Is It OK To Lose A Game To Win The Match?

[Cindysphinx]

A weird thing happened in my match today. (I know, you're shocked, huh?)

I was playing a ladies match. Our matches are timed to two hours. We have elaborate rules that will tell you who won should a match end in a tie.

My partner and I won the first set 7-6. My partner and I fell behind in the second set 2-5, with perhaps 15 minutes remaining. I was serving.

If the match had ended at that exact moment, we would have lost. This is because the opponents would be awarded the second set because they were leading by two games. That would mean we split sets. In that case, you add up the number of games won by each team, 9 for us, 11 for them.

My partner turned to me and said, "We should throw this game. That would give them the set, and then we could have a chance to win it in a 10-point tiebreak. If we waste time trying to win this game, we'll run out of time to play the tiebreaker and lose."

It made sense. There just wasn't enough time to win outright or even win two more games so that the second set wouldn't count. Somehow, I just couldn't agree to it. I figure that if you try to game the system, the Tennis Gods will smite you down. Torn ACL, rotator cuff, heart attack, something. Plus, I have seen teams start stalling thinking they had won only to find that they had misremembered the tiebreak rules.

I told my partner we should just try to keep the points short and see if we could win fair and square, so we did. My service game went to deuce, and then we lost the game and the set. It was time for a 10-point Coman match tiebreak.

At that point, one of our opponents came to the net to shake hands even though there were still six minutes remaining. She said we should just stop because we'd never finish the tiebreaker. My partner said no, and she and I decided to hit Nothing But Winners since we had so little time and nothing to lose.

A few huge swings later and the score was 4-1 with the analog clock teetering on 2 hours.

The rule is that a tiebreak counts if six or more points have been played and a team is leading by at least two points when time expires. We were one point short.

My partner said, "Cindy, just serve it! Hurry! We don't need to win the point, we just need to start the point so six points will have been played!" I dispensed with my usual ball bouncing and deep breathing and proceeded to serve the slowest, loopiest, most embarrassing wounded duck serve possible. It landed in, and they smacked it long. 5-1. For good measure, we played one more point, which they won. 5-2. Final result was a 7-6, 2-6, 1-0 win.

Now. Here's the question.

Would it have been wrong and unethical to throw that last game to get to the tiebreak sooner?

Oh, and yes. I know timed matches stink, blah, blah, blah. But that's the way it is here and forever will be.

 

[Vermillion]

if under a time constraint, then you should implement the strategy that will be favorable to you. 2 hours for 2 sets of doubles is quite a feat though.. hehe Mrs. Cindyspharapova.

 

[Supernatural_Serve]

Legitimate strategy in my book. Especially playing more games faster.

Its more gamey when people go the other way, start slowing down or stalling in the final minutes of timed matches for purpose of winning a match.

 

[raiden031]

In my league once you start the tiebreaker you play it until you finish, even if you're out of time (or is that only a spring league rule?). Are you sure thats not the rule in yours?

 

[Craig Sheppard]

First, that sounds crazy that you're under such strict time constraints... I've never heard of anyone watching the clock so closely.

To your question though, throwing the game sounds fine to me because you will be playing a tiebreak. Same scenario to get a second set over fast if you're losing energy and know you couldn't battle. I don't see anything really wrong with the stratgegy, is more of a big picture view; a lose the battle but win the war situation.

 

[shell]

Sounds like a good and fair strategy, but gosh, how weird. I've never played under a time constraint before in my whole life - other than court time maybe.

Congrats on figuring a way out of it! And I wouldn't worry about ethics under those circumstaces. Tennis has always been the sport of no time constraints - to impose one changed the whole logic of the game. Win as winner must!

 

[Venetian]

I would've thrown that game in a heartbeat for a chance to win the match. It's not unethical at all; just smart.

 

[Solat]

when you walked on the court to play i am sure you were there to win, the rules are the boundaries by which you play by, if its legit and its in your interest then go for it.

 

[user92626]

With all due respect this sounds like a very annoying match. I would think ethics and wrong would be my least concern in a game and culture like this. But that's just me.

 

[racquet_jedi]

Of course it's okay, though it's more okay with some than others...:wink:

 

[tzinc]

Players throw games in untimed matches.

