The Federer v. Djokovic rivalry has become a classic hero v. villain narrative that has been played out 48 times to date. Like any of these stories, the longer the villain has power over the hero, the more anger is pointed towards the villain.
The dictionary tells us it is 'a person who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.' Etymologically the word Hero comes from Greek hērōs meaning demi-god or illustrious man.This is of uncertain origin; perhaps originally "defender or protector".
Roland Garros in the 1990s became even more specialised in terms of who had a chance of winning it outright. A lot of the champions at Roland Garros in the 90's and early 00's would see their only Grand Slam victories coming on the clay, that was the level of specialisation on that surface. When Nadal managed the RG and Wimbledon double in 2008 it was hailed as a miraculous achievement, not since Bjorg in 1980 had we seen someone achieve this double.
The Hard Courts in the 90's and 00's were somewhere in the middle but still favoured to an extent the big hitting power players like Rafter, Sampras, Safin and Roddick all winning titles. The baseliners had more of a shot at winning than they did during this period than they would've had at Wimbledon but nevertheless the most likely way to win in New York was to have a big serve and a strong volley and/or powerful groundstrokes to keep rallies short.
We are so used to long rallies now on all surfaces but back in those days 20+ shot rallies were very few and far between. Roland Garros was the only tournament were the big power serves were negated by the clay surface, so this was the only slam were long, suspenseful rallies were expected.
Federer's defeat of Pete Sampras, in their one and only meeting, represented for many a changing of the guard at the helm of Men's tennis. It also represented the transition from the 'robotic' power players to a more graceful, more artistic and more flamboyant champion in Federer. Now modern fans had an idle they could take to battle in the GOAT debates against the likes of Bjorg, Connors or Laver. A debate which had more meat on the bone than just pure numbers. He could compete on all surfaces and against all styles. An all-rounder that quickly found the admiration sponsors and fans alike.
In tennis terms, Federer is and has been the Heroic figure since his rise to the top of the tennis tree when he hit No.1 in the World at the beginning of 2004. Why Federer became a hero to so many is likely a combination of various factors, here are a few:
Before Federer's arrival at No.1 in the World, Men's tennis was at one of those generational junctures. Sampras and Agassi were coming towards the end of their careers and Grand Slams were being shared among a range of players. The Grand Slams had also tended towards specific player styles with the possibility of a player winning all four slams deemed almost impossible. Speciality players on clay would regularly drop out of Wimbledon in the first round. We also had the glamorous 80's. There was Bjorg who transformed the popularity of tennis with his rockstar like impact on the sport. Then McEnroe, the flamboyant serve-volleyer, with a fiery temper that made him stand out as the bad boy of tennis - the Villian in the Bjorg pantomime. The difference between McEnroe and Djokovic was that McEnroe was a bad boy. Regularly directing profanities towards officials to make his views felt and courting controversy all the way late into his career. This was a romantic era in tennis and the 90's was never able to live up to that. Side note: if Hawkeye existed back in the 80's how much impact would this have had on McEnroe's legacy?
The 90s came along and the power + fitness combination which began to dominate in the latter half of the 80s was now the staple diet. Wimbledon in the 90s was dominated by big servers bar the anomalous victory of Andre Agassi in 1992. How he managed to win on grass in that era was somewhat made clearer in his autobiography 'Open'. He describes a turbo-charged tennis ball machine concocted by his Father: 'My father says that if I hit 2,500 balls each day, I'll hit 17,500 balls each week, and at the end of one year I'll have hit nearly one million balls.' The 'Dragon' as it became nicknamed represented some of the players Andre would defeat on his way to winning that title, especially the big serving Goran Ivanisevic in the final. Agassi proved to be a cult hero in the latter part of his career. The rise to the top, the fall from grace and in the rankings and then rising back to no. 1 and reaching his potential as an all round great player. He is just one of eight players to have won all four slams and when he won his fourth in 1999 at Roland Garros, he was the first to do so since Roy Emerson had completed the feat in 1964. He was the fifth player to do, the list of eight now includes the modern big three - Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. A hero's journey of his own.
The big serving power game exemplified at Wimbledon was perceived by purists as damaging to tennis. Ace counts were a leading stat and even service breaks sometimes depended on the big server hitting a few double faults. Rallies were very short and generally the game wasn't as exciting to watch as it used to be. Sampras won 6 of his 7 Wimbledon titles in the 90's and whilst his greatness cannot be doubted, he was never the most exciting player to watch. We saw a ruthless efficiency from him.
