Australian Open Tennis Final 2013. The commentators talk frequently about momentum swings. Closer inspection suggests this is mostly revealing only of the emotional swings of the observers
One thing trumps even watching the start of the Australian Open Tennis Final. That is an indoor court booked for an hour’s hitting just as the final starts. We trudge though snow. [Yes, this is the UK not Oz]. Others crowd around the TVs in the clubhouse.
Return to clubhouse to learn the match is well-balanced at one set all.
I learn that Murray has just lost the second set after appearing to be in charge. Calls for medical help on a gory foot blister. Much talk of momentum shift. Monumental effort needed by Murray, says Andrew Castle and John Lloyd on BBC TV. As far as I can see, nothing has ‘swung’. Both players are still serving and returning nervelessly. They seem to be deliberately conserving energies on opponent’s serve, in order to make winning their own service games easier.
At 3-3, the commentators still talking about Murray having to overcome ‘monumental’ disappointment of losing the previous set and having to cope with his blister. Their emotional state builds up as each Murray serve is seen as potential set-loser. Of course, the same applies to Djokovic. Who goes 5-3 up, and then wins third set.
Murray slightly weary. Drops serve. Djokovic now clearly is stronger physically. Murray loses the close points. Seems to be much more physical decline than evidence of effect of a metaphysical concept such as momentum. The fitter guy prevails. Now the commentators agree that Djokovic won because he played the better tennis, particularly at key points.
Momentum v Momentum Denying
In looking closely at this, I realize that momentum is a difficult to refute concept. As it relies on momentum swings, it is not disproved by a player coming back after losing momentum.
It seems to me that the concept could do with some closer attention. Me, I’ m still a momentum denier.