Fed -Nadal is the greatest rivalry in the history of tennis

[Attila the tennis Bum]

I just wish that we had two great players like Agassi and Sampras in the game, because you could like and admire both. I find that I hate Nadal and I hate the way people keep going on and on about him and I can't understand why anybody would like him. Anyway who cares who the No.2 is, all that matters is who is No.1 and right now on grass and hardcourts and hopefully soon clay that is Federer.

You do not realize what you are witnessing. The Federer Nadal rivalry is far greater than The Sampras Agassi rivalry or maybe any rivalry in the history of tennis.

You are watching maybe the greatest grass courter ever vs. maybe the greatest clay courter ever.

Both have world records on their surfaces and both have met for the last two years in the finals or Wimbledon and French opens.

That is in itself another record. When is the last time the #1 and #2 seeds have met in back to back FO's and Wimbledons??? Has that ever been done before?

Do you realize how hard it is to make the transition from clay to grass in a matter of weeks????

 

[ninman]

You do not realize what you are witnessing. The Federer Nadal rivalry is far greater than The Sampras Agassi rivalry or maybe any rivalry in the history of tennis.

You are watching maybe the greatest grass courter ever vs. maybe the greatest clay courter ever.

Both have world records on their surfaces and both have met for the last two years in the finals or Wimbledon and French opens.

That is in itself another record. When is the last time the #1 and #2 seeds have met in back to back FO's and Wimbledons??? Has that ever been done before?

Do you realize how hard it is to make the transition from clay to grass in a matter of weeks????

There is no rivalry. Someone once compared it to being beaten by your cousin at Monopoly and that's the only game he beats you at, and he beats you because you have to play in his house and he gets twice as much money at you for passing go.

No rivalry exists outside of clay and that's a fact. When they've played in other GS finals or indeed other MS finals (I think the only non-clay one was Miami but I can't be sure) then we'll call it a rivalry, until then it is not one.

 

[psamp14]

i partially agree with you...

the federer-nadal rivalry is certainly a great rivalry in tennis (in terms of anticipation of the match and tennis audience viewing) but it is not the greatest....that honor would have to go to sampras-agassi/borg-mcenroe

both players have astounding records on their respective favorite surfaces, but the transition from clay to grass today is not quite as drastic as it used to be

i believe both players have great feats ahead of them and i hope to see them playing competitively for years to come...

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

There is no rivalry.

WOW!!! I think you are the winner of the most ignorant statement ever made on these boards.

If you truly believe there is no rivalry between Fed and Nadal you are either an idiot or blinded by pure hatred.

 

[Rodditha]

There is a rivalry obviously but that rivalry is the most annoying one in tennis history. With other players in that rivalry it would be better.

 

[ninman]

WOW!!! I think you are the winner of the most ignorant statement ever made on these boards.

If you truly believe there is no rivalry between Fed and Nadal you are either an idiot or blinded by pure hatred.

Let's look at the stats then shall we, they have played a total of 13 times 7 of which were on clay. They've played 6 clay finals, 2 hard finals and 2 grass finals. In the last 3 years so 05, 06, 07 I think they've played 11 times 7 of which were on clay.

Stats don't lie, they do have a rivalry on Clay, but on other surfaces Federer has no rivals. Don't get me wrong, Nadal COULD challenge Federer on Hard courts, but so could lots of other people.

 

[aidenous]

Rivalry yes, but the greatest no way not even close. Maybe if it continues for a couple more years.

 

[caulcano]

Let's look at the stats then shall we, they have played a total of 13 times 7 of which were on clay. They've played 6 clay finals, 2 hard finals and 2 grass finals. In the last 3 years so 05, 06, 07 I think they've played 11 times 7 of which were on clay.

Stats don't lie, they do have a rivalry on Clay, but on other surfaces Federer has no rivals. Don't get me wrong, Nadal COULD challenge Federer on Hard courts, but so could lots of other people.

With your reasoning, there is defintely no rivalry on clay either as Nadal has won all but one match against Nadal on the surface.

 

[ninman]

With your reasoning, there is defintely no rivalry on clay either as Nadal has won all but one match against Nadal on the surface.

true enough, however I would argue that the fact that they contest so many tournaments i.e. both in the final suggests some kind of rivalry. The fact that Nadal doesn't even make finals of hard court tournaments means that they can't have a "rivarly" because they don't play each other on hard courts. They play each other a lot on clay because they are both excellent on clay and at the moment Nadal is a bit better than Federer.

