Djokovic: "My Mistakes Are Less Forgiven"

GhostOfNKDM said:
You know, I've never understood this 'darlings of the media' and 'establishment favorite' monikers - as if there was some secret cabal meeting called to crown these men the company men and give them favors and privileges not reserved for others.

Why can't people simply see that both players EARNED that consideration from disparate groups (reporters, tournaments, crowds, online fans, ATP/ITF etc) by representing the sport well - by competing fiercely without letting their competitive juices get out of hand, respecting audiences even when they weren't popular (yes, people forget Fed was the villian when beating Agassi), behaving well in press conferences and taking their obligations to the tournaments/sponsors/future players seriously. Never getting personal about their rivalries and especially not letting relatives spew stuff in the media.

They never acted *grumpy* and *entitled* when at the beginning they weren't as popular or were in the shadow of established figures.

Novak CHOOSES to be a villian, a crowd-pleaser who can't take it if the crowd doesn't support him and mocks them.
Novak CAN'T HELP his competitive persona spill out in unflattering ways - from his outbursts, racket smashing, arguing with umps, to off-court comments from his entourage about opponents
Novak DESIRES power, attention and acts entitled to a love yet won't own up for to actions instead resort to VICTIMHOOD anytime he doesn't get it (offering excuses like his nationality for example for why he is disliked)
Even his 'selfless' acts are always designed to show himself in the SAVIOR role which is more for public consumption than private charity.
Click to expand...
Claps from me. Very well said
 
Djokovic probably save up these philosophical sentences for decades before given it up here. So he know himself now ....huh? :-D
 
zipplock said:
It was obvious, even to a Fed fan like me, that his intention was not to hit the lineswoman. In that instance, he could have been penalized a point/a game for unsportsmanlike conduct with DQing him. I think it was a crap move by the USO.
Click to expand...

But he still hit her! It wasn't Henman, Nalbandian or Shapovalov's intention to hit the ball girl / lines man / umpire either but they still had to go! If your lack of self control leads to the injury of an official or a ball person, get off the court! Don't even wait to be DQed, be a man, pack your bags and leave in disgrace!

Whining 'but I didn't mean to!' when it all goes wrong .... I'd be disappointed in my 7 year old if he came out with that rubbish after getting busted for something stupid he shouldn't have been doing. Djokovic would get a whole lot more respect if he simply held his hands up and owned his fups without complaint. But there is always a 'but' from him and seemingly a whole load of whataboutery from his can-do-no-wrong fans, who do him no good by enabling this foolishness.
 
Thriller said:
But he still hit her! It wasn't Henman, Nalbandian or Shapovalov's intention to hit the ball girl / lines man / umpire either but they still had to go! If your lack of self control leads to the injury of an official or a ball person, get off the court! Don't even wait to be DQed, be a man, pack your bags and leave in disgrace!

Whining 'but I didn't mean to!' when it all goes wrong .... I'd be disappointed in my 7 year old if he came out with that rubbish after getting busted for something stupid he shouldn't have been doing. Djokovic would get a whole lot more respect if he simply held his hands up and owned his fups without complaint. But there is always a 'but' from him and seemingly a whole load of whataboutery from his can-do-no-wrong fans, who do him no good by enabling this foolishness.
Click to expand...
We obviously disagree. I think DQ should be last resort, warning required first. We don't live in a black and white world. Context is required. No worries. It's OK to disagree.
 
zipplock said:
We obviously disagree. I think DQ should be last resort, warning required first. We don't live in a black and white world. Context is required. No worries. It's OK to disagree.
Click to expand...

If you can be DQed (quite rightly) for verbally abusing an official, you should definitely be DQed for injuring an official in a fit of pique, intentional or otherwise!
 
octogon said:
His biggest mistake was putting on the Aidra Tour, with no social distancing or even masks, right as the biggest pandemic crisis in living memory was sweeping the world. He endangered an entire region, when it was completely avoidable. That hubris and arrogance was his downfall.

Before that, people/the media made all sorts of excuses for him (his gamesmanship, his tendency to wildly exaggerate injuries etc) because they wanted him to be seen as a great ambassador for the sport, not just one of it's greatest players. Sure he was always the least popular of the Big 3, but he has only become the outright villain of tennis in the last year, since the Aidra Tour and all his subsequent comments and mistakes (anti-vaxx, lineswoman throating etc). That has nothing to do with Fedal. That was all on Novak.
Click to expand...

