Good win against a potentially very tricky opponent!

YEC hopes still alive, a Krejcikova dream never dies!

 

Good win against a potentially very tricky opponent!

YEC hopes still alive, a Krejcikova dream never dies!

Maybe in another universe

 

A first ever win in Beijing for Babs today!

Came from 0-2 down in set 2 with a hidden bagel 🥯

The start to a tournament we like to see from Babs

Alexandrova next

Nice result. Let's hope she can slay, or at least beat, another Russian (albeit a stronger one).

 

Strong performance from Krejcikova today. One poor service game to get broken but otherwise was striking the ball cleanly and much too good for poor sweet Anna Blinkova! Nice to see Babs play regularly and (hopefully) injury free. Alexandrova next who will be a tough opponent.

 

In other news, after Tayto decided to get back to the USA. BabsKatka will again be in the Doubles, where they will play Aoyama/Bucsa in R1.

 

And potentially Su-Wei/Penko in R2

 

Barbara Krejcikova? @maloofhoof

 

Her British alter ego

 

Blinkova actually doubled the amount of games she won from the Beijing Open last season so there's progress there too!

 

Poor Anna her form is really not there at the moment.

This tournament seems primed for Barbora to go on a run. I don’t think Katya will be more competitive than Anna after that Seoul disaster and her draw is pretty good from there on as well.

 

Hopefully not playing doubles while injured this time .

 

With Townsend out, Siniakova has re-partnered with Babs

 

Can't wait for Barbs vs Drova.

 

Up to 32 in the live rankings.

But she has YEC points falling off before the end of the year.

 

Fair point; however' this season' Bublik seems to be playing with newfound consistency which brought his results closer to Aļona's and may have separated him from Anna.

^ Indeed, Bublik has shown a newfound maturity this year, which has, rather predictably, resulted in noticeably better results for him on the court, as the exceptional natural ability has always been present.
I don't expect this good patch to endure for very much longer with him, however, as his nature seems to be too 'wild' to sustain any disciplined consistency for any extended period.

But promoting Blinkova is definitely a righteous aim' especially since everything I've heard of her points to her being a pleasant and erudite character; since you're a regular tournament-goer' have you perhaps had an opportunity to meet her in person and perhaps corroborate' if I may ask?

^ It's interesting you should ask this...
Opportunity, yes... Seizing the opportunity, no.
This summer at the 'Canadian Open', she was about 15 feet away from me, completely off court and not heading to a court anytime soon... but she was with several people - I assume members of her 'team'. They were laughing and joking in several languages, French among them.
I gave some thought to approaching her to tell her what I see in her and to encourage her to find the focus/discipline/confidence to bring her natural ability to the forefront. But I elected to not disturb the camaraderie.

 

While Blinkova was probably polishing her spoken Chinese, Barbora took a more reasonable approach to preparing for the China Open.

 

^ Indeed, Bublik has shown a newfound maturity this year, which has, rather predictably, resulted in noticeably better results for him on the court, as the exceptional natural ability has always been present.
I don't expect this good patch to endure for very much longer with him, however, as his nature seems to be too 'wild' to sustain any disciplined consistency for any extended period.

That’s an interesting observation; Bublik's definitely seems like a 'loose cannon' in both his ways as a player and his mercurial personality; but certainly' even if he doesn't sustain his consistency and maturity' this period will remain as a valuable experience with serial winning and the process which led to' and feeling of' being what is generally considered a 'top player'' which he might draw from later on. It’s up to him to make a use of it' ultimately.

A recent comparison which sprung to my mind from the women's tour is Anisimova' who does seem to have transformed herself from a disinterested' uncommited parttime player' fulltime partier' into somesort 'warrior monk' figure. Although' in her case' her questionable conduct may have had more to do with life circumstances than with her temperament (although she does remain somewhat mercurial). It’ll be interesting to see if her change carries on or if she fails so sustain the momentum.

^ It's interesting you should ask this...
Opportunity, yes... Seizing the opportunity, no.
This summer at the 'Canadian Open', she was about 15 feet away from me, completely off court and not heading to a court anytime soon... but she was with several people - I assume members of her 'team'. They were laughing and joking in several languages, French among them.
I gave some thought to approaching her to tell her what I see in her and to encourage her to find the focus/discipline/confidence to bring her natural ability to the forefront. But I elected to not disturb the camaraderie.

It's a nice story; good to hear she seems to surround herself with the right sort of people. Hopefully a new opportunity presents itself again.