If you get down fast 5-1 with say a 1 or 2 set lead. Why not conserve energy and let them have it. IMO this does happen even among the pros.

You didn't even the timing system do what it takes to win! If you don't feel right get them to change the timing system in some way if they can!

 

[lethalfang]

Whoever came up with that scoring system should be sent to Guantanamo Bay. I mean, this scoring system is demanding that you throw the game.

 

[Supernatural_Serve]

Whoever came up with that scoring system should be sent to Guantanamo Bay. I mean, this scoring system is demanding that you throw the game.

Its inevitable especially in 2 hour timed doubles matches. Which is the standard situation at clubs renting courts by the hour with people paying good money ready to jump on the court the moment your time is up.

The question always comes down to what happens in the 2nd or most commonly 3rd set when time is running out, especialy when both teams have won a set.

You can't help but think about what is the best way to use the final 10-15 minutes, given the leagues "scoring" methodology. I've seen different approaches and none of them stop people from speeding up, slowing down, throwing a game, throwing their return game when down 0-30, etc.

Playing at the usual pace as if nobody on the court knows the time remaining and play until a buzzer goes off, isn't what happens, especially in competitive leagues, especially team matches.

 

[tfm1973]

in my mixed league we have 90 minutes for our matches and time definitely plays a factor. i think realizing the situation is just smart tennis. to me TIME, knowing the RULES, FITNESS, etc. - these are all parts of the game of tennis and knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!

 

[Moz]

These timed matches are annoying. I agree with the consensus - just throw the game asap.

The previous poster who mentioned the go-slowers when they're up is a different situation. That would be infuriating and I would put that in a different category altogether than the situation you described.

I've seen arguments where people have argued over what time it actually is. People now agree beforehand which clock they are using.

 

[SJS]

These timed matches are annoying. I agree with the consensus - just throw the game asap.

The previous poster who mentioned the go-slowers when they're up is a different situation. That would be infuriating and I would put that in a different category altogether than the situation you described.

I've seen arguments where people have argued over what time it actually is. People now agree beforehand which clock they are using.

Totally agree. By trying to get to the tie-break you are doing nothing to hinder the opponents. Anyone can win. Stalling is totally different and unethical in that the opponents are given no chance of winning.

 

[PimpMyGame]

Players throw games in untimed matches.

If you get down fast 5-1 with say a 1 or 2 set lead. Why not conserve energy and let them have it. IMO this does happen even among the pros.

You didn't even the timing system do what it takes to win! If you don't feel right get them to change the timing system in some way if they can!

Exactly what I was going to say.

I don't think the majority of 6-0 or 6-1 sets in pro tennis are due to one player being way better than another player. It's got more to do with energy conservation and maybe to give a bit of false security to your opponent.

You played to the rules and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

[tfm1973]

Totally agree. By trying to get to the tie-break you are doing nothing to hinder the opponents. Anyone can win. Stalling is totally different and unethical in that the opponents are given no chance of winning.

I'm curious what people would think about slowing things down within a point. For example - stalling by "accidently" dropping a ball on your foot and chasing it down or taking longer than the 30 seconds or whatever time between points is just unfair.

BUT - what about slowing down play by keeping balls in play or a lot of moonballs? Is this also unethical or smart strategy?

Just playing devil's advocate. Curious to see where the line is drawn. :twisted:

 

[raiden031]

These timed matches are annoying.

This is why I hate playing USTA doubles matches against senior players. They often take long breaks during changeovers and casually walk to retrieve their balls between points. I've never run out of time but come close a few a times, and it sucks because there is absolutely nothing I can do about it unless I blow them out and minimize the number of games played.

 

[SunDog]

If this match is being played with the understanding that The Code of Tennis is in effect, then Article 10 of The Code would probably be in conflict with deliberately throwing a point - much more a game:

10. Treat all points the same regardless of their importance. All points in
a match should be treated the same.

There are several other issues being discussed in this thread that are also covered by The Code. Our leagues are generally played in accordance with ITF rules with The Code in effect. Therefore, I like to read it from time to time.

