An in-depth look at the brain (RF-related)

[lindseywagners]

I was watching a video about the schematic mechanisms of the brain and couldn't help but think of Roger after his loss last night, specifically because of what Federer said post-match:

"I kind of feel like I beat myself," Federer said, "without taking any credit away from Tommy. Clearly he was making sure he was making many balls. It was up to me to make the difference and I couldn't. I kind of self destructed, which is very disappointing, especially on a quicker court. I just couldn't do it. It was a frustrating performance today."

I watched that press conference live and he looked almost puzzled as to why he "just couldn't do it." It was as if he himself didn't even have control over what was happening on the court, that he was out there all alone (as, famously, all tennis players are) but with no anything - knowledge, (minimal) talent, memory - to rely on.

I've always paid more attention to Federer's mental struggles (instead of the physical), partly because Roger has always been so healthy, and so it's interesting to try to look at exactly what is going on inside his head. The guy who made this video breaks down the components of the conscious and unconscious mind, and he does so using a sports example, which I then related to Roger. The video is rather long (and I suppose controversial due to his view of what consciousness actually is), but I'd recommend it to anyone interested in looking deep into the mind of an (aging) champion -- though you'll have to draw your own conclusions because he doesn't specifically talk about tennis and he does not discuss the deterioration process either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8nk70GIRZg&feature=c4-overview&list=UUehJxmuAs1inA973JDi4AkQ

 

[Andrew William]

Um yes... very interesting Lindsey!

 

[Riotbeard]

Very interesting. Roger is really a terrible loser though in these pressers.

 

[lindseywagners]

Very interesting. Roger is really a terrible loser though in these pressers.

Last night I thought he was just honest. In 2011 after he lost to Djokovic, I thought then, yes, he was a bad loser.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

roger was being a turd as he often is in losing..its no big deal.

indeed its rather amusing.

remember when he got laughed at when he claimed a defeat to rafa on clay was 'on his raquet actually', orwhen he lost to burdych at Wimbledon all of a sudden he had a back problem and a hamstring niggle..then he told stakovsky he wasn't going to wait and he stak said 'that's not fair' and then fed skulked off.

and yesterday, his opponent kept hitting the ball back over the net to him..how outrageous.

 

[tented]

.then he told stakovsky he wasn't going to wait and he stak said 'that's not fair' and skulked off.

Did he really? I hadn't heard that one.

and yesterday, his opponent kept hitting the ball back over the net to him..how outrageous.

:laydownlaughing :clap

 

[DarthFed]

Show me a gracious loser and I will show you a loser. I have no problem with his presser yesterday. No need to talk up the guy you lost to, better to focus on what he did wrong and it is a huge list.

This is different than the Berdych press conference where Roger made it sound like he was paralyzed and it was miraculous that he could compete. Also different than claiming Djokovic was lucky at 2011 USO. Those are excuses and basically making it sound like he deserved to win or would've won if he wasn't so "crippled."

Yesterday Roger was focusing on his horrid play, something that should have appalled him 5 months ago. It's about damn time.

 

[lindseywagners]

The one thing I'll say is Roger can be sarcastic after both wins and losses, so it's not necessarily him strictly being a poor loser. And I just re-watched the press conference after the 2011 U.S. Open semi and his answers aren't really as bad as I had thought, especially when viewed in the context of the reporters' questions. Some of those questions were quite idiotic and his responses were fair, in my opinion.