women:some conversion percentages in slams

[BTURNER]

Here, I attempted to discern what percentage of slam events entered, each player converted to a successful result. It does not include current players, or even recently retired players.
As a matter of fact I deleted the Hingus stat thanks to her comeback. All these are referencing only slams where the data are easily verified. This first list represents how often as a percentage,after entering a slam, the player made it to the semis. Yes it includes times a player withdrew due to injury. When a career includes few slam entries such as Lenglen, one loss greatly skews the result. It discards closed events like the earliest French championships.
% OF SLAMS TO SEMIS
Column1 Column2
WILLS 1
EVERT 0.927
CHAMBERS 0.875
CONOLLY 0.818
BETZ 0.8
AKHURST 0.777
COURT 0.767
HART 0.765
LENGLEN 0.75
HILLYARD 0.739
BROUGH 0.735
JACOBS 0.719
AUSTIN 0.689
GRAF 0.685
NAVRATILOVA 0.666
STERRY 0.636
HAYDON 0.62
GOOLAGONG 0.611
SPERLING 0.588
MARBLE 0.583
FRY 0.567
BUENO 0.541
GIBSON 0.533
OSBORNE 0.531
KING 0.529
SELES 0.47
MATHIEU 0.448
SANCHEZ 0.397
MANDLIKOVA 0.341

 

[BTURNER]

Aver For Semis Conversion

This list documents the percentage of times they won that semifinal in a slam to get to the final
AVER FOR SEMIS CONVERSION
Column1 Column2
WILLS 1
CONNOLY 1
BETZ 1
LENGLEN 0.9
GRAF 0.838
GOOL 0.818
COURT 0.806
NAV 0.727
SELES 0.722
KING 0.692
HART 0.692
BOLTON 0.692
JACOBS 0.667
EVERT 0.654
OSBORNE 0.625
BUENO 0.6
FRY 0.571
BROUGH 0.56
SANCHEZ 0.545
MATHIEU 0.533
HAYDON 0.429

 

[BTURNER]

Aver For Finals Conversion

This list documents what percentage of those finals landed them the championship.
AVER FOR FINALS CONVERSION

Column1 Column2
CONNOLY 1
LENGLEN 1
WILLS 0.864
COURT 0.828
MALLORY 0.727
GRAF 0.709
SELES 0.692
KING 0.667
BOLTON 0.667
CHAMBERS 0.636
BETZ 0.625
NAV 0.621
OSBORNE 0.6
BUENO 0.583
EVERT 0.529
FRY 0.5
STERRY 0.5
BROUGH 0.429
GOOL 0.389
HART 0.333
SANCHEZ 0.333
HAYDON 0.333
JACOBS 0.313
MATHIEU 0.125

 

[BTURNER]

Some interesting notes: This reminded of how very young Graf was when she started to play. Lots of losses at before 16 years old. Goolagong was weak getting to the semi or winning the final but did great in the winning her semifinal. Evert soared at reaching the semi but lost ground thereafter. Billie Jean, like Sanchez, just hung around too long and got injured too much.

 

[BTURNER]

Just bumping cause I like the data and think my efforts ought not be buried lightly<LOL

 

[boredone3456]

Wow. I never noticed this before, this is pretty cool...but Wills did miss the Semi's in 1 slam she entered...the 1926 French Open Championships..she had to withdraw from the tournament before her second rd match because she required an appendectomy. she also by the standard of the day defaulted Wimbledon that year for the same reason, but you could dispute that. So Wills doesn't have a 100% semi success rate really.

 

[BTURNER]

Well, I absolutely believe you. I used that rather error prone Bud Collins work. Its failed me before. It just listed/ mentioned that early final loss at the open as Helen's only early entry. Leaves Evert at Number one then!

A couple of interesting points. Seles career would have had a whole different look, had she not come back, with far better numbers on these lists. Note that Court beats Navratilova on all of them. Granted, the Australian puffs up her numbers, but anyone who claims she was mentally weak, is fooling themselves. These are the matches that test that!

 

[Wuornos]

Great one Turner.

I especially like the stat showing how succesful Chris Evert was in converting entry to majors into semi final places. She was incredible in this respect.

Regards

Tim

 

[BTURNER]

THANKS, Think about the accomplishment. 1971 us open, her first slam on grass she makes it to the semis. then the newbie on tour a young 17 yr old follows this by doing the same at both Wimbledon and US in 1972, both on grass. the following year 1973 she does it again adding the French semi to the chain. 1974 she does it again, adding the australian semi on grass as well as the other three. This goes on through 75, 76, 77, 78,79, 80,81, 82 without a single loss before the final four until 1983 Wimbledon. Those are the very years when young champs are learning from their losses. They learn about their bodies and injuries and the limitations therein, about being too cocky, or too tentative or go through traumas of hormones and love. They try new tactics, new weapons and coaches. This champion's consistency in those trying years is unparalleled. After the loss to Jordan, Evert went straight through 84,85,and 86 and re-establishing her pattern. It will never happen again.

 

[CEvertFan]

Evert's superb consistency was possible primarily because of her unparalleled mental toughness. Her opponents had to beat her because she wouldn't beat herself. Of course her great baseline game was also a part of it as well.

 

[DMan]

Interesting numbers. But I don't think you can measure players from different eras using the exact same criteria. The depth of field, size of the draws were so different in the 20s and 30s, and they continued to evolve over the years. It's only in the last 20 years that the draw size in all the majors has been the same (at least for the women).