PDA

View Full Version : Can any rivalry on WTA pass Federer-Nadal rivalry?


borisy
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:46 AM
I think WTA has been left behind by ATP in terms of popularity this season.

There are lots of interesting stories on ATP like Nadal's claycourt record, Federer's grass record, their rivalry, Roddick's struggle etc.

On the woman's side not much happened except Martina's comeback.

Do you think any rivalry among 2 WTA players pass the Federer-Nadal rivalry in terms of popularity?

iPatty
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:47 AM
I wouldn't call Federer and Nadal a rivalry. I think there are some rivalries on the women's side who are already much more interesting.

vwfan
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:50 AM
not much a rivalry, if federer constantly loses.

MH0861
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:50 AM
If Serena can get herself together, Serena/Sharapova was always going to be a great one.

Joana
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:57 AM
I think the trio of Serena, Justine and Maria has great potential for interesting rivalries. All of them are strong characters, all have some kind of history between them and their matches tend to be exciting. Too bad they never seem to play at the same time.

Derek.
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:57 AM
Like Federer said about his H2H with Roddick. It's not a rivalry until the other player wins some too. :tape:

It's no rivalry, it's just that Federer is Nadal's bitch. :shrug:

Serena/Maria
Serena/Jennifer
Lindsay/Venus
Venus/Serena
Venus/Martina
Lindsay/Martina

All of those are good.

borisy
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:59 AM
Like Federer said about his H2H with Roddick. It's not a rivalry until the other player wins some too. :tape:

It's no rivalry, it's just that Federer is Nadal's bitch. :shrug:

Serena/Maria
Serena/Jennifer
Lindsay/Venus
Venus/Serena
Venus/Martina
Lindsay/Martina

All of those are good.

There is something you don't consider.

Federer can reach later rounds on Nadal's best service so they have a matchup on clay and Federer loses... but Nadal can't reach later rounds in Federer's best surface (grass) so we see no matchups on clay that can make H2H more balanced.

timray
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:01 AM
This one could be nasty: Anna Tchakvetadze vs Aravane Rezai.

faboozadoo15
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:01 AM
i feel like there are a lot of compelling rivalries at the top of women's tennis.

nadal will always have a favorable head to head against federer if he never reaches a final on grass or an american hardcourt. the only times they play is when nadal is on his best form and federer's worst.

switz
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:13 AM
:lol: no

:lol: at the suggestion it's not a rivalry. 5 matches played on clay - all very competitive. Rome final was probably the best match tennis has seen for a decade. Put 5 matches on grass there head to head would be even. And then on hard it's a huge rivalry again.

Women's tennis has nothing on it except prettier outfits (some might say).

Sorry to sound like a chauvanist pig but it's true :)

tennisIlove09
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:18 AM
I think the ATP is too predictable.

On hard courts, grass courts, indoors courts ... Federer always wins.
On clay courts, Nadal always wins.

Should Nadal actually have a good week on hard courts or grass, he beats Federer, but off clay they are move even. I think its 2-1 Nadal. On clay, Nadal leads like 4-0. So, that has a lot to do with it.

I think right now the WTA is very unpredictable. Anyone in the top 10 can win a title any given week. On clay you favor JHH and Mauresmo (outside Paris of course). On grass you favor Venus and Sharapova (Davenport and Serena). On hard courts though, I think it's any one's game. Given the fact that since the start of 2004 its been so wide spread at the majors is proof of this.

2004
JHH - Myskina - Sharapova - Kuznetsova - Serena - JHH - Venus - Clijsters - Mauresmo - JHH

Only JHH is the repeat champ, and twice on clay. Its anyone's game, which makes it exciting to watch.

sfselesfan
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:25 AM
Federer/Nadal does qualify as a rivalry...but certainly not a classic rivalry...yet.

There are many more interesting rivalries on the women's side already. I think the Venus/Hingis/Davenport rivalry is captivating...and has had new life breathed into it with the return of Martina to the scene.

I think Serena/Henin/Clijsters have a nice rivalry going too. Sharapova and Mauresmo have started to get into that mix.

The women's game is SOOOO deep right now. For years this is what we wished for. Slam finals with different women in them each time. For years we had to see #1 vs. #2 in the final with #1 winning almost every tournament. It's much more interesting having rivalries made up of more than two women.

SF

switz
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:26 AM
Only JHH is the repeat champ, and twice on clay. Its anyone's game, which makes it exciting to watch.

the WTA tour is a comedy of errors and injuries. Whoever makes the least and stays fit long enough wins.

Joana
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:30 AM
:lol: no

:lol: at the suggestion it's not a rivalry. 5 matches played on clay - all very competitive. Rome final was probably the best match tennis has seen for a decade. Put 5 matches on grass there head to head would be even. And then on hard it's a huge rivalry again.

