 65.2% 12 14 Suarez 27 15 64.3% 27 16 Martinez 27 15 64.3% 35 17 Huber 35 20 63.6% 18 18 Farina Elia 45 27 62.5% 14 19 Montolio 39 24 61.9% 23 20 Tauziat 34 21 61.8% 13 21 Dementieva 33 21 61.1% 15 22 Raymond 33 21 61.1% 22 23 Sanchez-Vicario 34 22 60.7% 17 24 Coetzer 32 21 60.4% 19 25 Maleeva 35 24 59.3% 16 26 Nagyova 32 22 59.3% 25 27 Grande 36 27 57.1% 24 28 Torrens Valero 32 24 57.1% 32 29 Tulyaganova 30 23 56.6% 20 30 Schiavone 29 23 55.8% 31 The numbers for the Top Five all require some comment. Venus Williams tops the list, but her percentage is significantly changed by the walkover she granted Serena at Indian Wells. Davenport had both walkovers and withdrawals. Serena had two walkovers, one against Venus and one against Davenport. The rankings in this category are probably right, but the percentages probably don’t mean as much. The lower-than-usual percentages (only one player with a 90% record, and that just barely; even more amazing, only two above 85%) are yet more evidence of how wide-open 2001 was.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 47 Divisor Rankings, No Slam Bonus In terms of strength of field, the Slams are no stronger 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 Points Tournaments Score WTA Rank 1Davenport 4359 17 256.4 1 2V. Williams 2996 12 214.0 3 3 Capriati 3472 17 204.2 2 4 Hingis 3280 18 182.2 4 5 S. Williams 2294 10 163.9 6 6 Mauresmo 2534 16 158.4 9 7 Seles 2152 14 153.7 10 8 Clijsters 2765 22 125.7 5 9 Hénin 2432 22 110.5 7 10 Dokic 2716 26 104.5 8 11 Testud 2146 28 76.6 11 12 Tauziat 1608 22 73.1 13 13 Huber 1366 20 68.3 18 14 Shaughnessy 1768 26 68.0 12 15 Dementieva 1431 22 65.0 15 16 Sanchez-Vicario 1483 24 61.8 17 17 Farina Elia 1720 28 61.4 14 18 Coetzer 1316 22 59.8 19 19 Maleeva 1489 25 59.6 16 20 Suarez 839 16 52.4 27 21 Martinez 705 13 50.4 35 22 Raymond 1047 21 49.9 22 23 Tulyaganova 1126 26 43.3 20 24 Montolio 1060 26 40.8 23 25 Nagyova 860 23 37.4 25 26 Rubin 585 16 36.6 54 27 Schett 903 25 36.1 21 28 Tanasugarn 785 22 35.7 29 29 Sugiyama 874 25 35.0 30 30 Bedanova 679 20 34.0 28

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 48 The “Majors Ranking” It is an unfortunate fact that tennis uses the word “major” as a synonym for “Slam.” It’s unfortunate because it leaves us with no good word for “the best events.” The Slams are, of course, among the strongest events on the tour — but there are half a dozen other events which are quite competitive in terms of field strength. And many of them aren’t even Tier I events; the Tier II tournaments at Sydney, San Diego, and Filderstadt have traditionally been stronger than the average Tier I. Which gives us the basis for another ranking, the “Majors Ranking.” We take the ten best events, and count results only in those events. In 2001, our list is Sydney, Australian Open, Indian Wells, Ericsson, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, San Diego, U. S. Open, Filderstadt, and Munich. (The list does vary from year to year; was stronger than Indian Wells last year, for instance, but this is our 2001 list.) Since all these events are strong, we don’t need quality points. And we don’t care about early losses. We’ll count only semifinals and better: 1 point for a semifinal, 3 for a final, 5 for a win. On the whole WTA Tour, only twelve players earned any Majors points at all. It will be evident that the “Majors Ranking” is not useful as an overall ranking system — but it is a good measure of the accomplishments we might count toward Player of the Year. The list of players with at least one Majors point is as follows (we also show the points earned at each event): Major WTA Major Syd- AO IW Eric RG Wim SD USO Fil Mun Rank Rank Player Points ney 13V. Williams 22 1 1 5 5 5 5 22Capriati 15 5 3 5 1 1 3T 1 Davenport 14 3 1 1 1 5 3 3T 4 Hingis 14 53111 111 56S. Williams 13 5 3 5 6T 5 Clijsters 7 3 3 1 6T 7 Hénin 7 1 3 3 810Seles 3 3 911Testud 2 1 1 10T 15 Dementieva 1 1 10T 35 Martinez 1 1 10T 9 Mauresmo 1 1 If we look at 2000, we must add Philadelphia (substituting for Filderstadt, which in 2000 had its field depleted by the Olympics) and the Canadian Open for Indian Wells. Interestingly, we see more players (sixteen) with scores; the rankings were as follows: 1. Hingis (24), 2. Davenport (22), 3. V. Williams (15), 4. Seles (7), 5. Martinez (6), 6T. Mauresmo (5), Pierce (5), 8. S. Williams (4), 9. Kournikova (3), 10T. Dementieva, Sanchez-Vicario (2), 12T. Capriati, Dokic, Frazier, Tauziat, Testud (1). We note with interest that, in 2000, this exactly follows the Top Five in the WTA rankings and gives us nine of the top ten — completely unlike 2001. In 1999, Filderstadt substitutes for the Canadian Open, and we again had sixteen players: 1. Hingis (31), 2. Davenport (23), 3. V. Williams (11), 4. Graf (10), 5. S. Williams (8), 6T. Mauresmo, Pierce (3), 8T. Seles, Tauziat (2), 10T. Coetzer, Huber, Lucic, Sanchez-Vicario, Schett, Stevenson, Testud. This again corresponds well with the Top Five (it probably would have been the Top Five had Graf quit in mid-year and been taken off the rankings). Thus we find 2001 to have been a most exceptional year both in the paucity of players with Major scores and in the lack of correspondence between Major scores and rankings.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 49 Total Round Points Consists of the total round points which a player has earned in tournaments in the last year. Note: All a player’s tournaments are included here, not just her Best 17. In general, a player who does better in this ranking than in the WTA rankings is one who is failing to beat top players, and is attaining ranking by proceeding through easy matches. A player who stands lower in this ranking than the WTA ranking is one who perhaps has bad losses but who also probably has beaten a number of higher-ranked players. We include this because the ATP, in its folly, has ceased to reckon points for quality. Rank Name Total Rnd Pts WTA Rank 1Davenport 3031 1 2 Capriati 2945 2 3 Hingis 2606 4 4V. Williams 2429 3 5 Clijsters 2198 5 6 Hénin 1989 7 7 Dokic 1957 8 8 S. Williams 1829 6 9 Mauresmo 1636 9 10 Testud 1525 11 11 Seles 1481 10 12 Shaughnessy 1287 12 13 Farina Elia 1255 14 14 Tauziat 1180 13 15 Sanchez-Vicario 1104 17 16 Dementieva 1086 15 17 Coetzer 1069 19 18 Maleeva 1029 16 19 Huber 977 18 20 Montolio 862 23 21 Raymond 784 22 22 Tulyaganova 776 20 23 Grande 735 24 24 Serna 683 26 25 Schett 677 21

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 50 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 1V. Williams 202.4 3 2 S. Williams 182.9 6 3Davenport 178.3 1 4 Capriati 173.2 2 5 Hingis 144.8 4 6 Seles 105.8 10 7 Mauresmo 102.3 9 8 Clijsters 99.9 5 9 Hénin 90.4 7 10 Dokic 75.3 8 11 Testud 54.5 11 12 Tauziat 53.6 13 13 Shaughnessy 49.5 12 14 Dementieva 49.4 15 15 Huber 48.9 18 16 Coetzer 48.6 19 17 Martinez 47.0 35 18 Sanchez-Vicario 46.0 17 19 Farina Elia 44.8 14 20 Maleeva 41.2 16 21 Suarez 40.2 27 22 Raymond 37.3 22 23 Kournikova 36.7 74 24 Montolio 33.2 23 25 Krasnoroutskaya 31.2 34 26 Tulyaganova 29.8 20 If, here as elsewhere, we require a minimum of 14 events, we get major changes in the Top Ten: Rank Name Rnd Pts per Trn WTA Rank 1Davenport 178.3 1 2V. Williams 173.5 3 3 Capriati 173.2 2 4 Hingis 144.8 4 5 S. Williams 130.6 6 6 Seles 105.8 10 7 Mauresmo 102.3 9 8 Clijsters 99.9 5 9 Hénin 90.4 7 10 Dokic 75.3 8

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 51 Quality Points Per Tournament (“Future Potential Ranking”) The reverse of the above, this calculates the difficulty of the opposition a player has overcome. For players outside the Top Six, it is a good measure of how they stack up against other players, and how likely they are to produce upsets. For the Top Six, it is rather less meaningful, because the different levels of quality point awards for the top players (that is, the fact that a win over #1 is worth much more than a win over #4) obscures their actual results. It will be noted that this list contains several players who are well outside the Top Thirty in the WTA lists (Krasnoroutskaya, Hantuchova; in addition, Rubin and Kournikova fall just below the Top 25), and others who, though in the Top Thirty, still climb dramatically (Bedanova, Suarez). Rank Name Quality per Trn WTA Rank 1V. Williams 141.6 3 2 S. Williams 117.5 6 3 Capriati 114.5 2 4Davenport 110.1 1 5 Hingis 74.4 4 6 Mauresmo 70.6 9 7 Seles 58.9 10 8 Clijsters 50.2 5 9 Hénin 48.1 7 10 Dokic 35.9 8 11 Testud 29.0 11 12 Tauziat 26.3 13 13 Huber 26.1 18 14 Shaughnessy 25.9 12 15 Bedanova 22.9 28 16 Dementieva 22.5 15 17 Maleeva 22.1 16 18 Farina Elia 22.1 14 19 Suarez 20.3 27 20 Krasnoroutskaya 19.9 34 21 Schett 19.3 21 22 Sanchez-Vicario 18.8 17 23 Coetzer 18.6 19 24 Hantuchova 16.5 38 25 Nagyova 16.0 25 If, again, we require a minimum of fourteen events, the Williams Sisters suffer their usual fate: Venus remains #1, but Capriati is #2, Davenport #3, and Serena #4. Increase the minimum to sixteen, and Capriati is #1.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 52 Quality/Round Points Equalized: 2Q+R Per Tournament Calculated by doubling total quality points, adding round points, and dividing the sum by tournaments. The effect of this is to make, very roughly, half of the typical player’s points come from quality and half from round points. This is, in the author’s opinion, about the best way to assess players’ actual performances based solely on WTA ranking data with no manipulation based on winning percentage or surface balance.. Rank Name 2Q+R per Trn WTA Rank 1V. Williams 485.6 3 2 S. Williams 417.9 6 3 Capriati 402.3 2 4Davenport 398.4 1 5 Hingis 293.7 4 6 Mauresmo 243.4 9 7 Seles 223.6 10 8 Clijsters 200.4 5 9 Hénin 186.7 7 10 Dokic 147.1 8 11 Testud 112.5 11 12 Tauziat 106.3 13 13 Shaughnessy 101.3 12 14 Huber 101.0 18 15 Dementieva 94.4 15 16 Farina Elia 89.0 14 17 Coetzer 85.9 19 18 Maleeva 85.3 16 19 Sanchez-Vicario 83.6 17 20 Suarez 80.8 27 21 Martinez 80.6 35 22 Krasnoroutskaya 70.9 34 23 Bedanova 69.8 28 24 Raymond 68.1 22 25 Schett 65.6 21 26 Tulyaganova 60.5 20 27 Kournikova 60.1 74 28 Nagyova 59.5 25 29 Hantuchova 59.2 38 30 Tanasugarn 55.5 29 Once again, Bedanova, Kournikova, and Hantuchova rise. Applying the Minimum 14 Events rule again costs the Williams Sisters: Venus remains #1, but Serena falls to #4. Increasing the minimum to 15 makes Capriati #1.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 53 Consistency-Rewarded Rankings Logarithmic Points Award The WTA’s Best 18 ranking cares nothing for consistency — your best results count, and nothing else. The old WTA divisor ranking took consistency more into account — but big results (e.g. from Slams) still biased the result. The Consistency-Rewarded Rankings give the greatest reward to consistent players. Under this system, it’s better to make two semifinals than to win one event and lose first round in another (the reverse is true under the WTA rankings, even though reaching two semifinals requires at least as many wins). If good results help, bad results hurt. The method is as follows: One takes the natural log — in mathematical terms, ln() — of each weekly score, takes the arithmetic mean (i.e. divide by the number of events; as with the divisor, we set a minimum of fourteen), then take the antilog, ex or exp(). 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 1Davenport 260.2 1 2 Hingis 153.1 4 3 Capriati 148.3 2 4 Mauresmo 85.0 9 5V. Williams 81.5 3 6 Hénin 59.9 7 7 Clijsters 58.1 5 8 Seles 56.3 10 9 S. Williams 47.1 6 10 Testud 42.4 11 11 Dokic 38.7 8 12 Huber 32.8 18 13 Shaughnessy 32.5 12 14 Raymond 28.7 22 15 Farina Elia 27.7 14 16 Dementieva 27.5 15 17 Coetzer 24.0 19 18 Tauziat 20.7 13 19 Suarez 20.7 27 20 Sanchez-Vicario 20.3 17 21 Montolio 19.4 23 22 Maleeva 17.6 16 23 Martinez 16.3 35 24 Schett 14.7 21 25 Nagyova 14.7 25 If we remove the Minimum 14 requirement, then Serena Williams rises to #2 with 220.0; Venus Williams is #3, 169.6; Seles is #7, 76.8.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 54 Worst 14 A simpler, though less accurate, way of measuring consistency is to simply take a player’s worst fourteen results. Instead of paying off on good results at the top, this pays off on a lack of bad results. To keep the playing field level, players who play fewer than fourteen events lose events out of their fourteen until the total is correct. So, for instance, Serena Williams played ten events. That’s four less than fourteen. She therefore loses her four best events for underplaying. We will only list the top fifteen under this system, which we offer mostly for demonstration purposes. (Though we would ask the real question, why is Best 14/Best 17 any better than Worst 14/17? Neither one counts all results!) Worst 14 Rank Player Score WTA Rank 1Davenport 3588 1 2 Capriati 2454 2 3 Seles 2306 10 4V. Williams 2266 3 5 Hingis 2225 4 6 Mauresmo 1939 9 7 Clijsters 912 5 8 Martinez 853 35 9 S. Williams 844 6 10 Hénin 815 7 11 Suarez 589 27 12 Huber 561 18 13 Dokic 473 8 14 Testud 462 11 15 Tauziat 445 13

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 55 Middle Half Another variation on the theme of consistency is to count half your results — but not the best half, the middle half. So if you play twelve events, we count the middle six, omitting the best three and the worst three. If your number of events is not divisible by four, we adjust appropriately. So, e.g., if you have seventeen events, half of that is 8.5. We take the seven middle events (i. e. #6-#12), and 75% of the two around that (i.e. #5 and #13). Applying this formula, we get the following Top 20: Middle Half Rank Player Score WTA Rank 1Davenport 2480.0 1 2 Hingis 1764.5 4 3 Capriati 1754.3 2 4V. Williams 1721.0 3 5 Clijsters 1408.0 5 6 S. Williams 1285.5 6 7 Hénin 1205.0 7 8 Mauresmo 1204.0 9 9 Dokic 1173.0 8 10 Seles 1144.0 10 11 Testud 998.0 11 12 Farina Elia 800.0 14 13 Shaughnessy 741.5 12 14 Tauziat 726.5 13 15 Huber 646.0 18 16 Dementieva 590.0 15 17 Coetzer 580.5 19 18 Sanchez-Vicario 543.0 17 19 Raymond 518.8 22 20 Maleeva 461.8 16 We observe that Davenport was on top in all three of these consistency-rewarding rankings; clearly, she was the most consistent top player on the Tour. But we should note that she didn’t play a single match on clay, which is her worst surface.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 56 Idealized Ranking Systems Idealized Rankings/Proposal 1: Surface-Modified Divisor (Minimum 16) In examining the various ranking systems used (and not used) by the Tours, one noticed that each has strengths and weaknesses. The current ATP Tour system has the advantage of enforcing surface balance, but it generally ignores smaller tournaments and has no reward for beating top players. The WTA Tour system has the advantage of encouraging players to play regularly (any good result is likely to increase a player’s ranking total) but 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, and incentives for playing more than the minimum should be reduced (to prevent injury) but not entirely eliminated 4. Surfaces should be balanced — players should not be allowed to “clean up” by playing more than half their events on a particular surface. 5. The Slam Bias should be reduced relative to the stronger tournaments such as the Ericsson.

I’ll outline two proposals. The first is closer to the current WTA system: ¥ The system is point-and-divisor based: You earn a certain number of points, and divide them by a number of tournaments. This is probably not the best mathematical model, but it is (relatively) simple. ¥ The minimum divisor should be 16 (in doubles, perhaps 12). This is larger than the divisor of 14 the WTA used in 1996, but smaller than the Best 18 used from 1998 to 2000 or the Best 17 used in 2001. ¥ The Slam Bonus should be reduced from 2 to 1.5 ¥ Quality points should be multiplied by 1.5 (Note that this, combined with the preceding point, means that quality points at Slams will be multiplied by 2.5.) ¥ The current WTA Round Point table may be retained ¥ There should be a minimum number of events on each surface: Six on hardcourts, three indoors (reduced from four in 2000 because of the shortening of the indoor season), 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. ¥ If one plays beyond the minimum of sixteen, your divisor is reduced by one third of a tournament for each additional tournament played. So, e.g., if you play seventeen tournaments, your divisor is 16.67; if you play 19, it is 18, etc.. The following table shows the result of this calculation for the WTA Top 30. The first column, “Rank,” is the player’s rank under this system. “Player” is the player involved. “# of Tourn” is the number of events the player actually played this year. “Qual Pts, Round Pts, and Slam Pts” are actual quality points, round points, and points earned in Slams. “Penalty Tourns” is the number of extra tournaments assessed for surface imbalance. “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. WTA Rnk is the player’s WTA rank. And so, without further ado,

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 57 Surface-Modified Divisor (Minimum 16) Ranking Table Rank Player # of Qual Round Slam Penalty Adjusted Adjust. Score WTA Tourn Pts Pts Pts Tourns Points # Tourn Rnk 1 Capriati 17 1947 2945 2840 0 6129 16.7 367.7 2 2Davenport 17 1871 3031 1086 3 6501.5 19.7 330.6 1 3V. Williams 12 1699 2429 2264 2 5261 18 292.3 3 4 Hingis 18 1340 2606 1332 0 4953 17.3 285.8 4 5 Mauresmo 16 1129 1636 462 1 3778.5 17 222.3 9 6 Clijsters 22 1105 2198 1076 0 4139 20 207.0 5 7 S. Williams 10 1175 1829 1420 4 3824 20 191.2 6 8 Hénin 22 1059 1989 1232 0 3799 20 190.0 7 9 Dokic 26 934 1957 350 0 3737.5 22.7 164.9 8 10 Seles 14 825 1481 308 5 3054 21 145.4 10 11 Testud 28 812 1525 380 0 3054 24 127.3 11 12 Tauziat 22 579 1180 302 0 2262.5 20 113.1 13 13 Shaughnessy 26 673 1287 384 0 2537 22.7 111.9 12 14 Farina Elia 28 619 1255 308 0 2416 24 100.7 14 15 Huber 20 521 977 264 1 1953 19.7 99.3 18 16 Dementieva 22 495 1086 300 1 2001 21 95.3 15 17 Maleeva 25 552 1029 184 0 2087 22 94.9 16 18 Sanchez-Vicario 24 451 1104 144 0 1970 21.3 92.3 17 19 Coetzer 22 410 1069 326 0 1807.5 20 90.4 19 20 Raymond 21 323 784 120 0 1400 19.3 72.4 22 21 Schett 25 482 677 512 0 1513 22 68.8 21 22 Tulyaganova 26 399 776 98 0 1549.5 22.7 68.4 20 23 Suarez 16 325 643 258 2 1228.5 18 68.3 27 24 Krasnoroutskaya 17 338 530 432 1 1098 17.7 62.2 34 25 Hantuchova 19 313 499 80 0 1105 18 61.4 38 Bedanova 20 458 480 518 2 1266.5 20.7 61.3 28 Montolio 26 278 862 160 0 1378 22.7 60.8 23 Nagyova 23 369 630 278 1 1298.5 21.7 59.9 25 Sugiyama 25 316 604 92 0 1213 22 55.1 30 Serna 29 325 683 80 0 1313 24.7 53.2 26 Rubin 16 230 397 84 0 836 16 52.3 54 Grande 29 316 735 272 1 1299 25.7 50.6 24 Tanasugarn 22 301 620 272 3 1154 23 50.2 29 Martinez 13 195 658 296 5 974 21 46.4 35 Note: Some may object to all the modifications to the total points earned (“adjusted points”) while still approving of the Adjusted Tournaments mechanism. This turns out to make surprisingly little difference; the Top Four are the same (though we note an effective tie between Hingis and Venus) and the Top Ten only slightly altered: 1. Capriati (293), 2. Davenport (249), 3. V. Williams (229), 4. Hingis (228), 5. Clijsters (165), 6. Mauresmo (163), 7. Hénin (152), 8. S. Williams (150), 9. Dokic (127), 10. Seles (109), and no one else had a score over 100.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 58 Idealized Rankings/Proposal 2 — Adjusted Won/Lost The previous ranking system was based on the current WTA point table. Many of our other proposals have also been based on this. But there is nothing magic about the points system. We could also use a won/lost system. Except — a player who plays weak events may earn a much higher winning percentage than a better player who plays stronger events. Henrieta Nagyova has eight career titles because she plays a lot of Tier IV tournaments. Anna Kournikova has none, in part, because she plays mostly Tier II and up. Kournikova is the better player, but she doesn’t have the titles, or the winning percentage, to prove it. So if we are to base our system on winning percentage, we must somehow adjust for tournament strength. And we also need to account for wins over top players. And we need to encourage players to play more, within reason. We can do all that. To accomplish the first, we simply diddle with the values of wins: If we define a win at a Tier I or Tier II as being “one standard win,” then a win at a Slam might be 1.1 SWs (for this purpose, we’ll count the year-end championship as a Slam), and a win at a Tier III only .8, and a win at a Tier IV or V a mere .6. To account for wins over top players, we assign bonus wins. In our system, a top four player gets you an extra .6 wins. Beating a player ranked #5-#10 is worth .4. Beating #11-#20 gets you .2. And a win over #21- #35 is worth .1. To encourage players to play more, we do two things: First, we require you to play sixteen events, and add losses until you do. And second — and this is the key part — we reduce losses exponentially. Instead of calculating raw wins and losses, we take losses to the .8 power. What this means is that if two players have the same winning percentage, but one has played more, the one who has played more will have a slightly higher adjusted winning percentage. Not much — losses still count! But enough to make it worth playing more if it doesn’t drag your results down. Note: We will count withdrawals as losses in this system, but walkovers do not count as wins. We only calculate the Top Thirty, because this ranking is work and would require significant reprogramming by the WTA staff to use as “the” ranking system. The columns in the table are as follows: Rnk: Player’s rank under this system. Player Name: Just what it says. #Trn: The number of tournaments the player played. Slam W, L: Wins and losses in Slams. Tier I/II W, L: Wins and losses in Tier I and Tier II tournaments. Tier III W, L: Wins and losses in Tier III events. Tier IV+ W, L: Wins and losses in Tier IV, V, and Challenger events. Adj. Wins: Adjusted winning total based on the formula abova (i.e. a Slam win counts as 1.1, etc.) Bon Wins: Bonus wins as a result of victories over top players. Pen Loss: Penalty losses assessed for not playing the full 16 events. Tot Wins: Total wins as calculated, i.e. Adjusted wins plus Bonus Wins. Adj Los: Adjusted losses as calculated, i.e. total actual losses plus penalty losses raised to the .8 power. Adj Wi%: Adjusted winning percentage: Tot Wins divided by the quantity total wins plus adj. losses, expressed as a percent. The maximum is of course 100% (possible only if you play at least sixteen events and never lose a match), the minimum 0% And so, without further ado, the actual numbers:

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 59

Rnk Player # Slam TierI/II Tier III TierIV+ Bonus Wins Adj Bon Pen Tot Adj Adj WTA Name Trn WL WL WL WL ≤4 ≤10 ≤20 ≤35 Wins Wins Loss Wins Loss Wi% Rank 1Davenport 17 17 4 45 6 3 14 10 17 63.7 11.1 0 74.8 6.3 92.2 1 2V. Williams 12 19 2 27 4 6 7 5 10 47.9 8.4 4 56.3 6.3 89.9 3 3 Capriati 17 23 3 30 10 3 1 5 5 12 7 57.7 8.1 0 65.8 7.8 89.4 2 4 Hingis 18 16 4 40 11 4 0 2 5 9 12 60.8 6.2 0 67.0 8.7 88.5 4 5 Mauresmo 16 9 5 33 7 4 4 7 13 42.9 6.7 0 49.6 7.3 87.2 9 6 Clijsters 22 19 5 23 119231 2 1111251.7 5.0 0 56.7 9.2 86.1 5 7 Hénin 22 18 5 17 11 14 0 10 32181149.8 4.3 0 54.1 9.2 85.5 7 8 S. Williams 10 21 4 17 3 437340.1 5.3 6 45.4 7.8 85.4 6 9 Dokic 26 9 5 38 136401 0 310953.3 4.1 0 57.4 10.1 85.0 8 10 Seles 14 7 2 2078150334434.1 4.2 2 38.3 6.8 84.9 10 11 Testud 28 13 5 22 16 13551222847.3 3.2 0 50.5 11.4 81.6 11 12 Huber 20 6 4 20 119401023734.4 2.1 0 36.5 8.7 80.7 18 13 Farina Elia 28 7 5 23 14 11543024841.3 2.4 0 43.7 10.5 80.6 14 14 Shaughnessy 26 9 5 27 18 9 2 223244.1 2.8 0 46.9 12.3 79.2 12 15 Dementieva 22 8 5 21 13 4 4 202333.0 1.9 0 34.9 10.1 77.6 15 16 Suarez 16449710341011322.0 0.9 0 22.9 6.8 77.1 27 17 Montolio 265459167134001225.7 0.4 0 26.1 7.8 77.0 23 18 Tauziat 22 7 4 20 16 7 1 017933.3 2.7 0 36.0 11.0 76.6 13 19 Raymond 21 4 4 15 12 11431004228.8 1.0 0 29.8 9.2 76.4 22 20 Coetzer 22 8 5 16 13 8 3 011931.2 1.5 0 32.7 10.1 76.4 19 21 Tanasugarn 22 5 4 13 106513021025.1 1.0 0 26.1 8.3 76.0 29 22 Tulyaganova 263481111385023523.1 1.9 0 25.0 8.7 74.1 20 23 Maleeva 25 4 5 24 171161114929.8 2.7 0 32.5 11.9 73.3 16 24 Schett 25 10 4 12 165322111628.2 1.8 0 30.0 11.0 73.2 21 25 Sugiyama 25 3 4 14 138632013324.9 1.3 0 26.2 9.6 73.1 30 Bedanova 20 9 4 13 131201024224.3 1.8 0 26.1 9.6 73.0 28 Grande 296481177155001223.2 0.4 0 23.6 8.7 73.0 24 Sanchez-Vic 24 5 4 17 166161102727.9 1.7 0 29.6 11.0 72.9 17 Nagyova 23549119691012122.3 0.9 0 23.2 8.7 72.7 25 Serna 29 2 4 14 163495003421.6 1.0 0 22.6 11.0 67.3 26

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 60 Adjusted Winning Percentage, No Bonuses Some may object to the application of bonus wins, or to the reduction of losses. We can still calculate this ranking without that factor — strict wins and losses, adjusted for tournament strength. This produces a noticeably different list: Rank Player # Slam TierI/II Tier III TierIV+ Adj Pen Tot Adj WTA Name Trn WL WL WL WL Wins Loss Loss Wi% Rank 1Davenport 17 17 4 45 6 63.7 0 10 86.4 1 2 Capriati 17 23 3 30 10 3 1 57.7 0 14 80.5 2 3 Hingis 18 16 4 40 11 4 0 60.8 0 15 80.2 4 4 Mauresmo 16 9 5 33 7 42.9 0 12 78.1 9 5V. Williams 12 19 2 27 4 47.9 4 10 77.4 3 6 Clijsters 22 19 5 23 11923151.7 0 19 73.1 5 7 Hénin 22 18 5 17 11 14 0 10 3 49.8 0 19 72.4 7 8 Seles 14 7 2 207815034.1 2 12 70.9 10 9 Dokic 26 9 5 38 13640153.3 0 23 69.9 8 10 S. Williams 10 21 4 17 3 40.1 6 13 67.9 6 11 Shaughnessy 26 9 5 27 18 9 2 44.1 0 25 63.8 12 12 Testud 28 13 5 22 16 1355147.3 0 27 63.7 11 13 Huber 20 6 4 20 11940134.4 0 20 63.2 18 14 Tauziat 22 7 4 20 16 7 1 33.3 0 21 61.3 13 15 Farina Elia 28 7 5 23 14 1154341.3 0 27 60.5 14 16 Dementieva 22 8 5 21 13 4 4 33.0 0 22 60.0 15 17 Coetzer 22 8 5 16 13 8 3 31.2 0 21 59.8 19 18 Suarez 1644971034122.0 0 15 59.5 27 19 Raymond 21 4 4 15 12 1143128.8 0 21 57.8 22 20 Sanchez-Vicario 24 5 4 17 16616127.9 0 22 55.9 17 21 Maleeva 25 4 5 24 17116129.8 0 24 55.4 16 22 Bedanova 20 9 4 13 13120124.3 0 20 54.9 28 23 Tanasugarn 22 5 4 13 10651325.1 0 22 53.3 29 24 Schett 25 10 4 12 16532228.2 0 25 53.0 21 25 Montolio 26545916713425.7 0 24 51.7 23 Nagyova 2354911969122.3 0 22 50.3 25 Tulyaganova 26348111138523.1 0 23 50.1 20 Sugiyama 25 3 4 14 13863224.9 0 25 49.9 30 Grande 29648117715523.2 0 27 46.2 24 Serna 29 2 4 14 16349521.6 0 29 42.7 26

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 61 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) ¥ Munich Championship: 590 (390 round points + 200 qual points = 4 rounds * 50 pts/round) ¥ 96 draw [Tier I] — Ericsson, Indian Wells: 440 (260 round points + 180 qual points = 6 rounds * 30 pts/round) ¥ 56-Draw Tier I (=Charleston, 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: 243 (155 round points + 88 qual points = 4 rounds * 22 pts/round) ¥ Tier IV: 200 (140 round points for Tier IV + 60 qual points = 5 rounds * 12 pts/round) ¥ Tier IV: 130 (80 round points for Tier V + 50 qual points = 5 rounds * 10 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 (Capriati, for instance, earned more for her Slam wins than Venus, because she were able to beat more top players. It is, of course, possible to calculate the maximum number of points a player could earn for any given tournament — but this is actually an unfair gauge, because chances are that a particular player will not play all her highest-round opponents. And this is not under the player’s own control.)

Based on these numbers, we can calculate an approximate figure for the number of points a player could have earned based on her schedule. This is the “Possible Points” field. The “Actual Points” is what the player actually earned in these events (note that this does not match a player’s WTA ranking total, because all events count). The column after that, “Percent,” shows the percent of her possible points a player earned. The final column, “average richness,” is simply the possible points divided by the number of tournaments. This shows how strong a player’s schedule is. Venus Williams, for instance, played only twelve tournaments — but they included four Slams, which are obviously “rich.” Serena Williams played few, but very high-tier, events. This gave her the opportunity to earn a lot of points in a relatively small number of tournaments. The key figure, therefore, is “percent” — this is the calculation which shows how well a player lived up to expectations. In this category Venus is the leader, with 65% earned. Which is very good, but a dramatic drop from the 80% she earned last year. Venus is followed by the usual suspects: Davenport, Capriati, Serena, Hingis, and Seles, with only the first three earning as many as half their possible points. On the other hand, we find ten players (Capriati, Clijsters, Davenport, Dokic, Hénin, Hingis, Mauresmo, Seles, Serena, Venus) who earned at least 25% of their possible points — a sharp increase from seven such players last year. The chaos on the Tour is clearly evident in this figure.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 62

Player Slam Munic Tr I Tr I 56 Tr I 28 Tier Tier Tier Tier V Possibl Actual Percent Avg 96 dr draw draw II III IV Points Points Richness Bedanova 4 212821 8792 938 10.7% 440 Capriati 4114151 8481 4892 57.7% 499 Clijsters 4122931 10565 3303 31.3% 480 Coetzer 4113274 9828 1479 15.0% 447 Davenport 3 1 2 2 9 7836 4902 62.6% 461 Dementieva 4121284 9768 1581 16.2% 444 Dokic 41142941 11078 2891 26.1% 426 Farina Elia 41132863 11234 1874 16.7% 401 Grande 4 2 3 674310401 1051 10.1% 359 Hénin 4122163219437 3048 32.3% 429 Hingis 4 23261 8529 3946 46.3% 474 Huber 31222541 8548 1498 17.5% 427 Maleeva 41233911110897 1581 14.5% 436 Mauresmo 4 1 4 1 6 8118 2765 34.1% 507 Montolio 4 22238329720 1140 11.7% 374 Nagyova 4 1 3 7 6 2 9108 999 11.0% 396 Raymond 4 222631 8805 1107 12.6% 440 Sanchez-Vicario 31241922 9974 1555 15.6% 416 Schett 4 232931110305 1159 11.2% 412 Seles 2 1 1 6 3 1 5439 2306 42.4% 389 Serna 4 232944111148 1008 9.0% 384 Shaughnessy 41242103 11395 1960 17.2% 438 Suarez 4 1 3 3 4 1 7212 968 13.4% 451 Sugiyama 4 241661110096 920 9.1% 404 Tanasugarn 4 2 1 75128685 921 10.6% 395 Tauziat 31222102 9462 1759 18.6% 430 Testud 41232951111481 2336 20.3% 410 Tulyaganova 4 21264339428 1175 12.5% 377 S. Williams 4121 2 6100 3004 49.2% 610 V. Williams 4 2 1 5 6370 4128 64.8% 531 For additional alternate ranking schemes, see Statistics/Rankings Based on Head-to-Head Numbers.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 63 Head to Head/Results against Top Players The Top 20 Head to Head The table below shows how the Top 20 fared against each other in 2001. For completeness, the Top 27 are shown on the vertical axis, although only the Top 20 can be listed across the top for space reasons. Reading the Table: For space reasons, the names of the Top 20 players have been abbreviated in the column headings. Scores are meant to be read across the rows. So, e.g., if you look down the column headed DAVENPO (i.e. Davenport) and the row labelled Capriati, you will see the notation “1–2” This means that Davenport and Capriati played three times (1+2=3), with Capriati winning one and Davenport two. C C C D D D F H H H M M S S S T T T S V A L O A E O A É I U A A A E H A E U W W P I E V M K R N N B L U N L A U S L I I R J T E E I I I G E E R C E U Z T Y L L I S Z N N C N N I R E E H S G I U A L L A T E P T A S V S E H A D G I I T E R O I A M Z N T A A A Capriati 1-0 0-0 1-2 1-0 3-0 0-0 1-1 3-0 2-0 1-0 1-1 0-0 1-2 2-0 0-0 2-2 0-0 3-1 0-3 Clijsters 0-1 1-0 1-3 3-0 1-1 1-0 2-1 1-1 0-1 1-0 0-0 2-0 0-0 2-1 1-1 0-0 0-1 0-2 0-1 Coetzer 0-0 0-1 0-2 1-0 1-1 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-3 0-0 0-0 2-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 Davenport 2-1 3-1 2-0 1-1 5-0 2-0 1-0 2-1 0-0 1-0 2-0 0-0 2-0 2-0 1-0 3-0 0-0 0-2 0-3 Dementieva 0-1 0-3 0-1 1-1 0-2 0-0 0-0 1-0 1-1 0-2 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-2 0-2 0-0 0-1 Dokic 0-3 1-1 1-1 0-5 2-0 2-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 1-0 1-0 3-0 0-2 1-0 1-1 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-2 Farina Elia 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-2 0-0 0-2 0-1 0-1 3-1 1-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 1-0 1-0 2-0 0-1 0-1 Grande 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 Hénin 1-1 1-2 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 3-0 1-1 0-0 0-0 0-2 1-0 0-0 3-1 1-1 0-2 1-2 Hingis 0-3 1-1 0-0 1-2 0-1 1-0 1-0 0-0 1-0 2-0 1-2 2-1 0-2 0-0 1-0 3-0 0-0 2-1 1-1 Huber 0-2 1-0 0-0 0-0 1-1 0-0 1-3 0-3 0-1 1-1 1-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 Maleeva 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-1 2-0 0-1 0-1 1-1 0-2 1-1 0-2 1-0 0-0 1-0 1-2 0-0 0-0 0-2 1-0 Mauresmo 1-1 0-0 3-0 0-2 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 2-1 2-1 2-0 1-0 1-0 0-0 2-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 Montolio 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 1-4 0-1 0-0 0-0 Nagyova 0-2 0-2 1-0 0-0 1-0 0-1 1-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 Raymond 1-1 0-1 1-0 0-3 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-2 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-2 1-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 Sanchez-Vicario 0-0 0-2 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-3 1-0 0-0 1-2 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 1-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 Schett 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-2 0-0 0-1 0-0 1-2 0-2 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-1 1-0 Seles 2-1 0-0 0-0 0-2 0-0 2-0 0-0 2-0 2-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 1-1 0-0 1-0 0-0 1-1 0-1 Serna 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 1-0 0-1 0-1 1-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 2-0 0-0 0-1 2-0 0-0 0-0 Shaughnessy 0-2 1-2 2-2 0-2 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 1-1 0-2 1-0 0-0 0-0 1-2 Suarez 0-0 0-0 0-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 1-2 0-1 0-2 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 Tauziat 0-0 1-1 0-0 0-1 0-0 1-1 0-1 0-0 0-1 0-1 2-1 0-2 0-1 0-0 2-0 1-0 2-0 0-0 0-2 Testud 2-2 0-0 0-0 0-3 2-0 0-0 0-1 1-3 0-3 0-0 0-0 1-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-2 0-2 Tulyaganova 0-0 1-0 0-0 0-0 2-0 0-1 0-2 1-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-2 0-0 0-1 0-0 S. Williams 1-3 2-0 0-0 2-0 0-0 0-0 1-0 2-0 1-2 0-0 2-0 0-0 0-0 1-1 0-0 0-0 2-0 1-0 0-1 V. Williams 3-0 1-0 1-0 3-0 1-0 2-0 1-0 2-1 1-1 0-0 0-1 1-0 0-0 1-0 2-1 2-0 2-0 0-0 1-0

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 64 Wins Over Top Players Matches Played/Won against the (Final) Top Twenty This table summarizes how players did against the players who would consistitute the final Top Twenty. (Note that, for the players ranked in the Top Twenty, the total number of opponents they could face is 19.) The final column,% of wins against Top 20, calculates the fraction of a player’s wins earned against the Top Twenty — a measure of the difficulty one faced to earn those wins. Top 20 Top 20 Top 20 Total Total Total % of wins Player WTA Opponents Players Players Top 20 Top 20 Wins, all against Name Rank Played Beaten Lost To Victories Losses opponents Top 20 Capriati 2 14 13 7 22 12 56 39.3% Clijsters 5 16 11 11 16 14 54 29.6% Coetzer 19 8465103215.6% Davenport 1 16 14 6 29 9 62 46.8% Dementieva 15 12 4 10 4 16 33 12.1% Dokic 8 15 10 8 14 16 53 26.4% Farina Elia 14 13596114513.3% Grande 24 909011360% Hénin 7 13 9 10 13 14 59 22.0% Hingis 4 15 12 9 17 14 60 28.3% Huber 18 9676133517.1% Maleeva 16 15 7 11 8 15 35 22.9% Mauresmo 9 12 8 7 14 8 42 33.3% Montolio 23 827210395.1% Nagyova 25 1138310329.4% Raymond 22 13 4 11 4 16 33 12.1% Sanchez-Vicario 17 9464103411.8% Schett 21 9373102910.3% Seles 10 10 7 6 11 7 40 27.5% Serna 26 14 4 11 6 11 28 21.4% Shaughnessy 12 11 5 10 6 16 45 13.3% Suarez 27 61619273.7% Tauziat 13 13 6 10 9 12 34 26.5% Testud 11 13 4 11 6 20 53 11.3% Tulyaganova 20 735473013.3% S. Williams 6 11 10 4 15 7 38 39.5% V. Williams 3 16 15 4 24 4 46 52.2% Here we see dramatic changes from 2000. Venus Williams is obviously the best player in these categories, with Davenport second, Serena and Capriati about tied for third, and Hingis rounding out the Top Five. But Venus’s numbers are close to last year’s, and Davenport’s rather worse — and neither comes close to Hingis’s numbers. Hingis played every Top Twenty player, beat all but won, and earned 60% of her 77 wins against Top Twenty players. This is further evidence of the chaos on the Tour in 2001.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 65 Won/Lost Versus the Top Players (Based on Rankings at the Time of the Match) The following table shows each player’s won/lost record against the Top 10, against the Second 10 (#11- #20), and against the Top 20 as a whole, based on the rankings at the time. (The next previous table gives statistics based on the final Top 20.) The player with the best record in each category is shown in bold. WTA Player Overall Against Top 10 Against #11-#20 Against Top 20 Non-Top20 Rank Name WLWL%WL% WL % WL % 28 Bedanova 23 20 2 7 22% 4 4 50% 6 11 35% 17 9 65% 2 Capriati 56 14 10 10 50% 12 2 86% 22 12 65% 34 2 94% 5 Clijsters 54 18 3 10 23% 11 2 85% 14 12 54% 40 6 87% 19 Coetzer 32 21 0 5 0% 1 3 25% 1 8 11% 31 13 70% 1Davenport 62 9 17 7 71% 10 2 83% 27 9 75% 35 0 100% 44 Déchy 27 26 0 3 0% 2 5 29% 2 8 20% 25 18 58% 15 Dementieva 33 21 2 6 25% 2 6 25% 4 12 25% 29 9 76% 8 Dokic 53 23 3 16 16% 10 0 100% 13 16 45% 40 7 85% 14 Farina Elia 45 27 2 7 22% 4 3 57% 6 10 38% 39 17 70% 48 Frazier 19 19 1 3 25% 1 2 33% 2 5 29% 17 14 55% 24 Grande 36 27 0 5 0% 1 6 14% 1 11 8% 35 16 69% 7 Hénin 59 19 3 9 25% 8 5 62% 11 14 44% 48 5 91% 4 Hingis 60 15 7 10 41% 9 4 69% 16 14 53% 44 1 98% 18 Huber 35 20 2 6 25% 3 5 38% 5 11 31% 30 9 77% 74 Kournikova 10 10 0 3 0% 0 2 0% 0 5 0% 10 5 67% 36 Likhovtseva 25 25 1 7 13% 0 5 0% 1 12 8% 24 13 65% 16 Maleeva 35 24 2 9 18% 4 3 57% 6 12 33% 29 12 71% 35 Martinez 19 13 0 4 0% 0 0 — 0 4 0% 19 9 68% 9 Mauresmo 42 11 8 5 62% 6 1 86% 14 6 70% 28 5 85% 23 Montolio 39 24 0 4 0% 2 5 29% 2 9 18% 37 15 71% 25 Nagyova 32 22 1 5 17% 2 6 25% 3 11 21% 29 11 73% 130 Pierce 6 8 0 0 — 0 1 0% 0 1 0% 6 7 46% 22 Raymond 33 21 0 9 0% 4 7 36% 4 16 20% 29 5 85% 54 Rubin 16 16 0 5 0% 2 1 67% 2 6 25% 14 10 58% 17 Sanchez-Vicario 34 22 1 4 20% 2 5 29% 3 9 25% 31 13 70% 21 Schett 29 25 2 8 20% 1 2 33% 3 10 23% 26 15 63% 37 Schnyder 24 24 1 4 20% 1 2 33% 2 6 25% 22 18 55% 10 Seles 40 10 5 4 56% 4 2 67% 9 6 60% 31 4 89% 26 Serna 28 29 0 4 0% 3 8 27% 3 12 20% 25 17 60% 12 Shaughnessy 45 24 4 13 24% 3 1 75% 7 14 33% 38 10 79% 27 Suarez 27 15 1 2 33% 1 5 17% 2 7 22% 25 8 76% 30 Sugiyama 28 25 1 4 20% 3 6 33% 4 10 29% 24 15 62% 29 Tanasugarn 25 22 2 7 22% 0 1 0% 2 8 20% 23 14 62% 13 Tauziat 34 21 1 7 13% 7 4 64% 8 11 42% 26 10 72% 11 Testud 53 27 4 14 22% 2 2 50% 6 16 27% 47 11 81% 20 Tulyaganova 30 23 2 5 29% 3 1 75% 5 6 45% 25 17 60% 6 S. Williams 38 7 7 7 50% 8 0 100% 15 7 68% 23 0 100% 3V. Williams 46 5 14 1 93% 5363% 19 4 83% 27 1 96%

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 66 Won/Lost Versus the Top Players (Based on Final Rankings) The following table shows each player’s won/lost record against the Top 10, against the Second 10 (#11- #20), and against the Top 20 as a whole, based on final rankings. Note: This is not the same as the players’ wins over Top 10/Top 20 players, given in the previous table. What is shown here is the player’s record against the women who ended the year in the Top 10/Top 20. At the time of the matches, some of these women will not have been at their final ranks. On the other hand, it could be argued that this is a better measure of success against top players — a player who ends 2000 at #7 (e.g. Hénin) had a better 2000 than a player who began the year at #7 but ended it outside the Top Twenty (Pierce), and a win against the player with the higher final rank should therefore mean more. The player with the best record in each category is shown in bold. WTA Player Overall W/L Against Top 10 Against #11-#20 Against Top 20 Non-Top20 Rank Name WLWL%WL% WL % WL % 2 Capriati 56 14 14 10 58% 8 2 80% 22 12 65% 34 2 94% 5 Clijsters 54 18 5 10 33% 11 4 73% 16 14 53% 38 4 90% 19 Coetzer 32 21 2 8 20% 3 2 60% 5 10 33% 27 11 71% 1Davenport 62 9 17 8 68% 12 1 92% 29 9 76% 33 0 100% 15 Dementieva 33 21 2 8 20% 2 8 20% 4 16 20% 29 5 85% 8 Dokic 53 23 2 14 13% 12 2 86% 14 16 47% 39 7 85% 14 Farina Elia 45 27 0 9 0% 8 2 80% 8 11 42% 37 16 70% 24 Grande 36 27 0 5 0% 0 6 0% 0 11 0% 36 16 69% 7 Hénin 59 19 3 10 23% 10 4 71% 13 14 48% 46 5 90% 4 Hingis 60 15 7 12 37% 10 2 83% 17 14 55% 43 1 98% 18 Huber 35 20 2 8 20% 4 5 44% 6 13 32% 29 7 81% 16 Maleeva 35 24 2 11 15% 6 4 60% 8 15 35% 27 9 75% 9 Mauresmo 42 11 4 6 40% 10 2 83% 14 8 64% 28 3 90% 23 Montolio 39 24 1 3 25% 1 7 13% 2 10 17% 37 14 73% 25 Nagyova 32 22 0 8 0% 3 2 60% 3 10 23% 29 12 71% 22 Raymond 33 21 1 11 8% 3 5 38% 4 16 20% 29 5 85% 17 Sanchez-Vicario 34 22 1 8 11% 3 2 60% 4 10 29% 30 12 71% 21 Schett 29 25 2 9 18% 1 1 50% 3 10 23% 26 15 63% 10 Seles 40 10 9 6 60% 2 1 67% 11 7 61% 29 3 91% 26 Serna 28 29 1 6 14% 5 5 50% 6 11 35% 22 18 55% 12 Shaughnessy 45 24 3 11 21% 3 5 38% 6 16 27% 39 8 83% 27 Suarez 27 15 0 2 0% 1 7 13% 1 9 10% 26 6 81% 13 Tauziat 34 21 2 8 20% 7 4 64% 9 12 43% 25 9 74% 11 Testud 53 27 4 16 20% 2 4 33% 6 20 23% 47 7 87% 20 Tulyaganova 30 23 2 3 40% 2 4 33% 4 7 36% 26 16 62% 6 S. Williams 38 7 9 7 56% 60100% 15 7 68% 23 0 100% 3V. Williams 46 5 15 2 88% 9282% 24 4 86% 22 1 96%

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 67 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. Davenport (17) 1. Davenport (17) 2. V. Williams (14) 2. V. Williams (15) 3. Capriati (10) 3. Capriati (14) 4. Mauresmo (8) 4. Seles (9) 5. Hingis (7) 4. S. Williams (9) 5. S. Williams (7) 6. Hingis (7) 7. Seles (5) 7. Clijsters (5) 8. Shaughnessy (4) 8. Mauresmo (4) 9. Clijsters (3) 8. Testud (4) 9. Dokic (3) 10. Hénin (3) 9. Hénin (3) 10. Shaughnessy (3)

Winning Percentage against Top Ten Players

Based on the Top Ten at the Time: Based on the Final Top Ten: 1. V. Williams (93%) 1. V. Williams (88%) 2. Davenport (71%) 2. Davenport (68%) 3. Mauresmo (62%) 3. Seles (60%) 4. Seles (56%) 4. Capriati (58%) 5. Capriati (50%) 5. S. Williams (56%) 5. S. Williams (50%) 6. Tulyaganova (40%) 7. Hingis (41%) 7. Mauresmo (40%) 8. Suarez (33%) 8. Hingis (37%) 9. Tulyaganova (29%) 9. Clijsters (33%) 10. Dementieva (25%) 10. Montolio (25%) 10. Frazier (25%) 10. Hénin (25%) 10. Huber (25%)

The above list does not, of course, include the handful of players 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 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 68 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 WTA Player Total Points Earned % of Points Points Earned % Not Earned Rank Name Points in Slams in Slams outside Slams in Slams 28 Bedanova 938 518 55.2% 420 44.8% 2 Capriati 4892 2840 58.1% 2052 41.9% 5 Clijsters 3303 1076 32.6% 2227 67.4% 19 Coetzer 1479 326 22.0% 1153 78.0% 1Davenport 4902 1086 22.2% 3816 77.8% 44 Déchy 742 142 19.1% 600 80.9% 15 Dementieva 1581 300 19.0% 1281 81.0% 8 Dokic 2891 350 12.1% 2541 87.9% 14 Farina Elia 1874 308 16.4% 1566 83.6% 48 Frazier 656 226 34.5% 430 65.5% 24 Grande 1051 272 25.9% 779 74.1% 7 Hénin 3048 1232 40.4% 1816 59.6% 4 Hingis 3946 1332 33.8% 2614 66.2% 18 Huber 1498 264 17.6% 1234 82.4% 74 Kournikova 484 208 43.0% 276 57.0% 36 Likhovtseva 845 172 20.4% 673 79.6% 16 Maleeva 1581 184 11.6% 1397 88.4% 36 Martinez 853 296 34.7% 557 65.3% 9 Mauresmo 2765 462 16.7% 2303 83.3% 23 Montolio 1140 160 14.0% 980 86.0% 25 Nagyova 999 278 27.8% 721 72.2% 130 Pierce 255 68 26.7% 187 73.3% 22 Raymond 1107 120 10.8% 987 89.2% 54 Rubin 627 84 13.4% 543 86.6% 17 Sanchez-Vicario 1555 144 9.3% 1411 90.7% 21 Schett 1159 512 44.2% 647 55.8% 37 Schnyder 824 142 17.2% 682 82.8% 10 Seles 2306 308 13.4% 1998 86.6% 26 Serna 1008 80 7.9% 928 92.1% 12 Shaughnessy 1960 384 19.6% 1576 80.4% 27 Suarez 968 258 26.7% 710 73.3% 29 Tanasugarn 921 272 29.5% 649 70.5% 13 Tauziat 1759 302 17.2% 1457 82.8% 11 Testud 2336 380 16.3% 1956 83.7% 20 Tulyaganova 1175 98 8.3% 1077 91.7% 6 S. Williams 3004 1420 47.3% 1584 52.7% 3V. Williams 4128 2264 54.8% 1864 45.2% The Top 25 collectively earned 57459 points in 2001. 16,402 of these, or 28.6%, were earned at Slams. The mean of the fraction of points earned in the Slams is 24.5% (that is, this is the average of the players’ fractions). The median is Dementieva’s 19.0%.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 69 Quality Versus Round Points WTA Player Total Round Quality % of Points % of Points Rank Name Points Points Points from Quality from Round Pts 1Davenport 4902 1871 3031 38.2% 61.8% 2 Capriati 4892 1947 2945 39.8% 60.2% 3V. Williams 4128 1699 2429 41.2% 58.8% 4 Hingis 3946 1340 2606 34.0% 66.0% 5 Clijsters 3303 1105 2198 33.5% 66.5% 6 S. Williams 3004 1175 1829 39.1% 60.9% 7 Hénin 3048 1059 1989 34.7% 65.3% 8 Dokic 2891 934 1957 32.3% 67.7% 9 Mauresmo 2765 1129 1636 40.8% 59.2% 10 Seles 2306 825 1481 35.8% 64.2% 11 Testud 2336 811 1525 34.7% 65.3% 12 Shaughnessy 1960 673 1287 34.3% 65.7% 13 Tauziat 1759 579 1180 32.9% 67.1% 14 Farina Elia 1874 619 1255 33.0% 67.0% 15 Dementieva 1581 495 1086 31.3% 68.7% 16 Maleeva 1581 552 1029 34.9% 65.1% 17 Sanchez-Vicario 1555 451 1104 29.0% 71.0% 18 Huber 1498 521 977 34.8% 65.2% 19 Coetzer 1479 410 1069 27.7% 72.3% 20 Tulyaganova 1175 399 776 34.0% 66.0% 21 Schett 1159 482 677 41.6% 58.4% 22 Raymond 1107 323 784 29.2% 70.8% 23 Montolio 1140 278 862 24.4% 75.6% 24 Grande 1051 316 735 30.1% 69.9% 25 Nagyova 999 369 630 36.9% 63.1% 26 Serna 1008 325 683 32.2% 67.8% 27 Suarez 968 325 643 33.6% 66.4% 28 Bedanova 938 458 480 48.8% 51.2% 29 Tanasugarn 921 301 620 32.7% 67.3% 30 Sugiyama 920 316 604 34.3% 65.7% 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 (by which time either player could have lost), etc. For Comparison: The Top 25 earned an actual total of 57,439 points (the total of their Best 17 scores is slightly lower). 20,362 of these, or 35.4%, came from quality. The median quality percentage for the Top 25 is 34.3% (earned by Shaughnessy); the arithmetic mean (average) is also 34.3%. Schett’s 41.6% of points from quality is the leader— but nearly one third of these points come from one win over Venus Williams. Venus herself is second — but the mpst amazing score is posted by Bedanova (nearly 50% of points from quality!), who is not Top 25 but who looks likely to be a huge threat in future years.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 70 Percentage of Points Earned on Each Surface The first four numbers in this table should be fairly self-explanatory. The last columns, RMS, are perhaps less clear. This is an attempt to assess a player’s balance. RMS, for Root Mean Square, measures the player’s distance from the mean. The smaller the RMS value, the more “typical” a player is. For Reference: For the Top 25 as a whole, 45.4% of all points were earned on hardcourts, 22.9% on clay, 10.1% on grass, and 21.5% indoors. (As might be expected, this represents a slight increase in clay points from last year and a significant drop in indoor points.) Note: Due to round-off, some percentages will not add up to 100. WTA Rank Player % Hard % Clay % Grass % Indr RMS 28 Bedanova 76% 6% 0% 17% 0.37 2 Capriati 48% 34% 9% 9% 0.17 5 Clijsters 44% 21% 11% 23% 0.03 19 Coetzer 27% 54% 4% 16% 0.37 1Davenport 45% 0% 15% 41% 0.30 44 Déchy 53% 23% 8% 15% 0.10 15 Dementieva 45% 15% 4% 36% 0.17 8 Dokic 33% 27% 9% 31% 0.16 14 Farina Elia 20% 47% 6% 26% 0.35 48 Frazier 42% 37% 9% 12% 0.18 24 Grande 61% 18% 2% 19% 0.18 7 Hénin 36% 24% 27% 14% 0.21 4 Hingis 63% 27% 0% 11% 0.23 18 Huber 31% 16% 12% 41% 0.25 74 Kournikova 49% 0% 0% 51% 0.39 36 Likhovtseva 28% 30% 28% 14% 0.27 16 Maleeva 11% 13% 9% 67% 0.59 35 Martinez 21% 53% 26% 0% 0.47 9 Mauresmo 27% 43% 2% 28% 0.30 23 Montolio 13% 74% 5% 7% 0.63 25 Nagyova 57% 37% 6% 0% 0.28 130 Pierce 82% 18% 0% 0% 0.43 22 Raymond 40% 11% 23% 26% 0.19 54 Rubin 41% 4% 22% 33% 0.26 17 Sanchez-Vicario 33% 54% 2% 11% 0.36 21 Schett 49% 30% 6% 16% 0.10 37 Schnyder 32% 51% 9% 8% 0.34 10 Seles 91% 0% 0% 9% 0.53 26 Serna 27% 37% 24% 13% 0.28 12 Shaughnessy 41% 28% 12% 19% 0.08 27 Suarez 33% 67% 0% 0% 0.52 30 Sugiyama 62% 15% 7% 17% 0.19 29 Tanasugarn 66% 0% 34% 0% 0.44 13 Tauziat 39% 6% 23% 32% 0.24 11 Testud 50% 14% 5% 31% 0.14 20 Tulyaganova 16% 47% 15% 21% 0.39 6 S. Williams 70% 5% 8% 17% 0.31 3V. Williams 68% 8% 22% 3% 0.35 Thus Clijsters, whose RMS score is .03, is closest to the norm, with Shaughnessy second; the most absurdly unbalanced player is Montolio, followed by Maleeva, Seles, and Suarez (the latter two being injured).

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 71 Consistency We often speak of a player’s “consistency,” but the term does not really have a clear definition. We can offer some models, however. Standard Deviation of Scores by Tournament One measure of a player’s consistency is the standard deviation of a player’s results over the tournaments she plays. The following list expresses a player’s consistency by dividing the standard deviation of her score by the mean score. In mathematical parlance, if the player’s scores are s1, s2, … sn, then the number given here is given by the formula (shown here in two forms):

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

Thus (for the mathematicians out there), this is not actually the standard deviation; it has been normalized by dividing by the mean. Note: This is not a ranking system; it is a measure of consistency. A player who loses in the second round of every tournament is more consistent (consistently bad) than a player who wins half of her tournaments and loses early in the other half — but the player who wins the tournaments will have, and probably deserve, a higher ranking. In the list below, the lower the score, the more consistent the player is. I have not “ranked” the players, lest this be confused with a ranking scheme, but they are listed in order from least to most consistent by the “standard deviation” measure. Davenport 0.42 Suarez 1.03 Seles 0.66 Capriati 1.04 Hingis 0.66 Dementieva 1.07 Raymond 0.73 Rubin 1.07 S. Williams 0.80 Sanchez-Vicario 1.08 Mauresmo 0.83 Pierce 1.08 Huber 0.84 Nagyova 1.09 Testud 0.86 Likhovtseva 1.10 Clijsters 0.90 Frazier 1.14 Shaughnessy 0.91 Maleeva 1.16 V. Williams 0.91 Schett 1.20 Farina Elia 0.92 Tanasugarn 1.21 Tauziat 0.96 Montolio 1.24 Sugiyama 0.96 Schnyder 1.32 Dokic 0.97 Grande 1.32 Déchy 1.00 Serna 1.40 Martinez 1.00 Kournikova 1.45 Coetzer 1.01 Tulyaganova 1.48 Hénin 1.02 Bedanova 1.59

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 72 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 Bedanova 28 20 9 6 (x) Capriati 2 17 1 2 Clijsters 5 22 4 2 Coetzer 19 22 6 6* Davenport 1 17 0 0 Déchy 44 26 8 14 (x) Dementieva 15 22 5 8* Dokic 8 26 6 4 Farina Elia 14 28 6 7* Frazier 48 19 8 5 (x) Grande 24 29 10 14 (x) Hénin 7 22 3 4 Hingis 4 18 1 0 (x) Huber 18 20 4 8* Kournikova 74 10 5 2 (x) Likhovtseva 36 25 10 10 (x) Maleeva 16 25 8 9* Martinez 35 13 4 3 (x) Mauresmo 9 16 2 2* Montolio 23 26 5 16 (x) Nagyova 25 23 8 6 (x) Pierce 130 8 4 1 (x) Raymond 22 21 4 9 (x) Rubin 54 16 6 6 (x) S. Williams 6 10 0 0 Sanchez-Vicario 17 24 7 7 Schett 21 25 8 9 (x) Schnyder 37 25 12 7 (x) Seles 10 14 2 0 (x) Serna 26 29 11 13 (x) Shaughnessy 12 26 5 8* Suarez 27 16 5 4 (x) Sugiyama 30 25 8 9 (x) Tanasugarn 29 22 7 9 (x) Tauziat 13 22 8 3* Testud 11 28 4 6 Tulyaganova 20 26 11 10 (x) V. Williams 3 12 1 1 (x)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 73 So we can compile a list based on rates of first-round and early-round losses. Note that a lower number is better in this case: Frequency of Early Losses First-Round Loss Rate Early-Round Loss Rate Player Name First Round Loss Rate Player Name Early Round Loss Rate Davenport 0% Davenport 0% S. Williams 0% S. Williams 0% Hingis 5.6% Hingis 5.6% Capriati 5.9% Seles 14.3% V. Williams 8.3% V. Williams 16.7% Mauresmo 12.5% Capriati 17.6% Hénin 13.6% Mauresmo 25.0% Seles 14.3% Clijsters 27.3% Testud 14.3% Hénin 31.8% Clijsters 18.2% Testud 35.7% Raymond 19.0% Dokic 38.5% Montolio 19.2% Farina Elia 46.4% Shaughnessy 19.2% Shaughnessy 50.0% Huber 20.0% Tauziat 50.0% Farina Elia 21.4% Martinez 53.8% Dementieva 22.7% Coetzer 54.5% Dokic 23.1% Suarez 56.3% Coetzer 27.3% Sanchez-Vicario 58.3% Sanchez-Vicario 29.2% Dementieva 59.1% Déchy 30.8% Huber 60.0% Martinez 30.8% Nagyova 60.9% Suarez 31.3% Raymond 61.9% Tanasugarn 31.8% Pierce 62.5% Maleeva 32.0% Maleeva 68.0% Schett 32.0% Schett 68.0% Sugiyama 32.0% Sugiyama 68.0% Grande 34.5% Frazier 68.4% Nagyova 34.8% Kournikova 70.0% Tauziat 36.4% Tanasugarn 72.7% Rubin 37.5% Rubin 75.0% Serna 37.9% Bedanova 75.0% Likhovtseva 40.0% Schnyder 76.0% Frazier 42.1% Likhovtseva 80.0% Tulyaganova 42.3% Montolio 80.8% Bedanova 45.0% Tulyaganova 80.8% Schnyder 48.0% Grande 82.8% Kournikova 50.0% Serna 82.8% Pierce 50.0% Déchy 84.6%

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 74 Worst Losses The tables below list the “worst” losses suffered by a player, based on the player’s rank at the time of the loss. Losses are listed in decreasing order of severity. Player WTA Rank Losses to players outside Top 50 Losses to players outside Top 20 Bedanova 28 Kleinova (110) — Indian Wells Black (40) — Pan Pacific Oremans (89) — Birmingham Kremer (37) — Leipzig Kandarr (79) — Indian Wells Déchy (26) — Canberra Hrdlickova (69) — New Haven Farina Elia (23) — Roland Garros Osterloh (64) — Bratislava Sidot (54) — Eastbourne Capriati 2 Kuti Kis (59) — Rome Raymond (29) — Sydney Clijsters 5 Gagliardi (112) — Rome Sugiyama (48) — San Diego Diaz-Oliva (65) — Bol Tulyaganova (34) — Knokke-Heist Kremer (30) — Berlin Shaughnessy (27) — Scottsdale Coetzer 19 Schwartz (150) — U. S. Open Panova (41) — Filderstadt Myskina (118) — New Haven Sugiyama (40) — Strasbourg Hantuchova (108) — Oklahoma City Raymond (30) — Eastbourne Asagoe (77) — Pan Pacific Dokic (28) — Ericsson Hopkins (76) — Canadian Open Shaughnessy (25) — Hamburg Weingärtner (63) — Charleston Nagyova (22) — Bahia Schiavone (51) — Roland Garros Davenport 1 Déchy 44 Foretz (149) — Shanghai Suarez (33) — Australian Open Reeves (144) — Quebec City Nagyova (33) — Roland Garros Bovina (141) — Indian Wells Hénin (31) — Sydney Nola (120) — Princess Cup Nagyova (31) — Boynton Beach $75K Weingärtner (87) — Auckland Kremer (30) — Rome Glass (83) — Charleston Schett (23) — Wimbledon Hopkins (76) — Canadian Open Nagyova (23) — U. S. Open Nola (75) — Bol Lamade (74) — Bratislava Hantuchova (68) — Birmingham Osterloh (52) — Ericsson Dementieva 15 Mikaelian (105) — Zurich Tulyaganova (48) — Vienna Tulyaganova (68) — ’s-Hertogenbosch Panova (36) — Linz Bedanova (51) — Australian Open Nagyova (33) — Roland Garros Déchy (26) — Sydney Maleeva (21) — Paris Huber (21) — Wimbledon Dokic 8 Kostanic (169) — Vienna Chladkova (43) — Knokke-Heist Mandula (131) — Roland Garros Majoli (41) — Charleston Molik (92) — Birmingham Leon Garcia (66) — Sopot Hantuchova (57) — Leipzig

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 75 Farina Elia 14 Mikaelian (167) — Basel Hénin (45) — Gold Coast Kleinova (126) — Paris Petrova (42) — Wimbledon Matevzic (105) — U. S. Open Leon Garcia (38) — Rome Sucha (100) — Quebec City Nagyova (27) — New Haven Petrova (90) — Amelia Island Pisnik (86) — Luxembourg de los Rios (85) — Knokke-Heist Ruano Pascual (81) — Acupulco de los Rios (75) — Bahia Pratt (71) — Charleston Krasnoroutskaya (62) — Roland Garros Chladkova (54) — Berlin Torrens Valero (52) — Sopot Frazier 48 Cacic (129) — Oklahoma City Brandi (47) — Madrid Jidkova (114) — Big Island Serna (27) — Ericsson Craybas (112) — Amelia Island Serna (25) — Eastbourne Stevenson (111) — San Diego Grande (84) — Hobart McQuillan (71) — Indian Wells Grande (62) — Australian Open Petrova (58) — Roland Garros Kandarr (53) — Stanford Rittner (53) — U. S. Open Tu (51) — Nice Grande 24 Mandula (131) — Roland Garros Sugiyama (43) — Berlin Prakusya (130) — Los Angeles Black (37) — Indian Wells Krasnoroutskaya (120) — Doha Tanasugarn (32) — Princess Cup Anca Barna (119) — Wimbledon Raymond (25) — Birmingham Ad. Serra-Zanetti (104) — New Haven M. J. Martinez (90) — Madrid Schiavone (80) — Auckland Torrens Valero (75) — Budapest Dragomir Ilie (71) — ’s-Hertogenbosch Pratt (65) — Shanghai Kuti Kis (57) — Porto Montolio (51) — Estoril Hénin 7 Razzano (217) — Cergy Pontoise $75K Garbin (50) — Ericsson Montolio (51) — Estoril Serna (30) — Scottsdale Tullyaganova (26) — Linz Hingis 4 Ruano Pascual (83) — Wimbledon Huber 18 Razzano (113) — Roland Garros Farina Elia (38) — Indian Wells Krasnoroutskaya (70) — Rome Kremer (37) — Leipzig Leon Garcia (66) — Sopot Schnyder (33) — Vienna Chladkova (65) — Estoril Raymond (31) — Luxembourg Farina Elia (28) — Strasbourg Kournikova 74 Fokina (258) — Moscow Morariu (50) — Sydney Myskina (85) — Leipzig Kremer (32) — Filderstadt Pratt (74) — San Diego Likhovtseva 36 Mattek (unranked) — Boynton Beach $75K Garbin (50) — Ericsson Pisnik (73) — Scottsdale Black (45) — Hobart Krasnoroutskya (72) — Indian Wells Sidot (31) — Pan Pacific de los Rios (59) — Roland Garros Raymond (25) — Birmingham Bovina (56) — San Diego Serna (25) — Eastbourne Schett (21) — Australian Open Maleeva (21) — Paris Shaughnessy (21) — Berlin

