Yes, thanks blob fascinating analysis as ever. I agree with most of Indy's points. I don't think there are many players for whom the predictions are outrageous, but what is the unpredictable, as Indy says, is who will be injured, and thus fare far worse than predicted. In the opposite vein, most people have not rated those injured this year as having great recovery abilities next year, eg Mandy, and even Freya's ranked average is essentially her getting back to where she was before being injured, and no more. Also for Gabi, I should note, you haven't yet factored into her graph last week's and this week's points which between them will at least double her line.

In your chart there are three categories of people, and different questions apply to each. First, in looking at those that have improved hugely this year, eg Jodie, Eden, Maia, even Sam and Katie, at what rate will they continue to improve? In looking at their points, people like Jodie, Freya, Eden, Maia all have around 50 points, and there are often 2-3 tournaments that have mainly contributed to these points. Jodie coming from UNR to where she is now looks like she is on a rocketing upward path. But most of her points come from Sharm, apart from one 15k win in Dublin. So to what extent can she continue this upward trajectory once she starts to play a wider circuit, more 25k tournaments, and a better standard of player? So far Jodie has as far as I can see only 1 win in a 25k and above tournament, and that was as a LL (Chiswick, Aug 17). So yes, Jodie's forward momentum this year probably will slow, and her likely progression rate is rather unknown since she doesn't yet have much record at the level of tournaments she will need to score wins in next year to progress further up the rankings. Thus in general to assume that this category will continue to improve at the same rate they have this year, is probably an error, and the main one made in the predictions. I guess it is this category of people that inspire us to be the most optimistic!

The second area of question is regarding those that haven't moved much during 2017 - Heather, Naomi, Laura, Harriet, Katy D. What does this represent? A period of consolidation, with some mixed luck regarding injuries etc, before a potential upward move again (given improved health and coaching), or they will continue to tread water more or less where they are, or thirdly, they will in fact now regress having reached their peak. Laura's range of predictions is some of the largest interestingly, despite her not having moved much in 2017, as addict notes. Some have continue to rate her as an improver (again) for next year, whilst others simply haven't bothered and have her dropping out of their top 10, ie essentially predicting that she will give up at some point. For Katy D and Harriet there are questions too as to whether either will move up much further. In short, it is this category about which we tend to be the most pessimistic regarding their future (though as soon as they have a slight positive trend, like Katy D and Harriet, we tend to switch back to being optimistic again).

Finally, the third category is for those injured or simply having declined during 2017 - Mandy, Freya, Tara. Freya has started a come back, so many have her continuing that. It's not clear when Mandy will return, so few are taking a punt on her, although at some point she could well get back to at least around 300. Finally most are predicting that Tara will not feature in 2018. Even though she has ability, she is no longer rated as having the capacity and will to mount a recovery again. In general though it is this group around which most uncertainty is shown in the predictions.

So broadly there are three categories of people involved in the predictions - the improvers we are optimistic about, the hardly moved, who we are pessimistic about, and the decliners/ recovering from injuries we are uncertain about. The trouble of course is in all cases we are continuing to project current trends, and as anyone who has played the stock market knows (I don't), read Taleb's book 'The Black Swan', or been engaged in any type of planning process, that's how we get things wrong, because the only thing that is certain about the future is that it will not represent simply the continuity of existing trends. And on that basis, although I haven't posted them yet, are my likely predictions any different on this score to anyone else's? No, probably not, because it would need much deeper analyses to go much beyond current trends.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

If, overall, women's ranking peak at age 26, it's logical that people will be optimistic about our batch of players because most of them in the top 15 in terms of people's picks are a lot younger and even those who are older are only aiming to get back somewhere close to where they used to be, not heady new heights. Purely on profile, one would be equally optimistic about a similar batch from any country, that one knew nothing about. The problem is to what degree and which players specifically more than the others. Youngsters are obviously a problem because players like Jodie and Fran haven't 'improved' massively - they are simply getting a baseline adult ranking (moving over from a junior one). Injuries are a killer for yearly predictions but what can you do....(and that's why you hope that federations are more far-sighted).

---

 Yeah, it was all far too long, trying to talk about the challenge of unpredictability mainly! 

For sure there is unpredictability, and improvement in youngsters is a generally useful rule of thumb.
We do seem to over-estimate the rate of reaistic improvement given any historical context. But that's good; hopefulness and belief.
What I can sort of see is the extent to which we assume a linearity of progression at all levels and ages throughout the rankings. This is the part that is not backed up by expectations, data or hopes - I just haven't found a way to usfully display it yet. For example, a 'good' season at age 21 starting in the 400's does not translate to the ranking rise of a 'good' season aged 20 starting in the 300's, and so on - that's a bit vague, I struggle to word it sufficiently well - we assume it does.
This is after allowing for the exceptional, the progress made of the teenage Laura & Heather, or a Bencic, a Kasatkina etc.

Just discovered this tread - great fun for the end of the year. Of course it's utterly impossible to predict, but for what it's worth I'll have a go.

1. Jo Ko 8
2. Heather 70
3 Katie B 155
4. Naomi 160
5. Gabi Taylor 185
6. Laura 225
7. Harriet 255
8. Katie Swan 265
9. Katie Dunne 275

10. Freya 350

I think Maia will be close but just miss out.

Really hope I'm wrong about Katy Dunne and she finally makes the long awaited break through this year, but she's hovered around the same level for too long and really should have broken into the top 250 by now. I think Fran is the most exciting prospect. I expect her climb into the top 500 but probably won't quite make GB top 10 in 2018

-- Edited by SuperT on Saturday 30th of December 2017 08:38:39 PM

This might be hard to read on some screens, I can't think of a better way to frame it though, apologies.
Here are the 2017 results for every player chosen thus far, broken down by the Event level, with Win %.
Extrapolating out to the level at which they would need to play in 2018 to improve their ranking, might provide some useful insight.

I would break it out again in to MD/Q but then the resultant table is 'yuge'.

Wow yes, this is a fantastic table - and it sets out much more clearly part of what I was trying to look at this afternoon by using the individual records of each player! It makes it very clear that players like Jodie and Maia, although they have carried much before them at 15k level, have yet to do anything much at even the next 25k level up.

There is an interesting group in the 400+ bracket in my table F Jones, M Lumsden, E Silva, J Burrage, F Christie who all look as if they could well be inside the top 400 next year but will any of them make it into the UK top 10 by the end of the year?