Re: Cowardly & Brave Tennis

by noleisthebest Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:19 pm

laverfan wrote:
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"

Name a pro who calls a tennis player fearful and we can discuss that further. Spectator interpretations are highly subjective.

I may be subjective a bit, but Tenez is definitely not.

by noleisthebest Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:27 pm

Anyway, what made you a fan of Rod Laver?

by Larry Ellison Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:12 pm

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"

Indeed they do Tenez, indeed they do Bubbly

Well respected connoisseur of tennis James Blake: "Rafael Nadal. The guy seems like he is fearless on the court."
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/articles/2012-09-08/201209081347132610283.html

by noleisthebest Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:18 pm

Amritia3ee wrote:
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"
Indeed they do Tenez, indeed they do

Well respected connoisseur of tennis James Blake: "Rafael Nadal. The guy seems like he is fearless on the court."
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/articles/2012-09-08/201209081347132610283.html

This cartoon was made of Blake immediately after that interview:

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/591903_f120.jpg

by Tenez Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:21 pm

Not the smartest thing Blake said I guess. Nadal is scared to make an UE. You can see his face when he does, you feel his world is collapsing.

by Larry Ellison Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:22 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Amritia3ee wrote:
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"
Indeed they do Tenez, indeed they do

Well respected connoisseur of tennis James Blake: "Rafael Nadal. The guy seems like he is fearless on the court."
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/articles/2012-09-08/201209081347132610283.html

This cartoon was made of Blake immediately after that interview:

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/591903_f120.jpg

That guy doesn't look muck like Blake though.

by Larry Ellison Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:24 pm

Tenez wrote:Not the smartest thing Blake said I guess.

Yes, it's a shame he forgot the rule that it's only smart if it already agrees with your pre-held views.

by laverfan Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:48 pm

Tenez wrote:Wilander?

Which player(s) is(are) fearful according to Wilander?

by Larry Ellison Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:50 pm

laverfan wrote:
Tenez wrote:Wilander?

Which player(s) is(are) fearful according to Wilander?

Don't remember the unwritten rule though: his comments only count if they agree with what Tenez is saying.

by laverfan Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:51 pm

noleisthebest wrote:Anyway, what made you a fan of Rod Laver?

A 7-inch wooden round used like a magic wand. Watched him play the pro-tour with Pancho. Some absolutely amazing tennis on polished wood.

by Tenez Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:01 am

Amritia3ee wrote:
laverfan wrote:
Tenez wrote:Wilander?

Which player(s) is(are) fearful according to Wilander?
Don't remember the unwritten rule though: his comments only count if they agree with what Tenez is saying.

Actually you are wrong again and both have short memories. Wilander saying Federer had no balls!!! after FO 06 final.

by Larry Ellison Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:28 am

So, does the rule apply in this case or not?

by summerblues Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:37 am

noleisthebest wrote: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.

We are saying the same thing. I was using my example to illustrate the absurdity of taking the outcome and deciding on gutsiness based on that.

by summerblues Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:46 am

Tenez wrote:That's why knowing how to read the game is important.

1 - Was the second serve pushed long?

2 - Was the second serve pushed short?

3 - Was the second served hit firmly with spin but slighly out

4 - Was the second server hit firmly with spin and angle but caught the net.

5 - Was the second serve hit hard and flat?

6 - Did that DF happen at MP up or MP down?

7 - etc...etc

This is very true.

But there is a difficulty in putting it into practice. We as humans have a tendency to mold the arguments to fit our preconceived opinions. As we look at the somewhat ill-defined myriad of items while reading the game we open ourselves to the risk of doing just that.

In the end, there is no fully satisfactory solution. If we try to simplify the arguments to the point where we can quantify the answers statistically, we are running the risk that we oversimplify and miss important points. However, if we allow ourselves to take everything into account we are forced to do it more qualitatively and we are increasing the risk that we allow our biases to interfere.

by noleisthebest Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:07 am

summerblues wrote:

We as humans have a tendency to mold the arguments to fit our preconceived opinions. As we look at the somewhat ill-defined myriad of items while reading the game we open ourselves to the risk of doing just that.

