What he said about Roddick's joke was unnecessary. It's clear Roddick was joking. Even so, what about Tommy Robredo? It was Tommy who suggested he was a faker, not Roddick. :mad:I am starting not to like this guy. It's sad, too. I was planning to support him against Federer, but now, absolutely not. He will have the crowd booing him. He clearly has an ego and an attitude and he'll learn that it's not nice to have the crowd against you.
Novak Djokovic's Attitude/Ego/Words
Printable View
-
09-04-2008, 11:16 PMIntelNovak Djokovic's Attitude/Ego/Words
-
09-05-2008, 01:21 AMCoachI can appreciate your intention with this Post however I would suggest in the future when speaking of a current situation that may divulge information that someone didn't want to know, make sure you mark your Post as ***Spoiler***Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel
That way, whomever reads the Post will know it may contain results of a match that they might not have seen yet and planned to sit back later and watch on TiVo or DVR. Although you didn't necessarily state the results of any particular match, I can factor from your words that Djokovic beat Roddick and I recorded that match and haven't watched it yet. No big deal for me although it will take some of the drama away from when I watch it.
Now to your point, I would agree that Djokovic has more under the hood than we've yet to see about his personality. Given he is so vocal and animated and the fact that the Media is always starving for the next personality to fill the void that Andre Agassi has left, there is an obvious push to make Joko that guy and you're correct, I think we still have to wait and see what he's all about. He made a few comments during the French Open about Federer being vulnerable which Roger didn't appreciate and made a point of making short work of their match to prove Joko is not the guy who he worries about.
It might have been Wimbledon but Joko does seem to believe he's better than what he might actually be right now although he is very good off the ground and knows how to play the big points against anyone ranked lower than him.
He is doing a very good job of protecting his ranking and you have to respect that. I have no idea of the situation you are talking about so I guess I'll have to watch it and see. -
09-05-2008, 12:08 PMathard
I think Djokovic is an emotional guy and he was upset at his treatment from the fans. They were constantly screaming as he was about to serve. That is not on. I understand them supporting their local favorite, but you can't disturb a player. That's bad sportsmanship.
Djokovic did say in a post match conference that it was a misunderstanding and that he spoke with Roddick and sorted it out. He also appreciated how nice Roddick had been to him when he joined the tour. So good on him for being mature about it once the emotions calmed down.
About his injuries, well, as long as he is within the rules, I think it's okay. How many times have you seen other top players stop to "tie their laces" in the middle of a game? WHile he may get a massage or treatment, his opponent gets to sit down and rest too, and no one is stopping the opponent from doing the same as he is. People need to stop making a big deal of things.
That said, Djokovic didn't win himself any friends by making those comments. The next game is against Federer, a 4 time champion, so i am sure that the crowd will not go easy on him there. -
09-05-2008, 11:34 PMCoach
Well now that I've watched the match and know what the hoopla is all about, I'm thinking FedEx is going to get the initial burst of crowd support. I find it interesting that many people love Nadal and his game but the majority of people that I've spoken to and/or read comments from were disappointed in this year's Wimbledon results. It was truly one of those, situations where people didn't necessarily rout against Nadal but more so routed for Federer to break the record. It just fitting that if Nadal is the King of Clay, Federer should at least be the King of Grass having beaten our beloved Pete Sampras and respectively crowned as the greatest tennis player of all time, who is bound to smash all existing records that would enable us mere mortals an undisputed consensus that maybe we can finally agree on who is the best. But then Nadal comes along, takes that away from us and once again we are left wondering if we'll ever reach a place where we can stamp someone as being the best player the World has ever seen.
Now we have a toss up, is it Federer or is it possibly Nadal after all? Or was it Sampras all along and we need to apologize to Pete for doubting his authority & achievements? But yet, can we dismiss Rod Laver or maybe even Agassi given he's the only one who truly has won on every surface regardless of the quantities? Darn, if Roger had only won the French this year it would have been grand.
Anyway, my point is we're just not ready to let Federer go as possibly being that guy we've been waiting for and Djokovic's comment simply made it easier for those rowdy New Yorkers to pick sides. No my friend, the Fans are not going to go easy on him against Roger. Every winning shot Federer makes will be met with enormous and thunderous applause and every winner that Djokovic hits will be graciously accepted as long as the match for Roger is not in jeopardy. We want Roger to get his revenge against Nadal and in order to do that, he & Nadal must get through even on the shoulders of those loud New Yorkers, whom I love during US Open time.
