Billion Dollar Tennis Baby

There are few tennis tournaments like the U.S. Open.  It is a big tennis carnival that draws more fans and contributes more to the New York City economy in it’s 2 weeks of activity than the Yankees or Mets in the same time period.  When you look at the ecosystem of the US Open in terms of revenue generated by the tournament, revenue generated by New York City businesses and other multipliers you have a billion dollar tennis extravaganza.  The US Open  is wholly owned by the United States Tennis Association (USTA) and 50% of that revenue, more than $100 million, shows up as bottom line profit for the USTA.  So how big is the US Open nut and how do you back into the numbers that make tennis’ leading extravaganza so extravagant?

Our number for the US Open total revenue plus economic multipliers is somewhere around $1.4 billion.  Here is our  quick breakdown of US Open revenue as provided by massaging numbers presented by the USTA and the city of New York as well as the “multiplier” effect the Open has on its sponsors and players.

 

 

Deep Diving on the USTA Revenue Number for the US Open.

For the past several years the USTA has reported revenue of more than $200 million from the US Open.  We backed into these numbers by using several of the USTAs own numbers, published sources of information and filled in numbers based on guesstimates when needed.  Here is our breakdown of the $210 million in revenue shown in the chart below.

US Open revenue is anchored by ticket sales to more than 720,000 fans at an average estimated cost of $120 for a total amount of $85 million.  With tickets sales alone, the USTA  almost breaks even on expenses for the event as the USTA states that it has more than 50% profitability from its annual revenue of $210 million.  Likewise, US Open sponsorships garner more than $60 million annually from heavyweight advertisers like IBM, JP Morgan Chase and American Express, all trying to reach the elite US Open tennis fan where attendees median income is $150,000 and the majority are women.

Another $60 million of revenue comes from television.  Tennis tv viewership has plummeted since their 1981 high when 8 million people or more than 4% of Americans watched John McEnroe vs. Bjorn Borg.  Nevertheless advertisers want to reach the high-earning, remaining 2 million people, less than 1% of Americans, who still watch tennis on network tv.  Tennis still earns roughly $24million from CBS for prime time and another $23 million from ESPN and the Tennis channel.  Additional incentives bump the gross up as well as web and other broadcast/rebroadcast rights.

To fill the gap we publish a miscellaneous licensing and sponsorship fees for the grounds as well as website advertising and other cross-promotional numbers which get us to the $210 million mark.   The USTA should feel free to publish the real numbers though we feel comfortable with the numbers below and think it is more important to be thematically and directionally correct than to have 100% accurate numbers i.e. these are estimates.

Category	USTA Revenue (Millions)
Ticket Sale	$   86
TV Network CBS	$   24
ESPN	$   23
Vendor Sales Licensing	$     7
TV Advertising (partial)	$     5
TV Cable Advertising (partial)	$     5
Tournament Sponsorship	$   60
Miscellaneous Suite Sponsorship	???
Total	$  210

The US Open Multiplier Effect.

The US Open is the principal money-maker for the New York based USTA providing  more than 80% of its revenue for the year.  Also, New York City, surrounding areas and localities where fans emanate from experience a significant bump to their business as part of a US Open multiplier effect.  Past estimates from a 15 year old study are that the US Open generates more than $420 million in revenue for New York.  More recent commentary says that the numbers have not changed radically, however in a day of $10 burgers and $5 round trip subway rides, the economic impact of the US Open is grossly underestimated.

We back into the numbers two ways.  First we try the high level approach of adjusting for inflation.  Using Consumer Price Index (CPI) rates as published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics we take the 2010 CPI  of 2.18 and divide it by the 1995 CPI of 1.52.  This creates a multiplier of 1.43 which we use against the $420 million figure.  When accounting for inflation, the real revenue multiplier to New York City and surrounding areas is close to $600 million in 2010 dollars.

Second, we use a method of estimating economic multipliers by category.  This approach is tricky business as Victor A. Matheson of Holy Cross University argues against the US Open’s multiplier saying they do not consider substitution, i.e. people who spend $100 at the US Open would spend the same amount at Jones Beach if it wasn’t happening that weekend.  Matheson argues there is no way  the US Open accounts for 3- 5% of all tourism dollars spent in New York City.