In the end, there is no fully satisfactory solution. If we try to simplify the arguments to the point where we can quantify the answers statistically, we are running the risk that we oversimplify and miss important points. However, if we allow ourselves to take everything into account we are forced to do it more qualitatively and we are increasing the risk that we allow our biases to interfere.

Who says answers need to be quantified statistically. By taking that route, you end up being perceived as hiding behind a smoke screen.
The easiest thing is to sit on the fence and say that all players are gutsy more or less depending on the day.

Why not just draw the line and agree to disagree.

by Tenez Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:33 am

summerblues wrote:But there is a difficulty in putting it into practice. We as humans have a tendency to mold the arguments to fit our preconceived opinions. As we look at the somewhat ill-defined myriad of items while reading the game we open ourselves to the risk of doing just that.

There is no remedy for a 100% accuracy and honesty in judgement is simply down to us. I woudl think that when watching 2 players, we assume most of us don't know personally either of them, so our likes and dislikes are down to what those players emanate while playing and how it relates to us. I am sure some liked Brad Gilbert and his sneaky way of playing. Some even liked Connors!.

But it's important to understand what motivates us in backing one player over another. And yes players are more or less gutsy and coward, regardless of how we may interpret it, those are human traits we find on everybody with different mixes. Any earthly being is exposed to finding the right balance between being gutsy/coward and even stupid.

by laverfan Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:21 pm

Tenez wrote:There is no remedy for a 100% accuracy and honesty in judgement is simply down to us. I woudl think that when watching 2 players, we assume most of us don't know personally either of them, so our likes and dislikes are down to what those players emanate while playing and how it relates to us. I am sure some liked Brad Gilbert and his sneaky way of playing. Some even liked Connors!.

There is not much of a difference between Connors and McEnroe. Both brash, loud, obnoxious. But one is admired more than the other, and many make choices on which one of the two to support.

Tenez wrote:But it's important to understand what motivates us in backing one player over another.

The need for identification between the spectator and the player and the emotional satisfaction derived from such an identification is part of the reason we have forums for debates. The tribal instinct to classify, categorise, identify is the root cause of a human beings inability to appreciate two (or more) opposing styles of play and appreciate the individuality.

Tenez wrote:And yes players are more or less gutsy and coward, regardless of how we may interpret it, those are human traits we find on everybody with different mixes. Any earthly being is exposed to finding the right balance between being gutsy/coward and even stupid.

There is no such thing as 'cowardly' in an absolute sense. 'Gutsiness' makes adjustments to degrees as a specific individual player evaluates and executes shots on the court.

I was given an axiom (or algorithm) which is a pretty simple one, IPDE (Identify, Predict, Decide, Execute). All Tennis players use it, but subjective processing based on individuality may produce different executions. Enjoy what you see!

To all spectators emotionally attached to a specific Tennis player, think about the day when such a player retires. Will you stop watching Tennis that day? My personal answer is no (till my dying day).

by Larry Ellison Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:23 pm

by Tenez Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:30 pm

laverfan wrote:... Enjoy what you see!

To all spectators emotionally attached to a specific Tennis player, think about the day when such a player retires. Will you stop watching Tennis that day? My personal answer is no (till my dying day).

I am amused by those moral lessons you deign dropping down to us mere mortals. The tribal instinct is not all bad. It's actually necessary and part of the evolution process. Without it we would be living alongside with Neanderthals nowadays...Though I admit, it sometimes feels like it. Winking

by noleisthebest Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:44 pm

laverfan wrote:

There is not much of a difference between Connors and McEnroe. Both brash, loud, obnoxious. But one is admired more than the other, and many make choices on which one of the two to support.

