I think tennis can be a great place for analogies. But I dispute. Tennis has a great scoring system. At any point in the match, you can win. You're chances are never bad until it's over. All you need to do is play from now on at least as well as your opponent has played up till now. The only thing required of you, is known to be doable because it is exactly what has just been done to you. Half-time never ends. Not till the last point. Couple that with being a one on one game, & it's very psychological.
But the fact is that once a player establishes dominance, they can be very hard to beat.
Nadal's strength, as any great player's is learning from the past but not being influenced by it.
it isn't learning from the past and not being influenced by it. It's learning from the past and knowing when to apply that knowledge and when not to. The future doesn't always look like the past so you have to be judicious about when to apply lessons you've learned and when to be creative.
I love tennis and agree this method is "the way" to win at tennis. Its a good skill to leverage in other aspects of life as well.
However, I have seen this skill zealously applied to a startup and the person that uses it so well alienates others (internal and external to his company) by using it too religiously. It is just one skill and needs to be carefully balanced with the simple fact that in life and startups the overall score is many times more important than a particular point.
Be careful with applying a tennis stratagem to life. You will get burned.
There is a scene in 'The Legend of Bagger Vance' where the golfer is playing an important championship hole and the camera strips away all of the championship environment, the crowd, leaving Bagger Vance with himself, the ball, and the hole.
Golf is a different sport. And there's the great scene from "Tin Cup" that is the counterpoint to the point of this article. That would be the scene where Kevin Costner hits the ball into the water over and over trying to make the perfect shot. Searching for perfection on that one shot cost him everything.
This is a 'great' line because "the point" and "the score" can be anything you want it to be, and you can change contexts whenever you want to, so nothing ever really disproves it. But this analogy breaks down I would argue even within tennis, but certainly amongst other games and absolutely in life.
Tennis is a game of endurance: if the score is 30-love and you can expend a disproportionate amount of energy to get it to 40-love or hold back, store that energy, and let it go 40-15, you should if you'll need that energy later. On the other hand, if it's 40-love and you can clinch the game, there's a far higher payoff for that effort.
Similarly in football, if there's 48 seconds left in the game, 4th down and 1 yard on the 20 yard line and you're behind with a score of 13 to 14, you better be "playing the score" and kick a field goal, not go for a touchdown pass.
Strategic concessions and strategic fights are the true key to success. If you're in the battle, be in it to win it.
Strategic concessions and strategic fights are the true key to success. If you're in the battle, be in it to win it.
I agree with you (I think) and disagree with the article. One of life's useful lessons is precisely that some battles are not worth fighting. If you've decided to fight the battle, then make all necessary effort to win it, but if you haven't, don't.
Perhaps the most obvious, immediate example of this is the old parable of the horse race. What if you have 3 horses (fast, medium and slow) and your opponent has 3 horses (all slightly faster than yours... i.e. fast + a little, medium + a little, slow + a little). To win the battle, you need to win at least 2/3 races. How do you play this?
The solution is to pitch your slowest horse against the opponent's faster horse, your fastest horse against the opponent's medium horse, and your medium horse against the opponent's slow horse. "Trying to win every point" is a losing strategy here - only high level, strategic thinking can win the day.
Life is full of those situations. Play the game, not the point.
I think there are some other factors at play here.
Think about how demoralizing it must be for Nadal's opponent to know that he won't act in the 'rational' way that you outline - instead he will keep trying to come back from 40-0 and sometimes succeed.
Also, if you adopt the attitude that you're trying to win in the long-run and so it's better to concede this game to conserve your energy, it becomes easier to use that as an excuse to be lazy.
I see it differently. First of all, you may (or may not!) expend a disproportionate amount of energy at 40-love to win, but if it works, then you're done!
He didn't say strategy was not important - actually, he didn't really address strategy at all.
Overall, his observation was insightful - the distraction caused by focusing on failure limits your ability to do well right now.
In fact, this brings to mind Aaron Hillegass' book on Cocoa programming. In the foreword, he mentions that the biggest impediment most students have to learning new material is worrying whether or not they are 'smart enough'. Instead of learning, they spend mental cycles thinking about their abilities.
I think a big part of Nadal's game is his incredible endurance. Thus, it is to his advantage to contest every point, because the longer the match wears on, the greater his edge over his opponent. You might think of it as though Nadal has unlimited resources relative to his opponent. In that case, conservation is a worse strategy than playing every point because it fails to exploit one of his advantages.
I agree. In that case, he can fight for every point because he has 1000 units of energy, everyone else has 500, and, well, there you have it...he can fight for the "pointless" points.
But let me suggest that outclassing your opponents to such a degree in the real world is far less likely. In golf, for instance, Tiger Woods' early career exploited his far superior drive. As golfers altered their game / exercise approach, Tiger upped his game elsewhere to stay on top. Similarly, if Nadal faces an opponent with equal stamina, I think you'd see a far more strategic game. Or, to phrase it differently: the strategy he employs now (strategic use of endurance) will continue, but become more apparent as he is forced to make tradeoffs. That is, he currently 'picks his battles', but his superior reserves means he can pick each point. Against someone more equally classed, he'll continue to 'pick his battles', but more equal reserves mean we'd see different effects.
I think Nadal actually differs from most players in that he 'plays the point'. Most of the great players are said to lift in important situations such as service break opportunities or tie breaks. Perhaps if you have such amazing stamina that you can go flat out all the time then this might be the best strategy. But for most mortals (including many greats) prioritising is an important skill that should be used.
