The greatest rivalry

[KG1965]

I'm not a fan of Nadal and Federer.
I preferred to win Roddick.
I cheered Djokovic because the media and the forums mocked him (now I've picked up as it deserves).
I'd rather win a boy (Dimitrov or Zverev)rather than the two legends.

But what I have been able to do in Melbourne two great champions is exciting for me.

I appreciate them more with the passage of time and I think it's the greatest rivalry in history.

Surely also because they were lucky to be
- as it is now organized the tour,
- from television (the Rosewall / Laver there are a few fragments, Connors / Borg / Mac only few matches, Budge / Riggs nothing ...)
- differently from the stage (the headquarters of the big current events vs small Pro Era places ...)

There have been other great rivalries ... but I think no comparable.

 

[KG1965]

 

[hoodjem]

Looks slippery.!?

 

[BobbyOne]

I'm not a fan of Nadal and Federer.
I preferred to win Roddick.
I cheered Djokovic because the media and the forums mocked him (now I've picked up as it deserves).
I'd rather win a boy (Dimitrov or Zverev)rather than the two legends.

But what I have been able to do in Melbourne two great champions is exciting for me.

I appreciate them more with the passage of time and I think it's the greatest rivalry in history.

Surely also because they were lucky to be
- as it is now organized the tour,
- from television (the Rosewall / Laver there are a few fragments, Connors / Borg / Mac only few matches, Budge / Riggs nothing ...)
- differently from the stage (the headquarters of the big current events vs small Pro Era places ...)

There have been other great rivalries ... but I think no comparable.

KG, Laver vs. Rosewall will stay the greatest rivalry forever because two true GOAT candidates (in my opinion the two GOATs), possessing more skills and touch than maybe all other players, met probably 180 times, among them 17 times in major matches and about 20 times in additional big matches.

 

[pc1]

It's funny I was about to do a thread like this but you beat me to it KG. LOL.

I was thinking about it today and while I traditionally have gone with Laver versus Rosewall or even perhaps Gonzalez against Rosewall among the many I think Hoad versus Gonzalez is a good possibility. @Dan Lobb may want to discuss this also. Bear in mind that I'm not necessarily saying it's the best rivalry ever but I think it could be along with Federer/Nadal, Laver/Rosewall, Gonzalez/Rosewall, Tilden/Cochet and Connors/Borg.

Here's my reasoning, both Hoad and Gonzalez was at their peaks or primes. I think Gonzalez may have been fractionally past his peak but still great. They were tremendously talented, strong powerful dynamic players with great movement, huge serves and excellent power and touch. Hoad was the younger by over 6.5 years but Gonzalez was still in excellent shape when they played in the 1950s. Hoad by many player's estimates was perhaps the strongest player ever and Gonzalez was also tremendously strong. Gonzalez was tall at about 6'3.5" tall but he was very smooth and has been compared to a panther in the way he moved. The matches between them were legendary.

Can't find too much on the rivalry on a quick glance of the internet but here are a couple of articles that may help.
http://www.si.com/vault/2002/06/24/...m-from-all-but-the-last-of-his-eight-children
http://www.si.com/vault/1958/02/24/571808/the-small-green-empire-of-jack-kramer

I personally think the Borg/McEnroe rivalry is overrated. I thought the 1980 Wimbledon final wasn't that great a match. It was good and exciting but never thought it was super high quality.

Of course the recent great rivalries like Nadal-Federer and all of the combinations between Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray come to mind.

Sampras against Agassi was okay but I never felt they had defining five set matches in big tournaments like Nadal and Federer.

 

[BTURNER]

wow guys, really? you think you might have missed an obvious choice here?

 

[dgold44]

Watched laver vs ken

Both guys can volley as good if not better than Mac

Laver clearly has far more pop on FH and bigger serve
Both guys are excellent with touch shots and defense
Ken has a better BH and killer slice
Laver has more power but ken may have better finesse stuff

Fun to watch

I still put my goats at Federer and nadal and Sampras along with laver , pancho G , Ken and Tilden
It's clearly those 7
Granted I have never seen Tilden or pancho play

 

[dgold44]

Watching ken and laver and the non stop intensity and endurance is pretty crazy
No easy knock outs like a Sampras serve

Both laver and ken use tons of strategy and tactics on every point

Neither one is a factory robot that you see on most of today's circuit

Roger Federer has that exact same creativity and chess game

 

[dgold44]

just me or did the 60s have little depth compared to the previous and subsequent decades

 

[Dan Lobb]

It's funny I was about to do a thread like this but you beat me to it KG. LOL.

I was thinking about it today and while I traditionally have gone with Laver versus Rosewall or even perhaps Gonzalez against Rosewall among the many I think Hoad versus Gonzalez is a good possibility. @Dan Lobb may want to discuss this also. Bear in mind that I'm not necessarily saying it's the best rivalry ever but I think it could be along with Federer/Nadal, Laver/Rosewall, Gonzalez/Rosewall, Tilden/Cochet and Connors/Borg.

Here's my reasoning, both Hoad and Gonzalez was at their peaks or primes. I think Gonzalez may have been fractionally past his peak but still great. They were tremendously talented, strong powerful dynamic players with great movement, huge serves and excellent power and touch. Hoad was the younger by over 6.5 years but Gonzalez was still in excellent shape when they played in the 1950s. Hoad by many player's estimates was perhaps the strongest player ever and Gonzalez was also tremendously strong. Gonzalez was tall at about 6'3.5" tall but he was very smooth and has been compared to a panther in the way he moved. The matches between them were legendary.

