Does djokovic play boring tennis?

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
How do you rate djokovics game entertainment wise?? Does his error-free high percentage tennis come off as boring to you? Lets face it the guy is like a brick wall and i have heard some people outside of talk tennis say he plays boring tennis and that federer for example is much more entertaining. So i just wanted to get the talk tennis communities opinion on djokovics game entertainment wise. Discuss!!
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I find Djokovic very entertaining when he plays aggressively. When he goes into retriever mode I dislike it e.g. large parts of the AO 15 SF.

When he's on and using those awesome ground strokes to dictate play he's great to watch IMO.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Well, I think his backhand is an absolutely beautiful shot. I also think many qualities in his game are not "boring"; but that, as you said, his constant running/chasing down balls can seem dull to some.

Me though, I like players like that.
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
I find Djokovic very entertaining when he plays aggressively. When he goes into retriever mode I dislike it e.g. large parts of the AO 15 SF.

When he's on and using those awesome ground strokes to dictate play he's great to watch IMO.

I actually like him better when hes in brick wall mode. When hes ripping all his shots is when I don't trust him very often
 

Zoid

Hall of Fame
Agree, when he plays federer the tennis is exciting, attacking from both. If the courts were faster Nole would probably pull the trigger more so blame the ATP before you blame a guy who does what it takes to win.

* hard to compare him to federer as he is probably one of the most entertaining players of all-time, guy has every shot in the book plus a bonus chapter
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
Agree, when he plays federer the tennis is exciting, attacking from both. If the courts were faster Nole would probably pull the trigger more so blame the ATP before you blame a guy who does what it takes to win.

* hard to compare him to federer as he is probably one of the most entertaining players of all-time, guy has every shot in the book plus a bonus chapter

Believe me, I wish I could play as boring tennis as novak!! :lol:
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
How do you rate djokovics game entertainment wise?? Does his error-free high percentage tennis come off as boring to you? Lets face it the guy is like a brick wall and i have heard some people outside of talk tennis say he plays boring tennis and that federer for example is much more entertaining. So i just wanted to get the talk tennis communities opinion on djokovics game entertainment wise. Discuss!!

Depends.

He can play very entertaining tennis, and the man himself is entertaining too, which adds to the experience.

But on some courts, against some opponents, he can be boring too.

When Djokovic plays offensively, it's awesome.
But sometimes he just walls and that, while obviously effective for him, is dull in my view.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I actually like him better when hes in brick wall mode. When hes ripping all his shots is when I don't trust him very often

I like to see a degree of risk, playing not to miss is boring to me I prefer to see matches 'won' as opposed to 'not lost'. If you get my meaning.

Still as Zoid said the courts reward consistency I don't fault Novak for playing the percentages. It's only when it pushes into pure defending that I dislike it.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
When Djokovic plays offensively, it's awesome.
But sometimes he just walls and that, while obviously effective for him, is dull in my view.
Exactly the way I see it. Against passive players some are still aggressive to some extent (Federer), but when Novak plays passive players, he tries to out "passive" them.

But this may be simply a general trait of baseliners. I do not remember Agassi playing aggressively against a Brick Wall, or Lendl, or even Borg.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Exactly the way I see it. Against passive players some are still aggressive to some extent (Federer), but when Novak plays passive players, he tries to out "passive" them.

But this may be simply a general trait of baseliners. I do not remember Agassi playing aggressively against a Brick Wall, or Lendl, or even Borg.

It's why Fedovic is the best match-up and Murrovic is the worst.
 

jga111

Hall of Fame
Generally speaking his tennis isn't going to thrill you with elation and have you teetered onto the edge of your seat. That is just the consequence of him playing a game that is measured to every detail. But sometimes he comes out with a cracking Sampra-esque CC running forehand, or lithely slides along the baseline of a hardcourt where he manages to retrieve a ball that he should never have been allowed to encroach. These moments you can only stand up, appreciate and applaud. Off court he seems to be convivial and accommodating, I may not be his biggest fan but I have a lot of time for him.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
His usual game generally is too robotic/mechanical to thrill a neutral onlooker that isn't especially involved in the sport. People who like and play tennis can appreciate and enjoy his tennis, especially when he doesn't act like a backboard (I personally cannot handle that either).

