CyBorg
Legend
But, but, but Phil - isn't tennis evolving? Aren't today's playing automatically fitter, faster and more powerful than players from years ago?
I mean, Nikolai Davydenko would probably triple-bagel Kafelnikov today, right? Right?
(oy)
But, but, but Phil - isn't tennis evolving? Aren't today's playing automatically fitter, faster and more powerful than players from years ago?
I mean, Nikolai Davydenko would probably triple-bagel Kafelnikov today, right? Right?
(oy)
Phil
Hall of Fame
Sure Davy might put the triple B on the Y-man...if they laid a bet on it!
thalivest
Banned
Yes his groundstrokes were as good as Agassi's, that why Agassi at his peak won almost all their matches, and for his career won quadruple or more in every important category as Kafelnikov.
Oh yes the best shots of all time. So he used those best shots of all time to win all of 2 slams , both with the easiest possible draws, and to never win a single Masters title in his long long career.
Serve with serious pace? Are you on crack or something. On a good day he occasionaly got a few over 120.
Last edited:
stormholloway
Legend
Top 3? Are you serious? Some of the all time greats would struggle to be in today's top 3 and you're claiming the Y-Man would be there?
0d1n
Hall of Fame
Hmmm me, my communist self and Phil agreeing about something, the world WILL END soon
.Yeah ... right
"All time greats" would be greats regardless of "era". There are no arguments to tell me otherwise so that's what I'll believe.
Yes, I also think he would be there, Djokovic has nothing more in his game than Kafelnikov @ his best and Nadal would get spanked by K on any surface other than clay.
Weird how Safin is regarded as a God on this board and Kafelnikov is ignored or even "bad mouthed" despite being a great player. Funny how a "bad as$" attitude and a good looking body can change people's perceptions huh??
Phil
Hall of Fame
Other than Federer, there's no one around now who compares with the all time greats. That's why they are called, by some, "All Time Greats". If you're serious, then you haven't watched much tennis beyond the last few years.
thalivest
Banned
There is nobody but Federer today who would now be considered an all time great, but 2 of the 3 best players today are only 21 and 20 years old. They would have had to have started winning slams at 12 to be all time greats. Who knows how many slams Nadal and Djokovic will have and what kind of players they will be looked upon when their careers are over. Kafelnikov sure as heck is no all time great either, light years from it in fact. Kafelnikov would certainly not be in the top 3 in his prime today since Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are all far superior players to him in his prime.
Djokovic just beat Federer in straight sets in a slam semi on hard courts, I have a large bridge up for sale if Kafelnikov would ever have pulled that off. I also very much doubt if Kafelnikov would have ever managed the semis or better of all 4 slams even in todays "weak field", he never had the consistency to do that; not to mention Djokovic beating the likes of Federer and Nadal to win 2 Masters series titles in his first year as a real contender, when Kafelnikov never won a Masters Series title and couldnt even beat guys like Thomas Johansson and Sebastien Grosjean in finals to win one. So in every conceivable way Djokovic is already superior as a player to what Kafelnikov ever was and yet he is only the World #3 today. Kafelnikov might be one of a whole bunch in contention for the #4 or #5 ranking since everyone else after those three is quite a bit weaker.
Djokovic just beat Federer in straight sets in a slam semi on hard courts, I have a large bridge up for sale if Kafelnikov would ever have pulled that off. I also very much doubt if Kafelnikov would have ever managed the semis or better of all 4 slams even in todays "weak field", he never had the consistency to do that; not to mention Djokovic beating the likes of Federer and Nadal to win 2 Masters series titles in his first year as a real contender, when Kafelnikov never won a Masters Series title and couldnt even beat guys like Thomas Johansson and Sebastien Grosjean in finals to win one. So in every conceivable way Djokovic is already superior as a player to what Kafelnikov ever was and yet he is only the World #3 today. Kafelnikov might be one of a whole bunch in contention for the #4 or #5 ranking since everyone else after those three is quite a bit weaker.
Last edited:
thalivest
Banned
Djokovic nothing more in his game then Kafelnikov? For starters a far superior serve (this is the biggest of all), a far stronger forehand, and a much stronger mental game and self belief. Nadal would get spanked by Kafelnikov on any surface other then clay? If Federer isnt spanking Nadal on surfaces outside of clay then Kafelnikov certainly wouldnt be; how could Kafelnikov spank Nadal when he was getting spanked repeatedly by players like Hewitt and Johansson.
JamaicanYoute
Rookie
What he said.
Yes.
I think the only hole in his game (much like Safin) was his mind. And even that, he was a much better player than others who have had "mental issues". He was a pleasure to watch, unless he was your opponent. I think he had respect and was respected by his peers. IMO in his prime (or best day) I think he could beat 95% (or more) of the players of today (on their best day).
stormholloway
Legend
Nadal beat Agassi in a Masters Series final on hardcourts, yet Kafelnikov would "spank" him?
Also, just because all time greats would be greats doesn't mean that it would be automatic for them to be in the top 3. Djokovic is clearly more threatening on hardcourts than Kafelnikov ever was. Ridiculous to say? Perhaps it only sounds so because Djokovic is only now coming into his own. I think it's safe to say that Djokovic will amass far more slam titles than Kafelnikov. Djokovic's groundstrokes are as good or better than K's, his movement and defense better, and his serve with far more disguise.
I don't know what you people are smoking. The only thing that stopped Djokovic from taking the US Open final against Federer was nerves.
0range
Hall of Fame
I think Marat should be okay. He had nearly a year off (2005-2006) and he only put on 2kg (read somewhere... forgot which source so can't quote... Courier's interview at 07 AO?)
To other members yeah sry I know this is off-topic lol.
(ps. I know nothing much of Kafelnikov's game so I won't comment on that. I've only seen some of his match highlights on video... he's pretty cool)
Last edited:
stormholloway
Legend
You benefit only from some of the top players being too young to be considered all time greats. This terminology has no place in this discussion. Nadal and Djokovic are great players, period. They're greater than Kafelnikov by a good margin, and they're only getting better.
I'm serious, and I've watched plenty of tennis beyond the last few years. Kafelnikov was a great player, but you're talking about him easily slipping into today's top 3 and that's ridiculous. This guy couldn't sniff a wiff at Wimbledon with everyone in today's top 3 having been in the semis or better, with two of the top 3 being 21 years or younger.
While Kafelnikov would match up well with Nadal on hardcourts, he would still get beaten, then he would get spanked by Nadal on clay. Djokovic would routine him on the hardcourts. Kafelnikov would be content with a place in today's top 10.
The only thing stopping this discussion from even existing is the fact that Djokovic and Nadal are too young to be put into historical perspective.
CyBorg
Legend
I agree that Djokovic and Nadal are better players than Kafelnikov, but Evgeny was definitely top-3 material even in this era. Maybe not right now, but definitely last spring or last summer and the months prior. We've had Davydenko occupy the #3 spot for an extended period of time and Kafelnikov was definitely the superior player.
grafrules
Banned
I agree with that. No way Kafelnikov would be top 3 right now since Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are all vastly superior players to him. However in past years just before now possibly.