Women's tennis has nothing on it except prettier outfits (some might say).

Sorry to sound like a chauvanist pig but it's true :)

The Rome final was exciting, but the RG final was crap. I agree their rivalry is by far the best in tennis right now, but Roger better step it up because it's looking increasingly less like a rivalry and more like a domination.

Sam L
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:34 AM
Roger has 7 slams. Nadal has 2. A rivalry? :tape:

Well I don't know. We've got the Serena Williams - Pierce rivalry I guess.

sfselesfan
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:37 AM
Roger has 7 slams. Nadal has 2. A rivalry? :tape:

Well I don't know. We've got the Serena Williams - Pierce rivalry I guess.

:confused:

Nadal is only in his second year of playing slams...took Federer a lot longer to get Nadal-like results!

SF

GracefulVenus
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:38 AM
:lol: no

:lol: at the suggestion it's not a rivalry. 5 matches played on clay - all very competitive. Rome final was probably the best match tennis has seen for a decade. Put 5 matches on grass there head to head would be even. And then on hard it's a huge rivalry again.

Women's tennis has nothing on it except prettier outfits (some might say).

Sorry to sound like a chauvanist pig but it's true :)
Uh, Venus and Martina already have a great rivalry and it is one that has been longer than Federer and Nadal. Think about it. We only start hearing their names within the last two years. I've been seeing women like
Davenport
Serena
Venus
Hinigis
and Capriati battling it out since 1998. Federer and Nadal only began 2004 at the earliest. Good rivalry, but not as interesting as the Women.....sorry!

StarDuvallGrant
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:40 AM
Serena/Jen was always fun.

switz
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:40 AM
The Rome final was exciting, but the RG final was crap. I agree their rivalry is by far the best in tennis right now, but Roger better step it up because it's looking increasingly less like a rivalry and more like a domination.

yes but as i said it's very lopesided because 5 of their 7 matches have been on clay which is of huge advantage to Nadal. Rafa hasn't gone deep on a regular basis on grass or hard in the big events and therefore the H2H is not really reflective of the rivalry IMO.

Marcus1979
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:40 AM
:confused:

Nadal is only in his second year of playing slams...took Federer a lot longer to get Nadal-like results!

SF

not to mention some very early exits from slams like in 2002

It took Federer a long time to get it together mentally but Nadal doesn't seem to have that problem

Joana
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:41 AM
Uh, Venus and Martina already have a great rivalry and it is one that has been longer than Federer and Nadal. Think about it. We only start hearing their names within the last two years. I've been seeing women like
Davenport
Serena
Venus
Hinigis
and Capriati battling it out since 1998. Federer and Nadal only began 2004 at the earliest. Good rivalry, but not as interesting as the Women.....sorry!

Doesn't matter. It's all past tense now, except for Hingis/Venus. And their 2 matches this year were pitiful.

faboozadoo15
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:42 AM
:confused:

Nadal is only in his second year of playing slams...took Federer a lot longer to get Nadal-like results!

SF
that's not true at all. roger's won a lot more over a shorter period of time. unless you're talking age.
let's talk age again when nadal's banged up and injured half his time on tour from age 25 on.
people mature at different times.

though i do agree on your laughing at the comparison of pierce to serena, but that was meant to be a joke anyway.

switz
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:43 AM
Roger has 7 slams. Nadal has 2. A rivalry? :tape:


If that was posted by almost any other poster you'd have to think that was joke because it's just so dumb.

I don't even feel the need to explain why - it's just so obvious.

faboozadoo15
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:46 AM
not to mention some very early exits from slams like in 2002

It took Federer a long time to get it together mentally but Nadal doesn't seem to have that problem
nadal has made it to the quarterfinals (or later) of a major TWICE.

Marcus1979
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:52 AM
nadal has made it to the quarterfinals (or later) of a major TWICE.

Federer Arrived on the scene in 1999

won his first slam in 2003

in his 17th slam apperance


Nadal arrived on the scene in 2003

won his first slam in 2005

in his 6th slam appearance

darrinbaker00
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:55 AM
Do you think any rivalry among 2 WTA players pass the Federer-Nadal rivalry in terms of popularity?
What rivalry? Rafael Nadal is Roger Federer's pimp. ;)

darrinbaker00
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:59 AM
:lol: no

:lol: at the suggestion it's not a rivalry. 5 matches played on clay - all very competitive. Rome final was probably the best match tennis has seen for a decade. Put 5 matches on grass there head to head would be even. And then on hard it's a huge rivalry again.

Women's tennis has nothing on it except prettier outfits (some might say).

