Ok interestingly glowing Djokovic article that more importantly touches on some hot button issues

WIMBLEDON, England -- The first 72 hours of Wimbledon represented the last 72 hours of a piece of a dynasty. But the twin shocks of Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer leaving a tournament before Dustin Brown did not end an era.

They've combined for 29 Grand Slams, 45 Masters 1000 titles and a million more memories. That neither escaped the first week was unprecedented, and the comments of both implied that they and the rest of the tennis world must brace for and adjust to the new reality that their total dominance has ended.

The shock was certainly real, but all the Nadal and Federer losses did was confirm another truth that has been true for two years, but needed the exclamation point that the past few days at Wimbledon provided: It is Novak Djokovic's time to continue the golden age.

He has been, for the past two years, the best and most consistent player in the world. He does not have double-digit Grand Slams and will not be considered in the all-time Nadal or Federer category until he does, but Djokovic has six majors, has won three straight Australian Opens and has appeared in 10 straight Grand Slam semifinals and 16 straight quarterfinals.



Novak Djokovic
Thomas Coex/AFP/Getty ImagesNovak Djokovic has been the most consistent player over the past two years.
Djokovic, whether Federer and Nadal fans care to admit, has been the biggest obstacle on tour to overcome, and it is his enormous specter that has chilled the spines of fans in both camps and has dealt Federer and Nadal some of their bitterest defeats.

He's the name they search for when draws are announced, to determine whether he will have to be confronted in the semifinal or the final.

He famously ended Federer's dream at the US Open in 2010 and, again, in 2011.

In 2011-12, Djokovic beat Nadal seven straight times, all in finals, three times in Grand Slam finals. He is the only player Nadal dreads on clay, perhaps even fears, for his old patterns and successful conventions do not work so well against Djokovic's two-handed backhand and inside-out forehand. When he does beat Djokovic now, as he did in their epic semifinal at Roland Garros earlier this month, it is not because of superior ability, but through remarkable, hellish effort and the good fortunes produced from unrelenting fight.

Andy Murray made the final here last year and is the local favorite at Wimbledon, but as the transition away from the Federer and Nadal years continues, it is time for Djokovic, more than Murray, to be embraced as the worthy successor who will continue the golden age. That is why, after all, they have been called the Big Three. Once it was Federer who stood in the way of the field. Then it was Nadal. Djokovic is now the standard.

He already has a rival in Murray, who could make his fourth straight Slam final (disregarding the French Open, where he withdrew a week before the event with a bad back). Those results don't even include his victory over Federer in the gold-medal match at the London Olympics last year.



Andy Murray of Great Britain (L) watches Novak Djokovic of Serbia
Julian Finney/Getty ImagesAndy Murray could make a run, but for now, he's a step behind Novak Djokovic.
However, the argument for Murray as a worthy heir to Federer and Nadal suffers from three drawbacks: the first is that he has but one major, the same number as Juan Martin del Potro and one fewer than Lleyton Hewitt.

The second is that he may not be a top-10 player on clay. Murray has never won a title on the surface and has never even made a final at the Masters 1000 or Grand Slam level.

The third is that Murray hasn't captured the public's imagination.

He lacks the elegance and grace of Federer, the fierce élan of Nadal and the contrast of Djokovic. Being great and being a showstopper are not the same thing. If they were, Murray-Djokovic could well have replaced Federer-Nadal as the second phase of the golden age. But Murray, both in game and temperament, lacks the charisma of a leading man. His battles with Djokovic are terrifically dreary feats of incredible stamina, best evidenced by the 54-shot baseline rally in the US Open final last year. Murray, unfortunately, lacks the intangible of presence.

The best matchup in men's tennis right now is a Nadal-Djokovic final. Their French Open semifinal was the match of the year, epic on so many levels. The problem, of course, is that Nadal's health has not allowed him to consistently hold up his end of the combat. And so, it has been left to Djokovic to step into the breach.

