Talk:List of tennis rivalries

Move
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)
 * It will also be better to do away with the separation by decade. The rivalries do not always fit within a decade. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup and inclusion criteria
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)
 * OK. I have just put everything in more convenient tables. For further details the reader can click on the rivalry to go to the standalone article (if any). More pairings can be added. I have made the criteria a bit more hard, because otherwise the lists would probably become overly long. I have also added refs to WTA and ATP head-to-head pages. More to do. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm looking over some older rivalries but while I'm doing so I see something that needs to be remedied. Borg McEnroe totals include exhibitions and I don't think that should be included. I didn't check the others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right. I had taken it directly from the rivalry article.It is corrected now (based on official ATP head-to-head stats)MakeSense64 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mandlikova was never ranked higher then #3 and a rivalry article with her was kept, so I have expanded the inclusion criteria to be nr3 or higher. This makes sense in periods when there are two clear nr 1 and nr2, as was the case with Navratilova and Evert. Then there can also be interesting rivalry with a significant nr 3.
 * Can we make the ranking slightly lower? Maybe top 5, as in the current era, 2010+, a large number of grandslam titlists never made the top 3 i.e. Li, del Potro, Schiavone, Stosur. I also think that we should/could make the minimum number of meetings to 15, and have at least 2 grand slam finals meetings? Otherwise, I still think the list is slightly long. I will also include a hidden list of possible additions.Popsiclesare (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My worry would be that the first line says famous and great rivalries. That's fine as long as we can show even one source that calls any of these matchups a "rivalry". If we simply state a set of circumstances that tell readers these are famous tennis rivalries aren't we all guilty of original research? Tennis players ranked in the top 1-10 are always playing each other and if they both stay in the top 5 for very long those encounters will add up. I'm not sure that makes a rivalry. Now what this has going for it is it's simply a list, these aren't individual notable rivalries. But what if espn picks this up from wikipedia and lists famous rivalries by using this page? It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Some head-to-heads on this list are famous, some notable and most are simply tennis players who happened to play each other lot. I like that we have this all-encompassing list but we have to very very careful how we word this, or else source each and every item. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, I have been tweaking the criteria a couple of times, because if we are having a list then all rivalries that were kept in a standalone article should make the list. That's why I had to change to min No. 3 to accommodate for Mandlikova. I didn't know about this possibility of hidden entries. This morning I deleted Popsiclesare addition of Azaranka-Radwanska, which somehow was there but didn't show up in the article. Personally I don't like the idea of hidden entries, because they add to the size of the article, but because invisible get easily overlooked. If there are pairings that get close to satisfy the criteria, then we could list them here on the Talk page, just to keep an eye on them.
 * Lists are required to set criteria for inclusion, so we are not doing original research when we set these criteria. It is needed so that other editors know what to include or not.
 * I am open to make further tweaks if we can improve on the current set of rules. This are my thoughts at the moment. I think we should stick to at least 1 of the players has been No 1. To lower the barier to at least No 5 for the second player would expand the list too much imo. Those players who didn't make top3 have usually only reached 1 slam final (if any) or become one time slam wonders. Do we want to include 'rivalries' with all the other top players of their era? E.g. Lowering it to No. 5 we might end up adding rivalries like Agassi-Schuttler.
 * If players like Li, del Potro, Schiavone, Stosur go on reaching slam finals (or even winning), then it is quite likely they will at least No 3 rank at some point during their career. If they don't then do we want to include them (in what are usually very one-sided "rivalries" with the really dominant players of their time)? Especially if you would require 2 meetings in slam finals. How many players will reach two slam finals against the same opponent without every reaching No. 3 ranking?
 * Requiring 15 meetings is a bit steep and would exclude a rivalry like Borg-McEnroe, which is notable enough to have a standalone article. The number of meetings is definitely not a perfect criterium. The intensity and quality is also important, but that cannot be measured easily. Borg and McEnroe met 14 times from 1978 til 1981, so it was very intense. I think 12 meetings puts the bar low enough but not too low (not that many head-to-heads reach over 12 meetings), and is intended to work together with the other criterium that several meetings (thus at least 2) in major finals or semifinals are needed. Through my work on this article I have noticed that this works quite well in keeping out the simple head-to-heads that cannot be really called rivalries in any way.
 * At some point I considered adding a criterium that the rivalry should not be too one-sided, but then I realized that some rivalries were famous because they were so one-side (like Sabatini always losing to Graf in major matches).
 * Instead of requiring two grand slam final meetings (which is also quite steep) it may be better to expand the table with number of meetings in grand slams and the number of meetings in grand slam finals. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed Djokovic-Tsonga per these criteria as Tsonga's highest ranking is 5 (so far...): | align=left|Djokovic–Tsonga | 2008–| 13| 8–5| 4| 3–1| 1| 1–0| 3| 2–1|- (per http://noticiasdeltenis.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/evolution-of-djokovic-vs-tsonga-rivalry/ Evolution of Djokovic vs Tsonga rivalry.) Fluorhydric (talk) 11:13, 12 October 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)

