Cowardly & Brave Tennis

Tenez wrote:I have addressed it but you do not want to see it.

Amritia3ee wrote:
Becayse Player A is better at tennis than Player B!
So tell me Tenez, who is gutsier, player A or player B?
This can be applied anywhere. Federer vs Haas is an example, suppose on the point where Fed could lose the match he goes for a winner DTL.
He is player A, and because he is so good, he has a 80% chance of getting it (and thus winning the point). Meanwhile Player B can be anyone. He could also be in a similar position against Haas. He also goes for a winner DTL, and the chance of him making it is 20% (he is not as good as Federer).
So tell me Tenez, is Player B's shot not riskier than Federers.
If it is riskier then (according to your flawed notion) is it not more gutsy?
So Player B is more gutsy, in that moment, than Federer...?

I know you are a Federer fan, so you (and ROTLA) could use 'Player A' rather than Federer that would be good, so your emotions don't get in the way here.

Tenez wrote:Your player B is ranked #250, we don't know his name and he is having a good day pulling very risky shots, playing outside of his comfort zone, cause he knows he has not much to lose versus Federer.

I am not sure how your case adds to this discussion.

noleisthebest wrote:Amri,
Unfortunately, there is nothing theoretical about tennis. I wish it was. I'd be a multiple Wimbledon champion

noleisthebest wrote:Amri,
Unfortunately, there is nothing theoretical about tennis. I wish it was. I'd be a multiple Wimbledon champion

noleisthebest wrote:Amri, any news on Nadal's return?
I went to Wooffie's website, but it's all Rafa in various underwear, it's getting ebarrassing

Amritia3ee wrote:His ranking is highly irrelevant to the question.
He could be world number 20, with a brilliant backhand and terrible forehand. But still irrelevant.

Is he more gutsy, in the example I showed, than Federer? (Edit: I'm not saying these 2 players have to be up against each other. They could both be playing Player C).

It's a yes or no answer.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Amri,
Unfortunately, there is nothing theoretical about tennis. I wish it was. I'd be a multiple Wimbledon champion

So a single W title still leaves a lot be desired?

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:His ranking is highly irrelevant to the question.
He could be world number 20, with a brilliant backhand and terrible forehand. But still irrelevant.

Is he more gutsy, in the example I showed, than Federer? (Edit: I'm not saying these 2 players have to be up against each other. They could both be playing Player C).

His ranking is relevant cause if he plays like the nber 20 or 250 and has not much to lose, "gutsy" doesn't quite apply there.

noleisthebest wrote:Risky play is gutsy. Full stop. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself.

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Risky play is gutsy. Full stop. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself.

OK, then.
The more talented you are, and the more precise and accurate you are... the less risk you have of missing a shot.

So you agree that Player B, in the same situation as Player A, would be gutsier than Player A, while playing exactly the same shot, because the risk of him missing is more.
Either you accept that, or you are contradicting yourself.

noleisthebest wrote:
This is not a debate about the nuances of gutsiness. You either play gutsy or not.

noleisthebest wrote:
Irrelevant of how good you are. Two gutsy players playing against each other may look one more gutsy than the other because he/she is more successful

Amritia3ee wrote:
You're not getting the point of this. What makes a play gutsy? The risk of you missing?? Or is it just for the sake of it. Read what SB has been saying all along.


Yes but the risk of you missing is much greater if you are not as good at that particular shot (the one you are playing).

SB was spot on earlier, people are getting their ideologies confused with tennis. The parallel does not apply.

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Risky play is gutsy. Full stop. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself.

OK, then.
The more talented you are, and the more precise and accurate you are... the less risk you have of missing a shot.

So you agree that Player B, in the same situation as Player A, would be gutsier than Player A, while playing exactly the same shot, because the risk of him missing is more.
Either you accept that, or you are contradicting yourself.

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
You're not getting the point of this. What makes a play gutsy? The risk of you missing?? Or is it just for the sake of it. Read what SB has been saying all along.


Yes but the risk of you missing is much greater if you are not as good at that particular shot (the one you are playing).

SB was spot on earlier, people are getting their ideologies confused with tennis. The parallel does not apply.

