Tennis
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Common sense for many, a results trap for many others, where a player who has just caused a very big upset much more often than not loses in the very next round and quite handsomely too, rarely is one big win/upset followed by another. There are a multitude of reasons for this (aside from just being the inferior player who was bound to lose anyway) such as…
1) Psychologically they are done, in their head they have already won their tournament in what felt like a final the previous round.
2) Naturally a drop in intensity occurs as the euphoric, sensation feeling of the big win still lingers.
3) They cannot cope with the new-found pressure of backing up such a big win, they succumb to the overwhelming positive response of friends, family, peers who are in contact immediately, the urge to satisfy and weight of expectation is too much to carry.
4) They are unsettled / perturbed by increased interest, publicity and media duties.
5) Big upsets usually involve gruelling or emotionally draining matches rather than simple straight sets wins which given their bodies and minds are not accustomed to, inevitably affects their performance in the next round.
Classic case in hand will be Brengle who will lose to Garcia tomorrow after beating Kvitova probably in straights.
JBABPS
Kind Regards
1) Psychologically they are done, in their head they have already won their tournament in what felt like a final the previous round.
2) Naturally a drop in intensity occurs as the euphoric, sensation feeling of the big win still lingers.
3) They cannot cope with the new-found pressure of backing up such a big win, they succumb to the overwhelming positive response of friends, family, peers who are in contact immediately, the urge to satisfy and weight of expectation is too much to carry.
4) They are unsettled / perturbed by increased interest, publicity and media duties.
5) Big upsets usually involve gruelling or emotionally draining matches rather than simple straight sets wins which given their bodies and minds are not accustomed to, inevitably affects their performance in the next round.
Classic case in hand will be Brengle who will lose to Garcia tomorrow after beating Kvitova probably in straights.
JBABPS
Kind Regards
Show More
So you're saying Sorana will lose on Monday after winning against Garbine on Saturday?
She's an exception to this rule as she's always been the bigger player in my mind whoever she meets 
I wish there were more posts like this on the forum; sometimes we just need to see it spelt out like this to realise what's really going on.
Remember when Rosol beat Nadal in 2014. Rosol out next round. I think your on to something with this.
A lot of the time the reason this happens is because upsetting the odds twice is unlikely. A lot of players who do a big upset are heavy underdog again next round to win, hence likely to lose.
They invariably lose for all the reasons stated by the OP.
Madgalena Rybarikova hasn't though here, in part because what I said, she's been favourite in her matches since, she blew open her section by beating Pliskova. Most players like Muller are heavy odds against next round after their upset win.
Yeah Rybarikova (if she wins) is keeping very composed, isn't expending the energy like it's the match of her life. Should avoid this thread.
Plus she's 'expected' to comfortably lose all three of her matches. It's not like Rosol losing to Kohlschreiver in straight sets (which must be the classic example).
Plus she's 'expected' to comfortably lose all three of her matches. It's not like Rosol losing to Kohlschreiver in straight sets (which must be the classic example).
Kohli was sizable fave in that match (but Rosol was far lower than Kohli outright).
This stat is very noticable with Rafa Nadal. Robin Söderling beat him in R16 at RG 2009 and managed to make the final, but ever since that time any player that's caused a big upset against Rafa in a Slam has lost in the following round:
Ferrer AO 11, Rosol Wimbledon 12, Darcis Wimbledon 13 (withdrew), Kyrgios Wimbledon 14, Berdych AO 15, Brown Wimbledon 15, Fognini USO 15, Verdasco AO 16, Pouille USO 16.
So that doesn't bode well for Muller tomorrow.
Ferrer AO 11, Rosol Wimbledon 12, Darcis Wimbledon 13 (withdrew), Kyrgios Wimbledon 14, Berdych AO 15, Brown Wimbledon 15, Fognini USO 15, Verdasco AO 16, Pouille USO 16.
So that doesn't bode well for Muller tomorrow.
Kohli was sizable fave in that match (but Rosol was far lower than Kohli outright).
Interesting divergence.
In contrast, Muller is priced as a massive dog both against Cilic and in O/R.
Suggests the two week strawberries and cream tennis punter 'ain't getting fooled again' after being burnt by Nadal v Rosol and Darcis in the space of two wimbledons.
Interesting divergence.
In contrast, Muller is priced as a massive dog both against Cilic and in O/R.
