Philippoussis says he has no regrets.

[Paul Murphy]

He's widely condemned as a wasted talent, but Mark Philippoussis insists he's content with what he achieved during his injury-plagued tennis career.
With protective strapping on both knees, Philippoussis is playing veterans doubles at an exhibition event in London this week rather than preparing for a Wimbledon start on Monday.
It is a far cry from the heady days of nine years ago when he was lining up against Roger Federer in the 2003 final at the All England Club.
The now 35-year-old also reached the 1998 US Open final, losing that one too against fellow Australian Pat Rafter, who once claimed a player of Philippoussis' rich talents should have been world No.1 with a ``bagful'' of grand slam titles.
He retired with none after peaking at No.8 in the world aged 22 in 1999.
The Victorian did, though, beat a dozen world No.1s during his stop-start career - including Federer, Pete Sampras, Rafter and Lleyton Hewitt - and was the hero for Australia in Davis Cup final triumphs over France in 1999 and Spain in 2003.
``Oh man, I wouldn't change a thing. I don't regret anything,'' Philippoussis told AAP.
``I've had a career to be proud of - two Davis Cup wins.
``How often do you get a chance to have one Davis Cup win, let alone two? And both of them were the last match to win it.
``They were very, very special occasions to me. One on home soil in Melbourne, where I was born and raised, and the other away where no one gave us a chance on clay.
``The final of a US Open, Wimbledon ... Obviously one match short, I would have loved to win a grand slam; I've won Masters Series events.
``But I'm very proud about what I've done.''

Federer's 7-6 6-2 7-6 Wimbledon final win over Philippoussis earned the Swiss superstar the first of his record 16 majors.
Even Philippoussis marvels at what Federer has gone on to achieve since their title match was locked at 5-5 in the first-set tiebreaker.
``Did anyone think he was going to dominate the way he did? No. No one would have thought that way,'' he said almost a decade on.
``I don't know if he would have thought that was going to happen.
``He went on to do some incredible things, amazing things, and he's definitely one of the best players to play the game - and arguably the best.''

AAP.

I like the way he's put emphasis on the DC, though his commitment was questioned by the team on more than one occasion.

 

[Gonzalito17]

Very good player, could have been great. SHowed such potential early in his career and never fully realized that potential. He was a wasted talent, just didn't have the proper drive and will to be a champion until the very end when his body just wasn't up to the task.

 

[Bartelby]

Maybe he underachieved, and Rafter overachieved, but he did well enough considering his talents - and he was clearly less talented than Safin who he resembles somewhat.

 

[NonP]

I like the way he's put emphasis on the DC, though his commitment was questioned by the team on more than one occasion.

Sounds rather self-serving to me. Not that I don't share the high regards he claims to have for the tournament (FWIW I find the Cup an often overlooked criterion in the GOAT/player/era debates), but does anyone really expect him to have echoed the same view had he won a major instead of a DC?

As to the main topic, Sampras pretty much said it all in his book. After calling Philippoussis perhaps "the most talented player of my time not to have won a major" and breaking down his game, he offers this very telling snippet:

Mark's problem appeared to be that deep down, he just didn't seem to want greatness badly enough. One year when he was rehabbing a knee with my trainer, Moose Stevens, Moose tried to set it up so that Mark and I could work out in L.A. But all Mark wanted to do was surf. Wavering dedication was a main theme in Mark's career. He liked his fast-lane, casual lifestyle and he seemed to enjoy his playboy reputation. He was even featured in a dating reality show. Fair enough, it was his life, after all. But it was a shame to see that big, big game go unfulfilled. Maybe he just never grew up; or when he did, it was too late.

Apart from the intangibles, though, Flipper definitely had the game to win a major. One of the biggest serves to go along with arguably the biggest groundstrokes of his time, if not ever. Good net game, too. Movement was his only question mark (which Pete notes in the book as well).

Also, speaking of whom/which, there was a thread some time ago about the best players not to have won a major. Here I'd put Philippoussis right behind Leconte. Mark had a bigger serve, but Leconte really had everything but the head. And more flair too, as we saw in the '91 DC finals where he could do nothing wrong against Pete in the single greatest performance of his career.

 

[NLBwell]

Hey, he was in "Age of Love." Federer can't say that, now, can he?

 

[NonP]

Hey, he was in "Age of Love." Federer can't say that, now, can he?

A more important question is, you actually remember the title of the show?

 

[hoodjem]

He retired at 22?

Is this accurate?

 

[NonP]

He retired at 22?

Is this accurate?

The article says he retired with no majors won "after peaking at No.8 in the world aged 22 in 1999," so obviously not. His last active year at the ATP level was 2006.

 

[Kobble]

He has no regrets as of yet. Clearly should have put more in physically.

