Baby Hewitt and even Tomas Johansson both own Kafelnikov. That is part of the reason why I think even Davydenko is better than him.
So...? You're putting to much into individual matchups. Kafelnikov obliterated Kuerten at the US Open before that match with Hewitt. Those two matches were a CLASSIC example of how big a role individual *style* matchups can and do regularly play in this sport. Tennis isn't always simply a game of black and white, on paper, analysis. Style matchups are of critical importance at the upper echelon. Kafelnikov's game was MADE for Hewitt's. It has nothing to do with not being talented enough.
Put it this way, Ferreira was Agassi's whipping boy throughout his career...fast forward to their recent seniors tour match...boink, SAME DEAL! Lol. Likewise with Kafelnikov and Hewitt, Ferreira's game is TAILOR made for Agassi. It's just the way of the individual matchup. Are we to conclude Arazi is more "gifted" overall than Rios from how he seemingly "out talented" Rios at the French? NO. A RESOUNDING NO.
I remember McEnroe literally GUSHING over Arazi after that match, all but hailing Arazi as the next coming! He was NOT mind you talking all that much about Guga. In his mind, it was Arazi who was the new genius on the block. THEN, he sobered up quickly, was forced to during Arazi's match with Bruguera. Late in the match he goes, um, well, yeah he's talented enough, but the question is, is he TALL enough...lol, DUH! Gee, why not point that out earlier? It was an obvious flaw in his game that could hold him back. Yet, McEnroe was willing to overlook that, be blind to that, based on ONE SINGLE MATCH he saw in which Arazi played some of the most amazing tennis he said anyone's ever seen in years!!!
Virtually EVERY top level player is going to have another top player who is going to just have their number seemingly no matter what. For Muster, a boogeyman was someone like Edberg. For Bruguera, Guga and Muster. For Sampras, guys like Ferreira and Bruguera posed surprising problems. For Leconte and Rafter, Bruguera was their boogeyman. For Ferreira, Agassi was most definitely his. For Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Sampras. For Rios, Chang was his boogeyman. For Guga, you would think that Pioline and Kafelnikov wouldn't have their way with him during their moments of peak focus (obvious up and down with them), but they did. Note how, their "all-around" styles, flatter styles that are very comfrotable playing against topspin, seemed to give Guga trouble....
EVERYONE has players whose games just seem to "fit" into their comfort zone, sometimes it's obvious tactical x's and o's reasons, but sometimes, it's just a mental thing or something intangible you can't explain (everyone has guys who just for whatever reason gets under their skin or who just gives them fits and they're not sure why). For Kafelnikov, that could have been his Johansson.
I don't know why it's so important for some people to go out of their way to discredit how "good" certain players were. Kafelinikov has the respect of his ACTUAL PEERS as being IMMENSELY talented. This does not mean that he was on the level of the all-time great caliber guys, but then again, WHO really is? That's why they're hailed as all-time greats. There's no shame in falling second fiddle to that imo.
Yes, Kafelnikov got a *little* lucky, but certainly I consider him...and so did his PEERS a more RESPECTABLE "talent" worthy of holding up a slam trophy or two than they do Johansson of holding up one.
The thing is, anyone who has won a lot of slams, meaning the legends, have had slams where you could make the case that they were a little "lucky" along the way. AND YET? *NO ONE* tries to take away from those specific slam wins now do they? I consider Sampras a little "lucky" that Philipoussis got injured against him at Wimbledon since he was one of the few who wasn't afraid of Sampras (i.e. TOO respectful of his greatness), and was pretty close to entering the zone.
Does it matter now? No, not really.
WHY? Because you win a lot of slams, the "luck" gets masked by the numbers.
It's only a big deal because Kafelnikov didn't win MORE slams...i.e. I think it's when you win three or more slams, where you start getting into "historic" territory, people start thinking you could be in that vain.
Yet, speak to ANY multi, multi-slam winner and they'll say, there's ALWAYS a little bit of luck involved, that you need a little luck on your side.
Just think of Kafelnikov's two slam wins as being one of the lesser impressive slam wins of the greats...that STILL does NOT in ANY way shape or form however take away from the FACT that those slams wins still count and were still great in their own right. A slam win should never be discredited so haughtily imo. It's still special, the way to think of it is...just a little less special.
There's so much angst and hate toward Kafelnikov for winning two slams on here that it's a bit shocking to me how much this seems to bother some people.
He's a two slam winner, the greatest ever two slam winner? No. But WHY is it so important for some on here to go out of their way to always point out that he was the WORST two slam winner ever. Like it's some disgrace or something. Kafelnikov's no disgrace. I mightily enjoyed watching him play, and thought he was without a doubt one of the most naturally gifted ball strikers of his generation.
To me, the "big deal" for so many on here is that he actually had the audacity to take the chance when there was the chance and won TWO slams...instead of JUST one.
I think all the hate toward this guy would have turned to admiration if ONLY this guy had JUST known his place, that he was "destined" to only win ONE slam...and ABSOLUTELY *NO MORE*. I don't know why we get so stingy on here sometimes over who "should" or "deserves to" "get" or be WORTHY of the honor of holding up a slam trophy or not. At the end of the day, Kafelnikov's the one who was actually GOOD ENOUGH to be in those draws. I mean yeah, maybe he wasn't QUITE a legend caliber talent, but come on, what was he chopped liver?
The differences between the "legend" caliber players and the JUST below is EXCEEDINGLY minute. I mean the whole point is that even challenger level guys can top guns INCLUDING the legends all they can handle if not actually BEAT them on any given day. THAT is proof POSITIVE of JUST how LITTLE difference in ACTUAL level of play there really is between the VERY best and just the VERY good.
Imo, Kafelnikov has NOTHING to be ashamed of for what HE'S accomplished...yet some of you guys almost make it sound like he should hang himself...how DARE he win two slams! SOOOO lucky! It's a sham! It's an outrage! How dare he RUIN *my* "vision" of what a truly worthy slam winner is supped to play like. If people on here feel that this badly, maybe they should have just entered the tournament themselves and stopped him from doing it, for going all the way. That would have done the trick nicely. Lol, it's not like these other WORLD CLASS players didn't try to stop him along the way themselves. It's an INSULT to these other world class players that he didn't "deserve" his two slams.