Why would/could the general public find Djokovic's game boring?

vanioMan

Legend
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest

KtM

Rookie
No doubt his Eastern European and former Yugoslavian background makes him less marketable.
Remember that article on Ivan Lendl - "the Champion nobody cares about", Novak suffers similarly in some ways, and I was a huge Lendl fan back in the day as well.
His game is fluent to watch without being flashy, sometimes a little bit exposed at the net - like that half volley against Darcis yesterday, but generally very solid overall.
His personality has been nullified over the years, as he has had to concentrate on the task of winning Majors, but still more interesting than someone like Sampras.

Probably part of the issue but I'd say Ivanisevic, Gulbis, Dimitrov, and Safin would be way more marketable than Djokovic if they were having his success. Sharapova and Kournikova are the most marketable female tennis players in the history of tennis and they are Slavic. Its alot to do with looks. Nole isn't ugly but he isn't in the same charisma and/or looks department as the previous 4 mentioned guys.

Perhaps part of the problem is alot of Djokovic fans cannot accept the fact he isn't super in ever aspect of his being, as he isn't the most handsome, most charismatic, most suave and most impressive physique.
 
Last edited:

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
Sure and some have accused him of trying too hard. He does strike me as the most intelligent and thoughtful of the top 4. I think he's the only one who listens to classical music. Then you take his diet and the way he treats his body, and he seems like a "man on his purpose". I know this is guffaw worthy for a lot of people, but it should be noted his level of professionalism, lack of injury, and supreme dedication he puts in. Just my opinion before you jump down my throat.

He may not be as polished as Fed in image but he certainly speaks well and yes he has also dialed down some of the enjoyable but divisive antics. I still see him as having the most personality and humor out of the top 4 guys, while also having matured with age and distanced himself from hi family's antics.

I also get the feeling Djokovic is incredibly clever, and if I had to rate the top 4 in terms of interest level and personality, Djokovic is far and away number one. Unfortunately, that's not saying much. Djokovic seemed to try to cater to a wider audience, and thus lost most of what made him stand out in the first place. Didn't Jimmy Connors say "you don't need them all to love you, just make sure the ones who do love you are crazy." or something to that effect?

This is one of my favorite matchpoint celebrations ever. Just listen to him roar!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bvPxD3BOAA

I want more of this!
 

vanioMan

Legend
uh I know taste can't be disputed and all...but uhhh....

Well, Jelena looks great and very beautiful, but a bit too "flashy" (I can't really find the exact word) for my taste. Plus, if a woman acts in a certain way which I don't like that instantly makes her less beautiful, even if she is the hottest one on this planet. It's not all about the outside looks.

Anyway, both are beautiful women imo. I cannot say one is more beautiful than the other ot vice-versa.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
 
Last edited:

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
Well, Jelena looks great and very beautiful, but a bit too "flashy" (I can't really find the exact word) for my taste. Plus, if a woman acts in a certain way which I don't like that instantly makes her less beautiful, even if she is the hottest one on this planet. It's not all about the outside looks.

Anyway, both are beautiful women imo. I cannot say one is more beautiful than the other ot vice-versa.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

You think you know Jelena well enough to make a judgement on her person and how it reflects on her beauty? okay...
 

vanioMan

Legend
You think you know Jelena well enough to make a judgement on her person and how it reflects on her beauty? okay...

Plus, I always liked the fact that Xisca is so much more calmer during Rafa's matches. Jelena used to scream and jump around uring most of Nole's matches, but she seems to have calmed down.

This is what I said. I'm talking about what I've seen. I'm not saying she is a bad person. Just saying my opinion based on their behaviour during their partner's matches.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I also get the feeling Djokovic is incredibly clever, and if I had to rate the top 4 in terms of interest level and personality, Djokovic is far and away number one. Unfortunately, that's not saying much. Djokovic seemed to try to cater to a wider audience, and thus lost most of what made him stand out in the first place. Didn't Jimmy Connors say "you don't need them all to love you, just make sure the ones who do love you are crazy." or something to that effect?