Nalbandian - Federer
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)
 * It's not enough. The criteria specify multiple meetings in GS semi-finals or finals. Nalbandian and Federer have only one such meeting. 108.56.245.21 (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've thought about it already. Maybe we should allowed also Masters Cup finals in the criteria of multiple meetings. At the end of 1970s and first half of 1980s this tournament was more important for top players than Australian Open, which was skipped by McEnroe, Connors and other top players.Krivo4457 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then how come Ferrer-Nadal is listed? They met just twice in semis or further in GS (one being a month ago). It clearly says there "multiple times". Unless twice is a synonym for "multiple times". Plus being so one-sided. j0zj0zing (talk) 08/07/2013.

Lendl-McEnroe
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)
 * At first ATP doesnt credit their rivalry as 8-12. In that case their overall H2H would be 21-16. Okay, we will count that abandoned final, but not in the H2H as it is NOT counted in their overall H2H (like walkovers arent counted in H2Hs). In that case we must also count the Rotterdam final between Connors and Lendl which was also abandoned and again is NOT counted in the ATP H2H. About the World Team Cup, the finals were Czechoslovakia vs. USA, not Lendl - McEnroe. There are many sources about that. Other players played finals there. What i want to express is that it wasnt credit only by Lendl and McEnroe that those matches are finals. There were other players, too. Again, those matches werent completely decisive who won the final (OTOH all tennis finals between 2 players are). Possibly it could happen that one player won that match, but his team didnt win the final (exactly this happened in the 1985 final, when Lendl won his match, but his team lost the final). The main idea stands, those matches arent finals between 2 players, but between 2 teams. We arent discussing teams here, we are discussing rivalries between 2 PLAYERS. Therefore I think it should remain as 18 finals with 7-10 H2H.Krivo4457 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot about another final which isnt counted in the official H2H. Its Connors-McEnroe, which ended by walkover. It will be counted the same way.Krivo4457 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case overall count of matches will be incremented as well.Krivo4457 (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW have you considered making an account on Wikipedia since you have made useful contributions on different topics? That will make your contribs (and you) more recognizable and even more reliable because majority of errorneous edits are made by IP accounts. Thanks.Krivo4457 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Murray-Nadal
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)
 * No merit yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Threshold for highest ranking
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:
 * Jankovic vs. Zvonareva - they have met at least twelve times and have also met in multiple finals, but only once at a Grand Slam (Zvonareva won at Wimbledon 2010). Does that constitute a rivalry? Based on the latter fact, I don't believe so.
 * Kuznetsova vs. Radwanska - have met 13 times, but the rivalry is one-sided (Kuznetsova leads 10-3). They have also met twice in finals (Kuznetsova's two most recent career titles at Beijing in 2009 and San Diego in 2010), and have had some notable meetings at Grand Slams (AO 2008, FO 2009 and 2012, Wimbledon 2007 and 2008).
 * Petrova vs. Ivanovic - not that notable of a rivalry I say, the rivalry there is slightly more even than Kuznetsova/Radwanska (Ivanovic leads 8-6 or something). They've only met twice at Grand Slams (one-all) and only once in a championship match (Ivanovic won the 2007 East West Bank Classic).

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)


 * It a good point but I'm not sure how to fix it. The three you mentioned that are already there are pretty pathetic, and the two you mentioned as deserving certainly are. The choice of No.3 was an arbitrary number, but then so is using No. 4 as a threshold. Someone else will surely complain about using No. 5 or No. 6, or even No. 2, so it's a no win scenario. For me, the open era lists of men and women are too long now, so lessening the criteria will make for even longer lists. It's the older rivalries that are underrepresented here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I also think that one rule that should be included is that "at least one of them must have reached a Grand Slam final". Nikolay Davydenko, for instance, has never reached a Grand Slam final (and probably never will), and his rivalry against Federer is also painfully one-sided (Federer has beaten him 20 times or something). Compare this to David Ferrer, who fits the rule because he has reached a Grand Slam final.


 * Some more points - people talk about an Azarenka vs. Radwanska rivalry, which, even though they have met at least twelve times, does not fit the criteria because they have never met in any final, and also the head-to-head is starting to get one-sided (Azarenka has won the last seven).


 * According to Radwanska's page, she has a rivalry with Ana Ivanovic, which I believe is not a "real" rivalry. They've only ever met in a later stage of a tournament only twice (2008 Linz semi-finals and Beijing 2011), and Radwanska has won the last seven without losing a set. Radwanska's biggest rivalries are against Li Na, Vera Zvonareva and to a lesser extent Svetlana Kuznetsova (who, I believe, has the most career wins against her).


