The Fedal-Nole Head To Heart

Whether you are Federer or Nadal fan, there is no doubt that this rivalry has rejuvinated global interest and popularity of tennis.
With the help of internet era and social media, tennis has become a very lucrative Show, and like never before, its main stars have topped various Athlete Of The Year charts.

We've had 10 golden years of 2-3 players changing at the top spot...arguing to death who the best and greatest was...Federer-Nadal-Federer-Nadal...

Now that the two seem to be slowing down and featuring in slam finals with decellerating frequency, the talk has  switched to the "young generations" and search for new stars.

Deservedly or not, Dimitrov and Raonic have received a fair share of hype, in my opinion, largely as they are sponsored by Nike.

Novak Djokovic has in the meantime been year end number one for the three out of last four years unnoticed by media.
Occasionaly articles were written about him, but almost as under duress...

Compare that to Murray and attention he had, pushed into Big Four for years without even winning a slam...

I am convinced it would not have been the case had Djokovic been a Nike boy.
Still, The Show must go on...

Why am I writing about this now?

Because, all of a sudden, in one single day I have come across TWO clips/articles trying to give Nole some attention...that's more than the last 4 years put together, especially as one was done for American media.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/01/it-begins-novak-djokovics-incredible-opportunity-oz/53861/#.VMk6T4GQGrV

...The clear-cut No. 1 has an opportunity to widen the gap between himself and the field over the next few days. But from a macro level, Djokovic has a chance to enter an entirely new plane of tennis excellence in 2015. He has seven major titles to his name; in his prime and just 27, this season should yield more. Think big: Djokovic can near double digits in the major count, and is even good enough to win the Grand Slam if things go his way—the calendar-year Slam, not just the career Slam.
There is still a ways for him to go, even with the Australian Open nearing its conclusion. You know that Rafa will be waiting for him at Roland Garros, and the summertime grind is difficult on any player, including Djokovic, a physical specimen but not one immune to the effects of exertion. I believe I know what Djokovic is capable of, but it’s time for him to prove it—again, and again, and again.

In the interview below, Becker agrees with Glimestob about Nole being underappreciated and I think it's a good choice of words.
It made me a little sad that Becker also added that Nole got used to it and stopped worrying about it.
I noticed it all the way back in USO 2010.





Have the movers and shakers of the Show begun to panic and suddenly finding Nole the most suitable plug for the oncoming demise of Nadal & Fedal?

Sounds weird...but it wouldn't surprise me.
Just like in life, things we have been wanting for so long come to us when we stop wanting them...

I woudl like to cheer for Djoko....but I can't either. It;s not Djoko's fault but not the crowd either if he is not popular.

I don;t find his game exciting, nor elegant and not even particularly smart. It's about getting to the ball quick to give himself an easy, safe version Bolitieri shot. But clearly I am not the only one. Nike woudl have bought him had he had that x factor. And I am pretty sure you would see it like the rest of us if he wasn't your compatriot.

I enjoy watching him play Nadal but that's it. I don;t particularly like to watch him v Fed as it hurts Federer physically....unless Fed has one of those days....but then again it;s Fed who creates all the art!

This was more about the word "appreciated" than enjoyed & liked.
More about recognition and acknowledgement (lack if) by the media than fandom.

I don't believe in "x" factor.

Charisma, yes..."x" factor is a modern phenomenon fabricated by media for commercial purposes.
Safin, Gulbis...that's charisma, not Nadal.

How else can one explain Nadal's popularity? Murray's hype?

A guy who openly touches his backside and then his nose with the same hand...only in this day and age can that be sold to masses as a humble, fighting hero and considered attractive.

But that's another topic...

When it comes to "unappreciation", Nole is quite similar to Lendl in that way, except that Nole smiles.

Makes you wonder who's going to be the next Mr X Factor...

So what's the reason you think he is underappreciated? Why did Nike not want to have him?

Don't say, because he is Eastern European, because Dimitrov is as well and he is fairly popular.

For the record: I also don't especially enjoy watching him, unless he plays very good attackers who truly threaten him.

noleisthebest wrote:This was more about the word "appreciated" than enjoyed & liked.

I don't believe in "x" factor.

Charisma, yes..."x" factor is a modern phenomenon fabricated by media for commercial purposes.
Safin, Gulbis...that's charisma, not Nadal.

Nadal has it too. In plenty in fact... He looks a finished product. Not a product I like but a well rounded image.

How else can one explain Nadal's popularity? Murray's hype?

