Is Djoker original, or really gifted w quick reflexes (reaction)? To Joe’s point, think that’s the part fans struggle to find. Career between/in midst of two original ‘greats’ has cast him in role of “Jan Brady”. Only emphasized by his early choices to regularly complain (to point of ‘whining’) to the chair about players across from him. Recall his coach had a bit of that during his own playing days so maybe that’s what Djoker was taught. 1st impressions can be unfortunate but always remain. Djoker’s workman like game may not be the spark show of his ‘big brothers’. Like the ‘baby of a family (of greats)’, it is sublime.
I seem to recall that early on, Djokovic realized that he had to take his game to another level. He lost weight, got more fit, practiced like a maniac & then, and only then, was he able to beat everyone else. That's the greatest thing about Federer, and then Nadal is that they forced anyone who wanted to beat them to do things nobody else wanted to do. They beat everyone before they even played them. Djokovic was the only one willing to do everything. That's why there's nobody else. Certainly Kyrgios is not that guy. Nore is anyone else. Once they're all gone, I just don't think we'll see the same level of tennis from champions again. Look at the women with Serena gone. Not the same.
Kyrgios's performance in the 4th set tiebreaker was the melt-down I expected sooner. After Djokovic held to even the 4th set at 6-6. Kyrgios had to feel the pressure that no matter how good he played, Djokovic was going to be slightly better. And so in the tiebreaker Kyrgios went for the hero shots and missed.
While none of us would be surprised to see Kyrgios win a Major, I don't expect to see Kyrgios succeed as a multi-year top-ranked player. As others have explained, he seems more motivated at avoiding defeat than at achieving greatness. His mercurial emotions are a distraction and as much as they may distract an opponent, they reveal a weakness in Kyrgios.
Ditto. I can tell you more about Serena Williams’ spouse (Reddit co-founder and Angel investor Alexis Ohanian) than the tennis great. And yet I anxiously await Poz’s post major write up and cheer along side.
Not enough is being said about how bizarre it was that Kyrgios yelled at his team for not cheering enough. I do not have the words to describe how weird that is and how weak it makes him look.
Joe, for me, the real story is about the emotional fabric that drives Kyrgios. His natural talent is a given but he will not achieve great major success. John McEnroe, whether imbued with knowledge i didn't know he had, or an intuitive turn of phrase, said before the match "Nick has a need to avoid failure". Well, Johnny Mac, bang on. We know from the psych lit on motivation the difference between a high need for achievement and a high need to avoid failure. The latter syndrome presents a personality that plays the victim, chooses high risk chances so if failure occurs, hey "that was a near impossible effort". When Nadal or Djokovic is way down in a game, set or match, they fight for every single point. Kyrgios does not. He mails it in ready for next page to turn. BUT most telling. When the match was over, he was smiling a huge sense of relief as he and the other bad boy walked off the court. He didn't show an ounce of how awful it was to come so close and lose. Further, in his post game interview--amidst the rambling about the match--he finally said something like "I guess it was good that i lost, because if i had one this greatest pinnacle of tennis greatness, i would lose my motivation to play all of those other tournaments." OMG. This guy does not crave to win. He does not put in the work to win. He listens to no one to improve his game. He does not have the drive required to be a winner but he has enormous talent, enough to entertain, win a few minor gigs and the ability to demonstrate an anti-establishment demeanor to attract a large number of people to give him the adoration he craves.
"He does not have the drive required to be a winner but he has enormous talent, enough to entertain, win a few minor gigs and the ability to demonstrate an anti-establishment demeanor to attract a large number of people to give him the adoration he craves."
And then add in the money, the fame, the adulation, and the fun/challenge of performing at an extremely high level, doesn't sound like Mr. Kyrgios is doin' too badly.
In fact, sounds like he's "winning" all over the place. Just because he doesn't have the hypercompetitive gene that Novak/Fed/Rafa (and Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter, Tom Brady, Tiger . . .) have doesn't mean he's somehow "failing" or falling short of some ephemeral goal he may . . . or may not have, or even care about.
FWIW, I'm like the loony athletes (and perhaps you) in that I also hate to lose, and anything short of victory makes me furious. But I think maybe I'm the weird one. What's wrong with trying your best, putting on a good show, making money, and looking great in the process?
