Joined
·
3,608 Posts
In Emma’s match against Magda Linette two battles were fought, as they are in every tennis match, to a greater, or lesser, extent: one, ‘between the ears’, and one, on the court. Emma won the first battle, and, as a consequence, also won the second: in the end, quite comfortably.
Emma is such an intelligent player! So far, Emma has played two matches at this year’s BNP Paribas Open, and, in some aspects, they’ve both been very similar. For one thing, she fell behind in each match, before ‘bouncing back’ to win. For another, in both cases she ‘mentally dismantled’, and, consequently, disarmed, her opponent. In both matches, her opponents, started confidently enough, but, by the end, were completely drained of confidence, and didn’t know whether they were coming or going. They started well, but, by the end, quite literally, didn’t know what to do. (Actually, Coco was drifting down this route in her match against Emma at the AO, too, and if Emma had had a little more prep, I’m convinced Emma would have beaten her because of it.)
In both BNP matches, Emma ‘started slowly’ but finished strongly. This is a pattern we’re all too familiar with, when watching Emma’s matches (when her body doesn’t ‘give out’). Why does this happen? I’d like to offer a suggestion:
I think, in the first few games of any match, Emma is data gathering and processing, but, because the analysis has not been completed at that point, she can’t apply the results to her play. So: in those first few games, Emma ‘only’ plays OK, because all she has to go on is her ‘homework’: the intel she has built up about her opponent, pre-match, and, in almost every case, that intel hasn’t been personally gathered. As the match progresses, Emma’s computations begin to give results, and she begins amending and tweaking her play accordingly, to incorporate the new data: as a result, she begins to play ‘more than OK’, and a momentum swing occurs.
I’ve said this as though Emma is doing something special, or unique, but, of course, she isn’t: every single player is trying to do this, too: to observe their opponent, and adjust their own play, accordingly. But I think the difference is that Emma is exceptional at it: at observing and analysing her opponent’s play; at determining how to counter it; and, lastly, and very importantly, implementing her conclusions and changing her gameplay. [Of course, this process doesn’t only occur during the first few games, but continues throughout the entire match: constant ‘patches’ are being applied to the Emma software playbook right up until she plays that final ball.] Both players are trying to adapt to their opponent’s play: a mental chess battle is going on throughout the match; it’s just that Emma is, invariably, a better ‘chess’ player. In mental tennis, Emma is the Queen.
[I don’t know if this will make any sense, but if current Emma had met USO21 Emma back at USO21, she wouldn’t have lost to her: not because current Emma is a better player, now (which, she is) but because unlike the 10 players that young Emma beat, current Emma would not have been phased by having zero info about her opponent: she would have worked out how to beat her during the course of the match. The ten players Emma met in 2021 couldn’t do that.]
To return to those ‘slow starts’: I don’t worry when Emma is a little slow out of the blocks (OK: so, I’m lying, there
) because I know that in every match, Emma is going to get better. Generally speaking, if you were to graph Emma’s ‘performance’ in a match (injuries aside, of course) it would be a steadily ascending line, but if you do the same to her opponent, although it may also be an upward trending line (initially, at least) it will be far less steep than Emma’s (because they are not learning and adapting as quickly as Emma is) and once Emma has them figured out, their line will flatten, or even dip dramatically, as it did with both Danka and Magda. I think other players, as a rule, rely more on the intel and info they take into the match, and ‘their own game’, than on the info they gather during the match itself, whereas, I think Emma is exactly the opposite: hence: the slow starts.
Emma is very, very good at almost every aspect of tennis: in whatever ‘category’ you choose – movement, power (now), speed about the court, focus, temperament etc. – Emma is up there with the best (just about the only exception being ‘consistency’, which I’m sure is only down to her body still playing catchup). But I believe both her analytical powers, and her adaptability, are more than ‘very, very good’: I think they are exceptional, in fact, I think of the current crop of WTA players, she is the very best: as Carly Simon sang for the 1977 Bond movie ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’, ‘Nobody Does It Better’.
I think the extent to which Emma has the ability to observe, analyse, and adapt, are what make her a truly remarkable tennis player, over and above even her wonderful physical skills.
I’d like to talk about Emma’s adaptability. In any situation, it’s not enough just to see ‘what needs doing’: you have to have the skillset to be able to implement ‘what needs doing’. This is one of the things at which Emma excels. We’ve had some ‘macro’ examples of it: ‘blistergate’, in her first match against Magda, where she effectively played with ‘one hand tied behind her back’ for much of the match, was one: she was forced to completely transform her gameplay, which, she did, very successfully, in an astounding way, and damn-near pulled off a result, too. Another, was the way she played on clay: no one was expecting anything from Emma on this completely unknown surface – the girl had practically never played on it before – and yet she produced that remarkable performance against Iga, the world no.1, in Stuttgart, and played a few other good matches on the red stuff, too. Her ability to adapt surprised everyone, not least of all, the seasoned tennis pundits! But Emma displays this adaptability in every match she plays.
