Participation rate of tournaments

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#1
I found another intersting stat on my favourite website (Ultimatetennisstatistics): the participation rate of top players in a tournament.

  • Tournament Participation - Participation percentage measures how much the best players participate in the draw (100% if all top players participate in the draw). Formula: sum(ParticipationWeight(rank)) / sum(ParticipationWeight(1..PlayerCount)): i.e. the sum of participation weights of all players in the draw compared to maximal participation weight if all top players would have participated, where participation weight depend on ranking (see Participation Weights in the Glossary page).
  • Participation Weights - Participation weights: Weights of players participating in the tournament based on their ranking or seeding (depends on context): [1: 100, 2: 85, 3: 75, 4: 67, 5: 60, 6: 55, 7-8: 50, 9-10: 45, 11-13: 40, 14-16: 35, 17-20: 30, 21-25: 25, 26-30: 20, 31-35: 16, 36-40: 13, 41-45: 10, 46-50: 8, 51-60: 6, 61-70: 5, 71-80: 4, 81-100: 3, 101-150: 2, 151-200: 1]

Average participation rate of top players in Slams won:

Djokovic 94.1%
Federer 92.2%
Nadal 90.7%
 
Last edited:

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#9
Olympics participation rate is still quite low. Should it be considered a big tournament then? :unsure:

2016 - 58.5%
2012 - 80.4
2008 - 75.1
2004 - 76.2
2000 - 68.4
1996 - 45.4
1992 - 61.9
1988 - 38.2
1984 - 9.8
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
#12
I found another intersting stat on my favourite website (Ultimatetennisstatistics): the participation rate of top players in a tournament.

  • Tournament Participation - Participation percentage measures how much the best players participate in the draw (100% if all top players participate in the draw). Formula: sum(ParticipationWeight(rank)) / sum(ParticipationWeight(1..PlayerCount)): i.e. the sum of participation weights of all players in the draw compared to maximal participation weight if all top players would have participated, where participation weight depend on ranking (see Participation Weights in the Glossary page).

Average participation rate of top players in Slams won:

Djokovic 94.1%
Federer 92.2%
Nadal 90.7%
Who counts as a top player for this?
 
#16
Olympics participation rate is still quite low. Should it be considered a big tournament then? :unsure:

2016 - 58.5%
2012 - 80.4
2008 - 75.1
2004 - 76.2
2000 - 68.4
1996 - 45.4
1992 - 61.9
1988 - 38.2
1984 - 9.8
It has never been considered a big tournament

It's no more important than an exho
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
#18
This is actually an interesting thread but damn Lew at least know what the stats are about.

I guess it depends on ranking, I don't know.
-------------------------------

If I get time I'd be interested in looking at trends in partipation across the 90's into now.
 
#19
Here I could tell you to compare my posts number and yours.

See, you are going from one insult to another one. Dont see why. If you dont like my posts put me on ignore.
Find one my post where I insulted you.
Please stop derailing this completely not anti-Federer thread.
 
#20
This is actually an interesting thread but damn Lew at least know what the stats are about.



-------------------------------

If I get time I'd be interested in looking at trends in partipation across the 90's into now.
  • Tournament Participation - Participation percentage measures how much the best players participate in the draw (100% if all top players participate in the draw). Formula: sum(ParticipationWeight(rank)) / sum(ParticipationWeight(1..PlayerCount)): i.e. the sum of participation weights of all players in the draw compared to maximal participation weight if all top players would have participated, where participation weight depend on ranking (see Participation Weights in the Glossary page).
  • Participation Weights - Participation weights: Weights of players participating in the tournament based on their ranking or seeding (depends on context): [1: 100, 2: 85, 3: 75, 4: 67, 5: 60, 6: 55, 7-8: 50, 9-10: 45, 11-13: 40, 14-16: 35, 17-20: 30, 21-25: 25, 26-30: 20, 31-35: 16, 36-40: 13, 41-45: 10, 46-50: 8, 51-60: 6, 61-70: 5, 71-80: 4, 81-100: 3, 101-150: 2, 151-200: 1]
https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/tournaments
 
#22
Olympics participation rate is still quite low. Should it be considered a big tournament then? :unsure:

2016 - 58.5%
2012 - 80.4
2008 - 75.1
2004 - 76.2
2000 - 68.4
1996 - 45.4
1992 - 61.9
1988 - 38.2
1984 - 9.8
Definitely the Olympics should be considered a big tournament based on those numbers. A lot of players opted out of going to Rio but aside from that participation by the elite is strong and in an uptrend.
 
#26
Participation rates at the "Big Tournaments" during the modern era (1999-2019 i.e starting with Fed's first full season on tour):

Tour Finals 96.70%
US Open 92.70%
Roland Garros 92.30%
Australian Open 92.10%
Wimbledon 90.20%
Indian Wells Masters 90.00%
Miami Masters 89.80%
Stuttgart Masters 87.30% (99-01 only)
Rome Masters 86.70%
Cincinnati Masters 84.80%
Madrid Masters 83.60% (02-present, composite of both indoor hard+clay editions)
Shanghai Masters 83.10% (09-present)
Paris Masters 81.70%
Hamburg Masters 80% (99-08)
Canada Masters 79.50%
Monte Carlo Masters 75.70% (@NatF 75.80% from 09-present)
Olympics 71.70%


Observations:
1) Not surprising the Tour Finals tops the list as its much easier to get full participation in a field of 8 rather than the bigger field events. Still speaks to the strength of the event though that over 20 years 96.7% of the top 8 players in the world have played there.

2) Interesting that Wimbledon lags a full 2% behind the other majors that are all close. I suspected this might be due to some top ranked players in the world being pure clay court specialists skipping the event during the beginning of the time frame. If this was accurate, the participation % should go up as we look only at more recent years and this is indeed the case.

From 09-present we see:
Australian Open 94.3%
Wimbledon up to 93.0%
USO 92.1%
RG 92.0%

RG and USO stay relatively constant and Wimb actually catches and surpasses both of them as expected. AO having a bump to being the clear top attended major in this time frame is a bit surprising initially, but it makes sense on further analysis. Being the first major of the year, there should be the least number of injuries and hence it should be the top attended event if all events are viewed equally. It seems the late 90s-early 00s might still have had a little bit of top players still skipping the AO, but by the mid-00s this stopped happening.

3) In regards to the Olympics, it seems fairly accurate to classify it as a "Big" event. As a frame of reference, the top participation ATP 500 level tournament during this span is Rotterdam at 47.70%. While the Olympics lags behind all of the Masters events significantly, it is still significantly closer to those events than it is to a 500. Plus it has a small sample size of events that make the lowly attended 2016 edition have a major negative impact on the total.

4) IW/Miami do seem to fall into the common consensus analysis of being viewed as a bit above the other Masters events (with an honorable mention to Rome as well, Stuttgart lasted for too short of a span to say anything about conclusively).

5)
The Grand Slam with the highest ever participation rate is the 2015 US Open at 98.2% (interesting that there has never been a major with 100% participation rate).
The Grand Slam with the lowest ever participation rate is the 1982 Aus Open at 0.2% :-D
 
#30
I like Lew's statistical threads, it's great to know there are tennis fans willing to go that extra step to give us some more factoids! THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE :)
 
Top