This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would suggest to move/rename this article to List of tennis rivalries. Then we can also include the men and make it into a good article. We will need to set criteria for inclusion as is needed for a list article. MakeSense64 ( talk) 09:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Now that the move has been done we will need clear criteria for inclusion, as is needed for a list article. I think having met once in a grand slam final is a bit too broad, because that would mean we will also have to include Agassi-Schüttler and many other odd pairings with players that reached a slam final once in their career. That would defeat the purpose of the article.I think we should limit the list to pairings that have at least been top4 ranked during their career AND have met a significant number of times in main tour matches.
Having met once in a major final does not make for a "rivalry". I am thinking: several meetings in QF or better of slams, and at least 10 career meetings overall. We can rank the pairs by total number of career meetings, which would automatically put the more important rivalries at the top.
Because we are creating a list article this is not the place to list every match that was played in a give rivalry, that would make the article too long. The separate matches can be mentioned in the individual rivalry articles, no need to repeat everything here. So I will cleanup the legend and the empty tables already.
MakeSense64 (
talk) 09:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention that it's a bit silly to list something as a rivalry, if it's so one-sided that one player never even won a match. Look at Borg–Gerulaitis, 16–0. To speak with Roddick, when asked about his 'rivalry' with Federer, "To call it a rivalry I must start winning some of these matches.". As far as criteria for inclusions go, perhaps a minimum wins of two? CrashTestSmartie ( talk) 10:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
What about Nalbandian - Federer rivalry? Both in Top 3, 19 overall meeting, 6 Grand Slam meetings (2 QF, 1 SF) and 1 Master Cup finals, 1 master series final... I think is enought. -- Tommy The Wise ( talk) 05:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
To avoid running afoul of the Wikipedia policy on OR, I think we need to stick to the numbers given by the ATP, unless there is some other source which will discount the 3 finals that keep getting removed from the tally. ATP credits their rivalry as 8-12 in 20 finals. Also, just as a side note, you can't delete 3 matches from their the total number of finals if you don't also delete them from the total number of meetings and the total record of their matches. ATP gives 36 meetings INCLUDING the 3 finals in question. Finally, there is absolutely nothing on this page to suggest that uncompleted matches or matches in team tournaments should be excluded. This is a compendium of data about tennis rivalries with records of professional matches played. The columns are labeled "All Finals" and "All Finals Matches", not "All Finals in Individual Tournaments that were Completed", etc. Please don't revert to the OR interpretation of the Lendl-McEnroe finals data without some kind of outside source to back it up. This is ridiculous. The ATP says 36 matches total, 21-15 overall, 20 finals, 8-10 in finals. Leave it at that, unless you have some other sources which says otherwise, in which case CITE IT. 108.56.245.21 ( talk) 18:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Will this rivalry be merited its own own article page, its the only rivalry of the 'Big Four' that doesn't yet it has seen some great matches and highly important ones (regular Grand Slam semi final meetings). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 ( talk) 00:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The current rules on the page state that for a "rivalry" to exist, both players must have been ranked No. 3 or higher.
In my opinion, I think that rule is harsh, as there are some very good players who have reached No. 4 (without being higher), such as del Potro, Söderling and Li Na. Therefore, I believe the rule should be changed to be "both players must be ranked No. 4 or higher".
Take for example Federer–del Potro - they have met at Majors multiple times (AO x 2, FO x 2, W x 1, USO 2009), have also met in finals multiple times (USO 2009, Rotterdam 2012) and have also met in some notable matches (French Open 2012, where Federer came from two sets to love down to win in five sets).
Another: Li Na vs. Sharapova - they have met in a few finals, and have also met multiple times at Majors (AO x 2, FO x 2, USO 2006). They have also met at least 12 times, that number of meetings clearly meets the criteria.
Some more notes:
What do you think of the rule change (lowering the threshold from No. 3 to No. 4)? MasterMind5991 ( talk) 04:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a very good page, but I think it should have stricter criteria - both players must've won a Grand Slam to merit inclusion. This would weed out Davydenko, Ferrer, Shriver, Jaeger, Safina, and Dementiava.
