Talk:Iga Świątek career statistics

Useless ranking data included

The "Record against top 10 players" section is really useless and trivial data. The player rankings are usually not what they were when they played Swiatek. Same with the "Record against No. 11–20 players" section. The next section of wins against top 10 players is valid since that's what they were ranked when they played each other. But Kerber wasn't in the top 10 when they played their only match. Neither was Wozniacki. Zvonareva was bottom of the barrel and not even seeded. This lists are fluff trivia and really not even useful for our readers. I have tagged this as such and welcome reasons why we need it. I doubt you can find external sources that show us this comparison. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Still a ridiculous trivia table. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Have my doubts about the "Record against top 10 players" section but it can be argued that it has some merit, showing her H2H against top world players, but the "Record against No. 11–20 players" is pure trivia. In both cases the bolding makes the content almost unreadable. --Wolbo (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Record against other player chart

I'm wondering what you guys think about this table? Could it be compromise between only top 10 wins and table that already between about H2H against current/formet top 10 players?

Record against top 10 players

Iga Świątek career statistics example:

• She has a 20–9 (69.0%) record against players who were, at the time the match was played, ranked in the top 10. In the H2H columns, all matches counted regardless of opponent's ranking.

Result	W–L	Opponent	Rank	Event	Surface	Round	Score	Rank	H2H
2019
Loss	0–1	Simona Halep	No. 3	French Open, France	Clay	4R	6–1, 6–0	No. 104
Loss	0–2	Naomi Osaka	No. 2	Canadian Open, Canada	Hard	3R	7–6(4), 6–4	No. 65	1–1
2020
Win	1–2	Simona Halep	No. 2	French Open, France	Clay	4R	6–1, 6–2	No. 54
Win	2–2	Sofia Kenin	No. 6	French Open, France	Clay	F	6–4, 6–1	No. 54	1–0
2021
Loss	2–3	Simona Halep	No. 2	Australian Open, Australia	Hard	4R	3–6, 6–1, 6–4	No. 17	2–2
Loss	2–4	Ashleigh Barty	No. 1	Madrid Open, Spain	Clay	3R	7–5 6–4	No. 17
Win	3–4	Elina Svitolina	No. 6	Italian Open, Italy	Clay	QF	6–2, 7–5	No. 15	1–0
Win	4–4	Karolína Plíšková	No. 9	Italian Open, Italy	Clay	F	6–0, 6–0	No. 15	1–0
Loss	4–5	Maria Sakkari	No. 2	WTA Finals, Mexico	Hard	RR	6–2, 6–4	No. 9
Loss	4–6	Aryna Sabalenka	No. 6	WTA Finals, Mexico	Hard	RR	2–6, 6–2, 7–5	No. 9
Win	5–6	Paula Badosa	No. 10	WTA Finals, Mexico	Hard	RR	7–5, 6–4	No. 7	1–1
2022
Loss	5–7	Ashleigh Barty	No. 1	Adelaide International, Australia	Hard	SF	6–2, 6–4	No. 9	0–2
Win	6–7	Aryna Sabalenka	No. 2	Qatar Open, Qatar	Hard	QF	6–2, 6–3	No. 8
Win	7–7	Maria Sakkari	No. 6	Qatar Open, Qatar	Hard	SF	6–4, 6–3	No. 8
Win	8–7	Anett Kontaveit	No. 7	Qatar Open, Qatar	Hard	F	6–2, 6–0	No. 8	3–2
Win	9–7	Maria Sakkari	No. 6	Indian Wells Open, United States	Hard	F	6–4, 6–1	No. 4	2–3
Win	10–7	Aryna Sabalenka	No. 4	Stuttgart Open, Germany	Clay (i)	F	6–2, 6–2	No. 1
Win	11–7	Aryna Sabalenka	No. 8	Italian Open, Italy	Clay	SF	6–2, 6–1	No. 1
Win	12–7	Ons Jabeur	No. 7	Italian Open, Italy	Clay	F	6–2, 6–2	No. 1
Win	13–7	Jessica Pegula	No. 8	US Open, United States	Hard	QF	6–3, 7–6(7–4)	No. 1
Win	14–7	Aryna Sabalenka	No. 6	US Open, United States	Hard	SF	3–6, 6–1, 6–4	No. 1
Win	15–7	Ons Jabeur	No. 5	US Open, United States	Hard	Final	6–2, 7–6(7–5)	No. 1	3–2
Win	16–7	Coco Gauff	No. 8	San Diego Open, United States	Hard	QF	6–0, 6–3	No. 1
Win	17–7	Jessica Pegula	No. 6	San Diego Open, United States	Hard	SF	4–6, 6–2, 6–2	No. 1
Win	18–7	Daria Kasatkina	No. 8	WTA Finals, United States	Hard (i)	RR	6–2, 6–3	No. 1	5–1
Win	19–7	Caroline Garcia	No. 6	WTA Finals, United States	Hard (i)	RR	6–3, 6–2	No. 1	2–1
Win	20–7	Coco Gauff	No. 4	WTA Finals, United States	Hard (i)	RR	6–3, 6–0	No. 1	5–0
Loss	20–8	Aryna Sabalenka	No. 7	WTA Finals, United States	Hard (i)	SF	6–2, 2–6, 6–1	No. 1	4–2
2023
Loss	20–9	Jessica Pegula	No. 3	United Cup, Australia	Hard	SF	6–2, 6–2	No. 1	4–1

