Redefining Rivalry

With under a week to go before the start of the French Open, the to players appear to be rounding into form. Aside from a bizarre inability to close out from Novak, Rome went pretty much as expected this past weekend. Serena did what she usually does when focused and playing cleanly and Nadal took ol' Fed to the woodshed again on clay. The thing I found most interesting in both matches was the commentators discussions of rivalries involving each player. Here's my thoughts on rivalry with both of Rome's Champions:

Serena: It was comical to me when the commentators made the effort to say that Serena had current rivalries with Maria Sharapova and Victoria Azarenka. I'm not entirely sure what dictionary they are using, but my definition of rivalry has something to do with it being a two sided affair. With Sharapova, Serena has only a nail biting 13-2 advantage in the head to head stats. The last time Maria beat Serena was in 2004! In the last 6 years, Serena has dropped a whopping 2 sets in their matches. This smells of something, but I don't think it's rivalry...... Now let's look and Serena and Vika. Serena leads their head to head 12-2. Again, what a neck and neck match up! I will note that Azarenka does have a recent win over Serena this year in Doha. However, that merely seems to have angered Serena who is now on a career long winning streak. Here's the bottom line: Is Serena beatable by either of these two? Yes. Will take a fair amount of help from Serena herself? Yes. Let's face it, when Serena loses, it has more to do with sloppy play and a lack of focus than getting outplayed. If she stays as determined as she has been, it will take a breakdown from her or a flawless performance form someone to take her out.

Nadal: Now this one is a little bit muddier when you compare him and Roger. After all Roger does have more Grand Slams and more overall titles than Rafa. Again though, let's look at the head to head. After that beat down he delivered in Rome, Nadal now has a 20-10 lead head to head. Nadal also has a massive lead in their match ups that have occurred in finals. Hard courts have definitely been more back and forth than clay (shocking I know.) I think the real question here is if Roger can really be called the GOAT when he has such a dismal record against one of his contemporaries. I'm not saying he can't but I do think there's a debate there. Nadal fans will point to the head to head stats while Fed fans will go to his better ability to win consistently on all surfaces. Overall, it's probably an issue that will be debated for long past the time when they both hang their racquets up.

How do you define rivalry? Does it have to be two sided or is it just about the frequency of match ups?