This article does not argue the US Open’s direct impact on the Tri-State economy as much as the combined direct and indirect impact.  So for example, is the US Open directly responsible for any and all Broadway sales or sight-seeing, cab usage or rental car bump in traffic over Labor day’s weekend and surrounding two weeks when most New Yorkers are out of town.  The answer is NO.  However, does the US Open influence families were the husband may want to go watch a match and his wife might want to do sight-seeing while the teenage kids go to see Spiderman on Broadway?  Or in other cases where a family may come in for one day of tennis and another day of sightseeing, etc?  CERTAINLY!

In addition, there is also the issue of re-purposed dollars which we address qualitatively.  For example if New York resident Jane Doe usually takes the subway on Saturdays to the farmer’s market in Manhattan but instead takes it to the US Open on Saturday of Labor Day weekend she is spending money she would have already spent on the subway, but in this case, it is being spent on the Open.

Also, we assume the average US Open tournament-goer is in the highest income bracket where spending $1,000 on a 2 day excursion to New York is not excessive.  The US Open has reported that its median attendee has income greater than $150,000 a year.

So where does the $600 million come from or go?  Here are our guesstimates based on an economic modeling approach rather than a bottom-up rollup of expenses that only New York City and other areas can provide.  Again, our estimates are on a total economic multiplier rather than just that for New York City and the surrounding tri-state area.  We do not consider global advertising impact from those who watch the US Open on television worldwide though that also bolsters the numbers.

Ticket Resales and On-Site Revenue:

US Open on-site revenue is similar to the movies as customers are expected to spend as much during the day on food, clothing and memorabilia as they do on tickets to enter.  Assuming total ticket revenue of $85 million from 720,000 customers we can see the same customers spending money on $10 hamburgers, multiple $5 beverages, $15 health food plates, $30-50 tennis sports wear, $25 US Open tournament brochures and other types of items and memorabilia.

Other web sites also discuss the availability of tickets that are resold on the US Open site, Stub Hub or other sites.  We estimate roughly 20% of all US Open tickets are resold at an increment on average equal to the original ticket price.  Forbes magazine reports that more than 100,000 US Open tickets sold in 2010 on the secondary i.e. scalped, market with average prices of tickets by round incrementing roughly $50 per round with the finals selling at a price of $350 per ticket.  These prices were quoted 2 weeks before the final which probably saw the price increase with a final between Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic.  In the past, showdowns between Sampras and Agassi have fetched more than $1,000 on the secondary market a day before the match.  Although our final estimate for resale is $17 million in total, if we calculated using an average resale using the Forbes estimate of $50 per round, the actual number is higher.

Accommodations and Transportation

The largest multiplier expense and the largest expense for the US Open is the Accommodations and Transportation multiplier.  Half of all attendees come from outside the tri-state area.  We expect attendees to spend the same amount on hotel and accommodations as they spend net on the tournament.  So if the average attendee spends $125 on a ticket and $125 on food and memorabilia, then we expect them to spend roughly $250 on accommodations per night.

Other significant expenses are the plane fare for 180,000, around $450 (remember for every penny-saver flight there is a high net worth flying a higher class travel) or driving expense.  Driving expense for the average US Open ticket-goer who drives 600 miles to the event is roughly $300 for 5 tanks of gas, plus food and beverage along the way, tolls and parking or somewhere around $450.  There is also transportation to and from the airport on average about $120 as taxi fares including tolls and tip exceed more than $50 from all locales and from Newark Airport can go as high as $80 one way.

Besides the New York City cost of airport transportation, we also include the cost of airport transportation to and from the 180,000 tourists local airports at about $100 as well when including overnight car parking or cab fare to the airport plus other expenditures including memorabilia, food and drink.  About 20% of all attendees park at the US Open at a cost of $20 plus more than $10 of tolls and roughly $10 of gasoline round trip.  Likewise many attendees rent cars who stay on NYC outskirts to get cheaper hotel accommodations or for concurrent business trips, another 2-day $100 expense.  (We don’t break that out from the general hotel fee).  About 80% of attendees take the subway or other public transportation to the US Open with some incremental cost.

Note:  we do not consider the impact of luxury US Open tours sponsored by the likes of American Express which include box seats and meet the player events, but that surely would raise the number.