Taking it a step further, I think both players should be multiple Slam winners. Chang, Stich, Martinez, Ivanovic, etc. don't really belong either.
75.117.13.219 ( talk) 22:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought about it some more and decided upon threshold of each player must have won 3 Majors or reached 6 Major finals. (Andy Murray and Mary Pierce are the 2 players meeting only the latter criteria.)
Even with this much higher standard for inclusion, there still remain plenty of rivalres: 26 male and 32 female Open era plus all of the extant pre-Open era items. And of course all of the truly elite rivalries mentioned in the top 10 lists cited in the intro remain; they easily meet the new criteria.
75.117.13.219 ( talk) 00:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Murray wins 2 slam. Do you delete all rivalry were is Murray?-- Soundwaweserb ( talk) 01:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Each player must have won 3 Major titles. Murray win only two!-- Soundwaweserb ( talk) 01:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Clearly I'm of the opinion that only the best should merit inclusion here. So now I want the criteria to be even stricter: a each player must have a minimum of 4 Major titles or 7 Major finals which would prune Ashe, Wade, Capriati, and Pierce leaving the threshold tier as Vilas, Courier, Murray, Mandlikova, Sanchez-Vicario, Davenport, and Clijsters. The 7 finals criteria is the "Murray-Davenport" provision because both certainly merit inclusion. This threshold tier really is at best a third tier of all-time greatness, so this is inclusive enough. Coincidentally, it also means there are 25 entries for both the men and women of the Open era. And none of the pre-Open era entries are removed. That's plenty of entries with no glaring weaknesses. And all of the truly great rivalries (as listed in the references in the intro) of course remain; truly great rivalries are amongst the very best players.
As for comparisons with the original criteria for this article (one of the players must have reached No. 1 ranking, the other at least a high of No. 3) the first section at the top clearly states that was decided to ensure Mandlikova (career high No. 3) made the cut. It's worth noting my new Majors-based replacement of that criteria (while preserving the 2 other mandatory criteria as-is, both are spot on) of course keeps Mandlikova (who certainly belongs) while eliminating the large amount of the less-significant rankings-based entries. 75.91.135.88 ( talk) 22:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Please respond with a preference for the original criteria or my new one. Wolbo and I have had a few rounds of edit sparring and that's not good for anybody. I did so to establish that I'd like my proposal to be seriously considered. I have a strong opinion on this matter, but my intenentions are to improve this article, and I genuinely think my new criteria does. I've already elaborated why that is in this section, which I hope you would read before voting. So hopefully we can reach a consensus here, either way. Thanks for your time and consideration. -- 75.91.135.88 ( talk) 02:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like nobody supports my 4/7 threshold so I'm done advocating it. At least it's spurred the alternative proposal discussion below, which I'll participate in too. -- 75.91.135.88 ( talk) 20:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
My view is that the list criteria are pretty good and don't need any drastic changes like proposed by the ip editor. Having said that they could use some tweaking to make them even better. The guidelines are currently:
The first criteria is fine. To the second criteria I would like to add quarterfinal and season-ending event (e.g. Masters, WCT Final, VS Championships). In our tournament draw articles we always separate the early rounds from the quarterfinals and beyond so it seems logical and consistent to do that here as well. The stage from the quarterfinal onward is often referred to as the 'business end' of a tournament. I changed 'multiple times' to 'at least three times' to balance the quarterfinal addition. The season-ending tournaments are significant and important enough to include (the famous WCT finals between Laver and Rosewall come to mind). The ip editor's proposal that both players should have won multiple Grand Slams / Majors is too drastic for me but I like the idea that they should both at least have won one. This doesn't effect the lists greatly but it does give them more body. Finally it seems reasonable to require that players who form a rivalry should at least once during that rivalry have met in the final of a tournament. Incorporating these changes, with some wording tweaks, gives:
