Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Link Back -> Andrew Murray message board -> British women discussion section -> Random Charts & Nonsense
Post Info TOPIC: Random Charts & Nonsense
indiana


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 40894
Date:
Random Charts & Nonsense
Permalink  

blob wrote:

If everything holds up, I think we are shortly guaranteed to have 6 players inside the WTA top 200.
If so, that will be just the third such week of this Millennium, and the first time since 3rd June, 2013, when Bally was the #6, at WR 200.
The last time we had 6 players each with the first number of their ranking a '1' (i.e. 199 and under), was 2nd August, 1999; Joanne Ward as WR193 was the GB #6 on that date.

Certainly if Harriet wins her China QF.

She will miss out for now if she loses it, and then has 18, 5 and 50 pointers coming off over the following 3 ranking updates - 21/05, 28/05 and 11/06 respectively, 

Would like to think that she's heading that way anyway but it would be nice to tick that box this week for herself personally and for the historical context you show.

Katy D would be top 200 if she won the Japan 60K this week. Looks as if she might just miss out for now if runner-up.

Would be great to have to search stats for 7 in the top 200 !



__________________
blob


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:
Permalink  

Speaking of Sharm - from the Karlskrona thread, and Fran's QF opponent - the reduced appeal of the location for Brits has been noticable this year
We had 25 entries into events there by this time in 2017; 7 different players had played there
This year only 19 entries to date, though from 8 players. Better players using it for a 1-2 week tune up then moving elsewhere, as opposed to the more usual pattern of recent years of one or two players camping out there for 4-5 weeks at a time at a lower level.
EWS' 5 weeks there in 2018, and 6 in 2017 were leaders for both Years up to week 19

Even more true for Hammamet.

__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
blob


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:
Permalink  

indiana wrote:
[...]

Would be great to have to search stats for 7 in the top 200 !

Not since 1998.



__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
indiana


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 40894
Date:
Permalink  

blob wrote:
indiana wrote:
[...]

Would be great to have to search stats for 7 in the top 200 !

Not since 1998.

 And maybe no trouble for someone 



__________________
blob


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:
Permalink  

Again, I should thank Jeff Sackmann of TennisAbstract, it's his amazing data. https://github.com/JeffSackmann/tennis_wta

Anyone with Excel should be able to use it, and he does ATP too, in even more detail and of longer record.



__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
blob


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:
Permalink  

Ms. Boulter's win over Ms. Broady in Japan was the 32nd GB win of the week.
Thus, week 19 is the new leader for total GB wins in a single week for GB women in 2018.
The previous best was 31 wins, in week 6, which had it's number boosted by holding a domestic event with lots of QR1 wins and all-GB matches.

Best in 2017 was 49 wins in each of weeks 43 & 44 - both of which had domestic $15K with largely GB fields, and so considerably inflated win #'s
Our highest total in 2017 for a week that did not contain a domestic event was 37 (from 2 more entries than we have this week).

__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
blob


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:
Permalink  

With our up'n'coming group looking to push on still further, here's an attempt to look at the 'quality' of their respective $25K titles this year, absed around the rankings of the players defeated in the MD of each run.
The shaded range, and blue numbers, denotes the range of rankings of the players defeated in the title winning run, the black line and black numbers, the average rank of those players.

vZza8Zw.png

*NB: for Harriet's title, she also came through qualifying - those matches are not included here, as they prevent a like-for-like comparison. You can add whatever premium to her run for her addtional matches as you choose.



__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
Michael D


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 7055
Date:
Permalink  

Interesting that. Gabi's last two titles especially hold up better than might be expected.

And despite this being a good season for our #s 4-9 women, we still await a winner above 25k level for any of the GB women this year.



-- Edited by Michael D on Friday 11th of May 2018 11:03:14 AM

__________________
blob


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:
Permalink  

Why are Fran & Harriet so bad at beating players ranked below them? (etc)

IzACEQg.png



__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
blob


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:
Permalink  

I was actually expecting to see Ms. Appleton as an outlier against higher ranked, but she's right in the middle.

__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
Strongbow


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6855
Date:
Permalink  

thumbsup.gif



__________________
the addict


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 23363
Date:
Permalink  

A little surprised to see how low the win-percentage is against lower-ranked players for so many of them. I'd have expected the overall picture to have been 5-10% better.

__________________
blob


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:
Permalink  

You are, of course, correct; I am, of course, moronically and stupidly, dumbly, in error again.
I have plotted loss % for lower ranked, win % for higher ranked.
Here's both scales using Win %, and well, what do you know, it all looks more or less like I thought it should and that nagging voice - "you're being an idiot" - is a little less voluble.
Miss Appletion is still more middle of the road than I expected, but... *sigh*

TO0L5md.png
And I give up.



__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
the addict


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 23363
Date:
Permalink  

LOL, that looks much better ! I can never get graphs to work how I want without a lot of fiddling.

__________________
Michael D


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 7055
Date:
Permalink  

Yes, I started looking at the first graph and my first reaction was that you'd got 'lower' and 'higher' confused.. What is interesting about the 'real' graph is how both Gabi and Katie S have better records against higher ranked than lower ranked players. Perhaps in Gabi's case that's simply because she hasn't played that many higher ranked players recently?

__________________
«First  <  1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 25  >  Last»  | Page of 25  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Link Back -> Andrew Murray message board -> British women discussion section -> Random Charts & Nonsense
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard