[Henldyhl]

It is a rivalry if it FEELS like a rivalry.
We used to talk about the Becker/Edberg rivalry, even though Becker was 25/10. Surprisingly, nobody ever talked about the Courier/Agassi rivalry, even though it was pretty intense (and even: 7/5 Courier).
We never talked about the Pete/Krajicek rivalry, although Krajicek actually led that one (6/3). They simply did not feel like rivalries.
Pete/Andre was clearly one, although Pete dominated in almost all aspects (20/14 overall, 6/3 at Grand Slams, 4/0 at the USO). But they seemed like true rivals.
As much hatred as Connors could project towards McEnroe, there was mutual respect once the match was over. It was a rivalry (McEnroe 20/14).
Roger / Rafa a rivalry? By the numbers, no. But every time they play I am glued to the TV screen, and I would pay LOTS of money to see one match live, and the level of respect they show to one another makes it feel like a rivalry.

[soprofaxelbis]

It is a rivalry if it FEELS like a rivalry.
We used to talk about the Becker/Edberg rivalry, even though Becker was 25/10. Surprisingly, nobody ever talked about the Courier/Agassi rivalry, even though it was pretty intense (and even: 7/5 Courier).
We never talked about the Pete/Krajicek rivalry, although Krajicek actually led that one (6/3). They simply did not feel like rivalries.
Pete/Andre was clearly one, although Pete dominated in almost all aspects (20/14 overall, 6/3 at Grand Slams, 4/0 at the USO). But they seemed like true rivals.
As much hatred as Connors could project towards McEnroe, there was mutual respect once the match was over. It was a rivalry (McEnroe 20/14).
Roger / Rafa a rivalry? By the numbers, no. But every time they play I am glued to the TV screen, and I would pay LOTS of money to see one match live, and the level of respect they show to one another makes it feel like a rivalry.

You just keep these stats rolling around in your head, don't you.

[enurneAcourdy]

It is a rivalry if it FEELS like a rivalry.
We used to talk about the Becker/Edberg rivalry, even though Becker was 25/10. Surprisingly, nobody ever talked about the Courier/Agassi rivalry, even though it was pretty intense (and even: 7/5 Courier).
We never talked about the Pete/Krajicek rivalry, although Krajicek actually led that one (6/3). They simply did not feel like rivalries.
Pete/Andre was clearly one, although Pete dominated in almost all aspects (20/14 overall, 6/3 at Grand Slams, 4/0 at the USO). But they seemed like true rivals.
As much hatred as Connors could project towards McEnroe, there was mutual respect once the match was over. It was a rivalry (McEnroe 20/14).
Roger / Rafa a rivalry? By the numbers, no. But every time they play I am glued to the TV screen, and I would pay LOTS of money to see one match live, and the level of respect they show to one another makes it feel like a rivalry.

I think this is a very good point. It's certainly a rivalry in my eyes. The outcome of their matches is simply too much up in the air. Nadal gets the best of Federer a lot these days but it doesn't change that it's up in the air. Going into the 5th set of the AO final on Sunday, who did y'all think was gonna win? Part of what made Andy-Roger seem like a non-rivalry is that Andy was having a very difficult time even taking sets from Roger. Roger and Rafa play each other very close.

[LINETFAD]

The matches are epic, the matches are close, the matches are dramatic, the matches come on tennis' greatest and grandest stages. They're by far the two best players in the world. How ISN'T this a rivalry?

Yes, neither of them play all that well against each other, but thats due to the incompatibility of their styles. The quality of play may not be up to, say, a classic Sampras-Agassi match, but the quality of theatre involved in the Federer-Nadal matches is unmatched by, well, anything really.

[formobilagsw]

As a huge fan of Andre Agassi, I was so sad to see Pete retire. I felt that...Pete was someone who brought out the absolute best in Andre and pushed him to heights no one else could. I felt like it wouldn't be the same watching Andre without him (of course, it was BETTER, Andre started winning more without Pistol Pete around...) but....