The trend continued into the start of the 00's, but that trend would slow to a halt in 2002. That year the Wimbledon authorities switched to 100% perennial ryegrass which wears better under shuffling feet. The courts were previously composed of 70% rye and 30% creeping red fescue. This change meant a slowing of the ball and since then the big servers have struggled against the baseliners with a strong return of serve.
Lleyton Hewitt became the unlikeliest winner of Wimbledon in 2002, a decade after Agassi had caused a shock from the baseline. Since then the style of Roger Federer has been a dominating force at Wimbledon and most of the other grand slams for that matter.
From his first Grand Slam win at Wimbledon in 2003 to his 12th at the US Open in 2007 his dominance was becoming a bit of a concern for some. It was an interesting case of be careful what you wish for, the new hero was amazing to watch but was he too good? His dominance meant the game of tennis was possibly becoming boring for those other than the avid Federer fans. Nadal had started his path to greatness by winning 3 Roland Garros titles in this period but wasn't seen as a serious threat on any of the other surfaces until the 2007 Wimbledon final. He really pushed Federer and people were willing to accept a rival for Federer, all great players need great rivalries after-all. Federer could now test his greatness on a regular basis in Grand Slam finals. All his predecessors had their rivals eg Laver v Emerson, Bjorg v McEnroe, Edberg v Becker, Sampras v Agassi. Nadal was perfect! He was muscles and aggression, someone who you knew worked the game like a scientist. You could see hard work and heart in his style and this was heightened by the sleeveless tops showing off those iconic biceps. He was the antithesis of Federer's slick artistic approach to the game, the perfect foil. However, he was a bit too good to play this role! He was only supposed to compete with Federer in finals and push it to 5 sets maybe - but never to begin dominating on all surfaces. 2010 was Nadal's best year when he took the Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open titles. Djokovic at this time was a young pretender, a player with potential but someone who wasn't deemed a serious threat in the grand scheme of greatness - despite having one grand slam to his name from the 2008 Australian. Before Djokovic developed into the role of villain (as perceived by Federer fans), Nadal whilst popular was always playing second fiddle to the crowds when up against the Swiss Maestro. This is even the case at Roland Garros were he has dominated so much - when he plays Federer, the Chatrier crowd don't hide their feelings on who they want to prevail. The reaction to his 2009 RG title, his only victory there, was arguably the most rapturous reaction from a crowd at any Grand Slam victory in recent memory.
Federer's style is unquestionably the most artistic of all when it comes to the list of all time greats. The way he plays looks effortless. When his backhand is on form there is no better sight in tennis. His defence was always underestimated because he glided on the court, it looked like the other guys were all working so much harder even though they weren't.
The sponsorships followed quickly and he became a superstar bigger than the sport of Tennis itself. A clean cut guy from the alpine regions of Switzerland - down to earth, hard working and very classy. He represented all the great qualities that tennis wants to portray. The Federer fans quickly evolved into superfans as he began to dominate everyone else. Highlighting the views on Federer's rise was encapsulated in the NY Times in 2006 with a headline reading 'Roger Federer as Religious Experience'.
The love for Federer is at a point today were we see another tennis great being treated like a bad guy as he is in the way of their hero's path.
When a player this good to watch begins dominating, it gives the generation growing up with him their own player to fight for when it comes to the GOAT debates. Federer was rising up the ladder rapidly and eventually surpassing everyone else (Sampras in the all time list, or Bjorg's 5 in a row Wimbledon record). After the Australian Open in 2010 he was sitting on 16 Grand Slams, out on his own on the all-time Men's leaderboard. His fans expected to continue adding to this haul for the foreseeable future and it filled them with pride, like any sports fan who follows a winning team or individual. The issue for Federer is that in these 7 years he won 16 Slams but in the following 7 he would win just 4. Whilst those 4 have arguably been more impressive due to his age and longevity, it is not what the fans wanted. Nadal had been accepted in his own right and to fill the role as the rival for Federer. When Djokovic would enter later and start his own period of dominance, he was getting in the way. He was getting in the way of Federer winning more titles and also in the way of the great Federer v Nadal rivalry that had begun to blossom. There wasn't room for one more but Djokovic wasn't ready to follow the script any time soon.
The villain archetype wants to stop the hero from achieving his or her goal. The villain is often evil, though there is often a reason why villains are so bad.
So let's take a look at why Djokovic became marked with the stamp of the villainess character.
