Thread by @Yolitatennis

/Thread
THE MEN'S PLAYER OF THE DECADE: NOVAK DJOKOVIC
By Steve Tignor

A text analysis (as promised)
1/

While many sports writers have given Novak his due as one of the most outstanding athletes of the decade,tennis pundits have been more reluctant.

They have avoided the subject altogether, or dared to chose somebody else, or have changed the subject to Players of the Decade.
2/

So they can talk about the Big 3 dominating, not just Novak. All three. Of course.

In this context, Tignor's piece is not so bad. It's not a great, not even a fair piece, but the standards are so low, that I said, when I read it: "I'll take it, thank you very much". 😀
3/

"Novak Djokovic had just won Wimbledon for a 5th time, in an agonizingly intense 5-hour classic against Roger Federer. He had saved two match points&survived a final-set tiebreaker. He had lost more points, hit fewer winners&at times appeared to lose his way on Centre Court."
4/

Thus Tignor started. With the match of the decade. Great.
Notice what he chose to ignore:Novak's mental strength,his 3 perfect TBs,with 0 UFEs. Instead he mentioned that he lost more points, hit fewer winners & appeared lost on court.
He even says that Nole "survived" a TB. 😂
5/

And then he extrapolates to the decade, saying: "But as he had on so many occasions over the past 10 years, Djokovic found a way to win anyway."
The image one gets is of a player getting lucky&somehow managing to win when he should have lost.
He's talking about a player who,
6/

at some point,held all 4 Grand Slam titles,the WTFs trophy, 6 Masters titles&the RU plates of the other masters.
Domination never seen in the history of our sport.
Yet this doesn't get mentioned in the tribute.
7/

The next 4 paragraphs (20% of the article) are spent on the "unloved narrative"&crowds against him. He doesn't criticise the crowd,mind you. He choses Novak's comment that he imagines people chanting 'Novak' when they chant 'Roger'. "The only thing Novak could do", says Steve.
8/

It's interesting that he chose that comment for his article -a comment which reinforces another lie being pushed to us: that Novak would like to be like Roger-. How can anybody believe that is beyond me...

I remember at that presser Novak being asked how he could save 2 MPs
9/

in such an important match,with Roger playing so well,with such a crowd.
Novak answered: "You have to believe, deeply, that you're better than your opponent".
Funny how that comment has been ignored by all. Tignor could have mentioned it, it explains Nole's mental strength.
10/

But he didn't. 🤷🏻‍♀️😉

Then we get 2 paragraphs (12% of the article) with Novak's achievements, including the Nole Slam, the Golden Masters, his slams. How he passed Roger and Rafa. No comments about this, just a list.
11/

The next three paragraphs (17% of the article) are about Gencic, Davis Cup, back-handed compliments about his failure to make good Gencic's prediction by the age of 23. Plus the implication that only Serbians support him and chant his real name. Tignor is subtle. 😉
12/

Back to talking, for 4 paragraphs, about the tennis of the Player of the Decade. His style of play, his diet. Laureus Awards. President if the Council.

And back to the unloved narrative. 😍😂For another 21% of the article. This time Steve offers possible reasons for this.
13/

He has space to regale us with hypotheses about Novak's lack of popularity. He makes up for his lack of commentary when listing Novak's achievements. In abundance. 😉

Then comes the only part where he openly lies. Tignor writes:
14/

"Or maybe Djokovic’s brassy brand of showmanship—the primal roars, the shredded shirts, the arm flaps, the hands cupped to his ear, the post-match thank you’s from his chest—just leaves old-school tennis fans flat."

I object strongly to this paragraph.

"Shredded shirts?"
15/

They talk about this as if it was a habit. Roger has smashed more racquets& insulted more umpires than Novak has ripped shirts.

Yet nobody would dream of suggesting that it's Roger's habit.

They do it to Novak, though.

This misrepresentation of reality amounts to lying.
16/

Talking about "old-school tennis fans" is also lying. The paragraph gives the impression of a very polite crowd seeing Novak's behaviour&finding it distasteful.

This has always been a lie, but even more so after the Wimbledon final.

Where are those old-school fans?
17/

What we saw at Wimbledon (and have seen many times) was a bunch of barbarians fist-pumping, yelling, heckling, interrupting, booing the #1 player& defending champion for daring to ask a question to the umpire.

And we saw Novak take it all in, rise above it, focus and win.

18/

Is it too much to ask Steve to give a faithful description about what happened at the Wimbledon final?

Tignor couldn't bring himself to speak negatively of the crowd&praise Novak for his demeanour, like many pundits did.

This is what he wrote about Novak's celebration:
19/

"As he won Wimbledon this year, he seemed content not to try to win anyone over. There was no fall to the grass or cry of triumph, no attempt to celebrate with the fans who had rooted against him. All he could do was win for himself. "
20/

"He seemed content not to try to win anyone over"

The lack of empathy on display here is monstruous.

Also, he may have missed the meaning of that celebration, when he writes: "There was no fall to the grass or cry of triumph"

No,there wasn't, because Novak was at peace.
21/

He was there, smiling, surveying the crowd, a benevolent, understanding conqueror who is so superior that he has no hard feelings towards the people who betrayed every principle our sport holds dear.

Yet Tignor expects him to celebrate *with* that crowd?

Unbelievable.
22/

I understand Tignor missing the significance of that celebration. But his refusal to criticise the crowd -which many pundits did- and to praise Novak -which many pundits did- speaks volumes.

The last paragraph is a token. In the hope that we forget the bulk of the article.
23/

So 60% of the piece was spent on negative&tired old narratives&some outright lies. About 30% was spent giving an (incomplete) list of his achievements. 10% was spent on the Wimbeldon final, with innuendoes and implications.

Interesting choices of adjectives and anecdotes.
24/

Yes, such is the state of tennis punditry, that this is probably one of the best tributes Novak will get for his outstanding performance this decade.

At least he didn't ignore him, chose somebody else or added the other 2 to muddy the waters.

Let's count our blessings. 😍

25/