It should, of course, be noted that Federer and Nadal are still dangerous major champions. They have simply reached a crossroads. Federer with age, Nadal with injury.




Nadal is a favorite only at Roland Garros. Federer is unlikely to be a favorite at any Slam. Yet, they are not to be dismissed. They may happen to be lions in winter -- but they are still lions.

In past defeats, however, neither player was willing to concede that their games had inexorably slipped, defeated by the combination of time and age. Neither admitted that younger, improving players were closing the canyon-sized gap that used to exist between them and their mortal opponents. When Nadal left the game in 2009 to recover from his knee injury, he said he would return and said the same last year, after Lukas Rosol beat him here in the second round.

When Federer lost to Nadal at the Australian, to Djokovic at the French and to Tomas Berdych at the US Open, he never conceded an inch to time.

This week, though, was different. After losing to Steve Darcis, Nadal expressed deep concern about his physical ability to bend and cut and move on grass. When Sergiy Stakhovsky stunned Federer in the second round, his postmatch disposition revealed a legend almost ready to admit his vulnerabilities.

"There was a time where some players didn't believe they could beat the top guys," Federer said. "So maybe there's a little bit of a thing happening at the moment. I'm happy about that, that players believe they can beat the best on the biggest courts in the biggest matches."

That sentence was the clearest sign yet that Federer is beginning to accept a changing of the guard.

That leaves Djokovic, whose superb balance, defense, will and fury make him a compelling, if not yet beloved, figure on center stage. He has an opportunity, beginning now, to make his championship charge. He can strive toward a greater major count, but should also strive for a place in the hearts and minds of tennis fans during a transitional time.

Despite controversies this year where he has lost his composure, Djokovic is the one who possesses the charisma to be tennis' next leading man and has worked admirably to comport himself as a lasting champion.

The golden era isn't over. Injuries and time are merely forcing it to groom a new face.


http://espn.go.com/tennis/wimbledon13/story/_/id/9432056/wimbledon-djokovic-new-gold-standard

What do you think can Djokovic be the star of tennis? What about the controversial use by this writer of one of the deadly phrases "golden era" not being over in the last line of the article, is the writer correct in agree with tennis cyberterrorist and all around malicious individual like Socal? Are Nadal and Federer as damaged as presented in this article? I personally have my doubts. Or are you just nauseated by this textual bj to one Novak Djokovic?

While a good article its way too long, did u write it or cut copy paste? coz seems well written, seems like you ripped it from the reference you quoted below.

Is Djoko the next big then? No coz he is already the big thing, Murray still on the wings of Next big thing, winning the title here would give him a lot of confidence, still so many tricky encounters left, good Wimbledon so far, I am counting on my man to make the break through he is playing very well indeed.

Thanks Socal, I enjoyed that article.

It's interesting how many articles there have been in the media about "is this the end of the Fedal era" because I think that ended some time ago. Even leaving aside the fact that Novak has been number 1 for almost two years, it's not exactly breaking news that Fed is getting older and Rafa has injury worries!

I also note that the RG SF is now being viewed as a classic, which is a little surprising. It had a tense climax but I don't recall it being a great match at all!

Good description that Novak is "compelling, if not yet beloved". I think that is beginning to change now - he's been getting some very good receptions on CC and the coverage over here is also very complimentary.

Following on from my last comment, this is from the Telegraph's report:

"The vocal reception for Djokovic as he bounced across the Centre Court turf in celebration illustrated how popular a figure he has become. Even allowing for Murray's hopes, he is a beloved champion on these lawns."

Yes Murdoch; sometimes I'm shocked by how 'after the event' the media get.

Fedal, as defined in any useful way, ended years ago, when Roger stopped stomping on everyone except his big rival, and when Nadal stopped winning every clay event he entered and competing elsewhere. Nadal is now hugely injury prone and afflicted, and Federer is so far past his best even saccharine commentators have finally started to say it.