The most obvious reason why Djokovic unfortunately has picked up this role in the storyline of tennis is very much due to his rivalry with Federer. A villain is usually evil by nature but in tennis 'evil' may just be a metaphor for going up against what is good aka Federer.
Djokovic seems like a great person and great role model both on and off the court. You can tell at times he does not like it when the crowd cheer for the opposite player, which let's be honest - would you like that? At Grand Slams it is very common for the attendees to shout for the underdog in the hope to see longer matches meaning more tennis and better value for their ticket fee and day out. Therefore, Djokovic is most likely going to have the crowd against him pretty much all the time. I have been to matches when the crowd are going for Federer's opponent and it is for the same reasons mentioned above. Djokovic has struggled with the crowd going against him all his career. In 2018 US Open the crowd cheered when Djokovic double faulted in his match against Joao Sousa. Tennis legend Martina Navratilova spoke out in Djokovic's defence after the match saying “I know how it feels when the crowd is against you and you’re like ‘why don’t you love me?’” Navratilova said on the Tennis Channel. “It maybe some Slovak thing. Lendl was certainly not embraced..I wasn’t embraced for a long time and Novak should be getting a lot more crowd support than he gets..Yes, he can whined a little bit here and there but he’s such a good guy. Works so hard and the crowd, for me, they have not been fair to him.”
Over the years he has shown time and time again that when his back to the wall he is at his most dangerous. Here are some of the examples v Federer:
The Hero
 |
| Federer hits a forehand v Nadal at Wimbledon 2019 |
The dictionary tells us it is 'a person who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.' Etymologically the word Hero comes from Greek hērōs meaning demi-god or illustrious man.This is of uncertain origin; perhaps originally "defender or protector".
Roland Garros in the 1990s became even more specialised in terms of who had a chance of winning it outright. A lot of the champions at Roland Garros in the 90's and early 00's would see their only Grand Slam victories coming on the clay, that was the level of specialisation on that surface. When Nadal managed the RG and Wimbledon double in 2008 it was hailed as a miraculous achievement, not since Bjorg in 1980 had we seen someone achieve this double.
The Hard Courts in the 90's and 00's were somewhere in the middle but still favoured to an extent the big hitting power players like Rafter, Sampras, Safin and Roddick all winning titles. The baseliners had more of a shot at winning than they did during this period than they would've had at Wimbledon but nevertheless the most likely way to win in New York was to have a big serve and a strong volley and/or powerful groundstrokes to keep rallies short.
We are so used to long rallies now on all surfaces but back in those days 20+ shot rallies were very few and far between. Roland Garros was the only tournament were the big power serves were negated by the clay surface, so this was the only slam were long, suspenseful rallies were expected.
Federer's defeat of Pete Sampras, in their one and only meeting, represented for many a changing of the guard at the helm of Men's tennis. It also represented the transition from the 'robotic' power players to a more graceful, more artistic and more flamboyant champion in Federer. Now modern fans had an idle they could take to battle in the GOAT debates against the likes of Bjorg, Connors or Laver. A debate which had more meat on the bone than just pure numbers. He could compete on all surfaces and against all styles. An all-rounder that quickly found the admiration sponsors and fans alike.
In tennis terms, Federer is and has been the Heroic figure since his rise to the top of the tennis tree when he hit No.1 in the World at the beginning of 2004. Why Federer became a hero to so many is likely a combination of various factors, here are a few:
1. Evolution of Tennis and the arrival of Federer
The 90s came along and the power + fitness combination which began to dominate in the latter half of the 80s was now the staple diet. Wimbledon in the 90s was dominated by big servers bar the anomalous victory of Andre Agassi in 1992. How he managed to win on grass in that era was somewhat made clearer in his autobiography 'Open'. He describes a turbo-charged tennis ball machine concocted by his Father: 'My father says that if I hit 2,500 balls each day, I'll hit 17,500 balls each week, and at the end of one year I'll have hit nearly one million balls.' The 'Dragon' as it became nicknamed represented some of the players Andre would defeat on his way to winning that title, especially the big serving Goran Ivanisevic in the final. Agassi proved to be a cult hero in the latter part of his career. The rise to the top, the fall from grace and in the rankings and then rising back to no. 1 and reaching his potential as an all round great player. He is just one of eight players to have won all four slams and when he won his fourth in 1999 at Roland Garros, he was the first to do so since Roy Emerson had completed the feat in 1964. He was the fifth player to do, the list of eight now includes the modern big three - Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. A hero's journey of his own.
