Rafael Nadal on Doubt

-->

The Tennis Channel previewed an upcoming 60 Minutes interview of tennis player Rafael Nadal by Jon Wertheim, Tennis Channel commentator and Sports Illustrated executive editor. Nadal ended 2019 with a number 1 ranking in the world and with 19 Grand Slam titles, only one behind Roger Federer. The clip starts with Wertheim asking Nadal to talk about the importance of doubt in his game. Nadal: “If I don’t feel doubt I’m going to be in trouble. Doubt is very important to my success.” Wertheim expressed surprise at Nadal’s answer because Wertheim thought top performers wouldn’t claim doubt as their strength. Nadal’s reply: “If you don’t have doubt it probably means you’re being arrogant. I think it [doubt] is good for me because I feel alert. Tennis is a sport where things can change very quickly.”

I think what Nadal refers to isn’t doubt in oneself but doubt in the outcome, maybe even doubt in how well you will perform that day against that opponent. I also think Nadal is saying that you can’t assume you’re going to win a match against someone whom you’ve beaten before. By avoiding overconfidence you stay alert and not allow yourself to be lured into complacency. As is commonly said in professional sports that’s why the games are played: the outcome is not guaranteed. The underdog can sometimes win if they’re having a good day and the presumed winner is having an off day or doesn’t adjust to something their opponent is doing differently.

In an interview after the 2017 French Open Nadal also said that doubt drives him to improve the weaknesses in his game. This reflects his belief in an growth mindset in which you think you can improve with thoughtful effort as opposed to a closed mindset which believes our talents are set in stone and can’t be expanded. You think either you’ve got what it takes or you don’t. Nadal applied this open mindset when he changed his service motion before the 2019 Australian Open to boost the speed and penetration of his serve.

On the other hand if the doubt we feel reflects a fundamental lack of belief in one’s abilities it would undermine our performance in the heat of competition. It can make it even more likely that we will choke under pressure.

I’d summarize it this way. Doubt about outcome keeps us on our toes while competing and drives us to improve. However doubt in ourselves makes it more likely we won’t step up to the challenge.

Lessons from the NFL AFC Championship

I know many people outside of New England are tired of seeing the New England Patriots playing in the Super Bowl. There are a lot of reasons why the Pats dominate so much but I believe we can apply a couple things Tom Brady said in the post-game interview of the 2019 NFL’s AFC Championship (in which the New England Patriots beat the Kansas City Chiefs 37-31). We can apply these ideas not just to sports but how we live. I’ve provided his response to a reporter’s question with key words in bold.

Q: How do you stay so calm in the biggest moments, especially when your team is down and you have to drive the team right back?

BRADY: “Part of playing sports is just staying in the moment. We always say one play at a time and you can’t make up for things that happen in the past. You just have to think about what you are going to do moving forward. Start of the fourth quarter, they scored. We are up three to start the fourth quarter. What a great opportunity to be against this team and to be ahead three in the fourth quarter with a chance to win is pretty sweet. They blew so many teams out this year. It is just a great opportunity for us, and we took advantage of it.”

His first point, staying in the moment, is key. I’ve seen players and teams get desperate or angry when losing or when calls go against them then try for plays or shots that aren’t part of their normal repertoire. They’re upset about what just happened then try to make up for it by hitting the ball harder or going for shots they don’t “own.” For instance, in tennis (the sport with which I’m most familiar because I play it almost daily) I’ve seen players go for a shot or an angle that they normally wouldn’t try if they were ahead. Instead, they often end up making an unforced error, which only makes things worse. (I know because I’ve done it!) 

As Brady says it’s better to forget about past mistakes or calls that go against you and focus on two things: stay in the moment while thinking of what you’re going to do next. One tip I use in tennis after making a mistake is to tell myself, “Next time” while making a couple shadow swings on how I wanted to hit the shot that I just missed. “Next time” means I’m telling myself I’ll do it better the next time I have the chance. This attitude implicitly represents a focus on the process rather than the results. It also reflects their confidence in themselves. And, it also means that their self-esteem isn’t tied to the outcome. Sure, it doesn’t feel good to lose but someone like Brady or Federer just use the loss as motivation to learn from what happened and try to improve. (This also reflects something I’ve written about in a previous post: the difference between having a growth mindset rather than a fixed mindset.)