As for Djokovic's popularity, well he's rarely been outright unpopular but Federer / Nadal don't need to be good to still grab a lot of that. It would be extraordinary if a winner wasn't cheered; Darcis & Stakovsky got loads of that the other day.

bogbrush wrote:As for Djokovic's popularity, well he's rarely been outright unpopular but Federer / Nadal don't need to be good to still grab a lot of that. It would be extraordinary if a winner wasn't cheered; Darcis & Stakovsky got loads of that the other day.

Federer and Nadal's popularity was born from them being winners. And I think it will be a case of "once a winner, always a winner" in public affection. I suspect even if Fed plays until he is 40 and nowhere near winning a slam, he'll still be massively popular.

The only way Novak will match their levels of popularity is by continuing to be successful. I don't think style of tennis is a big factor outside of avid tennis fans.

Good article. Little bit gushing towards Novak in parts but not unfair in anything it says.

It annoys me when I read about Novak (and Murray for that matter) not being as loved as Federer or Nadal. Why can't people just accept that they are two of the all time greats, and that their rivalry and time at the top has made them insurmountable in terms of worldwide affection?

And why does it even matter? I don't hear new footballers critiqued with "great player, not as popular as Beckham though is he". Classic media nonsense.

To strengthen his popularity Djokovic needs the Fedal era to last a bit longer. He will no doubt have more eye catching matches with Nadal but a few more with Federer would help his cause. He will never be as popular as these two players but staying in close proximity will do nothing but good. It also helps that when pushed by these two players Djokovic produces his best tennis. They don't allow him to do his endless side to side drills that he is second to none with and are effective but send many to sleep...

Djokovic v Murray, Del Potro, Ferrer, Tsonga or whoever will never capture the public imagination in the same way. Djokovic v Murray will be the most hyped of these match ups but even fans of these two players admit their matches are far from pretty. And in this country against Murray he will always be the bad guy.

I don't think Novak is the bad guy for most British people. I think he's well liked. Of course they want Murray to win, but that doesn't make Novak the new Ivan Drago!

I don't think Murray really wants to be a global icon anyway. His documentary the other week underlined that he isn't that interested in the superstar side of things. In that respect, he's probably glad that Novak is around as he's a more natural showman and certainly the more comfortable of the two in the spotlight.

^ Murray does want to earn more money though as there have been a few articles about it. He's not making as much as expected. That's why he's linked up with a new management team to help him exploit his image. The really big money is earned off court. Just ask Roger and Maria.

Danny_1982 wrote: that doesn't make Novak the new Ivan Drago!

 I do love a good Rocky reference!

Incidentally, Dolph Lundgren tweeted Novak a question this week. Bit surreal.

Djokovic is already a global superstar, I would wager. He is obviously still behind Federer and Nadal, but I dont think thats the question. His twitter account has around 2 million followers, and his Facebook account around four million fans. that puts him behind Nadal and Federer, and some way behind Cristiano Ronaldo, but anyone over a million is generally a bonafide superstar in his own right.

Murray is also a global icon, of sorts He's Twitter account shows that the majority of his fans are either American, Indian, or British heres the tweet: Andy Murray
@andy_murray
My followers live in the U.K. (23.5%), the U.S.
(11.8%), India (5.2%) & more. Create your map at
twocation.com

Thats 1,5 million fans, with Brits accounting for about 350, 000, so to me he is a global superstar as well.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote: that doesn't make Novak the new Ivan Drago!

 I do love a good Rocky reference!

Incidentally, Dolph Lundgren tweeted Novak a question this week. Bit surreal.

Always thought Nole was the Clubber Lang... Too much personality to be Drago...

HM Murdoch wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote: that doesn't make Novak the new Ivan Drago!

 I do love a good Rocky reference!

Incidentally, Dolph Lundgren tweeted Novak a question this week. Bit surreal.

I do like a good Rocky reference. Gary Neville came out with one of my favourites, he was asked something along the lines of "it won't be easy for United going to Madrid will it?"

"Yeah, but it wasn't easy for Rocky going to Russia was it!"

Classic!