 

[kiki]

I would have no regrets, also, if I had had the big time he had with Anna Kournikova, betya...

 

[NLBwell]

A more important question is, you actually remember the title of the show?

Well I actually just remembered it had "Love" in the title and looked it up on Google.

 

[NonP]

Well I actually just remembered it had "Love" in the title and looked it up on Google.

Lie!!!

(Just teasing you, of course... though it is somewhat worrisome that you felt compelled to look that up.)

interminable blocks of text

My dear Tym... I mean ClairHarmony, I do consider you a good poster and find that you often make good points, so don't take this the wrong way. But you must know that before you write something, anything, you need to stop and weigh if it's relevant to the topic at hand, if it's what your audience wants, and remember Pascal's quip about this small thing called brevity. I mean, we're talking English 101!

Your last post, like so many of your posts I must say, was a meandering, convoluted omnibus of so many detours and digressions it almost makes a Fidel Castro speech look lucid and laconic by comparison. You could've easily shortened it by half at least, that is if you must include the offbeat Myers-Briggs mumbo-jumbo. No one comes here expecting to read a Proust or a Dostoyevsky. We're simply tennis fans who want to discuss and learn more about the sport and its accomplished practitioners, not exactly ramble on and on about their character studies or the vicissitudes of life.

Again I just ask that you try to think about your readers a bit more. It's a shame that the good points you do make often get lost in the endless walls of text.

 

[Timbo's hopeless slice]

Oh, I dunno, I view it as a challenge. That is the first time I have ever made it all the way through one of ClairHarmony's posts.

I am not sure I am left richer for the experience, but still, I proved I could do it!

 

[NonP]

Oh, I dunno, I view it as a challenge. That is the first time I have ever made it all the way through one of ClairHarmony's posts.

I am not sure I am left richer for the experience, but still, I proved I could do it!

Wow, you beat @namelessone hands down.

I tried reading the first para, or 1000 characters, due to the previous flattering comments, and it seemed interesting.

For all his verbose and tortuous prose I wouldn't want CH to leave (as he did one time, before he took up his new current moniker), and I don't think I'm alone here. There are some real nuggets amid that abyss of transcendent impenetrability. I just wish they were just a tad easier to discover.

You could also give us some links to know more about ESTP and ENTP etc. I remember being introduced to these terms long back. Or you could just expand them on first usage.

Not sure if you're being serious, but here are the Wiki articles about the two Myers-Briggs personality types:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESTP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENTP

Be forewarned, though, that CH is rather obsessed with the MBTI. (I can't even recall having met a psych major who uses these terms as frequently.) And, of course, there's the question of whether something as complex as human personality can be broken down into such neat categories, or whether this type of approach is the right one to begin with.

 

[NLBwell]

Lie!!!

(Just teasing you, of course... though it is somewhat worrisome that you felt compelled to look that up.)

Yes, sometimes it does scare me.

 

[ctromano]

he was good player, he should have won a slam for sure, but there is always someone better and that is what happened for him, there was someone better on the day he could have won the big one. He had 2 opportunities, not many players even get one chance.

 

[galain]

It's kind of a shame he came through with Rafter because Pat was truly the Aussie golden boy and I always thought Philippoussis got a little short changed as a result.

His 2 Davis Cup performances were fantastic efforts. Let's not forget, he defeated Ferrero while playing with a torn shoulder.

 

[Xavier G]

I think Mark could have won a Major, but he just didn't take that extra step. I remember his couple of big finals, he lost to the better player on the day. Wimbledon 2003 was Federer's breakthrough at the Slams, who would have thought then Rog would win 16?
I don't think Philippoussis had the best of luck with injuries and also maybe Mark didn't have the drive and motivation to be a consistent long-term threat. Maybe was content with his lifestyle.

Age Of Love? Saw 10 minutes of that once. Awful programme!

 

[chandler bing]

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But yes, very talented.

 

[BeHappy]

Safin and Philippoussis and those knees!

 

[zagor]

I remember after 2003 Wimbledon he said that he's definitely gonna win Wimbledon before he retires and made a comparison with Goran who lost 3 Wimbledon finals before winning it, a shame he never reached another slam final after that.

 

[subban]

who did philopossisus fall for at the end of age of love? Was it the cougar or the younger girl? Anyway, his movement was key in not winning any major grand slams. I think if he put more emphasis on fitness and training, mark could have defintely won at least one slam.

 

[millicurie999]

who did philopossisus fall for at the end of age of love? Was it the cougar or the younger girl? Anyway, his movement was key in not winning any major grand slams. I think if he put more emphasis on fitness and training, mark could have defintely won at least one slam.

I remember it was the young girl.