Why the safest lead in tennis is often the most fragile

The so‑called curse of the 6‑1 set struck again in October, adding yet another chapter to one of tennis’s most persistent and fascinating patterns.

Last week, Coco Gauff became the latest high‑profile casualty on the WTA Tour. After racing through the opening set 6‑1 and building a 4‑2 lead in the second, she still went on to lose to Aryna Sabalenka. It was another reminder that even the most dominant-looking sets can offer a false sense of security.

Only days later at the Ningbo Open, Katerina Siniakova repeated the same unwanted achievement against Daria Kasatkina, winning the opening set 6‑1 before losing the match. For the Czech player, this was not an isolated incident—it was the second time in as many months she had fallen foul of the curse.

When the Pattern Becomes a Problem

Siniakova’s 2024 season has been unusually entangled with this phenomenon. In August at WTA Cincinnati, she lost to Anna Kalinskaya 6‑1, 2‑6, 3‑6. In July at the Prague Open, she also lost after winning the first set 6‑1, this time to Liudmila Samsonova, 6‑1, 5‑7, 3‑6.

As they say, things come in threes—but fortunately for Siniakova, she also managed to inflict the curse. At WTA Cleveland, she recovered from losing the opening set 1‑6 to beat Peyton Stearns 6‑3, 6‑4.

Across the season, an extraordinary 12.5% of Siniakova’s losses have involved a 6‑1 winning set that ultimately counted for nothing.

A Severe Case: Camila Osorio

If there is a 2024 poster player for the curse, it is Camila Osorio.

Only weeks ago at the China Open, the Colombian experienced back‑to‑back matches impacted by it. She first defeated Ajla Tomljanović 1‑6, 6‑3, 6‑3, before immediately suffering the reversal herself against Amanda Anisimova, losing 6‑1, 3‑6, 4‑6.

Osorio’s season contains multiple examples. She lost to Viktorija Golubic in Birmingham 4‑6, 6‑1, 3‑6, just three weeks after losing to Ons Jabeur at Roland‑Garros 3‑6, 6‑1, 3‑6. At the same time, she managed to turn the tables on others, winning matches in Lleida, Bogotá, and Miami despite losing a set 6‑1.

The origins of her curse date back even earlier. On January 8 in Hobart, Anna Karolína Schmiedlová recovered from losing the first set 1‑6 to win 7‑6, 7‑5. By season’s end, a staggering 16% of Osorio’s WTA matches had been affected by the 6‑1 set swing—the highest figure on tour.

How Common Is the Curse?

The answer is simple: extremely.

In almost any WTA tournament, on almost any week, at least one match—and often several—will feature this pattern. Even the biggest stages are not immune:

- Australian Open: 4 occurrences  
- French Open: 3 occurrences  
- Wimbledon: 3 occurrences  
- US Open:  3 occurrences  

This is not an anomaly. It is a structural feature of modern tennis.

Why Does It Happen So Often?

Several factors combine to make the curse remarkably persistent.

First, the scoring system itself. Winning a set has value, but it is not definitive. Just as a break of serve means little unless it is consolidated, a set only matters if it is followed by another. A fast start may simply reflect contrasting rhythms—one player sharp early, the other still calibrating.

Second, there is the infamous end‑of‑set bathroom break. The player who has just won the set wants to continue immediately, while the opponent disappears for ten to twelve minutes. The walk to and from the bathroom is not timed, so there is no incentive to hurry. Momentum evaporates, routines are disrupted, and the match resets.

Third, complacency and mental conflict play a role. A player who has just dominated a set can start the next one sloppily, while the opponent returns with renewed focus. Psychologically, it is often easier to chase a match than to reassert control after it slips away. Confusion creeps in—How am I struggling now after cruising?—and attention drifts from the present point. Momentum transfers almost unnoticed.

Finally, there is tactical energy management. In modern professional tennis, physical demands are enormous. Players sometimes make a conscious decision to let a set go, especially if they believe they are the stronger overall competitor. That “lost” 6‑1 set can become a reset—a chance to work through technical issues, regain clarity, and emerge stronger in the next set. Phrases like *getting match tight* or *working through demons* are often closer to the truth than they sound.

Not Just a WTA Phenomenon

While the curse is more visible on the WTA Tour due to shorter formats and more frequent momentum swings, it also exists in the men’s game—even in the biggest matches of all.

Consider these Wimbledon men’s singles finals:

- 2023: Carlos Alcaraz def. Novak Djokovic  
  1‑6, 7‑6, 6‑1, 3‑6, 6‑4  

- 2019: Novak Djokovic def. Roger Federer  
  7‑6, 1‑6, 7‑6, 4‑6, 13‑12  

- 1980: Björn Borg def. John McEnroe  
  1‑6, 7‑5, 6‑3, 6‑7, 8‑6  

Rafael Nadal and Goran Ivanišević also won sets 6‑1 in Wimbledon finals—in 2011 and 1992 respectively—only to lose the match.

A False Sense of Security

The lesson is clear. A 6‑1 set can flatter, deceive, and lull both players and spectators into misplaced confidence. In best‑of‑three tennis, the curse is embedded in the format itself—and it is not going anywhere.

So the next time a player storms through a set 6‑1, pause before celebrating too early. History suggests that dominance can vanish as quickly as it appears, and the curse may already be waiting to strike again.