Is it weird that you can win a match 0-6,0-6,7-6,7-6,7-6?

[kragster]

Maybe this is a function of a lot of racket sports but I think in some senses it seems unfair that in tennis, the player who played better at the right moments can beat the player who played better overall during the course of the match.

For example in the 0-6,0-6,7-6,7-6,7-6 scenario, we could have the points breakdown as follows

Set 1,2 : Player 1 destroys player 2, wins all points (24) in each set.
Set 3,4,5: Player 2 wins each set in a close tiebreak with a 2 pt difference

So basically player 1 could have won (24*2) - (2*3) = 42 points MORE than player 2. And still lose.


Of course it's exciting that in tennis a player can come back at any point ( down 2 sets and 0-5 in the 3rd set, you can still come back). But sometimes I feel sorry for the guy who played better tennis for larger portions of the match but lost.

 

[ATXtennisaddict]

It is the nature of sports. You can have all the possession, all the yards, all the shots on goal you want but if you don't get in the end zone, if you don't put the ball in the back of the net, you're still susceptible to losing the game.

 

[kragster]

It is the nature of sports. You can have all the possession, all the yards, all the shots on goal you want but if you don't get in the end zone, if you don't put the ball in the back of the net, you're still susceptible to losing the game.

Yeah but in sports like football, basketball or soccer, there is a clock ticking. And if one team puts more points on the board early on, it becomes a losing battle for the other team. If you are 0-5 down in soccer at halftime, you might as well give up. But in tennis you could play really badly for 49% of the match and then play marginally better than your opponent for the remaining 51% and still win.

 

[VGP]

The saying, "the one who scores the most points wins" doesn't necessarily apply in tennis.

The match isn't done until the last point is won sure is true.

 

[zagor]

I actually like it, I think it's one of the few things that makes tennis unique compared to some other sports.

It's all about playing the big points well and keeping your momentum in tennis cause the match can turn around so quickly it's amazing.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Reminds one of Federer's loss to Nadal at AO09. Better player lost that day.

 

[zagor]

Reminds one of Federer's loss to Nadal at AO09. Better player lost that day.

If he was a better player on the day he wouldn't have lost. Mental strength plays a big factor in the game and Nadal at that point was firmly in Fed's head, combine that with some loss of confidence from Fed in general due to a small decline in his game and you get the result.

But let's say another example, Novak won around 10 more points(If I remember correctly) than Fed at their USO SF this year but if Fed won the matc (which really he was extremely close to doing) would you have said that the better player lost given that Novak won more points?

 

[Leelord337]

the only other sport i can think of in which the loser can actually have more points won over the course of the match and still lose is table tennis..any others?

 

[kragster]

Reminds one of Federer's loss to Nadal at AO09. Better player lost that day.

I looked it up and Fed won 1 pt more so I wouldn't say it was unfair but you could say that he certainly didn't deserve to lose. Then again when Nadal lost Wimby 07, that points tally was fairly close too.

Perhaps the whole mental strength aspect of tennis would be less important if the scoring were point based. Some fans might like that more, some might like it less. But I'm sure ALL the top players have benefited from being mentally stronger than their opponents.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Match-Facts-Pop-Up.aspx?t=580&y=2009&r=7&p=F324

 

[zagor]

the only other sport i can think of in which the loser can actually have more points won over the course of the match and still lose is table tennis..any others?

Volleyball .

 

[Shaolin]

A weirder score would be 0-6, 0-6, 6-0,6-0,6-0
I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[Tammo]

the wierdest IMO would be 7-6 0-6 7-6 0-6 7-6. alternating the set score of the OP's score

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

If he was a better player on the day he wouldn't have lost. Mental strength plays a big factor in the game and Nadal at that point was firmly in Fed's head, combine that with some loss of confidence from Fed in general due to a small decline in his game and you get the result.

But let's say another example, Novak won around 10 more points(If I remember correctly) than Fed at their USO SF this year but if Fed won the matc (which really he was extremely close to doing) would you have said that the better player lost given that Novak won more points?