The big serving power game exemplified at Wimbledon was perceived by purists as damaging to tennis. Ace counts were a leading stat and even service breaks sometimes depended on the big server hitting a few double faults. Rallies were very short and generally the game wasn't as exciting to watch as it used to be. Sampras won 6 of his 7 Wimbledon titles in the 90's and whilst his greatness cannot be doubted, he was never the most exciting player to watch. We saw a ruthless efficiency from him.
The trend continued into the start of the 00's, but that trend would slow to a halt in 2002. That year the Wimbledon authorities switched to 100% perennial ryegrass which wears better under shuffling feet. The courts were previously composed of 70% rye and 30% creeping red fescue. This change meant a slowing of the ball and since then the big servers have struggled against the baseliners with a strong return of serve.
Lleyton Hewitt became the unlikeliest winner of Wimbledon in 2002, a decade after Agassi had caused a shock from the baseline. Since then the style of Roger Federer has been a dominating force at Wimbledon and most of the other grand slams for that matter.
From his first Grand Slam win at Wimbledon in 2003 to his 12th at the US Open in 2007 his dominance was becoming a bit of a concern for some. It was an interesting case of be careful what you wish for, the new hero was amazing to watch but was he too good? His dominance meant the game of tennis was possibly becoming boring for those other than the avid Federer fans. Nadal had started his path to greatness by winning 3 Roland Garros titles in this period but wasn't seen as a serious threat on any of the other surfaces until the 2007 Wimbledon final. He really pushed Federer and people were willing to accept a rival for Federer, all great players need great rivalries after-all. Federer could now test his greatness on a regular basis in Grand Slam finals. All his predecessors had their rivals eg Laver v Emerson, Bjorg v McEnroe, Edberg v Becker, Sampras v Agassi. Nadal was perfect! He was muscles and aggression, someone who you knew worked the game like a scientist. You could see hard work and heart in his style and this was heightened by the sleeveless tops showing off those iconic biceps. He was the antithesis of Federer's slick artistic approach to the game, the perfect foil. However, he was a bit too good to play this role! He was only supposed to compete with Federer in finals and push it to 5 sets maybe - but never to begin dominating on all surfaces. 2010 was Nadal's best year when he took the Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open titles. Djokovic at this time was a young pretender, a player with potential but someone who wasn't deemed a serious threat in the grand scheme of greatness - despite having one grand slam to his name from the 2008 Australian. Before Djokovic developed into the role of villain (as perceived by Federer fans), Nadal whilst popular was always playing second fiddle to the crowds when up against the Swiss Maestro. This is even the case at Roland Garros were he has dominated so much - when he plays Federer, the Chatrier crowd don't hide their feelings on who they want to prevail. The reaction to his 2009 RG title, his only victory there, was arguably the most rapturous reaction from a crowd at any Grand Slam victory in recent memory.
2. Style
The sponsorships followed quickly and he became a superstar bigger than the sport of Tennis itself. A clean cut guy from the alpine regions of Switzerland - down to earth, hard working and very classy. He represented all the great qualities that tennis wants to portray. The Federer fans quickly evolved into superfans as he began to dominate everyone else. Highlighting the views on Federer's rise was encapsulated in the NY Times in 2006 with a headline reading 'Roger Federer as Religious Experience'.
The love for Federer is at a point today were we see another tennis great being treated like a bad guy as he is in the way of their hero's path.
3. Dominance
The Villain
 |
| Djokovic applauds a winner v Bautista-Agut at Wimbledon 2019 |
The villain archetype wants to stop the hero from achieving his or her goal. The villain is often evil, though there is often a reason why villains are so bad.
So let's take a look at why Djokovic became marked with the stamp of the villainess character.
1. Threat to the Hero
Djokovic seems like a great person and great role model both on and off the court. You can tell at times he does not like it when the crowd cheer for the opposite player, which let's be honest - would you like that? At Grand Slams it is very common for the attendees to shout for the underdog in the hope to see longer matches meaning more tennis and better value for their ticket fee and day out. Therefore, Djokovic is most likely going to have the crowd against him pretty much all the time. I have been to matches when the crowd are going for Federer's opponent and it is for the same reasons mentioned above. Djokovic has struggled with the crowd going against him all his career. In 2018 US Open the crowd cheered when Djokovic double faulted in his match against Joao Sousa. Tennis legend Martina Navratilova spoke out in Djokovic's defence after the match saying “I know how it feels when the crowd is against you and you’re like ‘why don’t you love me?’” Navratilova said on the Tennis Channel. “It maybe some Slovak thing. Lendl was certainly not embraced..I wasn’t embraced for a long time and Novak should be getting a lot more crowd support than he gets..Yes, he can whined a little bit here and there but he’s such a good guy. Works so hard and the crowd, for me, they have not been fair to him.”