I think Emma’s adaptability has greater implications, and is further-reaching, than might be immediately obvious, because it is always there: it is always influencing and shaping her play. For example, let’s think about the weather, for one thing, starting with ‘the wind’. There have been those, here on EE, in the past, who have been completely paranoid about Emma playing in windy conditions, and have gone into a tailspin at the mere mention of a strong breeze. I was not one of them. As far as I can recall, I’ve never seen Emma handle the wind any worse than her opponent, and, in fact, in every case I can remember, Emma handled it better than her opponent. Both this tournament’s matches were played in a fair bit of wind, but, in both matches, Emma handled it better than her opponents (something mentioned by the commentators in each match). Why was that? Well, I think it was because Emma was, in each case, able to adapt better than her opponents were. Emma is unusually adept at adaptingunsure her game: whether it be to the weather unsure or to her opponent’s gameplay. For me, windy conditions mean that Emma will have an advantage.
Continuing the weather theme: we often hear that Emma performs well in the extreme heat. If this is true, is it because of some physiological advantage Emma has? It could be, but I tend to think that may not be the case, but, rather, we’re back to the same old story: Emma can adapt, and change her gameplay, more adroitly than her opponent can: she’s more flexible.
I also think that Emma’s adaptability leads to her being better than most at being able to compensate for illness and injury. (Something that has, unfortunately, been put to the test far too often during her nascent career.)
The scary thing for the others on the WTA tour, is that Emma’s ability to analyse and find solutions to match problems, which is already exceptional, is going to get so much better over time, as so, so, much of it is dependent on experience, and, let’s face it: Emma has still hardly had any! (And this is without even considering the improvements we’re going to see in Emma’s actual gameplay! I think the visible improvements we’ve already seen that Emma and Seb have achieved in such a short partnership are really remarkable when you consider how much of their time together has been blighted by illness and injury. They are working really well, together: long may it last!)
P.S. We’ve just seen Carlito’s newly launched ‘Cabeza, Corazon, Cojones’ signature shoe; if Emma were to have something similar, although not nearly as catchy, without the alliteration, ‘Observe, Analyse, Adapt’ might be appropriate. If it had to be alliterative, I might just have to go with ‘Beautiful, Beautiful, Beautiful’
Emma is such an intelligent player! So far, Emma has played two matches at this year’s BNP Paribas Open, and, in some aspects, they’ve both been very similar. For one thing, she fell behind in each match, before ‘bouncing back’ to win. For another, in both cases she ‘mentally dismantled’, and, consequently, disarmed, her opponent. In both matches, her opponents, started confidently enough, but, by the end, were completely drained of confidence, and didn’t know whether they were coming or going. They started well, but, by the end, quite literally, didn’t know what to do. (Actually, Coco was drifting down this route in her match against Emma at the AO, too, and if Emma had had a little more prep, I’m convinced Emma would have beaten her because of it.)
In both BNP matches, Emma ‘started slowly’ but finished strongly. This is a pattern we’re all too familiar with, when watching Emma’s matches (when her body doesn’t ‘give out’). Why does this happen? I’d like to offer a suggestion:
I think, in the first few games of any match, Emma is data gathering and processing, but, because the analysis has not been completed at that point, she can’t apply the results to her play. So: in those first few games, Emma ‘only’ plays OK, because all she has to go on is her ‘homework’: the intel she has built up about her opponent, pre-match, and, in almost every case, that intel hasn’t been personally gathered. As the match progresses, Emma’s computations begin to give results, and she begins amending and tweaking her play accordingly, to incorporate the new data: as a result, she begins to play ‘more than OK’, and a momentum swing occurs.
I’ve said this as though Emma is doing something special, or unique, but, of course, she isn’t: every single player is trying to do this, too: to observe their opponent, and adjust their own play, accordingly. But I think the difference is that Emma is exceptional at it: at observing and analysing her opponent’s play; at determining how to counter it; and, lastly, and very importantly, implementing her conclusions and changing her gameplay. [Of course, this process doesn’t only occur during the first few games, but continues throughout the entire match: constant ‘patches’ are being applied to the Emma software playbook right up until she plays that final ball.] Both players are trying to adapt to their opponent’s play: a mental chess battle is going on throughout the match; it’s just that Emma is, invariably, a better ‘chess’ player. In mental tennis, Emma is the Queen.
