Djokovic's popularity outside North America, Western Europe, Australia

[Moxie]

We're a bit bogged down in semantics, Obsi. If you want to discuss this, perhaps you would move the conversation forward. Or maybe you just wanted to make your statement and leave it at that. I actually have heard that Novak is very popular in Asia, and it makes sense: he wears Uniqlo, he speaks a bit of Chinese, and he wins a lot over there.

 

[mrzz]

Much to the despair of all our readers, I refuse to let this fantastic topic die:

You asked me to clarify the meaning of "B lacks popularity compared to A". If someone tries to make a statement easier to understand it's logical that they will use different words.

You are completely right about that. But as you are making a subtle distinction, you need to take care in your choice of words. But I was indeed wrong in my complaint, as I did not realize you actually went back full circle to your first wording. But the fact is that the distinction itself is still not clear.

I´ll quote you exactly not to be provocative or anything, just to avoid confusion. First question was:

Federer is more popular than Nadal. Does it mean Rafael lacks popularity compared to Roger?

And the second you stated:

Saying B lacks popularity compared to A isn't the same as saying B lacks popularity that A has.

So you are saying that "to lack popularity" (which is a sentence present on both statements) is different from "being less popular" (the opposed sentence is in the first statement) or "lack popularity that A has" (second statement). I guess it was here that you got everyone confused.

You make one side clear on the next post:

If you say B lacks popularity compared to A, it means you claim that, relatively speaking, B isn't popular in comparison with A.

Perfect, it is relative. But you are distinguishing this from "being more/less popular", which is also relative. Or, as in the second post, distinguishing it from "lacking the popularity that A has", which is relative by definition.

It seems that you are trying to distinguish an absolute from a relative quantity, but there is no absolute quantity in discussion: we never said "A is/isn´t popular", unless if you assume that when "B lacks popularity that A has", B has zero popularity (i.e, it is not popular), while A has (is popular). In fact, in general we understand "popularity" as something that can grow continuously, and not as some binary, yes or no quality that you either have or not (like, for example, being dead. You cannot be "more dead").

I am looking forward to your one line response ((maybe two)). I usually enjoy them (I am not being sarcastic). And, you know, @Moxie wanted the discussion to move forward, and I love to do exactly the contrary of what those progressive women suggest.

 

[britbox]

I guess you can't measure popularity in a perfect mathematical way but I'd see the following...

Social Media:
1 Nadal
2 Federer
3 Djokovic

Endorsements:
1 Federer
2 Nadal
3 Djokovic

Ticket Sales:
1 Federer
2 Nadal
3 Djokovic

The first section is without dispute.
The second section (2nd and 3rd) might have swung in Novak's favour this last year, but generally Nadal sits at #2.
The third section is subjective, but apparently Federer commands the most money for appearances because of the bottom line on ticket sales. Nadal and Djokovic might be interchangeable here but this part is my guesswork.

I'd have Federer and Nadal as almost a joint #1 based on global popularity, Novak, a healthy 3rd with a sizeable gap back to Andy Murray who would come in fourth.

 

[Moxie]

Nice job quantifying the argument, BB.

 

[Mary]

I guess you can't measure popularity in a perfect mathematical way but I'd see the following...

Social Media:
1 Nadal
2 Federer
3 Djokovic

Endorsements:
1 Federer
2 Nadal
3 Djokovic

Ticket Sales:
1 Federer
2 Nadal
3 Djokovic

The first section is without dispute.
The second section (2nd and 3rd) might have swung in Novak's favour this last year, but generally Nadal sits at #2.
The third section is subjective, but apparently Federer commands the most money for appearances because of the bottom line on ticket sales. Nadal and Djokovic might be interchangeable here but this part is my guesswork.

I'd have Federer and Nadal as almost a joint #1 based on global popularity, Novak, a healthy 3rd with a sizeable gap back to Andy Murray who would come in fourth.

Well reasoned - it's probably a bit different in the UK because Murray is pretty popular and Djokovic has beaten him so often. Here I'd say Fed and Murray joint 1, Nadal 2 and I am not sure Djokovic would get 3 even. He is all to often unfairly portrayed as a villain in the press and Eastern Europeans are all to often resented. Also he doesn't play much here, only Wimbledon and a small private exhibition tournament so fewer people get to see him.

