How would you consider a close match?

I just wonder how would you consider a close match? Or 2 players are at least same level.
Is 6-3 6-3 a close or 6-1 7-6 a better one? Someone told me it's kind of subjectives to each of the player but I would argue for some evidence. You cannot say 6-1 6-2 is a close match since one side is obviously better than the other.

How about this: 6-1; 6-7; 6-0? I would say the winner is still much better.

Excellent question. Yes.

TennisND said:

I just wonder how would you consider a close match? Or 2 players are at least same level.
Is 6-3 6-3 a close or 6-1 7-6 a better one? Someone told me it's kind of subjectives to each of the player but I would argue for some evidence. You cannot say 6-1 6-2 is a close match since one side is obviously better than the other.

How about this: 6-1; 6-7; 6-0? I would say the winner is still much better.

Click to expand...

Sets determined by only one break of serve are close. That's 7-5, 6-4, sometimes 6-3 (6-3 can also be two service breaks).

Two (or more) service breaks in a set are a genuine butt kicking. That's 6-1, 6-2, sometimes 6-3, and of course 6-0.

6-3, 6-3 can represent both a very close match and one that wasn't very close at all. Same thing w/7-6, 7-6 if you're talking about two big servers where one of them has an exceptionally worse return than the other.

ohplease said:

Sets determined by only one break of serve are close. That's 7-5, 6-4, sometimes 6-3 (6-3 can also be two service breaks).

Click to expand...

I agree with this assessment.

TennisND said:

I just wonder how would you consider a close match? Or 2 players are at least same level.
Is 6-3 6-3 a close or 6-1 7-6 a better one? Someone told me it's kind of subjectives to each of the player but I would argue for some evidence. You cannot say 6-1 6-2 is a close match since one side is obviously better than the other.

How about this: 6-1; 6-7; 6-0? I would say the winner is still much better.

Click to expand...

Like other said, if it's within a single break or closer then it's a close match.

Also in your last example, that still would represent a closer match then 6-1, 6-0 would. Becuase the 2nd set demonstrates that the loser at least had some moment of success, where in 6-1, 6-0, they seemed to have none.

Reality is though unless you were in the match or you were watching, the score is actually pretty meaningless in determining whether the players are in the same "SKILL" level or not most of the time. That's why it's subjective.

There are playing skills and there are mental skills, a lot of times players hit great shots but they just cant manage themselves to do it when the score gets to 30-30 or deuce so the game score can look really lopsided.

That's the subjective part. Id say that the skill levels are pretty far apart so you wouldnt necessarily throw that player in the lower level then, you'd just consider that they are giving someone a fight, and they need to work on managing themselves a little more.

(as far as the rating system though games are as low as they can go which is why games are used, not points because that would be insane)

I also give more credit to whoever wins the 2nd set or the 3rd set versus whoever wins the first set, because in the first set they havent really felt their opponent out yet, or someone is not warmed up. (so winning 7-6, 6-0 looks more dominant then 6-0, 7-6)

Here's a scenario. Every game was played to a deuce. In some games it maybe more than one deuce. However, in each of the games the same player wins the game so the score is 6-0, 6-0 (3 bagels if it was best of 5). Would this be a close match or not?

By the way, if I remember correctly, there was only one record of a golden set which was played in a pro tournament. Does this mean they are at different skill levels as in one is a pro and the other is not?

burosky said:

Here's a scenario. Every game was played to a deuce. In some games it maybe more than one deuce. However, in each of the games the same player wins the game so the score is 6-0, 6-0 (3 bagels if it was best of 5). Would this be a close match or not?

Click to expand...

I've had matches like this. This is a pretty good question.

I think the score line can tell you if the match was close, but a lot of the time it is misleading. I recently lost a match 7-6.6-7,7-6, which sounds like a close score. In reality i never had a chance of winning cause i couldn't do anything on the other player's serve. I never had a single break point, and the one set i did win was off of a double fault by him in the tiebreaker. In all honesty the other player was almost in complete control of the match. So u can never judge by the score.

I think that if you lose 6-0, even if the games are really even, that is not a close lose. Last week, I had a match where I lose a set 6-0 and was bitter because I lost 4 games when I was up 40-0. Thinking back, I recall, however, that other player was never pressured and won points he wanted at will, so I know he was just better than me. I see that in a lot of pro matches too - you know those first round matches where the final score was 6-4, 6-4, but when watching the match, there was never a hard point for the winner.

