Players popularity - What makes it?

I was watching a few games of the Pete v Roger wimbledon 2001 4th round encounter and it is very surprising to see a 19yo having most of the crowd versus a "great" champion like Pete. It was also a time where SVing was everything and it was difficult to see the extend of Federer's talent on this single occasion. It was all about eye/hand coord and very little separated the 2 grass players, so the crowd coudl not quite choose over the other on style alone. Sure Federer looks smoother already but I doubt the crowd at large could appreciate much of that.

Now put 29yo or 36 yo Federer in the same situation versus a young talented opponent and I doubt he will have 70% of the crowd against him, even if it is Shapo. From that clip you sense that the crowd has had enough of seeing Pete win all those slams and get nothing in return.

Now I can't talk for the crowd but I always felt short changed with Pete. I always supported Goran or almost anybody else as I felt Pete was just there to take his "due" title, give us a controlled smile once the title in the pocket, or contempt for anything less. I am quite glad he almost lost all his records to Federer.

Maybe he is the reason TDs wanted to take control over who would win? he is certainly one of the reason they slowed everything down. They started in 2002 when they provided huge balls in SW18 (well huge for the time) and it made him look so poor as he lost to George Basel that year in SW19 the first round.

For some reasons people seem much more happy and part of the story when federer (yep and Nadal - though for very different reasons) keep winning.

There’s a lot to it but one thing Pete never gave was any access to his personality.

There’s gracefully behaving guys like Federer and Nadal, and  Djokovic with his on-Court sportsmanship. The first two certainly give a lot of insight to their thoughts and personality. 
Then there’s bad boys like McEnroe or now Kyrgios whose personality is all over the Court.

People may like or dislike but they’re unlikely to be apathetic. Pete was just nothing personally so really, unless you supported his nationality, record breaking, or his style then who’d care? He was respected for sure but why not cheer for the 19 year old kid with the exciting game? 

Pete never gave anyone a reason to stick with him and really since retiring he’s done nothing to change that impression. Hell, his attitude with Agassi in the doubles match they played with Federer & Nadal was unimpressive. I think having his records trashed hasn’t helped.

Hehe, what a clip!
Annacone and Llayani with hair.

As you saod Pete shortchanged tennis fans.
He had zero personality and flair.
He was boring. His game was boring.
He looked like an ape and walked like one.

But that's who he was...and still is, suffering and mourning over his records.

He walked like he owned present ,past and future.

Great serve, I'll give him that, but not much else for the eye or mind.

A plain and forgettable character.

Young Federer looked complete and unassuming, but confident.
He was almost embarrassd within himself how much better he was and having to school his idol.

Compare Laver to Sampras. One is a gracious old champion, the other a bitter man.

For what...

"Finally, what makes a popular player - a bit of honesty on the court, and yes a smile...a facial expression goes a long way...esp. nowadays with those brilliant slo-mos.

Even the so-called monotonous Ferrer had some charm and character.

And a good, competitive spirit. Not vain egomaniacs.

How one walks says a lot, too.

I love Nole's upright demeanour. 
Fed's strut has a touch of arrogance, but it suits him.

Raonic reminds me of Sampras. Boring. Boring. Boring.

A good, attractive, all-court game, of course wins hearts straight away.
Shapo is a proof.

And Stan.

For me personally:

Sportsmanship.  I am not talking about not smashing racquets.  That shouldn't even be punishable.  I am talking about clapping a good shot (something Fed and Nadal both fail at), 
not scowling after losing a point to a good shot (Nadal really fails at), 
not fist pumping like an idiot (Nadal again), 
not cheering people's unforced errors and especially net cords (Nadal really fails at.  Murray is the worst.), 
being gracious in interviews and not pretending you are by using double speak or retracting statements later (yeah, Nadal again), 
obeying the rules and not bending or breaking them, which makes you a cheat (Nadal), 
not being self serving (Nadal - whinging about blue clay, whinging he can't have on court coaching, whinging that the hard court season is "too long", whinging that the ranking system needs amending to a rolling 2 year list). 
And then there is attacking, flair, variety style of play (again, not Nadal).

