US Open: Afterword

Well, it’s history: Justine Henin and Roger Federer. No surprise.

Henin has been here before, in 2004, at the point where she clearly emerges as the dominant player on the women’s circuit. Since she succumbed then to the psyche job of challenger hype, we’ll have to see if she learned her lesson.

My guess is that she has. I’m no fan of hers. But I am a player, and I agree with Steve Tignor, she is a player’s player. Just a pleasure to watch.

I’ll tell you what I like about both Roger Federer and Justine Henin. It’s their professional attitude. Like past legends who dominated for years, their games do continue to improve. Think of Pete Sampras, Steffi Graff, Chris Evert, Rod Laver…. They all were rather “boring,” weren’t they?

Their kind always show up ready to play their best.

People say that athletes are superstitious. Since luck does have a role in the outcome of sporting events, that’s a temptation. But you have players out there nowadays who seem to think that champions are born, not made. That winners are winners because they are somehow special, inherently superior beings who can do things beyond the powers of mere mortals.

They don't speak of these abilities as ordinary powers they have developed or that anyone might develop through practice: everything they say betrays an underlying belief in these powers being inherent in a superior nature.

Listen, you can hear the undertones of that ridiculous belief in nearly everything certain players say.

It’s hard to tell what’s going on in the mind to support this kind of thinking, but it seems to suggest that there’s a kind of magic involved. Unfortunately, the flip side is that, on a day when their stars aren’t in perfect alignment, despite how special they are, Serena or Lleyton just aren’t going to win, sorry.

That’s the poisoned fruit of so-called "positive thinking." Which is really negative thinking because it negates reality. These players are just doing the same thing in reverse that other players do when they convince themselves that they are losers. Delusion is delusion, whether the delusion is aggrandizing or devaluing.

You never get that from Roger or Justine. You never got it from Pete or Steffi, either.

If you think you win by believing that you’re just the greatest and can do anything, make any shot, then why practice? Note that such players are always those least dedicated to working hard on their game. They are a flash in the pan on the tennis scene, because when their psyche job has them psyched up they’re hot, when it doesn’t they’re not. Then whaling away with reckless abandon just makes their shots go out.

"Look I always say sometimes you need a bit of luck," Federer said. "It's obvious like in card games or something you hope it falls your way, but you can force the issue, too, pus it your way, more than just to rely on pure luck. I think especially over five sets, it's more of how good you are really. Sometimes it comes down to the crunch."

"I was just feeling dizzy, a little sick to the stomach. I was having some energy problems," Williams said. "I'm not really sure what's wrong with me. But you know credit her [Henin] for playing well."

How, Venus, when you just took all the credit away from her with that remark? Would it cost you anything to give credit where credit is due? An arm or a leg or something? Why is that so hard for you? One should think an ounce of credit were a million dollars.

This psychological stunt protects the belief that nobody can beat grand you, doesn’t it? Yes, you are that transparent. Because you do it every single time; people do catch on.

Try thinking straight, instead, and you’ll see that it won’t kill you to give credit where credit is due. Then go out and do something about that awkward, sloppy footwork of yours and try to develop a better game than Justine’s. See how that works instead.

So, here’s to Justine Henin and Roger Federer for sparing us this kind of nonsense.

Technorati Tags: tennis