I would say tennis is not only a game of skills but also mental toughness. Normally, the guy who lost in the tie break is the weaker one, especially in the later. As being said, I don't think it's a close match if you lost 6-0 in a set for whatver reasons.


The reason I ask to re-define the "close match" since it can be interpret as "the loser is almost as good as the player OR I will have a chance to win over you next time". At least that is my definition.
Thus, it's kind of funny having some ppl said "I had a close match last night with a guy who is better than I am". If he is better, he will win 70% of the time and it would not be a close match anymore.

I've read somewhere a rule of thumb that if the loser wins more than half the number of games as their opponent, then the match was competitive.

So 6-3, 6-3 is not competitive (12-6), but 6-3, 6-4 is competitive (12-7).

Its iffy when you go into three sets. 6-1, 6-7, 6-0 seems like a non-competitive match (18-8 ), but that second set was pretty darn competitive.

taz23 said:

I think the score line can tell you if the match was close, but a lot of the time it is misleading. I recently lost a match 7-6.6-7,7-6, which sounds like a close score. In reality i never had a chance of winning cause i couldn't do anything on the other player's serve. I never had a single break point, and the one set i did win was off of a double fault by him in the tiebreaker. In all honesty the other player was almost in complete control of the match. So u can never judge by the score.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean about not being able to do anything on your opponent's serve and not having a single break point. However, as your score indicates, you were holding your serve as well. Of course if you say your match wasn't as close as the score indicates, I cannot dispute that. However, even if you think it wasn't that close, I tend to think it wasn't that one sided either.

TennisND said:

I would say tennis is not only a game of skills but also mental toughness. Normally, the guy who lost in the tie break is the weaker one, especially in the later. As being said, I don't think it's a close match if you lost 6-0 in a set for whatver reasons.


The reason I ask to re-define the "close match" since it can be interpret as "the loser is almost as good as the player OR I will have a chance to win over you next time". At least that is my definition.
Thus, it's kind of funny having some ppl said "I had a close match last night with a guy who is better than I am". If he is better, he will win 70% of the time and it would not be a close match anymore.

Click to expand...

Yes but when you have two opponents who are closely skilled and one is just more mentally tough then the other that doesnt mean they should be in a DIFFERENT SKILL LEVEL.

And sometimes those things dont just have to do with the individual players but it has to do with how they are doing against that particular player.

Like sometimes when you get on a streak of beating someone, it becomes easier to pull those out, and the same for when you are losing a lot of matches in a row.

You're generalization just rarely fits a lot of cases no matter how simple it seems.

I used to have a friend that him and I would play singles every single Saturday. If you looked at plenty of our match scores you would say they were close (we had tons of 7-6's, 7-5's, 6-4's, 3 set matches, etc....).

But he won like 70 of them and won like 3 of them so if you want to consider who's going to win or who is "better", you have to throw out those match scores entirely.

But I dont feel you can say we are on different levels though either.

That's just the nature of some of these matches that you cant always judge from just the score alone what is going on. (unless you see a lot of matches between two players and there is a clear pattern)

I do also
find it funny though too that people say "I lost a close match with someone who was better than I was".

It usually means to me that they probably though that person was better then them going into the match or during the match, so in their mind they had already lost it before it was even over.

I see that a lot, players make a BIG deal about how good someone is for one reason or another, and you can be assured they aren't going to prove their ego wrong by accidentally winning the match.....

No metric on game count or even point count matters here, because tennis has a very specific scoring system. You can easily imagine a scenario where someone wins a bunch of meaningless points or games, but in failing to win important points, games, or even sets, still loses a match. There are MANY examples of pros winning more points or games, and still losing.

I've beaten guys 6-0 and been seriously concerned that I could lose to them, and I've beaten guys 7-6 and not had the slightest doubt they would fold when it counted. Which is the closer set?

There's a reason sporting events are often described as closer than the score would indicate or vice versa - scores are just numbers. They don't count for nearly as much as the actual contest. Otherwise, why do we bother watching tennis (or any other sport, for that matter) at all?

