What follows is truly a "who knows if anyone cares" exercise. :-) It's very long, and fairly complex, but it analyses the behavior of the WTA Top 20 in rather nauseating detail, trying to figure out something-or-other. What you make of it is up to you.
Now let's just hope I don't make too many typos....
Quasi-legal disclaimer: This thing represents a lot of work. So I'm sort of copyrighting it. The information in this document is either copyright by the WTA Tour (the official rankings and rankings methods) or by me, Robert Waltz (all statistical analysis, plus the organization of the report). You may freely distribute this document, but may not accept payment for it in any form or distribute it for profit without my permission, nor may you remove this disclaimer.
Ordinary English translation: Don't charge money for this, and don't say you wrote it.
CONTENTS:
What is this thing? This is a Statistical Abstract of the results of the women of the WTA. That is, it attempts to describe, statistically, their results, and to rate their performances in various ways.
The purpose of this document is not to assert opinions. Of course, it is impossible to entirely avoid opinions, since I have some. For instance, I disagree with the official WTA Tour opinion that Davenport was the #1 player of 1999; I believe that honour belonged to Hingis. (Or, more correctly, I believe there was no true #1 player in 1999, but that Hingis was a slightly stronger player than Davenport.) Nonetheless, this abstract exists primarily for the sake of the numbers. If there is commentary, it is designed either to explain what the numbers mean or to bring out some especially salient point.
The final section, "Forecasts," contains more opinions than the others, and some readers may wish to skip it. But even it exists primarily to point out the nature of each player's performance in 1998, where they are strong, where they are weak, and what they must do to defend or improve their rankings.
For the most part, data in this document is compiled only for the
WTA Top 20. It is assumed that the Top 5 in all categories will be on
this list, and usually the Top 10.
1998 In Review
The Final Top Twenty
For purposes of reference, here are the Final 1998 Top 20 as determined by the WTA:
| Rank | Name | Best 18 Score | # of Trns | Gap from Preceding | Began Year At |
| 1 | Davenport, Lindsay | 5654 | 20 | 3 | |
| 2 | Hingis, Martina | 5366 | 17 | 288 | 1 |
| 3 | Novotna, Jana | 3734 | 18 | 1632 | 2 |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario, Arantxa | 3417 | 19 | 317 | 9 |
| 5 | Williams, Venus | 3262 | 15 | 155 | 22 |
| 6 | Seles, Monica | 3226 | 15 | 36 | 5 |
| 7 | Pierce, Mary | 2414 | 16 | 812 | 7 |
| 8 | Martinez, Conchita | 2331 | 18 | 83 | 12 |
| 9 | Graf, Steffi | 2261 | 13 | 70 | 28 |
| 10 | Tauziat, Nathalie | 2259 | 24 | 2 | 11 |
| 11 | Schnyder, Patty | 2256 | 23 | 3 | 26 |
| 12 | Van Roost, Dominique | 2073 | 25 | 183 | 18 |
| 13 | Kournikova, Anna | 1971 | 20 | 102 | 30 |
| 14 | Testud, Sandrine | 1898 | 27 | 73 | 14 |
| 15 | Spirlea, Irina | 1830 | 26 | 68 | 8 |
| 16 | Zvereva, Natasha | 1770 | 22 | 60 | 25 |
| 17 | Coetzer, Amanda | 1752 | 24 | 18 | 4 |
| 18 | Sugiyama, Ai | 1398 | 23 | 354 | 21 |
| 19 | Farina, Silvia | 1389 | 26 | 9 | 43 |
| 20 | Williams, Serena | 1301 | 11 | 88 | 101 |
We might observe that the "gaps" reveal the existence of several classes of players. There are the Top 2 -- Hingis and Davenport -- who are so far ahead of the field that they are effectively in competition only with each other. (Indeed, the difference between them lies almost entirely in the fact that Hingis was #1 for most of the year. Hingis defeated Davenport twice, neither one at a Slam, once when Davenport was #1 and once when Davenport was #2. This earned Hingis 175 points. Davenport, by contrast, beat Hingis three times, all when Hingis was #1, and once in a Slam. This earned Davenport 400 points. The difference, 225 points, is 80% of the gap between the two -- yet it really consists only of the difference in the way quality points are awarded.)
Following the Top 2 there is a gap of 1600+ points -- equivalent to
two Grand Slam -- wins before we reach another group of players.
This second tier consists of Novotna, Sanchez-Vicario, Venus Williams,
and Seles. Then we have another large gap -- 800+ points, or the
equivalent of another Slam -- to Pierce, Martinez, Graf (though
Graf is likely to be able to jump this gap), Tauziat, and Schnyder.
>From there on, players straggle down to Sugiyama, followed by another
big gap.
The Beginning Top Twenty
The Top 20 at the beginning of the year was significantly different:
| Rank | Name | 1998 Final Ranking |
| 1 | Hingis | 2 |
| 2 | Novotna | 3 |
| 3 | Davenport | 1 |
| 4 | Coetzer | 17 |
| 5 | Seles | 6 |
| 6 | Majoli | 25 |
| 7 | Pierce | 7 |
| 8 | Spirlea | 15 |
| 9 | Sanchez-Vicario | 4 |
| 10 | M. J. Fernandez | 76 |
| 11 | Tauziat | 10 |
| 12 | Martinez | 8 |
| 13 | Huber | 21 |
| 14 | Testud | 14 |
| 15 | Schultz-McCarthy | (outside top 100) |
| 16 | Appelmans | 49 |
| 17 | Raymond | 27 |
| 18 | Van Roost | 12 |
| 19 | Dragomir | 38 |
| 20 | Basuki | 56 |
Ranking Gains:
Ranking Losses:
Players who were in the Top 10 at beginning and end of the year: 6 -- Davenport, Hingis, Novotna, Pierce, Sanchez-Vicario, Seles
Players who were in the Top 20 at the beginning and end of the
year: 12 -- Coetzer, Davenport, Hingis, Martinez, Novotna, Pierce,
Sanchez-Vicario, Seles, Spirlea, Tauziat, Testud, Van Roost
All the Players in the Top Ten in 1998
The Top Ten Based on WTA (Best 18) Statistics
The lists below show all (I believe) all players who have ranked in the Top 10 in 1998, with the highest rank achieved (total of 17 players).
The following list shows all the players who have occupied a given position in the Top 10:
This list shows all players who would have been in the Top 10 under the 1996 ranking system, with the highest ranking achieved. (For the list of the final Top 10 under this system, see the section on Alternate Rankings.)
The following list shows the winner of all major (Tier II or higher) tournaments, ordered first by date then by type:
| Tournament | Tier | Winner |
| Sydney | II | Sanchez-Vicario |
| Australian Open | Slam | Hingis |
| Tokyo (Pan Pacific) | I | Davenport |
| Paris | II | Pierce |
| Hannover | II | Schnyder |
| Linz | II | Novotna |
| Indian Wells | I | Hingis |
| Lipton (Key Biscayne) | I | V. Williams |
| Hilton Head | I | Coetzer |
| Amelia Island | II | Pierce |
| Hamburg | II | Hingis |
| Rome | I | Hingis |
| Berlin | I | Martinez |
| Roland Garros | Slam | Sanchez-Vicario |
| Eastbourne | II | Novotna |
| Wimbledon | Slam | Novotna |
| Stanford | II | Davenport |
| San Diego | II | Davenport |
| Los Angeles | II | Davenport |
| Canadian Open | I | Seles |
| New Haven | II | Graf |
| U.S. Open | Slam | Davenport |
| Princess Cup (Tokyo) | II | Seles |
| Filderstadt | II | Testud |
| Zurich | I | Davenport |
| Moscow | I | Pierce |
| Leipzig | II | Graf |
| Philadelphia | II | Graf |
| Chase Championships | Champ | Hingis |
| SLAMS | |
| Event | Winner |
| Australian Open | Hingis |
| Roland Garros | Sanchez-Vicario |
| Wimbledon | Novotna |
| U.S. Open | Davenport |
| YEAR-END CHAMPIONSHIP | |
| Event | Winner |
| Chase Championships | Hingis |
| TIER I | |
| Event | Winner |
| Tokyo (Pan Pacific) | Davenport |
| Indian Wells | Hingis |
| Lipton (Key Biscayne) | V. Williams |
| Hilton Head | Coetzer |
| Rome | Hingis |
| Berlin | Martinez |
| Canadian Open | Seles |
| Zurich | Davenport |
| Moscow | Pierce |
| TIER II | |
| Event | Winner |
| Sydney | Sanchez-Vicario |
| Paris | Pierce |
| Hannover | Schnyder |
| Linz | Novotna |
| Amelia Island | Pierce |
| Hamburg | Hingis |
| Eastbourne | Novotna |
| Stanford | Davenport |
| San Diego | Davenport |
| Los Angeles | Davenport |
| New Haven | Graf |
| Princess Cup (Tokyo) | Seles |
| Filderstadt | Testud |
| Leipzig | Graf |
| Philadelphia | Graf |
It will be observed that every winner of a Tier II or higher wound
up in the Top 20, and every winner except Coetzer of a Tier I or higher
wound up in the Top 10.
Number of Tournament Wins for Each Player
The following table shows tournament wins by the Top 20. Tournaments are categorized as major (Tier II or higher) or minor (Tier III or lower). The tournaments are listed, with their level, on the next line. The list is in order of the final WTA rankings
| Rank | Name | Major Wins | Minor Wins | Total Wins |
| 1 | Davenport | 6 | - | 6 |
| Pan Pacific (I), Stanford (II), San Diego (II), Los Angeles (II), U.S. Open (Slam), Zurich (I) | ||||
| 2 | Hingis | 5 | - | 5 |
| Australian Open (Slam), Indian Wells (I), Hamburg (II), Rome (I), Chase (Champ) | ||||
| 3 | Novotna | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Linz (II), Eastbourne (II), Wimbledon (Slam), Prague (III) | ||||
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 2 | - | 2 |
| Sydney (II), Roland Garros (Slam) | ||||
| 5 | V. Williams | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Lipton (I), Oklahoma City (III) | ||||
| 6 | Seles | 2 | - | 2 |
| Canadian Open (I), Tokyo/Princess Cup (II) | ||||
| 7 | Pierce | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Paris (II), Amelia Island (II), Moscow (I), Luxembourg (III) | ||||
| 8 | Martinez | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Berlin (II), Warsaw (III) | ||||
| 9 | Graf | 3 | - | 3 |
| New Haven (II), Leipzig (II), Philadelphia (II) | ||||
| 11 | Schnyder | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Hobart (IV), Hannover (II), Madrid (III), Maria Lankowitz (IV), Palermo (IV) | ||||
| 12 | Van Roost | - | 1 | 1 |
| Auckland (IV) | ||||
| 14 | Testud | 1 | - | 1 |
| Filderstadt (II) | ||||
| 15 | Spirlea | - | 1 | 1 |
| Strasbourg (III) | ||||
| 17 | Coetzer | 1 | - | 1 |
| Hilton Head (I) | ||||
| 18 | Sugiyama | - | 2 | 2 |
| Gold Coast (III), Tokyo/Japan Open (III) | ||||
The following Top 20 players did not win any tournaments in 1998:
Tauziat (10), Kournikova (13), Zvereva (16), Farina (19),
Serena Williams (20)
Fraction of Tournaments Won
| Rank | Player | Tournaments Won | Tournaments Played | Percent |
| 1 | Davenport | 6 | 20 | 30% |
| 2 | Hingis | 5 | 17 | 29% |
| 3 | Novotna | 4 | 18 | 22% |
| 4 | Sanchez Vicario | 2 | 19 | 11% |
| 5 | V. Williams | 2 | 15 | 13% |
| 6 | Seles | 2 | 15 | 13% |
| 7 | Pierce | 4 | 16 | 25% |
| 8 | Martinez | 2 | 18 | 22% |
| 9 | Graf | 3 | 13* | 23%* |
| 10 | Tauziat | 0 | 24* | 0%* |
| 11 | Schnyder | 5 | 23 | 22% |
| 12 | Van Roost | 1 | 25 | 0% |
| 13 | Kournikova | 0 | 20 | 0% |
| 14 | Testud | 1 | 27 | 4% |
| 15 | Spirlea | 1 | 26 | 4% |
| 16 | Zvereva | 0 | 22 | 0% |
| 17 | Coetzer | 1 | 24 | 0% |
| 18 | Sugiyama | 2 | 23 | 9% |
| 19 | Farina | 0 | 26 | 0% |
| 20 | S. Williams | 0 | 11 | 0% |
Note: Graf and Tauziat were still alive at Birmingham when
this tournament was rained out during the semifinals. Thus they
only completed 12 and 23 tournaments, respectively. If this
imcomplete event is left out, Graf won 25% of the tournaments she
entered, and Tauziat still won 0%.