Thoughts? -- Wolbo ( talk) 14:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I don't really like the idea of individual achievements being used as a measure of whether a rivalry is notable. I think the only requirements should be related to the number of meetings and the significance/importance of these meetings. The proposed guidelines massively disadvantage players who compete in a strong era. For example, they suggest Ferrer cannot have a rivalry with Nadal, despite their 28 meetings (including a slam final). However, Murray's rivalry with Nadal is notable, purely because of the two slams he won, despite not playing Nadal in either of those tournaments. Username of a generic kind ( talk) 12:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
So basicly I wouldn't apply this current criteria to pre-open era player at all. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In tennis articles, I think that rivalry is confused with head-to-head results. Rivalry means a proper antagonism, even if it's respectful as it usually happens in tennis. Federer vs Nadal, Agassi vs Sampras, Evert vs Navratilova, McEnroe vs Borg / Connors / Lendl are rivalries. Roddick-Ferrer is just a match between two very good players.. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 18:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
3 major champions and at least 6 final reaches is a very high standard for some players.If do so someone will be out of this article,it is pity.For example former No.1 Victoria Azarenka or improtant people like Li Na will disappear.but Vika and S.Williams' H2H is 3-14,with Sharapova is 7-6.Sharapova and Li's H2H is 10-5,I think is qualified.So please lower standard.-- Chinyen Lu ( talk) 03:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Can someone confirm the following I have them playing 13 matches Evert leads 9-4. Sources found bolded
1) 1970 Evert beat Court Charlotte, NC SF W 7-6, 7-6, 2) 1972 Evert beat Court Bonnie Belle Cup W 6-3, 6-3, 3) 1972 Evert beat Court Indianapolis, IN SF W 6-3, 7-6, 4) 1972 Evert lost Court Newport, RI SF L 6-3, 6-0 (grass), 5) 1973 Evert lost Court French Open F L - 7-6 6-7, 4-6 (clay), 6) 1973 Evert beat Court Wimbledon SF W 6-1, 1-6, 6-1 (grass), 7) 1973 Evert lost Court U.S. Open SF L 5-7, 6-2, 2-6 (grass), 8) 1973 Evert lost Court Hilton Head, SC RR L 6-4, 6-7, 6-2, 9) 1975 Evert beat Court Akron, OH F W 6-4, 3-6, 6-3, 10) 1975 Evert beat Court Houston, TX F W 6-3, 6-2, 11) 1975 Evert beat Court Rye, NY SF W 6-3, 6-3, 12) 1977 Evert beat Court Chicago, IL F W 6-1, 6-3, 13) 1977 Evert beat Court Hollywood, FL F 6-3, 6-4. -- Navops47 ( talk) 23:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems quite strange that players who don't "meet" on the court should qualify as "meeting" in these charts. If you don't play each other because of illness or car wreck, it's simply a walkover, nothing more. No meeting, no points in either direction. In this years ATP Year-End event we had Kei Nishikori supposed to meet Milos Raonic. Raonic was hurt so David Ferrer filled in as an official match. Nishikori met Ferrer, he did not meet Raonic. This chart would have us believe that Nishikori met both Ferrer and Raonic if by chance their numbers ever increased enough to be listed here. That seems pretty far fetched to me. I would say we remove the meeting total to actual matches they played against each other. The asterix can stay if we want but the note wording would have to say "does not include any walkovers." Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Just wanted to ask can we add the ITF Majors to the inclusion criteria and can someone explain to me what the World Pro Championship Series events were that people like Gonzales and Tilden won and how important were they cheers.-- Navops47 ( talk) 03:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Just off the top of my head:
Riggs-Kramer
Pails-Segura
Kramer-Segura
Kramer-Sedgman
Gonzales-Trabert
Segura-Trabert
Segura-McGregor
And the dates for Vines-Perry are WAY wrong.