However you have to remember Kafelnikov was not the most consistent player, Davydenko tanks alot of matches but is very consistent within his own limited abilities at the slams and Masters events in 2005 and 2006, Kafelnikov was quite often ranked below players who arguably had less ability but were most consistent. Davydenko himself has been ranked above some other players in the top 20 with arguably more ability then him due to being very consistent in the slams and important events, despite tanking so many smaller ones. However at his best he is clearly a better player then Davydenko or Ljubicic for example, and they were ranked there at one point with Hewitt, Safin, even Roddick on the decline.
Last edited:
grafrules
Banned
I agree it is ridiculous to think Kafelnikov could spank Nadal on any surface (frankly I think Nadal would spank him easily on clay or grass, and even beat him most times on hard courts although hard courts would be close) but your example also is silly. Agassi was clearly not in his prime at the time of that match, yeah I know he was still a formidable player and even gave Federer a fairly tough U.S Open final later that summer (although was considered a miracelous achievement for him at the time), but it is still not a good example to use.
Mike Bulgakov
G.O.A.T.
This is an entertaining interview with YK as he began his poker career.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...has-given-up-tennis-to-play-poker-533281.html
Yevgeny Kafelnikov: The 'stubborn Russian nut' who has given up tennis to play poker (edited version)
Brian Viner
Monday, 15 November 2004
Yevgeny Kafelnikov. It is a name one might almost expect to find at the top of a "Where are they now?" feature. Five years ago, he was ranked top male tennis player on the planet. Yet without officially declaring his retirement, the 30-year-old Russian, twice a Grand Slam champion and Olympic gold medallist in Sydney, has disappeared from the tournament scene, a characteristically enigmatic career move by one of the quirkiest men ever to play top-level tennis. Or top-level anything, come to that. "A stubborn Russian nut," the assessment of his former coach, Larry Stefanki, might be considered an understatement.
Where Kafelnikov is now - at least on the chilly November day I meet him - is in Maidstone, Kent. He is here to compete in the 888.com Pacific Poker Open, which has a bigger cash incentive than many of the tennis events he played in: $10,000 (£5,400) just to get through round one, $500,000 to the eventual winner. Even when the prize is not so alluring, it is at the card table that Kafelnikov gets his kicks these days. But he doesn't play just for kicks. Just as Stefanki once coached him in tennis strategy, so he has hired his compatriot Kirill Gerasimov, professional poker's Rookie of the Year in 2002, to do the same with a deck of cards.
Under Gerasimov's tutelage Kafelnikov seems to be developing into a formidable poker player. At a tournament in Moscow he knocked out Dave Colclough, the Roger Federer of European poker. But by all accounts he needs to introduce a little more subtlety and stealth into his game. "He's very aggressive and likes to bully the table," says a poker devotee of my acquaintance. "He plays poker rather like he plays tennis."
There is something about Kafelnikov - I nearly wrote Kalashnikov, which would have been an understandable slip of the keys - that brooks no dissent. Partly it is his size (he is 6ft 3in but seems taller), partly his inscrutability, and partly his sheer Russian-ness. I hate to resort to cliché but there really is something of the Bond villain about him, an aura intensified by his polo-necked top and bad haircut, not to mention his friendship with some decidedly shady characters, notably Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov, the alleged gangster who was arrested in connection with fixing figure-skating competitions at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
He shrugs when I mention this association. "I am still friendly with him. There's nothing I can do about it. I have known this guy for many, many years.' And he shrugs again when I mention the investigation into match-fixing in tennis that was partly provoked by his withdrawal from a tournament in Lyon last year. "It was a false accusation, and I tried not to pay too much attention. But it did hurt my reputation."
Kafelnikov, faithful to his fierce sense of Russian identity, has no desire to live in Miami or Monte Carlo. His home is in Moscow, where he sees as much as he can of his six-year-old daughter, Alesja, from whose mother, Masha Tishkova, he is divorced. Theirs was a volatile relationship from the start. She gave up a modelling career because he demanded it, while the injury that kept him from playing in one Grand Slam event was rumoured to have been incurred during a domestic argument. A different kind of grand slam, perhaps?
Maybe Tishkova was also disapproving of his increasing devotion to golf; he is a four-handicapper and entered Russia's amateur championship this year, striving like Ivan Lendl before him to hit a stationary ball as marvellously as he could hit a moving one. But away from the golf course and the poker table he has a business empire to run. "I have lots of businesses in Russia," he tells me. "Mainly real estate. That is the most successful business right now in Russia."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...has-given-up-tennis-to-play-poker-533281.html
Yevgeny Kafelnikov: The 'stubborn Russian nut' who has given up tennis to play poker (edited version)
Brian Viner
Monday, 15 November 2004
Yevgeny Kafelnikov. It is a name one might almost expect to find at the top of a "Where are they now?" feature. Five years ago, he was ranked top male tennis player on the planet. Yet without officially declaring his retirement, the 30-year-old Russian, twice a Grand Slam champion and Olympic gold medallist in Sydney, has disappeared from the tournament scene, a characteristically enigmatic career move by one of the quirkiest men ever to play top-level tennis. Or top-level anything, come to that. "A stubborn Russian nut," the assessment of his former coach, Larry Stefanki, might be considered an understatement.
Where Kafelnikov is now - at least on the chilly November day I meet him - is in Maidstone, Kent. He is here to compete in the 888.com Pacific Poker Open, which has a bigger cash incentive than many of the tennis events he played in: $10,000 (£5,400) just to get through round one, $500,000 to the eventual winner. Even when the prize is not so alluring, it is at the card table that Kafelnikov gets his kicks these days. But he doesn't play just for kicks. Just as Stefanki once coached him in tennis strategy, so he has hired his compatriot Kirill Gerasimov, professional poker's Rookie of the Year in 2002, to do the same with a deck of cards.
Under Gerasimov's tutelage Kafelnikov seems to be developing into a formidable poker player. At a tournament in Moscow he knocked out Dave Colclough, the Roger Federer of European poker. But by all accounts he needs to introduce a little more subtlety and stealth into his game. "He's very aggressive and likes to bully the table," says a poker devotee of my acquaintance. "He plays poker rather like he plays tennis."
There is something about Kafelnikov - I nearly wrote Kalashnikov, which would have been an understandable slip of the keys - that brooks no dissent. Partly it is his size (he is 6ft 3in but seems taller), partly his inscrutability, and partly his sheer Russian-ness. I hate to resort to cliché but there really is something of the Bond villain about him, an aura intensified by his polo-necked top and bad haircut, not to mention his friendship with some decidedly shady characters, notably Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov, the alleged gangster who was arrested in connection with fixing figure-skating competitions at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
He shrugs when I mention this association. "I am still friendly with him. There's nothing I can do about it. I have known this guy for many, many years.' And he shrugs again when I mention the investigation into match-fixing in tennis that was partly provoked by his withdrawal from a tournament in Lyon last year. "It was a false accusation, and I tried not to pay too much attention. But it did hurt my reputation."
Kafelnikov, faithful to his fierce sense of Russian identity, has no desire to live in Miami or Monte Carlo. His home is in Moscow, where he sees as much as he can of his six-year-old daughter, Alesja, from whose mother, Masha Tishkova, he is divorced. Theirs was a volatile relationship from the start. She gave up a modelling career because he demanded it, while the injury that kept him from playing in one Grand Slam event was rumoured to have been incurred during a domestic argument. A different kind of grand slam, perhaps?
