Excuse making

[tented]

Why is it that whenever a great player loses, people come out of the woodwork to make excuses as to why it happened? Must be injury, not on his game, struggling, etc. It can't possibly be because one player out-played another. This happened with Rafa at the AO and Andy at Wimbledon. I know, I know, Rafa was injured and Andy has struggled this year - but that's all part of the sport, all part of a player's record. We can't separate out all a player's best matches and say "This is who they really are" and make excuses for the rest; we end up with an extremely partial and skewed view of said player. This is why we should thank Cali for giving us an example of how far this can go into absurdity.

In the end, results are results. A player should be judged by their total record, not just the days that they woke up feeling peppy and fresh. It is like a marriage; if you're a douche to your wife you can't expect her to be so quickly forgiving because "I wasn't feeling myself today." Everything counts.

The concept of “excuse making” after losses has been on my mind for a while. I was reminded of it again when reading this post by Ed Dude in the “Your expectations from Dimitrov in USO series?” thread, so I’ll use it as a starting point.

Stating Rafa was injured in the AO final isn’t excuse making; it’s stating a fact. One of the greatest players ever (who had previously only ever lost GS finals to Federer and Djokovic) lost to an opponent who had never even taken a single set off him in 12 encounters. That’s noteworthy. And that’s an understatement. It was a situation which deserved an explanation, so it was included in the headlines. From USA Today: “Stan Wawrinka wins Australian Open over hobbled Rafael Nadal”

Compare that to the ’07 Wimbledon final, for example, which did not require an explanatory headline. The NY Times: “Federer Wins His Fifth Wimbledon Title in a Row”

Rafa has the highest winning percentage of any player in the Open Era: 83.67%, according to Wikipedia. He’s second only to Borg for the highest winning percentage against other Top 10 players: 68.25%. (Borg: 70.53%) In other words, he wins. A lot. Most of the time, in fact. When he doesn’t, it’s newsworthy, and people want an explanation.

This isn’t the case when, say, Gilles Simon loses. He loses a lot, so it’s not news. No one wonders, “What happened that Simon lost?”

Yes, without question, Nadal’s losses have at times been patched over with excuses (by himself and/or his fans), when what really happened was he was simply outplayed. Some examples (not intended to be a comprehensive list): JMDP (2009 Miami), Zeballos (Chile 2013), Roddick (2010 Miami), Gonzalez (2007 Australian Open), Tsonga (2008 Australian Open), the 2011 string of losses to Djokovic, etc.

I’ve used Rafa for what I have to believe are obvious reasons, but this phenomenon isn’t exclusive to him. Federer fans have been known at times to write off losses in ways which preclude the possibility of his having been outplayed. Federer himself has been guilty of this. Like Nadal, Federer wins most of the time (well, let’s not discuss 2013. ) But a guy who has had years when his losses were in the single digits falls into the same category: when he loses, it’s news, and people want to know why. And because he does win most of the time, there tends to be an explanation for the losses which goes beyond the example of “Oh, yeah — Simon lost again.”

It neither surprises me nor bothers me when Federer and Nadal do this. (To be clear, I am not saying either player does this all the time, or even most of the time. I hope that one sentence is enough to thwart off accusations of constant excuse making. We'll see ...) It’s part of their championship mentality sometimes to interpret certain losses in ways which are psychologically beneficial to them. These guys are competitive and motivated on a level which we mere mortals can’t truly understand. In order to have arrived at their level of success, nevertheless to have maintained it, has required a different way of thinking. That’s an oversimplification, but I suspect you know what I mean.

Federer had mono in early 2008. No surprise he lost to Murray in the first round in Dubai, or Fish in IW. Nadal hurt his back in this year’s Australian Open final. No surprise he lost to Wawrinka. Federer was outplayed in the 2008 Roland Garros final. No excuses. Nadal was outplayed in the 2010 WTF final. No excuses. (Again, just random examples.)

I realize this post has the potential to be incendiary to the point of flashover, but it’s been on my mind for a while, so I needed to get it out there.

 

[Federberg]

It's a worthy thread. I suspect it'll start off well and deteriorate from there I broadly agree with you tented.

Personally I have a real dislike for excuses, but I agree it's something these guys have to do... perhaps to maintain their inner belief? What I'm trying to say... speaking for myself.. is that I have no problem with a player making excuses as long as we.. the audience.. can be honest/ intelligent(?) enough to see it for what it is. And by that I mean that even if the excuse doesn't come directly from a player, but from his camp, we should still see it for what it is. Those of us who are willing to be critical of the player(s) we support probably get a bit frustrated when excuses get recycled by those who should know better (primarily talking about the media here). Anyway.. it's all part of sports!