I agree that this sounds great, but really is a bit short sighted. As an entrepreneur one of the things it seems you need to be able to do rather often is realize that something you're pushing is wrong, drop it, cut your losses and refocus. There's a really delicate balance between not giving up and not wasting time being bull-headed. (I certainly struggle with dropping things sometimes even if it's counter productive for "the score".)
Hey man I agree with you and I said a similar thing. Doesn't seem to be what people want to hear at the moment. Seems the gung ho crowd have this topic all sown up. I'd like to play them in a 5 set match.
I fenced epee in university. One match I was fencing to five points, and went down 4-0 vs. someone I really should have beaten. This is particularly ugly in epee, because if you strike simultaneously, you both get a point. So all he has to do is hit me at the same time on one of the next four points to win. As a fencer, this isn't a hard proposition.
But I said something along the lines of, "Fuck it, I'm not losing here" and focused more intensely than maybe I ever have. It's like I wasn't even looking at my opponent any more, the world just kind of blurred and I just kind of acted.
I got the next touch. 4-1... and I knew I had it. I put everything into retreating and defense, never counterattacked into an attack (too high risk of both connecting), bit and nibbled down to 4-4.
At 4-4 tied, I could feel the fear in the air. He was frustrated, angry, violent - this shouldn't be happening to me was his vibe. I'd been defensive for the last four points because I couldn't afford for us to both hit - now I could, and I fleshed (charged) straight at him. He was advancing as I charged, I raised my epee, locked the blade against his, scored the touch, and he actually got knocked entirely over onto the ground. I jumped in the air, screaming and waving my arms and weapon. One of the biggest rushes of my life, and a permanent lesson.
17 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 30.4 ms ] threadBut the fact is that once a player establishes dominance, they can be very hard to beat.
Nadal's strength, as any great player's is learning from the past but not being influenced by it.
However, I have seen this skill zealously applied to a startup and the person that uses it so well alienates others (internal and external to his company) by using it too religiously. It is just one skill and needs to be carefully balanced with the simple fact that in life and startups the overall score is many times more important than a particular point.
Be careful with applying a tennis stratagem to life. You will get burned.
Tennis is a game of endurance: if the score is 30-love and you can expend a disproportionate amount of energy to get it to 40-love or hold back, store that energy, and let it go 40-15, you should if you'll need that energy later. On the other hand, if it's 40-love and you can clinch the game, there's a far higher payoff for that effort.
Similarly in football, if there's 48 seconds left in the game, 4th down and 1 yard on the 20 yard line and you're behind with a score of 13 to 14, you better be "playing the score" and kick a field goal, not go for a touchdown pass.
Strategic concessions and strategic fights are the true key to success. If you're in the battle, be in it to win it.
I agree with you (I think) and disagree with the article. One of life's useful lessons is precisely that some battles are not worth fighting. If you've decided to fight the battle, then make all necessary effort to win it, but if you haven't, don't.
Perhaps the most obvious, immediate example of this is the old parable of the horse race. What if you have 3 horses (fast, medium and slow) and your opponent has 3 horses (all slightly faster than yours... i.e. fast + a little, medium + a little, slow + a little). To win the battle, you need to win at least 2/3 races. How do you play this?
The solution is to pitch your slowest horse against the opponent's faster horse, your fastest horse against the opponent's medium horse, and your medium horse against the opponent's slow horse. "Trying to win every point" is a losing strategy here - only high level, strategic thinking can win the day.
Life is full of those situations. Play the game, not the point.
Think about how demoralizing it must be for Nadal's opponent to know that he won't act in the 'rational' way that you outline - instead he will keep trying to come back from 40-0 and sometimes succeed.
Also, if you adopt the attitude that you're trying to win in the long-run and so it's better to concede this game to conserve your energy, it becomes easier to use that as an excuse to be lazy.
He didn't say strategy was not important - actually, he didn't really address strategy at all.
Overall, his observation was insightful - the distraction caused by focusing on failure limits your ability to do well right now.
In fact, this brings to mind Aaron Hillegass' book on Cocoa programming. In the foreword, he mentions that the biggest impediment most students have to learning new material is worrying whether or not they are 'smart enough'. Instead of learning, they spend mental cycles thinking about their abilities.
But let me suggest that outclassing your opponents to such a degree in the real world is far less likely. In golf, for instance, Tiger Woods' early career exploited his far superior drive. As golfers altered their game / exercise approach, Tiger upped his game elsewhere to stay on top. Similarly, if Nadal faces an opponent with equal stamina, I think you'd see a far more strategic game. Or, to phrase it differently: the strategy he employs now (strategic use of endurance) will continue, but become more apparent as he is forced to make tradeoffs. That is, he currently 'picks his battles', but his superior reserves means he can pick each point. Against someone more equally classed, he'll continue to 'pick his battles', but more equal reserves mean we'd see different effects.
But I said something along the lines of, "Fuck it, I'm not losing here" and focused more intensely than maybe I ever have. It's like I wasn't even looking at my opponent any more, the world just kind of blurred and I just kind of acted.
I got the next touch. 4-1... and I knew I had it. I put everything into retreating and defense, never counterattacked into an attack (too high risk of both connecting), bit and nibbled down to 4-4.
At 4-4 tied, I could feel the fear in the air. He was frustrated, angry, violent - this shouldn't be happening to me was his vibe. I'd been defensive for the last four points because I couldn't afford for us to both hit - now I could, and I fleshed (charged) straight at him. He was advancing as I charged, I raised my epee, locked the blade against his, scored the touch, and he actually got knocked entirely over onto the ground. I jumped in the air, screaming and waving my arms and weapon. One of the biggest rushes of my life, and a permanent lesson.