Novak Djokovic king of anti-tennis. Oh really?

beard said:
Well, but, there are many wow factors in his game that exites... So many... Problem is that Fedal fans can't, or mostly don't want to see...

On article... Writer say Novak is best ever and say that he is biased as Federer fan... All ok, better than majority here on ttw...

And, he call Novak defensive, but Nadal standing out of camera view field is great... Lol... But, he said he's biased, so ok again...
Click to expand...

Nah, not really:cool:
 
It's an OK piece. I've certainly read worse. However, there's a (probably unwitting) tension the writer introduces that is a bit confusing to me:

On one hand: "[Djokovic is] a passive, inhuman force..."
On the other: "the mental strength and self-belief [Djokovic] has developed in the face of this opposition is without a doubt his greatest asset as a player."

Mental strength and self-belief are very human qualities. So which one is it: is he a "passive, inhuman force," or are his greatest assets the most intrinsically human ones?
 
Indigo said:
Well, according to some guy called Park MacDougald Life and Arts Editor - Magazine at Washington Examiner. I think these days everyone is entitled to an opinion but the tittle to an article is provoking and is a bit on nasty side towards one great champion especially so close to the the incoming USO. I think someone is just using this man to launch nasty attacks on Novak before USO to try to stop CYGS and take Novak out of balance before the final battle in front of hostile crowd in New York.

All hail Novak Djokovic, king of anti-tennis
by Park McDougald, Life and Arts Editor - Magazine

On Sunday, July 11, Novak Djokovic won his sixth Wimbledon title, cruising to a four-set victory over the young Italian Matteo Berrettini. It was the 34-year-old’s 20th Grand Slam title, bringing him into a three-way tie with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal for the most all-time. Given Djokovic’s relatively young age (Federer is 39, Nadal 35), his impressive fitness, his unparalleled mental strength, and his dominance on hard court and grass, the surfaces on which three of the four Slams are played, he is likely to finish with several more.

But even if his career ended tomorrow, Djokovic would have a convincing case for being considered the best tennis player of all time. He has spent the most consecutive weeks ranked No. 1, is tied with Pete Sampras for the most year-end No. 1s, and is the only player to win every Grand Slam tournament at least twice. If he wins the U.S. Open later this summer, and he likely will, he will not only have the most majors of all time but become the first player since Rod Laver to win all four in a single year. Perhaps most important for his legacy, he has a winning record against both Nadal (30-28) and Federer (27-23), including a 4-1 record against Federer in Grand Slam finals (losing only their first meeting, at the 2007 U.S. Open) and two victories against Nadal, the greatest clay-court player in history, at the French Open, including in this year’s semi-final.

He is also, for the most part, unloved. Crowds cheer against him, especially when he plays other members of the “Big Three.” I am guilty of this myself. I find Djokovic boring and tend to pull for whoever happens to be playing him on a given day. Federer is my favorite and, in my estimation, the most beautiful player ever to pick up a racket. When he’s on, his game is like a work of art: aggressive yet cerebral and balletic, with a perfect mix of delicate touch and fluid power. Nadal is more of a brawler and grinder, but there’s still something appealing, even aesthetic, in his raw athleticism and unconventional style — built around the mind-boggling amount of topspin he applies to his lefty forehand, which he uses to bludgeon his opponents into submission.

Djokovic, by contrast, plays something like anti-tennis. Although he’s recently improved his serve and his volleys and possesses one of the best drop shots in the game, he is fundamentally a conservative, defensive player. His game is built around consistency, a phenomenal return of serve, and an equally remarkable ability to chase down balls that he has absolutely no business getting back in play, forever forcing his opponents to hit one more shot when they think they’ve already got the point won. Although capable of attacking when necessary, he’d much prefer to win points by baiting the other guy into going for too much and either missing or hitting himself into a vulnerable position. Plus, there’s his well-earned reputation as a mental giant, which further ratchets up the pressure on opponents. Half the time, it seems that Djokovic doesn’t really have to do much of anything to win — the other player is so intimidated by the task of not only breaking down the Serb’s defense but also out-Zenning him on the crucial points that his game just falls apart.