Tournaments Played
The list below shows all the tournaments each player played in 1998. The numbers in parentheses list, first, the Tier of the tournament, second, how far the player went, and third, the number of wins achieved. This is followed by a list of top players beaten en route, with the player's rank at the time.
The earlier columns show the number of events of each type the player played (Slam+Chase Championship, Tier I, Tier II, Tier III, Tier IV), plus the mean and median tier.
| WTA Rank | Player Name | Tier of Events Played | Events Played | |||||
| SLA | I | II | III | IV | Mean/Med | |||
| 1 | Davenport | 5 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 1.25/I |
|
| 2 | Hingis | 5 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1.05/I |
|
| 3 | Novotna | 4 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 01.33/I.5 |
| |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 5 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1.21/I |
|
| 5 | V. Williams | 4 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1.20/I |
|
| 6 | Seles | 4 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1.13/I |
|
| 7 | Pierce | 5 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1.06/I |
|
| 8 | Martinez | 5 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1.06/I |
|
| 9 | Graf | 3 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1.46/II |
|
| 10 | Tauziat | 4 | 7 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 1.5/II |
|
| 11 | Schnyder | 5 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1.61/II |
|
| 12 | Van Roost | 5 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 1.64/II |
|
| 13 | Kournikova | 4 | 7 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1.25/I |
|
| 14 | Testud | 5 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 1.74/II |
|
| 15 | Spirlea | 5 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 1.50/I |
|
| 16 | Zvereva | 5 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1.36/I |
|
| 17 | Coetzer | 5 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 1.54/I |
|
| 18 | Sugiyama | 4 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1.43/I |
|
| 19 | Farina | 4 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 1.65/II |
|
| 20 | S. Williams | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1.18/I |
|
| Tournament | Winner | Tier |
| Bogota | Suarez | IV |
| Makarska | Hrdlickova | IV |
| Budapest | Ruano-Pascual | IV |
| Bol | Lucic | IV |
| (Birmingham) | (No Winner) | III |
| Heineken Trophy (NED) | Halard-Decugis | III |
| Polish Open (Sopot) | Nagyova | IV |
| Istanbul | Nagyova | IV |
| Boston | de Swardt | III |
| Quebec | Snyder | III |
| Pattaya | Halard-Decugis | IV |
There are, of course, many ways of reshaping the above ranking data.
A typical way would be to use some of the WTA's earlier ranking systems.
For example, if we were to use the WTA's 1997 system of accumulating all
points, the Top 10 shifts around slightly, with Tauziat taking over #9
and Graf and Schnyder being tied for #10. That is, under this system,
the Top 15
would be:
Total Points Ranking (1997 Ranking System)
This difference was potentially important, as the 1998 final rankings will probably determine the Australian Open seedings (very few of the top players will play the first week of the year, and the Australian seedings are based on the rankings after that first week). Had Novotna not plaed in Australia, Graf would have been seeded #8, Tauziat #9, and Schnyder #10. Since Graf, Tauziat, and Schnyder are effectively tied under Best 18, and Graf is better under most other ranking systems, the Australian seedings are reasonable.
Still, Best 18 did not differ much from Total Points. (This is because almost no one earns anything in tournaments 19-whatever. Among the Top 20, only twelve managed to play 19 or more tournaments, and only four -- Davenport, Van Roost, Testud, and Zvereva -- earned more than 2 points in the nineteenth tournament. Only Davenport, with 65, earned more than 36 points in Tournament 19. The strong majority of players outside the Top 20 did play 19 or more tournaments, but only two -- Likhovtseva, with 28 points, and Schett, with 18 -- earned more than 10 points in the 19th tournament. Thus in no case do the points from tournaments 19-whatever represent as much as 3% of a player's total.)
But if Best 18 and Total Score rankings are almost identical, the
same is not true when these systems are compared with the WTA's
1996 ranking system, Points per Tournament (minimum 14). Here the rankings
are completely different. Scores are rounded to the nearest point. Note that
not one player Top Ten holds the same ranking under Best 18 and Points per
Tournament. (Think about that for a minute.) Nonetheless, the Top
Ten players fall into roughly the same "bunches," except that
Graf has risen to a position between the second and third tiers.
Points Per Tournament, Minimum 14
(1996 Ranking System)
| Rank | Name | Score | WTA Rank |
| 1 | Hingis | 316 | 2 |
| 2 | Davenport | 287 | 1 |
| 3 | V. Williams | 218 | 5 |
| 4 | Seles | 215 | 6 |
| 5 | Novotna | 207 | 3 |
| 6 | Sanchez-Vicario | 180 | 4 |
| 7 | Graf | 162 | 9 |
| 8 | Pierce | 151 | 7 |
| 9 | Martinez | 130 | 8 |
| 10 | Kournikova | 99 | 13 |
| 11 | Schnyder | 98 | 11 |
| 12 | Tauziat | 94 | 10 |
| 13 | S. Williams | 93 | 20 |
| 14 | Van Roost | 86 | 12 |
| 15 | Zvereva | 82 | 16 |
If, instead of a minimum of 14, we go to the still earlier system with a minimum of 12, the top 9 are unchanged (though Graf's score improves to 174), but Serena Williams moves up to #10 with a score of 108.
We follow this with some assorted systems which have never been used
by the WTA.
Total Wins
The list below shows how the top 20 fared in terms of wins (I also show losses for balance). The reason this deviates so far from the rankings is that some of these players (e.g. Farina, Schnyder, Sugiyama, Tauziat, Testud, Van Roost) played large numbers of low-tier (Tier III and Tier IV) tournaments. Since they faced low-level opposition, their wins, quite properly, do not count as much toward the rankings.
The next two sections show data for the Top 25, not just the Top 20.
Note: This list includes only official tour wins; exhibitions and Fed Cup are excluded. It should also be noted that the WTA Tour site lists incomplete (and occasionally inaccurate) data for wins and losses; I have corrected it as best I can.
| Rank | Name | Wins | Losses |
| 1 | Davenport | 67 | 14 |
| 2 | Hingis | 60 | 12 |
| 3 | Schnyder | 51 | 18 |
| 3 | Testud | 51 | 26 |
| 5 | Novotna | 50 | 14 |
| 5 | V. Williams | 50 | 13 |
| 7 | Sanchez-Vicario | 46 | 17 |
| 8 | Van Roost | 45 | 24 |
| 9 | Seles | 42 | 13 |
| 10 | Tauziat | 41 | 23 |
| 11 | Kournikova | 40 | 19 |
| 12 | Martinez | 38 | 16 |
| 12 | Sugiyama | 37 | 21 |
| 12 | Farina | 38 | 26 |
| 15 | Zvereva | 36 | 22 |
| 16 | Pierce | 35 | 12 |
| 16 | Spirlea | 36 | 25 |
| 18 | Graf | 33 | 9 |
| 19 | Coetzer | 32 | 23 |
| 20 | S. Williams | 29 | 11 |
| 21 | Huber | 24 | 18 |
| 22 | Halard-Decugis | 37 | 23 |
| 23 | Schett | 35 | 26 |
| 24 | Serna | 28 | 25 |
| 25 | Majoli | 23 | 20 |
Based on the data on wins, we find the following order for win percentage (Note: Only two digits are carried unless a third is needed to break ties):
| Rank | Name | Win Percent | WTA Rank |
| 1 | Hingis | 83.3% | 2 |
| 2 | Davenport | 82.7% | 1 |
| 3 | V. Williams | 79.4% | 5 |
| 4 | Graf | 78.6% | 9 |
| 5 | Novotna | 78.1% | 3 |
| 6 | Seles | 76% | 6 |
| 7 | Pierce | 75% | 7 |
| 8 | Schnyder | 74% | 11 |
| 9 | Sanchez-Vicario | 73.0% | 4 |
| 10 | S. Williams | 72.5% | 20 |
| 11 | Martinez | 70% | 8 |
| 12 | Kournikova | 68% | 13 |
| 13 | Testud | 66% | 14 |
| 14 | Van Roost | 65% | 12 |
| 15 | Tauziat | 64.1% | 10 |
| 16 | Sugiyama | 63.8% | 18 |
| 17 | Zvereva | 62.1% | 16 |
| 18 | Halard-Decugis | 61.7 | 22 |
| 19 | Farina | 59.4% | 19 |
| 20 | Spirlea | 59.0% | 15 |
| 21 | Coetzer | 58% | 17 |
| 22 | Schett | 57.4% | 24 |
| 23 | Huber | 57.1% | 21 |
| 24 | Majoli | 53.5 | 25 |
| 24 | Serna | 52.8% | 24 |
This is the men's ranking system, of course. This, too, produces something of a shakeup. Once again we see Hingis rising to #1 (barely), while Tauziat drops out of the Top 10. Note: Due to some minor oddities in the way the data is organized, I have rounded all figures to the nearest 25. I believe the order below is correct, however.
| Rank | Name | Best 14 Score | WTA Rank |
| 1 | Hingis | 5225 | 2 |
| 2 | Davenport | 5200 | 1 |
| 3 | Novotna | 3700 | 3 |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 3350 | 4 |
| 5 | V. Williams | 3250 | 5 |
| 6 | Seles | 3200 | 6 |
| 7 | Pierce | 2400 | 7 |
| 8 | Martinez | 2250 | 8 |
| 9 | Graf | 2250 | 9 |
| 10 | Schnyder | 2100 | 11 |
| 11 | Tauziat | 2050 | 10 |
| 12 | Van Roost | 1925 | 12 |
| 13 | Kournikova | 1850 | 13 |
| 14 | Spirlea | 1775 | 15 |
| 15 | Testud | 1725 | 14 |
| 16 | Zvereva | 1650 | 16 |
| 17 | Coetzer | 1650 | 17 |
| 18 | Farina | 1300 | 19 |
| 19 | S. Williams | 1300 | 20 |
| 20 | Sugiyama | 1250 | 18 |
These are simply other ways of looking at the WTA ranking numbers.