Other New York Activities

We expect that half the people who travel to the US Open (180,000) spends on average an extra day enjoying NYC and its cultural activites.  We expect that person to spend roughly the same on their second day as they do at their day at the Open.  Whether seeing a Broadway show, average ticket price $100 and then having dinner, average price $50-75 with commensurate cab fares, taxes and tips, we have no problem estimating another $250 spent on day 2 of a trip to NYC.

Endorsements and Direct Sales

Beyond the normal multipliers that we consider of NYC expense and transportation expense we also consider direct sales channels for US Open tickets and special vendor considerations.  We estimate that 20% of all purchasers are USTA members who are primarily members to get access to early sales of US Open tickets.   At $75 for an average family membership the USTA may make as much as $10 million from memberships sold for US Open early access.  Likewise we estimate 20% of all purchasers are American Express users for the same reason.  With varying expense, we assume an average American Express card annual expense of $150.

Also, we look at player endorsements and other economics.  Maria Sharapova makes $25 million a year in endorsements.  Venus and Serena Williams, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal make in excess of $10 million in endorsements.  Other players have multi-million dollar endorsement deals.  We add up all the estimated cumulative tennis endorsement money and divide it by the number of grand slams (4) and come up with an estimate of economic endorsement value to players of $50 million.  Many may disagree with this number and the reliance on grand slam credibility but even Anna Kournikova who had a $50 million endorsement agreement with Adidas won a grand slam championship in doubles with Martina Hingis.

Besides endorsement money, there are other economics in play.  Martina Navratilova and Rod Laver have recently been seen at the US Open signing autographs.  A Martina Navratilova autographed tennis ball sells on the secondary markets for $195, a Rod Laver tennis ball – $145.  Navratilova and Laver also have autobiographies they sell.  Vendors may generate $85 million in revenue, but they also pay some factor of that money in salary to their service and sales people who then spend it on other things.  Likewise for secondary sales agents, etc.

Intangible Economics

Lastly we have intangible economics of the US Open.  As we learned from hedge fund billionaire’s, Raj Rajnataram’s insider trading trial, the US Open is a magnet for business deal-making.   In one 3 day weekend, Raj took a vacation and made $30 million.  At the US Open, he met with Arun Sarin the former CEO of Vodafone to discuss Sarin’s launch of a Telecom hedge fund.  George Soros is known to be a player as is Bill Ackman, all hedge fund billionaires.  Many deals and meetings like this are done over the two weeks of the US Open and there is some unquantified economic impact which is of great value to New York City and probably only New York.

US Open Multiplier Effect
New York and Other Area	US Open Economic Multiplier (in Millions)
Estimated from Study ($420 million * CPI)	$   602
Vendor Sales	$     86
Ticket re-sale	$        17
Ticket Resales and On-Site Sales SubTotal	$   103
Hotel Rooms (1 day)	$    43
Hotel Rooms (2 day)	$    86
Airline	$    81
Car (transport and parking)	$    81
Airport Transportation (NYC)	$    25
Airport Transportation (non-NYC)	$    18
Parking (Parking + Tolls)	$      4
Transportation Taxi	$    17
Transportation (Subway / Bus)	$       2
Accomodations and Transportation	$ 359
Other New York Activities	$   54
Player Endorsements	$   50
American Express Memberships	$   23
USTA Memberships	$     11
Endorsements and Direct Sales	$   84
Deal-making	????
New York and Other Area Subtotal	$ 601

Sponsor Multiplier

The Sponsor Multiplier is the amount of revenue sponsors expect to make from advertising at the US Open or on television.  The total sponsorship dollars spent at the US Open exceeds $60 million.  Likewise, television revenue is roughly $60 million (and we expect television advertising rates to be far higher).  Minimally we expect the revenue generated by the sponsors and advertisers from the tourney is at least equal to the amount spent on sponsorship plus advertising.  So the net impact of advertising at the US Open would minimally have a net zero impact to the bottom line.  $120 million of sponsor and advertiser revenue gives an additional economic impact bringing the total economic value of the US Open to $920 million.

But the US Open’s core sponsors have long time relationships.   Relationships like these are developed due to profitability.  Since US Open sponsor products vary between high end and low end, we estimate the average profitability for US Open advertisers is 20%.  If sponsors are looking for a 1:1 return on their advertising dollar to bottom line profitability then we would expect the top line revenue would be 5 times profitability i.e. one fifth bottom line times five times revenue is 1:1.  So if sponsors and advertisers pay $120 million a year for the US Open, we expect their revenue generated to be $600 million driven by the tournament or a total US Open economic value of $1.4 billion.

