Top 5 Tennis Rivalries

I thought not much had been spoken about in terms of tennis rivalries. So I thought I would list my top 5 Tennis Rivalries and wonder what makes your guys Top 5 Rivalries.

1) Roger Federer v Rafael Nadal 2004 - Now - For me arguably the greatest rivalry in tennis history. Brings by far the 2 most amazing tennis styles seen. The unstoppable force meets an inmovable object. They have met 9 times in Grand Slam events with Nadal leading 7-2. They played the greatest match in history at the Wimbledon final in 2008. There are years to go in this rivalry and I can only wish they meet in the Final of the US Open to cement the status of this legendary rivalry. The overall head to head record is 17-8 in favour of Nadal.

2) Boris Becker v Stefan Edberg 1984-1996 - The rivalry that inspired a young Roger Federer to pick up a tennis racket. Both players had an aura about them. Becker who was like a machine and Edberg a man of ice. Met 4 times in Grand Slam events to which Edberg leads 3-1. Edberg went into the 1988 Wimbledon final as underdog and in a defining 2nd set won the tiebreaker and went on to win the next 2 sets. I remember crying when watching that. Though Becker not to be denied, won their 1989 meeting. In 1990 Becker came back from 2 sets down in the Wimbledon final and broke early in the 5th and went on to lose. The overall head to head record was 25-10 in favour of Becker.

3) Andre Agassi v Pete Sampras 1989-2002 - An all American feud which for me had that extra 'needle' about it because obviously there was a real rivalry between the 2. Both trying to out do the other, Sampras a blue collar player and Agassi being the rebelious player trying to eptimise a generation. They met 9 times in Grand Slam events, Sampras leading 6-3. They met at every Grand Slam event and their best match for me was the Australian Open 2000 semi final, though the most dominant performance in the rivalry was when Sampras beat Agassi in straight sets in the Wimbledon 1999 final. The overall head to head record was 20-14 in favour of Sampras.

4) Bjorn Borg v John McEnroe 1978-1983 - It is a shame this rivalry hasn't enjoyed the longevity that other rivalries have, but non the less a very entertaining and rivalry. They met 4 times in Grand Slam events, all finals and which McEnroe leads 3-1 and both players were remembered for the 1980 Wimbledon final which Borg won in 5 sets. McEnroe in a documentary of the final said 'when I won the 4th set tie-break I knew I had won it' which would explain the dejected look he had during the ceremony, though McEnroe would gain revenge at the US Open final in 5 sets. May not had the personal edge of a Sampras/Agassi feud, but you could tell that McEnroe the competitor wanted to prove he was better than Borg. The overall record head to head record was 9-7 in favour of Borg.

5) Kim Clijsters v Justine Henin 1998-2010 - Probably the closest rivalry in terms of head to head there is in tennis. For me this was entertaining as both players being from Belguim were wrestling the dominant grip of Womens tennis from the Williams Sisters. These 2 gave their absolute all in their meetings. They met at all Grand Slam events and even though Henin won all their GS finals, she leads the Grand Slam matches H2H 5-3. A underrated rivalry. The overall head to head record was 13-12 in favour of Clijsters.

Laver - Rosewall - 79-63 (Can any rivalry match this? ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver–Rosewall_rivalry

I did read upon that laverfan. I wasn't around then to appreciate that rivalry which is a shame because it sounds like a marathon rivalry. I doubt any rivalry will match that in terms of the amount of meetings.

On the Womens' side - Navartilova - Evert 36-25.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evert–Navratilova_rivalry

This is the most amazing in terms of quality despite the age differences (almost 10 years age differential - and I saw parts of it).

Laver - Gonzales - 38-19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver-Gonzales_rivalry

Did you witness these rivalries laverfan? It is just such a shame their isn't an online vault so I could view some of the matches, I know youtube has some highlights, but it would be epic to watch. I would be glued to it.

Good ones. I'd also put in Lendl-McEnroe (21-15).

Cant believe no-ones not mentioned Rusedski-Henman...lol??? (2-8, interesting Greg didnt beat him again after 1998!)

How about Venus vs Serena for a weird one? (10-13)

Also, here's an interesting one for you: Henman-Federer (6-7)
Until Tim was 30 years old the H2H was 6-1 to Henman!
Pretty good going there.

