Davydenko vs Kafelnikov [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Davydenko vs Kafelnikov

Cyrus_Paice
01-10-2010, 01:11 AM
Who is better?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_01/NikolayDavydenko_468x591.jpghttp://www2.raisport.rai.it/news/sport/tennis/200105/08/3af816a9050c9/kafelnikov.jpg

abraxas21
01-10-2010, 01:17 AM
in terms of achievements: kafelnikov has 2 GS and 1 Olympic Gold Medal.

There's no point in comparing them...

Arkulari
01-10-2010, 01:20 AM
so far Kafelnikov no doubt about it

Action Jackson
01-10-2010, 01:21 AM
Not the PMK.

Mechlan
01-10-2010, 01:26 AM
There is a reason he's known as PMK.

abraxas21
01-10-2010, 01:40 AM
To stop being PMK, Kolya needs to win at least a couple of GS plus a Gold Medal and then, when he retires, he has to win the Poker World Championship. Only when that happens he will not only stop being PMK but Kafelnikov himself will begin to be known as the real PMK - Poor Man's Kolya, that is.

rocketassist
01-10-2010, 01:42 AM
PMK is more explosive but Yevgeny had a much better two hander and better mental toughness. Also holds the edge on the three main surfaces although he wasn't that great himself on grass.

That said PMK has a chance of emulating his slam wins, or getting at least one.

Bad Religion
01-10-2010, 01:57 AM
Davydenko is a better mover

In the rest of depths (ROS , serve , backhand , forehand , volleys , variety , achievements , intelligence , guts , nacionality , Golf and Poker skills) Kafelnikov hands down

Kolya
01-10-2010, 04:41 AM
Kafelnikov.

born_on_clay
01-10-2010, 06:53 PM
Kafelnikov for today

madmax
01-10-2010, 07:03 PM
Zhenya was my favorite player in the 90's:bowdown: Incredible shotmaker and very steady baseliner - Kolya is a better mover, but he is also much smaller and is much more prone to mental breakdowns

ys
01-10-2010, 07:50 PM
Zhenya was incredibly lucky with what he has won..
To think of that.. He never faced any his era greats on his way to his biggest titles.
RG-1996, three Wimbledon champs Krajicek-Sampras-Stich - from QFs on. Not a single accomplished claycourter. And Blanco, Johansson, Mantilla, Clavet before that. No Muster, no Agassi, no Bruguera..
AO-1999, Martin-Haas-Enqwist from QF on.. And Bjorkman-Stoltenberg-Courier-Pavel before that. And "Thank you, Pete, for not coming" in acceptance speech.
Incredible draws.
Davydenko never had the luxury of such draws. That's about the only difference. Not counting Masters titles 6 to 0 or something like that. But the way it stands , Kafelnikov is bound for Hall of Fame and one of his era greats, and Davydenko is , well, pretty much still a nobody.

kittens25
07-28-2011, 02:22 PM
Comparing them:

Serve- Davydenko. Davydenko developed a pretty big serve by the late 2000s. Kafelnikov never had a good serve.

Return- Davydenko. Davydenko is one of the best returners of the last 20 years.

Forehand- Davydenko. Davydenko has a much more punishing and reliable forehand.

Backhand- Kafelnikov. Yevgeny had one of the best backhands when he played.

Net- Kafelnikov.

Movement- Davydenko.

Mentality- not sure.

Ovearll Davydenko is the better player. Kafelnikov won 2 slams since the draw fell apart for him. He couldnt even win a Masters title. Davydenko would have won both slams Kafelinkov won with the same draw. Kafelnikov would never win a slam in this era.

alter ego
07-28-2011, 02:44 PM
Davydenko is the better player. Kafelnikov lucked out in a weak era.

romismak
07-28-2011, 02:58 PM
Better in what? better at peak level DAvydenko , better career by far Kafelikov.

TheBoiledEgg
07-28-2011, 06:26 PM
Kolya 4 yrs straight in top 5 and 5th at no6
Zhenya won the slams and that's all that matters

Kolya Masters Cup in 2009 was just brill plus his demo jobs 5 times in a row against Rafa :bowdown:

rocketassist
07-28-2011, 06:52 PM
Davydenko is the better player. Kafelnikov lucked out in a weak era.

I like Nikolay but that's shite.

kittens25
07-29-2011, 12:54 AM
The spring 96-early 99 period where Kafelnikov won both of his slams, before Agassi's big comeback and after Becker's career virtually ended with a final big injury and age, was a weak period. Of the only 12 slam winners during that period of Kafelnikov's 2 slams you had 3 1 time Slam Champions win their only slams- Krajicek, Moya, and Korda. You had two 2 career slam winners win their only 2 slams both- Rafter and Kafelnikov. You had Kuerten 2 years from the start of his prime win the French Open, beating a washed up old Bruguera in the final, and Guga would not be heard from on any surface for another 2 years when he got some big wins in Davis Cup and won some clay court titles in Spring 99. The other 4 slams during that period were won by Sampras, but you had no other greats of the game winning slams that whole time. It was a grab bag for the pretty good players, like Kafelnikov, to either go through easy draws to titles (eg- both Kafelnikovs slams) or post only one big win (eg- Krajicek Wimbledon 96, Moya French 98, Rafter U.S open 98) and cruise the rest of the way for the title. The year end #2s were Chang twice in a row and Rios once.

rocketassist
07-29-2011, 01:46 AM
The spring 96-early 99 period where Kafelnikov won both of his slams, before Agassi's big comeback and after Becker's career virtually ended with a final big injury and age, was a weak period. Of the only 12 slam winners during that period of Kafelnikov's 2 slams you had 3 1 time Slam Champions win their only slams- Krajicek, Moya, and Korda. You had two 2 career slam winners win their only 2 slams both- Rafter and Kafelnikov. You had Kuerten 2 years from the start of his prime win the French Open, beating a washed up old Bruguera in the final, and Guga would not be heard from on any surface for another 2 years when he got some big wins in Davis Cup and won some clay court titles in Spring 99. The other 4 slams during that period were won by Sampras, but you had no other greats of the game winning slams that whole time. It was a grab bag for the pretty good players, like Kafelnikov, to either go through easy draws to titles (eg- both Kafelnikovs slams) or post only one big win (eg- Krajicek Wimbledon 96, Moya French 98, Rafter U.S open 98) and cruise the rest of the way for the title. The year end #2s were Chang twice in a row and Rios once.