Suggests the two week strawberries and cream tennis punter 'ain't getting fooled again' after being burnt by Nadal v Rosol and Darcis in the space of two wimbledons.
the 4 hour 48 mins and being 34 just might have a bit of an effect on him getting beat tomorrow rather than any let down after a big win
Rosol was like 3s to beat Kohlschreiber.
The 5 hours match might be a factor, but the biggest factor is surely that if this had just hypothetically been a R1 match people would expect Cilic to win, he's simply a better player, that is the biggest factor.
The 5 hours match might be a factor, but the biggest factor is surely that if this had just hypothetically been a R1 match people would expect Cilic to win, he's simply a better player, that is the biggest factor.
You don't need to keep repeating that n88, if you read opening post aside from just being the inferior player who was bound to lose anyway, we know that is the main reason. Point being, the player is even less likely to cause another upset because of reasons stated.
Surely Cilic is a good bet now currently 1.6. Didn't want to take 1.25 at the start.
Decent thread here. Wonder how the profitability of a lay strategy would fair over the years on this. Would have to set some criteria of course, perhaps based on seeding
If i had to guess before i saw this thread, I would have guessed the odds for the player who just successfully upset a player would be too short on average due to the hype surrounding their victory.
Or do we think the odds are generally correct over a longer period where this happens?
If i had to guess before i saw this thread, I would have guessed the odds for the player who just successfully upset a player would be too short on average due to the hype surrounding their victory.
Or do we think the odds are generally correct over a longer period where this happens?
that would be interesting to know, it does seem though that the big win the previous round does become a differential between the starting price after a big win and what it would have been without the big win, more often than not, it's never a huge differential however. Lay strategy based on it would require analysis of historic data.
Do we think we can apply the same logic to other individual sports such as darts snooker etc. Obviously physically not an issue but certainly mentally affected in the next round.
I used to play a bit of snooker. I played a match and had my highest ever break in a match, a clearance of 87. I then went into the next round and played like a total novice and i exited the tournament.
Great thread by the way.
I used to play a bit of snooker. I played a match and had my highest ever break in a match, a clearance of 87. I then went into the next round and played like a total novice and i exited the tournament.
Great thread by the way.
Do we think we can apply the same logic to other individual sports
don't see why not, every time Arsenal suffer a shock loss it seems to throw the team who beat them into a state of discombobulation, such is the enormity of the feat
It would be another interesting thing to research but too lengthy for me to do so, but in theory there's no reason why other sports or sports people can't/don't/wouldn't suffer from the same syndrome.
As a matter of interest, what happened to the rest of your name england v south afr... ?
don't see why not, every time Arsenal suffer a shock loss it seems to throw the team who beat them into a state of discombobulation, such is the enormity of the feat
It would be another interesting thing to research but too lengthy for me to do so, but in theory there's no reason why other sports or sports people can't/don't/wouldn't suffer from the same syndrome.
As a matter of interest, what happened to the rest of your name england v south afr... ?
someone please explain mes what individual sport means. ty
If you need to ask the question I doubt the answer will help
The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user: geordie1956.
You can manage your blocked users list here .
my mistake mouse
. I don't follow Snooker or Darts however.
But it could still apply in team sports
I’ll give you two examples from football last season, Barcelona and Real Madrid, looking at the surprise losses they suffered in La Liga and the results of the team that beat them in the match after in La liga
Surprise defeat………………………….next match
Barcelona LOST to Alaves ……….Alaves DREW with Deportivo La Coruna
Barcelona LOST to Celta Vigo…..Celta LOST to Villerreal
Barcelona LOST to Deportivo…..Deportivo LOST to Celta Vigo
Barcelona LOST to Malaga……….Malaga lost to Deportivo La Coruna
Real Madrid LOST to Sevilla…….Sevilla BEAT Osasuna
Real Madrid LOST to Valencia….Valencia LOST to Deportivo Alaves
Madrid’s other loss was to Barca, but Barca are obviously not inferior.
Would need to look into the big 4 in England.
