Cowardly & Brave Tennis

SB... the choice of gutsy or gutless is a personal evaluation of what I would choose to do given the same situation.

Player X decides to go for a FH winner that I would have chosen in that specific situation && I am a gutsy person == Player X played a gutsy shot.

Player Y decides to go for a middle of the court push that I would not have chosen && I am a gutsy person == Player Y played a gutless shot.

I expect anything I put across the net to come back because there is a very gutsy defender on the other side of the net.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:Defense and offense are equal and neither is less gutsy.

I am afraid that's the kind of cliche phrase that sounds good but are simply a myth and false. It's like saying defending and attacking requires equal fitness or equal eye hand coordination. No it doesn't!!!

This is your world-view not every one elses. Defence and offence both require equal skills. Have you ever tried chasing a lob down at your club?

Chasing a lob???

No offences LF, but you remember on some comments I do say to you that you would have known if you had only played yourself. I surely don't know for certain if you have ever played or not, but what you write indicates that you haven't.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Clearly you didn't get my point. You are talking different things.

You need to learn both defence and offence. There is no way around it.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Go to your local club and ask young kids learning the game what they would like to become:

1. a player with great agility, stamina and amazing retrieval skills and great ability to win drawing errors from opponents
2. An aggressive and brilliant shot-maker who is able to hit stunning winners

IMVHO I think most will chose 2. because this is what is always a far more highly valued skill. It also takes more courage to be aggressive in tennis and courage is a highly valued skill not only in tennis but in life.

This is what I call extreme prejudice.

I have seen Laver and Borg combine both 1 and 2. There are many in the current top 100 who also do that.

You have clearly made a judgement that 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive which is incorrect. I can dig several examples of a player combining both in the current top 100.

You didn't get my point again. Bringing Pros in this reply indicate that.

Should I use ROTLA and Tenez as examples, even though I have never seen them play?

laverfan wrote:
You again didn't get my point. I was not talking about a spectator's point of view. So over all you didn't get my point. That's all.

It is a spectator making a judgement on gutsy or gutless or its myriad equivalents, not the player. Every shot from a players standpoint is the correct and appropriate shot to play.

Good debate, ROTLA.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Chasing a lob???

No offences LF, but you remember on some comments I do say to you that you would have known if you had only played yourself. I surely don't know for certain if you have ever played or not, but what you write indicates that you haven't.

I am not here to discuss my playing credentials. NITB and I have had that discussion in the past. This is not a contest.

I would suggest you watch Federer's tweener against Djokovic at USO. We can continue our discussion after that.

... or Federer's lob over Haas's head @W or Karlovic's head @AO.

laverfan wrote:
You need to learn both defence and offence. There is no way around it.

Never suggested that there was a way around, but fine and I'll accept and agree to your view. But you still didn't get my point I would say. Must be me unable to put it clearly enough for you.

laverfan wrote:
Should I use ROTLA and Tenez as examples, even though I have never seen them play?

Sure you can, but no. You haven't seen any of us play.

laverfan wrote:
It is a spectator making a judgement on gutsy or gutless or its myriad equivalents, not the player. Every shot from a players standpoint is teh correct and appropriate shot to play.

Well again this was not my point. But I agree any shot is appropriate for the player as long as it wins the points.

laverfan wrote: Good debate, ROTLA.

Thanks.

laverfan wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Chasing a lob???

No offences LF, but you remember on some comments I do say to you that you would have known if you had only played yourself. I surely don't know for certain if you have ever played or not, but what you write indicates that you haven't.

I am not here to discuss my playing credentials. NITB and I have had that discussion in the past. This is not a contest.

No intention to discuss or question your or anyone's playing credentials. I was just suggesting that a lot of things are easier to understand if one get a chance to play which is a matter of good fortune.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:The tall guy has no choice but to be brave and try his luck.

This is the terminology I do not agree with. To me the term "brave" does not apply here. Just like you say, the tall guy in Amri's example has no choice - he will have to try his luck. But he may be a coward trying his luck, he just has no choice.

Absoltely spot on SB

I think some of the comments here have been simply wrong and misleading.

The idea that we have to term this guy who is 6'6 'brave' for just hitting aces is beyond ridiculous. It's his height and ability on serve which gives him the power to hit aces, and the tactics to try and hit them are common sense. Having courage does not come into it. Karlovic hitting an ace isn't brave.

ROTLA, your getting down a cliff comparison was also irrelevant here. When you are going down your cliff, your life is in danger. It matters. In tennis, it is possible to detach yourself from the situation (to an extent). You can be a happy-go-lucky player who goes for the lines, which can give a player success (if he has the power). It isn't possible to detach yourself from the act of jumping off a cliff, unless you are mad. So the comparison doesn't work.

Once again, I think the 20/20 cricket example is a more relevant example, and demonstrates what me and SB are saying perfectly. The batsman do not care if they get out, they just come in and whack the ball, trying to smash sixes. This is very risky, as it leaves them vulnerable to being bowled out or caught. But it doesn't take courage. They can come in, get 20 runs from 2 overs then get out, the coach will give them a pat on the back and say job well done, and they can be pleased. It doesn't take guts, trying to whack every ball for six until you get out in a 20/20 isn't extremely brave.

We can also take Novak Djokovic. From 2010 to 2011 Djokovic, as we all know, changed his style and became less aggressive. I think even NITB recognises that Djokovic's brand of tennis is different to when he was younger, less attacking.

So did Djokovic lose his 'braveness' on 1st January 2011? This is absolute nonsense. If we believe this theory then we have to believe that it is true. But simply isn't. He didn't lose his courage at all.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:But you still didn't get my point I would say. Must be me unable to put it clearly enough for you.

Try and re-state with an example, and let my aged brian give it another try.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
1. I surely don't know for certain if you have ever played or not, but what you write indicates that you haven't.

2. I was just suggesting that a lot of things are easier to understand if one get a chance to play which is a matter of good fortune.

1. implies that I do not play Tennis. 2. implies I do not have the required good fortune to play. Am I correct in deducing that I am a tennis-less and unfortunate poster.