Going forward is gutsy. I can't explain it any simpler than that.
I don't know what ideology you are talking about.

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Risky play is gutsy. Full stop. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself.

OK, then.
The more talented you are, and the more precise and accurate you are... the less risk you have of missing a shot.

So you agree that Player B, in the same situation as Player A, would be gutsier than Player A, while playing exactly the same shot, because the risk of him missing is more.
Either you accept that, or you are contradicting yourself.

There is a gap between gutsy and stupid shot. If the player B got to 5 all 5th set by having only 20% chance to his a DTL winner, it means he has not used it much to get to 5 all. THerefore he would be a bit stupid to try it at 5 all in the 5th set cause his chances would be even smaller with tiredness and pressure. BUT it could be gutsy as well, trying his luck, despite having more chance to win the points by other means which led him to 5 all in the 5th...so what?

Amritia3ee wrote:


What's so gutsy about an on fire Federer hitting a winner? If he's so good then he'll get it in. Not much risk involved, no?

Amritia3ee wrote:Remember Roger fans.. I am not saying Roger is not brave etc.

What I am saying is that this notion and stereotypes about 'risky means gutsy' are totally flawed, and hence lead you to wrong conclusions.

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Remember Roger fans.. I am not saying Roger is not brave etc.

What I am saying is that this notion and stereotypes about 'risky means gutsy' are totally flawed, and hence lead you to wrong conclusions.

I think I get the message, Amri

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Remember Roger fans.. I am not saying Roger is not brave etc.

What I am saying is that this notion and stereotypes about 'risky means gutsy' are totally flawed, and hence lead you to wrong conclusions.

I think I get the message, Amri

I don't want Roger fans to become angry and think I am saying he is not gutsy.
I was just clearing it up I'm arguing the notion, not that Federer is gutsy/ not gutsy!

Tenez wrote:Berdych is famous for melting on important point...which is kind of normal as he goes for broke.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:Berdych is famous for melting on important point...which is kind of normal as he goes for broke.

Berdych has been around for many years with quite a bit of experience. The inability to adjust to conditions is very peculiar for a player who is in Top 10.

Perhaps 'stupid' is a more appropriate label rather than 'gutsy'. Do you agree?

Amritia3ee wrote:Summerblues, I know you will be on here in a few hours time.
Certainly there has been a lot of debate, and a lot for you to sieve through

As for my part, main main arguments are summed up in: (also read the quoted bits):
6:43 PM (Page 3)
11:34 PM (Page 4)

Should save you a bit of time

noleisthebest wrote:I bet SB is kicking himself for starting all this in the first place

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:SB, l would only say that we both watch tennis differently and we both are right in our own ways. ...I don't see I have anything else to debate on this topic.

noleisthebest wrote:http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/301303/301303,1276210093,1/stock-vector-on-the-psychiatrist-couch-with-doctor-quack-and-deja-vu-54955429.jpg

laverfan wrote:In your fire example case, what happens if one later finds out that Mr X himself had set fire to the building to become a hero, and he is an arsonist or a pyromaniac. Your initial impression of 'gutsiness' is now being diluted after the incident based on information that becomes available.

Two examples in the Tennis world come to mind which are similar, Rosol v Nadal and Rosol's subsequent loss to Kohlschreiber, or Berdych v Federer and Berdych's subsequent loss to Murray, both under different circumstances.

Did Rosol and Berdych become less 'gutsy' in a matter of days?

Amritia3ee wrote:Summerblues, I know you will be on here in a few hours time.
Certainly there has been a lot of debate, and a lot for you to sieve through

As for my part, main main arguments are summed up in: (also read the quoted bits):
6:43 PM (Page 3)
11:34 PM (Page 4)

Should save you a bit of time

Amritia3ee wrote:No LF Berdych is not stupid.

He has a high ball toss which gets affected by the wind. He is a tall guy, his game is based around his serve.
In still conditions he has a massive serve, he can't change his service actions just for windy days.
He also plays with a lower margin for error than Murray, so he could adjust his game, but it would be unnatural for him, unlike Murray whose game's margin is already higher (ie he does not have to adjust that much). Surely you can see this.