I'd say that McEnroe v Connors was a more significant rivalry that Mac v Borg (although the latter produced better matches) - two brash Americans who seriously didn't like each other (I think they still don't much).

On the women's side, obviously Evert v Navratilova and Graf v Seles (sadly curtailed) have to be included.
The interesting thing with the rivalry between Henin and Clijsters is that Belgium is a very fractured country between the Flemish (Wallonne) and French regions, and these two almost became symbols of their region's superiority over the other.

That is some great points there guys. I literally went with ones I had seen. The Clijsters and Henin one was really good in terms of quality of the tennis and further more it was interesting point that D_H brought up about the rivalry in terms of the country divide

legendkillar wrote:Did you witness these rivalries laverfan? It is just such a shame their isn't an online vault so I could view some of the matches, I know youtube has some highlights, but it would be epic to watch. I would be glued to it.

I saw the Am/Pro divide and parts of the Pancho-Laver rivalry.

Saw all of the others in their full glory. Laver-Rosewall was a favourite, till Borg-McEnroe supplanted it from a currency perspective.

On a side note, the Pancho-Pasarell match @W 1969 is still the greatest match I have witnessed, a very subjective and biased opinion perhaps.

It may also be worth picking some interesting or unusual rivalries too...or some really one-sided ones like Federer-Roddick (18-2 I think)?

Here's one, did you know Jo Durie had a 4-3 record against Graf??!!

Not really laverfan. I think sometimes matches that people deem greatest are never the ones people expect.

I wish I had witnessed the Laver-Rosewall rivalry. In a way based on invidual achievements, that would be equivilent to the Nadal v Federer rivalry we see today.

Didn't Hbarty have a better head to head record against Federer?

I think rivalries should be respect in context of the great players but honestly when one player dominates as seen in Edberg- Becker 25-10 and Nadal-Federer 17-8, it loses the spark for me and I think should be a rivalry but not a competitive one. For Borg-McEnroe those that like to use the surface argument fail to realise they never meet on clay but that's the way it is and hypothethical situations cannot be created.

legendkillar wrote:Didn't Hbarty have a better head to head record against Federer?

Yes. I consider him the GOAT since he leads the h2h against Federer and Nadal, both.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=H377&oId=F324

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=H377&oId=N409


Edit: Some strange ones.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=S402&oId=F324

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=B397

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=R255

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=C344

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=S675

Nadal - Djokovic - 16-11. This is developing into a good one to watch.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=D643

Unsure about what you've said Simple Analyst, a rivalry that's not competitive? It's an oxymoron, by definition. Rivalries are competitive by their very definition, whether you don't like the one that exists between two particular players is neither here nor there.

Fair enough it's lost the spark for you (it hasn't for me, unless @ the French) but it certainly is competitive because that's what a rivalry always is.

luciusmann wrote:Unsure about what you've said Simple Analyst, a rivalry that's not competitive? It's an oxymoron, by definition. Rivalries are competitive by their very definition, whether you don't like the one that exists between two particular players is neither here nor there.

Fair enough it's lost the spark for you (it hasn't for me, unless @ the French) but it certainly is competitive because that's what a rivalry always is.

Lucius... SA probably thinks in a different vernacular and hence the interpretation of rivalry.

I was thinking that too, but hard to be sure of that!

Dear mean I said I respect rivalries but some become uncompetitive. The nature of it's existance should not mean it's competitiveness cannot be questioned. For example a Roddick Federer so called rivalry is very embarrasingly one sided.

It helps to state things clearly, it did read a bit differently then what you just said.

By the way, questioning if a rivalry is competitive is fine? Umm, how so? You can't question a competitive thing (a rivalry) as not being competitive! Exactly what I said earlier, an oxymoron. There are some things which are subject to opinion and are fine to challenge SA, but the definition of words in English is not one of them (as we are not debating philosophy here).

Dear SA...

A rivalry does not require a balance in tennis. It can be 17-8, 20-2, 79-63, 25-10,...

If your personal preference is not to see the spark, it is your choice.

Here is the English definition....

"Noun: Competition for the same objective in the same field. "

laverfan, you make the case succinctly, many thanks!

Seems you are the ones who failed to read what I said first. They are all rivalries I agreed. Just saying some become really uncompetitive and loses it's true definition as a rivalry. You will not call a Nadal Almagro meet a rivalry for example due to the inability of one to consistently challenge the other. A rivalry as said is competing for superiority but once a player has proved such superiority and over a long period without been challenged, i'm afraid it loses the rivalry tag for me.