Why do the greats of the game have to be mopping up every slam for an era to look strong?

A variety of slam winners makes it look much better IMO.

TheBoiledEgg
07-29-2011, 12:49 PM
Like Sampras was a force on clay or AO
Agassi fluked his RG and he was hardly ever in with a shot at RG after 99

Kolya
07-29-2011, 01:36 PM
Does Davydenko even play anymore?

Net Cord
07-29-2011, 01:36 PM
The spring 96-early 99 period where Kafelnikov won both of his slams, before Agassi's big comeback and after Becker's career virtually ended with a final big injury and age, was a weak period. Of the only 12 slam winners during that period of Kafelnikov's 2 slams you had 3 1 time Slam Champions win their only slams- Krajicek, Moya, and Korda. You had two 2 career slam winners win their only 2 slams both- Rafter and Kafelnikov. You had Kuerten 2 years from the start of his prime win the French Open, beating a washed up old Bruguera in the final, and Guga would not be heard from on any surface for another 2 years when he got some big wins in Davis Cup and won some clay court titles in Spring 99. The other 4 slams during that period were won by Sampras, but you had no other greats of the game winning slams that whole time. It was a grab bag for the pretty good players, like Kafelnikov, to either go through easy draws to titles (eg- both Kafelnikovs slams) or post only one big win (eg- Krajicek Wimbledon 96, Moya French 98, Rafter U.S open 98) and cruise the rest of the way for the title. The year end #2s were Chang twice in a row and Rios once.

This is true to an extent, but then the question becomes whether you think that Davydenko could have gotten to 2 Majors or more if he played in some diluted Major fields. I doubt it. IOn hard court Majors, he probably would have run into someone like Roddick or Blake and lost. On clay, he probably would have lost to someone like Nalbandian. On grass, LOL.

Nadull_tard
07-29-2011, 01:55 PM
Kafelnikov had a better career in terms of achievements, but Kolya is the more talented one in this pair and I'm not sure whether Yevgeny schooled the GOAT 6 times on hardcourt and had a positive record against one of the most dominant players from his era.

alfonsojose
07-29-2011, 02:33 PM
Love them both :hearts: but Kafel has the slams :shrug:

Branimir
07-29-2011, 02:51 PM
2 slams and Olympic gold? Is this even debatable?

Pirata.
07-29-2011, 06:31 PM
Kafelnikov had a better career in terms of achievements, but Kolya is the more talented one in this pair and I'm not sure whether Yevgeny schooled the GOAT 6 times on hardcourt and had a positive record against one of the most dominant players from his era.

Kolya 4 yrs straight in top 5 and 5th at no6
Zhenya won the slams and that's all that matters

Kolya Masters Cup in 2009 was just brill plus his demo jobs 5 times in a row against Rafa :bowdown:

:lol::yeah:

kittens25
07-29-2011, 08:53 PM
Why do the greats of the game have to be mopping up every slam for an era to look strong?

A variety of slam winners makes it look much better IMO.

The point is if Kafelnikov were in his prime from 2005-early 2010 like Davydenko instead of 1996-2001 he would have never won a slam. That is pretty much a gaurantee. Can you think of a single slam from 2005-early 2010 Kafelnikov even might have won? I sure cant. Even making a slam final would be almost out of question unless he got lucky enough to hit his peak 96 French form at the 2005 French AND still have Federer and Nadal be in the other half and end up in the Puerta half. If all that happened it still would only be a 50% chance to make that one slam final.

If Kafelnikov had his prime from 1990-1995 it is even unlikely he would have won a slam.

What are Kafelnikov's biggest wins in a slam? A gassed out Sampras on clay in his only ever French Open semi? Michael Stich in a French Open final? Todd Martin in an Australian Open quarterfinal? An injured Agassi in the quarters of the French Open one year was probably his biggest ever win, not in a slam he won though as he was murdered by Muster next round.

kittens25
07-29-2011, 08:58 PM
This is true to an extent, but then the question becomes whether you think that Davydenko could have gotten to 2 Majors or more if he played in some diluted Major fields. I doubt it. IOn hard court Majors, he probably would have run into someone like Roddick or Blake and lost. On clay, he probably would have lost to someone like Nalbandian. On grass, LOL.

Blake has only made 3 hard court slam quarterfinals, and I could be wrong but I think he has only 1 other round of 16 at a slam beyond those 3. So Davydenko probably wouldnt have to worry about even playing him. Every player, especialy not super great ones, has their lower ranked nemisis. Kafelnikov probably would not have won his Australian Open if he came up against one of his nightmares like Tomas Johansson or baby Hewitt either.

Roddick and Davydenko played only two matches after January 2005 and split 1-1.

That said you are probably right, but that is only because Davydenko has inferior big match mentality to Kafelnikov. In terms of game and talent he is definitely not lesser, in fact I think he is better. He can outplay Federer and Nadal from the baseline and has so many times, I dont think Kafelnikov would be able to do this.

rocketassist
07-29-2011, 10:20 PM
The point is if Kafelnikov were in his prime from 2005-early 2010 like Davydenko instead of 1996-2001 he would have never won a slam. That is pretty much a gaurantee. Can you think of a single slam from 2005-early 2010 Kafelnikov even might have won? I sure cant. Even making a slam final would be almost out of question unless he got lucky enough to hit his peak 96 French form at the 2005 French AND still have Federer and Nadal be in the other half and end up in the Puerta half. If all that happened it still would only be a 50% chance to make that one slam final.

If Kafelnikov had his prime from 1990-1995 it is even unlikely he would have won a slam.

