Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
No Vaccination Novak Djokovic
Comments
-
Can of worms opening here but….I’m not sure that history bares out any reason to hate the guy for refusing to take a Covid vaccine. In fact, given the global political climate of the times, to sacrifice his career for a strongly held principle of bodily autonomy, strikes me as one his more noble acts.Oliver Street said:Loathe him for his feigned injuries, excessive toilet breaks, excessive bouncing and Covid arrogance.Can’t say I support too much of anything else he spouts but there’s no real doubt he’s the greatest male player ever. It seems to only be up for debate stylistically (fair) and owing to deep seated resentment towards his personality (understandable but ultimately unfair and a little but silly).5 -
there's no doubting his talent
there's no doubting his devotion to the training and the physical rigour
he's been luckier with injury than Nadal
he's never had the balletic grace of Federer
at their respective peaks Federer beats him on grass and Nadal beats him on clay
much closer to call on the other surfaces
their peaks were close together in time but don't overlap completely
even for a professional athlete he's a weirdo - the anti vax stance ain't unheard of but for someone who's applied science to his physicality, training, recovery, etc, etc it is flat out delusional to choose that one bit of science to refute - he does seem sincere - despite how many people caught the virus at the covidiot tournament he staged
he was a spiky character that few crowds took to earlier in his career but his conduct in the runup to last year's Aussie open is gonna remain a stain on his record
his best is right up there with anybody's ever
the relentless gamesmanship is tiresome
the notion of "G.O.A.T." is fatuous3 -
Popularity, public standing.Wheresmeticket? said:Not sure how you come to that conclusion but it's about subjective enjoyment of a players style as much as actually winning more matches.
In 20-50 years time people will still wax lyrical about Federer. Djokovic will be a footnote.3 -
SELR_addicks said:
Popularity, public standing.Wheresmeticket? said:Not sure how you come to that conclusion but it's about subjective enjoyment of a players style as much as actually winning more matches.
In 20-50 years time people will still wax lyrical about Federer. Djokovic will be a footnote.The winner of most slams in the history of the game - the only man to win each of the slams at least three times - a footnote?I don't think so.He may well not go down as the most popular, but few will doubt his greatness on the court.5 -
Not sure I'd go that far, but he'll be a Sampras, remembered as brilliant but without the affection reserved for, say, Borg.SELR_addicks said:
Popularity, public standing.Wheresmeticket? said:Not sure how you come to that conclusion but it's about subjective enjoyment of a players style as much as actually winning more matches.
In 20-50 years time people will still wax lyrical about Federer. Djokovic will be a footnote.
1 -
Results wise,Novak is the best ever,but the majestic way Federer covered the court and played those wondrous shots from both wings will never be matched.1
-
Djokovic will certainly be the most successful player, quite possibly ever as his record will take some beating. But Federer is still (for me) the best player, in as much as he was enjoyable to watch play and the art of it.
Djokovic is most likely going to be remembered as a fantastic player but rather less fondly as a person but his record speaks for itself. I don't much like him but I do respect his achievements.0 -
Like or loath him, he is the best of all time. I enjoyed watching Federer more. Nadal was king on clay but Djokovic has now overtaken them in terms of grand slam sad. Probably the best.1
-
So, your opinion. To which you have every right. But being popular doesn't make you a great tennis player, and I found Federer nauseating towards the end of his career. That's my opinion.SELR_addicks said:
Popularity, public standing.Wheresmeticket? said:Not sure how you come to that conclusion but it's about subjective enjoyment of a players style as much as actually winning more matches.
In 20-50 years time people will still wax lyrical about Federer. Djokovic will be a footnote.0 -
To an extent, the number of majors reflects longevity and fitness as much as talent. And the level of competition. Borg burnt out early, Laver wasn't able to play grand slams for a few years as he was a professional. Sampras wasn't good on clay, at a time when grass and clay court tennis were far more different to each other than they are now.
The likes of Nadal and Djokovic would never have won Wimbledon in the 80s and 90s when it was dominated by big serve volleyers.1 - Sponsored links:
-
I miss serve volleyers, was something great to watch about it.killerandflash said:To an extent, the number of majors reflects longevity and fitness as much as talent. And the level of competition. Borg burnt out early, Laver wasn't able to play grand slams for a few years as he was a professional. Sampras wasn't good on clay, at a time when grass and clay court tennis were far more different to each other than they are now.
The likes of Nadal and Djokovic would never have won Wimbledon in the 80s and 90s when it was dominated by big serve volleyers.
