Rafa's Back And He's Not Backing Down

First topic message reminder :

It's not just Rafa's heavy topspin forehand that has been missed from the tour. When so many players shy away from saying anything remotely controversial and sound like they are reading directly from a carefully constructed PR script it's refreshing to have one top player not shy away from saying what he thinks. The carefully promoted views on blood testing comes to mind. Bla, bla, bla we need to go after the bad guys so that proves I'm a good guy bla, bla, bla

This is what Nadal had to say about the two topics that continue to make him cross and continue to make some cross because he is cross. No surprises but he is still mad about the stupid "new" or as many prefer to call it "more strictly enforced" time rule and hard courts. The quotes are from after last nights match against Harrison.

Listen to what he thinks about the new ATP rule which requires umpires to clamp down on anyone taking longer than 25 seconds between points:

“That’s true,” he replied when asked about playing at a faster pace. “I played much faster, no? I am doing that because someone very smart puts in a new rule that is a disaster in my opinion. Not in places like here, which is dry. But it is a complete disaster when we are playing in humid places like Acapulco, Brazil or Chile.”

Nadal said he went back to watch some of his matches in Grand Slams to check how long it took him and his opponent to recover from long rallies.

“You have to see the third set of the US Open 2011 against (Novak) Djokovic and tell me if the crowd was very happy in that set or not. You need 40 seconds rest after a great point of 30, 40 shots. Tell me if with this new rule that can happen again.”

Hard courts were another target.

“Somebody has to think, not for today,” Nadal said. “I’m not talking about my career. We’re going to finish my career playing the same number of tournaments on hard (courts) because that’s the dynamic. But my opinion is for the next generations.

"Hard courts are aggressive for the body. It’s a medical thing. If the next generations want to finish their careers with better conditions physically, the ATP has to find a solution and not continue playing more and more tournaments on this surface that is harder for the joints and for the knees; for the foot, for the ankles, for the back, for everything.

"I would not answer this question in 2005, 2006 — but now I have won a lot of tournaments on hard (courts) and that gives me the confidence to say this to you. I am not having this opinion just because I prefer to play on clay.”

http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/Rafael-Nadal-wins-Indian-Wells-slams-ATP-over-new-rules-030913

lydian wrote:This will end up being an own goal by ATP. It will actually end up favouring guys like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, i.e. the fittest guys on tour. After long ralleys they'll be the ones with better chance of recovery within 25s, so if anything it will encourage them to prolong ralleys by getting opponents moving left and right for 30 shots knowing their opponent will be less able than them to recover in time.

Spot on.

Red wrote:

lydian wrote:This will end up being an own goal by ATP. It will actually end up favouring guys like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, i.e. the fittest guys on tour. After long ralleys they'll be the ones with better chance of recovery within 25s, so if anything it will encourage them to prolong ralleys by getting opponents moving left and right for 30 shots knowing their opponent will be less able than them to recover in time.

Spot on.

Fine, I've no problem with players winning within the rules. I'd have no sympathy with Federer if he couldn't handle it on that basis.

And this can't be an "own goal" unless you think it's done to undermine those players success. It isn't, it's there to undermine their ability to make tennis interminably long. Only the paranoid (like Rafa) think this is against them.

I'm really loving the momentum of the new punishment (it's not a new rule, the rule is the same as always). Looking at who's doing all the moaning it looks to be perfectly judged (ie undermining the rule breakers).

If only IMBL and and lydian could get word to Rafa that the 25 second rule works in his favour - then he could stopping moaning about how it works against him. Rafa, you don't need the recovery time - stop saying you do. It's the other players that need it, not you.

Hes talking about the players, not just him.

Red wrote:Hes talking about the players, not just him.

You don't actually believe that do you?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:Hes talking about the players, not just him.

You don't actually believe that do you?

You need 40 seconds rest after a great point of 30, 40 shots. Tell me if with this new rule that can happen again.

Ah the charity and heroism!

I think you've missed the point there JHM.

You must have forgotten (easily done, I grant you) that Rafa's concerns about the policy of umpires applying the rule rather than ignoring it stem from his wish to see the fans better entertained.

In other words his interests are entirely altruistic. Any implication that he would prefer to be allowed to continue breaking the rule in the way he has been doing on a regular basis for several years is wholly scurrilous.

