Using "must-win" correctly

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

flexmaster33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
1,515
City & State/Province
Gresham, OR
It drives me nuts this time of year to watch highlights or pick up the newspaper and hear some reporter talking about the Lakers heading into a "must-win" Game 3.

Game 3 is never "must-win" in a best-of-7...that phrase should be reserved only for when a team is going to be officially eliminated if they lose.

Pretty simple math...Lakers lose Game 3 to fall behind 0-3, then reel off four straight...guess Game 3 wasn't a "must-win" then, huh?

pet peeve of mine.
 
I'm of the differing opinion, because I see every game in the playoffs as a must win, so it's useless to say any game is must win. Every loss is one step closer to elimination, so all of them are must win games.
I think we just need to retire the phrase.
 
It's cliche and often, when used, inaccurate. Saying or writing a team in down 2-0 or 3-0 is enough to let the reader know what the losing team is up against.
 
flexmaster33 said:
It drives me nuts this time of year to watch highlights or pick up the newspaper and hear some reporter talking about the Lakers heading into a "must-win" Game 3.

Game 3 is never "must-win" in a best-of-7...that phrase should be reserved only for when a team is going to be officially eliminated if they lose.

Pretty simple math...Lakers lose Game 3 to fall behind 0-3, then reel off four straight...guess Game 3 wasn't a "must-win" then, huh?

pet peeve of mine.

What will sports radio people talk about with this logic in place?
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
I don't think I'd ever really use it. Find more elaborate ways to say it. Maybe if it's in a quote, and then the rest of the quote needs to make up for it.
 
Point of Order said:
But Game 3 is literally a must-win for the Lakers, literally.

Kobe will have to literally explode and carry his team.
 
jlee said:
Point of Order said:
But Game 3 is literally a must-win for the Lakers, literally.

Kobe will have to literally explode and carry his team.

LOL, I don't know about that, but I think Phil Jackson literally just shat himself.
 
Game four is a must-win for the Mavs. Can't let the Lakers back into the series.
 
flexmaster33 said:
It drives me nuts this time of year to watch highlights or pick up the newspaper and hear some reporter talking about the Lakers heading into a "must-win" Game 3.

Game 3 is never "must-win" in a best-of-7...that phrase should be reserved only for when a team is going to be officially eliminated if they lose.

Pretty simple math...Lakers lose Game 3 to fall behind 0-3, then reel off four straight...guess Game 3 wasn't a "must-win" then, huh?

pet peeve of mine.

I would agree with a slight revision. I think a team that is down say 0-2 and is headed home for 2 games is in a must win situation for both of those games. The numbers show that a team that loses on the road and home is destine for trouble. Even 3-1 deficit heading back to you opponents house is a death sentence.
 
It's usually a really-ought-to-win situation. And people write "unanswered" when they mean "uninterrupted."
 
printdust said:
Point of Order said:
But Game 3 is literally a must-win for the Lakers, literally.

Literally: a word that needs to be retired.

If I remember right, some analyst once said a player was "exploding out there, and I mean that literally". I might have the wrong verb, but I know it was completely ridiculous.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top