What are Kafelnikov's biggest wins in a slam? A gassed out Sampras on clay in his only ever French Open semi? Michael Stich in a French Open final? Todd Martin in an Australian Open quarterfinal? An injured Agassi in the quarters of the French Open one year was probably his biggest ever win, not in a slam he won though as he was murdered by Muster next round.

Prime Kafelnikov could have won USO 09 or 10, AO 08, 09, 10, 11.

Stop overrating this era, aside from a Ninja Fed it's weak and full of defensive crap with players who can't hit winners/construct winning points.

LawrenceOfTennis
07-29-2011, 10:31 PM
Two great players. You can call Kafelnikov's slam wins lucky, but the reality is that there's no lucky slam win. He had a great backhand, one of the best in the world and even his strange forehand was quite good I think. He's been also a smart player on court. Davydenko is the prototype of a professional top player. Okay, he's by far not the same guy as he once was. Comparing these two is still not the best dea, since Kafelnikov's a 2 time slam winner, and a slam is a slam.

alter ego
07-29-2011, 10:51 PM
Prime Kafelnikov could have won USO 09 or 10, AO 08, 09, 10, 11.

Stop overrating this era, aside from a Ninja Fed it's weak and full of defensive crap with players who can't hit winners/construct winning points.

:lol::lol::lol:

Should I remind you that 18 year old Hewitt was kicking Kafelnikov's butt in 1999?(aka the year Kafelnikov became number1). If you are looking for a weak era than the late 90s are your answer.

kittens25
07-30-2011, 04:31 AM
Prime Kafelnikov could have won USO 09 or 10, AO 08, 09, 10, 11.


Get back to me when your drugs wear off. :wavey:

rocketassist
07-30-2011, 04:36 AM
Get back to me when your drugs wear off. :wavey:

Fed past it, Nadull beatable by any of the best 90s players, why the hell not?

kittens25
07-30-2011, 04:37 AM
Like Sampras was a force on clay or AO
Agassi fluked his RG and he was hardly ever in with a shot at RG after 99

Agassi has 3 French Open finals. Kafelnikov has 1. Agassi has won a Masters title on clay. Kafelnikov never has. I certainly hope you are not implying Agassi is a fluke French Open final and Kafelnikov is not. Agassi has proven himself superior to Kafelnikov on all surfaces, including clay.

Sampras is a force at the Australian Open. A bigger one than Kafelnikov ever was. Sampras is a 2 time Australian Open Champion, and 3 time Australian Open finalist. He lost in an epic semifinal to Agassi in 2000 he was mere points from winning with a severe injury, and would have spanked Yevgeny in the final had he won. He also lost one time in the semis to Edberg when Edberg was at the top of the game. There isnt a single stat Kafelnikov has over Sampras at the Australian Open, despite that it is Kafelnikov's best slam.

kittens25
07-30-2011, 04:42 AM
Fed past it, Nadull beatable by any of the best 90s players, why the hell not?

Fed past it > prime Kafelnikov

Kafelnikov has never beaten players close to the caliber of Nadal or Djokovic en route to winning a slam, and no Sampras on clay is not it.

2008 Australian Open: on fire Djokovic. Tsonga playing tournament of life and destroying Nadal, Murray, and everyone else in his path until the final. No chance for Kafelnikov.

2009 Australian Open: Nadal and Federer in the final. Nuff said.

2010 Australian Open: Federer back in close to top form, winning his 3rd major in the last year. Murray in top form and destroying Nadal. Again no chance.

2011 Australian Open: Djokovic in his form this year would destroy any version of Kafelnikov.

2009 U.S Open/2010 U.S Open: LOL U.S Open is just silly to even think about, Kafelnikov has 0 finals and only 2 semifinals there, one where he was humiliated by Hewitt.


Kafelnikov isnt one of the best 90s players btw.

rocketassist
07-30-2011, 04:47 AM
Fed past it > prime Kafelnikov

Kafelnikov has never beaten players close to the caliber of Nadal or Djokovic en route to winning a slam, and no Sampras on clay is not it.

2008 Australian Open: on fire Djokovic. Tsonga playing tournament of life and destroying Nadal, Murray, and everyone else in his path until the final. No chance for Kafelnikov.

2009 Australian Open: Nadal and Federer in the final. Nuff said.

2010 Australian Open: Federer back in close to top form, winning his 3rd major in the last year. Murray in top form and destroying Nadal. Again no chance.

2011 Australian Open: Djokovic in his form this year would destroy any version of Kafelnikov.

2009 U.S Open/2010 U.S Open: LOL U.S Open is just silly to even think about, Kafelnikov has 0 finals and only 2 semifinals there, one where he was humiliated by Hewitt.


Kafelnikov isnt one of the best 90s players btw.

I happen to think Kafelnikov matches up well with Nadal (flat two hander) and he's quite similar to Djokovic but maybe more aggressive. I agree Fed would take him to school, but not these two if he was playing well.

kittens25
07-30-2011, 04:50 AM
Kafelnikov doesnt do a single thing better than Djokovic. His forehand is light years weaker, backhands are close but Djokovic's is more deadly. Serve Djokovic has it by a long ways, unless he is serving like last year then he would be the same, lol! Returning is Djokovic, although Kafelnikov is also very good. Movement is easily Djokovic. Volleys ok maybe that is Kafelnikov but he doesnt use his volleys much in singles so what does it matter. Passing shots, overall defense, intangibles, overhead, all go to Djokovic.

Kafelnikov at his peak years in 99-2000 was owned by a baby Hewitt, not even in his prime yet. He was owned by Tomas freaking Johansson, who many consider the worst 1 slam winner ever. Yet you think he would go toe to toe with Djokovic or Nadal from the baseline, especialy in a big slam match. Please.