Indeed, LF, he'd make a great players' council member - if only he hadn't stepped down to concentrate on his tennis (oh, and on repeatedly moaning about the rules and playing conditions etc in press conferences)

Aside from the negativity, yes granted Nadal isn't the only time violation culprit out there, none of them have really rallied behind Nadal and his views. Nadal clearly feels that he is not benefitting from the rule being more enforced hence why he feels the need to speak out against it being implemented.

He should forget this and work on his game and adjust it accordingly to the rules and also to the conditions. If he continues to express his views in a light that is of no benefit to him, he will start to come across as a crybaby.

Many players speak out against hardships of the game. Many even make changes so it doesn't impact on them in a negative manner or just accept them the way they are. I feel Rafa needs to do the same. It is not like he is in-capable of playing the game within the rules.

legendkillarV2 wrote:He should forget this and work on his game and adjust it accordingly to the rules and also to the conditions. If he continues to express his views in a light that is of no benefit to him, he will start to come across as a crybaby.

Oddly, Peter Fleming last night said the complainers were crying like a babies wanting a bottle and even did a "Waaaahhhhh!" to emphasize his point.

Fleming was actually very restrained. He was on Sky Sports News prior to IW coverage and just pulled a face when asked about the interview. He was very constructive in suggesting ways in which Rafa could overcome the injustice of it all. He did agree with the surface debate and called for more natural surfaces like Clay. Though he didn't expect to see changes in 'Rafa's lifetime'

legendkillarV2 wrote:Fleming was actually very restrained. He was on Sky Sports News prior to IW coverage and just pulled a face when asked about the interview. He was very constructive in suggesting ways in which Rafa could overcome the injustice of it all. He did agree with the surface debate and called for more natural surfaces like Clay. Though he didn't expect to see changes in 'Rafa's lifetime'

Flemings natural response to almost any input on Sky is to pull a face. Sometimes I think he's bemused by the majority of his fellow pundits contributions and is anxious to make clear to the discerning viewer that he doesn't want to lumped in with all their rubbish.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Indeed, LF, he'd make a great players' council member - if only he hadn't stepped down to concentrate on his tennis (oh, and on repeatedly moaning about the rules and playing conditions etc in press conferences)

Fedal had a large clout, so such changes would have been easier to make from 'inside' the PC, rather than from 'outside'.

laverfan wrote:

Fedal had a large clout, so such changes would have been easier to make from 'inside' the PC, rather than from 'outside'.

Certainly did. In fact difficult to think of any two players with the potential to exercise more influence (IF done in the right way and for sound reasons of course...) than the Fedal combo.

The voices behind 28 Slams are pretty hard to ignore .....

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Fleming was actually very restrained. He was on Sky Sports News prior to IW coverage and just pulled a face when asked about the interview. He was very constructive in suggesting ways in which Rafa could overcome the injustice of it all. He did agree with the surface debate and called for more natural surfaces like Clay. Though he didn't expect to see changes in 'Rafa's lifetime'

Flemings natural response to almost any input on Sky is to pull a face. Sometimes I think he's bemused by the majority of his fellow pundits contributions and is anxious to make clear to the discerning viewer that he doesn't want to lumped in with all their rubbish.

Fleming is just genius. I like it when he is lumped in a commentary booth with Cowan and he is constantly correcting him for being a complete Mr Winklechops!

I sometimes think Fleming looks at the likes of Cowan and Greg and wonder if they ever really picked up a racquet!

I dont think Rafa expects any changes on either front, tbh.
He was just making his feelings known. Basically 'dont say I never told you' on his part.

Like Djoko said, no one wants to see 6 hours as a regular occurence.

Interesting theory on the rule favouring the fittest. Ironmen Djokovic and Nadal are what? 24-1 collectively? It will be be interesting to see how the cards fall at the end of the season.

Djokovic (last loss to Querrey @Paris) 18-0 (13-0 in 2013).
Nadal (last loss to Zeballos @VTR) 12-1 (in 2013).
Murray (last loss to Djokovic @AO ) 10-1 (in 2013).
Federer (last loss to Berdych @Dubai) 10-3 (in 2013).
Ferrer (last loss to Nadal) 21-3 (in 2013).

25-1 then... Pretty dominant top 5 this year, though... 66-6 collectively.

HM Murdoch wrote:

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch. You sliced my quote! I went on to say that the Federer/Djokovic 2011 semi was sensational. Do you think the fact that it was played on clay helped make it so? You should also watch/re watch the 2011 FO final and 2012 AO semi between Federer and Nadal also sensational stuff IMHO.

