Yevgeny Kafelnikov - under appreciated?

L

laurie

Guest
I've noticed on this particular forum that disparaging remarks are often made about Kafelnikov and his achievements. So let's look at them:

He's won 26 titles including two slams plus an Olympic gold medal in 2000. He won the Davis cup in 2002 though he wasn't fully fit due to a hernia and Youzny had to play the final rubber, coming from two sets down to beat Mathieu in Paris Bercy (incidentally psycologically Mathieu has never recovered from that and always loses when the going gets tight)

He never won a Masters title but won the French Open as we know. He also won 4 grand slam doubles titles.

What I remember about Kafelnikov is that he was very talented, good hands at net, quite volatile at times (seems a typically Russian trait on court), briefly number 1 in 1999. I think his only downfall was that he played far too often, consequently he was burned out by the age of 28 in 2002. He played every week like Davydenko and Weird Al Jankovic does now. These two will also burn out if they don't cut down their schedules.

He never gets mentioned as Hall of Fame material. If Rafter can get in with 2 slams then Yevgeny should too. Just one other thing though, he's only 33 now but looks like he never played any sport, he's balooned!!

What do you think about Kafelnikov?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Kafelnikov
 
L

laurie

Guest
If you read the Wikipedia entry, does this sound familiar?

"In 2003, betting on a Yevgeny Kafelnikov match in Lyon, France, was suspended when an ominously large wager was made on his opponent, Fernando Vicente, loser of his previous 12 matches. Vicente won in straight sets"
 
You obviously feel he is underappreciated. I cant agree. I actually think he is the worst player to win 2 slams since the Australian Open became a full value slam to the players around 25 years ago, and he will be the worst player to win 2 slams since that time for quite a few years. There are many 1 time Slam winners I consider clearly superior players personally- Roddick, Krajicek, Chang, Cash, are some examples that come to mind for me.

Rafter is head and shoulders above Kafelnikov in my eyes. He won back-to-back U.S Opens and reached back-to-back Wimbledon finals, so had great success at the big 2 slams which Kafelnikov never managed. Rafter also has been to the semis or better of all 4 slams, Kafelnikov has never been in the Wimbledon semis. Rafter has beaten Sampras in bigtime matches on a non-clay surface like the Cincinnati final and the U.S Open semis. Kafelnikov has never beaten Sampras on a non-clay surface, even in a smaller match. Rafter also beat Agassi in back to back Wimbledon semis when Agassi was still at the peak of his game. Kafelnikov has no big wins over an Agassi, Becker, Sampras type in a grand slam, except for Sampras at the French Open which isnt of much value.

Even when he won his 2 slam titles his draws were very soft by chance; winning the French Open beating Krajicek (clay remember) in the quarters, a weary Sampras in the semis (again clay remember), and Stich (again remember clay) in the final. A very fortunate clay court draw to a French Open title, I would bet my car on Federer winning the French Open 5 straight times with that draw. When he won the Australian Open he beat Todd Martin in the quarters, Haas in the semis, Enqvist in the final, his best win was actually probably his quarterfinal win over Martin. So both his slam titles were won with soft draws in the final rounds.

Yes it is very meaningful he never won a Masters title which is why many keep pointing it out. It is hard to believe a player who wasnt able to even win a Masters title, the next biggest events outside the slams and Masters Cup, when there are 9 of them a year, was somehow able to win 2 slam titles. Other players who won not only 2, but even only 1 Slam title, either today like Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, as well as his own day like Rafter, Krajicek, Chang, were all good enough to win multiple Masters titles, an indication they are probably players of a higher quality then Kafelnikov.

Also on a more subjective note I dont find his game particularly impressive either.
 
Last edited:

Jack the Hack

Hall of Fame
This is my all time favorite picture of Kafelnikov:

539mqde.jpg


Whenever I start to feel bad that I don't look like I did when I was in my 20s, I look at that photo and think:

1.) I have a desk job.
2.) I'm married with kids.
3.) I never was a world class athlete to begin with.
4.) And I don't look as bad as he does!!! :)
 

noeledmonds

Professional
I actually think he is the worst player to win 2 slams since the Australian Open became a full value slam to the players around 25 years ago, and he will be the worst player to win 2 slams since that time for quite a few years.

I can almost agree with this. The only other 2 slam player who I would consider to be simlarly weak to Kafelnikov since 1988 is Brugera. Brugera showed far less versitily than Kafelnikov as he only ever won tournaments on clay. He also won less tournaments. However Brugera did win a few Masters Series titles. Brugera did also overcome Courier in both of French Open runs, who is a more impressive oponent than any of Kafelnikov's grand slam oponents. It is a tough call between these 2.
 
I can almost agree with this. The only other 2 slam player who I would consider to be simlarly weak to Kafelnikov since 1988 is Brugera. Brugera showed far less versitily than Kafelnikov as he only ever won tournaments on clay. He also won less tournaments. However Brugera did win a few Masters Series titles. Brugera did also overcome Courier in both of French Open runs, who is a more impressive oponent than any of Kafelnikov's grand slam oponents. It is a tough call between these 2.

Yes I agree with that. It is between Bruguera and Kafelnikov over the last 20 years for sure. Kafelnikov far more versatile, however Bruguera with more fairly prestigious titles counting his Masters titles then Kafelnikov on all surfaces combined. Bruguera also with far bigger wins on his way to his 2 Slams, then Kafelnikov his.
 

!Tym

Hall of Fame
Kafelnikov was an awesome talent, but he was NOT what I'd call a player who was capable of beating the elite if they were on. Bruguera like Krajicek and Rios, had a career marred by injuries and only played on hard courts one time before he was 18. You have to put that into perspective. His ACTUAL pure talent level was far from weak. Agassi was so impressed with Bruguera the first time he saw him that he sent his personal jet to Spain and flew him to Vegas to train with him. Kafelnikov wasn't injury prone, but he was a guy who only gave maximum effort when he felt like it like Bruguera. Kafelnikov had far less wristy technique, which allowed him to play very well on all surfaces. His problem was that while he was very good at everything, he did nothing so extraordinarily well that he could beat elite players if they were "on" in my opinion. Kafelnikov was more or less an iron man type player, who played as much as he could to maximize profits, and yet was blessed with both the good fortune and the good genes to have a body that could actually hold up to the rigors of the tour.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Kafelnikov's game reminds me a lot of Safin.

- Both are big, tall, athletic guys with big groundies off both wings, but sometimes look clumsy at net.

- Both won two slams.

- Both had motivational issues at times in their careers.
 

ericsson

Hall of Fame
Kafelnikov's game reminds me a lot of Safin.

- Both are big, tall, athletic guys with big groundies off both wings, but sometimes look clumsy at net.

- Both won two slams.

- Both had motivational issues at times in their careers.

Travler, Clumsy at net, kafelnikov? you must be kidding right? for me he is one of the most versatile players ever, didnt have any weakness and for sure he could volley, was a great double player too!

ps: your 3th point i agree.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
Travler, Clumsy at net, kafelnikov? you must be kidding right? for me he is one of the most versatile players ever, didnt have any weakness and for sure he could volley, was a great double player too!

ps: your 3th point i agree.

Calling Kafelnikov versatile is like calling Agassi versatile. Neither guy made his living with his volleys.
 

0d1n

Hall of Fame
Calling Kafelnikov versatile is like calling Agassi versatile. Neither guy made his living with his volleys.

Comparing K with Agassi at the net is simply ridiculous. I agree with ericsson, Kafelnikov had one of the most complete games I've seen. EVER !
His doubles records speaks volumes about his volleying ability by the way.

I've noticed on this particular forum that disparaging remarks are often made about Kafelnikov and his achievements. So let's look at them:

He's won 26 titles including two slams plus an Olympic gold medal in 2000. He won the Davis cup in 2002 though he wasn't fully fit due to a hernia and Youzny had to play the final rubber, coming from two sets down to beat Mathieu in Paris Bercy (incidentally psycologically Mathieu has never recovered from that and always loses when the going gets tight)

He never won a Masters title but won the French Open as we know. He also won 4 grand slam doubles titles.

