Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by dominikk1985, Feb 8, 2013.
Nah, I fixed it for you. :lol:
^^^^ hahaha, 555 bit, takes the cake. Good one Sid......:twisted:
That's my opinion. It's not a fact
nadal became a superstar instantly when he won the FO as a teenager. a huge hype started then.
when nole won the AO at age 20 nobody cared. being longer around does play a role but is certainly not the only reason.
I think you also need to take in account that when it was truly a FEDAL era, that lasted for so many years, it was always Federer and Nadal in the spotlight. The media attention, the marketing, the merchandise, the sponsers etc. Nadal filled that Niche perfectly and enjoyed a very good reign at the top with Federer. Yes, their opposing styles added to the allure, but it was the constant exposure at the top...Federer and Nadal were simply the face of tennis. And then there were the others.
The other thing that helped Nadal was is incredible and ruthless domination of the clay, breaking record after record on that surface. That alone started opening up historical acheivements of the greats of the past, and Nadal's name grew even more. This had nothing to do with Federer, who was in the midst of making his own legacy, this was something that Nadal was just doing on his own. The King of Clay - That is a title that sells to fans around the world. It instills a sense of royality on the player who holds it.
And lets face it, everybody loves a winner. Nadal kept winning and winning and winning, smashing numerous records, opening up debates that had been long settled, or joined current debates.
Djokovic really truly rose to prominance in 2011, and yes, despite him not being anywhere the Fedal era giants, has seen his popularity soar greatly. Many more people now know who he is. 2011 did so much for his career, it really gave him the adrenaline shot he needed to break away from under the shadows, and create his own name and legacy. He probably will never reach their levels, since most of the fans over the years have been invested more emotionally in Federer and Nadal, since they were the top guys for so long. But ife keeps staying strong, fighting hard...And this is the one thing that Novak has over the others in my opinion. His ability to unleash on MPs, that alone makes people think about Djokovic more than other players. He's making a name, but it will take a bit more time and hardwork...but I think his time to do it is now.
Especially in a comparison between the two, it may well be a myth.
Based on facebook fanbase, Nadal is almost as popular as Federer. Djokovic is not even half as popular as these two guys.
He 'speaks' German, but definitely not fluently unless he's vastly improved on it since 2009. His English is okay, but certainly not perfect.
And Vero, bland can also mean boring, uninteresting and devoid of any interesting/appealing/characteristic features. All of which are of course subjective.
Not so much.
11 slams > 6 slams, simple as that. Most popular peoples in sport are always ones which are more succesfull.
If popularity would be based on charisma and character, Federer and Nadal wouldn't be in the top 100.
If we're talking about personality, Fed is infinitely more boring than Djoko. (Not an extrovert, never clowns around, etc). To me, Djoko's incredible "gumbo" coverage of the court is more fun to watch as well than: "either he hits a big serve or he loses the point", which is pretty much Fed's situation at the moment.
So ripping his shirt off makes him an interesting character?
Sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree - I find him boring and lacking in charisma/personality in comparison to Roger and Rafa (and many other past greats).
When Djokovic grinds his way to more slams than Nadal currently has, then Djokovic will become more popular than Nadal. Djokovic only has 6 slams.
Is Sampras a bigger star than Agassi?
Ah what?? Not denying that to be really popular you have to be successful. That is true, but your last sentence is just plain flat out wrong. If you don't think Federer and Nadal are in the top 100 based on charisma and character you are deluding yourself. In fact, they are 1 and 2, which is precisely why they're so popular.
In regards to why Nadal is more popular than Djokovic, well about 5 or 6 people have already said it. He was Federer's chief rival first, plus he has earned the title of King of Clay, which helps his marketability totally separate from Federer.
I don't think it really matters how many slams Djokovic gets. He'll never be as popular as Nadal frankly. Of course he has the whole early career image that he has pretty much repaired now (re: retiring and the like), but honestly, as emotional as Djokovic can be on a tennis court, he's more like Federer than he is Nadal.
Nadal's running to the baseline, and general exuding of energy on a tennis court is totally different from Novak's. Quite often Novak will just roar up to his box after a big point, whereas Nadal will do double fist pumps with pelvic thrusts while sprinting to his chair, or falling on the court (i.e AO 12). He actually did this a lot when he was younger, and I don't mean it as a bad thing. I think this is one of the reasons people have liked him through the years. Other people like Novak for different reasons, but if you don't like his dancing to Gangnam Style or Carly Rae Jepsen, he can be a little bland, impersonations, which he barely does these days not withstanding. No offence to any Djokovic fans.
And while I'm at it I might as well say what I think about Federer. I can see why some would call him boring as it pertains to showing emotions on a tennis court, but he's just different from Djokovic and Nadal. I wouldn't say he's immune to showing emotion. Sampras wasn't immune to it either, but I think it just shows that if you don't go a bit over the top (for lack of a better term), you're classified as boring. For Sampras, he was "boring" because he was compared to Agassi, and for Federer it's the same case with Nadal and Novak. Unlike Sampras however, I can see Federer's personality. He can be very funny in interviews, especially with Courier. I never got this impression with Sampras.
