Nadal vs. Nole, the greatest rivalry in sport history?

[Gonzalito17]

Opinion: Why Nadal vs. Djokovic might be the greatest sports rivalry ever

By Scoop Malinowski

I was having a text debate with my friend Hugo Armando, the former Delray Beach ATP doubles champ (with Xavier Malisse) about greatest sports rivalries.

I suggested Nadal vs. Djokovic, to which he commented “I would definitely put it in that category – Ali-Frazier, Bird-Magic, Sox-Yankees, Borg-McEnroe, Evert-Martina – but so hard to judge which is better or bigger.”

Which I countered with: “One on one and the continuous, high intensity, pure, ferocious battling of Rafa and Djokovic tops all.”

Baseball, basketball are fun and boxing is the ultimate one on one sport but Ali and Frazier only battled three times and two of their fights didn’t quite live up to the hype.

Nadal vs. Djokovic always lives up to the hype. Every match, every set, every game, every point seems to be contested at such a level of ferocity beyond anything we’ve seen in baseball, basketball or even boxing. These two force each other to go all out on every point. Even in boxing there is a lot of posing, posturing, and pacing. Not so in tennis, Rafa and Nole go after it on every ball. Every point…

I’ve seen all the modern rivalries you can mention and they’re all fun to watch in their own special ways, but there’s nothing like a great tennis rivalry, and Rafa vs. Djokovic is tops in my book.

43 times Rafa and Djokovic continue to fire away at each other, and the intensity levels and physicality of the matches continue to rise.

I know Dan is going to interject Borg vs. McEnroe as a better rivalry than this and it certainly was a terrific clash of styles and personalities, but remember the ending of that rivalry…Borg threw in the white towel of surrender and walked off into the sunset at age 26-27.

But Rafa and Djokovic are approaching 30 and still going at it, better than ever.


(Scoop’s new book “Facing Nadal: Symposium of a Champion” is now available at amazon for $9.99.)


http://www.tennis-prose.com/article...ic-might-be-the-greatest-sports-rivalry-ever/

 

[Mustard]

Still going on with those myths about Borg? He walked away because of politics, at a time (January 1983), when McEnroe held none of the big titles.

 

[Slice'n'dice]

I don't think it's that great a rivalry. People don't like Murray-Djokovic because it's too samey. Surely that applies here too. Djokovic-Federer is a much better rivalry the matches are much better.

Obviously Nadal-Federer are far too one sided. All things to consider.

 

[Gonzalito17]

I don't think it's that great a rivalry. People don't like Murray-Djokovic because it's too samey. Surely that applies here too. Djokovic-Federer is a much better rivalry the matches are much better.

Obviously Nadal-Federer are far too one sided. All things to consider.

Agree, Rafa always seemed to have Rog's number. Right from the get go and eventually mastered him on grass too. Fed vs. Djokovic is also an incredible rivalry, every match a fiercely contested almost personal grudge battle, though well disguised by both as just a regular match. Rafa vs. Djokovic is just a little bit more intense, because Rafa is better than Fed. But both very close.

 

[Gonzalito17]

Still going on with those myths about Borg? He walked away because of politics, at a time (January 1983), when McEnroe held none of the big titles.

Borg walked away because he couldn't beat McEnroe anymore, the loss at US Open was the final straw. Is this a misperception?

 

[vanioMan]

Fedal 2006-2009 >>> Rafole

 

[VexlanderPrime]

It's a fun rivalry, but I enjoy Fed-Djoker more. In my mind Sampras/Agassi was a bigger rivalry but that's not so much from the tennis as thier hatred of each other.

 

[King Fed WW]

Fedal is a greater sporting rivalry but Nole Nadal is probably a greater pure tennis rivalry.

Fedal 2006-2009 >>> Rafole

Yep, what happened after that doesn't take anything away.

Fedal was just an incredible rivalry in terms of what it brought, interest etc.

I saw a line recently about the 2008 Wimbledon final ''It was as if they were fighting for the very soul of tennis'' Yeah it did feel like that.

Those Sundays were special.

