Like any good self-respecting soap opera, here is a summary of previous episodes. World tennis No. 1 Novak Djokovic is not vaccinated against Covid-19. Despite everything, the champion receives the green light from the organizers of the Australian Open in early January to participate in this first Grand Slam tournament of the season, which begins on the 17th of the month, in Melbourne. A place where “Djoko” also holds the record for victories, nine in number. Where he could also conquer his 21st supreme title, thus overtaking his two rivals: Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. The Graal.
Problem: the Australian authorities are not really on the same line as the organizers of the tournament. The country is one of the strictest in the world regarding Covid. The visa of “Nole” is canceled the day after his arrival. The Serb is admitted to a detention center – a hotel – while waiting to regularize his situation. His clan provides a positive PCR test dated December 16. However, we realize that Novak Djokovic appeared in public on the 17th, then that he was interviewed by The Team the 18. Scandal. The player himself mentions “errors”. New cascading twists this Friday, January 14: the Australian authorities have decided to cancel the tennis player’s visa again, who will not however be expelled before the justice system has ruled on his appeal, but who could return to detention on Saturday . While he continues to train every day, his situation could change at any moment. Will play, won’t play?
Laurent Binet, multi-award winning author for his books HHhH, The Seventh Function of Language and Civilizations, co-author of tennis lovers dictionary (Plon, 2020), gives L’Express his impressions of this affair. And he’s pessimistic about the near future of the world’s most famous antivax.
L’Express: The affair between Djokovic and Australia is a real match with twists and turns. Longer than the legendary Mahut-Isner at Wimbledon in 2010 – more than 11 hours of play over three days, the highest in the sport. We don’t know the outcome yet. But deep down, has he already lost it?
Laurent Binet: Not only has he already lost it, but the problem now is much more important than his arrival, his initial pass: it is indeed the rest of his career that is at stake. The rationale for December’s positive test – which everyone found bizarre by the way – generated suspicion. If this test turns out to be tampered with, it risks suspension. [par l’ATP, l’association qui gère le circuit professionnel]. The maximum incurred is three years. It would simply be the end of his career. This is the worst case scenario, of course. But this test story puts him in a bind anyway. Even true, she demonstrates a degree of irresponsibility, as he leaves to kiss children the day after his positive result. He says he didn’t know it at the time, but he still receives journalists the next day. Finally, he loses on all counts. This affair recalls, in certain respects, those concerning the politicians François Fillon and Jérôme Cahuzac. A breach opens, and every day new revelations come out. There is a big lesson to be learned. When you make a mistake, it is better not to try to fix it by fiddling. Otherwise, we sink.
Is there another scenario, in which Novak Djokovic comes out with his head held high?
There is a scenario where he would emerge victorious: Australia allows him to play, he wins, and he breaks the record for Grand Slam titles. It would demonstrate extraordinary mental strength. One of its characteristics. But we noticed it during the last US Open [un autre tournoi du Grand Chelem, aux Etats-Unis], where he was already able to beat this record, that his mind had its limits. He lost sharply in three sets, in the final, against his opponent Daniil Medvedev. At the time, in addition, he was rather supported, he even cried on his chair. But here in Melbourne, if he plays, he won’t have public support. I find that his safety would even be seriously compromised. The danger would be everywhere given the state of tension in the current world. Finally, there is also the most “comical” scenario: Novak Djokovic is allowed to play, but he tests positive in the first week. Just because this hypothesis exists, the Australian government cannot, in my view, take this risk.
In terms of dramaturgy, we have the impression of reaching heights…
Djokovic is about to be kicked out of the tournament where he is the most successful, by far. And where he could reach the Holy Grail, namely, hold the record for winning Grand Slam tournaments. It makes you wonder if God is not Swiss or Spanish [en référence à ses rivaux, le Suisse Roger Federer et l’Espagnol Rafael Nadal, codétenteur du record de titres, à 20 unités]. With these adventures, the dramatic structure is incredible, indeed. He is in the role of a tragic hero, in the sense of Greek tragedy. We are in King Oedipus : “Never man here below will have been more atrociously crushed than you are going to be.” The more Novak Djokovic struggles, the more he sinks into real quicksand.
