PDA

View Full Version : Tennis needs a good rivalry like they had in past, neither mens or womens has it now.


federerhoogenbandfan
06-09-2006, 07:35 AM
Why does tennis not produce any good rivalries anymore? I wish I was older almost and was either around, or old enough to be into tennis enough, to follow the days of McEnroe-Borg, Evert-Navratilova, Navratilova-Mandilikova, Lendl-McEnroe, Lendl-Wilander, Becker-Edberg, and Seles-Graf. There isnt a single good rivalry today mens or womens. I think that is why TV ratings for tennis are going downhill espeicaly in North America. People are bored that there are no really good rivalries in tennis. There isnt a single good mens or womens rivalry. The last good ones were Henin-Clisters, and Williams-Williams, but those people dont play often enough to have a real rivalry anymore.

Arafel
06-09-2006, 08:48 AM
I've been saying this for years.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-09-2006, 08:52 AM
Do you think that is why tennis is getting less popular?

Some of the current players need to step it up and change this.

Clijsters needs to step it up vs Henin. These two are good enough and play enough to have a rivalry but not until Clijsters stops laying on her back and playing dead whenever she plays Henin in a grand slam.

Another one would be the Williams sisters. First of all both need to step it back up so they can play other somtimes in big matches again(it will never be like 02-03 where they played in every slam final again). Then they need to create some more unpredictablility, it cant be stretches you know whichever one is ranked higher at the time will win every single match.

Another one would be Federer-Nadal, Federer needs to step it up and start beating Nadal to make it a real rivalry. Right now he is Nadal's dish towel.

stalliondan
06-09-2006, 09:19 AM
dude i don't like Federer but you can't say he has been tuning him when their last match was a near 5 hour match that he had match points in. It is even more interesting that Federer can't beat him and needs to beat his #1 rival to win the only slam he hasn't won. Is that not enough of a rivalry for you? You need to look at how many times the other rivalry played each other. This is nadal-fedex's 4th match and we are only at the French. They have met up in all finals. I think it is awesome.

I do agree with you about the womens though. But I refuse to watch women's tennis now because I think it is brutal and so up and down. But Sharapova and some other young russians are very hot so sometimes I make the exception ;)

Down_the_line
06-09-2006, 09:24 AM
If Safin could only find his head and live up to his potential, he would impress us all and we would have the next great rivalry: Federer and Safin. I'm under the impression that when pure talent is only considered (not mental toughness, speed, conditioning etc.), Safin is better than Federer. That's not hard to believe as we've seen what Safin can do when he brings his game AND his head (AO 05 anyone?). He can beat ANYONE.

Arafel
06-09-2006, 09:25 AM
Do you think that is why tennis is getting less popular?

Some of the current players need to step it up and change this.

Clijsters needs to step it up vs Henin. These two are good enough and play enough to have a rivalry but not until Clijsters stops laying on her back and playing dead whenever she plays Henin in a grand slam.

Another one would be the Williams sisters. First of all both need to step it back up so they can play other somtimes in big matches again(it will never be like 02-03 where they played in every slam final again). Then they need to create some more unpredictablility, it cant be stretches you know whichever one is ranked higher at the time will win every single match.

Another one would be Federer-Nadal, Federer needs to step it up and start beating Nadal to make it a real rivalry. Right now he is Nadal's dish towel.


I think it is why tennis is getting less popular. From 75-86 or so, you had true rivalries on both sides. They were contrasts in playing style, in temperment, and often really didn't like each other. Even when they respected each other, a la Borg-McEnroe, or actually liked each other, a la Navratilova-Evert, they never gave any quarter.

On the women's side nowadays, almost everyone plays the same power game. Their is no diversity. What set apart Evert-Navratilova and later to an extent Seles-Graf was their contrasting play. Evert, nicknamed the "Ice Maiden," who could run you ragged from the baseline and pass you at the net, never losing her composure, vs. the often fiery Navratilova, the last pure serve/volleyer the women's game has seen. Further, the two played more often than not in the finals of a tournament. Occasionally, like the 82 U.S. Open or the 83 Wimbledon, one would get upset in the earlier rounds, but usually they were playing for the title.

It was the same on the men's side. First, you had Connors-Borg. Connors, the game's ultimate competitor, vs. Borg, the cool Swede who's idea of an outburst might be to glare at a line judge. Connors, who played a relentless power game vs. Borg, the first of the modern baseliners. Then McEnroe vs. both Borg and Connors. McEnroe passed Connors in the bad behavior department, and the two never liked each other, even playing each other on the seniors tour. And McEnroe-Borg gave the world 4 of the greatest GS Finals ever. Then along came Lendl, a power player who seemed dour on the court. There was never any love lost between Lendl, Connors and McEnroe.