Sorry to sound like a chauvanist pig but it's true :)
Actually, only four of the Nadal-Federer matches have been on clay. The other three (Miami '04 quarters, Miami '05 final, Dubai '06 final) were on hardcourts, two of which Nadal won.

sfselesfan
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:02 AM
that's not true at all. roger's won a lot more over a shorter period of time. unless you're talking age.
let's talk age again when nadal's banged up and injured half his time on tour from age 25 on.
people mature at different times.

though i do agree on your laughing at the comparison of pierce to serena, but that was meant to be a joke anyway.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Nadal won the French Open the first time he played the tournament. It took Federer five years on the tour to win a slam (or even get to a slam final). Nadal has been more successful earlier. It is unrealistic to expect Nadal to un-seat Federer as #1 in his second full year on the tour.

SF

SAEKeithSerena
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:31 AM
definitely serena/sharapova or serena/capriati

MrSerenaWilliams
Jun 20th, 2006, 03:09 AM
Serena v. Venus matches will ALWAYS attract people!

So will:

Serena v. Maria
Venus v. Lindsay
Venus v. Hingis
Serena v. Hingis
Maria v. Venus

There are more superstars on the womens tour...but I would rather watch Blake v. Nadal as opposed to Federer v. Nadal....more personality

sfselesfan
Jun 20th, 2006, 03:56 AM
Serena v. Venus matches will ALWAYS attract people!

So will:

Serena v. Maria
Venus v. Lindsay
Venus v. Hingis
Serena v. Hingis
Maria v. Venus

There are more superstars on the womens tour...but I would rather watch Blake v. Nadal as opposed to Federer v. Nadal....more personality

I know Serena is way ahead in the H2H, but I love when she and Lindsay play tight matches. The 2001 US Open QF they played was a great match! They've had a few good ones.

SF

Volcana
Jun 20th, 2006, 04:10 AM
Do you think any rivalry among 2 WTA players pass the Federer-Nadal rivalry in terms of popularity?Not right now. 'Popularity' is about what the fans think. What the fans want to see. Federer-Nadal is a classic matchup. The best in the world, against the one guy he can't beat. Federer is something like 46-4 this year. All four losses are to Nadal.

To exceed that, the women's tour needs

1) one of it's (few) really popular players to also be the dominant player, AND for there to be some charismatic challenger who actually wins most of the matchups. Or ....

2) Race to be a factor among the fans, which means one of the American Blacks vs someone white around the world are really pulling for, AND for those to players to be better than all of, or most of the others. That was one of the elements that made Venus/Hingis such a popular conflict. Less so Serena/JCap, cause they were both Americans.

Of course Serena vs Sharapova was supposed to incorporate all those elements, but Serena hasn't played since January, and Sharapova's Wimbledon win didn't translate into the predicted dominance.

The matchup that has all the elements to become 'must-see' tennis is Venus vs Henin-Hardenne. It's got a loooong way to go to become that, but Henin-Hardenne is the likeliest current player to dominate the tour, and Venus-as-challenger bring a lot of popularity.

But, getting back to the thread topic, to exceed Federer-Nadal in popularity, you really need a player as dominant as Federer. The WTA hasn't had that since 2002-3.

Geisha
Jun 20th, 2006, 04:46 AM
Well, what's amazing about the Federer/Nadal rivalry is that they have barely ever played on a surface other than claycourts, which is Nadal's turf. I think later in the year, Nadal will advance further in hardcourt tournaments and the true rivalry will begin.

Unless Venus and Serena get back into the mix, we won't see any popularity changes in the WTA rivalries. There was the Serena/Sharapova thing for a while, but that stopped quickly.

GracefulVenus
Jun 20th, 2006, 06:15 AM
Doesn't matter. It's all past tense now, except for Hingis/Venus. And their 2 matches this year were pitiful.
How can you say that. They are both getting back on the tour and posting decent results so far, especially Hingis. They are restarting their rivalry and Fed and Nadal's is just climaxing, something Venus and Hingis did back in 2001!

Hingiswinsthis
Jun 20th, 2006, 06:19 AM
A Cold and Ruthless Venus Williams that is hungry for titles (before she became humble and subdued because of a series of GS loses to little sis and then everyone sympathized for her)

vs.

a cocky, brash, and strutty Martina Hingis could put back the WTA on the map...

That was, ofcourse, in the past...now they are viewed as mere veterans trying to get back to the form they once were...

but the whenever these two played from 1998-2000 (the years of their best matches), the media will almost certainly build on the hype and the aftermath of the battle. If these two can find their groove again, WTA is back in the game.