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 76 Maleeva 16 Kandarr (73) — Estoril Bedanova (45) — Canadian Oepn Schiavone (72) — Rome Hénin (31) — Canberra Molik (68) — U. S. Open Tanasugarn (30) — Australian Open Myskina (68) — Moscow Dokic (28) — Hamburg Marrero (55) — Ericsson Suarez (28) — Berlin Serna (25) — Eastbourne Farina Elia (23) — Roland Garros Martinez 35 Bovina (141) — Indian Wells Farina Elia (49) — Nice Gagliardi (93) — Australian Open Schnyder (46) — Hamburg Shaughnessy (38) — Gold Coast Black (37) — Roland Garros Farina Elia (32) — Amelia Island Rubin (27) — Eastbourne Dokic (23) — Rome Mauresmo 9 Kandarr (56) — Roland Garros Tanasugarn (31) — Wimbledon Bedanova (28) — Moscow Dokic (23) — Rome Huber (21) — Canadian Open Montolio 23 M. J. Martinez (145) — Bogota Rubin (36) — Zurich Kleinova (136) — Moscow Tulyaganova (34) — Knokke-Heist Cervanova (115) — Porto Talaja (29) — Gold Coast Parkinson (105) — Australian Open Suarez (23) — Acupulco Sidot (75) — New Haven Frazier (21) — Ericsson Marrero (73) — Vienna Torrens Valero (72) — Budapest Majoli (72) — Cergy Pontoise $75K Leon Garcia (66) — Sopot Schiavone (51) — Roland Garros Nagyova 25 Ad. Serra-Zanetti (137) — Wimbledon Schnyder (44) — Pattaya McQuillan (111) — Dubai Rubin (41) — Linz Irvin (94) — Canadian Open Smashnova (92) — Vienna Hantuchova (81) — Berlin Kandarr (61) — Gold Coast Hantuchova (57) — Leipzig Chladkova (56) — Hamburg Torrens Valero (52) — Sopot Pierce 130 McQuillan (111) — Dubai Suarez (33) — Australian Open Gersi (77) — Doha Kremer (25) — Paris Tulyaganova (67) — Strasbourg Frazier (24) — Charleston Petrova (60) — Rome Raymond 22 Glass (79) — Roland Garros Grande (43) — Canadian Open Weingärtner (77) — Australian Open Rubin (27) — Eastbourne Majoli (56) — Pan Pacific Rubin 54 Schwartz (unranked) — Wimbledon Dragomir Ilie (46) — Charleston Husarova (151) — Australian Open Hénin (31) — Canberra Bacheva (98) — Porto Frazier (29) — Canadian Open Petrova (90) — Amelia Island Schett (23) — San Diego Molik (73) — Los Angeles Chladkova (54) — Berlin

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 77 Sanchez- 17 Krasnoroutskaya (94) — Dubai Bedanova (46) — San Diego Vicario Irvin (93) — Big Island Weingärtner [42] — Canadian Open Razzano (83) — Los Angeles Majoli (40) — Zurich Stevenson (76) — Linz Likhovtseva (39) — Charleston Kruger (56) — Bali Déchy (36) — Indian Wells Osterloh (51) — Wimbledon Dokic (28) — Hamburg Frazier (24) — Roland Garros Schett 21 Sfar (136) — Dubai Hrdlickova (48) — Ericsson Bradshaw (134) — Auckland Schnyder (46) — Hamburg MJMartinez (90) — Madrid Bedanova (42) — Los Angeles Myskina (68) — Moscow Sugiyama (38) — Linz Pisnik (66) — Estoril Schnyder (35) — Berlin Hantuchova (53) — Zurich Likhovtseva (34) — Rome Rubin (33) — Filderstadt Suarez (25) — Vienna Huber (22) — Leipzig Schnyder 37 Dominikovic (129) — Australian Open Tulyaganova (48) — Vienna Cacic (108) — Ericsson Petrova (46) — Zurich Lamade (101) — Strasbourg Black (37) — Roland Garros Carlsson (101) — Basel Sugiyama (34) — Sydney Schiavone (84) — Indian Wells Leon Garcia (30) — Charleston M. J. Martinez (74) — Knokke-Heist Sidot (28) — Paris Bovina (65) — ’s-Hertogenbosch Dokic (27) — Amelia Island Farina Elia (63) — Gold Coast Shaughnessy (25) — Hamburg Kruger (61) — Bahia Dokic (23) — Rome Seles 10 De Los Rios (72) — Madrid Bedanova (37) — U. S. Open Garbin (54) — Indian Wells Shaughnessy (27) — Scottsdale Serna 26 Arn (132) — Basel Déchy (48) — Berlin Bes (109) — U. S. Open Petrova (42) — Wimbledon Loit (101) — Australian Open Nagyova (33) — Rome Bovina (95) — Estoril Medina Garrigues (81) — Madrid Glass (79) — Hamburg Torrens Valero (69) — Palermo Myskina (68) — Moscow Hrdlickova (66) — Leipzig Farina Elia (63) — Gold Coast Pratt (63) — Birmingham Kruger (59) — Canberra Petrova (58) — Roland Garros Tu (51) — Nice Shaughnessy 12 Molik (116) — Sydney Hénin (45) — Gold Coast McQuillan (71) — Indian Wells Bedanova (37) — U. S. Open Pratt (65) — Ericsson Serna (31) — Filderstadt Weingärtner (63) — Charleston Serna (25) — Eastbourne Hantuchova (53) — Zurich Maleeva (21) — Paris Suarez 27 Talaja (150) — U. S. Open Tulyaganova (48) — Vienna Myskina (90) — Wimbledon Likhovtseva (39) — Charleston Tu (67) — Auckland Maleeva (25) — Canberra Schett (22) — Indian Wells Sanchez-Vicario (21) — New Haven

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 78 Tanasugarn 29 Widjaja (579) — Bali Sugiyama (48) — San Diego Beigbeder (373) — Strasbourg Brandi (44) — Birmingham Perebiynis (177) — Rome Likhovtseva (31) — Eastbourne Gubacsi (165) — Roland Garros Schett (22) — Canadian Open Carlsson (97) — New Haven Poutchek (86) — Pattaya Boogert (79) — Doha Rippner (73) — Sydney McQuillan (64) — U. S. Open Molik (59) — Shanghai Tauziat 13 Schnitzer (182) — Berlin Rubin (41) — Linz Dominikovic (99) — Indian Wells Panova (41) — Filderstadt Kruger (79) — Rome Schiavone (40) — Moscow Krasnoroutskaya (62) — Roland Garros Tanasugarn (33) — Eastbourne Kremer (32) — Nice Farina Elia (28) — Strasbourg Testud 11 Craybas (145) — Auckland Sugiyama (49) — Pan Pacific M. J. Martinez (90) — Madrid Montolio (36) — Bol Diaz-Oliva (87) — Acupulco Hénin (31) — Canberra Shaughnessy (30) — Paris Farina Elia (29) — Rome Kremer (28) — Eastbourne Raymond (25) — Indian Wells Hénin (22) — Australian Open Tulyaganova 26 L. Huber (294) — Princess Cup Tu (49)— Canadian Open Ospina (>150) — Pan Pacific Schiavone (46) — Leipzig Vakulenko (146) — Pattaya Weingärtner (42) — San Diego Bovina (141) — Indian Wells Kremer (38) — Australian Open J. Nejedly (130) — U. S. Open Serna (28) — Porto Vavrinec (90) — Antwerp Farina Elia (28) — Strasbourg Torrens Valero (77) — Tashkent Brandi (27) — Hobart Pratt (77) — Los Angeles Serna (26) — Roland Garros Schett (22) — Doha Williams, S. 10 Williams, V. 3 Schett (25) — Roland Garros 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 2001) of the player to whom she lost. Worst “Worst Loss” Best “Worst Loss” 1. Tulyaganova (L. Huber, then #294, ended #180) 1. S. Williams (Seles, then #10, ended #10) 2. Hénin (Razzano, then #217, ended #72) 2. Davenport (Capriati, then #14, ended #2) 3. Tauziat (Schnitzer, then #182, ended #140) 3. V. Williams (Schett, then #25, ended #21) 4. Dokic (Kostanic, then #169. ended #133) 4. Mauresmo (Kandarr, then #56, ended #71) 5. Farina Elia (Mikaelian, then #167, ended #78) 5. Capriati (Kuti Kis, then #59, ended #80) 6. Coetzer (Schwartz, then #150, ended #89) 6. Seles (de los Rios, then #72, ended #51) 7. Testud (Craybas, then #145, ended #93) 7. Maleeva (Kandarr, then #73, ended #71) 8. Montolio (M. J. Martinez, then #145, ended #92) 8. Raymond (Glass, then #79, ended #105) 9. Nagyova (Ad. Serra-Zanetti, then #137, ended #83) 9. Hingis (Ruano Pascual, then #83, ended #56) 10. Schett (Sfar, then #136, ended #82) 10. Sanchez-Vicario (Krasnoroutskaya, then #94)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 79 Fraction of Points Earned in Biggest Win In general, the lower this number, the more consistent a player has been, as she did not use one freak result to significantly change her result. The table shows the point value of the player’s biggest win, what percentage of her points this represents, what her score would have been without this win, where she would have stood in the rankings without that win, and what the win was. Players who would have retained their rankings even without their biggest wins are marked in italics. Note: A “big win” does not constitute the result that took a player deepest into a tournament, but the result that was worth the most points. In the column labelled “Big Win,” it is assumed that the player won the tournament listed unless this is followed by the round in which the player lost (e.g. “F”=final, “SF”= semifinal, “QF”=Quarterfinal). WTA Player Best 17 Big Win Big Win Score W/O Resulting Big Win Rank Name Amount Percent Big Win Ranking 1Davenport 4902 444 9.1% 4458 2 Wimbledon SF 2 Capriati 4892 1040 21.3% 3852 4 Australian Open W 3V. Williams 4128 956 23.2% 3172 5 U. S. Open W 4 Hingis 3944 614 15.6% 3332 4 Australian Open F 5 Clijsters 3265 512 15.7% 2787 7 Roland Garros F 6 S. Williams 3004 818 27.2% 2186 10 U. S. Open F 7 Hénin 2989 608 20.3% 2411 9 Wimbledon F 8 Dokic 2780 373 13.4% 2443 9 Rome W 9 Mauresmo 2765 483 17.5% 2282 10 Berlin W 10 Seles 2306 358 15.5% 1948 11 San Diego F 11 Testud 2056 318 15.5% 1794 12 Munich SF 12 Shaughnessy 1833 228 12.4% 1639 14 Scottsdale F 13 Tauziat 1754 210 12.0% 1545 17 Zurich SF 14 Farina Elia 1738 237 13.6% 1546 17 Strasbourg W 15 Dementieva 1576 302 19.2% 1275 19 Moscow F 16 Maleeva 1571 279 17.8% 1294 19 Nice F 17 Sanchez-Vicario 1548 217 14.0% 1332 19 Amelia Island SF 18 Huber 1495 196 13.1% 1300 19 Paris F 19 Coetzer 1474 233 15.8% 1242 19 Acupulco W 20 Tulyaganova 1166 244 20.9% 923 29 Vienna W 21 Schett 1151 246 21.4% 906 30 Roland Garros R16 22 Raymond 1101 153 13.9% 950 27 Luxembourg F 23 Montolio 1058 210 19.8% 870 33 Bol W 24 Grande 1020 172 16.9% 862 34 Bratislava W 25 Nagyova 993 194 19.5% 800 38 Roland Garros R16 26 Serna 973 236 24.3% 759 42 Eastbourne F 27 Suarez 968 212 21.9% 756 42 Australian Open R16 28 Bedanova 935 306 32.7% 630 52 U. S. Open QF 29 Tanasugarn 916 186 20.3% 731 43 Wimbledon R16 30 Sugiyama 910 123 13.5% 789 39 San Diego QF 35 Martinez 853 194 22.7% 659 47 Wimbledon QF 36 Likhovtseva 837 125 14.9% 713 44 Charleston QF 37 Schnyder 816 149 18.3% 668 46 Vienna F

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 80 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. 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 2122 2 0Roland Garros W (7), Berlin F, Rome 2R Wimbledon SF (5) Clijsters 56 3 0 1Roland Garros F (6) or Bol SF, Berlin 1R, Rome 2R Lusembourg W (4), Munich SF (2) Coetzer 19 6 3 0 1 Acupulco W (4), Ericsson Canadian Open R16, New Haven 1R, R16 (2) U. S. Open 1R Davenport 1151 2 0Filderstadt W (4), Zurich W no losing streaks (4), Linz W (4), Munich F Déchy 44 3 2 0 0 Canberra SF (3) or Boynton (7 streaks of 2 losses; 1 active) Beach $75K SF (3) Dementieva 15 4 2 0 0 Ericsson SF (4) or Moscow (6 streaks of 2 losses; 1 active) F (4) Dokic 88 3 0 1Rome W (6), Roland Garros Wimbledon R16, Vienna 2R, Knokke- 3R (2) or Moscow W (5), Heist 1R Zurich F (3) Frazier 48 3 4 0 1 Charleston QF (3) Paris QF, Nice 1R, Oklahoma City 1R, Indian Wells 2R Grande 24 8 4 0 3 Hobart W (5), Australian Estoril QF, Budapest 1R, Berlin 1R, Open R16 (3) Rome 1R Hénin 7132 2 0Gold Coast W (5), Canberra (3 streaks of 2 losses) W (5), Australian Open R16 (3) Hingis 1 14* 2 20Chase 2000 W (4), [Hopman Roland Garros SF, Wimbledon 1R Cup 2001 (4)], Sydney W (4), Australian Open F (6) Huber 18 4 3 0 1 Paris F (4) or Strasbourg F Ericsson QF, Estoril 1R, Rome 1R (4) or Canadian Open SF (4) Kournikova 74 4 6 0 1 Australian Open QF (4) Paris QF, San Diego 2R, Leipzig 2R, Moscow 1R, Filderstadt 1R, Zurich 1R Likhovtseva 36 3 4 0 2 Charleston QF (3) or Scottsdale 2R, Indian Wells 2R, Ericsson Eastbourne SF (3) or U. S. 2R, Boynton Beach $75K 1R Open R16 (3) Maleeva 16 6 4 0 2 Budapest W (5), Hamburg Berlin 2R, Rome 2R, Roland Garros 1R, 2R (1) Eastbourne 2R Martinez 35 4 4 0 1 Wimbledon QF (4) Australian Open 2R, Nice 2R, Indian Wells 2R, Amelia Island 2R Mauresmo 9162 1 0Paris W (5), Nice W (5), (3 streaks of 2 losses, 1 active) Amelia Island W (4), Charleston QF (2) Montolio 23 7 4 0 1 Estoril W (5), Budapest QF Leipzig 2R, Moscow 1R, Zurich 1R, Linz (2) 1R

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 81 Nagyova 25 6 3 0 3 Boynton Beach $75K W (5), ’s-Hertogenbosch QF, Wimbledon 1R, Amelia Island R16 (1) Vienna 1R or Bahia SF, Leipzig 1R, Linz 1R Pierce 130 2 3 0 2 Canberra SF (2) or Australian Open 3R; Paris 2R; Doha 2R Asutralian Open 3R (2) or Charleston R15, Rome 1R, Strasbourg 1R Raymond 22 4 0 0 0 Luxembourg F (4) (4 streaks of 2 losses) Rubin 54 3 4 0 1 Eastbourne SF (3) Porto 2R, Amelia Island 2R, Charleston 2R, Berlin 1R Sanchez- 17 8 4 0 2 Porto W (5), Amelia Island Wimbledon 2R, San Diego 2R, Los Vicario SF (3) Angeles 2R, Canadian Open 1R Schett 21 3 3 0 1 Doha SF (3) or Roland Berlin 2R, Rome 1R, Madrid 1R Garros R16 (3) or U. S. Open R16 (3) Schnyder 37 5 6 0 2 Pattaya W (5)† Canberra 2R, Australian Open 1R, Paris 1R, Nice 1R, Indian Wells 2R, Ericsson 2R Seles 10 13† 3 1 1 Bahia W (4), Japan Open W Scottsdale SF, Indian Wells 2R, Madrid (4), Shanghai W (5)† 2R Serna 26 4 5 0 2 Porto F (4) or Eastbourne F Canadian Open 2R, New Haven 1R, U. S. (4) Open 1R, Leipzig 1R, Moscow 1R Shaughnessy 12 4 3 0 1 Scottsdale F (4) or Hamburg Filderstadt 1R, Zurich 1R, Munich 1R F (4) or Quebec City W (4) Suarez 27 7 4 0 1 Bogota W (4), Acupulco SF Vienna SF, New Haven 1R, U. S. Open (3) 1R, Linz 1R Tanasugarn 29 3 4 0 1 Dubai SF (3) or Wimbledon Ericsson R16, Antwerp 1R, Strasbourg R16 (3) or Japan Open F (3) 1R, Roland Garros 1R Tauziat 13 5 3 0 1 Birmingham W (5) Ericsson R16, Berlin 1R, Rome 1R Testud 11 6 2 0 0 Big Island W (5), Princess (4 streaks of 2 matches) Cup QF (1) Tulyaganova 20 10 3 1 2¤ Vienna W (5), Knokke-Heist San Diego 1R, Los Angeles 2R, W (5) Canadian Open 1R or U. S. Open 2R, Princess Cup 1R, Leipzig 1R Williams, S. 6111 1 0Canadian Open W (5), U. S. no losing streaks Open F (6) Williams, V. 3 16† 2 2 0 San Diego W (5), New Berlin R16, Roland Garros 1R Haven W (4), U. S. Open W (7)† * Excludes wins in exhibition events (Hopman Cup, Fed Cup) but includes results in 2000. If both are included, Hingis had the longest streak of the year, of 18 (though no fewer than three players — Seles, Venus Williams, and Serena Williams — ended 2001 with long active winning streaks). If both are excluded, Hingis still has two ten-match streaks in 2001, but her longest streak is 12: Doha W (4), Dubai W (4), Indian Wells SF (4). † Active winning streak ¤Tulyaganova also had a four round losing streak starting the end of 2000: Pattaya Qualifying, Pattaya 1R (as a Lucky Loser), Hobart 1R, Australian Open 1R

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 82 List of Longest Winning Streaks The following list shows all winning streaks of ten or more matches, in descending order, including the tournaments involved and the surfaces on which they were achieved. Number Player Tournaments and Results Surfaces of Wins 16* V. Williams San Diego (5), New Haven (5), U. S. Open (7) Hard 16 Mauresmo Paris (5), Nice (5), Amelia Island (4+1 walkover), Indoor+Clay Charleston QF (2) 15 Davenport Filderstadt (4), Zurich (4), Linz (4), Munich F (3) Indoor 14 (18) Hingis [Chase 2000 (4)], [Hopman Cup 2001 (4)], Sydney (Indoor)+Hard (4), Australian Open F (6) 13 Hénin Gold Coast (5), Canberra (5), Australian Open R16 Hard (3) 13* Seles Bahia W (4), Japan Open W (4), Shanghai W (5) Hard 12 Hingis Doha (4), Dubai (4), Indian Wells SF (4) Hard 12 Capriati Roland Garros (7), Wimbledon SF (5) Clay+Grass 11† V. Williams Ericsson (6), Hamburg (4), Berlin R16 (1) Hard+Clay 11 Davenport Pan Pacific (4), Scottsdale (4), Indian Wells QF (3) Indoor+Hard 11 S. Williams Canadian Open (5), U. S. Open F (6) Hard 10 Capriati Australian Open (7), Oklahoma City F (3) Hard+Indoor 10 Hénin ’s-Hertogenbosch (4), Wimbledon F (6) Grass 10 Tulyaganova Vienna (5), Knokke-Heist (5) Clay ¥ Active streak as of the end of 2001. †Venus Williams went 15 matches without a loss, counting four wins at Indian Wells prior to this streak. As, however, she allowed a walkover at Indian Wells, she only won eleven consecutive scheduled matches.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 83 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 Davenport 1 17 17 11 6 100% Capriati 2 17 13 8 5 76% V. Williams 3 1297575% Hingis 4 18 15 8 1 83% Clijsters 5 22 11 8 1 50% S. Williams 6 1086480% Hénin 7 22 11 6 1 50% Dokic 8 26 13 4 0 50% Mauresmo 9 1696156% Seles 10 14 11 5 0 79% Testud 11 2891032% Shaughnessy 12 2672027% Tauziat 13 2293041% Farina Elia 14 2881029% Dementieva 15 2252023% Maleeva 16 2572028% Sanchez-Vicario 17 2451021% Huber 18 2070035% Coetzer 19 2252023% Tulyaganova 20 2641015% Schett 21 2531014% Raymond 22 2130014% Montolio 23 2631012% Grande 24 2940014% Nagyova 25 232009% Serna 26 292107% Suarez 27 1631019% Bedanova 28 2031015% Tanasugarn 29 2240018% Sugiyama 30 252008% Martinez 35 1340031% Likhovtseva 36 2530012% Schnyder 37 2530012% Déchy 44 261004% Frazier 48 1920011% Rubin 54 1620013% Kournikova 74 1021020%

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 84 Points Per Quarter For those who want trends, we can also determine how well players did in each part of the year. In the lists which follow, quarters are reckoned based on when a tournament ends. So, e.g., Wimbledon began in June but ended in July; its points are counted toward the July total. Players are ranked in order of points per tournament. A player in italics is one with too few tournaments in the quarter for the result to be considered meaningful. In a few places I have listed players outside the Top 10 for the quarter who had a high per- tournament score. Note that in a handful of instances these lists include players not in the Top 20. First Quarter (Constituting the period from the beginning of the year to Indian Wells) Rank Player Points Tournaments Per Tournament 1 Capriati 1319 4 329.8 2 Hingis 1892 6 315.3 3Davenport 1446 5 289.2 4 Mauresmo 956 4 239.0 5V. Williams 687 3 229.0 6 S. Williams 684 3 228.0 7 Huber 384 3 128.0 8 Clijsters 501 4 125.3 9 Seles 598 5 119.6 10 Henin 681 6 113.5 11 Maleeva 664 6 110.7 12 Kournikova 422 4 105.5 13 Coetzer 504 5 100.8 14 Suarez 565 6 94.2 15 Shaughnessy 549 7 78.4 Second Quarter (Constituting the period from the Ericsson to Eastbourne) Rank Player Points Tournaments Per Tournament 1 Capriati 1937 5 387.4 2 Mauresmo 1202 5 240.4 3 Hingis 1232 6 205.3 4V. Williams 753 4 188.2 5 Davenport 375 2 187.5 6 Hénin 969 6 161.5 7 S. Williams 274 2 137.0 8 Clijsters 815 6 135.8 9 Dokic 895 9 99.4 10 Sanchez-Vicario 891 9 99.0 11 Farina Elia 836 9 92.9 12 Dementieva 347 4 86.8 13 Coetzer 609 8 76.1 14 Martinez 480 7 68.6

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 85 Third Quarter (Constituting the period from Wimbledon to Leipzig and Bali) Rank Player Points Tournaments Per Tournament 1V. Williams 2688 5 537.6 2 S. Williams 1543 4 385.8 3 Capriati 1331 5 266.2 4Davenport 1517 6 252.8 5 Seles 1351 6 225.2 6 Hénin 1016 5 203.2 7 Martinez 194 1 194.0 8 Clijsters 1522 9 169.1 9 Hingis 620 4 155.0 10 Tauziat 793 6 132.2 11 Mauresmo 477 4 119.3 12 Shaughnessy 739 7 105.6 Fourth Quarter (Constituting the period from Moscow to the Munich Championships and Pattaya City.) Rank Player Points Tournaments Per Tournament (1) S. Williams 503 1 503 2Davenport 1564 4 391 3 Dokic 907 4 226.8 4 Seles 356 2 178 5Testud 673 4 168.3 6 Clijsters 465 3 155 7 Capriati 305 3 101.7 8 Hingis 202 2 101 9 Dementieva 387 4 96.8 10 Hénin 343 4 85.8 11 Grande 322 4 80.5 12 Farina Elia 317 4 79.3

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 86 Most Consistent over Four Quarters The data in the previous section allows us to calculate another consistency ranking, based on who had the best results from quarter to quarter. All told, 21 different players ended in the Top Twelve in at least one 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.) Injuries being what they are, this is a long way from perfect (e.g. Seles didn’t really play in quarter 2, and Venus Williams didn’t play at all in quarter 4), but it may provide an indication. Rank Name WTA Rank Consistency Score 1 Capriati 2 12 2Davenport 1 14 3 S. Williams 6 16 4 Hingis 4 22 5V. Williams 3 24 6 Clijsters 5 30 7 Mauresmo 9 31 8T Hénin 7 32 8T Seles 10 32 10 Dokic 8 40 11 Huber 18 42 12 Testud 11 47 13T Dementieva 15 49 13T Martinez 35 49 15 Farina Elia 14 51 16T Sanchez-Vicario 17 52 16T Tauziat 13 52 18T Grande 24 53 18T Maleeva 16 53 20T Kournikova 74 54 20T Shaughnessy 12 54 There is another difficulty, in the form of under-represented players. Martinez played only one tournament (Wimbledon) in the third quarter, Serena only one (Munich) in the fourth, etc. This can produce inflated results. To control that, we recalculate as follows: If a player has no more than two tournaments in the first three quarters, or has only one in the fourth, we average her score with 14 and recalculate. This affects only three players: Davenport (two tournaments in quarter 2), Serena Williams (two in quarter 2, one in quarter 4), and Martinez (one in quarter three). Davenport is not affected; she remains #2. Serena, however, falls from #3 to #5, and Martinez falls to #17.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 87 Slam Results From the standpoint of difficulty, the Slams are overrated. Slam results, e.g., are worth twice as much as the results of Tier I events, even though Tier I events are played in a shorter time against a tougher field (to win the Canadian Open, a player must win five or six matches in seven days, with every opponent probably in the Top Fifty; to win the U. S. Open requires seven matches in no less than twelve days, with probably at least two opponents outside the Top Fifty). Still, they are the events people remember, and so deserve some separate consideration. The following summarizes the top players’ slam results. The column, “Total Opponent Rank” adds up the rankings of one’s opponents. The next column divides this by the number of matches played. The lower this number, the tougher the average opponent was (note: Players ranked outside the Top 100 have been calculated as “100”). It is not properly a scheme for ranking; it simply calculated how tough, overall, the players’ draw was. Player WTA Won-Lost Winning Pts Slams Points/ Versus Total Per Rnk in Slams Percentage Earned Slam Top 10 Opp. Rnk Opponent Bedanova 28 9Ð4 69.2% 518 4 129.5 1-2 613 47 Capriati 2 24Ð2 92.3% 2840 4 710 7-2 1009 39 Clijsters 5 17Ð4 81.0% 1076 4 269 0-4 1126 54 Coetzer 19 8Ð4 66.7% 326 4 81.5 0-1 768 64 Davenport 1 14Ð3 82.4% 1086 3 362 2-2 673 40 Déchy 44 4Ð4 50.0% 142 4 35.5 0-0 420 53 Dementieva 15 8Ð4 66.7% 300 4 75 0-1 733 61 Dokic 8 8Ð4 66.7% 350 4 87.5 0-3 635 53 Farina Elia 14 7Ð4 63.6% 308 4 77 0-1 687 62 Frazier 48 5Ð4 55.6% 226 4 56.5 1-0 544 60 Grande 24 6Ð4 60.0% 272 4 68 0-1 555 56 Hénin 7 17Ð4 81.0% 1232 4 308 1-3 960 46 Hingis 4 16Ð4 80.0% 1332 4 333 2-2 1045 52 Huber 18 6Ð3 66.7% 264 3 88 0-1 535 59 Kournikova 74 4Ð1 80.0% 208 1 208 0-1 279 56 Likhovtseva 36 5Ð4 55.6% 172 4 43 0-2 471 52 Maleeva 16 4Ð4 50.0% 184 4 46 0-1 366 46 Martinez 35 7Ð3 70.0% 296 3 98.7 0-1 578 58 Mauresmo 9 9Ð4 69.2% 462 4 115.5 1-2 622 48 Montolio 23 5Ð4 55.6% 160 4 40 0-2 618 69 Nagyova 25 5Ð4 55.6% 278 4 69.5 1-1 355 39 Pierce 130 2Ð1 66.7% 68 1 68 0-0 190 63 Raymond 22 4Ð4 50.0% 120 4 30 0-2 524 66 Rubin 54 2Ð3 40.0% 84 3 28 0-1 325 65 Sanchez-Vicario 17 4Ð3 57.1% 144 3 48 0-0 390 56 Schett 21 10Ð4 71.4% 512 4 128 1-2 721 52 Schnyder 37 4Ð4 50.0% 142 4 35.5 0-2 471 59 Seles 10 7Ð2 77.8% 308 2 154 0-0 592 66 Serna 26 2Ð4 33.3% 80 4 20 0-0 456 76 Shaughnessy 12 9Ð4 69.2% 384 4 96 0-3 627 48 Suarez 27 4Ð4 50.0% 258 4 64.5 1-0 393 49 Tanasugarn 29 5Ð4 55.6% 272 4 68 1-2 421 47 Tauziat 13 7Ð3 70.0% 302 3 100.7 0-2 480 48 Testud 11 11Ð4 73.3% 380 4 95 0-3 924 62 Tulyaganova 20 3Ð4 42.9% 98 4 24.5 0-1 434 62 S. Williams 6 18Ð4 81.8% 1420 4 355 3-4 1079 49 V. Williams 3 19Ð2 90.5% 2264 4 566 6-1 667 32

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 88 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 Bedanova 18-10 1-5 Canberra (28), Australian Open (154), Indian Wells (1), Ericsson (21), 715/10 (64.3%) Stanford (1), San Diego (51), Los Angeles (53), Canadian Open (79), New Haven (21), U. S. Open (306) Capriati 28-7 (80.0%) 5-6 Sydney (36), Australian Open (1040), Scottsdale (102), Ericsson (291), 2352/8 San Diego (81), Canadian Open (252), New Haven (148), U. S. Open (402) Clijsters 26-9 (74.3%) 3-6 Sydney (34), Australian Open (88), Scottsdale (58), Indian Wells (321), 1469/11 Ericsson (55), Stanford (315), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (66), New Haven (156), U. S. Open (262), Princess Cup (113) Coetzer 9-7 (56.3%) 0-1 Sydney (34), Australian Open (208), Ericsson (48), Canadian Open 393/7 (46), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (2), Bahia (54) Davenport 34-8 (81.0%) 6-6 Sydney (178), Australian Open (436), Scottsdale (295), Indian Wells 2199/10 (111), Ericsson (106), Stanford (199), San Diego (140), Los Angeles (341), New Haven (187), U. S. Open (206) Déchy 15-12 0-0 Auckland (1), Canberra (122), Australian Open (2), Indian Wells (79), 395/12 (55.6%) Ericsson (1), Boynton Beach $75K (38), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (27), U. S. Open (42), Bahia (36), Japan Open (28), Shanghai (18) Dementieva 16-9 (64.0%) 1-4 Canberra (41), Australian Open (72), Indian Wells (98), Ericsson (241), 717/9 San Diego (36), Los Angeles (54), Canadian Open (44), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (130) Dokic 19-8 (70.4%) 2-8 Australian Open (2), Ericsson (120), San Diego (36), Los Angeles (36), 967/9 Canadian Open (69), New Haven (100), U. S. Open (146), Bahia (160), Princess Cup (298) Farina Elia 10-6 (62.5%) 0-3 Gold Coast (160), Australian Open (54), Indian Wells (104), New 379/6 Haven (1), U. S. Open (2), Bahia (58) Frazier 10-10 0-2 Hobart (32), Australian Open (30), Indian Wells (1), Ericsson (30), 274/10 (50.0%) Stanford (30), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (56), Canadian Open (66), U. S. Open (2), Big Island (26) Grande 23-16 0-4 Auckland (1), Hobart (131), Australian Open (152), Doha (1), Dubai 642/17 (59.0%) (34), Indian Wells (14), Ericsson (17), Stanford (30), San Diego (24), Los Angeles (24), Canadian Open (37), New Haven (5), U. S. Open (2), Princess Cup (1), Bali (43), Japan Open (47), Shanghai (79)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 89 Hénin 26-8 (76.5%) 0-4 Gold Coast (193), Canberra (261), Australian Open (166), Scottsdale 1085/10 (1), Indian Wells (30), Ericsson (26), Canadian Open (90), New Haven (77), U. S. Open (108), Big Island (133) Hingis 37-6 (86.0%) 5-4 Sydney (391), Australian Open (614), Doha (215), Dubai (283), Indian 2470/9 Wells (164), Ericsson (185), San Diego (112), Los Angeles (130), U. S. Open (376) Huber 12-5 (70.6%) 1-3 Indian Wells (55), Ericsson (123), Canadian Open (180), New Haven 459/5 (49), U. S. Open (52) Kournikova 5-3 (62.5%) 0-1 Sydney (28), Australian Open (208), San Diego (1) 237/3 Likhovtsev 8-10 (44.4%) 0-3 Hobart (26), Australian Open (2), Scottsdale (36), Indian Wells (1), 234/10 Ericsson (1), Boynton Beach $75K (1), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (34), Canadian Open (32), U. S. Open (100) Maleeva 5-8 (38.5%) 0-3 Canberra (35), Australian Open (2), Indian Wells (55), Ericsson (1), 167/8 San Diego (30), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (42) Martinez 4-4 (50.0%) 0-1 Gold Coast (43), Sydney (104), Australian Open (30), Indian Wells (1) 178/4 Mauresmo 13-4 (76.5%) 2-3 Sydney (190), Australian Open (134), Canadian Open (51), New Haven 737/5 (100), U. S. Open (262) Montolio 6-7 (46.2%) 0-1 Gold Coast (28), Canberra (22), Australian Open (2), Indian Wells (17), 149/7 Ericsson (15), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (64) Nagyova 21-11 0-3 Gold Coast (1), Canberra (28), Australian Open (2), Doha (64), Dubai 568/12 (65.6%) (30), Ericsson (24), Boynton Beach $75K (80), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (61), U. S. Open (80), Bahia (129), Pattaya(68) Pierce 5-4 (55.6%) 0-0 Canberra (81), Australian Open (68), Doha (1), Dubai (58) 208/4 Raymond 13-9 (59.1%) 0-5 Sydney (93), Australian Open (2), Scottsdale (68), Indian Wells (69), 440/9 Ericsson (32), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (30), U. S. Open (68), Big Island (77) Rubin 8-7 (53.3%) 0-2 Canberra (57), Australian Open (2), Stanford (68), San Diego (24), Los 256/7 Angeles (1), Canadian Open (24), U. S. Open (80) Sanchez-Vi 13-11 0-1 Dubai (1), Indian Wells (30), Ericsson (52), San Diego (1), Los Angeles 507/11 (54.2%) (1), Canadian Open (1), New Haven (41), U. S. Open (80), Big Island (20), Princess Cup (195), Bali (85) Schett 17-12 0-8 Auckland (11), Sydney (41), Australian Open (94), Doha (87), Dubai 564/12 (58.6%) (28), Indian Wells (63), Ericsson (1), San Diego (41), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (59), New Haven (34), U. S. Open (104) Schnyder 9-7 (56.3%) 0-1 Gold Coast (75), Canberra (28), Australian Open (2), Indian Wells (1), 266/8 Ericsson (1), U. S. Open (34), Bahia (1), Pattaya (124) Seles 36-9 (80.0%) 5-4 Sydney (58), Australian Open (208), Scottsdale (115), Indian Wells (1), 2089/12 Stanford (108), San Diego (358), Los Angeles (310), Canadian Open (199), U. S. Open (100), Bahia (276), Japan Open (192), Shanghai (164) Serna 8-9 (47.1%) 0-2 Gold Coast (24), Canberra (1), Australian Open (34), Scottsdale (83), 270/9 Indian Wells (30), Ericsson (63), Canadian Open (32), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (2) Shaughness 18-11 3-6 Gold Coast (131), Sydney (1), Australian Open (34), Scottsdale (228), 807/11 (62.1%) Indian Wells (26), Ericsson (1), Stanford (179), San Diego (41), Canadian Open (93), New Haven (1), U. S. Open (72) Suarez 8-6 (57.1%) 1-0 Auckland (74), Canberra (1), Australian Open (212), Indian Wells (26), 316/6 New Haven (1), U. S. Open (2) Sugiyama 19-13 1-3 Canberra (70), Australian Open (2), Scottsdale (34), Indian Wells (48), 566/13 (59.4%) Ericsson (21), San Diego (123), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (26), U. S. Open (28), Princess Cup (73), Japan Open (83), Shanghai (43), Pattaya (14)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 90 Tanasugarn 19-16 0-6 Sydney (1), Australian Open (82), Doha (24), Dubai (110), Indian 608/16 (54.3%) Wells (26), Ericsson (48), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (18), Canadian Open (32), New Haven (8), U. S. Open (2), Princess Cup (68), Bali (41), Japan Open (128), Shanghai (18), Pattaya (1) Tauziat 15-7 (68.2%) 1-6 Dubai (156), Indian Wells (1), Ericsson (53), San Diego (95), Los 688/7 Angeles (190), New Haven (93), U. S. Open (100) Testud 31-13 1-8 Auckland (1), Canberra (184), Australian Open (60), Doha (134), 1166/14 (70.5%) Dubai (62), Indian Wells (32), Ericsson (61), San Diego (95), Los Angeles (41), Canadian Open (118), New Haven (27), U. S. Open (100), Big Island (199), Princess Cup (52) Tulyaganov 7-13 (35.0%) 0-2 Hobart (1), Australian Open (2), Doha (24), Dubai (34), Indian Wells 186/13 (1), Ericsson (38), Tashkent (39), San Diego (1), Los Angeles (1), Canadian Open (1), U. S. Open (42), Princess Cup (1), Pattaya (1) S. Williams 27-5 (84.4%) 6-5 Sydney (68), Australian Open (200), Indian Wells (416), Ericsson 2099/7 (112), Los Angeles (62), Canadian Open (423), U. S. Open (818) V. Williams 32-2 (94.1%) 10-1 Australian Open (400), Indian Wells (174), Ericsson (443), Stanford 2799/7 (60), San Diego (359), New Haven (407), U. S. Open (956)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 91 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 1V. Williams 32 2 94.1% 3 2 Hingis 37 6 86.0% 4 3 S. Williams 27 5 84.4% 6 4Davenport 34 8 81.0% 1 5 Seles 36 9 80.0% 10 6 Capriati 28 7 80.0% 2 7T Hénin 26 8 76.5% 7 7T Mauresmo 13 4 76.5% 9 9 Clijsters 26 9 74.3% 5 10 Huber 12 5 70.6% 18 11 Testud 31 13 70.5% 11 12 Dokic 19 8 70.4% 8 13 Tauziat 15 7 68.2% 13 14 Nagyova 21 11 65.6% 25 15 Bedanova 18 10 64.3% 28 13 Dementieva 16 9 64.0% 15 17T Farina Elia 10 6 62.5% 14 17T Kournikova 5 3 62.5% 74 10 Shaughnessy 18 11 62.1% 12 20 Sugiyama 19 13 59.4% 30 21 Raymond 13 9 59.1% 22 22 Grande 23 16 59.0% 24 23 Schett 17 12 58.6% 21 24 Suarez 8 6 57.1% 27 25 Coetzer 9 7 56.3% 19 Schnyder 9 7 56.3% 37 Déchy 15 12 55.6% 44 Pierce 5 4 55.6% 130 Tanasugarn 19 16 54.3% 29 Sanchez-Vicario 13 11 54.2% 17 Rubin 8 7 53.3% 54 Frazier 10 10 50.0% 48 Martinez 4 4 50.0% 35 Serna 8 9 47.1% 26 Montolio 6 7 46.2% 23 Likhovtseva 8 10 44.4% 36 Maleeva 5 8 38.5% 16 Tulyaganova 7 13 35.0% 20

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 92 Points Per Tournament on Hardcourts Hard Player Surface Tourn on Points/ WTA Rank Rank Name Points Surface Tourn 1V. Williams 2799 7 399.9 3 2 S. Williams 2099 7 299.9 6 3 Capriati 2352 8 294.0 2 4 Hingis 2470 9 274.4 4 5Davenport 2199 10 219.9 1 6 Seles 2089 12 174.1 10 7 Mauresmo 737 5 147.4 9 8 Clijsters 1469 11 133.5 5 9 Hénin 1085 10 108.5 7 10 Dokic 967 9 107.4 8 11 Tauziat 688 7 98.3 13 12 Huber 459 5 91.8 18 13 Testud 1166 14 83.3 11 14 Dementieva 717 9 79.7 15 15 Kournikova 237 3 79.0 74 16 Shaughnessy 807 11 73.4 12 17 Bedanova 715 10 71.5 28 18 Farina Elia 379 6 63.2 14 19 Coetzer 393 7 56.1 19 20 Suarez 316 6 52.7 27 Pierce 208 4 52.0 130 Raymond 440 9 48.9 22 Nagyova 568 12 47.3 25 Schett 564 12 47.0 21 Sanchez-Vicario 507 11 46.1 17 Martinez 178 4 44.5 35 Sugiyama 566 13 43.5 30 Tanasugarn 608 16 38.0 29 Grande 642 17 37.8 24 Rubin 256 7 36.6 54 Schnyder 266 8 33.3 37 Déchy 395 12 32.9 44 Serna 270 9 30.0 26 Frazier 274 10 27.4 48 Likhovtseva 234 10 23.4 36 Montolio 149 7 21.3 23 Maleeva 167 8 20.9 16 Tulyaganova 186 13 14.3 20

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 93 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 Capriati 1040 1 Hingis 112 2V. Williams 956 2Davenport 106 3 S. Williams 818 3 S. Williams 62 4 Hingis 614 4V. Williams 60 5Davenport 436 5 Mauresmo 51 6 Seles 358 6 Huber 49 7 Clijsters 321 7 Capriati 36 8 Bedanova 306 9 Dokic 298 All of the following players had at least 10 Mauresmo 262 one opening-round loss on hardcourts: 11 Hénin 261 Bedanova, Clijsters, Coetzer, Déchy, 12 Dementieva 241 Dementieva, Dokic, Farina Elia, Frazier, 13 Shaughnessy 228 Grande, Hénin, Kournikova, Likhovt- 14 Suarez 212 seva, Maleeva, Martinez, Montolio, 15T Coetzer 208 Nagyova, Pierce, Raymond, Rubin, 15T Kournikova 208 Sanchez-Vicario, Schett, Schnyder, Testud 199 Seles, Serna, Shaughnessy, Suarez, Sug- Sanchez-Vicario 195 iyama, Tanasugarn, Tauziat, Testud, Tauziat 190 Tulyaganova Huber 180 Farina Elia 160 Grande 152 Tanasugarn 128 Schnyder 124 Sugiyama 123 Déchy 122 Martinez 104 Schett 104 Likovtseva 100 Raymond 93 Serna 83 Pierce 81 Nagyova 80 Rubin 80 Frazier 66 Montolio 64 Maleeva 55 Tulyaganova 42

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 94 Clay Summary of Clay Results The following lists the top players, the tournaments they played on clay, the points earned on the surface, their record and winning percentage. The list is in alphabetical order. Player Won/Lost Vs. Tournaments Played Total Pts/ Name (Percent) Top 10 # of Tourn Bedanova 2-1 (66.7%) 0-0 Roland Garros (56) 56/1 Capriati 16-2 (88.9%) 4-1 Charleston (401), Berlin (294), Rome (1), Roland Garros (950) 1646/4 Clijsters 11-5 (68.8%) 0-1 Bol (83), Berlin (1), Rome (1), Roland Garros (512), Knokke-Heist 689/5 (92) Coetzer 16-6 (72.7%) 1-1 Acupulco (233), Amelia Island (184), Charleston (95), Hamburg 793/7 (117), Berlin (103), Strasbourg (1), Roland Garros (60) Davenport — — none — Déchy 6-6 (50.0%) 0-1 Amelia Island (22), Charleston (1), Bol (22), Berlin (59), Rome (1), 173/6 Roland Garros (68) Dementieva 6-3 (66.7%) 0-0 Acupulco (124), Amelia Island (75), Roland Garros (30), Vienna (1) 230/4 Diaz-Oliva 14-12 0-0 Bogota (83), Acupulco (66), Amelia Island (1), Charleston (1), Bol 434/12 (53.8%) (155), Rome (1), Madrid (1), Roland Garros (34), Vienna (24), Knokke-Heist (1), Sopot (45), Basel (22) Dokic 16-8 (66.7%) 1-3 Amelia Island (36), Charleston (1), Hamburg (168), Berlin (32), Rome 769/9 (373), Roland Garros (60), Vienna (1), Knokke-Heist (1), Sopot (97) Farina Elia 22-12 1-1 Acupulco (1), Porto (79), Amelia Island (103), Charleston (32), 879/12 (64.7%) Hamburg (62), Berlin (26), Rome (45), Strasbourg (237), Roland Garros (192), Knokke-Heist (18), Sopot (83), Basel (1) Frazier 5-4 (55.6%) 1-1 Amelia Island (1), Charleston (108), Madrid (1), Roland Garros (134) 244/4 Grande 6-7 (46.2%) 0-0 Porto (1), Estoril (47), Budapest (1), Berlin (1), Rome (1), Madrid 189/7 (22), Roland Garros (116) Hénin 14-4 (77.8%) 1-2 Estoril (79), Hamburg (80), Berlin (210), Roland Garros (350) 719/4 Hingis 17-5 (77.3%) 2-4 Amelia Island (73), Charleston (282), Berlin (170), Rome (182), 1047/5 Roland Garros (340) Huber 8-6 (57.1%) 0-0 Estoril (1), Rome (1), Strasbourg (127), Roland Garros (34), Vienna 247/6 (43), Sopot (41) Kournikova — — none — Leon Garcia 17-11 0-4 Amelia Island (1), Charleston (48), Hamburg (27), Berlin (32), Rome 514/11 (60.7%) (59), Madrid (1), Roland Garros (2), Palermo (48), Knokke-Heist (116), Sopot (179), Basel (1) Likhovtseva 7-6 (53.9%) 1-3 Amelia Island (34), Charleston (125), Hamburg (34), Berlin (1), Rome 257/6 (61), Roland Garros (2) Maleeva 8-5 (61.5%) 0-0 Estoril (22), Budapest (115), Hamburg (36), Berlin (32), Rome (1), 208/6 Roland Garros (2) Martinez 13-7 (65.0%) 0-2 Amelia Island (1), Charleston (158), Hamburg (1), Berlin (82), Rome 453/6 (139), Roland Garros (72) Mauresmo 15-3 (83.3%) 5-1 Amelia Island (311), Charleston (90), Berlin (483), Rome (316), 1202/5 Roland Garros (2) Medina 14-13 0-0 Bogota (1), Acupulco (28), Porto (1), Estoril (1), Budapest (1), Bol (1), 366/14 Garrigues (51.9%) Antwerp (56), Madrid (104), Roland Garros (2), Marseilles $50K (1), Palermo (113), Knokke-Heist (26), Sopot (30), Basel (1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 95 Montolio 27-11 0-1 Bogota (22), Acupulco (49), Porto (22), Estoril (198), Budapest (32), 848/13 (71.1%) Bol (210), Berlin (32), Rome (30), Madrid (134), Roland Garros (34), Vienna (22), Knokke-Heist (41), Sopot (22) Nagyova 9-7 (56.3%) 1-2 Amelia Island (36), Charleston (44), Hamburg (1), Rome (37), Roland 370/7 Garros (194), Vienna (1), Sopot (57) Petrova 9-5 (64.3%) 0-2 Amelia Island (140), Charleston (1), Bol (1), Rome (69), Roland 367/5 Garros (156) Pierce 1-3 (25.0%) 0-0 Charleston (44), Rome (1), Strasbourg (1) 46/3 Raymond 5-4 (55.6%) 0-1 Amelia Island (34), Charleston (41), Madrid (47), Roland Garros (2) 124/4 Rubin 1-4 (20.0%) 0-0 Porto (22), Amelia Island (1), Charleston (1), Berlin (1) 25/4 Sanchez-V 18-6 (75.0%) 1-2 Porto (180), Amelia Island (217), Charleston (1), Hamburg (58), 839/8 Berlin (79), Rome (77), Madrid (197), Roland Garros (30) Schett 7-7 (50.0%) 1-0 Estoril (18), Hamburg (1), Berlin (30), Rome (1), Madrid (1), Roland 342/7 Garros (246), Vienna (45) Schiavone 19-11 0-1 Porto (1), Estoril (43), Budapest (28), Hamburg qualifying (10), Berlin 575/11 (63.3%) (15), Rome (133), Roland Garros (258), Palermo (26), Knokke-Heist (1), Sopot (34), Basel (26) Schnyder 11-10 1-1 Amelia Island (22), Charleston (1), Hamburg (116), Berlin (63), Rome 418/10 (52.4%) (30), Strasbourg (1), Roland Garros (34), Vienna (149), Knokke-Heist (1), Basel (1) Seles 0-1 (0.0%) 0-0 Madrid (1) 1/1 Serna 13-10 0-0 Porto (128), Estoril (26), Hamburg (1), Berlin (32), Rome (1), Madrid 368/10 (56.5%) (51), Roland Garros (42), Palermo (26), Knokke-Heist (39), Basel (22) Shaughness 15-6 (71.4%) 1-4 Amelia Island (64), Charleston (32), Hamburg (213), Berlin (59), 557/7 Rome (30), Strasbourg (51), Roland Garros (108) Suarez 19-7 (73.1%) 0-2 Bogota (167), Acupulco (85), Amelia Island (34), Charleston (46), 649/8 Berlin (75), Rome (94), Roland Garros (42), Vienna (106) Sugiyama 4-6 (40.0%) 0-0 Charleston (1), Bol (30), Berlin (30), Rome (1), Strasbourg (76), 140/6 Roland Garros (2) Tanasugarn 0-3 (0.0%) 0-0 Antwerp (1), Strasbourg (1), Roland Garros (2) 4/3 Tauziat 2-4 (33.3%) 0-0 Berlin (1), Rome (1), Strasbourg (104), Roland Garros (2) 108/4 Testud 10-6 (62.5%) 0-2 Acupulco (22), Bol (89), Berlin (61), Rome (1), Strasbourg (56), 333/6 Roland Garros (104) Torrens 25-12 0-0 Bogota (83), Acupulco (1), Porto (26), Estoril qualifying (11), 697/13 Valero (67.6%) Budapest (63), Bol (1), Antwerp (1), Madrid (1), Roland Garros (76), Palermo (85), Knokke-Heist (53), Sopot (219), Basel (77) Tulyaganov 13-4 (76.5%) 1-0 Porto (20), Antwerp (1), Strasbourg (72), Roland Garros (2), Vienna 557/6 (244), Knokke-Heist (218) S. Williams 4-1 (80.0%) 0-1 Roland Garros (162) 162/1 V. Williams 5-2 (71.4%) 0-0 Hamburg (268), Berlin (40), Roland Garros (2) 310/3

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 96 Winning Percentage on Clay Rank Player Wins Losses Winning% WTA Rank 1 Capriati 16 2 88.9% 2 2 Mauresmo 15 3 83.3% 9 3 S. Williams 4 1 80.0% 6 4 Hénin 14 4 77.8% 7 5 Hingis 17 5 77.3% 4 6Tulyaganova 13 4 76.5% 20 7 Sanchez-Vicario 18 6 75.0% 17 8 Suarez 19 7 73.1% 27 9 Coetzer 16 6 72.7% 19 10T Shaughnessy 15 6 71.4% 12 10T V. Williams 5 2 71.4% 3 12 Montolio 27 11 71.1% 23 13 Clijsters 11 5 68.8% 5 14T Torrens Valero 25 12 67.6% 32 14T Dokic 16 8 66.7% 8 14T Dementieva 6 3 66.7% 15 14T Bedanova 2 1 66.7% 28 18 Martinez 13 7 65.0% 35 19 Farina Elia 22 12 64.7% 14 20 Petrova 9 5 64.3% 39 21 Schiavone 19 11 63.3% 31 22 Testud 10 6 62.5% 11 23 Maleeva 8 5 61.5% 16 24 Leon Garcia 17 11 60.7% 41 25 Huber 8 6 57.1% 18 Serna 13 10 56.5% 26 Nagyova 9 7 56.3% 25 Frazier 5 4 55.6% 48 Raymond 5 4 55.6% 22 Diaz Oliva 14 12 53.8% 53 Likhovtseva 7 6 53.8% 36 Schnyder 11 10 52.4% 37 Medina Garrigues 14 13 51.9% 65 Schett 7 7 50.0% 21 Déchy 6 6 50.0% 44 Grande 6 7 46.2% 24 Sugiyama 4 6 40.0% 30 Tauziat 2 4 33.3% 13 Pierce 1 3 25.0% 130 Rubin 1 4 20.0% 54 Seles 0 1 0.0% 10 Tanasugarn 0 3 0.0% 29 Davenport 0 0 — 1 Kournikova 0 0 — 74

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 97 Points Per Tournament on Clay Clay Rank Player Name Clay Points Tourn on Clay Points/Tourn WTA Rank 1 Capriati 1646 4 411.5 2 2 Mauresmo 1202 5 240.4 9 3 Hingis 1047 5 209.4 4 4 Hénin 719 4 179.8 7 5 S. Williams 162 1 162.0 6 6 Clijsters 689 5 137.8 5 7 Coetzer 793 7 113.3 19 8 Sanchez-Vicario 839 8 104.9 17 9V. Williams 310 3 103.3 3 10 Tulyaganova 557 6 92.8 20 11 Dokic 769 9 85.4 8 12 Suarez 649 8 81.1 27 13 Shaughnessy 557 7 79.6 12 14 Martinez 453 6 75.5 35 15 Petrova 367 5 73.4 39 Farina Elia 879 12 73.3 14 Montolio 848 13 65.2 23 Frazier 244 4 61.0 48 Dementieva 230 4 57.5 15 Bedanova 56 1 56.0 28 Testud 333 6 55.5 11 Torrens Valero 697 13 53.6 32 Nagyova 370 7 52.9 25 Schiavone 575 11 52.3 31 Schett 342 7 48.9 21 Leon Garcia 514 11 46.7 41 Likhovtseva 257 6 42.8 36 Schnyder 418 10 41.8 37 Huber 247 6 41.2 18 Serna 368 10 36.8 26 Diaz-Oliva 434 12 36.2 53 Maleeva 208 6 34.7 16 Raymond 124 4 31.0 22 Déchy 173 6 28.8 44 Grande 189 7 27.0 24 Tauziat 108 4 27.0 13 Medina Garrigues 366 14 26.1 65 Sugiyama 140 6 23.3 30 Pierce 46 3 15.3 130 Rubin 25 4 6.3 54 Tanasugarn 4 3 1.3 29 Seles 1 1 1.0 10

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 98 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 Capriati 950 1 S. Williams 162 2 Clijsters 512 2 Hénin 79 3 Mauresmo 483 3 Hingis 73 4 Dokic 373 4 Bedanova 56 5 Hénin 350 5 Suarez 34 6 Hingis 340 6 Shaughnessy 30 7V. Williams 268 7 Montolio 22 8 Schiavone 258 9 Schett 246 All of the following players had at least 10 Tulyaganova 244 one opening-round loss on clay: Capri- 11 Farina Elia 237 ati, Clijsters, Coetzer, Déchy, Demen- 12 Coetzer 233 tieva, Dokic, Farina Elia, Frazier, 13 Torrens Valero 219 Grande, Huber, Likhovtseva, Maleeva, 14 Sanchez-Vicario 217 Martinez, Mauresmo, Nagyova, Pierce, 15 Shaughnessy 213 Raymond, Rubin, Sanchez-Vicario, Montolio 210 Schett, Schnyder, Seles, Serna, Sugi- Nagyova 194 yama, Tanasugarn, Tauziat, Testud, Leon Garcia 179 Tulyaganova, V. Williams. Suarez 167 S. Williams 162 Davenport and Kournikova did not play Martinez 158 clay. Petrova 156 Diaz-Oliva 155 Schnyder 149 Frazier 134 Serna 128 Huber 127 Likhovtseva 125 Dementieva 124 Grande 116 Maleeva 115 Medina Garrigues 113 Tauziat 104 Testud 104 Sugiyama 76 Déchy 68 Bedanova 56 Raymond 47 Pierce 44 Rubin 22 Tanasugarn 2 Seles 1

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 99 Grass Summary of Grass Results The following lists the top players, the tournaments they played on grass, the points earned on the surface, their record and winning percentage. In addition, some players who have played “grass-intensive” schedules (e.g. Dominikovic) are listed even if they haven’t won all that much. The list is in alphabetical order. Player Won/Lost Vs. Tournaments Played Tot Pts/ Name (Percent) Top 10 # of Tourn Bedanova 0-3 (0.0%) 0-0 Birmingham (1), Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (2) 4/3 Brandi 10-4 (71.4%) 0-1 Surbiton $25K (23), Birmingham (77), ’s- 215/4 Hertogenbosch (59), Wimbledon (56) Capriati 5-1 (83.3%) 1-1 Wimbledon (448) 448/1 Clijsters 7-2 (77.8%) 0-2 ’s-Hertogenbosch (163), Wimbledon (214) 377/2 Coetzer 2-2 (50.0%) 0-0 Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (56) 57/2 Davenport 9-1 (90.0%) 1-1 Eastbourne (269), Wimbledon (444) 713/2 Déchy 2-2 (50.0%) 0-1 Birmingham (1), ’s-Hertogenbosch (30), 61/3 Wimbledon (30) Dementieva 2-2 (50.0%) 0-0 ’s-Hertogenbosch (1), Wimbledon (68) 69/2 Dokic 6-3 (66.7%) 0-2 Birmingham (1), ’s-Hertogenbosch (104), 247/3 Wimbledon (142) Dominikovic 7-4 (63.6%) 0-0 Surbiton $25K (10), Birmingham (15), 85/4 Eastbourne (58), Wimbledon (2) Farina Elia 4-2 (66.7%) 0-1 Eastbourne (60), Wimbledon (60) 120/2 Frazier 2-2 (50.0%) 0-0 Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (60) 61/2 Grande 1-3 (25.0%) 0-0 Birmingham (21), ’s-Hertogenbosch (1), 24/3 Wimbledon (2) Hantuchova 5-2 (71.4%) 0-1 Birmingham (95), Wimbledon (42) 137/2 Hénin 10-1 (90.9%) 2-1 ’s-Hertogenbosch (224), Wimbledon (608) 832/2 Hingis 0-1 (0.0%) 0-0 Wimbledon (2) 2/1 Huber 3-1 (75.0%) 0-1 Wimbledon (178) 178/1 Kournikova — — NONE — Likhovtseva 7-3 (70.0%) 0-1 Birmingham (45), Eastbourne (122), Wimbledon 235/3 (68) Maleeva 3-2 (60.0%) 0-1 Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (138) 139/2 Martinez 5-2 (71.4%) 0-1 Eastbourne (27), Wimbledon (194) 221/2 Mauresmo 2-1 (66.7%) 0-0 Wimbledon (64) 64/1 Molik 19-3 (86.4%) 0-1 Gifu $50K (45), Fukuoka $50K (43), Surbiton 240/6 $25K (12), Birmingham (59), Eastbourne (47), Wimbledon (34) Montolio 2-1 (66.7%) 0-1 Wimbledon (60) 60/1 Nagyova 2-2 (50.0%) 0-0 ’s-Hertogenbosch (57), Wimbledon (2) 59/2 Oremans 6-3 (66.7%) 0-0 Birmingham (146), ’s-Hertogenbosch (28), 176/3 Wimbledon (2)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 100 Pierce — — NONE — Raymond 7-3 (70%) 0-1 Birmingham (104), Eastbourne (100), Wimbledon 252/3 (48) Rubin 3-2 (60.0%) 0-1 Eastbourne (136), Wimbledon (2) 138/2 Sanchez- 1-1 (50.0%) 0-0 Wimbledon (34) 34/1 Vicario Schett 2-1 (66.7%) 0-0 Wimbledon (68) 68/1 Schnyder 2-2 (50.0%) 0-1 ’s-Hertogenbosch (1), Wimbledon (72) 73/2 Seles — — NONE — Serna 4-3 (57.1%) 0-1 Birmingham (1), Eastbourne (236), Wimbledon 239/3 (2) Shaughnessy 5-2 (71.4%) 0-1 Eastbourne (58), Wimbledon (170) 228/2 Stevenson 4-4 (50.0%) 0-0 Surbiton $25K (1), Birmingham (47), Eastbourne 96/4 qualifying (6), Wimbledon (42) Suarez 0-1 (0.0%) 0-0 Wimbledon (2) 2/1 Sugiyama 2-3 (40.0%) 0-0 Birmingham (1), Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (60) 62/3 Tanasugarn 6-3 (66.7%) 2-1 Birmingham (22), Eastbourne (101), Wimbledon 309/3 (186) Tauziat 9-2 (81.8%) 0-1 Birmingham (203), Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon 404/3 (200) Testud 3-2 (60.0%) 0-1 Eastbourne (1), Wimbledon (116) 117/2 Tulyaganova 5-2 (71.4%) 0-2 ’s-Hertogenbosch (129), Wimbledon (52) 181/2 S. Williams 4-1 (80.0%) 0-1 Wimbledon (240) 240/1 V. Williams 7-0 (100%) 3-0 Wimbledon (906) 906/1

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 101 Note: Because only four WTA events are played on grass, and no top player can play more than three grass events, it is not productive to attempt a full statistical analysis. We therefore list only the points-per- tournament rankings. Points Per Tournament on Grass Grass Rank Player Name Grass Points Tourn on Grass Points/ Tourn WTA Rank 1V. Williams 906 1 906.0 3 2 Capriati 448 1 448.0 2 3 Hénin 832 2 4160. 7 4Davenport 713 2 356.5 1 5 S. Williams 240 1 240.0 6 6 Clijsters 377 2 188.5 5 7 Huber 178 1 178.0 18 8Tauziat 404 3 134.7 13 9 Shaughnessy 228 2 114.0 12 10 Martinez 221 2 110.5 35 11 Tanasugarn 309 3 103.0 29 12 Tulyaganova 181 2 90.5 20 13 Raymond 252 3 84.0 22 14 Dokic 247 3 82.3 8 15 Serna 239 3 79.7 26 Likhovtseva 235 3 78.3 36 Maleeva 139 2 69.5 16 Rubin 138 2 69.0 54 Hantuchova 137 2 68.5 38 Schett 68 1 68.0 21 Mauresmo 64 1 64.0 9 Farina Elia 120 2 60.0 14 Montolio 60 1 60.0 23 Oremans 176 3 58.7 85 Testud 117 2 58.5 11 Brandi 215 4 53.8 81 Molik 240 6 40.0 47 Schnyder 73 2 36.5 37 Dementieva 69 2 34.5 15 Sanchez-Vicario 34 1 34.0 17 Frazier 61 2 30.5 48 Nagyova 59 2 29.5 25 Coetzer 57 2 28.5 19 Stevenson 96 4 24.0 60 Dominikovic 85 4 21.3 73 Sugiyama 62 3 20.7 30 Déchy 61 3 20.3 42 Grande 24 3 8.0 24 Suarez 2 1 2.0 27 Hingis 2 1 2.0 4 Bedanova 4 3 1.3 28 Kournikova/Pierce/Seles 0 0 — 74/130/10

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 102 Adjusted Points Per Tournament on Grass A blatant difficulty with grass is that so many players play only Wimbledon. This seriously biases their results, because Slams are so point-heavy. A player who wins Eastbourne and reaches the Wimbledon semifinal will probably wind up with a lower score than a player who plays only Wimbledon and reaches the semifinal (this happened in 2001: Davenport won Eastbourne and reached the Wimbledon semifinal, while Capriati reached the Wimbledon semifinal without playing any other grass events. Capriati had the better per-event score. Indeed, Capriati outscored Justine Hénin, who reached the Wimbledon final and won ’s-Hertogenbosch!). Yet surely the first player has at least as much right to be considered a top grass player! To attempt to compensate for this, we produce an adjusted grass ranking, setting a minimum divisor of 1.7. This reduces the bias for those who play only Wimbledon, while still making it more important than other grass results. Using this adjusted ranking gives us the following: Grass Player Surface Tourn on Adjusted WTA Rank Name Points Surface Points/Tourn Rank 1V. Williams 906 1 532.9 3 2 Hénin 832 2 416.0 7 3Davenport 713 2 356.5 1 4 Capriati 448 1 263.5 2 5 Clijsters 377 2 188.5 5 6 S. Williams 240 1 141.2 6 7Tauziat 404 3 134.7 13 8 Shaughnessy 228 2 114.0 12 9 Martinez 221 2 110.5 35 10 Huber 178 1 104.7 18 11 Tanasugarn 309 3 103.0 29 12 Tulyaganova 181 2 90.5 20 13 Raymond 252 3 84.0 22 14 Dokic 247 3 82.3 8 15 Serna 239 3 79.7 26 16 Likhovtseva 235 3 78.3 36 17 Maleeva 139 2 69.5 16 18 Rubin 138 2 69.0 54 19 Hantuchova 137 2 68.5 38 20 Farina Elia 120 2 60.0 14 Oremans 176 3 58.7 85 Testud 117 2 58.5 11 Brandi 215 4 53.8 81 Molik 240 6 40.0 47 Schett 68 1 40.0 21 Mauresmo 64 1 37.6 9 Schnyder 73 2 36.5 37 Montolio 60 1 35.3 23 Dementieva 69 2 34.5 15 Frazier 61 2 30.5 48

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 103 Indoors Summary of Indoor Results The following lists the top players, the tournaments they played indoors, the points earned on the surface, their record and winning percentage. The list is in alphabetical order. Player Won/Lost Vs. Tournaments Played Total Pts/ Name (Percentage) Top 10 # of Tourn Bedanova 3-6 (33.3%) 1-2 Pan Pacific (1), Leipzig (1), Moscow (123), Filderstadt (1), 163/6 Bratislava (1), Linz (36) Capriati 7-4 (63.6%) 0-2 Oklahoma City (141), Filderstadt (54), Zurich (131), Munich 446/4 (120) Clijsters 10-2 (83.3%) 0-1 Leipzig (303), Filderstadt (1), Luxembourg (231), Munich (233) 768/4 Coetzer 5-6 (45.5%) 0-3 Pan Pacific (1), Oklahoma City (28), Filderstadt (1), Zurich (59), 236/6 Luxembourg (93), Munich (54) Davenport 19-0 (100%) 9-0 Pan Pacific (426), Filderstadt (401), Zurich (434), Linz (328), 1990/5 Munich (401) Déchy 4-5 (44.4%) 0-0 Paris (36), Nice (28), Quebec City (22), Bratislava (26), 113/5 Luxembourg (1) Dementieva 9-7 (56.3%) 1-2 Paris (1), Nice (52), Leipzig (125), Moscow (302), Zurich (1), 565/7 Linz (30), Munich (54) Dokic 12-4 (75.0%) 0-3 Leipzig (1), Moscow (339), Zurich (262), Linz (174), Munich 908/5 (132) Farina Elia 10-8 (55.6%) 1-3 Paris (8), Nice (104), Quebec City (1), Leipzig (66), Moscow 496/8 (159), Zurich (103), Luxembourg (1), Munich (54) Frazier 2-3 (40.0%) 0-0 Paris (75), Nice (1), Oklahoma City (1) 77/3 Grande 6-1 (85.7%) 0-1 Bratislava (172), Luxembourg (24) 196/2 Hénin 9-6 (60.0%) 0-2 Cergy Pontoise (39), Nice (30), Moscow (1), Filderstadt (221), 412/6 Linz (1), Munich (120) Hingis 6-3 (66.7%) 0-2 Pan Pacific (225), Moscow (67), Filderstadt (135) 427/3 Huber 12-8 (60.0%) 1-2 Paris (196), Nice (133), Leipzig (49), Moscow (1), Filderstadt 614/8 (123), Zurich (1), Luxembourg (57), Munich (54) Kournikova 5-7 (41.7%) 0-2 Pan Pacific (134), Paris (52), Leipzig (1), Moscow (1), Filderstadt 247/7 (1), Zurich (1), Luxembourg (57) Likhovtseva 3-6 (33.3%) 0-0 Pan Pacific (46), Paris (1), Leipzig (34), Moscow (1), Filderstadt 119/6 (1), Linz (36) Maleeva 19-9 (67.9%) 2-5 Pan Pacific (138), Paris (155), Nice (279), Leipzig (207), Moscow 1067/9 (59), Filderstadt (49), Zurich (1), Linz (125), Munich (54) Martinez 0-1 (0.0%) 0-1 Nice (1) 1/1 Mauresmo 12-3 (80.0%) 1-1 Paris (343), Nice (289), Moscow (1), Filderstadt (75), Munich 762/5 (54) Montolio 4-5 (44.4%) 0-1 Cergy Pontoise (39), Leipzig (41), Moscow (1), Zurich (1), Linz 83/5 (1) Nagyova 0-2 (0.0%) 0-0 Leipzig (1), Linz (1) 2/2 Pierce 0-1 (0.0%) 0-0 Paris (1) 1/1 Raymond 8-5 (61.5%) 0-2 Pan Pacific (46), Oklahoma City (47), Filderstadt (1), Zurich (44), 291/5 Luxembourg (153) Rubin 4-3 (57.1%) 0-2 Filderstadt (49), Zurich (51), Linz (108) 208/3 Sanchez-V 2-4 (33.3%) 0-1 Filderstadt (1), Zurich (1), Linz (41), Munich (132) 175/4 Schett 3-5 (37.5%) 1-0 Leipzig (1), Moscow (131), Filderstadt (1), Zurich (51), Linz (1) 185/5

