 |
| SMOOTH OPERATOR Federer, unleashing one of his cool strokes |
IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT tennis is the most demanding sport there is. That doesn't sound like a convincing argument in there. It even seemed like a joke. What about boxing, or football for that matter, are they not demanding in some respects compared to tennis? I'm not a tennis player myself, and I'm sure, like the rest of us who see tennis as some sort of a recreation than a sport, find it a paradox to consider the game as hard as a prize fight.
Nevertheless, it is so cool though to watch a tennis game because there is love even when you can't score a point. Talk about grace under pressure. But I guess tennis is just as hard a sport around any more than its hard, tedious game it offers. A 3-hour tennis match is considered a stretch by any means. Even a basketball game with three overtimes couldn't keep up with that. The Federer-Nadal Wimbledon championship match in 2008 that went almost 5 hours in grueling fashion was a grinder, sapping both players almost to a point of exhaustion, and eventually leaving them tired and dazed long after that epic encounter. No doubt it was a match for the ages, but more than the duel and the drama that goes with it, the game was also taxing to those who watched.
It looked so smooth and easy since most of them looked good in their snickers. But that was probably the hardest part of the game. Maybe tennis players put up a lot of work in their stuff that it looked so effortless the moment we watch them play. Swinging your racket for three hours is no fluke, and the ball seemed restive as the set progresses. Not only that, dealing with unforced errors and being humiliated by a strong ace was another burden to overcome. It is a sport, though having an opponent on the other side, that is all mental like you're basically up against yourself.
Watching the Wimbledon is a thing of beauty. Not only it showcases most of the best tennis players in the world, but the competition of the event is as stiff and daunting as most majors are. A single defeat in the earlier rounds would mean an end to your bid of that elusive grand slam. A top-seeded player, for instance, could be defeated in his very first game, giving enough pressure and competitiveness as the game goes on. And such demands require a kind of perfection and finesse, which can only be attained by delivering an equally demanding work in the process.
Like all sport, it requires some thrust (heart) and a whole lot of mental toughness to be able to motor itself convincingly into the game. And nowhere have these same qualities been displayed thoroughly than in a tennis match. Perhaps a large part of the game comes from within, from a player's mental preparation all the way through to his determination of winning it all. Finishing off those set points or simply attacking that ball as it bounces off the angle are some of the things a netter has to take care of. But at the end of the day, I think success comes only in a tennis player when he's able to overcome himself rather than the one at the other end of the court.
The argument, however, as the most demanding sport there is, is simply a no-brainer, like love and deuce. Aside from its purely mental stuff, that is, overcoming your own flaws and all that, the intangibles involved in the game, is directed solely to the one holding the racket, and that doesn't necessarily mean the other player. Unlike boxing when you could easily dance your way through for a measly 3 minutes of punching that sorry face, and your coach just inches away from your corner; or football when you could always rely on your quarterback to deliver the goods, the touchdowns I mean; in tennis, however, you are practically on your own, whether on grass, clay, or on a hard court, and with only your grit to rely on at times.
I once watched a Lleyton Hewitt-Andy Roddick match in an Australian Open, where Roddick was way ahead on points heading into the middle of the third set with a 4-1 score when suddenly Hewitt gained some momentum to overcome the hard-hitting American and went on to win the match, as Roddick retired following the third set. Roddick clearly was in pain, immobile at times due to a right hamstring injury he suffered a few months before that, and was advised by his doctor not to go on with the match. Roddick looked like he could use another set, but the demands of going further into the game could possibly aggravate an already lingering injury.
On the sidelines though, tennis may be that entertaining and fascinating, but the sport is anything but easy and entertaining to the players. There's wonder at the sight of Federer when he unleashes that backhand to an unsuspecting opponent because not all players are as adept and cool as the Iceman does with it. It takes genius sometimes to be able to do that, but I guess most tennis players would only commit themselves to an intense training to simply win it all. It looked so smooth though, not because it is so easy, but because the work is already paying dividends right there on the court. And if that isn't a demand at all, I don't know where it's likely to go better.
Nevertheless, it is so cool though to watch a tennis game because there is love even when you can't score a point. Talk about grace under pressure. But I guess tennis is just as hard a sport around any more than its hard, tedious game it offers. A 3-hour tennis match is considered a stretch by any means. Even a basketball game with three overtimes couldn't keep up with that. The Federer-Nadal Wimbledon championship match in 2008 that went almost 5 hours in grueling fashion was a grinder, sapping both players almost to a point of exhaustion, and eventually leaving them tired and dazed long after that epic encounter. No doubt it was a match for the ages, but more than the duel and the drama that goes with it, the game was also taxing to those who watched.
It looked so smooth and easy since most of them looked good in their snickers. But that was probably the hardest part of the game. Maybe tennis players put up a lot of work in their stuff that it looked so effortless the moment we watch them play. Swinging your racket for three hours is no fluke, and the ball seemed restive as the set progresses. Not only that, dealing with unforced errors and being humiliated by a strong ace was another burden to overcome. It is a sport, though having an opponent on the other side, that is all mental like you're basically up against yourself.
Watching the Wimbledon is a thing of beauty. Not only it showcases most of the best tennis players in the world, but the competition of the event is as stiff and daunting as most majors are. A single defeat in the earlier rounds would mean an end to your bid of that elusive grand slam. A top-seeded player, for instance, could be defeated in his very first game, giving enough pressure and competitiveness as the game goes on. And such demands require a kind of perfection and finesse, which can only be attained by delivering an equally demanding work in the process.
Like all sport, it requires some thrust (heart) and a whole lot of mental toughness to be able to motor itself convincingly into the game. And nowhere have these same qualities been displayed thoroughly than in a tennis match. Perhaps a large part of the game comes from within, from a player's mental preparation all the way through to his determination of winning it all. Finishing off those set points or simply attacking that ball as it bounces off the angle are some of the things a netter has to take care of. But at the end of the day, I think success comes only in a tennis player when he's able to overcome himself rather than the one at the other end of the court.
The argument, however, as the most demanding sport there is, is simply a no-brainer, like love and deuce. Aside from its purely mental stuff, that is, overcoming your own flaws and all that, the intangibles involved in the game, is directed solely to the one holding the racket, and that doesn't necessarily mean the other player. Unlike boxing when you could easily dance your way through for a measly 3 minutes of punching that sorry face, and your coach just inches away from your corner; or football when you could always rely on your quarterback to deliver the goods, the touchdowns I mean; in tennis, however, you are practically on your own, whether on grass, clay, or on a hard court, and with only your grit to rely on at times.
I once watched a Lleyton Hewitt-Andy Roddick match in an Australian Open, where Roddick was way ahead on points heading into the middle of the third set with a 4-1 score when suddenly Hewitt gained some momentum to overcome the hard-hitting American and went on to win the match, as Roddick retired following the third set. Roddick clearly was in pain, immobile at times due to a right hamstring injury he suffered a few months before that, and was advised by his doctor not to go on with the match. Roddick looked like he could use another set, but the demands of going further into the game could possibly aggravate an already lingering injury.
On the sidelines though, tennis may be that entertaining and fascinating, but the sport is anything but easy and entertaining to the players. There's wonder at the sight of Federer when he unleashes that backhand to an unsuspecting opponent because not all players are as adept and cool as the Iceman does with it. It takes genius sometimes to be able to do that, but I guess most tennis players would only commit themselves to an intense training to simply win it all. It looked so smooth though, not because it is so easy, but because the work is already paying dividends right there on the court. And if that isn't a demand at all, I don't know where it's likely to go better.
0 (mga) komento:
Post a Comment