A Fitness, Tennis, Squash & Sports Blog by Mayfair Clubs

One of my biggest issues with sportscasters, newspaper writers and columnists is their use of the word “choke.” 

Too many times an analyst will say an athlete choked, when in fact they all they did was fail at the task at hand.  Failing is not choking, and the two terms should not be intertwined.  It really is amazing me to me how many times the word choke is used in the sports vernacular; and it is equally amazing how many times the announcer is wrong in choosing that particular word.  

Additionally, the use of this word (choke), ad nauseam, is just as annoying as the so-called experts putting the athlete on a pedestal and calling them heroic or courageous when they perform in clutch situations.  Give me a break! 

The definition of the word choke, in the Webster’s dictionary, is this; to have trouble in breathing, swallowing, or speaking.  When an athlete is struggling with one of these issues, then “choking” is clearly happening.  But keep in mind, this rarely happens to an experienced athlete who has been in front of the microscope his/her entire career.

Only a few times, in recent memory, can I remember an athlete truly choking – where they perform much below their average ability, and subsequently don’t succeed.  I will get to the “real” chokers in a minute, but first let’s talk about some of the better athletes and their chance to win majors in the past few years.

For example:

• Did Roger Federer choke when he lost the US Open final to Juan Martin Del Potro in 2009? Definitely not!  Federer didn’t play up to his usual standards, but he never really found his form during the entire 2-week event.  However, to label his loss as a “choke” is incorrect.  Those that choose to use these words don’t understand sports and shouldn’t be talking or writing about them.

• Did Tiger Woods choke when he lost his first ever final round lead of a major championship in August ‘09 at the PGA championship?  How is it possible that Tiger fired a final round 75, and his nearest rival – Y.E. Yang – beat him by 5 strokes en route to his first ever major?  In order for this to happen, Tiger Woods must have choked! Right? No – Wrong!  He had a bad day!  Not one putt dropped in, but he most definitely did not choke, and to say such a thing is absolutely wrong!!  Choking is standing over a 2-foot putt and missing the hole by 3 inches! 

• If a golfer misses an 8-foot putt to win the tournament (like 59-year old Tom Watson did at Turnberry in the 2009 British Open), then he must have choked!  The headlines in some major newspapers across the country the next day read “Watson Chokes Away Chance to Make History.”  Is this for real?  The guy played lights out golf all week and missed a tricky bending putt on the 72nd hole on a green with spike marks galore – yet the journalists who cover the sport are summarizing the final putt as a choke!  The average professional golfer makes 8 footers 25 percent of the time.  Did Watson choke on his quest to become the oldest golfer ever to win a major?  The answer, without a doubt, is a resounding NO!  He didn’t succeed, but he didn’t choke, and the two terms should never be mentioned in the same breath.

• When the Buffalo Bills blew an 18-point lead in the 4th quarter over the Cincinnati Bengals in the middle of the NFL season, many pundits labeled this as a major choke.  How can 11 guys all choke at once?  Choking – and it is rarer than you think – is much more apparent in individual sports.  If a game comes down to the final play (Bills fans remember Scott Norwood missing a 40 yard field goal that would have won them the Super Bowl), then it can be classified a choke.  But again –Norwood’s miss was exactly that – a miss, not a choke.  Hitting a 40 yard field goal is not a guarantee and fans need to understand that if the probability of making that kick is only 75 percent, then you can’t call it a choke if it isn’t successful.  Missing and choking are not synonyms and should never be mistaken for one another.

In my estimation, when an analyst describes a failure as a choke, they are only correct about 10 percent of the time.

Don’t get me wrong – athletes definitely do choke – but the frequency is much less than you think.  Here are examples of some classic chokes over the years.

