Nole Needs Roger And Rafa

Of course Djokovic has won trophies without having to play either Federer or Nadal but can he generate much interest without them?

Both Federer and Nadal bring an extra something to the court. They are capable of producing great matches and excitement against many opponants. They have proved this time and time again. Even against lesser opponants with an easy score line they rarely dissapoint. Of course they bring out their best when really challenged and until recently the big challenge was when they played each other. IMO that still remains the best match up in tennis.

However Djokovic has always been able to push both Federer and Nadal to bring out their best tennis... especially recently! They do the same to him. They bring out the very best in Djokovic. He is forced out of his comfort zone and manages to produce the sort of exciting tennis that is often lacking in most of his other matches. He has been involved in some very memorable matches against both these great players.

Roger and Rafa make Nole look great. He needs them in a way that they don't need him.

Fed and Nadal need each other too and having Nole on the scene improves things even further.

I'm not so sure I agree with the idea that Rafa and Roger bring something special even against other opponents. How often do people talk of Rafa's Wimbledon final against Berdych? Or either of their FO finals against Soderling?

Great sport needs worthy adversaries and it is really only these three (and maybe to a lesser extent Murray) that can provide that to each other.

Unopposed dominance can reveal excellence but, like Schumacher in Formula 1, it's not always a captivating spectacle.

Hawky,

Tutt tutt eh? Some bitch-slaping threads lately

However it is a thought provoking thread as you are on to something, but not the point you are insinuating. Is Djokovic on his own a global brand? I think he is now. He is the name on everyone's lips in the tennis world and everyone has finally started to take notice.

Where he needs Rafa and Roger is from a competitive aspect. Like McEnroe needed Borg. When Borg hung up his racquet, yes tennis suffered commercially, but stars were born. You had Lendl, Wilander coming through to challenge the American contingent that was McEnroe and Connors. Nole needs Rafa and Roger to keep him sharp.

Imagine for a second that tomorrow Nadal and Federer hung up their racquets, who could breakthrough? Murray? Del Potro? Gasquet? Dolgopolov? Raonic? My point being is that tennis moves on. I am sure that there are many fans out there who could never imagine anyone past Sampras or Agassi and we were given Federer and later Nadal.

When players taste Slam success they are able to imprint their personality on the game. when Roger won Wimbledon 2003, there was still an air of un-certainty to personality he was. Further success resulted in him being recognised for his fashion sense and his elegant ways off the court. When Nadal broke through, it took him longer given that Clay was all that he experienced success on, only after winning Wimbledon people took notice and interest generated after that. A player coming up and treasuring family loyalty and respect.

Nole at this moment in time is enigmatic. Can have a joke, but can also be serious. He is an intense character and long before his Slam success was known as a bit of a Joker, but now plays up to the un-beatable man persona.

This is what the future stars would be like for me.

Dolgopolov - Use Clearasil before it is too late
Tomic - Adoption - The only way to avoid interferring parents
Raonic - I might learn to talk one day

legendkillarV2

I thought the V2 version was more... friendly?

Anyway. I was talking about the tennis (rather than personality) and the extra excitement both Federer and Nadal bring to the court. Although of course they are both now "global brands" too. Helped of course by Rogers squeaky clean image and Rafa's much remarked upon "prettyness". I have to disagree when you say "Djokovic is the name on everyones lips in the tennis world". Just look around the media and here on 606v2 the names on everyones lips are still Roger and Rafa. Mainly Rafa on 606v2 but that's because everyones obsessed with him here... Outside the tennis world Djokovic is hardly known or recognised.

Djokovic has a very media freindly personality and I'm sure this will help as far as popularity goes... But I believe sports fans above all want to be entertained by the sport. Djokovic doesn't appear able to generate enough interest with his play. Unless Roger or Rafa help him out.

Like you say tennis will move on, Federer and Nadal will both hang up their racqets (sad days they will be) but the audience may not move on with it. Personally I rarely watched mens tennis in the 90's. Not everyone eats what they are fed.