Over the years he has shown time and time again that when his back to the wall he is at his most dangerous. Here are some of the examples v Federer:
US Open 2010 Semi Final - Djokovic won 5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5
Quote from The Guardian: "Novak Djokovic not only dumped Roger Federer out of the US Open to rob tennis of what everyone bar Rafael Nadal reckoned would be the sport's all-time heavyweight championship. His pulsating win in the second semi-final also bolstered the suspicion that the Swiss's decline is turning from gradual to terminal." Note the narrative back then alluding to the idea that Djokovic was upsetting the status quo by robbing everyone of the match they wanted to see. In the fifth set Djokovic faced 2 match points. He showed that unbelievable depth of character to pull out some of his best tennis in the match to save those match points. This hold took it to 5-5, Federer didn't win another game.
US Open 2011 Semi Final - Djokovic won 6-7, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 7-5
This was an even more painful loss for Federer. As the Guardian suggested one year previous, Federer was perceived as in being in decline (imagine if they could've seen eight years into the future). He was up two sets and this time had two match points on his own serve, one of his most reliable weapons on the big points.
There is no doubt this went through Federer's mind as he served for the Wimbledon title at 8-7 with two championship points. Surely history cannot repeat itself?
What people who follow Federer probably like to forget is how he humiliated Djokovic in the 2009 US Open semi-final. He won in three straight sets and hit a very naughty tweener to set up match point. Whilst it was an amazing moment in tennis history and Federer rightly jumped for joy, when the camera shoots to Djokovic you could see the humiliation (and motivation). Federer two years on would criticise Djokovic's hit and hope forehand as classless and lucky, yet his tweener was in good taste? Again, this moment can't be underestimated in spicing up their rivalry. At 40-15, Djokovic waited at the baseline and began to nod his head. This nod was one of defiance towards a very pro-Federer crowd. The spectators were so rapturous every time Federer edged closer to victory that you felt this time it would help to actually push him over. Djokovic was having none of it, and that forehand may go down in history as one of the greatest forehand winners of all time. It's importance still echoes today in light of the 2019 Wimbledon Final.
As he hit the winner he turned to the crowd and raised his arms, it was a request for respect. He got it momentarily but when he went on to win the match and cause heartbreak for Federer and his army, this one stung. Taken from the Guardian article post match: "It's awkward having to explain this loss because I feel like I should be doing the other press conference." There followed a string of excuses and justifications which not only were barely sustainable given the evidence but seriously disrespected the winner. Asked about the quite remarkable forehand winner Djokovic hit to save match point, Federer reckoned the Serb did not look at that point like someone "who believes much anymore in winning. To lose against someone like that, it's very disappointing, because you feel like he was mentally out of it already. Just gets the lucky shot at the end, and off you go." Djokovic was honest enough to admit the shot was a gamble – but Federer was reluctant to give him credit even for that courage in a crisis, preferring to regard it as desperate. "Confidence? Are you kidding me?" he said when it was put to him the cross-court forehand off his first serve – described by John McEnroe as "one of the all-time great shots" – was either a function of luck or confidence. "I mean, please. Some players grow up and play like that – being down 5-2 in the third, and they all just start slapping shots. I never played that way. I believe hard work's going to pay off, because early on maybe I didn't always work at my hardest. For me, this is very hard to understand. How can you play a shot like that on match point? Maybe he's been doing it for 20 years, so for him it was very normal. You've got to ask him." Djokovic was in a more relaxed mood. "Yeah, I tend to do that on match points," he said, reminded that it was exactly what he did to Federer last year. "It kinda works."
As Djokovic began to challenge for Grand Slams he had developed two reputations other than being a very good tennis player. One was for his impressions and one was for his ailments which saw him forfeit a number of high profile matches or complain of injuries which raised question marks about his on-court integrity. The impressionist popularised the nickname 'Djoker' but in reality this may have added to his role as the villain, particularly at the US Open in 2008. The New York Times headline read 'The Arthur Ashe Crowd Has Fallen Out of Love With an Achy Djokovic' with the first paragraph reading 'From darling to dark knight, Novak Djokovic’s image in Gotham has taken such a tumble, it is no wonder he has been hailing trainers at this United States Open the way New Yorkers do cabs.' This commentary also alludes to a villainess character in the plot.