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 104 Schnyder 2-5 (28.6%) 0-1 Paris (1), Nice (1), Filderstadt (34), Zurich (1), Luxembourg (30) 67/5 Seles 4-0 (1000%) 1-0 Oklahoma City (216) 216/1 Serna 3-7 (30.0%) 0-0 Paris (36), Nice (30), Leipzig (1), Moscow (1), Filderstadt (61), 131/7 Zurich (1), Linz (1) Shaughness 7-5 (58.3%) 0-2 Pan Pacific (46), Paris (83), Quebec City (183), Filderstadt (1), 368/6 Zurich (1), Munich (54) Suarez 0-1 (0.0%) 0-0 Linz (1) 1/1 Sugiyama 3-3 (50.0%) 0-1 Pan Pacific (102), Oklahoma City (1), Linz (49) 152/3 Tanasugarn — — NONE — Tauziat 8-8 (50.0%) 0-1 Paris (136), Nice (1), Leipzig (115), Moscow (1), Filderstadt (41), 559/8 Zurich (210), Linz (1), Munich (54) Testud 9-6 (60.0%) 3-3 Pan Pacific (46), Paris (1), Filderstadt (184), Zurich (75), Linz 720/6 (96), Munich (318) Tulyaganov 6-5 (54.5%) 1-1 Pan Pacific qualifying (7), Leipzig (1), Moscow (46), Zurich (46), 251/5 Linz (151) S. Williams 3-0 (100%) 1-0 Munich (503) 503/1 V. Williams 2-1 (66.7%) 0-0 Nice (113) 113/1

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 105 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 1Davenport 19 0 100% 1 2 Seles 4 0 100% 10 3 S. Williams 3 0 100% 6 4 Grande 6 1 85.7% 24 5 Clijsters 10 2 83.3% 5 6 Mauresmo 12 3 80% 9 7 Dokic 12 4 75% 8 8 Maleeva 19 9 67.9% 16 9 Hingis 6 3 66.7% 4 10 V. Williams 2 1 66.7% 3 11 Capriati 7 4 63.6% 2 12 Raymond 8 5 61.5% 22 13 Huber 12 8 60% 18 14 Hénin 9 6 60% 7 15 Testud 9 6 60% 11 16 Shaughnessy 7 5 58.3% 12 17 Rubin 4 3 57.1% 54 18 Dementieva 9 7 56.3% 15 19 Farina Elia 10 8 55.6% 14 20 Tulyaganova 6 5 54.5% 20 Tauziat 8 8 50% 13 Sugiyama 3 3 50% 30 Coetzer 5 6 45.5% 19 Montolio 4 5 44.4% 23 Déchy 4 5 44.4% 44 Kournikova 5 7 41.7% 74 Frazier 2 3 40% 48 Schett 3 5 37.5% 21 Bedanova 3 6 33.3% 28 Likhovtseva 3 6 33.3% 36 Sanchez-Vicario 2 4 33.3% 17 Serna 3 7 30% 26 Schnyder 2 5 28.6% 37 Nagyova 0 2 0% 25 Suarez 0 1 0% 27 Martinez 0 1 0% 35 Pierce 0 1 0% 130 Tanasugarn 0 0 — 29

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 106 Points Per Tournament Indoors Indoor Player Surface Tourn on Points/ WTA Rank Name Points Surface Tourn Rank 1 S. Williams 503 1 503.0 6 2Davenport 1990 5 398.0 1 3 Seles 216 1 216.0 10 4 Clijsters 768 4 192.0 5 5 Dokic 908 5 181.6 8 6 Mauresmo 762 5 152.4 9 7 Hingis 427 3 142.3 4 8Testud 720 6 120.0 11 9 Maleeva 1067 9 118.6 16 10 V. Williams 113 1 113.0 3 11 Capriati 446 4 111.5 2 12 Grande 196 2 98.0 24 13 Dementieva 565 7 80.7 15 14 Huber 614 8 76.8 18 15 Tauziat 559 8 69.9 13 16 Rubin 208 3 69.3 54 17 Hénin 412 6 68.7 7 18 Farina Elia 496 8 62.0 14 19 Shaughnessy 368 6 61.3 12 20 Raymond 291 5 58.2 22 Sugiyama 152 3 50.7 30 Tulyaganova 251 5 50.2 20 Sanchez-Vicario 175 4 43.8 17 Coetzer 236 6 39.3 19 Schett 185 5 37.0 21 Kournikova 247 7 35.3 74 Bedanova 163 6 27.2 28 Frazier 77 3 25.7 48 Déchy 113 5 22.6 44 Likhovtseva 119 6 19.8 36 Serna 131 7 18.7 26 Montolio 83 5 16.6 23 Schnyder 67 5 13.4 37 Nagyova 2 2 1.0 25 Suarez 1 1 1.0 27 Martinez 1 1 1.0 35 Pierce 1 1 1.0 130 Tanasugarn 0 0 — 29

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 107 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 S. Williams 503 1 S. Williams 503† 2Davenport 434 2Davenport 328 3 Mauresmo 343 3 Seles 216† 4 Dokic 339 4V. Williams 113† 5Testud 318 5 Hingis 67 6 Clijsters 303 6 Capriati 54 7 Dementieva 302 7 Rubin 49 8 Maleeva 279 8 Grande 24 9 Hingis 225 10 Hénin 221 * Represents a first-round loss at 11 Seles 216 Munich 12 Tauziat 210 † Played only one indoor event 13 Huber 196 14 Shaughnessy 183 All other Top 25 players, including 15 Grande 172 Bedanova, Clijsters, Coetzer, Déchy, Farina Elia 159 Dementieva, Dokic, Farina Elia, Fra- Raymond 153 zier, Hénin, Huber, Kournikova, Tulyaganova 151 Likhovtseva, Maleeva, Martinez, Mau- Capriati 141 resmo, Montolio, Nagyova, Pierce, Ray- Kournikova 134 mond, Sanchez-Vicario, Schett, Sanchez-Vicario 132 Schnyder, Serna, Shaughnessy, Suarez, Schett 131 Sugiyama, Tauziat, and Tulyaganova, Bedanova 123 had at least one opening-round loss V. Williams 113 indoors. Linz 108 Tanasugarn did not play indoors. Sugiyama 102 Coetzer 93 Frazier 75 Serna 61 Likhovtseva 46 Montolio 41 Déchy 36 Schnyder 34 Martinez 1 Nagyova 1 Pierce 1 Suarez 1

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 108 All-Surface Players The above us to produce a sort of a pseudo-ranking for “best all-surface player.” For this we add up a player’s ranking on all four surfaces based on points per tournament. (Note: Because of the shortness of the grass season, grass scores have been divided in half, rounding up, and a maximum value of 9 has been used. For all other surfaces, a maximum of 16 has been used. Also, the adjusted grass scores have been used) Note that this is not a measure of who is better on all surfaces; it measures who has been an all-surface player this year. (We should note that, while this statistic has had meaning in the past, in both 2000 and 2001 it has been rendered relatively useless by injuries) Players with the maximum score, of 57 have not been listed. Rank Player Surface Score WTA Rank 1 S. Williams 11 6 2 Capriati 17 2 3T Clijsters 21 5 3T V. Williams 21 3 5 Hingis 23 4 6 Mauresmo 24 9 7Davenport 25 1 8 Hénin 30 7 9 Dokic 33 8 10 Seles 34 10 11T Tauziat 46 13 11T Testud 46 11 13 Huber 47 18 14T Tulyaganova 48 20 14T Coetzer 48 19 16T Sanchez-Vicario 49 17 16T Shaughnessy 49 12 18 Maleeva 50 16 19 Martinez 51 35 20 Dementieva 52 15 Suarez 53 27 Grande 53 24 Tanasugarn 54 29 Raymond 55 22 Kournikova 56 74 Likhovtseva 56 36 Serna 56 26 We note at once the presence of Serena Williams at the top of the list. It should be recalled that Serena played exactly one tournament each on grass, clay, and indoors. On grass, we compensated. On clay and indoors, we did not. Had we required the reasonable minimum of three events on each surface (required not just for surface balance but to offset the extra values of the events she played), Serena would have been #6 indoors and below #16 on clay, which would have moved her to a total of 27 and the #8 spot. There is little real question that Capriati is the most balanced player this year, with Clijsters and Venus next. (Compare the figures for points earned on each surface.)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 109 Tournament Wins by Surface Here are the number of tournaments each player won on the various surfaces. As elsewhere, tournaments are divided into Major (Tier II and up; note that this does not mean “Slam,” which is how some use the term) and Minor (Tier III and below). The final column lists the number of surfaces on which a player won tournaments. WTA Player Hard Clay Grass Indoor Won Rank Name Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor Major Minor On 28 Bedanova 0 2 Capriati 1 2 2 5 Clijsters 1 1 1 2 19 Coetzer 1 1 1Davenport 2 1 4 3 15 Dementieva 8 Dokic 1 1 1 3 14 Farina Elia 1 1 24 Grande 1 1 2 7 Hénin 2 1 2 4 Hingis 2 1 1 18 Huber 0 16 Maleeva 1 1 9 Mauresmo 2 2 2 23 Montolio 2 1 25 Nagyova (1) (1) 22 Raymond 0 17 Sanchez-Vicario 2 1 21 Schett 0 10 Seles 1 2 1 2 26 Serna 0 12 Shaughnessy 1 1 27 Suarez 1 1 30 Sugiyama 0 29 Tanasugarn 0 13 Tauziat 1 1 11 Testud 1 1 20 Tulyaganova 2 1 6 S. Williams 2 1 2 3V. Williams 4 1 1 3 This information is easily summarized, since it was a very weak year in terms of balance. No player had a surface sweep. Venus Williams and Lindsay Davenport and Jelena Dokic won on three surfaces. We could argue, since the surface Dokic missed was grass, that she was the most balanced player. For additional information on results by surface, see the section on Percentage of Points Earned on Each Surface.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 110 Assorted Statistics The Busiest Players on the Tour Total Tour Matches Played by Top Players The following table shows how the Top 25, and certain other busy players, ranked in total matches played. Note that this does not correlate closely with ranking or with tournaments played; Testud is tops because she plays a lot and wins fairly often, Hingis is #4 because she plays moderately often and wins a lot (though she has fallen dramatically — she ended last year with 87, and hit 99 for a time in 2001), and Panova #10 because she doesn’t win much but plays a ton. Note that only WTA main draw and qualifying matches are counted — Nagyova, e.g., played a challenger and won five matches, but these are not included. The final columns show how a player did against her schedule. “Possible matches” is the number of matches the player scheduled (that is, the number she would have played had she won every match leading up to the final. So a Slam would represent seven possible matches, a Tier I between four and seven, depending on the event and whether one is seeded or not, a Tier V would represent five possible matches, etc.) The “% of possible” shows what fraction of these matches the player actually played. Ordinal Player WTA Rank Matches Played Possible Matches % of possible 1Testud 11 80 149 53.7% 2 Hénin 7 78 117 66.7% 3 Dokic 8 76 136 55.9% 4 Hingis 4 75 94 79.8% 5T Clijsters 5 72 110 65.5% 5T Farina Elia 14 72 151 47.7% 7Davenport 1 71 83 85.5% 8 Capriati 2 70 87 80.5% 9 Shaughnessy 12 69 142 48.6% 10 Panova 40 67 179 37.4% 11T Montolio 23 63 145 43.4% 11T Kremer 33 63 158 39.9% 11T Grande 24 63 161 39.1% 14 Maleeva 16 59 135 43.7% 15 Serna 26 57 158 36.1% 16T Sanchez-Vicario 17 56 126 44.4% 16T Torrens Valero 32 56 137 40.9% 18T Huber 18 55 106 51.9% 18T Tauziat 13 55 112 49.1% 20T Dementieva 15 54 113 47.8% 20T Raymond 22 54 127 42.5% 20T Schett 21 54 138 39.1% Mauresmo 9 53 86 61.6% Coetzer 19 53 112 47.3% Sugiyama 30 53 142 37.3% Tulyaganova 20 53 144 36.8% V. Williams 3 51 67 76.1% Seles 10 50 68 73.5% Nagyova 25 49 124 39.5% Tanasugarn 29 47 125 37.6% S. Williams 6 45 59 76.3%

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 111 Total Tour Events Played by the Top 150 The following table sorts the Top 150 (as of November 12, 2001) based on events played in the past year. All players who have played that many events are listed, along with their rankings (in parentheses). Top 25 players are shown in bold. The second column shows how many players played each number of events. Events # to Play Players 34 1 Jidkova (107) 33 1 Irvin (64) 32 — 31 5 Cervanova (91), Hopkins (57), Panova (40), Pelletier (145), Sfar (82) 30 3 Bacheva (114), An.Barna (110), Selyutina (97) 29 6 Grande (24), Neffa-de los Rios (51), Osterloh (55), Palaversic Coopersmith (125), Serna (26), Weingärtner (43) 28 10 Carlsson (102), Diaz-Oliva (53), Dominikovic (73), Farina Elia (14), Kandarr (71), Kleinova (121), Kremer (33), Nejedly (95), Reeves (117), Testud (11) 27 8 Black (58), Fusai (141), Loit (94), Marrero (61), Medina Garrigues (65), Poutchek (76), Taylor (142), Torrens Valero (32) 26 14 Camerin (113), Craybas (93), Déchy (44), Dokic (8), Fujiwara (128), Glass (105), Molik (47), Montolio (23), Roesch (147), Shaughnessy (12), Sucha (66), Tu (45), Tulyaganova (20), Vavri- nec (112) 25 11 Brandi (81), Goni (143), Koukalova (138), Likhovtseva (36), Majoli (42), Maleeva (16), Pratt (52), Schett (21), Schnyder (37), Sugiyama (30), Vaskova (131) 24 14 Boogert (146), Gagliardi (69), Habsudova (126), Kruger (46), Lamade (67), Lee (115), Llagostera Vives (96), McQuillan (70), Nemeckova (132), Nola (134), Noorlander (106), Sanchez-Vicario (17), Schiavone (31), Stevenson (60) 23 11 Dyrberg (137), Leon Garcia (41), MJMartinez (92), Matevzic (79), Nagyova (25), Pisnik (63), Rittner (68), Ad.Serra Zanetti (83), Sidot (120), Smashnova (87), Talaja (109) 22 18 Arn (118), Asagoe (108), Bradshaw (144), Chladkova (50), Clijsters (5), Coetzer (19), Dementieva (15), Fernandez (124), Foretz (127), Gersi (77), Hénin (7), Husarova (75), Obata (116), Petrova (39), Randriantefy (139), Tanasugarn (29), Tauziat (13), Washington (150) 21 7 Bes (99), Cho (119), Daniilidou (84), Gubacsi (103), Müller (104), Prakusya (88), Raymond (22) 20 9 Bedanova (28), Bovina (49), Castano (122), Garbin (90), A. Huber (18), Perebiynis (148), Raz- zano (72), Salerni (123), Srebotnik (98) 19 9 Beigbeder (101), Cacic (100), Frazier (48), Hantuchova (38), Kuti Kis (80), Mandula (62), Myskina (59), Oremans (85), Ruano Pascual (56) 18 1 Hingis (4) 17 7 Capriati (2), Davenport (1), Dragomir Ilie (129), Hrdlickova (86), Kostanic (133), Krasnoroutskaya (34), Vakulenko (135) 16 4 Mauresmo (9), Rubin (54), Schnitzer (140), Suarez (27) 15 1 Kapros (111) 14 3 Koulikovskaya (136), Mikaelian (78), Seles (10) 13 1 C. Martinez (35) 12 1 V. Williams (3) 11 1 Schwartz (89) 10 2 Kournikova (74), S. Williams (6) 9— 82Pierce (130), Widjaja (149) All told, the Top 150 played 3434 events.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 112 The Strongest Tournaments Theoretically, all tournaments of the same tier are of equal difficulty. In reality, it’s not even close. Tournaments like Filderstadt and San Diego are so strong that, in some years, Top Ten players can go unseeded, while Paris and Bahia 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 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 113 Tournament Strength Based on the Four Top Players Present Proposal #1: This is a two-part ranking, strength and depth. For the strenth, take the total rankings of the top four players present. Add to this the scores of the top two present. (That is, count the top two twice and the #3 and #4 players once.) This gives an indication of just how tough things are when “the going gets tough”: it shows what you can expect to be up against in the semifinal and final rounds. (So, for example, the top four players at Sydney in 2001 were Hingis, ranked #1; Davenport, ranked #2; Seles, ranked #4; and Martinez, ranked #5. So the total “value” of this tournament is 1+1+2+2+4+5=15.) The lower this number (the minimum possible value is 13), the stronger the tournament To calculate the depth, we look at the top three seeds and the bottom three seeds (or, correctly, the top three players and the players whose rankings would entitle them to the last three seeds based on the current rankings). Sum the values for the bottom three, then subtract the sum of the value for the top three, and divide by three (if the tournament has eight seeds) or by six (if it has sixteen seeds). The smaller this number (the minimum is five), the deeper the tournament, as the difference between top and bottom seeds is smallest. Again taking Sydney 2001, the top seeds were ranked 1, 2, and 4; the bottom three seeds were ranked #8, #12, and #14. So the depth of Sydney is defined by [(8+12+14)-(1+2+4)]/3 = (34-7)/3 = 27/3 = 9. Note: For purposes of calculations, only the top sixteen seeds at 32-seed events are counted. Based on the following, we rate the tournaments on the Tour as follows (sorted by strength). Note: Tournaments below Tier II shown in italics.Where two tournaments are of equal difficulty, the list is in calendar order: Tournament Tier Tournament Strength Depth Winner Rank Score Score 1T Slam Australian Open 13 8.0 Capriati 1T I Indian Wells 13 9.5 S. Williams 1T Slam Wimbledon 13 7.5 V. Williams 1T II San Diego 13 9.7 V. Williams 1T Slam U. S. Open 13 7.4 V. Williams 6T I Ericsson 14 9.5 V. Williams 6T II Filderstadt 14 8.0 Davenport 8T II Sydney 15 9.0 Hingis 8T Slam Roland Garros 15 8.2 Capriati 10T I Berlin 17 20.0 Mauresmo 10T Chmp Munich 17 7.0 S. Williams 12 II New Haven 19 6.3 V. Williams 13 II Los Angeles 21 12.0 Davenport 14 IPan Pacific 25 22.3 Davenport 15T I Charleston 27 12.8 Capriati 15T I Rome 27 11.0 Dokic 17 II Stanford 28 22.3 Clijsters 18 I Zurich 31 9.0 Davenport 19 I Moscow 32 10.3 Dokic 20 I Canadian Open 33 8.8 S. Williams 21 II Amelia Island 35 12.7 Mauresmo 22 II Scottsdale 36 21.3 Davenport 23 II Linz 38 10.0 Davenport

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 114 24 II Nice 39 12 Mauresmo 25 II Hamburg 42 15.7 V. Williams 26 II Dubai 43 21.0 Hingis 27 III Oklahoma City 49 33.0 Seles 28T II Eastbourne 53 10.7 Davenport 28T II Leipzig 53 8.7 Clijsters 30 II Paris 57 8.3 Mauresmo 31 III Doha 58 34.7 Hingis 32 III ’s-Hertogenbosch 59 25.3 Henin 33 II Princess Cup 65 23.7 Dokic 34 III Canberra 66 17.0 Hénin 35 II Bahia 71 27.0 Seles 36 III Luxembourg 76 18.3 Clijsters 37 III Madrid 81 15.0 Sanchez-Vicario 38 III Acupulco 83 38.0 Coetzer 39 III Strasbourg 84 12.0 Farina Elia 40T IV Knokke-Heist 101 18.3 Tulyaganova 40T IV Big Island 101 31.7 Testud 42 IV Estoril 103 13.8 Montolio 43 III Vienna 106 11.0 Tulyaganova 44 III Birmingham 107 10.0 Tauziat 45 III Gold Coast 123 21.3 Hénin 46 IV Porto 125 33.3 Sanchez-Vicario 47 III Quebec City 127 41.7 Shaughnessy 48 V Auckland 131 18.2 Tu 49 III Sopot 132 19.3 Torrens Valero 50 IV Shanghai 141 27.0 Seles 51 III Bol 143 22.7 Montolio 52 V Hobart 145 29.7 Grande 53 III Japan Open 155 22.7 Seles 54 VPattaya City 158 21.3 Schnyder 55 IV Basel 159 27.0 Gersi 56 V Budapest 183 32.0 Maleeva 57 III Bali 187 23.7 Widjaja 58 IV Bratislava 195 8.5 Grande 59 VPalermo 213 32.0 Medina Garrigues 60 III Bogota 253 37.7 Suarez 61 V Antwerp 301 19.7 Rittner 62 IV Tashkent 308 24.7 Lamade 63 V Casablanca 397 23.7 Gubacsi

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 115 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 U. S. Open #1/Hingis 10 (#20/Kourniko) (top plyrs missing #20, #22) V. Williams 2 Australian Opn #1/Hingis 8 #9/Sanchez-V #9, #10; next missing #19 Capriati 3 Wimbledon #1/Hingis 9 #8/Seles #8; next missing #11 V. Williams 4 San Diego #1/Hingis 7 #6/Hénin #6, #7, #8 V. Williams 5 Indian Wells #1/Hingis 6 #5/Capriati #5, #7, #8, #9 S. Williams 6 Filderstadt #1/Hingis 6 #4/V.Williams #4, #8, #9, #10 Davenport 7 Ericsson #1/Hingis 6 #4/Seles #4, #6, #9, #10 V. Williams 8 Sydney #1/Hingis 6 #3/VWilliams #3, #7, #9, #10 Hingis 9 Pan Pacific #1/Hingis 4 #3/VWilliams #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 Davenport 10 Berlin #1/Hingis 6 #3/Davenport #3, #5, #6, #10 Mauresmo 11 Roland Garros #1/Hingis 7 #3/Davenport #3, #6, #9 Capriati 12 Munich #1/Capriati 7 #3/Hingis #3, #4, #9 S. Williams 13 Rome #1/Hingis 3 #2/V.Williams #2, #3, #5, #7, #8, #9, #10 Dokic 14 Amelia Island #1/Hingis 4 #2/V. Williams #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8 Mauresmo 15 Charleston #1/Hingis 6 #2/V. Williams #2, #3, #4, #6, Capriati 16 Dubai #1/Hingis 2 #2/Davenport #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #9, #10 Hingis 17 Los Angeles #1/Hingis 6 #2/Capriati #2, #4, #6, #7 Davenport 18 Moscow #1/Hingis 4 #2/Capriati #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #9 Dokic 19 Zurich #1/Capriati 3 #2/Hingis #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 Davenport 20 New Haven #2/Capriati 7 #1/Hingis #1, #7, #10 V. Williams 21 Scottsdale #2/Davenport 3 #1/Hingis #1, #3, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 Davenport 22 Hamburg #2/VWilliams 3 #1/Hingis #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #10 V. Williams 23 Stanford #2/VWilliams 4 #1/Hingis #1, #3, #5, #7, #8, #9 Clijsters 24 Nice #3/VWilliams 2 #1/Hingis #1, #2, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 Mauresmo 25 Canadian Open #3/Capriati 5 #1/Hingis #1, #2, #4, #5, #9 S. Williams 26 Linz #3/Davenport 3 #1/Capriati #1, #2, #4, #5, #7, #8, #10 Davenport 27 Eastbourne #3/Davenport 2 #1/Hingis #1, #2, #4 #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 Davenport 28 Leipzig #5/Clijsters 2 #1/Hingis #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9 Clijsters 29 Princess Cup #5/Clijsters 1 #1/Hingis #1Ð#4, #6Ð#10 Dokic 30 Paris #8/Kournikov 2 #1/Hingis #1-#7, #10 Mauresmo 31 Bahia #9/Seles 1 #1/Hingis #1Ð#8, #10 Seles

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 116 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 1T Australian Open 475 100% Capriati 1T U. S. Open 475 100% V. Williams 1T Wimbledon 475 100% V. Williams 4 San Diego 432 90.9% V. Williams 5 Roland Garros 409 86.1% Capriati 6 Munich 397 83.6% S. Williams 7 Indian Wells 382 80.4% S. Williams 8T Ericsson 377 79.4% V. Williams 8T Filderstadt 377 79.4% Davenport 10 New Haven 375 78.9% V. Williams 11 Sydney 366 77.1% Hingis 12 Berlin 359 75.6% Mauresmo 13 Los Angeles 345 72.6% Davenport 14 Charleston 322 67.8% Capriati 15 Pan Pacific 261 54.9% Davenport 16 Canadian Open 238 50.1% S. Williams 17T Amelia Island 229 48.2% Mauresmo 17T Moscow 229 48.2% Dokic 19 Stanford 216 45.5% Clijsters 20 Zurich 209 44.0% Davenport 21 Rome 198 41.7% Dokic 22 Scottsdale 180 37.9% Davenport 23 Hamburg 161 33.9% V. Williams 24 Linz 152 32.0% Davenport 25 Dubai 143 30.1% Hingis 26 Nice 116 24.4% Mauresmo 27 Eastbourne 109 22.9% Davenport 28 Leipzig 93 19.6% Clijsters 29 Paris 86 18.1% Mauresmo 30 Princess Cup 50 10.5% Dokic 31 Bahia 43 9.1% Seles

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 117 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 Capriati 100.0 Australian Open V. Williams 100.0 Wimbledon, U. S. Open S. Williams 83.6 Munich Davenport 79.4 Filderstadt Hingis 77.1 Sydney Mauresmo 75.6 Berlin Dokic 48.2 Moscow Clijsters 45.5 Stanford Seles 9.1 Bahia1

1. In fairness, Seles also won Oklahoma City, with a 29.7% score. But that was a Tier III, which we are not including in these rankings. The field at Bahia, however, was weaker than most Tier III events.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 118 Strongest Tournament Performances The list below shows the biggest performances (highest number of points earned) in 2001. Every result of more than 350 points is listed.

Ordinal Score Player Event 1040 Capriati Australian Open W 956 V. Williams U. S. Open W 950 Capriati Roland Garros W 906 V. Williams Wimbedon W 818 S. Williams U. S. Open F 614 Hingis Australian Open F 608 Hénin Wimbledon F 512 Clijsters Roland Garros F 503 S. Williams Munich W 483 Mauresmo Berlin W 448 Capriati Wimbledon SF 444 Davenport Wimbledon SF 443 V. Williams Ericsson W 436 Davenport Australian Open SF 434 Davenport Zurich W 426 Davenport Pan Pacific W 423 S. Williams Canadian Open W 416 S. Williams Indian Wells W 407 V. Williams New Haven W 402 Capriati U. S. Open SF 401 Capriati Charleston W 401 Davenport Filderstadt W 401 Davenport Munich F 400 V. Williams Open SF 391 Hingis Sydney W 376 Hingis U. S. Open SF 373 Dokic Rome W 359 V. Williams San Diego W 358 Seles San Diego F 350 Hénin Roland Garros SF

Title Defences The following list shows all instances of a defending a title in 2001 (total of seven; seven in 2000) Title Defended By Oklahoma City Seles Wimbledon V. Williams San Diego V. Williams New Haven V. Williams U. S. Open V. Williams Leipzig Clijsters Linz Davenport

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 119 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 (+ Munich) Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Australian Open 16 10 7 63% 44% Roland Garros 16 7 6 44% 38% Wimbledon 32 251 23 78% 72% U. S. Open 32 222 17 69% 53% Munich Champ 8 6 4 75% 50% Total 104 703 57 67.3% 54.8% 1. Of the top 16 seeds at Wimbledon, 10, or 63%, reached the Round of Sixteen; all 10 of these held seed. 2. Of the top 16 seeds at the U. S. Open, 12, or 75%, reached the Round of Sixteen; 7, or 44%, held seed 3. Taking only the top 16 seeds at Wimbledon and the U. S. Open, 45 of 72, or 62.5%, reached the Round of Sixteen; 34, or 47.2%, held seed.

Tier I Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Pan Pacific 8 4 3 50% 38% Indian Wells 32 241 20 75% 75% Ericsson 32 232 17 72% 53% Charleston 16 11 9 69% 56% Berlin 16 10 8 63% 50% Rome 16 6 5 38% 31% Canadian Open 16 12 7 75% 44% Moscow 8 4 3 50% 38% Zurich 8 7 5 75% 63% Total 152 1013 77 66.4% 50.7% 1. Of the top 16 seeds at Indian Wells, 9, or 56%,reached the round of sixteen; seven, or 44%, held seed. 2. Of the top 16 seeds at the Ericsson, 12, or 75%, reached the Round of Sixteen; eight, or 50%, held seed 3. Taking only the top sixteen seeds at Indian Wells and the Ericsson, 75 of 120, or 62%, reached the seeded round; 55, or 46%, held.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 120 Tier II Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Sydney 8 5 4 63% 50% Paris 8 5 4 63% 50% Nice 8 4 2 50% 25% Dubai 8 5 4 63% 50% Scottsdale 8 6 4 75% 50% Amelia Island 15* 11 9 73% 60% Hamburg 8 5 3 63% 38% Eastbourne 8 3 3 38% 38% Stanford 8 6 5 75% 63% San Diego 16 12 9 75% 56% Los Angeles 15† 11 8 73% 53% New Haven 8 7 6 88% 75% Bahia 8 6 4 75% 50% Princess Cup 7¤ 5 3 71% 43% Leipzig 8 5 4 63% 50% Filderstadt 8 5 3 63% 38% Linz 8 4 4 50% 50% Total 157 105 75 66.9% 47.8% * #5 seed Mary Pierce withdrew from Amelia Island after play began and was replaced by a Lucky Loser † #8 seed Anna Kournikova withdrew from Los Angeles after play began and was replaced by a Lucky Loser ¤ #2 seed Monica Seles withdrew from the Princess Cup after play began and was replaced by a qualifier

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 121 Tier III Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Gold Coast 8 5 3 63% 38% Canberra 8 5 2 63% 25% Doha 8 5 5 63% 63% Oklahoma City 7* 3 3 43% 43% Bogota 8 2 2 25% 25% Acupulco 8 5 5 63% 63% Bol 8 4 2 50% 25% Madrid 8 5 4 63% 50% Strasbourg 7† 4 3 57% 43% Birmingham 16 7 6 44% 38% ’s-Hertogenbosch 8 5 4 63% 60% Vienna 8 4 2 50% 25% Sopot 8 5 2 63% 25% Quebec City 8 5 5 63% 63% Bali 7¤ 4 2 57% 28% Luxembourg 8 5 4 63% 50% Total 133 73 54 54.8% 40.6% * #8 seed Kristina Brandi withdrew from Oklahoma City after play began and was replaced by a Lucky Loser, leaving only seven seeds † #6 seed Jelena Dokic withdrew from Strasbourg after play began wand was replaced by a Lucky Loser, leaving only seven seeds. ¤ #4 seed Meilen Tu withdrew from Bali (singles only) after play began, and was replaced by a Lucky Loser, leaving only seven seeds.

Tier IV Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Porto 8 4 4 50% 50% Estoril 8 2 2 25% 25% Tashkent 8 4 2 50% 25% Knokke-Heist 8 3 1 38% 13% Basel 8 2 2 25% 25% Big Island 8 5 4 63% 50% Shanghai 8 3 2 38% 25% Bratislava 8 2 1 25% 13% Total 64 25 18 39.1% 28.1%

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 122 Tier V Tournaments Tournament Seeds Reached Held Seed % Reached % Held Seed Seeded Round Seeded Round Auckland 8 4 4 50% 50% Hobart 8 6 2 75% 25% Budapest 7* 3 2 43% 29% Antwerp 8 3 2 38% 25% Palermo 8 7 4 88% 50% Casablanca 8 1 1 13% 13% Pattaya City 8 5 4 63% 50% Total 55 29 19 52.7% 34.5% * #8 seed Lina Krasnoroutskaya withdrew from Budapest after play started and was replaced by a Lucky Loser

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 123 Bagels The following chart lists the Bagels (6-0 sets) experienced or inflicted by top 20 players. The “bagel” set is shown in bold. Double bagels are shown in bold for the entire line. Player Bagels inflicted Bagels experienced Bedanova Canberra: def. Plischke 6-2 6-0 U. S. Open: lost to Hingis 2Ð6 0Ð6 Roland Garros: def. Glass 4-6 7-5 6-0 Linz: lost to Davenport 6Ð7 0Ð6 San Diego: def. Fusai 6-0 6-2 Canadian Open: def. Black 7Ð5 6Ð7 6Ð0 Moscow: def. Torrens Valero 6Ð0 6Ð3 Capriati Australian Open: def. Oremans 6-0 6-2 New Haven: def. Huber 0Ð6 6Ð3 6Ð2 Australian Open: def Ruano Pascual 6-0 6-2 Ericsson: def. Hopkins 6-4 6-0 Ericsson: def. Tanasugarn 6-4 6-0 Ericsson: def. Dementieva 6-2 6-0 Charleston: def. Weingärtner 6-0 6-2 Charleston: def. Hingis 6-0 4-6 6-4 U. S. Open: def. Dominikovic 6Ð2 6Ð0 Clijsters Australian Open: def. Llagostera 6-0 6-1 Australian Open: lost to Davenport 4-6 0-6 Bol: lost to Diaz-Oliva 6-0 2-6 3-6 Ericsson: lost to S. Williams 0-6 2-6 ’s-Hertogenbosch: def. Kruger 6-3 6-0 Knokke-Heist: lost to Tulyaganova 0-6 4-6 Wimbledon: def. Casoni 6-0 6-2 Princess Cup: def. Black 6Ð0 6Ð3 Coetzer Zurich: def. Kournikova 6Ð0 4Ð6 6Ð3 Oklahoma City: Lost to Hantuchova 6-7 6-3 0-6 Davenport Australian Open: def. Clijsters 6-4 6-0 U. S. Open: def. Likhovtseva 6Ð3 0Ð6 6Ð3 Pan Pacific: def. Majoli 6-2 6-0 Pan Pacific: def. Kournikova 6-1 6-7 6-0 Scottsdale: def. Raymond 1-6 6-0 6-3 Ericsson: def. Osterloh 6-3 6-0 Eastbourne: def. Serna 6-2 6-0 U. S. Open: def. Loit 6-0 6-2 Linz: def. Bedanova 7Ð6 6Ð0 Déchy Nice: def. Barna 6-0 6-3 Auckland: lost to Weingärtner 6-7 6-4 0-6 Boynton Beach $75K: def. Yi 6-0 6-1 Rome: lost to Kremer 6-4 0-6 0-6 New Haven Qualifying: def. Castano 6-0 6-1 New Haven Qualifying: def. Weingärtner 6-4 6-0 Quebec City: lost to Reeves 6-0 1-6 2-6 Dementieva Indian Wells: def. Brandi 6-2 6-0 Paris: lost to Maleeva 6-2 0-6 3-6 Vienna: lost to Tulyaganova 4-6 6-0 6-7 Indian Wells: lost to V. Williams 0-6 3-6 U. S. Open: def. Habsudova 7Ð6(7Ð5) 5Ð7 6Ð0 Ericsson: lost to Capriati 2-6 0-6 Linz: def. Schwartz 6Ð1 6Ð0 Wimbledon: lost to Huber 0-6 2-6 Dokic Charleston: lost to Majoli 3-6 6-0 2-6 Vienna: lost to Kostanic 6-1 6-7 0-6 Roland Garros: def. Gersi 6-0 6-0 Los Angeles: lost to Tauziat 0-6 6-0 2-6 ’s-Hertogenbosch: def. Nagyova 6-2 6-0 U. S. Open: lost to Hingis 4-6 0-6 Los Angeles: lost to Tauziat 0-6 6-0 2-6 Leipzig: lost to Hantuchova 6-4 6-7 0-6 New Haven: def. Raymond 6Ð3 6Ð0 Bahia: def. de los Rios 6Ð0 6-2 Moscow: def. Schiavone 6Ð2 6Ð0 Linz: def. Tulyaganova 6Ð2 4Ð6 6Ð0

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 124 Farina Elia Australian Open: def. Dowse 6-0 6-2 Indian Wells: lost to Hingis 0-6 1-6 Berlin: def. Craybas 6-0 5-7 6-1 Porto: lost to Sanchez-Vicario 6-4 0-6 1-6 Strasbourg: def. Tauziat 3-6 6-4 6-0 Amelia Island: lost to Petrova 6-4 3-6 0-6 Strasbourg: def. Huber 7-5 0-6 6-4 Sopot: def. Medina Garrigues 6-4 0-6 7-5 Munich: lost to S. Williams 0Ð6 2Ð6 Frazier Roland Garros: def. Ad. Serra-Zanetti 6-2 6-0 Paris: lost to Tauziat 0-6 2-6 Nice: lost to Tu 3-6 6-3 0-6 Grande Estoril: def. Vavrinec 6-4 6-0 Hobart: def. Hopkins 0-6 6-3 6-3 Bratislava: def. Medina Garrigues 6-0 6-1 Australian Open: lost to Hingis 0-6 3-6 Hénin Gold Coast: def. Razanno 6-4 6-0 Wimbledon: lost to V. Williams 1-6 6-3 0Ð6 Gold Coast: def. Jeyaseelan 6-1 6-0 U. S. Open: lost to S. Williams 5Ð7 0Ð6 Wimbledon: def. Pitkowski 6-1 6-0 Linz: lost to Tulyaganova 7Ð6 0Ð6 3Ð6 Wimbledon: def. Martinez 6-1 6-0 Big Island: def. Dominikovic 6Ð2 6Ð0 Big Island: def. Craybas 6Ð0 6Ð4 Hingis Australian Open: def. Callens 6-1 6-0 Charleston: lost to Capriati 0-6 6-4 4-6 Australian Open: def. Grande 6-0 6-3 Berlin: lost to Mauresmo 6-3 0-6 4-6 Pan Pacific: def. Sugiyama 6-0 5-7 6-2 Filderstadt: def. Maleeva 0Ð6 6Ð4 6Ð2 Pan Pacific: def. Maleeva 6-3 1-6 6-0 Indian Wells: def. Hrdlickova 7-5 6-0 Indian Wells: def. Torrens Valeero 6-3 6-0 Indian Wells: def. Farina Elia 6-0 6-1 Ericsson: def. Panova 6-1 6-0 Ericsson: def. Huber 7-5 6-0 Roland Garros: def. Leon Garcia 6-1 6-0 Roland Garros: def. Castano 6-1 6-0 Los Angeles: def. Likhovtseva 6-0 6-3 U. S. Open: def. Granville 6Ð2 6Ð0 U. S. Open: def. Krasnoroutskaya 6Ð0 6Ð2 U. S. Open: def. Dokic 6Ð4 6Ð0 U. S. Open: def. Bedanova 6Ð2 6Ð0 Huber Strasbourg: lost to Farina Elia 5-7 6-0 4-6 Ericsson: lost to Hingis 5-7 0-6 Wimbledon: def. Dementieva 6-0 6-2 Roland Garros: lost to Razzano 0-6 6-4 1-6 New Haven: lost to Capriati 6Ð0 3Ð6 2Ð6 Kournikova Paris: def. Kleinova 6-0 6-3 Pan Pacific: lost to Davenport 1-6 7-6 0-6 Zurich: lost to Coetzer 0-6 6-4 3-6 Likhovtseva Charleston: def. Suarez 6-0 7-5 Los Angeles: lost to Hingis 0-6 3-6 U. S. Open: lost to Davenport 3Ð6 6Ð0 3Ð6 Canadian Open: lost to Mauresmo 0-6 3-6 Maleeva Paris: def. Dementieva 2-6 6-0 6-3 Pan Pacific: lost to Hingis 3-6 6-1 0-6 Wimbledon: def. C. Fernandez 6-0 6-2 Nice: lost to Mauresmo 2-6 0-6 Filderstadt: lost to Hingis 6Ð0 4Ð6 2Ð6 Martinez Sydney: def. Morariu 6-4 6-0 Eastbourne: lost to Rubin 7-6 5-7 0-6 Charleston: def. Osterloh 1-6 6-3 6-0 Wimbledon: lost to Henin 1-6 0-6 Berlin: def. Suarez 7-6 6-0 Rome: def. Chladkova 6-0 6-1 Mauresmo Australian Open: def. Pratt 6-0 7-5 Nice: def. Maleeva 6-2 6-0 Berlin: def. Schnyder 6-1 4-6 6-0 Berlin: def. Hingis 3-6 6-0 6-4 Canadian Open: def. Likhovtseva 6-0 6-3 U. S. Open: def. Tauziat 6Ð0 6Ð7(1Ð7) 6Ð3 Montolio Budapest: def. Chladkova 6-0 1-6 7-5 Bol: def. Marrero 0-6 6-3 6-1 Roland Garros: def. Cacic 6-1 6-0 Madrid: lost to Sanchez-Vicario 5-7 0-6 Vienna: Montolio def. Nemeckova 6-2 0-6 6-4

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 125 Nagyova U. S. Open: def. Diaz-Oliva 6Ð0 6-4 Rome: lost to Hantuchova 0-6 1-6 Bahia: def. M. J. Martinez 6Ð1 6Ð0 ’s-Hertogenbosch: lost to Dokic 2-6 0-6 Pattaya: def. Gubacsi 6Ð2 6Ð0 Sopot: lost to Torrens Valero 6-1 0-6 3-6 Pattaya: def. Kostanic 6Ð4 0Ð6 6Ð2 Pattaya: lost to Schnyder 0Ð6 4Ð6 Pierce Canberra: def. Kruger 6-3 6-0 Doha: lost to Gersi 4-6 7-5 0-6 Raymond Oklahoma City: def. Buth 6-3 6-0 Scottsdale: lost to Davenport 6-1 0-6 3-6 Scottsdale: def. Asagoe 6-0 6-1 Birmingham: lost to Tauziat 0-6 6-7 Charleston: def. Hiraki 6-3 6-0 New Haven: lost to Dokic 3Ð6 0-6 Wimbledon: def. Latimer 6-3 6-0 Wimbledon: def. Cross 6-0 6-1 Luxembourg: def. Pisnik 6Ð2 6Ð0 Rubin Eastbourne: def. Martinez 6-7 7-5 6-0 Australian Open: lost to Husarova 3-6 0-6 Stanford: def. Bovina 6-4 6-0 Amelia Island: lost to Petrova 6-4 4-6 0-6 San Diego: def. Panova 6-0 6-3 Sanchez- Indian Wells: def. Hopkins 6-0 6-7(7-5) 6-4 Linz: lost to Stevenson 3Ð6 6Ð3 0Ð6 Vicario Ericsson: def. Rittner 6-2 2-6 6-0 Ericsson: def. Pratt 6-0 7-6(7-4) Porto: def. Gagliardi 6-7 6-0 6-2 Porto: def. Farina Elia 4-6 6-0 6-1 Madrid: def. Montolio 7-5 6-0 Linz: def. Serna 6Ð7 6Ð2 6Ð0 Schett Estoril: def. Piedade 6-2 6-0 Roland Garros: def. Llagostera 6-0 4-6 6-2 Schnyder Canberra: def. Carlsson 3-6 7-6 6-0 Canberra: lost to Sugiyama 0-6 6-3 5-7 Roland Garros: def. Bradshaw 6-0 6-3 Berlin: lost to Mauresmo 1-6 6-4 0-6 Luxembourg: def. Leon Garcia 7Ð6 6Ð0 Zurich: lost to Petrova 6Ð2 6Ð0 Pattaya: def. Nagyova 6Ð0 6Ð4 Pattaya def. Neffa-de los Riod 7-5 0-6 6-3 Seles Scottsdale: def. Black 6-0 6-3 Bahia: def. Husarova 6Ð3 1Ð6 6Ð0 Bahia: def. Panova 6Ð1 6Ð0 Shanghai: def. Nemeckova 6Ð0 6Ð0 Shanghai: def. Molik 6Ð1 6Ð0 Serna Eastbourne: def. Shaughnessy 6-0 7-6 Eastbourne: lost to Davenport 2-6 0-6 Basel: lost to Arn 3-6 0-6 Linz: lost to Sanchez-Vicario 7Ð6 2Ð6 0Ð6 Shaughnessy Australian Open: def. Hopmans 6-0 6-4 Hamburg: lost to V. Williams 3-6 0-6 Amelia Island: def. Cacic 2-6 6-0 7-5 Eastbourne: lost to Serna 0-6 6-7 Amelia Island: def. Tu 4-6 7-5 6-0 Berlin: def. Marrero 6-0 3-0 retired Wimbledon: def. Marrero 6-0 7-5 Canadian Open: def. Asagoe 6-0 6-4 Suarez Auckland: def. Nola 6-2 6-0 Charleston: lost to Likhovtseva 0-6 5-7 Australian Open: def. de los Rios 6-3 6-0 Berlin: lost to Martinez 6-7 0-6 Charleston: def. Salerni 6-0 6-1 Vienna: lost to Tulyaganova 0-6 5-7 Rome: def. Black 3-6 6-4 6-0 Sugiyama Canberra: def. Schnyder 6-0 3-6 7-5 Pan Pacific: lost to Hingis 0-6 7-5 2-6 Indian Wells: def. Husarova 7-5 6-0 Bol: def. Morariu 6-2 0-6 6-3 Ericsson: def. Krasnoroutskaya 7-6 6-0 Rome: lost to Schiavone 4-6 0-6 Tanasugarn Canadian Open: def. Panova 6Ð0 6Ð3 Sydney: lost to Rippner 0-6 7-6 3-6 Japan Open: def. Obata 6-0 6-2 Ericsson: lost to Capriati 4-6 0-6

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 126 Tauziat Paris: def. Frazier 6-0 6-2 Strasbourg: lost to Farina Elia 6-3 4-6 0-6 Birmingham: def Kremer 6-4 6-0 Los Angeles: def. Dokic 6-0 0-6 6-2 Birmingham: def. Raymond 6-0 7-6 U. S. Open: lost to Mauresmo 0Ð6 7-6 3-6 Wimbledon: def. Mandula 6-0 6-1 Wimbledon: def. Tulyaganova 6-0 6-3 Los Angeles: def. Dokic 6-0 0-6 6-2 Testud Australian Open: def. Sanchez Lorenzo 6-1 6-0 Canadian Open: lost to S. Williams 0-6 2-6 Pan Pacific: def. Brandi 6-0 6-4 U. S. Open: lost to V. Williams 4Ð6 0Ð6 Madrid: def. Leon Garcia 2-6 6-3 6-0 Munich: lost to S. Williams 3-6 0Ð6 Madrid: def. Vakulenko 6-0 6-4 Roland Garros: def. Poutchek 6-4 6-0 Wimbledon: def. Habsudova 6-0 6-1 U. S. Open: def. Matevzic 6Ð2 6Ð0 Big Island: def. Irvin 6Ð0 6Ð1 Tulyaganova Ericsson: def. F. Li 6-0 1-0 ret. Wimbledon: lost to Tauziat 0-6 3-6 Vienna: def. Suarez 6-0 7-5 Vienna: def. Dementieva 6-4 0-6 7-6 Linz: def. Hénin 6–7 6Ð0 6Ð3 Linz: lost to Dokic 2Ð6 6Ð4 0Ð6 Williams, S. Ericsson: def. Clijsters 6-0 6-2 Roland Garros: def. Srebotnik 6-0 7-5 Wimbledon: def. Kuti Kis 6-1 6-0 Wimbledon: def. Rittner 6-4 6-0 Canadian Open: def. Testud 6-0 6-2 U. S. Open: def. Sucha 6Ð1 6Ð0 U. S. Open: def. Hénin 7–5 6Ð0 Munich: def. Farina Elia 6Ð0 6Ð2 Munich: def. Testud 6Ð3 6Ð0 Williams, V. Australian Open: def. M. J. Martinez 6-3 2-6 6-0 Indian Wells: def. Pitkowski 6-0 6-1 Indian Wells: def Black 6-4 3-6 6-0 Indian Wells: def. Dementieva 6-0 6-3 Ericsson: def. Oremans 6-2 6-0 Hamburg: def. Shaughnessy 6-3 6-0 Wimbledon: def. Petrova 6-2 6-0 Wimbledon: def. Hénin 6-1 3-6 6-0 U. S. Open: def. Testud 6Ð4 6Ð0

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 127 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 Hingis 36 4 9.0 Australian Open Slam Capriati 51 7 7.3 Pan Pacific I Davenport 35 4 8.8 Paris II Mauresmo 42 5 8.4 Nice II Mauresmo 23 5 4.6 Dubai II Hingis 32 4 8.0 Scottsdale II Davenport 33 4 8.3 Indian Wells I S. Williams 29 5 5.8 Ericsson I V. Williams 44 6 7.3 Amelia Island II Mauresmo 32 4 8.0 Charleston I Capriati 34 5 6.8 Hamburg II V. Williams 12 4 3.0 Berlin I Mauresmo 49 5 9.8 Rome I Dokic 47 6 7.8 Roland Garros Slam Capriati 58 7 8.3 Eastbourne II Davenport 18 4 4.5 Wimbledon Slam V. Williams 39 7 5.6 Stanford II Clijsters 39 4 9.8 San Diego II V. Williams 23 5 4.6 Los Angeles II Davenport 42 5 8.4 Canadian Open I S. Williams 41 5 8.2 New Haven II V. Williams 41 4 10.3 U. S. Open Slam V. Williams 36 7 5.1 Bahia II Seles 31 4 7.8 Princess Cup II Dokic 27 4 6.8 Leipzig II Clijsters 27 4 6.8 Moscow II Dokic 37 5 7.4 Filderstadt I Davenport 21 31 7.0 Zurich I Davenport 29 4 7.3 Linz II Davenport 22 4 5.5 Munich Champ S. Williams 14 3 4.7 1. Davenport won her semifinal over Martina Hingis 2-1, retired. For lack of a better answer, I have excluded this match. If it is included as a whole match, Davenport’s numbers are 22, 4, 5.5; if we call it, say, half a match, 22, 3.5, 6.3.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 128 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 Hingis 191 4 47.8 Australian Open Slam Capriati 520 7 74.31 Pan Pacific I Davenport 166 4 41.5 Paris II Mauresmo 143 5 28.6 Nice II Mauresmo 89 5 17.8 Dubai II Hingis 83 4 20.8 Scottsdale II Davenport 95 4 23.8 Indian Wells I S. Williams 156 5 30.2 Ericsson I V. Williams 183 6 30.5 Amelia Island II Mauresmo 111 4 27.8 Charleston I Capriati 141 5 28.2 Hamburg II V. Williams 68 4 17.0 Berlin I Mauresmo 223 5 44.6 Rome I Dokic 113 6 18.8 Roland Garros Slam Capriati 430 7 61.41 Eastbourne II Davenport 69 4 17.3 Wimbledon Slam V. Williams 386 7 55.11 Stanford II Clijsters 115 4 28.8 San Diego II V. Williams 159 5 31.8 Los Angeles II Davenport 141 5 28.2 Canadian Open I S. Williams 163 5 32.6 New Haven II V. Williams 207 4 51.8 U. S. Open Slam V. Williams 436 7 62.31 Bahia II Seles 76 4 19.0 Princess Cup II Dokic 98 4 24.5 Leipzig II Clijsters 103 4 25.8 Moscow I Dokic 79 5 15.8 Filderstadt I Davenport 201 4 50.3 Zurich I Davenport 174 4 43.5 Linz II Davenport 128 4 32.0 Munich Champ S. Williams 113 3 37.7 1 Note that Slam quality points are doubled, giving artificially high values

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 129 “Top Players” 2001 Early in 2000, the challenge was issued to define what constitutes a “Top Player.” After some discussion, those involved decided that a “Top Player” was one who met two of the following three criteria: 1. Has reached at least one semifinal in the last three years. 2. Has, during one of the last three years, defeated at least five Top Ten players during 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: Players below the Top 20 in 2001 were skipped, as none have accomplishments. Others years have been marked “X.” Player 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 1999Ð Slam Top 10 Tier II+ Slam Top 10 Tier II+ Slam Top 10 Tier II+ Total 2001 SF Wins Titles SF Wins Titles SF Wins Titles Acc. Acc. Capriati 0201104103910 Clijsters X X X 06113235 Coetzer 03003000000 Davenport 3 15 6 3 10 4 2 17 7 12 33 Dementieva X X X 15002001 Dokic 02011003334 Farina Elia XXXXXX0 2 000 Graf 2 6 1 XXXXXX—4 Grande XXXXXX0 0 000 Hénin XXXXXX2 3 022 Hingis 3 20 7 3 15 8372634 Huber 04002002000 Kournikova 02005000001 Maleeva X X X 02002000 Martinez 02022100003 Mauresmo 14005108458 Montolio XXXXXX0 0 000 Nagyova XXXXXX0 1 000 Pierce 01116200005 Raymond XXXXXX0 0 000 Sanchez-Vi 10013001002 Schett 04001002000 Seles 22104205127 Tauziat 02202101003 Testud 04001004000 Tulyaganova XXXXXX0 2 000 S. Williams 1 12 4153173517 V. Williams 1 16 5 2 10 5 3 14 6 11 29

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 130 From the above table, we can list players in order of “accomplishments.” Remember that this list is compiled over three years. Hingis, e.g., was not the most accomplished player of 2001 (that honour goes to Davenport, with Venus second, Capriati third, and Hingis fourth), but over the three year span, she has been the most accomplished. Top Players: Player Accomplishments Hingis 34 Davenport 33 V. Williams 29 S. Williams 17 Capriati 10 Mauresmo 8 Seles 7 Clijsters 5 Pierce 5 Dokic 4 [Graf 4]* Martinez 3 Tauziat 3 Hénin 2 Sanchez-Vi 2 Dementieva 1 [Halard-Decugis 1]* Kournikova 1 [Novotna 1]* [Zvereva 1]* Coetzer 0 Farina Elia 0 Grande 0 Huber 0 Maleeva 0 Montolio 0 Nagyova 0 Raymond 0 Schett 0 Testud 0 Tulyaganova 0

* Retired or inactive player who nonetheless has residual accomplishments.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 131 Statistics About the Tour as a Whole Total number of ranked players on the Tour, as of November 12, 2001: 1212

Most singles events played by a Top 100 player: 33/Marissa Irvin) (33/Hopkins in 2000) Fewest events played by a Top 100 player: 10/Serena Williams, Anna Kournikova (9/V. Williams in 2000) Median number of events played by a Top 100 player: 23 (22 in 2000) Number of Top 100 players playing 25 or more events: 41 (34 in 2000) Number of Top 100 players playing 30 or more events: 6 (4 in 2000)

Most events played by any player: 34/Alina Jidkova. (33/Hopkins in 2000 ) Median number of events played by all players: 11 (10 in 2000) Number of players playing 25 or more events: 117 (123 in 2000) Number of players playing 30 or more events: 14 (16 in 2000)

Most points earned in any event: 1040/Jennifer Capriati, Australian Open (1098 in 2000) Most titles for any player: 7/Lindsay Davenport (9/Hingis in 2000) Most Tour victories: 62/Lindsay Davenport (77/Hingis in 2000)

Total Tournaments played in 2001: 63 (57 in 2000) Total players with Tour singles titles in 2001: 30 (29 in 2000) Total players with multiple singles titles in 2001: 14 (12 in 2000) Total players with Tier II or higher titles in 2001: 8 (11 in 2000)

Most singles matches played: 80/Sandrine Testud (87/Hingis in 2000) Most doubles matches played: 72/Cara Black, Elena Likhovtseva (76/Sugiyama in 2000) Most combined singles & doubles matches played: 128/Dokic (144/Hingis in 2000)

Total Main Draw Matches Played (omits walkovers, withdrawals, byes): 2505

Total players with at least 2000 points: 11 (9 in 2000)* Total players with at least 1000 points: 24 (27 in 2000) Total players with at least 500 points: 72 (63 in 2000) Total players with at least 200 points: 153 (147 in 2000) Total players with at least 100 points: 241 (229 in 2000) Total players with at least 50 points: 340 (342 in 2000) Total players with at least 20 points: 552 (522 in 2000) Total players with at least 10 points: 753 (738 in 2000) Total ranked players with 1.0 or fewer points: 8 (10 in 2000) Total players with .75 points: 3 (4 in 2000)

Highest (year-end) score in a 17th Tournament : 56 (Sandrine Testud). Record to this point: 215 (Martina Hingis, week of February 26, 2001)

Total points “in the system” (sum of the Best 17 scores of all ranked players): 147,329.5 *(total last year was 137,860.05 (sic.).) The Top 25 have 56,509 of these, or 38.4%, down from 40.0% last year.

* Note that the ranking system changed from Best 18 to Best 17 in 2001, taking points “out of the system.”

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 132 The Year of the Injury When the WTA went to the additive (“Best 17”) ranking system, it did so against the wishes of the top players. They didn’t want to have to play the extra tournaments needed to succeed under Best 17. The players appear to have been right. It took a while, but injuries to top players have become routine. 2000 was the first “year of the injury.” The WTA responded by lowering the minimum from Best 18 to Best 17. This, predictably, didn’t help — it didn’t reduce the incentive to overplay, just the reward. The following list attempts to tabulate top players’ injuries in 2001, with their effects. It lists the player, and her assorted injuries, plus the events she missed in consequence (this list necessarily somewhat uncertain, as it is based on past schedules and initial sign-ups) and the effect on her ranking Player Injury Weeks Events Missed Entirely Events in which player with- Start/End Missed drew or played with injury Rank Davenport knee 10 Charleston, Berlin, Rome, Roland Garros Ericsson 2/3 Davenport wrist 1 Canadian Open 2/3 Davenport knee 0 Munich — Dementieva tendon 6 Charleston, Bol, Berlin, Rome Amelia Island (9)/10 Dementieva shoulder 1 Filderstadt — Dokic exhaustion 1 Shanghai — Hénin ankle 2 Rome, Birmingham Roland Garros (?) N/A Hénin foot 2 Knokke-Heist Wimbledon (?) 5/6 Hénin leg Leipzig Big Island — Hingis back Wimbledon — Hingis ankle Canadian Open — Hingis ankle 6 Zurich, Linz?, Munich Filderstadt 1/4 Huber wrist 20 All of 2000 after USO; Sydney; Aus. Open 10/16 Huber foot 1 Berlin — Kournikova foot 22 Acupulco, Indian Wells, Ericsson, Amelia San Diego, Leipzig, Moscow 8/74 Island, Charleston, Hamburg, Berlin, Rome, Roland Garros, Birmingham, Eastbourne, Wimbledon, Stanford (played San Diego), Los Angeles, Canadian Open, U. S. Open Martinez ankle 14 All events from Sopot on 20/ Mauresmo back 0 Sydney — Pierce tendonitis 3(+) Scottsdale, Indian Wells 7/12 Pierce back 1 Amelia Island 12/14 Pierce flu 1 Berlin — Pierce back All events from Roland Garros on 17/130 Rubin knee 9 Pan Pacific, Scottsdale, Ind. Wells, Ericsson Canberra, Australian Open 13/18 Rubin knee 5 Berlin, Rome, Roland Garros Porto, Amelia Island, Charleston 18/27 Rubin knee Quebec City 29/36 Seles foot 9 Ericsson, Amelia Island, Charleston, Rome Madrid 4/10 (played Madrid), Roland Garros, Wimbledon Suarez not ~15 All events after Vienna (played New Haven, New Haven, U. S. Open, Linz 25/27 announced U. S. Open, Linz) Testud back+wrist 2 Leipzig, Moscow Princess Cup — Williams, S. “exhaustion” ~4 Paris, Scottsdale(?) — Williams, S. undisclosed ~3 Amelia Island?, Berlin, Madrid — Williams, V. tendonitis 0 Indian Wells — Williams, V. knee 1 Rome — Williams, V. wrist 2 Linz, Munich —

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 133 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 eighteen singles tournaments but only six 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 2000 Year-End 2001 Year-End Doubles Ranking1 Singles Ranking2 1 Raymond, Lisa 5 22 2 Stubbs, Rennae 5 — 3 Black, Cara 14 58 4 Likhovtseva, Elena 18 36 5Tauziat, Nathalie 9 13 6 Suarez, Paola 7 27 7 Po-Messerli, Kimberly 20 — 8 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 10 56 9 Sugiyama, Ai 1 30 10 Arendt, Nicole 11 — 11 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 16 17 12 Dokic, Jelena 50 8 13 Testud, Sandrine 22 11 14 Shaughnessy, Meghann 35 12 15 Clijsters, Kim 47 5 16 Callens, Els 15 160 17 Coetzer, Amanda 26 19 18 Schett, Barbara 13 21 19 Martinez, Conchita 27 35 20 Srebotnik, Katarina 34 98 21 Huber, Liezel () 41 180 22 Vinci, Roberta 228 172 23 Krizan, Tina 33 727 24 Rittner, Barbara 135 68 25 Davenport, Lindsay 25 1 26 Kournikova, Anna 4 74 27 Pratt, Nicole 36 52 28 Husarova, Janette 54 75 29 McNeil, Lori 58 — 30 Hingis, Martina 3 4 1. Based on the 12/25/2000 doubles rankings 2. Based on the 11/12/2001 singles rankings

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 134 The Initial Top 25 in Doubles Doubles Rank Player Singles Rank 1 Julie Halard-Decugis 15 2 Ai Sugiyama 33 3 Martina Hingis 1 4 Anna Kournikova 8 5 Lisa Raymond 31 6 686 7Paola Suarez 37 8 Nathalie Tauziat 10 9 Mary Pierce 7 10 Virginia Ruano Pascual 89 11 — 12 Barbara Schett 23 13 Cara Black 43 14 Corina Morariu 52 15 Els Callens 107 16 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 9 17 — 18 Elena Likhovtseva 21 19 Alexandra Fusai 146 20 524 21 Dominique Van Roost 24 (retired) 22 Chanda Rubin 13 23 Sandrine Testud 17 24 Anne-Gaëlle Sidot 36 25 79

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 135 Doubles Ranking Fluctuation The table below is similar to the Ranking Fluctuation Table for Singles, except that rankings are recorded monthly rather than twice monthly. All players who were in the Top Thirty on the specified days are listed, except those who were retired but not yet removed from the list (Halard-Decugis, Bollegraf). Statistics for the Williams Sisters in the last three columns are based on a January 1 ranking of 30, which is what they achieved after Sydney (where they lost first round but came to be ranked as a result of having three events). Others with uncertain rankings have their rankings projected. Player Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Nov Mean Median Std. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 (avg) Dev. Arendt 11777810111111119109.4101.7 Black 14 12 14 15 14 9 8 105653 9.69.54.2 Callens 15 17 18 19 16 12 14 14 16 16 15 16 15.7 16 1.9 Carlsson 29 31 32 31 30 29 30 31 36 45 42 36 33.5 31 5.2 Clijsters 47 47 56 41 44 55 39 21 22 17 18 15 35.2 40 15.5 Coetzer 26 27 25 32 24 24 24 24 30 24 23 17 25.0 24 3.7 Davenport 25 22 22 28 29 36 36 36 57 61 24 25 33.4 28.5 13.1 Dokic 50 64 65 64 67 39 22 19 14 14 14 12 37.0 30.5 23.5 Fusai 19 15 21 20 18 20 23 20 20 26 30 32 22.0 20 5.0 Garbin 56 58 42 36 35 35 35 28 25 37 46 44 39.8 36.5 10.0 Grande 31 36 33 39 31 26 27 32 35 32 38 31 32.6 32 3.9 Hingis 32222267101213 30 7.6 4.5 8.2 L. Horn Huber 41 40 40 38 41 38 45 48 43 31 19 21 37.1 40 9.0 Husarova 54 39 30 27 27 25 25 23 24 28 29 28 29.9 27.5 8.6 Kournikova 4333334671012267.04 6.7 Krizan 33 32 36 34 33 31 34 30 32 25 28 23 30.9 32 3.8 Likhovtseva 18 20 20 21 19 1199476412.3 10 6.7 Martinez, C. 27 30 28 29 34 33 43 18 18 22 22 19 26.9 27.5 7.6 Martinez, M. J. 183 >150 158 92 63 47 43 39 26 35 40 40 77.8 45 57.9 McNeil 58 60 48 46 50 45 41 46 53 44 36 29 46.3 46 8.7 Montalvo 28 28 29 26 26 23 31 42 37 40 41 43 32.8 30 7.2 Morariu 12 10 11 16 20 28 28 29 33 34 57 57 27.9 28 16.0 Pierce 8 19 26 31 36 30 101 112 113 143 144 137 75.0 68.5 54.1 Po-Messerli 20 21 15 14 15 17 12 12 1287713.3 13 4.6 Pratt 36 33 31 30 28 27 29 35 23 19 21 27 28.3 28.5 5.3 Raymond 554444221111 2.83 1.6 Rittner 135 135 96 101 73 57 51 53 47 29 27 24 69.0 55 39.4 Ruano Pascual 10998108758988 8.38 1.4 Rubin 21 24 24 25 25 22 26 52 66 70 74 71 41.7 25.5 22.7 Sanchez-Vicari 16 18 16 11 9 13 13 13 13 13 11 11 13.1 13 2.5 Schett 13 11 10 10 13 16 18 17 17 18 20 18 15.1 16.5 3.5 Shaughnessy 35 29 27 24 22 19 19 16 15 15 16 14 20.9 19 6.6 Sidot 23 25 19 17 17 18 17 15 19 21 32 47 22.5 19 9.0 Srebotnik 34 35 37 35 32 34 37 37 29 23 25 20 31.5 34 5.9

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 136 Stubbs 554555332222 3.63.51.4 Suarez 746676546446 5.46 1.2 Sugiyama 1111111133109 2.81 3.3 Tarabini 30 41 38 40 43 40 42 34 34 30 33 33 36.5 36 4.7 Tauziat 98896710895357.38 2.1 Testud 22 23 23 22 21 21 20 22 31 27 17 13 21.8 22 4.5 Vinci 228 >150 137 135 125 142 94 92 83 51 31 22 110.0 109.5 60.5 Vis536344433732322521202637 36.1 34.5 13.0 S. Williams — 13 12 12 11 14 15 26 27 49 53 54 26.3 20.5 16.8 V. Williams — 13 12 12 11 14 15 26 27 49 53 54 26.3 20.5 16.8 Zvereva 24 26 35 48 47 99—————— ———

