Losing badly, then winning goodly....against same opponent

FiddlerDog

Hall of Fame
Last week, I played a guy I am very even with. We had not played in over a year. This time, he thrashed me.
Did he have a great day? Did I have a bad day? Have I lost my game? Has he reached a new level? All of the above? Who knows?
I did not dwell on it, and did not read deeply into it, besides identifying a shot I need to drill again.
If he raised his level, I was genuinely happy for him.

This week, we played again, and the score line was reversed. I beat him by the same score as he beat me.
I did nothing differently. Neither did he. Little changes in a week except randomness and distribution.
Tennis can seem crazy!

Let's hear your experiences with significant short term reversals, how you dealt with it, and what you attribute that to.
 
Last edited:

Bagumbawalla

Talk Tennis Guru
I think sometimes losing frees a person from the fear of losing.
...I've lost so completely, I have nothing more to lose.
...I've lost, but I'm still OK, that wasn't so bad...
And the next time, you play more relaxed, more freely, less cautiously, more dangerously.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Yup, we are humans, not machines.
We have bad says, REALLY bad days, a few average days, a very few good days.
As does our opponent.
 

user92626

G.O.A.T.
Last week, I played a guy I am very even with. We had not played in over a year. This time, he thrashed me.
Did he have a great day? Did I have a bad day? Have I lost my game? Has he reached a new level? All of the above? Who knows?
I did not dwell on it, and did not read deeply into it, besides identifying a shot I need to drill again.
If he raised his level, I was genuinely happy for him.

This week, we played again, and the score line was reversed. I beat him by the same score as he beat me.
I did nothing differently. Neither did he. Little changes in a week except randomness and distribution.
Tennis can seem crazy!

Let's hear your experiences with significant short term reversals, how you dealt with it, and what you attribute that to.
Good stuff man
 

AnyPUG

Hall of Fame
Where's the logic here since both are very even and very small difference in energy level can make the difference?
The outcome was very likely determined by what solid and liquid they put in their body and what they got out of various body parts prior to the match they played.
 

ubercat

Hall of Fame
He gets a say too. Maybe first time he was playing patterns. Second time see ball hit ball. The interesting bit is will he adapt next time. Hope so yo will have a really great match.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Much of tennis [and life, for that matter] is a result of randomness. This makes some people uncomfortable, those who believe they completely control their own destiny.

In tennis, everyone has a certain range of execution: the better the player, the smaller the range [in general].

In the first match, your opponent was playing closer to the peak of his range and you were playing closer to the bottom. In the second match, it was reversed. No cause and effect to analyze. If you kept playing, at least some of your matches would show this pattern.

I play a weekly match against a buddy. if you looked at our entire record, the results would be very close to 50%. But on any given set, there could be a lopsided result where one player got hot [or the other got cold] or, even more deceptive, a close result where players alternated. For example, I was up 4-0 and lost 5-7. Another time, I was down 2-5 and won 7-5.

That's just to be expected, more so as the level drops.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
I did nothing differently. Neither did he.

I'm betting the stats would show otherwise. You didn't intend to do anything differently. And maybe every variable was identical [mindset, shot tolerance, fitness, engagement, etc]. But the stats would probably show a large difference [UEs, DFs, 1st serve %, etc]. Maybe the shot distribution would also be different.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Correct, we are both 4.0 hackers

To me, a hacker is someone who approaches something very casually with little concern for the optimal way of doing things.

I don't know about him but I would definitely not call you a hacker, no matter what level you are: you put too much energy and attention into the game for that term.
 

LuckyR

Legend
Too many unknowns to make an intelligent guess. Was the other guy even trying to win? Perhaps he was working on a new stroke, perhaps he had a head cold, perhaps he just got served divorce papers. Who knows? Who cares?
 

Dragy

Legend
I think you are just 2 Kyrgioses of the rec world and any of you could possibly get to Wimby finals, but randomness

The only reason you play each other is you choose to gamble here, not on pro tour!
 

AnyPUG

Hall of Fame
To me, a hacker is someone who approaches something very casually with little concern for the optimal way of doing things.

I don't know about him but I would definitely not call you a hacker, no matter what level you are: you put too much energy and attention into the game for that term.