This reputation of someone who feigned injury earlier in his career has probably lingered to this day. His move to a gluten free diet in 2010 helped Djokovic put a lot of his issues to bed including allergies, asthma and chronic fatigue. However, this doesn't explain the controversy in 2015 in Melbourne in the Final Match v Murray. Below are some examples of medical issues during matches:
Quote from The Guardian: "Novak Djokovic not only dumped Roger Federer out of the US Open to rob tennis of what everyone bar Rafael Nadal reckoned would be the sport's all-time heavyweight championship. His pulsating win in the second semi-final also bolstered the suspicion that the Swiss's decline is turning from gradual to terminal." Note the narrative back then alluding to the idea that Djokovic was upsetting the status quo by robbing everyone of the match they wanted to see. In the fifth set Djokovic faced 2 match points. He showed that unbelievable depth of character to pull out some of his best tennis in the match to save those match points. This hold took it to 5-5, Federer didn't win another game.
US Open 2011 Semi Final - Djokovic won 6-7, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 7-5
This was an even more painful loss for Federer. As the Guardian suggested one year previous, Federer was perceived as in being in decline (imagine if they could've seen eight years into the future). He was up two sets and this time had two match points on his own serve, one of his most reliable weapons on the big points.
There is no doubt this went through Federer's mind as he served for the Wimbledon title at 8-7 with two championship points. Surely history cannot repeat itself?
What people who follow Federer probably like to forget is how he humiliated Djokovic in the 2009 US Open semi-final. He won in three straight sets and hit a very naughty tweener to set up match point. Whilst it was an amazing moment in tennis history and Federer rightly jumped for joy, when the camera shoots to Djokovic you could see the humiliation (and motivation). Federer two years on would criticise Djokovic's hit and hope forehand as classless and lucky, yet his tweener was in good taste? Again, this moment can't be underestimated in spicing up their rivalry. At 40-15, Djokovic waited at the baseline and began to nod his head. This nod was one of defiance towards a very pro-Federer crowd. The spectators were so rapturous every time Federer edged closer to victory that you felt this time it would help to actually push him over. Djokovic was having none of it, and that forehand may go down in history as one of the greatest forehand winners of all time. It's importance still echoes today in light of the 2019 Wimbledon Final.
As he hit the winner he turned to the crowd and raised his arms, it was a request for respect. He got it momentarily but when he went on to win the match and cause heartbreak for Federer and his army, this one stung. Taken from the Guardian article post match: "It's awkward having to explain this loss because I feel like I should be doing the other press conference." There followed a string of excuses and justifications which not only were barely sustainable given the evidence but seriously disrespected the winner. Asked about the quite remarkable forehand winner Djokovic hit to save match point, Federer reckoned the Serb did not look at that point like someone "who believes much anymore in winning. To lose against someone like that, it's very disappointing, because you feel like he was mentally out of it already. Just gets the lucky shot at the end, and off you go." Djokovic was honest enough to admit the shot was a gamble – but Federer was reluctant to give him credit even for that courage in a crisis, preferring to regard it as desperate. "Confidence? Are you kidding me?" he said when it was put to him the cross-court forehand off his first serve – described by John McEnroe as "one of the all-time great shots" – was either a function of luck or confidence. "I mean, please. Some players grow up and play like that – being down 5-2 in the third, and they all just start slapping shots. I never played that way. I believe hard work's going to pay off, because early on maybe I didn't always work at my hardest. For me, this is very hard to understand. How can you play a shot like that on match point? Maybe he's been doing it for 20 years, so for him it was very normal. You've got to ask him." Djokovic was in a more relaxed mood. "Yeah, I tend to do that on match points," he said, reminded that it was exactly what he did to Federer last year. "It kinda works."
2. The 'Djoker' with the 'Fake Injuries'
This reputation of someone who feigned injury earlier in his career has probably lingered to this day. His move to a gluten free diet in 2010 helped Djokovic put a lot of his issues to bed including allergies, asthma and chronic fatigue. However, this doesn't explain the controversy in 2015 in Melbourne in the Final Match v Murray. Below are some examples of medical issues during matches:
Australian Open Final defeated Murray:
Murray was angry at Djokovic for what the press described as faking injury. Djokovic explained "We both, of course, went through some tough moments physically. You could see that I had a crisis at the end of the second and beginning of the third. I just felt very exhausted and I needed some time to regroup and recharge and get back on track. That's what I've done."