 

[Gonzalito17]

"Nobody should be number one who looks like he swung out of a tree." LOL

 

[Hollywood401k]

Djokodal is more a battles of nerves than skill. It's a nauseating thing at times. And if feels like a proxy war in a lot of ways. Agree with Fedal '06-'09 being far better in terms of quality and significance.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Nadal-Nole might be the best ever in terms of the number and magnitude of the big matches that they have played. I agree Nadal-Federer is too one sided to be considered the best ever. Aesthetically Federer-Djokovic is more interesting than either, but the matches they've played aren't significant enough in the history of the sport to be considered the greatest ever.

 

[mistik]

I am amazed how some people bring Fed Djoko match up as some kind big rivalry. They only played twice in a GS FİNAL one of them Novak as a baby and the other one Fed is already a grandfather in tennis terms. Real rivalry is Fed and Nadal Djokovic and Nadal . Novak will not be remembered as a player who used to be a huge rival of Fed. I still believe in their best days Fedal match up was one best and most interesting match up in the tennis history. Fedal match up only lost its importance and excitement when Fed hits the dirty 30 mark.

 

[Mustard]

Borg walked away because he couldn't beat McEnroe anymore, the loss at US Open was the final straw. Is this a misperception?

Borg announced his retirement from full-time tennis after more than a year of political disputes with the ITF. Borg played against McEnroe in some exhibition matches in 1982, winning in 4 sets in Sydney. In January 1983, McEnroe wasn't the reigning champion of any of the 4 majors, nor the Masters, nor the WCT Dallas event.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

I am amazed how some people bring Fed Djoko match up as some kind big rivalry. They only played once in a GS FİNAL at a time that Fed is already a grandfather in tennis terms. Real rivalry is Fed and Nadal Djokovic and Nadal . Novak will not be remembered as a player who used to be a huge rival of Fed. I still believe in their best days Fedal match up was the one best and most interesting match up in the tennis history. Fedal match up only lost its importance and excitement when Fed hits the dirty 30 mark.

Federer and Djokovic have actually played twice in GS finals, but I see what you're saying. Fed-Djok is more interesting to me than nadal-fed,djok-nadal because of the contrast of styles and how close it is, but nadal-fed and djok-nadal have played more 'high magnitude' matches.

 

[mistik]

Federer and Djokovic have actually played twice in GS finals, but I see what you're saying. Fed-Djok is more interesting to me than nadal-fed,djok-nadal because of the contrast of styles and how close it is, but nadal-fed and djok-nadal have played more 'high magnitude' matches.

Yeah ı corrected it but still Novak will not be remembered as a great rival of Fed. When Novak reached its peak in 2011 Fed already 30 years old.

 

[ScottleeSV]

Sorry, Nadal-Federer is still the best rivalry of all time for me. Nadal-Djoko may have a closer overall 'score', but in terms of tennis history and what it meant whenever Federer and Nadal played, you just can't compare. They played three five set GS finals. Nadal and Djoko have played just one.

Wimbledon 08 is widely recognised as the best final of all time, and the clash of styles was also important. Nadal and Djokovic aren't as similar as say, Djoko and Murray, but they're still from the same school of modern day grinding. When peak Federer played peak Nadal it was yin and yang, two complete opposites going in different directions. Two entirely different philosophies. Two slightly different eras, merging, somehow.

And deep down, each time they played, you knew it was going to contribute to whoever would one day finish top of the tree. With the slam count at 17-14, we still don't know yet whether Nadal's edge over Federer in h2h will prove crucial in getting him over the line. Djokovic is nowhere near the conversation though. He never has been. There was a point after he won Australia 2012 I thought he might go on a tear, but that never materialized.

Tomorrow's match, for instance; just doesn't carry the signifcance of a Federer/Nadal match...

Djokovic is playing for his career slam, but that's it.

Nadal is playing for GOAT.

 

[el sergento]

Way too boring a match-up to be considered the greatest. Yes, it's intense, yes there's a lot of running, yes it's physical, but it's sooooo one dimensional, it's more like watching the crossfit games than tennis. I find it hard to watch, but I'm not a closet masochist, also, I don't have 6 hours to watch a single match.