Oh I didn't realize Djoker had that many more points. Although Fed did admit he tanked those 2 sets to conserve energy. So the point differential there was bit artificial. Think about it, at AO09 Fed completely chokes the 5th, gets destroyed 6-2 AND STILL he had more points. Really tells you who was dominating until he wilted.

 

[Hood_Man]

Reminds one of Federer's loss to Nadal at AO09. Better player lost that day.

Reminds me of Coria's loss to Gaudio at the French Open, 6-0 6-3 4-6 1-6 6-8

I didn't see it live but I downloaded a video of it earlier this year. When I watched it I was surprised how into the match I got, especially since I knew the result and what would happen. When Coria served for the match (twice) in the 5th set I was actually thinking "He's going to do it, he's going to do it!"

It makes for some bizarre but heartbreaking viewing

 

[bluetrain4]

I don't think it's weird at all. While tennis has this scoring system of points within games within sets, and we always tend to focus on game scores (who received a bagel and a breadstick, was the set close) when trying to analyze the competitiveness of match, the fact remains that the scoring system is simply best of 3 or best of 5 sets. The sets that are all that matter. Scores could simply be given as 3-0, 3-1, 3-2, etc. Since we know that the sets are what gets a player on the board in advance, it's not weird that there could be a discrepancy between a player winning the match yet having fewer points.

Plus, if a player loses 6-7, 6-0, 6-7, for example, and wins more points, I don't think it speaks very well of the losing player. It says that they can't play well enough consistently throughout the match or at key moments.

Finally, though it does happen where the winner has less points than the loser, by far the vast majority of matches involve a winner who wins the most points. Furthermore, the extreme discrepancies between set scores for the winner and game and point scores, that you mention, hardly ever happen. Not saying they haven't ever happened, but really, it's very rare.

 

[Shangri La]

This actually almost happened at Roland Garros http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnET4RKXx5k&ob=av3e

Djokovic (2'35") and Monfils (3'37") were involved.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

No.
10 chx.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Maybe this is a function of a lot of racket sports but I think in some senses it seems unfair that in tennis, the player who played better at the right moments can beat the player who played better overall during the course of the match.

A famous yachting adage is applicable here: Getting to the first mark upwind is nice, but the trophies get handed out at the finish line.

In tennis, the person who wins the crucial points, regardless of total points is rightfully the winner.

 

[Fugazi]

the only other sport i can think of in which the loser can actually have more points won over the course of the match and still lose is table tennis..any others?

Squash, badminton, volleyball, hockey (in a series), etc, etc.

 

[gregor.b]

Not really.Whoever wins the last point wins the match.That's the way it is and will always be (probably).

 

[GS]

Remember that 1993 French Open match between Sabatini and M.J. Fernandez? Sabatini was up 6-1, 5-1 and had 5 match points, but Mary Jo fought back and won 10-8 in the 3rd set. Crazy stuff....

 

[Povl Carstensen]

This is what is great in the the tennis scoring system. If a player gets ahead say 11-5 in a badminton set (or a team i volleyball fx), the set is more or less over (but it will still take a while to finish it). In tennis it can change quicker, and you have the sets divided into smaller parts that can be a drama in itself.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Think of it like a best of 7 series (a la hockey, basketball, and baseball), and then it doesn't seem that odd.

In basketball, you can blow out a team by 40 in 3 games, and then lose on 4 buzzer beaters, and you're still going fishing. In hockey, you can dominate your opponent 8-0 in three games, and then lose 4 penalty shootouts and you go home empty-handed. In baseball, you can thwap someone 15-0 for three games and then lose 4 1-0 extra-innings pitching battles. You're still the loser.

Ultimately, the set is more important than some arbitrary "how well you played" metric.

 

[Colin]

Tennis scoring is like the American electoral system — it makes for drama and suspense, but not necessarily fairness.

