If you’re in the United States, you’re used to team sports.  It’s so common in the US so important to Americans,  that many in the US view sports with a team sports lens.  There are other sports which lack a regular season/postseason structure.  For those Americans that don’t like sports–and there are plenty, or for non-Americans who don’t follow American sports, the concept works something like this.

Usually, a team sport consists of some number of teams.  Baseball appears to have 30 teams.  American football has 32 teams.  NHL has 30 teams as well.  Often, half the teams are in one league/conference and the other half are in the other league/conference.  For example, American football has two conferences: NFC and AFC.  Within each conference, they further subdivide into about 4 divisions.

For example, the Washington Redskins is an American football team that is in the NFC conference, specifically, the NFC East division.  There are four teams in that division: the Washington Redskins, the New York Giants, the Dallas Cowboys, and the Philadelphia Eagles.

Each American football team plays 16 games.  They play each team in their division twice, once at the opponent’s field and once in their home (that’s games), then mostly play teams in their conference.

The goal is to qualify for the playoffs.  Out of 32 teams, only 12 teams make the playoffs.  This is based on an arcane formula.  Basically, each division (there are 8 total) has a division winner.  There are 8 teams that get into the playoffs by being division winners.  Each conference has 2 wildcards, which is roughly based on the teams with the best records that didn’t win their divisions.

The top two teams in each conference get a bye the first week.  So the other four teams play in the first week to eliminate to two.  Those two play the top two seeds in the conferences and eliminate to two teams.  Those two teams eliminate to one.  The winner of one conference plays the winner of the other conference in the Super Bowl.

In a nutshell, the goal is for the team to qualify for the playoffs which is single elimination, then win the Super Bowl.

Teams don’t get a choice whether to play a game or not.  They are told a schedule.  They are told who to play.  In baseball, weather might affect whether a game gets played, in which case, the game may be postponed and made up later on.

This past year, an unusual situation came up.  The Indianapolis Colts, an American football team, won 13 games in a row.  The coach, the guy who makes the decisions, said the Colts were not going to try to win the next 3 games in a row.  A team continues to try to win because they can be one of the top 2 seeds in a conference where they can get a bye.  Once that is guaranteed, they can continue to play for history (becoming the third team to be undefeated in NFL history, or they can rest their players.

The NFL is a brutal game and many players get injured.  It’s part of how the game is played.  The ultimate goal is to win the Super Bowl.  The Indianapolis Colts took a risk.  Although they won their 13th game, in the 14th game, they had the starters play part of the game and get a lead.  Then, they let backup players play the rest of the game.  They lost.  They also lost the last game.  They ended the season 14-2.

Many criticized this move saying that fans were deprived of two things: a team that was trying hard to win every game and an undefeated season.  The coach argued that losing those games were worth it because players would be rested for the Super Bowl.  The Colts did reach the Super Bowl but lost to the New Orleans Saints.

In tennis, by contrast, players can decide, up to an extent, how many tournaments to play.  They are requested to play at least 18 tournaments.  These tournaments should include the 4 Slams, 9 Masters 1000 events, the year-end ATP World Tour Finals (if they qualify) and some ATP 500 events to round it out.

Only a handful of players are good enough to be favored in Slams.  Usually, the top 5 or the top 10.  Some players understand this very well.  Pete Sampras won zero tournaments in 2001.  Now, this is a bit deceptive, because he reached four finals that year.   But he lost early in small tournaments and only played one tournament after the US Open.  Sampras only won one tournament in 2002, which was the US Open, his final tournament and final Slam.

Perhaps a better example is Serena Williams.  Serena doesn’t generally dominate tournaments except when it comes to Slams.  Serena gets injured a fair bit, so losing early doesn’t mean much to her.  It’s only her performance in Slams that she cares about.

This created a bit of weirdness when Dinara Safina was winning many tournaments but not winning Slams while Williams was winning no tournaments except Slams.

Unlike, say, American football, where each game in the regular season is more or less like any other game.  Each tournament win is not the same in tennis.  Slams are the most important.  Masters 1000 a level below that.

