TNI ranking
ATHLETICS
CRICKET
CYCLING
FOOTBALL
FORMULA 1
GOLF
RUGBY
SNOOKER
OTHER SPORTS
Tennis is an individual sport. As the action in Melbourne (why does the Australian Open take place in Melbourne?) came to a close, quite logically the focus was on the performances of each of tennis’ starlets rather than on the lands from which they hail. Any glory reflects largely on the person rather than on some other group, club or country. Although there is clearly some sense of satisfaction in Argentina if Juan Martin del Potro wins a major, it hardly precipitates mass tangoing in the streets. There are exceptions: Goran Ivanisevic’s Wimbledon was greeted by a raucous outpouring of joy in his native Croatia; had Tim Henman lived in a different era to Pete Sampras, we may have witnessed more people than pigeons in Trafalgar Square for the first time outside a big World Cup game or an Ashes win (Andy Murray doesn’t quite generate the same level of adoration).
Tennis is not alone of course. Golf, athletics, these are not team games. Yet each sport has created some format that allows the group feeling to emerge. Relays in athletics and the Ryder Cup in golf. Tennis has the Davis and Fed Cups, formats that allow for some jingoism. The list of champions of both the Davis and Fed Cup competitions provides some interesting stats. The US has 32 victories in the men’s competition to Russia’s 2. Australia is second only to the US in both the men’s and women’s format. But to your correspondent's mind these do not provide a useful method for measuring the ability of nations to produce tennis talent. Belgium, for example, would probably have more than one Fed Cup victory to its name had Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin seen fit to play together more often.
To circle back to the beginning, tennis remains an individual sport and therefore to measure a country's success in producing talent, we need to establish a method for integrating individual performances into country-based statistics. quantumofsport.com attempts to do just that by analysing the draw for the first round of the 2010 Australian Open...
The mathematics: The final score of each country is calculated by adding the population and ranking co-efficients, with a further multiplication involved if the country in question has a grand slam winner within its ranks. The population coefficient is determined by dividing the population of the country by the number of players qualified for the tournament. The ranking co-efficient is established by dividing the number of players qualified by the number seeded. The lower the final score the better the rank of the country concerned. Only countries with at least two participants in the tournament have been included in the rankings. The full statistics are below; here are some key takeouts:
> In general the larger the country the lower the ranking. There are two clear outliers here, Spain and France.
> Belgium will have a much higher ranking once Wickmayer and Henin achieve the ranking that their talent clearly deserves.
> Germany, and to a lesser extent the US, have a very low proportion of seeded players amongst the starters.
> Spain produces a particularly impressive proportion of gifted male tennis players, Russia produces women on a conveyer belt.
> The UK is not the worst tennis nation on earth.
> There appears to be something in the water in recently formed Eastern European countries.
> Measured purely on the population co-efficient, Croatia leads the ranking, with Slovakia second.
> Switzerland is not only Roger Federer.
pop
128M
128W
128T
32T
co1
co2
GS
co3
score
1
Serbia
7,8
3
2
5
4
1,56
1,25
Y
x0.75
2,11
2
Switzerland
7,8
3
2
5
2
1,56
2,50
Y
x0.75
3,05
3
Spain
46
13
3
16
10
2,88
1,60
Y
x0.75
3,36
4
Croatia
4,4
4
2
6
2
0,73
3,00
3,73
5
Slovakia
5,4
1
5
6
2
0,90
3,00
3,90
6
Israel
7,4
1
1
2
1
3,70
2,00
5,70
7
Belarus
9,5
0
3
3
1
3,17
3,00
6,17
8
Czech Rep
10,3
3
8
11
2
0,94
5,50
6,44
9
France
65,1
13
7
20
6
3,255
3,33
6,59
10
Sweden
9,3
1
1
2
1
4,65
2,00
6,65
11
Australia
22,1
8
7
15
2
1,47
7,50
Y
x0.75
6,73
12
Russia
141,9
4
16
20
10
7,10
2,00
Y
x0.75
6,82
13
Belgium
10,8
4
4
8
1
1,35
8,00
Y
x0.75
7,01
14
Argentina
40,1
5
1
6
2
6,68
3,00
Y
x0.75
7,26
15
Austria
8,4
4
4
8
1
1,05
8,00
9,05
16
Ukraine
46
3
4
7
2
6,57
3,50
10,07
17
Germany
81,9
11
8
19
3
4,31
6,33
10,64
18
Italy
60,3
4
6
10
2
6,03
5,00
11,03
19
Latvia
2,2
1
1
2
0
1,10
10,00
11,10
20
Kazakhstan
15,8
2
3
5
0
3,16
10,00
13,16
21
Romania
21,5
1
5
6
0
3,58
10,00
13,58
22
USA
308,6
12
8
20
5
15,43
4,00
Y
x0.75
14,57
23
Poland
38,1
1
2
3
1
12,70
3,00
15,70
24
Netherlands
16,6
2
0
2
0
8,30
10,00
18,30
25
UK
62
1
2
3
1
20,67
3,00
23,67
26
Uzbekistan
27,5
1
1
2
0
13,75
10,00
23,75
27
Canada
34
0
2
2
0
17,00
10,00
27,00
28
Colombia
45,3
2
0
2
0
22,65
10,00
32,65
29
Japan
127,5
0
2
2
0
63,75
10,00
73,75
30
Brazil
192,4
3
0
3
0
64,13
10,00
74,13
31
China
1336
0
4
4
1
334,00
4,00
338,00
Key:
pop = population (millions) (taken from Wikipedia, Serbian population does not include Kosovo)
128M = men in the first round draw
128W = women in the first round draw
128T = total no. of players in the first round draw
32T = total no. of players seeded in the top 32
co1 = population co-efficient i.e. pop divided by 128T
co2 = ranking co-efficient i.e. 128T divided by 32T (if no seeded players then co-efficient is automatically 10,00)
GS = whether the country has a Grand Slam event winner somewhere in the men's or women's draw (Y=Yes)
co3 = Slam co-efficient applied if GS=Y
score = co1+co2 (x co3 where applicable)
Represents situation at start of 2010 Australian Open.
I like this method because I am not aware of another ranking system that harmonizes the men’s and women’s sides or proposes an objective standard based on population size.
Perhaps, regarding the Davis and Fed Cups, one could recognise a country’s achievements by applying an additional bonus co-efficient for the holders of those competitions like the one for having a Slam winner (using increments of 0.25). So, for Spain (Davis), it would now be co1+co2 x0.5, taking Spain, if I calculate correctly, into 2nd (a fairer reflection??). For Italy (Fed), you would multiply their score by 0.75 and they would move up to 15th. It would create a nice incentive for a country to bag the Slam+Davis+Fed combo and take all three bonus multipliers...
Posted by: worldinmotion | February 4, 2010 at 14:40