[Quality4Qty]

Is the Nadal - Federer a real rivalry? I think the question needs to be asked.

In a real rivalry the persons/teams involved are evenly matched when playing each other. Cowboys-Niners during the early 90's and Lakers-Celtics during the 80's come to mind. People talk about the Red Sox - Yankees, but that wasn't a rivalry until a few years ago, because the Yanks always won! How could that ever be considered a rivalry? Ali - Frazier and Barrera - Morales in boxing are also good examples of great rivalries.

But Federer - Nadal? Come on. This matchup took tints of a good rivalry in 2007, when Federer made a game out of the FO Final and Nadal did so in Wimby, then Fed beat Nadal in Shanghai and appeared poised to end Rafa's dominance over him. That time is long gone.

People have never considered Federer - Roddick to be a rivalry, not even Andy or Roger. Nadal - Federer is getting to that point where the winner is a foregone conclusion.

Yes, they almost always give great games and it'll most often go the distance. But we know who's gonna prevail in the end. The surface doesn't even matter anymore.

That's not a rivalry.

[HawksBurnDown]

I disagree. The outcomes of these finals, where they always meet, are never a true given. And the ones that are still manage to produce the best tennis of the season. Chris and Martina weren't true rivals by your definition because it was insanely lopsided in the beginning and in the end. And they were the perhaps the greatest individual rivals in all of sports.

[Assauraarguck]

I'm on the side of rivalry - #1 & #2, both bringing their best to the big stages. You still want them both to make the final because you know it will be riveting no matter the outcome. I think Rafa summed it up best a couple years ago when he said he wanted to play Roger because it meant he was playing in the final.

[Quality4Qty]

I'm on the side of rivalry - #1 & #2, both bringing their best to the big stages. You still want them both to make the final because you know it will be riveting no matter the outcome. I think Rafa summed it up best a couple years ago when he said he wanted to play Roger because it meant he was playing in the final.

When has Roger ever brought his best against Nadal?

[MaickiP]

It's totally a rivalry. Nadal is certainly leading right now. He's up 13-6 and has won the last 5, but he's having his best 12 months ever and Federer has not played his best.

Also, a lot of that is clay. Nadal leads 9-1 on clay. Without those matches, the record is 4-5. They're 3-3 on hard, and 1-2 on grass.

We've talked about this before, but many have said that the h2h is lopsided partly because Nadal couldn't make finals on hard or grass for a long time. If Federer wasn't as good on clay, or Nadal had been better on hard over the last several years, the h2h might be closer.

[MaickiP]

When has Roger ever brought his best against Nadal?

Hmm.

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

[Quality4Qty]

I disagree. The outcomes of these finals, where they always meet, are never a true given. And the ones that are still manage to produce the best tennis of the season. Chris and Martina weren't true rivals by your definition because it was insanely lopsided in the beginning and in the end. And they were the perhaps the greatest individual rivals in all of sports.

I don't follow women tennis all that much, but there had to be a period of time when Martina and Chris were evenly matched. Take Lendl and McEnroe, for example. Yes, it was lopsided in the end to Lendl's favor, but from 1980 to 1985 those two faced each other 26 times, with Johnny Mac winning 14 and Ivan 12. 4-3 in slams for Mac, 2-1 in slam finals for Lendl. Now that's a rivalry. Borg - McEnroe also comes to mind.

Right now, this "rivalry" is 13 - 6, 6 - 2 in slams and 5 - 2 in slam finals for Rafa. There's no equilibrium there, as in great rivalries.

[Quality4Qty]

If Federer wasn't as good on clay, or Nadal had been better on hard over the last several years, the h2h might be closer.

Well I think one has to question that assumption now.

[Quality4Qty]

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.

2 out of 19. That's a pretty bad rate, don't you think?

[MaickiP]

Well I think one has to question that assumption now.

Nope! I certainly don't think they'd even out the h2h if they play a bunch of hard court matches this year, but I think Federer would have won the majority of non-clay matches back when he wasn't terrified and crying all the time.

[encunnibriG]

I think it's definitely a rivalry. Doesn't matter what the result is every time, as long as they're close matches and each player has won some. The only reason why I'd question the fact that it is a rivalry is that the two get along so well. Then again, I suppose you'd have to count out Borg-MacEnroe in that classification too.

[MaickiP]

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.

2 out of 19. That's a pretty bad rate, don't you think?

Yes. I think it's probably more than 2 out of 19, but Federer doesn't play his best against Nadal.

[MaickiP]

If you saw Roger play Roddick in Wimby '04, the you have to know that was not Roger's best.

Do you mean 06? Also, he doesn't have to be playing great the whole tournament to play a good match, Serena at the AO this year was a good example of that. I remember watching the Wimbledon 2006 and thinking Federer was playing well.

[RooxiaNof]

Hmm.

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

Rome 2006 also.

[soprofaxelbis]

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.

[Quality4Qty]

Rafa might have the last several matches, but would it surprise anyone if Roger won the next one?

It would certainly surprise me. A hell of a lot.

[Quality4Qty]

Do you mean 06?

No. Roger didn't play Andy in Wimby 2006. They faced each other in the Wimby '04 final and Roddick was playing out of his mind, ala USO '03. Federer played beautifully that day and went on to win in 4 very competitive sets. Great game, very underrated. The '08 final was way more dramatic, but in terms of pure level of play, I don't think it came close to matching that '04 final.

[Lvnufcdc]

No. Roger didn't play Andy in Wimby 2006. They faced each other in the Wimby '04 final and Roddick was playing out of his mind, ala USO '03. Federer played beautifully that day and went on to win in 4 very competitive sets. Great game, very underrated. The '08 final was way more dramatic, but in terms of pure level of play, I don't think it came close to matching that '04 final.

Agreed.

In terms of Federer's best against Nadal, I would say Shanghai 06 and Rome 06. In Shanghai 07, Nadal kind of gave up in the second. The Shanghai 06 match is one of the most high quality (in terms of shot-making) 3-set match I have watched.

[DurryVony]

Red Sox and Yankees is a great rivalry, even though the Yankees always won (pre-2004 that is).

Federer-Nadal is still a great rivalry, and the matches are not the foregone conclusion you make them out to be.

[rowneigerie]

No. Roger didn't play Andy in Wimby 2006. They faced each other in the Wimby '04 final and Roddick was playing out of his mind, ala USO '03. Federer played beautifully that day and went on to win in 4 very competitive sets. Great game, very underrated. The '08 final was way more dramatic, but in terms of pure level of play, I don't think it came close to matching that '04 final.

I think what you have to take into account too, though, is that Andy's game is perfect for Federer. With Nadal's game, it isn't always going to draw out the best in Roger like Andy's game does.

Anyway, I'd say that Nadal-Federer is, indeed, a rivalry. Like Kirkus said earlier, Nadal isn't a "lock" to win the next time they meet.....


unless it's on clay.