View RSS Feed


The "head-to-head" significance (or lack there of)

Rate this Entry
Why "head-to-head" is a flawed criteria and SHOULD NOT be considered as a criteria in any serious discussion, which tries to judge objectively.

In court, when one side refers to the partial statement, other side always has an option to hear the whole statement. The whole always allows to judge with greater measure of objectivity comparing to its subset.

When we look at "head-to-head" between two players, we neglect the fact that each of these two players competes against the field of all other players (not just one). To simplify: if we have players A,B and C and in some competition A beaten B, B beaten C and C beaten A, they all have even results. But if we look at "head-to-head" between A and B - A finishes first. We seems to have all figured out between A and B, but was it objective? No, because part of relevant data was ignored.

My conclusion: if we want to compare players basing on their records down to each match, we shall use ALL MATCHES. Hence we best criteria are number of wins and win-loss ratio.

Submit "The "head-to-head" significance (or lack there of)" to Facebook Submit "The "head-to-head" significance (or lack there of)" to Digg Submit "The "head-to-head" significance (or lack there of)" to Submit "The "head-to-head" significance (or lack there of)" to Google

Tags: criteria, tennis