Kafelnikov vs. Roddick (Singles Career)

[BGod]

I can't believe a direct comparison hasn't been made although there was the Hewitt-Roddick-Kafelnikov thread this is a direct comparison between these two (Hewitt was clear ahead at #1 in that discussion).

THIS IS ONLY SINGLES, as Kafelnikov had a solid doubles career and Roddick didn't really play much.

Slams
Roddick 5 Finals, 1 Win, 5 additional SFs, 9 additional QFs
Kafelnikov 3 Finals, 2 Wins, 3 additional SFs, 7 additional QFs

Additional Sub Slams
Kafelnikov 1 Olympic Gold, WTF Runner-Up (2 SFs)
Roddick 3 WTF SFs

Masters
Roddick 9 Finals, 5 Wins
Kafelnikov 5 Finals, 0 Wins

Weeks at #1
Roddick 13
Kafelnikov 6

Weeks at Top 5
Kafelnikov 214
Roddick 208


I gotta say, the real close margin in weeks for Top 5 is surprising. I thought Roddick would have quite a bit more but there you go. Obviously beyond the numbers you can also look at competition. Roddick faced Federer in all 4 finals he lost at the Slams and 3 Semis. Kafelnikov beat Stich and Enqvist for his 2 titles and lost to Agassi in his other final. From a career stand-point the rankings are near identical so that's a wash. It boils down to Kafelnikov having the 1 extra Slam and what ground Roddick can make up for that. He has 2 additional Finals and 2 additional SFs. Then the Masters are his biggest gap in favor with 5 titles to 0. However Kafelnikov has the Olympic Gold which I personally rank above a Masters and a WTF title match so that takes away at least 2 Masters in favor of Roddick. So the margin to me seems to be 2 additional Slam Finals & 3 Masters to make up for a Slam victory. I can see some wouldn't see that as enough but the ATP points and money say otherwise. I go with Roddick (I pick him over Kuerten too so I'm stronger than usual support).

It should also be noted Roddick was a 1st ballot Hall of Famer, politics aside his career was considered enough legacy status.

 

[forehandblast]

For me Roddick. I find it ironic you seem to be arguing more for Kafelnikov in this thread than Kuerten in the other when I consider Kuerten to have a clearly better career than Kafelnikov, particularly excluding doubles which you are specifically doing here.

Kafelnikov having 0 Masters is a huge blotch on his legacy to me. For a 2 slam winner that is just pathetic. I can never think of him and not remember that. I don't care if Masters were that important then or not, that is a huge negative. Both had short stints at #1, but Roddick has a YE#1. Roddick much better at the 2 slightly more marquee slams- Wimbledon and the U.S Open. Roddick has 5 Masters to Kafelnikov's 0.

I am comfortable picking Roddick in this comparision. Rafter, Kafelnikov, Kriek (if he even counts), Bruguera are the 2 slam winners I am comfortable putting Roddick above. I don't put Roddick above Hewitt or Safin.

 

[NatF]

Arod. Easy.

 

[Jonesy]

Kafelnikov. 1 more slam + OG > 7 more weeks at n 1 and some finals losses.

 

[forehandblast]

Kafelnikov. 1 more slam + OG > 7 more weeks at n 1 and some finals losses.

The 7 more weeks at #1, while a fact, makes me laugh. Kafelnikov had the lamest rise to #1 in tennis history. Ended 1998 barely in the Top 10, won the Australian Open, then got to #1 by losing 6 straight 1st rounds, all because the tour was in such an awful state, and Sampras in everyone else was dropping points from the previous year like flies. Even though he isn't the worst player to reach #1, his rise and stint at #1 was easily the worst in history, complete with tons of 1st and 2nd round losses, and only beginning to play well again when he lost the ranking. It was painfully clear Kafelnikov never had the mentality of a #1 player. Which is different from Roddick who I would say had some of the mentality of a #1, just didn't have enough talent to spend a lot of time there, plus got stuck in the Federer era, but had the mindset of a possible #1 way moreso than Kafelnikov who seemed miserable during his brief stint on top and ecstatic to lose the ranking.

Plus I would say a YE#1 vs no YE#1 >>>>>>>> a mere 7 weeks difference ranked #1.

 

[King No1e]

Kafelnikov. OG and 1 more Slam.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Kafelnikov. OG and 1 more Slam.

