on being called a robot
the controversy of the day is over, jannik has said it's ok and he agrees with joao, and nobody should ever get upset when he gets constantly called a robot or robotic. right? wrong.
first: as we've all (or at least most of us) said, joao obviously meant it as a pr-approved compliment and was just fishing for common descriptors comparing jannik to carlos when answering that question. he didn't mean to offend jannik in the slightest.
second: just because jannik publicly agreed with that description in a context where he's heavily incentivized to do so, it doesn't mean that he likes it. he never wants to create drama, he never wants to publicly antagonize a player who obviously didn't mean any harm, and he doesn't want to come off as touchy. and yet he has gently but firmly pushed back against that "robot" characterization multiple times in other press conferences, making it clear that he doesn't see himself as one and he doesn't think it's correct.
third: despite all protests of the contrary, calling someone a robot in tennis will never have completely positive connotations. no matter how much one clearly tries to paint it as a synonym to perfection. just think about novak and how that was one of the most common dismissive insults thrown at him when he was in his prime in the big 3 era. and in that case it was clearly "only" directed at his game, because his personality was always fiery. or even back to lendl, the robot champion "nobody cared about." of course it's easier for this moniker to come out of the woodwork when media and fans compare the guy in question to a less-robotic, more approachable, more easily admirable rival. and being assigned the robot role means you've been cast as the least-liked of the two (or three.)
fourth: but why does "robot" always give off a negative vibe? because it's dehumanizing. it doesn't have the same connotations as "superhuman" or "god" or "angel". it's something explicitly less than human that does certain things incredibly well. it's something that has no human emotions, no autonomy, no free will, no creativity, no instinct or inspiration. it's just a powerful machine.
fifth: personal story time: as an introvert who did well in school, i've been described with some variations of it a couple times growing up and they were meant as compliments. i also saw the same happen to a classmate who was very self-controlled (it happened much more frequently in her case.) i never once interpreted it as a compliment even if i rationally understood it was meant as one. i only saw it as an indication that people didn't understand us and didn't connect with us, and they couldn't instinctively fathom that we felt the same emotions as them. it made me angry and frustrated. it's also partly why i always tend to like more closed-off characters and celebrities, and root for them.
sixth: so how can media better describe someone who's clearly human and clearly has emotions and all that, but isn't as flashy and has a more controlled game? andrea petkovic once described jannik as a "stoic philosopher" but i guess that doesn't translate that well visually on the court. a description i like that i've seen floating around is "monk" - you choose which type (convent monk, warrior monk, shaolin etc.) it transmits the same level of detachment and self-control without falling into dehumanization.