 

[Riotbeard]

To be fair rafa was simply outplayed in the first set of the AO final, but yes he lost the other two sets injured.

 

[El Dude]

Of course, tented, there are reasons great players lose that aren't simply because they are outplayed. But let us not forget that even great players lose 15-20ish% of the time, and not all of that is because of injury, or marital problems, or mono, or celiac disease.

I think also that, more often than not, when a great player loses it is a combination of factors. When Andy Murray lost to Grigor Dimitrov, not only was he playing poorly and his head wasn't in the game, but Grigor played exceptionally well - he capitalized on Andy being down. In other words, I would guess that when a great player loses to a lesser player, it is usually a combination of two factors: something bothering the great player, whether injury or personal stuff, and the lesser player playing lights out.

Fans naturally get defensive about their favorite player and want there to be some reason other than simply being outplayed as to why they lost. The only reason I take issue with your view, tented, is that it further justifies this feeling and takes a rather one-sided approach. I'd rather include both sides--that when a great player loses to a lesser player there are often reasons, often legitimate "excuses," but also sometimes they were simply outplayed, and we shouldn't lessen the play of the lesser player simply because we want to maintain the image of perfection of our favorite player.

In other words, it is almost always complex, a combination of factors. Rarely is it JUST the great player being injured or ONLY that they were outplayed. For instance, Rafa could have won the AO against a lesser opponent or Stan v. 2012. Him losing was a combination of his injury AND Stan playing well enough to beat him. The same for other instances (e.g. Roger losing badly to Andy at the 2012 Olympics - he was tired AND Andy was playing extremely well).

I think it is making excuses when the other side of the picture is ignored or significantly downplayed. "Stan wouldn't have won if Rafa hadn't been injured." You know what? We can't know that.

 

[Kieran]

I think it is making excuses when the other side of the picture is ignored or significantly downplayed. "Stan wouldn't have won if Rafa hadn't been injured." You know what? We can't know that.

In fairness, nobody said that. Not on this forum, anyway. The most anyone said was that once Rafa was injured, he couldn't compete, and so he couldn't win. That's not the same thing as saying he would have won. As you say, nobody can know this. If people believe such a thing, they might send me a pm with the Lotto numbers. I hear it's a biggy this weekend.

But I think Tented brought up a good point: there's always a narrative behind the result. It can be a combination of things, and generally it's just straight forward: that the man who lost was outplayed on the big points (Rafa v Kyrgios), or just outplayed, point blank (Rafa v Darcis). But it isn't excuse making to say, for example, that Federer wasn't himself in the five sets against Daveed in the WTF a few years back. It might not be a reason why he lost, but it certainly didn't help him.

The net result is that Daveed got a good victory and a great title, but results and stats alone never give the full story. I think this is true, but Tented says, it's potentially incendiary. These mods, eh? They know how to stoke us rabble, when things get quiet... :snigger

 

[El Dude]

I completely agree that results and stats never tell the story - maybe not even half of it. For instance, if we look the record of David Nalbandian we see a very good player, but we don't know just how talented he was, that he had "multi-Slam talent" but the mentality (and physique) of a deli clerk (and just to be clear, I've been a deli clerk so am not insulting them - it just doesn't exactly take a championship mentality).

Anyhow, saying that "Rafa was injured, he couldn't complete, so he couldn't win" is essentially saying that ANYONE would have beaten him in that state. To be honest, I didn't watch the match but I didn't get the sense that he was THAT injured. I mean, he could play, right? Obviously he was significantly injured, but that phrase you used implies he was so injured that anyone would have beaten him, which completely takes any credit away from Stan.

 

[Kieran]

Well, maybe you should watch the match and see what conclusion you draw.

I'm glad you're not insulting deli clerks and I'm sure you know that I'm not insulting them either when I say that I'm resisting the urge to crack a "Daveed in a deli" gag. But he is a player who has been made lame too often by injuries, regardless of his limitations as champ material...

 

[Iona16]

Why is it that whenever a great player loses, people come out of the woodwork to make excuses as to why it happened? Must be injury, not on his game, struggling, etc. It can't possibly be because one player out-played another. This happened with Rafa at the AO and Andy at Wimbledon. I know, I know, Rafa was injured and Andy has struggled this year - but that's all part of the sport, all part of a player's record. We can't separate out all a player's best matches and say "This is who they really are" and make excuses for the rest; we end up with an extremely partial and skewed view of said player. This is why we should thank Cali for giving us an example of how far this can go into absurdity.