 * Ivanovic's biggest rivalries are against Kuznetsova and Jankovic, but she leads the head-to-head easily against both opponents. Kuznetsova has not beaten Ana Ivanovic in a Tour match (for this reason, the Fed Cup does not count) since 2006, and Jankovic has only beaten her three times (and not since 2010). Ivanovic has met Petrova 14 times (as already mentioned) and that rivalry is even, but it's not even considered to be a rivalry for whatever reason I don't know.


 * Li Na is also said to have a rivalry against Radwanska but they have never met in a final of any sort. Li's second-biggest rival, behind Sharapova, is Azarenka. Li and Azarenka have met in a number of notable matches over their 10-meeting history (including their first and most recent meetings), most notably the 2013 Australian Open final.


 * But as you say, the most notable rivalries should only be noted here (such as Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray and Azarenka/Sharapova/S. Williams etc.). I thought all along this year that the WTA trio would continue to dominate at will, but then in came Marion Bartoli and her Wimbledon title. But her sudden retirement will allow that trio to continue to dominate again in the near future I feel. That's how I'm looking at things at the moment.... MasterMind5991 (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Need stricter criteria - ONLY Slam winners
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)


 * On the taking it a step further criterion, to include only multiple Slam winners, this would also throw out Andy Roddick, and despite the lopsided nature of his rivalry with Roger Federer (which is one of the ones listed in this article), it is a rivalry which already has its own Wikipedia article, indicating that it is probably significant enough to merit inclusion in this "list." Just a thought for consideration. 2601:2:2580:1865:FA1E:DFFF:FEF2:1E36 (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I strongly believe Roddick and his lopsided H2H with Federer don't belong here. This page should be for the true greats of the game, not guys with 0-8 Slam records against their "rivals".  The harsh reality is if Andy would've won one of his 4 Slam finals with Federer then this could be considered a true rivalry.  Even Andy has publicly mocked the validity of this "rivalry".


 * Having its own wikipedia article is a separate issue; the fact that they played a lot of high-profile matches does have some significance in its own right, but the fact that it was entirely one-sided precludes Andy from a list of rivalries amongst more accomplished players.


 * This same reasoning applies to the other lesser players on this list (no disrespect to them, they're quite accomplished already to even be here, but I'm of course advocating for higher standards for this list of great rivalries.) most of whom have dismal H2H records against the better players.


 * 75.117.13.219 (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

3 Major titles or 6 Major finals threshold
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)


 * or reached 6 Major finals. --75.117.13.219 (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My fault, but still he have 2 slams, not 3.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that above - Andy Murray and Mary Pierce meet the 6 finals criteria with only 2 wins. --75.117.13.219 (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

4 Major titles or 7 Major finals threshold
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)

Call for a Vote
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)


 * I think it's fine just the way it is. It's not very long and includes many good players. Plus if we work on the pre-open era it'll even be better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. As a datapoint, the original article has 46 male and 62 female Open era entries, whereas my 4/7 threshold has 25 each.  The pre-Open era lists are identical (all 4/7's)  --75.91.135.88 (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No Change - The current criteria works well, Virgina Wade may have won just 3 Majors in singles but she has also won 4 in Doubles plus a Year End Championship and has actually won tiles at all four Major's, 46 matches against 18 times Major winner Evert, 40 matches against 7 time Major winner Goolagong Cawley and 31 matches against 12 time Major winner King warrants IMO her inclusion on this statistical list--Navops47 (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wade indeed had a fine career, but her record against better players was terrible. My whole point has been to emphasize the best rivalries amongst the best players, not include very good players with faux rivalaries against better players.  My schpiel about Federer-Roddick above covers this as well.  --75.91.135.88 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The title is List of tennis rivalries its not called List of the only best tennis rivalries, List of only the exceptional tennis rivalries, List of the only most selective tennis rivalries and so on. Implying that her statistics and thats the key word her are not important well I'm sorry but the numbers speak for themselves her match's then were between existing Major champions it's interesting that she has been selected as possible candidate from removal if the criteria is changed as she is currently occupying the No2, No4 and No 12 positions based on the numbers. Secondly individual articles can be created about these rivalries providing enough source material is generated that gives readers an oppportunity for more in-depth analysis into them to come to their own conclusions. She is on the top 10 lists for 5 open era records including career matches played where she's only passed by Navaratilova and Evert and career matches won only passed by the former plus Graf and not by any active players list guidelines found here: WP:LG. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.--Navops47 (talk) 13:35, 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)

Alternative proposal
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:


 * Both players must have a career high ranking of world No. 3 or better, and one of them must have reached No. 1.
 * The players must have met multiple times in semi-finals or finals of a Grand Slam (in pre-Open era also, Pro Slam counts).
 * They must have at least a total of 12 career meetings in main tour matches.