In short, look at Nadal and you will see the absolute example of the kind of player I utterly despise in every way possible virtually .  Look at Tsonga, Del Potro, Dustin Brown, and even Djokovic at times (always claps opponents shots), and you will see the players I love.  Federer too - but I don't put him on likability list next to Tsonga or Brown or Santoro.

Daniel wrote:For me personally:

Sportsmanship.  I am not talking about not smashing racquets.  That shouldn't even be punishable.  I am talking about clapping a good shot (something Fed and Nadal both fail at), 

not true. Nadal often says "bravo" to his opponent in good points

and smashing raquets should be punished harder. money is very hard to earn for most of the world. total disrespect to break a raquet just cos one cant handle frustration

now I understand your standards

Bullshit. He scowls, he frowns, he bitches.  And he never ever claps. How does saying "bravo" = "claps" anyway?

Smashing racquets is an act of frustration that hurts no-one.  It's THEIR RACQUET THAT THEY PAID FOR (your logic is thick as shit. Just think about what you are saying).  Your standards are "turn a blind eye to Nadal breaking the time rule", which is actually 100% cheating their opponent. It's not an act of frustration at oneself - it's done TO FRUSTRATE an opponent - and to gain time to recover from a rally.

noleisthebest wrote:Hehe, what a clip!
Annacone and Llayani with hair.

As you saod Pete shortchanged tennis fans.
He had zero personality and flair.
He was boring. His game was boring.
He looked like an ape and walked like one.

But that's who he was...and still is, suffering and mourning over his records.

He walked like he owned present ,past and future.

Great serve, I'll give him that, but not much else for the eye or mind.

A plain and forgettable character.

Well summed up. I think he was just self absorbed. Now that he is no longer a tennis player, he is just nothing. A has been at best!

I don't care much about their behaviour. I just want to enjoy watching them play...and of course I want the players to enjoy it too.

You do care when Nadal takes way longer than the time limit.  So you do care about behaviour.

Tenez wrote:
Well summed up. I think he was just self absorbed. Now that he is no longer a tennis player, he is just nothing. A has been at best!

Yes, that is tragic.
Many people like to live in/ from the past...eg ex Hollywood (and ordinary) beauties, divas who in their prime were consumed with it...But they can look at the old photos and say: wasn't I pretty!

In Sampras' case he can't even do that as his records are gone, so even the past is an agony...
His present is a torture as his record is shrinking...maybe the only refuge is the short term future and a possibility that Nadal may catch up Federer.

And funny that the guy who beat him in 2002 was called Basel.
Pete must hate the place!

That's him. (Funny) I got the spelling wrong but still a swiss

http://www.atpchampionstour.com/tennis/players/ba/g/george-bastl.aspx?t=pa

Daniel wrote:You do care when Nadal takes way longer than the time limit.  So you do care about behaviour.

Yes, but I meant whether the guys is moody or not...a la McEnroe or Murray. But of course I can't stand teh cheating or bending the rules...there is no difference to me. It is cheating!

Tenez wrote:That's him. (Funny) I got the spelling wrong but still a swiss

http://www.atpchampionstour.com/tennis/players/ba/g/george-bastl.aspx?t=pa

And the pronunciation is close enough.

This is a good question and I think two factors feed into it.

One is entertainment. I think crowds will support an entertainer. This can be someone whose tennis is entertaining but it could be someone whose character is entertaining. Someone like Ivanisevic could hardly be said to have an exciting game but his personality won affection.

There is a distinction here though. Someone whose tennis entertains will have enduring affection but someone who entertains only with personality will lose support if they become too successful. People like a “character” to have their moment in the sun but they want their great champions to have some style. Again, I’ll use Ivanisevic as an example: I’d say his Wimbledon won is viewed with affection. If he won 7 Wimbledons playing that way, people would hate it.