In the end, results are results. A player should be judged by their total record, not just the days that they woke up feeling peppy and fresh. It is like a marriage; if you're a douche to your wife you can't expect her to be so quickly forgiving because "I wasn't feeling myself today." Everything counts.

Federer had mono in early 2008. No surprise he lost to Murray in the first round in Dubai, or Fish in IW. Nadal hurt his back in this year’s Australian Open final. No surprise he lost to Wawrinka. Federer was outplayed in the 2008 Roland Garros final. No excuses. Nadal was outplayed in the 2010 WTF final. No excuses. (Again, just random examples.)

The H2H with Federer v Fish was 5-0 before IW. That loss was a shock. He hasn't beaten Roger since and so it's a loss that stands out.

I'd argue the Murray example is a poor one. When Murray met Federer in Dubai in 2008 the H2H was 1-1. Murray had won the previous match in straight sets - Cincinnati 2006. They played 4 times in 2008 and Murray won 3 of them. Federer won the other meeting which was the US Open. That was the year Andy played Rafa over 2 days in the semis and had no day off before the final. I'm mentioning that fact for a bit of balance. You would think Andy had never had a tough schedule the way some some posters go on. He's had his fair share.

My main point is that the Federer's loss to Murray in Dubai doesn't stand out for me.

I agree with the rest of your post Tented.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Excuses and legit reasons must be separated. "Dog ate my homework" is an excuse. " There was a gas leak and our home blew up and my parents are dead and I really could not concentrate on mating habits of fruit pickers in Guatemala last night" is a legit reason, if verified.

I honestly do not remember Rafa making a lot of excuses...it is usually Toni to the rescue a couple days later.

Roger, well, he believes every single match is on his racket, so he is confused when he loses and comes up with stupid stuff sometimes...but almost always, towards the end of an interview, he will credit his opponent and will say he was the better player on the day. He is too confused at the beginning though...

 

[Riotbeard]

Anyhow, saying that "Rafa was injured, he couldn't complete, so he couldn't win" is essentially saying that ANYONE would have beaten him in that state. To be honest, I didn't watch the match but I didn't get the sense that he was THAT injured. I mean, he could play, right? Obviously he was significantly injured, but that phrase you used implies he was so injured that anyone would have beaten him, which completely takes any credit away from Stan.

Once he was injured, beginning of set 2, rafa was admittedly a shell of himself, most players in the top 50 as long as they didn't completely choke, probably could have beaten rafa.

He was outplayed though in set 1. No signs of injury to me there.

 

[El Dude]

If Rafa was so badly injured that "most players in the top 50" could have beat him, how did he take the third set from Wawrinka?

I'm not denying that he was injured, but I think it might be overplayed just a bit. Stan had been playing great tennis for months, coming off the best year of his career (before 2014). If Rafa was has terribly debilitated as some say, how did he not go out in straights?

Again, Rafa was clearly injured, and it obviously effected his performance. But I think it is magnified because of the underlying assumption that "there's no way a healthy Rafa could have lost to Stanislas Wawrinka in a Grand Slam final."

 

[Riotbeard]

If Rafa was so badly injured that "most players in the top 50" could have beat him, how did he take the third set from Wawrinka?

I'm not denying that he was injured, but I think it might be overplayed just a bit. Stan had been playing great tennis for months, coming off the best year of his career (before 2014). If Rafa was has terribly debilitated as some say, how did he not go out in straights?

Again, Rafa was clearly injured, and it obviously effected his performance. But I think it is magnified because of the underlying assumption that "there's no way a healthy Rafa could have lost to Stanislas Wawrinka in a Grand Slam final."

Stan pretty much mentally choked away the 3rd set. Didn't know what to do with how bad rafa was playing.

 

[tented]

Federer had mono in early 2008. No surprise he lost to Murray in the first round in Dubai, or Fish in IW. Nadal hurt his back in this year’s Australian Open final. No surprise he lost to Wawrinka. Federer was outplayed in the 2008 Roland Garros final. No excuses. Nadal was outplayed in the 2010 WTF final. No excuses. (Again, just random examples.)

The H2H with Federer v Fish was 5-0 before IW. That loss was a shock. He hasn't beaten Roger since and so it's a loss that stands out.

I'd argue the Murray example is a poor one. When Murray met Federer in Dubai in 2008 the H2H was 1-1. Murray had won the previous match in straight sets - Cincinnati 2006. They played 4 times in 2008 and Murray won 3 of them. Federer won the other meeting which was the US Open. That was the year Andy played Rafa over 2 days in the semis and had no day off before the final. I'm mentioning that fact for a bit of balance. You would think Andy had never had a tough schedule the way some some posters go on. He's had his fair share.

