British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

foobarbaz · Club Coach

Weeks 3 & 4 - Grand Slam, Australian Open - Melbourne (outdoor hard)

indiana · Tennis legend

foobarbaz wrote:
Well, this is all very interesting. Who would have thought that grouping nation's simply by the obviously correct data in Pierrot's table, and giving the clear groupings each a generalised name which seems appropriate for the times we live in, would have evoked such condemnation. The data in the table certainly backs up the simple groupings made. I also note the tennis-related questions that I asked in this thread, remain unanswered by those that have decided to talk about politics and suchlike instead.

Perhaps, if you really feel that you have an interesting tennis related discussion, then as suggested you could take such discussion to a separate new thread tn the 'General tennis discussion' section. I would ask that this is done by anyone rather than any further related discussion in this specific Australian Open thread ( you can copy specific posts over and / or link to the discussion in this thread ).

If you then do so, it would be more enlightening to have a bigger sample size than rounds reached by just the women in just this one Slam. A bigger picture and a clear interpretation may be the way you could go. Otherwise it could just be some outlier.

foobarbaz · Club Coach

indiana wrote:
foobarbaz wrote:
Well, this is all very interesting. Who would have thought that grouping nation's simply by the obviously correct data in Pierrot's table, and giving the clear groupings each a generalised name which seems appropriate for the times we live in, would have evoked such condemnation. The data in the table certainly backs up the simple groupings made. I also note the tennis-related questions that I asked in this thread, remain unanswered by those that have decided to talk about politics and suchlike instead.
Perhaps, if you really feel that you have an interesting tennis related discussion, then as suggested you could take such discussion to a separate new thread tn the 'General tennis discussion' section. I would ask that this is done by anyone rather than any further related discussion in this specific Australian Open thread ( you can copy specific posts over and / or link to the discussion in this thread ).
If you then do so, it would be more enlightening to have a bigger sample size than rounds reached by just the women in just this one Slam. A bigger picture and a clear interpretation may be the way you could go. Otherwise it could just be some outlier.

Seeing as the data is entirely from this year's Australian Open, then this seems to me to be the appropriate place to comment on the tennis questions it raises, so no, I'm quite happy for it to remain here, thank you. As for it being an outlier, that not my interpretation of it. It reflects the top 100 players in the world, which is surely a good marker of the present state of professional tennis in 2026. Perhaps you might point to other data to back up your claim.

indiana · Tennis legend

I think if presenting some case, bearing in mind how many things can vary from one Slam to the next, it is for yourself to base thoughts on a wider sample than purely the women from this Australian Open Slam ( the top 100 women, most certainly including often including the seeds, have proved inconsistent from Slam to Slam ). To my mind it is not a claim but simply a very clear statistical possibility that the balance of nations could be quite different with the men and from other Slams, so very possibly an outlier. It is not for anyone else to take time to gather further data ( not for me anyway ) but to my mind for you to provide a more convincing starting point for any discussion and it is you who so far most wants a discussion.

You have how these stages of the draw have played out in one draw in one Slam.

So again, further data and a general tennis discussion thread could be your way forward. I currently see no other worthwhile way forward.

christ · Challenger qualifying

foobarbaz wrote:
Well, this is all very interesting. Who would have thought that grouping nation's simply by the obviously correct data in Pierrot's table, and giving the clear groupings each a generalised name which seems appropriate for the times we live in, would have evoked such condemnation. The data in the table certainly backs up the simple groupings made. I also note the tennis-related questions that I asked in this thread, remain unanswered by those that have decided to talk about politics and suchlike instead.

1) they aren't clear groupings

2) the generalised names are not illustrative of anything, really, and they certainly don't illuminate the "clear" groupings: they may as well be (less emotively) Group A, Group B, and Group C.

The differences between the groupings - and the particular data associated with the groupings - can only be relevant if the groupings are, in fact, clear. The data in the table only "backs up" the groupings if the groupings make sense. At the moment it appears that only you think that the groupings are "clear", to the rest of us it looks like the groupings were arbitrarily selected to make some sort of point.

If you had used "Group A, Group B, and Group C", then politics wouldn't have entered this thread: I contend that "Anti-National Influence" (at least) was deliberately chosen to be politically contentious, especially as your justification includes "seems appropriate for the times we live in".