Amritia3ee wrote:Once again, I think the 20/20 cricket example is a more relevant example, and demonstrates what me and SB are saying perfectly. The batsman do not care if they get out, they just come in and whack the ball, trying to smash sixes. This is very risky, as it leaves them vulnerable to being bowled out or caught. But it doesn't take courage. They can come in, get 20 runs from 2 overs then get out, the coach will give them a pat on the back and say job well done, and they can be pleased. It doesn't take guts, trying to whack every ball for six until you get out in a 20/20 isn't extremely brave.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz2TnBVfztU

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxVXPJHST7k

The same player in two different contests and adjusting to the context. This is is why I consider defence and offence to be on par and used appropriately. Sad to see the spectator attendance in the second clip.

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkI4FpZDQcc - Watch from 1:36 to 2:10. Gutsy defence and offence, both. I know this will turn into the usual monotonous debate, which is why I would have preferred not putting up any UTube links.

I added that to my first reply to SB:

======================

And finally my first post says clearly you belong to one of the 2 categories:

1 - Talented, powerful (explosive), unfit, gutsy,

2 - less talented, less/weak weapons, fit and gutless

I am not saying that a player has to be all 4 of ~1 or #2 but he belongs to one of the categories. And it is important to note that most of the time a player is #1 or #2 in relation to another player.

laverfan wrote: 2. implies I do not have the required good fortune to play. Am I correct in deducing that I am a tennis-less and unfortunate poster.

Unfortunate? Oh come on now LF. At least you live in a place where you can see tennis in a stadium and that too Grand slams. I've to travel 1000s of miles to get to the nearest ATP250 tournament. I've been watching tennis for so many years now, but never seen any tennis match in a stadium [ I'm saving to visit London in 2013 for Wimbledon ]

I didn't want you to call unfortunate. I didn't mean it that way. But as I see its a good fortune to be able to play tennis ( or any sport that people love to watch )

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote: 2. implies I do not have the required good fortune to play. Am I correct in deducing that I am a tennis-less and unfortunate poster.

Unfortunate? Oh come on now LF. At least you live in a place where you can see tennis in a stadium and that too Grand slams. I've to travel 1000s of miles to get to the nearest ATP250 tournament. I've been watching tennis for so many years now, but never seen any tennis match in a stadium [ I'm saving to visit London in 2013 for Wimbledon ]

I didn't want you to call unfortunate. I didn't mean it that way. But as I see its a good fortune to be able to play tennis ( or any sport that people love to watch )

I wish Tennis was accessible easily to significant population so they have choices. Different parts of the world seem to have varying mixes of sports, so local access is always welcome. Wherever you live, I hope you can get better access to Tennis.

Interesting thread SB, thanks. And I find some of your comments after the first day of debates to be really good and to the point, which made me even more impressed by some counter-arguments that ROTLA did and they were also to the point. Honorable mention to Amrit with the tall guy example and cricket.

Tall guy example: neither gutsy nor gutless can apply there, I agree, as it is a no-choice situation.

Cliff example: one word, awesome. Simple for anyone to understand and super relevant here. Let's just make one addition though (it might be there already implicitly but I'll say it anyways) we have to assume both of them have the skills to pull it off. So you know you can dive and swim quite skillfully but you decide to go for the safer route as it is much less risky, then you are not gutsy.

So let's go back to tennis now. What we conclude from the previous examples is in order for the debate to be relevant, we can only compare talented players or players who have enough skills to go for either option with a well above average chance of succeeding, which unfortunately in this pseudo golden (plated) era, means only the top 4. Only then we know they all have more than 2/3 (for example) chances to succeed by either baseline play or aggressive play. So let's see who is what:

1- Fed: no doubt gutsy. Why? He is not even scared to play the baseline game against Nadal. He got criticized for it as it is not the smartest approach but he showed guts. He even tried at USO 2009 to beat Del Po at Del Po's game! He often goes for the winner even when he knows it is more risky. Also, as I said before, he even tries from time to time to baseline rally and I recall him saying it explicitly in an interview. One example I like to recall was with his utter destruction of Nadal at WTF 2011, when at some critical point in the first set (was it at 3-3?) he goes on the longest rally of the match against Nadal and wins the point, then the breaks follows then the rest is history... So we've seen Fed go for what he does not really feel always comfortable doing and go for attacking play etc. He has shown guts. But you see, it might also be because he is the most talent IMO and he can afford doing either... But it is also because he has both options that we can decide whether he is gutsy or not.

So if we assume all top 4 are roughly as talented, we can also look at the 3 others.

2- Nole. I'm indecisive about him as he has shown both guts and gutless shots. Nitb said something relevant about him in her post and she knows best about him so I'll let her give the opinion on him. One thing I want to add though, playing risky shots by going for broke (USO 2010-11 SFs) does not show guts I am afraid, on the contrary. And by saying that I join some of SB's (I think) points. Aggressive shots do not always mean gutsy shots as when some players have their backs against the wall (happens a lot against Fed ) they have a tendency to go for broke and that can explain some of the results against Fed in the past 2-3 years. But that is not gutsy play, so attacking tennis is not synonymous with gutsy, especially in two situations: a) back against the wall, or b) only choice the player has, a) is actually cowardice, b) is neither (6'6 example...).

3-4- Murray/Nadal: cowards. If you don't think so, then maybe you don't think they're talented enough. But if we assume they are as talented (or almost) as Fed or Nole, then unfortunately, there is no other choice IMHO, then saying they are. As they could pull the winners (and please don't give me the examples of when they do it after they exhausted their opponent, as it does not require guts at that point anymore) but they decide not to as running down the cliff in zig-zag is a safer option than diving in the water, and even Nadal acknowledged it in his "autobiography" even though he did not dare to use the word coward to describe himself, it was for the world to see that he is.

Sorry if I hurt any of the players' fans (bar Fed's as I only said positive stuff about him except maybe him being too gutsy for his own good and acting a bit not that smartly doing so) but I am just expressing my opinion on this friendly and interesting debate.

I think people here are being ultra confused about being a coward and playing like one. We are not discussing character traits of players here, although the playing style can reflect that side of character.

Tenez wrote:

I am not saying that a player has to be all 4 of ~1 or #2 but he belongs to one of the categories. And it is important to note that most of the time a player is #1 or #2 in relation to another player.

Tenez, apart from huge generalisations and vague inferences to a Fedal debate, perhaps you should answer my questions:

1/ Do you honestly still believe that being a 6'6 who has a massive serve is 'brave' for trying to hit aces. To me, it sounds more like common sense than being brave. Do you honestly believe that for the likes of Karlovic it takes huge amounts of courage to think to himself 'I'll try and hit an ace on this one.' Really?

