Alex Dolgopolov: Genius vs Wild Child

What's the first thought that comes to your mind when the name of Alex Dolgopolov is mentioned:

pony-tail? slicing? funny service motion? chaos?

I bet the last word has etched a furrow or two on his coaches face, for Dolgo, the breath-taking, ultra-aggressive, trapeze artist among tennis players is not easy to rule:
just like his pony-tail oozes rebellious streak, so does his shot-selection: despite his super paced shots taking time away from his opponents (that is when they land IN the court) he seems to be having plenty of time in his mind to produce some random patterns as if he is bored.
During a press conference at last year's USO last that took place during Dolgopolov- Djokovic match, journalists asked Tipsarevic what he thought of it. Tipsarevic glanced at the TV screen in the room and shook his head: I don't think even HE (Dolgopolov) knows what shot he's going to play next.

And that sums him up so well: the chaos, creative chaos he so loves to play within: unburdened, with no chains of premeditation, flying light-footed and free across the court, just singing tennis.

His trademark shot: the absence of one! What an insult to his bohemian genius, wild spirit that loves to create something new and crazy on that white canvas called tennis match.

Dolgoplov's tennis is the most thrilling you will ever see: the reckless abandon with which he plays deserves a lot more attention than it gets; sadly, tennis pens prefer the trophy winners.

Enjoy him while you can, because the champagne fizz does usually not last long

In other words, his margins are so thin that that he is going to have very good and very bad times.

Faster conds woudl certainly suit him.

But I agree, overall frustrating cause we know his career is going to be filled with waste of energy and opportunities.

Tenez wrote:In other words, his margins are so thin that that he is going to have very good and very bad times.

Faster conds woudl certainly suit him.

But I agree, overall frustrating cause we know his career is going to be filled with waste of energy and opportunities.

True, but I don't think HE sees it as a waste. Although he may be and probably is very frustrated by the conditions and lack of more success, I think he treasures his unompromising tennis more than commercial success, he's like a poet among the bankers there, I really like that.
A true sultan of swing and an absolute treasure!

Having said the above, I did find this interesting and amusing a few weeks ago:


"Vsevolod Kevlych, the vice president of the Ukraine Tennis Federation, said that the reason why world No. 17 Alexandr Dolgopolov did not play Davis Cup for his country was because of money. As a result, Dolgopolov was ruled ineligible for the Olympics.

"The Federation [has] no possibility to pay this contract," Kevlych
said. "Even for the player of such level. We'd like to make a reasonable
agreement, and we really want Alex to play for the national team. Of
course, not for free. But on a reasonable [condition], probably better
than all other Ukrainian top players have on the team. All of us are
ready to hide [our] personal ego. And we are waiting for the same from
the player."

Dolgopolov said he did not want to get into specifics: "We couldn't
find a solution to the problems, so we just put it on standby and I
couldn't play for the team at this moment. I really don't want to take
that all up officially in the press. It's been a long time since we had a
few problems so we couldn't find a way to agree. I hope it will get
better in the upcoming years."

There were 3 matches yesterday in which player came back from 2 sets deficit. Good to see Dolg going through the second round.

Dolgo was frustrating for me once, but not any more. The problem was my expectation and nothing with his game. He plays an ultra high risk game which is often so aggressive, it can make Fed look like a defender. But such a game just can't have the consistency needed to win big tournaments.

I previously posted about his game after looking at what all he lacked and how he can become a contender at the important tournaments. But having watched him for so long now, I just can't imagine he can ever do any of those. Its just not his thing.

At most I expect from him is to provide a wildly entertaining out of the world shot-making match defying all the technical ho-hums of the game irrespective of the result. Even if he goes down to a no-body, its still worth for me now.

It used to gets frustrating at time, but I've learnt to embrace it and gladly take it.

Is he is genius? No. He sure is supremely spectacular, but no genius. He hasn't mastered any aspect of the game to be called genius.

Is he entertaining to watch? Not a moment is dull when he is on court.

I agree. To be a genius, you would have to produce those kind of risky shots at will with consistency....which he doesn't. He is very talented cause he still pulls more than teh average player can...but to pull them consistently, effortlessly, graciously and under the toughest pressures? not seen it yet from him. I know another player who can!

Tenez wrote:I agree. To be a genius, you would have to produce those kind of risky shots at will with consistency....which he doesn't. He is very talented cause he still pulls more than teh average player can...but to pull them consistently, effortlessly, graciously and under the toughest pressures? not seen it yet from him. I know another player who can!

Nah...."another" player is a percentage grinder compared to Dolgo

Tenez wrote:I agree. To be a genius, you would have to produce those kind of risky shots at will with consistency....

I'd call that prodigy, rather than genius. Genius can produce one masterpiece and that's enough. It's a standard of quality, not the need/telent for repetition which bears the fruit of consistency.

That gives us all hope

I don;t think you can create a masterpiece without having a huge amount of talent. That talent might not be enough to create masterpieces at will but at least talent is there in abundance.

Geniuses can typically produce masters pieces at will.

We also need to remember about his condition which affects his endurance on the courts.

Tenez wrote:I don;t think you can create a masterpiece without having a huge amount of talent. That talent might not be enough to create masterpieces at will but at least talent is there in abundance.

Geniuses can typically produce masters pieces at will.

Of course they do.
I was trying to outline the difference of "genius" and "prodigy". Prodigy is the abundance of genius and talent. A genius can be lazy and not cultivate the talent. A prodigy doesn't. The abundance is such that the execution is effortless. That's the difference in my opinion.

This specific genius has medical limitations, which can be used to explain his 'waywardness'.

The expectation of 'results' commensurate with theoretical talent leads to disappointment, hence enjoy the tennis on an 'as is where is what is' basis.