Shock horror....the consistent world no.1 is proclaimed to be a very good player indeed, and getting more popular therein, Murray is hot on his heels, Nadal is injured and future is uncertain, Federer is ageing and his future is uncertain...really? No **** journalistic Sherlock!

I hadn't realised Novak had a 'enormous specter'.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I hadn't realised Novak had a 'enormous specter'.

Is this the correct PC reference to an anatomical appendage, or was it to the specter that he whacks the ball with?

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:As for Djokovic's popularity, well he's rarely been outright unpopular but Federer / Nadal don't need to be good to still grab a lot of that. It would be extraordinary if a winner wasn't cheered; Darcis & Stakovsky got loads of that the other day.

Federer and Nadal's popularity was born from them being winners. And I think it will be a case of "once a winner, always a winner" in public affection. I suspect even if Fed plays until he is 40 and nowhere near winning a slam, he'll still be massively popular.

The only way Novak will match their levels of popularity is by continuing to be successful. I don't think style of tennis is a big factor outside of avid tennis fans.

You know I always feel a bit defensive Murdoch when Novak fans seemingly have to apologize for quote his "style" of play. I agree with the rest of your post of course fans love a winner, and if Rafa and Roger were perennial also rans no one care about them. Winning is the basis of the popularity and longevity is also a big part of it.

When it comes to Novak's style of play his style is quite watchable for both tennis tacticians and fans alike. His ability to go up the lines as often off of both wings, take the ball early, hit winners of both sides, and use deft tough shots like lobs and drops provides plenty of variety. I mean who has more variety? The guy who hits every shot as a forehand and 95 percent of the time that goes cross court or the player who you have no idea which part of the court off of which wing he will hit to? He comes to the net frequently while not a natural volleyer, he attacks the vast majority of the time but when on the defense with one swing from any position he can turn it into a winner. All things that tennis purists say they love. Taking the ball early is aggressive, going up the line is aggressive people awed and gave credit to Agassi and Connors when they did it. Not coincidentally my other two favorite players of all time. Yet Djokovic's style is boring, of the big 4 after Federer he is the most aggressive, I feel no shortcomings when it comes to Djokovic's style or game. Not saying you are either Murdoch but I find it funny that some claim Djokovic is robotic while simultaneously talking up a guy who hits a cross court forehand on 85 percent of his baseline strokes.

lydian wrote:Shock horror....the consistent world no.1 is proclaimed to be a very good player indeed, and getting more popular therein, Murray is hot on his heels, Nadal is injured and future is uncertain, Federer is ageing and his future is uncertain...really? No **** journalistic Sherlock!

I actually posted this article because it touches on some long term discussions and themes that we have all talked about ie "how far gone are fed and Nadal"? "Can Djoko carry the interest and popularity of the game?". I agree with you nothing new in the article, but it hits on a lot of topic we have discussed on this site.

Danny_1982 wrote:Good article. Little bit gushing towards Novak in parts but not unfair in anything it says.

It annoys me when I read about Novak (and Murray for that matter) not being as loved as Federer or Nadal. Why can't people just accept that they are two of the all time greats, and that their rivalry and time at the top has made them insurmountable in terms of worldwide affection?

And why does it even matter? I don't hear new footballers critiqued with "great player, not as popular as Beckham though is he". Classic media nonsense.

Exactly Danny, I mean do I really care which tennis player gets cheered the loudest and has the most facebook friends? The fact is though that Djokovic is building his popularity as is Murray, while Fed and Nadal have been the dominant forces now in the game for almost a decade.

Socal, on Novak's style, I love it. It's like clockwork.

But I get why some don't.

Novak's "problem" is that his brilliance is conventional brilliance. It's not idiosyncratic like Rafa and it doesn't have the flourishes of Federer at his best.

Novak's A-game is basically the correct shot, at the correct time, executed correctly (on groundstrokes anyway. The net play is improved but still a work in progress).

I love the fact it's formally correct. You don't see him avoiding going down the line or avoiding one wing because it's weaker.