Aids made a comeback in 2020? Well I'm wayyyyy out of the loop.
 
ChrisRF said:
So he has won more Slams than them? Maybe even more than both of them together?

After what you said, someone who doesn’t follow tennis surely has to think so.
Click to expand...
Seriously?! Let's see how many GS's did each of them won from the moment Nole won his 1st GS... dude... he won all of his GSs during the Fedal period. So don't preach about tennis.
 
octogon said:
His biggest mistake was putting on the Aidra Tour, with no social distancing or even masks, right as the biggest pandemic crisis in living memory was sweeping the world. He endangered an entire region, when it was completely avoidable. That hubris and arrogance was his downfall.

Before that, people/the media made all sorts of excuses for him (his gamesmanship, his tendency to wildly exaggerate injuries etc) because they wanted him to be seen as a great ambassador for the sport, not just one of it's greatest players. Sure he was always the least popular of the Big 3, but he has only become the outright villain of tennis in the last year, since the Aidra Tour and all his subsequent comments and mistakes (anti-vaxx, lineswoman throating etc). That has nothing to do with Fedal. That was all on Novak.
Click to expand...
BS.
 
mike danny said:
I do think he should move on. Lendl wasn't liked and he didn't give a sh*t.
Click to expand...
Is it possible Lendl wasn't as vulnerable and sensitive as Dijokovic, and/or had sturdier inner resources that made him less dependent on public acceptance? I don't know these guys either, we just go by what we see.
 
clayqueen said:
McEnroe was treated worse than Djokovic. He was nicknamed SuperBrat and every time he kicked off it would be on the front page of every newspaper. Wimbledon did not even invite him to be a member of the AELTC when he won the title, an invitation that is extended to all Wimbledon Champions automatically. It was when McEnroe became a commentator that they finally made him a member.

On the other hand, McEnroe was one of the biggest box office tennis stars at the time. He had a cult fan base and people would go to any lengths to watch him play. Wimbledon used to fret when McEnroe wasn't in the draw because he was a star attraction.
Click to expand...
To me, Mac was a different story entirely. He was fuming over what he (and plenty of others) saw as bad line calls against him when there's so much at stake.
I attended quite a few of Mac's matches, and have 20/20 vision, and tbh I think he was right most of the time. His righteous indignation was seen as brattiness, etc.
I don't like him much as a commentator, but I do think the guy was sinned against more than he was a sinner on the court.
 
un.jpg
 
zipplock said:
I don't think a player should get DQ'd for a first verbal abuse. I think that should be a warning and/or point/game penalty.
Click to expand...

I am a huge fan of Serena but no question she had to go after verbally abusing the line judge like that. There are some lines you cannot cross. Endangering an official or even causing them fear of being endangered, straight red card in my books.
 
ScentOfDefeat said:
And if you pick Djokovic, even with his worse instincts, and put him in Federer's or Nadal's situation, I don't think he would've been much better or much worse than the Swiss and the Spaniard in the very favourable context and conditions they have occupied in tennis history. We all know it's easy to be gracious and magnanimous when the public already has a predisposition to praise you.



Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Respect the right to your own perspective but I'm going to address just the above part from your post.

So now are we supposed to judge people's behavior by hypotheticals too?

He may or may not have been the same as Fed/Nadal in their shoes. As reasonable as your analysis sounds (and I won't argue it too much), it is still conjecture!

What we have in front of us is what is real.

What if Fed were 5 years younger? what if Djokovic was Australian or British? What if Nadal wasn't Spanish but American... yeah a lot of things could have been very different. Perhaps their media portrayal would be different. Fair, unfair... alternate universes are just that - figments of our imagination.

But all that is pretty irrelevant to what we're discussing right now and my points are based on the reality of things as they are.
 
GhostOfNKDM said:
Respect the right to your own perspective but I'm going to address just the above part from your post.

So now are we supposed to judge people's behavior by hypotheticals too?

He may or may not have been the same as Fed/Nadal in their shoes. As reasonable as your analysis sounds (and I won't argue it too much), it is still conjecture!

What we have in front of us is what is real.

What if Fed were 5 years younger? what if Djokovic was Australian or British? What if Nadal wasn't Spanish but American... yeah a lot of things could have been very different. Perhaps their media portrayal would be different. Fair, unfair... alternate universes are just that - figments of our imagination.