Hawky,

It is slightly harsh to say Djokovic is not the name on everyone's lips. Whenever he enters a tournament he is favourite nowadays. I think he does generate excitement. Take IW. The crowd were dead on their feet until the Isner/Djokovic match. Yes it didn't go his way, but the crowd were buzzing. In terms of being 'subject' matter and threads on here Nadal and Federer are the subject of many debates based on achievements and standing within the tennis world at present and beyond. Nadal generates more negative debates yes, Roger a more reflective due to his decline in Slam success's. There is a growing appretiation of Federer because he is in the twighlight of his career and rivalry with Nadal.

Djokovic maybe refuting the attention that comes with being the number 1 player in the world. He isn't endorsed by Nike or Adidas the 2 biggest brands in sports. Federer and Nadal are. Also Federer was sponsored by Gillette and Nadal did a music video with Shakira and adverts for the baleric islands. Federer has 'celebrity' fans Gwen Stefani, Gavin Rossdale, Ben Stiller and even had Tiger Woods in his box once. Nadal had the Real Madrid team supporting him and even has a fan in Rory McIlroy. Djokovic hasn't had any of that.

Tennis in the 90's was an evolution in hand with technological advances in racquets and balls. Power and Volleying were the core competentcies for success. Sampras, Courier, Rafter and Agassi to a small extent fitted that requirement. The 21st century has seen an evolution in the standard of fitness and conditioning and new string technology. That is what the court conditions are dictating a baseline based game.

Believe it or not Sampras, Agassi and Rafter were what Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are to the tennis world now. Albeit their dominance was not on Clay, but all surfaces near enough play the same and hence why we have Federer, Nadal and Djokovic dominating the season entirely without restbite in between.

Still comparitively early days yet for Djoko as a number one superstar. He's already made a pretty good fist of 2012 so could put in a fair old reign as numero uno.
Should he do so then his universal appeal will broaden. Because of the standing in tennis/sport that Rog and Rafa enjoy, Nole's matches against those two are obviously more high-profile than those when he is up against anyone else.
I certainly think Nole is happy as a number one. Fed certainly was although I've heard it said that Rafa was never that comfortable with the top spot. Whatdya think?

Djokovic is number 1 and his achievements in 2011 were spectacular. He also IMO has a great media personality. But I was talking about his ability to produce memorable matches. He has produced them but only with the help of Roger and Rafa. Without them his game although effective can be dull.

I don't think Federer or Nadal are going anywhere yet. They are still around producing exciting matches and highly watchable tennis when they play each other and Djokovic. The difference is they are also capable of doing this when they play other players. I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion. People vote with their feet. Federer and Nadal are the names that fill the stadiums. They can fill the stadiums no matter who they are playing. I would be very surprised if Djokovic can demand appearance fees anywhere near what Federer and Nadal can because of this.

Djokovic can't compete. It's not because of his achievements as they are so impressive. It's not because of his personality because he ticks all the boxes there. It must therefore be about what people see on the court.

hawkeye wrote:I don't think Federer or Nadal are going anywhere yet. They are still around producing exciting matches and highly watchable tennis when they play each other and Djokovic. The difference is they are also capable of doing this when they play other players.

What are these exciting matches against other players? Name a match Nadal has played against someone who isn't Federer or Djokovic that has gone down as a classic.

Most people agreed that Murray v Djoko at Rome was one of the best matches of the year. Fed and Nadal were not part of that.

hawkeye wrote:I'm pretty sure this is not just my opinion. People vote with their feet. Federer and Nadal are the names that fill the stadiums.

Full house at Miami and AO Semi for the Djoko v Murray matches.

I'm not disagreeing that Fed and Nadal are still more popular than Novak but that is just an issue of a longer legacy. But the tennis events and stories in the last year that caught the wider public attention were Fed v Novak at US Open, Novak's 3 slam year, Novak v Nadal at AO and Novak's huge winning streak. The biggest stories recently have come from Novak not Fed and Nadal!