Others prefer something that's more unusual, even if it has some rough edges.

That's fine. The world has room for Lennons as well as McCartneys!

Murdoch - yes Novak may be functional when compared with Federer, but so is everyone when compared with Federer. He moved so beautifully in his peak that he almost hovered. Novak, Murray and Rafa don't move as elegantly but they move bloody well.

I don't for a second agree that Novak is boring though. He hits with wonderful consistency and his speed and elasticity make him very entertaining in my opinion.

Same with Murray. his imagination, variation and movement make him very entertaining too in my opinion.

HM Murdoch wrote:Socal, on Novak's style, I love it. It's like clockwork.

But I get why some don't.

Novak's "problem" is that his brilliance is conventional brilliance. It's not idiosyncratic like Rafa and it doesn't have the flourishes of Federer at his best.

Novak's A-game is basically the correct shot, at the correct time, executed correctly (on groundstrokes anyway. The net play is improved but still a work in progress).

I love the fact it's formally correct. You don't see him avoiding going down the line or avoiding one wing because it's weaker.

Others prefer something that's more unusual, even if it has some rough edges.

That's fine. The world has room for Lennons as well as McCartneys!

Well to each their own Murdoch. Of course you and I enjoy watching him play. I don't really care how many twitter followers or facebook friends he has. It is quite incidental to me. I have seen him on all the big talk shows sports and otherwise in the States and his visibility is rising. But stylistic wise, I like that precision in his game that some find dull.

I thought it was a good article.

It's not necessarily all true but it's fair opinion.

hawkeye wrote:Djokovic v Murray, Del Potro, Ferrer, Tsonga or whoever will never capture the public imagination in the same way.

Rubbish. And misty eyed guff at that. Typical of those who refuse to realise that time catches up with all and not least our heroes. The same comments were made about any number of early rivalries - for instance it took years for us to look back affectionately at the Sampras / Agassi one

In other words the Murray / Nole rivalry needs looking at in 3/4 years or whenever they are obviously at their peak. Not when they are both still improving or / dominating

It's always amuses me at how the Fedal rivalry can be defined as been up there with the best, given the lopsided Slam record. For me it's not in the same league as (perm any two) as the Borg/Connors/Mac one or even the Becker/Edberg one

HM Murdoch wrote:Socal, on Novak's style, I love it. It's like clockwork.

But I get why some don't.

Novak's "problem" is that his brilliance is conventional brilliance. It's not idiosyncratic like Rafa and it doesn't have the flourishes of Federer at his best.

Novak's A-game is basically the correct shot, at the correct time, executed correctly (on groundstrokes anyway. The net play is improved but still a work in progress).

I love the fact it's formally correct. You don't see him avoiding going down the line or avoiding one wing because it's weaker.

Others prefer something that's more unusual, even if it has some rough edges.

That's fine. The world has room for Lennons as well as McCartneys!

Great analysis and a fair summation. Ironically, Djoko is like Murray's coach in his approach to matches and hence will always win more Slams than Murray who has too much of the artist in himself to have the correct discipline for the time needed when playing Novak

Of course he'll win some matches and I'd favour him here. But this weakness was classically exposed by Novak at the Aus final, where really Andy should have taken his opportunities by the scruff of the neck and won. And beaten Federer in straights

Ironically, lately Novak's been showing a more 'fey' human artistic side - I actually thought his play in the middle part of the match against Nadal was his most creative. Significantly, it was his most mentally weakest as well

Banbro, interesting thoughts on Andy.

He often seems to me to be an odd blend of a temperemantal 'artist' trying to play in a pragmatic way.

I'd like to see him play in a freer way but I can't argue with results a more disciplined approach has brought him!

By the way the "misty eyed guff" line made me, as the kids say, "LOL"!

Agree HMM, and its why I can't properly take to Djokovic. As you know I find him too cybertronic...it's ruthlessly brilliant in a Terminator type way but its not flashy or quirky from my likability perspective.

