Emotion vs. Pragmatism: Two Stress Styles on the Tennis Court
Emotion vs. Pragmatism:
Two Stress Styles on the Tennis Court
by James Porter
Last weekend, my wife and I watched the #2 player in the world Carlos Alcaraz beat Jannik Sinner the #1 player in the world at the US Open Tennis tournament. I think both players can – to some extent - attribute their style of playing to the legacy of tennis great, Roger Federer. More on that later.
But there have been other tennis stars, like John McEnroe and Nick Krygios, whose emotions sometimes get the better of them. Years ago,(when an announcer once remarked that Nick Kyrgios’ game was influenced by emotion, while Roger Federer’s was influenced by pragmatism, it struck me as a brilliant way to understand not only two very different players, but also two very different approaches to stress.
Kyrgios, with one of the most effective serves in history and dazzling shot-making skills, has had moments where he looked more talented than anyone who’s ever picked up a racquet.
Yet his career has been uneven, plagued by volatility, outbursts, and inconsistency. His emotions fuel his brilliance—but also undercut it.
Federer, by contrast, built a career on consistency. For two decades he was rarely rattled, rarely distracted, and never far from the top. His pragmatism meant he approached each match, and each point, with the same calm discipline. It wasn’t always spectacular, but it was sustainable. That steadiness is why Federer collected 20 Grand Slam titles and became a global icon.
Stress Styles in Action
If you look closely, Kyrgios and Federer embody two classic stress styles. Kyrgios represents emotional arousal: riding waves of intensity, sometimes soaring, sometimes sinking. Federer embodies calm engagement: measured, pragmatic, and able to reset after setbacks.
We all know people like this. Some of us flare brightly under stress—whether in joy or frustration—but risk burnout or breakdown. Others keep steady, methodical, and composed, perhaps less flashy, but more resilient in the long run. Neither style is inherently wrong. But as Federer’s career shows, one may yield greater longevity.
Federer’s Dartmouth Lesson
Federer himself explained this mindset beautifully in his 2024 Dartmouth College commencement address. He reminded graduates that even the greatest players in the world win just 54 percent of their points. Nearly half the time, they’re losing.
His advice? “It’s only a point.” Don’t get stuck on mistakes. Don’t ride the highs too long either. Instead, move on, keep playing, and focus on the next chance. Negative energy, Federer said, is wasted energy. His career was a living proof of that principle.
Imagine if Kyrgios, with his enormous talent, had absorbed that lesson fully. If he could have kept his emotions in check as skillfully as Federer, there’s a real case he might have surpassed Federer’s greatness.
The Federer Effect Today
We saw echoes of this last weekend at the US Open. World No. 2 Carlos Alcaraz defeated World No. 1 Jannik Sinner in four sets. Both young stars play a style of tennis that feels very much like Federer’s: balanced, disciplined, pragmatic, with Alcaraz a little flashier than Sinner. Yet they both embody a new generation shaped by Federer’s example, where emotional steadiness is paired with extraordinary athleticism.
This is what makes Federer’s influence enduring. Even in retirement, his pragmatic approach to stress and competition continues to define men’s tennis at the highest level.
Lessons Beyond the Court
In life, as in tennis, we face constant stressors. Some of us approach them like Kyrgios—fiery, emotional, swinging for the spectacular. Others take the Federer route—methodical, steady, letting go of the last point to focus on the next, which is of course, the essence of mindfulness.
Federer’s reminder—that you can be the best in the world and still lose nearly half your points—offers a powerful stress tool. Don’t obsess over every misstep. Treat setbacks as “only a point,” and move on.
Emotion fuels brilliance, but pragmatism sustains greatness. Perhaps the best path for us all lies in balancing the two.
Erica Tuminski
Author