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 137 The Final Top Fifty in Doubles As of November 12, 2001 Final Best 13 # of Best Rank Player Name Score Trn Rank Titles 1 Lisa Raymond 4098 18 1 PanP, Scotts, Charl, Eastb, Wimb, USO, Fild, Zur, Mun (9) 2 Rennae Stubbs 3712 15 2 PanP, Scotts, Charl, Eastb, Wimb, USO, Mun (7) 3 Cara Black 2614 25 3 Hobart, Hamb, Rome, Birm, SanDiego, NewHav, PrinC (7) 4 Elena Likhovtseva 2605 26 4 Hobart, Hamb, Rome, Birm, SanDiego, NewHav, Leipz (7) 5 Nathalie Tauziat 2535 21 3 Ericsson, Los Angeles, Leipzig (3) 6 Paola Suarez 2512 17 4 Madrid, Roland Garros, Vienna (3) 7 Kimberly Po-Messerli 2364 24 6 Los Angeles, Canadian Open (2) 8 Virginia Ruano Pascual 2344 19 5 Madrid, Roland Garros, Antwerp, Knokke-Heist (4) 9 Ai Sugiyama 2018 17 1 Canberra, Indian Wells (2) 10 Nicole Arendt 1796 18 7 Canberra, Indian Wells (2) 11 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 1790 23 9 Ericsson (1) 12 Jelena Dokic 1710 20 12 Linz (1) 13 Sandrine Testud 1578 18 13 Doha (1) 14 Meghann Shaughnessy 1476 19 14 Berlin (1) 15 Kim Clijsters 1357 14 15 16 Els Callens 1335 21 12 Berlin, Antwerp (2) 17 Amanda Coetzer 1312 18 17 Oklahoma City, Bahia (2) 18 Barbara Schett 1293 18 8 Sydney (1) 19 Conchita Martinez 1265 11 17 Amelia Island (1) 20 Katarina Srebotnik 1256 21 19 Big Island (1) 21 Liezel (Horn) Huber 1251 26 19 Princess Cup, Japan Open, Shanghai (3) 22 Roberta Vinci 1221 14 22 Doha (1) [+ $25K] 23 Tina Krizan 1214 25 23 Big Island (1) 24 Barbara Rittner 1196 19 24 Estoril (1) 25 Lindsay Davenport 1186 6 20 Filderstadt, Zurich (2) 26 Anna Kournikova 1181 6 3 Sydney, Moscow (2) 27 Nicole Pratt 1171 24 18 Canadian Open (1) 28 Janette Husarova 1152 23 22 Gold Coast, Bogota, Budapest, Palermo (4) 29 Lori McNeil 1132 15 29 Oklahoma City, Bahia (2) 30 Martina Hingis 1128 6 2 Moscow (1) 31 Rita Grande 1083 30 27 Auckland (1) 32 Alexandra Fusai 1083 27 15 Auckland (1) 33 1072 25 29 Amelia Island, Vienna (2) 34 Janet Lee 1067 21 31 Stanford (1) 35 Wynne Prakusya 1064 21 34 Stanford (1) 36 Åsa Carlsson 1062 25 28 Casablanca, Pattaya (2) 37 1054 23 18 Dubai (1) 38 Elena Tatarkova 1032 23 31 39 Silvia Farina Elia 1032 23 36 Strasbourg (1) 40 Maria Jose Martinez 1012 18 26 Acupulco, Porto, Bol, Basel (4) 41 Nadia Petrova 1007 13 41 ’s-Hertogenbosch, Linz (2) 42 Anabel Medina Garrigues 1006 21 37 Acupulco, Porto, Bol, Basel (4) 43 996 23 23 44 Tathiana Garbin 966 21 25 Bogota, Budapest, Palermo (3) 45 941 12 38 46 Justine Hénin 935 12 43 47 Anne-Gaëlle Sidot 920 21 15 Nice (1) 48 Kveta Hrdlickova 914 11 48 Estoril (1) 49 Iroda Tulyaganova 898 22 49 Strasbourg, Pattaya (2) 50 Rachel McQuillan 897 23 45 Japan Open (1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 138 Individual Results: The Top Thirty Doubles Players/Results This table is generally equivalent to the table of results in the section on singles, save that the format is somewhat simplified. The list shows each tournament the player played and the partner with whom she played. This is followed, in parenthesis, by the tier of the tournament, a notation showing how far the player advanced, and the number of wins her team had to reach that point. Rank # of Player Results Events 10 18 Arendt Canberra w/ Sugiyama (III, Win, 4) Australian Open w/Sugiyama (Slam, SF, 4) Pan Pacific w/Sugiyama (I, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Sugiyama (I, Win, 5) Ericsson w/Sugiyama (I, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Vis (I, SF, 3) Berlin w/Vis (I, 2R, 1) Rome w/Vis (I, 2R, 0) Madrid w/Serna (III, SF, 2) Roland Garros w/Vis (Slam, QF, 2+1 walkover) Eastbourne w/Vis (II, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Vis (Slam, 2R, 1) Stanford w/Vis (II, F, 3) San Diego w/Vis (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Vis (II, F, 3) Canadian Open w/Vis (I, 2R, 0) U. S. Open w/Vis (Slam, 1R, 0) Bahia w/Tarabini (II, F, 3) 325Black Auckland w/Testud (V, SF, 2) Hobart w/Likhovtseva (V, Win, 4) Australian Open w/Likhovtseva (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Likhovtseva (I, 1R, 0) Oklahoma City w/Pratt (III, SF, 2) Scottsdale w/Likhovtseva (II, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Likhovtseva (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Likhovtseva (I, QF, 2) Hamburg w/Likhovtseva (II, Win, 4) Berlin w/Likhovtseva (I, F, 3) Rome w/Likhovtseva (I, Win, 4) Roland Garros w/Likhovtseva (Slam, 3R, 2) Birmingham w/Likhovtseva (III, Win, 4) Eastbourne w/Likhovtseva (II, F, 3) Wimbledon w/Likhovtseva (Slam, 2R, 1) Stanford w/Washington (II, 1R, 0) San Diego w/Likhovtseva (II, Win, 4) Los Angeles w/Likhovtseva (II, 2R, 1) Canadian Open w/Likhovtseva (I, SF, 2) New Haven w/Likhovtseva (II, Win, 4) U. S. Open w/Likhovtseva (Slam, SF, 4) Princess Cup w/L. Huber (II, Win, 4) Moscow w/Likhovtseva (I, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Likhovtseva (II, 1R, 0) Munich w/Likhovtseva (Champ, F, 2)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 139 16 21 Callens Hobart w/Sidot (V, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Sidot (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Sidot (I, 1R, 0) Paris w/Sidot (II, 1R, 0) Scottsdale w/. Schlukebir (II, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Shaughnessy (I, QF, 2) Ericsson w/Shaughnessy (I, QF, 2) Estoril w/Hénin (IV, 1R, 0) Berlin w/Shaughnessy (I, Win, 4) Antwerp w/Ruano Pascual (V, Win, 4) Roland Garros w/Shaughnessy (Slam, R16, 2) Birmingham w/Grande (III, 2R, 0) Wimbledon w/Shaughnessy (Slam, 1R, 0) Lexington $50K w/Tatarkova ($50K, QF, 1) Los Angeles w/Rubin (II, SF, 2) Bronx $50K w/Boogert ($50K, F, 3) U. S. Open w/Rubin (Slam, QF, 3) Big Island w/Pratt (IV, F, 3) Quebec City w/Anca Barna (III, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Rubin (I, 2R, 1) Linz w/Rubin (II, F, 3) 15 14 Clijsters Sydney w/Molik (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Courtois (Slam, 3R, 2) Scottsdale w/Shaughnessy (II, F, 2) Indian Wells w/Courtois (I, 1R, 0) Ericsson w/Courtois (I, 1R, 0) Rome w/Serna (I, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/Courtois (Slam, 3R, 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Oremans (III, F, 3) Wimbledon w/Sugiyama (Slam, F, 5) San Diego w/Sugiyama (II, SF, 2) Los Angeles w/Sugiyama (II, 1R, 0) Princess Cup w/Sugiyama (II, F, 3) Leipzig w/Dokic (II, SF, 2) Filderstadt w/Schett (II, SF, 2) 17 18 Coetzer Sydney w/Po (II, SF, 2) Pan Pacific w/Po (I, SF, 2) Oklahoma City w/McNeil (III, Win, 4) Acupulco w/Morariu (III, 1R, 0) Ericsson w/McNeil (I, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/McNeil (II, SF, 2) Charleston w/McNeil (I, QF, 2) Strasbourg w/McNeil (III, F, 3) Roland Garros w/McNeil (Slam, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/McNeil (II, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/McNeil (Slam, R16, 2) Canadian Open w/McNeil (I, 2R, 1) U. S. Open w/McNeil (Slam, 2R, 1) Bahia w/McNeil (II, Win, 4) Filderstadt w/McNeil (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/McNeil (I, QF, 1) Luxembourg w/McNeil (III, QF, 1) Munich w/McNeil (Champ, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 140 25 6 Davenport Sydney w/Morariu (II, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Morariu (Slam, F, 5) Pan Pacific w/Morariu (I, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Morariu (I, QF, 2) Filderstadt w/Raymond (II, Win, 4) Zurich w/Raymond (I, Win, 4) 12 20 Dokic Australian Open w/Capriati (Slam, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Nacuk (I, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/Dementieva (II, QF, 1) Charleston w/Morariu (I, 2R, 1) Hamburg w/Martinez (II, QF, 1) Berlin w/Martinez (I, SF, 3) Rome w/Martinez (I, SF, 3) Roland Garros w/Martinez (Slam, F, 5) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Dementieva (III, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Martinez (Slam, R16, 2) Vienna w/Dementieva (III, QF, 1) Knokke-Heist w/Farina Elia (IV, SF, 2) Sopot w/Farina Elia (III, 1R, 0) San Diego w/Tarabini (II, QF, 1) Los Angeles w/Sidot (II, QF, 1) New Haven w/Petrova (II, F, 3) U. S. Open w/Petrova (Slam, 2R, 1) Bahia w/Ruano Pascual (II, 1R, 0) Leipzig w/Clijsters (II, SF, 2) Linz w/Petrova (II, Win, 4) 32 27 Fusai Auckland w/Grande (V, Win, 4) Australian Open w/Grande (Slam, QF, 3) Doha w/Grande (III, 1R, 0) Dubai w/Grande (II, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Grande (I, 1R, 0) Porto w/Grande (IV, F, 3) Estoril w/Grande (IV, 1R, 0) Budapest w/Grande (V, QF, 1) Berlin w/Grande (I, 2R, 1) Rome w/Grande (I, 1R, 0) Madrid w/Grande (III, SF, 2) Roland Garros w/Grande (Slam, 2R, 1) Tashkent w/Tatarkova (IV, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Grande (Slam, 2R, 1) Palermo w/Salerni (V, 1R, 0) Stanford w/Grande (II, SF, 2) San Diego w/Grande (II, QF, 1) Los Angeles w/Grande (II, 1R, 1) Canadian Open w/Grande (I, 2R, 1) U. S. Open w/Grande (Slam, 1R, 0) Princess Cup w/Grande (II, SF, 2) Bali w/Grande (III, 1R, 0) Japan Open w/Grande (III, SF, 2) Shanghai w/Grande (IV, QF/retired, 1) Bratislava w/Grande (IV, SF, 2) Luxembourg w/Grande (III, 1R, 0) Munich w/Grande (Champ, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 141 31 30 Grande Auckland w/Fusai (V, Win, 4) Hobart w/Gagliardi (V, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Fusai (Slam, QF, 3) Doha w/Fusai (III, 1R, 0) Dubai w/Fusai (II, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Fusai (I, 1R, 0) Ericsson w/Majoli (I, 2R, 1) Porto w/Fusai (IV, F, 3) Estoril w/Fusai (IV, 1R, 0) Budapest w/Fusai (V, QF, 1) Berlin w/Fusai (I, 2R, 1) Rome w/Fusai (I, 1R, 0) Madrid w/Fusai (III, SF, 2) Roland Garros w/Fusai (Slam, 2R, 1) Birmingham w/Callens (III, 2R, 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Rittner (III, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Fusai (Slam, 2R, 1) Stanford w/Fusai (II, SF, 2) San Diego w/Fusai (II, QF, 1) Los Angeles w/Fusai (II, 1R, 1) Canadian Open w/Fusai (I, 2R, 1) New Haven w/Habsudova (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Fusai (Slam, 1R, 0) Princess Cup w/Fusai (II, SF, 2) Bali w/Fusai (III, 1R, 0) Japan Open w/Fusai (III, SF, 2) Shanghai w/Fusai (IV, QF/retired, 1) Bratislava w/Fusai (IV, SF, 2) Luxembourg w/Fusai (III, 1R, 0) Munich w/Fusai (Champ, 1R, 0) 30 6 Hingis Sydney w/Seles (II, SF/Hingis withdrew, 2) Australian Open w/Seles (Slam, SF, 4) Los Angeles w/Kournikova (II, F, 3) U. S. Open w/Capriati (Slam, QF, 3) Moscow w/Kournikova (I, Win, 4) Filderstadt w/Kournikova (II, SF/Hingis withdrew, 2)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 142 21 26 Huber, Liezel Auckland w/Suarez (V, SF, 2) (Liezel Horn) Australian Open w/Majoli (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Jeyaseelan (I, 1R, 0) Doha w/Vento (III, QF, 1) Indian Wells w/Montalvo (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Montalvo (I, SF, 3) Amelia Island w/Montalvo (II, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Montalvo (I, QF, 2) Hamburg w/Montalvo (II, 1R, 0) Berlin w/Montalvo (I, 2R, 1) Rome w/Montalvo (I, QF, 2) Madrid w/Montalvo (III, QF, 1) Roland Garros w/Montalvo (Slam, 2R, 1) Birmingham w/de Lone (III, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/Shaughnessy (II, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Montalvo (Slam, 1R, 0) San Diego w/Montalvo (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Montalvo (II, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Montalvo (I, 1R, 0) New Haven w/Montalvo (II, SF, 2) U. S. Open w/Montalvo (Slam, 2R, 1) Princess Cup w/Black (II, Win, 4) Bali w/McQuillan (III, 1R, 0) Japan Open w/McQuillan (III, Win, 4) Shanghai w/Nemeckova (IV, Win, 4) Pattaya w/Prakusya (V, F, 3) 28 23 Husarova Gold Coast w/Casoni (III, Win, 4) Sydney w/Nacuk (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Garbin (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Garbin (I, QF, 1) Bogota w/Garbin (III, Win, 4) Acupulco w/Garbin (III, QF, 1) Indian Wells w/Garbin (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Garbin (I, 2R, 1) Estoril w/Garbin (IV, SF, 2) Budapest w/Garbin (V, Win, 4) Hamburg w/Garbin (II, SF, 2) Berlin w/Garbin (I, 2R, 1) Roland Garros w/Garbin (Slam, 1R, 0) Tashkent w/Garbin (IV, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Garbin (Slam, R16, 2) Palermo w/Garbin (V, Win, 4) Sopot w/Garbin (III, 1R, 0) San Diego w/Garbin (II, QF, 1) U. S. Open w/Dementieva (Slam, 2R, 1) Bahia w/Farina Elia (II, SF, 2) Filderstadt w/Garbin (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Garbin (I, QF, 1) Linz w/Garbin (II, 1R, 0) 26 6 Kournikova Sydney w/Schett (II, Win, 4) Australian Open w/Schett (Slam, QF, 3) Pan Pacific w/Tulyaganova (I, F, 3) Los Angeles w/Hingis (II, F, 3) Moscow w/Hingis (I, Win, 4) Filderstadt w/Hingis (II, SF/Hingis withdrew, 2)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 143 23 25 Krizan Auckland w/Srebotnik (V, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Selyutina (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Selyutina (I, 1R, 0) Redbridge $25K w/Selyutina ($25K, F, 3) Acupulco w/Srebotnik (III, SF, 1) Indian Wells w/Srebotnik (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Srebotnik (I, 1R, 0) Porto w/Srebotnik (IV, SF, 2) Estoril w/Srebotnik (IV, F, 3) Bol w/Srebotnik (III, SF, 2) Berlin w/Srebotnik (I, QF, 2) Roland Garros w/Srebotnik (Slam, 1R, 0) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Tulyaganova (III, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Srebotnik (Slam, 2R, 1) San Diego w/Pratt (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Srebotnik (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Srebotnik (I, F, 4) New Haven w/Pratt (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Srebotnik (Slam, QF, 3) Big Island w/Srebotnik (IV, Win, 4) Japan Open w/Srebotnik (III, SF, 2) Shanghai w/Srebotnik (IV, 1R, 0) Bratislava w/Srebotnik (IV, QF,1) Linz w/Srebotnik (II, 1R, 0) Munich w/Srebotnik (Champ, 1R, 0) 426Likhovtseva Hobart w/Black (V, Win, 4) Australian Open w/Black (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Black (I, 1R, 0) Paris w/Pierce (II, QF, 1) Scottsdale w/Black (II, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Black (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Black (I, QF, 2) Amelia Island w/Pratt (II, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Pratt (I, QF, 1) Hamburg w/Black (II, Win, 4) Berlin w/Black (I, F, 3) Rome w/Black (I, Win, 4) Roland Garros w/Black (Slam, 3R, 2) Birmingham w/Black (III, Win, 4) Eastbourne w/Black (II, F, 3) Wimbledon w/Black (Slam, 2R, 1) San Diego w/Black (II, Win, 4) Los Angeles w/Black (II, 2R, 1) Canadian Open w/Black (I, SF, 2) New Haven w/Black (II, Win, 4) U. S. Open w/Black (Slam, SF, 4) Moscow w/Black (I, 1R, 0) Filderstadt w/Black (II, 1R, 0) Leipzig w/Tauziat (II, Win, 4) Linz w/Sugiyama (II, QF, 1) Munich w/Black (Champ, F, 2)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 144 19 11 Martinez, C. Sydney w/Tarabini (II, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Tarabini (Slam, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/Tarabini (II, Win, 4) Charleston w/Tarabini (I, 1R, 0) Hamburg w/Dokic (II, QF, 1) Berlin w/Dokic (I, SF, 3) Rome w/Dokic (I, SF, 3) Roland Garros w/Dokic (Slam, F, 5) Eastbourne w/Bedanova (II, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Dokic (Slam, R16, 2) 29 15 McNeil Oklahoma City w/Coetzer (III, Win, 4) Ericsson w/Coetzer (I, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/Coetzer (II, SF, 2) Charleston w/Coetzer (I, QF, 2) Strasbourg w/Coetzer (III, F, 3) Roland Garros w/Coetzer (Slam, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/Coetzer (II, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Coetzer (Slam, R16, 2) Canadian Open w/Coetzer (I, 2R, 1) U. S. Open w/Coetzer (Slam, 2R, 1) Bahia w/Coetzer (II, Win, 4) Filderstadt w/Coetzer (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Coetzer (I, QF, 1) Luxembourg w/Coetzer (III, QF, 1) Munich w/Coetzer (Champ, 1R, 0) 57 7 Morariu Sydney w/Davenport (II, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Davenport (Slam, F, 5) Pan Pacific w/Davenport (I, 1R, 0) Acupulco w/Coetzer (III, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Davenport (I, QF, 2) Charleston w/Dokic (I, 2R, 1) Bol w/Sugiyama (III, 2R, 1) 45 12 Navratilova Amelia Island w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, F, 3) Berlin w/Sanchez-Vicario (I, 2R, 1) Rome w/Sanchez-Vicario (I, 2R, 1) Roland Garros w/Sanchez-Vicario (Slam, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, SF, 2) Wimbledon w/Sanchez-Vicario (Slam, SF, 3+1 walkover) Canadian Open w/Sanchez-Vicario (I, SF, 3) U. S. Open w/Sanchez-Vicario (Slam, QF, 3) Princess Cup w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, QF, 1) Filderstadt w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Sanchez-Vicario (I, QF, 1) Linz w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 145 724Po-Messerli Sydney w/Coetzer (II, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Serna (Slam, R16, 2) Pan Pacific w/Coetzer (I, SF, 2) Paris w/Tauziat (II, F, 3) Nice w/Tauziat (II, F, 3) Scottsdale w/Jeyaseelan (II, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Pratt (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Pratt (I, QF, 2) Amelia Island w/Carlsson (II, QF, 1) Charleston w/Carlsson (I, 2R, 0) Strasbourg w/Tauziat (III, SF, 2) Roland Garros w/Tauziat (Slam, QF, 2) Birmingham w/Tauziat (III, F, 3) Eastbourne w/Tauziat (II, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Tauziat (Slam, SF, 4) San Diego w/Tauziat (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Tauziat (II, Win, 4) Canadian Open w/Pratt (I, Win, 4) New Haven w/Tauziat (II, QF, 1) U. S. Open w/Tauziat (Slam, F, 5) Filderstadt w/Tauziat (II, QF, 1) Zurich w/Tauziat (I, SF, 2) Linz w/Tauziat (II, 1R, 0) Munich w/Tauziat (Champ, SF, 1) 27 24 Pratt Sydney w/Shaughnessy (II, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Shaughnessy (Slam, QF, 3) Pan Pacific w/Shaughnessy (I, QF, 1) Oklahoma City w/Black (III, SF, 2) Scottsdale w/de Lone (II, 1R, 0) Indian Wells w/Po (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Po (I, QF, 2) Amelia Island w/Likhovtseva (II, 1R, 0) Charleston w/Likhovtseva (I, QF, 1) Rome w/Carlsson (I, 1R, 0) Madrid w/Tarabini (III, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/Tarabini (Slam, R16, 2) Birmingham w/Sidot (III, SF, 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/McQuillan (III, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Tatarkova (Slam, 1R, 0) San Diego w/Krizan (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Po (I, Win, 4) New Haven w/Krizan (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Tatarkova (Slam, 1R, 0) Big Island w/Callens (IV, F, 3) Princess Cup w/Molik (II, 1R, 0) Bali w/Molik (III, QF/withdrew, 1) Japan Open w/Molik (III, 1R, 0) Shanghai w/Molik (IV, QF, 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 146 118Raymond Sydney w/Stubbs (II, F, 2+1 walkover) Australian Open w/Stubbs (Slam, 1R, 0) Pan Pacific w/Stubbs (I, Win, 4) Oklahoma City w/Stubbs (III, SF, 2) Scottsdale w/Stubbs (II, Win, 3+1 walkover) Indian Wells w/Testud (I, SF, 3) Ericsson w/Stubbs (I, F, 4) Amelia Island w/Stubbs (II, SF, 2) Charleston w/Stubbs (I, Win, 4) Madrid w/Stubbs (III, F, 3) Roland Garros w/Stubbs (Slam, SF, 4) Eastbourne w/Stubbs (II, Win, 4) Wimbledon w/Stubbs (Slam, Win, 6) Canadian Open w/Stubbs (I, QF, 1) U. S. Open w/Stubbs (Slam, Win, 6) Filderstadt w/Davenport (II, Win, 4) Zurich w/Davenport (I, Win, 4) Munich w/Stubbs (Champ, Win, 3) 24 19 Rittner Gold Coast w/Tarabini (III, 1R, 0) Australian Open w/Schnyder (Slam, 1R, 0) Doha w/Nacuk (III, SF/withdrew, 2) Dubai w/Weingärtner (II, QF, 1+2 in qualifying) Indian Wells w/Hrdlickova (I, lost in 3R of qualifying and 1R of main draw; 0+2 in qualifying) Estoril w/Hrdlickova (IV, W, 4) Hamburg w/Hrdlickova (II, F, 3) Berlin w/Hrdlickova (I, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/Hrdlickova (Slam, R16/withdrew, 2) ’s-Hertogenbosch w/Grande (III, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Vento (Slam, R16, 2) Vienna w/Schnyder (III, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Hrdlickova (I, 2R, 1) New Haven w/Prakusya (II, QF, 1) U. S. Open w/Hrdlickova (Slam, R16, 2) Bahia w/Nagyova (II, SF, 2) Leipzig w/Hrdlickova (II, F, 3) Filderstadt w/Hrdlickova (II, QF, 1) Luxembourg w/Hrdlickova (III, SF, 2) 819Ruano Pascual Hobart w/Dragomir (V, F, 3) Australian Open w/Suarez (Slam, QF, 3) Acupulco w/Suarez (III, F, 3) Indian Wells w/Suarez (I, F, 4) Ericsson w/Pisnik (I, 1R, 0) Amelia Island w/Suarez (II, QF, 1) Charleston w/Suarez (I, F, 3) Berlin w/Suarez (I, QF, 1) Antwerp w/Callens (V, Win, 4) Madrid w/Suarez (III, Win, 4) Roland Garros w/Suarez (Slam, Win, 6) Wimbledon w/Suarez (Slam, SF, 4) Knokke-Heist w/Serna (IV, Win, 4) Canadian Open w/Salerni (I, 1R, 0) New Haven w/Suarez (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Suarez (Slam, R16, 2) Bahia w/Dokic (II, 1R, 0) Linz w/Suarez (II, QF, 1) Munich w/Suarez (Champ, SF, 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 147 11 23 Sanchez-Vicario Dubai w/Tauziat (II, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Tauziat (I, SF, 3) Ericsson w/Tauziat (I, Win, 5) Porto w/Serna (IV, QF, 1) Amelia Island w/Navratilova (II, F, 3) Charleston w/Capriati (I, SF, 3) Hamburg w/Serna (II, QF, 1) Berlin w/Navratilova (I, 2R, 1) Rome w/Navratilova (I, 2R, 1) Roland Garros w/Navratilova (Slam, 1R, 0) Eastbourne w/Navratilova (II, SF, 2) Wimbledon w/Navratilova (Slam, SF, 3+1 walkover) San Diego w/Capriati (II, SF, 2) Los Angeles w/Schett (II, SF, 2) Canadian Open w/Navratilova (I, SF, 3) New Haven w/Hantuchova (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Navratilova (Slam, QF, 3) Big Island w/McQuillan (IV, SF, 2) Princess Cup w/Navratilova (II, QF, 1) Bali w/Basuki (III, SF, 1+1 walkover) Filderstadt w/Navratilova (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Navratilova (I, QF, 1) Linz w/Navratilova (II, 1R, 0) 18 18 Schett Auckland w/Gagliardi (V, F, 3) Sydney w/Kournikova (II, Win, 4) Australian Open w/Kournikova (Slam, QF, 3) Dubai w/Pierce (II, QF, 1) Indian Wells w/A. Huber (I, QF, 2) Ericsson w/A. Huber (I, QF, 2) Berlin w/Majoli (I, 1R, 0) Rome w/Majoli (I, 2R, 1) Roland Garros w/A. Huber (Slam, QF, 3) Wimbledon w/A. Huber (Slam, 1R, 0) Vienna w/A. Huber (III, SF/withdrew, 2) Los Angeles w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, SF, 2) Canadian Open w/A. Huber (I, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/A. Huber (Slam, 3R, 1) Moscow w/Farina Elia (I, SF, 2) Filderstadt w/Clijsters (II, SF, 2) Zurich w/Majoli (I, 1R, 0) Linz w/Vis (II, 1R, 0)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 148 14 19 Shaughnessy Gold Coast/Schlukebir (III, F, 3) Sydney w/Pratt (II, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Pratt (Slam, QF, 3) Pan Pacific w/Pratt (I, QF, 1) Paris w/Courtois (II, 1R, 0) Scottsdale w/Clijsters (II, F, 2) Indian Wells w/Callens (I, QF, 2) Ericsson w/Callens (I, QF, 2) Amelia Island w/Vis (II, 1R, 0) Hamburg w/Hénin (II, QF, 1) Berlin w/Callens (I, Win, 4) Roland Garros w/Callens (Slam, R16, 2) Eastbourne w/L. Huber (II, QF, 1) Wimbledon w/Callens (Slam, 1R, 0) Stanford w/Seles (II, SF, 2) Canadian Open w/Hénin (I, QF, 2) U. S. Open w/Hénin (Slam, 2R, 1) Filderstadt w/Hénin (II, F, 2+1 walkover) Zurich w/Capriati (I, 1R, 0) 20 21 Srebotnik Auckland w/Krizan (V, QF, 1) Australian Open w/Basting (Slam, 2R, 1) Pan Pacific w/Testud (I, QF, 1) Acupulco w/Krizan (III, SF, 1) Indian Wells w/Krizan (I, 2R, 1) Ericsson w/Krizan (I, 1R, 0) Porto w/Krizan (IV, SF, 2) Estoril w/Krizan (IV, F, 3) Bol w/Krizan (III, SF, 2) Berlin w/Krizan (I, QF, 2) Roland Garros w/Krizan (Slam, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Krizan (Slam, 2R, 1) Los Angeles w/Krizan (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Krizan (I, F, 4) U. S. Open w/Krizan (Slam, QF, 3) Big Island w/Krizan (IV, Win, 4) Japan Open w/Krizan (III, SF, 2) Shanghai w/Krizan (IV, 1R, 0) Bratislava w/Krizan (IV, QF,1) Linz w/Krizan (II, 1R, 0) Munich w/Krizan (Champ, 1R, 0) 215Stubbs Sydney w/Raymond (II, F, 2+1 walkover) Australian Open w/Raymond (Slam, 1R, 0) Pan Pacific w/Raymond (I, Win, 4) Oklahoma City w/Raymond (III, SF, 2) Scottsdale w/Raymond (II, Win, 3+1 walkover) Ericsson w/Raymond (I, F, 4) Amelia Island w/Raymond (II, SF, 2) Charleston w/Raymond (I, Win, 4) Madrid w/Raymond (III, F, 3) Roland Garros w/Raymond (Slam, SF, 4) Eastbourne w/Raymond (II, Win, 4) Wimbledon w/Raymond (Slam, Win, 6) Canadian Open w/Raymond (I, QF, 1) U. S. Open w/Raymond (Slam, Win, 6) Munich w/Raymond (Champ, Win, 3)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 149 617Suarez Auckland w/Horn (V, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, QF, 3) Bogota w/Montalvo (III, F, 3) Acupulco w/Ruano Pascual (III, F, 3) Indian Wells w/Ruano Pascual (I, F, 4) Amelia Island w/Ruano Pascual (II, QF, 1) Charleston w/Ruano Pascual (I, F, 3) Berlin w/Ruano Pascual (I, QF, 1) Suarez/Tarabini (I, F, 4) Madrid w/Ruano Pascual (III, Win, 4) Roland Garros w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, Win, 6) Wimbledon w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, SF, 4) Vienna w/Tarabini (III, Win, 4) New Haven w/Ruano Pascual (II, 1R, 0) U. S. Open w/Ruano Pascual (Slam, R16, 2) Linz w/Ruano Pascual (II, QF, 1) Munich w/Ruano Pascual (Champ, SF, 1) 917Sugiyama Canberra w/Arendt (III, W, 4) Australian Open w/Arendt (Slam, SF, 4) Pan Pacific w/Arendt (I, SF, 2) Oklahoma City w/Yoshida (III, 1R, 0) Indian Wells wArendt (I, Win, 5) Ericsson w/Arendt (I, 1R, 0) Bol w/Morariu (III, 2R, 1) Rome w/Pierce (I, QF, 1) Roland Garros w/Capriati (Slam, R16, 2) Eastbourne w/Hantuchova (II, SF, 2) Wimbledon w/Clijsters (Slam, F, 5) San Diego w/Clijsters (II, SF, 2) Los Angeles w/Clijsters (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Tulyaganova (I, QF, 2) Princess Cup w/Clijsters (II, F, 3) Japan Open w/Yoshida (III, QF, 1) Linz w/Likhovtseva (II, QF, 1) 521Tauziat Paris w/Po (II, F, 3) Nice w/Po (II, F, 3) Dubai w/Sanchez-Vicario (II, SF, 2) Indian Wells w/Sanchez-Vicario (I, SF, 3) Ericsson w/Sanchez-Vicario (I, Win, 5) Berlin w/Déchy (I, 1R, 0) Rome w/Déchy (I, 1R, 0) Strasbourg w/Po-Messerli (III, SF, 2) Roland Garros w/Po-Messerli (Slam, QF, 2) Birmingham w/Po-Messerli (III, F, 3) Eastbourne w/Po-Messerli (II, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Po-Messerli (Slam, SF, 4) San Diego w/Po-Messerli (II, 1R, 0) Los Angeles w/Po-Messerli (II, Win, 4) New Haven w/Po-Messerli (II, QF, 1) U. S. Open w/Po-Messerli (Slam, F, 5) Leipzig w/Likhovtseva (II, Win, 4) Filderstadt w/Po-Messerli (II, QF, 1) Zurich w/Po-Messerli (I, SF, 2) Linz w/Po-Messerli (II, 1R, 0) Munich w/Po-Messerli (Champ, SF, 1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 150 13 18 Testud Auckland w/Black (V, SF, 2) Australian Open w/Pierce (Slam, R16, 2) Pan Pacific w/Srebotnik (I, QF, 1) Doha w/Vinci (III, Win, 3+1 walkover) Indian Wells w/Raymond (I, SF, 3) Ericsson w/Déchy (I, 2R, 1) Berlin w/Mauresmo (I, 2R, 1) Rome w/Sidot (I, 2R, 0) Roland Garros w/Vinci (Slam, QF, 3) Eastbourne w/Serna (II, 1R, 0) Wimbledon w/Razzano (Slam, 2R, 1) San Diego w/Rubin (II, 1R, 0) Canadian Open w/Vinci (I, 2R, 1) U. S. Open w/Vinci (Slam, SF, 4) Filderstadt w/Hantuchova (II, 1R, 0) Zurich w/Vinci (I, F, 3) Linz w/Vinci (II, QF, 1) Munich w/Vinci (Champ, 1R, 0) 22 14 Vinci Doha w/Testud (III, Win, 3+1 walkover) Ortisei $25K w/Pennetta ($25K, SF, 2) Rome $10K w/Ivone ($10K, F, 3) Dubai $75K+H w/Zavagli ($75K+H, QF, 1) $25K w/Antonella Serra-Zanetti ($25K, F, 3) Rome w/Casoni (I, 1R, 0) Roland Garros w/Testud (Slam, QF, 3) Pamplona $25K w/Casoni ($25K, Win, 4) Alghero $25K w/Casoni ($25K, QF, 1) Canadian Open w/Testud (I, 2R, 1) U. S. Open w/Testud (Slam, SF, 4) Zurich w/Testud (I, F, 3) Linz w/Testud (II, QF, 1) Munich w/Testud (Champ, 1R, 0) 54 4 Williams (S or Sydney w/each other (II, 1R, 0) V) Australian Open w/each other (Slam, Win, 6) Wimbledon w/each other (Slam, R16 [retired] 2) U. S. Open w/each other (Slam, 3R, 2)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 151 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/Sugiyama [5] Black/Likhovtseva [21] Davenport/Morariu (Australian Open) McQuillan/McShea (Australian Open) Kournikova/Tulyaganova (Pan Pacific) Kournikova/Tulyaganova (Pan Pacific) Boogert/Oremans (Ericsson) Ortuna/Vento (Scottsdale) Loit/Sidot (Indian Wells) Arendt/Serna [1] Horn/Montalvo (Ericsson) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Madrid) Callens/Shaughnessy (Berlin) Dokic/C. Martinez (Roland Garros) Arendt/Tarabini [1] Raymond/Stubbs (Eastbourne) Coetzer/McNeil (Bahia) McQuillan/McShea (Wimbledon) Callens/Rubin (Los Angeles) Arendt/Vis [11] Po-Messerli/Pratt (Canadian Open) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Charleston) Raymond/Stubbs (U. S. Open) Grant/Weingärtner (Berlin) Myskina/Panova (Moscow) Dokic/Martinez (Rome) Davenport/Raymond (Filderstadt) Dokic/Martinez (Roland Garros) Raymond/Stubbs (Munich) Coetzer/McNeil (Eastbourne) Matevzic/Zaric (Wimbledon) Black/Testud [1] Lee/Prakusya (Stanford) Gagliardi/Schett (Australian Open) Clijsters/Sugiyama (San Diego) Po/Tauziat (Los Angeles) Black/Washington [1] Sugiyama/Tulyaganova (Canadian Open) de Lone/Ellwood (Stanford) Coetzer/McNeil (U. S. Open) Boogert/Callens [1] Anca Barna/Callens [1] C. Fernandez/Fujiwara (Bronx $50K) Reeves/Ad. Serra-Zanetti (Quebec City) Callens/Grande [1] Basting/Srebotnik [1] Petrova/Pisnik (Birmingham) Asagoe/Yoshida (Australian Open) Callens/Hénin [1] Basuki/Sanchez-Vicario [1] A. Huber/Pisnik (Estoril) Lee/Prakusya (Bali) Callens/Pratt [1] Bedanova/C. Martinez [1] Krizan/Srebotnik (Big Island) Hantuchova/Sugiyama (Eastbourne) Callens/Rubin [4] Black/Pratt [1] Po/Tauziat (Los Angeles) Coetzer/McNeil (Oklahoma City) Po-Messerli/Tauziat (U. S. Open) Davenport/Raymond (Zurich) Dokic/Petrova (Linz)

Callens/Ka. Schlukebir [1] Hrdlickova/Pisnik (Scottsdale)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 152 Callens/Shaughnessy [5] Clijsters/Schett [1] Raymond/Testud (Indian Wells) Davenport/Raymond (Filderstadt) Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat (Ericsson) Testud/Vinci (Roland Garros) Clijsters/Serna [1] Lamade/Schnyder (Wimbledon) Habsudova/Jeyaseelan (Rome)

Callens/Sidot [4] Clijsters/Shaughnessy [1] Dragomir/Ruano Pascual (Hobart) Raymond/Stubbs (Scottsdale) Williams/Williams (Australian Open) Coetzer/Po (Pan Pacific) Clijsters/Sugiyama [4] Carlsson/Maleeva (Paris) Raymond/Stubbs (Wimbledon) Black/Likhovtseva (San Diego) Callens/Tatarkova [1] Arendt/Vis (Los Angeles) Ditty/Sequera (Lexington $50K) Black/L. Huber (Princess Cup)

Capriati/Dokic [1] Coetzer/McNeil [15] Hingis/Seles (Australian Open) Raymond/Stubbs (Ericsson) Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario (Amelia Island) Capriati/Hingis [1] Capriati/Sanchez-Vicario (Charleston) Raymond/Stubbs (U. S. Open) Farina Elia/Tulyaganova (Strasbourg) Hantuchova/Nagyova (Roland Garros) Capriati/Sanchez-Vicario [2] Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario (Eastbourne) Raymond/Stubbs (Charleston) Raymond/Stubbs (Wimbledon) Hingis/Kournikova (San Diego) Raymond/Stubbs (Canadian Open) Bedanova/Salerni (U. S. Open) Capriati/Shaughnessy [1] Hénin/Shaughnessy (Filderstadt) Davenport/Raymond (Zurich) Po-Messerli/Tauziat (Zurich) Bovina/Hantuchova (Luxembourg) Capriati/Sugiyama [1] Po-Messerli/Tauziat (Munich) Po-Messerli/Tauziat (Roland Garros) Coetzer/Morariu [1] Carlsson/Po [2] Plischke/Wartusch (Acupulco) Martinez/Tarabini (Amelia Island) Capriati/Sanchez-Vicario (Charleston) Coetzer/Po [2] Kournikova/Schett (Sydney) Carlsson/Pratt [1] Raymond/Stubbs (Pan Pacific) Suarez/Tarabini (Rome) Courtois/Shaughnessy [1] Casoni/Vinci [3] Majoli/Razzano (Paris) Majoli/Schett (Rome) Ani/Cortez (Alghero $25K) Davenport/Morariu [4] Hingis/Seles (Sydney) Clijsters/Courtois [4] Williams/Williams (Australian Open) Hingis/Seles (Australian Open) Srebotnik/Testud (Pan Pacific) Garbin/Husarova (Indian Wells) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Indian Wells) Déchy/Testud (Ericsson) Hénin/Tatarkova (Roland Garros) de Lone/L. Huber [1] Dyrberg/Matevzic (Birmingham) Clijsters/Dokic [1] Hrdlickova/Rittner (Leipzig) de Lone/Pratt [1] Asagoe/Yoshida (Scottsdale) Clijsters/Molik [1] Coetzer/Po (Sydney) Déchy/Tauziat [2] L. Huber/Montalvo (Berlin) Clijsters/Oremans [1] Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario (Rome) Dragomir Ilie/Petrova (’s-Hertogenbosch)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 153 Déchy/Tauziat [2] Fusai/Grande [25] L. Huber/Montalvo (Berlin) Arendt/Sugiyama (Australian Open) Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario (Rome) Testud/Vinci (Doha) Basuki/Vis (Dubai) Déchy/Testud [1] Raymond/Testud (Indian Wells) Raymond/Stubbs (Ericsson) M. J. Martinez/Medina Garrigues (Porto) Andres/Poutchek (Estoril) Dementieva/Dokic [3] Courtois/Tatarkova (Budapest) Raymond/Stubbs (Amelia Island) Habusdova/Tatarkova (Berlin) Clijsters/Oremans (’s-Hertogenbosch) de Lone/Salerni (Rome) Suarez/Tarabini (Vienna) Raymond/Stubbs (Madrid) Hénin/Tatarkova (Roland Garros) Dementieva/Husarova [1] Petrova/Pisnik (Wimbledon) Dominikovic/Irvin (U. S. Open) Arendt/Vis (Stanford) Hingis/Kournikova (San Diego) Dokic/Farina Elia [2] Sanchez-Vicario/Schett (Los Angeles) Dragomir Ilie/Vanc (Knokke-Heist) Hantuchova/Petrova (Canadian Open) Dragomir Ilie/Vanc (Sopot) Callens/Rubin (U. S. Open) Clijsters/Sugiyama (Princess Cup) Dokic/Martinez [5] Dominikovic/Tanasugarn (Bali) Black/Likhovtseva (Hamburg) Lee/Prakusya (Japan Open) Black/Likhovtseva (Berlin) Bedanova/Bovina (Bratislava) Black/Likhovtseva (Rome) Kremer/Razzano (Luxembourg) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Roland Garros) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Munich) Clijsters/Sugiyama (Wimbledon) Fusai/Salerni [1] Dokic/Morariu [1] Geznenge/Kovalchuk (Palermo) Arendt/Vis (Charleston) Fusai/Tatarkova [1] Dokic/Nacuk [1] Perebiynis/Poutchek (Tashkent) Grande/Majoli (Ericsson) Gagliardi/Grande [1] Dokic/Ruano Pascual [1] Callens/Sidot (Hobart) Myskina/Panova (Bahia) Gagliardi/Schett [1] Dokic/Petrova [3] Fusai/Grande (Auckland) Black/Likhovtseva (New Haven) Krizan/Srebotnik (U. S. Open) Garbin/Husarova [19] Davenport/Morariu (Australian Open) Dokic/Sidot [1] Arendt/Sugiyama (Pan Pacific) Arendt/Vis (Los Angeles) Montalvo/Salerni (Acupulco) Callens/Shaughnessy (Indian Wells) Dokic/Tarabini [1] Horn/Montalvo (Ericsson) Clijsters/Sugiyama (San Diego) Krizan/Srebotnik (Estoril) Black/Likhovtseva (Hamburg) Dragomir/Ruano Pascual [1] Callens/Shaughnessy (Berlin) Black/Likhovtseva (Hobart) Testud/Vinci (Roland Garros) Mandula/Wartusch (Tashkent) Farina Elia/Husarova [1] Majoli/Nagyova (Wimbledon) Arendt/Tarabini (Bahia) Beygelzimer/Rodionova (Sopot) Capriati/Sanchez-Vicario (San Diego) Farina Elia/Schett [1] Clijsters/Schett (Filderstadt) Hingis/Kournikova (Moscow) Carlsson/Salerni (Zurich) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Linz)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 154 Grande/Habsudova [1] Horn/Vento [1] Prakusya/Rittner (New Haven) Nacuk/Rittner (Doha)

Grande/Majoli [1] Hrdlickova/Rittner [10] Black/Likhovtseva (Ericsson) Hiraki/Yoshida (Indian Wells qualifying) Black/Likhovtseva (Indian Wells) Grande/Rittner [1] Black/Likhovtseva (Hamburg) Grant/Weingärtner (’s-Hertogenbosch) Garbin/Husarova (Berlin) Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario (Canadian Open) Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario [1] Capriati/Hingis (U. S. Open) L. Huber/Montalvo (New Haven) Likhovtseva/Tauziat (Leipzig) Hingis/Kournikova (Filderstadt) Hantuchova/Sugiyama [1] Bovina/Hantuchova (Luxembourg) Black/Likhovtseva (Eastbourne) A. Huber/Schett [7] Hantuchova/Testud [1] Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat (Indian Wells) Hrdlickova/Rittner (Filderstadt) Raymond/Stubbs (Ericsson) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Roland Garros) Hénin/Shaughnessy [4] Rittner/Vento (Wimbledon) Hrdlickova/Rittner (Hamburg) Testud/Vinci (Canadian Open) Po-Messerli/Tauziat (Canadian Open) Testud/Vinci (U. S. Open) Jeyaseelan/Krasnoroutskaya (U. S. Open) Davenport/Raymond (Filderstadt) L. Huber/McQuillan [2] Gagliardi/Tu (Bali) Hingis/Kournikova [3] Black/Likhovtseva (San Diego) L. Huber/Prakusya [1] Carlsson/Tulyaganova (Pattaya) Hingis/Seles [2] Williams/Williams (Australian Open) L. Huber/Shaughnessy [1] Black/Likhovtseva (Eastbourne) Horn/Jeyaseelan [1] Garbin/Husarova (Pan Pacific) Husarova/Nacuk [1] Bacheva/Torrens Valero (Sydney) Horn/Majoli [1] Clijsters/Courtois (Australian Open) Ivone/Vinci [1] Benesova/Kucova (Rome $10K) L. Horn|Huber/Montalvo [15] Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat (Indian Wells) Jeyaseelan/Po [1] Raymond/Stubbs (Ericsson) Hénin/Serna (Scottsdale) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Amelia Island) Raymond/Stubbs (Charleston) Kournikova/Schett [2] Hénin/Shaughnessy (Hamburg) Williams/Williams (Australian Open) Krizan/Srebotnik (Berlin) Black/Likhovtseva (Rome) Kournikova/Tulyaganova [1] Raymond/Stubbs (Madrid) Raymond/Stubbs (Pan Pacific) Clijsters/Courtois (Roland Garros) Frazier/Schlukebir (Wimbledon) Krizan/Pratt [2] Hingis/Kournikova (San Diego) Dokic/Tarabini (San Diego) Po/Tauziat (Los Angeles) Black/Likhovtseva (New Haven) Hénin/Shaughnessy (Canadian Open) Black/Likhovtseva (New Haven) Krizan/Selyutina [3] Po-Messerli/Tauziat (U. S. Open) Carlsson/Maleeva (Australian Open) Raymond/Stubbs (Pan Pacific) Horn/Suarez [1] Pullin/Woodroffe (Redbridge $25K) Fusai/Grande (Auckland)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 155 Krizan/Srebotnik [19] Montalvo/Suarez [1] Gagliardi/Schett (Auckland) Garbin/Husarova (Bogota) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Acupulco) Raymond/Testud (Indian Wells) Morariu/Sugiyama de Swardt/Steck (Ericsson) Fokina/Foretz (Bol) Fusai/Grande (Porto) Hrdlickova/Rittner (Estoril) Nagyova/Rittner [1] M. J. Martinez/Medina Garrigues (Bol) Coetzer/McNeil (Bahia) Dokic/Martinez (Berlin) Lee/Prakusya (Roland Garros) Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario [12] Habsudova/Hantuchova (Wimbledon) Martinez/Tarabini (Amelia Island) Dokic/Sidot (Los Angeles) Bacheva/Carlsson (Berlin) Po-Messerli/Pratt (Canadian Open) Hantuchova/Nagyova (Rome) Black/Likhovtseva (U. S. Open) Hrdlickova/Rittner (Roland Garros) L. Huber/McQuillan (Japan Open) Raymond/Stubbs (Eastbourne) Fujiwara/Saeki (Shanghai) Po-Messerli/Tauziat (Wimbledon) Rodionova/Schneider (Bratislava) Krizan/Srebotnik (Canadian Open) Dokic/Petrova (Linz) Testud/Vinci (U. S. Open) Raymond/Stubbs (Munich) Lee/McQuillan (Princess Cup) Hingis/Kournikova (Filderstadt) Krizan/Tulyaganova [1] Testud/Vinci (Zurich) Glass/Tu (’s-Hertogenbosch) Tatarkova/Tulyaganova (Linz)

Likhovtseva/Pierce [1] Pennetta/Vinci [1] Dragomir/Farina Elia (Paris) Bachmann/Dyrberg (Ortisei $25K)

Likhovtseva/Pratt [2] Pierce/Schett [1] Coetzer/McNeil (Amelia Island) Basuki/Vis (Dubai) Arendt/Vis (Charleston) Pierce/Sugiyama [1] Likhovtseva/Sugiyama [1] Hantuchova/Nagyova (Rome) Dokic/Petrova (Linz) Pierce/Testud [1] Majoli/Schett [3] Pratt/Shaughnessy (Australian Open) Fusai/Grande (Berlin) de Lone/Salerni (Rome) Pisnik/Ruano Pascual [1] Callens/Rubin (Zurich) Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat (Ericsson)

Martinez/Tarabini [4] Po[-Messerli]/Pratt [3] Farina Elia/Garbin (Sydney) Ruano Pasucal/Suarez (Indian Wells) Casoni/Nagyova (Australian Open) Boogert/Oremans (Ericsson) Kolbovic/Tu (Charleston) Po/Serna [1] Mauresmo/Testud [1] Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Australian Open) Black/Likhovtseva (Berlin)

McQuillan/Pratt [1] Dragomir Ilie/Petrova (’s-Hertogenbosch)

McQuillan/Sanchez-Vicario [1] Krizan/Srebotnik (Big Island)

Molik/Pratt [4] Fusai/Grande (Princess Cup) Dominikovic/Tanasugarn (Japan Open) Dominikovic/Tanasugarn (Shanghai)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 156 Po[-Messerli]/Tauziat [14] Rittner/Vento [1] Majoli/Razzano (Paris) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Wimbledon) Loit/Sidot (Paris) Farina Elia/Tulyaganova (Strasbourg) Rittner/Weingärtner [1] Hénin/Tatarkova (Roland Garros) Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat (Dubai) Black/Likhovtseva (Birmingham) Bedanova/C. Martinez (Eastbourne) Ruano Pascual/Salerni [1] Raymond/Stubbs (Wimbledon) Coetzer/McNeil (Canadian Open) Capriati/Sanchez-Vicario (San Diego) L. Huber/Montalvo (New Haven) Ruano Pascual/Suarez [13] Raymond/Stubbs (U. S. Open) Davenport/Morariu (Australian Open) Hénin/Shaughnessy (Filderstadt) M. J. Martinez/Medina Garrigues (Acupulco) Testud/Vinci (Zurich) Arendt/Sugiyama (Indian Wells) Testud/Vinci (Linz) Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario (Amelia Island) Black/Likhovtseva (Munich) Raymond/Stubbs (Charleston) Habsudova/Tatarkova (Berlin) Prakusya/Rittner [1] Clijsters/Sugiyama (Wimbledon) Dokic/Petrova (New Haven) Farina Elia/Oremans (New Haven) Testud/Vinci (U. S. Open) Pratt/Shaughnessy [3] Tatarkova/Tulyaganova (Linz) Kournikova/Schett (Sydney) Raymond/Stubbs (Munich) Hingis/Seles (Australian Open) Kournikova/Tulyaganova (Pan Pacific) Rubin/Testud [1] Black/Likhovtseva (San Diego) Pratt/Sidot [1] Po-Messerli/Tauziat (Birmingham) Sanchez-Vicario/Schett [1] Arendt/Vis (Los Angeles) Pratt/Tarabini [2] M. J. Martinez/Medina Garrigues (Madrid) Sanchez-Vicario/Serna [2] Raymond/Stubbs (Roland Garros) M. J. Martinez/Medina Garrigues (Porto) Sidot/Tatarkova (Hamburg) Pratt/Tatarkova [2] Boogert/Oremans (Wimbledon) Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat [3] Gagliardi/Tu (U. S. Open) Carlsson/Habsudova (Dubai) Arendt/Sugiyama (Indian Wells) Raymond/Stubbs [15] Kournikova/Schett (Sydney) Schett/Vis [1] Hingis/Seles (Australian Open) Majoli/Nagyova (Linz) Lee/Prakusya (Oklahoma City) Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat (Ericsson) Schlukebir/Shaughnessy [1] Martinez/Tarabini (Amelia Island) Casoni/Husarova (Gold Coast) Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Madrid) Dokic/Martinez (Roland Garros) Seles/Shaughnessy [1] Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario (Canadian Open) Lee/Prakusya (Stanford)

Raymond/Testud [1] Serna/Testud [1] Ruano Pascual/Suarez (Indian Wells) Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario (Eastbourne)

Razzano/Testud [1] Ant. Serra-Zanetti/Vinci [1] Clijsters/Sugiyama (Wimbledon) Bes/Chialvo (Taranto $25K)

Rittner/Schnyder [2] Shaughnessy/Vis [1] Frazier/Ka. Schlukebir (Australian Open) Dementieva/Dokic (Amelia Island) Henke/Nemeckova (Vienna) Sidot/Testud [1] Rittner/Tarabini [1] Osterloh/Schlukebir (Rome) Schnyder/Serna (Gold Coast)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 157 Srebotnik/Testud [1] Testud/Vinci [7] Raymond/Stubbs (Pan Pacific) Raymond/Stubbs (Roland Garros) Hénin/Shaughnessy (Canadian Open) Suarez/Tarabini [2] Po-Messerli/Tauziat (U. S. Open) Black/Likhovtseva (Rome) Davenport/Raymond (Zurich) Callens/Rubin (Linz) Sugiyama/Tulyaganova [1] Black/Likhovtseva (Munich) Krizan/Srebotnik (Canadian Open) Vinci/Zavagli [1] Sugiyama/Yoshida [2] Dhenin/Marosi-Aracama (Dubai $75K+H) Lee/Prakusya (Oklahoma City) Krizan/Srebotnik (Japan Open) Williams/Williams [4] Hingis/Seles (Sydney) Callens/Rubin (U. S. Open)

Team and Individual Statistics Teams with the Most Events The following list shows all teams with a final Top Thirty player to play at least five events together. Team Tournaments [Fusai/Grande 25] Black/Likhovtseva 21 Garbin/Husarova 19 Krizan/Srebotnik 19 Coetzer/McNeil 15 L. Horn Huber/Montalvo 15 Raymond/Stubbs 15 Po[-Messerli]/Tauziat 14 Ruano Pascual/Suarez 13 Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario 12 Arendt/Vis 11 Hrdlickova/Rittner 10 A. Huber/Schett 7 Testud/Vinci 7 Arendt/Sugiyama 5 Callens/Shaughnessy 5 Dokic/Martinez 5

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 158 Doubles Winning Percentages for the Top Thirty Player WTA # of Won/Lost Winning Tournaments Tournaments Tournament Rank Partners Percentage Played Won Win% Arendt 10 4 33/16 67.3% 18 2 11.1% Black 3 5 54/18 75.0% 25 7 28.0% Callens 16 11 33/19 63.5% 21 2 9.5% Clijsters 15 8 23/14 62.2% 14 0 0.0% Coetzer 17 3 26/16 61.9% 18 2 11.1% Davenport 25 2 16/4 80.0% 6 2 33.3% Dokic 12 11 33/19 63.5% 20 1 5.0% Fusai 32 3 31/25 55.4% 27 1 3.7% Grande 31 6 32/28 53.3% 30 1 3.3% Hingis 30 3 18/3 85.7% 6 1 16.7% L. (Horn) Huber 21 11 35/23 60.3% 26 3 11.5% Husarova 28 5 34/19 64.2% 23 4 17.4% Kournikova 26 3 19/3 86.4% 6 2 33.3% Krizan 23 4 31/24 56.4% 25 1 4.0% Likhovtseva 4 5 53/19 73.6% 26 7 26.9% Martinez, C. 19 3 19/10 65.5% 11 1 9.1% McNeil 29 1 22/13 62.9% 15 2 13.3% Morariu 57 4 10/7 58.8% 7 0 0.0% Navratilova 45 1 18/12 60.0% 12 0 0.0% Po-Messerli 7 6 45/22 67.2% 24 2 8.3% Pratt 27 13 25/22 53.2% 24 1 4.2% Raymond 1 3 59/9 86.8% 18 9 50.0% Rittner 24 9 31/17 64.6% 19 1 5.3% Ruano Pascual 8 7 44/15 74.6% 19 4 21.1% Sanchez-Vicario 11 8 40/22 64.5% 23 1 4.3% Schett 18 9 28/16 63.6% 18 1 5.6% Shaughnessy 14 11 29/18 61.7% 19 1 5.3% Srebotnik 20 3 29/19 60.4% 21 1 4.8% Stubbs 2 1 48/8 85.7% 15 7 46.7% Suarez 6 4 46/14 76.7% 17 3 17.6% Sugiyama 9 9 35/15 70.0% 17 2 11.8% Tauziat 5 4 45/18 71.4% 21 3 14.3% Testud 13 12 26/17 60.5% 18 1 5.6% Vinci 22 6 29/12 70.7% 14 2 14.3% S/V Williams 54 1 10/2 83.3% 4 1 25.0% Top Five, Most Wins: 1. Raymond, 59; 2. Black, 54; 3. Likhovtseva, 53; 4. Stubbs, 48; 5. Suarez, 46 Top 5, Winning %: 1. Raymond, 86.8%; 2. Kournikova, 86.4%; 3. Stubbs, Hingis, 85.7%; 5. S. or V. Williams, 83.3% Top 5, Tournament Win %: 1. Raymond, 50%; 2. Stubbs, 46.7%; 3. Kournikova, Davenport, 33%; 5. Black, 28% Top 5, Most Matches Played: 1. Black, Likhovtseva, 72; 3. Raymond, 68; 4. Po-Messerli, 67; 5. Tauziat, 63 Top 5, Most Partners: 1. Pratt, 13; 2. Testud, 12; 3. Callens, Dokic, L. Huber, Shaughnessy, 11.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 159 Doubles Winning Percentages for the Top Teams (All teams, except Fusai/Grande, include at least one Top Thirty player. Minimum three tournaments, except for teams in italics, which have two and are included to show their strong results; sorted in descending order by winning percentage) Note: The team of Casoni/Vinci, with a record of 5-2, is not shown because the wins were mostly in Challengers. Tourn Tourn Tourn Team Won/Lost Win % Played Won Win % Davenport/Raymond 8/0 100.0% 2 2 100.0% Hingis/Kournikova 9/1 90.0% 3 1 33.3% Kournikova/Schett 7/1 87.5% 2 1 50.0% Raymond/Stubbs 48/8 85.7% 15 7 46.7% Hingis/Seles 6/1 85.7% 2 0 0.0% Williams/Williams 10/2 83.3% 4 1 25.0% Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat 10/2 83.3% 3 1 33.3% Arendt/Sugiyama 15/3 83.3% 5 2 40.0% Po-Messerli/Pratt 7/2 77.8% 3 1 33.3% Black/Likhovtseva 46/15 75.4% 21 6 28.6% Ruano Pascual/Suarez 33/11 75.0% 13 2 15.4% Dokic/Martinez 14/5 73.7% 5 0 0.0% Dokic/Petrova 8/3 72.7% 3 1 33.3% Testud/Vinci 15/6 71.4% 7 1 14.3% Clijsters/Sugiyama 10/4 71.4% 4 0 0.0% Callens/Shaughnessy 10/4 71.4% 5 1 20.0% Callens/Rubin 9/4 69.2% 4 0 0.0% Po-Messerli/Tauziat 31/14 68.9% 15 1 6.7% Davenport/Morariu 8/4 66.7% 4 0 0.0% Garbin/Husarova 27/16 62.8% 19 3 15.8% Pratt/Shaughnessy 5/3 62.5% 3 0 0.0% Huber, A/Schett 10/6 62.5% 7 0 0.0% Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario 18/12 60.0% 12 0 0.0% Krizan/Srebotnik 27/18 60.0% 19 1 5.3% Hénin/Shaughnessy 6/4 60.0% 4 0 0.0% Coetzer/McNeil 18/13 58.1% 15 2 13.3% Krizan/Selyutina 4/3 57.1% 3 0 0.0% Fusai/Grande 29/24 54.7% 25 1 4.0% Arendt/Vis 13/11 54.2% 11 0 0.0% Martinez/Tarabini 4/4 50.0% 4 1 25.0% Huber, L. Horn/Montalvo 15/15 50.0% 15 0 0.0% Dementieva/Dokic 3/3 50.0% 3 0 0.0% Clijsters/Courtois 4/4 50.0% 4 0 0.0% Callens/Sidot 3/4 42.9% 4 0 0.0% Molik/Pratt 2/3 40.0% 4 0 0.0% Majoli/Schett 1/3 25.0% 3 0 0.0%

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 160 Team Doubles Titles, Sorted from Most to Least Team Comb. Rank Titles Won (Tier) # of Titles Raymond/Stubbs 3 Pan Pacific (I), Scottsdale (II), Charleston (I), Eastbourne 7 (II), Wimbledon (Slam), U. S. Open (Slam), Munich (Champ) Black/Likhovtseva 7 Hobart (V), Hamburg (II), Rome (I), Birmingham (III), 6 San Diego (II), New Haven (II) M. J. Martinez/Medina Garrigues 82 Acupulco (III), Porto (IV), Bol (III), Basel (IV) 4 Garbin/Husarova 72 Bogota (III), Budapest (V), Palermo (V) 3 Ruano Pascual/Suarez 14 Madrid (III), Roland Garros (Slam) 2 Davenport/Raymond 26 Filderstadt (II), Zurich (I) 2 Arendt/Sugiyama 19 Canberra (III), Indian Wells (I) 2 Coetzer/McNeil 46 Oklahoma City (III), Bahia (II) 2 Williams/Williams 108 Australian Open (Slam) 1 Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat 16 Ericsson (I) 1 Callens/Shaughnessy 30 Berlin (I) 1 Po-Messerli/Pratt 34 Canadian Open (I) 1 Hingis/Kournikova 56 Moscow (I) 1 Kournikova/Schett 44 Sydney (II) 1 Majoli/Razzano 151 Paris (II) 1 Loit/Sidot 107 Nice (II) 1 Basuki/Vis 127 Dubai (II) 1 Martinez/Tarabini 52 Amelia Island (II) 1 Lee/Prakusya 69 Stanford (II) 1 Po-Messerli/Tauziat 12 Los Angeles (II) 1 Black/L. Huber 24 Princess Cup (II) 1 Likhovtseva/Tauziat 9 Leipzig (II) 1 Dokic/Petrova 53 Linz (II) 1 Casoni/Husarova 134 Gold Coast (III) 1 Testud/Vinci 35 Doha (III) 1 Farina Elia/Tulyaganova 88 Strasbourg (III) 1 Dragomir Ilie/Petrova 107 ’s-Hertogenbosch (III) 1 Suarez/Tarabini 39 Vienna (III) 1 Kruger/Schiavone 220 Sopot (III) 1 Reeves/Ad. Serra-Zanetti 272 Quebec City (III) 1 Dominikovic/Tanasugarn 161 Bali (III) 1 L. Huber/McQuillan 71 Japan Open (III) 1 Bovina/Hantuchova 143 Luxembourg (III) 1 Fusai/Grande 63 Auckland (IV) 1 Hrdlickova/Rittner 72 Estoril (IV) 1 Mandula/Wartusch 141 Tashkent (IV) 1 Krizan/Srebotnik 43 Big Island (Tier IV) 1 L. Huber/Nemeckova 130 Shanghai (IV) 1 Bedanova/Bovina 169 Bratislava (IV) 1 Callens/Ruano Pascual 24 Antwerp (V) 1 Ruano Pascual/Serna 59 Knokke-Heist (IV) 1 Bacheva/Carlsson 114 Casablanca (V) 1 Carlsson/Tulyaganova 85 Pattaya (V) 1

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 161 Doubles Tournament Winners by Date (High-Tier Events) Players shown in bold also won the singles at these tournaments. Only Tier II and higher events are shown. Tournament Tier Winner Sydney II Kournikova/Schett Australian Open Slam Williams/Williams Tokyo (Pan Pacific) I Raymond/Stubbs Paris II Majoli/Razzano Nice II Loit/Sidot Dubai II Basuki/Vis Scottsdale II Raymond/Stubbs Indian Wells I Arendt/Sugiyama Ericsson (Miami) I Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat Amelia Island II Martinez/Tarabini Charleston I Raymond/Stubbs Hamburg II Black/Likhovtseva Berlin I Callens/Shaughnessy Rome I Black/Likhovtseva Roland Garros Slam Ruano Pascual/Suarez Eastbourne II Raymond/Stubbs Wimbledon Slam Raymond/Stubbs Stanford II Lee/Prakusya San Diego II Black/Likhovtseva Los Angeles II Po-Messerli/Tauziat Canadian Open I Po-Messerli/Pratt New Haven II Black/Likhovtseva U.S. Open Slam Raymond/Stubbs Bahia II Coetzer/McNeil Tokyo (Princess Cup) II Black/L. Huber Leipzig II Likhovtseva/Tauziat Moscow I Hingis/Kournikova Filderstadt II Davenport/Raymond Zurich I Davenport/Raymond Linz II Dokic/Petrova Munich Champ Raymond/Stubbs

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 162 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 Points Tournaments Score WTA Rank 1 Stubbs, Rennae 3787 15 252.5 2 2 Raymond, Lisa 4472 18 248.4 1 3Williams, Venus 815 4 203.8 54 3Williams, Serena 815 4 203.8 54 5Davenport, Lindsay 1186 6 197.7 25 6Kournikova, Anna 1181 6 196.8 26 7 Hingis, Martina 1128 6 188.0 30 8 Suarez, Paola 2668 17 156.9 6 9 Ruano Pascual, Virginia 2464 19 129.7 8 10 Tauziat, Nathalie 2718 21 129.4 5 11 Sugiyama, Ai 2061 17 121.2 9 12 Black, Cara 2987 25 119.5 3 13 Likhovtseva, Elena 3038 26 116.8 4 14 Martinez, Conchita 1265 11 115.0 19 15 Po-Messerli, Kimberly 2709 24 112.9 7 16 Arendt, Nicole 1801 18 100.1 10 17 Clijsters, Kim 1358 14 97.0 15 18 Dokic, Jelena 1878 20 93.9 12 19 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantx 2085 23 90.7 11 20 Testud, Sandrine 1620 18 90.0 13 Vinci, Roberta 1222 14 87.3 22 Shaughnessy, Meghann 1577 19 83.0 14 Navratilova, Martina 941 12 78.4 45 Coetzer, Amanda 1396 18 77.6 17 McNeil, Lori 1134 15 75.6 29 Schett, Barbara 1299 18 72.2 18 Rittner, Barbara 1243 19 65.4 24 Srebotnik, Katarina 1357 21 64.6 20 Callens, Els 1352 21 64.4 16 Husarova, Janette 1354 23 58.9 28 Huber, Liezel 1439 26 55.3 21 Krizan, Tina 1298 25 51.9 23 Pratt, Nicole 1219 24 50.8 27 (This, incidentally, reveals a distinct flaw in the WTA points system: Raymond played three more events than Stubbs, and won two, but ends up ranked lower because she a lower fraction of Slams distorting her total.)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 163 Majors Ranking In the singles section, we defined the ten WTA “Majors” (tournaments effectively all the top players play): Sydney, Australian Open, Indian Wells, Ericsson, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, San Diego, U. S. Open, Filderstadt, and Munich. We can apply the same “majors ranking” in doubles: Five points for a title at these events, three for a final, one for a semifinal. If we do this, we can rank both teams and individuals. We start with the team rankings:

Doubles Team Majors Rankings 23 teams managed at least one Major showing. The following table shows both the team ranking and the results in the various events. Tournament Rank Team Total Syd AO IW Eric RG Wim SD USO Fild Mun 1 Raymond/Stubbs* 22 3 3 1 5 5 5 2 Ruano Pascual/Suarez* 10 3 5 1 1 3 Black/Likhovtseva* 9 5 1 3 4T Arendt/Sugiyama 6 1 5 4T Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat 6 1 5 6T Davenport/Raymond 5 5 6T Kournikova/Schett 5 5 6T Po-Messerli/Tauziat* 5 1 3 1 6T Williams/Williams 5 5 10T Clijsters/Sugiyama 4 3 1 10T Hingis/Kournikova 4 3 1 12T Davenport/Morariu 3 3 12T Dokic/Martinez 3 3 12T Hénin/Shaughnessy 3 3 15 Hingis/Seles 2 1 1 16T Boogert/Oremans 1 1 16T Capriati/Sanchez-Vicario 1 1 16T Clijsters/Schett 1 1 16T Coetzer/Po-Messerli 1 1 16T Hénin/Tatarkova 1 1 16T L. Huber/Montalvo 1 1 16T Raymond/Testud 1 1 16T Testud/Vinci* 1 1 * Team which qualified for Munich. The following teams qualified for Munich without a Major score: Krizan/Srebotnik, Fusai/Grande, Coetzer/McNeil

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 164 Individual Majors Rankings 33 individual players managed at least one Major showing. The following table shows both the player’s ranking and her results in the various events. Tournament Rank Team Total Syd AO IW Eric RG Wim SD USO Fild Mun 1 Raymond 23 3 1315 555 2 Stubbs 22 3 3 1 5 5 5 3Tauziat 11 1 5131 4T Ruano Pascual 10 3 5 1 1 4T Suarez 10 3 5 1 1 4T Sugiyama 10 1 5 3 1 7T Black 9 5 1 3 7T Kournikova 9 5 3 1 7T Likhovtseva 9 5 1 3 7T Davenport 8 3 5 11 Sanchez-Vicario 7 1 5 1 12T Arendt 6 1 5 12T Hingis 6 1 1 3 1 12T Po-Messerli 6 1 1 3 1 12T Schett 6 5 1 16T Clijsters 5 3 1 1 16T Williams, S. 5 5 16T Williams, V. 5 5 19 Hénin 4 1 3 20T Dokic 3 3 20T Martinez 3 3 20T Morariu 3 3 20T Shaughnessy 3 3 24T Seles 2 1 1 24T Testud 2 1 1 26T Boogert 1 1 26T Capriati 1 1 26T Coetzer 1 1 26T Huber, L. 1 1 26T Montalvo 1 1 26T Oremans 1 1 26T Tatarkova 1 1 26T Vinci 1 1

