Is it correct to say that Kafelnikov would be more successful on the Tour, playing today?

[Break To Win]

Or would that be wrong?

He was solid from the baseline, had a good serve, and was also a good volleyer.

And he played in a much more difficult era than the current one.

What do you think?

 

[Judge Holden]

That dude was a flat hitter who liked to reflect pace on balls in the Agassi zone between the knees and hips. The conditions were pretty opportune for him when he played. The field then was definitely deeper though.

I'd love a Game+ run on Nalbandian's career more than Kafelnikov's. Similar kind of clean hitter with more dexterity and cerebral play albeit weaker server [but slightly better returner]. He wielded the mettle. Just had misfortune with injuries.

 

[Mustard]

Kafelnikov was very consistent in all technical aspects of the game, very professional, and loved money, so he played a lot of tournaments (singles and doubles). His weakness was against opponents with a big weapon of some sort, whether big serve (i.e. Sampras, Ivanisevic), high intensity and relentless focus in baseline rallies (i.e. Muster), high intensity and speed (i.e. Hewitt). If you had glaring weaknesses technically though, Kafelnikov would exploit it. Santoro was often a nightmare opponent (i.e. for Safin), or a bit of a problem, for a lot of top players, but Kafelnikov owned Santoro, once saying "You will never, ever beat me, Fabrice". Why? Because Kafelnikov is extremely hard to bedazzle, like Santoro could do to so many top players. It was Sampras who first dubbed Santoro "the magician", yet Kafelnikov always handled Santoro easily.

There was only one obvious person who could out-Kafelnikov Kafelnikov, and that was Thomas Johansson, who beat Kafelnikov 8 times in a row 1998-2001 time. I suppose Agassi was just better than Kafelnikov at most things, too.

In some ways, Kafelnikov is like Ferrer.

As for the question, I don't think that Kafelnikov would be as successful today in singles, like being world number 1.

 

[Hard Court]

I think if he was playing like he did in his prime, right now he would #3. a distant #3, but #3. He actually never finished a year at #1.
He was ranked #2 to #6 at the end of the year except for an off year in 1998.
He probably would be reaching a lot of semifinals and quarterfinals in the Grand Slams and winning a few smaller tournaments each year.

 

[medieval_remnant]

That dude was a flat hitter who liked to reflect pace on balls in the Agassi zone between the knees and hips. The conditions were pretty opportune for him when he played. The field then was definitely deeper though.

I'd love a Game+ run on Nalbandian's career more than Kafelnikov's. Similar kind of clean hitter with more dexterity and cerebral play albeit weaker server [but slightly better returner]. He wielded the mettle. Just had misfortune with injuries.

I'm thinking of Enquist

 

[Judge Holden]

From the little I've seen of Enqvist, seems like he was a proper weapon.

 

[Mustard]

From the little I've seen of Enqvist, seems like he was a proper weapon.

Kafelnikov vs. Enqvist in the head-to-head ended 8-6 to Kafelnikov. Enqvist had a few big wins over Kafelnikov like the 1996 Paris Indoor final (Kafelnikov never won a super 9, strangely) and at the second round of the 1998 French Open, but Kafelnikov won their biggest match, i.e. the 1999 Australian Open final.

 

[boredone3456]

He could definitely be hovering in the top 5 at his theoretical peak. I don't know that I would see him doing insanely better against todays guys than against his own contemporaries though. I don't think he magically would deny tons of success to Sinner or Alcaraz, although I suspect their matches would be entertaining.

 

[martinezownsclay]

He could definitely be hovering in the top 5 at his theoretical peak. I don't know that I would see him doing insanely better against todays guys than against his own contemporaries though. I don't think he magically would deny tons of success to Sinner or Alcaraz, although I suspect their matches would be entertaining.

He lacks the knock out weapon you need against Sinner or Alcaraz. He could beat Alcaraz on a really off day, those which he is prone to having from time to time, but that is about it.

 

[Gizo]

I recently caught his 2nd round match vs. Sampras at the 1994 Australian Open, when he eventually lost 9-7 in the 5th. It was fun.

I did really like his backhand, especially down the line. He struck it so sweetly. It was only 1 set in a match that he eventually lost, but the backhand to backhand duels between Agassi and him during the opening set of the 2000 Australian Open were thrilling.

It seemed like he was playing in tournaments every week, very much like Davydenko.

