Hunter or Hunted?

[Kieran]

We often read with regards to Rafa that he's better as the hunter but isn't so comfortable being hunted. He's a more effective #2 than #1. In fact, Steve Tignor repeated this recently, to the effect of saying that Rafa was never comfortable at the top.

And recently we see a resurgence of sorts with Nole, after he dropped to #2. He's playing with more ruthless assurance than he showed when Rafa tracked him down over the hard court summer.

A few people have cautioned also that Rafa will have a ton of points to defend next year. But do top players really think like this? Will Rafa look across next year and think, "oh, how will I defend those points?"

Or will his attitude be what it always seems to be, that he takes each match as it happens and the points get sorted afterwards?

Likewise with Nole, and Federer. Isn't Nole's play at the end of this year just like it was last season, a diligent effort to end the year hard and not necessarily a positive reaction to suddenly being a hunter?

Do the media waste too much time on these lazy kinds of definitions, when the reality for the players is that they live much more in the tournament they're in, and are not fixated on or stimulated by fluctuations in rankings?

I'm not saying they ignore the rankings, or that they're not motivated by improving their lot - but to assign basic roles like Hunter and Hunted to them is to demean what is essentially a lifelong career based upon competition and improvement....

 

[Denis]

Yes, I agree. It's mainly a media story. Although I do think it does play a bit of a role. If you're no 2 or lower you can have a goal, a focal point: the no 1 spot. Once you're on the top you can only try and stay there. It's mentally a bit different. But these are minor things I guess.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

With respect to #1 and #2 and being hunted or hunting, I think media has a point.

However, no player approaches torunaments with defending points in mind.
Every tournament is a new torunament and they all want to do as well as they could.

In particular, no player would say, ok let me lose this tournament early and it
will be easy for me to defend the points next year.

Defending points arithmetic is more about fans who have lot of time and not
much about players. Having said that, player would pay attention and be aware
of these arithmetic. However, I don't think their performance would vary hugely
based on the arithmetic.

 

[Kieran]

Yes, I agree. It's mainly a media story. Although I do think it does play a bit of a role. If you're no 2 or lower you can have a goal, a focal point: the no 1 spot. Once you're on the top you can only try and stay there. It's mentally a bit different. But these are minor things I guess.

Yeah that's the thing, it is a part of it, and I remember in McEnroe's book he recalls that Borg told him to do whatever he could to get the #1 spot back from Lendl, so obviously it feels differently being number 1, but I think it gets over-emphasised with certain players that they're better at hunting, etc. Certainly the role of a professional tennis player is to compete and try improve so they can compete better - and this applies to the world #1 as well as anybody below...

 

[brokenshoelace]

With regards to Nadal in particular, I don't buy this argument. I do think Nadal may not necessarily enjoy the responsibilities of being world number 1, but really, that's about it. I think it's a bit of a stretch to think his results would have been different had we changed his rankings.

If we concede that in the 8 times Nadal has won the FO, he would have won it had he been ranked 1st, 2nd, or 25th in the world (and I think this is a valid point), then we're left with the following:

2 US Open wins: One in which he won while he was world number 1, the other world number 2.
2 Wimbledon titles: One in which he won while he was world number 2, the other world number 1 (he was seeded second due to the criteria, but was world number 1 in the rankings).
1 Australian Open title: He won it when he was world number 1.

Obviously, there are times where psychologically, the ranking may affect a player (ie you relax if you're world number 1, or you play like a man on a mission if you're aiming to get that ranking). However, the reason I single out Nadal is because we've heard the "hunter/hunted" argument so much that it's started being treated like a fact, when it's far from that.

 

[shawnbm]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

I have said this in the past, but I think there is some credence to it. For some, once the goal is reached they become a bit deflated after a time. What is the goal? Once you are at the top, there is only one direction to head ... eventually. Then there are some who get there and actually seem to get better whilst on top. Wilander worked hard to get up there and then did not stay long. McEnroe really never stayed long on top--he fell off and started the climb back up after taking almost three years to get up there past Connors and Borg. Borg finally got to the top in 1979 and by the summer of 1981 he was burnt out. I think certain guys relax and can breathe easy after getting to the apex and others, once there, lose a bit of motivation. It is a personality thing, but I do express my guilt at having espoused this theory in the past--a theory that cannot be proven by any means. It is really more a feeling based on observation over the years, which really makes it all a load of conjecture on my part!

