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.

Chinese and Russian Movies

Many Chinese and Russian movies share some characteristics which I don't like.

Often, some characters are in a hysteric and half crazed state. They seem to be in a trance. Some performing artists may think that this is the highest stlevel of acting. Maybe so. But I, as an audience, feel tense and uncomfortable when I watch this kind of performance.

Furthermore, in some Chinese movies, many characters do some unreasonable and extraordinary things. For example, in Feng Xiaogang's movie "1942", a refugee fleeing from famine refuses to trade a toy for food, and risks death by cursing a Japanese soldier when he burned the toy. Maybe the director or the script writer think only unreasonable and extraordinary actions are worthy to be in a movie. Maybe their thinking is "Who would go to a movie theater to see reasonable and mundane stuff?" I don't know why, but in all the movies that I like, all characters behaved reasonably. Even in Feng Xiaogang's own movie "If You Are The One" , all characters behaved reasonably, and it is a much better movie than "1942".

Many Chinese and Russian movies have a half-witted character. They always say some stupid things to let the protagonist correct them and make the audience feel the protagonist is extra smart. But in real life, it is really hard to find such half-witted person.

Further more, some Chinese and Hong Kong movies have a funny character who often makes funny facial expressions. This is often not very funny. I like comedies in which the thinking and actions are funny, not the facial expressions. For example, George Costanza.

Millet

In the dawn of the agricultural civilization, the main crop in China was not wheat, but millet. Only later, wheat spread from West Asia to China.

Actually, millet is not a single genus, but an agricultural name, referring to a group of several quite distinct genera.

The following are the top 3 millet, ordered by how widely grown, plus a millet that is not widely grown but I ate as a child. In the botanic names in the parenthesis are in the format of (genus species). As you can see, the 4 millet belong to 4 different genera. The grains look similar, but the plants look very different.

1) Pearl millet  (Pennisetum glaucum) (Chinese: 御谷) 

It originated from south of Sahara. It is now grown in India and Africa. Pearl millet can grow in areas of drought, low soil fertility, high salinity, and high temperature. It can be grown in areas where other cereal crops, such as maize or wheat, would not survive.

2) Foxtail millet (Setaria italica) (Chinese: 粟, 小米) It has the longest history of cultivation among the millets, having been grown in China since 8,000 years ago. Its early maturity and efficient use of available water make it suitable for raising in dry areas.

3) Proso millet  (Panicum miliaceum) (Chinese: 黍，黄米) It originated from China. It is now grown in Russia and China. In the US, it is used as bird feed. The water requirement of proso is probably the lowest of any major cereal. It is an excellent crop for dryland and no-till farming. It tolerates dry soil and hot wind. It can be grown in areas where other cereal crops, such as maize or even foxtail millet, would not survive.

4) Job's Tears (Coix lacryma-jobi) (Chinese: 薏苡) When I was a child, I had porridge made of this rare millet. I thought it was tasty. It is also considered as folk medicine. 

Debussy - Piano or Orchestrated?

I first heard Debussy's "The Little Shepherd" on the piano. Later, I heard the orchestrated version, which I liked much better. Then I had this thought that maybe all of Debussy's work would sound better in orchestrated version.

Recently, I heard "Arabesque Number 1", in both piano version and orchestrated version. I felt that the piano version sounded slightly better.

Why? I thought of several reasons.

1) "The Little Shepherd" is lyrical. There are long notes. Piano is a percussion instrument. A hammer strikes a string, it generates a sound. But it does not sustain very long. Violin and flute both generate sustained sound. So, the orchestrated version sounds better on those long notes.

2) When I listen to "The Little Shepherd", I visualize a shepherd boy wearing a fur hat, sitting on the rocky slope of the Caucasus Mountains, playing a short flute. The orchestrated version with wind instrument playing part of the melody just match better with my imagination.

3) "Arabesque Number 1" is a rather fluid piece. When I first heard it on the piano, I felt as if someone poured a plate of marble balls on the stone floor, and the marble balls fall, or even bounce, on the floor. When I listen to the orchestrated version, I did not feel this sensation.

Tennis - Semifinals Decide Final Results

In tennis, sometimes, the result of the final is pretty much decided after the semifinals.

In the 2012 London Olympics, in one of the semifinals, Federer won an epic battle with del Potro, 3-6, 7-6, 19-17, in 4 hours and 20 minutes. It was as long as many five set matches. "The best tennis match ever played", the 2008 Wimbledon final between Federer and Nadal, lasted 4 hours and 48 minutes.

A depleted Federer did not offer much resistance in the final, and lost badly.

In the 2013 US Open,  in one of the semifinals, Djokovic won an epic battle with Wawrinka, 1-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-7, 12-10, in 5 hours and 2 minutes.

In the final, his physical exhaustion manifested itself as a degraded mental sharpness. He made tons of unforced errors. He was able to offer periods of resistance. But he could not sustain it. And his opponent was the Nadal, who is known as the most relentless player in history. You go down a notch in a few moments, you lose. So did Djokovic.

Why More Choices Is Not Always Better?

Sociologists and psychologists have found for some time that more choices doesn't always mean more happiness. But I have not heard convincing explanations.

Here I attempt to give my explanation.

Suppose there are many choices. Each choice will give a different result based on what happens in the future. For example, choice #1 will give a good result if the next day is sunny, a bad result if the next day is cloudy. Choice #2 will give a good result if the next day is cloudy, a bad result if the next day is sunny.

Suppose I pick choice #1, and the next day is cloudy, I get a bad result. I will blame myself that I did not pick choice #2. This is a negative emotion. Also, if another person picked choice #2 and got a good result, I am envious, which adds additional negative emotions.

Now, let's suppose there is only one choice, which will give a good result if the next day is sunny, and a bad result if the next day is cloudy. Let's also suppose that the next day is cloudy, and I get a bad result. But I do not blame myself, and I am not envious of other people, thus there are no negative emotions.

In summary, if the results depend on something that is out of our control, then in both situations, the chance to get a good result is 50%. But when you have more choices, you have 50% chance to have two additional negative emotions. When you don't have any choice, you don't get those two negative emotions.