Ratty wrote:

---

Oh I'm feeling in need of a bit of an argument ...

"Laura's senior career so far does indicate that at this stage in her career, she does fatigue mentally and physicially as the week progresses, her first two matches of the week are often her best. "

This is cherry-picking an example to "prove" a hypothesis; what a statto would call Confirmation Bias. A technique beloved of supporters of Complementary Medicine to defend their absurd beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary ...

"Luckily as she gets stronger and more mature she will be able to turn this around."

This is nothing more than wish-fulfilment.

"Players that get there too quickly before they're quite ready often suffer a setback take Oudin for example."

More Confirmation Bias, what about all of the people who did not suffer a setback?

 

---

I would have never thought a few brief post match comments would have provoked such a response.

I have followed Laura's career very closely since she won junior Wimby and also watched her play when there has been a live stream available. Therefore I feel
I am qualified to give an opinion after Laura's matches and there is plenty of evidence to back up my statements. Laura is only 16 and so has alot to learn on the court. I have said this before and I stand by it, that Laura won't peak before the age of 20. Physicially I would say she is not anywhere near her eventual peak. During Wimbledon this year you could clearly hear she was out of breath after long points. Similar in a way to Andy when he first came onto the scene. Therefore she finds it difficult to repeat high level performances day after day at this stage of her career. Also when you are playing at the highest level mental focus is that much more tiring and again as Laura matures she will find it easier to focus for longer periods. There is a reason why the WTA tour brought in the Age Eligibilty Rules so that young players of Laura's age would not burnout trying to compete at this level on a regular basis when not fully developed physicially and more mentally mature.

I also think that making a big breakthrough i.e by having a hot streak one week when your game really hasn't permanently moved up to that level is not ideal, because expectations are raised and the player is unable to repeat the same level of performance and then has a setback.

Clearly winning the junior title at such a young age put huge expectations on Laura, some e.g being the future star of the WTA tour(ridiculous hype), will always provide ammunition to the critics that Laura will never match those expectation and thus be a disappointment. Poor movement is likely to prevent Laura from reaching the very top of the game, but I see her being able to maintain a top 30 ranking for the majority of her career, not too shabby for a British tennis player.

The strength of Laura's game is her serve and her ball striking ability, can create angles as well as power. Also her mentality is a big strength and weakness at the same time. When 100% focussed she tends to convert break point opportunities and save them, but when nervous, she can serve DFs and let leading positions slip.

Laura has made good progress this year and been very consistent. She has started to win the majority of her 3 set matches, unlike last year. Her losses against lower ranked players are defendable as one was on red clay( a surface Laura will always struggle with), Hampton ( now near to the top 100), Babos( a future top 100 player) and a clay court specialist , shortly after Laura returned from injury. You would have to say Laura's current form is of a player ranked 80-125 on a hard/ grass surface. Her peers have also struggled to make rapid transition up the senior ranking as well so the speed of her development cannot be critised to heavily.

indiana wrote:

---

Re Katie, Mel, and "possibly even Anne" the top 100 rankings are of course achieved by a full year's results so were based on quite a period of better results. I do have some fears for them getting back there, but they have each shown ability to play at a level higher than they have been recently, so there must be a chance that they may get back there.  They are not searching for the unattainable because they have done it before, it is a question of working to find it again.

 

---

I've got my Leonard Mlodinow book out, so it seem a waste not to put your hypothesis to the sword. He quotes the story of a baseball player called Roger Maris, who over the 1961 season broke Babe Ruth's record, with 61 home runs.

Ratty wrote:

---

 

indiana wrote:

---

Re Katie, Mel, and "possibly even Anne" the top 100 rankings are of course achieved by a full year's results so were based on quite a period of better results. I do have some fears for them getting back there, but they have each shown ability to play at a level higher than they have been recently, so there must be a chance that they may get back there.  They are not searching for the unattainable because they have done it before, it is a question of working to find it again.

 

---

I've got my Leonard Mlodinow book out, so it seem a waste not to put your hypothesis to the sword. He quotes the story of a baseball player called Roger Maris, who over the 1961 season broke Babe Ruth's record, with 61 home runs.

"Maris had never before hit more than 39 home runs in a year, much less anywhere near 60. .... He never again hit 50 or even 40."

---

Sorry, so this Roger Maris guy was never close to his great achievement before or afterwards. May I be so bold as to suggest this is serious cherry-picking to "prove" a hypothesis ( what some stattos apparently call Confirmation Bias, a term that either passed me by in my studies or my memory is fading yet more ),  and it actually seems to fit rather better this time than the most recent reference.

Anyway, I hardly have any really strong hypothesis to be shot down given "I do have some fears for them getting back there"  Saying that given they have been in the top 100 before they must have a "chance" of getting back there was hardly the most out there statement I have ever made  

However, if I particularly wanted to, I am sure that I could cherry pick not only say Andre Agassi but numerous other sportsmen and women who achieved, fell away and came again.

( edit :  ah, I see as I wrote some similar thinking was around, though I will not cherry-pick this one other comment as confirmation of my thoughts )

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 28th of September 2010 06:58:18 PM

Ollie Rochus? Seems to me he has been in and out of the top 100 a few times, though I admit my memory is none too good.

Thanks folk for your assistance.  I wish I hadn't said that I was sure I could come up with numerous sportsmen and women who had achieved ( more relevantly for a shortish time ), fell away and then came again.

Because I err can't really 

The point remains though is that I never particularly said Katie, Anne and Mel would come again, indeed said  I had some fears about them getting back.  But just that there must be a chance given that they had been there before. 

Ratty wrote:

---

From Wikipedia:

"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs."

Touched a few nerves, obviously ...

 

---

Time for my penny worth!  IRONY ALERT!

Could Ratty have confirmed his own bias?!  I think Ratty has.  This is a circular argument and that doesn't work - unless one person identifies or feels that their interpretation of the facts is irrefutable.... in which case it works for them...  What larks!!

-- Edited by Danjn on Wednesday 29th of September 2010 07:44:42 AM