greatest RIVALRY of all time?

[kiki]

McEnroe and Carillo lived a few blocks from each other in Queens when they were growing up. I believe they used to hit at the Local Club which has tennis courts.

More than that¡¡ Mac only mixed doubles title is the FO, which he won as a junior teaming up with a close friend, more expert on the circuit...Mary Carrillo.They were really close friends and big mouths both, of course

 

[kiki]

I'm not sure the opinions of Club Chopin and its supporters are "senseless and fanatic!" You make us sound like the Axis powers. I also don't understand what makes you more qualified to post on this stuff than me, or more of an "expert," to use your terms. I'm a decent, but not great tennis player (4.5.), whose played the game for a long time, won a fair amount of USTA tournaments, coached tennis at the college level, and has seen plenty of tennis. Do you have those qualifications yourself? There are certainly plenty of people who know the game better than I, yes, but I don't think you need to be Johnny Mac to offer an opinion (P.S. Mac thinks that Federer is better than Laver was).

Best,
Chopin

I never said anything about your tennis record, or abilities.I just find " gratuite" and careless the atittude that many newcomers over here have in criticizing Laver or, even worse, in judging him knowing nothing of him with arguments so inteligent and sophisticated as size, wood racket, 3 out of 4 GS on grass...it is human stupidity, of course.

Of course you can think whatever you want about a tennis player, but if this kind of arguing is the " truth", I just cannot stand it.Experience and feeling for the game are two assets to judge any player greatness, that is the only think I mean.

 

[kiki]

And yet, kiki think it's completely fair to say this...


LOL..
LOL again.

I exagerated a bit on purpose that Laver would beat Federer usually.I think he´d win more than he´d lose but it would be real close.I did it on purpose because calling Ferrer - a honest man and good player, nothing against him- in the same league as Laver is just bizarre and ridiculous.

It´s the same as if I start a thread like " Who would win between Federer and any other player of his height" and then use added up arguments to imply there is something that justifies it.

 

[TMF]

Let's get back to the topic before we were rudely interrupted by 2 posters.


Today's marks the 3rd meeting of Fed v. Rafa at the Year End Championship. Once again, this match is so hype up, and i'm sure the match will be a treat to all tennis lovers. I think it's safe to say they are the greatest rivalry in men tennis. Notice almost all of their meeting are in the finals, not early round meetings like many old rivalries. Finals match bring more hype, drama and excitement. In fact, the winner became the eventual champion, and the reason why they were(and still) the #1 and #2 vs. against the field. Also, their meeting are mostly on BIG tournaments. When you look back at all of their matches, the only small tourney is a Dubai(atp 500), and the rest were either at the slams, MS, and WTF.

Folks, Fed v. Nadal is equivalent to a Lakers v. Celtics in basketball(all were in the finals !). It simply that good.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Let's get back to the topic before we were rudely interrupted by 2 posters.


Today's marks the 3rd meeting of Fed v. Rafa at the Year End Championship. Once again, this match is so hype up, and i'm sure the match will be a treat to all tennis lovers. I think it's safe to say they are the greatest rivalry in men tennis. Notice almost all of their meeting are in the finals, not early round meetings like many old rivalries. Finals match bring more hype, drama and excitement. In fact, the winner became the eventual champion, and the reason why they were(and still) the #1 and #2 vs. against the field. Also, their meeting are mostly on BIG tournaments. When you look back at all of their matches, the only small tourney is a Dubai(atp 500), and the rest were either at the slams, MS, and WTF.

Folks, Fed v. Nadal is equivalent to a Lakers v. Celtics in basketball(all were in the finals !). It simply that good.

If they can keep it up for another 10-12 years, they'll get close to Evert/Navratilova. But, they'll still be no where near Laver/Rosewall.

 

[chrischris]

what do you guys think?

greatest RIVALry of all time? Gotta be Me vs. me.

 

[Mustard]

Here's the updated Nadal vs. Federer head-to-head.