Hacker is very appropriate for an adult learner of a complex skill because adults will, as a general rule, struggle to develop compared to juniors. There might be rare exceptions, but that does not change the norm. A reliable history of OP's illogical posts is a further proof that he is a hacker to the core.
He talks about his past training regimen of drilling 6 days a week for one year, another instance of sub optimal approach to develop skill. Only young pro athletes with supervised trainers can pull off benefits of such high frequency regimen.
 
Last edited:

HuusHould

Hall of Fame
I have a few examples of my own, a few have involved tactical changes during a match after losing the first set 6/1 or 6/0. My best example was, I lost a comp match 6/2 6/0 on clay then beat the guy 6/4 6/4 on syn grass in R2 of a tournament the following weekend. Usually big turnarounds in short timeframes in my experience involve some sort of complacency from your opponent early in the 2nd match. He played a lazy service game with a couple of double faults early and after that he played a pretty decent match, I just got the boost and confidence I needed that carried through the rest of the match. They can also involve tactical changes and over a slightly longer timeframe, improvements made to a players game.

The best example from the pro tour I can think of is Coretja in 2000 losing 6/0 6/0 6/1 to Hewitt at the AO, then beating him the next 3 times (once in 2000 and twice in 2001). I might add Hewitt won his majors in 2001 and 2002.
 
Last edited:

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Hacker is very appropriate for an adult learner of a complex skill because adults will, as a general rule, struggle to develop compared to juniors. There might be rare exceptions, but that does not change the norm. A reliable history of OP's illogical posts is a further proof that he is a hacker to the core.
He talks about his past training regimen of drilling 6 days a week for one year, another instance of sub optimal approach to develop skill. Only young pro athletes with supervised trainers can pull off benefits of such high frequency regimen.

Most of his posts ["I know 3.5s who hit harder than Nadal"; "Does Kyrgios have a 3.0 backhand?"; etc] are obvious attempts to generate discussion. I seriously doubt he actually believes these things.
 

AnyPUG

Hall of Fame
Most of his posts ["I know 3.5s who hit harder than Nadal"; "Does Kyrgios have a 3.0 backhand?"; etc] are obvious attempts to generate discussion. I seriously doubt he actually believes these things.

Haha, he is attempting a hacker methodology to start discussions! Hacker in all walks of life.
Imo, a "pro" approach to start a discussion would look different.
 

SV10is

Rookie
Most of his posts ["I know 3.5s who hit harder than Nadal"; "Does Kyrgios have a 3.0 backhand?"; etc] are obvious attempts to generate discussion. I seriously doubt he actually believes these things.

So, instead of being an idiot, he's a liar. That's much better!
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Haha, he is attempting a hacker methodology to start discussions! Hacker in all walks of life.
Imo, a "pro" approach to start a discussion would look different.

Hackers don't practice their serve in winter with snow on the court and no net [TTPS posted a video].
Hackers don't propose training regimens whereby the student plays no matches for 3 years while he's learning strokes [not that I agree with this idea].

The examples are many. Whatever he is, I wouldn't classify him as a hacker because of how I define the term. EEMMV.
 

AnyPUG

Hall of Fame
Hackers don't practice their serve in winter with snow on the court and no net [TTPS posted a video].
Hackers don't propose training regimens whereby the student plays no matches for 3 years while he's learning strokes [not that I agree with this idea].

The examples are many. Whatever he is, I wouldn't classify him as a hacker because of how I define the term. EEMMV.

You list more examples in your post of why someone is a hacker. He says he is a hacker and I agree that he is. I suppose the term can be redefined to reach a different conclusion.
 

FiddlerDog

Hall of Fame
I have a few examples of my own, a few have involved tactical changes during a match after losing the first set 6/1 or 6/0. My best example was, I lost a comp match 6/2 6/0 on clay then beat the guy 6/4 6/4 on syn grass in R2 of a tournament the following weekend. Usually big turnarounds in short timeframes in my experience involve some sort of complacency from your opponent early in the 2nd match. He played a lazy service game with a couple of double faults early and after that he played a pretty decent match, I just got the boost and confidence I needed that carried through the rest of the match. They can also involve tactical changes and over a slightly longer timeframe, improvements made to a players game.

The best example from the pro tour I can think of is Coretja in 2000 losing 6/0 6/0 6/1 to Hewitt at the AO, then beating him the next 3 times (once in 2000 and twice in 2001). I might add Hewitt won his majors in 2001 and 2002.

Good reply. Opponent changed his style for the 2nd match.
He focused more on serve placement in match #1, and more on serve power in match #2.