I will leave their significance as an exercise for the readers, and
simply describe the ranking and list the Top 10
Total Round Points
| Rank | Name | Total Rnd Pts | WTA Rank |
| 1 | Davenport | 3432 | 1 |
| 2 | Hingis | 3272 | 2 |
| 3 | Novotna | 2266 | 3 |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 2130 | 4 |
| 5 | V. Williams | 1979 | 5 |
| 6 | Seles | 1924 | 6 |
| 7 | Martinez | 1493 | 8 |
| 8 | Tauziat | 1482 | 10 |
| 9 | Pierce | 1397 | 7 |
| 10 | Graf | 1323 | 9 |
| Rank | Name | Total Qual Pts | WTA Rank |
| 1 | Davenport | 2338 | 1 |
| 2 | Hingis | 2092 | 2 |
| 3 | Novotna | 1468 | 3 |
| 4 | Seles | 1302 | 6 |
| 5 | Sanchez-Vicario | 1288 | 4 |
| 6 | V. Williams | 1283 | 5 |
| 7 | Pierce | 1017 | 8 |
| 8 | Schnyder | 941 | 11 |
| 9 | Graf | 938 | 9 |
| 10 | Kournikova | 859 | 13 |
| Rank | Name | Rnd Pts per Trn | WTA Rank |
| 1 | Hingis | 193 | 2 |
| 2 | Davenport | 172 | 1 |
| 3 | V. Williams | 132 | 5 |
| 4 | Seles | 128 | 6 |
| 5 | Novotna | 126 | 3 |
| 6 | Sanchez-Vicario | 112 | 4 |
| 7 | Graf | 102 | 9 |
| 8 | Pierce | 87 | 7 |
| 9 | Martinez | 83 | 8 |
| 10 | Tauziat | 62 | 10 |
| Rank | Name | Quality per Trn | WTA Rank |
| 1 | Hingis | 123 | 2 |
| 2 | Davenport | 117 | 1 |
| 3 | Seles | 87 | 6 |
| 4 | V. Williams | 86 | 5 |
| 5 | Novotna | 82 | 3 |
| 6 | Graf | 72 | 9 |
| 7 | Sanchez-Vicario | 68 | 4 |
| 8 | S. Williams | 64 | 20 |
| 9 | Pierce | 64 | 7 |
| 10 | Martinez | 47 | 8 |
(Calculated by doubling total quality points, adding round points, and dividing the sum by tournaments. The effect of this is to make, very roughly, half of the typical player's points come from quality and half from round points.)
| Rank | Name | 2Q+R per Trn | WTA Rank |
| 1 | Hingis | 439 | 2 |
| 2 | Davenport | 404 | 1 |
| 3 | V. Williams | 303 | 5 |
| 4 | Seles | 302 | 6 |
| 5 | Novotna | 289 | 3 |
| 6 | Sanchez-Vicario | 248 | 4 |
| 7 | Graf | 246 | 9 |
| 8 | Pierce | 214 | 7 |
| 9 | S. Williams | 182 | 20 |
| 10 | Martinez | 176 | 10 |
For additional alternate ranking schemes, see
Statistics/Rankings Based on Head-to-Head Numbers.
Head to Head Records
The Top 20 Head to Head
The table below shows how the Top 20 fared against each other in 1998. For completeness, the Top 25 are shown on the vertical axis, although only the Top 20 are listed across the top.
Reading the Table: For space reasons, the names of the Top 20 players have been abbreviated in the column headings. Each heading lists the player's rank and the first three letters of her surname (or, in the case of the Williams sisters, a distinguishing initial and then two letters of the surname). Scores are meant to be read down the columns. That is, the first number in the record is that of the person at the top of the column, not the beginning of the row. So, e.g., if you look down the column headed 1/DAV (i.e. #1, Davenport) and the row labelled 2/Hingis (i.e. #2, Hingis), you will see the notation "3-2." This means that Davenport prevailed in three of her five meetings with Hingis, and Hingis won two.
| 1 DAV | 2 HIN | 3 NOV | 4 SAN | 5 VWi | 6 SEL | 7 PIE | 8 MAR | 9 GRA | 10 TAU | 11 SCH | 12 VAN | 13 KOU | 14 TES | 15 SPI | 16 ZVE | 17 COE | 18 SUG | 19 FAR | 20 SWi | |
| 1/Davenport | 2-3 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 0-3 | 1-2 | 1-0 | 2-3 | 1-5 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 0-3 | 1-0 | ||||||
| 2/Hingis | 3-2 | 1-2 | 0-2 | 2-3 | 2-1 | 1-2 | 0-2 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 1-3 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-2 | |||
| 3/Novotna | 2-1 | 2-1 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 2-0 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 0-2 | 0-3 | 0-2 | 0-4 | 1-1 | 0-2 | 1-0 | ||||
| 4/Sanchez-Vicario | 1-1 | 2-0 | 1-2 | 2-1 | 2-1 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 0-2 | 2-2 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 0-2 | 0-3 | ||||||
| 5/V. Williams | 4-1 | 3-2 | 1-0 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 0-2 | 0-3 | 0-2 | ||||||
| 6/Seles | 3-0 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 1-3 | 1-1 | 1-2 | 0-2 | 0-2 | |||||
| 7/Pierce | 2-1 | 2-1 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 0-1 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 0-1 | ||||||||||
| 8/Martinez | 0-1 | 2-0 | 1-0 | 2-0 | 1-0 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 0-2 | 1-0 | ||||||||
| 9/Graf | 3-2 | 0-1 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-2 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 1-2 | |||||||||
| 10/Tauziat | 5-1 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 2-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 0-3 | 0-1 | 2-0 | 1-0 | |||||||
| 11/Schnyder | 1-0 | 2-1 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-2 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-3 | 1-0 | |||||||
| 12/Van Roost | 0-1 | 2-0 | 2-0 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 2-0 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 2-0 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-0 | |||||
| 13/Kournikova | 2-1 | 3-1 | 3-0 | 2-2 | 1-0 | 1-1 | 3-1 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-2 | ||||||||
| 14/Testud | 2-1 | 2-0 | 2-0 | 3-1 | 2-1 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-3 | 1-1 | 2-1 | |||||||||
| 15/Spirlea | 2-1 | 2-0 | 4-0 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 0-2 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 2-1 | |||||||
| 16/Zvereva | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 2-1 | 2-1 | 3-0 | 1-0 | 3-0 | 0-1 | 2-1 | ||||||||
| 17/Coetzer | 3-0 | 0-1 | 2-0 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 1-1 | 1-1 | ||||||||
| 18/Sugiyama | 1-0 | 2-0 | 2-0 | 2-0 | 2-0 | 1-1 | 2-1 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 1-0 | ||||||||||
| 19/Farina | 1-0 | 2-0 | 3-0 | 2-0 | 1-0 | 2-0 | 0-2 | 3-0 | 1-0 | 2-1 | 1-1 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 0-1 | ||||||
| 20/S. Williams | 0-1 | 2-0 | 0-1 | 3-0 | 2-0 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 0-1 | ||||||||
| 21/Huber | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 3-0 | 0-2 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 0-2 | 0-2 | ||||||||
| 22/Halard-Decugis | 3-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 2-1 | 2-0 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-0 | ||||||
| 23/Schett | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 2-1 | 2-0 | 2-0 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 1-0 | ||||||
| 24/Serna | 1-0 | 2-2 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 1-1 | 2-1 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 2-0 | 2-0 | |||||||||
| 25/Majoli | 1-0 | 4-0 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 0-1 |
The following table shows each player's won/lost record against the Top 10, against the Second 10 (#11-#20), and against the Top 20 as a whole. Note: This is not the same as the players' wins over Top 10/Top 20 players. What is shown here is the player's record against the women who ended the year in the Top 10/Top 20. At the time of the matches, some of these women will not have been at their final ranks.
| WTA Rank | Player Name | Overall W/L | Against Top 10 | Against #11-#20 | Against Top 20 | Non-Top 20 | |||||||||
| W | L | W | L | % | W | L | % | W | L | % | W | L | % | ||
| 1 | Davenport | 67 | 14 | 21 | 9 | 70.0% | 10 | 4 | 71.4% | 31 | 13 | 70.5% | 36 | 1 | 97.3% |
| 2 | Hingis | 60 | 12 | 14 | 10 | 58.3% | 13 | 2 | 86.7% | 27 | 12 | 69.2% | 33 | 0 | 100.0% |
| 3 | Novotna | 50 | 14 | 4 | 8 | 33.3% | 16 | 3 | 84.2% | 20 | 11 | 64.5% | 30 | 3 | 90.9% |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 46 | 17 | 7 | 8 | 46.7% | 11 | 5 | 68.8% | 18 | 13 | 58.1% | 28 | 4 | 87.5% |
| 5 | V. Williams | 50 | 13 | 9 | 11 | 45.0% | 10 | 2 | 83.3% | 19 | 13 | 59.4% | 31 | 0 | 100.0% |
| 6 | Seles | 42 | 13 | 6 | 8 | 42.9% | 12 | 4 | 75.0% | 18 | 12 | 60.0% | 24 | 1 | 96.0% |
| 7 | Pierce | 35 | 12 | 8 | 6 | 57.1% | 6 | 0 | 100.0% | 14 | 6 | 70.0% | 21 | 6 | 77.8% |
| 8 | Martinez | 38 | 16 | 1 | 5 | 16.7% | 10 | 7 | 58.8% | 11 | 12 | 47.8% | 27 | 4 | 87.1% |
| 9 | Graf | 33 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 72.7% | 6 | 4 | 60.0% | 14 | 7 | 66.7% | 19 | 2 | 90.5% |
| 10 | Tauziat | 41 | 23 | 1 | 11 | 8.3% | 5 | 5 | 50.0% | 6 | 16 | 27.3% | 35 | 7 | 83.3% |
| 11 | Schnyder | 51 | 18 | 4 | 6 | 40.0% | 7 | 2 | 77.8% | 11 | 8 | 57.9% | 40 | 10 | 80.0% |
| 12 | Van Roost | 45 | 24 | 4 | 7 | 36.4% | 3 | 6 | 33.3% | 7 | 13 | 35.0% | 38 | 11 | 77.6% |
| 13 | Kournikova | 40 | 19 | 7 | 15 | 31.8% | 3 | 3 | 50.0% | 10 | 18 | 35.7% | 30 | 1 | 96.8% |
| 14 | Testud | 51 | 26 | 3 | 11 | 21.4% | 7 | 4 | 63.6% | 10 | 15 | 40.0% | 41 | 11 | 78.8% |
| 15 | Spirlea | 36 | 25 | 4 | 11 | 26.7% | 3 | 6 | 33.3% | 7 | 17 | 29.2% | 29 | 8 | 78.4% |
| 16 | Zvereva | 36 | 22 | 4 | 11 | 26.7% | 2 | 6 | 25.0% | 6 | 17 | 26.1% | 30 | 5 | 85.7% |
| 17 | Coetzer | 32 | 23 | 2 | 8 | 20.0% | 6 | 4 | 60.0% | 8 | 12 | 40.0% | 24 | 11 | 68.6% |
| 18 | Sugiyama | 37 | 21 | 2 | 12 | 14.3% | 1 | 3 | 25.0% | 3 | 15 | 16.7% | 34 | 6 | 85.0% |
| 19 | Farina | 38 | 26 | 2 | 11 | 15.4% | 5 | 8 | 38.5% | 7 | 19 | 26.9% | 31 | 7 | 81.6% |
| 20 | S. Williams | 29 | 11 | 4 | 7 | 36.4% | 7 | 2 | 77.8% | 11 | 9 | 55.0% | 18 | 2 | 90.0% |
| 21 | Huber | 24 | 18 | 1 | 9 | 10.0% | 7 | 2 | 77.8% | 8 | 11 | 42.1% | 16 | 7 | 69.6% |
| 22 | Halard-Decugis | 37 | 23 | 1 | 8 | 11.1% | 3 | 7 | 30.0% | 4 | 15 | 21.1% | 33 | 8 | 80.5% |
| 23 | Schett | 35 | 26 | 0 | 6 | 0.0% | 3 | 10 | 23.1% | 3 | 16 | 15.8% | 32 | 10 | 76.2% |
| 24 | Serna | 28 | 25 | 4 | 6 | 40.0% | 1 | 9 | 10.0% | 5 | 15 | 25.0% | 23 | 10 | 69.7% |
| 25 | Majoli | 23 | 20 | 1 | 7 | 12.5% | 1 | 6 | 14.3% | 2 | 13 | 13.3% | 21 | 7 | 75.0% |
Based on these numbers, we can offer a number of statistics/rankings. For instance:
Total Wins over Top 10 Players (total wins shown in parentheses):
Winning Percentage over Top 10 Players (winning percentage in parentheses):
For additional information about winning percentages, see Winning Percentage against Non-Top-20 Players.
