Federer reveals his honest opinion on a young Novak Djokovic and admits he lacked respect

[RS]

 

[TheFifthSet]

I am very feel right now

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Cannot rule anything out, asteroids every now and then fly close to our planet, only a matter of time one of them does not change its trajectory and hits earth. At that time there won't be any intergalactic weapon by NASA to shoot it, there won't be ably Bruce Willis drilling it, let alone bomb it into pieces. When such a thing hits earth then we will not even know, such a news will not even be out until the last moment to avoid anarchy. The Ultra Rich will all board that ARK and vacate earth to probably Mars or probably an intergalactic space station to live a few decades until the debris settles and the earth's atmosphere is habitable again.

Ancient Alien theorists believe that there is a Type 3 or Type 4 race that created us, they have the power to manipulate asteroids and entire solar systems, they are the ones who eliminated the Dinosaurs 65 Million Years ago so that intelligent life could flourish on this earth, they could anytime decide to pull the plug on Humans. When that happens, only a matter of time before those asteroids you hear in the news that travelled past earth change their trajectory and travel towards earth to collide head on. If/when that happens, you know what will happen..... The Rich leave earth while we all perish....having a lot of money does have its perks.

With all due respect, I think you should watch less Hollywood movies and read less Erich von Däniken books. I feel quite confident that none of that will ever be a realistic problem for Fed’s and Djoko’s kids.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Murray fans are a glorified crew.

 

[RS]

Very feel after taking UK boxers to school 3 times out of 3 without getting even getting out of 2nd gear.

 

[RS]

Murray fans are a glorified crew.

How much money do you think Murray has earned?

 

[Federev]

If you are going to delve deep into the - beyond the numbers point of view for context, then lets go all the way.

Federer at RG 2011 played his most dominant run to the final than he did even in the year that he won the title. In 2009, his prime year, he was dropping sets in the third round, was a inch away from potentially going out in the fourth round, had to fight back to win the semi. His only real true solid performance was in the final that year. Are seriously going to say that he played better in 2009 in his prime than he did in 2011 over all?

In 2011 heading into that semi, he lost zero sets, and up until he missed that dropshot on set point in the final, he was the most dominant player at that RG up to that point, considering Nadal himself had lost two sets to Isner. Also take into the account that year they used lighter balls which massively helped aggressively shot making tennis, the players said the balls were flying that year and a guy like Federer in faster conditions is a very dangerous combo anywhere. Had normal heavier balls been used, who knows how Federer would have played that tournament.

At Wimbledon 2012 they were neck and neck until the rain came and the roof came on. Federer legit won of course, but lets not forget that the match went indoors, and Federer at the time arguably was the superior indoor player anyway, having won back to back WTF titles, so the conditions began to suit his game more and more.

Now, you can still stick with the whole peak Federer is better, sure, but others will disagree.

I didn’t intend to go another round (as I wrote) but I guess got pulled in.

Also you aren’t going to like any of this, so feel free to ignore it. It will be my last response on this thread about this. (No offense - it’s just tiring)

So, you wrote:

“Also take into the account that year they used lighter balls which massively helped aggressively shot making tennis, the players said the balls were flying that year and a guy like Federer in faster conditions is a very dangerous combo anywhere.”

This really mitigates against your whole arguement. How would peak Federer have done with those faster conditions??

Better.

As for the conditions at SW-19, Novak could well handle Fed indoors by 2012, winning the final at WTFs in straights. And yet on CC he couldn’t push Roger to five.

So…What’s the difference between the O2 and Wimbledon indoors?

Grass.

Fed’s pretty good on that surface.

And what does it matter what the conditions are? He’s almost 31 playing a peak aged Novak (25) who’s world #1 and defending champ. By rights Fed should have lost that match in four not won it. Unless of course there’s a strong possibility that - all things being equal (like age) - he’s just better on grass than Djoko and that, therefore, even at near 31 he still had the gears to beat a peak Novak pretty darn solidly.

Which … he did.

Novak is amazing and incredible and has every right to be called the GOAT by whoever wants to - for real. This isn’t a personal dig even though it probably feels like it. It’s just my take from their records.

I just don’t think his very best tennis is better than Roger’s very best tennis at WB, the USO, or RG. And I think Feds post-prime wins - and near wins - v peak Novak bears this out as well as anything.