 

[vanioMan]

People who say that Fedal was predictable and boring probably haven't watched the following matches:

Miami 2005 F
Dubai 2006 F
Rome 2006 F
Roland Garros 2006 F
TMC 2006 SF
Roland Garros 2007 F
Wimbledon 2007 F
Hamburg 2008 F
Wimbledon 2008 F
Australian Open 2009 F
Cincinnati 2013 QF

and etc.

 

[TMF]

Still going on with those myths about Borg? He walked away because of politics, at a time (January 1983), when McEnroe held none of the big titles.

Had he won 1981 Wimbledon and maybe even the USO that year, who knows. He could play well in his 30s.

 

[mavsman149]

Djokovic-Nadal>>>>Federer-Nadal. Not even close in my opinion. From the sheer volume of times they have played, the fact that the head to head is actually close (probably the most important thing in a good rivalry IMO), the significance of their meeting has also been far more important than those of Federer-Nadal.

Yes the 07 and 08 Wimbledon finals were incredible tennis matches but that alone can't make it the greatest rivalry. Just like the 09 Wimbledon Final was an incredible match doesn't mean I consider Federer-Roddick a great rival

 

[ultradr]

Djokovic-Nadal>>>>Federer-Nadal.

+1.

Only rivarly I know of last 10+ years. Federer-Nadal was a bit too much one sided to be a rivarly.

 

[vanioMan]

Djokovic-Nadal>>>>Federer-Nadal. Not even close in my opinion. From the sheer volume of times they have played, the fact that the head to head is actually close (probably the most important thing in a good rivalry IMO), the significance of their meeting has also been far more important than those of Federer-Nadal.

U wot m8?

Please don't tell me you are serious.

Yes the 07 and 08 Wimbledon finals were incredible tennis matches but that alone can't make it the greatest rivalry. Just like the 09 Wimbledon Final was an incredible match doesn't mean I consider Federer-Roddick a great rival

->

People who say that Fedal was predictable and boring probably haven't watched the following matches:

Miami 2005 F
Dubai 2006 F
Rome 2006 F
Roland Garros 2006 F
TMC 2006 SF
Roland Garros 2007 F
Wimbledon 2007 F
Hamburg 2008 F
Wimbledon 2008 F
Australian Open 2009 F
Cincinnati 2013 QF

and etc.

 

[NatF]

Despite having a more even h2h Fedal has had more truly epic matches.

 

[Zoid]

Nadal Djokovic the greatest rivalry in sport? C'mon guys stop with the nonsense. Yes they have a very close head to head and they have tight battles, but it misses much of what a great rivalry needs.

- No contrast - aus open 2012 was literally the same point for 6 hours, I could count on one hand how many serve volley plays, and slice approaches there were in the whole match.

- less significance, Federer and nadal will always be remembered over this rivalry because they had the ingredients necessary - complete opposites in style of play - nadal and novak haven't played a match anywhere near the hype and quality Wimbledon 2008 brought. Not since McEnroe Borg have we seen a rivalry that got the public's attention and put tennis in the spotlight.

I break it down like this;

Federer v Djokovic play the best tennis IMO when they play, both guys attacking, playing up in the court and producing an insane quality of rally.

Federer v Nadal are the most exciting to watch, or were, rather, because if it wasn't on clay back then people really didn't know who was going to win, Rafa ended up with the h2h stat but many of the matches went 5 sets. Their contrast was so evident that it made every match a joy. Federer with the flair and aggression, a young Rafa scampering and whipping forehand passes from never before seen positions on the court. It was as if they played tennis on a completely different level to everyone else before them.

Djokovic v Nadal is the most energy sapping, or 'modern' rivalry. It's a lot less about skill and a lot more about movement, which is fine, but in my opinion this rivalry doesn't get people excited as others have - especially the casual fan. Too similar in style and too predictable - it's a fact that they will go out and both slug topspin the whole time from the baseline. Incredibly impressive movement, defence and hitting, but too bland IMO for the casual fan. As a player you definitely appreciate their movement and ability to hit amazing groundstrokes, but the casual observer tires of it.