This is one of my favorite matchpoint celebrations ever. Just listen to him roar!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bvPxD3BOAA

I want more of this!

That is a great celebration.. oozes character.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
When he looks up to the sky and rejoices it's pretty epic. In one youtube video "Danuvius" is playing as well during that celebration, lol.

Definitely the most exuberant celebrator of the top guys which bothers many, but also a gracious loser.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Well, Jelena looks great and very beautiful, but a bit too "flashy" (I can't really find the exact word) for my taste. Plus, if a woman acts in a certain way which I don't like that instantly makes her less beautiful, even if she is the hottest one on this planet. It's not all about the outside looks.

Anyway, both are beautiful women imo. I cannot say one is more beautiful than the other ot vice-versa.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

True and I appreciate your reply. I don't see the "Flashy" thing at all though. I see that more with Safin's girls or Berdych's current girl or even Brooklyn Decker. Jelena looks kind of intellectual almost but not in that hipster annoying way.
 

vanioMan

Legend
True and I appreciate your reply. I don't see the "Flashy" thing at all though. I see that more with Safin's girls or Berdych's current girl or even Brooklyn Decker. Jelena looks kind of intellectual almost but not in that hipster annoying way.

I'm sure both Jelena and Xisca are smart and nice women ;)
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
OP you have support for your claim that the general public considers djoko boring?

What a crock of sh1it.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
OP you have support for your claim that the general public considers djoko boring?

What a crock of sh1it.

enough is enough, onto the ignore list you go.

In the meantime, learn reading comprehension and grammar, especially what the words "would, could and may" signify.
 
Last edited:

tennis4jags

Semi-Pro
IMO Djokovic doesn't have a game that sets him apart from other tennis players. And unlike RF, Novak's game isn't very graceful either. With RF, you see all the shots in tennis. With Nadal, you see some shots not seen before. Djokovic is extremely consistent but maybe for the general public he doesn't bring anything new to the table.

Absolutely, you are right!

IMO, its the same as above and in addition to that, I see his body language against Fedal. Sometimes he appreciates good shots otherwise his laugh sarcastically, chest pumps, making most egoistic look, and his team - oh my god, one of the most disgusting team ever.
 

coloskier

Legend
I think it is pretty simple. Both Fed and Nadal attack the ball, and when Djoker does attack the ball it is usually in a defensive mode. Nadal has the best FH. Fed has the best all around game. Djoker doesn't have the best of anything. Not the best FH, BH, Serve, Volley. Maybe return of serve, unless it is against a big server, where Fed has the best return of serve..... He is just incredibly consistent. But consistent is boring.... People who watch the game want to be able to relate to their favorite player. They make mistakes, the player makes mistakes. If the player rarely makes mistakes, he is boring. When Fed beats Djoker, Djoker is usually served off the court with S&V. Fed attacks. Most non tennis players who watch don't want to see defending, they want to see attacking. That is also one of the reasons that Fed is much more popular than Nadal, because Nadal will still tend to defend unless he gets a sitter. Sampras attacked, even Agassi attacked. Hewitt attacked even though he was a counterpuncher. That's why they are liked.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Malisse say Nole is boring to watch

"I have a lot of fun watching Roger Federer play. When I had a chance to play against him on a tennis court it has been both amazing and very difficult and challenging. Sometimes I also like to watch Monfils or Tsonga competing. I am not a huge fan of Novak Djokovic, he always plays the same way, whereas from Federer you never know what to expect. I don"t really watch a lot of tennis on TV, but when I do I mostly focus on Grand Slam events" revealed Malisse.


Malisse: "Roger Federer is Fun to Watch, Novak Djokovic is Boring"

http://www.**************.org/Editor/Img/Xavier-Malisse-on-Roger-Federer-and-Novak-Djokovic-img26595_668.jpg
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Universally the impression I get with Djokovic is one of indifference (parallels with Lendl). Most people I know also don't have a clue who he is.
 

