Golden Set Difficulty

MathGeek

Hall of Fame
If your opponent knows what you are trying to do and takes a good strategy to stop you, you will have a much less chance than if they are playing their "normal" game.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
I still think a big problem is trying for a golden set. Once you start thinking about it, and the fact you can't make an error, it changes your mind set.

Now you're playing conservative, not swinging out, hitting neutral shots and simpler serves.

But if you have super consistent strokes and the 3.0 woman is a pusher never going for winners, it's definitely the ideal setup. Both my wife and I go for our shots, so our error rate is too high.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Still, hard to account for mishit winners, net cord winners, or shots that land on the lines.
Almost any hard hitter, it's impossible to win a golden set, but against a soft hitting retriever, it's much easier if you have the forcing shots.
 
D

Deleted member 120290

Guest
I won a Golden set about a month ago against a guy who used to be 4.0 but is more like a 3.5 now. I usually beat him 6-1. He did not play terribly or give me a bunch of easy points.

My serves were smoking and he had no chance on my service games. On his service games I had to win points that were mostly 3 to 5 strokes long. At 0-5, 0-30, he hit a good lob that I probably wouldn't have even chased down under usual circumstances but ran it down and basically scraped the ball before it hit the back fence and sent back a return lob. He was so shocked I returned his "for sure a winner" lob, that he was not prepared and dumped the ball into the net.

After I won the next point and the Golden set, I realized I had done it but it really didn't sink in until about a week later.
 

Hnefi

Semi-Pro
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.
 
Last edited:

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
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.
 

MathGeek

Hall of Fame
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.

Get back out there! 650 to go.
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
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.
 

doubleshack

New User
I've watched a lot of tennis and I've never seen a golden set. In theory, a very lopsided match should result in a golden set (i.e. 4.5 -> 3.0) but it doesn't, due to the amount of concentration required. If you are winning easily, you relax and play casually and it can result in a double fault or a poorly executed shot. Basically, to get a golden set, you'd have to play each point like it is competitive, even though the person on the other side of the net is not a threat. That would require a lot of effort.

The only golden set I know of is Jack Sock did it in high school. He played around 80 high school matches and only 1 of them was a golden set. He clearly outclassed his competition all 4 years, but only got 1 golden set. Clearly a difficult task.
 

kevrol

Hall of Fame
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.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
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.

probably closer to a 2 point rating system to have a decent chance to do it. I could still get a point or two off a 5.0 player with some luck. A 5.5-6.0... not so much.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
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.
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
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.

There just isn't anyway this is possible unless you're one of the biggest sandbaggers on earth. No way a 4.0 is good enough to beat a 3.5 like that.
 

esgee48

G.O.A.T.
Consider 4.0 is about dynamic 3.9 and the 3.5 is about dynamic 3.1. It is possible, just unlikely. I think familiarity with the other player's tactics was a part in his results.
 

NTRPolice

Hall of Fame
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.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
I mentioned I played both Focus 42 and a local #3 USTA 3.5.
BOTH those guys, I could never win a golden set against. Both serve at least as hard as I do, both are 6'2" + and over 210 lbs., both 35 year's younger and much more fit than me. That kind of player, no chance of me winning every point in even TWO games. Against Focus 42, I had to work to win two sets by 3. Against John, he usually get's 3 against me, but the last 3 sets we've played, I got him a bagel each time.
But a 3.5 who hit's weak, can't really cover alley to alley, and certainly can't cover good drop shot/lob combos is not so tough to beat.
And some would say I'm not really a "typical" 4.0, whatever that is. I played A, and Open tournies back in the late '70's, went at least 2 rounds in most of them. There was no 5.5 in the '70's., C's were 3.5's, B's were 4.5's, and A's were 5.5's. My body might be half of what it was, but the brain only failed by a third.
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
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.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
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.
 

NTRPolice

Hall of Fame
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.
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
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?
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
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?

Players all have different strategies. There are pusher's who just get the ball back, there are hitters who try to emulate ATP strokes while making one in 4 IN the opponent's court, and most in between the two extremes.
I mentioned I cannot ever beat the hard hitting 3.5 player's every point, because they are going to hit a few for screaming winners.
But a pusher 3.5, I can get to every ball in a set, so it's up to me to hit deep shots, short angles, drop/lob combos, change spins, and keep them slightly off balance so they can't hit THEIR spots.
 

NTRPolice

Hall of Fame
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?

In the 2.5-3.5 range, you wouldnt have to necessarily "put" them into any position at all. Your only strategy could be to simply get the ball back anywhere in the court, because no matter where the ball ends up, it's possible they may not be able to put it away. Someone with a tap over serve might not be able to put away an overhead from anywhere in the court. Someone who hits "topspin" but you can still see the number on the ball wont be able to hit clean winners from the baseline. You can pop the ball up anywhere without much worry of a hard driving shot being a clean winner.