2/ For a cricketer who is a 20/20 specialist he normally has a mentality of 'I'm going to smash everything.' As I said earlier: It is very risky, as it leaves them vulnerable to being bowled out or caught. But it doesn't take courage. They can come in, get 20 runs from 2 overs then get out, the coach will give them a pat on the back and say job well done, and they can be pleased. It doesn't take guts, trying to whack every ball for six until you get out in a 20/20 isn't extremely brave.
Do you think that it's brave?

3/ What about Djokovic. I have seen you said before that in 2011 he played much less aggressively than in pre-2011. Certainly I think we all noticed he didn't play as attacking last year.
Do you think he lost courage on the eve of 2011? Do you think he became less brave?

I say 'no' to all three of these questions.

Sphair, good to see you here

Firstly I would like to disagree with you that the 'cliff' example is a good one.
When jumping of a cliff it is a matter of life and death. You can't detach yourself and suddenly take a 'happy go lucky' stance unlike tennis. Unless you are mad, or do not care about life. The mentality is different in tennis, and hence this example simply does not work.

As for your analysis, it was very very similar to Tenez's opinion (a bit like me and Summerblues' opinion on this is very similar!)

Here's my bit of personal, first-hand "cliff" experience.

Many summers ago, I was holidaying in the Med with friends when a bunch of locals (read pro-divers who dive into cracks between two sharp rocks 50cm wide, enough just to get the shoulders through with an inch on both side) invited us to dive off this, for me, dauntingly high cliff (can't have been more than 10-15 metres, but felt like a 100!)

I was a good swimmer and a reasonable diver, but just from a swimming-pool edge before THAT experience!

So, there they all went in, first the pros, than the boys and I the only girl (all the others were happily posing in the shade batting their eyelashes at the diving heroes) and I remained the last, letting everyone go before me.
So when there was nobody else but me I curled up on the rock and tried to convince myself that it would be easy, just like it was for all of the others, I just needed to break the surface of the water with my palms, like I always did and I should be fine!
BUT!
It was a lot easier said than done. So I sat there for about 5 minutes with everyone egging me on and telling me I'd be fine.
I really didn't want to and wanted to do it at the same time.
I would kind of count my 3-2-1 and mentaly go , but the body just kept not wanting to do it.
It was a very interesting experience I had never had before, because I felt this physical opposition to my commanding mind!
Naturally, my vanity prevailed and I somehow managed to unglue my feet from that rock.
I think at that point my mind must have given up on thinking I was going to do it, and realised I was doing it just at the point when my body touched the sea. Because of that state of mind, I was very relaxed and went in fine.

When I got out, I was greeted by a group of very worried pairs of eyes, asking me if I was alright? Apparently, my dive looked a bit suicidal

I haven't remembered this incident for years now, and the very memory managed to make me go all red in the face .
So was I: brave, stupid or something else then

Amritia3ee wrote:
1/ Do you honestly still believe that being a 6'6 who has a massive serve is 'brave' for trying to hit aces. To me, it sounds more like common sense than being brave. Do you honestly believe that for the likes of Karlovic it takes huge amounts of courage to think to himself 'I'll try and hit an ace on this one.' Really?

I woudl like you to answer the question but not for the 6'6" player but for the less talented player who has to stand 4m behind the baseline. So here is my question: Are you saying that Nadal is not talented or do you think he is a coward?

2/ For a cricketer who is a 20/20 specialist he normally has a mentality of 'I'm going to smash everything.' As I said earlier: It is very risky, as it leaves them vulnerable to being bowled out or caught. But it doesn't take courage. They can come in, get 20 runs from 2 overs then get out, the coach will give them a pat on the back and say job well done, and they can be pleased. It doesn't take guts, trying to whack every ball for six until you get out in a 20/20 isn't extremely brave.
Do you think that it's brave?

I am afraid I have no clue about cricket...but I would confidently say that the Italian football team is generally playing defensively and cowardly while others are more aggressive and risk takers.

3

/ What about Djokovic. I have seen you said before that in 2011 he played much less aggressively than in pre-2011. Certainly I think we all noticed he didn't play as attacking last year.
Do you think he lost courage on the eve of 2011? Do you think he became less brave?

He simply became fitter....so closer to my #2 group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWkozzN161I

This answers the question best. I sincerely cannot watch a match like that without really seeing obvious gutsy and gutless play.

sphairistike wrote:
3-4- Murray/Nadal: cowards. If you don't think so, then maybe you don't think they're talented enough. But if we assume they are as talented (or almost) as Fed or Nole, then unfortunately, there is no other choice IMHO, then saying they are. As they could pull the winners (and please don't give me the examples of when they do it after they exhausted their opponent, as it does not require guts at that point anymore) but they decide not to as running down the cliff in zig-zag is a safer option than diving in the water, and even Nadal acknowledged it in his "autobiography" even though he did not dare to use the word coward to describe himself, it was for the world to see that he is.

So Federer, after his post-Mono recovery in 2009, lost the first set in AO 2009 7-5 by a FH pass from Nadal @15-40. See my UTube second third link for reference. And Federer was exhausted? And he played four more sets after that first set winning two sets 6-3?

And Federer won RG 2009 and W 2009 (playing a 16-14 fifth set against Roddick on grass).

Nadal says, he will hit extra shots to be 85% certain, rather than hit a possible winner at 70% certainty, and he is a coward?

What happened to Djokovic in the fifth set @USO 2012 after he had won the third and fourth 6-2 and 6-3? Was he exhausted? Yet he beat Federer in USO 2011 and 2010? Yet the same Djokovic, a few months earlier beat Murray in a five-set match and played a 5:53 with Nadal? Apparently, Nadal had an easier final with Federer in four sets, of course the Australia Day fireworks were a conspiracy by Nadullites to sabotage the exhausted GOAT's concentration, losing the next 11 points after resumption to an untalented, cowardly Nadal?

Absolutely fascinating insight, Sphair!

Federer, two sets up on Tsonga, lost at W, the next three sets, and Nadal was not on the crime-scene? And Federer was exhausted by a shot-maker Tsonga who had MPs against Djokovic at RG 2012? Was Federer injured against Tsonga?

PS: Tenez says Djokovic got fitter in 2011, but then Murray got even more fitter as did Nadal to be able to beat Djokovic in 2012 and they both are cowards.

