Monday, July 10, 2006
You cannot be serious
Roger Federer beat Rafael Nadal in the men's singles finals of Wimbledon 2006.
Federer. Beat. Nadal.
Ok. Just hold on for a moment here while I call a time-out.
//Time-out during which Mental Baba administers a hallucinogen test to himself
Right. Come again?
Federer. Beat. Nadal.
Reliable sources inform us there was a sense of deja vu as John McEnroe, up at the commentator's box, hysterically shrieked "You cannot be serious" when this monumental event occurred.
The same reliable sources inform us that 68% of the seats on Centre Court were taken by members of the International Astronomical Union who would not have missed this celestial rarity for the world.
And Mental Baba, down at a lower latitude (and altitude), had this comment - "So what did Maria Sharapova get herself at Top Shop?"
The very same reliable sources inform us that Mental Baba hysterically shrieked "You cannot be serious" when he was told that she patronized Barbour instead of Victoria's Secret.
Baba, who happens to be an expert on tennis, was despondent at this disappointing piece of information. He was further annoyed when he realized that Roger Federer had beaten Rafael Nadal.
Because you see, in addition to being a mainframe mips optimizer AND a geopolitical (master) strategist, Baba is also an expert on probability and statistics (having cleared this exam AT FIRST ATTEMPT with a P - P for Proficient).
Baba had made some predictions. These predictions were based on the stupendous Bayes' theorem, which is explained here.
P(A) : Probability of Roger Federer defeating Rafael Nadal in a tennis match
P(B) : Probability of Rafael Nadal being fit
P(B1) :Probability of Rafael Nadal having smoked pot the night before the match.
P(B2) : Probability of Rafael Nadal having done four or more pegs of handia the night before the match.
P(B3) : Probability of Rafael Nadal going at it with some muchacha bonita all night long before the match.
Therefore:
P(A|B) = P(A.B) / P(B)
= P(A.B) / {(1 - P(B1)).(1 - P(B2)).(1 - P(B3))}
= P(A.B) / {(1-0).(1-0).(1-0)}
= P(A.B)
= no .of matches Federer won this year against Nadal / no. of matches Federer played this year against Nadal
= 0/4
= 0
Some peeps may argue for a re-definition of some of the probabilities to include surface. This expert believes in surface tension but not in surface per se.
Or. This theorem could be thrown into the trashcan. Refuge could be sought in Baba's Uncertainty Principle which (wisely) states:
"Nothing is certain except for the fact that Mental Baba can never go out on a date with Maria Sharapova."
Oh well. So Federer finally beat Nadal.
That's great. Federer is a sensational player and more importantly, he's got his head planted firmly on his shoulders. But then, so is Nadal. This space has been dismissive of Nadal earlier but things have changed since then. Nadal is a phenom. There is no doubt about that now.
The Grand Slam action will soon move to Flushing Meadows - where I suspect the future of men's tennis will be decided. It will be very interesting to see who triumphs on the pre-eminent surface on which modern-day tennis is played.
If Federer prevails, he may turn out to be unstoppable - even on clay next year. This has happened before. Federer used to be Hewitt's and Nalbandian's whipping-boy until a couple of years back. He beat them once and he never looked back. Now they are the proverbial sandbags. There is a chance that maybe, just maybe, history will repeat itself . This victory might have given Federer the psychological boost he needed against his young nemesis.
On the other hand, if Nadal wins, I think it will be the beginning of a Federer decline. Nadal is mentally tougher and more tenacious than Federer. A close look at the unforced errors on crunch points during most of their matches tells the story. Even today, on the Wimbledon Centre Court, Federer would have been in a hole had Nadal been less edgy. Nadal could have had the second set had he not spluttered while serving at 5-4. The first set whitewash was more of nerves. And Nadal was the only guy to take a set off Federer in this tournament. He's only 20 and it was his first Wimbledon final. I wouldn't want to bet on the result of a rematch next year.
Federer is the consummate artist. There's a beauty and an elegance to his game that Nadal will never have. The fact was accentuated even before a single ball was hit when Federer strode in in his customised blazer and Nadal in his sleeveless shirt. I'm reminded of the Mark Waugh - Steve Waugh comparisons when I think of these two guys. But the fact is that his game remains very susceptible to Nadal's.
So, one last time. Federer beat Nadal? You cannot be serious.
Management Class : News
Federer. Beat. Nadal.
Ok. Just hold on for a moment here while I call a time-out.
//Time-out during which Mental Baba administers a hallucinogen test to himself
Right. Come again?
Federer. Beat. Nadal.
Reliable sources inform us there was a sense of deja vu as John McEnroe, up at the commentator's box, hysterically shrieked "You cannot be serious" when this monumental event occurred.
The same reliable sources inform us that 68% of the seats on Centre Court were taken by members of the International Astronomical Union who would not have missed this celestial rarity for the world.
And Mental Baba, down at a lower latitude (and altitude), had this comment - "So what did Maria Sharapova get herself at Top Shop?"