This is still the best rivalry amongst active players.

switz
Jun 20th, 2006, 06:52 AM
Uh, Venus and Martina already have a great rivalry and it is one that has been longer than Federer and Nadal. Think about it. We only start hearing their names within the last two years. I've been seeing women like
Davenport
Serena
Venus
Hinigis
and Capriati battling it out since 1998. Federer and Nadal only began 2004 at the earliest. Good rivalry, but not as interesting as the Women.....sorry!

:lol: you only heard about it because Nadal was is 19 and wasn't a top player more than two years.

hmm Davenport and Capriati are on the verge of retirement. Serena has not played a good match for about a year and a half. Venus and Hingis have not played a good match against each other for over 4 years. Living in the past much? Really no need to apologise!!

Jeff
Jun 20th, 2006, 07:02 AM
Federer/Nadal is a rivalry, yes, but only in the sense that Nadal is the only who consistently defeats Federer. I don't consider it an interesting rivalry, though...because 1) Yes Nadal has like a 5-1 record and 2) Federer is one of the best ever, but for some reason I don't find his demeanor very interesting, which kind of extinguishes the energy/excitement of the rivalry.

Miranda
Jun 20th, 2006, 07:39 AM
roger has 25 years of age, while nadal has 20 years of age :rolleyes: , roger has not won a slam at age 19 :rolleyes:


Roger has 7 slams. Nadal has 2. A rivalry? :tape:

Well I don't know. We've got the Serena Williams - Pierce rivalry I guess.

Miranda
Jun 20th, 2006, 07:41 AM
:worship: :worship: , not many people give credit to nadal who won with his mental strength, never say die attitidue, his will is as strong as iron :worship:

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Nadal won the French Open the first time he played the tournament. It took Federer five years on the tour to win a slam (or even get to a slam final). Nadal has been more successful earlier. It is unrealistic to expect Nadal to un-seat Federer as #1 in his second full year on the tour.

SF

Farina Elia Fan
Jun 20th, 2006, 07:55 AM
not much a rivalry, if federer constantly loses.



:worship:

FP
Jun 20th, 2006, 08:37 AM
The best one is HINGIS VS VENUS

but close second HINGIS VS DAVENPORT

Miranda
Jun 20th, 2006, 08:45 AM
hi sister :lol: :bounce:



The best one is HINGIS VS VENUS

but close second HINGIS VS DAVENPORT

Prizeidiot
Jun 20th, 2006, 08:55 AM
If you're talking about hype, it's hard to see any rivalry on the WTA surpassing that for the moment. People are too injured at the moment to establish anything. Very few of the women are playing nearly as well as they possibly can at the moment.

Mr_Molik
Jun 20th, 2006, 09:01 AM
I think the ATP is too predictable.

On hard courts, grass courts, indoors courts ... Federer always wins.
On clay courts, Nadal always wins.

Should Nadal actually have a good week on hard courts or grass, he beats Federer, but off clay they are move even. I think its 2-1 Nadal. On clay, Nadal leads like 4-0. So, that has a lot to do with it.

I think right now the WTA is very unpredictable. Anyone in the top 10 can win a title any given week. On clay you favor JHH and Mauresmo (outside Paris of course). On grass you favor Venus and Sharapova (Davenport and Serena). On hard courts though, I think it's any one's game. Given the fact that since the start of 2004 its been so wide spread at the majors is proof of this.

2004
JHH - Myskina - Sharapova - Kuznetsova - Serena - JHH - Venus - Clijsters - Mauresmo - JHH

Only JHH is the repeat champ, and twice on clay. Its anyone's game, which makes it exciting to watch.
what is the point of not knowing who's going to win the title if you know the quality is going to be terrible 99 times out of 100. atleast with federer/nadal you are guaranteed a quality match.

Prizeidiot
Jun 20th, 2006, 09:09 AM
what is the point of not knowing who's going to win the title if you know the quality is going to be terrible 99 times out of 100. atleast with federer/nadal you are guaranteed a quality match.
True... I can stand watching Federer win all the time because he plays such brilliant tennis, he can defend, he can play aggressive on the baseline, he can serve volley, he can mix up his backhand... you're rarely ever watching the same thing.

On the other hand, seeing a big hitter beating up on their opponent's weak shots is a little painful, and I always end up feeling sorry for the loser.

Armeec
Jun 20th, 2006, 09:26 AM
Anna, come back!

Neptune
Jun 20th, 2006, 10:47 AM
This one could be nasty: Anna Tchakvetadze vs Aravane Rezai.
If the dad is around,for sure :o

Viktymise
Jun 20th, 2006, 11:40 AM
There already are - we have Venus - Martina they have played loads of great matches but federer and nadal have only played a couple. Venus - Davenport the Wimbledon final last yr said it all, the RG mens final was no where near the quality of that. Serena - Sharapova or even Venus - Sharapova they have produced matched to really say its a rivalry. Serena - Capriati loads of great exciting matches im sorry but Federer - Nadal is very overrated they havent played that much and it hasnt been that great when they have

vwfan
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:22 PM
If Serena can get herself together, Serena/Sharapova was always going to be a great one.I don't see Serena at her best having much trouble with Sharapova. I mean she's just a little bit better than Jamea!

