Week 5 - Great Britain F3 ($10,000) - Sheffield (Hard)

indiana · Tennis legend

RE: Week 5 - Great Britain F3 ($10,000) - Sheffield (Hard)

indiana · Tennis legend

OK, before anyone asks, I am not drunk !!

While on my mobile, I have just ( not for the first time ) posted in error, before I had gone back over to attempt to fix the many typos ( and I can't retrospectively edit a post from my mobile ).

Most of the letters are there in the right order ! :)

RJA · Hall of fame

Indiana is being too kind. If we were take Ratty's ludicrous ideas at face value we would probably conclude that Federer's 17 Grand Slam titles were just anomalies and that he has now regressed to his mean.

imoen · Admin: Moderator+Tennis Legend

Shame to see Dan C having to retire but at least the free points are going to a Brit - maybe that's something that could go in the "pro" list for flooding British futures with British players rather than sending them abroad

Nice to see Dan S reaching the latter stages again as well - can someone explain the "fancy" nickname to me? I've obviously missed something, I assume it was something said on here?

Shame Harry lost so comprehensively today especially if injury played a part but good to see him still giving his opponent respect and it doesn't take away from the fact that he is moving forward.

As for regression to the mean, whilst I'm no mathematician surely the mean is the average playing level and therefore constantly changing as the data set increases. It is therefore true that a tennis player can play above their average level to beat someone ranked higher, and then lose next match by reverting closer to that average level - but as the preceeding match is now included within the average level, said average level is now fractionally higher than before. They can therefore both "regress to the mean" and make steady improvement in their playing level.

Based on my reading of everybody's posts in this argument I think I've just proved both sides are correct. As such, do you think we can either move on completely or at the very least remove the hyperbole and personal attacks in any responses. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion, that is the point of a message board but this thread is getting close to forgetting the respect for those who disagree with us that we normally do so well.

Moderator-y admonishment over

Good luck to our boys in the semis tomorrow.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

as you say, moving on . . in answer to your first question, someone (can't remember who) posted:

'Fancy Dan to win the next match' or 'Fancy Dan to take the title' (or some such comment i.e. fancy as a verb).

And someone else picked up on 'fancy Dan' (adjective) which lead to 'plain Dan' and so on . . . .

Re the tennis, it's been great to see Dan S and Dave, (and Ed too, although slightly less) really step up and take advantage of these futures and use them as Challenger borderline players should i.e. to get some good wins, some decent points and to lay down a marker.

indiana · Tennis legend

Thanks, Imoen, and admonishment taken on board.

In truth I still do have quite a problem with the use of "regression to mean" here and I actually disagree with some of your own thoughts and as such to me you have not "proved both sides are correct" ( in short, to do with not only are we adding new data, the older data becomes increasingly less relevant to any real "mean" ( yes, a mathematical mean over time, but not really indicative of the player's most likely current standard, which has been the implication of that term in Ratty's references to "regression to mean" ).

Apologies to these less anoraky about such things, and to Imoen re her worthy consensual and moving on intentions, but anyways...

indiana · Tennis legend

Re the tennis, it is such a pity ( some may feel a stronger word more appropriate ) that we now clearly have a group of "Challenger borderline players" and such a dearth of British Challengers.

SMC1809 · All-time great

indiana wrote:
Thanks, Imoen, and admonishment taken on board.

In truth I still do have quite a problem with the use of "regression to mean" here and I actually disagree with some of your own thoughts and as such to me you have not "proved both sides are correct" ( in short, to do with not only are we adding new data, the older data becomes increasingly less relevant to any real "mean" ( yes, a mathematical mean over time, but not really indicative of the player's most likely current standard, which has been the implication of that term in Ratty's references to "regression to mean" ).

Apologies to these less anoraky about such things, and to Imoen re her worthy consensual and moving on intentions, but anyways...

Isn't Imoen a he??

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
as you say, moving on . . in answer to your first question, someone (can't remember who) posted:

'Fancy Dan to win the next match' or 'Fancy Dan to take the title' (or some such comment i.e. fancy as a verb).

And someone else picked up on 'fancy Dan' (adjective) which lead to 'plain Dan' and so on . . . .

Re the tennis, it's been great to see Dan S and Dave, (and Ed too, although slightly less) really step up and take advantage of these futures and use them as Challenger borderline players should i.e. to get some good wins, some decent points and to lay down a marker.

Guilty as charged, your Honour.

Yes. Paulisi wrote before Dan's final against Dave R last week, "Fancy Dan to sneak this one".

To which I responded, "Is that his new nickname, "Fancy Dan" ? "

I will accept any punishment as handed down by the court cry

Edit

Oh. And I am sure CD already knew exactly "who done it" but was far too diplomatic to drop me in the you know what. I owe you one CD wink

-- Edited by Bob in Spain on Friday 31st of January 2014 08:51:07 AM

imoen · Admin: Moderator+Tennis Legend

Thanks for the explanations for the new name, Fancy Dan it is

And no punishment necessary BiS, at least not from me given I played your role in the creation of "Dammit" for Gasquet so I would have to give myself the same penance

P.S. SMC1809 Last time I checked I was still a she

tennis gossip · Improver

The mean theory can only be applied when an average level has been established and sustained. It is used to explain anomalies that occur away from the mean, ie fluke results. So it would only apply to established sportsmen who have reached there given level.

I think the reason the original post caused such a reaction was that it implied the result was a fluke, especially as it said that either Harry had played well above his level or his opponent had played well below his.

Over the past few months, presumably since starting working with Josh, Harry has had some great results, and interestingly if you look back beyond to 12 months, he actually nearly beat Yannick when they last played, he lost in 3 very tight sets. I'd say it looks like the level was there, and Josh has brought it out.

So, basically what I'm trying to say is the mean theory cant be applied in this case as the base level has not, (and probably won't be for a number of years yet), been established.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Bob in Spain wrote:
Coup Droit wrote:
as you say, moving on . . in answer to your first question, someone (can't remember who) posted:

'Fancy Dan to win the next match' or 'Fancy Dan to take the title' (or some such comment i.e. fancy as a verb).

And someone else picked up on 'fancy Dan' (adjective) which lead to 'plain Dan' and so on . . . .

Re the tennis, it's been great to see Dan S and Dave, (and Ed too, although slightly less) really step up and take advantage of these futures and use them as Challenger borderline players should i.e. to get some good wins, some decent points and to lay down a marker.
Guilty as charged, your Honour.
Yes. Paulisi wrote before Dan's final against Dave R last week, "Fancy Dan to sneak this one".
To which I responded, "Is that his new nickname, "Fancy Dan" ? "
I will accept any punishment as handed down by the court
Edit
Oh. And I am sure CD already knew exactly "who done it" but was far too diplomatic to drop me in the you know what. I owe you one CD

-- Edited by Bob in Spain on Friday 31st of January 2014 08:51:07 AM

You credit me with too much :)

I 'suspected' it was you - smile - but wasn't 100% sure and couldn't be bothered to go back and check . . . .

However, you did the honourable thing and 'fessed up ! Your old headmaster would be proud . . .

paulisi · Tennis legend

Going back to the debate, i think mean theory is ok to use, but you can also use, the horses for courses logic i.e some people struggle against other and vice versa.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Great set seemingly from Dave - 6-2 . The Dutchman didn't hold serve once.

TMH · Futures qualifying

Coup Droit wrote:
Great set seemingly from Dave - 6-2 . The Dutchman didn't hold serve once.

So just two holds in the entire set?