Prime Kafelnikov the vast majority of times doesnt even reach the semis of slam anyway, so it is not like he would be likely to even get far enough to face Federer, Djokovic, Murray, or Nadal the majority of those 6 slams.

rocketassist
07-30-2011, 04:54 AM
Kafelnikov doesnt do a single thing better than Djokovic. His forehand is light years weaker, backhands are close but Djokovic's is more deadly. Serve Djokovic has it by a long ways, unless he is serving like last year then he would be the same, lol! Returning is Djokovic, although Kafelnikov is also very good. Movement is easily Djokovic. Volleys ok maybe that is Kafelnikov but he doesnt use his volleys much in singles so what does it matter. Passing shots, overall defense, intangibles, overhead, all go to Djokovic.

Kafelnikov at his peak years in 99-2000 was owned by a baby Hewitt, not even in his prime yet. He was owned by Tomas freaking Johansson, who many consider the worst 1 slam winner ever. Yet you think he would go toe to toe with Djokovic or Nadal from the baseline, especialy in a big slam match. Please.

Because it's difficult to analyse Djokovic and Nadal against those guys cause once you go below Murray in the rankings, most of them stink and bare their arse for the top guys. Back then, there were plenty of guys not afraid to take on top players.

Kafelnikov was a fairly generic baseliner, but that's why he'd like today's opposition/conditions more- slow as ass courts, ballbashers he can outthink, you name it, whereas in the 90s serves, volleys and a variety of court surfaces would quite often prove his Achilles heel.

SetSampras
07-30-2011, 05:35 AM
Seriously?

A slamless player to a 2 time slam winner and olympic gold medalist

Nixer
07-30-2011, 09:14 AM
Kafelnikov doesnt do a single thing better than Djokovic. His forehand is light years weaker, backhands are close but Djokovic's is more deadly. Serve Djokovic has it by a long ways, unless he is serving like last year then he would be the same, lol! Returning is Djokovic, although Kafelnikov is also very good. Movement is easily Djokovic. Volleys ok maybe that is Kafelnikov but he doesnt use his volleys much in singles so what does it matter. Passing shots, overall defense, intangibles, overhead, all go to Djokovic.

Kafelnikov at his peak years in 99-2000 was owned by a baby Hewitt, not even in his prime yet. He was owned by Tomas freaking Johansson, who many consider the worst 1 slam winner ever. Yet you think he would go toe to toe with Djokovic or Nadal from the baseline, especialy in a big slam match. Please.

Prime Kafelnikov the vast majority of times doesnt even reach the semis of slam anyway, so it is not like he would be likely to even get far enough to face Federer, Djokovic, Murray, or Nadal the majority of those 6 slams.

I agree with the post, but what did you mean by "intangibles" :confused: gluten-free diet??

Echoes
07-30-2011, 10:50 AM
My record for both:

Nicolay Davydenko

Adelaide 2003 2
Estoril 2003 2
F Sankt Pölten 2003 1
Munich 2004 2
Moscow 2004 2
Moscow D 2004 0,5
QF Australian Open 2005 3
SF Hamburg 2005 2
Sankt Pölten 2005 2
SF Roland Garros 2005 4
QF Australian Open 2006 3
F Estoril 2006 1
Pörtschach 2006 2
QF Roland Garros 2006 3
F Bastad 2006 1
Sopot 2006 2
New Haven 2006 2
SF US Open 2006 4
Moscow 2006 2
Bercy 2006 4
QF Australian Open 2007 3
SF Rome 2007 2
SF Roland Garros 2007 4
SF Cincinnati 2007 2
SF US Open 2007 4
Moscow 2007 2
Key Biscayne 2008 4
F Estoril 2008 1
SF Monte Carlo 2008 2
Pörtschach 2008 2
Warsaw 2008 2
SF Bercy 2008 2
F Masters 2008 3
QF Roland Garros 2009 3
Hamburg 2009 2
Umag 2009 2
Kuala Lumpur 2009 2
Shanghai 2009 4
Masters 2009 6
Doha 2010 2
QF Australian Open 2010 3
F Doha 2011 1
Munich 2011 2
Nicolay Davydenko 104,5

Yevgeni Kafelnikov

Adelaide 1994 2
Copenhagen 1994 2
SF Monte Carlo 1994 2
Barcelona D 1994 0,5
Munich D 1994 0,5
Rome D 1994 0,5
F Hamburg 1994 2
Long Island 1994 2
Lyon D 1994 0,5
SF Stockholm 1994 2
QF Australian Open 1995 3
Milan 1995 2
St Petersburg 1995 2
F Nice 1995 1
Estoril D 1995 0,5
Hamburg D 1995 0,5
SF Roland Garros 1995 4
QF Wimbledon 1995 3
Gstaad 1995 2
Montreal D 1995 0,5
Long Island 1995 2
Lyon D 1995 0,5
Adelaide 1996 2
QF Australian Open 1996 3
F Rotterdam 1996 1
F St Petersburg 1996 1
St Petersburg D 1996 0,5
Prague 1996 2
Prague D 1996 0,5
SF Hamburg 1996 2
Roland Garros 1996 12
Roland Garros D 1996 1
F Halle 1996 1
F Stuttgart out. 1996 1
Basel D 1996 0,5
Vienna D 1996 0,5
Lyon 1996 2
F Bercy 1996 2
F Moscow 1996 1
SF Hamburg 1997 2
QF Roland Garros 1997 3
Roland Garros D 1997 1
Halle 1997 2
Gstaad D 1997 0,5
SF Montreal 1997 2
New Haven 1997 2
US Open D 1997 1
SF Paris 1997 2
Moscow 1997 2
F Masters 1997 3
F Marseille 1998 1
Antwerp D 1998 0,5
London 1998 2
Halle 1998 2
SF Cincinnati 1998 2
F Tashkent 1998 1
Vienna D 1998 0,5
F Stuttgart ind. 1998 2
SF Bercy 1998 2
Moscow 1998 2
Australian Open 1999 12
Rotterdam 1999 2
Barcelona D 1999 0,5
F Montreal 1999 2
SF Cincinnati 1999 2
F Washington 1999 1
SF US Open 1999 4
Moscow 1999 2
F Australian Open 2000 6
F London 2000 1
Monte Carlo D 2000 0,5
QF Roland Garros 2000 3
Olympics 2000 2
Vienna D 2000 0,5
Moscow 2000 2
SF Stuttgart ind. 2000 2
F Stockholm 2000 1
QF Australian Open 2001 3
Marseille 2001 2
SF Indian Wells 2001 2
Indian Wells D 2001 0,5
Rome D 2001 0,5
QF Roland Garros 2001 3
SF US Open 2001 4
F Tashkent 2001 1
St Petersburg D 2001 0,5
Moscow 2001 2
SF Stuttgart ind. 2001 2
F Bercy 2001 2
Roland Garros D 2002 1
Halle 2002 2
Tashkent 2002 2
F Milan 2003 1
Indian Wells D 2003 0,5
SF Rome 2003 2
Washington D 2003 0,5
Yevgeni Kafelnikov 178,5

