1). In the interview Novak recently did, with 60 minutes, (I think it was 60 minutes...) he talked about the 2019 Wimbledon Final. He said, "if you look back on the match, Roger was better in almost every category...but I won the match." There's a lot to unpack there, but it's the epitome of the "confusion" of Novak.
-and-
2). We all have our favorites and some win more and some win less. GOAT, although not necessarily untrue, is something for people to talk about. Some sports have a clear favorite, a clear winner, but others can be a toss up. I do think tennis is a toss up in the sense that the things Rafa, Roger, and Novak have done are just absurd. Novak is a step ahead, no doubt about it, but other than longevity I'm not sure it's so "clear cut". Roger is my favorite player and may always be; on the court, he is just a beauty to watch and I think he possesses things that no other tennis player has ever shown. However, on the flip side, Rafa is pretty unbelievable...but I'll give you an even more unbelieveable stat not many people talk about with Rafa: he was won 22 Grand Slams, but he has MISSED 16 Grand Slams due to injuries.
Anyway, as always, thanks for your insights. I don't really care who the GOAT is, but I sure am happy that we get to talk about these three legendary performers. Everything each one of them has done is nothing short of extraordinary.
it really is incredible what they‘ve achieved. in the end, who is GOAT and who isn‘t doesn‘t change the sport in the slightest. it will always just be tennis.
I don't want to admit that Novak is the GOAT because I attached myself to Roger like a remora to a shark as soon as he achieved any kind of prominence and now I am no longer rational on the subject
As a Colts fan, I see Novak Djokovic as more of a Peyton Manning type than a Tom Brady type, but the comparisons are hard since football is not an individual sport. I guess one of the ways in which Novak and Brady are similar is that both seem impervious to the hatred that opposing fans have for them. Novak has never been the most liked, and he's never needed to be. He is content knowing that he is the greatest, whether others allow themselves to acknowledge that or not. His confidence and self-assuredness, while sometimes appearing to border on cockiness, is an example to us all to be cautious of letting other people's opinions of us dictate how we think about ourselves.
What a wonderful explanation of Novak! I always say you can see on his face when his mind starts churning with the question--what do I do now? And then he shows something we didn't expect. As a longtime tennis fan (and once player) I am really enjoying your columns and your writing. Thanks!
Andrea, your commentary on the Tennis Channel of the match between Svitolina and Pliskova was so refreshingly insightful, fair, and smart. It really enhanced my viewing of the match. Such a difference from the bloviating, partisan, and stats-filled commentary we usually suffer through on other channels. Of course, good writers often make good talkers. Keep it up!
I remember a time when people made fun of Novak for having the "Retirement Slam" -- that he'd retired from at least one match at all four majors. It's a testament to his skill and drive and innovation that he sits atop the mountain now. You are so right -- nobody thought he'd ever get there, let alone STAY there for years and years and years. He is the Bruce Lee of tennis! Bruce's quote below:
"Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves."
You know, if you wanted to go back and tune this up for the New Yorker or something it could be the definitive article on Novak, up there with DFW's on Roger. Not that you are taking ideas from the peanut gallery or anything.
By the way, I bet other languages have interesting equivalents to the phrase "peanut gallery."
Anyway, I used to play the following game. Who was the best player: (1) for one day, (2) for a year, (3) over five years, (4) over ten years, and (5) over a career.
Before the Rog/Rafa/Novak era on the men's side my choices were (1) Safin, (2) McEnroe (1984, especially as he did it in doubles as well), (3) Borg, (4) Sampras and (5) Rosewall.
The Rog/Rafa/Novak Era has scrambled this game, but whatever people you put in (1) through (4) Novak has got (5) nailed down. He's going to beat Rosewall in every longevity based record, and I didn't think that was possible as the Rosewall Laver generation only played (I thought) into their late thirties because they needed the money, and I thought the new paradigm was Sampras retiring in his early thirties with $100 mil.
I can only add this, you understand this so well, but at the top level the ability to adjust to whatever your opponent does is frankly the thing that differentiates 150 from 100, from 100 to 50, 50 to 10, and in Novak's case a mere all time great to perhaps the best career ever. And that ability is the hardest thing to observe, its far easier to point out someone's great shot than it is their ability to deal with their opponent's best shot.
Hi Andrea, thanks for another great post. I was curious if you've ever considered writing about the issue of grunting in tennis. It's amazing if you look at online discourse how preoccupied so many tennis fans seem to be with whether or not a player grunts too loudly. Ever since Monica Seles in the early 90s, the consternation over grunting goes on and on, especially as it relates to women. Do you have a point of view on it?
Hallo, Andrea. Ich liebe deine Bücher! Ich habe deinen Substack durch Christopher Clarey gefunden. Okay, back to English which is a lot easier for me and for your audience.
