Ramblings: Externalities

I would like to discuss the concept of externalities. It may be a term that is used elsewhere, but I use it to mean the extent to which we rely on external factors to define ourselves.

The Olympics are, viewed through a certain filter, all about externalities. Athletes all want to know how good they are, but it’s impossible to define your success in athletics based on some intrinsic sense of self- the athletes need to compete against other athletes to get a sense of good they are.

Some images from the Olympics endure because of this sense of an athlete competing against others. For example, probably the single most impressive image of the Olympics was Usain Bolt in the 100m sprint, looking around and thumping his chest as he raced toward the finish line. What made it so impressive was that he was looking for peers to judge how fast he was going, and he couldn't find any. He was without peer.

I thought about this quite often when I biked in Little Rock this past year. My favorite ride was along the river trail along the Arkansas River which separates Little Rock and North Little Rock. During the Little Rock winter, I tended to ride on Saturday afternoons. Within the context of the Saturday afternoon crowd, I was very fast- I was almost never passed by another rider, and would regularly pass others.

However, as the weather heated up in the spring, I started to ride in the morning before work to avoid the heat. The cyclists on Monday morning at 5:30am were a dramatically different group than the riders on Saturday afternoon. Basically the only people who would wake up that early on a weekday morning to ride their bike were hardcore riders, and me. I had felt strong about my cycling ability based on my weekend rides, but all of a sudden everyone was passing me.

This is a good example of an externality- my sense of self as a cyclist was completely defined by the people I was riding alongside. Am I a good cyclist? I have no idea- it depends on the context.

Getting back to the Olympics …. I enjoyed the interactions between Mark Spitz and the media. For most of Mark Spitz’s life, it has probably been close to impossible for anyone to grasp what he did in winning 7 gold medals at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. No one else had done it before, and no one had been particularly close. But Michael Phelps’s pursuit now gave perspective for Spitz’s accomplishment. That Phelps tried and failed to match him at the 2004 Olympics, and that Phelps needed a strong leg by Jason Lezak in the relay and a dramatic touch in the 100m butterfly emphasizes just how hard it was to beat Spitz’s record. Spitz’s accomplishment now has meaning- Phelps’s performance is an externality that gives perspective to what Spitz had done.

A similar phenomenon exists in how I (and I imagine many others) view Roger Federer. I was never a big fan of his until he lost to Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon. It is only now that Federer has been supplanted as the #1 player in the world that I have perspective on how dominant he was prior to losing. I needed the externality of Nadal to appreciate Federer’s greatness.

As another example in another medium, one of my all-time favorite movies is Unbreakable by M. Night Shyamalan. I don’t want to spoil the movie for those who haven’t seen it, but it involves a struggle by both Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson to define who they are, for which they both require the externality of the other man. I found that message extremely powerful.

Externalities play a role on a social level as well. For example, three top 3 tennis players have emerged from Belgrade, Serbia, within a span of one year of one another (Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic are the top 2 players on the women’s side, and Novak Djokovic is #3 on the men’s side. Both Ivanovic and Jankovic have been ranked #1, and Djokovic will presumably at some point in the next 2-3 years). The odds of this happening are actually quite good- all three were in formative years when Monica Seles, also from Belgrade, was the #1 player in the world, but beyond those influences, it helps to have a peer for comparison. All three actually trained substantially outside of Serbia for portions of their development, but they were compared. In the case of Ivanovic and Jankovic in particular, I think having a direct comparison with someone with a similar skill set and the same age can be a driving force to bring them to a higher level. Similar pairings are actually fairly common in tennis- Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin from Belgium, Venus and Serena Williams in the US, Marat Safin and Dinara Safina from Russia, and John McEnroe and Patrick McEnroe and Mary Carillo (who grew up with them). Other famous pairings are ample in sports- one of my favorites is Yogi Berra and Joe Garagiola growing up playing baseball in St Louis (the Cardinals chose Garagiola to be there catcher. They should have chosen the uglier guy).