“It makes you wonder if God is not Swiss or Spanish”
But what is even more catastrophic for Djokovic is the communication of his clan. His family does him no favors. His father passes him off as a “New World Spartacus”. Bad luck, at the same time, there are cases like that of Peng Shuai, and he himself finds himself housed in a hotel with migrants who have been waiting for years to regain their freedom. He’s just a capricious millionaire.
The public has never been kind to the one who is sometimes called the “unloved”. “No one is really for Djokovic, nor really against it. So sports journalists, perfectly aware of this lack of passion, have recourse, to interest tennis fans in the Serbian phenomenon, to the eternal hook of all sports: statistics “, did you write in particular in 2016, for The Team. Then you gave it a no more laudatory entry, four years later, in your tennis lovers dictionary, co-written with Antoine Benneteau, in particular on his health beliefs.
In 2016, that was my theory: we didn’t care. There was only one duel that mattered, the dantesque one between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. I had also made a comparison with the film The good, the bad and the ugly. The Truand is friendly. But in the final duel, he’s the only one who doesn’t have his gun loaded. In the dictionary, when we wrote it, Roger Federer was still leading the way in Grand Slam victories. So I thought he would finish tied with Rafael Nadal, but I barely mentioned Djokovic in the story. It is, however, an incredible machine. He has an incredible mind. However, he has neither the grace of Federer nor the superhuman bestiality of Nadal.
But today, many find it “false”. Antoine Benneteau (former tennis player, now consultant) says he’s a bit of a “heavy buddy”. We don’t hate him, he wants to be loved, but he doesn’t succeed. I don’t like his kisses all over the courts, at the end of matches, for example. It’s okay, but it doesn’t sound good. Hard to say why. Someone recently reminded me that at first he didn’t have that role. It was the “Djoker”, the prankster. He made videos that imitated Nadal, Becker, Sampras. It was funny and well done. He stopped. Gradually, he tried to buy respectability.
Otherwise, I actually dedicated an entry in the dictionary to “Novax Djokovid”. You have to remember that before this Australian Open affair, he had already done anything during the Adria Tour [un tournoi caritatif organisé par le joueur dans les Balkans à l’été 2020], without tests, without distancing and punctuated by an evening in a nightclub. At the time, he caught the Covid and many players too. He says, “For us, Corona is just a beer.” A week later, his tournament was finally canceled.
This episode already betrayed some of his obsessions or sectarian borderline health beliefs. His gluten allergy which did not prevent him from being world number 3. His rapprochement with the “guru” Pepe Imaz, a Spanish mental trainer renowned for making his long “hugs” [câlins]. Then, Novak rocked during the pandemic. Himself explaining in videos, during the first confinement, that one could purify water by thought. Meanwhile, his wife was making her first videos linking the vaccine and 5G. All this craziness does not serve him, apparently, to excel in his sport. On the contrary. The paths to excellence are impenetrable (laughs).
Have we ever had a world No. 1 in tennis so criticized?
Like that ? No. There was John McEnroe, in the early 1980s, who was a brat, yelling at the referee. But that had nothing to do. It was a real spectacle that excited the crowds. McEnroe is my absolute idol. I’m not sure that Djoko is the idol of today’s children. Ivan Lendl was not much liked either: the cold air, coming from an Eastern European country, which disputed the supremacy of the Americans… Once again, nothing to see. On the other hand, tennis does not lack a rock’n’roll figure. Daniil Medvedev, who shouts at the US Open crowd and goes all the way to the final in 2019. “The more you whistle at me, the more energy you give me,” he told the audience. I am also thinking of Nick Kyrgios, for example, who can be very insulting, especially towards Djokovic. And there, it’s funny, he spoke to say “let him play”. He almost defended it. But I’m sure that because of his “punk attitude”, he was forced not to be where we expected him to be.
What do you think of the positions of Nadal and Federer? The former seemed a little wary, before calling to let him play. The second remains silent.
Roger Federer has never taken very shattering positions on any subject. Nadal, even in a form of wooden language, on the other hand said a lot of things, that he has the right to be antivax but there are consequences. What Nadal is trying to say, sanitized, is quite simply: “Djokovic is a spoiled brat and pisses everyone off with his whims.”