 

[mistik]

Despite having a more even h2h Fedal has had more truly epic matches.

I also think like you. They have some of the most amazing matches ı have ever seen 2005 Miami final 2006 Rome final 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon finals and 2009 AO. Unlike the popular idea this was an exciting match up before Fed reached 30 years old mark.

 

[NatF]

I also think like you. They have some of the most amazing matches ı have ever seen 2005 Miami final 2006 Rome final 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon finals and 2009 AO. Unlike the popular idea this was an exciting match up before Fed reached 30 years old mark.

This. The problem with the Fedal rivalry is that Nadal won most of the close encounters but they had many truly great matches.

 

[TheTruth]

Fedal is the greatest rivalry of all time.

Federer and Nadal were both young, ambitious and driven.

Nole is catching Nadal towards the end of a decade of battling Federer, a player whose consistency and skills have been unparalleled in the history of the game.

Nole, during the period of their dominance did nothing. He cannot come in and reap the spoils after the two battle weary combatants are tired.

Nole should have been in the mix in order to even be compared to Fedal.

Preposterous.

 

[spinovic]

In terms of just the sporting competition aspect, it could very well be the greatest. The number of times they've played, the competitiveness, the momentum swings, etc. No other rivalry can quite match that, IMO. The closest would be Federer v Djokovic.

But, when it comes to greatest rivalries, the story is just as important, and this is where it falls short of some of the other great ones.

Federer/Nadal despite ultimately becoming lopsided was not always that way. Up through '09, they produced the most entertaining, high-level tennis I've ever seen. And, it was intensely competitive. But, aside from that, the story was so much better. You had the effortless artistry of Federer vs the roll-up-your sleeves, bulldog determination of Nadal. You had the aggressive, attacking all-around game of Federer vs the get every ball back, counter-punching styles of Nadal. You had Nadal trying to break Federer's domination of the sport and supplant him at #1. And, you had the dual storylines of Nadal trying conquer the grass court master, while Federer was attempting to do the same against the King of Clay.

Borg/McEnroe was similar in many ways. Contrast in styles and personalities. One guy trying to topple the king and break his stranglehold.

Bird v Magic from the NBA has it. The flashy, showtime Lakers, with the always smiling Magic Johnson running the show, living it up on the sunny California coast. The tough, gritty Celtics, lead by the hard-nosed, workmanlike Bird, coming the northeast where it's not all fun in the sun.

Those distinct contrasts and additional narratives make these rivalries seem like there is more at stake than just a match or a trophy. That is what truly makes a rivalry great. In this, Nadal/Djokovic just doesn't measure up. Their matchup has never felt like "something more" was at stake.

 

[Fate Archer]

I think the reason people may think Djokodal is a comparable or even greater rivalry is because it's a more even matchup as far as the actual in match dynamics go.

Sure, Fedal has produced excellent quality and unparalleled drama as both players, mostly Fed at the time, were chasing history. But the matchup and play dynamics were relatively one sided given the characteristics of both players, as play would often be dictated by Nadal's ability of hitting, finding and exploiting Federer's backhand.

There is no such thing, no easy way out for the Djokovic vs Nadal matchup. For either side. In the past Nadal could outlast a more inexperienced Novak due to significantly better fitness. Once Novak hit the turning point of 2010-2011, with his vast improvement of fitness and match stamina, there was no clear edge to either side, so their matches and the outcome would be outlined and decided by intensity, attrition and small technical adjustments from one or both.

Similar reason people regard Federer vs Novak highly. The nature and dynamics of the matchup are not only more even, but it many times seems to bring the best out of both players in terms of pure tennis display. Now as of late Stan and Novak have gone on a similar vein as well.

The Fedal rivalry will certainly be remembered as the bigger story because it is... but many who have been following not only this rivalry but tennis across the last two decades or so will probably tell you it's not where the best tennis would be found.