I know it has for me in the past. I have a brother Mike 5 years older than me, and a twin sister Jill. We were all swimmers, and Mike was clearly the best of all of us. Both Jill and I started swimming competitively at age 5, and my drive was always to try and be as good as my brother. In addition to having the role model as an externality, I had a constant base for comparison, in my sister Jill. This was particularly a driving force when we were in our young teens, since she was faster than me for a few years in the time when she had undergone puberty and I had not. Even though I was nothing special as a swimmer, to the extent I was decent, a major factor was having Mike and Jill as externalities that helped me judge my progress.

Why do I bring this up idea of externalities in the context of a Kinemedics blog?

I think it matters in working with patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Understanding externalities is important in understanding that a person’s sense of self, a sense of who they really are is largely governed by phenomena that are external to themselves. Even more important, though, is that we can choose which of these external phenomena we will allow to define us, and that we can choose how these phenomena define us.

In the case of Michael Phelps and Mark Spitz- Michael Phelps was able to use the accomplishments of Mark Spitz as a goal to drive him to higher levels of performance. Mark Spitz, much to his credit, was able to graciously accept Phelps surpassing him as a sign of how hard he was to pass, and admire the inspiration he helped create.

The Williams’s sisters and Ivanovic/Jankovic have chosen to raise their games in face of competitors in their immediate peer group, and the game of tennis is better for it. Rafael Nadal has forced Roger Federer to redefine his greatness in the context of a new external force he cannot dominate, and in the process has allowed us to appreciate how great he was all along.

The same is true for patients. Many of patients see me to address an internality- they feel pain somewhere, whether it be their back, neck, knee, hip, shoulder, or elsewhere. I find that one of the most effective things I can do in helping the patients I work with is reframing their problem- rather than defining their problems by an internality, define it by an externality- what is it that you actually want to do?

I’ll use a personal example from my life to highlight what I mean. At the tail of end of my college career at the University of Wisconsin, I was involved on the UW triathlon team and had a long term goal of completing my first Ironman triathlon. On a training ride in May of 1995, I wiped out and tore the PCL in my left knee.

I spoke with multiple orthopedic surgeons in Wisconsin, New Jersey, and New York, and they all took a similar approach to my knee injury- they address the internality of my knee injury, and made a determination of whether I needed reconstructive surgery (I didn’t). But for me, they never addressed my externality- I was defining myself by my ability to race in an Ironman triathlon. They were answering a different question than the one I was asking- they were answering the question “do I need surgery,” when the question I was really asking was “what do I need to do to enjoy, compete, and excel in the Ironman?”

I’ve devoted my life to answering that question, both for me and my patients. It may not be the approach for everybody, but I think it helps many. Some examples:

Patient #1:

Internality: Initially comes in talking about her back pain

Externality: What she really wants to know is what does she need to do to pick up her granddaughter and play with her

Patient #2:

Internality: Comes in bothered by hip pain

Externality: What he really wanted to know is what he needs to do to finish a marathon he is training for with his brother

So- what is your externality- what is it that inspires you? What motivates you? What excites you? What is that makes you the best version of yourself? What can we do to help get you there?

US Open Preview- Women's Draw

As is often the case for me, I am more interested in the women's draw, particuarly because of one player. My predictions, in order:

1. Dinara Safina. I am very much excited about her chances. She's had a pretty dominant run the past 6 months:

Won 2 Tier I Tournaments: Berlin (clay), Montreal (hard)
Won 1 Tier II Tournament: LA (hard)
Lost in a Slam Final: French (clay)
Won Olympic Silver Medal: China (hard)

She's ascended from the number 15 last year to number 7 now. She is only 535 points outside of first place, and 297 points outside of first in the points race for the year.

For all these reasons, I think Safina is currently the best player. I think she's the strongest woman on the tour (I would love to see a "World's Strongest Man" type event featuring Safina, Serena Williams, Lindsey Davenport, and Ana Ivanovic. I'd put my money on Safina). She has superpowerful strokes from both the forehand and the backhand, and she's the most intense player on the tour. I could also see the NY crowd getting into her intensity (I could see them tearing into to her).

So, even if everyone wasn't injured, I'd be picking Safina. But everyone is injured. This makes it an even easier call. I give Safina a 35% chance of winning, which is pretty high- it's higher than I picked for Djokovic in the men's draw, for example

If she does win, by the way, I put the odds of her brother showing up to watch her also at 35%. You can never predict anything with the Safin/Safina family.

