Is Nadal-Djokovic greater than Sampras-Agassi?

[billnepill]

Originally Posted by TMF

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/

I can appreciate why he thinks that. In hindsight it really seems as a lopsided story and I think he consciously puts it down and underrates its significance with him being a disappointed former fed fan and all

[TMF]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

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.

forzamilan90,
Yes, it's true that they play most on clay, but it's not about h2h that defines great rivalry, as NadalAgassi uses only to discredit Federer. The debate involves a little of everything between two players.

http://us.open-tennis.com/the-greate...ies-in-tennis/

[kiki]

two baseline bashers, two similar styles.AA vs Ps was a totaL contrast of styles and personalities.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by TMF

forzamilan90,
Yes, it's true that they play most on clay, but it's not about h2h that defines great rivalry, as NadalAgassi uses only to discredit Federer. The debate involves a little of everything between two players.

http://us.open-tennis.com/the-greate...ies-in-tennis/

obviously....

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by DunlopDood

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.

Agreed. Such a contrast was a great feature of the McEnroe v Borg and McEnroe v. Connors match-ups--truly legendary tennis.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

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.

Ok.

AO - Nadal 2 Federer 0
RG - Nadal 5 Federer 0
WIM - Nadal 1 Federer 2
USO - DNP

Nadal has beat Federer in 3/4 majors. Federer has beat Nadal in only 1/4 majors.

Nadal has ownership of Federer.

Now we'll look at the collective surface h2h including the minor tournaments:

Clay - Nadal 12 Federer 2
Grass - Nadal 1 Federer 2
Indoor HC - Nadal 0 Federer 4
outdoor HC - Nadal 5 Federer 2

So, grass is quite even, Fed owns Rafa on indoor HC but Rafa owns Fed on clay and outdoor HC. So Rafa overall owns him, that's why the h2h is 18 - 10.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Ok.

AO - Nadal 2 Federer 0
RG - Nadal 5 Federer 0
WIM - Nadal 1 Federer 2
USO - DNP

Nadal has beat Federer in 3/4 majors. Federer has beat Nadal in only 1/4 majors.

Nadal has ownership of Federer.

Now we'll look at the collective surface h2h including the minor tournaments:

Clay - Nadal 12 Federer 2
Grass - Nadal 1 Federer 2
Indoor HC - Nadal 0 Federer 4
outdoor HC - Nadal 5 Federer 2

So, grass is quite even, Fed owns Rafa on indoor HC but Rafa owns Fed on clay and outdoor HC. So Rafa overall owns him, that's why the h2h is 18 - 10.

But grass isn't even - it is 2 to Federer 1 to Nadal.

Clay - Nadal
Outdoor Hard - Nadal
Indoor Hard - Federer
Grass - Federer

So it is two surfaces/conditions all. So not at all sure why you say Rafa overall owns him. One should never talk about head to head without reference to surface. If Nadal wins 10 more Clay matchups - it is irrelevant - we all know who is the better clay court player (by the way - who isn't worse than Nadal on clay?).

So no owning at all. If the head to head had been played over an even proportion of surfaces/conditions - then I think Federer would be slightly ahead or at least they would be pretty much even.

If you object, please reflect on this question first.Would the Borg/McEnroe head to head be at 7 all still, if they had played the majority of their matches on clay?

[Sid_Vicious]

Hard to choose. Yes, I don't care for that overrated Agassi-Sampras rivalry. It had its upsides over Nadal-Djokovic (contrast in styles), but it was far from perfect. At least Djokovic, the guy who started off behind, found a way to overcome his rival at many huge tournaments. Agassi showed up every couple of years to lose in 4 valiant sets to Sampras at the USO. The rivalry between the two on grass and clay was a dud. On Grass, Sampras was 10 times better than Agassi. On clay, neither was the gold standard; they played 5 crappy matches on clay and most of them were spaced out 3-4 years from each other.

Maybe we should call Sampras-Agassi the greatest masters series rivalry ever because that is the only thing intensely competitive about it (5-4 overall for Agassi) . Even then is debatable, since Djokovic and Nadal are 10-8(Djokovic) in MS.

[Relinquis]

Originally Posted by kishnabe

Would watch these rivalties than a Djokovic Murray rivalry.