The shape of their H2H confirms that results were informed by their ages. Once Fed was past his peak - and he was by 2011-2012 - he’d always be at a disadvantage to Novak physiologically speaking. So it’s really to his credit he did as well as he did.

Anyway - that’s my take and you and I will never see eye to eye.

But who cares? it’s just a game with sticks and balls.

Peace.

 

[Razer]

With all due respect, I think you should watch less Hollywood movies and read less Erich von Däniken books. I feel quite confident that none of that will ever be a realistic problem for Fed’s and Djoko’s kids.

Asteroids can hit the earth anytime and not just that, there could be N number of apocalyptic extinction level events happening and in all those circumstances having more money will be useful to survive.

Bottomline is, if Djokovic fans can try to act as if Djokovic is in a state of superiority to Federer because of numbers then even Fed fans could talk of Federer having amassed more wealth and popularity which will hold him in good stead as well.

And no need, I am happy watching Hollywood movies and reading Erich Von Daniken's books, I like it and I will stick to that.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

How much money do you think Murray has earned?

I don't have a clue.

 

[RS]

I don't have a clue.

That's the only right answer. Safe to say ton though.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

And no need, I am happy watching Hollywood movies and reading Erich Von Daniken's books, I like it and I will stick to that.

Sure. I am of course nobody to tell you what to do or not, but I would take it with a grain of salt. Däniken was refuted countless times and isn’t really taken seriously.

 

[Hitman]

I didn’t intend to go another round (as I wrote) but I guess got pulled in.

Also you aren’t going to like any of this, so feel free to ignore it. It will be my last response on this thread about this to you. (No offense - it’s just tiring)

So, you wrote:

“Also take into the account that year they used lighter balls which massively helped aggressively shot making tennis, the players said the balls were flying that year and a guy like Federer in faster conditions is a very dangerous combo anywhere.”

This really mitigates against your whole arguement. How would peak Federer have done with those faster conditions??

Better.

As for the conditions at SW-19, Novak could well handle Fed indoors by 2012, winning the final at WTFs in straights. And yet on CC he couldn’t push Roger to five.

So…What’s the difference between the O2 and Wimbledon indoors?

Grass.

Fed’s pretty good on that surface.

And what does it matter what the conditions are? He’s almost 31 playing a peak aged Novak (25) who’s world #1 and defending champ. By rights Fed should have lost that match in four not won it. Unless of course there’s a strong possibility that - all things being equal (like age) - he’s just better on grass than Djoko and that, therefore, even at near 31 he still had the gears to beat a peak Novak pretty darn solidly.

Which … he did.

Novak is amazing and incredible and has every right to be called the GOAT by whoever wants to - for real. This isn’t a personal dig even though it probably feels like it. It’s just my take from their records.

I just don’t think his very best tennis is better than Rogers at WB, the USO, or RG. And I think Feds post prime wins and near wins v peak Novak bears this out as well as anything.

The shape of their H2H confirms that results were informed by their ages. Once Fed was past his peak - and he was by 2011-2012 - he’d always be at a disadvantage to Novak physiologically speaking. So it’s really to his credit he did as well as he did.

Anyway - that’s my take and you and I will never see eye to eye.

But who cares? it’s just a game with sticks and balls.

Peace.

Your post seems fine, I don't see anything that crazy in it. Since it is your last post and you were kind enough to put in the effort, I at least have to reply to this one, so we can put a line under it.

You are clearly ignoring the very basic fact that at RG, conditions are not fast and the lighter balls used were a one off. They used the usual balls the following year and Djokovic straight set Federer, and it wasn't like Federer was playing that bad, he got to the semi....and then just a few weeks later won Wimbledon.

You know full well that Federer's run to the semi final in 2011 was at the worst equal to his best runs to the semi final during his peak/prime years. He actually lost sets in many of his prime year runs, including the one in 2009, where he won the title, which again you are very obviously ignoring since it dismantles your argument. The Federer who won 2009 was massively vulnerable in numerous matches, he misses that forehand against Haas, he likely has no career slam....so speak as if the 2011 run was some sub par performance from him, and that previous years were even more dominant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Now, you may not like hearing that, but, that is actually how it went down.

Do you think the 2008 version, who was struggling against Monfils was better than the 2011 version who was crushing everyone on his path, and actually faced a far better opponent in that semi of 2011 than any of his other runs to the final? Your whole - Oh, he beat him at RG when he was past his prime was one to raise the eyebrow at, when that performance against Djokovic is EASILY top 3 performance from at RG ever.