You can manage your blocked users list here .
my mistake mouse
. I don't follow Snooker or Darts however.But it could still apply in team sports
I’ll give you two examples from football last season, Barcelona and Real Madrid, looking at the surprise losses they suffered in La Liga and the results of the team that beat them in the match after in La liga
Surprise defeat………………………….next match
Barcelona LOST to Alaves ……….Alaves DREW with Deportivo La Coruna
Barcelona LOST to Celta Vigo…..Celta LOST to Villerreal
Barcelona LOST to Deportivo…..Deportivo LOST to Celta Vigo
Barcelona LOST to Malaga……….Malaga lost to Deportivo La Coruna
Real Madrid LOST to Sevilla…….Sevilla BEAT Osasuna
Real Madrid LOST to Valencia….Valencia LOST to Deportivo Alaves
Madrid’s other loss was to Barca, but Barca are obviously not inferior.
Would need to look into the big 4 in England.
where a player who has just caused a very big upset much more often than not loses in the very next round and quite handsomely too
SF - Kudermetova 63 63 Cirstea
F - Potapova 63 61 Kudermetova
you could make a fortune following this logic.
Kind Regards.
SF - Kudermetova 63 63 Cirstea
F - Potapova 63 61 Kudermetova
you could make a fortune following this logic.
Kind Regards.
Magda Linette after putting out 2nd hottest streak player Ons jabeur in the first round (shock of the draw so far) immediately loses 6-3 6-2 to Trevisan
A bit earlier today Tomljanovic having beaten 5th seed Kontaveit in the first round immediately goes out to Gracheva
A bit earlier today Tomljanovic having beaten 5th seed Kontaveit in the first round immediately goes out to Gracheva
these wasted wins are annoying though, you just knew Magda was going to lose, the enormity of beating the best player in Africa was always going to get to her, her slam was done as soon as she shook hands with Jabba at the next in round 1.
the queen of this these days is Shelby Rogers.
Thinking about it, there's an interesting test for the syndrome here.
Namely... is its debilitating effect reduced if there's an overnight delay to mentally reset?
For the sake of argument let's say that a player that beats Felix in 4 sets including two successive tiebreaks should be beating Jack Sock but has been shackled by the syndrome.
If it wears off after an overnight mental reset is Cressy therefore faced with the equivalent of a straight sets win on a new day with the syndrome passed, which would make the current 5.6s for him to win a good value back?
Let's see.
Namely... is its debilitating effect reduced if there's an overnight delay to mentally reset?
For the sake of argument let's say that a player that beats Felix in 4 sets including two successive tiebreaks should be beating Jack Sock but has been shackled by the syndrome.
If it wears off after an overnight mental reset is Cressy therefore faced with the equivalent of a straight sets win on a new day with the syndrome passed, which would make the current 5.6s for him to win a good value back?
Let's see.
I've been thinking about that too.
as far as point #5 goes, there are some staggering numbers on how people who have upset Rafa at Slams have in almost all cases gone out in the next round, which adds to the theory that there's a physical aspect as well.
I thought for sure Tan would fall victim to this after beating Serena, but buy was I wrong. I am also not sure Felix is a big enough player to qualify for this syndrome, think it has to be a victory against a mega star that causes headlines for this to come into effect.
as far as point #5 goes, there are some staggering numbers on how people who have upset Rafa at Slams have in almost all cases gone out in the next round, which adds to the theory that there's a physical aspect as well.
I thought for sure Tan would fall victim to this after beating Serena, but buy was I wrong. I am also not sure Felix is a big enough player to qualify for this syndrome, think it has to be a victory against a mega star that causes headlines for this to come into effect.
yes, I do need to nail down the exact definition when people look up JBABP in the dictionary, maybe just after Wimbledon. Odds wise it probably doesn't qualify, probably have to be below 1.1, but either way you knew Cressy would lose next round.
Well he powered off to a 6-3 4-3 lead in the theoretical fresh day free from syndrome challenge.
Mugged the tie break to kill the momentum but momentum he did have.
Mugged the tie break to kill the momentum but momentum he did have.
Katie Boulter @katiecboulter
·23m
Little emotionally spent out there today but another year at the best tournament in the world. Thanks you for being so supportive and having my back means more than you know See you next year @Wimbledon
·23m
Little emotionally spent out there today but another year at the best tournament in the world. Thanks you for being so supportive and having my back means more than you know See you next year @Wimbledon
KaPlis not really a bigger player than Felix but it being in her home Slam on a big court factors in.
Victims
Halep 1.06 to loses to Snigur R1 US Open, Snigur loses next round to Marion in straights.