A real world example benefits.  Let’s say all US Open ticket holders are American Express holders and spend $1,000 a year (or while on their trip to NYC) due to advertising and sponsorship at the US Open.  The Amex fees on the $1,000 is $30 and the annual fee for the Amex card is $150.  $180 out of $1,000 is about a 20% profit margin.  700,000 ticket holders spending $1,000 each on Amex due to US Open advertising is $700 million of economic value.

The reality, according to American Express financial statements, is that Amex’ corporate cardholders spend on average card a whopping $11,213 annually or almost $1,000 a month.  So the multiplier may be significantly greater.   Many of the US Open sponsors, like Amex, are headquartered in the NYC area as is the USTA.

Summary

The US Open is a powerful economic force for its stakeholders, the USTA, New York City and surrounding areas, sponsors and advertisers.   Though existing estimates hold the total US Open economic value at around $620 million for the USTA and the New York City tri-state area, when reviewed on a holistic basis and adjusted for inflation the total economic value of the US Open is closer to $1.4 billion when considering all locales and the breadth of advertising reach.

Probably the economics of Wimbledon and the other slams  are similar to the US Open in many ways which allows for the prize money they offer.

Closing Thought

Though the US Open provides substantial economic benefits to all involved it is an underperformer in the world of sports events.  If US tennis had the same crowds as in the 1980s or had maintained the same market share, the economic potential for the US Open would be 2-3 times the existing economic impact.  Next we discuss ways to improve the US Open and how the USTA’s stewardship of tennis succeeds and fails the sport.

Wimpledon Redux 2011 – The End of the Short Game part 1

Another fortnight has passed and we have crowned Novak Djokovic  Wimpledon champion.  We coined the phrase, “Wimpledon” last year to decry the end of the short (serve and volley) game and the absence for the most part of the middle game in the Wimbledon championships.  With mostly a long (baseline) game on display for Wimpledon, one third the variety i.e. no middle or short game, has earned tennis one third the fans as tennis ratings have plummeted since the 1980 glory days.  With less fans there will much less money as ESPN has announced that “Breakfast At Wimpledon” will be a pay tv affair going forward and that Wimpledon will be tape delayed on ESPN on ABC.

As we know, Wimpledon adopted the 32 seed tournament format to reduce the number of early round upsets.  Draws no longer open up as they did for 18 year old John McEnroe in 1977, who got to the semifinals of Wimbledon without facing a seed until the quarterfinals.  Television ratings soared.  McEnroe’s tv ratings throughout his career were some of the highest ever.  Instead we have this anesthized version of the game without any risk.  In the last 8 years, the first seed has faced off against the second seed in the Wimpledon final 7 times as ratings go into the abyss.  With more predictability and less game diversity, no one is watching.  

What about the tennis?  Averaging about 20 net approaches a match during the tourney, many in reaction to dropshots, Djokovic routined the slowest grass surface tournament in history.  In his own version of “No Mas”, Nadal approached the net 9 times in the final. 

Roberto Nadal???

As we reasoned last year, Djokovic may have put up a barrier to Rafael Nadal taking our all time Number 1 ranking.  Though Nadal is solidly the top player ever on clay he remains a player with only 4 fast surface grand slams.  We doubt Nadal will win another hard surface slam as there are now several players, Djokovic, Tsonga, Murray, and Del Potro who can provide a difficult match against him.  We’ll know more as we get closer to the US Open where Nadal will be the defending champion.

Djokovic is having a dream season, the sort that only John McEnroe, Mats Wilander and Roger Federer have put together, defeating opponents with overwhelming force on their way to 3 slams in one year.  Only Federer has been able to put such a season together twice against lesser competition.  But Djokovic is no spring chicken.  He started as a pro at 17 year old and has played almost 500 matches.   As a point of reference, Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick haven’t won a slam since well before their 300^th career matches and Marat Safin didn’t win a slam after his 500^th match.  Bjorn Borg and Mats Wilander, two other defensive players, were the  same age (24) when they won their final slams.

Because the title went to Djokovic and he has now won his third slam, our all time great SHOTS ranking of Nadal and Federer continues to improve as we award points for wins by peers in the same era.