Murray was a steady customer of the business end of slams ...way before he won one. He also was the only other player who could trouble Fedal....so not hyped if you ask me.

A guy who openly touches his backside and then his nose with the same hand...only in this day and age can that be sold to masses as a humble, fighting hero and considered attractive.

We sell much worse edible things to the masses.

When it comes to "unappreciation", Nole is quite similar to Lendl in that way, except that Nole smiles.

Lendl did not try to be "edible". He belonged to the era where people were not trying to sell themselves...they were just trying to win. You seem to have mixed feelings as in conclusion you would have liked Djoko to be popular.....or so I seem to read between the lines .

Makes you wonder who's going to be the next Mr X Factor...

Not sure but knowing myself unless i see a universal talent I tend to have very different taste than the trend.

Autumnleaf wrote:So what's the reason you think he is underappreciated? Why did Nike not want to have him.

I think you have misunderstood the article.
But by your logic, why did Nike want to have Nadal?

Djokovic seems like a nice guy, I do like him

But I would never actively support him. His game is really efficient, he basically can induce longish transition rallies where he is neither taking huge risks, nor having to pull off defensive shots; and eventually he wins these 'transition' rallies.
His game is very efficient, but I don't find his matches particularly entertaining.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:This was more about the word "appreciated" than enjoyed & liked.

I don't believe in "x" factor.

Charisma, yes..."x" factor is a modern phenomenon fabricated by media for commercial purposes.
Safin, Gulbis...that's charisma, not Nadal.

Nadal has it too. In plenty in fact... He looks a finished product. Not a product I like but a well rounded image.

How else can one explain Nadal's popularity? Murray's hype?

Murray was a steady customer of the business end of slams ...way before he won one. He also was the only other player who could trouble Fedal....so not hyped if you ask me.

A guy who openly touches his backside and then his nose with the same hand...only in this day and age can that be sold to masses as a humble, fighting hero and considered attractive.

We sell much worse edible things to the masses.

When it comes to "unappreciation", Nole is quite similar to Lendl in that way,except that Nole smiles.

Lendl did not try to be "edible". He belonged to the era where people were not trying to sell themselves...they were just trying to win. You seem to have mixed feelings as in conclusion you would have liked Djoko to be popular.....or so I seem to read between the lines .

Makes you wonder who's going to be the next Mr X Factor...

Not sure but knowing myself unless i see a universal talent I tend to have very different taste than the trend.

No, it's nothing about me liming Nole to be popular...I really couldn't care less.
Just that that clip with Boris and article from Tennis.com prompted me to think about it.

Also amazed that someone like Nadal who in my opinion is neither good looking nor plays good tennis is considered and sold to the masses the way he is.

One of the reasons I watch matches with no commentary.

Anyway...of course I like him because my countryman who's done so well against all odds and hardship.
And of course I don't expect others to like him because of that.

I'm not ramming down people's throats that he is the GOAT....

noleisthebest wrote:Just amazed that someone like Nadal who in my opinion is neither good looking nor plays good tennis is considered and sold to the masses the way he is.

No different than people liking mcDo or Madona. I think we discussed that before.

I'm not ramming down people's throats that he is the GOAT....

too tough a job

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Djokovic seems like a nice guy, I do like him

But I would never actively support him. His game is really efficient, he basically can induce longish transition rallies where he is neither taking huge risks, nor having to pull off defensive shots; and eventually he wins these 'transition' rallies.
His game is very efficient, but I don't find his matches particularly entertaining.

I wouldn't call his game efficient, more effective.
If I take my Serbian glasses off, I see him as the the first player to hold so many slams and be so dominant for so long without a FH as a weapon.
That says a lot about playing conditions.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Djokovic seems like a nice guy, I do like him

But I would never actively support him. His game is really efficient, he basically can induce longish transition rallies where he is neither taking huge risks, nor having to pull off defensive shots; and eventually he wins these 'transition' rallies.
His game is very efficient, but I don't find his matches particularly entertaining.

I remember Bogbrush comparing him to Hewitt and this is pretty close. He is just better designed for that kind of game hence his better success.

noleisthebest wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Djokovic seems like a nice guy, I do like him

But I would never actively support him. His game is really efficient, he basically can induce longish transition rallies where he is neither taking huge risks, nor having to pull off defensive shots; and eventually he wins these 'transition' rallies.
His game is very efficient, but I don't find his matches particularly entertaining.