Fritz loses to Holt at 1.04 R1 US Open, Holt loses the next match to Cachin
Kasatkina loses to Dart at 1.14, Dart loses to next round to Galfi 64 60
one's to watch for today
Burel KO'd Rybakina (1.07), plays Van Uytvanck later on.
Galan doesn't count because Tsitsipas was injured.
Halep 1.06 to loses to Snigur R1 US Open, Snigur loses next round to Marion in straights.
Fritz loses to Holt at 1.04 R1 US Open, Holt loses the next match to Cachin
Kasatkina loses to Dart at 1.14, Dart loses to next round to Galfi 64 60
one's to watch for today
Burel KO'd Rybakina (1.07), plays Van Uytvanck later on.
Galan doesn't count because Tsitsipas was injured.
Tiafoe had the night of life, took out the player with the most slams and did it in style.
Media instantly going from zero recognition to hanging on his every word, talk of his being part of the new era.
So he's getting battered in straight sets in the Quarter final isn't he?
Media instantly going from zero recognition to hanging on his every word, talk of his being part of the new era.
So he's getting battered in straight sets in the Quarter final isn't he?
he wont get battered, but he's definitely susceptible to JBABPS.
Tbf beating Rafa outside of clay is no big deal these days.
He looks cooked.
He looks cooked.
He looked pretty frazzled but he has won two slams in the last 9 months!
Whatever happens we're on track for the worst slam final lineup since Krajicek/Washington
Whatever happens we're on track for the worst slam final lineup since Krajicek/Washington
Add Nick Kyrigos to this list.
You might be right Journeyman.
You might be right Journeyman.
if Alcaraz makes it I'd say it's slightly better than Cilic/Nishikori. But yeah, not very exciting. But that's what happens when the big 3 is getting older, Novak is not in it, Daniil/Step underperforming, Zverev is out and Thiem has not reached his heights from a few years ago.
Australian Open 2024
57th ranked Blink182ova beat Rybakina at 10/1, loses to Paolini in straights the next round
51st ranked Burel beat Pegula at 5/1, loses to Dodin in straights the next round
57th ranked Blink182ova beat Rybakina at 10/1, loses to Paolini in straights the next round
51st ranked Burel beat Pegula at 5/1, loses to Dodin in straights the next round
Yastremska - beat Vondrousova in R1 and made it all the way to the semis.
(although I'm not saying IJBABPS isn't a thing)
Yastremska wouldn't have even been a consideration for me, she's won a few tournaments, reached 21 in the world and had 15 wins against top 20 opponents, in contrast Burel had never beaten a top 20 player before Pegula, hasn't cracked top 50 ranking and never won a tournament at tour level, that was a real shocker beating Jessica Rabbit. Blink182ova as well, never been top 50, 1 solitary tournament win and just 4 top 20 wins before beating the fake Kazak, and one of those wins was against my future slam winner Kiki ffs must have been during that remarkable time when gap tooth was losing first round after first round after first round but somehow still clinging on to top 10 or thereabouts.
I'll get round to eventually detailing the exact criteria, but in general, it has to be a real shock win, Yastremska is a good player at her best and it wasn't a shock for me, a surprise maybe.
must have been during that remarkable time when gap tooth was losing first round after first round after first round but somehow still clinging on to top 10 or thereabouts.I'll get round to eventually detailing the exact criteria, but in general, it has to be a real shock win, Yastremska is a good player at her best and it wasn't a shock for me, a surprise maybe.
actually Blinkova has reached the dizzy heights of 34, still the original rationale stands
Popyrin beat Djokovic
Promptly loses 3-1 to Tiafoe next round
Van De Zandschulp beast 1.01 shot Alcaraz
Soundly beaten in straight sets to Draper next round.
Promptly loses 3-1 to Tiafoe next round
Van De Zandschulp beast 1.01 shot Alcaraz
Soundly beaten in straight sets to Draper next round.
wondering if this applies to Jess Peg, after beating Swiatek...?
Or, is she just too high a level here for that to count...
Or, is she just too high a level here for that to count...
Way to high a level, been 3rd in the world, has to be a real shock, Peculiar Pegula was only around 3.6.
Think the nearest we've got in the women's draw at this years US Open was Dolehide who upset Collins, fairly big upset really, lost to the pensioner Errani in straights the next round.
Think the nearest we've got in the women's draw at this years US Open was Dolehide who upset Collins, fairly big upset really, lost to the pensioner Errani in straights the next round.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539