Whenever I considered impressive masters series title runs during the late 90s - early 00s, it seemed like Kafelnikov was a 'victim' of many of them; Rafter at Cincinnati in 1998, Krajicek at Stuttgart in 1998, Kuerten at Cincinnati in 2001, Canas at Toronto in 2002 etc.

En-route to Russia's Davis Cup title in 2002, he played in an entertaining thriller vs. Gaudio in their SF, saving 2 match points and winning 8-6 in the 5th set. On the first match point for Gaudio, he thought he had sealed it with an ace, which was then overruled. The doubles match during which Arnold Ker / Nalbandian beat Safin and him 19-17 in the 5th set, lasted 6 hours and 20 minutes.

I defended him when he was portrayed as 'greedy' following the comments that he made about tennis prize money at the Australian Open in 2001. He talked about the relatively low earnings of players compared to the revenue generated by grand slams, and also the relatively low prize money at smaller events (in comparison to those at smaller golf events). Sampras and Agassi even more so criticised him, but IMO came as silly and naive, failing to understand his points or the bigger picture. It was incredibly easy for the 2 best (and therefore best paid) players over the previous decade or so to say that everything was fine in terms of prize money from a position of huge comfort, whilst not caring one bit about the fate of lower ranked players.

I'd wager that far more players around at the time on both the men's and women's side agreed with Kafelnikov (including the likes of Lindsay Davenport), than with Sampras and Agassi. Numerous people within the sport have basically made the same points since then.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Sampras and Agassi even more so criticised him, failing to understand his points or the bigger picture.

I think that was an opportunistic moment for Andre, able to bolster his "reinvented, thoughtful" new image by showing how much supposed perspective he had on his lot in life vs. others'.

Kafelnikov, though, was also one of the top players in the world at that time and surely making tons even if only recently. I'm not aware of his full comments or the context but didn't he frame the issue simply as, "We should be making more money"? That simply sounds like entitlement coming directly from one of the most well-off. Could be out of context, could have been lack of subtlety from a non-native speaker, but if he was truly talking about the tour as a whole and the struggling players in particular, it wasn't the best way to get the point across.

 

[Gizo]

I think that was an opportunistic moment for Andre, able to bolster his "reinvented, thoughtful" new image by showing how much supposed perspective he had on his lot in life vs. others'.

Kafelnikov, though, was also one of the top players in the world at that time and surely making tons even if only recently. I'm not aware of his full comments or the context but didn't he frame the issue simply as, "We should be making more money"? That simply sounds like entitlement coming directly from one of the most well-off. Could be out of context, could have been lack of subtlety from a non-native speaker, but if he was truly talking about the tour as a whole and the struggling players in particular, it wasn't the best way to get the point across.

I do think that he was misquoted by numerous English language outlets.

He specifically talked about earnings of players in relation to tournament revenues, and also the money on offer at smaller tournaments (though he entered way too many of them during his career). He also compared the prize money in tennis to that in golf, though he was on far weaker ground there given how golf was absolutely booming at the time, and raking in more and more money in general from big name sponsors and broadcasters. But he was clearly talked about the earnings of tennis players as a whole, and not just him and not just top players.

He was widely framed as simply whining about being underpaid, absolute not earning enough personally, as being greedy etc, when his arguments (whether people agreed or disagreed with them) were pretty clear.

It was far less fashionable and more controversial to talk like that in 2001. Nowadays if any player talked like that (and plenty have done and repeatedly), they would receive far more public support and solidarity within tennis circles.

Agassi took the opportunity to get on his soapbox, preach and act like a 'man of the people', not even considering any context, and not considering how it was easy for him to take that stance with his own personal (exceptionally wealthy) circumstances. I think he also said that Kafelnikov didn't speak for players on the tour - as I said earlier I think it's a safe bet that far more players around at that time male and female would have agreed with Kafelnikov there than Agassi (or Sampras).

It kind of reminded me about how Becker talked about the 'obscene' prize money at the Grand Slam Cup (though he ended up playing there every year from 1993-1997 winning it in 1996) and how tennis players were getting too much money. Muster called him out on that, saying it was easy for him to play Robin Hood when he was already incredibly wealthy.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I recently caught his 2nd round match vs. Sampras at the 1994 Australian Open, when he eventually lost 9-7 in the 5th. It was fun.