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 165 Combined Singles and Doubles Rankings A total of 67 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 1Tauziat 13 5 18 2T Dokic 8 12 20 2T Clijsters 5 15 20 4 Raymond 22 1 23 5Testud 11 13 24 6T Shaughnessy 12 14 26 6T Davenport 1 25 26 8 Sanchez-Vicario 17 11 28 9 Suarez 27 6 33 10 Hingis 4 30 34 11 Coetzer 19 17 36 12T Sugiyama 30 9 39 12T Schett 21 18 39 14 Likhovtseva 36 4 40 15T Hénin 7 46 53 15T Farina Elia 14 39 53 17 C. Martinez 35 19 54 18 Grande 24 31 55 19 V. Williams 3 54 57 20 S. Williams 6 54 60 21 Black 58 3 61 22 Ruano Pascual 56 8 64 23 Tulyaganova 20 49 69 24 Capriati 2 68 70 25 Serna 26 51 77 26 Nagyova 25 53 78 27 Pratt 52 27 79 28 Petrova 39 41 80 29 Seles 10 72 82 30 A. Huber 18 73 91 31 Rittner 68 24 92 32 Hantuchova 38 56 94 33 Majoli 42 58 100 34 Kournikova 74 26 100 35 Husarova 75 28 103 36 Medina Garrigues 65 42 107 37 Maleeva 16 92 108

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 166 38 Bedanova 28 82 110 39 Dementieva 15 98 113 40T Schnyder 37 77 114 40T Déchy 44 70 114 42 Srebotnik 98 20 118 43 McQuillan 70 50 120 44T Prakusya 88 35 123 44T Krasnoroutskaya 34 89 123 46 Tu 45 79 124 47 Rubin 54 71 125 48 Weingärtner 43 83 126 49 Mandula 62 65 127 50T M. J. Martinez 92 40 132 50T Dominikovic 73 59 132 Hrdlickova 86 48 134 Garbin 90 44 134 Bovina 49 87 136 Oremans 85 52 137 Molik 47 95 142 Lamade 67 75 142 Kruger 46 99 145 Pisnik 63 86 149 Gagliardi 69 81 150 Loit 94 60 154 Poutchek 76 80 156 Irvin 64 100 164 Razzano 72 93 165 Matevzic 79 96 175 Selyutina 97 85 182 Bes 99 97 196

The following Top 30 singles players are not in the Top 100 in doubles: Mauresmo, Montolio, Tanasugarn. The following Top 30 doubles players are not in the Top 100 in singles: Arendt, Callens, L. Huber, Krizan, McNeil, Po-Messerli, Stubbs, Vinci.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 167 WTA Calendar for 2001 ¥ Events and Results The list below summarized the results of all Tour events in 2001. Tournaments are arranged by dates. The first item for each tournament lists the location, the surface, and the Tier. The next line gives the score of the singles final. This the names of the two semifinalists follow, then a list of seeds, with rankings and results. For tournaments below Tiers II, only the top two seeds are mentioned. For tournaments of Tier II and higher, four seeds are listed if the event has a 28-draw; otherwise, the top eight seeds are mentioned. This is followed by a list of noteworthy upsets, and then by significant historical facts about the event. Jan. 1-7 Gold Coast ¥ Hard ¥ Tier III Auckland, New Zealand ¥ Hard ¥ Tier V Justine Hénin d. Silvia Farina Elia 7-6 (7-5) 6-4 Meilan Tu d. Paola Suarez 7-6 (10-8) 6-2 Semifinalists: Meghann Shaughnessy, Patty Schnyder Semifinalists: Marlene Weingärtner, Francesca Schiavone #1 seed: Conchita Martinez (#5; lost QF) #1 seed: Sandrine Testud (#17; lost 1R) #2 seed: Patty Schnyder (#25; lost SF) #2 seed: Barbara Schett (#22; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Casoni/Husarova Doubles champions: Fusai/Grande Major Upsets: Shaughnessy (#38) def. Martinez (#5); Major Upsets: Weingärtner (#87) def. Déchy (#26), first Farina Elia (#63) def.Schnyder (#25) round; Craybas (#145) def. Testud, first round; Allison Historical Significance: Farina once again fails to win a Bradshaw (#134) def. Schett, second round final. It is her seventh Tour final without a victory. Historical Significance: First career title for Tu Jan. 8-14 Sydney, Australia ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Canberra, Aust. ¥ Hard ¥ Tier III Hobart, Australia ¥ Martina Hingis d. Lindsay Davenport 6- Justine Hénin d. Sandrine Testud 6-2 Hard ¥ Tier V 3 4-6 7-5 6-2 Rita Grande d. Jennifer Hopkins Semifinalists: Conchita Martinez, Semifinalists: Mary Pierce, Nathalie 0-6 6-3 6-3 Amélie Mauresmo Déchy Semifinalists: Ruxandra #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; Won) #1 seed: Mary Pierce (#7; lost SF) Dragomir, Cara Black #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost F) #2 seed: Elena Dementieva (#11; lost #1 seed: Amy Frazier (#20; lost #3 seed: Monica Seles (#4; lost QF) QF) QF) #4 seed: Conchita Martinez (#5; lost SF) Doubles champions: Arendt/ #2 seed: Elena Likhovtseva (#21; Doubles champions: Kournikova/Schett Sugiyama lost QF) Major Upsets: Morariu (#50) def. Major Upsets: Sugiyama (#34) def. Doubles champions: Black/ Kournikova (#8); Raymond (#29) def. Schnyder (#23); Hénin (#31) Likhovtseva Capriati (#14); Mauresmo (#16) def. def.Maleeva (#25), Rubin (#13), Major Upsets: Grande (#84) def. Seles (#4) Déchy (#26), Testud (#17); Testud Frazier; Black (#45) def. Historical Significance: Hingis beats (#17) def. Pierce Likhovtseva Clijsters, Serena Williams, Martinez, Historical Significance: Hénin’s Historical Significance: Grande’s Davenport to win her second second straight title extends her first career title starts her on her consecutive title winning streak to ten matches way to a year-end Top 25 finish.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 168 Jan. 15-28 Australian Open ¥ Hard ¥ Slam Jennifer Capriati (12) d. Martina Hingis (1) 6Ð4 6Ð3 Semifinalists: Lindsay Davenport, Venus Williams #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost F) #5 seed: Conchita Martinez (#5; lost 2R) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost SF) #6 seed: Serena Williams (#6; lost QF) #3 seed: Venus Williams (#3; lost SF) #7 seed: Mary Pierce (#7; lost 3R) #4 seed: Monica Seles (#; lost QF) #8 seed: Anna Kournikova (#8; lost QF) Doubles champions:Williams/Williams Major Upsets: Husarova (#151) def. Rubin (#13); Gagliardi (#93) def. Martinez (#5); Grande (#62) def. Frazier (#18); Hénin (#22) def. Testud (#14); Bedanova (#51) def. Dementieva (#11); Suarez (#33) def. Pierce; Capriati (#14) def. Seles (#4); Capriati (#14) def. Davenport (#2); Capriati (#14) def. Hingis (#1) Historical Significance: Serena and Venus Williams complete the career doubles Slam by beating Davenport and Morariu in the final. Capriati wins her first-ever Slam title. Jan. 29-Feb. 4 Pan Pacific Open, Tokyo ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier I Lindsay Davenport (2) d. Martina Hingis 6-7 (7Ð4) 6Ð4 6Ð2 Semifinalists: Anna Kournikova, Magdalena Maleeva #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost F) #3 seed: Anna Kournikova (#9; lost SF) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; Won) #4 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#10; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Srebotnik/Testud def. Davenport/Morariu; Asagoe (#77) def. Coetzer (#10); Sugiyama (#49) def. Testud (#15); Sidot (#31) def. Likhovtseva (#28); Majoli (#56) def. Raymond (#26); Kournikova/Tulyaganova def. Arendt/Sugiyama (2) Historical Significance: Davenport’s first title of 2001. Raymond/Stubbs win their first title of a spectacular year. Feb. 5-11 Paris, France ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier II Amélie Mauresmo (8) d. Anke Huber (6) 7–6 (7–2) 6–1 Semifinalists: Magdalena Maleeva, Nathalie Tauziat #1 seed: Mary Pierce (#9; lost 2R) #3 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#11; lost SF) #2 seed: Anna Kournikova (#8; lost QF) #4 seed: Elena Dementieva (#12; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Majoli/Razzano Major Upsets: Shaughnessy (#30) def. Testud (#17); Kremer (#35) def. Pierce (#9); Maleeva (#21) def. Dementieva (#12); Mauresmo (#19) def. Kournikova (#8); Mauresmo (#19) def. Tauziat (#11) Historical Significance: A Frenchwoman wins Paris for the fourth time in its nine year existence. Mauresmo wins her third title, and first in over a year, starting what will be a tremendous spring. Feb. 12-18 Nice, France ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier II Doha, Qatar ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier III Amélie Mauresmo (7) d. Magdalena Maleeva 6–2 6–0 Martina Hingis (1) d. Sandrine Testud (3) 6Ð3 6Ð2 Semifinalists: Venus Williams, Anke Huber Semifinalists: Barbara Schett, Adriana Gersi #1 seed: Venus Williams (#3; lost SF) #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; Won) #2 seed: Conchita Martinez (#5; lost 2R) #2 seed: Mary Pierce (#8; lost 2R) #3 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#12; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Testud/Vinci #4 seed: Elena Dementieva (#11; lost QF) Major Upsets: Gersi (#77) def. Pierce (#8) Doubles champions: Loit/Sidot Historical Significance: Another year, another Major Upsets: Tu (#51) def. Frazier (#19); Kremer (#32) def. distinct title for Hingis — this is the twenty- Tauziat; Farina Elia (#49) def. Martinez (#5); Maleeva (#20) second different event she has won def. Dementieva (#11); Maleeva (#20) def. V. Williams Historical Significance: Two in a row for Mauresmo gives her a ten match winning streak and two titles in her home country

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 169 Feb. 19-25 Dubai, UAR ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Oklahoma City, USA ¥ Indoor ¥ Bogota, Columbia ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Martina Hingis (1) d. Nathalie Tauziat Tier III Paola Suarez d. Rita Kuti Kis 6Ð2 6Ð (3) 6Ð4 6Ð4 Monica Seles (1) d. Jennifer Capriati 4 Semifinalists: Tamarine Tanasugarn, (2) 6Ð3 5Ð7 6Ð2 Semifinalists: Mariana Diaz-Oliva, Rachel McQuillan Semifinalists: Daniela Hantuchova, Cristina Torrens-Valero #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; Won) Shinobu Asagoe #1 seed: Paola Suarez (#29) #2 seed: Mary Pierce (#7; lost QF) #1 seed: Monica Seles (#4) #2 seed: Corina Morariu (#45; lost #3 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#13; lost F) #2 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#6) 2R) #4 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario Doubles champions: Coetzer/McNeil Doubles champions: Garbin/ (#14; lost 2R) Major Upsets: Cacic (#129) def. Husarova Doubles champions: Basuki/Vis Frazier (#19); Hantuchova (#108) Major Upsets: Major Upsets: Krasnoroutskaya (#94) def. Coetzer (#10) Historical Significance: Suarez’s def. Sanchez-Vicario (#14); Sfar Historical Significance: Seles second career title happens at the (#136) def. Schett (#22); McQuillan becomes the first player to defend a same event as her first, and puts her (#111) def. Pierce (#7) title in 2001, and ends Capriatia’s back in the Top 25. Historical Significance: Hingis wins ten-match winning streak. her third and last title of 2001, the first Tier II in the Middle East Feb. 26-Mar. 4 Scottsdale, Arizona ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Acupulco, Mexico ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Lindsay Davenport (1) d. Meghann Shaughnessy (8) 6Ð2 6Ð3 Amanda Coetzer (1) d. Elena Dementieva (2) Semifinalists: Jennifer Capriati, Monica Seles 2Ð6 6Ð1 6Ð2 #1 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; Won) Semifinalists: Paola Suarez, Nuria Llagostera #2 seed: Monica Seles (#4; lost SF) #1 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#11; Won) #3 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#5; lost SF) #2 seed: Elena Dementieva (#10; lost final) #4 seed: Kim Clijsters (#19; lost QF)* Doubles champions: M. J. Martinez/Medina Garrigues Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Ruano Pascual (#81) def. Farina Elia Major Upsets: Serna (#30) def. Hénin (#22); Shaughnessy (#38); Diaz-Oliva (#87) def. Testud (#18) (#27) def. Clijsters (#19); Shaughnessy def. Clijsters (#19) Historical Significance: First qualifiers to win a Historical Significance: First winner in Scottsdale’s history; doubles title since Hingis/Lucic, Pan Pacific 1998 Shaughnessy’s first Tier II final puts her in the Top 25. (they will win two more in the course of the year); * officially #5; #4 Pierce withdrew; Clijsters took her spot Dementieva fails to win her first singles title Mar. 10-18 Indian Wells, California, USA ¥ Hard ¥ Tier I Serena Williams (7) d. Kim Clijsters (14) 4Ð6 6Ð4 6Ð2 Semifinalists: Martina Hingis, Venus Williams #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) #5 seed: Conchita Martinez (#6; lost 2R) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost QF) #7* seed: Serena Williams (#10; Won) #3 seed: Venus Williams (#3; retired SF) #8* seed: Elena Dementieva (#11; lost QF) #4 seed: Monica Seles (#4; lost 2R) #9* seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#12; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Arendt/Sugiyama Major Upsets: Bovina (#141) def. Martinez (#6); Garbin (#54) def. Seles (#4); Dominikovic (#99) def. Tauziat; McQuillan (#71) def. Frazier (#20); Déchy (#36) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#14); McQuillan (#71) def. Shaughnessy (#24); Raymond (#25) def. Testud (#18); Farina Elia (#38) def. Huber (#15); Bovina (#141) def. Déchy; S. Williams (#10) def. Davenport (#2); Clijsters (#19) def. Hingis (#1) Historical Significance: Serena’s first Tier I or higher title in a year and a half, and only the second title she has won twice (Los Angeles was the first). It also saw her get booed for her walkover over sister Venus. * #6 seed Mary Pierce withdrew, with the #9 seed moving up to her spot

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 170 Mar. 23-Apr. 1 Ericsson Open ¥ Hard ¥ Tier I Venus Williams (3) d. Jennifer Capriati (5) 4Ð6 6Ð1 7Ð6 (7Ð4) Semifinalists: Martina Hingis, Elena Dementieva #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) #5 seed: Serena Williams (#7; lost QF) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; lost QF) #6 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#8; lost R16) #3 seed: Venus Williams (#3; Won) #7 seed: Elena Dementieva (#11; lost SF) #4 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#5; lost F) #8 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#12; lost R16) Doubles champions: Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat Major Upsets: Boogert/Oremans def. Arendt/Sugiyama; Marrero (#55) def. Maleeva (#17); Garbin (#50) def. Likhovtseva (#29); Hrdlickova (#48) def. Schett (#22); Tulyaganova (#79) def. Sidot; Osterloh (#52) def. Déchy; Serna (#27) def. Frazier (#21); Garbin (#50) def. Hénin (#20); Huber (#15) def. Tauziat (#12); Dokic (#28) def. Coetzer (#8); Dementieva (#11) def. Davenport (#2); V. Williams (#3) def. Hingis (#1) Historical Significance: Venus Williams moves up to a career-high #2 and wins her first title of 2001 as Capriati muffs an unbelievable number of match points. April 2Ð8 Porto, Portugal ¥ Clay ¥ Tier IV Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (1) d. Magui Serna (3) 6-3 6-1 Semifinalists: Silvia Farina Elia, Silvija Talaja #1 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#15; Won) #2 seed: Chanda Rubin (#18; lost 2R) Doubles champions: M. J. Martinez/Medina Garrigues Major Upsets: Bacheva (#98) def Rubin (#18) Historical Significance: Sanchez-Vicario wins her first title in two years, and Serna reaches her first Tour final. Apr. 9Ð15 Amelia Island, USA ¥ (Green) Clay ¥ Tier II Estoril, Portugal ¥ Clay ¥ Tier IV Amélie Mauresmo (6) d. Amanda Coetzer (4) –4 7–5 Angeles Montolio d. Elena Bovina (Q) 3Ð6 6Ð3 6Ð2 Semifinalists: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Nadia Petrova Semifinalists: Justine Hénin, Jana Kandarr #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost QF) #1 seed: Anke Huber (#14; lost 1R) #2 seed: Conchita Martinez (#7; lost 2R) #2 seed: Magdalena Maleeva (#17; lost 2R) #3 seed: Elena Dementieva (#9; retired QF) Doubles champions: Hrdlickova/Rittner #4 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#10; lost F) Major Upsets: Chladkova (#65) def. Huber (#14); #5 seed: NONE (Mary Pierce, #12, withdrew late) Pitkowski (#97) def. Talaja (#34); Kandarr (#73) #6 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#15; Won) def. Maleeva (#17); Bovina (#95) def. Serna #7 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#11; lost SF) (#23); Pisnik (#66) def. Schett (#21); Montolio #8 seed: Chanda Rubin (#18; lost 2R) (#51) def. Hénin (#20) Doubles champions: Martinez/Tarabini Historical Significance: Montolio’s first career title; Major Upsets: Craybas (#112) def. Frazier (#24); Petrova Bovina’s first final (#90) def. Rubin (#18); Farina Elia (#32) def. Martinez (#7); Sanchez-Vicario (#11) def. Hingis (#1) Historical Significance: First 48-draw event on the WTA Tour; Hingis’s first loss to Sanchez-Vicario in five years; Mauresmo’s streak hits three straight titles

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 171 Apr. 16Ð22 Charleston, USA ¥ (Green) Clay ¥ Tier I Budapest, Hungary ¥ Clay ¥ Tier V Jennifer Capriati (2) d. Martina Hingis (1) 6Ð0 4Ð6 6Ð4 Magdalena Maleeva (1) d. Ann Kremer (2) Semifinalists: Conchita Martinez, Marlene Weingärtner 3Ð6 6Ð2 6Ð4 #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost F) Semifinalists: Cristina Torrens Valero, #2 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#5; Won) Aniko Kapros #3 seed: Conchita Martinez (#8; lost SF) #1 seed: Magdalena Maleeva (#17; Won) #4 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#7; lost QF) #2 seed: Anne Kremer (#32; lost F) #5 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#10; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Garbin/Husarova #6 seed: Mary Pierce (#14; lost R16) Major Upsets: #7 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#9; lost QF) Historical Significance: Maleeva’s first clay #8 seed: Chanda Rubin (#18; lost 2R) title in nine years Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Majoli (#42) def. Dokic (#26); Glass (#83) def. Déchy (#42); Dragomir Ilie (#46) def, Rubin (#18); Likhovtseva (#39) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#10); Frazier (#24) def. Pierce (#14); Likhovtseva (#39) def. Suarez (#28);l Weingärtner def. Coetzer (#7) Historical Significance: Capriati’s second big title of 2001, and Hingis’s fourth straight whiff. April 30-May 6 Hamburg, Germany ¥ Clay ¥ Tier II Bol, ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Venus Williams (1) d. Meghann Shaughnessy (7) 6Ð3 6Ð0 Angeles Montolio (3) d. Mariana Diaz-Oliva Semifinalists: Jelena Dokic, Amanda Coetzer 0Ð6 6Ð2 6Ð3 #1 seed: Venus Williams (#2) Semifinalists: Kim Clijsters, Sandrine Testud #2 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#8; lost SF) #1 seed: Kim Clijsters (#15; lost SF) #3 seed: Conchita Martinez (#9; lost 2R) #2 seed: Sandrine Testud (#20; lost SF) #4 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#13; lost QF) Doubles champions: M. J. Martinez/Medina Doubles champions: Black/Likhovtseva Garrigues Major Upsets: Glass (#79) def. Serna (#22); Schnyder (#46) def. Major Upsets: Fokina/Foretz def. Morariu/ Schett (#23); Schnyder (#46) def. Martinez (#9); Dokic (#28) Sugiyama; Mariana Diaz-Oliva (#65) def. def. Maleeva (#14); Dokic (#28) def. Sanchez-Vicario; Clijsters (#15); Montolio (#36) def. Testud (#20) Shaughnessy (#25) def. Coetzer Historical Significance: Montolio’s second career Historical Significance: Venus’s first clay title in two years. title, and Diaz-Oliva’s first final May 7Ð13 Berlin, Germany ¥ Clay ¥ Tier I Amélie Mauresmo (4) d. Jennifer Capriati (3) 6–4 2–6 6–3 Semifinalists: Martina Hingis, Justine Hénin #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) #5 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#8; lost QF) #2 seed: Venus Williams (#2; lost R16) #6 seed: Conchita Martinez (#7; lost QF) #3 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#4; lost F) #7 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#12; lost 2R) #4 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#9; Won) #8 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#14; lost QF) Doubles champions: Callens/Shaughnessy Major Upsets: Anne Kremer (#30) def. Kim Clijsters (#13); Denisa Chladkova (#54) def. Chanda Rubin (#19); Martina Müller (#246) def. Anne-Gaëlle Sidot (#37); Déchy (#48) def. Serna (#26); Schnyder (#35) def. Schett (#24); Suarez (#28) def. Maleeva (#15); Schnitzer (#182) def. Tauziat; Hénin def. V. Williams; Mauresmo (#9) def. Hingis (#1); Mauresmo (#9) def. Capriati (#4) Historical Significance: Mauresmo’s first Tier I title gives her two clay titles and appears to make her a strong Roland Garros contender

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 172 May 14Ð20 Rome, ¥ Clay ¥ Tier I Antwerp, ¥ Clay ¥ Tier V Jelena Dokic (14) d. Amélie Mauresmo (4) 7–6(7–3) 6–1 Barbara Rittner (5) d. Klara Koukalova (Q) Semifinalists: Martina Hingis, Conchita Martinez 6Ð3 6Ð2 #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) Semifinalists: Eva Bes, #2 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#4; lost 2R) Ana Isabel Medina Garrigues #3 seed: Conchita Martinez (#14; lost SF) #1 seed: Tamarine Tanasugarn (#28; lost 1R) #4 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#6; lost F) #2 seed: Jennifer Hopkins (#64; lost 1R) #5 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#11; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Callens/Ruano Pascual #6 seed: Kim Clijsters (#13; lost 2R) Major Upsets: Perebiynis (#177) def. #7 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#12) Tanasugarn (#28) #8 seed: Magdalena Maleeva (#15; lost 2R) Historical Significance: Rittner wins her Doubles champions: Black/Likhovtseva second career title as Koukalova reaches Major Upsets: Krasnoroutskaya (#70) def. Huber (#18); Petrova (#60) the final of her first-ever WTA Main Draw. def. Pierce (#17); Farina Elia (#29) def. Testud (#21); Hantuchova (#81) def. Nagyova (#33); Gagliardi (#112) def. Clijsters; Kruger (#79) def. Tauziat; Schiavone (#72) def. Maleeva; Kuti Kis (#59) def. Capriati (#4); Mauresmo (#6) def. Hingis (#1); Dokic (#23) def. Martinez (#14); Dokic (#23) def. Mauresmo (#6) Historical Significance: Dokic’s first career title May 21-26 Madrid, Spain ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Strasbourg, France ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (2) d. Angeles Montolio (8) Silvia Farina Elia (8) d. Anke Huber (4) 7Ð5 0Ð6 6Ð4 7Ð5 6Ð0 Semifinalists: Nathalie Tauziat, Celine Beigbeder (Q) Semifinalists: Maria Jose Martinez, Ana Isabel Medina #1 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#12; lost 2R) Garrigues #2 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#11; lost SF) #1 seed: Monica Seles (#6; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Farina Elia/Tulyaganova #2 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#13; Won) Major Upsets: Beigbeder (#373) def. Tanasugarn (#29); Doubles champions: Ruano Pascual/Suarez Tulyaganova (#67) def. Pierce; Sugiyama def. Coetzer; Major Upsets: Brandi (#47) def. Frazier (#23); MJ Farina Elia (#28) def. Tauziat (#11); Farina Elia (#28) Martinez (#90) def. Schett (#24); de los Rios (#72) def. def. Huber (#21) Seles (#6); Medina Garrigues (#81) def. Serna (#26); Historical Significance: Farina’s first career title; strong MJ Martinez (#90) def. Testud (#20) first impression for Beigbeder Historical Significance: Sanchez-Vicario’s second title of the year; breakthroughs for MJ Martinez, Medina Garrigues

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 173 May 28-June 10 /Roland Garros ¥ Clay ¥ Slam Jennifer Capriati (4) d. Kim Clijsters (12) 1Ð6 6Ð4 12Ð10 Semifinalists: Martina Hingis, Justine Hénin #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) #6 seed: Serena Williams (#7; lost QF) #2 seed: Venus Williams (#2; lost 1R) #7 seed: Elena Dementieva (#9; lost 2R) #4 seed*: Jennifer Capriati (#4) #8 seed: Conchita Martinez (#12; lost 3R) #5 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#5; lost 1R) #9 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#11; lost 1R) Doubles champions: Ruano Pascual/Suarez Major Upsets: Barbara Schett (#25) def. V. Williams; Jana Kandarr (#56) def. Mauresmo; Lina Krasnoroutskaya def. Nathalie Tauziat (#11); Silvia Farina Elia (#23) def. Magdalena Maleeva (#15); Andrea Glass (#79) def. Lisa Raymond (#27); Nagyova (#33) def. Dementieva (#10); Razzano (#113) def. Huber; Frazier (#24) def. Sanchez- Vicario (#8); Mandula (#131) def. Dokic (#19); Black (#37) def. Martinez (#8); Schiavone (#51) def. Coetzer (#13); Capriati (#4) def. Hingis (#1) Historical Significance: Capriati’s second Slam, and second straight. First Slam title for Ruano Pascual/Suarez. * #3 seed Lindsay Davenport withdrew after the draw was finished; seeds were promoted in the draw but there was no #3 seed. June 11-17 Birmingham, ¥ Grass ¥ Tier III Tashkent, Uzbekistan ¥ Hard ¥ Tier IV Nathalie Tauziat (1) d. Miriam Oremans 6Ð3 7Ð5 Bianka Lamade (6) d. Seda Noorlander 6Ð3 2Ð6 6Ð2 Semifinalists: Lisa Raymond, Daniela Hantuchova Semifinalists: Marie-Gaiane Mikaelian, Cristina Torrens #1 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#12; Won) Valero #2 seed: Jelena Dokic (#16; lost 2R) #1 seed: Tatiana Panova (#36; lost 1R) Doubles champions: Black/Likhovtseva #2 seed: Tathiana Garbin (#60; lost 2R) Major Upsets: Hantuchova (#68) def. Déchy (#38); Doubles champions: Mandula/Wartusch Oremans (#89) def. Bedanova (#39); Razzano (#105) Major Upsets: Barna (#115) def. Panova (#36); def. Sugiyama (#51); Pratt (#63) def. Serna (#26); Noorlander (#165) def. Garbin (#60); Torrens Valero Molik (#92) def. Dokic (#16); Razzano (#105) def. (#77) def. Tulyaganova (#57) Black (#34); Brandi (#44) def. Tanasugarn (#29) Historical Significance: Lamade’s first career title Historical Significance: Tauziat’s last singles title, and the third grass title of her career June 18-23 Eastbourne, England ¥ Grass ¥ Tier II ’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands ¥ Lindsay Davenport (1) d. Magui Serna 6Ð2 6Ð0 Grass ¥ Tier III Semifinalists: Chanda Rubin, Elena Likhovtseva Justine Hénin (2) d. Kim Clijsters (1) 6–4 3–6 #1 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#3; Won) 6Ð3 #2 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#10; lost 2R) Semifinalists: Jelena Dokic, Iroda Tulyaganova #3 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#13; lost 2R) #1 seed: Kim Clijsters (#7; lost F) #4 seed: Magdalena Maleeva (#14; lost 2R) #2 seed: Justine Hénin (#9; Won) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Doubles champions: Dragomir Ilie/Petrova Major Upsets: Serna (#25) def. Maleeva (#14); Kremer (#28) def. Major Upsets: Tulyaganova (#68) def. Testud (#17); Tanasugarn (#33) def Tauziat; Raymond (#30) def. Dementieva (#12) Coetzer (#13); Serna (#25) def. Shaughnessy (#19) Historical Significance: Hénin’s third title of Historical Significance: Davenport returns from injury with a the year (all Tier III events!) is her first on strong win — her second career grass title grass

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 174 June 25-July 8 Wimbledon ¥ Grass ¥ Slam V. Williams (2) d. Justine Hénin (8) 6–1 3–6 6–0 Semifinalists: Jennifer Capriati; Lindsay Davenport #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost 1R) #5 seed: Serena Williams (#5; lost QF) #2 seed: Venus Williams (#2; Won) #6 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#6; lost 3R) #3 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#3; lost SF) #7 seed: Kim Clijsters (#7; lost QF) #4 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#4; lost SF) #8 seed: Justine Hénin (#9; lost F) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Ruano Pascual (#83) def. Hingis (#1); Myskina (#90) def. Suarez (#25); Brandi (#40) def. Kremer (#32); Schwartz (unranked) def. Rubin; Petrova (#42) def. Serna (#24) ; Ad. Serra-Zanetti (#137) def. Nagyova (#26); Osterloh (#51) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#15); Huber (#21) def. Dementieva (#12); Tanasugarn (#31) def. Mauresmo (#6); Shaughnessy (#18) def. Coetzer (#13); Petrova (#42) def. Farina Elia (#17); Hénin (#9) def. Capriati (#4) Historical Significance: First Slam with 32 seeds; Third Slam and first Slam defense for Venus Williams; first Slam final for Hénin. Hingis suffers her second opening-round loss at Wimbledon in three years. Second career Slam for Raymond/Stubbs. July 9-15 Vienna, Austria ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Palermo, Italy ¥ Clay ¥ Tier V Iroda Tulyaganova d. Patty Schnyder (8) 6Ð3 6Ð2 Ana Isabel Medina Garrigues (9) d. Cristina Semifinalists: Paola Suarez, Jelena Kostanic Torrens Valero (7) 6Ð4 6Ð4 #1 seed: Elena Dementieva (#11; lost 2R) Semifinalists: Åsa Carlsson, Gala Leon Garcia #2 seed: Jelena Dokic (#23; lost 2R) #1 seed: Magui Serna (#29; lost QF) #3 seed: Anke Huber (#20; lost QF) #2 seed: Tatiana Panova (#34; lost QF) #4 seed: Barbara Schett (#21; lost QF) Doubles champions: Garbin/Husarova Doubles champions: Suarez/Tarabini Major Upsets: Major Upsets: Smashnova (#92) def. Nagyova (#24); Tulyaganova Historical Significance: First title for Medina (#48) def. Dementieva (#11); Kostanic (#169) def. Dokic (#23); Garrigues Marrero (#73) def. Montolio (#28); Suarez (#25) def. Schett (#21); Schnyder (#33) def. Huber (#20); Tulyaganova (#48) def. Suarez (#25); Tulyaganova (#48) def. Schnyder (#33) Historical Significance: Tulyaganova’s second career title, and her first real title; the previous win, at Tashkent, was weaker than many Challengers. July 16-22 Knokke-Heist, Belgium ¥ Clay ¥ Tier V Iroda Tulyaganova d. Gala Leon Garcia 6Ð2 6Ð3 Semifinalists: Kim Clijsters, Marta Marrero #1 seed: Kim Clijsters (#6; lost SF) #2 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#20; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Ruano Pascual/Serna Major Upsets: Chladkova (#43) def. Dokic (#22); Hopmans (#171) def. Schiavone (#36); M. J. Martinez (#74) def. Schnyder (#33); de los Rios (#85) def. Farina Elia (#20); Tulyaganova (#34) def. Clijsters (#6) Historical Significance: Second straight title for Tulyaganova, giving her ten straight wins and moving her to #24.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 175 July 23-29 Stanford, California ¥ Hard ¥ Sopot, Poland ¥ Clay ¥ Tier III Casablanca, Morocco ¥ Clay ¥ Tier V Tier II Cristina Torrens Valero d. Gala Leon Zsofia Gubacsi d. Maria Elena Camerin Kim Clijsters (3) d. Lindsay Garcia 6-2 6-2 1-6 6-3 7-6(7-5) Davenport (2) 6-4 6-7(5-7) 6-1 Semifinalists: Jelena Dokic, Silvia Semifinalists: Emilie Loit, Aniko Semifinalists: Monica Seles, Farina Elia Kapros Meghann Shaughnessy #1 seed: Anke Huber (#22) #2 seed:* Marta Marrero (#59; lost 1R) #1 seed: Venus Williams (#2; lost #2 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#19) #3 seed: Bianka Lamade (#64; lost 1R) QF) Doubles champions: Kruger/Schiavone Doubles champions: Bacheva/Carlsson #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#4) Major Upsets: Poutchek (#83) def. Major Upsets: Gubacsi (#109) def. #3 seed: Kim Clijsters (#6) Krasnoroutskaya (#37); Torrens Marrero (#59); Sucha (#93) def. #4 seed: Monica Seles (#10; lost Valero (#52) def. Schiavone (#36) Lamade (#64); Kapros (#118) def. M. SF) Leon Garcia (#66) def. Montolio J. Martinez (#72) Doubles champions: Lee/Prakusya (#31); Leon Garcia (#66) def. Huber Historical Significance: Gubacsi’s first Major Upsets: Kandarr (#53) def. (#22); Torrens Valero (#52) def. career title comes in only her fourth Frazier (#20); Shaughnessy Nagyova; Leon Garcia (#66) def. WTA event. (#15) def. V. Williams (#2) Dokic (#21); Torrens Valero (#52) * Due to the withdrawal of Magui Historical Significance: Clijsters’s def. Farina Elia (#19) Serna, there was no #1 seed at first title of 2001, and her best to Historical Significance: Second career Casablanca; seeds were promoted but date title for Torrens Valero puts her in the not renumbered. top 40 for the first time in her career

July 30-Aug. 5 San Diego, California ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Basel, Switzerland ¥ Clay ¥ Tier IV Venus Williams (2) d. Monica Seles (7) 6 Ð2 6Ð3 Adriana Gersi d. Marie-Gaiane Mikaelian Semifinalists: Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport 6Ð4 6Ð1 #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) Semifinalists: Anna Smashnova, Cristina #2 seed: Venus Williams (#3; Won) Torrens Valero #3 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#2; lost QF) #1 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#16; lost 1R) #4 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#4; lost SF) #2 seed: Magui Serna (#29; lost 2R) #5 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; lost 2R) Doubles champions: M. J. Martinez/Medina #6 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#9; lost QF) Garrigues #7 seed: Monica Seles (#10; lost F) Major Upsets: Mikaelian (#167) def. Farina #8 seed: Elena Dementieva (#11; lost 3R) Elia (#16); Carlsson (#101) def. Schnyder; Doubles champions: Black/Likhovtseva Arn (#132) def. Serna (#29); Müller Major Upsets: Pratt (#74) def. Kournikova (#15); Sugiyama (#48) def. (#142) def. Schiavone (#35); Gersi (#102) Clijsters (#5); Testud (#19) def. Dementieva (#8); Seles (#10) def. def. Torrens Valero (#38) Capriati (#2); Seles (#10) def. Hingis (#1) Historical Significance: Gersi’s first career Historical Significance: Venus becomes the first player to defend two title titles in 2001.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 176 August 6Ð12 Los Angeles ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Lindsay Davenport (2) d. Monica Seles (6) 6Ð3 7Ð5 Semifinalists: Martina Hingis, Nathalie Tauziat #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) #5 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#9; lost SF) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#3; Won) #6 seed: Monica Seles (#10; lost F) #3 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; lost QF) #7 seed: Elena Dementieva (#11; lost QF) #4 seed: Serena Williams (#8; lost QF) #8 seed: None (Anna Kournikova withdrew) Doubles champions: Po-Messerli/Tauziat Major Upsets: Molik (#73) def. Rubin (#23); Razzano (#83) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#18); Bedanova (#42) def. Schett (#22); Pratt (#77) def. Tulyaganova (#24); Tauziat (#9) def. Clijsters (#5); Seles (#10) def. S. Williams (#8); Seles (#10) def. Hingis (#1) Historical Significance: Seles continues to look like the old Seles is back, but Davenport recovers the #2 ranking. August 13Ð19 Canadian Open/ ¥ Hard ¥ Tier I Serena Williams (4) d. Jennifer Capriati (1) 6Ð1 6Ð7(7Ð9) 6Ð3 Semifinalists: Anke Huber, Monica Seles #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#3; lost F) #5 seed: Monica Seles (#8; lost SF) #2 seed: Justine Hénin (#6; lost QF) #6 seed: Elena Dementieva (#11; lost R16) #3 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#7; lost 3R) #7 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#12; lost R16) #4 seed: Serena Williams (#10; Won) #8 seed: Magdalena Maleeva (#13; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Po-Messerli/Pratt Major Upsets: Grande (#43) def. Raymond (#33); Hopkins (#76) def. Déchy (#56); Irvin (#94) def. Nagyova (#25); Weingärtner (#42) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#17); Bedanova (#45) def. Maleeva (#13); Huber (#21) def. Mauresmo (#7); Hopkins (#76) def. Coetzer (#12); Testud (#18) def. Dementieva (#11); Seles (#8) def. Hénin (#6); S. Williams (#10) def. Capriati (#3) Historical Significance: Serena wins her second title of 2001 and slows Capriati’s march to #1 August 20Ð25 New Haven, Connecticut ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Venus Williams (3) d. Lindsay Davenport (1) 7Ð6(8Ð6) 6Ð4 Semifinalists: Kim Clijsters, Jennifer Capriati #1 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#3; lost final) #3 seed: Venus Williams (#4; Won) #2 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#2; lost SF) #4 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; withdrew from SF) Doubles champions: Black/Likhovtseva Major Upsets: Nagyova (#27) def. Farina Elia (#16); Dokic (#14) def. Dementieva (#11); Myskina (#118) def. Coetzer (#13); Farina Elia/Oremans def. (1) Ruano Pascual/Suarez Historical Significance: Venus has her first three-peat, and her fifth title of 2001

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 177 August 27- September 9 U. S. Open ¥ Hard ¥ Slam Venus Williams (4) d. Serena Williams (10) 6Ð2 6Ð4 Semifinalists: Martina Hingis, Jennifer Capriati #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) #5 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; lost QF) #2 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#2; lost SF) #6 seed: Justine Hénin (#6; lost R16) #3 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#3; lost QF) #7 seed: Monica Seles (#8; lost R16) #4 seed: Venus Williams (#4; Won) #8 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#7; lost QF) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Rittner (#53) def. Frazier (#32); Talaja (#150) def. Suarez (#26); Schwartz (#155) def. Coetzer (#14); Bes (#109) def. Serna (#25); Vavrinec (#96) def. Torrens-Valero (#33); Poutchek (#75) def. Kremer (#36); Matevzic (#105) def. Farina Elia (#16); Molik (#68) def. Maleeva (#15); Nejedly (#130) def. Tulyaganova (#24); Bedanova (#37) def. Shaughnessy (#12); Bedanova (#37) def. Seles (#8); Callens/Rubin def. (9) Williams/ Williams; Testud/Vinci def. (2) Ruano Pascual/Suarez; S. Williams (#10) def. Davenport (#3); S. Williams (#10) def. Hingis (#1) ; V. Williams (#4) def. Capriati (#2) Historical Significance: Venus earns her sixth title, second Slam, and fourth title defence of 2001. Raymond and Stubbs earn their second Slam title of their terrific season. September 10Ð16 Bahia, Brazil ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Big Island, Hawaii, USA ¥ Hard ¥ Tier IV Monica Seles (1) d. Jelena Dokic (2) 6Ð3 6Ð3 Sandrine Testud (2) d. Justine Hénin (1) 6–3 2–0 retired Semifinalists: Henrieta Nagyova, Rossana de los Rios Semifinalists: Lisa Raymond, Marissa Irvin #1 seed: Monica Seles (#9; Won) #1 seed: Justine Hénin (#8) #2 seed: Jelena Dokic (#12; lost F) #2 seed: Sandrine Testud (#17) #3 seed: Amanda Coetzer (#13; lost QF) Doubles champions: Krizan/Srebotnik #4 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#16; lost QF) Major Upsets: Irvin (#93) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#19); Doubles champions: Coetzer/McNeil Jidkova (#114) def. Frazier (#31); Craybas (#102) def. Major Upsets: Reeves (#193) def. Torrens Valero (#34); Weingärtner (#42); Irvin (#93) def. Tu (#46) Nagyova (#22) def. Coetzer (#13); de los Rios (#75) Historical Significance: Testud’s third career title def. Farina Elia (#16) Historical Significance: Seles’s second title of 2001 September 17Ð23 Princess Cup/Tokyo ¥ Hard ¥ Tier II Quebec City, Canada ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier III Jelena Dokic (3) d. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (5) 6Ð4 6Ð2 Meghann Shaughnessy (1) d. Iva Majoli (4) Semifinalists: Kim Clijsters, Gala Leon Garcia Semifinalists: Anne Kremer, Martina Sucha #1 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5) #1 seed: Meghann Shaughnessy (#12) #2 seed: Monica Seles (#9/withdrew) #2 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#15; lost 2R) #3 seed: Jelena Dokic (#11) Doubles champions: Reeves/Ad. Serra-Zanetti #4 seed: Sandrine Testud (#14; lost QF) Major Upsets: Sucha (#100) def. Farina Elia (#15); Doubles champions: Black/L. Huber Stevenson (#111) def. Osterloh (#57); Reeves (#144) Major Upsets: L. Huber (#294) def. Tulyaganova (#25); def. Déchy (#50) Sanchez-Vicario (#19) def. Testud (#14); Dokic (#11) Historical Significance: Shaughnessy’s second career def. Clijsters (#5) title, and first of 2001 Historical Significance: Dokic’s second title of 2001, and the first non-clay final for Sanchez-Vicario this year Win starts a string of finals for Liezel Huber which will take her to the edge of the Top Twenty in doubles.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 178 September 24Ð30 Leipzig, Germany ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier II Bali, Indonesia ¥ Hard ¥ Tier III Kim CLijsters (1) d. Magdalena Maleeva (6) 6¼1 6¼1 Angelique Widjaja (WC) d. Joanette Kruger (8) Semifinalists: Elena Dementieva, Nathalie Tauziat 7Ð6(7Ð2) 7Ð6(7Ð4) #1 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; Won) Semifinalists: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Su-Wei #2 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#10; lost SF) Hsieh #3 seed: Jelena Dokic (#11; lost 2R) #1 seed: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (#18; lost SF) #4 seed: Meghann Shaughnessy (#12; withdrew; spot taken by #9, #2 seed: Tamarine Tanasugarn (#29; lost QF) Kournikova; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Dominikovic/Tanasugarn Doubles champions: Likhovtseva/Tauziat Major Upsets: Pisnik (#87) def. Weingärtner Major Upsets: Schiavone (#46) def. Tulyaganova (#25); (#44); Widjaja (#579) def. Tanasugarn (#29), Hrdlickova (#66) def. Serna; Hantuchova (#57) def. Nagyova Kruger (#56) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#19); (#21); Kremer (#37) def. Bedanova (#27); Kremer (#37) def. Widjaja (#579) def. Kruger (#56) Huber (#22); Hanuchova (#57) def. Dokic (#11); Myskina (#85) Historical Significance: Widjaja earns her first def. Kournikova (#20), Maleeva (#20) def. Tauziat (#10) career title in her first WTA event. Historical Significance: Clijsters posts her first-ever title defense. Tauziat wins what will probably be the last title of her career. October 1Ð7 Moscow, ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier I Japan Open/Tokyo ¥ Hard ¥ Tier III Jelena Dokic (5) d. Elena Dementieva (8) 6Ð3 6Ð3 Monica Seles (1) d. Tamarine Tanasugarn Semifinalists: Anastasia Myskina, Silvia Farina Elia (2) 6Ð3 6Ð2 #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost QF) Semifinalists: Ai Sugiyama, Joanette Kruger #2 seed: Amélie Mauresmo (#6; lost 2R) #1 seed: Monica Seles (#9) #3 seed: Justine Hénin (#8; lost 2R) #2 seed: Tamarine Tanasugarn (#29) #4 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#10; lost 2R) Doubles champions: L. Huber/McQuillan Doubles champions: Hingis/Kournikova Major Upsets: Gagliardi (#98) def. Tu (#48); Major Upsets: Myskina (#68) def. Serna (#33); Fokina (#258) def. Nola (#120) def. Déchy (#50) Kournikova (#22); Stevenson (#92) def. Kremer (#34); Schiavone Historical Significance: Seles’s third title of (#40) def. Tauziat (#10); Schett (#19) def. Hénin (#8); Myskina 2001, but the three consist of two Tier IIIs (#68) def. Maleeva (#16); Bedanova (#28) def. Mauresmo (#6); and a weak Tier II Dementieva (#13) def. Hingis (#1); Myskina (#68) def. Schett Historical Significance: Dokic wins her second Tier I, and first indoor title October 8Ð14 Filderstadt, Germany ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier II Shanghai, China ¥ Hard ¥ Tier IV Lindsay Davenport (3) d. Justine Hénin (6) 7–5 6–4 Monica Seles (1) d. Nicole Pratt 6Ð2 6Ð3 Semifinalists: Martina Hingis, Sandrine Testud Semifinalists: #1 seed: Martina Hingis (#1; lost SF) #1 seed: Monica Seles (#8) #2 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#2; lost QF) #2 seed: Jelena Dokic (#10; withdrew; spot #3 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#3; Won) taken by #9, de los Rios; lost 2R) #4 seed: Kim Clijsters (#4; lost 2R) Doubles champions: L. Huber/Nemeckova Doubles champions: Davenport/Raymond Major Upsets: Fujiwara (#136) def. Major Upsets: Serna (#33) def. Shaughnessy (#12); Kremer (#32) Weingärtner (#43); Molik (#59) def. def. Kournikova (#22); Rubin (#33) def. Schett (#18); Panova Tanasugarn (#24); Foretz (#149) def. Déchy (#41) def. Coetzer (#17); Panova (#41) def. Tauziat (#11); Huber (#49); Grande (#42) def. Sugiyama (#37); (#20) def. Clijsters (#5); Testud (#15) def. Capriati (#2); Pratt (#65) def. Grande (#42) Davenport (#3) def. Hingis (#1) Historical Significance: Seles wins her Historical Significance: Hingis’s injury and loss to Davenport thirteenth straight match in her third straight means that Capriati becomes the new #1 — even though Capriati minor league tournament lost in the quarterfinal. She’ll keep the ranking only three weeks.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 179 October 15Ð21 Zurich, Switzerland ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier I Bratislava, ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier IV Lindsay Davenport (3) d. Jelena Dokic (4) 6Ð3 6Ð1 Rita Grande (4) d. Martina Sucha (Q) 6Ð1 6Ð1 Semifinalists: Jennifer Capriati, Nathalie Tauziat Semifinalists: Adriana Serra-Zanetti, Ludmila #1 seed: (None; place taken by #9 Sandrine Testud/lost QF) Cervanova #2 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#1; lost SF) #1 seed: Daja Bedanova (#29; lost 1R) #3 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#3; Won) #2 seed: Anne Kremer (#32; lost QF) #4 seed: Jelena Dokic (#10; lost F) Doubles champions: Bedanova/Bovina #5 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#11; lost SF) Major Upsets: Osterloh (#64) def. Bedanova Doubles champions: Davenport/Raymond (#29); Hrdlickova (#63) def. Schiavone Major Upsets: Majoli (#40) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#18); (#35); Cervanova (#115) def. Kremer (#32) Hantuchova (#53) def. Shaughnessy (#12); Mikaelian (#105) def. Historical Significance: Grande’s second title Dementieva (#13); Hantuchova (#53) def. Schett (#20) of the year — and of her career Historical Significance: Davenport’s title gives her two straight, and three titles at Zurich — plus two straight in doubles. October 22Ð28 Linz, Austria ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier II Luxembourg ¥ Indoor ¥ Tier III Lindsay Davenport (1) d. Jelena Dokic (4) 6Ð4 6Ð1 Kim Clijsters (1) d. Semifinalists: Magdalena Maleeva, Iroda Tulyaganova Lisa Raymond (6) 6Ð2 6Ð2 #1 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#3; Won) Semifinalists: Amanda Coetzer, #2 seed: (no #2; #3 Justine Hénin, etc. promoted) Tina Pisnik #3 seed: Justine Hénin (#6; lost 2R) #1 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; Won) #4 seed: Jelena Dokic (#9; lost F) #2 seed: Silvia Farina Elia (#15; lost 2R) #5 seed: Nathalie Tauziat (#11; lost 2R) Doubles champions: Bovina/Hantuchova Doubles champions: Dokic/Petrova Major Upsets: Tu (#47) def. Kremer (#33); Major Upsets: Sugiyama (#38) def. Schett (#20); Rubin (#41) def. Pisnik (#86) def. Farina Elia (#15); Tauziat (#11); Tulyaganova (#26) def. Hénin (#6); Stevenson (#76) Raymond (#31) def. Huber (#19) def. Sanchez-Vicario (#8); Panova (#36) def. Dementieva (#12) Historical Significance: Clijsters wins her Historical Significance: Davenport now has three straight titles and third title of 2001 no indoor losses October 29ÐNovember 4 Munich Championships ¥ Indoor ¥ Championship Serena Williams (7) d. Lindsay Davenport (2) walkover Semifinalists: Kim Clijsters, Sandrine Testud #1 seed: Jennifer Capriati (#1; lost QF) #3 seed: Kim Clijsters (#5; lost SF) #2 seed: Lindsay Davenport (#2; withdrew from F) #4 seed: Justine Hénin (#6; lost QF) Doubles champions: Raymond/Stubbs Major Upsets: Testud (#14) def. Mauresmo (#7); Sanchez-Vicario (#18) def. Tauziat (#11); Testud (#14) def. Capriati (#1); S. Williams (#10) def. Hénin (#6) Historical Significance: Davenport earns year-end #1 but withdrawal from final prevents an undefeated year indoors November 5Ð11 Pattaya City, Thailand ¥ Hard ¥ Tier V Patty Schnyder (7) d. Henrieta Nagyova (2) 6Ð0 6Ð4 Semifinalists: Rossana (Neffa-)de los Rios, Tatiana Poutchek #1 seed: Iroda Tulyaganova (#20; lost 1R) #2 seed: Henrieta Nagyova (#28; lost F) Doubles champions: Carlsson/Tulyaganova Major Upsets: Poutchek (#86) def. Tanasugarn (#29); Vakulenko (#146) def. Tulyaganova; L. Huber (#215) def,. Sugiyama (#32); Poutchek (#86) def. Panova (#39); Schnyder (#44) def. Nagyova (#28) Historical Significance: Schynder’s first title in almost three years

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 180 The Tennis Almanac 2001 A day-by-day account of what are, in the editor’s opinion, the most significant match() of each day of the year. January 1 — Auckland 1R: Marlene Weingärtner def. Nathalie Déchy (3) 7–6 (7–5), 4–6, 6–0 #87 Weingärtner quickly ruins Déchy’s return from a several-month injury. January 2 — Auckland 1R: Jill Craybas def. Sandrine Testud (1) 6–1, 7–5 #17 Testud sees her return from injury ruined by #145 Craybas, a qualifier. January 3 — Auckland 2R: Allison Bradshaw def. Barbara Schett (2) 7–6 (7–1), 3–6, 6–4 Qualifier Bradshaw upsets Schett in only her second Tour main draw event. January 4 — Gold Coast QF: Meghann Shaughnessy (6) def. Conchita Martinez (1) 6–2, 6–1 #38 Shaughnessy easily polishes off the only Top Ten player in action this week. January 5 — Gold Coast SF: Silvia Farina Elia def. Patty Schnyder (2) 6–2, 6–4 #63 Farina Elia, a former Top Twenty player, finally shows signs of truly recovering her form. January 6 — Gold Coast F: Justine Hénin (8) def. Silvia Farina Elia 7–6 (7–5) 6–4 Hénin’s second career title puts her on the verge of the Top Thirty January 7 — Canberra 1R: Nathalie Déchy (7) def. Miriam Oremans 7–6 (7–1) 6–3 Déchy posts her first win since the 2000 U.S. Open. January 8 — Canberra 1R: Wynne Prakusya def. Silvija Talaja (8) 6-1 1-0 retired For the second straight year, Talaja cannot complete her opening match at Sydney. January 9 — Sydney 1R Doubles: Hingis/Seles def. Williams/Williams 6–4 3–6 7-6 (7–2) The new team of Hingis/Seles celebrate their partnership with a win. Despite losing, the Williams Sisters finally get a doubles ranking. January 10 — Sydney 2R Doubles: Hingis/Seles def. Davenport/Morariu (3) 7–5 6–3 Sydney 2R: Corina Morariu def. Anna Kournikova (6) 6Ð2 6Ð1 Sydney 2R: Amélie Mauresmo def. Amanda Coetzer (7) 7–5 7–5 Sydney 2R: Lisa Raymond def. Jennifer Capriati (8) 2Ð6 6Ð3 7Ð5 Canberra 2R: Justine Hénin def. Magdalena Maleeva (5) 6–2 6–3 Canberra 2R: Ai Sugiyama def. Patty Schnyder (6) 6Ð0 3Ð6 7Ð5 In the wildest day of the year 2001 so far, three Top Fifteen players lose at Sydney, and two Top 25 players lose at Canberra. Meanwhile, Martina Hingis leads Seles to another doubles surprise. January 11 — Sydney QF: Amélie Mauresmo def. Monica Seles (4) 6–4 7–6 (7–5) Sydney QF: Martina Hingis (1) def. Serena Williams (5) 6Ð4 7Ð5 Canberra QF: Justine Hénin def. Chanda Rubin (3) 6–2 6–3 Canberra QF: Nathalie Déchy (7) def. Elena Dementieva (2) 2–6 6-4 6-4 The upset plague continues. In addition to the above, all of the top four seeds at Hobart fall on this day. Meanwhile, Martina Hingis beats Serena Williams, making her the first player to beat a Williams Sister in singles and doubles since Lindsay Davenport did it to Venus at the Australian Open 1999. January 12 — Canberra SF: Sandrine Testud (4) def. Mary Pierce (1) 6–2 6–2 Pierce’s inconsistency resurfaces as Testud reaches her first final since the 2000 Pan Pacific January 13 — Sydney F: Martina Hingis (1) def. Lindsay Davenport (2) 6–3 4–6 7–5 Canberra F: Justine Hénin def. Sandrine Testud (4) 6–2 6–2 Hingis starts 2001 with a win over her chief rival, giving her a twelve-match wining streak (counting Hopman Cup), while Hénin extends her winning streak to ten. January 15 — Australian Open 1R: Barbara Schett def. Elena Likhovtseva 4–6 7–6 (7–2) 6–4 Australian Open 1R: Janette Husarova def. Chanda Rubin (11) 6Ð3 6Ð0 Qualifier Husarova defeats an injured Rubin while Schett and Likhovtseva wage a contest between the highest-ranked unseeded players. Likhovtseva, by losing, falls out of the Top 25. January 16 — Australian Open 1R: Paola Suarez def. Nathalie Déchy 6–2 6–1 Déchy’s disappointments continue; by winning, Paola Suarez puts herself on the verge of the Top 25.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 181 January 17 — Australian Open 2R: Emmanuelle Gagliardi def. Conchita Martinez (5) 7–5 3–6 8–6 In what might well be the longest match of the year (three hours 23 minutes), Gagliardi knocks out the defending semifinalist. Martinez risks falling to #6 as a result. January 18 — Australian Open 1R: Hingis/Seles def. Raymond/Stubbs (1) 7–6 (7–2) 6–3 Last year’s doubles finalist and new partner Monica Seles polish off last year’s champions in a first round match so tough that it causes Stubbs to protest the seeding mechanism. January 19 — Australian Open 3R: Anna Kournikova (8) def. Barbara Schett 2–6 6–4 6–3 Australian Open 3R: Justine Hénin def. Sandrine Testud (14) 6–2 6–4 Hénin extends her winning streak to thirteen while Kournikova reaches her first Round of Sixteen at a Slam since the 2000 Australian Open, beating her doubles partner in the process. January 20 — Australian Open 3R: Paola Suarez def. Mary Pierce (7) 6–3 6–2 For the second straight year, 1995 champion and 1997 finalist Pierce exits early. The win will put Paola Suarez into the Top 25. January 21 — Australian Open 4R: Monica Seles def. Justine Hénin 4–6 6–4 6–4 Hénin gives Seles a terrific struggle, but still can’t beat a Top Ten player. Her winning streak ends at 13. January 22 — Australian Open 4R: Venus Williams (3) def. Amélie Mauresmo (13) 6–2 3–6 6–3 In the day’s only match involving two seeded players, Venus edges Mauresmo to tie her best-ever Australian showing. January 23 — Australian Open QF: Jennifer Capriati (12) def. Monica Seles (4) 5–7 6–4 6–3 Capriati’s first Top Five win in nearly a decade puts her in her second consecutive Australian Open semifinal. January 24 — Australian Open QF: Venus Williams (3) def. Amanda Coetzer (10) 2–6 6–1 8–6 Australian Open QF: Martina Hingis (1) def. Serena Williams (6) 6Ð2 3Ð6 8Ð6 Two incredible matches decided 8–6 in the third mean that Hingis and Venus — clearly the two best players of 2000 — will once again meet before a final. January 25 — Australian Open SF: Martina Hingis (1) def. Venus Williams (3) 6–1 6–1 Australian Open SF: Jennifer Capriati (12) def. Lindsay Davenport (2) 6Ð3 6Ð4 Jennifer Capriati tops the biggest win of her comeback with an even bigger win, reaching her first-ever Slam final. Meanwhile, Hingis beats the two Williams Sisters in the same event — a first for her, and the first time anyone has done it since at Sydney 1999. Interestingly, the two losers will meet in the doubles final. January 26 — Australian Open F: Williams/Williams def. Davenport/Morariu (7) 6–2 4–6 6–4 In a match noteworthy mostly for Davenport’s poor play, the Williams Sisters complete the career doubles Slam. January 27 — Australian Open F: Jennifer Capriati (12) def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–4 6–3 Hingis’s Slam drought continues as Jennifer Capriati wins her first-ever Grand Slam title. January 30 — Pan Pacific 1R: Lisa Raymond def. Lilia Osterloh 6–1 6–4 Last year, Osterloh defeated Mary Pierce at the Pan Pacific. The loss of these points will probably drop her out of the Top Fifty. January 31 — Pan Pacific 1R Doubles: Srebotnik/Testud def. Davenport/Morariu 6–2 2–6 7–6(7–5) After reaching the Australian Open final, Davenport and Morariu lose to a pickup team. February 1 — Pan Pacific 2R: Ai Sugiyama def. Sandrine Testud (5) 6–4 6–4 Pan Pacific 2R: Shinobu Asagoe def. Amanda Coetzer 6Ð4 5Ð7 7Ð6 (7Ð5) Testud, last year’s finalist, loses early and drops two places in the rankings, while Asagoe scores her first-ever Top Ten win. February 2 — Pan Pacific QF: Anna Kournikova (3) def. Anne-Gaelle Sidot 7–6 (7–4) 6–2 A day after four of six seeds in action lost, all four surviving seeds win. Kournikova’s is the most significant win, as it moves her from #9 back up to her career-high #8 ranking.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 182 February 3 — Pan Pacific SF: Kournikova/Tulyaganova def. Arendt/Sugiyama (2) 4–6 7–6(7–1) 6–0 On a day when the top two singles seeds reached the final, Kournikova justifies her #3 doubles ranking by beating #1 doubles player Sugiyama and #7 Arendt despite playing with a pickup partner. February 4 — Pan Pacific F: Lindsay Davenport (2) def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–7 (7–4) 6–4 6–2 Davenport wins her first title of 2001 February 6 — Paris 1R: Meghann Shaughnessy def. Sandrine Testud (5) 7–6 (7–4) 4–6 6–3 Testud, for the third year in a row, loses her opening-round match in Paris. February 7 — Paris 2R: Anne Kremer def. Mary Pierce (1) 6–3 6–3 Pierce’s misery in 2001 continues as she loses her opening match to a player ranked #35. Pierce has yet to beat a Top 50 player in 2001. February 8 — Paris 2R: Magdalena Maleeva def. Elena Dementieva (4) 2–6 6–0 6–3 Dementieva’s loss leaves only one seed — #6 Anke Huber — in the top half of the Paris draw. (All seeds made it to the quarterfinal in the bottom half.) Dementieva falls to 3Ð3 in 2001. February 9 — Paris QF: Amélie Mauresmo (8) def. Anna Kournikova (2) 2–6 7–6 (7–4) 6–1 Kournikova once again blows a match in which she leads, and will fall to #9 in the rankings. February 10 — Paris SF: Amélie Mauresmo (8) def. Nathalie Tauziat (3) 6–2 6–1 The defending champion, the oldest top player on the tour, loses to the youngest of the important French players in an all-French semi. Mauresmo continues to show what she can do when healthy. February 11 — Paris F: Amélie Mauresmo (8) def. Anke Huber (6) 7–6 (7–2) 6–1 Mauresmo wins her third title, and first in over a year. She is the lowest-ranked winner of a Tier II or higher event this year. February 12 — Nice 1R: Meilen Tu def. Amy Frazier (6) 6–2 3–6 6–0 Tu breaks into the Top Fifty for the first time. February 13 — Nice 1R: Magdalena Maleeva def. Patty Schnyder 6-3 5-7 6-3 Schnyder puts up her fourth straight loss as a season of misery continues February 14 — Doha 2R: Adriana Gersi def. Mary Pierce 6–4 5–7 6–0 Nice 2R: Anne Kremer def. Nathalie Tauziat 6Ð3 6Ð4 Pierce suffers her third straight loss, her longest streak in years, to a player ranked #77, while Kremer gathers annother French scalp a week after beating Pierce February 15 — Nice 2R: Silvia Farina Elia def. Conchita Martinez (2) 6–2 6–2 Once again Martinez (claiming a leg injury) shows why she usually avoids indoor events. February 16 — Nice QF: Magdalena Maleeva def. Elena Dementieva (4) 6–3 6–3 Maleeva continues to impress indoors, while Dementieva continues to struggle feebly February 17 — Nice SF: Magdalena Maleeva def. Venus Williams (1) 7–6 (10–8) 6–4 Maleeva does it again, while Venus loses her third straight event. February 18 — Nice F: Amélie Mauresmo def. Magdalena Maleeva 6–2 6–0 Mauresmo wins her second tournament in a row, and tenth match in a row, with a flourish. February 19 — Oklahoma City 1R: Sandra Cacic def. Amy Frazier (4) 6–1 3–6 7–6(7–3) Frazier continues to struggle on everything except American hardcourts as she loses to world #129. February 20 — Dubai 2R: Mary Pierce def. Iroda Tulyaganova 7–6 (7–4) 6–4 Pierce struggles against the world #64, but at last wins a match. February 21 — Dubai 2R: Lina Krasnoroutskaya def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 6–3 5–7 6–3 Sanchez-Vicario’s first match of 2001 ends with a resounding “thud.” February 22 — Dubai QF: Rachel McQuillan def. Mary Pierce 6–3 6–1 Oklahoma City 2R: Daniela Hantuchova def. Amanda Coetzer 7Ð6 (7Ð0) 3Ð6 6Ð0 Pierce’s misery continues as she loses to a qualifier ranked #111. Or formerly #111; this will move McQuillan to about #68. Amanda Coetzer gets served off the court by #108 Hantuchova. February 23 — Oklahoma City QF: Jennifer Capriati def. Lisa Raymond 6–4 6–3 6–4 Facing her first quality opponent since winning the Australian Open, Capriati struggles but wins.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 183 February 24 — Dubai F: Martina Hingis (1) def. Nathalie Tauziat (3) 6–4 6–4 Hingis wins her third title of 2001, and picks up hardware from her twenty-third different event. February 25 — Oklahoma City F: Monica Seles (1) def. Jennifer Capriati (2) 6–3 5–7 6–2 Seles’s first title since the 2000 clay season ends Capriati’s ten match winning streak. February 26 — Scottsdale 1R: Magui Serna def. Justine Hénin 7–6(7–5) 7–6(7–5) Serna the Giant Killer collects another scalp. February 28 — Acupulco 2R: Mariana Diaz-Oliva def. Sandrine Testud (3) 6-2 ret. Acupulco, having already lost Anna Kournikova to a broken foot, loses the #3 seed to colitis. March 1 — Scottsdale 2R: Tina Pisnik def. Elena Likhovtseva (9) 7–6 (7–5) 1–6 7–6 (7–5) Scottsdale suffers its second upset in a match where the loser wins more games than the winner. March 2 — Scottsdale QF: Meghann Shaughnessy (8) def. Kim Clijsters (5) 6–2 6–4 Shaughnessy continues her gradual rise while Clijsters continues to be inconsistent. March 3 — Scottsdale SF: Meghann Shaughnessy (8) def. Monica Seles (2) 3–6 7–6 (7–5) 6–2 Shaughnessy puts up her best result to date, and produces the upset of the tournament. March 4 — Acupulco F: Amanda Coetzer (1) def. Elena Dementieva (2) 2–6 6–1 6–2 Dementieva fails again to win a title. Maybe there is something about blonde Russians? March 8 — Indian Wells 1R: Sandra Kleinova (Q) def. Daja Bedanova 7–6 (7–3) 3–6 7–6 (8–6) Bedanova loses to a player ranked #110 March 9 — Indian Wells 2R: Elena Bovina (WC) def. Conchita Martinez (5) 6–4 6–4 Indian Wells 2R; Tathiana Garbin def. Monica Seles (4) 7Ð6 (8Ð6) 3Ð6 6Ð4 Martinez loses to #141, while Seles suffers among the worst losses of her career. (She has what will prove to have been a major foot injury.) March 10 — Indian Wells 2R: Evie Dominikovic (Q) def. Nathalie Tauziat (9) 6–4 4–6 7–5 Few things say more about the problems women have serving and volleying on hardcourts than the fact that a qualifier ranked #99 can defeat world #12 Nathalie Tauziat on a hardcourt. March 11 — Indian Wells 3R: Nathalie Déchy (23) def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (14) 7–6 (11–9) 3Ð6 6Ð2 In another wild day, #36 Déchy, back after half a year, beats the world #14, while #25 Lisa Raymond defeats #18 Sandrine Testud, Rachel McQuillan continues her surprising results by beating #24 Meghann Shaughnessy one round after beating #20 Amy Frazier, and in a foretaste of the future, Kim Clijsters beats Justine Hénin 1–6 6–4 6–3 March 12 — Indian Wells R16: Silvia Farina Elia (31) def. Anke Huber (11) 6–3 4–6 6–4 Farina, once a Top Twenty player, shows signs of regaining that form, while the top half of the Indian Wells draw opens up even more. March 13 — Indian Wells QF: Kim Clijsters (14) def. Elena Bovina 6–2 6–2 Bovina’s magic run finally ends as Clijsters reached her first-ever Tier I semifinal. March 14 — Indian Wells QF: Serena Williams (7) def. Lindsay Davenport (2) 6–1 6–2 As Serena moves up from #10 to #7, Lindsay Davenport’s fate falls out of her hands. It’s now entirely up to Venus Williams whether Venus displaces Davenport as the #2 player. March 15 — Indian Wells SF: Kim Clijsters (14) def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–2 2–6 6–1 Indian Wells SF: Serena Williams (7) def. Venus Williams (3), walkover Clijsters puts up the biggest victory of her career as Hingis suffers her worst loss since San Diego 2000; Hingis’s twelve-match winning streak is broken, as is her streak of ten consecutive finals. Meanwhile, Venus gives Serena a walkover into the Indian Wells final, claiming tendonitis. March 16 — Indian Wells Doubles F: Arendt/Sugiyama (1) def. Ruano Pascual/Suarez (2) 6–4 6–4 The doubles team expected to be the best of 2001 finally wins a big event, but they aren’t getting along. March 17 — Indian Wells F: Serena Williams (7) def. Kim Clijsters (14) 4–6 6–4 6–2 Serena’s first title of 2001 comes just where you would expect it: American hardcourts. The real surprise is not the result but the opponent she faced in the final.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 184 March 21 — Ericsson 1R: Elena Bovina def. Ruxandra Dragomir Ilie 6–1 7–6 (7–5) Bovina, the Sensation of Indian Wells, gives newlywed Dragomir Ilie a rather nasty wedding present. March 22 — Ericsson 1R: Ai Sugiyama def. Lina Krasnoroutskaya 7–6 (7–3) 6–0 Krasnoroutskaya, who has rising 59 places in six weeks, keeps qualifying, but this time has the bad luck to run into the #2 unseeded player. March 23 — Ericsson 2R: Boogert/Oremans def. Arendt/Sugiyama 7–5 6–3 Three singles seeds lost this day, notably Magdalena Maleeva (#12) losing to Marta Marrero (the other two who lost, Likhovtseva and Schnyder, were seeded lower and are in long slumps) — but the big surprise was the upset of the #1 doubles seeds. March 24 — Ericsson 2R: Kveta Hrdlickova def. Barbara Schett 6–4 7–5 Inconsistency continues to plague Schett as Hrdlickova finally shows signs of recovering her pre-injuty form. March 25 — Ericsson 3R: Tathiana Garbin def. Justine Hénin (20) 6–3 6–1 Garbin continues her amazing two-week run, not only beating Hénin but doing it easily. She is the only unseeded player in the Ericsson Round of Sixteen. March 26 — Ericsson 4R: Jelena Dokic (21) def. Amanda Coetzer (6) 6–3 7–5 On a day when Venus Williams looked doubtful in her quest for #2 (she barely beat Tathiana Garbin, 7–5 7–6), Dokic knocks off Venus’s potential quarterfinal opponent. It drops Coetzer from #9 to #8, and is Dokic’s best hardcourt result to date. March 27 — Ericsson QF: Martina Hingis (1) def. Anke Huber (10) 7–5 6–0 Hingis comes back from down 5-3 to win the last ten games. March 28 — Ericsson QF: Elena Dementieva (7) def. Lindsay Davenport (2) 6–3 1–0 retired Ericsson QF: Jennifer Capriati (4) def. Serena Williams (5) 6Ð1 7Ð6(7Ð5) First Jennifer Capriati surprised everyone by beating an injured Serena Williams (thereby keeping herself at #5 in the rankings, and holding Serena at #6), then Lindsay Davenport, in an even more stunning surprise, hands the #2 ranking over to Venus Williams. Dementieva moves to a career-high #9. March 29 — Ericsson SF: Venus Williams (3) def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–3 7–6(8–6) Venus Williams cements her new #2 ranking with a win over the defending champion. It probably should have been the final; Hingis and Venus, between them, had won the last four Miami events. March 30 — Ericsson SF: Jennifer Capriati (4) def. Elena Dementieva (7) 6–2 6–0 Dementieva once again fails to win a title, while Capriati finally seems to be prepared to back up her Australian Open win. March 31 — Ericsson F: Venus Williams (3) def. Jennifer Capriati (5) 4–6 6–1 7–6 (7–4) After two sets of terrible tennis and a final set of spectacular if high-risk results, Jennifer Capriati blows eight championship points to give Venus Williams her first title since the 2000 U. S. Open April 1 — Ericsson F: Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat (3) def. Raymond/Stubbs (2) 6–0 6–4 The road to #1 for Raymond/Stubbs gets derailed by two crafty players just starting out together. April 2 — Porto Qualifying: Ludmila Cervanova def. Patricia Wartusch: 1–6 6–3 6–2 No great significance to this, except that — by pure luck of the draw — Cervanova and Wartusch will play again the next day, as qualifier and lucky loser. Cervanova will win the second meeting also, again in three sets, 6-2 3Ð6 6Ð1 April 3 — Boynton Beach $75K: Bethanie Mattek def. Elena Likhovtseva (1) 6–3 1–6 6–2 How bad are things going for Likhovtseva? She’s losing to unranked sixteen-year-olds with poor junior results. This is her fourth loss in a row. Mattek will, however, back it up by winning her next match. April 4 — Boynton Beach $75K: Maja Palaversic def. Tatiana Panova (4) 6–1 6–4 On a day when Porto is rained out, Palaversic, a Lucky Loser ranked #156, ushers the world’s #35 out of Boynton Beach. The strongest Challenger yet this year has lost four of eight seeds in the first rounds.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 185 April 5 — Porto 2R: Lubomira Bacheva def. Chanda Rubin (2) 7–6 (7–3) 6–1 In her first event back from surgery, Rubin is asked to play two matches on clay. She manages to win the first, in three sets, but doesn’t have enough left for the second. April 6 — Porto QF: Magui Serna (3) def. Rita Kuti Kis 3–6 6–4 7–6 (7–5) By winning this match, Serna puts herself in the Top 25 for the first time in two years. April 7 — Boynton Beach $75K: Henrieta Nagyova (2) def. Nathalie Déchy 3–6 6–4 6–1 Nagyova, the Scourge of the Less-than-Tier-III tournaments, reaches another final. A win will put her on the edge of the Top Thirty. April 8 — Porto F: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (1) def. Magui Serna 6–3 6–1 Sanchez-Vicario picks up her first title since Cairo 1999; Serna earns her first-ever Tour final. April 9 — Estoril 1R: Tathiana Garbin (8) def. Tatiana Poutchek 2–6 6–1 6–2 Garbin, last year’s semifinalist and this year’s sensation, needs three sets to start defending her points. April 10 — Estoril 1R: Denisa Chladkova def. Anke Huber 7–5 3–6 6–2 #65 Chladkova ushers out last year’s champion. April 11 — Amelia Island 2R: Silvia Farina Elia def. Conchita Martinez (2) 6–4 6–1 Estoril 2R: Jana Kandarr def. Magdalena Maleeva (2) 6Ð3 7Ð5 In a bad day for second seeds, Silvia Farina Elia extends Conchita Martinez’s loss streak to four, while Magdalena Maleeva again demonstrates why she dislikes clay April 12 — Estoril 2R: Elena Bovina def. Magui Serna (5) 6–3 2–6 6–1 This result, combined with a loss by #4 seed Barbara Schett to Tina Pisnik, means that only #3 seed Justine Hénin and #8 Tathiana Garbin reach the Estoril quarterfinal. And Bovina continues to impress. April 13 — Amelia Island QF: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (7) def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–2 6–4 A tough draw and continued sloppy play cost #1 Hingis her worst clay loss since she lost to Kournikova in the Berlin quarterfinal in 1998. It is Hingis’s first loss on green clay since 1996. It also ends a four- year domination over Sanchez-Vicario, who temporarily returns to the Top Ten as a result. April 14 — Amelia Island SF: Amélie Mauresmo (6) def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (7) 6–3 6–2 Sanchez-Vicario’s dream ends as Mauresmo reaches her third straight final. April 15 — Amelia Island F: Amélie Mauresmo (6) def. Amanda Coetzer (4) 6–4 7–5 Mauresmo makes it fourteen matches, and three tournaments, in a row. April 16 — Charleston 1R: Iva Majoli def. Jelena Dokic (13) 6–3 0–6 6–2 Dokic, last year’s quarterfinalist, falls before Majoli in a test of inconsistency. April 17 — Charleston 2R: Conchita Martinez def. Lilia Osterloh 1–6 6–3 6–0 Martinez finally breaks a four-match losing streak. April 18 — Charleston 2R: Elena Likhovtseva def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (5) 6–3 6–4 Sanchez-Vicario’s hot streak comes to an abrupt end as Likhovtseva apparently breaks out of a slump. April 19 — Charleston R16: Amy Frazier (10) def. Mary Pierce (6) 7–5 6–7 (7–1) 6–4 In a match someone had to lose, Mary Pierce out-slumps Amy Frazier. Pierce falls out of the Top Sixteen as a result, and may not be seeded at Roland Garros. April 20 — Charleston QF: Martina Hingis (1) def. Amélie Mauresmo (7) 7–5 6–2 Charleston QF: Marlene Weingärtner def. Amanda Coetzer (4) 6–4 7–6 (7–3) Martina Hingis stops Mauresmo and at last shows hints of getting on track, while Marlene Weingärtner, after years of inconsistency, breaks into the Top Fifty and looks ready to keep going. April 21 — Charleston SF: Jennifer Capriati (2) def. Marlene Weingärtner 6–0 6–2 On a day of incredible dullness, Charleston #1 seed Hingis advances 6Ð2 6Ð2 to a final against #2 seed Capriati (who, by winning this match, reaches a career high #4), while at Budapest, #1 seed Maleeva and #2 seed Kremer also reach the final. Not one of the four top-seeded finalists lost a set in the semis. April 22 — Charleston F: Jennifer Capriati (2) def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–0 4–6 6–4 Hingis’s string of slop continues as she fails to earn revenge against Capriati