Segura was a World #1, don't forget. So that when he was #2 on the touring card, against Pails, McGregor, Trabert, etc, he still meets the criteria. Hayford Peirce ( talk) 00:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Kramer says in his book that he and Segoo must have played at least 200 matches over the years. Both were World #1 or co-#1 players at various times, although there was one really weird year for Segoo's ranking of #1. He had just been clobbered by Kramer on their head-to-head tour, something like 70 matches to 30, but he was *still* ranked #1 by some people -- because he had beaten Kramer in a number of tournaments, apparently. Go figger.... Hayford Peirce ( talk) 22:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of tennis rivalries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
A couple of years ago (see above heading) I wondered about Kramer-Segura meetings. Nothing seems to have eventuated since then. I *tried* to find info about them at that enormous database that has *everything* about *everyone* but found myself blocked without paying a fee of some sort. Hayford Peirce ( talk) 20:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Pre-open era head to heads on this page are highly inaccurate. I would recommend removal of this section. tennishistory1877 ( talk) 23:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The criteria are arbitrary. A rivalry is a rivalry if the tennis world and sports writers say it is. So a lot of the entries here don't belong. Courier - Stich? Comments? Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Idea for a functional edit: Because only some of the rivalries here are notable enough to have standalone pages, would anyone object to an edit to show more clearly to readers which pairs have clickable full entries? As it is, we kind of run into
MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues (the color of the dashes is pretty easy to miss). I'd favor either to make a new column in each table dedicated to links to rivalry articles (creating many empty cells) or to separate the standalone link within each box, from
Graf–Sabatini
to something like
Graf–
Sabatini (
rivalry)
.
Hameltion (
talk,
contribs) 22:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest that the title for the pre-Open eras be changed from "Amateur" to "Amateur/Pro" to better characterize the pre-Open era. Many, or possibly most, of the matches listed in the pre-Open period are actually professional matches, not amateur. Tennisedu ( talk) 05:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
What about this rivalry, Raonic was top 3, Djokovic was top 1, and they played more than ten matches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.33.17.186 ( talk) 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would suggest to move/rename this article to List of tennis rivalries. Then we can also include the men and make it into a good article. We will need to set criteria for inclusion as is needed for a list article. MakeSense64 ( talk) 09:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Now that the move has been done we will need clear criteria for inclusion, as is needed for a list article. I think having met once in a grand slam final is a bit too broad, because that would mean we will also have to include Agassi-Schüttler and many other odd pairings with players that reached a slam final once in their career. That would defeat the purpose of the article.I think we should limit the list to pairings that have at least been top4 ranked during their career AND have met a significant number of times in main tour matches.
Having met once in a major final does not make for a "rivalry". I am thinking: several meetings in QF or better of slams, and at least 10 career meetings overall. We can rank the pairs by total number of career meetings, which would automatically put the more important rivalries at the top.
Because we are creating a list article this is not the place to list every match that was played in a give rivalry, that would make the article too long. The separate matches can be mentioned in the individual rivalry articles, no need to repeat everything here. So I will cleanup the legend and the empty tables already.