Footnote: He doesn’t try the best to max out his talent. You are not he weird one. As the old saying goes, “ show me a good loser and ill show you a loser!” Nothing wrong w being a gracious loser, but hard to erase that joyful look as he left the court.
Man, I loved reading this. I'm no tennis nerd. I know next to nothing about the players or the game, but I enjoy watching all sports. I have always really, really enjoyed watching Djokovic without knowing why. You just told me why. Thanks for a great read.
The irony is that the key to Djokovic’s victory, his ability to maintain his composure and play strategically, is the key attribute missing from Kyrgios’s game. If he takes this learning opportunity to heart (and head), he can be a multi-major champion. If not, his career could come apart tragically. For unlike Nastassi and McEnroe, whose antics seemed to be those of immature, self-centered jerks, Kyrgios seems to be wrestling with some very dark, personal demons.
Totally agree. I also think that because of his demons, Kyrgios doesn't want it enough. To be #1, to win a major, you have to want it. Or maybe it's not that he doesn't want it enough but that he subconsciously fears the pressures and expectations and scrutiny that would follow him if he won a major. Tellingly, when interviewed on court after the match, Kyrgios was asked whether his success made him hungry for more. He answered "No, absolutely not. I'm so tired. Me and my team are exhausted from so much tennis. . . "
Great analysis. The difference between these top few players is minute and the mental aspect is sometimes the difference. Djokovic, as you said, has unparalleled experience, incredible skills but also nerves of steel and supreme confidence in his own ability. Kyrgios, on the other hand, doesn’t deal with the stress of intense competition anywhere as well (who does?), and I think he unintentionally undermines his game as a way to deal with the stress. But there is no denying his talents – his serve is almost unstoppable, with both speed and placement.
The most interesting part of the event for me was Djokovic’s post-match interview, in which he went out of his way to not only effusively compliment Kyrgios’ skills, but to encourage him to keep at it, to not get discouraged by the loss, and to take tennis seriously and dedicate himself to the game. Here is the interview; it is interesting and worth watching, especially since the two did not get along very well prior to this match: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7vMOgfCIyc
Where is Tom Cruise not? He was at Silverstone in the pits WEARING HEADPHONES as if he were giving directions. Will he stroll onto the stage at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, not in character, but as Tom Cruise to give Shakespeare a few notes?
I'm on the opposite side of the fence as another commenter here. I'm a Djoker fan who simply can't fathom how stupid his stance on the COVID vaccine is. I was wondering, once he got back on the circuit after the Australian Open, whether I'd be able to keep rooting for him. And I still like the guy, for reasons you mention in this piece. That being said, and even understanding how hyper conscious he is of everything he puts in his body, to have a goal of winning as many majors as possible and just pissing away the chance to compete in as many of them as possible is so asinine. This is particularly true where he is now the only significant men's player who is taking this position, when the fact that his colleagues on the tour have gotten their shots, without any demonstrable negative effects, just is such a gigantic self-inflicted wound on his legacy. It doesn't damage what he has accomplished, but it lowers his ceiling, especially if he can't compete at the Australian Open, where he has been so dominant.
What is surprising is that we would expect people whose livelihood depends on extreme physical performance to inject themselves with an experimental drug because others say so. Djokovic is a man of integrity. He could easily get a saline shot and claim to be vaccinated. Do we really think all the athletes who claim to be vaccinated actually are? How we would know they are not?
Djokovic would have no need to make a public statement about the vaccines except his choice results in him being denied the opportunity to play. So he accepts that consequence but must publicly respond to questions about his choice. The authorities created the controversy and Djokovic won't lie to avoid the controversy.
When you hope for an outcome, that is an experiment and not a treatment with a known result.
"White House COVID-19 Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx ... says that officials were likely hoping that infection or transmission would not reoccur once the vaccines came along. "I think it was hope that the vaccine would work in that way," she says."
Flu vaccines are a calculated guess. In that sense they are experimental.
"Flu Vaccine Was Not Very Effective This Season, the C.D.C. Says
The vaccine was only about 16 percent effective at reducing a person’s chance of getting a mild or moderate infection, the agency said. Experts said a good rate would be at least 50 percent."
