Golden Set Difficulty

[xxbwhxx]

Tonight while talking to some friends, the topic of difference in skill level came up and what should be expected when players of different levels play against each other which led to the discussion of how hard a golden set would be. What is the expected difference in skill level in which one can expect to have a decent chance of getting a golden set?

I am a 4.5 male with solid movement, consistent ground strokes, and a good overall serve. Against other players around the same level, I like to grind out points and attack/control with my forehand. I mentioned that if I played 10 sets against my girlfriend (athletic 3.0/3.5 woman) with solid movement and ground strokes but no major weapons, I should be able to get at least 2 golden sets out of the 10.

Is that thought reasonable? Some of my other friends (recreational/casual players) kept making the argument of just unforced errors and such.

 

[Bobs tennis]

Sorry for my lack of knowledge. What is a golden set???

 

[xxbwhxx]

A golden set is a set where you do not drop any points meaning you would win 24 consecutive points in a row.

 

[shazbot]

I have never given nor been given a golden set, but a 4.5 Male vs a 3.0 Female (well you said 3.0/3.5) seems as if a golden set would not be too difficult.

 

[therecanbeonlyone]

I remember a couple of my teammates on my highschool team got a golden set. These guys were far superior players than their opponents, but also I think they played with the goal of a golden set. The key was to have that as a goal and focus on it the whole way. My style of play would never lend itself to a golden set, but a super consistent baseliner could do it. I have no doubt they tried for golden sets more often, but only got them those couple of times.

All of that being said, it has happened on the WTA tour a couple of times. Most recently at Wimbledon where 10 seed, Sara Errani was the victim of a golden set http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...et-as-Sara-Errani-makes-unwanted-history.html

 

[J_R_B]

Golden set requires not only 2 or more levels of skill difference but also playing style based on consistency. If you're a 5.0 playing a 3.0, but you're a big hitter who likes to take chances and end points, odds are you are going to make at least one error in 24 points. If you are a consistent 4.5 retriever, it's less likely you'll make an error even though you're a level lower than the 5.0 overall since your whole game is built around avoiding errors and the 3.0 still won't have anything to hurt you or force errors. Regardless, I think it's difficult to win 24 straight points. Have you tried playing your gf to see if you can win 24 straight? I don't recommend doing it 10 times, though, if you want the relationship to last.

 

[J_R_B]

I remember a couple of my teammates on my highschool team got a golden set. These guys were far superior players than their opponents, but also I think they played with the goal of a golden set. The key was to have that as a goal and focus on it the whole way. My style of play would never lend itself to a golden set, but a super consistent baseliner could do it. I have no doubt they tried for golden sets more often, but only got them those couple of times.

All of that being said, it has happened on the WTA tour a couple of times. Most recently at Wimbledon where 10 seed, Sara Errani was the victim of a golden set http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...et-as-Sara-Errani-makes-unwanted-history.html

We had a guy who got one in HS. We were the best and, more importantly, the deepest team in the county, and he was playing 5th singles (the lowest singles spot) against the worst team in the league. I think he hit the kid with 4 or 5 serves that were in. I felt sorry for those guys. We lost 1 game in 5 matches that day (that was me at #2, LOL) and played a bunch of JVs the next time we played them.

 

[schmke]

Completely agree with @J_R_B that trying this with your GF is risky

I (a 4.0) once played a 3.5 playing up in a league match and only gave up 4 points in a set. I'm an attacking player so will normally commit a few errors even when playing well, and did in this case, 3 of the lost points being unforced errors, the other being a forced error. In the second set, I thought that was fun, I'll try to win every point! That led to not being as aggressive not wanting to make an error, and my opponent played better, and I lost 3 games!

So it is not an easy task, particularly if you set that as your goal and allow your game to change as a result.

 

[goran_ace]

Came close a few times in high school but never got it. Also played on a loaded high school team and we had some weaker schools in our conference. Every time I got close it was completely unintentional. Just going about my business. I knew I was going to win easily and I wanted to get off the court quickly, but I'm not out there to humiliate anyone. When your opponent can't keep the ball in the court, after a few games you realize you haven't dropped a point yet. Wasn't blasting winners to corners left and right, was just not missing anything and he couldn't handle my normal rally pace. I think it's more difficult if you're actually trying to golden set someone because you'll start pressing/forcing.

