A lot of people in their search for certainty will think:

"Oh, it is about money."

"Oh, it is about looks."

"Oh, it is about status."

"Oh, it is about game."

But really, there is no Unique Selling Point like personality, and that is something you can't buy, nor can you copy.

It is who you are, it is what makes you different, and it is what is going to create the biggest pull towards you, because it is the scarcer.

It is not something you build for others; it is something you appreciate for yourself, and allow others to do the same.

It is not a compensator; it is who you are.

There is this joke where one says "he/she has a great personality," which is an understatement that they don't fancy that person that much physically speaking, otherwise they would lead with the physical aspect.

The reality is that many good-looking people don't have that great a personality because they never had to do the work, thanks to the positive feedback they would get, which does not provide an incentive to develop that part of themselves. It is not that they are more shallow; their situation just did not give them the motivation to do so.

Regardless of whether you are good-looking or not, does it really matter what you managed to get away with or not? It is more a matter of self-discovery, where you can learn to appreciate yourself more. This has only personal upsides, screw what other people say. You don't develop your personality for others; you do it as part of embracing yourself better.

Off the top of my head, I met two guys who, despite my short interaction with them, still left an indelible mark on my memory, still a decade later.

The first one was a French Lebanese guy who studied to be a doctor and is now a cardiologist. When I would study in the library whilst at university, we would have a chat, having a cigarette outside with our common friend. He had this energy, he was really fun, had a great sense of humour and always had a smile about him. He was a joker, but not a goofball. I could not explain what it was about him, but just being around him, there was this pull.

He was not particularly good-looking, and he was 5'6, maybe 5'7. It did not come across as overcompensating; he really could not give a fuck, but was there to enjoy himself. Did he love to take the piss? What was the most startling? I remember that there were two tall girls with the typical Versailles posh attitudes that I knew who went studying with me at the library, and we met the Lebanese guy, and his charm had them enchanted. He was a bit scruffy and short, but that did not stop them from asking me more about him after we left the library.

Really, he was not the type you would expect from these girls. He always had a girlfriend, if not more than one at the same time (our common friend was telling me the stories, some of which he was a witness to). I was always looking forward to meeting him, because I knew I would have a great laugh.

The other one was the older brother of a very close friend of mine. He was around 5'7 " as well. The same thing happened; he had that high vitality smile. He was not the typical charismatic type of guy, but he knew how to draw people. It is hard to explain, but like the Lebanese guy, it was his humour which was top-notch, his wit only matched by his younger brother. Likewise, he cleaned up with the girls.

Both of these interactions, with people I have not seen in more than 10 years, only show how much of an imprint they left on me, and all of that because of how they owned and appreciated themselves, that they had much more to give to others. Still, really, they separated themselves by displaying what others were lacking.

Just as broke people want to become rich or hang out with rich people to enjoy the spoils, people, myself included, who did not have what these two guys had, wanted to be inspired by them.

I will now use the comparison with Tennis. What is great with this game is that it is an individual one. One cannot hide behind his teammates for poor performance, so he is as exposed as it gets. There are so many parallels with real life and how one gets on with it.

Are they crybabies when things don't go their way?

How do they handle wins and losses?

What is their mentality towards the game?

What style of play do they embrace, and how does that align with their personality off the court?

But what is most interesting is that the ranking of the player and the public's appreciation are not directly linked.

Using the current Top 3:

Jannik Sinner - Best All-Round Player with the most consistency. He performs the modern game nearly to perfection. The hard-hitting metronomic style is quite redundant, and his non-expressive manners leave the crowds underwhelmed. He is a serious and diligent professional, yet it is hard to watch his games because he plays too perfectly.

Carlos Alcaraz - The Most Versatile Player, yet very inconsistent despite his high ranking. Like Sinner, they both play very aggressively; however, his range of shots is way more varied, and he is thus way more unpredictable. He has this cheekiness to his play, whilst remaining humble, yet always with a beaming smile. While Sinner keeps his emotions to himself, Alcaraz is way more expressive and is way more relatable on the court, which is why he is way more popular outside of his Champaign Tennis. He also has his God Mode, which he can implement, soon after playing like shit. This makes him more human, which people love.