As usual LF you show you don't bring any reflection or any insight whatsoever to debates so I guess the best from now on is for me to just not waste my time with an untalented and 4m behind the baseline pseudo debate conductor as you . You found one winner pass from Nadal when he has 2 break points and you conclude it is a habit of him to hit winners, really? . The AO 5th set would show you what I meant better. By coward I do not mean in life, I don't know him, I am talking in terms of tennis and shot making and yes he is. As I said, he'd rather go for the less risky option as he is scared to fail hitting a winner at 70% and had rather tire his opponent till he gets at 85%, yes gutsy indeed! What happened to Nole I don't know, why don't you ask him? Who claimed anything about Australia day except you? It was planned so Fed knew about it, if he lost his concentration or something it is his fault. Again, totally nothing to do with the debate at hand, so sorry, but not only you have no insight but as I said last time, you lack logic, really. The Fed loss to Tsonga is not related to exhaustion but Fed seemed to be moving not as well, maybe the back a bit, who knows. But it is not the point, Tsonga won as he was playing well and going for his shots, he was gutsy and it worked against Fed, it would have not against Nadal. Gutsy play against a gutsy opponent is a fair an square situation. Gutsy against coward, depends on the playing conditions. Anyways, go back to the drawing boards in terms of both tennis and debate skills (but you'll need to learn to be more logical for that first).

So LF, you don't need to comment on my posts from now on as I won't be debating with you. If you go a bit far I just might reply something mean exposing your limited logical faculties. Also, "more fitter" is not proper English, even if you put it in italic

sphairistike wrote:So LF, you don't need to comment on my posts from now on as I won't be debating with you. If you go a bit far I just might reply something mean exposing your limited logical faculties. Also, "more fitter" is not proper English, even if you put it in italic

Are we debating linguistic skills even more fitter. Please re-read what I wrote.

Using a threat to be mean. Go on, let us see what you are capable of and what can free speech let you do!

sphairistike wrote:The AO 5th set would show you what I meant better.

Your logical facilities cannot answer the first set question @AO 2009, and you are now referring to the fifth set.

What happened to Federer in the fifth set against Del Potro at USO 2009. Was Nadal on the other side of the net? He was two points away from victory at USO 2009 and W 2008, if you have watched the matches I reference.

You have not seen the full AO 2009 final or the 15-minute clip. You are more than welcome to count the number of passes, if you like.

I did not want specific player references to begin with as I have stated earlier, which you have not perhaps read.

If you want to continue further, you can respond, otherwise I have no interest in a debate with threats.

Tenez wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:
1/ Do you honestly still believe that being a 6'6 who has a massive serve is 'brave' for trying to hit aces. To me, it sounds more like common sense than being brave. Do you honestly believe that for the likes of Karlovic it takes huge amounts of courage to think to himself 'I'll try and hit an ace on this one.' Really?

I woudl like you to answer the question but not for the 6'6" player but for the less talented player who has to stand 4m behind the baseline. So here is my question: Are you saying that Nadal is not talented or do you think he is a coward?

So you didn't answer my question then
I don't think attacking tennis necessarily means gutsy tennis. I think these are words of a fan who likes saying the player they like is 'gutsy' and the player they don't like is 'gutless.'
Nadal is very talented, in my opinion. His grip gives him the ability to spin the ball massively, he has tremendous pace, and court coverage. He can get balls back from nowhere, even if you give Bolt or any marathon runner a tennis racket in their hand they might be able to reach the ball, but they wouldn't be able to get it back in the way Nadal does! I think Nadal's play is effective- very effective in-fact, especially on slower surfaces. He has the highest win/loss ratio out of any active player in the tour at the moment. Anyway this thread is not about whether Nadal is talented or not, it was a general question talking about courage in tennis.
Last month I sent you a PM at your request saying 'Why I support Nadal?' That was very detailed- and covers this.
I know you love talking about Nadal and everything, but we can continue this conversation by PM (rather than focusing all threads on Fedal which is what always happens- and it gets a bit repetitive.)

Tenez wrote:

2/ For a cricketer who is a 20/20 specialist he normally has a mentality of 'I'm going to smash everything.' As I said earlier: It is very risky, as it leaves them vulnerable to being bowled out or caught. But it doesn't take courage. They can come in, get 20 runs from 2 overs then get out, the coach will give them a pat on the back and say job well done, and they can be pleased. It doesn't take guts, trying to whack every ball for six until you get out in a 20/20 isn't extremely brave.
Do you think that it's brave?

I am afraid I have no clue about cricket...

That's a shame
That parallel was perfect here.
As for football... it is slightly different so we have to be careful. One thing I could say is that the gutsiest performance I have seen in recent times is Chelsea against Barcelona last year in the Champions League. They faced an unbelievable Barcelona side, who never run out of energy and manage to keep possession incredibly! But Chelsea defended like lions, so so brave, Barca had Messi, Xavi, Iniesta etc. who just didn't let Chelsea have the ball, but still Chelsea kept fighting and were incredibly brave. Throwing themselves in front of the ball, giving every last ounce of blood to the cause. At the end a few moments of genius from Drogba was enough for the win, but really their incredibly courageous defending won them the game.

Tenez wrote:

3/ What about Djokovic. I have seen you said before that in 2011 he played much less aggressively than in pre-2011. Certainly I think we all noticed he didn't play as attacking last year.
Do you think he lost courage on the eve of 2011? Do you think he became less brave?

He simply became fitter....so closer to my #2 group.

I don't understand... You're saying closer to the #2 group, which is the gutless category.
So did he lose guts? He changed his game-style in 2011 because he became less brave??
Or did he just realise that there was a more effective way he could play, which gave him a better chance of winning, so as a professional he made the necessary changes to do as well as he could?

LF!

You're debating different to how you normally do... much more direct style!

I am pleasantly surprised, but you do have to watch out, Federer fans may not be happy
But as NITB says: 'why beat around the bush!'

Edit: btw LF it would be 'even more fit'. Not that it really matters. If we spend all day criticising each other's grammar and knowledge of English, then we won't get anywhere

Amritia3ee wrote:LF!
You're debating different to how you normally do... much more direct style!

Direct, but not confrontational.

Amritia3ee wrote:I am pleasantly surprised, but you do have to watch out, Federer fans may not be happy

Including myself, I consider myself a fan of all players and all styles, whether they play 3 shots or 30, whether they are 1% certain or 85% certain, of hitting a winner.

