|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:22:05 GMT -5
Martina breaks at 15. 6-1, 3-1.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 10:22:47 GMT -5
Please give me an example for something involving random proceedings that does not even out over an infinite space of time. Draws. Wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:23:15 GMT -5
Pretty much but she hasn't said it herself. Something like Monica.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:23:48 GMT -5
Another easy hold for Marti.
She leads 6-1, 4-1.
|
|
|
Post by R. Black on Jun 3, 2006 10:25:12 GMT -5
I do think in very long term (not just one or a couple of years), draws would even out for all players- if there is always about the same number of "good", "average" and "bad" player in each draw. But players don't play long enough for that. Amongst the 1000 players, there *could* be some unlucky ones in short term.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:27:03 GMT -5
Hingis breaks again after Lisjak led 30-0. 6-1, 5-1. Hingis serving for the match.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 10:29:01 GMT -5
I prefer 'succinct' and 'concise'. I prefer 'worldly' to 'slutty'.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:29:26 GMT -5
From 40-0 to Deuce. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:30:14 GMT -5
Hingis converts her 4th matchpoint and wins 6-1, 6-1. Yay!
Nice match. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 10:30:21 GMT -5
I don't think so, Godom. But many things INVOLVING random proceedings do not level. Note the key word.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 10:31:08 GMT -5
I do think in very long term (not just one or a couple of years), draws would even out for all players- if there is always about the same number of "good", "average" and "bad" player in each draw. But players don't play long enough for that. Amongst the 1000 players, there *could* be some unlucky ones in short term. This gets close to defining a few of the problems with the "even" argument, but doesn't quite hit it. Right track though.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 10:31:43 GMT -5
Match Summary Lisjak (CRO) Hingis (SUI) 1st Serve % 27 of 48 = 56 % 24 of 40 = 60 % Aces 0 2 Double Faults 5 0 Unforced Errors 27 8 Winning % on 1st Serve 12 of 27 = 44 % 17 of 24 = 71 % Winning % on 2nd Serve 7 of 21 = 33 % 12 of 16 = 75 % Winners (Including Service) 15 25 Receiving Points Won 6 of 40 = 15 % 29 of 43 = 67 % Break Point Conversions 0 of 0 = % 5 of 9 = 56 % Net Approaches 1 of 7 = 14 % 8 of 12 = 67 % Total Points Won 30 58 Fastest Serve 181 km/h 170 km/h Average 1st Serve Speed 168 km/h 154 km/h Average 2nd Serve Speed 128 km/h 131 km/h
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 10:33:22 GMT -5
I don't think so, Godom. But many things INVOLVING random proceedings do not level. Note the key word. Define "level", please.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 10:34:58 GMT -5
I do think in very long term (not just one or a couple of years), draws would even out for all players- if there is always about the same number of "good", "average" and "bad" player in each draw. But players don't play long enough for that. Amongst the 1000 players, there *could* be some unlucky ones in short term. This gets close to defining a few of the problems with the "even" argument, but doesn't quite hit it. Right track though. Just tell us what you know that we don't. We are always willing to learn new insights, aren't we, Cornelius?
|
|
|
Post by molala on Jun 3, 2006 10:37:30 GMT -5
allez, oli!!! hold!!
|
|
|
Post by shenaynay on Jun 3, 2006 10:38:29 GMT -5
Martina is great. Let's bake her a chocolate cake.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 10:41:12 GMT -5
Oh Oli
|
|
|
Post by molala on Jun 3, 2006 10:41:28 GMT -5
Oli
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 10:43:35 GMT -5
Oli.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 10:48:00 GMT -5
Go Novak go!
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 10:50:44 GMT -5
This gets close to defining a few of the problems with the "even" argument, but doesn't quite hit it. Right track though. Just tell us what you know that we don't. We are always willing to learn new insights, aren't we, Cornelius? If we are talking about percentage of good draws and bad draws in a seedless system for one player compared to any other player and then from that trying to establish that it works out to be perfectly fair for all players over a certain span of time, we have some things to get out of the way before we even start. What defines a 'good' draw? What defines a 'bad' draw? What is the length of time in which it would all be even for everyone? If there is one and it exceeds the length of the average career, can the system really be said to be fair? Are not the definitions different from player to player and won't that always be so? How many players would be a bad first round match for Kim Clijsters in Paris? The same as would be for Lisa Raymond? Are not the players different from month to month, day to day, year to year? In moving up and down in capability, it changes their likelihood of obtaining a 'good' or 'bad' draw over time. Different tournaments attract different players in different years. Different players play different tournaments. Some play Tier IVAs where they have a good chance at a 'good' draw whereas if they had played the Tier II that week, they would have a lesser chance, say. Thing change. And because things change, it also means that you also couldn't de-personalize it and say that all World #49's, say, will get 40% good draws, say, over time. Why? All the reasons previously listed. Changes in player quality occupying the spot, changes in player quality being faced by the player. What say you?
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 10:53:55 GMT -5
Hingis is really looking formidable, eh? She'll wax Peer.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 11:03:32 GMT -5
Fit Dave now down two sets.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 11:03:44 GMT -5
That I am way too tired to continue this.
Just this: I said "Over an infinite space of time". Obviously, a regular tennis career doesn't apply here.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 11:10:04 GMT -5
That I am way too tired to continue this. Just this: I said "Over an infinite space of time". Obviously, a regular tennis career doesn't apply here. You said a lot of things, Godom, not that I ever acceded to your terms on this. A regular tennis career tennis career does apply here since that's the subject. It applies whether you could prove it in a vacuum or not. The subject is whether draws are fair for all the players. Whether it evens out. If it does in, say, 50 years, then it's not really fair since nobody plays long enough for it to get fair. I'm sure you understand that. But this doesn't get fair, I'd aver. Too many variables, too many shifting circumstances, too many things we can't predict.
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 3, 2006 11:14:46 GMT -5
Fit Dave now down two sets. He's clearly in the mood for a marathon, wanting to demonstrate to us why he's Fit Dave and not Fat Dave. 5 hours later, he shall be the victor.
|
|
|
Post by shenaynay on Jun 3, 2006 11:18:10 GMT -5
But, Fat Dave is the one who excels at winning from 2 sets down.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 11:18:20 GMT -5
Whether draws are fair for all the players. Whether it evens out. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. FAIR IS NOT = EVEN. EVEN IF ONE PLAYER HAS SHITTY DRAWS IN ALL TOURNAMENTS, IT IS STILL FAIR.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 11:27:00 GMT -5
Whether draws are fair for all the players. Whether it evens out. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. FAIR IS NOT = EVEN. EVEN IF ONE PLAYER HAS SHITTY DRAWS IN ALL TOURNAMENTS, IT IS STILL FAIR. Why? Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions. dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fairI was using them interchangably and I'm not convinced as yet that I shouldn't have been. And even if I shouldn't have, what would it mean? Does that win you the debate? lol. Weak, Godom.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 11:31:28 GMT -5
Hingis is really looking formidable, eh? She'll wax Peer. I'm not so sure. Peer won Istanbul and swatted aside Dementieva without too much trouble. I *hope* Martina waxes Peer, but I'm not as confident as you.
|
|