The Trap Of The Big Point Theory
The big point theory is an ideal
that seems to make sense on a superficial level, and yet on closer examination,
proves to be incongruent. The concept that some points are more important
than others is a popular one within the tennis community. That it is
popular, however, does not make it true.
Two perceptions can arise if one
buys into the big point theory: one is that the player can become so nervous
because he considers the point so huge that he cannot function loosely and
freely. The second is that an individual who loves to compete can be
motivated by the challenge and thus be spurred to greater heights.
There are very few people who fall
into the second category and even those that do must forget the importance of
the point as the point begins; they simply use that idea for motivation, to prepare
for the coming point.
Let us examine this popular concept,
which is almost universally accepted as gospel. It is true that tennis is a
game where one player can lose more points than he wins and yet win the
match. This leads to the seemingly logical conclusion that not all points
are worth the same; consequently we have the birth of the big point
theory. However, as logical as this sounds, there are a couple of
problems with the emphasis on the big point.
If one is going to play one’s best
on a big point, the implication is that on other points one is doing less than
their best. Are we willing to accept that we play some points short of
our best? Are we comfortable telling juniors not to play every point as
hard as they can? How can players raise their game on the big
point? They cannot play better than their best, so if they play their
best on the those points, then how are they playing the rest of the time?
Brad Gilbert defines a big point as
any point that can win a game or any point that if won would lead to a game
winning point. This logic is untenable. Imagine a four-rung ladder,
from which an apple can be plucked from a tree. The object is to pluck
the apple. From the fourth rung one can reach the apple, but unless one
climbs the third rung they will not reach the fourth rung; similarly the third
rung cannot be reached until one has already arrived at the second and so
forth. This metaphor illustrates that climbing each rung is equally important,
because one leads to the next. At the very least, we would have to call
each point big. Actually they are equally important or equally
insignificant, with the emphasis on equal.
Another
question, which arises, is how can there be twenty or thirty big points per
match? Commentators on television call at least one or two points of each
game big. By definition winning a big point should give you a huge
opportunity to win the match and yet an individual can win many ‘big ‘points
and still lose the match.
A point should be played on the
basis of tangible factors. The height, speed and spin of the ball, where
on the court the ball bounces, as well as one’s ability to hit certain shots
and the opponent’s susceptibilities to, or disdain for, certain shots are all
factors that determine shot selection.
It seems absurd that numerous
reputable coaches should advise students to play points based on something as
abstract as the score and yet this theory is so accepted that it is considered
blasphemy to question it. Even if we are to buy into the fallacy of the
big point theory, the problem arises how to play those points.
One theory suggests that on such
points one should surprise one’s partner on the other side by doing something
different. How sensible is it to do something unusual, such as serving
and volleying if you are a baseliner? If it is a surprise to your
opponent, it is going to be something that you have not tried too often during
the match. If you have not tried this particular tactic, it is probably
because it is not something you consider your strength. If you were not
completely comfortable with this tactic, why would you want to try it on what
you consider an important point? Conversely, if you can be successful
with this tactic, then it should be sprinkled throughout your match in an
unpredictable manner. Remember that an opponent can only be surprised
once. Or how about going for a big serve? Does that mean going for
a serve that is bigger than you normally hit? Unlikely, because players
are trying to hit a first serve as hard as they comfortably can and to hit
harder could distort the technique or rhythm and render the chances of success
too low.
Another theory suggests that one
should play within oneself on such points and avoid giving away easy points;
however, giving up opportunities to attack allows the opponent to gain the
initiative. Other theories abound, but all are similarly unconvincing.
Even if players themselves buy into
the big point theory and are successful, my contention is that they are able to
put that thought out of their mind when the point begins. Invariably,
those who are aware of the importance of a point while the point is in progress
will struggle to reach peak performance and be mentally weak in
competition. At the very best, the big point theory reminds a player to
be present focused, which he or she should be for every point, but once a point
begins the player cannot afford the luxury of being aware of anything but the
ball and the periphery information directly relevant to playing out the point.
For me, someone who plays the ‘big’
points well is someone who plays the point as well as they can, but not better
than they play other points. In other words, the least affected you are
by the magnitude of the up-coming point, the more likely you will play the
point to your potential. If you are able to do that, I guarantee you will
be considered a big point player.
So, the irony is that big point
player reputations are made by players who refuse to recognize the big point
and therefore play a normal, solid point or by their opponents who do recognize
the big point theory and become nervous and play below their potential.
Facilitators are more and more
looking into statistics to evaluate their players, but while statistics make
good television copy, they are very limiting for evaluating players. Each
point is different and you can win a point in a variety of ways and yet
regardless of how an individual point is won, it just shows up in the win
column.
It is unhealthy for youngsters to
buy into this theory because to do what is necessary to win will not
necessarily help them to develop as tennis players.
If I play tentatively on match point
and my opponent finally makes an error and I win the match, what have I
won? How have I become a better player? What will happen when I
play a stronger opponent and he does not make an error, but instead takes my
tentatively hit ball and whacks it for a winner? The point is if you get
an attackable ball; attack, regardless if it is 15-15 or 15-40. The
physical situation you find yourself in should determine your response, not the
score.
The more you tie into the big point
theory, the less chance you will have of being a mentally tough
competitor. Instead, play each point with the same psychological mindset,
in a state of relaxed intensity (intensity comes from a total
commitment, 100 % effort, and the relaxation comes from detachment from the
result), and in present focus, waiting to pounce on the first opportunity your
opponent presents you.
To play in present focus is to be
open to the limitless opportunities each moment of play presents. Connors
was an excellent example of this. He prided himself on playing his best
every point, every match and every tournament, regardless of the
situation. Unfortunately, this attitude is not typical of all players and
that is why they are not as mentally tough as Connors was.
When the Archer shoots for nothing
He has all his skill,
When he shoots for a brass buckle,
he’s already nervous.
When he shoots for a prize of gold,
he goes blind, sees two targets,
he’s out of his mind.
His skill has not changed, but the prize
divides him, he cares.
He thinks more of winning than of shooting
and the need to win drains him of power.
Chuang Tzu
Back to Articles Next Article