And players decide whether to play a tournament or not.  Players sign up for tournaments and then choose to skip it if they aren’t up to playing.  This sometimes strikes fans as unfair.  Just as fans booed the Colts for not trying to win every game, some tennis fans feel pros should play their best every tournament.  But since not all tournaments are created equal with the very best players eyeing the Slams.

Recently, Andy Murray headed to Dubai where he won one match and then lost to Janko Tipsarevic in the second round.  The match went three sets.  Tipsarevic had an early break in the third set and looked like he might win.  Murray had a game early on to break, but failed to do so, then broke late, only to be broken again.  He smashed his racquet at the end, seemingly upset at the result.

His attitude was different in the post-match interview.  He said that while he wanted to win, he was also trying new things out in match situations.  Murray has long been criticized for playing a passive game.  When you think Murray, you think of a guy that changes his pace and uses his speed to chase down balls.  Murray isn’t Gonzo or Verdasco or Federer.  His game isn’t to bludgeon his opponent with pace.

With his loss to Federer, surely the thought has occurred to Murray to up the power in his game.  Yet, making changes like this is not easy.  Players are surprisingly conservative when it comes to playing.  Could Nadal go for big shots like his countryman, Fernando Verdasco?  He could, but he’s not comfortable playing this way.  So, he doesn’t.

A player might try crazy shots in practice, but many are reluctant to try something new unless they are completely confident.  Think back to Steffi Graf.  She had a superior slice backhand, but everyone told her she needed to hit a topspin backhand to compete against players like Monica Seles.

Graf had plenty of opportunities to hit this shot in matches.  After all, she routinely beat players without giving up more than a game or two. Under such ideal circumstances, Graf was reluctant to hit topspin backhands to build her confidence.

Not all players are this reluctant to add new pieces to their game.  Martina Navratilova used to hit slice all the time like Graf.  She lacked a topspin backhand.  But she decided she need a topspin backhand.  She learned to hit it and used it frequently when she was world number 1.

Andy Murray spent ten days off after the Australian Open where he barely touched a racquet.  He went to the gym shortly afterwards, but was not in tip-top shape.  Because of this, he decided he wasn’t ready to play Marseille and dropped out.  The tournament director was critical.

Murray decided to play Dubai and won his first match, but against Janko Tipsarevic, he decided to “try a few things out”, to be more aggressive.  This meant serve and volley.  This meant hitting his backhand harder.  It wasn’t the way he normally plays matches.

He said he played like this so he’d be ready for Indian Wells and Miami, the first two Masters 1000 events of the season.  Masters 1000 are tournaments just under the Slams.  There are 9 such events and often boast a field as strong as the Slams, at least, at the very top.  He said if he had been practicing, he would have practiced this aggressive shot.

So what’s the dirty secret?  Players like Murray play for the big events: Slams and Masters 1000 events.  Dubai is an ATP 500 event, which is just underneath the Masters 1000.  To Murray, winning an ATP 500 event isn’t something he had to focus on, especially lacking some practice.  So it felt like he came to Dubai, played two matches, felt that was good enough. If Murray wasn’t trying to lose deliberately, he also wasn’t trying everything he could to win.

And yet, how wrong was he to do this?  Murray’s long-term goal is to win Slams.  To do so, he may need to add elements to his game.  It takes some bravery to try new tactics in match situations when you might lose.  There are those that claim he owes fans his best effort.  And yet, the best players know that they are not remembered for a small tournament they played, but for how they perform in Slams.  Much like the Colts chose to rest its players to maximize its chances to win the Superbowl, Murray seems to work on parts of his game in a smaller tournament to improve his chances in bigger tournaments.

This is the kind of interview that doesn’t get much play, but it shows a level of honesty that players are often advised not to give.   Andy Murray admits that he plays up for big events.  It happens all the time in tennis.  Few people are like Borg or Nadal or Lendl who wanted to win everything they were in.  Most great players take a more prudent approach to the Slams, playing for big events at the expense of small ones.