Pete wasn’t an entertainer at all. His was a closed book in terms of personality and he had a style which ruthlessly efficient rather than truly entertaining.

The other factor is the idea of tennis players as avatars. I think people invest in players in whom they see things they recognise in themselves, or things which they would like to see in themselves.

I’m convinced that the popularity of Federer comes from people seeing him as an example of doing things the “right” way being rewarded. He is the embodiment of a world view.

I believe Rafa too represents an archetype for many people: the humble warrior. That’s not how I see him but I can see how the juxtaposition of his mild manner off-court and his wild, physical presence on court would appeal to people. I’d cautiously suggest many of his fans have a world view in which the feelings/motives behind actions are as important as the form of those actions.

I was drawn to Djokovic because I used to see something of myself in him. He is not an archetype though, which I think accounts for much of his relative lack of support. In fact, if anything, he has become the opposite of an archetype - he has taken to projecting all sorts of different characters, none of which seems readily-identifiable as the ‘real’ Novak.

Sampras also falls down on this measure due to his blank canvas personality. If that ruthlessly efficient game were alloyed with an incisive, straight-talking personality, I’d find him much more interesting. But taciturn without gravitas is rather boring without an exciting playing style to illuminate it.

I agree with BB on that score about Pete in which he stated Pete never gave us that insight into him personally, though I feel that way with most players to be honest. There isn't many players I can say I identify with in which they live themselves and leave part of themselves out on the court.

Nastase for me was almost the first larger than life personality to hit the courts. For me I enjoyed watching Goran and Mac. The emotion matched the style perfectly. The only players in recent time I immersed myself in emotionally were Hewitt and Fognini. Purely they captivated me because it's like you could feel through watching them how they felt emotionally and physically.

Nowadays the boom of social media has brought athletes closer to the common folk and thus offers a closer insight to their lives outside of the sport. I still don't think it tells us much about them, but it serves as a window into their lives.

The way players play also attracts fans. Federer is purest form of sophistication to the sport I have seen. His game is immaculate, his conduct is immaculate and even dress sense. So aside from his style of tennis, the other elements of him compliment his whole image. Precision and finesse. It's a good blend.

Partisan and patriotism play a part. Americans always get behind their own as with other players and their respective nationality.

For me, the attraction is the identity. If I can feel and relate to a player on court, that does it for me. It makes it more of a joy to watch. It's why I love Foggo. The madcap randomness. However, when he is on and feels it, nothing better. Equally though when he isn't, it's painful to watch. But those swings match and mirror themselves perfectly.

HM Murdoch wrote:This is a good question and I think two factors feed into it.

One is entertainment. I think crowds will support an entertainer. This can be someone whose tennis is entertaining but it could be someone whose character is entertaining. Someone like Ivanisevic could hardly be said to have an exciting game but his personality won affection.

There is a distinction here though. Someone whose tennis entertains will have enduring affection but someone who entertains only with personality will lose support if they become too successful. People like a “character” to have their moment in the sun but they want their great champions to have some style. Again, I’ll use Ivanisevic as an example: I’d say his Wimbledon won is viewed with affection. If he won 7 Wimbledons playing that way, people would hate it.

Pete wasn’t an entertainer at all. His was a closed book in terms of personality and he had a style which ruthlessly efficient rather than truly entertaining.

The other factor is the idea of tennis players as avatars. I think people invest in players in whom they see things they recognise in themselves, or things which they would like to see in themselves.

I’m convinced that the popularity of Federer comes from people seeing him as an example of doing things the “right” way being rewarded. He is the embodiment of a world view.

I believe Rafa too represents an archetype for many people: the humble warrior. That’s not how I see him but I can see how the juxtaposition of his mild manner off-court and his wild, physical presence on court would appeal to people. I’d cautiously suggest many of his fans have a world view in which the feelings/motives behind actions are as important as the form of those actions.