I wouldn't call his game efficient, more effective.
If I take my Serbian glasses off, I see him as the the first player to hold so many slams and be so dominant for so long without a FH as a weapon.
That says a lot about playing conditions.

I believe he is the one who covers more ground on tour per match. That says it all about playing conds..and him.

noleisthebest wrote:

Autumnleaf wrote:So what's the reason you think he is underappreciated? Why did Nike not want to have him.

I think you have misunderstood the article.
But by your logic, why did Nike want to have Nadal?

I was thinking about Becker's words there.

I can only take guesses about Nike's motives. Maybe Kim would be the better person to ask, Nadal fans usually understand it better, because they are the target group. Nike usually takes on these players when they are still teens, even juniors. I don't know when they contracted Nadal, but it must have been very early. They must have seen potential in him to succeed.

They probably saw him as a great marketeer to youngsters because of the youthful energy he exuded as a youth, you know the "fight for every point" and the "emotions on the court". Because he seemed athletic (muscular) and special, because he played differently from everybody else and nobody looked like him either. They designed the sleeveless shirts and pirate pants for him because they thought it would support that kind of image, but that might have been after his first successes. He had long flowing hair and dreamy dark eyes, that helped too. They could target the latino market with him which is a biggie, along with teenie girls and boys.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Just amazed that someone like Nadal who in my opinion is neither good looking nor plays good tennis is considered and sold to the masses the way he is.

No different than people liking mcDo or Madona. I think we discussed that before.

I'm not ramming down people's throats that he is the GOAT....

too tough a job

I think I chose my poster name wisely

Nole, if you want some insight into why Nadal fans like him so much (and my posts aren't good enough for you already ), take a look at this video maybe:



The mental side of it for me is as important as his game. He cares massively for every point, he won't give up any point unnecessarily.

Autumnleaf wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Autumnleaf wrote:So what's the reason you think he is underappreciated? Why did Nike not want to have him.

I think you have misunderstood the article.
But by your logic, why did Nike want to have Nadal?

I was thinking about Becker's words there.

I can only take guesses about Nike's motives. Maybe Kim would be the better person to ask, Nadal fans usually understand it better, because they are the target group. Nike usually takes on these players when they are still teens, even juniors. I don't know when they contracted Nadal, but it must have been very early. They must have seen potential in him to succeed.

They probably saw him as a great marketeer to youngsters because of the youthful energy he exuded as a youth, you know the "fight for every point" and the "emotions on the court". Because he seemed athletic (muscular) and special, because he played differently from everybody else and nobody looked like him either. They designed the sleeveless shirts and pirate pants for him because they thought it would support that kind of image, but that might have been after his first successes. He had long flowing hair and dreamy dark eyes, that helped too. They could target the latino market with him which is a biggie, along with teenie girls and boys.

And for those who don;t know much about tennis. Winning a point when everybody things it is lost is exciting and a base for drama. SO Nadal brought that in plenty. Djoko does it too but more methodically with less panach....(if I take my anti-Nadal glasses off).

I can see I'm the only one here who thinks Nadal is without charisma, good looks and good tennis.
Even when I take my anti-Nadal glasses off.

Knew it all the time, anyway...

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Nole, if you want some insight into why Nadal fans like him so much (and my posts aren't good enough for you already ), take a look at this video maybe:



The mental side of it for me is as important as his game. He cares massively for every point, he won't give up any point unnecessarily.

Do you fall for those kind of clips Kim? We don't have to wait 10sec to read the word "injured". Quite funny.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Nole, if you want some insight into why Nadal fans like him so much (and my posts aren't good enough for you already ), take a look at this video maybe:



The mental side of it for me is as important as his game. He cares massively for every point, he won't give up any point unnecessarily.

Kimmy,

believe me, I know exactly why you like Nadal.
I even know why Wooffie likes Nadal...wait, let me quote her:

"A Rafateer who should know better ... but there's something about his chocolate eyes and  caramel skin that make me go all of a dither."

And that's fine...

I know Nadal has brought many people to tennis.

But for me, that's not enough because I see him as a symbol of everything that has destroyed the game I love.

PS
I only have 14 Facebook friends, so who cares about what I think...

noleisthebest wrote:1. Whether you are Federer or Nadal fan, there is no doubt that this rivalry has rejuvinated global interest and popularity of tennis.
With the help of internet era and social media, tennis has become a very lucrative Show, and like never before, its main stars have topped various Athlete Of The Year charts.

