The gut is right!

Preface: BOCTAOE.

Happiness usually results when one's subjective instincts are validated by more or less scientific methods.

In our somewhat sports-nutty home, Sumana and I made the observation that top mens' tennis players, as general practice, seemed to cruise through their early games without expending too much effort. Basically, they would take it easy, clinch a break, and sail through the match, one set at a time, and by and large on a single break of serve. Imagine my delight when I found out that not only did economists agree, but that this had also been objectively proved!

The basic premise of the linked blog post and the PDF are actually different: the post talks about how the clustered scoring system in tennis differs from a cumulative one like, say, basketball, and the paper is about "Gender Differences in Performance in Competitive Environments".

The paper is pretty revealing about several aspects of tennis though, and a particularly good commentary on the state of the sport in the 2006-2007 period. From its abstract:

It finds that at crucial junctures of the match the probability that a point ends in an unforced error increases substantially for women, but remains unchanged for men. Data on serve speed, on first serve percentages and on rally length suggest that women play a more conservative and less aggressive strategy as points become more important.

I am going to use the blog post and paper to make some (wholly unsubstantiated by data, as of now) observations.

On the whole, in the last 5 years or so, mens' matches seem to be more evenly matched. This can be attributed to both the phenomenon of the top players cranking it up a notch at crucial points, but also to the fact that the 'spread' in the abilities of the top mens players appears to be a whole lot lesser than the similar 'spread' for the good ladies of the WTA Tour.

I suspect that the top players realise both this and the findings of the paper intuitively, and hence the women set out to 'demolish' their easier opponents, while the men prefer to conserve energy to 'peak' at the right time, which might be proved if one looked at the number of bagels and breadsticks for the men vs those for the womens' matches, over the last 5 years.

Ah, if only there were a StatsGuru equivalent for tennis!

Cricinfo FAIL

Edit: A little clarity for the ???? crowd - where is the 'smiling Ricky Ponting'?

Interesting thought

Oscar Pistorius, a 21-year-old South African double-amputee sprinter, wanted to compete in the Olympics. NOT the Paralympics, but the regular one - with prosthetic limbs.

The IAAF (fairly, in my opinion) disqualified him because of the ridiculous mechanical advantage he would have over the other runners because, essentially, the man's wearing springs where his legs should've been! However, recently, the CAS upheld his appeal and overturned the IAAF ban, thus allowing him to compete.

This is where I get to the point. It would be terribly interesting to have some sort of a "Supralympics" where basically, anything goes. Steroids, bionic attachments, jet-engines in shoes, and other assorted artifical enhancements! A commenter on Slashdot echoes my feelings:

I've wanted this ever since I watched the Olympics and realized how bored I was. Putting people who won the genetic lottery into similar training programs and seeing who comes out on top isn't that interesting to me. But pushing people 'beyond' their natural limits, and in the process potentially expanding the meaning of being human and the possibilities for the species at large...that's interesting.

It would be, indeed!

Reflection on the Mumbai Indians vs KKR whitewash

It wasn't a Twenty20 match, it was a Twenty match.

Badum-tish!

Not cricket? Think again!

All too often, one is left stranded for words when Captain Jojo brandishes his cricket-purist tendencies in one's face. The combination of a lack of suitable eloquence, and laziness in bothering to string together a coherent argument meant one would always come out second-best in such discussions. The hunt for a reasonable argument in favour of Twenty20 games of cricket was well afoot. Okay, not WELL afoot, but it was chugging along (again, that laziness..)

Until now.

Peter Roebuck's article, and a very nice clutch of comments following it, do the job very nicely.

No version of cricket featuring fearless tacticians, shrewd selections, daring strokeplayers, fast bowlers, legspinners, swift running and athletic fielding deserves to be scorned.

As I see it, all that is stiff-upper-lip talk for:

In your face, purists!

Update: As bolsters, a couple of earlier articles, one again by Peter Roebuck, and one by Lawrence Booth.

Short open letter

Dear IPL commentators,

Stop ruining the sixes that are hit - nobody gives a rodent's posterior about the DLF Maximum Sixes.

Kindly STFU about it.

kthxbye.

London

The actions of a government reveals its proclivities.

So, for instance, when Nandigram chaps are fired at, you know the West Bengal government means business. When a state government concerns itself with regulating attire at cricket matches, you know where its priorities lie.

But what happens when government entities show an rather disturbing tendency to make decisions that tend towards the pelvic region?

In early-to-mid 2007, the Beeb asked its users to come up with their own attempts at designing a logo for the 2012 Olympics. And ended up selecting as one of its 12 best attempts, a most sneaky, yet hilarious design.


And now, the UK's Office of Government Commerce finalized this logo, in their re-branding efforts.


which, on a simple 90-degree clockwise rotation, becomes this:
That guy certainly looks happy, eh?

Hmm... does this mean the UK's relations with The Netherlands and the Down-Under nations will see an upswing? Only time will tell.

In the meanwhile, some ponderables remain - what conclusion can be drawn from this? Is all this intentional, an honest mistake, or a damning psychological indictment of the government's true tendencies?

Simple cricketing hypothesis

Hmmm...