Is Nadal-Djokovic greater than Sampras-Agassi?

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Is the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry greater than the Sampras-Agassi rivalry?

Currently, Nadal leads Djokovic 19-14 in the h2h, and Sampras leads Agassi 20-14 in the h2h (Nadal is only one win away from tying the Sampras-Agassi h2h). Stats-

Nadal-Djokovic

Nadal leads 12-2 on clay (4-0 in clay slams)
Nadal leads 2-1 on grass (1-1 in grass slams)
Djokovic leads 11-5 on hard-courts (leads 2-1 in hard-court slams)
Nadal leads 19-14 overall, 6-3 in slams

Sampras-Agassi

Agassi leads 3-2 on clay (1-0 in clay slams)
Sampras leads 2-0 on grass (2-0 in grass slams)
Sampras leads 5-2 on carpet
Sampras leads 11-9 on hard-court (4-2 in hard-court slams)
Sampras leads 20-14 overall, 6-3 in slams

Is the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry a lot like the Sampras-Agassi rivalry, and if so, is Nadal-Djokovic better?

 

[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.

 

[90's Clay]

Agassi-Sampras was much more exciting to watch due to the contrast of styles between the two. They also were legit contemporaries who's prime/peaks coincided with each other. While Nole/Nadal really didn't. We also got to see the rivalry on ALL Surfaces (Fast and slow alike). It was also a rivalry that stretched for 12 years (1990-2002)

Nole-Nadal has definitely been the best rivalry of the modern era IMO (2004 or 2005-present) but certainly wasn't better or greater then Pete-Andre though IMO

 

[billnepill]

Hard to compare

What makes a rivalry better? Is it the hype it produces and its effects on collective memory? Or an equation of players greatness and level of tennis?

 

[Cup8489]

LOL AT THIS THREAD.

To say that Djokodal is better than Samprassi is just.. absurd. Pure absurdity.

 

[kishnabe]

Would watch these rivalties than a Djokovic Murray rivalry.

 

[NadalAgassi]

No. Contrast of styles is what makes the best rivalries. That is why Evert vs Navratilova is by far the best rivalry ever man or women. The best female serve and volleyer ever vs the best female baseliner ever, how can it get any better htan that. It is also why Sampras vs Agassi, Borg vs McEnroe, Laver vs Rosewall, Serena vs Henin, Hingis vs Davenport were such great rivalries, the contrasting games. Djokovic and Nadal are almost identical players, so definitely not providing that contrast. The best rivalry for men in the last 10 years for sure, easily better than the overhyped Federer vs Nadal rivalry, but far from the best ever.

 

[billnepill]

No. Contrast of styles is what makes the best rivalries. That is why Evert vs Navratilova is by far the best rivalry ever man or women. The best female serve and volleyer ever vs the best female baseliner ever, how can it get any better htan that. It is also why Sampras vs Agassi, Borg vs McEnroe, Laver vs Rosewall, Serena vs Henin, Hingis vs Davenport were such great rivalries, the contrasting games. Djokovic and Nadal are almost identical players, so definitely not providing that contrast. The best rivalry for men in the last 10 years for sure, easily better than the overhyped Federer vs Nadal rivalry, but far from the best ever.

If we follow the logic of contrasting styles being a determinant in placing rivalries in historical comparison, Fedal has a better claim than Djokodal. That's the conclusion of what you stated.

 

[forzamilan90]

Sampras-Agassi rivalry is better

 

[NadalAgassi]

If we follow the logic of contrasting styles being a determinant in placing rivalries in historical comparison, Fedal has a better claim than Djokodal. That's the conclusion of what you stated.

Federer and Nadal have some contrast but still not that much (both are hardcore baseliners, who like to control points with the forehand) and the many other things which make their matchup not an enticing one make them not that good a rivalry, along with that Federer is pretty much Nadal's pigeon.

 

[forzamilan90]

Federer and Nadal have some contrast but still not that much (both are hardcore baseliners, who like to control points with the forehand) and the many other things which make their matchup not an enticing one make them not that good a rivalry, along with that Federer is pretty much Nadal's pigeon.

on clay...

 

[NadalAgassi]

on clay...

8-2 in slams, 5-0 on clay, 3-2 off clay, 8-2 overall with equal # of matches on vs off clay. Sorry pigeon, end of story, not even going to entertain another long winded **** denial of this reality again.

 

[forzamilan90]

8-2 in slams, 5-0 on clay, 3-2 off clay, 8-2 overall with equal # of matches on vs off clay. Sorry pigeon, end of story, not even going to entertain another long winded **** denial of this reality again.

