WTA Tour Statistical Abstract 1999 Robert B. Waltz ©1999 by Robert B. Waltz and Tennis News Reproduction and/or distribution for profit prohibited Contents Introduction Head to Head — Results Winning Percentage on Hardcourts against Top Players Points Per Tournament on Hardcourts 1999 In Review: The Top Best and Worst Results on Hardcourts The Top 20 Head to Head Players Clay The Final Top Twenty-Five Wins Over Top Players Summary of Clay Results The Beginning Top Twenty Matches Played/Won against the (Final) Winning Percentage on Clay Summary of Changes, beginning to end Top Twenty Points Per Tournament on Clay of 1999 Won/Lost Versus the Top Players Best and Worst Results on Clay (Based on Rankings at the Time of All the Players in the Top Ten in Grass 1999 the Match) Won/Lost Versus the Top Players Summary of Grass Results The Complete Top Ten Based on WTA (Based on Final Rankings) (Best 18) Statistics Indoors The Complete Top Ten under the 1996 Statistics/Rankings Based on Summary of Indoor Results Ranking System Head-to-Head Numbers Winning Percentage Indoors Points Per Tournament Indoors Ranking Fluctuation Total Wins over Top Ten Players Best and Worst Results Indoors Top Players Sorted by Median Ranking Winning Percentage against Top Ten Players All-Surface Players Tournament Results Wins Against Top Ten Players Tournament Wins by Surface Tournaments Played/Summary of Analysed Results for Top Players Assorted Statistics Tournament Winners by Date (High- How They Earned Their Points Tier Events) Fraction of Points Earned in Slams The Busiest Players on the Tour Tournament Winners by Tournament Quality Versus Round Points Total Tour Matches Played by Top Type (High-Tier Events) Percentage of Points Earned on Each Players Winners at Smaller Tournaments (Tier Surface Total Tour Events Played by the Top III, IVA, IVB) 150 Number of Tournament Wins for Each Consistency Player Standard Deviation of Scores by The Biggest Tournaments Fraction of Tournaments Won Tournament Tournament Strength Based on the Four Top Players Present Summary: Tiers of Tournaments Played Early-Round Losses and Average Tier The Top Tournaments Based on Top Frequency of Early Losses Points earned week-by-week Players Present Winning Percentage against Non-Top- Tournament Results (Points Earned), 20 Players Strongest Tournament Sorted from Most to Least Performances Worst Losses Alternate Rankings Worst Losses Based on Rankings at the Bagels Total Points Ranking (1997 Ranking Time The Dominance of the Big Four System) Worst Losses Based on Year-End Points Per Tournament, Minimum 14 Rankings Projections for 2000 (1996 Ranking System) Fraction of Points Earned in Best 14 Doubles Best 18 with Slotted Point Awards Biggest Win The Final Top 25 in Doubles (ATP Year 2000 Award) Winning and Losing Streaks Team Doubles Titles, Sorted from Most Total Wins Number of Significant Results to Least Winning Percentage The Top Fifteen Players/Results Points Per Quarter Other Alternate Rankings Doubles Tournament Winners by Date First Quarter (High-Tier Events) Total Round Points Second Quarter Total Quality Points Doubles Winning Percentages for the Third Quarter Top Fifteen Round Points Per Tournament Fourth Quarter Quality Points Per Tournament Doubles Winning Percentages for the Quality/Round Points Equalized: 2Q+R Slam Results Top Teams Per Tournament Alternate Doubles Rankings Winning Percentage Adjusting for Surface Rankings Rankings under the 1996 Ranking Tournament Strength Hardcourts System (Divisor, Minimum 14) Wins Per Tournament Summary of Hardcourt Results Points Per Tournament, No Minimum Percentage of Possible Points Earned Divisor Introduction When you see the report that so-and-so is the #1 female tennis player, what do you think? What does it mean when a player earns the “#1 ranking?” What is a ranking? There are many answers, ranging from simple to complex. A simple answer is, “A ranking is a way for assessing players’ performances and seeding them in tournaments.” This is the purpose of the rankings. A technical answer, for female tennis players, is, “A number, the sum of the points earned in a player’s best eighteen tournaments, where points are awarded according to a system based on the prize money the tournament offers and the quality of the opposition one faces.” This is the method behind the rankings. But the usual answer is, “It’s a way to determine who is the best player.” But “best” can mean a lot of things. The player who is best overall may not be the best on clay. Or may have moved to the top based partly on health (ability to play a full schedule). Some players are more consistent, others streaky. The best player may not have the best winning