PDA

View Full Version : women's grass, carpet, hard career w/l stats


BTURNER
04-26-2009, 05:30 PM
Thanks again to Evertfan for finding this stuff. Only WTA events, at least 20 events minimum which is why King/ Court etc may not be iincluded.

Grass career W/L stats.

1. Martina Navratilova 305 39 88.7
2. Chris Evert 184 25 88.0
3. Venus Williams* 62 9 87.3
4. Maria Sharapova* 47 8 85.5
5. Steffi Graf 85 15 85.0
6. Serena Williams* 45 8 84.9
7. Justine Henin 45 10 81.8
8. Jana Novotna 79 21 79.0
9. Kim Clijsters 40 11 78.4
10. Tracy Austin 43 12 78.2

Hard court Career W/L stats

1. Steffi Graf 330 36 90.2
2. Chris Evert 303 36 89.4
3. Martina Navratilova 340 48 87.6
4. Monica Seles 303 57 84.2
5. Serena Williams* 261 50 83.9
6. Justine Henin 233 51 82.0
7. Kim Clijsters 236 52 81.9
8. Venus Williams* 290 65 81.7
9. Maria Sharapova* 172 39 81.5
10. Lindsay Davenport 465 115 80.2

Carpet career W/L stats

1. Martina Navratilova 516 58 89.9
2. Steffi Graf 189 23 89.2
3. Chris Evert 209 39 84.3
4. Serena Williams* 34 7 82.9
5. Martina Hingis 97 23 80.8
6. Kim Clijsters 50 13 79.4
7. Monica Seles 98 26 79.0
8. Lindsay Davenport 93 27 77.5
9. Tracy Austin 85 25 77.3
10. Venus Williams* 50 17 74.6

Clay stats career W/L

1. Chris Evert 316 20 94.1
2. Steffi Graf 268 29 90.2
3. Justin Henin 122 19 86.5
4. Monica Seles 142 25 85.0
5. Martina Hingis 109 25 81.3
6. Martina Navratilova 202 47 81.1
7. Gabriela Sabatini 196 49 80.0
8. Venus Williams* 116 31 78.9
9. Lindsay Davenport 120 35 77.4
10. Serena Williams* 74 22 77.1

CEvertFan
04-26-2009, 05:34 PM
LOl you forgot the carpet stats.


One of the things I got from the numbers across all the surfaces was how incredibly competitive and consistent Evert was for so long.

BTURNER
04-26-2009, 05:42 PM
LOl you forgot the carpet stats.




One of the things I got from the numbers across all the surfaces was how incredibly competitive and consistent Evert was for so long.

Corrected!

Look at that grass stats for Evert! a fraction of a percentage from the great Navratilova. Graf is down aways!

I also posted the clay ones. Due credit to wiki for these lists as well. We sure didn't spend the hours calculating!

CEvertFan
04-26-2009, 05:47 PM
Corrected!

Look at that grass stats for Evert! a fraction of a percentage from the great Navratilova. Graf is down aways!

I also posted the clay ones. Due credit to wiki for these lists as well. We sure didn't spend the hours calculating!


Less tournaments on grass is part of the reason for Graf's numbers. Evert's grass percentage is almost the same as Navratilova's though 88.7% for Martina to 88% for Chris. All those 70s early losses for Navratilova hurt that stat.

CEvertFan
04-26-2009, 05:48 PM
Even on carpet Chris is still third! And that's her worst surface by far.

She has the best all around record though - 1st on clay, 2nd on grass and hard and 3rd on carpet.

BTURNER
04-26-2009, 05:54 PM
Less tournaments on grass is part of the reason for Graf's numbers. Evert's percentage is almost the same as Navratilova's though 88.7% for Martina to 88% for Chris. All those 70s early losses for Navratilova hurt that stat.

Evert should have been having those early losses on grass too. Less tournament play on a surface is supposed to lead to less consistent results when you play on that surface, particularly when you play basline in Fort Lauderdale jr. tournaments through your 'tween' years.

