Game Theory: A Word on Why Caroline Wozniacki Will Never Win a Grand Slam
Source: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2608877-why-caroline-wozniacki-wont-ever-win-a-grand-slam-title
Tennis is one of the most renown sports spectated and played in the world today. Winning a Grand Slam is one of the greatest achievements a professional (or any) tennis player can obtain during the course of his/her tennis career. It is typically expected that the top-seeded players will end up winning the championship, and the case in which a player who is ranked number one at some point during his/her career wins a Grand Slam is almost always true….almost.
Caroline Wozniacki is a well-respected and very talented player. A remarkable achievement of her career was holding the No. 1 ranking for 67 weeks. Unfortunately, during those 67 weeks, Wozniacki never won a single Grand Slam tournament. Very odd, isn’t it? How could have Wozniacki been the number one player in women’s tennis for so long yet not have won one of the four majors during her time at the top?
In tennis, players may often be characterized as one of the two types of players: aggressive or counter-puncher. Recall in lecture the discussion concerning game theory and the hawk-dove Nash equilibrium example. Aggressive players are those who play the hawk strategy; that is, they have an aggressive game and go for more risks and winners which typically results in more errors but can have higher payoffs. Counter-punchers can be thought of as the players who prefer the dove strategy; they like to play it safe and value consistency over power and risk. The Nash equilibriums derived in lecture were (D1, H2) and (H1, D2). For both of these, the player who goes with the hawk strategy gets the bigger payoff. In the case of Caroline Wozniacki, the same applies. As the article outlines, Wozniacki has the technique and athleticism of other Grand-Slamming players—there’s a reason she was at the top once. But her game lacks the aggression and versatility of other champions’ games, landing her just short of acquiring a Grand Slam championship title during her 67 weeks at the top of the rankings.
As most other players play the hawk strategy, the passive Wozniacki needs to change gears and do the same. Even if she does, however, it may be too late, as the article notes. Wozniacki did miss her chance to win a major tournament when she was at the peak of career. She will always be recognized as an outstanding player, but considering her downfall since her time as the top women’s tennis player, the likelihood of Wozniacki obtaining the No. 1 ranking and winning a Grand Slam appears more and more unlikely.