Which is worse? Losing badly or barely losing? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Which is worse? Losing badly or barely losing?

tangerine_dream
08-11-2004, 05:04 PM
I've been thinking of Andy's matches with Roger and Andre and Jim Courier's comment about his losses got me wondering: which do you think is worse for a tennis player? Losing badly or barely losing in a final?

Those two matches were so close that it was really a matter of only a few points that separated him from the eventual winner. The Federer match, in particular, may have messed with his head a bit more because he was playing fantastically and he still couldn't etch out a win over Roger (I still maintain that the rain delays helped Roger enormously because he was able to collect himself and think of a new strategy). Andy has said that he was happy with his performance during these two matches but would he have felt better if Roger or Andre had beaten him 6-2, 6-3 instead? I'm curious to know what you all think.

Please Note: all trolls will be ignored!

LCeh
08-11-2004, 05:10 PM
Well, to me, if you lose consistently in either way it's devastating.

If you get blown away every time, you sort of start wondering if you actually have the ability to beat that player. Just take a look at Hewitt. Gets bagelled every time he plays Federer this year, and that doesn't really help his confidence much when they play against each other. Actually, maybe Andy against the Americans (except Andre)is a better example.

When it's a close match, at least you know that you have a chance of winning, but if you keep on losing those close matches, when you do get into another one, it makes you doubt yourself even more.

So I guess both are bad if you keep losing in that particular way.

TinyT
08-11-2004, 05:11 PM
i think it depends on the situation. to some players, it might be frustratign to know that they were this close to winning, and dwell on the negative, i.e. missed shots. others will see it as they put up a great fight, and the better player won. losing badly- if you go into a match and you aren't expecting much, then losing badly doesn't seem so awful. however, if you go in thinking you are the sh*t and fail miserably, that's gotta be a blow to the ego. really, it depends on how the player sees it.

tangerine_dream
08-11-2004, 05:16 PM
I wonder who's more frustrated right now: Andy trying to get past Roger or Kiwi trying to get past Andy? ;)

Fumus
08-11-2004, 05:20 PM
well barely losing gives you confidence and it lets you know what works what doesn't for next time. It's harder on you emotionally, but, for the future it's the best.

Losing badly, isn't as emotionally draining, you are out of the match the whole time and you just sorta go away. This sort of a loss however is bad for ones confidence overall, and it also is bad for the future because you didn't really test your opponent.

I think when the win isn't important, losing badly is the next best option to winning, I think if it's a big event barely losing is the worst....all in all though, I think most players will pick a win over either. Except maybe Roger who decides that sometimes he needs to take matches off to rest. ;)

Havok
08-11-2004, 05:29 PM
All depends on the type of player/person you are really.

Fumus
08-11-2004, 05:49 PM
yea yea...yea..yea...nice cop-out Naldo..

J. Corwin
08-11-2004, 05:59 PM
Interesting question. I'd personally choose to lose just barely. It's more emotionally painful, imo, since you were so close. But I think it still gives you some hope that you can beat your opponent.

Getting blown away many times would just make you "give up" I think. You just think there's no way you can beat him and you go through the motions.

Fumus
08-11-2004, 06:11 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to 1jackson2001 again.

I agree!

superpinkone37
08-11-2004, 07:00 PM
All depends on the type of player/person you are really.

no really that is true!!! i would rather lose just barely. i have before obviously, and if i played a great match, but the other person just got the better of me then i am not really that disappointed, cuz i know that i played my best. i know that sounds stupid, but its true at least for me. maybe its cuz, for example i played varsity singles last at school as a freshman, and most of the people i played were like juniors and seniors, so if i won, that was really great, but if i lost in a long competitive match that was okay too. anyways theres my 2 cents....im am sooo looking forward for tennis season-- only like a month till then yay

melissa7
08-11-2004, 07:10 PM
I've been thinking about this for a while now. And I still haven't fully decided what my reply is going to be.

On one hand, if I lost badly, it could have been that I was having an off day. Now, if I was losing badly on a constant basis, then I suck and shouldn't be allowed to play as I would be a disgrace to the sport.

