Roger Federer is quite unstoppable at the moment. He just won his 10th Grand Slam title, beating Chile's Fernando Gonzalez in straight sets after some rare tight spots in the opening set.
I am a huge Pete Sampras fan, and in my view, Federer has taken his game to even higher standards. The same grace and power. No ugly double-handed back-hands or grunts. Almost perfect all-round game, and an ice-cool exterior under any pressure.
Federer has three crucial qualities that nobody else seems to possess:
1. The ability to somehow return any serve.
2. The talent to know where the lines are and place the ball inches away from them without compromising on power.
3. A precise backhand overhead, that again catches the lines perfectly.
This guy is amazing! As one fan put it, "Federer is betterer." Couldn't have put it err... better! Ten Grand Slams now, and he should surely beat Sampras' 14 in two or three years. These two share the weakness on clay, though. If Federer can conquer that frontier, it will be the last piece of the puzzle.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
The law of averages in Indian cricket
Sports reporters and commentators just love statistics. They probably like the certainty of numbers. A score of 100 is better than a score of 10. Black and white. No greys.
Of course, some sports are riddled with extreme statistics. Major Leage Baseball (MLB) in the US is a prime example. In no other sport have I come across the blatant abuse of statistics. Here is a an example, totally hypothetical, but highly representative of baseball commentary on television:
"The pitcher has a 0.25 ERA against switch-hitters batting left-handed at this particular ground during the month of July, when the temperature was so-and-so degrees and my mother baked her famous cookies."
What is the sample size on such an average? One? Two? Can we even call it a sample?!!
Back to cricket, the topic of this post. When people talk about strong teams such as Australia or South Africa, the law of averages is often thrown out as a desperate attempt at hope. Australia has been winning a lot of 5-day matches of late, so they are due for a loss. Ricky Ponting has scored enough runs for the year, so there is a good chance that he will fail soon. With the Indian team, the law of averages operates on a much shorter time frame: from day to day, within the same 5-day match!
How many times have we seen our team play extremely well on day 1, and then squander it all away the very next day? The current series against South Africa is a case in point. They won the first match comfortably, and were on an adrenaline high. They could so easily have drawn the next game and maintained their 1-0 lead, yet they decided to combust on the final couple of days and actually lost!
With the series at 1-1, and a fairly decent batting display on the first day of the third game, they lost 5 wickets for 19 runs so that a chance for a series win all but evaporated on day 2. And now, we fight day 3. But before we jump all over their backs, let us step back and think. It is not really the team's fault. It is just the law of averages at work.
Of course, some sports are riddled with extreme statistics. Major Leage Baseball (MLB) in the US is a prime example. In no other sport have I come across the blatant abuse of statistics. Here is a an example, totally hypothetical, but highly representative of baseball commentary on television:
"The pitcher has a 0.25 ERA against switch-hitters batting left-handed at this particular ground during the month of July, when the temperature was so-and-so degrees and my mother baked her famous cookies."
What is the sample size on such an average? One? Two? Can we even call it a sample?!!
Back to cricket, the topic of this post. When people talk about strong teams such as Australia or South Africa, the law of averages is often thrown out as a desperate attempt at hope. Australia has been winning a lot of 5-day matches of late, so they are due for a loss. Ricky Ponting has scored enough runs for the year, so there is a good chance that he will fail soon. With the Indian team, the law of averages operates on a much shorter time frame: from day to day, within the same 5-day match!
How many times have we seen our team play extremely well on day 1, and then squander it all away the very next day? The current series against South Africa is a case in point. They won the first match comfortably, and were on an adrenaline high. They could so easily have drawn the next game and maintained their 1-0 lead, yet they decided to combust on the final couple of days and actually lost!
With the series at 1-1, and a fairly decent batting display on the first day of the third game, they lost 5 wickets for 19 runs so that a chance for a series win all but evaporated on day 2. And now, we fight day 3. But before we jump all over their backs, let us step back and think. It is not really the team's fault. It is just the law of averages at work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)