Marcelo Rios worthy of Hall of Fame?

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Apart from perpetuating the thread and keeping your Rios book talked about, itself a legitimate goal obviously (at least for you), I've no idea the point of these JMG quotes from your book (which, as I said previously, is circular or maybe a tautology is more precise -- I defer to the logicians) to support your present argument concerning Rios' alleged "greatness."

This quote doesn't help your argument, the contrary. Gambill says, essentially, greatness is measured by Slam results (I would agree post some date, which I would put around 1990 but others might put earlier) not raw talent. So Gambill points out that Rios won't get the [proper] credit because he didn't do squat at Slams. I agree and I agree. And Gambill infers that Gambill didn't do squat at Slams so despite his self-described good career no one remembers him either. I agree there as well.

If talent were the measure of tennis greatness we'd be discussing Monfils as a GOAT candidate. And, yes, reaching number 1 even for a split second like Rios did or Moya is a great achievement but it doesn't by itself equate to being one of the great players throughout the years or even of a particular generation.

There, I helped keep the post alive. Your welcome.
 

Mike Bulgakov

G.O.A.T.
Caroline Wozniacki was a finalist at a major and spent far more time at number one than Rios. Should she be in the Hall of Fame based on her career so far? Rios was a jerk and a twit with a short period of success. Despite his talent, he has no lasting legacy in the game.
 

Gonzalito17

Banned
Rios was a great player, the best in the world for a stint during a tough era, Fed was a big fan, He beat Agassi twice in big matches, the list goes on, five Masters Series titles. Important player in tennis history, should not be forgotten.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Rios was a great player, the best in the world for a stint during a tough era, Fed was a big fan, He beat Agassi twice in big matches, the list goes on, five Masters Series titles. Important player in tennis history, should not be forgotten.

You need to tweek your bot. It just repeats the same lines ad nauseum.
 

Gonzalito17

Banned
Rios wasn't great? Here's what Andre Agassi said after their famous 1998 Miami final...

After the match, Agassi answered questions about Marcelo Rios...

Question. Do you think it's going to take you a few times playing a guy like him? Seemed like you were having trouble reading his shot. Was it your game being off or, "This guy is good, I'm going to have to play him a few times"?

ANDRE AGASSI: I definitely had trouble reading some of his forehands. When I would hit my backhand crosscourt, I had trouble having a sense for when to cut it off and take it up the line. Sometimes he was flicking it up the line. A little trouble reading his serve, his forehand, wasn't quite pulling the trigger on my own shots. He's the kind of guy that you can't wait for him to miss; you've got to be able to take it to him. I didn't quite do it. I mean, I was hitting the ball okay, but I wasn't stepping in and really getting good wood on it.

Question. Andre, how much did it hurt you not to have played a couple big finals, be on a regular roll when you come to this stage?

ANDRE AGASSI: Honestly, I felt like it had more to do with Marcelo than that particular situation. You know, you have to address him like a big player. I was going out there and playing him like he's five foot eight. I thought I could back him into the paint. The bottom line is, you know, he doesn't play his size. He has good stick, he moves well, serves better than you expect. You know, he puts you in a position to have to do something early in the point. That's to his credit.

Question. A match like this, long rallies, two guys who weren't six-foot-four hitting 180 miles an hour serves, how good is this for tennis in the United States?

ANDRE AGASSI: It's nice. You know, I never thought we'd see a player as good as Marcelo again after Chang. He plays well. Brings another dimension to tennis. It's nice for me as a competitor to get out there and play that kind of tennis. It really forces you to think, forces you to move, forces you to execute. I think it's good for the game. There's no question about it, especially in America where, you know, people tend to be a bit -- have more options for big-time sports, they don't want to tune into tennis if they're watching a big serve here, a big serve there. This is good for tennis all-around, especially here.

[Book excerpt]
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
Fact is Agassi had a bad year in majors in 98. Given his track record for success in majors throughout his career, there had to be a cause for Agassi to perform so poorly in majors in '98. Perhaps, in part, it was that crushing loss to Rios in Miami. Agassi said after he thought he played well that day. But he saw something he had never seen before. It's like when a boxer lands his best punch on the champ and he doesn't even blink. It's a shattering thing. Look how long it's taken Bagdhatis and Blake to recover from those losses to Agassi at the US Open. Maybe they never did get over those. Certain losses can be devastating. Just theorizing.
i think agassi, who was on a very good streak despite his low ranking at the time, was indeed surprised that a player could beat him a bit "at his own game" (taking the ball early, that is... without forgetting the additionnal "rios touch", of course). didn't he also mention that rios' lefty serve was giving him lots of problems ?

but i think you're making a bit a big deal out of that match: i don't think agassi's confidence was really affected. he was coming back from very far, was ready to take some blows... and i'd imagine he rather took a lot of positive energy from this good streak in early 1998.

