Te is ychology is nothing more than understanding the workings of your o onent's mind, and gauging
Te is ychology is nothing more than understanding the workings of your o onent's mind, and gauging the effect of your own game on his mental viewpoint, and understanding the mental effects resulting from the various external causes on your own mind. You ca ot be a succe ful ychologist of others without first understanding your own mental proce es, you must study the effect on yourself of the same ha ening under different circumstances. You react differently in different moods and under different conditio . You must realize the effect on your game of the resulting irritation, pleasure, confusion, or whatever form your reaction takes. Does it increase your efficiency? If so, strive for it, but never give it to your o onent.
Does it deprive you of concentration? If so, either remove the cause, or if that is not po ible strive to ignore it.
Once you have judged accurately your own reaction to conditio , study your o onents, to decide their temperaments. Like temperaments react similarly, and you may judge men of your own type by yourself. O osite temperaments you must seek to compare with people whose reactio you know.
A person who can control his own mental proce es stands an excellent chance of reading those of another, for the human mind works along definite lines of thought, and can be studied. One can only control one's, mental proce es after carefully studying them.
A steady phlegmatic baseline player is seldom a keen thinker. If he was he would not adhere to the baseline.
The physical a earance of a man is usually a pretty clear index to his type of mind. The stolid, easy-going man, who usually advocates the baseline game, does so because he hates to stir up his torpid mind to think out a safe method of reaching the net. There is the other type of baseline player, who prefers to remain on the back of the court while directing an attack intended to break up your game. He is a very dangerous player, and a deep, keen thinking antagonist. He achieves his results by mixing up his length and direction, and worrying you with the variety of his game. He is a good ychologist. The first type of player mentioned merely hits the ball with little idea of what he is doing, while the latter always has a definite plan and adheres to it. The hard-hitting, erratic, net-rushing player is a creature of impulse. There is no real system to his attack, no understanding of your game. He will make brilliant cou on the ur of the moment, largely by i tinct; but there is no, mental power of co istent thinking. It is an interesting, fascinating type.
The dangerous man is the player who mixes his style from back to fore court at the direction of an ever-alert mind. This is the man to study and learn from. He is a player with a definite purpose. A player who has an a wer to every query you propound him in your game. He is the most subtle antagonist in the world. He is of the school of Brookes. Second only to him is the man of dogged determination that sets his mind on one plan and adheres to it, bitterly, fiercely fighting to the end, with never a thought of change. He is the man whose ychology is easy to understand, but whose mental viewpoint is hard to u et, for he never allows himself to think of anything except the busine at hand. This man is your Joh ton or your Wilding. I re ect the mental capacity of Brookes more, but I admire the tenacity of purpose of Joh ton.
Pick out your type from your own mental proce es, and then work out your game along the lines best suited to you.
When two men are, in the same cla , as regards stroke equipment, the determining factor in any given match is the mental viewpoint. Luck, so-called, is often gra ing the ychological value of a break in the game, and turning it to your own account.
We hear a great deal about the "shots we have made." Few realize the importance of the "shots we have mi ed." The science of mi ing shots is as important as that of making them, and at times a mi by an inch is of more value than a, return that is killed by your o onent.
Let me explain. A player drives you far out of court with an angle-shot. You run hard to it, and reaching, drive it hard and fast down the side-line, mi ing it by an inch. Your o onent is surprised and shaken, realizing that your shot might as well have gone in as out. He will expect you to try it again, and will not take the risk next time. He will try to play the ball, and may fall into error. You have thus taken some of your o onent's confidence, and increased his chance of error, all by a mi .
If you had merely po ed back that return, and it had been killed, your o onent would have felt increasingly confident of your inability to get the ball out of his reach, while you would merely have been winded without result.
Let us su ose you made the shot down the sideline. It was a seemingly impo ible get. First it amounts to TWO points in that it took one away from your o onent that should have been his and gave you one you ought never to have had. It also worries your o onent, as he feels he has thrown away a big chance.
