Pretty sure that this is the first such showing since the WTA started running a race/road/road-race; would be great if they could keep this going all season
Here's hoping we still have all 3 in the top 50 come year end :)
Well Jo is pretty much guaranteed to be there already. Her 1,207 points YTD would have seen her in 40th place in the final 2015 list. The points allocations haven't changed from 2015 to 2016, so that is directly substitutable. It also means that Jo now has exactly 100 more points in YTD 2016 than she managed by the time of the final Singapore lists in 2015; last year she finished with 1,107.
Because last year Serena withdrew, the 9th placed finisher got in.That was Safarova, with 3,221 points. The actual 8th place finisher was Pennetta. By some measures, Jo is on pace for that sort of total.
But, then there's clay, and more on that in a bit if I can get the blasted program doing the visualisation to work. I will say now though, that Jo only has one win on clay against a top 100 player to date in her career.
https://public.tableau.com/profile/insomniacfolder#!/vizhome/JoKosClayAchillesHeel-Perhaps/JoKoTheDevilDust Two sheets, showing different things. Hover on charts for additional data. On the second sheet you can use a filter to isolate data from only a single chosen surface.
Short version: We shouldn't expect too much in the clay season.
If anyone happens to know how to get Tableau to actually display on the Public Server what you see in the desktop, please let me know, as creating the charts took 20 minutes, getting it to display even remotely satisfactorily meant fiddling about for a couple of hours.
as her sudden rise only began in last season's grass court season and reached fruition in the hard court season I think it's premature to belittle her chances on clay until we've seen what the new improved Johanna can do - I thought her match at the French Open vs Allertova, where she was the best player almost throughout but seemed only to lack belief that she could win it, was the turning point which got her to where she is now, so I'm confident that she can continue her success regardless of the surface
as her sudden rise only began in last season's grass court season and reached fruition in the hard court season I think it's premature to belittle her chances on clay until we've seen what the new improved Johanna can do - I thought her match at the French Open vs Allertova, where she was the best player almost throughout but seemed only to lack belief that she could win it, was the turning point which got her to where she is now, so I'm confident that she can continue her success regardless of the surface
I agree. I'm taking the 'new' Johanna as a new player in many ways. I'm watching the space with interest to see how she does on the devil dirt.
On the bright side, not exactly many points to defend.
[...] I think it's premature to belittle her chances on clay until we've seen what the new improved Johanna can do...
I was only advising tempered caution based on historical precedent. I did not mean to belittle or denigrate Johanna in any way, just to show that given past performance, she would actually need to improve more on clay than every other surface to maintain the same sort of results because her achievements to date on clay were, by some margin, not equal to those she enjoyed on other surfaces. If she manages to improve as much as she has done everywhere else, that would still equate to losing a round or two before those rounds that she has been reaching on grass, and especially hard courts.
I apologise if I was not clear, or gave a negative impression. I can only offer my longstanding support in these pages as mitigation
Difficult (isn't it) to draw any conclusions when n is so small. We are interested in improvement (call it i) and whether i is a constant over all surfaces, (I) think it is, or whether the surface is an independent variable (s) and its impact on win loss ratio.
The equation is complicated by the significance of the event i.e. a high win loss ratio in a big money tournament is much more significant statistically than that in warm up or fiscally low yielding event. Any equation used to define (i) is further complicated in that we are interested in (or using) impact on ranking as determined by points yield. Win loss ratio to points yield is yet another variable, cumulative points yield generates a continuous data set of positive integers which are then ranked to determine the position in the race to Singapore. So to state the obvious the relationship between rank and points yield is a function of not only (i) but the win/loss ratio of others ...ummm.
I think the most acurate measure is GF (gut feeling) and given Jo qualified for RG for the first time last year without loosing a set and it is the one GS that has shown only continuous improvement it is likely that (i) will continue to positively impact on winloss ratio independent of s and indeed the (i) on other surfaces will result in her being seeded which will do her no halm what so ever!
-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Thursday 31st of March 2016 06:44:10 AM
My GF is that if Jo were to meet Allertova in R1 this year at RG the outcome would be very different to last year; and that she'll be top 16 in time for Wimby :)
[...] I think it's premature to belittle her chances on clay until we've seen what the new improved Johanna can do...
I was only advising tempered caution based on historical precedent. I did not mean to belittle or denigrate Johanna in any way, just to show that given past performance, she would actually need to improve more on clay than every other surface to maintain the same sort of results because her achievements to date on clay were, by some margin, not equal to those she enjoyed on other surfaces. If she manages to improve as much as she has done everywhere else, that would still equate to losing a round or two before those rounds that she has been reaching on grass, and especially hard courts.
I apologise if I was not clear, or gave a negative impression. I can only offer my longstanding support in these pages as mitigation
The defendant is free to go ( and carry on producing all those lovely graphs ), no case to answer.