2. Elena Dementieva. I've never loved her game, but she is admittedly doing well recently, and did beat Safina for the gold medal. The main strength to her candidancy is a solid all around game, an improving serve, and a depleted field.

3. Serena Williams. Just on talent alone. I think I was premature in thinking Ana Ivanovic had surpassed Serena as the most talented player on the tour- at least until Ivanovic gets over her injuries. When Serena plays on her A game, she's going to beat everybody. I have no idea if she brings her A game- she should in NYC, but she actually hasn't been much of a world beater at the US Open.

4. Ana Ivanovic. I can't be completely neutral on her- she's my favorite player, so I want her to win. I don't know what to make of her injuries. I assumed that her hip abductor strain going into Wimbledon was a fake or minor injury to give her more time to rest after winning the French. But she was lackluster at Wimbledon, and would have been eliminated earlier if not for a lucky let cord shot. And her thumb injury has been limiting her substantially, including pulling out of the Olympics. A thumb injury could be very limiting, especially how important her rotation and top spin is to her dominant groundstrokes.

If Ana is healthy, though- well, I still might put her #2. She had a mental edge coming out of the French, but Ana's been playing so poorly that I think she will have issues getting her mental game back. If she starts off with a few dominant straight set wins, then she goes right to the top of the list with Safina. Otherwise, we may have to wait a few more months to let her thumb and confidence heal.

5. Venus Williams. Just too talented and too erratic to ever predict accurately.

6. Jelena Jankovic. Again, injuries are the main issue here. Clearly talented enough to win. If she gets rolling, her engaging style of play and ebullient personality will make her a crowd favorite in NY- she's just too darn likable. I'll be rooting for her.

7. Alize Cornet- my "what the heck" pick. She's been playing well, and shown she can hold her own with the big name players. I wouldn't be shocked to see her make the semi-finals

US Open Preview- Men's Draw

Here are my thoughts on the likely winners for the US Open, in order of likelihood:

1. Novak Djokovic
2. Rafael Nadal

I've gone back and forth on these two, who I consider co-favorites. It's certainly been Nadal's year. There are a few reasons, however, I am leaning toward Djokovic:

a. I think Djokovic's track record is still better on hard court
b. They've played each other pretty closely. Djokovic is one of the few players to have convincing wins over Nadal this year. Djokovic is probably the only player on the tour who thinks he should beat Nadal, and I include Federer in that comment.
c. Health. I think Nadal's style makes him a bit of walking time bomb, and I could see him running himself down over the course of the hard court tournament
d. Crowd response. The US Open is my favorite live event in any sport, and the main reason is the crowds- it is the one tennis event where the crowds can really rally a player. Of the top players, Djokovic has the most engaging personality, which definitely benefited him last year.

I think these are all very real advantages for Djokovic. Maybe I am just trying to convince myself to go against the best player, who is clearly Nadal.

I would probably say 27% chance for Djokovic, 23% chance for Nadal, and 50% for the rest of the field.

3. Federer. Still great, even if his not playing at a "greatest of all time" level. I am one of those people who appreciates Federer more now that his is mortal.

4. James Blake. Inconsistent, but I think he's the American most likely to have the crowd rally behind him and carry him to victory.

5. Andy Murray. The most talented player outside of the Big 3.

6. Marat Safin. I was impressed by his Wimbledon run, and I think it would make an interesting story to add to my predicted winner for the women's draw.

Wimbledon's Men's Preview, and the impact of Mononucleosis on elite tennis players

I am more excited about the women's tournament than the men's. I just think the women's game has more interesting figures. Jelena Jankovic may the best charismatic star since at least Andre Agassi, maybe even John McEnroe. The top star, Ana Ivanovic, has compelling rivalries with pretty much all of the other top players, including Sharapova, Jankovic, Safina, and the Williams Sisters.