A presidential candidate (say, Al Gore) can win the popular vote by 500,000 ballots but still lose due to the vagaries of the electoral college. So holding Florida becomes like a player sneaking ahead in a 7-5 set when his opponent hits a couple double faults and loose forehands after holding serve comfortably for five games. Like states, some points just matter more than others, fair or not.

It's horrible for politics, but exciting for tennis.

 

[buscemi]

In a best of 3 match, you can win 0-6, 7-6 (7-5), 7-6 (7-5).

1st set points: 0-24
2nd set points: 31-41
3rd set points: 31-41
Total points: 62-106

In a best of 5 set match (U.S. Open), you can win 0-6, 0-6, 7-6 (7-5), 7-6 (7-5), 7-6 (7-5)

1st set points: 0-24
2nd set points: 0-24
3rd set points: 31-41
4th set points: 31-41
5th set points: 31-41
Total points: 93-171

If there is no tiebreaker in the 5th set, the #s can look even worse b/c you can keep trading games you win 4 points to 2 to games you lose 4 points to 0.

Personally, I like it b/c it rewards slow starters who are clutch (which describes me to a T).

The difference between tennis and other racquet sports is that you can lose more points than your opponent and still win a set. In volleyball, badminton, etc., you can win a match while losing more points than your opponent(s) but can't win a set while doing so.

 

[ledwix]

That last post is pretty funny. But really, in a race, you could also win a 10 hour competition by only being in the lead for 0.1 seconds, at the finish line.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

That last post is pretty funny. But really, in a race, you could also win a 10 hour competition by only being in the lead for 0.1 seconds, at the finish line.

But the difference there is that at the finish line, you still crossed the same distance as your opponent, but you did it 0.1 seconds faster.

In tennis, it's literally possible to outscore your opponent by a wide margin and still lose.

 

[buscemi]

But the difference there is that at the finish line, you still crossed the same distance as your opponent, but you did it 0.1 seconds faster.

In tennis, it's literally possible to outscore your opponent by a wide margin and still lose.

Right. In a marathon, for instance, you could run the 1st mile 1 minute slower than a competitor and then run each of the next 25 miles 2 seconds faster than your opponent and still lose.

In tennis, you can lose the first 24 points and lose the first set 6-0. In a best of 3 set match, you can still lose the majority of points and still win the match. In a best of 5 set match, you can still lose the majority of points AND the majority of games and still win the match.

 

[BMC9670]

That's why tennis is a MENTAL game. I heard Darren Cahill once say that what separates a top 50 player from a top 10 player is what's between the ears. Playing big on big points and in big moments takes mental strength as well as a physical skill. It's a huge part of what makes tennis great.

 

[NikeWilson]

Sounds like an Andy Murray match.

 

[mellowyellow]

So, I would assume anyone that likes this also agrees that the WTA scoring system is good too, its pretty much the same idea and principal. The best player over the course....

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Right. In a marathon, for instance, you could run the 1st mile 1 minute slower than a competitor and then run each of the next 25 miles 2 seconds faster than your opponent and still lose.

Yes, but this is arbitrary since marathons aren't recorded by speed per mile. There's a cumulative factor with marathons (and many other sports) that doesn't exist in tennis. In basketball, you can outscore someone in one quarter and be outscored in the other 3 and win. Because by the time the final buzzer sounds, each point is weighted the same. It doesn't matter if the points were scored in the 4th quarter or the 1st quarter, they both go on the scoreboard the same way.

But this is not true in tennis. Where there's a very clear distinction between points and winning.

 

[Dilettante]

The number of won points is not necessarialy an accurate mesure for which player played best. It's a good measure, but not a physical law.

A tennis match may have many ups and downs, and sometimes a player gives away a set when he is losing that set thinks he has little to none options to come from behind. A way to save some energy, for example.

I doubt you can say "the best player" was the one who lost one match. Sometimes both players are at a very similar level and the victory depends on some few key points, but in this case there was no "better player", just two players who were even in level of play. One of them had to win, as there are not ties in tennis.