Later Brady said that the Pats had a “great opportunity” when starting the fourth quarter with a three point lead over a team that was seeded #1 and had beaten other teams by large margins. I find it interesting that he didn’t say it was a challenge or that they were nervous. This is one of the qualities I’ve noticed with champions like the Brady, the Patriots or, switching to tennis again, Roger Federer. They are unflappable.  They see facing a tough opponent as an opportunity to excel rather than a challenge for which they might not be good enough.

So what accounts for this calmness? I’d say these factors: focus on the present, confidence in yourself without tying the outcome to your self-esteem and a process-oriented mentality. 

The real Super Bowl lesson wasn’t about revenge - The Boston Globe

The real Super Bowl lesson wasn’t about revenge - The Boston Globe


This article nicely captures my feelings about the New England Patriots' incredible come-from-behind win over the Atlanta Falcons in Super Bowl LI. As a Pats fan it was sweet to have them win despite Brady's suspension for the first four games of the season due to allegations that the Pats lowered the pressure in their footballs.

But the satisfaction of getting this win (with properly inflated balls) pales to the spectacle of watching the Patriots methodically, relentlessly and calmly chipping away at the Falcons' lead. Meanwhile the Atlanta team could have easily added a field goal to put the game even further out of reach but succumbed to some head-scratching decisions. There easily were half a dozen or more plays that would have thwarted the Pats' comeback if any one of them had not worked in the Pats favor. 

It seems that everything is politicized these days. We know that Robert Kraft (the team owner), Bill Belichick (head coach) and Tom Brady (quarterback) are Trump supporters. We know that some of the players have said they will not attend the team meeting at the White House for political reasons. Yet it's great to see that both sides could set aside these differences (at least publicly) to work toward a common goal.

It was as if everything our parents, our teachers, our coaches had tried to teach us transpired in the last 18 minutes of this magnificent spectacle, this Super Bowl. In the end, it wasn’t about revenge. It was about not giving up, about perseverance, about not panicking, about having a backup plan if the original plan isn’t working, about believing in yourself and your ability and in one another.

... 

The roots of the comeback were embedded in another of our parents’ mantras: that you lay the groundwork for success in ways you often can’t see, simply by persevering. Even after they had fallen behind by so much, the Patriots were controlling possession and running the Falcons defense ragged. In the fourth quarter, and especially during the winning drive in overtime, the Atlanta defenders were gassed, exhausted. 

...

So many of us had assumed that Tom Brady wanted to win this game so he could rub it in Goodell’s face. But it turns out he really wanted to win the game to put a smile on his mother’s face. There’s something much stronger, sweeter, and more satisfying than revenge. It’s called love.

Resilence and Choking: Federer vs. Cilic Wimbledon Match

Yesterday Roger Federer narrowly avoided being eliminated from Wimbledon at the hands of Marin Cilic. He was down two sets to none and even had a couple match points against him. Yet he prevailed. We think that Roger has nerves of steel and therefore never chokes but he did shank several balls, revealing that, yes, even Roger is human. In fact, I read a book on Federer recently that reveals he was very temperamental as a junior player. He had temper tantrums that made John McEnroe look mild. If he lost a match he would cry and pout for a while afterwards. Roger made a conscious decision to change his ways and become more Stoic.

This post by Allen Fox talks about how Roger handled choking by not panicking.

I should add that if there was anything to learn from this match it was that you can choke and still win as long as you don’t get rattled about it. And the topic of “courage” comes up when people think about choking. In my opinion, it doesn’t show courage to not be nervous and make the big shot on the big point. It takes courage to choke on the big point, not get upset about it; fight your way to another big point; and finally come through, either by making a good shot or your opponent missing.

Fox's point can apply to other situations beyond sports. That it's OK to tighten up under pressure as long as you recognize it and keep trying to do your best.
 

Late To The Ball: Tennis and Relationships

I just finished reading Late To The Ball by Gerald Marzorati, a former editor of the New York Times Magazine, in which he tells his story about taking up tennis in his early 60s and the lessons he learned, both in terms of technique/tactics and lessons about himself. I liked his book (and the clever title) very much. He started playing singles competitively but toward the end of the book he shifted to play doubles. He quotes an email from his wife on the differences between singles and doubles that I like.

