Sub 3.5 match question

[MariaS]

I played my first match against a Pusher. She was pretty consistent at it I must say.
To each his own with the style that each one plays. But I would be bored not hitting hard shots down the line, or crosscourt, or topspin lobs. I enjoy the variety and a fast pace.

[PushyPushster]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

Essentially, that is exactly what you want to be doing: playing on auto-pilot. If you're doing that it means there will be no inhibition in your game and your performance won't suffer due to hesitancy or indecision. Yes, you'll have (or should have) a game plan A and might need to change tactics during a match. However, those aren't things that require a great deal of mental effort. You decide to do something and then do it - but, you do it by concentrating on where you're hitting the ball. If you want the greatest focus possible, you need to break things down to their most essential elements. In tennis that is 'the ball'

Andrew,

Your original contention was that all ball sports required the same amount of concentration. That's patently false, in my opinion. If you want to switch the argument over to how much thinking should be done during a tennis match then we can do that. Have you ever read Brad Gilbert's book Winning Ugly? I mention it, because his contention is that there are way too many players who run around the court on auto-pilot who refuse to devote any mental energy to thinking up a gameplan tailored to their opponent. After applying a few of his suggestions I found that my game improved substantially. That's one of the reasons I can't get behind your 'Just Watch The Ball' philosophy.

Perhaps we're not speaking about the same thing, though. If you're saying that over-analyzing the shot itself (bend your legs, keep the racket above your wrist, remember to follow-through...) can cause hesitancy and poor performance, then we can agree on that.

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by PushyPushster

Andrew, Your original contention was that all ball sports required the same amount of concentration. That's patently false, in my opinion.

No it wasn't. My original contention was that, quote, "every sport is a 'mental game' and tennis requires no greater mental strength than football, baseball, cricket, golf, basketball, etc, etc". That's 'mental strength', not merely concentration (they aren't the same thing).

[PushyPushster]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

No it wasn't. My original contention was that, quote, "every sport is a 'mental game' and tennis requires no greater mental strength than football, baseball, cricket, golf, basketball, etc, etc". That's 'mental strength', not merely concentration (they aren't the same thing).

Maybe you can elaborate on the difference - It sounds like you're just splitting hairs to me.

[mica]

Yes by all means elaborate, because this:

You're wrong and, after reading your first paragraph, it should be perfectly apparent to everyone why you're getting it wrong. Your second paragraph is also wrong and for the same reasons as kevhen.

is not so much a valid argument as an unsubstantiated non-specific statement.

It's much easier and more damaging to mentally check out of a game where you are involved in every single point. Differences between mental "strength" and mental "concentration" notwithstanding, that's the point, and that's what makes tennis a more "mental" game than some of those others.