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

[ollinger]

There are two kinds of people in this world: people who might say that Lendl won two-thirds of the finals he played in, or people like the OP who say to 2 decimal places that Lendl won 64.38 percent of his finals. That latter group, through unfathomably convoluted reasoning, would conclude that "it is better to lose in the semi-finals than win the semi-finals (and go on to lose the final)," a type of reasoning that a)would assume knowledge of the future outcome of the final, and b)be predicated on the notion that the smaller trophy the runner-up gets is somehow inferior to the no-trophy, smaller pay-day, fewer ranking points, and less TV exposure to please himself and his sponsors the semi-finalist gets.

 

[Bluefan75]

I really have to question whether people, who say a player "can't come through in the clutch" or some other trite cliche they spout to sound smart, ever actually participated in anything of any great note. Man in the arena and all.

Kind of like the "can't win the big game" critique. Of course, what is a "big game" is only decided upon afterwards, and invariably is one that said person lost. Armchair QB'ing at its worst....

 

[ollinger]

^^ of course the absurdity here is that the OP suggest losing in the final risks being labeled one who can't win the big one, but I suppose losing in the semis makes you one who can't even win the smaller one.

 

[mikeeeee]

Considering the difference between third and second (in majors) is several hundred thousand dollars, and also the exposure to being in the finals will likely get you some kind of sponsorship deal or bonus pay from current sponsors if you have an incentive clause... it's not really a choice

 

[VexlanderPrime]

How is this even a question? This is like a trick question to catch losers.

 

[Checkmate]

This question might be for 'H2H' fans.....

Really? Who on earth will prefer to lose in semi final instead of final

 

[jm1980]

There's no way you can argue it's better to lose in an early round compared to losing in the final. Any argument that can be made against losing in the final can be made against losing earlier. For example:

• If you lose in the final, you lack mental strength in the biggest stage -> if you lose before the final, doesn't that mean you lack mental strength in an even smaller stage? How is that better in any way?

Otherwise, I am one of the mentally strongest players of all time: I've never lost a Slam match in my life.

 

[Krish872007]

There's now way you can argue it's better to lose in an early round compared to losing in the final. Any argument that can be made against losing in the final can be made against losing earlier. For example:

• If you lose in the final, you lack mental strength in the biggest stage -> if you lose before the final, doesn't that mean you lack mental strength in an even smaller stage? How is that better in any way?

Otherwise, I am one of the mentally strongest players of all time: I've never lost a Slam match in my life.

The paradox: you've never won a Slam match either. So you could be classified as the mentally strongest and weakest player of all time - simultaneously

 

[Doflamingo]

Final

> Runner-up position so you go home with some silverware
> Will be remembered compared to a SF match
> More points
> More money

Any day of the week.

The notion of losing in slam finals = bad/choker/smaller stages is better (lol) is absurd. ​

 

[Aretium]

If anyone here is questioning this, you are not a competitor or sportsman. You are a couch moron with cotton in your head.

 

[timnz]

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.

What evidence is there for that? Again, the onus of proof is on someone to prove that it was anything else than just the other player playing better on the day. Every player has a range they play in say -15% or +15% of their typical level. A player may be playing the best they can on the day but are having one of their -15% days and the other guy is having a +15% day. It doesn't mean the first player isn't up to playing on the biggest stages - it is just that this happens all of the time.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

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

Isn't this just another way of stating my point about consistency? (They have a good fifth gear, but not a great overdrive).

And that's really the whole point from 125 isn't it? That it can and does tell us something about the player. I'd say we're in agreement here that this isn't a cut-and-dried issue.

Where's that convo I had with 125 some months back after the US Open final about Federer... would be good to dig it up.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Man just reading some of the replies here is so predictable and aggravating...wow lol...it really is like the H2H debate. Like that one, the people here have taken a valid counterpoint and actually become closed minded to the point of insulting and dismissive about it.

And yes it is a counterpoint, because in general h2h, finals record etc are stats thst are brought up, analyzed etc. It is valid and correct to point out how fallible these stars can be and how it is in fact obviously better to make a final and lose then lose in the 2nd round. Does that mean that a player with a repeated poor slam final record probably has no problems being clutch? I don't think so...again we have to analyze it case by case, but in general I'd say that stat tells us something EVEN THOUGH yes the player could have conceivably lost in the 2nd round, performed worse over all, and they'd have a better finals record. That shows that the state is fallible. It does not totally invalidate a logical inference that someone like Nadal is very good in big matches, whereas someone like Federer is greater overall but isn't quite as much of a match player. And guess what, the statistics bears that out! I don't think there is an onus on me to prove what I'm saying. Rather, people have pointed out ways in which the stat could be skewed, laughably similar actually to the H2H stat, and the 5 set record one, and in all 3 of these cases, these criticisms do not totally invalidate the metric.

