I never realized just how ridiculous Chris Evert's levels of consistency were

[InsideOut900]

I was looking at the Wiki page with her career statistics and it just occured to me.

Evert started playing Slams in 71, just month shy of her 17th birthday.

In the first 48 Slams she played between USO 71 and Wimbledon 87, she made at least semifinals in 47 of them. This means she only lost before the semi once in 16 years of playing GS tennis, at Wimbledon 83 in the 3rd round. She skipped AO a lot and FO 4 times, which might have preserved her record, but still 47/48 semis or better is fairytale stuff. She also played 7 more Slams after, putting her at 51/55 SFs or better in her career.

By comparison Navratilova was 38/51 between FO 73 and FO 88 (her best comparable stretch) and 43/60 at the age Evert retired.

Graf was 37/48 starting with FO 85 when she was aged 16 till she retired after Wimbledon 99.

Serena was 34/66 between AO 98 when she was 17 to AO 2017(her best comparable stretch) and 40/79 for her career.

Even considering the relative lack of depth in the tour during the Evert/Navratilova era, it's still pro tennis and anything could go wrong and that could lead to you losing early at some point, but apparently not for Chris. Thoughts?

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

This means she only lost before the semi once in 16 years of playing GS tennis, at Wimbledon 83 in the 3rd round. She skipped AO a lot and FO 4 times, which might have preserved her record, but still 47/48 semis or better is fairytale stuff. She also played 7 more Slams after, putting her at 51/55 SFs or better in her career.

Have a closer look at her stats.

The six times she played Australia, she reached the final every time. As for the French, for the six years from 1973-79 she was 125-0 on clay, with just eight sets lost and 71 bagels dished out. The three years she missed Roland Garros to play WTT were during that period.

Skipping slams in the '70s only diminished her record. Without those absences we'd likely be talking about at least 21 slam wins, and 58/59 semis.

 

[InsideOut900]

Have a closer look at her stats.

The six times she played Australia, she reached the final every time. As for the French, for the six years from 1973-79 she was 125-0 on clay, with just eight sets lost and 71 bagels dished out. The three years she missed Roland Garros to play WTT were during that period.

Skipping slams in the '70s only diminished her record. Without those absences we'd likely be talking about at least 21 slam wins, and 58/59 semis.

You can never know until it's played.

 

[mental midget]

yeah her records are nuts, doesn't get talked about enough. feel the same way about martina winning NINE WIMBLEDONS.

 

[jrepac]

Chris was wildly consistent....even in her later years. RARELY, did she lose early. Usually, she'd be sick or something like that. Martina on grass was her kryptonite, but other than that, she was incredibly dominant. Aside from Tracy or Hana occasionally foiling them, it was the Martina & Chris show for several years running I think Steffi's emergence made Chris feel a bit old and ready to hang it up, but still, getting to an AO final in '88, trouncing Martina along the way, was not insignificant.

 

[dkmura]

It's also notable how hard Evert worked every single day to improve her game. She was always incredible from the baseline, but when Navratilova began to improve her attacking game, Evert made a concerted effort to improve. She bridged the era when wood racquets were all we had, and made the switch to a more powerful graphite Wilson. Beyond this, Evert was also a thinker, and could figure out which patterns broke down her opponent's game.

 

[big ted]

nothing to take away but yea there was a huge lack of depth back then..
not only would chris and martina win most of their matches, t
heir first week would usually be 6-1, 6-1, etc...

 

[dkmura]

nothing to take away but yea there was a huge lack of depth back then..
not only would chris and martina win most of their matches, t
heir first week would usually be 6-1, 6-1, etc...

Comparing today to a half century ago is not just a lack of depth, it was a different world. There were fewer academies (and most were US based) and tennis was not nearly as big a worldwide sport. The talent pool was smaller, the training not nearly as comprehensive and women's pro tour still gaining momentum. But that's not to take away from either Evert or Navratilova, who were both tennis legends who would have accomplished much regardless.