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 186 May 1 — Hamburg 1R: Andrea Glass def. Magui Serna (8) 6–4 6–3 Serna continues her life-long habit of inconsistency May 2 — Hamburg 2R: Patty Schnyder def. Conchita Martinez (3) 6–3 2–6 6–2 Bol 2R: Fokina/Foretz def. Morariu/Sugiyama (1) 7Ð5 6Ð3 Is Martinez going away, or is Schnyder finally coming back? For Morariu, this is the last doubles match of her year, and perhaps of her life; she is not feeling well, and will have to withdraw from her singles match at Berlin. It will later be diagnosed as leukemia. May 3 — Hamburg 2R: Jelena Dokic def. Magdalena Maleeva (5) 6–1 6–1 When a player brought up on clay meets a player who prefers indoors, the results often aren’t pretty. May 4 — Hamburg QF: Jelena Dokic def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (4) 3–6 7–6(7–5) 6–2 Dokic continues her surge with a win over a true clay great. May 5 — Hamburg SF: Meghann Shaughnessy (7) def. Amanda Coetzer (2) 6–3 6–4 Meghann Shaughnessy gives more evidence that she has truly arrived. May 6 — Hamburg F: Venus Williams (1) def. Meghann Shaughnessy (7) 6–3 6–0 Bol F: Angeles Montolio (3) def. Mariana Diaz-Oliva 3Ð6 6Ð2 6Ð4 Venus breezes through an easy draw, while Montolio wins her second career title and Diaz-Oliva makes her first final. May 7 — Berlin 1R: Justine Hénin def. Joanette Kruger 4–6 6–2 6–2 Kruger, last year’s semifinalist, crashes and burns, while Hénin makes a try for a Roland Garros seed. May 8 — Berlin 1R: Anne Kremer def. Kim Clijsters (10) 6–2 6–1 Clijsters continues a record of failure on clay. May 9 — Berlin 2R: Paola Suarez def. Magdalena Maleeva (9) 6-4 6-1 A strong-looking Suarez knocks off a seed and now gets a chance at a slumping Conchita Martinez May 10 — Berlin 3R: Justine Hénin (13) def. Venus Williams (2) 6–1 6–4 The clay bug bites Venus again, as she suffers her third, and perhaps worst, loss of the year. Her chances of earning the #1 ranking at Roland Garros are now much poorer. May 11 — Berlin QF: Jennifer Capriati (3) def. Conchita Martinez (7) 2–6 6–3 6–4 Capriati comes back from two breaks down in the final set to boot Martinez out of the Top 10. May 12 — Berlin SF: Amélie Mauresmo (4) def. Martina Hingis (1) 3–6 6–0 6-4 Hingis’s futility streak continues as Mauresmo ties her career high of #6. May 13 — Berlin F: Amélie Mauresmo (4) def. Jennifer Capriati (3) 6–4 2–6 6–3 Mauresmo wins her Tour-leading fourth title of the year and strengthens her #6 position. May 15 — Rome 1R: Nadia Petrova def. Mary Pierce (10) 6–2 6–4 Pierce continues to stumble her way out of the Top Twenty May 16 — Rome 2R: Rita Kuti Kis def. Jennifer Capriati (2) 1–6 6–2 7–6(7–5) On a day when four of the eight top seeds lose their opening matches, the loss by Jennifer Capriati is most stunning. May 17 — Rome R16: Amélie Mauresmo def. Daniela Hantuchova 6–2 3–6 6–3 Mauresmo survives a scare but keeps on the winning track. May 18 — Rome QF: Martina Hingis (1) def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (7) 6–3 6–1 For one day, the world looks normal again… May 19 — Rome SF: Amélie Mauresmo (4) def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–4 7–6(7–5) …but “normalcy” fails to last as Mauresmo continues her dominant year. May 20 — Rome F: Jelena Dokic (14) def. Amélie Mauresmo (4) 7–6(7–3) 6–1 Dokic’s first career title is a famous Tier I; she ends Mauresmo’s string at nine wins May 21 — Madrid 1R: Kristina Brandi def. Amy Frazier (4) 4–6 6–2 7–5 Frazier and clay just don’t mix.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 187 May 22 — Madrid 1R: Sandrine Testud (3) def. Gala Leon Garcia (35) 2–6 6–3 6–0 Strasbourg 1R: Anna Smashnova def. Silvija Talaja 6Ð2 6Ð4 Strasbourg 1R: Iroda Tulyaganova def. Mary Pierce (3) 3Ð6 6Ð3 6Ð1 In one day, both defending champions and the Roland Garros champ crash and burn. May 23 — Madrid 2R: Rossana de los Rios def. Monica Seles 7–5 2–6 6–4 Seles’s return from injury hits a train wreck; after one match, she’s back on the disabled list. May 24 — Strasbourg QF: Nathalie Tauziat (2) def. Meghann Shaughnessy (5) 5–7 7–6(7–5) 7–5 Tauziat gives herself a shot at the Top Ten with a win over one of the hottest players of the year. May 25 — Strasbourg SF: Silvia Farina Elia (8) def. Nathalie Tauziat (2) 3–6 6–4 6–0 Farina Elia gets another shot at a final. Can she do something with it this time? May 26 — Strasbourg F: Silvia Farina Elia (8) def. Anke Huber (4) 7–5 0–6 6–4 Farina Elia wins her first title — at age 29! — after seven failed attempts May 28 — Roland Garros 1R: Barbara Schett def. Venus Williams (2) 6–4 6–4 Roland Garros 1R: Jana Kandarr def. Amélie Mauresmo (5) 7–5 7–5 On the first day of the French Open, four of the eight seeds in action, including the top two, lose. This ends Venus’s chances of becoming #1 before fall (and probably for the whole year), and sets Mauresmo back nearly as far. May 29 — Roland Garros 1R: Serena Williams (6) def. Sarah Pitkowski 6–2 6–7(7–4) 6–1 It took two years, but finally Serena wins a clay match. May 30 — Roland Garros 2R: Henrieta Nagyova def. Elena Dementieva (7) 7–5 7–5 With this, all four top seeds are out of the bottom half of the draw. May 31 — Roland Garros 2R: Amy Frazier def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (11) 1-6 6-3 6-4 For only the second time in her career, and the first since 1990, Sanchez-Vicario loses before the quarterfinal at Roland Garros. She also drops from #8 to #15 or lower. The fact that the loss is to Frazier just makes it more amazing. — Roland Garros 3R: Petra Mandula def. Jelena Dokic (15) 3–6 6–4 6–2 A qualifier ranked #131 stops Dokic’s winning streak at 8. June 2 — Roland Garros 3R: Cara Black def. Conchita Martinez (8) 3-6 6-3 6-4 Last year’s finalist Martinez suffers her earliest-ever Roland Garros loss and falls out of the Top Twenty. June 3 — Roland Garros 4R: Kim Clijsters (14) def. Henrieta Nagyova 6–4 4–6 6–3 In the only really close match of the fourth round, Clijsters reaches her first Slam quarterfinal and breaks into the Top Ten. June 4 — Roland Garros DOUBLES 3R: Po Messerli/Tauziat (4) def. Capriati/Sugiyama (14) 7-6(7-4) 6-7(5-7) 6-4 Will a tough doubles match take enough out of Capriati to hurt her in singles? June 5 — Roland Garros QF: Jennifer Capriati (4) def. Serena Williams (6) 6–2 5–7 6–2 In the only quarterfinal involving two seeded players, Capriati overcomes errors to reach her second straight Slam semifinal. Serena still hasn’t made it past a clay quarterfinal. June 7 — Roland Garros SF: Jennifer Capriati (4) def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–3 6–4 Capriati prepares to pass Hingis in points earned this year as Hingis again stinks up the court. June 8 — Roland Garros DOUBLES SF: Dokic/Martinez (16) def. Raymond/Stubbs (1) 7–5, 6–2 The de facto #1 doubles team shows its (lack of) feet of clay. June 9 — Roland Garros F: Jennifer Capriati (4) d. Kim Clijsters (12) 1–6 6–4 12–10 Capriati makes it two Slams in a row in an error-filled but dramatic final. Now why can’t she win the smaller tournaments? It will be her last title of the year. June 10 — Roland Garros DOUBLES F: Ruano Pascual/Suarez (2) def. Dokic/Martinez (16) 6–2 6–1 Last year’s finalists win their first Slam together. Fourteen different women have now won doubles Slams in the past three years.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 188 June 11 — Birmingham 1R: Daniela Hantuchova def. Nathalie Déchy (14) 4-6 6-4 6-3 Four of five seeds in action this day are upset, with this being perhaps the biggest surprise. June 12 — Birmingham 2R: Virginie Razzano def. Ai Sugiyama (8) 6–2 6–4 Sugiyama has been struggling all year. Grass evidently isn’t the solution to the problem. June 13 — Birmingham 2R: Alicia Molik def. Jelena Dokic (2) 4–6 6–3 6–3 Dokic loses her second match straight to a player who might have a grudge (Molik is Australian, and Dokic used to be). Dokic’s grass form doesn’t look good going into Wimbledon.... June 14 — Birmingham 3R: Kristina Brandi (12) def. Tamarine Tanasugarn (5) 6–2 7–5 Last year’s finalist continues a slump and falls out of the Top Thirty. June 15 — Tashkent QF: Cristina Torrens Valero (7) def. Iroda Tulyaganova (3) 7–5 6–1 Tashkent loses its defending champion (who will fall out of the Top Sixty); all of the top five seeds are now out of the event. June 17 — Birmingham SF: Nathalie Tauziat (1) def. Lisa Raymond (4) 6–0 7–6(7–5) Forced by rain to play two matches in one day, Tauziat still wins both, avenges a loss here last year, and positions herself for a return to the Top Ten if she can win the final. June 18 — Birmingham F: Nathalie Tauziat (1) def. Miriam Oremans 6–3 7–5 Tauziat wins her third career grass title, and her first title of 2001, as she at last gets to play on a surface suitable for her game. This will turn out to be the last singles title of Tauziat’s career. June 19 — ’s-Hertogenbosch 1R: Iroda Tulyaganova def. Elena Dementieva (3) 7–5 6–3 Eastbourne 2R: Lindsay Davenport (1) def. Anne-Gaëlle Sidot 6–2 6–2 Eastbourne 2R: Magui Serna def. Magdalena Maleeva (4) 7Ð5 6Ð2 As Davenport returns to the court after three months, and Dementieva shows poor grass form, Magui Serna beats her second straight player ranked above her and perhaps prepares to reach a career high. June 20 — Eastbourne 2R: Tamarine Tanasugarn def. Nathalie Tauziat (2) 6–7(7–1) 7–6(8–6) 6–3 Easy come, easy go. Two days after winning the Birmingham title, Tauziat loses her opening match. June 21 — Eastbourne QF: Magui Serna def. Meghann Shaughnessy (7) 6–1 7–6(7–3) Serna continues her strong run by beating her second straight seed, and the third straight player ranked above her. She assures that Eastbourne will have an unseeded finalist. June 22 — Eastbourne SF: Lindsay Davenport (1) def. Chanda Rubin 6–1 6–1 For the first time in this tournament, Davenport really looks like she is back and in form. June 23 — Eastbourne F: Lindsay Davenport def. Magui Serna 6–2 6–0 Davenport makes a triumphant return from injury and a good Wimbledon preparation. June 25 — Wimbledon 1R: Virginia Ruano Pascual def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–4 6–2 If Hingis hasn’t hit bottom, one hates even to think what comes next. June 26 — Wimbledon 1R: Nadia Petrova def. Magui Serna (23) 6–3 2–6 6–2 Three days after reaching the Eastbourne final, 2000 Wimbledon quarterfinalist Magui Serna drops out of the Top 25. June 27, 2001 — Wimbledon 2R: Lilia Osterloh def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (13) 7–5(7–4) 7–5 For the first time since 1990, Sanchez-Vicario has lost before the third round in consecutive Slams. June 28, 2001 — Wimbledon 2R: Amélie Mauresmo (6) def. Eleni Daniilidou (Q) 6–3 6–2 Could Mauresmo at last be ready to truly use her grass potential? June 29, 2001 — Wimbledon 3R: Justine Hénin (8) def. Lisa Raymond (27) 6–4 7–6(8–6) In what will probably be the deciding match of the top quarter, Justine Hénin reaches another Slam fourth round. June 30, 2001 — Wimbledon 3R: Tamarine Tanasugarn (31) def. Amélie Mauresmo (6) 6–4 6–4 Not really unexpected, this being grass, but Mauresmo becomes the second top eight seed to fall. July 2, 2001 — Wimbledon 4R: Lindsay Davenport (3) def. Jelena Dokic (14) 7–5 6–4 Finally confronted with a tough Wimbledon draw, Dokic fails to defend her semifinalist points and falls out of the Top Twenty.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 189 July 3, 2001 — Wimbledon QF: Jennifer Capriati (4) def. Serena Williams (5) 6–7(7–4) 7–5 6–3 Serena Williams was up a set and a break, but couldn’t keep it up in the face of an upset stomach. After the match, she pulled out of doubles. July 5, 2001 — Wimbledon SF: Justine Hénin (8) def. Jennifer Capriati (4) 2–6 6–4 6–2 Capriati’s Slam streak ends at nineteen matches as Hénin reaches her first Slam final. July 8, 2001 — Wimbledon F: Venus Williams (2) def. Justine Hénin (8) 6–1 3–6 6–0 It took a day’s rain delay and a lot of rescheduling, but Venus wins her third Slam. July 9, 2001 — Vienna 1R: Anna Smashnova def. Henrieta Nagyova (6) 6–4 5–7 6–2 Nagyova continues to have trouble with strong tournaments and weak players. July 10, 2001 — Palermo 1R: Magui Serna (1) def. Klara Koukalova 6-3 3-6 6-2 Is Serna struggling, or is Koukalova continuing to improve? July 11, 2001 — Vienna 1R: Maja Palaversic def. Daniela Hantuchova 6-4 6-3 Palaversic wins her first Main Draw match of 2001, and likely reaches a career high, shocking the Wimbledon mixed doubles winner July 12, 2001 — Vienna 2R: Iroda Tulyaganova def. Elena Dementieva (1) 6–4 0–6 7–6(7–3) Vienna 2R: Jelena Kostanic (Q) def. Jelena Dokic (2) 1Ð6 7Ð7(7Ð3) 6Ð0 The top two Vienna seeds both lose their opening matches and their opportunities: Dementieva to get back into the Top Ten, and Dokic to get back into the Top Twenty. July 13, 2001 — Vienna QF: Paola Suarez (5) def. Barbara Schett (4) 7–6(8-6) 4–6 6–3 Schett’s quest for a spot in the Top Twenty, and a defence of her title, comes to an abrupt end. July 14, 2001 — Vienna SF: Iroda Tulyaganova def. Paola Suarez (5) 6–0 7–5 Tulyaganova continues her rise with a win over the player who had looked like the clear favorite. July 15, 2001 — Vienna F: Iroda Tulyaganova def. Patty Schnyder (8) 6–3 6–2 Tulyaganova proves that her results at small events are no fluke. July 16, 2001 — Knokke-Heist 1R: Denisa Chladkova def. Jelena Dokic (3) 6–4 6–2 Dokic’s losing streak runs to three matches. July 17, 2001 — Knokke-Heist 1R: Cristina Torrens Valero def. Mariana Diaz-Oliva (8) 6–2 6–0 Torrens Valero continues her clay hot streak with an upset of the #8 seed. July 19, 2001 — Knokke-Heist 2R; Rossana de los Rios def. Silvia Farina Elia (2) 6–3 6–1 Farina Elia won’t be making the Top Fifteen this week after all.... July 20, 2001 — Knokke-Heist QF: Iroda Tulyaganova def. Angeles Montolio (30) 6–2 6–4 Tulyaganova’s winning streak reaches eight straight. July 21, 2001 — Knokke-Heist SF: Iroda Tulyaganova def. Kim Clijsters (1) 6–0 6–4 Clijsters continues to sputter as Tulyaganova wins her ninth straight. July 22, 2001 — Knokke-Heist F: Iroda Tulyaganova def. Gala Leon Garcia 6–2 6–3 Tulyaganova makes it ten in a row (the only ten-match clay streak of the year), and two titles in a row, and breaks into the Top 25. July 23, 2001 — Stanford 1R: Sandra Cacic def. Anne Kremer (8) 6–4 5-7- 7–6(8–6) With the tournament barely started, already one seed is out. July 24, 2001 —sasablanca 1R: Zsofia Gubacsi def. Marta Marrero (2) 5–6 7–6(8–6) 6–0 On a day when five seeds fell at Casablanca, no upset was as surprising as this. July 25, 2001 — Stanford 2R: Monica Seles (4) def. Meilan Tu 7–6(7–2) 6–2 In a second try at a comeback, Monica Seles at last scores a win. July 26, 2001 — Stanford 2R: Jana Kandarr def. Amy Frazier (6) 7–5 6–7(7–3) 6–3 Frazier’s hardcourt record looks to be in deep trouble.... July 27, 2001 — Stanford QF: Meghann Shaughnessy (5) def. Venus Williams (1) 2–6 7–5 7–6(7–4) Venus not only fails to defend her title but also gives up the #2 ranking. July 28, 2001 — Stanford SF: Lindsay Davenport (2) def. Monica Seles (4) 6–4 6–2 No great surprise that Seles, just off a long injury, still can’t deal with Davenport

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 190 July 29, 2001 — Stanford F: Kim Clijsters (3) def. Lindsay Davenport (2) 6–4 6–7(5–7) 6–1 Clijsters finally wins a final. July 30, 2001 — San Diego DOUBLES 1R: Hingis/Kournikova (1) def. L. Huber/Montalvo 6–1 6–1 They’re baaaack.... July 31, 2001 — San Diego 2R: Nicole Pratt def. Anna Kournikova (1) 6–7(1-7) 6–1 6–3 Well, Kournikova isn’t all the way back; she loses her first match and drops to about #20. And, as it turns out, she’s still hurting and will be out for several more weeks. August 1, 2001 — San Diego 2R: Ai Sugiyama def. Kim Clijsters (5) 6–3 6–3 Maybe that celebration after winning Stanford was premature.... August 2, 2001 — San Diego 3R: Lindsay Davenport (4) def. Barbara Schett (16) 6–1 7–5 Davenport takes back the #3 ranking from Venus Williams, who just a week ago was #2.... August 3, 2001 — San Diego QF: Monica Seles (7) def. Jennifer Capriati (2) 6–3 6–3 Is Seles back — or is Capriati again showing why she isn’t a true #1 player? August 4, 2001 — San Diego SF: Monica Seles (7) def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–3 6–4 On examination, it appears the answer to the previous question is, “Seles is back.” August 5, 2001 — San Diego F: Venus Williams (2) def. Monica Seles (7) 6–2 6–3 Venus is just too strong. August 6, 2001 — Los Angeles 2R: Virginie Razzano def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (9) 3–6 6–1 6–4 Sanchez-Vicario’s skid hits three, and her chances of ending in the Top Twenty get even worse. August 7, 2001 — Los Angeles 2R: Nicole Pratt def. Iroda Tulyaganova (14) 6–4 6–1 Tulyaganova balances a ten-match winning streak on clay with two straight hardcourt losses. August 8, 2001 — Los Angeles 3R: Martina Hingis (1) def. Elena Likhovtseva (15) 6–0 6–3 At last Hingis beats a good player efficiently. Can she keep it up? August 9, 2001 — Los Angeles 3R: Nathalie Tauziat (5) def. Jelena Dokic (11) 6–0 0–6 6–2 Dokic continues to have problems on hardcourts. To put it mildly. August 10, 2001 — Los Angeles QF: Nathalie Tauziat (5) def. Kim Clijsters (3) 6–4 6–2 Los Angeles QF: Monica Seles (6) def. Serena Williams (4) 6Ð2 3Ð6 7Ð6(7Ð2) Tauziat and Seles both continue their amazing surges, while Serena drops to #10. August 11, 2001 — Los Angeles SF: Monica Seles (6) def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–3 1–6 6–4 Seles’s resurrection continues as she beats an injured Hingis. August 12, 2001 — Los Angeles F: Lindsay Davenport (2) def. Monica Seles (6) 6–3 7–5 Davenport regains the #2 ranking, though it will likely last for only one week. August 13, 2001 — Canadian Open 1R: Amy Frazier def. Anne Kremer 6–2 6–3 Two defending quarterfinalists with their rankings on the line. It was big, but it wasn’t pretty. August 14, 2001 — Canadian Open 1R: Marlene Weingärtner def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (12) 3Ð6 6Ð1 6Ð4 Sanchez-Vicario drops out of the Top Twenty for the first time in thirteen years. August 15, 2001 — Canadian Open 2R: Daja Bedanova def. Magdalena Maleeva (8) 6–4 7–6(7–2) Bedanova continues her resurgence as Maleeva falls to #15. August 16, 2001 — Canadian Open 3R: Anke Huber (13) def. Amélie Mauresmo (3) 6–3 6–3 And it wasn’t even close. Mark this down as perhaps the last Top Ten win of Huber’s career. August 17, 2001 — Canadian Open 3R; Jennifer Capriati (1) def. Wynne Prakusya (Q) 7–6(7–2) 6–2 Capriati will play and win two matches this day, and this is the weaker opponent, but this is the match to give her back the #2 ranking and the #2 U. S. Open seed. August 18, 2001 — Canadian Open SF: Jennifer Capriati (1) def. Anke Huber (14) 6–3 3–6 6–3 Huber just fails in her quest to earn the #16 U. S. Open seed. August 19, 2001 — Canadian Open F: Serena Williams (4) def. Jennifer Capriati (1) 6–1 6–7(7–9) 6–3 Serena breaks her four-match losing streak to Capriati to win her second title of 2001.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 191 August 20, 2001 — New Haven 1R: Anastasia Myskina def. Amanda Coetzer 6–3 7–5 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario def. Paola Suarez 7Ð6(7Ð4) 6Ð4 Sanchez-Vicario finally breaks her losing streak while Coetzer continues to struggle in trying to find her form. August 21, 2001 — New Haven 1R: Nathalie Tauziat (7) def. Meghann Shaughnessy 6–2 2–6 7–5 In one of the toughest first-round matches in WTA history, world #9 Tauziat continues her improbable Last Hardcourt Hurrah with a win over #12 Meghann Shaughnessy August 22, 2001 — New Haven 2R: Nathalie Tauziat (7) def. Kveta Hrdlickova 6–1 7–6(7–3) New Haven QF: Lindsay Davenport (1) def. Amélie Mauresmo (6) 6–4 6–4 Tauziat continues her solid hardcourt results, while Davenport and Mauresmo continue their consistent rivalry: Davenport wins the contests on fast surfaces, Mauresmo on slow. August 23, 2001 — New Haven QF: Jennifer Capriati (2) def. Jelena Dokic 6–4 6–3 Capriati continues to pile up points as she works toward the #1 ranking. August 24, 2001 — New Haven SF: Venus Williams (3) def. Jennifer Capriati (2) 6–4 7–6(7–1) Venus wins two matches in one day (the first was a quarterfinal over Justine Hénin) to slow Capriati’s quest for the #1 ranking. August 25, 2001 — New Haven F: Venus Williams (3) def. Lindsay Davenport (1) 7–6(8–6) 6–4 Venus earns her fifth title of 2001 and her ninth straight match. August 27, 2001 — U. S. Open 1R: Eva Bes def. Magui Serna (23) 6–3 6–1 The Magui Serna Story: She can beat anyone, and lose to anyone. This time, she loses, and probably loses her spot in the Top Thirty as a result. August 28, 2001 — U. S. Open 1R: Maja Matevzic def. Silvia Farina Elia 6–2 6–4 Matevzic stretches Farina Elia’s loss string to four by winning her first main draw Slam match. August 29, 2001 — U. S. Open 1R DOUBLES: Coetzer/McNeil def. Arendt/Vis (6) 4-6 6-3 6-4 On a day when all the upsets were in doubles, this was the big one. August 30, 2001 — U. S. Open 2R: Alicia Molik def. Magdalena Maleeva (15) 6–3 3–6 6–3 Maleeva was in great form in the spring indoor season. Will she find it again before the fall season? August 31, 2001 — U. S. Open 3R: Daja Bedanova def. Meghann Shaughnessy (12) 6–4 6–1 Although ten seeds, and three Top Sixteen seeds, lost in the first two rounds, this was the first real surprise of the tournament. September 1, 2001 — U. S. Open 3R: Elena Dementieva (11) def. Anke Huber (17) 6–3 7–5 Defending semifinalist Dementieva has looked sloppy this summer, but she hands Anke Huber the final U. S. Open defeat of her career. September 2, 2001 — U. S. Open 4R: Daja Bedanova def. Monica Seles (7) 7–5 4–6 6–3 U. S. Open 3R DOUBLES: Callens/Rubin def. (9) Williams/Williams 6Ð2 4Ð6 7Ð5 U. S. Open 3R DOUBLES: Testud/Vinci def. (2) Ruano Pascual/Suarez 6Ð3 7Ð6(7Ð1) On the day when Monica Seles suffers her worst U. S. Open loss in a decade, the bottom half of the doubles draw loses its top seeds and the seeds thought most likely to succeed. The Williams Sisters now have two losses and only one doubles title in 2001. September 3, 2001 — U. S. Open 4R: Kim Clijsters (5) def. Elena Dementieva (11) 7–5 4–6 6–2 U. S. Open 4R: Amélie Mauresmo (8) def. Nathalie Tauziat (9) 6–0 6–7(1–7) 6–3 Tauziat plays her last Slam singles match as Clijsters drops Dementieva to #15. September 4, 2001 — U. S. Open QF: Martina Hingis (1) def. Daja Bedanova 6–2 6–0 U. S. Open QF: Serena Williams (10) def. Lindsay Davenport (3) 6Ð3 6Ð7(7Ð9) 7Ð5 U. S. Open QF DOUBLES: Raymond/Stubbs (1) def. Hingis/Capriati 7Ð6(11Ð9) 6Ð4 Hingis actually looks solid as Davenport stumbles after a long contest. Meanwhile, Capriati does what she always does in doubles: Lose.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 192 September 5, 2001 — U. S. Open QF: Venus Williams (4) def. Kim Clijsters (5) 6–3 6–1 People called this one of the ugliest matches played in recent years, but it guaranteed that Venus, and not Clijsters, would be #4. September 6, 2001 — U. S. Open SF DOUBLES: Po-Messerli/Tauziat (4) def. Testud/Vinci 4-6 7-5 6-0 In her last-ever Slam, Tauziat makes her first Slam doubles final. September 7, 2001 — U. S. Open SF: Serena Williams (10) def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–3 6–2 U. S. Open SF: Venus Williams (4) def. Jennifer Capriati (2) 6Ð4 6Ð2 For Martina Hingis, this means at least a few more weeks at #1. For the people who want an all- Williams final, it means they should be careful what they wish for. September 8, 2001 — U. S. Open F: Venus Williams (4) def. Serena Williams (10) 6–2 6–4 Didn’t I tell you to be careful what you wished for? Ugh. September 9, 2001 — U. S. Open F DOUBLES: Raymond/Stubbs (1) def. Po-Messerli/Tauziat (4) 6Ð2 5Ð7 6Ð2 In another weak draw, Raymond and Stubbs win their second Slam of the year as Nathalie Tauziat bids a long farewell to Slam play. September 10, 2001 — Bahia 1R: Joanette Kruger def. Patty Schnyder (7) 7–6(7–4) 6–4 So what else is new about Schnyder and losses? September 11, 2001 — Bahia 2R: Silvia Farina Elia (4) def. Nathalie Déchy 6–4 1–6 6–1 Déchy’s comeback stalls as Farina looks to hit a career-high #14. September 12, 2001 — Bahia 2R: Jelena Dokic (2) def. Iva Majoli (WC) 6–1 6–2 In a match interrupted by bees, Majoli continues to be more down than up in an up-and-down year. September 13, 2001 — Big Island 2R: Marissa Irvin def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (3) 6–3 6–2 Sanchez-Vicario’s year of horrors continues as she loses to the world #93. September 14, 2001 — Bahia SF: Monica Seles (1) def. Henrieta Nagyova (5) 7–5 5–7 6–3 Nagyova comes so close to a spot in the Top Twenty.... September 15, 2001 — Bahia F: Monica Seles (1) def. Jelena Dokic (2) 6–3 6–3 Seles picks up her second title of 2001 as Dokic continues to seek hardcourt answers. September 16, 2001 — Big Island F: Sandrine Testud (2) def. Justine Hénin (1) 6–3 2–0, retired Years of playing a heavy schedule may have helped Testud survive a strong opponent September 18, 2001 — Princess Cup 1R: Ai Sugiyama def. Cristina Torrens Valero (8) 6–1 6–2 When a Japanese hardcourt player meets a low-seeded clay player on a Japanese hardcourt, the result is predictable. September 19, 2001 — Princess Cup 1R: Liezel Huber (Q) def. Iroda Tulyaganova (6) 6–4 6–1 Pretty soon, Tulyaganova will swear off hardcourts. September 20, 2001 — Quebec City 2R: Martina Sucha def. Silvia Farina Elia (2) 3–6 6–4 7–6(10–8) Farina Elia blows yet another opportunity to move above #15. September 21, 2001 — Princess Cup QF: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (5) def. Sandrine Testud (4) 6Ð3 1Ð6 7Ð6(7Ð5) Sanchez-Vicario finally posts a decent non-clay result. September 22, 2001 — Princess Cup SF: Jelena Dokic (3) def. Kim Clijsters (1) 7–5 6–4 Dokic reaches her second straight hardcourt final. She’s definitely learning. September 23, 2001 — Princess Cup F: Jelena Dokic (3) def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (5) 6–4 6–2 Dokic wins her second career title, and first on hardcourts. It’s a dramatic turnaround. September 24, 2001 — Bali 1R: Tina Pisnik def. Marlene Weingärtner (3) 7–6(7–5) 3–6 6–4 Weingärtner and hardcourts just don’t seem to mix. September 25, 2001 — Leipzig 1R: Anke Huber def. Barbara Schett (8) 7–6(7–5) 6–4 Back in Germany, Huber seems to be making her push for Munich. September 26, 2001 — Leipzig 2R: Nathalie Tauziat (2) def. Angeles Montolio 6–7(2–7) 6-3 6-4 A near miss against the #2 seed still moves Montolio to a career-high ranking.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 193 September 27, 2001 — Leipzig 2R — Daniela Hantuchova (Q) def. Jelena Dokic (3) 4–6 7–6(8–6) 6–0 Leipzig 2R: Anastasia Myskina (LL) def. Anna Kournikova (9) 6Ð4 3Ð6 6Ð3 Dokic had played ten straight weeks to hit try to hit the Top Ten, and — perhaps because she tried so hard — failed. Kournikova took all those weeks off with injury, but that didn’t help, either. September 28, 2001 — Bali QF: Angelique Widjaja (WC) def. Tamarine Tanasugarn (2) 2–6 7–5 6–2 The Wimbledon junior champion scores her first big Tour win. September 29, 2001 — Bali SF: Joanette Kruger (8) def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (1) 6–2 4–6 6–3 Sanchez-Vicario continues to struggle. And struggle. And struggle.... September 30, 2001 — Leipzig F: Kim Clijsters (1) def. Magdalena Maleeva (6) 6–1 6–1 Bali F: Angelique Widjaja (WC) def. Joanette Kruger (8) 7Ð6(7Ð2) 7Ð6(7Ð4) On the day that Clijsters posts her first-ever title defense, Widjaja posts her first WTA title in her first WTA event. October 1, 2001 — Moscow 1R DOUBLES: Hingis/Kournikova (2) def. Koukalova/Vaskova 6–0 6–3 Can Hingis pull Kournikova out of her slump, or vice versa? October 2, 2001 — Moscow 1R: Galina Fokina def. Anna Kournikova 6–2 1–6 6–2 Kournikova is obviously back in her usual post-injury form. October 3, 2001 — Moscow 2R: Francesca Schiavone def. Nathalie Tauziat (4) 6–4 5–7 7–5 Tauziat’s loss will drop her out of the Top Ten unless Jelena Dokic loses to a wildcard ranked #258. (She didn’t; Dokic would break into the Top Ten the next week) October 4, 2001 — Moscow 2R: Barbara Schett def. Justine Hénin (3) 5–7 7–6(8–6) 6–2 Daja Bedanova def. Amélie Mauresmo (2) 6–2 6–7(6–8) 6–4 One-handed are great indoors — if you use them to get to net. Hénin and Mauresmo don’t. October 5, 2001 — Moscow QF: Elena Dementieva (8) def. Martina Hingis (1) 6–2 6–2 Hingis’s last real chance to hang onto #1, and to win the title, isn’t even a close contest. October 6, 2001 — Moscow SF: Elena Dementieva (8) def. Anastasia Myskina 6–7(7–9) 6–1 7–5 Dementieva is in a final, and she still hasn’t moved above #13! October 7, 2001 — Moscow F: Jelena Dokic (5) def. Elena Dementieva (8) 6–3 6–3 Moscow F DOUBLES: Hingis/Kournikova (2) def. Dementieva/Krasnoroutskaya 7Ð6(7Ð1) 6Ð3 Dementieva continues to be the top Russian without a title, while Hingis finally wins a doubles title in 2001. October 8, 2001 — Filderstadt 1R: Magdalena Maleeva def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 7–5 7–5 Strike another blow to the Spaniard’s outside shot at making Munich without help from injuries. October 9, 2001 — Filderstadt 1R: Chanda Rubin def. Barbara Schett 6–2 7–5 A really-want-to-win match for both players; Rubin is trying to recover from a lost year, and Schett was defending Zurich semifinalist points. October 10, 2001 — Filderstadt 1R DOUBLES: Hingis/Kournikova (3) def. Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario 6Ð3 6Ð4 Young Martina beats Old Martina — but what if they played the same side of the net? October 11, 2001 — Filderstadt 2R: Anke Huber def. Kim Clijsters (4) 6–3 4–6 6–3 Has Clijsters played herself to exhaustion, or does Huber really want to make Munich? October 12, 2001 — Filderstadt QF: Sandrine Testud def. Jennifer Capriati (2) 2–6 6–3 6–3 Martina Hingis gets one last chance to hold the #1 ranking — but she’ll need to beat Lindsay Davenport. October 13, 2001 — Filderstadt SF: Lindsay Davenport (3) def. Martina Hingis (1) 2–2, retired Hingis fell flat on her back to injure her ankle, but her ranking falls on her face. Jennifer Capriati, despite losing in the quarterfinal and not having a title since Roland Garros, is the new #1. October 14, 2001 — Filderstadt F: Lindsay Davenport (3) def. Justine Hénin (6) 7–5 6–4 Davenport earns her fifth title of the year and looks very strong indoors....

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 194 October 15, 2001 — Zurich 1R: Nadia Petrova def. Patty Schnyder 6–2 6–0 Even playing in her home country against a wildcard, Schnyder can’t win. October 16, 2001 — Zurich 1R: Iva Majoli (Q) def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 7–6(7–5) 6–2 Sanchez-Vicario may make it to Munich, but it will be despite her best efforts. October 17, 2001 — Zurich 2R: Nathalie Tauziat (5) def. Iroda Tulyaganova (23) 6–2 6–4 Tauziat clinches one more year-end championship. October 18, 2001 — Zurich 2R: Daniela Hantuchova def. Barbara Schett 6–1 7–6(7–5) Hantuchova reaches a career high of about #40 and also kills Schett’s chances of reaching Munich. October 19, 2001 — Zurich QF: Nathalie Tauziat (5) def. Sandrine Testud (9) 7–6(7–4) 7–6(7–4) Tauziat may not be able to end the year in the Top Ten — but she’s trying. October 20, 2001 — Zurich SF: Lindsay Davenport (3) def. Jennifer Capriati (2) 6–1 5–7 6–2 #1 in the WTA rankings Capriati may be. #1 on indoor surfaces? Hah. October 21, 2001 — Zurich F: Lindsay Davenport (3) def. Jelena Dokic (4) 6–3 6–1 Davenport’s second straight title gives her a shot at the year-end #1. October 22, 2001 — Luxembourg 1R: Amanda Coetzer def. Barbara Rittner 6–2 6–2 On her thirtieth birthday, Coetzer starts her last attempt to get into Munich. October 23, 2001 — Linz 1R: Ai Sugiyama def. Barbara Schett 3–6 7–6(7–1) 6–3 Luxembourg 1R: Anna Kournikova (5) def. Jana Kandarr 6Ð4 7Ð5 Schett loses before her hometown crowd, and loses her last Munich chance, while Kournikova finally wins one. October 24, 2001 — Linz 2R: Chanda Rubin def. Nathalie Tauziat (5) 3–6 7–5 6–3 Chanda Rubin makes a last attempt to put together her year as Tauziat suffers her next-to-last loss. October 25, 2001 — Linz 2R: Alexandra Stevenson (Q) def. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (8) 6–3 3–6 6–0 Linz 2R: Iroda Tulyaganova def. Justine Hénin (2) 6–7(1–7) 6–0 6–3 Luxembourg 2R: Anke Huber (4) def. Cara Black 6Ð1 6Ð1 Luxembourg 2R: Anna Kournikova (5) def. Daniela Hantuchova 6Ð1 7Ð6(7Ð4) On a day when three seeds lost at Linz, and the #2 lost at Luxembourg (and Linz), Anke Huber qualifies for her last year-end championship while Kournikova finally wins a big one over a solid player. October 26, 2001 — Linz QF: Iroda Tulyaganova def. Tatiana Panova (Q) 6–2 6–4 Tulyaganova breaks into the Top Twenty for the first time. October 27, 2001 — Luxembourg SF: Lisa Raymond (31) def. Tina Pisnik (Q) 6–2 6–0 It wasn’t much of a contest, and shouldn’t have been — but it puts Raymond back in the Top 25. October 28, 2001 — Linz F: Lindsay Davenport (1) def. Jelena Dokic (4) 6–4 6–1 Davenport has won all four of her indoor titles this year, and looks ready to go for #1. October 30, 2001 — Munich 1R: Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario def. Nathalie Tauziat (8) 6–3 6–4 Tauziat’s last singles match is a rather sorry, error-filled affair. It’s been a great seventeen years even so. We’ll miss the WTA’s last -and-volleyer. October 31, 2001 — Munich 1R: Justine Hénin (6) def. Anke Huber 6–1 6–2 Another player goes quietly into retirement. November 1, 2001 — Munich QF: Lindsay Davenport (2) def. Jelena Dokic (6) 5–4 6–2 Davenport has beaten Dokic three times in three weeks as she makes a last try for #1. November 2, 2001 — Munich QF: Sandrine Testud def. Jennifer Capriati (1) 6–2 4–6 6–3 Testud beats a sick Capriati to give Davenport a real chance to regain the #1 spot. November 3, 2001 — Munich SF: Lindsay Davenport (1) def. Kim Clijsters (3) 1–6 6–3 7–6(7–3) Davenport just barely wins, but it’s enough to earn her the year-end #1 ranking. November 4, 2001 — Munich F: Serena Williams (7) def. Lindsay Davenport (2) walkover Munich Doubles F: Raymond/Stubbs (1) def. Black/Likhovtseva (3) 7Ð5 3Ð6 6Ð3 On the day Lindsay Davenport washed out her year, the dominant doubles team of Raymond/Stubbs knocks off their #1 competition. Raymond ends the year on a 17-match doubles winning streak.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 195 Novenber 5, 2001 — Pattaya 1R: Tatiana Poutchek def. Tamarine Tanasugarn (3) 3–6 6–3 6–2 Tanasugarn just can’t seem to win at home. November 6, 2001 — Pattaya 1R: Julia Vakulenko def. Iroda Tulyaganova (1) 6–4 7–6(7–2) Tulyaganova once again fails to adjust to a new surface. November 7, 2001 — Fed Cup Round Robin: Conchita Martinez (ESP) def. Alicia Molik (AUS) 2-6 6-0 7-5 It wasn’t a great match, but Martinez is back on the court November 8, 2001 — Pattaya 2R: Liezel Huber (Q) def. Ai Sugiyama (6) 7–5 6–0 Sugiyama squanders a 5-0 first set lead and a chance to end the year in the Top Thirty. November 9, 2001 — Pattaya QF: Patty Schnyder (7) def. Anne Kremer (4) 6–3 6–4 Schnyder beats the defending champion in only her fifth win over a Top 35 player this year. November 10, 2001 — Pattaya SF: Patty Schnyder (7) def. Rossana Neffa-de los Rios 7–5 0–6 6–3 Can Schnyder finally win another tournament? November 11, 2001 — Pattaya F: Patty Schnyder (7) def. Henrieta Nagyova (2) 6–0 6–4 Schnyder wins her first title in nearly three years.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 196 WTA Tour History Who Won What Summary — Singles The following list shows all active Tier II or higher titles and lists which of the top players have won them. The figures in the boxes show how many times the player has won each event and the year of her earliest win (e.g. by the Australian Open, in the column for Hingis, we see 3/97 — Hingis has won the Australian Open three times, starting in 1997). Looking at this list can give a measure both of a player’s success (Davenport, e.g., has a lot of titles) and her weaknesses (but Davenport has big holes in the clay season) Tournament Capria Clijste Daven Dokic Hingis Huber Marti Maure Pierce Sanch Seles Tauzia SWill VWill Sydney 1/93 1/99 2/97 1/00 1/98 1/96 Australian Open 1/01 1/00 3/97 1/95 4/91 Pan Pacific 2/98 3/97 Paris 1/97 1/01 1/98 1/00 1/99 Nice 1/01 Dubai 1/01 Scottsdale 1/01 Indian Wells 2/97 1/98 1/92 2/99 Ericsson/Lipton 2/97 2/92 2/90 3/98 Amelia Island 1/97 1/95 1/01 1/98 2/93 2/99 Charleston 1/01 2/97 2/94 1/00 1/96 Hamburg 2/98 1/95 3/93 2/99 Berlin 1/99 2/98 1/01 1/95 1/90 Rome 1/01 1/98 4/93 1/97 2/90 1/99 Roland Garros 1/01 1/00 3/89 3/90 Eastbourne 1/01 1/96 1/95 Wimbledon 1/99 1/97 1/94 2/00 Stanford 1/01 2/98 2/96 1/94 2/90 1/00 San Diego 2/91 1/98 2/97 1/95 2/00 Los Angeles 3/96 1/95 3/90 2/99 Canadian Open 1/91 2/99 2/92 4/95 1/01 New Haven 1/97 3/99 U.S. Open 1/98 1/97 1/94 2/91 1/99 2/00 Bahia 1/01 Princess Cup 1/99 1/01 1/95 1/94 5/91 1/00 Leipzig 2/00 2/95 1/99 Moscow 1/01 1/00 1/98 1/99 Filderstadt 1/01 4/96 2/91 1/93 Zurich 3/97 1/00 1/99 Linz 2/00 1/99 Championships 1/99 2/98 3/90 1/01 Total of these 31 5218320285101116479 events won Total times won 732633531351018374917 any event Wins at important expired tournaments: Davenport — Philadelpha (2/99), (1/97); Hingis — Philadelphia (1/97); Huber — Philadelphia (1/94); Martinez — Stratton Mountain (2/93), (1/93), Philadelphia (1/93), (1/91), Tampa (1/ 89); Sanchez-Vicario — Washington (1/91), Barcelona (2/93), Newport (1/90); Seles — Houston (3/89), San Antonio (1/90), Tampa (1/90), (1/91), Philadelphia (1/91), (1/92), Barcelona (1/92), Chicago (1/93); S. Williams — Hannover (1/ 00)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 197 Who Won What Summary — Doubles The equivalent of the preceding, but for doubles. The list includes the Top Five (Raymond, Stubbs, Black, Likhovtseva, Tauziat), all Top Ten players with 12 or more career titles (Suarez, Sugiyama, Arendt), the remaining Top Thirty players with the best doubles records (Sanchez-Vicario, Hingis, Davenport, Kournikova), plus Zvereva as the active (?) doubles player with the best results and the Williams Sisters since they have the career Slam. Expired events are omitted. Tournament Arend Black Daven Hingis Kourn Likho Raym Sanch Stubb Suare Sugiy Tauzia Willia Zvere Sydney 2/95 1/98 1/01 1/99 3/91 2/99 1/01 Australian Open 3/97 1/99 1/00 3/92 1/00 3/93 Pan Pacific 2/97 2/98 1/01 1/92 1/01 4/95 Paris 1/98 1/87 Nice Dubai Scottsdale 1/01 1/01 Indian Wells 1/01 5/94 1/99 1/99 2/94 1/93 1/01 2/97 Ericsson/Lipton 2/98 5/92 1/00 1/01 2/94 Amelia Island 1/97 5/90 2/89 Charleston 1/95 1/97 1/99 1/01 4/90 1/01 1/00 3/91 Hamburg 1/01 1/95 1/00 1/01 3/94 2/92 1/89 1/00 Berlin 2/97 1/00 2/88 4/91 Rome 1/97 1/01 1/99 1/99 1/01 1/00 2/93 1/00 1/98 2/94 Roland Garros 1/96 2/98 1/01 1/99 6/89 Eastbourne 1/99 1/99 1/01 2/95 1/01 1/00 1/00 4/90 Wimbledon 1/99 2/96 1/01 1/95 1/01 1/00 5/91 Stanford 5/94 1/97 1/94 2/92 San Diego 1/01 2/98 1/97 1/01 1/00 2/94 1/00 2/95 Los Angeles 1/96 1/98 2/92 2/94 4/91 Canadian Open 2/98 2/94 1/92 1/00 1/91 New Haven 1/97 1/01 1/01 1/99 1/99 1/00 1/98 U.S. Open 1/97 1/98 1/01 2/93 1/01 1/00 1/99 4/91 Bahia Princess Cup 1/01 1/95 1/98 1/93 1/94 2/97 Leipzig 1/97 2/98 1/00 1/98 2/96 1/93 Moscow 2/00 1/01 1/99 1/97 1/99 1/00 3/89 Filderstadt 1/96 2/98 2/97 1/00 1/01 2/92 4/93 Zurich 1/95 1/01 3/96 1/00 2/99 1/97 1/99 1/98 1/92 Linz 3/95 Championships 3/96 2/990 2/99 1/01 2/92 1/01 3/93 Total of these 31 651522 11 7 1622163 910522 events won Total times won 653034 12 8 1847173 11155 63 any event Career doubles 158313514142761311819257 79 titles

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 198 Who Won What — History of Tournaments The following tables list players who won the equivalent of Tier II and higher events. Some tournaments (e.g. Linz before 1998) were not Tier II events for this entire period; these winners are shown in italics Who Won What Part 1: 1995Ð2001 Tournament 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 Sydney Hingis Mauresmo Davenport Sanchez-V Hingis Seles Sabatini Australian Open Capriati Davenport Hingis Hingis Hingis Seles Pierce Pan Pacific Davenport Hingis Hingis Davenport Hingis Majoli Date Paris Mauresmo Tauziat S. Williams Pierce Hingis Halard-D Graf Nice Mauresmo Hannover (Essen) S. Williams Novotna Schnyder Majoli Majoli Dubai Hingis Scottsdale Davenport rained out Indian Wells S. Williams Davenport S. Williams Hingis Davenport Graf M. Fernandez Delray Beach Graf Ericsson/Lipton V. Williams Hingis V. Williams V. Williams Hingis Graf Graf Amelia Island Mauresmo Seles Seles Pierce Davenport Spirlea Martinez Charleston1 Capriati Pierce Hingis Coetzer Hingis Sanchez-V Martinez Houston Graf Barcelona Sanchez-V Hamburg V. Williams Hingis V. Williams Hingis Majoli Sanchez-V Martinez Berlin Mauresmo Martinez Hingis Martinez M. Fernandez Graf Sanchez-V Rome Dokic Seles V. Williams Hingis Pierce Martinez Martinez Roland Garros Capriati Pierce Graf Sanchez-V Majoli Graf Graf Eastbourne Davenport Halard-D Zvereva Novotna rained out Seles Tauziat Wimbledon V. Williams V. Williams Davenport Novotna Hingis Graf Graf Stanford Clijsters V. Williams Davenport Davenport Hingis Hingis Maleeva San Diego V. Williams V. Williams Hingis Davenport Hingis Date Martinez Los Angeles Davenport S. Williams S. Williams Davenport Seles Davenport Martinez Canadian Open S. Williams Hingis Hingis Seles Seles Seles Seles New Haven2 V. Williams V. Williams V. Williams Graf Davenport U.S. Open V. Williams V. Williams S. Williams Davenport Hingis Graf Graf Bahia Seles Princess Cup Dokic S. Williams Davenport Seles Seles Seles Pierce Surabaya3 Wang Leipzig Clijsters Clijsters Tauziat Graf Novotna Huber Huber Moscow Dokic Hingis Tauziat Pierce Novotna Martinez Maleeva Filderstadt Davenport Hingis Hingis Testud Hingis Hingis Majoli Zurich Davenport Hingis V. Williams Davenport Davenport Novotna Majoli Linz Davenport Davenport Pierce Novotna Rubin Appelmans Novotna Brighton M. Fernandez Chicago Davenport Novotna Maleeva Philadelphia Davenport Davenport Graf Hingis Novotna Graf Championships S. Williams Hingis Davenport Hingis Novotna Graf Graf 1. Hilton Head until 2001 2. Tournament held in in 1997 3. The WTA lists Surabaya as a Tier II in 1996. The field does not back this up

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 199 Who Won What Part 2: 1989Ð1995 Note: Tournaments which were promoted to Tier II or higher status after 1995 are not shown. Order of events is (approximately) as in 1995. Tournament Winner In 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 Sydney Sabatini Date Capriati Sabatini Novotna Zvereva Navratilova Australian Open Pierce Graf Seles Seles Seles Graf Graf Pan Pacific Date Graf Navratilova Sabatini Sabatini Graf Navratilova Chicago Maleeva Zvereva Seles Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Garrison-J Paris1 Graf Navratilova Navratilova Indian Wells2 M. Fernandez Graf M. Fernandez Seles Navratilova Navratilova Maleeva-Frag Delray Beach3 Graf Graf Graf Graf Sabatini Sabatini Graf Lipton Graf Graf Sanchez-V Sanchez-V Seles Seles Sabatini San Antonio Navratilova Graf Seles Graf Houston Graf Hack Martinez Seles Seles KMaleeva Seles Hilton Head Martinez Martinez Graf Sabatini Sabatini Navratilova Graf Amelia Island Martinez Sanchez-V Sanchez-V Sabatini Sabatini Graf Sabatini Tampa Seles Martinez Barcelona Sanchez-V Sanchez-V Sanchez-V Seles Martinez Sanchez-V Sanchez-V Hamburg Martinez Sanchez-V Sanchez-V Graf Graf Graf Graf Rome Martinez Martinez Martinez Sabatini Sabatini Seles Sabatini Berlin Sanchez-V Graf Graf Graf Graf Seles Graf Roland Garros Graf Sanchez-V Graf Seles Seles Seles Sanchez-V Eastbourne Tauziat McGrath Navratilova McNeil Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Wimbledon Graf Martinez Graf Graf Graf Navratilova Graf Stratton Mtn Martinez Martinez Newport Sanchez-V Garrison San Diego Martinez Graf Graf Capriati Capriati Graf Graf Los Angeles Martinez Frazier Navratilova Navratilova Seles Seles Navratilova Mahwah Graf Canadian Open Seles Sanchez-V Graf Sanchez-V Capriati Graf Navratilova Washington, DC Sanchez-V Navratilova Graf U.S. Open Graf Sanchez-V Graf Seles Seles Sabatini Graf Dallas Navratilova Princess/Nicherei Pierce Sanchez-V Coetzer Seles Seles MFernandez Leipzig Huber Novotna Graf Graf Graf Graf Milan Seles Zurich Majoli Maleeva ManMaleeva Graf Graf Graf Graf Filderstadt Majoli Huber Pierce Navratilova Huber MFernandez Sabatini Brighton M. Fernandez Novotna Novotna Graf Graf Graf Graf Essen Novotna Medvedeva Seles Oakland Maleeva Sanchez-V Navratilova Seles Navratilova Seles Garrison New England Graf Navratilova Philadelphia Graf Huber Martinez Graf Seles Championships Graf Sabatini Graf Seles Seles Seles Graf 1. There was a tournament in Paris prior to 1993, but it was smaller and at a different time; winners are not recorded here 2. Indian Wells: Palm Springs until 1991 3. Delray Beach: Boca Raton until 1992

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 200 Who Won What Part 3: 1986Ð1989 Order of events is (approximately) as in 1989. A major change in Tier schedule occurred between 1987 and 1988, with very many $150,000 events upgrading in the interim. In 1987, $150,000 was the equivalent of Tier II; in 1988, it was not. I have listed as Tier II events only those $150,000 events which upgraded in 1988 — but marked them in italics for 1987 (not previously). This list is cut off as of 1986/1987 because the Tour shifted to a Calendar Year system in 1986. Note that this resulted in many events not being played in 1986. Tournament 1989 1988 1987 1986 Brisbane Sukova Shriver Mandlikova Sydney Navratilova Shriver Garrison Australian Open Graf Graf Mandlikova Pan Pacific Navratilova Shriver Sabatini Graf Washington, DC Graf Navratilova Mandlikova Oakland1 Garrison Navratilova Garrison San Antonio Graf Graf Palm Springs Maleeva-Fragniere Boca Raton Graf Sabatini Graf Lipton Sabatini Graf Graf Hilton Head Graf Navratilova Graf Graf Amelia Island Sabatini Navratilova Graf Graf Graf Tampa Martinez Evert Evert Marco Island Evert Houston Seles Evert Evert Evert Hamburg Graf Graf Graf Rome Sabatini Sabatini Graf Berlin Graf Graf Graf Graf Roland Garros Sanchez-Vicario Graf Graf Evert Eastbourne Navratilova Navratilova Sukova Navratilova Wimbledon Graf Graf Navratilova Navratilova Newport Garrison McNeil Shriver Shriver San Diego Graf Rehe Reggi Cincinnati Potter Los Angeles Navratilova Evert Graf Navratilova Mahwah Graf Graf Man. Maleeva Graf Canadian Open Navratilova Sabatini Shriver Sukova U.S. Open Graf Graf Navratilova Navratilova Dallas Navratilova Navratilova Evert New Orleans Evert Evert Navratilova Filderstadt Sabatini Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Zurich Graf Shriver Graf Brighton Graf Graf Sabatini Graf New England Navratilova Navratilova Shriver Navratilova Chicago Garrison-Jackson Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Championships Graf Sabatini Graf Navratilova 1. Sometimes designated San Francisco, e.g. in 1987

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 201 Who Won What Part 4: 1983Ð1986 Order of events is (approximately) as in 1985. See footnotes (on the following page), as the tour order was complex at this time; many events moved and the schedule was repeatedly adjusted.. Tournament 19861 1985(-1986)2 1984(-1985)3 1983(Ð1984) Palm Beach Gard4 Horvath Evert Mandlikova Hilton Head Graf Evert Evert Navratilova Amelia Island Graf Garrison Navratilova Evert Orlando5 Evert Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Houston Evert Navratilova Mandlikova Atlanta Shriver Italian Open6 Reggi ManMaleeva Temesvari Johannesburg Evert Sydney Indoors Shriver Berlin Graf Evert Kohde-Kilsch Evert French Open Evert Evert Navratilova Evert Eastbourne Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Wimbledon Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Newport Shriver Evert Navratilova Moulton Indianapolis7 Graf Temesvari ManMaleeva Temesvari Los Angeles Navratilova Kohde-Kilsch Evert Navratilova Canadian Open Sukova Evert Evert Navratilova Mahwah Graf Rinaldi Navratilova Durie U.S. Open Navratilova Mandlikova Navratilova Navratilova Queens Grand Prix8 Bonder Richmond Fairbank Hartford Schaefer Detroit Ruzici Chicago Navratilova Gadusek Shriver New Orleans Navratilova Evert Navratilova Fort Lauderdale9 Navratilova Navratilova Evert Filderstadt10 Navratilova Shriver Lindqvist Navratilova Brighton Graf Evert Hanika Evert Zurich Garrison Garrison Tampa Rehe Torres Navratilova Lions Cup11 Evert ManMaleeva Navratilova Brisbane Navratilova Sukova Shriver Sydney Navratilova Navratilova Durie Australian Open Navratilova Evert Navratilova Pan Pacific Graf ManMaleeva Washington, DC Navratilova Navratilova Mandlikova New England Navratilova Navratilova Key Biscayne12 Evert Evert Lipton Evert Navratilova Oakland Evert Mandlikova Mandlikova Princeton13 Navratilova Mandlikova Navratilova Dallas Navratilova Mandlik/Navrat14 Championships Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 202 1. Partial year; see note on 1985Ð1986. 2. Until 1986, the Tour used a “tournament year” stretching from roughly March to March. In 1986, it switched to a cal- endar year form, explaining why many events are omitted (but not shown as unplayed) in 1986 3. The 1984/1985 season was 13 months long, including March 1985 and March 1986. One tournament — Dallas — was therefore played twice in that year, and not at all in the 1983/1984 season. 4. Reduced to a $50,000 tournament in 1985, coupled with a “4-woman special” won by Evert 5. Marco Island in 1986, with reduced prize money and an earlier date 6. The Italian Open was “in exile” 1980-1985, held in Taranto (with a $50,000 prize) in 1985, and in Perugia in 1984 and before (with a more normal $150,000 prize). It was not held in 1986 (not unusual given the realignment) 7. In some years (e.g. 1985), there were two Indianapolis events, perhaps on different surfaces. This is the larger 8. Held in Tokyo. Singles only; no doubles. Featured a third and fourth place playoff as well as winner and runner-up 9. Bonaventure in 1984; Deer Creek in 1983, with reduced prize money 10. until 1985 11. Held in Tokyo. Singles only; no doubles. Featured a third and fourth place playoff as well as winner and runner-up 12. Key Biscayne: Later Boca Raton 13. Held in Livingston in the 1983/1984 season 14. Dallas 1984/1985: Won by Mandlikova in March 1984 and by Navratilova in March 1985

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 203 Active Leaders in Titles (Singles/Doubles) Minimum ten titles required to be listed. Singles Doubles Player Titles Player Titles Seles* ...... 51 Zvereva* ...... 79 Hingis* ...... 38 Sanchez-Vicario* ...... 61 Davenport* ...... 36† Hingis* ...... 35 Martinez*...... 32 Davenport* ...... 31 Sanchez-Vicario*...... 29 Stubbs*...... 31 V. Williams* ...... 19† Raymond* ...... 27 Pierce*...... 15 Tauziat¤ ...... 25 Huber¤...... 12 Sugiyama* ...... 19 Capriati* ...... 11† Suarez*...... 18 S. Williams* ...... 10† Arendt...... 15 Tarabini...... 15 Kournikova* ...... 14 Likhovtseva ...... 14 Fusai ...... 12 Morariu*...... 11 Ruano Pascual* ...... 10 Rubin* ...... 10 * Titles include at least one Slam † Excludes Olympics, ¤ Retiring after 2001 season