Amritia3ee wrote:But as NITB says: 'why beat around the bush!'

Especially when a general topic like this get dragged into a usual Fedal crusade.

Amritia3ee wrote:Edit: btw LF it would be 'even more fit'. Not that it really matters. If we spend all day criticising each other's grammar and knowledge of English, then we won't get anywhere

I am allowed to push the boundaries, aren't I?

laverfan wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:But as NITB says: 'why beat around the bush!'

Especially when a general topic like this get dragged into a usual Fedal crusade.

I know, I have tried to avoid it, but people just love bringing it back it seems.
Don't get wrong, I love talking about Nadal, and over the past few years I have certainly shown I don't shy away from a Nadal debate, but things do get slightly repetitive.

Q. As a 20-year-old, as the youngest world-class player, you wanted to throw everything overboard that had brought you so far?

A. There was no alternative. I wanted to beat Roger and Rafa, and not just anybody. Over the next years I more or less changed everything. I knew that success in modern tennis is not a one-man show – and so I put a team of trainer, physiotherapist, nutritionist, fitness coach around me. I trained harder, but above all much more focused than before. I restructured my season. And I totally changed my eating habits. Thanks to a gluten-free diet I became physically more stable – and that of course gave my game a totally new constancy. Simply because I suddenly didn’t have to fight infections anymore that had constantly forced me to pull out of major tournaments.

http://www.redbull.com/cs/Satellite/en_INT/Article/Novak-Djokovic-021243227387579

Thanks to HE on 606v2.

Oh dear...
Now it's going back to the doping debate again LF

LF, why don't you and try and answer the 3 questions I asked Tenez @4:53 PM.

Amritia3ee wrote:So you didn't answer my question then
I don't think attacking tennis necessarily means gutsy tennis. I think these are words of a fan who likes saying the player they like is 'gutsy' and the player they don't like is 'gutless.'

My question was actually a clear answer to your question but you did not want to see it cause it doesn't suit what you want to hear.

Nadal is very talented, in my opinion. His grip gives him the ability to spin the ball massively, he has tremendous pace, and court coverage. He can get balls back from nowhere, even if you give Bolt or any marathon runner a tennis racket in their hand they might be able to reach the ball, but they wouldn't be able to get it back in the way Nadal does!

Anybody can spin a ball. Nadal is the one who spins it most thanks to his muscles not his talent and you know that. There is nothing talented in waiting for the ball to die 4m after the bounce when its speed drops to 20mph to inject power and there is even less talent needed to send it back 3m over the net droping on the T -line. Did you watch the clip I posted? Your parallel with Bolt is an admission of Nadal;s lack of talent cause Nadal as you suggest is a compromise between Bolt's pace, a marathonian stamina and an average tennis player.....BUT NOT a talented tennis player.

I

think Nadal's play is effective- very effective in-fact, especially on slower surfaces.

Yes, that I will not deny it...thanks to his fitness...but as he is being caught up in that department by new self-made freaks of nature, his days at the top are counted.

Anyway this thread is not about whether Nadal is talented or not, it was a general question talking about courage in tennis.

If you understoof my post about group 1 and 2 you'd understand that not everything is about gutsy and gutless. Like Nadal has not the natural skills to take the ball earlier, the tall guy has no choice but to use his power. Neither case can resolve the issue of gut or gutless. However by belonging to one group, one has to develop a risky strategy (gutsier) while the other has to develop a safer one (less gutsy).

I "love" talking about Nadal cause Nadal is an extreme player in his defense/power/fitness so it is a good reference to explain a case, like your 6"6 player.

I don't understand... You're saying closer to the #2 group, which is the gutless category.
So did he lose guts? He changed his game-style in 2011 because he became less brave??
Or did he just realise that there was a more effective way he could play, which gave him a better chance of winning, so as a professional he made the necessary changes to do as well as he could?

The answer is simple. He became fitter and therefore took less risk. In fact he was part of the longest matches ever in the AO and USO this year alone which shows that he banks for the long run and not the risky, gutsier, shorter shots/rallies. This new strategy works better for him cause he more "fitter" (groupe 2) than "talented" or "powerful" (group 1).

Tipsarevic says something interesting regarding the enormous role of fitness in modern tennis (not that we didn't know it already)

"Q: You mentioned how the top guys are able to play
well on all surfaces. Is that because surfaces have become more similar
in nature or is it because players have become more well-rounded?
A:
I think the top three or four players have set the bar so high, that in
order to follow up, you have to play well on all surfaces. Tennis is
more about fitness than ever before and it's become more professional
than ever before.
You have guys now, and I'm looking at myself,
travelling with whole teams of people - with a physio, a fitness coach, a
tennis coach. You just need to make tennis a way of life and you're
trying to improve in every aspect of your life outside the tennis court
to become a better player. It's way beyond just hard practice on the
court because that's not enough to be top 10, top 5 or world number one.
Q: You talked about age just now.
There is a general feeling that it's the older players who're
dominating the sport more - do you agree with that and why do you think
this is the case?
A: Of course I agree with that - it's
statistics. The average age of the top 100 players is something like 27
which is crazy compared to a few years back.
I don't want to say
the younger generation is spoilt. The other explanation [for older guys
dominating the circuit] is that tennis has become more about fitness
than ever before. So the older guys like me who have experience of how
it is - not all of us are like Nadal or Djokovic who came into the top
five at age 20 and stayed there.
But having the experience and
knowledge I have - even though we think our season and career are so
long, I'm aware it's not. It goes by in a heartbeat and you turn around
and wonder what happened.
So the players at the top - Berdych,
me, Tsonga - we realise how good our positions are right now - we're
trying not to let it go. Trying to stay injury free - because you look
at guys like [former world number one Juan Carlos] Ferrero, [Nikolay]
Davydenko and you realise how difficult it is to come back to the top.
So I'm trying to hold on to this position as long as I can."

Amritia3ee wrote:1/ Do you honestly still believe that being a 6'6 who has a massive serve is 'brave' for trying to hit aces. To me, it sounds more like common sense than being brave. Do you honestly believe that for the likes of Karlovic it takes huge amounts of courage to think to himself 'I'll try and hit an ace on this one.' Really?