 

[ultradr]

Federer/Nadal despite ultimately becoming lopsided was not always that way. Up through '09, they produced the most entertaining, high-level tennis I've ever seen. And, it was intensely competitive. But, aside from that, the story was so much better. You had the effortless artistry of Federer vs the roll-up-your sleeves, bulldog determination of Nadal. You had the aggressive, attacking all-around game of Federer vs the get every ball back, counter-punching styles of Nadal. You had Nadal trying to break Federer's domination of the sport and supplant him at #1. And, you had the dual storylines of Nadal trying conquer the grass court master, while Federer was attempting to do the same against the King of Clay.

Borg/McEnroe was similar in many ways. Contrast in styles and personalities. One guy trying to topple the king and break his stranglehold.

I wouldn't compare "contrasting style" of Borg/McEnroe to that of Federer/Nadal.

Federer gave an impression of attacking all around player but he becomes much more defensive baseline dweller if pressured. At those pressured moment, Nadal was the one who takes risk and play all around. So I would label Nadal as more agressive all arounder at critical points.

In terms of game, Federer/Nadal are both power baseliner. In fact, I think Nadal is a better volleyer.

Federer and Nadal have contrast in strategy. Not the style. They both have aggressive serving game and conservative return game.

It's not like contrast of S&V vs baseliners of past rivarly.

 

[spinovic]

I wouldn't compare "contrasting style" of Borg/McEnroe to that of Federer/Nadal.

Federer gave an impression of attacking all around player but he becomes much more defensive baseline dweller if pressured. At those pressured moment, Nadal was the one who takes risk and play all around. So I would label Nadal as more agressive all arounder at critical points.

In terms of game, Federer/Nadal are both power baseliner. In fact, I think Nadal is a better volleyer.

Federer and Nadal have contrast in strategy. Not the style. They both have aggressive serving game and conservative return game.

It's not like contrast of S&V vs baseliners of past rivarly.

There are no serve-and-volley players in this era (at an elite level), so Federer and Nadal, IMO, presented a reasonable contrast for this era. For the narrative, perception is really all that matters really.

Additionally, as noted in my post, the contrast of those two went beyond on-court tactics. It was the style with which they played. In football terms, Nadal would have been physical, run-it-down-your-throat, while Federer would have been a finesse, spread-you-out and attack.

I don't think Nadal is a better volleyer. I think he's more selective.

In any case, there's no significant contrast with Djokovic and Nadal. Their rivalry lacks the great story of other ones to me. Same with Federer and Djokovic. On the court it is as good as any, but there's no special narrative to elevate it.

 

[spinovic]

I think the reason people may think Djokodal is a comparable or even greater rivalry is because it's a more even matchup as far as the actual in match dynamics go.

Sure, Fedal has produced excellent quality and unparalleled drama as both players, mostly Fed at the time, were chasing history. But the matchup and play dynamics were relatively one sided given the characteristics of both players, as play would often be dictated by Nadal's ability of hitting, finding and exploiting Federer's backhand.

There is no such thing, no easy way out for the Djokovic vs Nadal matchup. For either side. In the past Nadal could outlast a more inexperienced Novak due to significantly better fitness. Once Novak hit the turning point of 2010-2011, with his vast improvement of fitness and match stamina, there was no clear edge to either side, so their matches and the outcome would be outlined and decided by intensity, attrition and small technical adjustments from one or both.

Similar reason people regard Federer vs Novak highly. The nature and dynamics of the matchup are not only more even, but it many times seems to bring the best out of both players in terms of pure tennis display. Now as of late Stan and Novak have gone on a similar vein as well.

The Fedal rivalry will certainly be remembered as the bigger story because it is... but many who have been following not only this rivalry but tennis across the last two decades or so will probably tell you it's not where the best tennis would be found.

I doubt many would say that Federer/Nadal didn't produce some of the best tennis ever from 2006-09 when the rivalry was at its peak. It is revisionist history to act like the matchup was one-sided from the start. It was pretty close through Australia '09.

The fact that Nadal ran away with it from that point changes nothing in terms of how great it was to that point. And, the statement you make that it will be remembered as the bigger story is exactly why it was a better rivalry.

