Well, I think Arazi is very talented and Federer like, and in my opinion actually has MUCH more aeasthetically appealing strokes to watch (would watch an Arazi match over a Federer match ANY day of the week, except on Slam final days because I KNOW Arazi won't be around then), BUT there is a very big difference between the two, and it is NOT just that Federer is much taller and more mentally tough. Really, what I'm talking about is the bottom-line.
Arazi at his peak level was a TOP 30 level player, but no more...in fact, I'm not sure if he ever even ended a year in the top 20. He's had his moments, but was never really a day in day out force, just a dangerous floater who occasionally got hot...kind of like a little bee that stings you from behind now and then, a pesk, but ultimately NOT a dragon that actually wins the whole thing or even comes close to winning the whole thing. It's funny because the fans, myself included, love Arazi because he's got an irresistably cute game and just a natural Johny Depp like charisma and charm to him, BUT the best assessment came from Mr. plain as a cucumber himself, Malivai Washington calling the Arazi Philipoussis match at the Australian. That tournie, Philipoussis was really hot, but Arazi cooled him down big time and was playing his best tennis this round of 16 match. I remember Cliffie saying is this a surprise that this little guy is beating this big guy? And Mal was just matter of factly, no it's not a surprise, it's not necessarily expected but it's also not a surprise, he's been around a number of years, solid top 50 player, he can play, it's not an accident. Note, however, that he stopped there in his "praise." He did NOT bend down and drool before his blinding genius as we fans like to do. I think the reason why is that ultimately, Mal recongized that the bottom-line is results, and Arazi whilst having moments occassionaly had never reached a slam final nor ever come even remotely close to the top ten.
We can talk about injuries altering the course of a player's career, we can talk about being undersized and hence not being able to go as far as your natural talent will allow, we can talk about a grissly persona and a tanker's spirt on the court. All valid points, but then again we can talk about a lot of things.
We can talk about a guy with a similar on-court personality, like Krajicek, injured, mentally flaky...still won a slam, still made the top ten and Arazi never had the same degree of injury difficulty as Krajicek either. Well, he's got the big serve you say, he's 6-5 you say? Well how about Clement and Grosjean, clearly have not been the same since getting injured, still the bottom-line is that they at least HAVE made the top ten once in their lifetimes, have made the semis or finals of slams once...or TWICE in their lifetimes. That's simple fact.
What about being weak mentally? Well, what do you call Rios? I call him weak mentally, physically broken by injuries, and finally the straw that broke the camel's back...short. He like Arazi played a game spiked with variety, a freelance musician lacking raw power out there but whose principle strategy was to wing it. Rios had plenty of excuses for not reaching his full potential as a tennis player, undersized, injuries, and mentally weak...heck, he almost seemed to hate the sport at times, and that was not the case with Arazi. Yet all that, and the fact still remains that he STILL made the top ten, still made the finals of a slam, still won a masters series event. I'm not even holding Arazi to that standard of being #1 as Rios once was, but at least the top ten even once? Even one single measley slam final like Malivai Washington did on grass of all surfaces? Heck, even one masters series title Thomas Johnasson...oops, he also won a slam, has had serious injury problems, and is undersized too, my bad.
Heck, Pioline to me was VERY similar to Arazi. Up and down mentally during matches, ridiculously poor concentration, strokes like swans performing Swan Lake, could beat or lose to anybody on any given day, BUT the fact still remains that Pioline at least made it to #5 in the world at one point. Pioline DID make the finals of two different slams. But Pioline was tall one says, it's not a fair comparison? Well, if Rios could make the top ten carrying a spare tire around his waist, and Pioline could hover around the top ten/top twenty his whole career, then why couldn't Arazi at least make a dent in the top twenty? Is that so much to ask from his blinding genius?
Look, I still love watching him play, but I also kind of get where Malivai's was coming from when assessing Arazi, heck, PMac responds to Arazi in much the same way. They don't spend time gushing over the guy's talent, because the reality is that at a certain point you have to ask yourself after a guy's been around this long and never once cracked the top ten, how talented is he really? What's the difference between flair and "cute" and results? Leconte said Arazi played just like him when he first saw him, but Leconte also made the top ten and the finals of a slam.
Just being mentally wishy washy or undersized isn't really an excuse after awhile when you've seen players who've had to deal with several major injuries, players who were just as mentally weak if not more so, players who carried a spare tire around, players who are as short as you, etc., etc. all at least ONCE in their careers make the top ten, all at least ONCE make a slam final or even a semi. If you really are that talented, at some point, it's ACTUALLY gotta show right? A few hot shots here and there don't make a career, at some point you've got to piece together enough hot shots to make a calendar year top ten right if you're so gifted? I mean heck if even Rios could do it, then why not Arazi? Arazi never even came close.
To me when I think of Arazi, I think of tennis' version of a streetballer. Looks great on the playground, plenty of trick shots up his sleeves, but there's a difference between a trickster and Kobe Bryant now isn't there? At some point, there has to be some substance to back up those tricks...otherwise the NBA eventually kind of just tunes you out. There is the AMD Tour and the real tour. Now obviously Arazi DID make it on the real tour, but one wonders if tennis had a tricksters tour for games of little substance, if Arazi would have been a superstar instead of a footnote...a footnote that BOTH PMac and Malivai Washington ho-hum about when looking over a draw or calling a match.
The bottom-line to me is that if you're truly that talented, you can keep the ball IN the court enough times with your tricks to win enough points consistently enough over the course of a calender year to make the top ten at least ONCE in your career. Pioline did it, Rios did it...Arazi never came close. And to my mind, Pioline and Rios were just as poor mentally, just as wishy-washy, just as unable to concentrate from point to point, as Arazi if not more so. But you don't necessarily have to be born like Muster and Chang, with that amazing ability to concentrate on every single point like it's the last for a calendar year, to make the top ten even just once in your career now do you.