I hope that the 6-1 stat goes a bit better in Fed's favour, however the fact still remains they don't play enough, or frequently enough on other surfaces to warrant a true rivalry.

 

[PimpMyGame]

It's not a rivalry, it's a cartel made to look like a rivalry.

 

[LttlElvis]

Greatest rivalry I have ever seen was Borg/McEnroe/Connors.

With these 3 in a tournament, you were almost guaranteed to see a rivalry in the semis and finals.

For tennis' sake, I hope Federer and Nadal will play each other in more finals. If you think about it these 2 have been # 1 and # 2 for more than 2 years but really haven't met each other in enough finals.

 

[Rodditha]

Fed-Nad rivalry is going to kill tennis, they are going to make people watch more American soccer than tennis. I hope they will not last for the sake of tennis.

 

[ninman]

Greatest rivalry I have ever seen was Borg/McEnroe/Connors.

With these 3 in a tournament, you were almost guaranteed to see a rivalry in the semis and finals.

For tennis' sake, I hope Federer and Nadal will play each other in more finals. If you think about it these 2 have been # 1 and # 2 for more than 2 years but really haven't met each other in enough finals.

Certainly not off of clay anyway, in the last 2 years Federer and Nadal have both entered 7 clay tourny's and met in the final on 6 occassions. Yes Nadal won 5, but still the point is that when these two are in a clay tourny we're almost certainly guaranteed a great final. Rome 2006 springs to mind, I just wish that Fed's had either held that break in the 5th or better converted 1 of those 2 MP's, but still a great match.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Greatest rivalry I have ever seen was Borg/McEnroe/Connors.

.

well Mcenroe Borg I believe lasted only for a couple of years. Then borg quit at the age of 25.

 

[boobik2371]

Agassi/Sampras to me was a better rivalry as both were Americans who had great games of two contrasting styles, while both Fed and Nadal stay back with the occasional approach to the net by Fed.

 

[ninman]

The other thing about Agassi and Sampras was that they were both really good on hard courts, and since 75-80% of the tour is played on hard courts, it meant loads of good matches.

 

[PimpMyGame]

Agassi/Sampras to me was a better rivalry as both were Americans who had great games of two contrasting styles, while both Fed and Nadal stay back with the occasional approach to the net by Fed.

Why does it matter that they were both American??

 

[laurie]

Besides this year's Wimby final and the 2006 Italian Open final (stuff the nonsense phrase "Rome Masters"!), then their matches have not actually been that good to watch.

I thought one of the definitions of a great rivalry is that on average the two players have to play great matches against eachother.

 

[babolat15]

it is a rivalry

 

[babolat15]

and it has the potential to be the greatest

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Besides this year's Wimby final and the 2006 Italian Open final (stuff the nonsense phrase "Rome Masters"!), then their matches have not actually been that good to watch.

I thought one of the definitions of a great rivalry is that on average the two players have to play great matches against eachother.

This years Wimbledon final was maybe the most exciting final I have ever seen in my life.

Mcenroe Borg was probably more exciting....but this may just be #2.

 

[Benhur]

Here's a current record these two hold. Their lead is already huge, and keeps growing every week.

Number of consecutive weeks during which the two same players were ranked #1 and #2.

Ranked in the same order:
#1/#2 Federer/Nadal 103 weeks (Jul 25, 2005 Jul 09, 2007)
#1/#2 Lendl/Becker 46 weeks (May 08 (1989 Mar 19, 1990)
#1/#2 Federer/Roddick 43 weeks (Apr 05, 2004 Jan 24, 2005)
#1/#2 Lendl/McEnroe 33 weeks (Sep 09, 1985 Apr 21, 1986)
#1/#2 Agassi/Sampras 30 weeks (Apr 10, 1995 Oct 30, 1995)

Ranked in any order:
#1/#2 Federer/Nadal 103 weeks (Jul 25, 2005 Jul 9, 2007)
#1/#2 Sampras/Agassi 64 weeks (Nov 07, 1994 Jan 22, 1996)
#1/#2 Edberg/Becker 63 weeks (Aug 20, 1990 Oct 28, 1991)
#1/#2 Lendl/McEnroe 55 weeks (Apr 08, 1985 Apr 21, 1986)
#1/#2 Edberg/Courier 48 weeks (Nov 04, 1991 Sep 28, 1992)

 

[ninman]

when Nadal has won a GS other than the French and or beaten Feds in the final of a GS other than the French then it will be a great rivalry. People forget that Borg played in 4 US open finals and lost 2 to Mac and 2 to Connors.