OG doesn't count, but zero W finals vs roddick' 3 finals

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Rawdick of course. Coughle's 1999 AO was a silly wicked slem, legendary 2009 bulldone finale is just as great. Overall Rawdick greater in slems and masters, then. Greater #1 too, being YE#1 and did decently as #1 as opposed to Coughle's worst ever #1 stint. Also, Coughle was owned by PETE off-clay worse than Dick by Fedr, off clay is important since PETE was nowhere near a massive force on clay as he and Fred were elsewhere. All Gesha has over Andrew is YEC final (easily pwned by PETE) and OG, cool but not close to covering the mugsters chasm.

 

[KG1965]

Masters
Roddick 9 Finals, 5 Wins
Kafelnikov 5 Finals, 0 Wins

End.

 

[forehandblast]

Kafelnikov. OG and 1 more Slam.

OG back then especialy was not that big a deal (it is more now, its value even now is contentious). Just look at the other semi finalists that year- non prime Haas, Di Pasquale, and baby then nobody Federer (who lost to Di Pasquale in the bronze match). The previous Olympics had a Paes-Meligini bronze medal match with a horribly slumping Agassi easily winning the gold final over also then slumping clay court specialist Bruguera. And then the Massu-Fish final of 2004. The Rosset-Aresse final in 92. I could go on awhile.

 

[quirotkicks]

Roddick due to the YE#1, more slam finals, and many more Masters. The YE#1 already negates the extra slam. Weeks at #1 is meaningless, only Year End #1s matter. Kafelnikov has the Olympic Gold and a bit of doubles success, but Roddick has more slam finals, slam semis, much more consistency and longevity, and 5 more Masters. That makes the difference.

Better player is easy, Roddick by a freaking landslide. The guy would have 6-8 slams without Federer. Better career is a closer debate, but still go with Roddick.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Again I find it funny how much overrated Roddick is along these boards. I have no problem admitting that one could argue that he had a better career than Kafelnikov - one of the rare instances where you could argue for the guy with fewer slams - but to say, that he was better by a landslide etc. is completely laughable. If you like it or not, an additional slam on the level 2 vs 1 is huge, way bigger than let’s say the difference between 10 vs 9 or so. I agree that OG was not very important during Kafelnikovs time, but neither were masters. Kafelnikov also had additional slam finals same as Roddick, both got to No.1 and Kafelnikov performed better at WTF. Again, I can accept that some people make an argument for Roddick here but to say it as if it was completely obvious is plain and simply wrong.

 

[Mareel]

Probably Roddick but I'm pretty sure Kafelnikov wouldn't swap his Olympic gold for 5 MS titles (and I'm quite certain Roddick wouldn't have thrown away a gold medal like he did most of his other trophies). Yes, it's not great that Kafelnikov never won a MS title but I think these things don't really matter to players who have won majors. And I also think it's not great that Roddick never reached an MS final indoors or on clay. In fact, all his MS finals were played in North America on outdoor hard courts while Kafelnikov reached finals in Hamburg (Clay), Canada (Hard), Stuttgart & Paris (Indoors), not to mention the ATP Championships final in 1997.

Certainly their records in the majors is pretty comparable. Roddick had to face Federer at Wimbledon, while Kafelnikov was up against Kuerten at the French. Roddick won a US Open title and reached another final while Kafelnikov did the same at the Australian. Roddick has a poor record at the French, Kafelnikov's not much better at Wimbledon. And no matter what people think about lucky draws etc., it's a big deal that Kafelnikov won his major titles on two surfaces.

 

[quirotkicks]

Probably Roddick but I'm pretty sure Kafelnikov wouldn't swap his Olympic gold for 5 MS titles

Oh I am quite certain he would. He knows he gets a large amount of ridicule for being a 2 slam winner who never even won a Masters.

 

[Mareel]

Oh I am quite certain he would. He knows he gets a large amount of ridicule for being a 2 slam winner who never even won a Masters.

You mean from people like you. I'm sure he really cares.

 

[quirotkicks]

You mean from people like you. I'm sure he really cares.

No from experts and ex players who bring it up constantly. And the evaluation of his career should not be based upon what he cares about. By that logic we should rate a 5 time winner of Basel over a 3 slam winner, since that is the tournament that means the most to them, even over a slam. People usually wind up caring about the places they have success, everyone is the hero of their own story. 5 Masters >>>>>> One Olympic Gold, especialy a 2000 gold. It is not even a question.