It was so much more back then. The players seemed larger than life. Nadal and Federer in contrast seem once or twice removed from the fans. They can't work the crowd the way a Connors could, or captivate them the way a Borg could with his looks AND his playing.

I don't think it's a coincidence that tennis ratings really fell after 91-92, when Connors made his U.S. OPen run and McEnroe followed with a run at the Aussie.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-09-2006, 09:29 AM
dude i don't like Federer but you can't say he has been tuning him when their last match was a near 5 hour match that he had match points in.

It does not matter. He still lost the match. He has to start beating Nadal or there is no rivalry and it does nothing to help the mens game.

It is even more interesting that Federer can't beat him and needs to beat his #1 rival to win the only slam he hasn't won. Is that not enough of a rivalry for you?

No, if you cant beat somebody it is not a rivalry.

You need to look at how many times the other rivalry played each other. This is nadal-fedex's 4th match and we are only at the French. They have met up in all finals. I think it is awesome.


Yes it is awesome that they always play on Nadal's surfaces where you know Federer will lose the match, since Nadal is too strong on his surfaces, just like Federer would be on his, so that makes it awsome? Ummm no.


I do agree with you about the womens though. But I refuse to watch women's tennis now because I think it is brutal and so up and down. But Sharapova and some other young russians are very hot so sometimes I make the exception ;)

Vaidisova is much better looking then Sharapova. Sharapova is pretty but needs to grow a more womanly torso if you know what I mean.

Rhino
06-09-2006, 10:32 AM
dude you just seem to want to have the same arguement over and over again with whomever will reply.
OK we get it, you don't think Federer/Nadal is a true rivalry, that's your opinion.
Rather than go over it all again and again, just accept that a great many of us see it as the beginning of a fantastic rivalry, especially now that they're starting to meet in slam finals, that's my opinion. Let's see what happens on Sunday.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-09-2006, 10:49 AM
Sorry when somebody says something stupid and ridiculous, like a 5-1 head to head is a great rivalry then I will say it is ridiculous. If I started a threat about the great rivalry between Nathalie Tauziat and Steffi Graf, or Andy Roddick and Roger Federer, somebody would tell me it was ridiculous. Actually though following your logic you probably think that Federer-Roddick and Graf-Tauziat were classic rivalries, since you seem to think Nadal-Federer is; so I will stop now as I am probably not getting any point across by those examples.

This thread I created not responding to anybody, I was talking about the fact there are no rivalries in the game today, I was not trying to change somebody elses mind. If you are one of the clueless ones that think Nadal-Federer is a rivalry given all the things I pointed out, then just dont bother coming in my thread that talks about the no rivalries, especialy if you dont expect me to respond to that in "my thread".

ACE of Hearts
06-09-2006, 10:52 AM
Sunday's match will be one of the biggest on dirt, will Roger finally challenge Nadal or will Roger come up short once again?I think Roger needs to win just to put some doubt on Nadal's head that he can play with him.

Rhino
06-09-2006, 11:06 AM
Ok the reason people talk about Federer and Nadal being a rivalry isn't just because of their head to head count. It's because between them they win everything. Comparing to Roddick/Federer is not legitimate because Roddick wasn't winning all the other tournaments that Federer didn't, even at his peak. Last year Fed/Nadal won all the slams and Masters Series between them (except Paris when they didn't show up) and this year it's the same (except Hamburg when they didn't show up). When was the last time someone else won a tournament that they were entered in? It doesn't happen (apart from Shanghai when Fed was injured). Federer has made the final of every tournament he's entered this year, and only lost to Nadal. To be honest I think if Nadal wasn't injured for so long we'd have seen a Fed/Nadal AusOpen final too. We have not seen this situation in years where two players are so far ahead of the pack, so when they face each other it's very exciting.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-09-2006, 11:09 AM
If Federer wins the final on Sunday I will concede it is a good rivalry and stop talking about if for awhile, happy?

skip1969
06-09-2006, 11:12 AM
If Federer wins the final on Sunday I will concede it is a good rivalry and stop talking about if for awhile, happy?
promises, promises.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-09-2006, 11:13 AM
You will see, if he wins the final, but ONLY if he wins the final, I wont bring it up again until the end of 2007 atleast, how is that, and if I do you can call me out on not keeping my word or remind me I said that.

Arafel
06-09-2006, 11:18 AM
Ok the reason people talk about Federer and Nadal being a rivalry isn't just because of their head to head count. It's because between them they win everything. Comparing to Roddick/Federer is not legitimate because Roddick wasn't winning all the other tournaments that Federer didn't, even at his peak. Last year Fed/Nadal won all the slams and Masters Series between them (except Paris when they didn't show up) and this year it's the same (except Hamburg when they didn't show up). When was the last time someone else won a tournament that they were entered in? It doesn't happen (apart from Shanghai when Fed was injured). Federer has made the final of every tournament he's entered this year, and only lost to Nadal. To be honest I think if Nadal wasn't injured for so long we'd have seen a Fed/Nadal AusOpen final too. We have not seen this situation in years where two players are so far ahead of the pack, so when they face each other it's very exciting.


