Not since the days of the Sampragassian Wars has the tennis world seen anything quite like the world-class rivalry between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. The top-of-the-game duo has faced off on 25 must-see-TV occasions dating back to 2004, eight of those coming in Slam finals. It’s been a compelling contrast: ballet vs. bullfight, flair vs. ferocity, Swiss timing vs. Majorcan muscle. But the Federer-Nadal relationship has always been one of mutual respect. Despite Nadal’s somewhat lopsided 17-8 head-to-head advantage, the world No. 1 is quick to bow to his opponent’s otherworldly accomplishments; and the Basel-born Federer embraces his formidable foe, too. Their on-court battles are the stuff of legend; but there’s never been an ounce of animosity between them.
And that, assert former archenemies John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors, is exactly what’s missing.
“As great a rivalry as that is, I could never see Mac and I doing some of the things that have been done between those two guys at any time,” said Connors, who’s back in the commentary booth these days. “I say that with the utmost respect only because every time we walked out there against each other, we had something to prove, as they do also. But it carried far beyond just the court with us. Mac was trying to get into my space, and I was trying to get into his space. We were trying to be the best not only in the Unites States, but the best in the world. What came out of that between us was more than just the tennis. The tennis was our stage, but it was our attitude, our personalities, our clashing games — everything that was surrounding the whole atmosphere. When we walked out onto the court, the tennis was almost secondary. Whatever else you got was just a bonus. But it was true and it was deep…I'd have played him on crutches just because that's what it brought out in me — the desire to be better. Not that they don't have it, but rivalries can be soft. They can run a course of interest, but not have that deep, burning desire…You can talk about rivalries with the Lakers and the Celtics, in baseball, football, whatever, you can come up with any rivalry you want, but if you look at it, the real rivalries are the ones that captured your interest because they went beyond the sport itself. I'm even going to throw Bjorn [Borg] in there because he was a good addition to what we had, as far as our attitudes versus his attitude. There was nothing quiet about our rivalry. And we weren't afraid for people to know it. He wasn't afraid for me to know it and vice versa, which created just that much more interest. Plus, the matches we played were always on a major stage, which made it that much better.”
“Jimmy was running things and he was clearly going to do everything he could not to have it taken away from him,” said the 52-year-old McEnroe. “Bjorn was a nice addition to the mix because we could save all our anger toward each other. We couldn't really get mad at him. We vented when we played against each other. We were different, but we also had some similarities in the intensity we brought and the way we approached it. It was a pretty fantastic time. I learned a lot from Jimmy about what it took, about how it wasn't just about the tennis. It was about trying to win with your head, how mental the game was. The fact that I still have people come up to me to this day: 'I remember when you and Connors played. I still think Jimmy Connors is better looking than you.' I'm like, 'What the hell does that have to do with playing?' It's incredible how people responded to what we did and had a real rooting interest. I think that's what you need in a one-on-one game…[Now] it seems like they get along so well. I don't want to suggest that they start heating each other or build up some false sense of anger, but it seems at time like it's become almost so professional. I don't know if it's the money or the attitude or that fact they’re from different countries, different cultures or whatever it is.”
Maybe Novak Djokovic’s 41-0 start to 2011 and the Serb’s run at No. 1 are just what the sport needs.
“It's much better for a one-on-one sport to have a great rivalry,” added McEnroe. “When I came up, Jimmy and Bjorn were going at it. When I was lucky enough to get into the mix, it turned out that my two greatest rivals were those to guys. It hopefully elevated the sport. The fact that Djokovic started this year playing as well as he did and dominated, going undefeated until [Paris], kick-started some interest from even some casual fans who weren't necessarily tennis fans. They paid a little more attention than they would have. Getting him in the mix of these two, which is obviously an incredible rivalry, sparked some more interest in the game. We've got to figure out ways to take advantage of that.”
“Back then it was different. The locker rooms were smaller. There wasn't really an escape,” explained Connors, 58. “Sitting in the locker room at Wimbledon, I sat pretty close to side-by-side with Mac, and right across the bench was Bjorn. Right behind me was Nastase. So you're bumping elbows with your competitors pretty much most of the day when you're sitting around. Your escape is pretty minimal…You got a full dose of everybody on a daily basis. You had to figure out a way to let it go until you walked out there. That's a tough thing to do. It was very difficult for me to just walk onto the court and turn it on right there. I had to build and kind of let things fester a little bit and get myself up.”
While they would clearly like to see a little more edge to the Federer vs. Nadal matchup, both McEnroe and Connors, without reservation, rank them up there amongst the all-time greats, alongside Pete Sampras and Rod Laver. But in what order?
“Roger's the most beautiful player I've ever watched, the way he moves,” said McEnroe. “His game is spectacular. Rod was my idol and he won two Slams. It's hard to make an argument that someone was better than him. I would call Pete the greatest fast-court player…And Nadal is definitely in the mix. He's moving up. Those are the top four, I would say. Nadal has a 17-8 record against Federer; he won two Davis Cups; he's won the Olympics. Roger hasn't done those. He's won all the Slams. Roger's done that, but Rafa's closing in on the majors — 16-10. Any ranking could be disputed. You could make an argument for anyone of these guys. That's how far Nadal has come up.”
“Nadal brings it every time out on the court with his passion and desire and everything that goes along with that. On the other hand, even though he does have a winning record over Federer, he's looking to catch up in Grand Slams,” Connors said. “But I go back to players in days gone by. I look at guys who had a different style and a different kind of player every match. They had to figure out a way to go through and beat six or seven different guys over a two-week period at Grand Slams, different kinds of games. I've got to throw that in there as far as being a little bit more versatile as compared to a lot of the guys who are playing today. But equipment has changed the game; training has changed the game. That's what I hear anyway. That's what the experts say. The only thing I would like to see a little bit more of in the game and why I go back to the Samprases, the Lavers, the McEnroes and the Borgs is that one style fits all right now, and that kind of lets a guy feel like he's lulled into a certain kind of game which is playable on any given day. I'd like to see a little bit more variety. But overall, how can you say anything about the guys today and their records? Certainly, their records speak for themselves. Federer, with the way he's played on all surfaces, not only grass and the faster surfaces, but he did come through and win the French and has been in the final. Nadal has upped his game and changed his game to where he can play on anything now. Guys who work that hard and are willing to pay the price are at the top of the game in anybody's mind.”