Nadal’s Future on Faster Surfaces

As we predicted in our last blog post, there was a lot of uncertainty around Nadal winning another Wimbledon.  Djokovic’ dominance over Nadal this year is symbolic of the inevitable downturn of 2 handed players as they get close to and pass 25 years.  Worse for tennis, they have a glut of 2 handers in their mid 20s crowding out new-comers with the likes of Tsonga, Murray, Monfils and Berdych.

As seen in the loss to Tsonga and as we predicted before the tourney and here a year ago, Federer doesn’t have the gas to win a best of 5 sets tournament any more.  His points are too long and he doesn’t have the same volume of easy points as Sampras.  When Sampras played, his typical point was a big serve of which many were unreturnable or a net rush which was 3 steps to the net plus agility.  Either way, points ended quickly.  With Federer, it’s uncertain how long any of his points will last and as a result, he becomes ragged after a second set against tough competition in the later rounds.

As for Nadal, we think any future Wimpledon wins are less likely but aren’t counting him out as the only players to win Wimpledon’s after 28 years old have been left handers, Connors and Ivanisevic.

Goodbye Williams Sisters?  Goodbye Roddick?

We also wave an early goodbye to the Williams sisters.  No individuals have contributed more to the women’s game in the last 20 years.  Though most of tennis royalty viewed them as great “athletic” talents, they were questioned early and often on their discipline and knowledge of the game’s nuance’s.  Early on they suffered the slings and bows of Martina Hingis and an inherently elitist / country club tennis environment but look at them now.

Martina Hingis Mocks Venus Williams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok3L5r5YxLM&feature=related

Watch the above video and Martina Hingis at the 1:19 mark taunting Venus.

In our ratings system, Serena and Venus rank 4 and 8 all time and if they hadn’t had to play each other in many slam finals, either may have been rated higher.  They’ve outlasted not just a generation entering against Steffi Graf and then Martina Hingis, but also outlasted all their peers such as Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, then another generation in Justin Henin and Kim Clijsters but an entirely different generation heralded by Maria Sharapova and Ana Ivanovic.

The fact that they are still in the hunt when a fifth generation of tennis player plays i.e. Caroline Wosniacki, etc, shows what remarkable players they are and how different they are from their peers.  Though Sharapova and other tennis beauties take months to years off from the tour for their commercial and sponsorship endeavors, the Williams sisters are in movies, doing reality tv, pushing out a clothing line while reaching twice as many slam finals as any person who started on the tour at the same time or since they began.  All while mourning the early and unwarranted passing of a sibling.

Here’s hoping that as they retire a new generation appears on the tour with the same sort of mettle.

With a great serve, like Goran Ivanisevic, Andy Roddick will always be a darkhorse at Wimpledon.  But his forehand is no longer dominant and his movement continues to decline.  And for the other Americans, a bright spot is Ryan Harrison, the youngster who made it to the third round.  Despite Patrick McEnroe FLUBBING another wildcard entry, this one was squandered on James Blake a first round loser, much like he squandered his Roland Garros wildcard on Tim Smyczek another first round loser rather than the younger Donald Young, Harrison played tough.  He fought through 3 rounds of qualifying and lost in his 6th match of the tourney in a 5 setter to iron-man David Ferrer.

Welcome Back Chrissie!

Another bright spot was the addition of Chris Evert to the broadcast and her chemistry with Mary Carillo proved remarkable.   Whereas the McEnroe brothers are expert at the top flight aspects of the men’s game and Carillo with Pam Shriver are technically strong, Evert really addresses championship level psychology in a way the others can’t.

Though tormented as a teen tennis angel in all white, she was anything but.  Evert was tennis’ black mambo.  A cold assassin crushing all-time greats at will.  After being subjugated by Martina Navratilova on fast surfaces, she was able to make a final grand slam push and beat Navratilova in her mid 30’s on Australian hard courts to cap off one of the greatest tennis careers of all time.

Her personal life was just as climactic dating tennis playboy, Jimmy Connors, marrying Brit John Lloyd, dumping him for skier Andy Mills and then moving onto the Shark himself, Greg Norman.  She hasn’t had a life story, it’s been a saga.  Evert’s and Connors tv ratings were sky high and they ushered in a tennis golden age.

From her father’s old barbeques at Holiday Park to the Chris Evert tennis academy, anything that is associated with Evert and tennis benefits.  Keep her on tv.