I like watching Fed and Nadal play. It's interesting sometimes. But there's one crucial difference between Nadal/Fed playing each other and something like Borg-Connors, Borg-McEnroe, or Evert Navratilova. With Fed-Nadal, everything is surface dependent. It's cool to see them play each other, but you can figure that if the match is on clay or slower hard court, Nadal is 95% likely to win. On grass or fast courts, it's reversed for Fed.

With the classic rivalries, the surface didn't matter. On any given day on any given court, either could win. Look at the 76 U.S. Open; Borg was the two-time French champ and already dominating on clay, yet Connors beat him. Look at the 80 Wimbledon; with Borg's game, McEnroe should have taken him, yet Borg pulled it out. In the 79 Eastborne tournament, Evert pulled out a thriller against Navratilova, on grass, winning 13-11 in the third set. Two weeks later Martina beat Chris in Wimbledon 6-4 6-4. In 82, Martina beat Chris at Wimbledon, while Chris beat Martina, on grass, in Australia.

Let's see Fed play Nadal on grass. It'd be a blowout. Nadal will more than likely beat Fed on clay any time they play. It's not a rivalry till no matter what surface they meet on, either player can win.

fastdunn
06-09-2006, 11:23 AM
Sunday's match will be one of the biggest on dirt, will Roger finally challenge Nadal or will Roger come up short once again?I think Roger needs to win just to put some doubt on Nadal's head that he can play with him.

I think so. It's a great pressure on Nadal.
It's extremely hard for a player to beat one player
time and time again, not to mention a player with caliber of Federer.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-09-2006, 11:24 AM
I like watching Fed and Nadal play. It's interesting sometimes. But there's one crucial difference between Nadal/Fed playing each other and something like Borg-Connors, Borg-McEnroe, or Evert Navratilova. With Fed-Nadal, everything is surface dependent. It's cool to see them play each other, but you can figure that if the match is on clay or slower hard court, Nadal is 95% likely to win. On grass or fast courts, it's reversed for Fed.

With the classic rivalries, the surface didn't matter. On any given day on any given court, either could win. Look at the 76 U.S. Open; Borg was the two-time French champ and already dominating on clay, yet Connors beat him. Look at the 80 Wimbledon; with Borg's game, McEnroe should have taken him, yet Borg pulled it out. In the 79 Eastborne tournament, Evert pulled out a thriller against Navratilova, on grass, winning 13-11 in the third set. Two weeks later Martina beat Chris in Wimbledon 6-4 6-4. In 82, Martina beat Chris at Wimbledon, while Chris beat Martina, on grass, in Australia.

Let's see Fed play Nadal on grass. It'd be a blowout. Nadal will more than likely beat Fed on clay any time they play. It's not a rivalry till no matter what surface they meet on, either player can win.

That is exactly my point, and that is why the rivalry sucks so far. Everything you said is true.

EclipseRydr97
06-09-2006, 11:27 AM
Federer and Nalbandian, that's a good rivalry

federerhoogenbandfan
06-09-2006, 11:28 AM
Federer and Nalbandian, that's a good rivalry

I agree, it would be better if Nalbandian had a slam title though.

skip1969
06-09-2006, 11:37 AM
you're making some good points, Arafel. maybe our problem is that we are expecting a rivalry, a classic rivalry, like those you have mentioned. you are right that in the open era there have been some players at the top of the game who have fascinated the fans with their contrasting styles of play, their stark personalities. i agree with you, they seemed larger than life and captivated the world (well, the tennis world, at least). but there were times when the number 1 had little resistance. or when he/she was not adored by the fans. and everyone was praying for a new face to challenge for the top spot.

my point is that this nadal/federer thing is still fairy new. sure, right now the surface seems to dictate the result (and take some of the mystery out of it). but we need to give it time, and see if it develops into something like borg/mcenroe or graf/seles or evert/navratilova. those are some very big shows to fill, some classic rivalries that defined the sport. maybe nadal/federer will never get there (in terms of impact, longevity, excitement . . .). but i think it's safe to say (at least in terms of fed and nadal) that THEY want to beat each other and consider the other his main rival. maybe some of the fans aren't into it. and maybe they don't capture the imagination like former number 1s. but their matches mean a great deal to them. and that has to count for something.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-09-2006, 11:40 AM
The Nadal-Federer rivalry is about 10 levels below the McEnroe-Connors or McEnroe-Borg rivalry since the surface determines the result and there is zero surprises. Of course on Fedrerer's surfaces they dont even play since Nadal is long gone by then. On Nadal's Federer loses every time, taking all the suspense out of it for the fan too, they have to try invent some.

