Not sure if anybody is really faulting him for playing for the money, but he kind of took the guaranteed money instead of going for the big money. If you really want money in tennis, it doesn't hurt to win huge titles. But he seemed comfortable with coasting for good tennis money instead of skipping a few smaller paychecks and trying to win the really huge paychecks and the bigger endorsement and appearance dollars that come with it. He treated it too much like a 9 to 5 job, and that's fine, but he probably would have made a lot more money if he thought more long term.
I think this is a popular sentiment, but a little part of me thinks that maybe for him, playing as he did singles and doubles didn't actually hurt him as much as people think.
Kafelnikov's backhand was voted the BEST two-handed backhand on tour BY HIS ACTUAL PEERS (to that other poster). His forehand was menacing, not INSNAE or anything, but very, very menacing at its best. To me, he was a BIG version of David Nalbandian. It's perhaps not the flashiest style or game, but it's remarkably well put together and solid. Being unbelievably "solid like a rock" is a style of its own, and like any other style if played to its optimal capacity very much formidable.
Tommy Haas is a very similar type player, and he's always been one of those guys who was JUST a hair below the very elite. In the Olympic finals, BOTH guys were laying it on the line, that was a fully motivated Kafelnikov there, the Olympic gold was something he definitely took seriously, and in that fifth set I thought it was clear that Kafelnikov's top gear was just a little bit more than Haas'.
This said, I don't want to put TOO much importance into individual matchups either. Hewitt was a HORRIBLE style matchup for Kafelnikov, the absolute worst. He was hard but not rocket launcher hard hitter, who hit flat, and was good at the net, and had an average serve. You take these variables and they feed EXACTLY into Hewitt's game. I can think of no better stylistic matchup for Hewitt.
The other players, however, knew that Kafelnikov was WITHOUT A DOUBT one of the most talented players on tour.
To me, though Medvedev had the better potential, because he had more piercing power, meaning he had the punch to end the point of a dime at any time if he REALLY wanted to, and that's not what I felt Kafelnikov had. The only thing he lacked was the knockout punch, one-punch k.o. power. He was a BRUISING hitter, a HEAVY hitter, but a consistent, low to mid 90s fastball guy, he just didn't have that Troy Percival 98+ pop capabilities.
The thing is, Medvedev's body broke down A LOT more than Kafelnikov's ever did. Kafelnikov for all his alleged lack of work ethic, his body actually held up waaaaaay, INFINITELY better than MANY of his fellow top ten caliber pros. WAaaaay better. He was a true iron man, so he must have been doing SOMETHING right me thinks.
Perhaps not practicing his arse off off court saved his sea legs so to speak. There is just as much such a thing as over training as there is over playing.
Also, Kafelnikov said one of the main reasons he played so many matches, both singles and doubles, was because he didn't like practicing, FOR HIM, just playing matches was an easier, better, way for him to stay in shape, and maintain/work on his game.
I know people like that too. Who knows, I actually think someone with Kafelnikov's personality would "burn out" more easily if had taken the "typical" approach to so-called "peak performance." What holds from one, does NOT hold for another in endeavors such as this, where greatness is involved. To me this isn't even a debate, it's a reality. Everyone ticks differently, everyone knows what works best for them.
When Kafelnikov wanted to play well, he could...that Olympics final. Kafelnikov could also have very serious mental blocks too, and was more susceptible than most players to "problem" matchups. This doesn't mean that his talent wasn't still upper echelon elite either. His hand-eye coordination, court sense, and ball-striking were second to none. His service motion was relaxed, but like the rest of his game VERY energy efficient. No one can deny how well Kafelnikov's body held-up, AND that he fought off burnout a LOT better than his fellow top ten caliber pros.
The other thing is that Kafelnikov's greatest signature was to me that as a baseliner he was top shelf class caliber. His body-type, tall but naturally strong like an ox, could handle heav topspin shots as equally well and comfortably as it could flat, piercing type shots. He had a wide-ranging strike zone in other words.