FreeBird

Legend
Fedal as a brand boosted the popularity of both players. Unfortunately, for Djokovic, a similar idea didn't materialize. Fedovic or Djodal was not possible because Fedal had already captured the hearts of people. Murdovic was never on the cards (similar styles). That's why I am little gutted that Del Potro got injured in 2010. Djokotro could have been the next Fedal. Djokovic as the bad guy 'Nadal'. Delpo as the good guy 'Federer'.
 
Last edited:

junior74

Bionic Poster
Universally the impression I get with Djokovic is one of indifference (parallels with Lendl). Most people I know also don't have a clue who he is.

Indifference is not a word I would use to describe any of these guys. They are all business.

A lot of talk about the players' wives. I don't think Djokovic's game is considered boring by the general public because of his wife's looks.
 

Mr.Lob

G.O.A.T.
This thread is inspired by Noleberic's thread on whether you find Djokovic's game boring (kudos for that at this point), but I would like to specifically inspect why his game may seem boring to the general public i.e people not very invested in tennis, especially in contrast to other top players. For tennis to grow as a sport it needs to attract those who do not follow it, but is Djokovic a good representative for the sport in this regard?

I will add the most common criticism towards tennis as a sport (at least IME) as food for thought: "In tennis, people are just hitting the ball back and forth, which makes it boring/monotonous"

Discuss.

PS: I am not implying that Djokovic's game is boring, so don't go all Chico on me

I don't think any players game is "boring". Some players game are just "more exciting" to watch, compared to others... usually related to the viewers own preference in how they play their game.

A player's on court mannerisms also make them or or less exciting to watch. Watching Murray or Serena play is like going to a theater where only overactors are allowed to perform. Nadals staredowns and "routine". Feds trying to keep his hair in check. Joker going bug eyed on important points. All things that make their game more exciting, or more annoying, depending on your point of view.
 

ultradr

Legend
Let's categorize shots from 1(poor) to 10(amazing).

Federer breaks his opponents first and then blazes with 9-10 level shots usually finishes matches quickly.
People love to watch that and some people refer it to "god mode".

Djokovic just steady pressures with 7.5-8 levels until his opponents give up.
Very steady level.

Federer might be pleasure to watch but he exposes his A game a bit too much.
And when he is pressured, he plays conservative.
That's why he plays somewhat tentatively in those classic 5 set macthes and lose them.

Nadal starts macthes with minimum level 3, 4 maybe? He never raises his game unless situation arises.
Only time he shows his A game is when he is trailing matches at slams against top players.

When this generation is done and retired, the matches people watch will be those 5 set matches at slams again and again.
Just like classic matches between McEnroe and Borg.

The most watched matches will be those with Nadal against either Federer or Djokovic....
 
Last edited:
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Indifference is not a word I would use to describe any of these guys. They are all business.

A lot of talk about the players' wives. I don't think Djokovic's game is considered boring by the general public because of his wife's looks.

I wouldn't use it personally either but it amazes how few still know who Djokovic is, and that's in the UK with Djokovic winning Wimbledon twice.

They are all business. As Freebird implies, it isn't his game that's boring but how his game was framed by context. The hearts were captured by Fedal.

Personally, I find Djokovic's tennis interesting and sometimes spectacular.

In a crude and unfair way, Djokovic is kind of the Lendl of this era.
 

rh310

Hall of Fame
I think the general public just likes extraordinary rallies and but also tense rivalries. Like McEnroe v Connors or Sampras v Agassi.

Rivalries when the players aren't the best of pals like they are today.

I think the general public likes great shots, whether they end of the point or not. Incredible gets, incredible angles, incredible touch, incredible power.

Looking good (i.e., keeping good form) while you do it helps immensely.
 

zam88

Professional
Djoker is a nice guy and a great player. I have no issues watching him play or watching him win as long as he isn't playing Roger.

