Tennis: Winning Is Not the Thing

LJS and I are collaborating on this one. To read his side of the debate, please click here

"Corner cases always reveal a trend"

"Winning" is not what it seems to be

A match is won if the score-line predicated by its rules is reached. Though in most cases , where it clearly demarcates between the better and the worse player, it is not necessarily an objective measure of whether you played better or not.

Tennis is an asymmetrical game, and that lack of symmetry is more visible here than in most sports (except cricket perhaps). What is meant by "asymmetrical" is that both players do not play on an equal footing at any point of time, or at least, both players do not do the same things at all points of time. Obviously the server is at an advantage in all of his games.

The score-line does take this into consideration to average out the effect, and that is why a two-point difference is always required everywhere.

But then it is hierarchical. It forgets what happened in a previous game or set. Every previous game and every previous set only delivers a binary result into that set and match.

The result of all this is that you could end up theoretically having better statistics on your serves and return games, but still lose the match. A simple case, e.g. you hold to love in each of your service games, but take the opponent to 30, or deuce on his, then lose the tie-breaker by 7-5.

The attempt to bring objectivity and remove the asymmetry inherent in the game has resulted in another asymmetry, that certain points are more important than others. Thus the match is not just about the "game" now, and it brings in a lot of other variables, "mental toughness on important points" for example.

It is sometimes amusing to see players rationalize losses by stating that "he won the important points today."

Hence, the score-line which predicates who "won" doesn't always indicate "who played better." In those cases, what information the score-line gives us is that "the winner was better on the important points," the bias towards the "importance" brought about by the score-line itself.

In essence "the win" is arbitrary. Every score-line that makes for sport entertainment will have some subset of cases where the score-line-dictated-win doesn't match up with other statistics from the game, or really "who played better."  

Winning doesn't mean that you are "right"

When a top-level athlete like a Sachin Tendulkar or a Roger Federer says that winning is all that matters, what do they mean?

Do they mean to say that they "just won" and that is all that matters?

Are these people who would be happy if they get all their points by top-edges or let-chords and all within the rules of the game?

I would like to think not.

The delight from practising sport, as in any other art, comes when intent is rewarded.

It is possible to be late to a shot due to your physical sluggishness and still hit the sweet spot sending the ball inside out for a forehand winner.

Did you win the point? Yes.

Were you right? No, just lucky.

As you celebrate the point, something echoes within your head. "That meant nothing."

Then there are the other cases, where after toiling for hours, you lose the match due to a couple of those important points. You feel sad and think that just a couple of points more would have fetched you a win.

After all, you played as well as the other guy.

When you feel downcast in this situation, you are not really downcast about your game. You are downcast that you did not "win," which, as discussed earlier, is an arbitrary ruling especially in the case of tight contests.

The core of the argument is simple. You play to be right.

While you would like to be at your best everyday, you are satisfied and happy playing what you can on the day.

Being the master of yourself and utilizing yourself in the best possible manner is all that you can do.

Nothing surpasses the delight of being able to calibrate your shots, and push yourself to the limits of your ability on that given day based on your own reading of your game. The deliberate attempts to improve, bearing fruit on the court, is definitely the best feeling.

Being right means that you did what you did, deliberately. Each shot you hit (not "each point" mind you) was earned. You were dictating your body to do what you thought should be done, and were not being passive, or playing based on fantasies or what should be done.

In the end, despite all this, the score says that you lost. You go to bed peacefully thinking that all you did was what you could do that day. The outcome was rational. There is no need to be downcast on a rational result. 

"You are good if you win."

What is forgotten here, conveniently, is that in many cases, mostly competitions, the criteria for winning is human-dictated.

Reading the world based on results rather than actions—in many cases—is an attempt to quantify something by a procedure without understanding what that procedure means.

Not delivering a product on time does mean something and you know what it is. That result is a true result, and by any criteria you can cook up, that is a failure. This is not simply true with, say tie-breakers.

Once you do all that you can, based on your considered judgment at that point of time, you did right.

Anything else doesn't matter.