I was drawn to Djokovic because I used to see something of myself in him. He is not an archetype though, which I think accounts for much of his relative lack of support. In fact, if anything, he has become the opposite of an archetype - he has taken to projecting all sorts of different characters, none of which seems readily-identifiable as the ‘real’ Novak.

Sampras also falls down on this measure due to his blank canvas personality. If that ruthlessly efficient game were alloyed with an incisive, straight-talking personality, I’d find him much more interesting. But taciturn without gravitas is rather boring without an exciting playing style to illuminate it.

Not in the least with me.
If anything, that Swiss side of him is a bit dull.

I just love his game, his SBH, his looks on court.
He he got under my skin with how he fights, 2013 was quite moving.

He does well to cover his african roots. But they come through his tennis.

And finally, I think I'll say it here, too...(said it in my club and survived... )
But his SBH... call me crazy but want to have babies with it!

I bet Jahu is now on the court practising on his SHBH!

Tenez wrote:I bet Jahu is now on the court practising on his SHBH!

I knew I shouldn't've said it but I had to!

legendkillar wrote:I agree with BB on that score about Pete in which he stated Pete never gave us that insight into him personally, though I feel that way with most players to be honest. There isn't many players I can say I identify with in which they live themselves and leave part of themselves out on the court.

Nastase for me was almost the first larger than life personality to hit the courts. For me I enjoyed watching Goran and Mac. The emotion matched the style perfectly. The only players in recent time I immersed myself in emotionally were Hewitt and Fognini. Purely they captivated me because it's like you could feel through watching them how they felt emotionally and physically.

Nowadays the boom of social media has brought athletes closer to the common folk and thus offers a closer insight to their lives outside of the sport. I still don't think it tells us much about them, but it serves as a window into their lives.

The way players play also attracts fans. Federer is purest form of sophistication to the sport I have seen. His game is immaculate, his conduct is immaculate and even dress sense. So aside from his style of tennis, the other elements of him compliment his whole image. Precision and finesse. It's a good blend.

Partisan and patriotism play a part. Americans always get behind their own as with other players and their respective nationality.

For me, the attraction is the identity. If I can feel and relate to a player on court, that does it for me. It makes it more of a joy to watch. It's why I love Foggo. The madcap randomness. However, when he is on and feels it, nothing better. Equally though when he isn't, it's painful to watch. But those swings match and mirror themselves perfectly.

Well, Wimbledon jacket and long trousers aside.....

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I agree with BB on that score about Pete in which he stated Pete never gave us that insight into him personally, though I feel that way with most players to be honest. There isn't many players I can say I identify with in which they live themselves and leave part of themselves out on the court.

Nastase for me was almost the first larger than life personality to hit the courts. For me I enjoyed watching Goran and Mac. The emotion matched the style perfectly. The only players in recent time I immersed myself in emotionally were Hewitt and Fognini. Purely they captivated me because it's like you could feel through watching them how they felt emotionally and physically.

Nowadays the boom of social media has brought athletes closer to the common folk and thus offers a closer insight to their lives outside of the sport. I still don't think it tells us much about them, but it serves as a window into their lives.

The way players play also attracts fans. Federer is purest form of sophistication to the sport I have seen. His game is immaculate, his conduct is immaculate and even dress sense. So aside from his style of tennis, the other elements of him compliment his whole image. Precision and finesse. It's a good blend.

Partisan and patriotism play a part. Americans always get behind their own as with other players and their respective nationality.

For me, the attraction is the identity. If I can feel and relate to a player on court, that does it for me. It makes it more of a joy to watch. It's why I love Foggo. The madcap randomness. However, when he is on and feels it, nothing better. Equally though when he isn't, it's painful to watch. But those swings match and mirror themselves perfectly.

Well, Wimbledon jacket and long trousers aside.....

Well if there was one guy with the front to try and pull it off...Glad it was him.

HM Murdoch wrote:This is a good question and I think two factors feed into it.