Clay courts: Nadal, 12–2
Hard courts: Federer, 6–5
Indoor: Federer, 4–0
Outdoor: Nadal, 5–2
Grass courts: Federer, 2–1


Sorry, not going to listen to another **** denial of this reality again

 

[billnepill]

Federer and Nadal have some contrast but still not that much (both are hardcore baseliners, who like to control points with the forehand) and the many other things which make their matchup not an enticing one make them not that good a rivalry, along with that Federer is pretty much Nadal's pigeon.

So it's not all about contrasting styles as you threw in there a couple more factors- Excitement and competitiveness.

Let's take the "pigeon" and excitement part. In hindsight you could argue that the outcome of matches is easy to predict but in 2008 I doubt you would say that. At that point the h2h was 8-6 and the rivalry looked promising. Nadal and Federer are the biggest tennis stars by far and their encounters never lacked excitement and a lot of hype. In my view there is a bigger picture to a rivalry than h2h as well. Those players battle for the number 1 position and overall domination of the sport. The way they play, practice, what they focus on in their game etc it's partly done to beat their rival. That made Nadal become a better player on all surfaces and he finally got to Federer on the big non clay events.

Therefore, I view your criteria for a rivalry as too simplistic and your evaluation of Fedal as an understatement. However, I agree that contrasting styles is an important consideration albeit perhaps not be most important one.

 

[NadalAgassi]

denial of this reality again

The only denial is from ****s. 18-10 and 8-2 in slams is a pigeon. There is no way around it and whining and making excuses about it will change nothing. Even the experts of the game who lovesick ****s love to quote endlessly calling Federer the GOAT always mention when Nadal plays Federer "and Nadal has owned Federer over the years". In the real World that is what everyone feels and knows, and denial about it will never change it.

 

[NadalAgassi]

So it's not all about contrasting styles as you threw in there a couple more factors- Excitement and competitiveness.

Let's take the "pigeon" and excitement part. In hindsight you could argue that the outcome of matches is easy to predict but in 2008 I doubt you would say that. At that point the h2h was 8-6 and the rivalry looked promising. Nadal and Federer are the biggest tennis stars by far and their encounters never lacked excitement and a lot of hype. In my view there is a bigger picture to a rivalry than h2h as well. Those players battle for the number 1 position and overall domination of the sport. The way they play, practice, what they focus on in their game etc it's partly done to beat their rival. That made Nadal become a better player on all surfaces and he finally got to Federer on the big non clay events.

Therefore, I view your criteria for a rivalry as too simplistic and your evaluation of Fedal as an understatement. However, I agree that contrasting styles is an important consideration albeit perhaps not be most important one.

Nadal and Federer do not produce the best matches except their grass matches at Wimbledon in 2007 and 2008, and to a lesser degree the Australian Open 2009. Clay is boring, Nadal dominance, and tons of unforced errors, especialy from Federer who foolishly tries to outrally Nadal on a slow clay court. Even if the scorelines were similar Djokovic-Nadal were already producing way better quality clay court matches as far back as 07 and 08. Indoors is also boring, Federer dominance, and only 1 decent but not unbelievable match, the 2010 WTF. Outdoor hard courts hasnt been great either, only 1 match in a slam and only a couple pretty good encounters.

I fail to see a single thing other than hype that would make their rivalry even close to the best.

There also was hardly ever a great number 1 battle. Before 2008 Nadal was far too weak on hard courts to even come close to being number 1 so there was no battle. From 2008 onwards Nadal was always going to be number 1 unless he went through a long period being injured, until Djokovic came along. Still no great battle.

 

[forzamilan90]

The only denial is from ****s. 18-10 and 8-2 in slams is a pigeon. There is no way around it and whining and making excuses about it will change nothing. Even the experts of the game who lovesick ****s love to quote endlessly calling Federer the GOAT always mention when Nadal plays Federer "and Nadal has owned Federer over the years". In the real World that is what everyone feels and knows, and denial about it will never change it.

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.

 

[TMF]

So it's not all about contrasting styles as you threw in there a couple more factors- Excitement and competitiveness.

Let's take the "pigeon" and excitement part. In hindsight you could argue that the outcome of matches is easy to predict but in 2008 I doubt you would say that. At that point the h2h was 8-6 and the rivalry looked promising. Nadal and Federer are the biggest tennis stars by far and their encounters never lacked excitement and a lot of hype. In my view there is a bigger picture to a rivalry than h2h as well. Those players battle for the number 1 position and overall domination of the sport. The way they play, practice, what they focus on in their game etc it's partly done to beat their rival. That made Nadal become a better player on all surfaces and he finally got to Federer on the big non clay events.