Not even in the same league.

And I hate to see this bullshit Olympic tournament is what Kafel is remembered for. The guy has won 53 ATP sanctioned tournament overall. And even though I'm not the kind to focus solely on Grand Slam tourney ...

... Kafelnikov is the last player to have won in the same fortnight a Grand Slam tournament in singles and doubles. And this is quite an achievement. On top of that, he did on the RG red clay (when the balls were heavier than now), which hadn't been done since Rosewall 1968 with a much different field.

I've always liked Kafelnikov even though his playing style is not my favourite.
Should I remind you that 18 year old Hewitt was kicking Kafelnikov's butt in 1999?(aka the year Kafelnikov became number1).

And old Hewitt lost to ... Ram in 2011.

AnnaK_4ever
07-30-2011, 11:11 AM
Agassi has 3 French Open finals. Kafelnikov has 1. Agassi has won a Masters title on clay. Kafelnikov never has. I certainly hope you are not implying Agassi is a fluke French Open final and Kafelnikov is not. Agassi has proven himself superior to Kafelnikov on all surfaces, including clay.

That doesn't mean Kafelnikov's Roland Garros win was a fluke either. In 1994 he lost in Paris to eventual finalist Berasategui, in 1995 he defeated Corretja and Agassi in straights before losing to unstoppable Muster in the semis. And since winning RG he reached three more QFs losing to eventual champion Kuerten in each of them (two of those matches were five-setters, another one was a four-setter).
In 1994-1996 (his best clay court seasons) Kafelnikov had wins over Agassi x2, Stich x3, Ivanisevic, Krajicek x2, Muster, Corretja x3, Medvedev, Bruguera x2, Moya, Sampras.

kittens25
07-30-2011, 02:53 PM
That doesn't mean Kafelnikov's Roland Garros win was a fluke either. In 1994 he lost in Paris to eventual finalist Berasategui, in 1995 he defeated Corretja and Agassi in straights before losing to unstoppable Muster in the semis. And since winning RG he reached three more QFs losing to eventual champion Kuerten in each of them (two of those matches were five-setters, another one was a four-setter).
In 1994-1996 (his best clay court seasons) Kafelnikov had wins over Agassi x2, Stich x3, Ivanisevic, Krajicek x2, Muster, Corretja x3, Medvedev, Bruguera x2, Moya, Sampras.

I agree it probably wasnt a fluke per say. The only fluke French Open winner of the Open Era is Gaston Gaudio and possibly Noah. However Kafelnikov is the 2nd weakest clay courter to win the French in the last 28 years (after Noah) behind only Gaudio. If you dispute that name any of other other winners he is better than. If you say Gomez, Gomez has won big clay titles like Monte Carlo and Rome which Kafelnikov never has, and Gomez was stopped at the French by Lendl nearly every year it seemed. If you say Costa one just has to look at all the Masters and other titles Costa won on clay compared to Kafelnikov.

Beating Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, and even Sampras on clay are also definitely NOT big clay court wins.

Net Cord
07-30-2011, 05:12 PM
I agree it probably wasnt a fluke per say. The only fluke French Open winner of the Open Era is Gaston Gaudio and possibly Noah. However Kafelnikov is the 2nd weakest clay courter to win the French in the last 28 years (after Noah) behind only Gaudio. If you dispute that name any of other other winners he is better than. If you say Gomez, Gomez has won big clay titles like Monte Carlo and Rome which Kafelnikov never has, and Gomez was stopped at the French by Lendl nearly every year it seemed. If you say Costa one just has to look at all the Masters and other titles Costa won on clay compared to Kafelnikov.

Beating Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, and even Sampras on clay are also definitely NOT big clay court wins.

I would say that Kafelnikov was a better clay courter than Chang.

krakenzero
07-30-2011, 05:37 PM
Not even in the same league.

And I hate to see this bullshit Olympic tournament is what Kafel is remembered for. The guy has won 53 ATP sanctioned tournament overall. And even though I'm not the kind to focus solely on Grand Slam tourney ...

... Kafelnikov is the last player to have won in the same fortnight a Grand Slam tournament in singles and doubles. And this is quite an achievement. On top of that, he did on the RG red clay (when the balls were heavier than now), which hadn't been done since Rosewall 1968 with a much different field.

I've always liked Kafelnikov even though his playing style is not my favourite.

And old Hewitt lost to ... Ram in 2011.

This. The "2 singles GS titles plus 4 doubles GS titles (with the last singles-doubles GS title in the tour) plus Olympic Gold fluke" term doesn't exist.

mooncreek
07-30-2011, 08:07 PM
Depends what you mean by better. Better career: Kafelnikov But I agree about those fortunate draws in the Grand Slams Yevgeny won. If given the choice of who I'd want against an elite player, I'd take Davydenko.

kittens25
07-30-2011, 09:51 PM
I would say that Kafelnikov was a better clay courter than Chang.

