Names, numbers and Nole

First topic message reminder :

LF: I am moving our discussion here.

HM Murdoch wrote:

hawkeye wrote: I can understand socal1976's sense of frustration that Djokovic doesn't get the recognition that his achievements should perhaps deserve... It's hard enough winning trophies not everyone can be expected to be able to do it in a way that captures the more general publics imagination.

I'm not sure that the general public's imagination has been captured. It's more that only Fed and Nadal have had a long enough period of success for the public to have heard of them!

The sad truth is that a bog standard Premiership footballer can become famous for not much but a tennis player needs years of success to achieve even a modicum of fame.

I suspect if you asked a member of the British public to name as many tennis players as they can it, it would typically go:
1) Andy Murray
2) Roger Federer
3) Tim Henman
4) Thingy Nadal
5) Oh, what's his name? You know, him with the face.
6) Cliff Richard?

Great post Murdoch. Tennis is so hard to make money and fame in, sometimes I wonder why these guys like Nadal who probably could make it in football at some level even bother and don't go into golf or football if they can. Not that I think tennis is lacking, I think it is the greatest sport in the world period. I play it and watch it and write about it. But the fact is that in tennis everyone from number 2 on down has quote something wrong with their game. You have fans online saying players that win 5 slams are not great? Really than what do you have to do to be great win a slam playing lefthanded if you are a righty or with a blindfold? I mean in the last 40 years we have had what 10 guys win 5 or more slams. Somehow Novak who is probably one of the top 10 of the last 40 years if not one of the top 15 for sure at this young age and with more to go, and yet he isn't deemed great. I mean could you imagine fans of football calling one of the 10 or 15 best footballers of the last 40 years as quote "not being truely great". Or to one of the top 10 or 15 boxers of the last 40 years, would people look at him and say he is not great?

I mean could you imagine fans of football calling one of the 10 or 15 best footballers of the last 40 years as quote "not being truely great". Or to one of the top 10 or 15 boxers of the last 40 years, would people look at him and say he is not great?

Actually Messi and Klitschko bro's get that all the time, usually by people trying to wind you up.

Yes Josiah good observation it is definetly a wind up tool. But it bears mentioning how silly it is. As for Messi, I can't see anyone with a brain cell doubting his obvious greatness the klistchko's as well, but messi is a real clear cut case of greatness.

Am I the only one who is reminded of Fed 08 by Djokovic in 2012?

I know nothing about football but someone told me that when Ronaldo plays the crowd taunt him with the chant "Messi is better"... or something like that. Can't remember the exact wording.

It appears that the higher you climb the more people will want to knock you down. Although from the outside being "taunted" with "Messi is better" hardly appears to be an insult. So likewise being "taunted" with "Roger is better" or "Rafa is better" isn't that bad an insult either.

No hawkeye it really isn't an insult, but it is pretty annoying if you are Ronaldo in a way and ungracious, but hell its part of sports. I actually have a pretty thick skin about it.

The level of Fed and Nadal's popularity and the relative obscurity of the other players is just down to the laziness of the public. Also Fed and Nadal have been sold to the public in a way that was never done with Djokovic if you remember all those extra bits on their backgrounds and them reading that 'if' poem before the final. It is unfortunate for players like Djokovic but the relative popularity of Nadal and Fed is not to their credit but to their fortune. It is a disservice to Djokovic to say even with his year last year that he was second to either of them let alone 3rd. Only to people who haven't taken the time to learn anything about tennis but what do their opinions matter anyway.

break_in_the_fifth

I don't think you can count me as "lazy" when it comes to an interest in tennis. I know a fair bit about many players even the ones who are relatively obscure and I follow most of the tournaments so have watched quite a few matches. I know exactly what Djokovic did last year and in the many years leading up to that. I am also very interested in how tennis and players are "sold" to us via the media.

But IMO it is easy to see why Nadal and Federer are popular. Maybe like you say it is their "fortune" and not their "credit" but that is because being charismatic and having such unique and watchable tennis tennis style is not something you can work hard on the tennis court to achieve. If it was then Djokovic would be right up there with them. It is also not something that the media can manipulate people into thinking exists. If it was then Murray would be right up there with them. Added to that Nadal and Federer have one of the best rivalries not just in tennis but in sport and have played some truly historic matches. Of course any of their future matches can only add to that history.