 

[xxbwhxx]

Golden set requires not only 2 or more levels of skill difference but also playing style based on consistency. If you're a 5.0 playing a 3.0, but you're a big hitter who likes to take chances and end points, odds are you are going to make at least one error in 24 points. If you are a consistent 4.5 retriever, it's less likely you'll make an error even though you're a level lower than the 5.0 overall since your whole game is built around avoiding errors and the 3.0 still won't have anything to hurt you or force errors. Regardless, I think it's difficult to win 24 straight points. Have you tried playing your gf to see if you can win 24 straight? I don't recommend doing it 10 times, though, if you want the relationship to last.

We are looking to try this tonight indoor and will see how it goes. In this case, the purpose for me would be to play for a golden set and for her to try and avoid one. I thought I threw out a reasonable percentage (20%) in which if I did play as a consistent baseliner/retriever, I would be able to set this. Also, nice to see you're in Newtown. I'm out in West Chester, PA.

 

[xxbwhxx]

Completely agree with @J_R_B that trying this with your GF is risky

I (a 4.0) once played a 3.5 playing up in a league match and only gave up 4 points in a set. I'm an attacking player so will normally commit a few errors even when playing well, and did in this case, 3 of the lost points being unforced errors, the other being a forced error. In the second set, I thought that was fun, I'll try to win every point! That led to not being as aggressive not wanting to make an error, and my opponent played better, and I lost 3 games!

So it is not an easy task, particularly if you set that as your goal and allow your game to change as a result.

That was the reason in which I suggested a success rate of around 20% when trying for a golden set. I agree that aggressive players (which I normally would consider myself as) would be at a disadvantage but think by hanging around at the baseline, it would give me a pretty good chance at it considering I could probably also get a fair amount of free points off serve.

When we try it out, I will likely switch from a defensive style to a more aggressive/controlled style and see how that might change things.

 

[esgee48]

I am not sure how you arrived at your number, but the manner I would attempt to calculate it would be based on likelihood of winning the point. Say every time you hit the ball, there is a 55% chance of winning the point either due to a winner or forced error or unforced error. That means 45% for the other player or a 1.22 advantage for you (0.55^2/0.45^2). After the ball is hit twice across the net, you have a 0.55^2 vs a 0.45^2 or 1.49 advantage. Longer the rally goes, the higher the advantage. IIRC, 6-0 sets happen when the difference is around .52 vs .48 or 1.083. Twice across the net from each player is 1.17 advantage and increasing odds you will win the point. That is the other player gets no games, not get no points. Consistency is the factor as well as mindset.

The difference at the pro level is in the tenths or hundredths percentile. I suspect that you and (soon to be ex ? ) are about the difference I used in my example.

 

[xxbwhxx]

I am not sure how you arrived at your number, but the manner I would attempt to calculate it would be based on likelihood of winning the point. Say every time you hit the ball, there is a 55% chance of winning the point either due to a winner or forced error or unforced error. That means 45% for the other player or a 1.22 advantage for you (0.55^2/0.45^2). After the ball is hit twice across the net, you have a 0.55^2 vs a 0.45^2 or 1.49 advantage. Longer the rally goes, the higher the advantage. IIRC, 6-0 sets happen when the difference is around .52 vs .48 or 1.083. Twice across the net from each player is 1.17 advantage and increasing odds you will win the point. That is the other player gets no games, not get no points. Consistency is the factor as well as mindset.

The difference at the pro level is in the tenths or hundredths percentile. I suspect that you and (soon to be ex ? ) are about the difference I used in my example.

Well aware of the difficulty in playing a significant other! My number was just a guess based off of knowing the current tennis skills of both me and her. The conversation began as more of a conversation regarding skill level of better/experienced players against more casual players. For example, one of my friends (around a low 3.5 doubles player who has consistent volleys but lack of solid ground strokes), was suggesting it should be competitive against me in singles. I countered with the thought that I think the score would be 6-0, 6-0 and would still stand by that as it is not unreasonable (considering USTA considers that for example a high 4.0 should beat a low 4.0 by double bagel).