I wasn't censoring, just tidying my post!

The Fedal matches at FO11 and AO12 were both pretty good but, to me, were some way short of great. The FO particularly. As soon as Nadal won the first set, any drama evaporated. The outcome was inevitable.

AO12 had some excellent passages but, if it weren't the names Federer and Nadal involved, I don't think it would stand out in the recollections of many.

Fed-Nadal is always an interesting match-up stylistically but a lot of the matches have failed to ignite.

The Fedal matches have been grossly over-rated, simply because so many occurred away from hard courts and Roger is rarely allowed to get into rhythm. I actually think that the last five Murray Fed matches have been as good as anything during that time (particularly last years Dubai final) - simply because both have a flawed game, which means there can be exquisite dominance from the other. And when these two are dominating, they use the full variety of the games shots, making a 'good looking' proposition

Murray / Nadal on Clay is good as well

In theory, Fed/Nole should be the best - but rarely is. The O2 was looking like a classic and then just ended!!

Fed/Nole have had great (classic?) semi's at USO, Wimby and FO in recent years.

All players have flawed games - that's why they keep trying to improve.

I think some here just see red (sorry red!) every time they see Rafa's name. Well just like Nadal I'm not backing down. I believe this rule is stupid and I am sure it will eventually be watered down. There is to be a players council meeting about it in Miami. It has already been noted that it isn't always being adhered to. Ha ha! Of course not. The rule may be stupid but clearly not all umpires are.

THE ATP Players Council will meet in Miami next week and will discuss the enforcement of the 25-second time violations rule. A number of players have objected to it, saying that umpires need to be more flexible, even though the Player Council did unanimously pass the rule at the 2012 US Open with the support of the majority of players. Apparently there are some players who are now complaining that various umpires don’t call the rule consistently enough.

“I think it’s a good rule,” said Player Council rep Kevin Anderson, “I think it’s always tough you have to sometimes take into consideration, extenuating circumstances. If you play like an incredibly long point or the ball kids ‑‑ maybe the ball goes out or something. Just from the standpoint I think it’s a good rule. It makes it fair for everybody. But I have hear as the year has gone on, some guys are saying it’s getting a bit more lax. There aren’t as many time violations going on out there. I just heard a couple guys saying with different matches some people are sticking to the rule and some people aren’t. It’s a work in progress, so hopefully after Miami we will be able to sort of assess where it’s at and see what other people are feeling. I mean, just have to go from there.”

http://www.10sballs.com/2013/03/11/rafael-nadal-attacks-time-violation-enforcement-meeting-ahead/

The following Nadal-Federer matches were simply on another level anything tennis has ever seen
Wimbledon 2007
Wimbledon 2008
Miami 2005
While Australia 2009 was a great watch in terms of willing your way to victory. The major thing about Fedal is that the winners vastly outweigh the unforced errors. Wimbledon 08 had nearly a 2/1 ratio. The other big four rivalries are normally lucky to be 1/1

From what Anderson is saying, he's hearing that some players are unhappy that the rule is not being enforced strictly enough.

As he says, the rule, properly applied, makes it fair for everybody, not just for some players. I'm not sure why some Rafa fans don't want things to be fair for everybody.

kingraf. What about Rome 2006, Wimbledon 2006, FO 2011 and AO 2012. I am trying not to get excited about IW 2013 just in case I am dissapointed...

My favourite Nadal/Djokovic matches are Hamburg 2008, Queens 2008 and the US 2010.

My favourite Federer/Djokovic match is the FO 2011. The rest of their matches pale in comparison with that one.

Reading Hawkeyes post I thought there was damning evidence on the way that players don't want it.

Then we got the Anderson quote saying he wanted more of it.

Julius. It would be stupid to apply the rule "properly" as it stands. It isn't being applied consistently because most times umpires refuse to behave stupidly even if they are told to do so. As an experiment next time you watch a match pretend to be an umpire and sit with a stop watch and imagine the consequences if you stuck to the new rule.

As it is what happens is every now and then almost at random an umpire decides to strictly enforce one point just to show they know what is expected of them. Ha ha! How stupid is that?

Anyway we will soon see who is correct. If umpires use stop watches and penalize players every time they go over 25 seconds then you win. If the rule gets watered down and the umpires are allowed to be more flexible then I win. Agreed?

