And that's especially true in sports. How many times have you heard how Team A has never beaten Team B when trailing at the half, on the road, in January, when it's below forty degrees in Houston? Or that Player One has a perfect record against Player Two in games played in the southern hemisphere before noon Pacific Time? Add enough caveats -- no matter how ridiculous -- to an assumption, and you can make a case for any result.

Dominika Cibulkova lost her third round to top-seeded Caroline Wozniacki in straight sets, but it was the teeny Slovak who came out the aggressor. She barreled off thirty-one winners against the world #1, who only scored eleven of her own. She was a little sloppy -- over forty unforced errors, almost four times Caro's -- but that's more an indication of the chances she took versus a highly favored opponent. While Wozniacki seemed content to knock balls back over the net, it was Cibulkova who came up with the risky, more imaginative play, and maybe should have won the match.

And then you have the surprising match between last year's runner-up Justine Henin and one-time French Open champ Svetlana Kuznetsova. The Russian had a surprisingly poor 2-16 record against her third-round opponent over their eight-plus year history and had never beaten her at a Slam -- in fact her only two wins came in tight three setters. And as one of my friends pointed out, Henin had only lost at the Australian Open to players ranked -- either at the time or at some point -- #1 in the world, and Kuzey topped out at #2.

So what can we learn from all this? Well for one thing, numbers -- whether stats, scorelines or match length -- clearly don't tell the whole story. And for another, past performance is no indication of future results. That's not to say that keeping and monitoring such minute records doesn't have it's place -- but it certainly can't beat watching the darn games!
No comments:
Post a Comment