 

[ultradr]

Fedal is the greatest rivalry of all time.

Federer and Nadal were both young, ambitious and driven.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about ?

Federer is 5 year older. Federer was #1 and Nadal was 17 year old Rookie when Nadal beat Federer 1st time 2-0 on hard court.

Nadal-Djokovic are similar age. 1 year apart, 27 and 28. Thru out their career,
they both do each other fair share of damage. 23-20.

Each took 3 YE #1's. And it is still going on and has not ended in my opinion.

Only true rivalry in tennis of last 10+ years IMHO.

 

[ultradr]

Additionally, as noted in my post, the contrast of those two went beyond on-court tactics. It was the style with which they played. In football terms, Nadal would have been physical, run-it-down-your-throat, while Federer would have been a finesse, spread-you-out and attack.

I don't think Nadal is a better volleyer. I think he's more selective.

How about those pressure moments? Who is more aggressive?
Federer becomes least aggressive, among big 4, if set score gets tight.

Both Federer and Nadal returns conservatively, relying heavily on holding on his own.
Djokovic and Murray take much more aggressive on serve returns and return games.

Does Federer volley at pressure moments? Almost never. He uses his forte baseline.

Federer volleys when it's ok to fail like 40-0 or he is leading and he fails
large % of them. And he is 1 punch volleyer. If he has to hit 2nd, 3rd volley, he is very very average among tour players.

He is not a volleyer.

While volleying more selectively, Nadal uses them at all points including pressure points.
And he has high success rate and exceptionally good at 2nd, 3rd volleys.

He is a real volleyer, IMHO.

 

[spinovic]

OK...........

 

[glovesaves35]

It is a stretch for Nadal vs Novak to be the best tennis rivalry of all time let alone the outright greatest. I have to laugh at the shortsightedness of that...and btw, best tennis rivalry of all time was Chris v Martina. It had it all folks...oh and in my opinion Borg hung um up cuz he couldnt handle the Mac attack. I was only a kid but thats the way this young tennis player remembered it.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

It is revisionist history to act like the matchup was one-sided from the start. It was pretty close through Australia '09.

The fact that Nadal ran away with it from that point changes nothing in terms of how great it was to that point.

The match-up was only close early on because Federer was in his prime and Nadal was not.

Fed was 2 months away from his 22nd birthday at the start of the 03 grass season which is when his prime began. He would go on over the next season to win his first grass slam, first hard court slam, reach world #1 and enter a period of domination.

Likewise Nadal was 2 months away from his 22nd birthday at the start of the 08 clay season when HIS prime began. He would go on over the next season to win his first grass slam, first hard court slam, reach world #1 and enter a period of domination.

04-07 featured pre-prime Nadal STILL leading the h2h 8-6 over prime Fed (and NEVER trailing it) even though the first match they had was when Fed was already world #1 and Nadal was 17 years old AND it was on hards.

08+ (once Nadal entered his prime) has featured a 15-4 destruction almost on the level of what Federer did to Roddick.

Nadal was simply so good on clay that even pre-prime he was dominating prime Fed on it and he matured into his prime slightly faster on clay than the rest of his game did (probably in 07 where he was noticeably better than he was in 05 and 06 on clay). Nadal's best levels on all surfaces came 08+ (clay included).

So it doesn't speak too much to how great a rivalry is when the only portion of it that was close was solely because one guy had not developed yet ESPECIALLY when we saw first hand the results of what happened once he did.

In contrast the Nole-Nadal rivalry has been back and forth, not one guy pulls away for good once hitting his prime.

1)Nadal won 5 of the first 6 matches and Novak's win seemed to be the odd fluke.

2)Then Novak won 2 of the next 3 and Nadal realized he needed to take this guy as a serious top tier threat and not as an odd guy who could pull a win only once in a blue moon.

3)Once he did, Nadal won 5 of the next 6 again with relative ease

4)Then Nole had an amazing stretch of pushing Nadal hard in 3 straight clay matches, but came up short in them all, extending Nadal's edge to 8 of the last 9.