Or if they enforce it lots of time and players start working to the rules everyone wins. Right?

Neither of us 'win' hawkeye. It's not a contest between you and I. There is not truth involved in what rules we'd like to see kept/scrapped, only opinions, so I fail to see how either of us can be correct or incorrect.

However, I'm sure you'll agree that the rules you posted show that there are occassions, as things currently stand, where the umpire can use discretion/judgement/flexibility.

It is also true that the rule does not now, and hasn't for many years, allow players to go over 25 seconds in order to recover. The umpires did allow it, but the rules didn't. Obviously the players were unhappy with that situation and voted for a change that would be fairer to all players.

Am I correct in saying you'd like this rule of many years to be changed? Do oyu have a specific wording you'd like to se introduced as a new rule? What would you introduce that would be fairer to all players and ensure consistency is applied in all matches, by all umpires?

banbrotam wrote:In theory, Fed/Nole should be the best - but rarely is. The O2 was looking like a classic and then just ended!!

Based on recent history, I think it has been the best. USO10, USO11 and RG11 were all excellent matches. All had passage of great tennis and all had narrow margins of victory.

The match at the O2 was close to excellent but unfortunately Fed faded right away at the end of the second. That match contained two of the shots of the year though - Novak's winning point and Roger's insane backwards no-look forehand in the first set tie break.

bogbrush. It's difficult to know what Anderson thinks from reading the quote. Does he think allowances should be made after a long point, "ball boys" the ball going out or not? From what stand point is it a good rule and what makes it fair for everybody?

I've already addressed the points about inconsistent application and the way the rule as it stands isn't being applied (because the rule is stupid).

Julius. The sensible option would have a rule something like. Play should be continuous, with 25 seconds being a guideline. The umpire should have the power to warn and penalize a player who is deliberately holding up play. Simple.

With the win/loss thing I was just commenting on how are views are polar opposites and we both think we are right. But of course only one of us is... and that's me! Ha ha!

A backwards forehand without looking.

Have you considered a career in coaching? Or commentary?

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. It's difficult to know what Anderson thinks from reading the quote. Does he think allowances should be made after a long point, "ball boys" the ball going out or not? From what stand point is it a good rule and what makes it fair for everybody?

I've already addressed the points about inconsistent application and the way the rule as it stands isn't being applied (because the rule is stupid).

Julius. The sensible option would have a rule something like. Play should be continuous, with 25 seconds being a guideline. The umpire should have the power to warn and penalize a player who is deliberately holding up play. Simple.

With the win/loss thing I was just commenting on how are views are polar opposites and we both think we are right. But of course only one of us is... and that's me! Ha ha!

Hard to know what he's thinking, apart from (a) it's good, and (b) he'd like to see some more of it.

hawkeye wrote:Julius. The sensible option would have a rule something like. Play should be continuous, with 25 seconds being a guideline. The umpire should have the power to warn and penalize a player who is deliberately holding up play. Simple.

That sounds like how things were in the last few years - and the majority players weren't happy with it, because some players got away with deliberately holding up play when the umpires didn't enforce it. Rafa, JMDP and Djoko being the most well-known of the repeat offenders. So the players decided that something needed to be done to make things fairer for all of them - i.e. allow the umpires to introduce more consistency when a player deliberately holds up play.

As things stand now, delays caused by the crowd, by ball boys etc are not penalized as long as the umpire agrees (i.e. uses judgement/discretion) that they are the cause, and not the player.

bogbrush wrote:A backwards forehand without looking.

Have you considered a career in coaching? Or commentary?

The embarrassing thing is that description took me a while to arrive at!

Do you remember it? I'm not sure how better to describe it!

Darn you, Federer, and your moments of improvised genius!

^ Anderson said "it's a work in progress". So it's no longer a done deal.

I better not say any more as I think I've made my views clear. If I say any more it will just be a sort of "Oh no he didn't", "Oh yes he did" sort of argument that really isn't fun.


Please nobody say "Oh yes it is"...

hawkeye wrote:^ Anderson said "it's a work in progress". So it's no longer a done deal.

I better not say any more as I think I've made my views clear. If I say any more it will just be a sort of "Oh no he didn't", "Oh yes he did" sort of argument that really isn't fun.


Please nobody say "Oh yes it is"...

It's behind you...

HM Murdoch wrote:

banbrotam wrote:In theory, Fed/Nole should be the best - but rarely is. The O2 was looking like a classic and then just ended!!