 

[Nellie]

I had to do something similar last season in my men's league. We were playing a tight match with long, long points. One hour into the match (timed for 1.5 hours), we were down 5-1. We decided to quickly play the next game (not so much tank, but go only for winners). We lose that game and set but go on to win a second set and the tie breaker to win the match.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Raiden, you are not allowed to continue playing beyond the 2 hours, even to finish a tiebreak. In fact, a couple of guys took the court the minute we vacated.

You know why it felt wrong to throw that last game?

Because I would be ashamed if my opponents knew I had done it.

The most efficient way to throw a game in this situation is to serve double-faults into the net. Bam! Eight serves into the bottom of the net so we control ball location. Our opponents would know what was up though, wouldn't they?

Now, would it be OK for them to throw moon balls to run out the clock? That feels less objectionable to me. I guess this is because we would have a fair chance to end or win the point.

As things stand, I feel a little weird about what we did do, which was step up the pace of play. We were playing a Coman tiebreak with all that switching sides stuff. My partner and I played very quickly, and our opponents took more time and had more conferences and walked more slowly. We would run into our receive position immediately to pressure them into serving more quickly. I have to admit that I wouldn't have rushed like that had we been winning; I would have played at my regular pace, which is rather methodical.

Anyway, stalling is punishable by a grievance. If you have some witnesses that your opponents slowed down play in violation of the rules or took a convenient bathroom break, that would be stalling and the league would nail them. When the second set ended, our opponents could have taken a bathroom break. Had they done this, I would have filed a grievance for sure because we had already taken a bathroom break between the first and second sets.

After the match, our opponents conferred with our captain about the scores. One opponent told her, "You know, we could have won if we had stalled." My captain said nothing, but she told us she thought, "Oh, so you want a pat on the back for not cheating?"

 

[spiderman123]

Raiden, you are not allowed to continue playing beyond the 2 hours, even to finish a tiebreak. In fact, a couple of guys took the court the minute we vacated.

You know why it felt wrong to throw that last game?

Because I would be ashamed if my opponents knew I had done it.

I am sure the Tennis Gods would have been perfectly ok with you throwing the game as you were doing it for winning the match and winning the match only.

If you were throwing games to avoid getting DQed, that is the time the Tennis Gods stop watching the replay of Federer's matches, stop discussing Sharapova's shrieking and turn their attention to you.

And yes, such stringent time limits definitely sound very strange. If I was waiting to occupy the court and the match was hanging at 5-2 Match TB, I would have asked them to finish their match.

I think the way men and women approach tennis (casual/pro) is distinctly different and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[dpfrazier]

Something similar happened to one of my Little League teams.

In one early evening game, the teams were tied going into the top of the 6th (last) inning. Our team scored a few runs (four, as I recall) with only one out.

But it was getting dark, and we were approaching the set cutoff time of 20 minutes after sunset. Little Leagues rules state that if you can't finish the bottom half of an inning, then the top half doesn't count.

So we had two of our boys strike out to end the inning; that allowed enough time to get the bottom of the inning completed before the cutoff time.

P.S. We won!

 

[Doc Hollidae]

If you're playing to win, you throw the game and take your chances in the breaker.

If you're playing for fun, let it ride.

Since you're under time constraints, throwing a game becomes strategic rather than unethical.

 

[duffman]

A weird thing happened in my match today. (I know, you're shocked, huh?)

I was playing a ladies match. Our matches are timed to two hours. We have elaborate rules that will tell you who won should a match end in a tie.

My partner and I won the first set 7-6. My partner and I fell behind in the second set 2-5, with perhaps 15 minutes remaining. I was serving.

If the match had ended at that exact moment, we would have lost. This is because the opponents would be awarded the second set because they were leading by two games. That would mean we split sets. In that case, you add up the number of games won by each team, 9 for us, 11 for them.

My partner turned to me and said, "We should throw this game. That would give them the set, and then we could have a chance to win it in a 10-point tiebreak. If we waste time trying to win this game, we'll run out of time to play the tiebreaker and lose."

It made sense. There just wasn't enough time to win outright or even win two more games so that the second set wouldn't count. Somehow, I just couldn't agree to it. I figure that if you try to game the system, the Tennis Gods will smite you down. Torn ACL, rotator cuff, heart attack, something. Plus, I have seen teams start stalling thinking they had won only to find that they had misremembered the tiebreak rules.