I am sure Roddick would not trade his U.S Open title for 7 French Open titles, but that does not mean he would not be a much greater player with 7 French Open titles.

 

[Mareel]

No from experts and ex players who bring it up constantly. And the evaluation of his career should not be based upon what he cares about. By that logic we should rate a 5 time winner of Basel over a 3 slam winner, since that is the tournament that means the most to them, even over a slam. People usually wind up caring about the places they have success, everyone is the hero of their own story. 5 Masters >>>>>> One Olympic Gold, especialy a 2000 gold. It is not even a question.

I'm also basing it on what I think Roddick would care about.

 

[quirotkicks]

I'm also basing it on what I think Roddick would care about.

So you think Roddick would trade 5 Masters and have 0 Masters just for the Olympic Gold? I highly doubt that.

If you go by that logic though I am pretty sure Roddick would keep his U.S Open title if the potential trade was for both the Roland Garros and Australian Open titles. He would take either Wimbledon or the U.S Open over both of those. Heck it wouldn't amaze me if Kafelnikov would, he talked many times how he wanted to win the U.S Open.

 

[Mareel]

So you think Roddick would trade 5 Masters and have 0 Masters just for the Olympic Gold? I highly doubt that.

If you go by that logic though I am pretty sure Roddick would keep his U.S Open title if the potential trade was for both the Roland Garros and Australian Open titles. He would take either Wimbledon or the U.S Open over both of those. Heck it wouldn't amaze me if Kafelnikov would, he talked many times how he wanted to win the U.S Open.

I'm saying that Kafelnikov probably cares more about his Olympic gold than Roddick care about his 5 MS titles. And I also think that if Roddick had won an Olympic gold, it would have meant more to him than winning 5 MS titles. Anyway, let's just agree and say that no number of MS titles could ever compare to a GS singles title so Kafelnikov wins. Thanks for convincing me with your logic.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

No from experts and ex players who bring it up constantly. And the evaluation of his career should not be based upon what he cares about. By that logic we should rate a 5 time winner of Basel over a 3 slam winner, since that is the tournament that means the most to them, even over a slam. People usually wind up caring about the places they have success, everyone is the hero of their own story. 5 Masters >>>>>> One Olympic Gold, especialy a 2000 gold. It is not even a question.

I am sure Roddick would not trade his U.S Open title for 7 French Open titles, but that does not mean he would not be a much greater player with 7 French Open titles.

I never heard ex- players or experts talking about Kafelnikovs lack of masters (Kafelnikov isn’t talked too much in general tbh), unless with experts you mean TTW “experts”. Olympic Gold is more important than masters this is a no-brainer. Look how players value it. Look how devastated Djokovic was when he lost at the Olympics. Look what Del Potro says about his bronce. Ask Agassi who is bragging about his Gold over several pages in his book. Very few people care about masters or who holds the record here. During Kafelnikovs time it was even worse. As for the last statement, Roddick would be the dumbest person in the world if he didn’t trade his US Open for 7 French Open. Such trade would catapult him from a one slam wonder and undeserved hall of famer to an ATG and second best player in history on one particular surface - not to mention the tons of more prize money.

 

[quirotkicks]

I never heard ex- players or experts talking about Kafelnikovs lack of masters (Kafelnikov isn’t talked too much in general tbh), unless with experts you mean TTW “experts”. Olympic Gold is more important than masters this is a no-brainer. Look how players value it. Look how devastated Djokovic was when he lost at the Olympics. Look what Del Potro says about his bronce. Ask Agassi who is bragging about his Gold over several pages in his book. Very few people care about masters or who holds the record here. During Kafelnikovs time it was even worse. As for the last statement, Roddick would be the dumbest person in the world if he didn’t trade his US Open for 7 French Open. Such trade would catapult him from a one slam wonder and undeserved hall of famer to an ATG and second best player in history on one particular surface - not to mention the tons of more prize money.

Today the Olympic Gold is probably worth more than a Masters. In 2000 not really. Just look at the crummy fields for the Olympics. And even if it were no way does it even come close to the value of 5 Masters.

 

[Mareel]

Today the Olympic Gold is probably worth more than a Masters. In 2000 not really. Just look at the crummy fields for the Olympics. And even if it were no way does it even come close to the value of 5 Masters.

Even just a quick look shows that 7 of the year end top 10 in 2000 went to the Olympics.