Defense Mechanisms

According to Freud, defense mechanisms are useful in normal situations. Sigmund Freud pointed out that defense mechanisms, such as the excuses described in the last article (Click Here), are normal and often serve useful and protective purposes. Unfortunately, competitive tennis is not a normal situation, and the useful purposes they provide do not include winning matches or engendering respect from opponents or bystanders. Successful players resist making excuses by consciously recognizing the real issues on court and using the rational parts of their brains to keep themselves on track. The urge to escape is powerful. Defense mechanisms and urges to escape have extraordinary power. Consider, for example, the Wimbledon final in 1994, when Pete Sampras beat Goran Ivanisevic 7-6, 7-6, 6-0. Here Ivanisevic became discouraged when he lost the first two sets (even though he had never lost his serve), and simply handed the final set to Sampras. When you look at the overall situation logically such a decision is almost incomprehensible. Winning the match would be worth millions of dollars - he would get several hundreds of thousands immediately in additional prize money and immense amounts more in product endorsements and appearance fees. But far more importantly, the Wimbledon...