“Singles is a fearsome struggle for independence at best; at worst it is a denial of the other’s humanity. But doubles is different. A devoted team can help each other grow so much. You’re talking about fellowship, and the delicate, intricate, wondrous balance between autonomy and dependency.”

I think her description of the dynamics of doubles actually applies to relationships in general whether it’s friendships, family or marriages.

I also think her depiction of singles is a bit harsh. I’m sure many people who play competitive singles do indeed want to impose their will on their opponent. I lean more toward Tim Gallwey’s idea that a goal of playing tennis, whether it’s singles or doubles, is to bring out the best in yourself. To do that you need the best from your opponent. Therefore playing ultimately is a cooperative exercise. I figure if you’re playing on the professional circuit your goal is strictly to win, rise in the rankings and make enough money to survive, without being concerned how your opponent feels about losing. The same for playing in USTA amateur leagues and tournaments. Yet, I noticed at the very top of the pro ranks (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray) there is mutual respect and appreciation for a well-played match. Even in the mixed doubles USTA matches I played this winter (for the first time in my tennis career at the age of 65!), there usually is mutual respect. Most of my opponents were fair and friendly. A few resorted to gamesmanship in an attempt to get into my head. (Good luck finding anything in there!) But overall all four of us on the court were looking for a competitive, well-fought match.

Getting back to Marzorati book, you could also take the title to mean arriving late to a ball as in a formal dance party. Whether or not this double meaning was intentional I’d say the second meaning of the “ball” is appropriate too. Playing tennis can be thought of as a dance.

A Loser's Winning Moment by Jason Gay

I like this article on the Nadal-Djokovic Wimbledon final. After his introduction which says how easy it is to handle winning Gay says: "But do you really want to prove yourself, to be all-time and great? Learn to lose. Lose beautifully, with class and humility. Lose like Rafael Nadal."

Further on he says:

One of the great aspects of the Nadal-Federer era is that it demolished the myth that nice guys finish last. This isn't to say the rivals don't possess bountiful egos—they do—but there has been an encouraging layer of generosity and civility to the competition. It's a little pathetic how refreshing this is. Too often, antisocial behavior in sports is excused as a side effect of championship determination.

I agree. This was one of the things that bothered me when the Williams sisters were dominating woman's tennis. When they lost they often didn't give credit to the play of their opponent. I remember seeing at least one victory speech in which one of the Williams didn't even acknowledge their opponent. I have to say that this was several years ago. I was pleasantly surprised more recently when Serena graciously handled a loss.

I'm not saying we should like losing. I certainly am not happy when I lose a tennis match. But there is nothing to be gained by belittling your partner or concocting an excuse for losing. If my goal is to improve (which it is) it won't help my effort if I deny why I lost. I'm preventing learning important lessons that could help me play better. And I also do believe my opponent is a partner at least at the level of social sports which for most of us is what we're engaged in. We're not earning our living, landing endorsement deals or vying for trophies when we play sports with friends and colleagues. This is why I used the word "partner" earlier in this paragraph. We're testing each other, partly in order to grow and improve while also enjoying the battle. The fact that Nadal, Federer and others can handle losing as well as they do supports the sentiment expressed in the first quote from Gay.

Bounce, Clutch and Choke: Reviews

Why do some people perform well under pressure while others don’t? Why do some bounce back from adversity or come through in a clutch while others choke? That is the subject of three books, each of which tackles the subject from a different angle. Each author has different credentials as well.

The books are:

Choke: What the Secrets of the Brain Reveal About Getting It Right When You Have To by Sian Bielock

Bounce: Mozart, Federer, Picasso, Beckham, and the Science of Success by Matthew Syed

Clutch: Why Some People Excel Under Pressure and Other Don't by Paul Sullivan

Sian Bielock is a professor who conducts research in this field. Matthew Syed, the author of Bounce, writes for The Times of London, is a commentator for the BBC and was three time Commonwealth table tennis champion and a two-time Olympian. Syed can speak from direct experience about performing under pressure. Paul Sullivan writes “Wealth Matters” column for The New York Times. So you have someone whose career studies performance, someone who performing at the world class level of table tennis and a financial columnist. As you can imagine each one looks at this issue a bit different and each author finds different reasons why we come through in a clutch or choke.