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:


 * Both players must have a career high ranking of world No. 3 or better, and one of them must have reached No. 1.
 * Both players must have won at least one Grand Slam title
 * The players must have competed at least three times in the quarterfinal or beyond of a (Pro) Grand Slam or season-ending event and at least once in a tournament final.
 * They must have at least a total of 12 career meetings in main tour matches.

Thoughts? --Wolbo (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed I have no further objections--Navops47 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My concern would be with the past. There may be many hidden gems of rivalries from the 1870's – 1960s where a player didn't win a Major title because travel distance stopped them from competing in more than one or two Majors. They may have played a lot (say in Australia) but kept losing in the finals. I wouldn't want them thrown out of this list because of that, so some flexibility must be maintained for earlier great tennis players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There might indeed be some although I can't think of any at the moment. The ones that do come to mind as potential rivalries are all Grand Slam tournament winners and we are still far away from being able to add all those. I agree that possible unsung rivalries should not be thrown out but if they exist and surface we can always revisit the discussion. What is you opinion on the other aspects of the alternative proposal? --Wolbo (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No problems with it as far as open-era is concerned. I do have some hesitation about year end being included. There were often two of the year-end events with 8 or less players. Some were fully round robin...no finals. Today there are no quarterfinals at all. The WCT year end championships were all only 3 rounds. And I'm not convinced that "most" of their history they were lesser media events than Indian Wells. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And, on a quick check, Helen Wills vs Helen Jacobs: met 12x, 7x in Major finals, both ranked No. 1. So they fit all the criteria. BUT, if they had only met 11x, the fact they faced off 7x in Major finals a 1x Major semifinal tells me they should be on this list even if they had only met 11x. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Along these lines, since ATP/WTA rankings began 40 years ago, isn't the notion of ranking before then irrelevant? So perhaps part of the criteria could be split into Open and pre-Open eras and combined with the shared criteria of 1 Slam each + 12 H2H matches.  That would give the flexibility for the pre-Open era.  --75.91.135.88 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ATP/WTA rankings began 40 years ago, but rankings have been around since the dawn of the sport. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since 1913 for men and 1921 for women to be (smarty-pants) precise.--Wolbo (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually since long before then. "The Lawn Tennis classification of British players" and "The Pastime classification of British players" plus "Methven Brownlee: Lawn Tennis" ranked the men back to 1877 I think. They did the same for many of the ladies back to 1883 (but some years were skipped for some reason). Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You have outsmartypantsed me. Nice sources. There is a difference though because those are national rankings and the 1913 (by A. Wallis Myers) and 1921 rankings are the first international ones (at least according to Bud Collin's encyclopedia).--Wolbo (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I like that a Slam title is required, that's a definite improvement. And interesting to require 3 Major QF/SF/F plus a tourney final... that actually sounds better than 2 Major SF/F.  But what about increasing it a bit to requiring a Major final? And please drop the season-ending event stipulation; those aren't Majors.  Never have been, never will be.  --75.91.135.88 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes agree rankings go back much earler. I'm currently reading this fascinating book on my e Reader "George Hillyard: The man who moved Wimbledon" and about the professional tours of the early 20th century very interesting here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dU2rAQAAQBAJ&dq=tennis+rankings+1890&source=gbs_navlinks_s. --Navops47 (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (Off-topic) It's on my bookshelf but havent' got around to reading it yet. Into Lew Hoad biographies at the moment.--Wolbo (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion about rankings and how far they go back found here: Talk:World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings/Archive_2.--Navops47 (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rankings history info. Even though the computer rankings were a huge change, I agree that keeping one criteria for all of tennis history makes sense for cohesiveness and simplicity.--75.91.135.88 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep the season-ending event stipulation as these tournaments are significant enough in my view to warrant inclusion. True, they are not and will not be a Grand Slam event but at times they were considered equally or even more important and prestigious than the Australian Open. This certainly applies to the 1972 World Championship Tennis Finals. Changing the tournament final requirement, which already makes the criteria stricter, to a Major tournament final is a step too far for me but I'll wait to see what others have to say on that.--Wolbo (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's very true the AO through out the 70's and early 80's had lower ranking points on the tour due to lower prize money being offered see here: http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/30365879/ and here: http://news.google.com/newspapers/grand prix tennis european circuit 1977 this article in 1985 where the WCT finals are considered the fourth most prestigious event after the FO, WIM and USO here:http://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1985/april/the-super-bowl-of-tennis --Navops47 (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your points and am aware of the dark days of AO when it was really a Major in name only. But for the vast majority of the Open era the year-end tourney is a definite rung below the Majors.  And nowadays there's little distinction, at least to me, from the Masters 1000s and WTF.  I consider them as pretty much equal significance.  So to keep things clear and simple (and relatively consistent across the long, diverse history of tennis) I'd like to just keep the criteria to the Majors.  Plus, looking at the current list of 70s-80s rivalries during this WCT/AO inversion period, all the big names are already here - Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander along with the smaller names all the way on down to Gerulitis.  So really this year-end finals stipluation is a moot point for that period and could only water-down this article for current and future rivalries.
 * Now that I thought about it a bit more, I agree that a Major final meeting doesn't need to be required. But I do prefer keeping the existing 2+ Major SF/F requirement instead of 3+ QF/SF/F since it emphasizes the 2 biggest rounds of the biggest tournaments.  QF just feels a bit watered-down.  And why the need to require just any final?  So what if, for example, 2 guys played in a 250 final at some point.  If they meet the 1/3 ranking requirement, have both won a Major, and have played eachother in 2 or more Major SF/F then those criteria matter a lot more.
 * So in summary, I'd prefer simply adding the winning a Major requirement to the existing criteria.
 * --75.91.135.88 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As the discussion stands right now there is a consensus for most elements of the alternative proposal but not for the season-ending tournament. If we take that out the criteria become:
 * Both players must have a career high ranking of world No. 3 or better, and one of them must have reached No. 1.
 * Both players must have won at least one Grand Slam title
 * The players must have competed at least three times in the quarterfinal or beyond of a (Pro) Grand Slam and at least once in a tournament final.
 * They must have at least a total of 12 career meetings in main tour matches.
 * A notification has been posted on the project talk page to invite more comments.--Wolbo (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me did you consider 75.91.135.88 last comments? --Navops47 (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, consensus does not require unanimity. One more update is in my view required. Given the typical small draw sizes of a Pro Slam tournament the quartefinal requirement is too lenient and should be replaced by a semifinal requirement. Ergo:
 * The players must have competed at least three times in the quarterfinal or beyond of a Grand Slam (or semifinal at a Pro Slam) and at least once in a tournament final.
 * Agreed? --Wolbo (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes--Navops47 (talk) 17:10, 27 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)
 * I came here just to drop a short feedback on the criteria and its compatibility with the pre-open era. One of the rivalries I covered was the one between Perry and de Stefani. Although one could argue if its a legit rivalry but let's note that both players called it so and their example clearly shows that the current criteria is very unfair with them. Things to consider:
 * There were no official rankings. Or there were years with no rankings or there were too many of them.
 * As Fyunck said above European players didn't travel to the US championship nor to the AUS (the latter was more neglected). They weren't Grand Slams as we think of it now.
 * Matches were badly documented. It's almost impossible to get a full H2H to any of these players. Excluding the forums per Wikipedia guidelines it's even more of a hard task.
 * Pros and amateurs weren't allowed to compete with each other (or just in exhibition matches) and many times the best players of the world turned pro to benefit of their fame more.

