Fed and Rafa cemented their rivalry as the greatest of all time with AO final

[-NN-]

Federer only lost 2 matches to Nadal outside of clay until 2008 Wimbledon.
3 matches until 2009 AO.
4 matches until 2011 Miami.

I can't really see where Federer really should've taken advantage. Even if he won all the matches on HC/grass during the time he would still be like 15-20 behind in the h2h. The problem was Nadal not getting to Federer than Federer losing to him outside of clay.

I can't really see where Federer really should've taken advantage. The whole point being made is that typically Federer would take care of an ATG in their infancy but didn't because of the match-up, which in early days we could see plain as day even on HC. There's nothing more beyond it than that. It isn't about his record and all matches up till 2008 Wimbledon. It's about something else entirely - the curious case of the Fedal match-up as evidenced even in its infancy with a not yet fully matured Nadal. There's no angle suggesting that Federer should've taken advantage (or more advantage than he did).

 

[tennis_pro]

The whole point being made is that typically Federer would take care of an ATG in their infancy but didn't because of the match-up, which in early days we could see plain as day even on HC. There's nothing more beyond it than that.

This is true but I still think that the h2h wouldn't've been a lot better for Federer even if he won all the matches he should've won (we're not even talking about the matches he won which he should've lost too btw like 2007 Hamburg or 2009 Madrid). As I said numerous times before too - Federer won 5/7 matches on HC/grass before 2008 and all 5 of the most important ones. People shouldn't look into Nadal beating a sick Federer in a 3rd round of a MS tournament because if they played in a Slam final on the same surface Federer wouldn't lose more than a set, especially at the faster US Open. Nadal has been a tough match-up for Fed from day 1 but it's not like Federer really underperformed. He did ok against Nadal when he had the age advantage and only started to lose more when it was the other way round.

It isn't about his record and all matches up till 2008 Wimbledon. It's about something else entirely - the curious case of the Fedal match-up as evidenced even in its infancy with a not yet fully matured Nadal. There's no angle suggesting that Federer should've taken advantage (or more advantage than he did).

We'll never know. The fact that Federer didn't get to play Nadal in any HC Slams in 2004-2007 (maybe even 2008) hurt him a lot because when they finally did Nadal was in peak form and Federer was already 27,5 years old and at the tail end of his prime.

 

[-NN-]

This is true but I still think that the h2h wouldn't've been a lot better for Federer even if he won all the matches he should've won (we're not even talking about the matches he won which he should've lost too btw like 2007 Hamburg or 2009 Madrid). As I said numerous times before too - Federer won 5/7 matches on HC/grass before 2008 and all 5 of the most important ones. People shouldn't look into Nadal beating a sick Federer in a 3rd round of a MS tournament because if they played in a Slam final on the same surface Federer wouldn't lose more than a set, especially at the faster US Open. Nadal has been a tough match-up for Fed from day 1 but it's not like Federer really underperformed. He did ok against Nadal when he had the age advantage and only started to lose more when it was the other way round.

We'll never know. The fact that Federer didn't get to play Nadal in any HC Slams in 2004-2007 (maybe even 2008) hurt him a lot because when they finally did Nadal was in peak form and Federer was already 27,5 years old and at the tail end of his prime.

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. Federer didn't underperform but couldn't take advantage of a fledgeling great due to match-up. Replace Nadal with most (almost all) other ATGs and regardless of surface spread the record will be a lot better than 6-8, I'd wager.

Totally agree with your second statement. All the timings really channelled into the narrative that we've come to know. At the same time, I can't call Nadal too much of a rapscallion for it because he was really young and started to hit a HC prime at a reasonable age. In the end, the crux of the lopsided H2H (clay) ended up creating mental blocks that probably wouldn't have been there had a) Nadal matured faster outside of clay and b) Federer wasn't so damned good, reaching so many clay finals and being a master of all surfaces.

It's a weird thing.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

Best of all times: Navratilova - Evert

Best among ATP: Fedal, and it isn't even close.

The one thing both these rivalries have in common: mutual respect and friendliness.

Good post and I agree as you can see by my top 2 choices in the video

 

[Red Rick]

Best of all times: Navratilova - Evert

Best among ATP: Fedal, and it isn't even close.