But here's the rub, my tennis aspiring son adores Djokovic (there, I've said it...puff out cheeks). And you know I don't mind because if he can learn to play like him then I won't have many complaints. Who would. We actually look through YouTube videos and study his technique, particularly on the BH where his preparation, stroke, feet positioning and knee bend is textbook so I'm very familiar with him already I have to admit. His serve is much smoother now through the transition points and he's getting better with lower balls by the month. No real weaknesses - that's his true forte - and his FH/BH take back is so simple that a) there's not much to technically break down, b) he handles fast balls easily hence why he's such a good returner.

Well, Lydian, may I commend you on your child-rearing skills! 

Is your son old enough to have seen and appreciated Federer or Nadal in their pomp?

I ask because I wonder if there is a generation of kids who are getting into tennis for whom Novak is the top player on tour. That must be a significant factor in how he is viewed? I'm pretty sure the top player in any sport, as long as they are basically a decent person, will be popular with the kids getting into that sport.

Great article. In honesty, though I don't necessarily enjoy watching him over other players, Novak deserves a lot more recognition than he's received in general - he's an excellent player, a great champion and unquestionably the top dog in the game. He's been overshadowed by Fedal to a large degree, sometimes understandably so due to their winning ways in the past, but it's become increasingly unfair over the last two years. I'm glad to see him getting some good press. And he does seem to be getting a better reception at Wimbledon this year, though whether that's a one-off or not remains to be seen. I seem to remember someone pointing out that he was quite popular in the States? Lots of good points in this thread, at any rate  

In popularity terms, he's not alone in suffering due to comparisons with Federer. Look at the Fans Favourite awards - Federer dominates that poll every year irrespective of his ranking, and Radwanska has won it for the last two years. Their variety and willingness to try unusual plays and shots with panache is what endears them to the fans, and boosts their popularity. Say what you will about Federer, but I've never heard anyone say that his tennis is boring. Of course, that doesn't mean that other top players can't be brilliant to watch - as I've said before, I could watch Novak serve, return and hit DTL backhands all day long. But he (and other top players) have always and will always suffer the 'Federer effect' where nearly everyone else just looks a bit dull in comparison, whether that's fair or not. I hope that the media starts to overturn that perception over the next few years.

That doesn't mean that a rivalry involving, say, Novak and Andy can't capture the imaginations of the public though. It definitely can.

HM Murdoch wrote:Banbro, interesting thoughts on Andy.

He often seems to me to be an odd blend of a temperamental 'artist' trying to play in a pragmatic way.

I'd like to see him play in a freer way but I can't argue with results a more disciplined approach has brought him!

His Olympic final performance was that kind of 'free' Tennis, where you shake your head and wonder why he hadn't got a slam at the time.

For me he's like Mac in temperament and let's be honest he should have won more slams. Andy could do with having the couldn't give a damn attitude of Connors. In fairness though, I think he's getting more philosophical, letting his true personality show to the public and that will benefit him in the same way it did for Agassi

I've often said that he reminds more of Agassi than any other player, brattish (to a degree) start to a career with huge expectations and lots of huge disappointments (even with his two slam wins, nobody will disagree that Andre had underachieved at a similar age). And of course a similar game. Note how Andy tries to take the ball earlier, these days

I do expect Andy's peak to last until his early 30's - simply because I think his more mental contentment will compensate for say a later lack of speed / fitness

Oh and thanks for the comment - sometimes we have to put HE in her place

Silver, I think much of Federer's popularity comes from the fact he has transcended tennis and become a sporting icon.

My Mum told me at the weekend that she likes Federer. I doubt that she has watched a moment of non-Wimbledon tennis in her life, so it's not a judgement based on his playing style. But his fame is such that people know a) he's fabulously talented and b) he's a nice guy. So people like him.

Andy probably has the reverse problem. I think there are a swathe of "Wimbledon only" watchers who think he is grumpy and never quite manages to win the big event.