I had the pleasure of watching several night matches at the US Open and if you think it's loud from your TV, try being there. It's unbelievable. During the times when you see a commercial break, they play music and everybody gets up and dances, while they scan the crowd and show you on the huge screens in the Stadium. So if you happen to be at a night match in AA Stadium and you want to be on camera, during the breaks, the more you get into the music, the better your chances of getting of the screen. It wouldn't hurt if you happen to be sitting with a nice looking woman as well. -
09-07-2008, 02:39 AMmrgreatheart
With the mens final being moved to Monday, Federer will have time to rest and his opponent will have to finish his match tomorrow, so Federer will have a much needed day off. Novak got himself an attitude adjustment courtesy of Federer. LOL
-
09-07-2008, 02:52 AMCoachThanks for informing us of this. Just this evening I was talking to a friend about how they planned to finish this off given Nadal / Murray are still in a dead heat. We figured, if the Finals were still planned for Sunday and their match say went five sets, what were they going to do, make the winner go take a shower and get back on court? We all know Serena will make short work of Jelena unfortunately. So Monday makes sense except, even though anyone having tickets for Sunday that didn't use them will be able to use them on Monday unless you had a plane to catch and couldn't stay.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrgreatheart
For anyone close to New York, this is prime for getting in and watching a Tennis Match. You'd be surprised how easy it might be and you might even get to sit close up.
Remember people, no results unless you post *** Spoiler *** first. -
09-07-2008, 12:26 PMCoach
The link below will take you to the play by play (word by word) of the exchanges between Novak Djokovic & Andy Roddick on the USTA Official Website.
http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/art...html?promo=top -
09-08-2008, 01:29 AMIntel
I wanted Nadal to win Wimbledon. I did not care for Federer's record. I find Roger's game to be robotic and uninteresting. I have always supported the more technical players like Nadal and Roddick who work hard for every point. If Roger Federer won every tournament, men's tennis would be uninteresting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach
-
09-08-2008, 11:09 AMTennezSportNot sure......................I am not sure what you mean by technical players since Nads and ARods technique are not actually technically correct. In fact Fed is the more technically proficient player of the decade. However if you are saying that you prefer players that openly play with great will, heart, and desire then you may have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel
Cheers, TennezSport :cool: -
09-08-2008, 02:28 PMCoachAdding to this, it is my observation that on the Men's side, the list goes deep when referring to guys who are willing to leave it all on the Court. The winners are generally those who have a better grasp of Court Strategy. I'm going to leave Roddick's approach out of this for now however Rafa seems to play for the sheer love of the game. I respect anyone who gives 100% from 1st point to last point.Quote:
Originally Posted by TennezSport
Federer, plays with contained passion but he is in it to win it you can be sure of that. Maybe for those who aren't certain of this, read his Bio about the number of broken racquets, smashed locker room doors and hitting practice until it was too dark to see. He still needs Net work although. I think Rafa is best at Net than Roger. -
09-08-2008, 07:08 PMIntel
The use of the term technical may not have been appropriate, so I'll try to explain. I can relate better to Roddick and Nadal because they work hard for every point. They're not perfect. Federer seemed to have been born or made with the right body and measure of accuracy for playing tennis.The balls rarely go where he doesn't want them to go, he finds the right angles and his balls curve the right corners. His ground strokes, serves and backhands are fairly on point. Watching him play tennis to me is like watching a computer play chess. It is exciting for the first three times you watch, but then it begins to bore, because it becomes predictable. His game--until recently, lacked the human aspect; it lacked the drama, the intensity and the little imperfections that force people to sit on the edge of their seats. When I say Nadal and Roddick were technical, I should have said more physical, in that they have to physically work hard for every point. Balls don't just fall into corners and find perfect angles. Nadal has a bit more sense of accuracy than Roddick, but he still plays a physical game. Technique wise, I suppose Federer is perfect, but imperfection is more welcome by me. Nadal and Roddick lack a flawless technical game, but they play with will, hardwork and heart--even charisma. Federer seems to lack these qualities for me. I noticed McEnroe mentioned during Roger's fourth round match that it was nice to see him show emotions. I agree. He doesn't connect with people on the same emotional level that Roddick or Nadal does. People cheer for Federer because he's a champion, but not because of his personality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TennezSport
-
09-09-2008, 10:17 AMTennezSportClearly understood..........
Thanks for the response, I assumed that is what you were referring to but wanted to be sure.
Cheers, TennezSport :cool: -
09-10-2008, 12:46 AMCoach
Seems we heard the same about Pete Sampras' game and attitude. Everybody loves an Agassi style Player. Indicative of Media Hype when they tried to sell Roddick as the new Andre Agassi of American Men's Tennis.