The one thing both these rivalries have in common: mutual respect and friendliness.

I feel that's super overrated. There's not even one bit of proper thrashtalk between them. Super boring when everyone can get along.

 

[Gazelle]

People say the predictability of this rivalry takes a bit away of how good this rivalry is...

But is this predictability not a lot of hindsight?

Plenty of people believed Fed would win many of their matches he lost. They weren't that predictable at the time, just seems like that now.

And when I finally believed the rivalry was predictable (prior to their AO17 match), I get surprised once again with Federer winning.

 

[abmk]

People say the predictability of this rivalry takes a bit away of how good this rivalry is...

But is this predictability not a lot of hindsight?

Plenty of people believed Fed would win many of their matches he lost. They weren't that predictable at the time, just seems like that now.

And when I finally believed the rivalry was predictable (prior to their AO17 match), I get surprised once again with Federer winning.

those who say it was predictable (atleast before 2010) have little clue what they are talking about ...

 

[abmk]

In my mind there is negligible difference between best and greatest. Obviously we disagree, but that's ok. We can stop here.

fair enough. Lets make it as greatest vs quality of play to be more specific when we talk

 

[TheMaestro1990]

People say the predictability of this rivalry takes a bit away of how good this rivalry is...

But is this predictability not a lot of hindsight?

Plenty of people believed Fed would win many of their matches he lost. They weren't that predictable at the time, just seems like that now.

And when I finally believed the rivalry was predictable (prior to their AO17 match), I get surprised once again with Federer winning.

This.

Not until 2013 did the matches feel unpredictable.

I remember many believing that Federer would take Nadal down in AO 2012 for example. I was one of them, but out of nowhere Nadal played absolutely fantastic. And even though their H2H is a bit uneven, many of the matches that Nadal won was very close (AO 2012, Madrid 2011, FO 2007, Wimbledon 2008, AO 2009, RG 2008). Kidding with the last one, but you get the picture. Even the Cincinnati meeting in 2013 was fairly close.

 

[mike danny]

People say the predictability of this rivalry takes a bit away of how good this rivalry is...

But is this predictability not a lot of hindsight?

Plenty of people believed Fed would win many of their matches he lost. They weren't that predictable at the time, just seems like that now.

And when I finally believed the rivalry was predictable (prior to their AO17 match), I get surprised once again with Federer winning.

Federer's record against Nadal since losing that epic AO 2009 final is 6-10, with 4 of those losses occurring in 2013. So when healthy (unlike 2013) Fed has done better than I expected against Rafa.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

fair enough. Lets make it as greatest vs quality of play to be more specific when we talk

I actually prefer the RG SF 2011 over the Wimby final 2014. Not just because Federer won. The circumstances around that match was more special than the Wimbledon match even though it was a final. And that Federer - the third wheel that season - was the one ending Djokovic's streak made for a great story. As for the quality... I rank it as one of the best matches of all time, if not the best. Just excellent in all aspects.

 

[abmk]

I actually prefer the RG SF 2011 over the Wimby final 2014. Not just because Federer won. The circumstances around that match was more special than the Wimbledon match even though it was a final. And that Federer - the third wheel that season - was the one ending Djokovic's streak made for a great story. As for the quality... I rank it as one of the best matches of all time, if not the best. Just excellent in all aspects.

yeah, I agree with respect to the quality. its a no-contest.
The story regarding RG 2011 was also better.
But 14 was a final and went 5-sets, so giving that part its due as well when it comes to greatness.

 

[mike danny]

yeah, I agree with respect to the quality. its a no-contest.
The story regarding RG 2011 was also better.
But 14 was a final and went 5-sets, so giving that part its due as well when it comes to greatness.

Not just a final, but a Wimb final as well

One of the main reasons why the 2008 final gets so much hype is because it occurred at Wimb. A Wimb final going to 5 sets already makes it a better match than many.

 

[abmk]

Not just a final, but a Wimb final as well

One of the main reasons why the 2008 final gets so much hype is because it occurred at Wimb. A Wimb final going to 5 sets already makes it a better match than many.

yeah , true that ..