In regards to his emotions on court, he's had plenty of moments where he's been really fired up. Everybody remembers his finger wag at RG 11, (which some thought was over the top, which I found incredibly funny, but I digress). Or how about when he tied the 08 Wimbledon final at 2-2 sets? Or when he broke Nadal to go ahead in the 5th the year before? He's had more than that too. Point is, he's had a lot of emotional reactions over the years. He's not a total robot, but you have to pay attention or you'll miss it, whereas this is not the case with Nadal or Djokovic.
Djokovic might be good in interviews compared to Nadal and can do all the goofy stuff (attention seeking as some call it) but the first thing casual tennis fans witness is the game. His game is not boring by any means but its far too mechanical.
Federer's style has never been seen before, the footwork, the forehand, the effortless style and ofcourse he is the most successful player ever. Nadal being a lefty with that lasso whip forehand, expressive body language, the pelvic thrusts, the death stares, the OCDs lol and his outfits is unique in his own way. Everything associated with Djokovic has already been associated with Nadal first except his flexibility whether its the defensive gets, the mental strength, the passing shots etc. He can win more slams than Nadal and still won't be as popular as him.
Nadal is Spanish... people tend to like the image of Spanish things. Serbia doesn't really have an appeal to the rest of the world.
Nadal was Federer's main rival, which enhanced his image.
Nadal utterly dominated clay. Djokovic's record on his favoured surface (Hard) isn't as good.
Lately a lot of Djokovic's big matches have been against Murray, a match-up which many find dull.
Djokovic's hair looks like a helmet.
I don't think so and that's mostly because Nadal is from Spain while Djokovic is from Serbia. It sounds unfair, but most people probably don't even know where Serbia is and the country itself doesn't have the best image. People are judgmental, maybe subconsciously so, but they are. Even if Djokovic were to surpass Federer's slam count, I doubt he'd become more popular than either of these two as a result. Nadal has also been around for much longer and his rivalry with Federer helped, let alone his image as a 'sex symbol'. I mean, could you imagine Djokovic as an Armani underwear model?
Djokovic has got no "special shots" which go people go WOW. Something that Federer and Nadal have.
You get the feeling when Nadal and Federer play that you could see something extra that day. I don't get the same feeling when watching Djokovic, he plays the exact same way every single match.
This really is holding him back in terms of his image...
My point exactly...
I think you just proved his point.
Djokovic is not a player(in the dating sense) like Agassi was. Totally different scenario. It's not like Djokovic is dating famous actresses and singers like the "image is everything" guy used to in the 1990s. Agassi was a huge star because of what he did off court as well as on court(Nike funky clothes and all).
I don't see Djokovic wearing this on court. Another reason why Agassi was so popular back in the day.
Agassi was a rock star.
He dated big stars.
This is why he was more popular than Sampras.
I think the real problem is that tennis fans are almost completely split between Federer/Nadal because of their great rivalry, before Novak became the player he is. Once one of those players retire, both Djokovic and Murray will see a massive rise in fans, as those fans find new people to follow.
I don't buy the charisma/not dating supermodels/etc arguments at all, because he almost certainly has more charisma than Federer and his gf is far easier on the eyes than Mirka. Yet Federer still has a bigger following than pretty much any other player in tennis history.
Yes good point The-Champ. There are only certain athletes who come along that have that certain something. Borg had it, Agassi had it, Federer has it and Nadal has it. Djokovic does not have "it" in that same sense.
Agassi was flamboyant. He had the superstar factor. I loved Andre but I like Djoko for almost the opposite reason. He has a fun personality, doesn't take himself seriously and is much more approachable- easy to relate to- than other megastars. I would describe him as being cool and friendly. He's much less intimidating than other tennis stars (with Agassi being the ultimate "rock star", Rafa the heartthrob/sex symbol and Fed the most distant, idealized, put on a pedestal). He's easier to identify with imo. There is a refreshing simplicity to him. But I don't understand how anyone could find him "boring". His little imitations, gangnam dances, etc are definitely more entertaining than what other players do and most players don't even try to be entertaining at all. They just play tennis, period. It is nice to have somebody, for once, who brings some lighthearted fun on top. There used to be plenty of guys like that, now the sport has become so competitive, most players are just super disciplined. Not much margin for a bit of fooling around.
The problem for Novak is that he is Serbian and not Spaniard. He also plays textbook tennis. Federer(the most beautiful game) and Nadal(the most unorthodox style) are both striking and eye-catching. Maybe if Djokovic dressed like a rock star and dated famous starlets and singers he would be very popular. He has so few fans on facebook compared with Federer and Nadal.