Now, going back to Wimbledon 2012 - Who won three indoor titles to close out 2011? Oh yeah, that was Federer. Djokovic did practically nothing on the indoor courts, while Federer won Basel, Paris and WTF in which he bagelled Nadal all in a row. Federer still had the edge over everyone indoors. The Wimbledon match, was dead even in outdoor conditions, Federer won the first, Djokovic came back and won the second, and considering Djokovic has the ability to be two sets to love down, and multiple match points down against Federer, as we saw at USO 2010 and 2011, had the match continued outdoors, I am not going to just give Federer the win, especially when Novak was wrestling back the momentum heading into the third.

My point is very simple, Federer played some of his absolute best tennis at RG 2011 and at W 2012, there was nothing sub prime about it, and saying it was just to push the agenda of how much better peak Federer is, is insulting to Federer himself. His RG 2011 in particular, was about as peak a level of play as you will see....the only place i saw him play better was Rome 2006 final, not even at RG itself.

I know what you think about how played better at their peak, but the way you place your argument about - oh he beat him past his prime is so basic, it begs to be deconstructed.

If you actually think Djokovic played his best tennis at both RG and W in 2011, there really is nothing more to say. So yeah, agree to disagree, but your statement needed to broken down and examined.

Peace.

 

[Razer]

Your post seems fine, I don't see anything that crazy in it. Since it is your last post and you were kind enough to put in the effort, I at least have to reply to this one, so we can put a line under it.

You are clearly ignoring the very basic fact that at RG, conditions are not fast and the lighter balls used were a one off. They used the usual balls the following year and Djokovic straight set Federer, and it wasn't like Federer was playing that bad, he got to the semi....and then just a few weeks later won Wimbledon.

You know full well that Federer's run to the semi final in 2011 was at the worst equal to his best runs to the semi final during his peak/prime years. He actually lost sets in many of his prime year runs, including the one in 2009, where he won the title, which again you are very obviously ignoring since it dismantles your argument. The Federer who won 2009 was massively vulnerable in numerous matches, he misses that forehand against Haas, he likely has no career slam....so speak as if the 2011 run was some sub par performance from him, and that previous years were even more dominant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Now, you may not like hearing that, but, that is actually how it went down.

Do you think the 2008 version, who was struggling against Monfils was better than the 2011 version who was crushing everyone on his path, and actually faced a far better opponent in that semi of 2011 than any of his other runs to the final? Your whole - Oh, he beat him at RG when he was past his prime was one to raise the eyebrow at, when that performance against Djokovic is EASILY top 3 performance from at RG ever.

Now, going back to Wimbledon 2012 - Who won three indoor titles to close out 2011? Oh yeah, that was Federer. Djokovic did practically nothing on the indoor courts, while Federer won Basel, Paris and WTF in which he bagelled Nadal all in a row. Federer still had the edge over everyone indoors. The Wimbledon match, was dead even in outdoor conditions, Federer won the first, Djokovic came back and won the second, and considering Djokovic has the ability to be two sets to love down, and multiple match points down against Federer, as we saw at USO 2010 and 2011, had the match continued outdoors, I am not going to just give Federer the win, especially when Novak was wrestling back the momentum heading into the third.

My point is very simple, Federer played some of his absolute best tennis at RG 2011 and at W 2012, there was nothing sub prime about it, and saying it was just to push the agenda of how much better peak Federer is, is insulting to Federer himself. His RG 2011 in particular, was about as peak a level of play as you will see....the only place i saw him play better was Rome 2006 final, not even at RG itself.

I know what you think about how played better at their peak, but the way you place your argument about - oh he beat him past his prime is so basic, it begs to be deconstructed.

If you actually think Djokovic played his best tennis at both RG and W in 2011, there really is nothing more to say. So yeah, agree to disagree, but your statement needed to broken down and examined.

Peace.

Federer's biggest disadvantage was that his actual best tennis gamewise came at a time when he was declining physically. Djokodal made Fed become better as a player and Fed made them become better but the problem is for Federer this came at a period when his physical peak was over while theirs coincided completely with it. Facing Hewitt and Roddick early on did not benefit him in any way, the real adversaries were younger to him and this cost him since his game's growth came at a later age when his body was not with him, with Djokovic (& Nadal) the growth curve came at a time when they clearly had their bodies favoring them, especially Djokovic whose growth came at a perfect time when his body was at its apex. Thats why Djokovic got the better of Fed(al) later on from 2014 consistently without any sort of hiccups. Federer and Djokovic aged same would be advantage Federer from day 1, but with Nadal in the mix it is a bit trickier for Federer, his struggle could last some years in his 20s, but vs Novak no such problems, it is advantage Federer hypothetically.