What I remember about Kafelnikov is that he was very talented, good hands at net, quite volatile at times (seems a typically Russian trait on court), briefly number 1 in 1999. I think his only downfall was that he played far too often, consequently he was burned out by the age of 28 in 2002. He played every week like Davydenko and Weird Al Jankovic does now. These two will also burn out if they don't cut down their schedules.

He never gets mentioned as Hall of Fame material. If Rafter can get in with 2 slams then Yevgeny should too. Just one other thing though, he's only 33 now but looks like he never played any sport, he's balooned!!

What do you think about Kafelnikov?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Kafelnikov

Couldn't agree more. See http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1844542&postcount=87 for my view on Kafelnikov.
Edit.
By the way, the reasons for him not being very popular on this forum are simple:
- He isn't an American, and he isn't the "crazy/sexy/troubled" type that Safin is or appears to be (the only reason he's so over hyped around here even though Kafelnikov was AT LEAST as good).
- Many posters on this forum started watching tennis in the "Nadal" era, and they have no idea what was happening even 10 years ago and they don't have the passion or desire to "catch up" by watching older matches on DVD/video. As a consequence when talking about the past they act like they admire Agassi/Sampras types because they were/are popular even though they have no idea most of the time how they actually played the game. It's like me talking about players that have played in the 20's, 30's or 50's. I have no way of knowing how they actually played because all I saw were either pictures or VERY short clips. Kafelnikov wasn't in the same league when it comes to media exposure/popularity with somebody like Agassi, and as a result many adolescents ASSUME he was a crappy player.
 
Last edited:

0d1n

Hall of Fame
You obviously feel he is underappreciated. I cant agree. I actually think he is the worst player to win 2 slams since the Australian Open became a full value slam to the players around 25 years ago, and he will be the worst player to win 2 slams since that time for quite a few years. There are many 1 time Slam winners I consider clearly superior players personally- Roddick, Krajicek, Chang, Cash, are some examples that come to mind for me.

Rafter is head and shoulders above Kafelnikov in my eyes. He won back-to-back U.S Opens and reached back-to-back Wimbledon finals, so had great success at the big 2 slams which Kafelnikov never managed. Rafter also has been to the semis or better of all 4 slams, Kafelnikov has never been in the Wimbledon semis. Rafter has beaten Sampras in bigtime matches on a non-clay surface like the Cincinnati final and the U.S Open semis. Kafelnikov has never beaten Sampras on a non-clay surface, even in a smaller match. Rafter also beat Agassi in back to back Wimbledon semis when Agassi was still at the peak of his game. Kafelnikov has no big wins over an Agassi, Becker, Sampras type in a grand slam, except for Sampras at the French Open which isnt of much value.

Even when he won his 2 slam titles his draws were very soft by chance; winning the French Open beating Krajicek (clay remember) in the quarters, a weary Sampras in the semis (again clay remember), and Stich (again remember clay) in the final. A very fortunate clay court draw to a French Open title, I would bet my car on Federer winning the French Open 5 straight times with that draw. When he won the Australian Open he beat Todd Martin in the quarters, Haas in the semis, Enqvist in the final, his best win was actually probably his quarterfinal win over Martin. So both his slam titles were won with soft draws in the final rounds.

Yes it is very meaningful he never won a Masters title which is why many keep pointing it out. It is hard to believe a player who wasnt able to even win a Masters title, the next biggest events outside the slams and Masters Cup, when there are 9 of them a year, was somehow able to win 2 slam titles. Other players who won not only 2, but even only 1 Slam title, either today like Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, as well as his own day like Rafter, Krajicek, Chang, were all good enough to win multiple Masters titles, an indication they are probably players of a higher quality then Kafelnikov.

Also on a more subjective note I dont find his game particularly impressive either.


Roddick and !?!?? CHANG ?!?!? being superior to Kafelnikov...dream on. With regards to Krajicek...he may have a case, but Kafelnikov was probably a more complete player. However one could argue that Krajicek had the bigger weapons (which counts for A LOT in today's game). Too bad Krajicek had all those injury problems, he may have had a very different career if his body would have been a bit "tougher". :(
 

JohnP

Rookie
I always thought Kafelnikov was a prototype of things to come as far as playing styles go. His game is very similar to the game that all of the young guys started playing towards the end of his career.
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
You obviously feel he is underappreciated. I cant agree. I actually think he is the worst player to win 2 slams since the Australian Open became a full value slam to the players around 25 years ago, and he will be the worst player to win 2 slams since that time for quite a few years. There are many 1 time Slam winners I consider clearly superior players personally- Roddick, Krajicek, Chang, Cash, are some examples that come to mind for me.

Rafter is head and shoulders above Kafelnikov in my eyes. He won back-to-back U.S Opens and reached back-to-back Wimbledon finals, so had great success at the big 2 slams which Kafelnikov never managed. Rafter also has been to the semis or better of all 4 slams, Kafelnikov has never been in the Wimbledon semis. Rafter has beaten Sampras in bigtime matches on a non-clay surface like the Cincinnati final and the U.S Open semis. Kafelnikov has never beaten Sampras on a non-clay surface, even in a smaller match. Rafter also beat Agassi in back to back Wimbledon semis when Agassi was still at the peak of his game. Kafelnikov has no big wins over an Agassi, Becker, Sampras type in a grand slam, except for Sampras at the French Open which isnt of much value.

Even when he won his 2 slam titles his draws were very soft by chance; winning the French Open beating Krajicek (clay remember) in the quarters, a weary Sampras in the semis (again clay remember), and Stich (again remember clay) in the final. A very fortunate clay court draw to a French Open title, I would bet my car on Federer winning the French Open 5 straight times with that draw. When he won the Australian Open he beat Todd Martin in the quarters, Haas in the semis, Enqvist in the final, his best win was actually probably his quarterfinal win over Martin. So both his slam titles were won with soft draws in the final rounds.

Yes it is very meaningful he never won a Masters title which is why many keep pointing it out. It is hard to believe a player who wasnt able to even win a Masters title, the next biggest events outside the slams and Masters Cup, when there are 9 of them a year, was somehow able to win 2 slam titles. Other players who won not only 2, but even only 1 Slam title, either today like Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, as well as his own day like Rafter, Krajicek, Chang, were all good enough to win multiple Masters titles, an indication they are probably players of a higher quality then Kafelnikov.

Also on a more subjective note I dont find his game particularly impressive either.
i agree with all those points ! ;)
Nb: among the 1 slam winners, i'd also put goran above kafelnikov without a doubt.

i don't really care about the fact that kafelnikov never won one of those masters-series titles, that's not a big deal, but one of the bad points "against" him is his lack of big matches.
if we start to consider their record against their "main opponents", it is clear that safin won more big matches (in big occasions, like his 5 sets wins against agassi and federer at slams, for example) than kafelnikov against those players. on the contrary, kafelnikov has been frequently severely beaten by sampras, agassi, etc. you'll tell me that safin loses against unknown players... but kafelnikov also had his lot of bad loses !

safin will certainly be more remembered for his charisma than kafelnikov ;) (if ever we considered it was an ex-aequo situation, it can count !) and i agree that at their best level, safin is better.

+ safin has played a total of 4 GS finals, while kafelnikov has played 3 GS finals.
and he has still some time for improving his stats ! ;)

on the other hand, some points in kafelnikov's favor :
- ok more titles... but i have the impression they're generally less prestigious than safin's (slams appart)
- gold medal at the olympics
- kafelnikov has reached the final of the masters in 1997 (while safin best performance at the masters is only a SF) but only for being absolutely annihilated by pistole pete 63 62 62 ! :)

conclusion : i go for marat.
(from a thread about a safin-kafelnikov comparison)
 

0d1n

Hall of Fame
Travler, if i'm correct, Agassi was a pure baseline player (one of the best) and wasnt known for a great double game, Kafelnikov was! (then you can volley)

At his top it was a pleasure to watch him:

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=XK2nPvtmVJw

Yup...he could play a great all-court game. He was slightly favoring serving and then finishing up the point with a ground stroke or moving to the net later in the point instead of pure serve and volleying though...

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=MqE8qD4eNWY
another nice one :). Saw this match live, and it was one of the matches that convinced me that Federer HAD GAME, and was going places even if he got beaten that time !
 