This dynamic was painfully evident in what was Djokovic’s toughest test at this year’s Wimbledon, his semi-final match against the young Canadian gunslinger Denis Shapovalov. The far better player for most of the first set, Shapovalov dominated on serve and bullied Djokovic from the baseline, earning an early break that gave him a chance to serve out the set at 5-4. In that game, at 30-30, the Canadian inexplicably sailed an easy put-away long, and then, after fighting back to deuce, made two consecutive backhand errors to hand over the break. Then, in the first-to-seven tiebreak, Shapovalov coughed up five unforced errors before double-faulting on set point (something Dominic Thiem also did against Djokovic in the first set of the 2020 Australian Open final). Djokovic, throughout all of this, hadn’t done much except keep the ball deep and inside the court. One moment he was getting pushed around, the next, he was holding a (for him) commanding one-set lead, and the difference between the two was seemingly all between Shapovalov’s ears.

This is a form of greatness, to be sure. Tennis is an almost cruelly psychological sport, in which, to win, players must continually execute shots — a second serve, a backhand down the line, a forehand to the open court — that they know how to hit in their sleep. The question is whether they can hit these shots repeatedly, under immense pressure, with pride and glory and millions of dollars on the line. As a fan, you (or at least, I ) want to see someone rise to this challenge. It’s what has made Federer such a beloved figure. When he wins, he wins by playing tennis the way you feel it ought to be played: actively, with style and courage and flair, pulling his opponents around the court as if on a string before finishing them off with a baseline winner or volley. He seizes the game.

During a great Djokovic performance, on the other hand, it often looks like the Serb's opponent is trying to climb Everest without oxygen, with Djokovic in the role of mountain, ice, wind, and cold — a passive, inhuman force that will break all but the luckiest and bravest of men. You pull for the human on the other side of the net, but you suspect that, in the end, he doesn’t have it in him. Usually, you are right.

As a fan, I don’t particularly like that Djokovic has proven himself the greatest of all time. It feels, at some level, like an inversion of the “correct” narrative — nature conquering man, rather than the other way around. But one of the great things about tennis, about sports in general, is that it has no obligation to conform to our desires, expectations, or the stories we want to tell. What happens, happens, and fans must deal with it. Djokovic has triumphed, emphatically, in the face of a tennis world that has always wanted to see him fail, and the mental strength and self-belief he has developed in the face of this opposition is without a doubt his greatest asset as a player. That’s a great story in itself, even if it wasn’t the one I was hoping for.

Park MacDougald is Life and Arts editor of the Washington Examiner magazine.
Click to expand...
"Perhaps most important for his legacy, he has a winning record against both Nadal (30-28) and Federer (27-23)"

Stopped reading right there. Imagine thinking H2H is the most important GOAT metric.

Well written article, though.
 
a12345 said:
i like djokovic but its understandable why hes not idolised as much. his tennis is very proper, correct, consistent, he does everything right, its almost text book, but theres no wow factor in his game that excites
Click to expand...
No wow, at all...
FLEX-slide-B85A-superJumbo.jpg
 
daggerman said:
It's an OK piece. I've certainly read worse. However, there's a (probably unwitting) tension the writer introduces that is a bit confusing to me:

On one hand: "[Djokovic is] a passive, inhuman force..."
On the other: "the mental strength and self-belief [Djokovic] has developed in the face of this opposition is without a doubt his greatest asset as a player."

Mental strength and self-belief are very human qualities. So which one is it: is he a "passive, inhuman force," or are his greatest assets the most intrinsically human ones?
Click to expand...
That's it. He has it backwards IMO, Federer is really what I used to think of as a "constant, calculating, inhuman force" while Djokovic is the one who has to dig himself out of vulnerable positions and brave the elements to defeat him.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Doubt it. Borg was a beloved icon who transcended the sport. Can’t believe he had haters labelling him anti-tennis.
Click to expand...
Clay as a surface was anti-tennis

Remember that lawn tennis started on grass, and in Laver's days, 3/4 Slams were on grass.
 
Last edited:
jm1980 said:
Clay as a surface was anti-tennis

Remember that tennis started on grass, and in Laver's days, 3/4 Slams were on grass.
Click to expand...