5)Taking the confidence from those clay encounters, Novak won 3 in a row against Rafa off clay.

6)Rafa came back to win 2 dominant matches on hard courts at tournaments he was historically weak at (USO and WTF).

7)Novak hit his peak levels and directly superceded what was a time of Rafa's own peak winning 7 in a row.

8)Rafa readjusted his game and won 6 of 7 against the now peak level Novak highlighted by finally beating peak Novak twice off clay (Canada/USO)

9)Novak bounced back from tough USO loss to now win 5 of the last 6, but the 1 being the big one at RG.

10)tbd June 3, 2015

 

[Dave1982]

In terms of the quality of tennis it's certainly hard to go past Nadal v Djokovic, they've undoubtedly played some big matches against each other in recent years and the quality of match rarely disappoints!

As for the Fed v Nadal rivalry, I still consider that to be the number 1 rivalry in tennis, not so much for the quality of match it produced but more so for the attention it bought to the sport. Due to them being number 1 & 2 for such an extended period the vast majority of their encounters were finals to start with.
Secondly most people in the broader sporting community consider Fed > Nadal and therefore it was enthralling to watch the underdog essentially continually have his measure. Now of course the roles are reversed on clay and at the French Open especially pre 2009 there was always the added intrigue of Fed having never won it etc.
Like I said the quality of match wasn't always there but I believe the story line Fed v Nadal produced had a greater impact and appeal to sport in general as opposed to that of Nadal v Djokovic.

 

[spinovic]

The match-up was only close early on because Federer was in his prime and Nadal was not.

Fed was 2 months away from his 22nd birthday at the start of the 03 grass season which is when his prime began. He would go on over the next season to win his first grass slam, first hard court slam, reach world #1 and enter a period of domination.

Likewise Nadal was 2 months away from his 22nd birthday at the start of the 08 clay season when HIS prime began. He would go on over the next season to win his first grass slam, first hard court slam, reach world #1 and enter a period of domination.

04-07 featured pre-prime Nadal STILL leading the h2h 8-6 over prime Fed (and NEVER trailing it) even though the first match they had was when Fed was already world #1 and Nadal was 17 years old AND it was on hards.

08+ (once Nadal entered his prime) has featured a 15-4 destruction almost on the level of what Federer did to Roddick.

Nadal was simply so good on clay that even pre-prime he was dominating prime Fed on it and he matured into his prime slightly faster on clay than the rest of his game did (probably in 07 where he was noticeably better than he was in 05 and 06 on clay). Nadal's best levels on all surfaces came 08+ (clay included).

So it doesn't speak too much to how great a rivalry is when the only portion of it that was close was solely because one guy had not developed yet ESPECIALLY when we saw first hand the results of what happened once he did.

In contrast the Nole-Nadal rivalry has been back and forth, not one guy pulls away for good once hitting his prime.

1)Nadal won 5 of the first 6 matches and Novak's win seemed to be the odd fluke.

2)Then Novak won 2 of the next 3 and Nadal realized he needed to take this guy as a serious top tier threat and not as an odd guy who could pull a win only once in a blue moon.

3)Once he did, Nadal won 5 of the next 6 again with relative ease

4)Then Nole had an amazing stretch of pushing Nadal hard in 3 straight clay matches, but came up short in them all, extending Nadal's edge to 8 of the last 9.

5)Taking the confidence from those clay encounters, Novak won 3 in a row against Rafa off clay.

6)Rafa came back to win 2 dominant matches on hard courts at tournaments he was historically weak at (USO and WTF).

7)Novak hit his peak levels and directly superceded what was a time of Rafa's own peak winning 7 in a row.

8)Rafa readjusted his game and won 6 of 7 against the now peak level Novak highlighted by finally beating peak Novak twice off clay (Canada/USO)

9)Novak bounced back from tough USO loss to now win 5 of the last 6, but the 1 being the big one at RG.

10)tbd June 3, 2015

All this prime, pre-prime, post-prime, Optimus Prime, clay prime, hard court prime, grass prime, Amazon Prime, talk is irrelevant.