Based on recent history, I think it has been the best. USO10, USO11 and RG11 were all excellent matches. All had passage of great tennis and all had narrow margins of victory.

The match at the O2 was close to excellent but unfortunately Fed faded right away at the end of the second. That match contained two of the shots of the year though - Novak's winning point and Roger's insane backwards no-look forehand in the first set tie break.

I agree murdoch for some years now I have found Nole v. Fed matches to be a notch above in entertainment value of the other big 4 mathces. Federer v. Nadal at least at the slams has lacked mystery for quite some time, Roger still gets a win here and there in three setters on hardcourt but even the patterns of play are so established that there are few surprises and the outcome seems pretty inevitable. While with Djoko and federer you can tell that while both guys respect each others game and ability they don't exactly see each other as friends, it is a true rivalry in that sense and the emotion is palpable. Plus federer gives Novak a different look then other players who try to out hit him just from the baseline, generally a losing proposition for most anyone.

Social, yes, Fed's variety can cause Novak big problems and I sense that Roger's serve is one that he can struggle to read.

I think their relationship has warmed noticeably in the last couple of years but you're right - there's still "something" there.

Oh Murdoch there is definetly something there, I don't think they dislike each other or hate each other, but they have come to a cold peace for the most part. And you can feel it in their body language and intensity when they play each other. Fed even gets a bit more animated as well it isn't just djokovic, you can tell that there is some thing he wants to accomplish beyond just the win or loss.

bogbrush wrote:Fine, I've no problem with players winning within the rules. I'd have no sympathy with Federer if he couldn't handle it on that basis.

And this can't be an "own goal" unless you think it's done to undermine those players success. It isn't, it's there to undermine their ability to make tennis interminably long. Only the paranoid (like Rafa) think this is against them.

I'm really loving the momentum of the new punishment (it's not a new rule, the rule is the same as always). Looking at who's doing all the moaning it looks to be perfectly judged (ie undermining the rule breakers).

Yes but BB you know there is a bigger picture to this. The utopic view oft-commented is that Novak/Rafa having less time will make them have shorter ralleys. But it wont. The only thing that will bring that around are changes to technology or surface speed. The ATP want long ralleys or else they wouldn't have allowed surfaces to slow into treacle. So, having done that and seeing average ralley length go up since 2001/2, they now wish to impose the 25 second rule that ironically was created well before surfaces slowed down. So what gives?

The past 10 years of slower conditions have resulted in the extended baseliners of Rafa, Andy and Novak. From these conditions, if we look at two of the most stable top 2 players - Rafa and Novak - they're the most adept baseliners and also the fittest. Oddly enough they're also the 2 worst time abusers. Spot the link? If ATP want to get serious about the time rule they should speed the game up, not the players per se, because they've created this issue in the first place!

And on the theme of this thread I think Nadal is being a bit self serving with his critique, I still haven't seen a player actually being charged with a fault in any of this to do about nothing. But I have noticed the game being sped up, even nadal is not taking as much time as he used to. I think it makes the viewing more enjoyable for the fans and gives the players some incentive to go for the finish in the rallies a bit quicker. Contrary to popular belief Nadal has not collapsed and fallen off because he is playing quicker, his ritual between points if an advantage has been abbreviated and he seems as dominant as ever.

Good post Lydian the ATP wants long base line rallies and the question bears to be asked, why? Because as Nadal indicates you rarely see anyone stand up and giving an ovation for an ace, (matchpoint excepted). The points that people cut out for the highlight reel are generally longer rallies with the fans ooing and ahing. I have been saying the same thing for years. People like the slower conditions and the longer rallies and the longer matches. Not everyone, but most fans do. They don't like matches with lots of short rallies and aces and routine holds of service games.

I do think there is something that falls a bit short of like between Federer and Djokovic. But maybe at it's basis is the fact that Federer refuses to recognize Djokovic in the same way that he recognizes Nadal. This annoys Djokovic but I doubt it will change whatever the result of their future matches... and that will probably annoy him more.

With Federer and Nadal there is none of this because they both make it clear how highly they regard each other. I get the impression they quite like each other too. But I don't understand why some thinks their lack of bad feelings towards each other makes the rivalry less compelling. IMO it allows them to play at a high quality when facing each other as neither have the risk of losing to a lesser player.