Of course, simply listing winning percentage against the Top 10 doesn't mean much. It's a lot harder to beat a Davenport than a Tauziat. We may attempt to compensate for this in several ways. The table below shows four of these. They are as follows:
In every case, a total score is calculated, and then (to even out the effects of the number of matches one has played against the Top 10), this is divided by the number of matches against Top 10 players.
Observe that all of these numbers are based on arbitrary systems, and should be compared only with other numbers of the same type and in the same column.
| WTA Rank | Player Name | Inverse Rank | WTA Awards | By Seeding | Year-end Total | Year-end Divisor | |||||
| Total | Per Match | Total | Per Match | Total | Per Match | Total | Per Match | Total | Per Match | ||
| 1 | Davenport | 92 | 3.07 | 1039 | 34.6 | 61 | 2.03 | 652 | 21.7 | 391 | 13.0 |
| 2 | Hingis | 87 | 3.63 | 807 | 33.6 | 57 | 2.38 | 481 | 20.0 | 280 | 11.7 |
| 3 | Novotna | 23 | 1.92 | 223 | 18.6 | 29 | 2.42 | 143 | 11.9 | 81 | 6.8 |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 41 | 2.73 | 411 | 27.4 | 29 | 1.93 | 242 | 16.1 | 137 | 9.1 |
| 5 | V. Williams | 56 | 2.80 | 532 | 26.6 | 42 | 2.10 | 335 | 16.8 | 190 | 9.5 |
| 6 | Seles | 41 | 2.93 | 369 | 26.4 | 37 | 2.64 | 236 | 16.8 | 130 | 9.3 |
| 7 | Pierce | 50 | 3.57 | 470 | 33.6 | 31 | 2.21 | 291 | 20.8 | 174 | 12.4 |
| 8 | Martinez | 10 | 1.67 | 100 | 16.7 | 14 | 2.33 | 57 | 9.4 | 29 | 4.8 |
| 9 | Graf | 52 | 4.73 | 536 | 48.7 | 39 | 3.55 | 319 | 29.0 | 172 | 15.6 |
| 10 | Tauziat | 10 | 0.83 | 100 | 8.3 | 12 | 1.0 | 57 | 4.7 | 29 | 2.4 |
| 11 | Schnyder | 18 | 1.8 | 207 | 20.7 | 13 | 1.30 | 117 | 11.7 | 64 | 6.4 |
| 12 | Van Roost | 19 | 1.73 | 211 | 19.2 | 15 | 1.36 | 132 | 12.0 | 76 | 6.9 |
| 13 | Kournikova | 43 | 1.95 | 414 | 18.8 | 30 | 1.26 | 257 | 11.7 | 148 | 6.7 |
| 14 | Testud | 18 | 1.29 | 186 | 13.3 | 17 | 1.21 | 112 | 8.0 | 64 | 4.6 |
| 15 | Spirlea | 25 | 1.67 | 241 | 16.1 | 18 | 1.20 | 146 | 9.7 | 82 | 5.5 |
| 16 | Zvereva | 21 | 1.40 | 202 | 13.5 | 10 | 0.67 | 124 | 8.3 | 81 | 5.4 |
| 17 | Coetzer | 10 | 1.0 | 98 | 9.8 | 10 | 1.0 | 57 | 5.7 | 31 | 3.1 |
| 18 | Sugiyama | 5 | 0.4 | 86 | 6.1 | 3 | 0.21 | 46 | 3.3 | 29 | 2.1 |
| 19 | Farina | 2 | 0.2 | 86 | 6.6 | 5 | 0.38 | 45 | 3.5 | 18 | 1.4 |
| 20 | S. Williams | 22 | 2.0 | 252 | 22.9 | 21 | 1.91 | 140 | 12.7 | 72 | 6.5 |
For those who are confused, it should be noted that these
are very obscure statistics. Suffice it to say that, here as
elsewhere, the race between Davenport and Hingis was very close
-- but that the race was won by Graf! Hingis and Davenport
were generally in second and third (Davenport winning three
of the contests, Hingis two), while Pierce was fourth. The
rest of the players were generally well behind.
How They Earned Their Points
The following tables show the percentages of their points the
Top 20 earned in various ways....
Fraction of Points Earned in Slams
| WTA Rank | Player | % of Points Earned in Slams | % of Points Not Earned in Slams |
| 1 | Davenport | 36% | 64% |
| 2 | Hingis | 44% | 56% |
| 3 | Novotna | 46% | 54% |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 46% | 54% |
| 5 | V. Williams | 34% | 66% |
| 6 | Seles | 38% | 62% |
| 7 | Pierce | 13% | 87% |
| 8 | Martinez | 42% | 58% |
| 9 | Graf | 10% | 90% |
| 10 | Tauziat | 35% | 65% |
| 11 | Schnyder | 32% | 68% |
| 12 | Van Roost | 20% | 80% |
| 13 | Kournikova | 16% | 84% |
| 14 | Testud | 22% | 78% |
| 15 | Spirlea | 13% | 87% |
| 16 | Zvereva | 40% | 60% |
| 17 | Coetzer | 25% | 75% |
| 18 | Sugiyama | 15% | 85% |
| 19 | Farina | 12% | 88% |
| 20 | S. Williams | 31% | 69% |
| WTA Rank | Player | % of Points from Quality | % of Points from Round Points |
| 1 | Davenport | 41% | 59% |
| 2 | Hingis | 39% | 61% |
| 3 | Novotna | 39% | 61% |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 38% | 62% |
| 5 | V. Williams | 39% | 61% |
| 6 | Seles | 40% | 60% |
| 7 | Pierce | 42% | 58% |
| 8 | Martinez | 36% | 64% |
| 9 | Graf | 41% | 59% |
| 10 | Tauziat | 35% | 65% |
| 11 | Schnyder | 42% | 58% |
| 12 | Van Roost | 41% | 59% |
| 13 | Kournikova | 44% | 56% |
| 14 | Testud | 36% | 54% |
| 15 | Spirlea | 32% | 68% |
| 16 | Zvereva | 45% | 55% |
| 17 | Coetzer | 34% | 66% |
| 18 | Sugiyama | 32% | 68% |
| 19 | Farina | 42% | 58% |
| 20 | S. Williams | 54% | 46% |
| 21 | Huber | 44% | 56% |
| 22 | Halard-Decugis | 37% | 63% |
| 23 | Schett | 36% | 64% |
| 24 | Serna | 48% | 52% |
| 25 | Majoli | 36% | 64% |
Generally speaking, the higher the fraction of points one earns from quality, the better one is at pulling off "upsets." This is especially true of lower-ranked players; a player like Hingis, who was #1 for most of the year, has somewhat fewer quality points available, as she could not defeat a #1 player at any of the slams, could only play #2 in a final, could only play #3 or #4 in a semifinal or final (by which time they could have lost), etc.
For Comparison:The median quality percentage for the Top 25
is 39; the arithmetic mean (average) is 39.7. For the Top 20, the
median is 39.5 and the mean 39.6. For the Top 10, the mean and
median are both 39. Thus, among the Top 10 we find Davenport,
Seles, Pierce, and Graf slightly above normal in ability to
produce upsets; Hingis, Novotna, and Williams quite close to
normal; and Sanchez-Vicario, Martinez, and Tauziat rather below
normal. These lists, especially the last, should not surprise
anyone (compare the Head to Head Records).
Percentage of Points Earned on
Each Surface
The first four numbers in this table should be fairly self-explanatory. The last two columns, STD DEV and MAX-MIN, are perhaps less clear. These measures are included as an attempt to assess a player's balance. STD DEV is the standard deviation of the player's four surface percentages. The smaller it is, the less deviation there is from the mean, and presumably the more balanced the player is. MAX-MIN is the player's highest percentage minus the player's lowest percentage, that is, the gap between the player's least and most important surfaces.
Both measures show that Jana Novotna seems to have had the most balanced results. The least balanced result was turned in by Ai Sugiyama.
For Reference: The median of the Standard Deviations is 0.18; the median of MAX-MIN is 42.
For Reference: For the Top 20 as a whole, 40.2% of all points were earned on hardcourts, 22.3% on clay, 11.1% on grass, and 26.4% indoors. (This is an interesting footnote in itself; we tend to treat indoors as the "fourth surface," or at least the third, after hardcourts and clay. In fact, however, indoors is the second surface, despite the fact that none of the slams are played indoors.)
Note: Balance is not the same as consistency. Take Novotna: She earned 36% of her points on grass, despite playing only two of her eighteen tournaments on grass. Thus she was much better on grass than other surfaces. She was not consistent -- but she was balanced.