JamesAndersoon (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The new layout is good, apart from that the loss record should be the way around. Also, if you believe the "Record against top 10 players" section is useful, the last two rows, H2H M and H2H %, should be removed as they are duplicated. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you. JamesAndersoon (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this should be applied ONLY for new players pages, the old pages with these tables already in Wikipedia should stay the same, it is a lot of work to redo all these pages and also deleting good information already in Wikipedia. Sashona (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to different charts for different pages, and while it will take work, it will slow and methodical. And it's not really good information. No ne cares about how someone did against the No. 200 player just because 10 years ago they were ranked No. 9. That is really trivial stuff and has to get updated on every page whenever another player hit's No. 10 for the first time in their lives. Then we have to go back and check and re-add a new player. So it's not like those charts are ever done. Someone has to do the original research to find whom that new No. 10 ever played and fix all those charts. And since there are also trivial listings for number 11-20 players, it's not just if someone makes it to No. 10 it's if the make the top 20. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I changed the header to simply Rank to make it more standard and removed the h2h%. That adds extra width that we really don't need... the record should stand for itself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Removed the bolding from the No. 1 designation per MOS:BOLD. It adds nothing to the table. The green fluorescent background is already a bit of an eye sore but when combined with bold text it becomes very distracting, making it almost impossible to focus on any other part of the table.--Wolbo (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It certainly could be a less bright green... more like the win green in the win loss column. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I like the formatting of this new table. Thanks JamesAndersoon for adding it. However, I don't see why this means the old 'Record against top 10 players' tables have to be removed. The suggestion to remove has little consensus and is being pushed mainly just by one reader (Fyunck(click)). The old table is not "a ridiculous trivia table" but rather answers the useful question of how player X has previously performed against player Y, which is informative when these players meet again in future matches. The new table does not do this: it instead answers the question of how well player X has performed against a variety of other opponents at the time they happened to be in the top 10, which to my mind is a more esoteric question and not one that is often asked. If this change is applied widely, this could result in a lot of information being lost from many pages, almost solely because of the opinion of one reader, even though many others may find it useful. Rather than insisting on deleting the work of others, why not instead focus instead on the many other improvements that can be made to these tennis pages? Tffff (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There have been others who agree and have removed the info besides me. One of the improvements would be to get rid of those trivial arbitrary tables. They have top 10 ans top 20 players listed but most have not participated in these tables when they had that ranking. Some have never been ranked in the top 10 when they played the player in question. One of the complaints about tennis articles (especially the career statistic articles is they violate WP:NOTDATABASE. Remember this is for all readers, not just the few that love trivial stats. Most would never care about how Swiatek did against a player that was never ranked above 80 whenever they have played. That's what this stat table is. It's trivia. Do you have a link to a source that publishes this trivia table? If not it would likely be Original Research. The table of who she has beaten that was in the top 10 when they played is certainly viable stuff. We can open this up to all of wikipedia to see if most non tennis folks think it's relative? It'll be a wikiwide rfc so we can get a large sampling. I worry they may not like a lot of the charts in the article, so more might have to go, but at least we'd know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Two other things. One... in the chart you want, since it takes research, it's exceedingly difficult to know if it's accurate and not missing players. Every time a player reaches No. 20 or No. 10 for the first time, every singles player who has these charts on their article has to be researched to see if they ever played this new top 20 player. Doesn't matter if they played when the newly ranked player was No. 311 in the world, they get plopped in the chart. We now have to check every other players that played them and do the same... some may have played as a professional but in the minor league ITF or Challenger tours. I'm telling you this is exactly what Wikipedia does not want in data collection. Two... as a compromise. It's far from my first choice but perhaps if the new chart were expanded to include top 20 "at the time they played" instead of only top 10 "at the time they played", it would be a reasonable balance. It's easier to trace since it won't require back checking once created. When they are top 20 and they play, it's simply a new addition to that one player's chart, since we do them in chronological order. Top 20 are still good players, just not top 10. I still think it's overkill to include that many, but I wouldn't argue against it if it replaced the trivial original research charts of players who were ever in the top 10 or top 20, even if they are 37 and now ranked 135. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