Rafael Nadal 14-8 Roger Federer
2004 Miami R32: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 6-3)
2005 Miami F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (2-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 6-1)
2005 French Open SF: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3)
2006 Dubai F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (2-6, 6-4, 6-4)
2006 Monte Carlo F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-2, 6-7, 6-3, 7-6)
2006 Rome F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 2-6, 7-6)
2006 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6)
2006 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3)
2006 Masters Cup SF: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-4, 7-5)
2007 Monte Carlo F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 6-4)
2007 Hamburg F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (2-6, 6-2, 6-0)
2007 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)
2007 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2)
2007 Masters Cup SF: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-4, 6-1)
2008 Monte Carlo F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-5)
2008 Hamburg F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 6-7, 6-3)
2008 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)
2008 Wimbledon F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7)
2009 Australian Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2)
2009 Madrid F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-4, 6-4)
2010 Madrid F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 7-6)
2010 World Tour Finals F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-3, 3-6, 6-1)

Hardcourt: 4-3 to Federer
Clay: 10-2 to Nadal
Grass: 2-1 to Federer
Carpet: 0-0
In Slams: 6-2 to Nadal

 

[chrischris]

On 2nd thought .. It is Big old school business Vs Basic Science.

 

[hoodjem]

TMF versus Limpinhitter.

 

[TMF]

If they can keep it up for another 10-12 years, they'll get close to Evert/Navratilova. But, they'll still be no where near Laver/Rosewall.

I'm talking about the men's tennis, not including women's tennis. Do you ever hear fans compared NBA to the WNBA? Didn't think so.

As I was right all along...the final match between Rafa/Fed was incredible. Leaving us with jaw dropping shotmaking from both players. You don't see this kind of quality tennis from the past. The sell out crowd earned every dime they spent to see this match.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I'm talking about the men's tennis, not including women's tennis. Do you ever hear fans compared NBA to the WNBA? Didn't think so.

As I was right all along...the final match between Rafa/Fed was incredible. Leaving us with jaw dropping shotmaking from both players. You don't see this kind of quality tennis from the past. The sell out crowd earned every dime they spent to see this match.

This thread is about all rivalries, men's and woman's, and both have been discussed throught this thread. If you want to sequester the subject of men's rivalries, you should start a new thread.

 

[BTURNER]

The Evert- Navratilova and Rosewall - Laver rivalries are in a league of their own for scope and depth. Others were as fascinating, full of drama, and complexity but just did not manage to be so, for as long or through so many twists and turns.

 

[TMF]

This thread is about all rivalries, men's and woman's, and both have been discussed throught this thread. If you want to sequester the subject of men's rivalries, you should start a new thread.

Please read the OP's post and his poll...there's only men's tennis players and their rivalry. My original post today was about rafa/fed are the best rivalry in men's tennis. You can't stay on topic b/c you know it's hard to dispute.

 

[Mick]

in the ESPN documentary "unmatched" navratilova and Evert said they had the greatest rivalry because they faced each other on the tennis courts 80 times!!!

 

[BTURNER]

in the ESPN documentary "unmatched" navratilova and Evert said they had the greatest rivalry because they faced each other on the tennis courts 80 times!!!

yep and had three more of those matches gone for Evert, it would have been a dead heat tie! Pretty close for a span of 16 years. 16 occasions were semifinal meetings with 8 of those being in majors. 62 of those matches were final meetings and 14 were major finals. The difference leaves a couple of RR tourneys 1 rd of 32 and rd of 16, + 2 QF.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Please read the OP's post and his poll...there's only men's tennis players and their rivalry. My original post today was about rafa/fed are the best rivalry in men's tennis. You can't stay on topic b/c you know it's hard to dispute.

You misinterpreted my post. I'm not disputing that Fad/Ralph is the best rivalry in men's tennis, today. It just pales in comparison to many great rivalries of the past.

 

[pc1]

yep and had three more of those matches gone for Evert, it would have been a dead heat tie! Pretty close for a span of 16 years. 16 occasions were semifinal meetings with 8 of those being in majors. 62 of those matches were final meetings and 14 were major finals. The difference leaves a couple of RR tourneys 1 rd of 32 and rd of 16, + 2 QF.

One point that a friend of mine brought up in favor of Evert (and bear in mind he is an Evert fan) is that Martina played with composite rackets for about 10 or so matches while Evert played with a wood racket. That's clearly a major advantage for Navratilova. I think Martina won all ten matches in the middle of beating Evert thirteen in a row.

Interesting point. Would it have made a difference? I don't know but it could have.

 

[maxplymac]

If Nalbandian wasn't such a fitness midget we'd be talking about how epic the Federer/Nalbandian was. It's a shame that Rafa is even in the mix.

