Federer/Nadal = Best Rivalry in Sports?

[michaeljkrell]

I have to disagree with the Yankees/Red Sox and Duke/NC and really anything else today because these teams never play against one another for a major championship. The Red Sox and the Yankees can never play against one another in a World Series and Duke & NC probably won't either. Nadal and Fed are playing one another on the biggest stage for the biggest prize.

 

[unrated]

Originally Posted by tagutcow

A rivalry for the ages is two great athletes both at the top of their form. Federer clearly wasn't bringing his best to that last game.
I agree, part of it is that Roger is never really comfortable against Rafa the same way he is against other players. Nadal has a mental edge over him. There is no doubt Roger has the game to beat him on any surface (clay might be another story), it's his execution on pressure points that kills him the most. Nadal's crosscourt topspin forehand to Roger's one-hander is a high percentage play that he can always resort to on the big points to draw an error. Those high balls give Roger a ton of trouble. The first thing Roger needs to do is hire a coach who can help him develop a game plan. Based on his performance yesterday, Roger has to be more aggressive on serve returns, otherwise he starts the point defensively. He is a much better player on offense than on defense. Maybe part of the reason he struggles is that he always has trouble on his own serve because of a low 1st serve %. Nadal never misses those returns and he always has to play a hard fought point to get ahead. He served beautifully the entire tournament except for in the final, where he never really found a rhythm.

 

[stvnr]

I think this is the best rivalry in sports at the moment. Nadal has gotten the best of Federer the past several matches but in the big picture, I think it's still close. He's the defending U.S. Open champion and took Nadal to five sets at the Australian and Wimbledon. I think the only place Nadal has a considerable edge is on clay.

 

[Thomas]

I think Tiger vs. his caddy is probably one for the ages.

Nicklaus - Watson was pretty good, although the pastoral setting and glacial pace of play doesn't quite quicken the pulse as tennis does. Hogan - Nelson falls on the same scale.

 

[Brutus]

All very good comments but I don't agree with the one above. There can really never be a rivalry in golf, the players don't play against one another directly.

Federer and Nadal are two amazing players. What makes Federer great in a historical sense is that he beats everyone consistently when it matters. What makes Nadal great in this regard is that he can beat the greatest when it matters most. Without Federer, Nadal probably wouldn't be as hyped as he is and without Nadal people would be convinced Federer wasn't actually human.

Anyways, they produce the greatest entertainment their sport can offer and it's consistently jaw-dropping entertainment. This makes it the greatest rivalry for me. Well, that and that I stayed up until 6am just to see it live!

Other sports such as college football can do this for me as well at times but it's tough to put it at the top of the list because the actual players rotate every couple of years. Here it's always going to be Federer vs. Nadal. Shoot, with the Yankees/RedSox you have players switch to the other dugout almost mid-game. There's nothing more to that than commercial advertising, proven by how much the Yankees can afford to pay their players season after season. So many sports have their flaws and, IMO, tennis does not. When televised the network doesn't take eternal commercial breaks and the scoring system is second to none.

For me, the most compelling thing about the Federer/Nadal rivalry is that they have two totally different styles of play. That featurette they played a few times during that match was spot on. When Federer is no longer the favorite (or if he finds his serve) then finesse will win over force...that's what I'm hoping for at least.

Let me throw one more out there for the international sports fans: Formula 1, Ferrari vs McLaren?

 

[edinatlanta]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Formula 1, Ferrari vs McLaren?

Come on man, we've had a rare moment of near unanimous support for something and now you got to go mess that up?

Not cool.

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by Brutus

All very good comments but I don't agree with the one above. There can really never be a rivalry in golf, the players don't play against one another directly.

Have you ever played?
Granted, I suppose one doesn't play directly against another, but to say there's no such thing as a rivalry in golf is a pretty absurd statement.

 

[breakz]

Whatever everyone decides...please, no more Yankees/Red Sox comments. Both teams have big douchebag fans, and Boston and NY compete for the most obnoxious fans on the planet. Both teams spend millions to build their rosters. Until Manny got traded, both had pretentious, egomanaical players. They're essentially the same team now (minus the Sox's success in recent years). Finally, both get covered WAY too much by the media. The Yanks/Red Sox rivalry has partially been fueled by ESPN's desire to build ratings. Nadal/Federer works because they're both one/two in tennis talent and their games are extreme contrasts. Fed has a strong volley game, Nadal is pure baseline. Hell, they're extreme contrasts. Nadal hits the weight room hard, Federer has disproportionate forearms from years of squeezing tennis balls. And Fed is outwardly emotional, while Nadal is great at keeping his cool. Also, this:

Originally Posted by Brutus

Formula 1, Ferrari vs McLaren?

 

[mkarim]

Originally Posted by MJC8719x

Not appreciated in America, but India vs Pakistan in cricket is a fierce rivalry too; especially considering world events.

Yes, when they DO play!!!

 

[mkarim]

Originally Posted by edinatlanta

Federer is just temporarily out of his groove and Nadal is finally finding his sweet spot.

The next few years will be great!

Am looking forward. We should have at least 2-3 more years of this rivalry before Federer slows down and/or retires and Nadal's knees give out.