percentage (in both 1998 and 1999, for instance, the player with the best winning percentage wound up #2), or the most wins, or the most titles. In fact, the #1 ranking guarantees only one thing: That the player has done what it takes to be #1. Thus the official tennis rankings, while they have great importance to the players (since they determine seeds and tournament admission) are actually just numbers. They do not automatically say who is the best player (whatever “best” means); they simply say who has the highest point total under the WTA rules. To fully understand a player’s game, we need to know much more than her ranking. We need to know she did on each surface. We need to know she fared against other top players. We need to know how many tournaments she won, and how often she suffered a first round defeat. A complete statistical picture of a player will involve a vast array of statistics, and involve many types of data. What follows is an attempt to examine some of these subjects, at least for the top players. It is a statistical exercise, based mostly on the results for the WTA Top Twenty, designed to provide more perspective than the WTA’s simple point-counting game. It also offers some miscellaneous statistics of interest. The purpose of this document is not to assert opinions. Of course, it is impossible to entirely avoid opinions, since (ahem!) I have some. These opinions perhaps influence which statistics I include. Nonetheless, this abstract exists primarily for the sake of the numbers. If there is commentary, it is intended to explain what the numbers mean or to bring out some especially salient point. (Hence the section on “Projections.”) Depending on the statistic, data may be offered based only on the Top Ten, the Top Twenty, or the Top Twenty-Five (usually one of the latter two). It is assumed that the Top 5 in all categories will be on this list, and usually the Top 10. We should add a few footnotes. First, unless otherwise specified, the “Top Ten” includes Steffi Graf (making it actually a “Top Eleven”), because Graf’s final point total would have made her #5, and because she earned points and won tournaments which would otherwise have gone to other players. Therefore she must be included. Similarly, Jana Novotna, whose final point total would have made her #19, is included in references to the Top Twenty (making it actually 22). This makes comparisons to other years difficult, but there is little other choice. Second, the decision to exclude exhibitions (Grand Slam Cup, Fed Cup) is deliberate and necessary; the WTA should not include these events in their statistics! This is because these events fill their draws by means not based on the WTA rankings. This, in turn, means that they are not valid for statistical comparison. The data in this document has been checked several times against multiple sources. But available records (especially for doubles) are often far from complete. No responsibility is assumed by the author or by Tennis News for any errors contained in this document, or for the nature or meaning of any statistics presented. 1999 In Review: The Top Players The Final Top Twenty-Five For purposes of reference, here are the Final 1999 Top 25 as determined by the WTA: Final Player Best 18 Number of Gap from Began Rank Name Score Tournaments Preceding Year At 1 Martina Hingis 6074 19 - #2 2 Lindsay Davenport 4841 18 1233 #1 3 Venus Williams 4378 17 463 #5 4 Serena Williams 3021 11 1357 #20 5 Mary Pierce 2658 20 363 #7 6 Monica Seles 2310 13 348 #6 7 Nathalie Tauziat 2213 25 97 #10 8 Barbara Schett 2188 23 25 #23 9 Julie Halard-Decugis 1977 24 211 #22 10 Amelie Mauresmo 1906 15 71 #29 11 Amanda Coetzer 1846 25 60 #17 12 Anna Kournikova 1641 19 205 #13 13 Sandrine Testud 1635 25 6 #14 14 Dominique Van Roost 1621 25 14 #12 15 Conchita Martinez 1564 23 57 #8 16 Anke Huber 1548 26 16 #21 17 Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 1435 18 113 #4 18 Elena Likhovtseva 1393 29 42 #26 19 Amy Frazier 1299 21 94 #42 20 Ruxandra Dragomir 1291 23 8 #38 21 Patty Schnyder 1189 24 102 #11 22 Chanda Rubin 1188 21 1 #34 23 Jennifer Capriati 1140 16 48 >100 24 Ai Sugiyama 1122 23 18 #18 25 Nathalie Déchy (see note) 1022 23 67 #48 Note: The Number of Tournaments shown here (and elsewhere in this document) does not match the number of tournaments listed by the WTA for certain players. This is because the WTA this year counted the Grand Slam Cup (which is an exhibition, and does not award ranking points) as a “tournament” — meaning that Hingis, Davenport, Venus and Serena Williams, Pierce, Schett, Mauresmo, and Sanchez- Vicario are all listed as having played one more tournament than they actually played.