MakeSense64 (
talk) 09:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention that it's a bit silly to list something as a rivalry, if it's so one-sided that one player never even won a match. Look at Borg–Gerulaitis, 16–0. To speak with Roddick, when asked about his 'rivalry' with Federer, "To call it a rivalry I must start winning some of these matches.". As far as criteria for inclusions go, perhaps a minimum wins of two? CrashTestSmartie ( talk) 10:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
What about Nalbandian - Federer rivalry? Both in Top 3, 19 overall meeting, 6 Grand Slam meetings (2 QF, 1 SF) and 1 Master Cup finals, 1 master series final... I think is enought. -- Tommy The Wise ( talk) 05:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
To avoid running afoul of the Wikipedia policy on OR, I think we need to stick to the numbers given by the ATP, unless there is some other source which will discount the 3 finals that keep getting removed from the tally. ATP credits their rivalry as 8-12 in 20 finals. Also, just as a side note, you can't delete 3 matches from their the total number of finals if you don't also delete them from the total number of meetings and the total record of their matches. ATP gives 36 meetings INCLUDING the 3 finals in question. Finally, there is absolutely nothing on this page to suggest that uncompleted matches or matches in team tournaments should be excluded. This is a compendium of data about tennis rivalries with records of professional matches played. The columns are labeled "All Finals" and "All Finals Matches", not "All Finals in Individual Tournaments that were Completed", etc. Please don't revert to the OR interpretation of the Lendl-McEnroe finals data without some kind of outside source to back it up. This is ridiculous. The ATP says 36 matches total, 21-15 overall, 20 finals, 8-10 in finals. Leave it at that, unless you have some other sources which says otherwise, in which case CITE IT. 108.56.245.21 ( talk) 18:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Will this rivalry be merited its own own article page, its the only rivalry of the 'Big Four' that doesn't yet it has seen some great matches and highly important ones (regular Grand Slam semi final meetings). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 ( talk) 00:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The current rules on the page state that for a "rivalry" to exist, both players must have been ranked No. 3 or higher.
In my opinion, I think that rule is harsh, as there are some very good players who have reached No. 4 (without being higher), such as del Potro, Söderling and Li Na. Therefore, I believe the rule should be changed to be "both players must be ranked No. 4 or higher".
Take for example Federer–del Potro - they have met at Majors multiple times (AO x 2, FO x 2, W x 1, USO 2009), have also met in finals multiple times (USO 2009, Rotterdam 2012) and have also met in some notable matches (French Open 2012, where Federer came from two sets to love down to win in five sets).
Another: Li Na vs. Sharapova - they have met in a few finals, and have also met multiple times at Majors (AO x 2, FO x 2, USO 2006). They have also met at least 12 times, that number of meetings clearly meets the criteria.
Some more notes:
What do you think of the rule change (lowering the threshold from No. 3 to No. 4)? MasterMind5991 ( talk) 04:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a very good page, but I think it should have stricter criteria - both players must've won a Grand Slam to merit inclusion. This would weed out Davydenko, Ferrer, Shriver, Jaeger, Safina, and Dementiava.
Taking it a step further, I think both players should be multiple Slam winners. Chang, Stich, Martinez, Ivanovic, etc. don't really belong either.
75.117.13.219 ( talk) 22:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought about it some more and decided upon threshold of each player must have won 3 Majors or reached 6 Major finals. (Andy Murray and Mary Pierce are the 2 players meeting only the latter criteria.)
Even with this much higher standard for inclusion, there still remain plenty of rivalres: 26 male and 32 female Open era plus all of the extant pre-Open era items. And of course all of the truly elite rivalries mentioned in the top 10 lists cited in the intro remain; they easily meet the new criteria.
75.117.13.219 ( talk) 00:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Murray wins 2 slam. Do you delete all rivalry were is Murray?-- Soundwaweserb ( talk) 01:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Each player must have won 3 Major titles. Murray win only two!-- Soundwaweserb ( talk) 01:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Clearly I'm of the opinion that only the best should merit inclusion here. So now I want the criteria to be even stricter: a each player must have a minimum of 4 Major titles or 7 Major finals which would prune Ashe, Wade, Capriati, and Pierce leaving the threshold tier as Vilas, Courier, Murray, Mandlikova, Sanchez-Vicario, Davenport, and Clijsters. The 7 finals criteria is the "Murray-Davenport" provision because both certainly merit inclusion. This threshold tier really is at best a third tier of all-time greatness, so this is inclusive enough. Coincidentally, it also means there are 25 entries for both the men and women of the Open era. And none of the pre-Open era entries are removed. That's plenty of entries with no glaring weaknesses. And all of the truly great rivalries (as listed in the references in the intro) of course remain; truly great rivalries are amongst the very best players.