 

[Hitman]

Federer's biggest disadvantage was that his actual best tennis gamewise came at a time when he was declining physically. Djokodal made Fed become better as a player and Fed made them become better but the problem is for Federer this came at a period when his physical peak was over while theirs coincided completely with it. Facing Hewitt and Roddick early on did not benefit him in any way, the real adversaries were younger to him and this cost him since his game's growth came at a later age when his body was not with him, with Djokovic (& Nadal) the growth curve came at a time when they clearly had their bodies favoring them, especially Djokovic whose growth came at a perfect time when his body was at its apex. Thats why Djokovic got the better of Fed(al) later on from 2014 consistently without any sort of hiccups. Federer and Djokovic aged same would be advantage Federer from day 1, but with Nadal in the mix it is a bit trickier for Federer, his struggle could last some years in his 20s, but vs Novak so such problems, it is advantage Federer hypothetically.

At the end of the day, they are all very close to each other. I always said you cannot have one without the two others. They made each other the players they would become.

 

[Razer]

At the end of the day, they are all very close to each other. I always said you cannot have one without the two others. They made each other the players they would become.

Thats a very simplistic way to club them... but I don't think Djokovic added anything good to Federer's legacy, only hurt him from 2011. Federer's legacy was built mostly before Nadal's peak years even began, Nadal sh1t on Fed's legacy in the 2000s and also in the 2010s decade, I cannot think how playing him benefited Federer's legacy, did wimbledon 2008 benefit Fed? lol, no...Djokovic sh1t on Fed's legacy in 2010s, a bit late but he added insult to injury well with those close wins over Fed, especially that wimbledon 2019 where Fed's face was so horrible, after leading the match well there he stood with the plate, that said it, he looked like a complete loser.

To be honest, Djokodal harmed Fed's legacy only and he built their legacy with all those losses to them. As sour as it is and should be for a Fed fan this is the truth, the only solace is that Nadal was stopped by Djokovic in the end which was justice served. Would have been a travesty if Nadal sat with most slams by winning all those dirt slams and just 2 wimbledons. That and Federer's late career resurgence vs Nadal. I dont see any other good ending to this story.

 

[Gary Duane]

?????????????????????????????????

I like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream. That doesn't make it so!

2009 is considered part of Federer's prime, hence why I said that.

Donald Trump is considered a good choice for our next president. That doesn't mean I agree.

Federer was probably a much better player in 2015 than 2009. But he quite obviously was not at the same peak level that he was at 9 years before 2015, in 2006. He would have needed to be an absolute peak to go toe to toe with Djokovic that year.

As for which peak is higher, I don't think it is useful at all to go round and round about this. At their best both were insanely high and that is good enough for me.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Djokovic leads Nadal 5-3 on non-clay. Only post-'11 Nadal victory occurred in '13. Every of Djokovic's 5 victories occurred after '10.

I believe it's 8-2 Nadal ON clay, with some of those coming post-2011 also.

 

[Krish872007]

Your post seems fine, I don't see anything that crazy in it. Since it is your last post and you were kind enough to put in the effort, I at least have to reply to this one, so we can put a line under it.

You are clearly ignoring the very basic fact that at RG, conditions are not fast and the lighter balls used were a one off. They used the usual balls the following year and Djokovic straight set Federer, and it wasn't like Federer was playing that bad, he got to the semi....and then just a few weeks later won Wimbledon.

You know full well that Federer's run to the semi final in 2011 was at the worst equal to his best runs to the semi final during his peak/prime years. He actually lost sets in many of his prime year runs, including the one in 2009, where he won the title, which again you are very obviously ignoring since it dismantles your argument. The Federer who won 2009 was massively vulnerable in numerous matches, he misses that forehand against Haas, he likely has no career slam....so speak as if the 2011 run was some sub par performance from him, and that previous years were even more dominant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Now, you may not like hearing that, but, that is actually how it went down.

Do you think the 2008 version, who was struggling against Monfils was better than the 2011 version who was crushing everyone on his path, and actually faced a far better opponent in that semi of 2011 than any of his other runs to the final? Your whole - Oh, he beat him at RG when he was past his prime was one to raise the eyebrow at, when that performance against Djokovic is EASILY top 3 performance from at RG ever.

