Post by tall_one on Aug 20, 2005 6:02:18 GMT 3
click on photo for bigger photo
This is an mini article in the middle of the larger article
Marat's Brain On Grass
by Jonathan P. Niednagel
Marat is most adept in the right frontal lobe of his brain, which means he is very conceptual. When you map the brain, you see that when a person really gets in "the zone" and they're getting maximum visual aculty, the right anterior part of the brain becomes engaged. If Marat is very relax, he has vvery good visual perception. But if he screws up, he gets tense, and the critical centers in the back of the brain take over. The result is that he literally won't see things as well. So if he's melting down, one thing he could do is to look up. Without getting a delay of game, he can take a little time to look at something distant. He needs to pick out a palm tree or branch - not a chick in the crowd, and nothing that will distract him - and look at it for no more then five seconds. Then he needs to forcus on something that is about the same depth as his opponent across the court, something on the screen back there. Only for five seconds - anymore and he'll start daydreaming. If you do that for about a minute, it plays with the visual part of the brain and shuts down the critical part. Now he is just going to see and react. When people play at their best, they're not thinking about things, they're just reacting to what they see. But if the visual centers aren't working. especially for types like Marat, their whole game goes in the toilet.
=========================================
The Agony (and Fleeting Ecstasy) of Marat Safin
He has been called the purest physical talent in the history of the game. So why doesn't Marat Safin dominate the tennis world? John Jeremiah Sullivan explores the dark psyche of tennis's tormented genius.
I've hated him, you know. I've hated that wack-job six-foot-four-inch beautiful genuis Tatar. Oh, never for long. Never with consistency that might have led to true renunciation. But there have been times when i wanted to see him... well, not suffer - because i know he suffers; he tells us so. It's one of this words - suffering: "I just suffer a bit more"; "I was suffering too much"; "That's why I am suffering"; "Why should I suffer?" Not that, tehn, but ti see him humbled. Yes - scolded, even. I'm watching at home, let's say, and he's just netted a midcourt forehand approach ahot for the twelfth time in the set, having gotten all freaked out about some completely inconsequential baseline error sic games earlier, and maybe he's talking to himself, but load enough for the mikes to pick up, saying things like "Why you fecking run? Why not you make heem fecking run?" when from nowhere comes a tiny, creaking voice. The crowd goes still. A filthy crone, a babushka, has materialized in the service box, and she's waving a bony finger at him. "You," she hisses, "you were born the greatest of them all, and look at you, muttering to yourself like a . (russian word, sorry i don't have crylics to type it out) You betray your gift, Marat Mikhailovich, and now you will know what it means to suffer."
Safin could answer - has pretty much answered, in fact, when a statement along those lines has been put to him by some reporter - that he's done so much, that in eight years he's been a professional tennis player, he's won two Grand Slams and made the finals of two other, has won thirteen other ATP tournaments, has twice (briefly) been number one in the world, and has with some consistency stayed among the top twn; that he's played in not a few truly classic matches, has overcome injuries, and has futhermore been a boon to the sport insofar as his personality, his looks, and his behavior on and off the court have given us something to talk about, to get worked up about. He could retire, as he more then threatened to do (the first time, reportedly, when he was 20), could install himself in a dacha somewhere with "a kid in one hand and a Tsingtao in the other" (as he once described his ideal future during a press conference in China), could leave behind forever the game that has been his love and tormentor since childhood, the game that may have saved hime - as he mused at this year's French Open - from a life spent "picking up bottles in a park in Moscow," and no one would have grounds on which to fault hime. We would do right to thank him, in fact we would follow the game.
But I've never been able to bring myself to feel this way. It's part;y because of a mystifying pattern that has marked Safin's career from the start, of doing something magnificent, and then immediantely fallig apart for a period of months, if not years. Each of what once could call the three watershed moments of his career - his "Who the hell is that kid?" win over Andre Agassi in the first round of the 1998 French Open, which introduced him to the tennis-watching world; his victory in the 200 US Open final over Pete Sampras, when he played such frighteningly perfect tennis that some people, including his former coach the Swedish champion Mats Wilander, think it might have permanently messed with his head; and his semifinal, then final, wins in this year's Australian Open (against Roger Federer and Lleyton Hewitt, respectively), matches in which the level of play was accurately described by ESPN commentator Cliff Drysdale as "inhuman" - each of these has been followed hard upon by a period of decline, or atleast once in which the virtuosity he's able to summon goes missing.