Also, match #1 may have been closer than the score felt via deuce games, etc.
I am going to score the video of the 1st match and see exactly how the match was lost.

Also, opponent did make more errors on 2 types of shots in the 2nd match, which I attribute to variance.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Do you see any chance of moving up to 4.5? Apparently it’s a big step from 4.0 to 4.5 unless you start tennis as a junior.

I'm not sure the step from 4.0 to 4.5 is more significant than any other step: there's no magical formula to solve. The difference between a high x and a low x + 0.5 usually either boils down to a group of incremental things or a few major flaws that aren't being addressed.

Just watch two players, one in each camp, warm up: it can be impossible to tell which is which.
 

AnyPUG

Hall of Fame
^^^

Reminds me of Allen Iverson's famous rant -

"We sitting in here talking about warm-up. I mean, We talking about wam-up. Not a game. Not a game. Not a game. We talking about warm-up. Not a game. Not the game that we go out there and die for and play every point like it's the match point. Not the game. We talking about warm-up, folks. Warm - up is important, but it's does not determine the winner".
So there you have it - why warm-up does not tell anything.

 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
^^^

Reminds me of Allen Iverson's famous rant -

"We sitting in here talking about warm-up. I mean, We talking about wam-up. Not a game. Not a game. Not a game. We talking about warm-up. Not a game. Not the game that we go out there and die for and play every point like it's the match point. Not the game. We talking about warm-up, folks. Warm - up is important, but it's does not determine the winner".
So there you have it - why warm-up does not tell anything.


To some extent I agree. For example, one of my strengths is my quickness and willingness to run down practically any ball. But I'm not going to do that in warmup, not because I'm trying to hide anything but because...I'm trying to warm up. So if someone hits a shot at the edge of my range and I let it go, it would be a mistake for him to assume I'm going to do that in the match.

But I try to be purposeful in warmup: I try to move my feet and be active. That helps me during the match. If I warmed up with low energy, it's more likely I'll have a slower start.

Gilbert spends a lot of time in *Winning Ugly* on how one should warm up [and why] and how to glean information about the opponent.

If I have to choose between Iverson and Gilbert, I choose Gilbert.
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
To some extent I agree. For example, one of my strengths is my quickness and willingness to run down practically any ball. But I'm not going to do that in warmup, not because I'm trying to hide anything but because...I'm trying to warm up. So if someone hits a shot at the edge of my range and I let it go, it would be a mistake for him to assume I'm going to do that in the match.

But I try to be purposeful in warmup: I try to move my feet and be active. That helps me during the match. If I warmed up with low energy, it's more likely I'll have a slower start.

Gilbert spends a lot of time in *Winning Ugly* on how one should warm up [and why] and how to glean information about the opponent.

If I have to choose between Iverson and Gilbert, I choose Gilbert.

Connors and JMac used to hate drills as well and apparently always preferred matches with scores even during practice.

Gilbert was in the top 5 once. His game was incredibly smooth. There was a lot of talent there. Good for him that he found a way to market himself as the little engine that could and has made a lot of money and a career path with that sales job.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Connors and JMac used to hate drills as well and apparently always preferred matches with scores even during practice.

Gilbert was in the top 5 once. His game was incredibly smooth. There was a lot of talent there. Good for him that he found a way to market himself as the little engine that could and has made a lot of money and a career path with that sales job.

I read that Sampras used to lose practice matches regularly but when it got real, look out.

Yeah, Gilbert's parlayed it well. However, I never thought *Winning Ugly* was accurate; nothing in his book is "ugly". *Winning Intelligently* is more apt but less likely to sell.
 

mcs1970

Hall of Fame
That AI rant has also been held unfairly against him though you can clearly see what he is saying. He was the franchise player for a reason. He was a dominant player for a reason. He never had the rep of being out of shape or lazing in games because he was not the best he could be. So clearly he was putting in a lot of work behind the scenes.

Yet someone in that organization decided to throw him under the bus and this rant is somehow used to portray that he was not a true professional.

 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Without practice, you will perform worse in games, no matter how hard you try.
Effort does not mean skill. Missing one practice is not newsworthy, I'll give him that.

As Annacone said [paraphrasing]: "Some people are mechanics; some are magicians. Pete [Sampras] was a magician."

Practice means more to a mechanic than a magician.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Good reply. Opponent changed his style for the 2nd match.
He focused more on serve placement in match #1, and more on serve power in match #2.

