What is it with underdogs? Or rather, what have we got against winners?
I was reflecting on the yesterday morning whilst listening to Andy Murray succumb to yet another of his regular beatings from Novak Djokovic. I have only a passing interest in tennis, to be honest, but I'll pay attention from time to time. And I've paid enough attention to know that, whilst these two (and the fading Federer) are head and shoulders above the others in the game, the boy Novak has that little bit more head, that little bit more shoulder.
So, it was unsurprising that, for all Murray's undoubted excellence and skill he was beaten. And the unsurprising bit was depressing, and I found myself growing irritated with Djokovic, words like "boring" and "robotic" started leaping to mind. Which is, of course, patently nonsense. he's an incredibly highly skilled athlete, a supreme performer in his field. It's not him that's boring, but the ineivitability of the outcome is.
We love an underdog for a variety of reasons, partially it's the peculiarly english syndrome of wanting to see the successful cut down, what the Aussies (and who doesn't rejoice in the defeat of one of their remorselessly successful teams?) call tall poppy syndrome; but I think it's more to do with a love of the unpredictable, the joy of a twig being stuck in the spokes of normal experience. It also speaks to the average amongst us that hey, the best don't always win, which, by extension, suggests that we, not being the best, one day, might.
Which is a bit of a shame for the Novak Djokovic's of this world, who perhaps never quite get the acclaim that's due to them, their victiories are too rote, too predictable to engage the interest of the casual fan. I'm sure there are tennis fans reading this who are seething at me, but that's kind of the point, I recongnise that he's the best, even I as a man who hasn't picked up a tennis racket in about ten years can see that, but it's still a bit disappointing when he wins. Again. So better luck next time, whoever.
I was reflecting on the yesterday morning whilst listening to Andy Murray succumb to yet another of his regular beatings from Novak Djokovic. I have only a passing interest in tennis, to be honest, but I'll pay attention from time to time. And I've paid enough attention to know that, whilst these two (and the fading Federer) are head and shoulders above the others in the game, the boy Novak has that little bit more head, that little bit more shoulder.
So, it was unsurprising that, for all Murray's undoubted excellence and skill he was beaten. And the unsurprising bit was depressing, and I found myself growing irritated with Djokovic, words like "boring" and "robotic" started leaping to mind. Which is, of course, patently nonsense. he's an incredibly highly skilled athlete, a supreme performer in his field. It's not him that's boring, but the ineivitability of the outcome is.
We love an underdog for a variety of reasons, partially it's the peculiarly english syndrome of wanting to see the successful cut down, what the Aussies (and who doesn't rejoice in the defeat of one of their remorselessly successful teams?) call tall poppy syndrome; but I think it's more to do with a love of the unpredictable, the joy of a twig being stuck in the spokes of normal experience. It also speaks to the average amongst us that hey, the best don't always win, which, by extension, suggests that we, not being the best, one day, might.
Which is a bit of a shame for the Novak Djokovic's of this world, who perhaps never quite get the acclaim that's due to them, their victiories are too rote, too predictable to engage the interest of the casual fan. I'm sure there are tennis fans reading this who are seething at me, but that's kind of the point, I recongnise that he's the best, even I as a man who hasn't picked up a tennis racket in about ten years can see that, but it's still a bit disappointing when he wins. Again. So better luck next time, whoever.
Comments
Post a Comment