Is it better to lose a semi-final or win it if you go on to lose in the final?

T

timnz

Legend
I have seen a lot of postings where they analyse the players winning percentage.

For example they look at Lendl's finals - 94 wins/52 runner-ups (Winning percentage 64.38%)

Now if Lendl had lost those 52 runner-up tournaments in the semi-finals rather than the finals, then his record would be - 94 wins/0 runner-ups (Winning percentage 100%)

Hence, it appears that it is better to lose in the semi-finals rather than win the semi-finals (& go on to lose the final).

What do people think? Is it better to lose in the semi-finals or win in the semi-finals?

(My own view is that people try to diagnose simply on results if someone is a choker or 'can play well in the big occassion' -when it is impossible to diagnose that from simply the result. A loss in the final could simply be, because you met a better player on the day (and perhaps you were able to play your best on the day anyway - but it wasn't good enough on the day)).
 
T

timnz

Legend
90's Clay said:
I don't get the "runner up" consolidation prize argument. You either the tournament or you don't at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
The question I am asking is, is it better to lose or win the semi-final (if you go on to lose the final). My view is that it is always better to win the semi-final. Do you view a first round loss the same as making the final ie do you only count tournament wins.
 
T

timnz

Legend
r2473 said:
Best to lose in the first round to save your energy for the next tournament
Click to expand...
Problem is that you don't know it at the time of competing whether or not you will win the tournament or not. All you can do is do your best. So better to lose or win the semi-final?
 
T

timnz

Legend
helterskelter said:
The more matches you win, the better. It is always better to make the final than not make the final, just as it is always better to make the semi-final than not make the semi-final.

The view that not winning the tournament means that it's worthless to make the final is, in my view, absolutely absurd.
Click to expand...
I agree with you - but why is it, do you think, that players are penalised in these forums for being runner-up? I have seen many many threads that do this.
 
T

tennisfan2015

Hall of Fame
Wow, I reckon if you knew you would loose in the final just do Bernie in Round 1, and look forward to the next meet. :)
 
Last edited:
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
timnz said:
I agree with you - but why is it, do you think, that players are penalised in these forums for being runner-up? I have seen many many threads that do this.
Click to expand...

Achievement inflation caused by all this silly GOAT talk, I guess? If you lose in the final, it's likely to be a top player, whereas if you lose in round 1, it's likely to be against an obscure player, so losing a final damages one's precious head-to-head record against other top players.
 
T

timnz

Legend
helterskelter said:
Achievement inflation caused by all this silly GOAT talk, I guess? If you lose in the final, it's likely to be a top player, whereas if you lose in round 1, it's likely to be against an obscure player, so losing a final damages one's precious head-to-head record against other top players.
Click to expand...
But as we have seen - finals winning %age is a very misleading statistic. It implies that it is better to lose in the first round than lose in the final - since 1st round losses don't affect your final percentage wins negatively.
 
M

Max G.

Legend
Availability bias. People make judgements based on things they know and remember, and everyone remembers a final, win or lose. Whereas people don't remember semifinals so much. So, strangely, for casual fans, losing in a semifinal doesn't "count" as much as losing in a final, because it's easier to forget about, it doesn't get included in as many random statistics, etc.

Think about it this way, nobody ever makes a thread about how the #500 in the world sucks. But the board is filled with threads about how top 10 players are chokers, suck, are done, etc. Doesn't mean it's better to be #500 than top 10.
 
T

timnz

Legend
Max G. said:
Availability bias. People make judgements based on things they know and remember, and everyone remembers a final, win or lose. Whereas people don't remember semifinals so much. So, strangely, for casual fans, losing in a semifinal doesn't "count" as much as losing in a final, because it's easier to forget about, it doesn't get included in as many random statistics, etc.