Joana
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:24 PM
I don't see Serena at her best having much trouble with Sharapova. I mean she's just a little bit better than Jamea!

Serena, on the other hand, is just a little bit worse than Jill Craybas.

vwfan
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:27 PM
the WTA tour is a comedy of errors and injuries. Whoever makes the least and stays fit long enough wins.unfortunately, i have to agree with you in part.

i would love to see a wta where all the top players are playing and playing at their best. we all thought it would be this year, with the fab four sweeping the slams. but serena's situation has been a blow, and as annoying as capriati is her energy is missed, kim is on the round to retirement, linds is injured and was starting to play amazing tennis, as was mary, venus is in a slump. no wonder martina returned!

vwfan
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:35 PM
what is the point of not knowing who's going to win the title if you know the quality is going to be terrible 99 times out of 100. atleast with federer/nadal you are guaranteed a quality match.hmmm. like the french open snoozer. federer issues a breadstick, nadal follows and then nadal dominates until he falls in the dirt in mock surprise. :lol:

JustineTime
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:40 PM
Despite the current lopsided H2H, I think we're going to see a very compelling rivalry develop in the near future between Justine and Kuzzy. Kuzzy just needs a little more seasoning, and a few more big victories to give her the belief she needs to get over the top...:hehehe: :yeah:

Andy T
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:46 PM
Federer/Nadal is a rivalry, yes, but only in the sense that Nadal is the only who consistently defeats Federer. I don't consider it an interesting rivalry, though...because 1) Yes Nadal has like a 5-1 record and 2) Federer is one of the best ever, but for some reason I don't find his demeanor very interesting, which kind of extinguishes the energy/excitement of the rivalry.

Think about this guys!

Their h2h by surface is:
Clay Nadal 4-0
Hard Nadal 2-1
Grass never played
Indoor never played

Nadal has Federer's number on clay, no question.

On hardcourts, it's 2-1, with one win each in the last 18 months. One Federer win would square them up on this surface.

BUT, they've never met on grass or indoor carpet!

Federer is good enough to reach the final on clay to face Nadal while Nadal is not good enough to reach the final and face Federer on grass or indoors.

MistyGrey
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:58 PM
On the woman's side not much happened except Martina's comeback.

Do you think any rivalry among 2 WTA players pass the Federer-Nadal rivalry in terms of popularity?

Have you not heard about Stevenson vs Dokic? :drool:

jj74
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:13 PM
wta needs all her champions wealthy and the new starlets improving and will be like the end of the 90's when the new generation (Martina, the Williams, Kournikova) and the old champions (Graf, Seles, ASV,...) figth for the tittles

MistyGrey
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:21 PM
wta needs all her champions wealthy and the new starlets improving and will be like the end of the 90's when the new generation (Martina, the Williams, Kournikova) and the old champions (Graf, Seles, ASV,...) figth for the tittles

They are pretty wealthy already!

Mudbone
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:59 PM
Since when is Federer vs Nadal a rivalry??? If one guy wins all the matches its not a rivalry...Fedex is Rafaels pigeon....Its about as much as rivalry as Federer vs Roddick...

The WTA is much more popular than the ATP...Thats why the ATP is trying to sell that bs about Roger being the greatest of alltime...They have nothing else the fans will buy.....

The WTA even with all the injuries have more star quality players than the ATP....The WTA matchups are far more compelling....

If Nadal fails to reach the Wimbledon final(which he likely will) to oppose Federer, who is gonna watch??? Very few fans will care to watch Fedex vs Joe Shmo...Now contrast that to a Venus/Maria, Venus/Hingis, Venus/Henin final...Any of those matches would dwarf the appeal of another ATP Roger Federer snooze festival

faboozadoo15
Jun 20th, 2006, 03:28 PM
Serena, on the other hand, is just a little bit worse than Jill Craybas.
:tape:
:haha:

magassi
Jun 20th, 2006, 04:15 PM
Jennifer and Serena need to make their returns to the tour. I think that was last great WTA Tour rivalry...

ezekiel
Jun 20th, 2006, 04:24 PM
sadly not right now as hardly any good player is commited full time to the game and those who play are mostly slumpers with nothing exceptional .