Maybe Tishkova was also disapproving of his increasing devotion to golf; he is a four-handicapper and entered Russia's amateur championship this year, striving like Ivan Lendl before him to hit a stationary ball as marvellously as he could hit a moving one. But away from the golf course and the poker table he has a business empire to run. "I have lots of businesses in Russia," he tells me. "Mainly real estate. That is the most successful business right now in Russia."
Pointless Argument
I've read all of the previous messages regarding this Kafelnikov debate and have become quite annoyed. I've followed the men's tour very closely since 1995, so I've got a pretty good feel for all of the top players, their games, how they matched up versus one another, and their accomplishments. I am not biased towards Kafelnikov - my favorites are Muster and Agassi. Let me first say that any of these comparisons between players of the mid 90s and current players is really difficult. I also don't buy into all of these analyses of Rafter played Sampras tougher than Kafelnikov played him or Kafelnikov was 3-2 versus Rafter, while Chang was 7-4 versus Rafter (so that gives Chang the edge?). Attempting to prove that Kafelnikov is underappreciated and therefore better than some of his '90s rivals or some of today's top players is impossible. As other posters have mentioned, anyone can look at the argument from his or her own angle and come up with points to back up their opinion.
I do have to specifically point out the poster who claimed that Rafter's better performances at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open ("the two biggest events") put him ahead of Kafelnikov. Not sure how you can fault Kafelnikov less credit for winning the other two slams and not those two because they are somehow "bigger".
Like I mentioned, I followed the tour closely in the 90s. There is no question that Kafelnikov was one of the best players in that period from '95-'01. He had a well-rounded game that translated to all surfaces. He won two slams and had a number of other deep runs in Australia, Roland Garros and the U.S. Open. His biggest perceivable weakness was that he didn't always seem to want to be on the court. Kafelnikov would turn in his fare share of listless early round exits each year, and he didn't seem to care all that much. Obviously, this hurt his perception among the media and fans. He was similar to Safin in that he would throw rackets and appear to "melt down" at times. As others have mentioned, Yevgeny played far too many smaller events, which likely hurt his performances at the Masters tourneys or some Slams, but that seems to be the Russian way (Davydenko and Safin have done the same at times). Sampras owned him, but I don't know what that proves.
My perception is that Kafelnikov is a little bit underappreciated. I think that maybe his questionable desire at times, lack of fight on some occasions, and disconcerting attitude have marred his achievements. It doesn't help that he really didn't end up playing that long (10 year career, but he really wasn't a big factor until 1994). I saw another debate stirring regarding the Hall of Fame and whether or not certain players should be in. In my mind, it's tough for me to say that a guy like Kafelnikov shouldn't be in. I understand that results and tournament victories are not the sole determinants of Hall of Fame acceptance, but I would find it difficult to believe that guys like Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic and Muster can be left out if Rafter and Chang qualify.
I've read all of the previous messages regarding this Kafelnikov debate and have become quite annoyed. I've followed the men's tour very closely since 1995, so I've got a pretty good feel for all of the top players, their games, how they matched up versus one another, and their accomplishments. I am not biased towards Kafelnikov - my favorites are Muster and Agassi. Let me first say that any of these comparisons between players of the mid 90s and current players is really difficult. I also don't buy into all of these analyses of Rafter played Sampras tougher than Kafelnikov played him or Kafelnikov was 3-2 versus Rafter, while Chang was 7-4 versus Rafter (so that gives Chang the edge?). Attempting to prove that Kafelnikov is underappreciated and therefore better than some of his '90s rivals or some of today's top players is impossible. As other posters have mentioned, anyone can look at the argument from his or her own angle and come up with points to back up their opinion.
I do have to specifically point out the poster who claimed that Rafter's better performances at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open ("the two biggest events") put him ahead of Kafelnikov. Not sure how you can fault Kafelnikov less credit for winning the other two slams and not those two because they are somehow "bigger".
Like I mentioned, I followed the tour closely in the 90s. There is no question that Kafelnikov was one of the best players in that period from '95-'01. He had a well-rounded game that translated to all surfaces. He won two slams and had a number of other deep runs in Australia, Roland Garros and the U.S. Open. His biggest perceivable weakness was that he didn't always seem to want to be on the court. Kafelnikov would turn in his fare share of listless early round exits each year, and he didn't seem to care all that much. Obviously, this hurt his perception among the media and fans. He was similar to Safin in that he would throw rackets and appear to "melt down" at times. As others have mentioned, Yevgeny played far too many smaller events, which likely hurt his performances at the Masters tourneys or some Slams, but that seems to be the Russian way (Davydenko and Safin have done the same at times). Sampras owned him, but I don't know what that proves.
My perception is that Kafelnikov is a little bit underappreciated. I think that maybe his questionable desire at times, lack of fight on some occasions, and disconcerting attitude have marred his achievements. It doesn't help that he really didn't end up playing that long (10 year career, but he really wasn't a big factor until 1994). I saw another debate stirring regarding the Hall of Fame and whether or not certain players should be in. In my mind, it's tough for me to say that a guy like Kafelnikov shouldn't be in. I understand that results and tournament victories are not the sole determinants of Hall of Fame acceptance, but I would find it difficult to believe that guys like Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic and Muster can be left out if Rafter and Chang qualify.
0d1n
Hall of Fame
His serve is not "far superior". It has some more pace to it...and yes I'm aware of that fact. Kafelnikov wasn't one to use his serve sufficiently ... given his size...I will grant you that. I was talking about the "whole package". If you want to go into details I can also say that his forehand is not "far stronger" by any stretch of the imagination, he has a weaker backhand, and is miles bellow K when it comes to net game/volleying skills. Also...you are pretty much pushing it with terms like "mental game" and "self confidence" which you have no way of identifying and quantifying.
Yes,Nadal beat AA in the Montreal final in 3 sets tough sets. I saw the match. Kafelnikov beat AA in a Montreal semi in 2 sets (he didn't beat him ... he killed him). I saw that match too...it was on the same surface. Does this prove anything ??? How is one match that Nadal won against Agassi proof that Nadal would beat Kafelnikov on hard??!?!??!
Agassi was pretty much the underdog against Sampras in their most important matches and got beat often. Sampras has a negative record against Stich...who was playing very well against Sampras and was beating him. Yet Stich would get killed by Agassi all the time, I don't think he ever won a match against Agassi. What does this prove? Absolutely nothing...I'm sure you are aware that certain players do well against other players, but that doesn't mean they can do just as well against ANY player. It's all about the match up...and since Kafelnikov and Nadal never played each other...you have no way of KNOWING FOR SURE. I don't know for sure either, but IMO Kafelnikov was a far more dangerous hard court player than Nadal is currently because he had many more options when playing. He could play any style of tennis, and Nadal can't do that. If his grinding doesn't work against a particular player during one particular match...he has NO OTHER OPTIONS (see matches against Tsonga and others).
Yes I do think that Djokovic is just as dangerous as Kafelnikov was on hard court, and I wish him well..he's a great young player. We will see what the future brings for both Nadal and Djokovic...and how they will evolve...but for now...Kafelnikov has a major hard court title....just like Djokovic. Nadal has none.
Djokovic can win more (for sure) since he's got the game and he is so young. Good for him. However...I don't think "you can safely say" that he will do it. You can't "safely say" anything. For all we know he might never win another major in his life (hope this is not the case though).
