4 ms·

Well, I stopped reading when it said that Federer ”has been choking”, losing due to a ”mental frailty”. It told me everything I need to know that there is nothi

by soneca 6y ago

Well, I stopped reading when it said that Federer ”has been choking”, losing due to a ”mental frailty”. It told me everything I need to know that there is nothing serious to be read and learned in this article.

jshevek 6y ago
I sometimes find word choice to be a reliable heuristic for evaluating the probable worth of some prose, but I don't see why, in this case, you feel this way. Would you mind elaborating? (Assuming your conclusion is indeed based on the phrasing chosen...)
- eindiran 6y ago
  Perhaps OP meant that he had been dealing with a knee injury, and that doesn't have much to do with "mental frailty" at all: https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/30821027/roger-federer-targets-tournament-comeback-qatar-next-month https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/30821027/roger-federe... EDIT: Actually the article is from 2012, so I assume its because many of Federer's best years were still ahead of him.
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    The original article (from The Economist) is from 2012, so whatever the author was referring to was not the same as the injuries discussed in your 2021 article (from ESPN).
    - eindiran 6y ago
      Hence the edit.
      - Jtsummers 6y ago
        Which was made after my comment.
        eindiran 6y ago
        I think there was some page-refreshing asynchrony here, either on your end or mine. But I appreciate that you attempted to correct me, so thank you.
- soneca 6y ago
  I start from the assumption that Federer’s career (even in 2012) is enough to prove that he has the mental strength and can perform at the highest level in stressful championship decisions. But the stronger reason to stop reading is that, in the most generous interpretation, the author started to argue the benefits of “not thinking too much” by using a unfalsifiable claim about a very subjective interpretation of a fact, attributing causality to an anedocte that is far too complex to be resumed into a simplistic reason based on the author’s assumption. This seemed ridiculous to me. It was obvious to me that the author didn’t have much of a science-informed take (my impression form the title) and was just doing unsubstantiated storytelling
superbcarrot 6y ago
When the article was written Federer had lost to Djokovic after having 2 match points on two seperate occsasions (US Open 2010 and 2011) and since then this has happened again at Wimbledon 2019. In that last two matches Federer was serving as well. It's hard to make the argument that this isn't psychological.
- soneca 6y ago
  For me is veeery easy to make the argument that this isn’t psychological, but only to the expected variance of tennis match results. It was you that had to carefully cherry-pick data to support your conclusion. I would only have to choose among all the other match points he has won through the 20 grand slams he has won. Only considering Federer vs Djoko, Federer won 46% of the matches. There a lot of match points won there. Also, considering only Grand Slams, Federer won 6 out of 17. Not a great record, but still no negligible number of wins. And I would attribute that bad performance more to Djoko skills, and maybe also Djoko physical peak coinciding with Federer older age, than to any thing psychological.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  djokovic was already an extremely strong (mentally, physically, and technically) player himself at that time. he finished the 2011 season no. 1 IIRC. the "mental toughness" argument cuts both ways. pulling out a win after two match points in a grand slam speaks as much to djokovic's own mental fortitude as it does to federer's lack thereof.
- ssivark 6y ago
  To elaborate beyond what @soneca said, how do we know that Federer lost those points because he thought too much? What if, instead, Federer didn’t think enough, and Djokovic just outthought him? That’s why the conclusion is unfalsifiable.
  - superbcarrot 6y ago
    Yes, I can agree with that. We don't really know enough about what's happening in their heads to make any conclusions.

by soneca 6y ago

jshevek 6y ago

I sometimes find word choice to be a reliable heuristic for evaluating the probable worth of some prose, but I don't see why, in this case, you feel this way. Would you mind elaborating? (Assuming your conclusion is indeed based on the phrasing chosen...)

eindiran 6y ago
Perhaps OP meant that he had been dealing with a knee injury, and that doesn't have much to do with "mental frailty" at all: https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/30821027/roger-federer-targets-tournament-comeback-qatar-next-month https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/30821027/roger-federe... EDIT: Actually the article is from 2012, so I assume its because many of Federer's best years were still ahead of him.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  The original article (from The Economist) is from 2012, so whatever the author was referring to was not the same as the injuries discussed in your 2021 article (from ESPN).
  - eindiran 6y ago
    Hence the edit.
    - Jtsummers 6y ago
      Which was made after my comment.
      - eindiran 6y ago
        I think there was some page-refreshing asynchrony here, either on your end or mine. But I appreciate that you attempted to correct me, so thank you.
soneca 6y ago
I start from the assumption that Federer’s career (even in 2012) is enough to prove that he has the mental strength and can perform at the highest level in stressful championship decisions. But the stronger reason to stop reading is that, in the most generous interpretation, the author started to argue the benefits of “not thinking too much” by using a unfalsifiable claim about a very subjective interpretation of a fact, attributing causality to an anedocte that is far too complex to be resumed into a simplistic reason based on the author’s assumption. This seemed ridiculous to me. It was obvious to me that the author didn’t have much of a science-informed take (my impression form the title) and was just doing unsubstantiated storytelling

superbcarrot 6y ago

When the article was written Federer had lost to Djokovic after having 2 match points on two seperate occsasions (US Open 2010 and 2011) and since then this has happened again at Wimbledon 2019. In that last two matches Federer was serving as well. It's hard to make the argument that this isn't psychological.

soneca 6y ago
For me is veeery easy to make the argument that this isn’t psychological, but only to the expected variance of tennis match results. It was you that had to carefully cherry-pick data to support your conclusion. I would only have to choose among all the other match points he has won through the 20 grand slams he has won. Only considering Federer vs Djoko, Federer won 46% of the matches. There a lot of match points won there. Also, considering only Grand Slams, Federer won 6 out of 17. Not a great record, but still no negligible number of wins. And I would attribute that bad performance more to Djoko skills, and maybe also Djoko physical peak coinciding with Federer older age, than to any thing psychological.
leetcrew 6y ago
djokovic was already an extremely strong (mentally, physically, and technically) player himself at that time. he finished the 2011 season no. 1 IIRC. the "mental toughness" argument cuts both ways. pulling out a win after two match points in a grand slam speaks as much to djokovic's own mental fortitude as it does to federer's lack thereof.
ssivark 6y ago
To elaborate beyond what @soneca said, how do we know that Federer lost those points because he thought too much? What if, instead, Federer didn’t think enough, and Djokovic just outthought him? That’s why the conclusion is unfalsifiable.
- superbcarrot 6y ago
  Yes, I can agree with that. We don't really know enough about what's happening in their heads to make any conclusions.