As for comparisons with the original criteria for this article (one of the players must have reached No. 1 ranking, the other at least a high of No. 3) the first section at the top clearly states that was decided to ensure Mandlikova (career high No. 3) made the cut. It's worth noting my new Majors-based replacement of that criteria (while preserving the 2 other mandatory criteria as-is, both are spot on) of course keeps Mandlikova (who certainly belongs) while eliminating the large amount of the less-significant rankings-based entries. 75.91.135.88 ( talk) 22:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Please respond with a preference for the original criteria or my new one. Wolbo and I have had a few rounds of edit sparring and that's not good for anybody. I did so to establish that I'd like my proposal to be seriously considered. I have a strong opinion on this matter, but my intenentions are to improve this article, and I genuinely think my new criteria does. I've already elaborated why that is in this section, which I hope you would read before voting. So hopefully we can reach a consensus here, either way. Thanks for your time and consideration. -- 75.91.135.88 ( talk) 02:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like nobody supports my 4/7 threshold so I'm done advocating it. At least it's spurred the alternative proposal discussion below, which I'll participate in too. -- 75.91.135.88 ( talk) 20:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
My view is that the list criteria are pretty good and don't need any drastic changes like proposed by the ip editor. Having said that they could use some tweaking to make them even better. The guidelines are currently:
The first criteria is fine. To the second criteria I would like to add quarterfinal and season-ending event (e.g. Masters, WCT Final, VS Championships). In our tournament draw articles we always separate the early rounds from the quarterfinals and beyond so it seems logical and consistent to do that here as well. The stage from the quarterfinal onward is often referred to as the 'business end' of a tournament. I changed 'multiple times' to 'at least three times' to balance the quarterfinal addition. The season-ending tournaments are significant and important enough to include (the famous WCT finals between Laver and Rosewall come to mind). The ip editor's proposal that both players should have won multiple Grand Slams / Majors is too drastic for me but I like the idea that they should both at least have won one. This doesn't effect the lists greatly but it does give them more body. Finally it seems reasonable to require that players who form a rivalry should at least once during that rivalry have met in the final of a tournament. Incorporating these changes, with some wording tweaks, gives:
Thoughts? -- Wolbo ( talk) 14:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I don't really like the idea of individual achievements being used as a measure of whether a rivalry is notable. I think the only requirements should be related to the number of meetings and the significance/importance of these meetings. The proposed guidelines massively disadvantage players who compete in a strong era. For example, they suggest Ferrer cannot have a rivalry with Nadal, despite their 28 meetings (including a slam final). However, Murray's rivalry with Nadal is notable, purely because of the two slams he won, despite not playing Nadal in either of those tournaments. Username of a generic kind ( talk) 12:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
So basicly I wouldn't apply this current criteria to pre-open era player at all. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In tennis articles, I think that rivalry is confused with head-to-head results. Rivalry means a proper antagonism, even if it's respectful as it usually happens in tennis. Federer vs Nadal, Agassi vs Sampras, Evert vs Navratilova, McEnroe vs Borg / Connors / Lendl are rivalries. Roddick-Ferrer is just a match between two very good players.. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 18:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
3 major champions and at least 6 final reaches is a very high standard for some players.If do so someone will be out of this article,it is pity.For example former No.1 Victoria Azarenka or improtant people like Li Na will disappear.but Vika and S.Williams' H2H is 3-14,with Sharapova is 7-6.Sharapova and Li's H2H is 10-5,I think is qualified.So please lower standard.-- Chinyen Lu ( talk) 03:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Can someone confirm the following I have them playing 13 matches Evert leads 9-4. Sources found bolded
