View Single Post
Old 05-18-2013, 02:42 AM   #30
Tennis_Hands
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Inside the service box - the business end
Posts: 3,283
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zildite View Post
I only have a problem with your concept of peaking, where losing early right before your target tournament is somehow all part of the plan.
If he really wanted to conserve energy, he didn't have to play Madrid or Rome at all. His ankle would have been a perfectly valid excuse to pull out.

The concept of peaking is about increasing your playing levels until a desirable highest point is reached.

The road to that highest point/peak is not necessarily the same for everybody.

Some players need to play themselves in to form in a series of tournaments, others can crank it up for shorter periods.

I am suggesting, that Djokovic has tried the first approach in the past and it didn't work against Nadal on clay, so now he is trying a different tactic: strike, play, but not necessarily to his best abilities (even for the moment), crank it up for the Major.

Could you tell me, why do you consider such approach improbable? and Why do you think, that all players should follow the same pattern of playing themselves in in a series of tournaments, instead of concentrating on the Majors?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zildite View Post
I say please own your theory on how these things work. If you are going to criticise people for not believing that Djokovic's losses were all part of a master plan, then you can admit that if he does lose at any point (making the final doesn't cut it for him, he already achieved that without this method) then his strategic losses can be considered to be a significant contributing factor (for example, he over-rested instead of being match tough)...
There is a difference, between saying, that he lost intentionally, and saying, that he didn't plan for a high playing level and, as a consequence, he lost because of that playing level.

The first suggests, that he tanks matches on purpose, the second suggests, that his losses come as a natural consequence of his intended playing level.

What my theory suggests is, that there is not necessarily a link between his form now and his form at RG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zildite View Post
Or admit that he may not have had such a plan at all and did things such as this because he wasn't going into these tournaments not caring about winning.
The last sentence is overreaction.

ANY player cares about winning, once he enters a tournament.

However, there is a difference, between wanting to win, and the realisation, what his playing level suggests. Winning a tournament is not only about your form, it is about other players' form.

If other players have different approaches (aiming for the tournament as their main purpose, and peaking for it, gradually building up with every upcoming tournament etc.) they might be on a different trajectory, when meeting the said player.

Let me give you an example.

Nadal is a player, who is playing himself into form in a series of tournaments on clay (he said it himself, that he needs to play a lot, in order to improve his form). He will be getting stronger as the clay tournaments progress and will be slightly before his peak in Rome, seen form a perspective of the series of touranaments on clay, that he plays.

Now, that is perfectly sensible strategy for Nadal, because he is Nadal. He has such proficiency on the surface, that most of the time he will beat the opponent ,being far from his best on the surface and not really having to redline and spent himself (which can be crucial in a long series of tournaments/matches.

On the other hand, Djokovic is not as proficient on clay, and cannot afford to do that. (Even Federer himself has played to Nadal's rules on clay (not wanting to run from a fight or engage in complicated games) and that might have hurt his chances (but that is speculation, of course, as we will never know)). If he wants to win tournaments he has to be at a very high level all the time (for his standarts on clay) in order to achieve the same things as Nadal, and that means, that he must spend more energy, than his main rival at RG at the moment. That leads to the natural conclusion, that, IF he cannot do the same as Nadal he has to find another way, that is more suitable for his abilities. Not cranking it up too early is essential for his chances (I thought the same about Federer through the years of his rivalry with Nadal on clay).

I also do not agree, that going to the final wouldn't cut it.

You choose to look at this matter as though the glass is half empty, while I choose to look at the matter as though the glass is half full.

If he reaches the final it will be a clear departure from his form in Madrid and Rome. I say, that it will be a strong contrast, to say the least, reaching the final of a Major, in comparison with losing very early in a M1000 series tournaments.

And, of course, that, if he reaches the final and loses it, it will not be a tell tell sign, whether his losses are deliberate as you put it (they were not, he just didn't intend to play on a higher level). It may still not be enough to win RG, as the physical preparation is only one part of the successful formula.

The other two parts are the psychological game (which he played very well this season) and the actual proficiency of the player on the surface at the moment, with the last being the most important part of all three.
__________________
Crisstti:It's not cheating (arguable at best), it's merely breaking the rules./ Vero:Armstrong lacks the arrogance.

Last edited by Tennis_Hands : 05-18-2013 at 02:47 AM.
Tennis_Hands is offline   Reply With Quote