Note: Due to round-off, some percentages may not add up to 100, and MAX-MIN may differ by ±1 from what appears to be the largest value minus the smallest value.
| Rank | Player | % on Hard | % on Clay | % on Grass | % on Indoor | STD DEV | MAX -MIN |
| 1 | Davenport | 52 | 13 | 4 | 32 | .21 | 48 |
| 2 | Hingis | 51 | 22 | 9 | 19 | .18 | 42 |
| 3 | Novotna | 25 | 21 | 36 | 18 | .08 | 18 |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 47 | 34 | 13 | 6 | .19 | 42 |
| 5 | V. Williams | 56 | 16 | 6 | 22 | .22 | 50 |
| 6 | Seles | 43 | 31 | 8 | 18 | .15 | 35 |
| 7 | Pierce | 27 | 18 | 3 | 53 | .21 | 49 |
| 8 | Martinez | 38 | 41 | 4 | 8 | .23 | 44 |
| 9 | Graf | 40 | 0 | 11 | 48 | .23 | 48 |
| 10 | Tauziat | 17 | 5 | 31 | 47 | .18 | 42 |
| 11 | Schnyder | 29 | 45 | 2 | 25 | .18 | 44 |
| 12 | Van Roost | 21 | 13 | 11 | 60 | .21 | 45 |
| 13 | Kournikova | 43 | 32 | 9 | 16 | .16 | 35 |
| 14 | Testud | 34 | 24 | 8 | 34 | .12 | 26 |
| 15 | Spirlea | 15 | 35 | 11 | 40 | .14 | 29 |
| 16 | Zvereva | 36 | 9 | 37 | 20 | .13 | 28 |
| 17 | Coetzer | 40 | 33 | 2 | 26 | .16 | 38 |
| 18 | Sugiyama | 66 | 17 | 3 | 14 | .28 | 63 |
| 19 | Farina | 38 | 26 | 0 | 36 | .17 | 37 |
| 20 | S. Williams | 49 | 25 | 12 | 13 | .17 | 37 |
Just as an interesting footnote, here are the numbers for Mirjana Lucic. If the entire tour were spent on clay, she might be Top 10....
| Rank | Player | % on Hard | % on Clay | % on Grass | % on Indoor | STD DEV | MAX -MIN |
| 51 | Lucic | 30 | 62 | 8 | 0 | .28 | 62 |
We also observe the interesting fact that Venus Williams is one of the least balanced players on the tour (second only to Sugiyama in that category), yet Serena Williams's numbers place her above the median in balance. The meaning of this is left as an exercise to the reader (i.e. I haven't a clue what it means :-).
For additional information on results by surface, see the
section on Surface Rankings.
Consistency
We often speak of a player's "consistency," but the term
does not really have a clear definition. We can offer some models, however.
Standard Deviation of Scores by Tournament
One measure of a player's consistency is the standard deviation of a player's results over the tournaments she plays. The following list expresses a player's consistency by dividing the standard deviation of her score by the mean score. In mathematical parlance, if the player's scores are s1, s2, ... sn, then the number given here is:
| STDDEV(s1, s2, ...sn)
MEAN(s1, s2, ...sn) |
Thus (for the mathematicians out there), the column labelled STD DEV is not actually the standard deviation; it has been normalized by dividing by the mean.
Note: This is not a ranking system; it is simply a measure of consistency. A player who loses in the second round of every tournament is more consistent (consistently bad) than a player who wins half of her tournaments and loses early in the other half -- but the player who wins the tournaments will have a higher ranking.
In the list below, the lower the score, the more consistent the player is. I have not "ranked" the players, lest this be confused with a ranking scheme, but they are listed in order from least to most consistent by the "standard deviation" measure.
| V. Williams | 0.57 |
| S. Williams | 0.61 |
| Hingis | 0.75 |
| Davenport | 0.77 |
| Graf | 0.80 |
| Seles | 0.85 |
| Sugiyama | 0.91 |
| Van Roost | 0.92 |
| Pierce | 0.97 |
| Kournikova | 0.98 |
| Testud | 1.04 |
| Schnyder | 1.07 |
| Sanchez-Vicario | 1.09 |
| Farina | 1.11 |
| Novotna | 1.13 |
| Martinez | 1.21 |
| Coetzer | 1.22 |
| Zvereva | 1.27 |
| Spirlea | 1.24 |
| Tauziat | 1.39 |
Another way of measuring consistency is how rarely one suffers early-round losses. The following table shows how many first-round losses each of the top players had, followed by other early-round losses (defined, arbitrarily, as cases where the player earned 55 or fewer points in the tournament; this is based on the 54 points awarded for a first-round loss in the year-end championships). For my convenience, this list is alphabetical. Note: First round losses at the Chase Championships are not included as first-round losses; being worth 54 points (and being suffered at a very high-level event), they have been listed as early losses. Players who lost in the first round at the Chase are marked with an asterisk (so you may transfer the results if you like); those who did not play at the Chase are marked "x"
| Name | Tournaments | 1R Losses | Other Early Losses |
| Coetzer | 24 | 7 | 8 * |
| Davenport | 20 | 0 | 1 |
| Farina | 26 | 9 | 7 x |
| Graf | 13 | 0 | 4 |
| Hingis | 17 | 1 | 1 |
| Kournikova | 20 | 2 | 6 * |
| Martinez | 18 | 2 | 5 * |
| Novotna | 18 | 3 | 2 * |
| Pierce | 17 | 3 | 1 |
| Sanchez-Vicario | 19 | 4 | 2 * |
| Schnyder | 23 | 5 | 7 * |
| Seles | 15 | 0 | 3 |
| Spirlea | 26 | 10 | 5 |
| Sugiyama | 23 | 5 | 9 x |
| Tauziat | 24 | 6 | 4 |
| Testud | 27 | 4 | 11 * |
| Van Roost | 25 | 6 | 5 |
| S. Williams | 11 | 0 | 1 x |
| V. Williams | 15 | 1 | 1 x |
| Zvereva | 22 | 3 | 8 * |
So we can compile a list based on rates of first-round and early-round losses. Note that a lower number is better in this case:
| Player Name | First-Round Loss Rate |
| Davenport | 0% |
| Graf | 0% |
| Seles | 0% |
| S. Williams | 0% |
| Hingis | 6% |
| V. Williams | 7% |
| Kournikova | 10% |
| Martinez | 11% |
| Zvereva | 14% |
| Testud | 15% |
| Novotna | 17% |
| Pierce | 18% |
| Sanchez-Vicario | 21% |
| Schnyder | 22% |
| Sugiyama | 22% |
| Van Roost | 24% |
| Tauziat | 25% |
| Coetzer | 29% |
| Farina | 35% |
| Spirlea | 39% |
| Player Name | Early-Round Loss Rate |
| Davenport | 5% |
| S. Williams | 9% |
| Hingis | 12% |
| V. Williams | 13% |
| Seles | 20% |
| Pierce | 24% |
| Novotna | 28% |
| Graf | 31% |
| Sanchez-Vicario | 32% |
| Martinez | 39% |
| Kournikova | 40% |
| Tauziat | 42% |
| Van Roost | 44% |
| Zvereva | 50% |
| Schnyder | 52% |
| Testud | 56% |
| Spirlea | 58% |
| Sugiyama | 61% |
| Farina | 62% |
| Coetzer | 63% |
A top player should consistently beat the players ranked well below her. The following table shows how the Top 20 fared against non-Top-20 players. Players are listed in order of decreasing success against low-ranked players.
| Player | WTA Rank | Win % against non-Top 20 |
| Hingis | 2 | 100.0% |
| V. Williams | 5 | 100.0% |
| Davenport | 1 | 97.3% |
| Kournikova | 13 | 96.8% |
| Seles | 6 | 96.0% |
| Novotna | 3 | 90.9% |
| Graf | 9 | 90.5% |
| S. Williams | 20 | 90.0% |
| Sanchez-Vicario | 4 | 87.5% |
| Martinez | 8 | 87.1% |
| Zvereva | 16 | 85.7% |
| Sugiyama | 18 | 85.0% |
| Tauziat | 10 | 83.3% |
| Farina | 19 | 81.6% |
| Schnyder | 11 | 80.0% |
| Testud | 14 | 78.8% |
| Spirlea | 15 | 78.4% |
| Pierce | 7 | 77.8% |
| Van Roost | 12 | 77.6% |
| Coetzer | 17 | 68.6% |
For addition data on results against players of various levels,
see Wins Over Top Players.
Fraction of Points Earned in Biggest Win
In general, the lower this number, the more consistent a player has been, as she did not use one freak result to significantly change her result.
The table shows the approximate point value of the player's biggest win, what percentage of her points this represents, what her score would have been without this win, approximately where she would have stood in the rankings without that win, and what the win was.
Note that only two players -- Hingis and Pierce -- were consistent enough that they could have held their rankings without the "Big Win." (This also follows from the fact that they were followed by large gaps in the rankings.)
Note: A "big win" does not constitute the result that took a player deepest into a tournament, but the result that was worth the most points. Thus, e.g., Van Roost won a Tier IV, and reached several finals (mostly at low-level events) but earned more for her semifinal showing at Filderstadt (including as it did a win over the #1 player); therefore this is reckoned as Van Roost's big win.
| WTA Rank | Player Name | Big Win Amt (Approx) | Big Win Percent | Score W/O Big Win | Resulting Ranking | Big Win |
| 1 | Davenport | 1020 | 18% | 4700 | 2 | U.S. Open |
| 2 | Hingis | 850 | 16% | 4500 | 2 | Australian Open |
| 3 | Novotna | 1000 | 27% | 2725 | 7 | Wimbledon |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 850 | 25% | 2550 | 7 | Roland Garros |
| 5 | V. Williams | 450 | 14% | 2800 | 7 | U.S. Open SF |
| 6 | Seles | 725 | 23% | 2500 | 7 | Roland Garros F |
| 7 | Pierce | 400 | 17% | 2000 | 13 | Moscow |
| 8 | Martinez | 650 | 28% | 1700 | 18 | Australian Open F |
| 9 | Graf | 450 | 19% | 1825 | 16 | Philadelphia |
| 10 | Tauziat | 650 | 29% | 1600 | 18 | Wimbledon F |
| 11 | Schnyder | 400 | 17% | 1850 | 15 | Hannover |
| 12 | Van Roost | 250 | 12% | 1875 | 15 | Filderstadt SF |
| 13 | Kournikova | 400 | 20% | 1600 | 18 | Lipton F |
| 14 | Testud | 375 | 18% | 1625 | 18 | Filderstadt |
| 15 | Spirlea | 325 | 17% | 1525 | 18 | Hilton Head F |
| 16 | Zvereva | 500 | 28% | 1325 | 20 | Wimbledon SF |
| 17 | Coetzer | 350 | 21% | 1375 | 20 | Hilton Head |
| 18 | Sugiyama | 175 | 12% | 1225 | 22 | Gold Coast* |
| 19 | Farina | 200 | 15% | 1200 | 22 | Luxembourg F |
| 20 | S. Williams | 200 | 16% | 1100 | 27 | Sydney SF |
For these purposes, a "significant result" is one which earns a player at least 100 points. The following table shows the number of significant results earned by the Top 20. (The percentage in the "100+ Points" column is the percentage of the player's tournaments in which she earned 100+ points; similarly in the "200+ Points" column.)
| WTA Rank | Player Name | Results Earning 100+ Points | Results Earning 200+ Points | Results Earning 400+ Points |
| 1 | Davenport | 16 (80%) | 13 (65%) | 3 |
| 2 | Hingis | 14 (82%) | 10 (59%) | 5 |
| 3 | Novotna | 13 (72%) | 6 (33%) | 2 |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 12 (63%) | 8 (42%) | 1 |
| 5 | V. Williams | 12 (80%) | 10 (67%) | 2 |
| 6 | Seles | 12 (80%) | 6 (40%) | 2 |
| 7 | Pierce | 8 (50%) | 5 (31%) | 1 |
| 8 | Martinez | 8 (44%) | 3 (17%) | 1 |
| 9 | Graf | 8 (62%) | 4 (31%) | 1 |
| 10 | Tauziat | 7 (29%) | 2 (8%) | 1 |
| 11 | Schnyder | 9 (39%) | 4 (17%) | 0 |
| 12 | Van Roost | 9 (36%) | 3 (12%) | 0 |
| 13 | Kournikova | 7 (35%) | 2 (10%) | 1 |
| 14 | Testud | 7 (26%) | 1 (4%) | 0 |
| 15 | Spirlea | 6 (23%) | 3 (12%) | 0 |
| 16 | Zvereva | 6 (27%) | 1 (5%) | 1 |
| 17 | Coetzer | 7 (29%) | 2 (8%) | 0 |
| 18 | Sugiyama | 5 (22%) | 0 (0%) | 0 |
| 19 | Farina | 6 (23%) | 1 (4%) | 0 |
| 20 | S. Williams | 6 (55%) | 1 (9%) | 0 |
Thus we see that Hingis was the player most likely to earn at least 100 points in a tournament, closely followed by Davenport, Venus Williams, and Seles, while Venus Williams was most likely to earn at least 200 points, closely followed by Davenport and more distantly by Hingis. The player most likely to have a truly big result (400+ points) was, by far, Hingis; she accomplished this 29% of the time (in essence, every time she had a chance; the only tournaments which reliably offer the chance to earn 400+ points are the Slams and the Chase Championships), while Davenport managed it 15% of the time, Venus Williams and Seles 13% of the time, Novotna 11% of the time, and no one else over 10%; indeed, eight of the Top 20 did not have a single 400+ point result, although all but Sugiyama had at least one 200+ point result.