To me, the easiest "golden set" conditions are when a high consistency game is played against a game that lacks reliable put away power. When a player has no put away power, there are no "forcing" conditions for their opponent.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

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.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
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?

No: I think a player just playing to get the ball back over the net will get it into play enough times to allow the opponent the chance to make an error. The better the opponent, the less likely he'll make an error. But the % never drops to 0.
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
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.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
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.
We've already accounted for the lucky net tape mishit winner, and for sure, a mishit return of serve that clips a sideline. There are several other instances where a lucky shot would ruin the golden set, but they don't happen every single set.
I used to think like you, that everyone sometimes can hit a winner or forcing shot. See all the threads I made involving Marcie Louie or Kimiko Date. I HAVE gotten a set of Marcie, hit with her over 15 times, but never saw Kimiko in person, so that was conjecture.
But now older, wiser, and much much weaker, and slower, I can see where a good player, a full level above me, can serve me a golden set. Maybe not a 4.5 level player, but certainly a 5.5 level player.
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
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.

lol these assumptions are hilarious. This isn't even a good troll on your part because it's so dumb.
 
D

Deleted member 120290

Guest
Having won a golden set, honestly it is not a big deal. I felt really bad for my opponent. I didn't celebrate at all. It wasn't nearly as thrilling as getting a hole in one.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
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.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
So, what is the final consensus?
I think, 35% say it's possible, it has happenned, have or seen it done.
Maybe 50% say it's possible, but doubtful, and certainly won't happen the majority of meetings.
And of course, the 15% who can it just cannot happen in real life.
Who to believe?
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

I don't know how you would go about proving such a hypothesis, short of testing every 3.5 or 4.0. And even then, you can't prove that this pattern will hold indefinitely. Only an infinite # of trials will prove you correct; just one trial could prove you incorrect.

I would go so far as to agree that it would be rare, perhaps exceedingly so. I just wouldn't use the word "impossible". ["You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya, *The Princess Bride*]

This thread is just to make people feel better about themselves and act like 3.0s and 3.5s are terrible.

I can't speak for the others but I am not trying to put down 3.0s and 3.5s. Au contraire: you are the one who is saying 3.5s aren't good enough to achieve a GS. If anything, you're the one putting down 3.5s.

And I'm not trying to make myself feel better: I don't think I've ever gotten a GS and I doubt I ever will unless I play someone far beneath my level and what's the point in that?

I didn't get the impression that other thread contributors were doing what you're accusing them of.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

LeeD,

You have to know how to interpret Startzel-ese: when he says something is impossible, read it as "I can't contemplate it existing; therefore, it's impossible." This is a common theme in his posts: anything he can't conceive must therefore not exist. It doesn't matter what anyone else can conceive or what their opinion is.

Hamlet obviously comes to mind: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Unfortunately, no records exist as to whether Hamlet achieved a GS. Racquet technology wasn't so good in those days.
 

NTRPolice

Hall of Fame
Nope. I just don't know a single 3.5 or 3.0 that's incapable of hitting a winning shot.

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.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
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.
 

NTRPolice

Hall of Fame
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.

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.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
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].
 
D

Deleted member 120290

Guest
No matter the circumstances, GS is very rare like getting a hole in one. But these conditions improve the odds:

1. Ball is new, light and conditions allow the ball to move thru the court quickly.
2. Opponent is not someone who can run down shots. So you will only have to hit 1 good shot, not 1 great shot or 3 - 4 good shots to win a point.
3. You must be in the zone. Every stroke esp. serve and FH is completely on. The ball looks like a beach ball coming to you in slow motion.
4. No highly attractive women to divert your attention.
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
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].

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. The underlying concept is the same.
 

Startzel

Hall of Fame
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.

This reminds me of the immovable object vs an unstoppable force debate.

What happens when two guys playing never make a mistake nor hit a winner.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
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.

In your scenario, it maybe 24 points but it likely means an average of 4 shots per point, so at a minimum its 48 consecutive error free shots and 48 winner free shots for your opponent. Given the frequency of double faults, frame shots and net cords in a match between intermediates, it's statistically improbable for luck to fall that way. Unless you have two low pace moonballers with patty cake serves playing and one is super consistent and the other misses all the time. I haven't played any tennis like that ever. My opponents always seem to get a net cord or frame shot winner several times a match. I will miss many shots a match and DF a couple times even if I'm playing conservative. Misshits happen and they can be fortuitous or costly. Having a match where all the mishits only favor one player seems very unlikely.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
..er..... I"m a bad 4.0. Most 3.5's are low pace moonballers with patty cake serves, at least those I can beat without losing more than one handful of points.
I already mentioned the big hitter 3.5's, who can easily win 2 points a game against me, and they often solicit another point a game off me just by intimidation. So those guys, I cannot ever beat a golden set into them.
 
Top