The very same reliable sources inform us that Mental Baba hysterically shrieked "You cannot be serious" when he was told that she patronized Barbour instead of Victoria's Secret.
Baba, who happens to be an expert on tennis, was despondent at this disappointing piece of information. He was further annoyed when he realized that Roger Federer had beaten Rafael Nadal.
Because you see, in addition to being a mainframe mips optimizer AND a geopolitical (master) strategist, Baba is also an expert on probability and statistics (having cleared this exam AT FIRST ATTEMPT with a P - P for Proficient).
Baba had made some predictions. These predictions were based on the stupendous Bayes' theorem, which is explained here.
P(A) : Probability of Roger Federer defeating Rafael Nadal in a tennis match
P(B) : Probability of Rafael Nadal being fit
P(B1) :Probability of Rafael Nadal having smoked pot the night before the match.
P(B2) : Probability of Rafael Nadal having done four or more pegs of handia the night before the match.
P(B3) : Probability of Rafael Nadal going at it with some muchacha bonita all night long before the match.
Therefore:
P(A|B) = P(A.B) / P(B)
= P(A.B) / {(1 - P(B1)).(1 - P(B2)).(1 - P(B3))}
= P(A.B) / {(1-0).(1-0).(1-0)}
= P(A.B)
= no .of matches Federer won this year against Nadal / no. of matches Federer played this year against Nadal
= 0/4
= 0
Some peeps may argue for a re-definition of some of the probabilities to include surface. This expert believes in surface tension but not in surface per se.
Or. This theorem could be thrown into the trashcan. Refuge could be sought in Baba's Uncertainty Principle which (wisely) states:
"Nothing is certain except for the fact that Mental Baba can never go out on a date with Maria Sharapova."
Oh well. So Federer finally beat Nadal.
That's great. Federer is a sensational player and more importantly, he's got his head planted firmly on his shoulders. But then, so is Nadal. This space has been dismissive of Nadal earlier but things have changed since then. Nadal is a phenom. There is no doubt about that now.
The Grand Slam action will soon move to Flushing Meadows - where I suspect the future of men's tennis will be decided. It will be very interesting to see who triumphs on the pre-eminent surface on which modern-day tennis is played.
If Federer prevails, he may turn out to be unstoppable - even on clay next year. This has happened before. Federer used to be Hewitt's and Nalbandian's whipping-boy until a couple of years back. He beat them once and he never looked back. Now they are the proverbial sandbags. There is a chance that maybe, just maybe, history will repeat itself . This victory might have given Federer the psychological boost he needed against his young nemesis.
On the other hand, if Nadal wins, I think it will be the beginning of a Federer decline. Nadal is mentally tougher and more tenacious than Federer. A close look at the unforced errors on crunch points during most of their matches tells the story. Even today, on the Wimbledon Centre Court, Federer would have been in a hole had Nadal been less edgy. Nadal could have had the second set had he not spluttered while serving at 5-4. The first set whitewash was more of nerves. And Nadal was the only guy to take a set off Federer in this tournament. He's only 20 and it was his first Wimbledon final. I wouldn't want to bet on the result of a rematch next year.
Federer is the consummate artist. There's a beauty and an elegance to his game that Nadal will never have. The fact was accentuated even before a single ball was hit when Federer strode in in his customised blazer and Nadal in his sleeveless shirt. I'm reminded of the Mark Waugh - Steve Waugh comparisons when I think of these two guys. But the fact is that his game remains very susceptible to Nadal's.
So, one last time. Federer beat Nadal? You cannot be serious.
Management Class : News
mental baba 2:21 AM
hey Italy just beat France today - you think it is a coincidence or some sort of an anomaly repeating itself (actually an anomaly repeating itself cannot be any more an anomaly can it?)
There seem to be a few of them doing the rounds in the sporting world, right?
First, it was the Heat being crowned NBA champions. Then Tiger Woods missing the cut for the first time in a major. Now Italy winning the Cup. Phul-leez!!
I guess if Nadal had beaten Federer on Centre Court, THAT would have been an anamoly.
But what the heck anyway. A few guys get half a million dollars for getting beaten while most get a black eye and a stitch.
First, it was the Heat being crowned NBA champions. Then Tiger Woods missing the cut for the first time in a major. Now Italy winning the Cup. Phul-leez!!
I guess if Nadal had beaten Federer on Centre Court, THAT would have been an anamoly.
But what the heck anyway. A few guys get half a million dollars for getting beaten while most get a black eye and a stitch.
I know the reason why Federer won, some code was getting updated in "The Matrix" during the 3rd set and invoked feelings of Deja Vu which lead to all of us thinking that Federer has won Wimbledon yet again!!!
the Deja Vu code - so that's what it is.
but it may not be long before a break finds its way inside the code's for loop!
but it may not be long before a break finds its way inside the code's for loop!
I would like to quote Murphy Law 15(?) here:
"If something happens, it must be possible" :)
Enjoyed reading your post anyway
"If something happens, it must be possible" :)
Enjoyed reading your post anyway
Merci! And then there's Adidas with its Impossible is Nothing .
baba ka katora
| 