The men's game has been relatively dull, and that is mostly because of the dominance of Roger Federer. Unlike the previous dominant player, Pete Sampras, Federer actually has a very exciting style of play, based largely on his tremendous range and ability to hit winners at every angle. Like Sampras, he is a classy individual, who represents everything you want in a nephew- he is courteous, respectful. Unfortunately, his personality is also pretty boring. I think the game is more interesting when you're top player is bit more mentally unstable, which is why I always rooted for Lleyton Hewitt or Marat Safin to beat Federer.

When it comes the Wimbledon preview, the underlying question is similar to that on the women's side- do you base performance on recent performance, or do you base it on a longer track record? On the women's side, Ivanovic is the best player if you look at recent performance, but to argue in her favor requires one to assume that her recent increase in performance is a real phenomenon. Similarly, Roger Federer has been the dominant grass player for 5 years, and his level of dominance is historic in stature. To argue that he has fallen back to the pack (in this case, the pack being Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and Andy Roddick), one would need to feel that Federer's drop in performance is real. I think it is.

My guess (and it is just a guess) is that Roger's recent bout with mononucleosis has had far more impact on his game than many have realized, and I don't think he will ever be the same player again. He started at such a high perch- probably the highest any male tennis player has ever attained, that he can drop off and still be one of the top 2-3 players in the world, but I think his reign as the Tiger Woods of tennis is over.

For me, the 2 lasting images of the 2008 tennis season are Federer getting overwhelmed against Djokovic at the Australian Open, and even more Federer not even trying to get at some winner's Nadal blew by him in the 3rd set of the French Open final. Many commentators have attributed his performance at the Australian Open to mono, but instead attributed Federer's performance at the French to a lack of heart. I think it's far more likely that Federer is just dealing with the consequences of decreased endurance and increasing fatigue, rather than suddenly he's lost his competitive spirit.

I will digress a moment for a personal anecdote. I had mono when I was 24 years old. I am obviously nowhere near the athlete that Federer is, but the one athletic attribute I did have was endurance. As a younger man, it was pretty much impossible to tire me out, and my recovery rate was very fast. As a marginal triathlete, for example, I could pretty easily work out at 75% of my max heart rate for over 5-6 hours (my training rides would sometimes be in the 8-10 hour range, and my heart rate was regularly in the 150-168 range).

Mono was probably the most unpleasant experience I ever had. I remember that I could barely walk for several weeks, and that I needed my then girlfriend to help me so that I could walk a mile to get lunch outside my house in Long Island. And I've never fully recovered. I've done a few century rides on my bike since then, but I have to keep my heart rate at a much lower level in my target range (typically 60%, rarely going over 70%). Part of that might be that I am no longer training as hard, but I've had periods where I've tried to up my training, and my body simply won't let me anymore. And it takes me much longer to recover from the workouts.

It's conceivable (heck, it's even likely) that I've just grown soft, but I think at least part of my decreasing endurance is a lingering effect from the mono, given that it has such a clear demarcation point.

As another aside, I think the same thing has happened to Justine Henin. Henin is one of my all time least favorite players, so I hate saying anything nice about her (I am an Amelie Mauresmo fan, and I thought the way she quit in the 2006 Australian Open was one of the most distasteful things I've ever witnessed as a fan). But if one reviews her career from the perspective of how she has coped with mono, it does give one cause for admiration.

Henin's first run as a dominant player began in 2003, and for a period of about a year, she had supplanted Serena Williams as the dominant player in the game. However, by mid-2004, she had contracted cytomegalovirus (CMV), which causes symptomology that is essentially the same as the mononucleosis that is more traditionally caused by the Epstein-Barr virus (which is what both Roger Federer and I have had). By the end of 2004, she had to take a leave of absence to try and recover.

Because Henin was still winning majors (namely the French), the depth of her drop in performance has not always been appreciated.