And what of Wimbledon.  We typically watch Wimpledon with a sense of mourning of the short game and the end of the serve and volley style brandished by any all time great before 2002 who won the championship more than once, including Bjorn Borg.  We’ll cover this in our Wimbledon redux – Part II

How Serena Williams Loses to Navratilova on Every Surface

Serena and Venus still a Rung Below Navratilova and Evert.

A Jon Wertheim article in Sports Illustrated followed up by other blog postings argue that Serena Williams was the greatest tennis player of all time.  Numerous tennis writers from tennis magazines , other periodicals and websites posed their own opinions throwing out numbers like TARP money for union jobs.  Though we think the story of women’s tennis since the advent of the Williams’ sisters is about Richard Williams Zen-like coaching methods, we weigh in with our opinion on Serena.  We approach the greatest woman’s player by using the same methodology as our evaluation of men’s all time great players, the SHOTS framework.

SHOTS is a simple and easy framework where we establish that there is no reason to hypothesize about who would win a match when there is actual data that shows who won those matches.  We look at winning percentage among all time greats, rank each grand slam tournament victory for toughness, provide a score and add them up.  We also normalize data throwing out bad data, only looking at players during their peak years, providing extra points for longevity.  Though Wertheim concludes that Williams would beat anyone on hard courts (her best surface), we look at every slam tournament on all surfaces and come up with a cumulative all-surface rating as well as a more granular rating per surface.

Our qualitative argument for Martina Navratilova vs. Serena is that there is nothing Serena could show Navratilova on a serve, volley or ground stroke basis that Navratilova had not seen before.  Wertheim argues that Serena’s first serve, which averaged 105 mph at the 2010 Wimbledon final, is something unlike anything seen in women’s tennis.  Yet Navratilova, the greatest mixed doubles player of all time, defeated big serve and volleyers Todd Woodbridge,  John Fitzgerald and Paul Annacone at fast surface grand slam mixed doubles championship.  (Special Note:  Paul Annacone was the serve and volley coach to Pete Sampras during his kamikaze run to 3 consecutive US Open finals in Sampras’ late 20s and early 30’s.  Annacone has now been hired by Roger Federer to provide a similar boost. )  And Navratilova looks like a pixie against those fellas too.  Likewise, Navratilova had an 85% winning record against master groundstroker, Evert, post 1980 on all fast surfaces.

Wertheim argues further that Serena has been thwarted in title matches by Venus, yet Venus and Serena have only played each other 23 times vs. 80 matches played between Navratilova and Evert.

Again, we don’t argue who would win one match between all time greats as it isn’t determinant but instead who would win more than 5 out of 10 matches between the players or who would win a tournament of all time greats.  With Navratilova we know we would get the fittest and fiercest competitor ever to play the game, hardened by losses to Tracy Austin at the US Open and her father’s suicide as a child.  She was able to beat then number 1 Graf, at the age of 35 to reach the US Open final before losing to Seles the next day.  In her late 40’s, within the last 7 years, she won two mixed doubles grand slams.  With Serena, we wouldn’t know who would show up, the great serving and fit player from the 2010 Wimbledon championships or the substantially overweight player from the Australian Open a year or so before.

Our own quality ratings of Navratilova’s cumulative wins against the field show at least a 2X advantage on every surface and at Wimbledon a 3X advantage vs. Serena.

SHOTS ANALYSIS

Martina Navratilova and her long time rival, Chris Evert, come out head and shoulders above the rest of women’s tennis via SHOTS analysis.  Serena Williams finishes in the top 6 using our SATERICCON metric.  Using SITDON analysis, Serena Williams finishes behind Martina Navratilova, and Steffi Graf, but ahead of Venus and Chris Evert though only playing 60% as many matches as Evert.

We give a special mention to pre-stabbing Monica Seles, who we consider one of the greatest champions of all time but was cut down in her prime by a crazed German fan.  Seles had won  8 out of 10 slams and her 9 out of 10 finals streak is unparalleled in women’s tennis where she had clearly ended the Steffi Graf era.   Seles missed 3 years of her prime tennis playing career where a continuance of her 80% winning approach could have resulted in 10 more slams.  Steffi Graf went on to win 11 more Grand Slams 7 of them while Seles was rehabilitating.   Graf never lost to Seles again upon her return despite being 2-3 against her in the years prior to Seles stabbing.