Australian Open, 2010 lost to Tsonga:"I don't want to find excuses for my loss, but, you know, I went to vomit and I had diarrhoea before the match. After two games (of the fourth set) I had to go to the toilet. I couldn't hold on. There was no way, otherwise I would throw up on the court, just a terrible feeling."
Wimbledon, 2010 defeated Hewitt:Hewitt said: "He's always got something. He looked fine again in the fourth. He looked pretty comfortable at two sets to love." To which Djokovic responded: "I don't know why the people think that I'm always having something, which is absolutely wrong because I haven't asked for medical or physio timeout for a long time."
Australian Open, 2009 retired v Roddick: “I had cramping and soreness in my whole body. I tried my best but you cannot fight your own body.”
US Open, 2008 defeated Robredo: During a five-set victory Djokovic requested two medical timeouts and talked afterward about having two achy ankles, a sore hip and an unsettled stomach. An unhappy Robredo commented on Djokovic timeouts: “So did I trust him? No. I think he took his time because he did it because he was a little bit more tired and that’s a part of the game. It helped him a lot.”
Monte Carlo, April 2008 retired v Federer "I didn't feel good for the last three days. I've been waking up with a sore throat. The doctor in the tournament couldn't give me the right diagnosis."
Davis Cup, February 2008 retired v Davydenko: "I stopped because I didn't want to risk my health. I didn't go to hospital after all but still, I was feeling very dizzy. I was losing a lot of energy. It's not easy to play when you have a virus infection."
Wimbledon, 2007 semi-final retired v Nadal: "I didn't sleep during the night because I had a lot of bleeding and everything, so I was barely walking this morning,"
French Open, 2006 retired v Nadal: "I was only serving at 40 or 50 per cent maximum. I don't think it would have been good for me to continue playing with the pain in my back. This is not the only tournament in the year."
The nastiest exchange on this subject was with Andy Roddick. This was the follow up to the aforementioned Robredo match at the 2008 US Open. Roddick due to face Djokovic next was asked about the timeouts and he joked with a sting: “A back and a hip? And a cramp?... bird flu... anthrax... SARS... common cough and cold,” Roddick listed for reporters. “If it's there, it’s there, there’s just a lot. He’s either quick to call a trainer or he’s the most courageous guy of all time. It’s up to you guys to decide.”
Roddick later commented that Djokovic can do impressions of people but can't take a joke. He also claimed in later years he almost came to blows in when he pinned someone with a name similar Schmovak Schmokovic up against a locker.
Wimbledon, 2010 defeated Hewitt:Hewitt said: "He's always got something. He looked fine again in the fourth. He looked pretty comfortable at two sets to love." To which Djokovic responded: "I don't know why the people think that I'm always having something, which is absolutely wrong because I haven't asked for medical or physio timeout for a long time."
Australian Open, 2009 retired v Roddick: “I had cramping and soreness in my whole body. I tried my best but you cannot fight your own body.”
US Open, 2008 defeated Robredo: During a five-set victory Djokovic requested two medical timeouts and talked afterward about having two achy ankles, a sore hip and an unsettled stomach. An unhappy Robredo commented on Djokovic timeouts: “So did I trust him? No. I think he took his time because he did it because he was a little bit more tired and that’s a part of the game. It helped him a lot.”
Monte Carlo, April 2008 retired v Federer "I didn't feel good for the last three days. I've been waking up with a sore throat. The doctor in the tournament couldn't give me the right diagnosis."
Davis Cup, February 2008 retired v Davydenko: "I stopped because I didn't want to risk my health. I didn't go to hospital after all but still, I was feeling very dizzy. I was losing a lot of energy. It's not easy to play when you have a virus infection."
Wimbledon, 2007 semi-final retired v Nadal: "I didn't sleep during the night because I had a lot of bleeding and everything, so I was barely walking this morning,"
French Open, 2006 retired v Nadal: "I was only serving at 40 or 50 per cent maximum. I don't think it would have been good for me to continue playing with the pain in my back. This is not the only tournament in the year."
The nastiest exchange on this subject was with Andy Roddick. This was the follow up to the aforementioned Robredo match at the 2008 US Open. Roddick due to face Djokovic next was asked about the timeouts and he joked with a sting: “A back and a hip? And a cramp?... bird flu... anthrax... SARS... common cough and cold,” Roddick listed for reporters. “If it's there, it’s there, there’s just a lot. He’s either quick to call a trainer or he’s the most courageous guy of all time. It’s up to you guys to decide.”
