Novak Djokovic Is Still Making Bad Decisions

In our latest mailbag, we look at Felix Auger-Aliassime's first title win, the current Peng Shuai situation and, yes, the state of Djokovic.

Hey everyone….

I’m thinking we go easy on polarizing Djokovic chatter—the bulk of the questions this week—and talk about other flotsam and jetsam…

Mailbag

Jon, I was among the many people pleased to see Felix Auger-Aliassime win is first title. What a monkey off his back. Are there Majors in his future? Hope so.
—N.S., Toronto

• I can’t recall a player winning a 500-level indoor event in February and drawing more fanfare. As 2021 skidded to a close, Felix was encroaching on the top 10 but was starting to draw a sprinkling of skepticism. For all his obvious gifts and pleasant disposition, he had won zero titles, and, worse, had not won a set in any of the eight finals he had reached. His play in the Majors was good, not great. At once, he lacked the steady cool of Jannik Sinner and the fire of, say, Daniil Medvedev.

In 2022, something has clicked. Confidence has begat confidence. He has played sublimely and won. More important, he has played beneath his standards and found ways to win. (In the first round of the Australian Open, he was down 2-1 sets to Emil Ruusuvouri, a few games from a dismal loss. He salvaged the occasion and stuck around for ten more days.)

In Rotterdam last week, he was generally terrific, beating pedigreed opponents playing different styles, from Andy Murray to Andre Rublev to Stef Tsitsipas in the final. This was a weeklong clinic in control, pounding the ball while keeping it in the court. It was a clinic in poise. And in breaking an opponent in the final. Though Felix doesn’t turn 22 until—all together now, Aug, 8, birthday of Roger Federer and Rod Laver—this was a long time coming. And he knew it as well as anyone.

Can he win Majors? Absolutely. At least on grass and hard courts. It’s all there. The pace, the depth, the mind, the athleticism, the maturity. If he now has some I-simply-will-not-be-defeated-today badass inn him, we’re really in business.

You note the collective joy—and sigh of relief—from the tennis salon. In my algorithmic silo as well. James Blake may have been first but many others followed. The quiet part aloud: the ATP is banking hard on Felix. The Big Three has a combined age pushing 100. Two days after FA-A’s triumph, the No.1 player declared himself prepared to miss Majors on account of his antipathy for science and collective responsibility. The best player under 25 has a domestic violence investigation (curiously dormant though it may be), hanging over him. Players under age 30 who have won a Major compose a grand total of two—and one of them hasn’t played a match since June.

So, yes, there is abundant—and justified—swooning over Felix’s game. A lot fans pulling hard for him; a lot of suits, too. In a sport concerned about the quantity and quality of its next stars, a modest, measured, socially responsible 21-year-old provides some needed weight (and counterweight.)

Jon, I know it’s a hashtag, but serious question: #whereispengshuai?
—Elizabeth, NYC

• To me the real question is “#howispengshuai?” We can locate her whereabouts. She is in China, episodically appearing at Olympic events and staged media events. What is still unclear: how is she doing? No crafted appearances or awkward interviews (entailing questions sent in advance) or nothing-to-see-here-folks pleas can assuage concerns. This Dan Wetzel column pretty much nails it.

In terms of hashtags, I would ask #whereistheatp? I was told that players were informed that the ATP’s fall schedule would swing through China, business as usual. Players will have to choose whether it’s worth it to enter; and what kind of statement they’ll be making; but the events will continue on. I would ask #whereistheITF? The ITF oversees national federations as well as the Olympics. Given the role of the Chinese Federation and the overlap with the Olympics—both with China as current host and Peng as a multi-time Olympian—wouldn’t the ITF want to insinuate itself here? In fact, given that the ITF president (who has been strangely silent here) has a dual role as a voting WTA Board member; might the ITF be singularly well-suited to broker a solution here?