 

[Didi]

Interesting topic. There certainly is a psychological effect to it but I think it's overrated. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, eh? This ties into Pierre Nora's theory of misplaced significance with regards to collective memory. At the time of an event, say, the #1 or #2 player winning/losing a match, people sometimes believe it to be greatly significant or telling, when in fact as Kieran already mentioned, nothing changed at all. Djokovic is playing great tennis right now because he always does in this part of the season to put it simple and pragmatic. Not because he is angry of losing the top spot or is eager to prove a point or wants to show Jelena Ristic he's still da man, the potent Butcher from the Balkans with the greatest cojones out there. We are all guilty of trying to put too much emphasis on certain events.

On other occasions, people don't see it as significant, and it's actually only some time afterwards that you see the significance of the event. This hunter/hunted business is an example of the former. When a top player loses the top spot or sinks down the ranking, people seem to think that it will provide the catalyst for a period of improved play and dominance, but in reality it's down to simple not so sexy reasons such as regaining health, fitness and full capacity like Roger at the moment or Nadal in 2013 or just like the natural evolution of a great player reaching his prime like Novak in 2011. But that doesn't sound sexy, so we try to spin it into some heroic, eye of the tiger stuff.

And as for Nadal playing better when he's #2, quite frankly it's nonsense from Tignor and whoever came up with this. The reason he spent more weeks being #2 is due to the period from summer 05 to summer 08 when the most dominant player in the history of the game was in front of him. Prime Pete, Novak, Mac, Lendl and any other great would have been 2nd best in that 3 year period too. That's why I always take stats of weeks as #1 with a pinch of salt because you need a bit of luck. A lot of greats would have had far less weeks at the top had they competed and played at the same time as Prime Federer.

When Nadal clinched the top spot and became the top dog for the first time, I recall him winning Melbourne, Indian Wells, MC, Rome etc. in the spring of 2009 before his knees forced him to skip Wimbledon and ruined his season. Not too shabby for the hunted. When he lost it in 2011 it was down to Djokovic just being the better player that season, that's it and likewise him regaining it in 2013 isn't down to some mystic reasons either. The margin between them is so small. Had Novak won that dramatic 5th set in Paris we would likely be sitting here and talk about Djokovic having another dream season, having won Oz, Paris and (probably) the US Open. That's how the cookie crumbles sometimes.

 

[Kieran]

Well also, Didi, he was #2 for a long time behind Roger because he was five years younger and basically learning the game. Once he reached his prime, he became #1. I don't necessarily agree with your assessment of 2005-2008, but I agree totally, people place a post-dated narrative onto things, thinking that what just happened happened because of a loss of hunger (from being #1), or a hunger regained (in the #2 spot). Whereas, in reality, it might simply be because another player hit their best and was irresistible. This irresistibility might just as easily occur when a guy is still #1...

 

[Kieran]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

I have said this in the past, but I think there is some credence to it. For some, once the goal is reached they become a bit deflated after a time. What is the goal? Once you are at the top, there is only one direction to head ... eventually. Then there are some who get there and actually seem to get better whilst on top. Wilander worked hard to get up there and then did not stay long. McEnroe really never stayed long on top--he fell off and started the climb back up after taking almost three years to get up there past Connors and Borg. Borg finally got to the top in 1979 and by the summer of 1981 he was burnt out. I think certain guys relax and can breathe easy after getting to the apex and others, once there, lose a bit of motivation. It is a personality thing, but I do express my guilt at having espoused this theory in the past--a theory that cannot be proven by any means. It is really more a feeling based on observation over the years, which really makes it all a load of conjecture on my part!

I think Borg physically and mentally burnt out in 1981, and couldn't commit to the next year's tournament schedule, or to his own rugged training regime. Maybe this is the same as losing motivation, and certainly Mac lost some motivation in 1982 - but this was because he missed Borg!

It's not a science, that's for sure brother, but since you've confessed, your penance is to say Vamos 3 times quite loudly!

 

[Kieran]

However, the reason I single out Nadal is because we've heard the "hunter/hunted" argument so much that it's started being treated like a fact, when it's far from that.

Exactly. That's what I've been thinking too, lately...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Interesting topic. There certainly is a psychological effect to it but I think it's overrated. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, eh? This ties into Pierre Nora's theory of misplaced significance with regards to collective memory. At the time of an event, say, the #1 or #2 player winning/losing a match, people sometimes believe it to be greatly significant or telling, when in fact as Kieran already mentioned, nothing changed at all. Djokovic is playing great tennis right now because he always does in this part of the season to put it simple and pragmatic. Not because he is angry of losing the top spot or is eager to prove a point or wants to show Jelena Ristic he's still da man, the potent Butcher from the Balkans with the greatest cojones out there. We are all guilty of trying to put too much emphasis on certain events.

