There is no Federer-Nadal rivalry
July 6, 2010 by
John Stansberry
What’s the most important ingredient in making a great sports rivalry? Well, if the combatants aren’t evenly matched, then it’s a stretch to call them rivals. For instance, Notre Dame and Navy have played a lot of football against one another, and the vast majority of the time the Irish came out on top. That isn’t a rivalry, that’s two teams playing each other a lot.
In the wake of Rafael Nadal’s triumphant march through Wimbledon over the weekend, the talking heads devoted a lot of time not to his victory but to his “rivalry” with Roger Federer. I guess it’s not that big of a stretch to link the top two players in tennis in this manner. Between them they own 24 Grand Slam titles, with Federer owning a record 16 of them.
But there’s one problem putting these two into the same category as Michigan-Ohio State and Red Sox-Yankees, that being that Federer is pretty much Nadal’s bitch. The two of them have played head-to-head 21 times since their first meeting in 2004, and Nadal owns a commanding 14-7 lead in wins.
Federer is nearly four years older than Nadal, so it’s fascinating to compare the two in terms of how they fared in their first 25 Grand Slam appearances. Over his first 25, Nadal won 8 titles and never made a first round exit. Compare that to Federer’s first 25 Slams, in which he captured 6 titles but also made 6 first round exits.
Nadal is actually ahead of Federer’s record setting pace, but I doubt he’ll be able to pass him. Injuries have already hampered Nadal at times and I don’t see his all out style allowing him to remain injury free for the rest of his career.
The rush is on by many tennis pundits to proclaim Federer as the greatest player of all-time. But when he’s got a competitor out there who pretty much owns him, it sort of diffuses the argument. Did Ali have anyone who got the best of him more than he got of them? How about Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus? Did Joe Montana ever take a back seat to Dan Marino?
You see my point, Federer is drifting into “but” territory, you know, as in “Roger Federer was a great tennis player, BUT Rafa owned his ass.” If the two hook up again at the US Open in a few months, the rivalry talk will heat up again. Too bad nobody will notice that there really isn’t one.
Also, let me point out that the great lull in sports (that being from the end of the NBA Finals to the start of college football) has forced me into doing some crazy things, like writing about tennis. September can’t get here fast enough…
Kevin O on Tue, 6th Jul 2010 3:29 pm
Well Rafa Nadal has changed his style of play to preserve his body. He is looking to be more aggrssive and end points much quicker in order to preserve his body. Nadal wants to be considered the best in history. Speaking of that, after the French Open, Nadal said to John McEnroe “See you at the US Open” Which tells me that his really focused on winning a career grand slam so he can be considered the best player in history after it is all said and done.
Rebs on Tue, 13th Jul 2010 2:21 pm
Nice article. There’s too much talk about Raja being GOAT but I digress. How can he be GOAT when he cannot even be the greatest of his generation? As this article rightly points out, Rafa owns him. I know, I know, Fedtards would argue that the head to head count is only in Rafa’s favor because Raja often makes it to the finals of so many clay court tournaments, while Rafa does not in Hard courts and grass. But the thing is, Rafa beat Fed at his most dominant turf-grass. He would have gotten beat again if he made it to the finals of 2010. Rafa also beat Fed in AO 2009. The most glaring fact is, Fed won the French without Rafa.