 

[-NN-]

I actually prefer the RG SF 2011 over the Wimby final 2014. Not just because Federer won. The circumstances around that match was more special than the Wimbledon match even though it was a final. And that Federer - the third wheel that season - was the one ending Djokovic's streak made for a great story. As for the quality... I rank it as one of the best matches of all time, if not the best. Just excellent in all aspects.

I'm not sure the circumstances were more special. Djokovic was on the verge of coming unhinged in big matches, especially with the way Federer ate at him to take it to 5. Winning that Wimbledon launched Djokovic to dominance. We don't know for sure but I'd wager that it was the most pivotal victory of Djokovic's career. He was on a big Slam final losing streak at the time and might have been on the verge of capitulation. His reaction after the match says it all. To me, the story and build-up to that match was just as meaningful and epic as it was for the 2011 RG SF.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

I'm not sure the circumstances were more special. Djokovic was on the verge of coming unhinged in big matches, especially with the way Federer ate at him to take it to 5. Winning that Wimbledon launched Djokovic to dominance. We don't know for sure but I'd wager that it was the most pivotal victory of Djokovic's career. He was on a big Slam final losing streak at the time and might have been on the verge of capitulation. His reaction after the match says it all. To me, the story and build-up to that match was just as meaningful and epic as it was for the 2011 RG SF.

You've got valid points, can't argue with it. From my stand point - from what I remember - the match in RG 2011 was more hyped regarding the circumstances. But this is also purely subjective.

 

[mike danny]

You've got valid points, can't argue with it. From my stand point - from what I remember - the match in RG 2011 was more hyped regarding the circumstances. But this is also purely subjective.

Were people even expecting Federer to win that RG 2011 SF? I'm sure many were calling a Nadal-Djokovic final already.

 

[TheMusicLover]

I feel that's super overrated. There's not even one bit of proper thrashtalk between them. Super boring when everyone can get along.

Each to one's own. I just happen to appreciate it a lot, when fierce rivals can in fact be rather proper, decent, even friendly folks between themselves OFF the courts.

Not unlike my lawyer's practice in fact... not that bad to rip each other to shreds IN court, and have a nice beer together afterwards.

 

[mike danny]

Federer and Nadal though have played the most slam finals in the Open Era.

 

[VladimirJ]

Djokodal > Djokofed > Fedal

 

[maratha_warrior]

I'm not sure the circumstances were more special. Djokovic was on the verge of coming unhinged in big matches, especially with the way Federer ate at him to take it to 5. Winning that Wimbledon launched Djokovic to dominance. We don't know for sure but I'd wager that it was the most pivotal victory of Djokovic's career. He was on a big Slam final losing streak at the time and might have been on the verge of capitulation. His reaction after the match says it all. To me, the story and build-up to that match was just as meaningful and epic as it was for the 2011 RG SF.

Wimby14 was the most Important win of Djokovic's career.. Most People were sure of Novak not crossing Agassi/ Lendl before Wimby14..
That win changed everything for Novak..

 

[Roddick85]

Let me start off by saying that the Federer-Djokovic-Nadal "three way rivalry" has produced some of the best matches in our sport. The way these 3 match-up with one another always translates for entertaining tennis one way or the other.

#1. Federer-Djokovic
Federer-Djokovic has always been the most unpredictable rivalry, they produced great matches more consistently throughout the years. Djokovic may not have Nadal's fan base/charisma as an opponent for Federer, but I was entertained a lot more by this rivalry than any other. The fact that there's not exactly any love lost between the 2 probably spice things up as well.

#2. Djokovic-Nadal
Since Djokovic became a force to reckon with in 2011, this rivalry has always been interesting. Djokovic can go toe to toe with Nadal on any surface including his beloved "clay" which made for a more even match-up anywhere they met. The momentum has shifted from time to time as well which helped keeping things interesting.

#3. Agassi-Sampras
The 2 players of the 90's. Arguably the greatest server of all time vs one of the best returner in history. Agassi may have had a bit of a mental issue against Pete, still when you look at the H2H, it's not so bad. The fact that both guys were playing offensive tennis was fun to watch. Pete had the edge on grass and at the USO while Andre had the edge at the AO and on clay.