Now, going back to Wimbledon 2012 - Who won three indoor titles to close out 2011? Oh yeah, that was Federer. Djokovic did practically nothing on the indoor courts, while Federer won Basel, Paris and WTF in which he bagelled Nadal all in a row. Federer still had the edge over everyone indoors. The Wimbledon match, was dead even in outdoor conditions, Federer won the first, Djokovic came back and won the second, and considering Djokovic has the ability to be two sets to love down, and multiple match points down against Federer, as we saw at USO 2010 and 2011, had the match continued outdoors, I am not going to just give Federer the win, especially when Novak was wrestling back the momentum heading into the third.

My point is very simple, Federer played some of his absolute best tennis at RG 2011 and at W 2012, there was nothing sub prime about it, and saying it was just to push the agenda of how much better peak Federer is, is insulting to Federer himself. His RG 2011 in particular, was about as peak a level of play as you will see....the only place i saw him play better was Rome 2006 final, not even at RG itself.

I know what you think about how played better at their peak, but the way you place your argument about - oh he beat him past his prime is so basic, it begs to be deconstructed.

If you actually think Djokovic played his best tennis at both RG and W in 2011, there really is nothing more to say. So yeah, agree to disagree, but your statement needed to broken down and examined.

Peace.

Good post Hitman (as always) and from Federev, several valid points made on both sides.
1 slight correction to the bold btw, that 2012 SF match was played completely indoors from the beginning. Fed remains the only player to beat Djokovic under the Wimbledon roof in fact, Novak is 17-1 in all matches played entirely or partially under the roof.

 

[vex]

In what universe is Sinner a significantly better player than del Potro?

JMDP had his career destroyed by injuries

This universe.

Not the fantasy universe where you’re crediting a guy who barely played any tennis with a bunch of hypothetical accolades based off of a handful of successful moments and a forehand that was more suited for YouTube highlights than consistent high level competition.

If the universe played by your rules, Federer would have 25+ slams because his beautiful game never would have cracked under Djokovic’s gritty pressure.

 

[Razer]

If the universe played by your rules, Federer would have 25+ slams because his beautiful game never would have cracked under Djokovic’s gritty pressure.

If Federer and Djokovic are aged exactly same in that universe then it is entirely possible that Federer does not crack like that. He would still crack a little bit occasionally because he is a damn choker and weak mental man but not to this extent because his level would be higher and so cracks would not surface that frequently.

 

[vex]

If Federer and Djokovic are aged exactly same in that universe then it is entirely possible that Federer does not crack like that. He would still crack a little bit occasionally because he is a damn choker and weak mental man but not to this extent because his level would be higher and so cracks would not surface that easily.

I agree with you. I’m not ripping Fed here, I’m pointing out that slams aren’t won on paper.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

This universe.

Not the fantasy universe where you’re crediting a guy who barely played any tennis with a bunch of hypothetical accolades based off of a handful of successful moments

Except del Potro has more titles, more slam finals, more Olympic medals, etc than Sinner. And he's had a far more than a "handful of successful moments"

and a forehand that was more suited for YouTube highlights than consistent high level competition.

Lol, most players seem to disagree. Maybe you are confusing Kyrgios with del Potro based on your comments.

If the universe played by your rules, Federer would have 25+ slams because his beautiful game never would have cracked under Djokovic’s gritty pressure.

Except this makes no sense at all.

 

[gqnelly]

I think Roger realizes his legacy is tarnished if he doesn't embrace Novak. Novak clearly has the greatest resume and to continue to tear him down with petty comments looks bad for him. I can understand when he was younger, he was annoyed by the young Serbian party crasher and his parents. That was a long time ago...get over it. The funny thing is...Andy Roddick was in exactly the same situation. He couldn't stand Novak and did his best to tear him down in interviews (including the famous US Open press conferences where he turned people against Novak). Now Andy realizes that it was petty and is tarnishing his legacy. He speaks glowingly about him whenever he gets the chance. Your legacy benefits from sharing the stage with the greatest of all time. If you continue to snipe....you just look bitter.

 

[vex]

Except del Potro has more titles, more slam finals, more Olympic medals, etc than Sinner. And he's had a far more than a "handful of successful moments"




Lol, most players seem to disagree. Maybe you are confusing Kyrgios with del Potro based on your comments.




