Ways to Shorten Tennis Matches

1) No lets.
If the ball touches the net during a serve, play on.

2) No infinite deuces.
After the 4th deuce, the player who wins the next point wins the game.

3) No infinite tie-breakers, except the 3rd set in best-of-3 matches, or 5th set in best-of-5 matches.
If the tie-breaker is 10-10,  the player who wins the next point wins the tie-breaker.

4) Wimbledon
In Wimbledon, tie-breaker determines all sets, except the 3rd set in women's championship match, or the 5th set in the men's championship match.
Justification: In the middle rounds, if the 5th set score is 70 games vs 68 games, the winner will be so tired and will have no chance to win in the next round. If the 5th set is of regular length, the winner will have a chance to win in the next round.

An Example of Bad User Interface Design

If you see a User Interface like the following, how can you be sure about the result? Is the result "Moderate"? Or is the result "Strong"?

A better  User Interface would be something like this:

Some of the Most Memorable Sports Moments

Joe Montana’s pass against Dallas Cowboys in the January 10, 1982, NFC Championship Game.

Djokovic’s forehand return of Federer’s serve at US Open semi-final in 2011, on Federer’s match point.

Maradona dribbled past half of the English soccer team, and scored a goal, in the 1986 World Cup.

IQ Test Scores

IQ Test Score = 172

IQ Test Score = 140

IQ Test Score = 147

Top 4 Soccer Leagues

Top 4 Soccer Leagues

Spanish

• Real Madrid
• Barcelona Barca

English

• Manchester United
• Arsenal (London)
• Chelsea (London)
• Manchester City
• Liverpool

German

• Bayern Munich

Italian

• AC Milan
• Juventus (Turin)

Comparing Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal

People have been debating if Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal is the greatest tennis player of all time.

Some people think Federer is the best. But other people ask: If Federer is the best, and Nadal is better than Federer, would that make Nadal the best?

So, between Federer and Nadal, who is better?

I will use a method that I think is fair: to compare their head-to-head record during their prime.

I define Federer’s prime as the period from 2003 Wimbledon to 2010 Australian Open.

I define Nadal’s prime as the period from 2005 French Open to the time beyond Federer’s prime.

So, their primes overlap from 2005 French Open to 2010 Australian Open. Let’s look at their records during this period.

During this period, Federer and Nadal met 18 times.  The record is as follows:

	Federer	Nadal
Total	6	12
Clay	2	9
Grass	2	1
Hard Court	2	2

The conclusion: Nadal is better on clay. Federer is better on grass. They are even on hard court.

Other conclusions: Federer was more consistent on clay than Nadal was on grass and hard court. Federer reached more clay tournament finals than Nadal reached grass or hard court finals.

Other aspects:

Talent: Federer is more talented.

Mental strength: Nadal is mentally stronger.

Endurance during a match: They are equal.

Durability during a season: Federer was more durable in a season.

Scoring Systems in Sports and Politics

“Simpson’s Paradox” is a statistical quirk in that one side wins more points yet loses the contest.

1)   Basketball

There are 2 levels:

Points-->Game

Whoever wins most points wins the game.

“Simpson’s Paradox” is not possible.

2)   Soccer

There are 2 levels:

Points-->Game

Whoever wins most points wins the game.

“Simpson’s Paradox” is not possible.

3)   Volleyball

There are 3 levels:

Points-->Set-->Match

Whoever wins most points wins the set.

Whoever wins most sets wins the match.

“Simpson’s Paradox” is possible.

Example: A vs B: 25:0, 25:0, 23:25, 23:25, 13:15.

A got 103 points, B got 65 points, yet B won the match.

4)   Baseball

There are 2 levels:

Runs ->Game

Whoever wins most runs wins the game.

“Simpson’s Paradox” is not possible.

5)   American Football

There are 2 levels:

Points-->Game

Whoever wins most points wins the game.

“Simpson’s Paradox” is not possible.

6)   Tennis

There are 4 levels:

Points-->Game-->Set-->Match

Whoever wins most points wins the game.

Whoever wins most games wins the set.

Whoever wins most sets wins the match.

“Simpson’s Paradox” is possible.

Example: A vs B: 6:0, 4:6, 4:6.

A won 14 games, B won 12 games, yet B won the match.

7)   Badminton

There are 3 levels:

Points->Set->Match

Whoever wins most points wins the set.

Whoever wins most sets wins the match.

“Simpson’s Paradox” is possible.

Example: A vs B: 21:0, 19:21, 19:21.

A won 59 points, B won 42 points, yet B won the match.

8)   Ping pong

There are 3 levels:

Points->Set->Match

Whoever wins most points wins the set.

Whoever wins most sets wins the match.

“Simpson’s Paradox” is not possible.

Example: A vs B: 21:0, 19:21, 19:21.

A won 59 points, B won 42 points, yet B won the match.

9)   American Election

There are 3 levels:

Individual votes->Electoral College votes->Presidency

Whoever wins most Individual votes wins the Electoral College votes in the state.

Whoever wins most Electoral College votes wins the presidency.

“Simpson’s Paradox” is possible. 

Example: John vs Mike. Each of the 3 states has 100 million voters and 10 Electoral College votes.

	State A	State B	State C	Total
John # votes	100M	49M	49M	198M
John EC votes	10	0	0	10
Mike # votes	0M	51M	51M	102M
Mike EC votes	0	10	10	20

John won 198 million individual votes, Mike won 102 million individual votes, yet Mike won the presidency.

10)  French Election

There are 2 levels:

Individual votes->Presidency

Whoever wins most Individual votes wins the Presidency.

“Simpson’s Paradox” is not possible.