Anyway...just because I see things differently than you, it doesn't mean "I'm smoking" something. I'm not "smoking" anything...not even tobacco...I just see things differently. I watched and played enough tennis in my life to have my own opinions and just because they are different from yours ... it doesn't mean they are wrong! There is no "right and wrong" here, because there is no way to establish "the truth" when it comes to how players from a different era would do against players that are active today. All we have is subjective opinions and my opinions happen to be different from yours. Big deal
0d1n
Hall of Fame
0d1n
Hall of Fame
Read the above post again and again. This is somebody who despite not being a "fan boy" of Kafelnikov...knows what he's talking about...unlike some of the other "specialists" who are making statements like: Nadal would do so and so to Kafelnikov... on surface x and y, and "Djokovic is a far superior player to Kafelnikov" ...etc etc. based on absolutely nothing.
Good post tkramer15, I agree with most of your statements, and I can see you actually watched tennis and understood what you watched unlike some of the other posters in this thread who seem to get their "information" from youtube.
CyBorg
Legend
Kafelnikov won more than one event for how many years in a row? I believe from 94 to 02 he won at least two events. That's consistency. Maybe you feel he was capable of winning much more than this, but he was at least consistently good, while seldom great for a lengthy stretch.
Last edited:
Phil
Hall of Fame
I seem to remember YOU using the terminology in your post; I just used it as a reference point, for the sake of continuity.
No one said they aren't. I don't see Nadal "getting better" he's peaked and he's a clay court savvant. YK would smoke him on hard courts, if he brought his "A" game (which was not a given).
I don't see the relevance of age. All that means is that those players will peak earlier and be gone earlier. Wimbledon was a different tournament in YK's day. It was actually grass. I think he would definitely do well if he played on the high-bouncing turf used since 2002. Nadal wouldn't have made it past the first round of Wimbledon pre-'02.
Clay is only one surface out of four. Nadal spanks everyone on clay and then hibernates for the next 8 months. Looking at today's top 10, a group of legends if there ever was one, I'm sure that YK would break the top 3 (or maybe 5). I don't see anyone smoking YK other than Federer.
Nadal will go down as a great clay court player; he's already made history there. I'm not quite on the DaJoker bandwagon as you are.
Leublu tennis
Legend
Thank you for this thread. I have always enjoyed watching Kafelnikov play, but never live so never saw his talent in doubles. And, if nothing else, some recognition should be given to tennis players who are well rounded and not specialists on one surface a la Nadal. Twenty or more title in singles and doubles? That in itself is a historic achievement. McEnroe is the only one who comes to mind with a similar achievement.
Yes, while that's true and while also Kafelnikov was one of my favored players to watch, the cynical part of me wants to say that while he won many singles AND doubles titles; he only racked on the extra doubles tittles because he thought it was easy money next to singles so why not? One thing's for sure about Kafelnikov, the guy chased the money whenever he could, wherever he could, rather than focusing on peaking for select events the way other top players did.
In my opinion, a lot of top players could have racked up doubles titles too, IF they had any inclination to actually follow, care, or participate in doubles. The reality is that the men's doubles tour in the modern era is half-baked potato populated mostly with the journeyman turds who couldn't quite make it in singles so they decided to take the easy way out and give up on singles entirely by focusing/specializing soley on doubles and getting at least SOME glory there.
Turds is probably a harsh word, but to be frank I really don't respect the caliber of player on the men's doubles tour as much as I do you average journeyman singles player who whilst just a journeyman singles player, at least sticks out for the long haul, and tries to see and become...TRULY...the best that he can be. After all, no promising junior or college player grows up saying that they want to be the best junior doubles player or best college doubles player in the nation...if you're thinking that that probably means you weren't all that promising to begin with.
The year Alex Obrien(?) won New Haven he met Kafelnikov in an earlier round. Kafelnikov spent the whole match rallying with Alex rarely going for a shot, no offense. The score was something like 6-4 6-something. I watched that match up close on the baseline and thought, at the time, that Kafelnikov's performance was strange. Alex couldn't carry his jock strap or many other ATP players for that matter. These revelations about fixing make me wonder about that match.
L
laurie
Guest
Well, I didn't think this thread would get such a large response when I started it - in fact, I'm always amazed how passionate people here get about Tennis and various issues sorrounding players etc - Quite frankly, whatever viewpoint is recorded, it's great to see.
I'll preface my comments with the caveat that I was not a big fan of YK.
He was a tremendously versatile varied surface player.
The pros and cons of how he approached the game during his time on tour have been stated in this thread. I agree with the opinion that he over-played in terms of the number of events he entered.
Keep in mind that he was probably the last top tier singles player to play doubles full time, I believe an approach which was to his detriment and probably contributed to the apparent joylessness/mood swings he appeared to play through/with all too often.
As stated he was versatile on all surfaces but his best surfaces were medium to slow. In terms of Majors, in an era when playing conditions/speeds were far more polarized that translates to the AO and RG being his best surfaces and not so coincidentally where he had his greatest successes: An RG and AO title and another AO Final. Yes, that amounts to "only" two major titles but I think his other results there from 1994 through 2001 are worth a closer look to properly put lack of another Major or two in perspective.
Roland Garros:
1994 3R loss to Alberto Berasutegui, reached Final
1995 SF loss to Thomas Muster, Won event
1996 Won event
1997 QF loss in 5 sets to Gustavo Kuerten, Won Event
1998 2R loss to Thomas Enqvist
1999 2R loss to Dominik Hrbaty
2000 QF loss in 5 sets to Gustavo Kuerten, Won Event
2001 QF loss in 4 sets to Gustavo Kuerten, Won Event
Australian Open:
1994 2R loss to Sampras, Won Event
1995 QF loss to Agassi, Won Event
1996 QF loss to Boris Becker, Won Event
1997 DNP
1998 DNP
1999 Won Event
2000 lost final to Agassi, Won Event
2001 QF loss to Arnaud Clement, reached final
So, playing these 14 Majors in an 8 year span, YK "only" won 2 Titles and "only" reached 1 other final.
2 Major Titles and 1 Major Final.
8 of his 12 losses were to the eventual Winner and not just "a" winner that year, All-Time Greats and/or surface specific dominators in an era when surface variance meant more than the more homogenous speeds we see today.
I also vividly remember Sampras's post match press conference following his 2R win over YK at the '94 AO describing YK's ground game as the best he had ever (obviously, up to that point in his career) faced.
Yes, 4 of those losses were could be deemed "bad losses". YK did not match up at all with Hrbaty, ever, having a 4-9 h2h lifetime vs. Dominik. Enqvist was a similar, yet streakier type player who the very next year would reach #4.
The losses to Berasutegui and Clement have to be viewed with the caveat that each was hot and found ways to win 5 other rounds to reach those finals.
YK is under-appreciated. The guy had the goods. IMO his mercenary approach to chasing prize money each week lead to what I consider his under achieving, overall. I was never his biggest fan. Far from it. But I strongly disagree with any conclusion that YK is the weakest 2 time Major winner, not only because winning two Majors and reaching a third final doesn't happen by accident, but because when I look at his other efforts at the Majors most conducive to his game, it's hard to argue them as failures.
He was a tremendously versatile varied surface player.