2. Now that the two seem to be slowing down and featuring in slam finals with decellerating frequency, the talk has  switched to the "young generations" and search for new stars. Have the movers and shakers of the Show begun to panic and suddenly finding Nole the most suitable plug for the oncoming demise of Nadal & Fedal?

1. Yes, these two have captured the hearts and minds of the general audience in the last 10 years in a way Djokovic never will. This "rivalry" with the polar opposites that are at its heart it is a highly attractive storyline. Of course it's slowly fading away now, but it's still discussed fiercely and still the most important rivalry of our time. The most important question about Nadal is not whether he will beat Djokovic, it's whether he will catch the major record, so it is truly about that other rivalry.

2. The talk has indeed switched, but Djokovic won't have any part of it, especially since he is neither really young, nor very exciting. They tried with Dimitrov, but it didn't work out. Imho Kyrgios now has all the makings of the next big star and I'm pretty sure he'll be pushed. He brings the energy they love in a youngster and has a big enough game to excite and to succeed. Maybe they'll even speed up the surfaces for him.

noleisthebest wrote:I can see I'm the only one here who thinks Nadal is without charisma, good looks and good tennis.
Even when I take my anti-Nadal glasses off.

Knew it all the time, anyway...

 Personally I also think he has neither charisma, nor good looks or tennis. But I tried to see it from a company's pov who want to sell their stuff.

Autumnleaf wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:1. Whether you are Federer or Nadal fan, there is no doubt that this rivalry has rejuvinated global interest and popularity of tennis.
With the help of internet era and social media, tennis has become a very lucrative Show, and like never before, its main stars have topped various Athlete Of The Year charts.

1. Yes, these two have captured the hearts and minds of the general audience in the last 10 years in a way Djokovic never will. This "rivalry" with the polar opposites that are at its heart it is a highly attractive storyline. Of course it's slowly fading away now, but it's still discussed fiercely and still the most important rivalry of our time. The most important question about Nadal is not whether he will beat Djokovic, it's whether he will catch the major record, so it is truly about that other rivalry.

The point is AL, there was no rivalry between Federer and Nadal. It has been manufactured from the start.
And MANUFACTURED is a huge word here.
It meant changing the way tennis went and the way everyone plays now in a very negative way.
As a result, we see Nadal who isn't worthy to clean Federer's shoes as a player is put in the same sentence as him and even proclaimed GOAT.
It's got nothing to do with Djokovic.

Autumnleaf wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I can see I'm the only one here who thinks Nadal is without charisma, good looks and good tennis.
Even when I take my anti-Nadal glasses off.

Knew it all the time, anyway...

 Personally I also think he has neither charisma, nor good looks or tennis. But I tried to see it from a company's pov who want to sell their stuff.

That's the point!

Look where "company pov" took tennis as a result...

I am additionally annoyed as it sidelined Nole as a result, but I don't expect others to be too stressed about it...
It happens all the time in everyday life, anyway.

noleisthebest wrote:
Kimmy,

believe me, I know exactly why you like Nadal.

Do you ?

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
Kimmy,

believe me, I know exactly why you like Nadal.

Do you ?

110% !

noleisthebest wrote:

Kim Jong-Un wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
Kimmy,

believe me, I know exactly why you like Nadal.

Do you ?

110%  !

Go on then

noleisthebest wrote:

Autumnleaf wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:1. Whether you are Federer or Nadal fan, there is no doubt that this rivalry has rejuvinated global interest and popularity of tennis.
With the help of internet era and social media, tennis has become a very lucrative Show, and like never before, its main stars have topped various Athlete Of The Year charts.

1. Yes, these two have captured the hearts and minds of the general audience in the last 10 years in a way Djokovic never will. This "rivalry" with the polar opposites that are at its heart it is a highly attractive storyline. Of course it's slowly fading away now, but it's still discussed fiercely and still the most important rivalry of our time. The most important question about Nadal is not whether he will beat Djokovic, it's whether he will catch the major record, so it is truly about that other rivalry.

The point is AL, there was no rivalry between Federer and Nadal. It has been manufactured from the start.
And MANUFACTURED is a huge word here.
It meant changing the way tennis went and the way everyone plays now in a very negative way.
As a result, we see Nadal who isn't worthy to clean Federer's shoes as a player is put in the same sentence as him and even proclaimed GOAT.
It's got nothing to do with Djokovic.