 

[Alafter]

A few things i note about this:

1. The Kryptonite concept. I love this--the great players has their own kryptonite. Federer, greatest in the world, people abandon all hope when they meet him, and then there's Nadal, his Kryptonite. And for Nadal? I think last I check it's Blake, who for some unexplainable reason beats Nadal everytime (so Nadal probably know what Fed feels like having to fight him).

2. Smooth flow vs tension. For some reason, watching fed i feel he has such a flow, like taichi, and with Nadal, I feel like I am watching world championship boxing. Seeing them fight is fun--finesse and grace vs might and power.

3. People on this board. Without the endless posting and fighting, trolling, and feeding the trolls, I would not have enjoyed this rivalry as much as I do now. This board makes the whole rivalry thing even more real than it should be.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

when Nadal has won a GS other than the French and or beaten Feds in the final of a GS other than the French then it will be a great rivalry. People forget that Borg played in 4 US open finals and lost 2 to Mac and 2 to Connors.

Nadal has been in five grandslam finals and he has met federer at every single one of those tournaments.

Whats so amazing is that the rivalry has only just begun. If they ended it right now it would be one of the greatest!

 

[ninman]

Nadal has been in five grandslam finals and he has met federer at every single one of those tournaments.

Whats so amazing is that the rivalry has only just begun. If they ended it right now it would be one of the greatest!

I doubt it, but I think that if it wasn't for Nadal Federer might have quit tennis already, because he would have won every GS 3 times each and every MS apart from Paris. So we should thank Nadal for making Feds try harder on clay at least, but I still really dislike him as a person and as a player.

 

[boobik2371]

Why does it matter that they were both American??

2 Americans competing for the higher spot meant greater competition...

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

I doubt it, but I think that if it wasn't for Nadal Federer might have quit tennis already, because he would have won every GS 3 times each and every MS apart from Paris. So we should thank Nadal for making Feds try harder on clay at least, but I still really dislike him as a person and as a player.

Actually if Nadal had won either wimbledon I think Fed would have pulled a "Borg" and retired from tennis.

 

[Prod]

WOW!!! I think you are the winner of the most ignorant statement ever made on these boards.

If you truly believe there is no rivalry between Fed and Nadal you are either an idiot or blinded by pure hatred.

Woah, woah, woah. Way to make rash, impulsive statement. Your counter to his/her (am I right to assume "his"?) opinion is that he's an idiot or blinded by pure hatred? Man, nowhere in his post did he show any hatred. Although, yes, he did say some things that were questionable and needed more clarification. But instead of criticizing his statement, you attacked the person. And plus, take a chill pill, dude. How can you even fairly assess that the quality of the Fed-Nadal rivalry to be far greater than any other rivalries? You do realize that this is a different period in tennis and playing style, right? And you do realize that, although Nadal has shown to perform admirably on other surfaces other than clay, he still plays a considerable number of tournaments on clay? And you do realize that the hype surrounding this rivalry started out from the question of "Who can stop Federer?" right? Nadal has shown to be able to compete and defeat Fed time after time, but he hasn't shown as much consistency as Fed over the past 3 years or so to compete with the tour in large tournaments. I'm not trying to take credit away from Nadal, but until he can compete with not only Federer, but with the whole tour as consistent as Federer, then I'll jump on the bandwagon.

 

[PimpMyGame]

2 Americans competing for the higher spot meant greater competition...

That makes absolutely no sense to a non-American. Please explain as clearly I'm missing the point here.

 

[ninman]

Actually if Nadal had won either wimbledon I think Fed would have pulled a "Borg" and retired from tennis.

I don't think so. I think that losing makes Federer try harder, that's just the way he is. Winning will make him lose his motivation.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

I don't think so. I think that losing makes Federer try harder, that's just the way he is. Winning will make him lose his motivation.

We will never know. There is no right answer to that one.

But we are in an era where we are witnessing maybe the greatest clay courter vs. the greatest grass courter.

They both have world records on those surfaces and met in two finals on both those surfaces.

The styles and contrast of the two players both in appearence and style of play is completely opposite.

We are all very lucky to be witnessing this rivalry. 20 years from now everyone will be asking what it was like to watch the Fed-Nadal rivalry.

 

[ninman]

We will never know. There is no right answer to that one.

But we are in an era where we are witnessing maybe the greatest clay courter vs. the greatest grass courter.

They both have world records on those surfaces and met in two finals on both those surfaces.

The styles and contrast of the two players both in appearence and style of play is completely opposite.

We are all very lucky to be witnessing this rivalry. 20 years from now everyone will be asking what it was like to watch the Fed-Nadal rivalry.