 

[wsk429]

Golden set requires not only 2 or more levels of skill difference but also playing style based on consistency. If you're a 5.0 playing a 3.0, but you're a big hitter who likes to take chances and end points, odds are you are going to make at least one error in 24 points. If you are a consistent 4.5 retriever, it's less likely you'll make an error even though you're a level lower than the 5.0 overall since your whole game is built around avoiding errors and the 3.0 still won't have anything to hurt you or force errors. Regardless, I think it's difficult to win 24 straight points. Have you tried playing your gf to see if you can win 24 straight? I don't recommend doing it 10 times, though, if you want the relationship to last.

I agree that it's extremely difficult to win all 24 points consecutively. Each point won has associated with it varying degrees of difficulty. The inconsistency of a 3.0 actually makes the feat even more challenging. The randomness of their shots makes it harder to anticipate correctly to setting up properly for the shot. I think the probability is better with a 3.5.

 

[xxbwhxx]

I agree that it's extremely difficult to win all 24 points consecutively. Each point won has associated with it varying degrees of difficulty. The inconsistency of a 3.0 actually makes the feat even more challenging. The randomness of their shots makes it harder to anticipate correctly to setting up properly for the shot. I think the probability is better with a 3.5.

I'm curious as to what everyone who has been responding that it would be extremely difficult, what change/percentage would you have of it occurring? I believe that a 4.5 Male playing a 3.5 Woman is at enough of a different level to be able to get a golden set, especially since much of the points/games would be controlled by the difference in serve.

On the same note, at what NTRP do people think a player have to be in order to get points off of a top 10 player on the ATP Tour?

 

[navigator]

I lost a golden set once as a junior:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/wintergreen-in-va.528443/#post-10021935

More recently, while not a golden set, I just recorded the final of an ITF O45 tournament in Chile between the #1 and #2 seeds. The #2 seed won just four points in the first set. And he's beaten the #1 seed before (albeit a few years back). (I'll post some video when I get back home.)

There is a list out there somewhere of the most consecutive points lost by ATP players. If I recall correctly, among other stats, McEnroe lost 23 points in a row in a match with Lendl one time (spread over two sets, so not one point shy of a golden set, but still...).

If you play enough tennis, you'll get some strange outcomes.

 

[wsk429]

I'm curious as to what everyone who has been responding that it would be extremely difficult, what change/percentage would you have of it occurring? I believe that a 4.5 Male playing a 3.5 Woman is at enough of a different level to be able to get a golden set, especially since much of the points/games would be controlled by the difference in serve.

On the same note, at what NTRP do people think a player have to be in order to get points off of a top 10 player on the ATP Tour?

Is a 3.5 female at the same level of 3.5 male? Strength and endurance not considered?

 

[xxbwhxx]

Is a 3.5 female at the same level of 3.5 male? Strength and endurance not considered?

From my understanding of USTA/NTRP, there is roughly a .5 difference in rating between men/woman which would mean a 3.5 female would roughly be equivalent to a 3.0 male, meaning an average 3.5 female and 3.0 male could play competitive sets.

 

[Beowulf]

Setting aside the question of the effect on the relationship, if you, as a 4.5 male, played 10 sets against your 3.0/3.5 girlfriend, I would expect you to get a golden set in at least 5 of those sets. She has no weapons with which to hurt you, so you would only lose a point on your own mistake. The most likely would be a double fault when serving. I guess the other possibility would be if she gets a net chord winner, but that's not too likely.

 

[Topspin Shot]

I've never won or lost a golden set. I once won the first 16 points of a HS challenge match against a player I ended up beating 0 and 0.

 

[lstewart]

We had this issue come up long ago when I was playing college tennis, and a freshman wanting to try out for the team was talking smack. Team members were saying he could not win a point in a set, and I beat him a golden set. But you have to play very carefully to not make a single error, double fault, etc. I play pretty aggressive tennis now, and would probably double fault and blow a few forehands long playing my normal style. My wife is a 3.0, and I am a strong 4.5. I don't hit with her much, and we don't play sets, but she will occasionally hit something that I can't reach, or a net cord will drop over. My point is I would almost never win 24 straight points playing my normal attacking game, but probably could if that was my goal and I just pushed and played defense.

