Random Charts & Nonsense

wimdledont · Challenger level

Random Charts & Nonsense

blob · All-time great

Do you mean just the sum total of the top GB 10's ranking over time?
If so, that's this - 1984 to 20/11/2017
The current GB top 10 aggregate from the 05/03/2018 rankings is, as shown : 2039

NB: again, the anomolous spikes are missing data in the original data set. there are 12-15 such weeks out of ~1700 weeks (~~~1%)

I already did work out when the last time we had 8 in the top 250 was
I'm not saying anything until it happens though, for fear of jinxing it.
Let's just say there is a very big gap between top 8 in the top 250 and the top 9 in the top 250.

wimdledont · Challenger level

Yes, that's it.

So if I'm reading that right, if we may shortly have an aggregate of under 2,000, that's in danger of being the best in around 25 years, since 1993 or so;

Michael D · All-time great

wimdledont wrote:
Yes, that's it.

So if I'm reading that right, if we may shortly have an aggregate of under 2,000, that's in danger of being the best in around 25 years, since 1993 or so;

I'm not wholly convinced yet. As the table on the previous page of the top 10 this year shows, the improved aggregate this year is really down to the early achievements of 3 players - Gabi, Harriet and Katy D. Others have supported but only marginally, and of those who have supported a little, both Laura and Katie S are showing questionable fitness at the moment. The missing vacancy at #10 is also an issue. I think we need a few more stepping up to the plate too more regularly if we are to dip below 2,000 more than fleetingly and we're not seeing those performances yet.

blob · All-time great

Sort of.
Our best since 2000 was Agg. 1981, in May 2018.
There's a very big difference in asking all ten players to move up 5 net places without any slippage. If even one player loses form, or fails to defend a big score, that make the burden even greater, it's reasonable enough to balance it out with sustaine group performance, but to then also move forward requires what we have tended not to have: a group of players surging on as opposed to one or two, or just one superstar.
We have a chance now though. We're certainly in very good shape though at the top end of things.

The top 8 is even thornier still. This, after very curosry inspection, is about the size of our leading players group. We historically tail off after about, or before, this number of hihly ranked players. The 9th & 10 spots make all the difference, and are highly variable. They seem to usually be the determinants as to our place in the range. As is the case now, with #10 lagging far behind.

Michael D · All-time great

blob wrote:
Sort of.
Our best since 2000 was Agg. 1981, in May 2018.

You mean May 2013? or 2012? Unless you can read the future that is confuse

indiana · Tennis legend

A #10 100 places higher than Sam currently is would of course in itself improve our average by 10.

And clearly Sam, Tara and Mandy have been there and more, Tara and Mandy relatively recently before form and injury issues.

But then having a potential top 10 on ability all fit and well and in decent form is probably quite rare.

The relatively good #10 ranking would indeed though make not just dipping under a 200 average but staying there for a prolonged period much more likely.

Michael D · All-time great

Yes it was tantalising to see Mandy seemingly nearly ready to come back... and now we don't know where she is with her recovery any more.

blob · All-time great

Michael D wrote:
blob wrote:
Sort of.
Our best since 2000 was Agg. 1981, in May 2018.
You mean May 2013? or 2012? Unless you can read the future that is

Yes, sorry, May 2013, aggregate was 1981.

I can read the future. Just as basly as I can type 2013! or, indeed very many things recently.

Agreed that Sam or one other player meeting their known potential would raise us by the required amount.
Looking in to things though, this is almost always the case. IF all our players were at their CH or close to it we could 'x'. But that never happens in reality for various reasons. When you juggle one upwards, you drop another. The trick is getting the whole set operating in unison simultaneously, and that is very hard to arrange. You tend to need a player with a CH 30-40 places higher than the rank you're aiming for, in every position, and then with slack, and variation, we get there.

blob · All-time great

Messing around, mapping Emily's pro career, as she adds a new country this week - her 38th
Never played as a senior in Germany, or Italy! (too much clay)

indiana · Tennis legend

Actually seems to have a lot of European countries to fill in. And Em, they are so easy to get on easyJet

Super stuff, blob, thanks.

Strongbow · All-time great

indiana wrote:
Actually seems to have a lot of European countries to fill in. And Em, they are so easy to get on easyJet
Super stuff, blob, thanks.

Talk to Sara Beth wink

Michael D · All-time great

I hope Emily sees this, she should enjoy seeing her travel record, especially the cities map!

blob · All-time great

This morning in the new rankings, our top 8 players are all ranked within the top 250
Well done to our team.

It is only the twelfth week since 01/01/2000 where we have achieved this.
The last time was in the rankings of 28/03/2011
I got the players right (eventually after a bit of head scratching for one of them), but certainly not the order
The list is inside the spoiler

Spoiler

With Harriet our new number eight at WR238, that is the highest rank our #8 has held since... the rankings of 03/08/1992! Sarah Loosemore was the #8 on that occasion, when her ranking was 228.

Points start to come off if not defended over the next few weeks, so we may struggle to immediately improve further upon this benchmark, but again.
Nonetheless, well done to all our leading lights in contributing to an excellent period for the GB women

JonH · All-time great

And just out of interest, Sarah loosemoore went onto to study and graduate at Oxford, where she now lives, and is also a qualified lawyer, married to a Dutch chap.