LCW might have learnt a lot how to play badminton; His coaches, managers might have helped him play better; He might have tons of telents of playing badminton; In deed, he should be an expert on playing badminton. But has he learnt anything about HOW TO WIN? How to play badminton is one thing, how to win a championship is totally another thing. We can simple use win/loss percentage to measure how good his playing. There are also other 3 parameters to measure the ability to win: 1) efficiency rate of converting the game point to a game. This can be calculated by number of winning the game divided by total number of game points 2) efficiency rate of converting the match point to a match. This can be calculated by number of winning the match divided by total number of match points 3) efficiency rate of converting the final match into a title. This can be calculated by number of titles won divided by number of entering the final. In the past, LD had been good in all, best win/loss record, streak wins, he was the best at both playing and winning. In the past year, LCW has improved a lot in playing, while LD becomes rusty at playing. LCW might have become a better player than LD, if we measure from the win/loss percentage. But if we examine their abilities to win by the above 3 efficiency rates, LCW is still far behind LD. Why LCW cannot win World championship? simply because his ability to win is still at low level, even though his ability of playing has been improved a lot. ***************** Super stars, not only in badminton, are especially good at this ability. Not only badminton, Ping-pong, Tennis, even team sports, like Basketball, the last winning ability are the most important. All the news report who finally finish the game. The ability tells us who's the go-to guy. Lin Dan's efficiency of converting at this World Championship is 100%, he didn't waste any game point, or match point. While LCW is only 1/7, which is 14%. That's the huge difference between them. LCW is good, almost in all categories, except this most important, the ability to win. Michael Jordon could miss tens of shots in a row, but once he shot the winning shot, he's the hero. Coach always let the go-to guy to shot the last, even this guys goal percentage is not the best.
Mental strength and fortitude. The ability to withstand intense mental pressure and stress without affecting one's decision making ability.
Haizzzz, the only way LCW can beat LD is if he has 3-4 game points or match points in hand. This will avoid LD to catch up before LCW finally execute the winning game point/match point. In all matches LCW beat LD, this always the case. He never beat LD with only 1 match point in hand. He must have many many game point/match point or very big lead to be safe first only he can beat LD.
so you agreed with my point, LCW's converting efficiency is low. He needs many opportunities to convert to a win. Because mathematically: win = # of match points x converting efficiency rate.
From my analysis, LCW should modify his training, he should learn more about how to win, how to finish the game/match with limited game points. Mental toughness may be one of the naturally born reason. Traning can also help a lot. One big problem for LCW's coach team is that there is no one in the team has won any thing big. That's the problem. In China, they have lots of big time winners. For example, Zhang Jun, Zhang Ning, when they became the coaches immediately after retiring, some other coaches against them based on their teaching/coach experience. But other some other argued that: if you have never won anything big, how do you coach your team to win something big. Those coaches without big titles might be a good trainer to teach how to play, but they never be able to teach how to win.
There are certain players in pro sports that have the ability to come up big when it matters most. Michael Jordan is probably one of the most clutch players ever. In this year's Stanley Cup finals, Tim Thomas of the Boston Bruins came up big each and every time when needed. In recent NFL years, the Steelers' Ben Roethlisberger has gained a reputation for making a play when it matters; he just wins. So what do these players and Lin Dan have in common? Unwavering mental toughness.They have the ability to will themselves and their teams to win; they refuse to lose. I would say that this is also in their genetic makeup, although it's been polished with many years of professionalism. LCW comes across as a nice guy and his acts of toughness are more put on than not. Without this "nasty" bone in his body it will be more difficult for him to do the same thing that comes naturally to those athletes mentioned. I still wish LWC one Olympic and/or World title before he retires.
Mourinho can hardly kick a football but he sure knows how to create a winning team? Learning how to win in practice is like practicing penalty kicks, when push comes to shove it's not the same ... As per my Lion v Tiger analogy from Discovery : needs better sparring? I guess technically it would still be practice (probably what you meant in the first place?) ... so: honour at stake, or bet for his Ferrari ? Personally I think he has definitely learned from this defeat, hopefully he still remembers in a year's time ...