The pros and cons of how he approached the game during his time on tour have been stated in this thread. I agree with the opinion that he over-played in terms of the number of events he entered.
Keep in mind that he was probably the last top tier singles player to play doubles full time, I believe an approach which was to his detriment and probably contributed to the apparent joylessness/mood swings he appeared to play through/with all too often.
As stated he was versatile on all surfaces but his best surfaces were medium to slow. In terms of Majors, in an era when playing conditions/speeds were far more polarized that translates to the AO and RG being his best surfaces and not so coincidentally where he had his greatest successes: An RG and AO title and another AO Final. Yes, that amounts to "only" two major titles but I think his other results there from 1994 through 2001 are worth a closer look to properly put lack of another Major or two in perspective.
Roland Garros:
1994 3R loss to Alberto Berasutegui, reached Final
1995 SF loss to Thomas Muster, Won event
1996 Won event
1997 QF loss in 5 sets to Gustavo Kuerten, Won Event
1998 2R loss to Thomas Enqvist
1999 2R loss to Dominik Hrbaty
2000 QF loss in 5 sets to Gustavo Kuerten, Won Event
2001 QF loss in 4 sets to Gustavo Kuerten, Won Event
Australian Open:
1994 2R loss to Sampras, Won Event
1995 QF loss to Agassi, Won Event
1996 QF loss to Boris Becker, Won Event
1997 DNP
1998 DNP
1999 Won Event
2000 lost final to Agassi, Won Event
2001 QF loss to Arnaud Clement, reached final
So, playing these 14 Majors in an 8 year span, YK "only" won 2 Titles and "only" reached 1 other final.
2 Major Titles and 1 Major Final.
8 of his 12 losses were to the eventual Winner and not just "a" winner that year, All-Time Greats and/or surface specific dominators in an era when surface variance meant more than the more homogenous speeds we see today.
I also vividly remember Sampras's post match press conference following his 2R win over YK at the '94 AO describing YK's ground game as the best he had ever (obviously, up to that point in his career) faced.
Yes, 4 of those losses were could be deemed "bad losses". YK did not match up at all with Hrbaty, ever, having a 4-9 h2h lifetime vs. Dominik. Enqvist was a similar, yet streakier type player who the very next year would reach #4.
The losses to Berasutegui and Clement have to be viewed with the caveat that each was hot and found ways to win 5 other rounds to reach those finals.
YK is under-appreciated. The guy had the goods. IMO his mercenary approach to chasing prize money each week lead to what I consider his under achieving, overall. I was never his biggest fan. Far from it. But I strongly disagree with any conclusion that YK is the weakest 2 time Major winner, not only because winning two Majors and reaching a third final doesn't happen by accident, but because when I look at his other efforts at the Majors most conducive to his game, it's hard to argue them as failures.
Last edited:
Andres
G.O.A.T.
Exactly. Kafelnikov reminds me a lot of Nalbandian (actually, the other way around).
If Grafrules uses the example of Nadal beating Agassi on hardcourts to prove he would beat Kafelnikov, I'll use the example of Nalbandian trashing Nadal twice to prove you otherwise.
And you see? Both arguments are STUPID!
0d1n
Hall of Fame
Nice post. Too bad you are "clearly wrong" (...the usual suspects will say...obviously without bringing any arguments to the table...because they don't have them...since they don't exist except in their "know it all" minds
)
orangettecoleman
Professional
Fabrice Santoro on Kafelnikov:
"Yevgeny was very tough! I had no idea of how to play him; every weapon in his arsenal was better than mine. He'd strike forehand winners, backhand winners, volley and smash winners from all over the court and no matter how hard I tried to figure out his game I always came unstuck. I consider Yevgeny as one of the best competitors I played against during my career. I can't offer any tactics against him – he was far too good."
"Yevgeny was very tough! I had no idea of how to play him; every weapon in his arsenal was better than mine. He'd strike forehand winners, backhand winners, volley and smash winners from all over the court and no matter how hard I tried to figure out his game I always came unstuck. I consider Yevgeny as one of the best competitors I played against during my career. I can't offer any tactics against him – he was far too good."
That's not too surprising. Kafelnikov had a bit of a sadistic streak in him, and somehow I get the picture of him picturing "the magician" as kind of like a little tweenie weenie mouse that he just LooooooVED to play with!
I think that there was so little squirm to Kafelnikov's groundies helped him. Against a guy who throws the funkadelic at you so much, having "simple" stroking technique helps a lot as far as trying to maintain your stroking rhythm. Really, I think that's the key with Santoro. You just have to hold steady with your strokes and withstand the annoyance factor. If you can, you'll probably win, even though he might pull of the magic on a few points here and there, he won't be able to do that on EVERY point even if it seems like he can. So if and when you look at it from that perspective, I think you'll begin to see that the percentages are actually on your side behind all the alleged "trickery" and "illusion" of "the magician" Fabrice Santoro. It's like a video game, you face a foe who squirms around a lot each and every way, but the key to beating him is to just keep your eyes focused straight and center and just aim for him when he inevitably passes through the center during his little trickery "dance".
I think that there was so little squirm to Kafelnikov's groundies helped him. Against a guy who throws the funkadelic at you so much, having "simple" stroking technique helps a lot as far as trying to maintain your stroking rhythm. Really, I think that's the key with Santoro. You just have to hold steady with your strokes and withstand the annoyance factor. If you can, you'll probably win, even though he might pull of the magic on a few points here and there, he won't be able to do that on EVERY point even if it seems like he can. So if and when you look at it from that perspective, I think you'll begin to see that the percentages are actually on your side behind all the alleged "trickery" and "illusion" of "the magician" Fabrice Santoro. It's like a video game, you face a foe who squirms around a lot each and every way, but the key to beating him is to just keep your eyes focused straight and center and just aim for him when he inevitably passes through the center during his little trickery "dance".
Leublu tennis
Legend
Thank you for the quote.
Well, just checked my hyptohesis out and turns out *kind of* (too small a sample really) like I foresaw.
Andrei Medvedev, James Blake, Malivai Washington, Stefan Edberg, Richard Krajieck, Thomas Enqvist, Tim Henman, Magnus Norman, Michael Stich, Tommy Haas, Marcelo Rios, Alberto Berasategui, and Jim Courier, all guys with clean, efficient, simple stroking techinques like Kafelnikov (albeit, Courier and Berasategui, whilst unconventional were still to me simple stroking techniques in the sense that they had VERY little take back to throw them off) went a combined 53-16 lifetime against Santoro; while Medvedev, Washington, Enqvist, and Berasategui all managed to go undefeated against the so-called "magician."
Meanwhile, Bruguera was 1-4 vs. Santoro with his only win coming in 91, and the last of his two losses to Santoro in 98 complete and utter blow outs with the exception of one set. True, Bruguera basically admitted in an interview that year to mailing it in because his mind just wasn't in it due to personal problems...but still, I think that Santoro's "trickiness" is MUCH trickier to play against for guys who have more "squirelly" techniques on their strokes, for lack of a better word.
Moya is lifetime 1-3 vs. Santoro. Guga is 1-1, but the loss was on clay, and 6-1 in the third no less. Muster is 3-4 and Chang is 2-2, but you have to factor in Muster and Chang's ridiculous mental toughness, fitness, and most of all DETERMINATION to overcome unfavorable matchups which made their career head to heads closer than they might otherwise have been had they say Safin or Bruguera's mental toughness (i.e. propensities to mail it in when they feel like it or don't like a particular matchup).