1) 1970 Evert beat Court Charlotte, NC SF W 7-6, 7-6, 2) 1972 Evert beat Court Bonnie Belle Cup W 6-3, 6-3, 3) 1972 Evert beat Court Indianapolis, IN SF W 6-3, 7-6, 4) 1972 Evert lost Court Newport, RI SF L 6-3, 6-0 (grass), 5) 1973 Evert lost Court French Open F L - 7-6 6-7, 4-6 (clay), 6) 1973 Evert beat Court Wimbledon SF W 6-1, 1-6, 6-1 (grass), 7) 1973 Evert lost Court U.S. Open SF L 5-7, 6-2, 2-6 (grass), 8) 1973 Evert lost Court Hilton Head, SC RR L 6-4, 6-7, 6-2, 9) 1975 Evert beat Court Akron, OH F W 6-4, 3-6, 6-3, 10) 1975 Evert beat Court Houston, TX F W 6-3, 6-2, 11) 1975 Evert beat Court Rye, NY SF W 6-3, 6-3, 12) 1977 Evert beat Court Chicago, IL F W 6-1, 6-3, 13) 1977 Evert beat Court Hollywood, FL F 6-3, 6-4. -- Navops47 ( talk) 23:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems quite strange that players who don't "meet" on the court should qualify as "meeting" in these charts. If you don't play each other because of illness or car wreck, it's simply a walkover, nothing more. No meeting, no points in either direction. In this years ATP Year-End event we had Kei Nishikori supposed to meet Milos Raonic. Raonic was hurt so David Ferrer filled in as an official match. Nishikori met Ferrer, he did not meet Raonic. This chart would have us believe that Nishikori met both Ferrer and Raonic if by chance their numbers ever increased enough to be listed here. That seems pretty far fetched to me. I would say we remove the meeting total to actual matches they played against each other. The asterix can stay if we want but the note wording would have to say "does not include any walkovers." Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Just wanted to ask can we add the ITF Majors to the inclusion criteria and can someone explain to me what the World Pro Championship Series events were that people like Gonzales and Tilden won and how important were they cheers.-- Navops47 ( talk) 03:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Just off the top of my head:
Riggs-Kramer
Pails-Segura
Kramer-Segura
Kramer-Sedgman
Gonzales-Trabert
Segura-Trabert
Segura-McGregor
And the dates for Vines-Perry are WAY wrong.
Segura was a World #1, don't forget. So that when he was #2 on the touring card, against Pails, McGregor, Trabert, etc, he still meets the criteria. Hayford Peirce ( talk) 00:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Kramer says in his book that he and Segoo must have played at least 200 matches over the years. Both were World #1 or co-#1 players at various times, although there was one really weird year for Segoo's ranking of #1. He had just been clobbered by Kramer on their head-to-head tour, something like 70 matches to 30, but he was *still* ranked #1 by some people -- because he had beaten Kramer in a number of tournaments, apparently. Go figger.... Hayford Peirce ( talk) 22:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of tennis rivalries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
A couple of years ago (see above heading) I wondered about Kramer-Segura meetings. Nothing seems to have eventuated since then. I *tried* to find info about them at that enormous database that has *everything* about *everyone* but found myself blocked without paying a fee of some sort. Hayford Peirce ( talk) 20:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Pre-open era head to heads on this page are highly inaccurate. I would recommend removal of this section. tennishistory1877 ( talk) 23:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The criteria are arbitrary. A rivalry is a rivalry if the tennis world and sports writers say it is. So a lot of the entries here don't belong. Courier - Stich? Comments? Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Idea for a functional edit: Because only some of the rivalries here are notable enough to have standalone pages, would anyone object to an edit to show more clearly to readers which pairs have clickable full entries? As it is, we kind of run into
MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues (the color of the dashes is pretty easy to miss). I'd favor either to make a new column in each table dedicated to links to rivalry articles (creating many empty cells) or to separate the standalone link within each box, from
Graf–Sabatini
to something like
Graf–
Sabatini (
rivalry)
.
Hameltion (
talk,
contribs) 22:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest that the title for the pre-Open eras be changed from "Amateur" to "Amateur/Pro" to better characterize the pre-Open era. Many, or possibly most, of the matches listed in the pre-Open period are actually professional matches, not amateur. Tennisedu ( talk) 05:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
What about this rivalry, Raonic was top 3, Djokovic was top 1, and they played more than ten matches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.33.17.186 ( talk) 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)