OK, but Borg won 5 consecutive Wimbledons, so he was much more than just a clay courter. In fact he was lauded for his exploits at SW19 far more than anything else.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Doubt it. Borg was a beloved icon who transcended the sport. Can’t believe he had haters labelling him anti-tennis.
Click to expand...
Borg singlehandedly made tennis popular when it was at its lowest ever point. He gained a rock star status and fans were following him everywhere. Even today his name is still synonymous with tennis. I can’t believe what some characters here are willing to say just to further their cause ;)
 
Last edited:
beard said:
Well, but, there are many wow factors in his game that exites... So many... Problem is that Fedal fans can't, or mostly don't want to see...

On article... Writer say Novak is best ever and say that he is biased as Federer fan... All ok, better than majority here on ttw...

And, he call Novak defensive, but Nadal standing out of camera view field is great... Lol... But, he said he's biased, so ok again...
Click to expand...
He definately would be exciting for me if I was a fan. He does things that are shockingly unreal.
 
Forehanderer said:
Because they care about what other people think :p They are forever in Federer or Nadal videos on youtube posting "djoko is goat". so insecure :-D
Click to expand...

LOL.

Fedanatics are the ones shi.tposting about "popularity" all the time
ie. what other people think and like is the most important to them, even more than titles and numbers. :-D
 
Last edited:
Nole_The_Champion said:
LOL.

Fedanatics are the ones shi.tposting about "popularity" all the time
ie. what other people think and like is the most important to them, even more than titles and numbers. :-D
Click to expand...
I don't go to youtube to post Federer is goat in nole videos. you fit my description of the nolefam right here.
 
Forehanderer said:
I never used it. why are you bringing that up.
Click to expand...

It's the holy word in Fed's fanbase, the last straw of coping, not Novak's.

The GOAT was also for years, everywhere. Now it doesn't belong to Fed anymore.

What was music on repeat to your ears before and the most beautiful dream - the GOAT word,

has now become your worst nightmare, and you have become overly sensitive to it. :-D :cool:

It has shifted to nonsense such as "goat in popularity/style/elegance/bank account". LOL.
 
Nole_The_Champion said:
It's the holy word in Fed's fanbase, the last straw of coping, not Novak's.

The GOAT was also for years, everywhere. Now it doesn't belong to Fed anymore.

What was music on repeat to your ears before and the most beautiful dream - the GOAT word,

has now become your worst nightmare, and you have become overly sensitive to it. :-D :cool:

It has shifted to nonsense such as "goat in popularity/style/elegance/bank account". LOL.
Click to expand...
yawn
 
Novak is in the discussion for goat. He’s not anti tennis, he’s tennis atm. He would be great in any era. The guy is amazing. He’s had some unfortunate incidents, but he more than makes up for them with other life choices. Why the animosity, seems like a wonderful person, humble and gracious. Nothing to see here.
 
It takes more talent to play defense than offense. That's why in history there have only been 2 players famous for their defense: Nadal and Djokovic. And Nadal only when he was younger!

It takes more talent to return serve than to serve. That's why in history there have only been 3 players well known for their returns: Connors, Agassi and Djokovic, all multi slam champs and greats. Whereas there have been literally countless numbers of great servers, many of them marginal tennis players.

I'm paraphrasing the great American football coach Bill Walsh, seen as the all time innovator of that sport: to win, I just need 16 great players, 11 on defense, and 5 on offense. Or something along that line.
 
a12345 said:
i like djokovic but its understandable why hes not idolised as much. his tennis is very proper, correct, consistent, he does everything right, its almost text book, but theres no wow factor in his game that excites
Click to expand...

Tim Duncan of tennis. To his credit, off-court, Nole is more affable than Duncan.
 
Djokovic, throughout all of this, hadn’t done much except keep the ball deep and inside the court.
Click to expand...

Oh dear god...

I rarely enjoy Djokovic matches because if I don't want to engage my brain and really pay attention to the ephemerals it lands on the shoulders of his opponent to make the match entertaining, but if I do make myself pay attention to the relentless quality that he reliably produces that makes him so difficult to beat the idea of reducing that brilliance to "keep the ball deep and inside the court" is just depressing.
 