As for “Where is the WTA?” well….short of the incredibly unlikely scenario in which China not only conducts a self-investigation but does so on the terms demanded by the WTA, it’s unlikely there will be events in China anytime soon. (Note as well: former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, never confused for a Sinophile, is advising the WTA.) The WTA has won in the court of public opinion. It has stood up to the authoritarian bully. It’s acted in ways consistent with its principles. The crass question now: can this good will be monetized? Will a sponsor step up to align with the Tour? Will other markets and promoters emerge to replace the China events, at something close to dollar-for-dollar? Will the players stay committed?

I’m sure you’ve had tons of agents, coaches, and parents hail their player as “the next big thing” or a “future slam winner.” However, more often than not, things don’t pan out. When you look back, is there a certain quality or intangible that separates those that make a breakthrough versus those that don’t? Do some never recover from almost pulling off a huge upset, is poor work ethic/coaching/management holding someone back, or something else entirely? How would you define the “it” that makes greatness? Thank you!
—Mitch

• It’s a great question for which I have no answer. And I’m not sure one exists. Sometimes the best players have been motivated by the opportunity to overcome a hardship. Sometimes the best players have had greatness teased out of them by a domineering parent. Sometimes the best players have been motivated by a feeling of “other.”

And yet….for every point there is a counterpoint. Mike Agassi and Peter Graf were domineering and demanding. The parents of, say, Pete Sampras or Tracy Austin were not. The Williams sisters grew up in circumstances that could be challenging; Federer and Nadal grew up without deprivation. “Greatness comes from within,” has hardened into cliché, but, at least in tennis, how can you reach a different conclusion? If I had to name one critical and revealing trait in tennis, I might say resilience. This is a brutal sport in so many ways. You can win more points than your opponent and still lose. All but one player leaves a tournament on a losing streak. You can be a top 50 player and still win fewer than half your matches. You can get injured and watch your ranking (and balance sheets) fall apart. A match can turn on a single shot…..

Both long-term and short-term, this sport requires real perspective. The best players possess—intentionally—lousy memories. Watch how Nadal or Serena lose a point and then reset. Notice how Federer can lose a tournament like Wimbledon in 2008…and then win the subsequent Major. Notice how Andy Murray can be so severely injured that tennis essentially decides to retire him…only to see him undergoing a hip resurfacing so he can continue on. Both in micro and macro ways, the best players bounce back.

Is Federer completely out of the GOAT race? Nadal has more Majors, Masters series titles and an Olympic singles title and leads the head-to-head. Do you think many people will still argue that Federer is the GOAT assuming he doesn’t add any more major trophies? I guess one could argue that Federer has spent more weeks at number one. I assume that if Djokovic gets back to competing he will eventually take the title over Nadal but I wonder if Federer is out and Nadal is number one for now.
—Ben Bittner

• Four answers:

1) My default setting: “Let’s hold off and enjoy these three kings while we have them. Save the debate at the salon and saloon for after retirement when we have a full data set!”

2) Truth serum: it doesn’t look good for Federer. If you have fewer Majors—and an unfavorable head-to-head—with two other players in your era, it’s hard to be considered the greatest of your time, never mind the greatest of all time. Based solely on the math. And I don’t know how, credibly, you argue, otherwise. And, yes, you can cherry pick your data. But it’s hard to make a statistical case.

3) A big point in Federer’s column: he set the standard. Nadal and Djokovic knew exactly how high they had to jump to clear the bar. And they knew what they had to do—and how to tailor their games—to beat the incumbent. That’s a huge advantage—and all sorts of social science and behavioral economics support this.

4) Many of you rolled eyes and clucked tongues at the Federer Rolex commercial basically pivoting, saying “numbers don’t matter,” and implying that Federer’s GOAT status is safe because he is a superior human being. That might be the proverbial bridge too far. But “Greatest” in GOAT is both maddeningly and exhilaratingly vague. For many fans, there are criteria that statistics won’t capture.