I have a contrarian hypothesis. Actually, it's not entirely mine. Lots of people have written about it. The idea goes like this: Tennis became highly homogenized over the last 20 years. RG got faster, Wimbledon slower, and hard courts are more similar. The strings augmented spin. The training methods spread across academies across the world. Technology played a hand in it as well. Coaches can now watch thousands of tennis tips on their phones. Djokovic was the perfect player for this era because of his homogenized game. It fits perfectly with the current conditions. Federer came earlier, at a time when there were distinct styles for distinct surfaces. Nadal was almost an anomaly. He stayed and trained at home with his uncle. His style was not developed in an academy. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that Djokovic would have had to choose a style 30 years ago. He came up wanting to serve and volley like Sampras and stay back like Agassi. The conditions changed and players like Sampras disappeared. Even Federer stopped coming in. Djokovic, thus, has no distinct style because today's tennis requires much less variety to rise to the top. At the risk of sounding like a cranky old person, the players today are more similar than in the past. The vast majority hit their backhands two hands. The vast majority hit with tons of topspin. Very little net play, etc. In a non distinct era it would make sense that there be a non distinct champion.
As I read this yet again insightful, well written piece, the Novak greatness angle reminded me of a T-shirt I recently viewed in a feed. It states “It’s okay if you don’t like tennis, it’s kind of a smart people sport anyway.” Like Novak, the quote has an edginess to it that borders cockiness, but for anyone who has truly competed in the sport, you understand what happens between the ears is more often than not what distinguishes the winner between similar level players. From reading Andrea’s articles and listening to her on TV, it’s easy to understand why she had many competitive wins against players who may have appeared to have more raw talent or skill. It’s mostly between the ears! Keep up the great work!
I love this and I love your writing so much. I recommended it to another writer today.
This article had me thinking about my friend prompted AI to write a follow up to David Foster Wallace’s epic essay ‘Roger Federer as Religious Experience’ about Novak Djokovic.
“Can you write me an essay in that style, in as close to David Foster Wallace’s voice and form (including footnotes) as you can manage about the experience of watching Novak Djokovic play; particularly focus on Novak’s precision, his clockwork mechanical approach to the game, and his technical mastery. Use this to comment on our emerging technological society (as predicted by Ellul), and Djokovic as a pinnacle of machine line production of tennis players in a technocracy (following Neil Postman’s view of technocracies). Draw on some of Foster Wallace’s novel Infinite Jest.”
The result was incredible and I’ve been scared of AI since!
Next time a soccer commentator explains tennis to you, explain soccer to them. :)
This was fun. Two things come to mind:
1). In the interview Novak recently did, with 60 minutes, (I think it was 60 minutes...) he talked about the 2019 Wimbledon Final. He said, "if you look back on the match, Roger was better in almost every category...but I won the match." There's a lot to unpack there, but it's the epitome of the "confusion" of Novak.
-and-
2). We all have our favorites and some win more and some win less. GOAT, although not necessarily untrue, is something for people to talk about. Some sports have a clear favorite, a clear winner, but others can be a toss up. I do think tennis is a toss up in the sense that the things Rafa, Roger, and Novak have done are just absurd. Novak is a step ahead, no doubt about it, but other than longevity I'm not sure it's so "clear cut". Roger is my favorite player and may always be; on the court, he is just a beauty to watch and I think he possesses things that no other tennis player has ever shown. However, on the flip side, Rafa is pretty unbelievable...but I'll give you an even more unbelieveable stat not many people talk about with Rafa: he was won 22 Grand Slams, but he has MISSED 16 Grand Slams due to injuries.
Anyway, as always, thanks for your insights. I don't really care who the GOAT is, but I sure am happy that we get to talk about these three legendary performers. Everything each one of them has done is nothing short of extraordinary.
it really is incredible what they‘ve achieved. in the end, who is GOAT and who isn‘t doesn‘t change the sport in the slightest. it will always just be tennis.
Just the best thing I read every week!
I would never guess that english is not your first language . Your writing is a joy to read.
Bis ich dich wieder lese.
LF
nice german!
I don't want to admit that Novak is the GOAT because I attached myself to Roger like a remora to a shark as soon as he achieved any kind of prominence and now I am no longer rational on the subject
hahaha this made me laugh!
As a Colts fan, I see Novak Djokovic as more of a Peyton Manning type than a Tom Brady type, but the comparisons are hard since football is not an individual sport. I guess one of the ways in which Novak and Brady are similar is that both seem impervious to the hatred that opposing fans have for them. Novak has never been the most liked, and he's never needed to be. He is content knowing that he is the greatest, whether others allow themselves to acknowledge that or not. His confidence and self-assuredness, while sometimes appearing to border on cockiness, is an example to us all to be cautious of letting other people's opinions of us dictate how we think about ourselves.
this is a great point!
What a wonderful explanation of Novak! I always say you can see on his face when his mind starts churning with the question--what do I do now? And then he shows something we didn't expect. As a longtime tennis fan (and once player) I am really enjoying your columns and your writing. Thanks!
Andrea, your commentary on the Tennis Channel of the match between Svitolina and Pliskova was so refreshingly insightful, fair, and smart. It really enhanced my viewing of the match. Such a difference from the bloviating, partisan, and stats-filled commentary we usually suffer through on other channels. Of course, good writers often make good talkers. Keep it up!