I remember being pretty disappointed with his play vs Stich in R4 of '94 USO. There were a lot of upsets in the first week so there weren't too many marquee matches in the 2nd week and I was looking forward to seeing a young player really shine on that stage(also the 1994 sports illustrated "Is Tennis Dying?" cover was still weighing a bit over the sport, along with Mac constantly saying how lame the new generation because there were so many more upsets, less personalities etc - he was so different back then, far from a cheerleader. I bet a part of him liked that American tennis fans weren't really embracing new players because it showed how much bigger the sport was in his heyday)

But hey Agassi won '94 USO, so tennis was all good again.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I think that was an opportunistic moment for Andre, able to bolster his "reinvented, thoughtful" new image by showing how much supposed perspective he had on his lot in life vs. others'.

Kafelnikov, though, was also one of the top players in the world at that time and surely making tons even if only recently. I'm not aware of his full comments or the context but didn't he frame the issue simply as, "We should be making more money"? That simply sounds like entitlement coming directly from one of the most well-off. Could be out of context, could have been lack of subtlety from a non-native speaker, but if he was truly talking about the tour as a whole and the struggling players in particular, it wasn't the best way to get the point across.

here's a pretty comprehensive article from the time(2001 AO) with all Kafelnikov's quotes, judge for yourself. a bit silly for him to compare tennis to golf since they were having the Tiger effect at the time. I remember the USTA couldn't even sell out the '97 or '98 USO men's finals(scalpers couldn't give tix away), this was not some golden age for tennis in terms of popularity, tennis was kind of a joke compared to golf back then.

ESPN.com - TENNIS - Kafelnikov says tennis players don't earn enough

 

[Racquet_smash]

Any player would be better today. All you have to do to reach the top 10 today is serving decently and hitting hard.

 

[bigbadboaz]

they were having the Tiger effect at the time.. tennis was kind of a joke compared to golf back then.

Crazy to think this shift had already happened at that point. Tiger was just getting started and the golf boom - at least in the US - would go much farther. We were still in the Sampras/Agassi era and were still getting mainstream attention at that point

 

[Moose Malloy]

Crazy to think this shift had already happened at that point. Tiger was just getting started and the golf boom - at least in the US - would go much farther. We were still in the Sampras/Agassi era and were still getting mainstream attention at that point

Tiger wasn't exactly "just getting started" in Jan 2001, he was already prob the most famous athlete on the planet, he won 3 straight majors in 2000, had many other tour wins, a ton of weeks at #1, and would get the Tiger Slam in April '01 at the Masters(his 6th major overall) Any attention the Sampras/Agassi rivalry got really sort of paled in comparison to the Tiger Slam(and golf ratings were like 100 times bigger than anything in tennis since Borg/Mac). Tiger was regularly compared to Michael Jordan by sports media, advertisers etc. So again, beyond silly that Kafelnikov thought a rando ATP tour event that paid 40K to the winner could in any way be compared to a rando PGA event that was paying 500k to the winner at the time(like he says in the article I linked)

I'm a big a Sampras fan as they come, but he was a pretty minor athlete in the US his entire career in terms of fame (any GS final he played that didn't involve Agassi got lower ratings than the Wilander-Lendl-Becker finals of 80s) Tennis was already a niche sport by the 90s in the US(and the ultimate insult to Sampras must have been the SI cover "Is Tennis Dying" in Spring '94 - Sampras had just won his 3rd straight major at '94 AO - the first American man to do so in the Open Era - and SI was basically saying we don't care!)

I remember guys like Wilbon/Kornheiser(who still have a show on ESPN) were like "this Sampras-Agassi rivalry is kind of lame, I miss Mac, Connors, Borg etc." But they gushed about the Fedal rivalry (and even gushed about Sinneraz recently). Sampras just didn't move the needle at all, even in US.

As far as a player who brought major money to the ATP in a (almost) Tiger sort of way, Becker was probably the closest. The YEC was moved to Germany solely because German TV paid an insane amount for rights and that parlayed to an insane increase of prize money. And they created the Grand Slam Cup in Germany as well - those 2 events alone offered more prize money than all 4 majors combined back then, I think. There were also 2(!) big money indoor events in Stuttgart back then. And then once Becker faded, all those TV deals dried up. And now Germany doesn't even have a masters event anymore.