But I do think they both see each other as the main rival and as such the ultimate test. Both being the competitors that they are they tend to produce their best for big matches. Their biggest matches have often been against each other and because of their history when they face each other it will always be a big match (whatever the occasion).

Anyone who thinks their matches don't lack drama and emotion because they don't dislike each other must be watching a different game to most...

No-one denies he cant speed up. Nadal's point is that sometimes more than 25s will be needed. I also wonder where the ATP could sit on this from a medical perspective if pushed...lets say a guy is seriously winded from a long point but forced to play within 25s because he's already had 2 warnings and the 3rd is going to cost him big. So he rushes into the next point having not recovered (fully re-oxygenated), goes to serve, starts rallying then collapses from exhaustion...ok, a tad over-dramatic but not completely implausible. Yes they should play within 25s but what if the punitive side risks players pushing themselves into medically averse situations when playing in hot, humid, long match, lengthy ralley conditions?

Lydian, in terms of length rallies, one could always say 'speed up the rallies or get fitter.'
I do agree though that when conditions are very hot/humid, the umpire should recognise this; and it's something Nadal was correct to mention.

Yes but some players are already as fit as they're going to get...and how do they speed a ralley up when they're being pushed back and forth? In crunch match situations after a long grueller some guys will push themselves to fight to the death...so to speak. After the ralley stops they then realise how knackered they are...then know they've got to serve within 25secs again. If they've already had some warnings and know the next violation might cost them the game/match then they're going to have to serve within 25s because the umpire isn't going to shout "its ok xxxxxx, take another 15 seconds" is he? So xxxxx serves, gets caught in another "life/death" ralley and then collapses from de-oxygenation. When you push people "medically" like this you push the risk of adverse events like sudden cardiac death, etc.

But like I pointed out Lydian, Nadal and Djokovic are 25-1 collectively with the new rule "adaptation". Winners win losers lose, because winners can adapt. We could create tennis on glass and I guarantee you the top 4 would find a way to stay dominant.
I really doubt Nadal thinks that his rant will cause a rule change. He was asked a question and he answered it, no¿

Djokovic-Federer could have been a fun rivalry had they peaked simultaneously. Sadly it reads a bit like a tale of two halves now.

Murray-Nadal is rarely fun. Either Nadal runs through him, or his knees breaks down. Or Murray cant deal with external conditions. Their best matches were USO 08, and WTF 10 that was the best I ever saw Murray play.

kingraf wrote:But like I pointed out Lydian, Nadal and Djokovic are 25-1 collectively with the new rule "adaptation". Winners win losers lose, because winners can adapt.

Yes, it's fine for them as they're fitter and can recover quicker... what about the players who aren't as fit?

I don't see that response as particularly relevant to what I said to be frank. I'm not talking about them....its the unfitter ones that will suffer more when Rafa and Novak move them around and they don't have time to recover fully. For example, Zeballos got a time violation in Chile when knackered after a point...had Nadal been on better form he would have only compounded Zeballos's fitness issue.

hawkeye wrote:I do think there is something that falls a bit short of like between Federer and Djokovic. But maybe at it's basis is the fact that Federer refuses to recognize Djokovic in the same way that he recognizes Nadal. This annoys Djokovic but I doubt it will change whatever the result of their future matches... and that will probably annoy him more.

With Federer and Nadal there is none of this because they both make it clear how highly they regard each other. I get the impression they quite like each other too. But I don't understand why some thinks their lack of bad feelings towards each other makes the rivalry less compelling. IMO it allows them to play at a high quality when facing each other as neither have the risk of losing to a lesser player.

But I do think they both see each other as the main rival and as such the ultimate test. Both being the competitors that they are they tend to produce their best for big matches. Their biggest matches have often been against each other and because of their history when they face each other it will always be a big match (whatever the occasion).

Anyone who thinks their matches don't lack drama and emotion because they don't dislike each other must be watching a different game to most...

How can Nadal see federer as his chief rival and not see Djokovic as his chief rival. Usually the guy who beats you more often in big matches is your rival, the guy who usually loses to you in big matches isn't. Nadal and Djoko h2h is much closer and in the last ten matches it is 7-3 in favor of Novak all of them in finals. The matches have lacked drama and tension particularly in slams for years because it has been a foregone conclusion that Nadal would win for the most part. I still think Fed could beat him at wimby under the right set of conditions but the last fed win in a slam was nearly 6 years ago, hardly the stuff of a competitive rivalry.