 

[anubis]

I think the ability to dish out a golden set has more to do with the one dealing the pain as opposed to how far down the ranks his or her opponent is. In other words, you can't just say that if there's a more than two level difference, a golden set can occur. The key ingredient in a "golden set" is that someone makes 0 mistakes for a minimum of 48 points straight. It doesn't matter how good or bad the opponent is: you still need to make 0 mistakes regardless.

I'm a decent 4.0 and I know for a fact that I am incapable of making 0 mistakes in hitting against the wall. I've played many 4.5 and 5.0 players and they've made plenty of mistakes.

I'm guessing maybe a 5.5 can play 48 points straight without making a mistake, but I personally wouldn't put any money on anything less than a 6.0.

 

[Doc Hollidae]

I once Golden Set'd Waluigi as Wario in Mario Tennis.

 

[LeeD]

Too much pressure hoping for a golden set match.
I have played a consistent, although weak hitting 3.5 singles player who really thought he could beat me if I gave him 3 points each game. He even talked to at least 10 of our mutual friends, and was convinced. This means, if he somehow wins one point, he get's the WHOLE SET.
First set, I was up 4-0 when I hit wide, so there goes the GS.
Second set, made it, but came close with one net cord that would have given him HIS set.
We actually went to 5-0 third set before he stopped play, deciding that maybe, I could golden set him 2 out of 3.
Not the kind of pressure I prefer to put myself under, because I've gotten 3 games off USTA 5.0's, and I'm a LOW 4.0.

 

[xxbwhxx]

I think the ability to dish out a golden set has more to do with the one dealing the pain as opposed to how far down the ranks his or her opponent is. In other words, you can't just say that if there's a more than two level difference, a golden set can occur. The key ingredient in a "golden set" is that someone makes 0 mistakes for a minimum of 48 points straight. It doesn't matter how good or bad the opponent is: you still need to make 0 mistakes regardless.

I'm a decent 4.0 and I know for a fact that I am incapable of making 0 mistakes in hitting against the wall. I've played many 4.5 and 5.0 players and they've made plenty of mistakes.

I'm guessing maybe a 5.5 can play 48 points straight without making a mistake, but I personally wouldn't put any money on anything less than a 6.0.

The difference between hitting against a wall is very different than hitting against another player. A wall gives you a lot less time to navigate which I think is the big difference.

 

[LeeD]

0 mistakes against a wall.
What, you hit 10 wall shots in a row?
I have attention span disorder, and can hit 25 forehand, or 25 backhands, or a mix of, but that is my UPPER limit, and I'm hitting at 50% level.

 

[OrangePower]

I think for a golden set you need to be:
1. Much better than your opponent (obviously). 4.5 male vs 3.0/3.5 female meets this criteria.
2. Have to have a very consistent type of game. No DF's no errant shots, etc. Not every 4.5 can do this for 24 points in a row.
3. Have to get lucky. Or rather, hope the opponent does not get lucky. Even a 3.0 female can hit a lucky frame shot, net cord, get a strange bounce, etc.

In the specific case of 4.5 male vs 3.0/3.5 female, I think if enough sets are played, there will sooner or later be a golden set, but on any particular set, I think the chance is < 20%.

 

[user92626]

Not sure about golden set but I have played with an older man, 62, in which I gave him 3 games, 2 points each game and my full doubles court to hit into. I remember I lost less than 4 points to win the set. I was well aware that if any time I lose 1 point I'd face sudden death and have to win 5 points nearly in a row.

He's probably 3.0 ish.

 

[esgee48]

Even odds 50/50, the odds of winning 24 points in a row are 1 in 2^24. That's why it is very surprising at the pro level. At rec levels, the odds are no where near even and I haven't yet thought thru the calculation. Suspect that even a here, overall odds are <<<<<<< 1%. It's a very small number!

I would let the gf have the last point if you are up 23-0.

 

[OrangePower]

Even odds 50/50, the odds of winning 24 points in a row are 1 in 2^24. That's why it is very surprising at the pro level. At rec levels, the odds are no where near even and I haven't yet thought thru the calculation. Suspect that even a here, overall odds are <<<<<<< 1%. It's a very small number!