Possibly. Tough to say. I would agree they are about the same level on clay. Both are much better on hard courts than clay (Chang is a better hard court player than Kafelnikov IMO despite not having a hard court slam).

ys
08-01-2011, 03:46 AM
Possibly. Tough to say. I would agree they are about the same level on clay. Both are much better on hard courts than clay (Chang is a better hard court player than Kafelnikov IMO despite not having a hard court slam).

Even when Chang was at his prime, Kafelnikov was beating him on hardcourts like a drum.
Kafelnikov was arguably the second best Roland Garros performer of the second half of 90s. And in each of those quarters that he lost to Guga, he actually had Guga on the ropes. The second of those ( 2000 ) losses, which he lost from being 2:1, 4:2 up, 0:40 on Guga's serve, probably one of his most painful losses in his whole career. There was pretty much nothing standing between "Old Diesel" Kafelnikov and his 2nd RG at that moment, other than 5 points needed to be won against Guga in that tournament.

sexybeast
08-18-2011, 01:54 AM
This comparasion is very interesting indeed. Some people cant look past the 2-0 slam count which is sad, there are some interesting speculation we can do on both of them. First of all Kafelnikov won those 2 slams because he didnt have to play the best in the world. In Agassi/Sampras era you could win a slam without playing the top 2 or even the top 5 or top 10, Kafelnikov played no one in top 10 to win Australian Open 99. Todd Martin ranked 13 in QF was by far the most difficult opponent he had to face and no matter how much you think of Davydenko as a choker you have to like his chanses to win that tournament. Imagine if you could win a slam today having lets say Berdych as your most difficult opponent and play Gilles Simon in the final?

These things could happen in the 90s and early 00s.

Kafelnikov's 96 RG title was also a funny story with Kafelnikov playing Krajicek, Sampras and Stich in QF, SF and F to win the title, you would have to like Davydenko's chanses to win a slam on clay with such a dream draw. Tennis like life is part about skill, talent, mental fortitude, will of power and all else that is within the realm of control for a player and part is circumstance, good fortune and beeing in the right place at the right time. Kafelnikov was exactly in the right place at the right time in that 96 RG tournament and 99 Australian Open tournament.

For Davydenko, he peaked at a time where you just couldnt win grand slams without beating Roger Federer, later you had to beat both Federer and Nadal/Djokovic to win slams.

But let us look past Kafelnikov's 2 slams, let us look at many different achievments in other tournaments and against the best of their eras:

GS semifinals:

Kafelnikov 6
Davydenko 4

Quater finals:

Kafelnikov 12
Davydenko 10

Master series:

Kafelnikov 0
Davydenko 3

Titles:

Kafelnikov 27
Davydenko 21

Master cups

Davydenko 1
Kafelnikov 0

Career W/L top 10:

Davydenko. .393 33-51
Kafelnikov .421 40-55
Here is one of the most important ones, career stats against the greats of their eras:

Davydenko-Nadal 6-4 and 6-1 on his best surface hardcourt
Davydenko-Federer 2-15 and 2-12 on hardcourt

Kafelnikov-Agassi 4-8 2-8 on hardcourt
Kafelnikov-Sampras 2-11 0-7 on hardcourt


My conclusion is that Davydenko is actually more dangerous for his contemporary top players than Kafelnikov ever was, Kafelnikov never had it in him to pull of a tournament like Davydenko's 2009 master cup where he beat Federer-Nadal back to back and then went on to beat them both in Doha the following tournament.

While I admit I cant tell for sure Davydenko wouldnt choke against Enqvist in an Australian Open final, I am certain Kafelnikov would never win a slam in Federer's and Nadal's era. He just didnt have it in him to defeat someone like Federer or Nadal on clay.

Topspindoctor
08-18-2011, 01:58 AM
Both are pretty terrible tbh. Baldenko never made a slam final. Kafelnikov is male version of Kuznetsova AKA worst 2 slam winner in all history. Neither are HoF material - one due to general mugginess and second due to allegedly fixing matches. Both valued money above the sport. Both disgrace to the game.

sexybeast
08-18-2011, 02:09 AM
Davydenko can produce crazy tennis at his highest level, while Kafelnikov was mostly only good enought most of the time, therefor he was never a threat to an Agassi or Sampras, Davydenko on the other hand is dangerous but only for a set or two and therefor his inability to defeat top players at slams, but he can completely outplay them for one set or more.

To say both suck is hardly constructive at all, Kafelnikov is indeed the worst 2 slam winner I can find in history and an overachiever while Davydenko is an underachiever. Overall if you take all the different variables in mind they are almost as good, with Kafelnikov having a stable tennis that fluctuates from B+ to C+ while Davydenko could go to A and then down to D in the same match.

One thing about Kafelnikov, I cant remind me of a single match that can be counted as an epic and classic, I dont remember any time when he stunned me and surprised me in any way. It is incredible that he was just such a big favorite to win every match in those 2 slam victories, despite beeing ranked at the end of the top 10 ranking in both cases.

sexybeast
08-18-2011, 02:40 AM
Why do the greats of the game have to be mopping up every slam for an era to look strong?

A variety of slam winners makes it look much better IMO.

With that reasoning the disappearance of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic would make the tour look stronger with everyone beating everyone and nr1s switching place with each other. Maybe we would get something like this:

AO winner: Murray
RG winner: Soderling
Wimbledon winner: Tsonga
Usopen winner: Fish

Then we would have Nalbandian winning RG 2006, Davydenko as Australian Open champ 2010 and RG champ 2007, Gonzo AO champ 2007 without losing a set, Baghdatis AO champ 2006, Gasquet winning Wimbledon 2007, maybe a great surprising Schuettler-Safin final in Wimbledon 2008 instead of that boring Nadal-Federer "classic" with Safin getting a grand finale for his career (or choking like in AO 2002, imagine now Schuettler as Wimbledon champ, now that would be a sign of a great era where anyone can win slams), Verdasco crushing all opposition in AO 2009 just like Tsonga did 2008, Roddick saving american tennis with some USopen/Wimbledon titles and epic battles against Hewitt the other "great" of the 2000s, Haas would finaly live up to his talentand take Wimbledon 2009, Puerta winning RG 2005 doped and maybe Coria, Ferrero and Gaudio could stay around and make clay look competitive. Best of all would be Agassi get his last swansong amd sainthood from the pope with the Usopen 2005 title.