I've read very well what you wrote which is why I wrote what I wrote in the first place, I think it's insulting that you suggest we have 'failed' to understand you/read what you wrote. You have stated English is your third language, it's no crime to admit you have used English incorrectly here.

A rivalry can't become 'uncompetitive', they are competitive in nature, that's what rivalry means. SA, rivalry is a word with a very specific meaning, you are using it incorrectly, this is not a statement of opinion, but is simply a fact. Fair enough you don't find the rivalry interesting or it's too lopsided to appeal to you, but a rivalry it nevertheless is and always was. There's not some test of a 'true rivalry', it is one or it isn't, and it is, according to the English dictionary, pure and simple.

I thought that's what SA meant, ie that he preferes close rivalries.

I like this one, being a Murray fan

Murray - Fed

Interesting too that they have yet to meet on grass. Could happen in a week or so...

Well not quite beeman, according to SA (& his logic), if it isn't close, it's not a rivalry anymore (sorry, a 'true' rivalry, er, whatever that means), which is an oxymoron.

He's entitled to prefer close rivalries, so do I, but just because their lopsided doesn't mean their not rivalries anymore, just because they don't entertain one particular person anymore (because they lack the spark for him).

beeman wrote:I thought that's what SA meant, ie that he preferes close rivalries.

I like this one, being a Murray fan

Murray - Fed

Interesting too that they have yet to meet on grass. Could happen in a week or so...

That rivalry still has a spark for me, personally. More than likely in the second week of Wimbledon because of these two being seeded #3 and #4. It would be very interesting if they meet on grass.

Lol a rivalry cannot be competitive you say? It clearly can be. A rivalry is fighting for superiority often between 2 teams or players who happens to meet over a certain period. However once one team or player has beaten the other so many times making it one-sided it loses it's appeal and true meaning as a rivalry. Only out of respect, hype and at times desperation do people still go m about rivalry when it's obvious it's a domination.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Seems you are the ones who failed to read what I said first. They are all rivalries I agreed. Just saying some become really uncompetitive and loses it's true definition as a rivalry. You will not call a Nadal Almagro meet a rivalry for example due to the inability of one to consistently challenge the other. A rivalry as said is competing for superiority but once a player has proved such superiority and over a long period without been challenged, i'm afraid it loses the rivalry tag for me.

SA, by definition a given rivalry will continue as long as both players are playing professionally and there is a chance that they will meet. Again the trueness is a purely subjective conjecture, which is where we beg to differ.

If you were to say that Borg-McEnroe or Laver-Rosewall is no longer a rivalry, it would be perfectly understandable without any ambiguity, because their professional rivalry on a Tennis court is over. But Borg-McEnroe still play against each other outside the professional context. We can discuss the semantic and syntactic nuances on perhaps a different thread, lest the mods take umbrage.

Even if the rivalry is a little one-sided, it can still have a spark and be very interesting.
A very topical one would be murray - nadal

The spark for me is to see whether Murray's recent 'mental' gains can help him redress the balance a little if they meet this wimbledon!

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol a rivalry cannot be competitive you say? It clearly can be. A rivalry is fighting for superiority often between 2 teams or players who happens to meet over a certain period. However once one team or player has beaten the other so many times making it one-sided it loses it's appeal and true meaning as a rivalry. Only out of respect, hype and at times desperation do people still go m about rivalry when it's obvious it's a domination.

Let us take the following (using a statistical approach and estimates, since these are numbers after all)

Laver-Rosewall - 79-63 - Diff - 16 (~10%)
Murray-Federer - 8-6 - Diff 2 - (~14%)
Sampras-Agassi - 20-14 - Diff 6 - (~20%)
Nadal-Djokovic - 16-11 - Diff - 5 (~20%)
Davydenko-Nadal - 6-4 - Diff 2 - (~20%)
Laver-Gonzales - 38-19 - Diff 19 - (~33%)
Becker-Edberg 25-10 - Diff - 15 (~42%)
Nadal-Murray - 11-4 - Diff - 7 (~50%)
Nadal-Federer - 17-8 - Diff 9 - (~66%)

Where would you say the spark resides in the distribution above or below which the rivalry is interesting?