The Covid mRNA shots are especially experimental as both the mRNA platform and the transport mechanism are novel, having never been successfully used prior to Covid-19.
Of course, just about everything we do in medicine is a calculated guess. Antibiotics, chemotherapy, blood pressure meds etc, etc. No guarantees. Antibiotics are a good example. An antibiotic is developed to fight certain bacteria. Over time, those bacteria may develop mutations (sound familiar?). Those mutations may require a change in the dose of the antibiotic (kind of like needing a booster), or may require a change/modification of the antibiotic (like the modified vaccines that should be coming out in the fall that will be more effective against the newer variants). Despite this, I've never thought of antibiotics as experimental.
I'm a Djoker fan who has made peace with his vaccination stance. To make peace with it, you have to understand that Djokovic is a strange, quasi-mystical man. He can no more take the vaccine than a devout religious observer eat a forbidden meat. It is not rational. The vaccine is simply incompatible with him. If he took it, it would destroy that very mystical--yes, mystical--quality that allowed him to come back in each of his last three matches at Wimbledon, at the FO 2021, and Wimbledon 2021, his epic 2020 match against Federer, etc., etc.
I guess he dodged a bullet then, didn't he, since he just won his 7th Wimbledon and 21st grand slam. Maybe is a calculated risk he's willing to take. It turns out that the only tennis player in the top 200 to be sidelined for an extended period (due to illness) during the pandemic was Jeremy Chardy. Check out his story, if you like.
Is Djoker original, or really gifted w quick reflexes (reaction)? To Joe’s point, think that’s the part fans struggle to find. Career between/in midst of two original ‘greats’ has cast him in role of “Jan Brady”. Only emphasized by his early choices to regularly complain (to point of ‘whining’) to the chair about players across from him. Recall his coach had a bit of that during his own playing days so maybe that’s what Djoker was taught. 1st impressions can be unfortunate but always remain. Djoker’s workman like game may not be the spark show of his ‘big brothers’. Like the ‘baby of a family (of greats)’, it is sublime.
I seem to recall that early on, Djokovic realized that he had to take his game to another level. He lost weight, got more fit, practiced like a maniac & then, and only then, was he able to beat everyone else. That's the greatest thing about Federer, and then Nadal is that they forced anyone who wanted to beat them to do things nobody else wanted to do. They beat everyone before they even played them. Djokovic was the only one willing to do everything. That's why there's nobody else. Certainly Kyrgios is not that guy. Nore is anyone else. Once they're all gone, I just don't think we'll see the same level of tennis from champions again. Look at the women with Serena gone. Not the same.
Share and sign this petition please to allow Novak to play US Open https://www.change.org/p/allow-djokovic-to-play-in-us-open-2022
"He lost the game, the set and his mind, all at the same time."
Excellent writing Joe, thanks for another great tennis story.
Kyrgios's performance in the 4th set tiebreaker was the melt-down I expected sooner. After Djokovic held to even the 4th set at 6-6. Kyrgios had to feel the pressure that no matter how good he played, Djokovic was going to be slightly better. And so in the tiebreaker Kyrgios went for the hero shots and missed.
While none of us would be surprised to see Kyrgios win a Major, I don't expect to see Kyrgios succeed as a multi-year top-ranked player. As others have explained, he seems more motivated at avoiding defeat than at achieving greatness. His mercurial emotions are a distraction and as much as they may distract an opponent, they reveal a weakness in Kyrgios.
Brilliant article. Perhaps the best I've ever read about Novak Djokovic.
Thank you.
Joe, I don’t like tennis and I only vaguely keep track of it. Your writing is so good that you can even make tennis interesting. Thanks, Joe.
Ditto. I can tell you more about Serena Williams’ spouse (Reddit co-founder and Angel investor Alexis Ohanian) than the tennis great. And yet I anxiously await Poz’s post major write up and cheer along side.
Loved the story but I’m not really up on the whole Disney movie thing. When did Frozen come out?
2013 or the year that every tween kid into musical theater decided to Let it Go.
Not enough is being said about how bizarre it was that Kyrgios yelled at his team for not cheering enough. I do not have the words to describe how weird that is and how weak it makes him look.
Yep, he makes money, he is an anti establishment darling BUT will fall short of big stage wins cuz he fears losing more than he craves winning.