But all that is pretty irrelevant to what we're discussing right now and my points are based on the reality of things as they are.
Click to expand...

Situation, context and history no mattering - "what we have in front of us is what's real!" - isn't a very good way to go about things.
Try to apply this to race relations (what matters is now, who cares if Africans were enslaved, they still seem unable to break through!).

You're over-simplifying by just ascribing pathological traits to Djokovic (scapegoating him, in essence) and regarding the "establishment" or consensus or majority opinion as what is normal ("it is what it is!"), good and desirable (even though consensus changes with time, which makes it a poor analytical tool). If you were a Djokovic fan, you'd argue otherwise, which is how I can tell your opinion is not constructive, or an attempt to understand, but rather partisan and seeking the demonisation of one player when compared to two other players.
I tried to show a dialectic relationship between a justifiable sentiment (that almost anyone would feel in his shoes) and a more unjustifiable reaction to it (to a certain extent), which I think is a more complex, dynamic and altogether better explanation than your psychological simplification (Djokovic, BAD and unworthy; Federer and Nadal, GOOD and worthy)
 
I think Djoker's troubles started way before he started winning slams on a regular basis. He got into that back and forth with Roddick which definitely did not endear him with the New York fans although this has softened over the years. There were matches where he was acting like he was having trouble breathing and miraculously recovering to win the match and his parents (mostly his father) were constantly being obnoxious going after Roger and Rafa in the media. Although you can't place blame on him for what his parents do it does tend to leave a bad taste in your mouth. I think these things also shaped public opinion of him early on and although I don't hate Djokovic these are some of the reasons why I never really warmed to him.
 
Wow I wouldn't know where to begin answering this, but let me see...

ScentOfDefeat said:
"what we have in just ascribing pathological traits to Djokovic (scapegoating him, in essence)
Click to expand...

The sum of his behavior in the public eye is what my assessment is based on; whether the causes and root are pathological in nature or if he's incapable of changing his behavior is not something I or anyone can say. It would seem some of it is definitely deeply ingrained.

As for scapegoating, I wouldn't even know what that would be about. How exactly is he getting scapegoated - in the sense of the word where someone is unreasonably made to bear the sins of another? We are in fact talking about his own actions and the resulting public reaction to them.

In fact, it seems to me you are one ascribing to him a kind of 'victim-of-his-circumstance' helplessness that completely ignores his ability to exercise any free will over his situation.

ScentOfDefeat said:
Try to apply this to race relations (what matters is now, who cares if Africans were enslaved, they still seem unable to break through!).
Click to expand...

Wow, way to go equating an entire people's systemic struggle with prejudice with the inability of a successful athlete (who is otherwise able to exercise precise control over his life choices in advancing his career goals) to self-regulate behavior damaging to his public persona.

ScentOfDefeat said:
regarding the "establishment" or consensus or majority opinion as what is normal ("it is what it is!"), good and desirable (even though consensus changes with time, which makes it a poor analytical tool).
Click to expand...

What part of the standards applied to him are 'de jure' as you seem imply and simply not compatible with the natural law of fairness (as in the opposite of hypocrisy), coherence and universality? (humility, controlling negative emotions, caring for the well-being of others and not just self etc)


ScentOfDefeat said:
If you were a Djokovic fan, you'd argue otherwise, which is how I can tell your opinion is not constructive, or an attempt to understand, but rather partisan and seeking the demonisation of one player when compared to two other players.
Click to expand...

Yet again you go into a hypothetical and a strawman of me as a non-good-faith actor as a justification for why Novak should not be held accountable on the basis of his verifiable actions.

If you knew me to justify similar behavior in a player I prefer, yet call out Novak, this accusation would still make sense, but without any basis in reality, this is simply an ad-hominem.

You should apply the same standard to yourself in that case and remove your opinion from consideration because you're not an unbiased observer either and if you can accuse me of 'seeking to demonize' Novak, I too can say 'you seek to justify bad behavior' because of your fanhood.

Would you condone it in another player? say Kyrgios, or Federer?

ScentOfDefeat said:
I tried to show a dialectic relationship between a justifiable sentiment (that almost anyone would feel in his shoes) and a more unjustifiable reaction to it (to a certain extent), which I think is a more complex, dynamic and altogether better explanation than your psychological simplification (Djokovic, BAD and unworthy; Federer and Nadal, GOOD and worthy)
Click to expand...

