Djokovic - January 2011 interview....how prophetic??!!

http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/67063.html

Reading this interview in retrospect is quite interesting. It looks like Djoko knows he is going to be successful in 2011 and proves it with the best possible start by winning the AO and not losing a match for the next 6 months!.

I find the way it ends strange too. What does he really mean?

In could not have put it more clearly in that interview that he was going to be successful this year.

Maybe the magical egg chamber provides psychic powers. Actually I knew Novak was going to have a very strong year watching him play davis cup, his serve was back. I had no idea it would be this good or else I would have won quite a bit of money. However, the davis cup he served lights out, and it was the first time his serve looked that good since really the end of 2008. Novak with no serve was the #3 player in the world when his serve started to round in to form I could tell he was going to have a great year after finding his serve. But I definetly didn't think it would be this good, i just thought he would have a good chance and predicted that he would win the USO or AO before the year. Not both and plus wimby.

Tenez what are you insinuating do you see something sinister that I don't? Hewitt before the AO saw the way he was hitting the ball and predicted he would win it.

Socal, now that the season is almost over for Novak; during which part of the season would you say he played his best tennis?

I would go with the AUS open. I thought he looked great in the quarters (?Berdych). I actually had him as slight favourite against Fed in the semi's.

I thought the match against Fed was probably the highest level that we've seen from any two players in one match all year. Awesome stuff. Three sets took 3 hours and knowing how fast Roger plays, that should give an indication of how long and brutal some of those rallies were. But they were interspersed with stunning winners from both players. Really tense and intense affair.

He then steamrolled Murray. I think he lost just one set in that tournament.

That AO semi is characteristic of Djoko's new tactics. He is look for lengthening the rallies in Federer's BH in particular, knowing the dividends would come sooner or later. In the past he had doubt he coudl lengthen the rallies at will. In 2011 he knows he can rely on his stamina.

I think the interview shows that Novak knew just how cleanly he was striking the ball. I agree with emancipator, looking back over the year, the AO was where Djokovic looked in another realm to the rest of the field in terms of his form.

What a tremendous year it has been for him, and for me the US Open was so impressive because he won it while clearly hurting, and against Mr Kryptonite!

Nah Tenez i think Djokovic was just being very optimistic rather than suggesting he was surely going to add a slam in 2011.. agree with Socal regarding his serve consistency, definitely brought back the memories of his 2007/2008 game, although he's much better than he was back then!

emancipator wrote:Socal, now that the season is almost over for Novak; during which part of the season would you say he played his best tennis?

I would go with the AUS open. I thought he looked great in the quarters (?Berdych). I actually had him as slight favourite against Fed in the semi's.

I thought the match against Fed was probably the highest level that we've seen from any two players in one match all year. Awesome stuff. Three sets took 3 hours and knowing how fast Roger plays, that should give an indication of how long and brutal some of those rallies were. But they were interspersed with stunning winners from both players. Really tense and intense affair.

He then steamrolled Murray. I think he lost just one set in that tournament.

I think he played magnificiently in australia, as emancipator states but I think if I had to pick a tournament where he played his best was Rome. He had a tough semi against Murray who played one of his best matches of the year and beat him by a hair. Then on the next day when exhaustion should have played a role he very clinically dismantled Nadal. I think in Australia he surprised everyone, but to beat Nadal for a second straight time on clay the day after a 3 hour plus match with murray was probably the most impressive performance in my mind. He was just playing errorless tennis.

I have yet to find an explanation of what he means by that:

However Djokovic, who is a popular member on the men's tour, refuses to adopt a 'win at all costs' mentality. He said: "If I have to sacrifice being No. 1 in the world that's OK because I don't want to change my personality. It's more important for me to be a good person than to be a good tennis player."

It's just a bit of comforting self-delusion.

bogbrush wrote:It's just a bit of comforting self-delusion.

That's the best way I could read it. I read something else though. Clearly that he could have been number 1 earlier by bending his moral ethics....and clearly he doesn;t mean taking extra time between the points, does he?

It's a weird comment in any case.

However Djokovic, who is a popular member on the men's tour, refuses to adopt a 'win at all costs' mentality. He said: "If I have to sacrifice being No. 1 in the world that's OK because I don't want to change my personality. It's more important for me to be a good person than to be a good tennis player."