I don't get what is so difficult to understand about this...it's a pretty simple concept that most people seem to get..I can only conclude people on these boards are blinded by their prejudices and inferred concepts of what these stats mean when applicable to their favorite player (s).

 

[helterskelter]

What evidence is there for that? Again, the onus of proof is on someone to prove that it was anything else than just the other player playing better on the day. Every player has a range they play in say -15% or +15% of their typical level. A player may be playing the best they can on the day but are having one of their -15% days and the other guy is having a +15% day. It doesn't mean the first player isn't up to playing on the biggest stages - it is just that this happens all of the time.

I just don't think it's true that this range is the same for all players or that all players are equally likely to move up and down the range on a frequent basis. As @ollinger said in a previous post, attempting to quantify the range of form that players may display is also probably unhelpful. (The notion of "typical playing level" is an abstraction).

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Is a simple concept, yes. Ultimately, wining more gives a player a better shot at winning titles so ultimately they will win more hardware in their career, which is better, but also the fuller nature of the player becomes increasingly transparent with more evidence, which helps us place them in the bigger picture of.. greatness or whatever.

 

[Bobby Jr]

...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%)

This is the exact same argument which proves why the Federer-Nadal h2h is a completely rubbish metric.

Had Federer lost earlier all those times on clay his h2h with Nadal would be even, or close to. Therefore, according to h2h muppet logic, if Federer has been a worse claycourt player and avoided Nadal all those times he would appear to be a much better player. In reality it's little more than confirmation of the pointlessness of the h2h. Tennis greatness is achieved by winning trophies, not beating any particular player.

Lendl's finals record is what it is - you're much better to have made 10 finals and lost all of them than never made any final at all.

 

[helterskelter]

And that's really the whole point from 125 isn't it? That it can and does tell us something about the player. I'd say we're in agreement here that this isn't a cut-and-dried issue.

Where's that convo I had with 125 some months back after the US Open final about Federer... would be good to dig it up.

I didn't mean to deny that it could tell us something about the player. I just agreed with @timnz that that something might not be their nerves.

(I would draw a contrast between the two claims you make: certainly, a player's record in final "can" tell us something about the player. On the other hand, I don't think it necessarily "does" so. Well, rather, it tells us that they have won X finals and lost Y finals. But we're talking about something broader about them. I think that it can do so but that additional arguments are necessary to establish what that something is in any particular case. We can't read it off from the winning percentage in finals alone).

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Is a simple concept, yes. Ultimately, wining more gives a player a better shot at winning titles so ultimately they will win more hardware in their career, which is better, but also the fuller nature of the player becomes increasingly transparent with more evidence, which helps us place them in the bigger picture of.. greatness or whatever.

Yes , exactly. A great player is going to need to make several finals anyway, so how they perform in them starts to matter somewhat in terms of legacy, outside of just slams won. I don't think it's the be all end all, Im an ND fan and think he can be greater than Rafa when all is said and done...just think it's foolish to think that GS finals records, particularly against main rivals tells us nothing, I think it tells us something usually EVEN when mitigating factors have been accounted for.

It's a complicated stat but a simple concept

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Yes , exactly. A great player is going to need to make several finals anyway, so how they perform in them starts to matter somewhat in terms of legacy, outside of just slams won. I don't think it's the be all end all, Im an ND fan and think he can be greater than Rafa when all is said and done...just think it's foolish to think that GS finals records, particularly against main rivals tells us nothing, I think it tells us something usually EVEN when mitigating factors have been accounted for.

It's a complicated stat but a simple concept

Yeh, simple concept but as Helterskelter just succinctly refined and explained, a complicated stat to actually look into.

Good discussion. We could have played nice but that's not our way is it, 125 - LOL.

 

[helterskelter]

Yeh, simple concept but as Helterskelter just succinctly refined and explained, a complicated stat to actually look into.

Good discussion. We could have played nice but that's not our way is it 125 - LOL.

To put my view differently (as was I hope implicit in that stupid argument I had about aging last week), I don't think it is possible to draw a general conclusion on the basis of statistical evidence without using non-statistical arguments to establish that conclusion. Hence, all that we learn from, say, the fact that only three men aged 31 or more have won a Slam in the last 40 years is that only three men aged 31 or more have won a Slam in the last 40 years. If we want to use that statistical evidence to draw the broader conclusion that it is virtually impossible for men aged 31 or more to win a Slam, we need some other evidence that shows the previous results not to be a coincidence.