Looking at her win-loss records from 2003-2008:
2003: 75-11 (87%), year-end ranking #1, 2 Slam Wins
2004: 35-4 (90%), year-end ranking #8, 1 Slam Win
2005: 34-5 (87%), year-end ranking #6, 1 Slam Win
2006: 60-8 (88%), year-end ranking #1, 1 Slam Win
2007: 63-4 (94%), year-end ranking #1, 2 Slam Wins
2008: 16-4 (80%), withdrew as #1 player (with a huge lead)

As a frame of reference, the players who supplanted Henin in the period she was out of the #1 spot (when I am assuming she was most affected by mono) were Amelie Mauresmo, Lindsay Davenport, Kim Clijsters, and Maria Sharapova. There records for 2004 and 2005

Amelie Mauresmo:
2004: 59-11 (84%), no slams
2005: 53-16 (77%), no slams
2006: 50-13 (79%), 2 slams- I include this year, since it was Mauresmo's best year, and Henin still outplayed her

Lindsay Davenport:
2004: 63-9 (88%), no Slams
2005: 60-10 (86%), no Slams

Kim Clijsters:
2004: 20-2 (91%)
2005: 67-9 (88%), 1 slam win

Maria Sharapova:
2004: 55-15 (79%), 1 slam win
2005: 53-12 (82%)


So, what do I make of this? During the period after which she contracted mono, she was playing at least as well as any the women who supplanted her as #1, only she played less frequently. She had a higher winning % than any of her chief rivals except Clijsters, and won more Slams than any of them. By 2006, she restored her dominance, and was clearly the best player on the tour when retired.

What if games are dangerous territory, and unfortunate as it may be, things like contracting mono happens. This doesn't seem the same to me, for example, as what happened to Monica Seles. Monica Seles missed several years from the prime of her career because someone stabbed her for the express purpose of making sure she wouldn't be the #1 player. I think you have to factor that in when assessing her as an all-time great. Henin's a health issue, and should be evaluated similarly to an ankle injury. But because she kept winning slams and winning at a high rate, I think the impact of the mono on her greatness has been underestimated.

And since I am still in the realm of speculation, I think it is why she retired at such a young age. She is coming off her best year ever (and one of the great years in the history of women's tennis), but I don't think it is unreasonable to take her at her word when she says she is just exhausted. And I think mono has a lot to do with it.

As one more aside before I get back to Federer- where should Henin rank amongst the all-time greats? I think the game has changed enough since hte beginning of the WTA rankings in 1975 that I am only considering players from that period on (since, at this point, I am not sure what to do with players like Maureen Connolly, Eve Goolagong, Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, and Althea Gibson). After that period, I think there are clusters:

Tier I: Chris Evert, Martina Navrilotolova, and Steffi Graf. These are the 3 players who can make a legitimate claim to be the best ever.

Tier II: Monica Seles, Serena Williams, Justine Henin. These are the players who had periods of dominance that were as high the top 3, but didn't have the sustained dominance. Monica Seles is the hardest to evaluate, because we will never know what would have happened if she wasn't stabbed.

Tier III: Venus Williams is at the top of this group, but would also include people like Arantxa Sanchex Vicario, Lindsay Davenport, and Maria Sharapova.

I am pretty comfortable that Ana Ivanovic will make Tier III. My question is whether she will make it into Tier II (which I think she will), or even Tier I (possible, but not likely).

Ok, enough asides- back to Roger Federer

I think Roger Federer now is in a similar place to where Justine Henin was in 2004-5. He started at such a high level that when he falls, he's still as good as anybody at his best, but he is no longer heads-and-shoulders above everyone like he has been.

Furthermore, the players below him have ascended. Rafael Nadal is clearly better than he was a year ago, and he was already pretty close to Federer. Novak Djokovic is similarly just coming into his own as a player. And Andy Roddick is recovering from injuries and should be a solid threat in the tournament.

I think at this point, then, the perception that Nadal is a better player than Federer is probably real, even on grass. Both Nadal and Federer both won grass tournaments as Wimbledon tune-ups, but Nadal had to beat both Roddick and Djokovic to do it, whereas Federer played a much weaker field.

All in all, I think Nadal is the best player now. Given that Federer also has the tougher draw, with Djokovic on his half of the draw, I think Nadal has to be considered a solid favorite to win Wimbledon.

Wimbledon 2008 Preview, Aging Patterns of Female Tennis Players

My interest in tennis is probably about as high as it's ever been. I had more fun watching the French Open than any other sporting event this year (particularly the semifinal match between Ana Ivanovic and Jelena Jankovic), and I think the game has more interesting figures than it has since the late 70s-early 80s, back when McEnroe-Borg-Connors and Evert-Navritolova were the stars.