I suppose for you there's not much difference between Federer and Nadal either, both have two legs, two arms, dark hair, can serve, run, breathe.....

by noleisthebest Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:50 pm

[quote="laverfan"

To all spectators emotionally attached to a specific Tennis player, think about the day when such a player retires. Will you stop watching Tennis that day? My personal answer is no (till my dying day).[/quote]

I admit, I am as emotionally attached to Nole as one can be. So what! Am I lesser tennis lover?
BTW, regarding your "personal answer", who/which player are you emotionally attached at the moment, Nadal?

by laverfan Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:38 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
laverfan wrote:
There is not much of a difference between Connors and McEnroe. Both brash, loud, obnoxious. But one is admired more than the other, and many make choices on which one of the two to support.
I suppose for you there's not much difference between Federer and Nadal either, both have two legs, two arms, dark hair, can serve, run, breathe.....

One flicks his hair, the other pulls his garments, the one can dance like a ballerina, the other brings an undying never-say-die spirit to the game.

Marvellous athletes both, and many others.

There is one who practices sprints in a parking lot under the watchful eyes of his coach. How can I not admire such players. I will leave it as an exercise who I am referring to. USO 2012 post-match interview with Cahill during a night match is a clue.

by laverfan Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:42 pm

Tenez wrote:
laverfan wrote:... Enjoy what you see!

To all spectators emotionally attached to a specific Tennis player, think about the day when such a player retires. Will you stop watching Tennis that day? My personal answer is no (till my dying day).

I am amused by those moral lessons you deign dropping down to us mere mortals. The tribal instinct is not all bad. It's actually necessary and part of the evolution process. Without it we would be living alongside with Neanderthals nowadays...Though I admit, it sometimes feels like it.

Moral lessons? You are confusing two different statements. Winking

Tribalism, to exclude another is what I object to. Tribes should have respect for others. They can also enjoy others, despite their customs and traditions and gutsiness being different.

by laverfan Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:45 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
laverfan wrote:To all spectators emotionally attached to a specific Tennis player, think about the day when such a player retires. Will you stop watching Tennis that day? My personal answer is no (till my dying day).
I admit, I am as emotionally attached to Nole as one can be. So what! Am I lesser tennis lover?
BTW, regarding your "personal answer", who/which player are you emotionally attached at the moment, Nadal?

Edit: I do not condone anyone else's emotional attachement to any player, but in hindsight, I would have approached my attachements a little more rationally.

I am emotionally attached to Pancho Gonzalez, and to a lesser extent to Rod Laver. There was once a Borg, but it was an infatuation. Winking

If you notice, my Federer tweener comments, it does show a relative weakness vis-a-vis this specific player. Big Grin

Current Top 4 - no one.

by summerblues Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:45 am

noleisthebest wrote:Why not just draw the line and agree to disagree.

Sure. Sounds good.

by summerblues Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:52 am

Tenez wrote:There is no remedy for a 100% accuracy and honesty in judgement is simply down to us. I woudl think that when watching 2 players, we assume most of us don't know personally either of them, so our likes and dislikes are down to what those players emanate while playing and how it relates to us. I am sure some liked Brad Gilbert and his sneaky way of playing. Some even liked Connors!.

But it's important to understand what motivates us in backing one player over another. And yes players are more or less gutsy and coward, regardless of how we may interpret it, those are human traits we find on everybody with different mixes. Any earthly being is exposed to finding the right balance between being gutsy/coward and even stupid.

All of it is true, but none of it has much bearing on this thread.

Yes, we typically do not know the players personally so our likes/dislikes do not come from our intimate personal knowledge of them. So?

Yes, obviously some players will be gutsier than others (just like human beings in general). I am certainly not suggesting they are all same. But once again, so what?

by Tenez Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:40 am

summerblues wrote:
All of it is true, but none of it has much bearing on this thread.

Well you lead us to it by saying that our subjective views could make us partial in our perception of gutsy and cowardly.

Yes, we typically do not know the players personally so our likes/dislikes do not come from our intimate personal knowledge of them. So?

So it means our first perceptions on gutsiness and cowardness should be more neutral and accurate than you suggest and an important factor to make us like and dislike a player...and not the other way around.

Yes, obviously some players will be gutsier than others (just like human beings in general). I am certainly not suggesting they are all same. But once again, so what?

