It took 57 minutes for Amanda AniSimova to lose the simple female final in Wimbledon on Saturday (12), a 6-0, 6-0 defeat in the hands of Iga Swiatek. It took just over five minutes – and a few tears – to turn your failure into something different.
The video with the post-game comments of AniSimova soon became one of Wimbledon’s unforgettable moments, a moment of humanity after a brutal defeat.
Needing only one question, Anytismova, a 23 -year -old American, contained tears, praised his opponent, thanked the fans – and apologized too – and then was thrilled to compliment his mother, who had nourished and supported her after her father’s sudden death in 2019 and during her eight -month sabbath period of tennis, which began in 2023.
Needing only one question, Anytimova, a 23 -year -old, contained the tears, praised his opponent, thanked the fans – and he apologized – and then was thrilled to praise his mother, who nourished her and supported her after her father’s sudden death in 2019 and during her eight -month sabbatical period of tennis, which began in 2023.
“I know I didn’t have enough today, but I will keep working hard,” said AniSimova, wiping the tears. “I always believe in myself, so I hope to come back here one day.”
It was easy to understand why the moment went viral. For tennis fans, it was a moving demonstration, the cruelties of the exposed sport. For Amy Edmondson, a leadership and management teacher at Harvard Business School, it was something more: a masterful class about failure.
This may seem hard. But it shouldn’t be.
Edmondson has a particular interest in human failures. She firmly believes that we could all benefit if we talked much more. Then, when he watched Annisimova’s speech, he saw an example of an argument he presented in his 2023 book, “Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well”.
“It was brave,” said Edmondson. “It was honest, and then you realize how convincing it is and how few people really take this opportunity to be honest, vulnerable and generous after a devastating failure.”
Edmondson’s argument starts from a simple belief: the best companies fail more, no less. “The most successful or high performance organizations are not those that never fail,” she said. “They are those who detect and correct. And they are willing to take risks in new territories in ways that often lead to success – but often not.”
Edmondson believes that most human failures can be divided into three archetypes. There is basic failure, which often comes down to a simple error. You send an email to the wrong person at work or enter the wrong number in a expenses report. There are also complex flaws, when more complex systems, such as supply chains during a pandemic, fail due to multiple causes. Both types, basic and complex, can be corrected.
It is the third type of failure, which Edmondson classifies as “intelligent failure”, which is more beneficial, leading to knowledge, discovery and growth. To qualify, it offers four criteria: you are operating in a new territory, pursuing a goal, testing a hypothesis and carefully considered the risks.
“When a scientist has a good hypothesis, the forehead and she’s wrong, that’s not bad,” said Edmondson. “It’s a step closer to a revolutionary discovery.”
The most innovative companies, said Edmondson, adopt a similar approach. Athletes tend to understand this dynamic better than most. Jannik Sinner lost to Carlos Alcaraz in an epic five -set match in Roland Garros this year and then highlighted the value of this defeat after winning Alcaraz in the simple male final in Wimbledon on Sunday (13). “You just need to understand what you did wrong and work on that,” said Sinner.
Pete Sampras once described his defeat to Stefan Edberg at the 1992 US Open as one of the most important moments of his career. After beating the first set 6-3, Sampras lost second set 6-4 and lost in Tiebreak in the third, when his head lowered and all his behavior changed. Edberg then knew that he had defeated him.
“I knew, in the back of my heart, that I didn’t fight so much,” Sampras said later. “I really didn’t want enough at that time. And that’s when things changed. When I lost the departure, it bothered me, I got annoyed. I feel I gave myself. I promised myself that I would never let it happen again. So I face that match like the crucial of my career – and it was a defeat.”
Sampras went forward and won 13 more Grand Slam titles in the following decade.
For those who are not elite athletes, Edmondson believes that the ability to accept failure can be weaker. Most people are better in evaluating the failures of others than their own. And, be it a basic, complex or intelligent failure, they need to react to it with the same emotions.
“We have to learn to deal well with failures in new territories,” said Edmondson.
It’s not easy, but there are ways to improve. Edmondson believes that people should always consider the “true rational risks” of a situation and then encode it as such. AniSimova, for example, lost money and career advances when losing on Saturday, but still was just a tennis match.
She never managed to overcome Swiatek on the court. She became only the second woman to lose a Grand Slam final 6-0 and 6-0, and after the match, she described what had gone wrong.
She was tired after defeating Aryna Sabalenka in the heat two days earlier. She fought to maintain the composure.
“I felt paralyzed by my nerves,” she said.
So she did something important and powerful: she reformulated defeat as an opportunity for growth, finding comfort in a quote from writer Marianne Williamson: “Pain can burn you and destroy you, or burn you and redeem you.”
“I said to myself, ‘I will definitely come out stronger after that,'” she said. “I mean, it’s not easy to go through it, lose 0-0 in a Grand Slam final. But I can face it as something positive.”