I would let the gf have the last point if you are up 23-0.

Simplistically speaking, if the probability of player A winning any individual point is y, then the probability of A winning 24 in a row (GS) is y^24

As examples:
y = 0.5 (players of equal strength), GS = 0.00000006
y = 0.7 (significant difference, at least one level), GS = 0.0002
y = 0.9 (overwhelming superiority), GS = 0.08

This is simplistic since it assumes equal win probability for every point, and does not account for serving vs receiving, etc.
But it's a reasonable approximation.

Hard part is to determine the value of y.
With y = 0.7, the most likely set score is 6-0 (there are various tennis stat sites that have this kind of info).
So I think that correlates to perhaps a 0.75 difference in NTRP level (for example a low 4.0 vs a good 4.5).
My best guess is that 3 NTRP levels difference would have y = 0.9 or thereabouts, but this is just a guess.
In that scenario a golden set would be expected about 8% of the time.

 

[kevrol]

I'm a 3.5 male. My wife is a 2.5 female. I'll try this next time we play and report back.

In the meantime can any of you point me in the direction of a good family law attorney?

 

[therecanbeonlyone]

I'm a 3.5 male. My wife is a 2.5 female. I'll try this next time we play and report back.

In the meantime can any of you point me in the direction of a good family law attorney?

That depends on your definition of good. Making decisions like that you may need a family law attorney who is well above a 3.5.

 

[TennisCJC]

I don't think you (4.5 male) would get a golden set against (3.5 female) in 10 sets. You would make an unforced error, or your opponent would hit a screamer to a corner by accident, or a shank angle that drops in that you cannot get. It is very difficult to win 24 straight points.

 

[Dartagnan64]

I don't think you (4.5 male) would get a golden set against (3.5 female) in 10 sets. You would make an unforced error, or your opponent would hit a screamer to a corner by accident, or a shank angle that drops in that you cannot get. It is very difficult to win 24 straight points.

You'd need an impeccable serve that the woman couldn't touch. And she'd have to serve sitters. No rally could last longer than one or two shots because anything longer risks an error or fluky winner.
My wife gets frame shot winners all the time. So much so that I catch myself singing "Frame Shot Winner" to the tune of "Juke Box Hero".

 

[coyote]

I can't beat air 0&0 so a golden set is highly unlikely. If end up fable faulting or just getting bored and lose focus.

 

[Beowulf]

Honestly, why do people think it's that hard to win a golden set in the initial scenario (steady 4.5 male against 3.0/3.5 female)? Come on, it's not that hard. All you (the 4.5 male) have to do is move her around the court two or three times per point, side to side, she'll soon be out of position and then you hit a cross court winner. You don't have to aim for the lines, you don't have to go for aces on your serves, you don't have to overpower her, you don't even have to tire her out. As a 4.5 player, you should be easily able to hit one shot to the deuce side, the next to the ad side, and the next (a winner) back to the deuce side. Her replies will most likely come back to the center, but even if they don't, you're athletic enough and experienced enough to easily get to her shots and still place your shot where you want it. You only have to win 24 points. It's not like you're trying to get into the Guinness Book of World Records by performing some superhuman feat. So, yeah, out of 10 sets, if you really wanted to, I think at least 5 of them would be golden sets. The key is whether you really want to do it. Let's say that instead of playing your girlfriend, you are playing 10 sets against some random 3.0/3.5 woman whom you don't like (for whatever reason), and the deal is that for every golden set you win, you get $100,000. Now you've got some incentive! And I'd bet you'd win at least 5 golden sets. Heck, maybe all 10. Go buy a Porsche and celebrate.

 

[Beowulf]

0 mistakes against a wall.
What, you hit 10 wall shots in a row?
I have attention span disorder, and can hit 25 forehand, or 25 backhands, or a mix of, but that is my UPPER limit, and I'm hitting at 50% level.

Now, come on, LeeD. If you had incentive, if there was something on the line (like say a new surfboard), you could easily hit 250 shots in a row against the wall.

 

[LeeD]

Now, come on, LeeD. If you had incentive, if there was something on the line (like say a new surfboard), you could easily hit 250 shots in a row against the wall.