It's partly that, yes, but it's also - more so - that when he is one, he's a god. The beauty of Safin's tennis is the beauty of overwhelming powere and precision, less clever than crushing. He's not a scrapper; you won't see him pull off too many magical saves; he doesn't adapt too well, midmatch, doesn't beat players at their own games - what he does do, can do, instead, is render his opponents' games irrelevant.
There's a certain one-two move that, when Safin's demons have temporarily lef him alone, he likes to execute. It begins with a two-fisted backhand approach shot rom the ad-court corner, just inside the baseline. He'll move up on the ball and sort of hop on his right leg, as if he's stubbed his toe, teetering as he tears the shot crosscourt. The landing from the little jump becomes itself the beginning of his sprint toward the net, during which his movement is strangely flowing and catlike for an athlete of his size. He's carrying so much mass and inertia forward that you think he's going to run right through the net, but then he pounds to a stop at the last second and performs the daintiest little touch-drop volley.
The effect of this maneuver, visually speaking, is a bit like seeing a pterodactyl that was flying straight at you suddenly shape-shift into a moth and flutter away.
It's this, and a dozen other little things like it, that can make you clutch your head over Safin when he's in one of his lost periods, inexplicably bowing out before guys who shouldn't be able to stay on court with him. But of course, those very qualities that make his game so dangerous are the ones that make it so fagile, or unusually vulnerable to psychological swings, because in order to play the kind of tennis that Safin correctly considers "his game," one has to, as they say, "dictate play" relentlessly, and in order to do that - against the best players in the world - one has to believe it's possible. The question, then, of why Safin can never maintain this belief for long is one that haunts all Safinites(sic).
I think it was partly in anger, craving answers, that i went to meet him at the Hamburg clay-court event in May. Since the glory of the Australian Open, there had been Dubai, Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and Rome, in none of which he made it pst the third round. His own manager has expressed bafflement in the face of this latest collapse. His current coach, Peter Lundgren, when I'd asked how winning a Grand Slam could make a man lose his confidence (a cause-and-effect process that Safin described as "inevitable"), said simply, "It's amazing." But if i could get the ****er alone for a few minutes, force him to explain...
This is an mini article in the middle of the larger article
Marat's Brain On Grass
by Jonathan P. Niednagel
Marat is most adept in the right frontal lobe of his brain, which means he is very conceptual. When you map the brain, you see that when a person really gets in "the zone" and they're getting maximum visual aculty, the right anterior part of the brain becomes engaged. If Marat is very relax, he has vvery good visual perception. But if he screws up, he gets tense, and the critical centers in the back of the brain take over. The result is that he literally won't see things as well. So if he's melting down, one thing he could do is to look up. Without getting a delay of game, he can take a little time to look at something distant. He needs to pick out a palm tree or branch - not a chick in the crowd, and nothing that will distract him - and look at it for no more then five seconds. Then he needs to forcus on something that is about the same depth as his opponent across the court, something on the screen back there. Only for five seconds - anymore and he'll start daydreaming. If you do that for about a minute, it plays with the visual part of the brain and shuts down the critical part. Now he is just going to see and react. When people play at their best, they're not thinking about things, they're just reacting to what they see. But if the visual centers aren't working. especially for types like Marat, their whole game goes in the toilet.
=========================================
The Agony (and Fleeting Ecstasy) of Marat Safin
He has been called the purest physical talent in the history of the game. So why doesn't Marat Safin dominate the tennis world? John Jeremiah Sullivan explores the dark psyche of tennis's tormented genius.
I've hated him, you know. I've hated that wack-job six-foot-four-inch beautiful genuis Tatar. Oh, never for long. Never with consistency that might have led to true renunciation. But there have been times when i wanted to see him... well, not suffer - because i know he suffers; he tells us so. It's one of this words - suffering: "I just suffer a bit more"; "I was suffering too much"; "That's why I am suffering"; "Why should I suffer?" Not that, tehn, but ti see him humbled. Yes - scolded, even. I'm watching at home, let's say, and he's just netted a midcourt forehand approach ahot for the twelfth time in the set, having gotten all freaked out about some completely inconsequential baseline error sic games earlier, and maybe he's talking to himself, but load enough for the mikes to pick up, saying things like "Why you fecking run? Why not you make heem fecking run?" when from nowhere comes a tiny, creaking voice. The crowd goes still. A filthy crone, a babushka, has materialized in the service box, and she's waving a bony finger at him. "You," she hisses, "you were born the greatest of them all, and look at you, muttering to yourself like a . (russian word, sorry i don't have crylics to type it out) You betray your gift, Marat Mikhailovich, and now you will know what it means to suffer."
