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
AliBlahBlah


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5568
Date:
RE: Random Charts & Nonsense
Permalink  

Prompted by Indiana's observations of Emily Appleton's match record at different event levels today, I've tried to make GB players records explorable along those lines, and also split the records by MD/Q.
So, here's an example for Emily Appleton, as she was the origin point:

EZv8fhm.png

Which, hopefully shows Indiana's point, that Emily is doing better at $15K, but still has no traction at any level above that.

This facility is available for every player that has played a professional match since the start of 2017.
You select the player from the drop-down list highlighted in the red box, and the data will update to show the match splits of the selected player.

The online version with all players data is available here : 2017-18 YTD GB Womens match records per Event Level & Event Stage

I've tried to keep it as simple and clean as possible: no bells, no whistles, no multitude of options; just select a single player, and see their data.

Quite a lot of simple overview insights arise in the line of Indiana's, depending on which player you select.



__________________
the addict


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 20274
Date:
Permalink  

What a great facility - I shall enjoy spending time looking through it.

__________________
foobarbaz


Strong Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 492
Date:
Permalink  

Very informative chart, gives an insight to when players decide to move up to the next level, or is that purely a factor of their current ranking?

Also I noticed Jodie Burrage and Jodie Anna Burrage both represented individually.


__________________
AliBlahBlah


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5568
Date:
Permalink  

foobarbaz wrote:

Very informative chart, gives an insight to when players decide to move up to the next level, or is that purely a factor of their current ranking?

Also I noticed Jodie Burrage and Jodie Anna Burrage both represented individually.

On the first point, I think a bit of both. It highlights when a player has been trying to move up, but has, as yet, been generally unable to make the transition - Emily Appleton & Fran being cases in point; both have had $25K opportunities, but haven't yet adjusted to the extra quality of opponents.
There is a factor where, if a players ranking, and/or supposed ceiling, is deemed unable to cope with the next level up then they won't get those chances. I think though, the data shows that most players get several chance to step up,even in just the ~20 months of data represented here. A longer span would show up a players ceiling even more starkly, and over sufficient time, one would have to suppose that a given player would never improve significantly beyond what they had shown. There are exceptions, {JoKo, Buzarnescu} (don't write anyone off!), but they are not the rule.

I noticed Jodie to, and it is fixed. I hoped no one would notice as I got it quite quick, but no



__________________
Peter too


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 17850
Date:
Permalink  

Fran is having another go at $25K on the 27th in what might be an easier tournament in Kazakhstan. Apart from the top seed there is no player with a ranking above 300, so she might stand a better chance to notch up a few wins.

__________________
foobarbaz


Strong Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 492
Date:
Permalink  

Maybe the desire to step up and play at a higher level has to be tempered by having the chance to develop all aspects of a players all-round game at a level where they are comfortably winning, and so therefore able to do so. Though is this what players in the modern game actually do?

__________________
AliBlahBlah


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5568
Date:
Permalink  

Blah blah blah ya-de-ya-da
New thing: Individual players season to date

Hover over things for more detail blah blah...

NB: Requires a laptop-sized screen for best experience (and even that won't be very good)



__________________
JonH


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6109
Date:
Permalink  

This looks great - so disappointing that all our best stats folks seem to love the women's side the best, we need someone on the dark side of the men's game with such passion and talent!

But great stuff, this is really impressive data that even I will read over at some stage soon!

__________________
JonH
AliBlahBlah


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5568
Date:
Permalink  

JonH wrote:

This looks great - so disappointing that all our best stats folks seem to love the women's side the best, we need someone on the dark side of the men's game with such passion and talent!

But great stuff, this is really impressive data that even I will read over at some stage soon!

Most of the off-board stats people I see are almost exclusively focused on ATP things, there seems plenty of provision there, just not with a GB slant. That data is also a lot easier to get hold of, and in a lot better condition and of greater consistency and completeness when you get it.

I am not a stats person. Just frustrated that I couldn't find anyone doing things or keeping the data I wanted to ask questions about, so I tried to do it myself. I failed, but kind people helped me and let me use their data (our reliable correspondent friend and their predecessor - who started us both off with hours of kind patient explanations - ISF). So now, I can at least try to look at things that interest me.

But, statistically minded people can do so much more & better. I remember when the 'Strongest Nation' thread was set up in the 'General Tennis' section, RBBOT clearly had a fantastic grasp of what would be needed to model the entire tennis pyramid accurately and with correctly weighted value given to quantatively measure 'Strongest Nation'. They would do a much better job. Sadly, the bug-blatter beast doesn't vome around much any more

But, correspondents like RedSquirrel & FooBarBaz clearly have a better grsp of this stuff, and math in general than do I (or, as we've discussed it at some length, my reliable source, for that matter).



__________________
the addict


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 20274
Date:
Permalink  

Another brilliant chart ABB. Combines so many different aspects (matches, opponents, rankings, scores) and so easy to navigate.

Two tiny points - I note that the data for matches not yet played is a little out ( Garcia isn't WR9999 !) but I assume thats a quirk of the database.
And the weeks when players didn't play don't show - I looked at Emily Appleton to see just how packed her schedule was, and realised the weeks off are missing.