My main point is that the Federer's loss to Murray in Dubai doesn't stand out for me.

I agree with the rest of your post Tented.

You're right -- Murray wasn't a proper example, given their history. He could have won that match even if Roger had been in perfect health.

 

[tented]

I think also that, more often than not, when a great player loses it is a combination of factors. When Andy Murray lost to Grigor Dimitrov, not only was he playing poorly and his head wasn't in the game, but Grigor played exceptionally well - he capitalized on Andy being down. In other words, I would guess that when a great player loses to a lesser player, it is usually a combination of two factors: something bothering the great player, whether injury or personal stuff, and the lesser player playing lights out.

In other words, it is almost always complex, a combination of factors. Rarely is it JUST the great player being injured or ONLY that they were outplayed. For instance, Rafa could have won the AO against a lesser opponent or Stan v. 2012. Him losing was a combination of his injury AND Stan playing well enough to beat him. The same for other instances (e.g. Roger losing badly to Andy at the 2012 Olympics - he was tired AND Andy was playing extremely well).

I think it is making excuses when the other side of the picture is ignored or significantly downplayed. "Stan wouldn't have won if Rafa hadn't been injured." You know what? We can't know that.

Kieran has already posted a really good response to this, so I won't reiterate his points, but I do want to state that I agree with the essence of your post. It is a combination of factors when a top player loses. Always. There are two players on the court, therefore two people involved in the outcome.

We've all seen examples of the the top guys in compromised shape still winning matches (Nadal vs. Verdasco, Cincinnati 2011), and we've seen examples of their opponents taking advantage of these situations and pulling off the upset (Murray vs. Dimitrov at Wimbledon).

 

[Moxie]

^ I think this is a very useful thread, and agree with many of the points made. We seem to fall into a habit of arguing over a loss/upset of the really top guys, Roger and Rafa specifically, as to whether it was that they were out-played, or if there was some "excuse." Either/or. I think that it's not unfair to say that sometimes there are "extenuating circumstances" that contribute to a loss, which doesn't have to denigrate the victor. And sometimes, yes, they were merely out-played. But, as tented posits in his OP, with players who win so much, we do look for reasons. Which isn't the same as looking for "excuses."

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Excuses and legit reasons must be separated. "Dog ate my homework" is an excuse. " There was a gas leak and our home blew up and my parents are dead and I really could not concentrate on mating habits of fruit pickers in Guatemala last night" is a legit reason, if verified.

I honestly do not remember Rafa making a lot of excuses...it is usually Toni to the rescue a couple days later.

Roger, well, he believes every single match is on his racket, so he is confused when he loses and comes up with stupid stuff sometimes...but almost always, towards the end of an interview, he will credit his opponent and will say he was the better player on the day. He is too confused at the beginning though...

Actually, this thread got created in some way due to Grigor's win over Murray in
Wimbledon. Let us try to be objective. Let us see as to what is the excuse Murray got
to lose that match.

1. Was he injured? I don't think so.
2. Was he tired from his previous matches? No.
3. Was he too old? No, He is 27.
4. Did his grandfather or first coach die?
5. Was he out of action for a long time and coming back after that? No.
6. Was he having mono? probably not.
7. Was he having any knee issues? I don't think so.
8. Was he having any wrist issues? I don't think so.
9. Was he playing in his least favorite surface? No.
10. Was the crowd against him? No.
11. Was the climate (rain or wind) had something do with it? No.
12. Was the light fading/poor? No.
13. Was he not in form? No, He just won 4 matches in a row in straight sets.

So, what is the excuse then. He had an "off day". What exactly is
an "off day"? As I understand, an off day means he played poorly.
Of course, people often lose when they play poorly. How is it
supposed to explain away anything in a manner that does not
reflect poorly on him.

Now, one might say, he had an off day presumably because he is
upset about something; we don't even know what it is. Just as a player
is expected to be fit for matches, a player is also expected to be
mentally stable and mature. It is part of the sport to show up with
body and mind for the match. Simply saying that his mind was not
in the game for unknown reasons does not seem to me to be a legitimate
excuse. Having said that if later on, we learn something reasonable, like say Kim told him
that she is breaking up with him, I am willing to change my mind.

Even though Murray did not have a legitimate excuse,
it is a fact that he did not play very well that day. Hence, I agree
with many folk's remark that too much stock should not
be put on Grigor's ability based on that one match.

