Whoops!

I'm tardy with this entry, I know. Okay folks, let's remember I'm on vacation! I spent a lot of yesterday walking around in the heat and not much time with "my friend the computer." Considering today is a rest day at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, I'm going to forgive myself.

A recap would be the place to start, I guess. When last we talked, day five was not completed due to rain. Once the matches for that day were complete, I ended up with a .625 batting average for the men's side, and actually did hit that elusive 1000 on the ladies'!

My stats as a whole have been fairly consistent. I've had a steady .594 for both rounds 2 & three on the men's side and .813 for the ladies'. I figured my batting average for days one through 3 and came up with the following: .696 - men's, .714 - ladies'. I really have no reason to be disappointed.

However, with my decline on the gentlemen's side, I began to analyze my motives behind the picks I was making. Everyone has a favorite player or two. I have several. It is much like football. I don't have one team that I follow to the death. I can appreciate different playing styles and the many facets behind the game. While there may be a terrific serve-volleyer that I admire, I might also see raging talent in a baseliner. I marvel at the power players and respect the strategists. How can a person choose just one player to follow?

So what are my motivating factors? What makes me choose an unseeded Bjorkman over Youzhny? While I just stated that I do not have any one favorite player, there are some I prefer over others. While this isn't a scientific or logical way to choose a winner there is some merit behind making a choice along these lines. Let's be honest: it isn't often that a person would choose a consistent loser! The other side of the "like" factor is that there are times when I would just like to see a particular player do well. Bjorkman is one of those. He is consistent, but hasn't won many majors. He's there plugging away tournament after tournament and has talent. He is also aging and doesn't have much time left. Sure, I'd like to see him win one more big title before he retires. I feel the same about Davenport. And Taylor Dent. He's another who has been around and around and around. How about a title for this cutie?

New faces bring fresh excitement to the game. Andrew Murray falls along these lines. He has potential, he is young and personable, and let's be honest here: he took out Stepanek who is a seasoned player and was seeded 14th. Every now and then the temptation to predict a Murry over a Nalbandian is too much to bear. So the stats take a hit to the negative side. Newcomers to the scene equal hope for the future of the came.

And then there are the tried and true players: Davenport, Federer, the Williams' sisters. The have won titles. They understand the stresses and head games the majors bring. They have learned to handle it and win. There is a certain allure to automatically pick these players over a Hantuchova, a Kiefer, or a Safina.

Why should a person who keeps stats and makes predictions on tennis matches go against their gut feelings? My own statistics have suffered because of that very thing. There have been several instances when I have squelched my inner voice and 'gone with the numbers.' The Gimelstob/Massu match was one of those. I knew Justin had another win coming to him, but Massu was a seeded player and Gimelstob a lucky loser!! I went with Wimbledon's pick rather than my own gut feeling. Great choice there, let me tell ya! *rolls eyes* I should have known better. Did I or did I not complain about Wimbledon's seedings?

The last determining factor to my predictions is how well the player has done throughout the tournament. If there has been a lot of struggling...unforced errors, double faults, long matches...then I am more apt to take them out of the running. Now, that just makes sense!

And so Monday brings some tough pairings. Here are my thoughts:

1. Federer (why argue with near perfection?),
2. Gonzalez,
3. Hewitt (sorry, Taylor!),
4. Lopez,
5. Dementieva (who appears to have timed the peak of her game well)
6. Mauresmo
7. Kuznetsova (and...big breath here)
8. Clijsters

I have been considering the impending Clijsters/Davenport match since Day One. Lindsay is a veteran who has the ability to keep her nerves under control. Clijsters has been in a constant struggle with that very thing. However, I see something new in Kim this season. I think it could be a new freshness and inner strength. The physical side of her game is the best I've ever seen it. Lindsay, the quiet fighter, will have a full plate served to her in Kim Clijsters. It should be a great match!