For other measures of consistency, see the sections on
Points Per Quarter and
All-Surface Players.
Points Per Quarter
For those who want trends, we can also determine how well players did in each part of the year. This (potentially) might allow us to project future results as well.
In the lists which follow, quarters are reckoned based on when a tournament ends. So, e.g., Wimbledon began in June but ended in July; its points are counted toward the July total.
Due to some minor problems with quality points, some of the results for the first two quarters may be off by a few points. As a result, I have rounded numbers to the nearest 10. I don't believe this affects the results much.
I have listed players in terms of total points earned, but also calculate the points per tournament, and list the note in brackets the top players in these categories. In a few places I have listed players outside the Top 10 for the quarter who had a high per-tournament score.
Note that in a handful of instances these lists include players not in the Top 20.
| Rank | Player | Points | Tournaments | Per Tournament |
| First Quarter | ||||
| 1 | Hingis | 1720 | 5 | 344 [1] |
| 2 | Davenport | 1370 | 6 | 228 [4] |
| 3 | V. Williams | 1340 | 5 | 268 [2] |
| 4 | Martinez | 840 | 4 | 210 [6] |
| 5 | Van Roost | 810 | 8 | 101 [11] |
| 6 | Kournikova | 800 | 7 | 114 [10] |
| 7 | Schnyder | 750 | 5 | 150 [8] |
| 8 | Novotna | 720 | 4 | 180 [7] |
| 9 | Huber | 690 | 6 | 115 [9] |
| 10 | Sanchez-Vicario | 690 | 3 | 220 [5] |
| [11] | [Pierce] | 530 | 2 | 265 [3] |
| Second Quarter | ||||
| 1 | Sanchez-Vicario | 1340 | 6 | 223 [3] |
| 2 | Hingis | 1170 | 4 | 293 [1] |
| 3 | Seles | 1000 | 4 | 250 [2] |
| 4 | Novotna | 970 | 6 | 162 [7] |
| 5 | Kournikova | 820 | 5 | 164 [6] |
| 6 | Schnyder | 790 | 7 | 113 [9] |
| 7 | Martinez | 760 | 5 | 152 [8] |
| 8 | Spirlea | 750 | 8 | 94 [10] |
| 9 | Davenport | 730 | 4 | 183 [4] |
| 10 | Coetzer | 570 | 7 | 81 [11] |
| [11] | [V. Williams] | 520 | 3 | 173 [5] |
| Third Quarter | ||||
| 1 | Davenport | 2352 | 6 | 392 [2] |
| 2 | Novotna | 1992 | 5 | 398 [1] |
| 3 | Hingis | 1724 | 5 | 349 [3] |
| 4 | Seles | 1631 | 6 | 272 [5] |
| 5 | Sanchez-Vicario | 1183 | 5 | 237 [6] |
| 6 | Tauziat | 973 | 6 | 162 [7] |
| 7 | V. Williams | 914 | 3 | 305 [4] |
| 8 | Graf | 853 | 6 | 142 [8] |
| 9 | Zvereva | 776 | 6 | 129 [9] |
| 10 | Martinez | 550 | 5 | 110 [10] |
| Fourth Quarter | ||||
| 1 | Davenport | 1255 | 4 | 314 [2] |
| 2 | Graf | 1044 | 3 | 348 [1] |
| 3 | Pierce | 927 | 5 | 186 [5] |
| 4 | Tauziat | 826 | 6 | 138 [7] |
| 5 | Hingis | 748 | 3 | 249 [3] |
| 6 | Van Roost | 697 | 5 | 139 [8] |
| 7 | Testud | 665 | 6 | 111 [9] |
| 8 | Spirlea | 652 | 7 | 93 [10] |
| 9 | Seles | 570 | 3 | 190 [4] |
| 10 | V. Williams | 460 | 3 | 153 [6] |
This allows us to calculate another consistency ranking, based on who had the best results from quarter to quarter. In the list below, I have added up the player's per-tournament score for each of the four quarters. Lowest is best, i.e. most consistent. Players not in the Top 10 in any given quarter are assigned an arbitrary value of 14.
| Rank | Name | WTA Rank | Consistency Score |
| 1 | Hingis | 2 | 8 |
| 2 | Davenport | 1 | 12 |
| 3 | V. Williams | 5 | 17 |
| 4 | Seles | 6 | 26 |
| 5 | Sanchez-Vicario | 4 | 28 |
| 6 | Novotna | 3 | 29 |
| (7) | (GRAF) | (9) | (See footnote) |
| 8 | Pierce | 7 | 36 |
| 9 | Tauziat | 10 | 42 |
| 10 | Kournikova | 13 | 44 |
| 11 | Schnyder | 11 | 45 |
| 12 | Van Roost | 12 | 47 |
| 13 | Martinez | 8 | 48 |
| 13 | Spirlea | 15 | 48 |
| 15 | Testud | 14 | 51 |
| 15 | Zvereva | 16 | 51 |
| 17 | Coetzer | 17 | 53 |
| 18 | Sugiyama | 18 | 56 |
| 18 | Farina | 19 | 56 |
| 18 | S. Williams | 20 | 56 |
Note: Steffi Graf did not play at all in the second quarter of the year. Her score in the other three quarters was 23. If averaged over four quarters, this would make her consistency score 30.7. At least four other players -- Hingis, Seles, Pierce, and Kournikova, especially the latter three -- were clearly affected by inability to play during certain periods, but as all played at least one tournament in each quarter, this has not been taken into account.
Serena Williams probably deserves to be ranked higher than dead
last in this category, given her results on hardcourts, but she
played so few tournaments that her results did not register in
the Top 10 for any quarter.
Surface Rankings
All ratings to this point have been "overall" ratings, regardless of surface. However, players do most definitely have preferred surfaces (even if less so among the women than the men). We may therefore wish to compute "surface rankings." The following tables show how the Top 20 did on each surface. Some other players have been added when their results warrant it. Results are listed in order of points per tournament on each surface.
Note: Some numbers are slightly approximate, due to quality point variations and the fact that there are a few weeks where tournaments are played on multiple surfaces. I do not believe this affects the rankings.
It is likely that some players outside the Top 20 have exceeded
some of the lower Top 20 players on certain surfaces (witness
Huber on hardcourts). I have noted these where I have been
aware of them, but have not checked this for all players.
Hardcourts
| Hard Rank | Player Name | WTA Rank | Surface Points | Trn on Surface | Pts/ Trn |
| 1 | Hingis | 2 | 2727 | 8 | 341 |
| 2 | Davenport | 1 | 2968 | 9 | 330 |
| 3 | V. Williams | 5 | 1812 | 7 | 259 |
| 4 | Novotna | 3 | 940 | 4 | 235 |
| 5 | Sanchez-Vicario | 4 | 1612 | 8 | 202 |
| 6 | Seles | 6 | 1395 | 7 | 199 |
| 7 | Pierce | 7 | 644 | 4 | 161 |
| 8 | Martinez | 8 | 1114 | 7 | 159 |
| 9 | Graf | 9 | 916 | 6 | 153 |
| 10 | S. Williams | 20 | 639 | 5 | 128 |
| 11 | Huber | 21 | 911 | 8 | 114 |
| 12 | Kournikova | 13 | 872 | 8 | 109 |
| 13 | Sugiyama | 18 | 922 | 10 | 92 |
| 14 | Schnyder | 11 | 639 | 7 | 91 |
| 15 | Coetzer | 17 | 696 | 9 | 77 |
| 16 | Zvereva | 16 | 647 | 9 | 72 |
| 17 | Testud | 14 | 701 | 11 | 64 |
| 18 | Tauziat | 10 | 387 | 7 | 55 |
| 19 | Majoli | 25 | 275 | 5 | 55 |
| 20 | Farina | 19 | 523 | 10 | 52 |
| 21 | Van Roost | 12 | 437 | 10 | 44 |
| 22 | Spirlea | 15 | 273 | 8 | 34 |
| Clay Rank | Player Name | WTA Rank | Surface Points | Trn on Surface | Pts/ Trn |
| 1 | Hingis | 2 | 1169 | 4 | 292 |
| 2 | V. Williams | 5 | 516 | 2 | 258 |
| 3 | Seles | 6 | 995 | 4 | 249 |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 4 | 1164 | 5 | 233 |
| 5 | Davenport | 1 | 725 | 4 | 181 |
| 6 | Lucic | 51 | 336 | 2 | 168 |
| 7 | S. Williams | 20 | 328 | 2 | 164 |
| 8 | Kournikova | 13 | 642 | 4 | 161 |
| 9 | Martinez | 8 | 948 | 6 | 158 |
| 10 | Novotna | 3 | 793 | 6 | 132 |
| 11 | Schnyder | 11 | 1011 | 9 | 112 |
| 12 | Spirlea | 15 | 640 | 6 | 107 |
| 13 | Pierce | 7 | 423 | 4 | 106 |
| 14 | Coetzer | 17 | 569 | 6 | 95 |
| 15 | Majoli | 25 | 434 | 6 | 72 |
| 16 | Testud | 14 | 495 | 7 | 71 |
| 17 | Van Roost | 12 | 257 | 4 | 67 |
| 18 | Farina | 19 | 359 | 6 | 60 |
| 19 | Sugiyama | 18 | 229 | 5 | 46 |
| 20 | Zvereva | 16 | 167 | 4 | 42 |
| 21 | Tauziat | 10 | 105 | 5 | 21 |
| -- | Graf | *** DID NOT PLAY ON CLAY *** | |||
| Grass Rank | Player Name | WTA Rank | Surface Points | Trn on Surface | Pts/ Trn |
| 1 | Novotna | 3 | 1343 | 2 | 672 |
| 2 | Hingis | 2 | 464 | 1 | 464 |
| 3 | Zvereva | 16 | 669 | 2 | 335 |
| 4 | Seles | 6 | 266 | 1 | 266 |
| 5 | Tauziat | 10 | 703 | 3 | 234 |
| 6 | Davenport | 1 | 218 | 1 | 218 |
| 7 | Sanchez Vicario | 4 | 435 | 2 | 218 |
| 8 | Kournikova | 13 | 174 | 1 | 174 |
| 9 | V. Williams | 5 | 205 | 2 | 103 |
| 10 | Graf | 9 | 254 | 3 | 85 |
| 11 | Martinez | 8 | 82 | 1 | 82 |
| 12 | Testud | 14 | 163 | 2 | 82 |
| 13 | S. Williams | 20 | 160 | 2 | 80 |
| 14 | Van Roost | 12 | 232 | 3 | 77 |
| 15 | Spirlea | 15 | 205 | 3 | 68 |
| 16 | Pierce | 7 | 74 | 2 | 37 |
| 17 | Schnyder | 11 | 34 | 1 | 34 |
| 18 | Sugiyama | 18 | 43 | 2 | 22 |
| 19 | Coetzer | 17 | 35 | 2 | 18 |
| 20 | Farina | 19 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Indr Rank | Player Name | WTA Rank | Surface Points | Trn on Surface | Pts/ Trn |
| 1 | Davenport | 1 | 1795 | 6 | 299 |
| 2 | Graf | 9 | 1098 | 4 | 275 |
| 3 | Hingis | 2 | 1000 | 4 | 250 |
| 4 | Pierce | 7 | 1261 | 6 | 210 |
| 5 | Seles | 6 | 570 | 3 | 190 |
| 6 | V. Williams | 5 | 702 | 4 | 176 |
| 7 | Van Roost | 12 | 1188 | 8 | 149 |
| 8 | Tauziat | 10 | 1055 | 9 | 117 |
| 9 | Novotna | 3 | 664 | 6 | 111 |
| 10 | Testud | 14 | 708 | 7 | 101 |
| 11 | Schnyder | 11 | 553 | 6 | 92 |
| 12 | S. Williams | 20 | 167 | 2 | 84 |
| 13 | Spirlea | 15 | 735 | 9 | 82 |
| 14 | Coetzer | 17 | 445 | 7 | 64 |
| 15 | Farina | 19 | 507 | 9 | 56 |
| 16 | Sanchez Vicario | 4 | 196 | 4 | 49 |
| 17 | Zvereva | 16 | 340 | 7 | 49 |
| 18 | Kournikova | 13 | 324 | 7 | 46 |
| 19 | Martinez | 8 | 183 | 4 | 46 |
| 20 | Sugiyama | 18 | 197 | 6 | 33 |
This allows us to produce a sort of a pseudo-ranking for "best all-surface player." For this we add up a player's ranking on all four surfaces.