The main reason I am making this post, though, is to comment on aging patterns in elite female tennis players.

Women's Preview:
My sense is that there are a distinct grouping of players who are well-suited to grass right now- players with powerful serves and groundstrokes. Venus Williams is the archetype of this player, and when she is at her best, I think she's probably the best grass player of all-time (with respectful nods to Martina Navritolova and Steffi Graf). The players in the current draw that I would put into this grouping, and thus the co-favorites, would include Venus and Serena Williams, Maria Sharapova, Ana Ivanovic, and Dinara Safina. There are a few others who also have this type of game, like Svetlana Kuzsetnova, Lindsay Davenport, and Amelie Mauresmo, but I would put them all step-down from the other 5 right now.

Of the non- "big babe" style players, I think that Jelena Jankovic is clearly the best player and biggest threat to win. I think, however, it would be hard for her to compensate sufficiently for her lack of a dominating serve or forehand, no matter how fit, fast, and flexible she is.

So, how would I rank the big 5?
1. Ana Ivanovic
2. Maria Sharapova
3. Serena Williams
4. Dinara Safina
5. Venus Williams

I would probably throw Jelena Jankovic in there somewhere, but I am not sure exactly where. At their best, I think Safina or Venus would kill Jankovic on grass, but Jankovic is in my mind far more likely to make it to the semifinals based on her consistency (i.e., I don't see JJ losing to a second-tier player, where Venus and Safina definitely might).

I think the distinction for overall favorite comes down to Ivanovic and Sharapova. They are having the best years so far, have split the 2 majors, are about the same age (Sharapova is 7 months older), and have similar games that are well-suited to Wimbledon. Sharapova has a better overall track record and has been elite for 2 more years, while Ivanovic is playing a bit better recently.

The main question in distinguishing the two of them is in determining whether Ivanovic's recent high level of play is transient, or whether she's truly raised her game. I tend to think that latter, which is why I have her above Sharapova. However, I may be completely off-base, and she may be a merely very good player having an unusually good year, like Amelie Mauresmo did in 2006.

I have several reasons for thinking that Ivanovic has raised her game, and that we are seeing the beginning of her ascent as an all-time great:
1. Age. While Sharapova and Ivanovic are almost the same age, they have matured differently. Sharapova looks about the same now as she did when she won Wimbledon in 2004 at age 17. Ivanovic, on the other hand, has done a lot of aging, in a good way. She is more muscular, has considerably less fat, is more mobile, and has greater endurance. 4 years ago, Sharapova was clearly a better overall athlete. That is no longer true. Ivanovic was probably always stronger, but she has now matured to the point, where she is also faster and has more endurance.

The main reason I wanted to include a Wimbledon preview in this blog is to speculate on whether there are variable maturation rates amongst female tennis players. It has been commonly noted that females often become elite tennis players at a younger age than their male counterparts, I don't know that this is universally true. I suspect that players with larger frames, like Ana Ivanovic and Lindsay Davenport, will mature later than their thinner framed counterparts. I also suspect they will have longer lifespans, and that thinner framed players will be more likely to retire at a young age.

One way of assessing this is to look at all of the women who have been ranked #1 by the WTA- that is a reasonable standard for an elite player. There are 17 players who have been ranked #1, starting with Chis Evert in 1975, and as of right now (June 2008) Ana Ivanovic is #17.

For each of the champions, I looked at the correlation of height or weight with 4 different performance measures- # of Grand Slams won, Age when they won their first grand slam, Age when they first reached #1, and Age at Retirement

Depending on the study listed below, I may or may not include all 17 players (it will be clear which players are included). Eve Goolagong is a bit of an odd case, since she is really a player from an earlier era, who for a short time passed Evert for #1. About half the list is currently playing, which limits their inclusion in some parts of the study, retirement dates are in some cases imprecise, and I suspect that many of the weights I have are inaccurate (e.g., I suspect Serena Williams weighs more than Kim Clijsters, and I think Tracy Austin was much lighter than her listed weight).