Wuornos

Professional
You obviously feel he is underappreciated. I cant agree. I actually think he is the worst player to win 2 slams since the Australian Open became a full value slam to the players around 25 years ago, and he will be the worst player to win 2 slams since that time for quite a few years. There are many 1 time Slam winners I consider clearly superior players personally- Roddick, Krajicek, Chang, Cash, are some examples that come to mind for me.

He is on the weaker side of those who have won 2 majors in the open era. I would ceratinly rate players like Stan Smith Lleyton Hewitt, Patrick Rafter and Ilie Năstase above him but would put both Johan Kriek and Sergi Bruguera below him.

Yes there are single slam winners who were probably better players like Vitas Gerulaitis, Andy Roddick, Pat Cash, Michael Chang and Andrés Gimeno. But lets not forget triple slam winner Gustavo Kuerten who for my money was weaker than Gustavo Kuerten.

Plenty for people to disagree with there.

Tim
 

alfa164164

Professional
Wow, the ignorance level is really high here - hard to pick a starting point.
Volleys: Agassi on his best days couldn't volley anywhere near Kafelnikov's level. 4 Grand Slam Doubles titles speaks for itself, not to mention 27 doubles titles overall (let's see, Agassi had 1 doubles title).
To discount Kafelnikov's GS titles because he played Stich and Enqvist in the Finals is also ridiculous, at least Stich won a GS and was a RU twice. How many Slams did Pioline win? I guess we should knock Sampras down a bit for those Slam titles that weren't won against other Slam winners. I guess players should be blamed for not being able to control the draw (more on that later in regards to the USOpen).
Look at how well he played against Guga at the French Open other years, his FO victory was no fluke. Sampras thought he had the best ground game he had seen after barely beating him 9-7 in the 5th set of '94 Australian Open (their 1st meeting). Kafelnikov arguably had the best down the line backhand of his time.
Yes, Kafelnikov played too much. Yes, his motivation and attitude at times were awful. Let's NOT forget how he got screwed by the shameless USTA/USOpen in an attempt to improve the odds of other Americans winning the year they seeded him out of the top 4 when his World Ranking was in the top 4 (I think Chang was the primary beneficiary of that "call"). Ironically Kafelnikov did very well on grass (3 time winner & 1 RU at Halle), but never at Wimbledon.
609-306 career singles record, over $23 MM in prize money. 26 singles titles and 27 doubles titles. IMO he underachieved with only 2 slams, not overachieved. With better scheduling and focus he should have won more. He's been rightly criticized for playing so much that he didn't really distinguish the Slam tournaments from the other tournaments.
Let's compare his numbers to Rafters, Kafelnikov was 3-2 Head to Head. Rafter had only 11 singles titles, 10 doubles titles, and $11 MM in earnings. His career singles record was 358-191. Anyone who thinks Rafter had a better career than Yvegeny is smoking some really good stuff.
 

0d1n

Hall of Fame
He is on the weaker side of those who have won 2 majors in the open era. I would ceratinly rate players like Stan Smith Lleyton Hewitt, Patrick Rafter and Ilie Năstase above him but would put both Johan Kriek and Sergi Bruguera below him.

Yes there are single slam winners who were probably better players like Vitas Gerulaitis, Andy Roddick, Pat Cash, Michael Chang and Andrés Gimeno. But lets not forget triple slam winner Gustavo Kuerten who for my money was weaker than Gustavo Kuerten.

Plenty for people to disagree with there.

Tim

Will you people stop with Chang AND Roddick ??!?
The only reason why you're even mentioning them in the same breath as Kafelnikov is because they are Americans (or maybe because you have NO CLUE?). Kafelnikov was regularly bageling Chang in their meetings, Chang NEVER HAD A CHANCE in a direct meeting. Add to that his weaker record in the GS...and what's left to brag about ??! K was no 1, Chang was no 2. K was in the top 5 doubles players, C was probably in the 200's. K won 2 GS and has a much better track record on all surfaces in the GS than C. Where do you come up with this??!? I would like to drink some of the stuff you're drinking (or smoking)...it must be good sh*t.
With regards to Roddick there is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING there to prove your point. The only advantage Roddick could possibly have over K is his serve speed. Kafelnikov was better at EVERYHING ELSE. Returning, ground game, volleying skills ...movement ... you take your pick in any other department except serving power and it's Kafelnikov > Roddick. :confused:

Edit....I won't even go into a debate with regards to Andres Gimeno and Pat Cash because those claims are simply dumb and ridiculous. Vitas Gerulaitis also, but not quite to the extent of the other 2...

Wow, the ignorance level is really high here - hard to pick a starting point.
Volleys: Agassi on his best days couldn't volley anywhere near Kafelnikov's level. 4 Grand Slam Doubles titles speaks for itself, not to mention 27 doubles titles overall (let's see, Agassi had 1 doubles title).
To discount Kafelnikov's GS titles because he played Stich and Enqvist in the Finals is also ridiculous, at least Stich won a GS and was a RU twice. How many Slams did Pioline win? I guess we should knock Sampras down a bit for those Slam titles that weren't won against other Slam winners. I guess players should be blamed for not being able to control the draw (more on that later in regards to the USOpen).
Look at how well he played against Guga at the French Open other years, his FO victory was no fluke. Sampras thought he had the best ground game he had seen after barely beating him 9-7 in the 5th set of '94 Australian Open (their 1st meeting). Kafelnikov arguably had the best down the line backhand of his time.
Yes, Kafelnikov played too much. Yes, his motivation and attitude at times were awful. Let's NOT forget how he got screwed by the shameless USTA/USOpen in an attempt to improve the odds of other Americans winning the year they seeded him out of the top 4 when his World Ranking was in the top 4 (I think Chang was the primary beneficiary of that "call"). Ironically Kafelnikov did very well on grass (3 time winner & 1 RU at Halle), but never at Wimbledon.
609-306 career singles record, over $23 MM in prize money. 26 singles titles and 27 doubles titles. IMO he underachieved with only 2 slams, not overachieved. With better scheduling and focus he should have won more. He's been rightly criticized for playing so much that he didn't really distinguish the Slam tournaments from the other tournaments.
Let's compare his numbers to Rafters, Kafelnikov was 3-2 Head to Head. Rafter had only 11 singles titles, 10 doubles titles, and $11 MM in earnings. His career singles record was 358-191. Anyone who thinks Rafter had a better career than Yvegeny is smoking some really good stuff.

Agreed on all points. Too bad that the meeting you're referring to against Sampras pretty much "sealed" the future meetings as well (except when playing on clay). Kafelnikov played a great match that day and Sampras still beat him. That (unfortunately) lead to a "mental problem" for K when facing Sampras on any surface other than clay (where he knew he could kick his ass even if Sampras was bringing his A game). In most of the meetings following the one you're talking about Kafelnikov showed no fight. He was losing the match before the match was starting due to his mental "blockage".
The statistics of that AO match say it all :)

Statistics on Points Sampras Kafelnikov
Total Service Points Won 57% (69/119) 58% (68/117)
Total Return Points Won 41% (49/117) 42% (50/119)
Total Points Won 50% (118/236) 50% (118/236)
 
Last edited:

Mike Bulgakov

G.O.A.T.
Kafelnikov's smooth and efficient game was great to watch. There was no wasted motion and he always had great balance; his groundstrokes were classic. On serve, this style may have hurt him as he didn't have much knee bend and he didn't explode into the ball.

His great balance and movement, silky groundstrokes and smart all-court game was classic Russian tennis for his era and before. He played for money and chased appearance fees, otherwise he would probably have a few more slams.

Since he flew to tournamnets on his private jet seemingly every week and had many early losses, there was speculation of tanking or worse.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/07/sports/VANTAGE.php

In 2003, betting on a Yevgeny Kafelnikov match in Lyon was suspended when an ominously large wager was made on his opponent, Fernando Vicente, loser of his previous 12 matches. Vicente won in straight sets.

Kafelnikov, a former world No. 1, retired a year later to try his hand at professional poker.

In 2002, Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov, a Russian with suspected mob ties, was accused by the FBI, working with Italian authorities, of fixing figure-skating competitions at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

What did he have to do with tennis? Nothing, until he showed up in a photo on the Web site of the Ukrainian player Andrei Medvedev, with his arms around Medvedev, Kafelnikov and another Russian, Marat Safin.