One thing to add. If the list expands to top 20, consider to split the list into mutiple ones (and better to add subsection by years) as I expect the list would be excessively long and would likely to read negatively comfortable. Also, a good opportunity to practise MOS:DTT. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Well it's not my first choice because of how long it would be. We could go the other way and not have a table with every single match played against a top 10 player at the time they played. Why do we need every single match? We could instead use the other top 10 table style, expand it to top 20, but now only have it for players who were ranked that when they played. Each player would be listed once with record, hard, clay, grass, and last match. Do it alphabetically and add an extra column for that player's rank. Maybe that's all we really need. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, this would be the result:

Player	Record	Win %	Hard	Clay	Grass	Last match	Rank	IŚR
Simona Halep	1–2	33%	0–1	1–1	–	Lost (6–3, 1–6, 4–6) at 2021 Australian Open	No. 2	No. 17

But I am concerned that this layout is misleading. Random readers may be mistook record as H2H, especially given the fact that the layout is barely different from the former one. Unnamelessness (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess you are correct, it would be tough to understand. What if the record column said "top 20 record" and we added a column that was overall head to head? I also did not include a win% on purpose and I'm not a big fan of abbreviations if we can avoid it.

Player	Top 20 record	Hard	Clay	Grass	Last match	Opponent rank	Świątek rank	Overall record
Simona Halep	1–2	0–1	1–1	–	Lost (6–3, 1–6, 4–6) at 2021 Australian Open	No. 2	No. 17	1–3

So I was thinking more along these lines. I'm not saying it's ideal, but I'm wondering do we need every single match with every single round and score? Is that overkill? I want to work with everyone to see if we can fine tune the charts and make it better for the majority of our readers without putting too much trivial info in their faces. I have no issue with the current top 10 when met chart the way it is. I was just trying to see if there was a compromise out there. There are so many players that squeak into the top 10, never to be seen again in the top 40. Maybe if it had been a top 5 at anytime chart I'd have shaken my head and just moved on. Or if it weren't appearing on so many players bios. Siniaková has it in her stats, it's huge, and she's never been ranked higher than 31. Or Siegemund who's never been ranked higher than 27 and hers is also really long. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess it would be better to stay with the layout that JamesAndersoon introduced. Yes, it may not be perfect, but at least it is verifiable. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. It's not trivial, is easily updatable, and is verifiable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)