| Rank | Player | Surface Score |
| 1 | Hingis | 7 |
| 2 | Davenport | 14 |
| 3 | Seles | 18 |
| 4 | V. Williams | 20 |
| 5 | Novotna | 24 |
| 6 | ASV | 32 |
| 7 | Pierce | 40 |
| 8 | S. Williams | 42 |
| (9) | Graf | 43* |
| 10 | Kournikova | 10 |
| 11 | Martinez | 47 |
| 12 | Tauziat | 52 |
| 13 | Schnyder | 53 |
| 14 | Testud | 55 |
| 15 | Zvereva | 56 |
| 16 | Van Roost | 59 |
* Graf's ranking was calculated by assuming she was last on clay, since she did not play on that surface. If she had done as well on clay as on other surfaces, she would have been #6 in the above list.
Although this is not intended as a ranking, it will be observed
that this list corresponds quite closely with what the rankings
would have been had the 1996 ranking system been used. Once again,
the meaning of this is left as an exercise for the reader. In the
most important race -- that for #1 -- we observe that the surfaces
favour Davenport; she and Hingis are nearly tied for #1 on hardcourts,
and Davenport is better indoors; the surfaces where Hingis is
clearly superior (clay and grass) constitute less than 40% of
the women's schedule.
Tournament Wins by Surface
Here are the number of tournaments each player won on the various surfaces. As elsewhere, tournaments are divided into Major (Tier II and up) and Minor (Tier III and below). Note: In the lists below, "0" and "-" have different meanings. "0" means did not win any of the tournaments of this level she played on this surface. "-" means "Did not play any tournaments of this level on this surface." (Note: For these purposes, the Birmingham tournament, which was not completed, is not counted against the semifinalists, since they were still "alive" when the tournament was rained out.)
The final column lists the number of surfaces on which a player won tournaments.
| WTA Rank | Player Name | Hard | Clay | Grass | Indoor | Won On | ||||
| Major | Minor | Major | Minor | Major | Minor | Major | Minor | |||
| 1 | Davenport | 4 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 2 | Hingis | 2 | - | 2 | - | 0 | - | 1 | - | 3 |
| 3 | Novotna | 0 | - | 0 | 1 | 2 | - | 1 | - | 3 |
| 4 | Sanchez-Vicario | 1 | - | 1 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 2 |
| 5 | V. Williams | 1 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 6 | Seles | 2 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 1 |
| 7 | Pierce | 0 | - | 1 | - | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 8 | Martinez | 0 | - | 1 | 1 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 1 |
| 9 | Graf | 1 | - | - | - | 0 | - | 2 | - | 2 |
| 10 | Tauziat | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 |
| 11 | Schnyder | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | - | 1 | - | 3 |
| 12 | Van Roost | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 13 | Kournikova | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 |
| 14 | Testud | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 15 | Spirlea | 0 | - | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | Zvereva | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 |
| 17 | Coetzer | 0 | - | 1 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | Sugiyama | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | Farina | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | S. Williams | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | 0 |
Thus Davenport, although clearly a power on hardcourts and indoors, does not appear balanced; she has no results on the other surfaces. Novotna's results are also interesting; historically, hardcourts have been her worst surface, and this year's results reflect that. To have done as well as she has without a win on hardcourts (either this year or last) is quite impressive. We also note that Venus Williams and Graf are serious threats; they are the other two players to do particularly well on hardcourts and indoors, which is where the most points are. (Schnyder, of course, stands along with Hingis and Novotna as one of only three players to win on three surfaces, but it should be recalled that four of her five wins were Tier III and below.)
For additional information on results by surface, see the
section on Percentage of Points Earned on Each Surface.
Forecasts
Note: The title of this section may seem to imply that it offers predictions. It does not. Rather, it is an analysis of what players must achieve to accomplish certain objectives. Essentially it analyses how players did in 1998 against what is expected of them.
The list is once again sorted by ranking. All of the Top 20 are included, plus some lower players.
1 & 2 -- Martina Hingis and Lindsay Davenport
These two were, of course, the dominant players of 1998. The two of
them stand very close to each other (Davenport leads Hingis by 5%
in the WTA rankings; Hingis leads by 5-10% in most other ranking
methods), but they lead the rest of the pack by 25-40%. The chances
of any other player joining the Top 2 before the French Open are
slight; the odds of someone reaching #2 before Indian Wells are
insignificant.
But who will be #1? This is an interesting question. Davenport leads
Hingis by just under 300 points -- but Hingis suffered her one and
only first round loss of 1998 at Sydney, her first tournament. Thus,
a good result for Hingis at Sydney could bring her back to #1. But
Hingis must then defend the Australian. But Davenport then has to
defend the Pan Pacific. All told, Hingis has 1100 points to defend
in these three tournaments, and Davenport has 900. Both have room
to improve -- Hingis at Sydney and the Pan Pacific; Davenport at
the AO and Sydney. Who will be #1 in February will depend on how
well they do in those tournaments. It is worth noting that Davenport
has won only one tournament since she became #1, and that one --
Zurich -- was almost uncontested (among the noteworthy players who
missed it, usually due to injury, were Hingis, Novotna, ASV,
and Seles).
Even if Hingis retakes the #1 ranking, however, she probably will
not be able to defend it in the spring. Hingis had a good spring,
winning Indian Wells, Hamburg, and Berlin. In that time, Davenport
did not win anything, and reached only one final (Indian Wells).
In that same period in 1997, Davenport won Oklahoma City, Indian
Wells, and Amelia Island. If Davenport can regain that sort of
form, she could have a thousand point lead over Hingis going
into the clay court season, and possibly maintain it into the
French Open.
>From there it gets interesting. Davenport had easy draws at the
French and Wimbledon in 1998; Hingis had difficult draws. In
addition, Davenport earned just about every available point
during the summer hardcourt season. Hingis did poorly during
that period. If Hingis gets her game together, she should close
the gap significantly. In addition, Davenport cleaned up in the
fall indoor season, when Hingis and Graf were injured and
Novotna in bad form. Expect Hingis to improve during that period,
and Davenport to fall off.
So who will be #1 at the end of 1999? We really cannot tell.
Don't count out Davenport or Hingis -- but don't be surprised
if it's Graf, either....
Still, the #1 ranking is probably Davenport's to win or lose.
Her 70% success rate against the Top 10 is much better than
Hingis's not-quite-60% number. Indeed, Davenport decides her
own fate much more than Hingis. Hingis did not lose once to
a player outside the Top 20; in fact, she only had two losses
to players who ended outside the Top 10 (to Kournikova at
Berlin and to Van Roost at Filderstadt; the latter was at least
partly the result of injury). Davenport, by contrast, had a 70%
ratio against the Top 10, a 71% ratio against players ranked #11-#20,
and suffered one loss against a player outside the Top 20.
If Davenport can clean up her act and eliminate these freak
losses, she will be hard to dislodge.
Much will depend, though, on the head-to-head results of the
two. Indeed, the difference in their score is entirely due
to their head-to-head results; eliminate those points (indeed,
just eliminate Davenport's win in the U.S. Open final), and
Hingis is ahead. But though Davenport leads the head-to-head
by 3-2, the matches overall have been close: Davenport has
won seven sets, Hingis six -- and Davenport leads Hingis
by a mere two games on the entire year, 64-62. I'd call
that a close race.
3 -- Jana Novotna
Novotna spent most of 1998 as a strong #3, occasionally reaching
#2. Not any more. A miserable indoor season, culminating in a
first-round loss at the Chase, left her 1600 points behind Hingis
and only 300 ahead of Sanchez-Vicaro. She is still #3, but very
vulnerable -- all the more so given her poor showing against Top
Ten players. A #3 player who wins only a third of her matches
against the Top 10 is not very strong (particularly since
Novotna achieved her 4-8 record without once facing Davenport.
As of when this document was prepared, it had just been announced
that Novotna would be playing the Australian Open for the first
time in three years. This produces several surprises. For Novotna,
it is almost certain to be good (at least in the short term);
while her odds of making it past the quarterfinals are poor
(and she could go earlier, given that she might face Graf in
the round of 16), any points she earns are essentially free.
An extra 200-300 points won't change her ranking, but it will
help secure her lead over ASV, and make it more likely that
she retains the #3 ranking at least until the French Open.
Because Novotna did not play the Australian Open in 1998, the
first quarter didn't affect her ranking much. She does have some
indoor points to defend, though, and she had a horrible time
indoors in late 1998. Barring a strong Australian,if her bad luck
indoors continues, she might fall to #4. If her Australian Open
result is really weak (which is possible; hardcourts are her
worst surface), she could fall to #5. And then she has to defend
her grass points -- with Graf back in action and Hingis looking
determined again. Novotna might well be around #7 or #8 going into
the U.S. Open. The good news for her is that she is the best indoor
player in the world, but has nothing to defend in the fall indoor
season. If she can recover her indoor form, she should end no lower
than #6, and perhaps higher.
4 -- Arantxa Sanchez Vicario
ASV won her first tournament in over a year at Sydney. But she had
a lot of help from the Williams Sisters, who took out both Hingis
and Davenport. Don't look for it to happen again. Nor is ASV likely
to do better at the Australian. Last year, she lost in the
quarterfinals -- and this year, if the seeds hold,
she will face Seles, Pierce, Martinez, or Venus Williams in the quarters.