Made me Shudder!!
The very thought of what the future of tennis could be like if Federer and Nadal leave now keeps me up at night... i hope the other top 10 players and some of the up and coming/new guys start making inroads... otherwise we won't have much to look forward to beyond the round of 16 at slams...

stock up on sampras vs. aggassi dvds and bookmark those nadal vs. federer links...

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by TMF

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/

I actually think NA has a point here and that Federer/Nadal is not the best rivalry because: a)while their styles are different enough they are not as different as the styles between rivals such as Evert/Navratilova and McEnroe/Borg, and b)when Federer and Nadal play in a slam at least since Wimbledon 2008, you pretty much know who is going to win, let's be honest. Nadal is lodged deeply in Federer's head whether we like to admit it or not.

I would say that in terms of real honest to goodness rivalries, Evert/Navratilova has to be number one and I would put Borg/McEnroe at number two. Agassi/Sampras and Federer/Nadal would be tied at number three imo.

[veroniquem]

Nadal/Djoko is great. They're only 26 and they've already played as many times over 7 seasons as Sampras/Agassi (33 vs 34) in the span of 14 years. Also one never felt Andre had a chance vs Sampras at W and USO and same for Sampras vs Agassi at RG whereas Nadal/Djoko are tie at W and USO and even though they're not at AO or RG, there is more of a sense that anything could happen.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by timnz

But grass isn't even - it is 2 to Federer 1 to Nadal.

Clay - Nadal
Outdoor Hard - Nadal
Indoor Hard - Federer
Grass - Federer

So it is two surfaces/conditions all. So not at all sure why you say Rafa overall owns him. One should never talk about head to head without reference to surface. If Nadal wins 10 more Clay matchups - it is irrelevant - we all know who is the better clay court player (by the way - who isn't worse than Nadal on clay?).

So no owning at all. If the head to head had been played over an even proportion of surfaces/conditions - then I think Federer would be slightly ahead or at least they would be pretty much even.

If you object, please reflect on this question first.Would the Borg/McEnroe head to head be at 7 all still, if they had played the majority of their matches on clay?

I'm not discussing Borg and McEnroe, I'm disucssing Nadal and Federer.

Now as for your grass h2h point. Fed does lead the surface h2h, but it's not like he dominates Nadal on that surface it is 1 extra win and 2 of their 3 grass meetings were very close. That's why I said it's quite even. If Federer had turned up to the WIM final in 2010 and 2011 Nadal would've beat him. Fed was lucky that Nadal was able to make it to Wimbledon final in 2006 so that he could beat a barely 20 Rafa whilst he was in his peak on his favorite surface. That 2006 final win doesn't really prove anything considering Nadal had played something like only 5 grass court matches prior to that tournament.

As for the HC meetings, if we include indoor and outdoor, they have met on a HC 11 times compared to 14 clay meetings. Quite even, yet it is NOWHERE near the dominance Nadal has on clay. Collectively it is 6-5 to Federer but if we isolate indoor and outdoor it's quite obvious that Fed only dominates indoor meetings and outdoor belongs to Nadal. This is the slam conditions (normally) they are outdoor HC and Nadal leads Fed 5-2, it's not even close. Not to mention in the majors Nadal leads 2-0. I recall so many ****s dismissing Murray's h2h with Fed because of Fed owning Muzza at the majors, well Fed's 6-5 doesn't count for much when you consider Nadal has owned him in HC major meetings.

Nadal has beat Fed in 3/4 slams, Fed has beat Nadal in 1/4 slams, and the record is 8-2 to say that isn't dominance at all is ridiculous. Nadal has owned him, if you ask Federer himself which opponent he'd least want to meet in any major he'll tell you Nadal before you even finish asking the question.

[SassyRamirez]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Nadal/Djoko is great. They're only 26 and they've already played as many times over 7 seasons as Sampras/Agassi (33 vs 34) in the span of 14 years. Also one never felt Andre had a chance vs Sampras at W and USO and same for Sampras vs Agassi at RG whereas Nadal/Djoko are tie at W and USO and even though they're not at AO or RG, there is more of a sense that anything could happen.

More of a sense that anything could happen because all the surfaces play the same, whereas with Andre & Pete their were varied surfaces each excelled on.

