Top 10 worst rivalries of all time

[kragster]

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]

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]

Lendl v Gilbert.

[Tenez101]

Originally Posted by Paul Murphy

Lendl v Gilbert.

16-0

LEGEND.

[OldFedIsOld]

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.

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by OldFedIsOld

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

[OldFedIsOld]

Originally Posted by Zarfot Z

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.

[90's Clay]

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

[kevin_95]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

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.

[veroniquem]

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

[Mustard]

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).

[Federererer]

Djokovic - Nadal

[papertank]

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.

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

If Nadal were to win the next 22 meetings with Federer (not impossible, as both Roger and Rafa 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]

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]

Originally Posted by YellowBall77

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]

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

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]

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.

[Monsieur_DeLarge]

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.


Regards,
MDL

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Monsieur_DeLarge

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.


Regards,
MDL

Hey

Edberg was just a nightmare matchup for Muster in every way, because Muster loved to go toe-to-toe in baseline wars and he liked to go through opponents as he wasn't as good with passing shots. Edberg would always hover around the net, hitting away volleys, and being a right nuisance

It speaks volumes about Muster's fighting ability that he came close to winning a few of the matches, including one on grass at 1996 Queen's Club. However, I firmly believe that Muster would have beaten Edberg on clay in 1995-1996, but they didn't meet.