Matches in which the loser never loses serve, but the winner does?

M

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Mahut lost to Roddick today despite never losing serve(& Roddick did lose serve) How often has that happened?

At majors, this is the most high-profile match I can recall:

'91 Wimbledon SF, Stich d Edberg 4-6 7-6(5) 7-6(5) 7-6(2)

also it happened here:

'03 US Open, Karlovic d Arazi 3-6 7-6(5) 7-6(4) 7-6(6)

here are some others:

'05 Madrid, Karlovic d Roddick 3-6 7-6(7) 7-6(3)

'04 Indianapolis, Roddick d Ljubicic 1-6 7-6(10) 7-6(3)

'03 Cincinnati, Roddick d Fish 4-6 7-6(3) 7-6(4)

'03 Indian Wells, Roddick d Grosjean 7-6(5) 2-6 7-6(1)

'02 Toronto, Haas d Sampras 76,36,76

'95 Halle, Rosset d Stich 36,76,76
 
I've read that Sampras did not lose his serve when he lost to Stich, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6, in a Grand Slam Cup SF in 1992.
 
mahut played very well yesterday.... just a little bit of bad luck....
hope he is qualified for the big "W".....
 
very interesting topic Moose :)

that stich-edberg encounter came to mind immediately, but i cannot believe there is no mention of the sampras-agassi 2001 qtrfinal classic...although in this match neither player lost his serve

i heard of the stich-edberg match from carillo's commentary during a rerun of the sampras-agassi match....stich ended up winning wimbledon

sampras defeated agassi 6-7 7-6 7-6 7-6....another win for sampras in a night match
 
I don't get it; if you loose without loosing your serve does it mean that the other guy didn't loose serve as well?
 
jmsx521 said:
I don't get it; if you loose without loosing your serve does it mean that the other guy didn't loose serve as well?
Click to expand...

The other guy may have lost a set due to being broken on serve, but you may lose the set by losing the tie-break.
 
I don't get it; if you loose without loosing your serve does it mean that the other guy didn't loose serve as well?
Click to expand...

I could've phrased the title better, I suppose. I just find it interesting when stuff like this happens, I'm guessing its rare. That Edberg-Stich match result still is shocking, & shows the value tiebreaks can play in a match.

but i cannot believe there is no mention of the sampras-agassi 2001 qtrfinal classic...although in this match neither player lost his serve
Click to expand...

I think that isn't too rare, many matches have been 76, 76, in which neither player loses serve. But losing a match when you broke serve & didn't lose serve seems more rare.
 
jmsx521 said:
I don't get it; if you loose without loosing your serve does it mean that the other guy didn't loose serve as well?
Click to expand...

Its spelled LOSE, its even spelled correctly in the title. The fact that people cant ever spell it right is kinda getting to me.
 
Interesting to see Roddick in so many of these. This guy really rides his serve all the way, eh?
Click to expand...

These guys give him a run for his money. 2 of the times Roddick has done this have been in finals though, while none of these were.

'93 Paris Indoor, Ivanisevic d Edberg 4-6 7-6(4) 7-6(3)

'97 Zagreb, Ivanisevic d Rusedski 7-6(4) 4-6 7-6(6)

'01 Stuttgart Mirnyi d Ivanisevic 46,76,76

'04 Delray Beach Armando d Mirnyi 36,76,76

'94 Tokyo Indoor, Rusedski d Enqvist 7-6(10) 4-6 7-6(5)

'95 Copenhagen, Cash d Rusedski 36,76,76

'98 Rotterdam, Krajicek d Rusedski 36,76,76

'98 Antwerp, Rusedski d Raoux 7-6(6) 3-6 7-6(13)

'99 Rotterdam Rusedski d Pioline 7-6(5) 3-6 7-6(5)

'03 Indianapolis, Draper d Rusedski 36,76,76

'04 Newport, Rusedski d Carlsen 4-6 7-6(5) 7-6(6)
 
I noticed that too. Just the nature of the game. Tough luck for Mahut. Hopefully he can rebound and do well at Wimby.
 
Let's say two players get to a tiebreak without losing their serve. Then, both continue holding their serves in the tiebreak until one gets broken; if the other guy holds his two serves then he wins. In the Stich def. Sampras, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6, Sampras must've lost serve in the tiebreak then.... I guess, when people say he didn't lose serve, then that probably means that he didn't lose serve in a game, but he must've lost serve in the tiebreak. Am I right or wrong?
 
The most high-profile match that I remember is Edberg vs. Martin at the Australian Open in '94. Martin denied Edberg a 3rd straight final with a 4-6, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6 win. Sucks for Edberg to have gone through that twice.
 
^Edberg (& Martin) lost serve in that match though.

Sampras must've lost serve in the tiebreak then.... I guess, when people say he didn't lose serve, then that probably means that he didn't lose serve in a game, but he must've lost serve in the tiebreak.
Click to expand...

When the term 'lose serve' is used, I think most assume serve in a game, not a tiebreak. I've never heard it used in reference to a tiebreak. Also, another difference, they call it a 'mini-break' in a tiebreak, not a 'break' which is used when referring to a game.
 
Big servers do seem to proliferate that list. Roddick does have his own fair share of them as well. Suppose it shows that big servers are susceptible in tie breaks.
 
some more-

'05 Ho Chi Minh, Puerta d Arthurs 46,76,76

'96 Toulouse, Philippoussis d Woodforde 2-6 7-6(5) 7-6(7)

'00 Cincinnati, Vicente d Philippoussis 36,76,76
 
jmsx521 said:
Let's say two players get to a tiebreak without losing their serve. Then, both continue holding their serves in the tiebreak until one gets broken; if the other guy holds his two serves then he wins. In the Stich def. Sampras, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6, Sampras must've lost serve in the tiebreak then.... I guess, when people say he didn't lose serve, then that probably means that he didn't lose serve in a game, but he must've lost serve in the tiebreak. Am I right or wrong?
Click to expand...

If neither players lost a service point in the tie break then the set would go on for ever
 
Tennis_Nickmo said:
Big servers do seem to proliferate that list. Roddick does have his own fair share of them as well. Suppose it shows that big servers are susceptible in tie breaks.
Click to expand...

Not sure of the exact stat but the commentator mentioned it during Queens and Roddick actually has a very good tie break record, this year atleast
 
This isn't very surprising since in tennis you can win 80 points against your opponent's 60 and still lose 6-4, 6-4 in straight sets.

Of course, it would be amazing if Roddick managed to win in straight sets.
 
another one:

American wild card John Isner went the distance in his second round match at the US Men’s Clay Court Championship, an ATP World Tour 250 tennis tournament in Houston, battling to a 4-6, 7-6(1), 7-6(5) victory over Chilean Paul Capdeville on Wednesday.
Isner conceded the only break of serve during the two-hour, 39-minute match in the opening set, although Capdeville held three break points in the second set and Isner three in the third.
Click to expand...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/1/en/news/newsarticle_2987.asp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
5 set matches where the winner never loses serve?
2
Replies
52
Views
9K
nadal_slam_king
nadal_slam_king
N
UTS 100 greatest matches of Open era
Replies
27
Views
1K
nolefam_2024
N
AnOctorokForDinner
A list of Big 4 ATP level matches without them creating a BP
Replies
8
Views
851
AnOctorokForDinner
AnOctorokForDinner
S
93 wins under 1 hour!
Replies
29
Views
3K
The_Begum_of_Bhopal
T
Tennisknowledge99
Total records for the four Grand Slam (Open Era)
Replies
15
Views
2K
Moose Malloy
M
Back
Top