 

[borg number one]

One point that a friend of mine brought up in favor of Evert (and bear in mind he is an Evert fan) is that Martina played with composite rackets for about 10 or so matches while Evert played with a wood racket. That's clearly a major advantage for Navratilova. I think Martina won all ten matches in the middle of beating Evert thirteen in a row.

Interesting point. Would it have made a difference? I don't know but it could have.

I think that made a big difference PC1. Navratilova was playing with large Yonex frames, while Evert stuck with a Wilson wood frame, before going to the Pro Staff. Navratilova was constantly taking the net, thereby smartly capitalizing on that technological edge.

 

[hoodjem]

I remember back in the 80s playing against a high school player who had a graphite Pro Staff, while I was still using a Jack Kramer Pro Staff woodie. His balls would practically rattle the racquet out of my hand when I returned them they had so much pace.

Once I switched to a Pro Staff SV also, I beat him readily.

 

[borg number one]

I remember back in the 80s playing against a high school player who had a graphite Pro Staff, while I was still using a Jack Kramer Pro Staff woodie. His balls would practically rattle the racquet out of my hand when I returned them they had so much pace.

Once I switched to a Pro Staff SV also, I beat him readily.

Thanks for sharing that. I was amazed too Hoodjem. When I hit with a Wilson Ultra and a Pro Staff, my jaw dropped. I looked at my best friend and started laughing, literally. He was using a Pro Staff and had tennis elbow in about 6 months after hitting with one strung with all gut. He switched to the Pro Staff, and loved it. I went from a Head Vector (metal) to the small midsize Wilson graphite frames (Ultra, Pro Staff, Sting), with all gut. The power boost was HUGE, in my opinion. I did love that Vector though, strung with red VS Africord gut strings. That was a nice frame actually.

 

[maxplymac]

I think that made a big difference PC1. Navratilova was playing with large Yonex frames, while Evert stuck with a Wilson wood frame, before going to the Pro Staff. Navratilova was constantly taking the net, thereby smartly capitalizing on that technological edge.

LOL...yeah that R-7 with the sweetspot the size of a watermelon. Then the much-improved R-22...a racquet you could take on the court today and beat a top D1 College player wielding his monkey-stick Babolat.

 

[TMF]

You misinterpreted my post. I'm not disputing that Fad/Ralph is the best rivalry in men's tennis, today. It just pales in comparison to many great rivalries of the past.

This statement is just as bad as saying "Rosewall would have destroyed Rafa". If you want posters in here take you seriously, you need to be objective, which you have a long way to go.

 

[Limpinhitter]

This statement is just as bad as saying "Rosewall would have destroyed Rafa". If you want posters in here take you seriously, you need to be objective, which you have a long way to go.

- My knowledge and objectivity are manifestly apparent to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of tennis. Having said that, I don't much care about what the majority of TT members, who are children on the internet, think. I'll take the criticism of the few grown-ups on TT a little more seriously.

- Further, my position is supported by a majority of tennis fans, commentators and players who actually know about tennis.

- Moreover, I never said Rosewall would destroy Ralph, to the contrary, I said Ralph would probably have an overall winning record against Rosewall, and your implication to the contrary is yet another misrepresentation.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I think that made a big difference PC1. Navratilova was playing with large Yonex frames, while Evert stuck with a Wilson wood frame, before going to the Pro Staff. Navratilova was constantly taking the net, thereby smartly capitalizing on that technological edge.

Navratilova used a wood Yonex as late as the 1980 Wimbledon finals against Evert.

 

[TMF]

- My knowledge and objectivity are manifestly apparent to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of tennis. Having said that, I don't much care about what the majority of TT members, who are children on the internet, think. I'll take the criticism of the few grown-ups on TT a little more seriously.

- Further, my position is supported by a majority of tennis fans, commentators and players who actually know about tennis.

- Moreover, I never said Rosewall would destroy Ralph, to the contrary, I said Ralph would probably have an overall winning record against Rosewall, and your implication to the contrary is yet another misrepresentation.

I disagree, most members in this forum are an adult, not children. In fact, children are very unlikely to visit this forum, but they rather visit Facebook, Myspace...

I’m sorry but your position is NOT supported by most of the tennis fans. That is the fact.