Also, he was upset his team did not cheer for him enough kind of negating his ant-establishment reputation imho.
Joe, for me, the real story is about the emotional fabric that drives Kyrgios. His natural talent is a given but he will not achieve great major success. John McEnroe, whether imbued with knowledge i didn't know he had, or an intuitive turn of phrase, said before the match "Nick has a need to avoid failure". Well, Johnny Mac, bang on. We know from the psych lit on motivation the difference between a high need for achievement and a high need to avoid failure. The latter syndrome presents a personality that plays the victim, chooses high risk chances so if failure occurs, hey "that was a near impossible effort". When Nadal or Djokovic is way down in a game, set or match, they fight for every single point. Kyrgios does not. He mails it in ready for next page to turn. BUT most telling. When the match was over, he was smiling a huge sense of relief as he and the other bad boy walked off the court. He didn't show an ounce of how awful it was to come so close and lose. Further, in his post game interview--amidst the rambling about the match--he finally said something like "I guess it was good that i lost, because if i had one this greatest pinnacle of tennis greatness, i would lose my motivation to play all of those other tournaments." OMG. This guy does not crave to win. He does not put in the work to win. He listens to no one to improve his game. He does not have the drive required to be a winner but he has enormous talent, enough to entertain, win a few minor gigs and the ability to demonstrate an anti-establishment demeanor to attract a large number of people to give him the adoration he craves.
"He does not have the drive required to be a winner but he has enormous talent, enough to entertain, win a few minor gigs and the ability to demonstrate an anti-establishment demeanor to attract a large number of people to give him the adoration he craves."
And then add in the money, the fame, the adulation, and the fun/challenge of performing at an extremely high level, doesn't sound like Mr. Kyrgios is doin' too badly.
In fact, sounds like he's "winning" all over the place. Just because he doesn't have the hypercompetitive gene that Novak/Fed/Rafa (and Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter, Tom Brady, Tiger . . .) have doesn't mean he's somehow "failing" or falling short of some ephemeral goal he may . . . or may not have, or even care about.
FWIW, I'm like the loony athletes (and perhaps you) in that I also hate to lose, and anything short of victory makes me furious. But I think maybe I'm the weird one. What's wrong with trying your best, putting on a good show, making money, and looking great in the process?
Footnote: He doesn’t try the best to max out his talent. You are not he weird one. As the old saying goes, “ show me a good loser and ill show you a loser!” Nothing wrong w being a gracious loser, but hard to erase that joyful look as he left the court.
I understand. But what I'm talking about is something different.
Man, I loved reading this. I'm no tennis nerd. I know next to nothing about the players or the game, but I enjoy watching all sports. I have always really, really enjoyed watching Djokovic without knowing why. You just told me why. Thanks for a great read.
The irony is that the key to Djokovic’s victory, his ability to maintain his composure and play strategically, is the key attribute missing from Kyrgios’s game. If he takes this learning opportunity to heart (and head), he can be a multi-major champion. If not, his career could come apart tragically. For unlike Nastassi and McEnroe, whose antics seemed to be those of immature, self-centered jerks, Kyrgios seems to be wrestling with some very dark, personal demons.
Totally agree. I also think that because of his demons, Kyrgios doesn't want it enough. To be #1, to win a major, you have to want it. Or maybe it's not that he doesn't want it enough but that he subconsciously fears the pressures and expectations and scrutiny that would follow him if he won a major. Tellingly, when interviewed on court after the match, Kyrgios was asked whether his success made him hungry for more. He answered "No, absolutely not. I'm so tired. Me and my team are exhausted from so much tennis. . . "
Great analysis. The difference between these top few players is minute and the mental aspect is sometimes the difference. Djokovic, as you said, has unparalleled experience, incredible skills but also nerves of steel and supreme confidence in his own ability. Kyrgios, on the other hand, doesn’t deal with the stress of intense competition anywhere as well (who does?), and I think he unintentionally undermines his game as a way to deal with the stress. But there is no denying his talents – his serve is almost unstoppable, with both speed and placement.