The only one of those four she is likely to beat is Martinez.
With Seles playing the Australian, and ASV losing her points from
Sydney, ASV is likely to fall to #5 or #6 (depending on how
Venus Williams does) after the Australian. The good news for her
is, she only has one score (semifinals at the Lipton) to defend
between the Australian and the clay court season. Still, her 1998
clay season was, by her standards, pretty poor (aside from
Roland Garros, of course). Unless she gets back on form, she
could be looking at #8 or #9 after the French. The good news
for her is that her results against the Top 10 were better than
most; she won 7 of 15 matches (including 1 of 2 against Davenport
and 2 of 3 against Novotna; she was 0 of 2 against Hingis, whom
she has not beaten in over two years).
5 -- Venus Williams
What can one say about Williams? On hardcourts, the only player
who clearly exceeds her is Davenport -- but she has yet to prove
herself on anything else. She had a very solid first half of 1998,
but her second half was weaker. We tend to think of her as being
good at upsets -- but in fact she has not done all that well
against the top players. She one only one of five matches
against Daveport, only two of five against Hingis, and lost her
only match against Novotna. We still face the question we faced
two years ago: Can she put it together?
More to the point, can she play a full season? By choice, she plays
a more limited schedule than most, and that schedule was further
limited by chronic knee problems. That is good news as well as bad;
she will have had an extra month's rest before the season starts.
And Williams is #3 in the world based on the tournaments she plays.
A U.S. Open title is not impossible this year. But don't look for
her to win any of the other slams, and expect her to hover around
#4-#6 until then. Chances are the even a win at the Open will not
make her #1; she does not play enough.
The recent announcement that Novotna will play the Australian Open
will have an unpredictable effect on Williams. It means that
she will be seeded #5, not #4, at the Australian. This means
she risks facing Hingis or Davenport (the only players with
good odds of beating her) in the quarters instead of the semis,
or Graf in the Round of 16. On the other hand, she also gets a
shot at Novotna, whom by all odds she should beat on hardcourts,
or ASV, who beat her at Sydney last year but cannot be expected
to repeat that result.
Right now, Williams is 155 points behind ASV for #4, and a mere
36 points ahead of Seles. She has about 200 points to defend
at the Australian. If she draws Novotna or ASV in the quarterfinals,
she has good odds to pass ASV. If she draws Hingis or Davenport,
her odds are not good; chances are that Seles will pass her
and move up to #5.
6 -- Monica Seles
If all goes well, 1999 will feature Seles's first Australian Open in
three years in 1999. Thus, the good news is that any points she earns
will be gravy. The bad news is, unless she plays Gold Coast or
Auckland, she will be the world #6, and seeded #5. This means that
she will meet Hingis, Davenport, Sanchez Vicario, or Novotna
in the quarterfinals. Against the first two her odds are poor;
against the latter two she may feel hopeful but not overconfident.
Her record against the top players is poor. Davenport beat her in all
three of their meetings. Seles won two of three against Hingis, but two
of those were during Hingis's slump; Seles lost their last match and
has a poor head-to-head.
Still, the points Seles earns at the Australian should certainly move her
up to #5 (since she only needs to pick up 26 points on Williams to do so).
Her chances of reaching #4 are good; she is only 190 points behind ASV,
and ASV has to defend Sydney. If Seles can reach the AO quarterfinals, her
#4 ranking is all but assured; she may not even have to go that far.
If Seles continues to play all spring, she could be #3 going into
the Lipton. Indeed, a finalist showing at the Australian could take
her there directly. But Seles cannot be considered a favorite in
Australia; based on recent numbers, one would have to rate Hingis,
Davenport, Graf, and Venus Williams all ahead of her.
After the Lipton, Seles has to start defending points again.
Present form makes this seem moderately unlikely; she did better at
both the French and Wimbledon than she did the year before. But if
there is one thing one can say about Seles, it's that she doesn't
follow the probabilities.
7 -- Mary Pierce
Can anyone predict Mary Pierce? She is said to prefer clay, and
schedule her season around it -- yet almost all of her best results
were indoors. For most of the year, her per-tournament results were
better than her WTA ranking -- but that has ceased to be true. When
she is on, she is a threat to anyone (she was 8-6 against the
Top 10, though she won only one of three matches against both
Hingis and Davenport), but when she is off, she is
no threat at all. She is prone to problems with her health.
This year, she seems to run in streaks. She had a decent start
(500 points at the Australian and Paris), and picked up another
prize at Amelia Island -- but then followed it with a string of
four months (though only four tournaments) where she never earned
up more than 75 points. If she can achieve some consistency, and
play a full schedule, she might reach Top 5 again -- but those are
very large ifs....
8 -- Conchita Martinez
Martinez started off the year with a bang by reaching the Australian
Open final. That turned out to be more than half the hardcourt points
she earned in the year, and more than a quarter of her total points.
With that single exception, everything she accomplished was on clay.
Other than the AO, her highest score at a non-clay tournament was
140 (U.S. Open), and there were only two other non-clay tournaments
(Indian Wells and Canadian Open) where she earned over 100 points.
Nor did she show much evidence of toughness; her record against the
Top 10 was a pitiful 1-5. Her only win over a Top 10 player was
her defeat of Davenport at the Australian. And even there, she was
helped by a very easy draw (she was #8 seed in a
section where the #4 seed was the slumping Iva Majoli; in 1999, the
top seeds will be Davenport, Hingis, ASV, and Venus Williams. Her
odds of repeating her luck are very slim indeed). Without such an
easy draw, she is likely to drop by several hundred points after
the Australian, which will certainly take her out of the Top 10
and possibly as low as #13 or #14. This will, in turn, cost her
some seeding consideration. Unless she has a very strong claycourt
season, expect her to end the year in the #12-#15 range.
9 -- Steffi Graf
Assessing Graf's year, and projecting into next year, is perhaps
harder than assessing any other player. Graf ended the year at #9 --
but achieved that ranking based on only 13 tournament (4 fewer than
Hingis and seven(!) fewer than Davenport). On a per-tournament
basis, Graf ended 1998 at #6 or #7 in the world. If she could play
a full schedule, the #7 ranking would seem a certainty, and a place
in the Top 5 highly possible.
But we have contrasting "and yets." And yet Graf lost half the
season to three separate injuries. Can she play a full season?
Particularly under Best 18, where a full season is 20-22 tournaments?
(Only three of the top ten played 20 or more tournaments, the
three being Davenport (20), Tauziat (24), and Schnyder (22). Among
the Top 100, however, the average number of tournaments played was
21.9, and the median was 23!)
And yet, at the end of the year, Graf was even better than these
numbers. For the entire year, Graf averaged 178 points per
tournament. But if we drop off the results from her first comeback,
the average for Birmingham through the Chase is 186 points per
tournament (#6 in the world); if we reckon from the Canadian Open,
the number rises to 269 (second only to Hingis and Davenport), and
in her third recovery (Leipzig and following), she cranked it up to
348, exceeding even Hingis's tour-leading 315 points per tournament.
It is also noteworthy that Graf had the best record against the Top
10 -- 8 wins, 3 losses; 73% success rate -- of any player on the
list. The only Top 10 player she lost against was Davenport. Now it
is easy to make too much of those statistics. For one thing,
in the early part of the year Graf had special seeding. This meant
that she did not face many Top 10 players; she was eliminated by
the Sernas and Sugiyamas and Appelmans of the world before reaching
the big girls. In addition, her win over Hingis came in only Hingis's
second match back; two of the wins were over Novotna, whom she owns;
two more were over Tauziat, who is the least of the Top 10. Still,
Graf beat Seles at the Chase, and Davenport twice (Pilot Pen and
Philadelphia; the only other player to beat Davenport twice was Hingis).
So which Graf will we see in 1999? I certainly can't tell. My original
forecast was based on Graf being seeded #8 at that Australian Open.
But with Novotna playing in Australia, she will be seeded #9. This
potentially affects Graf more than almost anyone else. How she does
from here depends very much on her draw. Still, if she holds her seed,
she can expect to pick up about 120 points. A quarterfinal would
move her over 200 points. This would move her to #7 (though with a
very large gap below #6). Assuming decent results over the spring,
she could well be Top 5 by the French Open. From there, who can say?
If she stays healthy, the #1 rank seems to be within reach, given that
neither Hingis nor Davenport seems to want it, and nobody else seems
even to be dreaming of it. Or she could have another injury....
10 -- Nathalie Tauziat
Tauziat holds a number of dubious distinctions on the ranking list.
She is the highest-ranked player not to have won a tournament. She had
the most losses of any player in the Top 10, and had the lowest
winning percentage (fifteenth in the world). She lost in the
first round of fully a quarter of the tournaments she played. Her
only win against a Top 10 player (in twelve tries) was against
Davenport at Wimbledon. (Indeed, with that single exception,
the highest-ranked player she beat was Spirlea.)
Thus, she is (after Davenport) the biggest beneficiary of the
Best 18 "Losses Don't Count" ranking system.
And yet, there is reason to believe that Tauziat can improve her ranking.
Last year, she did not play the Australian Open or any tournament
prior to Paris. It is reported that she will again be skipping
this part of the season, but if she does decide to play,
decent results in the first month should bring
her up at least 200 points, which would allow her to pass Martinez
(who will probably fall out of the #8 spot) into the #9 position.
Then comes the spring indoor season. Last year, Tauziat's results
at this time were unexceptional (about 220 points in three tournaments).
If she can play as well in the spring as she did in the fall indoor
season, she could pick up another 200-300 points. This might move
her as high as #7. Then comes the clay season. Tauziat is French, but
her clay results were pitiful (her best result was about 60 points;
she lost first round at Roland Garros). Decent results on clay could
make up for the points she probably can't defend at Wimbledon.
Thus Tauziat, even in her early thirties, has a shot at about the #6
ranking. Will she make it? No bets, but she knows what she has to do....
11 -- Patty Schnyder
In mid-1998, commentators were making a lot of noise about how Patty
Schnyder led the WTA Tour in tournament wins. They failed to mention
one not-so-trivial detail: Four of her five wins were in Tier III or
Tier IV events (she was the highest-ranked player to play a Tier IV,
and she played three of them),
and the fifth (Hannover), while a Tier II, was one of the weaker
Tier II events.
There is a very strong divide between the Tier III and Tier II events.
Players who can win regularly at the lower level often do poorly when
crossing the line. It remains to be seen whether Schnyder will try to
"graduate," and if so, how well she will do. Schnyder earned over a
quarter of her points in the low-level events -- roughly three times
the fraction earned by Mary Pierce, the Top 10 player who earned the
most at Tier III events.
Schnyder also had trouble against the top players. She won four of
ten matches against the Top 10, but only one of four against the
Top 3. She was 7-2 against #11-#20 (with her only losses being to
the hot prospects in that group, Kournikova and Serena Williams).
Thus Schnyder seems to be positioned right about where she ought
to be: Just outside the Top 10. She is formidable against players
below that level. Against those within the Top 10, she isn't much
of a threat.
As far as her prospects go, Schnyder has much better odds of going
down than up in the early part of the year. She earned nearly 700
points in the first six tournaments of the year, the third-best score
in the world in that time (behind Hingis and Davenport, but slightly
ahead of Martinez and Huber).