Therefore, I view your criteria for a rivalry as too simplistic and your evaluation of Fedal as an understatement. However, I agree that contrasting styles is an important consideration albeit perhaps not be most important one.

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/...ries/slide/don-budge-and-gottfried-von-cramm/

 

[TERRASTAR18]

So it's not all about contrasting styles as you threw in there a couple more factors- Excitement and competitiveness.

Let's take the "pigeon" and excitement part. In hindsight you could argue that the outcome of matches is easy to predict but in 2008 I doubt you would say that. At that point the h2h was 8-6 and the rivalry looked promising. Nadal and Federer are the biggest tennis stars by far and their encounters never lacked excitement and a lot of hype. In my view there is a bigger picture to a rivalry than h2h as well. Those players battle for the number 1 position and overall domination of the sport. The way they play, practice, what they focus on in their game etc it's partly done to beat their rival. That made Nadal become a better player on all surfaces and he finally got to Federer on the big non clay events.

Therefore, I view your criteria for a rivalry as too simplistic and your evaluation of Fedal as an understatement. However, I agree that contrasting styles is an important consideration albeit perhaps not be most important one.

it's a rivalry due to the media but not in actual play......rafa has an 8 win advantage over fed. it we accept that, we might as well accept 18-8 fed-hewitt, or berdych fed which is 5-11, and lets not forget 11-9 murray-fed. then it kinda waters down rivalries.

 

[NadalAgassi]

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/...ries/slide/don-budge-and-gottfried-von-cramm/

1. Saying Nadal and Federer is not the best rivalry is not putting Federer down, it simply isnt close to the best rivalry, period. I would like to say it is if it were true, and that Nadal owned the best rivalry ever, but that is far from the case.

2. The best you can do is some cheesy blog which any random know who on the internet could make, which lists Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs as one of the top 10 rivalries all time. LOL ok!

 

[billnepill]

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/...ries/slide/don-budge-and-gottfried-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]

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-greatest-rivalries-in-tennis/

 

[kiki]

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

 

[forzamilan90]

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-greatest-rivalries-in-tennis/

obviously....

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

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]

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]

Even head to head between Federer and Nadal

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]

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]

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/...ries/slide/don-budge-and-gottfried-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[veroniquem]

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.

I agree about grass. That's where Fed/Nadal has been the most exciting. I've said so myself but it's only happened over 3 years. Nothing since 2008. Too bad.
I disagree about AO. The 1 match Nadal/Djoko played was tighter, more spectacular and every bit as high quality and the 5th set was superior to the 5th set Nadal played vs Fed in 2009. In 2012, there wasn't even a 5th set in the match vs Fed.
At RG, Fed/Nadal were good matches, no doubt. In clay masters, Djoko/Nadal have usually been intense and very high quality though. Djoko has pushed Nadal in M-C and Madrid more than Fed imo and unlike Fed, he has beaten him in Rome
At USO: nothing. At WTF: very one sided.
Once again, it's not to say that Fed/Nadal was "uninteresting", of course not but it was limited in both time and scope. Djoko/Nadal is not just about quantity. Not only has it happened everywhere but the level of play has been amazing. The Olympics match was thrilling. The USO matches were fantastic. The 2009 Madrid match was insane. The AO match was historic. I couldn't disagree more about their encounters in general lacking in quality. The Fed encounters were quality ones too, you're right about that but not on all surfaces and in all events like Djoko and Nadal have been.

 

[abmk]

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.

oh really ? agassi never had a chance vs sampras @ the USO ?

90 - favorite coming into the final .. had been to the RG final that year ...sampras was a relative nobody until that USO

95 - agassi won what , 26 matches in a row that summer coming into the final ....... had beaten sampras in one of the tourneys before the USO, had beaten him @ the AO

2001 - sampras had no titles for more than an year at that stage and had slumped in the rankings. agassi OTOH was #2

2002- sampras' situation coming into the USO was even worse than before; he had lost to LL bastl @ wimbledon ....was titleless for 2+ years ...

 

[timnz]

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

He was 20. Way past being in school.

 

[veroniquem]

oh really ? agassi never had a chance vs sampras @ the USO ?