#4. Federer-Nadal
The reason I'm putting "Fedal" at #4 is because the rivalry got stale after 2010. Out of all the others I've listed before, I think this one produced the most "classic" slam finals of them all, but the 6 year stretch between FO 2011 and AO 2017 has been IMO highly forgettable. Sure it's always fun whenever these 2 meet because they are 2 of the greatest players of all time, but so many of these matches were one-sided or on clay that I just can't rank it above the other 3.

One thing I'd like to add about the AO final. I think it's extremely overhyped and overrated right now. The match was OK and had some drama especially the way it played our in the 5th, what was on the line for either guys was interesting etc...But the match itself was very up/down for either guy and definitely not the best match they produced. Age surely plays a factor in they're performance level, I get that. When the hype dies down and the dust settles, the story around that match may have been great, the match itself was OK but definitely not the best these guys produced.

 

[Red Rick]

Let me start off by saying that the Federer-Djokovic-Nadal "three way rivalry" has produced some of the best matches in our sport. The way these 3 match-up with one another always translates for entertaining tennis one way or the other.

#1. Federer-Djokovic
Federer-Djokovic has always been the most unpredictable rivalry, they produced great matches more consistently throughout the years. Djokovic may not have Nadal's fan base/charisma as an opponent for Federer, but I was entertained a lot more by this rivalry than any other. The fact that there's not exactly any love lost between the 2 probably spice things up as well.

#2. Djokovic-Nadal
Since Djokovic became a force to reckon with in 2011, this rivalry has always been interesting. Djokovic can go toe to toe with Nadal on any surface including his beloved "clay" which made for a more even match-up anywhere they met. The momentum has shifted from time to time as well which helped keeping things interesting.

#3. Agassi-Sampras
The 2 players of the 90's. Arguably the greatest server of all time vs one of the best returner in history. Agassi may have had a bit of a mental issue against Pete, still when you look at the H2H, it's not so bad. The fact that both guys were playing offensive tennis was fun to watch. Pete had the edge on grass and at the USO while Andre had the edge at the AO and on clay.

#4. Federer-Nadal
The reason I'm putting "Fedal" at #4 is because the rivalry got stale after 2010. Out of all the others I've listed before, I think this one produced the most "classic" slam finals of them all, but the 6 year stretch between FO 2011 and AO 2017 has been IMO highly forgettable. Sure it's always fun whenever these 2 meet because they are 2 of the greatest players of all time, but so many of these matches were one-sided or on clay that I just can't rank it above the other 3.

One thing I'd like to add about the AO final. I think it's extremely overhyped and overrated right now. The match was OK and had some drama especially the way it played our in the 5th, what was on the line for either guys was interesting etc...But the match itself was very up/down for either guy and definitely not the best match they produced. Age surely plays a factor in they're performance level, I get that. When the hype dies down and the dust settles, the story around that match may have been great, the match itself was OK but definitely not the best these guys produced.

Ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken ****ing dinner. Couldn't agree more

 

[metsman]

Well Nadal had to face Federer several times before he hit prime. Just because he happened to win most of those matches doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted as being conveniently times.. but Federer couldn't take advantage.

Not really...04-05 Miami, 06 Dubai, 06-07 TMC are the only times when Nadal was pre-prime against Federer. Even then Fed was sick in Miami in 2004 and you can easily argue that 05 Miami and 06/07 TMC are among Nadal's 3-5 best showings at those tournaments, so they were decent versions of Nadal. Nadal faced a garbage post-prime Federer while at his peak 4 times in 2013 alone.

 

[metsman]

I can't really see where Federer really should've taken advantage. The whole point being made is that typically Federer would take care of an ATG in their infancy but didn't because of the match-up, which in early days we could see plain as day even on HC. There's nothing more beyond it than that. It isn't about his record and all matches up till 2008 Wimbledon. It's about something else entirely - the curious case of the Fedal match-up as evidenced even in its infancy with a not yet fully matured Nadal. There's no angle suggesting that Federer should've taken advantage (or more advantage than he did).

Yes definitely the matchup dynamic was there from the start.