If one existed then they will be yes. More likely they'll be asking what it was like watching Federer.

 

[ninman]

Why does nobody call Federer the greatest hard courter ever? He's currently tied for record winning streaks at both the US open and the AUS open simultaneously and holds the record for the longest winning streak on hard courts of 56 matches, doesn't that qualify you as the greatest hard courter ever?

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Woah, woah, woah. Way to make rash, impulsive statement. Your counter to his/her (am I right to assume "his"?) opinion is that he's an idiot or blinded by pure hatred? Man, nowhere in his post did he show any hatred. .

His statement was that: "There is no rivalry"

My response was that to say that there is no Nadal Fed rivalry is probably the most ignorant statement ever made on these boards.

I never said that he has displayed hatred (but you should read his other posts) bur rather he had a choice:

a) He is ignorant or

b) He is fueled by hatred

I am not sure which it is.

 

[ninman]

His statement was that: "There is no rivalry"

My response was that to say that there is no Nadal Fed rivalry is probably the most ignorant statement ever made on these boards.

I never said that he has displayed hatred (but you should read his other posts) bur rather he had a choice:

a) He is ignorant or

b) He is fueled by hatred

I am not sure which it is.

how about c) neither, he just looks at the stats and makes an informed decision.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

If one existed then they will be yes. More likely they'll be asking what it was like watching Federer.

so there is no Fed Nadal rivalry??? Wow>>>so lets take a vote is that statement based on:

a) stupidity or

b) hatred

 

[simi]

Greatest tennis rivalry in recent years has been between Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. Out of EIGHTY matches played, Martina ended up on top with 43 wins out of the 80. They played on all surfaces, clay, hard, carpet, and grass. They both won on on all surfaces, however, Martina was a little better on carpet and grass while Chrissy was a little better on clay and hardcourt. That makes sense considering their playing styles and surface court speed in those days. It was a long rivalry too, spanning thirteen years. As much as we admire Nadal and Federer, and their budding 'rivalry'; they have a long way to go to match the Evert/Navratilova rivalry.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

how about c) neither, he just looks at the stats and makes an informed decision.

Well Nadal is leading Fed 8-4 or something so I can see where you say there is no rivalry but I beg to differ . I count slams as far more important.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Greatest tennis rivalry in recent years has been between Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. Out of EIGHTY matches played, Martina ended up on top with 43 wins out of the 80. They played on all surfaces, clay, hard, carpet, and grass. They both won on on all surfaces, however, Martina was a little better on carpet and grass while Chrissy was a little better on clay and hardcourt. That makes sense considering their playing styles and surface court speed in those days. It was a long rivalry too, spanning thirteen years. As much as we admire Nadal and Federer, and their budding 'rivalry'; they have a long way to go to match the Evert/Navratilova rivalry.

Mens tennis dude!!!! Dont care about the women.

 

[ninman]

Greatest tennis rivalry in recent years has been between Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. Out of EIGHTY matches played, Martina ended up on top with 43 wins out of the 80. They played on all surfaces, clay, hard, carpet, and grass. They both won on on all surfaces, however, Martina was a little better on carpet and grass while Chrissy was a little better on clay and hardcourt. That makes sense considering their playing styles and surface court speed in those days. It was a long rivalry too, spanning thirteen years. As much as we admire Nadal and Federer, and their budding 'rivalry'; they have a long way to go to match the Evert/Navratilova rivalry.

too true, but in male tennis I think it has to go to Agassi Sampras who played 34 times over 13 years on every surface with Sampras winning 20 times.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

too true, but in male tennis I think it has to go to Agassi Sampras who played 34 times over 13 years on every surface with Sampras winning 20 times.

Yeah but Sampras won at almost every grand slam they met in. Not much of a rivalry.

And Nadal and Fed have already met in 5 grand slams the score being 3-2. How many grand slams did Agassi and Sampras meet in?

 

[ninman]

Well Nadal is leading Fed 8-4 or something so I can see where you say there is no rivalry but I beg to differ . I count slams as far more important.

Yes but off of clay it's 4-2 Federer, you don't seem to understand this, that they play much more on clay than any other surface. If they had a even distribution across all surfaces, or played regularly on the tour not just between March and June then it would be a rivarly. Federer came has come a lot closer to toppling Nadal in a big clay match than Nadal has against Feds.

A rivarly does exist, on clay only, it is not a true rivalry.

 

[simi]

Mens tennis dude!!!! Dont care about the women.

Sorry, I'm not much of a mind-reader, especially in cyberspace. Your original post contained no qualifiers or reference to the sex of the players. It only stated, "or maybe any rivalry in the history of tennis."