 

[Federberg]

I guess you can't measure popularity in a perfect mathematical way but I'd see the following...

Social Media:
1 Nadal
2 Federer
3 Djokovic

Endorsements:
1 Federer
2 Nadal
3 Djokovic

Ticket Sales:
1 Federer
2 Nadal
3 Djokovic

The first section is without dispute.
The second section (2nd and 3rd) might have swung in Novak's favour this last year, but generally Nadal sits at #2.
The third section is subjective, but apparently Federer commands the most money for appearances because of the bottom line on ticket sales. Nadal and Djokovic might be interchangeable here but this part is my guesswork.

I'd have Federer and Nadal as almost a joint #1 based on global popularity, Novak, a healthy 3rd with a sizeable gap back to Andy Murray who would come in fourth.

I'm not sure Murray would come 4th in terms of endorsements. Nishikori would probably have a lot to say about that!

 

[Federberg]

Well reasoned - it's probably a bit different in the UK because Murray is pretty popular and Djokovic has beaten him so often. Here I'd say Fed and Murray joint 1, Nadal 2 and I am not sure Djokovic would get 3 even. He is all to often unfairly portrayed as a villain in the press and Eastern Europeans are all to often resented. Also he doesn't play much here, only Wimbledon and a small private exhibition tournament so fewer people get to see him.

Don't forget the ATP finals. I've watched Novak there often

 

[Obsi]

We're a bit bogged down in semantics, Obsi. If you want to discuss this, perhaps you would move the conversation forward.

In your previous post you said it's incumbent upon me to define measures, after which I provided an argument as to why you're wrong. Can you refute my argument so that I can move the conversation forward ?

Perfect, it is relative. But you are distinguishing this from "being more/less popular", which is also relative. Or, as in the second post, distinguishing it from "lacking the popularity that A has", which is relative by definition.

It seems that you are trying to distinguish an absolute from a relative quantity, but there is no absolute quantity in discussion: we never said "A is/isn´t popular", unless if you assume that when "B lacks popularity that A has", B has zero popularity (i.e, it is not popular), while A has (is popular). In fact, in general we understand "popularity" as something that can grow continuously, and not as some binary, yes or no quality that you either have or not (like, for example, being dead. You cannot be "more dead").

If somebody says A is more popular than B it means they claim A has more fans than B. If there is a group of 100 people and within it 60 are fans of A and the rest are fans of B there is absolute quantity (i.e. it isn't relative whether A is more popular than B).

 

[Moxie]

It's been said many times that Djokovic lacks popularity compared to Federer and Nadal.

But is this the case worldwide or it's restricted to North America, Western Europe and Australasia. Look how popular Novak is in Latin America or Far East for example. In Acapulco the majority of the crowd supported him in all three matches.

I dispute your OP that Fedal's popularity over Djokovic is "restricted to North America, Western Europe and Australasia." I've made your argument for you why Novak is very popular in Asia, which makes sense to me. @Mary touched on the point that how much you show up somewhere makes a difference, (even if she forgot about YEC's.) You talk about how the majority of the crowd supported Novak in Acapulco, (which is in North America, btw.) But I would argue that every crowd tends to support the elite player: they want them to keep going and see them in more matches. (Occasionally, they'll get behind a valiant underdog, but basically just to see more tennis on the day. They still want the elite player to prevail, in the end.) @mrzz says that Novak is very popular in Brazil, so I can't dispute that. However, unless I'm wrong, Djokovic has only played an exhibition with Rafa and the Olympics in So. America, and recently in Acapulco, as far as Latin America. Rafa has played numerous times in Latin America (Buenos Aires, Rio, Chile, and Mexico on 2 surfaces.) Additionally, obviously, Nadal is a Spanish-speaker, and there is an element of hispanic pride that gives him a certain edge, I would argue, in the Spanish-speaking world. (I've seen it in action at the USOpen in person, and it's pretty clear in Miami, where there are huge Spanish-speaking populations.) So I'm not buying your argument that Djokovic is more popular than Nadal in Latin America. I'm wondering what you'd base that on?