One is entertainment. I think crowds will support an entertainer. This can be someone whose tennis is entertaining but it could be someone whose character is entertaining. Someone like Ivanisevic could hardly be said to have an exciting game but his personality won affection.

There is a distinction here though. Someone whose tennis entertains will have enduring affection but someone who entertains only with personality will lose support if they become too successful. People like a “character” to have their moment in the sun but they want their great champions to have some style. Again, I’ll use Ivanisevic as an example: I’d say his Wimbledon won is viewed with affection. If he won 7 Wimbledons playing that way, people would hate it.

Pete wasn’t an entertainer at all. His was a closed book in terms of personality and he had a style which ruthlessly efficient rather than truly entertaining.

The other factor is the idea of tennis players as avatars. I think people invest in players in whom they see things they recognise in themselves, or things which they would like to see in themselves.

I’m convinced that the popularity of Federer comes from people seeing him as an example of doing things the “right” way being rewarded. He is the embodiment of a world view.

I believe Rafa too represents an archetype for many people: the humble warrior. That’s not how I see him but I can see how the juxtaposition of his mild manner off-court and his wild, physical presence on court would appeal to people. I’d cautiously suggest many of his fans have a world view in which the feelings/motives behind actions are as important as the form of those actions.

I was drawn to Djokovic because I used to see something of myself in him. He is not an archetype though, which I think accounts for much of his relative lack of support. In fact, if anything, he has become the opposite of an archetype - he has taken to projecting all sorts of different characters, none of which seems readily-identifiable as the ‘real’ Novak.

Sampras also falls down on this measure due to his blank canvas personality. If that ruthlessly efficient game were alloyed with an incisive, straight-talking personality, I’d find him much more interesting. But taciturn without gravitas is rather boring without an exciting playing style to illuminate it.

Great post
And hope you’re good HM

HM Murdoch wrote:
I was drawn to Djokovic because I used to see something of myself in him. He is not an archetype though, which I think accounts for much of his relative lack of support.

Interesting and valid point.
I think Djokovic's archetype does exist, however it was a bit late on the scene to squeeze between Federer and Nadal.
You may remember me posting a clip with that crazy black guy with the famous line of "Nole's balls of titanium steel".
Because he came from nowhere and fought hard from behind compared to most his peers (and it showed  with his explosions of passion eg tearing  shirts and Hulk moments) - Djokovic appealed to the oppressed and those who were on the recieving end of injustice, world's outside orbit (east Europe, blacks etc).
He would be closest to a tennis rapper.

HM Murdoch wrote:
In fact, if anything, he has become the opposite of an archetype - he has taken to projecting all sorts of different characters, none of which seems readily-identifiable as the ‘real’ Novak.

Very good observation. He loves to please.
Djokovic went commercial and  shed his original skin I liked a lot - eg when back in 2006 he proclaimed - you don't need anything special to beat Nadal, he is beatable.
Or how he stood by Troicki with brotherly love during his suspension.

Now with this guru Pepe and "sending heart/love" to crowd, he has become unbearable - like a coffee with ten teaspons of sugar in it.

Truth is, he is in a bit of a mess and it's been of his own making.
All part of life...

All being said, he has done very, very well and can retire tomorrow.

Nitb wrote:All being said, he has done very, very well and can retire tomorrow.

No he can't. Not as long as Nadal is around. He needs to kick Nadal's butt at RG again.

When there's a Nadal, there must be a Djokovic, and vice versa. It's unbearable when one operates without the other.

Completely agree. Though I woudl actually fancy this Federer v Nadal even on clay....but not at the end of a tournament...and this is probably why Fed doesn't even wish to try. Sad.

Fed knows what he is capable of

and he knows he cant beat nadal on clay in 5 sets

he is capable of anything else though... which speaks of how giantic he is... and the same for nadal on clay

naxroy wrote:Fed knows what he is capable of

and he knows he cant beat nadal on clay in 5 sets

On the day he only needs 3 sets, not 5!

