No one is saying Pete wasn't extremely famous and well supported. But as far back as 2010, Rafa was getting the "Rock Star" treatment from American Tennis fans, typically reserved for Agassi and Borg. The article below talks about Rafa in New York in 2010, with throngs of girls screaming his name and long lines of fans waiting to meet him. I think Rafa had the looks and on court swag that made him more of a rock star for American fans than Pete. But maybe you are right, and I'm underestimating the adulation Pete recieved.
US Open 2010: adulation proves Rafael Nadal is beginning to conquer America
They were queuing down Fifth Avenue to see the new US Open champion. Never again should it be said that America is ambivalent about Rafael Nadal, as when he arrived at the Nike Town store there was already a poster filling the front window which declared “Vamos Rafa – Won All Four”.www.telegraph.co.uk
I think Rafa's popularity in general is sometimes underestimated (relative to Fed), because the media has always had a bigger hard-on for Federer, and their coverage always slants toward him (and Fed's fans spam and bot popularity contest polls more than any fanbase). But when you look at social media following, Nadal has the biggest in mens Tennis, which in objective terms, would make him most popular player in the mens game today, not Federer.
Even I'm sometimes brainwashed by the Pro-Federer media coverage. But at the very least Federer and Nadal are equally popular, with a real claim to Nadal being more popular based on social media following.
Social media doesn't define who's more popular. There are many people who don't even have a twitter account, let alone twitter every day.
It's so hard to compare Pete and Rafa's popularity in the US as their careers did not overlap. Is it fair to say that Pete was huge at the US Open venue itself (but more than Andre, I'm not sure), but it didn't really translate off-court - no personal charisma. I know this is very superficial, but it plays a large part in popularity. Fed, Borg, Andre, Rafa, Mac and Connors (though Mac and Jimbo were quite polarizing) and a few others have/had that "it" factor.
I was in the US (still am, boring life) and well remember that era. They were certainly both marketed well to their strengths/types, but whereas AA had memorable (if kind of tacky) ads of his own, I don't recall much, if any, of Pete's ads without Andre. Tennis fans knew that Pete was the greater player, but Andre was more of a household celebrity.Off court you speak? Pete and Andre's rivalry took both of them to the next level, Nike made a fortune off of them, and they were selling out during the peak of their rivalry back in the mid 90s. Pete was the opposite to Agassi, and that made for gripping tennis, not just on the court but with all the stuff off the court. And when you have two opposites like them who were also seen as monstrous champions, you will capture the imagination of a generation.
Sampras v Agassi was the rivalry of the 90s, and it wasn't just because of the play on the court, Nike marketed it perfectly. Sampras was all over the media. He was rocketed to the top in 1990 and stayed there. Nadal is great, but he will be behind Pete in US, I have no doubt of this.
You are wrong about Sampras in America. Agassi craved press attention, Pete did not but real tennis fans preferred Pete's tennis to Andre's. Pete was just as popular as Agassi, from what I recall.
Hadn't seen that in ages - great ad campaign!
Where did those 25 years go?
Agree with this, there is no debating Rafa has massive following. I consider popular as "name recognition." If that is the case, more people know who Fed is.
Yep, I was a Fed fan who despised Rafa early on, then he gained my respect by about 2012ish, then I started to like him a bit, and now I truly like Rafa a lot. You see the rivalry, and it draws you to both of them. The definitely helped each other on and off the court and their legacy will show it.
Agreed, which (as discussed, of course) also has kind of boxed Novak out and painted him as the third wheel, despite Novak playing more matches against both of them. The "Fedal" brand has cast too large of a shadow in that respect.
As you know, I truly consider myself a tennis fan first and foremost, and well preceding this era.
That is rare, someone who likes all 3. Good for you. For me, tennis will always be first, because for me it is a lifelong hobby, and eventually my favorites will retire and are absent from tourneys. Plus, there will always be someone to be a fan of, although I have been lucky with Sampras and Fed.
I still get wrapped up in who wins and loses matches - and can be quite vociferous while doing so - but I love the game, itself, and enjoy most players. I'm not always philosophical right after a tough match that "my player" loses, but I've gotten better at putting it all in perspective. Per The Big 3, watching Fed's emergence was a revelation, but Nadal just jumped off the screen the first time I saw him, so I largely saw the tour through his eyes. I always liked Novak, and was drawn to (don't laugh, as it's harder to say right now) his intelligence, humor and a lot of great personal qualities - as well as his tennis. It occurred to me quite a few years ago, that while everyone was debating Fed and Rafa, the third wheel was actually just as good, if not better. If you're an NFL fan, I said the same about Aaron Rodgers - and while everyone was debating Manning and Brady). But per The Big 3, while I do the GOAT debate thing (my position: essentially, there are tri-Goats of the Open Era), there could be many worse things for this tennis fan than Roger holding onto his records...He's a very special athlete, player and lover of the sport - I just root more for the other two.
I'm not sure the (sensible) people who stay away from tennis social media appreciate how big the Fedal brand is now - so there's effectively a third person in the popularity stakes. It's becoming pretty rare to find animosity these days. Those people who aren't Fedal fans just moan about those that are rather than reigniting the old wars.
If they deliberately set out to create a juggernaut brand that no...ahem..... upstart third player could ever compete with then they did a pretty good job.