I would say that anyone who doesn't recognise why Federer and Nadal stand out from the pack and will continue to do so for as long as they play (and beyond) are the ones who are ignorant about tennis... not the other way round.

hawkeye wrote: ... being charismatic and having such unique and watchable tennis tennis style is not something you can work hard on the tennis court to achieve. If it was then Djokovic would be right up there with them. It is also not something that the media can manipulate people into thinking exists.

Disagree totally on this point. In Rafa's case especially, I feel there is a lot of manipulation that takes place.

One of the most common things you hear about Rafa is that he is "a warrior". Why? Where does this come from? Is it that he is particularly strong in the face of adversity?

Some break points saved stats:
Rafa Roger Novak
2011 64% 65% 65%
2010 69% 68% 67%
2009 65% 69% 67%

All three of the top guys have similar stats on saving break points. In fact Roger is marginally the best. But all we hear is that it is Rafa who is so mentally tough. He's a warrior, don't you know.

Federer, season in, season out, is competing for titles right through to the end of the season. Rafa's post-Wimbledon record is comparatively poor. You can almost see him dial out after the USO. But no, it's Rafa who is the warrior who always fights to the end.

Madid is played on a dodgy blue clay surface. Rafa moans and moans and says he won't play there again unless the surface changes. Roger gets on with it and wins the tournament. But Roger is just the graceful one, it's Rafa who's the warrior who always fights to the end.

I'm a Djoko fan, so I have no particular devotion to Fed and nor do I have a dislike of Rafa. But it drives me crazy that so many qualities that Rafa gets praised to high heaven for, Roger actually has in greater abundance. But it suits the narrative better for Rafa to be the warrior.

Rant over.

But IMO it is easy to see why Nadal and Federer are popular. Maybe like you say it is their "fortune" and not their "credit" but that is because being charismatic and having such unique and watchable tennis tennis style is not something you can work hard on the tennis court to achieve. If it was then Djokovic would be right up there with them. It is also not something that the media can manipulate people into thinking exists. If it was then Murray would be right up there with them. Added to that Nadal and Federer have one of the best rivalries not just in tennis but in sport and have played some truly historic matches. Of course any of their future matches can only add to that history

One of the massive glaring errors that gets over looked is that in that period from 2004-2007 when Federer was winning everything, Only Nadal won more than 1 Slam in that period. In fairness he didn't have to much in the way of having to impose a persona to the fans. If people didn't like Federer, then truly and honestly you only had Nadal as an alternative. If Djokovic had won Slams in that period and Nadal hadn't, there is no way in hell he would've generated a better fan base or a big image.

Djokovic has managed to win Slams, but the problem is that Nadal and Federer are central to the tennis world based on accomplishments. Success off court comes with success on it. Djokovic might not have the big sponsorship deals with Nike or Adidas, but he is the face of Head. He isn't one for 'fashion' shoots or music video appearances. If anything he is extremely professional in every sense. I think he has the right attitude for his career which he prioritises over everything. Federer and Nadal for all their successes are able to have a buffer than enables them to explore other mediums outside of tennis. Djokovic needs more time for him to afford that personal success away from the court.

Djokovic is a big name and if he came to my town for a tournament I am pretty sure that the fans would follow on a 'If you build it they will come' basis.

legendkillarV2 wrote:He isn't one for 'fashion' shoots or music video appearances.

But he will shortly be seen taking on terrorists with his tennis racquet in Expendables 2!

But I do agree with everything you said. So much of Rafa's profile is due to his de facto role as the alternative to Federer.

Fed would have been a global name whatever. Rafa benefitted from being Roger's rival. The Wimbledon title in 2008 was "only" Rafa's 5th slam and his first outside of RG. His achievements at that point were not colossal in the scheme of tennis history but his profile became enormous due to being Fed's only real rival.

Of course, he is now at 11 slams and a legend of the game, so I can't begrudge his current status at all. But it feels to me that his achievements have caught up with his profile rather than his profile growing with his achievements.

Exactly HMM

Rafa has been very successful, but he got share a platform with Roger at the same time. Some would argue that Agassi was more popular than Sampras even though Sampras had more success on the court.

You could go as far as to say that Djokovic and Sampras are polar opposites because they are not one for profile building beyond tennis. That's not to say that Djokovic is not getting the exposure he deserves with being no.1, but part of package is acceptance from the player themselves, I believe Novak is not one for the public light in it's entirety.

