Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Top 10 worst rivalries of all time (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=434532)

kragster 08-01-2012 06:06 PM

Top 10 worst rivalries of all time
 
Basically I'm looking for rivalries where the result is almost a foregone conclusion and there is little excitement in the match up.

Here are the conditions

1) Players have played at least 10 matches
2) One player has won more than 80% of the matches

Here are the ones I can think of in no particular order:

Fed - Roddick
Nadal -Verdasco
Djoker- Troicki
Sampras- Pioline

フェデラー 08-01-2012 06:16 PM

Federer-Davydenko
Federer-Del Potro (could have been really competitive, but sadly not).
Nadal-Almagro (only 8-0, but still a clear mismatch between the king of clay and the other clay specialist)
Nadal-Ferrer (just at 80%)

Paul Murphy 08-01-2012 06:19 PM

Lendl v Gilbert.

OldFedIsOld 08-01-2012 06:22 PM

Federer- Hewitt

Hewitt dominated Federer with like 7/9 victories pre 2003 Federer prime years, however I don't think Federer has lost to Hewitt from 2004 and onwards except at Halle. Not even worth considering it a rivalry as one of the players jumped up to a whole different league.

90's Clay 08-01-2012 06:24 PM

Usually.. "rivalries" bring unpredictability. Like Fed-Hewitt or Fed-Roddick, or even Nadal-Fed usually brought NO unpredictability.. You damn well knew who was going to win the majority of those matches.


Slower surfaces like clay, slow hard courts, or slow clay, Nadal was going to have the advantage over Roger 8 or 9 times out of 10.. . Indoors, Fed was going to have the advantage 9 times out of 10.. And thats how it played out. Or if it was just a best 5, Nadal usually got the advantage while Fed had a better chance if it was just a best of 3 set match.

Fed-Roddick for instance.. THAT was a rivalry? You knew Roddick would flub it up if he was in a position to win and Roger would get the best out of Roddick at the end.. Again.. TOTALLY PREDICTABLE. And the h2h kind of showed that.. Thats not a rivalry IMO.. Because Roddick could never beat Roger even on Roger's worst day..

I don't know if Rivalries should be considered "bad" or the "worst". If it was a true rivalry, you wouldn't know who the heck is winning.

Best of 5, slam time, Nadal-Fed.. You put your money on Nadal damn near EVERY TIME as it played out the same every time. (Fed starts out strong, but Rafa continues to impose his will and Fed faulters. It was a reoccurring theme through their entire careers). Fed-Roddick ANY TIME for instance, you don't even put a penny on Roddick.

Rivalries shouldn't be overly one-sided and predictable

veroniquem 08-01-2012 06:36 PM

Fed-Roddick surely was the most spectacular "non rivalry" in recent history.

kevin_95 08-01-2012 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 90's Clay (Post 6769886)
Usually.. "rivalries" bring unpredictability. Like Fed-Hewitt or Fed-Roddick, or even Nadal-Fed usually brought NO unpredictability.. You damn well knew who was going to win the majority of those matches.


Slower surfaces like clay, slow hard courts, or slow clay, Nadal was going to have the advantage over Roger 8 or 9 times out of 10.. . Indoors, Fed was going to have the advantage 9 times out of 10.. And thats how it played out. Or if it was just a best 5, Nadal usually got the advantage while Fed had a better chance if it was just a best of 3 set match.

Fed-Roddick for instance.. THAT was a rivalry? You knew Roddick would flub it up if he was in a position to win and Roger would get the best out of Roddick at the end.. Again.. TOTALLY PREDICTABLE. And the h2h kind of showed that.. Thats not a rivalry IMO.. Because Roddick could never beat Roger even on Roger's worst day..

I don't know if Rivalries should be considered "bad" or the "worst". If it was a true rivalry, you wouldn't know who the heck is winning.

Best of 5, slam time, Nadal-Fed.. You put your money on Nadal damn near EVERY TIME as it played out the same every time. (Fed starts out strong, but Rafa continues to impose his will and Fed faulters. It was a reoccurring theme through their entire careers). Fed-Roddick ANY TIME for instance, you don't even put a penny on Roddick

You are a fair poster.

Mustard 08-01-2012 06:38 PM

Ivan Lendl beat Tim Mayotte all 17 times they met. 14 of those wins were in straight sets, 1 of the wins was 2 sets to 1, and the other 2 wins were 5-setters (at the 1982 US Open and 1986 Wimbledon).