These players, 5'9" or 6'10", practice for hours. If they did not have courage the first day they picked up a racquet, they overcome doubts and fears and train and dedicate themselves to their chosen sport. This is why genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. That lightening bolt of inspiration is honed with hours of practice. Hitting aces is still a very courageous act, for every single ace. There is a judgement made in milliseconds, of where to place the ace. Case in point is the IW MP ace from Federer (and he has described it in a post-match interview to Gilbert/Fowler on ESPN during Cincy 2012), or the Federer ace @RG 2011 against Djokovic in the fourth set. Whether it takes an ounce of courage or tonnes is irrelevant to this discussion. They may sweat bullets, but still, serving an ace, or hitting any shot is an act of courage, albeit honed by training and muscle memory.

Amritia3ee wrote:
2/ For a cricketer who is a 20/20 specialist he normally has a mentality of 'I'm going to smash everything.' As I said earlier: It is very risky, as it leaves them vulnerable to being bowled out or caught. But it doesn't take courage. They can come in, get 20 runs from 2 overs then get out, the coach will give them a pat on the back and say job well done, and they can be pleased. It doesn't take guts, trying to whack every ball for six until you get out in a 20/20 isn't extremely brave.
Do you think that it's brave?

Every ball the 20/20 player faces has a very different context to facing the same ball in a test match. The objective of a 20/20 is very clear. The limited number of overs/balls to face, the maximum number of runs, etc. The Captain assesses and provides instructions based on how many wickets are left, how many overs/balls to go, etc. These players practice hitting six sixes in an over, or playing forward defence for the full over just before lunch on the fifth day of test match if a draw is required. It requires equal courage to face a single delivery whether it is 20/20 or a 5-day test. Think of Tendulkar v Sehwag, or if I go back in time, Engineer v Gavaskar, or Wadekar v Gavaskar.

Amritia3ee wrote:3/ What about Djokovic. I have seen you said before that in 2011 he played much less aggressively than in pre-2011. Certainly I think we all noticed he didn't play as attacking last year.
Do you think he lost courage on the eve of 2011? Do you think he became less brave?

Djokovic chose a strategy and tactics for specific matches based on opponents. The perception that he played less aggressively is incorrect. Playing a rally of 30 shots (or 54, if you will), or 3, is equally brave and attacking. I quoted from the link about 'momentum' to illustrate my point. He is not MP down at every point to hit 'the shot'. I am strong proponent of the fact that such top echelon players are very similar despite what the TV screens project. Federer said after AO 2010, and repeated after W 2012, about the physicality of his match with Murray on both occasions. There are very thin lines separating these players. The better player on day wins. For example, take Djokovic v Murray AO 2012 vs. Djokovic v Murray USO 2012. Murray adjusted better to his environment of the day at USO2012 than at AO2012. Lendl's coaching is paying dividends for Murray. His Tennis is getting an individual identity. Djokovic losing a five-setter to Murray or winning a five-setter against Nadal, or winning from MPs down against Federer. Very thin lines. Despite fan rhetoric to make my-player-is-bigger-than-yours type debates, here are some numbers 2012 and 2011.

Ricoh ATP Matchfacts On All Surfaces	2012	2011
Service Record Year-to-Date:
Aces	416	343
Double Faults	120	143
1st Serve	64%	65%
1st Serve Points Won	74%	74%
2nd Serve Points Won	57%	56%
Break Points Faced	354	351
Break Points Saved	67%	65%
Service Games Played	895	899
Service Games Won	87%	86%
Service Points Won	68%	68%
Return Record Year-to-Date:
1st Serve Return Points Won	36%	36%
2nd Serve Return Points Won	56%	58%
Break Points Opportunities	650	692
Break Points Converted	45%	48%
Return Games Played	860	860
Return Games Won	34%	39%
Return Points Won	43%	45%
Total Points Won	55%	56%

The differences make or break titles.

Amritia3ee wrote:I say 'no' to all three of these questions.

Yes.
Yes.
No.

Tennis is more about fitness than ever before and it's become more professional
than ever before.
You have guys now, and I'm looking at myself,
travelling with whole teams of people - with a physio, a fitness coach, a
tennis coach. You just need to make tennis a way of life and you're
trying to improve in every aspect of your life outside the tennis court
to become a better player. It's way beyond just hard practice on the
court because that's not enough to be top 10, top 5 or world number one.

Yes...same music. But as mentioned players spend much more time in the gym and with their teams of doctors than on a tennis court which shows that physique is much more important than developing a better FH or BH.

His second paragraph confirms that yet again. That's why talent, mental strength and guts become all less important at the benefit of physique (fitness and stamina).

laverfan wrote:
These players, 5'9" or 6'10", practice for hours. If they did not have courage the first day they picked up a racquet, they overcome doubts and fears and train and dedicate themselves to their chosen sport.

SO bizarre again! You are taking the debate in all directions without saying anything that is actually relevant. First it's funny to read you use "practice for hours" timed perfectly after Nitb's post where Tsip says that practice counts for significantly less nowadays. And why overcoming doubts and fears training for tennis? Why not love of being outside and playing with a ball instead? Or even faith in own ability? use natural athletic skills maybe cause fear of going the academic route like most other kids?

laverfan wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:1/ Do you honestly still believe that being a 6'6 who has a massive serve is 'brave' for trying to hit aces. To me, it sounds more like common sense than being brave. Do you honestly believe that for the likes of Karlovic it takes huge amounts of courage to think to himself 'I'll try and hit an ace on this one.' Really?

These players, 5'9" or 6'10", practice for hours. If they did not have courage the first day they picked up a racquet, they overcome doubts and fears and train and dedicate themselves to their chosen sport. This is why genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. That lightening bolt of inspiration is honed with hours of practice. Hitting aces is still a very courageous act, for every single ace. There is a judgement made in milliseconds, of where to place the ace. Case in point is the IW MP ace from Federer (and he has described it in a post-match interview to Gilbert/Fowler on ESPN during Cincy 2012), or the Federer ace @RG 2011 against Djokovic in the fourth set. Whether it takes an ounce of courage or tonnes is irrelevant to this discussion. They may sweat bullets, but still, serving an ace, or hitting any shot is an act of courage, albeit honed by training and muscle memory.

Amritia3ee wrote:
2/ For a cricketer who is a 20/20 specialist he normally has a mentality of 'I'm going to smash everything.' As I said earlier: It is very risky, as it leaves them vulnerable to being bowled out or caught. But it doesn't take courage. They can come in, get 20 runs from 2 overs then get out, the coach will give them a pat on the back and say job well done, and they can be pleased. It doesn't take guts, trying to whack every ball for six until you get out in a 20/20 isn't extremely brave.
Do you think that it's brave?

