sports where you can 100% outplay your opponent and lose?

[GuyIncognito]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't think of a single sport in which this cannot happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Competitive eating.

[RickAstleyFan]

Soccer was what came to mind for me first.

[BadBoyBenny]

I haven't read the thread but I would say there aren't any physical sports where this is the case. Just cause you scored more points and lost doesn't mean you outplayed the winner.

[quirkasaurus]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the thread but I would say there aren't any physical sports where this is the case. Just cause you scored more points and lost doesn't mean you outplayed the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I hate those sports where you score more points and
still lose.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dunno about american sports, but after reading the OP soccer immediately came to mind. Both on pro and amateur level.

About two years ago the team I played in had to pay the league leaders, we were third in the table.

They totally dominated us from start to end, I think we crossed the middle-line of the field 3 times, and we were able to score from a sneaky counter attack.

Second half we did not cross the line once. I think they hit the post 3 times, had about 25 corner kicks vs. none of ours, and basically all we did was defend, we could not set up a decent attack against them.

Final score 1-0 in our favour, weirdest game I ever played.

At pro level I have seen many many games that would qualify.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't understand how you don't consider that you outplayed them.

They hit the post? so, may as well have launched into the seats, it's either a goal, or it's not, and theres were not.

On the other hand, your team took advantage of a weakness of their's and scored a goal.

[/ QUOTE ]
agreed.

[THAY3R]

YA I NO RITE LYKE ONE TIME I HAD POCKET TOOS AND WENT ALL IN AND BEAT HOOKS AFTER I HITZ A NICE QUACKER ON THE RIVER ZOMG I OUTPLYED HIM HEHE LOL

[smurfitup]

i think this type of situation occurs fairly frequently in sports such as hockey and soccer where there is little scoring. a team can play brilliantly but a little bad luck and missed opportunities can easily translate into a loss.

[NicksDad1970]

NASCAR - A car can completely dominate and get taken out in a wreck.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]


I just don't understand how you don't consider that you outplayed them.

They hit the post? so, may as well have launched into the seats, it's either a goal, or it's not, and theres were not.

On the other hand, your team took advantage of a weakness of their's and scored a goal.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm agreed with this too.

How is hitting the post in soccer any different than the zillion different crazy bounces the ball can take back and forth on the rim on just about any shot in basketball?

Team A gets some wide-open looks and works the ball around great, but a high % of their shots end up hitting off the rim and taking a bad bounce out of the basket on them.

Ummm, that means they missed the shot.
Just as much as a soccer player who hit the post missed the shot.

Sometimes the ball clanks off the iron and is a really bad shot but takes a favorable bounce straight up in the air and somehow falls into the basket.
Woo-hoo!! 2 points!!
How on earth is soccer so special on the goal-post thing again?


Somebody else mentioned hitting a 1:100 shot at the end of a basketball game...or 1:1000 or whatever you want it to be.

Well, they would certainly be comfortable admitting that they got lucky that they hit it. But there is SOME degree of skill involved.

Think of the opposite way:
Lets say a kicker misses an extra-point at the end of a game which I'll approximate as a 1% or 2% occurance. Did they just get THAT unlucky? Or did they screw-up?

Lets say an easy ground-ball goes right between the legs of the shortstop to let in the winning run. This is roughly going to be in the 1% occurance range too.
Did he get unlucky or did he just screw-up?

Did the other team just get extremely lucky that the SS booted it? Or were they better skilled that they successfully executed enough plays while the other team didn't....and the other team's main screw-up just happened to come at the end.


I really don't get the distinction or why soccer or some of the other sports are supposed to be so special about this stuff.

Almost every time a batter hits the ball he just tries to hit it hard.
So many times all game long a batter makes crappy contact but ends up with a hit...or makes solid contact but it gets drilled right at somebody.
In every single baseball game there's so much luck that gets passed back and forth that I don't think the casual fan even notices. Fans are used to it.

In soccer there aren't going to be many scoring opportunities. So when some guy takes a good looking shot that hits the post it looks spectacular and everyone goes, "Oooooh....that was so incredibly unlucky that it didn't go in. The shot did beat the keeper afterall."
But I just don't see how such an 'unlucky' shot in soccer is any more unlucky than a shot clanking off the rim in basketball.

[grando]

[ QUOTE ]
OP and grando,

Your tennis criticism doesn't make sense. Scoring in tennis is by sets, not by points. Think about tennis like this. Points are called "downs" and games are called "legs" now. If you make 4 downs (must win by 2), you get a leg. If you get 6 legs (must win by 2), you win a point. Whoever scores the most points wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree - I guess my criticism lies in that tennis doesn't really do an effective job of taking out the luck element in its scoring