On the other hand , Rafael and Roger can create a biggest rivalry in all of sports if they keep improving as they are both still young

Tennisaddict
Jun 20th, 2006, 05:42 PM
Federer/Nadal is not a rivalry. A lot of people are saying that Federer gets to finals on clay while Nadal doesn't on grass. They forget that this is recent. Federer had never reached the semifinal of RG before 2005 he lost in the second round in 2004!

What I'm saying is that in time Nadal will become better on grass. He showed improvement from last year in Queens. He's the better player on hardcourts as well.
The only win Federer managed to sqeeze out was when Nadal's fatique finally crept in when they were playing in that marathon final in Miami 2005. Nadal is five years younger than Federer so you can't compare them in that respect. In terms of accomplishments he's already ahead of Federer who won his first slam at the age of 21.

I think that the WTA has interesting rivalries but a lot are not being realized unfortunately. I used to dislike Capriati but I miss her now, her matches with Serena were great, you could really feel the tension whenever those two played. I think Capriati also could have had a rivalry with Sharapova. Venus/Hingis is also compelling, Venus/Davenport as well. Serena/Mauresmo provides classics as well just think back to the YEC 2004. Henin/Serena is also interesting. And there are more.

So I think that the ATP is being passed by the WTA in terms of compelling rivalries.

faboozadoo15
Jun 20th, 2006, 07:39 PM
Federer/Nadal is not a rivalry. A lot of people are saying that Federer gets to finals on clay while Nadal doesn't on grass. They forget that this is recent. Federer had never reached the semifinal of RG before 2005 he lost in the second round in 2004!

What I'm saying is that in time Nadal will become better on grass. He showed improvement from last year in Queens. He's the better player on hardcourts as well.
The only win Federer managed to sqeeze out was when Nadal's fatique finally crept in when they were playing in that marathon final in Miami 2005. Nadal is five years younger than Federer so you can't compare them in that respect. In terms of accomplishments he's already ahead of Federer who won his first slam at the age of 21.

I think that the WTA has interesting rivalries but a lot are not being realized unfortunately. I used to dislike Capriati but I miss her now, her matches with Serena were great, you could really feel the tension whenever those two played. I think Capriati also could have had a rivalry with Sharapova. Venus/Hingis is also compelling, Venus/Davenport as well. Serena/Mauresmo provides classics as well just think back to the YEC 2004. Henin/Serena is also interesting. And there are more.

So I think that the ATP is being passed by the WTA in terms of compelling rivalries.
I'd be really interested to see if nadal can be standing with 7 slams at federer's age. just because nadal is younger, it doesn't mean he'll have a longer career, like roger probably will. a lot of players peak early, some peak late. roger has peaked at the perfect time, and he'll probably have a long career and go down as the greatest ever.

and how is nadal the better player on hardcourts? because he beat federer once in 2003 with the flu and another off time in dubai? please... i don't think you realize how much improvement nadal will have to make to be standing where federer is standing 5 years from now.

nadal has made it to the quarterfinals of a major TWICE.

No.1Hingis
Jun 20th, 2006, 08:08 PM
Personally... I think in men side is thats the great "POST".. you know.. I couldnt mix up ATP and WTA.. I consider the show is kind of different..

Maybe is similar to some rivarlies in past.. this one has a topic.. Nadal is the best on clay.. but Federer would be the best in grass.. so.. In women side the thing is.. not a really great favourite and everything can happen.. is not more.. all against Martina.. or upset a WS.. maybe is everybody ag Justine.. but.. was clay times.. in grass theres another faves.. Roger and Nadal always are in final.. is for me.. less exciting.. the girls inconsistent is better show to me that Roger-Rafael rivarly..

jj74
Jun 20th, 2006, 08:16 PM
They are pretty wealthy already![/QUOTE]

OMG, i want to say healthy

Miranda
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:16 AM
:bowdown: :bowdown: , thanks for giving credit to nadal which many do not :wavey:
Federer/Nadal is not a rivalry. A lot of people are saying that Federer gets to finals on clay while Nadal doesn't on grass. They forget that this is recent. Federer had never reached the semifinal of RG before 2005 he lost in the second round in 2004!

What I'm saying is that in time Nadal will become better on grass. He showed improvement from last year in Queens. He's the better player on hardcourts as well.
The only win Federer managed to sqeeze out was when Nadal's fatique finally crept in when they were playing in that marathon final in Miami 2005. Nadal is five years younger than Federer so you can't compare them in that respect. In terms of accomplishments he's already ahead of Federer who won his first slam at the age of 21.

I think that the WTA has interesting rivalries but a lot are not being realized unfortunately. I used to dislike Capriati but I miss her now, her matches with Serena were great, you could really feel the tension whenever those two played. I think Capriati also could have had a rivalry with Sharapova. Venus/Hingis is also compelling, Venus/Davenport as well. Serena/Mauresmo provides classics as well just think back to the YEC 2004. Henin/Serena is also interesting. And there are more.