 

[Steve0904]

People say the predictability of this rivalry takes a bit away of how good this rivalry is...

But is this predictability not a lot of hindsight?

Plenty of people believed Fed would win many of their matches he lost. They weren't that predictable at the time, just seems like that now.

And when I finally believed the rivalry was predictable (prior to their AO17 match), I get surprised once again with Federer winning.

Exactly. The Fedal rivalry was not predictable between say 2005-2010. Even in some of the early clay matches, Federer was the betting favourite I believe, just because he was #1 and nobody knew exactly how good Nadal would be on clay yet. Stupid in hindsight sure, but not seen as such at the time. For example, people rated Federer's chances against Nadal at RG 2006 highly due to the earlier Rome match.

And I'm almost positive that Federer was the betting favourite in both of the Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 finals. Strangely enough, I think he was also the favourite betting wise at AO 2017, but he shouldn't have been IMO.

 

[smoledman]

How can it be a 'rivalry' when he's 3-9 vs Nadal is slams?

 

[mike danny]

How can it be a 'rivalry' when he's 3-9 vs Nadal is slams?

Anybody would have had such a slam record against Rafa if they had played him 5 times at RG.

 

[smoledman]

Anybody would have had such a slam record against Rafa if they had played him 5 times at RG.

You can't magically exclude RG to make it seem like a 'rivalry'. Fact is Fed being 0-5 at RG is a disgrace to his talent.

 

[Steve0904]

Anybody would have had such a slam record against Rafa if they had played him 5 times at RG.

Some call Djokovic-Nadal a better rivalry and Nadal leads that slam H2H 9-4, Djokovic having only one more win than Federer. Again though, 7 matches at RG (6-1 Nadal) and only 1 in Australia. To Nadal's credit however he leads the H2H at the USO 2-1, but they also haven't played at Wimbledon since 2011 due to Nadal drastic decline on grass.

 

[mike danny]

You can't magically exclude RG to make it seem like a 'rivalry'. Fact is Fed being 0-5 at RG is a disgrace to his talent.

Not really. Djokovic matches up better against Rafa and he is still 1-6 vs Nadal at RG. 0-6 vs a prime Rafa as well.

So why is Nadal-Djokovic a better rivalry since Nadal is 9-4 against Nole in slams. Nole just 1 more win against Rafa than Fed.

 

[mike danny]

Some call Djokovic-Nadal a better rivalry and Nadal leads that slam H2H 9-4, Djokovic having only one more win than Federer. Again though, 7 matches at RG (6-1 Nadal) and only 1 in Australia. To Nadal's credit however he leads the H2H at the USO 2-1, but they also haven't played at Wimbledon since 2011 due to Nadal drastic decline on grass.

Also Federer has beaten Rafa in slam finals as many times as Djokovic.

Federer though did a bit better than I thought. He is 4-2 in HC finals and 2-1 in grass finals. It's shocking that they played 13 finals on clay, while just 9 on HC and grass combined.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

Exactly. The Fedal rivalry was not predictable between say 2005-2010. Even in some of the early clay matches, Federer was the betting favourite I believe, just because he was #1 and nobody knew exactly how good Nadal would be on clay yet. Stupid in hindsight sure, but not seen as such at the time. For example, people rated Federer's chances against Nadal at RG 2006 highly due to the earlier Rome match.

And I'm almost positive that Federer was the betting favourite in both of the Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 finals. Strangely enough, I think he was also the favourite betting wise at AO 2017, but he shouldn't have been IMO.

He wasn't the betting favourite at AO 2017 ahead of the final. Nadal was inbetween 1.75-1.80 at most sites, and Federer 2.00 - 2.10.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Let me start off by saying that the Federer-Djokovic-Nadal "three way rivalry" has produced some of the best matches in our sport. The way these 3 match-up with one another always translates for entertaining tennis one way or the other.

#1. Federer-Djokovic
Federer-Djokovic has always been the most unpredictable rivalry, they produced great matches more consistently throughout the years. Djokovic may not have Nadal's fan base/charisma as an opponent for Federer, but I was entertained a lot more by this rivalry than any other. The fact that there's not exactly any love lost between the 2 probably spice things up as well.