Appreciate it wouldn't work on the surfaces now etc!1 -
Djokovic is the best player of all time if we judge things on results - his personality is irrelevant. A better player than Nadal or Federer regardless of their style or personality.
1 -
Agreed.Billy_Mix said:there's no doubting his talent
there's no doubting his devotion to the training and the physical rigour
he's been luckier with injury than Nadal
he's never had the balletic grace of Federer
at their respective peaks Federer beats him on grass and Nadal beats him on clay
much closer to call on the other surfaces
their peaks were close together in time but don't overlap completely
even for a professional athlete he's a weirdo - the anti vax stance ain't unheard of but for someone who's applied science to his physicality, training, recovery, etc, etc it is flat out delusional to choose that one bit of science to refute - he does seem sincere - despite how many people caught the virus at the covidiot tournament he staged
he was a spiky character that few crowds took to earlier in his career but his conduct in the runup to last year's Aussie open is gonna remain a stain on his record
his best is right up there with anybody's ever
the relentless gamesmanship is tiresome
the notion of "G.O.A.T." is fatuous0 -
It's always subjective who is the GOAT but 23 Slams is a fantastic achievement in such a demanding Physical sport.
Federer always looks so graceful especially at Wimbledon.
Nadal was the king of Clay and he was a beast over the 16+ years.
Djokovic is the best Competitor on all four Surfaces. Only man to have won 3 or more slams on all 4.
Andy Murray who was the best of the rest with SW for many years did well to win the US slam and a couple of Wimbledon's plus a couple of Olympic Golds and the Davis Cup.
Stan Warinka can be proud that he won all the slams other than Wimbledon; QF best, when Roger, Novak and Rafa were dominating Men's Tennis over 16+years.
0 -
Djokovic for me is the greatest.
Federer won 15 of his 20 titles by 2009 at which point he was 27 and before Djokovic really got going.
Djokovic in his mid 30s is still smashing everyone. He's won 6 of his last 8 majors and he's now 36 years old.
Djokovic also has a winning h2h record v both Federer and Nadal.5 -
Perfect summary.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Djokovic for me is the greatest.
Federer won 15 of his 20 titles by 2009 at which point he was 27 and before Djokovic really got going.
Djokovic in his mid 30s is still smashing everyone. He's won 6 of his last 8 majors and he's now 36 years old.
Djokovic also has a winning h2h record v both Federer and Nadal.0 -
The main problem for Djokovic is people dislike him.blackpool72 said:
Perfect summary.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Djokovic for me is the greatest.
Federer won 15 of his 20 titles by 2009 at which point he was 27 and before Djokovic really got going.
Djokovic in his mid 30s is still smashing everyone. He's won 6 of his last 8 majors and he's now 36 years old.
Djokovic also has a winning h2h record v both Federer and Nadal.0 -
Yep I know.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
The main problem for Djokovic is people dislike him.blackpool72 said:
Perfect summary.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Djokovic for me is the greatest.
Federer won 15 of his 20 titles by 2009 at which point he was 27 and before Djokovic really got going.
Djokovic in his mid 30s is still smashing everyone. He's won 6 of his last 8 majors and he's now 36 years old.
Djokovic also has a winning h2h record v both Federer and Nadal.
Federer may well have been easy on the eye.
But this isn't gymnastics or sycranised swimming.
You do not win points for artistic rhythm or whatever.
23 slams means he is the 🐐.
Until someone beats that total he shall remain so.1 -
Noble? The prick didn't sacrifice anything. He was too thick to understand why it was good to take a vaccine, too selfish to see how a person of his celebrity could influence others and then too arrogant to think that the rules of entering a country legally applied to him. If he didn't want to take a vaccine then whatever, but he regularly spouted utter unscientific garbage based on his own absolutely inhuman level of natural health. He became a poster boy in Serbia for anti-vax conspiracy theories to thrive and has the nerve to weigh in on science when he reckons you can cleanse polluted water with positive thinking.Making_all_the_noise said:
Can of worms opening here but….I’m not sure that history bares out any reason to hate the guy for refusing to take a Covid vaccine. In fact, given the global political climate of the times, to sacrifice his career for a strongly held principle of bodily autonomy, strikes me as one his more noble acts.Oliver Street said:Loathe him for his feigned injuries, excessive toilet breaks, excessive bouncing and Covid arrogance.Can’t say I support too much of anything else he spouts but there’s no real doubt he’s the greatest male player ever. It seems to only be up for debate stylistically (fair) and owing to deep seated resentment towards his personality (understandable but ultimately unfair and a little but silly).