Women’s tennis lends itself well to SHOTS analysis as 84% of women’s open era grand slams have been won by 16 women, our Pantheonists.  We measure these top women’s play versus each other and hypothesize who would win a theoretical tourney based on real world match outcomes.  Slightly less than 3,000 matches have been played between grand slam titlists in the Open era.  More than 1,700 of these matches have been played between Pantheon players  and we looked at all of them.  The top 16 players are:

Steffi Graf	Justine Henin-Hardenne
Martina Navratilova	Evonne Goolagong
Chris Evert	Martina Hingis
Serena Williams	Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario
Margaret Court	Hana Mandlikova
Monica Seles	Maria Sharapova
Billy Jean King	Lindsay Davenport
Venus Williams	Jennifer Capriati

We normalize data only considering open era champions.  Though this does not give enough due to Margaret Court, we think the impact of prize money served to make the sport more competitive.  Though there is no “dream team” effect in women’s tennis as happened in men’s tennis .  (When admitted into  the grand slams in 1968 Rod Laver won a Grand Slam and an old Ken Rosewall challenged for Slams late into his 30s.)  We consider the lack of money prevented great female players from competing in the Australian Open and for a time in the French Open.   We also throw out Australian Open data for women’s play since it was regularly skipped on the circuit by top players such as Navratilova and Evert as well as Graf.

Our approach is supported by the fact that our metric, the Slam Triple, which has been accomplished 31 times in women’s open era was accomplished for the first time in Australia in 2001.  Instead, we substitute a Slam Yield Metric (SYM) for  the top 4 women which normalizes their data to consider how many slams they would have won if they had played every slam instead of taking breaks from slams as frequently has happened for everyone of the Pantheonists.    SYM is analagous to the NBA statistic for rebounds per 48 minutes played which looks at the rebounds of a player for the amount of time they play and then normalizes the data to a 48 minute framework.

SITDON Analysis and Serena Williams

Serena Williams finishes third using SITDON analysis.  Careful review of the Pantheon matches shows that it is hard for top players to beat each other consistently.  Serena’s 60% normalized winning percent is barely better than Hingis’ and Evert’s 57% and a bit better than Venus’ 55%.  Though Serena has a winning record over the overwhelming majority of Pantheon players she has played, she does not have an overwhelming advantage over her rivals as does every player before her.  Players like Navratilova who one year lost only 1 match and in a 3 year time frame lost only 6 matches clearly outperformed her vs. the field.  Evert who had clay winning streaks of 125 and 75 matches finishes far ahead of her in winning percent.

We have to leave it to conjecture as to what sort of winning percents Evert and Navratilova would have had if they did not have each other as rivals but it is possible they would have surpassed Graf even with Monica Seles sidelined.

Serena’s inability to get substantial winning percentages over Justine Henin who she lost to on Clay and Hard courts and her sister Venus on grass reduce her SITDON score.  Likewise an early rivalry with Martina Hingis was inconclusive on head to head matchups.

Interestingly, much of Steffi Graf’s winning percent for the SITDON analysis is generated by overwhelming winning records against Hana Mandlikova, Aranxta Sanchez-Vicario, Martina Hingis and Jennifer Capriati while she was only able to play the 13 year older Navratilova and Evert to a standstill breaking even against them in more than 30 matches long after their prime.   Both Evert and Navratilova would have had significantly better records (near 80%) in their era if one or the other had not played as they nearly split their matches with Navratilova winning 43 of their 80 matches played against each other, most in finals of tournaments.   Indeed, Evert and Navratilova, playing late into their 30’s played twice as many slam winners as Serena in their careers and had better winning percents even including play in their 30’s.

Yield Analysis and Serena Williams

Though the top 6 women’s players have won many Grand Slams they have frequently skipped slams.  Evert and Navratilova skipped the French Open 3 times each and the Australian Open several times in the period between their first slam title and their last slam title.  Steffi Graf, almost recognizing the lack of competition due to Seles absence skipped a whopping 11 slams, Serena has skipped 9 in the 11 years spanning her first and last slam victories.  We normalize the data by assuming that players would continue winning at the same rate they won their other slams.  From this we get a theoretical yield.