So I think that the ATP is being passed by the WTA in terms of compelling rivalries.

Miranda
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:17 AM
nadal may not win as many slams as roger, thats true, but can't you give some credit to the young man who always fight to the end, and always speak high of roger who on reverse, say him as one-dimensional etc :rolleyes:
I'd be really interested to see if nadal can be standing with 7 slams at federer's age. just because nadal is younger, it doesn't mean he'll have a longer career, like roger probably will. a lot of players peak early, some peak late. roger has peaked at the perfect time, and he'll probably have a long career and go down as the greatest ever.

and how is nadal the better player on hardcourts? because he beat federer once in 2003 with the flu and another off time in dubai? please... i don't think you realize how much improvement nadal will have to make to be standing where federer is standing 5 years from now.

nadal has made it to the quarterfinals of a major TWICE.

faboozadoo15
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:28 AM
sure, nadal is great, he's got 2 majors and a run at the french open that will take a train to stop. he's also never been to the quarterfinals of any other major. there's also not much to dislike about him. he plays inspired tennis and really fights.

he's just not federer, and i don't care how many wins he has over roger on clay or off in dubai. they probably will never play at wimbledon or on a grass court, and i'd venture to say it'll take a while before these two play on an indoor hardcourt or a carpet court or hell even a high end american outdoor hardcourt.

SelesFan70
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:33 AM
When If Justine wins Wimbledon, she'll equal Federer this year (assuming he wins the Big W):

3 Major Finals, and 2 wins

I'm not sure the men will ever hold the drama for me that the women do. :D

LeRoy.
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:36 AM
nadal may not win as many slams as roger, thats true, but can't you give some credit to the young man who always fight to the end, and always speak high of roger who on reverse, say him as one-dimensional etc :rolleyes:

i agree why do so many people think Roger is God and that Nadal isn't good enough to beat him :confused:

Miranda
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:46 AM
thanks :kiss: , nadal also plays good on indoor, he beat the powerful Ljubicic in the final of Master Series in Madrid last year, people don't give him time, forgot that he is just 20 and is still learning :rolleyes:



i agree why do so many people think Roger is God and that Nadal isn't good enough to beat him :confused:

teo_honey
Jun 21st, 2006, 08:17 AM
Roger has 7 slams. Nadal has 2. A rivalry? :tape:

Well I don't know. We've got the Serena Williams - Pierce rivalry I guess.

We've got what??

Mr_Molik
Jun 21st, 2006, 08:27 AM
hmmm. like the french open snoozer. federer issues a breadstick, nadal follows and then nadal dominates until he falls in the dirt in mock surprise. :lol:
you ppl are so biased i dont know why i bother arguing. the 4th set of that final was better than anything i saw in the womens tournament. very high quality.

Prizeidiot
Jun 21st, 2006, 12:13 PM
you ppl are so biased i dont know why i bother arguing. the 4th set of that final was better than anything i saw in the womens tournament. very high quality.
Best example is probably Rome rather than RG... I don't think either player brought their A-game in Paris.

Gowza
Jun 21st, 2006, 12:23 PM
maybe vaidisova/sharapova in the future.

Sam L
Jun 21st, 2006, 12:23 PM
roger has 25 years of age, while nadal has 20 years of age :rolleyes: , roger has not won a slam at age 19 :rolleyes:
Um if we do that Martina Hingis is still greater than Serena Williams.

Guys, face it your little gym bunny is a specialist. He can't win on anything other than clay. It's really pathetic.

samsung101
Jun 21st, 2006, 03:57 PM
No.

Venus and Serena v. Maria or Martina maybe.


No one is dominating.
No one the general public cares about anyway.

Roger and Rafael are both good looking, talented,
and they are totally different personalities. They
spark interest. It's fun to see Rafael get into
Rogers head. It's fun to see Rafael struggle w/Rogers
complete game. The capri pants don't hurt either.

Can anyone really get jazzed about Justine v.
whoever...no. Kim v. some player we never heard.


If we can get one or two players who are constantly
in the finals, who drum up some personal interest
with their game and style, they can rival Roger-Rafael.

But, I don't see it anytime soon.
Last years semi and finals at Wimby were as close
as it may get to heated rivalries.

Brashkoala
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:45 PM
i think hingis-sharapova has a lot of potential

mike/topgun
Jun 21st, 2006, 07:23 PM
NO, becouse
WTA is down now...nothing interesting is going on atm...no surprises, lots of injuries, very few quality matches...etc.
I wouldn't say that Rafa/Roger rivalry is that interesting, cos Nadal owns Fed 6-1 :tape: then it's very important that they're the only players who constantly play in big finals against eachother. Still the Rome final was a terrific one, but RG final was :tape:.
There's going more on the mens tour that's why, atm, womens game is not that interesting for casual fans considerably.