People like Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, Baghdatis, Goran Ivo, Boris Becker, Rafa Nadal, Henri LeConte, Yannick Noah, Tomas Muster, Gustavo Kuerten, Ilie Nastase and some I can't think of right now have electric personalities and are great for the publicity of this Sport that has always struggled for recognition and acceptance especially in America, where "Who you are is more important than What you do. If you were to ask Americans who they'd prefer to hang out with, Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi, probably 90% would say Agassi.
We just assume because Andre started out his career with long hair, denim shorts and a rebel style attitude towards tradition, he's all about the fun but make no mistake about it. At the end of the day, these guys & gals are playing for not only money but for the Record Books as well. Roger Federer just pocketed 1.5 million dollars and a top of the line Lexus and all he talked about was how much winning consecutively meant to him.
When Pete Sampras made a feeble attempt at being more animated, it just didn't work for him or the public. That's not him, those shoes don't fit but please do not forget that Pete's A-game was always better than Andre's A-game. -
09-11-2008, 01:47 PMmadestro
I have to agree that Federer does get boring to watch sometimes. He is just too "perfect". It's like watching The Matrix, lol. You like the agents but you LOVE Neo!
Nadal is a great player and his dedication and courage are definitely what makes the difference, but I still somewhat see him as a one dimensional player. I just don't see much room for improvement (there is not much to improve anyways, lol).
Djokovich is still kind of a "spoiled child". He has had great success but is not quite there and he needs to learn that games are not only won in the court but outside of it as well. He will learn in time and I believe once he gets past the superiority complex he will eventually be number one (even if not for long). Now this is one player where I definitely see lots of need and potential for improvement. He is where he is now, imagine what he will accomplish down the road.
Roddick is a lost case in my opinion. Here is a dude with tremendous skills all over (serve, strokes, volleys) who can't seem to win for some reason.... -
09-11-2008, 09:42 PMCoachOne day I while attend advanced jazz ensemble class at Cabrillo College, Aptos Ca. which is within the Santa Cruz district, we learned the Jazz Instructor/Conductor wasn't going to arrive for another 20 mins. So I being the instigator of all things good & evil, suggested we jam out a bit. More than half of the students wanted to know what sheet music to grab for and I said, "sheet music, no let's just kick out a freestyle jam in a minor key". I never saw such blank looks on the faces of these people and then it struck me that many of them didn't know how to improvise. With musical direction, they could hang with the best in the business but without ...Quote:
Originally Posted by madestro
Andy Roddick has always struck me as one who lacks pure natural talent & instinct. For the trained eye, you can clearly see that Roddick's approach to the game is as mechanical as it gets. Think about those who have tutored him, throughout his career. I can't name all of the coaches Andy has enjoyed however of the names that come to most minds, they were all players who knew how to improvise. They knew how to change up when plan A wasn't getting it done. I've yet to see this from Roddick. What I see is a guy who blasted on the scene much like Mark Philippoussis with a huge serve and almost equally huge top spin forehand.
Those were his weapons and much like many Pro Players that debut on the Tour with something out of the norm to deal with, it generally takes the other players a while to fine tune what is being delivered. Soon, most of the top players were sending Roddick's serve back and some sent it back with interest. Talk in the Locker Rooms is simply, when you take away Andy's Serve, you basically have maybe a top 30 Tour Player.
But to relate to our topic, it goes back to when I mentioned the word, "instinct". When you possess a natural talent for any given sport or artistic expression, you have someone that exuberates passion and passion exuberates an attention getting and marketable artistry that you can not teach someone to have. Andy Roddick appears to me personally as one who was well trained and relays upon that training to get the job done and when his training isn't getting it done, has no instinctual artistry to fall back on. -
09-12-2008, 09:48 AMTennezSportLike to add.........
With regards to the Pete/Agassi, Fed/Nadal statements, people like to be able to relate to each other and when you have players like Pete and Rog it's very difficult to relate. Their game are so fluid and free that most people have no idea what that feels like, can't relate, so their games can become boring to some.
On the other hand people see Agassi/Nadal hustle and bustle around the court and this they can relate to that, as most people fight themselves and their opponents on court. This makes them feel more connected to that type of player, especially when you add the point winning celebration ala Nads.
Regarding the comments about Roddick, nothing else to add, as you not natural at all.
Cheers, TennezSport :cool: -
09-12-2008, 07:27 PMCoach
I like your point which is why blue collar workers think Dem politicians understand them better and white collar workers think Repub politicians understand them better.