1. Scott Hoch missed an 18 inch putt to win the Masters in 1989
2. Jana Novotna at the 1993WimbledonFinal.  Novotna led Steffi Graf 6-7, 6-1, 4-1 and 40-30 in the sixth game of the deciding set.  But Novotna double faulted and arguably the greatest disintegration in aWimbledonfinal had begun.
3. Greg Norman at the 1996 Masters. Normanshot a 78 and blew a 6-stroke lead to eventual champion Nick Faldo.
4. Rory McIlroy at the 2011 Masters.  McIlroy started the day at -12 and finished the day at -4, 10 shots out of the lead.  McIlroy’s final round of 80 was one of the worst final round displays in golf history.
5. Jean Van de Velde in the 1999 British Open
6. Dan Janssen in the 1992 Olympics.
7. Bill Buckner in the 1986 World Series
8. Curtis Strange in the 1995 Ryder Cup
9. John McEnroe in the 1984 French Open
10. Houston Oilers in the 1992 NFL playoffs – blowing a 35-7 lead midway through the third quarter.

 Is choking the same as panicking?  From my perspective and experience I can understand how the two terms could be misconstrued – but the two are on opposite sides of the stratosphere.  In my opinion, these terms are black and white.

 “Choking” sounds like a vague and all-encompassing term and is not understood by very many of the so-called experts, yet it describes a very specific kind of failure.  You cannot perform anywhere near your normal standards when you are CHOKING!  Under conditions of stress, the explicit system takes over, according to the author of BOUNCE, Matthew Syed.  That’s what it means to choke.  Panic, in this sense is the opposite of choking.  Choking is about thinking too much – panic is about thinking too little. Choking is about loss of instinct – panic is reversion to instinct. They may look the same, but they are worlds apart.

I just hope the broadcasters and writers in the sports industry take as much time to research this key phrase as I just did.  If not, it will continue to be overused and misrepresented in the world of sports, and this would be a real shame!

Written by Michael Emmett

The writing is on the wall.  Roger Federer’s days of winning grand slams are finished.  Yes, it has become very apparent that the sweet swinging Swiss Superstar will never win another major in his storied career.  And as a result, the 16-time grand slam champion will retire after this year’s US open. 

This is not official – this is pure conjecture on my part. But when it happens you can say you heard it here first!  Unfortunately, the signs are there – Federer is just not good enough to beat his two main rivals in the same tournament in a best of five environment.  He can’t win the ‘free’ points like he used to and that means too much slugging from the baseline which ultimately means defeat against the luminaries of today’s game.

Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic are too good – as they reach the pinnacle of their respective careers – and if both advance as they should in any tournament – Federer (ranked #3 in the world) would have to beat one of them in the semi-finals and then follow that up and beat the other one in the final – assuming they both take care of business.  This is too much to ask for a man on the downside (way down) of his career. 

He could scrape out a win – if the conditions are perfect – over one of the two giants.  However, the key word is ‘could’ and the likeliness is remote.  But it is inconceivable or nearly impossible (in my opinion) that he can beat both of them back-to-back in a major event.  And for this reason the greatest player of our generation will call it quits after the final slam of the year in Flushing Meadows, New York. 

So far, half way through 2011 he is a combined 0-5 against Djokovic and Nadal – winning just 2 of the 13 sets played.  Numbers that suggest he might never beat these guys again.  Coincidentally, Federer’s last win over one of these 2 big-shots came last November in London at the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals when Fed beat Djokovic in straight sets– Djokovic’s last loss on the ATP tour!  That loss (by Djokovic) has led to an undefeated mark  halfway through the 2011 season – good enough to get “The Djoker” on the cover of Sports Illustrated.

And most would agree that you can throw Andy Murray into that mix.  Federer just can’t handle the relentless power off the ground from these baseline bombers.  Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are winning the majority of the baseline rallies against Fed and it is crystal clear that Roger needs a bigger serve if he is going to compete on even terms against these guys on a regular basis – and at this late stage of his brilliant career this is a long-shot at best.  A serve that would be equal to a Milos Raonic – this kind of weapon would sure stem the tide!

The real problem is not Fed’s serve. And it’s also not the forehand – this shot is still regarded as one of the best in the game.  It’s the backhand!  The big 3 all have better backhands – Fed’s backhand has improved considerably in the last 3 years but it’s still a weak shot compared to the heavyweights in the game. Unfortunately for Federer – Rafa, Djoker and Murray are so confident in a baseline exchange – they know they’ll eventually ware out Federer because he just can’t generate the power or precision to put pressure on them.  Federer usually succumbs with a weak backhand slice or an over-hit backhand drive because of the continuing, relentless pressure.