How exactly are Roger and Nadal more charismatic than Djokovic? Both guys strike me as interesting to talk to as a head of cabbage. They are more famous than Djokovic, are more accomplished but if you asked me who I would want to have a conversation or drink with there is no way I would select Rafa or Roger.


If Novak wins double digit slams a lot of people will be raving about his charisma Hawkeye. In the words of Andy Roddick the more I win the better looking I get.

hawkeye wrote:break_in_the_fifth

I don't think you can count me as "lazy" when it comes to an interest in tennis. I know a fair bit about many players even the ones who are relatively obscure and I follow most of the tournaments so have watched quite a few matches. I know exactly what Djokovic did last year and in the many years leading up to that. I am also very interested in how tennis and players are "sold" to us via the media.

But IMO it is easy to see why Nadal and Federer are popular. Maybe like you say it is their "fortune" and not their "credit" but that is because being charismatic and having such unique and watchable tennis tennis style is not something you can work hard on the tennis court to achieve. If it was then Djokovic would be right up there with them. It is also not something that the media can manipulate people into thinking exists. If it was then Murray would be right up there with them. Added to that Nadal and Federer have one of the best rivalries not just in tennis but in sport and have played some truly historic matches. Of course any of their future matches can only add to that history.

I would say that anyone who doesn't recognise why Federer and Nadal stand out from the pack and will continue to do so for as long as they play (and beyond) are the ones who are ignorant about tennis... not the other way round.

Of course it is. Why do you think socal and some others get annoyed when Fed is always referred to as humble and gracious when to him he comes across as smug and arrogant. That part was probably oversold to the public. A lot of people might think that Djokovic is the most fun and easy going out of the group at the top. Well that is if they looked in the first place...

Yes Fed and Nadal's tennis stands out to the masses each in their own unique way and as far as I can tell I never said it shouldn't. Nevertheless I maintain that the majority of the public only knowing about two players exclusively is mostly down to lack of general interest and selective marketing. Besides there are actually plenty of other players that people might be able to relate to more if they looked.

If you know exactly what Djokovic did last year then you should know that during that time he was the best. How could it feel like he was second to guys he was regularly and consistently beating? Together they managed to get a grand total of 1 win off of him.

Excellent post as usual Break in the fifth even when on the rare occassion I don't agree with you. On this occassion you are spot on. People seem to acknowledge that marketing and media are important but fail to see its import. Roger has a great body of work, better than anyone's in the game's history, and is an overrall very positive champion both within and outside of tennis. People like familiarity and they like winners, there is nothing that I see that is innately charismatic about either Nadal or Federer, particularly Nadal who strikes as a sweet but slightly goofy kid. Not dumb in anyway just socially a bit awkward. Federer is definetly a classy guy and bright as well, but as break in the fifth says neither one of them are Mr. personality on tour.

Even though we are a little off-topic, it is a wonderful discussion to have.

One incident that stands out is the Roddick-Djokovic @USO. The following on-court interview did antagonise quite a few fans. He has made 'public' amends, with his 'imitations' series, the McEnroe 'challenge', the 'dancing in the bleachers' scene and many others.

It is shame that he is not as well recognised as Fedal, but a lot of factors go into public recognition.

Fun, easy going, media friendly, approachable, loving attention, and all the other things that Djokovic appears to be does not equal charismatic. Winning trophies does not equal winning trophies with style.

Big personalities of course are not loved by everyone but they are interesting enough to make many have an opinion on them. They don't always unite opinions but divide them. This can generate huge interest and in sport this is what anyone hoping to make any money through sponsorship is looking for. To have two such huge personalities that are capable of dividing opinion (to say the least... ) who are also rivals is the ultimate sponsorship dream.

Give it time with Novak.

I know The Shot is becoming old news now but that moment wasn't just a great return of serve. It was also that appeal, arms aloft, to the crowd as if to say "is that what I have to do to get your support?".

Sure enough, there was a change in the atmosphere. More of the crowd got behind him.

I simply can't imagine Fed, Nadal or Murray doing something like that. It is just not in their personalities. Whether you define it as charisma or not, that sort of thing draws attention and earns fans. If Novak's career continues to have the same narrative, he will draw more and more support.

Exactly, Murdoch who knew him in 2010 outside of tennis fans? He had virtually no visibility to the larger sports fan or general public. I know that he has now appeared multiple times on all the biggest US TV talk shows and gets light years more coverage and support than he did just 18 montsh ago? Maybe he will never match Nadal or Federer, but I am sure Novak is not will not be hurting at any point financially.