I didn’t say you said "Rosewall would have destroyed Rafa"(it was Manus Domini), but I compared your extreme bias statement to this one, which is just as bad.

 

[pc1]

I think that made a big difference PC1. Navratilova was playing with large Yonex frames, while Evert stuck with a Wilson wood frame, before going to the Pro Staff. Navratilova was constantly taking the net, thereby smartly capitalizing on that technological edge.

I remember back in the 80s playing against a high school player who had a graphite Pro Staff, while I was still using a Jack Kramer Pro Staff woodie. His balls would practically rattle the racquet out of my hand when I returned them they had so much pace.

Once I switched to a Pro Staff SV also, I beat him readily.

I loaned a friend of mine a mid sized graphite racket when he was using an old regular sized wood racket. Now my friend wasn't that good a player but it was incredible the difference in his groundstrokes just from switching to my racket.

From my own hacker's perspective I hit with more power and topspin and I am more consistent now with today's rackets than I was when I was better physically with the old wood rackets or (horrors) a Rod Laver steel Chemold racket. I also found the change to be very easy and to change grips to a semi western grip is pretty simple to maximize the effectiveness of the rackets. Again I can't imagine players like Laver, Gonzalez and Rosewall having any problems adjusting to today's rackets. It's just a little matter of practice but I don't think it would require that much practice.

 

[BTURNER]

I am sure the racket disparity was a huge reason for that long string of losses in 83 - 84. Evert took her sweet time getting used to being rid of wood.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I am sure the racket disparity was a huge reason for that long string of losses in 83 - 84. Evert took her sweet time getting used to being rid of wood.

I think Navratilova's maturity, confidence and ability to gain control over her emotions played a much bigger role in her results vs Evert than her racquet.

 

[pmerk34]

I am sure the racket disparity was a huge reason for that long string of losses in 83 - 84. Evert took her sweet time getting used to being rid of wood.

Why the knock on Evert? She struggled trying to switch as did many pro's in those years and she has written and commented on how had it was for her. She had been using and winning with wood since the juniors. Her game was based on placement and patience and she was used to the feel of her wood frames.

 

[BTURNER]

I think Navratilova's maturity, confidence and ability to gain control over her emotions played a much bigger role in her results vs Evert than her racquet.

And lets not forget her getting into extreme physical shape so that she no longer lost to fatigue and could stay the fastest and strongest woman in the sort in the third set as well as the first.

 

[TMF]

I also want to add is both Fed-Nadal have a career slam. This is unique since no other rivalries in the past have both players won a career slam. Both fed/rafa are a terror in all surfaces, but some like andre/pete were only limited on certain surfaces.

 

[Greg]

This is a pretty flawed poll. McDonald's fries versus Wendy's fries needs to be added to this list.

 

[TMF]

This is a pretty flawed poll. McDonald's fries versus Wendy's fries needs to be added to this list.

B/c your favorite player have so little votes ?

I'm sorry but it's up to the fans who decide which rivalry they believe is the greatest.

 

[pc1]

I also want to add is both Fed-Nadal have a career slam. This is unique since no other rivalries in the past have both players won a career slam. Both fed/rafa are a terror in all surfaces, but some like andre/pete were only limited on certain surfaces.

I agree with that. While I looked forward to the Sampras and Agassi rivalry because it was often a matchup of number one versus number two I found that the difference in two styles to be boring to me usually as far as the rallies were concern. The matches never seemed to reach the epic quality of a number of Federer/Nadal matches. I think that a lot of it has to do with Agassi's inability to believe he could come back against Sampras. Sometimes you could see that Agassi felt he was beaten already in the first set.

Also Agassi is hardly known for his speed and when Sampras had him on the run, you weren't going to see winners that a Nadal or a Federer could pull off.

With Nadal and Federer, even if one player is moving the other all over the court the player on the defensive will often win the point by some great running winner. Both are very mobile players and have the ability to winner on any surface from almost any position.

Incidentally this description I gave of Nadal and Federer can also apply to the Laver and Rosewall rivalry. Excellent offensive and defensive players who are very mobile and can switch from defense to offensive. Lot of low sliced offensive lobs, drop shots, volleys, passing shots. Great movement.