Think about it this way, nobody ever makes a thread about how the #500 in the world sucks. But the board is filled with threads about how top 10 players are chokers, suck, are done, etc. Doesn't mean it's better to be #500 than top 10.
Click to expand...
I always think of the 1985 French Open. Semi-finals: McEnroe loses to Wilander (who goes onto win the final), Lendl beats Connors and loses to Wilander in the final. Lendl achieves a worsening Finals percentage whereas McEnroe's finals winning percentage is untouched. Hence, McEnroe did better losing the semi-finals than Lendl winning the semi-finals.
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
timnz said:
I always think of the 1985 French Open. Semi-finals: McEnroe loses to Wilander (who goes onto win the final), Lendl beats Connors and loses to Wilander in the final. Lendl achieves a worsening Finals percentage whereas McEnroe's finals winning percentage is untouched. Hence, McEnroe did better losing the semi-finals than Lendl winning the semi-finals.
Click to expand...

Well, only on the theory that we're all objecting to. Lendl made one more final; McEnroe did not. I think that's more important.
 
M

Max G.

Legend
The other mistake people make - equating some particular statistic with "doing better" in general.

In the example timnz gave, McEnroe's semi-final percentage went down. His number of finals didn't increase (whereas Lend's did). Lendl's head-to-head with Connors went up by one. Lots of statistics changed! So why single out that one?
 
Match_Point

Match_Point

Rookie
Runner up, 2nd place why the heck not?? Reaching the finals by itself is an achievement on its own. Preserving your H2H (???) against some player just to lose in the SF or 1R makes NO sense if your a sportsmen.
 
T

timnz

Legend
helterskelter said:
Well, only on the theory that we're all objecting to. Lendl made one more final; McEnroe did not. I think that's more important.
Click to expand...
I agree. What I object to is that Lendl is penalised for winning the semi and McEnroe isn't penalised for losing the semi. People often go on about Lendls 8 wins/ 11 runner-up record as if 8 / 0 was a better record.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
94-0 would really be something. That player could go on to become the GOAT.


#Devil'sAdvocate
 
Zoolander

Zoolander

Hall of Fame
Losing in the final gets more money than winning in the semis, right? Thats all i would worry aboot.

Unless this is going to become about Federer losing X number of finals again, like the other thread?!
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
timnz said:
Nowhere as good as 94-52
Click to expand...

Lendl being 94-0 would be worse than 94-52, but if some player came along and won 94 titles for 0 losses, I bet he'd have a lot more than 8 Slams.
 
T

timnz

Legend
Feather said:
I would any day prefer losing in Final to losing in SF. I don't even know why is it even worth discussing.
Click to expand...
The reason is that there have been a lot of posts of finals percentages - which as you can see by this thread - is a very misleading statistic
 
T

timnz

Legend
Nathaniel_Near said:
Lendl being 94-0 would be worse than 94-52, but if some player came along and won 94 titles for 0 losses, I bet he'd have a lot more than 8 Slams.
Click to expand...
So if he won 94 titles with no runner-ups but in 52 other tournaments he lost in the first round - would he be more sure of winning more than the 8 slams of Lendl? After he would have a 94-0 record in finals.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
timnz said:
So if he won 94 titles with no runner-ups but in 52 other tournaments he lost in the first round - would he be more sure of winning more than the 8 slams of Lendl? After he would have a 94-0 record in finals.
Click to expand...

I'd say there are no instances of a player winning 94 titles and not reaching at least more than 8 Slam finals, so yeah.
 
Algo

Algo

Hall of Fame
PDJ said:
I've never seen the sense of 'penalising' a runner up. That said, I'm so very used to posts on this forum where consistency is denigrated.
Sigh.
Click to expand...
Yeah,
Berdych is the biggest mug. He's only been in top 8 forever.
 
S

sarmpas

Hall of Fame
timnz said:
But as we have seen - finals winning %age is a very misleading statistic. It implies that it is better to lose in the first round than lose in the final - since 1st round losses don't affect your final percentage wins negatively.
Click to expand...

That's why you should downgrade final's winning percentage in it's level of importance when comparing players. As I said before this particular stat rewards players who fail earlier in the contest so as a stat for comparing greatness it is deceitful.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
I get the point OP is making but don't fully agree. It's a complicated stat. In a given tournament, of course it's better to progress as far as you can. It doesn't mean that losing often in the finals might not tell us something about the players dominance or mentality on the big stage.
 