You're right about one thing, other than the occasional eye candy, women's tennis doesn't interest me either.

 

[ninman]

Yeah but Sampras won at almost every grand slam they met in. Not much of a rivalry.

And Nadal and Fed have already met in 5 grand slams the score being 3-2. How many grand slams did Agassi and Sampras meet in?

9 and it was 5-4 Samprass, and they played at least once in every GS.

 

[Prod]

His statement was that: "There is no rivalry"

My response was that to say that there is no Nadal Fed rivalry is probably the most ignorant statement ever made on these boards.

I never said that he has displayed hatred (but you should read his other posts) bur rather he had a choice:

a) He is ignorant or

b) He is fueled by hatred

I am not sure which it is.

First, to say that the Nadal-Federer rivalry is the greatest rivalry in the history of tennis is quite ignorant in of itself. And, please, you can probably find some other statements just as ignorant or even more ignorant on these boards than "There is no rivalry," (e.g. "Don't care about the women.") And wow, way to give two options: stupidity or fueled by hatred. Those are some fair choices you gave him. How did you come up with those two options? You're not giving him choices. You're implying that he's either of the two. Also, you don't have to explicitly say something to express your view. Like I said before, attack his opinion, not his character.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

9 and it was 5-4 Samprass, and they played at least once in every GS.

So in just five years Nadal and fed have already met more than half that.

Secondly Sampras had zero chance at the French. While on the other hand Agassi had zero chance against Sampras on grass. The only surface where there was real competiton between the two was on hards.

On the other hand Nadal and Fed are close on every surface.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

First, to say that the Nadal-Federer rivalry is the greatest rivalry in the history of tennis is quite ignorant in of itself. And, please, you can probably find some other statements just as ignorant or even more ignorant on these boards than "There is no rivalry," (e.g. "Don't care about the women.") And wow, way to give two options: stupidity or fueled by hatred. Those are some fair choices you gave him. How did you come up with those two options? You're not giving him choices. You're implying that he's either of the two. Also, you don't have to explicitly say something to express your view. Like I said before, attack his opinion, not his character.

How are defending the indefensible ? How can you possibly defend someone who says there is no rivalry between Federer and Nadal???

As far as there being a better rivalry...go ahead name one and your reasons why.

9 and it was 5-4 Samprass, and they played at least once in every GS.

So in just five years Nadal and fed have already met more than half that.

Secondly Sampras had zero chance at the French. While on the other hand Agassi had zero chance against Sampras on grass. The only surface where there was real competiton between the two was on hards.

On the other hand Nadal and Fed are close on every surface.

 

[ninman]

So in just five years Nadal and fed have already met more than half that.

Secondly Sampras had zero chance at the French. While on the other hand Agassi had zero chance against Sampras on grass. The only surface where there was real competiton between the two was on hards.

On the other hand Nadal and Fed are close on every surface.

I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion, considering they have yet to play at either the AUS open or US open, and as I keep saying Wimbledon was a HUGE match for Federer. Going for 5 in a row, he was pretty nervous, and you'd have to be blind as a bat to see that he was completely out of sorts in the fourth set at least, and not playing his best tennis at all.

He had to rely heavily on his serve throughout that match because he just couldn't get it together. I'm not making excuses for Federer, I'm just saying that it's not as close as it seems. The other thing is that Federer is probably the only player who stands a chance against Nadal on clay, but Federer is definitely NOT the only player who could beat Nadal on grass.

I'm sure Nadal will win wimbledon one year, especially if they keep slowing the grass down, or better yet replace it with a clay court if it gets too slow, but it's not as close as it seems.

 

[tsmcauliffe]

Let's look at the stats then shall we, they have played a total of 13 times 7 of which were on clay. They've played 6 clay finals, 2 hard finals and 2 grass finals. In the last 3 years so 05, 06, 07 I think they've played 11 times 7 of which were on clay.

Stats don't lie, they do have a rivalry on Clay, but on other surfaces Federer has no rivals. Don't get me wrong, Nadal COULD challenge Federer on Hard courts, but so could lots of other people.

Have you ever looked at the McEnroe/Borg rivalry stats. The same thing happend to Borg and McEncroe as Nadal and Federer. Borg was playing @ #1 and winning on clay and Hard. McEnroe was winning on grass. One year before McEnroe became number one, he went to the FO final and lost on 5. The next year He won the FO and bumped Borg off of number one and inturn Borg quit tennis early 'cause he couldn't stand not being number one.