No, I can't. Maybe 60 max.
And I think a true 4.0 man can golden set a true 3.0 man, if the 3.0 is not the kind that goes for big winners and misses a lot. A consistent weak hitting 3 or 3.5 is possible to beat without losing a point.

 

[Beowulf]

No, I can't. Maybe 60 max.

I think you are too modest.

 

[LeeD]

No, I"m a realist.
I like to end points within 4 shots total.
I cannot run even one step, although "running" theoretically takes at least 3 steps.
I USED to play in Open-5.5 tournaments, so the shots while not there now, is still in my mind.
I hate long rallies, and baseline rallying.

 

[MisterP]

A 4.0 buddy of mine had a golden match against a 3.5 in league play. I don't understand how you can go a full set without any errors, let alone a full match. But he did it. He was also a D1 soccer player, so he has exceptional athleticism.

 

[wings56]

seems like the probabilities would be extremely low... I have won 12 points in a row many times that I can remember... as many as 16 points in a row a few times... I think 18 in a row is the most ever...

 

[Dartagnan64]

Honestly, why do people think it's that hard to win a golden set in the initial scenario (steady 4.5 male against 3.0/3.5 female)? Come on, it's not that hard. All you (the 4.5 male) have to do is move her around the court two or three times per point, side to side, she'll soon be out of position and then you hit a cross court winner. You don't have to aim for the lines, you don't have to go for aces on your serves, you don't have to overpower her, you don't even have to tire her out. As a 4.5 player, you should be easily able to hit one shot to the deuce side, the next to the ad side, and the next (a winner) back to the deuce side. Her replies will most likely come back to the center, but even if they don't, you're athletic enough and experienced enough to easily get to her shots and still place your shot where you want it. You only have to win 24 points. It's not like you're trying to get into the Guinness Book of World Records by performing some superhuman feat. So, yeah, out of 10 sets, if you really wanted to, I think at least 5 of them would be golden sets. The key is whether you really want to do it. Let's say that instead of playing your girlfriend, you are playing 10 sets against some random 3.0/3.5 woman whom you don't like (for whatever reason), and the deal is that for every golden set you win, you get $100,000. Now you've got some incentive! And I'd bet you'd win at least 5 golden sets. Heck, maybe all 10. Go buy a Porsche and celebrate.

The big reason is that if you don't overpower her and keep the rallies sustained at one point she'll hit one off the frame, or net cord that will fall for a winner. If you go for winners and lines, you'll likely miss one in 24 points. My wife is 3.0-3.5 land and has played 5.0 women. They will breadstick or bagel her but won't win nearly all the points because she'll fluke several in. If she can get her racket on shots eventually one will come off the frame, tip off the net cord and bounce two inches from the net. It's shocking how often that happens when we play our morning tennis. And every now and then she tag a legitimate winner just blocking a shot back as she goes for lines all the time.

 

[Beowulf]

The big reason is that if you don't overpower her and keep the rallies sustained at one point she'll hit one off the frame, or net cord that will fall for a winner. If you go for winners and lines, you'll likely miss one in 24 points. My wife is 3.0-3.5 land and has played 5.0 women. They will breadstick or bagel her but won't win nearly all the points because she'll fluke several in. If she can get her racket on shots eventually one will come off the frame, tip off the net cord and bounce two inches from the net. It's shocking how often that happens when we play our morning tennis. And every now and then she tag a legitimate winner just blocking a shot back as she goes for lines all the time.

Well, that's why I say 5 out 10 sets is more likely than 10 out of 10. Those flukes will happen, but I don't think they'll happen as often as you think they will (assuming that the OP is truly focused on trying his best to win every single point). The OP really needs to try this with his girlfriend to put it to the test.

 

[colan5934]

Came close a few times in high school but never got it. Also played on a loaded high school team and we had some weaker schools in our conference. Every time I got close it was completely unintentional. Just going about my business. I knew I was going to win easily and I wanted to get off the court quickly, but I'm not out there to humiliate anyone. When your opponent can't keep the ball in the court, after a few games you realize you haven't dropped a point yet. Wasn't blasting winners to corners left and right, was just not missing anything and he couldn't handle my normal rally pace. I think it's more difficult if you're actually trying to golden set someone because you'll start pressing/forcing.