 

[borg number one]

Navratilova did get in better shape by about 1983-1984. She was also mentally tougher by then, no longer "folding" as much at critical stages of matches. She was doing a lot of things better by then, and that included changing frames. This was a challenging period for players, as they had to adjust during a revolution in frames. By about 1983, there were literally some players playing with wood frames, perhaps a few playing with metal frames, and others having switched to graphite frames. She did use a small wood Yonex frame before she made the switch to the Yonex graphite composite frame shown below. I recall that both she and coach Mike Estep would be shown working out, hitting with these. I think he really helped her up her level of play. As for Evert, my point is that if she had been able to go to the Pro Staff earlier or some other graphite frame (not easy, but very doable, since she did make the switch in about 1984), then I do think that she would have competed much better versus Navratilova from about 1982-1984.

 

[Greg]

B/c your favorite player have so little votes ?

I'm sorry but it's up to the fans who decide which rivalry they believe is the greatest.

Uh.

Not sure if you're serious.

 

[TMF]

Uh.

Not sure if you're serious.

Listen, you have every right to have an opinion, but don't bash the poll result simply b/c most tennis fans differ from yours.

 

[powerangle]

I agree with that. While I looked forward to the Sampras and Agassi rivalry because it was often a matchup of number one versus number two I found that the difference in two styles to be boring to me usually as far as the rallies were concern. The matches never seemed to reach the epic quality of a number of Federer/Nadal matches. I think that a lot of it has to do with Agassi's inability to believe he could come back against Sampras. Sometimes you could see that Agassi felt he was beaten already in the first set.

Also Agassi is hardly known for his speed and when Sampras had him on the run, you weren't going to see winners that a Nadal or a Federer could pull off.

With Nadal and Federer, even if one player is moving the other all over the court the player on the defensive will often win the point by some great running winner. Both are very mobile players and have the ability to winner on any surface from almost any position.

Incidentally this description I gave of Nadal and Federer can also apply to the Laver and Rosewall rivalry. Excellent offensive and defensive players who are very mobile and can switch from defense to offensive. Lot of low sliced offensive lobs, drop shots, volleys, passing shots. Great movement.

Agreed. Sampras/Agassi slam final meetings were always straight set romps by Sampras (or maybe 4 sets at most, with the eventual result never in doubt). This was obviously due to the fact that their slam final meetings were on Sampras' preferred surfaces. Also, the length of their matches did not reach "epic quality".

Federer/Nadal had so many close encounters in finals, slams and otherwise. Rome 2006 was brilliant. And of course in the slams we have Wim 2007, Wim 2008, AO 2009.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Excellent pics BN1! Especially the one's of Martina's Yonex woodies!

 

[kiki]

If they can keep it up for another 10-12 years, they'll get close to Evert/Navratilova. But, they'll still be no where near Laver/Rosewall.

Right.And this is not interrupt the thread.

 

[Greg]

Listen, you have every right to have an opinion, but don't bash the poll result simply b/c most tennis fans differ from yours.

Did you read my post in its entirety?

Because I was attempting to make a funny, bromethius.

 

[kiki]

I'm talking about the men's tennis, not including women's tennis. Do you ever hear fans compared NBA to the WNBA? Didn't think so.

As I was right all along...the final match between Rafa/Fed was incredible. Leaving us with jaw dropping shotmaking from both players. You don't see this kind of quality tennis from the past. The sell out crowd earned every dime they spent to see this match.

Nadal lost easily.I cannot see what the greatness of this match was.And, " You don´t see...from the past" is, simply, because you never watched a great match of the past.

 

[kiki]

And lets not forget her getting into extreme physical shape so that she no longer lost to fatigue and could stay the fastest and strongest woman in the sort in the third set as well as the first.

This was the reason for her edge over Chris.The physical difference was so obvious.I think Martina worked a lot to improve her footwork and also to master how to play the angles.She was the equivalent of a Lendl or a Connors, who really were workhorses.

 

[kiki]

I also want to add is both Fed-Nadal have a career slam. This is unique since no other rivalries in the past have both players won a career slam. Both fed/rafa are a terror in all surfaces, but some like andre/pete were only limited on certain surfaces.

¿Did you ever wonder why they both have a CS and the big players of the 70,80 or 90 don´t ? it´s so simple to know if you know it....

 

[BTURNER]

Evert was quite a workhorse, and she was definitely improving aspects of her game all along. But they were the wrong ones for the Navratilova challenge until mid 1983. I suspect she still thought her huge threats were the Austin/ Jaeger brigade that caused her so much grief. So she worked on adding variety in her shots, more spins, more volleys to mix up her baseline game. Evert never had a stamina problem and her footwork was always technically great. She needed to do strength and sprinting work.