 

That’s an interesting observation; Bublik's definitely seems like a 'loose cannon' in both his ways as a player and his mercurial personality; but certainly' even if he doesn't sustain his consistency and maturity' this period will remain as a valuable experience with serial winning and the process which led to' and feeling of' being what is generally considered a 'top player'' which he might draw from later on. It’s up to him to make a use of it' ultimately.

^ Unfortunately, I don't think that Bublik cares enough about winning to make any sort of sustained effort. His natural state, I believe, is indifference - and I don't believe that even this recent taste of winning will change that.

A recent comparison which sprung to my mind from the women's tour is Anisimova' who does seem to have transformed herself from a disinterested' uncommited parttime player' fulltime partier' into somesort 'warrior monk' figure. Although' in her case' her questionable conduct may have had more to do with life circumstances than with her temperament (although she does remain somewhat mercurial). It’ll be interesting to see if her change carries on or if she fails so sustain the momentum.

^ I view Anisimova as being a profoundly troubled individual who lost her way - and lost her developing identity - when her father died suddenly a few years ago. Since then, she has focused mostly on 'partying' and bikini photos, which is, to me, a rather blatant manner of avoiding the grieving process.
Every once in a while, she plays well and has good results for a few weeks. But it never lasts for very long before her demons re-enter her space and return her to the avoidance/escapism spectrum.

She is in a difficult position in that her job as a tennis player is also a constant reminder of her father - and thus, of the loss of her father. They were very much on this tennis journey together... and then, very suddenly, she was alone on the journey.
I don't think that she will produce a significant period (which I define as being at least an uninterrupted year or so) of high level tennis until she is able to successfully grieve and truly deal withher father's death.

It's a nice story; good to hear she seems to surround herself with the right sort of people. Hopefully a new opportunity presents itself again.

^ 25 or so years ago, I was quite fed up with seeing another immensely talented player wasting his talent - Hicham Arazi -, and I approached him as he was coming off a practice court and 'scolded' him: "You have more natural ability than any other player out here", I told him "But you've got to get things together up here, man", as I pointed to my head. Arazi just looked at me and shrugged his shoulders, as if to say 'I know - and I've tried, but I just can't'.
He may have been the most naturally talented player I've ever seen. His hand/eye co-ordination was such that he could flip his racquet up 20 feet above his head, spinning at 500 RPMs, and grab the handle of the racquet as it came down to him. Truly amazing. But a head like Bublik/Rios/Safin.
(When Safin was playing and using Head racquets, I not so jokingly suggested that Head should come out with a signature Safin racquet and call it the 'Case' 😁.)

 

^ I view Anisimova as being a profoundly troubled individual who lost her way - and lost her developing identity - when her father died suddenly a few years ago. Since then, she has focused mostly on 'partying' and bikini photos, which is, to me, a rather blatant manner of avoiding the grieving process.
Every once in a while, she plays well and has good results for a few weeks. But it never lasts for very long before her demons re-enter her space and return her to the avoidance/escapism spectrum.

She is in a difficult position in that her job as a tennis player is also a constant reminder of her father - and thus, of the loss of her father. They were very much on this tennis journey together... and then, very suddenly, she was alone on the journey.
I don't think that she will produce a significant period (which I define as being at least an uninterrupted year or so) of high level tennis until she is able to successfully grieve and truly deal withher father's death.

Absolutely. While I think some inconsistency is an inalienable part of Anisimova's all-or-nothing playing style' her erstwhile career does seem defined by her father's passing and the fallout of it. I've never particularly cared for her as a player' but the way she's been tackling her tribulations over the past few years' seemingly maturing greatly along the way' fills me with respect. Probably one of the most fascinating psychological profiles of a WTA player in recent times.

^ 25 or so years ago, I was quite fed up with seeing another immensely talented player wasting his talent - Hicham Arazi -, and I approached him as he was coming off a practice court and 'scolded' him: "You have more natural ability than any other player out here", I told him "But you've got to get things together up here, man", as I pointed to my head. Arazi just looked at me and shrugged his shoulders, as if to say 'I know - and I've tried, but I just can't'.
He may have been the most naturally talented player I've ever seen. His hand/eye co-ordination was such that he could flip his racquet up 20 feet above his head, spinning at 500 RPMs, and grab the handle of the racquet as it came down to him. Truly amazing. But a head like Bublik/Rios/Safin.
(When Safin was playing and using Head racquets, I not so jokingly suggested that Head should come out with a signature Safin racquet and call it the 'Case' 😁.)