I'm glad he came along and stopped Nadal on many occasions. Without his emergence Nadal would've broken Roger's record.


I guess the bottom line is that I, like many people, aren't really tennis fans... we're Roger Federer fans.. and when Roger quits, I quit tennis.

An event like Miami this week that is Roger-less is an event I'm not even paying attention to.. except to take a bit of delight when Nadal loses.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
Djoker is a nice guy and a great player. I have no issues watching him play or watching him win as long as he isn't playing Roger.

I'm glad he came along and stopped Nadal on many occasions. Without his emergence Nadal would've broken Roger's record.


I guess the bottom line is that I, like many people, aren't really tennis fans... we're Roger Federer fans.. and when Roger quits, I quit tennis.

An event like Miami this week that is Roger-less is an event I'm not even paying attention to.. except to take a bit of delight when Nadal loses.

That's quite petty.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
Why so ?

Because he said he is glad Novak stopped Rafa or because he said he does not watch when Fed does not play ? Or Both ??

Does everyone need to give politically correct , diplomatic responses every time ?

I would LOVE if people stopped being afraid of being politically incorrect. No, my issue is that his love of Federer means actively cheering and hoping that Nadal loses. To wish failure on anyone, especially a professional like Nadal does not seem like much fun. We all have our favorites. We cheer them on to win. But cheering to watch others lose means you have crossed the line from fandom into petulance.
 
Djokovic game is "too high percentage". What makes stuff exciting to watch is if the players come up with "unbelievable" shots, out of nowhere. Unfortunately, Djokovic tends to not do that. Instead, he builds his points with good care and high percentage play. In a way, he plays "too well", kinda like "predictably well".

What I like in modern Djokovic game though is his willingness to move forward. But like everything, even this is "too well built", not with out of nowhere stuff. IMO, only real out of nowhere stuff in Djokovic game is his dropshots.
 

Dan Z

Semi-Pro
Djoker is a nice guy and a great player. I have no issues watching him play or watching him win as long as he isn't playing Roger.

I'm glad he came along and stopped Nadal on many occasions. Without his emergence Nadal would've broken Roger's record.


I guess the bottom line is that I, like many people, aren't really tennis fans... we're Roger Federer fans.. and when Roger quits, I quit tennis.

An event like Miami this week that is Roger-less is an event I'm not even paying attention to.. except to take a bit of delight when Nadal loses.
sorry but such levels of honesty simply won't do round these parts. please rethink.
 

zep

Hall of Fame
I think it has been already mentioned, but he is too robotic or too perfect from the baseline. Sometimes you need a bit of imperfection to look spectacular. His game does not have that wow factor which crowd love.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
To answer the OPs question, everything Novak does exceptionally well is the understated stuff, and nothing that translates at all to the screen.

For instance, he redirects pace and angle better than anyone in tennis today. However, a casual viewer has no clue how difficult it is to suddenly rip DTL mid-cross court rally, while the substandard TV angles make rallies themselves look much slower and less dynamic.

Novak is also extremely fit. Again, unless you watch each match of his through an entire tournament, you will not be able to appreciate what kind of shape he is in.

Footwork. Casual viewers don't watch feet or know what constitutes good footwork! To the most casual viewer I imagine Novak seems like a totally typical tennis player, no one shot or aesthetic that stands out
 

coloskier

Legend
Fedal as a brand boosted the popularity of both players. Unfortunately, for Djokovic, a similar idea didn't materialize. Fedovic or Djodal was not possible because Fedal had already captured the hearts of people. Murdovic was never on the cards (similar styles). That's why I am little gutted that Del Potro got injured in 2010. Djokotro could have been the next Fedal. Djokovic as the bad guy 'Nadal'. Delpo as the good guy 'Federer'.