I wouldn't necessarily call him boring (definitely not when playing well) but he isn't the most exciting player.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
No, he doesn't.

The thing people are missing is that you can't have only one tactic, to be aggressive. Djokovic can play in many different ways and adapt to his opponents, weather to play defensively or offensively, and he can do both exceptionally well. That's one of the things that makes him a complete player.
 
Last edited:

robbo1970

Hall of Fame
I've always preferred the more entertaining styles of play. I'd rather watch someone play really adventurous tennis, go for some outrageous shots and end up losing than watch just baseline defending.

Yes tennis is a sport and the winner takes the spoils but I do feel the players have a duty to entertain. If it wasn't for the fans paying hard earned money to watch these matches, those pro's wouldn't be the multimillionaires they are, so they have a bit of a duty to repay that by entertaining the crowd.

George Best and Paul Gascoigne had the right attitude towards their profession, they considered professional football to be an entertainment industry and if they didn't entertain the crowd then they had not done their job properly.

Just my opinion. I think Djokovic does lose popularity points for being boring at times and just being this amazing defender, but he does have the weapons to play exciting attacking tennis and still win, I just wish he did it more often.
 

vanioMan

Legend
No, he doesn't.

The thing people are missing is that you can't have only one tactic, to be aggressive. Djokovic can play in many different ways and adapt to his opponents, weather to play defensively or offensively, and he can do both exceptionally well. That's one of the things that makes him a complete player.

You just had to say it, didn't you?

:lol::lol::lol:
 

Cortana

Legend
I think it's boring because we all know that he is going to win all matches. When you watch Federer, Nadal or other great players an upset is always possible. Djokovic is just destroying everything in his way to the title.
 

m2nk2

Hall of Fame
In one word: Yes.

But only a handful of players are playing enjoyable tennis. Federer is probably the one I enjoy to watch most these days. Especially on faster surfaces. I think W could be great!

I always like to watch Nadal as well of course even though he's been pretty bad the last 10 months or so.

Either way, Djoko plays to win and not to please the crowd like Monfils and Tsonga etc.
 

Mr.Lob

G.O.A.T.
Out of the top 4 least exciting:

1)Djokovic
2)Murray
3)Nadal
4)Federer

And I'm a Djokovic fan. Sorry Chico. Get over it.
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Only when he's being passive. When he plays at his very highest level it's the most orgasm inducing tennis I've ever seen(apart from peak Fed).
 

beard

Legend
I think ATP should establish a prize for the most elegant player, as well as the biggest clown on tour players. Or attractive points should be awarded double, to make someone happy.

Nole plays the way he needs to win. Offensive against the Fed and defensive against Murray. And he wins. It is called the brain and Novak does not need to apologize for his tennis intelligence.
You should more appreciate tactics and tennis intelligence, than bum bum tennis. Did you notice that after every defeat against some player Nole come with new tactics next match. Match up with Fed is example.

Nole had more winners against Fed in Wimbledon. And what now? Is Fed not attractive anymore, becoming grinder against Nole?
 

junior74

Talk Tennis Guru
Either way, Djoko plays to win and not to please the crowd like Monfils and Tsonga etc.

Djokovic is a lot more fun to watch than Monfils and Tsonga IMO.

Djokovic plays efficient tennis. It can be boring or fun, depending on what it takes for him to win the match and what the other guy comes up with. He is pretty clinical.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
I think ATP should establish a prize for the most elegant player, as well as the biggest clown on tour players. Or attractive points should be awarded double, to make someone happy.

Nole plays the way he needs to win. Offensive against the Fed and defensive against Murray. And he wins. It is called the brain and Novak does not need to apologize for his tennis intelligence.
You should more appreciate tactics and tennis intelligence, than bum bum tennis. Did you notice that after every defeat against some player Nole come with new tactics next match. Match up with Fed is example.

Nole had more winners against Fed in Wimbledon. And what now? Is Fed not attractive anymore, becoming grinder against Nole?

Understanding of the relevance of tennis stats = 0

You really think that the amount of winners determines who is more aggressive?
 

eliars

Hall of Fame
No, he doesn't.