Of course, I sympathize with the sentiment; I think it's unfortunate that he had to play in the popularity penumbra of Federer and Nadal. And credit to you for noting that his reaction to it is unjustifiable (to a debatable degree for you).

Yet again, one could make similar cases for Fed and Nadal too in ways they have suffered for no fault of theirs - is it Fed's fault he is 5 years older than these other two guys and that such all-time greats crossed paths at a very narrow yet overlapping time period in the sports history? He gets constantly berated here by Djokovic fans for this unfortunate fact. I wouldn't go as far as you do with conjecture but wonder about the possibility of greater parity in their H2H records had they been contemporaries.

But does any of it exempt these players for responsibility for their behavior no matter their frustrations? of course not!
 
Last edited:
ABCD said:
With Djokovic there are 2 major issues:

1) Beating Federer/Nadal and being close to uncontested GOAT title. In my opinion he is already GOAT, but when he gets to slam record there will be no dispute about that as his achievements are so balanced.

2) PTPA. This interferes with many interests and all dirt from all possible sources is thrown at him.
Click to expand...

3. USO disqualification
4. Regular and timely injury timeouts
 
Krish872007 said:
One more thread with input from the man himself. Thoughts?
My view - a great champion and ambassador for the sport. A truly dominant force who has been, at times, quite severely maligned by the media and an uncompromising spectator base.

www.eurosport.co.uk

'My mistakes are less forgiven' - Djokovic claims unfair treatment

Novak Djokovic has said that he feels his mistakes are not forgiven as easily as with other players, when asked about his public perception and media treatment.
www.eurosport.co.uk www.eurosport.co.uk

Novak Djokovic has said that he feels his mistakes are not forgiven as easily as with other players, when asked about his public perception and media treatment.
The reigning champion secured his place in the quarter-finals of the Australian Open with his 300th Grand Slam win, despite coming into the match with Milos Raonic with major injury doubts.
In the process of sealing victory, the top seed set up a mouthwatering quarter-final clash against sixth seed Alexander Zverev, who continued his fine form so far in the tournament with a fine win over Dusan Lajovic.
Djokovic's injury has sparked rampant debate, with top coach Patrick Mouratoglou suggesting that he has a history of 'pretending to give up' in matches, and he was asked about perceptions of his behaviour after his third-round match.
The Serb said he does feel as though he is treated differently to other top players and was candid in explaining his feelings to Tennis Majors on his public perception. Djokovic has also come under fire over the past 12 months for issues like the Adria Tour.
"Nobody in the media can break my spirit, for my connection with my own soul and consciousness is deeper than any news that is written about me and any sort of public criticism," Djokovic said.
"I know who I am, what I am, where I am, where I’ve been and where I’m going – I proudly point all that out.
"I AM ABLE TO BE GRATEFUL, I AM ABLE TO PUT MY HANDS UP AND APOLOGISE WHEN I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE, BUT YES, MY MISTAKES ARE PERHAPS LESS FORGIVEN IN THE PUBLIC IN COMPARISON TO OTHER PLAYERS AND SPORTS STARS."
"Truthfully, I have mostly made peace with it. I cannot say that it doesn’t sometimes get to me – of course an injustice or an unfair portrayal by the media affects me.
"I am a human being, I have emotions and naturally I don’t enjoy it. I would sincerely like to have a good relationship with them, but it seems that this is not always possible.
"I do my best to focus on the positive things and the positive articles."
Click to expand...
Yeah well, his beloved bete noires don't go around loudly denying science or organizing an exhibition in flagrant violation of any sensible covid precautions. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He lives in Monte Carlo now, not Serbia. About time he dropped the victim act.
 
nounforcederrors said:
To me, Mac was a different story entirely. He was fuming over what he (and plenty of others) saw as bad line calls against him when there's so much at stake.
I attended quite a few of Mac's matches, and have 20/20 vision, and tbh I think he was right most of the time. His righteous indignation was seen as brattiness, etc.
I don't like him much as a commentator, but I do think the guy was sinned against more than he was a sinner on the court.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree with you. I was a huge McEnroe fan and felt he only wanted calls to be accurate and it wasn't just a game to him it was his job. He did play on the brat label and gave people what they wanted to see. When he joined the seniors tour, I think it was written into his contract to be disruptive. He is still making money from his "you cannot be serious" diatribe on the umpire at Wimbledon.