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)


 * Rivalry criteria need sharpening up, the list of open era rivalries is far too long and the criteria themselves are too complicated. How about the following criteria for Open Era:-


 * 1) Both players must have a career high ranking of world No. 2 or better,
 * 2) They must have at least a total of 20 career meetings in main tour matches.


 * Why No. 2 or better? Because No. 1 and the runner up are the ones who are / will be remembered. What is a rivalry about? It's about being the best tennis player in the world, i.e. No.1. I would argue that a player who has never reached the No.2 spot was never in the running.


 * Why 20 and not 12 meetings? 12 is too low, 12 meetings could be a budding rivalry, but is could be achieved in as little as one match a year over the course of a 12 year career. 25 or 20 are nice round numbers, which would reduce the length of the lists.


 * Why not count majors or masters appearances in finals, semis or quarters? Because there is an element of double-counting, in order to reach No.1 or No.2 spot, the rivals can hardly avoid meeting at the business end of tournaments. It appears theoretically possible for a clay court specialist and a grass court specialist to achieve top two positions by winning only clay or only grass tournaments respectively, while only meeting in early rounds at, say, hard court tournaments. This theoretical possibility just won't happen because the seeding will prevent the rivals from meeting early on. Therefore, if the rivals who have achieved high ranking do meet, they will do so in latter stages of the tournaments. So why complicate the inclusion criteria by counting "multiple" finals and semis? Too vague, unnecessarily complex and this criterion is already taken care of by the other two criteria.


 * Thoughts? Tennispompom (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this discussion back to life. A lot of interesting and good arguments were made in the prior discussion but, as sometimes happens, this did not yet lead to a consensus for any particular change. It seems there is a clear desire to update the criteria and make them tighter, but no clear consensus on how much tighter and by what means. The description in the article lede "This is a list of some of the greatest rivalries." clearly no longer matches the content so some action is required. I like the idea of trying to simplify the criteria but disagree on the minimum number of 20 meetings as this would for example exclude the McEnroe – Borg rivalry who have met only 14 times but certainly qualify as a notable rivalry (there is even a book which focusses on their rivalry). How about:


 * Both players must have a career high ranking of world No. 1 or 2.
 * The players must have a minimum of 10 career meetings in main tour matches of which at least five must be in a tournament final including at least one at a Grand Slam event.