I told my partner we should just try to keep the points short and see if we could win fair and square, so we did. My service game went to deuce, and then we lost the game and the set. It was time for a 10-point Coman match tiebreak.

At that point, one of our opponents came to the net to shake hands even though there were still six minutes remaining. She said we should just stop because we'd never finish the tiebreaker. My partner said no, and she and I decided to hit Nothing But Winners since we had so little time and nothing to lose.

A few huge swings later and the score was 4-1 with the analog clock teetering on 2 hours.

The rule is that a tiebreak counts if six or more points have been played and a team is leading by at least two points when time expires. We were one point short.

My partner said, "Cindy, just serve it! Hurry! We don't need to win the point, we just need to start the point so six points will have been played!" I dispensed with my usual ball bouncing and deep breathing and proceeded to serve the slowest, loopiest, most embarrassing wounded duck serve possible. It landed in, and they smacked it long. 5-1. For good measure, we played one more point, which they won. 5-2. Final result was a 7-6, 2-6, 1-0 win.

Now. Here's the question.

Would it have been wrong and unethical to throw that last game to get to the tiebreak sooner?

Oh, and yes. I know timed matches stink, blah, blah, blah. But that's the way it is here and forever will be.

I see the point of throwing the game and that it could be argued that because of the way the rules are written you are forced to do so. But what would happen if the other team knew of your predicament and wouldn't let you lose your service game?

I could see it now, Cindy lobbing in serves and the other team failing to even make an attempt at swinging at them to lose the point. So Cindy serves at 0-15 and double faults on purpose. She dumps her first serve in the net at 15 all but as she is about to serve her second serve the opposing net player drops her racquet and insists that Cindy "take 2". This continues for the remaining 6 minutes and Cindy loses the match.

So that is where the problem lies in throwing the game to win the match and why tennis is not a timed sport and never should be. I don't envy anyone playing timed tennis, I could never do it.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Spiderman, if you were next up to take the court, you would be making a big mistake to wait for the other team to finish. Remember, you only get two hours, and the people following you are under no obligation to give you even one extra minute.

Duffman, if the only game in town where you live was timed tennis matches, you'd do what everyone here does: Suck it up.

 

[Nellie]

I think it would be faster to quickly serve lollipops and let the other team return winners, instead of hitting double faults (chasing balls, etc)

 

[spiderman123]

Spiderman, if you were next up to take the court, you would be making a big mistake to wait for the other team to finish. Remember, you only get two hours, and the people following you are under no obligation to give you even one extra minute.

That is why I said there is a fundamental difference in how men and women approach the game. [I remember you saying that you will take the victory if your opponent is 4-5 minutes late as everyone in your team works hard to get to the court on time etc. IIRC, many men in here said they would not have a problem and play the match. And my opinion is not based on only these two examples but they have helped to reinforce it.]

When I let someone finish this match that is in the middle of a match tie breaker(and in all probabilities it would take another 4-5 min at the most), I would be thinking that there is a little chance that I go over 2 hrs and you can certainly use the minutes we save.

Even if we do go over, we will go over by more than 2-3 minutes that I wait to let you finish. In that case, we could not have helped it anyway. At least, one match was decided by full play.

If we go over by just 2-3 minutes, I will request the next team if they can let us finish. If not, I would at least feel good that we let you finish.

This is recreational tennis and that is exactly how I and almost all the people I know through tennis look at it. Ofcourse, there are some weirdos around but everyone agrees that they are weirdos and everyone ignores them.

 

[Cindysphinx]

It's not a gender thing. It's also not a level thing.

It's that everyone here is quite used to the idea of matches timing out. People don't even ask to have a few minutes to finish a tiebreak. When they see another team ready to walk on, they get off the court immediately. The way I look at it, I should have closed out the match sooner and if I don't think it is fair or right for me to ask anyone else (the people behind me who are laboring under the same time constraints) to suffer the consequences, not even for 2 minutes.