But a player who is playing clearly better than another can't lose. For example, if one plays better than the rival for two sets but he can't win the other three sets, how could that player have been the best overall in that match?

Some people confuse "the best player" with the player whose game they liked most that day.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

The number of won points is not necessarialy an accurate mesure for which player played best. It's a good measure, but not a physical law.

Yes it is. The player that won the most points was better on the majority of the points.

The reason it doesn't guarantee victory is that tennis is a semi-arbitrary game which values sets and games more than points. There's no cumulative factor.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Not really.Whoever wins the last point wins the match.That's the way it is and will always be (probably).

Not sure. One could be "awarded" a point penalty which is practically same as "obtaining" last point but isn't technically same as "winning" a point.

 

[RCizzle65]

Oh I didn't realize Djoker had that many more points. Although Fed did admit he tanked those 2 sets to conserve energy. So the point differential there was bit artificial. Think about it, at AO09 Fed completely chokes the 5th, gets destroyed 6-2 AND STILL he had more points. Really tells you who was dominating until he wilted.

What? Where did Federer say he tanked the 3rd and 4th? He said in his interview that he doesn't think about not trying when someone asked if he was saving energy once he got down in the 4th set. In fact here it is

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2011-09-10/201109101315692666313.html

Q. When you lost the fourth set or you were close to losing the fourth set, were you trying to save energy for the fifth? No, you didn't have any strategy?

ROGER FEDERER: I don't play that way. I don't give away stuff and just hope and save and do that stuff like other players do. I mean, yeah, I believe I can turn it around. I believe in, you know, making things happen and work hard, and, yeah, believing it doesn't matter what the scoreline is. It gives you a bigger lift if you're up 5-1 than being down 5-1. Who cares? You never know, like we saw today.

Federer's never tired, he doesn't really need to do any saving up/tanking.

 

[Lover]

Football can be like that too. Saw a lot of matches in which one team basically defends most of the time, with a lot of luck (bad day for the other team's offensive, balls on the bar, etc.) and on a simple and only attack they score a goal.

 

[buscemi]

Yes it is. The player that won the most points was better on the majority of the points.

The reason it doesn't guarantee victory is that tennis is a semi-arbitrary game which values sets and games more than points. There's no cumulative factor.

Well, you could say that any game is semi-arbitrary. For instance, golf is usually cumulative, but sometimes depends on which player wins the most holes (in match play).

And I'm not sure that I agree that the winner of the most points in a tennis match always or even usually played better. Take, for instance, a fairly routine 6-4, 6-4 win by Player A over Player B. Player B serves first in each set and is broken at 30. Player A then wins each of his 5 service games at 30 (4-2) while Player B wins each of his 4 other service games at love.

Total points in the match are 56-48 in favor of Player B, but Player A easily won the match in straight sets without ever facing a break point.

 

[Dilettante]

Yes it is. The player that won the most points was better on the majority of the points.

The reason it doesn't guarantee victory is that tennis is a semi-arbitrary game which values sets and games more than points. There's no cumulative factor.

Tennis is not more "semi-arbitrary" than other games. Football (soccer) is much more arbitrary: a team can play way better than the rival and still lose because a single goal. I know, I've followed Spain's national team in Euros and World Cups for many years.

And it seems I didn't explain myself. A player can give up a number of points in a match for diverse reasons, to save energy for example. Or not fighting back games when the rival is serving very well.

But you're assuming all the points have the same importance but they don't. A player can win a lot of non-important or non-relevant points and make up his won points statistics, while he might be failing in winning the key points (break points for example, etc.) So the player who won less relevant points "played better"? Or maybe he just played better when the rival didin't need to play better himself?

 

[Markov]

It's cool, as long as the "winner with less points" doesn't win the crucial points because of pure luck...