And most of all, what made him unique in his generation was that he was kind of like a modern-day Connors. He was a *net opportunist* at his best. A first-class, grade A baseliner who can also effectively and seamlessly seal off the net is a very rare find in the modern age. To this degree, and add his superlative court construction, point-building skills, I see not where NOT playing doubles would have helped him. To me, doubles made Kafelnikov a better player in that it honed his court senses and instincts in a way that off-court practice does not. Imo, not enough players play doubles and they don't reach their full potential as ALL-COURT players because of it. To me the one knock on Kafelnikov was that he wasn't a specialist player per say, he had a game truly for all surfaces and all court conditions like few of the modern generation, he was an all-season player in other words, dangerous and FORMIDABLE everywhere, but sometimes a little TOO well-rounded for his own good.
I'm not saying you can't piece it all together this way, but rather that for someone with his CLEAR MENTAL DEFICIENCIES this is a TOUGH way to play consistently near your best. He could work prime Guga over at his best like few others of his generation, BUT mentally he could not sustain it over Guga for the duration as often as you wold think his style (well-suited to counteract Guga's) would allow.
Kafelnikov like Rios was prone to mental lapses during matches. Guys like this, at their best, PIECE TOGETHER a masterpiece, it's the SUM OF THE PARTS, that make the whole with them. BUT, the problem is that this requires imminent SELF-CONTROL over yourself MENTALLY from a focus standpoint from start to finish to truly reach your full potential. Pioline was also like this. On any given day, masterpiece theatre was possible, but sustainable? No...NOT for guys who are PEEZ-POOR mentally.
Goran was flighty upstairs too...but at least, he knew he could just sling-shot a serve into a corner a few times and still manage to "hang in there" when his head wasn't all there...until, well, it was there.
Kafelnikov with a monster serve (what his body type SHOULD have dictated) would have been a legend caliber player imo.
To me, Kafelnikov and Bruguera both had OK serves, underrated, they were SNEAKY-quick serves. They would frustrate tour observers, because with their build, people thought they should be able to get SO MUCH more out of their serves if they would just get A LITTLE of their body into it. Bruguera's serve was all wrist, and Kafelnikov's all arm. And yet, I would say their serves while they could have definitely been better, weren't actually as weak as remembered. Their economic motions had a way of feeling "sneaky quick" to their opponents on good serving days. They were spot servers, and it's hard to pick-up on that and direction with guys who economical motions like that. Cliff Drysdale was the one who described Bruguera's serve that way, "sneak quick," it's more effective than you think it should be and so in a way that is the secret to its effectiveness. The thing is, Chang had a MUCH better motion than either of these guys, but simply I felt just because of height and longer, luxurious limbs alone; they actually had more effective serves.
Chang's serve was serviceable, and yet I thought it was eaiser to attack his serve in spite of all his endless tinkering to beef it up and maximize it.
If Chang's serve was serviceable, that to made Kafelnikov's serve neither a weapon nor a weakness, but really not have bad, and SURPRISINGLY effective.
Overall, I thought Kafelnikov was FOR SURE *not* a true #1, MUSTER was to me more of a true #1, because at least when he reached it, he felt truly DOMINANT at some point (even if on one surface primarily). Same with Rios. Even Korda, had he not choked away his chance at #1. But to me, the most undeserving #1's were Kafelnikov and Moya. They just NEVER felt DOMINANT at any one point, not to the point where they ever struck fear in everyone as being THE guy to beat at a tournament. Winning slams to me can be different from being #1. To me, being #1 is more about instilling fear in others as being "unbeatable" or "invincible" for a time. You never got that from these too.
I look at Moya as VERY good and a very good but not VERY good competitior, but never *quite* AMAZING (other than his forehand...something always just felt "missing" for me with him, even if on paper it all seemed like the potential and capability was there, I can't quite put my finger on it, but he was missing the INTANGIBLES, the *fill in the blanks*, the *in between* SOMETHING extra that defines the capacity for greatness to me, which is why I NEVER bought into the hype about him being somehow "special" when he first burst onto the scene). I look at Kafelnikov, on the other hand, as a guy who COULD play amazing, but who MENTALLY failed himself by coming into matches either TOO cocky or TOO kissing-up and bowing down. There wasn't enough of a between with him. He lacked substance in the head to put it all together, but the reality is that the potential and capacity unlike Moya I always felt was there.