 

[BTURNER]

Its actually 52 semifinals of 56 entries . Here's a few more stats. In her 303 tournaments played in the 20 years from 1970-1989, Evert reached 229 finals with a win/loss record of 157–72 (68.6%) and 273 semifinals with a win/loss record of (90.1%). Here's the rest of the results not included above. She lost 11 times in the quarters and 19 times before reaching a QF ( including two defaults)

Lets just look at her 'worst slam surface' here That is where the inconsistency should be found. Now recall she had played virtually no grass court tennis before her first entry in the 71 Open . In 1970 she played in two grass tournaments losing in the first round in both. That's two 'pro' matches in total at the age of 15. The next we see her on grass was playing the Eastern Grass Court Championships where she wins 4 matches to win the title, days before the US Open gets played.

After 6 total previous grass matches that were not junior tennis at 15 and 16 years of age , her streak begins reaching the semis of all four US OPens played on grass 1971-1974), now we add the 5 Aussies she played on grass reaching the finals (1974-1985), and then we get to all those Wimbledons 1972-1989 for 18 more majors on her worst surface.


The end stat is 26 semis reached out of 27 majors entered on grass courts in her career. She reached the finals of all five of those Aussies + 10 of those Wimbledons for 15 finals in those same 27 entries.

Here's the caliber of opponents that took her out.
King x 3 - 71 Open, 73 Wimb, 75 Wimb
Court x 1 - 73 Open,
Goolagong x 4 1972 Wimb,1974 Aussie, 1980 Wimb, 1974 Open,
Melville Reid x1 1972 Open,
Wade x1 1977 Wimb.
Jordan x1 1983 Wimb. This was the only time she failed to make her penultimate appointment on her worst surface.
Mandlikova x 1 1986 Wimb.
Graf x 1 1989 Wimb.
The rest all came from some player who's name I can't recall. She was a pretty decent grass player though.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Evert is the definition of consistency in tennis history. If she had existed on a tour where they play 4 Slams a year, every year (like players have from the early/mid 90s to today)….she’d have north of 20 Slams. It’s also forgotten that she won the US Open on clay in ‘75, ‘76 (one of the most dominant Slam performances of all time), and ‘77. Her insane consistency is under appreciated, because she didn’t have that one huge weapon that made fans go “Ooooh”

 

[MissileBackHand99]

nothing to take away but yea there was a huge lack of depth back then..
not only would chris and martina win most of their matches, t
heir first week would usually be 6-1, 6-1, etc...

what does “a huge lack of depth” even mean?? You had players like Court, King, Rosie Casals, Virginia Wade, and Goolagong around when Evert first started on Tour in the early 70s; players like Mandoikova, Austin, Graf, etc. as young terrific players in the early/mid 80s; and a player named Navratilova all throughout Evert’s career. Let’s stop pretending that Evert was beating schleps from the local country club….she wasn’t, she was just that damn good

 

[big ted]

what does “a huge lack of depth” even mean?? You had players like Court, King, Rosie Casals, Virginia Wade, and Goolagong around when Evert first started on Tour in the early 70s; players like Mandoikova, Austin, Graf, etc. as young terrific players in the early/mid 80s; and a player named Navratilova all throughout Evert’s career. Let’s stop pretending that Evert was beating schleps from the local country club….she wasn’t, she was just that damn good

i only started watching in the 80s. if chris or martina lost to anyone outside the top 10 it was a huge upset. most matches were under an hour.
if they lost a set in the 1st week of a grand slam commentators would say they were "off".. not the case these days anymore thats all i meant..
as a matter of fact if now if ur a top seed its probable u wont make it to the 2nd week lol...

 

[aliceinpains]

They should've named the US Open after her.

 

[Jason Swerve]

With all due respect to her age and accomplishments at the time, the moment she began losing with consistency, she retired.

 

[boredone3456]

You can never know until it's played.

This is arguably one of the safest "woulda coulda shoulda" arguments in the world however. She was practically 200-1 on clay during this period with just 1 lost to Tracy Austin across all those matches. Even if you went INSANELY conservative she would still have won at least 1 of those French Opens she missed for WTT. Her overall career consistency backs it up. Her only loss before a SF until the late 80's was a result of food poisoning, she requested her match be delayed a day so she could recover, was denied, still played the match and lost...and it should be noted that while she was breadsticked in the first set it took a 2nd set tiebreaker to knock her out of the tournament, even sick she was a monster to beat.

While its true you never know, you look at the players who were SFists at those French Opens, Chris arguably owned them all.