(In between 1982 and 1990, seven of the 35 Grand Slam tournaments played were won by teenagers. Since the start of 1991, one of the 100 Grand Slam tournaments played has been won by a teenager, and not a single one of the losing finalists has been a teenager).

Of course, some statistics are "statistically significant." But the concept of statistical significance itself rests on broader arguments and assumptions (such as the notion of a normal distribution).

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Yeh, simple concept but as Helterskelter just succinctly refined and explained, a complicated stat to actually look into.

Good discussion. We could have played nice but that's not our way is it, 125 - LOL.

Playing nice wins challenger forum wars. To win the pro ones, you gotta be dirty.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

To put my view differently (as was I hope implicit in that stupid argument I had about aging last week), I don't think it is possible to draw a general conclusion on the basis of statistical evidence without using non-statistical arguments to establish that conclusion. Hence, all that we learn from, say, the fact that only three men aged 31 or more have won a Slam in the last 40 years is that only three men aged 31 or more have won a Slam in the last 40 years. If we want to use that statistical evidence to draw the broader conclusion that it is virtually impossible for men aged 31 or more to win a Slam, we need some other evidence that shows the previous results not to be a coincidence.

(In between 1982 and 1990, seven of the 35 Grand Slam tournaments played were won by teenagers. Since the start of 1991, one of the 100 Grand Slam tournaments played has been won by a teenager, and not a single one of the losing finalists has been a teenager).

I just find this style of argument very pedantic. It's like the old Devils advocate "prove to me there isn't an elephant in the room" joke about the German scientist.

There are obvious inferences to be made from stats, and I think mitigating factors do need to be considered. But why should the stat need to be "proved" more to your liking? It is not natural to assume stats with fairly large sample sizes are a "coincidence" or "tell us nothing".

 

[timnz]

This is the exact same argument which proves why the Federer-Nadal h2h is a completely rubbish metric.

Had Federer lost earlier all those times on clay his h2h with Nadal would be even, or close to. Therefore, according to h2h muppet logic, if Federer has been a worse claycourt player and avoided Nadal all those times he would appear to be a much better player. In reality it's little more than confirmation of the pointlessness of the h2h. Tennis greatness is achieved by winning trophies, not beating any particular player.

Lendl's finals record is what it is - you're much better to have made 10 finals and lost all of them than never made any final at all.

Completely agree.

 

[timnz]

I just don't think it's true that this range is the same for all players or that all players are equally likely to move up and down the range on a frequent basis. As @ollinger said in a previous post, attempting to quantify the range of form that players may display is also probably unhelpful. (The notion of "typical playing level" is an abstraction).

I am just saying that 'on the day' players can perform slightly less than their normal level (not because they aren't up for the 'big occassion') and their opponents play slightly above their normal level. It happens all of the time. The statistic alone of number of runner-ups says absolutely nothing about whether the player can handle the 'big occasion'.

 

[timnz]

There are two kinds of people in this world: people who might say that Lendl won two-thirds of the finals he played in, or people like the OP who say to 2 decimal places that Lendl won 64.38 percent of his finals. That latter group, through unfathomably convoluted reasoning, would conclude that "it is better to lose in the semi-finals than win the semi-finals (and go on to lose the final)," a type of reasoning that a)would assume knowledge of the future outcome of the final, and b)be predicated on the notion that the smaller trophy the runner-up gets is somehow inferior to the no-trophy, smaller pay-day, fewer ranking points, and less TV exposure to please himself and his sponsors the semi-finalist gets.

I guess my thread is to highlight the completely bizarre reasoning behind statistics like the Finals winning percentage.

 

[DolgoSantoro]

Going by the US Open, losing in the finals is worth roughly $800,000 more than losing in the semis. It's also worth 520 ATP points more, which is roughly equivalent to the value of winning a medium-sized tournament. Losing in the finals seems pretty darn superior, from an objective standpoint.

 

[Service Ace]

Better to lose early to protect the most important stat in tennis - H2H.

 

[mattosgrant]

I would say most times it is better to reach the final, but if you are going to get to the point of having an embarrassingly bad finals record (for an all time great losing more than 50%, and having numerous bad losses in finals, is embarrassing) it is better to reach a few less finals.

