Invisible Greatness

[johnyandell]

Let's discuss Nate Chura's article, "Invisible Greatness"!

[johnyandell]

One of the best points in this article is from Emilio. How is it that you plan to win 25 points a set? What shot what pattern? And a further thought--when your 25 point plan isn't working this is an indication that you need to examine your execution or think about--ok what other options are there. Combined with Craig's point about the slimness of margins, this is an important consideration. You can't afford to let a lot of points get away.

[stotty]

"They tend to do it in a tie-breaker," he says "or right at the end of a set. They won't do it so much early on because it's a long haul, and if you go up and down throughout the set, you'd get pretty beaten up by the end of it. In general, it doesn't pay to get too up or too down point by point."


I found this excerpt interesting. You see, in his really BIG matches, I always think Murray gets too pumped too early on, and too often. I think this has been a major downfall of Murray's. All the really big matches Murray has played have been littered with this over-pumped behaviour. Take his latest match against Djokovic at the French Open. Murray was pumped as pumped could be in that first set. He won the fist set okay but then he simply had to come down a notch. You cannot be that pumped over five sets. It's a long haul. Djokovic goes about it miles better. He works is way into matches and paces himself perfectly. He saves the adrenaline for when it really matters.

I think Djokovic has come to understand himself on a tennis court and learnt significantly from experience as a result. I think Murray cannot control his angst and has learnt little from experience as a result. I speak purely from the mental aspect of their tennis.

A good article. I intend to add further comment soon...

[klacr]

Not sure why I didn't post on this article earlier. I swore I did. It's excellent. It's all between the ears, but its whats between the ears that allows you to execute. Having an understanding of your game so that you know exactly how to play and what to play.

Agree with spotty on the Murray issue getting pumped early. French Open was a great example. Murray gave his best stuff early, Djokovic took it and was soon absorbing it and handling it quite well and then turning the tables on Murray as Murray could not sustain it. Oh, and Djokovic is just flat out better than Murray in nearly every category...

But with Lendl in his corner, can Murray regain that invisible greatness he had in 2012-2013.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[natechura]

Invisible Greatness

Excellent points, gentlemen!

I am particularly pleased that the conversation has turned to Djokovic and Murray, not just because they're the current world no. 1 and 2, but because, from my perspective, their rivalry perfectly captures the invisible differences that define the modern prototype, from the pro tour to the NCAAs, to our local juniors...There is much more to come about the differences (and similarities) between these two players. As you will soon read:

Murray is 28 years old, 6’3” tall, 185 lbs, and a righty with a two-handed backhand. Djokovic is also 28 years old, 6’2” tall, weighs slightly less at 172 lbs, but is also a righty with a two-handed backhand. In the last 14 times they’ve played each other, Djokovic has won 13 times, most recently at Roland Garros. Could those 13 extra pounds really make the difference?


Spotty is spot on with respect to Murray's lack of emotional discipline and stress management. It's almost a cliché. I mean, how often do we see our junior and college players sabotaging their performances through anger and bad temper. But what I find even more interesting are the players with more subtle emotional weaknesses, those players who appear to be better at internalizing their stress, but implode just the same. Some players that immediately come to mind: Tomas Berdych, David Ferrer, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Marcos Baghdatis...even the great Roger Federer!

Rafael Nadal is a very interesting case, because he is very mentally and emotionally tough in all the visible ways; however, during my time covering the US Open and following his press conferences at other tournaments over the years, I generally feel that he is prone to making excuses and complaining. Based upon the grievances he has aired over the years,
I can only imagine what is going on in his mind when things are not going his way on the court, but it can't be good. Though I have noted over the years how tacky compulsive complaining can be, I really didn't consider how damaging it can be to performance until I spoke with Allen Fox.

I'm curious what you guys think about this and your thoughts about what players can do to overcome these challenges.

[stotty]

Rafael Nadal is a very interesting case, because he is very mentally and emotionally tough in all the visible ways; however, during my time covering the US Open and following his press conferences at other tournaments over the years, I generally feel that he is prone to making excuses and complaining. Based upon the grievances he has aired over the years,
I can only imagine what is going on in his mind when things are not going his way on the court, but it can't be good. Though I have noted over the years how tacky compulsive complaining can be, I really didn't consider how damaging it can be to performance until I spoke with Allen Fox.

I think Nadal takes himself very seriously and increasingly more so as the years go by. It's his character and just the way he is. I don't find him a complainer so much as someone who just vents what he thinks. Unusually, he was more controlled about venting his thoughts at the start of his career than he has been of late. Usually as players get older and see playbacks of themselves giving pressers they improve in what they say and how they say it. It's terrible disconcerting to see oneself on video. Try it yourself.

I think misfortune has led to his current grumbling disposition. He probably deep down feels cheated. He has high expectations of himself and injuries have repeatedly gotten in the way of his potential, indeed probable, successes. You cannot help feeling his grand slam tally would be higher had he not spent so much time on the sidelines. In his heart he will feel he is a better player than Federer yet he is unlikely (as he is now 30 and injured again) to come away with the same spoils.

I think the Roger and Rafa rivalry is an excellent example of why greatness is not easily measured, even when players are contesting in the same era.

I find the top three (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer) hard to read as people. All three are so careful how they come across to the public that it makes their true character hard to read. I tend to judge people on how good they are and their capacity for kindness. I am not sure who to rank 1,2,and 3 in this department. If tennis truly reveals character then I would most likely err towards Roger being the nicest man of the three.