The thing people are missing is that you can't have only one tactic, to be aggressive. Djokovic can play in many different ways and adapt to his opponents, weather to play defensively or offensively, and he can do both exceptionally well. That's one of the things that makes him a complete player.

That, to me, is why, I think Djokovic is - not boring - but lacks personality as a player. Djokovic can adapt to every style; he grinds with Nadal, plays offensively against Federer and pushes against Murray, roughly speaking.

His trademark sliding is not enough to counter his chameleon-like/adaptive approach to tennis.

Add to that his robotic, metronomic groundstrokes and that makes for a bland kind of player imo. However you can argue that non-personality is a personality in itself, so that Djokovic in fact becomes a player with personality.

I don't really find him boring, just lacking a clear player ID/personality.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
I like the way the ball comes off Djokovic's racquet more than any other player. I could easily tell his strokes apart by ball flight from anyone. That and his Serbian defiant bad boy persona.

So, no he's not boring.
 

TJfederer16

Hall of Fame
When he's in robot wall mode where he misses nothing and chases everything down and is difficult to win games it is extremely boring but when he has those lapses and allows his opponents to get back into the match that when I like watching him play because you never know whats going to happen, whether he's going to hit an error or hit an amazing winner, or be up serving for a match and then lose several games in a row to drop the set.
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
Not really Noleberic. Still, it just goes to show how good he is on those courts that he can play average(by his standards) tennis and still win the tournament. :)

He was quite conservative at times. He was playing within himself at some those matches, especially in the first sets of matches. Almost every first set was a tiebreaker.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
That, to me, is why, I think Djokovic is - not boring - but lacks personality as a player. Djokovic can adapt to every style; he grinds with Nadal, plays offensively against Federer and pushes against Murray, roughly speaking.

His trademark sliding is not enough to counter his chameleon-like/adaptive approach to tennis.

Add to that his robotic, metronomic groundstrokes and that makes for a bland kind of player imo. However you can argue that non-personality is a personality in itself, so that Djokovic in fact becomes a player with personality.

I don't really find him boring, just lacking a clear player ID/personality.

He is a machine, almost.
But on the more entertaining end of machines.

And he's a winning machine, which is what really counts.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
That, to me, is why, I think Djokovic is - not boring - but lacks personality as a player. Djokovic can adapt to every style; he grinds with Nadal, plays offensively against Federer and pushes against Murray, roughly speaking.

His trademark sliding is not enough to counter his chameleon-like/adaptive approach to tennis.

Add to that his robotic, metronomic groundstrokes and that makes for a bland kind of player imo. However you can argue that non-personality is a personality in itself, so that Djokovic in fact becomes a player with personality.

I don't really find him boring, just lacking a clear player ID/personality.

That's actually a really good way to put it. Never thought of it like that, but you have a (good) point.
 

m2nk2

Hall of Fame
Djokovic is a lot more fun to watch than Monfils and Tsonga IMO.

Djokovic plays efficient tennis. It can be boring or fun, depending on what it takes for him to win the match and what the other guy comes up with. He is pretty clinical.

Yeah, personally I hate when they are clowning. When they do all these unmotivated things like the 360 degrees behind the back smash for no reason. I don't find that interesting at all.
 

Rubens

Hall of Fame
He doesn't have an out-of-this-world weapon, like Fedal's forehands, Sampras' serve, Sampras' running forehand, Agassi's powerful on-the-rise groundies, Lendl's forehand, Edberg's volleys, and so on.
 

Cortana

Legend
He doesn't have an out-of-this-world weapon, like Fedal's forehands, Sampras' serve, Sampras' running forehand, Agassi's powerful on-the-rise groundies, Lendl's forehand, Edberg's volleys, and so on.
He has all of it, just not as good. A player couldn't get more complete than Djokovic.
 

KtM

Rookie
Its ok, its not a problem. Sampras was a little less charismatic than Agassi and that was fine.
 

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
Its ok, its not a problem. Sampras was a little less charismatic than Agassi and that was fine.

My older brother was a big fan of Agassi. I remember a lot of people loved watching Agassi but Pete wasn't as popular in comparison. It's a bit surprising for me when I see more Pete fans on here than that of Andre.
 
Top