As a commentator, he is really irritating.
 
Did anyone see Toni Nasals statement on Djokovic s condition.
After Patrick M, second time a top level coach has commented.
 
ScentOfDefeat said:
Two things here:
1) A kernel of truth. He is absolutely right that there's clear favouritism for Federer and Nadal (especially the former), the "darlings of the media" and of a certain establishment.
2) Victimisation. He has also used, abused and confirmed this notion to build his tennis persona, motivate and ultimately isolate himself further.

Nothing new, really.
Click to expand...
Quoted for truth.
 
His only mistake was thoroughly dominating and owning the media darlings Fedal for 10 years straight and relegating them to 2nd and 3rd.
 
Things got a lot worse ever since the Adria Tour debacle but it was already getting gradually worse during the Kermode episode. Even Nadal had enough and kinda turned his back on him after the letter thing, then threw another dig at him after the match against Fritz. It wasn't that bad before all those events but now people are growing tired of him. The main issue is he tries to be bigger than he is, at any cost. He doesn't want to "only" be an excellent tennis player, he wants to mark the history of the sport in every way possible and he's obsessed with it. It's not just a matter of popularity. He wanna be remembered as a huge historic figure who made the sport move forward through his great actions, not only in sporting terms but also on a politcal/ethical/whateverical level. And the more he tries, the more things get worse.
 
Imperator said:
...He wanna be remembered as a huge historic figure who made the sport move forward through his great actions, not only in sporting terms but also on a politcal/ethical/whateverical level. And the more he tries, the more things get worse.
Click to expand...
I agree. The sad thing is, he has already made a huge and historic contribution to tennis. Nobody can deny his sporting prowess, and he is an inspiration to a huge army of young players.
 
Gary Duane said:
Navratilova is a bad example. She was not in my view nearly as popular as her fantastic tennis would suggest. You may not know how anti-gay the world often was back then.
Click to expand...

Everyone cheered for Chris Evert, who was perfect and wholesome in the public eye. Navratilova was a lesbian, had a temper and wasn't as graceful as the calm and sweet Evert. For me, Navratilova is the most impressive tennis player of all time. Superb skills.
 
junior74 said:
Everyone cheered for Chris Evert, who was perfect and wholesome in the public eye. Navratilova was a lesbian, had a temper and wasn't as graceful as the calm and sweet Evert. For me, Navratilova is the most impressive tennis player of all time. Superb skills.
Click to expand...
I think she was the best woman I've ever seen. I always rooted against her at the time because I was an Evert fan. Obviously my taste has flipped. Going back and watching her matches now you see the incredible serving plus net skills. I'd rave over a woman player like that today.
 
He's not a media darling, he says what he wants and when he wants, and that is why people don't like him. Media lap up players who assume a "humble" or "gracious" persona, not someone who suggests that women should not get paid more for 5 set tournaments and hosts an exhibition game which people for some reason will cause mass murders (for a majority asymptomatic virus for the age group who participated in the tournament)
 
Gary Duane said:
Navratilova is a bad example. She was not in my view nearly as popular as her fantastic tennis would suggest. You may not know how anti-gay the world often was back then.
Click to expand...
She didn't come out until she was close to retirement. She was well liked and appreciated throughout her career.
 
Here is an example of how different Djokovic is to Nadal. How would Novak have reacted to that woman who was giving Rafa the middle finger during his service motion shouting abuse at him? In the past, Djokovic has engaged with the crowd with expletives when they rile him. Rafa just saw the funny side of it and let it wash over his head. He rose above it instead of stooping to her low level.

She's a Svitolina fan, so she probably comes from Eastern Europe and is a supporter of Djokovic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Tactical mistakes in ladies tennis
Replies
7
Views
1K
brolycjw
B
clayqueen
Djokovic documentary to detail his Australian Open recovery
2
Replies
99
Views
4K
GabeT
GabeT
every7
Djokovic Announces 2017 Return.
Replies
27
Views
2K
Fabresque
Fabresque
Headshotterer
Nadal to prove himself this year
2 3
Replies
113
Views
10K
vernonbc
vernonbc
S
stringing tolerates mistakes
Replies
12
Views
1K
PBODY99
PBODY99
Back
Top