I wasn’t around to watch Arazi' but I've heard of his talent. It seems like many talented players are incapable of using their potential to the fullest' perhaps due to the fact they achieve a level sufficient to play in the lower orders too easily' and being incapable of adjusting to a more competitive environment' not developing the necessary work ethic. A similar pattern can be observed with pupils' with children who are precocious learners often struggling during later stages of education' or life. It’s frankly both fascinating and frustratingly common. So much latent potential remaining unused! It also shows how careers can end up decided in childhood.. I wonder if the social and technological developments will perhaps change this' if we perhaps reach a point where the AI guides people from childhood in order to optimize the usage of their natural aptitudes. Such prospect is both (again) fascinating' and' frankly' horrifying.

 

Absolutely. While I think some inconsistency is an inalienable part of Anisimova's all-or-nothing playing style' her erstwhile career does seem defined by her father's passing and the fallout of it. I've never particularly cared for her as a player' but the way she's been tackling her tribulations over the past few years' seemingly maturing greatly along the way' fills me with respect. Probably one of the most fascinating psychological profiles of a WTA player in recent times.

^ That's fine... but I'm not a fan of hers. I feel bad for her and her circumstance, but I am not a fan. Maybe it's the overindulgence in 'social media' - although, as I mentioned, I believe that's an escape from the grieving process, still, anything involving what I perceive as the abuse of 'social media' rubs me the wrong way.

I wasn’t around to watch Arazi' but I've heard of his talent. It seems like many talented players are incapable of using their potential to the fullest' perhaps due to the fact they achieve a level sufficient to play in the lower orders too easily' and being incapable of adjusting to a more competitive environment' not developing the necessary work ethic. A similar pattern can be observed with pupils' with children who are precocious learners often struggling during later stages of education' or life. It’s frankly both fascinating and frustratingly common. So much latent potential remaining unused! It also shows how careers can end up decided in childhood..

^ I very much agree with your insights... And I would add that these rare players with an abundance of natural ability can hit every shot in the book, and so find it difficult to decide which shot to hit, as they possess significantly more options than other players at any given time.

I wonder if the social and technological developments will perhaps change this' if we perhaps reach a point where the AI guides people from childhood in order to optimize the usage of their natural aptitudes. Such prospect is both (again) fascinating' and' frankly' horrifying.

^ I sincerely and desperately hope that AI does not enter into the equation to any degree.
AI will be a disaster for society. Even worse than the internet has been.
I learned a long time ago that human beings will abuse absolutely everything they come into contact with - thus turning potential positive elements into profound negatives.

 

^ That's fine... but I'm not a fan of hers. I feel bad for her and her circumstance, but I am not a fan. Maybe it's the overindulgence in 'social media' - although, as I mentioned, I believe that's an escape from the grieving process, still, anything involving what I perceive as the abuse of 'social media' rubs me the wrong way.

I largely share yout sentiments' although I'm probably more forgiving in this case considering her backstory' as well as the fact she seems to have dialed it down significantly over the past year or so.. She's definitely grown on me' but a lot would have to change in order for me to call myself a fan.

^ I very much agree with your insights... And I would add that these rare players with an abundance of natural ability can hit every shot in the book, and so find it difficult to decide which shot to hit, as they possess significantly more options than other players at any given time.

Ah' the infamous Muchová Trap; this is certainly a frustrating phenomenon. Frankly' it's easy to get lost in the talk of 'talent' and not appreciate sober' intelligent shot selection. I remember watching Gauff vs Navarro at Wimbledon last year' and despite not being Emma's fan at all' I was really impressed with her tactical discipline.

^ I sincerely and desperately hope that AI does not enter into the equation to any degree.
AI will be a disaster for society. Even worse than the internet has been.
I learned a long time ago that human beings will abuse absolutely everything they come into contact with - thus turning potential positive elements into profound negatives.

The internet certainly has its positive aspects' like the fact we're talking right now despite living on different continents' but it’s definitely gotten out of control; all the gains should not obscure how much we've lost along the way. Besides' while humanity has been through many social/cultural/technological revolutions and seemingly always finds a way to come out on top' at some point we might find ourselves handling power far too great for us to control.

It also reminds me of a book by the renowned science fiction writer and futurologist Jacek Dukaj Po piśmie (After the writing)' recommended to me by a friend' though I haven't read it so far.. drawing on the fact that individuality is' apparently' not inherent in Humans (a child only developing a sense of self around the age of 4)' the author speculates that' in the information age' such sociobiological developments may happen that we are reduced to mere nodes in the data flow' our somatic and emotional impressions become like one with consumed information. If such a thing happens' we probably won't be around to witness it.. thankfully.