 

[BTURNER]

what does “a huge lack of depth” even mean?? You had players like Court, King, Rosie Casals, Virginia Wade, and Goolagong around when Evert first started on Tour in the early 70s; players like Mandoikova, Austin, Graf, etc. as young terrific players in the early/mid 80s; and a player named Navratilova all throughout Evert’s career. Let’s stop pretending that Evert was beating schleps from the local country club….she wasn’t, she was just that damn good

That's why my post above on surface matters. Ironically there was a definite lack of depth on clay, but on fast surfaces such as grass or carpet, it was a virtual who's who of the greatest S/vers of all time which you listed, but right underneath was an underbelly of potential trouble for any baseliner round after round. That's where Betty Stove, Olga Morazova and Melville Reid, and Wendy Turnbull, Pam Shriver, and Helena Sukova, and Kathy Jordan, and Zina Garrison, and Claudia Kohde Kilch etc swam in fourth rd and quarterfinal matches. Just when one generation of great volleyers dropped away and grass tournaments were resurfaced into more hard court and clay courts, the young baseline brigade showed up with Austin, Jaeger, Maleeva, Basset, Sabatini, Graf.

 

[BTURNER]

With all due respect to her age and accomplishments at the time, the moment she began losing with consistency, she retired.

She was 34 years old and had played on the tour for 20 years and played majors for 19 by then. Its not like she pulled a Bjorn Borg!

 

[Jason Swerve]

She was 34 years old and had played on the tour for 20 years and played majors for 19 by then. Its not like she pulled a Bjorn Borg!

Stating the facts, but you're bringing them too. You're right, and it's a testament that she played so well up until then.

 

[paolo2143]

This is why i have always said that i am surprised so many people rate Martina as being a lot better than Chris. Overall i might give Martina the nod due to her peak dominance between 82 and 87 but Chris is right up there with her and is definitely one of the greats of all time

 

[BTURNER]

This is why i have always said that i am surprised so many people rate Martina as being a lot better than Chris. Overall i might give Martina the nod due to her peak dominance between 82 and 87 but Chris is right up there with her and is definitely one of the greats of all time

I think its largely cultural. As much as we Americans adore the Chrissy we have loved, we are not known for really appreciating consistency over peak dominance, or patience over aggression or ANYTHING over pure athletic prowess. We like the bold, the dramatic, the exciting in our champions, not steadiness, tenacity and precision.

One last point. What is the last thing a young gifted player acquires on the way to a great career? What attribute is the hardest to teach? They all play brilliant stuff, and show those signs of greatness from 16 through 20, but they are NEVER consistent. They have growth spurts, hormones, first loves, mistakes in training, dramas with their parents, and coaches, and a series of just stupids like not sleeping enough, or getting drunk the night before, and then there are those injuries that they are not patient with. Consistency the last element of a fine career to master. And that's why these records will not be duplicated.

 

[jrepac]

Comparing today to a half century ago is not just a lack of depth, it was a different world. There were fewer academies (and most were US based) and tennis was not nearly as big a worldwide sport. The talent pool was smaller, the training not nearly as comprehensive and women's pro tour still gaining momentum. But that's not to take away from either Evert or Navratilova, who were both tennis legends who would have accomplished much regardless.

There were other talented players, but Chris and Martina were head and shoulders better than the rest. Otherwise Pam Shriver might have been a multiple slam winner

 

[jrepac]

I think its largely cultural. As much as we Americans adore the Chrissy we have loved, we are not known for really appreciating consistency over peak dominance, or patience over aggression or ANYTHING over pure athletic prowess. We like the bold, the dramatic, the exciting in our champions, not steadiness, tenacity and precision.

One last point. What is the last thing a young gifted player acquires on the way to a great career? What attribute is the hardest to teach? They all play brilliant stuff, and show those signs of greatness from 16 through 20, but they are NEVER consistent. They have growth spurts, hormones, first loves, mistakes in training, dramas with their parents, and coaches, and a series of just stupids like not sleeping enough, or getting drunk the night before, and then there are those injuries that they are not patient with. Consistency the last element of a fine career to master. And that's why these records will not be duplicated.

A similar discussion happening on the men's thread re: Agassi, Connors, Lendl, Mac. Andre was uber talented, but uber-inconsistent. Whereas Connors and Lendl were super consistent....which is much overlooked. It's not so easy to be great everyday for years on end (or over a decade like Lendl and Connors). Chris was the best in this regard, bar none.