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 204 Detailed Analysis — Career Tournaments for Davenport, Hingis, Seles, V. Williams It’s one thing to win tournaments. It’s another to win a “spectrum” of tournaments — on all surfaces, in all countries. The following list shows all the major events currently played on the tour, and lists the years in which the top players won each. Tournament Tier Won by Davenport Won by Hingis Won by Seles Won by V. Williams Sydney II 1999 1997, 2001 1996 Australian Opn Slam 2000 1997, 1998, 1999 1991Ð93, 1996 Pan Pacific I 1998, 2001 1997, 1999, 2000 Paris II 1997 Nice Dubai II 2001 Scottsdale II 2001 Indian Wells I 1997, 2000 1998 1992 Ericsson/Lipton I 1997, 2000 1990, 1991 1998, 1999, 2001 Amelia Island II 1997 1999, 2000 Hilton Head I 1997, 1999 Hamburg II 1998, 2000 1999, 2001 Berlin I 1999 1990 Rome I 1998 1990 1999 Roland Garros Slam 1990Ð92 Eastbourne II 2001 1996 Wimbledon Slam 1999 1997 2000, 2001 Stanford II 1998, 1999 1996, 1997 1990, 1992 2000 San Diego II 1998 1997, 1999 2000, 2001 Los Angeles II 1996, 1998, 2001 1990, 1991, 1997 Canadian Open I 1999, 2000 1995Ð1998 New Haven II 1997 1990 1999, 2000, 2001 U.S. Open Slam 1998 1997 1991, 1992 2000, 2001 Bahia II 2001 Princess Cup II 1999 1991Ð92, 1996Ð98 Filderstadt II 2001 1996Ð97, 1999, 2000 Zurich I 1997, 1998, 2001 2000 1999 Linz II 2000, 2001 Moscow I 2000 Leipzig II Philadelphia II 1999, 2000 1997 1991 Yr-end Champ Chmp 1999 1998, 2000 1990Ð92 Total distinct events 19 21 18 9 Events won 2+ times 711106 Notes: Events which are no longer played are not included in this list. In some cases, none of the above players ever won the event (e.g. none has won Hannover, which was last played in 2000). Davenport also won Chicago (II) in 1997; this was the last year that event was played. The Atlanta event was won by Davenport in 1997; it moved to New Haven in 1998. Davenport has also won several Tier III events: 1993, Brisbane 1994, Lucerne 1994, Strasbourg 1995, Oklahoma City 1997, Madrid 1999. Hingis has two Tier III titles (’s-Hertogenbosch 2000; Doha 2001). Venus Williams won Oklahoma City in 1998, 1999. Monica Seles won Chicago (discontinued) in 1993; Essen (discontinued), Houston (discontinued), and Barcelona (discontinued) in 1992; Houston (discontinued), Milan (discontinued), and Tampa (discontinued) in 1991; and Houston (discontinued) in 1989. Seles won the U. S. Hardcourts (later Atlanta, later New Haven) in 1990 when it was in San Antonio.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 205 Career Results for Leading Players The following tables summarize the performances of certain top players, both current and recently retired. The criterion used is that a player must have retired since 1996, and must have, or be projected to have, at least 20 career singles titles. The table then attempts (probably with some inaccuracy) to break out a player’s titles by year, surface, and tier. Tiers have been translated, to the extent possible, to the current Slam- Champ-I-II-III-IV-V system, even though the system has changed dramatically over the years (e.g. events now titled Tier II might have had prizes of $225,000 or $350,000 in the early Nineties; similarly, in the late Eighties the moneygap between Tier I and Tier II was only 3:2, compared to the 2:1 ratio of today. The list below does not represent the nomenclature at the time but what appears to me to be the best approximation to the nomenclature of today). Tournaments of Tier II or higher are shown in bold; lesser results in plain text. Note: Here as elsewhere, events which do not follow WTA admission rules (Olympics, Fed Cup, Hopman Cup, Grand Slam Cup) are not listed. Since some (not all) WTA lists include the Olympics, their totals for Capriati, Davenport, Graf, and Venus Williams may be one tournament higher. Jennifer Capriati Career Titles: Hardcourt: 6; Clay: 3; Grass: 0; Indoor: 2. Total: 11 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 0; Tier I: 1; Tier II: 4; Tier III: 4; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1990 Puerto Rico (III) 1991 San Diego (II), Canadian Open (II) 1992 San Diego (II) 1993 Sydney (II) 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Strasbourg (III) Quebec City (III) 2000 Luxembourg (III) (Slam) Charleston (I), Roland Garros (Slam) Kim Clijsters Career Titles: Hardcourt: 2; Clay: 0; Grass: 9; Indoor: 4. Total: 6 By Tier: Slams: 0; Championships: 0; Tier I: 0; Tier II: 3; Tier III: 2; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1999 Luxembourg (III) 2000 Hobart (V) Leipzig (II) 2001 Stanford (II) Leipzig (II), Luxembourg (III)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 206 Lindsay Davenport Career Titles: Hardcourt: 15; Clay: 6; Grass: 2; Indoor: 13. Total: 36 By Tier: Slams: 3; Championships: 1; Tier I: 7; Tier II: 18; Tier III: 7; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1993 Lucerne (III) 1994 Brisbane (III) Lucerne (III) 1995 Strasbourg (III) 1996 Los Angeles (II) Strasbourg (III) 1997 Indian Wells (I), Atlanta (II) Amelia Island (II) Oklahoma City (III), Zurich (I), Chicago (II) 1998 Stanford (II), San Diego (II), Pan Pacific (I), Zurich (I) Los Angeles (II), US Open (Slam) 1999 Sydney (II), Stanford (II), Madrid (III) Wimbledon (Slam) Philadelphia (II), Chase Princess Cup (II) (Champ) 2000 Australian Open (Slam), Indian Linz (II), Philadelphia (II) Wells (I) 2001 Scottsdale (II), Los Angeles (II) Eastbourne (II) Pan Pacific (I), Filderstadt (II), Zurich (I), Linz (II)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 207 Steffi Graf Career Titles: Hardcourt: 36; Clay: 32; Grass: 7; Indoor: 31. Total: 106 By Tier: Slams: 22; Championships: 5; Tier I: 29; Tier II: 48; Tier III: 1; Tier V: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1986 Mahwah (II) Hilton Head (I), Amelia Pan Pacific (V), Brighton (I), Island (I), Indianapolis (I), Zurich (II) Berlin (II) 1987 Boca Raton (I), Lipton (I), Los Hilton Head (I), Amelia Zurich (II), Virginia Slims Angeles (I) Island (I), Rome (II), Berlin (Champ) (II), Roland Garros (Slam), Hamburg (II) 1988 Australian Open (Slam), San Berlin (I), Roland Garros Wimbledon Brighton (II) Antonio (II), Lipton (I), Mahwah (Slam), Hamburg (II) (Slam) (II), US Open (Slam) 1989 Australian Open (Slam), San Hilton Head (I), Hamburg Wimbledon Washington (I), Zurich (II), Antonio (II), Boca Raton (I), San (II), Berlin (I) (Slam) Brighton (II), Virginia Slims Diego (II), Mahwah (II), U. S. (Champ) Open (Slam) 1990 Australian Open (Slam), Amelia Island (II), Pan Pacific (II), Leipzig (II), Canadian Open (I), San Diego Hamburg (II) Zurich (II), Brighton (II), (II) NewEngland (II) 1991 San Antonio (II) Hamburg (II), Berlin (I) Wimbledon Leipzig (II), Zurich (II), (Slam) Brighton (II) 1992 Boca Raton (I) Hamburg (II), Berlin (I) Wimbledon Leipzig (II), Zurich (II), (Slam) Brighton (II), Philadelphia (II) 1993 Delray Beach (II), San Diego (II), Hilton Head (I), Berlin (I), Wimbledon Leipzig (II), Virginia Slims Canadian Open (I), US Open Roland Garros (Slam) (Slam) (Champ) (Slam) 1994 Australian Open (Slam), Indian Berlin (I) Pan Pacific (I) Wells (II), Delray Beach (II), Lipton (I), San Diego (II) 1995 Delray Beach (II), Lipton (I), US Houston (II), Roland Wimbledon Paris (II), Philadelphia (I), Open (Slam) Garros (Slam) (Slam) New York (Champ) 1996 Indian Wells (II), Lipton (I), US Berlin (I), Roland Garros Wimbledon Chase (Champ) Open (Slam) (Slam) (Slam) 1997 Strasbourg (III) 1998 New Haven (II) Leipzig (II), Philadelphia (II) 1999 Roland Garros (Slam) Justine Hénin Career Titles: Hardcourt: 2; Clay: 1; Grass: 1; Indoor: 0. Total: 4 By Tier: Slams: 0; Championships: 0; Tier I: 0; Tier II: 0; Tier III: 3; Tier IV: 1; Tier V: 0 : Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1999 Antwerp (IV) 2000 2001 Gold Coast (III), Canberra (III) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 208 Martina Hingis Career Titles: Hardcourt: 16; Clay: 6; Grass: 2; Indoor: 14. Total: 38 By Tier: Slams: 5; Championships: 2; Tier I: 14; Tier II: 15; Tier III: 2; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1996 Filderstadt (II), Oakland (II) 1997 Sydney (II), Australian Open Hilton Head (I) Wimbledon (Slam) Pan Pacific (I), Paris (II), (Slam), Lipton (I), Stanford (II), Filderstadt (II), Philadelphia San Diego (II), US Open (Slam) (II) 1998 Australian Open (Slam), Indian Hamburg (II), Rome Chase (Champ) Wells (I) (I) 1999 Australian Open (Slam), San Hilton Head (I), Pan Pacific (I), Filderstadt Diego (II), Canadian Open (I) Berlin (I) (II) 2000 Ericsson (I), Canadian Open (I) Hamburg (II) ’s-Hertogenbosch (III) Pan Pacific (I), Filderstadt (II), Zurich (I), Moscow (I), Chase (Champ) 2001 Sydney (II), Doha (III), Dubai (II) Conchita Martinez Career Titles: Hardcourt: 8; Clay: 20; Grass: 1; Indoor: 3. Total: 32 By Tier: Slams: 1; Championships: 0; Tier I: 9; Tier II: 9; Tier III: 12; Tier IV: 0; Tier V: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1988 Sofia (III) 1989 Wellington (V), Phoenix (III) Tampa (II) 1990 Scottsdale (III) Paris (III) Indianapolis (III) 1991 Barcelona (II), Kitzbühel (III), Paris (III) 1992 Kitzbühel (III) 1993 Brisbane (III), Stratton Houston (II), Rome (I) Philadelphia (I) Mountain (II) 1994 Stratton Mountain (II) Hilton Head (I), Rome (I) Wimbledon (Slam) 1995 San Diego (II), Los Angeles Hilton Head (I), Amelia Island (II) (II), Hamburg (II), Rome (I) 1996 Rome (I) Moscow (III) 1997 1998 Berlin (I), (III) 1999 Sopot (III) 2000 Berlin (I) 2001 Amélie Mauresmo Career Titles: Hardcourt: 1; Clay: 2; Grass: 0; Indoor: 3. Total: 6 By Tier: Slams: 0; Championships: 0; Tier I: 1; Tier II: 4; Tier III: 0; Tier IV: 0;Tier V: 1 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1999 Bratislava (V) 2000 Sydney (II) 2001 Amelia Island (II), Berlin (I) Paris (II), Nice (II)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 209 Jana Novotna Career Titles: Hardcourt: 3; Clay: 4; Grass: 2; Indoor: 15. Total: 24 By Tier: Slams: 1; Championships: 1; Tier I: 2; Tier II: 11; Tier III: 9; Tier IV: 0;Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1988 Adelaide (III) 1989 Strasbourg (III) 1990 Albuquerque (III) 1991 Sydney (II) Oklahoma City (III) 1992 1993 (III), Brighton (II) 1994 Leipzig (II), Brighton (II), Essen (II) 1995 Linz (III) 1996 Madrid (III) Zurich (I), Chicago (II), Philadelphia (II) 1997 Madrid (III) Leipzig (II), Moscow (I), Chase (Champ) 1998 (III) Eastbourne (II), Linz (II) Wimbledon (Slam) 1999 Hannover (II) Mary Pierce Career Titles: Hardcourt: 2; Clay: 7; Grass: 0; Indoor: 6. Total: 15 By Tier: Slams: 2; Championships: 0; Tier I: 3; Tier II: 5; Tier III: 2; Tier IV: 0;Tier V: 3 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1991 Palermo (V) 1992 Cesena (V), Palermo (V) Puerto Rico (III) 1993 Filderstadt (II) 1994 1995 Australian Open (Slam), Tokyo/Nicherei (II) 1996 1997 Rome (I) 1998 Amelia Island (II) Paris (II), Moscow (I), Luxembourg (III) 1999 Linz (II) 2000 Hilton Head (I), Roland Garros (Slam) 2001

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 210 Career Titles: Hardcourt: 9; Clay: 11; Grass: 0; Indoor: 7. Total: 27 By Tier: Slams: 1; Championships: 2; Tier I: 11; Tier II: 10; Tier III: 0; Tier IV: 0;Tier V: 3 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1985 Japan Open (V) 1986 1987 Pan Pacific (I) (V) Brighton (II) 1988 Boca Raton (I), Canadian Open (I) Buenos Aires (V), Rome (II) Virginia Slims (Champ) 1989 Lipton (I) Amelia Island (II), Rome (I) Filderstadt (II) 1990 Boca Raton (II), US Open (Slam) 1991 Boca Raton (I) Hilton Head (I), Amelia Island (II), Pan Pacific (II) Rome (I) 1992 Sydney (II) Hilton Head (I), Amelia Island (I), Pan Pacific (II) Rome (I) 1993 1994 Virginia Slims (Champ) 1995 Sydney (II) Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario Career Titles: Hardcourt: 8; Clay: 19; Grass: 1; Indoor: 1. Total: 29 By Tier: Slams: 4; Championships: 0; Tier I: 6; Tier II: 13; Tier III: 3; Tier IV: 3;Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1988 (IV) 1989 Barcelona (IV), Roland Garros (Slam) 1990 Barcelona (III) Newport (II) 1991 Washington, DC (II) 1992 Lipton (I), Canadian Open (I) 1993 Lipton (I) Amelia Island (II), Barcelona (II), Hamburg (II) 1994 Canadian Open (I), US Open Amelia Island (II), Barcelona (II), Oakland (II) (Slam), Tokyo/Nicherei (II) Hamburg (II), Roland Garros (Slam) 1995 Barcelona (II), Berlin (I) 1996 Hilton Head (I), Hamburg (II) 1997 1998 Sydney (II) Roland Garros (Slam) 1999 Cairo (III) 2000 2001 Porto (IV), Madrid (III)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 211 Monica Seles Career Titles: Hardcourt: 26; Clay: 13; Grass: 1; Indoor: 11. Total: 51 By Tier: Slams: 9; Championships: 3; Tier I: 9; Tier II: 26; Tier III: 3; Tier IV: 1;Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1989 Houston (II) 1990 Lipton (I), San Antonio (II), Los Angeles Tampa (II), Rome (I), Berlin Oakland (II), Virginia (II) (I), Roland Garros (Slam) Slims (Champ) 1991 Australian Open (Slam), Lipton (I), Los Houston (II), Roland Garros Milan (II), Philadelphia Angeles (II), US Open (Slam), Tokyo/ (Slam) (II), Virginia Slims Nicherei (II) (Champ) 1992 Australian Open (Slam), Indian Wells Houston (II), Barcelona (II), Essen (II), Oakland (II), (II), US Open (Slam), Tokyo/Nicherei (II) Roland Garros (Slam) Virginia Slims (Champ) 1993 Australian Open (Slam) Chicago (II) 1994 1995 Canadian Open (I) 1996 Sydney (II), Australian Open (Slam), Eastbourne Canadian Open (I), Tokyo/Nicherei (II) (II) 1997 Los Angeles (II), Canadian Open (I), Princess Cup (II) 1998 Canadian Open (I), Princess Cup (II) 1999 Amelia Island (II) 2000 Amelia Island (II), Rome (I) Oklahoma City (III) 2001 Bahia (II), Japan Open (III), Shanghai (IV) Oklahoma City (III) Serena Williams Career Titles: Hardcourt: 7; Clay: 0; Grass: 0; Indoor: 3. Total: 10 By Tier: Slams: 1; Championships: 1; Tier I: 3; Tier II: 5; Tier III: 0; Tier IV: 0;Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1999 Indian Wells (I), Los Angeles (II), US Paris (II) Open (Slam) 2000 Los Angeles (II), Princess Cup (II) Hannover (II) 2001 Indian Wells (I), Canadian Open (I) Munich (Champ) Venus Williams Career Titles: Hardcourt: 11; Clay: 3; Grass: 2; Indoor: 3. Total: 19 By Tier: Slams: 4; Championships: 0; Tier I: 5; Tier II: 8; Tier III: 2; Tier IV: 0;Tier V: 0 Year Hardcourt Clay Grass Indoors 1998 Lipton (I) Oklahoma City (III) 1999 Lipton (I), New Haven (II) Hamburg (II), Rome (I) Oklahoma City (III), Zurich (I) 2000 Stanford (II), San Diego (II), New Wimbledon (Slam) Haven (II), US Open (Slam) 2001 Ericsson (I), San Diego (II), New Hamburg (II) Wimbledon (Slam) Haven (II), U. S. Open (Slam)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 212 Slam History Singles Slam Winners, Open Era The following list shows, year by year, who won which Slams, and also shows the Open Era Slam Count for each player. (Note that some players, e.g. Court and King, have earlier Slams; these do not appear in the totals. Also, the Australian Open is always counted as the first Slam of the year even when it was actually the last, i.e. 1978-1985.) Multiple Slam winners shown in Bold Australian Open Roland Garros Wimbledon U. S. Open 1968 Richey King (1) Wade (1) 1969 Court (1) Court (2) A. Jones Court (3) 1970 Court (4) Court (5) Court (6) Court (7) 1971 Court (8) Goolagong (1) Goolagong (2) King (2) 1972 Wade (2) King (3) King (4) King (5) 1973 Court (9) Court (10) King (6) Court (11) 1974 Goolagong (3) Evert (1) Evert (2) King (7) 1975 Goolagong (4) Evert (3) King (8) Evert (4) 1976 Goolagong Cawley (5) Barker Evert (5) Evert (6) 1977 Reid Jausovec Wade (3) Evert (7) Goolagong Cawley (6) 1978 O’Neil Ruzici Navratilova (1) Evert (8) 1979 B. Jordan Evert Lloyd (9) Navratilova (2) Austin (1) 1980 Mandlikova (1) Evert Lloyd (10) Goolagong Cawley (7) Evert Lloyd (11) 1981 Navratilova (3) Mandlikova (2) Evert Lloyd (12) Austin (2) 1982 Evert Lloyd (13) Navratilova (4) Navratilova (5) Evert Lloyd (14) 1983 Navratilova (6) Evert Lloyd (15) Navratilova (7) Navratilova (8) 1984 Evert Lloyd (16) Navratilova (9) Navratilova (10) Navratilova (11) 1985 Navratilova (12) Evert Lloyd (17) Navratilova (13) Mandlikova (3) 1986 Evert Lloyd (18) Navratilova (14) Navratilova (15) 1987 Mandlikova (4) Graf (1) Navratilova (16) Navratilova (17) 1988 Graf (2) Graf (3) Graf (4) Graf (5) 1989 Graf (6) Sanchez-Vicario (1) Graf (7) Graf (8) 1990 Graf (9) Seles (1) Navratilova (18) Sabatini 1991 Seles (2) Seles (3) Graf (10) Seles (4) 1992 Seles (5) Seles (6) Graf (11) Seles (7) 1993 Seles (8) Graf (12) Graf (13) Graf (14) 1994 Graf (15) Sanchez-Vicario (2) Martinez Sanchez-Vicario (3) 1995 Pierce (1) Graf (16) Graf (17) Graf (18) 1996 Seles (9) Graf (19) Graf (20) Graf (21) 1997 Hingis (1) Majoli Hingis (2) Hingis (3) 1998 Hingis (4) Sanchez-Vicario (4) Novotna Davenport (1) 1999 Hingis (5) Graf (22) Davenport (2) S. Williams 2000 Davenport (3) Pierce (2) V. Williams (1) V. Williams (2) 2001 Capriati (1) Capriati (2) V. Williams (3) V. Williams (4)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 213 Doubles Slam Winners, Open Era Australian Open Roland Garros Wimbledon US Open 1968 Durr/A Jones Casals/King Bueno/Court 1969 Court/Tegart Dalton Durr/A Jones Court/Tegart Dalton Durr/Hard 1970 Court/Tegart Dalton Chanfreau/Durr Casals/King Court/Tegart Dalton 1971 Court/Goolagong Cawley Chanfreau/Durr Casals/King Casals/Tegart Dalton 1972 Gourlay/Harris King/Stove King/Stove Durr/Stove 1973 Court/Wade Court/Wade Casals/King Court/Wade 1974 Goolagong Cawley/Michel Evert/Morozova Goolagong/Michel Casals/King 1975 Goolagong Cawley/Michel Evert/Navratilova Kiyomura/Sawamatsu Court/Wade 1976 Goolagong Cawley/Gourlay Bonicelli/Chanfreau Lovera Evert/Navratilova Boshoff/Kloss 1977 Balestrat/Gourlay* Mariskova/Teeguarden Gourlay Cawley/Russell Navratilova/Stove 1978 Nagelsen/Tomanova Jausovec/Ruzici Reid/Turnbull King/Navratilova 1979 Chaloner/Evers Stove/Turnbull King/Navratilova Stove/Turnbull 1980 Navratilova/Nagelsen K Jordan/A Smith K Jordan/A Smith King/Navratilova 1981 K Jordan/A Smith Fairbank/Harford Navratilova/Shriver K Jordan/A Smith 1982 Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/A Smith Navratilova/Shriver Casals/Turnbull 1983 Navratilova/Shriver Fairbank/Reynolds Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver 1984 Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver 1985 Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver K. Jordan/Smylie Kohde-Kilsch/Sukova 1986 Navratilova/Temesvari Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver 1987 Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver Kohde-Kilsch/Sukova Navratilova/Shriver 1988 Navratilova/Shriver Navratilova/Shriver Graf/Sabatini G Fernandez/White 1989 Navratilova/Shriver Savchenko/Zvereva Novotna/Sukova Mandlikova/Navratilova 1990 Novotna/Sukova Novotna/Sukova Novotna/Sukova G Fernandez/Navratilova 1991 Fendick/MJ Fernandez G Fernandez/Novotna Savchenko Neiland/Zvereva Shriver/Zvereva 1992 Sanchez-Vicario/Sukova G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva 1993 G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva Sanchez-Vicario/Sukova 1994 G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario 1995 Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario G Fernandez/Zvereva Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario G Fernandez/Zvereva 1996 Rubin/Sanchez-Vicario Davenport/ MJ Fernandez Hingis/Sukova G Fernandez/Zvereva 1997 Hingis/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva G Fernandez/Zvereva Davenport/Novotna 1998 Hingis/Lucic Hingis/Novotna Hingis/Novotna Hingis/Novotna 1999 Hingis/Kournikova Williams/Williams Davenport/Morariu Williams/Williams 2000 Raymond/Stubbs Hingis/Pierce Williams/Williams Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama 2001 Williams/Williams Ruano Pascual/Suarez Raymond/Stubbs Raymond/Stubbs

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

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 214 Doubles Slams and Partners The following tables show, for most of the major doubles players of the Open Era, the Slams they won and the partners with whom they won them. The emphasis has been placed on “career Slammers” — players who won all four Slams in their doubles careers. Grand Slams are shown in Bold Rosie Casals Australian French Wimbledon USO 1968 King 1969 1970 King 1971 King Tegart Dalton 1972 1973 King 1974 King 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Turnbull

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

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

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

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 215 Gigi Fernandez Australian French Wimbledon USO 1988 White 1989 1990 Navratilova 1991 Novotna 1992 Zvereva Zvereva Zvereva 1993 Zvereva Zvereva Zvereva 1994 Zvereva Zvereva Zvereva 1995 Zvereva Zvereva 1996 Zvereva 1997 Zvereva Zvereva

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

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

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

Billie Jean King Australian French Wimbledon USO 1968 Casals 1969 1970 Casals 1971 Casals 1972 Stove Stove 1972 1973 Casals 1974 Casals 1975 1976 1977 1978 Navratilova 1979 Navratilova 1980 Navratilova

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 216 Martina Navratilova Australian French Wimbledon USO 1975 Evert 1976 Evert 1977 Stove 1978 King 1979 King 1980 Nagelson King 1981 Shriver 1982 Shriver ASmith Shriver 1983 Shriver Shriver Shriver 1984 Shriver Shriver Shriver Shriver 1985 Shriver Shriver 1986 Temesvari Shriver Shriver 1987 Shriver Shriver Shriver 1988 Shriver Shriver 1989 Shriver Mandlikova 1990 GFernandez

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

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

Pam Shriver Australian French Wimbledon USO 1981 Navratilova 1982 Navratilova Navratilova 1983 Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova 1984 Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova 1985 Navratilova Navratilova 1986 Navratilova Navratilova 1987 Navratilova Navratilova Navratilova 1988 Navratilova Navratilova 1989 Navratilova 1990 1991 Zvereva

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 217 Australian French Wimbledon USO 1980 Jordan Jordan 1981 Jordan Jordan 1982 Navratilova

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

Wendy Turnbull Australian French Wimbledon USO 1978 Reid 1979 Stove Stove 1980 1981 1982 Casals

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

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

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 218 Grand Slams and Career Slams A “Grand Slam” consists of winning all four Slams in a single year — a rare accomplishment indeed. A “Career Slam” consists of winning all four Slams at some time in one’s career, though not all in one year. The following lists summarize the Career Slams for Women in the Open Era. Grand Slams, Singles, Open Era1 , 1970 Steffi Graf, 19882

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

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

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

Career Slams, Doubles, Open Era, team7 Martina Navratilova/Pam Shriver (20 Slams as a team) Gigi Fernandez/Natasha Zvereva (14 Slams as a team) /Anne Smith (4 Slams as a team) Venus Williams/Serena Williams (4 Slams as a team)

1. also won a Grand Slam before the Open Era 2. Steffi Graf is the only player, man or woman, to win the singles Grand Slam in the four-surfaces era 3. Maureen Connolly, , and had Career Slams before the Open Era. won a Career Slam partly in the Open Era, but her only Australian Open title was pre-Open Era. 4. also won a Grand Slam in doubles before the Open Era 5. Navratilova and Shriver are the only team to win a Grand Slam together in the Open Era 6. Hingis is the only player to win a multi-partner Grand Slam in the Open Era (Bueno did it before the Open Era) 7. Margaret Court and Judy Tegart Dalton won a Career Slam as a team, but their only Roland Garros title was before the Open Era

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 219 Career Slams, Doubles, Open Era, with partners, individual1 Martina Navratilova (Grand Slam, 1984) Pam Shriver (Grand Slam, 1984) Martina Hingis (Grand Slam, 1988) Margaret Court — Australian Open 1969, 1970 (Tegart Dalton), 1971 (Goolagong Cawley), 1973 (Wade) Roland Garros 1973 (Wade) Wimbledon 1969 (Tegart Dalton) U.S. Open 1970 (Tegart Dalton) Gigi Fernandez — Australian Open 1993, 1994 (Zvereva) Roland Garros 1991 (Novotna), 1992-1995, 1997 (Zvereva) Wimbledon 1992-1994, 1997 (Zvereva) U.S. Open 1988 (White), 1990 (Navratilova), 1992, 1995, 1996 (Zvereva) Kathy Jordan — Australian Open 1981 (A. Smith) Roland Garros 1980 (A. Smith) Wimbledon 1980 (A. Smith), 1985 (Smylie) U. S. Open 1981 (A. Smith) Jana Novotna — Australian Open 1990 (Sukova), 1995 (Sanchez-Vicario) Roland Garros 1990 (Sukova), 1991 (G. Fernandez), 1998 (Hingis) Wimbledon 1989, 1990 (Sukova), 1995 (Sanchez-Vicario), 1998 (Hingis) U. S. Open 1994 (Sanchez-Vicario), 1997 (Davenport), 1998 (Hingis) Anne Smith — Australian Open 1981 (Jordan) Roland Garros 1980 (Jordan), 1982 (Navratilova) Wimbledon 1980 (Jordan) U. S. Open 1981 (Jordan) Helena Sukova — Australian Open 1990 (Novotna), 1992 (Sanchez-Vicario) Roland Garros 1990 (Novotna) Wimbledon 1987 (Kohde-Kilsch), 1989, 1990 (Novotna), 1996 (Hingis) U. S. Open 1985 (Kohde-Kilsch), 1993 (Sanchez-Vicario) Venus/Serena Williams —Australian Open 2001 (Williams) Roland Garros 1999 (Williams) Wimbledon 2000 (Williams) U. S. Open 1999 (Williams) Natasha Zvereva — Australian Open 1993, 1994 (G. Fernandez), 1997 (Hingis) Roland Garros 1989 (Savchenko), 1992-1995, 1997 (G. Fernandez) Wimbledon 1991 (Savchenko Nieland), 1992-1994, 1997 (G. Fernandez) U.S. Open 1991 (Shriver), 1992, 1995, 1996 (G. Fernandez)

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

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 220 Total Slam Victories, Open Era Note that many of these players (e.g. Court, King) also won Slams before the Open Era. These Slams are not counted (e.g. Court had 24 total Slams, but 13 were before the Open Era, so she is listed as having 11 Open Era Slam titles) Singles Doubles — Multiple Winners Doubles — One-Time Winners 22 Steffi Graf 31 Martina Navratilova 1 Dianne Balestrat 18 Chris Evert 21 Pam Shriver Fiorella Bonicelli Martina Navratilova 18 Natasha Zvereva Delina Boshoff* 11 Margaret Court 17 Gigi Fernandez Maria Bueno 9 Monica Seles 12 Jana Novotna Judy Chaloner* 8 Billie Jean King 10 Margaret Court * 7 Billie Jean King 5 Martina Hingis 9 Helena Sukova Steffi Graf* 4 Hana Mandlikova 8 Martina Hingis Julie Halard-Decugis* Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 7 Rosie Casals Venus Williams 6 Francoise Durr 3 Lindsay Davenport Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario Betty Stove Mima Jausovic* 2 5 Judy Tegart Dalton Anna Kournikova Jennifer Capriati Evonne Goolagong Cawley Anne Kiyomura* Mary Pierce Kathy Jordan * 1 Anne Smith Mirjana Lucic Mima Jausovec 4 Cawley Hana Mandlikova Anne Jones Regina Mariskova* Virginia Wade Corina Morariu Iva Majoli Serena Williams Conchita Martinez Venus Williams Mary Pierce Jana Novotna 3 Lindsay Davenport Reid Chris O’Neil Chris Evert Gail Chanfreau Lovera Virginia Ruano Pascual* Kerry Melville Reid Chanda Rubin Lisa Raymond JoAnne Russell Gabriella Sabatini Rennae Stubbs Virginia Ruzici* Serena Williams 2 Rosalyn Fairbank Gabriela Sabatini* Mary Joe Fernandez Kazuko Sawamatsu* Ann Haydon Jones Claudia Kohde-Kilsch Paola Suarez* Ai Sugiyama* Larisa Savchenko Neiland * Andrea Temesvari Renata Tomanova

* Part of a “One Slam Wonder” team, i.e. one where each won only one doubles Slam

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 221 Players and Titles Players with Titles, Year by Year The following list shows, year by year, all the players with titles in a given year, and the number of titles for each player. (Note: Prior to 1993, the season was considered to start before the beginning of the calendar year, and prior to 1986, multiple years are listed, e.g. 1985/1986. The following lists are based on “Tour Years,” not calendar years, with 1985/1986 listed as “1985,” etc.) 2001 (total of 30 winners, 63 events) — Davenport (7), V. Williams (6), Mauresmo (4), Seles (4), Capriati (3), Clijsters (3), Dokic (3), Hénin (3), Hingis (3), S. Williams (3), Grande (2), Montolio (2), Sanchez- Vicario (2), Tulyaganova (2), Coetzer (1), Farina Elia (1), Gersi (1), Gubacsi (1), Lamade (1), Maleeva (1), Medina Garrigues (1), Rittner (1), Schnyder (1), Shaughnessy (1), Suarez (1), Tauziat (1), Testud (1), Torrens Valero (1), Tu (1), Widjaja (1) 2000 (total of 29 winners, 56 events excluding rain-out at Scottsdale) — Hingis (9), V. Williams (5), Davenport (4), Nagyova (3), Seles (3), S. Williams (3), Clijsters (2), Halard-Decugis (2), Huber (2), Kremer (2), Pierce (2), Talaja (2), Bedanova (1), Capriati (1), Coetzer (1), Garbin (1), Kuti Kis (1), Leon Garcia (1), Martinez (1), Mauresmo (1), Pisnik (1), Raymond (1), Rubin (1), Schett (1), Shaughnessy (1), Smashnova (1), Tauziat (1), Tulyaganova (1), Wartusch (1) 1999 (total of 33 winners, 57 events) — Davenport (7), Hingis (7), V. Williams (6), S. Williams (4), Capriati (2), Halard-Decugis (2), Tauziat (2), Zuluaga (2), Brandi (1), Carlsson (1), Clijsters (1), Frazier (1), Graf (1), Habsudova (1), Hénin (1), Mag. Maleeva (1), Martinez (1), Mauresmo (1), Morariu (1), Myskina (1), Nagyova (1), Novotna (1), Pierce (1), Pitkowski (1), Rubin (1), Sanchez Lorenzo (1), Sanchez-Vicario (1), Schnyder (1), Seles (1), Smashnova (1), Srebotnik (1), Torrens Valero (1), Zvereva (1) 1998 (total of 23 winners, 51 events excluding rain-out at Birmingham) — Davenport (6), Hingis (5), Schnyder (5), Novotna (4), Pierce (4), Graf (3), Halard-Decugis (2), Martinez (2), Nagyova (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Seles (2), Sugiyama (2), V. Williams (2), Coetzer (1), de Swardt (1), Hrdlickova (1), Lucic (1), Ruano-Pascual (1), Snyder (1), Spirlea (1), Suarez (1), Testud (1), Van Roost (1) 1997 (total of 25 winners, 50 events excluding rain-out at Eastbourne) — Hingis (12), Davenport (6), Novotna (4), Majoli (3), Seles (3), Coetzer (2), van Roost (2), Dragomir (1), Graf (1), Kruger (1), Likhovtseva (1), Lucic (1), Maruska (1), M. J. Fernandez (1), Nagyova (1), Paulus (1), Pierce (1), Ruano-Pascual (1), Rubin (1), Sawamatsu (1), Schett (1), Schultz-McCarthy (1), Sugiyama (1), Tauziat (1), Testud (1) 1996 (total of 25 winners, 50 events) — Graf (7), Seles (5), Novotna (4), Dragomir (3), Huber (3), Date (2), Davenport (2), Halard-Decugis (2), Hingis (2), Majoli (2), Martinez (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Wang (2), Appelmans (1), Cacic (1), McGrath (1), Nagyova (1), Paulus (1), Pizzichini (1), Raymond (1), Schett (1), Schultz-M (1), Spirlea (1), Van Roost (1), Wild (1) 1995 (total of 27 winners, 49 events) — Graf (9), Martinez (6), Mag. Maleeva (3), Majoli (2), M. J. Fernandez (2), Paulus (2), Pierce (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Schultz (2), Wild (2), Bradtke (1), Date (1), Frazier (1), Garrison Jackson (1), Hack (1), Halard (1), Huber (1), Kruger (1), Meshki (1), Novotna (1), Richterova (1), Sabatini (1), Seles (1), Spirlea (1), Tauziat (1), Wang (1), Wiesner (1) 1994 (total of 29 winners, 55 events) — Sanchez-Vicario (8), Graf (7), Martinez (4), Huber (3), Novotna (3), Appelmans (2), Basuki (2), Date (2), Davenport (2), Mag. Maleeva (2), McGrath (2), Coetzer (1), Endo (1), M. J. Fernandez (1), Frazier (1), Hack (1), Halard (1), Helgeson (1), Kat. Maleeva (1), Maleeva-Fragniere (1), McNeil (1), Navratilova (1), Sabatini (1), Sawamatsu (1), Spirlea (1), Wagner (1), Wang (1), Wiesner (1), Zvereva (1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 222 1993 (total of 30 winners, 60 events) — Graf (10), Martinez (5), Navratilova (5), Sanchez-Vicario (4), Basuki (2), Bobkova (2), Coetzer (2), Garrison Jackson (2), Maleeva-Fragniere (2), Medvedeva (2), Novotna (2), Seles (2), Wang (2), Wild (2), Capriati (1), Date (1), Davenport (1), M. J. Fernandez (1), Grossi (1), Hack (1), Huber (1), Likhovtseva (1), McNeil (1), Neiland (1), Pierce (1), Provis (1), Reinach (1), Sawamatsu (1), Schultz (1), Tauziat (1) 1992 (total of 30 winners, 57 events) — Seles (10), Graf (8), Sabatini (5), Navratilova (4), Pierce (3), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Sukova (2), Appelmans (1), Basuki (1), Capriati (1), Cecchini (1), Date (1), Frazier (1), Garrison-Jackson (1), Hack (1), Halard (1), Mag. Maleeva (1), Maleeva-Fragniere (1), Martinez (1), McNeil (1), Medvedeva (1), Probst (1), Provis (1), Rittner (1), Schultz (1), Stafford (1), van Lottum (1), White (1), Wiesner (1), Zrubakova (1) 1991 (total of 29 winners, 60 events) — Seles (10), Graf (7), Navratilova (5), Sabatini (5), Maleeva- Fragniere (3), Martinez (3), Appelmans (2), Capriati (2), McNeil (2), Novotna (2), Basuki (1), Cecchini (1), Demongeot (1), G. Fernandez (1), Halard (1), Huber (1), Lindqvist (1), Kat. Maleeva (1), Martinek (1), Meshki (1), Neiland (1), Piccolini (1), Pierce (1), Sanchez-Vicario (1), Schultz (1), Sukova (1), Sviglerova (1), Zardo (1), Zrubakova (1) 1990 (total of 30 winners, 59 events) — Graf (10), Seles (9), Navratilova (6), Martinez (3), M. J. Fernandez (2), Meshki (2), Sabatini (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Zvereva (2), Bonsignori (1), Capriati (1), Cecchini (1), Cueto (1), Dahlman (1), Frazier (1), Garrison-Jackson (1), Haumuller (1), Huber (1), Kohde-Kilsch (1), Lindquist (1), K. Maleeva (1), Medvedeva (1), Novotna (1), Paulus (1), Paz (1), Probst (1), Reggi (1), Sawamatsu (1), Tauziat (1), Van Rensburg (1) 1989 (total of 27 winners, 61 events) — Graf (14), Navratilova (8), Sabatini (4), Garrison[-Jackson] (3), Kat. Maleeva (3), Martinez (3), Cueto (1 listed as “Cuerto”) (2), Gildemeister (2), Maleeva-Fragniere (2), Novotna (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Bollegraf (1), Cecchini (1), Cordwell (1), Dahlman (1), Fendick (1), Frazier (1), Magers (1), McNeil (1), Meshki (1), Minter (1), Okamoto (1), Quentrec (1), Seles (1), Sukova (1), Wiesner (1), Zrubakova (1) 1988 (total of 28 winners, 62 events) — Graf (10), Navratilova (9), Sabatini (5), Evert (4), Shriver (4), Cecchini (2), Cueto (2), Dias (2), Fendick (2), Maleeva-Fragniere (2), McNeil (2), Rehe (2), Gomer (1), Hetherington (1), Javer (1), Kelesi (1), Kohde-Kilsch (1), Langrova (1), Magers (1), Kat. Maleeva (1), Martinez (1), Minter (1), Paulus (1), Paz (1), Potter (1), Sanchez-Vicario (1), Sloane (1), Wiesner (1) 1987 (total of 24 winners, 54 events) — Graf (11), Evert (5), Navratilova (4), Shriver (4), Mandlilova (3), Sabatini (3), Cecchini (2), Garrison (2), Kat. Maleeva (2), Man. Maleeva[-Fragniere] (2), Minter (2), Sukova (2), Bassett Seguso (1), Cioffi (1), Goles (1), Hakami (1), Horvath (1), Magers (1), Nelson- Dunbar (1), Potter (1), Reggi (1), Rehe (1), Smylie (1), White (1) 1986 (total of 19 winners, 40 events) — Navratilova (9), Graf (7), Evert (3), Gurney (2), McNeil (2), Reggi (2), Shriver (2), Sukova (2), Burgin (1), Cacchini (1), G. Fernandez (1), Garrison (1), Hanika (1), Herr (1), Herreman (1), Huber (1), Hy (1), Kelesi (1), Rinaldi (1) 1985 (total of 23 winners, 53 events) — Navratilova (13), Evert (11), Shriver (4), Gadusek (3), Garrison (2), Kat. Maleeva (2), Rehe (2), Cecchini (1), Croft (1), Hobbs (1), Horvath (1), Kohde-Kilsch (1), Man. Maleeva (1), Mandlikova (1), Mesker (1), Potter (1), Reggi (1), Rinaldi (1), Ruzici (1), Sabatini (1), Temesvari (1), Thompson (1), White (1) 1984 (total of 22 winners, 51 events) — Navratilova (15), Evert (7), Man. Maleeva (4), Mandlikova (4), Cecchini (2), Lindqvist (2), Louie Harper (2), Drescher (1), Gadusek (1), Garrison (1), Gildemeister (1), Hamika (1), Horvath (1), Inoue (1), Kohde-Kilsch (1), Paz (1), Russell (1), Shriver (1), Sukova (1), Torres (1), Vermaak (1), White (1) 1983 (total of 25 winners, 49 events excluding rain-out at Lugano) — Navratilova (13), Evert (5), Mandlikova (3), Shriver (3), Temesvari (3), Bonder (2), Durie (2), Daniels (1), Fairbank (1), Gadusek (1), Horvath (1), Inoue (1), King (1), Klitch (1), Leand (1), Lindqvist (1), Moulton (1), Mundel-Reinbold (1), Paradis (1), Russell (1), Ruzici (1), Shaefer (1), Smylie (1), Tanvier (1), Vermaak (1)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 223 Most Titles, Year By Year The following list shows the three players with the most titles, year by year, and the number of titles. Year Player with Most Titles #2 in titles #3 in titles 2001 Davenport (7) V. Williams (6) Mauresmo (4), Seles (4) 2000 Hingis (9) V. Williams (5) Davenport (4) 1999 Davenport (7), Hingis (7) V. Williams (6) S. Williams (4) 1998 Davenport (6) Hingis (5), Schnyder(5)* Novotna (4), Pierce (4) 1997 Hingis (12) Davenport (6) Novotna (4) 1996 Graf (7) Seles (5) Novotna (4) 1995 Graf (9) Martinez (6) Mag. Maleeva (3) 1994 Sanchez-Vicario (8) Graf (7) Martinez (4) 1993 Graf (10) Martinez (5), Navratilova (5) Sanchez-Vicario (4) 1992 Seles (10) Graf (8) Sabatini (5) 1991 Seles (10) Graf (7) Navratilova (5), Sabatini (5) 1990 Graf (10) Seles (9) Navratilova (6) 1989 Graf (14) Navratilova (8) Sabatini (4) 1988 Graf (10) Navratilova (9) Sabatini (5) 1987 Graf (11) Evert (5) Navratilova (4), Shriver (4) 1986 Navratilova (9) Graf (7) Evert (3) 1985 Navratilova (13) Evert (11) Shriver (4) 1984 Navratilova (15) Evert (7) Man. Maleeva (4), Mandlickova (4) 1983 Navratilova (13) Evert (5) Mandlikova (3), Shriver (3), Temesvari (3) * Most players on this list, particularly in recent years, won the majority of their titles at Tier II or higher events. Schnyder 1998 is an exception; four of her five titles were small events.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 224 Five Or More Titles in a Year The following table shows all players who have earned five or more WTA Tour titles in a year (from the founding of the Tour in 1971), with the total years with five or more titles Total Years Player Years with 5+ titles with 5+ titles 15 Chris Evert 1973, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 15 Martina Navratilova 1977, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93 11 Steffi Graf 1986, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 6Evonne Goolagong Cawley 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1978 6 Billie Jean King 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1977 4 Lindsay Davenport 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 4 Martina Hingis 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 4 Monica Seles 1990, 1991, 1992, 1996 4Virginia Wade 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975 3Tracy Austin 1979, 1980, 1981 3 Margaret Court 1971, 1972, 1973 3Venus Williams 1999, 2000, 2001 2 Hana Mandlikova 1980, 1984 2 Conchita Martinez 1993, 1995 2 Gabriela Sabatini 1991, 1992 1 Francoise Durr 1971 1 -Fragniere 1984 1 Nancy Richey 1972 1Patty Schnyder 1998

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 225 Year-End Top Players Year-End Top Eight, Alphabetical, with Years, Since 1975 The following tables list every player to end a Tour year in the Top Eight since computer rankings began in 1975. The first table, in alphabetical order, lists each year in which the player ended at #1, #2, #3, etc. Player Years was #1 Yrs was #2 Years was #3 Years was #4 Years #5-#8 Austin 1980, 1981 1979 1982 #6-1978 Balestrat #6-1979; #7-1976; #8-1978 Barker #5-1976, 1977 Bunge #7-1983 Capriati 2001 #6-1991; #7-1992; #8-1990 Casals #6 -1977 Clijsters #5-2001 Coetzer 1997 Court #6-1975 Date 1995 #8-1996 Davenport 1998, 2001 1999, 2000 1997 #6-1994 Dokic #8-2001 Durie #6-1983 Evert 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1988 1980, 1981 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 Fernandez, M 1990 #6-1992; #7-1993; #8-1991, 1995 Garrison[-J] 1989 #8-1985 Goolagong 1976 1975, 1978 1979 #5-1980 Graf 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992 1986 #6-1985 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 Hanika #5-1983; #6-1981 Hénin #7-2001 Hingis 1997, 1999, 2000 1998 1996, 2001 Huber #6-1996 Jaeger 1982, 1983 1981 #7-1980 Jausovec #8-1976 King 1975, 1977 #5-1978, 1979; #6-1980 Kohde-Kilsch #5-1985; #7-1986; #8-1984 Kournikova #8-2000 Majoli #6-1997; #7-1996 Maleeva, K #6-1990 Maleeva, Mag #6-1995 Maleeva, Man #6-1984, 1988; #7-1985; #8-1986, 1987 Mandlikova 1984, 1985 1980, 1986 #5-1981, 1987; #7-1982 Martinez 1995 1994 1993 #5-1996, 2000; #7-1989; #8-1992, 1998 Morozova #7-1975 Navratilova 1978, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1988, 1989 1977, 1980, 1981, 1975, 1976, 1991 #5-1992; #8-1994 1983, 1984, 1985, 1990, 1993 1986

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 226 Novotna 1997 1996, 1998 1994 #6-1993; #7-1991 Pierce #5-1994, 1995, 1999; #7-1997, 1998, 2000 Potter #8-1982 Reid #8-1978 Richey Gunter #8-1975 Sabatini 1989, 1991, 1992 1988 #5-1990, 1993; #6-1987; #7-1994, 1995 Sanchez-Vicari 1993, 1994, 1996 1995 1992, 1998 #5-1989, 1991; #7-1990 Schett #8-1999 Seles 1991, 1992 1990, [1996] 2000 #5-1997; #6-1989, 1998, 1999; #8-1993 Shriver 1983, 1984, 1985, #5-1988; #6-1982, 1986; #7-1981 1987 Spirlea #8-1997 Stove #6-1976; #7-1977 Sukova #5-1986; #7-1984, 1987; #8-1988, 1989 Tauziat #7-1999 Turnbull #5-1982, 1984; #7-1978, 1979; #8-1980, 1981, 1983 Wade 1976 1977, 1978 #5-1975; #8-1979 Williams, S 1999 #6-2000, 2001 Williams, V. 1999, 2000, 2001 #5-1998 Zvereva #7-1988

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 227 Total Years Ended At Each Rank, Alphabetical, Since 1975 Player Years #1 Years #2 Years #3 Years #4 Years #5 Years #6 Years #7 Years #8 Total Austin 2 1 1 1 5 Balestrat 1113 Barker 2 2 Bunge 11 Capriati 1 1114 Casals 1 1 Clijsters 1 1 Coetzer 1 1 Court 1 1 Date 1 1 2 Davenport 2 2 1 1 6 Dokic 11 Durie 1 1 Evert 5 7 2 14 Fernandez, M 1 1125 Garrison[-J] 1 1 2 Goolagong 1211 5 Graf 8 2 1 1 12 Hanika 1 1 2 Hénin 11 Hingis 3 1 2 6 Huber 1 1 Jaeger 2 1 1 4 Jausovec 11 King 2 2 1 5 Kohde-Kilsch 1 1 1 3 Kournikova 11 Majoli 1 1 2 Maleeva, K 1 1 Maleeva, Mag 1 1 Maleeva, Man 2125 Mandlikova 2 2 2 1 7 Martinez 1112 128 Morozova 11 Navratilova 73531 120 Novotna 1 2 1 1 1 6 Pierce 3 3 6 Potter 11 Reid 11 Richey Gunter 11 Sabatini 31212 9 Sanchez-Vicari 3122 1 9 Schett 11 Seles 2 1(2) 1 1 3 1 9 Shriver 4121 8 Spirlea 11

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 228 Stove 1 1 2 Sukova 1 2 2 5 Tauziat 11 Turnbull 2 2 3 7 Wade 1 2 1 15 Williams, S 1 2 3 Williams, V. 3 1 4 Zvereva 11 Strongest Career Rankings Showings Based on the above statistics, we can produce a career “ranking of rankings.” In the system below, one point is awarded for a year in which a player ends at #8. Two are awarded for #7, 3 for #6, 4 for #5, 6 for #4, 8 for #3, 12 for #2, and 16 for #1. Note: for purposes of reckoning, Monica Seles is omitted from the rankings for 1995, but is treated as #2 for 1996, with all players below her demoted one position. Ranking Player Score Ranking Player Score 1Navratilova 211 27T Hanika 7 2Evert 180 27T Kohde-Kilsch 7 3 Graf 163 30T Balestrat 6 4 Seles 76 30T Coetzer 6 5 Hingis 70 30T Date 6 6Davenport 67 33 Stove 5 7 Sanchez-Vicario 62 34T Clijsters 4 8 Sabatini 45 34T Majoli 4 9 Austin 41 36T Casals 3 10T Goolagong 38 36T Court 3 10T Mandlikova 38 36T Durie 3 12T Martinez, C. 37 36T Maleeva, K 3 12T Novotna 37 36T Maleeva, Magdalena 3 14 Shriver 36 41T Bunge 2 15 King 35 41T Hénin 2 16 Williams, V. 28 41T Huber 2 17 Wade 25 41T Morozova 2 18 Jaeger 24 41T Tauziat 2 19T Capriati 18 41T Zvereva 2 19T Pierce 18 47T Dokic 1 21 Turnbull 15 47T Jausovec 1 22 Fernandez, M 13 47T Kournikova 1 23 Williams, S 12 47T Potter 1 24T Maleeva[-Fragniere] 10 47T Reid 1 24T Sukova 10 47T Richey Gunter 1 26 Barker 8 47T Schett 1 27T Garrison[-Jackson] 7 47T Spirlea 1

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 229 Total Years in the Top Eight The following table shows the all-time leaders in most years spent in the Top Eight. Player Years Spent in Top Eight Navratilova 20 Evert 14 Graf 12 Seles 10 Sabatini 9 Sanchez-Vicario 9 Martinez, C. 8 Shriver 8 Mandlikova 7 Turnbull 7 Davenport 6 Hingis 6 Novotna 6 Pierce 6 Austin 5 Fernandez, M 5 Goolagong 5 King 5 Maleeva[-Fragniere], Manuela 5 Sukova 5 Wade 5

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 230 Doubles Wins & Partners Winningest Doubles Player, Year By Year, From 1983 The following list shows the player with the most doubles titles each year, and lists the partners with whom she played and the number of tournaments they won together. Year Player # of titles Partners 1983 Martina Navratilova 11 Shriver (9), Reynolds (2) Pam Shriver 11 Navratilova (9), Evert (1), Potter (1) 1984 Martina Navratilova 13 Shriver (10), G. Fernandez (1), Smylie (1) 1985 Pam Shriver 12 Navratilova (7), Smylie (2), Fairbank (1), Mandlikova (1), Sukova (1) 1986 Martina Navratilova 9 Shriver (7), Temesvari (2) 1987 Martina Navratilova 9 Shriver (7), K. Jordan (1), Sabatini (1) 1988 Martina Navratilova 8 Shriver (5), Casals (1), Kucyzynska (1), McNeil (1) Pam Shriver 8 Navratilova (5), K. Adams (1), Nagelson (1), Sukova (1) 1989 8 Garrison (4), McNeil (3), Shriver (1) Pam Shriver 8 Navratilova (4), K. Adams (1), Graf (1), Mandlikova (1), Nagelson (1) 1990 Helena Sukova 10 Novotna (8), G. Fernandez (1), Tauziat (1) 1991 Larisa Neiland 10 Zvereva (6), Novotna (3), Fendick (1) 1992 Arantxa 10 Sukova (6), Zvereva (2), Martinez (1), Neiland (1) Sanchez-Vicario 1993 Gigi Fernandez 12 Zvereva (11), Sukova (1) 1994 Gigi Fernandez 11 Zvereva (11) Arantxa 11 Novotna (5), Neiland (2), Davenport (1), Halard (1), Sanchez-Vicario McGrath (1), McNeil (1), Natasha Zvereva 11 G. Fernandez (11) 1995 Gigi Fernandez 8 Zvereva (7), Hingis (1) 1996 Arantxa 9Novotna (4), Rubin (2), Neiland (1), Schultz-McCarthy (1), Sanchez-Vicario Spirlea (1) 1997 Martina Hingis 8 Sanchez-Vicario (3), Novotna (2), Davenport (1), M. J. Fernandez (1), Zvereva (1) Natasha Zvereva 8 Davenport (2), G. Fernandez (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Hingis (1), Sukova (1) 1998 Martina Hingis 9 Novotna (5), Lucic (2), Sukova (1), Zvereva (1) 1999 Martina Hingis 6 Kournikova (5), Novotna (1) Corina Morariu 6 Davenport (3), Neiland (2), Po (1) 2000 Julie 10 Sugiyama (6), Morariu (2), Kournikova (1), Testud (1) Halard-Decugis 2001 Lisa Raymond 9 Stubbs (7), Davenport (2)

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 231 Titles With Multiple Partners, Single Year, Open Era According to the WTA, only 7 players have won doubles titles with five or more partners in a yearin the WTA Era.* The following lists these players, their partners, and the number of titles with each partner.* # of Player Year Partners & Title Count Partners 6 Helena Sukova 1993 Sanchez-Vicario (3), G. Fernandez (1), M. J. Fernandez (1), Navratilova (1), Stubbs (1), Smylie (1) 6 A. Sanchez-Vicario 1994 Novotna (5), Neiland (2), Davenport (1), Halard (1), McGrath (1), McNeil (1), 5Pam Shriver 1989 Navratilova (4), K. Adams (1), Graf (1), Mandlikova (1), Nagelson (1) 5 1989 Bollegraf (1), Goles (1), Scheuer-Larsen (1), Tarabini (1), Wiesner (1) 5 Larisa Neiland 1994 Bollegraf (1), Garrison-Jackson (1), McGrath (1), Sanchez-Vicario (1), Stubbs (1) 5 A. Sanchez-Vicario 1996 Novotna (4), Rubin (2), Neiland (1), Schultz-McCarthy (1), Spirlea (1) 5 Martina Hingis 1997 Sanchez-Vicario (3), Novotna (2), Davenport (1), M. J. Fernandez (1), Zvereva (1) 5 Natasha Zvereva 1997 Davenport (2), G. Fernandez (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Hingis (1), Sukova (1) * The WTA list for this statistic is extremely inaccurate — it omits Neiland, gets Sanchez-Vicario’s record wrong, and shows Paz with only four titles in 1989; I discovered her result with Tarabini by accident. This is a corrected list, but may be incomplete. Slams With the Most Partners, Open Era The following list shows all women who have won Slams with four or more partners in the Open Era, listing the partners and the number of Slams with each*. Total Partners Player Partners & Slams 9 Martina Navratilova Shriver (20), King (3), Evert (2), A. Smith (1), G. Fernandez (1) Mandlikova (1), Nagelson (1), Stove (1), Temesvari (1) 6 Martina Hingis Novotna (3), Kournikova (1), Lucic (1), Pierce (1), Sukova (1), Zvereva (1) 5 Jana Novotna Sukova (4), Hingis (3), Sanchez-Vicario (3), Davenport (1), G. Fernandez (1) 4 Natasha Zvereva G. Fernandez (14), Savchenko Neiland (2), Hingis (1), Shriver (1) 4 Gigi Fernandez Zvereva (14), Navratilova (1), Novotna (1), White (1) 4 Margaret Court Tegart Dalton (4), Wade (4), Bueno (1), Goolagong (1) 4 Helena Sukova Novotna (4), Kohde-Kilsch (2), Sanchez-Vicario (2), Hingis (1) 4 Francoise Durr Chanfreau (2), A. Jones (2), Hard (1), Stove (1) 4 Betty Stove King (2), Turnbull (2), Durr (1), Navratilova (1) 4 H. Gourlay Cawley Balestrat (1), Goolagong (1), Harris (1), Russell (1) * Note: Billie Jean King won titles with 5 players, but only three in the Open Era: Casals (5), Navratilova (4), Stove (1). Counting wins before the Open Era, Court won with 7 players: The above plus Ebbern, Reitano, and Turner.

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 232 Comings and Goings: On and Off the Rankings The following lists compare the ranking tables for 2000 and 2001, noting how many players have been added and subtracted. Note that this is not the same as the number of players who have turned pro or retired. Some players may go off the rankings because of injuries, others may reappear because they have recovered from injuries. And some have changed their names, and so will disappear from one list to reappear on the other (I have corrected some of these, e.g. Liezel Horn became Huber. But there are bound to be some low-ranked players I’ve missed). But this gives a general overview of how the numbers of ranked players has changed. Overall, the number of players is increasing, but the increase is not constant — there were 1079 ranked players at the end of the season in 1999; in 2000 there were 1242, an increase of 15%. But in 2001 the number fell again, to 1212. Note: The totals for the years don’t quite add up; there are two missing players. I assume it has something to do with my algorithm for identifying who is or isn’t the same player. Players ranked in 2000 but not in 2001 (total of 309): Julia Abe, Erica Adams, Geraldine Aizenberg, Maria Lore Alcetegaray, Estef Aldana Estremera, Denitsa Alexandrova, Jenny Andrade, Liza Andriyani, Anna Anikanova, , Maria Jose Argeri, Carla Arguelles, Sunthree Arphanukul, Marcela Arroyo, Bettina Auer, Patricia Aznar, Meike Babel, Patrycja Bandurowska, Anne Banffy, , Fiona Barrett, Dina Basil, , Kristy Bayer, Beatriz Becker, Kaur Harsimran Bedi, Petra Begerow, Eva Belbl, Nathalia Bellizia, Ma. Cristi Bentivoglio, Petra Bercik, Kinga Berecz, Nikita Bhardwaj, Julia Biffar, Barbora Blahutiakova, Radka Bobkova, Irina Bobrysheva, Leigh Bradwell, Becky Brown, Mhairi Brown, Suci Bungaran, Nataly Cahana, Nathalie Callen, Sophie Anne Cerbon, Li Chen, Juan-juan Cheng, Mimma Chernovita, Vishika Chhetri, Jeong-A Cho, Stephanie Chu, Melanie Clayton, Brenda Coassolo, Daniela Cocos, Natalia Coronel, Susan Cowan, Karen Cross, Virag Csurgo, Nives Culum, Miriam D’Agostini, Sabina Da Ponte, Estefania Daubioul, Lindsay Dawaf, Surina De Beer, Candice De La Torre, Elena De Mendoza, , Begona De Toro, Kim De Weille, Emilia Desiderio, Shruti Dhawan, Renata Dias, Biljana Dimovska, Georgina Dinham, Natalie Dittmann, Anna Dolinska, Megan Dorny, Angeline Dumontier, Amanda Dundas, Dalia El Sheikh, Kate Elliott, Melody Falco, Heidi Farr, Maricris Fernandez, Wendy Fix, Laura Fodorean, Lolita Frangulyan, Ana Friganovic, Filipa Gabrovska, Carmen Gajo, Natalia Garbellotto, Laurenc Garcia-Clement, Angelica Gavaldon, Caroline Germar, Lucinda Gibbs, Francoise Gillis, Frederika Girsang, Rocio Gonzalez, Emma Gott, Kylie Gottsche, Michelle Grobby, Daniela Groseanu, Francesca Guardigli, Cecilia Guillenea, Gulberk Gultekin, Silv Gutierrez Quiroga, Giana Gutierrez, Eun-Young Ha, Bettina Hafner, Julie Halard- Decugis, Jennifer Hall, Nicole Havlicek, Chun-Yan He, Barbara Hellwig, Catherine Henuzet, Rattiya Hiranrat, Alex Hirsch, Marcelle Hirt, Danielle Hock, Anne-Marie Hogan, Tomoe Hotta, Li Huang, Nikola Hubnerova, Rewa Hudson, Kylie Hunt, Lella Husic, Ella Ionescu, Irawati Iskandar, Claire Jalade, Kristina Jarkenstedt, Monique Javer, Amy Jensen, , Dan Dan Jiang, Amanda Johnson, Thamara Jonkman, Vlatka Jovanovic, Carina Kampfer, Berengere Karpenschif, Belinda Kelly, Ceyda Keyman, Ilona Kordonskaya, Maaike Koutstaal, Katja Kovac, Elena Kovalchuk, Nora Koves, Lesley Kramer, , Madoka Kuki, Sandra Kvelstein, , Kristin Lam, Orawan Lamangthong, Jennifer Langer, Evy Last, Gabriela Lastra, Chen Li, Zuzanna Liskovcova, Wei-Na Liu, Zhi-Rong Liu, Rebeca Llorente, Jana Lubasova, Julia Lutrova, En Yue Ma, Jamie Macias, Lisa Mackey, Cristina Madrid Guzman, Melinda Malouli, Angie Marik, Carmen Marquez Salas, Veronika Martinek, Chris Martinez, Monica Massarella, Melissa Mazzotta, Marlene Mejia, Mariana Mesa, Lana Miholcek, Annie Miller, Betsy Miringoff, Galina Misiuriova, Jennifer Mitchell, Maja Mlakar, Daniela Muscolino, Chie Nagano, Keiko Nagatomi, Aurandrea Narvaez, Martina Nejedly, Yasuko Nishimata, Ecaterina Nossik, Elsa O’Riain, Serra Olgac, Alexandra Orasanu, Jheni Osman, Romina Ottoboni, Virginie Oulevay, Seden Ozlu, Tzveta Panajotova, Ridhina Parekh, Sung-hee Park, Laura Pena, , Ilara Pibiri, Audrey Pierrich, Alicia Pillay, Severine Pinaud, Erika Pineider, Andrea Plackova, Anne Plessinger, Tina Plivelitsch, Kimberly Po, Alexandra Popa, Karla Porter, Daria Potapova, Hanna Puustinen, Wei Qie, Diana Quevedo, Lisa Quiller, Paula Racedo, Sai Swapn Ranakrishnan, Jasleen Randhawa, Simmi Rani, Flavia Rezende, Ludmila Richterova, Andrea Riedlmajerova, Jessie Rochefort, Adriana Rodriguez, Ariana Rojas, Vivian Rojas, , Jacquelyn Rosen, Caroline Rossel, Anna Rynarzewska, Sylvia Rynarzewska, Karolina Sadaj, Virginia Sadi, Sylvie Sallaberry, Marina Samoilenko, Benjamas Sangaram, Veronica Sartini, Deborah Saxer, Evelina Scalise, Larissa Schaerer, Melanie Schnell, Jitka Schonfeldova, Cindy Schuurmans, Julie Scott, Ma. Teresa Scott, Andrea Sebova, Marija Serdarusic, Eva Sestakova, Jordanna Seymour, Ana Maria Simanca, Aparna Singh, Dewi Monica Siregar, Katerina Siskova, Ana Skafar, , Ivana Sokac, Petra Spaar, Irina Spirlea, Jessica Stein, Constanze Steiner, Rennae Stubbs, Veronika Subertova, Eny Sulistyowati, Ursula Svetlik, Linda Tajnai, Sarah Tami, Marina Tasheva, Claire Taylor, Kelly Taylor, Stephanie Testard, Shalini Thakur, Sricharany Thiagarajan, Pavlina Ticha, Keiko Tokuda, Li Tong, Abigail Tordoff, Jorgelina Torti, Michou Tulfer, Qi Tuo, Silvia Urickova, Romana Valenta, Pamela Van Boekel, Daphne Van De Zande, Kristel Van Der Perre, Dominique Van Roost, Lorenza Vaschetto, Alissa Velts, Val Verrier- Diaconescu, Fabie Vieille-Grosjean, Helena Vildova, Elena Voropaeva, Olga Votavova, Kathy Vymetal, Nona Wagh, Janet Walker, Katarzyna Walukiewicz, Zeng Wang, Novianti Warsono, , Jasmin Woehr, Lucy Wood, Ming Hui Wu, Anna Zaporozhanova, Katja Zenklusen, Alexandra Zerkalova, Dong-Ling Zou, Gyorgyi Zsiros, Natasha Zvereva Players ranked in 2001 but not in 2000 (total of 278): Gaelle Adda, Katia Afinogenova, Irini Alevizopoulou, Anna Alexeeva, Patricia Almudever, Michal Amir, Mari Andersson, Catalina Angeleri, Jody Anglin, Marina Anjutin, Montika Anuchan, Saras Arasu, Czarina Mae Arevalo, Simona Arghire, Julia Arguello, Claudia Argumedo, Severine Arpajou, ,