It may be as simple as Nike versus everyone else.
 

zam88

Professional
I would LOVE if people stopped being afraid of being politically incorrect. No, my issue is that his love of Federer means actively cheering and hoping that Nadal loses. To wish failure on anyone, especially a professional like Nadal does not seem like much fun. We all have our favorites. We cheer them on to win. But cheering to watch others lose means you have crossed the line from fandom into petulance.

Look, I agree it's kind of a dick move to root for someone's failure, to enjoy their absence from the tour due to injury, and to eagerly anticipate their retirement.

I agree it's petty. But I'm just being honest. Sadly, it's gotten to the point now where I nearly derive more enjoyment from Nadal losses than just about anything else in tennis.

I guess I'm just one of those haters that's gonna hate.

I don't feel bad about it though. The guy is a decamillionaire who has more success in one year than i'll have in a lifetime. Really I'm jealous of his skillset in many ways.

And public figures who have achieved that level of success get tons of fans..but a certain percentage of haters and naysayers as well.. it's part of what you accept by being a successful player.

So I apologize not for my haterade.
 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
My family and friends compare his game to Federer's (and sometimes Nadal's), and they like all the hot shots and all that jazz that Fed does. I probably had a little influence on their views though! :D
 

xan

Hall of Fame
Djokovic game is "too high percentage". What makes stuff exciting to watch is if the players come up with "unbelievable" shots, out of nowhere. Unfortunately, Djokovic tends to not do that. Instead, he builds his points with good care and high percentage play. In a way, he plays "too well", kinda like "predictably well".

What I like in modern Djokovic game though is his willingness to move forward. But like everything, even this is "too well built", not with out of nowhere stuff. IMO, only real out of nowhere stuff in Djokovic game is his dropshots.
Wanted to post this but you beat me to it.
To clarify, novaks countryman and a fan and i do enjoy his game along with others.
But the % game is where its at for novak.
He wanted to be best in the world, he dreamt it, he had almost impossible route to take but he prevailed. In order to be sucessfull as he is now he had to start playing % tennis.

If anyone watched his match earlier vs dolgo youd see what i mean. Dolgo (like tsonga for example) would go for broke, trying to pull out whatever crossed his mind. Djokovic played the waiting game. %tennis. Like he can play aggressively, and will almost always play aggressive when he is on verge of being broken (facing break points), no matter how passive he played prior. He is fully cappable of producing amazing shots and hitting outstanding winners, but, he wants to win more than anything else.
 
Last edited:

DerekNoleFam1

Hall of Fame
Wanted to post this but you beat me to it.
To clarify, novaks countryman and a fan and i do enjoy his game along with others.
But the % game is where its at for novak.
He wanted to be best in the world, he dreamt it, he had almost impossible route to take but he prevailed. In order to be sucessfull as he is now he had to start playing % tennis.

If anyone watched his match earlier vs dolgo youd see what i mean. Dolgo (like tsonga for example) would go for broke, trying to pull out whatever crossed his mind. Djokovic played the waiting game. %tennis. Like he can play aggressively, and will almost always play aggressive when he is on verge of being broken (facing break points), no matter how passive he played prior. He is fully cappable of producing amazing shots and hitting outstanding winners, but, he wants to win more than anything else.

Good points, similar to the AO against Wawrinka earlier in the year as well.
It looked like Novak was in trouble and should alter his gameplan and play more aggressively, but he just withstood the barrage and outlasted him.
That is what works for him.
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
I think it has been already mentioned, but he is too robotic or too perfect from the baseline. Sometimes you need a bit of imperfection to look spectacular. His game does not have that wow factor which crowd love.

He's similar to Lendl in that regard. An improved Lendl, but a Lendl nonetheless. And the Czech never got the love many of his contemporaries did.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Sure and some have accused him of trying too hard. He does strike me as the most intelligent and thoughtful of the top 4. I think he's the only one who listens to classical music. Then you take his diet and the way he treats his body, and he seems like a "man on his purpose". I know this is guffaw worthy for a lot of people, but it should be noted his level of professionalism, lack of injury, and supreme dedication he puts in. Just my opinion before you jump down my throat.
Why would someone jump down your throat?