The ychology of a te is match is very interesting, but easily understandable. Both men start with equal chances. Once one man establishes a real lead, his confidence goes up, while his o onent worries, and his mental viewpoint becomes poor. The sole object of the first man is to hold his lead, thus holding his confidence. If the second player pulls even or draws ahead, the inevitable reaction occurs with even a greater contrast in ychology. There is the natural confidence of the leader now with the second man as well as that great stimulus of having turned seeming defeat into probable victory. The reverse in the case of the first player is apt to hopele ly destroy his game, and colla e follows.
Does it deprive you of concentration? If so, either remove the cause, or if that is not po ible strive to ignore it.
Once you have judged accurately your own reaction to conditio , study your o onents, to decide their temperaments. Like temperaments react similarly, and you may judge men of your own type by yourself. O osite temperaments you must seek to compare with people whose reactio you know.
A person who can control his own mental proce es stands an excellent chance of reading those of another, for the human mind works along definite lines of thought, and can be studied. One can only control one's, mental proce es after carefully studying them.
A steady phlegmatic baseline player is seldom a keen thinker. If he was he would not adhere to the baseline.
The physical a earance of a man is usually a pretty clear index to his type of mind. The stolid, easy-going man, who usually advocates the baseline game, does so because he hates to stir up his torpid mind to think out a safe method of reaching the net. There is the other type of baseline player, who prefers to remain on the back of the court while directing an attack intended to break up your game. He is a very dangerous player, and a deep, keen thinking antagonist. He achieves his results by mixing up his length and direction, and worrying you with the variety of his game. He is a good ychologist. The first type of player mentioned merely hits the ball with little idea of what he is doing, while the latter always has a definite plan and adheres to it. The hard-hitting, erratic, net-rushing player is a creature of impulse. There is no real system to his attack, no understanding of your game. He will make brilliant cou on the ur of the moment, largely by i tinct; but there is no, mental power of co istent thinking. It is an interesting, fascinating type.
The dangerous man is the player who mixes his style from back to fore court at the direction of an ever-alert mind. This is the man to study and learn from. He is a player with a definite purpose. A player who has an a wer to every query you propound him in your game. He is the most subtle antagonist in the world. He is of the school of Brookes. Second only to him is the man of dogged determination that sets his mind on one plan and adheres to it, bitterly, fiercely fighting to the end, with never a thought of change. He is the man whose ychology is easy to understand, but whose mental viewpoint is hard to u et, for he never allows himself to think of anything except the busine at hand. This man is your Joh ton or your Wilding. I re ect the mental capacity of Brookes more, but I admire the tenacity of purpose of Joh ton.
Pick out your type from your own mental proce es, and then work out your game along the lines best suited to you.
When two men are, in the same cla , as regards stroke equipment, the determining factor in any given match is the mental viewpoint. Luck, so-called, is often gra ing the ychological value of a break in the game, and turning it to your own account.
We hear a great deal about the "shots we have made." Few realize the importance of the "shots we have mi ed." The science of mi ing shots is as important as that of making them, and at times a mi by an inch is of more value than a, return that is killed by your o onent.
Let me explain. A player drives you far out of court with an angle-shot. You run hard to it, and reaching, drive it hard and fast down the side-line, mi ing it by an inch. Your o onent is surprised and shaken, realizing that your shot might as well have gone in as out. He will expect you to try it again, and will not take the risk next time. He will try to play the ball, and may fall into error. You have thus taken some of your o onent's confidence, and increased his chance of error, all by a mi .
If you had merely po ed back that return, and it had been killed, your o onent would have felt increasingly confident of your inability to get the ball out of his reach, while you would merely have been winded without result.
Let us su ose you made the shot down the sideline. It was a seemingly impo ible get. First it amounts to TWO points in that it took one away from your o onent that should have been his and gave you one you ought never to have had. It also worries your o onent, as he feels he has thrown away a big chance.
The ychology of a te is match is very interesting, but easily understandable. Both men start with equal chances. Once one man establishes a real lead, his confidence goes up, while his o onent worries, and his mental viewpoint becomes poor. The sole object of the first man is to hold his lead, thus holding his confidence. If the second player pulls even or draws ahead, the inevitable reaction occurs with even a greater contrast in ychology. There is the natural confidence of the leader now with the second man as well as that great stimulus of having turned seeming defeat into probable victory. The reverse in the case of the first player is apt to hopele ly destroy his game, and colla e follows.
