steven wrote:

---

Yes, they must have played well, especially Amanda, but in the end in tennis it's either a win (and more ranking points) or a loss (and none), it doesn't matter how close it is. I'd ather they played well less often but converted their chances to win matches more often when they had them.

---

I disagree and I'll give you an example why.

Andy Murray lost to Nadal at the Australian Open playing expansive tennis. That spring he went back to playing his safe, defensive, passive tennis and retained his title at San Jose with a very defensive display against Karlovic, then he reached the semis at Indian Wells beating Haas, again the luck was with him that night, Tommy made a total mess of many key points, in fact both players froze yet Murray got the win with a negative approach. At Miami he saved mp against PHM before eventually losing to Novak.

One year later what happens? Murray continues with his passive, safe tennis yet this time around his opponents happen to play reasonably well on the day. Tsonga knocks him out of Aus. Haas beats him in Indian Wells.

Had Andy decided to focus on the quality of his own tennis rather than playing safe, then he would no doubt have lost matches that he actually won, yet come 2008/2009/2010 he would have a game that was good enough to compete for slams instead of his current situation where his serve needs a huge amount of work, his attacking groundstrokes are too hit and miss because he doesn't use them often enough and so on. Really Andy has made almost no progress, apart from on the fitness side, since he broke onto the scene. Everything has been short term focused rather than long term focused.

Now I didn't see Amanda play but the key to her long term success is to develop her game, not to focus on winning matches. It is better for her to lose playing the right way than it is for her to win playing the wrong way. If she was 25 then the opposite would be true. Sarah Borwell for example, should focus on winning but the others need to build a game that is worthy of the top 100 even if it costs them wins and points over the next 12 months.

If you've ever read Tim Gallway's Inner Game series of books then you'll understand the point I'm struggling to make.


 







-- Edited by kundalini at 15:13, 2008-06-18

steven wrote:

---

What I meant was that I'd rather our players had two competitive matches which they won and one clear defeat than three competitive matches of which they won one or less, because as well as developing the best way to play, it's important to develop a belief that you're going to come through close matches more often or not, rather than getting resigned to the fact that you've played well but are likely to end up as the brave loser.

---

I would agree with you regarding most players but Amanda does seem to be different. I was surprised to say the least when I saw the events Amanda was entering in her first year and was expecting her to crumble under pressure and lose confidence but it doesn't seem to be happening. Time and time again over the last few weeks she has fought back against higher ranked players and only lost when they have found "something extra" at the end of the match. She lost 6 of her last 11 matches but is clearly still improving rapidly. 4 of those losses were against two players. She lost to De Los Rios 3-6 4-6 in mid May but improved to 6-2 2-6 4-6 at Eastbourne in mid June. She lost to Kostanic Tosic 1-6 2-6 in Zagreb in early May but today took it much closer 4-6 6-2 5-7. If she carries on improving and competing at this level she should soon start knocking over more of these 50-200 ranked players.

cakj1234 wrote:

---

Maybe good effort but same old story. Typical British. Maybe its just the other player playing for time on court for grass practice, because no matter how many times they get caught up there is still no doubt they will win. I like everyone else am really dissapointed but its begining to happen so often, especially of late.

---

Maybe it is "typical british".

But you are turning in to a "typical British" fan.

1. Cheer up.
2. There are occasions when a good old chastening will make someone play better, but more often a good old encouragement suffices.
3. In the light of point 2, a lot of players read this board and you're not helping.

johnnylad wrote:

---

cakj1234 wrote:

---

Maybe good effort but same old story. Typical British. Maybe its just the other player playing for time on court for grass practice, because no matter how many times they get caught up there is still no doubt they will win. I like everyone else am really dissapointed but its begining to happen so often, especially of late.

---

Maybe it is "typical british".

But you are turning in to a "typical British" fan.

1. Cheer up.
2. There are occasions when a good old chastening will make someone play better, but more often a good old encouragement suffices.
3. In the light of point 2, a lot of players read this board and you're not helping.

---

Well said.

Personally I'm here to cheer on British players, I can be realistic and recognise that some players won't necessarily "make it", but I will still encourage them if they choose to play. I'm not a tennis expert, I can play but not particularly well so am in not position to criticise technique/tactics etc, also without actually watching matches you cannot get the real story. The scoreboard says who wins points but not how so it's hard to judge matches on results alone.

cakj1234 wrote:

---

Johnnylad, I do believe you are a typical british fan,  praising all the time for losing.  End of subject.

---

That's tennis. All but one of the players that enter a tournament has to lose at some point.

What you are saying is the equivalent of criticizing Cardiff for losing the FA Cup final.

Sometimes you lose, sometimes you win. We are not the type of board that jumps on players' backs for losing a single match.

Oh how constructive.