 

[jrepac]

This is why i have always said that i am surprised so many people rate Martina as being a lot better than Chris. Overall i might give Martina the nod due to her peak dominance between 82 and 87 but Chris is right up there with her and is definitely one of the greats of all time

1984 Martina was pretty much like Mac that year....play that was untouchable. She was unbelievably good and crushed all comers. If not for that AO bobble, she might have won the grand slam. Still, Chris was quietly improving her game...you could see it...and the results came in '85 at the FO.

 

[Purestriker]

yeah her records are nuts, doesn't get talked about enough. feel the same way about martina winning NINE WIMBLEDONS.

Exactly!

 

[MissileBackHand99]

1984 Martina was pretty much like Mac that year....play that was untouchable. She was unbelievably good and crushed all comers. If not for that AO bobble, she might have won the grand slam. Still, Chris was quietly improving her game...you could see it...and the results came in '85 at the FO.

By the ‘84 US Open, Chris had caught back up to Martina in terms of adjusting her body and game. That was a fantastic Final that Martina edged out in 3 tough sets. In Australia, it’s not like Martina lost to a scrub—Helena Sukova was an excellent player who would become a HOFer in Doubles and would get to several more GS Finals in singles. She was a powerful serve/volleyer and Chris was amazing in reading Sukova’ big serve in that Final (it’s on YouTube somewhere). It’s always gonna be a great “What If” (if Martina played Chris that year in Australia)…I think Chris stood a good chance of winning

 

[boredone3456]

By the ‘84 US Open, Chris had caught back up to Martina in terms of adjusting her body and game. That was a fantastic Final that Martina edged out in 3 tough sets. In Australia, it’s not like Martina lost to a scrub—Helena Sukova was an excellent player who would become a HOFer in Doubles and would get to several more GS Finals in singles. She was a powerful serve/volleyer and Chris was amazing in reading Sukova’ big serve in that Final (it’s on YouTube somewhere). It’s always gonna be a great “What If” (if Martina played Chris that year in Australia)…I think Chris stood a good chance of winning

Sukova played the match of her life to take out Martina. Sadly she couldn't do it again against Chris in the final. She didn't play poorly, but Chris was a totally different animal and Sukova just didn't have it in her to take down Goliath twice.

 

[R. Schweikart]

This is why i have always said that i am surprised so many people rate Martina as being a lot better than Chris. Overall i might give Martina the nod due to her peak dominance between 82 and 87 but Chris is right up there with her and is definitely one of the greats of all time

Women's tennis became a truly global sport only in the late 80 and the 90s with the help of TV.
Privately-owned TV channels in Western Europe, the end of Socialism in Eastern Europe, TV in China and India starting to broadcast the big tournaments, more and more players coming from outside of the English-speaking world.

So many of Evert's greatest slam finals simply weren't yet watched by many fans all over the world. In contrast Navratilova fought a valiant fight against the forces of young Graf, Sabatini, Seles in 1986-94.

Evert made only two slam finals post-1985 (FO 86 and AO 88).
But Navratilova made 13! Add to that some of the most memorable slam semis like USO 86, USO 91, Wimbledon 92.
So fans remember Navratilova far more than Chris Evert.

 

[BTURNER]

Sukova played the match of her life to take out Martina. Sadly she couldn't do it again against Chris in the final. She didn't play poorly, but Chris was a totally different animal and Sukova just didn't have it in her to take down Goliath twice.

Helena was exactly the type of player that Evert always ate up. I don't know if I posted this on this site before but I did a study of Evert's head to head record against tall players which I define as 5'9" or taller. Here are the names: Court 5'9, Mastoff 6-0, Stove5'11, Shriver6'0, Leslie Allen 6'0, Sukova 6'2, Kodhe Kilch 6'2, Lisa Bonder 5'10, Graf 5'9, Sabatini 5'9, and Karen Krantzcke described as 'tall' but I never found a ht . Now lets look at the number of times these players beat Evert during her prime period defined as the space between her first major win - June of '74 and her last major win -June of 86. Well in the same order as above we have 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0. The two losses within that slam winning window were to Bonder in 1983 and Graf in May of 1986. It was only before her prime, or after her prime that these taller players could make a dent.