Every ball the 20/20 player faces has a very different context to facing the same ball in a test match. The objective of a 20/20 is very clear. The limited number of overs/balls to face, the maximum number of runs, etc. The Captain assesses and provides instructions based on how many wickets are left, how many overs/balls to go, etc. These players practice hitting six sixes in an over, or playing forward defence for the full over just before lunch on the fifth day of test match if a draw is required. It requires equal courage to face a single delivery whether it is 20/20 or a 5-day test. Think of Tendulkar v Sehwag, or if I go back in time, Engineer v Gavaskar, or Wadekar v Gavaskar.

Amritia3ee wrote:3/ What about Djokovic. I have seen you said before that in 2011 he played much less aggressively than in pre-2011. Certainly I think we all noticed he didn't play as attacking last year.
Do you think he lost courage on the eve of 2011? Do you think he became less brave?

Djokovic chose a strategy and tactics for specific matches based on opponents. The perception that he played less aggressively is incorrect. Playing a rally of 30 shots (or 54, if you will), or 3, is equally brave and attacking. I quoted from the link about 'momentum' to illustrate my point. He is not MP down at every point to hit 'the shot'. I am strong proponent of the fact that such top echelon players are very similar despite what the TV screens project. Federer said after AO 2010, and repeated after W 2012, about the physicality of his match with Murray on both occasions. There are very thin lines separating these players. The better player on day wins. For example, take Djokovic v Murray AO 2012 vs. Djokovic v Murray USO 2012. Murray adjusted better to his environment of the day at USO2012 than at AO2012. Lendl's coaching is paying dividends for Murray. His Tennis is getting an individual identity. Djokovic losing a five-setter to Murray or winning a five-setter against Nadal, or winning from MPs down against Federer. Very thin lines. Despite fan rhetoric to make my-player-is-bigger-than-yours type debates, here are some numbers 2012 and 2011.

Ricoh ATP Matchfacts On All Surfaces	2012	2011
Service Record Year-to-Date:
Aces	416	343
Double Faults	120	143
1st Serve	64%	65%
1st Serve Points Won	74%	74%
2nd Serve Points Won	57%	56%
Break Points Faced	354	351
Break Points Saved	67%	65%
Service Games Played	895	899
Service Games Won	87%	86%
Service Points Won	68%	68%
Return Record Year-to-Date:
1st Serve Return Points Won	36%	36%
2nd Serve Return Points Won	56%	58%
Break Points Opportunities	650	692
Break Points Converted	45%	48%
Return Games Played	860	860
Return Games Won	34%	39%
Return Points Won	43%	45%
Total Points Won	55%	56%

The differences make or break titles.

Amritia3ee wrote:I say 'no' to all three of these questions.

Yes.
Yes.
No.

Thank-you Laverfan, an interesting insight.
I don't agree with you on the first two, but you provide a well-argued point.

Tenez wrote:That's why talent, mental strength and guts become all less important at the benefit of physique (fitness and stamina).

Talent is useless if it cannot solve the problem of fitness, because talent lacks the talent to solve a problem which is so obvious that spectators can see it too.

I think Tipsarevic is trying to say how today's players have to work a lot harder than in the past and almost accuses younger ones of not "working" hard enough and dedicating themselves fully (like he seems to have done since the break-through).
It's interesting to hear an insider story, where he knows that Berd and Tsonga are holding onto their position (i.e. "working hard").
I'm surprised it hasn't crossed his mind that younger players can't afford a traveling team, and are physically not peaking at 20 (naturally, that is).

Anway, it's all going more and more like a business: plan, analysis, solution....work, work, work, and worst of all: insurance!

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:That's why talent, mental strength and guts become all less important at the benefit of physique (fitness and stamina).

Talent is useless if it cannot solve the problem of fitness, because talent lacks the talent to solve a problem which is so obvious that spectators can see it too.

And there's nothing worse than a talentless talent trying to explain a talented talent. Mental fitness seems to be the key talent among the talentless talented in that case.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
These players, 5'9" or 6'10", practice for hours. If they did not have courage the first day they picked up a racquet, they overcome doubts and fears and train and dedicate themselves to their chosen sport.

SO bizarre again! You are taking the debate in all directions without saying anything that is actually relevant. First it's funny to read you use "practice for hours" timed perfectly after Nitb's post where Tsip says that practice counts for significantly less nowadays.

What is Tipsy's current ranking compared to Fedalovicurray? Please read this.

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/training-with-federer-in-dubai/

Tenez wrote:And why overcoming doubts and fears training for tennis? Why not love of being outside and playing with a ball instead? Or even faith in own ability? use natural athletic skills maybe cause fear of going the academic route like most other kids?

Do you play a musical instrument, Tenez?

PS: All Web links from the Internet are inherently unreliable and a 4 year old child on an iPhone can update Wikipedia.

noleisthebest wrote:And there's nothing worse than a talentless talent trying to explain a talented talent. Mental fitness seems to be the key talent among the talentless talented in that case.

There is. His name is Nadal. He can spin the ball most because he has muscles bigger than Serena. He has an EPO drip from RFET, with ITF/WADA approval, in his ar$$ that he needs to adjust before he plays every point.

Tenez wrote:

His second paragraph confirms that yet again. That's why talent, mental strength and guts become all less important at the benefit of physique (fitness and stamina).

Tenez, I do like and respect you as a poster, despite the fact I rarely agree with you.
This is for many reasons, firstly I think you are quite polite, in general, to fellow posters which is good.
You use a direct, but not confrontational, style for debating which I can respect.
Secondly you use detail in your explanations which I also like. More detail means you can look into things in-depth which is better for analysis and debate.
Thirdly I think your views do generate discussion, and debate. Controversial (for some!) which does help fuel debates.


However you have a tendency to relate everything to this agenda of yours. Your comment I have quoted on this thread is an example of this. Anyone can start a debate about anything, and as long as its anything to do with philosophy or sport you manage to relate it to Nadal/ no talent/ all stamina.

Now you could hold that view, it's fine by me. I totally disagree, as do many others. But you manage to always bring the same thing up, relentlessly. So the debate goes down a specific path, which then goes round in circles.
Against Djoko in FO final 2012 Nadal won the first 3 games. Due to his superior fitness I assume? Djokovic must have been tired from his marathon 3 set semi against Roger.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:And there's nothing worse than a talentless talent trying to explain a talented talent. Mental fitness seems to be the key talent among the talentless talented in that case.

