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 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.

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:
 * {|class="sortable wikitable" style=text-align:center

!Player !width=70|Record !Win % !width=70|Hard !width=70|Clay !width=70|Grass !Last match !Rank !IŚR
 * align=left|🇷🇴 Simona Halep
 * 1–2
 * bgcolor=eee8AA|
 * 0–1
 * 1–1
 * align="left" bgcolor="#ebc2af" |Lost (6–3, 1–6, 4–6) at 2021 Australian Open
 * bgcolor="thistle" |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.
 * {|class="wikitable" style=text-align:center
 * 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.
 * {|class="wikitable" style=text-align:center

!Player !Top 20 record !Hard !Clay !Grass !Last match !Opponent rank !Świątek rank !width=100|Overall record
 * align=left|🇷🇴 Simona Halep
 * 1–2
 * 0–1
 * 1–1
 * align="left" bgcolor="#ebc2af" |Lost (6–3, 1–6, 4–6) at 2021 Australian Open
 * bgcolor="thistle" |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)
 * 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)

Scrolling top 10 chart - 29 May 2024
I have no real issues with this style, though it is far harder to code imho. What was wrong with the old style that is perfectly ok html coding? Did anyone ask a person with a screen reader if there are issues? I do miss the years being centered and on their own line but it's no big deal since the year is not the focus here. It does need to be set to 100% font size like all other charts (except for extreme width reasons). Also, when scrolling down on the long pages (like Novak Djokovics), shouldn't the top row stay static so we can always see it? That would be better. I also had no idea you could place the sorting arrows below the text. That is cool! Dump that align center though. It looks weird without all the columns being left justified. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * To follow up on what Fyunck added above. I applied sticky row and column headers to preserve space with both horizontal and vertical scrolling for mobile users, which constitute the majority of daily wiki visitors. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Winning Streak at the French Open
Świątek's 18 match winning streak at the French Open is nothing to joke about. It is an pretty impressive fest and it deserves to be included in this article. It is not a 2+ title streak at an random WTA 250 tournament, it is an long winning streak at an grand slam event. Also, why is the "4" grand slam win a criteria for a list of such kind?  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 03:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Who said there was such a criteria? I never heard of it as far as I can recall. Usually these things are player specific as far as importance. Heck there have only been four women to ever win three consecutive French Majors (never more) since it's inception in 1925, so winning 2+ is a pretty big deal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fyunck(click) That is why I added that table because winning 18 match consecutively at any tournament is impressive but winning at a Grand Slam is on an another level. I mentioned the 4 Grand slam criteria because that's what said while removing that table. He said "There have been many much longer streaks than 2+ consecutive titles whose match win streaks are not listed. A single sentence of mention is enough. No need to list every streak at any slam that is under at least 4 consecutive titles or at least an open era record". I even have ethe sources to back that table.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK  04:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With the four majors he is correct that there have been many longer streaks. But two things here. NO one has won more than three French majors in a row (skipping it matters). If Swiatec wins her third in a row (still a tall order) she will join an elite club of five. And also, look at her 37 match win streak. We include that because it is long and it huge for her. Many many women have had longer win streaks... much longer... years longer. But it's here because it big for her. Justine Henin has her win streak included and it was only 32. Jessica Pegula has her 9-match winning streak in doubles included, because it's her best. Sabalenka has her 15-match win streak included, because it's her best (not sure about keeping that one). Now what would be good is to have those charts with a scroll bar like we do the Top 10 wins chart. The streak table shouldn't be any longer than that table. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose we take this discussion to the article guidelines subpage as it pertains more to the scope of the articles. Plus, we have yet to reach consensus on certain tennis player's career statistics pages. @PrinceofPunjab, what Fyunck mentioned earlier there have been many longer instances per slam and yet they are not included. 2+ titles is very bare minimum, not worth mentioning. Don't get me started on the big 3 and none of their slam match win streak not being listed and nobody bats an eye. Nadal's section has a bit more bloat with semis and finals win streak, but that's a different story. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No other player has a longer consecutive streak at consecutive French Opens. It seems like a no brainer to keep her 21 wins table. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC regarding the inclusion of the French Open winning streak
Should the article include the 21-match winning streak of the French Open? Unnamelessness (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Reasons below:
 * 1) The only table that is good to be added, according to the discussion, is the pure, traditional, classical winning streak table.
 * 2) This is not all-time record at the French Open. Chris Evert (29), Monica Seles (25), and Justine Henin (24) are ahead.
 * 3) No need to add any sort of winning streak table, like per tournament, per round, per court, etc., unless it is an official record. The table itself is highly WP:NOTSTAT-challenged. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Certainly this deserves a prominent mention and even detail on classic matches that contribute(d) to that streak - but a table isn't required. I have read the referal to the project page and I agree with sentimnt there that this talk is the place to reach consensus.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't a question of "required" though, almost all the charts on other player pages aren't required. We are talking about singling Swiatek out compared to other great players of her time. She has two charts if this is included... look at the others I mentioned who have many more, none of which are close to records like this one is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Against adding a 21-match winning streak based on the reasons stated above.
 * 2. Match-win streak list per slam. None of those records have their own tables. Why is it more special than others? 6+ or even 10+ title streaks (which is a much longer match streak) in doubles don't have their own tables. Why should this one be any different?
 * 3. Per round, court (surface) match win streak tables exist in other BLP's career stat pages and yet they are not removed... We are trying to cut down on those not add more. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - These things are usually player specific if an event is fairly epic, and this one certainly is. No female player has ever won more than 21 straight matches over consecutive French Opens. She is currently tied with Seles and Henin. These charts tend to only get placed when we have a great deed performed. Djokovic has not just a winning streak, but a winning streak in Australia, an indoor streak, a Grand Slam streak, a Chinese streak. Williams has two different win streaks with different totals, and an encompassed Grand Slam win streak. None of which are close to records. Federer has five win streaks on his article... United States win streaks, grass, hard court, and two mismatched totals regular win streaks. Swiatek has her regular win streak and her consecutive French titles chart, which is a record since no female has ever won more than three consecutive titles. So two charts. This seems a no brainer with:
 * 1. All-time record of 21 straight wins over consecutive French Opens. None of them skipped over.
 * 2. Considering what is allowed for other players this is much more warranted. She shouldn't be singled out because her name isn't Willims or Federer.
 * Very easily should be kept. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support This is my first time participating in such a discussion, so please forgive any mistakes I may have made. My stance is supportive. However, I am surprised to see some users downplaying the significance of this event compared to other tournaments. We are discussing a Grand Slam tournament here. Winning a Challenger tournament three times consecutively is incredibly difficult, but securing a Grand Slam title three times in a row is an entirely different achievement. Furthermore, as Fyunck mentioned, all other streaks had gaps of two to three years within their duration and spanned five to six years, whereas Świątek’s success occurred over three consecutive years. LiamKorda 04:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For clarification: both Monica Seles and Justine Henin won 21 straight matches across 3 consecutive French Opens - shared record with Iga (see list of women's singles slam champions). Their OVERALL streaks (longer than 21 matches won) span across non-consecutive FOs. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)