Also, match #1 may have been closer than the score felt via deuce games, etc.
I am going to score the video of the 1st match and see exactly how the match was lost.

Also, opponent did make more errors on 2 types of shots in the 2nd match, which I attribute to variance.
Another common example is conditions change. Someone might dominate on one surface but suck on another. Or dominate in a certain temperature/humidity combo but suck in another.

When I was a young buck S&V reliant player 25 years ago, I used to always win tourney rounds during the week in the evenings and then my level would drop when i played the final on Saturday afternoon in the bad sun angle.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
Another common example is conditions change. Someone might dominate on one surface but suck on another. Or dominate in a certain temperature/humidity combo but suck in another.

When I was a young buck S&V reliant player 25 years ago, I used to always win tourney rounds during the week in the evenings and then my level would drop when i played the final on Saturday afternoon in the bad sun angle.

Does vampirism run in the family?
 

FiddlerDog

Hall of Fame
Do you see any chance of moving up to 4.5? Apparently it’s a big step from 4.0 to 4.5 unless you start tennis as a junior. But I thought you’d be the guy to achieve it considering your dedication.

Zero.

If anything, I have already begun my inevitable decline back to 3.5
I will send you a recent match video so you can reach your own conclusions.

As you stated, 4.5 is ex-juniors, ex-college.
No adult except the occasional unicorn will ever reach 4.5 singles.

It is important to distinguish singles 4.5 vs. dubs 4.5
I suppose it's non-zero for dubs, since I've seen "worse" adult players than me make it to 4.5 dubs
They were quickly outclassed and clearly in the wrong place at 4.5 and quickly were dropped or quit playing.
I can barely hang at 4.0 dubs, so that route is not in my cards.

That said, this summer I played 2 singles matches against 4.5 singles players and lost:
6-2 6-4
6-3.

While this looks not terrible, they were both in another universe of level that I will never reach.
Frankly speaking, this was like @travlerajm playing at 4.5
No weapons, and can only win points via unforced errors.
 

S&V-not_dead_yet

Talk Tennis Guru
As you stated, 4.5 is ex-juniors, ex-college.
No adult except the occasional unicorn will ever reach 4.5 singles.

I don't think they're that rare. I played neither juniors nor college [self-taught in junior HS, a few lessons over a summer; learned fundamentals from my HS coach. But there were 20+ boys so it's not like we got a lot of individual attention].

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of others in the same boat. I can tell by people's strokes whether they had serious training; mine look a lot more homegrown than theirs.

That said, this summer I played 2 singles matches against 4.5 singles players and lost:
6-2 6-4
6-3.

While this looks not terrible, they were both in another universe of level that I will never reach.

I'm not sure how you can lose 4-6 and think he was in another universe unless he was clearly messing around or had an obvious bad day.

Frankly speaking, this was like @travlerajm playing at 4.5
No weapons, and can only win points via unforced errors.

The major difference being that @travlerajm wins at 4.5 and even higher. The other being that he certainly has weapons [maybe not to hit winners but to consistently put the opponent in an uncomfortable position].

But you have weapons too.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Zero.

If anything, I have already begun my inevitable decline back to 3.5
I will send you a recent match video so you can reach your own conclusions.

As you stated, 4.5 is ex-juniors, ex-college.
No adult except the occasional unicorn will ever reach 4.5 singles.

It is important to distinguish singles 4.5 vs. dubs 4.5
I suppose it's non-zero for dubs, since I've seen "worse" adult players than me make it to 4.5 dubs
They were quickly outclassed and clearly in the wrong place at 4.5 and quickly were dropped or quit playing.
I can barely hang at 4.0 dubs, so that route is not in my cards.

That said, this summer I played 2 singles matches against 4.5 singles players and lost:
6-2 6-4
6-3.

While this looks not terrible, they were both in another universe of level that I will never reach.
Frankly speaking, this was like @travlerajm playing at 4.5
No weapons, and can only win points via unforced errors.
An important distinction is that I am a reformed player.
20-30 years ago, my game was based around an attacking style, with my serve my biggest weapon. I was actually undefeated in the few 5.0 usta singles league matches I played in my only year signed up for 5.0 usta league. I didn’t have much need to use my 3.0 forehand then.

I have deliberately re-shaped my playstyle into a defensive slicer based game, because old fragile legs and explosive big serves don’t pair very well
if I want to last multiple matches in a row.
 
Top