Which would you prefer?

[wings56]

Would you rather be a player who always beats those players that he/she should, yet never beats anyone who is better, or would you rather be a player who sometimes loses to players he/she should beat, yet is sometimes able to beat players that are better?

To keep this in perspective, lets assume that this is for a tennis season. 30 matches in the season, league style play. 10 players are below your skill level. 10 players are of your skill level. 10 players are above your skill level.

Player style 1: Beats all 10 players below skill level. Beats 5 players at skill level. Beats 0 players above skill level.

Player style 2: Beats 6 players below skill level. Beats 6 players at skill level. Beats 3 players above skill level.


I think we all know examples of players like this. What are your thoughts on this? Also, which one would you want on your team and why.

 

[LeeD]

I didn't vote.
For my team, the player who takes care of business.
For myself, the potential to reach beyond my wildest dreams, and the offchance of plummeting below any semblance of reality.
But then, I"m a lefty.

 

[dlk]

Player 2, I like the mix, seems like that player has potential for greater improvement.

 

[wings56]

yeahhh.... myself, i'd probably want to have the potential for greater things. As far as on my team, the guy who i KNOW will win against a weaker player.

 

[OrangePower]

I fall into category #2. I don't know that I have much choice about it - it comes down to my playing style. I prefer to try dictate the point from the get go rather than counterpunch; as a result, I make many good shots, but also many errors. On a good day, I can play above my level. On a bad day, a weaker consistent player can take advantage of my errors.

At least this way I always feel like the match is on my racquet. I rarely feel like my opponent is just outright better than I am.

But if I had a choice, I don't know... there's something to be said for consistency also.

 

[LeeD]

I WISHED I had some semblance of consistency. Every sport, I'd either be the top of the heap or someone the coach yanked, repeatedly, on the same court.
It took me 4 years of full time racing, practice, and training to finally make Expert in District36 Motocross. I was beating experts when I was a novice, in practice. In most races, I'd be the fastest, and crashed almost every time.
Tennis was just an extension of the same old. Could hit A level shots as a never played tourney guy, but could easily throw a fit and struggle with non athletic barely C players.
Maybe it's a lefty thing, as my bud, another lefty, seems the same way. All through my tennis years (when I was trying), my hitting partners were all righties with control and disipline. I was the wild nutty guy.

 

[ian2]

I'd guess that nearly everyone sees themselves as player type 2. After all, that is the experience we all had: winning matches that we should have won, and occasionally some that we shouldn't; and losing matches we shouldn't have lost.

Player type 1 is a rare breed... basically it's someone with an exceptional self-discipline. Such player may not have much room to grow (unless they make serious changes to their game), but he/she can consistently play at 90% of their ability, regardless of the opponent, conditions, distractions, etc. etc. I have a lot of respect for this type of player.

As for having type 1 player on the team... it's a bit more complicated. I'm a captain, and I have this very player on my team. He was on my 3.5 team two years ago. Back then, scheduling him for a singles match meant an automatic win for the team. He was (very deservedly) bumped up to 4.0. But his game did not translate well... basically he's overpowered by most 4.0 players. Even those he was able to beat easily (when they too were 3.5) two years ago... their games improved, and his did not. 10% increase in pace and consistency across the board from the opponents was enough to turn the percentages around.

 

[J_R_B]

I am more like player 1. I'd rather be like player 2.

 

[LeeD]

The grass is always greener on the other side.

 

[LuckyR]

If I had the power to alter reality, I would use my SuperPower in other ways...

 

[J_R_B]

If I had the power to alter reality, I would use my SuperPower in other ways...

So true. I would be married to Jessica Alba and would have cured her herp.

 

[tennismonkey]

if i'm picking either of these two players for my team - i'd pick player 1 every time.

player 2 types outnumber the player 1 types probably 4 to 1 so there's more of them. yes the ability to sometimes play lights out tennis is great. yes they usually have more potential. but if they sometimes lose matches to even skill level players and they sometimes lose matches to lower level players - then they're a box of chocolates to me. you never know what you're gonna get.

 

[jdubbs]

if i'm picking either of these two players for my team - i'd pick player 1 every time.

player 2 types outnumber the player 1 types probably 4 to 1 so there's more of them. yes the ability to sometimes play lights out tennis is great. yes they usually have more potential. but if they sometimes lose matches to even skill level players and they sometimes lose matches to lower level players - then they're a box of chocolates to me. you never know what you're gonna get.

...and this is why I hate teams and leagues.

 

[MesQueUnClub]

I'll pick the one with the best attitude of the 2. Sure, I like to win, but I mostly play for fun and there are some real morons out there who whines about stuff whether they win or lose and they are a buzz kill.

 

[wings56]

on my college team we had mostly player type 2. my senior year 1 and 2 were of similar ability with our number 2 having a higher ability but our number 1 more consistently beat players below his level, so he played number 1. our number 3 was player type 1 all the way. number 4 and 5 were player type 2 with player 4 having more type 1 characteristics. number 6 used to be a type 2 but transitioned to a type 1 player after years of college tennis.

and where was I in all of this? number 7. some days beating 1 and 2... other days losing to 8... this is life

 

[maggmaster]

Do you think that means that if you trained harder you could be better?

 

[jdubbs]

on my college team we had mostly player type 2. my senior year 1 and 2 were of similar ability with our number 2 having a higher ability but our number 1 more consistently beat players below his level, so he played number 1. our number 3 was player type 1 all the way. number 4 and 5 were player type 2 with player 4 having more type 1 characteristics. number 6 used to be a type 2 but transitioned to a type 1 player after years of college tennis.

and where was I in all of this? number 7. some days beating 1 and 2... other days losing to 8... this is life

holy crap -I need an advanced math degree to follow this.

 

[tennismonkey]

i just took a number 2.

 

[jdubbs]

i just took a number 2.

Cool starry, bra.

 

[wings56]

holy crap -I need an advanced math degree to follow this.

made sense to me

 

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

I reckon number one is a pusher! (j/k)

Whoever said most of us are player 2 is spot on, hell, most of the pros are player 2!