He's a very easy going, gentle, respectful man this Djokovic..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb89wl59hHA

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's just a bit of comforting self-delusion.

That's the best way I could read it. I read something else though. Clearly that he could have been number 1 earlier by bending his moral ethics....and clearly he doesn;t mean taking extra time between the points, does he?

It's a weird comment in any case.

I don't get that at all tenez. You are drawing inference upon inference to turn that into some sort of veiled accusation at Nadal in regards to PEDs. He was probably asked a stupid question like how much he values the #1, and he gave some sort of answer that really doesn't impart the meaning that you are drawing from it. I don't see how the text of this quote leads to the inference you are drawing.

socal1976 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's just a bit of comforting self-delusion.

That's the best way I could read it. I read something else though. Clearly that he could have been number 1 earlier by bending his moral ethics....and clearly he doesn;t mean taking extra time between the points, does he?

It's a weird comment in any case.

I don't get that at all tenez. You are drawing inference upon inference to turn that into some sort of veiled accusation at Nadal in regards to PEDs. He was probably asked a stupid question like how much he values the #1, and he gave some sort of answer that really doesn't impart the meaning that you are drawing from it. I don't see how the text of this quote leads to the inference you are drawing.

socal. To me it reads like a response to a question from a journo. So many of the comments by players that are overly scrutinised or criticised on here are taken out of context of the interview and what was asked. At other times, players are criticised for comments that were intentionally ironic or sarcastic because people respond to a printed overview rather than hearing the interview first hand. One of the most obvious (and I apologise for hijacking this Fed's way here) is Roge being criticised for his 'not for a thousand years' comment about British success at slams. I watched the Courier interview on court at AO 2010 and he was taking the p*ss out of the British Media, not out of Murray or GB - that was clearly understood by all who watched the interview at the time, but he took considerable flak on forums from people who responded to - let's see - yep, the British Media's reporting of the comment taken out of context of the interview!

Anyway, apologies again for diverting - I am sure Novak was asked about his impersonations and whether he has to leave a certain locker room camaraderie behind if he reaches No 1 and this was his response.

socal1976 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's just a bit of comforting self-delusion.

That's the best way I could read it. I read something else though. Clearly that he could have been number 1 earlier by bending his moral ethics....and clearly he doesn;t mean taking extra time between the points, does he?

It's a weird comment in any case.

I don't get that at all tenez. You are drawing inference upon inference to turn that into some sort of veiled accusation at Nadal in regards to PEDs. He was probably asked a stupid question like how much he values the #1, and he gave some sort of answer that really doesn't impart the meaning that you are drawing from it. I don't see how the text of this quote leads to the inference you are drawing.

Instead of saying what it doesn't mean, tell me what you think it means. Only you are making the insinuation to Nadal here. Not me.

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's just a bit of comforting self-delusion.

That's the best way I could read it. I read something else though. Clearly that he could have been number 1 earlier by bending his moral ethics....and clearly he doesn;t mean taking extra time between the points, does he?

It's a weird comment in any case.

I don't get that at all tenez. You are drawing inference upon inference to turn that into some sort of veiled accusation at Nadal in regards to PEDs. He was probably asked a stupid question like how much he values the #1, and he gave some sort of answer that really doesn't impart the meaning that you are drawing from it. I don't see how the text of this quote leads to the inference you are drawing.

Instead of saying what it doesn't mean, tell me what you think it means. Only you are making the insinuation to Nadal here. Not me.

The narrative is a little familiar now Tenez so I drew the same conclusion from your post as socal - methinks you are being just a little disingenuous?

time please wrote:

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's just a bit of comforting self-delusion.

That's the best way I could read it. I read something else though. Clearly that he could have been number 1 earlier by bending his moral ethics....and clearly he doesn;t mean taking extra time between the points, does he?

It's a weird comment in any case.

I don't get that at all tenez. You are drawing inference upon inference to turn that into some sort of veiled accusation at Nadal in regards to PEDs. He was probably asked a stupid question like how much he values the #1, and he gave some sort of answer that really doesn't impart the meaning that you are drawing from it. I don't see how the text of this quote leads to the inference you are drawing.

Instead of saying what it doesn't mean, tell me what you think it means. Only you are making the insinuation to Nadal here. Not me.