Let's see guys with squirelly technique, combined lieftime of 8-14.
Obviously, this isn't full proof, as Agassi and Hewitt, both guys who I consider to have, fairly simple technique played 500 ball with Santoro, and Safin who also has simple technique we all KNOW he doesn't like to face Santoro...but still, I do think there is somehwat of a pattern here. Guys with stinky, tempermental heads on their shoulders are good matchups for Santoro and guys with squirelly strokes are good matchups for Santoro as he throws their snorkeling rhythm all out of whack which might just cause them to decide to tank.
Andrei Medvedev, James Blake, Malivai Washington, Stefan Edberg, Richard Krajieck, Thomas Enqvist, Tim Henman, Magnus Norman, Michael Stich, Tommy Haas, Marcelo Rios, Alberto Berasategui, and Jim Courier, all guys with clean, efficient, simple stroking techinques like Kafelnikov (albeit, Courier and Berasategui, whilst unconventional were still to me simple stroking techniques in the sense that they had VERY little take back to throw them off) went a combined 53-16 lifetime against Santoro; while Medvedev, Washington, Enqvist, and Berasategui all managed to go undefeated against the so-called "magician."
Meanwhile, Bruguera was 1-4 vs. Santoro with his only win coming in 91, and the last of his two losses to Santoro in 98 complete and utter blow outs with the exception of one set. True, Bruguera basically admitted in an interview that year to mailing it in because his mind just wasn't in it due to personal problems...but still, I think that Santoro's "trickiness" is MUCH trickier to play against for guys who have more "squirelly" techniques on their strokes, for lack of a better word.
Moya is lifetime 1-3 vs. Santoro. Guga is 1-1, but the loss was on clay, and 6-1 in the third no less. Muster is 3-4 and Chang is 2-2, but you have to factor in Muster and Chang's ridiculous mental toughness, fitness, and most of all DETERMINATION to overcome unfavorable matchups which made their career head to heads closer than they might otherwise have been had they say Safin or Bruguera's mental toughness (i.e. propensities to mail it in when they feel like it or don't like a particular matchup).
Let's see guys with squirelly technique, combined lieftime of 8-14.
Obviously, this isn't full proof, as Agassi and Hewitt, both guys who I consider to have, fairly simple technique played 500 ball with Santoro, and Safin who also has simple technique we all KNOW he doesn't like to face Santoro...but still, I do think there is somehwat of a pattern here. Guys with stinky, tempermental heads on their shoulders are good matchups for Santoro and guys with squirelly strokes are good matchups for Santoro as he throws their snorkeling rhythm all out of whack which might just cause them to decide to tank.
Last edited:
Mike Bulgakov
G.O.A.T.
Did anyone watch this event?
http://www.blackrocktourofchampions.com/5/news/2008/eindhoven_thursday.asp
Yevgeny Kafelnikov looked almost misty-eyed as he described the feeling of hitting his first competitive tennis ball in five years. He didn't win (he lost 6-3, 6-4), he didn't play as well as he wanted to, and he lost his previously unbeaten record against fellow BlackRock Tour of Champions debutant Michael Chang. Yet it was still a special moment.
"It was quite exciting," said Kafelnikov, a smile replacing the stern features that most journalists would have remembered from his playing days. Earlier in the day, Kafelnikov had spent an hour with the media, laughing, joking and explaining what he had been doing for the past five years.
"I haven't had this feeling in a long time," he said. "It's been a while since I've shared a locker room with my fellow players and friends, and I'm really happy I got invited. I felt unusual at the beginning of the match because it's five years since I played a match like that and all the feelings had left me, but in the second set I felt alright, I felt like it was coming back. I'm not in the shape I want to be in yet, but I hope I will be soon."
The Russian has worked hard ever since deciding to return to competitive tennis, shedding much of the excess weight he gained after retiring. He committed himself to getting fit again, and called Tournament Directors Jacco Eltingh and Paul Haarhuis to request a chance to be part of the AFAS Classics field. Eltingh and Haarhuis were only too happy to oblige. Kafelnikov will play against Haarhuis himself tomorrow, and then Goran Ivanisevic on Saturday.
AFAS Tennis Classics
Eindhoven, Netherlands
October 2-5, 2008
Players:
GROUP A (The Miracle): Sergi Bruguera, Henri Leconte, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich
GROUP B (Ndlovu): Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Paul Haarhuis
RESULTS FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2008
Goran Ivanisevic d Paul Haarhuis 36 63 13-11 (Champions' Tie-Break)
Sergi Bruguera d Michael Stich 76 61
Richard Krajicek d Henri Leconte 76(3) 76(10)
Michael Chang d Yevgeny Kafelnikov 63 64
RESULTS FOR FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2008
Sergi Bruguera d. Henri Leconte 63 64
Paul Haarhuis d. Yevgeny Kafelnikov 57 63 10-7 (Champions' Tie-Break)
Michael Stich d. Richard Krajicek 63 36 12-10 (Champions' Tie-Break)
Goran Ivanisevic d. Michael Chang 64 64
RESULTS FOR SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2008
M. Stich d. H. Leconte 62 75
M. Chang d. P. Haarhuis 67 64 10-6 (Champions' Tie-Break)
G. Ivanisevic d. Y. Kafelnikov 64 75
R. Krajicek d. S. Bruguera 64 64
RESULTS FOR SUNDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2008
3rd/4th place play-off: S. Bruguera d. M. Chang 67 76 14-12 (Champions' Tie-Break) - saved 5 M.P.
Final: R. Krajicek d. G. Ivanisevic 76 75
http://www.blackrocktourofchampions.com/5/news/2008/eindhoven_thursday.asp
Yevgeny Kafelnikov looked almost misty-eyed as he described the feeling of hitting his first competitive tennis ball in five years. He didn't win (he lost 6-3, 6-4), he didn't play as well as he wanted to, and he lost his previously unbeaten record against fellow BlackRock Tour of Champions debutant Michael Chang. Yet it was still a special moment.
"It was quite exciting," said Kafelnikov, a smile replacing the stern features that most journalists would have remembered from his playing days. Earlier in the day, Kafelnikov had spent an hour with the media, laughing, joking and explaining what he had been doing for the past five years.
"I haven't had this feeling in a long time," he said. "It's been a while since I've shared a locker room with my fellow players and friends, and I'm really happy I got invited. I felt unusual at the beginning of the match because it's five years since I played a match like that and all the feelings had left me, but in the second set I felt alright, I felt like it was coming back. I'm not in the shape I want to be in yet, but I hope I will be soon."
The Russian has worked hard ever since deciding to return to competitive tennis, shedding much of the excess weight he gained after retiring. He committed himself to getting fit again, and called Tournament Directors Jacco Eltingh and Paul Haarhuis to request a chance to be part of the AFAS Classics field. Eltingh and Haarhuis were only too happy to oblige. Kafelnikov will play against Haarhuis himself tomorrow, and then Goran Ivanisevic on Saturday.