CEvertFan
04-26-2009, 05:55 PM
Point is, Evert should have been having those early losses on grass as opposed to Martina. Less tournment play on a surface is supposed to lead to less consistent results when you play on that surface, particularly when you play basline in Fort Lauderdale jr. tournements through your 'tween' years.

Evert is underrated on grass but I see your point.

grafselesfan
04-26-2009, 06:11 PM
If Venus is smart enough to retire at 30 she could end up with the greatest grass court winning % after Wimbledon 2010. The things that stand out most to me are:

-Sharapova with a better grass court winning % than Graf. Would have never expected that.

-Henin with a better grass court winning % than Novotna. I also find that very surprising.

-pretty amazing even with the ill effects of the stabbing and playing many years past her prime Seles has a better hard court winning % than Serena. That is even with Serena's benefit of the really weak field todays and avoiding Henin in almost all her Australian Open wins.

BTURNER
04-26-2009, 06:16 PM
Reason for Graf's low number is that she started to play too young for the more physically demanding grass courts and she prepared and played two grass slams in those early years. Each Australian had to have some preparatory events played as well as Wimbldon. those meant early losses when she was 14, 15, and 16.

grafselesfan
04-26-2009, 06:21 PM
Graf joined the tour when she was only 13 which I remember hearing once was younger than anyone in history has. It was interesting despite turning pro so young she never became as early a bloomer as any of Seles, Austin, Hingis, Capriati, Connolly, or perhaps even Evert. She obviously joined the tour at such a young age since Peter Graf must have wanted her to. Steffi pretty much did everything Peter told her until atleast turning 20 which is a large reason why in her youth she had a robotic personality.

CEvertFan
04-26-2009, 06:40 PM
If Venus is smart enough to retire at 30 she could end up with the greatest grass court winning % after Wimbledon 2010. The things that stand out most to me are:

-Sharapova with a better grass court winning % than Graf. Would have never expected that.

-Henin with a better grass court winning % than Novotna. I also find that very surprising.

-pretty amazing even with the ill effects of the stabbing and playing many years past her prime Seles has a better hard court winning % than Serena. That is even with Serena's benefit of the really weak field todays and avoiding Henin in almost all her Australian Open wins.

Sharapova's numbers are skewed because she's still in the prime of her career and those numbers are for Graf's entire career. She had early losses when a young teenager and that 1st round loss to McNiel in 1994. Compare the numbers once Sharapova retires and they will favor Graf I'm sure.


Novotna was more inconsistent than Henin so that should be no surprise.


Seles was also more consistent (even post stabbing) than Serena has been, especially the last 5 years.

BTURNER
04-26-2009, 06:43 PM
True, consistency is one of the first attributes to leave you past 30 yrs old or after mental burnout. all those bad days have yet to come to Sharapova.

flying24
04-26-2009, 07:23 PM
Poor Maria probably wont even reach close to that point for it to happen anyway. Is she even going to return to serious singles tennis ever again? At this rate she might be a soon to come addition to our beloved Former Pro Player section.

CEvertFan
04-26-2009, 10:57 PM
Poor Maria probably wont even reach close to that point for it to happen anyway. Is she even going to return to serious singles tennis ever again? At this rate she might be a soon to come addition to our beloved Former Pro Player section.


She's supposed to return soon but we'll see. The shoulder injury seems quite serious (and recurring) and without her serve she's half the player she should be. It's one of the very best parts of her game.

grafselesfan
04-26-2009, 11:15 PM
Maria needs her serve to be going strong since she needs to start points in offensive positions. She is not that good a defensive player nor that good in going from defense to offense. She needs her serve to be clicking and effective to set her up in control of points to hit her attacking groundstrokes and be dictating. When she isnt serving as well and starting points under pressure or even on her heels, she simply doesnt have the type of skills to cope with that well, especialy vs the other big power players. Her matches vs Serena, Ivanovic, and Venus in 2007 show what will happen to her if her shoulder injury is impeding her ability to serve at her maximum.

CEvertFan
04-26-2009, 11:28 PM
Frankly I'm surprised to not see Court, King and Goolagong on the grass list especially. Surely they played at least 20 grass tournaments, which was one of the criteria for the list? I find it hard to believe that they didn't manage that amount from the beginning of the Open era.

pc1
04-27-2009, 11:25 AM
Frankly I'm surprised to not see Court, King and Goolagong on the grass list especially. Surely they played at least 20 grass tournaments, which was one of the criteria for the list? I find it hard to believe that they didn't manage that amount from the beginning of the Open era.