The narrative is a little familiar now Tenez so I drew the same conclusion from your post as socal - methinks you are being just a little disingenuous?

Yet you stll won't try to interpret what he says! Just discuss the topic, not what you think I mean! For me it's a kind of clear what he or they mean. It's another case of congratulating the player AND the teams. Never a sensible tennis player woudl have said something like, even in the recent past. coaches and physio have always been around, yet you congratulate the guy on the court...not his physio and their cousins!

Tenez wrote:

time please wrote:

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's just a bit of comforting self-delusion.

That's the best way I could read it. I read something else though. Clearly that he could have been number 1 earlier by bending his moral ethics....and clearly he doesn;t mean taking extra time between the points, does he?

It's a weird comment in any case.

I don't get that at all tenez. You are drawing inference upon inference to turn that into some sort of veiled accusation at Nadal in regards to PEDs. He was probably asked a stupid question like how much he values the #1, and he gave some sort of answer that really doesn't impart the meaning that you are drawing from it. I don't see how the text of this quote leads to the inference you are drawing.

Instead of saying what it doesn't mean, tell me what you think it means. Only you are making the insinuation to Nadal here. Not me.

The narrative is a little familiar now Tenez so I drew the same conclusion from your post as socal - methinks you are being just a little disingenuous?

Yet you stll won't try to interpret what he says! Just discuss the topic, not what you think I mean! For me it's a kind of clear what he or they mean. It's another case of congratulating the player AND the teams. Never a sensible tennis player woudl have said something like, even in the recent past. coaches and physio have always been around, yet you congratulate the guy on the court...not his physio and their cousins!

Well I look forward to discussing the topic, or rather the point .......if you will just come to it Tenez At the moment it's kind of hard to guess what it is because it's sort of dangling in the air. Perhaps the best starting point is to ask you what you think Djokovic meant by it?

Family screaming for supper so have to go, but catch you later

To me he is clearly saying that his ethics had prevented him from cutting corners.

It's certainly a very weird thing to say cause you would expect that's the case for all players so why saying it?

I seem to recall reading a fuller-length version of this at the time. If memory serves the context was about his impressions and being thought of as a bit of a joker, and whether he would relinquish that part of his character in order to get to #1.

Tenez wrote:I have yet to find an explanation of what he means by that:

However Djokovic, who is a popular member on the men's tour, refuses to adopt a 'win at all costs' mentality. He said: "If I have to sacrifice being No. 1 in the world that's OK because I don't want to change my personality. It's more important for me to be a good person than to be a good tennis player."

Well he gets on well with and is always complimentary about Nadal, Murray, the rest of the tour but there seems to be quite a bit a lot of bad blood between Djokovic, his family and Roger Federer.

My take is that he doesn't want to become No. 1 if it means turning into a pompous, arrogant bad loser who disrespectfully tells opponents' parents to "shut up" when he is not having a good day, unlike his Swiss former nemesis.

Positively 4th Street wrote:I seem to recall reading a fuller-length version of this at the time. If memory serves the context was about his impressions and being thought of as a bit of a joker, and whether he would relinquish that part of his character in order to get to #1.

That's what I assumed it to mean Positively. Given Nole's character it was the obvious question he would have been asked.

I don't agree with your assumption at all Tenez - Nole is not given to making cryptic remarks in the first place to my knowledge!

Positively 4th Street wrote:I seem to recall reading a fuller-length version of this at the time. If memory serves the context was about his impressions and being thought of as a bit of a joker, and whether he would relinquish that part of his character in order to get to #1.

I am afraid that's a completely different matter and interview altogether. His impressions have nothing to do with his chances of reaching number one and even less about the ethics of getting there.

It looks like some are simply bent on not reading it the way it's said.

I might be wrong in my interpretation but frankly, it makes much more sense than any reference to his impressions!

Tenez wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:I seem to recall reading a fuller-length version of this at the time. If memory serves the context was about his impressions and being thought of as a bit of a joker, and whether he would relinquish that part of his character in order to get to #1.

I am afraid that's a completely different matter and interview altogether. His impressions have nothing to do with his chances of reaching number one and even less about the ethics of getting there.

It looks like some are simply bent on not reading it the way it's said.

I might be wrong in my interpretation but frankly, it makes much more sense than any reference to his impressions!