But on the other hand, if I were to lose but come really close, I think I would be super mad at myself, thinking that I could have won, and that I just didn't try hard enough or want it badly enough.

I think I'd rather lose badly (not on a regular basis though).

Fumus
08-11-2004, 07:33 PM
Which is worse for Andy barely losing to Roger or losing badly to Roger?

LCeh
08-11-2004, 07:38 PM
Which is worse for Andy barely losing to Roger or losing badly to Roger?

Both are bad in the current situation. Andy cannot afford to lose another match to Roger right now, seeing as they will only meet in the final. But I think Andy barely losing to Roger is worse. If Roger just plays insanely great and does everything well, at least Andy knows it just wasn't the day, but if it was another close one, he is probably gonna start doubting if he will ever beat him.

Actually... I don't know. I think he would start wondering if he can beat him if he loses another one to Roger, badly or closely.

Fumus
08-11-2004, 07:41 PM
really, I tend to disagree Lceh, the losses will only motivate Andy to raise his tennis. He will beat Roger atleast a few more times if he stays healthy.

LCeh
08-11-2004, 07:42 PM
Yeah, that is true, but your question was which is worse, so... :p

Fumus
08-11-2004, 07:44 PM
You dodged the question...lol, you said no more losing for Andy otherwise he will :explode:, I say he can lose more, he can take it, it will only make him better...lol

Golfnduck
08-11-2004, 07:45 PM
I wonder who's more frustrated right now: Andy trying to get past Roger or Kiwi trying to get past Andy? ;)

I think it is a matter of Andy trying to get past Andy. I think that his mental game could improve. But that comes with age and maturity. I think if Brad keeps working with Andy, in the next year or so, we could see a completely different Andy, in a good way.

Fumus
08-11-2004, 07:46 PM
Quack it loud quack it proud...is that from the mighty ducks..lol...omg! Use the flying V...hahaha

LCeh
08-11-2004, 07:48 PM
No doubt the losses are gonna make him a better player, but I think losing another close match is worse for Andy right now. I think in Andy's mind ,he knows that if Roger plays his best, he probably wouldn't be able to beat him. So if Andy loses badly, it would be just another loss, but if he loses a close one, especially if Roger didn't play that well, I think it will be worse for his confidence.

Fumus
08-11-2004, 07:51 PM
LCeh, I agree with you it's just I think Andy knows Roger is ahead right now. Andy has to pickup his game to play at that level. Well, I hope he does win the next couple times they meet and that way Andy can try to turn this rivalry around.

Golfnduck
08-11-2004, 07:55 PM
Quack it loud quack it proud...is that from the mighty ducks..lol...omg! Use the flying V...hahaha

Actually, I was talking to a friend in one of my groups, and she just said it was a cheer for Andy. A lot of other forums supposedly call him "Duckyboy", and I guess that is how they came up with it. I thought it was pretty funny and cool.

tangerine_dream
08-11-2004, 08:00 PM
Actually, I was talking to a friend in one of my groups, and she just said it was a cheer for Andy. A lot of other forums supposedly call him "Duckyboy", and I guess that is how they came up with it. I thought it was pretty funny and cool.

I'm just waiting for somebody to show up at one of these tournaments with a sign that says, "GO DUCKY!" :)

melissa7
08-11-2004, 08:01 PM
Or start chanting "We will, we will, Quack You" in between games, like they do in D2 at the final.

Golfnduck
08-11-2004, 08:04 PM
I'm just waiting for somebody to show up at one of these tournaments with a sign that says, "GO DUCKY!" :)
That would be great!!!!

Golfnduck
08-11-2004, 08:05 PM
Or start chanting "We will, we will, Quack You" in between games, like they do in D2 at the final.
I wonder how people in the stands would react to that. "What the hell are they quacking for?:" :confused: :confused:

Fumus
08-11-2004, 08:07 PM
I'm just waiting for somebody to show up at one of these tournaments with a sign that says, "GO DUCKY!" :)

When I go to the USO I will bring the sign! :devil:

Golfnduck
08-11-2004, 08:08 PM
That would be awesome Fumus!!! GOOOOO DUCKY!!!!!!!!!