Comparisons here with the situation in golf where Tiger is still the number one star - and attraction - despite some terrific players being ahead of him in the rankings.
When Woods had to retire in a recent tournament, THAT was the big story, not the story about the guy who ended up winning it.
Rog and Rafa are BIG NEWS still, but Nole is getting there

HM Murdock.

A full house is guaranteed at a slam semi and masters final whoever plays. I wonder how many who purchased tickets did so with the hope of seeing Roger or Rafa though...

As far as entertaining matches featuring Federer or Nadal. I can't believe your serious in thinking they don't produce exciting matches without each other or Djokovic. In the last tournament they played Federer/Roddick and Nadal/Tsonga will have left most satisfied with what they saw. I'm struggling to think of a really entertaining match featuring Djokovic and a player not named Roger or Rafa. If I go back a long way I can vagualy remember him playing Stepanek in an early round 5 set match at the US open. My main memory is of Stepaneks strange orange shorts...

If Djokovic has produced the biggest stories why is everyone talking about Roger and Rafa as usual?

sirfredperry.

Nole is getting there but only with the help of Roger and Rafa.

Hawkeye.

So for an example of Federer producing exciting, watchable tennis, you are using him getting beaten by Roddick in a performance that he himself described as "flat" and "tired"?

As for Djokovic, did his match v Murray in Rome or his match v Tsonga at Wimbledon not strike you as entertaining, watchable tennis?

Sorry, I just don't accept that premise that Djoko doesn't produce entertaining matches outside of Fed and Nadal. Yes, his best moments have come against them but the best moments tend to be created by the best players. Roger and Rafa's best moments have come against each other and Djoko too. And let's be honest, most of their games against opponents outside of this group are usually fairly routine, unremarkable wins.

As for "everyone" talking about Roger and Rafa, well most of the talk about them on here is about Rafa's withdrawal, Rafa's knee and Rafa resigning from the player council. Rafa's making headlines - but not with his tennis!

Have to agree with murdoch, Novak's rome murray match and the semi at AO where great matches that didn't feature fed or nadal. But memorable matches are created when great players play each other at the working end of slams. Of course these memorable matches are going to mostly involve matches with either Fed or Nadal being involved. I think that great players obviously bring out the best in each other. That is the reason we want to watch the matchup. Tennis being like a dance is better when you have two greats dancing with each other as opposed to one great and one pretty good. They feed off each other's power and shots to be able to hit better shots themselves. Not to mention being forced into positions where they have to hit better shots to win.

But memorable matches are created when great players play each other at the working end of slams.

Not often true. Its easy to say 5 set tug of war matches are "memorable", but looking at the AO, the semi's and finals were a result of players being tired and the homogenised court speeds. I often prefer the early and middle rounds especially 4th round where you have a few surprise players challenging the decorated players.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

But memorable matches are created when great players play each other at the working end of slams.

Not often true. Its easy to say 5 set tug of war matches are "memorable", but looking at the AO, the semi's and finals were a result of players being tired and the homogenised court speeds. I often prefer the early and middle rounds especially 4th round where you have a few surprise players challenging the decorated players.

The finals can be a matter of taste, certainly. But I think it is very rare for a 4th round match up to be more than a routine victory for the decorated player. You do get the odd exception I suppose though. Djoko v Hewitt springs to mind.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/9176996/Novak-Djokovics-popularity-is-such-that-even-the-Americans-are-beginning-to-love-him.html

A good article that covers much of what has been discussed in this thread.

Very good article murdoch, i think a lot of people don't realize that it took Roger years to build up a global appeal. I know in the case of the states he really wasn't on anyone but tennis fan's rader till he won 6 plus slams. He didn't have the superstars in his box, didn't have the large national campaign deals for nontennis products. I think if Novak continues to win he has the story and the personality along with the game to win notoriety on a global stage. Of course he isn't as popular right now as Roger or Rafa but if he has their kind of success for years there is no reason he won't have a comparable level of popularity.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

But memorable matches are created when great players play each other at the working end of slams.

Not often true. Its easy to say 5 set tug of war matches are "memorable", but looking at the AO, the semi's and finals were a result of players being tired and the homogenised court speeds. I often prefer the early and middle rounds especially 4th round where you have a few surprise players challenging the decorated players.