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 233 Elisabeth Bahn, , Gabrielle Baker, Giulia Baldoni, Elisa Balsamo, Audrey Banada, Luisa Barcaui, Cassandra Barr, Sana Ben Salah, Whitney Benik, Bibi Berecz, Melissa Berry, Ankita Bhambri, Fernanda Bini, Kathleen Blaszak, Nischela Boda Reddy, Katerina Bondarenko, Irina Boulykina, Ivana Bracun, Lauren Breadmore, Ann-laure Brochard, Helen Broome, Kellie Browne, Asha Burns, Cristina Cabello, Daniela Caljkusic, Donna Calvert, Fernanda Caputi, Kristin Cargill, Deborak Carmassi, Debbie Carr, Larissa Carvalho, Petra Cetkovska, Ana Cetnik, Chin-wei Chan, Hsiao-Han Chao, Marina Chaves-Moledo, Chia-jung Chuang, Tanner Cochran, Caitlin Collins, Isabel Collischonn, Kim Coventry, Luisa Cowper, Deenarose Cruz, Anita Csendes, Dubravka Cupac, , Inge De Geest, Rita Degliesposti, Irina Delitz, Aurore Desert, Salome Devidze, Delpine Dewinne, Jana Deylova, Shruti Dhawan, Dominika Dieskova, Giovanna Dilauro, Rachel Dive, Tomoko Doukei, Bianca-Mihael Dulgheru, Ekaterina Dzehalevich, Natallia Dziamidzenka, Megan Emmett, Anna Erikson, Pilar Escandell, Mariana Soleda Esperon, Franziska Etzel, Rommy Farah, Michelle Faucher, , Jennifer Fiers, , Pamela Fogel, Yamile Fors, Celine Francois, Ofra Fridman, Helen Fritche, Jacqueline Froehlich, Elena Gancheva, Julia Gandia, Melanie Gerbasi, Iveta Gerlova, Michelle Giang, Mieiea Gol, Pamela Gonzalez Medina, Adriana Gonzalez Penas, , Ji-Sun Ha, Jie Hao, Laura Heckler, Frances Hendry, Andrea Hermansen, Klara Hladka, Barbara Hoeflinger, Nikolina Hrankova, Su-wei Hsieh, Camilla Hsu, Sonia Iacovacci, Elisa Innocenti, Karine Ionesco, Naoko Ishikawa, , Amanda Janes, Jelena Jankovic, Klaudia Jans, Mathilde Johansson, Ana Jovanovic, Ivana Jovanovic, Sanja Jukic, You-Mi Jung, Mariana Junqueira, , Katarina Kachlikova, Kim Kambic, Kaia Kanepi, Claudia Kardys, Oxana Karyshkova, Ivana Kekez, Amany Khalifa, Na-Eun Kim, Su-Jin Kim, Sandra Kloesel, Beier Ko, Annette Kolb, Raquel Kops-Jones, Alexandra Korotkevitch, Caroline Korsawe, , Alexandra Kostikova, Hana Kraftova, Jenny Kuehn, Claudia Kuleszka, Maria Kunova, Anais Laurendon, Joo-Hee Lee, Alexandria Liles, Vanessa , Jenny Lindstrom, Eugenia Linetskaya, Yang Liu, Rebecca Llewellyn, Jennie Loow, Marian Lopez Terribile, Lourdes Lopez, Marie-Jose Lopez, Marie-Fra Lord-Andrade, Heesun Lyoo-Suh, Nadzeja Lysak, Mariana Macia, Christa Magister, Borka Majstorovic, Radhika Mandke, Ruxandra Marin, Sharon Marin, Simona Matei, Bethanie Mattek, Flavia Mignola, , Britta Mohlmann, Giorgia Mondani, , Natalie Neri, Caroline Neves, Dominika Nociarova, Hanna Nooni, Helena Norfeldt, Karen Nugent, Yanet Nunez, Alison Ojeda, Hiromi Okazaki, Sabine Oristil, Barbara Orlay, Ekaterina Ostapenko, Shuai Peng, Cecilia Perez Audero, Jewel Peterson, Elena Petrucciano, Angela Piedrahita, Aline Pinheiro, Elena Pioppo, Nicole Pitts, Tihana Pochobradsky, Marie-Pier Pouliot, Monica Poveda, Ariela Primo, Inga Prodinger, Cecilia Quarracino, Rebecca Rankin, Prariyawan Ratanakrong, Claire Ricketts, , Rochelle Rosenfield, Desiree Roset Torres, Nancy Rustignoli, Miho Saeki, Dinara Safina, Caroline Salge, Mariela Salinas, Nadejda Samoilo, Amanda Sanches, Rossella Sartore, Yevgenia Savransky, , Tanja Schugt, Medini Sharma, Laila Shetty, Mi-Ran Shin, Anouk Sinnige, Anna Spivakovsky, Patricia Starzyk, Mandy Stegman, Danielle Steinberg, Antonie Steinmetz, Madita Suer, Nina Suvak, Madoka Suzuki, Utako Suzuki, Krisel Sverko, Tereza Szafnerova, Adriana Szili, Romana Tedjakusuma, Chattida Thimjapo, Christian Thompson, Magdalena Tokarska, Virginia Tomatis, Cristina Tonelli, Margot Torre, Ana Cecilia Trevino, Natalia Tsitouras, Olena Tsutskova, Nana Urotadze, Tessy Van De Ven, Suza Van Hartingsveldt, Evelyne Van Hyfte, Carine Vermeulen, Ilona Vichnevskaya, Natalia Volcova, Julia Vorobieva, , Sara Walker, Charlotte Wallace, Emily Webley-Smith, Tiffany Welford, Nina Wennerstrom, Jenifer Widjaja, Yan-ze Xie, Natalia Yakimovich, Akiko Yonemura, Annabel Youthed, Paula Zabala, Christina Zachariadou, Sandra Zahlavova, Tory Zawacki, Zuzana Zemenova, Anzela Zguna, Yan Zhang, Jenny Zika, Gabriela Ziliotto, Nina Zlender, Katarina Zoricic Players ranked in both 2000 and 2001 (total of 935): Charlotte Aagaard, Evghenia Ablovatchi, Ivana Abramovic, Monica Acosta, , Lucie Ahl, Linda Akkerman, Joanne Akl, Duygu Aksit, Inga Albers, Tracy Almeda-Singian, Katia Altilia, Daniela Alvarez, Ma. Fernanda Alves, Anca Anastasiu, Carla Andrade, Rosa M. Andres, Laurence Andretto, Yasmin Angeli, , Olena Antypina, Kaori Aoyama, Yuki Arai, Tamara Aranda, Melisa Arevalo, Greta Arn, Cristina Arribas, Sofia Arvidsson, Shinobu Asagoe, Merve Asimgil, Miyako Ataka, , Cory Ann Avants, Livia Azzi, Martina Babakova, Julia Babilon, Lubomira Bacheva, Angelika Bachmann, , Marilyn Baker, Liana Balaci, , , Eun-Young Ban, Laura Bao, Olga Barabanschikova, Heli Bargil, Adriana Barna, Anca Barna, Alice Barnes, Lauren Barnikow, Jorgelina Barrera, , Adriana Basaric, Katerina Basternakova, Yvette Basting, Carla Bastos, Anna Bastrikova, Caroline Ann Basu, Suzi Becvinovska, Daja Bedanova, Celine Beigbeder, Jenny Belobrajdic, Severine Beltrame, Iveta Benesova, Annika Bengtsson, Susi Bensch, Marisol Berengeno, Segolene Berger, Marina Bernshtein, Eva Bes, Helena Besovic, Yulia Beygelzimer, Raffaella Bindi, Eva Birnerova, Cara Black, Olga Blahotova, Katja Blocker, Annabel Blow, Kristy Blumberg, Maria Boboedova, Natalia Bogdanova, Branka Bojovic, Alyona Bondarenko, Valeria Bondarenko, Kristie Boogert, Olga Borisova, Carine Bornu, Roberta Borrelli, Sandrine Bouilleau, Elena Bovina, Svetla Bozicnik, Megan Bradley, Allison Bradshaw, Kristina Brandi, Nina Brattchikova, Brandis Braverman, , Ma. Eugenia Brito, Diana Brunel, Giorgia Buchanan, Erin Burdette, Mia Buric, Adriana Burz, Ramona But, Dawn Buth, , Beatri Cabrera Rosendo, Sandra Cacic, Marina Caiazzo, Bree Calderwood, Els Callens, Maria Elena Camerin, , Jennifer Capriati, Angela Cardoso, Marina Cardoso, Ansley Cargill, Jackie Carleton, Chloe Carlotti, Åsa Carlsson, , , Giulia Casoni, Catalina Castano, Bianca Catay, Leslie Cavanaugh, Lenka Cenkova, Ludmila Cervanova, Kyung Yee Chae, Margalit Chakhnashvili, Rushmi Chakravarti, Nandita Chandrashekar, Kyung-Mi Chang, Courtenay Chapman, Li Ling Chen, Yan Chen, Yu-An Chen, , Jane Chi,

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 234 Eugenia Chialvo, , Denisa Chladkova, Yoon Jeong Cho, Bo-Ra Choi, Jin-Young Choi, Young-Ja Choi, Wilawan Choptang, Yang-Jin Chung, Raluca Ciochina, Agata Cioroch, Erika Clarke, Nicole Clerico, Elke Clijsters, Kim Clijsters, Amelie Cocheteux, Amanda Coetzer, Stephanie Cohen Aloro, Alyssa Cohen, , Lauren Colalillo, Paloma Collantes, Hannah Collin, Mariana Conde, Celeste Contin, Chantal Coombs, Annica Cooper, Sabrina Corazza, Mariana Correa, , Diana Costa, Courmes, Laurence Courtois, Jorgelina Cravero, Jill Craybas, Bianca Cremer, Catalina Cristea, , Olivia Crouchent, Veronika Ctvrtnickova, , Tiffany Dabek, Sabrina Damario, Eleni Daniilidou, Katarina Daskovic, Michelle Dasso, Lindsay Davenport, Victoria Davies, Dewonder Davis, Julie Dawson, Erika De Lone, Julie De Roo, Stephanie De Ville, , Nathalie Déchy, Liga Dekmeijere, Lara Del Saz, Sonia Delgado, Laura Dell'angelo, Elena Dementieva, Kun Deng, Vanessa Devesa, Marutha Devi, , Germana Di Natale, Mariana Diaz-Oliva, Amy Dillingham, Ding Ding, Sarah Dinkelmann, Silvia Disderi, Mireille Dittmann, , Petra Dizdar, Lenka Dlhopolcova, Csilla Dobo, Jelena Dokic, Lourdes Dominguez Lino, Evie Dominikovic, Yanhua Dong, Melissa Dowse, Yvonne Doyle, Ruxandra Dragomir Ilie, Maureen Drake, Nina Dubbers, Gisella Dulko, Amandine Dulon, Eva Dyrberg, Emmanuelle Edon, Nina Egger, , Sabrina Eisenberg, Helena Ejeson, Anat Elazari, Annabel Ellwood, Jennifer Embry, Adria Engel, Eva Erbova, Sophie Erre, Marina Escobar, Lamia Essaadi, Feriel Esseghir, Marcela Evangelista, Yomna Farid, Silvia Farina Elia, Goulna Fattakhetdinova, Evelyn Fauth, Clarisa Fernandez, Jessica Fernandez, Laura Figuerola, Susanne Filipp, Eva Fislova, Christina Fitz, Anna Floris, Karen Fodera, Galina Fokina, Anna Foldenyi, Anna Font, Stephanie Foretz, , Amy Frazier, Brandi Freudenberg, Kirstin Freye, Lisa Fritz, Candice Fuchs, Rika Fujiwara, Noelia Furno, Alexandra Fusai, Emmanuelle Gagliardi, Mar Gallifa Puigdesens, Gemma Gallo Gomez, Edina Gallovits, Natasha Galouza, Tathiana Garbin, Vanina Garcia Sokol, Ma. Alejandra Garcia, Paula Garcia, Martha Garzon- Elkins, Ioana Gaspar, Stefanie Gehrlein, Sophie Georges, Michelle Gerards, Ilke Gers, Adriana Gersi, Iva Gersic, Maria Geznenge, Diana Gherghi, Lea Ghirardi, Andrea Glass, Yael Glitsenstein, Oana-elen Golimbioschi, Maria Goloviznina, Ainhoa Goni, Cynthia Goulet, Raissa Gourevich, Sheethal Goutham, , Rita Grande, Nathalie Grandin, , Sarah Gregg, Cristelle Grier, Magdalena Grzybowska, Zsofia Gubacsi, Sheila Guerberg, Akiko Gunji, Kerry- Anne Guse, Natalia Gussoni, Debby Haak, Karina Habsudova, Dinka Hadzic, Stefanie Haidner, Daniela Hantuchova, , Briana Harris, Tumeka Harris, Anna Hawkins, Silvia Hegedis, Adrienn Hegedus, Ines Heise, Anne- Laure Heitz, Zuzana Hejdova, Justine Hénin, , Tina Hergold, Paula Hermida, Audrey Hernandez, Stefanie Hershfield, Jaslyn Hewitt, Emily Hewson, Martina Hingis, , Tanja Hirschauer, Shiho Hisamatsu, Jana Hlavackova, Denise Hofer, Carly Homewood, Da-Jung Hong, Marielle Hoogland, Jennifer Hopkins, Amanda Hopmans, Christiana Hoppmann, Naoko Horikawa, Kveta Hrdlickova, Stanislava Hrozenska, Anke Huber, Liezel Huber, Janette Husarova, Kelley Hyndman, , Dragana Ilic, Reiko Ino, Haruka Inoue, Maiko Inoue, Marissa Irvin, Keiko Ishida, Chisayo Ito, Claudia Ivone, Karina Jacobsgaard, Karolina Jagieniak, J. Sai Jayalakshmy, Mi-Ra Jeon, Adriana Jerabek, , Alina Jidkova, Nadia Johnston, Dragica Joksimovic, Sabrina Jolk, La Shawnn Jones, Mareze Joubert, Desanka Jovanovic, Mervana Jugic-Salkic, Olga Kalioujnaia, Lauren Kalvaria, Bianca Kamper, Tara Kanbargimath, Jana Kandarr, Acsimino Kaplani, Aniko Kapros, Karina Karner, Shizu Katsumi, Riei Kawamata, , Dina Khalil, Chin Bee Khoo, Eun-Ha Kim, Eun-Kyung Kim, Eun-Sook Kim, Jin-Hee Kim, Kwon-Hee Kim, Mi-Ok Kim, Akiko Kinebuchi, Satomi Kinjo, Yumiko Kitamura, Daniela Kix, Sabine Klaschka, Sandra Kleinova, Daniella Klemenschitz, Sandra Klemenschitz, Natalie Ko, Marketa Kochta, Renata Kolbovic, Hiroko Komori, , Milica Koprivica, Irina Kornienko, Jelena Kostanic, Klara Koukalova, Evgenia Koulikovskaya, Anna Kournikova, Marijana Kovacevic, Tatiana Kovalchuk, Ekaterina Kozhokina, Hanna Krampe, Lina Krasnoroutskaya, Dimana Krastevitch, Kristina Kraszewski, , Vanesa Krauth, Monika Krauze, Maria Kravchenko, Alexandra Kravets, Eva Krejcova, Anne Kremer, Camilla Kremer, Kavitha Krishnamurthy, Svetlana Krivencheva, , Tina Krizan, Joannette Kruger, Gabrielle Kucerova, Magdalena Kucerova, Renata Kucerova, Petra Kucova, Zuzana Kucova, Blanka Kumbarova, Lubomira Kurhajcova, Satoko Kurioka, Agata Kurowska, Iryna Kuryanovich, Daria Kustava, Rita Kuti Kis, , Isha Lakhani, Bianka Lamade, Magalie Lamarre, Ma. Fernanda Landa, Pichaya Laosirichon, Debbie Larocque, Charlotta Larsson, Louise Latimer, Olga Lazarchuk, Marina Lazarovska, Elodie Lebescond, An-Na Lee, Eun-Jeong Lee, Janet Lee, Lindsay Lee- Waters, Sophie Lefevre, Gala Leon Garcia, Zuzana Lesenarova, Fang Li, Na Li, Ting Li, Edita Liachoviciute, Kelly Liggan, Elena Likhovtseva, Sae-Mi Lim, Ya-Ming Lin, , Jing-Jing Liu, Nan Nan Liu, , Salome Llaguno, Nancy Loeffler-Caro, Susi Lohrmann, Emilie Loit, Anya Loncaric, Marylene Losey, , Mirjana Lucic, Kate Lutgert, Tetiana Luzanska, Dominika Luzarova, Stephanie Mabry, Jana Macurova, , Jennifer Magley, Marnie Mahler, Diana Majkic, Iva Majoli, Magdalena Maleeva, , Sanda Mamic, Karla Mancinas, Petra Mandula, Geeta Manohar, Anja Margetic, Emily Marker, Melanie Marois, Katalin Marosi-Aracama, Mia Marovic, Marta Marrero, Magdalena Marszalek, Ana Martin Ramirez, Eva Martincova, Conc Martinez Granados, Conchita Martinez, Ma. Jose Martinez, Sandra Martinovic, Marion Maruska, Luciana Masante, Andrea Masarykova, Ana Maslesa, Monica Mastan, Andreea Matei, Maja Matevzic, Diane Matias, Antonia Matic, Amélie Mauresmo, Kelly Mc Cain, Donna Mc Intyre, Katie McGlennen, Rachel McQuillan, Lisa McShea, Anabel Medina Garrigues, Nicole Melch, , Jolanda Mens, Giulia Meruzzi, Yvonne Meusburger, Jennifer Miccoli, Melissa Middleton, Lucia Migliarni, , Neda Mihneva, Marie-Gaiane Mikaelian, Vanja Mikovic, Mojca Mileta, , Dina Milosevic, Meritxell Mimo, Marta Mir Portell, Katalin Miskolczi, Isabella Mitterlehner, Nana Miyagi, Amiella Mojzis, Mihaela Moldovan, Alicia Molik, Eszter

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 235 Molnar, Angeles Montolio, Joanne Moore, Milangela Morales, Corina Morariu, Elsa Morel, Akiko Morigami, Giorgia Mortello, Svetlana Mossiakova, Bahia Mouhtassine, Karla Mraz, Leonn Muller V. Moppes, Martina Müller, Daniela Munoz, Patty Murren, Trudi Musgrave, Anastasia Myskina, Wei Na, Sandra Nacuk, Kyra Nagy, Henrieta Nagyova, Chiaki Nakajima, Junri Namigata, Ljiljana Nanusevic, Alison Nash, Andrea Nathan, Barbara Navarro, Gabriela Navratilova, Anna Eugenia Nefedova, Rossana Neffa-de los Rios, Jana Nejedly, Milena Nekvapilova, Lenka Nemeckova, Lioudmila Nikoian, Katrina Nimmers, Nina Nittinger, Ayoko Noda, Ana Nogueira, Pavlina Nola, Seda Noorlander, Irena Nossenko, Ana Paula Novaes, Candela Novoa, Lenka Novotna, Petra Novotnikova, Edith Nunes, Tracey O'Connor, Jane O'Donoghue, Saori Obata, , Eun-Mi Oh, Jean Okada, , Daniela Olivera, Zuzana Ondraskova, Miriam Oremans, Priscila Ortega, Alicia Ortuno, Diana Ospina, Lilia Osterloh, Nadejda Ostrovskaya, Maja Palaversic Coopersmith, Karin Palme, Antoaneta Pandjerova, Jelena Pandzic, Daria Panova, Tatiana Panova, Hannah Parker, Holly Parkinson, Arancha Parra, Sara Pasquinoni, Michaela Pastikova, Karishma Patel, , Alena Paulenkova, Maria Pavlidou, Biljana Pavlova, Nicola Payne, Radka Pelikanova, Marie-Eve Pelletier, Ingrid Peltier, , Tatiana Perebiynis, Liza Pereira, , Nandini Perumal, Melinda Petkes, Nadia Petrova, Marina Petrovic, Sonal Phadke, Virginia Pichet, Frederica Piedade, Mary Pierce, Rebecca Pike, Camille Pin, Tina Pisnik, Sarah Pitkowski-Malcor, , Petra Plackova, Sylvia Plischke, Barbara Polidoro, Ilona Poljakova, Lana Popadic, Lenka Potocarova, Tatiana Poutchek, Wynne Prakusya, Nicole Pratt, Libuse Prusova, Petra Puheloinen, Julie Pullin, Caroline Raba, Veronika Raimrova, Mariam Ramon Climent, , Dally Randriantefy, Natacha Randriantefy, Preeti Rao, , Lisa Raymond, Virginie Razzano, Samantha Reeves, Celine Regnier, Lyndsay Reilly, Nicole Remis, , Zerene Reyes, , , Sarah Riske, Barbara Rittner, Alejandra Rivero, Florencia Rivolta, Veronica Rizhik, Stephanie Rizzi, Deanna Roberts, Julieta Robin, Shadisha Robinson, Anastassia Rodionova, Carolina Rodriguez, Angelika Roesch, Nuria Roig, Barbara Rosenberger, Capucine Rousseau, Evagelia Roussi, Virginia Ruano Pascual, Chanda Rubin, Paloma Ruiz-Blanco, Petra Russegger, Margit Ruutel, Misae Sakai, Joanna Sakowicz, Ana Salas, Ma. Emilia Salerni, Claudia Salgues, Daniela Salomon, Florencia Salvadores, Ma. Jo Sanchez Alayeto, Ma. Pi Sanchez Alayeto, Ma. An Sanchez Lorenzo, Laetitia Sanchez, , Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Raluca Sandu, , Carlota Santos, Valentina Sassi, Wukirasih Sawondari, Monica Scartoni, Stephanie Schaer, , Barbara Schett, Martina Schiavo, Francesca Schiavone, Tina Schiechtl, Nadine Schlotterer, , Kristen Schlukebir, Syna Schmidle, Elizabeth Schmidt, Jennifer Schmidt, , Monika Schneider, Miriam Schnitzer, Patty Schnyder, , Barbara Schwartz, Lotty Seelen, Nicole Seitenbecher, Samrita Sekar, Beti Sekulovski, Monica Seles, Irina Selyutina, Ipek Senoglu, Milagros Sequera, Magui Serna, Adriana Serra-Zanetti, Antonella Serra-Zanetti, , Selima Sfar, Meghann Shaughnessy, Lui Li Shen, Xia Sheng, Julie Shiflet, Anne-Gaëlle Sidot, Kelly Simkin, Amandine Singla, Ana Maria Sismondini, Rosa Maria Sitja, , Pavlina Slitrova, Anna Smashnova, Julia Smith, Lenk Snajdrova, Tara Snyder, Leticia Sobral, Neus Sole, Tassia Sono, Aneta Soukup, , Veronica Spiegel, Karolina Sprem, Katarina Srebotnik, Diana Srebrovic, Alexsandra Srndovic, Hana Sromova, Jovana Stanisljevic, , Lucie Steflova, Lydia Steinbach, Emily Stellato, Shelley Stephens, Anouk Sterk, Alexandra Stevenson, Bryanne Stewart, , , Katarzyna Straczy, Martina Strussova, Paola Suarez, Evgenia Subbotina, Martina Sucha, Tomoko Sugano, Ai Sugiyama, Dea Sumantri, Michelle Summerside, Tian Tian Sun, Ayako Suzuki, Giselle Swart, Ekaterina Syssoeva, Keiko Taguchi, Tomoko Taira, Ayami Takase, Ryoko Takemura, Ayano Takeuchi, Silvija Talaja, Lucia Tallo, Keiko Tameishi, Tamarine Tanasugarn, Yan Tang, Rita Tarjan, Elena Tatarkova, Nathalie Tauziat, Sarah Taylor, Regina Temez, Sandrine Testud, Remi Tezuka, Yamini Thukkaiandi, Caroline Tidemand, , Ana Timotic, Niki Tippins, Lisa Tognetti, Ka-Po Tong, Napaporn Tongsalec, Dessislava Topalova, Radoslava Topalova, Cristin Torrens Valero, Melissa Torres, Jacqueline Trail, Alienor Tricerri, Virginia Trifonova, Susanne Trik, Nicola Trinder, Kristina Triska, Emilie Trouche, Meilen Tu, Radhika Tulpule, Iroda Tulyaganova, Catherine Turinsky, Lenka Tvaroskova, , , Motoe Uchida, Remi Uda, Sachie Umehara, Nami Urabe, Nirupama Vaidyanathan, Megha Vakharia, Julia Vakulenko, Erika Valdes, Zuzana Valekova, Sabrina Valenti, Patty Van Acker, Andrea Van Den Hurk, Natasha Van Der Merwe, Kristen Van Elden, Anousjka Van Exel, Lara Van Rooyen, Andreea Vanc, Ludmilla Varmuza, Jyotsna Vasisht, Alena Vaskova, Nadejda Vassileva, Miroslava Vavrinec, Aurelie Vedy, Gabriel Velasco Andreu, Archana Venkataraman, Arthi Venkataraman, Maria Vento-Kabchi, Masa Vesenjak, Urska Vesenjak, Elena Vianello, Helga Vieira, Monique Viele, Nathalie Vierin, Elisa Villa, Roberta Vinci, Rachel Viollet, Suchanan Viratprasert, Ivana Visic, Visnja Visnjic, Antonela Voina, Gabriela Volekova, Renata Voracova, Aleksandra Vucenovic, Visnja Vuletic, Nana Wada, Elena Wagner, Marion Walter, Eva Wang, I-Ting Wang, Shi- Ting Wang, Jo Ward, Patricia Wartusch, Mashona Washington, Jolene Watanabe, , , Svenja Weidemann, Marlene Weingärtner, Stefanie Weis, Tzu-Ting Weng, Scarlett Werner, Christina Wheeler, Angelique Widjaja, Susanne Wild, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Douglas Wink, Kathrin Woerle, Maria Wolfbrandt, Kati Wolner, Orawan Wongkamalasai, Nicola Woodhouse, , Jie Xu, Etsuko Yamada, Zi Yan, Lan Yao, Alena Yaryshka, Bucke Yavuz, Jing-Qian Yi, Yumi Yokoi, Tomoko Yonemura, Yuka Yoshida, Ying Yu, Marianna Yuferova, Dragana Zaric, Anna Zarska, Maria Letizia Zavagli, Maria Paola Zavagli, Magdalena Zdenovcova, Jie Zheng, Alexandra Zotta, Fabiola Zuluaga, Ivana Zupa,

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Page 236 Black/Testud 139, 150, 152 Index Black/Washington 139, 152 A Bloomington $50K 35 Boca Raton 201 Acupulco 16, 34, 122, 170, 184 Boca Raton — see also Delray Beach Adams, Katrina 231 Bogota 28, 34, 122, 170 Albuquerque $75K 35 Bol 23, 34, 122, 172, 187 Amelia Island 23, 32, 33, 121, 162, 171, 186, 197, 198, 199, Bollegraf, Manon 135 200, 201, 202, 205 Bonaventure — See Fort Lauderdale Antwerp 34, 123, 173 Bonicelli/Chanfreau Lovera 214 Appelmans, Sabine 199 Boogert/Callens 140, 152 Arendt, Nicole 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 159 Boogert/Oremans 171, 185 Arendt/Serna 139, 152 Bordeaux $75K 35 Arendt/Sugiyama 139, 150, 152, 160, 161, 162, 168, 169, Boshoff/Kloss 214 170, 171, 183, 184, 185 Boston 202 Arendt/Tarabini 152 Bovina, Elena 12, 170, 171, 184, 185, 186 Arendt/Vis 139, 152, 160, 192 Bovina/Hantuchova 161, 180 Arn, Greta 176 Boynton Beach $75K 24, 35, 185 Asagoe, Shinobu 169, 170, 182 Bradenton/Sarasota $75K 35 Atlanta 202 Bradshaw, Allison 168, 181 Auckland 34, 123, 168, 181 Brandi, Kristina 173, 174, 175, 187, 189 Austin, Tracy 225, 226, 228, 229, 230 Bratislava 20, 34, 122, 180 Australian Open 15, 32, 33, 120, 162, 169, 181, 197, 198, Brighton 199, 200, 201, 202 199, 200, 201, 202, 205 Brisbane 201, 202 B Bronx $50K 35 Bacheva, Lubomira 35, 171, 186 Budapest 22, 34, 123, 172 Bacheva/Carlsson 161, 176 Bunge, Bettina 226, 228 Bahia 27, 32, 33, 121, 162, 178, 193, 197, 198, 199, 205 Buth, Dawn 35 Balestrat, Dianne 226, 228 C Balestrat/Gourlay 214 Cacic, Sandra 170, 183, 190 Bali 34, 122, 179, 193 Cali $50K 35 Barcelona 199, 200 Callens, Els 134, 135, 136, 138, 140, 159 Barker, Sue 226, 228 Callens, Els — See also Barna/Callens Barna, Anca 174 Callens, Els — See also Boogert/Callens Barna/Callens 140, 152 Callens/Grande 140, 142, 152 Basel 34, 122 Callens/Hénin 140, 152 Basting, Yvette 35 Callens/Pratt 140, 146, 152 Basting/Srebotnik 149, 152 Callens/Ruano Pascual 140, 147, 161, 173 Basuki/Sanchez-Vicario 148, 152 Callens/Rubin 140, 152, 160, 178, 192 Basuki/Vis 161, 162, 170 Callens/Schlukebir 140, 152 Batumi $75K 35 Callens/Shaughnessy 140, 149, 153, 160, 161, 162, 172 Bedanova. Daja 5, 8, 11, 15, 89, 104, 169, 174, 177, 178, Callens/Sidot 140, 153, 160 179, 180, 184, 191, 192, 194 Callens/Tatarkova 140, 153 Bedanova/Bovina 161, 180 Camerin, Maria Elena 35, 176 Bedanova/Martinez 145, 152 Canadian Open 31, 32, 33, 120, 162, 177, 191, 197, 198, 199, Beigbeder, Celine 35, 173 200, 201, 202, 205 Berlin 23, 32, 33, 120, 162, 172, 187, 197, 198, 199, 200, Canberra 20, 34, 122, 168, 181 201, 202, 205 Capriati, Jennifer 5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, Bes, Eva 173, 178, 192 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, Big Island 30, 34, 122, 193 60, 61, 62, 64, 80, 83, 87, 89, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 102, 103, Birmingham 30, 34, 122, 174, 189 104, 109, 114, 116, 117, 118, 131, 132, 168, 169, 170, 171, Black, Cara 12, 132, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 159, 168, 174, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 188, 195 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 199, Black/L. Huber 139, 143, 161, 162, 178 200, 206, 226, 228 Black/Likhovtseva 139, 144, 152, 158, 160, 161, 162, 168, Capriati/Dokic 141, 153 172, 173, 174, 176, 177 Capriati/Hingis 142, 153, 192 Black/Pratt 139, 146, 152 Capriati/Sanchez-Vicario 148, 153

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Index ¥ Page 237 Capriati/Shaughnessy 149, 153 Davenport, Lindsay 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 17, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, Capriati/Sugiyama 150, 153, 188 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, Cargill, Ansley 35 58, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 74, 80, 83, 87, 89, 92, 93, 95, Carlsson, Åsa 35, 136, 138, 175, 176 100, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 110, 114, 116, 117, 118, 131, Carlsson/Po 146, 153 132, 133, 134, 136, 138, 141, 159, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174, Carlsson/Pratt 146, 153 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 190, Carlsson/Tulyaganova 161, 180 191, 192, 194, 195, 199, 207, 221, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, Casablanca 34, 123, 176 230 Casals, Rosie 215, 221, 226, 228 Davenport/ MJ Fernandez 214 Casals/Turnbull 214 Davenport/Morariu 141, 145, 153, 160, 169, 181, 182, 214 Caserta $50K 35 Davenport/Novotna 214 Casoni/Husarova 143, 161, 168 Davenport/Raymond 141, 147, 160, 161, 162, 179, 180 Casoni/Vinci 151, 153 de Lone/Huber 143, 153 Castano, Catalina 35 de Lone/Pratt 146, 153 Cergy Pontoise $75K 35 de los Rios, Rossana — See also Rossana Neffa-de los Rios Cervanova, Ludmila 180, 185 Déchy, Nathalie 8, 12, 17, 89, 95, 100, 104, 168, 170, 171, Chaloner/Evers 214 172, 174, 177, 178, 179, 181, 184, 186, 189, 193 Chanfreau Lovera, Gail (Sheriff) — See Déchy/Tauziat 150, 153, 154 Bonicelli/Chanfreau Lovera Déchy/Testud 151, 154 Charleston 15, 32, 33, 120, 162, 172, 186, 197, 198, 199 Delray Beach 199, 200 Chase Championships 197, 198, 199, 200, 205 Dementieva, Elena 5, 7, 8, 11, 18, 39, 40, 49, 64, 89, 95, 100, Chicago 199, 200, 201, 202 104, 133, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, Chladkova, Denisa 12, 171, 172, 175, 186, 190 181, 183, 184, 185, 188, 189, 190, 192, 194 Cho, Yoon Jeong 35 Dementieva/Dokic 141, 154, 160 Cincinnati 201 Dementieva/Husarova 143, 154 Clijsters, Kim 5, 7, 8, 11, 16, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, Dementieva/Krasnoroutskaya 194 44, 46, 49, 50, 56, 58, 60, 64, 80, 89, 95, 100, 103, 104, Denain $50K 35 106, 107, 109, 111, 114, 116, 117, 118, 131, 134, 136, 138, Detroit 202 140, 159, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, Diaz-Oliva, Mariana 12, 170, 172, 184, 187, 190 184, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 199, 206, 226, Doha 21, 34, 122, 169, 183 228 Dokic, Jelena 5, 7, 8, 11, 18, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 58, 60, Clijsters/Courtois 140, 153, 160 64, 66, 89, 95, 100, 104, 107, 110, 111, 114, 116, 117, 118, Clijsters/Dokic 140, 141, 153 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 138, 141, 159, 171, 172, 173, 174, Clijsters/Molik 140, 153 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, Clijsters/Oremans 140, 153 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 199, 226, 228 Clijsters/Schett 140, 148, 153 Dokic, Jelena — See also Clijsters/Dokic Clijsters/Serna 140, 153 Dokic, Jelena — See also under Capriati/Dokic Clijsters/Shaughnessy 140, 149, 153 Dokic, Jelena — See also under Dementieva/Dokic Clijsters/Sugiyama 140, 150, 153, 160 Dokic/Farina Elia 141, 154 Coetzer, Amanda 5, 7, 8, 11, 16, 34, 36, 39, 40, 64, 89, 95, Dokic/Martinez 141, 145, 154, 160, 188 100, 104, 115, 134, 136, 138, 140, 159, 169, 170, 171, 172, Dokic/Morariu 141, 145, 154 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, Dokic/Nacuk 141, 154 186, 187, 192, 195, 199, 200, 226, 228 Dokic/Petrova 141, 154, 160, 161, 162, 180 Coetzer/McNeil 140, 145, 153, 160, 161, 162, 170, 178, 192 Dokic/Ruano Pascual 141, 147, 154 Coetzer/Morariu 140, 145, 153 Dokic/Sidot 141, 154 Coetzer/Po 140, 146, 153 Dokic/Tarabini 141, 154 Court, Margaret 213, 215, 219, 220, 221, 225, 226, 228, 232 Dominikovic, Evie 12, 170, 184 Courtois, Laurence — See also Clijsters/Courtois Dominikovic/Tanasugarn 161, 179 Courtois/Shaughnessy 149, 153 Dragomir Ilie, Ruxandra 168, 172, 185 Craybas, Jill 168, 171, 178, 181 Dragomir Ilie/Petrova 161, 174 D Dragomir/Ruano Pascual 147, 154 Dallas 200, 201, 202 Dubai 21, 32, 33, 121, 162, 170, 183, 197, 198, 199, 205 Dallas $50K 35 Dubai $75K+H 35 Dalton 215 Durie, Jo 202, 226, 228 Daniilidou, Eleni 35, 189 Durr, Francoise 215, 225, 232 Date, Kimiko 199, 200, 226, 228 Dyrberg, Eva 35

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Index ¥ Page 238 E Garbin/Husarova 143, 154, 158, 160, 161, 170, 172, 175 Eastbourne 17, 32, 33, 121, 162, 174, 189, 197, 198, 199, Garrison(-Jackson), Zina 200, 201, 202, 226, 228 200, 201, 202, 205 Gersi, Adriana 12, 34, 115, 169, 176, 183 Ericsson 31, 32, 33, 120, 162, 171, 185, 197, 198, 199, 200, Gifu $50K 35 201, 205 Girona $50K 35 Essen 199, 200 Glass, Andrea 172, 174, 187 Estoril 23, 34, 122, 171, 186 Gold Coast 20, 34, 122, 168, 181 Ettenheim $50K+H 35 Goolagong (Cawley), Evonne 216, 221, 225, 226, 228, 229, Evers, Dianne — See Chaloner/Evers 230 Evert, Chris 201, 202, 219, 221, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230 Goolagong Cawley/Gourlay 214 Evert/Navratilova 214 Gourlay Cawley, Helen 232 Gourlay (Cawley), Helen — See also Balestrat/Gourlay F Gourlay (Cawley), Helen — See also Goolagong Cawley/ Fairbank/Harford 214 Gourlay Fairbank/Reynolds 214 Gourlay Cawley/Russell 214 Fano $50K 35 Graf, Steffi 131, 199, 200, 201, 202, 208, 219, 221, 224, 225, Farina Elia, Silvia 5, 8, 11, 19, 34, 39, 40, 64, 89, 95, 104, 226, 228, 229, 230 111, 115, 138, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, Graf/Sabatini 214 178, 180, 181, 183, 184, 186, 188, 190, 192, 193 Grande 5, 8, 11, 64, 106, 136 Farina Elia, Silvia — See also Dokic/Farina Elia Grande, Rita 20, 34, 115, 138, 142, 159, 168, 169, 177, 179, Farina Elia/Husarova 143, 154 180 Farina Elia/Oremans 177 Grande, Rita — See also Callens/Grande Farina Elia/Schett 148, 154 Grande, Rita — See also Fusai/Grande Farina Elia/Tulyaganova 161, 173 Grande, Rita — See also Gagliardi/Grande Fendick/MJ Fernandez 214 Grande/Habsudova 142, 155 Fernandez, Clarisa 35 Grande/Majoli 142, 155 Fernandez, Gigi 216, 219, 220, 221, 231, 232 Grande/Rittner 142, 147, 155 Fernandez, Gigi/Navratilova 214 Gubacsi, Zsofia 12, 34, 115, 176, 190 Fernandez, Gigi/White 214 Fernandez, Gigi/Zvereva 214, 219 H Fernandez, Mary Joe 199, 200, 226, 228, 230 Habsudova, Karina 35 Fernandez, Mary Joe — See also Habsudova, Karina — See also Grande/Habsudova Davenport/MJ Fernandez Hack, Sabine 200 Fernandez, Mary Joe — See also Fendick/MJ Fernandez Halard-Decugis, Julie 8, 135, 199, 231 Filderstadt 17, 32, 33, 121, 162, 178, 179, 194, 197, 198, Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama 214 199, 200, 201, 202, 205 Hamburg 31, 32, 33, 121, 162, 172, 187, 197, 198, 199, 200, Fokina, Galina 179, 194 201, 205 Fokina/Foretz 172, 187 Hanika, Sylvia 202, 226, 228 Foretz, Stephanie 179 Hannover 199 Fort Lauderdale 202 Hantuchova, Daniela 12, 170, 173, 174, 179, 180, 183, 187, Frazier, Amy 8, 12, 19, 89, 95, 100, 104, 168, 169, 170, 171, 189, 190, 194, 195 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario 148, 155 200 Hantuchova/Sugiyama 150, 155 French Open — See Roland Garros Hantuchova/Testud 151, 155 Fresno $50K 35 Hanuchova, Daniela 179 Fujiwara, Rika 179 Harford, Tanya — See Fairbank/Harford Fukuoka $50K 35 Hartford 202 Fusai, Alexandra 135, 136, 138, 141, 159 Hattiesburg $50K 35 Fusai/Grande 141, 142, 154, 158, 160, 161, 168 Hénin, Justine 5, 7, 8, 11, 20, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 58, Fusai/Salerni 141, 154 60, 64, 83, 90, 95, 97, 98, 100, 102, 103, 104, 111, 115, Fusai/Tatarkova 141, 154 133, 138, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, G 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 187, 189, 190, 193, 194, 195, 208, Gadusek, Bonnie 202 226, 228 Gagliardi, Emmanuelle 12, 35, 169, 173, 179, 182 Hénin, Justine — See also Callens/Hénin Gagliardi/Grande 142, 154 Hénin/Shaughnessy 149, 155, 160 Gagliardi/Schett 148, 154 Hilton Head 200, 201, 202, 205 Garbin, Tathiana 35, 136, 138, 170, 171, 174, 184, 185, 186

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Index ¥ Page 239 Hingis, Martina 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, J 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, Jaeger, Andrea 226, 228 58, 60, 61, 62, 64, 74, 80, 83, 87, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, Japan Open 27, 34, 179 100, 104, 109, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 131, 132, 133, Jausovec, Mima 226, 228 134, 135, 136, 138, 142, 159, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, Jausovec/Ruzici 214 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, Jeyaseelan, Sonya — See also Huber/Jeyaseelan 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 199, 209, 216, 219, 220, Jeyaseelan/Po 146, 155 221, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232 Jidkova, Alina 35, 112, 132, 178 Hingis, Martina — See also Capriati/Hingis Johannesburg 202 Hingis/Kournikova 142, 143, 155, 160, 161, 162, 179, 191, Jones, Ann 213 194 Jordan, Kathy 216, 219, 220 Hingis/Lucic 219 Jordan, Kathy/Anne Smith 214, 219 Hingis/Novotna 214, 219 Jordan/Smylie 214 Hingis/Pierce 214 Hingis/Seles 142, 155, 160, 181, 182 K Hingis/Sukova 214 Kandarr, Jana 12, 171, 174, 176, 186, 188, 190, 195 Hobart 20, 34, 123, 168 Kanepi, Kaia 35 Hopkins, Jennifer 12, 35, 132, 168, 173, 177 Kapros, Aniko 35, 172, 176 Hopmans, Amanda 175 Key Biscayne 202 Horn, Liezel — See also under Liezel (Horn) Huber Kim, Eun-Ha 35 Horn/Jeyaseelan 143, 155 King, Billie Jean 213, 216, 221, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230 Horn/Majoli 143, 155 King/Navratilova 214 Horn/Montalvo 143, 155 Kiyomura/Sawamatsu 214 Horn/Suarez 143, 150, 155 Klagenfurt 175 Horn/Vento 143, 155 Klaschka, Sabine 35 Houston 199, 200, 201, 202 Kleinova, Sandra 184 Hrdlickova, Kveta 138, 171, 179, 180, 185, 192 Kloss, Ilana — See Boshoff/Kloss Hrdlickova/Rittner 147, 155, 161, 171 Knokke-Heist 31, 34, 122, 190 Hsieh, Su-Wei 179 Kohde-Kilsch, Claudia 202, 226, 228 Huber, Anke 5, 7, 8, 11, 21, 39, 40, 64, 90, 95, 100, 104, 133, Kohde-Kilsch/Sukova 214 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 183, 184, Kostanic, Jelena 175, 190 185, 186, 188, 191, 193, 194, 195, 199, 200, 226, 228 Koukalova, Klara 35, 173, 190 Huber, A./Schett 148, 155, 160 Koukalova/Vaskova 194 Huber, Liezel (Horn) 134, 136, 138, 143, 159, 178, 180, 193, Kournikova, Anna 6, 7, 8, 12, 21, 90, 95, 100, 104, 132, 133, 196 134, 135, 136, 138, 143, 159, 168, 169, 176, 179, 181, 182, Huber, Liezel (Horn) — See also Liezel Horn 183, 191, 194, 195, 226, 228 Huber, Liezel (Horn) — See also de Lone/Huber Kournikova, Anna — See also Hingis/Kournikova Huber, L. Horn/Montalvo 143, 155, 160, 191 Kournikova/Schett 143, 148, 155, 160, 161, 162, 168 Huber, L./McQuillan 143, 155, 161, 179 Kournikova/Tulyaganova 143, 155, 169, 183 Huber, L./Nemeckova 143, 161, 179 Krasnoroutskaya, Lina 11, 170, 173, 174, 176, 183, 185 Huber, L./Prakusya 143, 155 Kremer, Anne 11, 169, 172, 174, 175, 178, 179, 180, 183, Huber, L./Shaughnessy 155 187, 190, 191, 196 Huber, L./Shaughnessy 143, 149 Krivencheva, Svetlana 35 Husarova, Janette 12, 134, 136, 138, 143, 159, 169, 181 Krizan, Tina 134, 136, 138, 144, 159 Husarova, Janette — See also Dementieva/Husarova Krizan/Pratt 144, 146, 155 Husarova, Janette — See also Farina Elia/Husarova Krizan/Selyutina 144, 155, 160 Husarova, Janette — See also Garbin/Husarova Krizan/Srebotnik 144, 149, 156, 158, 160, 161, 178 Husarova/Nacuk 143, 155 Krizan/Tulyaganova 144, 156 Kruger, Joanette 173, 179, 187, 193, 194 I Kruger, Joannette 12 Indian Wells 32, 33, 120, 162, 170, 184, 197, 198, 199, 200, Kruger/Schiavone 161, 176 205 Kuti Kis, Rita 12, 170, 173, 186, 187 Indianapolis 201, 202 Irvin, Marissa 12, 35, 132, 177, 178, 193 L Italian Open — see Rome Lamade, Bianka 12, 34, 115, 174, 176 Ivone/Vinci 151, 155 Largo $50K 35 Lee, Janet 35, 138

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Index ¥ Page 240 Lee/Prakusya 161, 162, 176 Martinez/Tarabini 145, 156, 160, 161, 162, 171 Leipzig 16, 32, 33, 121, 162, 179, 193, 197, 198, 199, 200, Martinez, Maria Jose 35, 136, 138, 173, 175, 176 205 Martinez/Medina Garrigues 161, 170, 171, 172, 176 Leon Garcia, Gala 12, 95, 175, 176, 178, 188, 190 Matevzic, Maja 12, 35, 178, 192 Lexington $50K 35 Mattek, Bethanie 185 Likhovtseva, Elena 8, 12, 22, 90, 95, 100, 104, 132, 134, 135, Mauresmo, Amélie 5, 7, 8, 11, 23, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 49, 136, 138, 144, 159, 168, 169, 171, 172, 174, 181, 184, 185, 54, 58, 60, 61, 64, 83, 90, 95, 97, 98, 100, 104, 114, 115, 186, 191 116, 117, 118, 131, 133, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, Likhovtseva, Elena — See also Black/Likhovtseva 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, Likhovtseva/Pierce 144, 156 194, 199, 209 Likhovtseva/Pratt 144, 146, 156 Mauresmo/Testud 151, 156 Likhovtseva/Sugiyama 144, 150, 156 McGrath, Meredith 200 Likhovtseva/Tauziat 144, 150, 161, 162, 179 McNeil, Lori 134, 136, 138, 145, 159, 200, 201 Linz 17, 32, 33, 121, 162, 180, 195, 197, 198, 199, 205 McNeil, Lori — See also Coetzer/McNeil Lions Cup (Tokyo) 202 McQuillan, Rachel 12, 138, 170, 183, 184 Lipton 202 McQuillan, Rachel — See also L. Huber/McQuillan Livingston — See Princeton McQuillan/Pratt 146, 156 Llagostera (Vives), Nuria 170 McQuillan/Sanchez-Vicario 148, 156 Loit, Emilie 35, 176 Medina Garrigues, Anabel 12, 34, 35, 115, 138, 173, 175 Loit/Sidot 161, 162, 169 Medvedeva, Natalia 200 Los Angeles 17, 32, 33, 121, 162, 177, 191, 197, 198, 199, Midland $75K 35 200, 201, 202, 205 Mikaelian, Marie-Gaiane 12, 174, 176, 180 Los Gatos $50K 35 Milan 200 Luxembourg 16, 34, 122, 180, 195 Minneapolis $50K — See Bloomington $50K Modena $60K+H 35 M Molik, Alicia 12, 35, 174, 177, 178, 179, 189, 192, 196 Madrid 25, 34, 122, 173, 187 Molik, Alicia — See also Clijsters/Molik Mahwah 200, 201, 202 Molik/Pratt 146, 156, 160 Mahwah $50K 35 Montalvo, Laura 136, 138 Majoli, Iva 12, 35, 169, 172, 180, 193, 195, 199, 200, 226, Montalvo, Laura — See also 228 Horn/Montalvo=Huber/Montalvo Majoli, Iva — See also Grande/Majoli Montalvo/Suarez 150, 156 Majoli, Iva — See also Horn/Majoli Montolio, Angeles 5, 8, 11, 23, 34, 36, 64, 96, 104, 115, 171, Majoli/Razzano 161, 162, 169 172, 173, 175, 176, 187, 190, 193 Majoli/Schett 148, 156, 160 Morariu, Corina 135, 136, 145, 159, 168, 169, 170, 181, 231 Maleeva, Katerina 200, 226, 228 Morariu, Corina — See also Davenport/Morariu Maleeva, Magdalena 5, 8, 11, 22, 34, 39, 40, 64, 90, 95, 100, Morariu, Corina — See also under Coetzer/Morariu 104, 115, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 179, 180, Morariu, Corina — See also under Dokic/Morariu 181, 183, 185, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 194, 199, 200, 226, Morariu/Sugiyama 145, 150, 156, 172, 187 228 Morozova, Olga 226, 228 Maleeva-Fragniere, Manuela 200, 201, 202, 225, 226, 228, Moscow 18, 32, 33, 120, 162, 179, 194, 197, 198, 199, 205 230 Müller, Martina 35, 172, 176 Mandlikova, Hana 201, 202, 221, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230 Munich 31, 32, 33, 120, 162, 180, 195, 197, 198, 199 Mandlikova/Navratilova 214 Myskina, Anastasia 12, 175, 177, 179, 192, 194 Mandula, Petra 12, 35, 174, 188 Mandula/Wartusch 161, 174 N Marco Island 201 Nacuk, Sandra — See also Dokic/Nacuk Marco Island — See also Orlando Nacuk, Sandra — See also Husarova/Nacuk Mariskova/Teeguarden 214 Nacuk/Rittner 147 Marosi-Aracama, Katalin 35 Nagelsen, Betsy — See also Navratilova/Nagelson Marrero, Marta 12, 171, 175, 176, 185, 190 Nagelsen/Tomanova 214 Marseilles $50K 35 Nagyova, Henrieta 5, 8, 11, 24, 35, 64, 90, 104, 173, 174, Martinez, Conchita 6, 7, 8, 11, 23, 49, 90, 95, 100, 104, 133, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 186, 188, 190, 193, 196 134, 136, 138, 145, 159, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, Nagyova/Rittner 147, 156 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201, 209, Navratilova, Martina 138, 145, 159, 200, 201, 202, 217, 219, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230 220, 221, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232 Martinez, Conchita — See also Bedanova/Martinez Navratilova, Martina — See also Evert/Navratilova Martinez, Conchita — See also Dokic/Martinez 154 Navratilova, Martina — See also Fernandez/Navratilova

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Index ¥ Page 241 Navratilova, Martina — See also King/Navratilova Philadelphia 199, 200, 205 Navratilova, Martina — See also Mandlikova/Navratilova Pierce, Mary 6, 7, 8, 24, 90, 96, 99, 101, 104, 131, 133, 135, Navratilova/Nagelsen 214 136, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario 145, 148, 156, 160, 194 188, 199, 200, 210, 227, 228, 230 Navratilova/Shriver 214, 219 Pierce, Mary — See also Hingis/Pierce Navratilova/Smith 214 Pierce, Mary — See also Likhovtseva/Pierce Navratilova/Stove 214 Pierce/Schett 148, 156 Navratilova/Temesvari 214 Pierce/Sugiyama 150, 156 Neffa-de los Rios, Rossana 12, 173, 175, 178, 180, 188, 190, Pierce/Testud 151, 156 196 Pisnik, Tina 12, 171, 179, 180, 184, 186, 193, 195 Neiland, Larisa 231, 232 Pisnik/Ruano Pascual 147, 156 Neiland, Larisa — See also Savchenko, Larisa Pitkowski-Malcor, Sarah 171, 188 Neiland/Zvereva 214 Pittsburg $50K 35 Nejedly, Jana 178 Po, Kimberly — See Kimberly Po-Messerli New England 200, 201, 202 Po-Messerli, Kimberly 134, 135, 136, 138, 146, 150, 159 New Haven 31, 32, 33, 121, 162, 177, 192, 197, 198, 199, Po(-Messerli), Kimberly — See also Carlsson/Po 205 Po(-Messerli), Kimberly — See also Jeyaseelan/Po New Orleans 201, 202 Po(-Messerli), Kimberly — See also under Coetzer/Po Newport 200, 201, 202 Po/Pratt 146, 156 Nice 23, 32, 33, 121, 162, 169, 183, 197, 198, 199, 205 Po/Serna 146, 156 Nola, Pavlina 179 Po-Messerli/Pratt 146, 160, 161, 162, 177 Noorlander, Seda 35, 174 Po-Messerli/Tauziat 146, 150, 157, 160, 161, 162, 177, 188, Novotna, Jana 199, 200, 217, 220, 221, 227, 228, 229, 230, 193 232 Poitiers $75K+H 35 Novotna, Jana — See also Davenport/Novotna Porto 25, 34, 122, 171, 185 Novotna, Jana — See also Hingis/Novotna Portschach — see Vienna Novotna/Sukova 214 Potter, Barbara 201, 227, 228 Poutchek, Tatiana 12, 35, 176, 178, 180, 186, 196 O Prakusya, Wynne 138, 181, 191 Oakland 202 Prakusya, Wynne — See also L. Huber/Prakusya Oakland — see also Stanford Prakusya/Rittner 147, 157 Obata, Saori 35 Pratt, Nicole 12, 134, 136, 138, 146, 159, 174, 176, 177, 179, Oklahoma City 27, 34, 122, 170, 183 191 Ondraskova, Zuzana 35 Pratt, Nicole — See also Black/Pratt Orbetello $50K+H 35 Pratt, Nicole — See also Callens/Pratt Oremans, Miriam 174, 181, 189 Pratt, Nicole — See also Carlsson/Pratt Oremans, Miriam — See also Clijsters/Oremans 153 Pratt, Nicole — See also de Lone/Pratt Orlando 202 Pratt, Nicole — See also Krizan/Pratt Osterloh, Lilia 12, 171, 175, 178, 180, 182, 186, 189 Pratt, Nicole — See also Likhovtseva/Pratt Ostrovskaya, Nadejda 35 Pratt, Nicole — See also McQuillan/Pratt P Pratt, Nicole — See also Molik/Pratt Pratt, Nicole — See also Po/Pratt Palaversic Coopersmith, Maja 185, 190 Pratt/Shaughnessy 146, 149, 157, 160 Palermo 34, 123, 175, 190 Pratt/Sidot 146, 157 Palm Beach Gardens 202 Pratt/Tarabini 146, 157 Palm Springs 201 Pratt/Tatarkova 146, 157 Palm Springs — See also Indian Wells Princess Cup 18, 32, 33, 121, 162, 193, 197, 198, 199, 200, Pan Pacific 17, 32, 33, 120, 162, 169, 182, 197, 198, 199, 205 200, 201, 202, 205 Princeton 202 Panova, Tatiana 12, 174, 175, 179, 180, 185, 195 Paris 23, 32, 33, 121, 162, 169, 183, 197, 198, 199, 200, 205 Q Pattaya City 26, 34, 123, 180, 196 Quebec City 28, 34, 122, 178, 193 Paz, Mercedes 232 Queens Grand Prix (Tokyo) 202 Pelletier, Marie-Eve 35 Pennetta/Vinci 151, 156 R Perebiynis, Tatiana 173 Raymond, Lisa 5, 8, 11, 24, 64, 90, 101, 104, 134, 135, 136, Petrova, Nadia 12, 138, 171, 173, 175, 187, 189, 195 138, 147, 159, 168, 169, 170, 174, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, Petrova, Nadia — See also Dokic/Petrova 183, 184, 189, 195, 231

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Index ¥ Page 242 Raymond/Stubbs 147, 149, 157, 160, 161, 162, 169, 170, Salerni, Maria Emilia — See also Ruano Pascual/Salerni 172, 174, 175, 178, 180, 182, 185, 188, 192, 193 San Antonio 200, 201 Raymond/Testud 147, 151, 157 San Diego 31, 32, 33, 121, 162, 176, 191, 197, 198, 199, 200, Razzano, Virginie 12, 35, 174, 177, 189, 191 201, 205 Razzano/Testud 151, 157 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 25, 34, 36, 39, 40, Reeves, Samantha 35, 178 64, 90, 96, 101, 104, 115, 134, 135, 136, 138, 148, 159, Reeves/Ad. Serra-Zanetti 161, 178 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 183, 184, Reggi, Raffaella 201, 202 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 199, 200, 201, Rehe, Stephanie 201, 202 211, 217, 221, 224, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232 Reid, Kerry 227, 228 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa — See also Reid/Turnbull 214 Basuki/Sanchez-Vicario Reynolds, Candy — See Fairbank/Reynolds Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa — See also Richey, Nancy 225, 227, 228 Capriati/Sanchez-Vicario Richmond 202 Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa — See also Rinaldi, Kathy 202 Hantuchova/Sanchez-Vicario Rittner, Barbara 12, 34, 115, 134, 136, 138, 147, 159, 173, Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa — See also 178, 195 McQuillan/Sanchez-Vicario Rittner, Barbara — See also Grande/Rittner Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa — See also Rittner, Barbara — See also Hrdlickova/Rittner Navratilova/Sanchez-Vicario Rittner, Barbara — See also Nagyova/Rittner Sanchez-Vicario/Schett 148, 157 Rittner, Barbara — See also Prakusya/Rittner Sanchez-Vicario/Serna 148, 157 Rittner/Schnyder 147, 157 Sanchez-Vicario/Sukova 214 Rittner/Tarabini 147, 157 Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat 148, 150, 157, 160, 161, 162, 171, Rittner/Vento 147, 157 185 Rittner/Weingärtner 147, 157 Savchenko, Larisa — See also Larisa Neiland Roesch, Angelika 35 Savchenko/Zvereva 214 Roland Garros 15, 32, 33, 120, 162, 174, 188, 197, 198, 199, Sawamatsu, Kazuko — See Kiyomura/Sawamatsu 200, 201, 202, 205 Schett, Barbara 5, 8, 11, 26, 64, 90, 96, 101, 104, 134, 135, Rome 18, 32, 33, 120, 162, 173, 187, 197, 198, 199, 200, 136, 138, 148, 159, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 201, 202, 205 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, Ruano Pascual, Virginia 12, 35, 134, 135, 136, 138, 147, 195, 227, 228 159, 170, 175, 189 Schett, Barbara — See also (A.) Huber/Schett Ruano Pascual, Virginia — See also Schett, Barbara — See also Clijsters/Schett Dragomir/Ruano Pascual Schett, Barbara — See also Farina Elia/Schett Ruano Pascual, Virginia — See also Schett, Barbara — See also Gagliardi/Schett Pisnik/Ruano Pascual Schett, Barbara — See also Kournikova/Schett Ruano Pascual, Virginia — See also under Schett, Barbara — See also Majoli/Schett Dokic/Ruano Pascual Schett, Barbara — See also Pierce/Schett Ruano Pascual/Salerni 147, 157 Schett, Barbara — See also Sanchez-Vicario/Schett Ruano Pascual/Serna 147, 161, 175 Schett/Vis 148, 157 Ruano Pascual/Suarez 147, 150, 157, 160, 161, 162, 173, Schiavone, Francesca 11, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 179, 180, 174, 177, 178, 184, 188, 192, 214 194 Rubin, Chanda 8, 12, 25, 90, 96, 101, 104, 133, 135, 136, Schlukebir, Katie — See also Callens/Schlukebir 168, 169, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 181, 186, 189, Schlukebir/Shaughnessy 149, 157 194, 195, 199 Schnitzer, Miriam 172 Rubin, Chanda — See also Callens/Rubin Schnyder, Patty 8, 12, 26, 34, 90, 96, 101, 105, 115, 168, Rubin/Testud 151, 157 172, 175, 176, 181, 183, 185, 187, 190, 193, 195, 196, 199, Russell, JoAnne — See also Gourlay Cawley/Russell 225 Ruzici, Virginia 202 Schnyder, Patty — See also Rittner/Schnyder Ruzici, Virginia — See also Jausovec/Ruzici Schwartz, Barbara 35, 175, 178 Scottsdale 17, 32, 33, 121, 162, 170, 184, 197, 198, 199, 205 S Seles, Monica 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 27, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 49, Sabatini, Gabriela 199, 200, 201, 211, 213, 225, 227, 228, 55, 58, 60, 64, 83, 90, 92, 96, 101, 105, 106, 107, 115, 118, 229, 230 131, 133, 168, 169, 170, 173, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, Sabatini, Gabriela — See also Graf/Sabatini 184, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 201, 212, 221, 224, Saeki, Miho 35 225, 227, 228, 229, 230 Saint-Gaudens $50K 35 Seles, Monica — See also Hingis/Seles Salerni, Maria Emilia — See also Fusai/Salerni

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Index ¥ Page 243 Seles/Shaughnessy 149, 157 Stanford 16, 32, 33, 121, 162, 176, 190, 197, 198, 199, 200, Selyutina, Irina 35 201, 205 Selyutina, Irina — See also Krizan/Selyutina Stevenson, Alexandra 12, 178, 179, 180, 195 Seoul $50K (I) 35 Stewart, Bryanne 35 Seoul $50K (II) 35 Stove, Betty 227, 229, 232 Sequera, Milagros 35 Stove, Betty — See also Navratilova/Stove Serna, Magui 5, 8, 11, 27, 64, 90, 96, 101, 105, 170, 171, 172, Stove/Turnbull 214 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 184, 186, 187, 189, 190, 192 Strasbourg 19, 34, 122, 173, 188 Serna, Magui — See also Arendt/Serna Stratton Mtn 200 Serna, Magui — See also Clijsters/Serna Stubbs, Rennae 134, 135, 137, 138, 149, 159 Serna, Magui — See also Po/Serna Stubbs, Rennae — See also Raymond/Stubbs Serna, Magui — See also Sanchez-Vicario/Serna Suarez, Paola 5, 8, 11, 28, 34, 64, 90, 96, 101, 105, 115, 133, Serna/Testud 151, 157 134, 135, 137, 138, 150, 159, 168, 169, 170, 172, 175, 178, Serra-Zanetti, Adriana 175, 180 181, 182, 187, 190, 192 Serra-Zanetti/Vinci 151, 157 Suarez, Paola — See also Montalvo/Suarez Sfar, Selima 170 Suarez, Paola — See also Ruano Pascual/Suarez Shanghai 27, 34, 122, 179 Suarez, Paola — See also Horn/Suarez Shaughnessy, Meghann 5, 8, 11, 28, 34, 36, 39, 40, 64, 90, Suarez/Tarabini 150, 158, 161, 175 96, 101, 105, 115, 134, 136, 138, 149, 159, 168, 169, 170, Sucha, Martina 12, 35, 176, 178, 180, 193 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 187, 188, 189, Sugiyama, Ai 5, 8, 11, 29, 96, 101, 105, 132, 134, 135, 137, 190, 192 138, 150, 159, 168, 169, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 181, 182, Shaughnessy, Meghann — See also Callens/Shaughnessy 185, 189, 191, 193, 195, 196 Shaughnessy, Meghann — See also Capriati/Shaughnessy Sugiyama, Ai — See also Arendt/Sugiyama Shaughnessy, Meghann — See also Clijsters/Shaughnessy Sugiyama, Ai — See also Capriati/Sugiyama Shaughnessy, Meghann — See also Courtois/Shaughnessy Sugiyama, Ai — See also Clijsters/Sugiyama Shaughnessy, Meghann — See also Hénin/Shaughnessy Sugiyama, Ai — See also Halard-Decugis/Sugiyama Shaughnessy, Meghann — See also L. Huber/Meghann Sugiyama, Ai — See also Hantuchova/Sugiyama Shaughnessy, Meghann — See also Pratt/Shaughnessy Sugiyama, Ai — See also Likhovtseva/Sugiyama Shaughnessy, Meghann — See also Sugiyama, Ai — See also Morariu/Sugiyama Schlukebir/Shaughnessy Sugiyama, Ai — See also Pierce/Sugiyama Shaughnessy, Meghann — See also Seles/Shaughnessy Sugiyama/Tulyaganova 150, 158 Shaughnessy/Vis 149, 157 Sugiyama/Yoshida 150, 158 ’s-Hertogenbosch 34, 122, 174, 189 Sukova, Helena 201, 202, 218, 220, 221, 227, 229, 230, 231, Shriver, Pam 201, 202, 217, 219, 220, 221, 227, 228, 229, 232 230, 231, 232 Sukova, Helena — See also Hingis/Sukova Shriver, Pam — See also Navratilova/Shriver Sukova, Helena — See also Kohde-Kilsch/Sukova Shriver/Zvereva 214 Sukova, Helena — See also Novotna/Sukova Sidot 135, 138, 169, 171, 172, 182, 189 Sukova, Helena — See also Sanchez-Vicario/Sukova Sidot, Anne-Gaëlle 136 Surabaya 199 Sidot, Anne-Gaëlle — See also Callens/Sidot Sydney 21, 32, 33, 121, 162, 168, 181, 197, 198, 199, 200, Sidot, Anne-Gaëlle — See also Pratt/Sidot 201, 202, 205 Sidot, Anne-Gaëlle — See also under Dokic/Sidot Sydney Indoors 202 Sidot/Testud 151, 157 Smashnova, Anna 35, 175, 176, 188, 190 T Smith, Anne 218, 219, 220 Talaja 171, 178, 181, 188 Smith, Anne — See also Kathy Jordan/Anne Smith Tampa 200, 201, 202 Smith, Anne — See also Navratilova/Smith Tanasugarn, Tamarine 5, 8, 11, 29, 91, 96, 101, 105, 170, Smylie, Elizabeth — See also Jordan/Smylie 173, 174, 175, 179, 180, 189, 194, 196 Snyder, Tara 35 Tarabini, Patricia 137, 138 Sopot 34, 122, 176 Tarabini, Patricia — See also Arendt/Tarabini Southampton $50K 35 Tarabini, Patricia — See also Martinez/Tarabini Spirlea, Irina 199, 227, 228 Tarabini, Patricia — See also Pratt/Tarabini Srebotnik, Katarina 35, 134, 136, 138, 149, 159 Tarabini, Patricia — See also Rittner/Tarabini Srebotnik, Katarina — See also Basting/Srebotnik Tarabini, Patricia — See also Suarez/Tarabini Srebotnik, Katarina — See also Krizan/Srebotnik Tarabini, Patricia — See also Dokic/Tarabini Srebotnik/Testud 149, 151, 158, 169, 182 Tashkent 34, 122, 174, 189 Tatarkova, Elena 138 Tatarkova, Elena — See also Callens/Tatarkova

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Index ¥ Page 244 Tatarkova, Elena — See also Fusai/Tatarkova Vinci, Roberta — See also Ivone/Vinci Tatarkova, Elena — See also Pratt/Tatarkova Vinci, Roberta — See also Pennetta/Vinci Tauziat, Nathalie 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 30, 34, 36, 39, 40, 64, 91, 96, Vinci, Roberta — See also Testud/Vinci 101, 105, 115, 134, 135, 137, 138, 150, 159, 169, 170, 171, Vinci/Zavagli 151, 158 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 180, 183, 184, 188, 189, 191, Virginia Slims Championships 201, 202 192, 193, 194, 195, 199, 200, 227, 229 Vis, Caroline 137, 138 Tauziat, Nathalie — See also Déchy/Tauziat Vis, Caroline — See also Arendt/Vis Tauziat, Nathalie — See also Po-Messerli/Tauziat Vis, Caroline — See also Schett/Vis Tauziat, Nathalie — See also Sanchez-Vicario/Tauziat Vis, Caroline — See also Shaughnessy/Vis Teeguarden, Pam — See also Mariskova/Teeguarden Temesvari, Andrea 202 W Temesvari, Andrea — See also Navratilova/Temesvari Wade, Virginia 213, 221, 225, 227, 229, 230 Testud, Sandrine 5, 8, 11, 30, 34, 36, 39, 40, 49, 64, 91, 96, Wang, Shi-Ting 199 101, 105, 111, 115, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 151, 159, Wartusch, Patricia 185 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, Washington 200, 201, 202 182, 183, 184, 188, 193, 194, 195, 199 Washington, Mashona 35 Testud, Sandrine — See also Black/Testud Washington, Mashona — See also Black/Washington Testud, Sandrine — See also Déchy/Testud Weingärtner, Marlene 12, 168, 172, 177, 178, 179, 181, 186, Testud, Sandrine — See also Hantuchova/Testud 191, 193 Testud, Sandrine — See also Mauresmo/Testud Weingärtner, Marlene — See also Rittner/Weingärtner Testud, Sandrine — See also Pierce/Testud West Columbia $50K 35 Testud, Sandrine — See also Raymond/Testud White, Robin — See Fernandez/White Testud, Sandrine — See also Razzano/Testud Widjaja, Angelique 12, 34, 115, 179, 194 Testud, Sandrine — See also Rubin/Testud Williams, Serena 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, Testud, Sandrine — See also Serna/Testud 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 74, 79, Testud, Sandrine — See also Sidot/Testud 83, 87, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 109, Testud, Sandrine — See also Srebotnik/Testud 114, 116, 117, 118, 131, 132, 133, 137, 159, 169, 170, 171, Testud/Vinci 151, 158, 160, 161, 169, 178, 192, 193 174, 175, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 188, 190, 191, Tomanova, Renata — See also Nagelson/Tomanova 192, 193, 199, 212, 218, 219, 220, 227, 229 Torrens Valero, Cristina 11, 34, 96, 115, 170, 172, 174, 175, Williams, Venus 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 176, 178, 189, 190, 193 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, Tu, Meilen 12, 34, 115, 168, 169, 178, 179, 180, 183, 190 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 80, 82, 83, 87, 91, 92, 93, 96, 101, Tucson $50K 35 102, 103, 105, 109, 110, 114, 115, 116, 117, 131, 133, 137, Tulyaganova, Iroda 5, 8, 11, 31, 34, 36, 39, 40, 64, 79, 83, 91, 159, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 182, 183, 96, 105, 115, 138, 171, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 185, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 199, 212, 218, 219, 220, 183, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 195, 196 221, 225, 227, 229 Tulyaganova, Iroda — See also Kournikova/Tulyaganova Williams/Williams 151, 158, 160, 161, 162, 169, 181, 182, Tulyaganova, Iroda — See also Krizan/Tulyaganova 192, 219 Tulyaganova, Iroda — See also Sugiyama/Tulyaganova Wimbledon 31, 32, 33, 120, 162, 175, 189, 197, 198, 199, Turnbull, Wendy 218, 227, 229, 230 200, 201, 202, 205 Turnbull, Wendy — See also Casals/Turnbull Y Turnbull, Wendy — See also Reid/Turnbull Yi, Jing-Qian 35 Turnbull, Wendy — See also Stove/Turnbull Yoshida, Yuka — See Sugiyama/Yoshida U Z U. S. Open 31, 32, 33, 120, 162, 178, 192, 197, 198, 199, Zuluaga, Fabiola 35 200, 201, 202, 205 Zurich 17, 32, 33, 120, 162, 180, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, V 201, 202, 205 Vakulenko, Julia 35, 180, 196 Zvereva, Natasha 135, 137, 199, 200, 218, 219, 220, 221, Van Roost, Dominique 135 227, 229, 231, 232 Vavrinec, Miroslava 178 Zvereva, Natasha — See also Neiland/Zvereva Vento-Kabchi, Maria (Alejandra) — See also Horn/Vento Zvereva, Natasha — See also Savchenko/Zvereva Vento-Kabchi, Maria Alejandra — See also Rittner/Vento Zvereva, Natasha — See also Shriver/Zvereva Vienna 31, 34, 122, 175, 190 Vinci, Roberta 134, 137, 138, 151, 159 Vinci, Roberta — See also (Antonella) Serra-Zanetti/Vinci Vinci, Roberta — See also Casoni/Vinci

WTA Statistical Abstract 2001 ©Robert Waltz Index ¥ Page 245