 

[medieval_remnant]

Tiger wasn't exactly "just getting started" in Jan 2001, he was already prob the most famous athlete on the planet, he won 3 straight majors in 2000, had many other tour wins, a ton of weeks at #1, and would get the Tiger Slam in April '01 at the Masters(his 6th major overall) Any attention the Sampras/Agassi rivalry got really sort of paled in comparison to the Tiger Slam(and golf ratings were like 100 times bigger than anything in tennis since Borg/Mac). Tiger was regularly compared to Michael Jordan by sports media, advertisers etc. So again, beyond silly that Kafelnikov thought a rando ATP tour event that paid 40K to the winner could in any way be compared to a rando PGA event that was paying 500k to the winner at the time(like he says in the article I linked)

I'm a big a Sampras fan as they come, but he was a pretty minor athlete in the US his entire career in terms of fame (any GS final he played that didn't involve Agassi got lower ratings than the Wilander-Lendl-Becker finals of 80s) Tennis was already a niche sport by the 90s in the US(and the ultimate insult to Sampras must have been the SI cover "Is Tennis Dying" in Spring '94 - Sampras had just won his 3rd straight major at '94 AO - the first American man to do so in the Open Era - and SI was basically saying we don't care!)

I remember guys like Wilbon/Kornheiser(who still have a show on ESPN) were like "this Sampras-Agassi rivalry is kind of lame, I miss Mac, Connors, Borg etc." But they gushed about the Fedal rivalry (and even gushed about Sinneraz recently). Sampras just didn't move the needle at all, even in US.

As far as a player who brought major money to the ATP in a (almost) Tiger sort of way, Becker was probably the closest. The YEC was moved to Germany solely because German TV paid an insane amount for rights and that parlayed to an insane increase of prize money. And they created the Grand Slam Cup in Germany as well - those 2 events alone offered more prize money than all 4 majors combined back then, I think. There were also 2(!) big money indoor events in Stuttgart back then. And then once Becker faded, all those TV deals dried up. And now Germany doesn't even have a masters event anymore.Courier

Tiger wasn't exactly "just getting started" in Jan 2001, he was already prob the most famous athlete on the planet, he won 3 straight majors in 2000, had many other tour wins, a ton of weeks at #1, and would get the Tiger Slam in April '01 at the Masters(his 6th major overall) Any attention the Sampras/Agassi rivalry got really sort of paled in comparison to the Tiger Slam(and golf ratings were like 100 times bigger than anything in tennis since Borg/Mac). Tiger was regularly compared to Michael Jordan by sports media, advertisers etc. So again, beyond silly that Kafelnikov thought a rando ATP tour event that paid 40K to the winner could in any way be compared to a rando PGA event that was paying 500k to the winner at the time(like he says in the article I linked)

I'm a big a Sampras fan as they come, but he was a pretty minor athlete in the US his entire career in terms of fame (any GS final he played that didn't involve Agassi got lower ratings than the Wilander-Lendl-Becker finals of 80s) Tennis was already a niche sport by the 90s in the US(and the ultimate insult to Sampras must have been the SI cover "Is Tennis Dying" in Spring '94 - Sampras had just won his 3rd straight major at '94 AO - the first American man to do so in the Open Era - and SI was basically saying we don't care!)

I remember guys like Wilbon/Kornheiser(who still have a show on ESPN) were like "this Sampras-Agassi rivalry is kind of lame, I miss Mac, Connors, Borg etc." But they gushed about the Fedal rivalry (and even gushed about Sinneraz recently). Sampras just didn't move the needle at all, even in US.

As far as a player who brought major money to the ATP in a (almost) Tiger sort of way, Becker was probably the closest. The YEC was moved to Germany solely because German TV paid an insane amount for rights and that parlayed to an insane increase of prize money. And they created the Grand Slam Cup in Germany as well - those 2 events alone offered more prize money than all 4 majors combined back then, I think. There were also 2(!) big money indoor events in Stuttgart back then. And then once Becker faded, all those TV deals dried up. And now Germany doesn't even have a masters event anymore.

Courier greatest athlete never to make the cover of SI?