 

I largely share yout sentiments' although I'm probably more forgiving in this case considering her backstory' as well as the fact she seems to have dialed it down significantly over the past year or so.. She's definitely grown on me' but a lot would have to change in order for me to call myself a fan.

^ Fair enough.

Ah' the infamous Muchová Trap; this is certainly a frustrating phenomenon. Frankly' it's easy to get lost in the talk of 'talent' and not appreciate sober' intelligent shot selection. I remember watching Gauff vs Navarro at Wimbledon last year' and despite not being Emma's fan at all' I was really impressed with her tactical discipline.

^ I can identify with this phenomenon to a degree, as I can hit pretty much any shot (in both tennis and pickleball) - but hitting the right shot at the right time continues to elude me. Some years ago, I was playing in a tournament, as was a friend of mine. My friend and I were playing more or less at the same time, 1 court apart. After we finished, my friend asked me how I did. I told him I had lost. He said "WHAT? How did you lose? Every time I looked over at your match, you were hitting a great shot." I replied "Yes - I won the spectacular shot contest, but I lost the match." This is the story of my life in tennis.
I can accurately analyze other players, and give advice accordingly... but I seem powerless to follow my own advice... 😁

I recently realized that, as silly as it seems, I don't actualy play to win. I play to challenge myself and to amuse myself. As such, I will very often go for the most difficult, most high risk shot I can imagine. If successful, it's spectacularly genius. If it fails, it is embarrassingly stupid. But that is my natural character - I love a challenge, and 'playing safe' bores the crap out of me.

The internet certainly has its positive aspects' like the fact we're talking right now despite living on different continents' but it’s definitely gotten out of control; all the gains should not obscure how much we've lost along the way. Besides' while humanity has been through many social/cultural/technological revolutions and seemingly always finds a way to come out on top' at some point we might find ourselves handling power far too great for us to control.

^Well put. I think that time may well be at hand now - especially with the advent of Artificial Intelligence.
25-30 years ago, when the internet was first infiltrating people's homes, I warned whoever would listen (basically no-one) that this internet thing will be terrible for interpersonal relationships, and for society as a whole. I saw (rather clearly) that the human - and humane - connection would be lost amidst all of the technology and automation. And that is exactly what has occurred. Today, people don't communicate with one another - it is my machine communicating with your machine - it's always done through some sort of technological filter, which inherently removes a degree of the humanity.

In a hand written letter, there is something of the person; something of the individual. This is lost in the generic electronic communication of today.
Also, one would wait until one had matters of significance before hand writing a letter and mailing it - because both elements required a certain degree of effort. But today, sending genericly typed electronic 'communications' are so easy that people think nothing of it - and so 'share' the most inane, insignificant, and unimportant matters. Whereas prior to all of this technology, interpersonal communications were a matter of quality before quantity, it is now the complete opposite. This is clearly demonstrated in the incredible 'importance' most people see in how many 'likes', 'followers', and 'views' someone has accumulated.

As well, simple things like asking someone for directions has been lost to GPS technology... Holding the door open for someone has also been lost to automation. No-one considers these 'small things' - but these 'small' reductions in human interaction amount to something quite significant when they are all put together.

If we look at the so-called 'progress' of humankind - and the speed of it - over the past 100 years, and we project the same degree of 'progression' - including the increasing speed of same - into the future, it would surprise me greatly if humankind can survive another 50 years.

It also reminds me of a book by the renowned science fiction writer and futurologist Jacek Dukaj Po piśmie (After the writing)' recommended to me by a friend' though I haven't read it so far.. drawing on the fact that individuality is' apparently' not inherent in Humans (a child only developing a sense of self around the age of 4)' the author speculates that' in the information age' such sociobiological developments may happen that we are reduced to mere nodes in the data flow' our somatic and emotional impressions become like one with consumed information. If such a thing happens' we probably won't be around to witness it.. thankfully.

^ An interesting theory... although anyone who knows me would swear that individuality is inherent in at least some members of the human species 🙃.

I think you'll find this to be of interest:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/25/1171773181/social-media-teens-mental-health

I also encourage you to read some of Neil Postman's writings...
The first link below lists his books; the second is a video lecture (often quite humorous) of his about the effects of technology on our culture...