Roddick later commented that Djokovic can do impressions of people but can't take a joke. He also claimed in later years he almost came to blows in when he pinned someone with a name similar Schmovak Schmokovic up against a locker.
After he went on to defeat Roddick, Djokovic in his on court interview made his feelings known: “That’s not nice anyhow to say in front of this crowd that I have 16 injuries and I am faking it. I have nothing against anybody. Andy was saying that I have 16 injuries in the last match so obviously I don’t, right?” Like it or not, it’s like that. They are already against me because they think I am faking everything, so sorry.”
The final element as to why Djokovic may not get the respect he certainly deserves may come to down to his style of play and his level of dominance in recent years.
Federer's artistry has been described a key attribute towards his hero status. A style that had saved tennis from big serving robots. The game rapidly evolved after Federer began to dominate. No longer did a big serve and some big groundstrokes win you the slams, you needed more strings to your bow. Djokovic and Murray's rise were very much aligned in terms of timelines. Both guys were relatively tall and had that balance of a strong serve, a strong backhand, a strong forehand and amazing defensive skills.
This textbook style of tennis was deemed by many as a bit dull in comparison to Federer's graceful attack and Nadal's big swinging forehand. In Djokovic's case, it was a style of predictability of the highest levels of effectiveness. Whilst nobody can deny Djokovic may be the most complete player of all time for technical ability, you don't hear many talk about his style of tennis in the awe and wonder you hear when people describe Federer.
Like many great rivalries, when this comes to and end one would think that there will be a mutual respect and to a certain extent a level of gratitude for bringing the very best out of each other.
Federer's legendary status is so solidified today, the expectation is that as time goes by this will only get reinforced. He will be a tennis hero for all time and will be discussed with reverence for many years to come.
Djokovic is a much more respected tennis player today compared to his early days of being the 'Djoker' who 'fakes injury'. He has now honed his technical skills and shown a level of depth in his character which means we can only respect him. You don't need to love him like fans idolise Federer but if you deny his greatness, then you know nothing of tennis.
On a personal level, I am a big fan of Djokovic. When you look at his childhood and where he came from to his rise in tennis you can only admire that journey, a hero's journey. From being questioned by his fellow players on his integrity, to now dominating tennis and becoming a very strong candidate to end with the most Men's grand slams wins - the future is very exciting for Djokovic. Perhaps the undesirable role of being the villain has helped him be the successful player he is today. His greatest moments come down to those times in matches when everything seems lost and everyone seems against him - he fights back and that is inspiring and one day that is how he will be remembered... A HERO!
Want to be Inspired? Check out Djokovic's amazing story on Jay Shetty's Podcast:
3. Style and Dominance
Federer's artistry has been described a key attribute towards his hero status. A style that had saved tennis from big serving robots. The game rapidly evolved after Federer began to dominate. No longer did a big serve and some big groundstrokes win you the slams, you needed more strings to your bow. Djokovic and Murray's rise were very much aligned in terms of timelines. Both guys were relatively tall and had that balance of a strong serve, a strong backhand, a strong forehand and amazing defensive skills.
This textbook style of tennis was deemed by many as a bit dull in comparison to Federer's graceful attack and Nadal's big swinging forehand. In Djokovic's case, it was a style of predictability of the highest levels of effectiveness. Whilst nobody can deny Djokovic may be the most complete player of all time for technical ability, you don't hear many talk about his style of tennis in the awe and wonder you hear when people describe Federer.
The Future
Federer's legendary status is so solidified today, the expectation is that as time goes by this will only get reinforced. He will be a tennis hero for all time and will be discussed with reverence for many years to come.
Djokovic is a much more respected tennis player today compared to his early days of being the 'Djoker' who 'fakes injury'. He has now honed his technical skills and shown a level of depth in his character which means we can only respect him. You don't need to love him like fans idolise Federer but if you deny his greatness, then you know nothing of tennis.
On a personal level, I am a big fan of Djokovic. When you look at his childhood and where he came from to his rise in tennis you can only admire that journey, a hero's journey. From being questioned by his fellow players on his integrity, to now dominating tennis and becoming a very strong candidate to end with the most Men's grand slams wins - the future is very exciting for Djokovic. Perhaps the undesirable role of being the villain has helped him be the successful player he is today. His greatest moments come down to those times in matches when everything seems lost and everyone seems against him - he fights back and that is inspiring and one day that is how he will be remembered... A HERO!
Can't wait for US Open!
Want to be Inspired? Check out Djokovic's amazing story on Jay Shetty's Podcast:
Comments
Post a Comment