3 ms·

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

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.

swombat 18y ago
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.
amirnathoo 18y ago
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.
comatose_kid 18y ago
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.
briancooley 18y ago
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.
- boredguy8 18y ago
  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.

swombat 18y ago

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.

amirnathoo 18y ago

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.

comatose_kid 18y ago

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.

briancooley 18y ago

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.

boredguy8 18y ago
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.