I'm not talking about the whole year. Agassi had won 18 of his last 19 matches before facing Rios in the 1998 Miami final, and these included wins over many top 10 players, over number 1 Sampras included. Rios had also performed badly in the 1998 Australian Open final against Korda, so would obviously have a lot of pressure on his shoulders with the number 1 ranking in his grasp. Agassi had improved a lot in those months since he was at 141 in the world.



Berasategui also beat Rafter, then world number 2, at the 1998 Australian Open.



Hewitt played an amazing match to beat Agassi at 1998 Adelaide. Hewitt was ranked at 550 in the world at the time, and became the youngest ever winner of a main ATP Tour tournament, at the age of 16. Beating Agassi in the semi finals, even an Agassi ranked at 110 (but on the up), was a huge win.



Kucera and Gambill were very talented players, capable of beating the best players. Gambill later destroyed Hewitt and Moya in majors, and Kucera was a mini Mecir. Kucera beat Agassi at the 2000 French Open too, with fantastic play, Agassi's foot problem aside. Kucera also famously beat Sampras at the 1998 Australian Open.



I never said that Agassi was at his 1995 level. Clearly he wasn't. I'm saying that Agassi was bang in form at the time of the 1998 Miami final, and had improved a hell of a lot since the ultimate low of his career when he crashed to 141 in the world on 10 November 1997. Rios totally took him apart, because he took the match by the scruff of the neck, produced some sublime shot-making, and never let Agassi settle into a rhythm.
Agassi's problems in the four GS in 1998 was self-imposed pressure, huge pressure.

He knew he was playing great again (in fact, as I said, he was the player with more points that year outside GSs), he played 10 finals (winning 5 ). Only in 1995 he played more ( 11 ). So he was obviously playing very well again.

But what he wanted was to win GS tournaments. That 1995 US OPEN final loss to Sampras left a deep scar in him, and he wanted so badly to win a GS again.

He also had a bit of bad luck. In the AusOpen he faced Alberto Berasategui (former nº7 in the world) in R16 playing the best tennis of his life on hard courts (Alberto had defeated nº2 in the world Patrick Rafter in the previous round in a very close four setter). Agassi was leading 6-3 6-3 and then kind of relaxed a bit, and Alberto never looked back, coming from behind to win 3-6 3-6 6-2 6-3 6-3 in, possibly, his best hard court match of his life.

In Roland Garros Agassi in the first round faces a 18-year-old new-talent named Marat Safin. It was a great five setter, and nobody expected that young talent to defeat Agassi in a fifth set, but Safin at 18 already was showing his talent and self-esteem. By the way, in the next round, this young kid Safin defeated Roland Garros defending champion Gustavo Kuerten in five sets again, and he went on to the R16 where he lost to Pioline (a great 90s player on any surface) in five sets again.

After these two close five sets losses (AO and RG) Agassi's confidence was shot. In Wimbledon he lost a close four setter to Tommy Haas in the second round, and his lack of confidence in the most important points was patent.

After Wimbledon he wins two consecutive tournaments (without dropping a single set), and makes a SF and another final during that summer hard court season.

In the US OPEN he loses again in the R16, and again in five sets, to Karol Kucera, but Kucera was a VERY dangerous player (in that era of faster conditions and faster balls, there were players like Kucera, very talented flat-hitters, that could defeat anyone on a hot day) and Agassi lost a close five setter against a very inspired Kucera (who that same year defeated Sampras in the AusOpen in the QF).

So Agassi was at a great tennis level overall again in 1998, but in the four GS he lost very close matches against difficult and/or red-hot-that-day players with a bit of bad luck and lack of confidence in the most important points of those big matches.

Sincerely I think that loss to Rios in Miami didn't make any long-term effect in Agassi's mind.