Had the same type of thing happen in a college match. My opponent just had no idea what to do. I was just trying to put the ball in the court and begin/construct the point. Playing on fast, low-bouncing indoor courts helped my hard hitting game too. Add that to my solid play and his poor play, and after 5 games I hadn't lost a point. Ended up hitting 4 unreturnable serves in the last game because of the surface more than anything. Just happened to be the right combination of different things leading to the golden set. Had I actually been trying for it, I doubt it would have happened.

 

[DNShade]

I've dealt out two golden sets in my time. The most recent was about 7 or 8 years ago and was a guy that I had found through craigslist looking to play when I was new to an area looking for people to hit with. He of course way overrated - which was fine and kinda expected. He was probably a decent 3.5 to low 4.0 -- but he could get the ball back okay and it was a nice change from hitting on the wall. And he was a nice enough guy and really loved tennis. I played with him a few more times when we'd end up at the courts at the same time etc. I was always nice and always kept the ball to him to keep it going and interesting. I used to teach at an academy so have no problem with this type of thing and it kept me moving and on court so all good. But he would always want to play a set and I would keep putting it off and putting it off knowing that keeping a ball in play in a rally is fine -- but playing a match is something else and I had no interest in.

Well finally he really pushed it and got a bit cocky - since I never really hit out with him -- so I finally agreed. And it wasn't till about ten minutes later at 5-0 30 love that I even realized that I hadn't lost a point. The next two points were the hardest of the set I can tell you that - haha.

The level difference is a huge thing -- but as mentioned above - the not making a mistake thing is the part that is hard to control. Even the top players against a rank beginner will push one long or into the net or get playful and try something cute. On this day I just didn't care and hit out and drilled everything and they all went in probably just because I didn't care at all.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Well, that's why I say 5 out 10 sets is more likely than 10 out of 10. Those flukes will happen, but I don't think they'll happen as often as you think they will (assuming that the OP is truly focused on trying his best to win every single point). The OP really needs to try this with his girlfriend to put it to the test.

I think actually focusing on it is precisely where the problems will happen. Most Golden Sets come from a lucky 24 point streak when no one is thinking about it and subsequently tightening up. As soon as you lower your risk taking to hit safer shots, you move from being a 4.5 to a 4.0 as the pressure you can place on an opponent diminishes when you are absolutely trying to not make a mistake.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

I think one other issue is that at all rec levels, players really don't practice enough to get a groove and be consistent at shots they don't hit very often. And I expect that when you're playing against someone that many levels below you... they're giving you a lot of shots you don't actually often. I mean, it's not like you can win a match by giving someone shots way easier than they expect, but at the rec level I would probably expect an error or two over the course of a set.

I think a 5.5 would have a much easier time golden-setting a 4.0 than a 4.5 would have against a 3.0.

 

[Dartagnan64]

Well, I had an ideal opportunity for a golden set this morning playing my wife. For some reason I was in a zone. First serve percentage was high, forehands and backhands were deep and accurate. I was basically blowing her off the court, much to her chagrin. Won easily 6-0, 6-0 where she usually gets 1-3 games a set on me.
Despite playing at my absolute best (wish it was league playoffs rather than morning practice sets with my wife), best I could do was 11 points in a row. Would still lose the occasional point if she got a good flat return that I couldn't dig out and I also netted 3 shots and double faulted once. 24 straight points without a good amount of fortuitous bounces would be very challenging even when you outmatch the opponent.

 

[beernutz]

I think the 4.5 OP would easily get at least one and probably more than one golden sets against a strong 3.0/weak 3.5 woman if they played 10 sets. I came within 1 point of a golden set in a 3.5 league match several years ago against a guy playing up. I double faulted up 4-0, 40-0 before winning the rest of that set's points and I wasn't even thinking about a golden set until the set was over.

I am now a weak (but computer-rated) 4.0 in singles and my wife is a strong 3.0/weak 3.5 and I would place a large wager that I could golden set her at least once in 10 sets. I have beaten her 6-0 several times in a made-up game we play where I get only one serve and she can't double fault plus I can only hit backhands.