Bon vivant, Norwegian folk music enthusiast, military buff, and Russian mobster Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov
nerd.jpg



Marat Safin, Andrei Medvedev, Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov, and Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Phil-and-Associates4.jpg
 
Last edited:

anointedone

Banned
Comparing K with Agassi at the net is simply ridiculous. I agree with ericsson, Kafelnikov had one of the most complete games I've seen. EVER !
His doubles records speaks volumes about his volleying ability by the way.



Couldn't agree more. See http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=1844542&postcount=87 for my view on Kafelnikov.
Edit.
By the way, the reasons for him not being very popular on this forum are simple:
- He isn't an American, and he isn't the "crazy/sexy/troubled" type that Safin is or appears to be (the only reason he's so over hyped around here even though Kafelnikov was AT LEAST as good).
- Many posters on this forum started watching tennis in the "Nadal" era, and they have no idea what was happening even 10 years ago and they don't have the passion or desire to "catch up" by watching older matches on DVD/video. As a consequence when talking about the past they act like they admire Agassi/Sampras types because they were/are popular even though they have no idea most of the time how they actually played the game. It's like me talking about players that have played in the 20's, 30's or 50's. I have no way of knowing how they actually played because all I saw were either pictures or VERY short clips. Kafelnikov wasn't in the same league when it comes to media exposure/popularity with somebody like Agassi, and as a result many adolescents ASSUME he was a crappy player.

To assume people who dont think Kafelnikov was that good only started watching tennis a few years ago and never really saw a player like Kafelnikov in his prime is actually ignorant on your part. I know many people who watched tennis in the 90s, as I also did, who dont think Kafelnikov was that good at all, and and surprised he ever managed to win 2 slams. I am one of those who saw Kafelnikov in his prime and I saw:

-him never win a Masters title despite many opportunities
-him win his 2 grand slams with solid but unexceptional tennis vs limited opposition
-him go on long losing streaks to players like Thomas Johansson
-him embarass himself frequently against the top dogs like Sampras, Agassi, or even Rafter

Bringing up his doubles success is moot, since he hardly ever used his volleying ability from doubles in singles. Maybe his doubles performance showed he had that ability but in singles he hardly used net play at all, and remained glued to the baseline. His groundstrokes were solid but nothing spectacular, his serve sucked for a top ten player, and he seemed to lack a major weapon or any real game plan when he played.

Many people have watched Kafelnikov in the 90s and were not awed by him as a player, to think only ones who are too young to have seen him play in his prime are not that impressed in delusional on your part.

For the record yes Chang, Roddick, Ivanisevic (because of his excellence on grass and indoors, far beyond Kafelnikov on surface), Krajicek are all head and shoulders above Kafelnikov as players. Kafelnikov did pretty well vs Chang head to head, but that does not prove anything in itself, singular head to heads dont always show who is the better player, would you say Thomas Johansson is better then Kafelnikov, or Krajicek is better then Sampras. Plus many of Kafelnikov's wins were during Chang's down times too.
 

anointedone

Banned
The only advantage Roddick could possibly have over K is his serve speed. Kafelnikov was better at EVERYHING ELSE. Returning, ground game, volleying skills ...movement ... you take your pick in any other department except serving power and it's Kafelnikov > Roddick. :confused:

That doesnt matter. What matters is that Roddick's serve is so far and away better then any aspect of Kafelnikov's game that it wouldnt neccessarily matter that Kafelnikov has a more rounded game then Roddick. Many players are better then Roddick in every area outside the serve but lose repeatedly to him because of his outstanding serve, so being better then Roddick in every area outside the serve is no grand feat, probably atleast 40 guys today are, yet Roddick is still in the top 5 which shows you the value of his serve. Anyway Roddick is far superior to Kafelnikov in atleast 2 areas, the serve, and mental toughness. There is a reason Roddick does not have nearly as many of those horrible losses Kafelnikov has (note I didnt say never, I said not nearly as many) and he atleast fights a heck of alot more vs Federer then Kafelnikov did vs Sampras.
 

anointedone

Banned
Kafelnikov's game reminds me a lot of Safin.

- Both are big, tall, athletic guys with big groundies off both wings, but sometimes look clumsy at net.

- Both won two slams.

- Both had motivational issues at times in their careers.

Safin is head and shoulders above Kafelnikov in natural talent, such a huge difference it isnt even funny. Now if you want an underachieving 2 slam winner, that is who we should be talking about, not Kafelnikov.
 

Ossric

Semi-Pro
Kafelnikov's smooth and efficient game was great to watch. There was no wasted motion and he always had great balance; his groundstrokes were classic. On serve, this style may have hurt him as he didn't have much knee bend and he didn't explode into the ball.

His great balance and movement, silky groundstrokes and smart all-court game was classic Russian tennis for his era and before. He played for money and chased appearance fees, otherwise he would probably have a few more slams.

He definately was a cash player. Much like Davydenko is today.

You can spot Kafelnikov at the poker tables in Vegas these days.
 

0d1n

Hall of Fame
To assume people who dont think Kafelnikov was that good only started watching tennis a few years ago and never really saw a player like Kafelnikov in his prime is actually ignorant on your part.
I stand by my statement. I never said ALL people would be in that category...there will always be exceptions.
I know many people who watched tennis in the 90s, as I also did, who dont think Kafelnikov was that good at all, and and surprised he ever managed to win 2 slams.
And I know "many" people who disagree with your point of view. So what.

Bringing up his doubles success is moot, since he hardly ever used his volleying ability from doubles in singles. Maybe his doubles performance showed he had that ability but in singles he hardly used net play at all, and remained glued to the baseline.

Here is where you loose all your objectivity (if you had some in the first place). Just watch some of his matches on hard court or grass or indoor carpet and come back to me with the number of times he attacked the net. Hell just take a look at the short clips that were posted before and count the number of times he's at the net. He was at the net more often than Federer goes up there today and Federer is credited with being an "all-court player" (which he is...or can be if he chooses to). On what exactly do you base your statements of "hardly used net play at all" ??

His groundstrokes were solid but nothing spectacular, his serve sucked for a top ten player, and he seemed to lack a major weapon or any real game plan when he played.
That's a load of crap. His ground strokes were top notch, he had some of the best technique around and he could hit any shot in the book from the back court (and elsewhere).
Many people have watched Kafelnikov in the 90s and were not awed by him as a player, to think only ones who are too young to have seen him play in his prime are not that impressed in delusional on your part.
You keep bringing up the "many people". Care to back up your statements with arguments instead of "many unknown people" ?? I see split opinions around here ... and generally the guys who are in favor of him being a great player also give some arguments and/or an analysis of his game. You on the other hand bring "many invisible people" to the table.
For the record yes Chang, Roddick, Ivanisevic (because of his excellence on grass and indoors, far beyond Kafelnikov on surface), Krajicek are all head and shoulders above Kafelnikov as players. Kafelnikov did pretty well vs Chang head to head, but that does not prove anything in itself, singular head to heads dont always show who is the better player, would you say Thomas Johansson is better then Kafelnikov, or Krajicek is better then Sampras. Plus many of Kafelnikov's wins were during Chang's down times too.
Yeah, in your biased opinion Chang and Roddick are "head and shoulders above. In my opinion they are not, and at least I have some arguments (at least with regards to Chang). How convenient that you choose to ignore head to head when it suits you but you bring it up as an argument when it supports you.
With regards to Roddick there are no objective arguments to bring to the table ...it's all opinion.
I guess your opinion is more important than everybody else's and it suddenly becomes FACT ? (that would make sense since you are the anointed one I guess...).

That doesnt matter. What matters is that Roddick's serve is so far and away better then any aspect of Kafelnikov's game that it wouldnt neccessarily matter that Kafelnikov has a more rounded game then Roddick. Many players are better then Roddick in every area outside the serve but lose repeatedly to him because of his outstanding serve, so being better then Roddick in every area outside the serve is no grand feat, probably atleast 40 guys today are, yet Roddick is still in the top 5 which shows you the value of his serve. Anyway Roddick is far superior to Kafelnikov in atleast 2 areas, the serve, and mental toughness. There is a reason Roddick does not have nearly as many of those horrible losses Kafelnikov has (note I didnt say never, I said not nearly as many) and he atleast fights a heck of alot more vs Federer then Kafelnikov did vs Sampras.