If Andy wins Wimbledon, I'll find the coverage almost unwatchably nauseating but it will good for a wider audience in this country to see what a great player he is.

HM Murdoch wrote:If Andy wins Wimbledon, I'll find the coverage almost unwatchably nauseating but it will good for a wider audience in this country to see what a great player he is.

Me too, and I'm a Murray fan.

That's true, HM. And to back up your point, Nadal is almost as popular (via the barometer of social media) despite the differing playstyle. A lot of it due to transcending the sport, but I firmly believe that the playing style comes into it in a big way. How many times have we seen people lamenting 'robotic' baseline tennis? I would guess that it's a combination of both factors; and people tend to gravitate towards the more successful athletes regardless. Talent + success + style.

I hope that Novak and Andy both get their due soon, and don't live in the shadow of Fedal. Regarding the coverage, I might have to take a holiday to avoid it! Some of the newspaper pieces are already excruciating enough if I ever see the phrase 'national treasure' again, it'll be too soon. And that's as a Murray fan too.

The moment Andy wins a Wimbledon match point, I'll have to turn off the TV.

I don't want to see Sue Barker's O-face.

I'm glad that Djokovic is finally getting the recognition he deserves. Both he and Murray have suffered under the long shadow cast by Fedal. I think Novak has suffered more in this respect as he has won more and bested the best at slams more often yet it still hasn't been enough for some. The times are changing though and more people are realising that tennis does not live and die by the fortunes of two players alone. A very healthy progression.

HM Murdoch wrote:The moment Andy wins a Wimbledon match point, I'll have to turn off the TV.

I don't want to see Sue Barker's O-face.

  

HM Murdoch wrote:The moment Andy wins a Wimbledon match point, I'll have to turn off the TV.

I don't want to see Sue Barker's O-face.

Neither do I - it was bad enough the few times I....sorry, too much info.

If you look back at pre-Fedal #1's I think tennis is in reasonably safe hands with Djoko. He will inevitably suffer by comparison with Federer who has been perceived as such an entertaining player to watch, and he's no McEnroe, or Edberg, but despite me not being hugely enamoured with his essentially efficient game, Djoko has always worn the mantle of No. 1 with just the right attitude in my view. Against the right players his matches can be very entertaining (it's a shame, but I don't think Murray is one of the right players since their matches tend to turn into marathons).

Djoko's sheer enjoyment of his position is hugely attractive, his obvious respect for the importance of being #1 has always been there, and he's never afraid to show how much it means to him. I doubt that, when his career is over, he'll be seen as quite in the same echelon as Nadal, but it is interesting how he seems to be a far more comfortable wearer of the mantle of #1 than Nadal has been.

banbrotam wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Djokovic v Murray, Del Potro, Ferrer, Tsonga or whoever will never capture the public imagination in the same way.

Rubbish. And misty eyed guff at that. Typical of those who refuse to realise that time catches up with all and not least our heroes. The same comments were made about any number of early rivalries - for instance it took years for us to look back affectionately at the Sampras / Agassi one

In other words the Murray / Nole rivalry needs looking at in 3/4 years or whenever they are obviously at their peak. Not when they are both still improving or / dominating

It's always amuses me at how the Fedal rivalry can be defined as been up there with the best, given the lopsided Slam record. For me it's not in the same league as (perm any two) as the Borg/Connors/Mac one or even the Becker/Edberg one

You mean today then. Djokovic and Murray will not be at their peak in 3/4 years.

Fedal is about an era of unprecedented dominance by the two players. Federer's dominance, taking 17 Slams in 7/8 years is obviously unique; Rafas dominance is almost as strong. Together, it's mental.

HM Murdoch wrote:The moment Andy wins a Wimbledon match point, I'll have to turn off the TV.

I don't want to see Sue Barker's O-face.

You put your finger on the single reason my brother can't bear the thought of Murray winning. He's "meh" about the guy, but passionately hates the media response. I see his point, emphatically.

It does irk me the way that the BBC is so Murray-centric.