On other occasions, people don't see it as significant, and it's actually only some time afterwards that you see the significance of the event. This hunter/hunted business is an example of the former. When a top player loses the top spot or sinks down the ranking, people seem to think that it will provide the catalyst for a period of improved play and dominance, but in reality it's down to simple not so sexy reasons such as regaining health, fitness and full capacity like Roger at the moment or Nadal in 2013 or just like the natural evolution of a great player reaching his prime like Novak in 2011. But that doesn't sound sexy, so we try to spin it into some heroic, eye of the tiger stuff.

And as for Nadal playing better when he's #2, quite frankly it's nonsense from Tignor and whoever came up with this. The reason he spent more weeks being #2 is due to the period from summer 05 to summer 08 when the most dominant player in the history of the game was in front of him. Prime Pete, Novak, Mac, Lendl and any other great would have been 2nd best in that 3 year period too. That's why I always take stats of weeks as #1 with a pinch of salt because you need a bit of luck. A lot of greats would have had far less weeks at the top had they competed and played at the same time as Prime Federer.

When Nadal clinched the top spot and became the top dog for the first time, I recall him winning Melbourne, Indian Wells, MC, Rome etc. in the spring of 2009 before his knees forced him to skip Wimbledon and ruined his season. Not too shabby for the hunted. When he lost it in 2011 it was down to Djokovic just being the better player that season, that's it and likewise him regaining it in 2013 isn't down to some mystic reasons either. The margin between them is so small. Had Novak won that dramatic 5th set in Paris we would likely be sitting here and talk about Djokovic having another dream season, having won Oz, Paris and (probably) the US Open. That's how the cookie crumbles sometimes.

Spot on.

 

[huntingyou]

When it comes to Rafa, there is no doubt he "enjoys" the task of hunter instead of the hunted. Rafa is a challange oriented guy, that's how he developed his tennis and that's how he lived his career behind Federer for the first 4 years of top tennis (2005-2008). I don't think it makes a big difference results wise but mentally it does for the individual carrying the burden.

It applies to Novak as well, he played his best tennis in 2011 as the hunter.........in 2012, the burden of world #1 had an impact mentally while Rafa went back to his "he is the best in the world no?" speech. It did him well on clay that year. 2013 it's just the closing act to what transpired in 2012 at the AO and through out the clay season....the hunter got his prey.

Novak is the hunter now, if I'm Rafa, I would not like to face Novak in the final of Paris.

Sampras and Federer were the opposite though, and maybe it correlates to their style of play. Both Nadal and Novak enjoy "suffering" on the court, they like to feel the pain...their style it's defense oriented. Pete/Roger are offense oriented players, first strike tennis and grinding for wins was someting neither of them enjoy.

I repeat again before the crusaders tell me I'm wrong........results wise, it doesn't matter much and clearly both Rafa and Novak has won a fair share of big titles as world #1. It is a factor never the less, especially between them.

 

[Kieran]

Again, it has to be pointed out that between 2005-2007 Rafa was still learning the game. It wasn't that he preferred to hunt - it's that he wasn't yet good enough to be #1.

Nole did well last year to retain his #1 spot, but his 2011 level was unrealistic to sustain. Again, this isn't because he was the Hunter - he was the Hunter because Rafa was #1. Everyone else was the Hunter too. Nole became #1 after Wimbledon 2011 - and promptly won the next two slams. As the Hunted.

Against the famed Hunter - Rafa Nadal.

It wouldn't matter if Rafa is 1 or 2 going into Paris - he hunts that title down regardless...

 

[bobvance]

I like this thread a lot and I think this is an interesting phenomenon. I have noticed that Novak does seem to play better tennis when he's freed from the burden of being the top dog. I also agree with some posters that this doesn't apply quite as much to Rafa who had difficulties with injury and family issues.

On the other hand you have a guy like Roger who almost feels like it's a divine right for him to be at number 1. I think it all comes down to a difference in personalities and maybe the ability to deal with the "responsibility" of being the number 1 player in the world.

 

[huntingyou]

Again, it has to be pointed out that between 2005-2007 Rafa was still learning the game. It wasn't that he preferred to hunt - it's that he wasn't yet good enough to be #1.

Nole did well last year to retain his #1 spot, but his 2011 level was unrealistic to sustain. Again, this isn't because he was the Hunter - he was the Hunter because Rafa was #1. Everyone else was the Hunter too. Nole became #1 after Wimbledon 2011 - and promptly won the next two slams. As the Hunted.

Against the famed Hunter - Rafa Nadal.

It wouldn't matter if Rafa is 1 or 2 going into Paris - he hunts that title down regardless...