 

[mkarim]

Originally Posted by stvnr

I think this is the best rivalry in sports at the moment. Nadal has gotten the best of Federer the past several matches but in the big picture, I think it's still close. He's the defending U.S. Open champion and took Nadal to five sets at the Australian and Wimbledon. I think the only place Nadal has a considerable edge is on clay.

If Nadal had won the US Open, he would have had the Grand Slam!

 

[Lachy]

^^^
Grand Slam is with a single year, isn't it? He could make a Grand Slam this year, but last year he was out of contention from when he lost the Australian.

I always hoped Federer would make it, but Nadal smashed his hopes each year in the French. I don't think Fed will ever again dominate the year like he used to, Nadal has improved too much on other surfaces.

 

[bullethead]

I'm not a tennis guy but I would be interested in reading the comments of those who are about Federer weeping after the match.

If you win, fine. If it is your last hurrah and calling it quits, fine. He just looked like a real pansy.

 

[cheessus]

Simply, the answer is yes, this is the best rivalry in sports. I will outline in bullet form, some of my reasoning, in no particular order.

1) Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever, period, in my opinion.
2) Federer had one of the most dominating stretches in the history of tennis, and may end up with the most Grand Slam titles ever.
3) The two are excellent on all surfaces. While I said that Nadal is the best ever on clay, I don't think Federer can make the same assertion on any other surface. Maybe if he wins a 6th US Open beating Nadal, he may have a claim for best hard court player ever. SO....
4) They don't disappear when the court doesn't suit their game.
5) While Nadal has been getting the better of Federer, I think he is 13-6 head-to-head, 9 of those wins are on clay, and Federer has beaten Nadal on clay and has come very close a few other times.
6) Other than the 2008 French Open Final, all of their matches have been very, very close. It usually goes down to who beats himself; Federer obviously is just mentally outclassed by Nadal. Physically though, his game is much more fluid/effortless and powerful.
7) I don't buy this weak era of tennis argument. The mens game is incredibly deep. Anyone in the top50 can win at anytime. If people are going to make this argument, Agassi's career grand slam would be called into question because it is clear that that 6-8 year stretch was the weakest (no Nadal, Federer hadn't yet developed, Sampras' retirement, etc.).
8) These guys are gentlemen and great ambassadors for the sport.

There are some other points, but I am blanking right now.

As for why Federer cried, it just goes to show how passionate he is about his game, and the fact that he is European

. We rarely ever make fun of those who cry when they lose the Super Bowl or such. This is an individual sport, so when you lose, it makes it that much more personal.

I think that it is difficult for us to understand how much time he puts into staying the best. The only time he's ever been "injured" was when he got mono, something you can't really help. Also he has only retired from a match once in his career, which was a couple of months ago due to a bad back. I mean, his level of fitness is incredible because of how hard he works. If you know a lot about tennis, you'll understand that it has the most physically and mentally demanding schedule in all of sports, I would argue. If you are a top 10 player, you are pretty much competing 10 months out of a year flying around the globe.

 

[SField]

Originally Posted by cheessus

Simply, the answer is yes, this is the best rivalry in sports. I will outline in bullet form, some of my reasoning, in no particular order.

1) Nadal is the greatest clay court player ever, period, in my opinion.
2) Federer had one of the most dominating stretches in the history of tennis, and may end up with the most Grand Slam titles ever.
3) The two are excellent on all surfaces. While I said that Nadal is the best ever on clay, I don't think Federer can make the same assertion on any other surface. Maybe if he wins a 6th US Open beating Nadal, he may have a claim for best hard court player ever. SO....
4) They don't disappear when the court doesn't suit their game.
5) While Nadal has been getting the better of Federer, I think he is 13-6 head-to-head, 9 of those wins are on clay, and Federer has beaten Nadal on clay and has come very close a few other times.
6) Other than the 2008 French Open Final, all of their matches have been very, very close. It usually goes down to who beats himself; Federer obviously is just mentally outclassed by Nadal. Physically though, his game is much more fluid/effortless and powerful.
7) I don't buy this weak era of tennis argument. The mens game is incredibly deep. Anyone in the top50 can win at anytime. If people are going to make this argument, Agassi's career grand slam would be called into question because it is clear that that 6-8 year stretch was the weakest (no Nadal, Federer hadn't yet developed, Sampras' retirement, etc.).
8) These guys are gentlemen and great ambassadors for the sport.

There are some other points, but I am blanking right now.

As for why Federer cried, it just goes to show how passionate he is about his game, and the fact that he is European

. We rarely ever make fun of those who cry when they lose the Super Bowl or such. This is an individual sport, so when you lose, it makes it that much more personal.

I think that it is difficult for us to understand how much time he puts into staying the best. The only time he's ever been "injured" was when he got mono, something you can't really help. Also he has only retired from a match once in his career, which was a couple of months ago due to a bad back. I mean, his level of fitness is incredible because of how hard he works. If you know a lot about tennis, you'll understand that it has the most physically and mentally demanding schedule in all of sports, I would argue. If you are a top 10 player, you are pretty much competing 10 months out of a year flying around the globe.

Eh, it's pretty clear that he's the greatest hard court and grass player ever. If that isn't obvious to you then I think there's a problem, because there isn't a tennis player past or present, or tennis analyst who hasn't said something to that effect.