I don't like the assumption that just because I'm British, it's Murray who I'm looking out for and my viewing experience has to be coloured by his fortunes.

I do like the guy, as a person and a player, but there's a whole field of great players and interesting stories that I feel I'm being short changed on.

It is amazing really what Novak has achieved in this incredibly tough era. Had he not come along when he did, God only knows how many slams Federer and Nadal would have by now. He was the first one who came along that really believed he could compete with them on the biggest stage.

Murray has always played very well against Federer but Nadal seems to have been a very bad matchup for him. I am surprised for example that Murray has not done better against Nadal on grass over the years. Would have expected Murray to make some inroads there, he clearly has the potential to beat Nadal on hard courts but even then Nadal has won most meetings. That could change of course going forward with Murray really improving and its been a while since they played in a slam.

The great thing about Djokovic is he is totally fearless against Nadal and Federer in the slams, he has put it up to them on all surfaces and it is so tough to call a winner in any of their matches. That is testement to how good Novak actually is, even when he lost in semis of French to Nadal over 5 sets, it came as a real disappointment. Not sure any other player would have taken Nadal that close on his beloved clay.

Djokovic has adapted amazingly well to all surfaces, he even managed to beat Federer in the final of the indoors (world tour finals) last year which even despite Fed's age takes some doing. I hope Novak pushes on and gets to 10 slams in his career, he has shown such battling qualities in recent years and should he finish year end number 1 for a third successive year would be equally incredible achievement.

I also hope Murray keeps pushing as he also brings a bit of the unknown and has huge talent. He has battled hard and got the slam he deserved last year, will be interesting to see what he brings over these crucial 2 - 3 years ahead.

HM Murdoch wrote:It does irk me the way that the BBC is so Murray-centric.

I don't like the assumption that just because I'm British, it's Murray who I'm looking out for and my viewing experience has to be coloured by his fortunes.

I do like the guy, as a person and a player, but there's a whole field of great players and interesting stories that I feel I'm being short changed on.

I don't get where you, BB or BB's brother is coming from!! They are just as gushing and OTT with Rafa. Roger and Novak. Indeed you'd think Rafa has won the last 10 Wimby's given their comments about him before he went out

It is the British Broadcasting Corporation and so hence have to show some bias, because politically if they didn't then they'd be criticised. I mean, as an example, some numbskull (on the Beeb message board) has complained about Murray and Robson playing today and wrote this....

"Wimbledon's organisers are not the friends of working people today, are they? Laura & Andy both on in the middle of the day? Whyyyyyy"

This is what the media are catering to. The average ignorant fan - not us and so will constantly come out with language we find irritating

I think Djokovic needs to escape that Fedal shadow. I mean christ he has enough trophies to do so and personally is much different.

I like Djokovic and I think he can hold his own once Fedal moves over completely.

Banbro, the commentators euologise over all of the top 4 but the BBC focus is always upon Andy.

I was watching the "Today at Wimbledon" programme on Thursday and I heard "so let's talk about Andy Murray for a while".

He hadn't even played that day!

It's bizarre to whine about the BBC coverage of Andy Murray. I don't pretend to like it, I hate all vacuous populist rubbish, but it's as predictable as night following day so there's really nothing much more to say about it.

All my life there has been this joke about Fred Perry being the last winner - all my parents' lives too. The last member of my immediate family to be alive whilst there was a reigning British Wimbledon Champion died in 1984. Andy Murray is by a huge distance the most likely to break that record. What does anyone expect?

The thing is though HM is BBC and British interest is always on the hype.

SkySports at least seem more fair in coverage, though once Andy is in the latter stages they even giveway to the partisan bug!

I do get that it's the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation but:

1) Andy is not representing Britain

2) So it therefore assumes people's interest in a player is mainly based on the player's nationality.

3) I'm required by law to pay towards that organisation so I can moan if I don't like it! 

Of course, I'm not blind to the level of modern media, so I don't expect any better. But the fact I don't expect better doesn't mean I don't get frustrated that it's not better!