Can't find too much on the rivalry on a quick glance of the internet but here are a couple of articles that may help.
http://www.si.com/vault/2002/06/24/...m-from-all-but-the-last-of-his-eight-children
http://www.si.com/vault/1958/02/24/571808/the-small-green-empire-of-jack-kramer

I personally think the Borg/McEnroe rivalry is overrated. I thought the 1980 Wimbledon final wasn't that great a match. It was good and exciting but never thought it was super high quality.

Of course the recent great rivalries like Nadal-Federer and all of the combinations between Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray come to mind.

Sampras against Agassi was okay but I never felt they had defining five set matches in big tournaments like Nadal and Federer.

Hoad was the only player who could offer any challenge to Gonzales in the late fifties, which was still within Gonzales' peak period.
Hoad's back trouble restricted his ability to play long hth series, although Hoad did edge Gonzales on the 1959 4-man tour, largely indoor, 15 to 13.
Recently, I have seen the TennisBase Great Rivalry data, which shows that Hoad held a lifetime hth edge over Gonzales on grass of 16 to 13, probably the only player to hold such an edge.
Gonzales' lifetime hth on grass against Rosewall was 20 to 12.

 

[KG1965]

just me or did the 60s have little depth compared to the previous and subsequent decades

Interesting idea to open a thread on the depth of decades.

 

[KG1965]

I have not developed well the thread.

I try to deepen my concept:
not intended as a comparison between Fedal > or < Lavswall ,Connorg, Lenroe, Agampras or stuff like that.

A great rivalry requires certain characteristics:
1 alternation of styles;
2 alternation of results;
3 many matches (because they are few makes little sense to talk of rivalry);
***Foreman-Ali with only one match was a greatest rivalry? And Frazier-Ali? Boh. It's a strange world ... maybe it works differently, perhaps.
4 important courts/stages;
5 television, much television, much much much much much television;
5 much media pressure;
6 as it is now organized the tour (the circuit must have a focus, must not be dispersive... 50-60 years), differently from the phase (the seat of the great events going vs small places was Pro ...);
7 the two opponents must be almost the same age.

IMHO all other rivalries have some deficiencies (such as Laver opponents for the GOAT ....):
Djokovic-Federer ... too much age difference;
McEnroe-Borg great alternation of results and styles but very overrated by the average (agree with pc1);
Sampras >> Agassi;
Nadal-Djokovic is boring;
Borg-Connors.. lacks various aspects, there is little alternation (1977-1978), few years h2h peak for organization of more circuits, rare television.

The best in all its aspects and also in television coverage is Lendl-McEnroe but if the focus is only on slam tournaments Fedal >.

 

[KG1965]

And the great previous rivalities?
Laver-Rosewall, Laver-Pancho, Pancho-Rosewall, Segura-Pancho, Kramer-Pancho, Riggs-Budge, Tilden-Cochet.

1 alternation of styles.... great point;
2 alternation of results... great point;
3 many matches ... great point;
4 important courts/stages ... SEVER LACK;
5 television, much television, much much much much much television ... SEVER LACK;
5 much media pressure SEVER LACK;
6 as it is now organized the tour (the circuit must have a focus, must not be dispersive... 50-60 years), differently from the phase (the seat of the great events going vs small places was Pro ...) SEVER LACK;
7 the two opponents must be almost the same age ... great point (not for Laver-Pancho)

 

[KG1965]

Serious handicap the lack of television coverage and media pressure across the planet, as well as the organization of the tour that in fact do not care to the vast majority of humanity, as well as the matches that are not played in the most important historical sites.

This strongly penalizes, rather dramatically, olds h2h rivalry.

For these reasons, the rivalry Fedal is IMHO >>> all other rivalries.

 

[KG1965]

 

[BobbyOne]

Watched laver vs ken

Both guys can volley as good if not better than Mac

Laver clearly has far more pop on FH and bigger serve
Both guys are excellent with touch shots and defense
Ken has a better BH and killer slice
Laver has more power but ken may have better finesse stuff

Fun to watch

I still put my goats at Federer and nadal and Sampras along with laver , pancho G , Ken and Tilden
It's clearly those 7
Granted I have never seen Tilden or pancho play

dgold, Fine analysis of Rosewall and Laver.

In your list I only miss Borg and Djokovic.

 

[BobbyOne]

Watched laver vs ken

Both guys can volley as good if not better than Mac

Laver clearly has far more pop on FH and bigger serve
Both guys are excellent with touch shots and defense
Ken has a better BH and killer slice
Laver has more power but ken may have better finesse stuff

Fun to watch

I still put my goats at Federer and nadal and Sampras along with laver , pancho G , Ken and Tilden
It's clearly those 7
Granted I have never seen Tilden or pancho play

Deleted post

 

[BobbyOne]

Hoad was the only player who could offer any challenge to Gonzales in the late fifties, which was still within Gonzales' peak period.
Hoad's back trouble restricted his ability to play long hth series, although Hoad did edge Gonzales on the 1959 4-man tour, largely indoor, 15 to 13.
Recently, I have seen the TennisBase Great Rivalry data, which shows that Hoad held a lifetime hth edge over Gonzales on grass of 16 to 13, probably the only player to hold such an edge.
Gonzales' lifetime hth on grass against Rosewall was 20 to 12.

Dan, Also Rosewall could offer a challenge to Gonzalez in the late fifties: He had a clear advantage over Pancho in 1959 (8:4).