PDJ

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
A reasonable comparison,
Chris Evert and Serena Williams at the US Open.

Whom do you think has the better record at this point in time?

Evert and Serena Williams both have 6 US Open titles.
Evert played the event 19 times.
Williams has played 16 times, but missed 2.

Evert was runner up 3 times.
Williams twice.
Evert lost in the SF 8 times.
Williams twice.
Evert lost in the QF twice.
Williams twice.
Evert never lost earlier than the QF stage.
Williams lost in the 4th Round twice, and the 3rd Round once.

Does Williams have the better record at the US because she has a higher winning percentage in finals.

This example is purely about the US, not careers in general.
 
D

DMP

Professional
125downthemiddle said:
I get the point OP is making but don't fully agree. It's a complicated stat. In a given tournament, of course it's better to progress as far as you can. It doesn't mean that losing often in the finals might not tell us something about the players dominance or mentality on the big stage.
Click to expand...

It can tell you something, or nothing.

Losing in finals could tell you that they are mentally tough, so they get through semis and even earlier rounds when they come up against opponents who happen to be red hot. Mentally weaker players fold in earlier rounds. They can't hang tough. It is easier to be tough when you have only one match to grind through.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
DMP said:
It can tell you something, or nothing.

Losing in finals could tell you that they are mentally tough, so they get through semis and even earlier rounds when they come up against opponents who happen to be red hot. Mentally weaker players fold in earlier rounds. They can't hang tough. It is easier to be tough when you have only one match to grind through.
Click to expand...

And very good players should make it to a fair share of finals. How they perform in them tells us something. The fact that they could have ducked this result by not making a final does not mitigate the fact that finals performance can be indicative of mentality/clutch ability etc.
 
B

Bluefan75

Professional
I can think of 900,000 reasons a playing on this Aussie open would rather lose the final than the semi-final.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
T

timnz

Legend
125downthemiddle said:
And very good players should make it to a fair share of finals. How they perform in them tells us something. The fact that they could have ducked this result by not making a final does not mitigate the fact that finals performance can be indicative of mentality/clutch ability etc.
Click to expand...
A runner-up position doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how 'mentally clutch' a player is. Perhaps they lost simply because the other player played better on the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
timnz said:
A runner-up position doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how 'mentally clutch' a player is. Perhaps they lost simply because the other player played better on the day.
Click to expand...

Yes that's a possibility in a given match or 2. But over large periods of time and many matches it can and usually does tell us something. How much is up to us to discern. The misunderstanding at the root of this debate is the exact same as the h2h one and actually the 5 set record one as well.
 
T

timnz

Legend
125downthemiddle said:
Yes that's a possibility in a given match or 2. But over large periods of time and many matches it can and usually does tell us something. How much is up to us to discern. The misunderstanding at the root of this debate is the exact same as the h2h one and actually the 5 set record one as well.
Click to expand...
I would have thought on balance of probability that most times it is simply the other guy played better on the day. Especially if you are analysing a player of Lendl's experience and accomplishment. The onus of proof would be on those to show that they had a mental failure
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
timnz said:
I would have thought on balance of probability that most times it is simply the other guy played better on the day. Especially if you are analysing a player of Lendl's experience and accomplishment. The onus of proof would be on those to show that they had a mental failure
Click to expand...

The more consistent a player is, the more likely he is to have a relatively low winning percentage in finals (or whatever round his level can take him to consistently). A consistent player will rarely lose to someone worse than him but rarely beat someone better than him. Although, 10 years ago, this seemed unlikely, Berdych has become one of the most consistent players on tour, finishing six straight years ranked either #6 or #7. And, sure enough, his overall record in tour finals is not very good (won 12, lost 17). Furthermore, he makes lots of major quarter-finals and quite a few major semi-finals, but has poor records in both rounds (won 1, lost 4 in semi-finals; won 5, lost 7 in quarter-finals). The same thing happens in the Masters Series. He has won one MS event, but that was all the way back in 2005. His overall record in the latter rounds of MS events is: finals - won 1, lost 3; semi-finals - won 4, lost 15; quarter-finals - won 19, lost 21.

