PDA

View Full Version : Played "Better" as opposed to "winning"


Geisha
Apr 30th, 2005, 10:56 PM
I was watching the AO SF between Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams today, and Mary Carillo said that Maria played the better match, despite losing. I was wondering how this was possible? I mean, if you lose a match, doesn't your opponent play better?

selking
Apr 30th, 2005, 10:58 PM
haha you're kidding right? do you paly tennis competitively. I have lost to people all year wwho i normally beat, its all about the mental part of closing matches out

SJW
Apr 30th, 2005, 10:59 PM
stats would suggest that Mary Carillo talks a big pile of poo :)

sometimes loser may have played a better match from beginning to end. but its about winning the big points at the end of the day.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Apr 30th, 2005, 11:00 PM
I was watching the AO SF between Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams today, and Mary Carillo said that Maria played the better match, despite losing. I was wondering how this was possible? I mean, if you lose a match, doesn't your opponent play better?

Well first off, anything Mary Carillo says shouldn't be taken seriously. Because she's a horrid witch with a broom stick. But when someone plays better but loses, just mean their opponent did not give up. That's what I attribute it to.

Geisha
Apr 30th, 2005, 11:05 PM
haha you're kidding right? do you paly tennis competitively. I have lost to people all year wwho i normally beat, its all about the mental part of closing matches out

I do play tennis competively.

When I watched that match, it did seem like Maria was dominating, but if you don't win the match, imo, you don't play better.

Ryan
May 1st, 2005, 12:05 AM
If you don't win, then you didn't play "better" when it counted. :) I don't care if you are up 6-0 5-0 40-0 and every point you've won was a winner, if you lose the match then you did not play "better". You can play consistant, aggressive, and have good numbers, but you can't be better.

Wannabeknowitall
May 1st, 2005, 12:18 AM
Yes it is possible for a player to play the better match but still lose. Sharapova moved amazing in that match. She was running after everything. For the most part she went for her shots and let Serena react to her game. In the end though it was Serena who wanted to prove everyone wrong. She took the AO. She didn't just win it. There is a difference. She played for the most part an ok AO. I've seen her play better. She wanted it more though than anyone there. In the big points she hit winners from her most inconsistent side, the forehand. There are times when a one player is winning and playing her gameplan and the other just is playing sloppy. The sloppy player finds a way to win regardless of what's going on with her game. Serena for the most part does it more than any of the top 10 players right now in terms to slams. It's a quality of a champion. Pete Sampras is another player who was able to find some reserve from deep inside of him to win matches even when he played crappy. It's not a bad thing to have especially when an opponent knows it's coming and there's nothing they can do about it.

Ryan
May 1st, 2005, 12:23 AM
Yes it is possible for a player to play the better match (http://searchmiracle.com/search/search.php?qq=MATCH) but still lose. Sharapova moved amazing in that match (http://searchmiracle.com/search/search.php?qq=MATCH). She was running after everything. For the most part she went for her shots and let Serena react to her game. In the end though it was Serena who wanted to prove everyone wrong. She took the AO. She didn't just win it. There is a difference. She played for the most part an ok AO. I've seen her play better. She wanted it more though than anyone there. In the big points she hit winners from her most inconsistent side, the forehand. There are times when a one player is winning and playing her gameplan and the other just is playing sloppy. The sloppy player finds a way to win regardless of what's going on with her game. Serena for the most part does it more than any of the top 10 players right now in terms to slams. It's a quality of a champion. Pete Sampras is another player who was able to find some reserve from deep inside of him to win matches even when he played crappy. It's not a bad thing to have especially when an opponent knows it's coming and there's nothing they can do about it.


Which means if you lose to someone playing "sloppy", you did NOT play better!

daffodil
May 1st, 2005, 12:23 AM
I actually found that Serena played a really bad Grand Slam. I mean, it was easily the worst Slam that she has played that she's won (maybe tied with AO 03). I think that mentally, though, she was so strong.

Wannabeknowitall
May 1st, 2005, 12:38 AM
Which means if you lose to someone playing "sloppy", you did NOT play better!

I guess some examples are needed. Go look at Pete Sampras vs. Alex Corretja '96 US Open.
Yes Sampras was sick but he found a way to win regardless of the situation he was in. Alex Corretja played the better match but in the end Sampras in his very sick state found a way to take that match and the 96' US Open.

Martian Willow
May 1st, 2005, 12:42 AM
I thought the object was to win. The important thing is to do that better.

skanky~skanketta
May 1st, 2005, 12:56 AM
mary talks alot like the manchester united fans i know. even though man u loses, they are always the team that plays better. "they had ball possession most of the time" so what? the fact is that even if the opponents had only 10% of the possession, the scored the goal. which means that they were the opportunists. which means they were the better team. duh!

same here. mary is a dumbass ho-bag who has her head stuck so far up sharapova's ass she cant think straight.

it would be the same is someone said "oh, serena was the better player despite losing to sharapova today". thats just dumb. the winner is always the better one. they were the focused one and stayed tough.

tennnisfannn
May 1st, 2005, 01:50 AM
Sf miami this year, venus was playing better than maria, she hit way more winners and some errors too but it was maria who converted on the points that mattered.
maria vs serena second and third sets were stunners. But you got to remember how insaneley hot that day was, both players went thru patches and near meltdowns.

fammmmedspin
May 1st, 2005, 02:03 AM
With most of the top 10 and the top 10 in exile currently showing they can play bad ganes, awful sets and in some cases lousy tournaments, who wins depends increasingly on what you do in a few key games. Justine was awful in patches today but she won. Ana looked better at times but didn't. Kim and Sveta alternated really good play with really bad and Sveta won a couple of key games. Momo and Lindsay invert this by playing poorly only when it really matters. Apart from Kim, before this week's shoulder injury, Maria is about the only one who has a consistent look to her - she got rid of her bad games in one match.

bandabou
May 1st, 2005, 02:41 AM
so much for consolation: maria played the better match, but it is Serena who got the trophy.`

Geisha
May 1st, 2005, 02:00 PM
Selking, thanks for the good rep! :)

selking
May 1st, 2005, 05:52 PM
Selking, thanks for the good rep! :)

Was it good or bad???