PDA

View Full Version : WTA Year End #1 Anomaly



PeterSkan
12-26-2005, 08:09 AM
Came across this interesting post by Kauffman on TOB:

Steffi Graf .. 377 weeks / 8 years #1 = 47 weeks per year.
Navratilova .. 331 weeks / 7 years #1 = 47 weeks per year.
Chris Evert .. 262 weeks / 5 years #1 = 52 weeks per year.
Martina Hingis 209 weeks / 3 years #1 = 70 weeks per year.
Monica Seles . 179 weeks / 2 years #1 = 90 weeks per year.
Davenport .... 84 weeks / 3 years #1 = 28 weeks per year.
Serena Williams 57 weeks / 1 year @ #1 = 57 weeks per year
Justine Henin . 45 weeks / 1 year @ #1 = 45 weeks per year


Yeah, perhaps Seles could have deserved another year at #1 - and perhaps Davenport doesn't quite deserve to be #1 for 3 years based on the amount of time she was #1 .. but it appears that Serena should have only been #1 for 1 year.


Weeks at Number One:

1) Steffi Graf 377
2) Martina Navratilova 331
3) Chris Evert 262
4) Martina Hingis 209
5) Monica Seles 178
6) Lindsay Davenport 84
7) Serena Williams 57
8) Justine Henin-Hardenne 45
9) Tracy Austin 22
10) Jennifer Capriati 17
11) Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 12
11) Kim Clijsters 12
13) Venus Williams 11
14) Maria Sharapova 6
15) Amelie Mauresmo 5


Year End #1 Players:

1975 Chris Evert
1976 Chris Evert
1977 Chris Evert
1978 Martina Navratilova
1979 Martina Navratilova
1980 Chris Evert
1981 Chris Evert
1982 Martina Navratilova
1983 Martina Navratilova
1984 Martina Navratilova
1985 Martina Navratilova
1986 Martina Navratilova
1987 Steffi Graf
1988 Steffi Graf
1989 Steffi Graf
1990 Steffi Graf
1991 Monica Seles
1992 Monica Seles
1993 Steffi Graf
1994 Steffi Graf
1995 Steffi Graf
1996 Steffi Graf
1997 Martina Hingis
1998 Lindsay Davenport
1999 Martina Hingis
2000 Martina Hingis
2001 Lindsay Davenport
2002 Serena Williams
2003 Justine Henin-Hardenne
2004 Lindsay Davenport

PeterSkan
12-26-2005, 08:29 AM
It would be good to have it updated in view of the 2005 year end results - another steal for Lindsay!

The argument that the year-end #1 standing rates as one of the outstanding accomplishments in tennis is questionable. One poster on TOB astutely remarked that it is an arbitrary reference point in the annual cycle. Since the #1 standing is an ongoing measure within that cycle, finishing #1 at year-end is no greater accomlishment than finishing the twelve months ending [pick your date] at #1. Furthermore, counting both the number of weeks holding the #1 position and the number of years finishing at #1 among the greatest accomplishments places double emhasis on the #1 ranking.

There are a couple of problems with this. One of them is highlighted by the data posted by K: there is no absolue measure of the average number of weeks ranked at #1 in reltin to the number of years finishing in the #1 spot.

The other problem is that the #1 rankings are based on a relative point assignment that is subjectively determined. Re-weighting the points assignment maychange the rank order, but, by contrast, once won, a slam victory is in the record books and irreversible.

As I have said many times, the #1 ranking is a perfect indicator: it measures the rank order based on accumulated points. Logically, however, where it can be shown that premise on which the data is built is questionable, then perforce the conclusions drawn from it are likewise questionable. In which case the #1 ranking is an imperfect indicator of "best performance".

Rhetorically, in 2006, what would have been the maximum number of tournaments a player could have played without dropping a single point [i.e. won every point played in every match], and assuming at least one slam played [and therefore won] but not have finished at #1?