PDA

View Full Version : Greatest Rivalry in Tennis


srinrajesh
03-02-2009, 11:56 AM
I would have to put navratilova Vs Evert .
It is mind boggling that they met 80 times with Martina winning 43-37 and 10-4 in GS finals. I wonder if there is a pair who have played over 14 GS finals agaisnt each other..should think not
Most people would be happy to reach 14 Finals..

Can Nadal Federer hope to touch 14 or get close to that.

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 11:57 AM
I would have to put navratilova Vs Evert .
It is mind boggling that they met 80 times with Martina winning 43-37 and 10-4 in GS finals. I wonder if there is a pair who have played over 14 GS finals agaisnt each other..should think not
Most people would be happy to reach 14 Finals..

Can Nadal Federer hope to touch 14 or get close to that.


Not if Fed cant defeat Nadal anymore

tahiti
03-02-2009, 12:33 PM
I didn't follow rivalries when I was younger watching tennis. I was always very sorry that Lendl couldn't win Wimbledon against Becker or Cash.

But Borg and Mac were a great one.

Topaz
03-02-2009, 12:35 PM
Hands down, Navratilova vs Evert.

And, for those that think Fed/Nadal is not a rivalry anymore...think about this...Evert *creamed* Navratilova for years and their head to head was very lopsided...and then Navratilova started making up a lot of ground!

Still time to see that kind of turn around with Fed/Nad, too.

gj011
03-02-2009, 12:58 PM
double post.

gj011
03-02-2009, 01:00 PM
Hands down, Navratilova vs Evert.

And, for those that think Fed/Nadal is not a rivalry anymore...think about this...Evert *creamed* Navratilova for years and their head to head was very lopsided...and then Navratilova started making up a lot of ground!

Still time to see that kind of turn around with Fed/Nad, too.

There is a problem with your reasoning. Navratilova is 2 years younger than Evert, while Federer is 5 years older than Nadal. Is ti too late for Fed to "start making grounds", especially since he is a stubborn guy and would not do a thing to change his game and improve his chances against Nadal.

I voted Seles - Graf, since their numbers of GS finals would have been close to Navratilova - Evert if there was no stabbing.

ksbh
03-02-2009, 01:40 PM
Nadal - Federer, without any doubt. Though 1 sided, yet a fascinating rivalry.

Giggs The Red Devil
03-02-2009, 04:19 PM
What about McEnroe-Connors? 2 GS finals and 6 GS semis. And they really hated each other.

veroniquem
03-02-2009, 04:29 PM
What about McEnroe-Connors? 2 GS finals and 6 GS semis. And they really hated each other.
Yes there should be McEnroe-Connors in that list. An amusing detail is that McEnroe was 20-14 in his head to head vs Connors, exactly the same numbers as Sampras-Agassi: 20-14! On the women's side I found Seles-Graf matches gripping.

Tennis Dunce
03-02-2009, 04:37 PM
Going with Evert vs Navratilova by a mile...

However Wilander vs. Lendl is some of the best tennis ever produced.

soyizgood
03-02-2009, 04:42 PM
Davenport vs Venus was a great one
Henin vs Serena was pretty good
Hingis vs both Williams was pretty close
Clijsters quietly did well against Henin, though not when it mattered most

egn
03-02-2009, 05:27 PM
Navratilova 43-37 Evert

They played 80 matches against each other in the WTA. Who has played even 50 matches against each other? Nothing compares the two were always trading blows, it lasted over 10 years.

JoshDragon
03-02-2009, 05:38 PM
Nadal vs Federer, I think is the best.

soyizgood
03-02-2009, 06:19 PM
Navratilova 43-37 Evert

They played 80 matches against each other in the WTA. Who has played even 50 matches against each other? Nothing compares the two were always trading blows, it lasted over 10 years.

Yeah, but Evert had a 29-10 H2H lead and played longer than she even expected to. She peaked earlier than Martina while Martina's endurance enabled her to play at peak performance longer. Evert really should have retired after '86, but still played on making slam semi-finals but was outmatched by Martina at the end.

soyizgood
03-02-2009, 06:27 PM
Nadal vs Federer, I think is the best.

That is by far the most underwhelming, overrated rivalry in modern times. Where's the intensity? Where is the desire to beat the other on their supposed turf? Where's the silent and sometimes obvious disdain for the other? They talk so politically correct, humble, and respectful of one another... all the time.

