Accéder au contenu principal

Brainwashed

Trying to write my first blogpost in English. I guess it will be awful, but I had to try sooner or later.

I was watching the stressful match between Novak and Misha Zverev, when I received a few private messages through Twitter. But then, I had a look at my timeline and saw a lot of pessimistic posts: the Nolefam was buying in the the sensationalistic media nonsense, about Novak not caring, Murray rising to the top, yada yada yada.

This match looked how I expected it to look: a difficult encounter, against a player in great form (Zverev played an excellent tournament, making it through the qualifications, humiliating Kyrgios, winning against Granolla on his way to the QF), playing a brand of tennis without pace Novak never liked. The things were made muddier by the fact that Misha is a lefty, and Novak needed a lot of time to rethink the geometry of the court and change his patterns of play. Then, rushing to the net against a player who very often tries to return down the middle, to your feet, was an excellent recipe to win points, and it was clear that Misha has studied his opponent well.








Novak's main problem was his serve: he tried to find his spots --- it seemed that the arm was all-right --- but he missed by a few inches so many times. Occasionally, he lost patience, but he kept fighting and slowly lowered the number of unforced errors, improved his transition and at moments tentative net game, and, after a difficult tie-breaker where the "fear factor" brought him a few cheap points, managed to find an edge and win the match. The key moment was when he broke back in the second set.

Novak confirmed what I was writing about Kyrgios two days ago: top players don't quit. They fight and always try to find a way to win. I can just presume how tough was the inner battle in Novak, but that inner battle is something Nick isn't prepared for, nor most of the #nextgen. It's often just a question of time and experience, but, in a few cases, it's hopeless.

Then, I was really angry at the reactions of the Nolefam: by repeating the same nonsense ad nauseam, the media slowly managed to put doubts in our mind. I even had to mute my stream to get my cool back: despite knowing better, the commentator's crew on Sky made me very nervous. We can all be influenced.

We have to be realistic: Novak gave us a lot, winning more than anybody expected. He can't do it all the time. But his changes are another way to defuse the pressure, to try to extend the winning ways, not the opposite. He didn't surrender: he's not that kind of player, just like Rafa didn't surrender despite his long crisis, nor Roger despite his age. Men don't change easily. Something has to break in them, and nothing breaks when you're successful.

Novak's attempt at "normality" is, in my opinion, a sane reaction. He had, and he still has, to face so many difficulties on his path to greatness that it can become debilitating. Taking a step back, trying to look things from the exterior can just do good.

Anyway, Novak tries to be precise when answering questions, and the best thing is to read his pressers verbatim: e.g., his statement that he hasn't talked with Boris yet doesn't mean he won't. Let's not forget that, behind the human aspect of a coach/player relationship, there's also a business aspect, and that Novak is probably not the only one to decide. The case with Vajda is telling: his family problems don't allow him to work full time with Novak any more.

A calmer approach, at this moment of his career, is needed for a different reason: he has to rethink and adjust his schedule. He's already lost a lot of slam finals just because he played mandatory tournaments when others were avoiding them and peaking for the most important moments. Hopefully, he doesn't have to play every MS 1000 any more, and he can spare his strength, his nerves for occasions that really matter.

So, let's enjoy, together with him, the years he still has to play, hoping that he will find a way to remain relevant, at the very top, until his last match.


Commentaires

  1. Nole need to win a lot, just like Rafa, to get the confident... He get to learn to play for fun, like Roger, as victories will not come easy...
    Stan is the only one that win more than one Slam since his 29th BD (Nole, Muzz, Roger only get one... Rafa none).

    RépondreSupprimer
  2. J'interviens à peu près jamais mais j'avoue qu'il m'arrive de lire.

    RépondreSupprimer
    Réponses
    1. J'osais espérer que tu écrirais un billet, et qu'il y aurait d'autres contributions ; le blogue a été créé avec l'intention d'être une page coopérative, un lieu de débats, et Lapin a invité d'autres membres de As... à écrire.

