Is Nadal-Djokovic greater than Sampras-Agassi?
 

Is the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry greater than the Sampras-Agassi rivalry?

Currently, Nadal leads Djokovic 19-14 in the h2h, and Sampras leads Agassi 20-14 in the h2h (Nadal is only one win away from tying the Sampras-Agassi h2h). Stats-

Nadal-Djokovic

Nadal leads 12-2 on clay (4-0 in clay slams)
Nadal leads 2-1 on grass (1-1 in grass slams)
Djokovic leads 11-5 on hard-courts (leads 2-1 in hard-court slams)
Nadal leads 19-14 overall, 6-3 in slams

Sampras-Agassi

Agassi leads 3-2 on clay (1-0 in clay slams)
Sampras leads 2-0 on grass (2-0 in grass slams)
Sampras leads 5-2 on carpet
Sampras leads 11-9 on hard-court (4-2 in hard-court slams)
Sampras leads 20-14 overall, 6-3 in slams

Is the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry a lot like the Sampras-Agassi rivalry, and if so, is Nadal-Djokovic better?

NO!! Your picture says it all, these guys really did not care for one another, it's what made the matches so fun to watch. That and the fact that they had completely opposing styles of play which made for great entertainment.

Agassi-Sampras was much more exciting to watch due to the contrast of styles between the two. They also were legit contemporaries who's prime/peaks coincided with each other. While Nole/Nadal really didn't. We also got to see the rivalry on ALL Surfaces (Fast and slow alike). It was also a rivalry that stretched for 12 years (1990-2002)

Nole-Nadal has definitely been the best rivalry of the modern era IMO (2004 or 2005-present) but certainly wasn't better or greater then Pete-Andre though IMO

Hard to compare

What makes a rivalry better? Is it the hype it produces and its effects on collective memory? Or an equation of players greatness and level of tennis?

LOL AT THIS THREAD.

To say that Djokodal is better than Samprassi is just.. absurd. Pure absurdity.

Would watch these rivalties than a Djokovic Murray rivalry.

No. Contrast of styles is what makes the best rivalries. That is why Evert vs Navratilova is by far the best rivalry ever man or women. The best female serve and volleyer ever vs the best female baseliner ever, how can it get any better htan that. It is also why Sampras vs Agassi, Borg vs McEnroe, Laver vs Rosewall, Serena vs Henin, Hingis vs Davenport were such great rivalries, the contrasting games. Djokovic and Nadal are almost identical players, so definitely not providing that contrast. The best rivalry for men in the last 10 years for sure, easily better than the overhyped Federer vs Nadal rivalry, but far from the best ever.

If we follow the logic of contrasting styles being a determinant in placing rivalries in historical comparison, Fedal has a better claim than Djokodal. That's the conclusion of what you stated.

Sampras-Agassi rivalry is better

Federer and Nadal have some contrast but still not that much (both are hardcore baseliners, who like to control points with the forehand) and the many other things which make their matchup not an enticing one make them not that good a rivalry, along with that Federer is pretty much Nadal's pigeon.

on clay...

8-2 in slams, 5-0 on clay, 3-2 off clay, 8-2 overall with equal # of matches on vs off clay. Sorry pigeon, end of story, not even going to entertain another long winded **** denial of this reality again.

Clay courts: Nadal, 12–2
Hard courts: Federer, 6–5
Indoor: Federer, 4–0
Outdoor: Nadal, 5–2
Grass courts: Federer, 2–1


Sorry, not going to listen to another **** denial of this reality again

So it's not all about contrasting styles as you threw in there a couple more factors- Excitement and competitiveness.

Let's take the "pigeon" and excitement part. In hindsight you could argue that the outcome of matches is easy to predict but in 2008 I doubt you would say that. At that point the h2h was 8-6 and the rivalry looked promising. Nadal and Federer are the biggest tennis stars by far and their encounters never lacked excitement and a lot of hype. In my view there is a bigger picture to a rivalry than h2h as well. Those players battle for the number 1 position and overall domination of the sport. The way they play, practice, what they focus on in their game etc it's partly done to beat their rival. That made Nadal become a better player on all surfaces and he finally got to Federer on the big non clay events.

Therefore, I view your criteria for a rivalry as too simplistic and your evaluation of Fedal as an understatement. However, I agree that contrasting styles is an important consideration albeit perhaps not be most important one.

The only denial is from ****s. 18-10 and 8-2 in slams is a pigeon. There is no way around it and whining and making excuses about it will change nothing. Even the experts of the game who lovesick ****s love to quote endlessly calling Federer the GOAT always mention when Nadal plays Federer "and Nadal has owned Federer over the years". In the real World that is what everyone feels and knows, and denial about it will never change it.

Nadal and Federer do not produce the best matches except their grass matches at Wimbledon in 2007 and 2008, and to a lesser degree the Australian Open 2009. Clay is boring, Nadal dominance, and tons of unforced errors, especialy from Federer who foolishly tries to outrally Nadal on a slow clay court. Even if the scorelines were similar Djokovic-Nadal were already producing way better quality clay court matches as far back as 07 and 08. Indoors is also boring, Federer dominance, and only 1 decent but not unbelievable match, the 2010 WTF. Outdoor hard courts hasnt been great either, only 1 match in a slam and only a couple pretty good encounters.

I fail to see a single thing other than hype that would make their rivalry even close to the best.

There also was hardly ever a great number 1 battle. Before 2008 Nadal was far too weak on hard courts to even come close to being number 1 so there was no battle. From 2008 onwards Nadal was always going to be number 1 unless he went through a long period being injured, until Djokovic came along. Still no great battle.

owned only if you combine the entirety of their meetings, and you know most of them were on clay, now that's something that's undeniable. look at the individual surfaces and the story's different.

billnepill,
It's not a be surprise that NadalAgassi always put down Federer, as usual.

Many fans believe Fed/Nadal is one of the greatest rivalry.

Top rivalries
1. Fed/Nadal
2. Chris/Martina
3. Pete/Agassi
4. Mac/Connors
5. Borg/Mac

http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2...ied-von-cramm/

it's a rivalry due to the media but not in actual play......rafa has an 8 win advantage over fed. it we accept that, we might as well accept 18-8 fed-hewitt, or berdych fed which is 5-11, and lets not forget 11-9 murray-fed. then it kinda waters down rivalries.

1. Saying Nadal and Federer is not the best rivalry is not putting Federer down, it simply isnt close to the best rivalry, period. I would like to say it is if it were true, and that Nadal owned the best rivalry ever, but that is far from the case.

2. The best you can do is some cheesy blog which any random know who on the internet could make, which lists Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs as one of the top 10 rivalries all time. LOL ok!