Remembering Neil Postman

 

^ I can identify with this phenomenon to a degree, as I can hit pretty much any shot (in both tennis and pickleball) - but hitting the right shot at the right time continues to elude me. Some years ago, I was playing in a tournament, as was a friend of mine. My friend and I were playing more or less at the same time, 1 court apart. After we finished, my friend asked me how I did. I told him I had lost. He said "WHAT? How did you lose? Every time I looked over at your match, you were hitting a great shot." I replied "Yes - I won the spectacular shot contest, but I lost the match." This is the story of my life in tennis.
I can accurately analyze other players, and give advice accordingly... but I seem powerless to follow my own advice... 😁

I recently realized that, as silly as it seems, I don't actualy play to win. I play to challenge myself and to amuse myself. As such, I will very often go for the most difficult, most high risk shot I can imagine. If successful, it's spectacularly genius. If it fails, it is embarrassingly stupid. But that is my natural character - I love a challenge, and 'playing safe' bores the crap out of me.

In some ways' this is an enviable attitude; I've often been hamstrung by toxic perfectionism' wherein I was so focussed on the end result that I couldn't truly enjoy the process (which often leads to a trap of doing nothing at all' because chasing an unreachable standard feels futile' and the struggle to reach it unbearable).

The optimal way to go about things lies probably in mixing the two approaches.. but we are creatures of habit' and finding the right proportion is as much of a struggle as it is easy to put those words down on paper.

^ An interesting theory... although anyone who knows me would swear that individuality is inherent in at least some members of the human species 🙃.

And a beautiful thing it is!

^Well put. I think that time may well be at hand now - especially with the advent of Artificial Intelligence.
25-30 years ago, when the internet was first infiltrating people's homes, I warned whoever would listen (basically no-one) that this internet thing will be terrible for interpersonal relationships, and for society as a whole. I saw (rather clearly) that the human - and humane - connection would be lost amidst all of the technology and automation. And that is exactly what has occurred. Today, people don't communicate with one another - it is my machine communicating with your machine - it's always done through some sort of technological filter, which inherently removes a degree of the humanity.

In a hand written letter, there is something of the person; something of the individual. This is lost in the generic electronic communication of today.
Also, one would wait until one had matters of significance before hand writing a letter and mailing it - because both elements required a certain degree of effort. But today, sending genericly typed electronic 'communications' are so easy that people think nothing of it - and so 'share' the most inane, insignificant, and unimportant matters. Whereas prior to all of this technology, interpersonal communications were a matter of quality before quantity, it is now the complete opposite. This is clearly demonstrated in the incredible 'importance' most people see in how many 'likes', 'followers', and 'views' someone has accumulated.

As well, simple things like asking someone for directions has been lost to GPS technology... Holding the door open for someone has also been lost to automation. No-one considers these 'small things' - but these 'small' reductions in human interaction amount to something quite significant when they are all put together.

If we look at the so-called 'progress' of humankind - and the speed of it - over the past 100 years, and we project the same degree of 'progression' - including the increasing speed of same - into the future, it would surprise me greatly if humankind can survive another 50 years.

I think there's still a great amount of cultural wealth to be found in the cyberspace' expressed through literature' music' (even) games' through the internet argot or certain interactions specific to it. Some of it may only be of interest to anthropologists' and it’s difficult to find those pearls in the ocean of inane drivel you mentioned' and even then they might not resonate with those of us more attuned to real life.. but they do carry the thoughts and emotions of their creators' or in fact the common distress felt subconsciously in this age of impersonality and loneliness. After all' many of the greatest works of culture dealt with the emotional turmoil of man' and the current age provides ample amounts of it.

None of this does' however' outweigh the losses incurred to the way we function in real life' both on an individual basis and as societies' destabilised in no small part by new media and only starting to take steps to address it. And even if I tend to be as cautious with catastrophic predictions as I am with enthusiasm for new revelations' it's all definitely worrying' at least.

I think you'll find this to be of interest:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/25/1171773181/social-media-teens-mental-health

I also encourage you to read some of Neil Postman's writings...
The first link below lists his books; the second is a video lecture (often quite humorous) of his about the effects of technology on our culture...

Remembering Neil Postman

Thanks for the recommendations; I did actually read Technopoly' although it was during my halcyon days of high school/university' so while I do recall the core thought' the specifics have long since dissolved in my brain.. But digging it out of my bookcase is definitely a place to start anew.

 

In some ways' this is an enviable attitude; I've often been hamstrung by toxic perfectionism' wherein I was so focussed on the end result that I couldn't truly enjoy the process (which often leads to a trap of doing nothing at all' because chasing an unreachable standard feels futile' and the struggle to reach it unbearable).

^ My (instinctive) approach is not as enviable - or as healthy - as you seem to believe... I am very much the perfectionist myself - simply not as pertains to the match result. Instead, I dissect it to the fine point of each individual shot. When i miss a shot that I feel I should hit successfully, I will very openly berate myself (think McEnroe type self-criticism - but, unlike him, I reserve my criticism for myself only).

The optimal way to go about things lies probably in mixing the two approaches.. but we are creatures of habit' and finding the right proportion is as much of a struggle as it is easy to put those words down on paper.

^ Indeed!

I think there's still a great amount of cultural wealth to be found in the cyberspace' expressed through literature' music' (even) games' through the internet argot or certain interactions specific to it. Some of it may only be of interest to anthropologists' and it’s difficult to find those pearls in the ocean of inane drivel you mentioned' and even then they might not resonate with those of us more attuned to real life.. but they do carry the thoughts and emotions of their creators' or in fact the common distress felt subconsciously in this age of impersonality and loneliness. After all' many of the greatest works of culture dealt with the emotional turmoil of man' and the current age provides ample amounts of it.

^ And those great writings of the past were read without the aid of the internet! And so it is possible...
One of the (many) problems with the internet (and most technological inventions) is that its purpose is to render things more convenient and more easy, not better. While this may, on the surface, appear to be a good thing, one need not dig very deep to see that when something is easy and convenient, it is often dismissed. It is when we make an effort to do things that true appreciation comes - both within ourselves, as well as from others.
Look at E mail vs. letter writing... E mail made 'communication' easier and more convenient - but, in so doing, the quality of the communications decreased dramatically. The content of a hand written letter from, say, 1832 will be of much higher expression and quality than will the average E mails of today.
Again, it's a matter of quality vs. quantity... when something is easy and convenient, it is abused, and often even put off - because it can be done tomorrow, or next week, because it's so easy and convenient... and, before you know it, it is never done because it is viewed as being insignificant and unimportant, and is forgotten.

Though you've read 'Technopoly' - and may re-read it - I encourage you watch Postman's lecture which I linked to in my previous post. In it, he points out how the internet is far more convenience than it is practicality or necessity.

None of this does' however' outweigh the losses incurred to the way we function in real life' both on an individual basis and as societies' destabilised in no small part by new media and only starting to take steps to address it. And even if I tend to be as cautious with catastrophic predictions as I am with enthusiasm for new revelations' it's all definitely worrying' at least.

^ Yes, precisely...
Every technological invention created to render our lives more easy and convenient carries with it inherent consequences. And, tragically, the great majority of persons are indifferent and/or obvivious to the consequences, preferring to see these elements exclusively through the proverbial 'rose coloured glasses'.
This is also something which Postman mentions in the lecture, asking 'What problems does the given technological invention create?'

Thanks for the recommendations; I did actually read Technopoly' although it was during my halcyon days of high school/university' so while I do recall the core thought' the specifics have long since dissolved in my brain.. But digging it out of my bookcase is definitely a place to start anew.

^ It's even more relevant and important now than when it was written... because we're much deeper in the quicksand now than we were then.

 

^ My (instinctive) approach is not as enviable - or as healthy - as you seem to believe... I am very much the perfectionist myself - simply not as pertains to the match result. Instead, I dissect it to the fine point of each individual shot. When i miss a shot that I feel I should hit successfully, I will very openly berate myself (think McEnroe type self-criticism - but, unlike him, I reserve my criticism for myself only).

I see; it's definitely a major source of frustration' its one upside being that a focus on the smaller elements makes it more likely to improve in this aspect or that; aiming for an end result while lacking heart for those granules seems generally counterproctive.

It also made me think of Świątek getting visibly frustrated whenever unable to impose her game on the opponent' and struggling to adjust. On that note' I don't recall you ever posting your thoughts on her game' and I'm frankly quite curious (especially considering she's the player who dragged me into following tennis in the first place' though for the admittedly shallow reason of her 2022 winning streak).

^ And those great writings of the past were read without the aid of the internet! And so it is possible...
One of the (many) problems with the internet (and most technological inventions) is that its purpose is to render things more convenient and more easy, not better. While this may, on the surface, appear to be a good thing, one need not dig very deep to see that when something is easy and convenient, it is often dismissed. It is when we make an effort to do things that true appreciation comes - both within ourselves, as well as from others.
Look at E mail vs. letter writing... E mail made 'communication' easier and more convenient - but, in so doing, the quality of the communications decreased dramatically. The content of a hand written letter from, say, 1832 will be of much higher expression and quality than will the average E mails of today.
Again, it's a matter of quality vs. quantity... when something is easy and convenient, it is abused, and often even put off - because it can be done tomorrow, or next week, because it's so easy and convenient... and, before you know it, it is never done because it is viewed as being insignificant and unimportant, and is forgotten.