There is. His name is Nadal. He can spin the ball most because he has muscles bigger than Serena. He has an EPO drip from RFET, with ITF/WADA approval, in his ar$$ that he needs to adjust before he plays every point.

Yes, that was a good quip LF
It's a well known fact that weightlifters are hugely famous for being able to spin

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:That's why talent, mental strength and guts become all less important at the benefit of physique (fitness and stamina).

Talent is useless if it cannot solve the problem of fitness, because talent lacks the talent to solve a problem which is so obvious that spectators can see it too.

Those sleepless nights are really getting at you.

Amritia3ee wrote:But you manage to always bring the same thing up, relentlessly.

But it's not me, it's Tsip telling it here. They will all tell you the same thing actually....I have just been saying it for longer than most cause I know very well what tennis is about nowadays.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:That's why talent, mental strength and guts become all less important at the benefit of physique (fitness and stamina).

Talent is useless if it cannot solve the problem of fitness, because talent lacks the talent to solve a problem which is so obvious that spectators can see it too.

Those sleepless nights are really getting at you.

Since lack of sleep is a physical problem which talent does not know how to solve, perhaps I can talk to certain Doctor in a place called CI.

BTW, did you read the link I posted two hours before the Tipsarevic snippet from NITB, which has a Djokovic interview Q/A, with a Web link (of course it is unreliable ).

PS: Lack of sleep causes me to wink a lot. and sometimes a lot.

Yes and Djoko is saying also the same thing as Tsip, Murray and everybody else.

You cannot improve your talent, mental strength, shots as easily as your fitness. That's why the race is a fitness one.

Tenez wrote:Yes and Djoko is saying also the same thing as Tsip, Murray and everybody else.

You cannot improve your talent, mental strength, shots as easily as your fitness. That's why the race is a fitness one.

Since Federer has been #1 for 286+ weeks, he must be the fittest, correct? Nadal next, Djokovic next, Murray,...

Let us see Federer won W, he is the fittest, but wait Djokovic won AO 2012 playing 5:53 so he must be the fittest (that too after a marathon with Murray), but Nadal beat Djokovic at RG, so he must be the fittest, oh wait, Murray just beat Djokovic at USO 2012, so he must be the fittest, but then Federer beat Murray at W.

Round and round we go, correct? ( I am hysterical now and this circular chain cannot be broken, unlike the OoD Circle Must Be Broken). Oooh, I need some sleep............

No, LF, I need some sleep since it's past midnight here, it's not even 8 PM where you are. Why don't you hit a jazz bar with great live music and have a glass of G&T and reeeeeeeeellaaaaaaaaaaax
Here's a nice song for you to get you in the mood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvCBXg0h_a4&feature=related

Good night it is from me

P.S.
before you go out read this:

http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/roger-federer-novak-djokovic-rafael-nadal-paying-price-for-success-091812

noleisthebest wrote:No, LF, I need some sleep since it's past midnight here, it's not even 8 PM where you are. Why don't you hit a jazz bar with great live music and have a glass of G&T and reeeeeeeeellaaaaaaaaaaax
Here's a nice song for you to get you in the mood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvCBXg0h_a4&feature=related

Good night it is from me

P.S.
before you go out read this:

http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/roger-federer-novak-djokovic-rafael-nadal-paying-price-for-success-091812

Thanks for G&T and the Jazz suggestion, NITB.

From your link...

That is not to say he is a stronger or better athlete than Djokovic, who is a phenomenal specimen himself. But, on this particular day, Murray was able to preserve some energy at the start when Djokovic was expending it. That was one decisive factor with the other being Murray's ability to rediscover his service rhythm which had seen him maintain an incredible first-service percentage of 80 percent in the first set. In the fifth, the first serves started finding their mark again, blocking the Serb's path to another come back after he had gone an early break down.

They will recover. It has been a long season with OG thrown in. Nadal did not play after W. The other three did. They will skip some tourneys and recover. No big deal. Nadal has committed to Beijing, which we shall see.

They have been doing this since 2000+ and can manage their schedules. Notice the Djokovic snippet about schedule management in the link I had posted earlier.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Imagine 2 boys reach a cliff edge of a waterfall and they want to get to the bottom. Now both have the same aim i.e. to reach the base. One can try to run around, finding a longer but safer path to reach the bottom. Or one can manage up all courage to take a plunge into the water pool downwards. Now which act is more gutsy? Who will take what path depends on what their skills and guts.

An act is not called "safe" because it extend any outcomes. An act is safe because the risk involved is low. In our example, jumping off the cliff didn't extent outcomes, but the risk involved was much higher. Running around finding a longer route down was definitely safer.

I agree with those who said that this was a great post. I think it touches the heart of the issue. Ultimately, I think I disagree but I think I can at least see where you are coming from. In order to try to understand this better, I will poke into it some more:

Right off the bet I will say that I would also view the choice to dive as the more gutsy choice - so no disagreement there. However, I think that your example differs from tennis (at least professional tennis) in some important ways.

First, you say diving does not extend the outcomes, but I think it effectively does. The act of diving itself can be viewed as an accomplishment and I suspect many, if not most, people would impulsively view it as more of an accomplishment than just "getting to the bottom", even though on the face of it you defined the latter as the "goal".

Consider the following example: Your kid stayed late at a friends' party. It is too late for them to come home alone so you need to drive there to pick them up. You live on the third floor and you are now deciding between (a) taking the elevator down or (b) jumping off the window. In some ways this is similar - choice (b) is riskier but - if successful - it will be faster and given the third floor is not too high there is a reasonable chance it may work out. Yet, would the word "gutsy" come as readily to your mind here? For me, the word "stupid" comes up as easily and likely much more so.

I think the difference between us is that in your mind, tennis is more similar to the waterfall example while in my mind it is closer to my example. In your mind, there is an a priori more glorious way to win, and so those who employ that approach appear more gutsy.

Second, what people call "risky" tennis (I do so too) is not necessarily more risky in the true sense of the word. If you say have a 70% chance to win a point playing aggressive tennis and 60% chance to win playing "safe" tennis, then, for all practical purposes, it is safer to play aggressive tennis. This is where many real-life examples (like the waterfall one, or even my 3rd floor jumping) do not mirror tennis well.