 

[PDJ]

What I really liked about Evert was her respect for her opponents. Only on very rare occasions would you be able to tell if she had won or lost whilst shaking hands.

 

[PDJ]

What isn't widely known, but hopefully shows the level of respect for Chris Evert the champion, is that she remains to this day the only professional tennis player that was inducted in to the International Tennis Hall of Fame solely on her own. No other former player was honoured in her induction year.
That's quite something. And to top that she is the only Hall of Famer that had a US President speak on her behalf at said event.
I'm not American but can fully appreciate why she was nicknamed 'Chris America'.
She remains a credit to the United States of America.

 

[Rochester]

Evert was a lady, polite and well-mannered. As I get older, I appreciate those virtues more and more.

 

[jrepac]

Sukova played the match of her life to take out Martina. Sadly she couldn't do it again against Chris in the final. She didn't play poorly, but Chris was a totally different animal and Sukova just didn't have it in her to take down Goliath twice.

You have to have some sympathy for these ladies like Pam Shriver who had to "kill' 2 giants to get ahead! Very few could beat both Martina and Chris back to back. That's a short list. Hana, Tracy, Steffi?

 

[BTURNER]

You have to have some sympathy for these ladies like Pam Shriver who had to "kill' 2 giants to get ahead! Very few could beat both Martina and Chris back to back. That's a short list. Hana, Tracy, Steffi?

Yep that's the list as far as I am aware. They are polar opposites except insofar as you have to mount every ounce of psychological energy and confidence you can muster to win two sets against either of them. It begs the question. Which is better, to see Evert in your draw first, then Martina, or vice versa? I suppose it matters who you are, when and where, doesn't it? Are we talking 1977, 1981, 1985, or 1988? Are we talking the Italian, Eastbourne, The V Slims of LA, or Pretty Polly classic in Brighton? The slams clearly aren't the best time to try this gig.

 

[MichaelNadal]

An entire Queen. Ridiculous stuff.

 

[PDJ]

A further example of the level of Evert's other worldly consistency: It's no surprise that she would hold the record for clay court consistency in the Open Era but it may shock some, that she also holds this record on hard courts.

 

[BTURNER]

A further example of the level of Evert's other worldly consistency: It's no surprise that she would hold the record for clay court consistency in the Open Era but it may shock some, that she also holds this record on hard courts.

I guess 91.6 just was not good enough for Chris. She turned in a record 94.55% winning record on clay, the highest of any pro athlete for a single surface. I believe grass was 88% and carpet was just under 85%

 

[Subway Tennis]

What I really liked about Evert was her respect for her opponents. Only on very rare occasions would you be able to tell if she had won or lost whilst shaking hands.

Agree. And that deference has continued into her broadcasting career, where Chris has very interesting discussions while rarely focusing on her own incredible achievements.

Just one of the absolute towering greats of the game and it is always nice to see threads pop up like this where another person discovers how amazing she was.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

A further example of the level of Evert's other worldly consistency: It's no surprise that she would hold the record for clay court consistency in the Open Era but it may shock some, that she also holds this record on hard courts.

Not wanting to sh*t on Evert, but she doesn't hold that record.

The video is sourced from Wikipedia's Open Era women's singles stats page. The page's gatekeepers imposed arbitrary limits on the minimum number of games matches required to be listed; 40 for grass and carpet, 90 for clay, but 200 for hard courts. This conveniently means that actual record holder Margaret Court (110-11, 91.73%) gets omitted.

I strongly suspect this is a bit of attempted revisionism because of Court's less-than-progressive social values, and demonstrates why Wikipedia is a poor primary source of information; opinionated editors don't make good historians.

Nevertheless, that doesn't detract from Chrissie's own outstanding record on the surface.

 

[R. Schweikart]

...

 

[R. Schweikart]

A further example of the level of Evert's other worldly consistency: It's no surprise that she would hold the record for clay court consistency in the Open Era but it may shock some, that she also holds this record on hard courts.

But you must not forget that Evert played many, many hard court tournaments in the 70s in the USA with only local competition.

 

[BTURNER]

Not wanting to sh*t on Evert, but she doesn't hold that record.

