PDA

View Full Version : Have you lost consistently to a player who is worse than you in EVERYTHING?


Golden Retriever
12-12-2009, 10:08 AM
Many people complain about pushers but from my experience, "pushers" who win me consistently always do something better than me. Maybe they are faster, react quicker, have a better court sense, have a better touch etc. I personally have not lost to anyone consistently, pusher or not, who is worse than me in everything and wins consistently only by getting the ball over the net.

Topaz
12-12-2009, 10:28 AM
Many people complain about pushers but from my experience, "pushers" who win me consistently always do something better than me. Maybe they are faster, react quicker, have a better court sense, have a better touch etc. I personally have not lost to anyone consistently, pusher or not, who is worse than me in everything and wins consistently only by getting the ball over the net.

Not sure what exactly you're asking here? If someone (player A) loses to someone else (player B), then B is the better player that day. If player A thinks that B is worse even though B won, they A needs some work in the mental game department.

jmjmkim
12-12-2009, 10:32 AM
As long as it was good quality tennis, to the best of each players' abilities, it's all GOOD since they would both enjoy the game while getting good exercise.

Afterall, reacreational tennis is about having fun exercise...... for me.

5263
12-12-2009, 10:46 AM
Many people complain about pushers but from my experience, "pushers" who win me consistently always do something better than me. Maybe they are faster, react quicker, have a better court sense, have a better touch etc. I personally have not lost to anyone consistently, pusher or not, who is worse than me in everything and wins consistently only by getting the ball over the net.

very good point IMO.

Mr.Brightside
12-12-2009, 10:47 AM
if that happens, the nthe player that won is better at the most important thing: winning

J011yroger
12-12-2009, 11:02 AM
If I lose consistently to someone, then they have to be better than me at something.

There are several players that I play with regularly that I am comprehensively better than in every aspect of the game, but they are still quite good players, and I get a lot out of practicing with them.

If they beat me, then it is because they played well that day, and I played poorly, and it is a 1/10 or 1/20 thing. As soon as that ratio gets up around 1/5 then the player is almost as good as you, and most likely does something better than you unless you are very similar types of players, and one is just better ie. Federer/Haas.

Most players that I am competitive with I do certain things better than them, and they do other things better than me, and in playing it is about trying to get the match to involve more of what I do better, and less of what they do better.

J

Mick
12-12-2009, 11:12 AM
sometimes the better player is just playing with your mind.
i met this guy in college. when i first knew him, i didn't know how well he could play table tennis. whenever we played he would always barely beat me. then i got to know him better. he's way out of my league when it came to table tennis.
i did not know it at the time but i had no chance whatsoever in beating him (although the scores were always very close).
i figure there are people like him who play tennis :)

Cindysphinx
12-12-2009, 11:22 AM
No, I don't lose to people who are worse than me in *everything.*

In singles, I tend to lose to people who are good at feeding me balls I don't like and don't handle well.

In doubles, I tend to think the people who beat me are stronger than me. I haven't had a loss in a while where I thought the other team was weaker.

mtommer
12-12-2009, 12:08 PM
sometimes the better player is just playing with your mind.
i met this guy in college. when i first knew him, i didn't know how well he could play table tennis. whenever we played he would always barely beat me. then i got to know him better. he's way out of my league when it came to table tennis.
i did not know it at the time but i had no chance whatsoever in beating him (although the scores were always very close).
i figure there are people like him who play tennis :)

Good point, I'm sure there are (sandbaggers anyone?). What about losing to someone you normally beat? Are they better than you still? What about losing to someone who cheated? What about someone who is injured at the moment? How about someone who starts feeling sick (legitimately) like Alex Domijan or Jack Sock who were beating their opponents (Jack Sock rather handily beating Austin until then) in Kzoo until they started feeling sick?

If both players are playing, truly, on par with their regular game, then sure, one beating the other is probably indicitive of the winner being the better player, or at least fairly equal if they are competitive and matches played close or equal in terms of score or head to head.

user92626
12-12-2009, 12:44 PM
This is kind of a trick question. I thought I would say occasionally I lose to worse players when I "stop" playing and just want to try new things, ie techniques and strategies, hehe I bring practise right into game :)

But the OP said "consistently", I guess that would only happen if you, the better player, always somehow manage to get injured before playing. Nadal should be able to relate to this. LOL.

salsainglesa
12-12-2009, 03:11 PM
NEVER!
who ever beats me played better....