#2. Djokovic-Nadal
Since Djokovic became a force to reckon with in 2011, this rivalry has always been interesting. Djokovic can go toe to toe with Nadal on any surface including his beloved "clay" which made for a more even match-up anywhere they met. The momentum has shifted from time to time as well which helped keeping things interesting.

#3. Agassi-Sampras
The 2 players of the 90's. Arguably the greatest server of all time vs one of the best returner in history. Agassi may have had a bit of a mental issue against Pete, still when you look at the H2H, it's not so bad. The fact that both guys were playing offensive tennis was fun to watch. Pete had the edge on grass and at the USO while Andre had the edge at the AO and on clay.

#4. Federer-Nadal
The reason I'm putting "Fedal" at #4 is because the rivalry got stale after 2010. Out of all the others I've listed before, I think this one produced the most "classic" slam finals of them all, but the 6 year stretch between FO 2011 and AO 2017 has been IMO highly forgettable. Sure it's always fun whenever these 2 meet because they are 2 of the greatest players of all time, but so many of these matches were one-sided or on clay that I just can't rank it above the other 3.

One thing I'd like to add about the AO final. I think it's extremely overhyped and overrated right now. The match was OK and had some drama especially the way it played our in the 5th, what was on the line for either guys was interesting etc...But the match itself was very up/down for either guy and definitely not the best match they produced. Age surely plays a factor in they're performance level, I get that. When the hype dies down and the dust settles, the story around that match may have been great, the match itself was OK but definitely not the best these guys produced.

Good breakdown. No matter which way you slice it, Fed's most storied "rivalries" featured athletes of different generations (in pro tennis, five-six years' difference is huge). Would've been really interesting if a Roddick or Hewitt or someone else around his age had matched up better and/or stuck around a bit longer.

 

[Roddick85]

Good breakdown. No matter which way you slice it, Fed's most storied "rivalries" featured athletes of different generations (in pro tennis, five-six years' difference is huge). Would've been really interesting if a Roddick or Hewitt or someone else around his age had matched up better and/or stuck around a bit longer.

It would of been for sure, or even Safin if he had taken tennis more seriously. When I look back at "young Fed's" career, his best rivalry IMO was against Agassi who was also not part of his generation. I know Agassi was basically "wheelchair bound" at that stage of his career if you listen to most on TT which I don't agree with, but if you look at the matches these 2 produced at the USO/IW/Miami/YEC, you have a great rivalry there. The 2005 USO final is probably one of my favorite final at the USO in the post Sampras era.

 

[70後]

Federer vs Nadal vs Djokovic.

 

[Fiero425]

Most of these aren't even rivalries with some having a severe imbalance to 1 player or another; esp. Fedal! That's a joke where Nadal owns Roger for the most part, but has been losing to anybody of late so it's not a real measure of their so called rivalry at this season's AO! It says more about the tour and the other players to allow OLD MAN River to come back after months of rehab to take a MAJOR of all things! The real rivalry is on the ladies' side with Navratilova and Evert! OTTH Evert started out well and fast taking a huge lead of 20-7 with all those losses on Martina's home-court of a fast carpet! Martina up'd her training since most of her losses had to do with her "pooping out" in the end; esp. when she was so overweight in her teen years splurging on the decadence of the WEST! Martina took ownership of their rivalry in '82, winning 14 straight through '84 USO! They started swapping wins with one another; Evert on clay, Martina on grass! They wound up having 80 contests with Navratilova holding a small lead at 43-37! Only Laver and Rosewall have played more, but weren't official ATP matches going back to the old days of playing anything flat; wood, carpet, HC! In the group of BIG 4 these days, the only real rivalries have been with Nole; Fedal just dropped below the median giving Djokovic a slight lead over both players in the last years! Historians like me would probably go with Borg/McEnroe; so many ultimate contests in major finals and only 14 matches split evenly between them, 7-7!

 

[70後]

The three way Fed Nad Djok rivalry is the greatest, I believe. All three had to innovate and reinvent to overtake and then re-overtake the other two, multi times. When it is ultimately over years later, it should be called the Super Era.