I don't see those 40 guys you're talking about today, but Kafelnikov certainly was. Your supposition that ROddick's serve is "so far and away" ahead of K's every other aspect of the game is again nothing else but biased opinion. If anything the return was one of K's strengths...and I wouldn't bet any money on Roddick winning too many points if he got into a rally against K.
Comparing S-K matches with R - Fedster ones is irrelevant, and the "heck of a lot more fight" from Roddick resulted in even more disastrous head to head records ... at least K beat Sampras in a couple of important matches. This fight was also pretty much inefficient and only really visible in the 2004 wimbledon and their last US Open meeting. Anyway, in both of those, it was pretty clear for anybody who had ANY tennis knowledge that Roddick was getting his ass handed to him regardless of his "fighting spirit". Like I said...at least K beat Sampras on clay ... Roddick wouldn't beat Federer even if they played on a dry manure court.

Safin is head and shoulders above Kafelnikov in natural talent, such a huge difference it isnt even funny. Now if you want an underachieving 2 slam winner, that is who we should be talking about, not Kafelnikov.

That is your opinion and not a fact. I already stated my opinion on this...it's a popular opinion that Safin is the greatest talent since the stone age, but frankly that's a load of crap. I always laugh my as$ off when I hear that he's more talented than and he would beat Federer ..."if only this and that happened".
I don't deny his talent, he is a talented player, but he isn't in any way a better player than Kafelnikov was and to even mention him in the same context as Federer is simply outrageously stupid. He's just more "popular" than K and many other players (especially in America) because of his "dark and troubled" attitude, good looks and urban legends about all the super models that pass through his bed.
 
Last edited:

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Kafelnikov is a major reason that the atp invented the 'race.' Remember he lost 6 straight first round matches & somehow achieved the #1 ranking during that span, which the atp was very embarassed by.

Also he thanked sampras for not playing the '99 Australian(so he would have a shot at winning it) in his acceptance speech, kinda shows where he thought he fit in.

Its a very tired argument for anyone to blame 'American bias' anytime someone disagrees with someone here. It also shows that the argument probably isn't very strong if one has to resort to name-calling. Especially when the posters that are blasted aren't American. anointedone is Canadian. Wuornos is British. vive le beau jeu is French. Oops.

A couple weeks ago, some of the most prolific american bashers here had a field day tearing into a poster that said he believed that sampras-agassi was the best rivalry of all-time. They looked rather foolish when he revealed that he was Portuguese. Think before you type.

Edit-looked up that past thread I just mentioned, looks like you were the one that turned someone's innocent opinion into an excuse for your anti-american tirade. thought that was pretty funny. guess that's your thing, whatever floats your boat, but its kinda sad that this apparently is on your mind quite a bit.
 
Last edited:

0d1n

Hall of Fame
I feel much of your post is directed at me, so I'll do my best to respond.
Kafelnikov is a major reason that the atp invented the 'race.' Remember he lost 6 straight first round matches & somehow achieved the #1 ranking during that span, which the atp was very embarassed by.
You are right, that was a strange hole in the ranking system.
Also he thanked sampras for not playing the '99 Australian(so he would have a shot at winning it) in his acceptance speech, kinda shows where he thought he fit in.
Yes I remember that one, and yes it shows exactly why he was losing to Sampras most of the time, because he had already lost the match in his head. I never disputed Sampras' superiority, I'm just challenging people who compare a guy like Roddick with K ... and somehow manage to put Roddick above him...with no arguments whatsoever. People like Pat Cash and Andres Gimeno were also mentioned as "better". Some people need to wake up I guess...or at least give some facts that support their opinions.

Its a very tired argument for anyone to blame 'American bias' anytime someone disagrees with someone here. It also shows that the argument probably isn't very strong if one has to resort to name-calling. Especially when the posters that are blasted aren't American. anointedone is Canadian. Wuornos is British. vive le beau jeu is French. Oops.
A couple weeks ago, some of the most prolific american bashers here had a field day tearing into a poster that said he believed that sampras-agassi was the best rivalry of all-time. They looked rather foolish when he revealed that he was Portuguese. Think before you type.

Strong or not...I at least try to bring some arguments into the discussion. I suggest you show me where exactly I had to resort to "name calling" directed at any particular poster in this thread.
The "American bias" might be a tired argument, but I've seen it enough times to be relevant to many arguments on this forum. No I do not think it's the only reason for anything or everything that's discussed around here, and I'm not one of the "American bashers" you mention (at least I don't think I am).
I noticed that Wuornos is British and guessed that "vive le beau jeu" is French (or at least from a French speaking country). Wasn't aware that the "anointed one" is Canadian...nor do I care. He clearly has no arguments to support his opinions other than "many invisible people".
I guess it would be best for avoiding confusion if everybody would actually use their profiles to give this type of relevant information (i.e country of origin) so that people know where they're coming from. Not really necessary...but it would help ;).
Peace.
 

alfa164164

Professional
I don't think Kafelnikov would have thanked Chang, Rafter, or even Agassi for not entering the '99 tournament (had they not played). His #1 ranking was obviously derived from the prior cumulative 12 months of results, he obviously deserved his brief position, regardless of what he did after the fact (just as Korda would have deserved his #1 position HAD he squeeked out a few more wins after his Australion Open victory). Kafelnikov made it, others like Korda and Chang never made the hurdle.
The fact that Kafelnikov felt inferior to Sampras has no bearing on Kafelnikov's historical position in relation to players like Chang, Rafter, Krajicek, etc.
If you look at their CAREER results, you can make some educated deductions about where they stand. The Rafter comparison for example seems obvious. Haven't bothered to look at the career results of some of the other before mentioned players, but I'm pretty sure the majority of them would pale in comparison. On a popularity contest Kafelnikov would be near the bottom, his comments regarding "I don't make enough money" (which Agassi rightly chastised) and jabs like "no matter how well Thomas (Enqvist) is playing, he finds a way to choke" (paraphrase of what Kafelnikov said before their Aussie Final), and generally sour disposition, didn't endear him to many fans, players, or people in the media.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
I don't think Kafelnikov is underrated, just forgotten, which is kind of different. Now he seems almost an afterthought since he played over the course of two generations (Lendl-Wilander-Becker-Edberg, and Sampras-Courier-Agassi) where it was easy to get lost in the shuffle.

I agree with Laurie - a very good record and really a very good player. I saw him play a lot and I don't get where the accusations come from that his came was anything less than great. Of course, he could play poorly, but Kafelnikov truly had all the skills necessary to be a top player, which he was. Granted he wasn't the best of all time, but he reached number 1, won Slams, went deep in other Slams, won a lot of tourneys beating almost all of the top players at some point, won doubles Slams, and the Davis Cup.

I think a lot of people who are knowledgeable about tennis realize his accomplishments. So, I wouldn't say he's underappreciated, but at the same time, a lot of posters here seem to think he's actually overrated, and I don't agree with that. Nobody is arguing that is among the very elite of the game, just that he was an incredibly good player who fell right below the superstars who played when he played.
 

anointedone

Banned
Opinions on ones game are subjective. Od1n obviously is in love with Kafelnikov so I wont dispute the relative merits of his game with others, although I got a good laugh out of reading your views on his game. Here are some objective reasons those guys are better then Kafelnikov, with 1 or 2 slam titles:

Andy Roddick

-Reached 4 slam finals at the biggest 2 events- Wimbledon and the U.S Open.
Kafelnikov has never reached a Wimbledon or U.S Open final.

-Roddick 4 straight years reaching atleast 1 slam final.

-Roddick has 4 Masters titles. Kafelnikov has 0.

-Roddick is almost certain to end his 5th straight year ranked in the top 6. Kafelnikov has never ended more then 3 straight years ranked that high.

-Roddick has already had 3 different years reaching the quarters or better of 3 of the 4 slams, and is young enough to have a good shot of adding more. Kafelnikov only has 2 different years reaching the quarters or better of 3 of the 4 slams, and his career is long over.

-Kafelnikov has never ended a year #1. Roddick has. Also given that Kafelnikov still had several of his best years ever in 1999, 2000, 2001, when the Sampras streak of year end #1s was over, the Sampras dominance alone cant be used as an excuse. Plus Roddick beat out someone named Federer to do that.