In the case of Graf, we calculate based on what would have happened if Seles had not been stabbed voiding her 11 slams but recalculating for a full 48 slams played.  Though Seles is clearly the second greatest clay court champion of all time based on just 3 years of data and had a 2-0 hard court record vs. Graf in Slams, we calculate Graf’s yield on a conservative 50% basis post Seles injury.  We post the results we think would happen below.

One number that stands out in the Yield Analysis is the stunning number of finals the all time great women reached while playing.  Each all time great player reached the finals of at least 69% of the slams they played with the exception of Serena who has only reached 46% of the Slams she has played.

Projected Grand Slam Yield Between First to Last Slam Titles
	Slam Chance Conversions	Slam Finals Reached	Slams Missed	Slams Played	Normalized Slam Yield Assuming Full Schedule
Monica Seles*	80.0%	90.00%	0
Steffi Graf*	59.46%	83.78%	11	37	24
Martina Navratilova	46.15%	69.23%	9	39	22
Chris Evert	45.00%	72.50%	8	40	21
Serena Williams	37.14%	45.71%	9	35	16
*  Only Consider Seles 10 Grand Slams after 1st win before stabbing
**  Normalize Graf’s slams for those missed and if Seles had not been stabbed

Serena Williams SATERICCON Analysis

Using SATERICCON analysis, we were able to rank each and every grand slam event won by a Pantheon player since 1968.   When we add up the scores we get the following rankings.

Much of Serena’s place in the rankings is based on the overall quality of the competition she played in the majors she won which is around the middle of the pack vs the other Pantheonists.  Both Venus and Billie Jean King won more difficult Wimbledons and US Opens.  Monica Seles won 3 of the top 5 most difficult French Opens.  Of the top 10 players, Serena has played the fewest Pantheonists, Navratilova playing almost 80 more such matches on a normalized basis.  Venus and Martina Hingis played more difficult slates as did Navratilova and Evert who faced each other 80 times.

Serena benefits from the passage of one of the greatest eras in women’s tennis which seemed to end around 2005-2007 with the retirements and semi-retirements of Hingis, Capriati, Davenport, Henin and Clijsters.  Serena has won 5 slams since 2007 and has benefitted from the sidelining of her competition.   By our measures, Venus and Serena have close to the same winning percentage and cumulative grand slam quality rankings.   Again our argument isn’t that Navratilova has a 2.6 times greater chance of winning a grand slam than Serena (though we think it is indicative of some sort of advantage) but that in a tournament 2.6 times more difficult than Serena’s average, she would be far more likely to win than Serena.

Measuring Eras with Slam Triples

In support of our thesis that Serena has benefitted from the retirement of one of the great generations of tennis, we look at the number of slam triples.  There were a few slam triples in the 1970’s and the 1980’s saw very few opportunities as Evert won 7 French Opens and Navratilova won 9 Wimbledons.  Evert and Navratilova won nearly 50% of the slams they played in the 12 years separating their first and last slam championships.  Even when they did not win they reached the finals roughly 70% of the time eliminating almost all chances for others to win slams in their era.

Slam triples increased dramatically as Evert and Navratilova’s retirement, Seles attack and later injuries to Graf opened the gateways for 8 different French Open Champions, 8 different Australian Open Champions and 8 different US Open Champions over an 11 year period.  No Slam Triple has been won in the last 3 years.  Though the Williams sisters win more than most, parity has been the rule of the post Graf era.  From 1975 to 1996 when Graf began to suffer injuries, only 7 women held the number 1 computer ranking.  Between 1997 and  2009, 13 women have held the ranking.  Serena has been number 1 less than half the time of Navratilova, Evert or Graf.

The most disturbing trend as exemplified by the slam triple chart is the shortened lifespan of the average top women’s tennis player.  Hingis, Henin and Clijsters seemed to have retired prematurely and Capriati, a child prodigy, was out of tennis more than in it during her prime.  Maria Sharapova and other attractive tennis players may be distracted by their sponsorships and seem to be playing in between commercial spots.

Richard Williams genius and why he has two daughters in the top 6 of all time players comes from his Phil Jackson-like coaching approach.  With his constant remarks that his daughters didn’t need the sport, by not burning them out on the children’s tennis tour or in tennis camps, and by deflecting criticism from them to him as the best coaches do, he has created a throw back group of players with longevity almost equal to Graf, Evert, Navratilova and the other all time greats.