5263
12-12-2009, 03:24 PM
If I lose consistently to someone, then they have to be better than me at something.

There are several players that I play with regularly that I am comprehensively better than in every aspect of the game, but they are still quite good players, and I get a lot out of practicing with them.

If they beat me, then it is because they played well that day, and I played poorly, and it is a 1/10 or 1/20 thing. As soon as that ratio gets up around 1/5 then the player is almost as good as you, and most likely does something better than you unless you are very similar types of players, and one is just better ie. Federer/Haas.

Most players that I am competitive with I do certain things better than them, and they do other things better than me, and in playing it is about trying to get the match to involve more of what I do better, and less of what they do better.

J

Good points Jolly. Hey could you also post what the camera you used in some of those good vids you shot was? There is camcorder thread for it.

OHBH
12-12-2009, 03:46 PM
not possible. the question itself is a paradox

GeorgeLucas
12-12-2009, 07:42 PM
It IS possible to lose to someone who is worse than you at EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING. Just think of how it is possible to win less points but take a match.

Ex: A 5 setter first 2 sets go 0-6 0-6 with love in each game. The next 3 sets go 7-6 7-6 7-6 with you winning by 2 in every tiebreaker. This way, your opponent could have won more points and still have lost the game.

It would be a similar case in the question of the player who is worse than you at everything. You may win more points overall but it is still possible to lose the match.

user92626
12-12-2009, 10:51 PM
No, George. Your example still means the winner is the better tiebreak player. The OP's question specifically specifies EVERYTHING. LOL.

Like i said above, only possible if the better player is consistently injured going in. Example, Nadal, who has a much higher rank and more GSs to show for, has been consistently losing to a bunch of lesser players.

DavaiMarat
12-15-2009, 09:21 AM
My only complaint about pushers is this, from a instructors point of view I feel they have a finite ceiling of success. Getting the ball back deep and into the court can only get you so far. You get a 4.5 or 5.0 that can take your sitter and run you from corner to corner with impunity, you see a pusher's cap realized.

Also for me tennis is a game of learning. Improving pace and consistency and technique, a pusher concerns himself with non of this, only winning.

How many pushers actually go out and improve their technique. Very few.

raiden031
12-15-2009, 09:49 AM
Its possible that I've lost to players who on a per-component basis, are worse than me in practically every way. They might be pushers who have good movement, good consistency, and good shot tolerance...all enough to beat me in the match. But its possible I could do these things better against myself (in theory) if I chose to play the same style.

Instead I play my style, and if my style loses the match, then my game (collection of all components of my game) was weaker than my opponent.

dman72
12-15-2009, 10:21 AM
Depends on what "worse" and "better" refer to. I play 2 guys who have better form than me on every stroke and watching us hit, people on adjacent courts assume they are superior players, but the match results show the exact opposite.

Likewise, a couple of guys who kill me look like butchers with unorthodox strokes, but they are way more consistent than I am and know how to exploit my weaknesses. Sure, I have a bigger first serve and my forehand "looks" superior on any given shot, but it's that one that goes 2 inches long that loses the point.

This is why I think that consistency is the #1 attribute for people starting out in tennis to aspire to. It wins pretty far up the ratings ladder much more than being able to hit a 75 MPH down the line winner 1 out of 4 tries. :)

North
12-15-2009, 11:30 AM
My only complaint about pushers is this, from a instructors point of view I feel they have a finite ceiling of success. Getting the ball back deep and into the court can only get you so far. You get a 4.5 or 5.0 that can take your sitter and run you from corner to corner with impunity, you see a pusher's cap realized.

Also for me tennis is a game of learning. Improving pace and consistency and technique, a pusher concerns himself with non of this, only winning.

How many pushers actually go out and improve their technique. Very few.

Well put. I played lots of pushers as much as possible until I could consistently beat them. I would lose, thank them for playing, and play them again and again. They were all invariably happy to play as long as I was losing. As soon as I would win a couple of times, not one wanted to continue playing. This, of course, pleases me as they are exceedingly boring to have to play against. But my impression always was what you have succinctly stated.