-Retired Kafelnikov has 26 singles titles to 23 for Roddick today. Given Roddick's age he is likely to match or surpass him here too.


Marat Safin

-To win his grand slams Kafelnikov beat Sampras in the semis and Stich in the final on CLAY, and beat Haas in the semis and Enqvist in the final on hard courts. By contrast to do win his grand slams Safin beat Martin in the semis, and a real biggie Sampras in the final (when Sampras was still close to his peak) on hard courts; then his other slam titles someone named Federer in the semis, then Hewitt in the final (in Australia to boot). There is no comparision in the wins Kafelnikov had to win his 2 slams, and the wins Safin had, Safin took down 2 giants on the way, Kafelnikov took down people he was supposed to beat despite the fact he never would go into a slam event as one of the favorites, but it was how the draw got wittled down for him.

-Safin has 5 Masters titles, Kafelnikov has 0. While Safin has 15 titles to Kafelnikov's 26, Safin has 2 slams and 5 Masters titles and 8 "other" titles, while Kafelnikov has 2 slams and 0 Masters titles and 24 "other" titles. I will take quality over quantity in this case.

-I think how a player does against the best opponents is one true measure of his quality. Kafelnikov was lacking in this department to put it mildly. Safin was 4-3 vs Sampras lifetime, including 2-1 in 2000 when Sampras was still extremely strong. Safin was 6-6 vs Hewitt lifetime, Hewitt of course a two time year-end #1 who Kafelnikov had massive difficulty with even when Kafelnikov was in his prime and Hewitt was up and coming. Safin was 3-3 vs Agassi lifetime, with the last 5 meetings where Safin went 3-2 against Agassi in either the semis or final of a major tournament reflecting that Agassi was very strong at the time of all these meetings, with one exception the first round of the 98 French where 18 year old rookie Safin took out 28 year old Agassi. Only against Federer does Safin trail badly 2-8, but atleast he has beaten Federer on a prefered surface in a huge match.

By contrast Kafelnikov is 2-11 vs Sampras, but 0-9 vs him in "non clay" matches (beating Sampras on clay isnt that impressive). He is 4-8 vs Agassi, which is one of his more respectable head to heads vs top level competition. Kafelnikov is 1-7 vs Hewitt, including 1-4 vs teenage Hewitt when Kafelnikov was having the best 2-3 years of his career.

I bring up those examples since those are the best guys they both played against while both parties were quite strong. It is clear Safin was the more dangerous and tougher opponent.

Michael Chang

-You bring up Kafelnikov's career titles, but in this case of a fellow retired player, Chang tops him here 34 to 26.

-Chang has 7 Masters titles, Kafelnikov has 0.

-Chang has been in the finals of 3 of the 4 Grand Slam events, the same 2 as Kafelnikov, Australian and French, but also the U.S Open. Chang has also been in 4 finals and 8 semis, to Kafelnikov's 3 finals and 6 semis. Kafelnikov's big and only advantage is 1 Australian Open title to go with his French Open title which Chang doesnt have, Chang has 1 more slam final, 2 more slam semis, and being a finalist at 3 different slams. Neither has been past the quarters of Wimbledon.

-To win his French Open Chang beat Lendl along the way. To reach his second French Open final Chang beat Bruguera in the semis. To reach his Australian Open final Chang beat Agassi in the semis, and to reach his U.S Open final that same year Chang beat Agassi again in the semis. Kafelnikov has no wins of that calibre on his way to reaching a slam final.

-Again I like to compare them vs the best opposition they each faced during a reasonable amount of time each was mutually strong. Chang was 8-12 lifetime vs Sampras, and unlike Kafelnikov has wins over Sampras in years like 1992 and 1995 on hard courts, not clay but a surface Sampras actually excels at. Chang was 7-15 lifetime vs Agassi, so about on par with Kafelnikov's ratio there. Chang was 7-4 vs Rafter, Kafelnikov was 3-2, both Kafelnikov and Chang had the bulk of their success before Rafter came into his own after winning that U.S Open, but Rafter got some wins over a clearly fading Chang which Rafter never got to face Kafelnikov at since Kafelnikov didnt start to fade until after Rafter took early retirement. Chang was 6-5 vs Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov was 5-10 vs Ivanisevic, big advantage Change here; Chang was 3-7 vs Krajicek, Kafelnikov was 5-4 vs Krajicek, so big advantage Kafelnikov here. So not much difference either way, the biggest one being Chang a much better opponent vs Sampras then Kafelnikov was, and as I mentioned earlier Chang beat better people on the big stage then Kafelnikov.
 
Last edited:

anointedone

Banned
Now for some of the others:

Patrick Rafter

-4 finals at the biggest 2 tournaments, Wimbledon and the U.S Open, including his 2 slam titles there. Kafelnikov 0 finals at the 2 biggest tournaments.

-Not only 2 Masters titles to Kafelnikov's 0, while in this case each have 2 slams to go with that, but a stretch where he won 2 Masters titles and the U.S Open all in a row. Kafelnikov could only dream of a stretch like that.

-To win his second U.S Open beat Sampras in the semis, again a bigger win then any Kafelnikov had to win any slam (no Sampras in the semis of the French Open doesnt even come close). Beat Agassi in the semis of Wimbledon to reach his 2 Wimbledon finals, again wins Kafelnikov has nothing close to in reaching his 3 slam finals.

-Again interesting to compare how they did vs the best people they went up against at a reasonable point in time. Rafter was 4-12 vs Sampras, 3 of Rafter's 4 wins were on hard courts. Kafelnikov was 2-11 vs Sampras, and 0-9 on non clay surfaces. Agassi was 10-5 vs Rafter, 8-4 vs Rafter, an identical ratio, but Agassi went 4-0 vs Rafter in 93-95 when Rafter was clearly nowhere near his prime. By contrast almost all of Agassi's matches with Kafelnikov were in Kafelnikov's prime from 95-2000, the only 2 that were not, was a match in 94 which Kafelnikov won, and a match in 2003 which Agassi one so the 1-1 those 2 matches does not hurt Kafelnikov's head to head. While Rafter was in his prime as well he did much better vs Agassi then Kafelnikov, and both played Agassi during Agassi's "down" time so no difference there. Both fared poorly vs Hewitt, Rafter was 1-3 and Kafelnikov was 1-7. Rafter was 2-2 vs Ivanisevic, while Kafelnikov was 5-10, big advantage Rafter here. Rafter though was 2-7 vs Krajicek, Kafelnikov was 5-4 vs Krajicek, so big advantage for Kafelnikov here. Kafelnikov was 4-0 vs Chang, Rafter was 2-3 vs Chang, so clear edge to Kafelnikov here. Overall Rafter gets the slight edge here as he did much better vs Sampras, better vs Agassi while both Kafelnikov and Rafter were in their primes, better vs Ivanisevic; while Kafelnikov did better vs Krajicek, and better vs Chang.

Goran Ivanisevic

-does not match Kafelnikov's versatility in that all 4 of his finals are at Wimbledon. However that also means all 4 of his slam finals were at 1 of the 2 biggest events in the world, while Kafelnikov has 0.

-In reaching his 4 Wimbledon finals, and winning his 1 Wimbledon title, has such wins over Sampras in the 92 Wimbledon semis, Edberg in the 92 quarters, Becker in the 94 semis, 96 champion Krajicek in the 98 semis, and 2000 runner up Rafter in the 2001 final. Kafelnikov has no wins of this calibre to reach a slam final.

-2 Masters titles to Kafelnikov's 0. Ivanisevic falls barely short in titles 22 to 26, again quality over quantity for me especialy when there isnt much difference in quantity.

-again performance vs the best opponents. Ivanisevic was 3-4 vs Agassi compared to 4-8 for Kafelnikov. Ivanisevic was 6-12 vs Sampras, with wins over Sampras on grass (2), carpet (2), hard (1), and clay (1) vs 2-11 for Kafelnikov which is 0-9 on non-clay surfaces. Ivanisevic was 2-2 vs Rafter, Kafelnikov was 3-2 vs Rafter, so close to the same here with a smaller sample size. Ivanisevic was 5-6 vs Chang, compared to 4-0 for Kafelnikov vs Chang, so Kafelnikov did better here. Ivanisevic was 9-3 for Krajicek vs Kafelnikov being 6-5, so Ivanisevic did better here. Overall Ivanisevic's much better success vs Agassi and Sampras gives him the clear edge in performance vs top level opposition.