The video is sourced from Wikipedia's Open Era women's singles stats page. The page's gatekeepers imposed arbitrary limits on the minimum number of games required to be listed; 40 for grass and carpet, 90 for clay, but 200 for hard courts. This conveniently means that actual record holder Margaret Court (110-11, 91.73%) gets omitted.

I strongly suspect this is a bit of attempted revisionism because of Court's less-than-progressive social values, and demonstrates why Wikipedia is a poor primary source of information; opinionated editors don't make good historians.

Nevertheless, that doesn't detract from Chrissie's own outstanding record on the surface.

'Games' listed? Do you mean matches? Can you link me to something on this?

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

'Games' listed? Do you mean matches? Can you link me to something on this?

Yes, sorry, minimum number of matches. The exact link including the section anchor is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_–_women's_singles#Match_record_by_court_type

Screenshot of what I'm talking about:

I can't find any prior discussions to justify or explain these minimum thresholds, they seem to be completely arbitrary. I believe the format/layout was copied over from the equivalent men's article which already existed, but there's no evidence of any discussions about these thresholds over there either. If Tennis editors on WP were more diligent about citing their sources then I might be more informed. But at the moment all we have are reams and reams of data which look like original research to me.

The even more egregious omission is Court's Open Era grass-court record. She's played sufficient matches and should be #1 on the list, but again she's completely absent. It's been that way since the charts were first put on WP seven years ago.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Yes, sorry, minimum number of matches. The exact link including the section anchor is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_–_women's_singles#Match_record_by_court_type

Screenshot of what I'm talking about:

I can't find any prior discussions to justify or explain these minimum thresholds, they seem to be completely arbitrary. I believe the format/layout was copied over from the equivalent men's article which already existed, but there's no evidence of any discussions about these thresholds over there either. If Tennis editors on WP were more diligent about citing their sources then I might be more informed. But at the moment all we have are reams and reams of data which look like original research to me.

The even more egregious omission is Court's Open Era grass-court record. She's played sufficient matches and should be #1 on the list, but against she's completely absent. It's been that way since the charts were first put on WP seven years ago.

BJ King is also missing among the top grass courter.

These stats are very misleading anyway.
Steffi is only 85-15 win/loss on grass, seems to be far her worst surface. Which is obviously BS, as we all know.
Why that not very impressive numbers?
Well, of her 15 grass court losses 4 came as 13/14-year-old, 4 more as a 15-year-old (Navratilova for instance never played at age 13-15). So after turning 16 Steffi is actually 75-7 on grass (91.5 %). Which reflects better her status as the most probably best grass court player of all time.

 

[BTURNER]

Yes, sorry, minimum number of matches. The exact link including the section anchor is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_–_women's_singles#Match_record_by_court_type

Screenshot of what I'm talking about:

I can't find any prior discussions to justify or explain these minimum thresholds, they seem to be completely arbitrary. I believe the format/layout was copied over from the equivalent men's article which already existed, but there's no evidence of any discussions about these thresholds over there either. If Tennis editors on WP were more diligent about citing their sources then I might be more informed. But at the moment all we have are reams and reams of data which look like original research to me.

The even more egregious omission is Court's Open Era grass-court record. She's played sufficient matches and should be #1 on the list, but against she's completely absent. It's been that way since the charts were first put on WP seven years ago.

Thank you. You appear to have a reasonable case. I will look into it later as time permits.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Yes, sorry, minimum number of matches. The exact link including the section anchor is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_–_women's_singles#Match_record_by_court_type

Screenshot of what I'm talking about:

I can't find any prior discussions to justify or explain these minimum thresholds, they seem to be completely arbitrary. I believe the format/layout was copied over from the equivalent men's article which already existed, but there's no evidence of any discussions about these thresholds over there either. If Tennis editors on WP were more diligent about citing their sources then I might be more informed. But at the moment all we have are reams and reams of data which look like original research to me.

The even more egregious omission is Court's Open Era grass-court record. She's played sufficient matches and should be #1 on the list, but against she's completely absent. It's been that way since the charts were first put on WP seven years ago.

Wow, that looks pretty bad. Thanks for posting. I would think common sense would make one wonder how someone could be #1 in career win % on all surfaces in one chart and not even be top 10 on the lists for any of the individual surfaces? And King and Goolaging are also somehow completely ignored in surface rankings, despite both being top 10 in career %, which also makes no sense. And someone made a youtube vid with these stats, ugh.