I don't think so, but will check tomorrow. You should re-read your second sentence, your lack of irony is quite astonishing. Just my recollection, I'm not bent on anything. One crackpot crusader is enough for any forum...

I agree that his impressions are irrelevant, but that doesn't mean it wasn't what he was asked about or was talking about.

Your interpretation makes sense to you through your warped prism. Being open to alternative views is an indicator of intelligence, I'll leave it at that.

Positively 4th Street wrote:Your interpretation makes sense to you through your warped prism. Being open to alternative views is an indicator of intelligence, I'll leave it at that.

My warped prism? sure. Unlike you I don't watch tennis thinking those guys are great natural phyical talents. I wasn't born yesterday.

Ask yourself why they got 14 cases of doping at ping pong(!) this year alone and only 3 at tennis!

Positevly this is more a case of bad journalism, as you correctly point out that quote is kind of just thrown in at the end without telling us what the topic of discussion is. It obviously is not a veiled accusation of PEDs.

Icecold I remember that incident where Roger yelled at Novak's parents for having the nerve to cheer for their son in between points. It is funny how the media at the time was talking about how awful Novak's box was, but in actuality it was Federer's behavior that was beyond the pale and an affront to tennis decorum on that day. I watched that match all they were doing was cheering loudly BETWEEN POINTS and that upset king Roger. They weren't yelling out between points or heckling him. That day I went from really liking Roger to be deeply ambivalent and conflicted about him. But the thing that peed me off the most was the press being up in arms at the affrontery of Djokovic's parents in cheering "too loudly" for their son. Since that day I haven't ever really rooted for federer.

Well, I managed to find the interview that I had read originally. It was with Neil Harman and was in the Times at the start of the year. Harman revisited it recently after Djokovic won the US Open. It's a subscription site so I will have to copy-and-paste it verbatim:

“As you get older you get wiser, this is natural and definitely I am using a lot of experiences in my life as a good school,” Djokovic said. “It is about learning every day how I should behave on and off the court and how I should accept my commitments in my profession.

“But it all depends on the surroundings that you are coming from, the mentality you have and what the culture is because Serbia has a specific mentality. We are very, very emotional, very temperamental, very much family, and it’s very hard to balance that.

“But through wars, through the very bad economic times for our country a lot of people could not travel so they could not really see how it was working in other countries. Me, I was travelling and now I get both views, the way I have been raised – I always want to respect that, the values I have from my family, but on the other side I can see things in other countries that I experience, that I want to implement in my life. It’s a fine balance always. But if you ask me if I will ever, I don’t know, stop being a nice guy, stop satisfying people or whatever, no, just no. I like it.

“If I have to sacrifice, I don’t know, being No 1 in the world [he was only No 3 then], if that’s the sacrifice that’s OK because I don’t want to change my personality. I think this is really important, that’s the way I’ve been taught by my parents. Just be the way you are, keep that. It’s more important for me to be a good person than to be a good tennis player. If I can combine that, it’s great but...”

I read the 'satisfying people' bit to be about his joker image, but may have interpreted it incorrectly. What is clear as day is that there is no mention of ethics, coaching teams or PEDs, I'm afraid Tenez.

socal1976 wrote:Positevly this is more a case of bad journalism, as you correctly point out that quote is kind of just thrown in at the end without telling us what the topic of discussion is. It obviously is not a veiled accusation of PEDs.

Icecold I remember that incident where Roger yelled at Novak's parents for having the nerve to cheer for their son in between points. It is funny how the media at the time was talking about how awful Novak's box was, but in actuality it was Federer's behavior that was beyond the pale and an affront to tennis decorum on that day. I watched that match all they were doing was cheering loudly BETWEEN POINTS and that upset king Roger. They weren't yelling out between points or heckling him. That day I went from really liking Roger to be deeply ambivalent and conflicted about him. But the thing that peed me off the most was the press being up in arms at the affrontery of Djokovic's parents in cheering "too loudly" for their son. Since that day I haven't ever really rooted for federer.

