The Inner Game of Tennis

Two Courts: The Courthouse vs. the Tennis Court

As an attorney, I find tennis a very interesting sport, which is why I started playing. First, tennis is about you. If you lose, you lose because of yourself; if you win, you win because of yourself. There is no substitute to take your place. Soccer and basketball are team sports, but in tennis, you are on your own. Here, you do not lose because of your teammate mistake.

Second, you need to be mentally strong because you do not know when the game will end. It is like litigation: a case might last one year or two, and it may continue through appeals or even reach the Supreme Court. There is no fixed duration of 90 minutes or four quarters. There are rules within the game, but because you are alone, the inner game becomes more important than in other sports. Tennis also requires good physical and mental condition, as other sports do.

This is why I see two courts are similar: the courthouse and the tennis court. You are alone in both. You need to show up, show yourself, and play your own game.

For tennis, no player gets everything right. Even the best players miss almost 50 percent of their shots. It is similar to legal arguments: you are not going to win every one of them. Of course, you will lose some. Ultimately, winning lies in the process of doing better.

Each set also starts from the beginning in tennis, like a new day or a new case. Losing one set does not mean that you begin the next set with an advantage or a disadvantage. This is different from soccer, where doing well in the first 45 minutes gives you an advantage in the second half. The same is true of basketball: a strong first half gives you an advantage in the second. In tennis, however, you start each set from zero. This is another reason I see a connection between these two courts: the courthouse and the tennis court.

Self 1 vs. Self 2

The book is about discovering two selves within us. It is a little like Venom: the inner game refers to two voices, two elements, or two versions of ourselves. Self 1 is the teller, and Self 2 is the doer. Self 1 is the bad guy; Self 2 is the good guy. Self 1 causes all the problems, while Self 2 represents the beauty of the human being and of existence.

Thinking too much and trying too hard are associated with Self 1, which creates tension and conflict in the body. Self 2 is about confidence. The author’s basic advice is to quiet Self 1 and let go of judgments.

I love the author’s example of planting a rose seed. “We notice that it is small, but we do not criticize it for being rootless or stemless. We treat it as a seed, giving it the water and nourishment it needs.” Similarly, we should not criticize ourselves. We need to be aware of a problem and then think positively or approach it with nonjudgmental awareness. We need to acknowledge the natural learning process and trust it.

The author also reminds us how beautiful our mind and body are: “billions of cells are functioning, reproducing, and fighting disease. Trust the body to learn and play. Let the flower grow.” Do not rush yourself and trust Self 2.

Competition and California

Interestingly, I have rarely met people who dislike competition in itself. As I wrote in my second book, competition has become one of the most sacred values in today’s world. Yet competition is not always good. It can be harmful in many ways, so it should not be treated as sacred.

Of course, competition can be good for consumers in economic and everyday life. When businesses compete, they try to improve their services and lower their prices. In that sense, competition benefits the consumer. But this does not mean that competition is good in every aspect of life. It does not mean that you should always compete with your neighbors, your employees, other employees, or other law firms. Instead, you need to focus on yourself. This is also a basic idea in California.

I love California and its people, and this is one of the reasons. Instead of focusing on competition, they focus more on themselves, human dignity, and human beauty. Competition can destroy those things. It is not about yourself; it is about other people doing worse than you. Winning does not always mean that you have done better. You can also win by making others perform worse, and people often use tricks to do exactly that.

The author also strongly criticizes competition, and I like his perspective. To me, it is a very Californian perspective. I have not encountered this criticism of competition in New York, Eastern Europe, or Western Europe. I have not encountered it even in Istanbul, the capital of two great empires, the Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire. This is something I find unique to California, and I appreciate that the author shares this perspective.

I also appreciate his observation about young people who seem to seek failure by making no effort to win or achieve success. They go on strike, as it were. They do not want to try because they can then say, “I did not lose. It does not count because I did not try.”

But life is not about competition.

You are alone in this life: you are born alone, and you will die alone. In that sense, life is like tennis. You have to play it yourself. Of course, you will have a team, a coach, and fans. Some people will like you, and others will not. But when you play, you are alone. Do not compare yourself with others to win. Maybe winning is possible in more human way.

Performance & Interference

Performance = Potential - Interference

I love this equation because it captures something true. Self 1’s interference, including self-doubt and overthinking, is distracting. It prevents us from showing our potential and is one reason we cannot perform well. This applies to the courthouse as well as the tennis court. If you have too many thoughts in your mind, are overthinking, or doubt yourself, it is difficult to speak well and express your ideas and legal arguments to a judge or jury.