 

[Mustard]

Reminds me of Coria's loss to Gaudio at the French Open, 6-0 6-3 4-6 1-6 6-8

I didn't see it live but I downloaded a video of it earlier this year. When I watched it I was surprised how into the match I got, especially since I knew the result and what would happen. When Coria served for the match (twice) in the 5th set I was actually thinking "He's going to do it, he's going to do it!"

It makes for some bizarre but heartbreaking viewing

Coria has me thinking the same whenever I watch the match as it goes deeper into that fifth set. Those attempted winners on 2 CPs were a fraction wide both times. Coria would have felt devastated beyond words at the end as he sat down in his chair.

I do think it's the most bizarre match I've ever seen. For a start, I've never seen any finalist at a major look so nervous and terrified of the occasion than Gaudio did in the first set and for the bulk of the second set, and Coria was just putting on a clinic in clay-court tennis to win 11 of the first 12 games and win the first two sets 6-0, 6-3. In the third set, Gaudio was just hanging on and beginning to make something of a consolation mark as Coria remained in control. At 4-4 in the third set, the crowd starts a Mexican wave that goes on for minutes with Coria looking annoyed as he wanted to start his service game and Gaudio having a big smile. Coria goes 40-0 up and had a chance on the next point to hold, but Gaudio came all the way back to break serve, and then served out the set for 6-4.

Coria and Gaudio both held in their opening games of the fourth set, and then it got really bizarre as Coria started cramping badly and could barely move. The commentators started to speculate that Coria was playing possum, which I thought was ridiculous. Coria looked done in that fourth set and a Gaudio victory was looking likely all of a sudden. Gaudio cruises through the fourth set, 6-1.

Coria then has a revival. With Gaudio serving in the first game, the first 3 games of the fifth set are all breaks of serve, and Coria holds for 3-1 and 4-2 leads, and Coria looks the winner. Gaudio then gets it back to 4-4 and Coria breaks for 5-4 to serve for the title, only to be broken back at love. Coria breaks again for 6-5 to again serve for the title, and he has 2 CPs both narrowly missed by a fraction as he goes for winners, and he gets broken back for 6-6. Gaudio then seems to get really bold and goes for it, holding serve and then breaking Coria to win the fifth set, 8-6, and the title.

 

[boredone3456]

Its weird, but its possible. If you play better in enough of the match you deserve to win the match. It doesn't speak a lot to the player who let a double bagel lead slip. Its like in baseball...one team can outhit the other team 9 or 10 hits to 1...but if none of those baserunners score and the one hit against them is a homerun they lose...obviously one pitcher was overall better to only allow 1 hit..but he still loses. Its the nature of the sport..like it or not.

 

[buscemi]

In tennis, you can be down 6-0, 5-0 (40-0), having lost the first 47 points of the match. Then, you could merely outscore your opponent 63-60 and win the match, 0-6, 7-6 (7-5), 7-6 (7-5).

In a best of 5 match (at the U.S. Open), you could be down 6-0, 6-0, 5-0 (40-0), having lost the first 71 points of the match. Then, you could be outscored by your opponent 101-94 and still win the match 0-6, 0-6, 7-6 (7-5), 7-6 (7-5), 7-6 (7-5). If there's no tiebreaker in the 5th set, you can be outscored by more and still win.

Kind of crazy when you think about it.

 

[juanparty]

Reminds one of Federer's loss to Nadal at AO09. Better player lost that day.

maybe Verdasco was better than Nadal in semis not FED.

 

[0d1n]

If he was a better player on the day he wouldn't have lost. Mental strength plays a big factor in the game and Nadal at that point was firmly in Fed's head, combine that with some loss of confidence from Fed in general due to a small decline in his game and you get the result.

But let's say another example, Novak won around 10 more points(If I remember correctly) than Fed at their USO SF this year but if Fed won the matc (which really he was extremely close to doing) would you have said that the better player lost given that Novak won more points?

That might be correct at the end of the match but it wasn't the case when Fed had his match points.

