TENNIS: The Mental Game

noleisthebest wrote:Tenez,
If I understand you correctly you equate mental game with risk taking and attacking tennis.

It's a new angle I didn't have in mind when I wrote the article but am curious to know how you view two attacking players playing each other.

How does "mental game"manifest itself there, and how do you measure it?

quote="noleisthebest"]Tenez,
If I understand you correctly you equate mental game with risk taking and attacking tennis.

It's a new angle I didn't have in mind when I wrote the article but am curious to know how you view two attacking players playing each other.

How does "mental game"manifest itself there, and how do you measure it?[/quote]

Well like talent it's very difficult to measure, if not impossible. But yes, in short I see mental strength as someone who wants to win according to his own terms. It's very simple, we all have the ability to hit winners. Nadal can try hit a winner anytime he wants...like even on a second serve he can choose to hit an ace. He prefers not to cause he knows his chances are slim. As he says himself in his book, why try to go for a 65% chance winner when 3 or 4 shots later (in teh rally) that winner can be 85%? He therefore chooses to expose himself to his opponent winners in those "3 or 4 shots"....almost hoping that during those shots his opponent will go for too much and produce an UE, but he can afford to run and retrieve those shots in those longer rallies cause he is fit. He is therefore tenacious and people see this a mentally strong. I don;t. I see this as physically strong.

To respond to your question, I see tennis as a mental game when the 2 players are attacking, cause the one attacking first tends to be the mentally stronger. At least the one being more confident in his attacking skills...and this is how I define mental strength really.

Look at Gasquet v Federer....both are very talented and attacking players....but Federer plays much closer to teh baseline, and is therefore taking more risk (tougher to time the ball therefore more "courageous")...and guess what you see clearly whom is stronger mentally.

OK, so you associate mental game with risk taking. Mine reference was much broader, not referring to playing style but what goes on in players' head during matches and facing different opponents.

I thnk if you are naturally aggressive and moving forward its not that mentally draining for you, it's almost a relief and urge to go for it.
It can be demoralising thought if the balls keep coming back though, but then it's the same for all players

noleisthebest wrote:OK, so you associate mental game with risk taking.

What else is it really? It's like a F1 driver trying to drive fastest on curving tracks without crashing out.

I thnk if you are naturally aggressive and moving forward its not that mentally draining for you, it's almost a relief and urge to go for it.

Not really cause when comes the pressure time, pulling winners is much harder than retrieving. If you play tennis and you play important points, you will very clearly see what I mean. For the retriever the mental side is much simpler...he is just asking his legs to run as fast and brings the ball back with some healthy margins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p9c78pMJjE

Look at this if you can! Djoko takes all the risk and Nadal scraps through with ridiculous margins....and under pressure look at Djoko making mistakes....especially if the ball is tough to time like very fizzy and loopy.

Nadal is just scared to see a winner....but in those slow conds, on clay what are the chances of that? Extremely stressful for Djoko though.



On faster conditions, the attacking player is of course more relaxed than the defending player...cause he can rely on his shot making talent while the retriever is more likely to see many more winners.

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:so how do you explain those?

Soderling is the only player to beat both Nadal and Federer at RG. Injury references and innuendo aside, he was considered, and still is, considered a mentally 'weak' player. Anyone recall him being beaten 6-1, 6-0 in the previous encounter with Nadal @Rome 2009? In a gap of roughly 30-days, with the same coach (Magnus Norman), he beat Nadal, who is considered a fearsome fighter.

Why did you chose Soderling's example over say, Delpo's beating Nadal and Fed at USO?

Because he fits the criteria very well. DelPo at USO is bad example. IMVHO, because of Nadal's abdominal strain ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/sep/06/andy-roddick-john-isner-us-open ).

noleisthebest wrote:I can see it's very hard to beat Nadal in RG, but that's not the case with Federer.

Since 2004, Federer has lost to Nadal(5), Soderling(1), Kuerten(1) and Djokovic(1).

noleisthebest wrote:Are mentally weak players those who can pull of amazing wins (eg Rosol def Nadal in Wimbledon) and than disappear into oblivion?
One-slam wonders examples also fit that bill.

Canas, Fish, Simon are good examples of playing well on a given day.

noleisthebest wrote:In Fedipal complex context, you have players having to face him across the net. They all now how hard he is to beat it's how they all react that tells how mentally weak or strong they are regardless of whether they win or lose.

Murray post AO 2010.

noleisthebest wrote:It's not easy to give your best after you lost to a guy 12 times in a row, but Davydenko , for example did just that by winning the first WTF played in London defeating Federer.

Is Davydenko a mentally weak player?

So did Soderling. Davydenko is not a mentally 'weak' player, but can lose focus quickly, for example the AO match against Federer. Is that a mental thing, perhaps yes?

LF,
As far as I see it they all know their pecking order in the locker room.
They also know that on any given day the better player may be just tired or sick and tired of playing ... and if the other player manages to play his best and make the match tight.....that kind of thing; just one of many scenarios!
On paper seedings should always reach their ranking in a tournament, in reality, they rarely do (I'm not taking the top4 only here). I'm glad it's that way, otherwise tennis would be a bit boring to follow...

Just observe how Ferrer's quarter pounces in USO, many will view it as a rare opportunity, Isner's got a great chance to reach semis.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:OK, so you associate mental game with risk taking.

What else is it really? It's like a F1 driver trying to drive fastest on curving tracks without crashing out.

I thnk if you are naturally aggressive and moving forward its not that mentally draining for you, it's almost a relief and urge to go for it.

Not really cause when comes the pressure time, pulling winners is much harder than retrieving. If you play tennis and you play important points, you will very clearly see what I mean. For the retriever the mental side is much simpler...he is just asking his legs to run as fast and brings the ball back with some healthy margins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p9c78pMJjE

Look at this if you can! Djoko takes all the risk and Nadal scraps through with ridiculous margins....and under pressure look at Djoko making mistakes....especially if the ball is tough to time like very fizzy and loopy.

Nadal is just scared to see a winner....but in those slow conds, on clay what are the chances of that? Extremely stressful for Djoko though.



On faster conditions, the attacking player is of course more relaxed than the defending player...cause he can rely on his shot making talent while the retriever is more likely to see many more winners.

I've seen too many of those scenarios....yes, very frustrating and terrible for all players, really. Maybe conditions will get quicker, I think there's enough evidence that the tour would benefit from it, esp with Nadal out of picture. I don't know any other player who prefers to slog for hours.

noleisthebest wrote:Maybe conditions will get quicker, I think there's enough evidence that the tour would benefit from it...

According to Haas (interviewed by Nick Bollettieri) USO courts are playing fast. We saw the same thing last year.

Another example, which is perhaps is a bit controversial, is Borg. I would say IceBorg melted mentally, to retire in 1981.