I did have to throw a guy off a court once. It was a private club, and he was playing a social match with a buddy. The horn blew, but they just kept playing. I said the courts were ours for a league match and we'd have to ask him to stop. He said he was a member and we weren't, so we would have to let him finish. I said no. He ignored me and served the ball. I walked onto the court, put my stuff on the bench, opened my balls, got out my racket and got ready to play. He was livid; his friend was horribly embarrassed. He went to the front desk and complained.

The front desk backed me up.

 

[Nellie]

^^^^ Maybe if you are having fun, but the league rules are clear on when matches begin and end. It is nothing to do with a man/woman thing.

With the indoor courts, you have to get off at a certain time, and as Cindy mentioned, there is often not enough time to finish the matches.

Many leagues are designed as a timed match, with many, many rules on how to determine the outcome at the end of time, sets won being a rather minor part of the rules determining the winner. (it's not really who wins two sets firsts, but who wins the most games in 1.5 hours, with the match happening to end if someone gets to two sets first.) You don't go over the time because that is not the purpose of the match. It is the understanding of all the players before you come, and it would not be fair to continue play when time expired because your team was coming back.

 

[spiderman123]

It's not a gender thing. .

Ok.

It's also not a level thing.

Never said so.

It's that everyone here is quite used to the idea of matches timing out. People don't even ask to have a few minutes to finish a tiebreak. When they see another team ready to walk on, they get off the court immediately.

After thinking more I am sure it is very difficult to go on after the limit. One team by that time has figured out that they will win if they walk off at that point. And given the cut-throat, high-stakes competition USTA league is, they WILL walk off as obviously they have other commitments.

The way I look at it, I should have closed out the match sooner and if I don't think it is fair or right for me to ask anyone else (the people behind me who are laboring under the same time constraints) to suffer the consequences, not even for 2 minutes.

That is the difference. I will not treat losing 2 minutes so that someone can finish their match as "suffering".

 

[ZPTennis]

If the match isn't just for fun, definitely throw the game.

The way I see it, is its not your fault the match is lasting 2 hours.
Its the leagues.

They should change the system so that you don't have to worry about going over 2 hours.

Make it best to 5 each set and at 4-4 play a tie breaker.

If their system breaks down, you have every right to do what it takes to win as long as you aren't purposely stalling.

 

[SJS]

Ok.



Never said so.



After thinking more I am sure it is very difficult to go on after the limit. One team by that time has figured out that they will win if they walk off at that point. And given the cut-throat, high-stakes competition USTA league is, they WILL walk off as obviously they have other commitments.




That is the difference. I will not treat losing 2 minutes so that someone can finish their match as "suffering".

OK, our indoor league only has 90 minutes. During prime USTA season matches run from 6:30-8:00pm, 8:00-9:30pm and 9:30-11:00pm. If both the 6:30 & 8:00 matches went over I think the 9:30 match might consider it "suffering" when the club turns off the lights at 11:00pm (which I've seen happen)and they didn't even get their 90 minutes. You might think you're being a good sport by going over but it would be very unfair to the following matches. That's why the rules are strictly enforced in the indoor leagues.

 

[spiderman123]

OK, our indoor league only has 90 minutes. During prime USTA season matches run from 6:30-8:00pm, 8:00-9:30pm and 9:30-11:00pm. If both the 6:30 & 8:00 matches went over I think the 9:30 match might consider it "suffering" when the club turns off the lights at 11:00pm (which I've seen happen)and they didn't even get their 90 minutes. You might think you're being a good sport by going over but it would be very unfair to the following matches. That's why the rules are strictly enforced in the indoor leagues.

Did you read my earlier post regarding this? I said that I will be willing to start my match 2-3 minutes late hoping that I may end earlier anyway. If I need extra 2-3 minutes, it will be at the next team's discretion. I am not saying that we should have a cascading effect and I should start my 2/1.5 hrs timer when I started playing. The timer still starts when it should have.

So there is no question of being unfair to following matches. It is just between these two matches.

 

[Cindysphinx]

Spiderman, you could of course do whatever you want regarding starting your own timed matches on time.

I just want it clear that my approach (I will assess default penalties and I will have my players' matches start on time) is not only appropriate, it is mandatory. The league is totally behind me on this.