Safin could answer - has pretty much answered, in fact, when a statement along those lines has been put to him by some reporter - that he's done so much, that in eight years he's been a professional tennis player, he's won two Grand Slams and made the finals of two other, has won thirteen other ATP tournaments, has twice (briefly) been number one in the world, and has with some consistency stayed among the top twn; that he's played in not a few truly classic matches, has overcome injuries, and has futhermore been a boon to the sport insofar as his personality, his looks, and his behavior on and off the court have given us something to talk about, to get worked up about. He could retire, as he more then threatened to do (the first time, reportedly, when he was 20), could install himself in a dacha somewhere with "a kid in one hand and a Tsingtao in the other" (as he once described his ideal future during a press conference in China), could leave behind forever the game that has been his love and tormentor since childhood, the game that may have saved hime - as he mused at this year's French Open - from a life spent "picking up bottles in a park in Moscow," and no one would have grounds on which to fault hime. We would do right to thank him, in fact we would follow the game.
But I've never been able to bring myself to feel this way. It's part;y because of a mystifying pattern that has marked Safin's career from the start, of doing something magnificent, and then immediantely fallig apart for a period of months, if not years. Each of what once could call the three watershed moments of his career - his "Who the hell is that kid?" win over Andre Agassi in the first round of the 1998 French Open, which introduced him to the tennis-watching world; his victory in the 200 US Open final over Pete Sampras, when he played such frighteningly perfect tennis that some people, including his former coach the Swedish champion Mats Wilander, think it might have permanently messed with his head; and his semifinal, then final, wins in this year's Australian Open (against Roger Federer and Lleyton Hewitt, respectively), matches in which the level of play was accurately described by ESPN commentator Cliff Drysdale as "inhuman" - each of these has been followed hard upon by a period of decline, or atleast once in which the virtuosity he's able to summon goes missing.
It's partly that, yes, but it's also - more so - that when he is one, he's a god. The beauty of Safin's tennis is the beauty of overwhelming powere and precision, less clever than crushing. He's not a scrapper; you won't see him pull off too many magical saves; he doesn't adapt too well, midmatch, doesn't beat players at their own games - what he does do, can do, instead, is render his opponents' games irrelevant.
There's a certain one-two move that, when Safin's demons have temporarily lef him alone, he likes to execute. It begins with a two-fisted backhand approach shot rom the ad-court corner, just inside the baseline. He'll move up on the ball and sort of hop on his right leg, as if he's stubbed his toe, teetering as he tears the shot crosscourt. The landing from the little jump becomes itself the beginning of his sprint toward the net, during which his movement is strangely flowing and catlike for an athlete of his size. He's carrying so much mass and inertia forward that you think he's going to run right through the net, but then he pounds to a stop at the last second and performs the daintiest little touch-drop volley.
The effect of this maneuver, visually speaking, is a bit like seeing a pterodactyl that was flying straight at you suddenly shape-shift into a moth and flutter away.
It's this, and a dozen other little things like it, that can make you clutch your head over Safin when he's in one of his lost periods, inexplicably bowing out before guys who shouldn't be able to stay on court with him. But of course, those very qualities that make his game so dangerous are the ones that make it so fagile, or unusually vulnerable to psychological swings, because in order to play the kind of tennis that Safin correctly considers "his game," one has to, as they say, "dictate play" relentlessly, and in order to do that - against the best players in the world - one has to believe it's possible. The question, then, of why Safin can never maintain this belief for long is one that haunts all Safinites(sic).
I think it was partly in anger, craving answers, that i went to meet him at the Hamburg clay-court event in May. Since the glory of the Australian Open, there had been Dubai, Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and Rome, in none of which he made it pst the third round. His own manager has expressed bafflement in the face of this latest collapse. His current coach, Peter Lundgren, when I'd asked how winning a Grand Slam could make a man lose his confidence (a cause-and-effect process that Safin described as "inevitable"), said simply, "It's amazing." But if i could get the ****er alone for a few minutes, force him to explain...