It was much more his anxiety to do well in the GS again.
great posts, mus' and matt !
icon14.gif


when we look at the career best rankings of the players who defeated him at the slams, it's nothing to be ashamed of:
  • #7 for berasategui (the basque FH machine probably played his best hard court slam)
  • #1 for safin (what a first slam appearance it was with those 3 epic 5-setters against agassi, kuerten and pioline !)
  • #2 for haas (still out there !)
  • #6 for kucera (it was clearly his best season)

So who came up with the shot first?. Anyone knows for sure?. Mustard?.
Chang definitely did the jumping backhand before Rios. I don't know if Chang was the first player to do it, though.
Muster did one handed jumpers. Ivanisevic did two handed jumpers.

Heck, I am sure people have been doing it since the two hander came about. I have two think at the very least there were a bunch of guys fooling around with it in the 80s. I remember seeing Arancha Sanchez doing it too.
that's an interesting question... seems connors was jumping a bit, but definitely not as much as chang !

i found this interesting post in the no-less interesting "signature strokes thread":
On the subject of this, the first person I saw regularly jumping, was Chang. He made a habit out of it, partly out of necessity.

And to this time, I don't think anybody has come close to jumping as high as Chang did.

In terms of people who cocked the other leg with their knee bent distinctively as Safin sometimes did, Rios did this even more, before Safin was on tour. Others who also did that a lot around the same time include Grosjean, and Clement.
(... and what about the jumping 1HBH, by the way ? i remember philippoussis hitting some impressive shots like this !) :)
 

Gonzalito17

Banned
Agassi definitely expected to manhandle Rios, he said it in quote before the match with Rios, asking confidently if Rios would be able to Dr. Feelgood him. SO when he was the one who got manhandled it had to have an humbling effect to some degree.

Agassi never could get over the hump the rest of 1998. Losing again to Rios in Germany in the Grand Slam Cup final in five sets also.
 

pjonesy

Professional
Rios Hall of Fame

Pro
1)Richard Williams has nothing to gain by building up Rios. Williams does have an eye for talent and his comments do carry some weight. Gambill, Agassi and Federer competed against him and praised his talent. Basically, he had the respect of his peers on the tennis court.
2)Attained #1 ranking.
3)Brought attention to Chilean tennis (I know it is a stretch).

Cons
1)Only 7 titles.
2)No success on grass
3)Terrible attitude
4)No Major titles

I just can't put him in the Hall of Fame. He squandered his considerable talent and did not win a Major. Even if we try to focus on what he did ON the court, you have to consider that he did not carry himself as a gentleman. Do we want that kind of person representing the tennis hall of fame?
 

Gonzalito17

Banned
McEnroe, Nastase, Connors, Hingis, Capriati, etc all have been involved in episodes which poorly represent the grace of the sport. That should not disqualify Rios. Being #1 in the world is one helluvan achievement. Especially when Sampras and Agassi were in their primes.
 
I still have the image of Rios walking the main sreet of Gstaad after a loss swinging his racquet at every potted plant on his way back to the player hotel. The locals had worked so hard to make the town beautiful and he couldn't have given a Sh-T.
In answer to the question IMO No.
 

Rozroz

G.O.A.T.
I still have the image of Rios walking the main sreet of Gstaad after a loss swinging his racquet at every potted plant on his way back to the player hotel. The locals had worked so hard to make the town beautiful and he couldn't have given a Sh-T.
In answer to the question IMO No.

how could you defend the destruction of innocent plants,
Gonzalito? ;)
 

vandre

Hall of Fame
Rios Hall of Fame

Pro
1)Richard Williams has nothing to gain by building up Rios. Williams does have an eye for talent and his comments do carry some weight. Gambill, Agassi and Federer competed against him and praised his talent. Basically, he had the respect of his peers on the tennis court.
2)Attained #1 ranking.
3)Brought attention to Chilean tennis (I know it is a stretch).

Cons
1)Only 7 titles.
2)No success on grass
3)Terrible attitude
4)No Major titles

I just can't put him in the Hall of Fame. He squandered his considerable talent and did not win a Major. Even if we try to focus on what he did ON the court, you have to consider that he did not carry himself as a gentleman. Do we want that kind of person representing the tennis hall of fame?

essentially, it seems like the question is: does ranked number 1 merit entry into the hof with references from other players/ "people in the know"? any rules or exceptions we apply to rios today with likely be used for future players tomorrow. are posters okay if jj (jankovic) or wozzy get in because they were no. 1 (for many weeks) without winning a major??? I ask because they catch a bunch of flak for that very reason.