So what???? Well you create the original thread about it......not me. So you answer that one. tennis - Cowardly & Brave Tennis - Page 5 3885497126

by Larry Ellison Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:20 am

Tenez even if you are neutral you can still have a different perception on a topic compared to others (who could also be neutral).

A lot could be due to the way you have been brought up, your idealogies, possible stereotypes that could have been put in your mind without you even knowing etc.

by noleisthebest Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:58 pm

Amritia3ee wrote:

possible stereotypes that could have been put in your mind without you even knowing etc.

wow!

by summerblues Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:40 am

Tenez wrote:Well you lead us to it by saying that our subjective views could make us partial in our perception of gutsy and cowardly.

Tenez wrote:So it means our first perceptions on gutsiness and cowardness should be more neutral and accurate than you suggest and an important factor to make us like and dislike a player...and not the other way around.

People like or dislike players for all kinds of reasons - style of play, looks, nationality, hair color, who knows what else. One does not have to be a player's uncle to form a biased opinion of the player. And once we have an opinion, we do have a tendency to see reality from the angle we want to see it. Just take a read through any tennis forum. All the time you will see posters defending their views tooth and nail in the face of reality. That does not mean they are all players' blood relatives.

Tenez wrote:So what???? Well you create the original thread about it......not me. So you answer that one.

Tenez, my thread is not about whether players are all equally gutsy. My thread is about whether the style of play (specifically at the pro level) is related to players' gutsiness. There is a world of difference between the two. Imagine this:

Person A says that there is a strong correlation between the likelihood that a car will be in an accident and the size of the car.

Person B doubts this, and suggests that he thinks there is little correlation between the two.

Person A then comes with the statement "some cars are larger than others" and acts as it that was a counterargument to Person B's position.

What you did is very similar to person A in my example. Your statement that "And yes players are more or less gutsy and coward" just states the obvious but has no relation to the topic of this thread, certainly not to anything I have said here. I am puzzled as to why you would have even thought that your statement was relevant. How much of this thread did you read before you wrote it?

by summerblues Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:43 am

...and on that note, I am out of here going for a vacation. Which means that at least temporarily I will just have to agree to disagree with you all smiley

See you all when I am back.

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:52 am

summerblues wrote:...and on that note, I am out of here going for a vacation. Which means that at least temporarily I will just have to agree to disagree with you all

See you all when I am back.

Have a super holiday SB. Be gutsy and dive off that cliff just once. You 'll love it tennis - Cowardly & Brave Tennis - Page 5 1071211947

by laverfan Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:00 am

summerblues wrote:...and on that note, I am out of here going for a vacation. Which means that at least temporarily I will just have to agree to disagree with you all

See you all when I am back.

Enjoy your sabbatical, SB.

by Tenez Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:08 am

Is the "annual leave" in the US 5 working days? tennis - Cowardly & Brave Tennis - Page 5 3391208243

by Tenez Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:58 pm

I will use Djokovic and Murray to make my last point on this subject. We all agree they are not the most aggressive players on tour. Many say they have similar games.

I personally think there is a huge difference which explains the big difference they have had in their results over their career and even over their last match at the USO.

While both have bet on the physical side of tennis to overcome their opponents, one has had the guts to go for his shots on crucial points and many times because of that, has been successful in his risks. Fed can unfortunately testify that.

The other has been much more reluctant to pass on the offensive and only gets offensive when forced to, essentially when faced with no choice when playing hyper attacking players like Federer and Raonic. However because he gets away 90% of teh time just pushing the ball back, having to hit the key aggressive shot under pressure (guts) is what Murray has lacked to challenge the top 3 players. He has tried to pull it on a few occasions but failed cause simply it is not in his nature to try his luck. Djoko believes in his luck and in his ability. Thta is the main difference I see. Djoko is an "opportunistic player, Murray on the other hand "hates losing", meaning, hates losing a point, so will play safely, more cowardly, than Djoko. It's a small difference but has made a huge difference in their career paths.

So that leads me to their last match and how the above explains a different result then.