 * This will cull the list and should bring it closer to what our readers probably see as notable rivalries. To be safe we should add:


 * Any rivalry which does not meet these criteria but does meet the general notability guideline and therefore has significant media coverage should also be included.
 * --Wolbo (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what you mean, it's difficult to get consensus when the alternatives put forward don't quite work, as evidenced by your McEnroe - Borg rivalry example. The devil is in having (any) criteria in the first place - by defining and using criteria, is the article breaking the NOR rule and setting an impossible notability challenge? A rivalry is much more than two high ranked players meeting each other time and time again in majors; there needs to be a strong element of personal confrontation (friendly or not) which has captured the imagination and interest of the public.
 * For example, one could argue that Federer - Nadal rivalry is greater than Djokovic - Nadal rivalry despite the greater number of meetings (33 and 43 respectively). The fairly even number of their meetings in majors' finals (8 and 7 respectively) doesn't quite separate them either. Then there's the fiercest, certainly the most notable, rivalry of all time between Steffi Graf and Monica Seles, where the statistics entirely fail to do it justice.
 * The numbers alone just don't cut it, however, given the choice between using some criteria and probable future edit wars, one should use criteria. Now I'm coming round to your way of thinking re. majors, but am still inclined to simplify.
 * How about this counter-proposal:-
 * Both players must have a career high ranking of world No. 1 or 2.
 * The players must have a minimum of 15 career meetings in main tour matches of which at least three must be in a Grand Slam final or the final of the Year End final event (e.g. WTF).
 * I like your 3rd criterion, if it means the rivalry between Ginny Wade vs. Billy Jean King can be included. That one was really big in my schooldays (smiles!). McEnroe - Borg rivalry could slot in here too.
 * Also, should the tables be ordered by year, to avoid subjective undue prominence to head to head counts perhaps? Or by number of majors finals meetings?
 * Tennispompom (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

High Standard
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)


 * Neither Li nor Azarenka have accomplished enough yet to merit inclusion IMO. But it's now restored to lower standards so those rivalries are back. --75.91.135.88 (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Evert Court Matches
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)
 * I think that's correct. Maybe some include a 1973 match in Ohio, but that result was a walkover in favor of Evert so it's not included in totals. I think the WTA site shows fewer matches but it doesn't list ones before 1973. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is sourcing. It looks like Navops list comes from Talk Tennis and while there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the data a forum can not be used as a reliable source. So other sources need to be provided, at least for the matches that WTA doesn't list. The 1970 match is well documented and I'm sure that sources can be found for the other matches.--Wolbo (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats ok but their are no sources for everyone else on the list I have now added 10 covering 13 meetings if you see where they are and you require all 13 to be sourced each box expands and how do you then source all the 182 matches played by Gonzales Rosewall the actual article has no sources actually added to it other than quoting a books without the ISBN's chapter or page numbers the only link is to the ATP and that shows only 7 meetings I will keep diging--Navops47 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good start. I added a reference group to keep the table layout intact (got that from the Roger Federer article). Your point that it will not be easy to source all these matches is valid and true but nevertheless we have the obligation to properly source the information we add to articles (at least the information that can be contested). In my view there is too much information added within the tennis project that is not or not sufficiently sourced and we should improve that. Take for example the ATP World Tour records article. As a tennis statistics anorak I love that article and frequently visit it to look up information/data but more than half of it is completely unsourced and we therefore have no idea if it is correct and up-to-date. That's not good enough. As a project we would be well advised to put more focus on properly sourcing our articles. This article can be a nice test case.--Wolbo (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough can you make sure they in-sync I don't know how you group references we now have 9 meets confirmed and I have a newspaper sources for the 10th Indianapolis & 11th Hilton Head book marked am looking for the missing 2--Navops47 (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Found 12th VS Houston meeting newspaper source bookmarked one to go--Navops47 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the last match you are looking for? Just to clarify, I'm not saying we necessarily need a separate reference for each individual match. That is a worst-case scenario if no rivalry summary sources can be found at all. If, as an example, two players have a rivalry between 1970 and 1980 and a reliable source can be found from 1976 that summarizes the rivalry up to that point, including the head-to-head score, then the 1970–1976 matches do not need to be individually sourced.--Wolbo (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK then we have confirmed sources for all the rivalry period 1970 to 1977. The last one that's missing is the 1975 SF meeting at VS Rye NY (called the Rye Brooke Cup)--Navops47 (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, I added a source (WTA) for that one. It was the Medi Quik Classic, Harrison (Rye) 1975.--Wolbo (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Missing meet discovered Evert played and beat Court at VS Akron in 1975 which we have, then again in 1976 which we didn't have it shows on her Chris Evert career statistics page so that would 14 H2H's now. Can you check an then change the totals?--Navops47 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to harp on about it but this is a very good example to show why we need better sourcing. The Chris Evert career statistics and 1976 WTA Tour articles both show Evert winning the 1976 VS of Akron (Richfield) title against Court but neither give a source so we can not tell if it is accurate. And it turns out it isn't accurate. All the sources I could find (Talk Tennis (1), Talk Tennis (2), World of Tennis Yearbook (pp. 156–157), Google newspaper archive) show that the 1976 Akron final was played between Goolagong and Wade. In fact Court hardly played any matches in 1976.--Wolbo (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! If thats one inacurate source how many more across how many articles. Can't we have some sort of checks and balances system within WTP with someone just checking sources mind you an enormous task, time etc--Navops47 (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ten of the matches are listed at the WTA website. That only leaves three, 1970 Charlotte, 1975 Rye, 1977 Hollywood not listed by the WTA. ALL of the matches are listed at Evert's website at http://chrisevert.net/. It's a primary source as opposed to secondary and it's probably where the forums get their info. By the way... the Akron info probably wasn't some kookie editor error. I assume a typing error in that the results from 1975 were plopped in instead of the results from 1976. Even with a source, that could have easily happened on the 1976 WTA Tour article. Like scores that get transcribed wrong that I have to correct all the time. It happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What specific WTA page are you looking at? On the head-to-head page it shows the 6–3 score but it only lists one match (1973 Columbus). What am I missing?--Wolbo (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked at "results" for Court (or was it Evert?) and it showed 10 meetings. 3 in 1972(Newport, Cleveland, Indianapolis), 4 in 1973 (Columbus, US, Wim, French), 2 in 75 (Houston, Akron) and 1 in 1977 (chicago). So 10 are at WTA website, 1 (Hollywood) is at ITF website, so that leaves two that need extra sourcing. 1970 is at Chrissie: My Own Story pages 19-25, and 1975 Mediquik can be found at multiple newspaper links around the web such as Corpus Christie Times. So 4 sources max and for all I know it can all be found in Chrissie: My Own Story since the results are on her website. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So the WTA website H2H has 9 matches, the page shows 1 and the player results show 10. Looks like we are not doing so bad over here......--Wolbo (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Very strange "meeting" standards
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)
 * Well even the ATP is not including that one 20:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree Fyunck(click). Gap9551 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