Having said that, Grigor's win over Murray is not a one
off. He already beat him once more this year. Also, the
overall results of Grigor this year is certainly on the upswing.
Even his losses (for example his loss to Rafa at AO) are quite
good. So, the match against Andy is just one data point
and should be taken in the overall content of Grigor's year.
We should certainly give credit to the overall progress of
Grigor. Of course, I am not exactly saying that he is going
to win the next GS.

p.s. Mods, I don't know to what thread this belongs. Feel free to
cross post this to the other thread "what do you think of Grigor's
chances.............." thread.

p.s.2. Compare the Murray loss "off day" excuse to Fed loss "had
a tough long 19-17 match against JMDP and so physically tired"
excuse? Tell me which one is "dog eat my homework"?

 

[Moxie]

^ GSM: Perhaps you could just read a few of the posts above yours, or the whole thread, and realized the point is that there aren't especially excuses, but multiple contributing factors to lots of wins/losses. Surely, Dimitrov out-played Murray in the match you cite, but it takes only the naked eye also to see that Murray was off that day, for whatever reason. No one thing to tick off in your laundry list of "excuses," (which you treat as "pre-fab," just by listing them. I think you've possibly missed the point the thread, entirely. It's also possible that your answer is more suited to the other thread, but it's not up to Mods or Admins to correct that for you.) To the point of the thread, Murray's having suffered from the pressures of defending, or having a new coach or whatever, it's not an excuse, but a "contributing factor" to the result that day. Dimitrov won fair and square, and may have won anyway, but it's not unfair or untrue to say that Murray didn't pull in his best performance that day.

Likewise with Fed in the Olympics gold medal match. It was a "contributing factor" that he'd played a long grueling SF with DP 2 days prior. It's not the only reason he lost, though it likely contributed to the score.

The point of this thread is that it's not an "excuse" to look for reasons for upset, or to hold both notions in our heads that one player was exceptionally good, when the other wasn't able to play his best, and to explore if/why. There is value in discussing the nuance, rather than just seeing it as black or white.

 

[Kieran]

p.s.2. Compare the Murray loss "off day" excuse to Fed loss "had
a tough long 19-17 match against JMDP and so physically tired"
excuse? Tell me which one is "dog eat my homework"?

The one which says, "Five ****ing minutes before the match, the dog came in!"

 

[El Dude]

You mean FORTY-five ****ing minutes before the match, Kieran

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^ GSM: Perhaps you could just read a few of the posts above yours, or the whole thread, and realized the point is that there aren't especially excuses, but multiple contributing factors to lots of wins/losses. Surely, Dimitrov out-played Murray in the match you cite, but it takes only the naked eye also to see that Murray was off that day, for whatever reason. No one thing to tick off in your laundry list of "excuses," (which you treat as "pre-fab," just by listing them. I think you've possibly missed the point the thread, entirely. It's also possible that your answer is more suited to the other thread, but it's not up to Mods or Admins to correct that for you.) To the point of the thread, Murray's having suffered from the pressures of defending, or having a new coach or whatever, it's not an excuse, but a "contributing factor" to the result that day. Dimitrov won fair and square, and may have won anyway, but it's not unfair or untrue to say that Murray didn't pull in his best performance that day.

Likewise with Fed in the Olympics gold medal match. It was a "contributing factor" that he'd played a long grueling SF with DP 2 days prior. It's not the only reason he lost, though it likely contributed to the score.

The point of this thread is that it's not an "excuse" to look for reasons for upset, or to hold both notions in our heads that one player was exceptionally good, when the other wasn't able to play his best, and to explore if/why. There is value in discussing the nuance, rather than just seeing it as black or white.

I have read every single post in this thread; don't do baseless suggestions that I am
typing without reading.

I am not claiming that the list of questions that I posed are an exhaustive set of valid
excuses. There can be several other valid excuses. I have bolded the excuse/contributing
factor that you are suggesting. The pressure of winning Wimbledon after 77 years of no
British Winners out there is lot more. Murray himself has said that he will never ever face
greater pressure than that. Also, that is neither the first match nor the first tournament
under Murray. Obviously, those are very lame. If you are going to come up with that
kind of excuses, then we can explain away every single loss in the whole history of
tennis.

The point is that the whole forum collectively jumped on fastgrass essentially
accepting that there was some valid excuse, while nobody could name one. However,
nobody seemed to accept (except me, Front and may be few others) that tiredness
was a factor in the Olympic loss by Fed against Murray. See your own messages in
that thread. That is what double standards are about.

Once again, let me reiterate that an excuse/extenuating circumstance/contributing
factor should be something that explains the loss and does not reflect poorly on the
players. The "off day" excuse means the player did not play well that day and I don't
see what is in that explanation that makes us view the player positively despite the
loss. The only difference is that top players have few "off days" and Simon has
"lot more off days".