 

[timnz]

I would say most times it is better to reach the final, but if you are going to get to the point of having an embarrassingly bad finals record (for an all time great losing more than 50%, and having numerous bad losses in finals, is embarrassing) it is better to reach a few less finals.

You don't think this seriously do you? I have to say that Lendl Slam finals record of 8-11 is far far better than a 8-0 record

 

[timnz]

Going by the US Open, losing in the finals is worth roughly $800,000 more than losing in the semis. It's also worth 520 ATP points more, which is roughly equivalent to the value of winning a medium-sized tournament. Losing in the finals seems pretty darn superior, from an objective standpoint.

And yet many statisticians penalise runner-ups.

 

[mattosgrant]

You don't think this seriously do you? I have to say that Lendl Slam finals record of 8-11 is far far better than a 8-0 record

Maybe, but I would rather an 8-6 finals record than an 8-11. An 8-11 finals record for an all time great is embarrassing. For instance I would much rather Connors slam final record (8-7) than Lendl's (8-11).

Since we all know this is nothing but a Lendl thread, you posted it in the wrong forum anyway btw.

 

[swordtennis]

Get to the final that is what it is all about.

 

[jm1980]

I'm starting to think the ideal result is to not even getting to the semis

The early you lose, the more mentally strong you are

 

[timnz]

Maybe, but I would rather an 8-6 finals record than an 8-11. An 8-11 finals record for an all time great is embarrassing. For instance I would much rather Connors slam final record (8-7) than Lendl's (8-11).

Since we all know this is nothing but a Lendl thread, you posted it in the wrong forum anyway btw.

So the extra 4 slam finals Lendl got to were an inferior performance than 4 slam tournaments where the Connors lost before the final? With full respect that isn't logical.


BTW The subject of this thread isn't Lendl, but rather, what I believe, are the illogical statistics that say it is better to lose before a final than make a final.

 

[helterskelter]

I just find this style of argument very pedantic. It's like the old Devils advocate "prove to me there isn't an elephant in the room" joke about the German scientist.

There are obvious inferences to be made from stats, and I think mitigating factors do need to be considered. But why should the stat need to be "proved" more to your liking? It is not natural to assume stats with fairly large sample sizes are a "coincidence" or "tell us nothing".

The issue is the confidence with which the general conclusion is held even in a time when there is ever-increasing evidence to the contrary. Right now, 20 of the top 31 players in the world are 28 or more, yet there are many who use the evidence of fairly recent Slam winners to insist that 28 is past it.

(Yes, I do have a bee in my bonnet about this issue that I'm sure can be frustrating. That's because this isn't just an isolated topic to me, but evidence of the pervasiveness and dominance of a particular approach to knowledge that I believe to be mistaken and that I deal with all the time in my professional life).

 

[helterskelter]

I am just saying that 'on the day' players can perform slightly less than their normal level (not because they aren't up for the 'big occassion') and their opponents play slightly above their normal level. It happens all of the time. The statistic alone of number of runner-ups says absolutely nothing about whether the player can handle the 'big occasion'.

I agree with all that, and I think we mostly agree on the issue. The only thing I think is worth noting is that some players have levels that fluctuate a great deal, while others have levels that fluctuate far less.

 

[Vrad]

I don't get the "runner up" consolidation prize argument. You either win the tournament or you don't at the end of the day.

Yes, which is why tennis tournaments only pay the winner, while everyone else receives nothing.

/sarcasm. Fortunately tennis organizers and players don't have such a binary view of the sport.

 

[timnz]

Which of the following two records is superior?

Best 19 slam performances:

Lendl - 8 wins/11 runner-ups

Connors - 8 wins/7 runner-ups/4 semi-finals

Lendl has an inferior slam final percentage compared to Connors - but given the above - is it really an inferior performance?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Which of the following two records is superior?

Best 19 slam performances:

Lendl - 8 wins/11 runner-ups

Connors - 8 wins/7 runner-ups/4 semi-finals

Lendl has an inferior slam final percentage compared to Connors - but given the above - is it really an inferior performance?

Different players, different draws, different circumstances. I consider Connors to be greater than Lendl though.



"Why?"

 

[timnz]

Different players, different draws, different circumstances. I consider Connors to be greater than Lendl though.



"Why?"