[veroniquem]

Nadal/Fed is too one sided: at AO, RG, WTF: one player wins all. It also didn't happen at USO and in 4 out of the 6 hard court masters. It didn't happen at Olympics either. By contrast, Nadal/Djoko happened everywhere.
Nadal/Fed was at its most interesting on grass but it only happened there between 2006 and 2008. It was good but too limited in time.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by SassyRamirez

More of a sense that anything could happen because all the surfaces play the same, whereas with Andre & Pete their were varied surfaces each excelled on.

Sorry but that's absolute nonsense. Clay plays nothing like hard. Never did and never will. And grass is also completely different. If clay played like hard, Rafa would have masters on hard in the double digits, 6 USO and 7 AO and Djoko/Fed would have multiple RG titles.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Nadal/Fed is too one sided: at AO, RG, WTW: one player wins all. It also didn't happen at USO and in 4 out of the 6 hard court masters. It didn't happen at Olympics either. By contrast, Nadal/Djoko happened everywhere.
Nadal/Fed was at its most interesting on grass but it only happened there between 2006 and 2008. It was good but too limited in time.

Nadal v Federer matches are WAAAYYYY more exciting than Nadal v Djokovic matches.

You have a valid point that Rafa and Novak have met almost everywhere, but I'm a quality over quantity person. Rafa v Fed WIM matches have occurred more often than Rafa v Novak at WIM and 2 of the Rafa v Fed matches are classics especially 2008. The Rafa v Novak WIM matches aren't anything special at all.

Rafa has also played Fed more times at the AO than Djokovic. That 09 final is probably not quite as dramatic as the 12 final, but the quality of the tennis was much better.

Rafa has also played Fed more times at RG than Novak. Novak took his very first set against Rafa at RG in last year's final but only when the rain completely changed the conditions of the court. Fed at least was able to get a set everytime except for 08 and didn't need it to **** down rain.

The USO is the only major where Rafa and Novak have met more times than Rafa and Fed. IMO, those USO matches were entertaining, but based on Rafa and Fed's history I'd be willing to bet that a USO meeting between the 2 would've been more entertaining and certainly more dramatic since they've never met before.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Sorry but that's absolute nonsense. Clay plays nothing like hard. Never did and never will. And grass is also completely different. If clay played like hard, Rafa would have masters on hard in the double digits, 6 USO and 7 AO and Djoko/Fed would have multiple RG titles.

EXACTLY! It's just the *******s way of accepting that Federer lost to Nadal in grass and HC majors. Little do they realise that Rafa plays differently at every major, he makes adjustments to his game to suit the conditions.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by The_Order

I'm not discussing Borg and McEnroe, I'm disucssing Nadal and Federer.

Now as for your grass h2h point. Fed does lead the surface h2h, but it's not like he dominates Nadal on that surface it is 1 extra win and 2 of their 3 grass meetings were very close. That's why I said it's quite even. If Federer had turned up to the WIM final in 2010 and 2011 Nadal would've beat him. Fed was lucky that Nadal was able to make it to Wimbledon final in 2006 so that he could beat a barely 20 Rafa whilst he was in his peak on his favorite surface. That 2006 final win doesn't really prove anything considering Nadal had played something like only 5 grass court matches prior to that tournament.

As for the HC meetings, if we include indoor and outdoor, they have met on a HC 11 times compared to 14 clay meetings. Quite even, yet it is NOWHERE near the dominance Nadal has on clay. Collectively it is 6-5 to Federer but if we isolate indoor and outdoor it's quite obvious that Fed only dominates indoor meetings and outdoor belongs to Nadal. This is the slam conditions (normally) they are outdoor HC and Nadal leads Fed 5-2, it's not even close. Not to mention in the majors Nadal leads 2-0. I recall so many ****s dismissing Murray's h2h with Fed because of Fed owning Muzza at the majors, well Fed's 6-5 doesn't count for much when you consider Nadal has owned him in HC major meetings.

Nadal has beat Fed in 3/4 slams, Fed has beat Nadal in 1/4 slams, and the record is 8-2 to say that isn't dominance at all is ridiculous. Nadal has owned him, if you ask Federer himself which opponent he'd least want to meet in any major he'll tell you Nadal before you even finish asking the question.

