PDA

View Full Version : This notion about "deserves to win" or "due for a loss"


MuseFan
11-30-2009, 09:37 AM
is so much pablum IMHO. No one deserves anything in tennis. You earn the win and get the loss if the other guy did better. So this notion that "Rafa deserved to lose" because he won too much is so idiotic! It had nothing to do with anything other then he got injured.

doublebreak
11-30-2009, 09:43 AM
I agree. I get annoyed very often by football commentators talking about merits for the win and deserving when a team goes into the offensive but ends up loosing on a counter attack. Winning is all about making the right play at exactly the right time, it doesn't have to be pretty nor you have to create many opportunities, just make sure you make it when you got it.

dh003i
11-30-2009, 09:55 AM
I agree completely. Absent cheating, the player who wins is the player who deserved to win by definition.

Then again, there are gray areas. In a really close match decided by the tightest tie-breaks, maybe the time-cheating that many players in means they didn't deserve to win. Or take the USO finals, where Federer was forced to re-serve after Del Potro held up his hand after the Federer served, saying he wasn't ready. There was no justification for the umpire making Federer serve again, it was an ace, plain and simple. In that case, it didn't matter, Federer won that game anyways. But had that sort of thing happened on match-point in a close-match, and a player is forced to re-serve what should have been an ace, then the other guy hits a winner off the serve, hence the server doesn't win the match but is instead broken and loses it.

But this kind of thing is very rare, I think. I don't think I've ever watched a match where we could say an umpire not doing his job and issuing an erroneous ruling clearly robbed one player of a win.

stapler
11-30-2009, 10:06 AM
I agree completely. Absent cheating, the player who wins is the player who deserved to win by definition.

Then again, there are gray areas. In a really close match decided by the tightest tie-breaks, maybe the time-cheating that many players in means they didn't deserve to win. Or take the USO finals, where Federer was forced to re-serve after Del Potro held up his hand after the Federer served, saying he wasn't ready. There was no justification for the umpire making Federer serve again, it was an ace, plain and simple. In that case, it didn't matter, Federer won that game anyways. But had that sort of thing happened on match-point in a close-match, and a player is forced to re-serve what should have been an ace, then the other guy hits a winner off the serve, hence the server doesn't win the match but is instead broken and loses it.

But this kind of thing is very rare, I think. I don't think I've ever watched a match where we could say an umpire not doing his job and issuing an erroneous ruling clearly robbed one player of a win.


I don't recall this point, but if that's what the umpire did, how is he allowed to call such games as an umpire? Isn't in the rules that the flow of play is dictated by the server, and that the returner must be ready when the server is ready to start?

nikdom
11-30-2009, 10:09 AM
I agree completely. Absent cheating, the player who wins is the player who deserved to win by definition.

Then again, there are gray areas. In a really close match decided by the tightest tie-breaks, maybe the time-cheating that many players in means they didn't deserve to win. Or take the USO finals, where Federer was forced to re-serve after Del Potro held up his hand after the Federer served, saying he wasn't ready. There was no justification for the umpire making Federer serve again, it was an ace, plain and simple. In that case, it didn't matter, Federer won that game anyways. But had that sort of thing happened on match-point in a close-match, and a player is forced to re-serve what should have been an ace, then the other guy hits a winner off the serve, hence the server doesn't win the match but is instead broken and loses it.

But this kind of thing is very rare, I think. I don't think I've ever watched a match where we could say an umpire not doing his job and issuing an erroneous ruling clearly robbed one player of a win.

Word!

(10 chars)

doublebreak
11-30-2009, 10:12 AM
I don't recall this point, but if that's what the umpire did, how is he allowed to call such games as an umpire? Isn't in the rules that the flow of play is dictated by the server, and that the returner must be ready when the server is ready to start?

There was some object that moved behind Federer and distracted JMDP right when Federer was in full motion. Umpire made a call to replay the point.

dh003i
11-30-2009, 10:21 AM
There was some object that moved behind Federer and distracted JMDP right when Federer was in full motion. Umpire made a call to replay the point.

I think that is non-sense. He only held up his hand after Federer had served, not while he started to throw the ball up. Fed threw the ball up, hammered in an ace, the ball bounced by Del Potro, then Delpo held up his hand. If it had been a lame duck 80 mph serve and Delpo had more time to react, he would have teed off on it an hit a winner. I doubt he'd had thrown up his hand if he saw a very slow serve coming at him that he could've hammered for a winner. So it seems a little silly.

But fortunately, Federer won that game anyways, so it presumably had no influence on the outcome of the match (unless it put Federer into an aggravated mental state).

In any event, my point is a theoretical one. Lets say it goes down as I said, where the umpire made a clearly wrong call on what would have been the match-winning point for a guy, then he has to reserve and gets broken. I'd say he was robbed of the match then. (unless of course there was an equal and opposite call against the other guy earlier that affected the outcome of a set).

Then there's the gray areas, like the continuous unfair advantage that players who take more than the legal amount of time provide themselves with by doing such.

But I tend to think that, for the most part, the player who won deserved to win.

I.e., Davydenko beat Federer at the Masters Cup and then Delpo. He deserved to win each of those matches because he did what was necessary to win them. That is, he won, thus he deserved to win. He didn't deserve to win because the other guys were "due a loss" or because he was "due a win" or any of that superstitious non-sense. He won because he played better in the important moments.

jamesblakefan#1
11-30-2009, 10:22 AM
I only get disgruntled when I hear people talk about how certain players deserve a slam (Roddick after Wimbledon, Davydenko now) You go out and earn them. Unless there's some unforseeable incident (i.e. Monica Seles) which prevents a certain player from being able to win slams, I don't see how players should deserve slams just for good efforts. You go out there and win them, it's only Roddick's fault that he can't beat Fed, Davy's fault that he can't beat Fed, etc.

doublebreak
11-30-2009, 10:33 AM
I think that is non-sense. He only held up his hand after Federer had served, not while he started to throw the ball up. Fed threw the ball up, hammered in an ace, the ball bounced by Del Potro, then Delpo held up his hand. If it had been a lame duck 80 mph serve and Delpo had more time to react, he would have teed off on it an hit a winner. I doubt he'd had thrown up his hand if he saw a very slow serve coming at him that he could've hammered for a winner. So it seems a little silly.

But fortunately, Federer won that game anyways, so it presumably had no influence on the outcome of the match (unless it put Federer into an aggravated mental state).

In any event, my point is a theoretical one. Lets say it goes down as I said, where the umpire made a clearly wrong call on what would have been the match-winning point for a guy, then he has to reserve and gets broken. I'd say he was robbed of the match then. (unless of course there was an equal and opposite call against the other guy earlier that affected the outcome of a set).

Then there's the gray areas, like the continuous unfair advantage that players who take more than the legal amount of time provide themselves with by doing such.

But I tend to think that, for the most part, the player who won deserved to win.

I.e., Davydenko beat Federer at the Masters Cup and then Delpo. He deserved to win each of those matches because he did what was necessary to win them. That is, he won, thus he deserved to win. He didn't deserve to win because the other guys were "due a loss" or because he was "due a win" or any of that superstitious non-sense. He won because he played better in the important moments.

I absolutely agree that cheating/umpire mistakes taint the competition therefore creating the only instances in where the loosing part may in fact had deserved the win. Of course, it would for the most part be only speculation since there's no way to know with certainty.

As for the USO incident, I haven't analyzed the video so can't make a judgment on it. I would only say that I think it is possible that a player can decide and start the motion to put a hand up because a distraction and not make it before the ball is striken and practically past him since it's going 100 plus m/h. So I give the umpire the benefit of the doubt.