I would give my list as follows:

1. Nadal-Fed: Although this is one sided rivalry that sort of causes it to lose its luster, the sheer number of times that these two have decided slams between them and have given us classic encounters has to put it at the top of the list.

2. Agassi v. Sampras: Again Sampras dominated but we had a lot of great matches and the quality of hitting when these two played could only be achieved when these two guys played each other

3. Connors v. Mac: I think this rivalry had more fire and animosity. The two guys would go at each other and really didn't like each other

4. Borg v. Mac: produced maybe the greatest or second greatest match of all time in 80 final. But just didn't last very long only 14 total matches

5. Federer v. Djokovic: This is the only modern rivalry, where you can really sense that deep down these two and their camps don't like each other. It has produced some a great USO and great FO semi from the two and is actually a pretty close rivalry in terms of head to head.

. Connors v. Mac: I think this rivalry had more fire and animosity. The two guys would go at each other and really didn't like each other

-----------------

Absolutely .. I think these two were rivals in all senses of the word.. both on and off court... Id go as far as saying they HATED each other and there were no holds bard... Jimbo knew just how to wind Mac up grunting louder with every serve he made.. and Mc deliberately threw even more tantrums when he played Jimbo.. each playing to the crowd.. the crowd getting behind Jimbo and Mac the man every one loved to hate but would bait him making him even more beligerent. How they both ever got away with it still amazes me... it would not be allowed today .. they would disrupt every match they ever played against each other. Entertainment value 110%...tennis incredible.. but I always felt I had witnessed a boxing match between Alli and Foreman.

I must admit I wish they would televise a complete match on tv during one of Wimby´s rain breaks. Though now we have the roof that wont happen either.. shame

Interesting stats Laverfan...that 66% does stand out doesnt it.
I would say for stats confidence you probably need at least 15 matches or so, but 10+ may be ok.

Would be interesting to see some of the other %'s...Wilander v Edberg, Wilander v Lendl, Lendl v Connors, Lendl vs Mac - would expect them all to be less than 20% diff though.

lydian wrote:Interesting stats Laverfan...that 66% does stand out doesnt it.
I would say for stats confidence you probably need at least 15 matches or so, but 10+ may be ok.

Yes, it does standout.

lydian wrote:
Would be interesting to see some of the other %'s...Wilander v Edberg, Wilander v Lendl, Lendl v Connors, Lendl vs Mac - would expect them all to be less than 20% diff though.

Working on it.

Wilander-Edberg 11-9 - Diff 2 (10%)
Lendl-Wilander 15-7 - Diff 8 (~36%)
Lendl-Connors 22-13 - Diff 9 (~25%)
Lendl-McEnroe 21-15 - Diff 6 (~17%)
Federer-Djokovic 14-9 - Diff 5 (~20%)

McEnroe-Connors 20-14 - Diff 6 (~17%).

What about Fred Perry V Don Budge?

McEnroe v Lendl was in my view one of the best rivalries. Such different characters.

2 very different styles. One a genius of moving and anticipation, the other had all his genius in teh whip of his wrist.

Both attacking players!!!!! one from the baseline the other going to the net.

Drama guaranteed!

Tenez wrote:McEnroe v Lendl was in my view one of the best rivalries. Such different characters.

2 very different styles. One a genius of moving and anticipation, the other had all his genius in teh whip of his wrist.

Both attacking players!!!!! one from the baseline the other going to the net.

Drama guaranteed!

Lendl was never a tennis genius as such. He was a player who got to the top of tennis by working hard at maximising his average level of ability through physical fitness so that he could outlast his opponents if required.

Great further stats-work Laverfan...sorry I didnt come back to you on those.
The Fed-Nadal H2H still stands out doesnt it as an outlier...I guess only Federer will truly tell us what was going through his head each time he played, and prepared to play, Nadal - but only when his career (and Nadal's likely) is over.

I also think the Lendl-Mac rivalry is probably the strongest ever due to the needle, closeness of matches, contrast of personalities, and approach to the game.

As I used to write on 606, Lendl is the forgotten man of tennis but boy could he play.

gboycottnut wrote:What about Fred Perry V Don Budge?

If you witnessed this rivalry by all means include it.

gboycottnut wrote: Lendl was never a tennis genius as such. He was a player who got to the top of tennis by working hard at maximising his modicre level of ability through physical fitness so that he could outlast his opponents if required.