Certanly this would look more competitive, but that would be only an illusion.

Mechlan
08-18-2011, 04:03 AM
Davydenko can produce crazy tennis at his highest level, while Kafelnikov was mostly only good enought most of the time, therefor he was never a threat to an Agassi or Sampras, Davydenko on the other hand is dangerous but only for a set or two and therefor his inability to defeat top players at slams, but he can completely outplay them for one set or more.

To say both suck is hardly constructive at all, Kafelnikov is indeed the worst 2 slam winner I can find in history and an overachiever while Davydenko is an underachiever. Overall if you take all the different variables in mind they are almost as good, with Kafelnikov having a stable tennis that fluctuates from B+ to C+ while Davydenko could go to A and then down to D in the same match.

One thing about Kafelnikov, I cant remind me of a single match that can be counted as an epic and classic, I dont remember any time when he stunned me and surprised me in any way. It is incredible that he was just such a big favorite to win every match in those 2 slam victories, despite beeing ranked at the end of the top 10 ranking in both cases.

Sorry mate, but disagree completely. Kafelnikov was a great player who trumps Davydenko by just about every stat. I actually think that Kafelnikov underachieved in slams, he was a very good player who just lacked maybe the killer instinct to really take that next step to greatness. Two slams, perhaps he got a little lucky with his draws but you can only beat who's in front of you and there is a huge difference between 1 slam and 0 (to say nothing of 2). As for Kafelnikov not having a high peak level or being a dangerous opponent for his top contemporaries, that is a joke.

Obviously playing in the 90s is different to playing in the 2000s. Yes, Yevgeny never had to play Federer and Nadal but on the other hand he played and beat Becker, Stich, Rafter, Sampras, Agassi, Corretja, Muster etc. But really I find it's not helpful to compare eras like that. Too many variables involved. At the end of the day you can compare numbers, and Kafelnikov has the better numbers. Higher career rank, more years in the top 10, bigger tournaments won. I think you're overcomplicating this, it's a straightforward comparison, clear edge to Kafelnikov.

sexybeast
08-18-2011, 04:35 AM
Sorry mate, but disagree completely. Kafelnikov was a great player who trumps Davydenko by just about every stat. I actually think that Kafelnikov underachieved in slams, he was a very good player who just lacked maybe the killer instinct to really take that next step to greatness. Two slams, perhaps he got a little lucky with his draws but you can only beat who's in front of you and there is a huge difference between 1 slam and 0 (to say nothing of 2). As for Kafelnikov not having a high peak level or being a dangerous opponent for his top contemporaries, that is a joke.

Obviously playing in the 90s is different to playing in the 2000s. Yes, Yevgeny never had to play Federer and Nadal but on the other hand he played and beat Becker, Stich, Rafter, Sampras, Agassi, Corretja, Muster etc. But really I find it's not helpful to compare eras like that. Too many variables involved. At the end of the day you can compare numbers, and Kafelnikov has the better numbers. Higher career rank, more years in the top 10, bigger tournaments won. I think you're overcomplicating this, it's a straightforward comparison, clear edge to Kafelnikov.

What a joke, Kafelnikov underachieved in slams? He got 3 serve and volleyers to win his RG and no top 10 player in Australian open, only one top 20 player.....

Kafelnikov never beat the likes of Sampras, Agassi in any grand slam except a finished Sampras in Roland Garros. He was 0-9 against Sampras outside clay and even on clay he was 2-2...

Even when he got to the final 2000 he beat no great player on his way to the final. You cant just mention alot of names of players like Becker, Rafter, Muster, Sampras and Agassi when he never beat any of them in any grand slam outside clay. In fact he got straight setted by an old Becker 96, he got straight setted by Stich in Usopen, he was straight setted and humiliated by Muster in Roland Garros SF. Dont even get me going on Agassi that destroyed him 3-4 times on hardcourt slams.

Can you please tell me Kafelnikov's greatest scalp in grand slams?

I will tell you, it was Kuerten in the 2001 usopen QF, that was probably his most impressive victory of all time in a grand slam, correct me if I am wrong. Kuerten might already have suffered from his injury by that time. Maybe beating past peak Stich and Sampras on clay could get a mention aswell.

Probably Davydenko's victory against Coria in RG 2005 is more impressive than any grand slam victory Kafelnikov ever had.

sexybeast
08-18-2011, 04:55 AM
Listen to this, Kafelnikov didnt beat a top 10 player in a grand slam until he defeated Agassi on clay 95 and later beat Sampras in Roland Garros SF 96 (only top 10 he had to face in that tournament) then he went on 3 years and 14 grand slams without facing a single top 10 in any grand slam, in this period Kafelnikov won a grand slam but his luck ended when he had to face a top 10 in Usopen SF where Agassi took care of him. He played 2 top 20 players in this period....

Then he got to another Australian Open final 2000 without facing a single top 10 but unfortunately this time Agassi was waiting for him and not Enqvist....

Then he went on not beating any top 10 player in any grand slam until facing Kuerten in Usopen 2001 QF where he beat him and then lost to Hewitt 1-6 2-6 1-6 in SF....

After this Kafelnikov would never again beat a top 20 in grand slams....

So in a career spanning a decade Kafelnikov defeated 3 top 10 players in grand slams in his whole career, Sampras and Agassi on clay and Kuerten in Usopen 2001.

Still Kafelnikov got into 3 GS finals, 5 GS semifinals and won 2 Grand slams!

Some here call this underachieving?

Are you kidding me?

Mechlan
08-18-2011, 06:52 AM
What a joke, Kafelnikov underachieved in slams? He got 3 serve and volleyers to win his RG and no top 10 player in Australian open, only one top 20 player.....

