IWC Blog 7 - Wimbledon 2009Thoughts on Wimbledon 2009...
Roger Federer and Andy Roddick - masters of their Inner Game
Since writing about Andy Murray's French Open experience, it's become even more clear to me that, on the surface at least, an Inner Game analysis of a sporting event can be deceptively simple. There are just times when the players are focussed and perform at or near their potential and times when their lack of focus gets in the way. From this perspective, all of the ups and downs, triumphs and disappointments that we see on our screens are the outer manifestations of the Inner Game being fought within each competitor.
Because this is the way I choose to see things, the commentator's analysis often seems to be off beam or even redundant. Many times the reasons given for a player losing a point are technical - 'He was late on the contact', tactical - 'She shouldn't have come into the net then' or physical - 'I expect he's feeling the after-effects of his previous match'. All of which could be true, of course, but are they the real reason for losing the point?
On one occasion that I remember particularly, the BBC commentary team cut to the chase with the help of John McEnroe - after a player had lost a point with an unforced error, one of the commentary team launched into a technical analysis, the next criticised the player's choice of tactics. Then John trumped them both, saying 'Of course, what we're talking about here is nerves'.
The matches I most love to watch are the ones where both players focus consistently and master their Inner Game - I marvel at their ability to concentrate in the moment amidst the immense pressure of the occasion and enjoy the aesthetic appeal of their untethered technical prowess.
And for me, this year's mens singles final was as fine an example of sustained focus under pressure as I have ever seen. As the stakes got higher for both men and the score took them inexorably into a fifth set, they both stayed locked on to target, believing in their ability to win the greatest prize in tennis. It almost seemed as if the final set would go on indefinitely with so many of the points being won spectacularly through focus rather than lost because of interference and then, at 15 games to 14, the smallest hint of fatigue (perhaps mental and physical) from Roddick gave Federer a shot at the title and his dream was realised.
The final also showed how pivotal a moment's distraction can be. What difference would it have made if Roddick had managed to focus well enough to make the volley into the open court at set point in the second set tie-break and taken a two set lead?
Pete*