__________________
AliBlahBlah


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5568
Date:
Permalink  

the addict wrote:

Another brilliant chart ABB. Combines so many different aspects (matches, opponents, rankings, scores) and so easy to navigate.

Two tiny points - I note that the data for matches not yet played is a little out ( Garcia isn't WR9999 !) but I assume thats a quirk of the database.
And the weeks when players didn't play don't show - I looked at Emily Appleton to see just how packed her schedule was, and realised the weeks off are missing.

Both are by design.

The match against Garcia is a Week 35 match, and the WTA rankings for that week aren't out yet, so, by one interpretation (mine), players for that week don't yet have the ranking that they wll have when the match will be played.
Whereas, for USO Q, those matches were played under Week 34 rankings, and so those values are filled in accordingly. I could use their current rankings, but that's just as inaccurate. When the new rankings are out, then the values get plugged in to the data, and it should (will) update automatically.

Not showing the weeks that players haven't played is also by design, as including them leaves a lot of empty space in some cases, and long empty scroll bars which take up space. Forcing the dat to fill the allowable space just squashes it all together unreadably, so, the lesser of two evils is to omit weeks wher players are inactive.
In order to show a players in active weeks, you'd be showing something slightly different, and the opponent rankings would probably have to go, and some other re-arranging and/or pruning of the data elements in order to allow it to operate at all scales for all players. Possibly have the weeks along columns, and just show the progress some how, with the rounds constant, and the level colour coded...

In fact, I'll give that a try and see if that looks usable too.



__________________
the addict


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 20274
Date:
Permalink  

OK, I understand. I don't think you'll improve on what you have by tinkering with it - it's just great as it is.

__________________
AliBlahBlah


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5568
Date:
Permalink  

Peter too wrote:

Fran is having another go at $25K on the 27th in what might be an easier tournament in Kazakhstan. Apart from the top seed there is no player with a ranking above 300, so she might stand a better chance to notch up a few wins.

Just to note that, for whatever reason, Francesca is not in the, now published, draw for the above referenced $25K in Kazakhstan

cf. also the Caslano and Rankings threads



__________________
foobarbaz


Strong Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 492
Date:
Permalink  

Well that's a significant chunk of tennis data that Jeff Sackmann has compiled, well done him

schema | table_name | rows
-----------+-----------------+-------
tennis | women_ranking | 1634795
tennis | women_match | 427773
tennis | women | 21090
tennis | men_ranking | 2718363
tennis | men_match | 707402
tennis | men | 53143



-- Edited by foobarbaz on Friday 7th of September 2018 12:22:05 PM

__________________
foobarbaz


Strong Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 492
Date:
Permalink  

 

AliBlahBlah, unsurprisingly it seems like the number of 'matches with stats' is far fewer than 'matches with result only', in Jeff Sackmann's data compilation.

The data looks like it's heavily skewed towards players careers when in the upper echelons of the game.

The table below are the 'matches with stats' counts for the dataset (last updated 28thMay2018).

Stats are just the basic ones, 1st/2nd serve points/win, etc.

country |        name        |   id   | matches_with_stats | winning | losing  
--------+--------------------+--------+--------------------+---------+--------
GBR     | Heather Watson     | 201586 |                264 |     124 |    140
GBR     | Johanna Konta      | 202427 |                202 |     120 |     82
GBR     | Anne Keothavong    | 201303 |                184 |      75 |    109
GBR     | Elena Baltacha     | 201304 |                166 |      80 |     86
GBR     | Laura Robson       | 201573 |                143 |      66 |     77
GBR     | Naomi Broady       | 201648 |                125 |      53 |     72
GBR     | Katie Obrien       | 201396 |                 79 |      25 |     54
GBR     | Melanie South      | 201469 |                 64 |      26 |     38
GBR     | Tara Moore         | 202478 |                 39 |      14 |     25
GBR     | Naomi Cavaday      | 201471 |                 32 |      13 |     19
GBR     | Emily Webley Smith | 201399 |                 18 |       2 |     16
GBR     | Sarah Borwell      | 201433 |                 14 |       4 |     10
GBR     | Katie Boulter      | 211107 |                 13 |       6 |      7
GBR     | Samantha Murray    | 202425 |                 10 |       2 |      8
GBR     | Anna Smith         | 202564 |                  8 |       2 |      6
GBR     | Katie Swan         | 215042 |                  8 |       2 |      6
GBR     | Amanda Elliott     | 202401 |                  7 |       3 |      4
GBR     | Harriet Dart       | 211279 |                  7 |       3 |      4
GBR     | Jane Odonoghue     | 201332 |                  6 |       1 |      5
GBR     | Katy Dunne         | 203591 |                  6 |       1 |      5
GBR     | Eden Silva         | 211432 |                  6 |       1 |      5

A comparison of the serving/receiving performance of a player in winning vs. losing matches would have to come with a strong proviso that the data is limited.

I imagined there might be more comprehensive match coverage, since these simple tennis stats are recorded by 'ITF Pro Circuit', etc.

Are these data sources not available in the public domain? 

 



__________________
«First  <  1 … 22 23 24 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