How does the Serbian/Spanish dichotomy explain how Federer has a bigger following that Nadal? If you wanna talk abiut boring countries, nothing ranks higher than Switzerland. Or how does it explain that the current #4, also a Spaniard, would be happy if he learnt he had 1 fan who isn't his mom.
It really is pretty simple. Most existing tennis fans were tennis fans in the 2000s. So their loyalties are already split between Nadal/Federer. Unfortunately for Djokovic, these guys are still competing at the highest level during his peak years, so their fans are sticking with them, and not switching their loyalties to him.
Agassi certainly benefitted from his rock star image. But that was also the 90s. Somebody posted pics if Agassi wearing outrageous outfits which made him cool then. If Djokovic wore that today fans would laugh him off the court. Attitudes and tastes have changed since then. Novak doing gangnam style is today's equivalent of what Agassi was doing those days. Tomic's behavior is closer to Agassi's behavior in those days, and he is not gaining any fans because of it.
There is a reason the top players pretend to be all nice to each other. The vast majority of fans today appreciate niceness over brashness unlike in the 90s.
He should grow a beard... maybe a goatee
Novak's English is more than adequate. He's fluent which you cannot say for Nadal who is very popular in the US and other English speaking countries so that kind of ruins that narrative considering Nadal's fluency in English is replacement level at best.
If Djoker continues along this path for another 3-4 years with a similar amount of important wins and being media and fan friendly, he'll at least match where Nadal currently is. I don't think he'll ever reach Fed's popularity...unless he were to surpass Fed's slam record.
Feel free to correct me if this is wrong: If you see around here, most threads discuss Fed, Nadal and even Sampras. It could be a microcosm of the indifference to the Djoker. Fedal is/was where the excitement in the game was. Djoker's game and personality is not, and while he wins a ton and is racking up the slams, most fans don't really care (yet).
because he wears such effeminate colors?
and here I though I was a pretty likeable guy...
Good question, don't know how people like Ralph's ugly game.
Many good answers here actually.
Basically, clay records, early success, rivalry with Federer (especially coming to challenge him when he was otherwise winning everything), more distinctive game, looks, personality.
They all suck as far as I'm concerned...
Blasphemy!!!:shock: They are my favorite movies.All time greats.Rocky 5 might be a big downer.What they teach you is something invaluable in life.Never give up..
Me and michealnadal isn;t pleased with this.:twisted:
Djokovic is boring. He has nothing outstanding about his game, no huge strength or weakness, he is just very good all-around.
Federer has the forehand and he sets up points in order to execute his forehand. Nadal has the forehand and also ridiculous passing shots. Fed/Nadal make way more highlight reel shots.
I think Federer/Djokovic matches provide an even better highlight reel than fedal matches
I thought a lot about this to. I think it is because Rafa was the opposite of most tennis players in the beginning. The young punk who dressed differently than the rest. The kid who chased after every ball. Also the underdog status that he used to have. I think most of all he challenged federer during his prime.
Djokovic started his career slowly rising up in the rankings unlike rafa. He was also notorious for retiring not chasing after balls, and just messing around. My views on him have definetly changed. I used to see him as someone who only did tennis for the cameras, now i see him as a player who just wants to win everything
Agreed. Rocky movies are horrible.
I've never even seen the Rocky films
Most people assume I am a fan of the movies because of my username.
Two reasons. Throughout their respective careers, Nadal has had more success, obviously winning more Slams. Plus Nadal has always been with Nike a far more global brand than Djokovic with Uni Qlo or Tachinni before that.
Yeah but they are basically just a bunch of attempts to rationally explain something that can't always be explained in such a way.
I think Cc059 was closest to the truth actually.
The 1st part has a certain charm to that, the ultimate underdog/inspirational story, Stallone really put everything he had into it and it shows.
Its main characters were also based on a variety of real life boxers which is fun in retrospective if you're a boxing fan.
Well, is it safe to assume then you're a Game of Thrones fan because of your avatar ?
1. Nadal's sponsors are far more popular than Djokovic's Uniqoue... something...
3. He owns Fed.
Lol . I had never seen them, but since several people here were so enthusiastic about them, I tried watching a couple (the one where his son in there and the one in Afganistan) and no, just no.
I rather watch Rafa play for an example of never giving up .
I think they're pretty good explanations, though a lot of it doesn't apply to Fed and he's very popular.
Don't think I've seen the first one...
Not a fan of boxing. At all.
Its nadal hands down. Look at exo money. Nadal gets 2.5MM for 2 hours. No one else is prob close. People are voting with their money. Also nadal probably has a better marketing team.
Yeah slams can sometimes have nothing to do with popularity. Kournikova case and point. And sampras on the other end
The one with the son is the 5th part,which is a downer.If you truly want to enjoy you gotta see the 1st part of it.Omg!! wait,the one in Afganistan?? lol..:neutral:,,there were no part in which they ventured in afganistan,you sure it was "rocky",or,are you confusing it with "rambo"?:lol:
Separate names with a comma.