I think something similar is a fairly plausible explanation of Lendl's losing record in Slam finals, albeit at a much higher level. He was also very consistent, especially in his mid-late 20s. He would rarely lose to a lesser player, and because he would be close to his best even in minor events, he usually did pretty well even against his rivals in minor tournaments. However, as his opponents would often dial it up for majors, Lendl could be vulnerable to them. I think it's striking that his overall record against Becker was good (11-10), but his record in major tournaments was very poor (1-5). Although Lendl had a much better record against Wilander, Wilander also did much better against him in majors than in minors (15-7 overall, but 5-4 in majors).

So, my view is that consistency is the most likely explanation of Lendl's record, not nerves. (That said, I think it's undeniable that he "choked" in the 1983 US Open final. But which player has never choked once?)
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
timnz said:
I would have thought on balance of probability that most times it is simply the other guy played better on the day. Especially if you are analysing a player of Lendl's experience and accomplishment. The onus of proof would be on those to show that they had a mental failure
Click to expand...

The point isn't that they had a mental failure. It's that they aren't quite as up to it on the biggest stages as compared to what their stats and skill would otherwise predict.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
helterskelter said:
The more consistent a player is, the more likely he is to have a relatively low winning percentage in finals (or whatever round his level can take him to consistently). A consistent player will rarely lose to someone worse than him but rarely beat someone better than him. Although, 10 years ago, this seemed unlikely, Berdych has become one of the most consistent players on tour, finishing six straight years ranked either #6 or #7. And, sure enough, his overall record in tour finals is not very good (won 12, lost 17). Furthermore, he makes lots of major quarter-finals and quite a few major semi-finals, but has poor records in both rounds (won 1, lost 4 in semi-finals; won 5, lost 7 in quarter-finals). The same thing happens in the Masters Series. He has won one MS event, but that was all the way back in 2005. His overall record in the latter rounds of MS events is: finals - won 1, lost 3; semi-finals - won 4, lost 15; quarter-finals - won 19, lost 21.

I think something similar is a fairly plausible explanation of Lendl's losing record in Slam finals, albeit at a much higher level. He was also very consistent, especially in his mid-late 20s. He would rarely lose to a lesser player, and because he would be close to his best even in minor events, he usually did pretty well even against his rivals in minor tournaments. However, as his opponents would often dial it up for majors, Lendl could be vulnerable to them. I think it's striking that his overall record against Becker was good (11-10), but his record in major tournaments was very poor (1-5). Although Lendl had a much better record against Wilander, Wilander also did much better against him in majors than in minors.

So, my view is that consistency is the most likely explanation of Lendl's record, not nerves. (That said, I think it's undeniable that he "choked" in the 1983 US Open final. But which player has never choked once?)
Click to expand...

Don't totally agrrr, but nice well thought out post. I think Djokovic has been similar to Lendl in this regard.
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
125downthemiddle said:
The point isn't that they had a mental failure. It's that they aren't quite as up to it on the biggest stages as compared to what their stats and skill would otherwise predict.
Click to expand...

Isn't this just another way of stating my point about consistency? (They have a good fifth gear, but not a great overdrive).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll
Is it better to lose in the first round of a slam than being runner-up in the slam?
Replies
5
Views
442
Backspin1183
Backspin1183
Djokodal Fan
Measure of mental toughness - To lose in a slam final or bow out earlier?
Replies
27
Views
809
PeterHo
PeterHo
M
Would You Rather See Federer Lose to Novak Or Rafa
Replies
30
Views
2K
mandy01
mandy01
D
Nadal is 23-3 in Grand Slam semi finals
2 3 4
Replies
154
Views
6K
NoleFam
NoleFam
T
The short-sightedness of the 'Slams are everything' approach when comparing careers
2 3 4
Replies
153
Views
5K
timnz
T
Top