Dirk
08-11-2004, 08:08 PM
Andy needs Rogi to have an off day like he did in Montreal 03. There is only some much Andy can do. Nobody is disputing who is the most talented player. Roger is in a position to do to Andy what Pete did to Andre after the Open in 95. Send his career down the whirlpool. Andre couldn't live on the tour without the number one ranking therefore he lost interest and I believe Andy is the same way. He is too intense and competitive to settle for second best. Andy and Brad's egos can only take so much. Andy was out of words and baffled after losing to Rogi in Toronto. I can't imagine what will happen to Andy's mindset if he loses to Rogi at Athens or the Open or both.

Fumus
08-11-2004, 08:10 PM
hmmmm....well Andy just won't lose then.

star
08-11-2004, 08:40 PM
Quack it loud quack it proud...is that from the mighty ducks..lol...omg! Use the flying V...hahaha

That was the result of some silliness on MSN one night. :)

I never saw the Mighty Ducks, so....... I didn't get it from there, just came to me while everyone was talking. :)

RonE
08-11-2004, 09:06 PM
I think losing badly is a whole lot worse than losing a close match.
No matter how draining it may be, losing a close match gives you that much more incentive to raise your level even higher for the next meeting, it gives you a barometer and you can adjust your intensity accordingly. It gives you the confidence to know that you can stay in the game against the person and not be blown off the court, and that the next time you play, you still have the belief that given a crucial point here or there you could actually win the match.

Being taken completely apart, while less draining a match in itself, takes away your belief in the long run, and does more long term damage to the psyche. Just my $0.02.

andyroxmysox12191
08-11-2004, 09:08 PM
:lol: that was great when you came up with it star:banana:
if i ever meet andy i'm gonna ask this...do you like ducks and socks?

star
08-11-2004, 09:15 PM
sox

:)

Deboogle!.
08-11-2004, 10:23 PM
Ron you took the words right out of my mouth...

think about a player who's ranked lower than their opponent, like way lower. Losing badly would be what was expected but what if they pushed a top 10 player to a tiebreak or something? That might be something to be PROUD of as opposed to even being upset.

In Andy's case, he knows he can beat Roger, I hope he does anyway. He knows he can break his serve now, he knows he can mentally serve out a set against him, and he's even won a TB off him lmao... many of Roger's and Andy's last matches have come down to the "big points" and for some reason Andy is mentally not quite as strong against Roger on those points as he is against almost all other players. I'm sure this is a combination of how good ROGER is on those points and the fact that at these tense moments is where the doubts rear their ugly heads the most.

But yes to answer the original question, I think it's worse to lose badly. Losing to Andre 5-7 7-6 6-7 is not embarrassing. Losing 2-6 3-6 is. IMO :)

Havok
08-11-2004, 10:48 PM
Andy will never lose terribly to the top guys, he's just too good for that.:p

superpinkone37
08-11-2004, 11:22 PM
of course he is yay :)

star
08-30-2004, 03:39 PM
btw, the haters never called Andy "duckyboy." It was "duckboy."

I guess the troll liked "duckyboy" though because he took it up. :)

smucav
08-30-2004, 04:46 PM
Andy will never lose terribly to the top guys, he's just too good for that. I agree. Off the top of my head, I think you would have to go back quite a while in Andy's record to find a loss that was a complete blowout. The few losses he's had in the last year and a half have been extremely close (& to good players).

I think losing badly is a whole lot worse than losing a close match. I've been pondering this myself lately, particularly after that "oh so close, but yet so far" Wimbledon final. I think he probably recognized how much of an improvement he made in one year's time both physically & strategically, but it still must have hurt to come so close to winning & lose.