It's clear to me that the strong wind in those first 2 sets is what affected Djoko's strategy cause he only lost the first set by 2 points and the second was lost after spraying very easy smash and FH. It's the added risk factor in his game that cost him the match under windy conditions. Being patient that day is what paid off. Could he afford to be patient? That required huge fitness. I saw him fall on the court a few times exhausted. I have yet to see Murray completely exhausted.

by noleisthebest Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:15 pm

Tenez wrote:I will use Djokovic and Murray to make my last point on this subject. We all agree they are not the most aggressive players on tour. Many say they have similar games.

I personally think there is a huge difference which explains the big difference they have had in their results over their career and even over their last match at the USO.

While both have bet on the physical side of tennis to overcome their opponents, one has had the guts to go for his shots on crucial points and many times because of that, has been successful in his risks. Fed can unfortunately testify that.

The other has been much more reluctant to pass on the offensive and only gets offensive when forced to, essentially when faced with no choice when playing hyper attacking players like Federer and Raonic. However because he gets away 90% of teh time just pushing the ball back, having to hit the key aggressive shot under pressure (guts) is what Murray has lacked to challenge the top 3 players. He has tried to pull it on a few occasions but failed cause simply it is not in his nature to try his luck. Djoko believes in his luck and in his ability. Thta is the main difference I see. Djoko is an "opportunistic player, Murray on the other hand "hates losing", meaning, hates losing a point, so will play safely, more cowardly, than Djoko. It's a small difference but has made a huge difference in their career paths.

So that leads me to their last match and how the above explains a different result then.

It's clear to me that the strong wind in those first 2 sets is what affected Djoko's strategy cause he only lost the first set by 2 points and the second was lost after spraying very easy smash and FH. It's the added risk factor in his game that cost him the match under windy conditions. Being patient that day is what paid off. Could he afford to be patient? That required huge fitness. I saw him fall on the fall a few times exhausted. I have yet to see Murray completely exhausted.

tennis - Cowardly & Brave Tennis - Page 5 4052418255

.... and

tennis - Cowardly & Brave Tennis - Page 5 2375004229

!

by laverfan Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:07 pm

Tenez wrote:
It's clear to me that the strong wind in those first 2 sets is what affected Djoko's strategy cause he only lost the first set by 2 points and the second was lost after spraying very easy smash and FH. It's the added risk factor in his game that cost him the match under windy conditions. Being patient that day is what paid off. Could he afford to be patient? That required huge fitness. I saw him fall on the court a few times exhausted. I have yet to see Murray completely exhausted.

How do you explain the first set lost to 6-2 Ferrer? It was not lost due to a two point difference, neither was Djokovic exhausted. He was unable to control the ball and was almost bageled, IIRC.

BTW, I have seen Murray exhausted, at AO 2010, when Federer just physically ran him into the ground. You may want to watch that match again, if you think that is incorrect. Another instance is USO 2008, after the marathon with Nadal.

by Tenez Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:28 am

laverfan wrote:
How do you explain the first set lost to 6-2 Ferrer? It was not lost due to a two point difference, neither was Djokovic exhausted. He was unable to control the ball and was almost bageled, IIRC.

I'd say the big difference is that v Ferrer Djoko knew he would not finish the match that day and under those conds, so when he was a break down and the wind was considerably stronger than in the final his mind went completely knowing he will return for the following sets the day after. A completely different situation than the final where he made an effort to stay with Murray despite not being able to play his shots. He knew the match would be played on the day therefore did try to keep his concentration going. Are you insinuating that Djoko would lose all his matches under windy conds?

BTW, I have seen Murray exhausted, at AO 2010, when Federer just physically ran him into the ground. You may want to watch that match again, if you think that is incorrect. Another instance is USO 2008, after the marathon with Nadal.

No. Murray gets injured very often. I have seen him cramping or else in many matches...including that AO10.

by sphairistike Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:25 pm

Tenez, you are trying so hard... God bless! tennis - Cowardly & Brave Tennis - Page 5 1101037640

by Tenez Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:40 pm

I know! But only because I m trying to convince myself as well! Winking

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31