I agree. I have had some really tight 2 and 2 matches and some 5 and 5 matches that I never once felt like I might lose. One thing I will say is that I am more likely to feel like a match that ends 6-1, 7-5 was tight than one that goes 7-5, 6-1. The latter score is usually a case of the better player starting slow and then straightening things out and rolling. I know that the usta computer considers anything where the losing player wins 6 or more games to be competitive (not that that makes it so).

Im a 4.5 and i lost to a guy 6-2, 6-3.

Seems like an easy game but there were long duece points and battles on every serve. Very long match. Score doesn't tell the whole story. That was just his day.

If you play all Deuces and the score is 6-0 6-0 you made a valiant effort. The match was close in terms of how many points each player had, but one player was definitely better than the other.

You could call it a close match, except one person had bad serve or bad return skills.

There is a difference between a close match and a competitive match.

loser winning 50% or more of the games - competitive match.
loser winning 1/3 sets - competitive match.
loser coming within 1-2 games of winning the match - close match

4-6, 4-6 - competitive match
6-4, 6-7, 0-6 - close match since loser was 1 tiebreak away from winning
6-4, 2-6, 2-6 - competitive, but not close
6-4, 6-7, 6-7 - really close match (mr obvious here.. lol)

tennisdad65 said:

There is a difference between a close match and a competitive match.

loser winning 50% or more of the games - competitive match.
loser winning 1/3 sets - competitive match.
loser coming within 1-2 games of winning the match - close match

4-6, 4-6 - competitive match
6-4, 6-7, 0-6 - close match since loser was 1 tiebreak away from winning
6-4, 2-6, 2-6 - competitive, but not close
6-4, 6-7, 6-7 - really close match (mr obvious here.. lol)

Click to expand...

I posted this a while ago. Based on your reasoning, how would you consider this?

Here's a scenario. Every game was played to a deuce. In some games it maybe more than one deuce. However, in each of the games the same player wins the game so the score is 6-0, 6-0 (3 bagels if it was best of 5). Would this be a close or competetive match or not?

i would consider the bagel set where each game was multiple deuces as close with the winner just a notch better . in spite of the score. i have been playing 7 years and a barometer of my progress is how tough is it for my opponent to win. since i usually play up , a game as you describe would be close. as i have gotten better the progression against the same opponent would be easy bagels for him in the beginning. as the years have gone by then tough bagels. then 6-1or 2 or 3. then split sets . now a win!!!

Larry,
The problem is it's hard to play with the same player over and over, especially in league where you only might see him once.
I myself also try to track my progression after each month. I also am thinking of making a sheet of recording my errors and winnings' shots. I will need to pay more attention to the games I lose or considered close matchs since they will help to figures what you need to do differently next time.

burosky said:

I posted this a while ago. Based on your reasoning, how would you consider this?

Here's a scenario. Every game was played to a deuce. In some games it maybe more than one deuce. However, in each of the games the same player wins the game so the score is 6-0, 6-0 (3 bagels if it was best of 5). Would this be a close or competetive match or not?

Click to expand...

I understand that the overall point score could be 60-36 or even 80-56 ,
but in tennis that is neither a close nor a competitive match. the goal is to win games and sets and that is what is important.

maybe in ping pong or badminton, a total point score of 60-36 or 80-56 is a competitive match , but not in tennis..

tennisdad65 said:

I understand that the overall point score could be 60-36 or even 80-56 ,
but in tennis that is neither a close nor a competitive match. the goal is to win games and sets and that is what is important.

maybe in ping pong or badminton, a total point score of 60-36 or 80-56 is a competitive match , but not in tennis..

Click to expand...

Okay maybe that's enough to say there is no way it's a close match. (since one player is clearly finishing those games out consistantly)

But if someone is trying to read more into it, like (this player is WAY better then this player, or they dont belong on the same court or in the same level of play), then it's very different.

There is a big difference between having competitive points but edging someone out versus being in a match where you are just wasting your time even being out there because you are TOO good for your opponent.

In either case the game score may not reflect that.

(which is why winners look at what's going on in the points in the match and not the game score because it's not a given that you'll keep edging them out every game)

I think that is the idea that a lot of posters here are trying to point out. The score alone really is not a good indicator of how close or competetive a match is.

What's really lame is when someone says "I pretty much beat myself" when you beat them 6-0 or 6-1 in a set.

JavierLW said:

I do also
find it funny though too that people say "I lost a close match with someone who was better than I was".

Click to expand...