Top 5 Tennis Rivalries

First topic message reminder :

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.

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

Interesting that Pete Sampras in his early professional career from 1988 to around 1991 stayed on the baseline a lot, and played the style of game similar to what Federer has been doing ever since grasscourts have slowed down.

What about the Henman V Rusedski rivalry for the British Number 1 position?

gboycottnut wrote:What about the Henman V Rusedski rivalry for the British Number 1 position?

Not quite the entertaining of rivalries, but one that added intrigue as it wasn't so one-sided like it has been for the last 5 years.

Andy Murray definitely could become the GOAT by the time he retires from tennis as he has the same ability for hitting a tennis ball as what Federer has.

Was there any form of rivalry between Jimmy Connors and John Lloyd when Chris Evert started dating and eventually married John Lloyd in 1979.

This GOAT/GOATness debate seems to negate the fact that without each other, the overall standard of the game would not be where it is right now. Each such rivalry improves the sport of Tennis and adds to it.

As far as the 'genius' moniker is concerned, I would suggest examples, Mozart or Beethoven. Monet or Degas, Picasso or Dali, Borg or McEnroe, Laver or Rosewall, Nadal or Federer.

Be careful who is called a 'genius', lest you insult the others.

Good post laverfan, tennis since you feed off of your opponents play and level of play requires that your opponent be highly skilled for you to play your best. The quality of rallies we witness when Fed, Nadal, Novak, and Murray play are just a cut above then what we see when other good pros play one of the big 4. That is because in tennis, for the best quality of play you need two to tango so to speak. With Roger you often watch him in a one sided match and he almost looks bored and yes he still comes up with great shots, but when you see him play his best rivals the quality of the rallies go up exponentially and necessity becomes the mother of invention as both are forced to take their games up a notch to compete with the other.

socal1976 wrote:Good post laverfan, tennis since you feed off of your opponents play and level of play requires that your opponent be highly skilled for you to play your best. The quality of rallies we witness when Fed, Nadal, Novak, and Murray play are just a cut above then what we see when other good pros play one of the big 4. That is because in tennis, for the best quality of play you need two to tango so to speak. With Roger you often watch him in a one sided match and he almost looks bored and yes he still comes up with great shots, but when you see him play his best rivals the quality of the rallies go up exponentially and necessity becomes the mother of invention as both are forced to take their games up a notch to compete with the other.

Fans of each player need to appreciate what the player on the other side of the net brings to the court. Unfortunately, there is no draw in Tennis, hence the trophies only remember the winner, the small runner up plates seem to resolve into insignificance, but prove the heart of the player who lost.

Watching Laver-Rosewall or Pancho Gonzales, I, naively, assumed that there could not be any better tennis. Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal prove me wrong every day. I am grateful for that proof.

I would totally agree with that laverfan... we always do forget that in every final there is a loser and that loser was good enough to make the final and make the champion look as good as he did on that day.The glory of the champion can only be out- matched by the disappointment of the runner-up.

There must be many many players who only ever managed to obtain the runner-up plates-- and that fact reminds me of little Ken Rosewall who played in the finals so many times at Wimbledon but never walked away with the trophy.

I have a runners up medal and it is not a nice sight

I agree with lavefan on how genius is defined. As I said it can be used lightly and sometimes it depends the nature of which it is applied and how it is merited.

Defining Genius is simplistic, but also difficult. I prefer the term 'moments of genius'

LK do not demean your little runners up medal.. Im the one who comes runner up to the runner up