more about Novak Djokovic, a tennis champion

 

On Sunday, July 16, 20-year-old Carlos "Carlito" Alcaraz defeated the dominant Novak Djokovic in the Wimbledon men's final.

 

Seven of Djokovic's all-time record 23 Grand Slam tournament wins are at Wimbledon. This was Alcaraz's first time winning the tournament.

 

Tennis has buzzed about Alcaraz for almost two years now. He is the latest young talent believed capable of ending Djokovic's reign.

 

Nevertheless, I, like most tennis fans, believed Djokovic was still too great too consistently to lose this match. But he did, and Alcaraz is the top-ranked player in men's tennis now.

 

The fans cheered on Alcaraz, celebrating not only every winner he smashed across court, but also every Djokovic error. It could have been Alcaraz playing, it could have been Kim Jong Un—the crowd always roots against Djokovic. I wrote a little about this before.

 

Why do people root against him? 

 

I think the first reason is timing: Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal came first, and fans fell in love. Djokovic emerged after fans built relationships with them, and then he was beating tennis fans' heroes.

 

Second, people are shallow. Federer and Nadal are handsome and look like heroes. Djokovic does not look like a hero. He looks like the villain. Maybe part of that is because, in Western culture, villains are often Eastern Europeans.

 

Third—my armchair psychologist's opinion—Djokovic, 36, leans into conflict because he grew up in Serbia in the 1990s. Maybe that plays into the complicated Djokovic-crowd dynamic.

 

Finally, Djokovic really cares whether the crowd likes him, and that is unforgivable. Roger Federer never had to worry about it. Rafael Nadal never seemed to worry. And neither does Alcaraz.

 

Alcaraz's win was the big. Tennis does feel different now. How will fans respond to Djokovic if he falls?

 

From The New Yorker:

Whether this outcome represented a changing of the guard—the vanquishing, finally, of a generation that has ruled men’s tennis since Alcaraz was a toddler—remains to be seen. Djokovic appeared far from finished. What the final showed for sure is that, when it is all on the line, Alcaraz will decide to play his game and be himself, and that what he can bring in those moments is the stuff of greatness.

Notes:

• When the match began, most people, including commentators John and Patrick McEnroe, believed Djokovic would win. But an IBM modeler—supposed AI—predicted Alcaraz, 55-45.
  
• Relevant posts from me: something about Novak Djokovic and his 2022 Australian Open quest and about tennis and a new piece in The New Yorker.

about tennis and a new piece in The New Yorker

The Australian Open men's final this year was awesome. The Russki, Daniil Medvedev, is a funny, quasi-villain and impending champion, and Rafa Nadal, in his mid-30s now, is the sport's older statesman—older even beyond his tennis years because his unrelenting hustle and highly physical style of play has worn down his body. But Medvedev had the harder journey to this final, and Nadal is still a champion. Here is how a piece from The New Yorker summarizes Nadal's winning tactics:

Nadal’s topspin forehand gets a ball to not only bounce up but penetrate deeper wherever it’s headed, and he sent Medvedev chasing angled shots that bounded beyond the sidelines. He moved Medvedev forward and back with short slices, followed by deep, out-of-reach groundstrokes.

And then here is the column denouement:

Nadal spoke before the tournament began about how majors are bigger than any one player, and how generations of players come and go but the game remains. He also talked about how tennis is, as he put it, “zero important” compared with the pandemic that has swept the world. This was his way of talking about Djokovic, whose arrival, unvaccinated, in Melbourne, and subsequent deportation dominated coverage of the sport in the week before the Australian Open began, and threatened to cloud it afterward. That it didn’t—that the tennis was just too good not to become what mattered—was due in great part to Nadal and to Barty. That’s what the greatest champions can do.

 

Note: The final was played on January 30, 2022.

 

something about Novak Djokovic and his 2022 Australian Open quest

The Australian Open starts next week. Heading into it, the big story is how Novak Djokovic's anti-vaccine stance is jeopardizing his Australian visa status. Djokovic is the top men's tennis player in the world now.

For a while, tennis had the Big Three—Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, the youngest. But Djokovic, unlike Federer and Nadal, has never been a fan favorite (outside of Serbia, where he is loved, of course). Fans tend to root for Djokovic’s opponents.

Why he is disliked is sort of a mystery, and some sportswriters have explored the question. He actually seems to feed on the negativity during matches, though, and he will no doubt one day hold the record for winning the most Grand Slam tournaments. Over the last two years, with Federer and Nadal not playing as much, I noticed that fans seemed to finally start to come around to Djokovic. But right now, he is everywhere and for the wrong reasons, and he will be booed if he plays this tournament.

He won last year’s Australian Open, so he wants to defend his title. And if he won this tournament, it would be an incredible fuck you because he would win it in a country that did not want him there while pulling ahead of fan favorites and his rivals Nadal and Federer in the ranking for most Grand Slam tournaments won, thereby making him, effectively, the Greatest of All Time. Incredible.

His status is still in limbo, and he is running out of time to deliver maybe the biggest fuck you in sports history.

 

about admiration for Roger Federer

Federer fans usually remark on the beauty of his play. His game is one of finesse; his style, one of elegance. His endorsement deals reinforce this perception: while other players pitch soft drinks and tennis shoes, Federer stars in Rolex and Mercedes Benz commercials.

I have always cheered for Roger Federer. I cheered for him when he was dominant with a number-one ranking. And I cheer for him now that he is tennis' best, oldest underdog.

After the ascension of Rafael Nadal (and then Novak Djokovic and then Andy Murray), Federer's recasting as an underdog gave me a new and convenient reason to cheer for him. But Federer has been a fan favorite most of his career. Why he has always been a fan favorite is not obvious to me; I am skeptical that style of play alone can earn a player such popularity.
 

Note:
(1) Federer's foil, nemesis, and antithesis is Rafael Nadal (known simply as Rafa). Nadal grinds you down like a stale routine. His game is hustle. Obsession. Compulsion. Nadal will get every ball back over the net, forcing his opponent to eventually lose the point by shanking the ball into the net or out of bounds. (Nadal's game is not without beauty.) In addition to his style of play, another ugly aspect of Nadal is that he is noticeably neurotic, pulling at his clothes and hair compulsively--this aspect is well documented.
(2) The French Open begins Sunday.