I remember a time when people made fun of Novak for having the "Retirement Slam" -- that he'd retired from at least one match at all four majors. It's a testament to his skill and drive and innovation that he sits atop the mountain now. You are so right -- nobody thought he'd ever get there, let alone STAY there for years and years and years. He is the Bruce Lee of tennis! Bruce's quote below:
"Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves."
You know, if you wanted to go back and tune this up for the New Yorker or something it could be the definitive article on Novak, up there with DFW's on Roger. Not that you are taking ideas from the peanut gallery or anything.
By the way, I bet other languages have interesting equivalents to the phrase "peanut gallery."
Anyway, I used to play the following game. Who was the best player: (1) for one day, (2) for a year, (3) over five years, (4) over ten years, and (5) over a career.
Before the Rog/Rafa/Novak era on the men's side my choices were (1) Safin, (2) McEnroe (1984, especially as he did it in doubles as well), (3) Borg, (4) Sampras and (5) Rosewall.
The Rog/Rafa/Novak Era has scrambled this game, but whatever people you put in (1) through (4) Novak has got (5) nailed down. He's going to beat Rosewall in every longevity based record, and I didn't think that was possible as the Rosewall Laver generation only played (I thought) into their late thirties because they needed the money, and I thought the new paradigm was Sampras retiring in his early thirties with $100 mil.
I can only add this, you understand this so well, but at the top level the ability to adjust to whatever your opponent does is frankly the thing that differentiates 150 from 100, from 100 to 50, 50 to 10, and in Novak's case a mere all time great to perhaps the best career ever. And that ability is the hardest thing to observe, its far easier to point out someone's great shot than it is their ability to deal with their opponent's best shot.
I'm just here for the beret now... I wonder what colour will it be, hmm....
*cues 80's song* And one..two..one, two three
Have fun in Paris!
Hi Andrea, thanks for another great post. I was curious if you've ever considered writing about the issue of grunting in tennis. It's amazing if you look at online discourse how preoccupied so many tennis fans seem to be with whether or not a player grunts too loudly. Ever since Monica Seles in the early 90s, the consternation over grunting goes on and on, especially as it relates to women. Do you have a point of view on it?
So spot on about Novak.... So spot on with your stories. As soon as I finish reading one I'm waiting on the next....
Hallo, Andrea. Ich liebe deine Bücher! Ich habe deinen Substack durch Christopher Clarey gefunden. Okay, back to English which is a lot easier for me and for your audience.
Some of the ideas that frame my comment, I write about in my own book in case you are interested. https://www.prometheusbooks.com/9781633889408/mastery/
I have a contrarian hypothesis. Actually, it's not entirely mine. Lots of people have written about it. The idea goes like this: Tennis became highly homogenized over the last 20 years. RG got faster, Wimbledon slower, and hard courts are more similar. The strings augmented spin. The training methods spread across academies across the world. Technology played a hand in it as well. Coaches can now watch thousands of tennis tips on their phones. Djokovic was the perfect player for this era because of his homogenized game. It fits perfectly with the current conditions. Federer came earlier, at a time when there were distinct styles for distinct surfaces. Nadal was almost an anomaly. He stayed and trained at home with his uncle. His style was not developed in an academy. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that Djokovic would have had to choose a style 30 years ago. He came up wanting to serve and volley like Sampras and stay back like Agassi. The conditions changed and players like Sampras disappeared. Even Federer stopped coming in. Djokovic, thus, has no distinct style because today's tennis requires much less variety to rise to the top. At the risk of sounding like a cranky old person, the players today are more similar than in the past. The vast majority hit their backhands two hands. The vast majority hit with tons of topspin. Very little net play, etc. In a non distinct era it would make sense that there be a non distinct champion.
Thanks for the thought provoking post!
As I read this yet again insightful, well written piece, the Novak greatness angle reminded me of a T-shirt I recently viewed in a feed. It states “It’s okay if you don’t like tennis, it’s kind of a smart people sport anyway.” Like Novak, the quote has an edginess to it that borders cockiness, but for anyone who has truly competed in the sport, you understand what happens between the ears is more often than not what distinguishes the winner between similar level players. From reading Andrea’s articles and listening to her on TV, it’s easy to understand why she had many competitive wins against players who may have appeared to have more raw talent or skill. It’s mostly between the ears! Keep up the great work!
That was really great 👍🏼
I love this and I love your writing so much. I recommended it to another writer today.
This article had me thinking about my friend prompted AI to write a follow up to David Foster Wallace’s epic essay ‘Roger Federer as Religious Experience’ about Novak Djokovic.
“Can you write me an essay in that style, in as close to David Foster Wallace’s voice and form (including footnotes) as you can manage about the experience of watching Novak Djokovic play; particularly focus on Novak’s precision, his clockwork mechanical approach to the game, and his technical mastery. Use this to comment on our emerging technological society (as predicted by Ellul), and Djokovic as a pinnacle of machine line production of tennis players in a technocracy (following Neil Postman’s view of technocracies). Draw on some of Foster Wallace’s novel Infinite Jest.”
The result was incredible and I’ve been scared of AI since!
https://st-eutychus.com/2023/a-supposedly-fun-thing-ill-probably-do-again/