These guys are way too buddy-buddy. Nadal agrees with whatever Federer's tennis views are, Federer accepts being the sacrificial lamb when they play on clay, they fly on private planes together, they probably both helped Ivanovic find houses in their cities, and they probably celebrate together after their match for all we know. Nadal is too humble to make himself THE face of tennis even though Federer's confidence and aura is in the gutter. Meanwhile, Federer probably prays that he doesn't have to face Nadal at a slam.

I will be glad when someone takes #1 from these guys. Great players, but ho-hum rivalry.

devila
03-02-2009, 06:45 PM
Nadal played without taking a break in between each of 3 events in 2007.
Federer hopes that happens again because Nadal never lost against him again. Maybe another very fast-court exhibition is planned...

egn
03-02-2009, 06:48 PM
Yeah, but Evert had a 29-10 H2H lead and played longer than she even expected to. She peaked earlier than Martina while Martina's endurance enabled her to play at peak performance longer. Evert really should have retired after '86, but still played on making slam semi-finals but was outmatched by Martina at the end.

Yea but still from 76-82 they were on par and after 86 they were on par each had a period of dominance it was an intense rivalry the way they should be. Dominance, even, dominance, even.

boredone3456
03-02-2009, 06:54 PM
That is by far the most underwhelming, overrated rivalry in modern times. Where's the intensity? Where is the desire to beat the other on their supposed turf? Where's the silent and sometimes obvious disdain for the other? They talk so politically correct, humble, and respectful of one another... all the time.

These guys are way too buddy-buddy. Nadal agrees with whatever Federer's tennis views are, Federer accepts being the sacrificial lamb when they play on clay, they fly on private planes together, they probably both helped Ivanovic find houses in their cities, and they probably celebrate together after their match for all we know. Nadal is too humble to make himself THE face of tennis even though Federer's confidence and aura is in the gutter. Meanwhile, Federer probably prays that he doesn't have to face Nadal at a slam.

I will be glad when someone takes #1 from these guys. Great players, but ho-hum rivalry.

I agree there is little intensity, especially since Nadal has a huge edge. But there doesn't need to be disdain. There does not need to be negative talk, or are you saying rivalries need to have a Hingis type personality in them trying to tear down the other with words? To be someones rival on court means you can't be friends of court and have respect for your opponent, I don't think so.

Evert and Navratilova were friends off court and always talked respectfully about each other, and in my opinion that is the greatest rivalry in tennis history, and I never sense any disdain whenever I watch a tape of them playing each other. To be a great Champion doesn't mean you need to look tough and be an in your face type, in fact, the greatest champions are the ones who know how to be humble and respectful. Or would you rather have a number 1 like Hingis was in her younger days making statements that are not befitting a champion?

soyizgood
03-02-2009, 07:13 PM
I agree there is little intensity, especially since Nadal has a huge edge. But there doesn't need to be disdain. There does not need to be negative talk, or are you saying rivalries need to have a Hingis type personality in them trying to tear down the other with words? To be someones rival on court means you can't be friends of court and have respect for your opponent, I don't think so.

Evert and Navratilova were friends off court and always talked respectfully about each other, and in my opinion that is the greatest rivalry in tennis history, and I never sense any disdain whenever I watch a tape of them playing each other. To be a great Champion doesn't mean you need to look tough and be an in your face type, in fact, the greatest champions are the ones who know how to be humble and respectful. Or would you rather have a number 1 like Hingis was in her younger days making statements that are not befitting a champion?

Evert and Navratilova fought fiercely against the other and it was an even bet on who would come out on top. Both took titles on the other's turf and while you could dislike them (especially if you were the opponent) they brought the level of the game and competition up during their peak.

I hear from old-timers about the Connors-McEnroe, McEnroe-Borg rivalries and such rivalries make you want to stand up for your idol staying up all night hoping to see him vanquish his arch-rival.

Agassi-Sampras was a better rivalry than Federer-Nadal imo and could have been the best if a) Agassi didn't hook up with Brooke Shields and hung around Streisand, b) Agassi's back didn't lock up, and c) Agassi didn't skip Wimbledon and AO during his early years.