AFAS Tennis Classics
Eindhoven, Netherlands
October 2-5, 2008
Players:
GROUP A (The Miracle): Sergi Bruguera, Henri Leconte, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich
GROUP B (Ndlovu): Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Paul Haarhuis
RESULTS FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2008
Goran Ivanisevic d Paul Haarhuis 36 63 13-11 (Champions' Tie-Break)
Sergi Bruguera d Michael Stich 76 61
Richard Krajicek d Henri Leconte 76(3) 76(10)
Michael Chang d Yevgeny Kafelnikov 63 64
RESULTS FOR FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2008
Sergi Bruguera d. Henri Leconte 63 64
Paul Haarhuis d. Yevgeny Kafelnikov 57 63 10-7 (Champions' Tie-Break)
Michael Stich d. Richard Krajicek 63 36 12-10 (Champions' Tie-Break)
Goran Ivanisevic d. Michael Chang 64 64
RESULTS FOR SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2008
M. Stich d. H. Leconte 62 75
M. Chang d. P. Haarhuis 67 64 10-6 (Champions' Tie-Break)
G. Ivanisevic d. Y. Kafelnikov 64 75
R. Krajicek d. S. Bruguera 64 64
RESULTS FOR SUNDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2008
3rd/4th place play-off: S. Bruguera d. M. Chang 67 76 14-12 (Champions' Tie-Break) - saved 5 M.P.
Final: R. Krajicek d. G. Ivanisevic 76 75
Last edited:
Leublu tennis
Legend
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
Marat Safin, Andrei Medvedev, Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov, and Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Is that "Phil"? The picture looks fake or am I wrong? The "mobster" seems to be just pasted in. Hm...
lambielspins
Banned
I think just the opposite. He was a very mediocre talent (for top player standards) who frankly quite overachieved. He really shouldnt be a 2-time slam winner when he couldnt even win a freaking Masters title. I have watched him play many times in the 90s and on his best days he was merely solid, and many times he wasnt even that, so forget anyone who disagrees with me about spewing nonsense that I never saw him play and trying to convince he was this out-of-the- world talent many here seem to think he was. I think you mistook this for a Safin thread or something since your accessment would suit Safin instead of Kafelnikov.
I feel sorry for someone like Michael Chang who is 10x more worthy of winning a 2nd major than Yevgeny but never did since each time he was playing great one of the big guns was waiting (which was not the case for Kafelnikov). Also Goran whose greatness on grass and at Wimbledon alone made him many times more worthy of being a 2x slam winner than Yevgeny ever was, but never got the incredibly lucky draws and stars aligning that Kafelnikov did.
Last edited:
The same can be said for Safin, but Safin's talent ceiling was power-based and therefore more obvious. Kafelnikov was his generation's 'Big Cat.' I appreciate what you're saying and of course we could argue about unrealized talent back and forth, but I stand by my original point that Kafelnikov is perceived as a wasted talent exemplar. Add Goran to this pile, too.
It's funny you mention Chang in contrast. Chang was a grinder - talented certainly, but I'm pretty sure we saw his best over the years. His psych game always helped him to maintain focus and get the most out of his physical game. Chang's an example of someone who left his best tennis on the court for his career - maybe he was good for a couple more Slams, but that's circumstance. You'd never, ever say Chang failed to live up to his talent ceiling. Heck, his mind and spirit may have caused him to exceed his talent ceiling.
S
srinrajesh
Guest
i would put kafelnokov as better than lot of the players mentioned like bruguera,chang, cash, krajicek, stich.
The only reason i feel the others seem better is because they seemed to have more charisma. kafelnikov was very simple and was not that talkative like the old russians were. He also seemed to play almost every week and didnt plan his schedule properly.
Well sometimes he did draw flak for comments on female players.
He is defintely under appreciated.
The only reason i feel the others seem better is because they seemed to have more charisma. kafelnikov was very simple and was not that talkative like the old russians were. He also seemed to play almost every week and didnt plan his schedule properly.
Well sometimes he did draw flak for comments on female players.
He is defintely under appreciated.
lambielspins
Banned
Compare the best players Bruguera, Chang, Kafelnikov, Stich ever beat in a grand slam (and keep in mind with realism the surfaces, eg-Sampras on clay) to the best players Kafelnikov has ever beaten in a grand slam. Then look at the # of Masters titles and other noteable achievements of Bruguera, Chang, and Stich compared to Kafelnikov. That group of players are all much better than Kafelnikov and it is an injustice he somehow has 1 more slam than Chang and Stich as it is. Those players won other major tournaments on tour outside their slams, Kafelnikov couldnt. Those players took down some mighty scalps in grand slams, Kafelnikov never did.
I am amused at the idea of arguably the worst 2-time slam winner ever, who wasnt even good enough to win a single Masters title, being considered an underachiever by anyone. If you look at his own era players like Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, are the real underachievers, not Kafelnikov. I wouldnt call Chang an underachiever, I would call him extremely unlucky. The kind of luck Chang could never buy for some reason and Kafelnikov had in his favor bigtime to win his 2 majors beating pretty much nobody.
Read the end of Sampras's biography and his brief comments of his contemporaries at the end and it is pretty clear who he has the least respect for out of Stich, Krajicek, Chang, Kafelnikov. Ask Agassi or other top players of that era and you would get similar thoughts I suspect. Kafelnikov is certainly the one of those four a top gun would fear least facing late in a major. If you are a top gun not on your worst surface by far you know he isnt going to beat you, he never does beat someone like that when it matters.
I am amused at the idea of arguably the worst 2-time slam winner ever, who wasnt even good enough to win a single Masters title, being considered an underachiever by anyone. If you look at his own era players like Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, are the real underachievers, not Kafelnikov. I wouldnt call Chang an underachiever, I would call him extremely unlucky. The kind of luck Chang could never buy for some reason and Kafelnikov had in his favor bigtime to win his 2 majors beating pretty much nobody.
Read the end of Sampras's biography and his brief comments of his contemporaries at the end and it is pretty clear who he has the least respect for out of Stich, Krajicek, Chang, Kafelnikov. Ask Agassi or other top players of that era and you would get similar thoughts I suspect. Kafelnikov is certainly the one of those four a top gun would fear least facing late in a major. If you are a top gun not on your worst surface by far you know he isnt going to beat you, he never does beat someone like that when it matters.
Last edited:
nickynu
Semi-Pro
Nah seems like you are not able to appreciate his talent lambie. Shame because he struck the ball with such sweetness that it was a joy even if the personality was none too stunning.
I always felt however that he was playing (virtually every week) to boost the bank balance knowing he could pick up tournament garuantees and prize money, rather than with any attempt to max his talent. When he felt he had enough money the motivation went. I dont think the talent can be questioned unlike the heart, but whatever happens he will have been better than us in any case!!
I always felt however that he was playing (virtually every week) to boost the bank balance knowing he could pick up tournament garuantees and prize money, rather than with any attempt to max his talent. When he felt he had enough money the motivation went. I dont think the talent can be questioned unlike the heart, but whatever happens he will have been better than us in any case!!
0d1n
Hall of Fame
Agree with this post. I think motivation, scheduling and even athletic ability can be questioned/discussed when talking about Y.K. but questioning his "talent" is simply ignorant.
Also ... saying that Chang would somehow be more deserving of winning 2 major titles when compared to Kafelnikov is again laughable.
