Shapovalov vs. Djokovic :: Flamboyance vs. Economy of motion

Denis Shapolavov: the romantic's hero

Denis Shapovalov: airborne

I was cheering for Denis Shapovalov in the Wimbledon semi-finals last night. Shapovalov was the underdog. He is Rohan Bopanna’s doubles partner. He was also great to watch, hitting inside out lefty forehands into crazy angles and ripping backhand down-the-line winners while running full tilt.

Unfortunately, Shapovalov lost. He wasn’t outplayed. He hit more winners than the defending champion (40-32). He lost because he made twice as many unforced errors (36-15).

Why did Shapovalov make so many mistakes? It could have been nerves. But, watching the game, I got the feeling that Shapovalov’s higher error rate was something intrinsic to his style of play. The big backswing, flamboyant follow through, ball-contact while both feet are still in the air – great to watch, but error prone.

By contrast, Djokovic’s movements were never exaggerated. They were as economical as possible while still getting to the ball and generating that prodigious power. Roger Federer’s and Andy Murray’s styles are also similarly classical and therefore economical. They don’t just conserve energy. Minimizing the number of moving pieces reduces the error rate.

Should Shapavolov change his style?

Well, this style got him as far as the Wimbledon semis. It isn’t not working. 

Brian Lara, another stylish lefty, had an exaggerated back lift. He did all right.

Brian Lara's high back lift
(spot the ball!)

The right approach for Shapavolov is probably to reduce his error rate while retaining his natural style, rather than trying out any substantial technique reconstruction. Changing technique or playing style has high risk of unintended consquences.

Regardless, here’s a bet I’d be happy to lose: Dominic Thiem, Daniil Medvedev and Stephanos Tsitsipas will all win more career Grand Slam titles than Denis Shapovalov. They make fewer mistakes.

______________

Note: Are Infosys smart stats on tennis available to the public? I spent some time surfing the net looking for an analysis of unforced error rate by tennis player. Google didn’t manage to find anything.

Novak Djokovic: doing what it take to win

"Winning Takes Care of Everything". By Tiger Woods, Barack Obama and Bhagavan Sri Krishna

Tiger Woods on the importance of winning

How far does one go to win? 

As far as one possibly can. 

Most sportsmen would agree with Tiger Woods on that point. 

Win gracefully if that is your style. Win ugly if not. Test the edges of the rules. Win! 

This might stick in the throat of nice, well brought up, middle class boys like this blogger. But fair enough. Tiger Woods is a pro. He is playing hardball. So are his competitors. Maybe winning does take care of everything. For Tiger. 

How well does that generalize? 

Depends. 

On how well winning is defined. And on how well-defined the rules are. 

In most walks of life both winning and the rules of play are very loosely defined. 

Barack Obama with Tim Kaine
On the importance of winning

So how hard does one play? 

Public life is a sphere where hardball might be a bad idea, where the unwritten rules are more important than in sports, where winning doesn’t take care of everything. 

So, it was interesting to learn that Nobel Peace prize laurate ex-President Barack Obama endorses hardball. 

Apparently he told Tim Kaine, then candidate Hillary Clinton’s VP nominee “Tim, remember, this is no time to be a purist. You've got to keep a fascist out of the White House". 

Barack thinks that when the stakes are high, purity is less important than winning. 

This is not a recent question. 

Bhagavan Sri Krishna played hardball. 

Arjuna asked Bhagavan Sri Krishna about dharma at Kurukshetra. Bhagavan Sri Krishna replied with his actions. Whether it was forcing Karna to waste Indra’s Shakthi on Ghatothkacha, obscuring the sun with his Sudarshana-chakra so Arjuna could avenge Abhimanyu’s death, or orchestrating Yudhishthira’s only lie so Dhrishtadhyumna could kill Guru Dronacharya, Bhagavan Sri Krishna was willing to play hardball. The stakes were high enough to justify this. Winning mattered more than purity.

In contexts that are more important than sports, maybe winning doesn’t take care of everything. 

But winning does take care of a lot of things.

Bhagawan Sri Krishna with Arjuna
On the importance of winning