The records have to be from the Open Era alone. Court probably would top the list in winning percentage overall since I believe she was around 93% lifetime.

Evert's record is amazing for its consistency on all surfaces.

Warriorroger
04-27-2009, 12:17 PM
mmm, as a Steffi fan I am so glad you guys finally have her down somewhere. I hope you feel relieved now that you know Sharapova and Evert rank higher than the 7 times champ. Congrats.

boredone3456
04-27-2009, 12:43 PM
while these are interesting, these kind of stats never really factor in when discussing greatness. You have someone like Davenport in the top 10 on 3 of the 4 surfaces in these numbers, and yet I am sure a lot of people wouldn't even rate her top 20 all time (honetly I wouldn't either), but yet by these number you can get an entirely different look at things.

Sharapova 4th on Grass, well that to me is in a way impressive it still doesn't mean much, I mean compare her Grass court achievements to Graf's and well it to me is plain who is surperior. I am pretty surprised Evonne Goolagong didn't make the grass court list, I would have thought she would have higher numbers than Austin, Clijsters and Novotna at least.

Henin on grass to me is more due to much less Grass tournaments now and the fact she has done pretty well in the few they are, an eastborne champion, 2 time Wimbledon finalist and several time runner up, and if those are the only grass tournaments your playing and your doing well at them of course your going to have higher numbers than someone who played more but did slightly less, Henin is also helped by her early retirement on these charts to.

grafselesfan
04-27-2009, 01:05 PM
Henin is also helped by her early retirement on these charts to.

That is highly debateable. Henin retired while still in her prime, and while she was in a brief slump before her retirement she was likely to come out of it. As it is all of Henin's pre prime tennis from 1999-early 2003 is counted, and as it stands almost half of the span counted is her pre prime tennis. If most of the tennis she were going to play if she retired later on was more prime tennis she was likely to only improve her career winning %. Especialy as the womens field seems to be only getting weaker now which would only help her continue along her 2007 like dominance if she really wanted to continue.

BTURNER
04-27-2009, 01:37 PM
Boredone, I think these stats SHOULD be part of what we talk about with respect to greatness. Of course they need to be put into proper context and certainly they ought not be the primary or soul criteria. You are right they can be skewed by picking surface and events narrowly to avoid weaknesses and we must remember not to compare a full career with its bell shaped curve and 2/3rd ofa career like Henin. That is all true.

But they measure something we should measure. Does a champion maintain a high standard for themselves beyond the showcase events or do they tank or just offer indifferent performances in events which do not they really never cared to enter in the first place, which have no prize money r prestige or real ranking on the line. the sport needs its champions to care out of a sense of professional pride. Let's face it we know of champions who barely put in the time because it wasn't a top tier event and fans and the promoters lost out while they got their 9 holes over the weekend .

Americas are notorious for not recognizing any difference between losing the final and losing in the 3rd round. You are still a loser. That is our cultural deformity. we should strive to change that and honor commitment day in and day out. Sorry if I seem preachy. but its a pet peeve of mine about how someAmericans treat some of its athletes, whether its little league, or the majors. Its as though they might as well not have bothered if they lost a semi.

flying24
04-27-2009, 01:49 PM
Boredone, I think these stats SHOULD be part of what we talk about with respect to greatness. Of course they need to be put into proper context and certainly they ought not be the primary or soul criteria. You are right they can be skewed by picking surface and events narrowly to avoid weaknesses and we must remember not to compare a full career with its bell shaped curve and 2/3rd ofa career like Henin. That is all true.

But they measure something we should measure. Does a champion maintain a high standard for themselves beyond the showcase events or do they tank or just offer indifferent performances in events which do not they really never cared to enter in the first place, which have no prize money r prestige or real ranking on the line. the sport needs its champions to care out of a sense of professional pride. Let's face it we know of champions who barely put in the time because it wasn't a top tier event and fans and the promoters lost out while they got their 9 holes over the weekend .