On a sidenote: I do believe practicing pk's is not useless just because the real thing is different. It is really just an elementary execution which on a group of 11 to choose from should at least have positive effect on 5 of them. But I guess individually is only really effective with countless repetition which most aren't willing to do "because it's just a lottery, the real thing is different" . But practicing against *insert name of pk stopping specialist* has to be different compared to practicing against *insert name of couldn't save one taken by his grannie* (LD vs whomever - LCW vs? Liew? ... Hire Taufik, could use the practice himself ). [video=youtube;J6LqnUlYgmw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6LqnUlYgmw&feature=related[/video]
I yhink you are overanalyzing things.. When a game is this close and it is 19-20,20-20,21-20,21-21,22-21 etc. it is more luck of the day who decides who wins.. We like to say it was the "mental" aspect etc. But the margins are so small, so when its down to one point it really is alot of chance. Fact also is that LD won 64 points in the game, LCW won 57, So anyone arguing that LCW should have "deserved" the win, is quite biassed, and probably thinking more on the previous games in the tournament, than the game in the final. Too me LD was still the better player this WC but LCW was closer than before on the "big occasion" due to perfect form and preparation. It was also evident tha LD was not as ripped as in OG2008, so he have potential to sked a few grams fat and get some extra lean muscle-mass coming OG2012..
Without knowing the reason, every thing seems random. Every point is stochastic. Even DPY (his training partner) could get quite a lot points from LD. Each point, when LD faces DPY, LD cannot be sure he can win the next point, but LD is sure he can win the match against DPY pretty much. Why? That's because of the pattern. The pattern may not apply to single event correctly, but it will apply to colllective events correctly. That's the reason, you cannot understand why LD won against LCW. That's some reasons behind, that's all my original post about. That's the reason if we can find the pattern, then we can discover the probability behind. Even any stochastic processes, we can have ito formula to predict its behavior. I found out the converting efficiency is such a parameter existing as a pattern to distinguish LCW and LD, all the data proved that. Regarding who deserved the win? I posted before, I believe LD deserved because : Of course, Deserved to win doesn't mean definitely win. LD finally won because of his the better ability to win...
I think you watched the match right? Did you notice they both reacted during the final few points. LCW's play looked a little forced and was "going for it" as though he would never get another chance while LD remained poised and played for his opportunity. We can read whatever we want into it but for me, LCW had a mental lapse at the most crucial of times while LD was able to hold his nerve. Tis is all part of mental toughness. Without that mental discipline and self-belief, you normally won't be able to carry your game plan to the end.
The statistical analysis needs to go back a little further to previous matches. What would be useful is the head to head game points betwen the two players AND the game points and match points conversion of their other matches against different opponents. Even that may not reveal the whole picture as I think LD is very strong at the last few points of a game - any game against any player. LCW knows this.
2 cents, the title of your thread should be "Why LCW cannot win 2011 World Championship?" That way, your mathematical calculations can tell us it's not luck because there is a pattern, A pattern Lin Dan outperformed LCW when it comes to closing a game or match or even preventing an early win (1st set) Without the year, it can't be applied to All England 2011, can it?
alot of ppl who talks about the game says the LD won cause of luck..actually I dont really think so..if you look at the last few points there wasn't much luck involved..if there is luck then lets start with when the score was 19-18 in LD's favour..LCW drop shot hit the net and tumbled over..LD manage to Dive and save it but then he became under attack from LCW and then LCW won the point. 19-19 then LD anticipated LCW dropshot correctly, did a cross netshot but it hit the net if that passed LCW would be finished..so isn't LCW quite lucky actually to bring LD to a deuce??..so what happen if that dropshot at 19-18 didnt tumble over? the score would be 20-18 and high chance LCW could have lost 21-18.
More like identifying and coping with Black Swan events as characterized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his 2007 book entitled The Black Swan: ''What we call here a Black Swan (and capitalize it) is an event with the following three attributes. First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries an extreme impact. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable. I stop and summarize the triplet: rarity, extreme impact, and retrospective (though not prospective) predictability. A small number of Black Swans explains almost everything in our world, from the success of ideas and religions, to the dynamics of historical events, to elements of our own personal lives.''
Good question. Statistics is about calculation of probability. Which means some events are uncertain. I never said LD would always win.