The patterns are similar week-in-and-week-out, the guys are doing the same thing continuously and Federer has no ammunition to counter-attack.  Now lesser lights (players ranked outside the top-10) are catching on and following the same sequences – sooner or later Federer will find himself struggling to make the semi-finals of major events if things continue to spiral in a downward fashion.   

Federer’s ranking can only go one way – and that is down.  His good friend Tiger Woods has found his ranking outside of the top-10 for the first time in 14 years and if Roger isn’t careful he will be outside the top 5 before year’s end.  These two have often been compared, and in certain aspects, their careers have mirrored one another.  For Roger’s sake let’s hope the parallels come to an end!

Even Federer’s best attribute – his movement – has deserted him to some degree in the past 6 months.  Other players are moving around the court with similar ease (Fed used to make other players look slow but that is no longer the case) and Federer seems to be a step slower than he was a few years back.  Without his rabbit like speed the Swiss maestro is never going to beat a guy like Djokovic who is on top of the world with his sky high confidence.

Federer is not the kind of player who will stick around if he believes he can’t win.  And even though he would’ve liked to get a few more majors on his resume – he is smart enough to know that NOW is the best time to exit the game that has made him famous.  His legacy is set and he will be the grand slam wins leader for many years to come.  With Djokovic firing on all cylinders – this has to be considered good news for Federer as it will be increasingly more difficult for Nadal to reach the lofty numbers set by Federer.

He has the numbers to be recognized as the greatest player of all time – he has won all 4 majors – something only 7 players have ever accomplished. Federer is the only male player in tennis history to win three Grand Slam tournaments in a calendar year three different times in his career.  He had a streak of 23 consecutive grand slam semi-finals appearances (that ended at last year’s Australian Open) – a record that – in my opinion – will never be broken.   He has more than enough cash for him and his family and I believe he feels it’s time to start enjoying the fruits of his hard work over the past 13 years. 

Secretly, he would never admit to this, Federer wanted to win more grand slams (male or female) than anybody on the planet.  So this meant he would have to catch Margaret Court (24), Steffi Graf (22), Helen Wills Moody (19), and Navratilova and Evert (both with 18) to be recognized as the world leader in Grand slam victories.  And for a while there it seemed possible.  But the emergence of Nadal and now Djokovic – and this is more a pipe dream than anything. 

Roger was outstanding during his incredible 13-year run and may go down as the greatest player of all-time; but the once unbeatable tennis genius is not that anymore.   Let’s hope he realizes this and exits the game on cue at the US Open – watching history for the past decade has been intriguing to say the least.  It’s a shame it will soon come to an end – but as we know – all good things must come to an end.  Let’s just hope Roger understands when the end has come!

 Written by Michael Emmett

It’s time for the tennis world to recognize the best tennis player in the world is no longer Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer.  That honor goes to Novak Djokovic. 

The Serb has won 37 straight matches to start the 2011 campaign and will likely break John Mcenroe’s all time record of 42 matches (for Men) when the French Open begins in a week.  A semi-final appearance is all it will take to tie this record that some thought would never be touched. 

Also within grasp is the #1 ranking – Nadal is holding on by a thread and it’s just a matter of time before Djokovic adds this to his resume.  With a 37- match winning streak in tow, 4 wins over Nadal in the last 8 weeks (all in Masters 1000 Finals) and an Australian Open to boot – how is this guy not ranked #1? At this point, the young Serb looks unbeatable even on Nadal’s favourite surface.  Sunday’s 6-4, 6-4 demolition of Nadal – even after blowing 3 straight match points in the final game – looked routine.  Djokovic has only lost 9 sets six months into the season.  Can you say Mind-boggling?

