This is about right. How many people here honestly think they can play 24 points in a row without making a mistake, especially if you're putting yourself under the pressure not to?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.
This is about right. How many people here honestly think they can play 24 points in a row without making a mistake, especially if you're putting yourself under the pressure not to?
I play with people who are 1.5 or so points below my level all the time, and I don't think I could golden set any of them no matter how hard I try. I'd hit a forehand out, or one of them would go for a winner and end up hitting a line.
On the flip side, I hit with a guy last weekend who has atp points and regularly plays futures events, and even though I was losing rally drills 11-1 and 11-2 left and right, I'd say there's no way he would golden set me. He'd make an error, even though keeping it in was more than enough to beat me over time.
Yes I think they sit as statistical flukes when two players of disparate skill levels play. If neither is trying for it, it will happen by random chance. If you have a 90% chance of winning every point, you should golden set 90^24 or 8% of the time. If you have a 75% chance of winning every point, it should happen 0.1% of the time. With my wife I probably have a 70% chance of winning each point so we'd have to play a couple thousand matches to expect to see a golden set. We've probably only played 350 times in our lives.
Since seeing this thread I've kept it in the back of my mind when playing for fun. I'm a solid 3.5 and my wife is a 2.5. I'm of the opinion that a 3.5 player is not good enough to golden set anyone. Just not consistent enough and throughout the course of the match a 3.5 is highly likely to have at least one UE.
So that made me think you'd have to probably be a 4.5 player to have the consistency needed. Even then though if a 4.5 is playing a 3.5 the 3.5 is likely good enough to get at least 1 point.
I think there really would need to be a minimum 1.5 rating difference to have a legit shot at a golden set.
C'mon guys, it totally depends how bad a player you're playing, and how much you can back off on your shots but still have them forcing your bad opponent.
I'm by far the least likely candidate for a golden set, unless you mean ME getting no points.
But I"ve done it 2 out of 3 against a guy who normally beat's a lot of the 3.5's at San Pablo Park. But he has no real winners, even against a cripple like me, because I know where he's going to hit it. At 4-0 of the first "set", I hit wide on a backhand, so he won the first set. The next two, he didn't get a point, and I had to win 4 points in a row each game, his and mine.
Against a fellow TW "4.0 tournament player", I bagelled him but gave up at least 4 points, no more. If I really tried, I'm sure I could have reduced those errors on my part by 1/2. He just didn't have the power to WIN a point against me.
And I"m a BAD 4.0, as Shroud and PapaMango would attest.
You need to maintain 0% error rate at the same time your opponent maintains a 0% winner rate. How hard is that? Exponentially harder than winning 0-0.
It's rare I ever beat anyone 0-0 these days, and even when I do, they are still certainly scoring points throughout the match.
A "golden set" has to be way easier at the lower levels especially if you're a sandbagger. If your opponent cant hit clean winners, or aces, you have a chance to win every point. When your opponents have the ability to ace you, or can literally hit a winner from anywhere on the court on any given ball, your chance of a golden set goes way down. Comparing this to a 3.0 who struggles to serve the ball in, or cant put away a ball bouncing 5 ft high in the service box with no spin on it, it's pretty easy to assume that more golden sets happen in the lower levels than in high levels.
It doesn't happen at the lower levels because a 3.0 or 3.5 aren't going to be good enough to go error free for a set.
I know some very consistent 3.5's who can rally for 200 shots in row, without a miss, but that's all they can do.
They can't cover low skidding shots near their sidelines, they can't hit a clean winner from mid NML, they certainly can't serve for a winner, nor return for a winner except to hope for a net cord dropover.
They can hit low passing shots near the sidelines, they often get tentative on low volleys, overheads, and net play....which is why they are 3.5 level player's.
I never thought I'd ever agree with @LeeD, but he's right. There are a lot of lower level players who play specifically to make as little errors as possible. Once you get to the higher levels, you have to be able to hit winners, or you will lose. This is why you see these "error free" players capping out at 4.0, where they shoot evenly against big hitters who make errors, but hit a lot of winners.
I can totally see a 2.5-3.5 player who plays for just consistency being way more likely to have a golden set vs. someone who is a 4.0 or higher because a 2.5-3.5 player doesnt have the ability to "force" a point by hitting a winner. There are certainly 2.5-3.5's who train for making no errors, because literally hitting the ball back into play anywhere, with any spin, with any pace is the strongest play you can do.
So you think a player just playing to get the ball back over the net is going to always be able to put their opponent is a position where he or she can't hit a winning shot?
So you think a player just playing to get the ball back over the net is going to always be able to put their opponent is a position where he or she can't hit a winning shot?
My body might be half of what it was, but the brain only failed by a third.
I just don't honestly see how it's possible.