What matters is the matches were great, the rivalry was close, and it featured arguably the two most popular players in tennis history, and had all the elements to create a great storyline. And, the players had unparalleled prestige.

That's my opinion. You may choose to focus solely on the on-court results, which is fine. But, an all-time great rivalry requires a better narrative and transcendent players for me. Djokovic is not a transcendent player and this rivalry doesn't have the great narrative.

 

[timnz]

Borg walked away because he couldn't beat McEnroe anymore, the loss at US Open was the final straw. Is this a misperception?

Yes it is a misperception.

Borg was still beating McEnroe at non-official tournaments in 1982 and 1983 like the Sydney tournament in late 1982 or the Suntory Tournament in Japan in 1983 - so he knew very well he was still very competitive with McEnroe.

Have a look at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFXnTGqbwsU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XZUStJeu2o



I am not sure why/how the myth that Borg walked away from the sport because of McEnroe arose. It was actually due to two things - mental burnout and politics of the sport (he was wanting to play a reduced schedule and still get into events like Wimbledon without qualfying - goodness knows he deserved it).

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

Look, I love tennis and it's by far my fave sport...

But Messi vs Ronaldo will have to go down as the greatest sporting rivalry.

 

[CHIP72]

Look, I love tennis and it's by far my fave sport...

But Messi vs Ronaldo will have to go down as the greatest sporting rivalry.

Ugh, soccer...

If we're going to bring in team sports, we should mention Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell in the 1960s NBA.

 

[bullfan]

This hasnt benn much of a rivalry. Nadal ruled until 2011, and has the GS h2h, and Novak has ruled since 2011 in best of 3, and has beaten Nadal at all slams except the FO, which could change tomorrow.

I dont see a rivalry, when the winning is lopsided each way.

 

[spinovic]

This hasnt benn much of a rivalry. Nadal ruled until 2011, and has the GS h2h, and Novak has ruled since 2011 in best of 3, and has beaten Nadal at all slams except the FO, which could change tomorrow.

I dont see a rivalry, when the winning is lopsided each way.

I agree somewhat. The argument used against Federer/Nadal can be applied to Djokovic/Nadal somewhat. Part of the argument for Djokodal is that they've met in big finals. However, other than one stretch in 2011-12, Nadal has dominated the big moments. Djokovic has done great in non-majors, which has made the overall record very close. But, when matters most, Nadal has owned him, just like Federer.

 

[ultradr]

 

[TheTruth]

Huh? What the hell are you talking about ?

Federer is 5 year older. Federer was #1 and Nadal was 17 year old Rookie when Nadal beat Federer 1st time 2-0 on hard court.

Nadal-Djokovic are similar age. 1 year apart, 27 and 28. Thru out their career,
they both do each other fair share of damage. 23-20.

Each took 3 YE #1's. And it is still going on and has not ended in my opinion.

Only true rivalry in tennis of last 10+ years IMHO.

Terrible way of communicating, but...

In what universe is 24 old? You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. The issue is the number of years that they battled and won majors during that period. That's how I look at it, not just chronologically.

I don't see how Nadal is expected to have battled since age 19-34, which would mean he is supposed to be on top for 15 years? That's insane.

Federer didn't come into his own until he was almost 22 or 23, give him the same time frame people are using for Nadal and that's expecting Federer to be the top dog from 22-37. It doesn't make sense to me, but carry on.

 

[TheTruth]

There are no serve-and-volley players in this era (at an elite level), so Federer and Nadal, IMO, presented a reasonable contrast for this era. For the narrative, perception is really all that matters really.

Additionally, as noted in my post, the contrast of those two went beyond on-court tactics. It was the style with which they played. In football terms, Nadal would have been physical, run-it-down-your-throat, while Federer would have been a finesse, spread-you-out and attack.

I don't think Nadal is a better volleyer. I think he's more selective.

In any case, there's no significant contrast with Djokovic and Nadal. Their rivalry lacks the great story of other ones to me. Same with Federer and Djokovic. On the court it is as good as any, but there's no special narrative to elevate it.

Great post. All that I have read so far.