The rivalry between the two is going to be the next Big Three competition, and despite Sinner slightly edging out Alcaraz recently, Sponsors know Alcaraz is the Golden Goose, even though he will most likely win fewer Grand Slams than Sinner throughout his career. In the same way, Agassi is way more remembered than Sampras, despite the latter having more Grand Slams.

Alexander Zverev - Outside of the off-the-court legal affairs, he is not that much liked despite being incredibly talented, which explains his position despite offering an edgeless tennis, focusing more on the defensive side of the court. He shows many mental frailties in key points (aka he shits the bed when the going gets tough), yet towers over the rest of the players because his average level beats 97% of the players out there when he can be asked. He always blames external factors (referees, organisers, the weather...) with very little accountability for his shortcomings, which makes him particularly disliked on the circuit and unpopular with the public.

Regardless, the public loves many other players because of the emotions they generate in them, and they may not necessarily be competitive, as in they do not play regularly for the title in top tournaments.

Gael Monfils is a showman who likes to play to entertain himself as much, if not more, than to win.

Nick Kyrgios for the trolling and on-court antics, when it is not his raw talent.

Alexander Bublik for his flair and guile with his racket, and the fact that he does not take himself seriously.

Denis Shapovalov for his erratically beautiful and instinctive tennis, yet so irritating at the same time for his lack of consistency.

Novak Djokovic for his resilience and his mental strength.

Rafael Nadal for his warrior spirit and never giving up.

Ben Shelton for his rock n' roll tennis and the American sky is the limit self-belief and energy.

Roger Federer for the beautiful and gracious tennis, alongside the noble sportsmanship.

But what is the lesson here?

Every player has positives and negatives, and people relate to them for the qualities they wish or seek to have, when they don't already value them.

Guess what, even for what would typically be considered negatives, people will still vibe with them.

We were joking with my best friend recently that nothing brings two people closer than a shared hatred for something.

I usually joke about my pettiness, but I know some people like that about me, or find it endearing, hard to believe I know.

But you know what is happening to the game of tennis, as well as in real life with people?

It is the uniformisation of style. In the modern game of tennis, most players will play flat balls, serve strongly, and have a strong forehand, building strong and resilient physical abilities at the expense of versatility, high technique, or even tennis IQ, which has made many tennis games dull as they are predictable.

I have found the same with people trying to copy-paste a model to bring them more success in real life. Be the Alpha Masculine Type. Be the Boss Girl. But really, they are showing themselves to be as empty as the average stock factory modern tennis player with no flair, and only power, who are easily replaceable.

That is why they are forgettable; they may win a tournament here and there, but there is nothing about them that singles them out. And eventually, the more people become uniformised in the way they think, the way they want to display themselves, or even behave, the more easily it will be for you to single yourself out, and really draw in the right people for you.

Some personalities will be more popular than others, the same way some styles of play in tennis and the associated personal traits will yield you more success than others, but people won't remember your trophy cabinet; they will remember that one occurrence of how you made them feel.

People will buy more of Benoit Paire's "la chaaaattte" t-shirts than Casper Ruud's brand, because one despite his shit personality, yet endearing softness had strong supporters from his polarisation, whilst Casper Ruud being maybe one of the most liked player on tour and with already a cabinet full of trophies is being too forgetabble for being too friendly and respectful. This is not to say one is more wrong than the others; it is just to emphasise that you don't need to be liked by many people. The people who will like you will like you for a reason, which is beyond your control, and that reason will be on them.

Someone will like you more as a player ranked #30 because his personality matches theirs, and the style of play is what they love to see, more than a player ranked #1 whose personality and game style is like watching paint dry, despite being the most successful. I would personally rather watch a Game of Bublik than one from Sinner, just as a girl would rather deal with someone who has something about them they really like and that separates them from the rest, and which is congruent to the individual. You are doing yourself and her a favour, finding and nurturing what is so special about you.

Owning who you are is going to attract the right people for you. Because it all goes down to this:

Perfection is the enemy of Real.