No tennis dreams last night at all for me. Today the Gagliardi three-set loss dream materialised as she unexpectedly took a set from Daniela Hantuchova before losing the next two. However, in neither the win by Alize Cornet in three sets nor the loss by Emmanuelle Gagliardi in three was there a final set score-line anywhere close to 9-7. The dream correctly identified the winner and loser of the next matches by both Cornet and Gagliardi, and the margin in sets in each case too, but it was misleading about the final set scoreline.
One of the first rules of dream interpretation that I learned over many hours of introspective journal-keeping in my youth was that virtually all dreams have a meaning of relevance to reality. In England where I grew up, it's common to hear people saying 'It's only a dream' as though dreams are worthless bits of nocturnal mental story-telling, but virtually anyone who has studied dreams seriously comes to appreciate that this dismissive attitude is a huge waste of their value. Because we are all individuals, some of us have dreams that work in very different ways from others, so one schematic of interpretation does not fit all individuals, but at the same time there is an almost universal language of symbolism in dreams, although this varies somewhat with national and religious culture too. But certainly when it comes to dreams that are precognitive in their essence (as distinct from the kinds of dreams beloved of Freudian and Jungian analysts whose main function appears to be to shed light on and teach lessons from the psyche of the dreamer in its responses to and adaptations from life circumstances), it is pretty much a golden rule that every detail has a meaning and purpose related to the future event or events being glimpsed.
In this case, the appearance of an extreme final-set scoreline, disproven by the emerging reality of the two matches concerned, can however be made sense of through the realisation that the dreaming mind, seeing ahead into the conscious mind's coming-into-awareness of results of tennis matches, can very easily pick out the strongest impressions on the waking person's consciousness that are to arise in the same approximate time-frame (in this case the next couple of days following the dream), and then converge them a little confusedly into what appears to the conscious mind receiving the dream to be a coherent whole, when it in fact has been bundled together from multiple distinct impressions from the period of time concerned.
The above is a general theory of how precognitive dreams can appear to confuse multiple future events into an apparently coherent whole, deceiving the consciousness into believing they are. It met with a clear application in the case of this particular dream, since Cornet and Gagliardi were not due to meet in the draw, but they were destined (at the time of the dream, though nobody should have been able to know this) to win, and lose, respectively, their next matches in three sets - this has been proven by the results of the last two days since the dream was noted.
Yet beyond these basic details accounted for by the events of the two days following the dream, a detail of a final set running to about 9-7 was also thrown into the dream. Instead of simply writing this off as a 'miss' and a failure of the precognitive dream, my attitude as a dream interpreter is to consider why this scoreline came to be thrown into the dream, since it has been subsequently revealed that it was not the destiny of either Cornet's or Gagliardi's following matches to run to this scoreline in their final set.
The best answer I can presently offer, and I write from a position of intellectual humility, of realising that there is no proven answer here and that dream interpretation is not an exact science, relates to a completely different match that suddenly struck my attention yesterday on the Roland Garros scoreboard, which features both men's and women's matches. As I opened the page and scanned up and down, I was struck by the final set scoreline in a men's match: Kiefer was ahead of Gicquel by eight games to seven, and Gicquel was serving to stay in the match. Immediately the scoreline and the name of the serving player struck me: Gicquel was at risk of losing by seven games to nine in the final set, and Gicquel must be the most similar-sounding name to Gagliardi in the entire men's draw. Although Gagliardi's match was yet to be played, I immediately thought 'Aha - it might not be her match that runs to this kind of extreme last-set scoreline after all', since here was a match in the final set with a player having a very similar-looking name that was running very close to 9-7 in the last set. Always one to favour the underdog (unless the underdog is playing against Li Na or another of my favourite players, of course!), I really wanted Gicquel to win this tie. In practice, he survived his service game at 7-8 and reached 8-8, then managed to hold again for 9-9, before finally Kiefer broke him again and took the match 11-9. No, it wasn't 9-7, but it looked as if it was heading that way for a good moment, and it was still Gicquel who lost.
This match was a fascinating duel, the last set running for about 105 minutes, and it strongly impacted my consciousness... and that, in my experience, more than anything else, is what determines the likelihood of any moment in the future being picked up on precognitively in a dream: how strong an impression does the event make on you personally? The stronger the impression, the easier it is for the precognitive faculty of the dreaming mind to register it. How it works scientifically will probably remain a mystery to everyone alive today and for the next few hundreds of years... we can only theorise partially, since the fields of neurobiology, multi-dimensional particle physics and the very nature of time are all implicated, and in the absence of adequate hard science it remains a question in the domain of philosophy and speculation to this day.