      Ça a foiré, évidemment : le seul à poster régulièrement est Apo, mais Rafa, pour diverses raisons, est toujours en crise, et il est moins présent. De plus, Apo lui aussi tient à son anonymat.

      Les Fedfans, eux, passent leur temps à regretter des jours meilleurs, et délaissent le tennis. Bon, je ne vais pas m'attarder sur ce sujet, je risquerais de devenir sarcastique plus que je ne suis déjà. Ainsi, 15-lovetennis et Les As... sont en train de s'éteindre lentement.

      Un billet reste bienvenu ; mais je saurais me contenter de commentaires.

      Supprimer
  3. Ce serai triste de laisser eteindre... Ne t'inquietes pas, la baisse de regime/de frequentation est liee a la saison morte. Je vais tenter de relancer l'invitation sur face-de-bouc. Je n'aime pas le format de discussion de FB.

    Quant au regret de jours meilleurs, les Fedfans sont devenus maitres et ont appris a devenir zen... Miantenant, place aux Rafans, Djokofans et autres... :wink:

    RépondreSupprimer
  4. Réponses
    1. T'en fais pas, j'étais seulement en voyage, très occupé. Je ne vais pas laisser tomber le blogue.

      Supprimer

Enregistrer un commentaire

Posts les plus consultés de ce blog

Another brick in the wall

While my posts are horrendously boring, revolving mostly about tennis, the titles, at least, are intriguing: but it doesn't mean these titles make any sense. And, frankly, writing about tennis is, sometimes, quite distressing: just like finding something new to cook for lunch every day, when you don't have much money. But right now, there are a few interesting topics: the WTF, although Andrew Moss covered most of the hot questions here . Goffin has a good chance to qualify if Cilic loses in the second round against Karlovic, or if he beats Cilic in the third, but his chances are slim, to be honest. The greatest surprise -- without being one -- is Monfils already qualified. Another great topic is the race to the no 1 ranking. Novak has only 165 points more than Andy at the Race, so the player who achieve better results in the last two tournaments will finish first. Although Carole Bouchard tweeted that Djokovic looks "much better than in Shanghai : [...] rested and pret

Un mois (ou presque) du blogue

Il est temps de faire un premier bilan du fonctionnement du blogue depuis son début. Les billets La qualité des billets est discutables. Je n'ai guère de temps pour faire les recherches nécessaires ; d'autre part, j'ai déjà discuté de la plupart des sujets que je touche sur d'autres sites, et j'essaie, dans la mesure du possible, d'éviter de me répéter. Ce qui est dissonant est que j'écris d'un point de vue obsolète à des audiences très différentes : une canadienne, une autre française. Ça fait presque trois décennies que je ne vis plus en France, et je suis resté intouché par les changements culturels qui ont vu jour entre-temps. D'un point de vue idéologique, j'appartiens encore à la classe ouvrière disparue ; je pense, qu'après De Gaulle, Georges Marchais était le seul homme politique intègre qu'on ait eu, et je ne lis pas les journaux. Günter Wallraff disait, dans un vieil interview,  que la société se complaisait un peu trop

Tennis dans les coulisses

Alors qu'autrefois la carrière et le règne des champions duraient... tant qu'ils duraient, avec l'explosion de la popularité du tennis, des moyens de communication et la croissance cancéreuse du monde informatique, on a l'impression que ce n'est plus le jeu qui décide de la gloire des vainqueurs, mais le monde corporatif qui attend un retour de plus en plus grand sur l'argent investi. Je me souviens qu'en 2007, Federer, qui, comme moi, n'y avait vu que du feu, se défendait « d'avoir créé un monstre ». On l'enterrait dès les premières défaites inattendues contre Canas. En dépit du fait qu'il allait remporter sept grand chelems de plus -- autant que Wilander, McEnroe, par exemple, dans leurs carrières -- le glas avait sonné : un joueur plus populaire, plus « banquable » existait, c'est là que se trouvait le pognon, et Federer devait faire de la place au soleil. Mais Roger avait sa propre niche -- le monde avec une conception plus tradit