Richard Krajicek

OK this is the one who has the most iffy case since he reached only 1 slam final, giving his 1 slam win and 1 slam final to Kafelnikov's 3 slam finals and 2 slam wins. However here are some areas I see him as superior to Kafelnikov:

-To win Wimbledon scored the only win over Sampras from 1993-2000 in the quarters. The magnitude of that win is so far removed from the wins Kafelnikov had to reach his 3 slam finals it isnt even describable. Again it also a title at 1 of the 2 biggest events there is, where Kafelnikov never reached a final (and only 1 semi between the two).

-3 Masters title to 0 for Kafelnikov.

-Success vs top players they mutually faced while strong. Well Krajicek was 6-4 vs Sampras, and Kafelnikov was 2-11 (again both wins on clay), with Krajicek posting wins on hard (4), grass (1), carpet (1). The # of hard court wins is impressive since many thought of him as a grass/carpet player first and foremost. Krajicek was 3-4 vs Agassi compared to 4-8 for Kafelnikov vs Agassi, again Krajicek did better. Krajicek was 3-9 vs Ivanisevic, while Kafelnikov was 5-10, so Krajicek did worse here. Krajicek went 7-2 vs Rafter compared to 3-2 for Kafelnikov, so clearly Krajicek did better here. Krajicek was 7-3 vs Chang, while Kafelnikov was 4-0, Kafelnikov did even better, but both were dominant, and Krajicek's is a bigger sample size. Overall Krajicek gets the edge since he did much better vs Sampras, and better vs Agassi.
 
Last edited:

anointedone

Banned
So overall the same things seem to come across. These other 1 or 2 time slam winners of this generation or the last who many of us argue as superior seem to all:

-have exceled more at Wimbledon and the U.S Open then Kafelnikov.

-seem to have won multiple Masters titles while Kafenlikov hasnt.

-in the case of Kafelnikovs contemparies overall have fared better vs the best opposition mostly based on faring much better vs Sampras, the greatest player of that generation by far, and Kafelnikov not faring superior enough vs other top opposition to make up the overall difference in that regard.

-have bigger wins on the way to their slam finals then Kafelnikov ever managed.

Well there is a reason for that. All those things are very good indications of the quality of a player, and in all these areas Kafelnikov falls short of all these players.
 

basil J

Hall of Fame
I used to love watching th "K" man play. On a good day he could hold his own against anyone in the atp. I loved that he raised his elbow up ala Sampras on his forehand and used a flared out butt capp that looks bigger than the knob on my hockey stick. he simply played for money and he burnt himself out. I have read in the past that he has a love affair with vodka as well. That won't help the old waistline now will it....
 

0d1n

Hall of Fame
I will start by saying that I'm absolutely NOT in love with Kafelnikov, he's a fat, ugly, Russian MAN and I'm really not into that kind of thing ...thank you very much. He could however hit a mean tennis ball and play some beautiful tennis matches, and did have a great career, proven with results. You can choose to ignore facts that contradict your theories and only present the ones that help your point ... but that doesn't make you right.
A wise man once said that one can "prove" any theory if he chooses to present only arguments that sustain it and ignore all the arguments that contradict it. That is clearly what you are doing here mate.
You posts are now getting much too long to address punctually so I won't do it any more. There are so many far fetched statements in them that "it's not even funny" (hope you don't mind me quoting your line...).
The first and most important is deciding to split the 4 grand slams in "2 biggest most important ones" and "2 less important ones"...based on criteria known only to you. If anything the two "biggest" ones are Wimbledon and the French (just because I choose to call them "biggest").
More money, colorful clothing and music at the changeovers doesn't make a tournament "bigger" especially when talking about tennis and the grand slams.
Anyway...I refuse to split the 4 slams in 2 categories...I have no right to do so and you don't have that right either.
Also funny and sad at the same time is the fact that you said head to head is not all important when I casually mentioned Chang's 0-4 record against Kafelnikov and yet you base your whole argument now on head to head results against other players. Please have some consistency.
If I've decided to prove one thing and one thing only I can go and find some statistic that helps me "prove" a theory even if I have to compare how many second rounds a player makes in a certain tournament. Fact is that the things that remain in history are Slam titles and much much further down...slam finals, world championships, Olympic games, super 9/ masters titles ...etc. IF Roddick wins another couple of slams please get back here and tell me how he is "better" than Kafelnikov, but until then ... stop trying to prove something that's false and hence "unprovable".
I saw that you mentioned the Sampras - Kafelnikov head to head a number of times...and yes ...I'm well aware of the fact that Sampras was kicking Kafelnikov's ass most of the time. I also agree that he was the better player...he was/is one of the greats of all time...nobody is saying otherwise.
His domination of Kafelnikov was MENTAL, just like his domination over Agassi. That was what made Sampras great, the fact that he was BORN believing he was meant to be the best, he had that belief regardless of results. Somebody like Agassi had to "learn" to be confident ... and somebody like Kafelnikov or Stich or Pioline (or ...or...) never learned how to do it on a consistent basis. That's all.
Can you please re-read your posts and notice how you choose to use as an argument for Roddick > Kafelnikov the fact that Roddick was number one and finished one year as number one, and emphasize that, only to practically ignore the number one fact and underline number of semifinals in grand slams ...or whatever else when talking about Chang > Kafelnikov.
Like I said many times already...one can "prove" anything that he intends to prove...if he really wants to (at least to himself).
Also...you keep going on and on about the fact that K beat Stich in the final of the French and whoever else beat Agassi or Sampras ...or...or...or. SO WHAT? Stich got there by beating Muster who was a hot favorite to win the tournament, it's not like he got a bye directly to the final ! Also if I remember correctly K beat at least 3 Spanish players in that draw (I refuse to "research" this now ... and please tell me that you know what the "Spanish armada" meant at the time...) before getting to the finals, and then beat Sampras (yeh ...I know it was clay ...) in the semi and went on to kill Stich in the final.
Is Agassi's US open title won against Stich any less valuable because he didn't beat Sampras in the final ?? Is Sampras's US Open title (93 ??!) any less valuable because he beat Volkov (I think) in the semi and Pioline in the final?? Is Sampras' Wimbledon (I forget which year) any less important because he beat Pioline again in the final??
Puhleaaase. If somebody got to a grand slam final it means that they deserved to be there, and whoever beats the finalist ...is THE WINNER in my book. We can interpret things all we want, the fact still is that a champion remains a champion.
Anyway, I'm too tired to argue for nothing, I understand you didn't like the guy ... I liked his game a lot ... so that's that.
Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
I didn't like the K mans forehand. He had his elbow bent through the whole shot and it looked very mechanical, nothing Like the sampras Forehand. But he had a pretty solid proficient game, and was especially tough in long matchess due to his fitness. Wikipedia says he won 3 atp masters series titles. Mabe he's a little underappreciated here. I think he did burn out a bit.

He won about 66% of his atp matches. Hewitt owned him. I remember him whining about the surface the first time Hewitt beat him in the Davis cup when Hewitt was only about 18. His record against some other good players of his time should give a good indication of where he fit in:


3-2 vs Rafter

5-1 vs Courier,

8-3 vs Stich.

7-3 vs Todd Martin.

7-2 vs Korda.

8-6 vs Henman.

2-1 vs Edberg.

5-2 v Haas

5-4 v Krajicek

11-2 vs Pioline

6-2 vs RIos

4-0 vs Chang.

5-7 v Kuerten.

5-6 v Medvedev.

4-8 vs Agassi,

5-10 v Ivanisevic

1-7 vs Hewitt,

2-11 vs Sampras.

2-4 vs Becker.
 

0d1n

Hall of Fame
... Wikipedia says he won 3 atp masters series titles....
I think Wikipedia is wrong. As far as I remember he was in a number of finals ( 5??!) but didn't win any. I may be wrong. Anyway, that fact is being given humongous importance apparently, and other facts are ignored...but that's life ;).
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Ahhhh anyways, He was one of the best players around anyways. Then he slowly burnt out.

I think Wikipedia is wrong. As far as I remember he was in a number of finals ( 5??!) but didn't win any. I may be wrong. Anyway, that fact is being given humongous importance apparently, and other facts are ignored...but that's life ;).
 

