Federer's Mind and Moment

Over at tennis.com, Asad Raza has a remarkably insightful take on Roger Federer:

[I]t often struck me, while watching, say, Cornet-Jankovic, that twenty-five years from now the biggest and only question some young tennis fan might ask me would be: so you saw Roger Federer? (With, maybe, two secondary questions concerning Justine and Novak.)

A couple of times during press conferences, I noticed something kind of interesting about Roger Federer. I'll get to it in a minute, but let me describe the scene first. Players enter Interview Room One, where all of the Rajah's pressers take place, at the corner diagonally opposite from where the players enter. The players come in and turn right, to take their seat behind the microphone on the little dais or stage. Most players look to their left as they enter, just gauging the room and who is in it and how full it is. Federer, though, always keeps his head down and eyes averted, until he sits and begins to answer questions, when he makes direct eye contact with each questioner.

Anyway, a couple of times during his press conferences, someone's cell phone went off, each time with an annoyingly loud ring tone. Both times, everyone turned, first to locate and then to glare at the culprit: have you no shame? And both times, I noticed, Roger kept his eyes locked on his interlocutor, never glancing in the direction of the phone. I'm sure he was conscious, on one level, that there was an interruption occurring, but he had decided to ignore it. Not even a darting of the eyes towards the irritant. Both coming in the room with his head down and refusing to allow himself to be distracted or interrupted seemed to convey the same thing: he chooses to focus selectively, and focuses intensely once he does.

Comments

[Maeve Adams]

Excellent observations. The whole piece is really good. Thanks for posting this.

[Tasnim]

From the comments you have generated on the Tennis.com website this is the most popular article on Federer sinc ethe close of US Open. There are well over 100 and very compimentary to your style and the point you made. So good job. Just one thing I will add is that this is what Bill Clinton use to call "compartmentalization." When you have so many distractions you must put every thing aside and only concentrate on one thing at a time. Federer seems to be practicing the art of compartmentalization to a higher level. Good job.

[Hektor Bim]

The tennis blogging here has been outstanding.

[Ruchira Paul]

I agree with Asad that Federer, in his rapid collection of slam wins and dominating play, resembles Sampras in playing style and steely resolve. But will he also follow Sampras in securing his place at the top without winning the French Open?

There was another champion whom Federer resembles more in his "compartmentalized" focus. Bjorn Borg, who came out to greet Federer at the last Wimbledon, had it too. A cannon, let alone a cell phone, could go off ten feet behind Borg and he probably wouldn't have blinked. But one has to wonder if John McEnroe's on-court tactical tantrums may have unnerved Borg a bit more than a cannon shot would have. We haven't seen Federer deal with McEnroe style (or to a lesser extent, Jimmy Connors style) court side drama. None of the present players is given to that level of abusive behavior.

Federer is amazing. But I really wanted to see Djokovic win this time.

[Todd and in Charge]

This piece is one of the finest on The Rajah I have ever read. Thank you for illuminating and deepening my respect for his artistry and talent.

[Moin Rahman]

In psychology\human factors sciences this phenomenon is known as selective attention -- a form of attentional and cognitive tunneling. This is good in some domains but may not optimal when peripheral cues have to be processed, or if multiple stimuli with equal significance deman attentions. In the lattercase , divided attention is the best. Rajah's observation points to the fact that Federer has great powers of selective attention.

[Tony C.]

I always enjoy your tennis articles, Asad, and this one was no exception. At the same time, however, I think it worth mentioning that as great as Federer may be, his reliance on a combination of confidence, extreme skill, and highly focussed concentration when needed, reveals an obvious problem: it is not always enough.

His unwillingness – at least until now – to adjust his game when he faces Nadal on clay, underscores that he is not yet a fully mature player. Great? Yes. Brilliantly talented? Definitely. One of the best ever? Certainly. But he has yet to make the simple adjustment (i.e. go to the net far more often, and use his superb volleying skills) against Nadal, preferring to arrogantly (and vainly) attempt to out-slug him from the baseline.

I love watching Federer, and your observations are very interesting. But it will disappointing if he fails to improve further, which he must do in order to be comparable to Borg in terms of versatility.

Regards,

Tony C.

[emme]

Roger is practicing what is termed "custody of the eyes", which is taught to Catholics in service, including to altar boys, as a means of self control and focus. You are extremely focused on the task at hand which is your "job" at the moment, whether preparing the wine and water to give the priest, or having the Bible opened to the days psalms, or answering reporters questions. Your eyes and attention and actions are all concentrated on the task, yet you are extremely aware of what is going on --it's almost like a blind man who can hear something and figure out what is going on without having to actually look at it. You discern that it is not important or worth taking your attention away from the task at hand, or can be looked at and dealt with after you finish the current task. Since it was just a phone ringing and it didn't concern him or need his attention at all, he didn't give it his attention. If the call would have been for him, and someone would have approached him with it, then he might have to address it.

See. Simple. And people mock the church. Maybe they need to open their eyes and learn instead. Afterall, that's where tennis came from.

[MaxBe]

Yes, this is strategic thinking. These dam dems always have to insert their narrow politics into everything. I’m glad the psychology professor above points out the severe limitations of "comparmentalized thinking". Its actually a sickness, not an asset.

Just the opposite. Federer is not using constricted thinking at all. Only an idiot does that. An ostrich tunes out other factors, which might be important and shouldn't be ignored, but also don't necessarily require full attention. Federer thinks like a chess player: analytical thinking, fast as lightning. Aware of what is happening (even if to a limited degree), assess it while simultaneously being able to focus on the current actions, all the while without forgetting future possibilities and his various possible responses; based on "muscle memory" including "mental muscle memory" from past events. As current situations happen the possible outcomes related to what is happening flash through the chess players mind.

That is why he is able to asess in the blink of an eye, where his opponent is moving and where and how best to place his next move. He has to focus on the ball, while he never takes his eyes off it, yet he sees in his minds eye where the opponent was leaning and taking his first step after hitting it, typical patterns, and favorite and stronger preferences of the opponent. That is also deductive reasoning. The quicker one's deductive and strategical reasoning, the more intelligent they are and the faster is their reaction time.

Professors and Psycologists have analysed these forms of reasoning. Bill’s theory or practice shows why the Clintons never accomplished anything in the white house; other than scandal.

Let's not be fooled by them any longer. Let's not remain ignorant and simply take any old person's opinions as facts. Look it up. Research is clear.