 

[medieval_remnant]

Tiger wasn't exactly "just getting started" in Jan 2001, he was already prob the most famous athlete on the planet, he won 3 straight majors in 2000, had many other tour wins, a ton of weeks at #1, and would get the Tiger Slam in April '01 at the Masters(his 6th major overall) Any attention the Sampras/Agassi rivalry got really sort of paled in comparison to the Tiger Slam(and golf ratings were like 100 times bigger than anything in tennis since Borg/Mac). Tiger was regularly compared to Michael Jordan by sports media, advertisers etc. So again, beyond silly that Kafelnikov thought a rando ATP tour event that paid 40K to the winner could in any way be compared to a rando PGA event that was paying 500k to the winner at the time(like he says in the article I linked)

I'm a big a Sampras fan as they come, but he was a pretty minor athlete in the US his entire career in terms of fame (any GS final he played that didn't involve Agassi got lower ratings than the Wilander-Lendl-Becker finals of 80s) Tennis was already a niche sport by the 90s in the US(and the ultimate insult to Sampras must have been the SI cover "Is Tennis Dying" in Spring '94 - Sampras had just won his 3rd straight major at '94 AO - the first American man to do so in the Open Era - and SI was basically saying we don't care!)

I remember guys like Wilbon/Kornheiser(who still have a show on ESPN) were like "this Sampras-Agassi rivalry is kind of lame, I miss Mac, Connors, Borg etc." But they gushed about the Fedal rivalry (and even gushed about Sinneraz recently). Sampras just didn't move the needle at all, even in US.

As far as a player who brought major money to the ATP in a (almost) Tiger sort of way, Becker was probably the closest. The YEC was moved to Germany solely because German TV paid an insane amount for rights and that parlayed to an insane increase of prize money. And they created the Grand Slam Cup in Germany as well - those 2 events alone offered more prize money than all 4 majors combined back then, I think. There were also 2(!) big money indoor events in Stuttgart back then. And then once Becker faded, all those TV deals dried up. And now Germany doesn't even have a masters event anymore.

Those big money Germany tournaments hurt tennis' reputation in the US. Too whorish

 

[bigbadboaz]

Imagine when people actually objected to the amounts of money pro athletes were getting paid..

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Kafelnikov vs. Enqvist in the head-to-head ended 8-6 to Kafelnikov. Enqvist had a few big wins over Kafelnikov like the 1996 Paris Indoor final (Kafelnikov never won a super 9, strangely) and at the second round of the 1998 French Open, but Kafelnikov won their biggest match, i.e. the 1999 Australian Open final.

Surprised Enqvist would beat Kafelnikov on clay. That should not have happened.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Tiger wasn't exactly "just getting started" in Jan 2001, he was already prob the most famous athlete on the planet, he won 3 straight majors in 2000, had many other tour wins, a ton of weeks at #1, and would get the Tiger Slam in April '01 at the Masters(his 6th major overall) Any attention the Sampras/Agassi rivalry got really sort of paled in comparison to the Tiger Slam(and golf ratings were like 100 times bigger than anything in tennis since Borg/Mac). Tiger was regularly compared to Michael Jordan by sports media, advertisers etc. So again, beyond silly that Kafelnikov thought a rando ATP tour event that paid 40K to the winner could in any way be compared to a rando PGA event that was paying 500k to the winner at the time(like he says in the article I linked)

I'm a big a Sampras fan as they come, but he was a pretty minor athlete in the US his entire career in terms of fame (any GS final he played that didn't involve Agassi got lower ratings than the Wilander-Lendl-Becker finals of 80s) Tennis was already a niche sport by the 90s in the US(and the ultimate insult to Sampras must have been the SI cover "Is Tennis Dying" in Spring '94 - Sampras had just won his 3rd straight major at '94 AO - the first American man to do so in the Open Era - and SI was basically saying we don't care!)

I remember guys like Wilbon/Kornheiser(who still have a show on ESPN) were like "this Sampras-Agassi rivalry is kind of lame, I miss Mac, Connors, Borg etc." But they gushed about the Fedal rivalry (and even gushed about Sinneraz recently). Sampras just didn't move the needle at all, even in US.

As far as a player who brought major money to the ATP in a (almost) Tiger sort of way, Becker was probably the closest. The YEC was moved to Germany solely because German TV paid an insane amount for rights and that parlayed to an insane increase of prize money. And they created the Grand Slam Cup in Germany as well - those 2 events alone offered more prize money than all 4 majors combined back then, I think. There were also 2(!) big money indoor events in Stuttgart back then. And then once Becker faded, all those TV deals dried up. And now Germany doesn't even have a masters event anymore.