Anyway this is totally off-topic.

summerblues wrote:
Yes, very much agree with this take on things. Somehow we had missed this angle in our discussions up to now, but the term gutsiness etc is quite often applied based on the outcome. Say player serves a second serve ace when break point down - voila, he is gutsy. But if he double faults in the same situation, he is a choker, even though in reality it may well be that in both cases player just took a chance and in one of them the luck was on his side and in the other one it was not.

laverfan wrote:There is a perception that the higher the risk of failure, the more 'gutsy' a shot is.

For an attacking player, who practices such shots, the risk is lower with practice, so why is it more 'gutsy'?

summerblues wrote:Yes, very much agree with this take on things. Somehow we had missed this angle in our discussions up to now, but the term gutsiness etc is quite often applied based on the outcome. Say player serves a second serve ace when break point down - voila, he is gutsy. But if he double faults in the same situation, he is a choker, even though in reality it may well be that in both cases player just took a chance and in one of them the luck was on his side and in the other one it was not.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:There is a perception that the higher the risk of failure, the more 'gutsy' a shot is.

For an attacking player, who practices such shots, the risk is lower with practice, so why is it more 'gutsy'?

Practice doesn't lower the risk of a shot. Practice increase a player's chances of success in playing that shot. But the risk involved remains the same.

Understand the difference.

I'll elaborate it if you still haven't understood.

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:
Yes, very much agree with this take on things. Somehow we had missed this angle in our discussions up to now, but the term gutsiness etc is quite often applied based on the outcome. Say player serves a second serve ace when break point down - voila, he is gutsy. But if he double faults in the same situation, he is a choker, even though in reality it may well be that in both cases player just took a chance and in one of them the luck was on his side and in the other one it was not.

Wrong. A player is gutsy regardless of whether the ball goes in or out. The outcome does not determine the intention, it's the other way round.

Double fault does not imply a server goes for an ace btw.

Alternately, you have the "a bird in a hand is worth two on a bush" attitude which works fine in life, but as I said before, the game of tennis gives you the luxury of going for two in a bush.

It's a different dimension.

laverfan wrote:

The cumulative gutsiness over a career needs to be kept separate from 'gutsiness' of the day. My question was very specifically designed to say that players may still remain gutsy over a career, but stupid on match of the day, like Berdych v Murray or Rosol v Kohlschreiber.

.

summerblues wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:Summerblues, I know you will be on here in a few hours time.
Certainly there has been a lot of debate, and a lot for you to sieve through

As for my part, main main arguments are summed up in: (also read the quoted bits):
6:43 PM (Page 3)
11:34 PM (Page 4)

Should save you a bit of time

You and I are seeing this topic from a pretty similar angle.

Just wait until Nadal is back in action - I suspect we will be able to find more points of disagreement then

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:

The cumulative gutsiness over a career needs to be kept separate from 'gutsiness' of the day. My question was very specifically designed to say that players may still remain gutsy over a career, but stupid on match of the day, like Berdych v Murray or Rosol v Kohlschreiber.

.

Why does it need to be kept separate?
This is a discussion on the concept not a bad hair day.

BTW, what do you mean by "stupid"?

Amritia3ee wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:There is a perception that the higher the risk of failure, the more 'gutsy' a shot is.

For an attacking player, who practices such shots, the risk is lower with practice, so why is it more 'gutsy'?

Practice doesn't lower the risk of a shot. Practice increase a player's chances of success in playing that shot. But the risk involved remains the same.

Understand the difference.

I'll elaborate it if you still haven't understood.

If the chance of success is increased, then the risk of not succeeding is less, am I right??

noleisthebest wrote:Chris Evert on L. Robson. Interesting comment highly pertinent to our thread:


“What impressed me so much was that she
was fearless and consistent. It’s easy to be fearless and to spray balls
around. But she was fearless, and she kept her levels of consistency so
high.... If she gets to the Top 5, she’ll be capable of winning a Slam. I
wouldn’t bet my life on it, but it’s definitely possible.”

Tenez wrote:Yes, so the pros also talk about being fearless....meaning they consider some being fearful.

It's simply common sense but it seems soooooo complicated nowadays to acknowledge "common sense"