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

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
It's all a mystery to me too. I never understood why Agassi had such a physical appeal.

I go entirely on game. While watching Dolgo today I thought that he has a strange thing in his long hair, and it looks weird to me. He seems rather ugly, with a face scarred from acne. But man, I loved watching him play.

I kept thinking that if he were an inch or two taller and had an even more powerful serve, he might be very close to the top of the world, and I'd be watching him in every match.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
I believe the general public would find his game boring to be honest. Its like watching the same thing all over again every point for those who arent tennis fans like we are

Except before 2010. He was way more aggressive and his forehand was so potent and awesome. He came more to the net. His serve was great too, before he started to mess with it and his racket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNlyrcsUDBw

He was a joy to watch.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Except before 2010. He was way more aggressive and his forehand was so potent and awesome. He came more to the net. His serve was great too, before he started to mess with it and his racket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNlyrcsUDBw

He was a joy to watch.

Except he didn't win as much then. He is still agressive from the baseline today.

Djokovic's mental department and fitness level didn't allpw him to be successful until 2011.

As a player, he is of course much better today also, don't you think?
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
It's all a mystery to me too. I never understood why Agassi had such a physical appeal.

I go entirely on game. While watching Dolgo today I thought that he has a strange thing in his long hair, and it looks weird to me. He seems rather ugly, with a face scarred from acne. But man, I loved watching him play.

I kept thinking that if he were an inch or two taller and had an even more powerful serve, he might be very close to the top of the world, and I'd be watching him in every match.

Oh c'mon now. Agassi had the looks of a mini American home-grown Borg, only he spoke, had more flair and was much more unpredictable. He was the tennis heartthrob for some years. People swooned over him in his early years, and gave him grave respect in his later years.

I'm no great judge of men's looks, but it doesn't appear to me that Djokovic is less handsome or appealing to the eye than say Nadal or Federer. Isn't Nadal balding at a ridiculous rate? I'd say Novak's unpopularity comes first and foremost from his Serbian roots.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

It's all a mystery to me too. I never understood why Agassi had such a physical appeal.

I go entirely on game. While watching Dolgo today I thought that he has a strange thing in his long hair, and it looks weird to me. He seems rather ugly, with a face scarred from acne. But man, I loved watching him play.

I kept thinking that if he were an inch or two taller and had an even more powerful serve, he might be very close to the top of the world, and I'd be watching him in every match.

Though I agree that people are quite fickle in general, I disagree with you that physical appeal would be the reason for what you are observing. Looks are not the problem, rather it is on court demeanor. The most memorable moments are in a match and Djokovic's body language is unappealing for some. For instance his showing to the sky, cursing in serbian, etc. He doesn't have that determined warrior image of a Nadal, that cool ruthlessness of Federer or that rockstar factor of Borg… If he has a fault, it is that he has no outstanding positive feature that is easily perceivable when he is court; he is too human to be an idol one could say… (Beware, use of hyperbole)
 
Last edited:

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Except he didn't win as much then. He is still agressive from the baseline today.

Djokovic's mental department and fitness level didn't allpw him to be successful until 2011.

As a player, he is of course much better today also, don't you think?

Ok, but this is off topic here. The question is if his game is boring or not, winning is irrelevant.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Oh c'mon now. Agassi had the looks of a mini American home-grown Borg, only he spoke, had more flair and was much more unpredictable.
I only said that I PERSONALLY don't understand the Agassi thing. As the saying goes, "There is accounting for taste."

But I also understand that he was marketed for his "sex appeal". I remember all the commercials.
I'm no great judge of men's looks, but it doesn't appear to me that Djokovic is less handsome or appealing to the eye than say Nadal or Federer.
I'm not talking about being handsome or good-looking or "sexy". I've already said that this does not mean anything to me. But it does to the general public.
Isn't Nadal balding at a ridiculous rate?
His appeal started when he had plenty of hair. Nadal, Borg and Agassi all had that "rock star status".
I'd say Novak's unpopularity comes first and foremost from his Serbian roots.
I can't comment on that, because I simply don't feel that way myself. Borna Coric is Croatian. Croation, Serbian, these are just nationalities. Maybe if Borna gets famous people will not like him because he is Croatian.

But I think it's more likely that some people are judged as more likable by the average person, and the country the come from has little to do with it.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Though I agree that people are quite fickle in general, I disagree with you that physical appeal would be the reason of what you are observing. Looks are not the problem, rather it is on court demeanor.
On court demeanor is part of the mystique. It's a huge part of the picture. But looks plays a huge part too. Just how people decide whose looks they like, I do not know. Call it charisma, call it whatever you want.
The most memorable moments are in a match and Djokovic's body language is unappealing for some. For instance his showing to the sky, cursing in serbian, etc.
I would agree with that. It always looks very immature to me, and I expect more from someone who is married and has a kid.
 

JonC

Banned
People don't like watching the same play over and over again for an entire match: stay on the baseline and wait for a short ball. Stakhovsky will be a super-star - watch.
 
Top