First, it's bogus to say Rafa "was learning the game between 2005-2007". There was no magical switch in 2008, although it could be clearly mark as Rafa's peak........his grass court game for example was no different from the previous year when he lost to Roger in 5 after wasting 4 BP in the 5th set. He won big HC titles in 2005 and 2007 as well (Madrid indoors, IW, Miami finals, Canada). Between 2005-2007, Rafa gathered enough points at times to be world #1......maybe the guy in front of him was just too good? I'm not disputing his development as proficient HC player but "learnig the game" it's too misleading of a description ot what actually happened.

During the Novak's run in 2011 and in specific his dominance over Rafa, it was clearly obvious the role of hunter and hunted was in full display and one player was affected mentally. When Rafa got be the hunter in 2012, the roles again were in full dispaly and this disposition at the psychological level can have a meaningful impact when the margins are so miniscule. Also, yes Novak won the UO as world #1 but the dynamics in that match-up were fully establish already so the number was irrelevant; Novak was still the hunter.

Funny you bring Paris, Rafa has won 7 FO titles as the world #2.....his only lost came as world #1.

Anyways, disregard this if you wish...Remember Novak "impossible 2011 level"?; well just watch and see how impossible is to replicate. He is taking both Paris and the YEC.........the hunter it's hungry.

 

[Kieran]

You really think it affects the result in Paris if Rafa is seeded 1 or 2...or 3?

In 2008, Rafa was better than in 2007. And he was more experienced too, and ready to be #1 - which he wasn't in 2007, or before. Likewise, Roger didn't have anyone to really push him in those years, the way Rafa and Nole push each other now, so retaining the top spot was easier.

Nole became #1 in 2011, after Wimbledon, and won the next two slams. Against the Hunter.

Look, I'm not saying it's complete crap, but I'm saying people make way too much out of it, especially with regards to Rafa, as if he's a lame Top Dog, but he relishes being #2.

He relishes battles anyway...

 

[huntingyou]

You really think it affects the result in Paris if Rafa is seeded 1 or 2...or 3?

Never said such thing. Just pointing out that both times that Rafa has entered Paris as world #1, his game and mentality hasn't been up to par. He lost against a red hot Robin with bad knees but was garbage in that match (relative). In 2012, he was taken to 5 sets by freaking Isner and lost sets to Andujar.

out of 8 French Open crowns, Rafa has won it 7 times as the world #2. He has beating Novak the world #1 in back to back years.

In 2008, Rafa was better than in 2007. And he was more experienced too, and ready to be #1 - which he wasn't in 2007, or before. Likewise, Roger didn't have anyone to really push him in those years, the way Rafa and Nole push each other now, so retaining the top spot was easier.

In 2008, Rafa was a little bit better overall......he still got destroyed by Tsonga at the AO, mauled by Novak at IW and embarrased by Davydenko in the finals of Miami. His grasscourt game was the same with an improve serve. Clay is clay......his 2008 RG level was a subliminal experience..Zen like if you wish.

Will not address the Roger part......a can of worms right there pal :snigger

Nole became #1 in 2011, after Wimbledon, and won the next two slams. Against the Hunter.

This is cheap! I said Novak was still the hunter at the UO......I'm talking reliationship dynamics specifically.

Wouldn't you say that the Rafa we saw at the AO in 2012 was a much different Rafa that the one we saw at the UO in 2011? I'm talking attitude here.....don't know you but I recognize Rafa's facial expresions and overall mood like if he was my son.

Look, I'm not saying it's complete crap, but I'm saying people make way too much out of it, especially with regards to Rafa, as if he's a lame Top Dog, but he relishes being #2.

He relishes battles anyway...

I'm not saying this is the determining factor...there is something to it and when it comes to Rafa and Novak; it's clear to me who cherrish the match-up......the wolrd #2 whoever it is at the time.

 

[Kieran]

This is because they have a rivalry, not because they're better at 1 or 2. I mean, to escape this, you say Nole was the Hunter at the US open in 2011 (if I understand you correctly) based on "relationship dynamics specifically."

Well, that means you're changing the definitions, because the OP is based upon the idea that the #1 is the Hunted and #2 is the Hunter - regardless of "relationship dynamics specifically..."

 

[tennisville]

Statistically Nadal has performed better being the hunted than the hunter . It was all a media myth in my books which lot of people bought

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

in his head rafa prefers being no2, he is always trying to claim he is the underdog even on clay sometimes :snigger.

when rafa got to no1 it was due to Federer suffering from burn out, decline from his peakiest peak, and he didn't seem bothered by becoming no1, he was comfortable being no2 (which he was for over 3 years), unlike Federer or djokovic who seem to enjoy being 'the man'.

I don't think being no 1 or 2 affects him on court at all..but in his head he doesn't seem to want the extra spotlight.