Oh' the part about putting things off indefinitely is something many of us should be able to relat to. What’s probably even worse in the long run is that this languid approach often bleeds into matters of greater importance - not least real-life relationships' which end up 'suspended'' so to say' because they're always theoretically easy to come back to' as we have that person's phone number' we've friended them on facebook or instagram.. but nothing really comes of it' and they shrivel' reduced to a gallery of names' portraits and numbers.

Though you've read 'Technopoly' - and may re-read it - I encourage you watch Postman's lecture which I linked to in my previous post. In it, he points out how the internet is far more convenience than it is practicality or necessity.

I did not have time yet' but I've read the article you suggested concerning the influence of social media on mental health' and it’s difficult not to agree; what I find no less worrying' however' is the way it seems to distort one's worldview' especially concerning fellow humans.. Both due to an echo chamber effect which leads to like-minded people reinforcing' then radicalising each other's beliefs' as well as due to constant exposure to unhealthy (or dishonest) patterns of behaviour. Based on my own experience' few things compare to meeting real people when it comes to nuancing one's worldview.

 

I see; it's definitely a major source of frustration' its one upside being that a focus on the smaller elements makes it more likely to improve in this aspect or that; aiming for an end result while lacking heart for those granules seems generally counterproctive.

It also made me think of Świątek getting visibly frustrated whenever unable to impose her game on the opponent' and struggling to adjust. On that note' I don't recall you ever posting your thoughts on her game' and I'm frankly quite curious (especially considering she's the player who dragged me into following tennis in the first place' though for the admittedly shallow reason of her 2022 winning streak).

^ I tend to not comment much on the most well known/popular players - because there are far more than enough people commenting on them, and so all the comments pretty much get lost within themselves.

Of the few times I have commented on Swiatek, my comments have been similar to yours above: that she often appears invincible when things are going well for her, but when she is behind, she tends to panic rather rapidly. It is as if being behind in a set/match is so unfamiliar to her that she knows not how to handle it, and so panics.

She has improved on this element over the past year or so, but there is still work to do.

Oh' the part about putting things off indefinitely is something many of us should be able to relat to. What’s probably even worse in the long run is that this languid approach often bleeds into matters of greater importance - not least real-life relationships' which end up 'suspended'' so to say' because they're always theoretically easy to come back to' as we have that person's phone number' we've friended them on facebook or instagram.. but nothing really comes of it' and they shrivel' reduced to a gallery of names' portraits and numbers.

^ We used to know people's phone numbers. It was part of their identity to us. But now, no-one knows anyone's phone number, because we don't dial numbers anymore - we just touch the contact name. More convenience which leads to impersonal relations...

A FRIEND used to be a person that one knew well - even profoundly -, and whom one confided in and trusted. Today, a 'friend' is simply someone whose avatar you click on, and whom you may or may not have actually met in person...

I did not have time yet' but I've read the article you suggested concerning the influence of social media on mental health' and it’s difficult not to agree; what I find no less worrying' however' is the way it seems to distort one's worldview' especially concerning fellow humans.. Both due to an echo chamber effect which leads to like-minded people reinforcing' then radicalising each other's beliefs' as well as due to constant exposure to unhealthy (or dishonest) patterns of behaviour. Based on my own experience' few things compare to meeting real people when it comes to nuancing one's worldview.

^ Yes... I feel genuinely sorry for the youth of today who are growing up in this impersonal world; whose parents spend more time updating their facebook status than they do talking with their children, and who know more about who their favourite movie star's friends are than who their own children's friends are...

It's unfortunate that no-one would believe it when I and about 7 other people on the planet were sounding the alarms 25 - 30 years ago about the very real negative potentials of the internet.

 

^ I tend to not comment much on the most well known/popular players - because there are far more than enough people commenting on them, and so all the comments pretty much get lost within themselves.

Of the few times I have commented on Swiatek, my comments have been similar to yours above: that she often appears invincible when things are going well for her, but when she is behind, she tends to panic rather rapidly. It is as if being behind in a set/match is so unfamiliar to her that she knows not how to handle it, and so panics.

She has improved on this element over the past year or so, but there is still work to do.