 

[PDJ]

Yes, sorry, minimum number of matches. The exact link including the section anchor is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_–_women's_singles#Match_record_by_court_type

Screenshot of what I'm talking about:

I can't find any prior discussions to justify or explain these minimum thresholds, they seem to be completely arbitrary. I believe the format/layout was copied over from the equivalent men's article which already existed, but there's no evidence of any discussions about these thresholds over there either. If Tennis editors on WP were more diligent about citing their sources then I might be more informed. But at the moment all we have are reams and reams of data which look like original research to me.

The even more egregious omission is Court's Open Era grass-court record. She's played sufficient matches and should be #1 on the list, but again she's completely absent. It's been that way since the charts were first put on WP seven years ago.

Is Court's over her whole career or just post 1968?

 

[R. Schweikart]

Is Court's over her whole career or just post 1968?

Of course only open era, starting with FO 68.

 

[BTURNER]

Yes, sorry, minimum number of matches. The exact link including the section anchor is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_–_women's_singles#Match_record_by_court_type

Screenshot of what I'm talking about:

I can't find any prior discussions to justify or explain these minimum thresholds, they seem to be completely arbitrary. I believe the format/layout was copied over from the equivalent men's article which already existed, but there's no evidence of any discussions about these thresholds over there either. If Tennis editors on WP were more diligent about citing their sources then I might be more informed. But at the moment all we have are reams and reams of data which look like original research to me.

The even more egregious omission is Court's Open Era grass-court record. She's played sufficient matches and should be #1 on the list, but again she's completely absent. It's been that way since the charts were first put on WP seven years ago.

We certainly have to have a minimum figure. Playing and winning a single match on hard courts is a 100% victory stat. So here's a question for our statistician types. ( I am most definitely NOT included) How would we calculate this minimum # of wins intellently?
Would it be smart as a first step, figure out what number and percentage of tournaments were played on each surface over the relevant time period and use that as a baseline? its the closest you are likely to get to 'number of wins available' off which we can measure this accomplishment? But that will alter with each player. Its not relevant for Hingis to know how many grass events there were in 1972.

 

[Moose Malloy]

We certainly have to have a minimum figure. Playing and winning a single match on hard courts is a 100% victory stat. So here's a question for our statistician types. ( I am most definitely NOT included) How would we calculate this minimum # of wins intellently?
Would it be smart as a first step, figure out what number and percentage of tournaments were played on each surface over the relevant time period and use that as a baseline? its the closest you are likely to get to 'number of wins available' off which we can measure this accomplishment? But that will alter with each player. Its not relevant for Hingis to know how many grass events there were in 1972.

It's not even about that. Court, King, and Goolagong(and probably Wade) clearly meet all the criteria for minimum wins for many of the surface lists but are somehow completely omitted from all of them. The idea that Novotna, Austin, Sharapova and Clijsters have higher win %'s on grass than these players is rather farfetched. Weird that Chris and Martina somehow were included on all surface lists, but all the other 70s players were ignored(don't think its political though since I would think in todays environment getting King's stats correct would be ideal. Guess it was just laziness and/or a lack of women's tennis historians on there).

It's a good idea to take everything on wikipedia with a grain of salt(I know for a fact some TW posters have added false info there)

 

[BTURNER]

It's not even about that. Court, King, and Goolagong(and probably Wade) clearly meet all the criteria for minimum wins for many of the surface lists but are somehow completely omitted from all of them. The idea that Novotna, Austin, Sharapova and Clijsters have higher win %'s on grass than these players is rather farfetched. Weird that Chris and Martina somehow were included on all surface lists, but all the other 70s players were ignored(don't think its political though since I would think in todays environment getting King's stats correct would be ideal. Guess it was just laziness and/or a lack of women's tennis historians on there).

It's a good idea to take everything on wikipedia with a grain of salt(I know for a fact some TW posters have added false info there)

Yes I understand that point, there is no way on grass to leave many of the greatest grass courts off when 3/4 majors were played on grass, but to get these 'stats' right, we have to come up with the right criteria and the right measuring stick, wiki be damned. So how should these minimum numbers of winsper surfaces, be calculated without going to an absurd about of work?