The most interesting part of the event for me was Djokovic’s post-match interview, in which he went out of his way to not only effusively compliment Kyrgios’ skills, but to encourage him to keep at it, to not get discouraged by the loss, and to take tennis seriously and dedicate himself to the game. Here is the interview; it is interesting and worth watching, especially since the two did not get along very well prior to this match: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7vMOgfCIyc
I haven't seen much of Kyrgios, but he kind of reminds me of Ilile Nastase, with his temper, controversies, and unpredictability.
Where is Tom Cruise not? He was at Silverstone in the pits WEARING HEADPHONES as if he were giving directions. Will he stroll onto the stage at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, not in character, but as Tom Cruise to give Shakespeare a few notes?
I'm on the opposite side of the fence as another commenter here. I'm a Djoker fan who simply can't fathom how stupid his stance on the COVID vaccine is. I was wondering, once he got back on the circuit after the Australian Open, whether I'd be able to keep rooting for him. And I still like the guy, for reasons you mention in this piece. That being said, and even understanding how hyper conscious he is of everything he puts in his body, to have a goal of winning as many majors as possible and just pissing away the chance to compete in as many of them as possible is so asinine. This is particularly true where he is now the only significant men's player who is taking this position, when the fact that his colleagues on the tour have gotten their shots, without any demonstrable negative effects, just is such a gigantic self-inflicted wound on his legacy. It doesn't damage what he has accomplished, but it lowers his ceiling, especially if he can't compete at the Australian Open, where he has been so dominant.
What is surprising is that we would expect people whose livelihood depends on extreme physical performance to inject themselves with an experimental drug because others say so. Djokovic is a man of integrity. He could easily get a saline shot and claim to be vaccinated. Do we really think all the athletes who claim to be vaccinated actually are? How we would know they are not?
Djokovic would have no need to make a public statement about the vaccines except his choice results in him being denied the opportunity to play. So he accepts that consequence but must publicly respond to questions about his choice. The authorities created the controversy and Djokovic won't lie to avoid the controversy.
It is neither experimental or a drug.
When you hope for an outcome, that is an experiment and not a treatment with a known result.
"White House COVID-19 Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx ... says that officials were likely hoping that infection or transmission would not reoccur once the vaccines came along. "I think it was hope that the vaccine would work in that way," she says."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5021092/dr-birx-knew-natural-covid-19-reinfections-early-december-2020
So I assume you believe the yearly flu vaccines are experimental as well?
Flu vaccines are a calculated guess. In that sense they are experimental.
"Flu Vaccine Was Not Very Effective This Season, the C.D.C. Says
The vaccine was only about 16 percent effective at reducing a person’s chance of getting a mild or moderate infection, the agency said. Experts said a good rate would be at least 50 percent."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/health/flu-vaccine-effectiveness.html
The Covid mRNA shots are especially experimental as both the mRNA platform and the transport mechanism are novel, having never been successfully used prior to Covid-19.
Of course, just about everything we do in medicine is a calculated guess. Antibiotics, chemotherapy, blood pressure meds etc, etc. No guarantees. Antibiotics are a good example. An antibiotic is developed to fight certain bacteria. Over time, those bacteria may develop mutations (sound familiar?). Those mutations may require a change in the dose of the antibiotic (kind of like needing a booster), or may require a change/modification of the antibiotic (like the modified vaccines that should be coming out in the fall that will be more effective against the newer variants). Despite this, I've never thought of antibiotics as experimental.
I'm a Djoker fan who has made peace with his vaccination stance. To make peace with it, you have to understand that Djokovic is a strange, quasi-mystical man. He can no more take the vaccine than a devout religious observer eat a forbidden meat. It is not rational. The vaccine is simply incompatible with him. If he took it, it would destroy that very mystical--yes, mystical--quality that allowed him to come back in each of his last three matches at Wimbledon, at the FO 2021, and Wimbledon 2021, his epic 2020 match against Federer, etc., etc.
You know what else would destroy that "mystical quality"? Long COVID
I guess he dodged a bullet then, didn't he, since he just won his 7th Wimbledon and 21st grand slam. Maybe is a calculated risk he's willing to take. It turns out that the only tennis player in the top 200 to be sidelined for an extended period (due to illness) during the pandemic was Jeremy Chardy. Check out his story, if you like.
Weren't the rules changed in New York to allow Kyrie Irving to play? I don't see what the difference is between the two.
The issue here is international travel. Djokovic isn't allowed into the country at the moment.