When we get a match up of Federer-Nadal or....Nadal-Federer however you love to write it...it is definitely a rivalry IMO. There's that same thrill...that same obsession level kind of need to see these two go at it. When I look at a draw, and see a possible matchup between Federer and Nadal, there are no words to describe how giddy I feel. And.....it all started that very first time Nadal whipped Federer on the tour. Now...even though Nadal is dominating the H2H...it is still thrilling because these guys are going at it....tossing everyone else out of the way into the gutter for all of the top prizes in tennis:

1. Records....Will Federer meet or break Sampras's record? When they meet in a final, Nadal is the biggest threat to stop Federer and so...there's a high level of intensity to the match (and a high level of disappointment when Fed doesn't bring it)

2. Domination.....Fed dominated, now Nadal dominated. Many don't believe...but many, like me, believe that Fed can be on top again (on top of tennis, not Mirka!)

3. These guys used to be ranked one - two in the world (Fed - Nadal) and now...they are ranked 1-2 (Nadal - Fed) in the world. No matter what, they will each be chasing the #1 ranking. Federer didn't do too much last year....he has room to really make up alot of points. And getting to the finals at the first slam didn't hurt him either.....as long as he keeps up with Rafa...he is always a threat to overtake the number one ranking...and so I'll be cheering him on all the way...

4. Slams....slams.....slams!!!! They want them. And they want them ALL. It's great to see who can win more slams each year...and when they meet in the final....oooooooh la la! And the French open.....Nadal is the one who has been stopping Fed from getting the French.....last year, Fed finally beat Nadal on clay and went to the French believing.......well hell it doesn't matter...But one day...Fed is going to get to a point of no return, where he doesn't believe he has anything to lose and boy is he going to bring it!

What matters is that...these two are in a class by themselves. Djokovic may get there, Andy may get there but right now...these two are still by themselves and so...it is totally thrilling to see them play each other.....because right now, in all likelihood...Nadal will win....but one day..Fed is going to upset the applecart just like Nadal did and then.....Nadal will do it etc.

For me..."Is there a rivalry" isn't really the question. For me the question is more to the tune of "how far can this rivalry progress?" And I hope it goes on for a good long time.

[MaickiP]

When has Roger ever brought his best against Nadal?

Hmm.
I would say Wimbledon 2006, Hamburg 2007, and Masters cup 2007.

If you saw Roger play Roddick in Wimby '04, the you have to know that was not Roger's best. At all. I'm more than convinced that Rafa wasn't really trying during Hamburg 2007. The Masters cup 2007 I'll concede, and I'll add the Rome 2006 final, which is probably the greatest clay court match I've ever seen.

Do you mean 06?

No. Roger didn't play Andy in Wimby 2006...

I think you zoned out a little. You asked when Roger plays his best against Nadal, I listed Wimbledon '06 among others, and then you started talking about Roddick in '04. Senior moment?

[Doctorpills]

I think you zoned out a little. You asked when Roger plays his best against Nadal, I listed Wimbledon '06 among others, and then you started talking about Roddick in '04. Senior moment?

Forgive my butting in, but I think I'm following morancito here. He's talking about Roddick in '04 because he's saying compared to how Roger played against Roddick in '04 (arguably, his best), Roger can't seem to play his best against Rafa. He's saying that none of Roger's matches against Rafa bring out the kind of quality Roger showed in '04 against Roddick.

Hope that was clear; I'll probably only add to the confusion.

[Henldyhl]

You just keep these stats rolling around in your head, don't you.

I swear I keep them all in my head. I swear!!!!!

[zlopikanikanz]

I see a rivalry as not having a pretty sure bet on who's going to win when the same two players continually meet each other. If Roger and Rafael meet each other in the final of the next tournament they both play in, I don't think anyone can say beyond a reasonable doubt which one will be victorious. Rafa might have the last several matches, but would it surprise anyone if Roger won the next one?

In contrast, if it's Roger/Andy, it's a pretty good bet who's going to win that match-up. So, in my opinion...

Roger/Rafa = rivalry
Roger/Andy = not so much.

I think this is a very good point. It's certainly a rivalry in my eyes. The outcome of their matches is simply too much up in the air. Nadal gets the best of Federer a lot these days but it doesn't change that it's up in the air. Going into the 5th set of the AO final on Sunday, who did y'all think was gonna win? Part of what made Andy-Roger seem like a non-rivalry is that Andy was having a very difficult time even taking sets from Roger. Roger and Rafa play each other very close.

Basically my arguements.

[BaselBimbooooo]

Well, since you brought it up:

http://craighickmanontennis.blogspot...searching.html