Mike Bulgakov

G.O.A.T.
Up until about the time of Kafelnikov's generation, most Russian players were taught Eastern forehand grips edging towards Continental. Is Yevgeny the last top player to use a forehand grip so far towards Continental?
t1_kafelnikov_ap.jpg

_614503_kafelnikov300.jpg


Kafelnikov's golfing career didn't work out:
kafelnikow1_dpa-300.jpg


Anyone know how Yevgeny's poker career is going?

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=16047
Kafelnikov, who has beefed up considerably since his tennis days, was on hand during the Russian Poker Championships, though he spurned the final days in favor of the big-money cash games in one of Korona’s VIP rooms, emerging occasionally to lend moral support to his friend Ilikyan.

Kafelnikov declined to be interviewed for this article, and he painstakingly avoided being photographed, jumping out of the way whenever a camera was pointed in his direction.

But in an interview with London’s The Independent in November, Kafelnikov said his success in tennis had helped prepare him for the poker table.

“You need guts in poker, as in tennis,” Kafelnikov was quoted as saying.

“And if you don’t believe in your ability, you don’t win. In tennis I believed in myself, that’s why I had so much success.”

He said he found poker “exciting ... because you win not with the cards but with your skills. With body language you can win a game, but also you can lose a game.”

Kafelnikov has already had some success in tournament poker, having won around $47,000 in Russian and U.S. tournaments over the past 12 months.
kafelnikov.jpg
 
Last edited:

0range

Hall of Fame
Kafelnikov's game reminds me a lot of Safin.

- Both are big, tall, athletic guys with big groundies off both wings, but sometimes look clumsy at net.

- Both won two slams.

- Both had motivational issues at times in their careers.

Damn it I hope Safin won't balloon up like Kafelnikov after retirement... same as Kafelnikov, Safin's performance is like... downhill now that Safin's 28.

(ps. Not too sure about Kafelnikov but Safin's not kumsy at net)
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
Kafelnikov had a great all court game. He could have gotten even more slams but was playing in an era of legends. Great transition game. Whoever compared him to Agassi at the net earlier was wrong on that. Y man could have done more with his serve though...not a lot of legs/pushoff--mostly arm.
 
I always liked Kafelnikov because, like McEnroe, he was a total player. Won as many doubles crowns a singles. What I do regret was his loss at the AO to Johanssen. If he had won that, we would not be comparing him to the likes of Kraijecs or Roddicks who couldn't carry his shoes.
 

ohlori

Rookie
To assume people who dont think Kafelnikov was that good only started watching tennis a few years ago and never really saw a player like Kafelnikov in his prime is actually ignorant on your part. I know many people who watched tennis in the 90s, as I also did, who dont think Kafelnikov was that good at all, and and surprised he ever managed to win 2 slams. I am one of those who saw Kafelnikov in his prime and I saw:

-him never win a Masters title despite many opportunities
-him win his 2 grand slams with solid but unexceptional tennis vs limited opposition
-him go on long losing streaks to players like Thomas Johansson
-him embarass himself frequently against the top dogs like Sampras, Agassi, or even Rafter

Bringing up his doubles success is moot, since he hardly ever used his volleying ability from doubles in singles. Maybe his doubles performance showed he had that ability but in singles he hardly used net play at all, and remained glued to the baseline. His groundstrokes were solid but nothing spectacular, his serve sucked for a top ten player, and he seemed to lack a major weapon or any real game plan when he played.

Many people have watched Kafelnikov in the 90s and were not awed by him as a player, to think only ones who are too young to have seen him play in his prime are not that impressed in delusional on your part.

For the record yes Chang, Roddick, Ivanisevic (because of his excellence on grass and indoors, far beyond Kafelnikov on surface), Krajicek are all head and shoulders above Kafelnikov as players. Kafelnikov did pretty well vs Chang head to head, but that does not prove anything in itself, singular head to heads dont always show who is the better player, would you say Thomas Johansson is better then Kafelnikov, or Krajicek is better then Sampras. Plus many of Kafelnikov's wins were during Chang's down times too.

I believe his serve sucked because a lot of Russian coaches teached players to serve like the Australian champions from the past.
These old players often kept one foot on the ground while serving, because that was a rule for some period in time.
Maybe Kafelnikov's service motion resembles Rod Laver's, dunno.
 

CyBorg

Legend
Damn it I hope Safin won't balloon up like Kafelnikov after retirement...

Kafelnikov never had a model's body, even in his playing days. He was always a little ugly and slightly stocky. You could tell he wasn't going to age well.
 

0range

Hall of Fame
Kafelnikov never had a model's body, even in his playing days. He was always a little ugly and slightly stocky. You could tell he wasn't going to age well.

I think before he got fat he's actually pretty good looking.

Handsome but in an ugly kind of way, but handsome.
 

CyBorg

Legend
I think before he got fat he's actually pretty good looking.

Handsome but in an ugly kind of way, but handsome.

Whether he was handsome is subjective. The point is that he was never chiseled. It wasn't in his genes. Safin has a very different body. He's taller, slimmer and has more muscle definition.

Marat could go Marlon Brando on us, of course. But he'd have to lose all self control to in any way resemble Kafelnikov.
 

!Tym

Hall of Fame
Kafelnikov was an excellent volleyer with one of the best transition games in the business. He also mixed in serve and volley from time to time. Sampras called Kafelnikov's groundies the best he ever faced the first time he played him as an unknown. Kafelnikov was one of the purest, cleanest ball strikers of his generation, which is why he WAS actually considered one of the top talents in the game by his peers. His return was money, and more than anything; it was his two-handed backhand which was particularly fierce. His change of direction, down the line backhand, was the very definition of "frozen rope." In a survey of ATP pros, his peers voted him as having the best two-handed backhand in the game and Pioline the best one-handed backhand, which says a lot about the quality of the shot.

One of his strengths was that he was able to handle topsin shots very well as he was both tall and burly, one of the most solidly built guys to play tennis in recent memory. He was a just a rock solid stable bodied player out there. He was the tour ironman in many respects, but gve questionable effort much of the time. But as he said once, everybody knows no one wants to face Yegeny Kafelnkiov when I'm serious, something like that.

His serve wasn't spectacular by any means, but it was a serve that was deceptiviely effective much like Bruguera's. It was as they say, "sneak quick." He would lull you into sleep, but then would spot-place the serve very well. Another thing to note is that his serve was a model of economy and I think saved his legs and body a great deal of unnecessary stress. That is an advantage in and of itself. When you look at a guy like Rafter's motion, for example, he put a lot of grunt into it; but he also would tend to wear down as matches wore on, just an extremly labor intensive game his was. Kafelnikov wasn't like that. Everything about his game was a model of economy and efficiency. He relied on his size and clean striking to hit very forcing groundies with scary precision when he was on. The one knock on his groundies was that he didn't seem to have that little extra gear as far as juicing them up with power. He was by no means a pusher though, and was known to have some of the biggest groundies pound for pound around. I think though with him, the distinction is that he was a solid 80-90% pace consistently kind of guy, but never the MAX pace kind of guy. Bruguera in contrast was a 70-100% kind of pace guy as a reference, meaning, he would hit slower shots on average than Kafelnikov usually, but he also could "hurt the ball" with BIG time pace and/or spin when he decided to pull the trigger. Kafelnikov in contrast was very much a straight shooter, what you see, is what you get on every shot kind of guy. At his best, he was a rigid, methodical executioner, from the baseline with mean streak, a cold streak, however you want to look at it, that's what he was. A no nonsense assassin...only one who liked to take days off a little more frequently than his uppers might want to know, wink.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
WOW

A lot of VERY strange posts on this thread!

Kaflenikov had probably the best shots of all time.

Backhand- as good sa agassi's, as good as anyone's

Forehand- as good as agassi's

Serve- didn't bend his knees but got serious pace

volleys- absolutely outstanding, incredible hands

his shot selection, and as has already been mentioned, motivation, was obviously lacking at times, but to say that this guy didn't have game is simply ridiculous!

Check out this extremely high quality 10 minute clip and decide for yourself:

http://www.stage6.com/user/Leinahta...vs-Kafelnikov-2000-Australian-Open-highlights
 
Top