If you win the turnover battle and the explosive play battle in the same game, you win it 98 percent of the time. Now, can you win it with only winning one and losing one? Sure, but if you lose both of 'em, you only win 2 percent of the games where that occurrence happens.
We've got to be willing to lose the primary in order to win the general election.
We're going to fight this battle with everything we have, and we will probably lose. But then we will fight it again, and we will lose a little less, for this battle will win us many supporters. And then we'll lose *again*. And *again*. And we will fight on. Because as hard as it is to win by fighting, it's impossible to win by doing nothing.
We don't realize that we face a frustrating situation in which we win every battle, but we lose the war.
To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle and lose the war.
You can tell yourself that you would be willing to lose everything you have in order to get something you want. But it's a catch-22: all of those things you're willing to lose are what make you recognizable. Lose them, and you've lost yourself.
From the neck up is where you win or lose the battle. It's the art of war. You have to lock yourself in and strategise your mindset. That's why boxers go to training camps: to shut down the noise and really zone in.
If we can remain present and deal with the moment in front of us, no matter what our battle, then if we lose, we'll know that ultimately we weren't supposed to win that battle in the first place.
In order to win, each player has to be willing to put the team ahead of themselves. They have to set their own interests aside so the team can succeed, and they have to take incredible risks in order to score a win.
There are some patriotic citizens who sincerely hope that America will win the war - but they also hope that Russia will lose it; and there are some who hope that America will win the war, but that England will lose it; and there are some who hope that America will win the war, but that Roosevelt will lose it.
Every man should lose a battle in his youth, so he does not lose a war when he is old.
When you have war, whether it's a war against drugs, war against terrorism, war overseas, the mentality of the people change and they're more willing to sacrifice their liberties in order to be safe and secure.
If you win the turnover battle, you're gonna win more than you lose - and quite a bit more than you lose.
I think sometimes, when you're on top and all you do is win, win, win, win, win, you get lazy and lose focus. When you lose it opens your eyes and you get serious. There is always a time when it is good to lose, at the right time for you.
I dont think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Viet-Nam, against the Communists.