The finals can be a matter of taste, certainly. But I think it is very rare for a 4th round match up to be more than a routine victory for the decorated player. You do get the odd exception I suppose though. Djoko v Hewitt springs to mind.

You did when there was depth to the game. Now there isn't the early rounds are routine.

From the telegraph article linked by HM Murdoch

Djokovic will never quite have the “wow” factor of his two chief rivals.
Even in a one-sided encounter, a balletic Federer backhand can make you gasp,
as may the magnificent violence of Nadal’s swooping, swiping forehand.

bogbrush


I agree there is less depth now than just a few years ago. Nalbandian, Davydenko, Soderling to name but a few used to be serious threats. They have disapeared (as threats) and no one has taken their place...

hawkeye wrote:From the telegraph article linked by HM Murdoch

Djokovic will never quite have the “wow” factor of his two chief rivals.
Even in a one-sided encounter, a balletic Federer backhand can make you gasp,
as may the magnificent violence of Nadal’s swooping, swiping forehand.

Yes, that article does rather swing our debate in your favour! But I think the line about getting goosebumps about the drama of his narrative sums up why I like him. I believe the "scripts" of his matches are the most dramatic. Dramatic late breaks, recoveries from positions where he seems down and out, his recent assaults on the record books... I find his stories exciting. And it's not as if he's a slouch in the shot-making!

HM Murdoch

I like Djokovic too... I even feel a little mean for saying that he is lacking the "wow" factor but I'm just being honest. Also I've watched enough to know his style of play. It's utilitarian rather than spectacular. In some ways his style of play doesn't match his personality. If I was judging by personality without seeing him play I would expect a more flamboyant style...

I've never said that Djokovic hasn't been involved in exciting matches but they have involved Roger and Rafa... so have the "scripts" that you talk about.

hawkeye wrote:
I've never said that Djokovic hasn't been involved in exciting matches but they have involved Roger and Rafa... so have the "scripts" that you talk about.

The best scripts need the best characters! Novak could produce the most sublime tennis ever but if it was the likes of Ferrer or Berdych on the other side of the net, the story wouldn't be as exciting. And Novak wouldn't be The Man Who Toppled Fedal™!

I don't think you guys realize how much attention it is for the top US news and investigative reporting show to do a lengthy piece on Novak. I think he is getting the attention both for his personality and his game. The attention Novak has been getting the last 12 months with his story and the streak and his rise to the top are only going to give him more credibility. Now as to his game lacking shotmaking well I can't agree with that. Novak is probably the only player on tour right now with two different shots that are regarded as the best on the ATP tour. One is his return of serve, which is really remarkable and is by a country mile the best returner in the business. The other is his backhand is there anyone on tour who goes up the line as consistently and often as Djokovic. These two very important shots that Djokovic is widely regarded as being the best in the world at. CAn't say that really about any other more highly regarded shotmakers.

Exactly Murdoch of course we are going to remember the matches Novak played against Nadal and Roger because those are the matches at the end of slams that decide things. Take the Isner match, i thought it was a very entertaining match eventhough Novak lost it. Two tiebreakers separated by one mini break in each breaker, yet in a year no one will remember the Isner v. Novak match at Indian wells in a masters. Because it isn't a slam and it isn't against a big name opponent.

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch

I like Djokovic too... I even feel a little mean for saying that he is lacking the "wow" factor but I'm just being honest. Also I've watched enough to know his style of play. It's utilitarian rather than spectacular. In some ways his style of play doesn't match his personality. If I was judging by personality without seeing him play I would expect a more flamboyant style...

I've never said that Djokovic hasn't been involved in exciting matches but they have involved Roger and Rafa... so have the "scripts" that you talk about.

I pretty much feel the same way. I can take or leave his matches.

But surely Noleeeeeeeeee is the greatest?! I mean has Federer's doctor (who is he by the way? I don't even know) got a diploma from the Indian Institute of Megnetotherapy? Has he?

Didn't think so! QED