Is Nadal-Djokovic the greatest rivalry in world history?

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

At the Australian Open this year, we witnessed one of the greatest grand slam finals in world history (with Nadal losing a CLOSE 7-5 fifth set after being up 4-2 30-15), producing 6 hours of exhilarating tennis. It also indicated a turning point in the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry; Nadal had regained the mental edge. At this point, the H2H was a close 16-14 (in favour of Nadal).

Nadal then went on to beat Djokovic THREE consecutive times, all in finals, including the most historic grand slam final of all time, the Roland Garros 2012 final. If Nadal won (and he did), he'd become the official greatest clay-court player ever with a record SEVEN Roland Garros titles, including an incredible 52 of 53 matches won at Roland Garros in just 8 years of playing there. If Djokovic won, he'd win four majors in a row, matching Laver (almost, since it's not in a calendar year). But it wasn't to be; Nadal ripped his heart out and was the record-breaker that night. They were also the only two players in world history to play in four consecutive grand slam finals against each other.

By doing this, Nadal extended the H2H to 19-14, just one match away from matching the Sampras-Agassi H2H. When Nadal wins their next encounter, the rivalry will surely be better than Sampras-Agassi.

Does anyone else see this rivalry as being the most riveting in world history?

[DropShotArtist]

I would say Djokovic Federer is the current best rivalry.

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

I would say Djokovic Federer is the current best rivalry.

But did Federer-Djokovic ever contest a grand slam final as historic as Roland Garros 2012?

[DropShotArtist]

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

But did Federer-Djokovic ever contest a grand slam final as historic as Roland Garros 2012?

Yes, the 2007 USO.

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Yes, the 2007 USO.

Playing the 2007 USO Final, Federer was aiming to gain a 4th consecutive US Open title and a 12th grand slam. Hardly historic. Djokovic was hoping to gain his first grand slam, not historic, only a personal feat (and something for Serbian tennis fans to feel happy about).

Whereas in Roland Garros 2012, there was far much on the line for BOTH players. The 2007 US Open final pales in comparison.

[DropShotArtist]

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

Playing the 2007 USO Final, Federer was aiming to gain a 4th consecutive US Open title and a 12th grand slam. Hardly historic. Djokovic was hoping to gain his first grand slam, not historic, only a personal feat (and something for Serbian tennis fans to feel happy about).

Whereas in Roland Garros 2012, there was far much on the line for BOTH players. The 2007 US Open final pales in comparison.

Why isn't that historic? I think 2007 USO final was on par

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Why isn't that historic? I think 2007 USO final was on par

Djokovic aiming to complete a career grand slam AND at the same time win four majors in a row (hasn't been done since Laver in 1969), and Nadal winning a RECORD 7 French Open titles, AND their fourth consecutive meeting in a slam final. Not on par at all.

[DropShotArtist]

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

Djokovic aiming to complete a career grand slam AND at the same time win four majors in a row (hasn't been done since Laver in 1969), and Nadal winning a RECORD 7 French Open titles, AND their fourth consecutive meeting in a slam final. Not on par at all.

What about when Federer tries to win 4 consecutive in 2007 and 2007.

[single_handed_champion]

No, it is terrible. Game-wise, they are pretty similar and do not experiment much in matches.

Then again, Roger, despite all his artistry, finds it hard to overcome the Energizer bunnies in the top 4, and his matches go form the sublime to the unwatchable as a result.

So it depends on whether you value quantity or quality. For quantity i.e. time per match, these 2 are probably a good bet, slowly being replaced by Murray-Djokovic.

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

What about when Federer tries to win 4 consecutive in 2007 and 2007.

But he wasn't aiming for the overall title record (most number of titles). Just a little consecutive streak. He still hasn't got that (the title count record).

[DropShotArtist]

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

But he wasn't aiming for the overall title record (most number of titles). Just a little consecutive streak. He still hasn't got that (the title count record).

he was aiming for exactly what Djokovic was aiming for. Four consecutive slam and career slam. It's not Federer's fault Nadal was not good enough to be aiming for the overall title record in 2006/07.

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

he was aiming for exactly what Djokovic was aiming for. Four consecutive slam and career slam.

But that's just for one player. Roland Garros 2012 was more historic because both players were aiming for two different records, each of which are two of the most important records in world history. And Federer wasn't aiming for four consecutive slams at US Open 2007.

[dudeski]

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

Playing the 2007 USO Final, Federer was aiming to gain a 4th consecutive US Open title and a 12th grand slam. Hardly historic. Djokovic was hoping to gain his first grand slam, not historic, only a personal feat (and something for Serbian tennis fans to feel happy about).

Whereas in Roland Garros 2012, there was far much on the line for BOTH players. The 2007 US Open final pales in comparison.

Sexi Federer was on his flight of the golden eagle quest to become the first man in history to win Wimbledon and USO double 3 years in the row!

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by dudeski

Sexi Federer was on his flight of the golden eagle quest to become the first man in history to win Wimbledon and USO double 3 years in the row!

Again, still not historically more significant than the Nadal-Djokovic final, since that's just about one player (and the record in question is hardly superior to 7 Roland Garros titles/career grand slam/4 slams in a row).

[DropShotArtist]

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

But that's just for one player. Roland Garros 2012 was more historic because both players were aiming for two different records, each of which are two of the most important records in world history. And Federer wasn't aiming for four consecutive slams at US Open 2007.

By that definition W2009 was the most important of all since Federer was aiming for the most important record of all, the slam count title.

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

By that definition W2009 was the most important of all since Federer was aiming for the most important record of all, the slam count title.

Again, that was only about Federer, not about Roddick. If Federer had lost, the result wouldn't have been particularly historic at all, just another American winning a slam, which has happened plenty.

[DropShotArtist]

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

Again, that was only about Federer, not about Roddick. If Federer had lost, the result wouldn't have been particularly historic at all, just another American winning a slam, which has happened plenty.

Ok so then W2012 was the most important of all since Murray was going for the first slam by a brit in a zillion years and Federer was going for the highest slam total in history of men's open era tennis.

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Ok so then W2012 was the most important of all since Murray was going for the first slam by a brit in a zillion years and Federer was going for the highest slam total in history of men's open era tennis.

Murray winning Wimbledon 2012 is equivalent to Djokovic winning US Open 2007, both only carry personal sentimental value. It's of little relevance, especially when you compare that to winning 4 slams in a row, or the career grand slam.

[DropShotArtist]

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

Murray winning Wimbledon 2012 is equivalent to Djokovic winning US Open 2007, both only carry personal sentimental value. It's of little relevance, especially when you compare that to winning 4 slams in a row, or the career grand slam.

Depends on who you ask. Murray winning his first slam and the first Brit to do so, especially at Wimbledon in how many years, is very very historic.

[amx13]

For a great rivarly to develop, you would need contrasting styles and personalitys, a la Agassi-Sampras...you will never find that with Nadal and Djokovic