Your point was well taken. It's all about the fight which is why I enjoyed baseline players over S&V Players. I love a good baseline battle. Andy Murray appeared to float around the court very well at the Open this year. I was very impressed by him.
I use to like Ivan Lendl and couldn't understand why the Audience never warmed up to him because he was a very funny guy off court but stiff as a board on court. it doesn't bother me at all when someone doesn't care for a Player I admire. I'll tell you this however, I've yet to get one kid coming up to me asking if they can learn to hit like Federer. Most want to hit like Agassi and now Nadal. I'm able to show the Agassi stroke to them but I've yet to master the Nadal stroke enough to demonstrate. -
09-16-2008, 09:38 AMTennezSportI was also impressed and I think that it will be a very good '09 season for Andy, if he can keep his head straight. More worries for Nads, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach
I really enjoyed watching Ivan play as well but I understand that most Americans looked at him like Ivan Drago from Rocky, that picture of a communist destroyer. Lendl was nothing like that but as Agassi used to say "Image is everything". I remember rooting for Lendl when he played the USO against Tim Mayotte on the Grandstand court, and almost getting beaten to a pulp by the crowd; really fun day as Lendl won, we made a quick exit ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach
I know what you mean about kids not trying to copy Fed, most people don't understand it; looks too easy, not fun. However with Agassi and Nads strokes you can see the work, easy to relate. Although, I would not try to teach Nads strokes as they are totally his and would probably hurt someone else. It's like trying to teach McEnroe's strokes, just ain't natural. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Coach
Cheers, TennezSport :cool: -
09-17-2008, 01:38 AMCoachWell B4 I can show the stroke, I have 2 learn it myself. I hit with a buddy of mine a few months back. He's a seasoned player as well. Both of us were trying to get that Nadal forehand down and 2B honest, we both failed miserably. Extreme heavy Top Spin but if you think you can just use an extreme western grip, that's only part of what Nadal does. He brushes up on the ball but at the same time punches it forward. The results are similar to a kick serve where, when the ball makes contact with the Court, it kicks up at you and if you're not prepared, you're hitting the ball up around your ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by TennezSport
You have to hit on the rise against Nadal, which only a few guys can do well against him. Apparently Andy Murray has learned to deal with it. As I tell my kids & friends, : Don't worry about how to hit like Nadal, work on your game plan against that style of hitting". -
09-17-2008, 01:46 AMHarwin
My, what a fuss ! what did Novak say ?
-
09-17-2008, 09:13 AMTennezSportSpin spin spin..............:D Hehehehe, I know what you mean, that is why I said it ain't natural. To get that forward motion that you discribed you have to slap at the ball using your wrist, which is why Nads has that Popeye left arm. Not something I would try to teach. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach
If you take a look at the tape you will see that many times Murray actually played deep letting the ball come down, but as soon as he got a shorter ball he used his ability to come forward and take it on the rise. His defensive skill was equal to Nads but his offensive attacks were surgical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach
Cheers, TenezSport :cool: -
09-17-2008, 08:14 PMCoach
Andy's tactics against Rafa were superb, no other way to describe it. He played the most strategic game plan against a guy he had a losing record to. For Andy to beat Rafa in a Major when Rafa has just become #1 in the World, seeded #1 in a Major for the 1st time in a Major and when Rafa is feeling the most confidence he's ever had, was nothing less than amazing.
You are correct that Andy stood back during Rafa's service game, however if you watch the Tape as you mentioned, Andy only stayed back until Rafa tossed the ball up, then he would move in. At the point of return contact, Andy was pretty much at the baseline. If you stand back as far as Andy was standing and wait for the ball to decline, you will be giving up way too much real estate for Rafa to clean your clock. -
09-18-2008, 09:37 AMTennezSportAgreed...........Truely, and not good news for Nads as the list of players that use this tactic is growing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach
Yes I saw that also, all I can say is I absolutely agree on both points. I loved how Andy gave Nads the impression he was staying back and then pounced on any second serve or short ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach
Cheers, TennezSport :cool: -
09-20-2008, 07:59 AMMaximum JackQuote:
Originally Posted by Coach
I completely agree. The three best matches I saw this year all included Rafa and he was on the losing side twice! The other loss being to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the Semis at the Australian. Unfortunately, both Andy and Jo-Wilfried were completely spent after beating Rafa.
As for the thread, I loved Djokovic when he came on the scene, but I've felt he's a bit of jerk for awhile now. The Roddick incident just confirmed my suspicions.
Oh and put me in the camp of those who was rooting for Rafa at Wimbledon, just as I root for Fed at the French. I'm generally for the underdog.