The league issues a document called "Customs Every Player Should Know." I believe it was revised last year to add item No. 1.

Item No. 1 now reads:

"Assessing Lateness penalties and defaults are mandatory. Review local league rules for specifics."

I can only guess that this was added because players/teams who are late do tend to take the position that the team imposing a lateness penalty is not being sporting or is violating local custom.

I don't mind if Spiderman wants to short his own team/players such that they get less than the allotted 90-minute time (for night leagues). Totally his call. I do mind the implication that anyone who does insist on the full 90 minutes is being petty.

 

[SJS]

]Did you read my earlier post regarding this? [/B]I said that I will be willing to start my match 2-3 minutes late hoping that I may end earlier anyway. If I need extra 2-3 minutes, it will be at the next team's discretion. I am not saying that we should have a cascading effect and I should start my 2/1.5 hrs timer when I started playing. The timer still starts when it should have.

So there is no question of being unfair to following matches. It is just between these two matches.

Sorry, I did miss that. But I agree with Cindy in that you have to stick to the rules. Everyone should know the rules and the consequences no matter how silly we think they are. With only 90 minutes we have a LOT of matches that are incomplete. We could lose the first set, be up 6-5, 40 love in the second and lose the match because the second set doesn't count since we weren't ahead by 2 games. If we won 7-5 and played even one point in the tie-break and won it, of course, we would win the match.So you can see why even 2 minutes could determine the outcome of the match.

 

[spiderman123]

Spiderman, you could of course do whatever you want regarding starting your own timed matches on time.

I just want it clear that my approach (I will assess default penalties and I will have my players' matches start on time) is not only appropriate, it is mandatory. The league is totally behind me on this.

The league issues a document called "Customs Every Player Should Know." I believe it was revised last year to add item No. 1.

Item No. 1 now reads:

"Assessing Lateness penalties and defaults are mandatory. Review local league rules for specifics."

I can only guess that this was added because players/teams who are late do tend to take the position that the team imposing a lateness penalty is not being sporting or is violating local custom.

I don't mind if Spiderman wants to short his own team/players such that they get less than the allotted 90-minute time (for night leagues). Totally his call. I do mind the implication that anyone who does insist on the full 90 minutes is being petty.

Sure, the league had to take a stance. And this stance is according to rules and they cannot afford to complicate matters.

I also would like to clarify things: I never said that someone acting differently is being petty or unsportsmanlike. I just said that there are options when it comes to 3-4 minutes of flexibility. And it is also my observation that men are little more willing to be flexible than women when it comes to such issues. Maybe I am lucky (knocks on wood) to be playing with overall nicer people. But the one women's league that I had a chance to observe last year had problems that I have not seen in my league.

And yes, 90 min. I can maybe understand. But AFAIK, you have a 2 hr limit and most of the league matches that I have played/have seen get over before 2 hrs.

 

[Topaz]

I also would like to clarify things: I never said that someone acting differently is being petty or unsportsmanlike. I just said that there are options when it comes to 3-4 minutes of flexibility. And it is also my observation that men are little more willing to be flexible than women when it comes to such issues. Maybe I am lucky (knocks on wood) to be playing with overall nicer people. But the one women's league that I had a chance to observe last year had problems that I have not seen in my league.

And yes, 90 min. I can maybe understand. But AFAIK, you have a 2 hr limit and most of the league matches that I have played/have seen get over before 2 hrs.

Do you notice that you are the only one making this into a gender thing? Around here, those are the rules, and *everybody* sticks to them, regardless if it is a women's team or a men's team. There is NO flexibility. The bells rings, time is up. Period. It has nothing to do with how the nice the people are, either.

We don't have a 2 hour time limit...it is 90 minutes.

This has already been discussed and beaten into the ground...try a search on 'timed matches' in this forum.

 

[Topaz]

Would it have been wrong and unethical to throw that last game to get to the tiebreak sooner?
.

Slippery slope.

The first time I ran into this situation my doubles partner was the one to suggest it. I was *horrified*! It was my serve, and all I had to do was lose that game. Lol, probably the *best* game I had served in my life up to that point. We went into the tiebreak, and lost. I was sure it was the tennis gods taking out their karma on us.