Bielock concludes that practicing under pressure enhances performance, even cognitive performance. She tells us the ability to control our thoughts and images play a crucial role. Bielock lists several tips to help us prevent choking such as reaffirming our self-worth, meditating, pausing before acting and reinterpreting our reactions. As an example of this last tip she encourages us to reframe a reaction such as “I am freaking out” about facing a challenge to “I am pumped for this test!”

Bounce also talks about the importance of practice. Syed draws on the research of Anders Ericsson, psychologist at Florida State University, who coined the term “deliberate practice.” Ericsson noticed that world class performers practiced in a different way than others. “When most people practice, they focus on the things they can do effortlessly. Expert practice is different. It entails considerable, specific, and sustained efforts to do something you can’t do well – or even at all. Research across domains shows that it is only by working at what you can’t do that you turn into the expert you want to become.” Syed calls it purposeful practice. Why? “Because the practice sessions of aspiring champions have a specific and never-changing purpose: progress. World-class performance comes by striving for a target just out of reach, but with a vivid awareness of how the gap might be breached.”

This emphasis on purposeful or deliberate practice parallels Bielock’s recommendation to practice under pressure.

Bounce also ties in works I’ve reviewed here: Colvin’s Talent is Overrated, Coyle’s The Talent Code and Dweck’s Mindset.

Syed introduces another term as well: doublethink. Unlike many writers who urge us to focus only on the positive, Syed tells us we need both positive and negative thoughts. We need a positive focus to protect our self-belief while also noting our weaknesses that need to be improved.

He also explains how our brain has explicit and implicit systems. When we learn a new skill we operate on the explicit, conscious level. As we become proficient and develop mastery of a skill the brain hands over the performance to our implicit, subconscious system. It takes thousands of hours of purposeful practice to cement a skill into an unconscious mode. We choke when under the intense light of pressure we try to push the skill back into the explicit, inherently slower and more error prone system. As soon as we start to try to consciously control something we had automatized we run into trouble and can choke. Golfers call this a case of the "yips."

Sullivan’s Clutch draws some general conclusions by using examples of high performers in various fields. He believes people who choke share three traits: 1. They don’t take responsibility for choking, 2.They over think what they’re doing, and, 3. They fool themselves with overconfidence.

He then identifies five key traits of people who perform well: focus, discipline, adaptability, presence and being motivated by fear and desire. Sullivan’s last trait is similar to Syed’s recommendation to properly use both positive and negative thoughts.

So where does all of this leave us? Each book lays out somewhat different approaches. Are there common denominators? I think there are. While none of the ideas appeared in all three books there were several that popped up in two of them.

1. Practicing purposefully and under pressure.
2. Proper use of positive and negative thinking.
3. Being fully in the present while performing. This allows us to focus on the outcome instead of worrying about how we going to get to our goal. However we need to sharply focus on technique during purposeful practice. The combination of these ideas helps us avoid over thinking and overconfidence.
4. We need to be adaptable and use judgment when applying our principles.
5. When performing we can lessen the pressure by telling ourselves we’re not, say, serving for the winning game of the U.S. Open. We’re just serving any other game.

If forced to choose one of these books it would be a tough one but I’d lean towards Bielock’s Choke. I’d do so partly because her career is dedicated to learning why some people choke and why others don’t and because she offers more practical tips. Having said that any one of these books will help learn how to perform under pressure.

Choke: What The Secrets of the Brain Reveal About Getting It Right When You Have To - A review

Have you ever choked? Double faulted a key serve in a tennis match? Muffed an easy three-foot putt? Froze during an important presentation to a key client? If you like most people you could say yes to one of these answers. However, we know some people who don’t choke, who stay cool under the heat of pressure. Is there something they do differently than us? Do we do something different when we’re under pressure than we do when there is no pressure? This is what Sian Beilock, associate professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Chicago, tries to answer in her book, Choke: What the Secrets of the Brain Reveal About Getting It Right When You Have To.

Beilock starts off by making a key distinction. “Choking is not simply poor performance, however. Choking is suboptimal performance. It’s when you – or an individual athlete, actor, musician, or student – perform worse than expected given what you are capable of doing.”