Deboogle!.
08-30-2004, 05:50 PM
I think it hurts, but in a different way. It's more the "what if" sort of way - "what if I had played these two or three points differently" etc not the "omg I really suck he blew me away" sort of hurt... some might argue that they're both equally as bad. I personally don't.

superpinkone37
08-30-2004, 08:24 PM
i have nothing to say on this topic today lol. nothing abou8t losing....lol.....winning is awesome, especially when you win by a lot. i played this girl on my team at school (cuz we are trying to work out the rankings on the ladder) and shes older than me and everything and i kicked her butt 6-1 yay. she's really cool though and im becoming really good friends with her so i had to hide my excitement till later, but still, i feel really good right now. :)

zoltan83
08-30-2004, 11:27 PM
As some of you, I think that is worse to lose badly.
Sometimes, if you barely lost, you can be happy because you made a good match.

superpinkone37
08-30-2004, 11:41 PM
As some of you, I think that is worse to lose badly.
Sometimes, if you barely lost, you can be happy because you made a good match.

yes that is very true, because you can at least be happy that you played a good match to get so close.

heya
08-31-2004, 03:56 AM
Losing's worst, especially when u think it's ok to lose to certain players & give up instead
of planning your strategy no matter what.
STUPID:
1 double fault at 30-40
2 u're exhausted & don't play efficiently
(rushing, too much topspin, waiting too long to hit balls, waste break chances 'cuz u have wrong court positioning, collapse from running & hitting too hard)
3 u were supposed to work on other shots, but didn't
4 u make it easy to lose by letting your body break down
5 u don't try your best but admire opponents so much that u treat a serious match like a fun meeting
6 show opponent that u're insecure, falling apart & the match's over in the 2nd set already
7 u think hitting forehands's enough
8 beg for crowd support but it distracts you
9 keep looking for your coach's reaction

elusive
08-31-2004, 04:54 AM
imo, losing badly is definitely worse. especially if you havent done your best. if you barely lost however, at least you get the comfort that you have actually put in effort and its possible to beat the opponent one day. yep even though the disappointment is inevitably greater, at least you see the fight, and all the struggle. instead of just completely giving up the whole match. i have seen players who, after losing one set, all the fights gone out of them and they completely surrender the 2nd set. its really disheartening, in a sense.

tangerine_dream
09-22-2004, 04:38 PM
Bringing my thread back to life, there's a discussion going on in GM in the "Hewitt Appreciation Thread" about whether Hewitt's loss to Federer was a devastating loss or one he could just write off the books because, well, it's Roger and nobody's been able to beat him in a final. ;)

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=784595&postcount=18

So my question now is: whose loss was more career and/or emotionally devastating? Andy's close final at Wimby where he actually managed to give Roger a scare, or Lleyton's double-bagel loss at USO where he was never in contention?

Discuss. :)

Fumus
09-22-2004, 05:36 PM
I refuse.

J. Corwin
09-22-2004, 05:47 PM
Oh c'mon take a risk, Fumus!

Since they're both fighters I don't think it affected them that much (ai ai captain!). But Hewey looked a bit more sedated out there cuz GOD was hungry...smited Hewey with two fatty pastries. Andy was closer to winning, so me thinks it hurts more to lose when you were up in a match....which Hewey never was.

Capice? ;)

tangerine_dream
09-22-2004, 05:53 PM
LOL Jace, but if you were Lleyton, Andy's scoreline at Wimby would've looked pretty good in comparison, don't you think?

I mean, Lleyton fought hard but he was still subdued. You got the feeling that maybe he knew he wouldn't be able to touch Roger. Roger has bageled him each and every time they've played. That's gotta hurt, professionally-speaking. :sad: With Andy at Wimby, it was different. He was breathing fire and you could see it in his eyes: a belief that he knew he could beat Roger.

How much more does it suck going into a match believing with all your heart that you will win.....and then don't? As opposed to going into a match knowing you don't have much of a chance and turns out, you really didn't? :awww:

Fumus
09-22-2004, 05:54 PM
um......all I have to say about Hewitt's loss is c'mon...;) lol

J. Corwin
09-22-2004, 10:39 PM
LOL Jace, but if you were Lleyton, Andy's scoreline at Wimby would've looked pretty good in comparison, don't you think?

I mean, Lleyton fought hard but he was still subdued. You got the feeling that maybe he knew he wouldn't be able to touch Roger. Roger has bageled him each and every time they've played. That's gotta hurt, professionally-speaking. :sad: With Andy at Wimby, it was different. He was breathing fire and you could see it in his eyes: a belief that he knew he could beat Roger.

