Davis Cup 2008

Some thoughts on the Davis Cup 2008.

I was thinking while watching Djokovic win the Australian Open that Serbia could be a very dangerous Davis Cup team. His compatriot, Tipsarevic, took Federer to five sets and Zimonjic is a highly ranked doubles player.

Then I see they have Russia up first in the Davis Cup 2008 bracket. Hmmm, Russia could be out in round 1, if Djokovic decides to play Davis Cup.

That's the only seeded team I see falling in the first round, though. Maybe Belgium will lose.

Only three setters from QF in Aus Open '08 and US Open '07

I noticed that there were only 3-set matches from the Quarterfinals on in the men's US Open 2007 last year. That pattern has continued in the Australian Open 2008 (at least through the semi-final round).

Here's a graph:



I began to wonder what's going on here. It's as if when the QF arrive, the 4- and 5- set matches just vanish. There are fewer matches, so it's possible it's just variation on a normal curve, but BOTH tournaments?

It's not just that more of the matches include guys named Federer and Nadal, who are taking everyone out in three, though at least that could be partly the cause with Federer. This Australian Open, however, both those guys lost in straight sets in the SF round.

Is it just that the initial rounds are more competitive, with guys ranked between 30 and 80 just duking it out to more? Maybe, but often the top players are involved in the longer sets in initial rounds too. They just generally have the ability to come back from it, perhaps aided by less experienced players choking once they get a set or two.

Is it because guys are getting weary as the tournament wears on and just can't mount a come-back? That may have more to do with it. I don't know the answer, but I'm curious about what others think. It is not true about Wimbledon 2007. Does it only work for hard-courts?

Links: US '07 QF | Aus '08 QF

Windows Vista: a Minor Review

Here's my take on my Windows Vista on my laptop I've had since April.

What's really good:
*The Start Menu. Just press the windows key and start typing the name of a program and the list of programs filters to just ones that match what you've typed. E.g., if you type "Word" you'll see "Microsoft Word, Corel Word-Perfect, Open Office Word-Processor."
*The limited user (standard) by default. Windows XP had a admin user as default. Vista also usually allows you to enter Admin password to do things needed as admin.
*searching for stuff in the control panel. Similar to Start menu, just start typing "mouse" and the various mouse options are all that's shown.
*Breadcrumb navigation. Want to go up three directories? Just click the directory name. There is thus no more "up" button into the parent directory.

What's not so great:
*Backup. The Backups are in .zip format, which is helpful, but there is no way to specify "I just want this folder" or better yet "This folder, but not files matching these names, and not this subfolder" etc. I just search for files and copy them to a zip file for my backups.
*Folder views. With Windows XP, one click would bring up the "folders" view or hide it, same with search. With vista, you have to scroll through several options before turning these "pains" on or off. Similarly, there is no name of the folder you are in in the title area, it's just mysteriously blank. This is where I'm used to looking to see what a window is. Also, the search box takes up too much space when windows are narrow, thus you lose you breadcrumbs navigation trail. Search bar should be hide-able.
*Sidebar. What's the point? There are so few programs designed by MS for them, and few others that are signed. This is a total window of opportunity for infection, so I just leave it as calendar and clock.
*Networking controls. There are so many places to work with network settings that it gets confusing as to how you do simple things like disable your wireless card. Fortunately for me, I have a hardware switch that does this.