Performance equals potential minus interference. If there is no interference, our potential should express itself and become performance. This is one of the main ideas of the book. By quieting Self 1 and preventing its interference, we can win the inner game and show our potential.

The author believes that we have enormous potential, and I believe that is true. We need to use that potential and turn it into performance in the practical world. Self 1 should be silent so that interference would be “zero.” In the terms of the equation, this is how our potential can become our performance.

But the equation is very basic. In real life, there are other factors/parameters. For example, the author describes a time when he was very angry and played very well under those conditions. So, although the equation looks convincing, it is not 100 percent correct or universally applicable.

We also have to ask ourselves what potential means. Is potential always equal to performance? Can performance sometimes be much better than our potential? Can our potential sometimes be irrelevant to performing well because of external information or circumstances? External factors can also affect performance.

That is why performance is not only about potential. Potential belongs to the inner game; it is something within us. But performance is not always determined by what is inside us, and in social life, that is generally not the case. External factors are often decisive in determining our performance.

Watch the Ball and Focus

The Message of the Inner Game

The author’s instruction to watch the ball expresses the basic idea of focus. You need to focus on the ball and on the game. Focus is the main message of the inner game, and “watch the ball” is a simple and effective way of explaining it. It is about being in the now.

This is a distinctive message, but it is not confined to this book. For thousands of years, great philosophers have believed in the importance of the present. I believe in the power of now. For example, Ibn Arabi, one of the great Sufi philosophers and Muslim scholars, says, “Be the child of the moment.” This means recognizing that the present moment is the most crucial one. You should not think about the past or worry about the future; you need to focus on now, on this moment.

The author says something very similar: watch the ball, focus on the game, believe in yourself, and let Self 2 play instead of Self 1.

My Criticisms of the Book

The author tells us that there are two selves within us, Self 1 and Self 2. This is somewhat familiar to people who study spiritual paths, the inner life, or mindfulness. Many Sufists discuss the nafs, which is almost like the bad guy: it urges us toward bad things, although we also need it to live and eat. There is also the spirit, which, in this explanation, is part of God and allows us to connect with God. Asian cultures also speak of good and bad within us. These ideas are reflected in the account of Self 1 and Self 2 in tennis.

The problem is that this explanation seems too simple, almost as though it were addressed to a child: there is a bad person inside you, Self 1, and a good person, Self 2. In real life, we cannot distinguish them so easily. We cannot always tell what belongs to Self 1 and what belongs to Self 2, or whether something is good or bad. So we cannot reject or accept that feeling, emotion, or energy easily.

We can say, of course, that stress is not good and that overthinking is bad. But when does thinking become overthinking? When is thinking good, and when does it become harmful? If you think about the same thing all day, for 24 hours, that is obviously overthinking. But what about three hours or four? We do not know. That is why it is difficult to distinguish Self 1 from Self 2, understand them, and apply the distinction in practice.

My second criticism concerns self-improvement and remembrance. I appreciate the idea that we already have beauty within us. I believe that is true. The author says that we should remember this, and he takes a position against self-improvement. Here, he is discussing the inner self, not muscles or improvements in technique. On page 152 of the 56th printing published by Random House, he emphasizes remembering what is within us rather than improving it.

I disagree because we also need to improve ourselves inwardly, even if we already have good qualities. We cannot always distinguish between things. As I have said, we may not know what counts as overthinking or when stress is good or bad. Learning to understand these distinctions and respond well is part of improvement.

We cannot simply remember that we already possess everything we need. That idea goes too far and seems unrealistic. Of course, we should remember who we are, reflect on ourselves, and be grateful for ourselves. But that does not eliminate the need for self-improvement. Our minds first need to understand and learn.

This is why we learn new things, read books, and talk to one another. It is also why we read this “Inner Game” book. We are not reading it only to remember ourselves; we are also learning that we have Self 1 and Self 2. That, too, is improvement. We are learning something new, a new approach, and sometimes we improve ourselves through those approaches. If an approach is new to us, the process cannot be only remembrance, but an obtaining or improvement.

Lastly, a single sport is enough to show us that, as human beings, we have an inner game that is more important than the other games we play. When we succeed in our inner game, we can also succeed in business, in family life, in our personal lives, and on the tennis court. That is why I found this book very valuable in a society that everything could be materialized easily.

The true success is finding yourself: understanding your role, recognizing your potential, and knowing where you come from and where you are going. The key to understanding ourselves is death, which makes life meaningful and, at the same time, meaningless. Therefore, between meaningfulness and meaninglessness, we are here to find ourselves in the pursuit of happiness.