 

[Moose Malloy]

That might be correct at the end of the match but it wasn't the case when Fed had his match points.

are you sure? after 4 sets, Djokovic had a 17 point lead over Federer(a rather large margin for a match that was 'even,' at 2 sets all. at one point Djokovic had won 18 straight points on serve in the 4th set, I doubt anyone had ever done that vs Fed before, he really had a lot of momentum going into the 5th, it was pretty shocking to see him give that game away at 4-3, Fed didn't have to do much to get the break to serve for the match. Its pretty doubtful Fed had a lead in points when he had match point, he wasn't winning many points on Djokovic's serve in the first 3 service games of the 5th, don't see how he could have made up such an extreme points differential at the end of the 4th, unless he won fifth 6-0 with a near shut-out in points)

The final points tally was an 18 point lead for Djokovic, 161-143. 5 setters with that wide a margin in points are rare.

In tennis, you can be down 6-0, 5-0 (40-0), having lost the first 47 points of the match. Then, you could merely outscore your opponent 63-60 and win the match, 0-6, 7-6 (7-5), 7-6 (7-5).

In a best of 5 match (at the U.S. Open), you could be down 6-0, 6-0, 5-0 (40-0), having lost the first 71 points of the match. Then, you could be outscored by your opponent 101-94 and still win the match 0-6, 0-6, 7-6 (7-5), 7-6 (7-5), 7-6 (7-5). If there's no tiebreaker in the 5th set, you can be outscored by more and still win.

You have better odds of winning the lottery than seeing a pro level match where something like that happens. Ditto with the scenario the OP posted.

Using extreme 'what if's' to show how unfair the scoring system is a bit silly, since nothing remotely close to those situations has happened in the history of tennis(at least at the pro level, maybe it could happen with recreational players)

The most lopsided points differential I've seen with a losing player was the Roddick-Johansson USO QF in '04. Roddick won 24 more points, but still lost the match. I think he lost only 2 points on serve in the 2 sets he won. was only 3 of 15 on break points though.

 

[buscemi]

You have better odds of winning the lottery than seeing a pro level match where something like that happens. Ditto with the scenario the OP posted.

Using extreme 'what if's' to show how unfair the scoring system is a bit silly, since nothing remotely close to those situations has happened in the history of tennis(at least at the pro level, maybe it could happen with recreational players)

The most lopsided points differential I've seen with a losing player was the Roddick-Johansson USO QF in '04. Roddick won 24 more points, but still lost the match. I think he lost only 2 points on serve in the 2 sets he won. was only 3 of 15 on break points though.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the scoring system in tennis is unfair. Quite the contrary. I'm saying that I like the scoring system in tennis because a player is almost never out of it. If a football team is down 35 points with 5 minutes to play, you know they're going to lose. If a basketball team is down 35 points with 5 minutes to play, you know they are going to lose.

But in tennis, many players are down match points and still come back to win. Sometimes, they are down 5-3 in a potentially deciding set and come back to win. Sometimes, it is 5-2. Sometimes, it is 5-1. Sometimes, it is even 5-0. The examples I gave in my previous post were obviously extreme, but that's kind of my point. You can be getting crushed badly in a tennis match and come back while winning barely more (and sometimes fewer) than half of the rest of the points.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Using extreme 'what if's' to show how unfair the scoring system is a bit silly, since nothing remotely close to those situations has happened in the history of tennis(at least at the pro level, maybe it could happen with recreational players)

The fairness (or unfairness) of a system doesn't depend upon the likelihood of the outcomes. It's that the system allows a potentially jarring differential between overall points won (who played better for most of the match) and the winner of the match (who played better during the arbitrary divisions of the match). So I see nothing wrong with calling it out as being what it is.

 

[r2473]

The strangest score would be 6-0; 0-6; 6-0

.....no, wait. That's actually a typical WTA score.

 

[Mustard]

Gaudio beat Nadal 0-6, 6-0, 6-1, in February 2005 in Buenos Aires.