Character Studies
SB Nation runs a long piece by Elizabeth Kaye called, “The Residue of Competition: Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, and the Lessons of Character.”
Kaye admits early on that she’s a Nadal fan, and she wrote a laudatory cover story on him for Men’s Journal three years ago. This time she contrasts what she sees as Rafa’s humble realism with the deficiencies she finds in Djokovic (quitter, bad winner) and Federer (narcissist, trash talker).
I’ve said before that fans are usually very good at assessing their own favorites, because, much like parents, they know a lot about that player and understand his or her motivations better than most—they see his or her side of things. But fans, and by that I mean fans who are clearly partisan toward one player, are not as good at assessing their favorites’ rivals, because the understanding and sympathy aren’t there. Those players are, after all, a threat to the favorite, and are regarded with a protectively wary eye.
Kaye understands what makes Rafa special from a mental standpoint, his acceptance of “suffering.” But with Djokovic we mostly get old examples of his perceived arrogance (saying “I was in control of the match,” after his loss to Nadal at the 2006 French Open) and hypochondria (the Roddick incident at the U.S. Open in 2008). But athletes’ careers are public learning curves, and the history of someone like Andre Agassi should teach us to withhold final judgment on what Kaye calls Novak’s “true character.”
Djokovic was certainly brash back in 2006 and 2007; he told everyone he was going to be the next No. 1. And even an objective observer could say that his screaming victory celebrations are over the top (I don’t mind them myself). The bigger point is that Djokovic has done his share of growing up over the years, and he’s not the same person or player at 25 that he was when he was 19. Kaye sees a young man whose parents drilled a sense of entitlement into him. But you can also read his career story as that of someone learning to move past his parents’ attitudes and expectations and become his own man.
As for Federer, Kaye describes him this way: “He seems to have assumed the attitudes of worshipful fans who brandish signs at his matches that read, “Shhh, genius at work.” The first example she cites is the notorious “15” jacket that he wore after winning his 15th major at Wimbledon in 2009. Yes, the jacket was in poor taste, but it was handed to Federer after the match, and apparently he didn’t know about the number on the back.
Kaye quotes my line about Federer’s “innocent narcissism”—a phrase I may have taken from Joella Klinghoffer, the Federer fan in my Fan Club on him this summer—and uses it as an example of how the media gives Federer a pass on his arrogant comments. What I meant by “innocent narcissism” was that Federer really does seem to surprise himself with his some of his achievements. When he says what he did was “incredible” or “amazing,” he means that he's also amazed by it. On the flip side, I do think that Federer believes, deep down, that he’s the best. Whatever you think of that from a character standpoint, it’s a useful attitude to have, and one that’s common to many, if not most, champions, including recent ones like Pete Sampras and Serena Williams. It’s hard to see self-belief as a flaw in a great athlete.
I do think that Elizabeth is closer to the point when she discusses Federer’s description of Djokovic’s “lucky” shot at the U.S. Open last year. She writes, “In actual fact it was a lucky shot, even Djokovic acknowledged that, but just because something is true doesn’t mean it’s prudent to say it.”
I don’t personally agree that the shot was lucky, or not all luck, certainly. I also remember Djokovic saying that he was lucky to win the match, but I don’t remember him saying that the shot itself was lucky. Either way, I think her general point, regarding Federer, that just because “something is true doesn’t mean it’s prudent to say it,” is a legitimate one.
Kaye is entitled to have her favorite, and she’s up front about her preference. But, in its selective marshaling of evidence against Djokovic and Federer, the piece reads like a fan argument, rather than an attempt to see all sides of their stories.