10 -
He obviously sacrificed a lot and he always stressed it was a personal decision not to take the vaccine. He stood up for the rights of people who were young and healthy to choose not to be injected with a vaccine that had only been approved under emergency authorisation and had not passed the standard levels of testing for approved medication, all for a virus with only the most statistically negligible health risk for the young and healthy (literally more dangerous taking a car journey). Given the demographics of those affected by the virus, given the billions who remain unvaccinated and who are very much still alive and healthy, he did a noble thing in my eyes to sacrifice his career in the face of political censorship and propaganda determined to demonise him at every turn. This was at a time when people were unscientifically losing their jobs and basic human rights when it was falsely asserted that they represented an increased danger to society, as opposed to simply making a personal choice about their autonomy over what is injected into their bodies. It was a noble stance, it continues to astonish me that people vilify the guy when he clearly wasn’t a threat to anyone, anywhere but he was treated like a pariah. It was a witch-hunt and he was the perfect witch. A shameful episode in global political demagoguery.5
- Sponsored links:
-
Agree. His decision highlighted the absurdity of the rules at the time.3
-
Sacrificing his career would have been not travelling to Australia in Jan 2022 and not organising a tennis tournament that became a super spreader event in Serbia during lock down. He tried to ignore / bend the rules to further his own career and it didn't pay off.Making_all_the_noise said:He obviously sacrificed a lot and he always stressed it was a personal decision not to take the vaccine. He stood up for the rights of people who were young and healthy to choose not to be injected with a vaccine that had only been approved under emergency authorisation and had not passed the standard levels of testing for approved medication, all for a virus with only the most statistically negligible health risk for the young and healthy (literally more dangerous taking a car journey). Given the demographics of those affected by the virus, given the billions who remain unvaccinated and who are very much still alive and healthy, he did a noble thing in my eyes to sacrifice his career in the face of political censorship and propaganda determined to demonise him at every turn. This was at a time when people were unscientifically losing their jobs and basic human rights when it was falsely asserted that they represented an increased danger to society, as opposed to simply making a personal choice about their autonomy over what is injected into their bodies. It was a noble stance, it continues to astonish me that people vilify the guy when he clearly wasn’t a threat to anyone, anywhere but he was treated like a pariah. It was a witch-hunt and he was the perfect witch. A shameful episode in global political demagoguery.
Those who made sacrifices by sticking to the rules and not seeing loved ones in lock down or taking a vaccine that they were anxious about taking for the greater good are far more noble in my eyes.7 -
Jesus Christ. Jesus tapdancing Christ. I'm not going to get too much into this as I imagine the admins' blood pressure can't be great as it is with the takeover thread, but it truly shocks me that years later people still have no understanding of the concept of herd immunity and the fact that their robust health doesn't stop them being a carrier that can then cause harm to those more vulnerable. The young and healthy absolutely had a right not to get vaccinated, they just also had to acknowledge that as a result they would be barred from certain things to protect the more vulnerable. Djokovic, again, didn't do a noble thing, he waltzed into Australia with a note that said 'I had Covid recently it's fine honest' and then was shocked that the laws of another country applied to people who are good at tennis. Djokovic was quite happy to stroll around the place regardless of the effect it might have on others because he knew he'd be fine; that's not noble, that's what a dickhead does.Making_all_the_noise said:He obviously sacrificed a lot and he always stressed it was a personal decision not to take the vaccine. He stood up for the rights of people who were young and healthy to choose not to be injected with a vaccine that had only been approved under emergency authorisation and had not passed the standard levels of testing for approved medication, all for a virus with only the most statistically negligible health risk for the young and healthy (literally more dangerous taking a car journey). Given the demographics of those affected by the virus, given the billions who remain unvaccinated and who are very much still alive and healthy, he did a noble thing in my eyes to sacrifice his career in the face of political censorship and propaganda determined to demonise him at every turn. This was at a time when people were unscientifically losing their jobs and basic human rights when it was falsely asserted that they represented an increased danger to society, as opposed to simply making a personal choice about their autonomy over what is injected into their bodies. It was a noble stance, it continues to astonish me that people vilify the guy when he clearly wasn’t a threat to anyone, anywhere but he was treated like a pariah. It was a witch-hunt and he was the perfect witch. A shameful episode in global political demagoguery.
12 -
On a personal level I think he's a dishonest, self-centred ignorant twerp. He is nevertheless a great tennis player. Painting him as some sort of principled hero is beyond laughable...9
-
That you still believe the vaccine stopped the spread of Covid and restrictions were correctly and scientifically applied to the unvaccinated, is odd.