[I don’t know if this will make any sense, but if current Emma had met USO21 Emma back at USO21, she wouldn’t have lost to her: not because current Emma is a better player, now (which, she is) but because unlike the 10 players that young Emma beat, current Emma would not have been phased by having zero info about her opponent: she would have worked out how to beat her during the course of the match. The ten players Emma met in 2021 couldn’t do that.]
To return to those ‘slow starts’: I don’t worry when Emma is a little slow out of the blocks (OK: so, I’m lying, there
) because I know that in every match, Emma is going to get better. Generally speaking, if you were to graph Emma’s ‘performance’ in a match (injuries aside, of course) it would be a steadily ascending line, but if you do the same to her opponent, although it may also be an upward trending line (initially, at least) it will be far less steep than Emma’s (because they are not learning and adapting as quickly as Emma is) and once Emma has them figured out, their line will flatten, or even dip dramatically, as it did with both Danka and Magda. I think other players, as a rule, rely more on the intel and info they take into the match, and ‘their own game’, than on the info they gather during the match itself, whereas, I think Emma is exactly the opposite: hence: the slow starts.Emma is very, very good at almost every aspect of tennis: in whatever ‘category’ you choose – movement, power (now), speed about the court, focus, temperament etc. – Emma is up there with the best (just about the only exception being ‘consistency’, which I’m sure is only down to her body still playing catchup). But I believe both her analytical powers, and her adaptability, are more than ‘very, very good’: I think they are exceptional, in fact, I think of the current crop of WTA players, she is the very best: as Carly Simon sang for the 1977 Bond movie ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’, ‘Nobody Does It Better’.
I think the extent to which Emma has the ability to observe, analyse, and adapt, are what make her a truly remarkable tennis player, over and above even her wonderful physical skills.
I’d like to talk about Emma’s adaptability. In any situation, it’s not enough just to see ‘what needs doing’: you have to have the skillset to be able to implement ‘what needs doing’. This is one of the things at which Emma excels. We’ve had some ‘macro’ examples of it: ‘blistergate’, in her first match against Magda, where she effectively played with ‘one hand tied behind her back’ for much of the match, was one: she was forced to completely transform her gameplay, which, she did, very successfully, in an astounding way, and damn-near pulled off a result, too. Another, was the way she played on clay: no one was expecting anything from Emma on this completely unknown surface – the girl had practically never played on it before – and yet she produced that remarkable performance against Iga, the world no.1, in Stuttgart, and played a few other good matches on the red stuff, too. Her ability to adapt surprised everyone, not least of all, the seasoned tennis pundits! But Emma displays this adaptability in every match she plays.
I think Emma’s adaptability has greater implications, and is further-reaching, than might be immediately obvious, because it is always there: it is always influencing and shaping her play. For example, let’s think about the weather, for one thing, starting with ‘the wind’. There have been those, here on EE, in the past, who have been completely paranoid about Emma playing in windy conditions, and have gone into a tailspin at the mere mention of a strong breeze. I was not one of them. As far as I can recall, I’ve never seen Emma handle the wind any worse than her opponent, and, in fact, in every case I can remember, Emma handled it better than her opponent. Both this tournament’s matches were played in a fair bit of wind, but, in both matches, Emma handled it better than her opponents (something mentioned by the commentators in each match). Why was that? Well, I think it was because Emma was, in each case, able to adapt better than her opponents were. Emma is unusually adept at adapting
unsure her game: whether it be to the weather unsure or to her opponent’s gameplay. For me, windy conditions mean that Emma will have an advantage.Continuing the weather theme: we often hear that Emma performs well in the extreme heat. If this is true, is it because of some physiological advantage Emma has? It could be, but I tend to think that may not be the case, but, rather, we’re back to the same old story: Emma can adapt, and change her gameplay, more adroitly than her opponent can: she’s more flexible.
I also think that Emma’s adaptability leads to her being better than most at being able to compensate for illness and injury. (Something that has, unfortunately, been put to the test far too often during her nascent career.)
The scary thing for the others on the WTA tour, is that Emma’s ability to analyse and find solutions to match problems, which is already exceptional, is going to get so much better over time, as so, so, much of it is dependent on experience, and, let’s face it: Emma has still hardly had any! (And this is without even considering the improvements we’re going to see in Emma’s actual gameplay! I think the visible improvements we’ve already seen that Emma and Seb have achieved in such a short partnership are really remarkable when you consider how much of their time together has been blighted by illness and injury. They are working really well, together: long may it last!)
P.S. We’ve just seen Carlito’s newly launched ‘Cabeza, Corazon, Cojones’ signature shoe; if Emma were to have something similar, although not nearly as catchy, without the alliteration, ‘Observe, Analyse, Adapt’ might be appropriate. If it had to be alliterative, I might just have to go with ‘Beautiful, Beautiful, Beautiful’