Fed has not lost a set in his last 3 encounters, and I am sure he woudl not have lost any sets in the AO had he not a groin injury. With a small racquet he was close many times in the past (Rome 06, FO 06, 07, 11). The small racquet was his worst enemy on clay as the bounce checks up even more and is inconsistent, meaning lost of shanking yet he wasted MPs in Rome, 11BPs in the 1set of FO 07m, won 1st set 61 in FO06 and was 0/40 up in the second etc....It woudl make a huge difference if instead of having that poor powerless slice, he had that powerful BH of today. Espcially considering that on clay, one does not move as well as on HC. It's easier to foot wrong on clay. 

Give him that larger frame, and the confidence is reversed.

Tenez wrote:

naxroy wrote:Fed knows what he is capable of

and he knows he cant beat nadal on clay in 5 sets

On the day he only needs 3 sets, not 5!

Fed has not lost a set in his last 3 encounters, and I am sure he woudl not have lost any sets in the AO had he not a groin injury. With a small racquet he was close many times in the past (Rome 06, FO 06, 07, 11). The small racquet was his worst enemy on clay as the bounce checks up even more and is inconsistent, meaning lost of shanking yet he wasted MPs in Rome, 11BPs in the 1set of FO 07m, won 1st set 61 in FO06 and was 0/40 up in the second etc....It woudl make a huge difference if instead of having that poor powerless slice, he had that powerful BH of today. Espcially considering that on clay, one does not move as well as on HC. It's easier to foot wrong on clay. 

Give him that larger frame, and the confidence is reversed.

I was going to say that!
Nole beat Nadal there in straight sets as well, it's doable.

Fed oozes confidence vs Nadal now, same as Nole...and Nadal, of course knows it.

It's just a shame Fed is not a couple of years younger, he is going to unchartered territory into winning slams at his age in this physical era.

But if anyone could ever do it - it was going to be him.

gallery play wrote:

Nitb wrote:All being said, he has done very, very well and can retire tomorrow.

No he can't. Not as long as Nadal is around. He needs to kick Nadal's butt at RG again.
When there's a Nadal, there must be a Djokovic, and vice versa. It's unbearable when one operates without the other.

I dunno, I'm tired of all that.

I just got used to the tour without Nole.

But, as you said without Federer it is going to look dire.

2018 looks so difficult to predict, though I can see Nadal having another rampage  through decimated field if fit.

We'll see.

federer is the best ever, its normal that you guys have so much confidence in him beating nadal also on clay.

I still believe nadal would beat federer at roland garros (of course, if soderling and djokoivc beat him, fed could do it too... but its not the safest bet)

Fed's beaten Nadal on clay on in the past, that' s not the problem.
If they met in week one he'd do it easily.
Week two becomes challengeing with Fed's age, that's all.

It's not my holy grail for Fed. He has nothing to prove.

noleisthebest wrote:Fed's beaten Nadal on clay on in the past, that' s not the problem.
If they met in week one he'd do it easily.
Week two becomes challengeing with Fed's age, that's all.

It's not my holy grail for Fed. He has nothing to prove.

easily 2-13

naxroy wrote:federer is the best ever, its normal that you guys have so much confidence in him beating nadal also on clay.

I still believe nadal would beat federer at roland garros (of course, if soderling and djokoivc beat him, fed could do it too... but its not the safest bet)

I can agree with that.

noleisthebest wrote:Fed's beaten Nadal on clay on in the past, that' s not the problem.
If they met in week one he'd do it easily.
Week two becomes challengeing with Fed's age, that's all.

It's not my holy grail for Fed. He has nothing to prove.

Actually to me, that's the only thing left to prove. But it's too late I agree.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Fed's beaten Nadal on clay on in the past, that' s not the problem.
If they met in week one he'd do it easily.
Week two becomes challengeing with Fed's age, that's all.

It's not my holy grail for Fed. He has nothing to prove.

Actually to me, that's the only thing left to prove. But it's too late I agree.

I got that.

But why?

Cause as naxroy says this has not happened yet.