We don't get to know these guys. How could we? We have to make guesses, based on intuition.

All the top players get ripped by fans here. Fed is a "dishonest fake". Rafa is "Twitch-Boy", and every bit of apparent humility is fake. The fact that Novak often is mostly criticized for being "boring" is almost kind. Murray? He gets slammed to.

The fact is that the Big Four are all polite in public. They are all ambassadors.

I like Novak most of all for points you mentioned. He is extremely thoughtful. I think he is easily the most intelligent. He speaks a very fluent, educated English. Obviously he has a great sense of humor.

I suspect that later in life, after his career is over, he'll be able to do pretty much anything he wants.

But he's not a "rock star" in the way that young Nadal and young Borg were. This is just the kind of luck that makes some people extremely charismatic.

Federer? I think his games appeals to people who don't know much about tennis (as well as to those who know a lot). I remember that my mother, who knew very little about the game, was a huge fan of Edberg. I think Edberg had that same kind of style and grace that Fed has. Off the court he was almost invisible.

It's hard for me to warm up to Novak's game. If I concentrate on the perfection of his strokes, I can get into it. But I do miss some of the wild shots that come from more flamboyant players. Perhaps most of us realize that the way he plays is a valid way to be #1 in the world, but if he had a bit of the Monfils shot-making - just a LITTLE - it would make his results more exciting.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I think he'd lose his belligerence and defiance, otherwise. What Nole needs is to not get the recognition that Federer gets.
Belligerence? Hmm.

I don't see that. What I do see is a need for appreciation. We think that winning is all, that people at the top don't need recognition. If pianist goes out stage and plays really well (in a manner appreciated by other professional musicians) but hears only lukewarm applause - or a singer - we can understand why that performer feels empty.

But on the athletic stage a guy (or women) is supposed feel completed by winning trophies and breaking records, as if that's all that matters. It never is.

If he got anything like the recognition that Fed gets, he would handle it differently, as Nadal does.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Why would someone jump down your throat?

We don't get to know these guys. How could we? We have to make guesses, based on intuition.

All the top players get ripped by fans here. Fed is a "dishonest fake". Rafa is "Twitch-Boy", and every bit of apparent humility is fake. The fact that Novak often is mostly criticized for being "boring" is almost kind. Murray? He gets slammed to.

The fact is that the Big Four are all polite in public. They are all ambassadors.

I like Novak most of all for points you mentioned. He is extremely thoughtful. I think he is easily the most intelligent. He speaks a very fluent, educated English. Obviously he has a great sense of humor.

I suspect that later in life, after his career is over, he'll be able to do pretty much anything he wants.

But he's not a "rock star" in the way that young Nadal and young Borg were. This is just the kind of luck that makes some people extremely charismatic.

Federer? I think his games appeals to people who don't know much about tennis (as well as to those who know a lot). I remember that my mother, who knew very little about the game, was a huge fan of Edberg. I think Edberg had that same kind of style and grace that Fed has. Off the court he was almost invisible.

It's hard for me to warm up to Novak's game. If I concentrate on the perfection of his strokes, I can get into it. But I do miss some of the wild shots that come from more flamboyant players. Perhaps most of us realize that the way he plays is a valid way to be #1 in the world, but if he had a bit of the Monfils shot-making - just a LITTLE - it would make his results more exciting.

Great post. I happen to find Novak's technical perfection a marvel but I can see how he could be seen to lack flair like Federer or brutality like Nadal. Personality wise, I wonder how much of it is cultural and how much is him personally. I do know what you mean about being born charismatic, but he seems pretty charismatic in interview.

