The Hitch said:
Red Rick said:
BullsFan22 said:
I find Federer much more charismatic and likeable. Djokovic will always get less fan support when playing Federer. It was evident back in the days of the US Open matches when they met every year from 2007 to 2011, and again in 2015, and it's been evident at Wimbledon as well, from 2012, 2014, 2015 and again in this final. Far more support for Federer. Djokovic with his impersonations of other players and his playfulness early on in his career was funny and liked by the fans, but over the years his demeanor and his parents attitude on and off the court turned people off. He's kind of mellowed out in recent years, but now it's the robotic nature of his game that's turning people off. I am not afraid to say it but despite being from Belgrade, I am not a Djokovic fan. I would love to be a big Djokovic fan, being from the same city, but he and his teams attitude over the years has me turned the other way, still.
Djokovic settled down a long time ago imo. He came onto the scene when Fedal was already the super hyped rivalry and everyone had already picked their side in that matchup. Both were sponsored by Nike at the time, so they marketed the absolute crap out of that.
Djokovic was kind of the third wheel who didn't fit in. Add in a game style that's just harder to appreciate for casual fans and you get a big difference quickly. By the time he calmed down a bit the damage was done. At that point I think he could've acted more like a rebel or even villain but that was never his style either.
That being said, with the Big 3 I think the tennis fandom has taken a big turn for the worse imo. I feel tournaments now matter less at face value cause everything is somehow about a record chase between the Big 3, and over the years I think that Nadal and especially Djokovic haven't gotten the respect they deserve.
I agree that Djokovic and Nadal haven't gotten the respect they deserved. Largely because of the cult of Federer and a generation of people that cheer for the winner, and since Fed was the winner first, cheer for Federer.
If Djokovic had started in 2003 and Fed in 2008, half of them would cheer for Djokovic. Even though I admit Federer's "grace" when playing is part of the reason people are attached to him.
Djokovic seems like the biggest *** out of the three to me, especially the way he and Becker reacted to the doping question a few years ago. But I also think he's the best out of the 3, most flawless game, most dominant period, better than fed on clay.
Nadal and Djokovic also suffered from having to face prime Fed from a young age and eachother all the time plus Murray. Fed had those 4 years where he raked up half his titles when before Nadal could do anything on grass or hard and Djokovic hadn't yet emerged.
Federer racked up the titles between 2003 and 2008 (13!!!) because of, as you said, Nadal and especially Djokovic not hitting their stride. Nadal was already dominating on the clay and made three straight wimbledon's and won in 2008. Djokovic won in Australia but then had those physical issues that he worked out and by 2011 he was the one dominating. By then though, Federer was past his prime. When he won in Wimbledon in 2012, that was huge, because since the Australian 2010 he hadn't won a slam, Djokovic and Nadal were cleaning up all the slams. It was also big (for Djokovic and Nadal) that in back to back US Opens 2010/2011, Federer had match points (sound familiar?) against Djokovic in the fifth set but couldn't close it out. Federer would have had a shot against Nadal, particularly in 2011, as Nadal wasn't as good as he was in 2010. Then obviously the slams in 2014 and 2015 where Federer and Djokovic met in finals, with Djokovic winning all of them.
The other reason Fed was dominant is because his generation (Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Davydenko and even Haas to an extent, though he is three years older) didn't come through. A lot more was expected of Safin, but the guy didn't take things seriously enough and then when he started to, and he challenged Federer in 2004 and 2005, including beating Fed in 2005 en route to the Aus title, he got injured and never fully recovered. That was one huge obstacle out of the way, at least on hard courts. Hewitt and Roddick probably overachieved, particularly Hewitt. Nalbandian was an underachiever and his shape was always a question mark. His allround game always troubled Federer but he choked against other guys (against Roddick, Baghdatis...). Ferrero was a threat up to 25 but he too had injury and sickness problems. Then you had the what ifs stories with Mario Ancic and Robin Soderling, the guys between Federer and Djokovic Nadal. Wawrinka took that mantle and Murray as well, at least for a couple GS, likewise Cilic and Del Potro who got on a roll in each of their titles. But
Federer's contemporaries like Safin really could have halted Fed's progress. Safin should have had 5-6 slams, at least, given his massive potential, but he missed opportunities in 2001-2003, due to his attitude and injuries. Hit his peak in 2005, but then had a career changing injury and was never the same, though he did beat Djokovic in Wimbledon on his way to the semis (losing to Federer).
It's actually fascinating to me how various storylines developed in tennis and how things could have been so different. Every player has had multiple missed opportunities but they've all had fortunate openings. Maybe when it's all said and done, things will even out.