in the past, it would seem that the magic bullet for the hof is winning a slam (even if it is only 1 slam in the case of chang). in fact, after he retired I posted a poll here asking if posters thought Roddick would get into the hof. a lot of people said yes basically because he had won a slam. if that is the standard that most fans of the game and the voting body of the hof adhere to, all the talent in the world won't get rios in.

as far as talent goes, evaluating talent can sometimes be very subjective (ask the Oakland Raiders scouting staff).
 

pjonesy

Professional
essentially, it seems like the question is: does ranked number 1 merit entry into the hof with references from other players/ "people in the know"? any rules or exceptions we apply to rios today with likely be used for future players tomorrow. are posters okay if jj (jankovic) or wozzy get in because they were no. 1 (for many weeks) without winning a major??? I ask because they catch a bunch of flak for that very reason.

in the past, it would seem that the magic bullet for the hof is winning a slam (even if it is only 1 slam in the case of chang). in fact, after he retired I posted a poll here asking if posters thought Roddick would get into the hof. a lot of people said yes basically because he had won a slam. if that is the standard that most fans of the game and the voting body of the hof adhere to, all the talent in the world won't get rios in.

as far as talent goes, evaluating talent can sometimes be very subjective (ask the Oakland Raiders scouting staff).

I believe Chang got in for a few reasons unrelated to his success on the tour. A great representative of the 2nd Golden Age of American Men's tennis. A great representative of tennis in China or for Asians in general.

Did Rios have that big of an effect on Chilean tennis?

Yes. My comments regarding his talent are subjective. Focus on his accomplishments and it's a close call
 

Gonzalito17

Banned
I believe Chang got in for a few reasons unrelated to his success on the tour. A great representative of the 2nd Golden Age of American Men's tennis. A great representative of tennis in China or for Asians in general.

Did Rios have that big of an effect on Chilean tennis?

Yes. My comments regarding his talent are subjective. Focus on his accomplishments and it's a close call



Rios did have a massive effect on Chilean tennis. He inspired the success of Massu and Fernando Gonzalez who won gold medal in singles and doubles in 2004 Olympics. I believe it was the first medals in Chilean history.
 
If they let that weasel in, count on an official protest being filed with the HOF Committee followed by a demonstration at the induction ceremony. And you can bet it will get really ugly.

I mean it's bad enough they let in a coke head and a flagrant cheater ('72 Davis Cup) this year.

4fac7467c6186_256721n.jpg
 

pjonesy

Professional
Rios did have a massive effect on Chilean tennis. He inspired the success of Massu and Fernando Gonzalez who won gold medal in singles and doubles in 2004 Olympics. I believe it was the first medals in Chilean history.

Sounds like you know what you are talking about. So that would be another feather in Rios' cap and a reason he should be considered for the hall of fame.

I'm still not saying he should be in the hall of fame, but that would be an argument for him.
 
Don't think any player has been inducted who doesn't have at least 1 Slam title to their name.

Well doubles greats, or ones with exceptional combined singles/doubles like Sukova (who I was surprised got inducted mind you). However Sukova probably has a better singles career than Rios despite also not winning a slam, or reaching #1, considering her 4 slam finals and longevity in the game. And an exceptional doubles career, even if her doubles alone wouldn't have gotten her in, vs Rios who has no doubles career at all.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Well doubles greats, or ones with exceptional combined singles/doubles like Sukova (who I was surprised got inducted mind you). However Sukova probably has a better singles career than Rios despite also not winning a slam, or reaching #1, considering her 4 slam finals and longevity in the game. And an exceptional doubles career, even if her doubles alone wouldn't have gotten her in, vs Rios who has no doubles career at all.

Sukova has multiple Slam titles in doubles. I was referring to players who don't have any in singles or doubles. Don't think anyone has ever been inducted without either.
 
Sukova has multiple Slam titles in doubles. I was referring to players who don't have any in singles or doubles. Don't think anyone has ever been inducted without either.

yeah don't think so either, and it is never happening IMO. Once the Hall of Fame reaches that point it should just obolish itself.
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
Sounds like you know what you are talking about. So that would be another feather in Rios' cap and a reason he should be considered for the hall of fame.

I'm still not saying he should be in the hall of fame, but that would be an argument for him.
yeah...i think you need a major to make the HOF, or alternately, a significant stretch of time at #1 perhaps. he had neither...great player when he put it all together though, i'd rate him talent-wise among the very best.
 
Top