 

[Mary]

Don't forget the ATP finals. I've watched Novak there often

OMG so have I! Brain dead today!!!

 

[britbox]

I'm not sure Murray would come 4th in terms of endorsements. Nishikori would probably have a lot to say about that!

You might be right - Nish signed a pretty big Uniqlo contract.

 

[Moxie]

You might be right - Nish signed a pretty big Uniqlo contract.

Nishikori is very like Li Na in being the great hope of Asian tennis, and it translates to endorsements. It's hard to know exact terms of player agreements with their endorsement companies, but Forbes has listed Murray over Kei, but Nishikori as the fastest rising, so they're likely neck-and-neck. (Within the difference of chump change that the rest of us can only dream of.)

 

[mrzz]

If somebody says A is more popular than B it means they claim A has more fans than B. If there is a group of 100 people and within it 60 are fans of A and the rest are fans of B there is absolute quantity (i.e. it isn't relative whether A is more popular than B).

Ok, we still could argue, but let us stick with more popular = more fans. At least we agree on that.

By the way, I said (and repeat) that Djokovic is very popular here, but I did not said he is the most popular player (maybe he is, it is just that I am not sure.)

Strangely enough popularity in tennis here has almost no connection to national boundaries. Brazilians, for example, root in general in favor of the Argentinian players (see, for exemplo, del Potro in the Olympics). I once saw Nalbandian here playing Almagro and he got 99% of the crowd. In football and in anything else Argentinians and Brazilians hate each other to death. Anyway, this is off topic. Thing is that I find a lot of Djokovic fans around, either playing, talking about tennis or commenting on news sites. Here (wild, wild guess) I suppose is Djokovic, Federer in a close second and then Nadal. But if del Potro starts winning big, he could turn things around.

 

[Obsi]

I...

You said it's a "fact of life" that Federer and Nadal are more popular than Djokovic. Can you prove it?

...dispute your OP that Fedal's popularity over Djokovic is "restricted to North America, Western Europe and Australasia."

My OP doesn't say Fedal are more popular than Novak only in North America, Western Europe and Australasia. After several posts, I made it clear what I meant by "It's been said many times that Djokovic lacks popularity compared to Federer and Nadal". I repeat again: it means, that, relatively speaking, It's been said many times Novak isn't popular. My OP questions that and asks is it the case worldwide.

You talk about how the majority of the crowd supported Novak in Acapulco, (which is in North America, btw.) But I would argue that every crowd tends to support the elite player: they want them to keep going and see them in more matches. (Occasionally, they'll get behind a valiant underdog, but basically just to see more tennis on the day. They still want the elite player to prevail

How often the majority of crowds in the USA support Djokovic?

However, unless I'm wrong, Djokovic has only played an exhibition with Rafa and the Olympics in So. America, and recently in Acapulco, as far as Latin America. Rafa has played numerous times in Latin America (Buenos Aires, Rio, Chile, and Mexico on 2 surfaces.) Additionally, obviously, Nadal is a Spanish-speaker, and there is an element of hispanic pride that gives him a certain edge, I would argue, in the Spanish-speaking world. (I've seen it in action at the USOpen in person, and it's pretty clear in Miami, where there are huge Spanish-speaking populations.)

It doesn't prove Rafa is more popular than Novak in Latin America.

I'm not buying your argument that Djokovic is more popular than Nadal in Latin America. I'm wondering what you'd base that on?

Where did I claim Djokovic is more popular than Nadal in Latin America?

 

[Ricardo]

i am not convinced that Novak letting Becker go was a good decision.

 

[britbox]

@Obsi - Who do you think are the most popular in order?

 

[DarthFed]

I guess you can't measure popularity in a perfect mathematical way but I'd see the following...