 

[Chenry]

federer /nadal rivalry has the best tennis.
However, sampras/agassi seems a bit more hostile

 

[TMF]

¿Did you ever wonder why they both have a CS and the big players of the 70,80 or 90 don´t ? it´s so simple to know if you know it....

You are going to have to do better than this to counter my argument. Fact is, fed/rafa are versatile on all surfaces and they challenge one another for the title. That's one important criteria in determine who's the greatest rivalry. And as much as i love borg/mac rivalry, but they never consider a rivalry on clay, neither was pete/andre, and rosewall/laver were competing on 2 surfaces at the slam. Big difference.

 

[Mustard]

Agreed. Sampras/Agassi slam final meetings were always straight set romps by Sampras (or maybe 4 sets at most, with the eventual result never in doubt). This was obviously due to the fact that their slam final meetings were on Sampras' preferred surfaces. Also, the length of their matches did not reach "epic quality".

Federer/Nadal had so many close encounters in finals, slams and otherwise. Rome 2006 was brilliant. And of course in the slams we have Wim 2007, Wim 2008, AO 2009.

Here are all the matches of the Sampras/Agassi and Federer/Nadal rivalries:

Pete Sampras 20-14 Andre Agassi
1989 Rome R32: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-1)
1990 Philadelphia R16: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (5-7, 7-5 ret.)
1990 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
1990 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-2)
1991 World Championships RR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 1-6, 6-3)
1992 Atlanta F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 6-4)
1992 French Open QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-2, 6-1)
1993 Wimbledon QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4)
1994 Miami F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (5-7, 6-3, 6-3)
1994 Osaka SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-1)
1994 Paris Indoor QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5)
1994 World Championships SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (4-6, 7-6, 6-3)
1995 Australian Open F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4)
1995 Indian Wells F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-5, 6-3, 7-5)
1995 Miami F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-2, 7-6)
1995 Montreal F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-2, 6-3)
1995 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5)
1996 San Jose F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-3)
1996 Stuttgart Indoor QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-1)
1996 World Championships RR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-1)
1998 San Jose F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-4)
1998 Monte Carlo R32: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 7-5)
1998 Toronto QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-1, 6-2)
1999 Wimbledon F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
1999 Los Angeles F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-6, 7-6)
1999 Cincinnati SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-6, 6-4)
1999 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-2)
1999 World Championships F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-1, 7-5, 6-4)
2000 Australian Open SF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-1)
2001 Indian Wells F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5, 6-1)
2001 Los Angeles F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-2)
2001 US Open QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-7, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6)
2002 Houston SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-1, 7-5)
2002 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4)

Hardcourt: 11-9 to Sampras
Clay: 3-2 to Agassi
Grass: 2-0 to Sampras
Carpet: 5-2 to Sampras
In Slams: 6-3 to Sampras


Rafael Nadal 14-8 Roger Federer
2004 Miami R32: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 6-3)
2005 Miami F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (2-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 6-1)
2005 French Open SF: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3)
2006 Dubai F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (2-6, 6-4, 6-4)
2006 Monte Carlo F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-2, 6-7, 6-3, 7-6)
2006 Rome F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 2-6, 7-6)
2006 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6)
2006 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3)
2006 Masters Cup SF: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-4, 7-5)
2007 Monte Carlo F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 6-4)
2007 Hamburg F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (2-6, 6-2, 6-0)
2007 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)
2007 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2)
2007 Masters Cup SF: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-4, 6-1)
2008 Monte Carlo F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-5)
2008 Hamburg F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 6-7, 6-3)
2008 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)
2008 Wimbledon F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7)
2009 Australian Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2)
2009 Madrid F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-4, 6-4)
2010 Madrid F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 7-6)
2010 World Tour Finals F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-3, 3-6, 6-1)

Hardcourt: 4-3 to Federer
Clay: 10-2 to Nadal
Grass: 2-1 to Federer
Carpet: 0-0
In Slams: 6-2 to Nadal

 

[Limpinhitter]

That Agassi/Sampras 2000 AO SF was some of the highest level tennis ever played! Stunning, brute backcourt power!