You say in your mailbag that you are opposed to Tiley being forced to resign to appease the mob and then proceed to do a hit job on Novak to appease your mob fans - week after week. Don’t pretend you are not. Shame on you!
—Kasibhotla

• Yes, my “mob fans.” Sometime I require extra security detail simply so I can fend them off and open my laptop in peace….Look, do I think it’s deeply problematic that the world’s No.1 player can’t get out of his own way, that he shows antipathy to science and collective responsibility, that he seeks exemptions and exceptions while lobbying for players’ rights? I do. Am I alone in this view? I am not. One example among many:

The PTPA is looking for a new executive team. Thanks to some well-heeled financial backers, the jobs come with significant salaries. There is a professional outside search firm conducting the search. I’m told that again and again, this issue has come up in inquiries and conversations: “What do we do about Djokovic?” It’s great that the number one player in the world has lent his support and has—admirably—taken an interest in tennis’s screwed-up governance, its conflict of interests, its labor-management power imbalance. It’s not great that the world’s No.1 player, aligned with this effort, is not only the lone unvaccinated player in the top 100, but is widely seen as an unserious figure at the moment.

I have nothing against Djokovic personally. I have always had a cordial and pleasant professional relationship with him. Part of my frustration stems from the fact that he is better than this. He is not a heel. He is not a “tennis bad boy.” He is an extraordinary athlete who too often makes extraordinarily bad decisions. Agree. Disagree. That’s healthy. But it’s an informed opinion and it’s offered neither to nourish nor starve a mob.

Can you provide some clarification regarding the current ranking system being used by the ATP? On their website it discusses using a “best of” 24 month period for various portions of 2020 and 2021 due to COVID, but nothing about 2022. I thought perhaps Medvedev would surpass Djokovic for number one after the AO, but it looks like 2021 results still count. I’d appreciate your insight.
—Randy Wilson, Hershey, PA

• From our friends at the ATP:

“Below is something we provided to explain where our rankings are at the moment, and encapsulates the logic pretty well: After the suspension of play due to the COVID pandemic, ranking points were held for a 24-month window from March 2019 – March 2021. During the period of March 2021 – August 2021, points were adjusted to drop at a rate of 50% per year. After August 2021, the rankings have returned to the traditional logic of the best 19 results over a year (52-week). Hope that helps.”

Jon, thanks as always for you columns. Question: is there a link where I could read about the back story to this in your bit about Juan del Potro? “(And, allegedly, by those close to him, as well.)”
– Your Fan, Ann

• Here's what I was referring to...With two notes/caveats: 1) These are allegations, not dispositive. 2) del Potro’s father passed away last year so we may never know the full story.

I know you are more in the loop than me, but just in case you didn’t see it, I feel everyone should see the 60 minutes from Australia about Peng Shuai.
—Anthony, Brookline, MA

• A caveat: this show operates independently of the CBS “60 Minutes.” But this is worth your time:

Shots

• Who was Nduka Odizor?

• What went wrong between Sinner and Piatii?

Press Releasing

• The secret to a longer life may include a healthy diet, regular exercise, avoiding tobacco, and drinking less alcohol. Now new research by Compare The Market suggests the surest way of increasing your lifespan may involve hitting a tennis ball.

The research investigated each athlete’s average life expectancy, comparing figures against the global average. When compared to the average person’s life expectancy (72.6 years), professional boxers lose almost five years whereas tennis players extend their lifespan by almost 8 years.

• The Association of Pickleball Professionals (APP) Tour announced an historic three-year agreement to stage the APP New York City Open on the grounds of the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows, N.Y.

This year’s event will take place May 25-29 and include a prize purse of $125,000, the largest of any pickleball tournament this year and largest in APP Tour history. It will be the first time the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center, home of the US Open, will host a pickleball tournament.

“The opportunity to bring the APP Tour to a venue with such rich history and tradition is the culmination of a dream that I had for our tour and players when we launched the APP in 2019,” said Ken Herrmann, founder of the APP Tour. “When we committed to elevating the player experience and investing in the careers of our players, hosting an event at one of the world’s preeminent sporting venues with a record prize pool is the kind of advancement we envisioned.