As it stands, the only up for grab tournament for Federer and Nadal is Wimbledon. The AO and FO are better-suited for Nadal while the USO is a better fit for Federer. Nadal doesn't do well on fast hard-courts and Federer already is a defeated man when facing Nadal on clay. Likely neither guy achieves a career slam unless Nadal gets injured for Federer to win the French or if Nadal can avoid Federer, Djokovic, and Murray at the USO.

crabgrass
03-02-2009, 07:20 PM
navratilova-evert wins hands down,
on the mens side nadal-federer is a little overated...while they are clearly the 2 greatest players of their generation i think to be considered the greatest ever you'd have to have a more balanced outcome then 13-6.
my personal favourite would be lendl-mcenroe.

thalivest
03-02-2009, 08:55 PM
Agassi-Sampras was a better rivalry than Federer-Nadal imo and could have been the best if a) Agassi didn't hook up with Brooke Shields and hung around Streisand, b) Agassi's back didn't lock up, and c) Agassi didn't skip Wimbledon and AO during his early years.

As it stands, the only up for grab tournament for Federer and Nadal is Wimbledon. The AO and FO are better-suited for Nadal while the USO is a better fit for Federer. Nadal doesn't do well on fast hard-courts and Federer already is a defeated man when facing Nadal on clay. Likely neither guy achieves a career slam unless Nadal gets injured for Federer to win the French or if Nadal can avoid Federer, Djokovic, and Murray at the USO.

Your comments are interesting. The only possible up for grabs tournament between Sampras and Agassi was the Australian Open, and even that did not produce the classic back and forth matches (with both players winning) that Federer and Nadal did at Wimbledon. As it was Agassi is 2-0 vs Pete at the Australian Open, but never played Pete at his best there due to circumstances (emotionally tormented by just learning of his coaches brain tumours at the 95 AO, and injured in the 99 semis). Agassi could never beat Sampras at Wimbledon or the U.S Open, he was 0-6 vs him there and only once went to 5 sets (and it was only a quarterfinal). Sampras was far too good for Agassi on a fast court. Their rivalry certainly did not extend to the French Open where neither was even close to a dominant player, where Sampras was rarely even a 2nd week player, and where anytime both would be playing well enough to meet in the 2nd week Agassi would almost certainly win with ease as he did in their lone meeting there in the 92 quarters.

Federer and Nadal have only played once in Australia, it is too soon to say Nadal has that event in the bag and I am a major Nadal fan. Federer is still the one with 3 titles there and he could easily have won this years final. In their 1st shot at playing there they already produced a much better final than Sampras and Agassi ever did at either Wimbledon or the U.S Open in many tries.

soyizgood
03-02-2009, 09:46 PM
Your comments are interesting. The only possible up for grabs tournament between Sampras and Agassi was the Australian Open, and even that did not produce the classic back and forth matches (with both players winning) that Federer and Nadal did at Wimbledon. As it was Agassi is 2-0 vs Pete at the Australian Open, but never played Pete at his best there due to circumstances (emotionally tormented by just learning of his coaches brain tumours at the 95 AO, and injured in the 99 semis). Agassi could never beat Sampras at Wimbledon or the U.S Open, he was 0-6 vs him there and only once went to 5 sets (and it was only a quarterfinal). Sampras was far too good for Agassi on a fast court. Their rivalry certainly did not extend to the French Open where neither was even close to a dominant player, where Sampras was rarely even a 2nd week player, and where anytime both would be playing well enough to meet in the 2nd week Agassi would almost certainly win with ease as he did in their lone meeting there in the 92 quarters.

Federer and Nadal have only played once in Australia, it is too soon to say Nadal has that event in the bag and I am a major Nadal fan. Federer is still the one with 3 titles there and he could easily have won this years final. In their 1st shot at playing there they already produced a much better final than Sampras and Agassi ever did at either Wimbledon or the U.S Open in many tries.

Agassi would have made it better rivalry if he didn't skip Wimbledon and the Australian in the sense that he could have picked up 2-4 more majors in the process. Agassi practically owned the AO when he did decide to play there and he won Wimbledon the first time he ditched the neon colors in 1992. You're right Agassi just couldn't handle Sampras on fast surfaces, but Agassi certainly knew Sampras' game well enough that Sampras couldn't assume the outcome in advance. As an Agassi fan, I cringe knowing he could be even more of a GOAT if it wasn't for Sampras. I'd want to call Agassi an underachiever, but 60+ titles, a career golden slam, and doing this being all of 5'9" kind of kills that argument.