Understandable; I know you to be partial to some more unconventional players' like Parry (whom I like' but have recently been feeling rather resigned about) or Maria (who I'm rather indifferent towards' although her London title run this year was extremely impressive); I can’t say I know that much about tennis' having never played the sport' but it’s definitely refreshing to see someone with a more unconventional technique or personality' even if they are not the most successful; Bucșa had me as a fan as soon as I learned she didn’t have any sponsors' a professional team' or social media' at least at the time (the former two may have changed' perhaps)? Likewise' someone like Ponchet may seem comical in regard to her stroke production' but I actually find it quite fascinating.

^ We used to know people's phone numbers. It was part of their identity to us. But now, no-one knows anyone's phone number, because we don't dial numbers anymore - we just touch the contact name. More convenience which leads to impersonal relations...

A FRIEND used to be a person that one knew well - even profoundly -, and whom one confided in and trusted. Today, a 'friend' is simply someone whose avatar you click on, and whom you may or may not have actually met in person...

A linguistic curiosity is that' 'friend'' in its original sense' is przyjaciel in Polish' but our version of facebook uses znajomy which means 'acquaintance'. Definitely a moment of lucidity on part of the translators' and it may have helped preserve the distinction - which' I feel' is stronger in Polish than in English (though I get little opportunity to interact with anglophones in real life' so my perspective might be skewed).

^ Yes... I feel genuinely sorry for the youth of today who are growing up in this impersonal world; whose parents spend more time updating their facebook status than they do talking with their children, and who know more about who their favourite movie star's friends are than who their own children's friends are...

It's unfortunate that no-one would believe it when I and about 7 other people on the planet were sounding the alarms 25 - 30 years ago about the very real negative potentials of the internet.

This also makes me think back to what a friend of mine once commented on' that all the social and technological change have been so overwhelming to the current generation of parents that they struggle to make sense of the world themselves' let alone passing the knowledge onto their children. This may well be considered the removal of a process which civilisation as we know it has been predicated on' an unsettling thought.

 

Understandable; I know you to be partial to some more unconventional players' like Parry (whom I like' but have recently been feeling rather resigned about) or Maria (who I'm rather indifferent towards' although her London title run this year was extremely impressive); I can’t say I know that much about tennis' having never played the sport' but it’s definitely refreshing to see someone with a more unconventional technique or personality' even if they are not the most successful; Bucșa had me as a fan as soon as I learned she didn’t have any sponsors' a professional team' or social media' at least at the time (the former two may have changed' perhaps)? Likewise' someone like Ponchet may seem comical in regard to her stroke production' but I actually find it quite fascinating.

^ I, too, very much appreciate players with no sponsors, no grandiose 'team', and no social media ("The opposite for courage is not cowardice, it is conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow." - Jim Hightower)

You neglected to mention perhaps the most unconventional player of all - Aoi Ito! She is absolutely wonderful, skipping and tumbling her way across the tennis court... She is in her own little universe out there, and it is as pure and innocent as it is refreshing.
I was fortunate enough this year to get to know her parents a little bit at a tournament. Her parents are her entire 'team', which I find to be fantastic. I wrote about my experiences with them in my write-ups of the tournament, which can be found here, if you've not already seen them:
https://www.tennisforum.com/threads/log-montreal-1000-meeting-itos-parents-etc.1427028/#replies

A linguistic curiosity is that' 'friend'' in its original sense' is przyjaciel in Polish' but our version of facebook uses znajomy which means 'acquaintance'. Definitely a moment of lucidity on part of the translators' and it may have helped preserve the distinction - which' I feel' is stronger in Polish than in English (though I get little opportunity to interact with anglophones in real life' so my perspective might be skewed).

^ I don't feel that the great majority of one's 'facebook friends' qualify even as 'acquaintances'...
I prefer the definition of 'someone whose avatar you clicked on', as that is more accurate.

This also makes me think back to what a friend of mine once commented on' that all the social and technological change have been so overwhelming to the current generation of parents that they struggle to make sense of the world themselves' let alone passing the knowledge onto their children. This may well be considered the removal of a process which civilisation as we know it has been predicated on' an unsettling thought.

^ I don't give today's parents such an easy pass. In having children, they make an oath to love and nurture those children in the best and most responsible manner possible. Allowing themselves to be seduced and distracted by flashy technologies and 'celebrities' to the point where the children are neglected does not fit within that oath at all. It is a choice they make, and so I will not give them a free pass on this.
Caring for a child is the single greatest responsibility known to humankind.

And today, when children require more protection than ever in history from the onslaught of technology and marketing, parents are ignoring and neglecting their children more than ever before. This is an absolute recipe for disaster, as we are witnessing with the dire psychological/emotional conditions of children today.