Steady on - I don't think that the incident was worthy of taking a life or death stance either way. They had said "the king is dead" or words to that effect only months beforehand, they were at Fed's end in a Court without many spectators - right close to him, and cheering away so they would obviously have been heard by him. There's no law against cheering between points, but not all behaviour that involves staying with in the rules is good or appropriate behavour. It is not a football match, players need to compose themselves between points and repetitive partisan cheering in a relatively small crowd in those circumstances that does not take account of the ebb and flow of a match is not good behaviour - Fed did not need to say "be quiet", but it's not the end of the world that he did.

Of course he is not going to be as direct in an interview talking about PEDs and or other ways to get to number 1. He is not stupid. He is very smart actually. It's up to us to read between the lines.

Very much like when he congratulates not only the player but his team too.
As far as I remember I never heard him congratulate Federer and his team.

Not a 'completely different matter and interview altogether' though as you rashly claimed yesterday, that was what I set out to show. You hide behind no one saying it directly, and assume there is wrongdoing when there may not be. Quite clever really, as it is difficult to show anyone is clean, but I tire of you banging the same drum. If it comes to pass you can jump on the spot and tell us you were right but until that day I'll enjoy the tennis, physical or otherwise.

Really though, if Djokovic and Federer thought they were being denied the biggest prizes due to 'unethical' behaviour or PEDs would they stay quiet?

Positively 4th Street wrote:Really though, if Djokovic and Federer thought they were being denied the biggest prizes due to 'unethical' behaviour or PEDs would they stay quiet?

Oh yeah? and what would they say if WADA and the ITF can't prove it? And worse if they know that should they be caught the most likely is they'll cover up. Someone won the TDF for 7 years with everybody knowing what was going on....yet noone inside said anything at the time.

Again, I don;t want to discuss the specifics of doping here. However there are clues about droping there and then which I find amusing, especially coming from top players. " I prefer to stay good than become number 1 at all cost!" can hardly be clearer.

Barrystar, well i disagree not saying Novak's mother's comments were appropriate, I don't think it was proper on her part. But on that day Roger didn't have a right to do that on court to yell at someone else's box who cheered within the rules and within the bounds of what is right. It just rubbed me the the wrong way and I lost a lot of affection and respect for Roger. Which is fine he can't please everyone.

Positively, the quote you produced clearly shows the context beyond the text. It is in no way a sly reference to Nadal's PEDs. I think that has be proven.

socal1976 wrote:Barrystar, well i disagree not saying Novak's mother's comments were appropriate, I don't think it was proper on her part. But on that day Roger didn't have a right to do that on court to yell at someone else's box who cheered within the rules and within the bounds of what is right. It just rubbed me the the wrong way and I lost a lot of affection and respect for Roger. Which is fine he can't please everyone.

Positively, the quote you produced clearly shows the context beyond the text. It is in no way a sly reference to Nadal's PEDs. I think that has be proven.

Cheers socal. It is clear to any rational mind that there is nothing about ethics or PEDs in there.

On the crowd incident, don't think either party really came out of it well. The Djokovics may not have done anything out of the rules, but I find them a bit over the top and can see why Federer would too. At the same time, Federer can be hubristic and was especially so during his peak years.

icecold wrote:

Tenez wrote:I have yet to find an explanation of what he means by that:

However Djokovic, who is a popular member on the men's tour, refuses to adopt a 'win at all costs' mentality. He said: "If I have to sacrifice being No. 1 in the world that's OK because I don't want to change my personality. It's more important for me to be a good person than to be a good tennis player."

Well he gets on well with and is always complimentary about Nadal, Murray, the rest of the tour but there seems to be quite a bit a lot of bad blood between Djokovic, his family and Roger Federer.

My take is that he doesn't want to become No. 1 if it means turning into a pompous, arrogant bad loser who disrespectfully tells opponents' parents to "shut up" when he is not having a good day, unlike his Swiss former nemesis.

They were making calls, and he was winning.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Except I watched the match and didn't hear them calling out during points bogbrush, watched the whole thing and found federer to be really nasty in that incident.

Positevly, haven't found a shred of evidence that this is anyway refrence to Nadal or PEDs. I really find it amusing that the self proclaimed foutainhead of tennis could turn this innocent quote into an accusation of PED use. I guess I lack the proper knowledge or experience to read Djokovic's mind and divine non-existant meaning from said quotation. I am sure that the font of tennis knowledge could somehow infer an accusation of PED use against Nadal from someone talking about how they like Chocolate ice cream.