The most shocking thing to me was in Wimbledon 2014 us coverage (can be found on youtube) before the match they had McEnroe and a whole panel and they went to LZ Granderson who went on so much about how the crowd loves Federer and doesn't like Novak and seemed to personally have it in for him that the woman on the panel had to say "Novak's a really good guy" and McEnroe defended him too with some uncomfortable laughter. It's sort of obvious he rubs a lot of people actively the wrong way, but I'm not sure why.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Great post. I happen to find Novak's technical perfection a marvel but I can see how he could be seen to lack flair like Federer or brutality like Nadal. Personality wise, I wonder how much of it is cultural and how much is him personally. I do know what you mean about being born charismatic, but he seems pretty charismatic in interview.
It's all about perception. Did Borg play so terribly differently from Novak?

No. He was the backboard. He was the guy who learned to come in, to win Wimbledon. His demeanor on court made Novak seem like an extreme extrovert by comparison.

Some people, even other tennis players, hated him because he was not by nature a S/V guy. He wore people down. You could not say he had a cool personality, because no one knew him.

But because of his looks - all the blond hair and attention from young girls - he had the same kind of rock star thing that Nadal has - and still has. People screamed and carried on. It was really nuts.

It was his looks.

People are shallow as hell. They react to how people LOOK. It's a huge part of everything.

Novak has the short hair. He has a long, serious face. He even looks like an intellectual. Women are not falling over themselves to get near him. So that's a lot of it.

(For me Fed is an anomaly. Off court he is like Clark Kent with a rather big nose. He is in no way handsome. But aura while playing appeals to people, the movement, the look of his strokes.)

So with Borg you had a guy who just "looked right", and maybe he was mysterious because he almost never spoke. So he was a perfect match-up for JMac and Connors. (He did have so much class that JMac was almost polite when he played Borg and admired Borg, so there is that.)

But mostly it just that people as a whole are so incredibly shallow and fickle that they will worship people who have some kind of star power - whatever that is - and actually hate others who do not.

It's really quite a sad thing.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
It's all about perception. Did Borg play so terribly differently from Novak?

No. He was the backboard. He was the guy who learned to come in, to win Wimbledon. His demeanor on court made Novak seem like an extreme extrovert by comparison.

Some people, even other tennis players, hated him because he was not by nature a S/V guy. He wore people down. You could not say he had a cool personality, because no one knew him.

But because of his looks - all the blond hair and attention from young girls - he had the same kind of rock star thing that Nadal has - and still has. People screamed and carried on. It was really nuts.

It was his looks.

People are shallow as hell. They react to how people LOOK. It's a huge part of everything.

Novak has the short hair. He has a long, serious face. He even looks like an intellectual. Women are not falling over themselves to get near him. So that's a lot of it.

(For me Fed is an anomaly. Off court he is like Clark Kent with a rather big nose. He is in no way handsome. But aura while playing appeals to people, the movement, the look of his strokes.)

So with Borg you had a guy who just "looked right", and maybe he was mysterious because he almost never spoke. So he was a perfect match-up for JMac and Connors. (He did have so much class that JMac was almost polite when he played Borg and admired Borg, so there is that.)

But mostly it just that people as a whole are so incredibly shallow and fickle that they will worship people who have some kind of star power - whatever that is - and actually hate others who do not.

It's really quite a sad thing.

I don't really know how to judge men's appearances too much but Novak doesn't strike me as any worse looking than Agassi. He does kind of look like an athletic science geek in a way, I guess. Murray seems also to be actively disliked by many in the same irrational way that seems to transcend behavior or tennis and it might also be due to his less than ideal image, I don't know.
 

6august

Hall of Fame
:D

People who don't care about tennis won't have any idea about a player's game. My wife is an example, she watches most of the matches with me and all her comments are Darling why don't you have your haircut like Djokovic? or Why Federer can be the GOAT, he even has no muscle?... Yes, all they see is Tennis is the game where people are just hitting the ball back and forth, Football is the game where 22 idiots are chasing and seizing a leather ball... no more no less.

Thus, they won't find his game Boring. Watching Fed, Nad or Nole play tennis is the same.
 
Top