Becker and Agassi were the only big tennis stars back then that were remotedly popular either in the US or Europe. Well maybe Steffi Graf in Europe to some extent, but not the US. Sampras and Seles before the stabbing (I know it sounds gruesome to say but the honest truth is only the unfortunate stabbing made her a fan favorite) were not that popular or big of stars in the US at all, nor really anywhere else, particularly outside the main tennis niche. Sabatini was much more popular than either Graf or Seles, but wasn't winning, and faded completely 93 onwards, and Navratilova was semi retired/retiring around then. Agassi was super inconsistent, and the peak of his rivalry with Sampras was short lived.

Yes tennis did not compare to golf at all around then, not even close. Tiger mania was already sweeping through the world, to the point even non golf fans or maybe people who hated golf, would take interest in events, or watching if he could do the Grand Slam that year. Tiger might have already lost at a major that year and not even been able to do it, and non golf people would still watch thinking he could. Kafelnikov being the topic is ironic since he is the epitome of the example of a top player at the time nobody could care less about.

 

[buscemi]

Surprised Enqvist would beat Kafelnikov on clay. That should not have happened.

This was basically the best clay version of Enqvist, who had recently beaten Agassi to take the Munich title. And it was probably the worst clay version of Kafelnikov, who was only 8-9 on the surface in 1998. Still a surprising result, though.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

This was basically the best clay version of Enqvist, who had recently beaten Agassi to take the Munich title. And it was probably the worst clay version of Kafelnikov, who was only 8-9 on the surface in 1998. Still a surprising result, though.

I had not noticed Kafelnikov was doing so poorly most of 98, since for the only time in his career, particularly from 94-2001 I began forgetting about him, which kind of sums it up. The only time I even noticed him that year was when he lost to Johansson at the US Open which I was dissapointed about, as I did like Kafelnikov, but still began forgetting about/not noticing him in 98 for the first time.

I have just seen Enqvist play many times on clay and IMO he is not even a good clay courter. He looks so clunky and awkard on the surface, he isn't even comfortable or natural on grass but looks much better on even grass than clay. Kafelnikov is one of the best clay courters of that time, just a notch behind the true elites of that time (Bruguera, Courier, Muster, Ferrero, Kuerten, maybe Agassi) along with people like Costa, Corretja, Agassi if you don't count him in the first group. So that result still really surprises me but given their form at the time I guess not surprising anymore.

 

[Gizo]

There were also plenty of articles in the UK, from the Independent, Guardian, Times etc. complaining strongly about the state of tennis and men's tennis in the 90s. Also the declining US TV ratings were brought up in the UK. For example I knew from the UK that Wimbledon in 1998 attracted the lowest ever US ratings on record at that point.

The 1987 Wimbledon final between Cash and Lendl and 1991 final between Stich and Becker, had higher ratings in the US than the 1993 final between Sampras and Courier. I remember posters in the past showing NBC charts, highlighting just how ratings significantly tapered off in the 90s compared to the 80s. They also showed how ratings for Sampras matches without Agassi on the other side of the net, were typically poor.

I've always thought it was blatantly obvious that Sampras's 'pursuit' of Emerson's record was hyped up in the US, to try to drum up interest as a result of declining ratings and popularity. After Borg won his 11th grand slam at RG in 1981, the fact that he was 1 short of Emerson's record was mentioned in some publications. But there wasn't anything close to serious hype about whether he could tie / surpass, what was considered to be a largely insignificant record. I haven't seen a single quote from Borg directly about Emerson's record at that time.

That's why I've always said that while Sampras was such a brilliant player, he simply didn't transcend the sport, like Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Alcaraz etc. The fact that he wasn't involved in any iconic 5 set grand slam finals was surely a contributing factor as well. His only 5 set grand slam final was vs. Ivanisevic at Wimbledon 1998. I thought it was good and enjoyable viewing, but it wasn't an all-time classic. Plus there was a stigma associated with Sampras vs. Ivanisevic matches, after their 1994 final.