So comparison between 2 players careers is impossible? (because there is always different players, different draws, different circumstances if you compare two players)

Why? Because an earlier poster said that Connors 8-7 slam finals record was better than Lendl's 8-11 record. I didn't understand why, because that is saying reaching the semi-final is superior to making the final.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

So comparison between 2 players careers is impossible? (because there is always different players, different draws, different circumstances if you compare two players)

Why? Because an earlier poster said that Connors 8-7 slam finals record was better than Lendl's 8-11 record. I didn't understand why, because that is saying reaching the semi-final is superior to making the final.

I wasn't asking you why, which is why it was in quotation marks. Comparisons between 2 players careers isn't impossible but it's often difficult even if they've played in the same era.

 

[helterskelter]

@timnz @Nathaniel_Near

The age difference between them - seven and a half years - is here significant. By the time that Lendl emerged,

1) It was more common for players from the Northern Hemisphere to travel to Australia every year. Lendl played the Australian Open every year from 1983 onwards (apart from 1986 when it wasn't played), while Connors played it just twice in his whole career. [Yes, Connors was still playing in 1983. But old habits die hard. Just as Lendl took the Australian Open more seriously than Connors because of the era in which he was young, so Djokovic now takes the Masters Series more seriously than Federer].
2) At least at the tail end of Lendl's Slam-competing career, two of the Slams were on hard courts. It seems doubtful that Lendl would have won the Australian Open twice from three straight finals had it continued to be played on grass at Kooyong. Like Lendl, Connors was best on hard courts. (Lendl still competitive on clay, Connors still competitive on grass, but neither quite as good as on hard).

 

[timnz]

@timnz @Nathaniel_Near

The age difference between them - seven and a half years - is here significant. By the time that Lendl emerged,

1) It was more common for players from the Northern Hemisphere to travel to Australia every year. Lendl played the Australian Open every year from 1983 onwards (apart from 1986 when it wasn't played), while Connors played it just twice in his whole career. [Yes, Connors was still playing in 1983. But old habits die hard. Just as Lendl took the Australian Open more seriously than Connors because of the era in which he was young, so Djokovic now takes the Masters Series more seriously than Federer].
2) At least at the tail end of Lendl's Slam-competing career, two of the Slams were on hard courts. It seems doubtful that Lendl would have won the Australian Open twice from three straight finals had it continued to be played on grass at Kooyong. Like Lendl, Connors was best on hard courts. (Lendl still competitive on clay, Connors still competitive on grass, but neither quite as good as on hard).

I wasn't comparing their H2H (if I were their age difference would be relevant) I was comparing their career achievements.

 

[helterskelter]

I wasn't comparing their H2H (if I were their age difference would be relevant) I was comparing their career achievements.

Were you? I thought you were just comparing their Slam achievements. I saw no mention of Connors winning 15 titles more than Lendl, for one thing.

I call it a wash between them in career terms. Who comes out higher in your ranking metric?

 

[helterskelter]

I also wasn't talking about their head-to-head. I was saying that the reason Lendl did better in Slams is because more of his career was in an era when all four Slams mattered. (Had Connors played the Australian Open every year from 1976 onwards, he'd likely have ended up with at least nine Slam titles).

 

[djokerer]

If you tell me a player won X slams, doing it least number of finals appearances has a bit of romance to it.
You can relate this to your question

 

[timnz]

If you tell me a player won X slams, doing it least number of finals appearances has a bit of romance to it.
You can relate this to your question

I can understand that....however, would you agree from a logical standpoint it actually represents inferior play rather than superior? ie example - two players both compete in 10 slams, Player A wins 4 slams and has 6 runner-ups. Player B wins 4 slams, 0 runner-ups and loses in the first round in the other 6 slams. Player A - final winning percentage (40%), Player B - final winning percentage (100%). Which players career represents greater achievement?

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Both better than losing in the first round

 

[BTURNER]

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.

Just to update this post of yours, As it stands, Serena and Evert are virtually neck and neck in record after record at this event. They share those 6 wins , but Evert has 31 consecutive wins over Serena's 24 consecutive wins. Chris ended her career at the US Open with an astounding 101 wins and 13 losses in 19 appearances for 88.6% win/loss ratio, reaching the quarterfinals every year and reaching the semifinals every year but twice. She finished her career with 9 finals in 19 attempts.

Serena has so far acquired 106 wins ( the most in tennis history male or female) and 14 losses and 10 finals in 20 years for 88.3 % ratio. She threw in a few more losses before the Quarters, and that 1998 early round loss still haunts. Great champions both! How many losses will Serena accrue to reach #7 or her 11th final (if she does) in the next few years? Time will tell us.

 

[NAS]

Well according to many illuminated talk tennis posters, loosing in final is worse and loosing in first round to qf is much much better