Like a number of recent books Choke relies on research on how the brain works using the latest imaging technology, functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The fMRI can’t read what is happening within individual neurons and synapses. It measures blood flow which is related to brain activity and identifies which parts of the brain light up when we’re stressed as opposed to when we’re not.

Beilock explains that understanding how and why we choke relies on knowing how our procedural memory works which “is implicit or unconscious. … You can think of procedural memory as your cognitive toolbox that contains a recipe that, if followed, will produce a successful bike ride, golf putt, baseball swing, or fully operating cell phone.” When we take on a new skill we start off consciously learning the key motions. As we become more proficient the details of the mechanics of technique our brain hands off executing these techniques from the conscious to the unconscious or our procedural memory. As a result once we become proficient in a skill our performance actually declines if we usurp our procedural memory by consciously trying to control our action.

This is what happens when we choke. We start to think about the technique of our serve and double fault. Or we start thinking about the mechanics of putting only to push the putt wide when we normally would make easily when there is no pressure. Instead of letting our subconscious execute the shot or the putt we try to steer it consciously only to choke.

When we become too conscious of how we doing something we also use up our working-memory which “involves the ability to hold information in mind (and protect that information from disappearing) while doing something else at the same time.”

So what can we do to lower our chances of choking? Are there ways of keeping us engaged with our procedural memory and not sucking up the precious resources of our working-memory? Beilock provides research showing that practicing that adds pressure similar to what you’d experience during competition will help. “Practice can actually change the physical wiring of the brain to support exceptional performance.” This also shows that we’re not stuck with a set amount of working-memory. We can expand it with the right kind of practice.

Another tactic would be to reinterpret your body’s response to a tense situation. Instead of thinking “I don’t handle pressure well. I’m tight and might make a mistake” you would say to yourself “I’m excited about facing this challenge.”

Beilock offers some other tips as well. These include taking time before starting the activity to reaffirm your self-worth by taking a few minutes to write about your many interests and activities. Map out your complexities: draw a diagram of what makes you a multi-faceted person. Meditate. And perhaps the most counter-intuitive tip: write about your worries. You would think we should not focus on what worries us but Beilock’s research shows that writing out your worries actually helps to relieve them!

All of this is fine for athletics but what about preventing choking in business or other non-sport activities? Some of Beilock’s tips are the essentially the same: meditate, write down thoughts you want to avoid, focus on a three strong talking points and think about the journey, not the outcome.

For interviews work up “a few well-rehearsed sentences about why you are the right person for the job, this first impression can help set the tone for your interview and for what is taken away from the meeting. … Providing a schema for interpreting a meeting at the outset, then, can help guide others’ memory of you.” I’d say this approach also works for presentations.

Beilock admits that brain research is fairly young and that future research might reveal more strategies for dealing with choking. Nonetheless Choke offers some good suggestions to ensure we don’t choke.

Competition and challenges as meditation and relaxation

I just recently returned from skiing and re-learned a lesson from more than twenty years ago when I first read The Inner Game of Tennis by Tim Gallwey. His premise is that we perform complex physical skills better when we relinquish control of “Self 1,” our conscious self to “Self 2,” our subconscious self. Actions like playing tennis or skiing are too complicated for our conscious mind to control. Gallwey revolutionized tennis instruction (then golf and skiing) by providing techniques to quiet and distract the Self 1 while the Self 2 is going its work. The problem is that Self 1 always wants to be in control and therefore is constantly trying to intervene. It’s a constantly challenge to keep Self 1 occupied.

However, there are another two aspects that I’ve learned from experience.

1. When skiing it’s important to stay relaxed and focused on the challenges ahead of the trail ahead without worrying whether being able to handle them. The same thing happens when I’m playing tennis and focus on my performance, not whether I win or lose. This doesn’t mean I win all of my matches nor am I happy when I lose but my chances of winning improve. Staying relaxed lets me perform to my potential.
2. Letting Self 2 operate creates a condition like mediation. Being fully involved in the task at hand without concern over the outcome creates an experience described as “flow” by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in his book, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. What I have found is that the effects of this flow state linger for a while afterwards. It ultimately has a calming and reenergizing effect.