So here are the results:

Height- not statistically significantly correlated with anything, although taller players did tend to retire at an older age. The former and current #1 players who have not yet retired (Davenport, the Williams sisters, Mauresmo, Sharapova, and Ivanovic) are taller as a group than the players who have currently retired, so they are almost a different group than the players who have retired.

For those who care about the particulars:
#Slams: N=13, r=0.0959, p=0.7552
Age at first slam win: N=17, r=0.0504, p=0.7552
Age when first #1: N=17, r=-0.08918, p=0.7336
Age when retired: N=11, r=0.40262, p=0.2196

Weight:
For weight, the trends are stronger. The one statistically significant relationship was that heavier players took longer to win their first Grand Slam event. They also won took longer to reach #1, but that wasn't quite statistically significant.

The actual data:
#Slams: N=13, r=-0.16443, p=0.5914
Age when winning first slam: N=17, r=0.527, p=0.0296
Age when first reaching #1: N=16 (excluded Eve Googalong, since dating #1 is unclear with her), r=0.403, p=0.1213
Age at retirement: N=11, r=0.125582, p=0.7129

If anyone is interested in examining the data, I would be happy to send them the excel spreadsheet.


So, this is an awfully long aside- let me get back to comparing Sharapova and Ivanovic. The underlying argument I was trying to make is that the two of them are similar in age, and Sharapova was clearly better for 2004-2006. Over the past 2 years, they've been relatively even, and Ivanovic has probably passed her from Indian Wells on this year. To argue that Ivanovic is actually the better player, I would need to make the case that she is a later maturing player, and that the recent uptick in her performance is a function of late maturation. I argued that players of her build (larger frame) tend to mature at a later age.

While the data above is not as overwhelming as I thought it would be, it does appear to be true that players with larger body frames tend to mature at a later age. I think that is what is happening with Ivanovic.

A few other factors in Ivanovic's favor:
- She just won the French Open, which was on a surface not particularly conducive to her game. Her first serve and especially her forehand were near unreturnable on clay. They will be even more dominant on grass.
- Her coaches and trainers stated that they were operating on a long term plan, with the goal of peaking in a few years. That is consistent with her play. Even between the Australian Open and French Open of this year, you could see big differences in her game, especially her footwork. That she could reach #1 while her game is still evolving is encouraging.
- She's had #1 talent for several years, and the main question with her has been her temperament. I think many were concerned she was another Amelie Mauresmo or Kim Clijsters, and too nice to consistently win at the highest level. Winning her first tournament, and doing so in dominant fashion, should help her going forward.
- I think she's very comparable to Lindsay Davenport, but perhaps a bit more athletic and mobile. Lindsay was also able to reach #1 before her game really matured, and continued to improve as a player, primarily because of improvements in her fitness.

I might be completely off-base, but I think Ivanovic is just now starting to emerge as the next superstar. I don't know that she'll reach the Evert-Navritolova-Graf level of superstardom, but I don't think it's unreasonable that she'll be a player of the stature of at least Davenport, if not Seles or even better. It will be fun to watch.

Back to the Ivanovic-Sharapova comparison. They are awfully close. I think Ivanovic has a better first serve, but that Sharapova is more consistent with her second serve. Ivanovic's forehand is better, but Sharapova has a better backhand. I think Ivanovic's biggest edge now is her mobility- I think clay made that more apparent. Sharapova's real edge was in her competitiveness and intensity, but I don't know if that is really there anymore- Ivanovic has made 3 of the last 5 finals. It's close, but I give the edge to Ivanovic.

The third person who might fit into this discussion is Dinara Safina. She is also a late bloomer. Part of this might be part of the same phenomenon- she's also an awfully big girl. I am guessing that Safina is the strongest woman on the tour, although Serena Williams and Lindsay Davenport are probably pretty close. But Safina has another reason that she might be a late bloomer- namely, that's she's a bit (how to put this delicately) .... emotional. At the French, she was able to harness that emotion for the most part. If that is real, then I think she's a contender for the near future. If not, then she'll be like her brother- always a threat to win or combust.

So, those are my thoughts for now. Can't wait for the tournament to start.