ITF Majors and World Pro Championship Series
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)
 * Hmm. Not sure what the World Pro Championship Series is unless you are talking about the German Pro Championships. That was only big in 1932 and 1933. As far as the ITF Majors, you are talking about adding the World Hard Court (7 years: clay) and World Covered Court (6 years: wood) tournaments. We have to be flexible in the old-time events so the early players don't get left out. I would say certainly yes to the two ITF events... not so sure about the World Pro. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes and thanks for replying the WPCS are listed on tennisbase here: https://app.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=tournament&accion=honour&pais=&nomTorneo=WORLD+PRO+CH.+SERIES&descPais=&codpais=#datosDraw that has it separate from the Pro Tours if you look at say Tildens rivalries on that site e.g versus Budge (9-41) to Budge they have had 2 pro slam meets but the vast majority 30+ at this WPCS meet.--Navops47 (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok so that's basically just another Pro Tour series. I would not count them as fulfilling any kind of Major requirement, but when you look at a listed rivalry like Gonzales-Hoad I believe the number of meetings (157) includes pro tour matches as well. But those were just a tour of 4-6 players that would go from city to city played for cash. Head to head yes... tournament no. Also, many of those events they only played one set, or whatever the heck 10–8 means. So it's barely even a match. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think TB are referring to this section of Gonzales statistics Pancho_Gonzales_career_statistics if you look at that section it mentions World Pro Tour was a series of matches probably why TB called it World Pro Champ Series in that section e.g. 1957 his 76 matches against Rosewall tally up with the TB stats for that year if you look at this https://app.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=playern&player1=GONZALES,%20PANCHO&sub=6&apartado=6&player2_head=ROSEWALL,%20KEN#aSubmenu they appear to be 1 match each time but the TB site is listing more than 1 set played anything from 3 to 5 sets per match. In Mazaks book he lists a Pro tour alongside the Pro Slams (excluding the French) for some reason, for that year on page 85 I thinks he's talking about this World Pro Tour series he says the Tour kicks of against Rosewall in Melbourne 14/01/1957 and ends in 28/05/1957 in Bakersfield they played in 4 countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA with Gonzales ahead of Rosewall 50 to 26. BTW he also lists the Aussie pro and TC pro at Forest Hills that year. This discussion on tennis forums explains it further https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/1957-four-man-tours-rosewall-hoad-kramer-segura.506986/ the World Pro Championship series involved a head to head tour between the challenger and the holder from the previous year in 1957 Rosewall won the 1956 four man world tour in order to play Gonzales as the challenger in the first half of 1957 to determine the World Pro Tour Champion the forum discussions explain this a bit further the 57 tour that starts in August in France ends in December in Australia Rosewall wins again and will face Gonzales again in 1958.  The breakdown of the 57 WPCS is here: https://app.thetennisbase.com/?enlace=tournament&accion=draw&torneoSearch=WORLD%20PRO%20CH.%20SERIES&year=1957--Navops47 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