 

[Fiero425]

The three way Fed Nad Djok rivalry is the greatest, I believe. All three had to innovate and reinvent to overtake and then re-overtake the other two, multi times. When it is ultimately over years later, it should be called the Super Era.

Which did you prefer; this Super ERA or the past Golden Age from 20 years ago? I'll go with the Golden Age with Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Becker, Muster, Courier, & Chang; a lot more competitive with plenty of specialists that could test the Big 4 of that era!

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Its Djokovic Nadal
no matter how media or forum fanboys like to spin.

Of course. The Lügenpresse is out to get Djokovic. How could we have forgotten?

 

[Sentinel]

Nice article in Indian Express. Two full pages !

I have a theory that explains the Federer-Nadal divide among tennis fans. It’s unscientific and anecdotal; some even call it dubious. But then theories are conjectures at best. As for sporting theories, they are anyway notorious — selectively researched, slyly sampled and cleverly worded. Primarily, they are biased hypotheses floated to belittle rival supporters.

Full article:
http://indianexpress.com/article/sports/tennis/the-man-who-became-king-4508689/

 

[Julian Houston]

Federer lost many matches in his prime to Nadal because he was stubborn not to be coached. Nadal had upper hand in coaching. Losing to 1 shot over and over again requires to be coached and not like his ability isn't there to counter that shot.

In his prime he plays the way he wants and beat 99% of the top 10 players which cause this mentality.

It will be much more even had Federer be slightly younger than 5 yrs difference and listen to coaching.

 

[Fiero425]

Federer lost many matches in his prime to Nadal because he was stubborn not to be coached. Nadal had upper hand in coaching. Losing to 1 shot over and over again requires to be coached and not like his ability isn't there to counter that shot.

In his prime he plays the way he wants and beat 99% of the top 10 players which cause this mentality.

It will be much more even had Federer be slightly younger than 5 yrs difference and listen to coaching.

Yeah, but that WAS the possibility and the time has passed! I think Federer's done remarkably not just by winning this past AO, but for sustaining his ranking near the top getting to multiple slam finals only being taken out by #! Nole at the time! Every player has to have some kind of regret; losing an opportunity that can't be dwelled on! They'd all go insane!

 

[MichaelNadal]

Some call Djokovic-Nadal a better rivalry and Nadal leads that slam H2H 9-4, Djokovic having only one more win than Federer. Again though, 7 matches at RG (6-1 Nadal) and only 1 in Australia. To Nadal's credit however he leads the H2H at the USO 2-1, but they also haven't played at Wimbledon since 2011 due to Nadal drastic decline on grass.

Slay.

 

[smoledman]

I witnessed the 1990s era and now. I'll go with the Super Era we're in now because the top 3 players are so good that it forces everyone else to innovate their games or be content with being also-rans.

 

[AngryBirds]

It is still an extremely one sided affair, but an entertaining rivalry nonetheless.

 

[mike danny]

It is still an extremely one sided affair, but an entertaining rivalry nonetheless.

Is it because of the majors H2H? Because Djokovic hasn't done any better either.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Navratilova vs Evert is the greatest tennis rivalry of all time. 80 matches played over almost 20 years, with Nav edging it 43-37. Finals of every slam, historic tussles, twists and turns in the rivalry, the Commie vs the all-American girl, the battle for women's and LGBT rights, etc...

 

[mike danny]

Navratilova vs Evert is the greatest tennis rivalry of all time. 80 matches played over almost 20 years, with Nav edging it 43-37. Finals of every slam, historic tussles, twists and turns in the rivalry, the Commie vs the all-American girl, the battle for women's and LGBT rights, etc...

Wow 80 matches

Seriously after this many matches you'd think there wouldn't be any surprises between the 2. No secrets in tactics.

 

[Fiero425]

Wow 80 matches

Seriously after this many matches you'd think there wouldn't be any surprises between the 2. No secrets in tactics.

There wasn't! It was all about how well Martina played with her attacking style! If the court was fast or bumpy like on grass, Navratilova had a better chance of winning, while clay and slower HC gave Evert more of an opportunity to make life miserable for Martina with passing shots and precision lobs! There were no secrets or surprises after just a few years of comp.! People probably don't remember they traveled together, practiced, and had dinner!