But for me the most impressive thing is he has beaten Nadal – the greatest clay court player ever – in back-to-back weeks inMadridandRomewithout dropping a set.  Djokovic has now become the first player to beat Nadal on clay twice in the same year, a feat that comes exactly a week before the French Open begins.  A third victory in 3 weeks on Stade Roland Garros would be the icing on the cake for Djokovic – the significance would be gigantic – a first French open title, the number one ranking, and a win streak that may never be topped on the ATP tour.  As a tennis fan, I can’t wait to see if history will be made.

Based on the last 2 weeks is it possible to make Nadal the favourite inParis?  Does the fact that it is Nadal’s favourite court in the world play a factor?  Does the fact that it is best of five make a difference?  Or is Djokovic too good for even Nadal. 

Based on what I’ve seen the last 2 Sunday’s I would be hard pressed to bet on Nadal inParisif the two were to meet up in the Final.  Djokovic is hitting the ball so cleanly, so penetrating with pin-point accuracy. He is playing with supreme confidence and has no fear even in the most nerve wrecking moments.  I’m not sure Nadal has the game to handle the onslaught – his heavy topspin groundstrokes are sitting up a bit and Djokovic is feasting on them like a hanging curve ball to Jose Bautista. 

If Djokovic continues this trend the Grand Slam may be what we are talking about in a few weeks.  Not surprisingly, Nadal has said, “the guy is on fire – he is playing too good for me at the moment.” 

Groundstrokes that are travelling at 170km/hour within inches of the line on a consistent basis are the main recipe to his unbelievable success. Djokovic is hitting bullets into the corners that are crossing the net by mere inches – putting enormous pressure on his opponents.  If he keeps this up for the majority of his matches he may not lose for quite some time.  At times, he seems to be toying with his Spanish rival – and who could have ever imagined we’d be talking like this about the clay court maestro – Rafa Nadal?

How does Djokovic’s season compare to other men and women who have undefeated streaks at the start of the tennis season?

In 1984, John McEnroe made one memorable season as he accomplished the best single season record among men with an 82-3 (96.5%) mark. More than half of those wins came before a single but significant loss. He won eight titles in his first eight events that year. He was 42-0 before losing in the French Open final to Ivan Lendl. McEnroe was up two sets to love and a service break before he lost to Ivan Lendl in 5 dramatic sets. This was Lendl’s first Grand Slam after losing in the previous four finals he reached and McEnroes’s most crushing defeat.   A loss that still haunts him today!

The third best season start belongs to Bjorn Borg, McEnroe’s rival. Borg won his first six tournaments in 1980 season, collecting 33 wins before he lost in the Nations Cup semifinals. It must be noted that these streaks of Borg and McEnroe came at a period when the Australian Open was staged at year-end in December and the first Grand Slam of the year was still the French Open in late May.

This makes Djokovic’s current run even more special as it is the longest season-opening streak to date that spans a Grand Slam.  Keep in mind, Djokovic won inMelbournewithout dropping a set.  Guillermo Vilas holds the Open era record for longest winning streak at 46 matches, established in 1977, however, this was not at the beginning of the season – and all of Vilas’ matches were won on clay.

This win in Rome for the 24-year-old Serb was extraordinary for so many reasons.  I for one, counted him out after a lengthy semi-final win over Andy Murray (6-1, 3-6, 7-6) – a match that lasted just over 3 hours and ended after midnight local time. I felt that the exhaustion Djokovic was feeling was too much for the Serb to overcome in such a short time-frame.  But a 2-hour rain delay before his match with the top seed was a blessing in disguise for the 7 time champion in 2011. Being back on sea-level was also a major factor in my eyes – but the slower courts inRomeseemed to favour Djokovic.

Djokovic attributed his win inMadridpartly to the altitude and faster conditions. The conditions at the Foro Italico are more similar to those inParis, perhaps making this victory more telling.  Fast courts, slow courts, clay, grass, rain delays, altitude, 3-set marathons – none of this seems to matter – Djokovic has Nadal’s number and for that matter he has everybody’s number. 

If there is a better story out there in the world of sports can somebody let me know.  In my estimation this is the greatest achievement in sports in quite some time.  And the story is just getting started.  It should be a wild ride all-the-way toNew Yorkin September.

Written by Michael Emmett