Americas are notorious for not recognizing any difference between losing the final and losing in the 3rd round. You are still a loser. That is our cultural deformity. we should strive to change that and honor commitment day in and day out. Sorry if I seem preachy. but its a pet peeve of mine about how someAmericans treat some of its athletes, whether its little league, or the majors. Its as though they might as well not have bothered if they lost a semi.

I have mixed feelings on that. In one sense I see what you are saying and you make some very good points. On the other hand when you are comparing the greatest athletes in history, in any sport not just tennis, ultimately people/teams of that caliber it is mainly wins that really matter once you reach that height. It is kind of when you go downwards in comparing the next level of greats who have smaller number of wins that runner ups and semifinal showings become more significant in breaking them down. JMO though.

boredone3456
04-27-2009, 02:02 PM
Boredone, I think these stats SHOULD be part of what we talk about with respect to greatness. Of course they need to be put into proper context and certainly they ought not be the primary or soul criteria. You are right they can be skewed by picking surface and events narrowly to avoid weaknesses and we must remember not to compare a full career with its bell shaped curve and 2/3rd ofa career like Henin. That is all true.

But they measure something we should measure. Does a champion maintain a high standard for themselves beyond the showcase events or do they tank or just offer indifferent performances in events which do not they really never cared to enter in the first place, which have no prize money r prestige or real ranking on the line. the sport needs its champions to care out of a sense of professional pride. Let's face it we know of champions who barely put in the time because it wasn't a top tier event and fans and the promoters lost out while they got their 9 holes over the weekend .

Americas are notorious for not recognizing any difference between losing the final and losing in the 3rd round. You are still a loser. That is our cultural deformity. we should strive to change that and honor commitment day in and day out. Sorry if I seem preachy. but its a pet peeve of mine about how someAmericans treat some of its athletes, whether its little league, or the majors. Its as though they might as well not have bothered if they lost a semi.


I know what your saying. But my point is it is very possible to look at some of these numbers and say "wow, so and so is really great" but then you need to look other things that weigh in. Sharapova for instance, as of now should her career end, and it may well with her shoulder, would now have a higher grass court win % then Graf, who has 7 times the number of Wimbledon Titles Sharapova has, now what means more, the higher percentage or the number of titles at the biggest Grass court stage? I think we both know the answer to that.

Davenport to, like I said she rates in the top 10 on 3 lists, but on her 2nd best surface, Grass, she doesn't. Its weird, but would anyone say she deserves much of a higher spot than she gets based on these lists? If you do I can see why but I don't think she should get much. I really like Davenport, she is one of my favorite players, but to see her above Serena on clay when Serena has a french Open, and then to see Venus above them both that doesn't tell things really. Now Serena can easily move ahead of both in the future I understand and its up to her, but as of now the clay court chart looks funky.

Then you Have Henin whose own grass number at least are benefited by much fewer grass court tournies so even though she doesn't have a Wimbledon she can still get high marks because she has deep finishes many times at the few grass tournies she played. Same for Venus, Venus only has 11 non Wimbledon Grass court wins in her entire roughly 12 year career, which is why her numbers are so high, she is a Wimbledon Phenominan, but someone Like Navratilova played a lot more grass court tennis to achieve her numbers, and Graf has more wimbledons against arguably tougher competition to boot, yet Venus places higher because she some years just plays and wins wimbledon. Now if she played more on grass her numbers might be higher, but again they might not, we will never know.

These are interesting, but if you look to much into them when judging greatness it can become counter intuitive, thats all I am saying.

tintin
04-27-2009, 02:02 PM
Mauresmo should be on the list for both grass and carpet

BTURNER
04-27-2009, 02:56 PM
You and Flying are both right. W/L stats ought not be definitive and without context and understanding can indeed magnify the wrong quality at the expense of the right quality. But what they can measure almost uniquely, is an ability to convert not only when the limelight is strongest and motivation the easiest to find, but those other times, when a champion has to make it happen anyway day after day, even when the stands are not full of witnesses, and the cameras are focused on a track meet the the player on the other end is more interested than you might be.