Except this makes no sense at all.

You can spin it however you like. Sinner is 22 years old and already a better player than Del Po even in the rare instances where Del Po was in form. His BH is light years better. No one is going to even remember or talk about Del Po in 15 years. No one talks about also rans from the Borg/Pete/Andre years. Del Po is Chang at best. Meanwhile, Sinner will probably finish as a top 20, maybe even 15 player of all time. The overhyping of this guy who is basically a buried footnote in the paragraphs about Andy Murray and Stan Wawa in the Big 3 era story is just… ridiculous

 

[BauerAlmeida]

You can spin it however you like. Sinner is 22 years old and already a better player than Del Po even in the rare instances where Del Po was in form.

Del Potro in form was not "rare" at all. In any case, what was rare was him being healthy, not in form. And Sinner is not already a better player. Del Poto achieved more.

His BH is light years better.

Oh, one aspect of his game is better. Karlovic's serve is better than Nadal's too. And not to mention his backhand was badly hampered by injuries.

No one is going to even remember or talk about Del Po in 15 years.

Nonsense. People remember and talk about players that achieved less.

Del Po is Chang at best.

Cool. Chang was a great player.

Sinner will probably finish as a top 20, maybe even 15 player of all time.

You said you don't care about hypotheticals and talk about "probably".

The overhyping of this guy who is basically a buried footnote in the paragraphs about Andy Murray and Stan Wawa in the Big 3 era story is just… ridiculous

People talk about him because of how good he was pre-surgeries and all he achieved despite being constantly injured and sidelined for long periods of times. Only player outside Djokovic to beat Fedal in the same slam and did it as a 20yo. Only player to beat Federer in a slam final outside Rafole. The player with more Big 3 wins outside of Murray. All this being a part-time player.

 

[gqnelly]

You can spin it however you like. Sinner is 22 years old and already a better player than Del Po even in the rare instances where Del Po was in form. His BH is light years better. No one is going to even remember or talk about Del Po in 15 years. No one talks about also rans from the Borg/Pete/Andre years. Del Po is Chang at best. Meanwhile, Sinner will probably finish as a top 20, maybe even 15 player of all time. The overhyping of this guy who is basically a buried footnote in the paragraphs about Andy Murray and Stan Wawa in the Big 3 era story is just… ridiculous

Hmmmm....Juan Martin happened to come along in an era where he had to beat the three best of all time to even have a chance at winning a tournament ... yet alone a grand slam. His forehand may be the best of all time and that shot blasted Roger Federer at his peak off the court in Flushing. Michael Chang was a very solid player but he wasn't the best of all time at anything. Juan Martin is in the conversation of best forehand of all time and that went along with a very good backhand and an excellent serve. He also covered the court very well for his size. Juan Martin's game definitely changed with each injury and that is unfortunate. The fact that he still was able to contend is a testament to his talent. He beat Nadal and Federer a few times in slams even after his many injuries.

 

[ChaelAZ]

Roger admitting what I have said all along...third-wheel GOAT. Asterisk galore!

 

[BeatlesFan]

Andy Roddick couldn't stand Novak and did his best to tear him down in interviews (including the famous US Open press conferences where he turned people against Novak)

As if Roddick had any sway over public opinion, nobody gave one damn what he said in a news conference about Novak. 99.9% of tennis fans never even see the post-match pressers because they have no interest in them.

You literally believe Roddick correctly pointing out that Djokovic retired in countless matches turned people against him? Djokovic's own actions in 2007-2009 (stupid player impersonations, endless retirements, including all 4 slams) did that eloquently enough. Djokovic has always been polarizing and Andy Roddick's comments about him are utterly irrelevant.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

I think Roger realizes his legacy is tarnished if he doesn't embrace Novak. Novak clearly has the greatest resume and to continue to tear him down with petty comments looks bad for him. I can understand when he was younger, he was annoyed by the young Serbian party crasher and his parents. That was a long time ago...get over it. The funny thing is...Andy Roddick was in exactly the same situation. He couldn't stand Novak and did his best to tear him down in interviews (including the famous US Open press conferences where he turned people against Novak). Now Andy realizes that it was petty and is tarnishing his legacy. He speaks glowingly about him whenever he gets the chance. Your legacy benefits from sharing the stage with the greatest of all time. If you continue to snipe....you just look bitter.

He's promoting his documentary.