Social Media:
1 Nadal
2 Federer
3 Djokovic

Endorsements:
1 Federer
2 Nadal
3 Djokovic

Ticket Sales:
1 Federer
2 Nadal
3 Djokovic

The first section is without dispute.
The second section (2nd and 3rd) might have swung in Novak's favour this last year, but generally Nadal sits at #2.
The third section is subjective, but apparently Federer commands the most money for appearances because of the bottom line on ticket sales. Nadal and Djokovic might be interchangeable here but this part is my guesswork.

I'd have Federer and Nadal as almost a joint #1 based on global popularity, Novak, a healthy 3rd with a sizeable gap back to Andy Murray who would come in fourth.

Excellent breakdown though I don't agree that they are a joint #1 because we have to factor in that social media is really only capturing a demographic, mostly young people I'd say up to age 40-45, (not to offend those that are older and active on social media). Also, there are a lot more people in Spain than there are in Switzerland so it figures that Rafa has a lot more domestic followers on Twitter and FB than Roger does. Obviously that is part of "popularity" but it just shows that when we talk "who is most popular throughout the world" that is a factor to consider. Ticket sales and just the "ear test" as Moxie calls it is much more telling IMO. That points to Roger being the most popular at the most stops on tour. And in some tournaments it isn't particularly close.

 

[Obsi]

@Obsi - Who do you think are the most popular in order?

Federer is the most popular. It's very hard for me to say who is the second between Djokovic and Nadal.

 

[Moxie]

You said it's a "fact of life" that Federer and Nadal are more popular than Djokovic. Can you prove it?

My OP doesn't say Fedal are more popular than Novak only in North America, Western Europe and Australasia. After several posts, I made it clear what I meant by "It's been said many times that Djokovic lacks popularity compared to Federer and Nadal". I repeat again: it means, that, relatively speaking, It's been said many times Novak isn't popular. My OP questions that and asks is it the case worldwide.

How often the majority of crowds in the USA support Djokovic?

It doesn't prove Rafa is more popular than Novak in Latin America.

Where did I claim Djokovic is more popular than Nadal in Latin America?

Obsi, you're very combative with me, when others have said much the same as I, or at least britbox. I don't think most people would say that Djokovic "isn't popular," which is something you've said... because he's an elite player, has been a very successful #1, and obviously has a committed fan base. It seems you've taken serious umbrage with my comment that the popularity of Fedal is a "fact of life," in the times we live in. And you're welcome to. "Popularity" is a difficult thing to judge, even though we've tried to come up with some more reliable quantifiers here.

It seems that many, including you, have conceded that Federer seems to be the most popular men's tennis player in this time, and likely in history, given that global nature of tennis now, and the diffusion of tennis interest, including the internet. So that likely leaves Nadal and Djokovic in competition for second place, I believe you said. My point about "facts of life" was that Nadal (and Federer) already had huge fan bases when Novak wasn't really in the conversation. Since both are still playing, and given that their fan bases are somewhere between pretty loyal to ridiculously biased, I'm saying that that has left not a great lot of tennis fans for Djokovic to sway into his fan base. You get that, right? However, new tennis fans are made all the time, and certainly that would contribute to the Nole fan base.

As to your other questions: I have no idea how much the majority of crowds in the USA support Djokovic. My question to you would be: compared to whom? As I said before, I think crowds support the elite players, as they want to see more of them. My biggest personal example is the USOpen, my local, and I haven't seen Novak play there since he became #1. I did see the match when he broke out the imitations, and that was a crowd pleaser. But then he had a kerfuffle with Roddick, and was not so popular in NY for a while. Anyway, I'd wager he gets a goodly amount of crowd support there, now.

You didn't claim that Novak was more popular that Rafa (or Roger) in Latin America, but you seemed to imply it in your OP. If that's not what you meant, I'm cool. However, I think my argument is compelling for why Rafa is likely more popular in Latin America than Novak, and, frankly, Roger. And, btw, you've never thanked me for making your argument for why Novak is likely the most popular of the 3 in Asia. You're welcome.

 

[Ricardo]

Federer is the most popular. It's very hard for me to say who is the second between Djokovic and Nadal.

so you got to admit that Djoker does get the credit he deserves, or even more. Nadal has been established for longer and is generally considered equal or higher up the ladder than Novak so definitely not under appreciated.