Shinjiro
Jun 21st, 2006, 07:43 PM
Guys, face it your little gym bunny is a specialist. He can't win on anything other than clay. It's really pathetic.
Actually he won on hardcourts last year, against an in-form Agassi in Toronto (or was it Montreal?). IMO he's got the game to win in Australia next season...

JulesVerne
Jun 21st, 2006, 07:51 PM
not much a rivalry, if federer constantly loses.

Much is said about this rivalry, but Rafael has never reached the quarter finals of a grand slam not called the French Open and they have never played on grass or carpet. On hard Rafael leads 2-1 and Roger has actually won more points in last 2 matches.

Henin - Clijsters probably is the nearest rivalry.

Venus - Serena was naturally and understandably inhibited by them being sisters.

manu32
Jun 21st, 2006, 08:18 PM
don't understand venus hingis???? it's an actual thread or a past????
maybe clijsters hingis but they played too much poor matches.....
jencap serena was full of emotions and probably the big deal of past years.....
for men i think nalbandian federer is the best because talentuous players on every surface.....and nadal ......nothing to say.......so boring....i don't like body building ....

Miranda
Jun 22nd, 2006, 03:11 AM
its you who are pathetic, nadal won the master series in Montreal (hard court) and also Madrid (carpet) :rolleyes: :rolleyes: , they are not clay right :rolleyes: ? he also beat your mighty roger at hard court in Dubai, are you so short of memories, all these just happened less than a year :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

you are really pathetic, weren't its you who created the threads "Martina will win FO", "Roger will win FO" etc?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: , did they win??:rolleyes:


Um if we do that Martina Hingis is still greater than Serena Williams.

Guys, face it your little gym bunny is a specialist. He can't win on anything other than clay. It's really pathetic.

Gowza
Jun 22nd, 2006, 03:43 AM
i think to truely judge the federer/nadal rivalry they need to play at the slams, we all know nadal dominates him on clay but federer is getting better and making those encounters closer. we know the few matches not on clay and not in the slams that nadal can hold his own against federer. but if we put them on the big stage, AO, wimbledon, US open (we already know how it goes at RG) then we will really know if it's a true rivalry or nadal is dominate. nadal is getting better on other surfaces. he took the first set from hewitt then lost the 2nd before he reitred hurt, not sure whether him getting hurt affected that 2nd set score or not but hewitt is a former winner at wimbledon, he's pretty good on grass so nadal has shown that he can compete at a relatively high level on grass but we still don't know how much better he's got, 5 sets is a different story to 3.

darrinbaker00
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:12 AM
Much is said about this rivalry, but Rafael has never reached the quarter finals of a grand slam not called the French Open and they have never played on grass or carpet. On hard Rafael leads 2-1 and Roger has actually won more points in last 2 matches.
It's not necessarily how many points you win, but when you win them, and Rafael obviously wins all the right ones against Roger. Besides, if you're The Man, you should be able to beat anyone on any surface, and until Roger turns it around against Rafael, regardless of the surface, he's not The Man.

mike/topgun
Jun 22nd, 2006, 09:42 AM
IMO he's got the game to win in Australia next season...
Especially when the rebound ace there is so slow in the recent years, Rafa's got a great chance to do well on slow HC, even on carpet as he did in Madrid, and I'm not his fan.
People tend to see him as a hype, only muscles, but hee's really smart when it comes to tactics, and aproaching the important matches against Fed. He won't be as good as Fed, but he's been beating him with his iron will and consistency.
Rafa is 20, Roger is 25. We'll have to wait and see how it developes, cos 7 matches isn't enough.

Rachel_
Jun 22nd, 2006, 11:54 AM
Since when is Federer vs Nadal a rivalry??? If one guy wins all the matches its not a rivalry...Fedex is Rafaels pigeon....Its about as much as rivalry as Federer vs Roddick...

The WTA is much more popular than the ATP...Thats why the ATP is trying to sell that bs about Roger being the greatest of alltime...They have nothing else the fans will buy.....

The WTA even with all the injuries have more star quality players than the ATP....The WTA matchups are far more compelling....

If Nadal fails to reach the Wimbledon final(which he likely will) to oppose Federer, who is gonna watch??? Very few fans will care to watch Fedex vs Joe Shmo...Now contrast that to a Venus/Maria, Venus/Hingis, Venus/Henin final...Any of those matches would dwarf the appeal of another ATP Roger Federer snooze festival

:haha:

Exactly :D