Rhino
06-09-2006, 11:47 AM
That is exactly my point, and that is why the rivalry sucks so far. Everything you said is true.
Well they've had at least four extremely tight matches (all in finals) on two different surfaces where either player could've won = rivalry

Miami 05 - Nadal came within two points but Fed came back and crushed him (classic match)
Dubai 06 - opposite of Miami, Fed killed him in first set, Nadal came back, very tight.
Monte-Carlo 06 - that final was closer than the score suggests. OK nadal killed him in set 1, but sets 2, 3, and 4 could so easily have gone either way. Fed was so close to taking a 4-3 lead in the 3rd (with a break), and in the 4th set he was close to winning the tie break, there wasn't much in it.
Rome 06 - Well total drama, a see-saw match, Fed with 2 match points. (classic match)

And now we have a Roland Garros Final. Sounds like a rivalry to me.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-09-2006, 11:52 AM
Well they've had at least four extremely tight matches (all in finals) on two different surfaces where either player could've won = rivalry

Miami 05 - Nadal came within two points but Fed came back and crushed him (classic match)
Dubai 06 - opposite of Miami, Fed killed him in first set, Nadal came back, very tight.
Monte-Carlo 06 - that final was closer than the score suggests. OK nadal killed him in set 1, but sets 2, 3, and 4 could so easily have gone either way. Fed was so close to taking a 4-3 lead in the 3rd (with a break), and in the 4th set he was close to winning the tie break, there wasn't much in it.
Rome 06 - Well total drama, a see-saw match, Fed with 2 match points. (classic match)

And now we have a Roland Garros Final. Sounds like a rivalry to me.

It does not matter how close the matches are, what matters is the result. At a certain point the other player has to win or it is not a real rivalry, even if the player always winning is super lucky to always be playing on their surfaces.

How about this for an example. Did you know Serena beat Capriati 8 times in a row, all in 3 sets at one point, as unbelievable as that sounds. If you would like I could post the scores or just link to the WTA head to head. The reason people talked about as a great rivalry I think is mainly because Capriati had multiple wins over Serena before that period. However if we ignore those matches prior to the 8 straight wins and just talk about that streak was it a great rivalry since it always went 3 sets, even though Serena won 8 times in a row? Watching their matches too you always got the feeling, "Serena will turn this around". For the record I am about neutral on my like or dislike for both so very easy matches for me to watch.

For the record the quality of Fed-Nadal matches are not classic by any stretch, atleast not for me they arent. 70+ unforced errors by Federer usually, lack of clean winnners by Nadal, too many service breaks, too many chokes mostly by Roger. I could name you some of the matches I consider classics and they would contain none of the things I just mentioned.

skip1969
06-09-2006, 12:06 PM
dear mr federerhoogenbandfan

question 1: do matches that took place before you were born, or those which you weren't fortunate enough to catch (either in person or on tv) qualify for "classic" status? (i only ask since you seem to have elected yourself the sole arbitor of what is and isn't a "classic" match or a "rivalry" or whatever.)

question 2: can you walk on water?

question 3: if you CAN walk on water, are you available for parties?

Tennis_Goodness
06-09-2006, 12:17 PM
If Federer doesn't beat Nadal this year on clay it's not big deal. He's still by far the best player and Nadal is never going to take over Federer's number 1 position until Federer gives it up.

The reason why it's all hyped up is actually because Federer is so good that he gets so far on surfaces that other people are better then him on. If Federer loses he will fall in the long line of great champions who have had hard times with the clay court specialists.

I think many people are looking too hard into this. Just like last year, Federer owned the tour and he's doing it once again this year! A loss to the best clay courter is not that important right now. He still has some years to win the French Open, and he seems to be closing the gap on Nadal!

Ztalin
06-09-2006, 01:57 PM
If Safin could only find his head and live up to his potential, he would impress us all and we would have the next great rivalry: Federer and Safin. I'm under the impression that when pure talent is only considered (not mental toughness, speed, conditioning etc.), Safin is better than Federer. That's not hard to believe as we've seen what Safin can do when he brings his game AND his head (AO 05 anyone?). He can beat ANYONE.

People always mention that match when worshipping Safin... I watched the match. It was THE match that made me a Federer fan. Before that match, I hated Federer. After watching that match, I realized how good Federer was (he didn't win, but I know talent when I see it). I like Safin; one of my favourites, but there's no way that he's more "purely talented" than Federer.

vicnan
06-09-2006, 02:16 PM
If you are one of the clueless ones that think Nadal-Federer is a rivalry given all the things I pointed out, then just dont bother coming in my thread that talks about the no rivalries, especialy if you dont expect me to respond to that in "my thread".

Please do not take this the wrong way, mate. But I'm curious. How old are you?