90 - favorite coming into the final .. had been to the RG final that year ...sampras was a relative nobody until that USO

95 - agassi won what , 26 matches in a row that summer coming into the final ....... had beaten sampras in one of the tourneys before the USO, had beaten him @ the AO

2001 - sampras had no titles for more than an year at that stage and had slumped in the rankings. agassi OTOH was #2

2002- sampras' situation coming into the USO was even worse than before; he had lost to LL bastl @ wimbledon ....was titleless for 2+ years ...

I didn't mean before the match started. I meant when you watched the match, you understood Sampras would win from almost the get-go. His serve is vastly superior to Agassi's and that's crucial on fast surfaces.

 

[helloworld]

He was 20. Way past being in school.

Nadal was still a school boy in terms of grass experience when he first played Federer on grass, yet he took Federer to 4 sets in his first try.

 

[Towser83]

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.

With a 5 year age difference and a number of other factors there isn't a really fair balance of meetings across surfaces/primes etc. Nadal and Federer were never really prime at the same time, but at least on grass they played a slam in Fed's prime and in Nadal's too. Even if they don't match up. On HC is slams that never happened.

Sorry but you're saying Nadal was too young at Wimbledon (2 years before he won it) but Federer is not too old at the AO 2012 2 years after he last won that? Do you also not get that IW is a best of 3? Or that Federer can still play well but not as consistantly (lost the next event to his pigeon Roddick) and certainly not on slow HC over best of 5? Also Wimbledon is on grass. If surfaces don't matter then how comes Nadal was too young in 2006 when he won RG a year earlier? Wimbledon is still a better surface for Federer than the AO especially when facing Djokovic. Murray hadn't even beaten Federer in a slam up til this year so Murray is no Nadal. Federer did play better in parts of 2012 than he had for a few years but that doesn't mean his level was as consistantly high as his best days.

Nadal was only 17 at Miami 2005 yes. And old Fed beat peak Nadal at IW. So "quite even" But neither were slams and I'm talking about their HC slam H2H. In best of 5 like a slam Miami 2005 Federer won. Btw if Nadal was such a schoolboy in 2006 How comes he beat Federer at Miami 2004? Since he was a good enough schoolboy to beat him in 2004 all your "schoolboy" excuses for losing wimby 2006 don't fly. Either he was good enough to beat him or he wasn't. Unless best of 3 and best of 5 are somehow different??

And I agree Federer's ground game was very good in 2009 AO, I'm not actually saying he was too old but he was slightly past his best. It doesn't really matter even if he lost in his prime, but the point is that was the FIRST time they ever played in a HC slam. It wasn't like RG where they played several times from 2005, or Wimbledon where they played from 2006. 2009 was probably Federer's last realistic chance to beat Nadal in a slam as he was still playing pretty well. If they played from 2005-2012 Federer wouldn't have 0 wins in HC slams. But he got shot number 1 in 2009. If you honestly think 2012 Federer hadn't lost anything there's not even any point talking to you anymore. He hasn't been a contender for the AO for a few years now (even in 2010 i was surprised he won)

 

[OrangePower]

How did this thread become about the Fed / Nadal rivalry? :???:

OP asked about Rafa / Djoker vs Sampras / Agassi, which is a valid question.

Anyway, Sampras / Agassi rivalry is far superior for a couple of reasons:

1. Contrasting styles: great server vs great returner, S&V vs aggressive baseliner, etc. Rafa and Djokovic are both baseline grinders (ok, maybe grinders is too harsh, but you know what I mean - they are more alike than different in style).

2. Competitive on most popular surface: Sampras and Agassi played most of their matches on hard courts, where they have a close to even record. Contrast with Nadal / Djokovic, where they have played a lot on both clay and hard, and Nadal owns Djokovic on clay, and Djokovic owns Nadal on hard. So pretty one-sided, with which side just depending on the surface.

 

[heninfan99]

Both rivalries are extremely boring. I mean the Sampras Agassi rivalry was totally manufactured --everyone one knew if Sampras had a decent day he would win. Sampras feared Goran way more.

Fed/Nadal is what the world wants to see.

 

[iradical18]

I think it's hard to say whether it's greater or not but I think the Sampras/Agassi rivalry was/is much more enjoyable to watch and displays greater skill.

 

[mattennis]

Personally I liked Sampras-Agassi more. Their baseline rallies were different because they both hit the ball so much flatter, and so it looks like they hit harder (the balls seemed to travel faster through its trajectory), and also because of faster conditions, the balls didn't lose THAT MUCH speed after the bounce.

I like Nadal-Djokovic a lot too, but sometimes I think they use too much top-spin in their shots, making it more like table-tennis rallies than what tennis rallies used to be.