How much more does it suck going into a match believing with all your heart that you will win.....and then don't? As opposed to going into a match knowing you don't have much of a chance and turns out, you really didn't? :awww:

Yep but Hewey didn't have that hope and "accepted" his lost ;) (even thought he fought hard like always). For Andy...he actually thought he was going to win it...and then His Majesty squashed all that hope like a bug. :devil: :( Ahh the feeling of being teased. :angel: :o :p

star
09-22-2004, 11:09 PM
You love that "teased" feeling. Admit it. :devil:

Jennay
09-22-2004, 11:12 PM
LOL Star!!! :rolls:

Canuck_Chick
09-23-2004, 12:29 AM
Personally, I would feel worse if I lost badly. If I have to lose I would rather lose a close one cuz then i know that i could get that player next time and it gives me confidence that i'm not far from beating that individual. But losing badly...that just sucks....it's better if you were at leat competitive...

superpinkone37
09-23-2004, 02:37 AM
yeah losing badly is worse, imo. poor hewitt, i wanted him to win so badly, and that scoreline was awful for him. the thing about barely losing is that you might be mad that its very possible that you could have won the match.

in my case though, a lot of times i play better from behind and if im close to losing and i come back to make the score a little more even then i feel better than giving it away cuz i think im gonna lose. like today that happened to me (i know, i know, im supposed to go undefeated the rest of the year, lol, but i lost one of my sets :sad: ) but i dont feel too bad cuz i was down 2-5. too bad the girl had an attitude and called one of my shots that was clearly two inches in out after she had just questioned my call on a serve of hers that i had called out cuz i was a point away from evening it out to 5 all.

oh well, i was proud of myself that i at least got those two more games after i was down two MPs on her serve when i was down 2-5. and then i bageled the next girl i played so it made up for it :) so from my experience, its better to barely lose than lose badly

heya
09-23-2004, 03:47 AM
YES! :woohoo:
Having a very close match means you can play as well, if not better, than the other guy.
When the "loser" gets physically/mentally stronger, he/she will beat that person.
Head-to-head records shouldn't worry anyone as long as the players are very good & young.

Gonzo Hates Me!
09-24-2004, 06:52 AM
I would rather barely lose b/c i would have the pleasure of knowing I gave it my all, and chances are people left the match talking about it because of what I did. Losing badly is embarassing

Peta Pan
09-24-2004, 11:30 AM
Yep I agree that it's better to lose a close one than get beaten easily.

I think Andy would be feeling a lot better about meeting Federer next time than Lleyton will. While Federer has probably got both of their measure at this point in time, Andy would be feeling he is close enough to beat him again very soon. Lleyton would have to be wondering what he can do to get anywhere near him!

surfpinky
09-27-2004, 05:56 PM
I think losing badly is worse because people will look at you like you don't belong out there, barely losing would look like the match could have gone either way :p

heya
09-29-2004, 01:26 AM
Leading : 107
Trailing : 17
Tie : 14
Total : 138
When Andy takes himself more seriously in the next 10 years,
the active players he should defeat to have a perfect winning record are:

Youzhny, Schuettler, Safin, Portas, Massu,
Agassi, Hewitt, Haas, Henman, Federer, Enqvist,
Gambill, Costa, Clement, Calleri, Canas, Boutter,
Gonzalez, Joachim Johansson, Kuerten, Levy,
Mutis, Arthurs, Sargsian, Verkerk & Spadea.

Sjengster
09-29-2004, 11:34 AM
Doesn't "perfect winning record" mean never losing to someone? He's lost to every single guy in that list at least once, which is why you compiled it. And while losses to Portas and Arthurs may be mere aberrations, I severely doubt he is going to end up with a winning record against Agassi or Federer. Maybe not Henman either, seeing as he's just turned 30 and meetings between top players in men's tennis aren't nearly as frequent as in the women's game. You have to separate virtually all of that second row of names from those near the bottom, they're in different leagues.

Roddick will definitely be feeling better than Hewitt about his next meeting with Federer - Hewitt's now met him in three of the four Slams this year, and on all four major surfaces, and the one thing the matches have in common apart from Hewitt losing is he's been bagelled at least once every time. People who seriously suggest that Federer could bagel Roddick on a fastcourt are deluding themselves (the only place that would even be possible would be on a very slow, heavy claycourt, and such a meeting is hardly likely to occur at the moment considering their respective strengths on clay).