Tenez101 08-01-2012 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Murphy (Post 6769873)
Lendl v Gilbert.

16-0

LEGEND.

Federererer 08-01-2012 06:47 PM

Djokovic - Nadal

papertank 08-01-2012 06:49 PM

Federer-Ferrer 13-0. It's uncanny to me that a hard worker and great player such as Ferrer has never been able to beat Federer after playing him so many times.

Zarfot Z 08-01-2012 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldFedIsOld (Post 6769879)
Federer- Hewitt

Hewitt dominated Federer with like 7/9 victories pre 2003 Federer prime years, however I don't think Federer has lost to Hewitt from 2004 and onwards except at Halle. Not even worth considering it a rivalry as one of the players jumped up to a whole different league.

It's not even a rivalry. Using such a word to address the Fed/Hewitt match ups would be an insult to the true rivalries. ie Federer/Nadal

6-1 6-3 6-0 08-01-2012 10:30 PM

If Nadal were to win the next 22 meetings with Federer (not impossible, as both Roger :D and Rafa :D will likely play for a few more years, and Djokovic-Nadal met 6 times only last year), then the Federer-Nadal rivalry would satisfy your criteria for being one of the worst rivalries of all time.

YellowBall77 08-01-2012 10:54 PM

Probably Nadal-Fed is the most overrated due to foregone conclusion.

Sampras-Agassi was much closer. It's funny that Fed is the Sampras of our time so to speak yet can't beat his Agassi.

6-1 6-3 6-0 08-01-2012 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YellowBall77 (Post 6770439)
Probably Nadal-Fed is the most overrated due to foregone conclusion.

Sampras-Agassi was much closer. It's funny that Fed is the Sampras of our time so to speak yet can't beat his Agassi.

I agree that it is overrated, although the topic creator specified one player would have to win 80% of the meetings (which Nadal has the chance to do if he wins the next 22 meetings, which is entirely possible). Yes, Sampras-Agassi reflects the Djokovic-Nadal rivalry more, actually. Sampras led Agassi 20-14, and Nadal leads Djokovic 19-14, only one win away from mirroring the Sampras-Agassi H2H.

YellowBall77 08-01-2012 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0 (Post 6770448)
I agree that it is overrated, although the topic creator specified one player would have to win 80% of the meetings (which Nadal has the chance to do if he wins the next 22 meetings, which is entirely possible). Yes, Sampras-Agassi reflects the Djokovic-Nadal rivalry more, actually. Sampras led Agassi 20-14, and Nadal leads Djokovic 19-14, only one win away from mirroring the Sampras-Agassi H2H.

Didn't see the 80 percent. It actually is 80 percent in slams now (8-2).

As a Novak fan, we will have to agree to disagree on that. Nadal hasn't dominated Djoker the way Sampras did Agassi in meaningful matches. The numbers in the h2h are strikingly close, I'll give you that

roysid 08-01-2012 11:11 PM

It only makes sense if the other player is also a top player, made Grand slam finals/semi finals wins titles. Have been in top 5 consistently.

Which is only Roddick. One slam, 4 RU. yet a horrible matchup against Fed. Verdasco/Almagro/Troicki are not. Though Ferrer is consistent, even he is not.


So Fed-Roddick (21-3) is definitely most lop sided
Then there is Sampras - Courier at 16-4
And Becker Agassi at 4-10
I'd say Fed-Davdenko as well. Davydenko has won everything except the slams.

Fed - Del Potro is not that lopsided.

OldFedIsOld 08-01-2012 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z (Post 6770378)
It's not even a rivalry. Using such a word to address the Fed/Hewitt match ups would be an insult to the true rivalries. ie Federer/Nadal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer–Hewitt_rivalry

You do realize this is the "Top 10 worst rivalries of all time" right? If there's a wiki on it, then it must be a rivalry.

Monsieur_DeLarge 08-01-2012 11:37 PM

A contrast in styles ~ serve-volleyer vs baseliner ~ often makes for a good rivalry, so I'm going to put Edberg vs Muster out there (10-0).

Sorry, Mustard. :p


Regards,
MDL

MariaRafael 08-02-2012 01:57 AM

Connors vs Gerulaitis (at least 17-1)
Nadal vs Verdasco (at least 12-0, actually stopped counting the beatings poor FerVer gets from Rafa)


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse