Pat Rafter vs Michael Chang: Better career?

[clout]

Two 90's players, born the same year, both from anglophone nations, had similar careers, but played with extreme contrasting styles.

Statistically,

Chang:
- 662-312 career record (68%)
- 1 slam ('89 RG)
- 4 GS finals (8 semifinals, and 13 quarterfinals)
- 34 career titles
- 7 Masters Titles (9 finals)
- career high #2 in the world
- 3 WTF RUs
- 51 wins vs top 10 players
- 120-56 (68%) record at majors
- Year End Ranking: 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 8
- H2H vs Chang: 4-7 (36%)

Rafter:
- 358-191 career record (65%)
- 2 slams ('97 and '98 US Open)
- 4 GS finals (7 semifinals/quarterfinals)
- 11 career titles
- 2 Masters Titles (6 finals)
- career high #1 in the world (1 week)
- 1 WTF RU
- 35 wins vs top 10 players
- 76-33 (70%) record at majors
- Year End Ranking: 2, 4, 7
- H2H vs Rafter: 7-4 (64%)

 

[BGod]

The problem with Chang is he overachieved and while I don't think Rafter underachieved, I think his concentration of success speaks for itself culminating in the USO Triple Crown and getting to that #1 rank (even if due to circumstance it was only for a single week).

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Too close to call. Rafter ahead in weeks at No.1 (albeit slightly) and one more slam. Chang better in basically everything else. I think this is one of the rare cases where you could make a case for a guy with fewer slams, even though I am a big Rafter fan. In the end i would call it a draw.

 

[PMChambers]

I went Chang, which is interesting in that I always barracked against him and found some of his antics poor.
He was compeditive against the field much longer than Rafter. Pretty close but I felt rafter had shorter top compeditive period and it was a little transitional. That late 90s early 00s was bit void of top competition. Though I enjoyed it.

 

[forehandblast]

The problem with Chang is he overachieved

How on earth is that a problem!?! Everyone should strive to overachieve.

 

[jrepac]

interesting; I voted for Rafter based on the 2 USO wins, but the stats support Chang. I knew Chang had won more titles, but was surprised to see 3x as many titles. Really, I thought Michael would win more GS...at least another French title. But, he kept coming up a little short.

 

[KG1965]

I'm an old Pat fan, maybe the australian guy was a better player, certainly more fun.
But Chang's career has been superior (3 IW, 2 Cincy, 1 Miami and 1 Canada Open)

I did not remember having won so many big titles and especially dominating in the USA despite Sampras, Courier, Edberg, Becker and Agassi

Chang > Rafter

 

[forehandblast]

This is one of those tough calls. If Rafter were #1 more than 1 week with the back to back US Open titles and back to back Wimbledon finals I might go with him. The reality is he was #1 just 1 week, and while Chang never got to #1, and Rafter beats him in prestige of slam wins, it is hard to not go with Chang for his body of work.

 

[Ballmachine87]

I do not see how this is even remotely close. Rafter might have the higher absolute peak but Chang simply outnumbered him by a too wide margin to make this even a conbversation.
I mean 7 Top Ten finishes vs 3
7 masters vs 2
34 titles vs 11

This really shouldnt be a conversation. How anyone could argue that Rafter had a better career is beyond me.

 

[Mainad]

Chang:

- 3 WTF RUs

Chang only made 1 YEC final: 1995 Frankfurt (lost to Becker).

Rafter:
-
- 1 WTF RU

Rafter never made a YEC final. Maybe you were thinking of the now defunct Grand Slam Cup where he made a final: 1998 Munich (lost to Sampras)?

 

[GeoffHYL]

I do not see how this is even remotely close. Rafter might have the higher absolute peak but Chang simply outnumbered him by a too wide margin to make this even a conbversation.
I mean 7 Top Ten finishes vs 3
7 masters vs 2
34 titles vs 11

This really shouldnt be a conversation. How anyone could argue that Rafter had a better career is beyond me.

Also, Chang has about 200 more victories overall, and 44 more at majors, with the same/similar winning percentage, so this speaks to his longevity and consistency vs. what Rafter did. I like both players, even enjoy watching Rafter more than Change, but Chang had the better career.

 

[forehandblast]

I do not see how this is even remotely close. Rafter might have the higher absolute peak but Chang simply outnumbered him by a too wide margin to make this even a conbversation.
I mean 7 Top Ten finishes vs 3
7 masters vs 2
34 titles vs 11

This really shouldnt be a conversation. How anyone could argue that Rafter had a better career is beyond me.

The argument for Rafter is a pretty simple one and obvious one. 2 slams vs 1 slam. Not saying that should be enough in this case (IMO no, I voted for Chang) but I totally understand it all the same. One extra slam is a much bigger deal when you are talking about two people with very few slams than say a 14 slam winner and a 13.

And while it was technically only for 1 week Rafter still did officialy reach the #1 ranking, Chang never did. That to go with 2 slams vs 1, and that both have multiple Masters; it is not like either is like Kafelnikov who is a 2 slam winner, who does not even have a Masters title. Again I voted Chang, but I totally get what the argument for Rafter is.

 

[mad dog1]

interesting; I voted for Rafter based on the 2 USO wins, but the stats support Chang. I knew Chang had won more titles, but was surprised to see 3x as many titles. Really, I thought Michael would win more GS...at least another French title. But, he kept coming up a little short.

Because he was pretty short in stature. Height challenged players are at a disadvantage in the sport of tennis.

 

[clout]

Chang only made 1 YEC final: 1995 Frankfurt (lost to Becker).



Rafter never made a YEC final. Maybe you were thinking of the now defunct Grand Slam Cup where he made a final: 1998 Munich (lost to Sampras)?

Yeah I combined the two haha, maybe I should've been more clear about that

 

[clout]

Rafter winning 11-8 so far. Objectively, Chang crushes the Aussie in virtually every category besides the two most important stats: slams and being number one. Chang arguably had tougher rivals as well as the late 80's/early 90's clearly had a tougher field than the late 90's/early 00's when Rafter was at his peak

 

[clout]

Because he was pretty short in stature. Height challenged players are at a disadvantage in the sport of tennis.

Most ATG players seem to be around 6-6'1 on average.

Federer: 6'1
Nadal: 6'1
Djokovic: 6'2
Murray: 6'3
Sampras: 6'1
Agassi: 5'11
Lendl: 6'2
Connors: 5'10
Mac: 5'11
Borg: 5'11
Laver: 5'8
Rosewall: 5'7
Becker: 6'3
Edberg: 6'2
Wilander: 6'0
Courier: 6'1

 

[Cabeza del Demonio]

Most ATG players seem to be around 6-6'1 on average.

Federer: 6'1
Nadal: 6'1
Djokovic: 6'2
Murray: 6'3
Sampras: 6'1
Agassi: 5'11
Lendl: 6'2
Connors: 5'10
Mac: 5'11
Borg: 5'11
Laver: 5'8
Rosewall: 5'7
Becker: 6'3
Edberg: 6'2
Wilander: 6'0
Courier: 6'1

What does this say about the current generation of players?
Medvedev 6'6
Zverev 6'5
Tsitsipas 6'4
Thiem 6'1 - everyone else is much taller

 

[dominikk1985]

I would go with chang due to the volume. Maybe rafter had more potential but he missed a lot of time with injuries, especially early in his career albeit he finished strong and had all his big wins in the last 5 years of his career.

Chang was a bit different, he started strong and faded rather early (at least in the absolute world class) and was like a top50 players his last 5 years or so.still in his good time Chang was more consistent at a high level.

 

[NonP]

I yield to almost no one in my admiration for all of Chang's accomplishments despite his limitations and circumstances, but as I take pains to point out, 2 Slams > 1 regardless of the rest unless you have good reason to think the former is a "fluke," and we all know Rafter more than backed up his '97 USO the following year with his upset of Sampras (who did injure himself, yes, but only after they'd split the 1st two sets) in the SF and a masterclass in the final against Philippoussis where he made only 5 UFEs in 4 sets (FYI Mac had 3 or 4 UFEs depending on your source in his justly celebrated demolition of Jimbo in the '84 Wimby final), not to mention those classic Wimbledon SFs vs. Agassi only to lose to Pete and Goran on their historic runs.

Plus I think most players and experts would agree Pat was more dangerous for the top guys than Mike. The two admittedly big things in the latter's favor are his greater title haul and superior consistency, but that's to be countenanced by the fact that Pat was a late bloomer whose career was cut short by injuries, and while you could say them's the breaks I'd counter that it's just as impressive to build up a comparable resume over a shorter time frame as Pat did. Plus while Chang was almost pathologically singular-minded in his competitiveness, in fact the best ever IMO, Pat was no slouch here, either.

A close call, yes, that can go either way, but I still prefer Pat.

 

[HBK4life]

I always take the GS titles. Always.

 

[forehandblast]

Another interesting question would be Kafelnikov vs Rafter, and Kafelnikov vs Chang. Kafelnikov has 2 slams to Chang's 1 but ZERO Masters titles vs Chang's 7. Kafelnikov did reach #1, like Rafter did, and spent more than 1 week, but it was probably the least impressive rise to #1 in history (despite that he isn't the worst ever #1 which would be someone like Rios) with 6 straight 1st round defeats. Rafter has many fewer titles than Kafelnikov, but atleast has Masters titles unlike Kafelnikov, and the prestige of back to back U.S Open wins and back to back Wimbledon finals probably trumps what Kafelnikov did.

 

[bluetrain4]

Easily Chang for me. Easily.

I get people for whom Slams are the end all, be all, who want to rank Rafter higher - Slams are after all the highest achievement in tennis. But, I can't - the mere one-slam difference coupled with Chang's suprior achievements by nearly any other measure makes it an easy choice for me.

 

[BGod]

Ok, I guess I have to add more to the Rafter argument with the last several posts slamming him.

And I am absolutely not a Slam-Centric person. I rank Djokovic definitively ahead of Nadal despite 16-19 and even cases like Kuerten vs. Roddick, etc.

My whole issue with Chang is his peak is nowhere near Rafter. It's not like Rafter got lucky twice. Rafter was able to beat the best. And he really only had a 5 year window where he did extremely well. Volume numbers for Chang don't take him over Rafter in my opinion.

Let's also not just look at Rafter having 4 Slam runs and 2 Masters. He made 3 additional Semifinals with yes a lot of early round exits. He was basically Wawrinka before Wawrinka. The 97 Grand Slam Cup too is a pretty awesome run, I always favoured that format over the WTF anyway.

With the Masters, Rafter made 4 finals. Now let's compare opponents in big finals:

Rafter: Rusedski, Philippoussis, Sampras x4, Kuerten x2, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Pavel
Chang: Edberg x3, Muster, Becker x2, Agassi x2, Sampras, Chesnokov, Mancini, Haarhuis, Ulihrach, Berger

Keeping in mind Rafter beat some top guys to get to finals. But just looking at Finals of Chang's 7 Masters he only beat Edberg twice for a top win (losing both Agassi finals). It just so happens he wins his lone Slam against Edberg as well. Rafter I guess somewhat had a great match-up with Sampras, winning a Masters and on route to his 2nd Slam beating him in the Semis, but he lost 2 other finals to him. Against Agassi he went 2-2 in SFs with one of those losses being up 2-1. I know it's not much accuracy to look at their H2H given Rafter's prime being in Chang's later years but it goes 3-2 in big events to Rafter including a 3-0 sweep at their only Slam meeting. But you go back to Chang's finals and 5 of his 7 Masters are not just against secondary players, they are largely nobodies. Chesnokov, Berger and Mancini has brief career high rankings of 7, 8, 9 but largely irrelevant on tour save for Chesnokov's SF run in 1989 at the French, he played Chang on hard court in 92.

So that's why in this case, Rafter's peak wins out because Chang simply won more titles against lesser players. Not to take away from his 89 FO run, that was great but his 3 other Slam runs to the finals weren't all to impressive:

1995 French: Nargiso, Vacek, Carbonell, Stich (12), Voinea (Q), Bruguera (7)
1996 AO: Rikl, Hlasek, Raoux, Fleurian (Q), Tillstrom, Agassi (2)
1996 USO: Oncins (Q), Godwin (Q), Spadea, Hlasek, Sanchez, Agassi (6)

Like save for Agassi in 2 of those SFs, those are pretty weak draws. Consider clay was his best surface that takes away the 95 FO being decent still a Qualifier in QF. All 4 of Rafter's Slam run draws were either solid to tough including pre-QF matches like Agassi, Ivanisevic, Johansson & Arazi in 4 different draws.

 

[bluetrain4]

You make a lot of good points, but it seems more an argument that Rafter, at his peak, is a better player, not that he necessarily had the better career. The better player doesn't always have the better career. Sure, maybe Chang has more tournament wins as a result of not beating top players, but he still has those wins, they're still tangible, on-paper, career achievements.

 

[BGod]

You make a lot of good points, but it seems more an argument that Rafter, at his peak, is a better player, not that he necessarily had the better career. The better player doesn't always have the better career. Sure, maybe Chang has more tournament wins as a result of not beating top players, but he still has those wins, they're still tangible, on-paper, career achievements.

Ah yes, well it really boils down to a few main differences:

Rafter was a #1 (yes 1 week but that's circumstantial due to Sampras end of season, otherwise he probably has similar to Roddick) while Chang was #2 for 48 weeks. Now I counted that manually, Rafter was #2 for 24 weeks. That might not look good for Rafter but there's a lot of weeks at #3 & 4. Same for Chang but Rafter had a clear concentration of Top 4 status through 3 years and a bit in 2001. Now I'll agree overall this shouldn't matter too much but the #1 is still #1 so it should be called even, unless the Top 4 weeks is a huge disparity which upon first look it doesn't seem to be (Chang has a concentration on Top 4 ranking mostly 96-97).

4 Slam Finals each, Rafter has that 2nd title. Now in smaller concentration this is harder to overcome, like Roddick being 1-3 against Kuerten is hard for me to argue but I do because he has 2 additional finals and many more deep runs (Kuerten only made 3 Slam runs beyond the QF, just happened to win all 3). The overall tally however is not so disparaging:

Rafter at Slams
2 wins in 4 Finals
3 additional SF

Chang at Slams
1 win in 4 Finals
4 additional SFs

And you can't really make the argument that an additional Semi makes up for 1 less title.

The Masters resume is the last thing you look at:

Chang
7 wins in 9 Finals
9 additional SFs

Rafter
2 wins in 6 Finals
3 additional SFs

A noticeable gap here but difficult to close the gap with the additional Slam victory. What's more is Rafter won back to back titles at a single Slam, putting him in even smaller historical grouping.

Legacy wise, which is about careers, Rafter has the slight edge. Both were inducted into the Hall of Fame 5 years after their last season.

Honestly, I'm going 51-49% for Rafter. Chang's greatest argument is longevity which got him significantly more money and more weeks inside the Top 10. But legacy wise, which is how careers are defined, Rafter had a brief but clear period of a dangerous player who won back to back titles at a Slam and back to back finalist at the most prestigious Slam. The added success in Masters tournaments for Chang (and yes additional 2 year end tournament finals) don't beat out the clear peak legacy achieved by Rafter. To me at least.

 

[forehandblast]

Ah yes, well it really boils down to a few main differences:

Rafter was a #1 (yes 1 week but that's circumstantial due to Sampras end of season, otherwise he probably has similar to Roddick) while Chang was #2 for 48 weeks. Now I counted that manually, Rafter was #2 for 24 weeks. That might not look good for Rafter but there's a lot of weeks at #3 & 4. Same for Chang but Rafter had a clear concentration of Top 4 status through 3 years and a bit in 2001. Now I'll agree overall this shouldn't matter too much but the #1 is still #1 so it should be called even, unless the Top 4 weeks is a huge disparity which upon first look it doesn't seem to be (Chang has a concentration on Top 4 ranking mostly 96-97).

4 Slam Finals each, Rafter has that 2nd title. Now in smaller concentration this is harder to overcome, like Roddick being 1-3 against Kuerten is hard for me to argue but I do because he has 2 additional finals and many more deep runs (Kuerten only made 3 Slam runs beyond the QF, just happened to win all 3). The overall tally however is not so disparaging:

Rafter at Slams
2 wins in 4 Finals
3 additional SF

Chang at Slams
1 win in 4 Finals
4 additional SFs

And you can't really make the argument that an additional Semi makes up for 1 less title.

The Masters resume is the last thing you look at:

Chang
7 wins in 9 Finals
9 additional SFs

Rafter
2 wins in 6 Finals
3 additional SFs

A noticeable gap here but difficult to close the gap with the additional Slam victory. What's more is Rafter won back to back titles at a single Slam, putting him in even smaller historical grouping.

Legacy wise, which is about careers, Rafter has the slight edge. Both were inducted into the Hall of Fame 5 years after their last season.

Honestly, I'm going 51-49% for Rafter. Chang's greatest argument is longevity which got him significantly more money and more weeks inside the Top 10. But legacy wise, which is how careers are defined, Rafter had a brief but clear period of a dangerous player who won back to back titles at a Slam and back to back finalist at the most prestigious Slam. The added success in Masters tournaments for Chang (and yes additional 2 year end tournament finals) don't beat out the clear peak legacy achieved by Rafter. To me at least.

While your points are do keep in mind 98 was considerably weaker than any other year, and that was one of Rafter's successful years. 97 was also not a great year for the tour and while 97 was probably a prime year for Chang too he was slowing down a bit from 95 and 96, while Rafter was coming into his peak that year. 99 and 2000 were not even as strong of years as 93-95 really. So Rafter did have the benefit of slightly weakened competition compared to Rafter. He came in when Sampras was still at the top but his dominance and peak form had waned, when Agassi was sparatic for awhile until 99, when Courier was completely done, when Chang himself was in decline, and when even the best of the filler players before the Federer generation took over like Kuerten, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, besides maybe Moya, were not really there yet.

 

[pennc94]

Rafter. Don’t recall him ever resorting to use a bush league underhand serve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cashman]

I do not see how this is even remotely close. Rafter might have the higher absolute peak but Chang simply outnumbered him by a too wide margin to make this even a conbversation.
I mean 7 Top Ten finishes vs 3
7 masters vs 2
34 titles vs 11

This really shouldnt be a conversation. How anyone could argue that Rafter had a better career is beyond me.

Also, Chang has about 200 more victories overall, and 44 more at majors, with the same/similar winning percentage, so this speaks to his longevity and consistency vs. what Rafter did. I like both players, even enjoy watching Rafter more than Change, but Chang had the better career.

It really depends what you value. Chang had a lot more titles and prizemoney, and if that's your definition of what makes a good career then there's really no discussion. On the other hand I don't think you'll find a single unbiased person who'd argue he was a better player than Rafter. Had Chang been injured as often as Rafter, the numbers would look very different.

Rafter was a #1 (yes 1 week but that's circumstantial due to Sampras end of season, otherwise he probably has similar to Roddick) while Chang was #2 for 48 weeks. Now I counted that manually, Rafter was #2 for 24 weeks. That might not look good for Rafter but there's a lot of weeks at #3 & 4. Same for Chang but Rafter had a clear concentration of Top 4 status through 3 years and a bit in 2001. Now I'll agree overall this shouldn't matter too much but the #1 is still #1 so it should be called even, unless the Top 4 weeks is a huge disparity which upon first look it doesn't seem to be (Chang has a concentration on Top 4 ranking mostly 96-97).

It is hard to assess Rafter on a whole-of-career basis, purely because of how badly his time in the game was affected by injury.

As a serve and volley player he took longer than most to mature. He was looking like breaking through in 1994 when he won Manchester, but soon after he started having wrist problems that hampered the rest of his season. They required extensive surgery and caused him to miss all of 1995. 1996 he spent getting back on track, and in 1997 it all came together during the European clay spring.

The period from March 1997 to September 1999, he was really at his peak and his results were amazing. Then during the 1999 USO, he did his shoulder and again required extensive surgery. Although he came back and had some great results in the 2000s at Wimbledon, he was never really the same player again - especially on hardcourt, where you could really see the difference in his serve.

I think it's fair to say that Rafter probably would have spent several more years at the top of the game, had his peak not been bookended by two incredibly severe injuries. In contrast I don't feel the same about Chang. I think he made some strategically bad decisions that hurt him - trying to beef up his serve with that ridiculous Prince Longbody really hurt his ground game - but overall I think he mostly maxed out his potential.

 

[JasonZ]

It really depends what you value. Chang had a lot more titles and prizemoney, and if that's your definition of what makes a good career then there's really no discussion. On the other hand I don't think you'll find a single unbiased person who'd argue he was a better player than Rafter. Had Chang been injured as often as Rafter, the numbers would look very different.


It is hard to assess Rafter on a whole-of-career basis, purely because of how badly his time in the game was affected by injury.

As a serve and volley player he took longer than most to mature. He was looking like breaking through in 1994 when he won Manchester, but soon after he started having wrist problems that hampered the rest of his season. They required extensive surgery and caused him to miss all of 1995. 1996 he spent getting back on track, and in 1997 it all came together during the European clay spring.

The period from March 1997 to September 1999, he was really at his peak and his results were amazing. Then during the 1999 USO, he did his shoulder and again required extensive surgery. Although he came back and had some great results in the 2000s at Wimbledon, he was never really the same player again - especially on hardcourt, where you could really see the difference in his serve.

I think it's fair to say that Rafter probably would have spent several more years at the top of the game, had his peak not been bookended by two incredibly severe injuries. In contrast I don't feel the same about Chang. I think he made some strategically bad decisions that hurt him - trying to beef up his serve with that ridiculous Prince Longbody really hurt his ground game - but overall I think he mostly maxed out his potential.

Rafter was my favourite player, but even in his best years he had many losses against journeymen.

 

[BGod]

Just out of curiosity I looked up weeks in the Top 5: 172-109 for Chang.

But as has been said, Rafter suffered 2 serious injuries and for that time period even more so and was able to come back and get some big results. Last thing, in hindsight, Rafter is the only other person aside from Roger Federer to defend the USO title in the last 23 years. Yes Sampras did it before him but point being before Federer he's the last one to do it. Chang's notation is being the youngest Slam champion.

 

[forehandblast]

One thing you all need to remember here is the difference between 2 majors and 1 is WAY more say the difference between 14 majors and 13 or 7 and 8. When you are that small in number the difference in number of even 1 or 2 majors is a ton more than comparing players who have a lot of majors.

Another thing is like it or not the prestige of Wimbledon and the U.S Open is still a bit higher than the Australian and French. I argued that heavily in favor of Venus when comparing her to both Seles and Henin in another thread. It is a reason there will be many that back Federer vs Nadal, even when/if Nadal reaches 21 majors; of course there are other things, Federer was more versatile dominating different surfaces minus clay, and had a more complete and dominant career in many ways, but the Wimbledon/ U .S Open higher regarded is another factor I am pretty sure. And the fact is Rafter with back to back U.S Opens and back to back Wimbledon finals is a super impressive concentrated success at the 2 most prestigious tournaments that is very noteworthy in this comparision. And Chang who was such a strong performer at the U.S Open his whole career, and it was the tournament he wanted to win most bar none, not the French which he did win, managed 0 titles and only 1 final there, and was stopped by Rafter of all people his last serious attempt when he was the world #2 and heavy favorite for the title after Sampras's loss.

Chang has many more Masters, but Rafter still has multiple Masters and won them in one of the most impressive streaks of a top player not named Sampras, which had many thinking he was the best player in the world at the end of 1998 even if due to injuries he didn't get the YE#1. It is not like he is Kafelnikov who has 0 Masters, an embarrassing stat for a multi slam winner. Chang of course has many more tournament wins, but the value you award to mere 500 or especialy mere 250 titles for a top player is questionable. And that Rafter reached #1, even if for a mere 1 week, is a key stat in comparing to Chang who knocking on the door so long never got. Rafter in very few years as a top player achieved many of the things Chang long desired but could never do in many years as a top player.

That is what makes this a tough comparision, even comparing better careers. It really could go either way. Better player is pretty obviously peak Rafter.

 

[Rosstour]

One thing you all need to remember here is the difference between 2 majors and 1 is WAY more say the difference between 14 majors and 13 or 7 and 8. When you are that small in number the difference in number of even 1 or 2 majors is a ton more than comparing players who have a lot of majors.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Roddick would give up a lot just for one additional Slam crown, like any of those four Wimbledon Finals he lost to Fed.

He probably seethes knowing that guys like Safin and Kafelnikov have more Slams. And rightly so.

 

[forehandblast]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Roddick would give up a lot just for one additional Slam crown, like any of those four Wimbledon Finals he lost to Fed.

He probably seethes knowing that guys like Safin and Kafelnikov have more Slams. And rightly so.

Safin is tricky comparing to Roddick since he clearly had more insane talent, but his commitment and consistency in the sport fall far below Roddick, yet he was rewarded with an extra slam and the same # of Masters titles and roughly the same amount of time at #1. It is hard to say he was luckier though, I mean he did beat peak Federer en route to his 2nd slam, the only person to beat Federer from 04-07 in a non clay slam, while Roddick couldn't despite all his valiant attempts beat Federer in a slam to win his 2nd, which was always the requirement since he sucks on clay and that was a non starter for him. He also wasn't able to win that AO semi final vs Hewitt to face Safin for that AO title after Safin had taken out Federer. And lets face it beating Sampras for his U.S Open title was more impressive than Roddick beating clay courter Ferrero. Safin was just a bigger clutch performer in the end, even after throwing away the easiest slam imaginable at the 2002 Australian Open.

Kafelnikov is really less talented, less hard working, less consistent, less determined, less everything than Roddick, and couldn't even win a freaking Masters, yet has an extra slam. That majorly sucks for Roddick.

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

Safin is tricky comparing to Roddick since he clearly had more insane talent, but his commitment and consistency in the sport fall far below Roddick, yet he was rewarded with an extra slam and the same # of Masters titles and roughly the same amount of time at #1. It is hard to say he was luckier though, I mean he did beat peak Federer en route to his 2nd slam, the only person to beat Federer from 04-07 in a non clay slam, while Roddick couldn't despite all his valiant attempts beat Federer in a slam to win his 2nd, which was always the requirement since he sucks on clay and that was a non starter for him. He also wasn't able to win that AO semi final vs Hewitt to face Safin for that AO title after Safin had taken out Federer. And lets face it beating Sampras for his U.S Open title was more impressive than Roddick beating clay courter Ferrero. Safin was just a bigger clutch performer in the end, even after throwing away the easiest slam imaginable at the 2002 Australian Open.

Kafelnikov is really less talented, less hard working, less consistent, less determined, less everything than Roddick, and couldn't even win a freaking Masters, yet has an extra slam. That majorly sucks for Roddick.

I don't understand how Kafelnikov was less talented than Roddick. He was a great player with very good shots and an intelligent game, he was a very talented player. More so than Roddick if you ask me. Roddick had a serve and a forehand (until he became a pusher with a serve).

 

[Rosstour]

I don't understand how Kafelnikov was less talented than Roddick. He was a great player with very good shots and an intelligent game, he was a very talented player. More so than Roddick if you ask me. Roddick had a serve and a forehand (until he became a pusher with a serve).

Could Kafelnikov hit 155mph serves?

 

[Dane_is_Finnish_OJ]

Could Kafelnikov hit 155mph serves?

Could Roddick win two slams? And is Karlovic the most talented player in the world then?

 

[Rosstour]

Could Roddick win two slams? And is Karlovic the most talented player in the world then?

I'm not sure what we are arguing about, Roddick was a better athlete and shotmaker in his prime, but Kafelnikov was certainly the more polished player...who was the better mover?

I think Roddick could have won two (and probably more) Slams if not for Fed, I think he is the first guy to have an ATG-potential career snuffed out by the Big 3. And from what I can surmise, he's pretty bitter about it lol.

 

[forehandblast]

Could Kafelnikov hit 155mph serves?

The talking up of Kafelnikov's talent always baffled me. I did not see anything special about his game even in an aesthetic sense or in terms of touch and flair. To me he was only a moderate talent for a top player at best and while he might underachieved in some ways (0 Masters) I believe he overachieved to wind up with 2 majors since he never seemed like a big threat to the big guns in his own era at all. Someone like Hewitt won 2 majors in an almost similar timeframe and is a way better player IMO. Safin too.