Kafelnikov never beat the likes of Sampras, Agassi in any grand slam except a finished Sampras in Roland Garros. He was 0-9 against Sampras outside clay and even on clay he was 2-2...

Even when he got to the final 2000 he beat no great player on his way to the final. You cant just mention alot of names of players like Becker, Rafter, Muster, Sampras and Agassi when he never beat any of them in any grand slam outside clay. In fact he got straight setted by an old Becker 96, he got straight setted by Stich in Usopen, he was straight setted and humiliated by Muster in Roland Garros SF. Dont even get me going on Agassi that destroyed him 3-4 times on hardcourt slams.

Can you please tell me Kafelnikov's greatest scalp in grand slams?

I will tell you, it was Kuerten in the 2001 usopen QF, that was probably his most impressive victory of all time in a grand slam, correct me if I am wrong. Kuerten might already have suffered from his injury by that time. Maybe beating past peak Stich and Sampras on clay could get a mention aswell.

Probably Davydenko's victory against Coria in RG 2005 is more impressive than any grand slam victory Kafelnikov ever had.

Lord, I love your facts. Never beat Sampras or Agassi? Wrong. Never beat them in their prime. Wrong again, he beat them in '95 and '96. Yeah it's not a coincidence that so many hard hitting fast serving guys made the final 8 of RG in '96 and like I said you can only beat who's in front of you. Yes, Agassi was #2 in '95 and having probably one of the best years of his career when he was beaten by Kafelnikov at RG. The win over Kuerten came when Guga was #1, so yeah he was fine. Sorry, I don't think Davydenko's GS resume beats this, but maybe I'm forgetting, so possibly you can shed some light on why exactly you think Davydenko outperformed Kafelnikov?

Haelfix
08-18-2011, 07:06 AM
Kafelnikov is known as the better player, but frankly there is a lot of illusion there and he definitely ninja'd his slam wins and is imo rather overrated. Had they both played together at their peak, im pretty confident Davydenko would mop the floor with him.

Yevgeny had a pretty game for the 90s and was a relatively complete player (when there were incredibly few allcourters), but his skillset wouldn't necessarily translate into today's game.

A player you could compare him too, would be Tommy Haas. Someone who probably would have won slams in the 90s (when Pete was taking a week off, or Andre was freebasing) but didn't in the 2ks b/c Fedal was so ridiculously consistent.

sexybeast
08-18-2011, 09:52 AM
Lord, I love your facts. Never beat Sampras or Agassi? Wrong. Never beat them in their prime. Wrong again, he beat them in '95 and '96. Yeah it's not a coincidence that so many hard hitting fast serving guys made the final 8 of RG in '96 and like I said you can only beat who's in front of you. Yes, Agassi was #2 in '95 and having probably one of the best years of his career when he was beaten by Kafelnikov at RG. The win over Kuerten came when Guga was #1, so yeah he was fine. Sorry, I don't think Davydenko's GS resume beats this, but maybe I'm forgetting, so possibly you can shed some light on why exactly you think Davydenko outperformed Kafelnikov?

I never specifically said Davydenko was a better player than Kafelnikov, I said he hits a higher level when he is playing his best. I would say Davydenko definetly achieved something Kafelnikov would never be able to, he defeated Federer on one of his best surfaces in the master cup 2009 and defeated also Nadal and a red hot Soderling and Del Potro in the same tournament.

About the victory against Kuerten, if this is his greatest victory then the utterly humiliating loss against Hewitt in SF would really overshadow this victory anyway. Kuerten never ever played good tennis in Usopen anyway, defeating Kuerten there is like defeating Murray in Roland Garros, kind of a good victory but hardly a big deal.

Agassi in RG is also not the most impressive victory, I would rank Davydenko's victory against Coria 2005 above this one.

Anyway the point is Kafelnikov is the most lucky 2 slam champ of all time, there is no point denying this. His greatest scalps in grand slams and outside are utterly unimpressive, he got 0 master series, 0 master cups and a joke of olympics title where he as usual magically avoided great hardcourt players, he played 2 players outside top 50 in SF and F. I heard someone here say his olympic gold is more impressive than Davydenko's master cup, delusional is all I got to say.

He also got 0 master series titles. I dont really have alot of problems with people saying Kafelnikov is greater than Davydenko, but this obsession with grand slams will lead to completely ridiculous conclusions like Kafelnikov beeing ranked above Murray if Murray doesnt win a grand slam which is an obsene idea because Murray is just light years ahead of Kafelnikov and I am not even talking about talent and potential but the whole package.

sexybeast
08-19-2011, 07:02 AM
Zhenya was incredibly lucky with what he has won..
To think of that.. He never faced any his era greats on his way to his biggest titles.
RG-1996, three Wimbledon champs Krajicek-Sampras-Stich - from QFs on. Not a single accomplished claycourter. And Blanco, Johansson, Mantilla, Clavet before that. No Muster, no Agassi, no Bruguera..
AO-1999, Martin-Haas-Enqwist from QF on.. And Bjorkman-Stoltenberg-Courier-Pavel before that. And "Thank you, Pete, for not coming" in acceptance speech.
Incredible draws.
Davydenko never had the luxury of such draws. That's about the only difference. Not counting Masters titles 6 to 0 or something like that. But the way it stands , Kafelnikov is bound for Hall of Fame and one of his era greats, and Davydenko is , well, pretty much still a nobody.

Sums it up pretty good. Some people are born with the stars aligned specially for them to reach certain heights, every stone and sandcorn perfectly placed for a comfortable path to greatness. Davydenko is definetly not such a person and neither is Murray, Coria, Mecir, Haas, Roddick and Nalbandian. Courier, Gaudio, Johansson and Kafelnikov are players that will always think of their tennis careers with a smile on their face knowing they achieved everything they would ever be able to achieve and more, if they were to have a chanse to relive their careers from the beginning they would probably turn it down....

Strange thing that players like Borg, Sampras, Federer and Mcenroe who achieved so much more through their careers probably carry with them more bitterness over what they didnt get than those overachievers who are more aware of their limitations.