Djokovic tried to play in Australia by circumventing utterly daft and politicised rules. Instead of attacking the daft rules and those who tried to make populist political capital out of the situation, most people seemed to prefer to attack Djokovic. It was clear that by this stage, the political bandwagon had become far too loaded for common sense to prevail, so a perfectly fit and healthy man who posed zero threat to Australia’s public health was prevented from playing in a tennis tournament. As mentioned above, the situation amounted to a perfect encapsulation of the absurdity of the rules that prevailed at that point in time.7 -
A footnote ?SELR_addicks said:
Popularity, public standing.Wheresmeticket? said:Not sure how you come to that conclusion but it's about subjective enjoyment of a players style as much as actually winning more matches.
In 20-50 years time people will still wax lyrical about Federer. Djokovic will be a footnote.
this is the most ridiculous comment I have seen you post
Is Djokovic a Spurs fan or something ?2 -
Jimmy Connors is the GOAT according to this.blackpool72 said:
Yep I know.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
The main problem for Djokovic is people dislike him.blackpool72 said:
Perfect summary.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Djokovic for me is the greatest.
Federer won 15 of his 20 titles by 2009 at which point he was 27 and before Djokovic really got going.
Djokovic in his mid 30s is still smashing everyone. He's won 6 of his last 8 majors and he's now 36 years old.
Djokovic also has a winning h2h record v both Federer and Nadal.
Federer may well have been easy on the eye.
But this isn't gymnastics or sycranised swimming.
You do not win points for artistic rhythm or whatever.
23 slams means he is the 🐐.
Until someone beats that total he shall remain so.
0 -
Connors only has 8 slam titles.SELR_addicks said:
Jimmy Connors is the GOAT according to this.blackpool72 said:
Yep I know.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
The main problem for Djokovic is people dislike him.blackpool72 said:
Perfect summary.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Djokovic for me is the greatest.
Federer won 15 of his 20 titles by 2009 at which point he was 27 and before Djokovic really got going.
Djokovic in his mid 30s is still smashing everyone. He's won 6 of his last 8 majors and he's now 36 years old.
Djokovic also has a winning h2h record v both Federer and Nadal.
Federer may well have been easy on the eye.
But this isn't gymnastics or sycranised swimming.
You do not win points for artistic rhythm or whatever.
23 slams means he is the 🐐.
Until someone beats that total he shall remain so.
Singles titles aren't the measure of greatness. Connors has 109 to Novak's 94.
I wonder if Connors would swap those minor singles titles for more slam titles.....of course he would.
You're either stretching or wumming.2 -
Is this a new fangled aerobic exercise regime?Big_Bad_World said:
Connors only has 8 slam titles.SELR_addicks said:
Jimmy Connors is the GOAT according to this.blackpool72 said:
Yep I know.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
The main problem for Djokovic is people dislike him.blackpool72 said:
Perfect summary.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Djokovic for me is the greatest.
Federer won 15 of his 20 titles by 2009 at which point he was 27 and before Djokovic really got going.
Djokovic in his mid 30s is still smashing everyone. He's won 6 of his last 8 majors and he's now 36 years old.
Djokovic also has a winning h2h record v both Federer and Nadal.
Federer may well have been easy on the eye.
But this isn't gymnastics or sycranised swimming.
You do not win points for artistic rhythm or whatever.
23 slams means he is the 🐐.
Until someone beats that total he shall remain so.
Singles titles aren't the measure of greatness. Connors has 109 to Novak's 94.
I wonder if Connors would swap those minor singles titles for more slam titles.....of course he would.
You're either stretching or wumming.1 -
I have just realised you are the same poster who made up some weird fanfic fantasy about the Mason Greenwood case where he was a victim of an elaborate honeypot operation by his girlfriend and now everything you have posted on this thread makes so much more sense. Enjoy your conspiracy theories. Just watch out for 5G, pretty sure it's a wizard!Making_all_the_noise said:That you still believe the vaccine stopped the spread of Covid and restrictions were correctly and scientifically applied to the unvaccinated, is odd.
Djokovic tried to play in Australia by circumventing utterly daft and politicised rules. Instead of attacking the daft rules and those who tried to make populist political capital out of the situation, most people seemed to prefer to attack Djokovic. It was clear that by this stage, the political bandwagon had become far too loaded for common sense to prevail, so a perfectly fit and healthy man who posed zero threat to Australia’s public health was prevented from playing in a tennis tournament. As mentioned above, the situation amounted to a perfect encapsulation of the absurdity of the rules that prevailed at that point in time.
3
