Random Charts & Nonsense

blob · All-time great

Random Charts & Nonsense

blob · All-time great

Comparison of GB #4-9 performance at $25K level in 2017-18 YTD

I should have set the axis all on the same scale.

blob · All-time great

12/02/2018 updates

Michael D · All-time great

The entries and wins graphs look the same there blob, including with the same numbers. Surely that's not right, or am I reading wrong again?
Back in the competitive world of rankings after the Fed Cup, time for our women to be showing some upward movement again in those graphs. Gabi's line at #6 will move up - live rankings show her at 240, whilst Laura's at #5 will at least change direction. As for that #10 position, it is still waiting for some movement between Sam, who is at 417, Maia at 421 and Tara 422 (live rankings). We still don't know what's happening with Sam this year and why she withdrew from the two GB 25ks. In fact we even have Mandy C at 453 potentially making her 2018 debut before Sam.

blob · All-time great

Michael D wrote:
The entries and wins graphs look the same there blob, including with the same numbers. Surely that's not right, or am I reading wrong again?
Back in the competitive world of rankings after the Fed Cup, time for our women to be showing some upward movement again in those graphs. Gabi's line at #6 will move up - live rankings show her at 240, whilst Laura's at #5 will at least change direction. As for that #10 position, it is still waiting for some movement between Sam, who is at 417, Maia at 421 and Tara 422 (live rankings). We still don't know what's happening with Sam this year and why she withdrew from the two GB 25ks. In fact we even have Mandy C at 453 potentially making her 2018 debut before Sam.

They are correct, and they are different.

It just happens that almost every week we've had a ratio of wins to entries of about 1.000, so the lines look virtually identical.
Here's the other view, overlaid:

Most weeks about 1.000, and the surplus in week 2 cancels out the deficit in week 5.
If they were all exactly 1.000, then the lines for wins and entries would look exactly the same.

JonH · All-time great

I think I have mentioned elsewhere I am reading Richard Evans' book "Open Tennis" about the first twenty years of Open tennis since 1968 to 1988.

One of the things these graphs reminded me of was a chapter in the book which talks about the computer. The ATP had a single computer around the earlier 70's and the other bodies (the ILTF as it was, and other organisations that floated around such as the MIPTC, WITA, WCT etc) and all wanted to get their hands on it. In essence, from what I can tell, all the computer actually was was a spreadsheet used to calculate the rankings each week and these in turn allowed entries to be handles more fairly than random Tournament Directors allocating spots.

But that was all they had. Clearly the computer rankings have come a long long way, and the analysis and stats the "Computer" lets us do now is probably more than Richard Evans and the other leaders of tennis ever could have imagined!

Michael D · All-time great

blob wrote:
Michael D wrote:
The entries and wins graphs look the same there blob, including with the same numbers. Surely that's not right, or am I reading wrong again?
Back in the competitive world of rankings after the Fed Cup, time for our women to be showing some upward movement again in those graphs. Gabi's line at #6 will move up - live rankings show her at 240, whilst Laura's at #5 will at least change direction. As for that #10 position, it is still waiting for some movement between Sam, who is at 417, Maia at 421 and Tara 422 (live rankings). We still don't know what's happening with Sam this year and why she withdrew from the two GB 25ks. In fact we even have Mandy C at 453 potentially making her 2018 debut before Sam.
They are correct, and they are different.
It just happens that almost every week we've had a ratio of wins to entries of about 1.000, so the lines look virtually identical.
Here's the other view, overlaid:
________________________________
Ok thanks for the clarification. Yes it is interesting how close to 1 the ratio is at the moment. I guess that's a feature in particular of the lack of appropriate 15k tournaments for our women further down the rankings to enter.

blob · All-time great

Very marked difference in the quality of the fields in this weeks two $25K events

Katie Boulter would have been seeded #3 in Perth, but after Fed Cup travel, is in Surprise, and has the nasty surprise of instead being foremost amongst the unseeded there.

blob · All-time great

Today, 14th February, we currently have 5 wins and zero losses; pending the possible commencement and result of Katie Boulter's match in Surprise.
If either Katie wins, or her match is delayed until tomorrow, that will be an undefeated day to compare to any that we had in 2017.
In 2017, we had 41 calendar days on which we won every single pro singles match that we played (not 'won', idiot ).
23 of those 41 occasions (56.1%) were days where we only played one match
Our best single day, where we won the most matches without a loss was 30th March, where we had 8 undefeated wins. (THe winners were: Eden Silva, Emily Webley-Smith, Freya Christie, Gabriella Taylor, Johanna Konta, Katie Boulter, Laura Sainsbury, Manisha Foster)
That was a complete outlier, our next best was 4 undefeated wins, on 5th March; then 7 occasions, with 3 wins each.

So, if we can manage to hold on to a 5-0, or even make it 6-0, record, that would be a very creditable showing, well, it already is really

NB: Our worst day in 2017 was 23rd April, when we lost all 5 matches that we played that day.

Edit: as bolded, and the parentheses thereafter

-- Edited by blob on Wednesday 14th of February 2018 09:19:33 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

15th February has started rather well too

blob · All-time great

Good week last week overall, and generally good this year

Microsoft have changed more things
Doing YoY wins per entry comparison to show how much better we are doing this year than last overall: all broken by changes.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

How do we compare with the more prolific nations interms of spacing we have twice as many athletes between 180-360 than we have 0-180 it may reflect a number of things ie our players are a relatively young group (360-180) relatively affluent and can keep at it for longer compared to other nations.

Indeed our top 180 players have an older average age but only Katie Swan features in the top 20 by age in the younger group and unless she hits top 200 will drop out in March. Gabby Taylor has really pushed on strongly this year and if she can keep it up will also get close to featuring. I cant help but think our players are very dedicated, well coached and for the most part get very close to their potential we just dont get our hand on the very best athletes or those most suited to tennis. Jo, Hev tick the first box Naomi the second.

blob · All-time great

I have the 'Strongest Nation' data.
I can get the ages data, sort of, I can get their current ages in years and days, but thats point in time. Calculating DOB is fiddly becasue of Leap Year factoring. DOB would be better.
If anyone knows a single page that has all the currently ranked players with their DOB on, that would be great.

Otherwise I'll just do it the tedious way. Either way, this will take a long while, but I like the purpose.
Ali used to do something like that, and much better, you could pick and choose.

the addict · Tennis legend

The two ranking tables I look at have ages in decimal years - I usually look at Coric first http://coric.top/en/rank/wta/s/year

blob · All-time great

the addict wrote:
The two ranking tables I look at have ages in decimal years - I usually look at Coric first http://coric.top/en/rank/wta/s/year

Yes, thanks. That's actually where I just went to get the ages, from their static list of the actual rankings, but that changes each week - I'd have to download the age data each week to keep it current.

Much better to have the DOB for each player, so that I can just load all the players once, and refer back to it, with the ages calculated automatically from the DOB. The DOB never changes, and is a constant to anchor the data.
Then it will update each week when I get the new rankings data. As the general DB macthes data and 'Strongest Nation' data is all tailored to use data from Tennis 24 in one long list of all ranked players, it's a lot of fiddling to refit it to another source, as there are so many variations in the data (e.g. different variations of player names, different attributed nations etc.).

Ideal would be an API to the ITF data, but there doesn't seem to be one.