July 3rd, 2012
Over at Twitter, Jacob Laskin wonders why some people dislike Novak Djokovic so much. I can’t speak for others, but my distaste for him goes something like this:
1) In the 2007 French Open, Djokovic is facing Santiago Giraldo. Djokovic is the #6 player in the world. Giraldo is a lucky-loser qualifier. It’s the first round. Djokovic wins in straight sets. As the final point ends, Djokovic rips his shirt off, screams, and begins a pose-down in the middle of the court like he’s Paul Orndorff circa 1985. This is the worst display of sportsmanship I’ve ever seen in tennis–worse than Justine Henin’s 2003 French Open faked let call against Serena Williams. It’s one thing to try to cheat another great player. It’s another to humiliate some scrub who’ll never make even $50K in prize money.
2) Then there’s his in-match injury time out/retirement history. For a few years before he really broke through, Djokovic had a tendency to come up lame at critical times during matches when he was having problems.
3) Then there’s his 2008 US Open post-match interview.
4) He’s not that good. Don’t get me wrong–he’s the best player in the world right now and has been for the last year. Probably will be for another 24 months, too. But he’s a transitional champion–not an all-time great, just a guy peaking at the exact moment that serious greats are eclipsing. Saying that he’s not Federer or Nadal in terms of talent isn’t a knock–just an observation. No one, except for Sampras, Laver, and maybe Borg and McEnroe at their peaks, is Federer or Nadal.
But Djokovic’s game, while impressive, isn’t all that special to watch. He’s a great all-court player with excellent fundamentals and good athleticism. But there’s nothing really awe-inspiring about any one aspect of his game. The transitional champion he most reminds me of is Hewitt. But at least Hewitt had that dazzling speed, which made him really fun to watch. As a matter of pure aesthetics, Djokovic doesn’t really do it for me. There’s a host of lesser players–Gasquet, Verdasco, Almagro–whom I’d rather watch even though they’re not his equal.
-
Great points, Jonathan, and I’m with you on the checkered history. In his partial defense, he was younger when those incidents occured, and young players are not always exemplars of sportsmanship. I would note for balance that he was appropriately contrite after the Roddick incident, and if Roddick can brush it aside it seems only fair to forgive Djoko that moment of ill-considered gracelessness. Same with the injury time outs, which he has largely eliminated from his game as he has improved his athleticism and endurance.
That said, I can’t agree that his game is boring. His service return is one of the best in the game, his mobility on the run is second only to Nadal’s, and he plays an exciting high-risk game — see his performance in last year’s U.S. semifinal against Federer, when he hit a spectacular forehand winner to stave off match point, a shot few would attempt with so much on the line. Aesthetics is a personal matter, however. What puzzles me is the suggestion that a player who has mostly dominated both Federer and Nadal in recent years does not deserve to be considered their equal. If that record doesn’t earn you at least the benefit of the doubt, surely nothing does. I’m not saying the guy should be everyone’s favorite player. But surely he doesnt deserve the scorn he continues to get from tennis fans.
-
JVL – I’m the very definition of a casual tennis fan who only pays attention to the sport during Grand Slam events, so take this accordingly. I think it’s fair to say Djokovic has been taking advantage of decline-phase Federer the past few years (Federer’s now 30, right?). But a quick Google check tells me Nadal (26) is almost exactly a year older than Djokovic (25). I know, everyone says Nadal’s style of play is supposed to be wearing down his body faster, but isn’t it still a stretch to say Djokovic is taking advantage of an “eclipsing” Nadal, who just beat him at the French, after all? (notwithstanding Nadal’s early exit from Wimbledon this year, of course…)
-
Nadal started with pretty serious knee problems back in the summer of 2009 and they’ve only compounded over the last three years. Nadal may be only a year older, but those are city miles.
It’s not just the single year age difference though–there’s the pro-years difference: Nadal has been pounding through an ATP schedule since 2002. Djokovic didn’t step up to the bigs until 2004.
And remember: In pro tennis, 12 or 24 months can make a huge difference. It’s not that a player goes from #1 to #50 (though he can if he burns out or gets really hurt). It’s that the space separating the really elite championship-level guys is so small that a player can go from total dominance over the entire tour to being unable to beat the other top two players except when he catches a break. Which is basically what happened to Federer between 2010 and 2011.
All of which is why I don’t expect Djokovic’s reign to be for more than another 24 months (if that long). Maybe he’ll surprise us and turn out to be an all-time great. But my guess is that he’ll finish with maybe 8 slams or so. A totally great career. But not enough to put him anywhere in the conversation for the true all-time top tier.
Mind you, that’s not everything. My favorite player of all time is Agassi who finished (I think) with 8 slams. He wasn’t even the best *American* player of his own era. But he has a lot of other stuff going for him in terms of admirability.
-
It’s interesting that you give him very little credit for almost accomplishing a quasi-Grand Slam — had he won the French this year, he would have won 4 in a row on 3 different surfaces. Generally speaking, that accomplishment alone has been enough to get players considered a member of the all-time pantheon. And i think the comparison to Hewitt is just unfair — Hewitt won only 2 grand slam championships and was never as dominant as Djokovic was in the late half of 2011-early half of 2012.
-
First, Hewitt won three slams, not two. Second, I said Djokovic “is the best player in the world and has been for the last year.”
If that’s not giving him enough credit, then I can’t help you.
My argument is simply that, based on where we are today, I wouldn’t put Djokovic anywhere near the top tier of Federer, Sampras, Laver. I wouldn’t put him in the second tier of Nadal, Lendl, Connors, Borg, or McEnroe yet, either.
But if you’d like to put him in that company, be my guest.
-
You’re crediting Hewitt with 3 slams even though 1 was in doubles?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lleyton_Hewitt_career_statistics
My apologies for forgetting his triumphant doubles victory.
Jonathan V. Last July 3, 2012 at 1:08 pm
I wouldn’t go so far as to compare Djokovic’s talent to Federer and/or Nadal based on his recent record. To my mind, this is what happens as players get older: They eclipse and start losing to lesser (but younger) players. Men’s tennis is really tough sledding by age 27, so what we’ve been seeing in the last couple years is Djokovic in his prime against aging Federer/Nadal.
For the same reason, I wouldn’t have said that Hewitt was a better player than Sampras, even though Hewitt dominated Sampras late in his career. To my mind, all you can do for players of different ages is compare them to one another at their primes. This is, by definition, subjective. And perhaps Djokovic will win 17 majors and in five years we’ll be having a completely different discussion about him.
But I kind of doubt it.
As to the other point, about Djokovic’s youthful indiscretions, I just don’t give professionals a pass based on their age. Bad behavior is bad behavior and there’s a difference between being a young hot-head who throws his racket and being a young jerk who belittles guys lower in the pecking order. Tennis has plenty of great players who you don’t need to make excuses for because they behaved like gentlemen even when they were kids.