Federer won 3 AOs on rebound ace, but he's 0 for 2 on plexicushion. He had the lock on Wimbledon and still has it for the USO, but he's been vulnerable on slow hardcourts the past two years. Nadal still has time to peak whereas I think Federer peaked in 2006. Unless Federer sets aside his pride and fights Nadal like a man (not some guy with a man purse and some RF logo attire trying to look all GQ DURING the match), their rivalry is looking to be more and more one-sided.

GameSampras
03-02-2009, 10:04 PM
Agassi was a bit of underachiever considering the talent he truly had which was exceptional. He choked 2 French Open finals away which should have been his. That gives him 10. Not to mention his going MIA from 96-98. But having Sampras around didnt help matters for sure. Who knows how many slams Andre could have had without Pete around. Not going MIA and staying focused and consistent in what should have been his prime years.

I would say easily the GS record holder without question

veroniquem
03-02-2009, 10:18 PM
Agassi would have made it better rivalry if he didn't skip Wimbledon and the Australian in the sense that he could have picked up 2-4 more majors in the process. Agassi practically owned the AO when he did decide to play there and he won Wimbledon the first time he ditched the neon colors in 1992. You're right Agassi just couldn't handle Sampras on fast surfaces, but Agassi certainly knew Sampras' game well enough that Sampras couldn't assume the outcome in advance. As an Agassi fan, I cringe knowing he could be even more of a GOAT if it wasn't for Sampras. I'd want to call Agassi an underachiever, but 60+ titles, a career golden slam, and doing this being all of 5'9" kind of kills that argument.

Federer won 3 AOs on rebound ace, but he's 0 for 2 on plexicushion. He had the lock on Wimbledon and still has it for the USO, but he's been vulnerable on slow hardcourts the past two years. Nadal still has time to peak whereas I think Federer peaked in 2006. Unless Federer sets aside his pride and fights Nadal like a man (not some guy with a man purse and some RF logo attire trying to look all GQ DURING the match), their rivalry is looking to be more and more one-sided.
I don't really agree (that Agassi-Sampras was a better rivalry) . Did you know that Agassi and Sampras played each other 34 times? Guess how many 5 setters? Only 2 (one at AO, the other one at Wimbledon). At the USO, they never played a 5 setter and honestly I never felt Agassi had any chance vs Sampras there.
On the the other hand, Federer and Nadal have only met 19 times but they have already played 5 5-setters all in finals. I liked Agassi/Sampras but Nadal/Federer is more suspenseful, their matches keep me more on the edge of my seat, I find all those marathon finals sumptuous.

flying24
03-02-2009, 10:34 PM
Agassi was a bit of underachiever considering the talent he truly had which was exceptional. He choked 2 French Open finals away which should have been his. That gives him 10. Not to mention his going MIA from 96-98. But having Sampras around didnt help matters for sure. Who knows how many slams Andre could have had without Pete around. Not going MIA and staying focused and consistent in what should have been his prime years.

I would say easily the GS record holder without question

Gomez was actually more accomplished and had a much better 1990 record than Agassi on clay at the time of the 1990 French Open. He would have already won the French Open probably had it not been for Lendl who owned him over the years. He plain outhit and outplayed Agassi that day. Courier would won Agassi for a long time following the 1991 French Open, so in hindsight calling that choke just because he was up 2 sets to 1 seems silly as well.

Anyway if one says he could have won those 2, one would also have to say his 1999 French Open was about the luckiest one in history, and never should have happened. Medvedev was killing him in the final and totally choked, Moya choked in the 4th round, Clement choked and cramped in the 2nd round when 2 points from winning. He was lucky as heck that Kuerten and Rios were taken out before he played them.

So you are saying if Sampras wasnt there AND if Agassi was always focused and working hard his whole career. That is not just one big "what if" but two which is now really reaching. Anyway you still might be wrong. Wimbledon 99 is the only slam Agassi was almost certain to win without Sampras. The other ones he would have had to play his nemisis Courier, or Hewitt who was beating him most times in 2001-2002 anyway, or Lendl who he never would have beaten in the 1990 U.S Open final, etc...As for if he had trained full out for tennis from 96-98 he probably wouldnt have had nearly as much left in the tank from 2000-2003 where with more energy in his old age through his tanking years he was lucky to feast on a weak transition field (post Sampras, pre Federer) to pad his stats with some additional Aussies over such scabs as Clement and Schuettler in the finals.