I watched a sandbagging 3.5 who's a young can get to everything 4.0 type player play against a 300 lb 3.0 who would probably be a 2.5 if he quit playing up at 3.5 thr other night. The 300 lb who could barely move still won 10-11 points each set.
So you think a player just playing to get the ball back over the net is going to always be able to put their opponent is a position where he or she can't hit a winning shot?
It's not probable. It's not likely. It's exceedingly rare. On that we agree. But none of those descriptions equate to "impossible". If those two played many sets, there is a chance, however small, that Sandbagger 3.5 could GS Overachiever 3.0.
You seem to believe that every 3.5 plays exactly the same as every other 3.5. Or 4.0. Nope, plenty of differences.
As a 3.0 or 3.5 YOURself, I can agree with you.
However, when you play against a 4.0 or better player, you quite often cannot hit a winning shot.
It's just such an illogical argument that I'm not interested in arguing with y'all. Someone wouldn't be a 3.5 if they could go an entire match without missing. Nor would they be a 4.0.
This thread is just to make people feel better about themselves and act like 3.0s and 3.5s are terrible.
Startzel, just because you haven't seen it, it doesn't mean it can never happen. You just haven't seen much tennis at those lower levels. Notice the previous post, #85.
While I don't believe a good 3.5, or one capable of hitting strong shots can be golden set'ed by a 4.0, there ARE some 3.5's who just don't have power, can't produce forcing shots against a 4.0, but CAN beat any 3.0 player, so they're not 3.0.
And while your perception of a 4.0 is one thing, believe me, there are all sorts of 4.0's out there, some who can easily LOSE a set to a 3.5, while other's never ever will lose to a 3.5, and some can lose to a 3.5 once, then golden set the same 3.5 on the next set. And the set after that.
Don't assume you have seen every match between a 3.5 and a 4.0. I haven't either, and I know there will soon be a day I will lose to a real 3.5, but I also know 3.5's come in various states and forms, some weak, some strong, some consistent. I've presented examples of 3.5's I cannot golden set. But there are plenty of 3.5's I can golden set.
Rufus Smith, who sometimes posts on here, said he was a "4.0 tournament player". Watching him hit, he just might be, but in the lone singles set we played, he got maybe 4 points TOTAL in the bagel he got. And maybe one was from a forcing shot hit by him.
Nope. I just don't know a single 3.5 or 3.0 that's incapable of hitting a winning shot.
Startzel,
So, for example, the probability of flipping a coin 20 times and getting heads every time is about 1 in a million [2^20]. This is probably so rare that no one has ever done it without the aid of a computer. Using your logic, it's impossible. Using probability, it's not impossible, just highly unlikely.
I expect you understand this simple bit of probability but refuse to acknowledge's its applicability to the situation at hand. Vive le difference.
Not totally incapable, but over the course of a "GS" may not be able to execute one.
It's pretty hard to hit a clean winner against someone who can move. I know lots of 4.0's that never try to serve aces or hit winners from the baseline. They just try not to double fault and play points patiently waiting for easy shots inside the service box to attack. You can play a similar style in the lower levels too, where it's much more effective because the fear of being aced or having a clean winner hit on you is much less.
Why is moonballing very effective in the lower levels? Because lower level players have a hard time attacking those balls. They are not going to rip a 70 mph forehand into the corner, nor are they going to hit a 100 mph OH at the baseline.
But a pusher's goal isn't to win every point. The goal is to win more points than your opponents. That's why strategy wouldn't be successful for a GS. To win a GS you're going to have to be forceful with your opponent and prevent them from being able to win a point. Which is going to cause you to make more mistakes.
There is a possibility I win Wimbledon next year. But it would be a dumb thing to argue on he Internet because he odds are so slim it's essentially impossible.
I don't know: how's your S&V game?
I noticed you changed your statement from "impossible" to "essentially impossible", which aren't the same. Yes, the % of you winning Wimbledon is very small although I'd argue the chances of a 3.5 achieving a GS are higher [but I can't quantify that statement].
You do not have to hit winners to win a GS.
The minimum requirement to win a GS is that you must not make any errors and your opponent must not hit any winners.
If you dont hit any winners you can still meet the minimum requirement for a GS. Winners would undoubtedly help you win a GS, but they are not ultimately required.
No winners required? Low level tennis.
Getting the ball back in play anywhere is a strong play? Low level tennis.
Players plagued by errors? Low level tennis.
I also see way more blow away tie breakers in the lower levels than in the high levels.
BS.
"An entire set" is only 24 points. It's not like needing to hit 100 consecutive forcing shots in a row, it's against a lower level player who can't hurt you with his shots. You have plenty of "rest" shots, reset shots, and you know you can always safely lob over his backhand, or drop short safely, just to reset the point in your favor.
You seem to believe that every 3.5 plays exactly the same as every other 3.5. Or 4.0. Nope, plenty of differences.
Most 3.5's are low pace moonballers with patty cake serves