a lot of earlier rivalries are missing
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)
 * You can add the rivalries if you wish and if the dates are wrong you can correct them and provide the source thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I corrected the dates for the Vines-Perry rivalry, and linked Gonzales in a couple of others, but the formatting here is a nightmare to work with -- someone else can put in the other rivalries. Sorry. Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Segura--Kramer rivalry
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124054631/http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023064342/http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/1975/516.pdf to http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/Draws/1975/516.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Still no Kramer-Segura information
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)
 * We know the head to head in their 1951 tour was 64–28 in Kramer's favor. But they played a lot more afterwards before Kramer's 1954 retirement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2019 (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) 17:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that they must have played at least a couple of times BEFORE the tour, since Segoo turned pro in '48, and besides the tour the pros also played numerous tournies around the world. And, of course, they DID play a number of times after the tour. What I'll do, if I can, is to open up a Rivalry for them and put in nothing but the tour results. Someone who has access to that incredible database can then put in the rest of the info. Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Pre-open era head to heads
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 information in any article such as this is provisional and open to correction. If you have better information, then change this article correspondingly.Tennisedu (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As you know, I have corrected much misinformation on wikipedia tennis pages during the past few years. However, it would need such a huge amount of time spent on the pre-open era section of this article that it would not be practical for me to undertake such a project. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which of the head-to-heads do you believe fails to satisfy the criteria for the list? It seems that most of them satisfy the criteria. If you could asterisk those rivalries which are questionable, that would be a start. Right now, we have no idea which ones you find questionable.Tennisedu (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added a disclaimer to the lead for this article, regarding the difficulty of obtaining complete data. This should be a sufficient qualification to account for the problems involved.Tennisedu (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * With the appropriate disclaimer now included in the lead to this article, I see no reason why this challenge should persist. If we remove this list simply because there are a few undiscovered results, then the same removal could be made for many tennis articles on Wikipedia. If there is no continuing complaint here, I will remove the notice for this article.Tennisedu (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Although some head to heads are provisional head to heads, some head to heads are plain wrong. For instance, Perry and Vines last played in 1940, not 1938.  The 1940 matches have been known about for many years, they are in McCauley, so I have no idea where 1938 comes from.  This is not the only instance in the pre-open era section either. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Perry and Vines contested the final of the 1939 U.S. Pro, one of their greatest ever matches. So 1938 is nonsense. But we should not remove the article just because there are some flaws in the data. We can change the data to reflect further discoveries. Many tennis articles on Wikipedia require updated data as more becomes available. Much of the information for this article is taken from other tennis articles and tennis biographies. Should we remove them as well?Tennisedu (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't just the date 1938 that is wrong for Vines and Perry, the figures are also wrong. I never said the whole article should be removed, I said it was my personal view that the pre-open section should be removed, but I haven't actually done so, as some views I don't feel strongly enough about to enact.  However, I do strongly feel that the warning for inaccurate content should remain on the pre-open era section of this article.  I also don't agree with your disclaimer.  Full match stats are not available before the 1990s on the ATP website, but results from tournaments in the 1970s and 1980s tournaments are known (or the remaining gaps are being rapidly filled in by the guy you and I both know).  Before the open era is different, as there will always be a proportion of unreported matches that will never be known, as I know well when I have found matches advertised repeatedly in a newspaper before they are supposed to take place, yet those matches are not mentioned again or sometimes, a day or two after the matches, there will be some passing reference to the matches taking place but with no results of the matches.  So, as I said, the problem with the pre-open era section is twofold.  If every one of those head to heads listed were those that were verifiable (in line Tennis Base figures for instance) I would accept that (even though the figures probably do not include all the matches they played).  For example, Hoad and Rosewall & Rosewall and Laver are linked with the Tennis Base stats, but I don't know where the Perry and Vines figure and some of the other rivalries come from.  They are not an acceptable standard of accuracy and readers of this article should be warned about their level of inaccuracy. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that there are many pre-1991 open era matches which were not reported in the press. I know of one such match, which was referenced in 1973 in Toronto, but without any scores given. Rosewall was beaten by a local club pro at a downtown indoor tennis club. I suspect that many other exhibitions were also not recorded. We can only do our best with these.Tennisedu (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the open era exhibitions were just that and there was a tiered system of tournaments. Before the open era there are whole tournaments missing as well as exhibitions and the exhibitions had much more meaning then. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

What a mess
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)

Individual article pages
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  to something like. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Title Modification
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)
 * Except it was the Amateur Era. Pros are included in the list so that is now noted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Djokovic - Raonic
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)