Tennis Dunce
03-03-2009, 03:34 PM
Agassi was a bit of underachiever considering the talent he truly had which was exceptional.


I would most definitely agree.

GameSampras
03-03-2009, 03:57 PM
Gomez was actually more accomplished and had a much better 1990 record than Agassi on clay at the time of the 1990 French Open. He would have already won the French Open probably had it not been for Lendl who owned him over the years. He plain outhit and outplayed Agassi that day. Courier would won Agassi for a long time following the 1991 French Open, so in hindsight calling that choke just because he was up 2 sets to 1 seems silly as well.

Anyway if one says he could have won those 2, one would also have to say his 1999 French Open was about the luckiest one in history, and never should have happened. Medvedev was killing him in the final and totally choked, Moya choked in the 4th round, Clement choked and cramped in the 2nd round when 2 points from winning. He was lucky as heck that Kuerten and Rios were taken out before he played them.

So you are saying if Sampras wasnt there AND if Agassi was always focused and working hard his whole career. That is not just one big "what if" but two which is now really reaching. Anyway you still might be wrong. Wimbledon 99 is the only slam Agassi was almost certain to win without Sampras. The other ones he would have had to play his nemisis Courier, or Hewitt who was beating him most times in 2001-2002 anyway, or Lendl who he never would have beaten in the 1990 U.S Open final, etc...As for if he had trained full out for tennis from 96-98 he probably wouldnt have had nearly as much left in the tank from 2000-2003 where with more energy in his old age through his tanking years he was lucky to feast on a weak transition field (post Sampras, pre Federer) to pad his stats with some additional Aussies over such scabs as Clement and Schuettler in the finals.


Sure they are big "what ifs" but if we look at Andre's talent, How many players can say they had the career Andre did considering his longevity and his success on every surface in the game? I think he is one of the most talented tennis players that ever came down the pike. One of the only few Baseliiners to win a Wimbeldon when the event was dominated by Serve-volley. His Hardcourt success. And he was no slouch on clay. There isnt many players in history that can attest to that.
You may be right in the sense that if Andre put in the focus and time during his prime years as he did from 99-03, he may not have had that longevity. But who knows. His back gave out on him which pretty much ended his storybook career. Bearing injury I think he could have held on and maybe even a slam or two post 2003.. He was one of the few players even at 34-35 years of age put a bigger fight to Roger than any other player at the time outside of Nadal at RG during the 04-07 timeframe


All things considered, if u take Sampras out of the equation and Andre's focus would have been on tennis and not other aspects of life, Andre's resume is looking pretty darn impressive. Career slam and GS record IMO. Certainly GOAT material IMO. I dunno what his dominance would be like. But his results would back it up.


Hell he managed 8 slams and the career slam and had a up and down career and was off the radar a few years. Imagine if he had a consistent career

NandoMania
03-03-2009, 05:06 PM
These "rivalries" are phoney, IMO. They're promoted by bookmakers to increase revenue.

fastdunn
03-03-2009, 05:15 PM
I think Nadal-Federer rivarly can be considered the greatest and it would get even better if Federer can stage some kind of come back (in terms of the rivarly.) He has lost last 3 slam finals on 3 different surfaces. The excitment can be high if he can beat Nadal again on slam finals (especially before other players become a real factor at slams).

DunlopDood
03-03-2009, 09:58 PM
Sampras - Agassi! The 2001 US Open Quarter Final is the best tennis that has ever been played 6-7 7-6 7-6 7-6.

roysid
03-03-2009, 10:11 PM
Federer Nadal rivalry was shaping up well in 2006 when Federer played those hard fought matches in Monte Carlo and Rome, yet lost. It was shaping up to be best ever but spoilt in 2008 when Fed couldn't hold it any longer and is now weeping.

In my book it is Graf-Seles. No love lost there. Graf certainly didn't wilt against Seles as Fed did though Seles pumped balls after balls at Graf's backhand like nadal.

I saw tennis from 1987 onwards and by then Chris and Martina were best buddies.

thalivest
03-03-2009, 10:24 PM
There is a problem with your reasoning. Navratilova is 2 years younger than Evert, while Federer is 5 years older than Nadal. Is ti too late for Fed to "start making grounds", especially since he is a stubborn guy and would not do a thing to change his game and improve his chances against Nadal.