The interesting thing is that while Hewitt is very fiery when he's winning, in defeat he is subdued and no more so than against Federer, so it's hard to tell what he's thinking. Roddick by contrast is visibly frustrated and angered when he loses to Federer since he knows he's getting closer in a lot of their matches. At the moment Hewitt must seriously be wondering whether he has anything to hurt Federer with, while Roddick knows he has major weapons - although trying simply to bludgeon his opponent with them isn't working because of Federer's superb defence and passes on the stretch, so he needs to add more dimensions to his attack.

To answer the original question I would rather be a Grosjean (a man who has game and pushes top players but has lost so many tight matches) than a Spadea (a grinder who ekes out wins against lowly opposition and gets absolutely chopped by quality players). Close losses always tell you that you just need to do a few things better, play the big points better, and you'll turn your fortunes around. 21-match losing streaks tell you that you don't belong in the upper echelons of the game, although Cousin Vinny has since recovered and found his own personal niche in tennis.

star
09-29-2004, 12:26 PM
So pretty much everyone seems to agree that losing badly is worse, but it's funny how the thread goes on and on anyway. :lol:

Havok
09-29-2004, 01:27 PM
Weird isn't it star.:scared:

tangerine_dream
09-29-2004, 02:57 PM
Quit bumping the thread up you guys. ;)

Fumus
10-05-2004, 06:25 PM
losing badly is way worse...omg..confidence falling...falling...falling..

Yoda
10-05-2004, 07:05 PM
People who seriously suggest that Federer could bagel Roddick on a fastcourt are deluding themselves (the only place that would even be possible would be on a very slow, heavy claycourt, and such a meeting is hardly likely to occur at the moment considering their respective strengths on clay).



DOH! :devil:

tangerine_dream
10-05-2004, 07:17 PM
DOH! :devil:

Yeah. And Andy only had to be seriously injured for Roger to bagel him. :rolleyes:

I'll never understand why some Federer fans feel the need to gloat over his wins. It's not enough that Roger rules the world? That he breaks every record in the book? I don't get it. :confused:

Fumus
10-05-2004, 07:42 PM
That he breaks every record in the book? I don't get it. :confused:

Not the service spead record...that belongs to a certain American I am quite fond of. I don't see Roger taking that one anytime soon. :)

Deboogle!.
10-05-2004, 07:42 PM
I think Andy would give up his service speed record for any one of Roger's other records. Just a hunch :)

Yoda
10-05-2004, 07:43 PM
Sorry Tang didn't mean to sound like I was gloating...was more in jest. :kiss:
Just reading the above quote and I couldn't help myself :devil:

But I agree there is no way the Duckboy is gonna get bageled unless
a) he gets injured
b) his serving capitulates into double faults

I personally like Andy (hate BG though) and believe Men's Tennis is better for it with him around. However that wont stop me from having a dig at you duckfans every now and then :p

I'm sure the Duck will have his day in the future :)

Fumus
10-05-2004, 08:10 PM
I think Andy would give up his service speed record for any one of Roger's other records. Just a hunch :)

I wouldn't trade this record for anything, not a million bajillion dollars, Pete's Grand Slam record, or some of the stupid records Roger's collected this year. Service speed isn't just a stupid meaningless stat like net points won, it means something, no matter how inaccurate the guns are


hmm...Bunk...I bet you feel alittle :o :o :o

Deboogle!.
10-05-2004, 08:12 PM
hmm...Bunk...I bet you feel alittle :o :o :o

:haha: :haha: :haha:

Dirk
10-06-2004, 11:22 AM
Sjengster is right. After I found out Andy was injuried I lost the joy in knowing Andy got bagelled by Rogi. Nobody with a huge serve will get bagelled on indoors unless they are injuried. Match would have been closer for sure had it not been for that. Clay meeting between these two could only happen in Rome where conditions are great are good for Andy.

star
10-06-2004, 12:25 PM
hmm...Bunk...I bet you feel alittle :o :o :o

:haha: :haha: That was a funny one, Fumus.