if you lose twice.. is the other person better

[iplaybetter]

if you lose twice to someone are they by definition mean that the opponent is better than you

[fgs]

iplaybetter,
losing twice to the same person can mean that:
a. that person has better strokes in the sense that they are more reliable and that he forces you into errors, or
b. you have twice applied the wrong tactics, and than he is better not shotwise but tactically.
so, just go and give these two options a thought and see what conclusion you can draw from this regarding your next practice sessions.

[drakulie]

Yes, and no.

Yes they are better than you, but may have a losing record against someone you have a winning record against.

Sometimes it's all about matchups.

[kevhen]

Yes, very likely it is a good sign they are better than you, unless you were sick or injured when playing.

If you chose the wrong tactics or weren't able to find a weakness to exploit then you may not have enough game to beat them at the moment.

Keep working at it and play them more to see where you can improve. I once lost 24 times in a row to a steady baseliner before learning my lessons, hitting crosscourt, attacking weak balls, and then I started beating him and shortly after that he stopped playing me!

Matchups are important too as I know three 4.5 rated players where A beats B who beats C who beats A. The pros are like this alot too. So you may just have a bad matchup with this opponent. But likely he is stronger than you at this point in time.

[iplaybetter]

thanks i just know i am better i just lack match experience, possibly making me a worse "match player"

[kevhen]

Keep playing and gaining match experience. Don't think you are better until you do beat him though. Keep working hard at it and you will get him eventually. Confidence is good but over-confidence is very bad.

[LuckyR]

if you lose twice to someone are they by definition mean that the opponent is better than you

Hate to break it to you but if you lose once, they are better than you, that day. Of course you could be better than them the next day...

[fgs]

iplaybetter,
having better strokes is a good starting position. then it just comes down to what is called "shot selection" - that is applying the appropriate shot for each situation. that is something you don't get by any other means than playing tournaments. tournament match-play is very different from practice match-play. you need to get "match-tough" as it is called i guess. don't lose your patience with yourself.

[iplaybetter]

it is not shot selection it is a guy who hits anything short to my back hand an hover over the net and would get TOed if i called it on him
he has lesser strokes he just know how to play a match, if my shorts were half of what they are in practice i would destroy him, but how do i bridge the gap from practice to match

[drakulie]

^^^^^You have to play more matches, and LEARN how to win in any given situation. There is a huge difference between practicing and playing a match.

[OrangeOne]

thanks i just know i am better i just lack match experience, possibly making me a worse "match player"

If you read this again you may see how funny it sounds. Being good at tennis is all about winning matches - that is tennis. It's certainly not based on how shots look or feel or are in practice.

it is not shot selection it is a guy who hits anything short to my back hand an hover over the net and would get TOed if i called it on him

I've been playing for a long time, and if I see a player with a weaker BH than FH, everything is going there, that's how you win tennis matches - exploiting a weakness. If you're worried about him hovering over the net, why not just lob him perhaps?

he has lesser strokes he just know how to play a match, if my shorts were half of what they are in practice i would destroy him, but how do i bridge the gap from practice to matchSome advice:

1. Stop focusing on who has better or worse strokes. Everyone's strokes look better in our own heads and worse when we see other people hitting them. You'd probably be surprised to hear that he thinks your strokes are sub-standard too (especially given the fact he's beating you!).

2. Stop worrying about the better or worse player. This one's easy. On the day, the player who wins is the better player.

3. I like your question about practice to match. So many things here:
- Make your practice more like a match, possibly less about hitting all-out winners and more about structuring points
- Connors had a rule that said 'there's no such thing as an out-ball in practice'! It's a good one. If a ball's close to the line in practice, keep playing it - practice will be harder and real games will be easier
- Find many different players to practice against - maybe your losses to the new guy are because he plays very differently to the players you practice against? Finding a round-robin tournament or similar can be great for this - gets you playing many different players and styles quickly....

[35ft6]

For the time, most definitely, they are better. But I know from experience you can lose to somebody because you haven't been playing, but if you play for a solid month, you might never lose to them again.

[Bodacious DVT]

hmm is Canas better than Federer? no.

Federer is number one, Canas is not. Federer > Canas.

however,

in direct match play, Canas > Federer.

it doesnt mean that Canas is better than Federer, just that he is better at playing Federer than other people.

so to answer your question, no.

[Mick]

it means that you don't know how to beat the other person or the other person knows how to beat you. If they were super close matches, then the other person had better luck than you did (e.g. winning the decisive points) .

[Tennis_Monk]

I agree with LuckyR. Good strokes etc etc are more consolatory. All it matters is who won. The person that won is better than the player that lost on that day for that Match.

it doesnt mean that Canas is better than Federer, just that he is better at playing Federer than other people.

Not really. Canas played better and he won. So canas is the better player for those two matches. However Federer has an overall WINNING record and hence he may be overall a better player.

It is really simple. If somebody won within the rules of the game, He is a better player for that game.