Pushers have a game style - only one game style - that matches up well against people who like to hit hard but get impatient or need to improve technique. That covers a lot of people (younger guys, especially, but certainly me till I saw why I was losing). I don't respect a pusher who wins, by simply playing the only way they'll ever be able to, because they are matched up against a common type of opponent. I definitely respect someone who can choose to win by pushing because they recognise certain flaws in their opponent and pick the style of play (among the multiple strategies they may have) that will win.

mucat
12-15-2009, 01:54 PM
not possible. the question itself is a paradox

I have to agree.

Bungalo Bill
12-15-2009, 02:48 PM
Many people complain about pushers but from my experience, "pushers" who win me consistently always do something better than me. Maybe they are faster, react quicker, have a better court sense, have a better touch etc. I personally have not lost to anyone consistently, pusher or not, who is worse than me in everything and wins consistently only by getting the ball over the net.

Yes, I find myself losing to a lessor player often. I lose to my son in video games. Madden Football comes to mind. It just ticks me off to no end because I know I am better than him.

For the life of me, I can't defend against his 98 yard Hail Mary when he drops his QB back 40 yards! Even when I am in a fricking Prevent Defense and I know it is coming!!! He runs it every darn play!

My player either falls down, jumps too soon, gets a pass interference penalty, or is nowhere near the ball.

However, I can beat his butt if I wanted too. ;)

Ripper014
12-15-2009, 03:12 PM
Many people complain about pushers but from my experience, "pushers" who win me consistently always do something better than me. Maybe they are faster, react quicker, have a better court sense, have a better touch etc. I personally have not lost to anyone consistently, pusher or not, who is worse than me in everything and wins consistently only by getting the ball over the net.

With a name like Golden Retriever it makes me believe you might be the king of the pushers... and likely why you never lose to anyone worse than you.

:oops:

LuckyR
12-15-2009, 03:15 PM
Many people complain about pushers but from my experience, "pushers" who win me consistently always do something better than me. Maybe they are faster, react quicker, have a better court sense, have a better touch etc. I personally have not lost to anyone consistently, pusher or not, who is worse than me in everything and wins consistently only by getting the ball over the net.

These terms, "better" and "worse" as far as tennis is concerned only have a meaning as regards winning and losing matches (the winner is better, the loser is worse than the winner, at tennis that day). As to having a better FH or serve or whatever, that is a subjective descriptor, that is, it is your opinion not a fact.

Ripper014
12-15-2009, 03:15 PM
Its possible that I've lost to players who on a per-component basis, are worse than me in practically every way. They might be pushers who have good movement, good consistency, and good shot tolerance...all enough to beat me in the match. But its possible I could do these things better against myself (in theory) if I chose to play the same style.

Instead I play my style, and if my style loses the match, then my game (collection of all components of my game) was weaker than my opponent.

Good points... but if I may add... a pusher is more consistant on a daily basis compared to an attacking aggressive player, mainly because the pusher plays a low risk, high percentage game. The attacking aggressive player is playing a high risk, low percentage game... and he/she needs to be playing relatively well to win because he/she cannot count on any loose points that come from most players.

Power Player
12-15-2009, 03:49 PM
I have not lost consistently to a bad player, but I used to lose to inferior players because I made unforced errors and double faults the whole time. It got so bad that I stopped playing tennis for over 10 years because of the mental pressure and frustration the Jr. tournies put me in after a while. I can't describe the frustration of that, but I went back to the fundamentals and got my strokes back. It is a tough game sometimes.

AlpineCadet
02-06-2010, 01:36 AM
If I lose consistently to someone, then they have to be better than me at something.

There are several players that I play with regularly that I am comprehensively better than in every aspect of the game, but they are still quite good players, and I get a lot out of practicing with them.

If they beat me, then it is because they played well that day, and I played poorly, and it is a 1/10 or 1/20 thing. As soon as that ratio gets up around 1/5 then the player is almost as good as you, and most likely does something better than you unless you are very similar types of players, and one is just better ie. Federer/Haas.

Most players that I am competitive with I do certain things better than them, and they do other things better than me, and in playing it is about trying to get the match to involve more of what I do better, and less of what they do better.

J

My mathematics are more logical than yours.