But when it comes to Kafelnikov, I do think Agassi and Sampras were too stunted to actually tackle his actual arguments head on, about prize money as a share of revenue, compared to that earned by golfers, at smaller events etc. Instead they acted as if he was personally demanding more money and 'played to the gallery'. Kafelnikov was undoubtedly right when he mentioned that that he publicly said (regardless of the strengths / weaknesses of his arguments) what many of his peers were too scared to say. Nowadays, players aren't remotely scared to talk about / criticise prize money distributions.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

There were also plenty of articles in the UK, from the Independent, Guardian, Times etc. complaining strongly about the state of tennis and men's in the 90s. Also the declining US TV ratings was brought up in the UK. For example I knew from the UK that Wimbledon in 1998 attracted the lowest ever US ratings on record at that point.

The 1987 Wimbledon final between Cash and Lendl and 1991 final between Stich and Becker, had higher ratings in the US than the 1993 final between Sampras and Courier. I remember posters in the past showing NBC charts, highlighting just how ratings significantly tapered off in the 90s compared to the 90s. They also showed how ratings for Sampras matches without Agassi on the other side of the net, were typically poor.

I've always thought it was blatantly obvious that Sampras's 'pursuit' of Emerson's record was hyped up in the US, to try to drum up interest as a result of declining ratings and popularity. After Borg won his 11th grand slam at RG in 1981, the fact that the was 1 short of Emerson's record was mentioned by a couple of publications, but there wasn't anything close to serious hype about whether he could tie / surpass what was considered to be a largely insignificant record. I haven't see a single quote from Borg directly about Emerson's record at that time.

That's why I've always said that while Sampras was such a brilliant player, he simply didn't transcend the sport, like Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Alcaraz etc. The fact that he wasn't involved in any iconic 5 set grand slam finals was surely a contributing factor as well. His only 5 set grand slam final was vs. Ivanisevic at Wimbledon 1998. I think it was good viewing, but it wasn't an all-time classic. Plus there was a stigma associated with Sampras vs. Ivanisevic matches after their 1994 final.

But when it comes to Kafelnikov, I do think Agassi and Sampras were too stunted to actually tackle his actual arguments head on, about prize money as a share of revenue, compared to that earned by golfers, at smaller events etc. Instead they acted as if he was personally demanding more money and 'played to the gallery'. Kafelnikov was undoubtedly right when he mentioned that that he publicly said (regardless of the strengths / weaknesses of his arguments) what many of his peers were too scared to say. Nowadays, players aren't remotely scared to talk about / criticise prize money distributions.

Ironically the worst thing for Sampras's popularity was probably winning the 95 US Open final with Agassi. If Agassi won that and ended 95 #1, he would have remained motivated in the rivalry and in tennis I believe, even if Sampras had ended say the next 3 years #1 over him, and in worst Agassi even won only a couple majors from 96-98 (since Sampras got ultra even more determined or something, and while a legit contender for it, Agassi obviously can't count on winning the French, Sampras's weak spot), the fact Agassi did it atleast once before would keep him motivated and fully into tennis. Agassi probably does not have as strong a late career surge anymore, so his overall career "might" not be much better, but the Agassi-Sampras rivalry would, and Sampras needed that to be able to raise his popularity at all. When Agassi ended the year with only 1 major and not #1 after putting his whole self into that year he gave up, Sampras lost his only meaningful rival, as Becker while rejuvenated was too old and injury prone, and Sampras remained mediocre in the popularity stakes.

 

[Gizo]

Courier greatest athlete never to make the cover of SI?

I was wondering who is the greatest US athlete never get a SI cover, at least a shared one.

Courier's achievements were incredible. But from a wider US perspective, I guess he simply won the 'wrong slams'.

I don't think Maurice Greene got a SI cover? Athletics / Track & Field has had far more problems maintaining popularity than tennis - I think that the BALCO scandal was a devastating blow for the sport, that it hasn't really recovered from.

I'd assume that Greene winning his 100m Olympic gold medal at Sydney in 2000 (without getting to his 4x100m relay one and the criticism he and his team-mates received for their celebrations afterwards), was still a very big deal in the US. I have no idea how much attention his World Championship golds attracted though. I remember the big hype about a potential Greene vs. Johnson 200m showdown in Sydney, especially after all the previous trash-talking, before that was wrecked after they both pulled up during the trials.

I've only followed the NFL ever since I caught the 2011 Super Bowl, so I'm not a position to talk about players in that sport that didn't make the cover. I know barely anything about the MLB full-stop. I know that Chauncey Billups stands out as being a very rare NBA finals MVP (in 2004 with the Pistons) to never even be part of a shared cover.