[natechura]

I think the Roger and Rafa rivalry is an excellent example of why greatness is not easily measured, even when players are contesting in the same era.

Putting all things personal aside (because I agree, the PR polish that most of the modern players possess makes it hard to distinguish their true nature), how would you measure Roger's greatness compared to Rafa's, or Novak's for that matter? I am very interested in getting some sample metrics from the tennis player community.

[stotty]

Putting all things personal aside (because I agree, the PR polish that most of the modern players possess makes it hard to distinguish their true nature), how would you measure Roger's greatness compared to Rafa's, or Novak's for that matter? I am very interested in getting some sample metrics from the tennis player community.

Good question, who is the greatest? Well that isn't so easy to answer. It would probably be grossly unfair to suggest any one is any better than the other. But there is one fair way to arbitrate:

Nadal is clearly the best on clay.

Federer, at his zenith, has a strong claim for the best on grass or even fast hard courts.

Djokovic is the best on slow to medium hard courts, no question.

You could argue, and many do, that many of Federer's slams were won cheap, against inferior opponents, in a weak era.

Rafa had it the hardest. He won his slams when the other two were at also at their peak.

Djokovic's has also had it hard but now the era has fallen in standard; Nadal has never really recouped and Federer is fading.

Nadal and Djokovic are better five set animals and have a better head to head grand slam tally against Federer. Nadal has a better tally versus Djokovic in grand slams.

I do feel Federer has played the highest level I have ever seen; against Murray last year at Wimbledon. And also, for a set or two here and there during his career, he has hit heights no one else has.

It's as broad as it's long. The greatest player is whoever you want it to be based on your own prejudice and bias. You can make an equally strong claim for all three players.

The greatest player of all time is Borg who would have won Roland Garros ten times had he not quit the game early....and I don't care what anyone else says or whatever argument is put up. I rest my case.

[don_budge]

A Lack of Data renders this a Mute Conversation...

Putting all things personal aside (because I agree, the PR polish that most of the modern players possess makes it hard to distinguish their true nature), how would you measure Roger's greatness compared to Rafa's, or Novak's for that matter? I am very interested in getting some sample metrics from the tennis player community.

I see your interest but it is impossible to say. Why? Because there is a definite lack of data. The modern game is too early to tell. Ask this question in another fifty years. No...make it a hundred. Then we will have a meaningful discussion about "greatness" as you put it. It isn't just "PR polish" as you put it...it is a downright deceptive nature and unnatural hype that begs the question.

By my estimate account "Modern Tennis" is only thirty years old. It has already gone through two radical departures from the original game. There was the supersonic serve and volley game that was played on the original surfaces with the bigger racquets and now we have the dumbed down backcourt version that has been virtually engineered beyond all recognition. Both Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic fall squarely in this limited version of the game.

To even begin to talk about the relative greatness about these players is wholly premature because there is so little to compare them to. With classic tennis you had generation after generation and in fact one could talk in terms of eras. What have you got now...overhyped and watered down populations. Even a devolved game.

These are the conversations that are rendered worthless and immaterial and therefore unimportant. Stupid even. We cannot even say legitimately where a player of Roger Federer's enormous success places him in the big picture of the greatest of all time. You cannot any longer compare players between the Modern era and the Classic era. It's too bad to. It would have been fun to discuss the relative greatness of these players but as it stands I would say that don't compare.

[johnyandell]

Another point I really liked in Nate's article made by Allen--playing with "better" players...as in my child only players with players above her or worse, my child only plays with her coach.

When I was teaching regularly like most pros I got students who just wanted to "play". When I was in my 30s I would say ok and take it as a free chance to work on my game--particular my serve and volley and approach and volley. I paid absolutely no attention to them. I was merciless and remember one younger, really arrogant student who I beat 0 and 0 in an hour, coming in literally on every first ball.

That type of experience is great for your confidence. In tournaments I began to serve and volley more--on key points and then regularly when it worked. I NEVER would have developed that dimension playing players above me.

I may have written about this before but I had a friend who was the top open player in norcal had been in the top hundred and was several levels above me. He liked to come over to my court and play drop and hit backcourt points. I got something out of that too--but I asked him why he liked it so much (more than I did honestly since he dominated thoroughly and I really had no chance other than a point here and there...) One word answer : "Conf!"

[johnyandell]

Nate, DB,

I have one word to say: Richard.

[stotty]

Nate, DB,

I have one word to say: Richard.

Surely not Gasquet!!!....

[johnyandell]

Surely not. Don't call him Pancho.

[natechura]

Richard

LOL!

I confess, you've stumped me, John. Is it Vinnie Richards? Renee Richards? Richard P my old editor at Tennis Week? Or my uncle Richie? LOL!

In any event, I definitely agree about Alan's research on playing with better or weaker players. As a coach, I feel so many players (and parents) are misguided on this crucial point. If I were to write a satirical novel about it I would title it "Swimming by Drowning."

Too often I find players subscribe to this strategy, hell-bent on swimming with the sharks. All that results from it is the swimmer getting eaten by the shark or drowned, because they are in way over their head.

Few people have the capacity to go slowly, step-by-step, inch-by-inch, which is the key to real growth. It reminds me of my favorite quote by Shakespeare. I repeat it so often my wife tells me she is going to divorce me if I recite it one more time:

"Nature, her custom holds, let shame say what it will: the more haste, the less speed."