Next time, a bit different. It was a USTA match. This time it was my suggestion to a different partner. It worked. We won the tiebreak and the match.

In our world of timed matches, I guess you can consider it part of the strategy. Yes, it would be better to just learn how to win the first set, and then close out the second with no problem. In a perfect world...

 

[spiderman123]

Do you notice that you are the only one making this into a gender thing? Around here, those are the rules, and *everybody* sticks to them, regardless if it is a women's team or a men's team. There is NO flexibility. The bells rings, time is up. Period. It has nothing to do with how the nice the people are, either.

We don't have a 2 hour time limit...it is 90 minutes.

This has already been discussed and beaten into the ground...try a search on 'timed matches' in this forum.

I am sorry I must have missed the muliple posts by other men who have observed that Men and women approach USTA league in a similar manner. It is not surprising that women disagree.

And btw do you notice that you agree with everything that Cindy says? Sometimes I wonder if Cindy posts as Topaz to have one agreement in the bag

 

[A.Davidson]

Would it have been wrong and unethical to throw that last game to get to the tiebreak sooner?

Nope. Good strategy.

Gamesmanship gets a lot of flack, but it also helped get you the win.

 

[drakulie]

Women are such cheaters! ( J/k Topaz)

I think the OP did the right thing, and the strategy paid off. Congrats.

 

[Topaz]

I am sorry I must have missed the muliple posts by other men who have observed that Men and women approach USTA league in a similar manner. It is not surprising that women disagree.

And btw do you notice that you agree with everything that Cindy says? Sometimes I wonder if Cindy posts as Topaz to have one agreement in the bag

Actually, if you look back, you will find plenty of places where we have disagreed (one handed backhand volley is one that jumps to the top of my head)

This is a subject that has been beaten to death. Again, *you* were the one who brought up gender in a situation that had nothing to do with it. End of story.

The post is about a game strategy, not timed matches. Again, do a search.

 

[drakulie]

And btw do you notice that you agree with everything that Cindy says? Sometimes I wonder if Cindy posts as Topaz to have one agreement in the bag

Topaz has won a Bronze Ball in a National Championship Tournament, and you have won nothing. Now go away.

 

[Topaz]

Topaz has won a Bronze Ball in a National Championship Tournament, and you have won nothing. Now go away.

*hugs Drak*

I so needed that right now.

 

[A.Davidson]

^^^

Ah, good to see.

The world needs more hugs!

 

[spiderman123]

Again, *you* were the one who brought up gender in a situation that had nothing to do with it.

I merely mentioned that Women approach this USTA tennis league differently. That is the impression I got from watching it first hand and from this forum. The kind of problem Cindy faces, most men don't. Not only in timed matches but in other areas also.

Women in general are little more confrontational when it comes to their tennis and you are basically proving it unknowingly

 

[Topaz]

I merely mentioned that Women approach this USTA tennis league differently. That is the impression I got from watching it first hand and from this forum. The kind of problem Cindy faces, most men don't. Not only in timed matches but in other areas also.

I've bolded the sentence that I have an issue with above. Again, the men DO run into this as well, because it is an issue that comes up eventually with all timed matches, regardless of the gender of the players. The *problem* she is posting about is whether or not her decision was ethical.

Women in general are little more confrontational when it comes to their tennis and you are basically proving it unknowingly

Really? Maybe I'm just calling you out on faulty assumptions? You know, like a man would.

 

[spiderman123]

I've bolded the sentence that I have an issue with above. Again, the men DO run into this as well, because it is an issue that comes up eventually with all timed matches, regardless of the gender of the players. The *problem* she is posting about is whether or not her decision was ethical.



Really? Maybe I'm just calling you out on faulty assumptions? You know, like a man would.

Ok. It is not the question of "running into such issues" but treating them as an issue or a problem.

Let me try this way.

Did you happen to notice how many posters basically agreed that they would have thrown that game to win the match? You are free to call out my faulty assumption that men outnumber women on this forum and also a horrible horrible assumption that most of the posters who replied in that way are males. :shudder:

The world has become too politically correct and any mention of differences between men and women is treated by women as a big ..umm *problem*?