I voted Seles - Graf, since their numbers of GS finals would have been close to Navratilova - Evert if there was no stabbing.

I am surprised you picked Seles-Graf. From what I gathered you seem to think Seles would have won every slam the next 4-5 years if she wasnt stabbed, so wouldnt that negate thinking it was going to be the best rivalry ever.

Blinkism
03-04-2009, 04:48 AM
I'm not sure if this is true (someone verify it please), but it probably is:

In terms of rivalries that went to GS finals, on the men's side, Nadal-Federer is probably the best.

But does anyone know if there's ever been a player like Federer who's only lost in a GS final against 1 other player like Nadal. And has there ever been a player like Nadal who's basically won all (except 1, against Puertta) his GS titles against 1 other player?

Nadal-Federer is basically the most sell-able, commercial, easily-packaged rivalry to sell to the mass non-tennis watching market today. Ofcourse, it's going to be over-hyped!

Especially with women's tennis going down the drain! Ratings are very important, Pro Tennis isn't sponsored by charities!

PERL
03-04-2009, 05:19 AM
Nadal-Federer is basically the most sell-able, commercial, easily-packaged rivalry to sell to the mass non-tennis watching market today. Ofcourse, it's going to be over-hyped!



Wishful thinking. So how do you explain that tennis is less popular than golf in the U.S. ? And why tennis popularity has sunk so much over the years ? The reality is that the so called Nadal-Fed rivalry does not increase ratings much. It seems to excite mostly tennis fans and especially Fed and Nadal fans among them. The buzz made around this is autistic and these boards reflect it pretty well.

Blinkism
03-04-2009, 05:48 AM
Wishful thinking. So how do you explain that tennis is less popular than golf in the U.S. ? And why tennis popularity has sunk so much over the years ? The reality is that the so called Nadal-Fed rivalry does not increase ratings much. It seems to excite mostly tennis fans and especially Fed and Nadal fans among them. The buzz made around this is autistic and these boards reflect it pretty well.

didn't the wimby 08 final make it on the cover of sports illustrated, which is the first time anything to do with tennis made the cover since the 90's? And didn't the final break records in the UK and USA with television audiences (tennis-wise)?

Personally, alot of my friends who never watched tennis are now really interested. The increase in interest in tennis is palpable!

However, you might be right that overall tennis interest is down, if you balance it out with the loss of interest in women's tennis.

PERL
03-04-2009, 07:27 AM
And didn't the final break records in the UK and USA with television audiences (tennis-wise)?



Not really ;)

U.S. TV ratings have been posted before. Here it is:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209

devila
03-04-2009, 11:26 AM
LMAO Agassi's also overrated, as usual. Both tennis and charity career-wise. He had an easy ride in the 2003 Australian Open. Lee and SchuettLER. Rafter and Grosjean were crap chokers in Australia too.
Ivanisevic, was nothing but a choking server...with awful grass court
competition...Agassi had no trouble with rallies, even though he had
to claw painfully vs. Goran in the 1992 Wimbly tiebreak.

Rafa's the Fed Slammer, in every aspect of sport and life! Heeeeeeeheee.
Fed's ungracious and spoiled attitude is
the total opposite of elegance. He keeps
calling himself elegant. Disgraceful.
Nothing more unbeautiful than Fed's lack of personality and ugly facial expression (not
to mention annoying ugly face).
I'm unimpressed with his "100% dependence on physical athleticism" and bored with years of
disgust over Federer.
Fed's an overrated idiot with the overinflated number of Slams and Slam finals.
I don't care if he beat Sampras 10 times.
He obviously wants everyone to believe the
mythology of "THE GOAT FED".

Blinkism
03-04-2009, 01:33 PM
Not really ;)

U.S. TV ratings have been posted before. Here it is:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209

Oh wow, was I wrong.. I heard something along those lines, though. Maybe it was just for the UK?

Holy crap, it's not even the most watched Wimbledon of the decade. Late 70's Early 80's were really the golden age of tennis, television-wise, eh?

SaintClaires
03-06-2009, 02:26 PM
I think that the greatest rivalry in tennis is Rik de Voest and Arnaud Clement.