You said yourself that this rivalry rejuvenated global interest and popularity. That's exactly the reason why it was manufactured. I'm sure the perfectly manufactured rivalry would have been a bit more balanced though. As it was, it's far from a perfect product. But without Nadal where would we be? It's not tough to imagine Federer win 25 majors, including 3 or so CYGSs. Who would have provided him with a rivalry? In my view he suffered and benefitted from the rivalry with Nadal. So I see Nadal as a necessary evil, gone a bit too far. I'm also pretty sure the increased physicality would have come eventually, with or without Nadal, so maybe that is too much blame laid at his feet. It was only a natural development with the possibilities the modern spinny game gives.

But you got to give it to Nadal (and Fed), he inspired a lot of people to pick up a racket (I even know a few) and that can only be a good thing. And maybe they then broadened their view and learnt to appreciate other players as well.

You are a fan, that's all.

That's how everyone gets into sport. For whatever reason they start supporting someone...it can be the looks, the winning, patriotism, to mention most common reasons.

Fans follow their teams/players blindly and blinkered, unable to have objective perspective.

As I follow tennis, I noticed that Nadal's and particularly S. William's fans are almost militant.
In my opinion, it's gone over the top, esp as all that initial "charisma" is usually fake and manufactured to death.

When they take their PR facades off most players are fairly similar as people, just like politicians - they hate each other's guts on TV and then go and have a nice meal with taxpayers' money after it...

When Nadal retires, you will probably be more objective about tennis.

Autumnleaf wrote:
You said yourself that this rivalry rejuvenated global interest and popularity. That's exactly the reason why it was manufactured. I'm sure the perfectly manufactured rivalry would have been a bit more balanced though. As it was, it's far from a perfect product. But without Nadal where would we be? It's not tough to imagine Federer win 25 majors, including 3 or so CYGSs. Who would have provided him with a rivalry? In my view he suffered and benefitted from the rivalry with Nadal. So I see Nadal as a necessary evil, gone a bit too far. I'm also pretty sure the increased physicality would have come eventually, with or without Nadal, so maybe that is too much blame laid at his feet. It was only a natural development with the possibilities the modern spinny game gives.

But you got to give it to Nadal (and Fed), he inspired a lot of people to pick up a racket (I even know a few) and that can only be a good thing. And maybe they then broadened their view and learnt to appreciate other players as well.

Many moons ago on BBC 606 I said that Federer was the best thing that happened to tennis and that Nadal was the death of it.
As time went by, in a morbid way, it sounded better and better...

I was not bored by Federer early dominant years. I think tennis would have survived without Fedal quite nicely.
But, as things are we've got what we've got.

I'm beginning to think, people are not aware how much they are brainwashed, pardon - marketed by commentators. They are as much to blame as ITF and WADA, in fact.

noleisthebest wrote:I'm beginning to think, people are not aware how much they are brainwashed, pardon - marketed by commentators. 

Their job is to promote the game and increase the money flowing into it. What other interests would lead to them supporting Nadal and hype up a rivalry? So I guess, they saw him as useful for that purpose.

Maybe you weren't bored and I wasn't either, but a lot of people were, because drama was missing and sports is always about emotions, about the joy of winning and the pain of loss. Federer during that time was seen as a guy without emotion and charisma, a pretty boring, average guy with a huge talent. Nadal fans still seem to see Federer this way.

I don't think Nadal fans were brainwashed, it's just that they prefer a very different flavour. They actually love his physicality! Maybe I wouldn't mind it too much either if I could have only the slightest belief in it being natural. I can't believe him unfortunately, while they mostly believe in him, which is naive of course, but then again: we get told it's a clean sport and they get tested. The media don't have much interest to raise suspicion about him, because they want to promote the game. So it's easy to brush off (circumstantial) evidence and blame "jealousy".

Autumnleaf wrote: Federer during that time was seen as a guy without emotion and charisma, a pretty boring, average guy with a huge talent. Nadal fans still seem to see Federer this way.

I am not sure about that. The way he was breaking records after records got people excited..even those who coudl not recognise the talent. People like champion....especially special ones. Plus anyone who played the game and had some knowledge of tennis were in awe of the player. Even americans were saying they "would pay to see him hit teh ball against a wall". What became boring was the lack of opposition. This is where Nadal got his role to play. Had Nadal been successful without Federer..then he might have been very boring for lots of us cause his game is actually boring when not faced with people who can challenge him.

I don't think Nadal fans were brainwashed, it's just that they prefer a very different flavour. They actually love his physicality! Maybe I wouldn't mind it too much either if I could have only the slightest belief in it being natural.

Agree with that. I gave up believing in supra natural athletes a couple of decades ago.