I have all the admiration in the world for Chang and his achievements but Kafelnikov was better than him at anything that constitutes "tennis talent". He had more weapons from any part of the court. He could play singles and doubles and excel on all surfaces.
There is simply nothing "tennis related" that I could say Chang was better at, except for sheer determination and a slight advantage in foot speed.
Kafelnikov had a better serve, similar forehand, better backhand and his volleys were MILES better than Chang's.
With regards to Stich, Goran and Bruguera...lets see...
Stich was a true tennis talent, had all the shots and played well on all surfaces. His problems were...his mind and one might argue his injuries. Agree he "could have" been a multiple slam winner...on any surface (probably Wimby and the US being his best shots @ glory). He was certainly an underachiever but bad luck, injury problems...or simply being a mental midget ... prevented him from realizing his potential...oh well not everybody can be Laver/Sampras....otherwise they wouldn't be unique ... right?
Krajicek ... re-read the bit about Stich, add some more injury problems, remove some "cute touch" around the net, slightly better FH but much weaker BH, add a bit of mental strength to the mix...and you have Krajicek.
Goran was talented...I agree...but I wouldn't put him in the same league as Stich and/or Kafelnikov with regards to tennis talent. He could BOMB serves, he had reasonable volleys (far weaker than Stich's and even technically weaker than Kafelnikov's despite Kafelnikov being more of a baseline player with all-court ability).
His forehand was average for a top pro, and his backhand was weak (i.e inconsistent). His movement and return of serve were nothing to write home about (i.e average or bellow average for a top pro).
Agreed he COULD HAVE won 2 more Wimby titles. AA should have NEVER beaten Goran @ Wimbledon...he had no right to do so ... but guess what ... he did. Tough luck or no brains from Goran. He also COULD HAVE beaten Sampras in 98...but frankly ... in this case he lost to a superior grass court player (even though he had his chances).
Some can also say that he had no right to WIN IT when he finally did ... so I would say 2 titles would have been fair, but one is not so bad.
Anyway, as I was saying one can easily argue that Goran was an underachiever at Wimbledon and I'm all for that...but he is/was NOT more "talented" than Kafelnikov who won 2 slams ... and if we are at the "comparing talent" phase, he was NOT more talentend than somebody like Pioline... who never won ANY slam ... so overall I would say Goran did very well...he's much less of an underachiever when you compare him with others.
Bruguera...well Bruguera is a double slam winner...and there are VERY FEW double slam winners that I would call underachievers. He is not one of them (nope...Safin is not one of them either in my book
). He was a clay court player who could sometimes put up a great show on hard. Some memorable Sampras matches...but he was never really a contender at any slam other than the French. Lets compare with YK. Similar build to Kafelnikov, probably a slightly better athlete though. Slightly weaker serve, but he could surprize people with his serve, most likely due to his quick action. Similar from the back court, better on the clay due to more topspin (and patience), but weaker on every other surface due to not having enough penetration (too much topspin) and due to his EXTREME grip on the forehand. Similar returning skills, with Kafelnikov being slightly better on more aggresive returns ...especially on the forehand side (again ... Sergi's extreme grip can be blamed for that).
Net play...no comparison, Kafelnikov is miles better as proven by both syle of play in singles and singles + doubles results (even grass court results).
To sum it all up, one can dislike his "I don't give a sh1t" attitude / lack of motivation, his weird "grumpy Russian" temperament, his big/red nose or his Fischer racket...but questioning his tennis talent and calling him an "over achiever" and other such things shows nothing but ignorance from so called ...ahem... tennis specialists.
EDIT
With regards to Sampras biographies and such...Kafelnikov had a mental problem against Sampras, and it was clear to everybody who watched and knew something about tennis that after the 94 AO match he lost to Pete, Kafelnikov's mind was elsewhere when he was playing him (except maybe when playing on clay ... where he KNEW he was the better player). He simply started the match thinking he was going to lose it on every surface other than clay...and guess what ... when you think you're going to lose ... you generally do exactly that.
Last edited:
CyBorg
Legend
Regarding Chang/Kafelnikov.
Saying that Chang was or wasn't worthy of two grand slam titles is irrelevant, fallacious.
A player can have fewer grand slam titles than another and still be more accomplished. After all, grand slam titles is not all that matters - this is the kind of mentality that we've inherited from the Sampras era (nothing matters except for majors).
Well, I disagree with the mentality. Chang won somwhere around 5-7 masters series titles... check for yourselves. Kafelnikov won zero. Both had relatively long careers for contemporary standards and I would say that both were consistent players.
But Chang was arguably better. Regardless of whether he was less talented or not. Yes, he won only a single major, but we shouldn'd stop at majors.
Saying that Chang was or wasn't worthy of two grand slam titles is irrelevant, fallacious.
A player can have fewer grand slam titles than another and still be more accomplished. After all, grand slam titles is not all that matters - this is the kind of mentality that we've inherited from the Sampras era (nothing matters except for majors).
Well, I disagree with the mentality. Chang won somwhere around 5-7 masters series titles... check for yourselves. Kafelnikov won zero. Both had relatively long careers for contemporary standards and I would say that both were consistent players.
But Chang was arguably better. Regardless of whether he was less talented or not. Yes, he won only a single major, but we shouldn'd stop at majors.
0d1n
Hall of Fame
I would agree with the bolded part.
I would disagree with the underlined part, especially if we take some doubles play into consideration
.
CyBorg
Legend
I would agree with the bolded part.
I would disagree with the underlined part, especially if we take some doubles play into consideration
You disagree that he's arguably better? That's silly.
It's not silly to disagree that he's better (frankly, I'm undecided). But he's arguably better.
What you're basically implying is that it's not close. It is close.
As for doubles, I never figure that in. We're at a time now where we have singles in column A and doubles in column B. They don't mix... much.
0d1n
Hall of Fame
I would disagree that he's better.
Suggesting that by saying I disagree with you saying that he's "arguably better" and deducing from this that I'm implying it's not even close is simply "over analyzing" my post. Of course it's close, especially if you choose not to "mix in doubles".
I choose to do it, and if I do it, it's still close-ish, but it becomes "clear cut"
...how about that??Let's not become overly analytic and get into detailed semantics, I would be at a disadvantage in this kind of discussion since English is not my native language.
I think you understand very well what I meant, let's just leave it there. You think Chang had the "arguably better" singles career, I think K had the "arguably better" singles career and the "clearly better" tennis career. Does that sound feasible to you ?
CyBorg
Legend
I would disagree that he's better.
Suggesting that by saying I disagree with you saying that he's "arguably better" and deducing from this that I'm implying it's not even close is simply "over analyzing" my post. Of course it's close, especially if you choose not to "mix in doubles".
I choose to do it, and if I do it, it's still close-ish, but it becomes "clear cut"
Let's not become overly analytic and get into detailed semantics, I would be at a disadvantage in this kind of discussion since English is not my native language.
I think you understand very well what I meant, let's just leave it there. You think Chang had the "arguably better" singles career, I think K had the "arguably better" singles career and the "clearly better" tennis career. Does that sound feasible to you ?
For the sake of clarity, I think that Chang had arguably the better career and may have been the better player, but I'm undecided as to who I would rate ahead of the other.
I frankly don't care about the doubles. We're at a time now where most top singles players don't bother to play the doubles. It's hard to fault Chang for not doing it.
Similar threads