Which means on clay Nadal owns Federer and on other surfaces it's "quite even". I agree.

The 2-0 on HC slams is a bit misleading though considering they didn't meet til 2009 when Federer has been dominating the HC slams for 4 years having won 8 out of the last 10. 8 is more than anyone else in history has won and Federer was towards the end of his HC glory days. He wasn't washed up or anything, but we're talking small margins and Federer needed to be a bit better to beat Nadal who was starting to play his best HC tennis. If Federer happens to lose to Nadal this year at the USO, 9 years after winning his first USO title,people will probably use that to "prove" Nadal owns Federer at the USO and would have beaten him 6 times there or whatever. It's a bit like if now someone who never played Nadal at RG before beat him this year after he's won 7 titles. Does it really give a fair reflection?

To the original point of the article, Nadal-Djokovic is impressive. It's impressive how they can keep a rally going for ages but more than half the match is boring. It becomes too much.Just too long and grinding with no variety. Fedal is better to watch even on clay when you know who's going to win. You know the outcome but the tennis has more contrast.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Nadal v Federer matches are WAAAYYYY more exciting than Nadal v Djokovic matches.

Oh please. I agree with alot of your posts but definitely not this. This is Nadal vs Federer summed up:

Clay- Federer foolishly tries to outrally Nadal from the baseline, and even beat Nadal's forehand with this backhand in exchanges. Federer makes 70+ unforced errors guaranteed (really forced by Nadal, as Federer is completely incapable of beating Nadal the way he attempts to on clay) and Nadal barring major fatigue or injury is the certain winner.

Grass- ok their matches here were mostly good but there hasnt been one in 5 years now, and there is barely a grass tournament these days. This is the surface that produces their best matches though.

Indoors- Federer wins pretty easily everytime. Nadal just isnt that good an indoor player for whatever reason.

Outdoor hard courts- Dont remember many great matches. Miami 2005 was ok, but was mostly about Nadal choking the match away. Dubai 2006 was probably their best quality match. Australian Open 2009 was decent. The rest arent even worth a mention.


Djokovic vs Nadal is way more exciting and competitive across all surface3s, even with the too similar playing styles, which holds it back from the truly greatest rivalries that I mentioned earlier, but still easily a better one than Federer vs Nadal.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by Towser83

Which means on clay Nadal owns Federer and on other surfaces it's "quite even". I agree.

The 2-0 on HC slams is a bit misleading though considering they didn't meet til 2009 when Federer has been dominating the HC slams for 4 years having won 8 out of the last 10. 8 is more than anyone else in history has won and Federer was towards the end of his HC glory days. He wasn't washed up or anything, but we're talking small margins and Federer needed to be a bit better to beat Nadal who was starting to play his best HC tennis. If Federer happens to lose to Nadal this year at the USO, 9 years after winning his first USO title,people will probably use that to "prove" Nadal owns Federer at the USO and would have beaten him 6 times there or whatever. It's a bit like if now someone who never played Nadal at RG before beat him this year after he's won 7 titles. Does it really give a fair reflection?

To the original point of the article, Nadal-Djokovic is impressive. It's impressive how they can keep a rally going for ages but more than half the match is boring. It becomes too much.Just too long and grinding with no variety. Fedal is better to watch even on clay when you know who's going to win. You know the outcome but the tennis has more contrast.

So then the grass h2h is also misleading since Rafa was a school boy when Fed beat him in 2006.

I like how you conveniently leave out the fact that 17 year old Rafa was beating PEAK Fed on HC, but you don't fail to mention Federer's age as the reason he lost to Nadal at AO which is complete bs based on what I just mentioned. In AO09 Federer was in top form he demolished Del Potro and Roddick on his way to the final. Yes he didn't serve very well, but the fact that Nadal was fatigued from his semi evened it up. Their ground game was quite good with many exciting rallies. In the end Rafa beat him and it wasn't because of his age.

And let me ask you this, if Federer was too old at AO12, how did he all of a sudden have the ability to belt Rafa at IW? Did he drink from his fountain of youth or something? How did he go on to win Wimbledon if he was too old? He beat both Novak and Murray up there so tell me how all of a sudden he wasn't too old? His 2012 season was better than 2010 and 2011, despite being older.