In these situations it's not necessarily about a player actively wanting to tank. If they can go out and win 6-0 6-0 that's probably almost as easy as losing 0-6 0-6. It's moreso about one player fighting for their tournament life, and a significant paycheck for R1, versus a player who is basically getting some on-court practice time in.
In my opinion, with the way Birrell played she really had no business even getting close to winning the match yet she did. I watched pretty much all the match but I had to watch it on the tiny screen in my sportsbook app so my analysis is somewhat limited but here are the highlights (or lowlights):
- The first set was close going into the 9th game with Rak serving at 4-4 and at the beginning of the game it seemed like Rak might conveniently get broken in the crucial game and go on to lose the set. Rak hits an unforced error and gets down a bit early and ends up facing a couple break points in the game. Then there were a couple second serves Rak hit that looked like personally giftwrapped presents for her opponent. Birrell rockets one into the bottom of the net and hits another return that lands outside the doubles court. So Rak holds and then in the next game a distraught Birr has probably her worst service game of the match and is broken to lose the set.
- Next we're on to the second set and I'm sure at that point Rak's mindset would shift to hopefully just go ahead and finish it in 2 without putting up too much of a fight. But she got broken early and then seemed completely resigned to losing the set after that. The worst case scenario for Rak at that point would be to use up energy fighting her way back into the set but end up losing it anyways. It got to the point where Rak was serving down 1-5 and 0-40 but Birr suddenly forgets how to hit the ball back into play again and makes it almost impossible for Rak to lose the game. Birr serves out the set next game though.
- Even with Birrell winning 55% of the points in the 3rd set it still went to a tiebreak since she seemed to lose points at all the worst times. Again she gets up a break and looks poised to cruise to victory but of course when given the chance to serve out the match she starts spraying balls everywhere. Set then goes to tiebreak and Rak is only able to win a single point on serve.
So to sum it up, with the way the match played out Rak didn't actively try to lose the match but at the same time she didn't go out of her way to try and win it either. The difference in the match was simply the difference between one player fighting for their life and another player who's not. In a match where both players will be motivated to win I believe it will be a much different outcome.
0
@vqvq
In these situations it's not necessarily about a player actively wanting to tank. If they can go out and win 6-0 6-0 that's probably almost as easy as losing 0-6 0-6. It's moreso about one player fighting for their tournament life, and a significant paycheck for R1, versus a player who is basically getting some on-court practice time in.
In my opinion, with the way Birrell played she really had no business even getting close to winning the match yet she did. I watched pretty much all the match but I had to watch it on the tiny screen in my sportsbook app so my analysis is somewhat limited but here are the highlights (or lowlights):
- The first set was close going into the 9th game with Rak serving at 4-4 and at the beginning of the game it seemed like Rak might conveniently get broken in the crucial game and go on to lose the set. Rak hits an unforced error and gets down a bit early and ends up facing a couple break points in the game. Then there were a couple second serves Rak hit that looked like personally giftwrapped presents for her opponent. Birrell rockets one into the bottom of the net and hits another return that lands outside the doubles court. So Rak holds and then in the next game a distraught Birr has probably her worst service game of the match and is broken to lose the set.
- Next we're on to the second set and I'm sure at that point Rak's mindset would shift to hopefully just go ahead and finish it in 2 without putting up too much of a fight. But she got broken early and then seemed completely resigned to losing the set after that. The worst case scenario for Rak at that point would be to use up energy fighting her way back into the set but end up losing it anyways. It got to the point where Rak was serving down 1-5 and 0-40 but Birr suddenly forgets how to hit the ball back into play again and makes it almost impossible for Rak to lose the game. Birr serves out the set next game though.
- Even with Birrell winning 55% of the points in the 3rd set it still went to a tiebreak since she seemed to lose points at all the worst times. Again she gets up a break and looks poised to cruise to victory but of course when given the chance to serve out the match she starts spraying balls everywhere. Set then goes to tiebreak and Rak is only able to win a single point on serve.
So to sum it up, with the way the match played out Rak didn't actively try to lose the match but at the same time she didn't go out of her way to try and win it either. The difference in the match was simply the difference between one player fighting for their life and another player who's not. In a match where both players will be motivated to win I believe it will be a much different outcome.
Thank you but far from that. The key to success is getting everyone involved from all over the world to discuss different angles, opinions, information, etc For example, Lord B. and his Birrel play. Never would have thought to work his angle. As we can see he was all over that.
0
@jpot34
Thank you but far from that. The key to success is getting everyone involved from all over the world to discuss different angles, opinions, information, etc For example, Lord B. and his Birrel play. Never would have thought to work his angle. As we can see he was all over that.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.