Didn't read the article, but regardless, Djokovic is the king of anti-tennis. Even if his career ended tomorrow, it would mean:

In the first 4 years of his peak, beginning the year he turned 24, Nole won 6 of 16 slams (no CGS).
In the last 4 years of his career, beginning the year he turned 31, Nole won 8 of 14 slams (including the CGS).

How anti-tennis can one get?
 
maupp said:
Unlike you lots who pop up in every Djokovic threads to make it known repeatedly how much you dislike him and couldn't care less about him yet always the first ones to post in literally every single Djokovic's threads.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between banter, opinions and dislike. Lot of people don't like his game not him as a person. That is what the thread is about, no?
 
Don't forget, a lot of "journalists" and sponsors invested a lot in pushing the narrative of Federer being the greatest of all time. Now that not one but two players have the chance to overtake Roger's slam total they are not only hurting but -worse! -they've called it wrong and look foolish. This is why we are now getting these laughable articles and commercials.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Doubt it. Borg was a beloved icon who transcended the sport. Can’t believe he had haters labelling him anti-tennis.
Click to expand...
BTW, Borg wasn't quite as beloved at the time as you think, especially among journalists and reporters who were constantly dropping in little hints and winks about his "unsavoury" life off the court.
 
I agree with the article writer. Djokovic is indeed boring; if that wasn’t true, then you wouldn’t see multiple people comment about his boring gameplay all the time
 
What the guy got right:

1) Djokovic can be boring to watch at times, namely when he is not on his usual level and starts pushing

2) He isn't as much of a walking highlight reel as Fedal

3) He doesn't have as many fans

What the guy got wrong:

1) Bit of a d*ck move to put a title like that; journalism isn't preaching your views as gospel

2) The "correct" narrative stuff, lolworthy stuff
The guy you expected the least to be "the greatest" actually proving the opposite it's kinda exciting in a way

3) He legit picked the last Wimbledon, which is essentially Djokovic's worst Slam winning level, at age 34, to determine he plays "anti-tennis"; mother of extrapolations

4) While Fedal have more fans, Djokovic gets a fair bit of crowd against Nadal and has tournaments where people are really excited to watch him play (AO, RG, Rome, Asian Tour); It's mostly when he plays Fed that the crowd is super one-sided, plus Wimbledon and US Open crowds can be a bit assholish, to put it mildly

The way I see it, casual fans are more likely to become Fedal fans, while long time tennis followers still have the option of choosing between the three.
Djokovic isn't by no means overwhelmingly behind in number of fans, he just isn't as popular.

Style of play is purely subjective. I find a well playing Djokovic just as good to watch as Fedal, if not more. That's because everyone looks for specifics.

Other non-tennis related aspects:
  • Djokovic became a true force years later than Fedal; by 2011, most fans were Fedal fans, so there was less left for him
  • The Western media and fans don't like his personality; his expressiveness is perceived as "caveman-alike" and I have to admit his on-court behaviour can use improvements; no more racket breaking and less "random roars" and "fits of rage"
  • Related to what I said above, the reason why he lets it all out is because he is not a PR machine, which is funny considering so many call his personality "fake", when he literally never had anything to hide
  • He is by far the best off-court , he seems so funny and jovial in interviews, he doesn't stray away from discussing any topic, has very insightful interview; I had to mention that because it's also a part I find very likeable about him
Anyway, I perfectly understand what is what and why Fed and Nadal have more fans and I don't disagree with it at all.

It's just crappy when people only point out the negative aspects about Djokovic, some of this stuff even being unjustified hate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

5555
Novak Djokovic: King of clutch
2
Replies
80
Views
13K
Red Rick
Red Rick
Belgrad13
Novak Djokovic - King of Australia 2008-2020
Replies
5
Views
380
Belgrad13
Belgrad13
T
Clay King overcomes Kamikaze tennis
Replies
0
Views
245
Tennislover26
T
marc45
Uh-Oh, Medvedev Trash-Talking Novak
2
Replies
69
Views
5K
Wilhelm
Wilhelm
uncooling
What Djokovic thinks of current anti-doping system
Replies
17
Views
7K
uncooling
uncooling
Back
Top