Genius is an overused term. Some people may call Federer a genius but he's not been clever enough to work out Nadal. You dont have to be the mystical "genius" to dominate your field, i.e. in other words, being the best doesnt mean you have to be a "genius".
As discussed in other threads, I have more respect for those players who can look back on their careers and say to themselves "yep, I made the most of what I had and tried the best I could"...rather than those who look back and wonder "what if". For example, I bet McEnroe looks back quite often and asks what if.
"Genius" is a romantic and subjective way of assessing players - but if one guy has massive ability and wins 7 slams and another has, on the face of it, less ability but achieves more then who really is the true genius?

"For example, I bet McEnroe looks back quite often and asks what if."

I believe he has done, particularly looking back at 1985 where he was still the favourite on paper to win Wimbledon that year, but he instead chose for some unknown reason not to bother entering the Stella Artois traditional grasscourt warm-up tournament to get the much needed grasscourt practise in as he had done for every year previously since his main tour singles debut in 1977. I believe that had he entered the Stella Artois tournament, he would have had the grasscourt practise/matches under his belt which would have helped him to get the form needed to beat Kevin Curran in the quarter-final and even Boris Becker in the final at Wimbledon that year.

lydian wrote:

gboycottnut wrote: Lendl was never a tennis genius as such. He was a player who got to the top of tennis by working hard at maximising his modicre level of ability through physical fitness so that he could outlast his opponents if required.

Genius is an overused term. Some people may call Federer a genius but he's not been clever enough to work out Nadal. You dont have to be the mystical "genius" to dominate your field, i.e. in other words, being the best doesnt mean you have to be a "genius".
As discussed in other threads, I have more respect for those players who can look back on their careers and say to themselves "yep, I made the most of what I had and tried the best I could"...rather than those who look back and wonder "what if". For example, I bet McEnroe looks back quite often and asks what if.
"Genius" is a romantic and subjective way of assessing players - but if one guy has massive ability and wins 7 slams and another has, on the face of it, less ability but achieves more then who really is the true genius?

I do think Federer is a genius. Look at the fact he hasn't had any major injury setbacks and his style of play doesn't demand lots of his physical strength. Yes granted he hasn't quite got to grips with Nadal, but I don't think Nadal will be seen as a 'blemish' on his CV because Nadal will be recognised as a great and a genius too.

I think Genius is applicable in different natures. I can see your point that it can be 'romantic' for people who had talent and never made what they could of it, but I think when looking back on Federer's career people will recognise how much he changed the game.

I actually believe the opposite, i.e. that because Nadal is a great player, that does indeed harm Federer's CV (or shall we say claim to GOATness)due to Nadal's record against him across all slam surfaces. Otherwise, yes Federer has many great records and is undoubtedly one of the best players of all time.

Just out of interest LK, how has Federer changed the game?

lydian wrote:I actually believe the opposite, i.e. that because Nadal is a great player, that does indeed harm Federer's CV (or shall we say claim to GOATness)due to Nadal's record against him across all slam surfaces. Otherwise, yes Federer has many great records and is undoubtedly one of the best players of all time.

Just out of interest LK, how has Federer changed the game?

By the way rallies are now frequently played and won from the baseline now as opposed to rallies being won by huge serving and easy put away volleys as was the case in the generation previous to Federer, i.e. the Sampras era.

Exactly gboycott, times are different, skills sets are different.
Makes it impossible to compare players careers from different eras.

lydian wrote:I actually believe the opposite, i.e. that because Nadal is a great player, that does indeed harm Federer's CV (or shall we say claim to GOATness)due to Nadal's record against him across all slam surfaces. Otherwise, yes Federer has many great records and is undoubtedly one of the best players of all time.

Just out of interest LK, how has Federer changed the game?

I think the GOAT will be decided once Federer and Nadal are retired. No doubt.

Federer changed the game by raising the standards to such high levels, that players have had to look at their own games and try to add dimensions that take years. For example Murray has tinkered with his serve, worked on his forehand. Nadal certainly improved his game tremendously after Roger's dominance from 04-07. Djokovic had to up his serving percentage, increase his mental strength and up the weight of his groundstrokes.

I haven't seen anyone play tennis the way Roger has or even Rafa for that instance. A measure of his impact will not just be the standards of todays players, but the juniors that come through too.